f,lass "BS 2.33 D Book ^D"3 Copyright N° Q&-UV . COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. Nefo Testament Hantrfiookg EDITED BT SHAILER MATHEWS AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT J^ew Cestament handbooks EDITED BY SHAILER MATHEWS THE -UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO A series of volumes presenting briefly and intelligibly tbe results of the scientific study of the New Testament. Each vol- ume covers its own field, and is intended for the general reader as well as the special student. Arrangements have been made for the following volumes : — THE HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Professor Marvin R. Vincent, Union Theo- logical Seminary. [Beady. THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Professor Henry S. Nash, Cambridge Divinity School. [Ready. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Professor B. Wisner Bacon, Yale Divinity School. [Ready. THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Professor J. R. S. Sterrett, Amherst College. THE HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES IN PALESTINE. Professor Shailer Mathews, The University of Chicago. [Ready. THE LIFE OF PAUL. President Rush Rhees, The University of Rochester. THE HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Dr. C. W. Votaw, The University of Chicago. THE TEACHING OF JESUS. Professor George B. Stevens, Yale Divinity School. THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pro- fessor E. P. Gould. [Ready. THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND MODERN SOCIAL PROB- LEMS. Professor Francis G. Peabody, Harvard Divinity School. THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE UNTIL EUSEBIUS. Professor J. W. Platner, Harvard Divinity School. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT BY BENJAMIN WISNER BACON, D.D. PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS IN TALE DIVINITY SCHOOL Nefo fgotft THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd. 1900 Ml rights reserved 59449 Library of Congress Two Copies Received OCT 11 1900 Copyright entry ■CL!kS?ft.4r FIRST COPY. 2nd Copy Dethwed ts ORDER DIVISION NOV 12 .g nu \ 3> 4? COPYRIGHT, 1900, By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. Nortoooti 5|wb8 J. S. Cushing & Co. — Berwick & Smith Norwood Mass. U.S.A. PREFACE The limitations of this volume are imposed by the editor. Even the mere outline, which alone is pos- sible in the narrowly prescribed space, might be made fairly complete if technical terminology, abbreviation, and the presuppositions admissible among experts were allowable. But to be easy and readable in a tenth of the space required and, at the same time, convey a true impression, is difficult. One must watch and pray not to tell half-truths. Nor can one, even so, be content merely to revamp for a different circle what is familiar to scholars in the great treatises. I have not been deterred from presenting views which are peculiar to myself when these seemed best to set forth the results toward which critical science is tending, by the consciousness that adequate presentation of my reasons is precluded. Scholars will recognise what is new. If valuable, they will adopt it ; if disapproved, they will bring it into the arena of debate, where opportunity will be given for completer discussion. In the writings which name their authors, independent study has led me to results more conservative than those of leading critics. Thus the cosmology of Ephesians appears to me essen- VI PREFACE tially Pauline. In the one point wherein the Tubin- gen critics were nearer to early tradition than most of their present opponents, the Johannine authorship of Revelation, I am compelled by the external evidence, which with them counted for so little, to go their way. Contrariwise, in the anonymous historical books my personal study has led to the conviction that our pres- ent gospels and Acts are the outcome of a longer and more complex process of growth than most critics admit. The problems of the Synoptic and Johannine Tradition, more especially that of the special sources of our third gospel and Acts, in connection with theories of the Western Text, defied all attempts at concise statement of accepted results in proper rela- tion to personal conviction. In the dilemma between justice to views which have obtained the sanction of the greatest modern scholars and to the solution which has finally commended itself to me as true, I have thrown myself upon the reviewer's mercy (reviewers are supposed to read prefaces), stating my results, though forced to do so with a baldness painfully sug- gestive of egotistic self-confidence. Yet I can but hope that some of the departures will be found to be not a going aside from the course of sober criticism, but, to some extent, in advance of it. The aim at least has been to set down nothing as fact which is in conflict with accepted results, nor as probable to which these do not appear to be leading up. PREFACE Vll If the attempted unity of impression has been at- tained, it will be found in a loyal response to the watchword of Harnack, " back to tradition," — or, rather, through tradition back to fact. The Tubingen attempt to overleap tradition on the way to the goal has brought a just reaction. No Introduction can fairly reflect the present state of the science which does not illustrate this fact. But the aim is not to learn what was thought in the eighteenth, nor even in the second, century about the New Testament writ- ings and their origin ; our goal is the same which criticism from the first has had in view, the facts themselves, only with larger attention than 'heretofore to early tradition as a means. Facts are the divine word, theories the human interpretation. The phe- nomena of text and tradition are the facts; a new theory will be preferable to the old in proportion as it adjusts itself to these. Two insertions have been made in the manuscript after delivery, at the editor's request : the logical analyses of the several books, and the appended bibli- ographies. The analyses, it is hoped, will do more than merely duplicate the synopses of contents which immediately follow, though disproportionate space may thus seem to be given to interpretation. The bibliographies were prepared under peculiar difficul- ties and are only adapted to the convenience of the reader unfamiliar with other than the English Ian- Vlll PREFACE guage, works in other languages being referred to only in the footnotes. But scarcely more than a selec- tion is made from English works. Reliance must be had on the larger works referred to for full lists of titles. In conclusion, I owe a debt of thanks to the friends who lent ready assistance when my own ill-health interrupted work upon the book for a period of many months, just as the first proof-sheets were beginning to come. To my colleagues, Professors W. F. Black- man and F. C. Porter, I am especially indebted, above all to Professor Porter, without whose kindness in taking down at dictation from a sick-bed the last chapter of the book, the delays would have been longer, and the faults for which I am fain to ask the reader's indulgence more conspicuous than is now the case. To my father, Dr. L. W. Bacon of Norwich, Ct., I am indebted for the preparation of the Indices and Table of Contents. The admirable discussion by Wernle, Die Synoptische Frage, 1899, published since chapters viii and ix were sent to press, came to hand too late for subsequent employment. Otherwise much labour would have been spared me, and a more finished, and, on secondary points in dispute, in some respects more accurate result presented to the reader. B. W. B. CONTENTS PAGE Preface v-viii PART I CRITICISM vs. TRADITION CHAPTER I New Testament Introduction. History, Method, Scope, and Present State of the Science . . 1-25 The term "Introduction," 1. Method of this work, 2. Early attempts, 2. Ancient Introduc- tions, 3. Criticism of the Reformers, 3. Modern discussion, 4. Pounders of German criticism, 4. Con- fusion between science and doctrine, 5. Revolt against modern tradition, 6. Questioning of Pauline and Johannine writings, 6. Of the General Epistles, 7. Of the Synoptic Gospels, 7. Conservative reac- tion, 9. Progress in Germany, 9. First precise defi- nition of Introduction, 10. A definite scope and method, 10. Strauss and Renan, 11. Historical vs. literary criticism, 12. Tubingen, 12. Corrected by Ritschl and Harnack, 14. Four currents of the Apos- tolic age, 14. Weizsacker, et al., 15. Extreme posi- tions abandoned, 16. Pauline Epistles, 16. Synoptic Gospels, 17. Resultant views, 18. Three schools of criticism, 19. " Centre," on the Gospels, 19. On the other books, 20. Radicals, 21. Outside of Ger- many, 22. English criticism, 23. The conservatives, 24. Agreement of all schools in method and scope, 25. ix X CONTENTS CHAPTER II PAGE Growth of Tradition and Formation of the Canon 26-53 External evidence, what ? 26. Threefold source of authority in primitive Church, 27. "Scripture" in post-apostolic age, 27. Revelation, 28. Gospel, 29. Early references, 30. Special writings discrimi- nated, 30. Epistles, 31. Gospels and Revelation, 32. Dependence on writings begins, 32. Apostolicity of authorship, 33. Collections of New Testament writings, 34. Canon of Marcion, 34. Ignatius, 35. Polycarp, 35. Barnabas, 36. The Didache, 37. Hermas, 38. Four Gospels distinguished, 38. Justin and Papias, 39. The Logia obsolete in Papias's time, 44. His use of other New Testament books, 45. Growing dependence on books, 45. Authority of New Testament books, 46. Justin, Tatian, Irenseus, 47. Clement of Alexandria, 48. Canon of Muratori, 50. PAKT II THE PAULINE EPISTLES CHAPTER III The Epistles of the First Period : Letter to the Galatians and Correspondence with Thessa- lonica 54-79 Tradition of the priority of the Pauline Epistles, 54. Periods in Paul's literary career, 55. Admitted genu- ineness of major epistles, 56. Galatians the earliest New Testament writing, 57. Its date and occasion, 58. Churches of Galatia in Acts, 58. In the epistle, 59. Paul's opponents, 60. " Jews from Asia " ? 61. Analysis, 62. Contents, 63. Coincidence of Luke and Paul, 64. The Jerusalem agreement, 64. Subject to two constructions, 65. Jerusalem "decrees," 67. CONTENTS XI PAGK Paul withstands Peter at Antioch, 68. Separation of brethren, 68. Later rule of the Church, 69. Results of the Galatian crisis, 70. Correspondence with Thessalonica, 71. Analy- sis of 1 Thessalonians, 72. Of 2 Thessalonians, 72. Occasion of 1 Thessalonians, 73. Doctrinal con- tent, 73. Occasion of 2 Thessalonians, 74. Doctrinal content, 74. Practical content, 75. Genuineness, 75. Apocalyptic ideas of Jesus and of Paul, 76. Anti- christ in 2 Thessalonians, 77. Date, 78. CHAPTER IV Epistles of the First Period : Correspondence with Corinth, and Letter to Rome . . . 80-105 1 and 2 Corinthians, 80. Church in Achaia, 81. Date of 1 Corinthians, 82. Events in Corinth, 83. Analysis of 1 Corinthians, 84. Of 2 Corinthians, 86. Factions rebuked in 1 Corinthians, 87. Scandals in the church, 89. Questions submitted : (1) Meats, 90. (2) Decorum in worship, 91. (3) Doctrine of resur- rection, 91. Date and occasion of 2 Corinthians, 91. Paul's antagonists, 92. Denunciatory letter, 93. Identified with 2 Corinthians, chapters 10-13, 94. Another fragment, 6 : 14-7 : 1, 95. Romans, 95. Analysis, 97. Occasion, character, and content, 98. Paul's gospel, 99. Relation of Jew and Gentile, 100. Conditions at Rome, 101. Chapter 16 a separate letter, 101. Addressed to Ephesus, 103. Verses 25-27 another fragment, 104. CHAPTER V Epistles of the Captivity 106-126 Paul's silence at Csesarea, 106. Occasion of Phi- lemon, Colossians, Ephesians, 107. Paul's circum- stances, 107. Philemon : analysis, 108. CONTENTS Ephesians and Colossians : analysis, 109. Char- acter and object of Ephesians, 111. Christ and his people heirs of the universe, 112. The Colossian heresy, 113. Like conditions at Ephesus, 113. Ephe- sians, to whom addressed ? 114. To Laodiceans, among others, 115. Early accepted, 116. Genuine- ness, 116. Apocalyptic quotations, 121. Philippians : analysis, 121. Date, 122. Paul's circumstances, 123. Later than end of Acts, 124. Unity ? 124. Eelation of parts, 125. CHAPTER VI Secondary Canon of Pauline Epistles : Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews 127-149 Early distinction among Pauline Epistles, 127. Distinction by modern critics, 128. Analysis : 1 and 2 Timothy, 129. Titus, 130. Contents: 1 Tim- othy, 130. 2 Timothy, 131. Titus, 131. Historical situation in 2 Timothy, 132. Incompatible ele- ments, 133. Threefold difficulty, 135. Un-Pauline element, 139. Hebrews : Early treatment, 140. An indepen- dent author, 141. Analysis, 142. Nature and con- tent, 143. To whom addressed ? 145. Authorship, 147. Date, 148. Eorm of Judaism which it opposes, 149. PART III THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES CHAPTER VII 1 Peter, James, Jude, 2 Peter .... 150-174 Various early canons, 150. 1 Peter not forged, 151. Analysis, 152. Content, 152. Pauline character, 153. Uses Ephesians and Romans, 163. Language, 154. CONTENTS Date and circumstances, 155. Written from Rome, 156. Authenticity, 157. Jambs : Letter, or homily ? 158. Date, 158. Cir- cumstances, 159. Style and language, 160. Analy- sis, 161. Content, 162. Jewish, or Christian ? 163. Relation to Hebrews and Clement, 164. Jude and 2 Peter: Analysis, 166. Author of Jude, 166. 2 Peter: pseudonymous, 168. Use of epistles and apocalypses, 168. Date and object, 168. Gnostics opposed, 169. 2 Peter posterior, 170. Con- trast with 1 Peter, 172. Late date, 173. PAET IV THE HISTORICAL BOOKS CHAPTER VIII The Stnoptic Tradition 175-194 Biblical history anonymous, 175. Fourth Gospel stands apart, 176. Interrelation of the three Synop- tics, 177. Material in common, 179. How explained, 180. Material peculiar to each, 181. Analysis of his- torical books : Mark, 183. Matthew, 184. Luke, 184. Acts, 185. Priority of Mark, 187. Two-document theory confirmed, 188. Order of events not chro- nological, 189. First, Logia; then, Mark's narra- tive, 192. CHAPTER LX The Synoptic Writers 195-229 Vicissitudes of Matthew, 195. Aramaic origi- nal, 196. Character and date, 197. Relation to our Matthew, 198. Our Matthew late, 199. Elements from Logia, 200. Final recast, 202. Mark : Author and place, 203. Primitive criti- XIV CONTENTS cism, 205. Traits of eye-witness, 206. Traits of compilation, 207. Omissions of logia, 209. Luke — Acts: Traditional authorship, 211. Use of "Diary," 212. Hebraistic elements, 213. Ele- ments not from Diary, 215. Author's qualifica- tions, 217. Design of twofold work, 218. Peculiar material, 219. Earlier source, 223. " Interpolations," greater and less, 223. Acts : Composition, 225. Duplications, 226. Speeches, 227. The Diary, 228. Date, 229. PART V THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS CHAPTER X The Apocaltpse and the Epistles . . . 230-250 Place of origin, 230. Only one John of Ephesus, 231. Apocalyptic literature, 232. In the church, 233. Revelation : Analysis, 234. Unity, 235. Assertion of authorship, 236. Apostolic title not claimed, 237. Dissimilarity to Gospel and Epistles, 238. Indepen- dent writer using prior materials, 239. Questioned after 300 a. d. , 240. Primeval tradition confirmed, 241. Indications of late date, 242. 1 John : Analysis, 244. Design, 245. 2 John and 3 John : Analysis, 246. Authorship, 246. CHAPTER XI The Gospel according to John .... 