Section N/.\ THE FOREIGN BIBLICAL LIBRARY, EDITED BY THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., Editor of the " Expositor." WEISS' MANUAL OF INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCLXXXVII. A MANUAL OF INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. ^^ ^\ OF PR/ OCT 3 1 DR. BERNHARD^'WEISS, ^<^/}GICAL 8 . A Ober-Konsistorialrath a7id Professor of Theology. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY A. J. K. DAVIDSON. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCLXXXVII. (A/l rights reserved.) Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Froiue, and London. PREFACE. It is almost necessary for me to apologize for putting forth an Introduction to tlie New Testament without being in a position to oifer the results of recent, not to say the most recent, researches. Even the history of the Canon, Avhich I hope I have advanced a step beyond the cun'ent combiu- ation and critical explanation of isolated facts, contains only the expansion of fundamental thoughts to which I have already given expression in a review of Credner's " History of the Canon " {Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1863, 1) . But the special Introduction touches on few problems, apart perhaps from the sections on the Corinthian and Johannine Epistles and the Acts, on which I have not already had occasion to ex- press my opinion, discussing them minutely in some cases, and in many cases more than once. And although I am con- scious of having learnt on all points, even from opponents, and of having in many respects advanced my conceptions, yet their basis has been preserved throughout. 'Nor is it the design of this book to assail with a renewed appeal for their assent, those who have hitherto been unable to accept the same fundamental views, much less those who have rejected them with vehemence, though without close exami- nation, although I believe there is much that finds more favourable elucidation and more convincing proof from the unbroken connection of a general historical and critical survey in which it is here seen. My main object in this instance was not to give a statement of my views, but to / VI PEE FACE. furnisli a manual witli tlie best methodical arrangement, the want of which I had long felt in my academical office. Repeated attempts have indeed been made to satisfy this want, more especially of late ; but these attempts fall too far short of the ideal I had hitherto formed of such a manual. In my view, the main thing in an Introduction to the New Testament is neither criticism nor apologetics, but the actual initiation into a living, historical knowledge of Scripture. In fact, all that I have hitherto published in the department of theology has only had this one aim, since it appears to me that nothing less than the whole future of theology and the Church depends on the wider diifusion and deeper character of such an understanding of the Scriptures. But I find this knowledge of Scripture endangered not only on the side of dogma, and by the unfortunate virtuosoship that makes the word of Scripture the sport of individual combinations of ideas or of brilliant rhetoric, but also on the side of criticism, where in the attempts to point out the historical influences of the time or the strife of dogmatic tendencies in the New Testament Scriptures, their religious character has only too often been utterly misapprehended. For this reason I have entered more minutely than is usual , into an analysis of the train of thought of each particular writing, into the question of its religious and literary pecu- liarity, its composition as well as its historical premises and aims. In so doing it is obvious that I could only set out with the views I had matured in the course of long familiarity with the New Testament, even where these have hitherto met with more opposition than assent. I am incapable of the self-denial necessarily involved in making myself a mouth-piece for different views, a self-denial which is in many cases only apparent, betraying by incidental hints the contempt with which it looks down on all that does not fit into its own pattern. Nor do I hold it advisable merely to set PEEFACE. Vll antagonistic opinions before him who desires to be instructed in such matters, without even attempting to show him a way in which to reconcile them. I believe that my opinions, the result of fi^quent and thorough examination, have at least the same claim to acceptance as those of my predeces- sors. I am conscious of having arrived at them, not in obe- dience to a preconceived theological view, but by impartial enquiry, and I maintain that they are just as much based on a general historical survey of the relations of the apostolic period, as the criticism that is so prone to claim for itself exclusively, the name historical. On the other hand I have entire respect for all earnest scientific enquiry, even when it takes another direction than what appears to me correct ; and I am not satisfied with a peremptory rejection of its results. I have endeavoured throughout to follow the history of scientific research as closely as possible into each separate question, and to present it to the reader. I have also allowed a hearing to the opposite view, with its reasons, and have endeavoured from history itself to learn and to teach how it may be refuted, though in every instance I look for the chief decision from the positive statement of the case agreeably to the sources from which it is drawn. The dependence on traditional premises, which is as great on the critical as on the apolo- getic side, I have now as ever fearlessly resisted, even where it is most confidently asserted. I do not profess to have enumerated all views, or mentioned all the names inciden- tally in favour of this or that opinion, even where such names may be renowned. Of actual fellow- workers on the problems of the New Testament I hope I have forgotten none. But I have not been able to follow up foreign liter- ature to any extent. Holtzmann in his Introduction says, Christianity has been " book- religion " from the beginning. In answer to this, I can only say, God be praised that it is not so. The opposi- 7111 PBEFACE . tion of my conception of the New Testament to tliat of many modern critical tendencies, is perhaps most sharply concen- trated in this antithesis. Christianity has from the begin- ning been Life ; and because this life pulsates in its primitive documents, these cannot be explained or understood on the hypothesis of " literary dependences." I do not pretend to have entirely comprised within the limits of my Introduc- tion this life, the fuller and deeper grasp of which is the aim of all theological science, or to have given it compre- hensive expression, but I have honestly striven to do so. To the theologians who have been my hearers for more than thirty-four years, as well as those who in still greater numbers have received my former works on the New Testa- ment with perfect trust, and to whom they have been a source of instruction, I offer this book also, as an intro- duction to the rich treasury of our New Testament records. I am aware that no scientific labour can unlock its deepest secret or lay it open to the understanding. But I know too, that without such labour the theologian is not well equipped for the preaching of the word and the battle of the present that is imposed as a duty on us all. May this book, under God's blessing, contribute to that end. Berlin, Aiigust, 1886, B. WEISS. TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. I. INTRODUCTION. PAGE § 1. FOONDING OF THE SciENCE OF INTRODUCTION .... 1 1. The Patristic time. 2. The Middle Ages and the Reformation. 3. Richard Simon. 4. Joh. Dav. Michaelis. § 2. Criticism and Apologetics 7 1. Semler. Haenlein. Schmidt. 2. Eichhorn. Bertholdt. Hug. 3. Schleiermacher. De Wette. Credner. 4. Guericke. Olshausen. Neander. § 8. The Tubingen School and its Opponents .... 12 1. Ferdinand Christian v. Baur. 2. Zeller. Schwegler. Bruno Bauer. 3. Thiersch. Ebrard. Lechler. 4. Bleek. Ewald. Reuss. Ritschl. § 4. Present State of the Science 18 1. Hilgenfeld. Holsten. Volkmar. 2. The Modern Critical School. 8. Apologetic Tendencies. 4. Problem and Method of the Science of Introduction. FIRST PART. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. § 5. The Canon of the Lord's Words 28 1. Christ and the Apostles. 2. Origin of a New Testament Literature. ix CONTENTS. 3. The Old Testament and the Lord's Words. 4. The Canon of the Lord's Words. 5. Oral Tradition as the Source of the Lord's Words. 6. Oldest Traces of the Written Gospels. 7. The Fourth Gospel and the^ Epistles of John in the Apostolic Fathers. 6. The Oldest Traces of the New Testament Epistles . 43 1. Mention of the New Testament Epistles in the Apostolic Fathers. 2. Apostolic Authority in the Apostolic Fathers. 3. Traces of the New Testament Epistles in Clement. 4. Barnabas and Hermas. 5. Ignatius and Polycarp. 6. The Clementine Homilies and the Didach§. 7. Spread of the New Testament Epistles. 7. The Gospel Canon . .54 1. The Memorabilia of the Apostles in Justin. 2. The Use of the Synoptic Gospels in Justin. 3. The Fourth Gospel in Justin. 4. The Apostolic Writings in Justin. 5. The Fourth Gospel in the Apologists. 6. Tatian's Diatessaron. The Origin of the Gospel Canon. 7. The New Testament Epistles in the Apologists. 8. The Canon of Apostolic Teaditional Doctrine ... 73 1. The Oral Apostolic Traditional Doctrine. 2. The Secret Tradition of the Heretics. 3. Going back of the Heretics to the Apostolic Writings. 4. The Falsification of Scripture by Heretics. 5. The Scripture Criticism of Heretics. 6. The Canon of Marcion. 7. The Eaising of the Apostolic Writings to the Kank of Sacred Writings. 9. The New Testament at the Close of the Second Cen- TUEY 87 1. The New Testament and its Parts. 2. The Gospels. 3. The Acts. 4. 5. The Apostolic Epistles. 6. The Apocalypse. 7. The New Testament at the End of the Second Century. CONTENTS. XI PAGE 10. The Beginnings of the Fokmation of the New Testa- ment Canon 102 1. The Bible of the Syrian Church. 2, 3. The Muratorian Fragment, 4. The West in the Third Century, 5. Fundamental Principles of Canon Formation in Origen. 6. 7. Their Application to the New Testament Writings. 11. The Close op the Canon in the East .... 119 1. The Time after Origen. 2. The Division of the New Testament Writings in Eusebius. 3. The Homologumena in Eusebius. 4. The Antilegomena in Eusebius. 5. Lists of the Canon in the Fourth Century. 6. The Canonical Books of the New Testament. 7. Virtual Close of the Canon in the East. 12. The Close of the Canon in the West .... 135 1. Philastrius of Brescia. 2. Eufinus and Jerome. 3. Augustine. 4. The Canon and the Eomish See. 5. The Middle Ages and the Council of Trent. 6. The Keformers and the Evangelical Church. 7. Criticism of the Canon. SECOND PART. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. FIRST DIVISION. THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 13. The Apostle Paul 149 1. Saul's Descent and Youth. 2. His Conversion. 3. The Beginnings of his Missionary Activity. 4. His First Missionary Journey. 5. The Development of his Apostolic Consciousness. 6. The Development of his Gentile-Apostolic Consciousnes s. 7. The Name Paul. Xll CONTENTS. PAGB § 14. Paul and the Pbimitive Apostles 166 1. The Standpoint of the Primitive Apostles. 2. The Missionary Activity of the Primitive Apostles. 3. The Occasion of the Apostolic Council. 4. The Liberation of the Gentile Christians from the Law, and the Apostolic Decree. 5. The Agreement Respecting the Missionary Field. 6. The Occurrence at Antioch. 7. The Primitive Apostles and Paul. § 15. Paul as a Founder of Churches 185 1. Paul in Lycaonia. Timothy. 2. The Founding of the Galatian Churches. 3. The Church at PhiHppi. 4. The Church at Thessalonica. 5. Paul in Beroea and Athens. 6. The Church at Corinth. 7. The Return of the Apostle. § 16. Paul as an Author 201 1. The External Attestation of the Pauline Epistles. 2. Lost and Supposititious Pauline Epistles, 3. The Primitive Scriptures and their Preservation. 4. The Epistolary Form. 5. Literary Characteristics. 6. Doctrinal Characteristics. 7. The Language of the Apostles. 5 17. The Thessalonian Epistles 218 1. The Situation of the First Thessalonian Epistle. 2. Analysis of the Epistle. 3. Criticism of the Epistle. 4. The Second Thessalonian Epistle. 5. The Criticism of the Epistle. 6. The Misinterpretations of 2 Thess. ii. 7. The Apocalyptic Combination of Paul. 5 18. The Epistle to the Galatians 234 1. The Second Visit of Paul to Galatia. 2. The Seduction of the Galatian Churches. 8. The Historical Situation of the Galatian Epistle. 4-6. Analysis of the Galatian Epistle. 7. Paul in Ephesus. CONTENTS. XIU i 19. The Corinthian Disoeders 251 1. The Visit to Corinth and the Lost Epistle to that place. 2. State of the Church at Corinth. 3. Church Meetings and Church Order. 4. The Corinthian Parties. 5. Hypothesis respecting the so-called Christ Party. 6. The Christ Disciples in Corinth. 7. The Sending of Timothy to Corinth. 20. The First Epistle to the Corinthians .... 267 1. The Embassy from Corinth. 2-6. Analysis of the First Corinthian Epistle. 7. Paul in Troas and Macedonia (the Hypothesis of a Lost Intermediate Letter). 21. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians .... 282 1. Accounts of Titus from Corinth. 2. Occasion of the Second Corinthian Epistle. 3-6. Analysis of the Second Corinthian Epistle. 7. Paul in Corinth. 22. The Church at Eome 293 1. The Historical Situation of the Eoman Epistle. 2. The Beginnings of the Koman Church. 3. The National Character of the Headers of the Roma Epistle. 4. The Polemic View of the Epistle. 5. The Conciliatory View. 6. The Prophylactic View. 7. Object of the Roman Epistle. 23. The Epistle to the Romans 308 1-5. Analysis of the Doctrinal Part of the Roman Epistle (Chaps, i.-xi.). 6. Analysis of the Hortatory Part (Relation of Chaps, xii. xiii. to the First Epistle of Peter. The Ascetic Direc- tion of xiv. 1-xv. 13). 7. Analysis of the Close of the Epistle (Genuineness of Chaps. XV., xvi. The Letter of Commendation to Phoebe for Ephesus. Genuineness of the concluding Doxology). XIV CONTENTS. I 24. The Epistle to the Colossians 323 1. The Apostle's Journey to Jerusalem and Imprisonment there. 2. The Captivity of the Apostle in Ceesarea (Epistles written there). Accounts from Phrygia. 3. The Theosophic Ascetic Tendency in Phrygia. 4. The Development of Paulinism in the Epistles of the Captivity. 5. Analysis of the Colossian Epistle. 6. Criticism of the Colossian Epistle. 7. The Epistle to Philemon. 25. The Epistle to the Ephesians 339 1. The Original Destination of the Ephesian Epistle. 2. Analysis of the Epistle. 3. Its Kelation to the Colossian Epistle. 4. 5. Criticism of the Ephesian Epistle. 6. Object of the Epistle (Relation to the First Epistle of Peter). 7. The Voyage to Kome. 26. The Epistle to the Philippians 358 1. The Roman Captivity of the Apostle and its Results. 2. Occasion and Object of the Philippian Epistle. 3. Analysis of the Philippian Epistle. 4. 5. The Criticism of the Philippian Epistle. 6. Historical Testimony respecting Paul's End. 7. His Liberation from the Roman Captivity. 27. The Pastoral Epistles 374 1. Analysis of the First Epistle to Timothy. 2. Determination of the Date of the Epistle. 3. Analysis of the Second Epistle to Timothy. 4. Determination of the Date of the Epistle. 5. Situation and Contents of the Epistle to Titus. 6. Determination of the Date of the Epistle. 7. The Composition of the Three Epistles after the Apostle's Liberation. 28. The Peculiarities of the Pastoeal Epistles . . . 390 1. The Doctrinal Errors Combated in the Pastoral Epistles. 2. Historical Determination of the Same. 3. The Doctrinal Method of the Pastoral Epistles. CONTENTS. XV 4. The Mode in which they are Written. 5. Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles. 6. Beginnings of the Office of Teacher (Apostolic Helps. The Ordination of Timothy). 7. Worship in the Pastoral Epistles. - 29. The Criticism of the Pastoral Epistles .... 409 1. Schleiermacher. Eichhorn. De Wette. 2. The Older Criticism Untenable. 3. The Modern Criticism of the Pastoral Epistles. 4. The Alleged Object of their Supposititious Character Untenable. 5. The Dividing Hypotheses. 6. The Apologists of the Epistles. 7. Result. INTRODUCTION. § 1. Founding of the Science of Intkoduction. 1. The history of the origin of the New Testament Canon gave spontaneous rise to a series of enquiries, in which the science of Introduction afterwards originated. When the historical memorials of the apostolic time began to acquire regulating importance in the Church, this period already lay more than a century behind the Church Fathers, who made the origin of these memorials the basis of their recognition. In the writings of the intervening time only isolated refe- rences to this origin occur ; for the most part the gap was bridged over by oral tradition alone. Even so early as the end of the second century, all desire for more exact knowledge as to the circumstances of their origin was virtually met by a reference to the utterances of these writings themselves and to conclusions derived from their contents. But when, in the third century, the need arose of limiting the circle of writings that should be valid for the Church, it immediately became apparent that their transmission was neither uniform nor assured ; hence the necessity and warrant to test it by the character of the writings themselves. The utterances of Origen respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of Diony- sius of Alexandria respecting the writings transmitted as Johannine, already involve a criticism on internal grounds. Eusebius of Coesarea, in his Church History (about 324), set himself the task of collecting all that he regarded as important in the opinions of earlier writers respecting the 1 B 2 INTEODUCTION. Holy Scriptures, and sought to classify them according to the degree of their ecclesiastical recognition in tradition. His work, notwithstanding its many deficiencies, is still the richest and most indispensable mine that we possess for the history of the Canon, as well as for that of the origin of its various writings. He was closely followed by Jerome, towards the end of the century, in his compilation, De Viris Ulustrihus s. Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum (392), besides which, there is nothing of importance except a few particulars con- tained in the introductions of Chrysostom's commentaries and homilies. Of the notices given by Bible manuscripts in their vTroOea-u^ or canon-lists, some are very scanty, others manifestly incorrect. Augustine indeed indulges in theore- tical discussions as to the principles of canonicity in his work Be JDoctrina Christiana, but he does not get beyond the enumeration of our twenty-seven New Testament books, which were canonized by the African synods in his time and under his influence. 2. Throughout the Middle Ages the world was content with the " Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures " (histitutiones Divinarum et Scecularium Lectionum), written by Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus for the monks of his cloister, which however, with respect to the Canon, goes back only to Jerome and Augustine.^ Nor did the Reforma- tion period achieve a revision of the established ecclesiastical tradition respecting the Canon, on the basis of independent ^ The introductores sacred scripturce whom he enumerates, 1, 16, and among whom the work of Adrian expressly bears the title of an elaayooyr} eh ras deias ypa(pdi, are occupied almost exclusively with hermeneutic rules. The work of his contemporary, the African Junilius {Instiiuta Regular ia Divince Leg is), following the tradition of the Syrian school at Nisihis, alone enters into a classification of the Holy Scriptures according to their authority, which substantially goes back to that of Eusebius. Again, the Isagoge ad Sacras Literas of the Dominican Santes Pagninus (Lucca, 1536), which as regards the Canon simply copies Augustine, is essentially hermeneutic, also the Clavis Scriptnrce Sacra of Matthias Flacius (Basle, 15G7). FOUNDING OF THE SCIENCE OF INTRODUCTION. 3 historical research. Men like Erasmus and Cajetan, Luther and Carlstadt did indeed incidentally go back, in the Catholic and Protestant interest respectively, to the varying opinions of the Fathers before the time of the relative close of the Canon; Luther even venturing to assume an attitude hostile to tradition by an independent criticism of the Scrip- tures. But after the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546) had given ecclesiastical sanction to the estab- lished Canon, Sixtus of Siena, the learned Dominican, in his Bibliotheca Sancta (Venice, 1566), could only make it his aim to defend this Canon against all heretical attacks, while Protestant theology, which asserted Holy Scripture to be the only source and standard of all truth, in opposition to the tradition of the Catholic Church, could not possibly be disposed to throw doubt on the established Canon by re- searches of an historical and critical nature. It was her interest rather to establish the theory of its inspiration, and to prove the authenticity of Holy Scripture throughout. After Andreas Rivetus, in his Isagoge s. Introductio Generalis ad Scripturam Sacram V. T. et N. T. (Lugd. B., 1627), had in this respect taken the lead in the Reformed interest, Lutheran theologians, such as Michael Walther (Officina Bihlica, Lips., 1636), and Reformed, such as Joh. Heinr. Heidegger (Enchiridion Bihlicon, Tiguj*., 1681), vied with each other in an uncritical accumulation of the necessary patristic material. It was only in Socinian and Arminian circles that a more independent judgment respecting the origin of individual New Testament writings was ventured upon (e.g. Hugo Grotius, in his Annotationes in N. T., Paris, 1644). Sach ti-uly scientific work as w^as applied to the New Testament confined itself to an examination of lan- guage and text, as for example the copious Prolegomena to the London Polyglot of Brian Walton, Bishop of Chester, 1657. 3. Richard Simon, the learned Oratorian of Paris, is re- 4 INTEODUCTION. garded as the founder of the science of Introduction. His desire was to show Protestants the untrustworthy character of their Scripture principle, and therefore his attention was mainly directed to the history of the New Testament text, which according to him had already undergone many cor- ruptions and alterations in the course of time, after the originals had been lost. He also enters minutely into the history of the translations and explanations of the New Testament, protests most emj)hatically against a mechanical conception of the inspiration of the word of Scripture as such, and asserts that the Holy Scriptures proceeded from authors who, though inspired, were still human. It is true he is far from giving an independent criticism of the New Testament Scriptures on internal grounds. He enters, however, very fully into the divergent opinions of the Church Fathers and heretics with regard to individual writings, which he was able to do with greater impartiality, since his Church had by its decision put an end to all vacil- lation. From his standpoint it is possible for him to adhere to the Hebrew original of Matthew and to form a more unbiassed opinion respecting the relation between it and the Greek Gospel; he can incline towards the theory of a Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews which is only indirect, and where the language of the New Testament is concerned, can side entirely with the Hebraists in opposi- tion to the Purists; and he can freely discuss the genuineness of the conclusion of Mark's gospel, the paragraph respecting the woman taken in adultery, and the passage 1 John v, 7 ; but his judgment is still for the most part reserved.^ It was not so much the individual results at which he arrived as the 1 The principal work of Simon bearing upon the New Testament is his Histoire critique du texte du N. T. (Rotterd., 1689), with which com- pare the addenda in his Noiwelles observations snr le lextc, etc. (Paris, 1695). The first nineteen chapters in particular treat of the authenticity of the New Testament writings and their succession. His Histoire FOUNDING OF THE SCIENCE OF INTRODUCTION. 5 new spirit of genuine historical inquiry that pervaded his works, bringing the Holy Scriptuix^s into suspicious analogy to other literary testimony, that drew upon him decided opposition even on the Catholic side (e.g. J. B. Bossuet). In any case, estimable Catholic scholars, such as Ellies du Pin {Dissertation preliminaire ou 'prolog omenes sur la bible ; Paris, 1699) and Augustin Calmet (Dissertations qui peuvent servir de prolegomenes de Vecriture sainte^ Avignon, 1715, much enlarged edition) did not continue the work in his spirit. On the Protestant side, J. Heinr. Mai wrote a con- tinuous criticism of his work, which was very favourably received (Examen Historicoi Griticce N. T. a B. S. vulgatce, Gissse, 1694) ; while others, on the Lutheran side (Joh. Georg Pritius, Introductio in Lectionem N. T., Lips., 1704), as well as the Reformed (Salomo van Til, Opus Analyticum, Traj. ad Rh., 1730) kept to the old course of accumulating learned material without independent scientific elabora- tion. 4. The depai'tment of the history of the text was the first in which a freer scientific movement and the begin- nings of true criticism were reached. In the prolegomena which John Mill prefixed to his critical edition of the New Testament (Oxford, 1707) the ideas current in the Church as to the origin of the N. T. writings are adhered to absolutely and defended against all objections; but his very history of the text shows that at the hands of the copyists it met with a fate exactly analogous to that of other works of antiquity, and his i-ich collection of various readings made inevitable the need of a critical examination and amendment of the text accepted by the Church. This work was in fact vigorously commenced by the Wiirtemberg prelate, Joh. critique des versions (Rotterd., 1690), and Des imncipanx commentateurs du N. T. (Rotterd , 1693), is of still greater importance. Respecting it, comp. Graf, in Die Beitriiije zu d. thcol. IViss., Heft 1 (Jena, 1847) ; and Baur in Die Tlieol. Jahrb., 1850, 4. b INTRODUCTION. Albr. Bengel, in his critical edition of the New Testament (Tiibingen, 1734), and by Job. Jac. Wetstein of Basle, in his Prolegomena to the New Testament (Amstelod., 1730), which appeared in an altered and enlarged form in his edi- tion of the New Testament (1750-51). Joh. Bav. Michaelis also, in his " Introduction to the New Testament " (Got- tingen, 1750), which at first follow^ed R. Simon closely, but in the fourth edition (1788) swelled out from a moderate octavo into two large quarto volumes, occupies himself in the first part mainly with the history of the text, but in the second part with the origin of all the New Testament books ; from which the object of such a work may be seen, and the true starting-point supplied in order to a right understanding of it. But this great increase in size not only yielded new results in the department of textual criticism ; the conception of the New Testament as a whole, as well as the treatment of its separate books, is unmistakably pene- trated by the spirit of a new period which had meanwhile dawned. The first edition starts with an assumption that these books were inspired, and proceeds to prove it by an appeal to miracles and prophecy as well as the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church ; while, on the other hand, the fourth edition gives prominence to the argument for their authenticity and credibility.^ The work, translated into various languages, into English by Herbert Marsh (Cam- ^ A distinction is drawn between the writings of the apostles and those of their disciples, whose inspiration he regards as doubtful in proportion to distance of time. With admirable candour the tradition respecting each single work is examined, while mention is also made of later doubts. Cautious as his judgment is, he is not unaffected by the spirit of a freer criticism. It is a doubtful point with him whether Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Although we cannot come to full certainty as to who was the author of the Epistle of James, he finds it more and more probable that he was the half-brother of Jesus, not the apostle. He cannot accept the Epistle of Jude as canonical ; and it appears to him almost supposititious. As to his uncertainty with respect to the Reve- lation of John, he thinks it necessary to excuse himself at length. CRITICISM AND APOLOGETICS. Y bridge, 1793), who furnished it with notes and additions (comp. the German translation of them by Rosenmiiller, Gott., 1795, 1803) is the first comprehensive attempt to extend the science of Introduction to the New Testament, and accomplishes all that the means and the method of his time rendered possible. § 2. Criticism and Apologetics. 1. The revolution that made way for a freer examination of the Canon and the individual books of the New Testament was mainly the work of Joh. Salomo Semler. In his Ab- handlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanon (Halle, 1771- 75, comp. Apparatus ad liberalem Ni Ti Interpret at ionem, Halae, 1767) he originated and defended with indefatiga- ble zeal his distinction between that which in the New Testament Scriptures was to be regarded as the Word of God or canonical and which according to him was to be found only in what conduced to moral improvement, and that which was local, temporal and Judaizing in them, mak- ing the Apocalypse in particular so distasteful to him, and the theory of its apostolic origin so hard to accept. The current conception of inspiration was thus abandoned, and the canonical authority of each separate book made inde- pendent of the view taken of its origin. The questions of their genuineness and integrity could now be discussed with perfect impartiality, and just in proportion to the closeness of connection between the former dogmatic idea of the Canon and the views of its origin that had been handed down, was the polemic against it characterized by a tendency to bring everything to light and to lay stress on what appeared to contradict it. ^ The epoch-making influence of Semler is 1 Semler produced little of importance in the department of New Testament criticism, although he gave currency to many doubts with O INTRODUCTION. already visible in Alex. Haenlein (Handhuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des N. T., Erlangen, 1794-1800, 2. Aufl. 1801-9). Here already, proof of the genuineness, integrity and credi- bility of the New Testament writings takes the place of discussions on inspiration. The traditional views of their origin are indeed almost universally adhered to, but in many cases only a preponderance of probability is claimed for them. Joh. Ernst Christ. Schmidt makes a still more de- termined attempt to relegate all examination respecting the Divine origin of these writings entirely to the sphere of dog- matics, expressly and designedly entitling his " Historico- critical Introduction to the New Testament," A Critical History of the New Testament Writings (Giessen, 1804, 1805, under new titles, 1809, 1818). In pleasing style he examines the origin of the separate books and their reception into the Canon, letting the history of the text follow, but extends his inquiry also to several ancient writings outside the Canon. In many cases the examination arrives at no cer- tain conclusion ; already doubts crop up respecting 2 Thess. and the first Epistle to Timothy, while the second Epistle of Peter is still more decidedly said to be supposititious. J. F. Kleuker, however, put forth his Ausfilhrliche TJntersuchungen der Grilnde filr die Aechtheit und Glauhwilrdigkeit der schrift- respect to individual books of the New Testament, emphasised anew the difference between the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John, doubted the direct apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the first Epistle of Peter, and brought 2 Peter, with Jude, low down into the second century, when the Canon was first settled as a work of the Catholic uniting process. He was all the more diligent in spreading and recommending foreign works adapted to further the treatment of the New Testament favourable to his own view. Hence appeared, in a German translation by H. M. Aug. Cramer, Kichard Simon's critical writings on the New Testament, with a preface and remarks by Semler, 1776-80. Semler published Wetstein's Prolegomena, with remarks, Halle, 1764, as well as "Oder's Work on the Apocalypse, Halle, 1769. Comp. Corrodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte d. jild. und christl. Bibelkanon, 1792. Weber, Beitrdye zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanon, 1798. CRITICISM AND APOLOGETICS. 9 lichen Urkunden des Christenthuins (Hamb., 1788-1800) in opposition to the criticisms of Rationalism. 