THePRe^eNTPROBLeQD^

CDlLUACD-BKNCRpFT-HILi;

Djyinity Library
H55Gr

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE PRESENT PROBLEMS OF
NEW TESTAMENT STUDY

THE
PRESENT PROBLEMS
OF
$lz\& &z*tamtnt Stuirg
By William Bancroft Hill
Professor of Biblical Literature
in
Vassar College

Second Edition

JQeto gotfe
EDWIN S. GORHAM, PUBLISHER
FOURTH AVE. & zoth STREET
1907

CopyrigU, 1903, by Edwin S. Gorham

To
Those who have begun with me
The study of the problems outlined in this boo
I dedicate it
In memory of pleasant days together

THE purpose of this little book is single and
unambitious, namely, to give with clearness a
brief description of the two main fields of New
Testament study, and the problems that occupy
scholars in them today; ./Before one can read intel
ligently an elaborate discussion of any of those prob
lems, he must have some general knowledge of the
whole subject. This I have endeavored to put
within his reach. There are many and excellent
treatises on Textual Criticism and New Testament
Introduction. The present book is not in any way
to be classed with these, but is simply the first step
to their acquaintance.
At the same time I have had in mind the wants
of those who lack time or opportunity for study
along these lines, and yet have a natural desire to
know what topics are most prominently before New
Testament scholars just now, and what opinions are
held concerning them. To such the latter part of
the book will probably be of special interest, but I
trust they will find all of it attractive and helpful.
If it gives an answer to questions which may have
arisen in their minds as they read about New Testa
ment criticism, or calms their fears as to whither
that criticism tends, I shall feel that the book has
not been in vain.

New Testament Problems

i.

Bible study may be either devotional or critical.
In the former case the heart is the great inter
preter of the sacred teachings, and the desire of
the student is to find in them a guide and com
fort for his daily life. That this is the most
illuminating form of study, all agree. As Martin
Luther said, " An old woman who reads her Bible
in the chimney corner knows more about God than
do the great doctors of philosophy." But critical
study also is necessary if we would know what
the Bible really is and teaches ; there are prob
lems in it for the scholar as well as precepts for
the child. Unfortunately, — and the fact is a
sad commentary upon human nature, — the word
criticism, which means simply intelligent and dis
criminating study, suggests fault-finding and hos
tility. In popular thought the critics of the
[1]

New Testament Problems
Bible are men bent upon destroying the sacredness
and authority of the Book, and Biblical criticism
is a thing greatly to be deplored. Whereas, it
ought to be recognized that the vast majority of
critics are devout and earnest men whose work
is inspired by a deep love for the Word of God
and a desire to know it accurately and set it forth
in all its purity and power. To speak of criti
cism as " a menace to the Bible " is absurd, unless,
forsooth, the Bible cannot bear honest and close
investigation. We sometimes hear it stated that Biblical criti
cism at present has turned away from the New
Testament to the Old, having practically settled
all important questions in the former field. Like
many statements this is largely true and yet mis
leading. That which arouses heated discussion
in Old Testament study to-day is the attempt to
prove that the religion of the Hebrews, and es
pecially what is known as the Law, does not date
back in its completed form to the time of Moses,
but was a gradual growth and development, whose
progress may be traced from before the Exodus
down to the days after the Return from Exile.
It is the recognition of evolution in Hebrew re
ligious life and literature. It involves some radical
departures from familiar opinions concerning many
of the Old Testament documents; and it greatly
[ 2 j

The Present Interest
disturbs the minds of those who fear that the au
thority of the Book will be destroyed if the new
views are accepted.
There was a time when New Testament study
presented an equally exciting conflict between those
who would carry the origin of almost all its books
far down into the second century, — thus making
our knowledge of Christ and the Apostolic Church
extremely uncertain, — and those who defended
the traditional views. But that time is no more.
With the exception of here and there an erratic
scholar who seeks to gain a reputation by assail
ing all accepted opinions, no one doubts that prac
tically all of our New Testament books were written
in the first century, within the lifetime of those
who had known Christ or His immediate disciples.
Nevertheless, there are more scholars engaged
to-day in critical study of the New Testament than
of the Old; and the problems they are consider
ing are of more importance to. us. For while the
Old Testament is closely connected with the New,
the two cannot be regarded with equal interest.
Judaism was not the parent but only the cradle
of Christianity, — a cradle she quickly forsook.
And though we may without great uneasiness hear
scholars declare that Moses did not write Deuter
onomy, we should be profoundly concerned if ar
guments of weight were brought forward to prove
[3]

New Testament Problems
that Jesus did not speak the Sermon on the Mount.
For this reason we are always interested in New
Testament criticism, and eager to learn what the
latest word in it may be. And while it is never
easy to ascertain the consensus of current scholar
ship, the task is made less difficult just now by
the recent completion of two great Bible diction
aries in which the leading scholars of Europe and
America have given us their views.

II.

There are two distinct fields of New Testa
ment criticism, in both of which scholars are hard
at work. One is the Textual or the Lower Criticism,
where the endeavor is to secure a correct text, i. e.
the exact words of the inspired authors. The
work here is pursued along three different lines.
First, the existing Greek manuscripts must be
examined, and their different readings noted. Most
of these manuscripts are too late to be of much
value in determining the text ; they are copies
of copies down through the centuries before print
ing was invented. But no manuscript is absolutely
worthless ; and they can all be arranged in groups
according to their origin (as we shall see later),
and in this way be made to testify concerning
[4]

The Lower Criticism
general types of variations. And by study of these
variations we can get back of our earliest manu
scripts, and make a pretty confident guess as to
what the original text must have been. Second,
there are certain versions, i. e. translations, which
were made before any of the existing manuscripts.
The translator must, therefor, have used an earlier
manuscript than any we now possess ; and by
studying his version carefully we may discover
what the text of that manuscript was. Of course,
there is a twofold difficulty in doing this : — the
document which gives us the version is not an
original one, and may contain the mistakes of
a copyist, and we are not always sure what words
to use when we undertake to translate the version
back once more into Greek. Still, the versions are
a most important help in determining the original
Greek. Third, there are the writings of the Ante-
Nicene Church Fathers, which are full of quota
tions from the New Testament also taken from
an earlier text than any now at hand. By a study
of these quotations we may discover what that
text must have been. But the same possibility
of changes by later copyists confronts us ; and
there ,-s the further difficulty that we are never
sure the Father himself was accurate in his quo
tations. He may have given the exact words of
a Scripture passage, or he may have been content
[5]

New Testament Problems
to give the sense of it in his own words. Thus
we have three sources from which to gain the
original text. And while none of them is so in
fallible that we can afford to disregard the other
two, yet if all three agree substantially, we can
accept their testimony with confidence.

III.

The other field is the Higher Criticism. It is
given that name because it presupposes and is
based upon the Lower Criticism; but the term is
unfortunate since it seems to imply superiority and
patronage. When to the obnoxious word, criti
cism, we join the likewise irritating adjective,
higher, we cannot wonder that the very name,
Higher Criticism, awakens hostility in the minds
of those who do not exactly understand what it
means. But higher criticism is a most innocent
and profitable pursuit, and is what each student
is always urged to undertake if he would make
himself an intelligent Bible scholar. In beginning
the study of any book of the New Testament
certain questions present themselves. First, there
is the question of Integrity. Is the book a unit,
or is it made up of independent parts which were
put together later on ? For example, John 7 : 53
[6]

The Higher Criticism
— 8:11, — the story of the woman taken in adul
tery, — is evidently not by the same writer as the
rest of the Gospel: the style, the vocabulary, and
the fact that in different manuscripts it is found
inserted in different places, indicate this. That
it is a true story we are ready to agree, but cer
tainly it is not an integral part of the Fourth
Gospel. Next, there is the question of Authorship.
Some books bear an author's name, — are they
genuine or forgeries ? The discussion as to whether
Paul was the author of the Pastoral Epistles would
come under this head. Other books, e. g. the Four
Gospels and Acts, are anonymous. Shall we accept
the authorship which tradition has assigned, or
may that be a mistake? Then there is the question
of Date, — when was the book written ? And of
Place, — where was it written? And of Purpose,
— under what circumstances and for what object
was it written? All these questions bear strongly
upon the most important of all, — the question of
Credibility. Is the book reliable? Can we accept
its statements as those of an honest, intelligent,
unbiased person who had opportunity to know the
truth of what he writes? This is often called the
question of Authenticity; but the term has un
fortunately been confounded with genuineness, and
so should be avoided as ambiguous. There are still
further questions as to the Literary Form of the
[7]

New Testament Problems
book. Is it poetry or prose? — history or fiction?
— prophecy or apocalypse? — a letter in which the
writer has in mind a special recipient, or an epistle
intended for any who may care to read it? We
must reach a conclusion about these matters before
we can understand the book. To interpret the
Revelation of John as if it were the same form
of literature as the Gospel of John, or to treat
the Epistle of James like Paul's letter to the Philip-
pians, may lead us into serious mistakes.
Now all these questions belong to the field of
the Higher Criticism. Here the task is to take
the text furnished by the Lower Criticism, and
from a careful study of it, under whatever light
may be thrown upon it by history, determine, if
possible, the integrity, the authorship, the date,
the purpose, and the credibility of each book. This
work is indispensable if we are to give the book
our full and intelligent confidence. It is a more
interesting work than that of the Lower Criticism,
except to some few minds so constituted as to find
keen delight in poring over crabbed manuscripts,
and tracing their minute agreements and dissimi
larities. But it is also a work in which there is more
room for indulging personal prejudices, or fram
ing novel theories. And because some of the higher
critics have done this, the study has at times been
brought into disrepute. In a land like Germany
[8]

The New Testament Text
where competition among scholars is most keen,
and the ambitious student has little chance to draw
attention to himself and secure a coveted professor
ship unless he can set forth novel ideas and advo
cate them with ingenuity, a premium is put upon
erratic scholarship; and much harm has resulted.
The field of Bible study there is strewn with ex
ploded theories ; and for sober, well-balanced work
we look more to England and America. But there
are signs of a reaction in Germany to-day, and
of increasing honor to the scholars whose aim is
to instruct rather than to startle.

