|| Did the Term “The Gospel” | Originate with Paul: By | Orville Anderson Petty nee BS2385 2.P49 New Haven ly fc Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY Cb PRESENTED BY Mrs. Orville Petty | = > ne ate aM AP i = at et ala Did the Christian Use of the Term TO evayyédov | Originate with Paul? Mn Essay By Orville Anderson Petty, Ph.D., D.D. New Haven 1925 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COPYRIGHT, 1925, By ORVILLE ANDERSON PETTY Norwood Jpress J.8,. Cushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co, Norwoed, Mass., U.8.A. Did the Christian Use of the Term 73 ebayyéduop Originate with Paul? UR canonical Gospels do not individually carry the term TO evayyéAvov as a part of the title in the earliest Mss., unless the superscription “Apy7 Tod evayyeriov “Incod Xpiotov of Mark 1:1 is regarded as a secondary title under cata papxov. Even the briefer form of these titles (superscriptions and over the pages) as cata pabGaiov (the cata implying comparison ), for example, was an addition in each case to the original autograph. Codex Sinaiticus has this shorter subscription (first of Matthew missing) where Codex Alexandrinus has the subscription evayyédtov kata pabbaiov. An examination of the oldest manuscripts reveals the fact that even the shorter titles, kata pabbaiov, cata papKov, etc., have been added since these manuscripts were made. We find evayyéda as ap- plied to our Four Gospels for the first time in Justin Martyr (First Apology, chapter 66). Eusebius is the first writer to mention the Diatessaron of Tatian (H E IV. 36). It is probable, though not certain, that the original title (Greek (?) or Syriac) stood, ‘“*The Gospel of Jesus Christ by means of the Four.” (CEvayyédov *Incod Xpictod 76 dia tecodpwv.) The work is generally cited, however, by the shorter title, “Diatessaron” (in Syriac). In the Didache, “according to the decree of the gospel” (XI: 3), ‘tas ye have it in the gospel” (XV:38) and “as ye have it in the gospel of our Lord” (XV:4) probably refer to a written source. When these stories of Jesus (our canon- ical Gospels) were written 76 evayyéAtov had not yet been extended to mean a writing,— unless the superscription, Mark 1:1, may be so regarded. Do the New Testament 1 2 DID TO evayyédLov writings in the body of the teat indicate another type of ex- tension in the use of the term? When did the term “the gospel” arise and what steps are revealed in its employ- ment by New Testament writers? The term 76 evayyéAvov occurs frequently in Paul and “Pauline” letters but only in two Gospels and that spar- ingly. It is not found in Luke’s Gospel nor in John’s Gospel or Johannine epistles. It occurs twice in Acts and once in I Peter. Its occurrence in Matthew, Mark, Acts and Pauline Letters and I Peter (once without the definite article in the Apocalypse) covers New Testament usage. These facts are not without significance, especially when we are mindful of the influence of Paul on other New Testament writers, the anti-docetism of Johannine litera- ture and anirenic purpose in Acts. The question emerges, May not “the gospel” in origin, at least, be distinctively a Pauline term ? Certainly it is not an accident that this term is found in the four Gospels eleven times, in the Pauline letters sixty times and three times in all the rest of the New Testament. Neither is it accidental that we meet “the Kingdom” (7 Baotrefa) one hundred and thirteen times in the Synop- tics (only nineteen of these in Mark), eight times in Acts and nine in Revelation, but only once in Romans, five times in I Corinthians (Judaizers active at Corinth), once in Galatians, a few times in other Pauline writings, and occasionally elsewhere in the New Testament. On the face of the returns is not “kingdom” Jewish and “ gospel” Gentilic? Doubtless Jesus and ‘the Twelve’ used the word “kingdom,” but did they use the term “the gospel” concerning his (own) message or mission? If not, where did the Gospel writers get it? Is it ‘apostolic’ or Pauline? Paul was the first of the New Testament. writers to use _ “the gospel.”? In Galatians or I Thessalonians, it occurs for the first time in New Testament literature. All of Paul’s letters were written before our canonical Gospels appeared. Where did Paul get the term, — from Christian ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 3 tradition, or from Deutero-Isaiah? He refers to both in his letters. In I Cor. 11: 23, he affirms that he learned of the authorization of the Eucharist and Jesus’ words con- cerning its symbolism from Jesus himself by historical tradition (7apéXafov). In I Cor. 15:38 ff. he informs his readers that he “received,” also by historical tradition, the story of Jesus’ sacrificial death according to the scriptures and of his resurrection, and that he was seen by many. It should be noted that Paul is here in verse 38 ff. speaking of the story of the death and especially of the resurrection and appearance of Jesus. He is careful not to say, “I re- ceived” (mapédaPov) “the gospel,’ although he has just reminded his readers in verses 1 and 2 that they received “the gospel” from him (7rapedafere). Verse 3 begins, ‘First and foremost, I delivered to you what I had myself received, namely,’ —and then speaks of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, citing appearances and witnesses including last of all himself (wapédaxa yap bpiv év mpwros 0 Kat TapéAaBov 6tt Xpiotos «.7.r.). That is, what he re- ceived is what follows, [namely] “that” (67-), — historical data about Christ’s death, resurrection and appearance to witnesses among which he classes himself (v. 8) (€syarTov dé mdvtwv worrepel TO ExTpOpaTt WhOn Ka’ poi). Here he uses the same verb (#67) as when he speaks of Jesus’ appearance to Peter (v. 5) and to James (v.7). The yap in verse three reaches back to the clauses of verses one and two where he reminds them that they “received” the “gos- pel,” but the 6 in the clause 6 «ai mapédaBovp refers to ért Xpistos «.7.rX. The use of xnpvoow in close proximity in verses eleven and twelve ovtws xnptacopuev (v.11) Ex dé Xpioros xnpvocetat (v. 12) is confirmatory; he uses To evayyéAvov and evaryyeAtCowar in verses one and two, but not again, as we would expect, in verses eleven and twelve, if he had there been speaking of “the gospel” instead of the resurrection itself. The subject of the chapter is the resurrection. Of course, this human testimony about Jesus has significance in respect to “the gospel,” is indeed 4 DID TO evaryyéXLov a historical prerequisite and also a conditional part of it, but this must not lead us to ignore the intent of Paul’s phrase 6 cal mapéAaBov btt Xpiotos «.t.r. If we com- pare I Cor. 11: 23 the same grammatical structure obtains, where the yap does not bind the clause to ris exxAnotas in verse 22 and where the 6 in the clause 6 xal trapédwxa refers to what follows — 6rTe xvpios x.7.rX. We would not expect him to contradict his statement in Gal. 1:12. In Gal. 1:11, 12 he assures the Galatian churches, (under self- imposed oath) that he did not ‘receive’ ‘the gospel” (70 evayyéAtov Td evayyedtcOev wn’ ewov) by tradition, but through a‘direct revelation ;)(ovde yap éyo mapa avOpwrrov mrapéXaBov avto ovte ediddyOnv, AAdAG K.T.r.). These are the only instances (three) in his writings where he em- ploys the phrase “I received” (vapéAaBov). ‘That Paul was familiar with the words, deeds and spirit of Jesus through oral tradition is patent in the Pauline letters. Chom. oT s-Peor-o514, Phu 25 i>) that henela that he did not receive “the gospel,’ which he preached, in a similar manner is explicitly stated in Galatians; we