LIBRARY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA PRESENTED BY MRS. MACKINLEY HELM A CRITICAL INTEODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES IN THEOLOGY Christianity and Ethics. BT ARCHIBALD B. D. ALEXANDER, M.A., D.D. The Environment of Early Christianity. By S. ANGUS, M.A., Ph.D. History of the Study of Theology. Vol. I. " " " VoLIL By Dr. C. A. BRIOGS. The Christian Hope. By W. ADAMS BROWN, Ph.D., D.D. Christianity and Social Questions. By WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, F.B.A., D.D., D.Sc. The Justification of God. By Rev. P. T. FORSYTH. Christian Apologetics. By Rev. A. E. GARVIE. A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament. By GEORGE BUCHANAN GRAY, D.D., D.Litt. Gospel Origins. By WILLIAM WEST HOLDSWORTH, M.A. Faith and Its Psychology. By WILLIAM R. INOE, D.D. Christianity and Sin. By ROBERT MACKINTOSH, D.D. Protestant Thought Before Kant By A. C. McGiFFERT, Ph.D., D.D. The Theology of the Gospels. By JAMES MOFFATT, D.D., D.Litt. History of Christian Thought Since Kant By EDWARD CALDWELL MOORE, D.D. The Doctrine of the Atonement. By J. K. MOZLEY, M.A. Revelation and Inspiration. By JAMES ORR, D.D. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament By ARTHUR SAMUEL PEAKE, D.D. Philosophy and Religion. By HASTINGS RASHDALL, D.Litt. (Oxon.), D.C.L. (Durham), F.B.A. The Holy Spirit. By T. REES, M.A. (Load.), B.A. (Oxon.). The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament By H. WHEBLER ROBINSON, M.A. The Text and Canon of the New Testament By ALEXANDER SOUTER, D.Litt. Christian Thought to the Reformation. By HERBERT B. WORKMAN, D.Litt. The Theology of the Epistles. By H. A. A. KENNEDY, D.Sc., D.D. The Pharisees and Jesus. By A. T. ROBERTSON, A.M., D.D., LL.D. The Originality of the Christian Message. By H. R. MACKINTOSH, D.D., D.Phil. L A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT BY ARTHUR S. PEAKE M.A., D.D? nOFBSSOR OP BIBLICAL EXEGESIS IN THE UNIVERSITY Or UANCHKSTU NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1922 Hi Printed in the United States of America TO MY PUPILS PAST AND PRESENT I DEDICATE THIS VOLUME IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF NEVER-FAILING KINDNESS AND GENEROUS CONSIDERATION GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES MAN has no deep*? or wider interest than theology ; none deeper, for however much he may change, he never loses his lore of the many questions it covers ; and none wider, for under whatever law he may live he never escapes from its spacious shade ; nor does he ever find that it speaks to him in vain or uses a voice that fails to reach him. Once the present writer was talking with a friend who has equal fame as a statesman and a man of letters, and he said, "Every day I live, Politics, which are affairs of Man and Time, interest me less, while Theology, which is an affair of God and Eternity, interests me more." As with him, so with many, though the many feel that their interest is in theology and not in dogma. Dogma, they know, is but a series of resolutions framed by a council or parliament, which they do not respect any the more because the parliament was tomposed of ecclesiastically -minded persons ; while the theology which so interests them is a discourse touching Bod, though the Being so named is the God man con- ceived as not only related to himself and his world but also as rising ever higher with the notions of the self and the world. Wise books, not in dogma but in theology, may therefore be described as the supreme need of onr GENERAL INTRODUCTION day, for only Bach can save us from much fanaticism and secure us in the full possession of a sober and sane reason. Theology is less a single science than an ency- clopaedia of sciences; indeed all the sciences which hare to do with man hare a better right to be called theological than anthropological, though the man it studies is not simply an individual but a race. Its way of viewing man is indeed characteristic; from this have come some of its brighter ideals and some of its darkest dreams. The ideals are all either ethical or social, and would make of earth a heaven, creating fraternity amongst men and forming all states into a goodly sisterhood ; the dreams may be represented by doctrines which concern sin on the one side and the will of God on the other. But even this will cannot make sin luminous, for were it made radiant with grace, it would cease to be sin. These books then, which have all to be written by men who have lived in the full blaze of modern light, though without having either their eyes burned out or their souls scorched into insensibility, are in- tended to present God in relation to Man and Man in relation to God. It is intended that they begin, not in date of publication, but in order of thought, with a Theological Encyclopaedia which shall show the circle of sciences co-ordinated under the term Theology, though all will be viewed as related to its central or main idea. This relation of God to human know- ledge will then be looked at through mind as a com- munion of Deity with humanity, or God in fellowship with "oocrete man. On this basis the idea of Kevela- GENBBAL INTRODUCTION ton will be dealt with. Then, 00 far at history and philology are concerned, the two Sacred Books, which are here most significant, will be viewed as the scholar, who is also a divine, views them; in other words, the Old and New Testaments, regarded as human documents, will be criticised as a literature which expresses relations to both the present and the future ; that is, to the men and races who made the books, as well as to the races and men the books made. The Bible will thus be studied in the Semitic family which gave it being, and also in the Indo-European families which gave to it the quality of the life to which they have attained. But Theology has to do with more than sacred literature; it has also to do with the thoughts and life its history occasioned. Therefore the Church has to be studied and presented as an institution which God founded and man ad- ministers. But it is possible to know this Church only through the thoughts it thinks, the doctrines it holds, the characters and the persons it forms, the people who are its saints and embody its ideals of sanctity, the acts it does, which are its sacraments, and the laws it follows and enforces which are its polity, and the young it educates and the nations it directs and controls. These are the points to be presented in the volumes which follow, which are all to be occupied with theology or the knowledge of God and His wars. A.M.Y. PREFACE A FEW words are necessary to explain the scope and excuse the limitations of the present volume. In view of the restricted space at his disposal and the variety and complexity of the problems, the author decided to concentrate attention exclusively on the critical questions. Hence there is no account of the subject-matter of the books or outline of their con- tents, no biographies of the writers or histories of the communities addressed. No notice has been taken of historical problems except so far as their consideration was involved in the critical discussion. Textual criti- cism and the history of the canon had obviously to be excluded. But for this rigorous restriction the volume would have largely lost such value as it may possess. Even as it is, the author is well aware how inadequate the treatment must often seem. He be- lieves, however, that there is room for a book of this size and scope, and he has tried to use the space allotted to him to the best advantage. He trusts it may serve the purpose of many who have no leisure to study a lengthier volume, and that others may find it a useful preparation for the larger works of Julicher, Zahn, or Moffatt. tiii INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT At several points questions have not been raised, or have been dismissed with a bare reference, simply because no room could be found for an adequate dis- cussion. This was especially the case in the chapter on the Synoptic Gospels. It is true that a topic of such supreme importance as a comparison of Mark with Q in the matter of historical value, which has been forced into such prominence by Wellhausen, would in any case have been excluded by the plan of the book. But such questions as that of the strati- fication of Mark in the form given to it by Loisy and Bacon among others, or of the treatment of Mark by Matthew and Luke, and the principles on which their use of it proceeded, or of the reconstruction of Q, it was the author's wish to have examined at some length. This would, however, have been done at the expense of curtailing the more elementary parts of the discussion, which he was unwilling to do in the interests of the majority of his readers. A similar excuse must be offered for the neglect of the ultra- radical school of critics, whether as represented by scholars like Steck, Loman, and Van Manen, or in the modified form defended by Voelter. On the general principles which underlie the criticism of this group, the author may refer to what he said in his Inaugural Lecture at the University of Manchester. The recent work of Dr. R. Scott on the Pauline Epistles had also to be regretfully passed by. Other shortcomings may receive a partial explanation in the fact that not a little PREFACE b of the volume had to be dictated in such intervals as the author's state of health permitted. The book is written from a scientific standpoint Bj this it is not intended that it is written with a bias against tradition, but that it is written with a desire to be loyal to the facts. The author is conscious of no wish to be in the critical fashion or out of it. That the great questions of faith cannot ultimately be ignored hardly needs to be said, and he has not shrunk from discussing them in their proper place. But it is desirable that, so far as may be, the critical problems should be detached from them. We may look forward to the time when scholars will cease to label a criticism they dislike as ' apologetic ' or ' unbelieving,' and shall also cease to deserve the affixing of such labels. The author has finally to thank the Editor of the London Quarterly Review for his cordial permission to use an article on the Fourth Gospel contributed by him to that periodical. SeptmAmr 11909. CONTENTS rm PRKFACK, i , .Til CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY, . * t 1 CHAPTER IH THK EPISTLK TO THK QALATIAN8, . . . .17 CHAPTER IV THK JBPI8TLKS TO THK CORINTHIANS, . ... 31 CHAPTER V THK BPISTLK TO THK ROMANS, . ... 39 CHAPTER VI THK KFISTLK8 OF THK IMPRISONMENT, , . . 46 CHAPTER VII THK PASTORAL EPISTLES, . . . .60 CHAPTER Vni THK KPI8TLK TO THK HEBREWS, . . 7S ri rfi INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER IX K, 96 CHAPTER XII THB SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, . . . . .101 CHAPTER XIII THB ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, . . * . 12ft CHAPTER XIV THB JOHANMINE WRITINGS, . . . . 136 CHAPTER XV 7HK RKVBLATIOK OF JOHN, . . . . 152 CHAPTER XVI THK EPISTLES OF JOHJT, . 170 CHAPTER XVH THB GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, 177 BIBLIOGRAPHY,. 229 , , . S37 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY FOB the sake of convenience it is customary to divide the field of New Testament scholarship into various depart- ments in which the critical, historical, exegetical and theological problems presented by the literature are investigated. The division, however, must not blind us to the unity of the field and the close interrelation of its several parts. The conclusion we reach in one section inevitably reacts on our study of another. It might seem as if a passage bore the same interpretation whatever its date and whoever its author. But this is by no means the case, since the same expressions may mean different things on different lips or when addressed to varying conditions. The ultimate ami of the New Testament student is to understand the religious and theological development which is reflected in the documents. But to do this he must re- construct the movement of external events and within this environment trace the career of the Founder and the growth of the primitive Church. He must, in other words, pursue the study of New Testament history. Then he must minutely examine the documents in detail ; that is, he must devote himself to the exegesis of the New Testament. Moreover, he cannot master the various types of doctrine within the literature without confronting the problems of A 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [cm, authorship, nor can he trace the chronological developmeni of thought without settling the relative date of his docu- ments. These problems of date and authorship are the special concern of New Testament Introduction. And Just as New Testament Theology depends for its results to no little extent on the sister sciences, so it might be shown that each of these is dependent upon the rest. Nevertheless, while we cannot forget this fact of interdependence and the necessity that all should move forward together, it is essen- tial that we should isolate each for special study, and in this volume we are concerned with the problems of New Testa- ment criticism. This science is divided into general and special introduction. The former of these embraces Textual criticism and the history of the Canon, the latter examines each book in turn with a view to the determination of its authorship, its structure, its date, its local destination and kindred problems. In the present volume the limits of space compel us to restrict ourselves to special introduction. In its modern form this science was pre-eminently the creation of F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school. 1 Not of * Baur published what proved to be the manifesto of the new critical school in 1831. This was an article on the Christ-party in the Church of Corinth. Hilgenfeld called it ' the ancestral stronghold of our whole criti- cism,' a designation which drew from Meyer the tart reply that like many another ancestral stronghold it was in ruins. The article was followed by a book on the Pastoral Epistles in 1835 and by an Essay on the Epistle to the Romans in 1836. It was not till 1845 that his great work on Paul appeared. Of his other works we may mention simply that on the Gospels, and his Church Hittory of the First Three Centuries coDtaining the final statement of his critical reconstruction of the history. His most eminent followers were Zeller and Schwegler (whose Post-Apostolic Age calls for special mention), and at a somewhat later time Hilgenfeld, who in some respects retreated from the master's position. Hilgenfeld was a voluminous writer : his views on New Testament criticism may be seen most conveniently in his New Testament Introduction published in 1875, though he wrote much on later developments in the interval of thirty years between its publication and hii death. Holsten was more faithful to the rigour of Baur s criticism, but hia most conspicuous service was rendered in the interpretation of the Pauline theology. Pfleiderer also was much more successful in his treatment ol ideas than of critical problems, and he showed a singularly open mind to the last, moving from his earlier positions alike in the philosophy of religion, in Criticism, and in the interpretation of the Nw Testament. i.] INTBODUCTOBY I course that several of the topics discussed in it had not already been treated with skill and learning by earlier scholars, but they had dealt with them rather as isolated questions, whereas Baur and the brilliant band of scholars he gathered about him dealt with them as a connected whole, and also brought the literature into most intimate relation to the whole development of the primitive Church. In philosophy Baur was a Hegelian, and he reconstructed the history of primitive Christianity in accordance with the formula that thought moves through thesis and antithesis to synthesis. In other words a position is laid down which calls forth a contradiction. These are gradually drawn together and at last merged hi a higher unity. Applying this formula to the history of primitive Christianity, Baur conceived the whole development to exhibit the interplay of two forces, Jewish Christianity on the one side and Paulinism on the other, which ultimately, by the drawing together of the opposing parties, were reconciled in the Catholic Church of the second century, while the repre- sentatives of the original tendencies, the Ebionites on the one hand and Marcion on the other, stood outside the compromise and were consequently branded as heretics. Naturally, however much this construction may have been suggested by philosophical principles, it was not defended simply as an intuition. Facts and divination were sup- posed to point in the same way, though divination guided the search for facts. The Epistles to the Galatians and to the Corinthians in particular were believed to exhibit a sharp antagonism between the original apostles and Paul, and this was found also hi the Apocalypse in which the apostle John was presumed to make a violent attack upon the apostle to the Gentiles. The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions were thought to prove the bitter hostility of the primitive apostles to Paul, who was believed to be in- tended by Simon Magus, the opponent of Simon Peter. The neglect of Paul during the greater part of the second 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. century was imagined to point in the same direction and be a survival of the Jewish Christian antagonism to him. The New Testament documents had to be dated by the consideration of the place they filled in the movement from antagonism to unity. Earlier books showed the hostility of the parties at its greatest, and the more conciliatory the tendency they displayed the later it was necessary to place them. Naturally this involved a very radical criticism of the New Testament. Only five books were left by Baur to the authors whose names they bear, namely : Galatians, Corinthians and Romans i.