IV.

These, then, are the two fields in which scholars ¦
are working. The question of interest to us is,
What are they doing in them? What are the
problems that receive special attention, and wha^
solutions of them meet with most favor? We will
begin with the Lower Criticism.
When Westcott & Hort in 1881 published their
Greek New Testament, in the preparation of which
they had been engaged twenty-eight years, it was
generally accepted as giving a final, authoritative
text, which nothing could disturb except, perhaps,
the discovery of still more ancient manuscripts.
[9]

New Testament Problems
And, in fact, the editors confidently declared, " It
would be an illusion to anticipate important changes
of text from any acquisition of new documents."
Their statement may be accepted; and yet, there
is a growing disposition to regard their work as
not quite so final as they supposed. No new text
to take its place may for the present be given us,
though scholars are at work upon such a one; but
we cannot be quite as confident as formerly that
we have practically the original text of the New
Testament. How this has come about^ let us see.
The manuscripts of the New Testament are
overwhelming in number. The earlier ones are
called uncials, because written in separated, capital
letters ; and of these there are more than a hun
dred, though the majority of them are mere frag
ments. The later manuscripts are called either
minuscules, because written in smaller letters, or
cursives, because the letters are joined in a running
hand. Of these there are more than two thousand ;
and if we add to them the lectionaries, which were
Scripture lessons arranged to be read during the
church year, we have about three thousand. A
single manuscript containing all the New Testa
ment, would be of inconvenient size, except, perhaps,
for pulpit use ; so the books were usually arranged
in four collections, — the Gospels, Acts and the
Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, and the
[10]

The New Testament Text
Apocalypse. Of these collections we have preserved
in greatest numbers the Gospels, and in least, the
Apocalypse. To examine all the manuscripts and
note their readings would be impossible; and most
of the later ones are not worth the labor. Yet the
mere question of age does not determine value. A
late manuscript may be an accurate copy of a
very early one now lost, and thus be almost as
valuable as the early one itself; or an early man
uscript, — one of the uncials, — may be full of
blunders by some careless scribe, and thus be an
untrustworthy document.
It would seem at first sight, therefore, an almost
hopeless task to distinguish among manuscripts,
and determine which ones to follow. But Westcott
& Hort simplified the problem greatly by placing
them in four groups according to their probable
origin. The genealogy of the New Testament
manuscripts, if we look at their history, might be
compared to that of a human family. The original
text, which we are so eager to discover, would be
the common ancestor, — the great forefather of all.
The sources of the four groups would be four sons,
each closely resembling but not exactly like the
father. The present multitude of manuscripts
would be the descendants of these four sons, bear
ing a strong family resemblance, but having in
dividual peculiarities, and occasionally by inter-
[11]

New Testament Problems
marriage with members of the other families
reproducing their characteristics. The task of
the critic, accordingly, is first by a study of the
common features of each group to determine the
character of its primitive source, and then to
decide which one of the four sources was probably
most like the original text, and should be used as
the best authority in recovering that text. The
manner in which this is done is full of technical
details ; the results are all we are now concerned
to know.
When Erasmus, just before the Reformation,
prepared the Greek text which was practically the
one used for the King James version of the New
Testament, the manuscripts he studied all belonged
to one group which Westcott & Hort call the
Syrian, from the probable place of its origin.
The group is a very large one, and includes the
great majority of existing manuscripts. Though
the text of this group originated as early as the
fourth century, it bears evident marks of being
a deliberate revision. Changes have been intro
duced to improve the style or remove difficulties
which might puzzle the reader; and the general
attempt of the authors was to give a smooth and
attractive text " more fitted for cursory perusal
or recitation than for repeated and diligent study."
This fact, rather than simply the fact that the

The New Testament Text
manuscripts used by Erasmus were few and late,
justified the preparation of the Revised Version
to take the place of the King James, as giving
more nearly the original words of the New Tes
tament writers.
The second group, called the Alexandrian, is
small and likewise a literary revision; it is of
no great importance, and we need not stop to
consider it. The third group is the one which
Westcott & Hort considered the most authoritative,
and on which they relied mainly for their text.
They called it the Neutral group because they
supposed it to have been less altered from the
original text than any of the other three. Two
famous manuscripts belong to this group, both
written in the fourth century, and older than any
others we possess except some small fragments. One
is the Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by Tischendorf
in 1859 at the convent of St. Catherine on Mount
Sinai, and now in the Imperial Library at St.
Petersburg. It contains the New Testament com
plete. The other is the Codex Vaticanus, so called
because it is in the Vatican Library at Rome. It
lacks the Epistle to the Hebrews after 9 : 14, the
Pastoral Epistles, Philemon and the Apocalypse.
Westcott & Hort believed that though the texts of
these two manuscripts had a common ancestor, they
descended from it along separate lines, and so in
[13]

New Testament Problems
their agreement furnish strong evidence concern
ing a very early text. Accordingly they made
these two manuscripts, especially the Vatican, the
chief authority for their text, which is to a great
extent the one followed in our Revised Version.
But all scholars are not so sure that the two man
uscripts are thus independent of each other. It
may be that one was copied from an immediate
ancestor of the other or even directly from the
other itself, in which case their agreements would
be of little value toward determining the original
text. There remains the fourth group, which has long
borne the name of Western because its existing
manuscripts were mainly written in the Western
parts of Europe and Africa ; but there is evidence
that the text they represent was current in the East
as well as the West. The most famous manuscript
of this group is the Codex Bezae, so called because
it was given by Beza in 1581 to the University
of Cambridge, which still owns it. It dates from
the sixth century, and contains only the Gospels
and Acts with a Latin version of them on each
opposite page. It differs so remarkably from the
majority of manuscripts that Beza thought it
ought never to be published. For example, after
Luke 6 : 4 there is inserted the following story of
Christ, — " On the same day havmg seen one work-
[ 14 ]

The New Testament Text
ing on the Sabbath, He said unto Mm, 0 man,
if indeed thou knowest what thou doest, thou art
blessed; but if thou knowest not, thou art ac
cursed, and art a transgressor of the law." This,
as Dean Farrar points out, is too striking and
intrinsically probable to be lightly rejected; it
represents the spirit of Christ's teachings as under
stood by Paul, — whatever is not of faith is sin.
Again, after Matt. 20 : 28 we have this addition
to Christ's words about serving, — " But ye seek
from little to increase, and from greater to be less."
This reminds us of James 1:9, — " Let the brother
of low degree glory in his high estate, and the
rich in that he is made low." Still again, after
Acts 11: 27, in which we are told that there came
down prophets from Jerusalem to Antioch, the
Codex Bezse reads, " And there was much gladness.
And when we were assembled, one of them, named
Agabus, spake and signified " etc. If this reading
could be accepted, the passage would be the first
of the famous " we " sections in Acts, and would
indicate that the writer was a member of the church
in Antioch. Most of the readings peculiar to this
manuscript are not as' important as these, but are
minor additions to the text, — little comments,
explanations, and the like. There are also note
worthy omissions, for example in the last chapter
of Luke, where the marginal notes of our Revised
[15]

New Testament Problems
Version indicate them. If the Codex Bezas stood
alone, we might regard it as simply a curiosity,
showing the free way in which some copyist treated
the usual text. But it is the oldest of a small but
distinct group, the members of which all exhibit the
same freedom in altering the text, though in doing
so they by no means agree with one another. Their
disagreements with one another are so marked that,
as Kenyon says, " it is doubtful whether they can
be referred to a single ancestor rather than to a
tendency to laxity in transcription manifested in
different places " (Criticism of the N. T. 59).
Though the Western group of manuscripts was
largely disregarded by Westcott & Hort, it has
recently received more attention and favor; and
the question of its origin and value is perhaps the
chief problem in textual criticism to-day. The
reason for this is the testimony of the versions and
of the Fathers. The earliest translations of the
New Testament were into Latin and Syriac, some
time in the second century. We know that before
the time of Jerome there had been several Latin
translations, and that it was the disagreements in
them which caused him in 383 A. D. to begin the
publication of his famous revision, the Vulgate,
which henceforth became the accepted Latin text.
Now these Old Latin versions, so far as we can
determine from what remains of them and from
[16]