251-279 Nature of the book and tradition of its origin, 251. State of the problem, 252. Analysis, 253. Design, 254. Against Gnostic-baptists, 254. Appeals to (1) teach- CONTENTS XV PAGK ing of the Spirit; (2) historic traditions, 256. The discourses, 257. Unhistorical, related to cycle of Jewish feasts, 258. Based on genuine logia, 259. And on historical data, 260. Call to Messiahship and function of the Baptist, 261. The seven "signs," 262. Anachronisms and relation to Synoptics, 263. Points of historical superiority, 264. Supplements synoptic tradition, 265. Corrects date of crucifixion, 266. In agreement with Paul, 267. Main source of Gospel, 268. Three contributors distinguishable, 270. (1) Son of Zebedee ; (2) presbyter of Ephesus ; (3) redactor, 271. Displacements by R., 272. In what sense Johan- nine, 274. Date, 276. Summary: (1) The named books, 277. (2) The anonymous books, 278. Tradition vs. criticism, 278. Table of Approximate Dates 280 Index 281 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PART I CRITICISM vs. TRADITION CHAPTER I NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION. HISTORY, METHOD, SCOPE, AND PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE Schleiermacher illustrates the special use of the The term term " Introduction " by referring to its common use, ". Int I r , odu c- J ° ' tion. particularly in modern editions of ancient works. A modern book may often dispense with an introduction, but with lapse of time it becomes increasingly needful to supply that indispensable element of knowledge common to author and readers, which in ordinary circumstances may be tacitly presupposed. Thus, Demosthenes's oration On the Croicn would be unin- telligible to us without an explanation of the his- torical circumstances, the requirements of Athenian law, the policy of Philip and Alexander of Macedon, the relation of Demosthenes to his client Ctesiphon, his own public career and that of his antagonist ^Eschines. Eecently the public have become familiar with books and fragments unexpectedly recovered from ancient libraries, or the sands of Egypt, such as the Teaching B 1 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Method to be here fol- lowed. Earliest of the Twelve Apostles 1 or the so-called Gospel of Peter. What meaning could they convey without the accom- panying historico-literary explanations of experts em- bodied in an " Introduction " ? With these illustrations in mind, we shall be better prepared to frame our own definition of " Introduc- tion " by reviewing the history of the science. Familiar assumption has obscured to our minds the fact that most of the New Testament writings really come to us without a title-page, destitute of date or author's name, save such as late, ambiguous, and often contradictory tradition has supplied. Some lack be- ginning (Hebrews), or ending (Mark). The letters of Paul, fortunately, are carefully superscribed with the names of author and recipients ; but without some idea of the circumstances of the correspondence on both sides, they will be scarcely better understood than the audible half of a telephone conversation, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, 1, 2, and 3 John are anonymous. The natural outgrowth of these conditions has been the science of Introduction. The Authorised Version still retains the attempts of early scribes to furnish the required information in its titles and subscripts, which in the later manu- scripts gradually extended to greater and greater length. The beginnings of this accumulation of tra- ditional data can be traced to a period near the mid- dle of the second century, when the Church began to appreciate the special value of "apostolic" writings. Its development is traced in Histories of the Forma- tion of the Canon. Suffice it for the present that by the end of the second century the leading churches of the Empire, east and west, were approximating both a uniform practice as to which writings out of 1 Referred to hereafter as AiS. CRITICISM vs. TRADITION 3 the mass in circulation were suitable for public read- ing in the churches, and in justification of the selec- tion a uniform tradition of their origin and history. 1 As the object of the compilers of this tradition was not so much impartial history as the justification of their own list as " apostolic" against rivals, later generations are compelled to estimate and interpret their conclusions in comparison with other authorities and with the books themselves. But the birth of a genuine science was long delayed. The admirable Church History of Eusebius 2 (a.d. 324) Ancient served all the purposes of an Introduction to the New J^^ 110 " Testament for a millennium, and is still the great the- saurus of information. True, a book entitled An Intro- duction to the Holy Scriptures was written ca. 450 a.d., by a certain Hadrian, which Cassiodorus (f ca. 570) enumerates and transcribes together with four similar works written between 380 and 551 ; but these really treat of methods of exegesis, while mediaeval and Catholic writers down to the time of the Reformation give us no more than indiscriminate compilations of tradition from Cassiodorus and the church historians and commentators in defence of the received Canon. Even Luther, Carlstadt, and Calvin, in debating the Criticism genuineness, inspiration, and canonicity of 2 Peter, former^. 6 " James, Eevelation, and other books, were actuated by a doctrinal rather than a historical interest, and made no systematic attempt to supply the need. It was rather in opposition to the doctrine of an infallible Scripture, developed by the post-Reformation dog- matists as an offset to the infallible hierocracy of Rome, that Richard Simon, priest of the Oratory at 1 The list adopted at Rome ca. 175 a.d. is given in the frag- ment discovered by Muratori in 1740. See p. 51. 2 Referred to as Eus. Hist. See the translation with notes by A. C. McGiffert, Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, 1890. NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Modern discussion. Founders of German Criticism. Paris (t 1712), brought out the first treatise worthy to be called an Introduction. 1 Simon devoted only the first 230 pages out of more than 2000 to problems of Introduction in the modern sense ; but besides proving by textual criticism the unauthenticity of Mk. 16 : 9-20, Jn. 7 : 53-8 : 11, 1 Jn. 5 : 7-8, he also discussed such questions of the higher criticism as the dates and order of the Gospels, the purpose of Luke in writing his Gospel, and "ancient opinion, Oriental and Occidental, as to the Pauline authorship and canonicity of Hebrews." Such free handling of the tradition was, of course, denounced, especially by Protestants. But even Simon's opponents were fain to imitate his attempt at a His- tory of the New Testament, besides borrowing copi- ously from his material. But the interest was still polemic, still there was insistence on treating the New Testament as a unit, not merely every book of which, but each individual verse and letter, must be what tradition represented, or the whole was religiously worthless. The establishment of the science on a better basis is largely owing to two German theologians, J. D. Mich- aelis 2 (f 1791) and J. S. Sender 3 (t 1791). The former undertook to defend the genuineness and credibility of the books rather than their divine inspiration ; the latter proved that the Canon was not a mere divine fiat, but the outcome of a process of human selection, providentially guided, indeed, yet so slow and halting that by 200 a.d. it had reached no more than the broad 1 Histoire critique du N. T., Rotterdam, 1689-95. 2 Einleitung in die Gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes, 1750-1780 *. The edition of 8 1777 is the first to treat the entire N. T. (Engl. tr.). 8 Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanons, 1771- 1775 (four parts). CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 5 outline of its results, and for centuries thereafter con- tinued in dispute. 1 It was natural to hold that a selec- tion so fallible in character must be reexamined in its grounds and perhaps altered, as if the function of In- troduction were to criticise canonicity. 2 Here was an unfortunate confusion of the theological The limits question of the wisdom of the selection made by the k e . tween ^ J science am Fathers under providential guidance for the practical doctriDe purposes of edification, with the historical question of obscure • the correctness of the theory and tradition of Apos- tolic authorship on which they rested it. The choice is a fact of "natural (i.e. divine) selection," which every added century of the Church's experience makes more immutable. The theory was demonstrably false in many particulars and has varied in every age. It was long before theologians could see that a Presump- defence of the traditional date, origin, arid literary character of each New Testament book is a mere encumbrance to the doctrines of inspiration, revelation, and canonicity, obstructing the legitimate inquiry of the historian. Critics were equally slow to see that the discovery that tradition often misrepresents the mode of the divine revelation and propagation of the truth is no refutation of the fact. 1 Cf. the admirable statement of Loescher, quoted by Driver, Introd. to 0. T., p. 36 : Nonuno, quoddicunt, actuab hominibus, sed paulatim, a Deo, animormn temporumque rectore, productus. 2 The definition " Criticism of the Canon," meaning investi- gation of the theory and tradition of Apostolic authorship on which the selection of the canonical books was theoretically based, is practically misleading. The Bible Canon is a finality, v a survival of the fittest in a process unalterably complete. But "fitness" in this case was determined far less by the critical opinions of rabbis and Fathers than by the instinct of Synagogue and Church, retaining in use books found practically to embody the faith, a long- deferred, fully enlightened verdict of the people, whose voice thus uttered is the voice of God. tions hard to overcome. NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Revolt against modern tradition. Results. The Pauline and Johan- nine writ- Michaelis undertook to defend the genuineness of every New Testament book, but had admitted the task to be " difficult " in the case of Jude. The spirit of revolt against a modern tradition whose dogmas encroached upon foreign ground soon proved that there would be " difficulty " in other and much graver cases. The early years of our century are signalised by an outburst of debate not merely reviving the dis- putes of the first three centuries, but soon calling in question the authenticity of the hitherto unquestioned. In most cases the debate is still open, in few only can it be said to be approaching settlement to-day. 1 Ancient tradition had been practically unanimous in accepting all the epistles which profess to be from Paul. The Pastoral Epistles were now disputed, not so much because of their rejection by Marcion (140 a.d.), as on internal grounds. 2 Thessalonians followed suit. John and 1 John had been traditionally attributed since ca. 175 a.d. to the Apostle, with all but unanimous consent. 2 Bretschneider 3 now brought against these a criticism of such weight that while its own author quailed and retracted before the storm of protest aroused, the question of the authorship of the " Johan- 1 Of authors whose Introductions followed that of Michaelis only H. K. A Hanlein (Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schrif- ten des N. T., 1794-1800, 2 1801-1809 — Abstract, 1802) and J. E. C. Schmidt (Historiseh-kritische Einleitung in d. N. T. 1804-1805, 3 1818) need be mentioned. The latter was first to question the authenticity of 2 Thess. and the Pastoral Epistles. Schleiermacher followed, casting the weight of his great influ- ence against 1 Tim., but failing to appreciate its solidarity with 2 Tim. and Tit. 2 An unimportant sect represented by Caius of Rome (180- 235), called Alogi by Epiphanius, had rejected the Johannine writings on grounds as arbitrary as Marcion's. 8 Probabilia de Evangelii et Epistolartim Joannis Apostoli Indole et Origine, 1820. CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 7 nine " writings remains to this day the most open as well as the most difficult of New Testament criticism. Needless to say that since Simon's day an ever in- The General creasing number of scholars agree with the verdict of pist es ' Origen (230 a.d.) as to Hebrews, " God only knows who wrote it ; " moderns adding, however, that Paul certainly did not. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Eevelation, the disputed books of antiquity, 1 were of course widely denied to their ostensible or re- puted authors. Even 1 Peter, hitherto undisputed, was admitted by Sender and Eichhorn (1818) as Pe- trine only in an indirect sense. The state of the science during this period is clearly shown in the Introduc- tions of two great German scholars, J. G. Eichhorn, 2 already named, and "W". M. L. de Wette. Eichhorn applied a too undisciplined conjecture to The the problem, but rendered his most real service in ^ynop ic formulating into a definite theory the fruits of earlier discussion of the curious combination of identity and dissimilarity between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, known as " Synoptic " Gospels from their common point of view. Twenty years before, Storr, Koppe, and Michaelis had attacked this problem from the standpoint of the his- torian of literature rather than the hitherto sovereign harmonist. Augustine (396 a.d.) had, indeed, offered an explanation, holding in his treatise On the Agree- ment of the Evangelists (I, 2, 4, 12), that " Mark merely followed in the footsteps of Matthew, abridging his Gospel." This theory of dependence on the part of one evangelist on the other was now applied in various orders, and Griesbach 3 supplemented it by suggested 1 So Eus. Mst., Ill, 25, 1, following Origen (Ibid., vi., 25, 3-14) . Eusebius personally would have rejected Rev. and 2 Pet. 2 Einleitung in d. N. T., 1804-27 (five volumes). 8 Commentatio qua Marci Evang. totum e 3Iatthcei et Lucce Commentariis descriptum esse monstratur, 1789-90. 8 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION combination : Mark had made a somewhat servile ab- stract of Matthew and Luke. But Eichhorn became the founder of modern Gospel criticism by showing that the coincidences and differences antedate our pres- ent writers. He advanced the theory of a primitive Gospel employed by all three. This Urevangelium theory for twenty years was variously modified and adapted to meet the complicated phenomena. 1 De Wette. The great Introduction of all this period, however, was that of W. M. L. de Wette. 2 It was conceived in a truly scientific spirit and shows historical method ; but the author's principle, to go no further in affirma- tion than " the point to which we are led by tangible data," gave it a somewhat negative character. Ephe- sians, already questioned by Schleiermacher, De Wette pronounced " a verbose amplification " of Colossians, and at first 3 confirmed the doubts already expressed by Schmidt (op. tit.) against 2 Thessalonians. With Schmidt, Eichhorn, and Bretschneider he would add to the " disputed " books of antiquity the Pastoral Epis- tles, 1 Peter, John, and 1 John. Summary. Thus in the first third of the century we see the theological world, Catholic and Protestant, not in Germany only, but in Holland, France, England, and even beyond the Atlantic, roused to the consciousness that the reign of tradition as to the origin of the ca- nonical books was imperilled, if not already overthrown. 1 The Synoptic problem soon became a discipline in itself, whose older history is best summarised in Holtzmann's Die Synopt. Evang., 1863, pp. 15-43. For the subsequent history and present state of the problem see O. Cone, Gospel- Criticism, etc., 1891, and articles by Sanday, Expositor, IV, iii, and Wendt, New World, June, 1895. 2 Lehrbuch der historisch-lcritischen Einleitung in die Bibel A. und N. T., 1826, 6 1848. The edition by Messner and Lune- mann ( 6 1860) modifies in a spirit of conservatism. 