-xiv. to Paul, and the Apocalypse to the apostle John. Even within the school this revolu- tionary attitude provoked dissent, and in addition to Baur's four Hilgenfeld recognised the genuineness of Rom.xv.,xvi., 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon. The most serious blow was struck at the school by the publication in 1857 of the second edition of Ritschl's Entstehung der Altkatkolischen Kirche ; and although it cannot be said that New Testament criticism has returned to traditional views there has been a retreat all along the line from the positions defended by Baur. It will be instructive to linger a little on the causes which led to the collapse of the Tubingen theory. It was certainly a praiseworthy thing to recognise that the origin of the Catholic Church was a problem which had to be explained. It was also commendable to treat the New Testament literature in close connexion with the development of the Church and to overcome the isolation which had characterised earlier criticism. Moreover, there was a conflict in the early Church, and it was well to force the fact into prominence. But the Tubingen reconstruc- tion was too much dominated by theory to which the facts had to bend. While reasons were assigned for the positions adopted, these were often of a flimsy character such as would have influenced no one unless he had a theory to support. It was also a radical vice of method that literary was too much controlled by historical criticism. L] INTRODUCTORY ft Apart from these general considerations, the theory hat broken down in detail and that at vital points. It is not the fact that the most neutral documents were the latest. Baur was forced to regard Mark as the latest of the Synoptists, since it was the most colourless in regard to the conflict which rent the early Church. One of the surest and most generally accepted results of Synoptic criticism is that Mark is the earliest Gospel. Similarly the Gospel of Luke was regarded as a Catholicised version of the Gospel of Marcion, but it is now universally recognised that the latter was a mutilated edition of the former. The Acts of the Apostles was supposed to be a history of the Apostolic Age written from the Catholic standpoint, in which the original bitter antagonism was suppressed and a picture of almost unbroken harmony was substituted. It is now generally agreed that the elaborate and ingenious attempts to show that the writer instituted a far-reaching parallelism between Peter and Paul in order to assimilate them to each other, has broken down, and whatever the tendency of the work may have been, it was not that which Baur discovered in it. Among those who reject the apos- tolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel there is a very large agreement that it should be dated roughly speaking half a century earlier than the time to which Baur assigned it. Further, it is clear from an impartial study of the Pauline Epistles which Baur recognised as genuine that they will not bear the weight which he put upon them. They testify to a much closer agreement between Paul and the ' pillar apostles ' (Gal. ii. 9) than Baur admitted. The importance attached to the Clementine literature is now seen to have been wholly exaggerated and Simon Magus is usually regarded as a historical character, not as a mere literary double of Paul, though it can hardly be doubted that Paul is attacked in the guise of Simon. The character of the post-apostolic period in which Baur placed so many New Testament writings is, so far as we know it, thoroughly d INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT r ca commonplace and destitute of originality, and it would b surprising if the creative age of the Church produced so little literature, while the period in which the initial impulse had been largely exhausted should be so rich hi pseudonymous writings of the first rank. The fuller understanding of Judaism has shown that it was far more complex than was allowed for by Baur, and that the factors which went to create both the New Testament literature and the Catholic Church of the second century were much more numerous The neglect of Paul hi the second century was due to no antagonism to the apostle but simply to inability on the part of Gentile Christians, who came to the Gospel with such very different presuppositions and modes of thought, to onderstand him. The controversy with the Jewish Christians had long ceased to have any living interest for the Church, and the declension from the evangelical position of Paul to the moralism of the Apostolic Fathers was not the triumph of Jewish legalism but only one example of the rule that a great spiritual movement quickly sinks in the second generation to the conventional level as the original enthusi- asm dies down. The Tubingen school also gave greater prominence to Paul than to Jesus, as was not unnatural in view of the fact that Jesus was less easily fitted into the Tubingen formula and the Gospels were regarded rather as landmarks in the controversy than as historical sources. But no theory can be permanent which fails to see in Jesus the most powerful factor in the creation and develop- ment of the early Church. For a time it seemed as if the new theory would secure ultimate victory. Several of the foremost New Testament scholars, however, never accepted it, and in its main lines it has been long ago abandoned. At the same time Baur'g work was epoch-making in that he largely set the problemi for New Testament science, and although his own solution had a far narrower range than he imagined, it possessed an element of truth, and it is not easy to overestimate the L) INTRODUCTORY 7 service of those who are the first to state the problems which have to be investigated. Later developments have shown a much closer approximation to traditional views of authorship, though the extent of this return to tradition is often exaggerated. It is most marked in the case of the Pauline Epistles. With the wider knowledge of the conditions it has become clear that Baur's criteria of date and authorship were altogether too narrow and the possi- bilities of the first century much larger than he believed. Within the limits of our space it is not desirable to pursue the history further, since the detailed discussion of the literature will bring the later developments before us. It may be well, however, to mention here some of the criteria for the solution of the critical problems presented by the literature. We have to recognise first that the historical books of the New Testament did not owe their origin simply to a scientific interest such as animates a modern historian. It is probable that the purely historical interest of New Testament writers is underrated by some scholars to-day, but it is clear that it was no mere concern to reproduce the past which impelled them to write. The present and the future were for them the matters of most urgent concern. We thus gain no little insight into the conditions with which the authors were confronted even from the history of the lif e of Christ or of the primitive Church. Points which they selected for mention were often those which had the most immediate bearing on contemporary conditions. Some think that we have to do here not simply with selection but also with creation ; for example, sayings were put in the mouth of Jesus which were really the outcome of the Church's later necessities. We may refuse to give anything like the scope to this principle which it at times receives and yet recognise that this motive determined the choice of many incidents and sayings. Thus the address of Jesus to the twelve or to the seventy as to the methods of their mission supplied useful directions for the Church's later propa- 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca ganda. The necessity of making good the case for the Gospel both against Jews and pagans has exercised con- siderable influence on the selection of material. The relations of Christianity with the Roman Empire are re- flected not only in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, but even in the Gospels. This apologetic motive is of great value in determining date, but certain cautions have to be borne in mind in applying it. Our information as to external conditions is still far too uncertain to supply us with a reliable series of objective tests. Thus very varied opinions are still held as to the period when Christianity was definitely recognised by the State as an illicit religion. In apocalyptic writings we have also to beware of seeking for historical allusions where the author is simply employing very ancient eschatological material. In view of the strained expectation with which the primitive Christians looked forward to the Second Coming we cannot anticipate that a concern for narrating the Gospel history would arise till a comparatively late period. The need for preserving reminiscences of the ministry of Jesus would not be felt till a considerable time had elapsed, though in the Gentile mission the demand may well have arisen earlier than we should anticipate, since there would be very few who could give first-hand oral information. It is very difficult to believe that a collection of Christ's sayings was compiled during His lifetime, in view of the fact that His disciples did not anticipate His speedy and tragic removal. While the bridegroom was still with them they lived in Joyous freedom from anxiety as to the future, and for many years after His departure from earth they looked on their life as a purely provisional and interim condition which might at any moment be brought to a splendid close. The Epistles were naturally an earlier form of literature than the Gospels, since they were elicited by the need of dealing with immediate necessities. i.] INTRODUCTORY The best order to be pursued in the treatment of the subject is not quite easy to determine. It is probably best to begin with the Pauline Epistles, since it is desirable as far as possible to start with the earliest literature which is also contemporary with the events with which it deals. Simi- larly it is best to keep the Johannine literature together and reserve it for the close. The remaining Epistles natu- rally follow the Pauline ; the Synoptists and Act* precede the Johannine writings. 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER II THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS THERE is now a general consensus of critical opinion in favour of the genuineness of 1 Thessalonians. The external evidence is good. Irenaeus is the first to name it, and it is quoted without question as Paul's from that time onwards. It is found in the Syriac and Old Lathi versions and is included among the Pauline Epistles hi the Muratorian Canon. It was also placed by Marcion hi his Canon of Christian writings which included a mutilated Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline Epistles (the Pastoral Epistles being excluded). The internal evidence is decisive. No one writing hi Paul's name after his death would have made him anticipate that the Second Coming would take place while he was still alive, since he would know that this anticipation of survival till the Parousia had been belied by the event. The difficulty created with reference to the destiny of those members of the Church who had died before the Second Coming points to a very early stage in the his- tory of the Thessalonian Church. The question must have been obsolete long before Paul's death. Added to this we can detect no adequate motive why the Epistle should have been written hi Paul's name. It serves no special purpose for which we can naturally think of a writer as invoking his authority. The organisation is hi a rudi- mentary stage ; we meet with no technical titles for the officials. The Epistle must have been written hi Paul's lifetime, and it may therefore be taken for granted that it was written by Paul himself. H.J THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIAN8 11 There are no arguments of weight on the other side, unless we insist that the four practically unquestioned Epistles must be taken as a standard to which everything must conform. But there was no Judaising agitation in Thessalonica, so that the relation of the Gospel to the Law called for no discussion. Indeed it would have been strange had such an agitation touched the Church so early. It is not quite easy to harmonise the references in the Epistle with the story related in the Acts, but they are not contradictory, and even if they were this would be no argument against the Epistle's genuineness. Several have thought that ii. 16 implies that the destruction of Jerusalem had already taken place. If this were correct it would be simpler to consider this verse as an interpolation wholly or in part. It is not clear, however, that there is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem even as anticipated, for Paul saw a Divine Judgment in the hardening of the Jews against Christianity; and if there were, such an anticipation would not be surprising in one who was acquainted with Christ's prediction and had such experience of the Jews' obstinate antagonism to the Gospel. There is accordingly no need to detect a later hand hi ii. 16, still less on this slender basis to place the whole Epistle after A.D. 70. The date and place of writing can be fixed within very narrow limits. It is clear from a comparison of the Epistle with the Acts that it was written shortly after the apostle had left Thessalonica. He had reached Athens (iii. 1), had sent Timothy back to Thessalonica from that city (iii. 2), and had been rejoined by him (iii. 6), and this, as we learn from Acts xviii. 5, was not at Athens but at Corinth. We must assume, however, that an interval of several months had elapsed between the apostle's departure from Thessa- lonica and the despatch of this letter. We must allow time for Paul's Journey to Athens and the subsequent arrival of Silas and Timothy, for Paul's work in Athens and later in Corinth, which had resulted in the establishment ofChurchei 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [c* in Achaia. The rhetorical statement that the news of the Thessalonians' acceptance of the Gospel had gone into every place and the report of it had reached Paul must have some specific reference, and may point to news Paul had reeeived from the Churches in Galatia, which may have been occasioned by a letter sent to them by Timothy. The deaths which had occurred in the numerically small congregation also point in the same direction. We can scarcely allow less than six months for the interval; perhaps it should be more. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was of course rejected by the Tubingen school, but unlike the First Epistle it is still rejected by many scholars. The most obvious ground of objection is that presented by the eschatological section (ii. 1-12). It would be out of the question to rescue the authenticity of the Epistle by sacrificing this section as a later interpolation. The Epistle was written for the sake of that paragraph; remove it and we cannot understand what object could be served by the composition of the rest. If ii. 1-12 is not the work of Paul the authenticity of the whole must be surrendered. The author seems to contra- dict the view as to the Second Coming expressed in the First Epistle. In 1 Thessalonians Paul appears to anticipate that the Second Coming is imminent and will be sudden, and expects that some at least of his readers and himself will survive till it takes place. In the Second Epistle he tells them that they must not be led to think that it is at hand, especially mentioning that such an opinion might be derived from a letter professing to come from himself. A development of apostasy is first to take place, and the man of lawlessness is to be revealed and then slain on the appearance of Christ. The mention in ii. 2 of a letter which might be circulated in Paul's name combined with the at- testation of authenticity at the close (iii. 17) has not nnaturally raised the suspicion that the author wished to IL] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 13 substitute his own composition for 1 Thessalonians with its uncongenial eschatology. This is supported by the extraordinary similarity between the two Epistles. More- over, the circulation of a forged letter during Paul's lifetime and while he was within easy reach is highly improbable. A further contradiction with 1 Thessalonians is found hi the anticipation of suddenness in the earlier Epistle as con- trasted with the account given hi the Second Epistle of the events which were to lead up to it. It is possible, however, to put the relations between the two Epistles in a reasonable light without recourse to the hypothesis of non-authenticity. While Paul hi the First Epistle anticipates that the Second Coming will take place hi his own lif etime, he does not intend to convey the opinion that it will take place immediately. Some of the Thessa- lonians, however, probably through misunderstanding of his language, imagined that the Second Advent was immin- ent. To correct the restlessness and disorder which ensued, Paul wrote the Second Epistle to interpret the language of the First, warning them against forgeries and explaining that the Parousia cannot be imminent inasmuch as a certain development which still lies hi the future is tc take place before it. Similarly he anticipates in 1 Cor. xv. the return of Christ in his lifetime, but in Romans xi. 25, 26 he says that the Gospel will fulfil its function among the Gentiles and all Israel will be saved before it takes place. And while hi the eschatological discourse in the Gospels Christ emphasises the suddenness of the Second Com ing, He nevertheless points out several signs of the end. It is one of our commonest experiences that a long-anticipated event happens suddenly at the last. Besides, it is easy to exaggerate here. It is upon the unwatchful that the Day of the Lord steals as a thief in the night, not on the sons of the light who are wakeful and sober (1 Thess. v. 2-6). And while it is quite improbable that a forged letter had been circulated at Thessalonica, one can easily see how Paul, 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca conscious that his earlier letter gave no real justification for the disorder in the Church, was driven to suspect that the Thessalonians had been misled by a letter which had been circulated falsely hi his name. In fact the exhortation to constant watchfulness in the First Epistle might well have been interpreted as a call to forsake the homelier duties of everyday life. Apart from its supposed inconsistency with 1 Thessa- lonians, the section itself has naturally created difficulties. The ideas have no parallel in the Pauline Epistles, and to many they seem to bear the stamp of a later time. Thus Hilgenfeld explained the mystery of lawlessness as Gnosti- cism, but there is no trace of Gnosticism hi this Epistle. Kern put forward the ingenious view that the Epistle was composed between 68 and 70, when Nero was supposed to be hi hiding, restrained from entering on his career as Antichrist by the circumstances of the tune and especially by Vespasian, who was at the time besieging Jerusalem. The apostasy he took to be the outbreak of wickedness on the part of the Jews during the siege. But this is open to the serious objection that a spurious Epistle should be accepted as genuine within so brief a period after Paul's death. If to escape this difficulty it be placed in the first decade of the second century, as by some scholars, then the still more formidable objection arises that the writer refers to the man of lawlessness as seated in the temple without betraying any knowledge that the temple had been long ago destroyed, to say nothing of the difficulty of suggesting a plausible reason for the composition of the Epistle at that date. As a matter of fact there is no difficulty in account- ing for the anticipations expressed by Paul. Quite possibly, as Bousset and others have argued, the writer is borrowing from a very ancient Antichrist legend which would amply account for the presence of those features hi the description which seem to some writers to demand a post-Pauline date. But even if this were not the case, the conditions from ths tune of Antiochus Epiphanes onwards would be quite w.] THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 1* adequate. The description can be readily understood from the conditions of Paul's own age. It is probably a mistake to look for the mystery of lawlessness or its personal in- carnation as springing out of Judaism, the antagonism to the Gospel displayed by the Jews being quite inadequate to account for the language Paul uses in this section. From monotheists and legalists so fanatical he would expect no such blasphemous outburst of antitheism and lawlessness. It is to heathenism rather than to those who ' have a zeal for God though not according to knowledge,' that we must look. There is nothing that so closely corresponds to Paul's description as the deification of the Roman Emperors, which had gone to insane lengths with Caligula. Paul's language especially reminds us of Caligula's orders to have his statue placed hi the temple at Jerusalem. The mystery of law- lessness was already at work in Paul's tune, held in check for a time by Claudius the reigning Emperor, but destined on his removal to receive its final consummation in a monster of impiety who would be slain by Christ at the Second Coming. It was not unnatural that concurrently with this there should be a great apostasy within the Christian Church itself, such as is also predicted in the Gospels It is therefore quite unnecessary to descend below the reign of Claudius for the date. Nor is there anything surprising in its isolation in the Pauline Epistles. It is only by accident that we hear of it at all. Paul merely repeats what he had already told his readers, and does so simply to disabuse them of anticipations which had a disastrous moral result. Since the subject was one that touched the future of the Roman Empire, he would shrink from committing his views to writing which might get into the wrong hands. He does so here only of necessity and in veiled words. In the Judgment of some scholars a still more serious difficulty is created by the striking likeness of the Second Epistle to the First. Hausrath in fact argued that the only genuine part of the letter was the eschatological passage. It is certainly strange that after the inteival 16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca. which separated the two Epistles Paul should repeat himself to such a degree as he does in 2 Thessalonians. To some extent we may account for this by the similarity of the conditions, and especially by the probability that Paul, in writing to correct a false opinion on a subject he had already dealt with, would call to mind the conditions in which his former letter had been written and what he had said in it. These considerations may perhaps not entirely remove the difficulty. But the theory of spuriousness is beset with difficulties greater still, for criticism has not simply to raise objections to the traditional authorship but to suggest a reason for the composition of a spurious letter. Two such suggestions have been made. One is that it was the author's intention to replace the First Epistle, whose eschatology had been falsified, by the Second. The other is that the Epistle was not designed to replace but to explain the former in harmony with the writer's eschatological views. Against the latter theory we must urge that a much shorter letter would have been all that was necessary. The former theory is not exposed to this weakness and really accounts for the repetition of so much in the First Epistle, but it is not easy to believe that a project of this kind should be contemplated. How could a writer seri- ously hope, at the date to which the Epistle is assigned, to foist a hitherto unheard-of composition upon the Church, especially the Church at Thessalonica ? And this difficulty shrinks into insignificance by the side of that attached to the expectation that he would get the Church to put the First Epistle in the wastepaper basket and adopt the spurious Epistle in its place. We should also have expected a later writer to draw to some extent on other Pauline Epistles and introduce some of the more distinctively Pauline expressions and ideas hi order to stamp it more directly as Paul's. It seems, therefore, to be still the simplest view that the Epistle is genuine. A brief period only separated it from the First Epistle, and it also was written from Corinth. m.