MEW 
 
 HE 
 
 MEivrT 
 
 oF:q<cuRR 
 
 •E>D 
 
 ^■v. 
 
 • V ' * 7 * 
 
BS A17 .CA6 v,5 
 
 Martin, G. Currie 1865-1937. 
 
 The books of the New 
 
 Testament 
 
CENTURY BIBLE HANDBOOKS 
 
 General EpiTOR 
 Principal WALTER F. ADENEY, M.A., D.D. 
 
 THE BOOKS OF 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
THE BOOKS OF 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 y 
 
 REV. G. CURRIE MARTIN, M.A., B.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND CRITICISM IN THE UNITED 
 
 COLLEGE, BRADFORD, AND LANCASHIRE INDEPENDENT 
 
 COLLEGE, MANCHESTER 
 
 EDITOR OF "proverbs," ETC., AND '* EPHESIANS," ETC., IN 
 
 "the CENTURY bible" 
 
 V 
 
 .^;i5%x 
 
 DEC 12 1910 * 
 
 HODDER AND STOUGHTON 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 1909 
 
TO 
 
 MT COLLEAGUES AND STUDENTS 
 
 AT BRADFORD AND MANCHESTER 
 
 AS 
 
 A SLIGHT TOKEN 
 
 OF 
 
 AFFECTIONATE REMEMBRANCE 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. THE LITERATURE AS A WHOLE 
 II. THE SOURCES OF THE LIFE OF JESUS 
 SYNOPTIC GOSPELS . 
 
 III. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 
 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 
 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 
 
 IV. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 V. THE EPISTLES OF PAUL 
 
 I. THESSALONIANS . 
 
 II. THESSALONIANS 
 GALATIANS 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS 
 
 II. CORINTHIANS 
 ROMANS . 
 EPHESIANS 
 COLOSSIANS 
 PHILEMON 
 PHILIPPIANS 
 
 -THE 
 
 PACK 
 I 
 
 6 
 21 
 28 
 
 39 
 
 47 
 
 62 
 
 69 
 
 71 
 
 74 
 
 78 
 
 85 
 
 91 
 
 97 
 
 102 
 
 109 
 
 III 
 
 "3 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. FACE 
 
 VI. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES . . . . Il6 
 
 I. TIMOTHY . 
 
 
 
 
 125 
 
 II. TIMOTHY . 
 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 TITUS 
 
 
 
 
 132 
 
 VII. EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 
 
 
 
 
 134 
 
 VIII. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 
 
 
 
 
 140 
 
 JAMES . 
 
 
 
 
 > 140 
 
 I. PETER 
 
 
 
 
 . 144 
 
 JUDE 
 
 
 
 
 150 
 
 II. PETER 
 
 
 
 
 155 
 
 L JOHN . 
 
 
 
 
 . 160 
 
 II. JOHN 
 
 
 
 
 . 163 
 
 III. JOHN 
 
 
 
 
 . 165 
 
 IX. THE BOOK OF THE REVELATION 
 
 
 . 167 
 
 NOTE A 
 
 
 . 178 
 
 NOTE B 
 
 
 . 178 
 
 INDEX . . . , 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 . 180 
 
THE BOOKS OF 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE LITERATURE AS A WHOLE 
 
 The perfection of modern printing and the beauty and 
 compactness of our present-day books undoubtedly 
 cause certain loss to the reader of the New Testament. 
 It is charming and convenient to have that greatest of 
 all literature in such compass that one can carry it in a 
 tiny little book. But its very form prevents the reader 
 from realising that he has a library rather than a single 
 work, a literature rather than a volume. The twenty- 
 seven separate books which constitute our New Testament 
 cover the period of at least half a century, and probably 
 more nearly a whole century, and are the work of many 
 diverse minds, while they represent many forms of 
 
2 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 literary production. Some are personal letters to private 
 friends, e.g. Philemon, which can be paralleled by hun- 
 dreds from the papyri recently discovered in Egypt. 
 Some are letters of a more elaborate character, written 
 to communities, as e.g. Philippians. Others, though 
 written in the letter form, partake more of the nature 
 of treatises, as e.g. Romans. There are books which 
 seem to be homilies, or early doctrinal tracts, like 
 Hebrews and James. There is the poetical vision of 
 the seer, embracing in itself much that is found in the 
 older Hebrew literature, but inspired with the new spirit 
 of the Christian faith, in the Book of Revelation. There 
 are books which are not mere histories, though they have 
 a distinctly historical character, but present historical 
 events in the light of the special purpose they wish to 
 serve, and in order to make clear the truth they desire 
 to enforce, e.g. Matthew and Acts. One book may be 
 said to stand in a class almost by itself, i.e. the Gospel of 
 John, as even more clearly than those just named does 
 it use the basis of history for the purpose of teaching 
 spiritual truth. It was early termed the spiritual gospel, 
 and Christians of every generation have felt this to be 
 its peculiar and special quality. 
 
 It is not always easy to discover the particular origin 
 
LITERATURE AS A WHOLE 3 
 
 of every book, but we are not without pretty clear 
 guidance in the majority of cases. Paul's letters, for 
 instance, are obviously occasional writings, i.e. they 
 spring out of some particular circumstance which calls 
 them into being. They are not in the majority of 
 instances premeditated treatises like a modern book of 
 theology, nor are they thrown into the letter form as a 
 mere literary device ; but are actual answers to definite 
 questions, or constitute directions in special difficulties. 
 The Gospels were no doubt originally derived from 
 addresses given to Jewish or Gentile communities in 
 order to instruct them in the life and teaching of Jesus — 
 addresses such as we find recorded in the pages of the 
 Acts of the Apostles. It seems that at first there were 
 many such presentations of our Lord's life and teaching, 
 only a few of which have come down to us embodied in 
 the present Gospels, and in some other writings, of which 
 more will be said later. The beginning of Luke's 
 Gospel tells us of at least one attempt to unite these 
 scattered and probably slighter efforts into one more 
 careful, consistent, and complete record. The Book of 
 Revelation is a combination of letters and a long pro- 
 phetic message. The latter was probably sent to each 
 church to which a letter is addressed, so that each of 
 
4 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 these may be considered as a separate preface to the 
 main part of the book. In Hebrews and James we may 
 possibly have specimens of the early preaching, or of the 
 more formal teaching which was given to the Christian 
 community. Just why these have been preserved to 
 us, and others lost, it is impossible to say, but we 
 should be thankful to have so many varieties of the 
 literary forms into which the Christian teaching of the 
 first century naturally fell. 
 
 It is thus clear that the various authors of the New 
 Testament books did not invent literary methods, but 
 employed those that were customary in their own day. 
 Letter-writing then, as now, was a common practice. 
 Biography written with a definite purpose is found in the 
 scriptures of the Old Testament, e.g. in the stories of 
 Elisha and Elijah, and also in books like Nehemiah and 
 Daniel. The Book of Revelation belongs to the great 
 class of apocalyptical literature, of which the Jews had 
 very many examples. The author of the Epistle of 
 James was obviously a keen student of the Wisdom 
 Literature, represented in the Old Testament by Proverbs 
 and Ecclesiastes, and in the Apocrypha by the Book of 
 Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. Possibly such Greek writ- 
 ings as the Memoirs of Socrates, by Xenophon, and the 
 
LITERATURE AS A WHOLE 5 
 
 Dialogues of Plato, had some influence on the writers of 
 the Gospels — at any rate, on the author of John's Gospel. 
 It was the freshness of the material rather than the new- 
 ness of the form that made the literature a new thing in 
 the world, and its originality is to be sought rather in 
 what it declares than in the method of the declaration. 
 The writers were all intimately acquainted with the 
 scriptures of the Old Testament, and had been brought 
 up under its influence. And even the great Personality 
 who is for every one of them the centre of their thought 
 and teaching, had Himself been nurtured on the litera- 
 ture, and found His most natural expression in terms of 
 its language. It is absolutely essential for every New 
 Testament student to keep this in mind, and it is of the 
 greatest value and instruction to have it before the reader 
 in visible form. This is secured for readers of Greek by 
 employing Westcott and Hort or Nestle's text, and for 
 English readers by the use of the " Twentieth Century 
 New Testament," in all of which quotations from, and 
 reminiscences of, the Old Testament are indicated in 
 special type. 
 
 We now pass on to the detailed consideration of the 
 various groups of New Testament literature. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE SOURCES OF THE LIFE OF JESUS 
 
 THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 
 
 The word synoptic is now generally applied to the record 
 of the life of Christ contained in the first three gospels. 
 It is derived from two Greek words which signify a com- 
 bined view of any event, and is appropriate, since the 
 account given of the life of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and 
 Luke, has much more in common than these three 
 Gospels have with the Gospel of John. 
 
 Before beginning the investigation of the problems 
 presented by the fact just stated, it may be well to see 
 what other sources we have for the life of Jesus. These 
 are found in the following forms : — 
 
 1. References in books of the New Testament other 
 
 than the Gospels. 
 
 2. Eeferences in Latin and Greek historians. 
 
 3. References in Rabbinical writings. 
 
 4. The Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 5. Traditional Sayings of Jesus preserved in various 
 
 sources. 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 7 
 
 I. The Epistles of Paul, some of which are the 
 earliest of the existing writings of the New Testament, 
 do not as a whole give us any additional facts to those 
 recorded in the Gospels, though they confirm the main 
 outline of that record. They concern themselves chiefly 
 with references to the death and resurrection of Jesus, 
 but in I. Cor. xv. we have a reference to an appearance 
 of the risen Lord to James, which is not contained at all 
 in our Gospels, and also one or two other references 
 which are not easily identified with any of the existing 
 records. In the early chapters of Acts we have speci- 
 mens of the preaching of the Apostles, which contain 
 short resumes of the life, death, and resurrection of our 
 Lord, as e.g. in Acts ii. 22-24 a-i"id Acts x. 36-43. A 
 very clear reference to the preaching of John the Baptist 
 
 5 contained in one of Paul's speeches recorded in Acts 
 Alii. 23-25, and in Acts xx. 35 there is given a saying of 
 Jesus not recorded in our Gospels. In the Epistle to 
 •■he Hebrews we have many references to the earthly life 
 
 I Christ, which shows the familiarity on the part of the 
 writer, not only with its general outline, but with its 
 detail, there being hints of His temptation, of His agony 
 in Gethsemane, of the place of His crucifixion, and other 
 matters contained in the epistle. In the First Epistle 
 
8 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 of Peter there is the earliest reference to what became a 
 common belief in the Christian Church, namely, to the 
 descent of Christ into the world of the dead, and to His 
 preaching the Gospel there (see I. Peter iii. 18-22, and 
 iv. 6). In II. Peter i. 17, 18, there is a reference to the 
 transfiguration. These constitute the main passages in 
 which, outside the Gospels, the earthly life of Jesus is 
 referred to in the New Testament. 
 
 2. Toward the end of the first century of our era the 
 Roman historian Tacitus produced his great work, en- 
 titled "The Annals," and in the fifteenth book of the 
 history he has a reference to Christus, who, he says, 
 suffered under Pontius Pilate, and gave the name to the 
 sect of Christians, which in the opinion of the Roman 
 historian is a "most mischievous superstition." Practi- 
 cally contemporaneous with the work of Tacitus is that of 
 Josephus, and there are two passages in his "Antiquities" 
 in which Jesus is mentioned. In book xviii. chap. iii. 
 sect. 3, we find the most famous reference, where Jesus 
 is not only spoken of as a worker of miracles, and a 
 great teacher, but is called the Christ, and mention is 
 made of His death and resurrection. The passage is 
 much disputed, and probably is not authentic in its 
 present form. But the other passage in book xx. chap. 
 ix. sect, I, shows that Josephus knew about Jesus, for 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 9 
 
 he there mentions Him, and says that He was called 
 Christ. 
 
 3, In the works of the Jewish Rabbinical authors 
 there are frequent references to Jesus, but none of 
 them add anything of historical value to what is con- 
 tained in the Gospels. Some of the details are similar 
 to those found in the non-canonical Gospels, and others 
 are obviously scurrilous statements of prejudiced enemies 
 of the Christian faith. (See article in Dictionary of 
 Christ and the Gospels (T. & T. Clark), vol. ii., " Christ 
 in Jewish Literature.") 
 
 4. Of the large number of the apocryphal Gospels 
 that exist, two at least belong to the first century, the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of 
 Peter. The former is only known to us in fragments 
 preserved by various writers, and these fragments con- 
 tain some of the stories known to us in the canonical 
 Gospels in slightly different form, e.g. a very curious 
 account of the temptation, and a detailed story of the 
 appearance of our Lord to his brother James after the 
 resurrection. The origin of the book is at present 
 obscure, but there is no good reason for entirely setting 
 aside its testimony, and one of the most interesting 
 discoveries that could be made would be to find it in 
 its completeness. Of the Gospel of Peter we have a 
 
lo BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 long section, dealing with the death and resurrection. 
 It is obviously written with a strong prejudice against the 
 Jews, and also emanates from a section of the Christians 
 who denied the real humanity of Christ. It is appa- 
 rently mainly based upon our Gospel of Matthew, and 
 such details as are contained in it that are at variance 
 with the New Testament story are either unimportant 
 or probably erroneous, as for example, when the order 
 for the crucifixion is assigned to Herod rather than to 
 Pilate. In the resurrection narrative quite new elements 
 are introduced, and some of them of the obviously 
 exaggerated character that belongs to legend. Of the 
 other apocryphal Gospels the most important are those 
 which deal with the infancy and childhood of Jesus, the 
 most famous being the Protevangelium of James, the 
 childhood gospel of Thomas, and the Arabic gospel of the 
 childhood. Many incidents not found in our Gospels, 
 but familiar in Christian legend and poetry, as, e.g., the 
 sudden arrest of movement that took place throughout 
 the whole world of nature at the moment of the birth of 
 Christ, are contained in these books, but they are almost 
 certainly imaginary romances, and more than one of 
 them not earlier than the third century. Into the 
 further question of the apocryphal Gospels it is not 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS ii 
 
 possible to go here, but reference may be made to 
 Professor Andrews' volume in this series, and to Pro- 
 fessor Findlay's article in vol. i. of Dictionary of Christ 
 and the Gospels (T. & T. Clark). 
 
 5. The early Christian writers are accustomed to 
 quote numerous sayings of Jesus, of which we have no 
 record in our canonical Gospels. For instance, several 
 of them contain the words as a command of Jesus, 
 " Become ye approved bankers ; " and amongst the better 
 known;and better authenticated sayings are the following : 
 " Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you ; " 
 " Ask heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added 
 to you;" "Thou hast seen thy brother, thou hast seen 
 thy God ; " " In whatsoever I may find you, in this also 
 will I judge you." Several sayings are contained in 
 certain manuscripts, one in the famous manuscript now 
 found in the University Library at Cambridge, and 
 others in the leaves of papyrus recently discovered at 
 Oxyrhynchus. The most accessible account of all these 
 for the English reader is in Griffinhoofe's " The Unwritten 
 Sayings of Christ," published by Edward Arnold, 1903, or 
 Pick's " ParaHpomena," published by Kegan Paul, 1908. 
 
 To return now to the question of our Synoptic Gospels. 
 The first point that is noteworthy to any reader of these 
 
12 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 three books is the large amount of common material 
 that is contained in them. Briefly, that common material 
 covers the period from the mission of John the Baptist 
 to the mention of the fact of our Lord's resurrection. It 
 is found in its simplest form in Mark, though narratives 
 which are common to the three frequently appear with 
 more elaborate detail in his Gospel than in the others. 
 The order in which Mark recounts the incidents is fol- 
 lowed more closely by Luke than by Matthew, but both 
 of these writers make considerable and frequent altera- 
 tion in Mark's language. These obvious facts demand 
 from the student some theory to account for them, 
 and the main theories may be classified as follows : — 
 
 (i) Absolute independence. Those who take up this 
 position consider that the theory of the direct inspiration 
 of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit is sufficient to account 
 for all the problems offered by them in their existing 
 form. It is supposed that the Spirit guided each writer 
 to tell his story in his own way, and that all resemblances 
 and differences are to be attributed to the purpose of 
 the Divine Author. Without denying for a moment that 
 this is possible, it is certainly neither probable, nor in 
 accordance with what we know otherwise of the Divine 
 method. The slight variations in passages otherwise 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 13 
 
 identical are on such a theory extremely difficult to 
 account for, and it is a quite needless strain to put upon 
 our belief in Divine superintendence to insist that these 
 minor alterations are due to the mind of the Divine 
 Spirit. 
 
 (2) The theory of a threefold tradition. This theory 
 may be held either as an oral or as a written source. It 
 starts from the assumption that the early teachers had 
 agreed upon a form of presentation for the essential facts 
 of the Gospel, either as a definite arrangement made at 
 the outset of their work, or as the result of experience. 
 This material is found in what is common to the first 
 three Gospels, and lies at the basis of each of them. 
 The document, if document it was, is not any longer in 
 existence in a separate form, but can be discovered from 
 a careful comparison of the three separate narratives. 
 This material will be found in a convenient form by 
 English readers as the Prologue to the New Testament 
 volume in Dent's *' Everyman's Library," and should be 
 carefully read through as an instructive object lesson in 
 what is really common material of the synoptic tradition. 
 The difficulty of accepting this theory as a satisfactory 
 explanation is twofold — (i) That there is no proof of its 
 independent existence; and (2) that if it had so existed, 
 
14 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 it is almost impossible to understand how the minor 
 modifications that have been introduced into it by each 
 one of the writers could have arisen. 
 
 (3) Oral tradition. It is quite obvious to every 
 one that the Gospel must first of all have taken shape 
 in preaching and teaching, and that the early type of 
 such addresses is to be found in the speeches recorded 
 in Acts, so that some kind of oral tradition must lie 
 at the back of all the written forms that exist, or ever 
 existed. But it is a further question whether oral 
 tradition alone will suffice to account for the problems 
 afforded by the existing conditions of the synoptics. 
 It used to be supposed that this would suffice, and 
 in proof of the possibility of a definite form of narra- 
 tive being thus preserved, we were bidden remember 
 the extraordinary accuracy of the Oriental memory, 
 and the way in which, for example, religious teachers 
 among the Arabs are able to recite the sections of 
 the Koran. But those who thus argued forgot that 
 in such cases there already existed a definite body of 
 teaching in a final form, which had only to be learned 
 and repeated, whereas we have to account for the 
 growth and presentation of something which had not 
 yet acquired a defmite form, as is proved by the very 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 15 
 
 varieties of the narratives themselves. Again, the New 
 Testament is witness that other narratives already 
 existed, for the beginning of Luke's Gospel tells us 
 that "many have taken in hand to draw up a narra- 
 tive concerning those matters," which surely implies 
 written narratives, since this is what the writer himself 
 proposes to execute. 
 
 (4) Dependence of the Gospels upon one another. 
 It is a very old theory which suggests that these three 
 writers may have copied from one another. Thus Mark 
 was called by Augustine the follower and abbreviator 
 of Matthew, and others have supposed either that 
 Luke was acquainted with Matthew's Gospel, or vice 
 versa. It is extremely difficult, however, to under- 
 stand how any one who had Matthew's Gospel before 
 him would produce such a narrative as that contained 
 in Mark. What reason could we suppose for the 
 enormous amount of omission that in such a case 
 must have taken place? The same thing is true if 
 we suppose the relation of copyist to have existed 
 between Matthew and Luke, and in addition, we 
 should have to account for the way in which so many 
 sayings are found in altered forms in these two Gospels. 
 Further, if we suppose Mark to have been the sole 
 
i6 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 source of either of the other two, it does not suffice, 
 seeing that there remains a large amount of material 
 common to the two which is not found in that Gospel. 
 We are therefore driven to another explanation, which 
 to-day in one or other of its forms holds the field 
 among New Testament students, namely — 
 
 (5) The two-document hypothesis. This supposes 
 that at the basis of Matthew and Luke there lie at 
 least two documents, the one of which is substan- 
 tially, if not actually, represented by our Mark, and 
 the other by what is known as the Logia, which is 
 supposed to have contained a large amount of our 
 Lord's teaching, now found in the records common 
 to Matthew and Luke. The existence of the Logia is 
 not a pure assumption, for we shall find when we come 
 to the consideration of Matthew's Gospel that early 
 tradition tells us about such a document. But its 
 exact reconstruction is a matter of enormous difficulty, 
 and one about which New Testament scholars are very 
 divided in their opinions. Some think it consisted 
 of records of teaching, and nothing else ; while others, 
 with greater probability, describe it as containing brief 
 introductory and explanatory narratives. There is a 
 further question as to whether Mark himself knew 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 17 
 
 this Logia document, and, if he did, whether he used 
 it, or, presupposing its existence, made his own docu- 
 ment merely supplementary to it. The latter theory 
 seems on the whole more probable. Further, we 
 have to ask whether the Logia are found in their more 
 primitive form in Matthew or Luke. When we regard 
 the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer, to take two 
 simple instances, it certainly seems that Luke pre- 
 serves the more primitive form. There arise, how- 
 ever, numerous further questions about written sources 
 of the Gospels. Every reader knows that there are 
 parables in Matthew not found in Luke, and many 
 in Luke not found in Matthew. Besides, there is a 
 whole section of narrative in Luke's Gospel which 
 has practically no parallel in either of the others, and 
 this is found mainly in chapters ix. to xix. Here and 
 there Luke is found in agreement with Mark, where 
 Matthew has no parallel, which is only an additional 
 proof of what was said above, that Luke follows Mark's 
 order with greater closeness than does Matthew. In 
 both Matthew and Luke we find much independence 
 of any source known to us when we come to the 
 narratives of the infancy and of the resurrection. 
 In such cases we are probably dealing with quite 
 
i8 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 independent sources, and it appears that each evangelist 
 must have had access to sources of narrative of which 
 we have now no trace. A very interesting example 
 is to be found in Mark xiii., which is the longest 
 single section of teaching found in the Gospel. It 
 was probably issued as an independent document, and 
 may be the earliest of all the written sections of the 
 New Testament, seeing that Apocalypse was so popular 
 a form of literature, and also that in I. Thessalonians 
 Paul seems to be familiar with the contents of the 
 passage, and also to assume that the Thessalonians 
 knew it. The way in which this document was used 
 by Matthew and Luke forms an easy and instructive 
 study in the methods these writers pursued. 
 
 There is no direct independent evidence of the 
 separate existence of any or all of these documents, 
 save the one reference to the Logia by Papias, which 
 will be found quoted under the account of Matthew's 
 Gospel. The form, however, in which quotations from 
 the Gospels are found in the earliest Christian writings 
 frequently suggests rather a general knowledge of the 
 synoptic tradition than an exact acquaintance with 
 the Gospels as we know them. This, of course, may 
 be accounted for in two ways, namely, that the writers 
 knew the Logia, and did not know our present Gospels, 
 
THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 19 
 
 or that they quoted inexactly from memory. What 
 is very certain is that the general substance of our 
 synoptics was quite familiar to the earliest writers, 
 and that the material contained in them was assumed 
 as a matter of common knowledge among the Christian 
 communities to whom they wrote. 
 
 NOTE 
 
 In the following pages there will be frequent refer- 
 ences to certain writers who constitute the earliest 
 witnesses to the use of the books of the New Testament 
 in the Christian Church. It may be convenient here to 
 set forth a list of the main writers, with their dates, and 
 the contracted forms by which their writings are gene- 
 rally quoted, so that the date of their testimony may be 
 at once clear. 
 
 Clement of Rome (Clem.), whose letter to the Church 
 at Corinth dates from about the year 95. 
 
 Ignatius (Ign.), who wrote letters to several churches 
 from Asia Minor in and about the year no. 
 
 Polycarp (Pol.), who was Bishop of Smyrna, and a 
 contemporary of Ignatius. His letter is, therefore, of 
 the same date. 
 
 The Epistle of Barnabas (Bar.) is a work more diffi- 
 cult to date, but may roughly be dated at about 100. 
 
 The Teaching of the Apostles (Did., which is a con- 
 traction of the Greek word didache, i.e. teaching), a 
 
20 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 work of Christian instruction, the date of which it is 
 difficult to fix, but may probably be given as about 130. 
 
 The Shepherd of Hermas (Herm.) is an apocalypse, 
 dating from about the year 150. 
 
 The Second Epistle of Clement (II. Clem.), which 
 is really not an epistle at all, but a homily, dates from 
 about 170, and the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne 
 and Lyons — an important document of about 180 a.d. 
 
 The following Christian writers all date from the 
 second half of the second century : Justin Martyr (Just.) ; 
 Tatian (Tat); the letter to Diognetus (Diog.); Irenaeus 
 (Iren.). To the first half of the third century belong 
 the writings of Clement of Alexandria (Clem. Alex.) •, 
 Tertullian (Tert.) ; and Origen (Orig.), while the works 
 of Cyprian (Cyp.) centre round the date 250. Of later 
 writers, the only one that needs to be here named is 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, whose main work was published 
 about 330. The oldest extant list of books of the New 
 Testament is that known as the Muratorian Fragment, 
 which dates from the end of the second century. It 
 contains most of the books to be found in our New 
 Testament, and one or two others not now recognised 
 as canonical. It will be referred to as Mur. Other 
 witnesses are the ancient versions, mainly the old Latin 
 and the old Syriac, which were probably made about 
 the middle of the second century, though, of course, 
 none of our present MSB. date from that time. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 
 
 External Evidence.— Of this Gospel and its author the 
 earliest mention known to us is in a sentence of Papias 
 preserved in Eusebius, where he tells us " Matthew 
 composed the Logia in the Hebrew language, and each 
 one interpreted these as he was able." This sentence 
 causes more difficulty than it clears up, because it seems 
 impossible to identify the Logia here spoken of with the 
 Gospel as we know it, and if it does not mean our 
 Gospel, the question is, what does it mean. Can we 
 reproduce the Logia from the existing Gospel or not? 
 When we come to the witness of Irenaeus, he tells us that 
 " Matthew produced a writing of the Gospel, written 
 among the Hebrews in their own dialect." In the 
 writings of Ignatius there are many quotations which, 
 though not in verbally accurate form taken from our 
 Greek Matthew, are so closely allied with it as to create 
 
22 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 a strong probability that they come from that work ; but 
 as many of them are references to the sayings of Jesus, 
 there is no direct proof that they may not be derived 
 from a collection of these sayings now embodied in 
 Matthew's Gospel. The same thing is true of the quota- 
 tions that occur in the first apology of Justin Martyr. 
 Further confusion appears to have been introduced into 
 some of the testimony to this Gospel by the existence 
 of a Gospel according to the Hebrews, which Jerome 
 tells us existed in Hebrew, and was largely used in certain 
 sections of the Church. It may be that this other docu- 
 ment was sometimes meant when the Hebrew Matthew 
 was spoken of, and vice versa. Before the end of the 
 second century it is quite clear that our Matthew was 
 the book generally referred to when any reference is 
 made to a Gospel under that name. 
 