need only to read Galatians 1:11-2:10 on this point. Fourteen years after his first visit (following his conver- sion and subsequent period probably of deep meditation in Arabia, and then his trip to Jerusalem for the first time to get acquainted with Peter), when he went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus for a private audience with the “pillars” to make ‘liberty in Christ’ more secure for his converts, these authorities had ‘no additions to make.” It is true that he says in this connection, I was entrusted with “ the gospel of uncircumcision as Peter (the message (?) of circumcision,” but these are geographical genitives, for when taken with what follows it is evident that they indicate chiefly to whom their messages are to go. It is clear from Gal. 1:6 where he is amazed that they should turn away to a “different” (érepov) gospel, which is not a “second” (ado), and also from the pungent irony in II Cor.11:4 where he refers to a “second Jesus,” a ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 5 “different spirit” and a “different gospel,” that Paul did not believe in two gospels! He speaks of “my gospel” and “our gospel,” but there 7s none other. ‘This only I wish to find out from you. Did you receive the spirit from works of law, or from hearing of faith?” At Antioch Paul withstood Peter face to face “because he was not going straight according to the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:11, 14). Commenting on the principle involved, he says (2: 21), “If righteousness is through law, then Christ died needlessly.” Romans, which is a treatise written as an exposition of “the gospel,” is specific on this point. For example, Rom. 3: 21, “We now have a righteousness of God disclosed apart (ywpis) from law altogether.” Rom. 4:16, “All depends upon faith,’ (Ara totto é« miotews). Rom. 10:4, ‘*Now Christ is an end to law so as to let every believer have righteousness.” Rom. 9: 32, “Tsrael who aimed at the law of righteousness have failed simply because they relied not on farth, but on what they could do” (6tt ov &éx miatews AXN ws €F& Epywv). For Paul there is no alternative. It is law or “liberty in Christ.” ‘There is no middle ground, no substitute. Compromise means slavery, — hopeless slavery to rules; and law has failed while “the gospel” succeeds. Since the Petrine tradition (either oral or written, or both) woven into the early chapters of Acts does not con- tain the term “the gospel” and yet reflects the ‘apostolic’ mind concerning the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus, —‘*made both Lord and Christ” and concerning “the gift of the holy spirit,” —the question becomes in- sistent, Was the term “the gospel” current before Paul or later apart from the influence of its use by Paul? Certain words and works ascribed to the ‘apostles’ and Paul are reported in Acts where “the gospel” is once put into the mouth of Peter and once falls from the lips of Paul. It occurs first in 15:7 where the author tells us that he is reporting the Council at Jerusalem called to settle a sharp dispute and controversy between Paul and 6 DID 70 evayyéAtov the Judaizers. In this context Peter, addressing apostles and elders, claims to have been divinely selected from the earliest days as the first apostle to the Gentiles. The sec- ond and last occurrence of the term is in 20: 24 where at Miletus Paul is giving a farewell address to the elders from Ephesus when he was on his way to Jerusalem for the last time. In both instances it appears against the deep but distinct background of Paul’s message to the Gentiles and opposition to him. In the whole of Acts Peter uses the term, but only once, and then in a setting at Jerusalem contrary to fact, and Paul uses it, — also only once, when he is bound for Jerusalem to defend his message to the Gentiles, — although many addresses are ascribed to both Peter and Paul and their labors as preachers re- corded. The term does not appear in the Petrine source embedded in the first section of Acts; neither is it em- ployed in the ‘we-sections’ source except in this compari- son where in summary Peter’s labors are set over against those of Paul. We know, however, that the author of the ‘we-sections’ was probably a companion of Paul (possibly of Peter before or after) and that Paul at that time was, in his writings, using the term. The author of Acts, referring to his former treatise (Tov mp@Tov Adyov), says that he made it “concerning all that Jesus began to do and also to teach,” yet in that writing (the Third Gospel) he never uses 76 evayyéAtov. Had its use made for division? Had the “others” referred to in Luke 1:1 used it without historic perspective? Was it not “in order”? Or did he assiduously avozd its use in an attempt to harmonize Jewish and Gentile ‘Christianity’? In the preamble of his former treatise (Luke 1:2) why does he use “the word” (rod Adyov) instead of “the gospel” (Tov evayyedtov)? In his vocabulary was ‘the gospel” more specific than “the word”? In the body of this story why does he find a substitute where his source employs 76 evayyeAtov, or avoid it? This seems to be deliberately done. In Mark 1:14,15 we find Jesus «nptcowr 70 evay- ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 7 yéXwov Tov Geod, and saying muotevete ev THO evayyertw, but Luke writes instead in the parallel (4: 14, 15) that Jesus edidackev ev Tais cuvaywyais avTov. In Mark 8: 35 we read évexev EMov Kal Tov evayyeAlov, but in Luke évexev éuod, omit- ting the term “the gospel.” In Luke 18: 29 he deliber- ately substitutes évexev THs Bactretas tov Oeot for Mark’s (10:29) &vexev éuod nai Evexev Tov evayyeriov. When we compare Luke 21:12, 13 with its parallel, Mark 18: 9, 10, we see that Luke omits the whole sentence about univer- salism where 70 evayyéAvov occurs. Only a theological in- terest can account for this treatment of his source! He does not even substitute the cognate verb evayyerifw for TO evayyéAvov in any of these instances. Did the author of the Third Gospel know that ‘the gospel” was not used until Paul’s day and that the apostle to the Gentiles had made it an occasion of offense ? ~ Perhaps Mark, ‘the oldest’ Gospel, may furnish light. The story in Mark comes from Peter but the interpretation comes from Paul. Mark’s Gospel is distinctly Pauline in doctrinal background. Besides its use as a title or super- scription in 1:1, the term “the gospel” occurs six or seven times (1:14, 15, 8:35, 10:29, 18:10, 14:9, [16:15]). In all instances, — except the first, — Jesus is represented as using the term. In 1:14, 15 the term is attached to Q as found in Matthew 10:7. When we compare Mark 8:35 with Matthew 10: 39, we see that “the gospel” is an editorial addition. In Mark 10:29 we have the same phrase “the gospel’s sake” (évexev Tov evayyeriov), which is not found in the parallel Matt. 19:28 (nor Luke 22: 28-30). In both cases in Mark where this addition ‘for the gospel’s sake” is made, Peter is being rebuked! In 18:10, 14:9 [and 16:15] the author is under the spell of Paul’s universalism. Evidence that Mark’s use of ‘the gospel” is Petrine is entirely wanting, while the evi- dence of Pauline influence cannot be ignored. Concerning Jesus’ possible use of the term we must look to the second source(s) of Matthew and Luke. If Jesus used it, we 8 DID TO evayyéAtov may hope to find it there. ‘The gospel” occurs four times in Matthew’s Gospel (4: 28, 9:35, 24:14, 26:13). But Matt. 4:23 ff. is part of an editorial summary based on Mark. In Matt. 9:35 the editor expands Mark 6: 68. Matt. 24:14 is based on Mark 18:10 and Matt. 26:18 on Mark 14:9. In no case then