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 17 CHAPTER III THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS IT is clear from the Epistle itself that thedmrches addressed were founded at the same time and had the same history (iv. 13-15), so that we cannot identify them with a combina- tion of Churches founded on different occasions. The term Galatia is used both hi a wider and in a narrower sense. The latter was the original sense, according to which the term indicated a district where there had been a settlement of Gauls who had invaded the country hi the third century B.C. It is in this region that, according to the majority of scholars, the Churches addressed hi this Epistle are to be sought. For convenience of reference this view is now commonly designated the North Galatian theory. But the term, as is now universally admitted, was also used hi the wider sense of the Roman province of Galatia, which in- cluded not only Galatia proper, but also parts of Phrygia, Lycaonia, and Pisidia. In this province Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra were all included, so that it has been held by scholars of the first rank, such as Renan, Weizsacker, Hausrath, Pfleiderer and Zahn, that the Epistles were addressed to these Churches, which had been founded by Paul on his so-called First Missionary Journey. This South Galatian theory has been energetically advo- cated by Ramsay with conspicuous ability, learning and resourcefulness, and is now accepted by a large number of scholars, though still rejected by Schiirer, Chase, Wendt, Schmiedel, Jiilicher, Steinmann and others. If it can be substantiated we know something of the origin of these B 18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [c* Churches, and against this background the Epistle stands out much more clearly. Since no Churches were founded in North Galatia on this Journey we must, for the reason already given, refuse to seek the Churches both in North Galatia and South Galatia. While the term Galatia embraced in its official sense the whole province, it does not follow that it might not also be used hi the more restricted sense. The official usage is more probable for Paul, since his imperialist point of view led him in other instances to prefer the official Roman titles. Galatia bears this sense in 1 Peter i. 1. This makes room for the South Galatian theory as a possibility, though it does not decide in its favour. The proof of it is mainly rested on the contention that Paul founded no Churches in North Galatia. If he did, it was on the Second Missionary Journey. Luke tells us that on this Journey Paul and his companions ' passed through the Phrygian and Galatian country ' (rrjv <&pvyiav KCU TaXariKyv -^wpav), and it is in this clause that we must find concealed the establish- ment of Christianity in North Galatia. It is so well con- cealed that no one would guess from it that Paul had preached the Gospel there in consequence of illness and had met with an enthusiastic reception from those who became his converts. The silence of Acts is not conclusive, for Luke's interest is concentrated on the advance towards Europe, but it raises a prejudice at the outset against the North Galatian theory, all the more that Luke gives such full details of the mission elsewhere, Cyprus, South Galatia, Macedonia, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, though it is slightly discounted by his silence as to Paul's work in Syria and Cilicia (Gal. i. 21). The description of the Journey in Acts xvi. 6-10 is also quite unfavourable to the view that Paul preached in North Galatia. The writer's mam drift is plain : he wishes to show how the plans of Paul were twice overruled by the Spirit, that he might be forced to press on into Europe, not HI.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1 turning aside on the one hand to Asia or on the other to Bithynia. A detour into North Galatia does not fit this general scheme. It is true that when he was forbidden to preach hi Asia he might have struck across North Galatia, intending to reach the eastern side of Bithynia. But this is exposed to great difficulties. The expression to go into Bithynia meant to go to the western part of that province, but on the North Galatian theory as usually formulated a journey through North Galatia would lead to the eastern part. It is unlikely that Paul would think of going to Eastern Bithynia, for only one city hi it would have been likely to attract his attention, and even if he had, he would not have been likely to go by land since the route was very difficult. Moreover, we cannot account on this view for the reference to Mysia. This route to Eastern Bithynia would not bring them anywhere near Mysia, and the author would have very carelessly omitted to say how they came into the neighbourhood of Mysia. Again we learn that an illness of Paul was the occasion of his founding the Galatian Churches. The probability, however, that he should have preached hi North Galatia in consequence of illness must be regarded as remote. For either he was taken ill when passing through it to another district, or he went there to regain his health. Against the former it must be said that the road through North Galatia led nowhere where he was likely to go, against the latter that the climate was singularly unfitted for an invalid. It is also unlikely that time can be allowed on the Second Journey for the evangelisation of the places hi North Galatia, where Paul is usually supposed to have planted Churches, especially when he was enfeebled and hampered by illness. The avoidance by Luke of the term Galatia in xvi. 6 is also difficult to understand on the North Galatian theory, since this would have been the natural as it is elsewhere the invariable term. Luke however, says ' Galatic territory,' 80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca which suggests territory connected in some way with Gal- atia in the strict sense, but not to be identified with it. The whole expression ' the Phrygian and Galatian terri- tory ' Lightfoot believes to designate not two lands but one, * the Phrygo-Galatic territory ' as we should say. He explains that North Galatia is so called because it had been Phrygian, but on the conquest by the Gauls had become Galatic. This bit of antiquarianism, however, would be very surprising hi itself, and it is exposed to the objection that North Galatia probably did not retain the name Phrygia so late as this period. Ramsay agrees that only one land is intended, and that it is called ' Galatic ' because it was a district connected with or included in Galatia, but one which Luke did not choose to call Galatia, while ' Phrygian ' fixes it down to the part of Galatia which included Iconium and Antioch. It must be confessed, however, that this is difficult to harmonise with the true text of Acts xvi. 6, which is most naturally interpreted to mean that they went through the district in question because they had been prohibited from preaching in Asia, and this part of their journey seems to begin after the South Galatian Churches have been left. Ramsay takes the prohibition to be subsequent to their passage through the district, which is not the more natural sense. Perhaps we should adopt the view that the term is a general one denoting the districts bordering on Galatia and Phrygia. It is also possible, and on the North Galatian theory im- perative, to take Phrygia as a noun, in which case the route lies first through Phrygia and then enters Galatia. But this is not the probable meaning of the Greek; we should have expected the article to have been repeated. In xviii. 23, on the other hand, where the order of names is reversed, we should probably take Phrygia as a noun translating ' the Galatic territory and Phrygia.' The fact that on this journey Paul strengthened ' all the disciples,' suggests that the Galatic territory included the Churches in ML] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS SI South Galatia. Probably the expressions in xvi. 6 and xviii. 23 are not to be treated as equivalent. It may be added that J. Weiss thinks the reference to Galatic territory in xvi. 6 to be so difficult for both views that he is tempted to regard it as a gloss introduced from xviii. 23, or preferably as due to an editorial mistake possibly resting on a confu- sion of Ancyra in Phrygia with the much better-known Ancyra in Galatia. Under pressure of the difficulties urged against the older form of the North Galatian theory, several of its defenders have recently modified it, and placed the Churches to which the Epistle is addressed in the north-western part of Galatia, bordering on Phrygia. This is a great improve- ment on the old theory inasmuch as it brings the district in which Paul is supposed to have founded these Churches much nearer to Mysia and West Bithynia and the time required would be much shorter. There is a geographical argument against this, however, though it tells much more strongly against the older North Galatian theory. Accord- ing to Acts xviii. 23 these Churches were taken by Paul On his road to Ephesus, and on either form of the North Galatian view he would have been obliged to go out of his way to visit them. Against the South Galatian theory it is often urged as conclusive that Paul could not have addressed his readers by the term ' Galatians.' This it is said bore the ethnical significance of men who were Gauls by descent and there- fore could have been addressed only to descendants of the Gauls who had settled in North Galatia. It is, however, easy to see how Paul might use the term in addressing inhabitants of South Galatia. His preference for imperial rather than native nomenclature led him naturally to choose the imperial title, which was the more honourable and also that most calculated to stimulate his readers to be worthy of all which the name implied. But he was also driven to it by the fact that no other form of address was 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT JCH. suitable. The heterogeneous elements of which the South Galatian Churches were composed would have required an extremely cumbrous mode of address if the local designations were to be used, and what would have been even more fatal was the sinister meaning attached to the terms. To have called them Phrygians would have been an insult. The name nad a suggestion of slavery and was a term of abuse. It is also urged that if we identify the visit to Jerusalem described in Galatians ii. 1-10 with that recorded in Acts xv., Paul's language in Galatians i. 21 is strange on the South Galatian theory. He says there, ' Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,' and it is argued that he could not very well have omitted to mention that he had evangelised the South Galatians themselves in that interval had he been writing to the South Galatians. It is difficult to feel the cogency of this argument. Paul is not giving an exhaustive account of his labours in the interval between his visits to Jerusalem, else Cyprus could not have been omitted, but simply saying what he proceeded to do after the former visit. Of course the difficulty falls away if the visit hi Gal. ii. is identified with an earlier visit than that recorded in Acts xv. A further objection is that Paul could not have referred to the Churches founded by himself and Barnabas as if they had been founded by himself alone. This is a real difficulty. But if, as is usually supposed, the letter was written after the rupture between Paul and Barnabas and the division of their sphere of labour and Paul had taken over the South Galatian Churches, it is easy to see how he might feel the exclusive responsibility for them. On the other hand, we cannot attach such importance as some do to the support given to the South Galatian theory by the reference to Barnabas, who is also mentioned in 1 Cor. ix. 6, though there is no reason to suppose that he had visited Corinth. At the same tune Paul's mode of reference hi Galatians ii.13, ' even Barnabas \*as carried away,' gains more force if the readers were personally acquainted with him. Hi.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS A The arguments which tell against the North Galatian theory are so many arguments in favour of the South Galatian, and in addition the following considerations may be urged. The narrative of Paul's Second Missionary Journey runs on quite smoothly and is free from the geographical and chronological difficulties that beset the other theory and have already been pointed out. Paul follows a route which brings him through Asia over against Mysia, near to Bithynia, hi such a way that he can go through or along the border of Mysia to Troas. And the Journey can be done in the time allowed for it by the exigencies of chronology. The account of Paul's preaching there in consequence of illness is explained by a conjecture of Ramsay, that he caught a malarial fever in the enervat- ing climate of Pamphylia, which is most dangerous to strangers, and on that account struck up into the high lands of the ulterior, which would be most likely to restore him to health. He accounts for Mark's refusal to accom- pany him as due to the fact that this going into the interior was contrary to then- original programme. This latter suggestion is improbable, for it would argue a peculiar baseness on the part of Mark to desert the apostle at this Juncture, and the phrase used in Acts xv. 38 that Mark ' went not with them to the work ' suggests that the party had left Pamphylia to prosecute a missionary campaign in the interior. Moreover, a plausible case can be made out for other forms of illness than malarial fever. The refer- ence to the case of Titus and the charge mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians that Paul had preached circum- cision are important. Timothy had been circumcised by him in this very district, and he was a member of one of these Churches. Such a oase would give a handle to bis enemies, and it would appeal especially to those who had known the circumstances of it. Lastly, there is the argu- ment derived from the reference to the collection in the Pauline Churches for the saints at Jerusalem. This if 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [o* referred to in the Epistle to the Galatians (ii. 10), and in 1 Cor. xvi. 1 we learn that Paul had instructed the Galatiana to participate. From the indications in the Epistles we gather that the Churches in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia contributed, and from Acts xx. 4 we find that represen- tatives of Asia also went up with Paul when he took the offering, according to the principle laid down in 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4. In other words the Pauline Churches generally seem to have contributed. If, however, the Churches of Galatia were churches in North Galatia, then the churches founded on the First Missionary Journey in South Galatia would have taken no part. This in itself is very improbable, but the improbability is much heightened by the fact that, according to Acts xx. 4, representatives from Derbe and Lystra, i.e. from South Galatian Churches, did accompany Paul, whereas no reference is made to representatives of North Galatian Churches. The Epistle has been assigned to the most various dates ; some have made it the earliest and some one of the latest of Paul's extant letters, and within these limits almost every position has been claimed for it. The divergence reflects the scarcity and ambiguity of the data for a decision ; and unless we are tempted by ingenious but unsubstantial combinations we must acquiesce in a rather large measure of uncertainty. The Epistle was written after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in the second chapter, and at the time it was written Paul seems to have visited the Churches twice (iv. 13). As to the former of these points, great uncertainty hangs over the identification of the visit. This belongs to History rather than to Criticism, but it has a bearing on the date of the Epistle and must therefore be briefly discussed. In the Epistle Paul mentions the visits he made to Jerusalem, in order that he might prove his independence of the early apostles. After hia return from Arabia and his departure from Damascus he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and stayed with him HI.) THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 15 fifteen days. This would be the visit recorded in Acts ix. 26-30, though it is difficult to harmonise the two accounts. The second visit mentioned in Galatians is that on which he went up by revelation to discuss with the chief apostles the relation of the Gentile converts to the Law. Modern critics almost unanimously identify this visit with that in Acts xv. But Acts mentions another visit of Paul and Barnabas (xi. 30) on which they brought relief to the Christians at Jerusalem who were suffering from the famine. It is mentioned in the briefest way, and little importance seems to be attached to it by the writer. The usual identification is thus exposed to a serious difficulty. Paul is showing that he had no such contact with the older apostles as to Justify the opinion that he owed anything to them. We should expect then that he would scrupulously enumerate every visit to Jerusalem. If, however, the view is right that the second visit mentioned by Paul (Gal. ii.) corresponds to the third mentioned in Acts (Acts xv.), then we have three possibilities. Either Paul has omitted the famine visit as irrelevant to his purpose, or we must regard that visit as one on which he did not come hi contact with the apostles, or there is some mistake in the narrative in Acts. The second alternative is not probable. It is true that the narrative does not say that Paul came to Jerusalem on the famine visit or saw any of the apostles. The relief was sent to the brethren in Judaea and it was sent to the elders. Still, the head- quarters of the Churches in Judaea would be Jerusalem, and that is where Paul and Barnabas would naturally go. Nor is it clear that Peter was in prison or in hiding at the time, for the persecution by Herod may not have been at this time. Even apart from this, Paul could hardly afford to neglect the visit ; he would have explained that though he was in Judaea he saw none of the apostles. The third alternative is adopted by some who think that the visit is misplaced, or that Acts xi. 30 and Acts XT. really refer to 96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [OH. the same visit, that is, the visit recorded in Gal. ii. A comparison of the account in Gal. ii. with that in Acts xv. reveals some differences which are more or less capable of reconciliation, but which must have their weight in de- termining the question. We need attach no importance to the fact that Acts represents him as sent by the Church of Antioch, while Paul says he went up by revelation. These statements are not in conflict. Further, Paul relates a private discussion, Luke a public debate. But the former suggests (ii. 2) a tacit contrast between the private confer- ence in which he won the leaders over, and a meeting of the whole Church. The most serious discrepancy exists be- tween Paul's statement that the older apostles added nothing to him except that they should remember the poor, and the statement of Luke that certain restrictions were imposed on the Gentiles. It is also strange that Paul does not mention these decrees if the Epistle went to Churches in South Galatia, since we are told in Acts xvi. 4 that he communicated them to these Churches. There is no conflict between the account in Acts xi. 30 and that in Gal. ii. But this may be due to the fact that there is no contact between them. The account in Acts is very brief, and if a mere private discussion had been in question naturally Luke would not have mentioned it. But we can see from Gal. ii. that this was by no means all that occurred. The ' false brethren ' displayed much activity, and attempts were made to force Titus to be circumcised. It is also hard to see why Paul should not have mentioned that a main object of his Journey was to bring relief to the poor, especially as he would thus have made it clear that his care for the poor was not first prompted by the apostles at Jerusalem. It is questionable if the famine visit, assuming it to be distinct from that in Acts xv., can be placed so late as fourteen years (Gal. ii. 1) after Paul's conversion. The latter objection tells against the view put forward by J. V. Bartlet and others that th <.3 THE EPISTLE TO THE QALATIANS 17 visit recorded in Gal. ii. was earlier even than the famine visit. This view is also exposed to the difficulty that it postulates a Journey to Jerusalem otherwise unknown to us, though this is not insuperable. It