 Material of Book. — When we examine the book 
 itself, we find that if we neglect for the moment chaps, i. 
 and ii., it follows the general line of Mark, but we are 
 very soon aware that there is a great deal more material 
 in it than is contained in that Gospel. To begin with, 
 we have some account of the content of John's preach- 
 ing, then a long narrative of the Temptation, and when 
 we come to the fifth chapter, we find what is most char- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 23 
 
 acteristic of the Gospel, a long address of Jesus, which 
 lasts on to the end of chap. vii. This address con- 
 cludes with a phrase which recurs in slightly varying 
 form in four other passages, namely, " when Jesus ended 
 these words " {cf. xi. i ; xiii. 53 ; xix. i ; xxvi. i). It has 
 been suggested that these may mark the original endings 
 of the Logia, since we know that Papias's book on the 
 Logia was divided into five parts. In chaps, xiii., xviii., 
 xxiii., xxiv., and xxv. we have also long series of teach- 
 ings, and it seems to be the method of this evangeHst to 
 mass sayings of our Lord together in such groups. It is 
 for this reason that it seems the most probable theory of 
 the composition of the Gospel, that in addition to Mark, 
 we should suppose him to have also had a document 
 which consisted mainly of such teaching. This is now 
 generally designated by the symbol Q (from the German 
 Quelle^ i.e. source). Opinions differ as to how much of 
 the Gospel is covered by Q ; Harnack, for instance, being 
 of opinion that it never contained any story of the Pas- 
 sion. This only accounts for that amount of the teach- 
 ing that is common to Matthew and Luke, and for 
 the material peculiar to Matthew we must suppose that 
 other sources were in existence from which he drew. 
 There is no real difficulty about this, however, since oral 
 
 C 
 
24 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 tradition would account for a certain amount, and scat- 
 tered written material for the rest. To the latter must 
 be assigned the genealogy, the narratives of the infancy, 
 and probably other sections. It is sometimes quite easy 
 to see how Matthew introduces his new material into 
 the narrative from which he is quoting. A good example 
 is to be found in chap. xiv. 22-23. When this is com- 
 pared with Mark vi. 45-51, it will be seen that the 
 narrative about Peter's walking on the water is clearly 
 inserted ; and when he resumes the Marcan narrative in 
 ver. 32, he alters the verbs to the plural, in order to suit 
 the additional incident he has introduced. Greater 
 difficulty attaches to slight alterations that Matthew 
 sometimes makes; e.g. in chap. viii. 28 he speaks of two 
 demoniacs, where Mark and Luke only name one, and 
 a similar alteration is found in chap. xx. 30. These are 
 not isolated cases, and it appears to have been his 
 manner to heighten the wonder of such narratives in 
 this way. In one instance the doubling seems to have 
 come from a misreading of prophecy ; see xxi. 5. He 
 often appears to use great freedom in his editing of 
 sayings, for the hypothesis that he drew them from a 
 source different from that used by Luke would increase 
 rather than lessen the difficulty. Well-known examples 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 25 
 
 are found in the Beatitudes ((/. Matt. v. 3-12 with Luke 
 vi. 20-23) and the Lord's Prayer {cf. Matt. vi. 9-15 with 
 Luke xi. 2-4). In addition, the following passages may 
 be compared : Matt. vii. 11 with Luke xi. 13; Matt. xii. 
 39-41 with Lukexi. 29-30; Matt. xix. 16, 17, with Luke 
 xviii. 18, 19. 
 
 The attribution of this Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, 
 it will be seen, is purely traditional, and the most pro- 
 bable explanation is that Matthew himself, as Papias 
 says, produced a work in Aramaic which was the collo- 
 quial language of Palestine, and that this lies at the back 
 of our existing Gospel. It is not at all likely that in its 
 present form the book is the work of one of the Apostles. 
 
 We have thus a greater freedom in approaching the 
 question of date, and have to decide that mainly from 
 internal evidence. The indications that guide us are in 
 the main three, (i) The use of Mark's Gospel shows 
 that this book must have been written later than it, 
 though not from that fact alone much later. (2) The 
 references in chap. xxiv. to the tribulations of the latter 
 days, particularly ver. 15, where he has altered the words 
 " where he ought not" of Mark to "in the holy place," 
 though he has preserved the explanatory parenthesis, 
 " let him that readeth understand." Here we find Jeru- 
 
26 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 salem definitely indicated. Some consider that this 
 points to the present form of that chapter being written 
 either before or immediately after the siege of Jerusalem. 
 This is not, however, at all necessary, since the cir- 
 cumstance may be explained either by the evangelist's 
 having embodied an older document without alteration, 
 or by putting himself in imagination into the position 
 of the speaker. It is true that the whole tone of the 
 chapter (see especially vers. 14, 30, and 34) points to an 
 immediacy of the Lord's return, but that was a faith 
 long prevalent in the early Church, and cannot in itself 
 be used as a proof of early date. (3) As a consideration 
 on the other hand, we have many passages in the Gospel 
 which appear to point to a more ecclesiastical position 
 than is found in any of the other Gospels. This is not 
 only the case with the occurrence of the word Church 
 (see xvi. 19 ; xviii. 17), which only occurs in this Gospel, 
 but much more with the conception of the Church, which 
 these and other passages reveal. Further, we find this 
 Gospel has a greater regard for Peter than any of the 
 others, and tells incidents about him not contained else- 
 where (see xiv. 28-30; xvi. 17-20; xvii. 24-27). The 
 commission to the Twelve reported in chap. x. (see espe- 
 cially vers. 16-23 and 40-42) reveals a lateness of tone, 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 27 
 
 and the latter passage probably uses the word '•' prophet " 
 in the technical sense it assumed in the early Church. 
 These indications suggest Rome as the place from which 
 the Gospel in its present form emanated. The words of 
 Von Soden probably express the truth : " In this Gospel 
 the Roman spirit triumphs over the Pauline, the legal 
 over the religious, the tendency to look backward over 
 that to look forward." If this view be correct, the Gospel 
 may probably be dated in and about the year 90, though 
 it is impossible to dogmatise about such matters. 
 
 The point of view of the writer is obviously that 
 of a Jewish Christian, and one great object he had in 
 view was to make quite clear that Jesus was the 
 Messiah. The whole trend of the Gospel is designed 
 to prove this fact, and the very form of the genealogy 
 with which it opens is adopted for that reason. The 
 writer is well acquainted with the prophetic literature, 
 though probably his numerous quotations are drawn 
 from some list of Messianic prophecies already in exist- 
 ence, as these appear to have been common among 
 the early Christians. This dominant idea controls his 
 whole work, and there are many passages in which 
 he shows his sympathy with the specially Jewish point 
 of view — e.g. when Christ says, "I was not sent save 
 
28 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (xv. 24), 
 and when He limits His disciples' work to the same 
 confines {cf. x. 6, 23). Much stress is also laid upon 
 the importance and value of the Mosaic Law (see 
 V. 18 ; xix. 3 ; xxiv. 20), and the rewards of the 
 kingdom are spoken of frequently in terms suggestive 
 of a Jewish colouring (see xix. 28 ; xxi. 43). It is 
 not impossible to connect this point of view with the 
 suggestion above made that the Gospel was written 
 in Rome, and has the mark of the early Catholic 
 Church upon it, because we know that part at least 
 of the Church in Rome was strongly Jewish in char- 
 acter, and the Palestinean colouring that is certainly 
 present in the Gospel may be owing to those original 
 documents which lie behind it, and to the strong 
 sympathy of its author with the Church in Jerusalem, 
 from which, indeed, he may himself have come. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF MARK 
 External Evidence. — It is from Papias that we learn 
 that " Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, 
 wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, 
 without, however, recording in order what was either 
 said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 29 
 
 Lord, nor did he follow Him ; but afterwards attended 
 Peter, who adapted His instructions to the needs of 
 his hearers, but had no design of giving a connected 
 account of the Lord's oracles (or words). So then, 
 Mark made no mistake while he thus wrote down 
 some things as he remembered them, for he made 
 it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, 
 or to set down any false statement therein." This is 
 the fullest account we have from any early writer of 
 the origin of any Gospel. The earliest writers, as in 
 the case of Matthew, do not afford proof of a know- 
 ledge of Mark, and inasmuch as he has less teaching, 
 and the early writers generally quote actual sayings of 
 Jesus, their evidence is less convincing than in the 
 case of Matthew. In Justin Martyr there is a refer- 
 ence to the sons of Zebedee being called Boanerges, 
 which is "sons of thunder," which statement is only 
 now found in Mark's Gospel; and Tatian, from the 
 fact that he compiled a harmony of the four Gospels, 
 is sufficient evidence that Mark was well known before 
 his day. There is thus evidence from Christian tradi- 
 tion that Mark was current in the early part of the 
 second century, and was definitely associated with the 
 name of Peter as its chief authority. 
 
30 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 We have also seen that internal evidence proves 
 that Mark is the most probable source of the histori- 
 cal framework of Matthew and Luke, since the great 
 mass of it is taken up into one or other of these 
 Gospels. Indeed, almost all the material peculiar to 
 Mark is (i) the parable contained in iv. 26-29; (2) 
 the miracles of the healing of the deaf and dumb man 
 (vii. 31-37), and of the blind man (viii. 22-26); (3) 
 the questions addressed to the disciples (viii. 17, 
 and ix. 33); (4) the young man described in xiv. 51, 
 52 ; (5) Jesus in the hands of the servants of the High 
 Priest (xiv. 65) ; (6) and Pilate's question to the cen- 
 turion (xv. 44). But in addition to the actual incidents 
 that are peculiar to Mark, there are certain points 
 of language and style that are very characteristic. 
 His retention of the original Aramaic forms of words 
 and phrases {cf. iii. 17; vii. 11; xv. 34, t^x.). 
 Greek scholars also find many traces of Aramaic con- 
 structions in his Greek. Some have, indeed, gone so 
 far as to suggest that our Gospel is a translation of 
 an Aramaic original, but the indications that have 
 led to this conclusion may quite as easily, and more 
 probably, be due to the state of affairs mentioned by 
 Papias, namely, that Mark was doing his best to re- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 31 
 
 present as closely as possible in another tongue the 
 form of teaching due to Peter. He is an extremely 
 vivid writer, and almost always describes his scenes 
 not only with the style, but in the actual tenses of 
 an eye-witness. His narratives are very full of such 
 little points as only an eye-witness would notice — e.g. 
 the comparison of the people gathered on the green 
 grass when they were fed by the Lord to beds of 
 garden flowers with their many colours ; the fact 
 that Christ took the little children into His arms; the 
 statement that the colt for which the disciples were 
 sent was tied up in the open street. He has also 
 many words that point to a knowledge of the inner 
 thought and mood of our Lord and His disciples (see 
 vi. 6; xiv. 33; x. 32; xiv. 5). 
 
 There is one very interesting point of textual criti- 
 cism with reference to this Gospel. A glance at the 
 R.V. in chap. xvi. will show a considerable space 
 between the eighth and ninth verses, and a footnote 
 tells us that some authorities omit the last twelve 
 verses, while others have a different ending to the Gospel. 
 The fact is that there exist in all four different con- 
 clusions to Mark's Gospel, (i) There are those MSS., 
 namely the Sinaitic and Vatican, which are the best 
 
32 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 of all, and the recently discovered Sinaitic Syrian 
 version, one of the oldest, and two other old versions, 
 which close the Gospel with the eighth verse, though 
 the Vatican leaves a blank space, as if the scribe 
 had known of the ending he eventually meant to insert. 
 It is scarcely conceivable that the Gospel could origi- 
 nally have finished in this form, for the last Greek word 
 is a particle, which could not have concluded a sentence. 
 We must suppose, therefore, either that the author 
 had been abruptly interrupted in the middle of his 
 task, or that the last page or pages of his manuscript 
 must have disappeared. It is hardly possible that 
 this could have happened during his lifetime without 
 the lack being supplied, and so some think that in 
 the second century all MSS. of Mark disappeared save 
 one, and that from this one the final leaf had been 
 lost. (2) The large majority of MSS. have the ending 
 contained in our New Testament, and it is quoted as part 
 of Mark by Irenaeus. The first writer who definitely 
 rejected the verses, so far as we know, is Eusebius. In 
 a tenth-century Armenian MS. they are attributed to the 
 Presbyter Ariston, which probably stands for Aristion, 
 who is known as one of our Lord's disciples. The 
 great difficulty about the passage is that its language 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 
 
 33 
 
 is very different from that of the rest of the Gospel, 
 and also that the ninth verse does not run on con- 
 nectedly with the eighth. For one thing, it speaks 
 of Mary Magdalen as a new person, though she has 
 already been introduced in the first verse of the chapter. 
 This short summary of post-resurrection events was 
 probably added early to give a conclusion to the 
 Gospel. Some writers think that we have a version 
 of the original conclusion of Mark in the last chapter 
 of John, for it is clear from the seventh verse, as well 
 as from xiv. 28, that the original conclusion of Mark 
 would have dealt with appearances in Galilee, and 
 not in Jerusalem. (3) In four MSS. and in certain 
 versions there is another ending still further removed 
 in style from the rest of the Gospel, and it was most 
 probably the work of a scribe, either Latin or Egyptian. 
 It runs as follows : " And they immediately made 
 known all things that had been commanded them to 
 those about Peter. And after this Jesus Himself 
 appeared, and sent out by means of them from the 
 East even to the West the holy and incorruptible 
 preaching of the eternal Gospel." (4) The most 
 recently discovered MS. of the Gospels is that known 
 as the Detroit or Freer MS. found in Egypt in 1907, 
 
34 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 and dating either from the fourth or fifth centuries. 
 It contains the ending of Mark that is found in our 
 version, but has in addition three verses between our 
 14th and 15th, which read as follows, according 
 to the translation of Professor Swete : " And they 
 excused themselves, saj'ing, This world of iniquity and 
 of unbelief is under Satan, who by reason of unclean 
 spirits sufifereth not men to comprehend the true power 
 of God. Therefore, reveal Thy righteousness now. 
 And Christ answered them, The term of years of the 
 power of Satan is fulfilled, but other dangers are nigh 
 at hand. And for them that sin I was delivered unto 
 death, that they might return to the truth, and sin 
 no more; that they might inherit the spiritual and in- 
 corruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven." 
 This was only known elsewhere in a Latin quotation 
 of part of the passage in a work of Jerome. What its 
 origin may be is not clear, but its great interest is that 
 it gives us a saying of Jesus not otherwise known. 
 The result of these investigations is to show that at pre- 
 sent we have no real conclusion to Mark's Gospel, and 
 must wait in hope that some day a MS. may be dis- 
 covered that contains the original ending, if it was not 
 lost irreparably in the early days of the second century. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 35 
 
 The important question of the exact relation of Mark 
 to the two other synoptics must now be considered, 
 and it is one of great difficulty. The proof of the 
 employment of Mark by Matthew and Luke depends 
 very largely for its validity upon points of minute detail 
 that are not easily set forth in the short space here 
 available, and many of them are only clear to readers of 
 the original, because they consist largely of alterations 
 of Greek expressions from the more colloquial form of 
 Mark to the more polished Greek of the other writers. 
 Two classes of alteration may be given as examples : 
 (i) Where Mark uses Latin words or titles, the other 
 evangelists either omit them or put Greek ones in their 
 place; and (2) where Mark uses popular language in the 
 description of diseases, Luke alters to technically accurate 
 medical language. In many cases it has been noted 
 that where Mark uses language that might be supposed 
 to be derogatory to Jesus, or the cause of offence or 
 difficulty to the reader, the other evangelists have 
 softened it down — e.g. in Mark vi. 5 we read, " He could 
 there do no mighty work ; " but in Matt. xiii. 58 it reads, 
 "He did not many mighty works there." In Mark 
 iii. 5, *' with anger " is omitted by the others, so also in 
 ver. 21 of the same chapter the statement, " He is beside 
 
36 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 himself," is omitted. Only in Mark vi. 3 is Jesus called 
 "the Carpenter." In Mark ii. 26 the historical inac- 
 curacy contained in the words, ** when Abiathar was high 
 priest," is not found in the other evangelists. For 
 further details reference must be made to the larger 
 commentaries and dictionary articles. Many have 
 argued that some of the differences are to be accounted 
 for by the fact that two or even three editions of Mark's 
 Gospel were in existence. Some think that one edition 
 was used by Matthew and. another by Luke. Some 
 hold that our present Mark is one of these revised 
 editions, while others consider it, with more probability, 
 to be the original form. These theories are rather too 
 complicated to be probable, and we may take it that the 
 Mark that we possess is to all intents and purposes the 
 same document that was employed by Matthew and 
 Luke. 
 
 A further question arises as to whether Mark himself 
 employed other written documents. The present writer 
 is inclined to think that he did, though not perhaps the 
 same Logia that were used by Matthew and Luke. The 
 thirteenth chapter was most likely a separate document, 
 and the same may be true of the various parables re- 
 corded in the Gospel. It is further a reasonable 
 
THE GOSPEL OF MARK 37 
 
 assumption that chap. viii. 1-26 is an earlier account of 
 the events recorded in another and more extended form 
 in chaps, vi. 30 to vii. 37. If this latter supposition is 
 correct, the passage in the eighth chapter would then be 
 one of the original sources which lay behind the com- 
 plete Mark, and which by good fortune has been em- 
 bedded in it, telling its tale as clearly as does an erratic 
 boulder in the midst of an entirely different geological 
 formation. 
 
 The point of view of the Gospel may be given in the 
 words of Paul. It is the Gospel of " the Son of God 
 with power." Jesus is represented throughout as the 
 worker of miracles, the healer and the Saviour of men ; 
 but while this is true, there is no Gospel that more 
 clearly describes Him in His most truly human nature, 
 and, indeed, lays such stress upon His human charac- 
 teristics that, as we have found, the other evangelists 
 soften many of them down. In chap. xiii. 32, Mark 
 records the one known instance of our Lord's confession 
 of ignorance. The writer was evidently keeping in view, 
 all through. Gentile readers, since he explains Jewish cus- 
 toms, language, and even topography (see chaps, vii. 2 ; 
 XV. 42 ; xiii. 3). 
 
 As to the date of its writing, the main internal evidences 
 
38 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 are in the discourse inchap.xiii., which seems to be written 
 before the destruction of Jerusalem, though, of course, 
 if one is right in supposing it to be an earHer document 
 embodied in the Gospel, it would not necessarily point 
 to the date of the whole work. The words in chap. ii. 
 26, " it is not lawful," seem to point to the existence of 
 the Temple at the moment when they were written. 
 Further, if it is one of the basal documents of Matthew 
 and Luke, it must have been written before them, and 
 we cannot place Luke very late if we accept his author- 
 ship of Acts. These indications, therefore, seem to 
 point to about the year 70 as the most probable date 
 of the work. 
 
 Person of Writer. — Of Mark himself we know practi- 
 cally nothing beyond what the New Testament tells us 
 in the references in Acts, certain of Paul's Epistles, and 
 I. Peter. The idea that the author himself appears as 
 the young man (chap. xiv. 51, 52) is contradicted by the 
 statement of Papias that he neither heard the Lord nor 
 accompanied Him. His close connection with Barnabas 
 is an interesting circumstance in the history of the early 
 Church, and it is not without significance to think that 
 in this Gospel we may have quite as much of the echo 
 and tone of Barnabas's mission preaching as we have of 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 39 
 
 that of Peter. The connection between Peter's speeches 
 in Acts and the simple form of the Marcan doctrine of 
 the person of Christ is also worthy of study. Two 
 points are noteworthy in Christian tradition about Mark, 
 though it is difficult to attach great importance to either 
 of them. The one connects him with a mission in 
 Egypt, and particularly in Alexandria, while another tells 
 us that he was known as the man with the maimed hand, 
 which may, indeed, be a true statement about him, as it 
 is just such physical peculiarities that often linger as the 
 truthful portion of otherwise worthless tradition. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 
 
 The Historian. — The third Gospel begins in a way 
 unique among all the books of the New Testament, 
 for the writer gives us at the outset some account of 
 the methods he has employed in preparing his work. 
 The familiar and famous words may as well be quoted 
 here : " Forasmuch," he says, " as many have taken in 
 hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters 
 which have been fulfilled among us, even as they de- 
 livered them unto us, which from the beginning were 
 eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed 
 
40 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 good to me also, having traced the course of all things 
 accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, 
 most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know 
 the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast 
 instructed." These words reveal to us that the writer 
 was familiar with numerous accounts, presumably written 
 documents, based upon the testimony of eye-witnesses 
 and missionaries, and that he had carefully examined 
 all these in order to form from them a more full and 
 authentic narrative than any known to him. This at 
 once places the Gospel in a position of prominence 
 amongst its fellows, and marks it out as of special 
 value. If we are right in the conclusions already 
 arrived at, then we know at least two of these narra- 
 tives, namely, Mark and the collection of teachings 
 common to Matthew and Luke. This Gospel, there- 
 fore, while it necessarily throws great light upon the 
 synoptic problem, also contributes its own elements 
 of difficulty to that problem. It is clear at the outset 
 that the general order of the Gospel is determined by 
 that of Mark, for when at chap. ix. 50 he leaves 
 Mark's Gospel in order to insert a long section, largely 
 peculiar to himself, up till xviii. 14, at the 15th verse 
 of the latter chapter he returns to Mark again at x. 13 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 41 
 
 of the latter book, and follows his order closely to 
 the end. 
 
 His Sources. — When we turn to the second source, 
 namely, the collection of sayings, we find that Luke 
 treats them in quite a different way from Matthew. 
 The latter, as we saw, delights in lengthy combina- 
 tions of teaching, whereas Luke has, as a rule, much 
 shorter connected passages, and does his utmost to 
 give the teaching in the circumstances that either seem 
 to him appropriate, or that may have been indicated 
 as the proper settings for them in the sources that 
 were open to him. Two points are noteworthy. First, 
 that sometimes, as in chaps, xv. and xvi., Luke masses 
 together parables without more than such introductory 
 words as "and he said," or "and he spake unto them 
 this parable," or even, as in xvi. 19, without any 
 introductory formula whatever. In the whole of the 
 section above referred to as peculiar to Luke's Gospel, 
 this method is very noticeable. It reminds us of a 
 form in which some of the Logia have been recently 
 discovered in the Egyptian papyri, and it may indicate 
 that Luke found these stories in a collection that had 
 no indication of time and place at all, and that he 
 simply arranges them according to his own judgment, 
 
42 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 in what appeared to him to be the most suitable 
 manner. For example, in xvi. 13 we have a saying 
 which appears in Matthew vi. 24 obviously not closely 
 connected with the context, so set by Luke that it 
 finds the clearest of illustrations in the parable that 
 precedes it. An interesting study is to make a careful 
 examination of the Sermon on the Mount as recorded 
 by Matthew and Luke, and to endeavour to discover 
 reasons for the contexts in which Luke places the 
 various sayings. Again, Luke's arrangement of the 
 discourses on the last things, and on the siege of 
 Jerusalem, gain greatly in clearness and significance 
 by their setting. {Cf. Luke xvii. 20-37 and xxi. 5-38 
 with Matthew xxiv.) Dr. Wright notes a very in- 
 teresting example of Luke's method in the case of 
 xi. 9 compared with Matthew vii. 7, and in answer 
 to the question why the change has taken place, 
 says : " The words ' pray ' or ' prayer ' do not occur 
 in it, and the redactor of St. Matthew, acting, as we 
 are all liable to do, mechanically, did not perceive 
 that this Logion dealt with prayer. St. Luke was more 
 observant." 
 
 It seems impossible to come to any conclusion as to 
 what were the sources of the large amount of material 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 43 
 
 that is peculiar to Luke, especially the numerous lovely 
 parables in which his Gospel abounds. They constitute, 
 as Dr. Wright says, " the very cream of the Gospel," and 
 yet it is from him alone that we know them. Many have 
 seen in the tone of these parables, and in the general 
 catholicity of Luke's attitude, the influence of Paul ; but 
 we can hardly suppose that Paul had access to any 
 sources of Gospel history that were not known to Luke. 
 A most fascinating theory, and one that has much pro- 
 bability about it, is that of Dr. Salmon, who thinks that 
 Luke's Gospel, especially in its peculiar elements, is 
 derived from the form of mission preaching that was 
 familiar to the Church at Antioch. That Church, it will 
 be remembered, was the first to send out missionaries to 
 the Gentiles, and the type of peculiarly Lucan teaching 
 is, therefore, most appropriate to the community. 
 
 Harnack thinks that much of the Lucan material is 
 derived from the narrative of Philip the Evangelist, of 
 whose value as a historian he does not entertain the 
 very highest opinion. The infancy and resurrection 
 narratives probably represent different and independent 
 sources. The former show a strongly Aramaic influence, 
 and Sanday is inclined to regard them as the most 
 primitive section of all the New Testament writings. 
 
