mi.H.M.M.1.l.t.l.l,!.l.!.M.I.I.I.I.l.l.l.M.I.I.'J.l.l.l.l.1.l.t,V.I.1.1.ri.T,T.T.T.T.I.T.T,I.V.M.l.T.I.'.T Library of the IPale ©ivtnit? Scbool The Books of 3franfc Chamberlain porter Winkley Professor of Biblical Theology n'Jll'lwlvi'i'ivivivivivivivivri'lVi''1'''''1''''' l'i'l'.'l'.'iyiviviviYiyivE INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT THEODOR 2.AHN PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, ERLANGEN UNIVERSITY TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION JOHN MOORE TROUT, WILLIAM ARNOT MATHER, LOUIS HODOUS, EDWARD STRONG WORCESTER, WILLIAM HOYT WORRELL, AND ROWLAND BACKUS DODGE FELLOWS AND SCHOLARS OF HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF MELANCTHON WILLIAMS JACOBUS HOSMER PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY ASSISTED BY CHARLES SNOW THAYER DIRECTOR OF THE CASE MEMORIAL LIBRARY IN THREE VOLUMES Vol. III. and Index NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS CONTENTS PAGE IX. Continued. — The Writings of Luke . . 1 § 58. The Tradition concerning Luke and his Work 1 § 59. The Twofold Recension of the Text of Acts 8 § 60. Preface, Plan, and Purpose of Luke's Historical Work . 41 § 61. The Sources used by Luke . . . .94 § 62. The Author of the Work attributed to Luke and the Time of its Composition 142 § 63. Retrospect and Forecast 165 X. The Writings of John . 174 § 64. The Tradition ...... 174 § 65. The Testimony of the Fourth Gospel to its Author . 207 § 66. The Supplementary Chapter . . . .232 § 67. The Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the earlier Gospels ....... 254 § 68. Purpose and Method, Character and Readers of the Fourth Gospel . . . . . .299 § 69. Integrity, Date of Composition, and Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel . . 333 § 70. The First Epistle of John . 355 § 71. The Lesser Epistles of John 374 § 72. The Nature, Structure, and Unity of Revelation . 384 § 73. The Condition of Affairs in the Church according to Revelation i.— iii. . 408 § 74. The Author of Revelation. 428 § 75. Contemporary-Historical or Futurist Interpretation 436 XI. Chronological Survey 450 Chronological Table 481 Index 487 ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES AJSL.AJTh.AOF . BZ. . BbZ . ChW . Expos. ET . GGA . GGN . JBL . JbBW JbfDThJbfKPhJbfPTh JbPKJHSt. JPh . JQR . JRASJThStLCB1. LR . MBBAMDPV MGWJ MVG . NGWGNHJbNJbfDTh NKZ OLZ American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. American Journal of Theology. Altorientalische Forschungen. Byzantische Zeitschrift. Biblische Zeitschrift. Christliche Welt. Expositor.Expository Times. Gbttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. Gbttingische Gelehrte Nachrichten. Journal of Biblical Literature. Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wissenschaft. Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie. Jahrbiicher f iir Klassische Philologie. Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie. Jahrbuch der kgl. Preussischen Kunstsammlungen. Journal of Hellenic Studies. Journal of Philology. Jewish' Quarterly Review. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Journal of Theological Studies. Literarisches Centralblatt. Literarische Rundschau. Monatschrift der Berliner Akademie. Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palastina- Vereins. Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden- thums. Mittheilungen der Vorder-asiatischen Gesellschaft. Nachrichten der Kbniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gbttingen. Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher. Neue Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie. Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift. Orientalische Litteraturzeitung. Vill ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES PEF . RB . REJ . RKZ . SBAW SWAW ThJb.ThLb.ThLz.TQ,TThQ,ThQSc ThR . . ThStKr . ThTij or ThTj'd TU . . TZfTh . WZfKM . Zf AgSp or ZfAZfA . . ZfATW . ZDMG . ZDPV . ZfHTh . ZfKG . ZfKTh . ZfKWor ZfKWuKLZfLTh . ZfNTW . Zf ThuK . ZfWTh . . Palestine Exploration Fund. . Revue Biblique. . Revue des Eludes Juives. . Reformirte Kirchenzeitung. . Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. . Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. . Theologische Jahrbiicher. . Theologisches Litteraturblatt. . Theologische Literaturzeitung. or j-(Tubirjgen) Theologische Quartalschrift. . Theologische Rundschau. . Theologische Studien und Kritiken. [-Theologische Tijdschrift. . Texte und Untersuchungen. . Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie. . Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des Morgenlandes. [•Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. . Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete. . Zeitschrift fiir Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. . Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. . Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins. . Zeitschrift fiir Historische Theologie. . Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. . Zeitschrift fiir Katholische Theologie. ^Zeitschrift fiir Kirkliche Wissenschaft und Kirchliches Leben. Zeitschrift fiir lutherische Theologie. Zeitschrift fiir Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Theologie. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. IX. — Continued. THE WRITINGS OF LUKE. § 58. THE TRADITION CONCERNING LUKE AND HIS WORK. The Luke to whom the composition of the third Gospel and of Acts was unanimously ascribed by the ancient Church (n. 1), is first mentioned by Paul in the Epistles of the first and second Roman imprisonments. Since he is characterised in Col. iv. 14 as " the beloved physician," and mentioned in Philem. 24 last in the list of Paul's helpers, we are justified in assuming that he was in some way connected with the missionary work in Rome, without, however, having given up his professional calling, which might open the way for him to many homes and hearts that remained closed to others. It is also possible that he rendered valuable services as a physician to the apostle himself, who was often severely ill. While Demas, who is mentioned in both these passages along with Luke, deserted the apostle from sordid motives in 66, after the apostle's second arrest, and when his life was in constant danger, Luke remained faithfully with him (2 Tim. VOL. III. I 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT iv. 10 £). The only other thing indicated by Col. iv. 10-14 and its context is the fact that Luke was a Gentile by birth (n. 2). Further facts with regard to Luke's life history have always been derived from the two parts of the work ascribed to him, under the pre supposition that he is the author of both, and that the " we," which occurs repeatedly in Acts, includes the "I" of the author who mentions himself in Luke i. 3 ; Acts i. 1. In the original recension of Acts (§ 59) this "we" occurs for the first time in Acts xi. 27 (n. 3). Inasmuch as the narrative in this passage dates back to a time preceding the first year of the joint work of Paul and Barnabas in Antioch (43-44), before the Emperor Claudius came to the throne (Jan. 41 ; for both dates cf. Part XL), the narrator must have become a member of the Antiochian Church at the latest by the year 40, so that his conversion cannot have been due to Paul, who did not come to Antioch until 43. Nor is this statement affirmed by Luke. The tradition that Luke was a native of Antioch was always so definite, that it is extremely unlikely that it is the result of scholarly reflection upon Acts xi. 27 (n. 4), and we are unable to prove that the oldest witnesses for this tradition, Eusebius and Julius Africanus, who wrote probably a hundred years before Eusebius, were not in possession of other information besides Acts xi. 27. There must be taken into account here the further tradition, likewise old, according to which there was a rich Antiochian by the name of Theophilus who became a Christian in the apostolic age, and who later was expressly identified with the Theophilus of Luke i. 3 ; Acts i. 1 ; but not in any way contradictory of the original story (n. 5). Every thing else that is said and narrated about Luke impresses us as being of the nature either of uncertain conjecture or inference from the "we" passages of Acts and from the hints of the prologue to the Gospel, which were in part misunderstood, in part exaggerated (n. 6). THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 3 In the same way, the ancient Church possessed no tradition regarding the time and place of the composition of the two books, but depended altogether upon conjec tures (n. 7). Only one point seems to go back to a very ancient recollection, namely, that Luke wrote later than Matthew and Mark, and before John, i.e. somewhere between the years 67 and 90 (vol. ii. 392-400). 1. (P. 1.) Concerning Luke as the author of the third Gospel, so acknowledged even by Marcion, see vol. ii. 389 f. That he wrote Acts was equally taken for granted by the earliest writers who discuss the book or cite it formally : Iren. iii. 13. 3, after extracts from Acts i.-xv. (ex sermonibus et actibus apostolorum, iii. 12. 11 ; ex actibus apostolorum, iii. 13. 3), speaks of the book as Luc(B de apostolis testificatio, and similarly in iii. 15. 1 as the testificatio following his Gospel. Canon Murat. line 34, " acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophile," etc. Clem. Strom, v. 83 : Kado Ka\ 6 Aovkcls cv rats irpd^ctri ra>v diroaroKav dnop.vr)fiovevet. tov JlavKov Xiyovra (Acts xvii. 22) ; Hypot. (Lat. version) on 1 Pet. v. 13 : " Sicut Lucas quoque et actus apostolorum stylo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam." Tert. de Jejunio, x., after citations from Acts, in eodem commentario Lucas. The fact that the book is seldom ascribed explicitly to Luke, even by those who mention its rejection by Marcion (Tert. c. Marc. v. 1. 2 ; Preiser, xxii ; pseudo-Tert. Hair. xvi. ; also, indirectly, Iren. iii. 14. 4-15. 1), and that it is constantly cited simply as al irpdgeis with or without t&v airooroKav, Lat. acta (so Tertullian always, and also Cyprian GK, ii. 52, A. 1) or actus, likewise with or without apostolorum, shows that no other opinion concerning its authorship had been expressed in any quarter. With regard to the claim that Clement of Alexandria (Scholia of Maximus on Dionys. Areop. Opera, ed. Corderius, ii. 242) asserts that the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus was written not by Ariston of Pella, but by Luke, the present writer believes that in Forseh. iii. 74 enough has been said for anyone who knows what dvaypdv ovopan'' Ay a(3os oij/iaivaav §ia tov nvcvparos kt\. As to text and style, see § 59, n. 6. Harnack (Berl. Sitzungsbericht, 1899, S. 316-327) has extended his depreciating judgment concerning the /3 text to cover this passage also, and, besides, has explained the r/pS>v as a later interpolation, in no respect originating with the author of the text, instead of an original avr&v. In view of the agreement of the numerous witnesses from Augustine (from 394 a.d.) onwards for /3 in this passage, this last statement would, however, need stronger proofs. The solitary position of the fip.a>v is not strange, since, except perhaps for xiii. 2, this is the only place where a single scene taken from the Church life of Antioch is portrayed. In xiii. 2 — especially according to /3 (see n. 6) — only the prophets, not all the Church members, are the participants, and Luke has there expressed in another way his especial interest in Antioch. The charge that the description lacks the vividness which would be expected of an eye witness, is based upon arbitrary assumptions, as, e.g., that o-t)u.aiva>v points to a symbolical act (S. 319, A. 1 ; cf. per contra, with the exception of bia tov irveip.a.Tos, which is rather against it, John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19 ; Rev. i. 1), and that ver. 29, where the "disciples" are again mentioned quite objectively, refers to the gathering described in w. 27-28, whereas it has to do with decisions and economic deliberations of individuals who are without official position. If Luke had said that he also was one of these more or less affluent and charitable Church members, no one would have commended him for such a statement. The agreement of the /3 text of this passage with Luke, and especially also with the peculiarities in style of the /3 text in general (Harnack, S. 321 f.), is no proof against the originality of the entire /3 text, but is a witness only to its integrity. 4. (P. 2.) The episcopate of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus in Crete (iii. 4, 6), the distribution of countries among the apostles (iii. 1), and the composition of The Shepherd by the Hermas named in Rom. xvi. 14 (iii. 3. 6) are plainly mentioned by Eusebius as uncertain traditions. Other matters such as the identity of the Roman bishops Linus and Clement with the N.T personages of the same names, are supported by the citation of the N.T passages (iii. 2, 4. 9 f., 15 ; cf. iii. 4. 11 on Dionysus the Areopagite). On the THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 5 other hand, iii. 4. 7 : Aovkus Se to pev yevos &>v twv air' 'Avnoxclas, ri)v iirio-TripT)v fie larpos kt\. It is probably not Eusebius but Africanus (cf. Spitta, Brief des Afr. an Aristides, S. 70, 111) who, being himself a physician, writes of the physician Luke (Mai, Nova. P. Bibl. iv. 1. 270) : 6 fie Aovkcls to pcv ytvos dirb T^r fioapivrjs 'Avnoxdcis rjv, iv y 8j) oi irdvTes Xoyimraroi tovs "lavas irpoyovovs avxovo~iv ' ov prjv dkka. irpbs r« xara v dvSpZv eVij'yerd Ti irKiov 6 Aovkos cv \6yois, arc larpiKTjS epircipos &iv cirio-ri\pT\s. The true Euthalius depends on Eusebius (Zacagni, 410 ; cf. 529) ; hardly, however, the old prologue (N.T. ed. Wordsworth, i. 269 ; cf. the prologue on Acts ii. 1-4) : " Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus," etc. In this and in other particulars Jerome's Praef. Comm. in Matt. (Vail. vii. 3) accords more exactly with this prologue than do Vir. III. vii. and other passages. Origen, iv. 686, on Rom. xvi. 21, mentions, without approving, the view that Luke was the Lucius there referred to ; which is impossible, if for no other reason, because Paul speaks of the latter, as of Jason and Sosipater, as Jews (vol. i. 417, n. 22). This view was known also in another form, namely, that the Luke supposed to be mentioned in Rom., i.e. Lucius, became bishop of Laodicea in Syria (Dorotheus on the 70 disciples, Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed. ii. 126). Modern scholars (Wettstein, N.T. ii. 532 ; Bengel, Gnomon on Luke i. 1, 3, ed. Stuttgart, 1860, pp. 204, 205) were the first to undertake the identification of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1), explaining thus the tradition that he was an Antiochian. But (1) no one of the early writers thought that Luke was mentioned in that passage, and the text tradition of Acts xiii. 1 shows no trace of this identification. It cannot, therefore, be the source of the very old tradition in question. (2) The idea that Luke was a native of Antioch, or even Syria, could not arise from a passage in which a Lucius living in Antioch is called a Cyrenian. (3) Luke (Lucas) has nothing to do with the name Lucius, or Acvkios, as it is commonly written in Greek, but is an abbreviation of Lucanus (perhaps also Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, but certainly not Lucianus). It may be due to authentic tradition that in the Old Latin Bible, along with the thoroughly Greek cata Lucan (Evang. Palat. ed. Tisch. 232), we find not infrequently secundum Lucanum, which is probably the original form. So Cod. Vindobon. ed. Belsheim, 1885, p. 1 ff. ; Vere, Ambrosian., Corbei. in Bianchini, Evang. Quadrupl. ii. 2, 208 ; Old Latin Bible Texts, ii. 85 ; further— as Turner (JThS, 1905, June, p. 256 f.) has recently proved by use of new material — in Cyprian's Testimonia, also in Priscillian, ed. Schepps, 47. 4, and on a sarcophagus of the fifth century at Aries ; cf. Schultze, Greifswalder Stud. S. 157 ; Mercati, JThS, 1905, April, p. 435. The present writer finds a Lucanus in Cypr. Ep. Ixxvii. 3, lxxviii. 1, lxxix. ; a Lucas in August. Ep. clxxix. 1. He knows of no one bearing the name earlier than our evangelist. Cf. C. I. G. Nos. 4700& (in the add. vol. iii. 1189) and 4759 from Egypt. In Eus. H. E. iv. 2. 3 the reading handed down is AovKova (in gen.), but Rufinus has Luca, Syr. Lulcia. 5. (P. 2.) Clem. Recogn. x. 71 says in describing the great success of Peter's preaching in Antioch : " Ita ut omni aviditatis desiderio Theophilus, qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate sublimior, domus suss ingentem basilicam ecclesise nomine consecraret, in qua Petro apostolo constituta est ab omni populo cathedra,'' etc. Later writers, spinning out this thread, 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT made the Theophilus of Luke a bishop of Antioch (pseudo-Hippol. at the close of the Const. Ap. ed. Lagarde, p. 284; cf. min. 293 in Tischend. N.T. i. 738), and finally identified him with the well-known bishop and apologete, circa 180 ; cf. Cotelier on Becogn. x. 71. For this, however, the author of the Becogn. is not to be held responsible. Nor can his graphic account be compared with the colourless statement in Const. Ap. vii. 46 to the effect that, after Zacchaeus (Luke xix. 2) and Cornelius (Acts x. 1), a Theophilus was appointed third bishop of Caesarea by the apostles. Along with the N.T., Eusebius' Church History is the main source of Const. Ap. vii. 46, and this Theophilus of Cassarea is identical with the one (circa 190) mentioned in Eus. H. E. v. 22. Whether the Theophilus mentioned as joint addressee in the seventh letter of Seneca to Paul (ed. Hase, iii. 478) is the same as Luke's, cannot be decided. Without absolutely disputing the historicity of the person outright, Origen, Horn. i. in Luc. applied the name, Theophilus, to everyone who is loved by God — which is not even linguistically correct (better Jerome, Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 3. 20, amicus vel amator dei). Salvianus, Ep. ix. 18, goes so far as to say that Luke addressed the two books ad amorem dei. A preacher under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, iii. 765 f., see above, p. 3, n. 1) infers, no doubt, simply from the title Kpanorc in Luke i. 3 — which in Luke's time meant just what Xapirporare did later — that Theophilus was an imperial governor, and, like Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 7), had become a Christian while in that office. As to this it may be remarked that the prefects of Egypt had the title Kpdno-Tos till about 160, and after that \apnp6Wa.Tos, but that senatorial rank need not be inferred from the latter ; cf. Wilcken in Hermes, 1885, S. 469 f., 1893, S. 237 ; Berl. Agypt. Urkunden, i. 373, ii. 373. 6. (P. 2.) With regard to Luke as the brother referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18 and his Gospel as that of Paul's, see vol. ii. 385. The contradiction between this exegetical discovery and the much older tradition that Luke was written after Mark, and, consequently, after Paul's death, was not noticed. Still, if Luke was occupied for some time in Philippi as an evan gelist in the N.T. sense of the word, it may be that he is really intended in 2 Cor. viii. 18, in an allusion to this work ; for 2 Cor. was written in Mace donia, and in the interval between the we-sections of Acts xvi. 10 ff. and Acts xx. 5 ff. (§ 60). Even Iren. iii. 4. 1 began to exaggerate somewhat when he inferred from Acts xvi. 8 ff. (for he allowed the " we " to begin in xvi. 8) in contrast to xv. 39, as also from 2 Tim. iv. 11, that Luke was inseparably associated with Paul. This again was further pressed into an assertion that in the entire book of Acts he recorded only what he himself had experienced (Eus. H. E. iii. 4. 7 ; Jerome, Vir. 111. vii.; not yet true of Canon Mur. lines 34 f., see GK, ii. 54, and cf. ii. 28). That Luke had been a disciple of other apostles also (Iren. iii. 10. 1, 14. 2) was the more easily inferred from Luke i. 2, if one saw in the napi)Ko\ov6t)K6ri Svcodcv nda-iv of ver. 3 a reference to his accompanying the eye-witnesses as a disciple or a travelling-companion ; so probably Justin (Dial. ciii. vol. ii. 389) and clearly Eus. H. E. iii. 4. 7 ; Epiph. Hcer. lvii. 7 ; pseudo-Euthalius (Za'cagni, 421). This is not impossible linguistically (see vol. ii. 465), but is forbidden by the context. Luke, like Mark (vol. ii. 445, n. 3), was declared in the fourth century to have been one of the seventy, or seventy-two, disciples THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 7 Luke x. 1 (Adamantius, Dial. c. Marc. ed. Bakhuyzen, p. 10. 14 ; Epiph. Hcer. Ii. 11 ; Anaceph. ed. Pet. 138). The identification with the unnamed companion of Cleopas, Luke xxiv. 13-18, is much later (cf. Forsch. vi. 350). In the Acts of Paul (ed. Lipsius, p. 104. 2, 117. 5), Luke is joined with Titus, and instead of Crescens (2 Tim. iv. 10), is sent to Gaul, which explains the confused statements of Epiph. Hcer. Ii. 11. His work as evangelist came naturally to be regarded as a higher counterpart of his medical work, Eus. H. E. iii. 4. 7 ; Jerome, Epist. liii. 8 ; Paulinus Nol. Carm. xxvii. 424 ; Prologue to Acts in Wordsworth, N.T. Lat. ii. 2. 9, 3. 1. The passages, 1 Cor. ix. 9, 1 Tim. v. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 6, were the more readily applied to the evangelist among Paul's disciples (cf. Aug. Doctr. Christ, ii. 10. 15 ; Prol. to Gospels, N,T. Lat. ed. Wordsworth, i. 271. 5) because the bos was made his symbol from early times (see vol. ii. 399, n. 7), — in better taste, at least, than when Baronius, Annales ad a. 58, n. 34, put forward the conjecture that the symbol was chosen in allusion to his name and the 60s Luca or Lucanus, i.e. the elephant. A Greek legend appears to be the source of the tradition that Luke was unmarried, that he wrote his Gospel in Achaia and later than Matt. and Mark, and that he died in Bithynia at the age of seventy-four or eighty- four ; cf. Prol. Wordsworth, i. 269. 4ff., 271. 3ff., ii. 1. 4 ; Niceph. Call. ii. 43 says he died at eighty, in Hellas, where he had previously sojourned, first meeting Paul at seven-gated Thebes, that is to say, in Bceotia. A glance at Acts xvi. 7-10 and a comparison of the Latin prologues shows that Bceotia has arisen from Bithynia. Jerome combines the two statements of the Latin prologues, and says, provided that he is the author of the Praef . Comm. in Mat. (Vail. vii. 3) in Achaice Boioliasque (al. Bithyniceque) partibus volumen condidit ; cf. Paulin. Carm. xix. 83, Greta Titum sumpsit, medicum Bceotia Lucam. In 357 a.d. the remains of Andrew and Luke were brought from Achaia, and Timothy's from Ephesus, to Constantinople (Jerome, Vir. III. vii. contra Vigilant, ed. Vail. ii. 391 ; Chron. Anno 2372 ; Philost. H. E. iii. 2 ; Theodorus Lector, ii. 61 ; Niceph. Call. ii. 43). The origin of the tradition that Luke was a painter has not yet been made clear, even by E. v. Dob- schiitz, Christusbilder, ii. 267**-280**. According to Theodorus Lector, i. 1 — if this is not an addition made by the compiler of the extracts (v. Dob- schiitz, 271**) — a picture of Mary supposed to have been painted by Luke was sent from Jerusalem to Constantinople by the empress Eudocia about 440. Cf. J. A. Schmid, De. Imagin. Marias a Luka Pictis, Helmstedt, 1714, n. 2. Since the word lo-roplm was used of paintings as early as Nilus, Ep. iv. 61, and loropelv with the Byzantians was equivalent to faypcKpcIv, Theodore's words (ti)v clicova ttjs 8cotokov, rjv 6 djrooroAos Aovnas Kadio-ropijo'cv) certainly cannot be understood otherwise. But may not the whole myth go back originally to an early misunderstanding of the word KadurTopciv ? It is not Luke, to be sure, but Leucius, who repeatedly reports (Sov nal Terpdpxov) and Paris, 321 (secundum unamquamque ecclesiam). In the text given above, before or after conlactaneus, which would otherwise be unintelligible, a genitive belonging to it, either ejus or Herodis tetrachm, has at all events dropped out, in addition, however, probably also Manosn before conlactaneus. This last omission could perhaps have arisen mechanically from the similarity of MAN JEN to MANET, which stands a few words before it. But the entire citation, in all its original variations, could never be explained from a false reading of the name Mancen. Ticius is for Titus ; cf. the variants Tirov, Tmov, Acts xviii. 7, a 'difference which the Latins did not express in the genitive Titi ; see Wordsworth, ad loc. Since Paul, a few years later, took Titus (Gal. ii. 1) with him from Antioch to Jerusalem, Luke could have mentioned him very naturally in this passage. How the name Ticius or Titus in this passage could be otherwise explained, is unknown to the present writer. The most remarkable variant, however, is the addition to the name of Lucius of Cyrene : qui manet usque ad hue, i.e. or pivci cas Spn ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 6. All must acknowledge that this cannot be an arbitrary addition of a writer citing Acts, or the gloss of a later copyist. It can have been written only at the time when Lucius of Cyrene was still alive, and indeed by the same man, who, in this passage, according to aU recensions of the text, by the enumeration of the teachers and prophets of Antioch,— persons who, with the exception of Paul and Barnabas, are wholly unimportant for THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 29 the further narrative, — has shown his especial interest in this Church, and according to /3 (Acts xi. 27) has made himself known as a member of this Church about 40 a.d. It is Luke, then, who allowed these and other remarks of interest for his friend Theophilus to appear in his first edition. In the revision of his work preparatory to a second edition, he might have thought of a larger circle of readers, and a longer continuing circulation of his book, and therefore struck out the statement concerning Lucius, which after a short time might not agree with the fact. Luke wrote at a time when there was living at least one of the men who about 43-50 had been busy as teachers and prophets in Antioch, while others, at all events, the Simon Niger mentioned above, probably also Paul and Barnabas, were already dead. The especial interest of Luke in Antioch is also confirmed by the fact that in vi. 5 the home of only one of the seven men, i.e. of Nicolas of Antioch, is given. 7. (P. 15.) The clause cv rfj 'lovSala, xii. 1 (0), is not, as though Tr)s stood in its place, a nearer definition of rrjs exxXj/o-iar which might have appeared necessary to a later reader, but indicates the scene of the story, xii. 1-20, in contrast to Antioch, the scene of xi. 19-30. Oi dirb ttjs iKK\rjo-las is good Greek (Kiihner-Gerth, i. 457)= Church members (cf. xv. 5a) = ot irioroi, ver. 3 (3), entirely without regard to any particular place or the congregation of any locality. That it is a question concerning such persons in Jerusalem and Judea and not in Antioch follows clearly enough from the personal and other particulars of the account. A reader who felt the loss of an expressed subject of dpco-Tov iortv in ver. 3 would have introduced rovro, as several translators (e.g. Lucifer) have done. The text /3, t) in-ixclpio-ii avrov ejrl tovs irurrois, is too original in its manner of expression to be ranked as a gloss. In the N.T. iiriXtipw-s does not occur elsewhere, and iirixelPeiv only in Luke i. 1 ; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13. Moreover, the feminine subject following the neuter predi cate (Matt. vi. 34 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6) does not look like the work of a glossarist. Such a one would have supplied the need in ver. 5 of completing irqpciro iv rfj KpvXanjj by mention of the guards, with words taken from ver. 4. The vnb tt)s o-Trcipric tov ftao-ikccos extends beyond ver. 4, and does not indicate the 4x4 soldiers entrusted with the guarding of Peter's person, but the whole cohort (cf. x. 1, xxi. 31, xxvii. 1) which served as a garrison for the building, — probably the Antonio, — and whose duty it was to station the various sentries (ver. 10) in continuous relays. The words Rarc^o-av row em-a fiadpovs Kai which /3 (ver. 10) offers between i^cKBovres and rrporjKBov can only have been written by one who knew the locality. In xxi. 35, 40, where the stairs are mentioned which connected the Antonio not with the street, but directly with the Temple Area, no one could hit upon these seven steps by guess and then introduce them with the article as if well known to the reader. The seven and eight steps at the Temple gate in Ezek. xl. 22, 26, 31, in which Jerome found great mysteries (Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 2. 18, 111 ; cf. Origen, Fragm. in Jo. xi. 18, ed. Preuschen, 547. 21), explain nothing. On the contrary, it is quite plausible that Luke, who introduced for the first time at this point, unchanged, the story which evidently arose in Jerusalem, and was probably found by him in an older writing, upon looking over what he had written removed these words as being superfluous and ill adapted to foreign readers. , 8. (P. 15.) Belser has recently (Bibl. Stud. i. 3. 141 ff. ; Ausfiihrlicher Btitrage, S. 8, 89 ff.) not only maintained the formerly prevalent interpre- 30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tation of xviii. 22 of the a text, but introduced it into |3 also. Paul is supposed to have journeyed from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and, after he had wandered from Antioch through Galatia and Phrygia, according to xix. 1 ft once more to have entertained the thought of returning to Jerusalem, instead of going finally to Ephesus, as he had promised. The Spirit, however, prevents him from carrying out this plan, and compels him to keep his promise. In the first place, as far as a is concerned, (1) the bare dvaf3ds (ver. 22) cannot indicate a journey from Csesarea to Jerusalem. The 18 passages in the N.T. (3, Luke ; 7, Acts) where avafiaiveiv els 'lep. occurs, prove that this qualification is indispensable, as well as els 'Avnoxeiav, xiv. 26, xv. 30, xviii. 22. An absolute dvafiaiveiv, John vii. 10, near the thrice recurring dva/3. els rr)v eopTr)v, or John xii. 20, where Jerusalem is the scene of the previous events, and where, in addition, attendance upon the feast is given as the purpose in view, can scarcely be used for comparison ; for, according to u, Jerusalem, in Acts xviii., has not yet been named at all as the destination (ver. 18 = Syria ; ver. 21= only that Paul must make one more journey before Jhis permanent settlement). The meaning of dvafiaiveiv here is either " to go ashore " (cf. Matt. iii. 16), or, according to the Greek notion, to go up from the harbour into the city, i.e. from the shore inland. Cf. Karafiaiveiv (Cod. D, KareXdeiv Textus rec), Acts xiii. 4 of the wandering from Antioch to the seaport ; xx. 13 D and elsewhere kotcXBovtc s from the land to the harbour and ship. (2) The Church in Jerusalem is nowhere called simply t) iKK\rjo-la, cf. rather viii. 1, xi. 22. On xii. 1, see n. 7. Chap. viii. 3, following viii. 1, proves nothing aside from the fact that at the time of the events of viii. 1-3 the local Church of Jerusalem (v. 11) was still essentially identical with the Christendom which Paul had persecuted (cf. Acts ix. 1, 31 ; 1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 22 f.). Only the Church, there fore, of the place which is mentioned (xi. 26, xv. 3 Antioch ; xv. 4 Jerusalem) can be meant : in this instance the Church of Caesarea. It is not easy to see why the Church of Caesarea, which at that time had been so long in existence, might not have been called ckkXt/o-io as w-ell as those which were much younger (Acts xiv. 23, xv. 41, xvi. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; Bom. xvi. 1, 4). But as for xix. 1 ft it is unthinkable that Paul, just after he had, as alleged, visited Jerusalem, and had made the long journey from that place via Antioch and through Asia Minor as far as the neighbourhood of Ephesus, suddenly decided to journey again to Jerusalem, and in doing so, after having almost reached the end of a month's journey, to return again to its starting-point. This would be exactly an viroo-rpetpav, and, on the other hand, the continuation of his journey would be merely the com pletion of a journey already nearly finished. The j3 text reads rather the opposite. And what then would be the rd dvwTepiKct pipr) whicii Paul would have had to wander through, after he had already traversed the land of the Galatians and Phvygia (ver. 23), in order to reach Ephesus 1 He is indeed, according to xviii. 23, already on the border of Asia in the narrowest sense of the term (as used by Luke, vol. i. 186 f.), and only a few days distant from Ephesus, and the short journey thither leads through r) kotw 'Ao-m (vol. i. 187, line 16 ; Aristides, Epist. de Smyrna, ed. Dindorf, i. 766 ; Pausan. i. 4. 6). It cannot be doubted, then, that Luke xix. 1 /3 refers to what precedes xviii. 23, or rather that xviii. 23 anticipates the journey of Paul, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 31 and has so far described it that xix. 1 epxerm els "Erbeo-ov could immediately follow. Even in xviii. 24, Luke goes back in time before the point reached in ver. 23 ; for what is related in xviii. 24-28 did not take place after Paul had come to Phrygia via Cassarea and Antioch, and so had arrived in the vicinity of Ephesus, but occupies a great part of the intervening time between the first visit of Paul in Ephesus (xviii. 19-21) and his return thither (xix. 1). After this episode, and before resuming the narrative of the journey, interrupted in xviii. 23 (xix. 1, Sie\8a>v = xviii. 23, biepxopevos), and before giving an account of Paul's settlement in Ephesus, Luke turns back to an earlier point in the narrative (xix. la), and explains how it happened that Paul had not carried out his purpose to visit Jerusalem on this journey. According to the marginal reading of Thomas of Heraclea, from which D differs only in the matter of the weaker iiroo-Tpecbeiv, instead of virooTpecbe, xix. 1 reads : 8£Kovtos 8c tov IldvXov Kara tt)v Iblav /3ov\r)v iropeveo~8ai els Iepoo~6kvpa, eiirev avT& to irvevpa' " viroo'Tpetpe els ty)v 'Acrlav." Cf. above, p. 26, line 30 f . ; further, Ephrem, in Harris, Four Lectures, p. 48 ; marginal reading of the Bible of Bosas, and Ado (Quentin, p. 7), whicii describes the Journey of Acts xviii. 18-xix. 1 as follows : " Et inde (from Corinth) navigavit in Syriam et venit Ephesum et inde Caesaream et (therefore not to Jerusalem) Antiochiam et Galatiam regionem et Frigiam. Hinc, cum vellet ire Hierosolimam, dixit ei spiritus sanctus, ut reverteretur in Asiam ; et cum peragrasset superiores partes, Ephesum venit." The hinc at the beginning of the second sentence, which is due to the misunderstand ing explained above, is evidently an addition of Ado's, just as the et inde, which often occurs. Ado naturally had also the stopping-place Trogyllium, xx. 15. 9. (Pp. 15, 18.) On Acts xx. 3 see above in text and Harris, Four Lectures, 49. On xx. 4 f. see in part vol. i. 209, n. 2. The uncorrupted text of a has been transmitted by SB, the Coptic version, the Vulgate (and substantially by the Sahidic version) : avveineTO be avTa 2anraTpos . . . Kal Ttpodeos, 'Ao~mvo\ he Tu^ikos kol Tpoqbipos. ovtoi be irpoc/Kdovres epevov r)pas iv Tpadbi. Inasmuch as ver. 3 pictures the moment in which Paul formed the resolution in Corinth to make the journey to Syria by way of Macedonia, instead of by the sea route, and since o-vvc'tneTo, not o-vvcIitovto, is the reading established for a, it is stated at first only regarding Sopater that he accompanied Paul from Corinth on this journey. This agrees with the fact that, as far as we know, Sopater was the only one of those mentioned, aside from Timothy, who was present with Paul at the time of his sojourn in Corinth (Bom. xvi. 21 ; vol. i. 209, 213, 417, n. 22). Timothy may have gone on ahead of Paul and Sopater from Corinth to Macedonia and even as far as Troas, and the rest, among whom were two persons of Thessalonica, Aristarchus and Secundus, would have joined him en route, possibly in Thessalonica, so that Qeo-o-akoviKeav be is really in respect of them equivalent to saying " from Thessalonica onwards." The narrator himself does not join the company until they reach Philippi. All the persons named were fellow- travellers of Paul's, so that o-vvelirero could be placed at the beginning of the sentence, and be connected zeugmatically with all of them. Only in this way can the present writer understand the prominent position which is assigned to Sopater, and the explanatory phrase, ovtoi be /crX, designed to 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT prevent any misunderstanding. If this does not refer to all the persons named, besides Sopater, we cannot know which of these are to be dis tinguished from others. The /3 text in d and D is at all events mutilated in different ways, and in S3 it is preserved in a not altogether unmixed condition. Instead of inserting, as Blass does, an unwarranted irporjpxovTo, o-vveiTrovTo amw might be inserted according to d (comitari [a mistake for comitati]eum) and S3. The eye of the copyist of D wandered from airov to dura. It reads therefore : peWovros ovv i£ievai airov avve'movTo avra pexpt. rfjs 'Ao-las Smirarpos . . . Kal TipoOeos, 'E(beo~ioi be Tvxikos Kal Tpocbipos, oStoi irpoekBovTcs epevov airbv iv Tptodbi. This text also was not intended to be different from u. The insufferable Textus receptus was the first to conflate with the a text (AEHLP) the reading : &xpi (or pexpi) tt)s 'Ao-las, which is genuine only in ft As Luke wished to give the particulars of what had taken place in Asia, namely, in Troas and Miletus, he brought the journey of Paul and his companions (according to ft) for the time being only "as far as Asia," without wishing to say that it came to an end there (cf. Bom. v. 14). Again, since he wished to cover rapidly the journey as far as Troas, he did not take pains to avoid the expression which makes it appear as if the whole company remained together from Corinth to Troas, although he has to add the remark that they arrived in Troas, at least in part, before Paul. One can understand that Luke found it advantageous in revising to smooth down these inequalities ; but not how one, who had a before him, might produce /3 from it. 10. (P. 18.) Acts xx. 12 reads, according to D, do-iraZopevav be avrav rjyaKev (not fjyayov, as d has it) tov veav'io-Kov £5>vra. This f/'yayev occurs in three minuscules and apparently also in the Armenian version, which has retained to a large extent traces of the oldest Syriac version ; cf. Bobinson, Euthaliana, 76-92, according to which Paul leads the youth whom he has saved, and the latter does not let go his hand. In this case the greetings will apply not to Paul, or at least not to him alone, but especially to the " we " who departed before him. That these persons take leave before Paul does (irpoe\86vres according to a) is, however, also stated by )3 in as peWav avrbs ire^eveiv, in spite of the KarcXdovres, which he uses in its place. Of the /3 text here only fragments are extant. Perhaps such are embedded in the Peshito, where, instead of ovras in ver. 11, we read : "and then he went out, to travel by land," and ver. 13 : " But we went aboard the ship and sailed as far as the neighbourhood (?) of Thesos (for Assos), because we were to take Paul on board there, for so he had appointed when he set out by land." 11. (P. 18.) In respect of Acts xv. 1-5 the present writer cannot admit as text /3 : (1) the addition after 'lovbalas, ver. 1, of t&v nettio-rev- kotiov drrb rijs alpio-eas tS>v &apio-aia>v, and the omission of the corresponding words in ver. 5 ; for aside from the fact that no witness (DS3 min. 8, 137) presents this text unmixed and complete, and that there exists no Latin witness for it (see also Iren. iii. 12. 14), it seems incredible that Luke should have taken this characteristic of the disturbers of the peace from its natural place in ver. 1 and placed it as an afterthought in ver. 5. (2) The un wonted expression in a, ver. 1, ircpiTprjdrJTc r<5 e8ei r<» Mo>i'o-«or, as well as the comparison in ver. 5 or xxi. 21, caused in DS" and the Sahidic version THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 33 the change Kal r i. M. nepmaTr}re. But this is not characteristic of ft It is found verbatim, only with further additions, in Didasc. (syr. version), p. 102. 26, where in the main (on vv. 2, 5, 20, 29 see n. 12) not ft but a is presupposed. Moreover, the still further altered form in Const. Ap. vi. 12 which is based upon Didasc., could not be introduced into the text by Blass in the face of his own chief witnesses. But the better accredited text of B also betrays itself as being an interpolation, in the singular ts in-io-Tevo-av buv. In Apol. ix. he cites no text at all, but mentions the Christian custom of abstaining from every use of the blood of animals, in consequence of which they do not use the flesh of animals which have been strangled, or which have died (qui propterea suffocatis quoque et morticims abstinemus). If this custom was so general in Africa also, as Tertullian here represents it to have been, this presupposes that the unmutilated Decree THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 35 was known and operative there. As far as Tertullian himself is concerned, there exists between Apol. ix. and Pud. xii. only this difference : that in the former instance he assumes the interpretation of the " blood " in the Decree as the blood of animals, to be the natural and only one ; and merely draws the conclusion that it would be wholly impossible for the Christians to drink human blood ; and that, on the contrary, in Pud. xii., without ex cluding the other interpretation, he prefers to make the word refer to human blood and more particularly to the shedding of blood in murder (homicidium). Moreover, a more detailed treatment of the history and the original meaning of the Decree cannot be given in this place ; cf., however, § 62, n. 10. New literature on the subject : Bockenhoff, Das Apostol Speisegesetz, 1903, and the very venturesome writing of Gotthold Besch (son of A. Besch), Das Aposteldekret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Textgestalt, 1905. 13. (P. 20.) Tertullian, Pud. xii., translates cl8a>\o8vTa>v accurately by sacrificiis, but interprets it as idololatria. The Latin Bible in Cyprian has already the translation ab idololatriis. What is to be understood by cbayeiv elbaXoBvra can be seen from 1 Cor. viii.-x. It refers merely to an indirect participation in idol worship, a dangerous approach to idolatry. The com mand is <\>evyeTe dirb rrjs clbioKokarpeias, 1 Cor. X. 14, not tt)v elba>\o\a.Tpeiav as in 1 Cor. vi. 18, where the reference is to iropveia. Only for the purpose of sharpening the conscience is it said (Didache, vi. 3 ; cf . Col. iii. 5) that even the partaking of sacrificial meat, or participation in festivities and banquets whose background is one of idol worship, is in itself idolatry. 14. (P. 20.) In the Didascalia, Syriac ed., p. 104. 23, the conclusion reads: "And ye shall abstain from necessary (things), from sacrifices, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from unchastity. And from these (things) guard your souls, and ye will (shall) do good ( = ev irpd^cTe), and ye will be sound in health " (eppao-Bi). The reading irpdgare (CDHL, Didasc, Latin ed. bene agite) or irpa\\rrre (E) expresses the same conception ; but the future irpagerc might also, as in the Decalogue, be taken as an imperative, and bene (Irenaeus, Pacian) or recte (Tertullian) agetis was not intended to mean anything else. The eppaaBe is wanting in Irenaeus and Tertullian, which is hardly accidental, inasmuch as Irenaeus at least gives in other instances the writing in complete form. D, which contains it, must have here also a mixed text. Cf. also Clem. Al. Peed. ii. 56, without eppaaBe, S1 : " be strong in the Lord." 15. (P. 21.) Didache, i. 2 : iravra be 6Va iav 8e\r)o~r)S pi) ylveaBai o-ot, Kal av aXXoi p>) Ttolei. Cod. D xv. 20, where the Gentile Christians are spoken of in the third person ; but Kal oo-a pr) Bekovaiv eavrois yivco-Bat (written yeiveo-8ai), irepois p>) rroteiTe (dfaciatis, Irenaeus faciant), and per contra xv. 29, where the address would be possible because of what follows, D has BeXere eavrois . . . iroielv ; d, Irenaeus (Lat. text), Cyprian, vultis fieri vobis . . . faciatis or feceritis ; Iren. (Greek text) (v. d. Goltz, S. 41), here as in xv. 20, Kal Saa av pi) BeKao-iv avrois ycvecrdai, aXXot? pr) iroieiv. The singular erepa, xv. 29 (D, d, Cyprian ; pseudo-Aug. Sermo 265, ed. Bass. xvi. 1367 ; the Pelagian letter [see n. 12] alii and nullo alii), which other Greek and Latin writers felt to be unsuitable alongside of eavrois, vobis, and itoic'itc, is also an echo of the form SWa in the Didache. 16. (P. 22.) Blass in Luke i. 26 gives, instead of the definite statement 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of time, iv aura be ra xmP& oniy according to Latin witnesses. Why does he not, therefore, give the same formula in Acts v. 1 according to E, and in Acts iii. 1 according to D — iv be rais r)pepais ravrais 1 The first formula is, however, a solemn introduction of the pericopes in the Greek as in the Latin lectionaries ; see, e.g., Scholz, N.T. ii. 455 ff.; Liber Comicus, ed. Morin, pp. 7, 13, 15, etc. It is found also countless times in the Ev. Hiersol. in the half- Greek form nditp ( = Kaipa>) mvai, in most cases standing outside the con struction, and even where the statements of time contained and retained in the text itself make it superfluous (Matt. iv. 1, 17, xxiii. 1 ; John vii. 1, 33, ed. Lagarde, p. 282. 1, 19, 302. 18, 370. 15, 371. 21), but also amalga mated with the text, where it contains no determination of time (John viii. 1, p. 372. 7 ; in pure Syriac, Matt. xv. 21, p. 292. 25, " at this time came Jesus "). In other passages, as Matt. iii. 1, p. 281. 10, 19, the formula arising out of the system of pericopes displaces that contained in the text. Acts iii. 1, v. 1 were the beginnings of Church pericopes (Scrivener, Introd.* i. 80 and the marginal readings of Cod. 104 in Tischendorf on Acts iii. 1). Although the later Greek system had Luke i. 24-38 for Annunciation-day (Scrivener, p. 88 ; Ev. Hiersol, ed. Lagarde, pp. 273, 329), i. 26 is, however, the natural beginning. The fact that already Iren. iii. 10. 2, or, at least, his Latin translator, had in i. 26 the liturgical formula, may be of weight for the history of lectionaries, but cannot make the source of the reading doubtful. Cod. D, however, which does not here follow the Latins, stands in other passages under the influence of a pericope-system ; cf. Scrivener, Introd. p. Ii. Blass (with D Ss) has not only placed the words Sta rd ctvai ktK., taken from Luke ii. 4, after ver. 5, but also by adopting avrois for airov has burdened Luke himself, in spite of Luke i. 36, with the fable of the Davidic descent of Mary, which arose in the second century. The only direct witness for this is the Lat. Palat. (ed. Tischendorf, p. 245, quod essent de demo, etc.). Since, however, this is the ordinary position of the sentences, accord ing to which up to this point Mary has not been mentioned at all, essent is accordingly an evident mistake for esset. The Syrians, however, who read here " since both of them were of the house of David," depend upon Tatian, who had allowed himself this insertion (Forsch. i. 88, 118, 265 ; cf. the apocryphal Ste Korintherbrief, ed. Vetter, S. 54, ver. 4 ; GK, ii. 561 ; in addition, Ephrem, Comm. in ep. Paul, p. 260 ; ThLb, 1893, S. 471 ; 1895, S. 19) ; also a Nether- land Harmony of the Middle Ages, which offers the same statement in Luke i. 27 (Academy, 1894, March 24). This interpolation brought about the trans position of the sentences ; since it, however, can be considered an improve ment of the style, and since it is to be found in D without the interpolation, Tatian may have found the transposition already present in his Luke. 17. (P. 24.) It it beyond dispute, that in the genealogical scheme of Luke iii. 23 ff., D has introduced the names from Matt. i. 10-16 ; cf. com pilations such as are given in Cod. Fuld., ed. Banke, p. 33. D has a large harmonising interpolation in Luke v. 14, taken from Mark i. 45, a liturgical gloss at the beginning of a pericope, Luke xvi. 19, see Tischendorf, ad he., and also on xvi. 1. D alone has after Luke vi. 4 the following : rjj avrij i)pepa Beaadpevos rtva ipya£6pcvov ra aaBBdra clnev avra' "avBpawf, tl pev otbas, ti rroicls, paKapios ei, el be pr) oibas, iniKardpaTos Kal 7rapaj3anjr el tov vopov." This is followed, vi. 6, by the following recasting of the text : koi THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 37 cIo-cXBovtos avrov rrdXiv els Tr)v avvayayr)v aaBBdra, iv y f)v avBpairos xrX. On the other hand, ver. 5 does not follow until after ver. 10. That all of these changes are arbitrary, appears (1) from the fact that the disappearance from the whole tradition except D of the clever anecdote, at which no Gentile Christian could have taken offence, would otherwise be incomprehensible. (2) It should not be disputed that the teaching in ver. 5 is deduced neither from this anecdote nor from the following Sabbath story, w. 6-10, but only from the incident related in vv. 1-4. This same closing sentence of the incident is found Matt. xii. 8 ; Mark ii. 28, and, according to all witnesses except D, also in Luke vi. 5. (3) The anecdote betrays by t& o-aBBdra, which is intolerable after rfj airy r)pepa, — since, according to vi. 1, this day is a Sabbath, — that the second statement of time originally belonged to the anecdote ; the first statement, however, was added to help in fitting it into the present connection. (4) The awkward position, also, which o-aBBdra has been given by D in ver. 6, betrays the interpolator. Since two other long interpolations in D, namely, John vii. 53-viii. 11 and Mark xvi. 9-20 (these at least in substance, see vol. ii. 471 f., and below, § 69, n. 3) were taken from Papias, it is probable that this apocryphal Sabbath story was taken from the same source. It can, of course, be historically true : Jesus can have said, that he acts well who, like the priests in the temple (Matt. xii. 5, cf. John vii. 19-23), breaks the letter of the commandment concerning the Sabbath in the consciousness that he is fulfilling a higher duty. The obligatoriness of the law, when rightly understood, he did not by this saying dispute. 