2. With full knowledge of the new principle, in pursuance of which " the attempt was made to read and examine the writings of the New Testament from a human point of view," Joh. Gottfried Eichhorn (Einl in das N.T.,5 Bde., Gott. 1804- 27), was the first who tried to raise the science of Introduc- tion to a criticism of the Canon. The reaction against the former fetters of tradition naturally led to a one-sided dis- regard of it, as well as to its rejection on insufficient grounds. It was now replaced by independent examination of the Scriptures, ingenious combination, by which new links were sought for discovered data, and a mania for hypothesis. The famous hypothesis of a primitive written gospel, by which Eichhorn endeavoured to solve the synoptical problem, is characteristic of this stage of criticism. He also solves the problem of the first Epistle of Peter by a mediating hypo- thesis. Still the criticism seldom ventures decidedly to dis- pute authenticity ; the genuineness of the Johannine writings was not yet doubted, and it was only the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Peter and Jude, that were rejected. The history of the collecting of the books and of their text does not occur till the fourth and fifth volumes. Eichhorn is closely followed by Bertholdt and Schott, who wished to adjust the results of criticism to the current views, by means of ever new hypotheses.^ This arbitrary indulgence in hypothesis was opposed by the Catholic professor, Joh. Leonhard Hug, at Freiburg {Einl. in die Schriften des N.T., Tiibingen, 1808, 3 Ausg., 1820). With comprehensive learning and inde- 1 The heavy compilation of Leonhard Bertholdt {Historisch-Jcritische Einl. in sammtliche kanonische unci aiwkryphische Schriften des A. und N.T., 6 Thle., Erlang. 1812-19), by the very arrangement of the Old and New Testament writings under the categories of historical, prophetic, and poetical books, shows want of historical perception. The Isagoge Historico-Critica in Libros Novi Fccderis Sacros, of Heinr. Aug. Schott, rich in literary information, gives a better survey. 10 INTRODUCTION. pendent investigation of the whole material, he advanced, chiefly in his General Introduction, the history of the Canon and of the Text, while the special part aims at a scientific apology for the traditional views respecting the origin of the individual books of the New Testament. But it is just here that we see how even Apologetics is unable to withstand the current of the time. The acute reasoning with which Hug defends traditional views is often as rich in subjective judg- ments and artificial combinations as is that of the criticism. His clever mode of presentation gained much acceptance and currency for the work, even among Protestant theologians ; it was translated into English and French, and even after the author's death a fourth edition appeared, in 1847. The Catholic theologian, Aiidr. Benedict Feilmoser {Einl. in die Bilcher des Neuen Bundes, Innsbruck, 1810), enters far more deeply and with some impartiality into Protestant researches, especially in the second edition which is thoroughly revised and greatly enlarged (Tiibingen, 1830). 3. As Schleiermacher promised to bring out dogmatically the opposition between supernaturalism and rationalism, so too he sought in the department of the science of Introduc- tion to strike out new plans, by his, to some extent, classical research of details respecting the testimony of Papias with regard to Matthew and Mark, as also respecting the Gospel of Luke and the first Epistle to Timothy. His lectures on the Introduction to the New Testament, after having long exercised a powerful influence on Protestant theology, were first edited in 1845, by E. Wolde. His standpoint was most distinctly occupied by Wilh. Martin Leherecht de Wette, in his Lehrbuch der historiach-kritischen Einl. in die Kanonischen Bilcher des N. T. (Berlin, 1826), which, remarkable for the precision of its style and its perspicuously grouped wealth of material, was widely circulated, passing through many editions. The independent examination of the separate books is much more minute and thorough, but the doubts CRITICISM AND APOLOGETICS. 11 arising out of it are often mach more subjective in their character. On the other hand its criticism is equally directed against the new hypothesis, and a stricter scientific investigation of detail leads to a truer appreciation of the tradition that had so hastily been rejected. Hence a certain vacillation, the criticism becomes sceptical, it remains in doubt, suspending its judgment, or ends with a purely ne- gative conclusion.! Karl Aug. Gredners Einleitung in das N. T. (Halle, 1836), takes up essentially the same standpoint as de Wette's. Only the first part of his projected com- prehensive Introduction appeared, which, in addition to a history of the science of Introduction, treats of the origin of the separate N. T. writings. His Geschichte des N. T. Kanon was edited from his papers, after his death, by E. Volkmar, who made additions to it (Berlin, 1860, comp. Zur Geschichte des Kanon, Halle, 1847). A very heavy compendium and survey of all recent research was put forth by Gh. GoUhold Neudecker (Lehrhiich der Histor.-krit. Einl. in das N. T., Leipzig, 1840), but has no independent scientific value.- 4. Against the criticism of de Wette, Heinr. Ernst, Fred. Guericke directed his Beitrdge zur historisch-kritischen Einl. ins N. T. (Halle, 1828-31), which was afterwards followed by his Histor. krit. Einl. in das N. T. (Leipz., 1843), a defence of collective tradition respecting the Canon, on the ^ Many of his earlier expressed doubts (e.g. as to the second Epistle to the Thessalonians) have been retracted by de Wette in later editions ; he has come forward more and more decidedly in favour of John's Gospel the favourite of the school of Schleiermacher, who sacrificed the Apocalypse to it ; but he never got over his doubts respecting the Ephesian Epistle, 1 Peter and James. As to the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Peter, he declared them to be unapostolic. The history of the N. T. Canon is found along with the history of the science of Introduction in the first part of his manual, which specially contains an Introduction to the Old Testament (Berlin, 1817). 2 From some such critical standpoint was produced the excellent Biblical Dictionary of Benedict Winer (Leipzig, 1820, 3 Aufl., 18i7-8). 12 INTKODUCTION. old dogmatic lines. Next to him special mention is due to Hermann Olshausen who had already entered upon this de- partment by his book on the genuineness of the four canonical gospels (Konigsberg, 1823) and a contemporaneous work on the second Epistle of Peter ; and after 1830 had turned aside the criticism of de Wette in the introductions to his Biblischer Gommentar with remarks that, to speak the truth, have little weight. A far more important work was Aug. Neanders History of the Planting and Training of the Chris- tian Church by the Apostles (Hamburg, 1832), in which also the origin and genuineness of all the N. T. writings are discussed, with most important concessions to criticism in respect to 1 Timothy and 2 Peter. The fourth and last edition, revised by himself (1847, comp. 5 Aufl., 1862), was in the notes directed against the new critical school then emerging. The Theologische Studien und Kritiken in parti- cular have worked in his spirit since the year 1828. § 3. The Tubingen School and its Opponents. 1. The merit of having placed the criticism of the N. T. Canon in fruitful connection with the historical investiga- tion of primitive Christianity belongs to the Tiibingen pro- fessor, Ferdinand Christian v. Baur. He it was who first made it the problem of criticism, (instead of being satisfied to dispute, with more or less confidence, the genuineness of this or that N. T. writing,) to assign to each work its place in the history of the development of primitive Christianity, to determine the relations to which it owes its origin, the object at which it aims, and the views it represents. Thus criticism which had been till then of a prevailing lite- rary character, became truly historic. Now began a much more incisive, more objective analysis of the individual books as to their composition and peculiar theological character,^ THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL AND ITS. OPPONENTS. 13 a more exhaustive examination of ecclesiastical tradition, which was itself considered in its connection with the history of the development of the Chui^ch, in which the N. T. writings form essential factors. Baur began his critical labours with separate enquiries, in the Tilhingen Zeitschrift respecting the Christ-party in Corinth (1831), with his work on the Pastoral Epistles (1835), as well as with treatises on the design and the occasion of the Epistle to the Romans (1836), and Origin of the Episcopacy (1838) in the Tilhingen Zeitschrift. It became clearer and clearer to his mind that the apostolic era was powerfully affected by the con- flict between early apostolic Jewish Christianity, which was essentially Ebionite, and the anti-Jewish universalism of Paul. While regarding the former as represented in the Apocalypse of the Apostle John, the sole remaining monu- ments of the latter are, in his view, the great doctrinal and controversial epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. In his great work on Paul (1845) he sought to prove the supposititious character of all other Pauline writings, endeavouring at the same time to show that the Acts of the Apostles, which was strongly at variance with his conception of primitive Christianity, was unhistorical. Hence the smaller Pauline epistles, as well as those N. T. writings professedly belonging to the original apostolic circle, could only be monuments of that reconciliation of opposites which was on many sides being gradually effected in the second century, and which after gnosis had been overcome and orthodox doctrine assured by the building up of hierarchical forms (comp. the Pastoral Epistles), found its doctrinal solution in bringing together Peter and Paul as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church (comp. 2 Peter) and in the Johannine literature (about 170). His collected critical researches respecting the Gospels (1847) pointed out the way in which the literature of our Gospels also fits in with the course of this development. In his 14 INTRODUCTION. work Das Ghristenthuni imd die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (Tubingen, 1853, 3fce Aufl., 1863), Baur condensed the result of all his researches in this department. Compare also Baur : An Herrn Dr. K. Hase, Tiibingen, 1855 ; Die Tubingen Schule und ihre Stellung zur Gegenioart, Tiibingen, 1859, 2te Aufl., 1860 ; and in addition, TJhlhorn in the Jalirh. f. dentsche Theol., 1858. 2. What made this appearance of Baur so important was the fact that a number of gifted disciples stood at his side from the commencement, who were actively employed in carrying out his views with acuteness and learning, by means of the most exhaustive examination of details, so that mention is commonly made of a Tiibingen school. The most important of them, Eduard Zeller, published after 1842, and subsequently in connection with Baur, the TheologiscJie Jaho'hilcher, in which most of these works first appeared. Before the master himself had reached the i^esult of his conclusions, Albert Schwegler brought out a history of the historical development of the apostolic and post-apostolic age, brilliant in style, in which carrying out Baur's tendency-criticism and from Baur's point of view, he assigned their part to the N.T. writings and the litera- ture of the second century {das Nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Enhvichelung, Tiibing., 1846-47). But it soon became evident that this development and the position assigned to the separate books in it, admitted views very divergent in character though starting from essentially the same standpoint, such as were developed by two other pupils of Baur, C. Plank (Judenthum und Urchriste7ithum), and C. R. Koestlin {Zur Geschichte des Urchristenthums) in the Theol. Jahrb. of 1847 and 1850, and presented by Albrecht Ritschl in his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (Bonn, 1850). Bruno Bauer took up with respect to the criticism of the Tiibingen school a position that was quite isolated, for after his condensed critical researches respect- THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL AND ITS OPPONENTS. 15 ing the Gospels had deprived them of the last remnant of historical foundation (Kritik der Evangelien, Berlin, 1850- 52), he turned to the criticism of the Acts (1850) and the Pauline Epistles (1850-52), all of which he declared to be supposititious. He afterwards made a second attempt to set forth his entire conception of Christianity (Christus und die Ccesaren, 1877; mit einem Nachwort von 1880), in which these writings figure as a product of the years 1830-70. His works had no appreciable influence on scientific pro- gress. 3. Orthodox theology naturally felt called upon to defend itself with energy against a criticism which in its results led to a dissolution of the Canon as such, and allowed the greater number of its constituent parts to be lost in the stream of the history of doctrine along with other works of a very difPerent character. After Heinr. Bottger's half- ironical disposal of Baur {Baurs historische Kritik in ihrer Gonsequenz, Braunschweig, 1840-41), W. 0. Dietlein {das Urchristenthum, Halle, 1845) undertook to represent the history of the first two centuries rather as the struggle of a united apostolic Christianity with Jewish- Gentile Gnosis. Ueinrich W. J. Thiersch, in his Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts fiir die Kritik der NTlichen Schriften (Erlangen, 1845), defended the genuineness of the entire Canon against all the attacks of modern criticism. In a somewhat milder form and not without traces of the influ- ence of modern enquiry, he afterAvards published his views in the first part of a history of Christian antiquity (Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter und die Eritstehung der NTlichen Schriften, Frankfurt a. M., 1852, 3 Aufl., 1879). The learned investigations of C. Wieseler show that it was also possible from this standpoint to be entirely unaffected by modern criticism, as appears in his chronology of the apostolic period (Gott., 1848), in which a number of im- portant questions belonging to Introduction are discussed 16 INTRODUCTION. (comp. his Comm. z. Galaterbrief, Gott., 1859 ; and Zur Geschichte der NTUchen Schriften, Leipzig, 1880). On the other hand, /. H. A. Ehrard, in his Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, 2 Anfl. (Erlangen, 1850), directed his half-spiteful, half-scoffing polemic against the Tiibingen school, and undertook, after 1850 (Epistle to the Hebrews), to carry out and elaborate anew Olshausen's Biblical Commentarj, in connection with J. T. A. Wiesinger, who worked upon the Epistles to the Philippians, the Pastoral Epistles, and those of James, Peter, and Jude, in a more thoughtful way, in declared opposition to the Tiibingen school (1850-62). G. V. Lechler endeavoured to refute the Tiibingen view of the development of primitive Christianity in an historical way, weaving his conservative views as to the origin of the N.T. books into the work (Das ayostolische und nach-ajpostolische Zeitalter, Stuttgart, 1851, 3 Aufl., 1855). Comp. also John Peter Lange, ApostoUsches Zeitalfer, 1853-54. 4. The criticism of the school of Schleiermacher also assumed an attitude of preponderating hostility to the Tiibingen criticism. For example, Friedr. Bleeh, who took an advanced part in the discussion so early as 1846, in his Beitrdge zur Evangellenkntik, and de Wette in the fifth edition of his Introduction (1848) .^ It was Heimlich Ewald who in his Jahrhilcher der bihl. Wissenschaft (Gottingen, 1849-65) was foremost in carrying on, with roughest polemic, the struggle against the Tiibingen school ; while, in essential adherence to the standpoint of the criticism of Schleiermacher, though sometimes recalling the old times of the hypothesis -criticism, he lays down in numerous 1 A sixth edition was edited after his death, by Messner and Liinemann. Bleek's Einl. in das N. T. was published after the author's death, by his son Berlin, 1862. Comp. also the Bibeltirkundev, published in Bunsen's Bihelwerk (vol. viii. 2), by Holtzmann (Theil 4, Die Biicher des neuen Biindes, Leipzig, 1866). THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL AND ITS OPPONENTS. 17 historical and exegetical works his own views respecting the origin of the N. T. books and the Canon.^ Closely following him in every respect, but with his accustomed sobriety and scientific objectivity cutting away all excres- cences of Ewald's subjective criticism, maintaining even the genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians, H. A. W. Meyer, in the Introductions to the separate parts of his Kritisch-exegetischen Kommentar ilher das N.T.^ disputes on every occasion the views of the Tubingen school, along with his fellow- workers, Liinemann, Diisterdieck, and Huther, the last of whom even defended the Pastoral Epistles that had been given up by Meyer. Ed. Bettss took up a thoroughly independent position, a scholar who though allied to the Tiibingen school in many respects in his fundamental views, yet decidedly rejected the proper tendency-criticism, especially in the Gospels, and arrived at much more positive results than the Tubingen school, in relation to the origin of the separate books. ^ In many 2 The sixth vol. of his History of Israel contains the history of the apostolic period (Gott., 1858, 3 Aufl., 1868), the seventh vol. contains that of the post-apostolic period (1859, 2 Aufl., 1869) in the appendix to which is a history of the Old and New Testament Canons. His works upon the Synoptical Gospels (1850) extended in a second edition to the Acts of the Apostles {Die drei Ersten Evangelien unci die Apostelgeschichte, Gottingen, 1871-72). The Johannine writings, translated and explained (Gottingen, 1861-62), contain in the first part the Gospel and Epistles, in the second the Apocalypse, which he does not assign to the Apostle. In his Sendschreiben des Apostel Pauliis (Gottingen, 1857), the only letters of the captivity explained are Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. Das Sendschreiben an die Hebrder und der Jakobns Rundschreihen and Sieben Sendschreiben des ncuen Bundes {die Briefe Petri und Judce, Epheser und Pastoralbriefe) did not follow till the year 1870. 3 His Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T.'s (Braunschweig, 1842) which more than doubled in extent after the 2nd edition (1853), and appeared in a 5th edition in 1874, is a first attempt, following the idea of Credner's plan, to present the collected material of the science of Introduction in an organic form as a history of the N. T. books, their collection for ecclesiastical use (history of the Canon), their preservation (history of the text), their dissemination (history of translations), and their use in theology down to the latest time (history of exegesis). Here 18 INTRODUCTION. of his positions, Reuss, who even adheres to the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, has become more sceptical in the course of time. The contradiction which K. Hase {Die Tilhinger Schule, Sendschreiben an D. von Baur, Leipzig, 1855) opposed to the Baurian conception of the apostolic period, was much more decided. But the most important event in the history of the contest with the Tiibingen school was Alh. UitschVs definite breaking away from the views of the Tubingen school in the second edition of his Ent- stehung der alt. katholischen Kirche (Bonn, 1857), in which he presented in opposition to it an independent conception of the development of primitive Christianity, allowing room for a much more impartial estimate of the traditional memorials of the apostolic age. § 4. Present State of the Science. With the close of the year 1850 the elder representatives of the Tiibingen school came virtually to an end. Adolf Hilgenfeld, Baur's most assiduous disciple, now came to the front, and in 1858, in his Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, took up the inheritance of the Theologische Jahr- hilcher, where with indefatigable zeal he followed out all the phenomena in the department of the science of Intro- duction to the New Testament. After a series of works, he expounded his fundamental principles in a volume entitled Das JJrchristenthiitn in den Hauphvendepunhten seines Ent- ivickelungsganges (Jena, 1855). He aimed at moderating the contrast between Paulinism and primitive apostolic Jewish Christianity which formed the starting-point of Baur, vindi- in the first part, as in Schwegler, tbe origin of the Canonical writings of the New Testament, and of those which for a time laid claim to eccle- siastical validity with and beside Ihem, appears interwoven with the history of primitive Christianity, whose literature Eeuss pnrpoF'es to give. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 19 cated the literary and historical character of his own criti- cism of the Gospels as opposed to the determining tendency- criticism, and went much farther back in the time of the separate books. By his defence of the genuineness of Phile- mon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Romans xv. 16, as well as of the tradition respecting the end of Peter, he sought to cut away the most prominent excrescences of the Tiibingen criticism, and thus visibly strengthened his posi- tion (comp. also in particular Der Kanon iind die Kritik des N. T., Halle, 1863; Histor. krit. Einleitung in das N. T., Leipz., 1875). In these respects Carl Holsten, the ablest and most acute disciple of Baur, has remained more faithful to his teacher. After collecting, enlarging and publishing his works belonging to the years 1855, 59, 61 {Ztim Evang. des Petrus u. Paulus, Rostock, 1868) he applied himself to a comprehensive exegetical exposition of his conception of Paul and his relation to the primitive apostles (Das Evan- gelium des Faidus, Berlin, 1880 ; comp. also Die drei TJr- sprilnglichen noch ungeschriehenen Evang. ^ Leipzig, 1883). In his earlier works, however, we find growing evidence of a modification of Baur's principles still more incisive than that of Hilgenfeld. According to him the original standpoint of Peter is essentially allied to that of Paul, and only after the conflict at Antioch did the Judaistic gospel gain supremacy in the primitive apostolic circle, giving rise to the bitter opposition of the former apostle to the latter. On the other hand, Gustav. Volkmar, who, after several other works, took part in carrying out the fundamental views of Baur by his Religion Jesu (Leipz., 1857 ; comp. also Die geschichts- treue Theologie, Zurich, 1858), devoting himself especially to a careful examination of the apocryphal and apocalyptic literature (comp. Die Apokalypse, Ziirich, 1860), went be- yond the criticism of Baur in daring, and placed many of the N. T. writings lower down in the second century (Jesus Nazarenus, Ziirich, 1882; comp. also Die Bumerhrief ; 20 INTRODUCTION. Ziiricli, 1875), although by i^nttiiig Mark first he completely shattered the Tubingen theory of the Gospels, already aban- doned by Hilg. and Hoist. (Marcus und die Synopsis, Leipz., 1870).! 2. But many results of the Tubingen criticism, as well as the whole method of its investigation and many of its pre- mises, are by no means limited at present to the circle of those who call themselves the disciples of Baur in a stricter sense, but are widely spread among the modern critical school. It is true that the historical picture of the apostolic and post-apostolic times up to the development of the Catholic Church as it appears at the end of the second cen- tury, having already undergone many modifications in the Tiibingen school itself, although a new one adopted in wider circles had not yet taken its place, may be regarded as essentially abandoned. The following positions may be taken for granted as results of the modern school of criti- cism : that above and beyond the difference between Paul and the primitive apostles, however it may be formulated, there existed at first a wide basis of common Christianity, that had not been shaken in the apostolic era even by the conflict of extreme tendencies ; that the development of the post-apostolic period is not conditioned by compromise between victorious Judaistic Christianity, and Paulinism that could only with difficulty and by concession hold its own against it, but by a reformation taking place within Paulin- ism itself or by a new independent development in Gentile- Christian circles, resulting from the operation of factors ' The results of the Tubingen school have been adopted abroad chiefly by the Dutchman Scholten {Hist.-krit. Einl. in die Schr. d. N. T., 1853, 2te Aufl., Leyden, 1856), soon after surpassed by Pierson and Lomann in a radicalism reminding us of Bruno Bauer ; as also with modifications by the Englishman Dr. Samuel Davidson {An Introduction to the Study of the Neiv Testament, 1868, 2nd ed. 1882) ; and by the Frenchman E. Renan {Histoire des origines du christianisme, Paris, 1863-82), the last indeed going far beyond them. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 21 other than Jewish Christianity. But predilection may still find the influence of Alexandrianism in many of the N. T. books, though fixing them at an earlier date and no longer seeking in them tendencies to union but solely evidences of the later phases of the development of Christianity. The circle of writings accepted as genuinely Pauline is not essen- tially extended beyond that already conceded by Hilgenfeld, even if Ave admit that the Epistle to the Colossians has in some parts a genuine foundation. The distrust of the Catholic Epistles, which was already confirmed in the view taken by de Wette, has been strengthened more and more into their definite expulsion from the apostolic age (comp. even Harnack: Lehrhuch der DogmengescMchte, Freiburg, 1885), and recently the Epistle to the HebrcAvs has for the most part shared their fate. The criticism of the Gospels has essentially gained by having the ban of the Tendenz taken from it ; but the modern critical school, in its decided rejec- tion of the apostolicity of the fourth Gospel, recognises an indispensable monument of what it still regards as historical criticism. In its interest Theodor Keirn, who, however, adopted a thoroughly mediating position in the question of the apostolic council (Aus dem Urchristenthum, Ziirich, 1878), and Daniel Schenkel, who, in his Christushild der Apostel (Leipzig, 1879), departed very considerably from many of the views current in the Tiibingen school, gave up the entire tradition respecting the Apostle John's activity in Asia Minor. The standpoint of the modern critical school is especially represented by Otto Pfteiderer, who has however in his Paulmismus (Leipzig, 1883), as well as in later works upon the apostolic council and the Epistle to the Romans, essentially modified the sentence of condemnation pronounced by the Tubingen school on the historical character of the Acts ; by Adolf Hausrath, in his NTlichen Zeitgeschichte (Heidelberg, 1868-73, 2te Aufl., 73-77) ; by Immer (Theo- logie des N. T., Bern, 1877) ; and, above all, by II. Julius 22 INTEODUCTION. Holtzmann, who has given a most instructive picture of the far-reaching scepticism to which this school leads, in his Lehrhuch der histor. krit. Einl. in das N. T. (Freiburg, 1885), after publishing numerous separate works on the Synoptical Gospels, on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Johannine letters. But Wittichen, Lipsius, Overbeck, Paul Schmidt, W. Briickner, Seuffert, and others also belong to this school. Besides Hilgenf eld's Zeitschrift, we have the Jahrhilcher filr jprotestantiscJie Theologie, begun in 1875, in which the labours of this school are collected. Among them the labours of von Soden are pre-eminent in acuteness, in- dependence, and comprehensive mastery of material. Comp, also Schenkel's Bibellexicon, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1869-75. 3. Carl Weizslicher, who succeeded Baur in Tiibingen, assumed a position of more marked antagonism to the Tiibingen school {Jj7itersuchungen ilher d. evmig. Gesch., Gotha, 1864 ; comp. Jahrh. f. deutsche Theol., 1876) ; while Wilh. Mangold (in his Bearheitung des SteAufl. v. Bleek's Ei7il., 1875, 4te Aufl., 1886) attached himself more closely to Ritschl's construction of history. Yet the limits that sepa- rate the theology which, though occupied with the same scientific materials as the critical school, is more apologetic in character, are very fluctuating ; for while the former did at least accept an indirect Johannine origin of the fourth Gos- pel, the latter has assumed an attitude of complete scepticism with regard to it, and in its latest development has come nearer the critical school with respect also to the Acts of the Apostles. Willibald Beyschlag, who was attached in many ways to the criticism of Schleiermacher and de Wette, has very strongly opposed the Tiibingen school in different works on Paul and his opponents, as well as on the Gospels. The works of Willib. Orimm and Klopfer, as well as others whose rallying-point is the Jalirhilclier filr deutsche Theologie (Stutt- gart, 1857-79), occupy a position almost similar to his. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 23 Comp. also A. Riehm, Handivurterbuch des hibl. Alterthwnis, Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1873-84. Bernhard Weiss, who first appeared in print with his Petrin. Lehrhegriff (Berlin, 1855), and then directed his attention chieflj to the criticism of the Gospels, in the course of his minute, exegetical, critical and biblico-theological works respecting modern criticism as a whole, arrived mainly at conservative results, as was also the case with others who revised Meyer's Commentary, and finally with the authors of articles on the N". T. in the Real- encyhlopddie fur protest. Theologie und Kirche, published by Herzog and Plitt (2te Aufl., Leipzig, 1877-86). On the other hand certain positions or arguments of the modern critical school might be refuted from the old dogmatic stand- point from which the Canon as such was looked upon as inspired ; but this would be unprofitable, since they had no scientific basis in common. Comp. the new editions of Guericke's Einleitnng (Leipzig, 1853, 1868), which appeared with the somewhat pretentious title, Gesammfgeschichte des N. T., oder NTliche Isagogik, the Commentaries of Keil, and the sketch of N. T. Introduction by L. Schultze in Zoeckler's Handbuch der theol. WissenschafteHy Bd. 1, Nord- lingen, 1883, 2te Aufl. 1885. /. Ghr. B. von Hofmann has indeed attempted to set forth in a new form the ti^ditional Canon as the organic substance of Scripture, which being a complete memorial of the beginning of Christianity and an all-sufficient index to the period between the beginning and the end of its history, in the indispensableness of its individual parts is a guarantee for their genuineness.^ ^ Hofmann began his labours on Introduction in 1854 with treatises upon the history of the origin of Holy Scripture, in the Erlancjen Zeit- schrift filr Protestantismus und Kirche (neue Folge, Bd. 28 — Bd. 40), and then endeavoured to create an exegetical substructure for them in his great Bibelwerk, Die Heilige Schrift N. T.'s, Nordlingen, which appeared from 1862 onward, and which he was able to complete up to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Acts and the Johannine writings. A condens- ation of his results respecting the separate books of the New Testament 24 INTEODUCTION. But as that fundamental view set out with the traditional ideas I'especting the origin of the Canon (even to the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews), and in defending them against all criticism never got beyond an unprofitable polemic, nothing but a very subjective mode of reasoning could be employed in carrying them out. This put a self- constructed history of salvation in place of actual historical treatment. Hofmann left behind him a numerous school out of which the works of Th. Schott, Luthardt, Klostermann, and others, as well as the first publications of Spitta have proceeded. In particular, his successor in office, Theod. Zahn, in Erlangen has begun a series of learned Forschungen zur GescMchte des NTlichen Kanon und der altJcircJilichen Liter- atur (Erlangen, 1881, 83, 84). From the same school also proceeds the Entivickelungsgeschich. des NTlichen Schrift- thums, Giitersloh, 1871, by Bud. Friedr. Grau, in which the organism of New Testament literature is set forth in its development according to the stages of the childhood, youth, and manhood of all literature, stages which are characterized as Epos, Lyric, and Drama, corresponding to the declara- tory, epistolary, and prophetic gradation of N". T. Scripture (Apocalypse, Hebrews, Gospel of John). Here we have no longer to do with scientific research, but only with a play of fancy applied to the N. T. writings. ^ 4. Recently there has also been much contention as to the true problem and method of so-called Introduction. The was published after his death by W. Volck as Part IX. from manuscripts and lectures (Nordhngen, 1881). 