44 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Others suppose that Luke has himself written them in 
 an archaic style in order to suit the special circumstances 
 they describe. What seems very certain is that the 
 beautiful and well-known poems in the section are the 
 productions of conscious art, and not the extempore 
 product even of inspired imagination. This is obvious 
 to any one who will take the trouble to compare the 
 poems with their Old Testament models. The resur- 
 rection narratives show a knowledge only of the Jeru- 
 salem tradition, and have no hint of appearances in 
 Galilee. 
 
 There is one noteworthy feature in the Gospel which 
 may have a certain bearing upon its origin, namely, the 
 prominence throughout it of the feminine element. We 
 are told more about women than in any of the other 
 Gospels, though John's Gospel comes nearest to it, this 
 being one of several points of resemblance between 
 Luke and John. The following are some of the most 
 important occasions on which women are named : the 
 stories about Elizabeth, Anna, the sisters of Bethany, 
 the daughters of Jerusalem, the woman who was a 
 sinner, and the woman named in viii. i ; as also in the 
 following parables: the widow and the unjust judge, 
 and the woman with the lost piece of silver. Harnack 
 
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE 45 
 
 points to Philip's daughters as the most probable sources 
 of this pecuHar element. 
 
 Of Luke himself we do not know a great deal directly 
 in the New Testament. Most of our information is 
 inferential. The name seems to be one of a class of 
 pet names which are common in the period, it being 
 evidently a contraction of Lucanus. We do not even 
 know his birthplace, tradition mentioning Antioch, 
 which many follow on grounds of probability, but 
 Ramsay and others think he was a Macedonian, and 
 probably a native of Philippi, basing the theory upon 
 the circumstances of his first appearance in Acts {cf. xvi. 
 9, lo). He was evidently a Gentile who came into con- 
 tact and close sympathy with Jews. It is noticed that 
 his adherence to the language of the Septuagint is closer 
 than that of the other evangelists, while his Greek is that 
 of the cultured man of the time. A very special feature 
 of his language is its medical character. Over and over 
 again we find technical medical terms employed where 
 the other evangelists have either no equivalent or use the 
 popular terms of common speech, and in other instances 
 he will use a medical word where the other writers use a 
 common one — e.g. in the saying about the eye of a 
 needle, Luke's word is that employed by the medical 
 
46 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 writers for a surgical needle. He alone it is who quotes 
 the medical proverb, " Physician, heal thyself," and who 
 in the case of the woman healed on the way to the house 
 of Jairus, omits the harsher words used of physicians in 
 Mark's Gospel. (For a full treatment of the subject see 
 App. I. in Harnack's " Luke the Physician.") It is just 
 possible that he may have studied at Tarsus, which was 
 Paul's university, and that they may have met there. 
 That is at least a feasible alternative to the Macedonian 
 theory. Professor Souter thinks that Titus was Luke's 
 brother (see II. Cor. xii. i8, which he would translate 
 "his brother"). 
 
 Date. — Apparently the Lucan version of our Lord's 
 words about the fall of Jerusalem was written after 
 the event had taken place, and in full knowledge of 
 the facts about its siege by the Romans, so that the 
 Gospel probably was not written earlier than 75 ; and 
 in order to allow time for the writing of Acts, it is 
 not likely that it was written any later than 80. 
 
 The point of view of the Gospel is more catholic 
 and universal than that of either Mark or Matthew. 
 The genealogy he preserves when compared with that 
 in Matthew shows this point of view very clearly, for 
 he makes Jesus there the representative of the human 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 47 
 
 race in its Divine descent ; and all through the position 
 of the writer is that of one who emphasises the sym- 
 pathy of Jesus for men as men, for the sinful as 
 sinners, and his delineation of salvation is that of its 
 world-wide efficacy. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 
 
 When we turn to this, the greatest of the books 
 of the New Testament, we are beset with almost 
 countless difficulties. If we read the book without 
 further question mainly as a wonderful spiritual inter- 
 pretation of the person and work of Christ, we are 
 impressed afresh on every new reading by its beauty 
 and its power; but when we go further and raise the 
 many questions that such reading necessarily implies 
 in the mind of the student, we find ourselves faced 
 by enormous difficulties. From the earliest times some 
 of these have been felt, and in our own day a closer 
 investigation and recent discoveries have only em- 
 phasised them, and done comparatively little toward 
 their solution. 
 
 The first question is, What John wrote the book? 
 Early testimony is not so unanimous, as is often 
 
48 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 supposed, in saying that it was John the Apostle. In 
 fact, it is very remarkable that none of the early 
 writers actually call him Apostle. The testimony of 
 the earliest writings outside the New Testament — e.g. 
 Didymus, Epistle of Barnabas, and Clement — are, as 
 we have already found in other cases, quite indefinite. 
 The Epistle of Polycarp has close verbal resemblances 
 in various passages to the language of this Gospel, 
 and in one place seems almost certainly to quote the 
 First Epistle of John, but there is not any direct 
 quotation, nor, of course, any reference to the author 
 of the work. Irenseus tells us that Polycarp was 
 an associate of those who had seen Christ, and had 
 himself had personal intercourse with John, the disciple 
 of the Lord. There is little doubt that in his own 
 mind Irenseus identifies this John with the Apostle, 
 though he does not say so in so many words. It is 
 quite possible, however, that as Irenasus was a boy 
 when he met Polycarp, he may have confused a more 
 famous with a less famous John, and the person to 
 whom Polycarp referred may have been that John of 
 Ephesus of whom we shall hear more presently. 
 
 In the writings of Ignatius there are several clear 
 affinities with the language of John's Gospel, and 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 49 
 
 in one passage (Rom. vii. 2) an almost certain refer- 
 ence to the story of the woman of Samaria, but in no 
 case does he exactly quote the words of the Gospel, 
 nor does he ever name either it or its author. This is 
 the more remarkable, seeing that he himself writes 
 a letter to the Ephesian Church in which he men- 
 tions Paul, but not John. All that can be fairly 
 inferred, therefore, from his writings is a knowledge 
 of the type of teaching contained in the fourth Gospel. 
 With Papias we are in a different position, and one 
 of his statements, preserved by Eusebius, constitutes 
 one of the great grounds of controversy. He tells us 
 that when he met any one who had attended the elders, 
 he used to inquire about the words of the latter, 
 "what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, 
 or what Thomas or James or John or Matthew or 
 any other of the disciples of the Lord said, and what 
 Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, 
 say. For I was not inchned to suppose that state- 
 ments made by the book would help me so much as 
 the utterances of a living and abiding voice." The 
 most obvious interpretation of these words is that Papias 
 himself was in a position to make inquiries from the 
 elder John, while the former John of whom he speaks 
 
so BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 had already died. It will be seen that there is nothing 
 in the passage bearing on the Gospel, but we do 
 have evidence of the way in which such writers as 
 Irenseus and Eusebius understood the evidence of 
 Papias; but this does not clearly point to a definite 
 statement that the latter attributed the Gospel to the 
 Apostle, and two recently discovered fragments of the 
 writings of Papias state that James and John both died 
 at the hands of the Jews. Some have thrown doubt 
 upon these fragments, but even if they are authentic, 
 it is not proved that they both died together, and it 
 would not in itself make it impossible that John the 
 Apostle might have suffered at Ephesus, though certainly 
 it would in that case be very unlikely. Justin Martyr 
 shows evidence of knowledge of Johannine language, 
 but not definitely of quotation. It is held that his 
 use of the term "Apostles," as the authors of the 
 Memoirs of the Lord to which he frequently refers, 
 must imply his knowledge of Matthew and John. His 
 thought and language also are often similar to that 
 of the fourth Gospel, but, again, this may only be 
 due to his familiarity with that type of teaching. The 
 Mur. Fragment, Clement, Alexander, and Irenaeus 
 definitely attribute the work to John. The words of 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 51 
 
 the latter writer are, " John, the disciple of the Lord, 
 who leaned upon His breast, wrote it while dwell- 
 ing in Ephesus, the city of Asia." These words have 
 been generally taken to mean that Irenseus identified 
 the writer with the Apostle, but it is not absolutely 
 essential to say that if, as we shall see, the "beloved 
 disciple " may not have been the Apostle. 
 
 The evidence of the use of the book by the heretical 
 sects of the second century is a very difficult and in- 
 tricate subject, and cannot here be entered upon. 
 Suffice it to say that among many of them this Gospel 
 seems to have been familiar, and that, therefore, its wide- 
 spread use in the middle of the century is pretty clear, 
 as is also evidenced by the harmony of Tatian. The 
 result of the external evidence may, therefore, be briefly 
 summarised as follows: (i) The Gospel was in exist- 
 ence early in the second century ; (2) it was attributed 
 to a John of Ephesus ; (3) its author was not definitely 
 identified with the Apostle until the end of the second 
 century. 
 
 Where external evidence is not regarded as quite 
 satisfactory, it is customary to refer to the internal 
 evidence as being beyond dispute a proof of apostolic 
 authorship, and the evidence is usually given in four 
 
52 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 concentric circles as follows: (i) The author was a 
 Jew, which is proved by his frequent references to Old 
 Testament prophecy {cf. xii. 37 ; xix. 24, 28) and his 
 intimate familiarity with Jewish manners and customs. 
 (2) He is a Jew of Palestine. This is proved by the 
 intimate knowledge of topographical details. Such is 
 his distinction between the two Bethanys, his intimate 
 knowledge of Jerusalem and its environs, &c. (3) That 
 he is a contemporary and eye-witness. This is proved 
 by his familiarity with the attitude of the religious parties 
 in Judaea, and also in his clear interpretation of the mind 
 of the people, as well as in his portraits of individuals 
 like Nicodemus and Caiaphas. (4) His intimate associ- 
 ation with Jesus and the other Apostles proves him to 
 have been an Apostle himself. He is certainly described 
 in the book (see xii. 23; xix. 26) as the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved, and he is intimate with such mem- 
 bers of the twelve as Philip, Andrew, Thomas, and 
 Judas. His interpretation of his Lord's inward feelings 
 is very close and constant, and if he be not himself the 
 John of the apostolic band, he never mentions the 
 latter. In the other Gospels Peter and John are often 
 closely united, and in this Gospel the unnamed disciple 
 and Peter are shown as close friends, Delff has sug- 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 53 
 
 gested that the beloved disciple may have been a man 
 of high priestly family, a native of Jerusalem, intimately 
 associated with our Lord and His Apostles, permitted to 
 be present at the Last Supper, and on other occasions, but 
 not himself an Apostle. This theory has great difficulties, 
 but it is not impossible, and this disciple may himself 
 have become known at a later time as John of Ephesus. 
 One of the great difficulties that attaches to the Gospel 
 is its relation to the synoptics. At first glance it is 
 obvious how little they have in common, and how many 
 most important incidents in the latter — e.g. the Tempta- 
 tion, Transfiguration, Agony, Lord's Supper, &c. — are 
 wanting in the pages of John. Very slight account is 
 given in the latter of the ministry in Galilee, which 
 occupies so large a place in the synoptic narratives. 
 On the other hand, the important place assigned to the 
 raising of Lazarus in the fourth Gospel makes it difficult 
 to understand why there should be no mention of the 
 event in the synoptics. The well-known difficulty 
 about the date of the Lord's Supper is another marked 
 point of divergence. John says it took place before the 
 Feast of the Passover. With the synoptics it took place 
 on the first day of the feast. The problem cannot be 
 discussed here, but it is a very vital point in the whole 
 
54 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 question of the relationship between the two forms of 
 the story. 
 
 A further noteworthy distinction lies in the form of 
 the teaching of Jesus as given in the synoptics, and in 
 John. This does not lie so much in the mere length 
 of the discourses, for Drummond has shown that the 
 longest single discourses are contained in Matthew, and 
 also that there are quite as many short aphoristic sayings 
 in the fourth Gospel as in the synoptics, but the 
 character of the teaching is certainly different. There 
 are no parables in the fourth Gospel, and all through 
 the latter Jesus speaks of Himself and of the nature of 
 His person in a way that is rarely paralleled in the 
 other Gospels. There is, of course, one striking passage 
 in the end of chapter xi. in Matthew which has much 
 affinity with the form of His utterances in John, and 
 there are many other points of contact, such as the 
 teaching on the new birth given to Nicodemus, when 
 compared with the well-known sayings in the synoptics, 
 " Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall 
 not enter the kingdom of heaven." ^ In the main, how- 
 ever, the style of the discourses in John are not only 
 very different from those elsewhere recorded, but are so 
 ^ See Appendix. 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 55 
 
 obviously coloured by the form of expression used by 
 the writer himself in his narrative and reflective passages, 
 that it is sometimes impossible to tell where the words 
 of Jesus end and the words of the evangelist begin {cf. 
 iii. 12-21). The prayer recorded in chapter xvii. is 
 another good example, for not only is such a form of 
 expression as that employed in the third verse practi- 
 cally inconceivable as being used by our Lord Himself, 
 but the whole report of the prayer, unless we could 
 conceive it to be given with perfect verbal accuracy, 
 conveys the impression of an artistic production of the 
 writer, embodying no doubt echoes of what he had 
 heard from the lips of Jesus, but constituting in its 
 present form an ideal prayer of self-consecration and 
 intercession for His disciples. 
 
 Further, the way in which the Jews are spoken of 
 throughout the book is quite different from anything 
 found in the synoptics. Severe things are said of 
 sections of the community, such as the Scribes and 
 Pharisees in Matthew xxiii. and elsewhere, but never 
 do we find the whole community of the people classed 
 as enemies of our Lord and His work. The language 
 used is even more severe than that employed by Paul, 
 when in Galatians and elsewhere he deals with the 
 
56 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 errors of the Jewish party. The manner in which 
 John the Baptist and his teaching is spoken of also 
 reveals the atmosphere of controversy, suggesting that 
 his influence and the school he had formed is re- 
 garded by the writer as a serious rival to the work of 
 Jesus. A further polemical aim is found in the under- 
 lying consciousness all the way through the Gospel 
 that the writer is aware of the growing power of certain 
 interpreters of Christianity, who became known later 
 as the Gnostics. The Gospel lays much stress upon 
 Christ as the one agent in all creation, and upon God 
 His Father being the same God that was known to 
 Abraham, and upon sonship of God being only possible 
 through Jesus Christ. It has been further pointed 
 out that the writer carefully avoids using the technical 
 terms of the Gnostic teaching. The points noted 
 above are in direct opposition to the Gnostic idea 
 that creation was accomplished through the agency 
 of angels, and that Divine sonship might be attained 
 through processes of intellectual illumination. The 
 First Epistle of John, which undoubtedly stands closely 
 related to the Gospel, is even more clearly filled with 
 the echo of this controversy. 
 
 Even if the great key-words of the Gospel were 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 57 
 
 not struck out in the heat of controversy, they remain 
 very characteristic of the writer's method. He inter- 
 prets the Gospel in terms of light and darkness, life 
 and death, truth and falsehood, and other similar 
 terms. This gives the writing a unique character, 
 and also presents the Gospel in a very interesting 
 and striking way ; but it will probably never be pos- 
 sible to decide how far this is due to his own mental 
 attitude, and how far it goes back upon the actual 
 terminology of Jesus. Another characteristic feature 
 of the Gospel is its use of significant numbers. The 
 number seven occurs in various connections — e.g. in 
 the forms of Christ's utterances that begin with the 
 words " I am," and also in the number of witnesses 
 borne to Christ. There are other evidences that a 
 symbolism of numbers was in the writer's mind, a 
 method which was probably derived from the Jewish 
 school at Alexandria. 
 
 The German writer, Wendt, whose work has been 
 translated into English, under the title "The Gospel 
 according to St. John," maintains the theory that the 
 fourth Gospel, like the synoptics, is also dependent 
 upon original written sources, which were afterwards 
 worked up by the final editor. He thinks that the 
 
58 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 discourses are drawn from an older document, and 
 that the narrative portions are due to the later writer. 
 In the discourses he finds an independent series of 
 Logia which may be ultimately derivable from the 
 Apostle John, just as those in the first Gospel may 
 well owe their origin to the Apostle Matthew. He 
 shows with great skill the resemblances that these 
 bear to the synoptics, though he is inclined to think 
 that the acquaintance shown with the latter is rather 
 that of recollection of their teaching than of the actual 
 use of the written form of these stories. The narra- 
 tive sections, the editing of the discourses, and, to 
 a great extent, the language in which the latter are 
 couched, are in the main due to the writer. This 
 partition theory has been quite recently supported in 
 another form by Wellhausen. His position is that 
 the Gospel consists of two main documents, the earlier 
 one dependent in its outUne upon Mark, and the 
 later one in many ways dependent upon Matthew. 
 It is to the latter that the majority of the long speeches 
 and dialogues belong. The earlier document em- 
 phasises the historical side, and the latter lays more 
 stress upon the teaching. The theory is worked out 
 with much ingenuity, and some of its detailed analyses 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 59 
 
 certainly help to remove great difficulties — e.g. in the 
 sections that deal with our Lord's teaching about the 
 Holy Spirit, where every reader feels the difficulty of 
 distinguishing between the passages which speak of 
 our Lord's personal return, and those which describe 
 the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Wellhausen is able 
 to remove all confusion by attributing one form of 
 teaching to the earlier and the other to the later 
 source. His key-passage is chap. vii. 3, 4, which, as 
 he says, seems to take it for granted that Jesus had 
 not up to this time done any work in Jerusalem. It 
 seems to the writer, therefore, that these verses point 
 to another tradition with which the main part of the 
 chapter does not accord, and give the indication that 
 a double source must be looked for. 
 
 There are, however, great difficulties about dividing 
 what has been called the " seamless robe " of the fourth 
 Gospel, and this is especially the case if we regard the 
 prologue, as the present writer does, as not only an 
 essential part of the whole book, but as governing in 
 thought and expression the whole of the work to which 
 it is a preface. 
 
 It will be clear from what has preceded that it is not 
 an easy matter to fix upon a definite date for the com- 
 
6o BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 position of the Gospel, but in all likelihood the close of 
 the first century is as probable as any date that can be 
 named. We have also to leave in abeyance the decision 
 as to which John it was who wrote it. One is some- 
 times tempted to wonder whether John Mark himself 
 might not have been the author. In this way, perhaps, 
 DelfFs theory might be reconciled with later tradition. 
 The beloved disciple might then be the youth who fled 
 from the capturers of Christ on the night of the betrayal, 
 as is recorded in Mark's Gospel. The idea that the 
 twenty-first chapter of John represents the original con- 
 clusion of Mark is a very attractive one, and would form 
 another link. John Mark disappears from the narrative 
 of the New Testament after his departure on a mission 
 with Barnabas, save for one or two casual mentions in 
 the epistles. Tradition tells us that he went to Alex- 
 andria. Suppose this were so, that at Alexandria he 
 became familiar with the thought of Philo, and at a 
 later time settled at Ephesus, and, dissatisfied with his 
 earlier Gospel, wrote a new one, which interpreted his 
 great Friend and Saviour in a new light, we might have 
 a reason for the comparative neglect and the obviously 
 unfinished condition of the second Gospel. All this is 
 admittedly speculative, but in present conditions there 
 
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 6i 
 
 is room for speculation, and it is not more improbable 
 than some theories that have been formed of the origin 
 of the book. 
 
 The point of view from which the work was written 
 has been generally indicated, and the name by which it 
 became known at the beginning of the third century, 
 namely, "the spiritual gospel," suits it well, if this is 
 not understood as implying an adverse judgment as to 
 its historical value. It seems likely that the writer felt 
 the great danger that menaced the Church from the idea 
 prevalent in many quarters, that our Lord's earthly life 
 was not that of a real man. The emphasis laid by Paul 
 upon the importance of the risen and eternal Christ had 
 by some been so misunderstood as to cause them to 
 think that the story of His humanity mattered little. 
 This writer takes as his thesis the idea that Christ 
 *' became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His 
 glory." The central idea of the book is well expressed 
 in the well-known lines of Browning's poem, "A Death 
 in the Desert " : — 
 
 " I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ 
 Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee 
 All questions in the earth and out of it, 
 And has so far advanced thee to be wise." 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 The opening verses of this book claim it as a continua- 
 tion of the third Gospel, and there are many features of 
 its vocabulary and manner of treatment which support 
 the statement. Much, therefore, which has been said 
 in our discussion of Luke's Gospel is applicable also to 
 this book, so that the student should read that section 
 before continuing the present chapter, as the former 
 material will be taken for granted in the following 
 discussion. 
 
 External Evidence. — The evidence of the earliest 
 writers outside the New Testament is, as usual, not very 
 conclusive about their knowledge of Acts. Clement of 
 Rome has quotations from the Old Testament in the 
 same form and order in which they appear in Acts, but 
 these may well be derived from some well-known collec- 
 tion of such prophecies, and do not necessarily show a 
 
 knowledge of this work. He also quotes the saying of 
 
 63 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 63 
 
 Jesus given in Acts xx. 35, but this also may be derived 
 from some other tradition. Neither are the references 
 in Ignatius or Polycarp conclusive proof that these 
 writers knew the work. In the first apology of Justin 
 Martyr, chaps, xlix. and 1., there are references to the 
 Apostles' setting out from Jerusalem to preach the Gospel 
 to the Gentiles, but they are expressed in far too general 
 language to say that they show more than acquaintance 
 with general tradition. In a letter written by some 
 Christians in Southern Gaul toward the end of the second 
 century, there seems a pretty clear reference to the account 
 in Acts of Stephen's martyrdom ; and the legends of 
 Paul and Thecla, which also date from the second 
 century, are pretty certainly derived from our Acts of 
 the Apostles. The Mur. Can. recognises it, and also 
 contains the account of its authorship by Luke. Later 
 authors accept it definitely; but even in the days of 
 Chrysostom, that great preacher tells us that there were 
 many ignorant, not only of its authorship, but of its 
 existence. 
 
 The internal evidence of the book's authorship by 
 Luke is, as has been already stated, very definite, its 
 own statement to this effect being supported by gram- 
 matical usages peculiar to this work and to the third 
 
64 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Gospel. In it also are found in many places the same 
 medical vocabulary that is a feature of Luke's earlier 
 writing. We must further keep in mind the fact that 
 Luke has told us in the beginning of the Gospel that he 
 knew and had examined various earlier accounts of the 
 life and work of Jesus, and we may legitimately suppose 
 that he adopted the same method in writing his later 
 work. If we may assume this, we shall be prepared to 
 find traces of sources in this book also, and a little 
 examination seems to make these evident. The first 
 and most striking one is what is called by various 
 writers "the *We' section," " the travel document," or 
 "the journey record," which consists undoubtedly of 
 the following sections: chaps, xvi. 10-17; xx. 5; xxi. 
 i8j xxvii. i; xxviii. 16. In one document, the Codex 
 Bezae, the "We" form is employed at xi. 28. The 
 natural inference from the form of expression used in 
 these sections is that an eye-witness is giving an account 
 of the events therein recorded, and we may take this as 
 a basis for our study of the rest of the book. If the 
 language used in these passages is similar to that em- 
 ployed elsewhere, we are justified in the conclusion that 
 the author of these chapters is likewise the author of 
 the rest of the work, and a careful examination of the 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 65 
 
 whole writing justifies the position. It is more markedly 
 true of the second part of the book, which deals with 
 the life and missionary labours of Paul, but even in the 
 earlier section, which tells the story of the early days 
 of the Church at Jerusalem, and the various missionary 
 journeys of the Apostles, the spe<;ial marks of the same 
 writer are everywhere apparent. In the earlier section, 
 however, there are many passages which show clear traces 
 of their separate origin, as e.g. the speech of Stephen, 
 the narrative of the Day of Pentecost, and the addresses 
 delivered by Peter and John. Even in the English 
 translation it is not impossible to recognise a marked 
 difference of language between these and the rest of 
 the narrative. There were probably separate accounts 
 of the work of Philip, Peter, and Stephen current in the 
 early Church, and parts of these Luke has apparently 
 embodied in his completed work. 
 
 The science of textual criticism has an important 
 bearing upon this book, inasmuch as the Codex Bezae 
 and various documents that are closely alHed with it 
 have preserved a text that differs at many points from 
 the ordinary form of the majority of documents. This 
 is seen mainly in numerous additions to the common 
 text. Sometimes these take the form of little local 
 
66 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 touches, as e.g. in xii. lo, in the account of Peter's 
 escape from prison, where we are told that he and the 
 angel " went down the seven steps " ; or in xix. 9, where 
 we are informed that Paul taught daily in the school of 
 Tyrannus at Ephesus, " from the fifth to the tenth hour." 
 Sometimes the alteration makes an obscure passage 
 clear, as in xxi. 16, where the reading of the Codex 
 Bezae is much more probable than the ordinary text. 
 It reads at the place, "and passing on into a certain 
 village we were with Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, 
 and starting thence we came to Jerusalem." Naturally 
 these marked divergences have given rise to many theories 
 about their origin, and as yet no satisfactory conclusion 
 has been reached, though it seems probable that they 
 are ultimately due to the notes of some scribe who has 
 taken this way of preserving traditions which were not 
 embodied in the original writing. 
 
 The date of the book cannot be very much later than 
 that of Luke's Gospel, and may be even immediately 
 subsequent to it, so* that somewhere about the year 80 
 is the period we must think of as that to which the 
 original belongs. 
 