is 70 evayyéAtov in Matthew found in the teaching source. The term does not occur in Inuke. Matthew goes to Mark for the term and Mark _ goes to Paul for his theology. It remains to examine its use in I Peter, and in the Apocalypse, — where it appears without the definite article. The author of I Peter probably borrows many terms from Paul. If so, certainly it is not strange to find “the gospel of God” among the rest (4:19). So long at least as the question of dependence here is in dispute, I Peter 4:19 may not be cited as dependable evidence that Peter used “the gospel” before and apart from Paul. The use of: “gospel” not “the gospel” (édayyéAtoy atwviov) in Rev. 14:6 is not, at best, evidence of non-Pauline origin, since the author’s acquaintance with Matthew and Paul’s writ- ing is highly probable. Since this use of the term “the gospel” in Matthew with reserve, in Mark with interest, in Acts twice with balanced caution, in I Peter once only (and “gospel” once in the Apocalypse) yet in Pauline writings so liberally, its omis- sion from Hebrews and John’s Gospel, both of which show Pauline influence, invites further study. Theologically Hebrews lies between Paul and John. But Hebrews is addressed to Christians beset by Levitical pressure and Jesus is priest. John’s Gospel is based on the Pauline Gospel of Mark and meets the claim of the docetics who did not “know Christ after the flesh.” It is indisputably an apologetic interpretation. The institution of the Lord’s Supper accented by Paul is not included in John’s account of Jesus’ last evening with his disciples. John avoids giving any support to Paul’s docetic “friends.” The reason for James’ avoidance of the term is obvious to the ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 9 reader. It is conceded that the argument from silence is precarious, except when an apologetic ‘ruse’ is apparent. Does not this exception obtain in the writings of Luke, John and others? The evidence so far would indicate that the assumption that Paul, in his employment of the term “the gospel,” followed an established Palestinian usage is beset with great difficulties. We turn to his correspondence for light. The tenth chapter of Romans may provide a clue, espe- cially when we are reminded that Romans is an explicit discussion of “the gospel,” and probably embodies the gist of sermons by Paul. In 10:15 Paul freely quotes the LXX of Deutero-Isaiah (52:7). The LXX runs, in part WS TrObES EVayyEALCOMEVOU aAKo?Y ELpHYNS wS Eevayyedttouevos aya0a and suggests T@ evayyeAtm of Rom. 10:16. Al- though the plural form only obtains in the LXX, it is always singular in Paul and the rest of the New Testa- ment. The joyful redeemed Jerusalem of Deutero-Isaiah is “our mother” of Gal. 4:26. As Paul wrote his alle- gory in Galatians where he quotes Deutero-Isaiah (54:1) did he have in mind 51: 1-12 where Sarah is mentioned and “gladness” and “salvation” and “the people in whose heart is my law”? It will be conceded that Paul’s theory of salvation embodies the idea of the ‘suffering Servant” in Deutero-Isaiah. May it not be that the glad tidings of deliverance proclaimed by the prophet provided the name for his message to the world? A decisive answer to this question cannot be given apart from a study of the cog- nate verb as used by New Testament writers. Does this verb as used in Acts rest on Petrine tradition? Since the term To evayyéAvov only occurs twice in Acts, what signifi- cance, if any, attaches to the use of the cognate verb evayyeAtCouat in the treatise? Is the author of Acts fac- tual or simply ‘truthful’ or something else, when he writes of the apostles, ‘those scattered abroad’ and Philip “ preach- ing the gospel” (evayyer(Coua 5:42, 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40), 10 DID TO evayyéALov before Paul becomes a factor in his story? Is it due to accident and literary skill or to the author’s irenic purpose that he never puts the cognate verb into the mouth of Paul (its use in 17: 18 is obviously editorial) except when Paul is associated with Barnabas (18: 82 and 14:15), and that he never uses it to describe Paul’s work, except when he is associated with others, especially with Barnabas? (14: 7, 21, 15: 35 and 16:10 always in the plural). It is of in- terest in this connection that Paul is never called ‘an apostle’ or ‘the apostle’; and only twice, 14:4, 14, when his name is bracketed with Barnabas does he share with him the title ‘apostles.’ In Acts, the ninth chapter, Ana- nias is called by the Lord in a vision to tell the blinded Paul what he is to ‘suffer for the name’ (cf. 5: 41b) and that his mission is to be to the Gentiles. Paul immedi- ately in the synagogues “preached Jesus” (v. 20) (éxnpuc- aev tov ‘Incovv). Later he goes to Jerusalem (!) where he is favorably introduced by Barnabas and speaks and disputes (€AadXe TE Kal cuvefnret) with the Hellenists, who reject his message and seek his life. In the tenth chapter Peter is also enlightened by a vision, and in the presence of Cornelius and his company says in substance that God is not partial; he welcomes from all nations them who fear him and work righteousness (év wavti éOve .. . épyato- Kevos SiKatoovvnv) (vv. 3, 5), and affirms that God sent the message to the sons of Israel, “preaching (the gospel of) peace (evayyeArrSouevos eipjvnv) by Jesus Christ” (10: 36). Peter then goes to Jerusalem and wins over the circum- cision party (!). When Paul has a: vision he heralds («xnptoow) and speaks (Aad€w) and disputes (cofnréw) but does not “preach the gospel” (evayyeAtfouar); but when Peter has a vision and a visitor he preaches (to the Gen- tiles) ‘the gospel of peace,’ quoting Deutero-Isaiah 52:7! Cf. Rom. 10:15,16. Three times in Acts the story is told of Paul’s vision and its meaning (Chaps. 9, 22, 27). In the last two instances Paul tells his own story. In the first case (Chap. 22) he has a trance while praying in the ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 11 temple and sees the Lord who directs him to flee and go to the Gentiles. In the second case (Chap. 26) Paul tells Agrippa that he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision (vv. 20, 21),—‘“I announced (amnyyedXov) all over the land of Judea and to the Gentiles to repent and to turn to God doing works (épya mpdacortas) worthy (aa) of re- pentance!” (yetavoéw only occurs once in Paul, II Cor. 12: 21, and its substantive only in Rom. 2:4 and II Cor. 7:9, 10.) The cognate verb has not been used in the story (17:18 editorial) since Paul left Asia at Troas (re- corded in 16:10 where the “we-sections” began), nor is it used in the remaining chapters! Can this omission be accidental or for literary reasons? Is not the author a ‘respecter of persons’? Theological convictions determine his vocabulary, cloud his perspective and condemn as to accuracy. What do we find when we study the use of the cognate verb as employed in the story as it touches the situation causing and in that growing out of Stephen’s appearance and its result? This term occurs for the first time in 5: 42, where we read that the apostles, in the midst of per- secution ‘for the sake of the Name’ ceased not for a single day teaching and evayyerrSouevor tov Xpiotov “Inoody “in the temple and at home”’; and it was “during these days” that Stephen and Philip were chosen deacons and became ‘evangelists.’ In the phrase “in the temple and at home” the author drops a hint of his theological interest and lit- erary direction. The apostles are being persecuted by the Sadducean party, and the Hellenists and the Hebrews dis- agree. ‘The author is preparing his readers for a ‘Jewish’ mission to the Gentiles. Gamaliel’s pragmatic advice looks forward (5:39). (Compare 1:8.) After Stephen has been stoned to sleep and Paul introduced as the arch persecutor, “Those, however, who were dispersed went through the land preaching (the gospel of) the word” (8:4) (evayyertfopwevor Tov Adyov). There are four more instances of the use of this cognate verb in the eighth 12 DID 70 evaryyédLov chapter (8 : 12, 25, 35, 40); of these 8:40 is probably an anticipatory summary. In the first, third and fourth in- stances Philip is central: in the second the Samaritans. Philip is not an apostle but he “preaches (evayyerCopevo mept x.T.A.) concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (8:12) to the Samaritans. When the apostles at Jerusalem learned that Samaria had accepted the word of God (Tov Adyov Tod Oeod) and the Samaritans had ‘only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus,” they sent Peter and John down to them in order that they might receive the holy Spirit. Then they returned to Jerusalem bearing witness and “speaking the word of the Lord,” and they ‘evangelized’ (evayyedtGovro) many Sa- maritan villages. In 8:85 Philip “preached Jesus” to the traveler from Egypt (evayyedlcato a’t@ tov *Incodv) and also in 8:40 all the way even into Caesarea, he ‘evan- gelized’ many cities. The Gentiles are ‘evangelized’ by Philip who is not an apostle ! This term appears next in the story in a strange context (11:19 ff.), after Paul has been introduced again (paren- thetically) and converted and bundled off in the face of Hellenistic opposition to his home city of Tarsus, and when there followed peace for all the church in Palestine, and after the Cornelius-Peter episode. The author here takes us back to the days just after Stephen’s death, when ‘those scattered”’ went to Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word (Aadodvtes tov Adyor) to none except Jews; some, however, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, when they reached Antioch “spoke also to the Greeks, evay- yearCowevor Tov KUpLov “Incovv” (11:20, 21). When this news reaches Jerusalem, Barnabas is sent to Antioch and later goes to Tarsus and brings Paul back. Warned of a famine by a prophet from Jerusalem, a collection is made and sent to Jerusalem by Barnabas and Paul. (Cf. Gal. land 2.) After that stage of the story when Paul and Barnabas disagree concerning Peter’s understudy — Mark — and separate, this cognate verb does not occur again (ex- ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? Le cept soon in 16:10) in all the remaining chapters (excep- tion in the Mars Hill speech noted), although it is where Paul occupies the head-lines of every page of the story. The story closes with Paul in Rome after two years’ resi- dence there, “heralding («npvocwv) the Kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.” The story had begun (1: 1-4) with a statement that the risen Lord was showing himself to the apostles, whom he had ‘‘selected for himself” (ovs é&eX€Earo) for forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the ‘“ Kingdom of God.” When Paul reached Rome, many Jews came to his quar- ters, and from morning till evening he bore witness to the “Kingdom of God,” falling back for support on Moses and the Prophets, — not on the promise to Abraham! (28 :23). (Compare Romans, fourth chapter.) We have seen that the evidence in Acts indicates quite definitely that the substantive To evayyédov is Pauline in origin and use — distinctively so, and now the partisan use of the cognate verb prompts us to infer that it had become so colored by Paul’s application of it to his distinctive message that the author of Acts overshot the mark when he tried to give it true ‘apostolic’ setting by wresting Jewish tradition and garbling the coinage of Paul. If this seems a hasty infer- ence, we need only to remind ourselves that the author of Acts wishes, in part, to prove that Peter had from the first the Gentile mind and that Paul had to the last a Jewish mind ! Is the use of the verb evayyer (Goat in the Third Gospel really attributable to Jesus? Although the substantive is missing, the cognate verb is found in Luke’s Gospel ten times. Since the author does not employ the substantive, is the use of its verbal cognate significant? Why does the author of Luke use the cognate verb, which, with one ex- ception — Matt. 11: 5 —the other Gospel writers avoid, or at least fail to employ? Why does he avoid the substan- tive and adopt the verb? Is it because the substantive 14 DID 70 evaryyédtov originating with Paul had a specific content or connotation which he wished to avoid, and at the same time by using the verb discreetly he could show that the teaching of Jesus was the Christian message ? The cognate verb occurs first in 1:19 where Gabriel speaks a message of hope to Zacharias (kal amectadnv AaAhoat pos aé Kal evayyericacOal co Tadta). In 3:18 it is used to describe the message of the Baptist (IIoAXAa pev ovv Kal érepa trapakadov evayyerileTro Tov racy). It is evident in these two instances that the cognate verb has a significance of its own. In the first case (1:19) the note of gladness is clear; but in the second instance an appeal to fear obtains; the Coming One, however, stands out dis- tinctly in the preceding verses (15-17). In 2:10 it is used to describe the angel’s message to the shepherds con- cerning the birth of Jesus — glad news for all ‘‘the People” (id0v yap evayyerifouar duiv yapav peyadnv k.T.r.). The author’s use of the cognate verb (8: 18, 2:10) is not Paul- ine in construction or scope (¢nfra). In 9:12 comment is made on the Mission of the Twelve extending the work of Jesus; all the remaining instances of usage refer directly to Jesus. In 4:18, 48, 7:22 and 16:16 the term is re- corded as on his lips. Deutero-Isaiah 61:1 is quoted in Luke 4:18 where it stands without a parallel in the other Gospels and is secondary. In 4:43 evayyerio@ai pe dei Tv Bactrelay Tod Geod is substituted for xa Kel knpvEw of Mark 1: 88 without distinct literary advantage. Perhaps the most significant use of the verb in Luke occurs in 7 : 22 which has its parallel in Matt. 11:5. Here this cognate verb is ascribed to Jesus when he answers a query about his Messiahship, which a deputation brought from the im- prisoned Baptist. Is this Q material as used by both Matthew and Luke? (based on Deutero-Isaiah 61:1). Apart from any claim to Messiahship as possibly used by Jesus it is not improbable that he did use Isa. 61:1 as characterizing his aim and efforts. Even so, this fact may not be cited as evidence that Jesus surely meant more by ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 15 it (LXX (?) or Aramaic equivalent) than lay in the mind of the author of Deutero-Isaiah, or that his disciples so understood it: much less that the substantive 76 evay- yédov came into use before Paul as a result of Jesus’ use of Deutero-Isaiah in point, as in some sense descriptive of his own message to the poor. Commenting on the Mission of the Twelve in 9:6 Luke says, éEepydpevor dé dinpyovto KaTa Tas K@pmas evayyedtCouevor for Mark’s (6:12) xal éEehOovres exnpvEav iva wetavomaiv; (compare Matt. 11:1), an adequate literary motive for the substitution is not evi- dent. In 16:16 Luke reverses the order in Matt. 11: 12, 18, abbreviates, and adds azo tote 7» Bacthéta tov Oeod evayyeriletar Kal mas eis avtTnv Biagerar. Luke’s recension is secondary, and shows interest in a new era which is more universal. This addition azo rote x.7.r. stands awkwardly and insecurely before v. 17 where not one quirk — (horn—xepatov) of the Law falls to