18. (P. 24.) Whereas the additions discussed in n. 17 are peculiar to D, it shares with many Latin and partly also Syrian texts a large number of changes of words and inversions which are no more to be understood as actual improvements — perhaps from the author correcting his first edition — than as belonging to the original form from which the a text could have arisen. Examples : according to it, i. 63, aU are astonished that the dumb Zacharias in spite of the general protest gives the child the same name, John, which Elisabeth had given it. It appeared much more astonishing that sud denly he could speak again. Therefore B transfers Kal iBavpao-av rtavrcs to a position after iXiBrj r) y\S>o-o-a airov. In B this is followed by " his mouth, however, was opened " ; then first comes the statement, " he spoke, praising God." By what means, however, before he opened his mouth and spoke, could the people have known that his tongue was loosed ? It was a necessary improvement of this laughable " improvement," when Ss, and, in view of this one witness, Blass also, transposed the astonishment to a position after the speaking. But how, then, is the much stronger witnessed reading of D abg1 to be explained ? Concerning the commonplace change of xii. 38 (which Marcion found in existence, but which D and most MSS. offer mixed with the genuine text), see GK, i. 682 f., ii. 476. In view of the fact that, as a rule, the mother herself is not able at once to attend to her new born child, the Lat. Palat. (e) has written in ii. 7 the plurals obvolverunt . . . collocaverunt. The noticeable brevity of the introductory formula in a, xxiii. 42 f., and the form of address with the bare 'l-qo-ov, not found elsewhere in the N;T. (cf., however, Mark i. 24, x. 47 ; Luke viii. 28 [also here omitted from D], xvii. 13, xviii. 38 [omitted in AE, etc.]), must have stimulated copyists to corrections. But the great multiplicity of the variants, several of 38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which may be very early, is evidence against all of them. Especially the t$ i7ri7r\r)o-o-ovTi along with avra in D characterises itself by its very super- fluousness as a gloss to avra. A preacher, who contrasted the two male factors with each other, might have so designated the remorseful one in view of iiriTipav, ver. 40; and to a man of this kind all variants of D in this passage are to be credited, e.g. ekevo-is (also xxi. 7 D), Bdpo-ei (also viii. 48 inserted by others). The expression of Luke, in part peculiar but also varied in manifold ways according to the object and the sources used, incited to changes in order to make his Gospel agree partly with the other Gospels and partly with the common usage. In this respect D, and its satellites especially, have gone to great lengths. The inconsistency of B proves that the variants which have arisen in this way have not been brought about by a systematic working over either of B into a, or of a into ft but by sporadic changes in ft The word n\r)o-8r}vai (the verb 13 times in Luke, 9 times in Acts, only 3 times elsewhere), used to designate the passing of a period of time, i. 23, 57, ii. 6, 21, 22 (with another meaning not found in N.T.), is retained 3 times in D, however, ii. 6 Te\eo-8r)vai (cf. Bev. xx. 3-5), ii. 21 o-vvTe\eo-6r)vai (cf. Luke iv. 2 ; Acts xxi. 27). D has replaced Ka\elv ovopa, i. 13, 31, ii. 21 (Matt. i. 21-25) only in ii. 21 by the preferable ovopdgeiv ov (cf. Acts xix. 13 ; Eph. i. 21), and, on the other hand, has replaced the latter in vi. 13 by KaXeiv, used more commonly in the choice of the apostles, and in vii. 14 by iirovopdfciv, which is more suited in giving a person a surname. For fVtoTaTijr, which is used only by Luke, D has in v. 5 StSao-KaXt, vii. 24 Kvpie, per contra in viii, 45 (one min. omits), ix. 33 (the min. 157, which otherwise agrees with D, and Marcion has Sioao-KaXe ), ix. 49 (many bibdo-Koke), and xvii. 13 has retained it. For rjxos (only Luke iv. 37 ; Acts ii. 2, also Karr/xe'iv, in the Gospels only Luke i. 4 ; Acts xviii. 25, xxi. 21, 24) D has iv. 37 aKor), as Matt, and Mark everywhere, Luke never in this meaning. For vivos, xviii. 43 (cf. alveiv 4 times in Luke, 3 times in Acts, only twice elsewhere in N.T.), D has the common bo£a ; for arorrov, xxiii. 41 (elsewhere only Acts xxv. 5, xxviii. 6 ; entirely different 2 Thess. iii. 2), the trivial 7T0VTjp6v. 19. (P. 24.) The present writer mentions as genuine texts which D and its satellites have preserved : (1) iii. 22 : vids pov el o-i, iya> oypepov ycyev- vrjKa o-c. So D and a large number of Latin witnesses. Augustine, who throughout his work, de Cons. Evv., uses the Vulgate as the basis of his dis cussion (Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896), mentions (ii. 19. 31) only the older Greek MSS., which have the common text. In the Latin Bible, 8 was at all events predominating and original. The fact that the Syriac versions do not have this form is explained by their dependence upon Tatian, who naturally could use only one form of the words spoken by the heavenly voice, for which, however, he did not choose Luke iii. 22, but Matt. iii. 17 (Forsch. i. 124). If it is established that the Gospel of the Ebionites (circa 170) is a compilation from the canonical Gospels, and has made especial use of Luke, — also in the account of the baptism (ev e"8ei), — it cannot be well doubted, that of the three heavenly voices which this Gospel contains, the first is taken from Mark i. 11, the second from Luke iii. 22 (in the form B), and the third from Matt. iii. 17 (GK, ii. 726, 732 f .). It may further be considered as settled that Justin, Dial, lxxxviii, ciii., to whom THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 39 this text was evidently embarrassing, had read it in Luke (GK, i. 541). According to the creed of the Church, Jesus, on account of His wonderful entrance into human life, was already looked upon as the Son of God ; further, as early as in Heb. i. 5, Ps. ii. 7 was interpreted as referring to this event, and this seems better to suit Luke i. 32, 35. The variation from Matt, and Mark must have also appeared objectionable, and finally an extreme emphasis was laid upon the baptism of Jesus by many heretics. In view of all these facts, therefore, the fi text must have become more and more intolerable to the consciousness of the Church, and at the same time to those who, like Justin, in addition to the wonderful generation of the man Jesus, taught also a pretemporal generation of the Logos. The rise and wide circulation of ft on the basis of u, in the Church of the second century appears incomprehensible ; on the other hand, the gradual supplanting of fi by a seems almost unavoidable. It is inconceivable that one and the same Luke in the two editions of his work should have changed from one to the other of the mutuaUy exclusive traditions. There is, however, no evidence against the fact that fi originated with Luke himself. If Ps. ii. 7 could have been connected with the resurrection in Acts xiii. 32-34, and in Heb. i. 5 f. with the incarnation, so also could it have been connected with the baptism. Luke iii. 22 fi is just as consistent with Luke i. 35 as Acts ii. 36 with Luke ii. 11, iv. 18, Acts x. 36, 38, or as Bom. i. 4 with Bom. i. 3, viii. 3. God begat Jesus as His Son, since He was born ; and again in the figurative mean ing of the Psalm passage made Him His Chosen Christ, since He furnished Him in the baptism with the spirit of His office (Luke xxiii. 35 ; John i. 34 according to X Ss Sc et al). (2) From fear that they might be utilised by the Marcionites, the words, ix. 54, " even as Elijah did," and ver. 55, " ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of," were struck out, the former by some (Sc, of the Latin MSS. e vg)', the latter by others (AC), both by still others (SBL Ss). These facts prove that an antinomistic text produced by Marcion has not here found the most extensive circulation in the Catholic Church (D, most Latin MSS. S1 S3, Chrysost. etc.), but that Marcion found this, and that Luke had written it (GK, ii. 468). (3) The history of the text of xxii. 17-20 is very involved. I. The a text is found with some variants in XABCL, etc., and accordingly in Tischendorf as in the Text, receptus. II. The present writer considers as belonging to fi the text of the two most important old Latin MSS. b e (k lacks this passage). In this text ver. 16 is immediately followed by ver. 19a, ko! \afia>v aprov — to aapd pov, then comes vv. 17, 18 as in Tischendorf. There is lacking, therefore, w. 196-20 (to vrrep ipav bibopevov — to virep vpav eKxvvvopevov). How Mansion's text is related to this text has not yet been determined with entire certainty. At all events he has nothing of vv. 16, 18, 196 (on this point GK, ii. 490, is not fully exact) ; further, he has the cup after the bread, i.e. immediately after 19a, and only one cup. He agrees, therefore, in decisive points with fi against a. The sentence about the cup contains, however, the word 8iadf)KT). It was accordingly formed, not as in ft=ver. 17 of a, but probably after 1 Cor. xi. 25, as to a certain extent also in a, ver. 20. In another way Ss and Sc in this passage (concerning S1 = Peshito at the present writing there is nothing certain to be said) show that fi is their basis which they have interpolated in various ways from the parallels. At the same time one must 40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT consider that they are influenced by Tatian, who, as may easily be conceived, had in his harmony a mixed text from the different accounts of the Gospels, probably also from 1 Cor. xi. (Forsch. i. 204 ; GK, ii. 551 ff.). That the Syriac versions have attempted many times to improve this passage is shown by the fact that yewr/pa is rendered by three different words in Sc Ss S1. Sc Ss agree with fi in that they have the order vv. 16, 19, 17, 18, 21, and also only one cup. However, ver. 19 f. reads in these texts : " And he took bread, and gave thanks over it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and said : This is My body, which (Ss+is given) for you ; this do in remembrance of Me. And (SS+ after they had eaten) He took a cup, and gave thanks over it, and said : Take this, divide it among yourselves (Ss+this is My blood of the new covenant). I say to you that from henceforth I wiU not drink of the fruit of the vine (Ss of this fruit) until the Kingdom of God comes " (ver. 21 follows). It is evident to everyone that aU that Ss has additional to Sc is interpolation ; no Syrian who had 1 Cor. xi. and the other Gospels, or the Diatessaron (cf. Aphraates, p. 221), in his Bible, could take offence at it. Therefore, if Sc offers the relatively or absolutely original Syriac text of the "separate" Gospels, then this differs from fi only by the acceptance of ver. 196. This addition does not come, however, from a Greek text of Luke, hut, since bibopevov is lacking, from 1 Cor. xi. 24. III. D and four old Latin MSS. have w. 16-19a (as far as to o-apd pov) in the order of a, but without xv. 196-20. This text, which is here called y, can neither in itself nor in relation to II. be original. For (1) the ancient character of the Latin wit nesses for fi (b e) in comparison with the Latin witnesses for y (a ff2 i 1), as also the essential agreement of the former with the oldest Syriac text (see above), proves that fi is the more original form in the Latin Bible, from which at a later time y developed. This change is explained if we presuppose on the part of the author of the y text a regard for the a text, which also in the Occident gradually gained the ascendency. This arrangement (of the account of the Supper) was adopted more easily, since thereby a seemingly suitable parallelismus membrorum between vv. 15-16 and 17-18 would be secured. On the other hand, the wording of the old Occidental, and at the same time Syriac text fi itself was retained even in details, such as the omission of the second ko'i, ver. 17. (2) Consequently y cannot be original, since in this text the one cup, which fi and y have, is placed before the bread. This, however, contradicts all tradition, both of the N.T. (1 Cor. xi. 24 f ., cf . x. 3 f . ; Matt. xxvi. 26 f.; Mark xiv. 22 f.; also Marcion and Tatian, G-ST, ii. 490, 509 ; Forsch. i. 204) and of the liturgical usage. Against this one cannot adduce as evidence to the contrary the mention of the cup before the bread, 1 Cor. x. 16 f. or even before the table, i.e. before the entire meal, ver. 21 ; for it is incon ceivable that Paul should contradict himself in so brief a passage. The Didache also recognises the order, food and drink (Didache, x. 3, cf. 1 Cor. x. 3 f.), while the prayers (Didache, ix. 2 f.) at first over the cup, then over the bread, do not belong to the Eucharist in the narrower meaning, but to the introductory Agape (Forsch. iii. 293 ff.). There remains accordingly only the question whether a or fi was written by Luke. For fi there are decisive : (1) the age of its attestation, (2) that the origin of fi from a is just as easily understood as the origin of a from fi is inconceivable. No Christian of earlier or later times could take offence at the words in vv. 196 20 known THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 41 in part from Matt, and Mark and in part from 1 Cor. xi. On the other hand, everyone must take offence at the fact that the cup of Luke is not likened to the blood, and was not in any way characterised in its sacramental significance. Inasmuch as the Gospel of Luke in earlier times was held to be the Gospel of Paul (vol. ii. 385, n. 7), nothing was more natural than to add to his meagre text from 1 Cor. xi. Since, however, according to a very effective Canon of the text criticism of the early Church, anything that had been handed down in the tradition, and was suited to the taste of the Church, might not be relinquished (cf. Eusebius in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 255), the original account of the cup, in no way characterised as a sacrament, was transferred to a position before the account of the institution of the sacra ment, i.e. immediately following ver. 16, after it had been displaced by an interpolation from its original position. Along with the eating of the pass- over, ver. 15 f., stood now as seemingly suitable a drinking of the cup, which belonged just as little as the former to the sacrament, but as well as that constituted an act preparatory to the institution of the sacrament. (3) That a grew out of fi in such an artificial way, is betrayed also by the fact that to vnep vpav eKxvvvopcvov, ver. 20, does not in its content suit to irorr)piov nor in its wording ra aipan as apposition. Neither a solecism so bad, and in no way necessary, is to be credited to a Luke, nor the impossible thought that the cup which Jesus hands to the disciples was poured out or shed in their behalf. The genuineness of fi appears from all these facts to the present writer to be without doubt. The peculiarity of the account of Luke, which, to be sure, is noticeable, is due to the purpose of this Gospel, cf. § 60. The present writer must content himself with these examples out of the textual history of Luke's Gospel, and add only the assertion, that also in other important passages it must first be determined what is the original of the group of Western and Eastern witnesses, designated by ft before one can decide anything as to what is the original. The present writer is of the opinion that D has preserved also xxii. 43 f., xxiv. 51, which were written Luke ; on the other hand, the false additions, xxiii. 38, 53 ; omissions, xxiii. 34 ; false changes, xi. 53 f . § 60. PREFACE, PLAN", AND PURPOSE OF LUKE'S HISTORICAL WORK. Unlike Matthew and Mark, the third Gospel has no title given to it by the author, in which respect it resembles the Fourth Gospel and Acts. Nor is there evidence to show that Luke, whom we may assume to be the author, ever provided either of his two books with a common title, or each of them with individual titles, which were subsequently lost (n. 1 ). In fact, such a title was quite unnecessary, if Luke did not design his work for circulation among the reading public through the ordinary 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT channels, and if he did not intend it to be read in the services of the Church, as John did Kevelation, but wrote it primarily for the use of an individual. That this was the case is proved by the dedication prefixed to the work. In this Luke is the only one of the historical authors of the N.T. to follow a custom much in vogue among the Greek and Roman writers of that time. Although in classic usage the dedication frequently was only a polite expression of personal regard or of servile appeal, having no intimate connection with the contents and purpose of the writing, there are numerous cases where the address shows that the writer dedicated his work to a friend and patron because he had suggested its composition, or because, from his interest in the subject of the work or in the person of the author, the latter hoped to secure a wider circula tion of his work, or because such a person seemed to him appropriately to represent the class of readers whom he desired his book to reach (n. 2). In general, this characterises the dedication of Luke's work to Theophilus, as is clear from the specific statement of the author's purpose with which the dedication con cludes. The address, Kparia-re 0e6v diToaroXmv is not Luke's, but is, notwithstanding, of very ancient date, as is evidenced by the fact that it is the only title which we have in the tradition (n. 15). Moreover, it reproduces correctly the impression which every reader gets from Acts of the author's purpose. Beginning with Acts i. 1, it is his purpose to set forth the continuation, through the apostles and the apostolic Church, of the work and teaching begun by Jesus. From chap. xiii. onwards, however, Acts is simply a history of missionary work among the Gentiles under the leadership of Paul. The little which is said of the other apostles and of the mother Church is incidental, and is found only in connections where Paul and the missionary work among the Gentiles come into contact with Jerusalem (Acts xv. 21). Nothing is said of the missionary preaching of the earlier apostles and the brothers of Jesus (Acts xii. 17; Gal. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; 2 Pet. i. 16). It is unnecessary to prove that this silence on Luke's part is not due to lack of appreciation of those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning. Rather does Luke exhibit the character of a genuine historian when he gives a continuous treat ment of the history of missionary work among the Gentiles in chaps, xiii. -xxviii., proving that he did not feel it necessary, in view of the Kadegfj? of Luke i. 3, to write a chronicle or a journal of the nature of an historical calendar. But this one-sided development of a single thread of the narrative is incomprehensible unless it was Luke's- intention in a third book to go back and take up again the history of the original apostles. A third book is demanded also by the prologue. If 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Luke intended to set forth the history of Christianity to the point of development which it had reached up to his time (above, pp. 45, 53), this plan is by no means carried out, if the work is complete in the two books before us. Wise remarks have been made about the beautiful contrast between the message of the angels in the Temple in Jerusalem and in Mary's chamber in Nazareth (Luke i. 11, 28) and the unhindered preaching of the gospel in the capital of the world (xxviii. 31). But the gospel had been preached in Rome and a large Church organised there long before Paul's arrival. Furthermore, the meagre sketch in Acts xxviii. 30 f. is no fitting parallel to the exalted poetical narratives of Luke i. 5-56, and, what is even more to the point, the close of Acts does not conclude even the history of Paul or of the missionary work among the Gentiles, to say nothing of the history of Christianity. The author who wrote Luke xxiv. 47 and Acts i. 8, and the Luke who was with the imprisoned apostle when he wrote 2 Tim. iv. 7, 17, could not have regarded the Christian preaching as practically at an end before Paul so regarded it. Moreover, anyone giving such a repeated and full account as Luke gives of Jesus' prophecy concerning the judgment of Jerusalem (Luke xxi. 32; cf. xix. 41-44, xxi. 20-24, xxiii. 28-31) could not well, before the year 70, have thought of the history of Christianity as having reached its conclusion even temporarily. But if the events recorded in 2 Tim., the death of Peter and Paul, and the fall of Jerusalem, had already taken place (§ 62), the writer had abundant material for a third book. And that he actually intended to add a t/s/to? X070? when he began the second book, or at least when he revised it after it was completed, he himself indicates in Acts i. 1 ; since it is not conceivable that one who could write the finished sentences which we have in Luke i. 1-4 should have made the mistake of writing THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 61 rbv fiev trpSsrov for the more correct rbv p,ev Trporepov Xoyov in Acts i. 1, if he intended to say that the Gospel was the first of two books only and not one of a number of books (n. 16). For, in this passage, he is not following an older source in which there were Hebraisms, and the style of which was otherwise inferior, but is freely expressing his own thoughts at the beginning of a book. It is painful to reflect what we have lost, either because of Luke's failure to write this third book, or, what is less probable, because of its disappearance immediately after it was written. This opened the way for the petty fabricators of the second century, who were fond of treating the material which Luke had reserved for his third book. In all the apocryphal literature dealing with the history of the apostles which is preserved to us, we notice dependence upon Luke's second book and imitation of his style, but there is not a single page of it even remotely comparable to one of the chapters of our Acts (n. 17). Even before the particular material which Luke worked over, the sources which he employed, and the trustworthiness of his accounts, are investigated, it is possible to affirm that he kept in view throughout his work the purposes expressed and suggested in his dedi cation. He does not, like Matthew, write an apology on behalf of Christ and His Church in order to meet objections of a national character. Nor does he, like Mark, present, from a single point of view, narratives which have been impressed upon his memory by frequent hearing and repetition. His design is rather, as a Greek historian, to set forth the history of Christianity from its beginnings to the completion which it had reached in his own time, and he aims to do this in such a way that his exposition, based upon thorough investigation and pre senting the whole development of Christianity connectedly, shall impress, with a sense of the trustworthiness of the Christian traditions, a cultured Gentile who has heard 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT much about the facts which are current in the Christian Church and held to be the basis of its faith, who has become interested in this history, and whose relations to individual Christians, like the author, are friendly. One of the first things which impresses us when we compare Luke with the other Gospels is the effort to show how one thing develops out of another. If the Kepi mv Karr)xvdriv r)p,epoov which occurs earlier. What seems to be the account of a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem in ix. 51-xix. 46 is, therefore, to be regarded as only apparently such. It may be that the scattered notices of this journey in Luke, while not giving the order of events with entire correctness, are for the most part accurate (n. 19). But it was not the intention of the author to be understood as giving such a chronology. For, in the first place, there is no decernible relation among these scattered notices. There is nothing here which resembles a list of stations, as in the accounts of the journeys in Acts (xiii.- xxviii). No mention is made even of the journey through Perea (Matt. xix. 1 ; Mark x. 1). In the second place, in this section of the book there is the same lack of con nection between the single narratives which occurs earlier (e.g. xi. 1, 14, 29, xii. 13, 22, 54, xiii. 6, 10, xiv. 1, xv. 1, xvi. 1, xvii. 1, 20, xviii. 1, 9, 15, 18), so that the reader cannot tell when and where the separate events took place. If we know that what is narrated in Luke x. 38-42 took place in a village near Jerusalem, our information is not derived from Luke, and it would be a misunderstanding of his account to infer from it that this unnamed village (Bethany) was on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem, and farther removed from the city than the places indicated in xiii. 22, xvii. 11, xviii. 31, 35. In the third place, it is apparent that the first notice regarding the journey to THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 67 Jerusalem (ix. 51), which is given with a special solemnity, was not intended to mark an important transition in the narrative. There is a close connection with what precedes. This is, however, so throughout. While these scattered notices of movements from place to place have no con nection and are too few to enable us to form any clear conception of the journey to Jerusalem, there is every where evident a connection between the contents of the single narratives quite independent of the chronological relations. In the fourth place, even where places are clearly indicated, as in ix. 51, xiii. 22, xvii. 11, it is evident that this is done in order to make clear events immediately connected with them, and is not designed to furnish the outlines of a journey. The fact that in the history of the Passion and in most parts of Acts the chronological order is more apparent and more strictly adhered to, is due, in the first place, to the more exact knowledge which the writer had regarding these parts of the history from the tradition and his own recollection. In the second place, while it was quite possible to record single deeds, dis courses, and conversations which took place during Jesus' Galilean tours, without knowing the order in which they took place, this could not be done in the history of the Passion and Resurrection, or in an account of the extension of missionary work from Antioch to Rome. The narrative in Acts does not, however, resemble a chronicle. Acts ix. 1 refers back to viii. 3, and what is recorded in ix. 1-17 can have taken place before the events recorded in viii. 5-40. In xi. 19 the narrative is taken up where it had been left off in viii. 1-4, and what is recorded in xi. 22 may have occurred before chap. x. The episode of chap. xii. belongs before the point in the narrative where it is recorded, and apparently the same is true of xi. 27 (Part XI. ). Attention has already been called to the order of xviii. 23 and xix. 1 (above, p. 30, n. 8). If Luke designed his proposed third book to continue to its completion the history of the 68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT apostles (above, p. 53£), it would have been necessary for him to take up the narrative again at Acts xii. 17. Just such a fact as this, and Luke's carefulness about his chronological statements in the Gospel, show how conscious he was that his task was that of a historian. Another means which Luke uses to impress Theophilus with the trustworthiness of Christian historical tradition is the frequent connection of this history with the events of political history. No N.T. writer except Luke mentions a Roman emperor by name. He mentions Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (Luke ii. 1, iii. 1 ; Acts xi. 28, xviii. 2), and when he says that the famine prophesied in the Church in Antioch took place under Claudius (Acts xi. 28), he implies that the prophecy was made in the time of Caligula, Claudius' predecessor (Part XL). The decrees of Augustus (Luke ii. 1) and of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2) affect the history of Christianity. This is not something existing only in the realm of pious fancy. It connects itself chronologically with a definite year in the reign of Tiberius (Luke iii. 1). This impression of the thoroughly real character of Christianity is strengthened by the men tion of all the rulers throughout the region which was the scene of the gospel history (Luke iii. 1-2), and which after the fall of Jerusalem was ruled by Agrippa n. (Schiirer, i. 594 [Eng. trans. I. ii. 201]). The reader must have known that Quirinius was the governor of Syria (Luke ii. 2) and Gallio the governor of Achaia (Acts xviii. 12), since their governorships are mentioned in order to fix dates, which is not true in the case of Sergius Paulus (xiii. 7). In general it will be noticed that the number of proper names in Luke is much larger than in the other Gospels, and that these names include not only those of persons in political life and of actors in the narrative, but also of numerous persons whose position is entirely sub ordinate (n. 20). This reveals the investigator who has taken great pains to inform himself regarding the details THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 69 of the history he records, and also the story-teller who strove to bring his characters out of the shadows of uncertain tradition into the clear light of reality. The author's purpose fully to win over to Christianity a Gentile who was still outside the Church but favourably inclined to Christianity, shows itself in various ways. Such a purpose imposed upon the Christian historian a certain reserve. He could not use throughout the sonorous language of the Church, but was under the necessity of handling the material objectively, as it were, and retaining in his narrative a certain secular tone. Luke does, how ever, employ the language of the Church when frequently in his narrative he calls Jesus <5 Kvpio?, a usage not to be found in Matthew and Mark (n. 21). But this simply shows that Luke was not one of the eye-witnesses of the gospel history who was in daily intercourse with Jesus, but that through their preaching he became one of the members of the Church which accepted Jesus as its Lord. On the other hand, he represents persons in personal inter course with Jesus as addressing Him by His name, 'Ir/o-ov (above, p. 37 £), and in six instances he uses i-ma-rdra, which does not occur in the other Gospels, and which is not an ecclesiastical word (v. 5, viii. 24, 45, ix. 33, 49, xvii. 13). This replaces the Hebrew Rabbi, which Luke statedly avoids, and is used as the equivalent of BiBdo-KaXe, which occurs very frequently, and Kvpie, which is only sparingly used. Luke's very meagre account of the institution of the Lord's Supper, which early led to the introduction of whole sale interpolations in Luke xxii. 16-20 (above, p. 39£), is to be explained only by the assumption that the narra tive was intended for a non-Christian. The word spoken in connection with the distribution of the bread, " This is My body," could impress such a person only as a profound figure. The single word which, according to the genuine text of Luke, Jesus spoke as He distributed the cup, 70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT contained no reference to His blood, and consequently suggested no mystery. Heathen slanders associated with the Christian teaching concerning the Lord's Supper are very ancient. Pliny, in his report to Trajan, speaks as if such slanders were common, but not confirmed by his judicial inquiries. Although we cannot prove that these slanders were current as early as the time when Luke was written, it may be assumed that this was the case, or rather it may be inferred from Luke's account. But even if this were not so, it is entirely conceivable that Luke should hesitate to unveil this deepest mystery of Christian worship before the eyes of one who was uninitiated, and that he should hesitate to make a remark about eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus which might arouse the suspicion of one who was still outside the Church. In thus guarding the mystery Luke betrays his Greek character, and the fact that he is writing for Greeks. This shows itself also in very many other directions. Without in any way eliminating the Israelitish char acter of the beginnings of the history of Christianity (n. 22), Luke emphasises strongly from the very first the universal significance of Jesus. That Jesus was born in the city of David was brought about by a decree of the emperor, who, however, had no thought of this result, so that it was really due to the overruling providence of God (ii. 1). Angels proclaim the glory of God, who through His Anointed One is to establish peace over the whole earth among men of good- will (ii. 14). Simeon, wholly under the dominance of thoroughly Jewish ideas and forms, prophesies for the child a saving and enlightening in fluence upon all peoples (ii. 31 £). Only in Luke iii. 4-6 is the quotation of the prophecy of Isaiah, which is always associated with the Baptist, continued so as to include the verse in which the salvation announced by John is described as a salvation for all flesh (iii. 6, cf. John xvii. 2). The descent of the Son of David and Son of God is carried THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 71 back beyond Abraham to Adam and even to God Himself. The coming of Jesus marks not only the consummation of the history of Israel, but the consummation of the history of the race, and the divine sonship of men established in creation finds its consummation in the divine sonship of Jesus (iii. 23-38, cf. Acts xvii. 28, 31). The account in iv. 1-13, which is thus introduced, shows how Jesus as the second Adam overcame the temptation by which the first Adam fell. With manifest fondness he writes of the Gentile whose faith was great (vii. 2-10), and of the merciful and grateful Samaritans (x. 33, xvii. 16). Pilate is presented in a light which is in no way more favourable than that in which he is portrayed in the other Gospels (cf. xiii. 1, xxiii. 25 ; Acts ii. 23, iv. 27), but the thrice repeated witness of this Gentile to Jesus' innocence is much more strongly emphasised than in Matthew and Mark (xxiii. 4, 14, 15, 22; Acts iii. 13). Besides this we have the testimony of the Gentile centurion in xxiii. 47, which seems to be told here in a form more historically probable than in Matt, xxvii. 54 ; Mark xv. 39. In Acts viii. 5-xi. 18, Luke describes at length how the natural hesitation of the older apostles to turn to the Samaritans and then to the Gentiles was overcome by the providence of God, and in Acts xv. he shows how the freedom of the Gentile Christians from the law was championed by the Gentile missionaries and acknowledged by the original apostles and the mother Church. Jesus' command to preach the gospel to all peoples upon earth (Luke xxi v. 47 ; Acts i. 8, ix. 15, cf. ii. 39, iii. 25) is not here obscured by words which are open to misinterpretation and harsh in tone, as we find in Matt. x. 5, xv. 21-28 ; Mark vii. 24-30. Frequently practical piety, honesty, and chari tableness are declared to be preparations for greater bless ing among the Gentiles (Luke vii. 2-5 ; Acts x. 2-4, 35, xiii. 7) as well as among the Jews (Luke i. 6, ii. 25, 36 £, xix. 8, xxiii. 50, cf. Acts xvii. 11), and the humane dis- 72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT position even of those who have no close relation to the gospel is recognised (Acts xix. 31, xxvii. 3, 43, xxviii. 2, 7). Sometimes also the official integrity of individuals is simply related without special attention being called to it (Acts xviii. 12-17, xix. 35-41, xxv. 1-26, 32, as dis tinguished from xxiv. 24-27). On the other hand, Luke, in much stronger colours than any other evangelist, depicts Jesus as the friend and Saviour of those most deeply sunk in sin and farthest astray, and represents penitent humility as the way of salvation (Luke v. 8, 29-32, vii. 29, 34, 37-50, xv. 1-33, xviii. 9-14, xix. 7-10, xxiii. 39-43). A Greek who read the parables in chap. xv. would necessarily apply them to men like himself rather than to the Jews. While such a reader might be astonished, he would nevertheless be impressed by the fact that the great ascetic and mighty prophet John preached an almost trivial morality (iii. 10-14), and that Jesus, who was free from any gloomy asceticism (v. 33-39, vii. 34, xiii. 26), manifested, deep sympathy with all human sufferings even when the sufferer was guilty (vii. 13, xiii. 15 £, xix. 41-44, xxiii. 28, cf. ver. 34), avoided all narrow and violent fanaticism (ix. 49 £, 54 £, xxii. 50£), and always in word and deed preached a brotherly love which transcended the cere monial scruples of Judaism and went beyond the national bounds (vi. 6-11, 27-36, x. 25-37, xi. 41-46, xiii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6, xvii. 11-19, xix. 7-10). There are also instances where Jesus enjoins good manners and refinement in social intercourse (vii. 44-46, x. 5-11, xiv. 7-10, 12-14, xx. 46£, cf. xii. 37, but also xvii. 7-10). The choice and arrange ment of material suggests a writer of kindred spirit with the man who wrote Phil. iv. 8 (n. 23). No single moral obligation is so richly and variously illustrated as that indicated by the words poverty and wealth. In addition to the account of the rich young man, the story of the widow with the mites, and several THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 73 sayings about benevolence which are to be found also in Matthew and Mark (Luke vi. 30-36, xii. 33, xviii. 18-30, xxi. 1-4), the instances recorded in vi. 24, xi. 41, xii. 13-21, xiv. 12-14, 16-24 (as regards this point not to be compared with Matt. xxii. 2-10), xvi. 1-31, xix. 2-10, are found only in Luke. Only in Luke xvi. 9, 1 1 is the Aramaic word mamona, which was current in Antioch (vol. i. 18), modified by the adjective unrighteous, and in xix. 8 an example is given to show by how great un righteousness many riches are accumulated. Jesus refuses to have anything to do with the legal side of questions about property (xii. 13-15), in order that He may lay greater weight upon the moral use of earthly possessions, especially when these are great. Luke has portrayed for all time in a striking and incomparable manner that con fidence in riches devoted solely to one's own service which is so foolish because of the uncertainty of human life (xii. 16-21) ; the complete absorption of the rich in luxurious living with their accompanying heartlessness towards the poor and sorely afflicted brother at their door (xvi. 19-31); the power of riches even over men of noble spirit and men who strive after eternal things (xviii. 18-30); a magic influence which can be broken only by the power of God. " Woe to the rich," he says, who find their satisfaction in this life, who give themselves up to the quiet enjoyment of life's comfort, and who are always sure of being treated with deference on every side (vi. 24-26). But through God's power it is possible even for these (xviii. 27, cf. iii. 8) not only to realise the fact that man's life does not consist in riches (xii. 15), and that possessions are only an un important good, bestowed for a short time and not really belonging to the possessor (xvi. 9-12), but also to be freed from the bondage of mammon (xvi. 13). The use of money for the benefit of one's neighbour is proof that a man possesses the state of mind which leads into the kingdom of God (xviii. 22, xvi. 9) ; it sanctifies also his 74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT earthly life (xi. 41). This generosity is not one of the works of which the Pharisees boast (xviii. 12, cf. xi. 42, xvi. 14, xx. 47), but is found in the wealthy tax-gatherer (xix. 8) and the poverty-stricken widow (xxi. 1-4). Love to Jesus is manifested in the same way (viii. 3, cf. xxiii. 50-53). This very spirit was exercised on a large scale by the early Church (Acts ii. 44 £, iv. 32-37, vi. 1-6, ix. 36-39). It was also a bond of union between the Gentile Church and the mother Church (xi. 28-30, xii. 25, xxiv. 17). It is commended in the case of the Gentile Cornelius (x. 2-4, 31, 35, cf. Luke vii. 5). The love of money, of which a fearful example was not wanting in the early Church (Acts v. 1-11), had no influence on the first preachers of the gospel (viii. 20, xx. 31-34). Possessing no money, they were yet rich in God (Acts iii. 6, cf. Luke xii. 21), and observed the word of their Master, " To give is more blessed than to receive" (Acts xx. 25). Instead of scenting in this social morality which pervades both the books of Paul's disciple, Luke, a residuum of Ebonism (n. 24), it is more natural to assume that here also Luke has in mind the fact that his work is intended for Theo philus, a Gentile of high position, and also, according to trustworthy tradition the owner of a large house in Antioch (above, p. 5, n. 5), before the gate of which it is very possible that a Lazarus may sometimes have lingered. It was also important in writing to men, of whom Luke chose Theophilus as a type, to point out that Christ and Christianity stood in no hostile relation to the State. In striking contrast to Jesus' recognition of the obligation to pay taxes (xx. 20-26), stand the false accusations of the Sanhedrin that Jesus refused to pay tribute and was re bellious against the authority of the State (xxiii. 2, 5, 14), which are related by no other evangelist with so much fulness as by Luke, to which also he alone refers at an earlier point in the narrative (xx. 20). But the falsity of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 75 these particular charges is proved by the thrice repeated acknowledgment of His innocence by Pilate, an acknow ledgment which is based upon the testimony of king Herod (xxiii. 4, 14-15, 22). It was only the weakness of this Roman official's character, whose attitude was sometimes that of violence against the Jews (xiii. 1 ) and sometimes that of false compliance with their will, which led him to give over to their fanaticism the Jesus who, by his own confession as well as by the confession of other Gentiles (xxiii. 47), was righteous, while he released a robber and murderer in His place (xxiii. 25). But even among the "transgressors with whom He was reckoned" (xxii. 37), — the criminals between whom He was crucified, — there was one to confess that Jesus was innocent of all offence against the civil law and to acknowledge His future kingship (xxiii. 39-43). Personal interests led the rulers of the Jews (Acts iv. 1-7, 13, v. 28) first to reprimand the apostles, then to imprison and scourge them. The first martyr's blood was shed through the testimony of a false witness and by a tumultuous pro ceeding which violated (John xviii. 31) existing laws (see Acts vi. 11-14, vii. 54-60). In order to win the favour of the Jews by posing as a protector of their religion, the bigoted Agrippa 1., who shortly thereafter lost his life in an attempt to deify himself in heathen fashion, murdered James the son of Zebedee, while Peter escaped his hand only by a miracle (chap. xii.). On several occasions Paul was accused and unjustly treated on the ground that he taught doctrines hostile to the Roman government (xvi. 21-23, 35-39, xvii. 7-9, xviii. 13). Likewise his opposi tion to heathen idolatry (xix. 26 ff.) and his alleged hostility to Judaism and Jewish ceremonials (xxi. 28, xxiv. 1-9) often involved him in danger, and finally led to a long imprisonment. Repeatedly he saved himself from worse treatment by appeal to his Roman citizenship, and compelled the officials to apologise for their encroach- 76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ments upon the law (xvi. 37, 38), or to seek escape from the consequences of their action by perverting their official reports (xxii. 24-29, xxiii. 25-30). It was the unworthy dependence upon his Jewish wife and the Jewish people of the procurator Felix, who was as base as he was low born, and to whose infamous immorality and unrighteousness Luke calls attention (xxiv. 25 ; cf. Schlirer, i. 571 £ [Eng. trans. I. ii. 174]), which led him unjustly to prolong Paul's case (xxiv. 24-26). On the other hand, where Paul had to do with honourable officials, who were of more dis tinguished birth and more noble culture, such as Gallio (xviii. 12-17) and Porcius Festus (xxv. 11-xxvi. 32), he was treated with impartiality and was protected against the fanaticism of the Jews. Several Asiarchs in Ephesus, representatives of the emperor cult, even showed him favour (xix. 31). While king Agrippa il, in pure irony, declares himself inclined to accept Christianity (xxvi. 28), the "intelligent" proconsul of Cyprus, who bore the same name as the apostle, really received a deep impression of the truth, although we cannot say how lasting this im pression was (xiii. 7-12). After all the cheering experiences, all the divine inter positions and deliverances of the second book, the reader would expect nothing else than to find in a third book the account of new victories for the good cause of the gospel in Rome and in the Roman empire. There is to be no escape from persecution (xiv. 22). As regards this point the prophecy at the beginning (Luke ii. 34) corresponds literally to the historical statement at the close (Acts xxviii. 22). Opposition is not to be confined to words. The blood of martyrs will also be shed, as it has been from the beginning, but the true minister of the word does not allow this to hinder his course or to dishearten him (xx. 24, xxi. 13), but with every new station reached he gains new courage (xxviii. 15). It has often been re marked that Acts is pervaded by a joyful spirit ; but this THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 77 is just as true of the Gospel (n. 25). This work also was suited to make a favourable impression upon an educated Greek whose keen interest in the gospel has been already awakened. Although enough has been said to prove the symmetry of the plan and the unity of the entire work, as regards the latter point we have independent evidence from the agreement as to the manner in which the material is handled in Luke and in Acts. If Luke iii. 2 gives the impression that in Pilate's procuratorship Annas shared the high-priesthood with Caiaphas, and was the more influential of the two, the same is true of Acts iv. 6. The diroypaQr} of Luke ii. 1-3 is referred to again in Acts v. 37 by the same name. The identity of the two is not affected by the fact that in the latter passage the taxing is described as the one famous taxing, and hence as the only one of its kind, whereas in Luke ii. 2 it is spoken of as if it were a first taxing ; for the expression in Luke does not necessarily mean more than that such a taxing had never before taken place in Palestine. There was no occasion in Luke ii. 2 to mention the insurrection headed by Judas. But Luke shows that he was familiar with the then exist ing party of the Zealots, not only in Acts i. 13 but also in Luke vi. 15, and he is the only one of the gospel writers to designate them by their Greek name which is found in both books (n. 26). The story of how the tetrarch Herod took part in Jesus' trial, and especially of how he and Pilate were made friends through their common relation to Jesus, found only in Luke xxiii. 