2 Compare also Hertwig, Tahellen zur Einl. ins N. T., Berlin, 1849, 4. Aufl., by Weingarten, 1872. The numerous and in many respects learned works of Cathohcs upon Introduction have not been drawn into the current of the scientific movement, because their result is determined once for all by ecclesiastical authority. Compare Adalbert Maier, Einl. in die Schriftcn des N. T., Freiburg, 1852 ; F. X. Reithmayer, Einl. in die kanonischen Biicher des N. T., Regensburg, 1882 ; Jos. Langen, Grundriss der Einl. ins N. T., Bonn, 1868, 2. Aufl., 1873 ; M. von Aberle, Einl. in d. N. T., edited by P. Schanz, Freiburg, 1877. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 25 older science of Introduction was not an independent subject born of one fundamental idea and carried out in a connected method, but a science auxiliary to exegesis, to wbicli it furnishes the means for a right understanding of the New Testament and also indirectly for dogmatic also, so far as its aim was to prove that it had its basis in the established Canon. Hence it was interwoven in its origins with herme- neutics, and afterwards with the history and criticism of the text in particular, always with doctrinal investigations of inspiration, canonicity, etc. Schleiermacher still regarded it as a motley collection of prolegomena intended to carry the present reader back to the standpoint of the first readers ; while in de Wette's view it was a mass of rudimentary know- ledge, devoid of scientific principle or coherence. The treat- ment of this subject from a purely historical point of view, undertaken by Reuss in accordance with the principles of Hupfeld and Credner (§ 3, 4 ; note 3), has the great advan- tage of separating it from all that is not open to examina- tion and presentment by means of the historico-critical method. 1 But the attempt to turn it into a kind of literary history of primitive Christianity, from which the history of the Canon constructs an independent whole, whose fate is then followed up in the history of the text, translation and inter- pretation of the New Testament, could only be justified if we had to do, to a much greater extent than is the case, with facts that could be ascertained from sources extraneous to those Scriptures whose origin is the very point on which the ques- tion turns. Baur is perfectly right in maintaining that in this branch of the subject we have to do, in the first place, with a series of writings as to whose origin and collection definite ideas, which should be critically tested, are assumed * For this reason I deem it unsuitable to characterize an Introduction to the New Testament as historico-critical. That it ought to be so is a matter of course ; whether or not it actually is so depends on its method of treatment. 26 INTEODUCTION. a priori. It cannot be laid down in advance how far this testing leads to a perfectly certain conclusion, or how far the current idea, in case it be proved untenable, can be replaced by a new one with sufficient safety. We must be satisfied in many cases with an indication of the point up to which critical research can advance with security, whilst a history following anticipated results will always be characterized by some amount of uncertainty, and must forfeit its claim to a critical investigation of details.- The origin of the Canon can only in reality be represented in the form of a history imperfectly searched out as to its sources, and must necessarily be first investigated, because the tradition as to the origin of the separate books, which forms the starting- point of all criticism respecting them, can only be rightly estimated in its continuity. It is a mere fiction to assume that the origin of the individual books must be examined before we can proceed to the history of their collection, since in the latter they are looked at not in the light in which they appear as the result of criticism, but as they were viewed at the time of the formation of the Canon. But even the history of the origin of the separate books may be treated from an essentially historical point of view, without giving up our adhesion to the groups of writings handed down in the Canon. The very circumstance that the Pauline epistles are interwoven with the life-history of the great Gentile apostle leads, as a matter of course, to the discussion of all those facts in the history of the apostolic period that may still be determined with historical accuracy, and which form a basis for the criticism of the other N. T. books. Hence 2 Compare recent discussion of this subject by Hupfeld, Ueher Begriff und Methode der sogen. hihl. Einl. , Marburg, 1844 ; Rudelbach, in d. Zeitschr. fur luth. Theologie und Kij'che, 1848 ; Baur, in d. Theol. Jahrb., 1850, 51 ; Ewald, in the Jahrh. der hibl. Wiss., 3. 1851, 4. 1852 ; Delitzsch, in d. Zeitsch. fi'ir Protestantismus und Kirche, 1854 ; Holtz- mann, Hupfeld and Riehm, in d. Theol. Stud. u. Krit, 1860, 61, 62 ; Zahn, Realencyklop. IV. 1879. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 27 their treatment must be the starting-point in what goes by the name of special Introduction.^ 3 The fact that the history of the Text is usually attached to the his- tory of the Canon has a good reason in the needs of academic instruction ; but all that is commonly imparted respecting the language of the N. T., the preservation of the Text, the manuscripts, versions, recensions, and editions of the Text, has no internal and necessary connection with the origin of the Canon and its constituent parts, and must be definitely excluded from a scientific presentation of them (comp. Zahn, as before). The history of translation and interpretation in its widest sense can be profitably treated only in connection with general Church history. FIRST PART. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. § 5. The Canon of the Lord's Words. 1. Christ has left no written record. He found His nation already in possession of a collection of sacred writings, from which it drew religions knowledge and edification ; and He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets (Matt. v. 17). It was not to improve or supplement their doctrines or precepts that He came, but to bring the joyful message of the fulfilment of the promise that had been given to them, and of the final realization of their religious and moral ideal by the consummation of the Divine revelation in Him; a fact which did really open up a newer, fuller understanding of Old Testament revelation. By the revelation of Himself in word and deed, by His self- surrender in suifering and death, by His exaltation and the sending of His spirit. He founded the kingdom of God, and gave security for the infallibly certain development of its aim. For this object a written record would have been as insufiicient as it was superfluous.^ In order to continue His work upon earth, He only needed witnesses to testify what they had seen and heard, preachers of the message of salvation manifested in Him, who could bear witness from inmost experience that He was the promised 1 The letter of Christ to King Abgarus of Edessa, given by Eusebius, H. E., 1, 13, is of course fictitious. Jesus was certainly far from making any reflections on the superiority of the oral to the written word, or the dangers of bondage to the letter, and such like. 28 THE CANON OF THE LOBD'S WOEDS. 29 One iu whom they had found the fulfilment of all their longing and hope. The apostles whom Jesus had chosen and trained for that purpose were simple men, who could have felt neither inclination nor capacity'' for literary work (comp. Acts iv. 13), and whom He had certainly chosen without regard to later written productions. Even the culture of Paul, who was called afterwards, was on a Scripture basis. It did not consist in literary skill, but in the capability of understanding and using 0. T, Scripture. The commission was one of oral announcement. The activity of the Twelve, which for a long period was limited to Jerusalem, and when further extended could easily be carried on in person, made all written instruction unneces- sary. Authorship in the interest of later generations could not occur to a time living in expectation of the immediate return of the Lord. The primitive documents of the apostolic time are concerned throughout only with the speaking and preaching of the word, with its hearing and acceptance.^ Comp. Rom. x. 14, 17. 2. The necessity for recourse to written intervention only made itself felt when Christianity extended to wider circles and the apostles were unable to be always present when the need arose for instruction in matters of doctrine, practice, or the Church ; for comfort, strengthening, and exhortation. Hence the origin of epistolary literature.^ But even these * Only to a later time, that had become fonder of writing, could it occur to explain this on the assumption that they were so taken up with the work of teaching and of preparation for it, that they had no time to spare for writing (comp. Eclog. ex scrijH. fropliet., c. 27), or to give their want of literary culture as a reason why they occupied themselves so little with the writing of books (comp. Euseb., //. E., 3, 24). * Whether Paul was the founder of this and the pattern for it, as is generally supposed, can only be determined from the history of the origin of the separate N. T. writings. Paul does not recognise a peculiar gift for writing among the charisms of the apostolic period ; and neither he nor the New Testament knows of any other spiritual gift than that which all Christians have. 30 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. letters, all of which seem to have been prompted by special occasions, were for the most part entrusted to particular men whose mission it was to supplement and enforce the written word by oral speech. The sole prophetic book of the New Testament is also intentionally clothed in an epistolary form, in order that the prophecy might give consolation and admo- nition to the Churches for which it was designed. What we know of the origin of the oldest Gospels points to the substi- tution of written records for oral preaching which had become necessary by the death or removal of the apostles ; while the later Gospels give direct expression to the didactic and practical object for which they were designed (Luke i. 4; John XX. 31). In any case the gospel literature came later than the epistolary. Paul knows nothing as yet of written Gospels, but appeals to oral tradition (1 Cor. xv. 3, etc.). The former, like the letters, were certainly intended at first for a smaller circle of readers. The writings of Luke are even addressed to a single man (Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1). The charge 'given by Paul in his first epistle, that it should be read to all the brethren (1 Thess. v. 27), could only be carried out at a meeting of the Church ; but this of course was something quite different from the regular reading of Old Testament Scripture, adopted from the synagogue by the Gentile Christian Churches in their meetings for worship. The sole object in this case was that the letter should be made known to the whole community for whom it was intended (comp. 2 Cor. i. 13). For the same reason Paul gives directions on another occasion that two neighbouring Churches should exchange letters after they had first been publicly read (Col. iv. 16) ; from which it follows that he had no thought of his letters habitually going beyond the circle of those to whom they were addressed. Doubtless many of the epistles, in particular the so-called Catholic ones, were from the first intended for a wider circle of Churches, and were therefore copied and pretty widely circu- THE CANON OF THE LORD's WOEDS. 31 lated. But so long as the Churches had still the personal presence of the apostles, more or less frequently, there was no intention to spread their writings, much less to make a collection of them.^ 3. The writers of the apostolic time, like Jesus Himself, refer to the Old Testament simply as the Scripture. That which is written {yiypairrai, yeypafxfxivov icTTLv), or what the Scripture says (rj ypacfirj Xeyet), is absolute authority as such (comp. Weiss, Bibl Theol. des N. T.'s, 4. Aufl., 1884, § 74). The ground of this is, that God Himself speaks, who by His Spirit put His word into the mouth of prophets ; but it is the Epistle to the Hebr ews that first cites the words of Scripture as the words of God, even where the Old Testament does not so characterize them (comp. as before, § 116, c). What Christ said naturally takes its place beside the word of God in Scripture, since He came in order to complete Old Testament revelation. The writings of the primitive apostolic circle are interwoven with allusions to the words of the Old Testament as the words of the Lord, without, however, the latter being expressly quoted as such, which is indeed seldom the case with the former. There is an express admonition in 2 Pet. iii. 2, fxvyja-Orjvac twv Trpoeipr/zxeVwv prjixdrojv vwb tcov dytcoi/ rrpocfirjTwv, koI ttjs twv airoa-ToXuiv v/mCjv ivToXrj^ tov Kvptov. Paul appeals repeatedly to the words of the Lord for his statements and direc- tions; but it is in the Acts of the Apostles that he is ' The fact that a later time, which traced back to the apostolic age everything that had become sacred to it, fixed the New Testament Canon by John, making it end with him {Phot. Bibl. cod. 254), is just as con- ceivable as it is wanting in all historical foundation. 8o Augusti thought, Versuch einer hist, dogin. Eiiil. in d. heil. Schrift, 1832. But Tischendorf's notion that the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, 1 Pet. and 1 John were collected into the Canon as early as the end of the first century {Wann wurden unsere EvangcUen verfai^st? Leipz., 1865), and Ewald's hypothesis of a collection of the Pauline Epistles about 100, are fictions entirely unhistorical. 32 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. first made to quote the word of the Lord directly. ^ Old Testament Scripture seems also to be the chief authority quoted in very various forms throughout the only extra- canonical writing which certainly belongs to the first cen- tury, the Epistle of the Roman to the Corinthian Chui^ch, the so-called first Epistle of Clement, where however refer- ence is made in two passages to the words of the Lord, after the manner of the Acts ; while the so-called Epistle of Barnabas seems to introduce a similar quotation with the simple word cftrja-L, not only in 4, 14 (on this, however, compare No. 6, Note 1), but also in 7, 11, side by side with frequent citations of the Old Testament .^ 4. It is certain that until after the middle of the second century no other Canon was set up in the Church than the ^ Already in 1 Tliess. iv. 15 Paul bases a prophecy on the word of the Lord {ev \6y(jj Kvpiov, comp. Matt. xxiv. 31 ; comp, also v. 2 with Matt, xxxiv. 43), the summing up of the law in the command to love one another he characterizes as the law of Christ (Gal. vi. 2), and expressly makes a distinction between his own directions (vii. 12, 25) and the word of the Lord with respect to divorce, giving the meaning of the latter in an indirect way (1 Cor. vii. 10 ; comp. Mark x. 9). Speaking of the right of the preacher of the gospel to be supported by the Church, fouuded on the Old Testament, he says in 1 Cor. ix. 14 : ovTios Kul 6 KvpLos 5L€Ta^€u, foT which reason the word of the Lord here referred to, Luke x. 7, may also be directly attached to the Old Testa- ment Scripture (1 Tim. v. 18) on which that right is based. Comp. also the words of the institution of the Lord's supper, 1 Cor. xi. 24 f. In Acts XX. 35, in the farewell discourse at Miletus, we are first told : vwe5ec^a v/xlv, otl . . . del . . . ixvyjixovevuv tCjv \6yojp tov Kvpiov 'Irjcov^ on avTos elireu- fxaKapibv iarLv p-oXKov didouaL tj Xafi^dveiv. This word of the Lord has not been preserved in our written Gospels, nor can I find any reminiscence of it in the passage 1 Clem, ad Corinth. 2, 1 {ijdiov Stdovres rj Xafi^duoi/T€s), where the similarity of wording is conditioned by the context. 2 In the passage 1 Clem, ad Cor. 13, 1, etc., we read: ■KOL-qawp.ev rb yeypap.p.ii'ov, after which an 0. T. passage is introduced with the words X^7ei yap to Trvevp.a followed by p-dXtara p.ep.vrjp.ei'OL tu)v Xoyuv toO KvpLov 'Ir](rov, ovs iXdXTjaeu 5i5dcr/cwj' — ourws yap elirev, and Chap. 46, 7, etc. : p.vr)(Tdt)Te tCju Xbyuov '1t)<; iKeXivcev 6 KvpLooivrj<; KalfX€vov(ry]<; (Euseb., H. E., 3,39). In his time there was still, therefore, a living oral tradition respecting these words of the Lord. Hence in Barnabas (7, 11), Ignatius (ad Smyrn. 3), 2 Clement (12, 2, ff.), as well as in Acts xx. 35, we find words of the Lord 2 Thus we read in Apol. i. 6 : (deuu) /cat tov irap avroO vlov cKdoVTa koI didd^avTa T/yUaj TuvTa — TrpeO/xa. re to wpocprjriKop ae^ofieda /cat TrpoaKvvovp.ev ; comp. 1, 13 : tov diSaaKaXov — 'Imjaodv XptaTdv — iv devTepa X'^P9- ^XOi'Tfs, TTvev/J-d T€ irpo(pr)TiKov iv Tplrri ra^et. The Christians are pt-adovTes vapa ToO XpLffTOu /cat T(2v irpoeKdbvTuiv avTov ■n-po7]T(2v (1. 23). In Dial. 48 we read : ovk dvdpcoireioLS diddypLaai KeKeXevap-eOa vtt avToO tou XpiaTov weideadai, dXXa toIs 5td tu)v fxaKapiuv Trpos y^ypaTTTai, iroWol kXtjtoI, oXiyoi 8e e/cXe\'Tot evpedCbixev. But it is just as likely that the author, who quotes from memory, was in error in supposing the saying to be taken from 0. T. Scripture ; for it is most improbable that the reference is to 4 Esdr. viii. 3. We can scarcely doubt that this is the case in 2 Clem. 2, 4, where the passage Matt. ix. 13 is introduced by koL ere pa 8e ypacprj X^yet and the connection with 2, 5 f. shows that this is looked upon as a word of God that THE CANON OF THE LORD'S WORDS. 37 natian epistles contain any reference to written Gospels, but TO cuayye'Atov after the manner of the New Testament points to the oral preaching of the Apostles, as in 1 Clem. 47, 2 ; Barn. 5, 9, of which Polycarp (ad Phil. 6, 3), as well as 1 Clem. 42, 1 ; Barn. 8, 3, uses the term euayyeXt^eor^at.^ Pa- pias of Hierapolis is the first to speak of books (/?t/3A.ta),from which the commands of the Lord may be known, and tells how Mark ra vtto tov Xptcrrou ^ \e)(6evTa r] TrpaxOevra d/cpt/^ois eypa- only found its fulfihnent in Christ. 13, 4 is also a sentence formed out of Luke vi. 27, 32, and quoted as a word of God, i.e. as an 0. T. saying, as well as 15, 3. On the contrary it seems to me that 2 Clem. 3, 5 ascribes to Christ Himself the saying from Isaiah employed by him in Matt. xv. 8 ; and the designation of 0. T. quotations as words of the Lord (13, 2 ; 17, 4) may rest upon such interchange. Also in Barnabas 7, 11 (comp. No. 5) an interchange with Acts xiv. 22 is not excluded. But even in one like Justin, who was much better ac- quainted with Scripture, not only do frequent interchanges occur of the prophets quoted {Apol. i., 35, 51, 53 ; Dial. 14, 49), but also intermix- ture of the words of the Lord in 0. T. citations {Apol. i., 48 ; Isa. xxxv. 4 ff. ; comp. Matt. xi. 5 ; i. 51 ; Dan. vii. 13, comp. Matt. xxv. 31), and in the midst of a series of the Lord's words, Dial. 35, a sentence is inserted which can only arise arise out of a reminiscence of 1 Cor. xi. 18 f. {^cFovraL ax'^^'M-'^Ta /cat aipicreLs). ^ When we read in Ign. (ad Philad. 5, 1) : irpos avro?s tov v6p.ov ^v eXa^e irapa rod irarpbs avrov Comp. Gosp. x. 18 : ravrrjv ivroXTjv eXafiov irapa rod irarpbs pt-ov and with the preceding Kadaplcras ra$ apLaprias rod Xaov comp. 1 John i. 7, 9. With Mand. xii. 3, 5 (rds ivroXas ravras) (pvXd^eis Kal ovk iaovrai aKXrjpai comp. 1 John v. 3 : at ivroXal avrov ^apetai ovk elaiv and with the expression crKXrjpbs, Gosp. vi. GO. With Sim. ix. 18, 1, etc., comp. 1 John ii. 3, etc., and with the exj)ression KoXaais, 1 John iv. 18 ; ayado- iroielv, 3 John 11. Further information will be found in Zahn {Der Hirt des Hermas, Gotha, 18G8), and Holtzmann, who is inclined however to THE CANON OF THE LOED's WORDS. 41 Epistles the Son of God is already termed avrov Xoyos — OS Kara Trai/ra cvrjpidTrjcrcv tw 7re/xj/^ai/rt avrov (ad Magn. 8, 2, comp. Gosp. i. 1 ; viii. 29), He was Trpo alwvwv -n-apa. Trarpc (ad Magn. 7, 1, comp. Gosp. i. 2; xvii. 5), He did nothing without the Father, rjvwfxivos wv (ad Magn. 7, 1, comp. Gosp. V. 19 ; X. 30 ; xvii. 22). Here too He is called iu aapKc y€v6ix€vos auro? ivcTeiXaTO /cat ot cvayycXicrdfJievoi rjfJLataros crov (21, 9) by 2 Tim. iv. 22. The Epistle to the Ephesians is the only Pauline Epistle of which we find echoes in Hennas, e.g. Mand. x. 2, 2 ff., where the com- ment Ai^Tretv TO TTi/eu/xa is taken from Eph. iv. 30; thus, ev TTvev/xa, €v (rw/xa (Sim. x. 13, 5) recalls Eph. iv. 4, because of the addition fita Trtcrrts in 18, 4, and the SiKatoavvT] /cat aX-jOeca, Sim. ix. 25, 2. On the other hand, he leans very much on the Epistle of James. ^ We are reminded of the Epistle to the Hebrews by the expressions aTroa-Trji'ai airo Ocov ^oiVTO6ix€6a (Atlienag. leg. 11), while the Epistle to the Churches at Lyons and Vienne (ap. Euseb., H.E., 5, 2) quotes a saying of the Lord quite in the old manner (iTrXrjpovTO to vtto tov Kvptov rjjxCjv elpr)ixivov ; John xvi. 2). But as a matter of fact it is exclusively the Gospels from which these are taken, and which, because they contain such sayings of the Lord, are placed on a par with the 0. T. writings, as KvpLaKol ypacftaL; which appears from the words of Dionysius of Corinth (circ. 170) preserved in Euseb., H. E., 4, 23. After Justin's time the fourth Gospel was more and more definitely placed on an equality with the three older ones.i Even Tatian, in whose discourse to the Greeks no distinct reference to a synoptic passage 1 Of Hegesippus, who in the legend respecting James makes use of the saying of Luke xxiii, 34 (Euseb., H. E., 2, 23), Eusebius tells also that he eK TOV Kad' 'E^paiovs evayyeXiov (/cat tov ^vpiuKov Kal I'St'ws e/c r^s E!3patdos diaXcKTov) Tiva Tidr](nv Kal dWa 5e cjs c^ 'lovdaiKrjs d'ypd(pov Trapadoaeuis lxvT)ixovev€L {H. E., 4, 23). But it does not by any means follow that he looked on the Gospel to the Hebrews as the specific or even as an essen- tial source of the authoritative word of the Lord ; nor do we know that any Gospels besides our own were read anywhere throughout the Church. 66 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. occurs, lias many echoes of it besides the citation already mentioned {Orat. 4, comp. Gosp. i. 1; 13, comp. i. 5; 19, comp. Gosp. i. 3) ; and Athenagoras obviously draws his doctrine of the Logos from John.^ The historical part of it also is already regarded as having equal weight with the presentation of the history of Jesus contained in the older Gospels. Melito of Sardis in a Fragment (comp. Otto, Corp. Apol., ix. p. 416) estimates the public ministry of Christ as lasting a rpuria, which is only possible on the basis of John's Gospel, while according to Luke iii. 23, He was thirty years of age before His baptism. Polycrates of Ephesus {apud JEuseb., 5, 24), following the Gospel xiii. 25, describes John as 6 ctti to o-t^^os tov Kvptov dvaTreauyv, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis in a fragment in the Paschal Chronicle (ed. Dindorf, p. 14) not only makes an undoubted allusion to the Gospel xix. 34, but rejects the right conception of the day of Christ's death in the Synoptics, on account of the divergent representation in John, and in so far dfiapriav iwpddTjfxev, comp. Rom. vii. 15) ; in Athena- goras we find the XoyiK-rj Xarpda from Rom. xii. 1 [Leg. 13), and a plain imitation of Rom. i. 27 {Leg. 34) ; in the Church epistle contained in Euseb., H. E.,6, 2, we have the feW ry irvevfiaTt taken from Rom. xii. 11, and the verbal use of Rom. viii. 18 ; while the Martyrdom of Folycarp (chap. 10) has a reference to Rom. xiii. 1, 7). Only faint echoes of the first Epistle to the Corinthians are to be found in the Greek Discourse and the Martyrdom (comp. the image of the va6s and the \pvxi-KoL in Orat. 15 andil/arf. Poh, 1, with 1 Cor. x. 33, xi. 1), and in Athenagoras,c?e Resurr., besides the above citation, we have the doctrine of the change of those that are alive and remain (chap. xii. xvi.) and the peculiar expression dovXaywyelu (chap. xix.). Finally we have a trace also of the second Epistle to the Corinthians (in. 14, etc.) in the dpLafi^eveiv and the euwSta XpiffToO (apud Euseb., v. 2, 29, 35), and a manifest reference to v. 10 in Athen., de Resurr., 18. The latter is acquainted also with the irruxd koL dadevri a-ToixeTa from Gal. iv. 4 [Leg. 16). Of the minor Pauline Epistles we have an undoubted reference to Phil. ii. 6 in the Church-letter, as well as a reminiscence of the avriKel/xevo^ of the second Epistle to the ■ Thessalonians and His second coming (Euseb., 5, 2, 3). Of the Pastoral Epistle^, the First to Timothy is well known to Athenagoras (comp. ii. 2, ii. 1, with chap. 13, 37, and the 0cDs dTrp6cn.Tov, chap. 16), and in the Church- letter in Euseb. 5, 2, occurs the arvKos koL edpaicjp-a from 1 Tim. iii. 15. Of Tatian we hear incidentally (§ 8, 5, note 2) that he acknowledged the Epistle to Titus, although it cannot be shown that it was used. On the other hand we find no certain trace of the Epistle to the Hebrews, even in the diravyaaixa of Tatian {Orat. 16) or the dyyeXoi Xeirovpyol (Athen., Leg. 10); nor of the Petrine Epistles in the expressions dauria {Orat. 17), or (TKTjt^wfxa {Orat. 15). But certainly there is a clear reference to 1 Pet. v. 6, in the Church-letter (Euseb. 5, 3, comp. also the ti/jltju dirope/xeip Athenag., Leg. 32) which also shows familiarity with the Acts of the Apostles (comp. the dpx'qyos rrjs ^wrjs, and the mention of Stephen's prayer, ap. Euseb., 5, 3) from which we have in Tatian only some singular ex- pressions {cnrepfjioX6yos, Oeo/xdxoi, Orat. 6, 13). The fact that there is no reference to the apostles as an authority for doctrine, may have its origin in the circum- stance that the documents here considered treat nowhere of an antithesis within Christianity, as is perhaps the case in Poly carp (§ 6, 2) ; but the circumstance that apart from casual prophetic Avords, the necessity of direct reference to THE CANON OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 73 the writings of the apostles never arises, shows clearly that until after the third quarter of the second century, the conditions for the formation of an epistolary Canon are utterly wanting. So much the more striking must it appear when the Tiibingen school declares it to be a literary form adapted to the spirit of the time and without ulterior motive, that in the first half of the second century numerous works should have been put into circulation under apostolic names (comp. Koestlin, Die pseudonyme Literatur der dltesten Kirche ; Theol. Jahrh. 1851, 2), while it is not evident what object this form could have had at a time when no need of a written authentication of apostolic doctrine was felt, and the name of an apostle at the head of a writing by no means gave it unique authority. On the other hand, these pretended primitive documents of the second century show no trace of the very thing which is characteristic of the real primitive documents belonging to it, viz. an appeal to the words of the Lord and the written Grospels. Yet it is strange enough that the most important productions of this time, at least in a spiritual sense, and most profound in their theology, should all have decked themselves out in borrowed apostolic names, while only the comparatively weaker and less important ventured to appear under their own name or that of a contemporary. It is plain that only the same relations of time can have given rise to the need of going back to the apostolic writings on the one hand and to a pseudonymous apostolic literature on the other. § 8. The Caxon of Apostolic Traditional Doctrine. 1. In the course of the second century Gnosticism was developing into a sect, while Ebionism had already become such. Against these heretical tendencies, neither the sacred scripture of the Old Testament, whose authority was even disputed on many occasions, and which by means of alle- 74 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. gorical interpretation was explained in the most diverse ways in the Church itself, nor the simple words of the Lord could suffice. Even the Gospel-Canon that was gradually taking shape, proved of doubtful value, since as a new sacred scripture it gave unlimited scope for allegorical inter- pretation. Hence there naturally followed a return to the teaching of the apostles, who with the simple announcement of the saving facts of the gospel had always associated the certainty of present and future salvation, making this the motive for obedience to the new Christian law of life (§ 6, 2 ; 7, 4). They had taught nothing but what the Lord had taught them, nor professed anything but what He Himself had attested (Iren., adv. Hcer., III. 9, 1; 17, 4, comp. Tertull., dePi'cescr.Hcer., 6 ; " acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter assignaverunt," comp. chap. 21). Their doctrine, as trans- mitted to the Churches, now took its place beside the nor- mative authority of the Old Testament and the Lord's words, or directly supplanted the latter.^ The conscious- ness that their announcement was at first oral and only afterwards committed by them to writings, is still present (Iren., adv. Hcer., III. 1, 1, comp. Tert., de Prcescr. Hm^'., 21). Even if they had left no writing, the tradition of their teachings would certainly be found in the Churches, since as a matter of fact they have been faithfully preserved in many Churches among foreigners (III. 4, 1 f.). This transmitted ^ This threefold norm is continually repeated by Irenaeus : Trpotprjrai eKTjpv^av, 6 Kvpios idida^ev, dwdcTToXoi TrapeSuKav {adv. Hcer.^l. 8, 1), or more fully : "lex annuntiat, proplietae praeconant, Christus revelait, apostoli tradunt, ecclesia credit" (II. 30, 9). But Serapion already says (apud Euseb., 6, 12), rods dirocxToXovs d-nrodex^pi-^Oa- ws XpLcrrov ; therefore it may simply mean, that the teaching of the Church has its witness, "a pro- phetis et ab apostolis et ab omnibus discipulis " (III. 24, 1, comp. Tert., adv. Hermng., 45 : "propheta} et apostoli non ita tradunt"). The iKKXr]- aLaariKT] irapadoats proceeds from the holy apostles, the tradition handed down by them and the teachers is a deia irapadoais (Clem. Alex., Strom. 1, 1 ; 7, 16), for which reason the apostles are directly put on a line with the prophets (1, 9), and the law transmitted through them, with that given by Moses {Pudag. 3, 12). THE CANON OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 75 doctrine derived from the apostles and preserved in the Churches now forms the Canon, i.e. the normal authority by which true doctrine is to be determined. The word Kavujv originally denotes a measure, rule, norm (Gal. vi. 16 ; 2 Cor. X. 13, comp. 1 Clem. 1, 3, eu t<^ Kapovt. t. viroTayris, 41, 1 : rbu pi(Tfxeuov TTJs XeiTovpylas Kavova). Already in 1 Clem. 7, 2, the ae/xvos TTJs irapadocreuis Kavuiv is the rule handed down to us, by which to deter- mine what is good and well-pleasing in the eyes of God. In Polycrates of Ephes. (Euseb., H.E., 5, 24), the Kavihv ttjs Trto-rews, is not yet the rale to determine what to believe, but the rule pertaining to faith, i.e. to be- lievers, which determines ecclesiastical usage solely in accordance with the gospel. The expression is now first applied to the rule of doctrine. " In ea regula incedimus," says Tertullian, '* quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo tradidit {de Prascr., 37) ; this is the •' regula fidei a Christo instituta " cap. 13 (comp. de came Chr., 2 : "si christiauus es, crede quod traditum est ab eis quorum fuit tradere "). In Iienaeus too the Kavvju r. dXrjdeias, is the faitli which the Church has received from the apostles aud their disciples {adv. Hcer., I. 9, 4, comp. 10, 1), and in Clement 6 ae/xpos rrfs TrapaSjcrews Kapojp is the Kapo)P r^j iKKXrjffias {Strom. 1, 1 ; 7, 17), the kupup t. Tricrrews (4, 15). 2. Though Jewish Christianity, in isolating itself from the collective Church, might justly retain the consciousness of being still in some way connected with the apostolic time and its traditions, yet Gnosis must have been aware that it was trying to put forward views foreign to those prevailing in the Church, and even in many cases opposed to them. But it could only prove these to be Christian by showing their connection with primitive Christianity, and the simplest way to do this was by appealing on its own behalf to an oral tradition proceeding from the apostles, but preserved in its own circles alone.^ It was easy indeed for the Church ^ Ptolemaeus in his epistle to Flora also appeals to the dTroo-roXt/crj irapddoais, tjp e'/c diadoxv^ xal ijixeh TrapeiXTjtpafieP irdpTas tovs \6yovs Kap- opicrai TTj Tov aojrrjpos didaa-KaXia (Epiph., Uccr., 33, 7). Thus Basilides appealed to the Apostle Matthias {Philosoph,, 7, 20), or to his teacher Glaukias, who, as the ep/xTjpevs of Peter transmitted his doctrine to him ; Valentine to a certain Theodas, who is supposed to have been a ypupi/xds of Paul (Clem., Strom. 