the ground. The theological interest of 16: 16b is obvious. ‘The verb occurs for the last time in Luke (20:1) where the ques- tion of Jesus’ authority is raised by priests, scribes and elders while he is teaching the people in the temple xai evayyertCouevov. Mark (11:27) says that he was “walk- ing about in the temple,” while Matthew tells us (21: 23) that he was “teaching” while in the temple. It can hardly be questioned that this addition is an interpretative redaction of the Petrine tradition of Mark 12:27. Luke’s use of the cognate verb suggests that he is trying to show, without using the distinctive Pauline term 70 evayyéXor, — that the things Jesus (and the Baptist) taught made up the Christian message. But we must inquire more closely whether the cognate verb has verbal synonyms in the New Testament and whether it is used as a synonym of the sub- stantive by any writer. The cognate verb occurs twenty-one times in Paul not including the pastorals (the substantive fifty ), fifteen times in Acts (substantive twice), never in the Johannine writ- ings (substantive also missing), ten times in Luke (sub- 16 DID 70 evayyéALov stantive never), once in Matthew, never in Mark, twice in Hebrews, three times in I Peter and twice in Revelation. The verb xnpvcow appears sixteen times in Paul (exclud- ing the pastorals), eight times in Acts, thirty-two times in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in the Fourth, once in I Peter and once in Revelation. The verb catayyédA@ is found seven times in Paul, eleven times in Acts, but not in the Gospels. Is there deliberate preference shown in the use of these verbs? If so, on what ground? In three cases out of twenty-one where Paul uses the cognate verb it has the substantive as object (Gal. 1:11, TO evayyéArLov TO evayyertobev br’ éuod. I Cor. 15:1, To evayyéArtov 6 evnyyedtoapny viv. II Cor. 11:7, dtu dwpeav TO TOU Deovd evayyérLov einyyertoauny buiv;). ‘The context in each case shows that this duplication represents an effort to intensify and discriminate, and is not evidence that Paul regarded the cognate verb as lacking in specific content. In three other instances this verb carries a di- rect object (Gal. 1:16 avrov referring to Christ: 1: 23 thy tiotty: Rom. 10:15 ayaéa in quotation). Also per- haps Eph. 3:8 (70 aveEvyactov mrrovTos Tod Xpiotov). Elsewhere when Paul uses this verb his 10 evayyéXcov seems to be intrinsic. In only three cases out of sixteen tere Paul uses «7- puvcow does it have “the gospel” as object (Gal. 2: 2, Col. 1:23, I Thess. 2:9), but in eight instances where Paul employs «npvoow it has for its direct object words synony- mous, in part, with “the gospel” (once by contrast Gal. 5:11). For example,— 70 phua tis rictews Rom. 10: 8; Xptotov éotavpwpévov I Cor. 1:23; Xpicrov Incodv xvpiov II Cor.4:5. Of the four remaining cases where Paul em- ploys «xnpvoow, in only one does he seem to use it as con- taining 70 evayyéduov. In Rom. 2:21 where it occurs in an illustration it has pu) «rémrrewv as its object. In Rom. 10:14, 15 it anticipates 7@ evdayyeri@ of verse 16 and p7- patos Xptotov of verse 17. In it I Cor. 15:11 reaches back to 7 yapis tod Oeov ody éuol and also to 70 evayyédALov ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 17 in verse 1ff. In I Cor. 9:27 xnptcow seems to stand alone, but certainly refers to mavta 6€ tro oud TO evay- yéAvov in verse 28. So that in truth, without exception, Knpvoow does not in Paul’s usage carry “the gospel” in itself, as is usually the case when he employs evayyer(Couat. In other words the substantive and its cognate verb in Paul are regarded as synonyms. Is this true of any other New Testament writer? In Acts evayyed (Cova is not self-sufficient in the sense that it contains in itself the meaning of the term 76 evay- yéduov. In eight cases an object (in the accusative) fol- lows it, which expresses content. These accusatives of content are not un-Pauline in character. The tov Xpiorov (5:42), tov Aoyov (8:4), Tov Kvpiov “Incody (11: 20), Tov Adyov Kupiov (11:35), Tov “Incobdv Kal THY avactaciy (17: 18) may be cited as examples. But as necessary additions to complete the meaning of the cognate verb they consti- tute a departure from the usual literary style of Paul when he employs the verb. Once (8:12) the clause occurs “they believed Philip evayyertoudve rept THs Ba- otrelas ToD Geod x.7T.r.” But this is not an exception, for mepi introduces explanatory words. In the six remaining instances the verb carries as its direct object persons signi- fied by pronouns (duds 14:15, abrovs 16:10) and places, meaning people by metonymy (xwpuas 8:25, Tas modes maaas 8:40, tv modu éxeivnv 14: 21), and we may include kaxei (14:7), that is, that place. Of course it is implied that something was told in each case of person and place as direct object, but it is not obviously “the gospel.” For Paul does not make persons (one exception Gal. 1: 9 tuas) or places (II Cor. 10:16 with eds) the direct object of evayyertSouat. He uses duly six or seven times. In Acts the cognate verb is rather used as Paul employs «ypvcca, that is, without 76 evayyédcov as implicit content, that is to say, evayyeA‘Couas is not Pauline as used in Acts, nor is _«knpvoow in Acts employed as a synonym for Paul’s evay- yeriCouat. ‘The verb xcatayyéddAw occurs seven times in 18 DID TO evaryyéALov Paul)( Rom: 1+8,\1 Cor, 2: 1,9: 14, 11:26, "Philo: 17,18, Col. 1:28) and in Acts eleven times and carries a direct object (passive form with subject) in both documents. It is employed somewhat as xnptcow by both authors, al- though the connotation of the content of the direct object, or subject when the passive form obtains, is not always identical. Only once is “the gospel” the direct object of KkatayyéAro in Paul (I Cor. 9:14) and never in Acts. It - has for its object in Acts, however, “the word of God” (18: 5), “the word of the Lord” (15: 36), but also “these days” (8:24). As we re-read I Cor. 9:14, we wonder what Paul meant by otras xal o xvpios diétakev tois 70 evayyéAlov KatayyéXovotv. Does he mean to say that Jesus preached “the gospel”? ‘To what saying of Jesus does he refer? Evidently he is referring to the tradition reflected in Matt. 10:10 (d&tos yap o épyarns rhs tpodis avrov). Luke 10:7 has rod picOod for ths tpopis of the Mission of the Twelve. Paul is using this tradition as an illustration of a general principle—very old; ovrws indi- cates that it was a commonplace of Jewish temple econ- omy that the priests were to be supported by the gifts of worshipers whom they were serving. Here Paul means by “announcing the gospel” and “living by the gospel” nothing more specific than missionary effort and material provision for it. It does not imply that Jesus used the term “the gospel.” Paul does not use catayyédAw as he does evayyer(Souar which, as we have seen, usually carries in itself To evay- yédtov: while for the author of Acts catayyéAXA@ is em- ployed where we might expect evayyeAtGouas (for example in the speeches of Paul), and is a near synonym for the cognate verb, as used by this author. In Acts xnpvcoe is found eight times (8:5, 9:20, 10: 37,42, 15: 21, 19: 13, 20:25, 28:31) always with a direct object (10:42 67 x.T.r.). Usually their objects are different from those modifying xatayyéAX@ as used in Acts: for example 10:37 — the baptism which John preached (xnptaow): avtév= Moses ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 19 in 15:31: “the kingdom” in 9:2, 20:25, 28:31. In- deed xnpvcow in Acts is less specific in selecting the char- acter of its company than xatayyéAdrw; less specific also than when Paul employs it, and Paul