6-12, 15, prepares the way for Acts iv. 27, a passage which would be quite unintelligible without this preceding narrative. Other references in Acts to the gospel history agree entirely with the accounts in the Gospel (Acts iii. 13 £ =Luke xxiii. 16; Acts x. 41 = Luke xxiv. 4l£). Although Luke does not in any way represent the work of Jesus as confined to Galilee (above, p. 64 and § 63), yet in both book she 78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT emphasises the fact that the whole gospel movement had its beginning in Galilee, spreading thence over the whole of Judea, i.e. Palestine (Luke xxiii. 5 ; Acts x. 37 ; cf. Luke iv. 14, xxii. 59, xxiii. 49 ; Acts i. 11, ii. 7, xiii. 31). In the two lists of the apostles (Luke vi. 14-16 ; Acts i. 13) the names are not given in exactly the same order, but both agree, as against Matthew and Mark, in men tioning a 'IovSa? 'IaKcoBov (Judas [the son] of James), who does not appear at all in Matthew or Mark under this name (but cf. John xiv. 22). They also agree in placing this name after that of Simon, whom Luke alone calls a Zealot, using the Greek name of the party in both passages. Luke is the only evangelist who says explicitly that Jesus called the Twelve, apostles (vi. 13), but it is also Luke who teaches in various ways that Jesus did not intend the preaching of the gospel to be confined to those especially called to be preachers. As at the beginning we find the angels (i. 19, ii. 10) and the Baptist (iii. 18) preachers of the gospel, so the apostles are told not to forbid anyone to preach who is working in Jesus' name, even though he is not of their own number (ix. 49£). Jesus Himself commands others also to proclaim the king dom of God (ix. 60), and sends before Him into all cities and places as heralds of His preaching " other seventy," who afterwards return rejoicing because of the success of their work (x. 1-20 ; n. 27). This may partially explain the fact that in Luke i. 2, where another would have used simply oi diroo-roXot, even at the risk of inaccuracy, Luke chooses an expression which includes persons not apostles, and calls to mind those who did not become ministers of the word until well on in the course of the history which he is setting forth. All this is preparatory to the account of how, in fact, men who did not belong to the apostolic circle, and who had received no special commission to preach, opened the way for missionary work, becoming the forerunners of the apostles just as the Seventy were THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 79 of the Lord (Acts viii. 5-40, xi. 19-21, cf. vi. 5, xxi. 8). It is also preparatory to the account of the rise of a new apostolate coexistent with that of the Twelve, whose number was kept intact (Acts i. 15-26), by which the gospel was rapidly carried beyond the limits within which the Twelve were confined by their immediate calling (Acts ix. 3-30, xiii. 2f£, xiv. 4, 14). Luke's work shows great variety in regard to language and style ; but these are not differences as between the two books, of which the work consists, but are to be observed just as much in the Gospel as in Acts. Since these differences are probably to be explained, partly from the character of the language in the sources used, partly from the different character of the subjects treated, they may be appropriately discussed in connection with the investigations which follow (§§ 61, 62). It hardly needs to be proved in detail that, notwithstanding the differ ences of style which exist between separate parts of the work, there is a large number of peculiar words and phrases to be found throughout both books, so that from the point of view of the language also the unity of the work is demonstrated (n. 28). Against all the discussions of the purpose of Acts, which take into consideration only the second book of Luke's work, — assuming that a somewhat external con nection exists between it and the first book, — stand first of all the prologue, when this is correctly interpreted, and likewise many of the considerations, some of them old, others new, which have been adduced above. In parti cular, there is no longer any necessity of disproving in detail the hypothesis of the school of Baur, by which it is assumed that the writer of Acts set out with the inten tion of harmonising the unreconciled and irreconcilable differences in the apostolic Church, by perverting facts in his narrative and intentionally adding fictitious elements (n. 29). One could wish, however, that those who admit 80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT that this hypothesis cannot be accepted in its entirety would purge out the remnants of the old leaven that remain. Whatever details in the premises of this inter pretation may require refutation will be discussed in §§ 62, 63. On the other hand, points in which the hypothesis is correct are explained by the purpose which the author actually claimed to have had in view through out the entire work. A polemical writing produced in the midst of a heated contest and under great stress like Galatians, naturally employs language different from that used in an historical work designed to set forth the same facts perhaps twenty years later. If Luke had introduced into his account of the great struggle for the independence of the Gentile Church, and for its freedom from the law, the excited moods of those who actually participated in the struggle, he would simply have betrayed his unfitness to be an historian of Christianity. In a work intended for a man like Theophilus, who was still outside the Church, this would have been particularly unwise, and calculated to defeat the very end for which the work was intended. There are occasions when Luke does not con ceal the fact that good Christians could differ with Paul (Acts xv. 37-39), and reserves his own judgment as to who was the more to blame. But with regard to the burning question of the age, Luke reports more clearly than is done in any of the Pauline letters, how the oppo nents of the apostle, whose Pharasaic origin Luke alone records (Acts xv. 5), were severely and clearly rebuked by all the authorities of the Church (Acts xv. 10, 19, 24). Luke understands better than does the Roman who de clared this to be his purpose (Tacitus, Ann. i. 1), the meaning of tradere sine ira et studio. 1. (P. 41.) Zeller (Die AG nach Inhalt und Ursprung krit. unters., 1854, S. 460, 516) declares it to be practically beyond question that "the greeting" of this entire work, which consists of two parts, contained " the name of the author,1' i.e. of the alleged author, " Luke." But he says nothing further of the form and contents of this title. Blass (Acta ap., ed. maj., 1895, p. 2) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 81 proposes as the title of Acts, AoukS 'Avnoxeas irpbs 0e6\pi\ov Xoyor fi', and for the Gospel a similar title only with Xdyos a'. But is it conceivable that Luke should have given a work dealing with so great a subject such a meaningless title as this, which deserved to be lost? On the other hand, if he actually chose a better one, why has it not been preserved, like the titles of Matt., Mark, and Rev. ? In antiquity the title was not such an essential and unalterable part of a book as in later times, especially since the invention of printing. The fact that the titulus or index was attached to the outside of the closed roll (Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen, S. 66) rendered its fate all the more precarious. Our ignorance as to what title Josephus gave or meant to give his Bellum jud. is not due to the loss of the original title. Josephus himself quotes the work under different titles in Ant. i. 11. 4, xiii. 3. 3, 5. 9, 10. 6 ; Vita, 74, as do also the ancient writers and the MSS. of Josephus' work (cf. Niese, ed. maj. vi. prsef. § 1 and p. 3). We are familiar with the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome concerning the title of the Vir. III., which was still unsettled ten or twelve years after the appearance of the work (Jerome, Ep. lxvii. 2, cxii. 3 ; Vail. i. 403, 738). Least of all was a formal title necessary in the case of a writing which was designed and given out by the author as a private document, with no expecta tion that it would have wider circulation. The writing of another Antiochian, which in this respect was similar to Luke's work, was given in the tradition the meaningless title Oeoi (Philem. 20), yvr)o-u o-i£vye (Phil. iv. 3) 'Ovrio-lpq t& dbe\(pa (Melito in Eus. H. E. iv. 26. 13), ayairr,Tc (Iren. i. prsef. § 2, and in the prefaces of all the books that follow), dyairrjTe pov dbe\v \6yav irepl av KarrixriBrjs, nor for under standing the verb otherwise than to mean a report, rumour, which one has heard ; cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cai. xxx. The word in itself does not mean formal instruction, but the hearing or telling of something which the hearer has not previously known (cf . Jos. Vita, 65). Thus in Acts xviii. 25 the word does not, as in Gal. vi. 6 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 19 (cf. Rom. ii. 18), mean catechetical in struction, since, at that time, Apollos had not received the baptism of the Church, nor had he as yet come into any contact with the organised Church, but indicates only the fact that he had become acquainted with Christianity in a general way. On the other hand, his introduction by Aquila into the knowledge of Christianity as held by the Church, is called an aKpifiearcpov iKTiBeo-Bai, Acts xviii. 26. The relation which the communication of Luke to Theophilus bore to the latter's previous knowledge is the same. The latter use of the word to mean the instruction which had conversion in view, and was preparatory to baptism, which is found in 2 Clem. xvii. 1 ; Ada Theclm, xxxix., may have been suggested by passages like Luke i. 4 ; Acts xviii. 25. Eus. Eclogce Proph. (ed. Gaisford, p. 3) construes Luke i. 4 in this sense, which is as yet foreign to the N.T. 5. (P. 44.) Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 1874, p. 165) felt the state ment of Luke's reasons for writing in Luke i. 1 to be so awkward that he made this the main reason for his hypothesis, that Luke is here imitating the preface of the physician Dioscorides (circa, 40 to 70 a.d.) to his work ircpl vkrts larpiKrjs, in which he attempts to show that, notwithstanding the numerous writers, ancient and modern, on the same subject, his own work is not superfluous, because the work of the former was not complete, while the latter drew largely from mere hearsay, not from their own experience (ed. Sprengel, i. 1 f.). It is, of course, possible that Luke had read this work by a contemporary and a member of the same profession. But the resemblance between the two dedications is slight. Words like airoyfria, aKptfirjs, and their derivatives are not so distinctive in character as to prove familiarity on Luke's part with Dioscorides in particular. It is, however, true that, throughout his entire work, Luke's language does show the most striking resemblance to that of the medical writers from Hippocrates to Galen, as has been conclusively shown by Hobart (see n. 28 and § 62, n. 5). This is noticeably true in the prologue. Hippocrates and Galen use, like Luke, the thoroughly medical word iirixeipctv (found in the N.T. only in Luke i. 1 ; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13) with ypdopeiv, Luke viii. 14; Tpoiroqbopeiv, Acts xiii. 18 ; evqbopeiv, Luke xii. 16 (used only by Luke) ; Kapirofopeiv, Luke viii. 15. Used in this connection, rr\ripoS>v virurxvovpcuov airbv iirlo-rao~8ai ravra irporepou aKpifias, r) iraptjKoXov- BrjKara rois yeyovdaiv r) irapa rav clborav irvvBavopevov ; cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 25. 2 ; Dioskor. Mat. Med. in the prefaces to books ii. iii. iv. ; in Book v. he uses instead aVoStSoVat. Hence 7r apa8i8d«ai (Acts vi. 14) as well as bibovai (John i. 17, vii. 19) can be used of the giving of the law by Moses, who is regarded as the author of the written Law (Luke xx. 28 ; John v. 45-47 ; Rom. x. 5). To what has been said above (p. 48) in the light of the context of the prologue the following remarks may be added : (1) In Jewish usage there is a contrast between the written law and 7rapa8i8dvai, irapdboo-is, teach ings and regulations transmitted orally (Matt. xv. 2, 3, 6 ; Mark vii. 3-13 ; Gal. i. 14; Col. ii. 8, 22). Such tradition is "heard" (Matt. v. 21; John xii. 34). (2) Moreover, where the word is used of apostolic teaching and advice, this is always oral (1 Cor. xi. 2, 23, xv. 3 ; Rom. vi. 17 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; vol. ii. 372 f., 384), where it is not expressly added that this is given in written form (2 Thess. ii. 15). (3) Quite apart from the dogmatic contrast between Holy Scripture and the less thoroughly authenticated tradition, the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 85 idea suggested by napabibovai is always so entirely that of an oral com munication, that Clement, e.g. in Eclog. Proph. 27, could write : ov< iypaqbov be ot irpeo-fivrcpoi pfrre dirairxoXeiv fiov\6pevoi ti)v bibao-KaXiKriv rrjs irapabdaeas (ppovriba rfj irepl to ypdqyuv aXXij (ppovrtbi, pribe prjv ktX. 9. (P. 50.) The mistaken interpretation of iraprjKo\ov8i]KOTi iraaiv by early writers (above, p. 6 f.), which made Luke a disciple in companionship with all the apostles, requires no refutation. Equally impossible is the inter pretation which makes Luke an active witness of all the events which he is about to set forth, although this is linguistically possible, when irpdypaai is supplied with the correct addition (cf. Jos. c. Apion, ii. 10, see n. 8 ; or what Philo, de Decal. xviii., says about the false witness, that he speaks £>s irapriKo\ov8T)Kas airao-iv). This would make Luke an eye-witness from the beginning, which he emphatically declares not to have been the case. Further, irapaKoXovBeiv means to pursue and follow with the critical and apprehending intelligence (Epict. Diss. i. 5. 5, vi. 12, 18, ix. 4, xxvi. 13 and 14), also with the purpose of historical investigation and exposition (Polyb. i. 13. 7, iii. 32. 2). This is the only meaning which suits aKpifias. By perd irdoijy aKpifielas tois rjpeTcpois ypdppao-i irapaKoXovBeiv, Josephus, c. Apion, i. 23, means an intelligent study of the O.T. Scriptures. If, when Luke expressed his purpose with reference to Theophilus, his plan had included the in vestigations as well as the statement of the results, he would have written irapaKo\ov6r]&avTt or -aavra ; cf. Acts XV. 25. 10. (Pp. 53, 54, 58.) Of the Fathers, Augustine in particular (Cons. Evv. iv. 8. 9) claims that the prologue has reference to both of Luke's books. Among the arguments urged against this position the most incomprehensible is that Acts would not then begin with another address to Theophilus, which was necessary in order to co-ordinate the beginnings of the two books. This is practically the position of Overbeck, Introduction to the revision of de Wette's Komm. zur AG, p. xxi A. (1) Acts i. 1 does not contain a second prologue, much less an independent prologue, but simply a reference to the first part of the author's work, which serves to connect the second book with the first. (2) It is indeed the rule at the beginning of the successive books of a large work to insert a short reference to the dedication of the first book, or a new prologue, without the prologue of the first book thereby ceasing to be the introduction to the entire work. Examples from the years between 60 and 200 are Dioscorides, Materia Medica, libri i.-v. ; Jos. c. Apion, i. and ii. ; Artemidor. Interpretation of Drea/ms ['OveipoKpiTiKa], i.— iii., dedicated to a different person than are iv.-v. ; Iren. i.-v. Very frequently an address is also found at the conclusion of separate books or of the entire work, Diosc. v. p. 828 ; Jos. c. Apion, ii. 41 ; Artemid. i. 82, iii. 66, iv. 84; Iren. i. 31. 3, iv. 14. 4 ; cf. also the present writer's " Studien zu Justin," ZfKG, viii. 45 f. (3) Luke does not say, Luke i. 1, that he has set forth the gospel history, iv irepa (fiifi\iv diroa-ToXav see above, p. 3, n. 1. Even in the Coptic and Syriac versions the Greek word is adopted into the text, although in the latter version a Syriac equivalent is also used (GK, i. 377 f. ; for other variants, ii. 52, A. 2). The use of irpdgis in a legal sense as a translation of Actio = " suit, proceedings of a court, synod," etc., is out of the question, also the use of actum, acta, which when used by the Greeks is left untranslated (Just. Apol. i. 35, 48 ; Acta Theclm, xxxviii.). It can mean only historical facts as in Polybius (cf. Raphelii Annot. in N.T., ed. Hemsterhuis, 1747, ii. 2). The present writer is not familiar with any other ancient historical work in the title of which the word is used. The titles of the apocryphal rrpdi-eis IlailXov, Xierpov ktX. are imitations of the canonical Acts (see n. 17). On the other hand, one is easily reminded of the late Hebrew nvyo (Mishnah, Meg. iv. 8 ; Chag. ii. 1 ; also in the title of the 88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Aramaic Book of Tobit, ed. Neubauer, 1876, pp. 3, 17). Dependence upon this usage would argue for the very early date of the title of Acts. 16. (P. 61.) Josephus writes at the beginning of the second and last book contra Apion, Sta pcv ovv tov irporepov fiifiXlov ktX. Philo says in Quod omn. probus, liber i., speaking of a companion work now lost, 6 pcv nporepos Xdyos tjv ijplv, a QeoboTc, irepl tov ktX. Also Vita Mos. ii. 1, which is correct, since as yet a third book was not in view. This is supplementary (iii. 1, rpirov be wpoo-airoSoreov). The genuine Euthalius (Zacagni, 410) writes in the same way of Luke : bio filfiXovs o-vveypd^raTO, piav pev Kal irporepav rqv tov eiayyeXtov, bevrepav be toutitv kt\. So Origen regularly in quotations from 1 Cor., 1 Tim., etc., in Matt. torn. xiv. 22, xv. 27, xvii. 29. The careless use of irparos for itporepos is not once to be found in Luke's writings, where he could have been dependent on his sources. Acts xii. 10 " a first watch and a second watch " is not a case in point, nor is the adverbial irpasrov in Luke xiv. 28, 31. Bunsen's Anal. Antenic. i. 130 f., calls attention to the use of irparov, Acts i. 1, as distinguished from irporepov. 17. (P. 61.) The not ungif ted author of the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter, whom we now know to have been a member of one branch of the Valentinian School, introduces himself in the former work by a "we," as Luke does in Acts, making himself a witness of the history of John which he fabricates. He also uses occasionally an "I," and once at least the name Leucius Charinus ; cf . the present writer's Acta Jo. lxviii., lxx., xcvii. ; GK, ii. 860. In his Acts of Peter the same author clearly imitates and borrows from Acts (GK, ii. 854 f.). It is not likely that the author meant to identify him self with the Lucius in Acts xiii. 1, still less with Luke. Equally im probable is the conjecture of James (Apocr. Anecd. ii. p. xi), that the author of the Muratorian fragment regarded the stories of Leucius as a work of Luke, implying by the use of semote, line 37, that this work was a non-canonical, unpublished writing by the author of the canonical Acts. The Catholic author of the Acts of Paul, and, as we now know, of the Acts of Thecke, which are a part of it, has followed Acts even more closely than has Leucius. The much later biographer of the Apostle John, Prochorus, took his name from Acts vi. 5, and derived much of his material from this source (Acta Jo. liv.). 18. (P. 64.) In Luke iv. 44 the reading ttjs 'lovbalas is very strongly attested both as to age and currency by XBCLQ (fifth century) R (sixth century), Ss Ss, copt. and a large number of cursives, so that it is not to be compared with the Ttjs 'lovbalas in i. 26, for which there is only one witness (X*). Furthermore, the entire context after iv. 14 suggests no objection to raXtXatar, whereas 'IouSatar would necessarily have raised questions. More over, the variants rSv 'lovbaiav (cf. vii. 3), tois 'louSaiW (the Jewish popula tion of Galilee in contrast to numerous persons in this country who were not Jews) and airav (according to iv. 15), which have only a single MS. in their support, prove that there stood here originally a reading which created difficulty, namely, t?js 'lovbalas. Unfortunately Marcion's text has not come down to us (GK, ii. 478). But, according to a statement of an anonymous Syrian writer, Marcion made his Christ appear first between Jerusalem and Jericho (Mus. Brit. Add. 17215, fol. 30 ; cf. Academy, 1893, October 21) ; and although it has not yet been possible to bring this statement into agreement with that of Tertullian (ThLb, 1896, col. 19), it argues in favour of the THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 89 assumption that Marcion, who constructed the beginning of his Gospel in the most arbitrary fashion out of Luke iii. 1, iv. 31-35 (or 39 ?), iv. 16-43 (or 44 ?), found 'IouSat'as in this passage. If Luke wrote the word, he certainly did not employ it in the narrower sense, implying complete exclusion of Galilee (v. 17, xxiv. 8), but in the broader sense according to which it includes Galilee, as in i. 5, vi. 17, xxiii. 5 ; Acts x. 37 (cf. vol. i. 186). This is in keeping with the context ; for after the mention of Galilee in general (iv. 14) and of Nazareth (iv. 16-30), and of the "Galilean city, Capernaum" (iv. 31-42), in particular, rais erepais rroXccriv (iv. 43), without any modifying words, means all the other cities in Jesus' sphere of labour, exclusive of those already mentioned. Among these not the least important was Jerusalem (ii. 38, xiii. 33 f.), but all the other Jewish cities of the Holy Land are included (cf. Matt. x. 23). It is, therefore, possible that in v. 12 a city in South Palestine is meant, as Tatian assumed, — possibly influenced by the original text of Luke iv. 44 (Forsch. i. 251 f. ; GK, ii. 545), just as in x. 38 a village near Jerusalem is meant, although it is not expressly said that this is the location. 19. (P. 66.) In ix. 18-x. 42 we seem to have a series of events closely connected in time and place. The temporal connection is directly indicated in ix. 28, 37, x. 1, 21, also to some extent in x. 17, and possible in x. 25 by Kal Iboi. The way is prepared for the journey to Jerusalem, ix. 51, by ix. 22, 31. Evidently in ix. 57 the same itopeieo~6ai is referred to as in ix. 56. This seems also to be the case in x. 1, 38. If it could be assumed that Luke knew Csesarea Philippi to be the scene of what is narrated in ix. 18-27 (Mark viii. 27-38), and that he knew the location of the village referred to in x. 38 (John xi. 1, 18), and its name, Bethany, we would have here a journey from the extreme northern part of Palestine to Jerusalem, and it would be natural to assume that the material of the parable in x. 30 ff. was suggested by Jesus' journey through Jericho to Bethany and Jerusalem. But Luke does not make such combinations. He mentions neither Csesarea nor Bethany ; he would not have mentioned the fact that the city in ix. 52 was Samaritan if it were not necessary for understanding what took place. This is true also of the statement that Jerusalem was the goal of His journey, as is shown by a com parison of ix. 51 with ix. 53. There must have been an interval of a con siderable number of days between x. 1-16 and x. 17, and nothing is said of Jesus' progress. The dvean\, x. 25, seems to presuppose that Jesus was surrounded by a crowd of seated listeners (Mark iii. 34), although immediately before Jesus is represented as being alone with His disciples (Luke x. 23). Throughout the book there is no external connection between events. On the other hand, the logical connection is very clear — particularly between ix. 49 f . and ix. 54-56. Everything from ix. 22 onward is designed to show how the disciples — even those of them who were most trusted — needed to be brought, contrary to their natural inclinations, to the state of mind necessary for witnessing the sufferings and death of their Master. The conclusion of this train of thought is reached at x. 24, and at this point we have the beginning of a new series of events which likewise are related logically, not locally or in respect of time. If in x. 38 we are in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the supposed account of the journey to Jerusalem can go no farther. In xiii. 1, Jesus is certainly not in Jerusalem, and it is not until 90 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xiii. 22-35 that we find Him on His way hither, and then He seems to be at a considerable distance away, in the domain of Herod Antipas (xiii. 31-33), i.e. either in Galilee or Perea. An examination of xiii. 33-35 shows that Jerusalem is mentioned in xiii. 22, not in order to begin or to continue the account of a journey, but in order to make intelligible a word of Jesus' spoken at this particular time (xiii. 31). In xiv. 1-xvii. 10 the references to time and place are vague, as is also the reference to a journey in xiv. 25. Again, in xvii. 11 the place is mentioned only in order to make clear the passage xvii. 12-19. It is not until xviii. 31, 35, xix. 1, 11, 28, 41, 45 that we have a continuous development of the course of events. Nevertheless, it is possible that we have here scattered statements concerning a journey to Jerusalem, or, as we may say in view of ix. 51, the last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, Since quarters were refused Jesus in a Samaritan city (ix. 52), we may infer that the village in ix. 56 was Jewish, and assume that Jesus gave up his intention to go to Jerusalem through Samaria, taking instead the route through Perea (Mark x. 1 ; Matt. xix. 1 ; vol. ii. 589, n. 4). With this xvii. 11 may be connected. That the reference in this passage is not to a journey through the midst of Samaria and Galilee is self-evident, because, in this case, it would necessarily be a journey from Judea to the northern boundary of Galilee, because of the order in which the countries are men tioned, and because the readings bid peo-qs or bid ttjs, by which this meaning is expressed, are practically unsupported. Probably the most original reading is peo-ov, without a preposition (D, cf. viii. 7, x. 3). This was replaced by dvapecrov (Ferrar group), which was not a bad conjecture, by bid peo-ov (AX, etc.), which, on the other hand, was worse, and by bid peo-ov (SBL), which is very bad. Jesus travelled along the border between Samaria and Galilee naturally from west to east with the intention in the neighbourhood of Scythopolis of crossing the Jordan into Perea, and thence to journey to Jerusalem. So it happened that in one of the border villages nine Jewish and one Samaritan leper met Jesus. Here could have followed what is recorded in xiii. 22-35, if these events occurred in Perea (see above), although Luke records them at an earlier point in the narrative. In xviii. 31, 35, xix. 11, 28, 41-45 we follow Jesus through Jericho to the Temple in Jerusalem without again being carried back in time or place. 20. (P. 68.) Of the proper names that are found in Matt, or Mark only Archelaus (Matt. ii. 22), Bartimseus (Mark x. 46), and the names of Jesus' brothers are lacking in Luke. On the other hand, omitting the genealogy and O.T. names, the following are peculiar to Luke : Zacharias and Elisabeth, with very explicit statements about them, i. 5, cf. 36; Augustus and Quirinius, ii. 1, 2 ; Simeon and Anna, with explicit statements regarding them, ii. 25, 36 ; Tiberius and Lysanius, iii. 1 ; Annas, iii. 2, Acts iv. 6 (also John xviii. 13) ; Simon the Pharisee, vii. 40 ; Joanna and Chuza, viii. 3, cf. xxiv. 10 ; Susanna, viii. 3 ; Mary and Martha, x. 39 (also John xi.) ; Zacchaeus, xix. 1 ; Cleopas, xxiv. 18. A proper name is found even in one of the parables (xvi. 20). It will also be observed that in Acts a number of persons are mentioned who play only a subordinate role in the narrative, or none at all, and who, if we may judge from analogy, would not have been mentioned in Matt, or Mark ; e.g. in iv. 6, v. 1, vi. 5 (altogether seven persons, only two of whom are mentioned again); ix. 10, 11, 33, 36, x. 1, 32 (Peter's host); THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 91 xi. 28, cf. xxi. 10, xii. 12, 13 (the maid) ; xii. 20, xiii. 1 (three unknown persons with very explicit statements about them, still more in text fi, see above, p. 28 f ., n. 6) ; xiii. 6-8, xvii. 6, xviii. 7, 8, 17, xix. 9, 14, 22, 24, 29, 33, xx. 4, 9, xxi. 16, xxiv. 1, 24, xxvii. 1, xxviii. 7. 21. (P. 69.) In some of the passages of Luke's narrative, where he calls Jesus d Kvpios, the text is uncertain as regards this particular point. The present writer regards the following passages as genuine : vii. 13 (not vii. 31) ; x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 31, 61 (twice) ; (xxiv. 3 ') ; altogether twelve or thirteen times. In John it is found only four times (iv. 1, vi. 23, xi. 2, xx. 20). But in the only passage really com parable with it (John iv. 1), possibly 6 'Irjo-ovs is the correct reading. In xx. 20 the author speaks from the point of view of the disciples. In vi. 23, xi. 2 we have the evangelist's own words, which have no connection with the narrative. This usage is not found in Matt, or Mark. On Mark xvi. 19 see vol. ii. 476. With reference to the reticence of Luke in the account of the Last Supper, cf. the present writer's essay : Brod und Wein im Abendmahl, 1892, S. 148. 22. (P. 70.) The Israelitish tone is strongly marked in chs. i.-ii. (i. 6, 32 f., 54 f., 68-79, ii. 4, 11, 21-24, 25, 31 f ., 37 f., 41 f.). The man Jesus, however, is represented as loving His people (xiii. 16, xix. 9), and as, therefore, very deeply pained both by their sins and misfortune (x. 31 ff., xiii. 34, xvii. 18, xix. 41-44, xxiii. 28-31). He acknowledges not only the prophetic and doctrinal significance of the O.T. (iv. 4-12, 17-21, x. 25-28, xiii. 28, xvi. 16, 29-31, xviii. 19 i, xx. 37, 41-44, xxii. 37, xxiv. 27, 44-46), but also the inviolability of the law (xvi. 17). He Himself was submissive to the law to which as a child He was made subject (ii. 21-24), and remained loyal to the religious customs (iv. 16, 31, xxii. 7-16) under which He was brought up (ii. 41 f.). He made no objection even to the painfully literal fulfilment of the law by the Pharisees, so long as they kept also the fundamental moral law (xi. 42, cf. v. 34 ff.). In relation to the Sabbath He takes the same liberal- conservative attitude as in the other Gospels (vi. 1-11, xiii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6) ; see vol. ii. 585 ff. His disciples also live according to the law (xxiii. 56). His Church retains its connection with the Temple, and is full of zeal for the law (xxiv. 53 ; Acts ii. 46, v. 12, 42, xxi. 20). The significance of Israel is not destroyed by the rejection of the Messiah and of the apostolic preaching. The times of the Gentiles shall pass away (Luke xxi. 24). The nation which it was Jesus' first mission to redeem (i. 54-68-79, ii. 34-38, xxiv. 21 ; Acts ii. 39, iii. 25) shall finally acknowledge and enthrone Him (xiii. 35, xxii. 30 ; Acts iii. 20 f .). No man can know, nor is any man privileged to know, the time (Acts i. 6 f.). But the fact is certain. 23. (P. 72.) Cf. E. Curtius, SB A W, 1893, S. 928 f., on Phil. iv. 8, and similar statements of Paul. Cf. also what Herder says (Vom Erloser der Menschen, 1796, S. 218) : " He (Luke) might be called the evangelist of Philanthropy, if this word had not been desecrated. Such a Gospel is in keeping with the character of a man who had made numerous journeys among the Greeks and Romans with Paul, and who dedicated his writings to a Theophilus." 24. (P. 74.) With regard to the alleged Ebionitic doctrine of the meri torious, or God-pleasing character of voluntary poverty, see vol. i. 147 f, 92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT There is no reason why anyone should have been misled, as has repeatedly been the case, by Origen's scholastic play on words (Prine. iv. 22 ; c. Cels. ii. 1 ; cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 27. 6) into the very remarkable opinion that the Ebionites were so called because of the poverty of their thought, or that they called themselves by this name because of their extreme poverty (Epiph. Hcer. xxx. 17). 25. (P. 77.) No other Gospel emphasises so strongly the joy, the pleasure, the enthusiastic admiration occasioned by Jesus : ii. 10, 20, 47, 52, iv. 22, v. 26, vii. 16, 35, ix. 43, xi. 27, xiii. 17, xvii. 15, xviii. 43, xix. 37 ff, 48, xxi. 38, xxiii. 8, xxiv. 52, cf. i. 14, 46 ff., 68, ii. 29 ff., x. 17 ff., xv. 7, 10, 23, 32. Only a few of these passages have parallels in the other Gospels. 26. (P. 77.) Instead of ^rjXarfjs, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13, Matt. x. 4, and Mark iii. 18, we find the Hebrew term. Josephus speaks of them as a party in the account which he gives of their origin, but mentions no name (Bell. ii. 8. 1 ; Ant. xviii. 1. 1 and 6) ; elsewhere he calls them {rjXarai (Bell. iv. 5. 1, 6. 1). For the i) diroypatpr) and diroypdqbeo-Bat of Luke, Jos. uses various terms : diroripdv, diroripdo-Bai, airob'iboo-Bai, al diroriprjo-cis, also at diroypacpai, Ant. xvii. 13. 5, xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1, Bell. vii. 8. 1, but never f/ diroypacbri. 27. (P. 78.) The number 70 or (according to BD, Tatian, ancient Syriac and Latin versions, see Forsch. i. 148) 72 disciples in x. 1 has no more connection with the 70 Gentile nations and their languages and angels, as the Jews recorded them (Schiirer, ii. 343, iii. 198 [Eng. trans, n. i. 344, iii. 64]), than it does with the 70 members of the Sanhedrin or the 70 trans lators of the O.T. or any other number 70. The 70 were not sent to the Gentiles, and there is nothing to indicate that Luke meant it to be taken in this symbolical sense. Luke and Theophilus were not Jews, and could not have expressed or understood such a thought simply by the use of the number 70. On the other hand, the contrast between the 70 and the 12 (Luke ix. 1) is clearly expressed, and, as shown above (p. 78), the way was prepared by ix. 49 f., 60 (cf. also viii. 39), for the transfer of the preaching office to those who were not apostles. According to an ancient tradition, accepted as true by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. 25), and probably derived from the Gospel of Philip, it was Philip who was addressed in Luke ix. 60 ; and since the person here spoken to must be one who was not an apostle, the evangelist Philip must be meant (cf. Forsch. vi. 26. 158 f .). 28. (P. 79.) Concerning the linguistic unity of Luke's work, cf. Zeller, S. 415-425, 442-446, 498 ff. ; Lekebusch, Komposition und Entstehung der AG, 1854, S. 37-81 ; Klostebmann, Vind. Lucanai seu de itinerii in libra actorum asservati auctore, 1866, pp. 46-63 ; Hobart, Tlie Medical Language of St. Luke, a proof from internal evidence that the Gospel according to St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person, and that the writer was a medical man, Dublin, 1882 ; Vogel, Zur Characteristik des Lucas nach Sprache und Stil, eine philologische Laienstudie, 2te Aufl. 1899. For details see above, pp. 28 f., nn. 6, 7 ; 37 1., n. 18 ; 82 f., nn. 4-6 ; below, § 61, nn. 10-12, 26 ; § 62, n. 5. 29. (P. 79.) M. Schneokenburger (tjber den Zweck der AG, 1841) made the first important investigation in the direction indicated by the title. He takes no account of the prologue, which he thinks belongs only to the Gospel, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 93 nor of the dedication to Theophilus, but argues from Acts xviii.-xxviii. that the purpose of the entire second book, whicii he thinks was written in Rome by Luke the disciple of Paul after the death of the apostle and before the fall of Jerusalem, is to give an apologetic portrayal of the apostolic labours of Paul in answer to all the accusations and misinterpretations of the Judaisers which come to light in the Pauline letters. The principal means by which this is accomplished is the constant contrast between Paul and Peter. He defends the consistency of this irenic tendency of Luke with his trustworthi ness and familiarity with the facts against the criticism, which was even then being made by Schrader and Baur, that in many instances the history was deliberately falsified by Luke. Starting with the hypothesis of Schnecken- burger, who had only half worked it out, but at the same time developing principles that he himself had already laid down, Baur (Paulus2, i. 7-16 ; Christentum und Kirche der 3 ersten Jahrh? S. 50, 125 ff., and in many other passages) showed that Acts was a partisan work, dating from about the middle of the second century. It is attributed with some hesitancy to Luke, the disciple of Paul, who, as a representative of the modified Paulinism of his time, recasts in this work the entire history of the Apostolic Church in the most arbitrary manner, in order to bring about an adjustment with Jewish Christianity, which it is alleged was still powerful at that time, and in order to effect a catholic union. This view was so thoroughly worked out by E. Zeller (Die AG nach InhaU und Ursprung krit. unters. 1854), who dated the work between 110 and 130 (S. 466-481), that Baur felt that this could be called simply "the critical view," in contrast to which any view which differed from it essentially was "uncritical." A similar point of view is represented by Overbeck (in the introduction of his revision of de Wette's Komm. zur AG, 1870). However, according to Overbeck, Luke's purpose was not conciliatory in the Tubingen sense, i.e. in the sense that it is designed primarily for Jewish Christians, but it is apologetic from the point of view of Gentile Christianity, which had become estranged from genuine Paulinism, and which was practically dominant in the Church in Trajan's time (98-117). Besides the emphasis laid upon a " national anti- Judaism," Overbeck calls special attention to a " secondary, political aim," namely, to show that Christianity is in harmony with the Roman government. From this it follows that Acts " could not well have been directed to any one save to Gentiles outside the Church " (p. xxxiii). More recently J. Weiss (fiber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der AG, 1897), in opposition to one-sided efforts to determine the sources of Acts, and with full recognition of Overbeck's services, has made an investigation with the following result : " Acts is an apology for Christianity to the Gentiles against the charges of the Jews; it shows how Judaism was supplanted by Christianity in its world mission." In order to obtain what is correct in the views of Overbeck and Weiss, namely, the fact that Acts was designed for Gentile readers, it is not necessary to have recourse to highly questionable interpretations and forced inferences. It follows as a matter of course from the prologue and the dedication of the work to the Gentile, Theophilus (above, pp. 61-80). Of works in opposition to the " tendenz criticism " special mention may be made of those by E. Lekebusch (Komposition und Entstehung der AG, 1854); A. Klostermann (Vindicice Lucanm, 1866); C. Schmidt (Die AG unter dem 94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Hawptgesichtspunkt ihrer Glojubwwrdigkeit, i., 1882, unfinished). Still worth reading is Hopmank's unpretending essay, " Das Geschichtswerk des Lucas," Vermischte Aufe., 1878, S. 153-176). § 61. THE SOURCES USED BY LUKE. From the language of the dedication we might infer that Luke derived all the material which he used, either from his own recollection of what he had experienced, or from the oral reports of older Christians, especially of the disciples of Jesus. But it is hardly probable that one who was conscious that his task was that of an investigator and an historian, as Luke shows himself to have been, would have confined himself to these sources, and have made no use whatever of the large body of literature dealing with his subject, of which he himself speaks. We should expect, further, that he would have used documents where it was possible for him to obtain them ; and since it was part of his purpose to connect the history of Christianity with the history of the outside world, it would not be surprising if he consulted some of the accounts of contemporary history. Taking up this last point, it has been thought possible to prove that Luke took numerous facts from the works of Josephus, also that he modelled his style after this writer (n. 1). The latter is a priori improbable. A Greek who could write such a periodic sentence as Luke i. 1-4 would not have copied a Jew, who, by his own confession, talked more or less of a jargon all his life, and who was not able to publish his Greek writings without the help of men who were masters of this language (n. 2). Dependence of Luke upon Josephus is also improbable from chronological reasons. The work on the Jewish War appeared in its Greek form shortly before the year 79 (Schurer, i. 79 [Eng. trans, i. i. 83]) ; the Antiquities, in 93 or 94 ; the Vita, either at the same time as an appendix to the Antiquities, or, according THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 95 to others, not until after 100; and the books contra Apion, later than 94. Since the question here does not in any way concern the use of the Jewish War alone, but quite as much, and even more, the use of the later works of Josephus, Luke's writings, if dependent upon Josephus, would have to be dated at the very earliest in the year 100. Against this, however, is, first, the unanimous tradition which, up to the present time, has not been successfully controverted, that the author of the Gospel and Acts was Luke, the friend of Paul, and the eye-witness in the "we" passages of Acts. If he was a member of the Antiochian Church in the year 40, though he may have been not more than twenty years of age at the time, it is very improbable that he should have elaborated as late as the year 100 this great work, which certainly does not give the impression of being the effort of an aged man, using the recent writings of his younger contemporary, Josephus (born 37 a.d.). It is also unlikely that he would have entertained at this late date the purpose of further continuing the work (above, p. 56 ff.). In the second place, quite aside from the confirmation which the tradition regarding the author receives from Luke's writings themselves, strong proof is to be found in them that they could not well have been written later than 80 (§ 62). This makes the use even of the earliest writings of Josephus improbable, while employment of his later works is entirely out of the question ; and, if striking resemblances should be found to exist between the two writings, it must have been Josephus who used Luke's work, which appeared some ten or twenty years before the publication of the Antiquities, and not the reverse. Dependence of the Christian upon the Jewish historian would most naturally betray itself in statements regarding political conditions. But the very opposite is what we actually find. Both Luke (ii. 1-3 ; Acts v. 37) and 96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Josephus know of a "taxing" carried out in Palestine at the beginning of our era, which was the first and, for a long time, the only one of its kind, and to which was due the bloody insurrection of Judas the Galilean (n. 3). But here the resemblance ends. Luke refers the taxing to a decree of Augustus, in which it was com manded that the whole world — naturally the world under the Eoman dominion — should be taxed. In the Jewish War and the passages of the Antiquities where the matter is treated in detail, Josephus speaks only of an order which covered the territory of Archelaus, which did not include even the whole of Palestine (Ant. xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1 ; Bell. vii. 8. 1 ; cf. ii. 8. 1, 17. 8). In one passage only, where the matter is mentioned incidentally (Ant. xvii. 13. 5), it is made to cover Syria. This, how ever, is connected with an idea which first appears in the Antiquities. In the Jeivish War, Quirinius nowhere appears as the governor of Syria, but is a high official, who, after the deposition of Archelaus, was sent thither with the extraordinary commission to organise the territory of Archelaus, which was now taken directly under Roman control. On the other hand, in the passages where Quirinius is mentioned in the Antiquities, the very inaccurate, or rather simply erroneous, claim is twice made, that the territory of Archelaus was at this time added to the province of Syria (xvii. 13. 5, xviii. 1. 1). But neither in this passage nor anywhere else does Josephus call Quirinius the governor of Syria. The reader of the Jewish War would never guess that he had at any time occupied this position, nor could it be inferred from the unclear hints of the Antiquities, We have, therefore, a second statement of Luke's which is independent of Josephus, namely, that the taxing took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. On this point the Antiochian, Luke, is better informed than Josephus, since, as a matter of fact, P, Sulpicius Quirinius, who was THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 97 consul in the year 12 B.C., was governor of Syria from autumn of the year 4 (b.c.) to the year 1 (b.c). Accord ing to an inscription, the genuineness of which was long questioned, but which was proved to be correct by a discovery of the year 1880, a certain Q. iEmilius Secundus, by order of the royal governor of Syria, Quirinius, had a census taken in the Syrian city, Apamea (n. 4). A third point in which Luke proves himself to be independent of Josephus, and where he shows a know ledge of the facts which is certainly closer to the historical truth than Josephus', is the chronology. The latter writer, whose information for the four decades between the death of Herod (4 B.C.) and his own birth (37 a.d.) is extremely meagre (Schiirer, i. 84 £ [Eng. trans. 1. i. 88 £]), dates both the taxing by Quirinius and the insurrection of Judas in the year after the deposition of Archelaus (6-7 A.D.). But it is inconceivable that Judas, who was a native of Gamala, in Gaulanitis, and who was called the " Galilean " — not because Galilee was his home, but because it was the scene of the insurrection which he led (Acbs v. 37; Jos. Bell. ii. 8. 1, 17. 8, Ant. xviii. 1. 6)— should have raised the banner of revolt in a year when there was no political change of any kind in Galilee. That Josephus is in error is very clear from the fact that, in addition to this insurrection, he tells of still anothei revolt led by one Judas in Galilee, which took place in the year of Herod's death (4 B.C., Bell. ii. 4. 1 ; Ant. xvii. 10. 5), and which is really identical with the one already mentioned. His error is further shown by the fact that, without any explanation, he repeats again in the year 6-7 (a.d.) the short high-priesthood of Joazar, who sought to quiet this disturbance, and who held office in the year 4 B.c. (cf. on the one hand, Ant. xviii. 6. 4, 9. 1, 13. 1 ; Bell. ii. 1. 2 ; on the other, Ant. xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1). This tendency of Josephus to repeat events is quite surpassed by the modern historians, who, in order VOL. in. 7 98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to save Josephus from inaccuracy, assume still a second Syrian governorship of Quirinius covering the year 6-7, in addition to the historically attested governorship of the year (circa 4-1 B.C.); although as a matter of fact Josephus does not anywhere say that Quirinius was ever governor of Syria. The insurrection of Judas, the rise of the party of the Zealots (Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 15, v. 37), the deposition of the high priest Joazar, who had been installed in office a few months before, and the taxing under the direction of Quirinius, took place in the first year after Herod's death (March 4-3 B.C.). Josephus, who places these events in the year 6-7 a.d., although he reproduces them in part in the year 4-3 b.c, has made a mistake of a decade, and, in other respects as well, displays a serious lack of critical judgment. Even if Luke was mistaken, it is certain' that he does not copy his errors from Josephus, and his chronology is independent of the Jewish writer. The reader, who knows from Luke i. 36 that Jesus' birth took place a few months after that of the Baptist, cannot very well assume that the events recorded in Luke ii. 1-39 took place later than the reign of Herod i., mentioned in i. 5 (n. 5), especially since no conflicting dates are mentioned in ii. 1, and while it is not until iii. 1 that we find a new and thoroughly detailed chronological notice. This unavoidable impression is fully confirmed by Matt. ii. 1-22, from which we know that, according to the tradition of Palestinian Christians in 60-70, Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod I. When, therefore, Luke makes the birth of Jesus contem poraneous with the taxing which took place during the Syrian governorship of Quirinius (ii. 2), it does not mean that, in unconscious contradiction to the Christian tradi tion, he places the birth of Jesus shortly after, instead of shortly before, the death of Herod, but that he dates the governorship of Quirinius, together with the taxing which took place under his direction and the insurrection of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 99 Judas, shortly before, instead of shortly after, Herod's death, thus making a mistake of at least several months — possibly of from one to two years. For it is certain, not only from Josephus, but also from coins, that the governor of Syria, during the last year of Herod's reign and after his death — from the autumn of 6 B.C. at the latest until the summer of 4 B.C. — was Varus, not Quirinius (Schiirer, i. 322 £ [Eng. trans. 