7, 17), the Ophites to a woman of the name of Mariamne, who received her doctrine from James the brother of the 76 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. Fathers in opposition to lay claim, on behalf of the tradition alive in the Church, to the only proveable apostolic origin. When Clement rejDresented the true Gnosis as yi/ajcrt? 17 Kara otaoo^as €ts oAtyovs eK twj/ aTrocTToXcoj/ dypa^ws Trapaoo^etcra KaT€\y\v6€v (Strom. 6, 7), Irenseus based the certainty of the genuine transmission of apostolic doctrine in the Church on the " successiones presbyterorum," which could be followed up to the apostles (adv. Hcer., II. 2, 2; 3, 1) ; Tertullian, on the testimony of the Churches founded by the apostles, which have the "tradux fidei et semina doctrinae," and on their wider plantings (de Prcescr. Hcer., 20, comp. adv. Marc, 1, 21 ; 4, 5). But they constantly appealed to the unanimity of the tradition of the Church, as contrasted with the manifold diversities of error (Iren., adv. Hwr., 1. 10, 1 f. ; II. 27, 1. Tert., de Froiscr. Hcer., 20; 28 ; 32 ; Clem., Strom. 7, 17 : fxta 7] TravTOiv yiyov€ tu)V (XTrocrroAwv Sicnrep StSacTKaXta, outcos Se kol rj TrapdSoa-Ls), and to its greater age in opposition to the devia- tion from it that had come in later. The errorists made their appearance long after the bishops to whom the apostles handed over the Churches (Iren., adv. Hcer., V. 20, 1), and were unable to prove the apostolic origin of their Churches (Tert., 32) ; truth is the earlier, heresy the later (de Proiscr. Hoir., 30, adv. Marc, 1, 1, comp. Clem., Strom. 7, 16, Iren., adv. Hmr., I, 21, 5).2 Lord {Philosnph., 5, 7 ; 10, 9). They maintained that the Apostles "non omnia revelasse, quadam secreto et paucis demandasse" (Tert., dc Prcescr. Hcer., 25), or, hke the Gnostic TrtVrts ao(pia, they appeal to a secret tradition which went back to Christ Himself (Iren., adv. Hcer., 1.25,5; II. 27, 2 f.; III. 2, 1). 2 How much self-deception underlay this defence of apostolic tradi- tion! since the more rigid Church organization, which based its claim on the apostolic succession of the bishops, itself originated as a weapon in the struggle against heresy ; but there can be no doubt that the heretical tendencies were found in opposition to what was accounted apostolic doctrine in the Churches of antiquity, and that their appeal to particular and secret traditions was not able to shake the Church in its certainty that the doctrinal views current in it went back to the oral tradition of apostolic teaching. THE CANON OF APOSTOLIC TEADITIONAL DOCTETNE. 77 3. Thus the heretics were first compelled to go back to the written memorials of the apostolic time in the hope, by changing and perverting their meaning, of being able to prove from them, that the doctrines in which they differed from the traditional teaching of the Chnrch, were apostolic. It was onl}' necessary to carry over to the Gospels and the apostolic writings the allegorical method of interpretation of the Old Testament which was current in the Church itself. The fact that they first applied this treatment to the apos- tolic writings, making these the basis of their views, as the normal authority on doctrine, is adequately explained on the ground that the Church, fully conscious of being in possession of apostolic doctrine handed down from oral tradition, had no need to verify it by going back to isolated transmitted writings of the apostles, while the heretics could only justify their departure from the traditional doctrine of the Church, by seeking to give it a foundation in these written memorials. The fact itself, however, is established beyond a doubt, by the close analogy between the Old Testa- ment and the New Testament citations of Scripture contained in the Philosophume^ia, in the excerpts from the works of Theodotus (following the works of Clem, of Alex.), and in the letter of Ptolemy to Flora (apud Epiph. Beer., 33) .1 It is also confirmed by the circumstance that an interest in exegesis first sprang up in heretical circles. Only if the 1 It is therefore quite unimportant how far it can be proved with certainty that the extracts in the Philosophumena proceed from direct works of Basilides, Valentine, and other of the oldest Gnostics, since even the flourishing period of their disciples, and consequently the writings belonging to them, fall into a time in which a similar use of the New Testament writings was not yet thought of among historians (comp. upon this point Jakobi in the deutsche Zeitschr. f. christl. Wiss., 1851, 28, etc.; 1853, 24, etc. ; Scholten, die filtrsten Zevgnisse hetreffend die Schriften des N. Tests., translated by Manchot, Bremen, 1867 ; Hof- stede de Groot, Basilides als erster Zeuge fiir Alter und Autoritcit der NTlichen Schriften, Leipzig, 18G8 ; G. Heinrici, die valentinianische Gnosis wid die h. Schrift, Berlin, 1871). 78 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. apostolic writings were used as normative documents for the decision of questions of doctrine, could it become necessary to fix the meaning of their statements exegetically, or to prove in an exegetical way that they contained the doctrines for which their attestation was desired. Thus Basilides wrote twenty-four books i^rjyrjTLKo. on the Gospel, the Valen- tinian Heracleon, the first commentary on John's Gospel (comp. also Harnack, Marcions Gommentar zur>i Euangelium in Brieger's Zeitschr f. Kircheugesch., TV. 4). Thus it is shown that Tatian, who in his Greek discourse has but few echoes of the apostolic writings (§ 7, 7), influenced by the heresy of his day, made repeated perversions of apostolic utterances in the interest of his errors (comp. his inter- pretation of Gal. vi. 8, ap. Hieron., on this passage, and of 1 Cor. XV. 22, ap. Iren. adv. Hcer., III. 23, 8). They are con- stantly upbraided by the Church Fathers for their arbitrary exegesis by means of which they put into the words of Scripture a meaning consistent with their own doctrines.- Yet they were right in maintaining that only 6 rbv Kavova t^? aXrjdeiaq aKkivrj Iv cavrw kutcx^^ could understand the true meaning of the Scriptures (Iren., adv. Hcer., V. 9, 4, comp. 2 Comip.Iven., ado. Har., I. 3, 6: €(t>opfxi^€iv ^la^S/xePOL to, kuXws elprjfieua Toh /ca/fcDs €Tr Lvev 07) fih 01^ vir avrOiv. — €K tQu evayyeXiKvop kol tQv diro- (XtoXikQp TreLpQvrat rets d,7ro5ei^eiS T0i€7adai, TrapaTpiiroures rds epfirjpelas /cot pq.diovpyrjaavTes rets e^rjyrjaeis, comp, 8, 1. In like manner Clem. Alex, objects to them, that they dLaffTpe(povrjT(x>v rrj Kara Tr]v tov Kvpiov Trapovcrtav TrapaStSo/xei^ry SiaOT^Ky^, that only where the Veritas -fidei GhristiancB existed, would the Veritas expositionum also be found (Tert., de Frozsc. Hair., 19). For just as certainly as this fundamental principle, if adopted as a universal exegetical Canon, must prove misleading, so certainly had a time whose conscious belief still rested on living apostolic tradition, a right to make this the criterion for the under- standing of the apostolic memorials. But it was clear that little was gained in this way, when there was a going back from oral traditional doctrine to the Scripture documents of apostolic times. The dispute turned on the right inter- pretation of the latter, and this again could only be finally determined by an appeal to the former. For this reason Tertullian will by no means admit the heretics to the dis- putat'io de scrijoturis, because the possessio scripturarum does not belong to them (de Prcescr. Hcer., 15, 16): " non ad scripturas provocandum est nee in his constituendum certa- men, in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est" (chap. 19). Just because the appeal to the apostolic written memorials originated with the heretics, did the Church hesitate to follow in their footsteps. 4. But even the heretics were soon convinced that they could make little way by their perversion of Scripture, and had recourse to the falsification of it. Dionysius of Corinth complains (apud Euseb., 4, 23) of the falsification (paStovpy-JJo-at) of the Gospels by omissions and additions, as Clement of Alexandria of their /xcrart^cVai (Strom. 4, 6; comp. Origen's complaint of the ^cra-^^apaa-a-av of the Valentinians, contra Gels., 2, 27, as well as of Apelles, who evangelia purgavit, of which he is also accused by Epiph., Hcer., 44, 4). Of Tatian, we are told that he rtva? tfxovas tov aTrorrToAou fX€TapdaaL, ws iinSLopOoujxevov avrCjv Tijv Trjmp. Tert., ApoL, 32 : " del voces," de Anim., 28 : " Fermo divinus "). 2 Only detached sayings of the Lord, aa formerly (§ 5), are adduced. Comp. Iren., adv. Hcer., I. 4, 3 : wepi &v 6 Kvpios ■Ij/j.wv cLprjKeu ; Clem., Peed. I. 5, 8 : iv ry evayyeXiii) 4,7]o)<; tj/juv TrapeScuKcv, and Luke, 6 aKoXou^o? IlavAov, TO VTT Ik€.lvov Krjpvcrcrofxevov cvayyeAtov iv ^ifSXiw Kare- OeTo. Moreover, following Luke i. 2, he emphasizes the fact that the latter " quse ab apostolis didicerat, tradidit nobis " (14, 2, comp. 10, 1). It is Tertullian who more than any other with far-reaching acuteness, makes the authoritative statement, "evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso domino sit impositum " (adv. Marc, 4, 2). But the four tra- ditional Gospels were not in harmony with this standpoint (comp. Clem., Strom. 3, 13), since two of them unquestion- ably proceeded only from apostolic disciples ; ^ and yet the ^ It is most interesting to see how Teit. is for ever seeking to vindicate the recognition of these two, in opposition to his former principle. He NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 91 Church already felt herself bound by this tradition (§ 7, 6). It is of moment for the history of the formation of the Canon, that the impossibility of carrying out the principle of apostolicity, which properly speaking was of necessity involved in the idea of a Canon, was thus demonstrated d priori. 3. But Luke's Acts of the Apostles also belonged to those writings which were highly prized by the Church on account of their value as early documents, and the recognition of which she must see to be absolutely assured. For the out- pouring of the Spirit on the apostles, which was the foun- dation of all the importance now attached to their writings, for the apostolic authority of Paul, whose works always formed the chief mass of the aTroo-roAtKa, for the founding of the Church in general, and that of the apostolic Churches in particular, whose position was now one of such decided importance (§ 8, 2), this book was in the eyes of the Church of that time the sole means of proof.^ Yet it neither pro- first appeals to the fact that the " praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri possit de glorias studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magis- trorum, immo Christi qui magistros apostolos fecit." Then he urges that, " nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes et Matthteus insinuant, ex apostoHcis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, iisdem regulis exorsi " (adv. Marc, 4, 2). Finally, he conies to the conclusion that " apud universas (eccle- sias) evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare. Eadem auctoritas, ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proiude per illas et secundum illas habemus, Joannis dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent. Capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint " (4, 5). ^ Hence Irenaeus regards it as providential that much of Luke's Gos- pel has been communicated by him alone, since the heretics neither can nor will give this up, because they are thus compelled to recognise the " testificatio des Lucas de actibus et doctrina apostolorum," in particular the calling of Paul to be an apostle {adv. Har., Ill, 15, 1). Tertullian points out to them that they can know nothing whatever of the Holy Ghost and of the Church which they wish to defend, without the Actus Apostolorum (as Irenaeus also incidentally calls tbe book, adv. JJcBv., Ill, 13, 3) ; and that they cannot even appeal to Paul against the primitive apostles, since they knew notliing of liim whatever without 92 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. ceeded from an apostle whose authority would have justi- fied its reception among the sacred books, nor could it be supported on the plea of early usage, like the primitive documents respecting the acts and teaching of the Lord, much less on the a priori assumption of a special inspiration. It is from the fact of Luke's presence as an eye-witness of the most important parts of the life of Paul, from the way in which he is accredited by Paul and in which the com- position of the Gospel is entrusted to him, that Irenteus proves his credibility (adv. Hcer., IIL 14, 1), as Tertullian proves it from his agreement with Paul (adv. Marc, 5, 2 ; comp. Iren., adv. Hair., III. 13, 3). Clement of Alexandria also employs the Trpa^ei? tCjv airoaToXiiiv chiefly as an historical source (Foidag. 2, 1 ; comp. Strom. 1, 18, 19, 23), but even as such it was absolutely indispensable to the Church ; and when the writings recognised by the Church as authoritative were put together in the New Testament, it was necessarily included among them, although not fully coinciding with the standpoint to which either part owed its recognition. Thus a second point was raised on which every attempt to form a Canon from one initial standpoint must have foundered, even if the matter had been made a subject of reflection. 2 4. The Pauline epistles naturally form the larger portion this book, his own testimony not being sufficient {de PrcEicr. Hcer., 22, 23). 2 But Clement was also acquainted with a K-fjpvyixa Uerpov, which, like the Acts, must have given an account of the sayings and doings of Peter; and since he holds the tradition therein contained to be authentic, he might just as well have quoted it as the other (Strom. 1, 29 ; 2, 15 ; 5, 5 ; 6, 15) and have received it into his New Testament, although the West seems to know nothing of it. On the other hand it does not follow from Strom. 2, 9 that he acknowledged the Trapadoaeis of Matthias in the same way (comp. § 7, 6, note 2). It does not at all appear that his saying which he mentions in 3, 4 is taken from this writing, or that the heretics who appealed to him (7, 17), made use of it, for which reason, moreover, it cannot be concluded from this passage that he re- jected it. NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 93 of those apostolic writings which go to make up the New Testament.^ In Irenseus, Tertullian and Clement, twelve Pauline epistles are expressly cited, i.e. are handed down collectively under his name, with the exception of the Epistle to Philemon, which, on account of its brevity and the doctrinal animportance of its contents, offered no induce- ment for such classification. For we learn quite incidentally from Tertullian that he was nevertheless well acquainted with it (comp. adv. Marc, 5, 21 and with it § 8, 6). But it does not by any means appear that they had these epistles before them in the form of a concluded collection and in fixed succession. ^ On the contrary we see how in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews views differed even as to the works that proceeded from Paul. By Clement who regarded it as Pauline at least in its alleged Hebraic basis (Euseb., H.E., 6, 14), it is frequently cited in closest connec- tion with passages in other Pauline epistles (comp. Strom. 2, 2; 6, 8; 7, 1). Theophilus has merely an allusion to the contrast of milk and strong meat (2, 25, comp. Heb. V. 12), while Irenseus shows no trace of it."^ There is in ^ In Theophilus of Antioch, only one express citation occurs, in which Tit. iii. 1 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1 f. are connected with Eom. xiii. 7 f. {ad Autol., 3, 14) ; but references, more or less plain, are found to almost all the others ; and the fact that we find no trace of the Galatian or 2nd Thessalonian Epistle as well as Philemon, has no significance what- ever. 2 Attempts like those made by Credner and Volkmar, to prove from Tertullian where he goes over the Holy Scriptures, that a collection of this kind did exist, are all in vain, since in his account of the books he never adheres to the same number, much less the same order. That the unknown saying of Paul quoted by Clement {Strom. 6, 5) proceeds from an apocryphal or lost writing, is scarcely probable. Like the say- iug of Matthias (No. 3, note 2) it may have had its origin in oral tradition. 3 True, he is said to have mentioned it and quoted some passages from it in a work that has been lost to us (Euseb., H.E., 5, 26 : /xvrjfiovevei prjTci Tiva i^ avrQu wapadi/xevos), but from the fact that in his attack on the heretics he nowhere makes use of an epistle so valuable on account of its doctrine, it only follows the more certainly how far he was from regarding it as Pauline or even apostolic. 94 OEIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. fact no reason to doubt the statement of Stephen Gobar in the sixth centuiy (ap. Phot. Bibl., cod. 232) that he declares it to be unpauline. Moreover it is evident that Tertullian is quite unaware that anybody holds it to be Pauline ; he knows it only as an Epistle of Barnabas, of a " vir satis auc- toratus, qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit," and hints that it is received by many of the Churches. But however highly he values the epistle, and however well it suits his purpose, yet he will only " nur ex redun- dantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium su- perducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure discipli- nam magistrorum" (de Pudic, 20). In his view, therefore, the Epistle to the Hebrews is not a sacred book of the New Testament, because it does not belong to the apostolic writings ; and the fact that it was already received by many in his circle, only proves that when the works of apostolic disciples had once been admitted into the New Testament (No. 2, 3), the principle of recognising only apostolic works as authoritative, was no longer firmly adhered to, even in contrast to epistolary literature. 5. Still less can we suppose that there was a concluded collection of writings proceeding from the circle of the primitive apostles, such as, in Ewald's opinion, was joined to the collection of Pauline letters in the beginning of the century. True, it is admitted as a matter of course that the first Epistle of Peter, which was already known to the Roman Clement and was used by Polycarp and Papias (§ 6, 7), was already reckoned with the apostolic epistles. It is expressly cited, sometimes repeatedly, by Irenseus (adv. Boer., IV. 16, 5, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 16), Tertullian (Scarp. 12, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 20, etc.) and Clement (Pcedag., I. 6, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 1-3). On the other hand they show no trace of the second Epistle of Peter.^ So also it may be taken for ^ The fact that Irenseus quotes the first : " Petrus ait in epistola sua {adv. Hcer., IV. 9, 2), and Clement : 6 ne'rpos iu rfj eTnt- Tos eiduiXokaTpeia (1, 14 ; 2, 34) and the irXdwrj TrarpoirapddoTos (2, 24) in Theophilus form a scarcely mistakeable reference to 1 Pet. iv. 3 ; i. 18, while the alleged echoes of 2 Pet. i. 19, ff. (2, 9. 13) prove nothing. 2 It is quite clear in this case that the citation-formula, " in epistola sua testificatus est " (Iren., adv. Hcer., Ill, 16, 5), does not exclude the knowledge of a second Epistle : for in I. 16, 3, Irenseus expressly cites 2 John 11 ; though in III. 16, 8 (in prasdicta epistola) he erroneously attributes the passage 2 John 7, etc. to the first Epistle, where some- thing similar is at least to be found. So too Clement {Strom. 3, 4) cites the passage 1 John i. 6 f. with the words (prjalv 6 'lojdvvrjs eV ry e?rt- (XToXy, and on the other hand the passage 1 John v. 16, with the words iv TTJ fiei^opi iTriaToXy, thus showing plainly that he knows at least one smaller one. But no trace of either is found in TertulHan. 96 OKIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. Tertullian no trace of an acquaintance with it can be shown, though such acquaintance is not quite improbable, at least in the case of Irenaeus.^ On the other hand Clement, who neither cites it nor shows any reminiscence of it, can scarcely have been acquainted with it, since he does not, as has fre- quently been supposed, identify the brother of the Lord with the apostle James, though he undoubtedly reckons him an apostle in the wide sense and as belonging to the true Gnostics (comp. Euseb., E.E., 2, 1, and with it § 36, 2 ; also Strom. 1, 1 ; 6, 8), to whom Christ originally committed the truth, and therefore he had no reason for excluding a woi'k by him from the apostolic collection.^ The Epistle of Jude, 3 When in Tert. , adv. Jud., 2, we read that " Abraham amicus clei depu- tatus est," this view, taken from Isa. xli. 8 ; 2 Chron. xx. 7 and character- istic of Philo, the Book of Jubilees, and certainly of all Jewish tradition, had already become current among Christian authors (comp. 1 Clem, ad Cor. 10, 1 ; 17, 2, and after him in Clem. Alex. Padag. 3, 2, and fre- quently in the Strom.), so that the mediation of James ii. 23 was by no means necessary. All other reminiscences professedly discovered are entirely wanting in proof. It is quite different with Irenaeus, for though adv. Hcer., IV. 13, 4, might easily be explained in the same way, the combination with Gen. xv. 6 in IV. 16, 2 leads to a verbal reproduction of Jas. iv. 23, so that the assumption of acquaintance with this passage is difficult to controvert. But in this case the " factum initium facturse " (V. 1, 1) might also be a reminiscence of Jas. i. 18. ^ All that has been brought forward, apart from the designation of Abraham as the friend of God (comp. note 3), to prove a knowledge of the Epistle of James, such as the corresponding turn of the expression in Matt. v. 37 and Jas. v. 12, the designation of him who fulfils the law of love as /SaaiXt/cos (comp. Jas. ii. 8), and the airoKvyjOels of regeneration (comp. Jas. i. 18), is not decisive. Eusebius indeed asserts {H.E., 6, 14), that Clement in the Hypotyposes gave a short explanation of the whole eudLadifKr] ypacprj, /ut,7]5e rds dvTiXeyo/x^vas TrapeXOivv, ttju louda X^yu Kai ras XotTrds KadoXiKas eTrtoroXas, but this very mention of the Epistle of Jude makes it most improbable that Eusebius actually referred to all seven ; and the way in which Photius {Bibl. cod., 109) speaks of explan- ations of the Pauline and Catholic Epistles is too general to lead us to the conclusion that he explained all. In the Adumbrationes (taken ac- cording to Zahn from the Hypotyposes, comp. Forschungen zur Geschichte des NTUchen Kanon, 3, Erlang, 1884) as a matter of fact we find explan- ations only of 1 Pet., Jude, 1 and 2 John, whose use in Clement can be directly proved ; and when Cassiodorus in the Instit, Divin. Led., chap. 8, NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 97 of which as yet we have found no trace, is neither mentioned nor made use of by Irenaeus ; Tertullian only remarks inci- dentally that " Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet " {de Cultu Fern., 1, 3), from which we see that he counted it a sacred writing, and also looked upon its author as an apostle. Clement quotes it repeatedly {Pcedag. 3, 2 ; Strom. 3, 2), and treats it as a prophetic warning of the heresies of his time ; but it does not at all appear that he identified the author with one of the Twelve, as Tertullian seems to have done. Nevertheless he may have looked upon this brother of the honoured James, who as the 8ovXo<; ^Irjcrov Xpia-Tov addresses the Church, as an apostle in the wider sense. We have here but another argument against the existence of a closed collection of apostolic epistles, since the circle of apostles was not yet strictly limited. Just as in the Didache, the travelling evangelists ai-e still called apostles (comp. also Hermas Sim. IX. 15, 4 and with it § 6, 1), so too Clement calls the Roman Clement an apostle (Strom. 4, 17) and Barnabas too (Strom. 2, 6 f.), although on another occasion he terms him an a-Troa-ToXiKos, who was one of the Seventy and a co-worker with the apostle Paul (2, 20 ; comp. 5, 10, and the passage from the Hypotyposes apud. Euseb., H.jE., 2, 1). Hence he too repeatedly cites the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Strom. 1, 7; 5, 12; 6, 8), as well as the Epistle of Bar- nabas (2, 15), like any other New Testament writing. But even apart from the way in which Clement, by the extended conception of an apostle, was thus included in the category, writings of apostolic disciples were also as a matter of fact received among the sacred books, along with the Gospels and the Acts ; and although their normal character was names these very epistles as explained in the Hypotyposes, and only by an obvious error substitutes the Epistle of James for that of Jude, his more special account undoubtedly corrects and moditieB that of Euse- bius. 98 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. finally made to rest upon the authentication of genuine apostolic doctrine, yetit might certainly be concluded that these writings also transmitted such doctrine in a true and unadulterated form, as had formerly been the case with the oral teaching of the apostles (§ 8, 1). 6. But there was yet another point of view, under which the circle of sacred N. T. writings was still further extended. From the time of Justin the Johannine Apocalypse had belonged to the avy-ypdixixara of the Christians (§ 7, 4). It certainly proceeded from the apostle John ; but it was by no means the authentication of genuine apostolic doctrine that made it so important in the eyes of the Church, but the prophecies which it contained respecting the future of the kingdom of Grod. Nevertheless, on account of its apostolic origin, it could not be excluded from the books which now formed the New Testament. Eusebius tells us of Theophilus (H. E., 4, 24), that in his work against Hermogenes, he ck T^S aTroKaXv\l/€(jiiv Se koI SpaKiov KaXetrat with Apoc. xii. 9), and in all the Church Fathers of this time it is cited as a sacred writing, Iren., adv. Hcer., IV. 20, 11 ; V. 26, 1 ; Tert., de Frcescr. Beer., 33 ; adv. Marc, 3, 14 ; 4, 5 ; Clem., P«?(i., 2, 10 ; Strom. 6, 13). But Clement was also acquainted with an Apoca- lypse of Peter, on which, according to Eusebius {H. E., 6, 14), as well as on the Epistle of Barnabas, he commented in the Hypotyposes, and which could not have had less impor- tance in his view than the Johannine sacred writings, although it only appears to be cited in the cKXoyat Ik tCjv TrpotjiyiriKm'. And because the real value of these apocalypses, notwith- standing their apostolic origin, consisted in the prophecies which they contained, and which were warranted not by the apostolicity of their authors in the sense of § 8, 1, but by the revelations that had been granted to them, there was no reason whatever for rejecting an apocalyptic writing that did not proceed from an apostle. Thus in Clement, the NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 99 Shepherd of Hermas is frequently quoted as a sacred writ- ing (Strom. 2, 9 ; Q, Q) ', it is even the ttyy€A.os t^s /xcraj/oias (ii. 17) or the Swa/xts rj tw 'Ep/xa Kara diroKaXvij/LV XaXovcra, which in it ^etw? (firjortv (1, 29 ; comp. 2. 1). Nor is there any reason why we should not accept the KaAws eT-n-ev rj ypa<^r) rj Xiyovcra, with which Irenaeus (adv. Hwr., IV. 20, 2) introduces a passage of Hermas, as an actual quotation from Scripture. Although according to Tertullian the " script ura Pastoris, quse sola mcechos amat," does not deserve " divino instrumento in- incidi " (de Pud., 10), yet it is only because of his prejudice against its contents and not on fundamental grounds that he determines to reject it.^ 7. It is thus sufficiently established that the New Testa- ment was by no means a concluded collection at the end of the second century (No. 1); but it has also been shown why this could not have been the case. Even if from the point of view that led to the origin of a New Testament, we try to come to a well-founded decision respecting what ought to belong to it, we have no premisses.^ But it was no longer * But when he says tlmt the work " ab omni consilio ecclesiarura inter apocrypha et falsa jndicatur," this is merely a passionate exaggeration, as in truth he himself shows when soon after he says that Barnabas's Epistle to the Hebrews (No. 4) is " utique receptior apud ecclesias illo apocrypho pastore moechorum " (cap. 20). For this at any rate implies that the Shepherd also was received by some, as, for example, Ircnasus ; nor is it at all certain that Tertullian himself [de Oratinne, 16) only refers to it ironically, and does not rather, in his pre-Montantist time when he was still unprejudiced against it, make impartial use of it. ^ In the first place the circle of apostolic writings was by no means uniform. Irenaeus and Clement are acquainted with a second Johannine epistle, Tertullian not ; Clement and Tertullian know the Epistle of Jude, which IrenjEus does not know; while the latter again seems to know the Epistle of James, which the former do not know. Clement is acquainted with an Apocalypse of Peter, of which the others know nothing. Even of that which has been uniformly handed down, it is not always certain whether it is apostolic. In Alexandria the Epistle to the Hebrews is looked upon as Pauline, in North Africa as a work of Barnabas ; the Epistle of Jude is in the latter place regarded as apostolic, in the former probably not. There is not even unanimity as to who are apostles. Clement reckons James the brother of the Lord, and even the Koman 100 OEIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. possible in deciding the question as to what books should belong to the New Testament, to adhere to the exclusive validity of the apostolic writings, as sacred books. For the Gospels had long been sacred in the usage of the Church ; and two of them were non-apostolic. It was equally impossible, for practical reasons, to give up the Acts of the Apostles, which were also non-apostolic ; and yet other writings, such as the Kiqpvyfxa IHrpov, where they were known, made similar pretensions. Moreover the point of view under which these primitive records of the history of Christianity had been re- ceived among the Holy Scriptures differed entirely from that under which the apostolic records had become sacred writ- ings ; while the Apocalypses with their revelations came under a third standpoint. ^ Hence it was impossible to agree, even if the attempt had been made, as to the point of view in accordance with which the choice of New Testament books Clement and Barnabas among them ; while Tertullian very decidedly distinguishes the latter from the apostles. But these differences are not yet felt ; as yet there is no dispute on the subject; each one uses as apostolic what he knows, or thinks he knows to have proceeded from the apostles in his sense of the word, without reflecting that a different opinion prevails elsewhere. 2 It is incomprehensible how Ewald could still say that the only test- question on receiving a book into the New Testament was whether it contained the true word of Christ and the Spirit emanating from Him ; and the earlier the time the less were the feeling and judgment of the best Christians likely to go astray. For the word and spirit of Christ formed the very point on which the controversy with heresy turned, and it was only for the purpose of settling this definitely that reference had been made back to the primitive documents of apostolic time. Where such a principle would lead, is shown by the untenable opinion of Tertul- lian respecting the Shepherd of Hermas. Though Credner says that direct or indirect apostolic descent was accepted as the New Testament principle, usage being made the essential principle in each individual case, yet there was no usage where the writings regarded as apostolic were concerned ; and the notion of an indirect apostolic descent was simply an expedient for getting over the discrepancy of the use of the Gospels with the standpoint from which the New Testament started. It is Tertullian himself who in an incidental reflection on usage as applied to the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserts the principle of apostolicity as such, in opposition to it. NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SEQOND CENTURY. 