8 In editions 1-4. CBITICISM VS. TBABITION 9 Indeed, the revolt had gone further still. Schleier- macher * and Credner 2 had urged the necessity of dis- tinguishing our Matthew from the simple compilation of discourses of the Lord " in Hebrew," to which the oldest tradition bore witness, leaving of undisputed New Testament writings nothing in the strict sense " Apostolic " save eight epistles of Paul. Again a Roman Catholic scholar came to the rescue. Conserva- The ablest as well as most brilliant contribution from action" this branch of the Church down to our own day is that of J. L. Hug 3 (fl846), who skilfully adopted the methods of the new science only to prove how need- less were its criticisms of the traditional views. Ob- jections to each and all of the canonical books were plausibly explained away. The evangelists simply made use of one another in the order of the canon. In England Home's Introduction 4 fulfilled a similar apologetic purpose. Meanwhile Michaelis, Hug, and De Wette were translated into French and English. But Germany remained the home of the science. Progress in Here it was vindicating its right to a place among German y- theological disciplines by definition of its scope and disavowal of a polemic or negative animus. De Wette had conceived his task as a branch of hermeneutics, but confessed at the outset that Introduction "is devoid of any true scientific principle and necessary connection." His work, accordingly, was a mere aggregate of material adapted to the Bible-reader's need of a historical background. Schleiermacher urged a development of the science in this direction, but 1 Stiidien u. Kritiken, 1832, p. 735. 2 Beitrdge zur Einleitung in die bibl. Schriften, 1832-1838, and Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1836. 3 Einleitung i. d. Schriften d. N". T., Freiburg, 1808, * 1847. 4 An Introd. to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scripture, 1818, » 1846. 10 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION definition of Introduc- tion. himself evinced a more historical point of view than his predecessors by adopting a chronological order for his discussion, placing first the Pauline Epistles. In Lucke's preface to the posthumous work, 1 however, Introduction is still defined as "criticism of the Canon." 2 Credner, on the contrary, had defined it as "the history of the New Testament," making the science a branch of the history of literature, though his method was an investigation of the individual books in the order of the printed text. The first to give systematic application to the principle was E. Reuss First precise (f 1891), the veteran Biblical scholar of Strassburg. 3 Reuss undertook to relate (1) the origin of the indi- vidual writings of the New Testament, according to the order of date which he believed he could deter- mine (Literary History) ; (2) the account of the union of these books in a sacred collection received in the churches (History of the Formation of the Canon) ; (3) the account of the preservation and transmission of this collection (History of the Text) ; (4) its dif- fusion (History of the Translations), and (5) its inter- pretation (History of Exegesis). Thus the science of Introduction was gradually re- duced to a definite scope and method. Treated as a branch of ecclesiastical history it escaped the Scylla of mere negative polemic, and the Charybdis of mere apologetic. At the same time it shook off the incubus of indefinite extension into the domains of general hermeneutics, Biblical archaeology, philology, geog- raphy, general history, with which it had been en- cumbered. No wonder that Julicher in his admirable The science attains a definite scope and method. 1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., edited by Wolde (Sammtliehe Werke, i, 8, 1845). 2 So even Baur and Holtzmann ; but in a different sense. 8 Die Gesch. d. heiligen Schriften N. T., 1842, 5 1887. Eng- lish translation published by Houghton and Mifflin. CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 11 handbook, 1 treats Eeuss's definition as final, declaring jiiiicher's Introduction to be " that branch of historical science, defimtl0n - in particular of the history of literature, whose sub- ject is the New Testament ; " for in the meantime had appeared a noble work of this type, the widely known Introduction of F. Bleek 2 (f 1859), not yet wholly free from the digressions of De Wette, but steadily pursuing the historical purpose and method, though with more conservative results. Bleek reluc- tantly, but decisively, abandoned the identification of our canonical Matthew with the Apostolic Logia, and treated 1 Timothy and 2 Peter as unauthentic. Beve- lation he attributed not to John the Apostle, but to a supposed Ephesian elder of that name. He main- tained with vigour and true scientific method the authenticity of the other books. The great critical movement inaugurated by Strauss Strauss and the Tubingen scholars, which midway in the cen- a Kenan tury shook the theological world to its foundations, has permanently affected the science of Introduction, but not by its specific conclusions. The celebrated author of the mythical theory of New Testament story 3 made no pretensions to have applied the pro- cesses of literary or documentary criticism to his sources, for the very reason that he considered his Canons of historical criticism to have already proved them unworthy of the effort. Almost equal neglect characterised his great rival in France. 4 His ortho- dox opponents generally took the same position from 1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 2 1894, p. 1. 2 Einleitung i. d. X. T., 1862. Engl, by T. & T. Clark, 1883. The third and fourth German editions by W. Mangold (1875, 1886) are adapted by footnotes to the advance of the science. These often contradict the text. 8 Das Leben Jesu, D. E. Stra,uss, 1835 (Engl, transl.). 4 Vie de Jesus, E. Kenan, 1863, 13 1882 (Engl, transl.). 12 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION Historical vs. literary criticism. Tubingen's influence upon Intro- duction. the opposite motive, to their own great detriment. The Tubingen School, founded by F. C. Baur, was also a school of historical rather than literary criti- cism, but not so oblivious of the need for a basis in scientific analysis of the documents. The Synoptic writings became, accordingly, the special field of debate, but results were almost wholly vitiated by undue haste to apply a special theory of the progress of events, making use of negative results already attained in behalf of this theory, and employing it in turn against some of the few remaining undisputed sources. Doubtless it was time that historical criti- cism should endeavour to draw from even crudely clas- sified materials a more consistent picture of the age which gave them birth. Early Christian literature, inside and outside the Canon, is the precipitate of a great movement of religious thought, and must be studied as the product of definite currents of human opinion in a continuous process. Theoretically, there- fore, the result should serve to interpret church tradi- tion as embodied in its canon. Practically Baur and his adherents were as overconfident in their recon- struction of history as their dogmatic opponents, and they used it as if bent on destroying tradition rather than interpretiDg it. Nevertheless, the attempt to bring the somewhat vague, disconnected, and negative results of literary criticism into definite relations with historical processes was salutary. Baur wrote no Intro- duction, nor did any of his earlier followers. Only a deeply and wisely modified remnant of Tubingen views remains in its one great Introduction by A. Hilgenfeld of Jena. 1 But the discussions of special topics by Baur, Zeller, and Schwegler 2 revolutionised the methods of the science. 1 Einleitung i. d. N. T., 1875. 2 See in particular by Baur : Die Christuspartei in Korinth CEITICISM VS. TRADITION 13 The fulcrum for the whole theory was found in the The greater Pauline Epistles, whose genuineness had never l^ff^ been questioned, and whose internal character might well be assumed to make suspicion forever impossible. As contemporary letters these threw an unintended and thus more trustworthy light upon the period. Its dominant feature seemed to be the struggle of infant Christianity to free itself from the swaddling bands of Judaism. The echoes of this great struggle are still audible at the close of the second century, when literature becomes fairly abundant. Midway of the century stands Marcion, champion of an extreme Pau- linism, rejecting all Scripture save ten epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Luke. A decade or two later were placed the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, sup- posedly representing an extreme form of Judaistic her- esy and attacking Paul under the guise of Simon Magus. Writers of this period show that the great body of the Church had come meantime to occupy a mediate, though not altogether consistent, position, from which extrem- ists on both sides were excluded as heretics. What more natural than to find here evidences of a histori- cal progress of Hegelian type, from the antagonism of Jewish (Petrine) against Gentile (Pauline) Chris- tianity to the higher unity of the Catholic Christian- ity of Justin Martyr and Irenseus, and in the stages of advance the touchstone and key to the New Testa- ment writings ? The historical setting of each would in the Tub. Zts. f. Th., 1831 ; Paulus der Apostel <&c, 1845, 2 1866 (English); Kritische TJntersuchungen ilber d. Kan. Evang., 1847 ; and for a comprehensive view, Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853. Zeller's contributions as editor of the Theol. Jahrb. extend from 1842 to 1857. His Apostelgeschichte, 1854, appeared in English in 1875, and has value. Schwegler set forth the theory comprehensively in his Das nachapost. Zeitalter, 1846. 14 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Tubingen views of the history corrected. Harnack's four cur- rents of the Apostolic Age. be revealed by its animus or " tendency," whether polemic or conciliatory. The church historians of more recent times, Eitschl 1 and Harnack, 2 have taught us that Baur's supposedly dominant issue of early Christianity had already ceased to be dominant by 70 a.d., when the last claims of Jerusalem to be the centre of Christen- dom forever disappeared. Thus Paul himself may well have witnessed, if he did not personally effect, the great reconciliation for which in Eom. 15 : 30-33 we see him risking his life (cf. Acts 20 : 22-24). Not two but four principal currents of thought must be distinguished in the later Apostolic age, whose ten- dencies are thus classified by Harnack : (1) The Gos- pel has to do with the people of Israel, and with the Gentile world only on the condition that believers attach themselves to the people of Israel (particular- ism and legalism, in practice and in principle, which, however, was not to cripple the obligation to prose- cute the work of Missions). (2) The Gospel has to do with Jews and Gentiles : the first, as believers in Christ, are under obligation as before to observe the Law, the latter are not (universalism in principle, par- ticularism in practice). (3) The Gospel has to do with both Jews and Gentiles : no one is any longer under obligation to observe the Law ; for the Law is abolished, and the salvation procured by Christ's death is appropriated by faith. The Old Testament in its literal sense is of divine origin, but was intended from the first only for a definite epoch of history (Paulin- ism : universalism in principle and in practice ; tem- porary validity of the whole Law.) (4) The Gospel has to do Avith Jews and Gentiles : no one need, there- 1 Entstehung der altcath. Kirche, 2 1857 (Engl, transl.). 2 Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1888- 3 94. Engl. 1896. Chronologie d. altchristl. Literatur, 1897. CRITICISM VS. TRADITION 15 fore, be under obligation to observe the ceremonial commandments and sacrificial worship, because these commandments themselves are only the wrappings of moral and spiritual commandments which the Gospel exhibits in the perfect form (universalism in princi- ple and in practice in virtue of a neutralising of the distinction between Law and Gospel, old and new. The Law never had validity save in a spiritualised and universalised interpretation). 1 For the sober second thought of the school of Baur, Later repre- corrected by church historians within and without th 34 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION imposed by the Lord himself : that if it includes the writings of Apostolic men also, still they were not alone, but wrote with the help of Apostles, and after the teaching of Apostles." First collec- tions of N. T. writ- Marcion's N. T. Canon. The growth, of this now full-fledged theory of apos- tolicity should be a subject for careful study. We have seen how Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp presuppose that, at least, 1 Corinthians, Ephe- sians, and Philippians are read by those whom they address, and as letters of Paul. Ignatius (110-117 a.d.) refers to a whole group (" in every letter"). In 2 Peter (135-150 a.d. ?) this collection is to be studied along with "the other Scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). When it was formed and how constituted we do not know, but relative frequency of employment goes to show that Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians were more widely circulated than Galatians or Colossians. The year 140 a.d., however, is a date of vital significance in our history, for it marks the first attempt to frame a canon of New Testament Scripture. Of Marcion, its author, we have already heard. The son of a Christian bishop in Phrygia, an ardent disciple of Paul, and a man of unblemished, though ascetic morality, he came to Pome ca. 138 a.d., con- vinced that a reform was necessary in the Church to free it from its continued slavery to Judaism. The most important means adopted was the rejection of the Old Testament, for which was substituted, in the numerous churches founded by him, his own " Gospel " and " Apostle." Of the then current practice of read' ing from the Gospels, together with the Prophets (Old Testament), we know from Justin Martyr. Marcion, however, not only removed the Old Testament, but excluded all gospels save that of Luke. His " Apos- tle" was simply our ten letters of Paul, excluding Hebrews and the Pastoral Epistles. Both " Gospel " FORMATION OF THE CANON 35 and " Apostle " were mutilated by arbitrary expurga- tion of what Marcion regarded as "Jewish, inter- polations." Whether his omission of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, was for doctrinal or critical reasons, or both, is disputed. 1 The process which outside the Church was thus Ignatius, hastened by the repudiation of " Scripture " and eccle- siastical authority, was rapidly advancing within the pale. For Ignatius the divinely prescribed panacea is the Apostolic successiou. Against the inroads of Do- cetic heretics in "the churches of Asia" he appeals not to Scripture, still less to the Johannine writings, though there are indications that he knows them, 2 but to the utterance he had himself made by special, divine revelation when among them : " I cried with a loud voice, with God's own voice, Give ye heed to the bishops and the presbytery and deacons." Ignatius, however, met opposition from a conservative element of the type of Clement of Rome, who disputed his interpretations of Scripture, saying : " If I find it not in the charters (the Old Testament) I believe it not in the Gospel. And when I said to them, It is written, they answered me, That is just the question." 3 His final answer was, " My charter is Jesus Christ," mean- ing the traditional teaching of Jesus. The contemporary exhortation of Poly carp to the Polycarp. Philippians to read diligently the letters of Paul, 1 Jerome (Expl. in Epist. ad Ti., IV, p. 407, ed. Benedict) declares that Basilides and Marcion rejected Heb. and the Pastoral Epp. as un-Pauline. 2 So even Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann, who, however, date the Ignatian letters ca. 160. The traces of N. T. writings are very scanty, but include our Matt., 1 Cor., Eph., Rom., 2 Cor., Gal., Col., Phil., 1 Thess., Philem., 1 Pet., Jn. (?) Acts (?) in order of certainty. 8 Phiiad. 8 : 2. 