The New Testament Text
quotations in the Latin Fathers, were all of the
Western form of text. This would indicate that
in the Western group we have a very early text.
The same fact is shown by the Syriac versions,
though the evidence has only recently been made
certain. The standard Syriac translation, ex
tolled as " the queen of versions," is the Peshitta,
which was generally used as early as the fifth
century, and presents the Syrian form of text.
Some scholars maintained that, like the Vulgate,
it was a revision of earlier versions ; but there
was no proof of this until in 1842 a part of a
copy of the Gospels was discovered giving a differ
ent text. This manuscript, which is called the
Curetonian from the scholar who edited it, was
thought to give an earlier version, though some
regarded it as merely a corruption of the Peshitta.
In 1892 Mrs. Lewis discovered, in that convent on
Mt. Sinai where so many treasures have been
found, a Syriac palimpsest manuscript of the Gos
pels whose version is accepted as earlier than that
of the Peshitta and possibly earlier than that of
the Curetonian. It belongs, as does the Curetonian,
to the Western group, and thus is a new proof
that the group gives us a very early text. Like
other members of this group it has its peculiar
readings. Thus in Matt. 27 : 17 Pilate gives the
people their choice between Jesus Barabbas and
[H]

New Testament Problems
Jesus who is called the Christ. In John 11 : 39
Martha objects, " Why are they taking away the
stone? " The most important variations are in
the first chapter of Matthew, where in v. 16, it
reads, " Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph (to whom
was espoused the Virgin Mary) begat Jesus who
is called the Christ," and in v. 21, " She shall bear
thee a son," and in v. 25, " She bare him a son
and he called His name, Jesus." Yet at the same
time we find unchanged the other statements in
the chapter which set forth the supernatural con
ception of Jesus. These variations have aroused
much discussion in present theological debates con
cerning the virgin birth of Christ. The evident
inconsistency of the text shows that it is in process
of alteration. Those who deny the virgin birth
say that the alterations were made in the interest
of orthodoxy, i. e. the original text represented
Jesus as the son of Joseph, and the statements
about the supernatural conception were later addi
tions. But it is simpler to suppose that the reverse
was the case, and that the changes were made under
the influence of some such early heresy as the one
which taught that Jesus was only a man until
the Holy Ghost descended upon Him at baptism.
It is remarkable in either case that such evident
contradictions should be retained; we should have
expected the reviser to make all the statements
[18]

The New Testament Text
harmonious. Possibly he considered they were har
monious ; if so, we must regard his words about
Joseph's fatherhood as similar to those in Luke
2:41, 48.
With such support from the Fathers and the
earliest versions the Western group cannot be
lightly set aside in our search for the original text.
Dr. Kenyon declares, " It is not too much to say
that all the earliest writers who quote the New
Testament sufficiently to enable us to discover
what type of text they used, must have used man
uscripts of this character; and they are not con
fined to any single country." And Dr. Hort,
though he does not consider the Codex Bezse a
good authority, admits that it " presents a truer
image of the form in which the Gospels and Acts
were most widely read in the third and probably
a great part of the second century, than any other
extant Greek manuscript."
What then is the conclusion? Evidently this, —
that in the second century there was no general
uniformity among the manuscripts. If most of
them were of the Western group, they did not
agree even with one another; for disagreement is
a characteristic of that group. Indeed, one German
scholar, Blass, maintains that disagreements go
back to the very autographs; and that Luke, for
example, prepared two copies of Acts, the first a
[19]

New Testament Problems
rough draft, to which the Codex Bezae corresponds,
and the second a corrected and less prolix copy, —
the one he sent to Theophilus, — represented by
the Codex Vaticanus. This opinion has not gained
acceptance, though some of the statements pecuhar
to the Codex Bezae do seem to be those of an eye
witness. Undoubtedly in the early days of the
church no special endeavor was made to secure
accurate copies of the New Testament books. The
need was not felt. Christians were expecting the
return of their Lord at any time, and their thoughts
were turned to the future rather than to the past.
The copying was done by men of no great scholar
ship, who had neither the opportunity nor the
inclination to compare manuscripts and thus cor
rect errors. The most carefully prepared man
uscripts would be those intended for use in the
churches ; but these were the ones most easily
discovered and destroyed in any time of persecu
tion. Really the marvel is that the early manu
scripts were as accurate as they seem to have been.
There was one place where conditions were more
favorable, and that was Alexandria. This city,
which long was preeminent as a centre of learning,
had at the end of the second century a flourishing
Christian school of theology presided over by Clem
ent and afterwards by Origen. Here, if anywhere,
there would be men with the ability and opportunity
[ 20 ]

The New Testament Text
to secure a correct text, and with the inclination to
do so. There is reason to connect the Neutral text
with Alexandria, and to believe that it represents
the best text that could be secured at the end of
the second century. But to go further and declare
that it gives us exactly the original text, seems
unwarranted by the facts. And while we never
can predict what may not be brought out from
the timeless sands of Egypt, there is little hope
of ever securing that original text. There was no
reason why the autograph manuscripts should be
carefully preserved, for no special sanctity at
tached to them ; and being of papyrus they would
soon wear out or crumble if not treated with special
care. Moreover, if we actually had an autograph
manuscript, we could not be sure that no slips of
the hasty pen of the writer had taken place to mar
its accuracy. A perfect text must remain the dream
of the scholar or the delusion of the ignorant.
When we thus abandon the hope of securing
a perfect text, and especially when we learn that
the number of variations in existing manuscripts
is roughly reckoned to be 200,000, we are tempted
to despair of knowing what the original contents
of the New Testament were. But this is a needless
alarm. The vast amount of variations arises from
the great number of existing manuscripts. If, as
is the case with many of the classics and practically
[ 21 1

New Testament Problems
with the Old Testament, we had to depend upon
one late manuscript, there would be no variations
to disturb us ; but on the other hand there would
be no way except pure conjecture to determine
whether we had a correct text. The cause of our
trouble is also the remedy for it. Then, too, the
magnitude of the number of variations is deceptive,
because it is reached by taking some one manuscript
as a standard and counting each variation from
this as many times as there are other manuscripts
in which it appears. Every new manuscript, there
fore, though it may give no new variations, in
creases the number. And especially we must bear
in mind the fact that only " a very small propor
tion of the variations materially affects the sense,
a much smaller proportion is really important, and
no variation affects an article of faith or a moral
precept" (Vincent). This was finely illustrated
by the Revised Version. When it first appeared,
some persons who were not inclined to accept the
teachings of the King James version hastened to
examine it, hoping to find matters more to their
taste. But though there was scarcely a verse that
did not show some slight change, and though a few
passages had been wholly omitted, it was the same
New Testament after all. We had lost the angel
troubling the pool of Bethesda, and we were not
sorry to lose him. We had to give up I. John 5 : 7
[22 ]

The Ending of Mark
as a proof -text for the doctrine of the Trinity, —
and a very convenient text it was, too; but there
remained texts in abundance that could be used
in support of the doctrine. There was only one
thing that had to be hopelessly abandoned, namely,
any interpretation of Scripture which hinges upon
the precise form of a particular word, finding deep
est significance in the use of an aorist instead of
an imperfect tense, and in the presence or absence
of the Greek article. This kind of exegesis, at
least in its extreme form, is no longer possible;
and I think we all feel that its passing is not to be
deplored.

In connection with omissions in the revised text,
it is worth while to notice the closing verses of the
Gospel of Mark. Scholars have long doubted
whether the last twelve verses of that Gospel were
a part of the original text. The oldest manu
scripts, — the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Sinaiticus, — break off abruptly with the words,
"for they were afraid" (Mark 12:8); and so
does the Syriac palimpsest discovered by Mrs.
Lewis. Most of the existing manuscripts, how
ever, have the ending with which we are familiar;
so the Revised Version has retained it, with a
[23 ]

New Testament Problems
marginal note calling attention to its doubtful
genuineness. A few manuscripts have another and
much shorter ending, about as follows, — "And
they reported briefly to Peter and those in his
company all the things commanded. After these
things Jesus Himself also sent forth through them
from the East even to the West the holy and in
corruptible message of eternal salvation." That
neither of these endings was the original one, is
now generally agreed. Both of them seem to be
later compositions added to complete what would
¦otherwise be an unfinished book. Why the book
was thus imperfect, we can only surmise. One
conjecture is that some interruption, possibly even
his death, prevented Mark from completing his
work ; and so it was sent forth in the state he
left it. But this seems hardly probable, especially
since the book was so nearly completed. Another
conjecture is that the original ending contained
matters not acceptable to> the church later on ; and
so it was removed and a substitute put in its place.
But why is all trace of the original ending lost,
and why have some manuscripts no ending at all?
It seems more likely that an early manuscript,
which had become the only one, was by hard usage
or accident mutilated, and thus the original ending
was hopelessly lost. We know that Mark was less
read and prized by the early church, because it
[ 24 ] "

The Ending of Mark
was shorter than Matthew and Luke, and con
tained practically nothing which could not be
found in them. A Christian who could afford to
have but one Gospel would prefer a larger one that
gave the sayings as well as the deeds of his Master ;
and if in the stress of persecution he was called
upon to surrender his sacred books, he would more
willingly part with Mark than with another Gospel.
It is not impossible, therefore, that the book did
come so near totally disappearing that one leaf
actually was forever lost. But this is only con
jecture. The ending with which we are familiar,
the longer one, bears indications of having been
composed by some one who drew his facts from
the other Gospels but fashioned their statement
under the influence of post-apostolic ideas. The
words attributed to Christ, " He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved," though they join belief
and baptism according to apostolic practice, appar
ently put baptism on an equality with belief as
indispensable for salvation, and thus show the in
cipient stage of that later emphasis of the sacra
ment which ascribed to it a magical virtue. And
the signs that shall accompany them that believe, —
" In my name shall they cast out demons ; they
shall speak with new tongues; they shall take
up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing,
it shall in no wise hurt them ; they shall lay hands
[25]