1. i. 351]). In view of the result of the discussion of this one example, which at the same time gives us an insight into the characteristics of the two historians, detailed discussion of the other accounts of Luke and Josephus which have been compared may be omitted. There is not a single historical notice of Luke, whether correct, inaccurate, or questionable, which can be explained on the supposition that he had read Josephus. On the other hand, in many instances he shows an acquaintance with contemporary events and with more or less distinguished persons outside the Church which can be shown to be quite independent of Josephus. The slaughter of the Galileans in the temple as they were offering sacrifices (Luke xiii. 1) ; the estrangement between Pilate and Antipas, and their reconciliation (Luke xxiii. 12); the names of the distinguished priests, Alexander and (if the correct reading be not Jonathan, cf. Jos. Ant. xviii. 4. 3) John (Acts iv. 6) ; the imposing figure of Gamaliel (Acts v. 34, xxii. 3), mentioned by Josephus only as the father of the younger Gamaliel (Bell. iv. 3. 9 ; Vita, 38, 60) ; the Samaritan Simon (Acts viii. 9) ; the officers of Herod, Chuza (Luke viii. 3) and Blastus (Acts xii. 20, cf. also xiii. 1); the chiliarch, Claudius Lysias (Acts xxiii. 26); the centurions, Cornelius and Julius (Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1); and the orator, Tertullus (xxiv. 1) — all these statements and names could not have been taken by Luke from Josephus. In the instances where their accounts cover the same ground, we find traces of independent and variant traditions (n. 6). In the case 100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT of the Antiquities and Vita, which, according to all indications, are considerably later than Luke's work, it is more natural to suppose that Josephus is dependent upon Luke than that the reverse relation holds ; and it does not seem to the present writer entirely creditable to those who feel that the agreements between Josephus and Luke call for explanation, that they have not seriously considered this possibility. This is not the place in which to discuss the question at length (n. 7). It is sufficient to have shown that Luke could not have followed Josephus as an authority in historical matters, nor have copied the Greek style of this writer. At first glance, the genealogy (Luke iii. 23-38), the communication of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Acts xv. 23-29), and the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) give the impression of being reproduced from original documents. If the second of these was a communication actually sent from Jerusalem, delivered in Antioch with the solemnity which Luke describes, and communicated also to other Churches (xvi. 4), it is impossible to suppose that so important a document was immediately lost. If Luke was a member of the Antiochian Church at the time when the communication was delivered there (above, p. 2), he probably heard it read, but this is no evidence at all against the possibility of his having had a copy of it when he wrote his history. The style is not that of Luke, and the secular tone of the introductory and concluding formulae is against the assumption that the author composed the document, either from his imagina tion, or from indistinct recollections (n. 8). This could more easily have been the case with the letter in xxiii. 26-30, but it cannot be proved. In the proceedings before Felix (xxiv. 1-23) and Festus (xxv. 1-12) the report of Lysias would almost certainly have been read, and, if written in Latin, translated into Greek. The situation in which Paul found himself in Caesarea THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 101 (xxiv. 23), and the friendly relations which always existed between him and the military officers to whose charge he was committed (xxvii. 3, xxviii. 16, 30 £; Phil. i. 13), make it quite conceivable that he and his friends may have secured a copy of this report, which, though brief, was of fundamental importance in his trial. Against the assumption that the language of the report is entirely Luke's, which, according to methods of historical composition in antiquity, might very well be possible, is, first of all, the fact that, although there is no stylistic necessity for it, Luke makes the chiliarch, who has not been mentioned by name up to this time (xxi. 31- xxiii. 22), and who afterwards is called simply Lysias (xxiv. 7, recension 8 ; xxiv. 22), write his name Claudius Lysias. In the second place, Lysias' report shows marked variations from the facts as previously recorded. If the author of Acts was inventing this report, only partially true, he would have directed special attention to the effort of the chiliarch to obscure the law in the case, and to conceal his own mistake. The connection in which the genealogy is recorded, and its conclusion (iii. 23-38), indicate that it is an expression of Luke's own peculiar thought (above, p. 70£); but this does not explain its independence not only of Matt. L, but also of the O.T., in so far as the latter could be used for a source. Since it was impossible for Luke himself personally to investigate the contents of vv. 24-31, and inasmuch as the tradition here presupposed could have been transmitted only in written form, he must have made use of an older record. We know that the relatives of Jesus and their descendants interested themselves in these matters (n. 9). Since Luke was familiar with a number of attempts to write the history of Christianity, and since his char acterisation of these efforts perfectly suits Mark's Gospel (above, p. 49), it is natural to suppose that he used this writing. He was acquainted with Mark and knew his 102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT relation to Peter, who was a prominent eye-witness of the gospel events. He was in Eome in company with Mark about the year 62 (Col. iv. 10, 14), and possibly again in 66 (2 Tim. iv. 11), consequently at the time when Mark wrote his Gospel. A comparison of the two Gospels gives for the various portions a greatly varying picture. With reference to the order of single narratives, not much is to be concluded from Mark i. 1-13 = Luke iii. 1-iv. 13, since the order of these events — the preaching and baptism of John, the baptism and temptation of Jesus — is determined by their very nature. Moreover, Mark's account here is nothing more than a brief sketch. Leaving these passages out of account, therefore, the first notable parallel is that between Luke iv. 31-vi. 19 and Mark i. 21— iii. 19; Luke viii. 4-ix. 17 = Mark iv. 1-vi. 44 is a second; Luke ix. 18-50 = Mark viii. 27-ix. 40 is a third ; Luke xviii. 15-43 = Mark x. 13-52 a fourth; and Luke xix. 29-xxiv. 8 = Mark xi. 1-xvi. 8 a fifth. In the case of these five series of passages the parallelism is by no means complete. Luke interrupts the first series with a narrative, v. 1-11, only remotely similar to Mark i. 16-20. In the second series Luke inserts a passage, viii. 19-21, which is found in Mark iii. 31-35, while Mark iv. 26-29, 30-32, and vi. 1-6 are omitted. There is nothing at all in Luke corresponding to the first passage, the second is found in Luke xiii. 18-19, closely connected with a narrative peculiar to him, while in place of the third we find a much fuller account in the early part of Luke's Gospel, iv. 16-30. In the fourth series, between xviii. 34 and 35, Luke omits the narrative found in Mark x. 35-45, giving only a meagre substitute for it in Luke xxii. 24-27. In the fifth series, the cursing of the fig-tree, Mark xi. 12-14, 20-25, the question about the greatest of the command ments, Mark xii. 28-34, and the anointing in Bethany, Mark xiv. 3-9, are not found in Luke. For the last, Luke vii. 36-50 is substituted; for the second, Luke x. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 103 25-37 ; while in a measure Luke xiii. 6-9 takes the place of the first (cf. § 63) ; and for a single saying in this same passage, Mark xi. 23 (Matt. xxi. 21, xvii. 20), we find a similar saying in Luke xvii. 6. Since these equivalents for such material as Mark retains and Luke omits are all peculiar to Luke, it is clear that, although Luke consciously omitted some things found in Mark, he en deavoured to find substitutes for the omissions. On the other hand, in the last series of parallels, Luke substitutes a number of brief accounts which are peculiar to himself (xix. 41-44 [xxi. 20-24], xxii. 35-38, xxiii. 6-12, 39-43). In all five series, however, Mark's order is, without excep tion, retained throughout. This of itself is sufficient to render necessary some explanation of the dependence of one of the Gospels upon the other — particularly since, in many instances, the order followed is not a reproduction of the real succession of events. This lack of chrono logical order does not escape the attention of the careful reader of Mark (vol. ii. 499 £), and Luke betrays a clear consciousness of it. There is evidence that Luke made an effort to fix more definitely the time of events, as, e.g., when he gives a more definite date to a Sabbath which Mark leaves undetermined — following the Jewish calendar (Luke vi. 1) — and distinguishes it expressly from another Sabbath (vi. 6), whereas the ordinary reader might infer from Mark iii. 1 (cf. Matt. xii. 9) that the transactions which Luke assigns to two different Sabbaths happened on the same day ; cf. also other occasional instances where he gives the time more accurately (e.g. vi. 1, 6, vii. 11), In many instances, however, he either did not do this at all or did it ineffectively, as is proved by the use of formulae such as are found in v. 12, 17, viii. 4, 22, ix. 18, xx. 1. These occur in the sections parallel to Mark, as well as in other parts of Luke's Gospel (v. 1, x. 38, xi. 1, 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 1 ; cf. above, p. 66). When, however, notwithstanding this formal disavowal of all attempt to 104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT give an exact chronology where this is not attainable, he nevertheless follows in these five series exactly the same order as Mark, the coincidence can be explained as due neither to a stereotyped oral tradition, nor to accident. But if one of these Gospels is dependent upon the other, Mark must be considered the earlier of the two. Leaving out of account the tradition, according to which Mark wrote before Luke (vol. ii. 392 ff.), and the proofs which we have from Luke's own work that it was written later than 70 (§ 62), this conclusion follows from a com parison of the details of the parallels. Combinations of words, such as Krjpvao-mv Bdirria-pia iAeravoia 5 yeyparrrat iv Bi^Xa Xoyeov 'Haatov rov rrpo§r)rov, do not originate independently of each other. Luke appears here, however, as the stylist smoothing down the awk ward expressions which Mark uses in making his citations (n. 10). In fact this is everywhere the case. It is not to be assumed that Luke undertook to remove all the Hebraisms which he found in the accounts he used, and to produce an historical work uniform in style, modelled after the language of Polybius or the periods of his own preface. As regards style, Luke's work is as varied as it could well be. The narratives in Luke i. — ii. and the psalm-like discourses of these chapters read like sections out of the O.T.; while the style and language of the discourses of Paul on the Areopagus (Acts xvii. 22-31) and before the noble lords and ladies in Csesarea (xxiv. 10-21, xx vi. 2-23) are more like those of the orator' Tertullus (xxiv. 2-8), and of the procurator Festus (xxv. 14-21), than the discourses in Acts i.-x. Luke uses a few Hebraisms, not only in the narratives probably, or certainly, taken from older sources, but in connective phrases and summaries, which are of his own composi tion (n. 11). He shows a feeling for the special style THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 105 corresponding to the sacred character of his theme, and does not allow the spirit in which the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word were wont to speak from the beginning to be replaced by a secular tone. He does, nevertheless, soften somewhat the Semitic colouring, set ting aside expressions unnecessarily harsh, and striving to make the narrative more lucid. Not only are the most marked Hebraisms and the Aramaic words of Mark re moved, but also such characteristic expressions as Mark's evOv? (n. 12), also such peculiarities as are due to Mark's personal relations and the fact that his Gospel was de signed for Roman readers (Mark xii. 42, xiv. 17, 51 £, xv. 21 ; see vol. ii. 487 £ ; cf. Luke xxi. 2, xxii. 14, 53, xxiii. 26), and imperfections in the presentation due to Mark's very exact reproduction of the narratives of Peter (Mark i. 29 = Luke iv. 38; Mark iii. 26= Luke vi. 14; Mark ix. 14 £ = Luke ix. 37 £ ; Mark xiii. 1-3 = Luke xxi. 5). He avoids also other redundancies and awk wardnesses which occur in Mark (e.g. Mark i. 32 = Luke iv. 40), and in countless instances selects words which are more pleasing or more expressive (n. 13). Since some of these words and phrases are hapaxlegomena in the N.T., and inasmuch as others of them are used in the same way elsewhere in Luke's work, and only in Luke's work, they are to be considered as peculiarities of. his style, and are not to be explained as derived from one of the sources which Luke and Mark may have used in common. This, like the other assumption that Mark had Luke before him, would compel us to assume that Mark intentionally and regularly replaced the better language of Luke, or of the common source, by more awkward expressions. But this is incredible. Consequently a comparison of the style of Mark and Luke shows that, in the five sections of his Gospel mentioned, Luke made use of Mark in preparing his own work. While Luke recasts the style of Mark with consider- 106 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT able thoroughness, very little change is to be noted in the contents of such portions as he adopts, and which he does not replace in other parts of his work by similar and sometimes fuller narratives (above, p. 102). Only in one important point does Luke consciously vary his account from that of Mark. Mark i. 14, like Matt. iv. 12, connects the beginning of the Galilean ministry with the arrest of the Baptist, and associates it with the account of the temptation in such a way as to lead the reader readily to infer that the arrest of the Baptist follows immediately upon the temptation. Luke, however, varies this order of events. On the one hand, he, alone of the Synoptists, connects the beginning of the Galilean ministry of Jesus definitely and. closely with His baptism (iv. 15, iv rfj Swdpei rod irvevfiaros ; cf. iii. 22, iv. l), and describes the journey to Galilee, which introduces His ministry there, as a return (iv. 14, vireo-rpetyev ; cf. iv. 1) from the journey which had taken Jesus to the place of His baptism and temptation. On the other hand, he wholly separates this journey from the arrest of the Baptist (above, p. 63 £), a later incident which here he anticipates in the form of an episode in iii. 19-20. The journey to Galilee, which Luke places after the baptism and temptation, is not the same as the journey to Galilee, which in Mark follows the arrest of the Baptist. It must be assumed that the apparent succession of events in Mark is replaced in Luke by another, which is the result of the author's investiga tions, and which is adopted in view of KaOeffi in i. 3. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that thereafter Luke introduces immediately and chiefly events, which Mark and Matthew place in Galilee after the arrest of the Baptist ; since it is apparent that throughout his Gospel, in the sections following iv. 14-15, Luke con sciously abandons the attempt to arrange the single narratives chronologically (above, p. 64). It is also THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 107 clear that, according to him, the work of Jesus between His baptism and temptation is l>y no means confined to Galilee (iv. 44, x. 38-42 ; above, p. 88 £, n. 18). It may be remarked here, that through his investigations Luke made marked advances on the form of such an historical work as Mark's Gospel in the direction of what we find in John. He is no mere imitator of written models which he has before him, nor is he satisfied simply to recast the style of his sources ; he is rather an historian who handles his material critically. We may assume that, in addition to Mark, he made use of other attempts at a gospel history, working them over in the same way that he did this Gospel. We have already seen from the prologue that Luke did not have access to any gospel writings that originated with an apostle or disciple of Jesus (above, p. 49) ; it is, therefore, equally improbable that he used Matthew ; for the latter was never attributed to a disciple of an apostle, but was from the first assigned to the apostle Matthew (vol. ii. 177 ff). This statement would be true of an "original apostolic document" or the "logia," if these books ever existed ; since, if their existence be as sumed, all the traditions denied with reference to Matthew must be transferred to them. One of these mythical books, from which the author of our Matthew is supposed to have drawn, must have passed as the work of the apostle Matthew, otherwise we are unable to understand why, from the very first and uniformly in the tradition, the Greek Matthew was ascribed to this apostle. More over, we have seen the correctness of the position, accord ing to which Matthew is the translation of an Aramaic book, the contents of which were for a long time accessible only through oral interpretation to those who were un familiar with this language. The same would be true of the "logia." But it may be doubted whether Luke, who was a Greek, was able to read an Aramaic book. His to8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT citations from the O.T. betray no knowledge whatever of the original text, or of a Targum. Not all of the four translations of Aramaic names which we find in Luke's work (Acts i. 19, iv. 36, ix. 36, xiii. 8) are beyond question, and if they were it is perfectly possible that Luke may have taken his translations from others, with out himself possessing even a superficial knowledge of Aramaic. There are several Aramaic words with which, as a native of Antioch, he may always have been familiar, and others, together with several Hebrew termini, with which he became acquainted in the common life of the Church (n. 14). On the other hand, if, as is probable, the Greek Matthew was not written before the year 80 (vol. ii. 516 £), it is unlikely, for chronological reasons, that Luke read it before writing his own Gospel (§ 62). This improbability is strengthened into impossibility by a comparison of the two Gospels. One who had read Matt. i. — ii. — especially in a work which purported to be that of an apostle — could not have written Luke i.-ii. in its present form, which is practically without resemblance to the narrative in Matthew (it is only necessary to compare Luke i. 31& and Matt. i. 21a), notwithstanding the fact that there is much that is common in the subject-matter. Moreover, the later writer would certainly have betrayed his attempt at correction or improvement, where he be lieved that the contents and form of Matt. i. — ii. could be improved. In particular, it would have been impossible for an historian of the character Luke shows himself to be, as compared with Mark, to pass by practically un noticed material so important as that in Matt. ii. — really excluding it as he does by Luke ii. 39. It may after a fashion be possible in a Gospel harmony to reconcile the contents of the opening chapters of the two Gospels, in cluding Luke iii. 23-38, but a synoptic presentation is out of the question. Not until Matt. iii. 1 = Luke iii. 1 is this possible, and then only here and there. THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 109 The proof derived from a comparison of the opening chapters of the Gospel and confirmed by the hints of Luke's prologue, that Luke did not use our Matthew as a source, is so strong, that the only question which can be seriously discussed is whether Luke and Matthew drew from common sources. We know that Luke made use of written sources, and the relation which has been proved to exist between Luke and Mark leads us to assume that, in addition to Mark, he used other similar documents. It is, however, a priori improbable that he used docu ments which earlier or later were employed in the com position of Matthew ; since our investigation of Matthew gave no occasion for the assumption that this author made any use whatever of written sources (vol. ii. 581 f.) In the investigation of this question the five sections of Luke, which we saw were taken over by Luke from Mark with certain modifications, are to be excepted at the outset (above, p. 102 f.) ; since whatever agreements be tween Luke and Matthew appear in these passages, all go back to Mark, and are to be explained on the ground of the relation of Mark to Matthew (see vol. ii. 601 £), and the connection which has been shown to exist between Luke and Mark (see above, p. 101 £). In these five sections there is not a single sentence from which a direct relation between Luke and Matthew, or the relation of Luke to a source used in Matthew, can be proved (n. 15). In the second place, in the critical comparison of Matthew and Luke, the following passages peculiar to Luke are to be left out of consideration — passages to which there is a remote parallel are placed in parentheses : i. 1-3, ii. 10- 15, 23-38 (iv. 16-30, v. 1-10), vii. 11-17, 36-50, viii. 1-3, ix. 51-56, 61-62, x. 1-20 (with the exception of a few sayings), x. 29-42 (xi. 1-4), xi. 5-8, 27-28, 37-41, xii. 13-21 (32-57), xiii. 1-17, 31-33, xiv. 1-16, 31 (with the exception of xiv. 11, 17, xv. 4-7), xvii. 7-22, xviii. 1-14, xix. 1-27, 41-44 (xxi. 20-24), xxiii. 5-12, 27-31, no INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 39-43, xxiv. (1-11) 12-53. Comparatively Tittle re mains, and, with the exception of short disconnected sentences, this consists of only the following passages [parallels of Matthew in parentheses] : iii. 7-9, 17 (iii. 7-12), iv. 1-13 (iv. 1-11), vi. 20-49 (5-7), vii. 1-10 (viii. 5-10, 13), vii. 18-35 (xi. 2-19), ix. 57-60 (viii. 19-22), x. 13-15, 21-24 (xi. 20-27, xiii. 16-17), xi. 24-26, 29- 36 (xii. 38-45, v. 15, vi. 22-23), xi. 42-52 (xxiii. 4-35), xii. 2-12 (x. 17-33), xii. 22-31 (vi. 25-33), xii. 41-48 (xxiv. 45-51), xii. 54-56 (xvi. 2-3 ?), xii. 57-59 (v. 25- 26), xiii. 24-30 (vii. 13-14, 21-23, viii. 11-12), xiii. 34-35 (xxiii. 37-39), xvii. 23-37 (xxiv. 23-28, 37-42), xix. 12-28 (xxv. 14-30). In order accurately to com pare these parallels, even more than in other critical investigations, it would be necessary to have a text of both Gospels, but especially of Luke, and this reliable even in smallest details, since nothing contributed so much to the degeneration of the Gospel text as the tendency to supplement and correct one Gospel from the parallels in the others, and in fact especially the text of Mark and Luke on the basis of Matthew. In the Textus receptus the Gospels are very much more alike than in any even moderately critically corrected text ; and the difference would be even greater, if text criticism were more advanced than it is at present. Few narratives are to be found among the parallels cited, though, on the other hand, there are numerous sayings, which are gener ally reported with an historical setting. As regards the narrative sections, it is impossible to form an intelligent conception of a single written source from which, e.g., the two differing narratives in Luke vii. 1-10 and Matt. viii. 5-10, 13 could both have been derived through a process of revision on the part of the authors. What Luke adds (vv. 3-5) has the marks of genuine tradition, and the effort to secure brevity, to be seen in some parts of Matthew (vol. ii. 583 £, 607) could not have brought it THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS m about that in this passage the narrative should be of the character of an excerpt ; since the account is enlarged by the insertion of a saying of Jesus, probably spoken on another occasion (Matt. viii. 11-12, cf. Luke xiii. 28-29). Even if Luke made use of an earlier account in this passage — as is perfectly possible — in the last analysis the divergence of his narrative from Matthew goes back to variations in the historical material, which appear when ever what has happened and been experienced is re peatedly related by different persons, even when there are eye-witnesses among the narrators. The accounts of the temptation are very similar in Matthew and Luke ; but the differing order in which the second and third tempta tions are narrated is most naturally explained by the assumption that those who had heard Jesus give an account of them (n. 16) repeated what they heard from memory in different ways. It is inconceivable that Luke should have deliberately chosen the reversed order, if he had had before him Matt. iv. 1-11, or any other docu ment having the order of Matthew's account ; since the close of Luke's account, which leaves Jesus standing upon the pinnacle of the temple instead of upon a mountain in the wilderness, cannot be said to be an improvement on Matthew. Some of the discourses and sayings common to Matthew and Luke show striking similarity, but others vary widely from each other in form, though having essentially the same content and showing the same pro gress of thought. The best example of the former is the denunciatory address of the Baptist (Luke iii. 7-9, cf. also x. 21-22, xiii. 34-35), of the latter, the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 20-49, cf. xiii. 24-40). Elements of the tradition similar to those which appear in Luke iii. 7-9, etc., could be easily preserved and strongly impressed upon the memory quite without the help of writing. On the other hand, when sayings like Luke iii. 7-9, Matt. 112 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT iii. 7-10 came to be written, it was necessary at least to intimate who the persons were whom* John called a " generation of vipers." Here, however, the accounts of Matthew and Luke vary widely from each other. The Sermon on the Mount in Luke (vi. 20-49) cannot be regarded as an excerpt from Matthew (v. -vii.), nor can the latter be explained as a remodelling of the material in Luke. Even granting that Luke may have left out state ments of great importance for the first evangelist, such as are found in Matt. v. 17-43, because they did not suit his purpose, — assuming, of course, that he found them in one of his sources, and granting that Matthew incorporated into his account of the Sermon on the Mount more passages belonging in a different historical connection than we are able at present to prove (vol. ii. 558 £), — in those parts which are parallel we find differences in the language which cannot be explained as due to necessity for modification in style, or rearrangement of material. These differences are, however, natural, if the discourse was heard by numerous persons and variously reproduced in the oral tradition. It is more than likely that Luke found this and other discourses in one or more of the records of the "many" of whom he speaks (i. 1). In view of Luke's handling of Mark's Gospel, we are justified in assuming that the greater elegance of style, e.g. Luke vi. 47-49 = Matt. vii. 24-27, is due to him. But we are not able to go much beyond such assumptions in ascer taining what other sources, besides Mark, Luke used in his Gospel (n. 17). Passages like Luke i.-ii., the poetical charm and true Israelitish spirit of which in the narrative portions and the inserted psalms is comparable only to the finest parts of the books of Samuel, could not have been written by a Greek like Luke. They must have originated in Pales tine, where men and women of prophetic temperament and prophetic gifts were closely associated with the be- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 113 ginnings and progress of Christianity (i. 41, 46-55, 67- 71, ii- 25, 36 ; Acts ii. 17, xi. 27 £, xv. 32, xxi. 9 £). Luke twice points out (ii. 19, 51, cf. i. 66) that Mary kept in memory and pondered significant sayings associ ated with the childhood and youth of her son. This is said only of Mary, not of Joseph, though at this time he must have been still alive. In this way Luke indicates that the traditions in Luke i.-ii. were transmitted through her. Who first wrote them down and when they were written we do not know. Nor can any intelligent critic regard the other narrative sections peculiar to Luke as his own fabrications, or as legends which originated outside of Palestine in the second or third generation after Christ. Their striking originality, which could not have been invented, has impressed them upon the mind of the Christian world to an extent scarcely true of any other portion of the whole body of gospel literature. In the distinctively historical portions we find indications of locality (vii. 11, xvii. 11, xix. 1, xxiv. 13), names of persons (vii. 40, viii. 3, x. 38 £, xix. 2, xxiv. 18), and delineations of character difficult to invent (x. 40, xiii. 32, xix. 3 £), also references to current events otherwise unknown (xiii. 1, 4, xxiii. 12), and a genuine Israelitish colouring (xi. 27, xiii. 11, 14, 16, xiv. 15, xix. 9, xxiii. 28-31, 42 £, xxiv. 21) — all of which is proof against the suspicion of later invention. The same is true of the parables and kindred sayings of Jesus (x. 30-37, xii. 16- 21, xiii. 6-9, xiv. 16-24, xv. 1-xvi. 31, xviii. 1-14). When on one occasion Luke says, in flat contradiction to Mark x. 46, which he had before him, that Jesus healed a blind man as He drew near to Jericho (xviii. 35), not as He was leaving the city, it must be because he has before him still another account of the incident, from which he does not wish to vary ; and the more unimportant the detail the more likely is this to have been the case. The passage xix. 1-10 shows that he had at his disposal vol. m. 8 ti4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT independent traditions regarding the events of this par ticular day. Whether this information was derived from Zacchaeus, or from a book, no one is able to say (n. 18). The two narratives concerning Herod Antipas peculiar to Luke (xiii. 31-33, xxiii. 6-12, 15) — the way for the second of which is prepared as early as in ix. 9 by an addition peculiar to Luke, which is also referred to again in Acts iv. 27 — naturally recalls the fact that the wife of an official under this prince was one of those who accompanied Jesus (Luke viii. 3, cf. John iv. 46 ?), also that, according to Acts xiii. 1, a foster-brother, or youthful companion of the tetrarch, was one of the teachers of the Church in Antioch at the time when the narrator in Acts was a member of that congregation (according to xi. 27 £, above, p. 2). But the existence of such oral sources, upon which Luke could draw in making his investigations, does not preclude the possi bility of his having used, in addition to Mark, one or more of the numerous written accounts which are men tioned in Luke i. 1. The fact that Luke modified materi ally the style of the documents which he used, as proved by his relation to Mark and by a comparison of his Gospel with Matthew (above, p. 104, and below, nn. 9-12), deprives us almost entirely of one favourite means of determining sources, namely, by comparison of language. Here and there we find narratives which more than others show genuine Jewish conception and modes of expression, or greater elegance of Greek style ; but on the whole the narratives are uniform. The differences for the most part are to be easily explained by the variety of the material and of the setting (above, p. 104, and below, n. 19). With reference to most of the accounts in Acts, the author was in a different situation than he was in regard to the contents of his first book — provided our interpretation of the prologue be correct (above, p. 41 £). In much of the history which he here records he had been THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 115 a participant, as he indicates by the introduction of a "we" in parts where this was the case (above, p. 54 £). Among these " we " passages there are two long sections, xx. 5-xxi. 17 and xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, which stand out as peculiar in character. While in xi. 27 (above, p. 4, n. 3), xvi. 10-17 the only practical purpose which the " we " seems to serve is to call attention to the presence of the narrator, without the narrative on this account assuming a character different from that of chaps, xiii.— xv., xviii. -xix., in the two passages (xx. 5-xxi. 17, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16) we have connected accounts of journeys which are totally distinct from all other parts of Acts, the contents of which admit of comparison. The journey from Antioch to Philippi, and thence to Thessalonica, and from Beroea by way of Athens to Corinth (xv. 40-xvi. 12, xvi. 40-xviii. 1) is so briefly sketched that for the most part we must conjecture the route selected, the places touched on the way, the length of the stops, and the time of the year (vol. i. § 13). Only when the author records what happened in the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, and Corinth does the account become more de tailed ; practically nothing is said concerning the journey itself. Essentially the same is true in the case of the first missionary journey, Acts xiii. -xiv. Other journeys, e.g., in Acts xi. 30-xii. 25, xviii. 18-xix. 1, xx. 1-4, are dis missed with a few words ; but in xx. 5-xxi. 17 and xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16 we have practically a daily record of the journey with numerous exact statements as to the time of the year (xx. 6, 16, xxvii. 9, 12), the various stopping places on the way — even those where nothing of any special importance took place (xx. 13-15, xxi. 1-8, xxvii. 3-8, 16, xxviii. 12-15) — the time occupied by different parts of the journey and by the stops, the change of ships, the nationality, destination, and names of ships in which the journey was made (xxi. 2, xxvii. 2, 6, xxviii. 11), changes from travel by land to travel by n6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT sea and vice versa (xx. 13, xxi. 7), conditions of weather, and the minute details of the sea voyages. In not a single instance can the indications of time be said to be designed to make the history clear. After what is said in Acts xx. 6, 16, the reader is interested to know whether Paul succeeded in reaching Jerusalem before or after Pentecost, but he is destined to be disappointed. There is no clear indication of the time when the end of the journey was reached, and, from the notices of the daily journey which precede, we are unable to estimate the length of time occupied between Philippi and Jeru salem, since the length of the stay in Miletus and Caesarea (xx. 1 5-xxi. 1, 8-15) and the length of the voyage from Rhodes to Tyre (xxi. 1-3) and of the land journey from Tyre to Ptolemais and from Caesarea to Jerusalem are not given by days. It is true that the elaborateness of these two accounts does impress the reader with a strong sense of the situation. He receives a vivid impression of the care exercised by divine providence over the life of the apostle who was destined to do more great things. But most of the details mentioned have no bearing on this point. They are out of relation to the main historical idea that is being developed to an extent not paralleled anywhere else in Luke's work. Luke's interest in minute details, proper names, etc., which are not absolutely necessary in the narrative, is to be observed elsewhere also (Acts ix. 25, xii. 13, 20, xiii. 1, xxi. 29, 37 £, xxii. 2, xxiii. 16, 19, xxiii. 31 £, xxiv. 1, 11), and it would be arbitrary to infer from the absence of "we" in xx. 16-38, xxi. 19-26, 32, that the narrator was less familiar with the facts which he records in these passages than he is with the facts recorded in the " we " passages. For it will be observed that the sections where the " we " is omitted deal in every instance with some action or suffering of Paul's which could not be shared by another in the same way that a journey in company with THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 117 him from Philippi to Jerusalem and from Caesarea to Rome could be shared (cf. above, pp. 55 £, 87, n. 13). In connection with the meeting with James, where the narrator was present (xxi. 18), it was necessary to omit the " we," because Paul alone had to do with the elders in Jerusalem. As yet no evidence has been advanced which proves that the person who wrote the entire section, xx. 4-xxviii. 31, was not always in close touch with the events which he records. Nevertheless, the accounts of the two journeys mentioned — to which possibly xvi. 10- 18 may be added as a remnant of a third — are distinct in character. They could not have been written for the first time when the author composed his history ; rather he must have had them in his possession and have inserted them in his book, retaining all the details which were not necessary, either for the sake of the narrative or for the readers' understanding of the history. There may be difference of opinion as to how many changes Luke made in the form and contents of these journey-narratives, whether he inserted passages from his memory of events that had happened elsewhere, or narratives of his own invention. But, apart from all these conjectures, there is no doubt as to the fact that these portions are distinct in character from the rest of the book. Repeated examination of chap, xxvii. by experts has shown that, while it could not have been written by a mariner, it must have been written by some gifted man who accompanied Paul on the journey, and who had an appreciation of nature and of the incidents of a sea voyage (n. 20). If, without recourse to the tradition, we were to ask which one of Paul's travelling companions was most likely to have been the author of the accounts of these journeys, the most probable answer would be Luke, the physician. If he is, at the same time, the author of the entire work, it was his own notes, which he had written down io the form of a journal during the voyage, that he 1 18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT incorporated in his history. Even the best memory will not retain for decades all such details as changes in the weather and the movements of the sailors in a voyage lasting for months, and no historian would record in a large work such recollections as he might have, simply because he had not forgotten them. The incorporation by the author in the work of these accounts, which in their details are so out of proportion to the other narra tives in the book, is most conceivable, if they were recorded by him years before. In addition to the pur pose which he had accomplished in an earlier passage by the introduction of " we " — namely, to prove that he had been an eye-witness of the events recorded — he secured by this means vividness in the narrative which could be obtained in no other way. The fact that Luke incor porates into his work only accounts of travels, is easily explained by the common experience that persons who do not regularly keep a journal do so with the greatest pre cision when they travel. However uninteresting and meagre such notes may be in themselves, for the person who afterwards has to relate the history of travels in which he was one of the party, they are invaluable and become more and more so as the years pass. A further point to be noted — self-evident, but at first thought strange — is the fact that Luke did not use as sources the letters of Paul, which in our estimation are authorities of the first importance for the history which Luke records (n. 21). When Luther expresses the opinion that Acts may well be called " a gloss to the Epistles of St. Paul" (in a preface of the year 1534), he means that Acts furnishes historical illustrations of Pauline doctrine. Acts may be so designated also because it furnishes the reader of Paul's letters with an historical guide, without which even those who question its genuineness could not make their way through the Epistles. If, on other grounds, it were conceivable that Luke had never heard THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 119 of Paul's letters, this unaccountable ignorance on his part would be quite confirmed by the entire silence of Acts concerning the Epistles of Paul (n. 22), and by the absence of points of formal resemblance between Acts and the letters, where both handle the same facts. Of course there are points of similarity between the contents of an early account of Paul's missionary work and the letters which Paul wrote in the midst of this work : if the case were otherwise, it would be necessary to assume, either that the Epistles are pure forgeries or the historical accounts pure inventions. Since neither can reasonably be accepted as true, it is not surprising that the Epistles and Acts agree as to numerous facts. But the fact that the narratives of Acts are uniformly independent of the Epistles, both as regards the form and the compass of historical material handled, is of great significance in the criticism of Acts. Exactly the same relation exists as between Luke i.-ii. and Matt. i. — ii. (above, p. 108 £). It is altogether inconceivable that an author, who read the letters of Paul for the sake of the historical information in them, and who intended to use them as sources, should have made no use of the wealth of interesting historical matter which they contained, particularly if he were short of material. Such a procedure would be inexplic able, even if the author were so devoid of conscience as to esteem his own theological or ecclesiastical opinion and purpose above historical truth as contained in such ancient documents as the Pauline letters. For he was under obligation, not simply to pass by the things which he desired to set in different light from that in which they had been represented by Paul, in fact he had no right to do so, but he was able, and was in duty bound, to recon struct Paul's statements to suit his own unhistorical purpose. Taking up first the gospel history, if the opinion regarding the text of Luke xxii. 17-20 expressed above, p. 39 £, be correct, Luke did not utilise in any way the / / / 120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT / account in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. If the text, as it stands, proves to be the right one, significant differences still remain, and the agreement may be very simply explained as due to the fact that Luke belonged to the Church in Antioch at the time when Paul was a teacher there (above, pp. 39 £, 28 £), so that his idea of the institution of the Lord's Supper was derived from the same oral tradition as that of Paul. It may be for the same reason that Luke x. 7 agrees with 1 Tim. v. 18 (/iio-dov), as against Matt. x. 10 (rpor) eKao-rov, Gal. ii. 3, 7-9). It is just as con ceivable that some of those who heard these narratives, or that Luke, after such conversations, made notes of them, as that a Timothy or Silvanus kept a sort of daily journal during their travels, as did the author of the " we " passages, though, of course, it cannot be proved. Throughout Acts, as in xiii. -xxviii., we note the absence of variations in the narrative, such as are naturally explained by the use of different sources im- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 127 perfectly worked over. It may seem peculiar that Agabus is introduced in xxi. 10 as if entirely unknown, although he has been introduced earlier in an exactly similar manner, xi. 28. But both notices (the first in the recension 8) are in "we" sections (above, p. 4, n. 3). It is, therefore, necessary to assume that in xxi. 10 the author either did not recall the cursory mention of Agabus which he had made earlier, or did not venture to assume that the reader still remembered it. Where this could be assumed, as in the case of Philip, xxi. 8, such references to earlier passages are to be found — in this particular instance to vi. 5 and viii. 5-40. The substitution of the name Paul for Saul, in xiii. 9, cannot be explained by supposing that at this point a new source, in which the apostle is called by his Roman name, takes the place of an earlier source in which he is called Saul. Such a new source could not well begin in the middle of an account of Paul's sojourn in Paphos. A new account does begin with xiii. 1, or perhaps xii. 25, but here we find the name Saul also, xii. 25, xiii. 1, 2, 7 (n. 25). Luke exchanges one name for the other, for reasons similar to those which led to the substitution of Peter for Simon (vol. ii. 219, n. 9). As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had always been known by his Roman name, Paul. Hence it was appropriate that he should be so designated in Luke's narrative at the point where he ceased to appear in the synagogues (xiii. 5, ix. 20-xxii. 29) and in the r61e of a teacher in congregations composed of Jews and Gentiles (xiii. 1, xi. 25-30), and became a teacher in the home of a Gentile in opposition to unbelieving Judaism (Acts xiii. 8-12). If some of the events narrated in Acts vi. 8— viii. 3, ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25-xxviii. 31 were experienced by Luke, and if he had such abundant opportunity to hear the account of others from those who were participants, 128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT so that, as seems to be the case, he felt no necessity for using written sources or literary helps in the preparation of these parts of his work, the question arises whether he was dependent at all upon earlier written sources in the preparation of his second book. If he was a guest of Philip for several days (xxi. 8-12), and if, during Paul's two years' imprisonment, he was with him even occa sionally, he had in Philip the best possible witness for the events reeorded in viii. 4-40, also in vi. 1-viii. 3 and x. 1-xi. 18. What he relates in ix. 31-43 may have been learned from Mnason, who lived midway between Caesarea and Jerusalem, and who had been a disciple from the very earliest times, Acts xxi. 16 (above, p. 18). If Luke was a member of the Church in Antioch when Barnabas came hither from Jerusalem and settled there, he had for a number of years the opportunity of hearing from him the story of the mother Church. That Barnabas would have occasion to relate this history is self-evident. It would also be a strange coincidence if, among the men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who in the year 35 fled from Jerusalem to Antioch, and there proclaimed the gospel for the first time to the Gentiles, there were not also those who had been baptized on the first Christian Pentecost (Acts xi. 19 £, xiii. 1 ; cf. ii. 10, 41). Indeed, these men must have related to the younger Christians all they knew. And one of them, Lucius of Cyrene, was still alive when Luke wrote (above, p. 28, n. 6). So there were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning for the events narrated in Acts ii.-v., from whom Luke could have obtained his information directly. It is possible that some one of these, or Barnabas, noted down at a comparatively early date recollections of what had taken place during the early years of the Church's history. If Mark planned to extend his work to cover apostolic times (vol. ii. 479, above, p. 50), he may have left behind notes which he had gathered for the part of his book that was THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 129 never written, and possibly these fell into Luke's hand. But neither of these things can be proved. In order to explain the fact that there are more Hebraisms in i.