36 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION advice which he certainly had followed himself, 1 illus- trates a third tendency, more in the spirit of Greek Christianity than the oriental hierocratic ideas of Igna- tius, but equally divergent from the simple dependence of Clement of Eome on the Old Testament, without disparagement of it as in Marcion. New Testament writings are not appealed to by Polycarp as having the authority of " Scripture " ; but the future is with him. There could be no contrast more significant of the predestined change, than that between Clement's epistle and his. The former barely refers twice to teachings of Jesus with the simple formula of Acts 20 : 35 2 and once to Paul ; the latter is as saturated with New Testament phraseology as Clement with the Old Testament. One other tendency illustrative of the growing con- sciousness in the Church, of the need of some further written standard of its divine revelation than the Old Testament, is found in a writer perhaps contemporary The with Marcion, viz. Pseudo-Barnabas (132 a.d.). " Bar- standard of na b as » i s arL Alexandrian, representing the fourth of Harnack's tendencies. His standard is " Scripture," but the interpretation thereof was first revealed by Christ. "Barnabas" is indeed the first to refer to a brief " logion," preserved in Matthew 22 : 14, as " Scripture," 3 but it is extremely doubtful if he was 1 Polyc. unmistakably employs the language of Matt., Acts, Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thess., 1 Tim., 2 Tim., 1 Pet. , 1 Jn. ; and has in addition more or less trustworthy echoes of Mk., Lk., and 1 Thess. 2 The one reference (18 : 2) is a free combination of Matt. 6 : 7, 6 : 14, 7 : 12 with Lk. 6 : 31, 36-38 ; the other (46 : 8) a free reproduction of Matt. 26 : 24, 18 : 6. 3 Another trace or two of Matt, and a few echoes of Rom. and Heb. only heighten the contrast of his copious (allegorical) use of the O. T., including Enoch and other uncanonical writings, with his neglect of the N. T. Even the Two Ways chapters FORMATION OF THE CANON 37 conscious that the saying was of New Testament ori- gin, for he sharply divides his epistle into two parts, (i) chs. 1-17, an interpretation of the Old Testament in the allegorical sense, without which it is to him quite as offensive as to Marcion ; for in his view the Jews were only led to interpret it literally by the sophistry of "an evil angel," (ii) "the new Law of Christ, which is free from any yoke of constraint." This he presents in chs. 18-21 as "another lesson and teaching," giving it not in words of his own, nor in those of any New Testament writing, but, as now appears from the recent discovery of the Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles, in those of the Tivo Ways, a primitive " teaching of baptisms," or catechism for the instruction of neophytes in the rudiments of Christian morality, similarly incorporated in the "Teaching," 1-6. This document (131-160 a.d.), 1 as its title shows, re- That of the gards the teaching of the Lord as supreme authority, ^ lSa M- but the significant difference from Clement's simple ex- hortation to " remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said," etc., is that here the direction is to " do as ye find it in the Gospel of our Lord," so that a written source has taken the place of general tradition, and this source is recognisable from the excerpts as our Matthew. 2 By "the ways of the Lord" as known are devoid of the quotations from the Gospels with which the document has been enriched in the Aid. text. 1 It is dated by Holtzmann in 120-150. Harnack explains his unusually late dating as applying to the present form only. He regards the Two Ways as possibly even pre-Christian. 2 Ai5. 15: 4 ; cf. 8 : 2, 11 : 3. No certain trace of Mk. or Jn. appears. Matt, is employed seventeen times. In four cases the language approaches Lk., but these are in the later portions. Oral tradition is probably responsible for the logion At5. 1 : 6. There are traces of Eom., 1 Cor., Eph., 1 Thess., 2 Thess., 1 Pet., 1 Jn., Jd. (?). 38 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Hermas. Emergence of the Four Gospels. through oral and written tradition, even those who speak in the Spirit are to be discerned as true or false prophets. 1 In the Shepherd of Hermas (140 a.d., portions from twenty to twenty-five years earlier), tediously volumi- nous as it is, we look for no written revealed author- ity save the Old Testament, because the author, as Holtzmann says, regarded his own prophetic author- ity as equal to that of any Christian writer. 2 In fact, the only Scripture he anywhere quotes as such is Eldat and Modad, though he shows unmistakable dependence on James, 1 Corinthians, and Ephesians, and knows the Synoptic tradition, apparently in the form of Mark, but with traces of Matthew and Luke. 3 By 150 a.d. a tendency was already manifesting itself to distinguish our four Gospels from the rapidly increasing mass of less authentic and often heretical material. 4 For the Syrian Church the (written) Gospel long continued to be that of Matthew, as it had been elsewhere. But there were many and widely differ- ing writings which claimed to be " the Gospel accord- ing to Matthew," and the Church itself acknowledged that the work of the Apostle in its original form was no longer in its possession. It is possible that we 1 11 : 1 ff. 2 Einleitung 3 , p. 92. For Hermas's idea of prophetic inspir- ation, including his own, see the passage above referred to in Mand. 11, p. 29. 8 Hermas's acquaintance with other N. T. writings may be shown in order of probability as follows : Heb., 1 Pet., Jn., Acts, Rev. In all cases the use is extremely scanty. 4 The resemblance of Vis. 3 : 13 to Iren. Her. 3 : 11, 8 has been used to trace it back even to Hermas. Irenseus doubtless does depend on Hernias for his (probably correct) interpreta- tion of the four cherubim supporting the throne of Christ as the four Elements {(XTOLxela) ; but the further comparison of these to the four Gospels is an idea of his own. FORMATION OF THE CANON 39 have still a trace of these early disputes in the Syriac manuscript entitled " As to the Star : showing how and by what means the Magi knew the Star, and that Joseph did not take Mary as his wife." * In its present form this is only a worthless legend in support of the per- petual virginity of Mary, but, as Hilgenfeld observes, it preserves certain dates of remarkable significance. The visit of the Magi to Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1-13) is declared to have been " in the three hundred and eleventh year (Seleucid era = 1 b.c.) in the second year of our Redeemer" (cf. Matt. 2:16). The inci- dent itself is declared to have been authenticated by a council assembled for the purpose in Rome " in the year 430 (= 119 a.d.), under the reign of Hadri- anus Caesar, in the consulship of Severus and Fulgus, and the episcopate of Xystus (Sixtus I), bishop of the city of Rome." 2 The proportionate use in early writers would indi- Their rela- cate that Mark and Luke came next in order of author- tlve cur ~ rency. ity, but at a considerable interval after Matthew ; then, after Luke, John; and again at a considerable inter- val, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel of Peter, etc. But we are fortunately supplied with a compara- Justin and tively full and certainly trustworthy statement of the Pa P ias - process from one who himself had lived through the change from Clement, with his mere memoriter com- binations of any or all sources for the tradition of 1 Published by W. Wright in Journ. of Sacred Lit., October, 1866. See Hilgenfeld's article "Das Kanon. Mtev." in Zts. f. w. Th., 1895, p. 449. 2 Other forms than Matt.'s of the story of the Virgin and Star were in circulation at this time (cf. Eev. 12 : 1 f., 5 with Ign. ad Eph. 19:1-3, and the legend attributed to Africanus). An early ecclesiastical decision in Eome may have supported the canonical version against the Ebionites and Adoptionists who rejected Matt. 1 : 18, 2 : 23. 40 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION the Lord's teaching, to Justin Martyr, substantially limiting himself to " the memoirs written by apostles and the companions of apostles," publicly read in the churches. The fragment of Papias's Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, recently published by De Boor, states that some of those brought to life by Jesus " lived until the time of Hadrian," 1 implying a date for the work as late as Justin (145-160 a.d.). Papias was probably acquainted with our third Gos- pel ; for his earlier contemporary, Marcion, a native of Papias's own neighbourhood (Hierapolis in Phrygia), had given it a position which would seem to imply both its previous wide acceptance and traditions connect- ing its author with Paul. Moreover, Holtzmann and others have pointed out how Papias's preface seems written in " obvious imitation of Luke 1:1-4." He cannot have been ignorant of our canonical Matthew, and it is in the highest degree probable that he knew our fourth Gospel as well. This appears from Irenseus's citations of the Eeliques of the Elders, which Lightf oot and Harnack agree must Jiave been taken from the work of Papias, and which embody Johannine mate- rial, and from certain resemblances of his style to 1 John and 3 John, and still more from the explicit and wholly trustworthy statement of Eusebius (Hist. 3 : 39, 16), " The same writer (Papias) uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise." And yet he cannot have referred to the 1 If the fragment is really from Papias, it shows dependence on his part on the Apology of Quadratus, addressed to Ha- drian, which had declared as to the persons healed and raised by Jesus that " they were alive after his death for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." If Quadratus was then an old man his statement might well be true. In the Chronicle Eusebius dates his Apology 124-125 a.d., and calls him an auditor Apostolorum. tradition. FORMATION OF THE CANON 41 origin of either Luke or John, 1 for Eusebius, who gives us his testimony as to Matthew and Mark, and after searching through his book notes that " he uses testimonies from 1 John," was particularly in search of two things which he promises to give to his readers : (i) evidence of the early use of the then disputed books, among which neither 1 Peter nor 1 John are included ; (ii) data as to the origin of the undisputed books, par- ticularly the Gospels. 2 But Eusebius has not a word as to Luke or John from this source. We cannot rea- sonably account for this silence in the "preface" of Papias's work, wherein he gave his authorities both oral and written, if he placed the Gospels of Luke and John in the same category with the two which he describes and defends as Apostolic and trustworthy. Most probably he regarded it as important to give Papias's what tradition reported of the two ancient Gospels by Palestinian authorities, because these had formed the substratum for later writers, whom he might re- gard as belonging rather to his own generation, among authors of evangelic compendia he had already alluded to in general terms. 3 His statement as to his method and authorities was as follows : — "But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully, 1 In spite of the Argumentum to the Gospel of John in a late Vatican manuscript : ' ' The Gospel of John was published and given to the churches by John while yet alive (Jn. 21 : 23 f.), as Papias of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple of John (!), relates in his five exoteric (sic) books." 2 Hist. 3 : 3, 3, and 5 : 8, 1. 3 We must beware of prejudging the question of the author- ship of the fourth Gospel ; yet it must be admitted that the growing evidence of Papias's acquaintance with it involves the serious difficulty of his apparent inability to refer to the direct testimony of the Apostle in either oral or written form, though Apostolic testimony was the object of his search. 42 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION and remembered carefully in time past 1 from the elders, guar- anteeing its truth. For unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth ; nor in those who relate alien commandments (Gnostic evangelists), but in those who record such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and who are sprung from the truth itself (cf. 3 Jn. 12). If, then, any one came who had been a follower of the Elders, I would question him about the words of the Elders 2 — what (by their report) Andrew or what Peter had said, or what had been said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the Elder John the disciples of these were saying. 3 For I did not think I could get so much profit from the contents of books, as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice." 1 The expressions indicate a rather remote past ( 100-120 a.d. ?), yet not remote enough for Papias to know directly any Apostle ; this, Eusebius tells us, he testified himself. 2 I.e. what the Palestinian Elders — by no means to be con- founded with the Apostles, but authorities who could remember Apostles, — reported the words of the Apostles to have been. Of these " elders," two, Aristion and John, were actual disciples of the Apostles, which made their own sayings independently worthy of reporting. 3 For TOVKV read TOVTo). See my article in Journ. of Bibl. Lit. 1897. The Apostles were dead ; Aristion and the Elder John were still living ; hence the contrast in tense (direv, \iyovffiv). But Papias had no direct access even to the latter, save through their writings. Aristion he quoted so freely that Eusebius takes him to have been directly his hearer. Mk. 16 : 9-20 is now known to have been taken from the Gospel com- pend of a "Presbyter Ariston," probably the same work. The Presbyter John is not known as a writer; for though 2 Jn., 3 Jn., are addressed by "the Presbyter," the name "John" appears only in the titles added by scribes on the assumption of Apostolic authorship for both Epistles and Gospel. If the question is asked, Why does not Papias refer to his contempo- rary and near neighbour Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, for traditions of this kind, rather than to less famous men only indirectly accessible to him, our answer must be, the inquiries were as to Palestinian tradition, and the title FORMATION OF THE CANON 43 Of a different character to Papias's mind, however, His primi- from the " books " which he treated as inferior to oral tlYe gospe s ' tradition, must have been at least the two sources as to whose origin he took pains to obtain the testimony of " the Presbyter " ; for it cannot be supposed that he placed more reliance on reports of "what had been said by Matthew," than on what he believed to be the writing of Matthew himself. The tradition is given as follows : — "This also the Presbyter (probably John) said: Mark, who had been (yev6[j.ei>os, spoken of an ex-official) the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not, indeed, in order, everything that he remembered, whether of things said or things done by Christ. 1 Tor he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but afterwards, as I said, of Peter, who adapted his instructions to requirements, and had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles (or ' sayings ' X67WV ; other manuscripts have \oytuv). So then Mark made no error while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them ; 2 for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein." "Presbyter" as well as the remoteness of Aristion and John from Papias goes to show that they were living in Palestine, the home of Gospel story. Possibly these are none other than Aristo of Pella, author of a Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus (ca. 135 a.d.), and John, mentioned seventh among the fifteen bishops — more properly Elders — of the Palestinian Church before 135 a.d., by Eusebius {Hist. 4 : 5, 3). 1 What follows may be only Papias's explanation of the tra- dition. The i) \ex6ivra 17 irpaxdivra appears to distinguish Mk.'s work from Matt.'s which had been a compilation of say- ings only (\6yia). Acts 1 : 1 similarly refers to the former treatise as a record "both of teachings and doings of Jesus." 