New Testament Problems
on the sick, and they shall recover," — these signs
not only seem to be a reminiscence of certain apos
tolic miracles (Paul and the viper, for example),
but also show the tendency, which later on became
strong, to regard miracles as mere marvels, —
wonders with no spiritual content. They have
often been pointed to by men who professed to
work miracles, and would have us simply for that
reason accept their claims to be messengers from
God. I am glad that the verses can be set aside
as spurious; and I regret that they were not
omitted from the Revised Version. But who wrote
them? This question, which seems a hopeless one,
unexpectedly received a possible answer when Cony-
beare in 1891 found an Armenian manuscript of
the Gospels, written 986 A. D., in which these
twelve verses of Mark are separated from the rest
by a space and some flourishes, and bear the head
ing, " Of the presbyter Ariston." There was an
Aristion who is mentioned along with a presbyter
John by Papias, a writer of the second century,
as one of the persons from whom he gained infor
mation about the Lord. The presbyter John is
the person often advocated as the author of the
Fourth Gospel by scholars who deny the author
ship of the Apostle John. And though we may not
be willing to agree with them on that point, it
is easier to allow that Aristion may have been the
[26]

The New Testament Language
writer who in the early part of the second century
prepared the longer ending, of the Gospel of Mark.
The shorter ending seems to have originated even
later, and to be a very modest attempt to give
the book a proper conclusion.

VI.

While recent explorations have not given us any
important manuscript of the Greek New Testament,
a flood of light has been cast upon the language
of the New Testament by the unearthing in Egypt
of a great mass of papyrus documents of the first
century. Hitherto there has been much dispute
about that language. One theory regarded it as
a kind of sacred language based upon the Greek
in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
Another theory explained it as the language of
Jews who, having learned Greek in manhood, still
did their thinking in Aramaic, and wrote Greek
much as men spoke French " after the scole of
Stratford atte Bowe." A third theory maintained
that it was simply the common Greek of the first
century, — the every-day language of the Greek-
using people around the Mediterranean. This third
theory was not easy to prove or disprove, because
little remained to show what was the common
[27]

New Testament Problems
Greek of that day. There were plenty of inscrip
tions ; but the language put upon a monument
is generally not that of ordinary speech. There
were also books of that age; but who could say
whether the writers were using the vernacular or
were imitating the Athenian classics which were
held up as models of hterary style? These recent
finds in Egypt have given us quantities of material
from which to ascertain the common Greek. Here
are not only census reports, receipts, wills and
such official documents, but also family letters and
business correspondence and the like, in which men
write exactly as they speak. An examination of
these papyri reveals the interesting fact that the
Greek of the first century was practically the same
in all the lands where it was spoken. Dialectic
differences had disappeared as fully as they have
in English-speaking lands to-day. St. Paul
could preach in the common Greek anywhere around
the Mediterranean, and be readily understood.
And what is still more interesting, we learn that
Paul and the others in their writings used this
common Greek in the ordinary fashion. / Words
and phrases and constructions that had been sup
posed to be peculiar to the New Testament are
found repeatedly in these papyri, and are evi
dently of the vernacular. / The Apostles wrote as
they spoke, and they spoke exactly as other men
[28]

The New Testament Language
of their day. And this fact, by the way, seems
to settle the question as to whether Palestine was
a bilingual country ; for how could these men have
used the common Greek so naturally unless they
learned it in childhood along with Aramaic?
Deissmann and others are exploring the great
field thus recently opened; and their labors must
bear much fruit, not only in the grammar and
lexicography of the New Testament, but even in
its theology. If terms which we supposed to be
technical and purely theological, are found to be
also colloquial, they must be interpreted in the
light of their ordinary use. The sacred writers
may have put new meaning into them, but the
ordinary meaning forms the starting-point for any
interpretation of them. The Epistles become much
more simple and natural letters when we learn
that their authors wrote in the customary fashion
of their time. As Dr. Moulton remarks, " It gives
us a curious sensation to find in letters from
heathens to heathens Pauline and Johannine phrases
in which we should never have imagined that the
apostle was merely galvanizing into life an old
formula. ' I salute all the friends by name.' ' I
make my prayer for you daily before the Lord
Serapis,' ' making mention of you before the gods,'
' day and night I make supplication to the god
on your behalf,' ' before all things I pray that
[29]

New Testament Problems
you may be in health,' — these and other phrases
in papyrus letters give a curious new light when
we look into the Epistles of the New Testament,
and find their analogues there " (Biblical World,
March, 1902). To take this new light and use it
in the interpretation of the Epistles is one work
which lies before the scholars of to-day.

VII.
After this brief survey of the Lower or Textual
Criticism we turn to the companion field of the
Higher Criticism. The problems here are more
numerous and complex, and all we can do is briefly
to point out some of them, — following the order
of the books, — and indicate what the scholars are
doing with them.
The Gospels are the most important of all the
New Testament writings ; and the amount of study
that is being spent upon them, and the multitude
of books appearing upon various topics connected
with them, can hardly be realized by one whose
attention has not been specially turned in this
direction. The life of Christ still remains the
greatest subject for Christian study; and though
excellent books have been written upon it, the one
that shall fully satisfy our desires has not yet
[30]

The Life and Words of Christ
appeared./ It is easy to lay down the qualifications
its writer must possess, — profound scholarship,
freedom from prejudice and theorizing, a clear and
attractive literary style, and above all such sym
pathy both with the Master and with Christian
thought as shall enable him to enter into the heart
of his subject and set it forth with spiritual power.
But who is sufficient for these things? Personally
I am waiting with much expectation the Life of
Christ promised by Dr. Sanday. His previous
work along various lines of New Testament study,
and especially his article on Jesus Christ in Has
tings' Bible Dictionary, justify the hope that his
book will be a classic.
The most popular topic at the present hour is
the teachings of Christ. This is being studied from
every possible point of view in Germany, England,
and America, and books upon it multiply with
bewildering rapidity. Critical thought in very
recent years has passed on from the question,
What manner of man was Jesus ? to the companion
question, What were the truths He taught? And,
though the fact seems surprising, this is largely
a new question. The situation in regard to the
teachings of Christ is now much the same as was
the situation in regard to His life two generations
ago. Men then were just beginning to realize
that though they were familiar with the story of
[31]

New Testament Problems
the Gospels, no careful interpretation of that story,
and no critical history of the hfe of Christ in the
light of His surroundings and opportunities had
been undertaken. In like manner we are rousing
to the fact that, though we have long been famihar
with the words of Christ and have held them
unspeakably precious, they have not been given
the patient, comprehensive, scholarly study they
deserve. Our theology has been based upon Paul,
not upon his Master ; and we have hardly attempted
to set forth in systematic form the teachings of
Christ, and draw the conclusions that would crown
such an attempt. Now at last we have wakened
to the importance of the work; and beyond ques
tion its results will be most valuable for Christian
thought and hfe. VIII.
A most intricate yet fascinating question is the
origin of our four Gospels. The first three, — the
Synoptics, — present one problem ; the fourth
presents another and quite different one. The
Synoptic Problem is this : — Why is it that these
three books are so remarkably alike, telling the
same story (which is with all its details only a
small part of Christ's public ministry) in the same
manner and often in the same words, — and yet
[32]

The Synoptic Problem
are so full of variations from one another? In
some way the books must be connected in their
origin, but how? It is not a new problem. St.
Augustine recognized it and attempted a solution
of it; but it still calls forth the study of a host
of scholars. Various solutions are proposed. The
one which satisfied St. Augustine is that of mutual
dependence, viz. after the first Gospel (whichever
that may have been) was written, the author of
the second copied it more or less accurately with
such omissions or additions as seemed advisable,
and the author of the third made similar use of
one or both of the other two. Another solution is
that there was an original document (perhaps
more than one) now lost, which was used by all
three evangelists as the basis of their work. A
third is that the gospel story had been told orally
so often before it was written down that it had
assumed a stereotyped form, and this form gave
rise to the resemblances in our three Gospels. With
out discussing any of these we may notice more
in detail the " two-document " theory which is just
now most popular. It is based upon statements
of Papias, who wrote not long before the middle
of the second century, and who is quoted by Euse-
bius in his great book on church history. Papias
said that " Mark, having become the interpreter of
Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed
[33 ]

New Testament Problems
in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things
said or done by Christ," and that " Matthew wrote
the Logia in the Hebrew language, and each one
interpreted [or translated] them as best he
could." According to this statement Mark's book
would be the story of Christ's life as Peter used
to tell it for evangelistic purposes, — a story, there
fore, in which the longer and deeper discourses of
Christ would be omitted, as not suited to a popular
audience, and emphasis would be placed upon the
deeds and the brief but striking sayings of Jesus,
while a large place would be given to the closing
scenes of His Hfe. It would be very much such
a book as our Gospel of Mark, though in its
original form it may not have been altogether
identical with that Gospel. The word " Logia "
may be translated in various ways, but its most
probable meaning is oracles or sayings. We can
readily believe that Matthew, who from his train
ing would be the ready penman of the Twelve, wrote
down in Aramaic, — the language in which they
were spoken, — the sayings and discourses of Jesus,
either with or without brief introductions telling
the circumstances under which they were uttered.
These two books, according to the " two-document "
theory, were the sources of the Synoptic Gospels.
Our Gospel of Mark is practically that story told by
Peter and written out by Mark after Peter's death.
[34]