-xii. than in xiii. -xxviii. (n. 26), it is not necessary to assume the use of written sources showing this characteristic, if Luke heard these narratives from Jewish Christians who were Palestinians, and had been in Palestine, and if he had sufficient literary sense in the narratives to retain their native colouring (above, p. 104 £). The assumption that the history of the early apostolic age was written in Hebrew or Aramaic (n. 27) is not only incapable of proof, but also extremely improbable ; since the " Hebrews " would have had very little occasion to use such a book, and the reasons which influenced Matthew to write in Aramaic (vol. ii. 521) would not apply in this case. A Greek like Luke would certainly not have been in a position to make use of such a book. Notwithstanding numerous attempts to distinguish different sources in Acts, this has never been shown to be even remotely probable (n. 28). The general outcome of such attempts is the conclusion that the author of the Lucan history, who was in reality a man of fine literary training, and an intelligent, thoughtful, and systematic writer, was a miserable bungler. They fail also to explain the tradition according to which Luke was the author of these writings, or to weaken the proofs of the correctness of this tradition which are to be found in the writings themselves. 1. (P. 94.) M. Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas, 1894, S. 1 ff.) discusses at length the sources upon which Luke depended. His method is not to be commended. In the section on " Josephus' influence upon the language of Luke," S. 283 ff., the comparison, arbitrarily limited to these two writers and the LXX (with the exclusion of 1 and 2 Mace, books so very essential just at this point), is put in tabular form. But what value has the comparison when such words as alo-ddvovai, yt)pas, brjpos are found in a table purporting to give the vocabulary which the three works have in common, or when words like bopKas, boxy, ip*®a> oreipos are included in a list of words supposed to give the vocabulary of Luke and the LXX, not found in Josephus. More than this, the citation of the first of these words, bopKas, is incorrect (cf. Bell. vol. in. 9 130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT iv. 3. 5 with Acts ix. 36). The only list of words which really belongs here is that of the words common to Luke and Josephus, not found in the LXX (S. 304-309). And this would be significant (1) only if very familiar words were excluded, such as are found quite universally in literature since Homer — as ayvao-ros, dvarpicba, iKelae, poyis, irepaivea, irXovs kt\. In this class belongs also avroirTrjs, Luke i. 2, upon which Krenkel (S. 55, 56, 305) lays weight ; whereas it is used by Herodotus, iv. 16 ; Polybius, i. 4. 7, iii. 4. 13, and frequently — generally with ylveaBai, as in Luke. The last passage cited from Polybius (hid to rav irXetorav pr) povov avroirTrjs, dXX' av pev avvepyos, av be Kal xeipio-rr)s yeyovevai) can just as well as Jos. c. Apion, i. 10, be compared to Luke (see above, p. 82 f., n. 5). (2) It would also be necessary to omit all words, the use of which time or circumstance rendered impossible in the LXX, e.g. dvBinaros, KoXavla, veaKopos, prjrap, Hefiaaros, o-iKapios, orparoire- bdpxr]s. (3) It would also be necessary to compare other authors known not to be dependent upon Josephus, who might show points of resemblance to Luke in content and form : the O.T. Apocrypha, especially those portions of it which are of a narrative character, Philo, the other N.T. writers, the historians from Polybius to Herodian, also the medical writers whom Luke may have read (see above, pp. 32 f., 92, nn. 5, 28). It would be particularly necessary to make comparisons with Polybius, from whom such a writer as G. Baphelius, Annotat. in. s. script, ex Xenophonte, Polybio, etc., 1747, torn. i. 431-602 ; ii. 1-209, has collected much material. If this extended investigation should show a special resemblance between Luke and Josephus in language and style, it would naturally be explained by the fact that both are in a sense writers of Jewish history and contemporaries. Of. A. Harnack, Lucas der Arzt als Verfasser des 3 Ev. und der AG, 1906 [Eng. trans. 1907] (Beitrage zur Einl. in d. NT., 1 Heft) received too late for consideration. 2. (P. 94.) In the matter of Josephus' imperfect command of Greek, cf. Ant. xx. 12 (cf. also prooem. § 2) ; as to literary assistance rendered him, cf. c. Ap. i. 9, cf. vol. i. 63, n. 9. On the other hand, regarding the style of Luke i. 1-4, cf. the conclusions of Blass, Ntl. Gr. § 79. 6 (Eng. trans. § 79. 6) ; Vogel, S. 18. 3. (P. 96.) The present writer's extended discussion of the Syrian governorship of Quirinius (NKZ, 1893, S. 633-654) cannot here be quoted at length. When Schiirer, i. 542 (new, not in Eng. trans.), has nothing more to say against the writer's " fascinating " argument than that, even if it be valid, " nothing of apologetic value would be gained," his criticism is evidence of a lack of regard for an historical investigation, carried out without consideration of desired conclusions. The investigations of Ramsay, embodied in his book Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ? 1898, have not as yet resulted in a perfectly clear conclusion. Cf. Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchos Papyri, ii. (1899) p. 207 ff., among others in Schiirer, i. 514, A. 21 (new, not in Eng. trans.). Worthy of note is Origen's exposition of the matter, torn. xvii. 25 in Matt, which is probably dependent on Philo (cf . Forsch. vi. 304 f .). Krenkel discusses the question without any attempt at a criticism of Josephus (S. 64-75). The vain effort to prove that irdaa or 0A77 17 o'tKovpevrj, Luke ii. 1, Acts xi. 28, cf. Matt. xxiv. 14, Rev. iii. 10, xii. 9, xvi. 14, can mean Judea in Luke's writings need not be here considered, since Krenkel does not think that Luke uses it in this sense. All examples of the use of the word cited THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 131 prove that, in order to mean anything other than the whole world, r) olKovpevrj must have a modifier (Luke iv. 5 ; Acts xvii. 6, 31, xix. 27, xxiv. 5) such as r) vir' airov fiao-iXevopevi], Jos. Ant. xi. 6. 5 (a modification of the exaggerated expression in xi. 6. 2), or r)s iirrjpxev, Ant. xix. 1. 2, or rjs ifiovXrjdr], sc. Kparrjo-ai, Ant. xi. 6. 6. The word itself is used with a single general limitation — in other words, it is customary to treat the parts of the world which are civilised and ruled by the Romans as the world proper, and simply to designate them as such (Philo, Leg. ad Cai. ii.), except where the context makes it necessary to say more accurately 17 KaB' r)pds oiKovpev-q, Ptolem. Geogr. ii. 1. 1, cf. § 2 ; Jos. Bell. ii. 16. 4 (Niese, 378), as contrasted with another ercpa or aXXrj olKovpevrj, Bell. ii. 16. 4 (363), Ant. iv. 6. 8. Cf. the distinction made by us between the old world and the new world, i.e. the more recently discovered world — a distinction which is disappearing. The limitation of the meaning in Luke ii. 1 to the world ruled by the Romans is clear from the very character of the statement made ; similarly in Acts ii. 28 it is expressed by the name of the Emperor. The same exaggeration of statement is to be found in Paul's writings, Col. i. 6 ; Rom. x. 18 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17. This, however, is to be said with reference to the alleged unhistorical character of the statement in Acts xi. 28 : the scarcity of food, and the consequent rise in its price in Rome in 41-43 A.D., and again in 51 (Dio Cass. Ix. 11 ; Tac. Ann. xii. 43 ; cf. Anger, De temp, in Actis ratione, 42), must have been due to repeated failure of crops in Egypt, which would increase the price of grain in other lands. There is also to be considered in this connection the reports regarding conditions in Palestine (Jos. Ant. iii. 15. 3, xx. 2. 5, 5. 2) and Greece (Eus. Chron. Anno Abr. 2064, cf. ad 2057). In a metrical inscription from Apollonia in the province of Galatia (Le Bas- Waddington, Asie min. No. 1 192 = C. I. G. 3973), dating possibly from the year 57 a.d. (Ramsay, Stud. Oxon. iv. 1896, p. 52 ff.), is found the following : ore BoiBpaoTis Kara yalav o-apKofiopos beivr) re, (j)6vov fipelBovo'a oXvktov, Koo-pov iireo-xcBe wavra. Even if the date of the inscription be considered uncertain, because of the impossibility of determining exactly the period to which it belongs, the text does show how educated people in imperial times were accustomed to speak of such calamities. The carping critic must also admit that Luke uses the language to which exception is taken only in reproducing the prophecy of Agabus, he himself adding merely the brief remark that this was fulfilled under Claudius. No details are added, which show how nearly the events corresponded to the letter of the prophecy. This fact Theophilus and every contemporary knew better than Overbeck and Krenkel. How one sided Krenkel is in his treatment of this problem appears on S. 281, where the frequently noticed parallelism between Josephus (Vita, 3) and Paul's voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii. -xxviii.) is passed over without further discussion, and the dependence of Luke upon Josephus in this passage is denied, on the ground that Acts xxvii. and xxviii. are the report of an eye-witness. Both authors agree in the following points : (1) The dangerous journey by sea from Palestine to Italy ; (2) the extreme dangers in the Adriatic Sea, and by night (Acts xxvii. 27) ; (3) the loss of the ship (Acts xxvii. 27, 41-44) ; (4) the transfer from one ship to another during the journey (Acts xxvii. 6, to an Alexandrian ship ; Josephus, to a Cyrenean ship) ; (5) landing at Puteoli. It is an unimportant difference in the accounts that Paul made his journey 132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT in the autumn of 60, Josephus in the autumn of 64. Nor is the resemblance rendered less striking by other differences, such as that in the size of the crews, Paul's sojourn in Malta, etc. 4. (P. 97.) C. I. L. v. i. No. 136* : de Rossi, Bull, di arch. Christ. 1880, p. 174 and plate ix. ; Mommsen, Ephem. Epigr. iv. (1881) S. 537-542 ; also the present writer's essay quoted above, n. 3, NKZ, 1893, S. 647 f. 5. (P. 98.) It is hardly necessary to prove that the Herod referred to in Luke i. 5 can be no other than Herod the Great, who died in March of 4 b.c. (Matt. ii. 1-19). Agrippa i. (37-44 a.d.), who is also called Herod in Acts xii. 1-23, and Agrippa n. (Acts xxv. 13 [50 to 93 or 100 a.d.]) are entirely out of the question. It is also inconceivable that Luke should have called by the title "King Herod" the Archelaus, who governed a part of Palestine from 4 b.c. to 6 a.d. under the title of ethnarch. For, in the first place, Luke always employs exact titles in designating the rulers of this house, iii. 1, 19, ix. 7 ; Acts xii. 1, xxv. 13 (cf. per contra vol. ii. 503, n. 3) ; in the second place, the name Herod is never substituted for that of Archelaus either by Josephus or in the N.T. (cf. Matt. ii. 22) (Schiirer, i. 450 [Eng. trans. i. ii. 39]). 6. (P. 99.) The more noticeable resemblances between Jos. and Acts in points of detail are the following : (1) Theudas, Acts v. 36, Ant. xx. 5. 1. The question cannot be here discussed whether the same individual is referred to in both passages, or whether, as Wieseler (Chronol. Synapse, 103 f. ; Beitrage, 101 f.) endeavours to show, the Theudas of Luke is identical with the Matthias in Jos. Ant.'xvii. 6; Bell. i. 33. Whether Luke himself com posed the speech of Gamaliel, or took it from some older writing, he certainly was of the opinion that the insurrection under Theudas took place a long time before the speech in question, namely, before the insurrection of Judas and the one famous taxing, which in Luke ii. 2 he places between 4 and 1 B.C. (above, p. 94 ff.). According to Josephus, the insurrection under Theudas was put down by the procurator Eadus in 45 a.d. — a date considerably later than Gamaliel's speech, and from forty to fifty years later than the insurrec tion under Judas. The account in Josephus cannot be accepted as of unquestionable trustworthiness. Josephus was at the time a child between seven and nine years of age. Moreover, his reports of the history of this period are extremely meagre ; the story about Theudas is a very isolated supplement to the description of Fadus' procuratorship in xx. 1, and is separated from it by the long episode in xx. 2. 1-4. 4. If Josephus is right and Luke wrong, at all events it could not have been Josephus that misled Luke into this chronological error of half a century. No credence is to he given Krenkel's hypothesis (163 ff.) that the mention of the sons of this Judas in the following paragraph of Josephus (xx. 5. 2) caused the confusion of father and sons in Luke's mind, — leading him to suppose that the insurrection of Theudas followed that of Judas. For in this case Luke must have over looked or forgotten the fact that Josephus, a few lines before, had mentioned the great famine — which, as Luke knew, took place under Claudius (Acts xi. 28) — as well as the names of the procurators, Cuspius, Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, and the name of the Emperor Claudius in Ant. xx. 5. 1-2. Furthermore, the agreement between the two narratives is so slight as to leave it only probable that Josephus and Luke are referring to the same THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 133 event. According to Josephus, Theudas is a juggler, who pretends to be a prophet, leads his followers to the Jordan, and promises by a miracle to render easy the passage of the river. He is beheaded by a company of cavalry, who destroy part of his company and take the rest prisoners, and his head is sent to Jerusalem. It will be seen that much is wanting in Luke's account besides the name of Fadus. The number of followers which Luke gives (400) could not have been suggested by Joseph 6 irXelo-ros oxXos, and only frequently used words are common to the two accounts (Luke dvrjpiBrj, Jos. dvelXev, Luke iirelBovro, Jos. eircide,). (2) The death of King Agrippa I., Acts xii, 19-23 ; Jos. Ant. xix. 12. In passages that precede and follow, Josephus calls him Agrippa. In this passage he calls him simply "the King " ; Luke says " Herod." According to Josephus, the occasion of his death was a feast of several days in honour of the saving of the Emperor, at which the distinguished persons of the region were gathered ; according to Luke, it was the presence of a number of Syrians and Sidonians, who, on account of their dependence upon the King's country for their supply of grain, through the chief chamberlain, Blastus, begged peace of the enraged monarch. According to Josephus, the King appeared in the theatre on the second day of the feast ; according to Luke, he delivered an oration to the ambassadors before all the people, on a day appointed with the Syrians for the discussion of the matter. While Josephus describes in detail the splendid garments of the King, and the reflection of the morning sun upon them (cl.per contra Luke, ver. 21), and represents the flatterers of the court as proposing in well-turned phrases an apotheosis of the King, Luke produces a greater effect by the use of five words, in which he gives the exclamations of the people. In place of Luke's impressive conclusion of the scene in ver. 23, Josephus gives the following account : Suddenly Agrippa saw an owl sitting upon a rope, and, because of an earlier experience with an owl which he had had in Rome, recognised at once that it was a messenger (ayyeXov) of death (Ant. xviii. 6. 7). He was seized with severe pains in the abdomen, delivered a philosophical discourse to his friends, was carried into the palace, was deeply moved by the sympathy of the people, and died five days later. It is perfectly clear to everyone that each story has as its basis an entirely independent tradition, and it requires no great exercise of one's historical sense to understand that Luke has reproduced more successfully than Josephus the spirit in which the event was recounted by those who witnessed it. The " Angel of the Lord," which the Gentile Luke represents as acting, is more natural in the story of the death of a Jewish King in Palestine than the discourses about mortal nature and fate which the Jew Josephus represents the King as delivering. The very fact that Josephus calls the owl an " ayyeXos " in a different sense from which it is used in Luke's account, would seem to indicate familiarity with the popular account of Jewish contem poraries. Christian writers have transformed the owl again into what it was originally, a real angel (cf. Ems. H. E. ii. 10. 6). (3) The Egyptian, Acts xxi. 38 ; Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 6, Bell. ii. 13. 5. It is possible that Luke may have taken his short notice, which, however, is connected with another event in a manner hardly to be considered as invented, from the longer accounts of Josephus ; but there is nothing to prove it. Nothing in Jos. indicates that the followers of the Egyptian were Sicarii. Indeed, Josephus describes the 134 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT activity of this body in an entirely different way (Ant. xx. 13. 3, Bell. ii. 8. 10), and does not connect them at all with the Egyptian. Their number in Luke, 4000, agrees neither with the 400+200 of Ant. xx. 8. 6, nor with the 30,000 of Bell. ii. 13. 5. The other points in which the accounts agree prove nothing as to the dependence of one author upon another. Luke cannot win the favour of the critics. When he differs from Josephus, he errs or fabricates ; when he agrees with him, he copies ; what he omits or adds is due to arbitrariness or misunderstanding ; but Josephus is always infallible. 7. (P. 100.) The [question whether, before completing his Antiquities and writing his Vita, Josephus read Luke's work, cannot be answered without entering at length into Josephus' attitude toward the religious life of his people, the Messianic expectation, and the Christian movement. He did not understand this movement any more than would the rich, worldly, and ' heartless Jew of our own time. But he knew ten times more about it than he says. The famous testimony to Christ is put into his mouth by someone else, and there is a suspicion that the same is true of the statement about James, the brother of the so-called Christ ; cf. Forsch. vi. 301-305. A con venient starting-point for the discussion of this question is the chapter on John, Ant. xviii. 5. 2, which Gratz (Gesch. d. Judens, iii. 294) declares to be a forgery, while Ranke (Weltgesch.1 iii. 1. 161, 2. 39) uses it as a principal source, instead of the gospel account. It is an episode at the beginning and end, of which regard is had for the popular way of treating history, characteristic of certain Jews. It is senseless to suppose that Antipas feared that John would create a popular uprising, if at the same time he exhorted the people only to righteousness and piety, because this leaves out of account altogether the preaching of the nearness of the Kingdom of God and the fire of judgment. When Josephus makes John teach that men ought to be baptized, " not in order to apologise for certain offences," there is implied a direct rejection of the Christian tradition, according to which he preached a fidirrio-pa peravo'ias els a;ev r)plv, ver. 24 f. (cf. Luke i. 1-3), need hardly be taken into account. 9. (P. 101.) Julius Africanus in Eus. H. E. i. 7. 7-15. The beo-iroo-vvoi drew partly from family traditions, partly from chronicles ; see ZKom. Matt. 44 f. A. 7. 10. (P. 104.) To Luke the use of the article, with both the name and the title of Isaiah in Mark i. 2, seemed harsh, as did also the bare phrase, " in Isaiah " (cf . Rom. ix. 25, xi. 2). One reads " Isaiah " (Acts viii. 28, 30 ; cf. xv. 21) as he does "Homer," but " the book of the prophet Isaiah" (Luke iv. 17) is handed to him, and when this and other books are quoted, reference is made to the book (Luke iii. 4, xx. 42 ; Acts i. 20, vii. 42). Because Theophilus is not entirely familiar with the work, it is remarked, in con nection with the first quotation from it, that the book is a collection of the sayings of the prophet mentioned (Luke iii. 4). 11. (P. 104.) Outside of chaps, i.-ii. in the narratives peculiar to Luke, but certainly not created by him, we find such expressions as 6 ohovopos tt)s dbiKlas, xvi. 8; 6 papavds rrjs dS., xvi. 9 (ver. 11 is different); 6 KpiTijs rr)s ab., xviii. 6 ; iv rois aarlv, els ra ara, Luke iv. 21, ix. 44 ; Acts xi. 22 ; tbov or km ibov (not in quotation) 56 times in the Gospel, 23 times in Acts, often where it is not found in the parallels in Mark (found in this Gospel only 8 or 10 times), frequently wanting also in Matt., Luke v. 12 (=Matt. viii. 2, not Mark i. 40) ; v. 18 (=Matt. ix. 2, not in Mark ii. 3) ; vi. 23 (not in Matt. v. 12) ; ix. 30 ( = Matt. xvii. 3, not in Mark ix. 4) ; ix. 38, 39 (not in Matt. xvii. 15 ; Mark ix. 15). Passages without parallel : vii. 12, 37, x. 19, 25, xi. 41, xiii. 7, 11, etc. Noticeable is the frequent occurrence of sal iyevero or iyevero be (often with iv ra, followed by the infinitive or as rJKovo-ev and similar expressions, or with a statement of time). This is found in a number of different constructions : (a) followed by the principal verb, without koi, i. 8, 23, 41, 59, ii. 1, 15, 46, vii. 11, viii. 40, ix. 18, 33, 37, xi. 1, 14, 27, xvii. 14, xviii. 35, xix. 29, xx. 1 ; (6) with Kal, v. 1, 12, 17, viii. 1, 22, ix. 51, x. 38, xvii. 11, xxiv. 4, 15 ; (c) followed by the infinitive with the accusative, iii. 21, vi. 1, 6, 12, xvi. 22. Of these con structions only the third, which is (in the first place) found in vulgar Greek, also occurs in Acts and very frequently (iv. 5, ix. 3, 32, 37, 43, xiv. 1, xvi. 16, xix. 1, xxi. 1, 5, xxii. 6, 17, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 8, 17 ; about xi. 26 there may be a question). The second construction (b) is the most Hebraistic of the three, especially in constructions like Luke xiv. 1, Kal iyevero, iv ra iXdelv airov . . . Kal airol rjo-av . . . Kal Iboi, cf. vi. 1, 2, xxiv. 4. It is avoided altogether by Mark and Matt. The only one of the constructions used by Matt, is (a) vii. 28, ix. 10 (where the correct reading is l8ov without Kai), xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1 ; Mark uses it twice, i. 9, iv. 4 ; also (b) ii. 15, 23, twice. 12. (P. 105.) For the use of evBis in Mark see vol. ii. 482. Luke uses eideas appropriately, also irapaxpr/pa, which is found outside of Luke's writings (Gospel 10 times, Acts 6 times) only in Matt. xxi. 19 f. The strong Hebraism in Mark vi. 39 is removed in Luke ix. 14, as are also the 136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Aramaic words and names, Mark iii. 16, 18, v. 41, ix. 5, x. 46, 51, xi. 10, xii. 43, xiv. 32, 36, 45, xv. 22, 34. In some cases translations are substi tuted : (j/kaTr)s, Luke vi. 15 (Acts i. 13) ; 17 irals iyelpov, viii. 54 ; e'jrio-rdra, ix. 33 (v. 5, viii. 45, ix. 49, xvii. 13, where there are no parallels ; viii. 24 for bibdo-KaXe) ; Kipie, xviii. 41 (for pafifiovvi), dXrrdas, xxi. 3 (for dptjv removed in xxii. 18 altogether, used only 6 or 7 times in the Gospel). In other cases the Hebrew or Aramaic word, or name, is simply stricken out, xix. 38, xxii. 40, 42, 47, xxiii. 33. In Luke's writings are found the following Hebrew words : dpr)v, iv. 24, xii. 37, etc. (used by Jesus only in connection with Xeya ip.lv, hence not found in Acts) ; BeeXCefiovX, xi. 15-19 (with explanation) ; yievva, xii. 5 (but in xvi. 23 abrjs) ; irdo-xa, ii. 41 (17 egprr) tov it., as in Matt, and Mark) ; xxii. 1 (with detailed explanation), cf. Acts xii. 3, 4, xxii. 7-15 ; o-dfifiarov and o-dfifiara, often in the sense of week, xviii. 12, xxiv. 1 ; Acts xvii. 2, xx. 7, vol. i. 212, n. 5 ; 5 times in the Gospel, twice in Acts (also bidfioXos from 4 to 6 times in the Gospel ; twice in Acts) ; o-Uepa indeclinable, Luke i. 15 (Isa. xxiv. 9 nom. Num. vi. 3 gen., Deut. xiv. 26, Cod. AF dat., Lev. x. 9 ace). Luke and Theophilus, who lived in Antioch, were probably familiar with the Syriac words papavas, xvi. 9-13, and fidros, xvi. 6 (more correctly written fidbovs, XLX, Epiph. Mens. xxii. 4. 10, which is the source of the reading in D Kabovs), cf. vol. i. 18 ; regarding the use of Syriac in and about Antioch see Forsch. i. 40 ff. 13. (P. 104.) The expression avBp. iv irveipari aKaddpra in Mark i. 23, v. 2 is improved in Luke iv. 33, viii. 27. In two instances i£ airoC following i£eX8elv, Mark i. 25 f., is changed into dir' airov, iv. 35 (cf. iv. 41, v. 8, viii. 29, 33, 35, 38, 46 ; Acts xvi. 18, xix. 12) ; r) aKor) airov, Mark i. 28, is replaced by r)xos irepl airov, Luke iv. 37 ; in two cases Kpdfiaros, Mark ii. 4, 11, is replaced by KXivlbiov in Luke v. 19, 24, left out altogether in v. 23 (Mark ii. 9) and reproduced by a circumlocution in v. 25 (Mark ii. 12), while the word is tolerated in Acts v. 15 (along with KXivdpia) and ix. 33. For words and phrases in parallels in Mark, not altogether polished in character, Luke substitutes the following (those not occurring elsewhere in the N.T. are marked with an *) : 7rapd§o£a*, v. 26 ; boxf), v. 29 (also xiv. 13), iyialvovres, v. 31 (also vii. 10, xv. 27) ; Upas*, viii. 6 ; bexeo-dai, viii. 13 ; dwobexeo-8ai, viii. 40, ix. 11 (used similarly 3 or 4 times in Acts) ; reXeo-(bopelv*, viii. 14 ; boKel e'xeiv, viii. 18 ; o-vvrvxelv tivi*, viii. 19 ; Xlpvrj, viii. 22, 23 (also v. 1, 2, viii. 33 always instead of BdXao-o-a in Mark and Matt, and John, of the sea of Gennesaret) ; birjyelo-Bai, viii. 39, ix. 10 (Acts ix. 27, xii. 17, Sirjyrro-is, Luke i. 1) ; irpoo-avaXao-ao-a SXov tov filov, viii. 43 ; biairopelv, ix. 7 (Acts v. 24, x. 17 ; in the middle voice in ii. 12) ; fipedtr; for iraibla, xviii. 15 (i. 41, 44, ii. 12, 16 ; Acts vii. 19) ; igeKpepero airov aKovav*, xix. 48 ; dvadfjpao-i* Kexoo-prjTai, xxi. 5 ; ir popeXerdv*, xxi. 14 ; d7roXoy«o-6'ai, xxi. 14 (xii. 11, 6 times in Acts). For medical terms cf. § 62. While Luke does not avoid altogether Latin terms, such as do-o-dpiov, xii. 6 ; brrvdpiov, vii. 41, x. 35 ; Xeyiav, viii. 30 ; Kaio-ap (in the Gospel 6 times, in Acts 10 times), which are found also in the other Gospels, he does avoid Kevrvpiav (Mark, Luke has instead e'KardVrapxos', vii. 2, 6, xxiii. 47, 13 or 14 times in Acts) kouotcbSici (Matt., but cf. Acts xii. 4) ; Krjvo-os (Matt., Mark for which Luke xx. 22, xxiii. 2 has qbopos) ; Kobpdvrrts (Matt., Mark for which Luke xxi. 2 has bvo Xeirrd, which in Mark xii. 42 is given as the equivalent of one THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 137 quadrans, vol. ii. 504 ; £eo-rr]s (Mark) ; o-n-eKouXdrap (Mark) ; rtVXor (John) ; drpayeXXovv (Matt., Mark), see vol. ii. 504. In Luke xx. 24 probably the correct reading is vopio-pa instead of brjvdpiov. Neither does Luke use wpairapiov designating the guard in the passion history (Matt., Mark, John), but only in Acts xxiii. 35. In Acts we have colonia (xvi. 12) and sicarii (xxi. 38). Otherwise Luke uses Greek names for everything Roman (officials, the military, etc.) : dvBviraros, r)yepa>v, r)yepoveieiv, fjyepovla, orpaTOirebov, o-TpaToirebdpxys, orpareveo-Bai (oTpand, Luke ii. 13 ; Acts vii. 42 applied to the world of spirits), xiXlapxos (so used elsewhere only in John xviii. 12 ; in Mark vi. 21, Rev. vi. 15 more indefinite) ; a-nelpa (of cohorts, Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1, also in Matt., Mark, John); rerpdbiov o-rpariarav (Acts xii. 4) ; begioXdfios (Acts xxiii. 23) ; irapepfioXr) (elsewhere only in Heb. and Rev.). Likewise for Jewish officials and authorities Luke uses only Greek titles : arpa-rqyos (xxii. 4, 52 ; Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26) ; yepovo-la (Acts v. 21) ; vopiKos (6 times elsewhere, only in Matt. xxii. 35) ; vopobibdo-KaXos (Luke v. 17 ; Acts v. 34). 14. (P. 108.) For the Hebrew and Aramaic words in Luke's writings see n. 12. On Akeldama see vol. i. 28 ; on Barnabas, vol. i. 30. The translation of the word Tabitha only (Acts ix. 36) is unquestionably correct (cf. Jos. Bell. iv. 3. 5). In xiii. 8 the text is obscure, cf., however, NKZ, xv. 195 ff. To the mind of the present writer, Klostermann (Probleme im Apostelt. S. 18) has, with great probability, proved that peydXrj, Acts viii. 10, was originally ttbio or ^:d (" The Revealer "), which Luke has misunderstood. 15. (P. 109.) In the parallels between Matt., Mark, Luke there are a few words in which Luke agrees with Matt, against Mark. But in the case of the more important of these there is a suspicion about the correctness of the text, e.g. as r) SXXrj, Luke vi. 10 (omitted by XBL, Old Lat. and Copt.) = Matt. xii. 13, not found in Mark iii. 5 ; like the preceding iyir)s, which likewise is genuine only in Matt., it has crept into the text of Luke, only at an earlier date, and, therefore, is found more generally in the MSS. Other agreements may be due to the fact that the translator of Matt, and Luke both made the same changes in the clumsy language of Mark ; in which process the former may have been influenced by the latter ; cf. vol. ii. 574 f., 594. 16. (P. 111.) Matt. iv. 1-11 and Luke iv. 1-13 must be based upon a report by Jesus to His disciples, and this is confirmed by Matt. xii. 29 ; Mark iii. 27 ; Luke xi. 21 f. ; also by Luke x. 18, when this saying is rightly understood ; cf. ZKom. Matt. 147 f. 17. (P. 112.) Feine (Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lc. 1891) con structs, on the basis of material found only in Luke, a Jewish Christian "source," i.e. a source which originated in the Christian Church in Palestine before 70, peculiar to Luke. This fourth source Luke used in addition to the other sources, which in learned fashion he adopted, namely, (1) Mark ; (2) " The original synoptic document " (following B. Weiss) ; (3) " Sayings " (Logia). But, according to Feine, Luke probably found this fourth source already combined with the third. In Acts i. 1-viii. 24, ix. 31- xi. 23, xii. 1-24 he finds essentially unaltered a writing closely related to this fourth source, " possibly " (S. 236, 244) in some way combined with it into a whole. 138 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 18. (P. 114.) It is to be assumed that the subordinate characters in the gospel history, who are mentioned by name in the Gospels (Jairus, Bartimaeus, Simon of Cyrene, Alexander, Rufus, Nicodemus, Lazarus) were more or less widely known in the apostolic age as members of the Church, as was also the rich, small statured chief publican of Jericho. According to Clement, Horn. iii. 64-71 ; Recogn. iii. 65-68 ; cf. Horn. ii. 1, xvii. 1. 6 ; Becogn. ii. 1, he became bishop of Csesarea. Of the fifteen Jewish Christian bishops of Jerusalem before 132 or 135 the fourth to be mentioned is a Zacchseus (Eus. H. E. iv. 5. 3), or, according to Epiph. Hcer. lxvi. 20, Zacharias, which, however, is only the full Hebrew form for the Aramaic abbreviation ; cf. Dalman, Aram. Gr.2 178. For further discussion of the subject see Forsch. vi. 291 f., 300 f. 19. (P. 114.) Luke x. 30-37 is freer from Semiticisms than other passages peculiar to this Gospel. In xv.-xvi., xviii. 1-14 also, notwith standing thoroughly Jewish expressions and ideas (xv. 18, 21, 24, 32, xvi. 8, 9 [n. 11], 22, xviii. 6), a fairly good style is to be observed. Naturally one speaks of heaven and hell (xvi. 22 f ., xxiii. 43) in a different way than of the happenings of a journey and of inns (x. 30-35). 20. (P. 117.) J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1848, 3rd ed. 1866 ; A. Breusing, director of the naval academy in Bremen (Die Nautik der Alten, 1886, S. 142-205). In his introduction, p. xiii, Breusing says : " The most valuable nautical document preserved to us from antiquity is the description of the sea journey and shipwreck of the apostle Paul. Every seaman recognises at once that it must have been written by an eye-witness." Th. Mommsen (Sitzungsber. d. berl. Ah 1895, S. 503) has not increased his reputation by his scornful remark, that " Luke speaks of the Adriatic Sea in the vicinity of Crete, and of the Barbarians on the island of Malta." Even Strabo (pp. 123, 317) knows 'Abplas to be the common name of the Adriatic proper and of the Ionian sea ; and in Ptolemseus (iii. 4. 1, cf. Pausan. viii. 54. 2) it includes also the Sicilian (or Ausonian) sea. Just as Strabo (p. 123) remarks that the Sicilian sea reaches to the western end of Crete and to the Peloponnesus, so Ptolemseus says (iii. 17. 1) that Crete is bounded on the west by the Adriatic sea. Luke, whose chronological position is between Strabo and Ptolemseus, had no more occasion than did Josephus (Vita, 3) to make an accurate geo graphical statement regarding the scope of the term 'Abplas, but, like Ptolemseus and Josephus, he seems to have made it include the entire sea lying between Crete and Sicily (Acts xxvii. 27) ; for during the fourteen days (xxvii. 27, 33) after land was lost sight of on the south-west coast of Crete, namely, the island Cauda (xxvii. 16 B vg, also S1 not Clauda, called now Gavdos or Gozzo), until shortly before the stranding of the ship on Malta it was tossed about in the Adriatic sea. Mommsen's mocking remark deserves even less credence than the claim that Luke included Malta in the Adriatic sea, upon which W. Falconer (Dissertat. on St. Paul's Voyage and on the Apostle's Shipwreck on the Island of Melite, 1817, 2nd ed., by Th. Falconer, 1870) based the hypothesis that Melite is to be identified with the modern Meleda, on the Illyricum coast. But the inference would be wrong in any case (cf. Breusing, S. 150). Procopius (de Bell. Vand. i. 14) makes the islands of Gaulos and Malta the boundary between the Adriatic and- THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 139 Tyrrhenian seas. That Luke's view was the same cannot be proved. It would be pedantic, in order to make Luke agree with Ptolemseus (iii. 4. 1, cf. iv. 3. 47), to require him to say that during the last of the fourteen days the ship passed the longitude of Cape Pachynos, so that when Paul landed on Malta he was no longer in the Adriatic (Siculum) sea, but in the African sea. With reference to the fidpfiapoi on the island of Melita (Acts xxviii. 1, 4), it is difficult to understand how Mommsen knows that in the year 60 the Punic language had died out on this island, which was long a part of the dominions of Carthage — its name Melita being in fact a Punic name — and was also an old Phoenician colony (Movers, Die Phonizier, ii. 2. 347-358 ; cf. the inscriptions in Schroder, Die phbn. Sprache, S. 232-235), especially in view of the fact that on the mainland opposite there were extensive regions where it remained the dominant language until within the fifth century (GK, i. 40-42 ; Movers in Ersch and Gruber, Encyc, article " Phbnizien," 433 f.). Of the twelve existing coins which were struck on the island of Malta between the time of Roman annexation (218 B.C.) and Augustus (A. Mayr, Die antiken Munzen der Inseln Malta, Gozzo, and Pantelleria, Munchen, 1894, especially S. 18 f .), numbers 1 to 4 are Punic, from 5 to 10 are Greek and Latin, and 12 is Latin. Punic and Greek coins were struck cotemporaneously. All that Luke says is that the fishermen, sailors, and peasants whom those who were shipwrecked first met did not know Greek. On account of the close connection between Punic and ancient Hebrew, it is quite possible that Paul understood at once the words of the Barbarians (xxviii. 4). The landed proprietor Publius, with whom those who were shipwrecked, or at least part of them, — among these the three Christians in the company,' — spent three days as guests, and most of the inhabitants of the city where they spent three months (xxviii. 11) may have understood and spoken Latin, or Greek, or both. Luke shows his knowledge of actual conditions in Malta by the use of the title 6 irparos rrjs vr]o-ov, xxviii. 7, which is attested for this island by C. I. G. No. 5754=Kaibel I. G. Sicilice, No. 601 : lirirevs 'Papalav, irparos MeXiraiav Kal irdrpav. C. I. L. x. No. 7495, municipii Melitensium primus omnium, according to the addenda to this inscription, p. 994, dating from the first or second century. 21. (P. 118.) The literary relation of Acts to the letters of Paul is not carefully investigated by those critics, who are most under obligation to do so, because of the late date which they assign to Acts, and because of the conscious modification of the Pauline history which they assume. Zeller speaks very incidentally (S. 518 f .) of " the Pauline letters," and especially of Gal., as sources of Acts. Overbeck (p. lix) claims in a mere remark— as if this question were not of fundamental importance in any critical estimate of Acts, that while as a matter of course Luke was acquainted with the genuine Epistles of Paul, as evidenced by ix. 19-30, xv. 1-33, xviii. 24-28, these Epistles were "not among the sources of Acts." There is, however, nothing added to explain this, which Overbeck calls " a characteristic fact." Jacobsen (Quellen der AG, 1885, S. 8ff.), on the other hand, represents the author of Acts as elaborating the most important statements and narratives even of chaps, i.-xii. from the hints in Paul's letters, while Steck (Gal. 1888, S. 78-151) thinks that he is able to show that the author of the four "chief 140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Epistles" presupposed and utilised Acts and perhaps even the Gospel of Luke (S. 191-211). 22. (P. 119.) The reading iirio-roXyv for ivroXfjv (Acts xvii. 15 ES1, " And when they parted from him they received from him a letter to Silas and Timothy") is untrustworthy, and, if genuine, would refer to a lost letter. 23. (P. 121.) Paul refers to his Pharisaism in the description of his condition before conversion, Phil. iii. 5 f. ; Gal. i. 14 ; Luke does not refer to this until much later, and then in a different connection, Acts xxiii. 6, xxvi. 5, and the expression tjjXarys virdpxav, Gal. i. 14 = Acts xxii. 3, is not at all striking ; cf. Acts xxi. 20. There is nothing in Luke which reminds us of the bold figure in 1 Cor. xv. 8. The fact that besides the more common biaKeiv (1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 13, 23 ; Phil. iii. 6 ; 1 Tim. i. 13) iropBelv is used twice by Paul (Gal. i. 13, 23) and once by Luke (Acts ix. 21) proves nothing ; Philo also, c. Flacc. viii., calls the Jew haters in Alexandria iropBelv 'lovbaiovs. In the description of the flight from Damascus in Acts ix. 24 f. and 2 Cor. xi. 32 all the words are different, until the designation of the city wall, which it was necessary for both to mention, and except xaXdv, which is used by Luke elsewhere (Luke v. 4, 5 ; Acts xxvii. 17, 30) ; Paul : icppovpei rr)v iroXiv . . . irido-ai pe. bid Bvpibos iv arapydvrj. bid tov tc'ixovs ; Luke: ir aperr) povvro rds irvXas rjpepas re Kal vvktos, orras airov dveXao-iv, Xafiovrcs be . . . vvktos bid tov tcixovs KaBrjcrav airov ^aXdo-ai/res iv o-irvpibi. On this point cf. NKZ, xv. 34-41. 24. (P. 125.) Clement of Rome possesses independent knowledge about the end of Paul's life (1 Cor. v. ; vol. ii. 68 f.), but nevertheless refers the Corinthians in chap, xlvii. to 1 Cor., as if it were the first letter in a collection of Pauline letters (cf. GK, i. 812 f.). Ignatius (Eph. xii. 2 ; Rom. iv. 3) and Polycarp (Phil. iii. 2, xi. 3) uniformly treat Paul as the author of the letters that pass under his name (vol. i. 535, n. 3 ; GK, i. 811- 822), although they were not unfamiliar with Acts (GK, i. 923). Marcion confines himself entirely to the letters, and leaves Acts out of account altogether. The schools of Basilides and Valentinus made large use of the Epistles, while it is impossible to prove certainly that they utilised Acts (GK, ii. 751-763, 773). In the Acts of Paul, including the Acts of Theclas and in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, we find the Epistles of Paul just as much noticed or imitated as Acts (GK, ii. 854 f., 887-889, 903-909, i. 783, 787- 789). 25. (P. 127.) On p. 127 above, in xii. 25-xiii. 9, the a text is pre supposed. S3 and p have 6 eiriKaXoipevos ITaOXos after SaOXor in xii. 25, and the latter alone, TlavXos instead of 2avXos in xiii. i, 2 also, but see p. 28, n. 6 above. If, in view of xi. 25, 30, it is probable that SaOXor was used in Antioch when Paul first came to the city, the scantily attested TlavXos in xiii. 1, 2 is improbable, and for the recurrence of SavXos in xiii. 7 there is no sufficient reason, and the addition in xii. 25 is superfluous. For the two names see vol. i. 69 f. It is very possible that Paul's own companions, Barnabas and Mark, up to this time had used Aramaic in conversing with him, hence had called him SaOXor. From the time, however, when they found it necessary to use Greek they called him naOXos. 26. (P. 129.) The following are 'Hebraistic expressions in Acts i.-xii. : THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 141 Sid x*ipbs (xeipav), ii. 23, v. 12, vii. 25, xi. 30 ; cf. iv or o-iv x«/"'i vii- 35, also xiv. 3, xv. 23, xix. 11 ; xii- ^ > Luke i. 71, 74, also xxiv. 7 ; rjv xclp Kvp'iov per airav, xi. 21, elsewhere only in Luke i. 66, but cf. also Acts iv. 28, 30, xiii. 11 ; bid o-rbparos, i. 16, iii. 18, 21, iv. 25 (Luke i. 70), also xv. 7, cf. xxii. 14 ; Luke xi. 54, xix. 22, xxi. 71 ; dvoigas ro crropa, viii. 35, x. 34 (viii. 32 quotation), cf. xviii. 14 ; r)Koio-6r> els rd ara, xi. 22, cf. Luke i. 44 ; Matt. x. 27 ; Jas. v. 4 ; Ibov, 16 times in chaps, i.-xii., only 7 times in chaps, xiii.-xxviii. see above, p. 135, n. 11. 27. (P. 129.) E. Nestle has repeatedly attempted to explain the variations of Cod. D and the allied MSS. from the commonly accepted text in Acts, on the supposition that they are different translations of the same Hebrew (or Aramaic) original, or due to variations in this original (CW, 1895, separate print, S. 6; Philol. sacra, 1896, S. 39 ff.; ThStKr, 1896, S. 102 f.). This is conceivable, if, with D. Schultz (De cod. Gantabrig. 1827, p. 16), we may regard the text of D as a later form of the text, dependent upon a Syriac translation of Acts ; but this theory is irreconcilable with the view that both a and fi originated with the author, and that fi represents his original draft of the book. For, in view of the language conditions of the time, it is impossible to believe that one so thoroughly Greek in character as the Antiochian physician Luke, the author of the prologue, and the author or redactor of the entire Lucan work, could have read a Hebrew book. To every thousand Jews (Syrians, Copts) who at that time were able to read, write, and speak Greek, there could not at most have been more than one Greek who had obtained a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And the present writer confesses that he has sought this rara avis in vain. A few words and expressions were occasionally picked up from the natives (Forsch. i. 41), but it occurred to no educated Greek or Roman to learn their language in a systematic way (vol. i. 34 ff.). Except in cases where a Greek pastor was assigned to a region where only Syriac was used (Forsch. i. 43), this was not done until Christians, such as Origen and Jerome, studied Hebrew in the interest of theology. Among these Aquila would be included, if he were actually a native Gentile and a Greek. 28. (P. 129.) Schwanbeck, Uber die Quellen der Schriften des Lc, vol. i. (the only vol.) ; der AG, 1847 ; Zeller, S. 489-524. Jacobsen, Quellen der AG, 1885; Sorop, Entstehung der AG, 1890; Spitta, Die AG, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtl. Wert, 1891 ; Gercke, Hermes, 1894, S. 373-392 ; Der beirepos Xoxos des Lc. und die AG; Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lc. 1891 ; Jungst, Quellen der AG, 1895. Cf. the review by Zbckler, Greifswalder Stud. 1895, S. 107-145 : " Die AG als Gegenstand hbherer und niederer Kritik." It would be useless to undertake to review the separate hypotheses of the scholars mentioned. It will be sufficient to illustrate the conception of the redactor of the entire work, if attention be called to Spitta's idea of his work in writing down Acts ii. 1 (S. 23, 51). In the A source the outpouring of the Spirit was connected with the choice of an apostle by the words koi iv riS o-vpirXypovo-Bai, to which the indulgent reader was left to supply airovs or rbv dpi&pov, sc. rav diroo-roXav. At the moment when the number of the apostles was complete they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. In the B source the story began with the words, 142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT "But when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together." The redactor, however, misunderstood A, and out of A and B constructed the alleged bungling construction of ii. 1. The only conceivable motive for the retention of o-vpirXypovo-Bai, which was misunderstood, — also entirely unintelligible in A, — would be the childish fondness of the redactor for this word, which is found elsewhere only in Luke viii. 23, ix. 51, and used here inaccurately, as in Luke ix. 51. For also in Luke ix. 51 it is not the time until the taking up, which is said to be fulfilled, — the natural expression, — but the time at which the taking up occurs. It is the same common shift ing of the idea that we have in the irewXyparai 6 Kaipos of Mark i. 15 ; John vii. 8, and other similar combinations (cf. Luke ix. 31 ; John iii. 29). In this way it comes about that a point of time or an event which really marks the conclusion of a period at the end of which these are expected, is itself said to be fulfilled. § 62. THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK ATTRIBUTED TO LUKE AND THE TIME OF ITS COMPOSITION. Assuming that the "we" passages, Acts xvi. 10-18, xx. 5-xxi. 18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, were written by a travelling companion of Paul's, either in the form in which we now possess them, or at least in substance (above, p. 115 £), it is entirely arbitrary to attribute their composition to some person other than Luke, to whom they are assigned by the tradition, whether it be to Timothy or Silas (Silvanus) or Titus (n. 1). The first two names are excluded because both are mentioned in the third person and by name in xv. 22- xviii. 5, directly before and directly after the first long "we" passage. Timothy is mentioned again in xix. 22 and once more in xx. 4, directly before the "we" re appears. The sudden transition from the impersonal designation of one of these persons, " Silas or Timothy," to " I," which is implied by the use of " we," and especi ally the contrast between one group of individuals, which includes Timothy, and a second group, which includes Paul and the narrator speaking in the first person (Acts xx. 4-6), would not only make the narrative incredibly awkward, or introduce into it a needless element of mystery, but would be positively meaningless (above, THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 143 p. 86 £, nn. 11-13). Moreover, if the "we" in xi. 27 is original (above, p. 4, n. 3 ; 28, n. 6), Silas and Timothy are excluded. Silas was not at this time a resident of Antioch, but of Jerusalem (xv. 22), and Timothy had not yet become a Christian ; for it was not until very much later that the gospel reached the province where he lived (xiv. 6, xvi. 1). Furthermore, Silas is not mentioned as one of Paul's companions in any of the letters written from Rome. But, according to Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, the narrator accompanied Paul to Rome, and, unless we assume that a strange accident took place, he was, like Aristarchus (xxvii. 2), whom we meet again in Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, one of the persons mentioned in Col. i. 1, iv. 7-14 ; Philem. 