 As to the nature of the book, the author's own name 
 for it is a " treatise." It is neither a collection of mere 
 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 67 
 
 annals or of the biographies of individuals, nor yet is it 
 a comprehensive record of the Church's origin and 
 development. It seems to fulfil a twofold purpose, 
 being on the one hand a book of practical religious in- 
 struction, showing its readers how the Gospel spread 
 and the Church developed under the guidance of the 
 Divine Spirit, and, on the other hand, it is the earliest 
 specimen of the apologies of Christianity which were 
 a marked feature of the second century. All through it 
 is favourable to the Roman Government. The various 
 Roman officials who are introduced are spoken of 
 sympathetically, and the opportunities afforded by the 
 Imperial Government for the spread of the Gospel are 
 everywhere emphasised. The writer's methods are those 
 of the historian of the time, and we must not suppose 
 that all the speeches are to be taken as verbatim reports 
 of the actual words used, but are rather the author's 
 own setting of the arguments employed by the various 
 persons on the occasion in question. Sometimes, as in 
 the case of the speech of Stephen, and of that delivered 
 by Paul at Athens, he seems to be more than usually 
 well informed about the actual language employed, but 
 on other occasions the language is almost certainly due 
 more to the writer than to the speaker. We may be 
 
6S BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 thankful that he has not always used his editorial powers 
 to harmonise too closely his different sources, as e.g. 
 when he preserves for us three separate accounts of 
 Paul's conversion, for in this way we are better able to 
 reach the original account of the events he records. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF PAUL 
 
 A VERY large number of the books of the New Testa- 
 ment are written in the form of letters. This was, of 
 course, no new method invented by the Christian 
 writers. Letters had always been a common way of 
 conveying messages from friend to friend, or from a 
 leader to some community in which he was interested. 
 In the Old Testament we have a letter written by 
 Jeremiah to his friends in exile at Babylon, contained 
 in chapter xxix. of his book of prophecies, and in 
 addition to the actual books written in the form of 
 letters in the New Testament, we have two letters con- 
 tained in the Book of Acts — one in Acts xv. 23-29, and 
 one in Acts xxiii. 25-30. Recent discoveries among 
 the Egyptian papyri have unearthed many hundred 
 letters of the period, and from these we can discover 
 
 the general form of letters then current. These have 
 
 69 
 
70 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 shown us that Paul and the other letter writers of the 
 New Testament have moulded their communications 
 on the ordinary form of epistolary communication of the 
 period. Perhaps the letter that comes nearest to the 
 general type of such productions is that known as III. 
 John. In addition to the greetings and salutations con- 
 tained in almost all the New Testament letters, we find 
 that the general form of Paul's letters — namely, saluta- 
 tion, a thanksgiving, a prayer, personal messages, and a 
 final greeting — follows the general outline of ordinary 
 private letters. 
 
 Origin. — We can thus see that Paul's letters arose 
 out of the ordinary circumstances of social intercourse, 
 being in many cases the result of oral or written mes- 
 sages sent by his friends and converts to himself; and 
 sometimes he certainly embodies quotations from these 
 letters in his own replies. This seems to be the best 
 explanation of such verses as I. Cor. vii. i ; viii. i ; 
 viii. 8, &c. Much light is thrown upon Paul's method 
 and thought by reading his letters in chronological 
 order, and though there is considerable difference of 
 opinion among scholars as to the exact order of some of 
 the letters, there is general agreement as to the groups, 
 and a considerable amount of unanimity as to the exact 
 
I. THESSALONIANS 71 
 
 order here given. In any case it is important to have 
 the groups clear, and we shall follow this order in the 
 discussions of the individual letters. 
 
 I. The earliest letters — I. and II. Thessalonians. 
 
 II. The great letters — Galatians, I. and II. Corin- 
 thians, Romans. 
 
 This group contains the letters accepted as Paul's by 
 all schools of scholarship, except a few erratic Dutch 
 scholars and their followers. For an account of their 
 views and an effective answer to them, see Shaw's 
 " Pauline Epistles." The views themselves may be read 
 in articles in the Encydopcedia Biblica. 
 
 III. The letters written during the captivity in 
 Rome — Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, Philippians. 
 
 The pastoral letters — I. and II. Timothy, Titus. 
 We shall begin our detailed discussion, therefore, with 
 
 I. THESSALONIANS 
 The city of Thessalonica, to the Christian community 
 in which this letter was addressed, was one which, under 
 Roman rule, preserved much of its original Greek form, 
 and its magistrates were known by the technical title of 
 Politarchs, as Luke tells us in Acts xvii. 6. It was a 
 flourishing and important city, one of the chief centres 
 
72 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 of population in Macedonia. When Paul reached it he 
 began his work, as elsewhere, in the Jewish synagogue, 
 but it was among the Gentiles that he obtained his 
 largest number of converts. The Jews stirred up the 
 rabble of the city against him, and created a consider- 
 able riot, attempting to implicate Paul and his friends in 
 a plot against the Roman authority. They were com- 
 pelled to escape hurriedly to Beroea, and at a later time 
 Paul sent Timothy on a visit to the Thessalonian 
 Church. It is as the outcome of this visit that the first 
 letter was written, almost certainly from Corinth, and 
 probably in or about the year 50. 
 
 The immediate object of the letter was to confirm the 
 faith of the Thessalonians in the truth of the life after 
 death of the believers in Christ, and to assure them that 
 their friends who had died would be at no disadvantage 
 in the event of their Lord's sudden Advent during the 
 life of the survivors. At this period of his ministry Paul 
 evidently looked for that event in the near future, and 
 supposed that he and many of his friends would be 
 alive when it took place. He further deals in the letter 
 with the question of internal disorders in the Church, 
 and gives particular injunctions about the proper con- 
 duct of the Christian disciple. It is interesting to trace 
 
I. THESSALONIANS 73 
 
 in this letter the germ of many ideas which were after- 
 wards more fully developed in later communications of 
 the Apostle — e.g. we have in chapter i. 3 the group of 
 the three Christian virtues of faith, love, and hope, which 
 afterwards form the subject-matter of I. Cor. xiii. In 
 i. 10 we have emphasis laid upon the importance of 
 the resurrection of Christ as the foundation truth of the 
 Christian faith, and in v. 10 we have the germ of the 
 doctrine of the life in Christ, which takes so prominent 
 a place in later epistles. It is thus clear that there was 
 not such a marked development as is often supposed in 
 the later theology of the Apostle, but that the central 
 ideas of his special doctrines w^ere present to his mind 
 and in his preaching at the outset, and that the fuller 
 statement of these truths in later letters is largely due to 
 the special circumstances of subsequent controversy. 
 
 The earliest definite reference to the epistle is found 
 in Irenseus, but we know it was contained in the canon 
 of Marcion, and the Mur. Can. contains it in its list. 
 It is only in modern times that its authenticity has 
 been questioned, and the main objection has arisen 
 from its supposed lack of a full statement of char- 
 acteristic Pauline doctrine, but the explanation of this 
 fact has been given above. It contains a great many 
 
74 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 words that are characteristic of Paul's vocabulary in 
 the epistles about which there is no doubt of his 
 authorship, and there are also many forms of expres- 
 sion that are characteristic of Paul. His acquaintance 
 is likewise shown in this letter with the Greek version 
 of the Old Testament, and with the teaching of Jesus, 
 especially as contained in the apocalyptic discourse 
 recorded in Matthew xxiii. and xxiv. {cf. especially 
 iv. 1 6 with Matthew xxiv. 30; v. 2 with Matthew xxiv. 
 43 ; V. 7 with Matthew xxiv. 48). 
 
 II. THESSALONIANS 
 
 The second letter to the same Church probably 
 followed the first after a very short interval. The 
 immediate reason of its being sent is obviously further 
 difficulty about the doctrine of the coming of the 
 Lord. The Apostle's teaching in the first letter had 
 not been clearly understood, and it appears {cf. ii. 2) 
 that certain teachers, either by oral or written com- 
 munications, had thrown doubts upon Paul's theories. 
 In this letter he refers again (cf. ii. 5) to the teaching 
 on the subject he had given them when present at 
 Thessalonica, and in a very difficult passage, namely, 
 
II. THESSALONIANS 75 
 
 ii. 1-12, he discusses the subject of the series of 
 events that must first take place before the Advent 
 is to be expected. Inasmuch as this passage impHes 
 a knowledge of his oral teaching, which we cannot 
 recover, it is very difficult to interpret, and forms one 
 of the riddles of the New Testament. The rest of 
 the letter is very like its predecessor in general outline 
 and contents, though we can see that further dis- 
 turbances of belief had led to increased irregularities 
 of conduct. For one thing, some of the Christians 
 at Thessalonica had come to believe that the Advent 
 was so near an event that they might neglect their 
 ordinary occupations and depend upon their richer 
 brethren for support. Against this attitude the Apostle 
 protests with the greatest vehemence, and gives sane 
 counsel for the quiet and orderly conduct of the 
 Christian life. 
 
 Curiously enough, the external evidence for this 
 epistle is clearer than for the former one, inasmuch 
 as we find Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians 
 twice quoting from this letter. In one case he seems 
 to have confused the source of his quotation with 
 Paul's letter to the Philippians, but the words he quotes 
 are only found in this letter, and so we take it that 
 
76 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 he was acquainted with it, though he had momentarily 
 forgotten the precise source from which the words 
 came. Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, 
 uses language that bears the closest resemblance to 
 a passage in the second chapter, and the same thing 
 is true in the second century letter from Gaul, referred 
 to on page 20. Irenaeus is the first to mention it by 
 name, and it is contained both in the canon of Marcion 
 and in the Mur. Can. 
 
 Many modern scholars have raised objections to 
 its Pauline authorship on the ground, first, of its 
 language. The peculiar words that are discovered in 
 it are mainly to be found in the unique passage in 
 chap, ii., where we might expect to find them, but 
 the rest of the epistle shows not only much similarity 
 to I. Thessalonians, but also to the other writings of 
 Paul, and the whole tone of the epistle is in close 
 agreement with his general thought. Secondly, excep- 
 tion has been taken to it because it is so close a 
 copy in many respects of the first letter. It is argued, 
 therefore, that some one has copied the former writing 
 in the name of Paul. The resemblances, close as 
 they are, are not, however, to be termed slavish 
 copying, and similar resemblances are traceable at 
 
11. THESSALONIANS 77 
 
 least in other two of Paul's letters, Colossians and 
 Ephesians. It is not likely that any one who is attempt- 
 ing to pass off a letter of his own under Paul's name 
 \70uld introduce so peculiar a passage as that in the 
 second chapter, and so some scholars suggest that 
 that section is an interpolation, some holding it to 
 be the only genuinely Pauline fragment in the whole 
 letter, while some who regard the rest of the letter 
 as Paul's, look upon this section as unauthentic. The 
 third ground of criticism is also based upon the diffi- 
 cult section so often referred to. It is said that it 
 contains teaching now^here else paralleled in Paul's 
 writings. This, it must be admitted, is true, but 
 there are many examples in the rest of Paul's letters 
 of isolated discussions, and if the same problems never 
 arose elsewhere, we need not be surprised that he 
 did not discuss them. Unless it can be shown that 
 Paul could not possibly have written in this manner, 
 we need not feel much disturbed by the line of argu- 
 ment that criticises it only because it is unique. 
 
 We may turn, therefore, to a brief examination of the 
 difficult passage itself. It is no doubt written in the 
 general style of Apocalypse, of which more will be said 
 at a later stage (see p. 167). This always causes obscurity 
 
78 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 to later readers who are not in full possession of the 
 facts referred to, and in this particular instance Paul 
 reminds his readers that he is alluding to teaching they 
 had heard from himself. One thing is certain, the 
 persons hinted at in the passage were recognisable by 
 the readers, and we have to remember that some of 
 the phrases employed were current in Jewish literature 
 of the period. The most probable explanation is that 
 the " man of lawlessness " or " son of perdition " was a 
 personification of the Judaising teachers who were so 
 prominent in the Galatian letter, while the restraining 
 force or restraining person is almost certainly to be 
 identified with the Roman power, for which Paul always 
 had shown the highest respect, though we need not 
 attempt to identify the reference with any one Roman 
 emperor who at the time embodied that poAver. 
 
 The date of the letter can only be a little later than 
 that of I. Thessalonians, and we need not attempt to fix 
 it with greater exactitude. 
 
 GALATIANS 
 
 The very title of this epistle raises the first and one 
 
 of the most interesting questions with regard to it, 
 
 namely, where is Galatia? It used to be supposed. 
 
GALATIANS 79 
 
 without any question, that the district so named con- 
 sisted of the northern part of Asia Minor that lies not far 
 south of the Black Sea. If, however, this is the case, 
 then we have one of Paul's letters written to a com- 
 munity about which we have no information elsewhere 
 in the New Testament. The name Galatia occurs twice 
 in the Acts of the Apostles (see xvi. 6, and xviii. 23). 
 If these verses refer to the northern district of Asia 
 Minor, there is considerable difficulty in understanding 
 the Apostle's movements, as a reference to a map will 
 at once make clear. The fact is that the usage of the 
 term Galatia varied very much during the century that 
 preceded our era and throughout the first and second 
 centuries of our era. There is no doubt that in the 
 second century the term did become confined to the 
 northern district of Asia Minor, but at the period at 
 which Paul was writing, there is every probabiHty that 
 it referred to the Roman province which included the 
 w^ell-known towns of Antioch, Derbe, Lystra, and 
 Iconium, of the missionary work in which we have 
 such careful accounts in the Book of Acts. It has been 
 shown that Luke's method of referring to the district 
 is that which was ordinarily employed in speaking of 
 Southern Galatia, and the argument is also supported 
 
8o BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 by reference to customs and laws which were pecuHar 
 to the district in Roman times, and by which certain 
 passages in the epistle are best explained. The main 
 points that can be elucidated by reference to the 
 current customs in the province of South Galatla are 
 those of adoption, the making of wills or covenants, 
 and the special character of the tutor or paidagogos 
 {cf. Gal. iii. 24) found in the Galatian letter. The 
 further value of the theory is that, if it is right, we are 
 enabled to have a background of history in reading the 
 letter whereby we can understand the origin of the 
 churches that Paul there founded, and the special 
 connection of Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus with them. 
 The main objection to this theory is that stated 
 with great clearness by Bousset, namely, that Paul 
 tells us in iv. 13 of this epistle that he first preached 
 to the Galatians because of an infirmity of the flesh. 
 Now there is no mention of any sickness in the 
 account given in Acts of the journey in Southern 
 Galatia, but the phrase in xvi. 6, "having been for- 
 bidden of the Holy Ghost," may very well refer to 
 some sickness that had hindered his carrying out the 
 journey he had proposed. The majority of the argu- 
 ments seem, however, to lean to the South Galatian 
 
GALATIANS 8i 
 
 theory, and we may take it as more probable than 
 the older view. 
 
 There is no question about the authenticity of the 
 epistle, for it bears on every line of it the sign manual 
 of the Apostle. Nobody but he could have written 
 these sentences which throb and pulsate with the 
 affection of his heart, and with his righteous indigna- 
 tion against those who were trying to undo his work, 
 and bring an unnecessary bondage upon the new- 
 found freemen in Christ Jesus. Nowhere can we see 
 better the strange involved constructions into which 
 the very turmoil of his thought sometimes carries him. 
 In this letter also we have the central positions of his 
 teaching, given, if not so fully, certainly more passion- 
 ately than in Romans. The epistle likewise contains 
 a large section of autobiography, and that is not 
 without its own difficulties, for it is not easy to re- 
 concile the statements made in some parts of it with 
 those of the historian in the Book of Acts. Where, 
 however, we have to make a choice, it is preferable 
 to accept the personal witness of the Apostle rather 
 than the second-hand statement of a historian, even 
 if he is proved to be in the main a careful one. The 
 chief points of difficulty are those in i. 17, where he 
 
82 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 definitely says he did not go to Jerusalem imme- 
 diately after his conversion, when compared with the 
 statements in Acts ix. 26-30. If it be supposed that 
 the interval in Arabia is not mentioned in Acts, but 
 intervenes between verses 25 and 26, then the state- 
 ment of Galatians i. 19, that he saw none of the 
 Apostles save Peter and James, and of 22 that he 
 was still unknown by face to the churches of Judea, 
 conflicts with Acts ix. 27, which tells of his introduc- 
 tion to the Apostles by Barnabas, and of verses 28 and 
 29 which tell of his preaching at Jerusalem. It is 
 also difficult to reconcile the narrative of Galatians ii. 
 i-io with the Acts of the Apostles. It certainly does 
 not seem to suit the circumstances of Acts xv., and 
 is more likely to be an account of some private con- 
 ference of which Luke was either not aware, or did 
 not consider of sufficient importance for the general 
 purposes of his story to record. For Paul, however, 
 the matter was one of vital interest, because it gave 
 him the justification for his subsequent action, and 
 freed him from the charge of acting contrary to the 
 knowledge and express desire of the Apostles at 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 In this letter there are one or two passages which 
 
GALATIANS 83 
 
 throw light on Paul's view of the Old Testament. In 
 
 that line of his thought, more clearly than elsewhere, 
 comes out his Rabbinical training. He frequently 
 interprets the Old Testament Scriptures in the most 
 allegorical way, and lays such great stress upon single 
 words, or upon a verse taken out of its context, as to 
 spoil the validity of the argument to modern Western 
 minds. Good examples of this are to be found in 
 iii. 13, 16, and of the strange use of allegory in 
 iv. 21-31. He follows the Rabbis in another matter, 
 namely, in personifying Scripture (see iii. 8). But 
 what strikes us more than the methods of his inter- 
 pretation is the wonderful freedom from all bondage 
 to the letter of Scripture, and the magnificent faith 
 that can read in the whole story of the past the 
 preparation for the Gospel of Christ. This is most 
 remarkable in the central argument of the epistle, 
 that through faith in Christ the Gentiles are able to 
 go back into the relation with God that Abraham 
 possessed, which was a relation founded upon promise, 
 not upon the rigid observance of outward ceremonials. 
 Between God and Abraham the relation was a direct 
 and personal one, and so, through Christ, is it with 
 every soul that beHeves in Him. This constituted 
 
84 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 the greatness and the freshness of Paul's Gospel, and 
 to him the demand of the Jewish teachers that the 
 Galatians, if they would advance to the greatest possible 
 heights of Christian attainment, should superadd to 
 their Christian faith observance of Jewish practices, 
 was nothing short of blasphemy, and was equivalent 
 to denying the very Gospel of Christ. It is for this 
 reason that the Galatian epistle became Luther's 
 favourite, and was such an instrument in his hands 
 for the progress of the Reformation. The letter bears 
 all through the marks of the heat of controversy, 
 but, as Bousset says, " it is in the hottest hours 
 that the finest fruit ripens." 
 
 The question of the epistle's date has been much 
 discussed, and there are no very definite grounds upon 
 which to decide it. The main elements in coming 
 to a conclusion are (i) the question of its destination, 
 and (2) the content of the epistle when compared 
 with others that belong to the same period. If the 
 Southern Galatia theory is the correct one, then 
 Ramsay's argument that it was written from the Syrian 
 Antioch, when Paul was about to start on his third 
 journey, i.e. about the year 53, is a most probable 
 one. Even some who hold the North Galatian theory 
 
I. CORINTHIANS 85 
 
 are prepared to date the epistle not much later, but 
 others would place it during the third journey, and 
 consider that it must have been written either from 
 Ephesus or Corinth about the year 57. The second 
 consideration deals with the relation of the thought 
 of the epistle to that of Corinthians and Romans. 
 II. Corinthians deals, as this letter does, with Paul's 
 opponents, probably also Judaisers, and Romans dis- 
 cusses at greater length and with more fulness of 
 detail the question of the law, in such a way, indeed, 
 as to lead the majority of readers to think that it is 
 a later treatment of the subject than that given in 
 Galatians. It seems probable, too, that the disturb- 
 ances in Corinth were subsequent to those in Galatia. 
 The close connection of the first and second letters 
 to Corinth make it, on the whole, probable that the 
 Galatian letter is the earliest of the group. But our 
 knowledge of the whole circumstances is not sufficiently 
 definite to enable us to reach any dogmatic conclusion. 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS 
 The city of Corinth was almost a synonym among the 
 Greeks for pleasure-loving, luxury, and vice. To this 
 city Paul came in the course of his third missionary 
 
86 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 journey, and settled down at his trade, formed friend- 
 ships, and pursued with persistent patience his mis- 
 sionary activities. At last the Jews interfered, and tried 
 to bring Paul under the condemnation of the Roman 
 magistrate. This, however, proved unsuccessful, and 
 Paul worked on patiently, with, it appears, increasing 
 success, winning even the leader of the persecution over 
 to the side of Christ. From Corinth the Apostle passed 
 to Ephesus, and, while there, news would constantly 
 reach him of the state of affairs in the infant community. 
 From I. Cor. v. 9 it appears that he wrote a letter 
 dealing with some of the difficulties in the Church 
 which had arisen from the lax moral atmosphere of "the 
 ancient Paris," for many have drawn the parallel between 
 the gaiety of the old Greek city and the modern French 
 capital. Subsequently (see iv. 17) Timothy was sent 
 as an ambassador, and when again a letter reached him 
 from Corinth itself, he writes the very full answer that is 
 now known to us as the first epistle. It is one of the 
 most interesting and valuable documents in the whole 
 New Testament, not so much for its revelation of the 
 writer — for that we look more to Galatians and II. Cor. 
 — but for the excellent picture it affords of the con- 
 ditions of early Church life in a Gentile community, and 
 
I. CORINTHIANS 87 
 
 for its insight into the manners and methods of Chris- 
 tian hfe, worship, and thought in the middle of the first 
 century. 
 
 Character of Church. — It is natural that in a letter of 
 this character we should have the darker and more un- 
 satisfactory side of the Church life emphasised, because 
 it is the difficulties of the situation that necessitated the 
 Apostle's discussion, and the dark sides of their practical 
 life which drew forth his warnings and rebukes. But 
 we can also see from one short paragraph (i. 4-9) that 
 there were great elements of successful Christian attain- 
 ment in the Corinthian Church. They were men who 
 showed a rich knowledge of Christ, and a readiness to 
 proclaim Him. They were not behindhand in any gift of 
 the Christian character, but were, like the Thessalonians, 
 living steadfastly in anticipation of the Lord's appear- 
 ance. The weaknesses of the Church arose in the main 
 from their readiness to display party feeling. Out of 
 this temper sprang many of their defects. Because of it 
 the rich despised the poor, and the learned the unlearned, 
 and thus disgraceful scenes arose, both at the Lord's 
 Supper and at the ordinary services of the Church. 
 Women, glorying in the freedom and equality that is 
 in Christ Jesus, were forgetful of what seemed to the 
 
88 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 ancient world their proper dignity and modesty, and 
 what was lacking throughout the whole community 
 was the spirit of self-sacrificing and self-forgetful love. 
 Liberty of thought had also overstepped what seemed 
 to the Apostle its due limits, both in the practical 
 question of mingling too freely with the heathen com- 
 munity, and in the speculative region of discussion about 
 the nature of the resurrection and the life beyond death. 
 To all these and other topics the Apostle turns with 
 great care and fulness in the pages of this letter. 
 
 The external evidence for the authenticity of this 
 epistle is earlier than that for any other book -in the 
 New Testament, because Clement of Rome, who him- 
 self wrote to the Church at Corinth before the end of 
 the first century, counsels them as follows : " Take up 
 the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he 
 write to you at the time when the Gospel first began 
 to be preached ? Truly, under the inspiration of the 
 Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas 
 and Apollos, because even then ye had made for your- 
 selves parties." This would be sufficiently definite with- 
 out our looking for further evidence, but we find Poly- 
 carp quoting a verse from the epistle, and adding to 
 the quotation the words, "as Paul teaches," and the 
 
I. CORINTHIANS 89 
 
 epistle is found in the works of Irenaeus and in the 
 Muratorian Canon. 
 
 Its internal evidence of authenticity is equally clear, 
 for the mark of Paul's language and thought is upon 
 every chapter, and the autobiographical passage in 
 chapter xv. would be in itself sufficient to demonstrate 
 whose work it was. Neither is there any question about 
 the unity of the epistle. No reasonable critic suggests 
 that any part should be separated from the whole. 
 
 It is impossible here to deal with the many points of 
 interest raised by the epistle, but one or two of them 
 may be glanced at. (i) Paul's claim to the apostolate 
 as set forth in this epistle (see ix. i ; xv. 8, 9). He 
 bases this position upon his having seen Jesus, and there 
 is no question that the reference is to the vision on the 
 way to Damascus ; but he further adds as a proof of his 
 being an Apostle the result of his ministry {cf. ix. 2). 
 The second important point is the evidence the episde 
 gives of Paul's knowledge of the words of Jesus. In 
 vii. 10 we have a definite reference to such words as 
 those recorded in Mark x. 9. In ix. 14 we have a 
 reference to Matt. xi. i ; and in xi. 23 we have a clear 
 account of what is recorded in each of the three 
 synoptics about the institution of the Lord's Supper. 
 
90 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 These are the most definite cases ; but a reference to 
 such a book as Knowling's " The Testimony of St. Paul 
 to Christ," will furnish the reader with many other 
 instances. It is impossible to tell, of course, whether 
 in such cases the writer quotes from oral or written 
 traditions. (2) Paul's doctrine of the sacraments, as 
 set forth here. As to baptism, he shows incidentally 
 that he laid very little stress upon his own performance 
 of the rite, being extremely thankful that he had person- 
 ally baptized very few of the community lest they should 
 increase their party feeling through the circumstance. 
 The spiritual significance of the rite, to which he 
 frequently returns elsewhere, is referred to in xii. 13. 
 A curious practice is alluded to in xv. 29, which has 
 given rise to much discussion. Whatever its real ex- 
 planation may be, it at any rate shows that for the 
 Apostle baptism had a distinct significance in holding 
 in itself a promise of the risen life in Christ. As to 
 the Lord's Supper, we have not only a statement of its 
 institution, but a picture of the way in which abuses 
 easily arose in connection with it. It was apparently 
 celebrated as part of a real love feast or agapi^, as it was 
 called in the early Church. The fourth point is Paul's 
 doctrine of the resurrection, and here we see that he 
 
II. CORINTHIANS 91 
 
 made everything centre upon his own vision of Christ 
 at his conversion. This, Paul believed, had been made 
 to him in a spiritual body, and our union with Christ, 
 through faith, guarantees for us the possession of a 
 similar body in the other life. The meaning of the 
 resurrection, therefore, is not exhausted either by the 
 risen life in Christ, through faith, now lived by His 
 disciple, nor by a vague immortality, but by a personal, 
 individual, recognisable life beyond death. 
 