escapes some of the difficulties of the previous identification, and Paul's omission of the famine visit is then quite intelligible, for he did not need to continue the story of his relations with the apostles after they had recognised his Gospel and apostleship. It is not essential perhaps for our purpose to make a definite decision between these possibilities. We may leave the ground clear for a date before the Apostolic Conference of Acts xv. if on other grounds such a date should seem desirable. A date so early seems at first sight to be definitely excluded by the fact that Paul appears to have visited the Galatian Churches twice. On the North Galatian theory his second visit to Galatia occurred on the Third Missionary Journey, on the South Galatian theory on the Second, in both cases after the Apostolic Conference of Acts xv. It is possible, however, to evade this conclusion if we identify the second visit with that made by Paul on his return journey through the South Galatian cities on the occasion of his first mission to them. And if this be held unsatisfactory it is possible to fall back on the view that we must not interpret iv. 13 as necessarily implying two visits. It is held, however, by many that we are shut up to a date subsequent to the Second Missionary Journey by the stage of theological development reached hi the Epistle. Its affinities with the Epistle to the Romans written towards the close of the Third Journey are striking, and it is commonly thought to belong chronologically to the group of which the other members are Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians. In the Epistle to the Thessalonians, it if said, we have a much more elementary stage of Paulinism than in the great controversial group, and Galatians moat 28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. theiefore be later than those Epistles. The present writer can only repeat with the utmost emphasis his conviction that the inference rests on a radical error. It would argue an incredible inability on Paul's part to grasp the logical implications of his own experience, of his work among the Gentiles, of the battle for freedom he had fought at Jerusalem and Antioch, to suppose that he had but lately emerged into a clear realisation of the relations between the Gospel and the Law. His incisive refuta- tion of Peter at Antioch contradicts such a fallacy, and Paul's amazement at the sudden defection of the Galatians would have but little warrant if he had preached nothing but an immature Paulinism among them. Even before his conversion we may well believe that he had seen what the proclamation of a crucified Messiah implied for the religion of the Law. And in his conversion his whole Gospel was implicitly given. The idea that Paul must expound bis theology in every letter he wrote, even to Churches he had himself founded and trained, under penalty of being Judged not yet to have grasped it, needs only to be stated for its unreasonableness to be patent. If Romans and Galatians have such points of similarity, that arises from the kinship of the subject. But this kinship is not due to the fact that Paul had only just thought out his principles to meet the crisis hi Galatia, and then with these upper- most hi his mind expounded them in the Epistle to the Romans. They were his fundamental principles, and therefore naturally the main theme of a letter to the Church in the imperial city which had not learnt the Gospel from his lips. But Just because they constituted his Gospel, when the blow was struck at its vitals, he reiterated it to those who had already been taught it, no doubt with fresh felicity of illustration and expression, with appropriate ingenuity of appeal, but with no variation from principles long clear to him as the sunlight. When he dealt with, the same theme, on which his mind had long ra.) THE EPISTLE TO THE GAJ.ATIANS 29 been made up, he inevitably treated it on the familiar lines, though an interval of many years might lie between the various expositions of it. If we accept the North Galatian theory we should pro- bably date the Epistle on the Third Missionary Journey. If Paul was settled in any place at the time it is most natural to think of the Epistle as written from Ephesus, though too much stress must not be laid hi this connexion on ' so quickly ' of i. 6. In that case we should place it before 1 Corinthians and infer from the reference in 1 Cor. xvi. 1 that Paul's letter had won back the Churches to their loyalty. It is, however, possible that it was written after 2 Corinthians in Corinth. It is equally possible that it was written while Paul was travelling, and this is favoured by the absence of definite reference to the place of writing, while the mention of all the brethren who are with him (i. 2) may mean those who have accompanied him on this tour. If, however, we adopt, as we probably should, the South Galatian theory, it is more likely that the Epistle was written before the Third Missionary Journey. But this leaves us, as we have already seen, with a wide range of possibilities. We should, however, probably set aside on several grounds the view that it is to be dated before the Second Missionary Journey. The Epistle apparently implies two visits, and this is more naturally interpreted of the visits on the First and Second journey than of the visit and return visit on the First Journey. Further, the balance of argument seems to be in favour of the identification of Paul's visit to Jerusalem described in GaJatians ii. with that described hi Acts xv. II is, however, difficult to acquiesce in McGiffert's view that the letter was written by Paul at Antioch on his return from Jerusalem, since he went from Antioch to Galatia, whereas the suggestion in the Epistle is that he writes to them because he cannot come. What, however, seems decisive is the complete ignoring of Barnabas' Joint 30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. responsibility for the Church. This appears to point conclusively to a date after their quarrel and the division of their sphere of missionary labour. Accordingly we must date the Epistle after Paul's second visit when he had separated from Barnabas and had given a handle to hia unscrupulous enemies by the circumcision of Timothy. It may of course be urged against this that if Paul had seen the Churches after the conference at Jerusalem described in the second chapter, he would have told them when he was with them. But a similar difficulty attaches to the autobiography hi the first chapter. Moreover, it is hardly probable that Paul would recount the secret history of his conference with the leaders at Jerusalem ; he does so in the letter only under pressure of extreme provocation. It may then have been written during the Second Missionary Journey or in the interval between this and the next Journey. Ramsay's view that it was written at Antioch in this interval is exposed to a similar objection as McGiffert's that it was written during the previous stay at Antioch. To identify ' all the brethren who are with me ' as the whole Church at Antioch would imply an undue egotism on Paul's part ; the phrase rather suggests his companions in travel. Ramsay's view is open to the further objection that he identifies the visit in Galatians ii. with the famine visit. It is surely probable that if the letter was written after the deliberations recorded in Acts xv., Paul would have made some reference to them in thu Epistle. THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS SI CHAPTER IV THE IPISTLES TO THE COBINTHIANS 1 CORINTHIANS, which had been preceded by an earlier letter (v. 9) now entirely or largely lost to us, was written by Paul from Ephesus, apparently in the spring of the year (A.D. 55) in which his work at Ephesus came to an end. The Epistle was written partly in reply to a letter from the Church at Corinth dealing with practical problems on which the Church desired guidance, partly on the basis of information as to abuses in the Church which had reached the apostle through other channels. The genuine- ness of the Epistle has been almost universally admitted ; it was regarded as axiomatic by the Tubingen school and is accepted by all but the hyper-critics who deny the authenticity of all the Pauline Epistles. It is definitely attested by Clement of Rome before the close of the first century A.D. It was almost certainly employed by Ignatius and Polycarp, not improbably by Hennas. It is needless to discuss the suggestions that the Epistle contains portions of more than one letter. As an example it may be mentioned that a discrepancy has been dis- covered between the attitude adopted by Paul in x. 1-22, and that adopted by him in viii., x. 23-33. These sections are supposed to belong to different letters, both earlier than the bulk of 1 Corinthians. It is true that there is a difference. But it points to no development in Paul's views ; it rests on the fact that in viii. he discusses the question of meats offered to idols from the standpoint of 82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca ike ' intellectuals ' at Corinth. He reaches the conclusion that even if we grant that from such a nonentity as the idol no moral defilement can come, we must not suffer those who are not emancipated from the thraldom of their old associations, because they cannot really be damaged by the intrinsic mischief of the food, to be spiritually ruined by violation of their conscience in deference to our precept and example. In x. 1-22, however, he states the question hi his own way. Behind the lifeless idol block there was the living demon, and those who participated in the idol sacrifices were in peril from the demoniacal virus witii which they were infected. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is not so well attested by external evidence as 1 Corinthians. It is very strange that Clement of Rome seems to have been entirely unacquainted with it, and to have made no reference to it in the letter he wrote for the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth. Since his silence is not accounted for by any unsuitability of content to his purpose, the probable inference is that he did not know of it. The Epistle seems to have come into general circulation less rapidly than 1 Corinthians. It was probably used by Polycarp shortly afterwards and was taken by Marcion into his canon. It is frequently quoted as Paul's by Irenaeus and later writers and is included in the Muratorian Canon. If, however, there had been no external attestation at all in antiquity and the Epistle had been discovered in our own day, its genuineness would be amply proved by its internal characteristics. It is its own adequate attestation. The complexity of relations between Paul and the Corinthian Church, the note of reality which rings in every sentence, the mighty personality which the letter reveals, are far beyond the reach of the most skilful imitator. Besides, we could not understand why so much labour should b* expended to create an intricate historical situation which IT.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 33 could serve no purpose a later writer would have had in view and be completely without interest for second centuiy readers. Nowhere is the hypothesis of pseadonymity so grotesque as in the case of this Epigtle, nowhere is it *> manifest a sign of complete critical in- competence. But while the genuineness of the letter is beyond all reasonable question, the critical problems it presents are of the most complicated and difficult character. Partly they are historical, concerned with the relations between Paul and the Coiinthian Church in the interval between the two Epistles, partly they are critical. With the former we have to do only so far a,s they affect our decision on the latter. The circumstances which led to the writing of 2 Corinthians are indicated by Paul himself at the opening of the letter and again in the seventh chapter. He had sent a very severe letter to the Corinthian Church, written with many tears out of much affliction and anguish of heart. After he had despatched it he suffered an agony of apprehension lest the severity of his tone might produce a complete rupture between himself and the Corinthian Church. His anxiety to meet Titus and learn the effect of his letter was such that he could not avail himself of the opportunity afforded him of preaching the Gospel in Troas, but crossed into Macedonia where he met Titus and learnt to his relief that the Corinthian Church had now returned to its loyalty, at least so far as the majority was concerned. An offender round whom the controversy had gathered and whose punishment Paul had demanded, had been punished by the majority. Paul regards the punishment that had been inflicted as sufficient and now requests the Church to forgive him. It is natural that earlier scholars should have assumed that the letter which Paul regretted to have sent was I Corinthians, though difficulties were felt in reconstruct- ing on this hypothesis the history in the interval. When 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH, Paul sent the First Epistle he anticipated that his letter would be followed by a visit from Timothy (iv. 17, xvi 10). When he writes the Second Epistle, however, he makes no reference to Timothy's visit, although Timothy was with him when he wrote, but says how intensely anxious he was for the return of Titus. The discussion of this difficulty and the numerous solutions which have been proposed only concern us slightly here. For a good while now the opinion has been very widely held that the letter which caused Paul such anxiety cannot have been 1 Corinthians. It is perfectly true that there were severe passages in the letter, but its total impression, even if we suppose that these passages stood out in exaggerated prominence in Paul's recollection, simply does not answer to Paul's description. It is not comparable in the sharpness of its tone to the closing portion of 2 Corinthians itself, which for con- centrated and passionate invective has no parallel hi the Pauline Epistles. In the next place the reference to the offender does not suit the incestuous person whose punish- ment Paul had solemnly decreed in the First Epistle. The father of the latter was presumably dead, but the injured person of 2 Corinthians was still alive. Moreover, if we identify the offender in the two Epistles, the grossness of the offence seems to be passed over altogether too lightly in the Second. Accordingly it is now held by a large number of scholars that we must reject the identi- fication of the severe letter with 1 Corinthians and regard it as a later letter. Whether we are to suppose that Paul paid a visit to the Corinthian Church in the interval and was deeply insulted by a ringleader of the opposition, or whether the severe letter was elicited by an unfavourable report from Timothy, or whether the history should be reconstructed in some other way is a question that lies outside our discussion. The first view, it may simply be said, seems to the present writer the most probable. It is in any case likely that the offender of 2 Corinthians had IT.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 34 grossly insulted Paul either in person or in the person of his representative. But if we have to surrender the identification of the aevere letter with 1 Corinthians the question arises whether it has been completely lost. This view is adopted by many modern critics including Holsten, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Sanday, Bousset, and Lietzmann. It was suggested by Hausrath, however, and the suggestion has been very widely adopted, that we are to find a large part of this letter in the last four chapters of 2 Corinthians. A hypothesis of this kind no doubt has strong prima facie evidence against it. These chapters have come down to us as part of the Epistle to which they are attached, and there is no external evidence nor yet any indication hi the history of the text that they ever had any independent existence. Moreover, it is said that these chapters do not answer to the de- scription of the letter which Paul himself gives. We have no reference in these chapters to Paul's demand that the offender should be punished, though this must have been contained in the severe letter. It is also urged that 2 Corinthians xii. 16-18 is decisive against the hypothesis. In that passage we have a reference to a visit of Titus and work hi the Church at Corinth accomplished previously to the sending of the letter. Since Titus seems to have been sent either with that letter or shortly before or after, we cannot suppose 1 that the severe letter could contain the reference in xii. 16-18, and therefore must infer that these chapters cannot be identified with the severe letter. It is not easily conceivable, however, that Titus should have been burdened with the duty of attending to the collection at the very time when the Church was in open mutiny. We must therefore suppose that this is a different visit. The objection that there is no demand for the punishment of the offender in 2 COT. x.-xiii. is relevant only if we suppose that no part of the severe letter has been lost. It is very probable that if the two letters were accidentally united 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [OH. the end of one and the beginning of the other must have been lost, otherwise it would have been obvious that they were distinct. The difference in tone between the first nine chapters and the concluding chapters, which makes it psychologically inconceivable to many that they should belong to the same letter, is accounted for either by the view that here Paul addresses only the rebellious minority but this is contradicted by various passages in these chapters and Paul must have made the transition plain or by the view that meanwhile unfavourable news had come from Corinth, which is negatived not simply by the misjudgment of the situation on the part of Titus which this would involve, but by the absolute failure of any indication of such news, or lastly by the supposition that Paul himself ceased to dictate and began to write and was carried away by the strength of his feelings, a supposition which presumably does not arise from any experience of dictated correspondence. The present writer sees no escape from the con- clusion that the closing chapters of 2 Corinthians formed part of the severe letter. It is significant that two lines of evidence should converge upon it. On the one side we have the description of a letter in the early chapters of 2 Corinthians which it seems impossible to identify with our First Epistle ; and then as corroborat- ing this we have the surprising character of the last four chapters of 2 Corinthians as part of the same letter which we find in the first nine chapters. It is difficult to believe that the two sect-ions of the Epistles hold together. If 2 Corinthians is a unity, we have the following state of things : Paul sends a very stern letter to Corinth, and is filled with regret for the writing of it, and apprehension as to its reception. In the Joyful reaction caused by the good news of Titus, he writes a letter overflowing with affection at the beginning, and concluding with a sharpness of invective to be paralleled nowhere else in his Epistles. IT.] THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 37 If we identify these chapters with the letter which caused him such pain to write and such anxiety when written, we escape from the serious difficulty of supposing that Paul concluded the letter, begun in the strain of for- give and forget, with so vehement a defence against his antagonists. Was Paul the man, after the Church had returned to ite loyalty, and he had thanked God devoutly for it, to open the old wound and pour forth on the heads of his enemies vials of unrestrained indignation ? If, when the Church was in arms against him, he doubted whether he had made a mistake in sending one letter, would he be likely, after the reconciliation, to send another of the same character ? Indeed one may well ask what must the letter have been which filled him with such tormenting anxiety if, after the fright he had given himself, he could calmly send the last portion of 2 Corinthians in the gerene confidence that this would seal anew the com- pact of peace between them? It is in itself conceivable if the composition of the letter was spread over several days, or even if an anxious sleepless night intervened between the two parts of the letter, that Paul's sense of relief may have been replaced by indignation as he brooded on the unhappy past. Not only, however, is this highly improbable, but it would be rather difficult to understand why he should have allowed the first part of the letter to stand and not substituted something more consonant with his altered mood. We need not Join with Paul's Corinthian critics in conceiving him to be so flighty and mercurial as that. It is not improbable that we have another fragment from Paul's correspondence with Corinth included in the Second Epistle. It was long ago observed that vi. 14-vii. 1 interrupted the progress of thought and that vii. 2 con- nected admirably with vi. 13. Since Paul refers in 1 Cor. v. 9 to an earlier letter which he had written to Corinth, and the subject matter of this intrusive paragraph 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. in 2 Corinthians suits very well what we may infer the lost letter to have been, it is not an unnatural hypothesis that it originally formed part of it. We can hardly suppose that any one would have deliberately inserted it at this point, so that if this theory is correct we must assume that it owes its present position to some accident, such as has occasioned the combination of 2 Cor. x.