1, 23 f. Since Paul took Titus with him from Antioch to the apostolic council after the first missionary journey (Gal. ii. 1), possibly he may be concealed behind the "we" of Acts xi. 27. Since, moreover, he is not mentioned at all in the prevailing text of Acts (see, however, above, p. 28, n. 6), some of the difficulties disappear in which we are involved when we assume that the " we " passages were written by Silas or Timothy. But Titus could not have been the author of the "we" passages, because there is nothing to indicate that he accompanied Paul to Rome, or was with him there during the first imprisonment. It has already been remarked (above, p. 117) that, if, without reference to the ancient tradition, we were under necessity of conjecturing which one of Paul's friends who were with him in Rome wrote the account of the journey in Acts xxvii., the choice would most naturally fall upon the physician Luke. But, in addition, there is an ancient and unanimous tradition which represents Luke as the author of the entire work, i.e. identifies him with the person speaking in Luke i. 1-4 ; Acts i. 1, also, how ever, with the person associated with Paul and his 144 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT other travelling companions in the " we " passages of Acts. It is impossible to explain this tradition unless there are at least good reasons for assuming that Luke is the author of the "we" passages. For it is inconceivable that Luke should be the author of the entire work and at the same time have appropriated for his own use in different parts of his work accounts of journeys written by Titus, or some third party, without so much as changing the inappropriate "we" into the third person. A man with the literary training of the writer of these two books could not have made such a blunder unintentionally (n. 2). Nor could a man like Luke, who was so closely associated with Paul and the events narrated, have endeavoured to deceive his readers by borrowing the journal of another disciple of Paul's and by retaining the "we" used in these accounts. He did not need to borrow a mask ; his own authority was sufficient. In this case it would be neces sary to assume at once that some later writer, out of touch with the events which he was about to narrate, sought by the retention of the " we," which he found in one of his exemplars, to create the impression that he was an eye-witness. And, as a matter of fact, this is the assumption made by those who grant that Luke was the author of the " we " passages, but not of the entire work (n. 3). But this hypothesis is in itself incredible and incapable of explaining the tradition. One unacquainted with the original work would not notice the fact that in Acts several of its passages had been borrowed, and hence could not in this way be led to believe that Luke, who may have been known as the author of the original work, was the author of the much later compilation. But the same would be true also of the reader, who was acquainted with the original work, and who knew that Luke was its author ; since such a person would detect the plagiarism and could not possibly confuse a large historical work, consisting of two books, with a work by Luke of an THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 145 entirely different character, because of a few chapters incorporated from the latter. Nor is any such deception to be attributed to the author of the Lucan work ; for if this were his purpose, then the means which he chose in order to pass himself off for Luke, the friend of Paul, were ridiculously inadequate. In the preface he would be merely suggesting that, in the course of the history which he is about to set forth, he became an eye-witness of the events which he records, and a helper in the proclamation of the gospel. And, indeed, in such a delicate way that modern readers can deny that the passage really contains the author's testimony to himself which we have found it to contain (above, pp. 46 f., 54 f.). When he comes to deal with the events where he wanted the reader to think that he was an eye-witness, when he was not, he would be concealing his identity by the use of a " we," which clearly includes several persons, without indicating the specific person for whom he wishes himself to be taken, and with out relating how he became a companion of Paul. Why did he not use one of the unmistakable methods employed by the classical historians, or by Polybius, or Josephus, or Porphyry, when they wanted to make clear to their readers things about themselves and their personal rela tions to the facts which they recorded (above, p. 86, n. 11)? Anyone having such a purpose, no matter how stupid he was, could not have failed to make use of means which were suited to accomplish it. In particular, judging by all analogous cases, the deceptive intention of the author to pass himself off for Luke must have betrayed itself in a bold use of unmistakable designations of himself (n. 4). The modest way in which the author refers to himself in the hints of the prologue, and the corresponding manner in which he introduces himself in Acts xi. 27, and from xvi. 10 onwards, is evidence of his truthfulness. If there is no reasonable ground for denying the Lucan VOL. III. I0 146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT authorship of the " we " passages, he is to be regarded also as the author of the entire work. The burden of proof rests with those who deny this claim, not with those who find no reason to question the agreement of the tradition with the witness of the book to its author. But this latter conclusion is otherwise supported both by the con tents and by the style of the entire work. Against the proof based upon similarity of language in the " we " passages and other parts of the work (above, pp. 79, 92, n. 28), it is argued, either that the redactor of the entire work introduced long interpolations in xx. 5-xxviii. 31, or that he revised thoroughly the style of the sources which he used. Thus it will be seen that this evidence is met, not by counter arguments, but by hypotheses. The first of these assumptions can never be positively proved, and against the second stands the fact that Luke admitted into his work the greatest variety of style (above, p. 104). His revision of the style of such narra tives as he took from Mark was due to the clumsiness of their language, particularly to their strongly Hebraised character. That, however, the account of the journey written by one of Paul's companions would have required as much revision as Mark's Gospel is very unlikely. W. K. Hobart (n. 5) has proved to the satisfaction of anyone open to conviction, that the author of the Lucan work was familiar with the technical language of Greek medicine, and hence was a Greek physician. It is not to be judged as a coincidence that Luke alone preserves the proverb used by Jesus, "Physician, heal thyself" (iv. 23), that he only of the four evangelists who tell the story of the wounding of Malchus' ear, also related that it was healed by Jesus (xxii. 51), and that in the description of Jesus' healing work he sometimes writes more fully than does Mark, and with greater vividness, notwithstanding the fact that in the sections which he borrows from Mark he frequently omits unnecessary details. The friends of THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 147 the woman stricken with fever consult the physician. He approaches the bedside, bends over the patient, and rebukes the fever as He does elsewhere the evil spirits (iv. 38 f. =Mark i. 30 f.). It did not seem natural to a physician after the restoration of the maiden to life, that Jesus should first have forbidden those present to make the fact known, and then have given the medical instruc tions that the child be supplied with something to eat (Mark v. 43). So he reverses the order (Luke viii. 55£). Just as in the accounts of cases of healing peculiar to his Gospel, Luke often indicates how long the person healed had been afflicted (xiii. 11 ; Acts iii. 2, iv. 22, ix.p 33, xiv. 8, only Luke viii. 43 has parallels in Matthew and Mark), so in viii. 27-29 he inserts such a notice in an older account (Mark v. 2), with the added remark that the person possessed of the evil spirit would not endure clothing upon his body, a fact which has been observed by physi cians (Hobart, p. 14). It is Luke alone who accurately indicates that it was the right hand which was healed (vi. 6), and who notes that healing was accomplished by the laying on of hands (iv. 40), where mention of this act is not made in Matthew (viii. 16) or in Mark (i. 34). Luke alone describes vividly the physical side of Jesus' struggle in prayer (xxii. 43£). Out of consideration for himself and his fellow practitioners, Luke does not omit the humiliating confession that the believing touch of Jesus' garment brought healing where long and expensive treatment by physicians had accomplished nothing (Luke viii. 43, n. 6). It is even more significant that Luke everywhere avoids the inaccurate popular designations of diseases and kindred things, and uses the technical language of medical writers. It will also be observed that Luke often uses, in describing other objects and relations, words with which a physician must have been familiar in his practice, and which, therefore, occur with very great frequency in the writings of the Greek physi- 148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT cians (n. 5). The crowning proof of the composition of the entire work by the physician Luke is the fact, first, that these peculiarities are found in those sections of Luke which have parallels in Matthew and Mark ; secondly, that they recur in other parts of the entire work, or, at least, have their analogies ; and thirdly, that they consist of words and expressions which are to be found in the N.T. in no other writings save those of Luke, or occur here with greater frequency than in all other N.T. writings. These facts cannot, therefore, be explained on the ground that one of the sources used by the author of the entire work was written by a trained physician, but from the fact that the author of the entire work — -the person who worked over the older narratives of Mark and also of other writers who are unknown to us — must himself have been an educated physician. It would require a complete historical commentary to answer fully all the arguments that have been advanced against the composition of the Lucan work by a friend of Paul's. While the theologians have persistently charged Luke with ignorance of the historical conditions and personages with which he deals, historians and investi gators of antiquity of the first rank, who have gone into the matter with great care, declare Acts especially to be throughout an important and, in the main, trustworthy historical document (n. 7). Whereas all the apocryphal literature of the second century (the Gospels of James, Thomas, and Peter; Acta Pilati, Pauli [including the Acts of Theclce], Petri, Joannis, etc.) clearly betray in the Christian and even more in the non-Christian, characters which they introduce, and in their portrayal of political conditions in Palestine and in the empire, the influence of the N.T., and consist almost entirely of fantastic stories, Luke's account is everywhere confined to facts which we are able to verify from other sources. On the subject of Jewish history from 4 B.C. to 60 A.D., THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 149 Luke's information is independent of Josephus, and for the earlier decades of the period, is sometimes more reliable (above, pp. 95 ff, 131), for example, with reference to the official position of Quirinius and the time when he held office (above, p. 96). It is possible that in what Luke says about Theudas (Acts v. 36) there is a great chronological error (above, p. 132, n. 6), but this cannot be proved from the conflicting account by Josephus. In any case Luke did not compose the speech in which this error is supposed to be found, but took it from some older source which he may not have been able to correct in this minor point. The case is different when he is dealing with subjects that come properly within the scope of Christian history, for example, in what he says concerning the Fabian policy of the Pharisees toward Christianity, prior to the death of Stephen, as distinguished from the attitude of the Sadducees, which alone enables us to explain the entrance of Pharisaism into the Christian Church (xv. 5), and without which it would be impossible historically to explain Paul's development. Here his testimony is historically unimpeachable. Consequently progress in our knowledge concerning Jewish parties is to be made, not along the lines suggested by Geiger and Wellhausen, — by more thorough study of the Talmud or of Josephus, — but by a better appreciation of the words r) ovaa a'ipeaK rmv ^aBBovKaiav in Acts V. 17. Luke is even better acquainted with conditions and persons in the provinces and cities which were the scene of Paul's labours than he is with Jewish conditions. The proconsuls Sergius Paulus and Gallio (xiii. 7, xviii. 12) are historical personages, and, so far as we are able to determine the date of their respective terms of office in Cyprus and Achaia, there is no contradiction to the prob able chronology of Paul's life and work (Part XI. ). In the investigation of Paul's letters we have frequently found the notices of Acts confirmed by inscriptions and writings, ISO INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT for example, with regard to the politarchs in Thessalonica and the population of Philippi (vol. i. 211 £, 532 £). Here there is no difference between the "we" passages and other parts of Acts. No success has attended the effort to explain the uprising of the silversmiths (Acts xix. 23ff.) by assuming that it is simply a misinterpretation of an official title (n. 8). It is impossible to determine in separate instances to what extent Luke, in recording the longer discourses of Peter and of Paul, made use of the liberty often taken by the ancient historian freely to reconstruct their form, in the light of his knowledge of persons and conditions involved. Nor do we know how far these could have been taken from the reports of persons who heard them (e.g. xvii. 34, xxv. 23, cf. xxiv. 23). But it is only necessary to compare the addresses recorded by Luke with the miserable harangues which Josephus puts into the mouths of his heroes, in order to see that Luke was not only much better educated than Josephus, but that he regarded much more seriously the obligation of historical accuracy. The strongest proof of Luke's thorough acquaintance with what he undertook to set forth is the fact that, without consultation of Paul's letters as sources (above, p. 118 ff), Luke's accounts, in their main outlines and in a great many of their details, are in thorough agreement with them. In addition to what has been already said incidentally in numerous passages of the earlier volumes, the following points may be noted here. In Acts the progress of Paul's ministry is marked not only by visions and revelations (ix. 3-9, xiii. 2, xvi. 6-10, xviii. 9, xx. 23, xxi. 11, xxii. 17-21, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23), by notable cases of healing (xiv. 8-10, xix. 11-17), and similar miracles (xiii. 11, xvi. 18, xx. 9, xxviii. 3-6), but also by natural phenomena of the most extraordinary character (xvi. 26-30). But all this is in accord with Paul's own testi mony. In addition to the revelation of Christ to which THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 151 he owed his faith and calling (Gal. i. 12-16 ; 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8), the visions of a later time which he could never forget (2 Cor. xii. 1-4; Gal. ii. 1), and his participation in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. xiv. 18), he refers to signs, wonders (repara), and mighty works which prove his right to exercise his apostolic calling (2 Cor. xii. 11-12; Rom. xv. 19), and which, if need be, will again establish his right to punish evil-doers (1 Cor. v. 3-5 ; 2 Cor. x. 4, xiii. 2-10). It shows a lack of careful thinking when the letters of Paul mentioned above are accepted as genuine, but the authorship of the correspond ing narratives in Acts, or the entire book of which these narratives are a part, by a friend of Paul's and by an eye-witness of some of these things, is denied, because of the miraculous element which it contains. Literary and historical criticism have nothing to do with the question as to the nature of these events and why it was that they influenced so strongly the consciousness of Paul and those about him. By the " very chiefest apostles," in contrast to whom Paul speaks of the signs and wonders which were done through him (2 Cor. xii. 11 £), are meant, not the original apostles, but the followers of Peter, who were not willing to admit that Paul's apostleship was on a par with that of Peter (vol. i. 288 £). The very fact that in making this contrast Paul calls these miraculous signs ra o-rjpeia rod diroo-roXov, shows that in this respect also he claimed to be the equal of the older apostles, especially of Peter (cf. also 1 Cor. ix. 1-5, xv. 5-11). But this comparison is not something new, suggested now for the first time by his opposition to the Petrine party. But, according to Gal. ii. 7-9, at the apostolic council the same comparison was made between Peter and Paul, and the fact that God owned and blessed Paul's preaching in exactly the same way that He did Peter's made a profound impression. Even then this was the effect produced by the stories 152 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT told in Jerusalem by the missionaries to the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 2; Acts xv. 3, 12, o-rjfiela Kal ripara, cf. xxi. 19). There is no occasion, therefore, because of a certain parallelism in Acts between the miraculous deeds and experiences of Peter and of Paul to question the historicity of these accounts (n. 9). If Luke, in choosing from the abundance of material at his disposal, brought out this relation, he was led to do so only under the influence of a Pauline idea, or, as is more probable, by an uplifting experience of apostolic Christianity. In summarising the main ideas that pervade the entire work (above, p. 69 ff), it has been repeatedly observed that the author was influenced by ideas not found in the N.T. except in Paul's writings. The claim that Luke represents the attitude of Paul toward legalistic Jewish Christianity as one of yielding to it, thereby sacrificing historical accuracy and contradicting the fundamental principles of Paul, cannot be substantiated. The circum cision of Timothy, which, if it had not actually happened, would be, as an invention, in the most gLring contradiction to history, is testified to by Paul himself (vol. i. 538, 182). The Paul of Acts, who, on the one hand, denies that the observing of the law has any saving efficacy, either for Jews or Gentiles, attributing this power to faith in Christ (xiii. 38 £, cf. Luke xv. 1-32, xviii. 9-14, vii. 36-50), and who will not suffer the Mosaic law to be forced upon the Gentile Christians, but, on the other hand, is eager to keep Jewish feasts in Jerusalem (xx. 16, cf. xx. 6, accord ing to 8, also xviii. 21), has no objections to the assump tion of vows by Jewish Christians (xviii. 18), and on one occasion himself takes part in such an act (xxi. 26), — this Paul is none other than the Paul of the letters. In fact, Paul never required Jewish Christians to give up the observance of the law. Even in Churches, where there were both Jews and Gentiles, the former might retain their Judaism as a religious non-essential, in so far as it THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 153 did not conflict with higher ends (1 Cor. vii. 18 £ ; Gal. v. 6, vi. 15 ; Rom. xiv. 5 £, vol. i. 422 £). Consequently he was able to deny the false report that he compelled the Jews of the diaspora to renounce the law (Acts xxi. 21). He repre sents his own emancipation from the law as being for the sake of his calling, a renunciation of rights which were legitimate, and of his natural Jewish manner of life (1 Cor. ix. 21, cf. Gal. iv. 12). On the other hand, he asserts with equal clearness that, notwithstanding his inward freedom from the law, he observes it for the sake of the Jews, with whom his calling brought him into contact (1 Cor. ix. 20). For this reason the so-called apostolic decree cannot be regarded as contradictory to Paul's account in Gal. ii. 1-10, nor treated as an invention, made on the basis of customs in vogue in the Church at a later time ; because, by the end of the first century, some of its stipulations had become obsolete and after that time were nowhere strictly observed (n. 10). The literal fulfilment of all its requirements — in some quarters down to the Middle Ages, and even to the present time — was due entirely to the tendency to observe the letter of this apostolic command. The fact that, in his short account in Gal. ii. 1-10, Paul does not mention abstinence from the four things men tioned, which were not the only, nor by any means the principal, contents of the decree, is no argument against its historical character. For, in the first place, this requirement had nothing to do with Paul's relation to the original apostles and the mother Church, which is the only question under discussion in Galatians. The missionaries to the Gentiles were not commissioned to enforce these regulations upon the Gentile Christians, but the mother Church dealt with them directly through her own am bassadors. In the second place, the resolution did not affect intercourse between the Gentile and Jewish Chris tians, concerning which not a single word is said in Acts xv. The Jewish Christians who desired to live according 1 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT to the law, could not associate in social life and worship even with Gentile Christians who observed the four re strictions, without constantly being made ceremonially unclean. In the third place, the decree was no concession to the Judaisers ; since the recommendation to abstain from the four things specified was not intended as a substitution of a partial observance of the law for a full compliance with its demands. On the contrary, it was meant to free the Gentile Christians entirely from the legal yoke, which already had its advocates among the rabbis in every city (xv. 19-21, cf. ver. 10). In the fourth place, it represented no compromise between the missionaries to the Gentiles and the Judaisers. On the contrary, while the work of the former was unconditionally recognised (ver. 25 ff. ), that of the latter was unconditionally condemned (vv. 10, 19, 24). In the fifth place, it was not a new command, observance of which was made a condition for the recognition of men as Christians. The Christian character of the Gentile Christians is acknow ledged from the outset as unconditionally as that of their missionaries (vv. 8-11, 14, 19, 23), and it was not the recognition of their Christian character, but their well- being as Gentile Christians, which is represented as dependent upon their abstinence from the four things specified (ver. 29). Finally, in the sixth place, nothing whatever is said about commands and requirements, but mention is made only of a communication by letter (ver. 20, imcrreiXai, cf. xxi. 25), which was received joyfully by those to whom it was sent, being regarded by them as an encouraging word, as were also the oral communications of those by whom the message was brought (ver. 31 £ some what in the sense of 1 Pet. v. 12). For this reason it is not to be supposed that the Gentile Christians in Antioch had not heretofore abstained from the things mentioned, that Paul had not demanded it of them, and that the requirement was now laid upon them for the first time as THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 155 a new burden. If only they continue to abstain from these things (ver. 29, Siarr)povvre i^ixelv> ^ara^rvxeiv , dvd\jru£is, Luke xvi. 24, xxi. 26 ; Acts iii. 20, v. 5, 10, xii. 23 ; irvor], Acts xvii. 25, cf. ii. 2 ; ipirveeiv, Acts ix. 1 ; eKirveeiv, Luke xxiii. 46 (this also in Mark xv. 37, 39) ; {aoyovelv, Luke xvii. 33 ; Acts vii. 19 ; direireo-av . . . Xeiribes, Acts ix. 18 (Hobart, 39 f.) ; eKO-rao-is, Acts X. 10, xi. 5, xxii. 17 (in Luke v. 26 ; Acts iii. 10, on the other hand, as in Mark v. 42, xvi. 8, in the sense of astonishment) ; els pavlav irepirpeireiv, Acts xxvi. 24 (the medical writers use rpeireiv, but also irepirpoirrj) ; KpaiirdXy, Luke xxi. 34 ; xpir, Acts xix. 12 in the wider sense (Ionic, according to Galen, but used by all the medical men) ; irpoo-boKav (6 times in Luke, 5 in Acts, and elsewhere only in two parallels in Matt., and 3 times in 2 Pet. iii. 12-14 ; also irpocrboKia, only in Luke xxi. 26 ; Acts xii. 11) is used in Acts xxviii. 6 quite in Galen's manner, and close to a specifically medical pybev Sroirov (Hobart, 162, 289) ; cf. also oibev aroirov, Luke xxiii. 41 ; r! droirov, Acts xxv. 5 (droiros in any use is found elsewhere only in 2 Thess. iii. 2). Also mpirpdo-Bai, KarairlirTeiv, 6rjpiov = exibva, Acts xxviii. 3-6; aVaXXaWeo-#ai, Acts xix. 12 (with voo-oi as subject) ; Karacbepopevos virva Badel, Acts xx. 9, are medical phrases. Finally, cf. So-itoi biareXelre, Acts xxvii. 33, with Galen, ao-iros biereXecrev, abifoi VOL. III. II 1 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 6WeXovo-(!', and in Hippocrates as here a biareXelv for fourteen days, Hobart, 278. Cf. Madan, JThS, 1904, Oct. p. 116, who understands ao-iros in this passage to mean loss of appetite, resulting from sea-sickness. II. Note worthy also is the application to other subjects of words common in medicine. If the needle used for surgical purposes is regularly called j8fXdV?7, not pa(bls, and the eye of it is commonly spoken of by the doctors as rpypa, not Tpvtrypa or rpvpdXta, and if we read in Galen roS Kara rr)v fieXovyv rpyparos or rov biarpyparos rys fieXovys (Hobart, 60 f .), the wording of Luke xviii. 25 as compared with Matt. xix. 24, Mark x. 25 (following Tischendorf's text in all three passages), indicates that the writer was a physician. If Galen expressly comments on the customary use of dpxai, by himself as previously by Hippocrates, to denote the ends (irepara) of a bandage (ol iiribevpai, and often odovia and 686vy), it is clear that Acts x. 11, xi. 5 were written by a physician. Among the numerous peculiar words and phrases used by Luke to which Hobart further adduces parallels, are : dvabib6vai iirio-rdXyv, Acts xxiii. 33, and o£k aa-ypos irdXis, Acts xxi. 39 (both in Hippocrates) ; do-tros, do-iria, ra atria, Acts vii. 12, from Gen. xiii. 2 (LXX o-lros) ; drevi^eiv, iKpds, KaraK.Xeleiv, Luke iii. 20 ; Acts xxvi. 10 (Galen with iv elpKTjj also) ; irXyppvpa, prjypa, rrpoo-pyyvvpi, o-vpirlirreiv (Luke vi. 48 f ., words which occur neither in Matt. vii. 25-27 nor elsewhere in the N.T.), o-vKapivos with avKopopea, Luke xvii. 6, xix. 4, often interchanged in ordinary usage, according to Dioscorides. Of course, such words and turns of phrase, found elsewhere only in the medical books (cf. also above, p. 82, n. 5 ; p. 129 f., n. 1), have no weight in and of themselves, but only in connection with the examples previously given. 6. (P. 147.) That the account, not very flattering to doctors, in Mark v. 26 was toned down by Luke as a physician, viii. 43 (according to Tischendorf's text, at least), is an unworthy insinuation. Mark himself does not say that the condition of the sick woman grew continually worse in consequence of the medical treatment, but in spite of it. This in a case continuing for twelve years is as natural as the other statement to the effect that the in effectual treatment by constantly changing physicians was a serious burden. Here, as elsewhere (cf. above, p. 105), Luke simply avoided Mark's diffuse- ness. The case is the same if one omits larpols — fiiov, Luke viii. 43 with BD Ss Sah. Arm. ; for, of course, " no one " here means " no physician." 7. (P. 148.) Ranke, Weltgesch.1 iii. 1. 170-193, follows Acts in his narra tive, speaks, with reference to chap. xxi. (187), of the " simple account of the documents" — and in concluding (191) refers to the entire book as a narrative which "combines trustworthiness with simplicity of presentation." E. Curtius, Griechische Gesch. i. 50, A. 18, was not indeed, as Maass holds, in Orpheus, 1895, S. 8, the first to disclose the meaning of Acts xvii., but blundered in trans ferring the scene from Mars Hill to the market-place. Still it is of some significance when one, who knows Athens as Curtius does, declares (S. 925) that in Acts xvii. "a well-informed witness is giving a faithful account of the occurrence. In the sixteen verses of the text there is such an abundance of historical material, everything is so pregnant and original, so characteristic and full of life, there is such a lack of anything formal and stereotyped, as must be the case if one were relating a fictitious story. It is impossible to show a single trait which might render deliberate invention in any way THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 163 probable. One must be familiar with Athens in order to understand the account properly." The altar inscription (xvii. 23), which some who could not boast this familiarity have criticised, was cited without hesitation by Clement, a native Athenian (Forsch. iii. 162), Strom, v. 83, and by Origen, who had seen the city, torn. x. 5 in Jo. At the time of Didymus (Mai, Nova p. Bibl. iv. 2. 139) such an inscription was no longer to be found, but only certain forms similar to it with a plural dedication. If one compares with this reference Jerome, ad Tit. (Vail. vii. 707), it will at once be seen that Jerome is copying from his teacher Didymus, on the one hand, and, on the other, from some other Greek who had given the wording of the inscription, in all probability Origen (cf . Forsch. ii. 88 f ., 275 ff., GK, ii. 426 ff.). But that Jerome, through his blending of information from two sources, contaminated the text, appears from a comparison with Oecumenius (Migne, cxviii. 237). The latter derived from the same source as Jerome, presumably, therefore, from Origen, the text : Beols 'Ao-ias Kal Eipairys Kal Aifivys, Bea dyvaorm ko.1 £cva, which Jerome, under the influence of Didymus' remark, altered to diis ignotis et peregrinis. The inscription, which might still be seen at Athens in the time of Clement and Origen, had disappeared before the time of Didymus (t 395) and Jerome, perhaps during the reaction under Julian ; cf. Lucian, Philopatris, 8. Among the eminent archaeologists who appre ciate the great historical value of Acts should also be mentioned first of all W. M. Ramsay, in the works so frequently cited. Th. Mommsen is an un fortunate exception ; vol. i. 67 f., n. 15, 392 f. ; abova, 138, n. 20 ; NKZ, 1893, S. 648; 1904, S. 23 ff., 190 ff. 8. (P. 150.) Hicks (Expos. 1890, p. 401 ff.) identified a Demetrius who seems to be reckoned with the veairoiya-avres or veairoiol (the letter N is all that remains of the title) in an Ephesian incription (Ancient Greek Inscriptions of the British Museum, No. 578, line 6), with the Aypyrpios dpyvpoKoiros, irotav vaois dpyvpovs 'Aprepibos, Acts xix. 24, and thereupon charges the author of Acts with having misunderstood the former title, and so made a silversmith of a temple-officer, and invented the manufacture of silver representations of the temple of Diana. Ramsay's refutation, Church in the Rom. Emp.2 p. 112 ff., seems to the present writer to be sufficient. 9. (P. 152.) The following come under consideration as parallelisms between Peter and Paul : The healing of the lame man, iii. 1-10 = xiv. 8-10 ; in some measure also iii. 12, x. 26=xiv. 11-18, xxviii. 6; the marvellous cure of multitudes, v. 15f. = xix. 11 f. ; the sorcerers, viii. 18-24 = xiii. 8-11 ; the effect of the laying on of hands, viii. 17-19=xix. 6; the raising of the dead, ix. 36-41 =xx. 7-12; the miraculous release from prison, xii. 3-12 (v. 18-21)=xvi. 23-40. One hardly knows whether to admire more the art shown in the symmetry of construction or the skill that devises scenes ever new and radically different, unless all this is rather a faithful reproduc tion of reminiscence and tradition. 10. (P. 153, 155.) Even in Rev. ii. 14, 20, out of the four divisions of the apostolic decree, we find only dtayelv elbaXodvra ko.1 iropveva-ai referred to, and when Christ assures the faithful portion of the Church in Thyatira (ii. 24 f .) that He lays upon them no further burden, but simply charges them to hold fast what they have, we can understand by aXXo fidpos, according to usage and context, not censure or punishment, but only burdensome obliga- 1 64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT tions ; and by that which faithful Christians have hitherto had and held we must understand primarily their abstinence in the two points named. These a recontrasted, however, with broader obligations of a kindred sort, of course ; for it goes without saying that Christ also requires men to abstain from lying, theft, murder, and similar sins. The author thus meets the apprehension, probably fostered by the Nicolaitans, — the preachers of an immoral liberty — (2 Pet. ii. 19, cf. vol. ii. 281 f.), that further limitations and constraints were to be laid upon the Gentile Christians. The requirements laid down pre suppose the apostolic decree, and the express setting aside of further restric tions with regard to external conduct presupposes that even before the time of Revelation the two remaining items of the decree were no longer observed in the Asiatic Churches. In the Didache, chap, vi., there is a still more explicit reference to other apostolic commands to the Gentiles concerning foods, besides the prohibition of meat from idol sacrifices ; these others were known to the author from Acts, but their observance was no longer insisted upon ; cf. GK, ii. 933 f . As a further result of the fact that the prohibition of blood and of things strangled was no longer enforceable and had actually ceased to be observed, arose the modified interpretations and alterations of the text, see above, p. 8 ff. The present writer must not enter here into an exhaustive discussion of the decree. It is sufficient to say that pr/bev irXeov fidpos, Acts xv. 28, like oiK aXXo fidpos, Rev. ii. 24, can only mean " no further burden beyond the obligation which you already bear, and this accepted willingly, so that it is in fact no burden.'' The irXyv in both passages does not, like rj after irXeov, introduce an exception to the negative statement, which would imply that the following requirement was in fact an iirifidXXeiv fidpos (Rev. ii. 24), an iiriBelvat £vyov (Acts xv. 10), a irapevoxXetv (Acts xv. 19) ; on the contrary, irXyv, as usual, introduces a matter only more remotely connected with the contrasted subject of discussion, a matter which is not to be excluded by what precedes. This is equally true whether it is an independent sentence (Matt, xviii. 7 ; Luke xxii. 21, 42 ; Phil. iv. 14 ; Rev. ii. 25 — "yet," "however"), or a dependent clause (Acts xx. 23), or a single substantive (Acts xxvii. 22 — the ship is not a tyvxy) that follows. 11. (P. 159.) The words airy iariv epypos, Acts viii. 26, are of no service in determining the time, though Hug, Einl.3 i. 23, mistakenly assuming that this was a parenthetic remark of the author — whereas it belongs to the address of the angel — and also that it referred to the city of Gaza, besides tacitly inserting a vvv, claimed to find in it a reference to the destruction of Gaza by the Jews, a.d. 66 (Jos. Bell. ii. 18. 1). If the second supposition were correct, the phrase would more properly point to the time before the rebuilding of Gaza, 62 B.C., recalling Strabo, p. 759 (pivovo-a epypos, on which see Schiirer, ii. 87 [Eng. trans, n. i. 70 f .]). Plainly, however, the reference is not to the city which had no interest for Philip, but to the road between Jerusalem and Gaza, which he was to take, and on which he was to meet the eunuch as he travelled alone. Not in the sense, however, that of several roads leading from Jerusalem to Gaza that is intended, which runs through a sparsely inhabited district (as Robinson, Palestine, ii. 644, 748 ; Overbeck, Kom. iiber d. Apostelges. on Acts viii. 26) — a linguistic impossibility. The remark is expressly made of the one main road — probably that by way of Eleutheropolis — in order to indicate to Philip that he is not to proceed this THE WRITINGS OF LUKE ~ 165 time as a missionary from city to city, preaching to the people, but that he is to be prepared for a meeting on the lonely road with something that he does not expect. Hofmann's opinion (ix. 265) that the author would not speak in the present of the loneliness of this road at a time when all Palestine had been desolated by the Jewish war, would not be in point even if Luke were to be regarded as the speaker, and not rather the angel ; for it is not to be imagined that all Palestine after 70 was an uninhabited waste. Nor is it obvious that after 70, because so long subsequent to the death of Agrippa 1. (+ 44), Luke (iii. 1) would have had no further occasion to mention Lysanias of Abilene (Hofmann, ix. 261). Agrippa II., during whose reign (circa 50-100) Luke certainly wrote, received this territory in 53 (Jos. Ant. xx. 7. 1 ; Bell. ii. 12. 8), and not only does Josephus, but Ptolemy also (v. 15. 22), refer to the district by the name of its former possessor. 12. (P. 159.) For the opinions of the ancients concerning the place of composition see above, p. 7 f., n. 7. Until the most recent times, it has been argued in favour of Rome that unimportant places in its neighbourhood, like Forum Appii and Tres Tabernce, Acts xxviii. 15, are assumed to be known. It would be a sufficient explanation if Theophilus had at some time made a journey to Rome. Troas, Samothrace, Neapolis, Cenchrefe, Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, Trogyllium (or Trogylia, Cod. D), Cos, Patara, Myra, Adramyt- tium, Cnidus, Salome (Acts xvi. 11, xviii. 18, xx. 13-15, xxi. 1, xxvii. 2-7), are introduced in the reports of Paul's journeys in just the same way as the noted cities of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, or these unimportant stations on the Appian Way. It cannot be shown that there is a uniform procedure in this regard. The Palestinian cities Nazareth, Juda (Jutta ?), Bethlehem, Capernaum, Nain, Arimathea, and their situa tions, are introduced as unfamiliar (Luke i. 26, 39, ii. 4, iv. 31, vii. 11, xxiii. 51), the location of the Gadarene country (Luke viii. 26), the distance of the Mount of Olives and the village of Emmaus from Jerusalem, and of Lydda from Joppa (Luke xxiv. 13 ; Acts i. 12, ix. 38) are given, while Jericho (Luke xviii. 35), Gaza, Ashdod, Lydda, Joppa, Antipatris, Csesarea, Ptolemais, Tyre, Damascus (Acts viii. 26, 40, ix. 2, 32, 38, 40, xx. 3, 7, xxiii. 31), are introduced as familiarly as Jerusalem and Antioch. At the same time one may infer from those more detailed references that Theophilus did not live in Palestine, and from Acts xvi. 12, xvii. 19, 21, — remarks which are important for the understanding of the events, — that Luke did not assume in Theophilus' case the same knowledge of conditions in Macedonia and Greece that he himself possessed. Kbstlin, Urspr. der synopt. Evv. S. 294 ff., and Overbeck, S. lxviii. ff. have argued for the composition of the work in Ephesus, or at least Asia Minor. § 63. RETROSPECT AND FORECAST. Of the three historical works investigated up to this point, the first is preserved to us only in translation, which is for the most part faithful, but not always felicitous. The second was not completed ; and the third, 1 66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT which was planned to occupy three books, was not continued beyond the second. The condition of the Church between the years 60 and 80, and the practical needs which the three authors of this period desired to meet by their writings, were not such as tended to the production of finished literary works. Nor could they lead to the production of works which meet our need for historical information. Even Luke, who in nationality, training, and insight is closer than the other evangelists to the modern and Western mind, could not have said with reference to his work : tow crvyypafyem epyov ev «>s iirpdxOv elrrelv (Lucian, Hist, conscr. 39). All three of the gospel writers had in view religious instruction and religious impression. The character of these books was correctly described by the post-apostolic Church, when the word evayyiXiov, evayyeXia was applied to them. The description was more correct in the case of the first three Gospels than of the Fourth. For, while the last is addressed to Christian Churches already long existant, the first three, each in its own way, are connected with the missionary preaching, which was originally called to evayyiXiov. Matthew concerns himself almost more with unbelieving Jews than with his fellow-believers ; Luke endeavours to win over altogether to the faith and the Church a Gentile favourably inclined toward Christianity. Even Mark in his writing does not deny that he was a missionary helper ; he has in view primarily new converts (vol. ii. 432 ff). And so all three of the Synoptists follow closely the main outlines of the history as given in the missionary preaching, which covered the activity of Jesus after the arrest of the Baptist — from this point onwards giving an uninterrupted and progressive account of His public ministry up to the time of His death and resurrec tion. As is so often the case in the popular treatment of complex historical development, intermediate steps are omitted and the whole progress of events so set forth that THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 167 the movement which began in Galilee ends in Judea (Acts x. 37-42, xiii. 23-31, cf. i. 21 £ ; see vol. ii. 369 £, 377, n. 1, 379 ff, 383 £ n. 5, 459 ff). This does not mean that the individual writers did not, each in accord ance with his own special point of view, make departures from this scheme. For different reasons Matthew and Luke did this in their " histories of the childhood." This was omitted by Mark, because it did not fall in with his proposed plan. But all three of the evangelists made this scheme the basis of their accounts, and generally confined themselves within its bounds. From this it is certainly not to be inferred that their knowledge was limited to this outline — an idea which would mean that the con clusions heretofore reached regarding the authorship and origin of the synoptic Gospels are only so many errors. The correctness of this negative conclusion would seem all the more certain to one convinced of the genuineness and trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel (n. 1). But it has already been observed more than once (vol. ii. 372 £, 441 £, 556 £, 605 f.) that the premise upon which this conclusion rests, namely, that the information of Matthew, Mark, and Luke was limited to the material found in their respective Gospels, is false. As is well known, the principal difference between the Fourth Gospel and the other three — a difference which has been made use of in the criticism both of John and of the " Synoptists " ever since the second century — is their different representation of Jesus' relation to Jerusalem. In the synoptic Gospels He appears here only once during the last days of His life, whereas in John there are no less than five visits to Jerusalem (ii. 13, v. 1, vii. 14, x. 22, xii. 12). He is also represented as working for some time in Judea (iii. 22-iv. 3), and His ministry covers at least three Passovers after His baptism (ii. 13, vi. 4, xii. Iff). The opinion that Jesus' teaching covered only one year — which is based upon the synoptic account, and often 1 68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT supported by an appeal to Luke iv. 19, and which was frequently maintained in the ancient Church, notwith standing acquaintance with and acceptance of the Fourth Gospel — cannot be maintained even when the Fourth Gospel is left out of account. No one of the Synoptists gives a chronological statement with regard to Jesus' first appearance which can possibly justify this limitation of His ministry. Moreover, according to Matt. xii. 1 ; Mark ii. 23 ; Luke vi. 1, Jesus witnessed the beginning of a harvest while He was in the midst of His Galilean ministry, and long before His crucifixion. It is not possible to suppose that authors like Matthew, and Mark, and also Luke, — authors who nowhere betray evidence of stupid ignorance, and who, on the other hand, show them selves to be thoroughly acquainted with Jewish customs and with the natural features of Palestine, — thought of this scene as taking place in the autumn or winter. They knew that the beginning of the harvest was coterminous with the Passover season, consequently that between this time and the Passover, when Jesus was crucified, at least one full year elapsed. Moreover, Luke understood the tradition, which he reproduces with the phrase o-a8Bdr