 The place from which the epistle was written was 
 certainly Ephesus, and the year most probably 56 or 57. 
 
 II. CORINTHIANS 
 
 This letter has well been termed " the greatest apology 
 of the Apostle," and with such clear internal evidence as 
 it possesses of being the production of his own brain 
 and heart, it is little use laying much stress upon the 
 external evidence. Still the latter is sufficient. It 
 was known to, and used by Marcion, and is also 
 quoted by Irenseus, and is in the list of the Mur. Can. 
 It has well been styled by Bousset the most intimately 
 personal of all Paul's writings. We may quote part of 
 that scholar's testimony : " If we ask," he says, " who 
 
92 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Paul was, this letter gives the answer in the best possible 
 way. Everything in it is deeply personal. The nervous 
 attractive personality of the Apostle speaks throughout 
 it with the most extraordinary power. What a gamut of 
 changing notes, wooing, rebuking, forgiving love; holy 
 anger flaming in fire; high, strong confidence, and 
 knowledge of his own worthiness in the sight of God 
 and men ; a bitter consciousness of the lack of harmony 
 between the outward and the inward man; and yet a 
 joyful expectation of the final harmonising of these 
 discordant elements." 
 
 There surround the letter, however, many questions of 
 difficulty. The first is concerned with the events that 
 called this letter into being. From the first letter we 
 learn that Timothy had been Paul's messenger to the 
 Church ; in this letter, while Timothy is associated with 
 Paul in the opening words, it is not he but Titus that 
 is spoken of as the Apostle's messenger (see vii. 5-15). 
 It is probable that in the interval between the visit of 
 Timothy and Titus, Paul had himself made a hurried 
 visit to the city, which would then be referred to in 
 ii. I of this epistle {cf. also xiii. 2). It is further clear 
 that another letter must have been written to the Corin- 
 thian Church in the interval, for the references in ii. 3, 4 
 
II. CORINTHIANS 93 
 
 cannot be made by any plausible theory to refer to our 
 first epistle. It is most likely, therefore, that the brief 
 visit, succeeded by the now lost letter, are both under- 
 stood in this letter, and that when Paul speaks as he 
 does in xiii. 2 of another visit, it is to tell the Church 
 that he will not then spare any means to effect a per- 
 manent settlement of all the internal difficulties. The 
 missing letter had apparently been entrusted to Titus, 
 who remained in Corinth a considerable length of time 
 in order to carry out Paul's plan. For some reason, 
 not quite clearly known, Paul had modified his plans of 
 travel between the first letter and the second, probably 
 owing to circumstances which had arisen on the occasion 
 of his hurried second visit. Another of the objects for 
 which this letter was written was to induce the Church 
 of Corinth to aid in the collection of funds for the poor 
 at Jerusalem, to which already the churches in Mace- 
 donia had contributed. We can thus see that a good 
 many events had intervened between our first and second 
 letter, and that we must allow a certain interval — perhaps 
 a year or more — between the two epistles. 
 
 The most important critical points with reference to 
 this epistle are those concerned with its unity. The 
 first discussion centres round the short paragraph con- 
 
94 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 sisting of vi. 14 to vii. i. It will be noticed that the 
 section interrupts the sense, and that vii. 2 follows quite 
 naturally on vi. 13. It has been argued, therefore, that 
 the short paragraph belongs to the epistle of Paul re- 
 ferred to in 1. Cor. v. 9. There is, of course, no external 
 evidence for the omission of the section at any time 
 from the epistle, and it is rather difficult to understand 
 how a small fragment of an otherwise lost epistle should 
 have become embedded here, unless, indeed, it were 
 due to the work of some scribe who possessed this little 
 section, and, being very eager that no fragment of Paul's 
 writing should be lost, had inserted it where he thought 
 it was most appropriate. It is possible, of course, that 
 the paragraph does belong to this epistle, but has some- 
 how become misplaced. It is certainly not easy to see 
 its appropriateness in its present connection, but it is 
 pure speculation to suppose that it belongs to a lost 
 letter. 
 
 More important is the question of the section of the 
 letters included in chaps, x. to xiii. This is often known 
 as the four-chapter letter. The theory is that in these 
 chapters we have the letter referred to in ii. 4 as being 
 written by the Apostle with feelings of intense grief. 
 The main reasons upon which this theory is based are 
 
II. CORINTHIANS 95 
 
 (i) the desire to find the letter that is missing; (2) the 
 feehng that these chapters are different in tone and 
 feeling from the earlier part of the letter ; (3) that the 
 appeal for the collection would, as in the case of I. Cor., 
 come more naturally at the end of the letter than in the 
 middle. (4) There are many passages in these chapters 
 which look as if they refer to a period earlier than that 
 spoken of in the first nine chapters {cf. xiii. 10 with ii. 3, 
 and note write and wrote ; cf. xii. 2 with i. 23, and note 
 come and ca7ne). Other points of comparison are those 
 that deal with the self-commendation in the latter part 
 of the letter, and his protesting against any need for 
 commending himself in the earlier part. It has further 
 been supposed that the person referred to in chap. x. 
 is the same as the one referred to in ii. 6, and the latter 
 has by many been identified with the wrong-doer dealt 
 with in the first epistle, chap, v., but there is no real 
 proof of the identification in any case, and it is much 
 more likely that different individuals are referred to, 
 and that the whole circumstances are now unknown to 
 us. It must further be remembered that there is no 
 external evidence for such a break in the epistle, and 
 it is not easy to suppose how, had the two letters once 
 existed separately, all evidence of their beginning and 
 
96 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 ending should have vanished. There are also internal 
 evidences that make against the hypothesis. We have 
 no references in these four chapters to the personal 
 insult which apparently Paul had received at the hands 
 of some members of the Corinthian Church, and which 
 had been the reason for his writing the severe letter. 
 It is also difficult to understand the mention made of 
 Titus in chap, xii., if this refers to his being sent on 
 that difficult commission. The change of tone between 
 the first and second parts of the epistle is perhaps 
 best explained by the supposition that in the latter 
 part of the letter he is dealing with his opponents, the 
 Judaisers, with whom he has already been dealing in 
 the Galatian letter. Bousset thinks that at the begin- 
 ning of chap. X. Paul had taken the pen into his hand 
 himself, and purposed writing a short closing message, 
 but that his anger was roused at memory of the 
 Judaisers' methods, and that he was led to pour forth 
 his soul in the passionate utterances that these chapters 
 contain. On the whole, therefore, we must at present 
 accept II. Cor. as a unity, and believe that its very 
 difficulties constitute the more distinct proof that it is 
 a self-revelation of the man of many moods but one 
 unflinching purpose, the great Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
ROMANS 97 
 
 ROMANS 
 
 This letter is one of those best vouched for by exter- 
 nal authority. In Clement of Rome we have many 
 quotations, though the book is never expressly named, 
 but even earlier than he we seem to have references to 
 this epistle within the pages of the New Testament 
 itself. Many similarities exist between it and the First 
 Epistle of Peter (see e.g. Rom. xii. i ; I. Peter ii. 5 ; 
 Rom. xii. 16-18 ; I. Peter iii. 8-9). Resemblances are 
 also discoverable between it and the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews and the Epistle of James. In each case there 
 is some discussion as to the priority of the respective 
 books, but in the judgment of the present writer there 
 is no question that Romans is the source in each case. 
 A strong similarity is also discoverable between the 
 Doxology of Romans and the Doxology of Jude. 
 Next to Clement of Rome comes Ignatius, in whose 
 letters there appear numerous reminiscences of this 
 epistle, as is also the case with the Epistle of Polycarp. 
 We have the first trace of the letter by name in the 
 Canon of Marcion, and, of course, it is included in the 
 list of Paul's epistles found in Irenaeus and the Mur. 
 
98 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Canon. The internal evidence is strongly in favour of 
 Pauline authorship. Indeed, no epistle is more clearly 
 his work than is this one. 
 
 There is, however, some considerable question about 
 the integrity of the epistle as it now stands, and there 
 is a good deal even in the external evidence for the 
 view that the whole or part of the last two chapters do 
 not belong to this letter. To begin with, there are 
 some manuscripts which omit the words " in Rome " 
 in i. 7 and 15, which seems to point to the fact that 
 its destination was not quite certain to all scribes, and 
 that there may have been manuscripts which either 
 omitted mention of a destination at all, or gave a 
 different one. When we come to the concluding 
 chapters we find a great variety in the position of 
 the Doxology that now stands at chap. xvi. 25-27. 
 Some manuscripts have it only at the end of chap, xiv., 
 others in both places, while some omit it altogether. 
 It seems that Marcion omitted the last two chapters, 
 and there is some evidence that certain manuscripts 
 followed him. Out of all the numerous theories that 
 have been framed to account for these facts, we can 
 only deal with one that has found a large amount of 
 support, and possesses considerable probability. This 
 
ROMANS 99 
 
 is the view that chap. xvi. belongs to a letter addressed 
 to Ephesus, and not to Rome. The theory is based 
 on the following grounds: (i) That Paul was unlikely 
 to know so many people in Rome before he had visited 
 it ; but we must remember, on the other hand, that 
 Rome was the centre of the world's life at the time, 
 and that many friends of Paul might easily have found 
 their way there, and settled down in the city, just as 
 a great many provincials at the present moment could 
 easily send a large number of personal greetings to 
 friends in London, though they may never have visited 
 that city. (2) Some of the names are undoubtedly 
 closely connected with Asia Minor, but what has been 
 just said would explain that also. (3) The warning 
 contained in the chapter (vers. 17-20) against false 
 teachers is thought to be more appropriate to Ephesus 
 than to Rome. On the whole, this theory does not 
 commend itself very much to our judgment, nor is it in 
 any way made clearer by the textual differences above 
 referred to. These seem in some way to have been 
 due to Marcion, and the variety of the position of the 
 Doxology is probably to be thus explained. There is 
 no sufficient reason for cutting off even the final 
 chapter from the epistle, though no matter at all 
 
loo BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 affecting the thought of the letter would be altered by 
 such a course of action were sufficient probability to 
 be discovered for adopting it. 
 
 The constitution of the Church at Rome has been a 
 matter of considerable controversy, but, on the whole, 
 the evidence seems to point clearly to its being of the 
 same mixed character as most of the other churches to 
 which Paul's epistles were written ; that is to say, it con- 
 tained both Jewish and Gentile members, and though 
 there are parts of this epistle that seem very distinctly 
 bearing upon Jewish life and thought, they are so 
 written as to be quite applicable to Jews who formed 
 part of a church the majority of whose members were 
 Gentiles. 
 
 It is not necessary here to discuss the question of 
 the origin of the Church at Rome, though that is in 
 itself a very interesting problem, because the letter itself 
 is sufficient witness that a Christian community did 
 exist there, and to this Paul addresses himself. 
 
 The time in Paul's life at which this letter was written 
 appears to be that described in Acts xx. 2, 3. It was 
 soon after the second letter to the Corinthians ; on the 
 occasion, indeed, of his third visit to that city. He is 
 in the hope of soon visiting the capital, his intention 
 
ROMANS loi 
 
 being that after he has taken the gifts of the various 
 churches to Jerusalem, he should proceed directly to 
 Rome and the West. We are aware how this design 
 was frustrated by his enemies in Jerusalem, and how it 
 was only after an interval of two years that he reached 
 the city as a prisoner. The date of the letter is, there- 
 fore, in or about the year 58. 
 
 The Epistle to the Romans has a somewhat different 
 character from the rest of Paul's letters, inasmuch as it 
 partakes more of the nature of a treatise than of a letter. 
 It is, however, true that the real letter element is not 
 absent from the work, and we can understand that Paul 
 had got his information about the condition of the 
 Church at Rome from numerous friends who had visited 
 it, or from actual members of the Church who were 
 personally known to him. It seems as if the great 
 problems that concern the community were those of 
 Faith, in its Jewish interpretation, and the aspects it 
 assumed in the teaching of Paul. We learn from the 
 close of Acts that these were the questions discussed 
 by him and his fellow-countrymen on the occasion of 
 his visit to Rome, and that helps us to understand the 
 prominent place occupied by these subjects in this 
 letter. It deals with them in a more leisurely and 
 
ro2 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 reasoned fashion than does the Galatian letter, and we 
 can see how reflection upon past controversies has 
 enabled the writer in some ways to make his positions 
 clear, and to relate them to other problems. It is not 
 so much a compendium of Christian doctrine as it is a 
 discussion of the nature of faith in relation to righteous- 
 ness, (i) as the gift of God bestowed upon us in Christ, 
 and (2) as the fruit of the new life wrought in us by the 
 spirit of Christ. The strong contrast that is thus in- 
 volved with the righteousness that was thought to be 
 attainable through the law, involves Paul in the discus- 
 sion of the position of Israel to this new righteousness 
 offered to all men in Christ Jesus, and gives him the 
 opportunity of working out his splendid vindication of 
 the Divine purpose with regard to his own people, and 
 for the setting forth of his own philosophy of history. 
 The twelfth and thirteenth chapters contain fine practical 
 teaching on the Christian life as expressed in the indi- 
 vidual, the Church, and the State. 
 
 EPHESIANS 
 
 This is the first of the letters generally known as the 
 epistles of the captivity, though that captivity has been 
 understood by some as Paul's confinement at Ccesarea, 
 
EPHESIANS 103 
 
 and by others as that in Rome. In each of the four 
 letters he describes himself as a prisoner {cf. Eph. iii. i ; 
 iv. i; vi. 20; Col. iv. 18; Philem. 10, 13; Phil. i. 7, 
 13), but as one who had possessed a good deal of 
 freedom, a state of things which is in agreement with 
 what we are told in Acts xxviii. 30. Some have argued 
 that Caesarea was more easily reached from Asia Minor 
 than was Rome, and, therefore, that the runaway slave 
 Onesimus might choose that city as a refuge. But the 
 Rome of that period, like the London of to-day, was 
 the best hiding-place for all who sought to escape 
 justice; and here again, Rome better suits the con- 
 ditions. Many references in the letters also point to 
 a life at the centre of things rather than in a far-off 
 provincial town such as Caesarea. We may take it, 
 then, as pretty generally agreed that the four letters 
 now to be considered were written during the period 
 of Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, probably between 
 the years 61 and 63, though the earlier chronology 
 advocated by Harnack makes the Roman imprisonment 
 date from 57 to 59. The majority of scholars, how- 
 ever, favour the later date. In characterising the whole 
 of these letters, the present writer may quote words 
 he has written elsewhere : " All the letters that belong 
 
 H 
 
I04 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 to this period of the Apostle's career are marked by a 
 tenderness of personal feeling and a warmth of intimate 
 regard. There is a freedom from the more bitter 
 controversy of an earlier time, and from the need 
 to rebuke vicious excesses. The sterner tone occurs 
 rather through warning than through reproof. There 
 is no more beautiful letter than that to the Philippians, 
 and no profounder or more highly sustained passages 
 than some in the Ephesians and Colossians, while the 
 unique features of the letter to Philemon make it a 
 priceless gem." (Century Bible, Eph. p. lo.) 
 
 In turning to the Epistle to the Ephesians, the first 
 question that meets us is whether that title is correct. 
 Some of our oldest authorities do not have the words 
 "at Ephesus" at all, and several early Christian 
 writers, in discussing the passage, omit all reference 
 to them, while TertuUian tells us that another title 
 was known, namely, "to the Laodiceans." Such a 
 letter does exist in a number of Latin manuscripts, 
 and was known to early Greek writers, for its name 
 occurs in the Mur. Canon ; but the form in which we 
 now possess it is certainly a forgery, for it consists 
 of nothing but extracts of Pauline phrases strung 
 together from other epistles, and was no doubt com- 
 
EPHESIANS 105 
 
 posed to meet the reference to such a letter in 
 Colossians iv. 16. A more reasonable theory is that 
 the letter we are now dealing with was the letter 
 therein referred to, and the best way of explaining 
 the fact is to suppose that the so-called Ephesian 
 letter was 'really a circular one sent to all the churches 
 in that district, including, of course, Ephesus. It is 
 possible that various copies of the letter were made, 
 and the name of each church inserted in the copy 
 sent to that particular city, though it is more pro- 
 bable that only one copy was sent with no name 
 originally given in it, and that at a later time the 
 name of the metropolitan church of Ephesus crept 
 into the document. This would also meet the diffi- 
 culty that has been felt with regard to this letter, 
 namely, that there are no personal greetings in it to 
 his own friends, and that there is lacking to some 
 extent the note of intimacy that we might expect in 
 writing to a church so well known to the Apostle as 
 was that at Ephesus. It is for this reason that many 
 are inclined to assign the whole or part of Romans xvi. 
 to this epistle (see above, p. 99). 
 
 As regards external evidence for the epistle, we 
 find in the New Testament itself many points of 
 
io6 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 contact between this letter and I. Peter (see e.g. i. 
 20-22; cf. with I. Peter iii. 22, and, again, iii. 5, 10 
 with I. Peter i. 10-12). As in the case of Romans, 
 Ephesians seems to be the earlier of the two letters. 
 There are also many resemblances between this epistle 
 and the Fourth Gospel, mainly in John, chapters i., 
 iii., and xvii. It seems likely that this epistle formed 
 a stepping-stone between the earlier Pauline doctrine 
 of Christ and that doctrine which is found in the 
 Fourth Gospel; and when we remember that both 
 writings are associated with Ephesus, we have some 
 indication of the reason of the resemblance. Of the 
 close connection between this letter and that to the 
 Colossians we shall say more in the discussion of the 
 latter epistle. In the sub-apostolic writers, we have 
 not more than traces of the language of this letter, 
 and even Ignatius when he writes to the Church at 
 pLphesus does not mention this letter by name, nor 
 does he definitely quote it; but there is one difficult 
 phrase in chapter xii. of his letter where, addressing 
 the Ephesians, he says they are fellow-initiates of 
 Paul's in the mystery of the Gospel, and then says 
 that Paul makes mention of them "in every epistle." 
 What this means is not clear, but it is certainly striking 
 
EPHESIANS 107 
 
 that he does not make special mention of what he 
 says to them in this epistle, if Ignatius considered 
 Ephesians to be confined to that community. Irenaeus, 
 of course, attributes it to the Apostle, as does the 
 Mur. Canon. 
 
 It is when we turn to the question of the internal 
 evidence that scholars have most to say against the 
 Pauline authorship of the epistle. Some of the argu- 
 ments are based upon the peculiarity of the Greek 
 words employed, or of the Greek constructions used. 
 The difficulties that certainly exist on both these 
 points are not, however, insuperable when we re- 
 collect the difference of subject-matter in many parts 
 of the letter, and the development that may very 
 well have taken place in Paul's thought and style 
 during the interval that elapsed between Romans 
 and this letter. Further objections are raised with 
 regard to the thought of the epistle. It is said that 
 the doctrine about the law and about the person and 
 work of Christ is very different from that of the 
 earlier letters, but it can be fairly answered that the 
 circumstances account for this. New problems have 
 arisen in new surroundings, and what is more in evi- 
 dence here are the speculative heresies of that district 
 
io8 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 of Asia Minor, whereby men were tempted to look 
 for other mediatorial agencies than Christ Himself, to 
 pay a great deal of attention to the doctrine of angels, 
 and to regard Christ as one among many means of 
 approach to God, even if He was the highest and 
 best. Surely the Apostle is at liberty to vary the 
 emphasis of his thought if he says nothing that is 
 necessarily contradictory to the positions maintained 
 elsewhere in his writings. Finally, the main difficulty 
 centres round the doctrine of the Church. The 
 statement in ii. 20, that the Church is built upon the 
 foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, is felt to be 
 difficult if the letter is as early as Paul's lifetime. 
 The verse is, however, capable of more than one 
 interpretation (see the commentaries). But even if 
 the most obvious meaning is taken to be the correct 
 one, Paul might very well have made that statement, 
 seeing that he elsewhere lays great emphasis upon 
 both Apostles and Prophets (cf. I. Cor. xii. 28 and 
 Eph. iv. 11). The passage in iii. 5 presents an 
 additional difficulty, inasmuch as it seems to imply 
 that the whole question of the inclusion of the 
 Gentiles had been spiritually revealed to all the 
 Apostles. This seems to disregard the great work of 
 
COLOSSIANS 109 
 
 Paul's life, but he may either be speaking in the 
 most general language, or else referring to the im- 
 pression his own arguments had made upon his 
 opponents. On the whole, therefore, there are not 
 sufficiently strong arguments to be adduced to over- 
 throw the general witness of Christian tradition that 
 the epistle is the work of the Apostle. Its beauty 
 and lofty speculation have impressed all classes of 
 commentators, and Coleridge was no doubt right when 
 he described it as "one of the divinest compositions 
 of man." In this letter, more clearly than in any 
 other, does he set forth Christ as the head and centre 
 of the universe, subject only to God the Father, and 
 the Church of Christ as universal and catholic, in- 
 cluding all who believe on Him. 
 
 COLOSSIANS 
 
 This letter was written to one of the churches which, 
 so far as we know, Paul had never visited. It was pro- 
 bably founded by Epaphras during the time of Paul's 
 residence at Ephesus. Paul may even (see iv. 10) 
 have written an earlier letter to the Church. This 
 one was called out by difficulties and dangers of false 
 teaching, to which they had been exposed, and was sent 
 
no BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 to the community at the hands of Tychicus, who was 
 accompanied by Onesimus, of whom we shall hear more 
 in the next letter. 
 
 The external evidence for this letter is fairly strong. 
 Nothing but echoes of its words are found earlier than 
 Marcion, who included it in his list. It is named as 
 usual by Irenaeus, and the Muratorian Canon. Like 
 Ephesians, it has been strongly assailed on internal 
 grounds. Some have endeavoured to accept parts of 
 the letter, and reject other parts, but this theory does 
 not find much favour, nor is it very probable. The 
 obvious close connection of this letter with Philemon 
 goes a long way to confirm its genuineness. The main 
 difficulties that have been felt concerning it are similar 
 to those raised with regard to the Ephesian letter, and 
 can be answered in the same way. A careful com- 
 parison with the Ephesian letter makes it seem possible 
 that this may have been the earlier of the two, but, on 
 the other hand, Paul may only have confined himself in 
 this letter to certain aspects of subjects which were dealt 
 with more fully in the longer epistle, and the letters 
 must have been written so close together that it is hardly 
 worth while to spend much time discussing which was 
 composed first. 
 
PHILEMON III 
 
 The main aspects of the false teaching with which the 
 epistle is concerned are those of ritual and of asceti- 
 cism. To a certain extent they may be thought to be 
 Jewish, and this is further supported by the frequent 
 references to angels throughout the epistle, an advanced 
 doctrine of angels being a feature of later Judaism. It 
 is interesting to think that Paul is still face to face with 
 the dangerous tendencies of the Judaisers, though their 
 point of attack is now a different one from that em- 
 ployed in the earlier churches of Galatia. Paul has the 
 same answer for them that he has for the Ephesians. 
 It is in Christ, and Christ alone, that all solutions to 
 problems of thought and practice are to be found. 
 
 PHILEMON 
 
 This beautiful little letter stands unique among the 
 generally accepted letters of the Apostle. We know 
 little more about the persons named in it than the 
 letter itself tells us, except from the allusions found in 
 the contemporary letter to Colossse. We need hardly 
 expect to find much external evidence for the epistle, 
 nor do we find any definite trace of it till we come 
 to the Canon of Marcion and the Muratorian Canon. 
 
112 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 In this case TertuUian is the first who distinctly notices 
 it. Of course, the comparative neglect of the letter in 
 these early days would arise from the fact that it con- 
 tained nothing of a doctrinal character. 
 
 The circumstances of its origin are sufficiently clear 
 from the letter itself, and that Paul should thus befriend 
 a runaway slave, and plead for his restoration with such 
 exquisite tenderness and courtesy, has by all classes of 
 writers been felt to reveal a very fine side of his char- 
 acter. That Onesimus had become Paul's convert there 
 can be no question, and he had also become loved as 
 a brother, and in his gratitude had rendered himself 
 almost indispensable to the Apostle. With great un- 
 selfishness, however, Paul sends him back to his own 
 master, and makes himself answerable for any incon- 
 venience or loss to which Philemon may have been 
 exposed. 
 
 The permanent significance of the letter lies in its 
 being the first document that deals with slavery from 
 the Christian point of view. Paul does not write an 
 abolitionist pamphlet, but presents the necessary solvent 
 of slavery in the doctrine of universal brotherhood in 
 Christ Jesus. It is thus right on the part of Sabatier to 
 say that it is " an invaluable document of the Pauline 
 
PHILIPPIANS 113 
 
 ethics." "We delight to meet it," he continues, "on 
 our toilsome road, and to rest awhile with Paul from his 
 great controversies and fatiguing labours in this refresh- 
 ing oasis which Christian friendship offered to him. 
 We are accustomed to conceive of the Apostle as always 
 armed for warfare, sheathed in logic, and bristling with 
 argument. It is delightful to find him at his ease, and 
 for a moment able to unbend, engaged in this friendly 
 intercourse, so full of freedom and even playfulness." 
 