101 should be made, since tliis diifered even witli respect to tliose portions of the New Testament which were universally ac- cepted. But there was no reason whatever to discuss the question, since the differences that had necessarily arisen within the range of the New Testament were not yet per- ceived and therefore formed no stumbling-block. The Church on her side required no collection of writings whence to extract what was pure doctrine, in which case it would have been necessary first of all to come to an agreement as to the sources of pure doctrine. She did not reject heretical compositions on account of their not belonging to such a collection, but because they were opposed to the apos- tolic doctrine that had been handed down, and which she now tried to set forth as divinely accredited only by her own sacred writings. Whatever from any standpoint could lay claim to belong to these, and answered such end, was welcome ; and the consciousness of the possession would not have been disturbed even if it had been known that the possession of others was less rich. Hence it was impossible to form a Canon, i.e. to come to a decision as to what writings should exclusively belong to the New Testament. And when the need of such a settlement did arise, the Church was already bound by her own past, and so hindered from forming a decision on any fixed principle. This very time, when the Canon was in process of formation, bequeathed to the time that followed, an inheritance that gave rise to constant doubts, and ultimately made a determination on any fixed principle impossible.^ 3 According to this, the view that the New Testament Canon originated simultaneously with the Catholic Church, which has recently become pre- valent (comp. e.;o-tat9 iren-Lcmv- fiivuL elvai OetaL (in Jolvti i. 4, comp. Cels. 3, 45, de Princ, although naturally there is here no question of a collection under the name 6 d-rrdcrToXos, otherwise the 0. T. writings would have to be termed 6 Trpo(prjT7)s to the exclusion of the vS/xos (comp. § 9, 1, note 3). '^ Hilgenfeld indeed still maintains that Origen already used the expression Kavwv and KavoviKci of the biblical books. But since they do not appear in his Greek works that have come down to us, and the use of them cannot be proved for quite a century later, not even in Eusebius, it remains more than probable that the translator first put the expres- sion Canon, Scriptune canonicce, libri canonizati into his works. It is remarkable indeed that the expression liber regularis also appears in Matth., Ser. 117 ; and it is not impossible that with him kuvwu already meant ecclesiastical tradition, so far as it was normative to determine what writings were sacred (comp. Horn, in Josh. ii. 1), and KavouiKci those books wliich were valid in the Church in accordance with this rule (comp. § 11, 5). In no case is it conceivable that the use of this expres- sion by him or any other points to a fixed normal number constituting the Kaivrj diadriK-q, as Mangold supposes. If we take into account all that can be proved respecting the position of Origen with regard to the New Testament, we cannot doubt that at his time there was not yet any question of such limitation, and for this very reason he cannot have used the term Kavdiv in the later sense, in which it denotes a concluded oollection. 112 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 4, 1), the 6/xo\oyovfji€va avavTLpprjTa. Hence arises the antithesis of the KOiva KOi SiSrjfxoa-LevjXGva jSL/BXia and the aTroKpycfta (in Matth., torn. 10, 18, comp. Ser. 46 in Matth. : " secreti3e et non vulgattB, in quibiis aut pauci sunt credentes aut nallus"). The latter term does not therefore necessarily imply some- thing to be rejected or that was heretical, but is only employed by way of antithesis to that official recognition of the collective Church which makes a writing universally known; whereas that which does not gain this recognition remains in a narrower circle and is therefore hidden.^ Origen expressly counsels the rejection of everything apocry- phal, on the basis of 1 Thess. v. 21 ; but for the sake of those who are not able to distinguish the true from the false, he goes on to say, " nemo uti debet ad confirmationem dogmatum libris, qui sunt extra canonistas scripturas (Ser. 28 in Matth.). It is therefore clear that Origen already 3 In Mark iv. 22 tlie dirSKpv^iov is already placed in antithesis to the eXOeip els (pavepov, which according to Matt, x. 26 f., takes place when that which is spoken in the narrowest circle is made pnblic. Already in Clem., Horn., 3, 38, we find an allusion to the irapa 'lovdalois drjfiua-iac ^i^XoL (comp. Valent. apud Clem., Strom. 6, 6). Clement of Alexandria uses the expression of a work of the heretics, from which they derive a dogma [Strom. 3, 4, eppur] avrois to doy/na ^k tIvos airoKpucpov), without necessarily implying anything more than that this work was neither known nor recognised in the Church. Even though Tertullian gets angry against the apocri/phus pastor moechorum {de Pudic, 20), yet chap. 10 [inter Apocrypha et falsa) shows that the term does not itself imply a judgment respecting the contents of the book, but only an antithesis to the receptum. The same thing holds good of the ttX^^os airoKpixpwv Kol voduiv ypa(pCou d ^wXaaav [soil. d. Hdretiker) in Iren. I. 20, 1. Where Origen is concerned, however, it must be specially borne in mind that to him the difference was of great importance for the Old Testament. He says in the prafat. in Cant., that certain writings have become dTr6Kpv(pa, owing to the fact that the Holy Spirit abstuUt them medio, because they contained something that transcended human power of comprehension. According to others there is " multa in eis corrupta et contra fidem veram." The apostles and evangelists were able to make use of them (comp. also in Matt., torn. 10, 18) because they knew by the Holy Ghost, what part of them to receive and what to reject ; but for us, who have not the same fulness of the Spirit, the rule holds good : " non transeundi sunt termini, quos statuerunt jDatres nostri." BEGINNINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 113 perceived that it was impossible to lay down a material principle for the determination of the normative Scrip- tures, and therefore adheres to the formal one of universal recognition. But even that required a double limitation. Much that could not come under this category was of great inherent value; and since its recognition could not be de- manded, one Avho was conscious of the power to discriminate between true and false, might use it himself as a means of confirming the truth, leaving the question of its recognition out of consideration. It is of more importance to note that whatever Origen regards as apostolic he employs ad confirmationem dogmatum, without any reserve, even where ecclesiastical tradition and universal recognition are by no means on his side. This points clearly to the fact that originally the apostolic as such was regarded as normative. But since in reality the principle of apostolicity could not be carried out where the Gospels and Acts were concerned, the principle of tradition alone was available for the forma- tion of a Canon, and this had to be broken through wherever the apostolic had gradually come into use at a later time. 6. Even in Origen's view, the four Gospels are, as a matter of course, /xova avavTLpprjTa iv rrj vtto tov ovpavbv iKKXtjcrca tov ^cou (ap. Easeb., H.E., 6, 25). " Quattuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, e quibus sub persona domini proferenda sunt dogmata," from which it appears that the words of the Lord were the true canonical element in the Gospels. " Nihil aliud probamus nisi quod ecclesia quattuor tantum evangelia recipienda" (Horn. 1 in Luke). The Gospel of the Hebrews was entirely outside this Canon of the Gospels ; but wherever Origen finds a word that suits him he does not hesitate to quote it with the necessary reservation (No. 5), in support of his principle. ^ Even from a book such as the iTnyeypafifxevov ^ Compare in Joh., torn. 2, 6: e'di' 6^ TpoaieTai rts; in Jerem., hora. 15, 4: ei' 5^ rts TrapaSe'xerai ; in Matt., torn. 15, 14: "si tamen placuit alicui suscipere illud non ad auctoritatem, sed ad manifestation em I 114 OEIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. Kara IIcTpov evayyiXtov or the ^t/JAos 'IaKoj/?ov (i.e. the apocry- phal Protevangel of James), he has adopted the idea that the so-called brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage (comp. on John ii. 12, Matth., torn. x. 17, and with it § 36, 3), without by so doing expressing an opinion on the value of these writings in other respects. With the Gospel of Luke he associated the Trpa^cis of the same author (ap. Euseb., H.E., 6, 25). On the other hand, speaking of the KTjpvyixa Uerpov which Clement likewise uses C§ 9, 3, note 2), he says that it is not retained inter libros ecclesiasticos ; and that it was written neither by Peter nor any other inspired man (de Princ, praef. 8).^ Origen has quoted all the thirteen propositae quffistionis," The saying of Christ quoted in de Or at. 14 from the treatise contr. Cels., 7, 44, can hardly be taken from the Gospel to the Hebrews, but is the traditional remodelling of Matt. vi. 33, with which he is familiar from Clem., Strom. 1, 24 (comp. § 7, 6, note 2) and the saying about the TpairefiTaL {in Joh., tom. 19, 2) he also gets from Clement {Strovi. 1, 28). That he made use of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, as Credner maintains, can by no means be proved, since in Horn. 1 on Luke he expressly names it among heretical works such as the Gospel juxta duodecim Apostolos, the Gospel of Basilides, and, though less decidedly, the Gospel according to Thomas and according to Matthew. When Sabellius used it (Epiph., Hcer., 62, 2), he belonged to those who did not know how to separate the true and the false in what was extra-canonical (No. 5). In tom. 20, 12, on John, he even ventures to adopt a saying of the Lord {irapadix^crdaL), from the Acta Pauli, just as a saying of Paul's there preserved, recte dictus videtur to him, de Princ, I. 2, 3, although he immediately contrasts with it a saying of John as excelsius et prceclariiis. 2 Although this writing is here in the translation called doctrina Petri, it is unquestionably the same of which he speaks in tom. 13, 17, on John, and of which he there expressly says that it still remains to be investigated whether it is yvrjaiov or v6dov or ixlktov. This of course cannot refer to genuineness in respect of origin, since he distinctly denies its apostolic descent, and since a /xiktSv would here be inconceivable, but only in respect of its contents, which, as was the case with so many apocryphal works (No. 5), were not to be rejected because they unwisely professed to be genuine apostolic doctrines (vodov). Hence it has been erroneously concluded (comp. L. Schulze and Holtzmaun) that Origen adopts three classes into which the writings that have come down to us are to be divided. Origen knows only two classes (No. 5), but is fully aware that the writings not received by the Church differ very much in value. BEGINNINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 115 Paulme epistles by name, although he never counts them up. The Epistle to the Hebrews was also handed down to him as Pauline by the ap\aioi avSpe<; (Pantaenus and Clement), nor were Churches wanting that used it as Pauline, though only in isolated cases. He himself regarded it as only indirectly Pauline, inasmuch as in it a pupil put the vorifxara rov aTToa-ToXov into words (ap. Euseb., H.E., 6, 25). But in this indirect sense it was still Pauline for him ; and hence he frequently cites it as Pauline without hesitation, although he undoubtedly knew that it was not received in all the Churches, and was therefore not SSrjfxoa-tevfiivov. But so far as it was held to be Pauline, this circumstance did not, ac- cording to his principle, interfere with its authoritative use (No. 5) ; when, however, the epistle was not accepted as Pauline, he was obliged to renounce its recognition.^ 7. Origen clearly carried out his principles with regard to the Epistles of Peter. Peter, he says, fxtav iirLa-ToXyjv ofioXoyovixivTfv KaraXiXoLTrev Ioto) St kol Seurcpa* a/jL(f3i^dXX€Tat yap (ap. Euseb., H. E., 6, 25). This doubt certainly does not apply to its genuineness in our sense of the word, but to its recognition as a Homologumenon, which might justly be disputed. In point of fact we have neither heard any- thing of this second epistle, nor found it anywhere cited. For the first time his contemporary Firmilian of Caesarea 3 Comp. Ser. 26 in Matt. : " pone aliquem abdicare epistolam ad Hebr. quasi non Pauli — tamen si quis suscipit ad Hebr. quasi ep. Pauli." It is quite an error to suppose, as Credner does, that Origen, where the Epistle to the Hebrews was concerned, laid down the completely sub- jective principle that the test by which to determine what belonged to the New Testament was its worthiness of an apostle in contents and thoughts. By accepting an indirect Pauline origin he only wisbed to reconcile the verdict of his teachers and his own high opinion of the epistle on the one hand, with his critical conclusion that it could not have been written by Paul on the other hand. But in making this indirect apostolic origin suffice to establish its authority, he only did what the Church had done long before where the writings of Mark and Luke were concerned, which had also been written by apostolic disciplaB, tbeir contents having emanated from the apostles. 116 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. says in his Epist. ad Cyprian, that Peter and Paul "in epistolis suis haereticos execrati sunt et ut eos evitemus monuerunt " (Epp. Cypr., 75), "which can only apply to our second epistle. But Origen had no doubt as to its Petrine origin, and therefore unreservedly classed it as scriptura {in Num., horn. 13, 8; in Exod., horn. 12, 4).^ Of Jolin he says : KaraXi\onr€ kol iTTKTToXrjv irdw oXiyiov crTi)(iJiv, corw Se KoX SiVTepav Koi rptTyjv iTrel ov 7rdvT€<5 (j>a(rlv yvi](TLOV<; €tvat ravTas (ap. Euseb., H. E., 6, 25). It is strange that he places the second and third so completely on a par, although in respect of ecclesiastical usage they are so distinct ; and to me the ov Trdvre? seems to contain a tacit admission that he himself does not regard them as apostolic. He has made no use of them, while he repeatedly cites the first. Where Origen speaks of the Lord's brethren, he says : 'lovSas eypa- {f/€V eTTLCTToXrjv o A ty dor t;)(ov fxkv, TreTrXrjpwfjLivrjv 8e twv ttJs ovpavtov xdipiTos eppo)fxivo}v Xoywv (in Matt., tom. 10, 17) ; but, although he often cites the epistle (comp. tom. 13, 27) also as scriptura divina {Comm. in Ep. ad Bom., 3, 6), yet occasion- ally he withdraws his recognition (in Matt., tom. 17, 30) : €t §€ Koi TTjv 'louSa TTpo'cTotTo Tis eTrio-ToXT^v) , aud thcrcfore certainly does not regard it as apostolic in a strict sense. Although it is striking that in the passage respecting the brothers of the Lord, where he speaks of James at con- siderable length, he makes no mention of his epistle, which we found in the Syrian Church-bible, yet he has frequently cited it (in Joh., torn. 19, 6 : ws iv rfj (jiepofiivrj tov 'la/cw/Jou i-mcrToXrj di/eyvw/xev) . But neither does he regard this epistle as apostolic in a strict sense, since he attributes its author- ^ In his view it was a Homologumenon (No. 5) because an apostolic writing, and even though not yet universally known, had undoubtedly a claim as such to belong to the New Testament. Hence he constantly used it without reservation {in Ep. ad Bom., 8, 4 ; in Levi., hom. 4), since the suspicion that all his citations of it were first introduced by Eufinus, is quite baseless, and on account of their frequent interweaving with others, utterly untenable. BEGINNINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMElNT CANON. 117 ship to the brother of the Lord (Gomm. in Ep. ad Bom., 4, 8) ; for which reason he sometimes abandons the use of it also, and refers to those who TrapaSex^vrat Jas. ii. 20 (in John, 20, 10).- On the other hand he certainly speaks no longer of the Roman Clement as an apostle, even in the wider sense ; he calls him a disciple of the apostles (de Friiic, II. 3, 6), identifies him with the Clement of Phil. iv. 3 {in Joh. torn. 6, 36), and regards him as the author of the TrepioSot (in Gen. ii. 14). What he quotes from him (comp. ibid, on Ezekiel viii. 3) has to do partly with matters of fact alone, partly with a philosophical view that has no connection with matters of doctrine. The Epistle of Barnabas he mentions only as a source employed by Celsus (Gontr. Gels., 1, 63), and with the formula : " eadem prope Barnabas in epistola sua docet" (de Princ, III. 2, 4), which does not put it on a level with the inspired Scriptures. The Apocalypse is in Origen's view naturally a work of the apostle John (in Joh., torn. 1, 14) ; of Peter's Apocalypse we hear no more. On the other hand he looked upon the Shepherd of Hermas not only as a very useful work, but also " ut puto divinitus 2 The (pepoixhr] {in Joh., torn. 19, 6) expresses no doubt as to genuine- ness, but would certainly not have been used if the epistle had belonged to the Homologumena, since it only designates it as one of those found in circulation. In the Latin portion of his works that have been handed down, James and Jude are often enough termed apostoU, but this is not confirmed by any passage in the Greek ; and though Origen himself makes use of the expression, it is without doubt only in the wider sense of his teacher Clement (§ 9, 5). It is quite an error to suppose that he mistakenly puts the brothers of the Lord among the twelve apostles. Hence even the passage where both are reckoned among the apostles who with their trumpets overthrew all the bulwarks of philosophy {in libr. Jo^., hom. 7, 1), may be original; and when in a flight of rhetoric he counts James and John with those who have digged the piiteos Novi Testamenti {in Gen., hom. 13, 4), this is certainly incorrect speaking if we take his principles (No. 5) into account, but not on the whole inconceivable owing to his frequent use of the epistles of both, especially if the suspicion that Rufinus altered both passages, which has frequently been expressed, be not excluded, since the divina ap. Apost. Jas. Epiit. (hom. 13 in rsahn xxxvi.) probably proceeds from him. 118 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. inspii'ata" (Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. y 10, 31), for which reason he often cites it as ypaT^ (Philoc, 8). But in Matt. torn. 14, 21, he admits that although certainly handed down in the Church, it is ov Trapa iraa-iv bfioXoyovfiivi] cti^ai deta, and on one occasion even speaks of it as vtto tlvihv KUTacfipovovfxevov (de Pri7ic., 4, 11), Hence he frequently quotes it with the familiar clause : " si cui tamen scriptura ilia recipienda videtur (in Num., hom. 8), si cui placet etiam illam legere " (ear. 53 in Matt.). Whenever we attempt to carry out the principles (No. 5) laid down by Origen, we are led to the conclusion that his standpoint is essentially based on an illusion. Because a material principle can no longer be applied to the determination of the writings belonging to the New Testament, he adheres to usage alone, and makes this, as the unanimous tradition of the Church, the regulating principle. But there was no unanimous usage of the Church, nor could there be such, for the same reason which led him to give up the idea of the establishment of a Canon on a fixed principle. The double limitation with which he carried out the principle of tradition, was in truth an admission that it was impossible to carry it out. Nevertheless owing to the powerful influence which he exercised as a Church teacher, he, more than any other, contributed to the actual formation of a usage more or less fixed, his presumption of such usage being more and more generally adopted. This was due in great measure to the way in which he considered him- self entitled to accept that which was apostolic even where he was not supported by unanimity of usage. Where he hesitated to accept, as in the case of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or of the Apocalypse of Hermas, it was taken as a sign that these writings had not usage on their side ; where, as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, his non- acceptance was due to the fact that all did not regard it as apostolic, his authority sufficed to establish its reputation as Pauline. So too his authority covered 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, while it became customary to put even the Epistles of Jude and James in the New Testament, because he manifestly did so, although in their case he now and then accommodated himself to his principle. But so far as his authority reached, the Krjpvy/xa Uerpov and the Acta Pauli, the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter forfeited their claim to belong to the New Testament for ever, by the position which he took np with regard to them. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 119 § 11. The Close of the Canon in the East. 1. The influence of Origen is nowhere more powerfully shown than in the fact that it must have become usual soon after his time not only to receive the Epistles of Peter and John, Jude and James in their entirety, but also to regard them as a closed collection as contrasted with that of the Pauline epistles. This is proved beyond a doubt from the way in which Eusebius already speaks of i-n-Ta Acyo'/xcvat KadoXiKoi (iincrToXaL), and calls the Epistle of James 17 -n-pcorr] Toij/ ovofia^oixevoiv KaOoXtKiov iirta-ToXcov (JS. JS., 2, 23, comp. 6, 14). In his day, therefore, the number, name, and even the order of these seven epistles had already become fixed ; the Epistle of James, which had first been introduced to wider circles by Origen, being put first, from which it follows that its authorship was at that time ascribed to the brother of the Lord who stood at the head of the Church in Jerusalem, and had in this way acquired a sort of primacy over the apostles themselves. Whether he and Jude were already identified as belonging to the Twelve, or only counted apostles in the wider sense, we do not know. But the designation of these epistles as .Catholic can mean nothing less than that they were from the beginning addressed more or less to the whole Church, in contrast with the Pauline epistles, which were intended for separate Churches. It is evident that the addresses of James, Jude, 1 John and Pitor may be taken in this sense ; but that of 1 Peter too was of so com- prehensive a character that it contrasted similarly with Paul's epistles addressed to individual Churches. The e/cXc/cTT? Kvpia of 2 John 1 was doubtless formerly interpreted of the Church, and the sole exception of 3 John was of no account, after it had once become customary to put together the non-Pauline epistles as such. It is easy to understand why they were classed together under this distinctive appellation, if we remember how a special authorization was required in order to give the Pauline epistles a meaning for the whole Church (§ 10, 2), such as these ^ 120 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. epistles already possessed by virtue (at least apparently) of tlieir address. ^ That the expression KadoKiKos does indicate this more comprehensive design of the epistles appears from Clement, who characterizes the letter of Acts XV. 23 as eTriaToXrj KaOoXLKT] tCou airoaTbXiau airavTwv {Strom. 4, 15) ; from Origen, who repeatedly refers to 1 Peter and 1 John, and even to the Epistle of Jude {Comm. in Ep. ad Rom., 5, 1) and Barnabas {Contr. Gels., 1, 63) as iina-T. Kado\iK-n; as also from Dionysius of Alex- andria, who frequently applies this term to 1 John (ap. Euseb,, 7, 25). ^ The Greek Church, moreover, still adheres to this meaning of the expression, for CEcumenius of Tricca explains it by ijKdKXioi ; only in the West has the original meaning been lost, and the term been made to apply to what is valid in the Catholic Church, so that Cassio- dorus unhesitatingly substitutes the expression Epistole Canonicce. That later Introductions still contend whether it denotes canonical validity, assured apostolic origin, emanation from various authors (ai XoLxal KadoXov besides the Pauline), or point to the fact that it was designed for Jews and Gentile Christians or for the promotion of orthodox doctrine, is a manifest error. Comp. Liicke, Stud. u. Krit., 1836, 3. This growing usage seems to have speedily passed over even to the West, at least the Latin Stichometrie, which is ^ It is mere prejudice that has led de Wette, Reuss and others to ascribe to them a certain similarity in a theological, literary, and historical aspect, since in all these respects they present as much variety as is conceivable, taking into account their common descent from the primi- tive apostolic circle. Such a view has only resulted in the unreason- able mistrust with which they are regarded in modern criticism (comp. Holtzmann, Harnack, etc.). 2 When Apollonius (Eus., 5, 18) says that the Montanist Themison wrote an eincT. KaOoXiKri, the expression can hardly be explained in any other way. But the language of Eusebius himself would prove nothing since he did not invent the term but found it ready to his hand ; he too seems to apply the expression iincrroXal KaOoXiKai to the seven Church- letters of Dionysius of Corinth, several of which were indeed addressed to whole circles of Churches, because they belong to the entire sphere of his ecclesiastical activity, in distinction from the last-named private letter to the Chrysophora {H. E., 4, 23) ; and the passage 3, 3, where, speaking of the pseudonymous writings of Peter (the Acta, the Gospel, the KTjpvyfxa and the airoKaXvxpLs lierpov) he says they are ov5' 3Xcos iv KadoXLKols wapadedofxha, is certainly no rule for the designation of the Catholic epistles, whether we understand the expression as referring to those writings received by the Church (comp. the KddoXiKat Tpd^eis in Chrys., hom. 10 in 2 Tim.), or, as is more probable from the derivation, as referring t o the men belonging to it. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN, THE EAST. 121 found at the end of the Codex Claromontanus of Paul's epistles, and is supposed to belong to the third century, already contains all the seven epistles in question after the Gospels and Pauline epistles ; the Petrine epistles moreover being placed before that of James, while only 1 Peter and 1 John are to be found in it until after the middle of the century. The Epistola Barnaboe, placed between them and the Apocalypse of John, is unquestionably the Epistle to the Hebrews, which here, as in Tertullian, is only known as the Epistle of Barnabas, but was nevertheless received into the Scriptures, contrary to the former usage of the West. The author of the list is indeed still more liberal, since the Acta Apostolorum, which come after the Apocalypse, are again followed by the Pastor, the Acta Pauli and the Revelatio Petri. In the East the authority of Origen was manifestly decisive for the reception of the Epistle to the Hebrews among those of Paul, since from his time onwards it was used as Pauline without any reservation (comp. Bleek, de7' Brief an die Hehrder, Berlin, 1828 ; 1, § 32 fp.). While the way was thus paved for uniformity of ecclesiastical usage in all other respects, an unexpected difficulty arose. The Apocalypse of John was from the beginning an undoubted part of the New Testament; and that its omission from the Syrian Church-bible (§ 10, 1) proves nothing to the contrary, is seen from the fact of its recognition by the Syrian bishop Theophilus (§ 9, 6). But the Church had gradually lost the power to understand its meaning; moreover in combating a grossly material inter- pretation, she inevitably became more and more out of sympathy with the Alexandrians. Hence Dionysius of Alexandria now came forward with a criticism, which by a comparison of it with the Gospel and the Epistle, in the course of which he incidentally speaks of the two smaller ones as ascribed to the Apostle, attempted to prove by in- ternal evidence that it could not proceed from him, although 122 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. its author, probably the other John who was buried in Ephesus, was nevertheless ayios ns koL deoTrvevcrTos who had seen these visions (ap. Euseb., H. E., 7, 25). But Origen had asserted the same thing of Hermas, and yet his Apoca- lypse was already given up. Therefore whoever assented to the criticism of Dionysius, which men like Methodius of Tyre and Pamphilus of Caesarea were certainly not yet prepared to do, must proceed to exclude it also from the New Testament. 2. If we were to take Origen's principle in earnest, it would be necessary to inquire accurately into the usage of the different Churches, in order to find out what writings were employed in them (what was iv rats eKKXryo-tat? SeSrjfxo- a-tev/xevov) , and then to examine the old Church -historians as to what was their usage, and what they may have said with respect to the origin and recognition of such writings. This is what Eusebius, according to 3, 3, has done in his Church- history (about 324), in order to make the iKKXrjcnacrTiKrj TrapdBo(rL€povTaL, but in the fact that they ouSa/xoj? cv (rvyypdiJLfJLaTL tCjv Kara ra^ StaSo^as iKKX-qcnacfTLKoiv rt? dv-r)p €is fxv^fxyjv dyayuv rj^Loio-ev (3, 25, 31). It is only by way of example that Eusebius thus characterizes Gospels like those of Peter, Thomas and Matthias, as also the Acta of Andrew, John and other apostles. 3. In the passage where Eusebius promises to give a resume of his researches into the New Testament writings (3, 25) he enumerates as Homologumena Tr}v dylav tu)v cvayycXtojv T€TpaKTvv, ots CTrerat rj tcuv Trpd^ewv tojv diroaToXiDV ypa(f>T], TOLS IlavAov eTrtcTToAa?, ah e^9 rrjv cfjepo/xivrjv 'loidvvov ^ Up to the present time we have no certainty in this matter ; and yet it is beyond doubt that Eusebius (3, 3) only distinguishes between the dvavTLppTjTa /cat to. fir] irapa iraxriv 6p.o\oyovp.€va deta ypdfi/j.aTa (comp. 3, 25 : rds re Kara ttju €KK\T](naaTiKT]v Trapadoatu dXrjdels Kal dirXda-Tovs Kal dvojfioXoyrjixiwas ypacpds /cat rds aXXwy Trapa ratJTas, ovk ivSiad'qKovs fxh, dXXd Kal dvTiXeyofxivas, ofxios de irapd wXeiaTois tCov eKKkr^cnacrTLKdv ycvuxTKo- fJL^yas and 3, 31 : lepQu ypap.fxdTCjv Kal tCjv dvTLXeyo/uLivuv /xev, o/jhos 5^ ev TrXeiVrats eKKX-qalais irapd ttoXXoU 8€5rjp.o(nevfjLiuo)u), over against which he puts the third class. After having enumerated the ofxaXoyov/Jieua, he calls some avTiXeyofMCPa, yvupi/xa 5' oliv 6ixo)% tois ttoXXo'is, and then con- tinues : iu TOLs podois KaTaTerdxdo} Kai, in order to close the discussion of this subject with the words : ravra 5^ irdvTa tQv avriXeyofxivcov dv ettj. By this means all doubts as to the identity of dvTiXeyo/xeva and v66a is excluded, a fact which will prove of great value in our discussion of the separate books. Although the ofxoXoyovfxeyij {dvup-oXoy-qixhri) 3, 16 might appear to refer to the recognised authorship of the first Epistle of Clement by an apostolic disciple (but comp. No. 4), yet on the contrary in 3, 38, it is said of the second : ov /xtjv ed' 6/xoius rrj irporipq. /cat TavT'i)v yvujpifiov iirKXTdfJieda on fi-qSe tovs dpxaiovs avrrj KexpT)IJ-^vovs lafieu. But when of the Shepherd, who in 3, 25 is named among the vodots, we read in 3, 3 that it dPTiXiXcKTai, and can therefore not be counted with the Homologumena, there can be no question as to his doubting its origin from Hermas. Comp. Liicke, der NTliche Kanon des Eusebius von Casarea, Berlin, 181G. 124 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. Trporipav koX bp.OLoi'; rrjv Jl€Tpov Kvpoixiov iTnaToXriv . It is manifestly for the purpose of avoiding the disputed question of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that he here omits to give the number of the Pauline epistles. ^ Still more remarkable is his mode of treating the Apocalypse, when in this passage, after counting up the Antilegomena, he says, IttI tovtol's TaKriov, ctyc c^avet'i;, t^v aTroKaXvi/^tv tov 'Iwavvov, and again in enumerating the voda (dvTiXcyo/xei/a) : ert re, u)S ecfyrjv^ rj luidvvov d7roKd\vij/LaveLr}), but simply a qucestio fadi, which after all that has been said, he was obliged to answer in the affirmative. From his own words we know that doubts of the apostolicity of the Apocalypse, and there- fore of its claim to belong to the New Testament, were first raised by Dionysius of Alexandria, since he is unable to bring forward earlier evidence against it. These doubts had not yet by any means become prevalent (3, 24 : rrjq 8e d7roKa\v\l/€iD)VTai ffvyy pd/jLp.aai, ttjv 5k (pepoixevriv deuripav ovk ivdiad-qKOV p.kv etvat wapeiXri- (pa/xev 6p.