does not use «nptccw as a synonym for evayyerAtCouar. Acts does not provide a verbal synonym for the cognate verb as used by the apostle to the Gentiles. Luke uses evayyeA(fouwar ten times and Knpvoow nine times. Mark does not employ evayyerifo- pat, but knpvoow occurs twelve times. In only two, pos- sibly three, instances out of ten where Luke uses evay- yeriCouat does he substitute it for xnpvoow in Mark; in 3:18 referring to the work of the Baptist = Mark 1:7(?), in 4:43= Mark 1: 88 and in 9:6=Mark6:12. In Luke 20:1 Luke adds evayyer(Gouat where the parallels in Mark and Matthew do not have xnpvocw. The remaining six instances where Luke uses evayyer(Cowar have no parallel in Mark. It should be noted also, that Luke uses xnpioc in three parallels where Mark also has xnpvcoow, — Luke 4:44=Mark 1:39, Luke 8:39=Mark 5: 20, Luke 9:2= Mark 3:14. Besides in Luke 8:1 we find «nptccwv xai evayyertCopevos THY Bacirelav Tod Geod, where they cannot be synonyms. ‘That is to say, that although Luke writes better Greek than Mark, he also thinks more discreetly than Mark. It is conceded that in 4:44 Luke may have used xnptoowv because he had written evayyertoacOat in 4:43, where Mark in the parallels 1: 38, 39 uses xnptocw successively and that Luke 9: 6 is better Greek than Mark 6:12, but it will probably be admitted that Adyar in Luke 3:16 is substituted for éxjpuvccev in Mark 1:7, and that evayyertveto, Luke 3: 18, is an addition albeit explanatory in part, and that although a literary motive is not always entirely wanting in his use of these verbs, it is not variety of style but verity of idea that guides his pen. Luke does not substitute the cognate verb for xnptccev evayyéuov of Mark (found three times in Mark 1:14, 18:10, 14:9). ‘Nor does he substitute the cognate verb for the substan- tive used without xyptcow in Mark 1:15, 8:35, 10:29. 20 DID 70 evayyéAtov Nor yet does he substitute the cognate verb for «nptccw (always found with To evayyédtov as direct object) in Matthew. Matt. 4:23= Mark 1:29=Luke 4: 44 all em- ploying xnptoow but To evayyédwov, only found in Matthew. Matt. 9: 85= Mark 6: 6=Luke 10:1 ff. (or if Luke 8: 1 is a parallel, note that both xnptoow and evayyertfouar are used and connected by «al). Matt. 24:14= Mark 13:13 =Luke 21:19. Matt. 26:13=Mark 14:9 and has no parallel in Luke. In the four cases where Matthew employs the substantive it is the object of «npvcow and with one exception (26: 18) it is 76 evayyédov THs Bactrelas. In other connec- tions “the Kingdom” occurs forty-seven times. Matthew’s interest is Messianic. Evidently “the gospel” used alone did not suit his purpose, and evayyertfowae perhaps had come to signify too much for extended use by a Jewish writer who would make the Messiah the propounder of a new law. We have seen above (p. 7) that Mark’s use of 76 evay- yéAcov is not drawn from the Petrine tradition of Jesus’ life which he employs in sketching Jesus’ public career and that the term is not found in Q, but that it is very probably due to Pauline influence; yet that this term 70 evayyéAuov is attributed to Jesus six times. We need to remind ourselves, however, that only once in Mark is Jesus reported to have preached the gospel xnptcow with Td evayyédwov 1: 14, although 16 evayyéAcov is preached in two other instances («npvyOfvat To evayyédvov 13:10, and «n- pvxOn To evayyéAvov 14:9), and in these two instances Pauline universalism is emphasized (editorial). Mark’s use of Knpvocw without To evayyéAtov calls for considera- tion. Why does Mark avoid the use of evayyertfonar which he must have known was used by Paul? Was it simply because «npvoow was a shorter word? Hardly, since his theological interest is patent. Possibly evay- yer (Couat had come to be a term of compromise as between Petrine and Pauline sympathizers. Often xnptvcow in ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 21 Mark has a direct object where it cannot refer to to evay- yéXcov; for example, 1:4 where the Baptist is cnptocwv Barticpa petavoias, also 1:7 éxnpvacev Aéywv «.7.r.. 1:45 where the leper proclaims his cure, cnptvocev moda Kal Siadnuifery Tov Aoyov, 5: 20 where the demoniac proclaims (xnpvoceyv) all that Jesus had done for him, 6:12 where the Twelve at the bidding of Jesus went out and preached repentance (éxjpvgav iva petavodow), 7:36 where the man who had been deaf and the bystanders announced his recovery (avTol madAXov treptacotepov exnpvocov). ‘Three cases of Mark’s use of xypvoow remain,—(1: 38, 39, 3: 14), — 1:38 (va Kai éxet cnpv&w, 1:39 Kai HrAGev enptaoowy els TaS GUVaywyas K.T.A., 3:14 Kal (va arroaTéXAN avTodrs Knpvocetv. It may be inferred that Mark has 70 evayyedcov in mind as the object of «npvcow in these three cases on the ground that he employs it in this fashion in 1:14, 18: 10 and 14:9, but we are certainly not warranted in con- cluding that when «npvccm is used without a direct object of content, To evayyédvov is contained in the verb as Paul usually employs evayyeAtComat. Luke’s use of the cognate verb (Third Gospel) can hardly be called Pauline. Luke reflects Pauline phrase- ology but not Pauline theology. Both the Third Gospel and the Acts are pro-Petrine at the expense of Paul. In 1:19 it takes the accusative of the thing —the birth of the Baptist —and plainly does not refer to ‘‘the gospel”: it takes the same kind of accusative in 2:10 “a great joy” — the birth of the Messiah. Once tov daov is the object (3:18) (John the Baptist). Twice it is used with “the Kingdom of God” which is the object of the infinitive in 4:43 and subject in 16:16. ‘Twice it relates to the “poor,” quoted, evayyertoac@at mrwyois in 4:18 and mTTwVxoL evayyertCovTat in 7:22. We read in 8:1 that he was “heralding (xknptcowr) and proclaiming (evayyerifo- pevos) the Kingdom of God” (accusative of thing). In 9:6 and 20:1 evayyeAtSoua appears in participial form without an object direct or indirect, but in the first in- 22 DID TO evayyéALov stance it is immediately followed by «ai Oeparrevovtes and in the second it is immediately preceded by «ai which con- nects it with d:dacKovros avtov Tov Aaov, that is, it does not stand in these two cases as carrying its own substan- tival content which usually obtains in Paul’s use of this verb. The author of the Fourth Gospel may avoid the cognate verb for the same reason that he seems to avoid the sub- stantive (anti-doceticism). The fact, however, that he does not even employ catayyédAw or Knptoow though the latter term is frequently employed in the Synoptics, and both in Acts and Paul, suggests some additional reason or reasons. We may well remember that John is the Gospel of individuals and that conversation is the method of philosophy. Hebrews 4:2 follows Pauline usage, the verb in parti- cipial form standing without an object though assisted by the copulative verb; but o Adyos THs axons exeivovs refers back to evnyyeAtopevoe and reminds us of Rom. 10:16 and I Thess. 