v i^yyyriKav. Enough has been said (Forsch. vi. 127, A. 1) against a very superficial criticism of what Papias reported concerning the publishing of the Fourth Gospel by the John who was still living, and also in GK, i. 900, concerning " the justness of the theological criticism," which THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 197 passes over this testimony of Papias in silence, and contents itself with the rejection of the " myths " connected with his words. The words which immediately follow retulit, connected by a vero, are also extant in Greek in the Procemium of the Catena in Jo., ed. Corderius, 1630, and in the Acta Jo. of Prochorus are assigned to this disciple of the Apostle (cf. the writer's Acta Jo. p. 154 ff.). Also the subdictante of the Codex Toletanus in place of the dictante of the Regino- Vatic, points to a Greek source ; it is a literal translation of irrayopevovros 'ladwov. Although it is not possible to name an authority for this account, there is no reason for treating it as a senseless myth. It is almost self-evident that John, like Paul, dictated extended portions of Greek writings to an amanuensis ; and Papias, the friend of Polycarp, and a companion of the same age, can just as well as he have been twenty-five or more years of age when the Fourth Gospel was written. The notice concerning Marcion, introduced by a verum and in the Codex Tole tanus written as a new section, the source of which we are less able to dis cover than that of the statement concerning Papias as secretary, is chrono logically unbelievable in the form in which it appears, but excepting the name of John does not sound senseless. Marcion came from Pontus, and Polycarp seems to have come to know him in Asia before he met him again in Rome ; cf. Iren. iii. 3. 4. Evidently there is a misunderstanding of the source like the apud Johannem, Jerome, Vir. HI. vii. ; cf. NKZ, 1898, S. 216, A. 1. 5. (P. 178.) Clem. Alex, in Eus. H. E. vi. 14. 7 (after the words cited, vol. ii. 400, n. 9, and 448, n. 9, and governed by the eXeyov, sc. oi irpeo-- fivrepoi) '. rbv pevroi 'ladvvyv eo-xarov o-vvibovra, ori ra o-apariKd iv rols eiayyeXlois bebyXarai, ir porairevTa virb rav yvaplpav, irevipari BeoabopyBevra, nvevpariKov rroiyo-ai eiayyeXiov. 6. (P. 178.) Can. Mur. lines 9-16 ; GK, ii. 5, 32-40 ; Acta Jo. pp. cxxvi- cxxxi. The origin of this narrative in the Acta Jo. by Leucius (GK, ii. 38) has become still more probable, since it has been proved that the Can. Mur. stands also in close relation to the Acta Petri written by the same author (GK, ii. 844). In GK, ii. 37 f ., are given also the noteworthy patristic state ments in this connection (cf., further, GK, i. 898 f., and the previous notes 4, 5). As to the relation of the narratives of Leucius and Clement, cf. Forsch. vi. 201-204. 7. (P. 179). Iren. iii. 11. 1 : "Hancfidem annuntians Joannes, domini discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem et multo prius ab his qui dicuntus Nicolaitse, qui sunt vulsio eius, quae falso cognominatur scientia, ut con- funderet eos . . . sic inchoavit in ea, qua? est secundum evangelium doc- trina : ' In principio erat verbum,' " etc. Cf. vol. i. 515, n. 4. 8. (P. 179.) That John was the last of the evangelists to write, cf. vol. ii. 392 f., 397-400. This supposition involves the admission that he wrote in old age. After a life spent only in preaching, he came at its close to make use of the written word (Eus. H. E. iii. 24. 7). Epiph. Hcer. Ii. 12 expresses himself most definitely : 816 vorepov dvayKa£ei to ayiov irvevpa tov 'ladvvyv, irapairovpevov eiayyeXio-aaBai fit' eiXdfieiav Kal raireivoappoo-ivyv , iirl rfj yypaXea airov yXiKia pcrd 'iry ivevyKovra rrjs eavrov £arjs, juera Tyv dirb rys Tldrpov iirdvobov, Tyv iirl KXavbiov yevopevyv Kaio-apos Kal perd iKava try tov biarptyai 198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT airov iirl (Dindorf, dirb) rrjs 'Ao-'ias dvayKa^erai iKBeo-Bai to eiayyeXiov. Cf. Ii. 2, b dyios 'ladvvys peB' yXiKiav yypaXeav iirirpetrerai ktX. As to the determination of the date of the exile on Patmos, cf. below, n. 14 ; and with reference to the strange statements contained in Hair. Ii. 33, cf. Forsch. v. 35-43. Not one of the Church Fathers (Irenseus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius) says that John wrote his Gospel after his return from Patmos, and therefore after the completion of Revelation. At the same time, with the exception of Epiphanius, there is a whole line of witnesses for this statement : (a) A speech delivered at Ephesus under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, viii. 2. 131), which Suidas (cf. sub voco, 'ladvvys [ed. Bernhardy, i. 2. 1023]) had looked upon and copied as a genuine work of Chrysostom ; (b) many Lat. prologues to John's Gospel (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 486, 490) ; (c) two treatises ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nova patr. Bibl. i. 1. 381 ; Aug. Opp., ed. Bass. iv. 382) ; (d) indirectly, the " History of John," which was preserved in the Syriac (Wright, Apocr. Acts, i. 60-64), in so far as it states that John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus after an exile, the place of which it does not give ; and (e) Prochorus in his History of the Apostle John in so far as it tells us that John dictated to him his Gospel in two days and six hours at the end of his exile, while he was still on Patmos ; however, after he had left behind for the churches of the island a copy which was also written by Prochorus, but on parchment, he brought with him to Ephesus the original, which was on paper (cf. the present writer's edition of the Acta Jo. pp. 154- 158, xliii-1). As has been more explicitly shown in the above reference, there must have come a confusion into the tradition, at the time when and in the circles where the Johannine origin of Rev. — this record of the exile on Patmos — was denied, and the book itself was far from being given a place in the N.T. Canon. Prochorus puts the Gospel in the place of Rev. which was written on Patmos, and only through an evident interpolation is there brought into his book a supplementary narrative of the Patmos origin of Rev. (op. cit. 184). It is an echo of the original narrative of Prochorus, when min. 145 (Tischend. N.T. i. 967, cf. another min. by Matthsei, Evang. Jo. 1786, p. 356) and the Synopsis of "Athanasius" (Athan., ed. Montf. ii. 202) admit that John wrote or dictated the Gospel on Patmos, but published it in Ephesus, and also when the Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 11 and 411, idly talks of the Ibwxetpov of the Johannine Gospel, which was alleged to be still preserved in Ephesus (Acta Jo. p. lix). But the source of the tradition that the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus after the return from Patmos can scarcely be any other than the legend of Leucius (Acta Jo. p. cxxvi ff.). It does not deserve any particular credence, because Irenseus, who offers very definite statements in regard to the time of the writing of Matt., of Mark (iii. I. 1), and of Rev. (v. 30. 3), would not have contented himself with the more indefinite statements as to the Fourth Gospel — e.g. that John may have written it later than Matt., Mark, and Luke, and that he may have written it during his stay at Ephesus (iii. 1. 1) — if the word of Papias or the oral tradition of the elders of Asia had furnished him with more exact informa tion. Not only Leucius, if the present writer's opinion in regard to him as above stated is correct, and the Syriac history of John, but the general tradition agree with Irenseus, that Ephesus is the birthplace of the Gospel (as to the Syrians, cf, the writer's Acta Jo. p. cxxvii ; Forsch. i. 54 f.). Also THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 199 where only Asia is spoken of, Ephesus is meant. The fables of that Syriac legend and of the Acta Timothei need no further discussion (GK, i. 943, ii. 38 ; Acta Jo. p. cxxxviii). Yet it is to be noted that these apocryphal statements, in so far as they allow that John in the writing of his Gospel had at hand and took into account all three of the synoptic Gospels, rely upon a very old tradition — a tradition going back to the teachers of Clement (above, n. 5) and repeated by well informed people such as Eusebius (H. E. iii. 24. 7-13) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Comm. in N.T., ed. Fritzsche, p. 19 f.). 9. (P. 180.) We lack the definite testimony of Marcion and Justin that they ascribed the Fourth Gospel to the apostle John (cf., however, vol. ii. 389 f.; and with regard to Justin as a witness for the apostolic title of the Christian writer John, below, note 12. The Valentinian Ptolemaus calls the evangelist now 'ladvvys 6 paByrys tov Kvpiov (Iren. i. 8. 5), now aVooroXor (Ep. ad Floram in Epiph. Hair, xxxiii. 3 ; cf. GK, i. 732 f., ii. 956 ff.). The Valentinian Heracleon (Orig. torn. vi. 2 in Jo.) designates him at first as 6 paByrys, in order to distinguish him from the Baptist, and classes him directly afterwards among the oi diroaroXoi. This view of Heracleon's state ment is based on the more probable limiting of the fragment by Brooke (Texts and Studies, i. 4. 55), which Preuschen, p. 109. 15 ff., ascribes to Origen. Also the Oriental Valentinians (Clem. Al. Epit. e. Theodoto, §§ 7, 41) call the writer of the prologue apostle. The Alogi certify that this was the prevailing view up to that time (see n. 11). Irenseus regularly uses " disciple of the Lord " where he speaks of John as author of the Gospel (in. i. 1, xi. 1. 3, end), and also at other times : v. 33. 3, xi. 22. 5 (here, however, immediately follows non solum Joannem, sed et alios apostolos viderunt), iii. 3. 4 [at first pad. c. Kvp'iov, then including him o\ aVdoToXoi] ; Epist. ad Victorem in Eus. v. 24. 16, " John the disciple of the Lord and the other apostles " — Can. Mur. line 9, quarti (read quartum) evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis. We are then told of the consultation which John held with his condiscipuli and episcopi about the writing of a Gospel (above, note 6), and that within this circle — evidently from among the condiscipuli of John — Andreas ex apostolis was specially noted. In other words, John too is an apostle as well as Andrew. In fact, the only Christian, of the apostolic age, by the name of John, of whom the author of the fragment knows (cf. lines 27, 49, 57, 69, 71), has already, before Paul's time, been a holder of the apostolic office (line 48) ; cf. GK,'i. 154 f., ii. 32 ff., 48 f., 88 f. ; in general, cf. Forsch. vi. 72-78. 10. (P. 181.) Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, Origen statedly cite the Gospel, the Epistles (particularly 1 John), and Rev. as the works of the one person, John, without finding it necessary to characterise him more definitely (GK, i. 202 ff.). It is only for the purpose of explaining the statements of one writing by means olthe others or of specially honouring John that now and then mention is made of the identity of the author of these different writings. Thus Irenseus, iii. 16. 5, in con nection with a citation from John xx. 31, says : propter quod et in epistola sua sic testificatus est nobis ; following which is 1 John ii. 18 ff. So Can. Mur. (lines 26-34) brings to the discussion of the Fourth Gospel the evidence of his Epistles, i.e. of 1 John i. 1-4 — in fact, it presents it as a writing later than the Gospel. Hippolytus (Contra Noet. 15) explains the name Logos, John i. 1, 14, from Rev. xix. 11-13, as a later statement of the same John (iirofids iv 200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT rfi diroKaXv\ffei e yperepa X.pio-ra irio-revo-avras 7rpoed>yrevae, Kal pera ravra r?)v KaBoXtKrjv Kal o-vveX6vn (bdvai alavlav opodvpabbv Spa irdvrav dvdorao-iv yevyo~eo-6ai ko.1 Kplo-iv. Cf. Rev. xx. 4-15 ; GK. i. 560 f. 13. (P. 182.) The Asiatic Elders of Iren. iv. 30. 4, v. 30. 1, 36. 1. In regard to the number of the antichrist, v. 30. 1, cf. ZfK W, 1885, S. 561 ff.; as to the older witnesses for Rev. in general, cf. GK, i. 201-208 ((Epist. Lugd. in Eus. H. E.Y.I ; Irenseus, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, Acta mart. Scillit., Passio Perpetual, Tertullian, Clement and the Church of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, the Montanists, Melito of Sardis), 560-562 (Justin ; cf. above, note 12), 759-761 (the Valentinians), 794 f. (the Elders of Irenseus, Sibyll., circa 150), 950-957 (Papias and Andreas in Ap. [ed. Sylburg, p. 2, 52], and Eus. iii. 39. 12 : Barnabas). With reference to Leucius, cf. Forsch. vi. 197-201. 14. (P. 183.) Iren. v. 30. 3. (The Greek is rather free, rendered by Eus. H. E. v. 8. 6. There are added here in brackets the variants of the Lat. version : ypels oSv (pevovv) ovk diroKivbvveiopev irepl tov ovoparos rov ' Avrixpio-rov diroq^aivopevoi fiefiaiariKas (airoKivbvvevo-opev iv rovra, oibe fiefiaiariKas dirodravoif&eBa, ore rouro ef-ei to ovopa). el yap ebel (elbores on el ebei) dvaavbbv ra vvv Kaipa Kypvrreo-Bai Toiivopa airov, bl eKeivov av ippeBy Tov Kal Tyv diroKaXvyyiv eapaKoros. oibe yap irpb iroXXov xpdvov eapdBy (Lat. visum est), dXXd o~xebbv iirl rys yperepas yeveas, irpbs ra TeXel r^p Aopenavov dpxys. In accordance with Wettstein (NT, ii. 746), whose interpretation E. Bbhmer, Tiber Vf und Abfassungszeit der Ap. 1855, S. 31, has appropriated, Irenseus is held to have said that John was to be seen on earth or was alive towards the end of Domitian's reign. According to Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4, however, John had lived in Ephesus, not until toward the end of Domitian's reign, but until the times of Trajan. There is also no proof needed to show that eapdBy is to be understood in any other way than as eapaKoros. According to his commentary on Rev., Dionysius Barsalibi, who had at hand writings of Hippolytus not possessed by us, this author was of the same mind as Irenseus with reference to the time of the writing of Rev. ; cf. J. Gwynn, Hermathena, vii. (1889) p. 146. The extant writings of Hippolytus, however, offer no confirmation of this view. He simply says (De Antichr. 36) that Rome, that is to say, the emperor, had brought about the banishment of John to Patmos. Also Orig. torn. xvi. 6 in Mt. does not dare to name a definite emperor, because in Rev. i. 9 none is named. Cf. Forsch. vi. 199 f. In the legend of the young man saved by John (Clem. Quis Dives, xiii.), no emperor, indeed, is named, though Doniitian certainly is meant ; for, in the first place, John is represented as a very old man ; and, secondly, the return from the exile is closely connected with the death of the tyrant (i.e. of the emperor, who had banished him). This presupposes the change in affairs at the passing of the rule from Domitian to Nerva. Cf. Dio Cass, lxviii. 1 f. ; Victorinus on Rev. x. 11 (cf. what immediately follows) ; Lact. De Mort. Persec. 3 ; Eus. H. E. iii. 20. 10. The exile on Patmos and the writing of Rev. are assigned expressly to the time of Domitian by Victorinus in Apoc. (Migne, v. col. 333) ; Eus. 202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT H. E. iii. 18. 1 f., 20. 11, 23. 1 ; Chron. ad a. Ah-ah. 2109 and 2113 (cautious only in regard to Rev., whose genuineness he doubted) ; Jerome, Vir. HI. ix. ; contra Jovin. i. 26 ; pseudo-Chrys. in the discourse (Montfaucon, viii. 2. 131) referred to above, p. 198. Victorinus of Pettau, circa 300, remarked (loc. cit.) in Apoc. x. 11 : " Hoc dicit propterea quod, quando hsec Joannes vidit, erat in insula Pathmos in metallo damnatus a Domitiano Csesare. Ibi ergo vidit apocalypsin. Et cum jam senior putaret, se per passionem accepturum receptionem, interfecto Domitiano judicia eius soluta sunt, et Joannes de metallo dimissus sic postea tradidit hanc eandem, quam acceperat a deo, apocalypsin." The publication of Rev. after the return from Patmos is referred to in the statement of the renewed prophecy given in Rev. x. 11. Clearly Victorinus follows here an older narrative. In comparison with this, Epiphanius appears entirely innocent of the old tradition and lacking sound intelligence when (Hair. Ii. 12, 33) he places the exile, the writing of Rev., and the return from Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54), and at the same time (li. 12) makes John at ninety years of age write his Gospel " after the return from Patmos." To be sure, he seeks in some degree to adjust the contradiction between this statement of John's age and the name of the emperor under whom he is said to have lived out his exile and returned, since he introduces, or seems to introduce, a considerable number of years of residence in Ephesus between the return from Patmos and the writing of the Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 8). The contradiction, however, is' but poorly veiled, for no sensible man will use the words " after the return from Patmos, which occurred under Claudius," to fix chronologically an event which, according to the statement of John's age, and according to the old tradition, happened about forty years after the death of Claudius. Of still less value is the opinion of Can. Mur. line 48 — an opinion only incidentally expressed and as self-evident — that John, who, in comparison with Paul, was the older Apostle (Gal. i. 17), also wrote the messages to the seven Churches of Asia before Paul wrote his letters to the seven Churches. Cf. GK, ii. 70. The oft-mentioned Syriac History of John, which knows nothing of Rev. and does not name Patmos, represents John as banished by Nero and again set free by him (Wright, i. 60 ff.). Prochorus transfers the exile on Patmos to the time of Trajan or, according to another reading, of Hadrian (cf. the writer's Acta Jo. pp. 45, 46, 173, xxii, cxxv). To the emperor under whom John again received his freedom, he gives no name at all (p. 151). An indirect witness for the tradition supported by Irenseus is furnished by the opinion which repeatedly crops out, that Rev. is the last, or one of the last, writings of John and of the N.T. This is the view of Hippolytus, when he conceives of Rev. as written later than the Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 10). Furthermore, the employment of Rev. xxii. 18 f. to express the thought that it is sacrilege to add anything to the holy record of the N.T. revelation as of equal worth, seems to presuppose that Rev. is the last apostolic writing. Cf. Anonym. Contra Montan. in Eus. H. E. v. 16. 3 ; Iren. iv. 33. 8, v. 30. 1 ; Tert. Contra Hermog. xxii. ; GK, i. 112 ff. 15. (P. 184.) According to Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 16, Papias is witness for 1 John (cf. vol. ii. 185f., n. 1). It is very significant that the Syriac trans lation of Eusebius (cf. ThLb, 1893, col. 472), already known to Ephrem, and consequently originating at the latest about 360, freely renders this passage ; THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 203 "This writer makes use of Papias as witness (for portions) of the letters of John and of Peter." By this there would not perhaps be meant several letters of John and of Peter ; but the Syrian, who knew or recognised only the one letter of John and the one of Peter, included these both in one plural. The designation of Christ as airy y dXyBeia in the preface of Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 3, cf. y airoaXyBeia in Orig. torn. vi. 3 in Jo.) reminds one very strongly of 3 John 12. Polycarp's statement (ad Phil. vii. : iras yap os av pr) opoXoyrj 'Irjo-ovv Xpiorbv iv 0-apK.l iXyXoBivai, dvrixpio-rbs io-nv) has a much clearer connection with 2 John 7 than with 1 John iv. 2 f. On this point, as well as in regard to the similarity of Barnabas to the Epistles of John, cf. GK, i. 905 f. 16. (P. 184). Concerning the method of citation mentioned on p. 184 f., above, cf. the examples given in GK, i. 210 f. Even by such a learned man as Origen there is nothing more common than this carelessness. For new examples, cf. torn. i. 23 in Jo., Kara tov TlavXov . . . evrijirpbs Kopiv&iovs ; just the same i. 31 ; further, ii. 7, iv rfj irpbs Oeo-o-aXoviKels. So also i. 33, iv rfj 'ladvvov iirioroXfi ( = 1 John ii. 1), besides i. 22, iv rfj KaBoXiKy iirio-ToXfj 6 'ladvvys ; Ambros. in Ps. xxxvi. (ed. Bened. i. 777) ; Jerome, ad Eph. vi. 5, Vail. vii. 667. 17. (P. 185.) With reference to the Johannine Epistles in the Can. Mur. lines 28-34, 68, cf. GK, ii. 48-52, 88-95 ; on the other evidences for the Epistles, cf. i. 209-220, 374 f., 739, 759, 905 f. 18. (P. 186.) In the matter of Origen's witness to 2 and 3 John as given in Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 10, cf. GK, i. 211. For the testimony of Dionysius, cf. H. E. vii. 25. 11. And for the testimony of Eusebius himself, cf. H. E. iii. 24. 17, 25. 3. In the latter passage, at the end of the Antilegomena, he mentions r) dvopa^opevy bevrepa Kal rplry 'ladvvov, e'ire tov eiayyeXiorov rvyxd- vovo-ai e'ire Kal erepov opavvpov iKeiva. Here Eusebius evidently has in mind John the presbyter who was discovered by him. So is he understood by a later writer who quotes from him (TU, v. 2. 170). But in the passage where Eusebius communicates his discovery of the presbyter John (iii. 39. 5-6), he makes use of him only in reference to Rev., just as the double tomb of John at Ephesus is employed by him and before him by Dionysius (Eus. vii. 25. 16) only for the hypothesis of a second John as the author of Rev., not as the author of the shorter Epistles. Jerome (Vir. III. ix.) has nothing to say about the very clearly stated hypothesis of Eusebius regarding the presbyter John as the author of Rev. ; in fact he turns against it the material offered him through Eusebius and the mere hints which Eus. gives (iii. 25. 3) as to the boastful assertions respecting the Epistles (Vir. III. ix. after the dis cussion of 1 John : " reliquse autem duo. . . . Johannis presbyteri asseruntur, cuius et hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur ; et nonnulli putant, duas memorias eiusdem Johannis evangelistse esse," etc. Later ( Vir. III. xviii.) he infers as does Eus. (H. E. iii. 39. 4-6) from the preface of Papias, that a presbyter John — a different person from the apostle — had been the teacher of Papias, and continues : " Hoc autem dicimus propter superiorem opinionem (i.e. Vir. III. ix.), qua a plerisque rettulimus traditum, duas posteriores epistulas Johannis non apostoli esse, sed presbyteri." Jerome does not even know how to quote himself accurately. Cf. v. Sychowski, Hieron. als Literarhist. S. 91, 107. 204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 19. (P. 187.) James stands before his brother John three times in Matt., nine times in Mark, three times in Luke. John precedes James only in Luke viii. 51, ix. 28 ; Acts i. 13. The use of ol (viol or tov) Zefiebaiov without the proper name is found only in Matt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvii. 56 ; John xxi. 2 ; beside the names of the sons, Matt. iv. 21, x. 2 ; Mark i. 19, iii. 17, x. 35 ; Luke v. 10. In regard to John as the youngest of all the apostles, cf. the writer's Acta Jo. p. cxxxivf. ; in addition to this, cf. Theod. Mops. Comm. in Jo. (Syriac ed. Chabot, p. 3. 16). 20. (P. 187.) Cf. the discussion regarding the brothers and the cousins of Jesus, Forsch. vi. 225-363, especially 338-341. 21. (P. 188.) Mark x. 35 represents the sons of Zebedee as themselves presenting the request. At the same time the statement (Matt. xx. 20) that their mother came before Jesus with them and was herself the spokesman sounds most credible. Mark and still more Luke, who gives no account of this incident, leads the reader, wjio knows the story through the sequence of the narratives in Mark ix. 33-40, Luke ix. 46-55, to suppose that the brothers were very actively concerned in the dispute for position. According to Luke xxii. 24-34, cf. John xiii. 4-17, the dispute was renewed at the time of the Last Supper, and Peter also appears to have had a part in it. 22. (P. 191.) Iren. iii. 3. 4. In regard to this passage and the entire testimony of Irenseus as to the relation of Polycarp to John, cf. Forsch. iv. 259f.,vi. 72-78, 96-109. 23. (P. 192.) Eus. ff. E. iii. 5. 2f. ; Demonstr. ev. vi. 18. 14 ; Epiph. De Mens. xv. ; Hair. xxix. 7, xxx. 2 (cf. vol. ii. 588 f ., n. 3), cf . Theod. Mops., ed. Swete, i. 115 f. 24. (P. 192.) Iren. iii. 3. 4 (as given in Greek in Eus. iv. 14. 6) : ko.1 elo-lv ol aKyKoores airov (i.e. of Polycarp), on 'ladvvys, 6 tov Kvp'iov paByrys, iv ry 'TLcbecra iropevBels Xoio-ao-8ai Kal ibav eo~a KypivBov, i£yXaro tov fiaXavelov pr) Xovo-dpevos, dXX' iireiirav : " (bvyapev, pr) ko.1 to fiaXavelov o-upireo-y evbov outos KypivBov tov rijs dXyBetas ixBpov." No suspicion can be attached to this narrative of Polycarp's, traced back so definitely to ear-witnesses, who were still living in the time of Irenseus, through the very similar narratives of Epiph. Hair. xxx. 24, in which Ebion takes the place of Cerinthus (GK, ii 757). If, in all probability, the latter account goes back to Leucius, who wrote earlier than Irenseus, then it is a significant confirmation of the historicity of Polycarp's narrative. Leucius, who was at least connected with the school of Valentinus (vol. ii. 73, n. 7), and therefore not so greatly out of sympathy with the teaching of Cerinthus, although he was anti-Judaistic, has substituted the name of Ebion for Cerinthus, which he has probably retained beside it as " Merinthus " ; cf . the writer's Acta Jo. p. cxxxviii. The anecdote is of itself not possible of invention. What inventor of legends would re present an apostle as frequenting a public bathing-place. In Epiph. (op. cit.) one can read how offensive this story from a secular source was to the pious taste. But it could not even have been invented fifty or sixty years after the death of John, if the fact was not established that Cerinthus in the lifetime of John had been prominent in Ephesus as a heretic. 25. (P. 192.) Polycarp's position in the question of the Passover we know through Iren. Ep. ad Vict, in Eus. ff. E. v. 24. 16 (Fm-sch. iv. 283-303, where the present writer believes he has contradicted old errors, and has made clear THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 205 for the first time the real facts in the case) ; cf., further, Polyc. Ep. ad Vict, in Eus. ff. E. v. 24. 1-8. 26. (P. 193.) Of the narratives regarding John which cannot be traced nearer to their sources, the one that claims special confidence is in Clement (Quis Div. xiii.), beginning with the words, aKovcrov pvBov, oi pvBov dXXd ovra Xdyov irepl 'ladvvov rov diroo-roXov irapabebopevov ko.1 pvypy iretpvXaypevov, not poorly rendered by Herder1 in the legend, " Der gerettete Jiingling," cf. Acta Jo. p. cxl ff. ; Forsch. vi. 16-18, 199. Further seems genuine what Jerome on Gal. vi. 10 (Vail. vii. 528 f ., at all events according to one of the Greeks named on p. 370, probably according to Origin) related of the decrepit John, who, brought by his disciples into the assembly, could utter nothing but the ever repeated word Filioli, diligite alterutrum. So the story of John playing with the partridge, though originating with Leucius, has nothing made up about it (Acta Jo. pp. cxxxvi, 190). The resurrection of a dead man at Ephesus through the agency of John, which is testified to by Apollonius (in Eus. v. 18. 14) in the year 197, is perhaps identical with the interesting account Acta Jo. pp. 188. 33-190. 2, and also p. cxxxvi. 27. (P. 193.) The expression concerning the death of John at Ephesus, irapepeive airdis pexpi rav Tpa'iavov xpdvav, twice used by Irenseus (ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4), particularly in comparison with the similar assertion in regard to Poly carp (also in iii. 3. 4), allows of no other conception than that of a natural death. When at this same time Polycrates (Eus. iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 3) writes, en be Kal 'ladvvys 6 iirl to oryBos tov Kvplov dvaireo'av, bs iyevyBy iepevs to ireraXov rredropeKas Kal pdprvs Kal bibdo-KaXos, ovros iv 'EaBr)rr]jv and ypd-yjas is to be confined to the contents of the supplement. This is altogether improbable. In the first place, while the con cluding sentence of the preceding chapter, xx. 30 £, shows chap. xxi. is a supplement, there is nothing in the chapter itself to indicate that it is an independent account. The passage John xxi. 1 is connected with what precedes just as are John iii. 22, v. 1, vi. 1, — probably according to the cor rect reading without "Irjo-ovs, — while xxi. 1,14 refer back to xx. 19-29, just as iv. 46, 54 do to ii. 1-11. While chap. xxi. is thus added as a supplement, it is really an essential part of the whole. If xxi. 24 referred exclusively to xxi. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 237 1-23 this would necessarily be expressed, and, since vv. 1-23 describe one continuous and uninterrupted event, this could have been done by the use of irepl rovrov and rovro (cf. perd rovro, ii. 12, as distinguished from fierd ravra, iii. 22). In the second place, if ver. 24 referred only to the supplement, every reader who understood it would ask who wrote chaps, i.-xx.; and if it was necessary to assure the readers that chap. xxi. was written by the beloved dis ciple of Jesus, it was even more important to make clear to them who wrote chaps. i.-xx. If this was omitted because it was self-evident, there must have been some hint to this effect in ver. 24, which could have been very simply indicated by writing ko.1 irepl rovrov and Kal rovro. That disciple is the author also of the supplement, as he is known to be the author of the entire book. In the third place, reference is made in ver. 25 to a multitude of books which would have to be written in order to set forth in detail all the notable things in the history of Jesus. Here, as in xx. 30, a contrast is implied to the deeds of Jesus set forth in the Fourth Gospel, and to this one book with which the readers ought to be content. Hence the person, who in ver. 24 £ is speaking in the name of a number of persons of kindred mind with himself, has in view the entire book, which here reaches its final conclusion. John xxi. 24 refers to i. 1-xxi. 23. To this conclusion it may be objected that traces of a hand other than that of the author of the entire book are to be found not simply in ver. 24 £, but even from ver. 2 onwards (above, p. 233). From this, to be sure, it would follow that the entire supplement was added by the friends of John, who came prominently to the front in ver. 24 £ But this does not harmonise with the statement of this very verse, that John was the author of the supplement as well as of the rest of the book ; or, if the statement concerning the authorship of chap. xxi. was written by another hand, there would be the same authority for the 238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT authorship of the entire Gospel. The latter conclusion is certainly to be rejected ; since from chaps, i.-xx. it has been shown (§65) that the apostle John is here conceived of and represented, not as an authority upon whom the author depended, but as himself the author of the book, and since, from the difference in the way in which John is referred to in chap. xxi. and chaps. i.-xx.,it has been con cluded that chap. xxi. is not from the same hand as chaps. i.-xx. Consequently the testimony of xxi. 24 (6 ypdtya? ravra) agrees literally with the result of the exegetical study of these preceding chapters. This is not so, how ever, with regard to xxi. 1-23. At the same time there is nothing peculiar about the use of 6 ypatya? iravra in connection with this supplement. As good a letter writer and author as Paul regularly made use of an amanuensis to whom he dictated ; accordingly Peter could say that he had written a short letter to the Christians of Asia Minor just as though he had written it with his own hand, although he had not even dictated it, but, after stating what he wanted written, had left its entire composition to Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12, vol. ii. 149 £). As regards xxi. 1-23, this or some similar relation must have existed between John, who in xxi. 24 is declared to be the author of the supplement, and the men who in ver. 24 £ are clearly distinguished from him, providing the observations which show that this account was written by someone else than John, and the testimony of xxi. 24 are both allowed due weight. With John's consent, or even at his suggestion, persons who were near him recorded the things which he more than once had related to them, and which he certainly repeated before he wrote them down. If they were conscious of having added nothing of their own, and of having omitted nothing contained in John's communications, they could say that John was the author of this account ; nor is there any apparent reason why they should have distinguished sharply between the direct THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 239 Johannine authorship of chaps, i.-xx. and his indirect authorship of xxi. i.— 23. There would be occasion to charge these persons with culpable inaccuracy, which could hardly be defended against the suspicion of being intended to deceive the readers, only in case the apostle had left behind him as his work chaps. i.-xx., and after the apostle's death the author of chap. xxi. had added the supplement without his knowledge or consent. But this assumption is to be rejected not only because of the apparent candour of xxi. 24 and the naive tone of ver. 25, but mainly because it contradicts the language of ver. 24. The first statement of ver. 24 concerning John is not 6 ypdyfra? ravra, but 6 fiaprvp&v irepl rovroav ; and not only the order of the words is significant, but the change in the tense. If fiaprvpelv here as iie/jiaprvprjKev in xix. 35 referred to the testimony which John gave when he wrote his book, including the supplement, the only appropriate place for it would be after ypd^a<: ravra. In this case also the use of p.aprvp&v instead of fiaprvprjaas or fie/j.ap- rvprjKm would be unnatural, but might be justified on the ground that the act of writing belongs entirely in the past, while testifying by means of a book which outlives its author is continuous, lasting as long as the book is read (cf. John v. 46 with v. 39). But if these were what the writer meant, p,aprvp&v would in that case have to follow ypdy}ra<;, because the continuous testifying is the result of the preceding act of writing. When there is also taken into consideration the fact that, according to the reading, which is probably correct (6 ypdtyas, see n. 2), " the writer " and " the witness " are two ideas independent of each other, which it is possible to refer to two different persons, there can be no doubt that John's testifying is thought of as independent of his writing. The former still continued at the time when xxi. 24 was written ; so the author writes the present, 6 uaprvp&v : the latter 240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT belonged to the past ; so he uses the aorist, 6 ypd-^ras. This proves that John was still living when this was written. For, in view of the use of the aorist participle, it is stylistically impossible that the present should have been chosen in order to make vivid oral testimony of the past (cf. John i. 15, p,aprvpel and also KeKpayev), or that the present participle should be used without reference to time, — as is not infrequently the case in John's writings (e.g. i. 29), — because after the death of John his oral testimony quite as much as the composition of the Gospel belonged to the past. That John was still alive when the supplement was added, follows with even greater certainty from xxi. 20-23. It is clearly a mistake to seek in these sentences the main, still less the exclusive purpose of the supplement. What precedes has independent meaning, and even without vv. 20-23 would not only be worth telling for its own sake, but would be also a real addition to the book. Just as in xx. 21-23 all the apostles are newly confirmed in the calling for which they seemed to be rendered incapable by the shattering of their faith (xvi. 32, xx. 9) ; so in xxi. 3-17 in a particular way, Peter who, after the traitor, yielded most to the temptations of the hours of Jesus' passion (xiii. 38, xviii. 17-27), is confirmed anew in his calling, and indeed on both sides of the apostolic office — i.e. as regards the task of winning men for the kingdom of God and of Christ by preaching (vv. 3-11), and as regards the office of directing the life of the Church (vv. 15-17, n. 4). But this confirmation of Peter concludes with pro phecies as to his personal fate, and indirectly also as to the fate of John, the right understanding of which on the part of the readers is manifestly a matter of concern to the narrator. In the first of these prophecies it is revealed to Peter that in his old age, as contrasted with his youth, the impulsive and intrusive character of which was still THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 241 constantly creating trouble for him (xiii. 6-10, 36-38, xviii. 10-11, 17, 25, 27), — qualities which come to view again in this chapter (xxi. 7), although not in a dangerous way, — he shall stretch out his hands like a helpless old man for support and for someone to lead him, while others shall put his clothes upon him, and even compel him to go where he does not wish to go. If this had meant that at the end of his life he was to be given over to the power of his enemies, he could not possibly have understood that the added injunction of Jesus to follow Him signified only that he was to accompany the Lord a few steps further until He disappeared from view, as in the earlier resurrection appearances. Peter prepares to obey at once the command literally ; but he could not do this without endeavouring to discover in this, as in the other commands and transactions of that day, a deeper symbolic and pro phetic meaning. When Peter connected this command with the prophecy of ver. 18, and recalled the conversation of xiii. 36-38, he must have understood it to mean — if not at once, certainly as soon as he thought the matter over — that after a long life he was to follow the Lord into the other world by a violent death (n. 4). We have already seen (vol. ii. 211 ff.) that Peter did actually under stand these words and xiii. 36 in this way (2 Pet. i. 14). These words of Jesus could not be taken to mean more, either by Peter or by anyone else who heard them. But in ver. 19a the narrator gives the first saying — which is clearly a prophecy (ver. 18) — an interpretation which no amount of reflection upon the language of the passage could of itself produce. According to this interpretation, Jesus indicated in this prophecy by what death, i.e. by what kind of a death, Peter should glorify God. Since the language of the prophecy does not even suggest a violent death, much less a particular kind of death, such as beheading, strangling, or crucifixion, the interpretation given by the writer of the supplement must have origin- vol. in. 16 242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT ated after Peter's death, being suggested by the death itself. All doubt in this point is removed when ver. 19a is compared with xii. 33 (cf. xviii. 32), which is in all respects parallel, and when there are recalled the express remarks of the evangelist in two instances, which are at least similar to the effect that it was not until after their fulfilment that the disciples understood the meaning of prophetic utterances and symbolic actions of Jesus (ii. 22, xii. 16; cf. vi. 61 £, vii. 39, xiii. 7, 19, xiv. 20, 26, 29, xvi. 4, 12£, xviii. 9, xx. 8£). After Peter was crucified in Eome in the year 64 (vol. ii. 165 ff), Jesus' words to Peter, which made such a profound impression upon Peter's own mind (2 Pet. i. 14), but which heretofore had remained somewhat mysterious, were called to mind. Now, in the light of what had taken place, it was no longer possible to think that in John xiii. 36, xxi. 19&, Jesus had meant to express only the unimportant truth that Peter would sometime die and leave the world, like all men and like Jesus Himself. Since Peter died a martyr's death, it was natural in the command to follow Him to find the suggestion to Peter that he like Jesus was to die for the sake of God and the truth, i.e. that he was to suffer a martyr's death. Since, moreover, Peter like Jesus was crucified, it was felt necessary to take the prophetic description of Peter's de clining years in xxi. 18 — especially the stretching out of his hands and arms — as a prophetic forecast of this par ticular manner of death (n. 4). After the death of Peter, it seemed to the Church as if all Jesus' various prophecies about Peter's work as a fisher of men and as the shepherd of the flock, about the patience he would have to learn, about his martyrdom and the particular manner in which he was to die, had been ful filled. Thereafter it was almost inevitable that all who were familiar with the story related in xxi. 15-22 should endeavour to interpret the saying of Jesus with reference to John as it had been interpreted with reference to Peter. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 243 When Jesus replied to Peter, who wanted to apply to John the same command that he had received, " If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? " and when the command to Peter was repeated with strong emphasis upon the contrast between him and John, " Follow thou me," it seemed as if this could only mean that John was not to follow Jesus in the sense in which the word of Jesus had found fulfilment in Peter's case — in other words, he was not to die a martyr's death. It seemed at least possible that John should not die at all, but live until the Lord's return, an event which makes death impossible for those of His followers who witness it. Words of Jesus like Matt. xvi. 28, Mark ix. 1, Luke ix. 27 gave this interpreta tion a certain justification. Especially if John survived Peter and the other apostles a considerable number of years, it was very natural to regard the long life of this apostle as proof that he was destined to live until the parousia. This view actually became current and assumed the form of a definite judgment, " This disciple shall not die " (ver. 23). But this judgment is decisively opposed by the narrator, and inasmuch as this is the last thing which he says about this event, — indeed, the last word before the conclusion in ver. 24 £ which relates to the entire book, — it is clear that the story in vv. 20-22 was told primarily to correct the false interpretation of it which had become current. If this be so, it follows also that chap. xxi. was written while John was still living, a conclusion which has often been misunderstood and even rejected. If John died and was buried in Ephesus, this was a conclusive and final refutation of the idea that, according to a prophecy of Jesus, he was not to die, but to live until the parousia. If, notwithstanding John's death and burial, the super stition grew up that his death was only apparent, that he had secretly fled, as Nero was said to have done, and would appear again when the Lord came, all that the 244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT author says — his account of the event which gave rise to the superstition, the reminder that Jesus did not say in so many words that John was not to die, and the repetition of the hypothetical statement of Jesus — would be an entirely inadequate refutation of the belief. The only effective argument against such a superstition would be an appeal to those who witnessed John's death, and above all a reference to the grave which was outside the city gate. If, however, at the time when the supplement was written the superstition had grown to the point where it was claimed that John, who had seemed to die and was really buried, was still living in his grave, or that the grave had been opened by a miracle and that John had escaped, against such fivOoi ypaebSeis, vv. 20-21 would be merely childish prattle. When ridicule and reproof failed, the only effective answer to such foolishness was spade and shovel. But there is no need for these hypothetical con siderations, since it is certain that, from the time of John's death about 100 until the time of Polycrates in 190 and long afterwards, no one in Ephesus questioned the fact that John had really died and was resting in his grave like other men (above, p. 193 £). It has been maintained that vv. 20-23 were not in tended to refute the story about John's immortality, but the claim made after John's death to the effect that Jesus had been mistaken in His prophecy. But who would have ventured to make such a claim? The fact that Jesus connected His prophecy about His return almost inseparably with His prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt, xxiii. 36-xxiv. 35), and the fact that decade after decade passed after the destruction of Jeru salem without the Lord's return, furnished the strongest possible temptation for claims of this sort. But there is not the slightest evidence that between the years 70 and 170 the Church lost its faith in the parousia, mUch less its confidence in the truthfulness and infallibility of Jesus. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 245 There was a disposition manifested before the year 70, even in the reproduction of Jesus' prophecies, to interpret elastically the chronological statements that seemed to relate to the parousia (vol. ii. 500 f. ; cf. above, p. 158 f.) ; and in the decades after the year 70, men waited entirely confident of the truthfulness of Jesus, and certain that His promise of His return would be fulfilled. To be sure, before the year 70, as well as afterwards, there were, of course, weak souls whose faith in the promise, like their faith in everything else, wavered, requiring to be strengthened by argument and exhortation (Jas. v. 7-11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11-13 ; Heb. iii. 6-iv. 11, x. 35-xii. 29) ; there were also mockers who despised all the prophecies of Jesus (2 Pet. iii. 3-13). But in the present instance it is not a case of frivolous mockery, or of a general weakness of faith, but of a wrong interpretation of a single saying of Jesus' which was current among the brethren, — among believers who were members of the Church, — and a wrong expectation regarding John based upon this interpretation, both of which errors could persist only until John's death. To attempt their refutation after this event would have been foolish. But it would have been even more foolish to reply to an unfavourable judgment concerning Jesus and His prophecy, without so much as intimating that there were such impious opinions in the Church, and that they had arisen because of the contradiction between Jesus' prophecy and John's death. But the most foolish thing of all would have been the refutation of such opinions by the means which the author uses. A man of any in telligence at all would have attempted the refutation of an unfavourable opinion regarding Jesus, which was based upon an alleged contradiction between a saying of His and the later course of events, only in one of three ways. It would have been necessary for him either to deny out right that Jesus had said what was attributed to Him and was declared to be a false prophecy ; or, if Jesus 246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT really did speak the word which was interpreted as an unfulfilled prophecy, to prove that this interpretation was false, which could have been accomplished only by giving another definite interpretation of Jesus' words ; or, if this was impossible, he would have to show that this undeniable and perfectly clear prophecy was fulfilled by facts which his opponents had not properly appreciated (n. 5). The author does none of these things. He does not deny that Jesus spoke the word the meaning or fulfilment of which was in question ; he mentions no fact which could be con sidered its fulfilment ; he does not oppose a wrong inter pretation of the word of Jesus in question by another which could satisfy the reader. The only objection which he makes to the widely current interpretation of the saying is, that it does not correspond to the language used. It varies in two ways: (1) It takes for granted that "to tarry until the Lord comes" is equivalent to "not to die"; (2) it overlooks the hypothetical character of the saying and makes out of it an unconditioned affirmation. But this reply, which would have been so foolish if John had been dead for ten or thirty years, is natural and to the point if it was written in the interval between the death of Peter and that of John. Just as the crucifixion of Peter made possible a clear and certain interpretation of the two sayings of Jesus about him (vv. 18, 19), — as was true also in the case of other significant or enigmatical words and deeds of Jesus (ii. 19, 22, xii. 14-xvi. 32£), — so the author of chap. xxi. and John who stood behind him desired that a final judgment about the saying of Jesus referring to John be withheld until the Lord had made good His word by deeds. Different possibilities were conceivable. What Jesus had promised in a purely hypothetical sense could actually happen in exact keeping with its language, i.e. the Lord might return before John's death. It was also possible that John might die before the parousia. In the latter case, the Church found it THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 247 necessary either to be satisfied with the belief that Jesus had spoken of a possibility which was not expected to be realised, simply in order to rebuke Peter, and to safeguard the freedom of His action, or to take the saying about Jesus' coming in an elastic sense, interpreting it in the light of events, as they had already learned to do in the case of Matt. xvi. 28. In this particular instance they would have to refer it to a single event of the last time connected with the parousia, namely, to the destruction of Jerusalem, which would make Jesus' prophecy mean that Peter would die before the year 70, John not until after this date. We reach accordingly the following conclusions as the result of a purely exegetical study of chap, xxi., par ticularly of vv. 18-23 and ver. 24: (1) The supplement, chap, xxi., was written subsequent to the death of Peter, but while John was still living ; (2) it was not written by John with his own hand, but by persons closely associated with him who composed this account with John's consent, probably at his suggestion and upon the basis of his oral statements. It was added as a supplement to the com pleted Gospel, and from that time onwards remained an inseparable part of it. (3) These same persons testify that John is the author of the entire book, making their testimony cover also the supplement, without expressly saying that John's authorship of chap. xxi. was indirect, as is affirmed in (2), but without in the least concealing this view. Proposition (3) agrees with the testimony of chaps. i.-xx. concerning itself (§ 65) and the unanimous tradition (§ 64) ; but in view of objections to this threefold witness to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, the trustworthiness of the statement remains to be tested (§ 69). Proposition (2) is not confirmed by a certain tradition which is independent of the text of the supple ment. The stories of the teachers of Clement of Alex andria and the stories of the Muratorian Canon, as well as 248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the manner in which later writers tell of the amanuensis of whom John made use in the composition of his Gospel (above, pp. 178 f., 196 £, nn. 4-6), may be echoes of the fact that the friends of John had a part in the completion and the publication of the Fourth Gospel. But proposition (2) does not require the confirmation of external tradition, since it is proved absolutely by xxi. 24 and confirmed by observations on xxi. 1-23 (above, p. 233 £). The fact that there is no clearer evidence in the tradition for proposition (2) is satisfactorily explained by the circumstance that the supplement itself, in the same sentence in which it is clearly indicated that it was written by friends of John, speaks of John as the real author of the supplement as well as of the Gospel. It is also explained by the fact that proposition (1) was firmly held by the tradition. Irenseus calls John not only the author, but also the pub lisher of his Gospel (n. 6) ; and Papias testifies even more emphatically, and with unmistakable reference to chap. xxi., that the Gospel was published and given to the Church by John while he was still living (n. 2). Then there is the added fact that everywhere and always the Gospel was transmitted and circulated with chap. xxi. attached, which would be inconceivable if chap. xxi. was added to it after the author of chaps. i.-xx. had published this book which he had written for the Church, and sub sequent to his death. If this were the case, we should expect the same or similar phenomena in the tradition of the text that we find in the case of Mark xvi. 9-20. Finally, as has been shown, xxi. 18-23 is meaningless the moment it is assumed that this account was written after the death of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved. In view of all these considerations, it may be said to be established beyond the possibility of critical doubt that chap, xxi., as well as the entire Gospel, was written and put into circulation before the death of Jesus' long-lived disciple, John of Ephesus, i.e. before the year 100. THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 249 1. (P. 233.) Eberhardt, Ev. Jo. cap. 21, 1897, gives on S. 7-19 a review of the criticisms which have been made of this chapter, and in the inter vening comment a varied assortment of remarks in regard to its language as compared with that of chaps, i.-xx. Much more thorough is the work of Horn, Abfassungszeit, Geschichtlichkeit und Zweck von Ev. Jo. c. SI, 1904. Words and phrases which are found elsewhere only or almost only in John are (A = chaps, i.