The Synoptic Problem
Luke, if he was the author of our third Gospel,
took the book of Mark and the Logia, along with
other documents or information which he had col
lected, and wove them together after the manner
of a careful historian, endeavoring to place the
sayings of Jesus in their original connection with
His deeds. The preface to his book casts light
upon the character of his work. About the same
time some unknown writer also took Mark's book,
which with some hterary improvements and changes
in its order he used almost in its entirety, and the
Logia, which he preferred to insert in large sections
instead of following Luke's plan of breaking it up ;
and with these and some other material he composed
our first Gospel. It bears the name of Matthew,
because it was considered to be a reproduction and
enlargement of Matthew's Logia. Thus we have
our three Gospels ; and the date of their composi
tion is put by nearly universal agreement some
where between 60 A. D. and 100 A. D. This theory
does not solve all the difficulties of the Synoptic
Problem, and various modifications of it are accord
ingly proposed; but its general features have
gained much acceptance. One result is that Mark
must be considered to be the earliest of our Gospels,
and the one in which we get back most nearly to
the story of Jesus as the Apostles used to tell it
on their preaching tours. Mark, therefore, is
[ 35 ]

New Testament Problems
studied with far more interest than in former days
when it was supposed to be simply an abridgment
of Matthew. Another result is that scholars are
most eager to ascertain the original form of the
Logia, — that precious note-book of Jesus' sayings.
Their endeavor, of course, is to reconstruct it from
the two Gospels in which it was incorporated ; but
possibly some manuscript may yet be found giving
it independently. A httle papyrus leaf of sayings
of Jesus was discovered in Egypt in 1896, and
was evidently part of a book (the page was num
bered) which may have been some such collection of
Logia. Who knows what the next turn of the
spade may disclose!

IX.

The problem presented by the fourth Gospel, —
the Johannine Problem, — is almost the exact oppo
site of the one we have been considering. It is this,
Why is this Gospel so unlike the other three? There
1 are evident differences in regard to the apparent
length of Christ's public ministry, the time when
it began, the place in which it was mainly carried
on, the measure of favor it met with, and the
characters who were prominent in it. The explan
ation of these is not difficult if, — as tradition
agrees, — John was written after the other Gospels,,
[36]

The Johannine Problem
and as a supplement to them. There was no reason
why the story already told should be repeated;
and any Harmony of the Gospels shows how readily
John's story can be made to fit in with that of the
Synoptics. The really difficult part of the problem
is this, — Why are the person and teachings of
Christ in John so unlike what we have in the other j
Gospels ? Notice some of the differences :
In the Synoptics Jesus is reticent concerning
His divinity, — He will not allow even the de
moniacs to declare Him the Son of God, and His
own favorite title is The Son of Man ; in John He ;
emphasizes His divinity continually, — even the
Baptist bears witness that He is the Son of God,
and His own favorite title is The Son to whom God
is The Father.
In the Synoptics He does not announce His
Messiahship until the latter part of His ministry,
and rejoices when His disciples at length discover
it; in John it is publicly proclaimed by Himself
and others from the very outset of His ministry.
In the Synoptics the great theme of His preach
ing is the Kingdom of God; in John, except in
the conversation with Nicodemus, it is never men
tioned. In the Synoptics He teaches repeatedly by para
bles ; in John there are no parables, — only a few
allegories.
[ 37 ]

New Testament Problems
In the Synoptics His words are brief, pregnant
sayings, or groups of sayings loosely connected,
as in the Sermon on the Mount ; in John there are
long and elaborated discourses on definite themes,
e. g. the Bread of Life and the Coming of the
Comforter. The style of His utterances in John is unlike
that in the Synoptics, and the keywords, — " light,
darkness, life, death, the world, witness, love " etc.,
are new; but both style and keywords are the
same as those of John himself as shown in the
Epistle. In fact it is not easy to distinguish in
the Gospel the words of Christ from the words
of John, so that commentators are still uncertain
whether such a saying as John 3 : 16, — " God so
loved the world " etc., — should be assigned to
Jesus or to the evangelist.
These and similar features make many scholars
dubious about the Fourth Gospel. They are not
so ready as formerly to pronounce it a late and
worthless fabrication. All but the most extreme
critics put its date at the latest not much beyond
100 A. D., and ascribe its authorship, if not to
John himself, to one of his immediate disciples
who gained his information from the Apostle.
But how to explain its difference from the Synop
tics, especially in regard to the teachings and self-
proclamation of Christ, remains a serious problem.
[ 38 ]

The Johannine Problem
That the work in Judea was unlike that in Galilee
is not a sufficient explanation, for according to
John Christ taught in the synagogue at Capernaum
exactly the same as He did in Jerusalem. The
most common solution of the problem is that John's
picture of Jesus stands to the picture in the Synop-j
tics as a masterly portrait does to a photograph.';
John was the youngest of the Twelve, the one whom
Jesus cherished as a younger brother, and who
entered most sympathetically into His thought.
The Gospel was the work of his old age after
years of Christian experience and meditation had
made increasingly clear to him the meaning of
Christ's words and deeds. It was written to meet
the growing discussions concerning the real nature
of Christ ; and its definite purpose, indicated in
the prologue, is expressly stated in the close of
the book, — " Many other signs, therefore, did
Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are
not written in this book ; but these are written that
ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that believing ye may have life in His
name" (20:30-31). We have, it has well been
said, in the Synoptics a picture of Jesus as the
world saw Him, but in John a picture of Jesus
as the world might have seen Him had men been
in heart and life prepared to see. The evangelist
evidently gives us the teachings of Jesus in his
[39]

New Testament Problems
own style and words. He has aimed to act as an
interpreter rather than simply as a reporter. How
far his interpretation is correct remains a matter
of dispute in which personal prejudice has far too
much to do with conclusions. I notice that many
of the recent books on the teachings of Jesus con
fine themselves to material found in the Synoptics,
ignoring John. This may be simply from the
desire to avoid disputed ground, or it may be from
the belief that the teachings in John are not gen
uine. But Wendt in his great work on the subject
devotes much space to showing that the teachings
of Jesus, though their form may differ, are really
the same in substance in all four Gospels ; and his
conclusion concerning the record in John is that
it was given by " a disciple of Jesus who was more
deeply penetrated than the rest with the original
spirit and the inward form of the teachings of
his Master." Such testimony is valuable; but
after all, the strongest proof that the Christ of
the first three Gospels is the same as the Christ
of John, is the indisputable fact that the heart and
thought of the Christian Church throughout the
centuries have never been conscious of any differ
ence, save that in John there is found a fuller
revelation of the divine side of the Godman.

[40]

The Book of Acts

Acts is a book whose credibility will always be
assailed by two classes of critics, — those who reject
miracles and must, therefore, explain away any
record of them, and those who hold theories con
cerning the origin of the Christian Church that do
not agree with the statements in this first book
of church history. All such are bound to maintain
that Acts is a late production which, though it
may incorporate documents of value, as, for ex
ample, the travel diary of Luke, gives a distorted,
legendary, and largely worthless account of the
Apostohc Age. If their opinion is correct, they
ought to have little difficulty in proving its correct
ness beyond dispute. For no history offers more
abundant opportunities to test its accuracy than
does the Book of Acts. Consider the variety of
scene and circumstance with which the author had
to deal. As Rackham in his recent commentary
points out, " The ground covered reached from
Jerusalem to Rome, taking in Syria, Asia Minor,
Greece and Italy. In that field were comprised all
manner of populations, civilizations, administra
tions, — Jewish and Oriental life, Western civili
zation, great capitals like Antioch and Ephesus,
Roman colonies, independent towns, Greek cities,
[41]

New Testament Problems
barbarian country districts. The history covers a
period of thirty years which witnessed in many
parts great political changes. Provinces like
Cyprus and Achaia were being exchanged between
the emperor and the senate; parts of Asia Minor,
e. g. Pisidia and Lycaonia, were undergoing a
process of annexation and Latinization ; Judea
itself was now a Roman province under a procura
tor, now an independent state under an Herodian
king." If Acts was written long after the events
it describes, and by an author who drew mainly
upon his imagination for his facts, it could not fail
to reveal this by evident inaccuracies and anachro
nisms. No writer of the second century, dealing
with so wide and varied a field, could avoid them;
and our present abundant knowledge of the field,
gained from contemporary literature and constant
discovery of monumental remains, would make his
blunders increasingly manifest. That the book has
stood the test triumphantly is the best proof of
its credibility.
All recent discoveries have only confirmed our
confidence in the accuracy of the statements in Acts.
Take a single example out of many. Saul and
Barnabas, on their first missionary journey, some
where about 45—50 A. D., are said to have met in
Cyprus the governor of the island, Sergius Paulus,
who is called a proconsul. This governor is not
[ 42 ]