2 The Muratorian fragment (see below) begins : [ali] quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit, spoken of Mk., apparently in dependence on this same tradition, but going quite beyond it. The meaning is quite as likely to be : In certain enlargements made upon other forms of the story (Matt.) Mk. is not to be deemed arbitrary, for he is only recording — and that with reverential care — what he had heard from Peter. 44 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Perhaps a little higher up the page, probably on authority of the same Presbyter, Papias had written: — " So, then, Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) language, and each one interpreted them as he could." The Logia It is here implied that the original work of Mat- obsolete, thew was no longer extant or accessible. In Papias's day it had already been superseded by our own Greek Matthew, for the need of translation, every man for himself, no longer existed. But had the translator confined himself to simple translation, or had he amplified and interpreted after the manner common at the time ? 1 Had he reset the simple " sayings " 2 in a narrative of the " doings " after the manner of Mark, and prefixed to it the story of Jesus' birth and child- hood ? Only internal evidence can decide how close was the relation of the " Hebrew " writing to the Greek. The mere fact that Papias regarded the Logia as the original of our Matthew can decide nothing; for Jerome, who had translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews into both Latin and Greek, and who gives us a number of passages showing the wide diver- gence of its tradition, also regarded it as " the original Hebrew Matthew." Epiphanius regarded the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, which was not simply our Matthew in another language, but a separate Gos- pel, differing both from it and from that employed by the Ebionites, as "the original Hebrew Matthew." We are rather led to infer from Papias's description of the Logia as tradition reported the work (avveypd- \j/a.To — some manuscripts o-wera£aTo — to. Ao'yia), and from the fact that he adopts from oral tradition an account of the death of Judas as wholly at variance 1 As in the Test, of the XII Patriarchs. 2 Eeferred to hereinafter as the Logia. FORMATION OF THE CANON 45 with Matt. 27 : 3-10 as with Acts 1 : 18, that there were elements of his own (our) Matthew which he did not regard as having the direct sanction of the Apostle. This need not imply that he held views like Jerome's or Epiphanius's, though Eusebius found " the story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord " (cf . Jn. 7 : 53-8 : 11), which Papias related, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Luke His use of and John will have been to him among the " books " 1 books. N " T ' which like Aristion's he used, but gave no account of, esteeming them secondary to the " living and abiding voice." Of 1 John and 1 Peter, as already stated, we only know that he used them. With regard to Revelation, the case is different. Andreas of Caesarea (ca. 490) not only quotes Papias " word for word " in passages dependent on Revelation, but declares that he " bore testimony to its genuineness." A multitude of writers, including Eusebius, testify to how great an extent both Papias and his successors of the Ephesian school were affected by this book. Thus between Papias's youth and his old age depend- Growing ence on tradition has given way to books, for Papias on 1 " books?" himself is then content to write down what he had heard from the daughters of Philip the evangelist. Justin, his younger contemporary, as we have seen, employs our four Gospels as directly or indirectly Apostolic. Occasionally he takes up an uncanonical tradition, but in all his seventeen or eighteen express references to the " Memoirs " he uses our Synoptics, while his fifty allusions in the two Apologies (152- 153 a.d.) and seventy in the Dialogue (155-160 a.d.) point to the same authorities. The last serious denials have been silenced by modern discovery. The Akhmim 1 See the passage from Iren. quoted below (p. 50), "Luke recorded in a book," etc. 46 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION fragment of the Gospel of Peter 1 (100-130 a.d.) dis- pelled all theories which made this the source of Justin's quotations and identified it with his Memoirs of Peter (i.e. Mark). It made the preeminence of the four yet more apparent by the evidences of dependence on these by the Gospel of Peter itself. Serapion of Antioch (191-211 a.d.) found indeed this Gospel still employed for public reading in a church of his diocese (Rhossus), and for a time tolerated, but afterward suppressed it as heretical. Ciasca's publication of the Diatessaron, 2 or Har- mony of the Four Gospels, by Tatian, a pupil of Jus- tin (160-170, 172 ? a.d.) forever settled all questions as to which four had been thus employed, and showed their relative standing. Finally Mrs. Lewis's dis- covery of the Sinaitic Syriac, a version of our four Gospels of 160-170 a.d., fairly leads us over to the history of the text. Their But we should beware of the hasty inference that authority. even ^ e £ Qur Q 0S p e } s h a( j y e ^ k ecorae a « scriptural " authority. Justin has still substantially the same standard as Clement of Rome, " Scripture " and the " Teaching of the Lord." " We have been commanded by Christ himself," he writes, " to obey not the teach- ing of men (Matt. 23 : 8-10), but those precepts which were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets, and taught by himself." 3 Only now the more trustworthy record of the teaching is beginning to be differentiated as " Apostolic " from the unauthentic. Besides Scrip- ture and the Lord's teaching, Justin recognises but a single writing which possesses a claim to special authority. The Revelation of John, one of the Apostles 1 See the ed. of H. B. Swete, London, 1893, and Kruger, Hist, of Chr. Lit., p. 53. 2 Engl, by J. H. Hill, Edinb., 1894. * Dial., c. 48. FOBMATION OF THE CANON 47 of Christ has the twofold claim of its " prophetic " character, and its apostolicity. 1 With Justin and Tatian we are thus only at the be- irenseus's ginning of the road which with Irenseus (174-189 a.d.) SnTtl* ° f leads to the exclusive use of Matthew, Mark, Luke, books and and John 2 and treatment even of the evangelist's own their Origin, language as inspired. 3 But the only writing besides these of which even Irenaeus is concerned to give the tradition is Revelation, which he not only declares authentic on the authority of "those who saw John face to face," but tells us that "the revelation was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian." Incident- ally he quotes 1 Jn. 2 : 18 as from " the Epistle " 4 of John the author of the Gospel, and is the first to connect 1 Peter with the Apostle, quoting it with the formula "Peter says," 5 but he reserves the title " Scripture " for Hernias, 6 which as " prophetic " is entitled to rank with the Evangelic Word and the Revelation of John. His tradition as to the Gospels we must cite in full : — " Matthew then published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and 1 There are a few traces of acquaintance with all the Pauline Epistles except Phil., Philem., and the Pastoral Epistles, but Justin does not so much as mention the name of Paul, much less can we suppose he would treat letters, even those of Apostles, as "Scripture." 2 In Her. 3 : 11, 8 he resorts to extraordinary analogies to show that there must in the nature of the case be four Gospels and only four. 8 Her. 3 : 16, 2 has Spiritus Sanctus per Matthseum ait, quot- ing Matt. 1 : 18. 4 In 3 : 16, 8 and 1 : 16, 3 he also quotes 2 Jn. without dis- tinguishing it from 1 Jn. 5 In 4 : 16, 5 and 5 : 7,2. 6 4 : 20, 2 : cf. Eus. Hist. 6 : 8, 7. 48 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION founding the Church in Rome (60-67 a.d.). 1 After their decease Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached ; and Luke the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel while staying at Ephesus in Asia." 2 Clement of Eusebius, mindful of his " promise," reports to us Alexandria. finally the account f a n the New Testament writings as preserved in a work, now lost, of Tertullian's great contemporary, Clement of Alexandria. " Clem- ent gave," he says, "in the Hypotyposes, abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books — I refer to Jude and the other Catho- lic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter." But all he finds worthy of citation here is a rather forlorn attempt of Clement's to explain Hebrews as written by Paul in Hebrew and trans- lated by Luke. Paul refrained from signing his name out of consideration for the Hebrews. We understand the motive of this plea when we remember Tertullian's apology for citing this epistle to the Hebrews "from Barnabas " in spite of its non-apostolic origin. Else- where in the Hypotyposes Clement gave "the tradi- tion of the earliest presbyters " 3 as to the order of the Gospels : — " The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were writ- ten first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. 1 Irenseus makes the same effort as Tertullian to trace the Gospels to the Apostles themselves, but is unable to say that Matthew translated his own Gospel into Greek. 2 Her. 3:1, 1. In 3 : 11, 1 he tells us that John's Gospel was written "to correct the errors of Cerinthus." 3 In the Stromata 1 : 1 these "elders" are described as liv- ing in Ionia, Italy, Ccele-Syria, Egypt, Palestine, and the East. FORMATION OF THE CANON 49 As Peter had preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. 1 But last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and in- spired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel." 2 We see that the tradition as to the Gospels was Tradition in already stereotyped. As to the thirteen Pauline let- to° tl ^ D ' as ters, only a few heretics like Marcion rejected the epistles. Pastoral Epistles, while the growing tendency to make apostolicity the test of inspiration, cooperated with the general practice of public reading in the churches rapidly to raise them to the level of inspired Scrip- ture, along with Gospels and Apocalypses. A third " instrumentum," to adopt Tertullian's word, was nec- essary to accommodate the second part of Luke's " book," and still a fourth for 1 Peter and 1 John ; for the latter, while making no direct claim like 1 Peter to apostolicity, was as inseparable logically from the fourth Gospel as Acts from Luke. Por writings like Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 John, 3 John (superscribed "the Elder") which made no direct claim to apostolicity, and 2 Peter, whose claims though explicit, were very ill supported, the changed requirements created difficulties. Hebrews had such weighty support in ancient use that pretexts were found in the East, as in the case of the writings of 1 If Peter's attitude is taken toward the act of Mark, as the order suggests, and not toward the proposal only, it is both inexplicable in itself and flatly contradicts Irenseus. The qualifications of Mark here specified suggest that in its original form the tradition agreed with Irenaeus and the yev6fx.evos of Papias, inverting the order of the last two sentences. a Eus. Hist. 6 : 14, 1, 5, 6. 50 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Luke, for smuggling it in at the end of the Instrumen- tum Pauli. In the West it was reluctantly excluded. James was known anciently, but only locally ; when accepted, its author was identified with the Apostle, the son of Alphseus. The like may be said of Jude. Affinity with 1 John was the plea of 2 John and 3 John; for real tradition was silent. The Canon Tradition, legend, and inference from the text are j f Muraton. intermingled in the ancient fragment discovered by Gospels. Muratori, giving the list of writings in ecclesiastic use at Eome toward the close of the second century. It will show us, more graphically than description, what the Church had then come to regard as the origin and content of its New Testament Canon. It begins in the midst of a sentence relating to Mark. .... in some 1 (?) things, however, he participated, and has thus recorded them. The third book of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke com- piled in his own name from report, the physician whom Paul took with him after the ascension of Christ, as it were for a travelling companion : however he did not himself see the Lord in the flesh, and hence begins his account with the birth of John as he was able to trace (matters) up. 2 Of the fourth of the Gospels (the author is) John, one of the disciples. 8 At the instance of his fellow disciples and bishops he said, " Fast with me three days and whatever shall be revealed to each, let us relate it to one another." The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should write all in his own name, the rest revising. 4 . . . And 1 [alQ quibus interfuit. 2 This and the contemporary notice of Iren. 3: 1, 1 are the first direct ascriptions of Lk. and Acts to Luke (cf. Col. 4 : 14, Philem. 24, 2 Tim. 4 : 11). Eusebius adds {Hist. 3 : 4, 6), doubtless from ancient tradition, that he "was of Antiochian parentage." 8 Original : Quarti evangeliorum Johannes ex decipolis (sic). i A further elaboration of the tradition of Clement of Alex- andria above cited, probably based on Jn. 21 : 24, and here FORMATION OF THE CANON 51 therefore, although varying ideas may be taught in the several books of the Evangelists, there is no difference in that which pertains to the faith of believers, since by one sovereign Spirit in all are declared all things that relate to the nativity (of Jesus), his passion, resurrection, intercourse with his disciples, and concerning his twofold advent, the first in humble guise, which has taken place, the second splendid with royal power, which is yet to be. . . . What wonder, then, if John in his epis- 2. The tie also, speaking of his own authorship, so boldly advances Epistle of each detail, saying, "What we have seen with our eyes, and Acts of 1 have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these Luke. things we have written." x For thus he professes himself not only an eye-witness, but a hearer, yea, and a writer as well, of all the wonders done by the Lord in their order. But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in a single book. Luke relates them admirably 2 to Theophilus, confining himself to such as fell under his own notice, as he plainly shows by the omission of all reference either to the martyrdom of Peter or the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. 3 . . . But the letters of Paul themselves make known to those who 3. The would know both what they are, and from what place, on what Epistles of occasion they were sent. At considerable length he wrote to a ' the Corinthians first, forbidding schismatic divisions, then to the Galatians (forbidding) circumcision, and to the Romans (expounding) the general tenor of the Scriptures, showing, however, that Christ is the essence of their teaching ; to these (epistles) we must devote separate discussion ; 4 for the blessed perhaps taken from the Acts of John (160 a.d.). Clement and Irenseus preserve other and more trustworthy traditions as to the old age of John in Ephesus. Polycrates, writing to Victor of Rome in 185 a.d., at the age of sixty-five, appeals to "John, who was both a martyr (Rev. 1 : 9) and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord (Jn. 13 : 23), and being a priest wore the wtrakov, who fell asleep at Ephesus." Polycarp, Me- lito, and others were held to have been John's personal disciples. i 1 Jn. 1 : 1. 