 PHILIPPIANS 
 
 There are few more striking stories in the Book of 
 Acts than the account in chapter xvi. of the introduction 
 of the Gospel to Philippi. Apart from the dramatic 
 nature of the circumstances of the mission, there is the 
 great significance that attaches to it as being the first 
 work carried on by the Apostle in Europe. The second 
 visit of which we have certain knowledge is related 
 in Acts XX. 6 ; and this letter itself reveals to us the 
 intimate and loving terms on which he stood with 
 the members of that Church. From them he does not 
 hesitate to accept gifts, and members of the Church 
 seem to be among his most welcome visitors. The 
 
114 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Philippians are his "brethren beloved, his joy and 
 crown." 
 
 The external evidence for the epistle begins very 
 early, for Polycarp in his letter to the same Church 
 refers to Paul's having written to them, and we are 
 told that the early heretics of the second century 
 knew and used it. The letter from the churches of 
 Lyons and Vienne mentions it, and it is included in 
 the Canon of Marcion and the Muratorian Canon, as 
 well as accepted by Irenaeus. 
 
 The internal evidence is no less strong. The 
 personal revelation of Paul's character, the style and 
 language, and the obvious naturalness of the whole com- 
 position bear sufficient testimony that the traditional 
 authorship is the true one. Even very advanced 
 scholars of the present day are convinced of that fact. 
 Some, however, think that one or more letters have 
 been combined in this one, the main argument for 
 which position is derived from iii. i. The word trans- 
 lated " finally " can, however, bear other meanings, 
 and the words "to write the same things," even if 
 they do not refer to the immediate context, may refer 
 to some letter that has been lost. At any rate, the 
 attempts that have been made to reconstruct two or 
 
PHILIPPIANS 
 
 115 
 
 more letters out of the existing one are not sufficiently 
 in agreement to be convincing. 
 
 The letter as a whole is marked by great naturalness. 
 Perhaps no letter of Paul's is more obviously a genuine 
 letter than is this one. As Dr. Kennedy says : " He 
 feels thoroughly at home with his readers. Thoughts 
 crowd in upon him as he writes. His reminiscences 
 of Philippi supply secret links of connection between 
 paragraphs which might seem isolated from one another, 
 links of connection which we can no longer trace." 
 A further characteristic note of the letter is its joy- 
 fulness. This is the more remarkable when we realise 
 the conditions under which it was written. He was 
 not only a prisoner, but a prisoner with a probability 
 of death always before him, but he has the secret of 
 gladness in the constant and near presence of his Lord, 
 whose advent he awaits with patient hope, and to 
 attain to a share in the power of His resurrection is 
 the aim of his ambition. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 
 
 The three remaining letters attributed to Paul are 
 generally classified under the title of pastorals, because 
 they deal with the subject of the ministry, and are 
 addressed to two pastors, Timothy and Titus. They 
 have much in common, so that before dealing with 
 each of them individually, there are many questions 
 which can best be discussed with relation to the whole 
 group. The first of these is the historical situation 
 presupposed in the letters. Recent attempts have been 
 made to find a place for the letters in the account 
 of Paul's life given in the Book of Acts. It is sug- 
 gested that I. Timothy was written immediately after 
 Paul's leaving Miletus (see Acts xx. 38), in order to sup- 
 plement the instructions then delivered to Timothy, 
 while the letter to Titus is dated from Rome after the 
 
 voyage, the visit to Crete referred to in Titus i. 5 being 
 
 J16 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 117 
 
 that which occurred during the voyage recorded in Acts. 
 IL Timothy would then be a little later than Philip- 
 pians, just on the eve of Paul's execution. A great 
 difficulty that attaches to such a theory is the impos- 
 sibility of explaining how the letters of the captivity 
 above described could have been inserted between 
 Titus and IL Timothy without any obvious influence 
 upon them of the style found in the pastoral letters. 
 Nor can we find any better reason for accepting the 
 theory that Paul writes at one time to a church, and 
 at another to an individual, and uses perfectly different 
 language, and adopts a perfectly different attitude. As 
 Dr. Horton puts it, by such an assumption "we may 
 gain the pastorals, but we lose Paul." 
 
 The position generally assumed is to suppose that 
 after the letter to the Philippians was written, Paul 
 escaped from his imprisonment in Rome, and con- 
 tinued his activities in the East for some time before 
 he was again arrested, and underwent another imprison- 
 ment that culminated in his execution. Some refer- 
 ences in early Christian writers support the view that 
 he travelled farther west than Rome, but we have no 
 definite evidence of his ministry during the period 
 except what is given us in the letters now under con- 
 
ii8 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 sideration. I. Timothy seems to speak of a journey 
 in Asia Minor and Europe, from which latter place 
 perhaps he writes the letter. According to the Epistle 
 to Titus, he had travelled with the pastor in Crete, 
 and writes to him probably from Corinth. II. Timothy 
 would then reveal to us the conditions of the last 
 imprisonment, where he is in loneliness, and is eager 
 for the presence of Timothy, and for the possession 
 of some' of his most valued belongings. It is difficult, 
 however, to employ the testimony of epistles, which 
 we shall see are themselves in question, for the con- 
 struction of a history for which we have practically 
 no other basis. All that Christian tradition definitely 
 affirms is that the execution of Paul took place near 
 Rome, but we have no independent evidence of its 
 date, nor of the exact circumstances that led up to it. 
 It is quite likely that some elements of genuine tradi- 
 tion are to be found in the pastoral letters, particularly 
 in II. Timothy, but present knowledge does not justify 
 us in reconstructing what are called the last journeys 
 of Paul upon the slight foundations that these letters 
 themselves afford. 
 
 The second point of difficulty is in the character of 
 Timothy as given in these letters. Much that is said 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 119 
 
 of him, while perfectly appropriate in the case of a 
 young and untried convert, is difficult to associate with 
 a man who for many years had been Paul's friend and 
 fellow-worker. One would suppose that those years of 
 fellowship might not only have given Timothy a most 
 intimate knowledge of Paul's own ideas and methods 
 of work, but would not have necessitated the frequent 
 references to Timothy's inexperience and timidity, nor 
 would it have been requisite for Paul to adopt, so 
 often as he does, the tone of self-defence on the matter 
 of his apostleship. However much such a defence is 
 in place when writing to a community, many among 
 whom challenge the claim, it is not at all probable that 
 one of his best friends who had frequently been associated 
 with him in writing letters to these communities should 
 require the same assurance. In the case of Titus the 
 difficulties are not so great, but we know so little of the 
 circumstances that it is not very safe to argue either way 
 from the mere contents of the short letter written to him. 
 The third difficulty is connected with the developed 
 organisation of the churclies. It is true that no new 
 title is introduced, for we have read of bishops, pres- 
 byters, deacons, women workers, and widows both in 
 
 Acts and in the earlier letters of Paul. But there are 
 
 I 
 
120 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 some points in the directions about these various classes 
 which are novel. The position of the Apostle seems 
 rather more authoritative than in the earlier letters. 
 The bishop has a more influential position, both in the 
 churches and towards outsiders, than we find described 
 in any earlier work, and some of his duties, such as the 
 entertaining of travelling brethren, and the care of the 
 churches' finances, seem new. In I. Timothy we find 
 that he has commission to ordain ministers, and to hand 
 on the apostolic tradition, but how far the directions 
 apply only to Timothy or are a general description of every 
 bishopric is not clear. It seems pretty certain that the 
 bishop and the presbyter are one and the same person, 
 though some writers think that in these epistles we have 
 already the traces of the practice of the second century, 
 which separated the two offices. The deacons have not 
 only financial work to do, but also teaching, and if they 
 execute their duties well, may hope to rise to a higher 
 position. Whether the women named are the wives of 
 deacons or a separate class of deaconesses is not certain. 
 The widows, who have already been mentioned in 
 Romans and I. Cor., and the care of whom has been 
 spoken of in Acts vi. i and ix. 39, appear in these let- 
 ters as a separate class. We know that at a later time 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 121 
 
 widows constituted a distinct order in the Christian 
 community, and the beginning of that state of affairs 
 seems to be traceable in these epistles. It is not, of 
 course, impossible that such developments may have 
 taken place even during the lifetime of the Apostle, and 
 it may be argued that the letters of the captivity which 
 we have already considered have so little to say about 
 Church organisation that the growth shown in the 
 pastoral epistles may have been slowly progressing all 
 the while. But when we turn to the literature of the 
 second century, it cannot be doubted that the Church 
 order herein described seems a most natural stepping- 
 stone between that of the earlier Pauline letters and the 
 Church of forty or fifty years later. 
 
 A further difficulty, and a very serious one, is to be 
 found in the vocabulary and style of these letters. To 
 appreciate this properly it is necessary to examine the 
 question in the original, but some points can be put 
 quite simply. The average of new words is very high, 
 and a peculiar feature of the matter is not only that 
 different words are employed than what are found in 
 other letters — for this would not be of much importance — 
 but that words not elsewhere used by Paul are common 
 in these letters, and where he uses different expressions 
 
122 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 for the same idea in his other letters, these do not 
 occur In the pastorals, and the phrase employed in 
 them is common to them all. Some of the best known 
 expressions are "profitable," "godliness," "sound doc- 
 trine," "faithful saying," "come to the knowledge of 
 the truth," &c. (the English reader will find all these 
 words and many others carefully noted in Dr. Hor- 
 ton's commentary in the Century Bible). Many of the 
 phrases occur with such frequency, and are so stereo- 
 typed, that they do not appear to have the freshness 
 and vigour of Paul's general writing. 
 
 It will certainly appear to many that in spite of 
 these and other difficulties that exist, the authorship 
 of the epistles is settled by the definite claim made 
 by each of them to be written by the Apostle. It is 
 to most modern readers inconceivable that such a 
 claim can mean anything else than authenticity or 
 forgery, and so a word may here be said upon the 
 whole question of pseudonymity in ancient writings. 
 Whatever decision we may arrive at with regard to 
 the pastoral epistles, the question of pseudonymous 
 writings must face us, in the case at least of II. Peter. 
 The practice was very common among Jewish writers 
 to produce a book under the name of some famous 
 
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 123 
 
 man of an earlier day, as e.g. in the case of Ecclesi- 
 astes and the Song of Songs (see the present writer's 
 commentary on these books in the Century Bible). 
 Many of the later non-canonical books are written in 
 the name of great teachers such as Moses, Isaiah, 
 Enoch, and others, and the theory was that the writer 
 was too humble to claim authority for his own work, 
 and so wrote under the shadow of a great name, 
 being himself in sympathy with the teaching of his 
 famous predecessor. This was a practice which obtained 
 to some extent among the schools of Greek philo- 
 sophy as well as among the Hebrews. In many cases 
 the names chosen were those of men who had lived 
 so long before the writer's time, that there could 
 be no possibility of misunderstanding, but sometimes 
 the names of practical contemporaries were chosen, 
 as seems to have been the case with the Epistle of 
 Barnabas, the Gospel of Peter, the spurious letters of 
 Ignatius, the so-called Second Epistle of Clement, and 
 other works. It is quite possible, therefore, that with 
 no evil intention or purpose of leading readers astray, 
 the name of the great Apostle may have been used 
 by some of his friends and followers who were anxious 
 to further his work, promulgate his ideas, and in all 
 
124 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 probability, find a hearing for teaching that they knew 
 was derived from himself in letters that, in their present 
 form at least, do not emanate from him at all. As 
 we shall see, when we consider the epistles in detail, 
 many attempts have been made to pick out the 
 sections that are genuinely Pauline from those which 
 are due to the later writer, but the task is not an 
 easy one, for different scholars regard it in entirely 
 opposite lights, some considering the autobiographical 
 portions to be undoubtedly genuine, and others picking 
 these out as the undoubted mark of artistic imita- 
 tion. The present writer is inclined to the view that 
 11. Timothy possesses the largest amount of genuine 
 Pauline material, and is the earliest of the three, but 
 that it is a hopeless task to endeavour to sort out 
 sections which are genuinely Pauline from those which 
 belong to a later hand, and that the most probable 
 theory of the epistles is that some writer or writers 
 intimately acquainted with the Apostle's thought and 
 practice prepared these epistles for the generation that 
 succeeded him, in order to preserve what was known 
 among his friends as to his views on Church life and 
 organisation, and attached to them the names of two 
 of his most famous disciples. 
 
L TIMOTHY 125 
 
 I. TIMOTHY 
 
 The external evidence for this epistle is pretty 
 strong. It is attributed to Paul by Iren^us and in 
 the Mun Can. Marcion knew it, but knew it only 
 to reject it with the other pastoral letters. It was 
 rejected also by Tatian, and by certain heretical writers. 
 Why they were so rejected is not clearly known. 
 Earlier references are supposed to be found to the 
 letter in Polycarp, Ignatius, and even Clement of 
 Rome, but these are very doubtful, and are much 
 more likely to be references to a similar class of 
 ideas found in the common literature, though the 
 coincidences between one passage of Polycarp and 
 I. Timothy are very striking. 
 
 Of the general difficulties that attach to the internal 
 evidence we have already spoken, but we may further 
 note the occurrence of the three " faithful sayings " in 
 this epistle, and the long passage, rhythmical in the 
 original, found in iii. 16. These various passages seem 
 like quotations of fixed liturgical formulae, and in that 
 way are different from anything we find elsewhere in 
 Paul. The letter shows a very clear conception of 
 the importance of the traditional Gospel, but this is 
 
126 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 not a new feature in Paulinism, for the same thing 
 has been found in I. Corinthians, but there is a more 
 definite indication of a prophetic witness as regards 
 false teaching in iv. 1-4 than we find anywhere else 
 in Paul, with the exception of the passage in II. Thessa- 
 lonians ii. The character of the false teaching as 
 described in i. 7 shows that it is Jewish in its origin, 
 and the genealogies against which Timothy is warned 
 in the same chapter have undoubtedly a clear refer- 
 ence to well-known elements in Gnostic teaching. 
 Further, the "oppositions" of vi. 20, where the word 
 is really "antitheses," may also be a technical word of 
 these heresies, for we know it was the term employed 
 by Marcion in his book. Hort thinks it might well 
 describe "the endless contrast of decisions found in 
 endless distinctions," which was a mark of all such 
 teachings. The fact that the false teachers seem to 
 have been practical ascetics, and also to have meddled 
 with magical arts (see II. Tim. iii. 13), in addition 
 to the points named above, has led many to consider 
 that they were not only Jews, but had a large element 
 of Essene teaching in their philosophy. 
 
 The general character of Christian life described in 
 the epistle is that of the ordered community, and is 
 
I. TIMOTHY 127 
 
 quite in agreement with all we know of Paul's earlier 
 counsels to the Christian Churches of Corinth and 
 Ephesus, and all that points to a more defined organisa- 
 tion is only in agreement with the later period to which 
 we are inclined to assign the letter. 
 
 The attempts that have been made to split this letter 
 into two or more have not been very satisfactory. One 
 condition that has governed these endeavours is to take 
 the general sections of the epistle as a unity, and then 
 to suppose that all parts containing direct personal 
 references have been introduced at a later time, and 
 have thus altered what might be a kind of homily, or 
 pastoral instruction, into a letter. For those who want 
 to study this aspect of the subject more thoroughly, 
 reference should be made to Moffat's " Historical New 
 Testament." 
 
 The permanent value of the epistle is largely inde- 
 pendent of the question of its authorship. Of course, if 
 we were certain that it was written by Paul, there would 
 rest an authority upon its statements that may not be 
 supposed otherwise to inhere in them, but such a view 
 is contrary to the general trend of the New Testament, 
 where some of the greatest books are either anonymous 
 or written by comparatively unimportant persons. It 
 
128 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 shows us, then, a sane view of the Christian life, a fine 
 temper of conciliation, and yet an earnest missionary 
 motive, a desire for everything being done decently and 
 in order, but yet a place for the initiative of the Divine 
 Spirit, and an eagerness to provide ready and fitting 
 channels for His action. 
 
 It is impossible to fix a definite date for this writing. 
 Of course, if it was written by Paul, it would be in some 
 period between 62 and 66, but in the view here taken 
 of it, it probably does not belong to the first century 
 at all, or, if so, just to the close of it, and Harnack is 
 of opinion that in its present form it is not earlier 
 than 140. So late a date seems impossible, owing to 
 the much more advanced Church organisation of that 
 period, and it does not seem at all likely that the letter 
 dates from a later time than the days of Ignatius, and is 
 in all probability earlier than his epistles. 
 
 II. TIMOTHY 
 
 The external evidence for II. Timothy is practically 
 the same as that for the first epistle, though it is not so 
 extensive or clear. When we turn to look at the internal 
 evidence we have a much more complicated problem. 
 
II. TIMOTHY 129 
 
 This letter is the most personal of the three, but the 
 very touch of intimacy increases our difficulties. The 
 picture given of Timothy is very hard to accept as 
 historically accurate if this is really later than the first 
 epistle, for he is dealt with as a younger and less strong 
 personaHty than in the first epistle. If, however, we are 
 right in holding this letter to be really the earlier one, 
 the difficulty is not so marked. The personal revelation 
 of Paul's character has much in it that is in agreement 
 with his earlier writings, and the reference in iii. 11 
 to the sufferings in Galatia in the neighbourhood of 
 Timothy's home is very characteristic. The same diffi- 
 culties of language occur in this epistle with in some 
 ways greater force than in the others, but if this is the 
 earliest of the three, then, of course, it would set the 
 fashion for the others. Though not so much is said 
 as in I. Timothy about false teaching, two points are 
 specially mentioned, the magicians of III. 13, which 
 points clearly to magical practices such as were common 
 at Ephesus, and the reference to those who held that 
 the resurrection was already passed {cf. I. Cor. xv. 12), 
 who are described in ii. 18. One noteworthy passage 
 with reference to the Old Testament in iii. 15, 16, is 
 more definite in its language than anything found else- 
 
I30 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 where in Paul. It does not, however, go beyond the 
 implied theory of earlier passages in his letters. The 
 Revised Version translation gives the correct signifi- 
 cance of the original, which is descriptive of the effect 
 to be derived from all inspired Scripture, though the 
 passage does not define what parts of Scripture are 
 inspired ; and we cannot tell from this section whether 
 the writer is dealing with the Hebrew or Greek Old 
 Testament, the latter, of course, including many books 
 that are not in the former. The letter contains a very 
 beautiful portraiture of the Christian minister in the 
 twofold aspects of the writer as a man with his course 
 completed, and of the ideal set before the younger 
 preacher with his work largely before him. These 
 remain of permanent value to all time, whatever decision 
 we may come to with regard to the authorship. Many 
 personal friends of Paul's are mentioned in the epistle, 
 some of whom are known to us through his other letters. 
 It appears that in any case the writer was intimate with 
 the Pauline circle, and we may take it that the letter 
 contains genuine traditions of the Apostle's relationship 
 to his friends. 
 
 The question of date is as difficult as in the former 
 case, but this letter probably stands nearer to Paul's 
 
II. TIMOTHY 131 
 
 own lifetime, and may belong to the decade 70 
 to 80. 
 
 The question of the integrity of the letter has been 
 much in dispute. Some consider that it contains two 
 letters, one running up to iv. 8, and perhaps including 
 also iv. 19-21, while the second letter is the short 
 message contained in iv. 9-18. This would not be 
 difficult to believe, and would help us to understand 
 some of the problems that the present letter contains. 
 
 Others, with more elaboration, think that the more 
 general section consisting of ii. 14-iii. 9 is a separate 
 letter, attributed by some to the final author, but chap, 
 iv. 9-15 and 19-21 is a short letter written during the 
 third missionary journey, and that what remains of the 
 epistle is another letter, written at the close of the 
 Roman imprisonment. There is one short section at 
 the end of the first chapter, consisting of vers. 15-18, 
 which seems fragmentary, and contains in itself certain 
 difficulties. It may be a later addition. Of course, all 
 partition theories are open to much criticism, and are 
 at best only theoretical. In the case of such a letter, 
 however, as we are here considering it may be easier 
 to regard the autobiographical passages as genuine than 
 to hold that the whole letter is the invention of a later 
 
132 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 writer than the Apostle. Some may feel it difficult to 
 understand how a letter entitled II. Timothy could 
 precede I. Timothy, but the titles may easily have been 
 added at a much later time. 
 
 TITUS 
 
 The external evidence for this letter is much the same 
 as that for the two former ones, but is strengthened by 
 the fact that it was the only one of the three accepted 
 by Tatian. The history of Titus, so far as we know 
 it, is that he was one of Paul's Gentile converts, who 
 was with the Apostle at Antioch, and went on with him 
 to Jerusalem, where the attempt was made to compel 
 Paul to circumcise him (see Gal. ii.). A further refer- 
 ence in II. Cor. xii. i8 is taken by Dr. Souter to mean 
 that Titus was Timothy's brother, and to him is given 
 the work of organising the collection at Corinth. This 
 duty was well done, and Titus returned with the later 
 message. All other information about him is derived 
 from this present letter, from which it appears that he 
 had charge of the work in Crete. The earlier refer- 
 ences we have examined show him to have been a 
 man of great reliability, and of a genial and persuasive 
 temperament, with a personality suited for difficult and 
 
TITUS 133 
 
 delicate tasks. This letter tells us that Paul and he 
 had been together in Crete, but on what occasion it is 
 impossible to tell (see above, p. 118). This letter 
 purports to have been sent to him by Zenas, of whom 
 we know nothing further, and by Apollos, Paul's well- 
 known friend (see iii. 13). 
 
 The general tone of the letter is very much akin to 
 that of the other two pastorals. False teachers are 
 active in the community, and are clearly of a Jewish 
 complexion. Church organisation is dealt with on the 
 same lines as in I. Timothy, but more simply. The 
 same features of vocabulary and style are present in this 
 letter as in the former ones. Attempts have been made, 
 not very satisfactorily, to split this letter into Pauline 
 and non-Pauline sections, the only part about which 
 there is absolute unanimity among such critics being 
 that the last few verses are certainly to be attributed 
 to the Apostle. In its present form it probably consists 
 of a Pauline kernel, no longer definitely to be distin- 
 guished, worked over by a later hand, and may belong 
 to the latter part of the first century.^ 
 
 ^ See Note B for latest views on Pauline literature. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 
 
 This book is unique among the books of the New 
 
 Testament. It is called an epistle, but has practically 
 
 no features of such a writing, except in its close. 
 
 There is no opening salutation, and, therefore, the 
 
 book lays no claim to any definite authorship. The 
 
 external evidence in its favour as a book well known 
 
 to the early Christian Church begins with a quotation 
 
 from it in Clement of Rome. It cannot be definitely 
 
 said that Justin Martyr quotes it, and it is not included 
 
 in the Canon of Marcion or in the Mur. Canon. 
 
 We have no reference to it in the extant works of 
 
 Irenceus, and our next evidence is in TertuUian, who 
 
 ascribed it to Barnabas. Clement of Alexandria assigns 
 
 it to Paul, and says that the Apostle wrote it in Hebrew, 
 
 and that Luke translated it into Greek. Origen knows 
 
 that tradition assigned it to Clement or to Luke, but 
 
 for himself the authorship appears an insoluble riddle. 
 
 134 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 135 
 
 It was a long time before the epistle was accepted by 
 Western Christendom, and even such late writers as 
 Augustine and Jerome were doubtful about it. 
 
 Such being a brief outline of the facts of the external 
 evidence, we may consider further the later attempts 
 at assigning an author to it. It is almost certain that 
 he cannot be Paul, from considerations of tradition, 
 language, style, and thought. It is in all ways far re- 
 moved from his recognised writings, and has no similarity 
 even to the disputed ones. One clear statement may 
 be mentioned, that of ii. 3, where the writer of this 
 epistle claims to have received his message at the hand 
 of preachers of the Gospel, being in this quite apart 
 from Paul, who always lays stress upon the immediacy 
 of his own message. Many consider that the claims 
 of Barnabas are excellent, and other suggestions have 
 been Peter and Silas, but with little support. It was 
 Luther who suggested Apollos as the author, and the 
 suggestion has met with much favour. Apollos was 
 trained in Alexandria, and this book bears the strongest 
 evidence of Alexandrian influence. He was mighty in 
 the Scriptures, and eloquent, and this book shows both 
 features. We could understand, therefore, the con- 
 nection between Apollos, Paul, and Timothy. The 
 
 K 
 
136 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 only difficulty is to understand how his name could 
 have slipped out of later tradition. The most recent 
 theory is that of Harnack, who says if Apollos, why 
 not the teachers of Apollos, namely, Priscilla and 
 Aquila? And of the two, Harnack leans to Priscilla 
 as the authoress. We know how highly Paul regarded 
 these workers, and the important place they held in the 
 early Christian community. Were she the writer, it 
 might account for the loss of the name, as women 
 teachers were not encouraged in the early Church. 
 We have no facts that can lead us further, and choice 
 must be made between these various suggestions, or 
 else the book be left anonymous. 
 
 The character of the church to which the letter is 
 addressed is another matter that is not easy to decide. 
 The title might seem to settle, without further dispute, 
 that it consisted of Jews, but apart from the fact that 
 the title is not known before the end of the second 
 century, the word " Hebrews " had a very wide signifi- 
 cance. Neither are the references in the epistle itself to 
 the Jews of such a nature as to be only applicable to 
 a Jewish community. Elsewhere than in this epistle 
 we find Gentiles addressed as the seed of Abraham 
 (see Gal. iii, 7, 29), and the effort to limit such passages 
 as chaps, ix. 26-28 and ii. 9, 15 to a purely Jewish 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 137 
 
 community does not seem to the present writer con- 
 clusive. Some scholars consider that the reference in 
 xiii. 13, "without the camp," must point to Jewish 
 readers, but surely it is only a special instance of the 
 general allegorical methods of the writer, and would be 
 perfectly intelligible to Gentile readers trained in such 
 formsjof expression. Stronger arguments for the Jewish 
 position are found in the mention of the dangers to 
 which the Christian community is exposed. Many hold 
 that the language used better describes those who were 
 in danger of relapsing into Judaism than into heathenism. 
 The passages that are adduced as the strongest proofs 
 of this position are vi. 6 and x. 29. But in neither 
 case does it seem less appropriate to use the language 
 of those who had enjoyed the privilege of Christian 
 communion and had again fallen back into the shame 
 of heathenism. The strongest point of all used in 
 support of the Jewish hypothesis is the large claim 
 that is made for the Old Testament in the pages of this 
 epistle, but here again the writer may be relying upon 
 what is for him the supreme authority, and feel himself 
 unable to advance any stronger argument than it con- 
 tains for the position he wishes to emphasise. 
 