(t}s 8k woXXots XP'^^'-I^^^ (pavelaa jxerd tCov dXXuv iairov8d€poix€VY} BapvdfSa iina-ToXi^) , which in 6, 14 is classed with the Antilegomena, along with the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and therefore certainly does not belong to another class (comp. also 6, 13). Finally, as the fifth book he names twv aTroa-ToXwv ai Xeyo/xei/at 8tSa;(at, to which we have found no reference as yet, while he makes no mention whatever in this connection of the KT^pvyfia XIcVpov, in spite of its use by Clement and Origen, manifestly because he puts it in the category of heretical pseudonymous writings (3, 3). But he seems to have passed over the Epistle of Clement with design, for though in 6, 13 he puts it in the list of Antilegomena between Barnabas and Jude, in 3, 38 he expressly characterises it as dvoifJioXoyrjfxivy] wapa iraa-Lv, and in 3, 16 as b/xoXoyovfjievr] (comp. No. 2, note 1), adding ravTTjv Se koI iv TrXetcTTais €KKA>;crtats ctti tov kolvov SeBrjfio- (TUVfxivrjv TraXat T€ kol KaO' rjixas aurovs eyvwfxcv. We have seen how he was led to this conclusion (4, 23) by a misunderstood passage of Dionysius of Corinth (§ 7, 7) ; but having so decided, he could only reckon the epistle among the Homo- logumena, although as a matter of fact it had already disap- irapeCKricpaixev, thus numbering them with the Antilegomena, while on the other hand, of the Shepherd of Herman, he says : lareov, wj Kal tovto wpos fJiev TiuQv dpTiXfXeKTai, 5i' ovs ovk hv iv d/jLo\oyoviJ.evoci Tedeir), vLl3a\X6fJLeva TttAatTrcopets jxdTrjv ; but Athanasius expressly makes a distinction between the airoKpvcfia and the cVcpa ^ifiXia ov Kavovilo/juva /xev, rervTrw/xeVa Sk irapa Taiv Trarepayv dvayLvu}crK6/j.€va. Here we still see indeed the influence of the Eusebian classification, hut all understanding of its meaning, as well as that of the writings treated of in the last two classes, has disappeared. The list in Junilius on the contrary, instead of adopting the Eusebian terminology, calls the three classes perfectce, mcduc, and imUius auctori- tatis, but puts the Apocalypse, " de qua apud orientales admodum dubitatur," and the five Catholic epistles from the Eusebian Antilego- mena, into the second. 136 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. tiiry, speaks of " hoeretici qui evangelium secundum Jolian- nem et apocalypsin ijDsius non accipiunt" (de Ilcer., 60), it is plain that he refers to the Alogi of Epiphanius ; he evi- dently has no knowledge of the existence, even in ecclesi- astical circles, of such as do not recognise the Apocalypse. Hence the five epistles which in the second half of the third century were ranked with 1 Peter and 1 John, made their way over to the West with greater ease, as we have al- ready seen from the Stichometry of the Cod. Clarom. (§11, 1) ; no Church could fail to be pleased by an addition to the costly treasure of apostolic writings. ^ We now find the col- lection of the septem alice epistolce, besides those of Paul, current in the Church. The Epistle to the Hebrews was not so readily admitted into the Pauline series, since the West preserved the fixed tradition that it was not Pauline, until after the third century ; and in accordance with its stricter usage, excluded it from the New Testament. But in the fourth century, owing to the study of Origen and fre- quent contact with the Eastern Church, it was gradually adopted even by the West. Hilarius of Pictavium, Victorin, Lucifer of Calaris, and Ambrosius of Milan, use it as Pauline. But Philastrius nevertheless shows that " alii quoque sunt, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebrseos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi, alii autem Lucae evangelistae " (chap. 89). The Hypotheses of the Alexandrians stand there beside the old African tradition (§ 9, 4) without in any way disturbing him in his faith in the Epistola Pauli.- The West had no- ^ When Philastrius says that these " septem Actibus apostolorum con- junctae sunt " (chap. 88), he obviously kuows that although he only puts them after the Pauline epistles, yet they are in general joined directly with the Acts, or else these are on their account put after the Pauline epistles (§ 11, 6). Moreover, it is plain that with him the Epistles of Peter come first on account of the cathedra Petri, as already in the above-named Stichometry, and the Epistle of James at the end. 2 It has been erroneously supposed that Philastrius himself was still THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 137 thing to give np in order to make its Canon accord with tliat of the East, since it had never had any desire to go beyond the number of the apostolic writings. As a matter of fact, therefore, the Canon of Athanasius here prevailed, and with it the idea that the statutum of the apostles and their successors had already decided that only these Scripturce canonicce should be read in the Church. Contrasted with these, we have in chap. 88 the Scripturce ahsconditce, i.e. Apocrypha, a term which here implies no condemnation of them, but only points out that tliey were excluded from the Canon ; for it is expressly said of them : " etsi legi debent morum causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi debent." 2. The reconciliation of the West with the East, the way to which was hitherto being prepared of itself, was designedly completed at the end of the fourth century by Rufinus and Jerome, scholars who were equally at home in both sections of the Church. The West appropriated the works of Origen through the translations of the former, and the learned com- pilations of Eusebius through the diligent labours of the latter. Only what was favourable to a firmer form of ecclesiastical usage, was taken from them. Rufinus, in his Expositio Symh. Apost., repeatedly gives expression to the opinion that it is the part of the traditio majortcm, raised ex patrum monumentis, to determine the extent of the inspired Scriptures. He has no longer a doubt that the patres con- cluserunt a definite number of these i7ifra canonem, ex quibus fidei nostrcB assertiones consfare voluerunt. The term Canon in doubt respecting it, or that its ecclesiastical recognition was still a matter of dispute, whereas be expressly adduces {ibid.) as the reason why it is not in " ecclesia legitur populo," or only at intervals, " quia addiderunt in ea quoedam non bene sentientes." For the same reason, in chap. 88 also, where those books which alone may be read in the Church are enumerated, only tredecim epistolce Paiili are named. The reason that the Apocalypse is wanting here too, must simply be that this book was not regarded as adapted for ecclesiastical reading, as was the case in the Syrian Church. But it unquestionably belongs to the Scripturce canonicce. 138 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. evidently seems here to be applied without hesitation to the whole body of normative Scriptures (§ 11, 5), the number of these having previously been closed. Jerome expressly states that in the determination of the Canon he follows" nequa- quam hujus temporis consuetudinem sed veterum scriptorum auctoritatem." From this standpoint he could neither take it amiss that the Greek Church of his time in many cases did not accept the Apocalypse, nor that the consuetiido Latinoruvi non recipit the Epistle to the Hebrews inter Scrip- turas canonicas} though he himself accepted both. Thus Rufinus and Jerome are led to adopt the twenty-seven New y^ Testament books of Athanasius, which are so arranged by ' the latter that the Actus A post, form the transition from the Pauline Epistles to the Septem Epistolce, first among which stands James, after the Grecian manner {Ep. 103 ad Paul.). Both likewise follow Athanasius in adopting besides the libri canoyiici, a second class of writings, " quge legi qui- dem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctori- tatem ex his fidei confirmandam " (Ruf., Expos., 38), "ad oedificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem dogmatum confir- mandam " (Hieron., prcef. ad Salom.), only that they are termed " ecclesiastici libri a majoribus appellati" by the ' He has frequently given expression to this [Comm. in Jes., cap. vi. 8) ; and he expressly states, that the same " usque hotlie apud Romanos quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur " {lU Vir. III., 59), that omnes Grccci recipiunt it, but nonnulli Latinorum {Ep. 125 ad Evagr.), while mulii Latlnoruin de ea duhitant {In Matt., cap. xxvi.). He himself quotes it pretty often without scruple as Pauline, and again with the words, si quis vnlt recipere eain epistolam {Comm. in Tit. i., in Ezech. xxviii., in Kphes. a.), or with qui ad Hebrceos scripsit epistolam {Comm. in Amos viii., in Jes. Ivii.), sive Paulas sive quis alius {in Jer. xxxi., in Tit. ii). Again, he specifies the seven Churches to which Paul wrote, after the manner of the Latins, and sums up the different views respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews {de Vir. III., 5), of which he says : " octava enim ad Hebr. a plerisque extra numerum ponitur " {Ep. 103 ad Paul.). Finally, in the chief passage quoted in the text it is said : " nihil interest, cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit et quotidie ecclesiarum lectioue celebretur " {Ep. 12d nd Dardanum). THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 139 former, and " apocryphi " by the latter, who here only goes back, however, to the oldest phraseology, while Rufinns and Philastrins regard Apocryphal as the absolute antithesis to Canonical. The only other work regarded by both as belong- ing to the New Testament is the Shepherd of Herraas. The scholarly reminiscences of former doabts respecting indi- vidual New Testament writings, brought forward by Jerome, particularly from Eusebius, were neither regarded by himself as important, nor had they any influence on the Church. ^ 3. Final sanction was first given to the views of these two scholars by the all-predominating ecclesiastical authority of Augustine. He looks on the " canonica auctoritas veteris et novi testamenti apostolorum " as "per successiones episco- porum et propagationes ecclesiarum constitua et custodita " (Contr. Faust. 11, 5 ; 33, 6). In his work de Boctrina Chris- tiana (2, 8) he develops a detailed theory as to how, in de- termining the script urcB canonicce, the "auctoritas ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium " must be followed, "inter quas illse sint, quae apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt." He makes a distinction between such as are accepted by all, and such as " plures gravioresque accipiunt" or "pauciores minorisque auctoritatis eccJesiee." He even mentions the improbable case where one class might have the plures, the other the graviores, in its favour, and thus both be equal in authority. But this is simply an academical discussion respecting the various degrees of canonicity, by 2 Thus in the Prcef. in Ep. ad Philem. he also speaks of those who refuse to accept this epistle on account of its private character (comp. § 11, 6), and mentions that the " secuncTa Petri a plerisque ejus negatur propter stiH dissonantiam " {de Vir. III., 1), that the Epistle of James " ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem " (ibid., cap. ii.), that the Epistle of Jude a plerisque rejicitur on account of the citation from Enoch {ibid., 4). that 2ad and 3rd John J ohannifi pres^bytcri asseruntur {ibid., 9, comp. 18 ; n plerii^que). The exaggerated way in which he retails these doubts con- trasts strangely enough indeed with the utter insignificance they have in influencing his ecclesiastical recognition of the writings. 140 ORICilN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. which he accommodates himself to the sometimes wavering judgment of the past and even of the present, but which he does not carry to any practical issue. For he concludes : " Totus autem canon scriptuarum, in quo istam considera- tionem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur," and then proceeds to enumerate our twenty-seven N. Test, books, the four Gospels, fourteen Pauline epistles, those of Peter first among the rest, and the Acts and Apocalypse at the end. Only with respect to the Epistle to the Hebrews could a question actually arise in his mind, and of it he simply says : " quamquam nonnullis incerta sit . . . magisque me movet auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, quce hanc quoque in canonicis habent" {de Pecc. Merit, et Bern., 1, 27).^ Under Augustine's influence the Council of Carthage (397) re- newed the decrees of that of Hippo (393), in whose 36th Canon it is ordained, as thirty years before in Laodicea : " Ut praeter scripturas canonicas nihil legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum," only that the reading of the Pas- siones Martyrum is reserved for their festivals, and the twenty-seven N. T. writings then enumerated. But that the reception of the Epistle to the Hebrews still gave rise to some disputes is shown by the way in which it is ranked with the Fauli apostoli epistolce tredecim as ejusdem ad He- brcvos una. It was first by a later council at Carthage (419) that these decrees were repeated, under his influence also, only that the Pauline epistles are now simply counted as fourteen. In enumerating these, merely to class it with the Church- epistles, as was mostly done by the Greeks, did not become ^ This is the more significant, since he, for his part, cites it as Pauline or apostolic much less frequently than Jerome, but, on the contrary, in general as " Epistola ad Hebrseos or qu£e scribitur ad Hebra3os." He also expressly says that indeed " plures earn apostoli Pauli esse dicunt, quidam vero negant" {de Civit. Dei, 6, 22), or that " nonnulli earn in canonem scripturarum recipere timuerunt" {Inch. Expos. Ep. ad Rom., 11). But this does not prevent his counting fourteen Pauline epistles in his canon, though he puts the Epistle to the Hebrews at the end. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 141 usual ill the Wegt, since the only passage in Jerome where this happens is conditioned by the enumeration of the seven Churches. The position of the seven other epistles, no- where else termed catholic, after those of Paul, was likewise adhered to ; but in their order the Epistles of Peter come first, while sometimes John, sometimes James and Jude, come last; except with Jerome, who follows the Greek method. The Acts sometimes retain their old place after the Gospels, sometimes they form the transition to the Catholic epistles as in Jerome, while occasionally they are even put after these, as in Augustine. The Apocalypse in- variably forms the conclusion. 4. A decision respecting the Canon of binding efficacy for the whole Church, was not arrived at, even in the West. The Carthaginian Synods applied in vain to the Romish chair for confirmation of their decrees ; we have no know- ledge of its having been granted. Pelagius and the later Pelagians, in their confessions of faith, repeatedly declared : " Novum et vetus testamentum recipimus in eo librornm numero, quem ecclesiaB catholicae tradit auctoritas." But the Church did not speak. Only on behalf of the Church of Spain, in which, notwithstanding the prohibition of the Council of Toledo (400), a number of apocryphal writings were constantly circulated, did Innocent I., at the urgent entreaty of the Archbishop Exsuperius of Tolosa, address a letter to him in which he condemned the heretical works, and laid down a list of the books qui recipiuntur in canone (405). This list entirely corresponds to the Canon of Au- gustine, except that among the Catholic epistles those of John stand first. Leo the Great, in consequence of the complaints of Turribius, Bishop of Asturia, with regard to the spread of heretical works, was also obliged to take stringent re- pressive measures (447). Hence it was mainly the authority of Jerome and Augustine which determined the ecclesiastical usage of the West. To this, Cassiodorus, in whom we find 142 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. the seven epistles under the name of the Epistolae Canonicso (§ 11, 1), appeals in his histitutiones (§ 1, 2), about the middle of the sixth century ; he evidently knows nothing of a decision on the part of the Romish chair. ^ When the Avian Goths of the West, who had neither the Epistle to the Hebrews in their Canon, nor probably the Apocalypse, went over to Catholicism (589), the question regarding the latter writing at least was stirred up afresh, and the fourth Council of Toledo (632) found it necessary to threaten with excommunication those who rejected it. Archbishop Isidore of Seville, who was present at this council, has in his works repeatedly enumerated the N. Test, books, and following the example of Jerome, has imparted various information regarding the older doubts with respect to some of them. We have also lists from his friends and pupils, the Bishops Eugenius and Ildefons of Toledo (f 667), who attached themselves mainly to Augustine, a sign showing how necessary in Spain it still was to strengthen the religious consciousness as to what writings belonged to the New Testament. ^ For this very reason the decretum Gelasii de libris recipiendis et non recipieiidis, said to have been composed in 494 at a synod in Rome, and which Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann trace back even in its basis to Dama- sus (366-84), can hardly be genuine. It exists in various forms, which are traced back partly to Damasus, partly to Gelasius, partly to Hor- misdas. The various recensions differ very much in their order; in that which is traced back to Gelasius himself, only thirteen Epist. Pauli are adduced, the Epistle to the Hebrews is entirely wanting, and the seven follow under the name of apostolical ; in the Damasus-recension of the Epistolas Canonica3, 2ud and 3rd John are attributed to the Presbyter, the Epistle of Jude to Judas Zelotes. Among the books expressly pro- hibited we find along with others the Shepherd and the Acta Pauli et Theclae. But it must be clear that the Epistle to the Hebrews could not have been excluded by the Roman bishop at the end of the fifth century, when his predecessors Damasus and Innocent I. had counted it directly among the Pauline epistles. In any case, a Canon like that of Gelasius must be much older, and might rather be assigned to the middle of the fourth century, at which time it is conceivable that the smaller Johannine epistles might be traced back to the Presbyter, as in the Damasus-recension. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 143 5. The middle ages had neither the power to take up an independent position as opposed to tradition, nor yet the means of testing it.^ They did not even prove themselves strong enough to preserve in purity what had been handed down.2 In consequence of the Council of Florence, Eugenius IV., in his bull of 1441, once more repeated the Canon of Augustine, and this was the first time that the Romish chair ventured to give a decision of universal validity in the matter of the Canon. But after the middle of the fifteenth century, the newly-awakened stady of antiquity brought up again the old scruples with regard to individual N. T. writings. What the Cardinal Thomas de Vio (Cajetan) incidentally asserts respecting the Epistle of James is, it is true, only a reminiscence of Jerome's ; but with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, he went so far as to main- tain that if, according to Jerome, its author was doubtful, ^ Reminiscences of Jerome's communications respecting the older views and doubts with regard to individual canonical books, become more and more rare, as in Honorius of Autun and John of Salisbury in the twelfth century. Thomas Aquinas has the idea that these only existed until the Nicene Council ; and Nicolaus of Lyra, who discusses the ques- tion of the Epistle to the Hebrews at greater length, is content to believe that the Church at Nicaea accepted it as apostolic. Where, as in Hugo .a S. Victore, a threefold division of the writings handed down again crops up, all apprehension of the original meaning of such a division is wanting, since the Gospels alone are referred to the first ordo, and the Decretals and the Scripta Sanctorum Patrum to the third. 2 Philastrius perhaps mentions (comp. § 31, 4) an Epistola Pauli ad Laodicenses (de Hcer., 89), of which also Jerome says : " Ab omnibus exploditur " {de Vir. III., 5). Gregory I., however, is persuaded that Paul wrote fifteen epistles, though the Church non amplms qiiaia XIV. tenet (Moralium Lihr., 35, 25). But the Laodicean Epistle is afterwards in many cases received among the Pauline Epistles, so that the second Nicene Council (787) found it necessary to prohibit it, notwithstanding which in the English Church of the ninth centuiy we frequently find fifteen PuulineEpistles enumerated ; in the Codd. Augiensis and Boer- nerianus of the ninth century, as well as in MSS. of the Vulgate especially English ones, it is received among the Pauline Epistles. The Shepherd of Hermas also crops up again in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, being frequently counted among the O.T. apocrypha received by the Church. 144 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. the epistle itself was doubtful : " quoniam nisi sit Pauli, non pei'spicuum est canonicam esse." Erasmus went still farther, for he put the Epistle to the Hebrews on a par with the N. T. apocrypha, and stirred up again the old doubts respecting the Epistles of James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and even the Apocalypse, on which account he in- curred a severe censure from the Parisian Sorbonne. Hence it was only in accordance with the spirit of the time that the Council of Trent, in its fourth sitting, on the 8th April 1546, finally issued a decretum de Canonicis Seripturis, pro- tected by its anathema, which enumerates the N. T. writ- ings in the customary Latin manner : the four Gospels with the Acts of Luke, the fourteen Paulines with the Epistle to the Hebrews at the end, the seven epistles, in which those of Peter and John come first, while James and Jude are expressly termed Apostoli, and finally the Apocalypse. A proposal to distinguish between Homologumena and Anti- legomena was decidedly rejected. How a New Testament science of Introduction on the basis of this decree could be developed in the Catholic Church we have already seen (§ 1, 2, 3).'^ The necessity of making fixed regulations re- specting the Canon was likewise felt in the Greek Church of the 17th century. Cyril Lucar in his Confessio Chris- tiancB Fidei, of 1645, referred indeed to the Laodicean Synods for the number of the KavoviKa y8t/?Ata, but expressly named Tous T€.(T(Tapa T.ibiiv'on school indeed assorts that t",is inn^l b.-^ unliistorical, 188 THE APOSTLE PAUL. Apostle was the finding of this assistant, may be seen from the solemn act in which Timothy was formally dedicated to the office of evangelist by the laying on of the hands of the Apostle and the presbytery of his Church (1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6). In the fact that he was brought to him, Paul manifestly saw an intimation that the time to unfold a new independent missionary activity had now come, since Timo- thy was not to accompany him on a single journey, like Silas, of whose connection with the Apostle there is no further mention, but was to be his constant assistant in mis- sion work. This explains the reason why he gave up the visitation of the Pisidian and Pamphylian Churches, and repaired forthwith to a new mission field.'^ since it is directly at variance with his conduct in the case of Titus ; it overlooks the fact, however, that Paul there expressly declares that he refused to circumcise Titus only on account of the false brethren (§ 14, 4, note 1), while in this case he did it solely on behalf of his ministry among the Jews, which is quite in accord with the principles he enun- ciates in 1 Cor. ix. 20. Moreover it must not be overlooked that he made his impending journey with the Jerusalemite Silas, who perhaps himself had some scruple as to such constant and close intercourse with one who was uucircumcised. Paul, who invariably demanded consideration for the weak, could accommodate himself to such scruples as unhesitatingly as he refused the requirement of the false brethren, who wished by this means to create a precedent for their unauthorized claims on the heathen. Keim, Mangold, and even Pfleiderer have declared this trait to be his- torical. '* Criticism has taken peculiar offence at the circumstance that Paul, who nowhere else mentions the apostolic decree (comp. § 14, 4) is said to have formally published it in the Lycaonian Churches (Acts xvi. 4). But it is overlooked that these Churches were not his independent mission field, but were founded in a journey undertaken with Barnabas by order of the Church at Antioch ; and that when Antioch had accepted the resolutions of the apostles at Jerusalem, it was only natural to introduce them iuto the daughter Churches of Antioch. At all events, nothing is opposed to the view that no certain historical knowledge, but a presumption on the j)art of the Acts, is here brought forward. The con- jecture is even probable in connection with the preceding discussions that this notice in the source of Luke, which is partly lost here, referred to tho Churches of Syria and Cilicia (xv. 40), and was falsely transferred to the Churches of Lycaonia. PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 189 2. From the account of the Acts as to the ways by which the Apostle was led to Troas, where the true object of his independent activity was to be pointed out to him (Acts xvi. 6 f.), it appears in the first place that he wished to begin his work again as an apostle in Asia Minor, but was pre- vented by the Spirit. This is expressly stated with respect to Asia and Bithynia, districts in which, according to 1 Pet, i. 1, there must have been Jewish- Christian Churches at that time ; hence the intimation of the Spirit was intended to show that he was not to begin his work here, but to seek out a place where he might lay the first foundation ; for he afterwards expi^essly puts this forward as his apostolic prin- ciple (comp. § 14, 5, note 2). For that very reason he was compelled without further delay to travel through Phrygia that belonged to Asia, and to pass by Mysia also a part of the same country, but was on no account to set foot in Bithy- nia.^ It is remarkable, however, that the terra SirjXOov, used of the mere passing through, is also applied to the TaXaTiKT] Xwpa, where according to 1 Pet. i. 1 there must have been Jewish Churches already, and yet the founding refers only to the province of Asia to which Galatia did not belong. This can only be explained on the assumption that Galatia was taken on the journey, though without any intention of be- ginning a ministry in that place ; and yet there could have been no word of any hindrance, since Paul did actually work there. Moreover we learn from Gal. iv. 13 that it was sick- ness which obliged the Apostle to make a longer stay, of 1 Asia is here the Roman province to which Mysia, Lydia, Caria and Phrygia belonged. That Phrygia is here distinguished from it, as is generally assumed, is decidedly incorrect, since the very fact that they went through Phrygia without beginning any operations there, is owing to the circumstance that they were hindered from preaching in Asia. In like manner their passing by Mysia is also mentioned ; and this too arose from the same hindrance. The alleged narrower use of the term Asia may be chiefly founded on ii. 9, and this perhaps comes from the source of Luke, where a single part of the province of Asia, to which many of tho'^e present belonged, may be specially named. 190 THE APOSTLE PAUL. Avhiuli he availed himself to preach the gospel. Galatia was indeed large enough to afford abundant opportunity for preaching in places where the Diaspora mission of the primitive Church had not jet laid a foundation (comp. § 14, 2) ; and the surprisingly favourable reception he met with, which years after he still recalled with deep emotion (Gal. iv. 14 f.), must have influenced him not to stop short at the town in which he had first been detained, but to carry the blessing of the gospel to others also. But the Acts in xviii. 23 unquestionably imply that the Galatian Churches were already founded on this journey, though in ^^lu'suance of their whole plan they find no motive for recording the fruit of his activity in that place, since they do not recognise it as the divinely appointed object of this journey, and in fact it was only incidental. The Galatians, although understanding Greek and iu many ways in- fluenced by Greek culture, were by no means Asiatics. Whether Jerome's statemeut that they still spoke their native tongue which was allied to that of the Treviri, ought not to be modified, has been recently ques- tioned. They were descended from Celtic tribes who coming from Gaul in their predatory expeditions had visited the Thracian-Greek peninsula. Some had thrown themselves into Asia Minor, and, after varying fortunes, had there founded a kingdom, whose last king favoured by the Eomaus, extended his dominion far beyond Galatia proper (Gallo-Graecia). Even when his land had become a Roman province (26 a.d.), they still retained their division into the three tribes of the Tectosagi, Tohstoboii, and Trocmi, their old Celtic constitution, their popular representation, and a far-reaching self-government. The old Celtic Nature religion amalga- mated more or less with Greek myth and Roman Csesar- worship. The assumption formerly prevailing that the Galatians (or, according to Meyer, at least the tribe of the Tectosagi), were of German origin, is still obstinately defended by Wieseler {Die deutsche Nationalitdt der Kleina^. Gal., Giitersloh, 1877 ; Zur Geschichte der kl. G., Greifswald, 1879), but has long since been refuted (Sieffert, Gal. und seine ersten Christen- gemeinden, Gotha, 1871 ; W. Grimm and Herzberg in den Theol. Stud. ii. Krit., of 1876 and 1878). Those who suppose that the Churches of Lycaonia (the new Galatians) were the Galatian Churches to which Paul afterwards wrote (§ 13, 4, note 3) make the Apostle here, as a matter of course, travel through Galatia proper without stopping. PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 191 Here, on the soil of a peculiar nation, Paul unquestionably exercised from the commencement a Grentile apostolic minis- try without the medium of any synagogue ; for, after what has been said above, he certainly would not have preached in one of the larger cities, as Pessinus and Ancyra, where there were greater Jewish communities, and therefore also conventicles, whose members believed in the Messiah. The epistle, in which a trace of Jewish elements is found only in iii. 26-28, and where the Church as such is constantly addressed as specifically Gentile Christian (iv. 8 ff., v. 2, vi. 12) shows that some of his countrymen had been con- verted quite incidentally, whose views were free enough to admit them fully into the Church of the uncircumcised.^ 3. Troas, situated a little south of the mouth of the Helles- pont, on the coast of the district of Asia Minor bearing the same name, was built by Antigonus, and after Augustus was a Roman colony of considerable extent. Here Paul received the Divine intimation which led him over into Macedonia ; here too a Greek physician called Luke became his associate (Col. iv. 14) ; and it is quite possible that the sufferings con- sequent on the sickness Paul had in Galatia may have led to his acquaintance with him. They took ship immediately to Neapolis, a small harbour on the Strymonian Gulf, which at that time belonged to Thrace ; and the Acts appear to give express prominence to the fact that it was in the very first city of the district of Macedonia they entered, that they made a halt (Acts xvi. 9-12). This was the old border- fortress Philippi, on the stream Gangas, under whose walls 2 The singular view of Mynster, Credner, and others, that the Church consisted merely of proselytes, rests on a false explanation of iv. 9, and appeals in vain to the Apostle's Old Testament proofs, since the Old Testament was read from the beginning without question in the assem- blies of the Christians for worship (iv. 21), and Jewish Christian agitators, ■who took their stand upon the Old Testament, and were already at work in the Church. Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and Hofmann have adopted the view that the Churches were exclusively Gentile Christian. 192 THE APOSTLE PAUL. the famous battle between tlie Roman republicans and the heirs of Cassar was fought. Through Ocfcavianus it received the jus Italicum, and became a KoAwvta, from which, as a centre, mining operations in the gold and silver pits of the neighbouring Pangaeus were successfully carried on. There was no Jewish population here worth mentioning ; they had not even a synagogue, but only a place of prayer outside the city, by the river, where there was facility for the sacred ablutions, and whither women almost exclusively seem to have resorted, partly Jewesses married to Gentiles, partly Gentile women who had embraced the faith of Israel. But Paul did not neglect to seek out this place on the Sabbath ; and the fruit of his going was the conversion of a dealer in purple from Thyatira, called Lydia, who opened her house to the missionaries, and thus established a firm centre for the mission in the city (xvi. 13 ff.). The very meagre account in the Acts, which hasten forward to the cata- strophe, does not allow us to guess how long Paul worked here ; and yet, to judge by the result, it cannot have been a very short time, for he succeeded in gaining a Church mainly Gentile-Christian, which must have been of some importance. This Church remained bound to him by ties of love and obedience, so that he calls it his joy and crown (Phil. i. 8, ii. 12, iv. 1). It must also have been a wealthy Church ; and we see the confidential relation towards it in which the Apostle stood, from the circumstance that he not only allowed it to maintain him, but afterwards even accepted frequent help from it ; for from the first this Church mani- fested great zeal for the mission (i. 4, iv. 10, 15 f. ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 8 f.). The incidental mention of two women, as well as of Epaphroditus, Clement, and others, who were there his associates amid toil and struggle (ii. 25, iv. 2 f.), also points to a longer period of activity on his part in the place. It was only by an incident that brought hira into conflict with the rulers that an unforeseen end was put to PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 193 his work. Comp. Schinz, Die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi, Zurich, 1833. The Acts speak only of a few days that preceded Paul's first Sabbath visit to the place of prayer, and of many days in which the damsel with a spirit of divination, who, as appears, first met him on a later visit, repeatedly molested the Apostle (xvi. 12, 18). At the first meeting with her, Luke must have been present (xvi. 16), but no trace of his presence is observable any more ; a circumstance which obviously explains the complete obscurity respecting the extent of his operations there, as well as the scanty account of their true purport. The expulsion of the spirit of divination is immediately followed by proceedings against Paul and Silas on the part of those in whose service the divining damsel was, who accused them before the Roman decemvirs administering justice in the colonial city, with introducing foreign religious customs. According to the narrative of the Acts, these latter, urged on by the people, had them beaten with rods and thrown into prison, wbere they were thrust into the stocks ; but the decemvirs were obliged on the following day, when Paul made good his Roman citizenship, themselves to fetch them out of the prison, and they desired them to depart out of the city (xvi. 19-40).^ 4. Thessalonica, the chief town of the second Macedonian district, as the seat of the Roman prefect and a favourite place of commerce owing to its position on the Thermaic Gulf and the great Roman military road (via Egnatiana), was the most important city of the whole province. Here too there was a large Jewish population, who had their own synagogue, and to whom therefore Paul first turned when he came hither from PhilipjDi. The Acts speak only of two to three weeks' work among them, during which he 3 The catastrophe, which is also hinted at in 1 Thess. ii. 2, is thus copiously narrated on account of the wonderful conversion of the jailer (xvi. 25-34), which however has no influence upon the course of events ; and the entire representation, involved in so much obscurity, shows that Luke was certainly no longer present in Philippi during this catastrophe. On the other hand, there is no reason for the assumption that Timothy was absent because he was not affected by it ; since we do not find him co-operating in the expulsion of demons, or otherwise acting indepen- dently. On the contrary, it is incorrectly supposed that he remained behind in Philippi, because he is not mentioned at the departure from it ; whereas he is mentioned again in xvii. 14, where he was obliged to separate for the first time from Paul, whom he had accompanied un- interruptedly since leaving Lystra. 194 PAUL IN THESSALONICA, preached every sabbath in the synagogue ; and in addition to some Jews, converted a multitude of Greek proselytes and women of distinction (xvii. 1-4). Nevertheless Paul must have worked here for a much longer time ; and after sufficiently proving the unsusceptibility of his countrymen, probably turned entirely to his Gentile mission. He had undertaken work, and by means of night-labour supported himself, though scantily, by his handicraft (1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8), so that he had repeatedly to receive supplies from Philippi (Phil. iv. 16) ; a circumstance which led to a continued abode in his present quarters. Whilst his preach- ing in the synagogue, as related in the Acts, set forth the usual Scripture proof of the Messiahship of Him who died and rose again, his first epistle gives us a clear picture of his specifically apostolic preaching as addressed to the Gentiles there (comp. especially 1 Thess. i. 9 f.).^ As they joyfully received his word as a Divine message (i. 6, ii. 13), he suc- ceeded in gathering an important Church, not mixed (comp. Holsten, Jahrb. fur Protest. Theolog., 1876, 1), but Gentile Christian (i. 9, ii. 14), consisting mainly of small traders and mechanics (iv. 6, 11), and which had already its special overseers for the administration of external aif airs, as well as for the discipline and direction of Church-life (v. 12). But * The often repeated conjecture that his preaching has here a prevail- ing apocalyptic character, is quite chimerical. It was natural that the Messianic preaching among the Gentiles should occupy itself not with the promised future of salvation, but with the judgment that was ex- pected to accompany it. In order to escape this the heathen were ad- monished to turn from idols to the worship of the living and true God (i. 9), to serve Him according to the precepts of the Apostle with blame- less holiness, to which end God hath given them the Holy Spirit at their calling (iv. 7 f.), and await the second coming of Jesus who had been raised from the dead, who as His Son would deliver believers from the wrath to come (i. 10). Though we certainly have here all the main characteristics of the Pauline preaching, since even the effect of his teaching is traced back to the Divine election and the co-operation of the Holy Spirit (i. 4 f.), yet it is a very significant fact that all the richer theological elements of his developed system are entirely wanting, PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 195 even after the founding of the Church he still worked among them for a Jong time (ii. 11 f.) and that amid much op- position to which he was exposed from the beginning (ii. 2), just as they too had to suffer constant persecution from their countrymen (ii. 6, 14, iii. 4). Of all this the Acts tell nothing ; their only object is to show how the fanaticism of the Jews, who persisted in their unbelief in spite of all the labour bestowed on them by the Apostle, led to the prema- ture ending of the missionary work. Since, happily, they were not able to find the missionaries themselves, they dragged their host, a certain Jason, and some members of the Christian Church before the rulers of the city, and accused them of harbouring strangers who turned the whole world upside down with their treasonable preaching of the kingdom of Jesus. The officials, however, wisely contented themselves with taking bail from the accused that no revo- lutionary project was on foot, and allowed them to go un- harmed. But Paul and his companions deemed it advisable to depart by night (Acts xvii. 5-10). Comp. Burgerhoudt, de coetus Christ. Tliess. ortu fatisque, Lugd. Bat., 1825. 5. The last Macedonian city in which Paul worked was Bercea, one of the oldest cities of the country, situated on the river Astraeus, in a fruitful region of the third district. It was not without anxiety for the young and still unconsolidated Church, that Paul left Thessalonica, and after coming hither, he frequently thought of returning to it ; but the attitude of his enemies there, which was still menacing, made it impossible (1 Thess. ii. 17 f.). He was destined to learn the persistent character of fanaticism soon enough. In Beroea his success was unexpectedly great, in the synagogue, as well as among Greek men and women even of the higher ranks. But scarcely had news of this reached Thessalonica when Jews of that place made their appearance here too, with the object of stirring up the populace; and Paul, against whom their hatred was chiefly directed, was compelled to make for 196 PAUL IN BEEGEA. the sea-coast (on the Thermaic Gulf) with all possible speed, in order by taking ship to escape their snares. From thence he was conducted by some of the new convei'ts, whose zeal for his safety is vividly portrayed in the Acts, to Athens, availing themselves of the first opportunity by ship, because they would not leave him till they had made sure that he was safe (Acts xvii. 10-15). In Athens Paul first set foot on the soil of Greece proper. It appears that he had not in view a proper mission work here, but only desired to wait for his companions who had been left behind in Beroea, since it was only by the opportunity that presented itself that he had been brought to this place.^ But he could not look on at the abominable idolatry that met his sight in numberless temples and altars; and without neglecting to speak to Jews and proselytes in the synagogue according to his custom, he daily availed himself of the opportunity to offer the gospel * The reason -why Silas and Timothy remained behind in Beroea is not quite clear (xvii. 14). It almost appears as if their stay was merely intended to mask the flight of Paul and ensure its success. The Acts at least know nothing of any intimation that they were to carry on the work so hopefully begun by Paul ; for Paul sends them a summons by his returning companions, to come to him as speedily as possible, viz. to Athens, where he awaits them (xvii. 15 f.). It is customary to infer from 1 Thess. iii. 1 f., that Timothy at least did actually follow him thither, but was immediately sent back by him to Thessalonica, in order to strengthen the Church, respecting which he still suffered great anxiety, and to bring him news of it (iii. 5). But the words do not necessarily imply this, since Paul, who could no longer bear this anxiety, preferred to be left alone in Athens, even though, renouncing the hope of his companion's arrival, he sent him counter orders to Bertea, as has been recently acknowledged by v. Soden {Stud. u. Krit., 1885, 2). More- over, since 1 Thess. iii, 1 contains no intimation of the presence of Silas, he must have commanded him also to remain in Beroea, in contra- vention of his first summons (xvii. 15) ; for as a matter of fact he was first joined by both again in Corinth (xviii. 5) and no reason is assigned why Silas did not follow that first command. But the Acts are always imperfectly acquainted with such matters, since they make the Apostle expect both in Athens, and therefore are equally ignorant of a counter- mand of the order given in xvii. 15, and of Timothy's being sent to Thessalonica. PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 197 to the Gentiles in conversation at the market-place. Very soon, even adherents of the two most popular and numerous philosophical schools attached themselves to the new philo- sopher, whose preaching, which insisted upon a new manner of life, touched their interests most closely ; and the novelty- seeking, controversy-loving multitude were desirous to hear him deliver a public discourse on the Areopagus. For some time he gained their ear, since he adapted himself adroitly to their views ; but when he began to speak of the resur- rection of Christ they derided him ; and his success in Athens appears to have been very small (Acts xvii. 16-34).^ 6. The ancient splendour of Corinth had fallen into wreck and ruin w^hen the last Grecian power had been overthrown by the Romans under Mummius (146 B.C.) ; but it was now almost a century since Julius Ceesar had begun the re- colonization of the place ; and new Corinth, which had been - That the Athenian discourse neither is nor is meant to be a verbal report follows from the fact that Paul was alone in Athens, according to Acts xvii. 16 as well as 1 Thess. iii. 1, and none of his companions who could have written it from recollection, was with bim. If, notwithstand- ing the admitted relative want of success of the discourse, the Acts still make it representative of his Gentile preaching, just as they make his discourse at Antioch representative of his preaching there (Acts xiii.), it follows that what the author had heard of it and endeavours to repro- duce in a fi-ee way, must have been regarded by him as cliaracteristic of the way in which he had often heard it repeated. In fact here too, after preaching the one true God, and seeking to unite their historical and human, with their religious consciousness, he calls them to repent- ance in prospect of the impending judgment, as well as to faith in Jesus made possible to all by His resurrection (comp. No, 4, note 1). Among the few who became believers in Athens there were a member of the Areopagus, Dionysius by name, and a woman named Damaris. Whether the isolation in which he found himself, or anxiety respecting the Thessalonian Church paralysed his efl&ciency, or whether he regarded Athens from the first as a sphere not adapted for great activity and only desired to wait here for his friends before going farther, we do not know. In the latter case he would have departed as soon as it was decided that Timothy should go to Thessalonica and Silas remain in Beroea (comp. note 1), and would now for the first time have set out for the place which he had evidently destined from the beginning to be the centre of his mission in Hellas proper. 198 PAUL IN CORINTH. the seat of the proconsul of the Roman province Achaia since B.C. 27, rapidly sprang up again. The situation of the town on the isthmus, with its harbours to east and west, made it the centre of the world's commerce, while the fame of the Isthmian games and the mildness of the climate attracted a stream of strangers to the place, thus leading to the accumulation of great wealth. The arts and sciences flourished there, the fame of the Corinthian pillars was worldwide, but so too was that of the luxury and corrupt morals of the city, whose unchastity had become a proverb (Kopiv^ia^€o-^at, KopivBia Koprf). In the temple of Aphrodite a thousand priestly maidens prostituted themselves in honour of the goddess ; it was with reference to the life and practices he here saw that Paul wrote his description of heathenism culminating in unnatural lust and complete moral indifferentism (Rom. i. 21-32). When Paul came hither he at once made arrangements for a long stay ; he sought and found work with a countryman of his own and a fellow-tradesman, a Pontine Jew called Aquila, who with Priscilla his wife had lately come hither from Italy, after the Jews had been expelled from Rome by an edict of the Emperor Claudius (Suet., Claud., 25), and who with his whole household was unquestionably first converted by the Apostle. Here, too, he began his ministry in the synagogue, though by no means confining himself to this ; his relation to Judaism appears, however, to have been strained from the commencement (1 Thess. iii. 7), his activity only becoming more intense when Silas and Timothy arrived and the latter relieved him in a great measure of the anxiety he felt for the Church at Thessalonica by the accounts he brought from it. This however seems to have at once raised the enmity of the Jews against him to its highest pitch, so that matters came to an entire breach with the synagogue. As Paul had formerly declared in Pisidian Andioch, so too here he is said to have expressly stated that he must hold them responsible for PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 199 their own perdition, since he was now compelled to turn ex- clusively to the Gentiles. He left the synagogue in a de- monstrative way, and for his headquarters chose the neigh- bouring house of a proselyte, Titius Justus by name. But just as isolated instances of success had formerl}^ not failed him, so too this catastrophe seems to have resulted in a split in the synagogue itself ; Crispus the chief ruler of the syna- gogue went over to Christianity with his whole house, and was baptized by Paul himself. The conversion of Ste- phanas, whom Paul calls the firstfruits of Achaia, must also belong to this time, since the earlier converted Jews were strangers there. This convert afterwards, with his house, took a zealous interest in the affairs of the Church (1 Cor. xvi. 15). From the same period also dates the conversion of Caius, with Avhoni Paul afterwards was accustomed to lodge when he visited Corinth (Rom. xvi. 28) ; for Paul names both among those whom he personally baptized (1 Cor. i. 14, 16). The Acts trace back to an express Divine revelation the fact that Paul after the former catastrophe turned Avith new joy entirely to the Gentile mission, so that his stay in Corinth extended to upwards of a year and a half (Acts xviii. 1-11). The consequence of this was that an important Church was collected here, which Paul could afterwards address as entirely composed of Gentile Christians (1 Cor. xii. 2), although a not inconsiderable minority of Jews always be- longed to it. It consisted, however, almost exclusively of the lower orders (1 Cor. i. 26 ff.),^ though individuals of higher ^ This has been often attributed to the fact that Paul, discouraged by the small success of bis Athenian attempt to consort with Greek philo- sophy, strove after a particularly simple announcement of the gospel, which had no power to attract the more highly cultivated orders. But the leading maxims respecting his manner of preaching, which he develops in 1 Cor. ii. 1-5 and according to which he refuses on principle to deck it out with rhetoric and philosophy, were so deeply founded in his conception of the nature and operation of the message of salvation, that they were assuredly not the fruit of isolated experiences. That the gospel remained foolishness to the cultivated classes at Corinth, who 200 PAUL IN COEINTH. rank were certainly not wanting, for we afterwards hear of the chamberlain Erastus as a member of it (Rom. xvi. 23). For this reason Paul never allowed the Church to support him, but lived the whole time on the proceeds of his handi- craft and on assistance sent by his beloved Philippians (1 Cor. ix. 18 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7, 9 ; Phil. iv. 15). The chronological determination of the one and a half years that Paul laboured in Corinth is very uncertain. Suetonius does not specify the year of the Jewish edict, and whether the edict of the year 52, mentioned by Tacitus {Ann., 12, 52), is the same, is very questionable. But even if the year 52 were certain, the statement that Aquila had recently (7rpo(T(f)aTcos) come to Corinth (Acts xviii. 2) still leaves considerable scope. How long after the so-called Apostolic Council, generally put in 52 (§ 14, 3), Paul departed from Antioch, how long his visitation journey to Syria, Cicilia, and Lycaonia occupied, or the duration of his stay in Galatia, Philippi, and Thessalonica, we have no data to deter- mine. The usual computation, at the date 53-54, is therefore quite uncertain, although, since Claudius died in 54, Paul's arrival in Corinth cannot be brought down beyond that year. 7. The ministry of Paul in Corinth seems also to have come to an end, indirectly at least, by the agitations against him of hostile Jews. It was probably Sosthenes, the new chief of the sjoiagogue, who had him dragged before the tribunal and accused of spreading a religion that was unlaw- ful. The proconsul at that time was Jun. Annaeus Gallio, brother of the philosopher Seneca, who extols him for his benevolence. He dismissed the accusation as relating solely to disputed questions within Judaism ; and the disappointed (probably Jewish) multitude made the chief ruler of the synagogue suffer for not bringing the case against the hated heretic to a more successful issue. The incident, however, appears to have led the Apostle to leave the city a few days after (Acts xviii. 12-17). In the harbour Cenchrea he took ship for Syria, after having first shorn his head in payment were spoiled by their rhetoricians and philosophers (1 Cor. i. 22 f.), was neither due to his manner of preaching, nor could his preaching alter it. VAVh AS AN AUTHOR. 201 of a vow which he had probably made in case God gave him a blessing in his Corinthian mission and a safe return.^ A landing was made at Ephesus, where Aqnila and Priscilla were left behind, and where Paul too remained for a short time and began to preach in the synagogue. When pressed to remain he refused, promising only to come again with God's heljD. He took ship to Cesarea, went thence on a short visit to Jerusalem,, and came back to Antioch, which he always regarded as his proper head-quarters (Acts xviii. 18-22) .^ The beginning of his literary activity in the two Thessalonian Epistles belongs, so far as we know, to his stay at Corinth. § 16. Paul as an Author. 1 . Subsequently to the end of the second century, thirteen Pauline Epistles have been handed down to us. Respecting * There is certainly much in the language to favour the reference of Keipa^euos in Acts xviii. 18 to Aquila ; but in reality that is quite im- possible, since no object whatever can be seen for mentioning the head- shaving of Aquila. It was Paul therefore who made the vow to let his hair grow till the fulfilment of his prayer had been accomplished, and now on taking ship without hindrance redeemed his vow. It is an empty assertion that this truly Jewish act of piety stands in contradic- tion to his doctrine of the law, since private vows of this kind were neither prescribed, nor could they be undertaken as a thing necessary to salvation. That it was fabricated in order to put the legal piety of Paul in prominent light, is excluded by the way in which it is jDresented, which does not even make it adequately clear that Paul is referred to. 2 It is impossible that the journey to Jerusalem, referred to in xviii. 22 simply with dua^ds, can have been invented in order to show Paul's zeal for the law and the good relation in which he stood to the primitive Church, for in that case it would have been more clearly set forth and more fully narrated. That it was a journey to a feast for which he thus shortened his stay at Ephesus is inferred solely from the clause added in xviii. 21, which is a palpable interpolation, according to xx. 16. On the other hand, it is obvious that he accompanied Silvanus to Jerusalem, whither the latter naturally returned after his journey had been accom- plished ; for although neither Silvanus nor Timotheus is mentioned after Acts xviii. 5, yet it is certainly taken for granted that both accom- panied him on his departure from Corinth. 202 SUCCESSION OF PAULAS LETTERS. the Epistle to the Hebrews opinion has always been divided, hence it requires particular examination. The Epistle to Philemon is only mentioned incidentally by Tertullian, but we see from the Peshito and the Muratorian Canon that the reason of its not being quoted like the others is simply on account of the unimportant character of its theological con- tents (§ 9, 4). In any case, the three Pastoral Epistles are wanting in the earliest concluded collection of the Pauline Epistles by Marcion (§8, 6) ; but this fact has no impor- tance whatever where ecclesiastical tradition is concerned, on account of the critical and eclectic manner of the Gnostic in question. It is a manifest error to suppose that the utterances of the Muratorian Canon with respect to these epistles (more coiTcctly, to the four epistles all of which were addressed to separate individuals) contain an intima- tion that their genuineness was doubtful, or that their acceptance required special justification (§ 10, 2, note 2). It is in keeping with the history of the formation of the Canon, that before Theophilus and Irenaeiis, only one express citation is to be found in Athenagoras (§7, 7) ; and if the latter be an eschatological prediction of the Apostle taken from 1 Cor., the only express citation in Theophilus comes from the Pastoral Epistles themselves (§ 9, 4, note 1). Only Clement of Rome's first Epistle to the Corinthians and Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (§ 6, 1) are specially mentioned from a definite motive. Our thirteen epistles are therefore uniformly attested by ecclesiastical tradition. We arrive at the same result if we take into consideration the literary allusions before the time of Ireneeus which attest the existence and use of these epistles. Though the Epistle to the Romans was so generally known, yet the use of it is not so striking as we should expect from the extent and importance of its contents. On the other hand, the first Epistle to the Corinthians seems decidedly to have been most freely used, at least till Justin, while of the second we PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 203 find only the weakest, scantiest and latest traces. Even the Galatian Epistle is by no means so freely used as to take precedence of the other smaller Paulines, which we should naturally not expect to be used like the three larger ones ; but it is certain, at least in the time before Justin, that the Ephesian Epistle held quite a subordinate place as compared with the Colossian Epistle so nearly allied to it. Even the use of the Philip pian Epistle, although it begins with Clement, does not at all correspond to the fact that it is expressly mentioned by Polycarp. With respect to the Thessalonian Epistles, we find far more numerous, more important and more certain allusions to the second. Above all, the use of the Pastoral Epistles is not by any means in keeping with the assumption that they are less certainly attested by tradition. We find them exercising an early and widely extended influence on ecclesiastical literature ; nor is there any perceptible difference in the case of any one in frequency of usage, which is about proportioned to their length, on which account 1 Timothy has a certain promi- nence. For evidence of this compare § 6, 7 ; vii. 4, 7. It must be stated in the most definite way that we have no data in tradition for the criticism of the Pauline Epistles. The Pauline Epistles first appear in Mareion as a closed collection, of whose succession we may now treat (§ 8, 6). In his list, Gal., Cor. (2), and Romans come first, then follow Thess. (2), Eph., Col., Pliil., and finally, since the Pastoral Epistles are wanting, Philemon as the only private letter. Although the first four and the second five stand respectively in chronological order, it may be doubted whether this arrangement is intentional ; for, since the Thessalonian Epistles are unquestionably the earliest, the first four and the second five would then be consciously separated as two distinct categories of Pauline Epistles, for which we have no foundation whatever in tradition. The Muratorian Canon (§ 10, 2) also, it is true, gives only the contents of the first four (in this order: Cor., Gal., Rom.), thus separating them from the rest and seeming to regard them as the most important, but it then proceeds to enumerate the Churches to which Paul wrote, in quite a different order (Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., Thess., Rom.). Since all 204 LOST AND SUPPOSITITIOUS LETTERS. attempts to prove a definite succession in TertuUian are vain (§ 9, 4, note 2), we must look for this first in the Bible-manuscripts that were put together for the purpose of public reading in the Churches. But the earliest of these, from which the Peshito was translated, must have had the same order, with trifling exceptions (comp. the Cod. Clarom., which still puts Col. before Phil.), as our Greek Codd., which the lists of Athanasius, Amphilochius and others follow, and which we still retain (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess., Tim., Tit., Philem.). It is conceivable enough that the Roman Epistle should stand first among them, but that the rest are arranged according to their length, as Reuss, Ewald and especially Laurent {Neutest. Stud., Gotha, 1866) assert, is very doubtful, because neither the position of Gal. before Eph., nor the separation of the contemporaneous Eph. and Col. by Philippians is explained in this way. We cannot give any certain explanation of this order. 2. It is not a priori very probable that all which Paul v^^rote has been preserved, considering the great dissimilarity in the spread and use of his v^ritings perceptible in the time preceding Irenoeus. It is just as little probable that a greater number of more important epistles has been lost. That the oldest among such as have been preserved were also in reality his first is more than probable, from some intimations which they contain (I Thess. v. 27 ; 2 Thess ii. 15, 17 f.) ; and it is only certain that Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9, and the Epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Col. iv. 16 have been lost. Doctrinal bias alone can dispute the fact that the epistle mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9 was written by Paul before our first to Corinth (comp. J. G. Miiller, de trihus Panli itineribus Cor. susc, Basel, 1831, and also L. Schulze) ; and it is an entirely untenable hypothesis that it has been in any way incorporated with our Corinthian Epistles, even fragmen- tarily. On the contrary, the conjecture that an epistle was written by Paul between our first and second to the Corinthians does not commend itself to us, much less the opinion that it is still preserved in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. The Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians extant in Armenian, together with one from the Corinthians preceding it (ed. Wilkins, Amsterd., 1715; comp, Fabricius, Cod. apocr. novl test., ii., pp. 666 ff.), has indeed been defended by Rinck as genuine {das Sendschrei- ben der Kor.,etc., Heidelberg, 1823), but is unquestionably a fabrica- tion made up of Pauline phrases (comp. Ullmann in the Heidelberg. PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 205 Jahrb., 1823, 6). Nor does the conjecture that the epistle mentioned in Col. iv. 16 is contained in our so-called Ephesian Epistle, commend itself to us. The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Fabr., Cod. apocr. novi testarnenti, ii., p. 87^^ ; corap. Anger, Ueber den Laodicenerhrief, Leipzig, 1873), which was widely spread in the middle ages (§ 12, 5, note 2), is a flimsy compilation from the Colossian and Philippian Epistles. On the other hand it has been inferred, but without the least foundation, from Phil. iii. 1, that Epistles of Paul to the Philippians have been lost, and that the remains of a more copious letter to the Ephesians are found in Romans xvi. Jerome {de Vir. III., 12) and Augustine {Ep. 153, ad Maced.) also mention a correspondence between Paul and Seneca which has been probably fabricated on the basis of Acts xviii. 12 (Fabr., Cod. apocr. novi test., ii., pp. 892, ff. Comp. Gelpke, de famiUaritate quce Paulo cum Seneca phil. interf. traditur, 1813 ; and against modern French defenders of it, comp. Baur, Seneca und Paidus, in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Th., 1858, 2). On the other hand the question suggests itself, whether the thirteen epistles, most of which were only attributed to Paul more than a century after his death, do actually pro- ceed from him. We have already seen how improbable it is that in the second century, at a time when the authority of the apostles was not yet traced back to their written memorials, a great number of epistles should have been fathered on him (§ 7, 7). It is not impossible, however, that in the earlier time after Paul's death, when the need of apostolic direction or encouragement was still felt in his Churches, some of his pupils may have addressed the Churches in his name, as, according to 2 Thess. ii. 2, seems to have happened. Criticism was first directed against the Pastoral Epistles by Eichhorn and de Wette ; and soon afterwards against the Epistle to the Ephesians and the second Epistle to the Thessalonians in particular. The Tiibingen school, following Baur's example, rejected all the smaller epistles, excepting the four great doctrinal and polemic ones, viz. Romans (with the exception of chaps. XV. xvi.), Corinthians, and Galatians. But a reaction arose within the school itself, and 1 Thess., Phil., and Philem. were again assigned to the Apostle, even the Colossian 206 PAULINE EPISTLES DICTATED. Epistle being wholly or partially defended by those who were still under the influence of the school. The subversive criticism of Bruno Bauer, who pronounced all the Pauline Epistles to be fabrications, has recently found new followers among the Dutch critics, especially Loman (Kritik der paulinischen Brief e, Berlin, 1850). 3. Paul did not write his letters with his own hand, but dictated them. In Romans xvi. 22, one Tertius, his aman- uensis, sends greeting ; and the way in which he expressly emphasizes the fact (Philem. 