2 Optime Theophilo ; a misrendering of Kpdrtare Qe6ias and his Con- temporaries, 1899, and D. S. Muzzey's Bise of the New Testa- ment, 1900. PART II THE PAULINE EPISTLES CHAPTER III THE EPISTLES OF THE FIRST PERIOD : THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THES- SALONICA Tradition on Ancient tradition is unanimous in placing first of e thePauf- chronologically the Epistles of Paul, both as individual ine Epistles, writings and as a collection, though the superior au- thority of the Teachings of the Lord soon led to the placing of the Gospels first in the Canon. The mere fact that the epistles were earliest read in the churches, and thus soonest gathered into a collection, of course could not suffice to give them precedence over Mar- cion's single Gospel, much less at a later time over " the sacred quaternion." Sporadic modern attempts to find writings earlier than Paul's among the Catholic Epistles, 1 or elsewhere in the New Testament, have no support in ancient tradition, and are inherently im- probable as well as contrary to the indications of the text. The Muratorian fragmentist possessed no tradi- tion of the origin and occasion of the letters of Paul, 1 As B. Weiss, explaining the relation of 1 Pet. to Rom. and Eph. by dependence on the part of Paul (!), and others who apply similar reasoning to Jas. 64 THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 55 but had already observed that they are self-explana- tory on this score; the letters in turn explain the rise of a literature of this type in the Church, and the process cannot be inverted. The Canon of Marcion is proof positive of the collection having contained at least the ten letters accepted by him in 138 a.d. and earlier. But it is supposable that some portion even of this was of unauthentic material, so that in the case of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians, the two against which a scientific modern criticism still raises doubts, we must weigh both internal and external evidence. In the case of all we must look to "the letters themselves " to " know both what they are and from what place, on what occasion they were sent." The literary activity of Paul is separated into two Periods in well-marked periods. The great crisis to which he is yf nVs T looking forward in Kom. 15 : 25-33, resulted, as we career, know from the pen of a companion, in nearly three years of relatively close imprisonment, after which, though still a captive, his circumstances are changed, as well as the dangers that beset his churches, and therewith the character of the teaching by which he would defend them. The theory of Meyer and others, which assigns Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, if not Philippians as well, to the captivity of Csesarea rather than Eome, rests largely on the false reading iv 'E^eo-u in Eph. 1 : 1, and cannot adequately explain the Apostle's accessibility nor his confident expec- tation of release and promise of a visit, Philem. 22. These four, known as Epistles of the Captivity from the repeated allusions of the author to his bonds, were sent from Rome, three of them on a single occasion. The four which, from the time of the Muratorian frag- mentist down, have stood apart as the great doctrinal epistles, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ro- mans, belong to an earlier period, but are only disso- 56 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION ciated from the perhaps still earlier 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, by the accidental circnrnstance that in Thessalonica the difficulties grappled with were of a different and less serious character. These six might be classed together as the Missionary Epistles. Admitted With the unimportant exception of 2 Thessalonians, onh^maior no doubt exists to-day among scientific critics regard- epistles, ing the authenticity of any one of them, for indeed 1 Corinthians is referred to in 96 a.d. as written by Paul to Corinth, -and this and others of the group can be traced even further bant as employed by Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James. Moreover, the impression of vivid feeling, of intense and close relation to objective fact, produced by the writings themselves is corrobo- rated by the largely contemporary tradition of Acts, which shows just such combination of agreement in essentials and discrepancy in detail as we expect from honest witnesses. 1 For the circumstances of the Apostle during the critical years of his career between the cutting loose from his missionary base at Antioch and the carrying to Jerusalem of the first fruits of the Gentile churches founded by his independent efforts, we must refer to the lives of Paul, 2 preeminently to the autobiography 1 See Paley's Horce Paulines, still the best general statement of the agreement. As to the internal evidence it was Baur who said of these four : " They bear on themselves so incontestably the character of Pauline originality that it is not possible for critical doubt to be exercised upon them with any show of reason. ' ' 2 Besides that of Professor Rush Rhees in the present series, see those of Baur (Engl, tr.), Conybeare and Howson, Farrar, Lewin, Renan, (Engl, tr.), Sabatier, (Engl. tr. 1891), and O. Cone, 1898, with articles on Paul in B. D.'s and Enc.'s. New archaeological and geographical data of value have been contributed by Professor W. M. Ramsay, in the works below cited (p. 59, n. 1). THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 57 prefixed to his first great letter as a defence of his independent position. There is reason to regard Galatians as written in Galatians 50 a.d., earliest of all the epistles of Paul which have n. t. survived to us ; or, if not, as antedated only a few weeks wntin S- or months by 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Nothing in the epistle itself gives much indication of the place of writ- ing. Zahn infers, however, from 4 : 20, that the place was Corinth, because the readers require no explanation of Paul's inability to visit them, which could hardly have been the case at Antioch or Ephesus, the alterna- tive localities. 1 This early date is supported by the fact that Paul has but just heard the disheartening news which calls forth his mingled denunciation and pleading (1 : 6-10, 3 : 1-3, 4 : 19, 20). The time seemed to him marvellously short (1 : 6) for the change which had come over the Galatian churches since a second visit (4:13) he had made them, on which he and a companion apparently included in Paul's present cir- cle, though not participant in the letter, had warned them against the danger (1 : 9). 2 It was not so long after the agreement among the Apostles at Jerusalem regarding the freedom of Gentile converts from cir- cumcision and the Law, and the subsequent disagree- ment of Paul with Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, regarding the basis of table fellowship between cir- cumcised and uncircumcised Christians, but that a 1 Ramsay, Paul, p. 191, suggests Antioch, on occasion of Acts 18 : 23 ; McGiffert, Ap. Age, p. 226 1, Antioch on occasion of Gal. 2 : 11, -which is excluded by 4 : 13 rb irpdrepov. Older authorities say Ephesus, Acts 19 : 8-10. 2 Not "I reiterate," but "as we said before, so 7 now repeat." Barnabas, therefore, cannot well be meant (cf. 2: 13). Silas might be (Acts 15 : 40-16 : 6), especially as on Paul's first arrival in Corinth he was still in Macedonia (Acts 18 : 5). The previous warning by "us" must, therefore, be assigned to the visit of Acts 15 : 40-16 : 6. 58 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Its date and occasion. The churches of Galatia those of Acts 13 and 14. clear and explicit statement of the facts, however painful, should seem requisite to Paul. It was long enough after these events, related in their true order in Galatians c. 2, and somewhat more confusedly in Acts c. 15, for Paul's Judaising opponents to have distorted and misrepresented them in their endeavour to make proselytes of his converts. Indeed, Paul doubted if his statement were not already too late (4:11). All of these data are best accounted for on the sup- position that Paul had just completed the great jour- ney of evangelisation, which, beginning with a second visit to the churches of Southern Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 15 : 40-16 : 6), had led him across the Hellespont, through Macedonia and Achaia, and now had brought him to Corinth (Acts 18 : 1), whence communication with the Galatian churches by way of Ephesus would be relatively easy. 1 We take this to have been early in the spring of 50 a.d. 2 It is involved in the foregoing that " the churches of Galatia " (1 : 2) are the same whose foundation by Paul and Barnabas forms so conspicuous an element in the story of Acts, leading over directly in cc. 13, 14 to the great crisis in Jerusalem, c. 15 ; for the once dominant " North-Galatian " theory, which intercal- ated the evangelisation of Central Asia Minor in Acts 16 : 6 has no room for a second visit of Paul to Galatia 1 Zahn thinks that in 1 Thess. 1 : 8 we have actual evidence that news of Paul's work in Thessalonica had gone to Timo- thy's home in Lystra, and an answer been brought to Paul in Corinth. 2 Our chronology of Paul's career has been fully developed in a series of three articles delivered in 1897 to the Expositor, of which the first appeared in February, 1898, the other two in November and December, 1899. Somewhat similar results were obtained independently by C. H. Turner, art. ' ' Chrono- logy" in Hastings' Bible Die, 1898, TEE EABLIEST EPISTLES 59 until Acts 18 : 23. It is true that in Acts, Derbe, Lys- tra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13 : 14, 14 : 6) are not spoken of as Galatian, or, at most, are in- cluded in " the region which is Phrygian and Galatic " (rrjv $pvyiav kol TaXaTLKrjv x^P av ) ^ '• ^> vera lect.), and there are important authorities who consider it impos- sible that Paul should have addressed these converts, even if subsequent effort had extended the original field northward and eastward (Acts 16 : 6), as " men of Galatia" (Gal. 3:!). 1 But Paul's practice differs from Luke's in that he habitually employs Roman geographical terms rather than popular designations such as Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, and by Roman terminology these cities had been "Galatian" for seventy-five years. Other objections are insignificant as against the improbability that the historian of the transition of the Gospel from the Jewish to the Gen- tile world should have related at great length the evangelisation of four cities which had no particular connection with the great struggle, while overlooking entirely, or mentioning only in passing (Acts 16 : 6), that of the great province on whose behalf it was fought (Gal. 2 : 5). The indications of the epistle Indications are also more favourable to the South Galatian view. e p ^ t f e- While its recipients had been generally heathen (4 : 8), they were not remote from Jewish influence, and knew the Law in its Jewish interpretation (4:21). They had been converted by Paul (4 : 12-15, 19) in company with Barnabas, as we should judge from the frequent references (2 : 1, 9, 13) rather than Silas, whose name is not mentioned. They had received Paul "as an angel 1 The South Galatian theory was maintained hy Kenan, Weizsacker, Hausrath, and others against Lightfoot, Lipsius, and other eminent authorities. Of late Professor Ramsay has given it important new support in his Church in the Soman Empire, 1893, and Paul the Traveller, 1896. 60 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION of God " on this occasion (4 : 14; cf. 1 : 8 and Acts 14 : 11), though his visit had been caused by an infirmity of the flesh, such as might occasion hasty retirement from the unhealthy coast to the mountainous interior (Acts 13 : 13), but would not naturally lead to toil- some journeys over the vast plains of the interior, i.e. Northern Galatia, with only here and there a city where the Apostle's language would be understood. 1 It is then the same fickle multitude of Acts 14 : 8-20 which first received the Apostles as divine and next stoned them, of whose fickleness Paul has now again to complain; mongrel kinsmen of the same Jews whose persecutions drove him out thence (Acts 13:45, 14:19; cf. Gal. 6:12) are now by indirect influence seeking to filch from him the churches for whose liberty he suffers all. Paul's But the agitators who dogged his footsteps along and°their S the wn °l e roa( l from Antioch across Southern Galatia propaganda, to Ephesus, Corinth, and finally to Borne, 2 were Chris- tian Jews, at least in name (6 : 12 ; 2 Cor. 11 : 13, 22 f., Phil. 1 : 15) ; they called themselves " apostles of Christ," "ministers of Christ," and laid stress on having known him in the flesh, as against Paul's mere visions 3 (2 Cor. 5 : 12-17), and hinted that those " who were of repute," " pillars " in the mother church, had little sympathy with Paul. Their chief purpose was to maintain the prerogative of Israel in the Messianic kingdom (2 Cor. 11:22, Phil. 3:2) and the means 1 The language of Central Galatia was still Celtic in Jerome's day. 2 The traditional route of Gnosticism in the person of Simon Magus and his followers. 3 See the anti-Pauline passage Clem. Rom. 17 : 19 (170-200 a.d.). Paul's vision of Jesus is compared to Balaam's, to whom the angel came " as an adversary " (Nu. 22 : 22 f.). His speak- ing of Peter as " condemned " (naTe-yvuHxixivos, as in Gal. 2 . 11), is contrasted with Jesus' calling him "blessed" (Matt. 16 : 17). THE EARLIEST EPISTLES 61 to this end was of course to induce Gentile converts to pass under the yoke of Mosaism. With this all motive for persecution would cease (Gal. 6 : 12). If possible, the Gentiles should be persuaded to be cir- cumcised, though after the Jerusalem council (Acts 15 : 1-11, Gal. 2 : 1-10), this was no longer treated as essential, but as highly advantageous, on the plea that Paul himself still recommended it (Gal. 5 : 11 ; cf. Acts 16 : 3). Our epistle shows it to be only rec- ommended for "perfection" (3:3). Afterward it seems to have been entirely dropped; for, with all their pretence of devotion to the Law the Judaisers did not scruple to take liberties of their own with its requirements (Gal. 6 : 13), and were well aware that modifications were indispensable to that religious empire over the Gentile world of which they dreamed. 1 The immediate proximity of the Lycus valley, which Were they Paul on his second visit had been dissuaded from Asria" S ? fr ° m entering (Acts 16 : 6), and which he subsequently found infested with a superstitious type of syncretistic Jew- ish-Christian theosophy (Colossians c. 2), suggests this as the derivation of the interloping Galatian Judaisers, and this has some support in the hint of Gal. 3 : 19, 4 : 1-3, 8-11, that they commended the Mosaic ritual as a proper honour to elemental Beings and angels, as was the case at Colossae and Laodicea (Col. 2 : 1, 8-10, 16-20). 2 1 The missionary zeal of the Pharisees rivalled that of the Church in intensity (Matt. 23 : 15) , and was by no means unready to make concessions, in particular as to circumcision (Jos. Ant. 20 : 2, 4) and the sacrificial system (Mk. 12 : 33). Their rage was excited by Paul's abolition of Jewish prerogative. 2 Por the aroixela toO K6 back from Athens after receiving his report of the trials the infant church was undergoing, to comfort them (1 Thess. 3:1-5). A fuller account of the cir- cumstances can be had by comparing the slightly dis- crepant statements of Acts 17 : 1-10 ; 18 : 1, 5 with 1 Thess. 1 : 1, 5, 7, 8 ; 2:9; 3 : 1-6. 2 A promised visit had been frustrated, the persecuting Jews making the fact a basis for slander which Paul must meet. Tim- othy's report had been highly encouraging (3 : 6 f .), though there is room " to perfect that which is lacking in their faith." Morally Paul urges only the matter of purity and the general obligation of love and mutual helpfulness (4 : 1-12). Doctrinally they as Greeks are Doctrinal naturally in need of explanation of his teaching as to the bodily resurrection (cf. 1 Cor. c. 15), deaths clear that they had assured him of their prayers in his behalf, as requested 1 Thess. 5 : 25. 1 See the art. by R. Harris in Expositor, January, 1899, and note the /cat ij/xeTs 1 Thess. 2 : 13. 2 Acts gives a wrong impression (i) of the proportion of Jews, a result of the author's pragmatism ; (ii) of the time spent (17:2); cf. Phil. 4: 16, and the evidences of development in 1 Thess. 2 : 8-11, 17-20 ; 3 : 5-10 ; (iii) Acts 17 : 14-16 ; 18 : 5 omits a journey of Timothy to Athens and back ; cf. 1 Thess. 3:1-6. 