2:18. In 4:6 we find similar usage in the same setting. The phrase evayyéAuov at@uov evayyedioat occurs in Rev. 14: 6 — the fourth instance in the New Testament where the substantive appears as a cognate accusative, the other three (with the definite article) in Paul. In our study of the Synoptics and Acts the possibility of the Petrine origin of the term “the gospel” has repeatedly appeared. It has been noted that the substantive is found in I Peter 4:17. This alone would be scarcely note- worthy in the light of the highly probable dependence of this letter on Pauline writings where it occurs so many times. But when we find also that the cognate verb occurs three times in this writing our flagging interest is revived. After all the question is still before us— Was ‘‘the gospel” originally a Petrine or a Pauline term? Did they both use it and mean different things? Our only reliable sources for the relations between Peter and Paul are the writings of Paul and Peter. But critical ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 23 scholarship holds that II Peter is a second-century writing and I Peter, whoever the author may have been, shows marked dependence on acknowledged letters by Paul. The Petrine element in I Peter is somewhat difficult to designate with certainty, while the Petrine tradition in Acts 1-15 has been handled so freely that reconstruction only reaches early stages of probability. On the other hand, out of the extensive authentic correspondence of Paul only two letters mentioned Peter by name— Galatians and I Corinthians! The place to begin a study of the relations of Peter and Paul is Gal. 2:8 0 yap évepyjoas Ilétp@ eis atroctoAny TIS TeptToUAS eEvnpynoev Kal euol els TA éOvn «.T.r. The datives [lérpm and éwol are dativi com- modi and not governed by év- in the verb, which is not a pure compound. ‘This passage means, God who energized Peter unto apostleship to the Jews, energized me also unto apostleship to the Gentiles, rijs meprtouns = TeV TepiTeTUN- phevov by metonymy. Compare I Cor. 7:18 év axpoBvaria K.T.rX. Rom. 4:9 eri wepttouyv. Paul thus recognizes that God endued both Peter and himself. Does he imply that they differed only as to allocation of territory? Peter pre- ceded Paul chronologically. What did Peter call his message before and after Paul began his missionary efforts? Did Paul react to Peter and deepen the meaning of his name for the ‘Christian’ message, or did Peter react to Paul’s term and restrict it as to content? Or did Peter use another term? Does Paul imply in Galatians that Peter is to be identified in whole or in part with the Ju- daizing party? Paul was ‘all things to all men’ in peda- gogy and not in principle. It is fair to infer that the Judaizers were presenting an alternate “gospel” (Gal. 1: 5-9). It must not be overlooked that Paul is irenic in Galatians in spite of his repeated phrase ava@eua éorw. This is patent in 2:9. In 2: 2-5 he clearly distinguishes between avtois (Peter et al.) and yevdaddérgous. He adds, however (v. 6), a76 6€ tev SoxotvtTwyr eival T1,—o7Tro0t0l TroTeE hoav ovoév por Stadeper* mpdowrroy o eds avOpwrrov ov 24 DID TO evaryyédtov AapPBaver—épuol yap of Soxodvtes ovdev mrpocavéevto. ‘This broken sentence is equivocal. Asa continuation of verse 5 it is adversative and explanatory. It is perhaps best ren- dered in substance: ‘But from those who were reckoned as leaders — what they were I care not —I received noth- ing. These leaders, I repeat, had nothing to give to me.” ‘These leaders* included Peter. They are members of a private conference—not a court, of which Paul is also a member and on his own volition. Peter gives nothing to Paul but the right hand of fellowship! But later (verse 11) when Peter was in Antioch his practice did not con- form to his spirit shown at this conference. Here he swerves from the truth of “the gospel” in the field of fellowship, and Paul stands against him openly. Evi- dently “the gospel” was not as thoroughgoing with Peter as with Paul. Was Peter’s theory at the Jerusalem con- ference a concession, and did his practice there conform to it? Did Paul contribute anything to Peter at this con- ference? Why had Peter-gone to Antioch? Was he “all things to all men” until certain from his colleagues at Jerusalem also arrived? According to Paul’s letters he meets Peter three times. His gospel is set before he goes to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter. See Gal. 1: 11,12, “The gospel preached by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it through tradition by man nor was I taught it”? (denies instruction as the method): vv. 16,17 — “forthwith instead of conferring with flesh or blood,— I did not go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles be- fore me,— I went away into Arabia,” then when he next talks with Peter he learns nothing, and lastly at Antioch Peter fails in what he had seemed to concede to Paul at their second meeting! According to Paul, in respect to “the gospel,’ dependence is on the part of Peter and not on the part of Paul. Apart from the influence of Paul, Peter shows no more friendly interest in the Gentiles than the ‘rest of the apostles.” ‘And Peter followed afar off!” Paul mentions Cephas in I Corinthians where his name is ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 25 a talisman for division (1:12, 3:22). Perhaps in every case where Paul uses 7 Baovdeda in I Corinthians (4: 20, 6:9,10, 15: 24,50) he is quoting (ironically) his oppo- nents who are using this term in opposition to 70 evay- yédov. Paul feels obliged to defend his apostleship and “the gospel” not only in Galatians but in other letters. These partisans of Peter may be those to whom Paul re- fers in II Cor. 11: 13-15, masquerading as apostles of Christ (weracynpatilomevoe els atrootdéXous Xpicrov) but are in reality ministers of Satan. (ov dvaxovos avtov k.T.X. ) Pauline Mark makes Jesus call Peter Satan (Mark 8: 33 vTaye oriaw pov, catava). Compare the use of peteryn- patito in I Cor. 4:6, II Cor. 11:13 ff. (Compare also eTa- in compound in Gal. 1: 6, 7.) To whom does Paul refer in Gal. 1: 7 as rapacoovtes the Galatian ‘Christians’ and as @éNovtes petaotpérat TO evay- yédtov? (Shaking you and desiring to turn ‘the gospel” around so as to make it face toward Jerusalem.) That they were legalists is plain. It is also implied that they called their teaching a gospel, perhaps, “ érepov evayyéduov.” Primacy is not suggested. Is not the opposite assumed ? Verses 8 and 9 imply that high authority is claimed for this modification or substitute. He does not call them “false brethren,” but classes them with angels and himself. Paul divides his benediction in Gal. 6: 16, first upon those who hold to “the gospel” (xavéw) “éipnvnv én’ avtovs,” and then adds “xai édeos cal émt tov "Iopanr Tov Geov.” By “Israel of God” he means those who are preaching érepov evayyédvov in Galatia (1:6). Compare trav éxxr- atav tov Oeov of 1:13. There is a tradition embodied in Acts (15:1) that “some having gone down to Antioch from Judea were teaching the brethren that if they were not circumcised, according to the custom of Moses, they could not be saved.” It is also related that Jews from Antioch and Iconium went to Lystra, won the crowd, and . Paul was stoned. These have the ring of sound tradition. In the same treatise mention is made that Paul circumcised 26 DID TO evayyéAtov Timothy on account of local Jews at Lystra and Derbe (16:8), and that “Jews from Asia” (21: 27) led the op- position to Paul when he was in Jerusalem for the last time, after he had spent days purifying himself as an orthodox Jew. Here the editor protests too much! His apologetic is so overdone that it proves the opposite! The real inference from Acts is that opposition to Paul headed up in Jerusalem. Paul’s polite phrase, when speaking of Peter Gal. 2:12 tivas azro laxw@Bou, indicates the mind of ‘‘the pillars” toward his way of salvation. The spell of his speech at the conference soon lost its virility. Why is Peter dropped after Acts 15? If Peter had been in Jerusalem when Paul made his last visit (Acts 21) he would have appeared particeps criminis. In Rom. 15: 31 Paul requests his readers to pray, — “to agonize with him in prayer,” that he may be delivered azo tev arrevBovvTwr év Ty ‘lovdaia,— (not the Asiatic Jews of Acts 21:27) and