The Book of Acts
mentioned in any history of Cyprus; and in the
second century the island was an imperial province
and therefore governed by a propraetor and not by
a proconsul. But we learn from coins and inscrip
tions and one of the old historians that in the
first century the island was under the senate and
so had a proconsul. And some years ago Cesnola
discovered an inscription in Cyprus, probably of
the date 55 A. D., which mentions an event as
having taken place a few years before " in the
time of the proconsul Paulus." Evidently here
we have the man who sought to hear the word of
God from Barnabas and Saul. Dr. Ramsay, who
has done much in Asia Minor and elsewhere to
trace the early history of Christianity in the light
of archaeological evidence, says that he himself
began the study of Acts with a strong prejudice
against its credibility, and with the belief that the
Tubingen theory, viz. that it is a late piece of
historical fiction, was correct; but his investiga
tions have convinced him that for accuracy of state
ment, grasp of his subject, and ability to set it
forth in the clearest way, the author of Acts is
an historian of the very first rank, the equal of
Thucydides. Such a conclusion carries with it
more than the credibility of Acts; it greatly in
creases our confidence in the Gospel of Luke. For
all critics agree that the man who wrote Acts was
[ 43 ]

New Testament Problems
also the writer of the Third Gospel; everything
about the two books, — their language, style,
manner of treating a topic, as well as the common
dedication to Theophilus, — indicates this. And
if the author of Acts is an historian of such ac
curacy and ability, we may rest assured that in
his life of Jesus we have a work deserving our
highest confidence.
The question still remains unsettled as to how far
the writer of Acts made use of earlier documents
in preparing his book. It seems probable that for
the first part of the work he may have had some
sketch of the events it describes; the method he
is supposed to have followed in writing the Gospel
would strengthen this opinion. But to hold that
the " we " passages in the latter part of the book
(i. e. the passages in which he uses the first person
plural in his narrative) are from a separate docu
ment instead of being the personal experiences of
the author, is far more difficult. There is nothing
in style or vocabulary to distinguish them from
their context, and we may be sure that a writer of
such literary ability would not have inserted them
without obviating the awkward change of persons.
There is little reason to doubt that the use of the
first person was intentional, to denote those por
tions of the narrative where the author is speaking
as an eyewitness ; and this conclusion agrees with
[44 ]

The Book of Acts
the fact that those portions are more minute and
vivid in details than the rest. If, then, the writer
was one of Paul's companions, it makes no great
difference which one; but a process of elimination
among them indicates Luke, " the beloved physi
cian," and the knowledge displayed in the use of
medical terms is said to confirm this early tradition.
Nor is the date of the book of vital importance
when the authorship has thus been settled. Some
still hold that its abrupt termination proves it to
have been written while Paul was at Rome in prison,
and before the result of his appeal to Caesar was
known. Others believe that it was written later;
and they explain its silence about Paul's last days
as due either to Luke's intention to write a third
book continuing the history, or to his belief that
when he had brought the Apostle to the central city
of the world he had finished the ricord which was
suggested by Acts 1:8, or to the necessity for
silence concerning the later hostility of Rome
towards the Christians. Various dates, therefore,
are suggested for the composition of the book,
ranging all the way from about 60 A. D. to near
the close of the century. In deciding upon a date
we have to bear in mind that the Gospel of Luke
was written before, but probably not long before,
the Book of Acts.
[45]

New Testament Problems

XL

The Epistles of Paul, as is well known, have been
the subject of a long and bitter controversy. About
the middle of the last century the Tubingen School
declared with great positiveness that only four of
them, viz. Galatians, I. and II. Corinthians, and
Romans, could be accepted as genuine ; and it pro
ceeded to reconstruct the life of Paul and all the
early church history upon this basis. From that
time until the present the arguments for and against
Paul's authorship have been hotly discussed. With
the exception of one small group of critics, who
must be described separately, scholars have finally
abandoned the Tubingen position, and have come
to a practically unanimous acceptance of the gen
uineness of all except the Pastoral Epistles. There
is still some dispute concerning Ephesians and
II. Thessalonians ; but if Colossians and I. Thessalo
nians are recognized as genuine, there seems no good
reason why these two, which so closely resemble
them, should be rejected.
A new theory concerning Galatians has been
stoutly advocated by Ramsay, and has met with
considerable favor, viz. that this epistle instead of
being addressed to churches in the centre of Asia
Minor, about whose founding we know practically
[46]

The Pauline Epistles
nothing, was addressed to the churches of Antioch,
Iconium and other cities visited by Paul in his
first missionary journey. This is called the South
Galatian theory, and is based on the fact that while
Galatia Proper was simply the region in central
Asia Minor, the Roman Province of Galatia in
Paul's day included these southern cities, so that
Christians in them might properly be called Gala
tians. If the theory is adopted, we may consider
the Epistle as possibly the very first of Paul's
extant writings, and we must shape our conception
of its readers and of the circumstances that called
it forth by what we know of the history of these
southern churches; but this will not materially
change our interpretation of its contents. Another
question still unsettled is whether Philippians should
be reckoned the earliest or the latest of the four
epistles written by Paul from Rome during his
captivity. This, too, is of no great importance
except as it affects our conception of the progress
of events in that captivity. Generally the arrange
ment of the epistles according to the order in which
they were written has not been changed from the
one with which we are familiar, viz. I. and II. Thess.,
Gal., I. and II. Cor., Rom., Col., Phile., Eph., and
Phil. The exact date of each epistle cannot be
determined because the chronology of the Apos
tolic Age is yet, and probably always will be, un-
[47]

New Testament Problems
settled. The recent tendency is to push back a
Httle the time of Paul's arrival in Rome, placing it
before the year 60 A. D. instead of after, and to
assign correspondingly earlier dates to his epistles.
The Pastoral Epistles remain a subject of dis
pute. The chief arguments against their gen
uineness are the difficulty of fitting them into any
scheme of Paul's life, their difference in style and
tone from the rest of his letters, and the developed
condition of church government and thought they
indicate. Many scholars pronounce them spurious.
Others would explain them as enlargements of
brief notes written by Paul on different occasions
before he went to Rome, — these notes having been
worked over and adapted to the later condition
of the church by some unknown writer. Others
are stiU holding the old view that they are genuine,
and were written after Paul's release from the first
Roman imprisonment. The objections to their
genuineness are answered by pointing out that we
know too Httle about Paul's last days to affirm
there was no opportunity for him to write them,
that letters of this kind and written at some interval
after the others might be expected to differ from
the rest, and that church government and Hfe may
have developed more rapidly than we suppose, or
more rapidly in one place than in another. The
adoption of the earher dates for other events in.
[48]

The Pauline Epistles
Paul's life allows more time for these last letters,
and thus strengthens the argument for their gen
uineness. But if the argument is not wholly satis
factory, we need not be greatly distressed; for
those who deny Paul's authorship are ready to
recognize the historical importance of the Pastoral
Epistles as early church documents, and also their
great spiritual value which justly entitles them
to a place in the New Testament.
In the statement that the Tubingen position was
universally abandoned, exception was made of one
smaU group of critics who just at the present
moment are exciting attention. This may be called
the Dutch school, though it has representatives
in Germany and America ; and its position can
be learned from the articles on Paul and Romans
by van Manen in the Encyclopaadia BibHca. It
asserts that no one of Paul's letters, — not even
the four which have been universally accepted as
genuine, — was written by him, that they are not
letters at aU but treatises composed in the -form of
letters long after Paul's death, and that the doc
trines they set forth did not originate until after
the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. The
Epistle to the Romans, for example, is a compila
tion of heterogeneous material, made in the first
half of the second century; and the only reason
why it has been accepted as genuine is because
[ 49 ]

New Testament Problems
no one has ever thought to examine carefully its
credentials. Concerning the real Paul the Dutch
school says we know very Httle, for legend has been
busy with his history and the account in Acts is
largely worthless. Apparently his ideas were the
same as those of his fellow Apostles, and his Chris
tianity was of the prevalent Jewish type. Paul-
inism, as we find it in the epistles, arose among
so-called heretics, and the epistles were first re
garded as sacred writings by the Gnostics. This
Dutch school is evidently even more revolutionary
than the Tubingen school ; in fact, it criticizes that
school for stopping midway in the work of de
struction. How much influence it is going to have,
time alone can show. Probably such sweeping
denial of all the facts that sober scholarship regards
as most fully established, will be treated as one of
the wild vagaries which appear from time to time
and are of no importance except as they bring the
Higher Criticism into disrepute. But possibly it
will have to be reckoned with seriously, and may
give the impulse to a new investigation of the whole
question of Paul's relation to the epistles that bear
his name. Judging from the past we need not
be doubtful about the results of such investigation.