-xiii. with 2 Cor. i.-ix. If however, as many scholars think, the passage may be accounted for hi its present position, we must reconcile ourselves to the view that the letter which preceded 1 Corinthians has been lost. In any case there is no valid ground for the supposition that 2 Cor. vi. 14 - vii. 1 is spurious, though it is quite possible that the closing words are not preserved for us hi precisely the form hi which they left the hands of Paul. That some things in the section cannot be matched elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles is of course true, but of how many other passages mignt not the same thing be said T THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS CHAPTER V THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Tras Epistle is attested not simply by patristic, but by New Testament evidence. It was certainly used by the author of 1 Peter and probably by the authors of James and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp draw freely upon it ; it was included in the Canon of Marcion. Later evidence which is abundant need not be quoted. Its genuineness is assured by internal evidence, and by its intimate connexion with the other Pauline literature. It was written apparently at Corinth, a few months after 2 Cor. i.-Lx., and its tone testifies to the apostle's success in winning back the allegiance of that community. One of the most important of the seriously debated questions relates to the com- position of the Roman Church. The more usual view is that the Church was in the main a Gentile Church with Jewish elements. The other view held by Baur and many more is that it was in the main Jewish Christian with Gentile elements. In favour of the latter view it is said that Paul refers to Abraham as ' our forefather,' and in the present chapter speaks of his readers as ' men that know the law,' and as having been ' made dead to the law through the body of Christ.' He also says ' we have been dis- charged from the law, having died to that wherein we were holden.' It is also thought that only in this way is it possible to find a valid reason for the inclusion of the chapters on Election, since the Gentiles would not feel so 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT fca keenly as Jewish Christians the difficulty caused by the Jewish rejection of the Gospel. But these arguments are none of them strong and are amply met by the admission that there was a Jewish Christian element in the Church, and the probability that some of the Gentile Christians had been proselytes before they became Christians. Further, parallels for some of the passages supposed to prove Jewish origin may be quoted from Epistles which were certainly not written to Jews. Thus in 1 Cor. x. 1 Paul speaks of the Israelites in the wilderness as ' OUT fathers.' And the reference to the Roman Christians as men who knew the law finds a parallel in the Epistle to the Galatians where Paul presupposes a knowledge of the law in the Galatian Christians who were Gentiles. The same Epistle also furnishes a parallel to the statement that his readers have died to the Law : cf. Gal. iv. 1-9 (esp. w. 5 and 7), Col. ii. 14. And the problem discussed in Rom. ix.-xi. was not handled because it was one of special interest to Jewish Christians. It was forced on the attention of all who tried to construct a philosophy of history on Paul's lines. The positive proof of the predominantly Gentile composition of the Church is very strong. There is first the intrinsic improbability that Paul with his delicacy about his apostleship as exclusively to Gentiles should have sent an elaborate theological discussion to a Church mainly composed of Jewish Christians at least without an explicit defence of his action. Further, it is difficult to explain away the definite language which seems to point to Gentiles as his readers. He includes the recipients of the letter among the Gentiles (i. 5, 6), wishes to have fruit in them as in the rest of the Gentiles (i. 13), and gives as a reason for his readiness to preach the Gospel at Rome that he is a debtor to Greeks and barbarians. The life of his readers before conversion had been one of lawlessness. In xi. 13, 14 he calls his readers ' Gentiles ' and contrasts T.J THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 41 the Jews with them. In xi. 25, addressing them by the general term ' brethren,' he proceeds in a way applicable only to Gentiles. In xv. 15 also, if this is part of the Epistle, he gives explicitly as his reason for writing that he is an apostle of the Gentiles. We can hardly be wrong, then, in the conclusion that the Church, while including Jewish Christians, was in the main a Gentile Church. That Paul should write a letter announcing his intended visit is quite natural. Numerous attempts have been made to explain why, hi view of his intended visit, he addressed to the Church this elaborate treatment of great theological themes, this exposition of his Gospel. A discussion of these is unfortunately precluded by the necessary limits of this book. The integrity of the Epistle has been much debated. Leaving aside other questions as to its composition which need not be discussed, the problem of the concluding chapters has called forth several solutions. The con- sideration of the phenomena belongs partly to textual criticism, but they must be briefly mentioned, (a) The benediction is no doubt rightly placed in xvi. 20b, but some manuscripts place it between v. 23 and r. 25, while some place it at the end of v. 27. (b) In some manuscripts the doxology w. 25-27 is placed at the end of chapter xiv. (c) Marcion's copy of the Epistle apparently lacked chapters xv. and xvi. Baur on grounds mainly of internal criticism considered that these chapters were a spurious addition. This view no longer finds acceptance and need not be discussed. Renan made the ingenious suggestion that the maui part of the Epistle was sent to several Churches, but with different endings in each case, i.-xi. with xv. to the Romans, i.-xiv. with xvi. 1-20 to the Ephesians, i.-xiv. with xvi. 21-24 to the Thessalonians, and i.-xiv. with xvi. 25-27 to an unknown Church. The Epistle came to its present form through a combination of these separate endings. Lightfoot thought that the Epistle was originally written 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. to the Romans as we have it, but ended at xvi. 23, vv. 21-23, however, being a postscript added by Paul's com- panions. Later Paul prepared the Epistle for wider circulation by striking out the mention of Rom. i. 7 and xv. and xvi., but added the doxology xvi. 25-27 at the end of xiv. Later the doxology was transferred to the close of the Epistle. It may be urged in favour of this view that the MS. G omits * in Rome ' both in i. 7 and in i. 15. It is difficult to think that the omission can be accidental in both cases, and this favours the view, not of course as has been suggested that the Epistle was not sent to Rome at all, but that copies had been prepared from which the local designation had been eliminated. Renan's theory accounts for the textual facts but is unnecessarily complicated. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why chapters xii. and xiii. should be regarded as not sent to Rome, for which the latter in particular was exceptionally well suited. Moreover, xv. cannot be separated from xiv. Lightfoot's theory is less arbitrary, but it is difficult to accept the view that any edition of the Epistle which contained chapter xiv. did not also contain xv. 1-13, which continues the discussion of the same subject. At the same time the textual facts favour the view that abbreviated copies of the Epistle were hi circulation. In holding that xvi. 1-20 went to Ephesus Renan was only taking a view which, since it was first expressed by Schulz in 1829, has met with very wide acceptance, especially in recent times. How much of chapter xvi. belongs to the letter to Ephesus is disputed, whether it included xvi. 1, 2 or began with xvi. 3, whether it stopped with v. 16 or v. 21. It is considered very improbable that Paul should have known so many persons in a Church which he had not visited, whereas in a Church hi which he had for a long time laboured these greetings would be quite natural. The reference to Prisca and Aquila points to Ephesus. It is true that they had been con- *.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 4 nected with a Church in Rome at an earlier date, but they were in Ephesus a little while before this Epistle was written (Acts xviii. 18, 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19) and later (2 Tim, iv. 19). It is improbable that they should have been in Rome again in the interval. The list itself is thought in some respects to suit Asia better than Rome, especially the reference to Epaenetus. Further, the warning in 17-20 is surprising in a letter written to a Church which was not personally known to Paul and in which he had no authority. It is difficult to evade these arguments, and yet there are weighty considerations on the other side. It is probable enough that many of Paul's friends would be in Rome, the capital of the Empire to which all roads led, especially as the early Christians belonged to the social stratum in which a wandering life would be very common. In the next place it may fairly be argued that this long list of names is less surprising in a letter to the Roman Church than in a letter to such a Church as Ephesus. Paul's method elsewhere is very instructive. There are no salutations of individuals in either of the letters to Corinth, in that to the Galatians,thePhilippians ortheThessalonians. Where a salutation is given it is of a collective character. Prisca and Aquila and the house of Onesiphorus are saluted in 2 Timothy, Philemon himself in the letter addressed to him. In Colossians, however, we have a considerable number of salutations, though in this case they are sent simply by individuals to the collective community. It is therefore very significant that hi the letters addressed by Paul to Churches where he had laboured no individual salutations are included, whereas a whole series of individ- uals either sends or receives greetings in the two Epistles sent to Churches where Paul had not laboured. If then we are to Judge by Paul's habit, the number of names saluted points to Rome more strongly than to Ephesus. Paul naturally made the most of every personal link with the Church he was about to visit, and on which for its high 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca importance he desired to bring all his influence to bear. The combination of names, so far as the inscriptional evidence goes, favours Rome rather than anywhere else. In particular, the reference to those of the household of Aristobulus and the household of Narcissus points very strongly to Rome, both Narcissus and Aristobulus being friends of the Emperor Claudius. In spite of the very large acceptance which the hypothesis that the greetings were sent to Ephesus has received, it is still rejected by several of the most eminent scholars, including Harnack, Zahn, Sanday and Headlam, Denney, Ramsay and Lietzmann. If the textual difficulties connected with the last two chapters were relieved by the theory it would be an additional argument hi its favour, but that is not the case. The only argument which causes the present writer to hesitate is the difficulty of supposing Prisca and Aquila to have been in Rome when the letter was sent. But this is outweighed by the difficulty of accounting for the presence of this letter or fragment of a letter addressed to Ephesus hi an Epistle to the Romans. The burden of proof lies on those who would dislodge it from its present position, and the attempt to do so can hardly be said to nave succeeded. n.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 45 CHAPTER VI THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT THIS group of Epistles includes those to the Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, and that to the Philippians. The first question to be considered is the place of Philip- pians in the group. It is usually considered to be the latest, though Bleek in Germany, and Lightfoot followed by several scholars in England, have regarded it as the earliest. The main argument is the doctrinal similarity of Philippians and Romans, while it is said the other Epistles of this group present no such marked resemblance to Romans. From this it is inferred that Philippians stands next to Romans in point of time. The argument has been turned by others against the genuineness of Colossians and Ephesians. Thus Pfleiderer, arguing on the hypothesis that if all are genuine Philippians is the latest, urges that the absence from Philippians of the features specially characteristic of Colossians and Ephes- ians simply proves that the latter cannot be authentic. This objection is conclusively met if the order advocated by Lightfoot is the true one. But neither Lightfoot's nor Pfleiderer's conclusion is necessary. Within the Pauline literature itself analogies can be found to support the common view. It is probable that Galatians is earlier than Corinthians and Romans, though here again, on the ground of doctrinal and phraseological similarity, Lightfoot placed Galatians between Corinthians and Romans. If in spite of this similarity, the Epistles to the Corinthians 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. are interpolated between Galatians and Romans, there is no reason why Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon should not be placed between Romans and Philippians. So, too, we have the best of reasons for believing that Paul's theological system was formed before any of our Epistles were written, yet those to the Thessalonians do not exhibit the peculiarly Pauline stamp. We cannot therefore defend the priority of Philippians on this ground. It is also argued that if Philippians had been written later than Colossians, we should have expected to find traces of the polemic against the Colossian heresy and of that side of truth by which Paul had met it. But this does not follow. Ephesians, written at the same time, and presenting many points of contact with Colossians, does not refer to the heresy, or expound the cosmic significance of the Person of Christ. Nor would Paul feel it necessary hi a letter to the Philippians to deal with a heresy which had not touched their Church. In fact the letter as originally planned, would probably have been without the polemic against the Judaizers in chapter iii. This is Lightfoot's opinion, and if correct we should have had an Epistle written after the worst of the struggle with the Judaizers was over, but with little or no reference to it. Again it is urged that we must put Colossians and Ephesians as late as possible, because the Church seems to be in a more advanced state. The false doctrine in Colossians and the emphasis on the Church in Ephesians bring these Epistles close to the Pastorals, with their references to heresies and developed ecclesiastical organisation. But against this we must set the fact that matters do not move at the same rate everywhere, and in the time of Ignatius and Polycarp they seem to have advanced more rapidly hi Ephesus and that district than in Philippi. Besides a year at most can lie between the letters, an utterly negligible interval in this connexion. Further, Philippians was intended mainly as a letter of Yi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 47 thanks for the kindness of the Church, and warning against dissension and ambition. In such an Epistle indications of the stage of development will not be present to anything like the same extent. Against the parallels between Romans and Philippians we may set striking parallels between Romans and Colossians. In favour of the later date of Philippians it may be said that Paul's anticipations of a speedy decision on his case are rather more definite in Philippians and less optimistic. The Philippians had had time to have heard of the illness of Epaphroditus, and to have sent to Paul the expression of their anxiety. Not much stress, however, can be laid on this, as no very long time was needed for the journey between Rome and Philippi. The order generally adopted seems to be most probable, and Philippians should be dated last of this group. The Epistles to Philemon, the Colossiana and the Ephesiana It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of the Epistle to Philemon, for although this has been disputed it is now amply recognised on all hands. It was included in the Canon of Marcion and the Muratorian Canon, and the absence of reference to it by many early Christian writers is fully accounted for by its untheological character. The internal evidence is decisive. No one could have imitated Paul hi so inimitable a way, nor could any plau- sible reason be assigned for its composition in Paul's name. It can hardly be doubted that its genuineness would not have been disputed had it not been for its connexion with the Epistle to the Colossians. Instead, however, of using the spuriousness of Colossians to dis- credit Philemon, we should regard the unquestionable genuineness of Philemon as a guarantee for the authenticity of Colossians. The two letters were written at the same 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. time and sent by the same messenger. Usually it is thought that the letters were sent from Rome. Since Paul was a prisoner at the time, the only reasonable alternatives are Rome or Caesarea. It is practically certain that Philippians was written at Rome. This is suggested by the reference to the praetorian guard and the Christians in Caesar's household, and also by the fact that Paul antici- pates that his case will soon be settled. This he could not have done at Caesarea since he appealed to Caesar and therefore knew that he must be sent to Rome. Now if we could make Philippians the earliest of the imprisonment Epistles, this would carry with it the inference that Philemon and Colossians must have been written at Rome rather than Caesarea. Since, however, we have accepted the reverse order, we cannot use the place of Philippians to determine that of the other Epistles. Nevertheless they were probably written from Rome. We cannot infer from the difference between these Epistles and Philippians that they must be more widely separated in time than the hypothesis of Roman origin for all of them will permit. Nor does the argument that Paul speaks in Philippians of going to Macedonia on his release, but in Philemon of visiting Colossae, prove that the letters cannot have been written from the same place. Paul's plans altered with the circumstances, as his correspondence with Corinth illustrates, and why should he not have visited one Church on his way to the other ? Caesarea was a most unlikely place for a runaway slave from Colossae to visit. It is far more probable that Onesimus should have tried to lose himself in Rome, which though farther away, was more easily reached. Moreover, Philemon could as little as Philippians have been written in the later part of Paul's captivity at Caesarea, since the expectation of release expressed hi both is incompatible with his appeal to Caesar. But neither does it suit the early part of hia captivity there, for that he should delay hia long-projected n.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPKISONMENT 49 visit to Rome in order to visit the Churches on the Lycus is highly improbable, especially in view of the foreboding expressed in Acts xx. 25. And how are we to understand Paul's silence about Philip, who had shortly before entertained him, and his failure to enumerate him among the few Jewish Christians who were his fellow- workers ? We may then confidently suppose that none of the Epistles of this group was sent from Caesarea. Although the authenticity of Colossians 1 has been doubted not simply by the Tubingen school but by several other critics, it is now accepted by the majority even of radical critics, though still rejected by some, for example Schmiedel. It was included hi the Canon of Marcion, and it is mentioned by name in the Muratorian Canon and by Irenaeus. It is not improbable that it was employed by Justin Martyr and Theophilus, possibly also by some of the Apostolic Fathers. It is no deficiency in external evidence but the internal characteristics of the Epistle which have caused its genuineness to be assailed. The absence of the more conspicuous phrases of Paulinism and the retirement into the background of the chief Pauline ideas has been alleged as an objection, though it is clear that when the controversy which gave them prominence had passed away, they would be likely to lose such prominence, nor is it reasonable to insist that Paul must have written all his letters on the same model as those of the second group. It has also been objected that the conception of the Person of Christ is not Pauline, for while Paul viewed Christ as the Redeemer, Colossians places Him in a transcendental relation to the universe, of which He is represented not simply as the Creator but the goal. But this doctrine is to be found hi 1 Cor. viii. 6, xv. 24-28 in an undeveloped though essentially identical form, nor can the high doctrine of the Person 1 For a fuller discussion of the critical problems of Colossians the wriUi ncay refer to his commentary in the Kxposttur't Greek Ttttamtnt, ToL iii. 