74 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Occasion of 2 Thess. Doctrinal content. having occurred in the church. Paul appeals to the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 10 : 39 ? ) regarding the equal share in the kingdom of those who die before the Second Coming, following this with a typical Jewish representation of the scenes of the Judgment Day, which will overtake the unbelieving world as a thief (Lk. 12 : 39 f . ; 17 : 26-30 ; Eev. 3 : 3). Christians will watch and be sober, not taken unaware, however sud- den the Coming of the Lord. Concluding exhortations look especially to church discipline and the moderation of a somewhat inflammatory " spirit of prophecy." A further link in the correspondence is 2 Thessalo- nians; for while the amanuensis may have been dif- ferent, 1 the senders (Paul, Silas, and Timothy) are the same, and the situation merely a little later in time, enough for word back and forth (1:11; 3 : 1, 4). 2 The opening thanksgiving and prayer 3 (combined as in 1 Thess. 1:2; Col. 1:3, 9; Eph. 1:3 ff., 15; Phil. 1:3 f.) are for the continued growth of the church in faith and love, despite persistent persecu- tion. They foreshadow, characteristically, the main subject, the Day of the Lord. The main occasion of the letter appears in c. 2. The notion was current " whether through spirit (i.e. utterance of a local ' prophet ' ; cf. 1 Thess. 5 : 19 f.), or report, or letter purporting to be from those with 1 Slight peculiarities of language are noted, as eix a P l < rTe ^ v 6\66vTa. (2) Our 1 Corinthians. (3) The painful letter of forced self-commendation, 2 Cor. 10 : 1-13 : 10 plus. (4) Our 2 Corinthians, less the exceptions noted. The storm and stress of the first period are over in The Epistle the great letter by which the Apostle to the Gentiles ^ ^ns prepares for a new basis of mission work in the centre of the world-empire. It is early in 55 a.d., toward .), and others to Renan's argument, that it " rests on three names only out of twenty-six," assumes that he appeals to none save such as can be connected with Ephesus. But it appears that besides Prisca, Aquila, and Epametus, Paul must have been intimately associated with at least Andronicus, Junias, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Rufus, and his mother, all of whom, consequently, must have gone to Rome from some unspecified place in Paul's field of labour. Ten names indicate a different place from Rome, three of them define it as Ephesus. 2 If the names should be deemed conclusive evidence of a Roman destination, Rom. 16 might better be taken as a product to Ephesus. LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 103 external, that not all which in our texts follows after chapter 15 was originally addressed to Rome. It may- be that our thanks are due to some unknown Corin- thian copyist, whose zeal led him, after completing his real task, to append what more he found before him in the same hand, though of a different and more familiar character, including fragments of a separate letter. That which remains shows it to have been addressed Addressed to a church endeared to Paul by years of arduous, but richly fruitful labour, amid a host of helpers; a church probably of Asia (vs. 5), where he had been impris- oned (vs. 7), where were Prisca and Aquila, who had laid down their necks for his life (vs. 4; cf. 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:8-11), where there were also, how- ever, " division and occasions of stumbling," pretended servants of Christ who "served their own belly," and violent opposition of Satan (vss. 17-20; cf. 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Tim. 2:15 ff . ; Acts 20:29; Eev. 2:2, 6, etc.), pretence of wisdom, without moral earnestness (vs. 19; cf. Pastoral Epistles and 1 John j)assim) against which the church must be fortified by an understand- ing of the great mystery revealed in Christ of the eternal purpose of God in creation and redemption (vss. 25-27; see on Eph.). This church can scarcely be other than Ephesus. The wide acknowledgment won in modern times by Schulz's theory of Rom. 16 as such a fragment, 1 is largely due to the support of textual evidence. Even Hort 2 cannot believe that the doxology, 16 : 25-27, of the unknown period assumed as that of the Pastoral Epistles, when Paul might have such knowledge of conditions in Rome ; cf. vs. 18 with Phil. 3 : 18 f. and vss. 25-27 with Tit. 1 : 1-3, and note vs. 7. 1 Schulz (1829) was followed by many, including more recently Lipsius, Weizsacker, and McGiffert. 2 See for the textual discussion the essays of Lightfoot and 104 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION which in some manuscripts is wanting, in others vari- ously placed, genuine as it is, could ever have belonged in the letter to Borne. The R. V. rightly omits verse 24. On the other hand, the second century text which The doxol- ended the epistle with 14 : 23, or with the doxology, fr g a y gment her 16:25-27, appended at that point, 1 certainly cut off too much, 2 whether from doctrinal prejudice (Mar- cion) or possibly through variant tradition. The question is too abstruse for details, 3 but textual evi- dence alone will prove that early editors of Romans were embarrassed by a surplus of material in these closing chapters. 4 Perhaps the disordered fragments, 5 16 : 1-16, 17-20, 21-23, 25-27, of a simultaneous lost letter to Ephesus, appended by the copyist at Corinth, were recognised as unconnected with the main epistle when this form came to be compared with that pre- served at Rome. The influence of this fact, combined with Marcion's arbitrary mutilation 6 of chapter 15, Hort, Journ. of Philol. ii, iii, reprinted in Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374. 1 So Marcion, as reported by Origen and Tertullian, also cod. Ainiatinus and cod. Fuld. 2 14 : 23 is an impossible ending, and the appending of 16 : 25-27 is no real improvement. 15 : 3-6 looks like a duplicate of 7-13, as if a discarded page had been accidentally included ; but 15 : 1 f., 7-13 is indispensable to c. 14, as 15 : 14-33 is indis- pensable to 1 : 10-15, and to the epistle as a whole. 3 Fuller discussion in my art. in Journ. of Bibl. Lit. for 1899. 4 Rom. stood last in the early canon of Paul's letters to the Seven Churches (Murat. Can., p. 50). This position may help to explain the fragments added in c. 16. 5 Verses 17-20 cannot belong to Rom., which neither displays knowledge of local conditions, nor assumes authority ; nor to c. 16 as it stands. Verses 25-27 form an anacoluthon. No place at all can be found for them. There is affinity with Rom., but more with Eph. (cf. Rom. 8 : 18-39 ; Eph. 3 : 5 f., 9 : 20 f.j Tit. 1 : 2 f.). 6 Origen "dissecuit." LETTERS TO CORINTH AND ROME 105 inight lead to a limited currency of the form lacking chapters 15, 16. The longer form, however, would soon triumph, not merely because of the invariable tendency of longer texts to supersede briefer rivals, but because of the heretical taint which, in this case, could not fail to cling to the shorter. 1 1 On Eom. see especially Sanday and Headlam, Internat. Com- mentary Series, pp. xiii-cix ; also Godet's Commentary (Engl. 2 1892) and J. Morison's three monographs on Rom. 3, Eom. 9, and Rom. 6. On 1 and 2 Cor. see Meyer's Commentary, 5 1869 (Engl. 1884), and Godet's (Engl. 1886). It is needless to repeat references to the special articles in standard Bible Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias such as the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible and Cbeyne's Encyclox>ccdia Biblica and to special treatises in well-known commentaries covering the entire N. T., such as the Pulpit Commentary or The Expositors. See above, p. 79. CHAPTEE Y THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY The Caesar- The long and, to Paul (Bom. 15 : 25-33), momen- uTa C period tous P er i° c l on which so full a light is shed by the of silence. record of a companion (Acts 20-28), affords us not a word from his pen. 1 Whether Paul's hopeful confi- dence (Kom. 15:29) in a removal of misunderstand- ings and reunion of the church by this visit was justified, we must judge by the tone of his subse- quent letters. Here it is not merely the disappearance of the hith- erto constant need of mediating between the " strong " and the " weak " on the matter of " the pollutions of idols," and of all traces of further real danger from the Judaisers, 2 which convinces us that Paul was not disappointed; but more especially the note of triumphant joy in the unity of the Church character- istic of the letters which immediately follow, and which in Ephesians is dominant, rising repeatedly into prolonged rhapsodies (1:3-14, 18-23; 2:13-22; 3:5-11; 4:4-16; 5:25-30; cf. Col. 1:18-25). The common occasion to which we owe the three connected letters, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 As to the view which places the writing of Eph., Col., Phil em. in Csesarea, see above, p. 55. 2 Phil. 1 : 18 shows their malignity in Eome to be harmless ; 3 : 2 ff. is a recapitulation of former warnings. In 18 f. it appears that he is speaking not because of conditions in Philippi, but because of past experience ; cf . 3 : 19 with Rom. 16 : 18. 106 THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 107 is best seen in Philemon, the engaging note of Paul to Occasion of a personal friend and fellow-worker, bespeaking a andcom- kindly reception for the bearer, Onesimus, Philemon's panion runaway slave, whom Paul would gladly have retained epls es ' in his own service ; for in the comparative freedom of his Roman imprisonment (Acts 28 : 30 f . ; cf . 24 : 23) he had both won him to the faith, and begun to love him as his "very heart," his "child begotten in his bonds." With a gentle playfulness (vs. 11) he pleads with Philemon to treat Onesimus "no longer as a slave, but a beloved brother in the Lord." Paul engages personally to repay any loss incurred through Onesimus, but hints that his own scrupulousness in returning the runaway should meet the Christian return of renunciation of ownership by Philemon; though Paul will not enjoin it, knowing that Philemon will do even beyond the letter of the request (v. 21). The household includes an Apphia, Philemon's wife, and Archippus, his son, besides a "church" among the retinue of clients, freedmen, and slaves. In Col. 4 : 9, 17 ; Philem. 2, it appears that Archippus is minister of this church, which is one of the two or more (Col. 4 : 15) in Colossae founded by Paul's present Colossian fellow-prisoner, Epaphras (Col. 1:7 v.L). Hence, Philemon will have been converted in Ephesus (Philem. 19; Col. 2:1; cf. Acts 19:10). Paul is in company with Timothy (Philem. 1) and Circum- Epaphras, who is greatly exercised for the Colossians p^ 68 and for the adjoining churches of Hierapolis and Laodicea. Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Acts 20 : 4), another fellow-prisoner, Mark, who also is leaving for Proconsular Asia, and Jesus Justus, three Jews who, in contrast with the rest (cf . Phil. 1 : 15-18 ; 2 : 21), are a help and comfort to Paul, are with him. Demas, as yet still faithful (cf . 2 Tim. 4 : 10), and Luke, a "beloved physician," two Gentile fellow-workers, also 108 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION send greetings (Philem. 23 f. ; Col. 4: 10-14). Tychi- cus of Asia (Acts 20: 4) and Onesimus are the bearers (Col. 4:7-9). Paul is hoping soon to be released and to visit Asia in person (Philem. 22; cf. Phil. 2:24). The absence of any mention in this group, Ephe- sians, Colossians, Philemon, of the earthquake which, according to Tacitus (Ann. 14 : 27), reduced Laodicea, in 60 a.d., to ruins (Eusebius, however, dating the overthrow of all three cities of Col. 4 : 13 in 64), con- firms our early dating of Paul's imprisonment in Eome (58-60 a.d.), for his arrival cannot have been recent, his correspondents being informed in general as to his circumstances. Analysis of It is noteworthy that even so brief a letter as Ft^genuine- P n ^ emon conforms to the regular epistolary forms, as ness. follows : — i. Salutation, 1-3. ii. Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer, 4-7. iii. Principal Subject (commendation of Onesimus), 8-22. iv. Greetings and Benediction, 23-25. Baur himself half apologises for the really mon- strous suggestion that it is the work of an ecclesias- tical forger of the second century, inditing a romance in the interest of his views on the slavery question. Fortunately, to-day not even the necessity of acknowl- edging the genuineness of the connected elements of Colossians can restrain the most radical Tubingen critics from recognition of its inimitable genuineness. The connection of Colossians with Ephesians is so intimate that we must discuss their occasion and content together. The emphatic position of the contrasted pronouns in THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 109 Col. 1:9; Eph. 1:15; 6:21/ with, some other data Eph. and indicates that Paul had received a letter from the r e °pheg e t0 Colossians, probably including messages from the letters, adjoining churches of the Lycus Valley (2:1; 4:16; cf . Eph. 1 : 15) ; for Colossians was accompanied by another letter which would reach Colossee from Laodi- cea, and the two were to be exchanged (Col. 4:16). Colossians, accordingly, will have supplemented the generalities of this circular letter. Eor the latter was designed for churches of which Paul had even less personal knowledge than of Colossse (Col. 2:1; cf . 1:7 f.), and could not therefore be made adequately specific in application to special conditions at Colossse, of which Paul knew through Epaphras (Col. 4:12 f.). Now it is a strong support for the identification of Ephesians with this circular, which was to reach Colossse "from Laodicea," that its outline, thought, and even much of its phraseology are identical with Colossians except for the paragraphs Col. 2 : 1-3 : 4 and 4 : 9-18, which are respectively a reply to local heretics and Paul's greeting to local friends. In Ephesians the thought appears in expanded form. This common plan is as follows : — Analysis of the two i. Salutation, Eph. 1 : 1 f. =Col. 1 : 1 f. ii. Epistolary Thanksgiving and Prayer, Eph. 1:3- 3: 21 = Col. 1:3-29. a. Thanksgiving for God's precreative choice of his 1 Thus Eph. 6:21: "Iva S£ eiS^-re /cat vp.e?s to. kclt' £fj.{, rl Trpdacro), must be rendered in strictness : "But that ye may be informed of my affairs, ye also of mine (sc. as I have been of yours)." Similarly 1 : 15 icayd> . . . virkp ifiuv, and Col. 1 : 9 kclI -rj/xeTs . . . virep vfiQv, " / (toe) too . . . on your behalf." The information conveyed is also alluded to in Eph. 1:15; Col. 1 : 4 (but cf. 8), 6 ; 2 : 5-7, 16, 20 ; 4 : 10 ; the expressions of sympathy are met in Eph. 3 : 13 ; 6 : 22 ; Col. 1 : 24 ; 2 : 2 ; 4 : 8. See the art. by H. B. Swete, Expositor, December, 1898. 