 The sins to which the community was prone seem 
 to have been those that particularly beset Gentiles — 
 
138 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 e.g. impurity, slackness, lack of faith and hope ; the 
 first principles of the Gospel set forth in the end of the 
 fifth and the beginning of the sixth chapters are much 
 more appropriate if used in reference to a Gentile than 
 to a Jewish community. It is not necessary to argue, 
 however, that the community to whom the letter was 
 addressed belonged entirely to either section, but that, 
 like the Pauline churches, the Church here addressed 
 consisted both of Jews and Gentiles. 
 
 It is not more easy to decide the place to which the 
 letter was written, though Rome seems a more probable 
 destination than any other. It may have been to 
 another Roman community than that to which Paul 
 wrote. 
 
 There is nothing in the epistle that definitely points 
 to a certain date, though the various references to 
 suffering seem to imply a period of persecution past 
 and threatening. This may point to the eve of the 
 persecution under Domitian (a.d. 81-96). Some have 
 supposed that the constant references to the Jewish law 
 imply that the temple was still standing, but it is very 
 striking that the word "temple" never occurs in the 
 epistle, and that all the illustration is drawn from the 
 accounts of the tabernacle ritual. The whole method 
 of treatment is too allegorical to base any historical 
 
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 139 
 
 assumption on such a passage as xiii. 13. The con- 
 dition of the Christian community, implied in various 
 parts of the epistle, points to a later stage than the 
 first generation, so that on the whole we may put the 
 letter in a period toward the end of the first century. 
 
 The lessons of the epistle are those especially de- 
 signed for a period of transition, and that is the reason 
 why it so frequently strikes readers as modern in tone. 
 It is an elaborate discussion of the permanence of the 
 Christian faith as opposed to the transiency of Judaism. 
 But the truth here illustrated by that example is appli- 
 cable to many other conditions. The writer's purpose 
 is to show that God " fulfils Himself in many ways," 
 and that neither ritual, law, nor systems of theology 
 can at any one time fully express His message. The 
 one eternal reality is God in Christ. To set Christ 
 forth as "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever" is 
 the great object of the book. What at first seems, on 
 a casual reading, to be the writing of all the New 
 Testament limited to an age and a state of society far 
 apart from our own, becomes, on closer acquaintance, 
 the most illuminating discussion of Christian thought 
 for every period that involves the strain and stress 
 that arise from modification of old views, and the new 
 realisation of the things that are eternal. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES 
 
 JAMES 
 
 This is the first of a group of writings known as General 
 or Catholic Epistles. The most probable origin of the 
 term is the fact that they are addressed to Christians 
 in general, not to particular communities, as Paul's 
 letters are. It is true that this does not apply to the 
 Second and Third Epistles of John, but through being 
 closely attached to the first epistle, they are included 
 in the group. They often appear in a separate manu- 
 script, either alone or with the Book of Acts, and in 
 manuscripts that contain the whole New Testament 
 they either occupy the position they do in our version, 
 or are found between Acts and the Pauline Epistles. 
 The title Catholic is first found for them at the end 
 of the second century. 
 
 This epistle is written in the name of James, but 
 
 no further indication is given whereby to identify him. 
 
 140 
 
JAMES 141 
 
 In the view of most it is the brother of the Lord, 
 who became leader of the Church at Jerusalem, that 
 is the author of the book, but the identification arises 
 from the important position held by him, and from 
 the fact that this letter is written to the Dispersion. 
 Except the opening words, there is nothing else in 
 the book that bears the distinct character of an epistle, 
 nor are there any personal references. 
 
 It is not easy to find definite external evidence of 
 an early date for the use of the epistle, for supposed 
 quotations in early writings are not at all conclusive. 
 In this case we have no reference to the book by 
 name until we come to Origen, who mentions the 
 epistle, and says it was ascribed to James, but the 
 way in which he does so shows that he is doubtful 
 about the ascription. Even at the time of Eusebius 
 hesitation was felt about its acceptance, especially in 
 the Church of the West. 
 
 When we turn to the epistle itself we do not find 
 a great deal to help us with regard to the authorship. 
 When we sum up most that has been said, it amounts to 
 little more than the fact that there is nothing in the 
 epistle that James might not have written. There has 
 been considerable discussion as to how far the book is 
 
142 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 dependent upon other writings in the New Testament. 
 No very conclusive case can be made for a knowledge 
 of the Pauline Epistles. In the undoubted resem- 
 blances that exist between this letter and I. Peter, the 
 real secret is almost certainly their joint use of the 
 same passages from the Old Testament. We do un- 
 doubtedly find many echoes of the Sermon on the 
 Mount and other sections of our Lord's teaching 
 {cf. iii. 12 with Matt. vii. i6; ii. 13 with Matt. v. 7; 
 and vii. 2 and v. 12 with Matt. v. 34-37). Not only 
 so, but such sayings as i. 4, i. 6, i. 11, i. 17, and 
 many others, are echoes of well-known words of Jesus. 
 The saying in i. 12 is expressed in a form that was 
 frequent on our Lord's lips, and the promise of the 
 "crown" is found also in I. Pet. v. 4 and IL Tim. 
 iv. 8. We have some ground, therefore, for believing 
 that this represents a saying of our Lord unrecorded 
 in our Gospels. This points to a probable origin of 
 the book which has been worked out by the present 
 writer In The Expositor (7th ser., vol. vii.). The idea, 
 briefly expressed, is that James, the brother of the 
 Lord, may have made a collection of sayings other- 
 wise not preserved, and have made these the basis 
 of short homilies or reflections, which are collected 
 
JAMES 143 
 
 together in this present work. It may not have been 
 designed at all as a letter in the first instance, but 
 after the death of James some of his disciples may 
 have realised the value of such a record, and brought 
 them all together in his name, and sent them out 
 with his authority. 
 
 There can be no question that the book represents 
 the feelings of a Jewish community, and it is just 
 possible that it consists largely of the adaptation of 
 Jewish synagogue teaching to Christian purposes. It 
 certainly contains no elaborate Christian doctrine, and 
 is quite innocent of any teaching on the person of 
 Christ. It gives an interesting picture of the early 
 community, and the danger of something akin to our 
 modern " snobbishness " creeping in to the Christian 
 fellowship. The famous passage in chap. v. on prayer 
 for and anointing of the sick is once more coming 
 into great prominence in these days when we hear so 
 much of psycho-therapeutics, but it is questionable 
 whether more is meant by it than the importance of 
 prayer in all matters physical and spiritual, and the 
 value of using in a prayerful spirit all known methods 
 of healing. 
 
 It is almost impossible to fix on any date for the 
 
144 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 book, and it has been dated in all periods from about 
 50 to 130. If it was written and recognised as the 
 earliest of the books of the New Testament, it is 
 difficult to account for the silence concerning it on 
 the part of second century witnesses. But if the theory 
 here suggested of the book be correct, we can easily 
 understand how it may contain elements of very early 
 teaching, and yet may not have been published until 
 early in the second century, and thus the difficulties 
 would be met. 
 
 It is interesting to note that in the early centuries 
 there was a group of literature to which the name of 
 James was attached, as we shall presently find was also 
 the case with Peter. It is quite conceivable, therefore, 
 that this little book may have been issued in his name, 
 though its final form is not to be attributed to him 
 who was first leader of the Church in Jerusalem. 
 
 I. PETER 
 
 The external evidence for this epistle is much 
 stronger than for James. In some of the early writings 
 there are echoes of its language, but not convincing 
 proof. When we reach Polycarp's letter, however, it 
 
I. PETER 145 
 
 does appear that in two passages, namely, i. 3 and ii. t, 
 he quotes from the first chapter of this epistle, and we 
 are told by Eusebius that Papias also knew and used 
 it. Irenaeus and his contemporaries quote it as Peter's, 
 and though it does not occur in the list of the Mur. 
 Canon, there is a possibility that the omission is just 
 a slip. It is found in the earliest versions. Both by 
 Origen and Eusebius it is reckoned as authentic. 
 
 Our difficulties as to the authorship begin with the 
 internal evidence. No conclusive proof is to be drawn 
 from parallels with the Gospels, especially Mark, or with 
 the Petrine speeches contained in Acts. The churches 
 specially mentioned in the salutation are those of Asia 
 Minor. We have no evidence that Peter ever visited 
 these, and it is felt to be strange that he makes no 
 mention of Paul in writing to churches so intimately 
 associated with the Apostle to the Gentiles. It has been 
 supposed that he may be writing to Jewish communities, 
 and not to the churches that Paul founded, but this is, 
 of course, a pure speculation, and in the estimation of 
 the present writer not a probable one. Further, the 
 writer speaks of Mark as being with him at the time of 
 writing (see v. 13), and if the Babylon of that verse 
 means, as it probably does, Rome, then both the writer 
 
146 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 and Mark were in the capital of the empire at the time. 
 As Paul is not named, the only explanation is that he 
 was dead, which places the epistle at once in the decade 
 between 60 and 70. Further, from iv. 14-16 we learn 
 that the persecution to which readers were exposed was 
 persecution as Christians, and this, Professor Ramsay 
 argues, could not have been the case earlier than 80 ; 
 though he accepts that as the date, and also Peter as 
 the author, it is almost impossible to do so in view of 
 the strongly supported tradition that points to the year 
 66 as that of Peter's martyrdom. A further difficulty 
 arises from the obvious use in this letter of the Pauline 
 epistles, especially of Rom. xii. and xiii., and Gal. iii. and 
 v., and Eph. ii. and iv. Those who accept the Petrine 
 authorship argue that it was in agreement with Peter's 
 well-known impulsive and generous nature thus to quote 
 from one who, at an earlier period in his career, had 
 been bitterly opposed to him. We must remember that 
 too much has probably been made of the opposition of 
 the two Apostles at Antioch, and that Peter himself had 
 vindicated the rights of the Gentiles before the Church 
 at Jerusalem. 
 
 As we have already seen, the mere fact of the epistle 
 being attributed to Peter in its opening words is not 
 
I. PETER 147 
 
 conclusive evidence that it was written by him. Quite 
 early there was a whole group of literature in existence 
 to which the name of Peter was attached. The second 
 epistle, which will be presently discussed, the Gospel 
 of Peter ^ the Preaching of Peter ^ and the Apocalypse of 
 Peter (for particulars of which the reader should consult 
 Professor Andrews' vol. in this series), and also the later 
 Clement Recognitio7is^ which is a romance founded upon 
 the relations of Peter and Simon Magus. Very few 
 scholars would attribute any of these books to the 
 Apostle, and the knowledge of the existence of such a 
 group of pseudonymous writings makes us uncertain 
 about this work in the absence of anything like con- 
 vincing argument for apostolic authorship. It is true 
 that if it is not Peter's, we have no name to suggest in 
 place of his. It has been supposed that it might have 
 been written by Paul, or by Silvanus, the latter of whom 
 is named in the close of the letter as the amanuensis. 
 Mark might be suggested, a reference to him at the 
 close being taken to be a modest way of hiding his 
 authorship, but there is nothing in the epistle itself that 
 suggests his style, and it would be even more difficult to 
 suppose that he wrote it than to accept the position of 
 an unknown authorship. 
 
148 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 The difficulty of authorship is inextricably associated 
 with that of date. If we suppose that Peter wrote it 
 before the greater Pauline letters were written, then 
 there was no point in much of Paul's argument, for these 
 communities must already have been familiar with the 
 teaching at the hands of Peter, and if it was written 
 later than all Paul's letters, the silence as to Paul's own 
 work and teaching is inexplicablCc Besides, were it 
 written by the Apostle Peter, we should expect many 
 more traces of personal testimony to the knowledge of 
 Christ and of His teaching than we have. Asi Jiilicher 
 says, if we are to suppose that Peter was the author, 
 and he could only speak of Christ like Paul at second 
 hand, it is not easy to see wherein the superiority of the 
 primitive Apostles over Paul can have lain, or " how we 
 are to imagine that the earliest form of the Gospels with 
 all their richness of material ever arose." Harnack 
 thinks that the work was not originally a letter at all, 
 but was written by some prominent teacher towards the 
 end of the first century, and that possibly the author of 
 II. Peter added to it the salutation and the close to give 
 it the appearance of an apostolic letter. This is not a 
 very probable solution, however, because this work was 
 probably in circulation long before the second epistle, 
 
I. PETER 149 
 
 and it is more likely that, emanating from Rome, the 
 name of Peter was attached to it because it echoed 
 teaching that was well known as his, and because his 
 name would carry weight with it, seeing that he was not 
 only an Apostle, but a martyr, and, therefore, an appro- 
 priate consoler in days of persecution. One interesting 
 point about it is the section in ii. 13-17, where loyalty 
 to the imperial authorities is inculcated. This seems to 
 be a counsel of wisdom to those who were exposed to 
 persecution at the hand of the provincial governorsc It 
 is difficult to realise the conditions hinted at in various 
 parts of the epistle, unless it was written at a time of 
 systematic persecution. Somewhere, therefore, towards 
 the end of the first century seems the most suitable date 
 for its appearance. 
 
 We have seen that in the main the teaching of this 
 epistle is in agreement with the teaching of Paul, but 
 there are two striking passages that stand alone in the 
 teaching of the New Testament, namely, iii. 19, 20, and 
 iv. 6 — the passages which deal with the preaching to 
 the "spirits in prison." Many explanations have been 
 given of these difficult passages, which can be studied 
 in any good commentary, but it may be said here 
 that the idea seems to have been derived from Jewish 
 
I50 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 teachers, who held that those who had passed away, as 
 well as those who would then be alive upon earth, were 
 to see the Messiah, and to receive the blessings of His 
 reign. The idea has certainly no basis in the Gospels 
 or in the Pauline Epistles, and it is best to accept it as 
 a beautiful parable of what was the firm faith of all the 
 early Christian teachers, viz. that in Christ alone was 
 salvation to be found, and that whatever blessing comes 
 to men. He is its Source and Origin, as well as its real 
 Channel, even when the recipients are unconscious of 
 Him to whom they owe such blessings. The truths 
 of the Christian revelation are expressed in a different 
 manner by this writer and by Paul, but they are sup- 
 plementary, not contradictory. In the language of 
 Professor Bigg, Paul is a mystic, while this writer is a 
 disciplinarian (see Bigg's Commentary, p. 37). 
 
 JUDE 
 
 The reason for discussing this letter before II. Peter 
 will appear presently, when, in discussing the latter book, 
 we shall find that much of it is already contained in 
 this shorter letter. The writer calls himself in the 
 opening verse not only a "servant of Jesus Christ," 
 
JUDE 151 
 
 but " brother of James." We find in Matthew xiii. 55 
 that a Jude, or Judas to give the correct Greek form, is 
 named as one of the brethren of our Lord, and hence 
 the assumption is that he is the person indicated in 
 this letter. Christian tradition speaks of two of Jude's 
 grandsons being brought before the Emperor Domitian. 
 We are further told that these men lived on into the 
 second century, when they died at an advanced age. 
 If we calculate back on the ordinary averages of life, 
 we shall find that Jude himself cannot very well have 
 lived longer than about 70, so that this letter, were it 
 written by him, would probably be dated somewhere 
 between a.d. 60 and 70. We shall see, however, that 
 the letter bears distinct traces of a much later author- 
 ship, and that, therefore, the writer cannot be the Judas 
 mentioned in the Gospels. Some have suggested that 
 he may have been a quite unknown person who bore 
 the somewhat common name, and that the appellation, 
 brother of James, was inserted at a later time to identify 
 him with the brother of the Lord. 
 
 When we turn to the epistle itself for evidences of 
 its date, we are in a very disputable region. One or 
 two points are clear at first reading, namely, the writer's 
 frank use of writings that were not in the canon of the 
 
152 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Old Testament, which he quotes as authoritatively as 
 others do the Old Testament itself. Now, though 
 there is evidence that Paul was acquainted with some 
 of these books, he never quotes them in this way, and 
 we are inclined at once to think that this points to a 
 later date. In the second place, ver. 17 speaks of the 
 Apostles in a manner that appears only suitable to one 
 who was writing subsequently to their death, and a 
 similar impression is gained from the phrase in ver. 4, 
 namely, "They who were of old set forth unto this 
 condemnation." Further, the description of the false 
 teachers and their errors contained in the epistle cer- 
 tainly points to a later period of error than anything we 
 meet in the Pauline letters. If it is not possible de- 
 finitely to associate the description with certain schools 
 of Gnostic heretics, as is done by some scholars, we are 
 pretty clear that the same type of teaching, which at a 
 later time marked these, is here found in its earlier 
 stages. We are, therefore, constrained to place the 
 epistle in the second century, though probably quite 
 early in the century. Indeed, it is impossible to give 
 any exact date to it, though the external evidence 
 which we now turn to consider puts a certain limit to 
 its date. In the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, 
 
JUDE 153 
 
 traces have been found of the language of Jude, especi- 
 ally the same juxtaposition of certain ideas, but these 
 are altogether too indefinite to found upon them the 
 conclusion that Polycarp knew this letter. Writers 
 toward the end of the first century show pretty clear 
 references to Jude's use of the planets as a type of 
 fallen men, but, of course, the idea may have been 
 found in some Jewish writing of which we have now 
 lost trace. The Mur. Canon mentions the book, but 
 in a doubtful way. The book is quoted by name by 
 Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. Origen is aware 
 of the doubts entertained about its authorship, but 
 seems to accept it himself, probably because he was 
 interested in its doctrine of angels. Eusebius seems to 
 have doubted the book's authenticity, but says many 
 regarded it as genuine. It was not included in the 
 Syriac version. 
 
 One reason why the epistle was doubted in early times 
 was possibly because of its use of apocryphal writings. 
 The Book of E7ioch^ one of the most famous of the 
 Jewish apocalypses, is referred to in v. 14. During 
 the first and second centuries the book seems to have 
 been regarded as quite as authoritative as the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament, but later writers decided against 
 
154 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 its authority, and even criticised severely those who 
 had used it. Another of the Jewish apocalypses used 
 by Jude is the Assumption of Moses (see v. 9). This 
 book he evidently takes as quite authoritative, and 
 when the book itself fell into disrepute, it is easy to 
 understand that the epistle which used it would be 
 also lightly regarded, seeing that the ecclesiastical 
 writers regarded Jude's use of it as claiming for the 
 book canonical authority. The great interest for us 
 in his use of these books is that it points to his Jewish 
 sympathies, if not actually to the fact that he was a 
 Jew himself, and is also an evidence of the great 
 place these books played in early Christian thought. 
 It is practically impossible to fix a place of origin 
 or a destination for this epistle. It may be that it 
 originated in Egypt, because the churches there appear 
 to have been more than generally fond of apocalypse, 
 and also liable to the errors in teaching and practice 
 to which this epistle refers. 
 
 Apart from its main teaching about the definite 
 errors of those who were bringing corruption into the 
 Church, the epistle is remarkable for the beautiful lan- 
 guage and fine thought of the 20th and 21st verses, and 
 also for the lovely doxology with which the letter closes. 
 
II. PETER 155 
 
 II. PETER 
 
 In many ways this is the most difficult book in the 
 whole of the New Testament to discuss. The diffi- 
 culties arise from its contents, its professed authorship, 
 its relation to the Epistle of Jude^ and the way in which 
 it was regarded by the writers of the early centuries. It 
 is better, perhaps, to begin our discussion with the most 
 obvious fact in connection with it, namely, its close 
 relation to the Epistle of Jude. This relation applies 
 in particular to chaps, ii. i-iii. 3, which should be 
 carefully compared with the section in Jude 4-18. It 
 is not possible here to set out the parallel in detail, 
 but English readers will find it very carefully done in 
 Professor Bennett's commentary on the General Epistles 
 in the Century Bible, pp. 58-61, and his analysis 
 should be carefully studied. There can be no doubt 
 that the writing of one author was known to the other ; 
 the only question is as to which was the original, and 
 on this subject the opinions of scholars vary. The 
 present writer has, however, no doubt that Jude was 
 the earlier of the two, because in one or two cases 
 we can see how the writer of II. Peter has modified 
 the earlier statements, one capital example being Jude 
 
156 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 17, 18, as compared with II. Peter iii. 2, 3. If this 
 decision be correct, then the results obtained in the case 
 of Jude's Epistle must be presupposed here, which means 
 that this letter was later than Jude; and even if it is 
 argued that it is not necessarily much later, all question 
 of a possible apostolic authorship is impossible. 
 
 But there is no question that the letter itself asserts 
 that it was written by the Apostle Peter, and in iii. i 
 the writer speaks of this work as his second letter. 
 What, then, is to be said about the relation of this 
 work to the first epistle? Apart from the reference 
 just named, there are not very many noteworthy re- 
 semblances between the two books. It is true that 
 in each we have references to Noah, and one or two 
 phrases that are confined to these two epistles in the 
 New Testament, but nobody doubts that the writer 
 of II. Peter knew the first epistle, and, therefore, such 
 resemblances are easily accounted for. On the other 
 hand, the differences in style, vocabulary, and thought 
 are much more marked than these slight resemblances -, 
 and not only modern critics, but ancient ones, felt 
 that the two writings were not at all likely to have 
 emanated from the same author. In light of what 
 has been said on p. 122 about pseudonymous literature, 
 
11. PETER 157 
 
 we cannot bring in the statement about the Trans- 
 figuration, which occurs in chap. i. 16-18, as a proof 
 of Peter's authorship, nor even his use in i. 15 of the 
 striking word ^^ exodus ^^ with the meaning "death," 
 which is employed in the Gospel of Luke in the nar- 
 rative of the Transfiguration. If the epistle were really 
 Peter's, we should rather expect traces of the Marcan 
 form of the story, but much stress cannot be laid on 
 either point. There is a further strong argument against 
 Petrine authorship in the reference in iii. 15, 16, to 
 the letters of Paul ; first of all that they are classed as 
 Scripture, and secondly, that it is frankly recognised 
 there are things in them that are hard to understand. 
 It has been said that nobody but Peter would venture 
 to style Paul "our beloved brother," but if we agree 
 that the epistle may well have been written by some one 
 in Peter's name, this is quite the sort of expression 
 we should expect. Further, the whole content of the 
 letter points to a much later period in the history of the 
 Church than anything that could be covered by the 
 life of the Apostle, and all that has already been urged 
 against the Petrine authorship of the first epistle applies 
 with much greater force to this second letter. 
 
 To turn, in the next place, to the external evidence, 
 
158 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 This letter is perhaps the one with the weakest external 
 testimony of any book in the New Testament. None 
 of the early writers afford anything like clear traces 
 of its use, not even in this case Irenaeus and Clement 
 of Alexandria. It is not contained in the old Latin 
 or Syriac versions, nor is it named in the Mur. Canon. 
 Origen is very doubtful about its authorship, and 
 Eusebius frankly admits that it is among the disputed 
 books. Even Jerome is doubtful about it, and it was 
 probably not recognised as canonical before the end 
 of the fourth century. 
 
 Though the writer uses, like Jude, apocryphal litera- 
 ture, he does not quote it by name, as does that writer, 
 and this is most reasonably explained by dating this 
 letter later than Jude, at a period when the Christian 
 Church was less ready to use books which had not upon 
 them the stamp of canonicity. We should thus be 
 compelled to bring the book down pretty far in the 
 second century, certainly later than 140. 
 
 It is not easy to fix upon the place in which it was 
 written, but either Rome or Egypt seems most probable. 
 If we are to take the statement in iii. i as meaning 
 that the writer destines his epistle for the same churches 
 as those to which the first epistle was sent, we shall 
 
II. PETER 159 
 
 think of this as being written to Asia Minor, a very 
 suitable place in itself, since we know that the heresies 
 herein referred to were prominent there. Otherwise 
 we might regard it as very appropriate to Egypt, since 
 we have seen that the Epistle of Jude may well have 
 referred to the Christian communities in that land. It 
 may be that Jude's Epistle suggested to this writer his 
 longer and more elaborate work, and that he altered the 
 earlier writing to suit his special purpose. We need 
 not suppose that he was either a Jew or writing to 
 Jewish communities, but that the readers he had in 
 mind were Gentiles exposed to the peculiar errors of 
 early Gnosticism. 
 
 There is one other point that indicates a late date, 
 namely, the reference in chap. iii. 1-7 to the delay in 
 the Second Advent. The writer is clearly of opinion 
 that that event is not nearly so imminent as the 
 early Church supposed, and the difficulty aroused in 
 the minds of many through the non-appearance of the 
 Lord has to be met. The same passage brings before 
 us the belief in the destruction of the world by fire, a 
 belief which was widely current in the second century. 
 This epistle clearly belongs to the large set of pseudo- 
 Petrine writings to which reference was made on p. 147. 
 
i6o BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 In conclusion, the epistle may be taken as a most 
 interesting example of the best teaching of the second 
 century, and the great prominence given in it to the 
 person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
 repeatedly termed throughout it "the Saviour," shows 
 not only the. loyalty of the Church to her earlier teachers, 
 but the clear apprehension of the fact that only in 
 distinct faith in His work and person was the true 
 antidote to be found to all false teaching and erroneous 
 practice. 
 