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca of Christ constitute an objection for any who accept the Epistle to the Philippians. The emphasis placed on the cosmical significance of the Person of Christ is accounted for by the fact that this was the best defence against the false doctrine which Paul was attacking. Nor can there be any valid objection drawn from the mention of the hierarchies of angels, since if such were recognised by the false teachers it would have been unwise for Paul to have omitted to speak of them. Moreover, there are references in the undoubted Epistles, which harmonise well with what is said of angels in Colossians. It is, however, the very fact that this heresy ia attacked which has been urged with greatest force against the Pauline authorship. It is asserted that this heresy belongs to the post-apostolic period. But it may be said in reply that the type of heresy is rudi- mentary, such as may well have originated at Colossae by a fusion of Christianity with some one or more of the prevalent speculative systems. And no weight can be attached to the mere argument that this heresy existed hi the post-apostolic period. Even if this could be proved, more would be required to invalidate the authenticity of the Epistle. It would have to be shown that the heresy really originated later than the time of Paul. But we have no evidence for this, and there are strong probabilities, quite apart from this Epistle, that the contrary is really the case. It is not second-century Gnosticism which is attacked, probably it is not Gnosticism at all. The differences of style between this Epistle and those of the preceding group have also been urged against its genuineness. There are such differences. The style of Colossians is slow and laboured, without the swift and rushing movement of the earlier polemical Epistles, differing from them also in its form of argument and its choice of logical particles. Synonyms are accumulated and clauses built up by curious combinations of words. vi.] THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 61 There is a fondness for long compound words, many of which occur nowhere else in Paul, many but seldom. A large proportion is to be found in the second chapter, where the peculiarity of the subject matter largely accounts for the peculiarity of the diction. Here again it is legiti- mate to fall back on the difference in the circumstances both of Paul and his readers, and the difference in Paul's own state of mind. The four great Epistles are scarcely normal, they are written rapidly while the controversy is at its height, and Paul feels that he is fighting for the very existence of the Gospel. This letter is written in the calm of enforced retirement, and if it is controversial, the kind of controversy required is different. The points of contact with the Epistle to the Ephesians have also been regarded as suspicious. But this would not, in the ordinary course of things, condemn both Epistles as spurious, but only the one which displayed the secondary form, since the fact that the original was imitated in a letter put forward as Paul's would go to prove that this original was really his. But the relation between the two Epistles is more peculiar. It is not the case that one exhibits throughout the more primitive form. Sometimes Colossians seems to do so, sometimes Ephesians. Holtzmann was led to this result through a very detailed and elaborate investigation. To account for this he put forward the following theory. A letter was written by Paul to the Colossians, and this letter is embedded in our Epistle. On the basis of this letter a later writer composed our Epistle to the Ephesians. He was unwilling that Paul's original letter should lose the benefit of this, so he interpolated into it passages from the Epistle to the Ephesians and also passages directed against Gnosticism, and thus produced our Epistle to the Colossians. By this hypothesis Holtzmann accounted for the pheno- menon referred to that now one and now the other Epistle 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. presented the original form. The complexity of the hypothesis tells fatally against it. It is almost incredible that any writer should set to work on this method. Assuming that he had a much shorter Colossians before him, we could understand his attempt to construct a new Epistle on the basis of it, though it would not be easy to explain why he did not draw also on the other Pauline Epistles. But that he should return to give the original epistle the benefit of his own contributions to Ephesians is hardly to be credited. What practical purpose could be served by this expansion ? He had already secured by the composition of Ephesians the publication of these thoughts. And what a hazardous enterprise to substitute the new Colossians for the epistle which was well known to the Church at Colossae ! And why not have said all he wanted to say in one letter, our Ephesians expanded by attacks on the false teachers ? Moreover, there is no trace in the textual history of the process through which Holtzmann imagines that the literature has gone. His theory was very carefully examined by Von Soden, who showed that many of the passages condemned by Holtzmann as interpolations were not at all inconsistent with a Pauline authorship. He also showed that Holtzmann's recon- struction of the original Epistle was open to serious objec- tions. He himself rejected the following only : i. 15-20, ii. 10, 15, 18b. But at a later tune he accepted the genuineness of the Epistle almost as it stands, though he has recently returned to his rejection of i. 15-20. The genuineness of Colossians has important consequences for Ephesians, since if Holtzmann is right in asserting that several parallel passages do not depend on Colossians, we are shut up to the view that both Epistles came from the same hand, and that the hand of Paul. In such a case we can hardly speak of secondary or derived passages, as we should if two authors were concerned. But in any case we may feel some confidence that the authenticity of in.1 THE EPISTLES OF THE IMPRISONMENT 53 Colossians will come to be accepted in the near future by general consent. The authenticity of the Epistle to the Ephesians has been much more widely denied than that of the sister Epistle, and is still rejected by many eminent critics. The external evidence is good. It was probably used by Ignatius and Polycarp and the author of the Shepherd of Hermas, though this of course would be consistent with a date at the beginning of the second century. It was included by Marcion in his collection, and is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. It is quoted as Paul's by Irenaeus and later writers. Moreover, it is likely that it was em- ployed by the author of 1 Peter, which is probably the genuine work of that writer. In that case our Epistle must be genuine. If 1 Peter belongs to the reign of Domitian or Trajan, or if the literary relation between the two Epistles should be reversed, we cannot argue so con- fidently from their connexion to the genuineness of the Epistle. If genuine, it can hardly be doubted that the Epistle was not sent to Ephesus, at any rate exclusively. It would be incredible that in a letter to a Church where he had laboured so long and to which he was bound by such ties of affection, Paul should abstain from personal greeting or reminiscences of his work hi Ephesus and should give no sign of ultimate personal relations with his readers. It would be still more strange that he should speak as in iii. 2-4 as if their knowledge of his ministry was only by hearsay, and his own knowledge of their faith was of a similar character (i. 15). In fact if we had to believe that the letter if Pauline must have been sent to Ephesus, this would strongly reinforce the already serious arguments against its authenticity. This, however, is not the case. It is true that the title * to the Ephesians ' was given to the Epistle quite early, and that tradition regarded it as addressed to that Church. But Marcion spoke of it as 64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. the Epistle to the Laodiceans, which may of course have been a critical deduction from the reference in Col. iv. 16 to the Epistle from Laodicea,but may point to acquaintance with a copy of the Epistle bearing that title. If the words ' in Ephesus ' in i. 1 are original, we should be obliged to accept the traditional theory of the destination. They are omitted, however, by our two best manuscripts K and B, and struck out by the corrector of 67, who has preserved many old readings. They were not read by Origen, and Basil says that all the old copies did not contain them. Tertullian charges Marcion with falsifying the title ; it is therefore clear that he did not himself read ' in Ephesus * in the text or he would have appealed to this. On the other hand, it may be urged that it is in all other MSS. and Versions and supported by the majority of the Fathers. The omission of the words also creates a serious difficulty. On the usual theory that the letter was addressed to several Churches which harmonises well with its general character and the double title, it is frequently assumed that a blank was left in the copies to be filled with the name of the Church to which any copy was delivered. It is hi that case remarkable that the oldest authorities mention no place at all. We should have expected various readings but not complete omission. It is nevertheless not easy to believe that the original text was identical with the usual text save for the omission of ' hi Ephesus.' The best translation of such a text would be ' to the saints who are also believing (or faithful) hi Christ Jesus.' But this implies that there might be saints who were not believers. P. Ewald suggests that there may be an error in the text, due to wearing of the papyrus at the corner. He reads TOIS ayaTr^rois for Ts with the eye-witness. Further, in the first Epistle tKeivos always refers to the ascended Christ, and had thus passed almost into a technical expression. And the choice of so emphatic a pronoun is best explained on this view. If the author had meant by it simply the eye-witness it would have been more natural to use avros, but by the emphatic pronoun he calls the ascended Lord to witness that he speaks the truth. We thus get a worthy sense for the passage. From his own human testimony to the wonder of the blood and water the writer adds a reference to Christ's consciousness of its truth, thus satisfying the canon of double testimony and rising in his effort to produce conviction from the witness of fallible man to the knowledge of the infallible Christ. Accordingly this passage cannot be quoted IJ INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. either as a claim of the author for himself or a distinction between the author and the eye-witness, since either sense may be imposed upon it. It does, however, definitely contain the claim that the authority on which the statement rests was that of an eye-witness, whether identical with the author of the Gospel or not. The third passage hi which it is thought that the author claims to be an eye-witness is i. 14 : * And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.' Those who repudiate this interpretation argue that the passage is to be interpreted of spiritual vision. It is the language of a mystic, and not to be explained of perception by the physical senses. It is quite true that the words may be so interpreted, though the verb seems always to be used of physical vision in the New Testament. Still the passage makes the impression that perception with the bodily eye is here intended. Following the assertion that the Word became flesh, a reference to spiritual vision is not so natural. For the incarnation was a manifestation of the spiritual hi the realm of the physical, and had to make its appeal to physical organs of perception. It is true that the writer says ' we beheld his glory,' and thus may seem to mean that the appeal was to a spiritual faculty, since faith alone could penetrate behind the lowly appearance to the glorious reality. But the reference might be to the Transfiguration, and if not so, the glory of Christ according to the Gospel itself was shown in miraculous acts, apprehended by the physical senses. In ii. 11 we read with reference to the miracle of turning water into wine : ' This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed on him.' The presumption is accordingly rather strong that hi this passage the writer is not simply claiming for himself such a spiritual vision of the glory of the Word as all Christians may be said to enjoy, but to have actually seen the incarnate Word as He dwelt on earth. xvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 193 This presumption becomes little short of certainty it we admit, as we should do, that the author wrote the First Epistle of John. The opening words of the Epistle are so explicit, that it would be hard to say how the writer could have more definitely claimed to have submitted the real humanity of the Word to physical tests of sight, hearing, and touch. ' That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness, and announce to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us) tha* which we have seen and heard we announce also to you. 1 This passage is all the more clear in its reference to physical perception, that the false doctrine attacked by the author affirmed that Christ had not come in the flesh. The reality of the flesh could be tested only by physical senses. Appeal to spiritual vision would be irrelevant. When scholars who accept the unity of authorship of the Gospel and Epistle are driven to the desperate ex- pedient of explaining such language as implying spiritual perception in order to avoid attributing the two works to an eye-witness, it becomes clear that their testimony to authorship by an eye-witness can be suppressed only by violent methods. Wendt fully admits that both passage? claim, and rightly claim, to proceed from an eye-witness But he considers the Gospel to be a composite work, its author being a later writer who incorporated an earlier work by the apostle John. He also attributes the First Epistle to the apostle. Unless this theory of composite authorship be correct, it seems to be very hard to evade the conclusion that the author of the Fourth Gospel claims to have been an eye-witness. From the direct testimony of the Gospel to its authorship, V 194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. we turn to the indirect evidence that it supplies. The proof of the Johannine authorship of the Gospel has often been exhibited by its defenders in circles gradually narrowing down to a point. The writer is shown to be (1) a Jew, (2) a native of Palestine, (3) an eye-witness, (4) an apostle, (5) the apostle John. This method has the advantage of bringing the greater part of the evidence^ under review, and gradually concentrating that in favour of the Johannine authorship. (1) The writer was a Jew. This is now more and more admitted by opponents of the authenticity. The Tubingen school denied both that he was a native of Palestine, and that he was a Jew. But the later criticism has not supported it hi the latter view, and even Schmiedel thinks that he was probably a Jew, since a born Gentile would not easily have attached so great value to the prophetic significance of the Old Testament. Quite apart from this, however, there is a large mass of evidence which proves familiarity with Jewish ideas, customs, etc. This is conspicuously the case with reference to the Jewish Messianic ideas. The author has an accurate knowledge of details and shades of opinion, which would have pos- sessed no interest for a Gentile. He takes us back into the controversies of the time of Jesus, moving among them easily, as one who had himself been familiar with them. Thus in i. 19-28 we have references to three personages ex- pected by the Jews the Messiah, Elijah, and the prophet. Again in i. 45 the Messiah is described as ' him, of whom Moses hi the law, and the prophets, did write.' Incident- ally it may be noticed that Philip calls Jesus ' the son of Joseph,' a designation which Christian writers at a very early period began to avoid. In i. 49 Nathanael hails Jesus as Son of God, and King of Israel. The latter term very soon became meaningless in the Church, the expecta- tion of a national Messiah having no significance for Gentile Christians. But it is true to the Jewish expectation. So XTII.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 196 in the sixth chapter the miracle of the loaves convinces the people that Jesus is the prophet that cometh into the world, and has its natural issue in the attempt to make Him the Messianic King, a point missed by the Synoptists. In vii. 25-36 we have an account of the disputes among the people concerning the Messianic character of Jesus. Some urge that the secrecy of the Messiah's origin is fatal to the view that Jesus can be the Messiah, since His origin is known. Others point to His miracles and argue that even the Messiah will not do more. So in w. 40-43 we have a further account of the various views taken of Jesus by the multitude. Some thought He was the prophet, others regarded him as the Messiah, while others asserted that the Messiah must be of the seed of David, and of David's village Bethlehem, and therefore that Jesus could not be the Messiah since He came from Galilee. The Messianic title King of Israel is used again in xii. 13 (of. also xix. 14, 15, 21), while in xii. 34 we have mention of a current doctrine that the Messiah abideth for ever. All this points very strongly to the author's Jewish nationality, though it cannot be pressed to prove his early date. For in itself it is quite compatible with the view that it reflects the later controversies of the Christians and the Jews, and that the writer antedates these discussions and puts the Christian argument for the Messiahship and Divinity of Jesus into His own mouth. Other points of Jewish opinion with which he is familiar are the contempt of the Pharisees for those untrained in the law (vii. 47), the relation of punish- ment to sin, and the possibility that the sin of the parents might be punished in the child, and especially the possibility of sin before birth (ix. 1, 2). He is acquainted with the Jewish feasts, not merely with the Passover and Feast of Tabernacles, but also the Feast of Dedication, which is not mentioned in the other Gospels nor in the Old Testament. He knows that the last day of the Feast of 196 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CH. Tabernacles is the great day of the feast, and that the Sabbath mentioned (xix. 31) is a high day. He is aware of the fact that Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, and that the command to circumcise on the eighth day overrides even the law of the Sabbath. A precise descrip- tion is given of the Jewish method of embalming (xix. 39, 40). The author is aware that by entering the palace of the Roman governor the Jews would incur ceremonial defilement which would disqualify them for eating the Passover (xviii. 28), and similarly that the bodies of the crucified should not remain on the cross till the Sabbath (xix. 31). We have a reference also to the Jews' manner of purifying (ii. 6). Moreover, the style of the writer is strongly Hebraistic. His Greek is correct, but it is the Greek of one who has been accustomed to form bis sentences on a Semitic not a Greek model. Against this impressive evidence for the author's Jewish nationality there is little to be set on the other side. It has been urged that a Jew would not have spoken of ' the Jews ' as the writer often speaks. Parallels may, it is true, be quoted, as Mark's reference to ' the Pharisees and all the Jews ' (vii. 8), perhaps Matt, xxviii. 