110 NEW TESTAMENT INTBODUCTION people in the person of their Head, and revelation in him of this solution of the mystery of being, Eph. 1 : 3-14. (In Col. 1 : 3-8 for the good report of Epaph- ras as to the Colossians.) b. Prayer for their mental enlargement to appre- ciate the greatness of this divine calling, which historically is revealed in the adoption of a united people of God, Jewish and Gentile, whose separation has been overcome by Christ, Eph. 1:5-23; 2:1-10, 11-22 = Col. 1:9-23. c. (Peculiar to Ephesians, but cf. Col. 1:24-29 with Eph. 3:1-13.) Repetition of the prayer, with special digression for the benefit of such as may not be familiar with Paul's "revelation of the mystery." Doxology, Eph. c. 3. iii. Doctrinal Section (peculiar to Colossians). Refutation of the theosophic speculations and asceticism of the false teachers at Colossse by an application of the "Mystery of God," who, before creation, chose Christ to be head of the universe, in whom we died to this world and rose to the heavenly, Col. 2 : 1-3 : 4. (Much of the doctrine included in Ephesians under § ii.) iv. Practical Application, Eph. 4: 1-6: 20= Col. 3:5-4:6. a. (Peculiar to Ephesians.) Hence, the charis- mata are to be used for edification of Christ's body, Eph. 4:1-16. b. The fleshly life must be superseded by the Christ-life with its characteristics of purity and love, Eph. 4: 17-5: 21 = Col. 3:5-17. c. And individual propensity curbed by the mutual subordinations of the divine social organism, Eph. 5:22-6: 9 = Col. 3:18-4:1. d. General exhortation to prayer and watchfulness, Eph. 6: 10-20= Col. 4:2-6. THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 111 v. Personal Epistolary Matters and Farewell, Eph. 6: 21-24= Col. 4:7-18. Paul may almost be said, in Eph. 1 : 3-3 : 21 ( = Col. Character 1 : 3-29), to have " cast his remarks into the form of of Eph^ Ct a prayer," for the false teachers are wholly in the background (5 : 6), and the reason for the special sub- ject of thanksgiving and prayer is only perceived by comparing Colossians. Paul aims at a deeper ground- ing of the faith of his correspondents by an adequate apprehension of the cosmic character of the redemp- tion. Christ and the Church, mutually complementary as male and female in the ideal Adam of Gen. 1 : 27, or as head and body, both together in their ideal supremacy the complement of the Creator, give the key to the problem of the universe. The long hidden mystery of God's design in creation (Eph. 3 : 9-11 ; Col. 1 : 26 f . ; cf . Rom. 16 : 25-27) may be expressed in the one word euoWa (Eph. 1:5, 9; Col. l:19), a the preordaining choice by the Creator of a Being comple- mentary to himself (Eph. 1:9-11; Col. 1:15-19). For in behalf of, unto, and through this Son, the archetypal Man, made in God's image, the entire creation, heavenly and earthly, personal and imper- sonal, was produced (Gen. 1:27 f.) that ultimately it might be subject unto him (Eph. 1:22; cf. 1 Cor. 15 : 27 f . ; Heb. 2 : 5-8). But this precreative choice of the Son making him "the first-born of all creation (Col. 1 : 15-17) involved as his complement a redeemed 1 For a discussion of the sense of this technical term, as con- nected with the title 6 'AyaTnjrds (=6 'E/cXeXeY/x^os Lk. 9 : 35) here (Eph. 1 : 6) and in Matt. 12 : 18 ; also with Lk. 2 : 14 (" the men rijs evdoKias 1 ' 1 i.e. God's elect), the Voice from Heaven, Mk. 1 : 11, also Matt. 17 : 5; Mk. 9 :7 ; Lk. 9 : 35; 2 Pet. 1 : 17, see my art. "On the aorist 61)56/070-0," Journ. of Bibl. Lit.., 1897. Cf. also Acts 9 : 22 (Western text). 112 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Christ and his people heirs of the universe. The Colos- sian heresy. people as his bride, the Church (Eph. 5:23-32). Christ, as manifested in the glorified body, must be identified with this archetypal, ideal Man, and is actually subduing all powers both of earth and heaven. The Church, chosen by God in him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4 f.), is this bride; a new people of God's own possession, joint heirs with Christ of the world (Eph. 1: 18-22; Eom. 4: 13; 8:17; Gal. 4:7; Heb. 1:2, etc.). This people of God is not Jewish only, but as now seen in the working out of the redemptive process, both Jewish and Gentile (Eph. c. 2; cf. Rom. cc. 9-11; Gal. 3:26-29). The evoWa, therefore, or primeval purposive choice of the Creator, contemplating "the Beloved," and us his redeemed people "in him," is the key to the eternal mystery of creation and redemption; and it has been placed by Jesus in the hands of his Apostles and saints (Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:27). Christ, its head, is the explanation of creation; for the universe, visible and invisible, material and personal, is both "from him and unto him " (Col. 1: 15-19; cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). The Church is the explanation of God's redemptive work- ing in history : for it is its intended outcome ; the body of Christ, complementary to him as both together are the complement (TrX^pw/Ma) of God (Col. 1 : 19 f . ; cf . 1 Cor. 3:22 f.). This comprehensive outlook over all time, all space, all being, is Paul's revelation of the mystery of the eternal purpose of the Creator which he purposed in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:9-11); and he rightly judges it to be worthy of most strenuous prayer on behalf of his readers, that their mental and spir- itual capacity may be enlarged to take it in (Eph. 1:17-19; 3:14-19; Col. 1:9; 2:1-3). After this sublime cosmology, overburdening and bursting through the framework of doxology and prayer with which he had begun, Paul introduces in THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 113 Col. c. 2, the special adaptation of his thought to local conditions. Agents of a Judaistic (vs. 16) theosophy had found congenial soil for their proselytising work in Phrygian Asia, ancient home of mysticism and eclectic theosophy. Their commendation of circum- cision (cf. vs. 11, "ye also"), the Law (vs. 14), Sab- baths and other holy days (vs. 16), recalls the Judaisers of Galatians. But we have something more here than mere Pharisaic nomism. There was discrimination of meats and drinks with an ascetic instead of cere- monial purpose (vss. 21-23). The Old Testament ordinances were supplemented by " precepts and doc- trines of men," which Paul calls "will-worship," as he would not call the prescribed worship of the Law. These observances they commended as properly due to the angelic and elemental Powers * through whom the Law was given (cf. Gal. 3:19; 4:1-3, 8-11; Acts 7:42 f., 53; Heb. 2:5), and with whom the adept entered into communication (vs. 18), so that the unique lordship of the Son of Man was obscured, if not denied (vss. 8-10, 19). "We see, in fact, the begin- nings of that amalgamation of Judaism with Gnos- ticism, which, entering perhaps by the avenue of Essene 2 sects, was already seeking to rival or supplant Christianity in the religious conquest of the world (Tit. 1:10-16). The knowledge that such conditions were present Eph. reflects may have affected the more general letter in its treat- |\tions. C ° n ~ 1 The " Elements of the world " both here and in Gal. 4 : 3, 8 f. are semi-personal, consistently with the general type of Oriental cosmologies ; for a description see Rev. 4 : 6 f. and cf . Herm. Vis. 3 : 13, 3 and the passages adduced by Everling, Paulin. Angelol. u. Damonol., 1888. 2 See Lightfoot's Colossians, § ii, The Colossian Heresy, and Dissertations 1-3 on Essenism. Also Friedlander's Der vor- christliche Gyiosticismus der Juden, 1898. 114 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION ment of the theme (cf . Eph. 4 : 14 ; 5 : 6) ; * but the author only interjects at this point his rhapsody on the organic unity of the Church, whose current of life is the Spirit flowing from the ascended Christ (4:1-16). The practical section in both epistles (Eph. 4 : 17- 6 : 20 ; Col. 3 : 1-4 : 6) is specially close in connection. Mutual love and purity belong to the Christian's spirit as against the darkness and lust of heathenism, with joy of the inward man as against enjoyment for the outward (Eph. 4: 17-5: 21 = Col. 3:1-17). The domestic relations are to be held sacred, as a type of the organism of the divine kingdom (Eph. 5 : 22-6 : 9 = Col. 3 : 18-4 : 1), and constant watchfulness and prayer, including prayer for Paul, are enjoined (Eph. 6:10-20 = Col. 4:2-6). Tychicus, the bearer, will give them news from Paul (Eph. 6: 21 f. =Col. 4:71). Original Thus, the difference between the two epistles is address of obviously one of Paul's relation to the readers. In Ephesians Paul thinks of the universal Church; in Colossians, of the church of Epaphras. The complete absence of any local colour in Ephesians would be enough in itself to discredit the title " to the Ephe- sians, " to say nothing of 1 : 15, " Having heard of your faith," 3:2; 4:21, 22, "if indeed ye have heard," and other positive indications that Paul is addressing strangers (cf. Acts 20:18 ff., 31). These phenomena are borne out against the early tradition by the textual evidence, which shows conclusively 1 So the reiterated representation of Christ and his people as superior to all angelic and demonic Powers 1 : 10, 20-22 ; 2 : 1 f., 6 ; 3 : 10, 14 ; 4 : 9 f. ; 6 : 12. In Col. this is made even more dis- tinct. The highest ranks of angels owe to Christ both their creation and redemption, 1 : 16 f., 20 ; 2 : 8-10, 18 f. ; for with Paul the drama of redemption includes angels as well as men, 2 : 15 ; cf. Eph. 3 : 10 ; 1 Tim. 5 : 21 ; Heb. 1 : 2-14 ; 2 : 5-8. Eph. THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 115 that the copies in circulation during the second and third centuries had not the words iv 'E<£eo-a> in 1:1. Certain " recent manuscripts " referred to by Basil in the latter half of the fourth century are the earliest to which the words can be traced. The ancient reading is interpreted by most of the Fathers and by some modern scholars " the saints who are " (really such), or " who are also faithful." Other modern scholars, beginning with Archbishop Ussher (1650), supposed the Apostle to have left a blank, the letter having been intended for a number of churches, and the bearer being authorised to insert in each locality the proper name. All attempts to translate without a geographi- cal term are excluded by the fact that Paul does not address this letter, nor others, to classes distinguished by moral character, but to localities (6:21; cf. Col. 1: l). 1 The blank theory is too modern, and does not account for the textual history. The surest clew is in the fact that in Marcion's text To the Laodiceans — by far the earliest of which we have any knowledge a] — the epistle was entitled " To the Laodiceans." Ter- others, tullian, who informs us of the fact, insinuates that Marcion was giving himself airs as a diligentissimus explorator; but it is not likely that Marcion drew the inference from Col. 4: 16, which does not speak of an epistle to, but an epistle from Laodicea. Probably a variant tradition was current in his Phrygian home. Proconsular Asia was certainly the region to which Tychicus bore the letter. Hence, Ephesus would be visited on the way. Col. 4 : 16 is highly favourable to the idea that Laodicea was one of the churches for which it was intended (cf. Gal. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1). In that case, Hierapolis and Colossse would be included 1 Against T. K. Abbott, Internat. Crit. Commentary, p. 2. The interpretation adopted by him makes ofoiv superfluous. 116 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION Early attes- tation of Eph. Genuine- ness. in the perhaps unfamilar geographical term now lost, for which h 'E^eVa) has been substituted in the later texts. The substitution, first in tradition 1 and ulti- mately in the text itself, was of course due to the prominent position of Ephesus, from whence copies of the letter would generally be derived. We have seen that Ephesians is surpassed by scarcely another New Testament writing besides 1 Corinthians in explicit attestation from the earliest times; for the allusion in Ignatius ad Eph. 12 (ovfjLfjLvo-TaL), while precarious in itself, becomes a probable allusion to Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9, etc., when the wide circulation of this epistle from the very beginning is considered. 2 " From this evidence," says Abbott, " it is all but certain that the epistle already existed about 95 a.d. (Clement), quite certain that it existed about 110 a.d." All this without taking account of its admitted influence on New Testament writings. For granting that Col. 4 : 16 may refer to some unknown letter, and not to this which so well suits the case, Holtzmann himself would be the last to deny that 1 Peter, John, and 1 John show familiarity with its doctrine of Christ and the Church. 3 But with the example of Hebrews 1 Even the Fathers, who are ignorant of any iv 'E^crcp in the text, regard the letter as written to Ephesus. 2 For we have indisputable employment in Clement of Rome, c. 36 (cf. Eph. 1 : 19), c. 38 (Eph. 5 : 21), c. 46 (cf. Eph. 4 : 4-6), c. 64 (cf. Eph. 1:4, 5), probable use in Aid. 4 : 10, 11 and Barn. 19 : 7 (cf. Eph. 6 : 9, 5), also in Ign. ad Eph., c. 1 (Eph. 1 : 1 ff. ; 5 : 1), c. 6 (Eph. 6 : 11), c. 9 (Eph. 2 : 20-22), and ad Polyc. 5 (Eph. 5 :29), unquestionable use in Polyc. ad Phil., c. 1 (Eph. 2:5,8, 9) and c. 12 (Eph. 4 : 26) , with increasing familiarity in later writers. 3 We may cite in general the "high Christology " of all the Johannine writings as depending on Eph. and Col., butcf. Eph. 2 :21 f. with Jn. 2 : 19-21 ; Eph. 4 : 10 with Jn. 3 : 13 ; Eph. 5 : THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY 117 before us, it will not do to say that the age from 75-100 to which Holtzmann assigns it was incapable of pro- ducing so splendid a reproduction of Pauline thought. Against so able and careful a scholar one cannot ven- ture to say that some such masterful unknown genius might not have elaborated a pseudo-Pauline letter by a process of minutely imitative modelling on the basis of Colossians, and subsequently have expanded the model itself by loans from his copy, so as to produce the appearance of dependence on both sides. To put his twin letters in circulation without exciting a ripple of suspicion, even when Ephesians was so promptly seized on by the Valentinians in support of Gnostic speculations, may also be deemed a possibility. But to find a motive sufficient to induce a teacher of such fervid genius to condescend to such slavish toil, even if to that age less dishonest than to ours, when without any such false pretence his doctrine would be scarcely less acceptable and incomparably more unfettered, this is a task indeed! It behooves us to scrutinise the grounds which are held to make this needful. 1. The vague historical situation. But this ceases Objections to be incongruous or incomprehensible as soon as the ^General- corrupt reading iv 'E<£eo-o> is abandoned and the circular ising char- character of the letter recognised. Local colour should ac er * be wanting if, as assumed, this be the letter "from Laodicea." 2. The objective way in which the author speaks 2. "The of himself and " the Apostles " (2 : 20; 4 : 11). But in ipJ stl e Si » so far as it differs from the Pauline manner (cf . 1 Cor. etc. 3 : 10 ; 12 : 28) it may be accounted for by the lack of 13 f. with Jn. 3 : 19-21, and see Intern. Comm. on Eph. and Col., T. K. Abbott, 1897, p. xxviii. The basis of N. T. cosmological Christology can be nothing else but Pauline (cf . Heb. 1 : 1-2 : 15 with 1 Cor. 15 : 24-28, and Kev. 22 : 13 with Col. 1 : 15). 118 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION concrete relations. In 3: 1-3, 7; 4:1; 6:20 we have indeed the effort to create snch a concrete relation, and that by virtue of the claim to a position among the consecrated Twelve (3: 5), 1 as a sharer in the great revelation; nay, as having been peculiarly entrusted with an essential part of its content. But with proper rendering this cannot be deemed un-Pauline (cf . 1 Cor. 9:1 ff . ; 15:3-11), unless we ignore Paul's reverence for his office and longing for solidarity with the Twelve in the view of Christians to him unknown. Neither is there vanity in 3 : 4, which if it refers to 2 : 11-22 is only concerned with a divinely granted insight, not the result of Paul's own powers, nor overwrought modesty in 3:8, considering the inten- tion of the paradox. 3. The high 3. The exalted Christology might seem incredible Christoiogy. at g0 early a per i 0( j ^ ut f or fae simple fact that in every essential feature it is corroborated in undeni- ably genuine passages. Disregarding the parallels in Colossians, as disputed, we find the same conception of Christ as preexistent in 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2: 5-11; as the image of God, archetype of redeemed human- ity, in Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; as be- ginning and end of creation in association with God in 1 Cor. 8:6; 15 : 22-28 ; as lord of all created being in heaven and earth and under the earth, triumphant over angelic and demonic Powers in Phil. 2: 9-11; 1 Cor. 15 : 24 ff . ; as agent of a cosmic redemption in Eom. 8: 19-22. And this is but the negative half of 1 This verse is the equivalent of vs. 10 and Col. 1 : 26. "The saints" as a whole are entrusted with the revelation, but more especially those particular "saints who are Apostles and proph- ets" (&ywi &Tr6o-To\oi ko.1 irpo