that his stewardship may be acceptable to the saints in Jerusalem. Paul’s use of ame@ém always has a Jewish setting or reference as affecting “the gospel.” Here (Rom. 15:31) it is from the ‘unpersuaded’ Judeans that he expects opposition. Soul-stirring prayers are also asked that the collection he bears to the saints may be gladly re- ceived! What is the force of zap’ o not av7/ in Gal.1:8 and 9? It means “unconsonant to that which,” that is, legalism (opponents) v. 8; and unconsonant to anti-legal- ism (my gospel) in v. 9,— Pillars against Paul! In Gal. 1:10 it is implied that Paul’s opponents had accused him of antinomianism in the liberty “the gospel” brought, to which he replies that his obedience is that of a bond- servant of Christ; and in 2: 15-21 after telling of his rebuke of Peter he expounds this principle, refusing to “rebuild what he had demolished,” and to “invalidate the grace of Christ.” On the evidence of Paul, that Peter used ‘the gospel” before he met the Tarsian is highly improbable; that he used the term at the Conference as applied to the message ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 27 of Paul is not unlikely, and that it was used by Peter’s colleagues with modified meaning as an antidote to Paul’s ‘heresy’ is almost certain. When we turn to the Petrine element in Acts 1-15 we find no evidence that Peter called his message ‘the gospel.” As noted, the term does not appear until 15: 7, where it is said to be used by Peter at Jerusalem where he is pleading at the Council(!), after a long discussion, for an official recognition of Paul, and to this James agrees! Comment is superfluous; this setting settles it, even if it were not balanced by letting Paul use the term (on his way to Jeru- salem) in 20: 24. Even the cognate verb evayyerifomat is not used by the author of Acts to describe the work of Peter, then only as one of “the apostles,” except in 5: 42, 8:25 (Peter associated with John): and only once is Peter reported to have used the term (10: 86), and here it is based on Deutero-Isaiah 52:7 (LXX) modes eday- yertCouevou axony eipnvns, or on Rom. 10:15 (teatus recep- tus) which quotation follows ov« éotiv mpocwrornpTns oO Geos from Deut. 10:17 or I Sam. 16: 7, or Rom. 2:11, and this when the author of Acts is grooming Peter for his race to the Gentiles ! It is against this background provided by Galatians and Acts that we must study I Peter. Pursuant to the find- ings of modern scholarship it is assumed that I Peter de- pends on Paul to a considerable degree. It is possible, however, that we may find evidence in the Petrine element of the use of the cognate verb and even the substantive. Much depends on how far we can really segregate the Petrine and Pauline elements on other grounds. ‘The Petrine speeches early in Acts incorporate phrases not un- like some used in I Peter; for example, Acts 5:41 and I Peter 4: 14,16, but both may be echoes of common prim- itive tradition. Luke and Silvanus were companions of Paul; yet Petrine influence is evident in Acts, and Sil- vanus was, according to tradition, a companion of Peter, and may have been the diarist in Acts. Conceding for 28 DID TO evayyédLov the sake of argument that I Peter is in substance Petrine by the hand of Silvanus (5: 12), we take up I Peter 1:19, 1:25 and 4:6 where evayyedifGouar is employed, 3:19 where «npvoow is found, and look again at T@ Tov Peod evay- yedto in 4:17. The indubitable dependence of I Peter on Paul’s writings fosters cautious inference when we note that the cognate verb has vuas as direct object in 1:12, although similar usage only occurs once in Paul (Gal. 1: 9) and is never followed by év rvevpatt adyiw atoctarevtt amr’ ovpavod. ‘This use of the cognate verb with persons as direct object, however, is found in Acts 14:15 das and in 16: 10 (adrovs). In 1:25 this verb is followed by es twas, while in II Cor. 10:16 we have els ra brrepéxeva tov evayyéXLov. In Acts (8:12) it has wepé. In both of these cases the construction has precedent in Paul, but does not follow general usage in his epistles. In 4:6 we find kai vexpois evayyerioOn, which is Pauline in that the verb contains the substantive in itself; but the dependent clause intro- duced by fva is not so clearly so, even though it sets cdp£ over against mwvevya. The necrology of the verse is not a part of the theology of Paul. In 3:19 xnptaocw has no direct object expressed, which is not the most common usage of Paul; yet Paul so employs this verb several times (see above). The substantive phrase r@ Tod Qeod evay- yerio (I Peter 4:17) is frequently found in Paul, while in Acts 15:7 we have tov Adyov Tod evayyeriov and TO evay- yédov THS yapitos Tov Beod in 20:24. *ArrecOéw occurs in Paul five times, in Acts twice, in I Peter four times; of these with dative of person or of thing Rom. 2:8, 11:30 ff., Rom. 15:81; and I Peter 3:20, but in these eleven in- stances only once with T@. . . evayyediw (I Peter 4:17). It is a fair inference that I Peter 4:17 reflects Rom. 2: 8, 10:16, 21. In the instances where Paul uses amebém he is concerned with his message, 76 evayyédvov. In I Peter, however, it is used in reference to T@ Ady (referring to the scriptures) (2:8), 7@ Aoy@ referring to the Christian ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? 29 message (3:2), and to the message of Enoch in the under- world (8: 20)—here with knpvcow. It should be observed in this connection that the (Hellenistic) word ampocwo- AnumrTws occurs only in I Peter 1:17, rpocwrornprros only in Acts 10: 34, and wpocwrodAnuyia in Rom. 2:11, Eph. 6:1, Col. 3:25 and the plural in James 2:1; and that it is reasonable to infer that I Peter, Acts and James react to Paul. The setting in Acts (10th chapter) indicates that the speech of Peter is an editorial composition and hence may not be cited as a Petrine parallel of I Peter 1:17 — the hand is that of Peter but the voice is that of Paul. If we are right in the conviction that in I Peter, an un- lettered fisherman’s message is recorded by an interpreter, once a companion of Paul, and perhaps after Peter’s death, the variations in style from Paul, even when dependent on him for thought, are fully accounted for. So that the use of the substantive and cognate verb in I Peter is very probably secondary. It is almost certain therefore, in view of the New Testa-> mént facts considered, that the term 70 evaryy¢dvov was not used by Jésus, and that it did not originate with Peter but with Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.. This does not — mean so far forth that the message of Jesus was necessarily different from that of Paul, nor does it minimize the mis- sionary leadership of Peter in Palestine. The content of the message of Jesus, its likeness or unlikeness to that which the ‘apostles’ and Paul preached, even the content of Paul’s message and that of Peter, except as bearing on the origin of the term ‘‘the gospel,’ do not lie within the scope of this study. Whether New Testament writers were warranted in their extension of the term invites further consideration. Is the current distinction between the “gospel of Jesus” and the “gospel about Jesus,’ even though not historically accurate, logically sound? It is possible that the messages of Paul and Jesus had more in common, even though the Synoptic Sources are not explicit on many points, as are 30 DID TO evayyéAlovy ORIGINATE WITH PAUL? the letters of Paul, than their use of 70 evayyédsov or lack of use, might seem to indicate. What Paul meant by To evayyéAvov and its relation to Jesus are reserved for further discussion. phe VB : NS Pas, ee Date Due ok SUES AS ES om i