19) that he is writing with his own hand, undoubtedly shows that he did not usually do so. The most natural explanation of this is that he was unpractised in writing ; for his hand, which was more accustomed to manage a tool than a pen, could only form large (and probably misshapen) letters (Gal. vi. 11). Much that is abrupt and incorrect in his manner of writing is most naturally explained on the assumption that he dictated. But the Apostle early felt the need of adding something in his own hand to the dictated epistle (2 Thess. iii. 17 f.), if only a closing benediction. It seems to have been the occurrence (No. 2) mentioned in ii. 2 that led him to put a sign of attestation to the epistle written by a strange hand, and he then made the resolve to do this in future with all his epistles. In the Epistle to the Galatians this post- script in his own hand became a most striking concluding- warning and exhortation (vi. 11-18). In the first Epistle to the Corinthians Paul expressly characterizes the conclud- ing words as written with his own hand (xvi. 21-24), and similarly in the Colossian Epistle (iv. 18). But it can hardly be doubted that he did the same in other Church- letters, even where he does not expressly notify it.i ^ But in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians we must not look for such a postscript in his own hand ; in the Epistle to the Romans he could only have written the great concluding doxology (xvi. 25-27), and in the Ephesiau Epistle the entire final benediction (vi. 23 f.). In PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 207 Our manuscripts agree on the whole in the form in which they have preserved the Pauline Epistles. It is only Weisse {Beitrcige zur Kritik iler paid. Briefe, ed. Sulze, Leipzig, 1867) and Hitzig {Beitrdge zur Kritik der paid. Briefe, Leipzig, 1870) who have endeavoured to point out in several of them a series of interpolations, and Holsten seems inclined to follow them {Das Evang. des Paulm, Berlin, 188U) ; Ewald, after the example of earlier critics, has pronounced the paragraph 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 spurious ; and such as have been unwilling entirely to reject the smaller epistles, have at least held that they were inter- polated. Laurent [NTL Stud.) has endeavoured to separate a series of passages as later marginal remarks. 4. All thirteen epistles begin with an inscription, in which the current Greek epistolary introduction (xatpeii/ or ^(a.ipuv Aeyet ; comp. Jas. i. 1 ; Acts xxiii. 26) is expanded into a copious benediction which, departing from the proper address, takes the form of an independent sentence.^ Paul here speaks of himself by name, but in the Thessalonian Epistles alone without some addition ; in his only private letter he calls himself SeV/xtos Xp. 'It^o-. (Philem. 1), else- where generally an apostle, and with unmistakeable refer- the Epistle to the Philippians the greetings seem to have been written with his own hand (iv. 21-23) before the final benediction, on account of the afjLTiv which precedes the latter, though this is not absolute proof (comp. Rom. xv. 8.3) ; so too, perhaps, in 2 Cor. xiii. 12 f. Of the letters to separate individuals, that to Philemon is most plainly stated to have been written with his own hand (19) ; it was certainly not the case with the rather copious Pastoral Epistles. In the first Epistle to Timothy the final exhortation (vi. 20 f.) might be from the hand of the Apostle as in Galatians, and the same thing may be said of the greetings with the benediction in the second (iv. 19-22), as well as in Philippians. The Epistle to Titus affords no such certain ground for the assumption of a postscript in his own hand, but it does not follow that he did not write it. ^ This is done by the x^-P'-^ •^M"' fct' eip-qvrj in the benediction, and the only exception to it is in the Pastoral Epistles, where such repetition of the dative is wanting, because they are addressed to individuals, whereas in the Epistle to Philemon other persons besides the one addressed are named, and therefore the usual x^-P'-'^ '^M'^" (1~^) follows. It is arbi- trarily assumed that Paul was the creator of this epistolary form. It is certainly not found in James (comp. also 3 John 1), but appears in Peter's Epistles, Jude 1 f., 2 John 1-3, and above all in the Apocalypse i, 4, 208 BEGINNINGS OF THE LETTEES. ence to the origin of his apostleship, even gives himself this name in his official pastoral letters to Timothy and Titns ; in his Epistles to the Romans and to Titus where this designation is followed by an exposition of the nature of his apostleship, referring to the contents of the epistle, he begins by speaking of himself in a more general way as 80CA.09 Xp. "IrjcT. or ®€ov (Rom. i. 1-5; Tit. i. 1-3). The reason why in the Philippian Epistle he styles himself simply Sov\o<; Xp. 'I^cr., is that he there associates himself with Timothy. By making the benediction a separate thing, he does not, however, degrade the letter to a mere address, nor characterize himself as merely the writer of the letter and its readers as the recipients, but he is the sender of the benediction while the readers are its recipients. Hence it is that in this benediction he frequently joins the names of friends happening to be with him, especially Timothy, and extends it to others besides the immediate recipients. ~ The ■^ The person named along with him in the inscription cannot be the writer of the epistle, since in the only case in which we know the writer (No. 3), he is not named in the inscription; nor can he have been associated with him in writing it, as is generally assumed ; this is quite conceivable with respect to the Thessalonian Epistles, where Silvanus and Timotheus, whom Paul named along with himself, were associated with him in founding the Church, and much that he addresses to it in the plural, may have been said in their joint names (comp. Laurent, Stud. u. Krit., 1861, 1) ; but even here he often speaks of himself in the first person, and of Timothy in the third. This view is impossible in the case of the Galatian Epistle where he emphasizes his apostolic authority so strongly, and says so much that is purely personal, though naming besides himself all the brethren who are with him (i. 2). It is equally inconceivable of the Corinthian Epistles, in the first of which he touches upon so many arrangements, with apostolic authority, and yet along with himself names the otherwise unknown Sosthenes ; while in the second he names Timothy ; but he treats of personal relations with such personal feeling, that to associate Timothy with himself in speak- ing of these things, or to discuss them in his name, is without meaning. In the Philippian Epistle he not only speaks of Timothy in the third person and says flattering things of him, but says so much of his own sub- jective frame of mind in captivity and towards the Church, that it is im- possible to regard Timothy as a fellow-writer. In the only private letter, PAUL AS AN AUTHOE. 209 benediction itself appears again in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians in the simplest form (xapt? ^H-^v kou dp-^vrj) ; but the second already assumes the nature of a reflection on the source of the wished-for-thing in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (comp. Gal., Philem.), rjixwv being usually added after aTro Oeov Trarpds (Cor., Rom., Eph., Phil., comp. Col.).'' Paul's favourite way of beginning his epistle is with thanksgiving, in which he gratefully acknowledges all the good that God's grace has bestowed on his readers, frequently adding a petition for what still remains to be desired. Only in the Galatian Epistle does severe censure take its place, while in the second Epistle to the Corinthians a thanksgiving for the grace that has been manifested to him, in the form of an expression of gratitude for what God has enabled him to do for the Church, is substituted (ii. 14, ff.). In the Ephesian Epistle alone it is preceded by solemn praise of God for the Divine acts of salvation. to Philemon, he also names Timothy together with himself and the person addressed, with whom the whole letter is concerned, besides a number of others, just as in the Corinthian letters the salutation extends beyond the circle of the recipients, the Philippian letter expressly in- cluding the officers of the Church. Moreover he designates the saluted sometimes as definite Churches (Thess., Gal., Cor.), sometimes as the Christians in a definite place (Kom., Col., Phil.), in both cases character- izing them as such more minutely. ^ It thus appears that even this benediction has by no means a stereotyped form throughout. In the Colossian EjDistle, according to the corrected text, the /cat Kvpiov 'IrjaoO Xpta-roO is altogether wanting, while in the Galatian Epistle the ciTrj deoO Trarpos Kal Kvpiov rjixCov 'Ir/o-. X/3. is followed by a reference to the saving work of Christ in relation to the contents of the epistle, which closes with a doxology (i. 3-5). In the Epistles to Timothy it runs thus: x^P's* ^Xeos, eiprivr] dirb deoO irarphs /cat XpicrroO 'IrjaoO rod Kvpiov rjfiuv ; in Titus : X'^P'S Kai eip-qur) dirb 0. Trarp. Kai Xp. 'ly) (comp. Titus: ij xdpis /xero, TTOLVTcov vfxCov), and in the Galatian Epistle : [xeTo. rod TrvevfxaTos vfxwv, d8e\(poi' aixi]v (comp. Philem. and Phil. : 7} xdpts r. Kvp. 'Ir]€l\oix€v and the frequent use of Kuptos instead of deos), the unskilful exaggerations of the first epistle and other grounds of sus- picion that vanish of themselves before impartial exegesis (comp. against him Pelt in the Theolog. Mitarheiten, 1874, 2). Baur in his Paidus (1845) attached himself mainly to him, while asserting still more emphatically that the escha- tological passage in chap. ii. had admitted Jewish ideas of the time to a greater extent than was the case with Paul, and contravened the natural expectation of the nearness of the second coming implied in 1 Cor. xv. (comp. on the other hand Grimm, Shid. u. Krit., 1850, 4). Subsequently {Theol. Jahrh., 1855, 2) he regarded this second epistle rather as an imitation of the Corinthian letters ; and adopting the view of Grotius and Ewald (No. 4, note 1), looked upon our first epistle as an imitation of it from a later standpoint. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld, because he regards the first epistle as genuine, naturally takes the second to be partly an imitation of the first and partly its antithesis, interpreting ii. 15, iii. 6 as an emphasizing of the oral and written apostolic tradition, such as could only belong to the second century. Notwithstanding the manifest weakness of these doubts already apparent in the uncertainty as to the relation to the first epistle, the rejection of the second epistle has become almost as universal in the modern critical school as the recognition of the first. P. Schmidt alone (Excursus to his Thessalonicherbrief, 1885) has distinctly admitted that, apart from the eschatological passage of chap. ii. and 230 THE NEKO-SAGA. isolated interpolations, there is nothing to prevent our regarding this epistle as a shorter Pauline written on the basis of later accounts.^ Hence the whole question turns upon the idea whether the apocalyptic combination of chap, ii., which like all such, is attached to existing relations of time, brings us into the post-Pauline period, or may be explained from the circumstances of the time in which our epistle, if genuine, must have been written. 6. The proper leading motive even of Kern's attack lay in the presupposition that the apocalyptic view of our epistle was the same as that of the Apocalypse of John. Con- sistently with the current idea of the latter. Antichrist was identified with the Emperor Nero, of whom there was a tradition that he was not dead but should return from the East. The hindering one is then the Emperor Vespasian, with his son Titus ; the apostasy, the horrible infamy that broke forth in the Jewish war. Hence this apocalyptic picture must have been drawn by a Pauline disciple living in the years 68-70 and struck with the image presented by his time. Upon this basis Baur thought it possible to fix the place of the epistle still more definitely. According to Tacit., Hist., 2, 8, after the murder of Galba a report was actually spread in Achaia and Asia that the returning Nero was at hand. But this soon proved to be false, and the author, as a warning against similar delusions, pointed out ^ The alleged unreconciled discrepancies with the escliatological dis- cussions of the first epistle, which he still finds in chap, ii., disappear readily enough. For the fact that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night (1 Thess. v. 2) by no means excludes the appearance of Antichrist immediately before, whose exaltation out of the great apostasy is just as incalculable as the former event ; and just as little does the fact that the Apostle still hopes to live to see the second coming (1 Thess. iv. 17) exclude the putting aside of the idea that it was already at hand. The misleading of unbelievers by Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 10, f.) certainly does not shut out the possibility of their living in rest and security until that time (1 Thess. v. 3), suspecting nothing of the destruction that the approaching judgment is to bring upon them. THE SECOND THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 231 that Vespasian mnst first be overthrown and the great apostasy come in, while the whole world idolized the return- ing Nero.i Hilgenfeld sought to give quite a different interpretation of the apocalyptic combination, making the oLTroa-Taa-La refer to the falling away in a time of severe persecution, and was thus led to the time of Trajan. But in face of all his attempts to prove traces of that time in the persecutions mentioned in our epistle, nothing except the word SnoyfioL (comp. E-om. viii. 35 ; 2 Cor. xii. 10) points beyond the expression of the first epistle ; and how the appearance of the Elxaibook should first have given rise to the enhanced expectation of the second coming is beyond conception. Above all he makes the ixva-TrjpLov T^s di/o/Ata? refer to germinating Gnosticism which, as an an ti- Christian force, he joins with the returning Nero in a way that is quite impracticable ; and that the Empire under Trajan, with its persecution of Christianity, should hinder the development of the anti- Christian power from reaching its highest stage, is a thought repugnant to common sense.^ P. Schmidt has rightly declared against this application of the epistle to the time of Trajan ; but while going ^ But according to ii. 2 f. there was so little disposition to look for Antichrist in any historical personage, that people were deceived as to the nearness of the second advent the rather because they seemed quite to have forgotten that it must first be preceded by this climax of hos- tility to Christ. In the description of the avofxos who with his lying wonders deceived the world (ii. 8 f.), nothing points to the form of a world-ruler, especially as ii. 4 makes no mention whatever of his apotheosis but of his blasphemous self-exaltation. But it is still quite inconceivable how the appearing of the returning Nero is to result from an dTToaTacria or avofila which is already active in secret (ii. 3, 6 f.) ; since neither the abominations of the Jewish war could bring about the return of Nero, nor the deification of Csesar ; nor can it be seen by what means Vespasian and Titus could check the development of the godless powers in their final personification. 2 Hence Bahnsen has recently endeavoured to transpose the whole apocalyptic combination of this epistle into such position with respect to time that Antichrist is Gnosticism, and his Kar^x^" the episcopate {Jahrb. fitr protest. Theoh, 1880, 4). 232 MISINTERPEETATION OF II. 2. back with Yolkmar, Holtzmann, and others to the inter- pretation of Kern, he has not been able to justify it better than its author, or to carry it out exegetically. The pre- sumed allusions of the epistle to the Apocalypse rest solely upon the eschatological expectations that were common to it with all primitive Christianity. 7. The historical interpretation of the epistle can only proceed from the fact which has been acknowledged since the Patristic period, and is maintained even amid the most contradictory conceptions, viz. that the thing which still checks the development of the an ti- Christian power (to Karixov), is the continuance of the Roman jurisdiction, espe- cially as the representative of it is called a person (ii. 7, 6 Karixoiv), which can only refer to the Roman Emperor.^ We have here an apocalyptic combination belonging to an older time than that of John's Apocalypse, in which the Roman Empire itself appears as the upholder of anti- Christian power in consequence of the abominations of Nero. In accordance with this, the last incarnation of such power appears as a world-ruler, and beside it as the second beast, false prophecy, the power that leads men aside to worship it, while the man of lawlessness (the avo/xos absolutely) is at the same time characterised as the false prophet by virtue of the signs and wonders given him by Satan. Since therefore the latter must be a product of the aTToo-Tao-ta, and this can neither be looked for in the sphere of Christianity in which our epistles recognise no opposites, nor in the sphere of heathenism which knows not God and does not honour Him (i. 8), the apostasy can only take place within Judaism, whose hostility against the ^ It was indeed mere play of words that led Hitzig, Hausrath, Bollinger, Kenan and others to think of the Emperor Claudius {qui claudit, comp. Marker, Einige diinkle Umstlinde im Leben des Paidus, Glitersloh, 1871), since a definite person does not here come into consideration, but only llio uphoMer of the Roman empire as such. THE SECOND THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 233 Messiah and the gospel leads more and more to complete apostasy from God (comp. Heb. iii. 12). Antichrist, in whom this apostasy culminates, can only be the pseudo- Messiah, the lying image of the true Messiah.^ This com- bination, which points directly to Matthew xxiv. 24, only making the multiplicity of il/evS6)^L(TT0L and i(/evSoTrpocf>rJTaL culminate in one person, is at once explained by the position taken by Paul in his first epistle, with respect to Judaism, as we have already seen. In Judaism, hostile to God and Christ, which at this time obstructed the Apostle on every side, checking him in his work (1 Thess. ii. 14-16, 18), the avo/xta is already active though in secret (2 Thess. ii. 7). The thing which still kept back the full development of this anti- Christian power was the Roman jurisdiction, which alone protected the Apostle from the attacks of Jewish fanaticism, as he had hitherto experienced. Only in case the definitive apostasy of unbelieving Judaism culminated in the pseudo- Messiah who, equipped with Satanic powers, should over- throw the bulwark of the Roman administration in the last Jewish revolution, was the way opened up for anti-Christ- ianity, to the complete destruction of Christianity ; if the return of the true Messiah had not at this very juncture at once put an end to His caricature. Of the struggles by which this last catastrophe is brought about, as represented 2 When on the other hand it is always objected that tbe self- apotheosis in ii. 4 is in contradiction to the conception of the pseudo-Messiah, the fact is entirely overlooked that this blasphemous self-exaltation was already advanced by the unbelieving Jews against Christ, as a mark of his pseudo-Messiahship. As Jehovah Himself comes to His people in His Messiah, the pseudo-Messiah can only be recognised from his making himself God ; and since ii. 4 can only refer to the temple at Jerusalem, it must be the pseudo-Jewish Messiah who by his coming to it proclaims himself as the Jehovah who appeared among His people. That the apostasy appears as apostasy to avoixla, so far from excluding the mani- festation of such apostasy in the sphere of Judaism, rather refers the severance from God and His law as the climax of all sin, to Judaism alone ; while the alleged zeal for the law manifested by the Jews in their enmity against Christ and His gospel, may be taken as actual dvofxla. 234 SECOND VISIT TO GALATIA. throughout John's Apocalypse, our epistle shows as little trace as of the hope of the establishment of an earthly kingdom of the Messiah, which is connected in the Apo- calypse with the idea that the anti- Christian power con- centrated in a world-ruler is overcome by the returning Messiah. The Lord Jesus consumes the avofxo6(rrarts has been supposed to point to a kind of patronage, yet the ttoXXwj/ Kal ifiov makes it quite impossible that any- thing can be meant but actual care, such as in the exercise of her calling she had devoted to many. 4. This danger had reached its culminating point when, after the departure of ApoUos from Corinth, owing to which the Apostle had not yet heard anything of the movement, dissension broke out in the Church respecting the prerogatives of the various teachers, that directly threatened the Church with dissolution into several parties. The movement probably originated with the followers of Apollos, who preferred the more philosophic and trained rhetorical preaching of the Alexandrian to the manner of Paul, which was simpler in form and substance, and who now, as disciples of Apollos, formed themselves into a sort of party.i But the immediate result of this was, that others 1 It is quite without reason when Heinrici still maintains that Apollos attached greater weight to baptism and its personal application. The undisturbed relation of Paul to Apollos (1 Cor. xvi. 12) excludes all idea of a fundamental opposition on the part of his disciples to the Pauline majority of the Church. 258 THE COEINTHIAN PARTIES. in tlie Church, who had had another teacher than Paul, grouped themselves similarly round the name of their teacher ; thus arose the party of the disciples of Cephas, who, to judge by the way in which Paul recognises in Cephas only such pre-eminence as all could and should appropriate to themselves (iii. 22), cannot have been in fundamental opposition to him.^ The true followers of the actual founder of the Church had finally no alternative but to ,form them- selves likewise into a kind of Pauline party (i. 12). The extent of this Corinthian division into parties has generally been very much over-estimated; the parties were by no means such in our sense of the word, as distinguished by dif- ferent views and aims. The continued attempts to attribute to one or other of these parties all that our first Epistle intimates as to differences of opinion, errors and doubts, have utterly failed. The natural consequence of such attempts has been that almost every trait has been attri- buted sometimes to one party and sometimes to another; the picture thus formed of each individual party being dif- ferent with each expositor. The adherents of the respective parties cannot have made nationality the basis of their separation, since there must certainly have been Jewish 2 Consequently, since the disciples of Cephas cannot have adopted this name because they represented certain fundamental principles or doc- trines of Peter in opposition to those of Paul, the question arises how did it happen that so great a number of disciples of Cephas should have been found in Corinth, since only individuals who had been converted by Peter in Judea could have gone to settle in that city. But in this case what Dionysius of Corinth relates of a ministry of Peter in that place (ap. Euseb., Hist. EccL, 2, 25) can scarcely be regarded as an arbitrary inference from 1 Cor. i. 12, though that is commonly done. It is cer- tainly an error on his part to regard him as associated with Paul in the founding of the Church, but it cannot be affirmed that he did not come here on one of his missionary journeys to the Diaspora, as mentioned by Paul in ix. 5, bringing with him a large number of Jewish Christian members of the Church ; the very way in which Paul speaks particularly of his missionary journeys is strongly in favour of this view, as Harnack has lately acknowledged. THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. 259 Christians among the disciples both of Paul and Apollos ; while it is not unlikely that among the disciples of Cephas there were also some uncircnmcised individuals, who even as proselytes, adhered to the synagogue. It undoubtedly follows from iv. 6-S, that each one asserted the pre-eminence of his teacher over the others ; and believed he had already attained the full height of Christian development by what he had received from him. The Hellenic spirit, always accus- tomed to party-strife, thus found food for its subjectivity, its vanity, and its love of contention. Of an official separ- ation of the Church, there was no word as yet ; nor had the Church as such written to the Apostle (vii. 1), who invari- ably speaks of the Church-meeting as united (xi. 20, xiv. 23). The worst feature in the case was that Paul was thus thrust farther and farther from the position of the acknow- ledged highest authority in the Church into that of a party leader. 5. The confusion in the picture that has been drawn of this party-strife, is due to the circumstance that Paul seems to place a fourth party by the side of the three already named, the watchword of whose adherents was, eyw (ei/xt) XptarTov (1 Cor. i. 12).^ Eichhorn regarded this as the neutral party which, according to Schott and Bleek, was expressly approved by the Apostle himself. And in order to justify the equality with the others that is manifestly attri- buted to it, it was generally held that this party too as- serted its adherence to Christ in some exclusive way. But this view that has become prevalent, particularly with more recent commentators, as Riickert, Meyer, Hofmann, and Heinrici, and is also represented by Hausrath and Neander 1 An attempt was already made by Chrysostom, and recently again by Mayerhoff (Hist. krit. Einl. in die petrin. Schriften, Hamb., 1835), to make these words refer only to what Paul said in opposition to the three parties, and by Eabiger to regard them as the watchword equally claimed by all three ; but this cannot be carried out in opposition to the simple wording, which puts it quite on a par with the other three. 260 THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. (in his later years) gives no vivid picture of the party and has no support whatever in the epistle. The same thing may be said of all attempts to form an a priori conception of the peculiar character of the party in question. Hug and Bertholdt following Storr, regarded them as disciples of James, calling themselves by the name of Christ because James was a brother of the Lord; Osiander in his Commentary (Stuttg., 1847, 58), as Ebionites, who looked on Christ only as a teacher ; while Ewald makes them adherents of an Essene-minded teacher, who, taking a particular evangeHcal writing as his authority, disapproved of marriage after the example of Christ. Neander, on the other hand, regarded them (at least at first) as Gentile-Christians, who looked upon Christ as a new So- crates, and rejected Apostolic tradition as alloyed with Judaism ; while Guericke and Olshausen adopt tbe same opinion. Jager too supposed them to be at least a combination of Jewish Christianity and Greek learning {Erkldnmg d. Briefe Pauli an die Kor. aus dem Gesichtspiinkt der vier Part., Tiibing., 1838) ; Goldhorn (in Illgen's Zeitschr. f. hist. Tlieol., 1840, 2) and Dahne {die Christuspartei, Halle, 1842) sought to prove that they were characterized by a Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy of religion, while Kniewel {Eccl. Cor. vetiist. dissensiones et turbce, Gedan., 1841) looked on them as precursors of the Gnostics, a conclusion to which Neander had already come. Since the New Testament begin- nings of Gnosticism are certainly connected with theosophic Jewish Christianity, this view has some affinity with that of Schenkel {De Eccl. Cor. primava., Basel, 1838, comp. das Christusbild der Apostel., Leipz., 1879), which tried to find an actual hold in our epistles, making the polemic of the second refer to them, although it never attacks a party in the Church but only individual intruders. He supposed them to be theosophically educated Jewish Christians, who looked on their relation to Christ as mediated by visions and revelations, as contrasted with the apostolic mediation; and de Wette, Lutterbeck, Grimm and Niedner (comp. also Wieseler, ziir Gesch. d. NTlichen Schrift., Leipz., 1880) assented. It is the great merit of Baur that here too he has been the first to put the inquiry on a firm historical basis (comp. Tilhinger Zeitschr. f. TheoL, 1831, 1; 1836,4), since he suc- ceeded in definitely combining the catchword of 1 Cor. i. 12 with that to which Paul alludes in 2 Cor. x. 7, thus finding in the former passage the Jewish- Christian opponents of the THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. 261 apostles, wlio are combated in tlie second Epistle. In this way lie was led to unite the disciples of Cephas with those of Christ, as Chr. Schmidt after his own method had already done, since both parties put the authority of the primitive apostles, as of those who by personal intercourse with Christ were alone qualified, in opposition to Paul, and are said to have rejected his apostleship ; at least the ol Xpi(TTov mast ha 70 been the heads of the party. Billroth (in his Komm., Leipz., 1833), Credner and Reuss tried to separate them as the violent party, more definitely from the Petrines ; while Becker (die Parteiung in der Gem. zu Cor., Alton., 1842) on the contrary regarded them as the milder party, whose members, because converted by Paul, could not have joined the Petrines. It was Beyschlag (De Eccl. Cor. Factions Christ., Halle, 1861, comp. Stud. u. Krit., 1865, 2 ; 1871, 4) who first emphatically maintained that the very existence in Corinth of a Cephas party, directly distinguished from the Jewish- Christian opponents of the Apostle, and evidently regarded by Paul (iii. 22) as being in no material opposition to himself, shows most clearly that the primitive apostles themselves did not stand in hostile relation to Paul (comp. also Klopper, Bxeg. krit. Untersuchungen ilher den 2. Brief des Paulus an die Gem. zu Corinth., Gott., 1869 ; Comm. zu 2. Cor., Berlin, 1874, and Holtzmann). Even Holsten, recently followed by Mangold, admits an essential distinction between the disciples of Cephas and the ol rov XpicTTov with their violent hostility to Paul, while Hilgenfeld, after the precedent of Grotius and Thiersch, distinguishes them from the latter only as being direct disciples of Christ, which was also the opinion of Beyschlag and Holsten. But the latter alone has clearly recognised that in this case the current idea of the ol XptcrTov as a party consisting of mem- bers of the Corinthian Church, must be definitely abandoned, since the special relation to Christ which the term, however understood, indicates, could only be predicated of themselves 262 THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. by individual teacliers who had come to Corinth, but never by their followers.^ 6. The critical point was that the state of the Corinthian Church offered the most favourable ground for the agita- tion of the Apostle's Jewish- Christian adversaries. In a Church in which the excesses of the free Gentile-Christians and the prevailing differences of opinion on important questions showed undoubted necessity for a legal regulation of the Christian life, they had apparently a just title to come forward as Slolkovol SiKatocrw7;s (2 Cor. xi. 15) ; and in a Church where the name of the Apostle was still used only in the sense of a party leader, they might look for the readiest success if they could attack the gospel that rested on his authority, with effect. They were native Jews, who came from abroad with letters of recommendation to Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 22, iii. 1), and there represented themselves as StaKovoL Xpto-Tou, and even as apostles of Christ (xi. 13, 23), while Paul sometimes designates them ironically as virepXiav aTToa-ToXoL (xi. 5, xii. 11), and again openly calls them i}/€vSa7r6(rTo\oL (xi. 13). If they founded their claim to this character on their special relation to Christ (x. 7 : ct tls TriTToiOev eavraJ Xpto-Tov ctvat), it can only have been they who said of themselves, cyw Xpca-Tov (1 Cor. i. 12),^ and after the - This has indeed already been remarked by others ; but it has been customary to rest satisfied with the fact that the other parties also cannot have been composed of purely personal disciples of Paul and Apollos, particularly the Cephas-party, which can only be asserted of the latter if we shut our eyes to the view put forward in No. 4, note 2. But it is not possible to understand the ol UavXov, oi 'AvroXXw, oi Krj^d as applying either in word or substance to such as shared the views of these men ; and even if possible, it would not prove that oi XpiaroO referred to such as gave the preference to Christ before all other teachers, on account of the direct relation borne by the primitive apostles or their teachers to him. * It is vain to put forward the ^Kdaros vfxQv \eyei against the reference of the iyC) XpiaroO to the Judaistic errorists. The question turns on the interpretation of the Apostle's meaning when he says he has heard, oTi ^piSes if vfuif d