[50]

The Epistle to the Hebrews

XII.
The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews
remains the enigma it has been for seventeen hun
dred years. As far back as the close of the second
century Clement and Origen and Tertullian were
discussing it, and were agreed only upon the fact
that Paul was not the author. Clement thought
that Luke wrote Hebrews under Paul's direction.
Tertullian was confident that its author was Bar
nabas. While Origen expressed what has been the
general opinion ever since, " Who wrote the epistle,
in truth, God knows." Luther, as is well known,
ventured the plausible conjecture that it was the
work of ApoHos, the Alexandrian Jew, " mighty in
the Scriptures." And Harnack has recently put
forth the still more fascinating guess that the
author was none other than that able, independent,
and most energetic woman, Priscilla. This ought
to meet with much favor in certain circles where
Paul's injunction that women should not teach but
are to learn from their husbands at home, has been
a standing grievance. When discussion waxes hot
over the authorship of some other book in the
New Testament, it is well for us to bear in mind
that here is one whose place in the sacred list re
mains secure though its author is confessedly
[51]

New Testament Problems
altogether unknown. The destination of the book
is as obscure as its source. It was evidently written
to some particular church ; and those who are
fond of paradoxes like to maintain that the church
was made up of Gentiles and not of Hebrews. They
would suggest some church in Italy, and that the
salutation with which the epistle closes, " They of
Italy salute you," was from its absent members
to their friends at home. But certainly the whole
argument of the book, viz. that Christianity is the
glorious consummation of the Old Testament revela
tion, and that those who turn back from it to
Judaism forsake the better for the worse, — pre
supposes that the readers have once accepted the
Jewish religion, and are still susceptible to its
attractions. Even to-day a person who is not fa
miliar with the Old Testament and acquainted with
the temple ceremonies, finds much of Hebrews un
interesting and unprofitable, — which is probably
the reason why it is not more read. The date of
the book depends somewhat upon its destination.
If the epistle was to some church in Palestine,
though outside of Jerusalem (Bartlet suggests
Caesarea), a date in the decade before the destruc
tion of Jerusalem would be most probable, for just
at that time the enthusiasm aroused by the comple
tion of Herod's temple after its many years of
building, the outburst of patriotism which led up
[ 52 ]

The Catholic Epistles
to the final revolt of the Jews, and the increasing
recognition that Christianity could not be reck
oned as merely one form of the Jewish religion,
combined to make many Jewish Christians dissatis
fied with their new faith and disposed to resume the
old. XIII.
The CathoHc Epistles have ever been much more
a matter of uncertainty than the Pauline Epistles,
Of the seven books whose right to a place in the
New Testament was long questioned, five were
Catholic Epistles, viz. James, because there were
doubts about its genuineness, and it seemed to con
tradict Paul as to the relation of faith and works ;
II. Peter and Jude, because one of the two was
evidently a plagiarism of the other, and both con
tained matters perplexing to Christian thought;
and II. and III. John, because they were so insig
nificant, and it was not evident that " the elder "
who wrote them was John. The other two books
that were questioned were Hebrews, because its
authorship was unknown, and Revelation, because
no one could understand it then any better than
now, and fanatics used it, — as they have ever
since, — in support of their teachings.
The present discussion concerning James is
[ 53 ]

New Testament Problems
whether it was one of the earHest books of the
New Testament, written before Paul's doctrine of
faith and works had come to the front, or one of
the very latest, written after that doctrine had lost
its prominence. For critics generally agree that
in James the emphasis of works rather than faith
is not directed against Paul's doctrine, and shows
that the writer did not have that doctrine in mind.
Many German scholars would date the book at
the end of the first century or even well down in the
second; and the theory has been advanced that it
originally was a Jewish writing which afterwards
was transformed into a Christian epistle by the
insertion of a few Christian phrases. But most
English scholars hold that it was written by the
brother of our Lord, the leader of the church in
Jerusalem, who was put to death about 62 A. D.,
and that it is perhaps the earliest Christian docu
ment we possess. As such it is a remarkably interest
ing epistle, revealing the simple, practical faith of
the first Christians in days before theological devel
opment had begun. It is strongly an echo of the
Sermon on the Mount, and gives us a fuller repro
duction of the ethical teachings of Jesus than can
be found in all the other epistles. It is written
in excellent Greek with a cultured choice of words ;
it abounds in illustrations and in what might be
caUed germs of parables ; " and a vein of poetry
[ 54 ]

The Catholic Epistles
pervades it, so that it may almost be called a prose
poem " (Gloag). If the author was the brother
of Jesus, it casts a sidelight on the training and
thought of the home in Nazareth, which might
be utilized more fully in a study of the boyhood
of Jesus. Its message is a general one to Jewish
Christians outside of Palestine, encouraging them
in their trials, and warning them against the special
sins into which Jews are most Hable to fall.
The evidence that I. Peter was written by the
Apostle is strong, and the majority of scholars
accept the epistle as genuine. Whether a Galilean
fisherman, taken from his boats in middle Hfe, would
possess the literary skill it displays, may be
doubted ; but nothing was easier than for Peter
to make use of one of his friends in the labor of
composition. The statement, " By Silvanus, our
faithful brother as I account him, I have written
unto you briefly" (5:12), may indicate that it
was Silas, the weH-known companion of Paul, who
acted as amanuensis. That the epistle has a Paul
ine tone is an argument for rather than against its
genuineness, if Peter had been much with Paul at
the time when he wrote. For Peter was of an
impressionable temperament, and readily adopted
the ideas of his associates. Nor are we surprised
to find in his book echoes of the Epistle of James
and Romans and Ephesians. In Jerusalem he had
[55]

New Testament Problems
been intimate with James, and doubtless knew his
epistle. And at Rome, where tradition says Peter
spent his last days, Paul's letter to the church in
Rome and his letter from Rome to the Ephesians
might be found and would deeply impress Peter.
There seems to be little doubt that the epistle
was written from Rome, for which Babylon (5: 13)
would be the mystic name ; but whether " she that
is in Babylon," who sends her salutations, along
with those of Mark, was the Roman church or was
Peter's wife who, as we know, used to accompany
him on his missionary tours, must remain a matter
of individual opinion. The date we give to the
epistle will depend upon whether we accept the
strong tradition that Peter died as a martyr in
Rome under Nero. He was writing to cheer the
Christians of Asia Minor who were beginning to
suffer persecution by the Roman government ; and
Ramsay thinks that the governmental persecution
of Christians simply because they were Christians
did not arise until the days of Vespasian, so that
Peter must have lived until that time and have
written about 80 A. D. Such prolongation of his
Hfe would harmonize with another ancient tradi
tion that he was for twenty-five years at the head
of the church in Rome ; for it is difficult to believe
that he reached Rome before Paul wrote the Epistle
to the Romans, say 54 A. D. But unless Peter
[56]

The Catholic Epistles
was a much younger man than we suppose when he
became a disciple, he would be decrepit with age by
the time of Vespasian. Ramsay's opinion about
governmental persecution is not generally adopted,
and the date of the epistle is usually put somewhere
between 60 and 68 A. D.
Jude and II. Peter are epistles that must be
studied together; for the writer of one certainly
made use of the other. But which is the earlier?
Is Jude an abridgment of a part of II. Peter, or is
II. Peter an amplification of Jude with independent
additions ? The problem is not an easy one, but the
indications are that Jude is the earlier book. It
is brief, strong, and symmetrical, and to enlarge
and dilute it would be an easy task ; but to condense
II. Peter, retaining the unusual words, bringing to
gether the scattered ideas, adding quotations from
apocalyptical books, and making the result an har
monious whole, would require great Hterary skill.
Moreover, why should a writer who was abridging
II. Peter, make use of only the central part of the
book, if the whole of it was before him? Still
the argument is not conclusive, and the latest com
mentator, Biggs, beheves that Jude is the later of
the two books. The peculiar character of Jude,
its quotation from the Book of Enoch as from
sacred Scripture, its account of the dispute between
the archangel Michael and the devil over the body
[ 57 ]

New Testament Problems
of Moses, its statement that angels fell into the
fleshly sins for which Sodom was infamous, and
were cast down to heH and kept in chains, — all this
justifies the doubts which have existed from the
early centuries, as to whether the book ought to
have a place in the New Testament. If the author
was the brother of James (and there seems no good
reason why a forger should ascribe his work to
such an obscure person), his epistle stands in
marked contrast to that of James, not only in its
ideas but even in its language; and we must con
clude that the two brothers had very Httle in com
mon. Such perplexities about Jude increase the diffi
culties about II. Peter. In some ways it strongly
resembles I. Peter; in other ways it differs just
as strongly. Many of even the conservative scholars
deny its genuineness; yet the first chapter is full
of allusions to the Transfiguration that seem like
the almost unconscious reminiscences of an eye
witness. If the writer made use of Jude, it is still
less likely that he was Peter, for Jude speaks of the
Apostles as if they had already passed away. More
over, in the closing chapter of II. Peter the epistles
of Paul are discussed as if a coUection of them was
then well known ; but men would hardly make such a
collection until Paul himself was dead, and they had
begun to treasure up the writings he left behind
[58]

The Catholic Epistles
him. Yet if Peter survived Paul for many years,
as Ramsay thinks, he may have been acquainted
with such a collection. Thus we can heap up argu
ments on either side concerning the genuineness of
the epistle. An ingenious solution of the difficulties
supposes that Peter wrote a brief letter encouraging
those Christians who were beginning to despair
of Christ's second coming. In this letter, which
forms practically the first chapter and the close of
the last chapter of II. Peter, he promised (1 : 12--
15) to stir his readers up from time to time by
putting them in remembrance. A later writer,
noting this promise and thinking that Jude was
such a message as Peter would then give if still
alive and aware of existing circumstances, took the
letter of Peter and incorporated Jude in it, with
such changes and additions as would make the whole
seem more like original words of the Apostle, and
published the result as II. Peter. But this is merely
conjecture. The problems of the two epistles are
still unsolved, and the books remain " the most
doubtful writings in the New Testament."
The strong resemblance in thought and style and
vocabulary between I. John and the fourth Gospel
leads most scholars to beHeve that they were by the
same author. Whether that author was the Apostle
John is a matter of more dispute. If the epistle
stood alone, its genuineness might not be questioned.
[ 59 ]