 I. JOHN 
 
 The close relation of this epistle to the Gospel of 
 
 John is so obvious, and is so generally recognised by 
 scholars of every school of thought, that the reader may 
 refer to what has been said on that point in the discus- 
 sion on the Fourth Gospel for a general treatment of the 
 whole subject. There can be no question that if the 
 two books did not emanate from the same hand, as is 
 more than probable, they were so certainly the product 
 of the same school that it is impossible to differentiate 
 this from the Gospel. Indeed, there is a good deal to 
 be said for the view that this epistle was a kind of 
 covering letter sent out with the Gospel, and dealing 
 
I. JOHN i6i 
 
 with its teachings as applied to practical Christian life. 
 The epistle contains evidences of not belonging to 
 the earliest apostolic days, inasmuch as it mentions 
 the period of writing as "the last hour" (see ii. i8). 
 Besides its doctrine of the anti-Christ, which title is con- 
 fined to the Johannine Epistles in the New Testament, 
 is spoken of as the result of prophecy, apparently either 
 that of the Apostles or of the Lord Himself. The heresies 
 discussed in the epistle are almost certainly those of a 
 Docetic tendency, i.e. those which held that our Lord's 
 earthly existence was a mere appearance, and not a real 
 human nature (see i. i ; ii. 22 ; iv. 2, 3). 
 
 The external evidence for the epistle is early and 
 abundant. It is almost certainly quoted by Polycarp, 
 chap, vii., and is referred to as John's by Irenseus and 
 other writers at the end of the second century, and is 
 included in the Mur. Canon and the early versions. 
 A curious reference to it is made by Augustine, who 
 quotes iii. 2 as occurring in John's letter to the Parthians, 
 It is difficult to account for this, unless the blunder was 
 either made by a scribe, or the word was mistaken for the 
 Greek word for "virgins," which it somewhat resembles, 
 and that this epistle really bore the title to the Virgins 
 as derived from the passage in the Revelation xiv. 4. 
 
i62 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 The epistle lacks both salutation and definite con- 
 clusion, but all through the repeated address, "my 
 little children," the expressions *' brethren," " beloved," 
 "fathers," and "young men," prove that the writer 
 is appealing to those definitely known to him. Pre- 
 sumably the work emanates ft-om Ephesus, and was 
 probably designed for Christians in Asia Minor. Of 
 course its date will be practically the same as that fixed 
 for the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 The epistle is full of the most beautiful thoughts 
 exquisitely expressed, and as a practical treatise upon 
 the love of God as finding its truest expression in the 
 love of our fellow-men, ranks alongside Paul's great 
 teaching on the same subject in I. Cor. xiii. The 
 great doctrines about Jesus as the Son of God and 
 His gift of the eternal life that are given in the Gospel 
 of John are here emphasised and reiterated, and the 
 epistle is also full of the teaching upon the Holy Spirit 
 that is so prominent in the Gospel. There is one very 
 important and interesting point of textual criticism in 
 connection with this epistle, that, namely, which con- 
 cerns the so-called "Three Witness" passage in chap. v. 
 A comparison between the authorised and the revised 
 versions will show that the whole of verse 7 in the 
 
II. JOHN 163 
 
 former is omitted in the latter, and that the words 
 "in earth" in verse 8 in the former are also omitted 
 in the latter. The reason of this is that there is no 
 authority for the words in any good Greek text. They 
 are first found in certain Latin writers, from whose pages 
 they became inserted into the Latin version of the 
 epistle, and were eventually introduced into late Greek 
 manuscripts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. 
 There can be no doubt, therefore, that they never 
 formed a part of the New Testament text at all, and 
 it is most unfortunate that, owing to the rashness of 
 Erasmus, they ever got into the authorised version. 
 
 II. JOHN 
 
 This little letter professes to be written by "the 
 Elder," but we have no further indication as to who the 
 Elder was. Later writers identified him with the elder 
 John referred to on p. 49. This was only natural from 
 the similarity between the phrasing of this letter and 
 the first epistle. Here also we have references to the 
 deceiver and the anti-Christ, to the new commandment 
 and to love, and in its few sentences we have the further 
 expressions "truth," and "the world," used in the 
 
i64 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 sense in which they are employed, both in the first 
 epistle and in the Fourth Gospel. 
 
 The epistle is written to "the elect lady and her 
 children," and this phrase has given rise to the dis- 
 cussion as to whether it designates an individual or a 
 church. Some of the subsequent matter in the epistle 
 seems more suitably addressed to a community than to 
 a family, and it would be quite easy for the figurative 
 language to arise, especially if one individual church 
 was in the writer's thoughts. On the other hand, the 
 expression was a common one in the letters of the 
 period as a term of endearment between friends, and 
 inasmuch as the second personal pronoun is used at 
 the close of the epistle, an individual seems to be in- 
 tended. We cannot, however, decide the matter defi- 
 nitely. The somewhat stern injunction in ver. lo is 
 thought by some to be contrary to the spirit of the 
 writer of the first epistle, but we can well understand 
 how any one who was eager about the purity of Christian 
 teaching might fear that evil communications would 
 corrupt good manners, and there are many references 
 in the early literature to the risks involved in enter- 
 taining false teachers. 
 
 The epistle is quoted as John's by Irena^us and 
 
in. JOHN 165 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, and the Mur. Canon knows at 
 least two epistles of John, so that we may say this one 
 is vouched for by the document. Origen and Eusebius 
 are in doubt about it. 
 
 III. JOHN 
 
 This epistle also claims to be written by the Elder, 
 but in this case to a definite person, Gaius, of whom, 
 however, we know nothing else. Jiilicher has pointed out 
 that the praise which is given to him in vers. 3 and 4 
 is not easily harmonised with the warning in ver. 11, 
 since it is scarcely likely that the writer would suppose 
 that a man to whom he has just given such a high 
 character for Christian conduct would be in almost the 
 same breath described as likely to become an imitator 
 of an unworthy disciple. This is not at all a conclusive 
 argument, seeing that a parallel may be found in many 
 passages in Paul's letters, if not in the case of individuals, 
 certainly of communities. The two other persons men- 
 tioned in the epistle are Diotrephes and Demetrius ; the 
 former is spoken of sternly as the leader of the party 
 opposed to the writer, and as himself of a masterful and 
 ambitious temper. He also appears to have been quarrel- 
 some and intolerant. Demetrius contrasts with him as a 
 
i66 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 loyal disciple, and well-esteemed among his brethren, 
 but beyond this we know nothing of either of the men. 
 There is too little material in the epistle to say that it 
 contains strong internal evidence for the same author- 
 ship as any of the other books contained in the New 
 Testament, but such evidence as it does afford links it 
 closely with the second epistle. 
 
 We need not be surprised that the external evidence 
 for such a short and unimportant writing is not strong. 
 There is no certain evidence of it before the third 
 century, and Eusebius reckons it among the disputed 
 books. Whether the reference in ver. 9 to the former 
 writing by the same author be to the second epistle or 
 not, we cannot decide, and the main interest of the writing 
 is twofold. First, that it gives us a clear little miniature 
 of life in the Church communities of the end of the 
 first or beginning of the second century ; and secondly, 
 because this little epistle bears the closest resemblance 
 of all the epistles of the New Testament to the ordinary 
 everyday letter of the period, as these stand disclosed to 
 us in the recently discovered papyri. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE BOOK OF THE REVELATION 
 
 This name is the Latin form of the Greek title of the 
 book, namely, the Apocalypse, and both names mean 
 in English, "the Unveiling." To many readers it 
 appears a very unappropriate title to apply to a book 
 which has much more the aspect of a riddle than a 
 solution of riddles. There can be no question, how- 
 ever, that the latter was its purpose. It was supposed 
 to be a key to the many problems that surrounded 
 the Christians at the end of the first century, and the 
 strange form in which the book is cast arises from the 
 fact that it belongs to a type of literature unfamiliar 
 to the English reader. The Old Testament is not 
 without examples of Apocalypse. Perhaps the best 
 known is the latter part of the Book of Daniel, but other 
 examples are to be found in the Book of Zechariah, 
 particularly chaps, ix. to xiv. ; the Book of Joel, par- 
 ticularly chap. ii. 28-31 j and in the Oracles against 
 
 167 M 
 
i68 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 foreign nations, found in Isa. xiii. and xiv. ; Jer. xlvi.- 
 Ixi. ; and Ezek. xxv.-xxxii. One of the most apocalyptic 
 passages of the Old Testament is found in what is 
 also one of the latest written sections, Isa. xxiv.-xxvii., 
 in which passage are found two of the great signs of 
 apocalypse, the judgment upon angels and the doctrine 
 of the resurrection. 
 
 It may be of use to indicate one or two charac- 
 teristic features of apocalypse. It is not possible to 
 elaborate the points here, but further reference should 
 be made to Professor Andrews' volume in this series, 
 chaps, vii. to ix. and xv. ; and also Professor Porter's 
 volume, " The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers," 
 published by J. Clarke & Co., which contains a very 
 full account of one or two of the lesser known books, 
 as well as of the book we are now considering. 
 
 The first point to be noted is that apocalypse suc- 
 ceeded prophecy. As we have seen, certain passages 
 in the earlier prophets show trace of apocalypse, and 
 the later writings of the Old Testament are many of 
 them apocalyptic. One main distinction is that, while 
 the prophet spoke directly to his contemporaries in 
 language that was plain and forcible, the apocalyptist 
 was a student who used literary methods to wrap up 
 
BOOK OF THE REVELATION 169 
 
 his message skilfully in secret and allusive language. 
 Why did he do so? Because his work was designed 
 to help those who were exposed to persecution, and 
 who were depressed by their difficulties. It would often 
 have been dangerous to speak out in plain language, 
 because, had the message fallen into the hands of their 
 oppressors, the oppression would only have been in- 
 creased. Thus it is that we have the weird figures 
 that fill the apocalyptic pages. Many of the creatures 
 the apocalyptic writer creates are monsters, because 
 he is not attempting to describe anything he has 
 seen, but to build up an imaginary being, because he 
 means it to be artificially interpreted. His lions and 
 eagles and many-headed beasts are representatives of 
 kingdoms, monarchs, or governors, whose history and 
 final doom he thus pronounces. But if the writing 
 falls into hands that have no key to his intention, it 
 will only seem like the wild imaginings of a fantastic 
 dreamer. 
 
 These writers depended much upon the work of 
 their predecessors. One would take up the vision of 
 a former writer and so modify it as to apply more 
 exactly to the conditions of his own time. We can 
 see this in many parts of the Book of the Revelation, 
 
I70 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 where this writer works upon the older apocalypses of 
 Daniel or Ezekiel. The reader may turn for two clear 
 examples to chap. i. 13-16, compared with Dan. vii. 
 9-13, and X. 5-16; and also chap. xxii. i, 2, with 
 Ezek. xlvii. 1-12. Sometimes this was done by a 
 single writer, and his book consists of what in modern 
 language would be called "various editions," and only 
 careful analysis can discover the successive strata. 
 This must often have been the work of various editors, 
 but in no case are their names known, and the book 
 in the form in which we have it may have been the 
 growth of centuries. Such is the case with one of 
 the greatest of the apocalypses — that known as the 
 Book of Enoch. This also is supposed by many 
 scholars to have been the case with the Book of the 
 Revelation. There are, for example, the three sets of 
 seven signs, seals, trumpets, and bowls. It is quite 
 likely that one of these is original, and the other two 
 successive modifications of the first idea. Similarly, 
 we have the fall of Rome described in four different 
 ways in chaps, xvii. to xix., where, again, it is more 
 than probable that the writer is working over material 
 that he found ready to his hand. Some have thought 
 that there is an original kernel of Jewish apocalypse 
 
BOOK OF THE REVELATION 171 
 
 in the book, finally altered and adapted by a Christian 
 editor. Whatever is to be said of this theory in detail, 
 there can be little question that it is the real explanation 
 of chaps, xii. and xiii. 
 
 Apocalypses seem to have originated with the earliest 
 form of Pharisaism, which means that they were the 
 outcome of the most intense form of Jewish patriotism, 
 and this may account for the violent hatred they all 
 manifest to foreign powers. 
 
 Another common feature of apocalypse is the use 
 by all the writers of visions. Now, at first sight 
 it might appear that these visions were all actual 
 experiences, but consideration of the literary method 
 that has been described and the dependence of one 
 writer upon another shows that the vision was fre- 
 quently, if not always, a literary device. In the early 
 days of English poetry a great many poems begin 
 with a poet's vision on a May morning. We are not 
 to suppose that on every occasion the poet actually 
 dreamed such a dream or saw such a vision, but that 
 he has thrown his poetic imaginings into that form. 
 
 The apocalyptists were also greatly concerned with 
 the Messianic hope, the problem of suffering, and the 
 part played by the unseen powers of good and evil in 
 
172 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 the conduct of the world. Hence it is that they have 
 much to tell us of angels, of heaven, and of hell. But 
 in all these respects we must remember that they are 
 echoing the popular thought of their own day, and try 
 to separate the eternal truths taught in their pages from 
 the temporal form in which these truths are presented. 
 These writings also contain a philosophy of history, 
 and, as such, are of permanent importance. They are 
 all full of an intense faith in God, and a clear convic- 
 tion that He will bring order out of chaos, and a safe 
 issue out of affliction, for those that put their trust 
 in Him. They are books of encouragement, of strong 
 hopefulness, and of brave faith. They are, as they have 
 been well termed, " Tracts for Bad Times," but to their 
 writers the dark cloud has always a silver lining, and 
 they felt convinced that they 
 
 " Did not err : there does a sable cloud 
 Turn forth her silver lining on the night." 
 One final point to be here noticed about apocalypses 
 is that they are generally pseudonymous. For the most 
 part they are written in the name of famous men who 
 lived long before their authors' time, e.g. Enoch, Moses, 
 and Baruch, but some of the Christian apocalypses are 
 written in the name of those who are almost, if not 
 
BOOK OF THE REVELATION 173 
 
 quite, contemporaries, e.g. Peter and Paul. This con- 
 sideration has, as we shall see, considerable bearing 
 upon the authorship of the Book of Revelation, to which 
 question we now turn. 
 
 It claims to be written by John, but beyond the 
 name there is no clear indication as to which John is 
 meant. If the tradition of the exile of John of Ephesus 
 to Patmos is trustworthy, that would, of course, indicate 
 that he was indicated as the author, but, as we have 
 already seen, there is considerable question as to who 
 John of Ephesus really was. The early Church seems 
 in the main to have assumed that John the Apostle was 
 the author of the book. Justin Martyr definitely calls 
 the author "one of the Apostles of Christ," and Ter- 
 tullian frequently mentions it as written by the Apostle 
 John. Irenseus, as is his wont, calls John "a disciple 
 of the Lord," but identifies the author with the evan- 
 gelist, and Clement of Alexandria seems to have no 
 doubt that the author was the Apostle, and further 
 evidence can be adduced that writers of the second 
 century considered the book as inspired Scripture which 
 probably carried with it the assumption of apostolic 
 authorship. A writer of the third century, by name 
 Dionysius, criticised the book on the ground of its 
 
174 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 obvious difference in style and language from the Fourth 
 Gospel, and by one at least of the writers at the end of 
 the second century its authorship was attributed to 
 John's great opponent, Cerinthus. 
 
 As we have already discussed the problem of the 
 authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the only question that 
 here concerns us is whether the Apocalypse can be 
 attributed to the same author. There are undoubtedly 
 striking points of resemblance, e.g. the title "Word of 
 God" (xix. 13) applied to Christ; the name "Lamb" 
 that is given to Him in both works, though the Greek 
 word differs ; the image of Water of Life, and the term 
 " Shepherd " applied to Jesus. Other phrases common 
 to the two books are the adjective "true," the phrase 
 "he that overcometh," and the words "witness" and 
 "testimony." Other resemblances are more clear in 
 Greek than English, and for complete evidence on these 
 points the student is referred to the English commentary 
 of Swete and the German commentary of Bousset. In 
 spite of these, however, the present writer is of opinion 
 that nothing more is proved by them than that the 
 writer of the Revelation is influenced by the language 
 and thought that was current in the Christian school of 
 Ephesus. The great distinction between the two books 
 
BOOK OF THE REVELATION 175 
 
 is in the language, the Greek of the Apocalypse being 
 perfectly distinct from that of the Fourth Gospel, and 
 many times the writer disregards all ordinary rules of 
 grammar. It seems probable that we should give more 
 weight than is often done to the custom of apocalyptic 
 writers to hide their own name under that of some 
 much more distinguished person, and to suppose that 
 the writer of the Revelation has chosen to remain 
 anonymous, and to produce his prophetic work under 
 the name of the great personality, John. 
 
 The date of the book has given rise to much dis- 
 cussion, but of recent years there has been a much more 
 unanimous return to the early tradition, which places it 
 in the reign of Domitian, somewhere about the year 
 90. It is quite clear that the book was written in a 
 period of persecution, and all the circumstances indicate 
 more closely the persecution under that emperor than 
 any earlier one. The question largely depends upon 
 the interpretation of two difficult passages in the 
 symbolism of the Apocalypse, the heads and horns of 
 chap. xiii. and the ten horns of chap. xvii. It seems 
 obvious that these figures refer to the Roman emperors, 
 and it is likely that in the one case three usurping 
 emperors are omitted, whereas in the other case they 
 are included ; and if this be so, the later date would be 
 
176 BOOKS OF NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 supported. The generally accepted interpretation of 
 the mysterious number 666 is that it refers to Nero, and 
 the strange passages in xiii. 3 and xvii. 1 1 to the well- 
 known and widely-spread belief that Nero was himself 
 to return as a mightier monster of iniquity than he had 
 been in his first reign. The variations in the forms of 
 reference to the emperors is probably due to the fact 
 above noted, that the Apocalypse contains more than 
 one edition of the writer's views. 
 
 Many theories are held about the construction of the 
 book, some finding in it many different sources, while 
 others regard it as a perfect unity. There seems little 
 question that, in common with the other apocalypses, 
 there are varying sources worked up by a final editor, 
 but it is not possible in the compass of this book to 
 discuss the many problems raised. The English reader 
 is referred for further particulars to Bousset's article 
 " Apocalypse " in the EncydopcEdia Biblica^ and to Pro- 
 fessor Porter's article in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. 
 The general purpose of the book has been already in- 
 dicated, and its permanent value is to be found in the 
 triumphant faith it shows in the final victory of Christ, 
 and in the firm belief of the author that in Him all the 
 problems, perplexing and intricate, of human history and 
 of the progress of the universe have their solution. 
 
A BRIEF LIST OF BOOKS FOR 
 FURTHER STUDY 
 
 In the opinion of the present writer, the best book on 
 introduction is "An Introduction to the New Testa- 
 ment" by A. Jiilicher, published by Smith, Elder and 
 Co. ; a shorter, but admirable treatment, is to be found 
 in Bennett and Adeney's "Biblical Introduction," 
 Methuen. More conservative positions are found in 
 the introductions of Marcus Dods and McClymont. 
 
 An excellent introduction to the Synoptic question is 
 found in "The Study of the Gospels," by Armitage 
 Robinson, published by Longmans, while for more 
 detailed study Harnack's volumes, " Luke the Physi- 
 cian " and "The Sayings of Jesus," should be con- 
 sulted. On the Fourth Gospel two excellent books can 
 be named, which are not expensive, and deal respectively 
 with the external and internal problems. They are 
 each entitled "The Fourth Gospel"; one by Jackson, 
 published by the Cambridge University Press; the 
 other by Scott, published by T. & T. Clark. 
 
 On the Acts of the Apostles, Harnack's new volume 
 should be read, and also Sir William Ramsay's " St. 
 Paul the Traveller." No better introduction to Paul's 
 Epistles can be found than Shaw, "The Pauline 
 Epistles," published by T. & T. Clark. 
 
 The introductions to the individual books in the 
 various volumes of the Century Bible should be care- 
 fully studied, and also the articles in the three admirable 
 dictionaries edited by Dr. Hastings. 
 177 
 
NOTE A 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE FIRST AND 
 FOURTH GOSPELS 
 
 It has been frequently noted that there are certain passages 
 in the Synoptics which bear a close resemblance to the 
 language and thought of the Fourth Gospel, notably Matt. 
 xi. 25-30 cf. with Luke x. 21-24, but in the examination of 
 such passages it becomes clear that Matthew's Gospel con- 
 tains a larger number of these than does either of the others, 
 and the following passages should be carefully examined : — 
 Matt. iii. 17, where the words spoken at the baptism are 
 Johannine in form ; Matt. x. 24, 25 ; x. 40 ; xv. 13 ; xvi. 
 17-19; xviii. 18, 19. 
 
 If the First Gospel is correctly dated in this book, and is, 
 therefore, the latest of the Synoptics, it is intelligible that 
 these and similar sayings should be preserved in this Gospel 
 alone. It indicates the possibility of the evangelist having 
 knowledge of a certain type of recorded sayings of Jesus to 
 which the other Synoptics had not access, but which were 
 almost exclusively and much more extensively used by the 
 author of the Fourth Gospel. In this way we get a confir- 
 mation of the position that Matthew's book is later than 
 Mark and Luke. 
 
 NOTE B 
 
 As these pages were passing through the press, a striking 
 volume appeared, entitled " The Pauline Epistles," by Dr. 
 R. Scott, published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark. In this volume 
 an entirely fresh view is taken of the character, constitution, 
 
 178 
 
NOTE B 179 
 
 and date of the Pauline Epistles. The writer considers that 
 he is able to find the work of four different writers in the 
 works usually attributed to Paul, and his grouping of the 
 letters is as follows : — First the strictly Pauline group, con- 
 sisting of I. Cor., except xv. 20-34 ; II. Cor., except vi. 14 to 
 vii. I, and xiii. 11-14 ; Rom. i. to xi., and xvi. 1-16 and 21- 
 24 ; Galatians and Philippians. The second or exhortation 
 group : — Ephesians ; I. Thess. iv. and v. ; II. Thess. i. and ii. ; 
 Rom. xii., xiii., xv. ; I. Cor. xv. 20-34 ; and II. Cor. vi. 14 to 
 vii. I. These Dr. Scott assigns to Silas, and with them 
 associates Hebrews, I. Peter, and the final editing of 
 Matthew's Gospel, all of which, he thinks, show signs of the 
 same hand. The third, or Timothean group : — I. Thess. i.- 
 iii. ; II. Thess. iii. ; Colossians, Philippians, and probably 
 Rom. xiv. Fourth, or pastoral group (in the following 
 order): — II. Timothy; I. Timothy; Titus. To the same 
 hand he also attributes the closing verses of Romans, and 
 he finds the writer of all these to be Luke. It is impossible 
 in this short note to give the reasons for these striking and 
 novel conclusions. The writer works out his theory with 
 much patience and critical skill, but it seems as if too much 
 stress were laid upon minute points of language, and not 
 enough consideration taken of the larger questions of 
 thought. He is occasionally too subjective in his conclu- 
 sions, as, e.g.^ when he deals with the authorship of the 
 Thessalonian Epistles, and says that in them there is an 
 entire absence of every Pauline characteristic. Probably 
 the most valuable part of the book is his suggestion of Luke's 
 connection with the last group of epistles. A very valuable 
 feature of the volume will be found in the excellent outlines 
 of the arguments of the epistles, and in chaps v. and viii., 
 which deal at length with the ideas contained in them. The 
 book is fresh and original, and demands a thorough study 
 at the hand of all careful students of the subject. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Alexandria, 39, 135 
 
 Allegory, 83 
 
 Antioch, 43 
 
 Apocalypses, 18, "jt, 167-173 
 
 AfKJcrypha, 153 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels, 9-n 
 
 Apollos, 13s 
 
 Aquila, 136 
 
 Aramaic, 25 
 
 Aristion, 32 
 
 Barnabas. 135 
 Bczae Codex, 65 
 Bousset, 80, 84, 96, 176 
 
 CANONICITY, 3, 4, II 
 
 Captivity, Epistles of, 102 
 Catholic Epistles, 140 
 Cerinthus, 174 
 Chrysostom, 63 
 Clement of Alexandria, 20 
 Clement of Rome, 19, 88 
 Corinth, 85 
 
 Delff, 60 
 Dionysius, 173 
 
 EUSEBIUS, 20 
 
 Freer Manuscript, 33 
 
 Galatia, 78 
 Gnosticism, iii, 159 
 
 Harnack, 43, 103, 128, 136 
 Her mas, 20 
 
 Ignatius, 19, 49, 106 
 Irenaeus, 20, 48 
 
 Jerome, 34 
 Josephus, 8 
 Judaisers, 78, 81 
 Justin Martyr, 20, 22 
 
 Laodiceans, Epistle to, 104 
 Life of Jesus, sources of, 6-12 
 Literature, forms of, 3-5 
 Logia, 16 
 Luther, 135 
 
 Marcion, III, 125 
 
 Mark's Gospel, conclusion of, 31 
 
 Medical language of Luke, 46 
 
 Muratorian Canon, 20 
 
 Origen, 20 
 
 Oxyrhynchus, 11 
 
 Papias, 21, 28, 49 
 
 Papyri, 6g 
 
 Parthians, letter to, i6x 
 
 Petrine literature, 147 
 
 Polycarp, 19 
 
 Presbyter, John the, 49, 163 
 
 Priscilla, 136 
 
 Pseudonymous authorship, 122 
 
 Salmon, 43 
 
 Synoptics, 12-19 
 
 Tacitus, 8 
 
 TertuUian, 20 
 
 Travel document, 64 
 
 Unwritten sayings, 11 
 Wellhausen, 58 
 Wendt, 57 
 Wright, 43 
 
 Printed by Ballantyne, Hansom &* Co. 
 Edinburgh dr* London 
 
Princeton Theological Se 
 
 1 1012 01145 8520 
 Date Due 
 
 APrr 
 
 Ml i.-^ 
 
 ^ 
 

 ' - >' 'J *"' 
 
 J > i ' 
 
 
 
 >f^Jl 
 
 :.r ':':^