15, ' this saying was spread abroad among the Jews,' and Paul's statement ' to the Jews I became as a Jew ' (1 Cor. ix. 20). At the same time the usage in the Fourth Gospel is much more peculiar. The term is used nearly seventy times, whereas its use in the Synoptic Gospels is rather infrequent. It occurs sixteen times hi them, and in all but four of these in the phrase ' the king of the Jews.' In John we have such expressions as ' the feast of tabernacles, a feast of the Jews ' (vii. 2), or ' the passover a feast of the Jews ' (vi. 4), or even ' the Jews' passover ' (ii. 13, xi. 55), or ' the Jews' Preparation ' (xix. 42), which certainly sound strange on the lips of one who was himself a Jew. It should be observed, however, that since the feasts could be observed outside of Palestine, this usage tells not simply THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 197 against Palestinian residence, but against Jewish nationality. Yet it is urged against the former by some who admit the latter. But this does not apply to the great majority of instances, which would be much more natural on the part of a foreign than a Palestinian Jew. In these the term indicates not those of Jewish nationality hi general, but a special section of the Jewish people. From vii. 1 it would seem that they were for the most part living in Judaea, since it is said that Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was not willing to walk hi Judaea because the Jews were seeking to slay Him. It is true that we find ' the Jews * present at the discourse on the bread of life (vi. 40, 52). This is said to have been delivered at the syna- gogue at Capernaum, though Wendt argues that really it was at Jerusalem. If it was a Galilaean discourse, then we must conclude either that the reference is to Jews who were present from Jerusalem, which the context does not favour, or that the author used the term hi a wider ense than was usual with him. The most characteristic employment of the term is that for the party of hostility to Christ. We have about twenty-five instances of this (cf. vi. 13 ; ix. 22 ; xviii. 12, 14). The term is also used in some cases in which disputes or discourses about Jesus are chronicled, either because the sayings of Jesus were obscure giving rise to various interpretations (vi. 52 ; vii. 35, 36 ; viii. 22), or because some asserted while others denied the genuineness of His claims (x. 19). The term is also used in a neutral sense with no suggestion of any specific attitude towards Jesus (xi. 19, 31, 33, 36 ; xviii. 20) ; and we have references to believing Jews (viii. 31 ; xi. 45), and Jesus Himself says to the woman of Samaria that salvation is of the Jews (iv. 22). It may be suggested that these phenomena are not incompatible with authorship by a Palestinian Jew, hi one who was a Galilaean, who wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem had annihilated 198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca the nation but embittered and intensified the racial and sectarian feelings of the Jews ; when, further, the Jews and Christians were sharply distinguished from each other and the former were notoriously hostile to the latter, and when the author himself had been long absent from Palestine and separated from his own race. It was not unnatural that he should use a term, with which at the end of the first century a definite attitude of hostility to Christianity had become associated, to indicate those who adopted a similar attitude towards Christ. The statement about Caiaphas that he was high-priest in that year (xi. 49, 51 ; xviii. 13) has been urged by some against the Jewish nationality of the writer, though others who admit that he was a Jew by race think that he was not a, native of Palestine. It is said that the author was so ignorant of Jewish affairs that he regarded the High Priesthood as a yearly office, a mistake which Holtzmann and his namesake Oscar Holtzmann suppose to have arisen from the fact that the Asian high-priesthood did change hands every year. It is by no means unanimously accepted among those who deny the Johannine authorship that the writer really made this mistake. Schmiedel, it is true, speaks as if it needed no proof, and asserts that against this serious mistake the evidence of accurate acquaintance with geographical and historical detail has but little weight. But Keim, who rejected the Johannine authorship, expressed a different view. He says : ' The high-priest of the Death- Year is significant and does not at all betray the opinion of a yearly change in the office.' This seems to be the correct view to take. The author meant to lay stress on the fact that Caiaphas was the high-priest hi the year in which Christ died. He appears to have in mind the yearly sacrifice which the high-priest had to offer on the Day of Atonement, and it thus becomes significant that Caiaphas as high-priest had a part in putting to death the antitype of that yearly sacrifice. The author repeats THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 199 the phrase three times (xi. 49, 51 ; xviii. 13), and evidently attaches much importance to it. For he uses eiceivos, which is a favourite word with him when he wishes to make an emphatic statement. The expression has been happily paraphrased * high-priest that fateful year.' It has all the more point when it is remembered that under the Roman rule the office so frequently changed hands, and while Caiaphas himself held it for at least ten years, his three immediate predecessors held it for only three years between them. And it is difficult to admit that one so well acquainted with Jewish life, thought, and customs as the author clearly was, could have blundered on a matter of such common knowledge. It may therefore be granted as a result of the preceding inquiry that the author was a Jew. (2) The author was a Palestinian Jew. This proposition is still strongly contested by opponents of the Johannine authorship, though many of the definite arguments on which stress has been laid are now largely abandoned. It used to be urged that a whole series of geographical blunders had been committed by the author. To-day the best representatives of the opposition to the tradi- tional view have withdrawn from this position. Schurer thinks that hi each case the author may very well have been correct (Contemporary Review, Sept. 1891, p. 408). Schmiedel says that if the places hi question have not been satisfactorily identified, ' the fact ought not to be urged as necessarily proving defective knowledge on the part of the author* (Ency. Bib., col. 2542). He mentions other points in which the evangelist's accuracy may be vindicated, such as the forty-six years during which the Temple was in process of building, and the name of the ravine mentioned in xviii. 1 (on the text see article ' Kidron,' Ency. Bib., col. 2661 ; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 172- 175). He thinks, however, that the mistake involved in the phrase ' high-priest in that year ' outweighs all the 200 INTKODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [CB, evidence of acquaintance with Palestine which may be found in these names. This point, however, has already been discussed, and a different conclusion reached. Not only has the criticism of the writer's accuracy broken down, but the Gospel contains many positive indications of his acquaintance with Palestine. The author cannot with any plausibility be assumed to have derived his knowledge from the Old Testament, the other Gospels, or non-Biblical literature. He knows Cana of Galilee, which has not been mentioned before, also Ephraim near the wilderness, and Aenon near to Salim. His knowledge of distances and the relative position of places is accurate, but it comes to expression hi a perfectly natural and spontaneous way. He knows Jerusalem well, the Pool of Bethesda by the sheep-gate with its five porches, the Pool of Siloam, Golgotha nigh to the city with its garden there, the Pavement with its Hebrew title. Some of these are not mentioned elsewhere. It must be borne in mind that the Gospel was written after the Jewish war, when Jerusalem had been razed to the ground and old landmarks had been effaced. It would not have been easy for one who had never been hi Palestine to move so freely in the descriptions of a city which had been destroyed a good many years earlier. An important question is raised hi this connexion with reference to the doctrine of the Logos, found hi the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle. It is frequently asserted by opponents of the Johannine authorship, and by some of its defenders, that this doctrine was borrowed from Philo. Certainly the Logos has with Philo a very important place. He is represented as the medium between God and the universe, and as the agent through whom the world was created. Very lofty terms are used of him. He speaks of him as ' the Son of God,' ' God,' ' the first-born Son,' * the head of the body,' ' image of God,' ' high-priest,' ' archetypal man.' It is doubtful THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN SOI whether he regarded the Logos as personal, his language being indecisive and perhaps inconsistent. The term with him means 'Reason' rather than 'Word,' and any idea of the Incarnation of the Logos would have been quite foreign to his thought. Nor has the Logos any relation to the Messianic hope or special connexion with Jewish history. The conception was mainly speculative and metaphysical rather than religious, and designed to secure the absolute separation of God from the world. That Alexandrian philosophy influenced Christian theo- logy at an early period is true. Apollos was an Alexan- drian Jew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews bears clear marks of the profound impression made by the teaching of Philo. Yet it is significant that the term Logos is not applied to the Son hi Hebrews, though substantially its doctrine coincides with that of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. This fact makes it possible that we should dis- tinguish carefully between the contents of the doctrine and the term by which it was indicated. It lies on the surface that a deep gulf separates the Logos of Philo from the Logos of John, though it has to be recognised that Philo's conception must have been radically transformed if it was taken over into Christianity. Still, Harnack says with much reason, ' The conception of God's relation to the world as given in the Fourth Gospel is not Philonic. The Logos doctrine there is therefore essentially not that of Philo ' (History of Dogma, E. Tr., vol. i. p. 114). He says elsewhere in speaking of the Johannine theology : ' even the Logos has little more in common with that of Philo than the name ' (p. 97). Now the Johannine doctrine of the Logos has in common with that not only of Hebrews but of Paul essentially everything but the name. We are therefore more Justified in looking to these authors than to Philo for the substance of the doctrine. Even if it be granted that the term went back to Philo, and behind him ultimately to Heraclitus and the Stoics, there is nothing 202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [eft in that which should make its use by the apostle John strange. He would find it in use in Asia, and partly, it may be, to rescue it from false associations, partly because it seemed a fit vehicle for his doctrine of the pre-existent Son, might adopt it as a fundamental term. This would involve no deep study of Philo, but simply the taking over of a term which he had introduced into theological phraseology. Several scholars indeed argue that even the term is not borrowed from Philo but from Palestinian theology. In the Targums we have a doctrine of the Word or Memra. They constantly paraphrase the mention of an act of God in Scripture by saying that God did it through His Word. Thus ' God came to Balaam ' is paraphrased ' The Word of Yahweh came to Balaam ' ; and the word of a man even is often used for the man himself. A third possible origin has been recently pointed out, that the term may have been derived from the Hermetic literature. There are several analogies between the Poimandres and the Fourth Gospel. The combination of Logos, Life, and Light occurs in both in a way not paralleled elsewhere. Pleroma (' fulness ') is a common term hi the Hermetic literature, and the Door, the Shepherd, and the Vine have also their analogies. The prevailing view has been that the literature belongs to a later time than the Gospel. Reitzenstein, the most recent editor of the Poimandres and probably the highest authority on the subject, dates it earlier, and thinks it has influenced Paul as well as John, though he rejects the idea that the Gospel can be explained out of the Hermetic literature. Grill seems inclined to admit the probability of influence; Clemen thinks it is really possible, but by no means certain, since it is not clear that the Gospel is the later. Mead in his Thrice Greatest Hermes strongly advocates the priority of the Poimandres and its influence on the Gospel. The latest discussion of the Hermetic literature, including THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN tU3 an argument for early date, is to be found in Petrie's Personal Religion in Egypt. The case stands then as follows. The doctrine of the Prologue was already formulated hi Paul and Hebrews ; the term Logos may have been a mere trans- lation of Memra, and therefore requires no influence outside Palestine to explain it, and even if the term went back to Philo, there is no reason whatever why a Palestinian who had lived in Asia should not have used it, nor why he should have been unfamiliar with Hermetic speculations, if it can be granted that they had been formulated before his time. Wendt agrees that John actually used the term both in the Prologue to the Gospel, most of which he attributes to him, and in the First Epistle, though he adopts the dubious theory that the Logos is there regarded as impersonal. He thinks the origin of the usage is to be traced to Alexandria rather than Palestine. (3) The author was an eye-witness. This is shown by the ease with which the writer moves among the cir- cumstances that he describes, and by the way in which he constantly realises the situation. It has already been pointed out that the author exhibits a remarkable know- ledge of the Messianic beliefs current hi the Judaism of the time. Here the further point is to be observed that he describes how these beliefs affected the attitude of the people towards Jesus. In other words, it is not simply the enumeration of a series of beliefs, but the action of these beliefs hi concrete situations that he describes. It would have been a matter of extraordinary difficulty for a writer even of great imaginative power to have delineated the play of these two forces on each other the beliefs of the people on the one side, and the individuality of Jesus on the other. In Sanday's words, ' No genius, we contend, would have treated the collision between Judaism and nascent Christianity as the Evangelist has 204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca dealt with it ; and we securely rest upon that for proof that no middle link intervenes between the facts and their narrator ' (Contemporary Review, Oct. 1891, p. 540). The exact details as to time and place, persons and numbers, point to the recollections of an eye-witness. Special events are associated with definite localities ; the nobleman's son was sick at Capernaum while Jesus was at Cana ; Jesus finds the man, whom He had healed on the Sabbath, in the Temple ; certain of His utterances are connected with the Treasury and with Solomon's porch. Persons are mentioned hi a familiar and easy way ; some of them do not occur elsewhere, e.g. Lazarus and Nicodemus. Various persons are connected with definite questions addressed to Christ. Points of time are exactly radicated : the sixth hour, the seventh hour, the tenth hour, hi the early morning. The length of a period of time is indicated in several cases : the duration of Christ's stay in Samaria, of His delay before He went to Lazarus, of the interval that elapsed between the death and the raising of the latter. Definite numbers are freely given : the six water- pots, the four soldiers by the Cross, the twenty-five or thirty furlongs the disciples had gone before Jesus came to them walking on the sea, the thirty-eight years that the sick man had suffered, the two hundred cubits the boat was from land (xxi. 8), the number of the fish caught, one hundred and fifty-three (xxi. 11). To these may be added little touches such as that the loaves with which the multitude was fed were barley loaves, that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment, that the coat of Christ was woven without seam. In a modern writer of fiction these details would not be surprising, since it is hi this way that he makes on his readers the impression of reality. But it is very difficult to believe that the writer of a Gospel in the second century should have been so far hi advance of his age in literary art as to trick his narrative out with details invented XTII.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 105 in order to make an impression of reality on his readers. And it must be remembered that the modern novelist intends his narrative to be taken as fiction, the details are introduced not to make his readers believe that his story is true, but to secure more powerful effects. In the case of the Gospel, however, the writer would deliberately invent precise details that he might mislead his readers into accepting as true what was simply the product of his own imagination. It is rather hard to believe that the moral sensitiveness of the author was so blunt as this. The case would be altered, however, if these details were invested with a symbolic significance. This view of them has been more or less taken by several scholars. Some of these, of course, consider that the narratives are purely allegorical, but some adherents of the traditional view who have asserted the historicity of the events narrated have nevertheless imposed upon them an allegorical significance. It is probably true that the writer has selected his material with this in view, as the connexion between narrative and teaching strongly suggests. For example, the feeding of the five thousand leads to the dis- course on the Bread of Life, the healing of the blind man presents Jesus as the Light of the World, the raising of Lazarus teaches that Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life, the coming out of blood and water from His side is not only a positive refutation of Docetism, but symbolises that Jesus had come not with water only, but with water and blood. But the attempt to carry through allegory every- where leads to very strange results. When one reads the interpretation of the story of the woman of Samaria one is forcibly reminded of the Tubingen interpretation of Euodia and Syntyche, a striking example of the possi- bilities of theory divorced from common sense. The woman of Samaria is, of course, the half-heathen Samaritan community. She has had five husbands, that means the 206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [ca five heathen gods mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 31, 32 as wor- shipped by the Samaritans. Her present irregular lover is Yahweh, whom she illegitimately worships. It is a pity for this interpretation, which may be found in numerous com- mentaries and discussions, that these gods were seven and not five ; that they were worshipped simultaneously and not successively ; and it is hardly likely that idolatry should be represented as marriage, when its usual symbol is adultery, or that the author should have represented Yahweh under so offensive a figure. Holtzmann, hi fact, in view of this difficulty, supposes that by the irregular lover Simon Magus must be meant ; but it would be very odd to place a man in line with deities, and was Samaria's connexion with him less legitimate than with them ? Readers with any literary tact will feel that the story of the woman of Samaria is admirably told, full of life and movement, and even with touches of humour. The request for water, the woman's surprise, the attempt of Jesus to lead her to a sense of spiritual need, her crass misunder- standing, the probing of her conscience by the reminder of her past, the woman's ready-witted diverting of the conversation from the embarassingly personal channel to questions of theology, all follow simply and naturally. Yet of this scene, so admirably managed, Reville can say, and Pfleiderer can quote his words with approval, * Taken literally, this scene is as absurd as that of the marriage of Cana.' On the allegorical interpretation what are we to make of many features hi the narrative that Jesus was weary, that it was Jacob's well, that the place was Sychar, that the woman came at a certain hour, that Jesus had nothing to draw with, that the woman left her water-pot, that His disciples marvelled that He talked with the woman ? The allegorist misses his mark if the allegory is not trans- parent, yet what symbolical meaning can be attached to these trivial details ? If it is a real history that the author rvii.