New Testament Problems
But the unwillingness of many to admit that the
Gospel with its clear revelation of the divinity of
Jesus is the trustworthy record of the Apostle who
knew Him most intimately, keeps the discussion
ever open. The arguments are gone over again
and again. It is pointed out that Irenaeus, the
pupil of Polycarp, who in turn was the pupil of
John himself, declares positively John wrote the
Gospel, and that the long-lost but recently discov
ered Diatessaron of Tatian, — a combination of
the four Gospels made about 170 A. D., — shows
that the Gospel of John in the time of Irenasus had
precisely the form in which we have it to-day, and
received from the church the same recognition as
the Synoptics. It is also shown by a careful exam
ination of the book itself that it must have been
written by an eye-witness who was one of the origi
nal Apostles, and more precisely the Apostle John.
But all this and much more of evidence, external and
internal, is explained away and rejected by those
who are not disposed to accept it, — even as any evi
dence can be, unless it is absolutely overwhelming.
Those who deny the Johannine authorship have
nothing simple and definite to give us in its place.
They agree that the Gospel must have been written
not long after the death of John, and contains much
that probably was learned from him; but who
wrote it, and how it gained immediate acceptance
[60]

The Catholic Epistles
as the work of John, are questions that they answer
with long and labored hypotheses. To hold that
John was really the author is to adopt the simple
and natural explanation of the obvious facts. And
if John wrote the Gospel, we may also attribute
to him the epistle. There is little to indicate the
time and place of its composition; but we may
readily accept the old tradition that it was written
by John at Ephesus in the closing years of his life.
The epistle seems to be neither a personal letter
nor a treatise, but a pastoral addressed by the
Apostle to aU his churches, warning them against
prevalent misconceptions of the Incarnation, and
exhorting them to brotherly love and Christian obe
dience. Farrar suggests that it was meant to
accompany the Gospel of John as an appendix and
a practical commentary upon it; certainly, apart
from the Gospel, or from teachings similar to those
in the Gospel, " neither the prologue nor other
parts of the Epistle could have been easily under
stood." The two Httle epistles, II. and III. John, are not
important enough to arouse much discussion. They
resemble the first epistle sufficiently to justify our
belief that the author was the same. Whether II.
John was written to a church or to a lady, whose
name may have been Electa or Kyria or even Electa
Kyria, is one of those interesting questions that
[ 61 ]

New Testament Problems
must remain unanswered. Both epistles are charm
ing little personal notes ; and the one to Gaius is
specially valuable for the ray of light it casts upon
church Hfe at the close of the Apostolic Age.

XIV.
The Revelation of John was ascribed without
question to the Apostle by men of the second cen
tury who had abundant opportunity to know its
authorship. But in the third century scholars
pointed out that it could not be by the same writer
as the Gospel and epistles, because it differed from
them so greatly in language, style, and spirit.
These higher critics of an early day wished to
disprove its genuineness in order that the mille-
narians might not use it to support their gross doc
trines ; but in recent times the same arguments
are often used by those who grant that Revelation
is genuine, and then argue that the other writings
ascribed to John must be spurious. Various ex
planations of the difference between John's writ
ings, supposing them all to be genuine, have been
suggested. In composing Revelation he may pur
posely have adopted the language and style of other
apocalyptic books ; or if he wrote the Gospel and
epistles in extreme old age, the main labor of com-
[62]

The Revelation of John
position may have been performed by one of his
disciples. If we suppose that Revelation was written
many years before the others, we may believe that
in the interval John had not only gained a more
perfect mastery of Greek (the style and grammar
of Revelation are the worst in the New Testament),
but had also succeeded in the more difficult task of
mastering his own spirit, and developing that for
bearance and love to all men which are so con
spicuous in the epistles and so lacking in Revela
tion. Renan and Farrar were confident that the
book was written about 69 A. D., and thus ante
dated by nearly thirty years John's other writings ;
but recent opinion places its composition in the age
of Domitian, and thus does away with the possibility
of any such change in John. A new theory, which
is gaining some acceptance, denies the integrity
of the book, and holds that it was made up of
smaller Jewish and Christian apocalypses of various
dates. These apocalypses are supposed to have
been already in circulation in the church, and to
have been woven together very skilfully into one
great apocalypse about the end of the century,
either by John or by some unknown writer. The
advocates of this theory are applying themselves
with much enthusiasm to the work of dissecting the
book and determining the origin of its component
parts. All we can say at present is that they have
[63]

New Testament Problems
undertaken no easy task, and that until they agree
among themselves as to results we are not called
upon to accept or reject their theory.
Concerning the interpretation of Revelation,
Robert South once said emphaticaUy, " The more
it is studied, the less it is understood, as generaHy
either finding a man cracked or leaving him so."
The works upon it form a huge monument of wasted
time and strength. The book has been explained as
a picture of events still to come at the end of the
world, or as a veiled history of the church down
through the ages wherein one may discover the Pope
and the Turks and Napoleon Bonaparte and almost
any of his pet aversions, or as a symbolic account
of the author's own day, or as a description of the
good and evil principles that are ever warring
against each other in the progress of the Kingdom
of God. A few years ago we seemed to be settling
down to the opinion that its pictures should be
interpreted by events under Nero, and that it gave
us especiaUy a weird but minutely accurate repre
sentation of the troublous times in Palestine just
before the fall of Jerusalem. But now, with the
inclination to change the date or deny the integrity
of the book, this opinion is being placed among the
obsolete ones. Such has been the history of all
interpretations as far back as the days of Jerome,
[64]

The Revelation of John
who said of Revelation, " Tot verba, tot mys-
teria." It is possible, however, that a clearer understand
ing of Revelation may yet be reached. The book
is by no means unique in character. It is an apoca
lypse, — a favorite form of composition from the
time when Daniel was written till long after the
Apostohc Age. There were many apocalypses cur
rent in Christ's day, and they did much to shape
the popular conception of what the Messiah would
be and do. Some of these have long been known,
and others have recently been discovered. Scholars
are rousing to a more careful study of apoca
lyptic Hterature. How does apocalypse differ from
prophecy? What are the rules for its interpreta
tion? What circumstances call it forth? What
message does its writer usually wish to convey ? An
answer to these and similar questions is now possible
since we have so many apocalypses to study; and
it will help us greatly in understanding both the
Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation.
Enough has already been done in this line to war
rant the statement that neither Daniel nor Revela
tion was intended to throw light upon the end of
the world or the future history of the church or any
such similar object concerning which they have been
eagerly searched. They had a message of cheer
and comfort for the men of the age in which they
[65]

New Testament Problems
were written, — a message given in a form that
seems to us strange and obscure, but which doubtless
was understood by their immediate readers. But
that message was not for us, except as we stand in
need of similar cheer and comfort, and it was not
prophecy in the sense of prediction of far-off
events.

XV.

And now, — to quote words that originally came
from a preacher but are more often uttered by an
afflicted congregation, — " Let us hear the conclu
sion of the whole matter." The present state of
New Testament criticism is decidedly encouraging.
That the New Testament should be forced to pass
through the fire of critical study was inevitable.
The past century was an age of historical criticism,
demanding that every document should undergo
minute and searching investigation before it was
accepted as an authority. In such an age, — no
matter how great the reverence for the New Testa
ment, — its documents could not escape that inves
tigation. Nor was it desirable that they should;
for otherwise we should ever have been haunted
by the suspicion that they were not truly reliable.
In the beginning of the investigation many students
were confident that this suspicion would be proved
[66]

Conclusion
correct ; and for a time there were indications that
they were right. But, as our survey of the field
has shown, the opposite has been the result. The
New Testament text which is offered us to-day is
proved to be so near to that of the original auto
graphs that we can use it with the utmost con
fidence as giving practically the words of the
writers. This fact in itself overthrows the opinion
that certain passages, especially in the Gospels,
were later insertions. If they are to be found in
aU the various sources from which we gain the text,
no personal opinion about their credibility and
genuineness can avail against this evidence. As
Headlam points out, " Textual criticism has prob
ably already eliminated every verse and passage
which were not parts of the original text. The at
tempts which have been made to mix up the Lower
and the Higher Criticism have almost invariably
failed" (Criticism of the N. T. 168). And with
the exception of a few comparatively unimportant
books, concerning which there were serious doubts
as far back as when the Canon was being formed,
the Higher Criticism has not shaken our confidence
in the trustworthiness of the New Testament. Hos
tile attacks still continue to be made, — and un
doubtedly will for generations to come; but they
create far less alarm and make far less impression
than half a century ago. As one of the most recent
[67]

New Testament Problems
writers upon the subject says, " The result of the
enquiry, as far as it has proceeded, has been to show
that as witnesses for the life of Christ and the life
and thought of the early church the New Testa
ment writings need fear no criticism. Criticism has
reasserted their value, and has shown that when
subjected to the severest tests of modern science,
they are found to be historical documents of first-
rate importance. It has made it possible for Chris
tian men to continue to beHeve in the historical
value of the New Testament with an unsullied con
science. . . . For the professed historian general
agreement as to date and historical value is only
the prelude to a searching enquiry into the more
subtle and finer questions which every book will
suggest to him. For the ordinary Christian these
have no meaning. Secure in the belief that he is
deaHng with books that are in the main what they
profess to be, he reads them just as he reads any
ancient documents, with a healthy disregard of the
minuter details of criticism, which he regards as
necessary subjects of enquiry for experts, but as
of Httle value for himself " (Contentio Veritatis,
230, 232). THE END.

[68]