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 7 means to tell, whether truth or fiction they fall naturally into their places. If they are allegories it is hard to find a suitable meaning for them. Wrede does much more Justice to the literary quality of the narrative ; he says that the movement of the dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman is incomparably finer than that with Nicodemus. Similarly one might treat the story of the man born blind, or the incident of the feeding of the five thou- sand. And so we might accumulate a large number of points which speak against the allegorical interpretation. Think of the numerous trivialities hi the Gospel, the reference to points of time to which significance cannot without violence be attached, or to distances. Why does the allegorist tell us that the boat was about twenty-five or thirty furlongs from the shore, which looks like the rough calculation of one who was actually there ; or why that Bethany was about fifteen furlongs from Jeru- salem ? Why should he trouble to tell us that there were six water-pots of stone, and again give a rough estimate of their size, that they held two or three firkins apiece ? What allegory lies concealed behind the lad at the miracle of the feeding, or the fact that his stock consisted of barley loaves ? Why should the eyes of the blind man be anointed with clay ? Why should we be told that Lazarus was buried in a cave ? What is the object of saying at one time that Jesus spoke in the treasury, and on another occasion that it was hi Solomon's porch, with the added touch that it was winter ? What is the meaning of the fire of charcoal at the scene of Peter's denial ? Why the curious new and insignificant names such as Cana and Ephraim and Malchus ? Why the objectless visit to Capernaum mentioned in ii. 12, or the many other details that are not patient of a symbolical interpretation, which any reader of the Gospel may collect in abundance for himself ? The cool stream of common sense which John 808 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [oa Spencer poured on those who found deep religious myster iet in the Levitical rites would not come amiss to those critics who in this matter also ' embrace a cloud instead of Juno.' It may be granted that much which to us would seem absurd and fanciful might have come to seem quite natural to a writer saturated with Rabbinic and Alexandrian notions as to the significance of numbers and names. Yet when sufficient allowance for this has been made it can hardly be regarded as probable that a narrative written on these principles should be so spontaneous and give so slight an impression of artifice. Thus according to E. A. Abbott the sick man at Bethesda represents sinful Israel ; he waits for the troubling of the water thirty-eight years, which corresponds to Israel's thirty-eight years of wandering; the intermittent pool symbolises the intermittent purifica- tion of the Law ; the five porches represent the five senses of unredeemed humanity (though Schmiedel makes them represent the five books of Moses). The one hundred and fifty-three fish indicate the Church as evolved from the Law and the Spirit. Peter swims over two hundred cubits, a number that according to Philo represents re- pentance. (Numerous other examples may be seen in his article 'Gospels' in the Ency. Bib.) Schmiedel admits symbolical meanings to a certain extent, but says that * the entire contents of the Gospel do not admit of being derived from ideas alone.' He thinks that mistaken statements in the Gospel have arisen hi the course of oral tradition. It is open to very serious question whether this can be successfully made good in detailed application. Examples of this type of explanation may be found hi his article 'John, Son of Zebedee' (Ency. Bib. 2539). And apart from this, it is a sound principle that the plain and literal sense should not be abandoned for a symbolical, and that lifelike touches must be held to prove accurate knowledge, either directly communicated by an eye- witness in writing, or preserved faithfully in a good oral THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 208 tradition, unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary. If the Johannine date for the Crucifixion is correct (see p. 215), this is important as showing that what looks like transparent allegory may nevertheless be historical fact. Yet the argument from the presence of lifelike details does not carry us so far as its supporters often assert. More reserve should be shown in drawing the inference that the author of the document containing them must have been present when the events narrated take place. Vivid touches or a whole flood of accurate reminiscences do not prove apostolic authorship. This is perfectly clear from the Gospel of Mark. All that the graphic character of the narrative proves is that it embodies the tradition of an eye-witness, not that the eye-witness himself compiled the narrative. Now, if the Second Gospel cannot be proved by these features to be the work of Peter, we cannot prove the Fourth Gospel by similar argument to be the work of John. In fact, direct apostolic authorship is not the real point to be maintained ; it is rather that the Gospel should be proved to incorporate a reliable historic tradition. And all the numerous arguments which are to be found in such copiousness in our commentaries and special dis- cussions do not when pressed to the utmost really carry us further than that. The strongest argument for direct apostolic authorship is the claim in i. 14. This claim is corroborated by the internal evidence that has been held to prove authorship by an eye-witness, but of itself this does not suffice to establish it. Still it seems sounder to see in the details which have been enumerated genuine historical recollections rather than allegorical ideas or the outcome of a whole series of misunderstandings. (4) The writer was an apostle. If he was an eye-witness he can hardly have been any one but an apostle, 1 for only OB the attempt to show that the beloved disciple waa not an apostle M pp 147 ff. J10 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [on. an apostle is likely to have been present at so many different scenes, in such various places and at such various times. This is confirmed by the knowledge he exhibits of the feelings of the disciples, and what they said to each other. Thus after the cleansing of the Temple we read : ' And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house eateth me up * (ii. 17). Again when the disciples returned from the city they were surprised that Jesus should be talking with a woman, but did not venture to question Him ; and when He replied to their offer of food ' I have food to eat of which you do not know,' they ask each other whether any one has brought Him food (iv. 27-33). The writer is aware that the garden in which Jesus was arrested was one which was known to Judas as a meeting-place for Jesus and His disciples (xviii. 1, 2), He also reveals an intimate acquaintance with the thoughts and feelings of Jesus. He mentions the reason for His leaving Judaea (iv. 1), and for withdrawing from the multitude after He had fed it (vi. 15). He explains that His question to Philip was for the purpose of trying him, since He knew Himself what He was going to do (vi. 6). (5) The writer was the apostle John. If he was an apostle at all, only John can be thought of. Of the disciples most intimate with Jesus, Peter, James, and John, Peter is excluded by the way in which the Gospel speaks of him, James by his early death. This is confirmed by the fact that the name of John the apostle nowhere occurs, in spite of the fact that he was one of the three disciples nearest to Jesus, and that he occupies a prominent position in the Synoptists, in Acts, and in Paul. The sons of Zebedee are referred to, but placed in a position where no one else would have placed them, and the names are not given (xxi. 2). In view of the particularity with which the author specifies names, it is most significant that these names are not mentioned. And there is one minute THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 811 indication which is very striking. The author is careful about the exact identification of those to whom he refers, distinguishing them from others of the same name, thus Simon Peter, Judas Iscariot and Judas not Iscariot, Judaa the son of Simon Iscariot, Nicodemus, the same who came to Jesus by night, Thomas who is called Didymus. But he never speaks of John the Baptist as the Synoptic Gospels do, but simply of John, apparently since he thinks that being himself the John from whom his name- sake was to be distinguished, no note of distinction is required. In looking back over these indirect arguments it may perhaps be granted that they are of different degrees of cogency. That the author was a Jew may be asserted without hesitation, and that he was a native of Palestine, or at any rate had lived long hi Palestine, may be asserted with almost equal confidence, the phrase 'high priest in that year ' being altogether insufficient to outweigh the minute acquaintance with Palestine exhibited by the author. Of the other points it must at present suffice to say that while taken hi themselves they rather strongly suggest that the author was an eye-witness and the apostle John, yet they might perhaps be satisfied by a belief that he had access to an exceptionally good tradition, much in the same way as Mark had. It must be remembered that the main question is one of historical character rather than authorship, and this might be secured as in the case of Mark by faithful reproduction of a good tradition. No doubt first-hand evidence is better than evidence at second hand. But it would be premature to pronounce an opinion till the objections to the Johannine authorship have been stated and examined. It should be added, however, that these objections do, as a matter of fact, touch not only the question of authorship but that of historical trustworthiness. IS INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT [bott, B. A., 97, 179 f., 182, 190 f., 208. Abilene, 184. Abraham, 39, 86. Achaia, 12, 24, 128. Acts of Archelans, 184. of the Apostles, 6, 26-27, 61-88, 125-135, 143 f., 149, 161. Adeney, 97. Aenon, 200. Agrippa, 184. Alexandria, 78, 77* Allen, 115. Alogi, 166, 186. Ancyra, 21. Andrew, 187, 222. Antichrist, 14, 165, 162 f., 171. Antioch in Pisidia, 17, 20, 180. in Syria, 26, 28-80. Antiochns Bpiphanes, 14. Apocalypse, tee Revelation. Apollo, 158. Apollos, 79-81, 201. Apostasy, 12, 14 f., 76 f., 167, Apostolic Age, 6, 6. Conference, 26-27, 80. Fathers, 49, 76. Aquila, 42-44, 80 1 Arabia, 24. Aramaic, 73, 109, 114, 122, 216. Aristion, 122, 187. Aristobulus, 44. Arnold, M., 2161 Asia, 23 f., 43, 95, 138-142, 145-147, 167, 174, 177, 188. Athena, 11, 18, 180. Augustine, 77. BABYLON, 94 f., 162. Babylonia, 154 f., 158 f. Baldensperger, 224. Barnabas, 22, 25, 29 f., 77 f., 98, 148, 179. Bartlet, J. V., 26, 71, 182. Baruch, 167. Basil, 64. Basilides, 184. Baur, P. C., 2-7, 39, 41, 57 1, 64. Beast, 153, 167, 159, 162 f. Beloved Disciple, 140 f., 146-161, 186 f., 191, 223. Bernard, J. H., 146. Bethany, 207. Bethesda, 208. Beyschlag, 61. Bithynia, 19, 21, 28, 96. Bleek, 45, 80, 152. Blood and water, 187-191, 205, 226 Bouiset, 14, 147 f., 155 f., 182, 216. Burkitt, 113, 117, 134, 148. CAESARKA, 48 f., 81, 126. Caesarea Philippi, 220. Caiaphas. 198. Caiua, 77, 166, 185. Caligula, 15, 163. CM, 200, 204, 206 1 238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Canon, 2. Capernaum, 197, 204, 207, 217. Carthaginian Calendar, 145. Cerinthus, 166, 185. Chase, 17, 96. Cilicia, 18, 22. Claudius, 15, 44, 134. Clemen, 145, 202. Clement of Alexandria, 90, 99, 121 f., 186, 140, 170, 178. of Rome, 31 f., 89, 58, 61, 72 f., 77-79, 82 f., 86f.,90. Clementine Homilies and Recogni- tion!, 3, 5. Colossae, 48, 50, 52. Colosaians, Epistle to, 45-53, 55-57. Cony bear e, F. C., 122. Corinth, 11, 16, 18, 22, 32, 85-37, 39, 43, 80. Corinthians, Epistles to, 8 f., 27, 29, 81-38, 89, 46. Cornelius, 57. Corssen, 149 f. Creighton, 190. Cyprian, 77. Cyprus, 18, 22, 137, 148. DAMASCUS, 24. Daniel, 109, 152-154, 159. Day of the Lord, IS. Deborah, 80. Dechent, 191. Delff, 147. Denney, 44. Derbe, 17, 24. De Wette, 55. Dieterich, 158. Dionysiua, 16*. Diotrephes, 174 f. Dobschiitz. Von, 148. Docetism, 149 f. , 171, 183, 205, 224 f. Domitian. 53, 83, 91, 93, 133, 156, 162 f., ieSf., 169,172. Double Tradition, 103, 106 f., 111-113. Dragon, 160. Drummond, 137, 179 f. EBIONISM, 85. Ebionites, 3. Egypt, 99, 122, 178. Emperor Worship, 157. Enoch, 167. Epaenetns, 43. Epaphroditus, 47 Epheaians, Episth to, 45-57, 94. Ephesus, 18, 21, 29, 31, 42-44, 4, 53 f., 139-142, 145 f., 167, 173 f., 224. Epiphanius, 185. Eschatology, 16, 154. Essenism, 67. Eusebius, 139, 145, 167, 180 f. Ewald, H., 152. P., 64. FADUS, 130. Famine Visit, 26-27, SO. Feast of Dedication, 195. of Tabernacles, 195 f. Findlay, 174. Florinus, 138. Gnus, 174. Galatia, 12, 17-21, 24, 27, 29. Galatians, Epistle to, 8 f., 17-80, 40, 45. Galatic Territory, 19-21. Gallic, 128. Gamaliel, 130 f. Gauls, 17, 21. Gentile Christians, 6, 26, 39-41, 76, 131. Mission, 8, 85, 129. Gentiles, 13, 28, 55-57. Georgios Hamartolos, 142. Gnosticism, 14, 50 f., 55 f., 58, 66 f., 100, 171-173, 181, 184. Gnostics, 76, 150 f., 172, 183. Godet, 61. Golgotha, 200. Grill, 202. Gunkel, 154t, 158f. INDEX HADRIAN, 182. Hardy, 90. Harnack, 44, 64, 70, 80, 86-88, 94, 119, 124, 126 f., 131, 134, 140, 145 f., 149, 153, 169, 173, 175, 182 f., 186, 201, 215. Harris, J. R., 80, 178. Hastings, J., 184. Hausrath, 15, 17, 85, 89. Hawkins, 126. Hebrew, 114, 122 1 Hebrews, Epistle to the, 89, 72-88, 201, 219. Hegemonius, 184. Hegesippus, 64. Hellenists, 128. Heracleon, 183 f. Heraclitus, 201. Hennas, 31, 76, 88 f., 177. Hermetic literature, 202 f. Herod, 25, 144. Hicks, E. L., 81. Hilgenfeld, 2, 4, 14, 67, 179. Hippolytus, 77, 166, 178, 184 f. Hobart, 127. HoLsten, 2, 35, 57 f. Holtzmann, H. J., 35, 51 f., 57, 115, 134, 170, 198, 206. O.,198. Hort, 61, 67, 71, 168, 169. Horns, 158. loomuM, 17, 20. Ignatius, 81, 89, 46, 68, 69, 65, 125, 142, 171 f., 182 f. Imprisonment, Epistles of the, 45- 59. Irenaeus, 10, 82, 49, 63, 59 f., 77, 87, 90, 118 f., 122, 124 f., 186, 138 f., 145, 166, 170, 177 f., 182 f., 185. JAMS, EPIVTLB or, 39, 84-S9, 90. the Lord'i brother, 84 f., 87-89, 144. the SOB of Zebedee, 137, 142-144, no. Jerome, 77. Jerusalem, 28, 25-80, 66, 72 f., 79, 82, 104, 107, 122, 128, 131, 145, 147-149, 160, 197, 200, 207. Destruction of, 11, ?2f., 86, 122, 133, 153, 166, 169, 197, 223. Siege of, 14, 119, 163 f. Visits of Christ to, 213-215, 221 Paul's visits to, 22-25, 29, 131. Jewish Christianity, 3. Christians, 40, 49, 64, 72, 74-76, 84f.,87, 95,128. Job, 85. John, Epistles of, 136, 170-176, 190-8. Gospel of, 5, 136, 140 f., 146- 151, 166-169, 170, 177-228. the Apostle, 136-228. the Baptist, 104, 109, 145 f, 211, 213, 216 f., 220-222, 224-226. the Presbyter, 119, 122, 137 f., 140 f., 147 f, 156, 167-9, 176, 186 f. Joseph of Arimathea, 214, 216. Josephus, 83, 97, 180 f., 133-135. Judaism, 6, 15, 73-75, 82, 84, 133, 158, 172. Judaizers, 46, 58. Judas the Galilean, 131, 184. Iscariot, 210 f. not Iscariot, 211. Jude, 96-100, 172. Julicher, 17, 85, 88, 119, 156, 176, 224. Justin Martyr, 49, 76, 88, 125, 140, 166, 178-180. KBIH, 137, 179, 198. Kern, 14. Kidron, 199. Kingdom of God, 63. Krenkel, 134. Krttger, 182. Kuhl, 91. LAMB, 151, 161, 168, 188. Laodicea, 55. Laodiceans, Epistle to, 64. 240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Last Supper, 148, 215. Law, 11, 25, 28, 58, 87, 72, 110. Roman, 63. Lawlessness, 13-15. Laiarus, 204 f., 20 7,222 . Leontopolis, 73. Leucian Acts of John, 149-1(1. Lietzmann, 35, 44. Lightfoot, 20, 41 f., 45 f., 120, 129, 137, 146, 179, 181, 199. Logia, 111-113, 122, 180, 186. Logos Doctrine, 171, 179 f., 185, 200-203, 212, 225 f. Loisy, 179, 183, 224. Liio.ke, 152. Luke, 18 f., 26, 62. Gospel of, 5, 101-12*, 179, 181, 222. Luther, 79. Ltttzelberger, 187. Lycaonia, 17, 130. Lycus, 49. Lysanias, 134 1 Lystra, 17, 24. MAOIDOHIA, 18, 24, 88, 41. Malchus, 207. Marcion, 3, 41, 53 f., 64 f., 67. Canon of, 10, 82, 89, 47, 49, 53, 59 f., 76, 124. Mardnk, 158. Hark, 5, 101-124, 143-145, 167, 181 f., 186, 209, 211, 220. Martin, G. C , 89. Martineau, 170. Martyrdom of John and James, 142- 145. Matthew, 101-124, 137, 181 f., 186. Mayor, 97. McGiffert, 29 f., 71, 93. Mead, 202. Memra, 202 f. Messiah, 28, 160, 194 f., 213, 219-222. Messianic Beliefs, 203 f. Proof texts, 118. Meyer, 2, 61. Miletus, 62 Missionary Journey, first, 17, 24. Journey, second, 18 f., 23, 27, 29 f. Journey, third, 27, 29. Mommsen, 90 f. Montanists, 78. Moulton, J. H., 80, 89. Muratorian Canon, 10, 32, 47, 49, 59, 59 f., 76, 90, 99, 170, 178. Mysia, 19, 21, 23. NARCISSUS, 44. Nathanael, 194, 222. Neander, 61. Nero, 14, 62, 91, 153, 156 f., 162 f.. 165. Neronian Persecution, 61, 83, 94. Neumann, 90. Nicodemns, 147, 204, 207, 211. North Galatia, 18-20, 24. Galatian Theory, 17, 20 f., 28, 27,29. Novatian, 77. OLD LATIN VBBSIOH, 10. Onesimus, 48. Oral Theory, 104-109 - Tradition, 106-109, 116. Origen, 54, 77, 87, 90, 98 f., 166, 170. PALBSTINB, 123, 142, 149. Paley, 180. Pamphylia, 23. Papias, 90, 105-107, 112-114, 119 f., 122, 137, 139, 141-147, 167, 170, 180, 186. Paronsia, 10, 12, 56. Parthians, 163, 165. Paschal Controversy, 139. Passover, 195, 215 f. Pastoral Epistles, 60-71. Patmos, 144, 167. Paul, 8, 5 f.. 10-71, 76-79, 81-83, 84, 86, 91 f., i31 f., 187, 142 f., 216 f. and Thecla, 150, INDEX PwHnism, 1,271,49, 86. Pavement, 200. Pergamnm, 174. Person of Christ, 46, 49 f., 58, 149, int. Peshitta, 87. Peter, 8, 24 f., 28, 68, 61, 79, 90-100, 118-128, 137, 144, 146, 149, 182, 186, 207-211, 220. Peter, Apocalypse of, 98 f. First Epistle of, 89, 53, 90-96. Second Epistle of . 90, 94, 98- 99. Petrie.208. Pfleiderer, 2, 17, 45, 89, 149 f., 165, 163 f., 170, 180, 182 f., 206, 224, 2S7. Pharisees, 129, 195. Philemon, 4, 45-49. Philip the Apostle, 187, 140, 194, 222. one of the Seren, 49, 126, 140. of Side, 142. Philippl,46f.,127. Philippians, 4, 45-48, 57-59. Philo, 200-208, 208. Phrygia, 17, 20 L Phrygian and Qalatian Country, 18. Phrygians, 22. Phrygo-Galatic Territory, 20. Pilate, 225. Pillar Apostles, 5, 148. Pisidia, 17. Pliny, 90. Poimandret , 202. Polycarp, 31 f., 89, 46, 58, 59, 60, 64, 90, 125, 138 I, 142, 170, 177, 182 f. Polycrates, 188, 189 1 Pontus, 95. Pool of Bethesda, 200. of Siloam, 200. Pre-eiistence, 219. Prisca, 42-44, 80 f. Q., Ill, 116-119, 122-124, 138. Qnirinius, 184. RAHAB, 86. Ramsay, 17, 20, 23, 80, 44, 81. 90 f. Reformation, 99. Reinach, 166. ReiUen stein, 202. Renan, 17, 41 f., 228. Reach, 181. Resurrection, 106, 117, 129. Revelation of John, 186 t, 144, 147, 150 f., 152-169, 180. ReYille, 206, Rishell, 224. Ritschl, 4. Robinson, J. A., 145. Roman Emperor, 15, 62, 159, 162. Empire, 8, 16, 62, 188, 158, 157, 165. Romans, Epistle to, 27 t, 89-44, 45, 94. Rome, 78, 121, 128, 182, 142, 167, 162 1, 177 f. Church of, 89 f., 48, 74, 76, 78, 119. SABATIBB, 61. Saddnoees, 129. Salmon, 184. Salmond, 178. Samaria, 222. Samaria, Woman of, 205-207, 210, 117, 222. Smnday, 85, 61, 182, 156, 179, 182, 191, 208 f. Sanday and Headlam, 44. Sarah, 96. Satan, 172. Sayings of Jeans, 8, 88 f. SM Logia. Schiele, 80. Schleiermacher, 61. Sohmiedel, 17, 49, 184, 170, 188, 187 t, 1*1,194, 198 f., 208. Scholten, 137. Schulz, 42. Schtirer, 17, 121, 182, 184, 199, 216, 220,222. Schwartt, 148 t, 176 181 t, 291. 242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Schwegler, 2. Scott, E. F., 224. Second Coming, 8, 10, 12 f. , 15, 55, 65, 85, 98, 149. Septuagint, 73, 78, 123. Sermon on the Mount, 84 118. Servant of Yahweh, 92. Seven Churches, 137, 140, 144, 165, 167, 172. Sheol, 223. Silas, 79, 93 f., 126. Simon Magus, 3, 5, 206. of Cyrene, 216. Soden, Von, 52, 88, 91, 93, 117, 121, 164. South Galatia, 18, 21 f., 24, 26. Galatian Theory, 17 f., 21-23, 27,29. Spain, 61. Spencer, John, 208. Spitta, 84, 97, 153, 155. Staehelin, 184. Steinmann, 17. Stephen, 129 f., 145. Stoics, 201. Strauss, 158. Stroud, 190. Swete, 156. Sychar, 206. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel, 205-209, 213, 215. Synoptic Gospels, 101-124, 146, 151, 163, 179 f., 213-223. Problem, 101-119. Syria, 18, 22, 123. Syriac Calendar, 146. Version, 10. TABOUMS, 123, 202. Tatian's Diatessaron, 178. Taylor, C., 177. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 90. Temple, 14 f., 73, 79, 82, 119, 157, 160, 199, 204. cleaniing of the, 210, 220- 222. Egyptian, 78. Temptation, 117. Tertullian, 54, 77 f., 87, 90, 99, !, 170, 178. Theophilus, 49, 125, 178. Thessalouians, Epistles to the, 4, 10- 16,27. Thessalonica, 11, 13, 127. Theudas, 130 f., 131 Thomas, 137, 211. Timothy, 11 f., 23, 30, 34, 60-71, 78, 79, 82, 125. Titus, 23, 26, 33-36, 60-71, 125 f. Roman Emperor, 83, 162 f., 165. Trajan, 53, 90 f., 183. Triple Tradition, 103, 106-111, 114. Tubingen School, 2, 4, 6, 12, 31, 4ft 136, 168, 194, 205. Two-Document Hypothesis, 113. UBSI AKKUS, 114. VALENTINIANISM, 188. ValentUians, 179. Valentinus, 183. Vespasian, 14, 128, 162 f., 169. Victor, 139 f. Viseher, 153, 155. WE-SKOTION3, 125-128. Weiss, B., 115, 117. Weiss, J., 21, 155 f., 163-165. Weizsacker, 17, 115, 155, 212, 219. Wellhausen, 116, 119, 121, 134, 143 f.. 156, 170, 215, 227. Wendt, 17, 115, 134, 191, 198, 197, 203, 215, 226. Wernle, 179, 183, 223. Westcott, 179, 188 f. Western Text, 131. Wrede, 82, 207. ZACHAHIAH, 119. Zahn, 17, 44, 132, 146, 191. Zealots, 119. ZeUer,2. THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. 3 1205 00404 4473 A 001 '002679 '