-xx., B = chap. xxi.) : avepovv eavrdv, v paByrav airov bvo, B 2 (just so A in i. 35 ; cf. ix. 16, xii. 42) ; d^dpiov, B 9, 10, 13 (again only in A vi. 9, 11; for this in the parallels we have ixBvs) ; the asyndeton Xeyei airols, aira with and without an expressed subject, B 3 (twice), 6, 10, 12, 15, 16 (3 times), 17 (twice), 22 (very frequently in John alone, sometimes in Matt. See vol. ii. 591, note 7) ; also Xeyei ovv, B 5, 7 (A vii. 6, xii. 4) ; further, in general a more abundant use of ovv (B, 8 or 9 times in the whole of Mark, certainly not more than 7 times ; on the other hand, in A of tener than in Matt., Mark, Luke, and Acts together), dpyv, dpyv, B 18 (elsewhere only A) ; inter change between dyairav and cpiXelv, B 15-17 (cf. A xix. 26 with xx. 2). Com pare the entire sentence B 19 with A xii. 33 ; further, roOro 17817 rpirov, B 14, and irdXiv bevrepov, B 16, with A iv. 54 ; as dirb iryxav biaKoo-'iav, B 8, with A xi. 18 ; also B 46 with xx. 14. Also in B as in A, Jesus is designated regularly by His personal name (13 or 14 times), and within the narrative, merely in view of a former remark of the disciples and from their standpoint, by d Kvptos (xxi. 12 ; cf. ver. 7). The latter occurs in A only in iv. 1 (?), vi. 23, xi. 2, and in xx. 18, 20, just as in xxi. 12. Cf., on the other hand, Mark xvi. 19 and vol. ii. 476. Further, " Simon Peter " is given in B 5 times, in A 12 times ; as " Son of John" only in B 15-17 and A i. 43 ; Thomas called Didy mus B 2, otherwise only A xi. 16, xx. 24. Only in B 2 and A i. 46 ff. is Nathanael mentioned ; but here for the first time — that which helps us to understand the connection of ii. 1 with i. 46 ff. — his origin from Cana is stated and in a form which, both because of the superfluous addition rys TaXiXaias (cf. ii. 1, iv. 46) and in view of the diro (i. 45, 46, xi. 1, xii. 21, xix. 38, other wise only in Matt, xxvii. 57 ; Mark xv. 43 ; Luke xxiii. 51), is genuinely Johannine. The iraibia used once in address in B 5 (cf. 1 John ii. 14, 18) with the once used reKvia, A xiii. 33, is of no consequence ; but the dpvlov, B 15 (Rev. 29 times instead of dpvbs, A i. 29), and irpofidnov, B 16, 17, instead of irpofiarov (A x. 1-28), are full of significance. The interchange between lamb and sheep, however, is plainly only an interchange, just as that between dyairav and abiXelv, and the diminutive forms have reference to the need of protection and care of the flock which is given into the charge of the shepherd. For the use of 01 dbeXcboi, B 23, — instead of which 01 paByrai (thus Ss) would have been misleading, since the latter would have been understood of the apostles while the former designates the members of the Church, — there would have been absolutely no opportunity in A, except perhaps in the prologue, where there was, however, no urgent need of it. Naturally xx. 17 is no parallel. 1 John iii. 14, 16 ; 3 John 3, 5, 10, however, offer good comparison. The irpatas yivopevys or yevopevys, xxi. 4 (cf. Matt, xxvii. 1), would have been out of place in xviii. 28, xx. 1, because the previous context does not inform us that some- 250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT thing had happened in the night before. But from the point of view of style, o^ria iyevero, vi. 16, is quite similar. 2. (Pp. 234, 239.) To the testimony of all the Greek MSS. and of all the old versions (also Ss, though Sc. is defective), is to be added the above mentioned statement of Papias, pp. 178, 196, n. 4, which is intelligible only if the Fourth Gospel was already supplied with the supplement, which through ver. 24 could make it appear as if not John himself, but others after his death, had published the Gospel. It is also noteworthy that Tatian in the Diatessaron has worked up the substantial contents of chap. xxi. (Forsch. i. 218), and that, following the combined testimony of the Arabic and of the Latin Diatessaron,* he concluded his work with John xxi. 25 as he began it with John i. 1 (GK, ii. 554). What is said above on p. 234 of the whole chapter holds also of ver. 25, which Tischendorf has excluded from the text. The former opinion that this verse is wanting in Codex 63 at Dublin, which formerly belonged to Usher, has been refuted by Scrivener, more thoroughly by Gwynn (Herma- thena, vol. viii. No. 19, 1893, pp. 1-7). The latter has shown in the same article, pp. 7-17, on what a weak foundation Tischendorf's opinion rests, that ver. 25 and the signature of the book in K were not written by the first hand, but by the hand of the contemporary corrector. In fact, Tregelles, who had seen the Dublin codex, opposed Tischendorf's view, .while the spelling Kara 'ladvvyv instead of 'ladvyv, which is peculiar to the corrector (Na ), is decisive. There is, therefore, no manuscript evidence against ver. 25. A scholiast also, who explains it as a marginal note which had gradually worked into the text (in Wettstein N.T. i. 964, and Matthaei, Ev. Jo. p. 354. Accord ing to the Cod. Vatic. Begin. 9, fol. 1976, in Mai, N. patr. bibl. vii. 1. 407, this was Theodore of Mops.), bears witness that ver. 25 is found in all MSS. But if the case were otherwise, every critic would have to hold that the simple hyperbole of the expression had induced pedantic writers to expurgate it. As Tatian in the Diatessaron, so also the probably still somewhat older Acts of Peter have taken ver. 25 into account ; for if the d ixapyo-apev iypd-fyapev to which Peter there gives expression (ed. Lipsius, p. 67, 2 : preserved in the Greek by Isidorus of Pelusium ; cf. GK, ii. 848 A. 2, 849 A. 2, 851) both in the name of the other apostles and especially of the sons of Zebedee, is based primarily upon 1 John i. 1-4, still the expression ixapyo-apev which is not found in the Epistle passage, and which in the Acts of Peter is at once taken up again in xapyTlKas (capaciter), proves that there is reference at the same time to John xxi. 25. Origen (in Jo. torn. xiii. 5 f., xix. 10, xx. 34 ; cf. Eus. ff. E. vi. 25) and Isidorus, who through Jewish polemic against John xxi. 25 had his attention called to the passage of the Acts of Peter, and also Bengel, all understood xapy°'(u to concern the intellectual comprehension. Leucius both in the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter had already given a similar interpretation, only that at the same time he connects it with the uncertainty and incom pleteness of the sense perception of Jesus' being which was conditioned by the mutability of His bodily appearance. That Theodore of Mops, pronounced ver. 24, or ver. 25, or the entire chapter as spurious, is pure myth. Where Mill (N.T. 1707, Proleg. p. xxix) obtained his note in regard to Theodore which Eberhart, S. 8, so remarkably misinterpreted, the present writer has no knowledge. According to the Syrian Ischodad, circa 850 (cod. Sachau, 311 fol. 163 ; cf. Goussen, Stud, theol. i. p. Ill), Theodore would have eliminated John THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 251 v. 4 and xxi. 25 from the text. Barhebrseus (in Ev. Jo., ed. Schwartz, p. 24) repeats this statement, but refers this opinion to people generally ((bao-iv nves) instead of to Theodore. According to the Syriac translation of Theodore's commentary on John, with whose conclusion Prof. L. Abel acquainted the present writer by a copy of the Cod. Sachau, 217 fol. 280", at Berlin, Theodore adds to the text of xxi. 24 and 25 given in full by him nothing further than this: "These are sentences (ndjjib) which are not from John, but (belong) to someone else. And here we conclude the seventh book, with which this writing (that of the commentary on John) ended and was com pleted." It follows from this that Theodore did not at all dispute the Johannine authorship of xxi. 1-23, but merely, as a good exegete, had con cluded from the plural olbapev that ver. 24 and with it ver. 25 were not written by the hand of John himself, but by that of some unknown person. In the Cod. Syr. 308 at Paris, upon which the printed edition is dependent (Theodorus Mops., Comment, in Ev. Jo. versio syr., ed. Chabot, Paris 1897), the concluding sentence (p. 412) runs literally as follows : " But these sentences from eo-riv be Kai onwards, and up to this point, the Commentator says, are not by John, but by another, whoever that may be." The writer of this MS, forgets his role when he speaks of Theodore, who by the Syrians bears the honorary title of " the commentator " as of another person, probably in order to entirely remove from himself the responsibility of this critical remark. At the same time, however, he confines the criticism expressly to ver. 25 ; while Theodore, according to the original text of the Berlin MS., wished to have it referred to vv. 24 and 25. The texts for vv. 24-25, which have come down to us, show no greater fluctuations than other undoubtedly original pas sages. A Kal before paprvpav (B, Orig. in Jo. xxxii. 13, ed. Preuschen, p. 461. 9, and Cyril) might be genuine, and it might be correlative with the following koi, which Origen, however, discards. Only in that case we could not read 6 before the second Kal (sa Cyril, etc.) or after it (BD). Probably, however, B, which has in part Origen and in part D and good Latin witnesses on its side, has the original wording : d ko.1 paprvpav ir. r. koi d •ypdi/ras ravra. From Ss ("who bore witness of this and wrote this") we cannot infer a reading pvo-rupyo-as. Just as little critical value has the free translation of Ss in ver. 25 (" and many other [things] Jesus did, which, if they were written down one by one, the world would not be enough [have been big enough] for them "). It gives evidence of the tendency to displace the real and tangible conception, which has been vouched for by ra ypaqbopeva fiifiXia by the inter pretation which has been shown to be very early. The only doubt can be whether we are to read the hard 00-a, but which just on that account demands especial notice, instead of a before iirolyo-ev, and whether xapy°~elv or Xv, suggests the inclusion of both the man and the woman. On the other hand, for readers such as those whom John addressed — who belonged to the Christian Church and were familiar with the traditions of the beginning of Jesus' life — the mystery was solved at once when it was observed that John described the birth of the children of God according to the analogy of the birth of the only- begotten Son of God, who is this in the fullest sense, and from His incarnation onwards. How inevitably Christian readers discovered in the passage reference to the beget ting and birth of Jesus without the mingling of the blood of two human beings, and without the concurrence of fleshly desire and of the will of man, would be shown in the history of the text, if in ver. 13 oi . . . iyyevr]8iio-av were the original reading, from which in the second century the reading iyyew-jdr/, without a connecting relative (o'i or os), may have arisen and been widely spread abroad in the Churches. There are, however, strong reasons for the originality of this latter reading. For John would then have expressly acknowledged the traditions in Matt. i. and Luke i., and all the more have presupposed readers who knew these traditions and believed them to be true (n. 7). After having put before his readers in i. 19-xi. 57 material which, with the exception of vi. 1-13 and occasional references to what they knew from other sources, was entirely new in the account of the last days THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 267 of Jesus' life, John was under the necessity either of remaining silent altogether or of repeating what was already known from various sources ; for, like the earlier Gospels, the missionary preaching and all the oral traditions concerning these days must have contained a full account of everything connected with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Nevertheless, in this section also the author of the Fourth Gospel follows the same eclectic method, and makes no effort to conceal the fact. Here it was impossible for a reader of any intelligence at all to conclude from John's silence regarding facts which were important in themselves, and which still survived in the tradition, either that the events had not taken place or that they were not accepted by John as true. From xii. 1, 12 the reader learns that a number of days inter vened between the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem and His death ; but only one event, xii. 20-36, which took place during these days, and one short discourse, xii. 44- 50, the time and place of which is not even indicated, are recorded. It is also necessarily presupposed in xii. 35 £ that Jesus did not in any way withdraw Himself from the people, but rather testified to them of Himself by His teaching and His deeds. After all the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, of which John especially gives us a full account from ii. 18 on wards, it must have been perfectly clear to everyone that collisions of this character could not be avoided during His last visit to the city. The fact that John passes all these events by in silence without even so much as such general remarks as are found in Luke xxi. 37£, which would give the readers an idea of Jesus' life during these eventful days, of His place of residence, and of His works and discourses, is to be explained only on the supposition that they were sufficiently informed regarding these particular facts (Mark xi. 12, xiii. 37; Matt. xxi. 12- xxv. 46 ; Luke xix. 47-xxi. 38). In contrast to the 268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT scanty account of this part of the history, we have de tailed reports regarding the last hours which Jesus spent with the apostles (xiii. 1-xvii. 26). But this narrative would be quite unintelligible to readers unacquainted with at least the main features of the history of the last night of Jesus' life. It is not until well on in the narrative that such readers would become aware that it was the last evening which He spent with them and the night before His arrest (xiii. 32, evdvs; xiii. 38, xiv. 25-31, xvi. 32, xviii. 1 ff). Without statement as to place or time (xiii. 1, n. 8), an account is given of what took place during a meal of which Jesus partook with His disciples. That Judas' betrayal of Jesus, which is referred to at an earlier point in the narrative (vi. 64, 70 £, xii. 4), and again in xiii. 2, 18-30 (xiv. 22), xvii. 12, as if it were already known, was the outcome of an arrangement with the authorities, is not indicated either here or anywhere else, not even in xviii. 2, where the progress of the narrative requires that it be presupposed. It must be taken for granted, therefore, that this fact was known. If, as all the tradition from 1 Cor. xi. 23 onwards affirms, Jesus instituted the Christian sacrament of the Lord's Supper on the occasion of His last meal (vol. ii. 380, No. 7), the idea could occur to no Christian writer that, by passing by in silence this event, which was of such great importance in Christian worship, he could banish the same from the consciousness of the Church for which he wrote (above, p. 208 £). And the later he wrote and the more deeply the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which depended upon this act of Jesus, became ingrained into the custom of the Church with the lapse of time, the more impossible would it be for him to entertain such an idea. If the writer had not taken it for granted that his readers were fully informed concerning this part of the history, he could not have passed this event by in silence, nor could he have written chaps, xiii. -xvii. in their present THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 269 form. The same is true of chaps, xviii.-xx. The omission of the account of Jesus' struggle in prayer in Gethsemane and of Judas' kiss in xviii. 1-11, and the introduction into the picture of a number of features which are not found in the Synoptics (the names of Peter and of Malchus, the co-operation of the Eoman cohort, and the conversation between Jesus and those sent to arrest Him), are quite in keeping with what we have observed in sections previously discussed, which are formally parallel to accounts in the Synoptics. Here, however, is to be especially observed that John does not omit important facts which the parallelism between portions of his account and that of the Synoptics would naturally lead him to relate without elsewhere supplying a kind of substitute for them, — a fact which was found to be true also of Luke in relation to Mark (above, p. 102 £). The essential contents of the story of the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37-45 ; Mark xiv. 33-41 ; Luke xxii. 41-46 ; Heb. v. 7, vol. ii. 362, 380), which John omits, are given in connection with an event recorded by him alone in xii. 27. There is no account of the institution of the Lord's Supper ; but in vi. 26-65 is found a discourse which the original readers could construe only as a prophecy fulfilled by the observance of the Supper in the Church, and which was actually so construed (n. 9). Peter's great confession (Matt. xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; Luke ix. 20) is replaced by another having the same significance, but different in form, and found in a different connection (John vi. 69). For the missing story of Jesus' birth there is a brief but significant substitute in i. 13 £ (above, p. 265 £), and in place of the account of His baptism, John offers i. 32-34. In all these instances John's statements and narratives are independent. An author who, on the one hand, shows by such chapters as iii. 1-v. 47, vii.-xi., xiii. -xvii. that he has a large amount of material at his disposal not used in any form by the Synoptists, and that he knew 270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT also how to arrange the same, and who, on the other hand, does not hesitate to repeat without essential modification what the Synoptists had written earlier (vi. 1-13, xii. 1-18, xviii. Iff), is above the suspicion of having produced these and other accounts (n. 10) with the help of his imagination and by recasting the material furnished him by the Synoptics. In the history of the Passion, repetition was unavoidable; but here also John writes with the same conscious reference to the Synoptics. Accepting the text of the older MSS., modifications of which are easy to understand and therefore to be rejected (n. 11), John in xviii. 13-28 distinguishes between a transaction in the house of Annas and a later hearing in the house of Caiaphas. The express statement that the former of these hearings took place first (xviii. 13, irpmrov), and the omission of all account of the second hear ing, with only the insertion of the account of Peter's second and third denials between the notice of Jesus' deliverance into Caiaphas' hands by Annas (ver. 24) and His handing over to Pilate by Caiaphas (ver. 28), would be incomprehensible on the part of an author who was giving the history of these events without reference to other accounts with which the readers were familiar. For it is altogether self-evident that what is first recorded and what immediately follows the account of the arrest took place first ; and everyone understands that what took place in the house of Caiaphas, whose position as ruling high priest is strongly emphasised in vv. 13£, 24 as earlier in xi. 49-51, must have been more important than the hear ing before Annas, to whom John ascribes no official position whatever, and whose participation in the trial he explains merely on the ground of his relationship to the high priest (ver. 13). When, nevertheless, John expressly affirms that the hearing before Annas took place first, and then passes by without a word the latter event, concerning which he had aroused their attention in ver. 24, it can only THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 271 be because he wrote with other accounts in view which seemed to make the first statement necessary and allowed him to pass the other by. Mark xiv. 53-65 and xv. 1 and Matt. xxvi. 57-68, xxvii. 1, agree in distinguishing be tween what took place during the night in the dwelling of the high priest and a session of the Sanhedrin held in the early morning ; and both Gospels place the decisive hearing and the death sentence of Jesus in the night assembly. Matthew differs from Mark only in calling the high priest, before whom the hearing by night took place, Caiaphas, and in stating (xxvii. 1) that the decision in regard to the execution of Jesus was made at the morning sitting. There is no reference to this in Mark xv. 1. Luke is similar to Matthew in this latter variation. He makes no mention whatever in xxii. 54 ff. of a hearing by night be fore the Sanhedrin, and, on the other hand, places the decisive hearing in the official session of the Sanhedrin, which was held in the morning (xxii. 66-70). It is evi dent that the tradition was uncertain with regard to the different steps of Jesus' trial. It was the special mission of the disciple who was known in the household and the court of the high priest, and who, therefore, was not com pelled like Peter to remain without in the court, but could enter the inner rooms of the house which were used for the trial, to make this clear. Since John says only that Peter remained in the court, he himself must actually have gone within, and so have gained a more exact idea of the course of events than was possible for Peter, especially since the latter was very much occupied with his own affairs and became confused (n. 11). Consequently, whether the disciple in xviii. 15-16 was John himself or his brother James (above, p. 216), John was able to correct the error, which is expressed in so many words only by Matthew, but which was probably shared also by Mark and Luke, namely, that Jesus was led at once upon His arrest to Caiaphas. Not to Caiaphas, says John, but before and first to Annas (ver. 13). With 272 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT this error which John thus corrects was connected another, expressed by Matthew and Mark, but corrected by Luke, namely, that witnesses were examined at the hearing held during the night, and the sentence of death passed as if it were a regular court. Here John agrees with Luke, since what he relates about the transaction in the house of Annas is only a preliminary hearing of Jesus ; there is no decision, and the whole lacks the character of a judicial procedure in which a case is pressed to an issue. But such a trial was the necessary presupposition of the appearance of the members of the Sanhedrin before Pilate (John xviii. 30, xix. 7 ; Matt. xx. 18 ; Mark x. 33 ; Acts xiii. 27). This was not held at night before Annas, but in the early morning before Caiaphas. John is aware of this, and notices also the transference of Jesus to Caiaphas (vv. 24, 28), but omits an account of what took place during this trial, because in the nature of the case neither he nor his brother was present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and consequently he had nothing to add to what the readers already knew from Mark or Luke or Matthew, or from all three of the synoptic Gospels. While in this instance John clearly shows himself acquainted with the older tradition and reveals his definite purpose to arrange his own account with reference to the earlier synoptic narra tives, the reference of irdXiv in xviii. 40 to previous participation of the crowd in the trial by loud cries, of which, however, nothing is said in John, may be uninten tional. But it is evidently an echo of Mark xv. 8, 11, 13. In general, it may be said that the sudden appearance of Barabbas in John's narrative is to be explained only on the supposition that the story was familiar to the readers, but could not well be passed over by John in silence. This is true also of xx. 2, although in the previous verses we read only that Mary Magdalene came to the grave and saw that the stone was rolled away ; nevertheless, when she comes to Peter and John she says to them that someone has taken THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 273 the Lord's body out of the grave, which no one could know without having convinced himself that the tomb was empty. Moreover, in declaring her uncertainty as to the place where the body has been laid, she does not use ovk olha, as in ver. 13, but ovk oiSapev. It is thus presupposed that others besides her had had essentially the same experi ence, and had discussed with her the question as to where the body had been removed. But the others must have seen more than she did, i.e. they must have inspected the tomb and have found it empty. In short, while on the one hand John's account presupposes the narrative in Mark xvi. 1-5 (Matt, xxviii. 1. 5-6 ; Luke xxiv. 1-10), on the other hand it differs from this account, in which the distinctions had become obliterated, by indicating that Mary Magdalene came only as far as the grave, but did not enter it. In the meanwhile, however, she had spoken with the other women who had gone into the grave. The lack of skilful historical narrative in John which we notice here and elsewhere is more than offset by the evidence of his dependence upon the synoptic narrative, especially upon Mark. Indeed, this lack of skill is the very means by which dependence upon the Synoptics is brought clearly to light. It is from this point of view that an answer is to be given to the much debated question as to how John's idea of the chronology of the Passion history, i.e., of the time relation of the last meal and the crucifixion to the Jewish feast of the Passover of that year, is related to that of the Synoptists. This was one of the main questions at issue at the time of the disputes about the proper date for the celebration of the Christian Passover which arose between 165 and 170 in the Churches of Asia Minor, and which after 190 were continued between the Churches of Eome and Ephesus (n. 12). With only rare exceptions, such as Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis (about I70),the Churches and bishops of the province of Asia had at the time of vol. m. 18 274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT these disputes been for a long time Quartodecimans (reo-o-a- peo-Ka&eKarlrai), and they continued to remain such during the third century, i.e., they observed the Christian Pass over, which consisted of a special celebration of the Eucharist after a fast, on the day and at the hour of the Jewish Passover meal on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. In support of this practice they appealed to the example of the great saints of the Church of their province, the apostle John of Ephesus, Philip of Hierapolis, and also the bishops and martyrs of the post-apostolic age. They appealed also to "the Gospel," particularly to Matthew, according to which Christ on the evening before His death observed the Jewish Passover at the time prescribed by the law. i.e., the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and on this occasion instituted and celebrated the Christian Passover or Eucharist. Inasmuch as they claimed to have the authority of " the Gospel," i.e. the four Gospels, and in general of the entire Scripture on their side in this ques tion, they must have been of the opinion that John and Matthew were in agreement on this point. Their opponents also took for granted that under all circum stances the Gospels must agree with one another and that they did actually so agree ; but on the authority of John, especially of John xviii. 28, they claimed that Jesus partook of His last meal, which they regarded as in no sense a Jewish Passover meal, on the 13th of Nisan, and died on the 14th of Nisan as the true Passover lamb. How the original representatives of these two opposing practices and exegetical views found support in detail in the texts for their common principle, namely, that the four Gospels are in harmony with one another, we are unable to determine positively from the literature which has come down to us, and which consists merely of scanty fragments. The view of the Johannine account which the opponents of the Quartodecimans (Apollinaris, Clement, Hippolytus) maintained has become the dominant view THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 275 also in modern times. The Tubingen school made this one of their principal arguments against the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel. They maintained that the anti- Quartodecimanian Fourth Gospel could not have been written by the apostle John, who according to trustworthy tradition was himself a Quartodeciman in practice ; in fact, that one of the reasons for the composition of the Gospel and its ascription to the apostle was to give support to the anti-Quartodecimanian manner of observing Easter (n. 13). This view was extreme, and may be dis missed in a few words. In the first place, if this were the writer's purpose, then he must have been devoid of intelli gence. For he leaves the character of Jesus' last meal entirely indefinite (xiii. 2) and says nothing about the institution of the Lord's Supper, thus leaving entirely untouched the chief point of dispute in the Easter con troversy of the second century. Nor does he anywhere inform his readers expressly regarding the time relation between the separate acts of the Passion and the various parts of the Jewish Passover, and his own definite view regarding this relation which is thought by many to contradict that of the Synoptists comes out only in an incidental way. A man who conceived the bold idea of setting aside the view regarding the most important part of the gospel history which had prevailed up to his time and upon which the method of celebrating Easter in the Church of Asia was based, must have attempted to do so by an out and out denial of the correctness of the prevail ing practice, and by positively claiming in the appropriate place at the beginning of the history of the Passion the correctness of the opposite practice. The later he wrote and the more deeply the practice which he antagonised had become rooted with the lapse of time through the influence of literature and of Church usage, the more positive must have been his denial. The employment of such entirely inadequate means as it is claimed that the 276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT writer used to accomplish his purpose resulted in the com plete failure of his attempt in the immediate region where the Fourth Gospel originated: for, with the exception of the isolated case of ApoUinaris, the Church of Asia Minor remained Quartodecimanian until within the fourth century. In the second place, even if John did observe Easter in Ephesus according to Quartodecimanian practice, we have no right to assume that at this early date he was influenced by the same considerations and arguments which the Quartodecimans advanced in the disputes between the years 165 and 200 when their time-honoured custom was attacked. That the conception of Christ as the Paschal Lamb of His Church is entirely independent of the alleged view of John that Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan, before He could have partaken of the Passover meal, is proved by Paul ; since he expresses the idea even more clearly than the author of the Fourth Gospel (1 Cor. v. 7), although he is familiar with the fact that Jesus observed the Jewish Passover on the night of His arrest, and on this night instituted the Lord's Supper (above, vol. ii. 380 under no. 7). The conception of Christ as the Paschal Lamb which is found throughout the N.T. is in no way based upon this alleged coincidence of the hour of Jesus' death with the time of the slaying of the Passover lamb, but was involved in the view thatf redemption under the new covenant was the counterpart of the deliverance from Egypt, and found merely a natural point of con nection in the fact that Jesus died at the time of the Jewish Passover, and not, for example, during the feast of Tabernacles (John vii. 2-10). In a similar way the Quartodecimanian observation of Easter was not dependent upon the chronological details of the Passion, e.g., upon the fact advanced by the later Quartodecimans that Jesus observed the Passover and instituted the Lord's Supper on the 14th of Nisan, for the reason that the observance of the Lord's Supper by the Church and the Christian THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 277 Passover — for that is what the special yearly celebration of the Eucharist really was — is not a memorial celebration of the institution of the Lord's Supper, but the celebration of the redemption of the entire Church by Christ, — an antitype of the Jewish Passover meal. In just the same way the method of observing Easter in the West, opposed to that of the Quartodecimans, is not dependent upon the exegetical opinion of ApoUinaris or Clement regarding single passages in the Fourth Gospel, since Irenseus, Origen, and Tertullian observed Easter after the manner customary in the West, without on that account denying that Jesus observed the Passover on the evening before His death at the time prescribed by the law, and, consequently, without denying that the earliest possible date for His death was the 15th of Nisan (n. 14). The Quartodecimanian observance of Easter may have been introduced into the province of Asia by Paul or his disciples (Timothy, Epaphras, and others), and John may have adopted the method of Easter observance which he found already existing in Ephesus, without regard to our view of the details of the chronology of the Passion history ; since the fact that Jesus had partaken of His last meal with His disciples at the time of a Jewish Passover feast, the fact that He had suffered death and had risen from the dead, and that by choosing this time for His redemptive acts He had represented Himself as the Paschal Lamb of the new covenant, and His work as the antitype of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, were facts established beyond all question and independent of chronological details. If John did hold a view of the date of Jesus' death different from that held by Paul and the Churches from Antioch to Corinth, by the Synoptists and the different circles who reproduced their tradition, the possibility that this would have influenced him to oppose the custom in vogue in the Churches of the pro vince of Asia was rendered less by the fact that in 278 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT Palestine he himself, like all his companions, had lived according to the law which required the yearly celebra tion of the Jewish Passover, but which in the case of Christians could not terminate without the celebration of the Christian Passover meal, namely, the Eucharist. Con sequently, John's Quartodecimanian practice in Ephesus is no proof whatever that this John connected the different stages of the Passion history with the different days of the Jewish feast of the Passover, and so argues nothing against his authorship of the Fourth Gospel, even if this should be found to present a view of the chronology of Jesus' Passion differing from that of the later Quarto decimans. The belief still prevalent that this is actually the case, has influenced many who are convinced that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, or at least by an eye-witness of the Passion history, in some instances to form conclusions regarding the Synoptists which deny all connection between them and first hand information ; in other cases, to make bold conjectures concerning the facts in the case designed to remove the alleged* contradiction between John and the Synoptists (n. 15). There is, however, no occasion whatever to dispute the fact that all three Synoptists report, without the least evid ence of uncertainty about the matter, Jesus' observance of the Jewish Passover at the time prescribed by the law, namely, on the 14th of Nisan, His crucifixion on the 15th of Nisan, i.e. on Friday, and His resurrection on the 17th of Nisan, which fell on a Sunday. According to the preceding investigations (§§ 48-63) this is attested by the apostle Matthew, by Mark, who drew his account prin cipally from the oral discourses of Peter, and in whose home Jesus partook of His last meal, and also by Luke, who had been a member of the Church in Antioch since about the year 40, and who also had abundant oppor tunity to inform himself of the details of the gospel history THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 279 from members of the original Church, of which oppor tunities he made good use. But even if these results of the investigation of the first three Gospels were less certain than they seem to the present writer to be, it would nevertheless remain true that we have to do here, not with the opinion of three individual writers, but with three representatives of a tradition which before the year 80 had spread from Palestine to Eome with ramifications in many directions. To this must be added Paul's testimony, who publishes the same view in the year 57 (vol. ii. 380, no. 7), and declares that at the time when the Corinthian Church was founded (52-54 a.d.) he had imparted to the Corinthians the history of the institution of the Lord's Supper — in the account of which his opinion comes clearly to view — just as he had received it by tradition from the Lord (vol. ii. 384, n. 6). Therefore he must have found this view dominant not only in the Church of Antioch between the years 43 and 49, but also in the Church in Damascus between the years 35 and 38. In view of this fact, it seems impossible that an eye-witness of the Passion should have held a view regarding the question as to whether Jesus' last meal, when the Lord's Supper was instituted, was a Passover meal, and as to whether Jesus died on the 14th or 15th of Nisan, differing from the tradition which universally prevailed after the year 35, and which was necessarily repeated whenever the chief features of the Passion history were related, and whenever instruction was given regarding the institution and significance of the Lord's Supper. A writer who advanced such a view, and at the same time claimed that he occupied a place at Jesus' side during the last meal and stood under His cross, would be at once convicted of falsehood, both as regards his claim and his view of the time of Jesus' last meal. If the Fourth Gospel dates the chronology of the Passion a day earlier — in this way changing the character of 280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT essential features of this most important part of the gospel history — then the Johannine authorship of the record will have to be denied, not because he was a Quartodeciman, but because of the close relationship which this disciple sustained to Jesus. But is it true that the Fourth Gospel does date the Passion a day earlier ? This question cannot be correctly answered if one denies what was established above (p. 255 ff), namely, that John wrote for Christians who were familiar with the tradition represented in the Synoptics, and especially with Mark, in consequence of which he treats this tradition throughout as a history which the readers believed and which is essentially trustworthy ; that in some instances he passes over very important parts of this history with out thereby implying any doubt as to its importance or truth ; that in other instances he incidentally takes for granted that events have happened and are known (e.g. vi. 2, 70) ; and finally, that in cases where he does find the synoptic account misleading (e.g. iii. 24), or actually inaccurate and incorrect, he simply supplies another account out of his own fuller knowledge (e.g. xii. 7), or corrects it in so many words (e.g. xviii. 13). In the light of these facts it must be self-evident that if John had held the synoptic accounts, or, rather, the tradition universally current in the early Church regarding the character of Jesus' last meal and the time relation of His death to the celebration of the Jewish Passover, to be incorrect, he must either have corrected the same ex pressly, clearly, and in the appropriate place, or have omitted all corrections, and have replaced the synoptic accounts by another account. An eye-witness of the events would certainly not have lacked the courage to make such corrections, and a pseudonymous writer, who intended by his invention to oppose or to correct the account which had been heretofore believed and upon which Church usage was based (see above, p. 275 £), must THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 281 have summoned it to action. But there is nothing of this spirit in the Fourth Gospel. The author does not show any disposition to instruct his readers concerning the relation of the last events of Jesus' life to the Jewish Passover ; he only uses this relation to explain a few occurrences. On the other hand, he does lay a good deal of weight upon the fact that Jesus died on a Friday and rose from the dead on a Sunday (xix. 14, 31, 42, xx. 1, 19, 26), evidently because the Christian arrangement of the days of the week was based upon this presupposition (Eev. i. 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7). But in this John agrees entirely with the Synoptists. Even as early as vii. 8 (cf. vv. 1-6) the attentive reader is prepared by what is there said to expect that Jesus will not end His career at the feast of Tabernacles, but at a later feast, which is definitely in mind. In xi. 45-53 his attention is directed to the near approach of Jesus' death ; in xi. 54-57, to the nearness of the Passover. The date of His arrival in Bethany, xii. 1, is reckoned with reference to the Passover (n. 16). Since, however, in the case of the six days which follow the transition from one to the other is indicated in only a single instance (xii. 12), it is impossible for the reader to assign the events recorded in xii. 20-xviii. 27 to the particular days on which they took place; but if, like the first readers of the Fourth Gospel, he already has a definite view of the course of events during the last days, he finds nothing in John which contradicts it, certainly not in xiii. 1. When this passage is correctly understood (n. 8), the very most that can be inferred from it is that everything related in xiii. 2-xx. 29 took place during the Passover which began some time during the course of the 14th of Nisan ; and when the reader observes, as he must do at once, that what is recorded in xiii. 2-xviii. 27 took place on the last evening and the night before Jesus' death, this preconceived idea that the meal mentioned in 282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT xiii. 2 ff. was the Passover meal could only be confirmed, especially since the omission of the article before helmiov yevofiivov, xiii. 2, was an appeal to the reader's previous knowledge of the history of the last evening of Jesus' life, and the verse contained not the slightest hint of any intention on the writer's part to inform his readers more fully regarding the time and character of this meal. Eeaders such as John had in mind could not infer, even from xiii. 29, that the feast was still to take place, and had not begun already at the time of xiii. 2. The first passage which could lead them astray was xviii. 28. But as a matter of fact, so far as we know, the author's own disciples and the Church of the province of Asia were not misled by the verse, and it was not until the middle of the second century that several scholars came to the conclusion that, according to John, the Passover meal had not yet been celebrated on the morning of the crucifixion, — a view, opposition to which to-day is almost an act of impropriety (n. 17). But for scholarly readers, who know how to put themselves in the place of the original readers, the singular expression cpayeiv to irdo-ya is less difficult to accept than the possibility that in this passage, near the end of his book, in an entirely incidental remark which has no connection either with Jesus' last meal or with the transactions and sufferings on the last day of His life, but which ostensibly is designed merely to explain why members of the Sanhedrin refused to enter the Prsetorium, the writer should have attempted to over throw a view of his readers which he has left entirely undisturbed throughout the whole of the preceding account (xii. 1-xviii. 27). It would be more credible to assume that v 'lovbaiav, clear enough in itself, is further explained by the appositional phrase y o-Kyvoiryyia (vi. 4 is not a parallel case). This corresponds to the use of m in the narrower sense of the feast of Tabernacles — a usage common in the Talmud, to which there is approach even in the O.T. (see Levy, Jastrow, Dalman, s.v.), a usage also which is in keeping with the extremely popular character of this feast. The error of the Church Fathers, beginning with Irenseus, and of many modern interpreters, in assuming that " the feast of the Jews " means simply the Passover, is due to the supposition that the Passover must have had the same significance for the Jews that it came to have for the Church and its worship through the Passion history. If the feast of Tabernacles be meant, then between December (iv. 35) and the feast of Tabernacles in v. 1 about nine months elapsed, and a Passover falls within the period; but, like everything else which occurred in this interval, is passed 286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT over in silence. We would have then, besides the three Passovers mentioned in ii. 13-23, vi. 4, xi. 55-xx. 29, a fourth between iv. 35 and v. 1, and between the first Passover in ii. 13 and the fourth in xi. 55 an interval of three years. If the reading eopry without the article (ABD, etc.) be preferred, so far as the language is concerned one is at liberty to assume any feast he pleases, e.g. the feast of Purim after the December suggested in iv. 35, and preceding the Passover of vi. 4 by a month. But this is, in fact, historically impossible, assuming, of course, that John is writing history. It would then be necessary to crowd into the single month between Purim and the Passover, less the time occupied by the journey from Jerusalem to Galilee and the days which intervened between the feeding of the multitude and the Passover (vi. 4), i.e. into about three weeks, the whole of Jesus' extensive Galilean ministry (the content of Matt. iv. 12-xiv. 12), for which John leaves no place before chap, v., and which is presupposed in chap. vi. This is impossible. If eopry be the correct reading, either the Passover, or Pentecost, or Tabernacles must be meant. Not only in case it be interpreted as the third feast, which would be self-evident if we read y eopry, but also in case it be interpreted as the first or second, according to John's plan, besides the three Passovers mentioned, there would be a fourth, belonging somewhere between iv. 35 and vi. 4. The whole course of events would then be the same as if we read y eopry. The only difference arising from the various possibilities would be the interval of time between iv. 35 and v. 1, or between v. 1 and vi. 4. This would vary, while that between iv. 35 and vi. 4, and the period covered by the gospel history, would in any case remain the same. 5. (P. 261.) Leaving out of account general agreement in the progress of the story and in situation, resemblances between John vi. 3-13 and Matt. xiv. 13-21, Mark vi. 34-44, Luke ix. 11-17, are as follows : (1) The five loaves of bread and two fishes ; (2) the twelve baskets of fragments ; (3) vthe five thousand men (only in Matt, are women and children expressly excluded) ; (4) the two hundred denarii (only in Mark vi. 37 and John vi. 7). Peculiar to John are : (1) the conversation between Jesus, Philip, and Andrew (of which the Synoptics give only a colourless picture). Mark alone has a some what more vivid account, so that in Mark vi. 37 the name Philip can be supplied from John, and in Mark vi. 38 the name of Andrew. In this connection it may also be remarked that John very closely resembles Mark : dvairiirreiv twice in John, once in Mark ; the picturesque description of the grass-covered ground (expressed in Mark by xXtopds, in John by iroXvs) ; (2) irdibdpiov, ver. 9 ; (3) the description of the loaves of bread as dpiBivoi, vv. 9, 13 ; and (4) the characterisation of the fish as otydpia, vv. 9, 11 (cf. xxi. 9, 10, 13). 6. (P. 264.) That the event referred to in John xii. 2-8 and hence in xi. 2 is the one mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 3 -9, and not the story in Luke vii. 36-50, is apparent from the place (Bethany) ; the near ness of the Passover ; the character of the woman who anointed Jesus ; the practical identity and at the same time the difference in the remarks called out by the deed. But it is equally evident that in the statement (John xii. 3) that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair, the Johannine narrative varies from Matt. xxvi. 7 (eVl rijs Ke#aXr;s) and Mark xiv. 3 (Kara rys KecpaXys), where nothing is said of the anointing of the feet of THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 287 Jesus, and of their being dried with the Woman's hair, although one does not exclude the other, and possibly the indefinite rbv Kvpiov in xi. 2 (cf. Matt. xxvi. 12 ; Mark xiv. 8, to o-apd pov) permits of both. It is also undeniable that John here resembles Luke vii. 38. Even the Lucan word iKpdo-o-eiv is found in John xi. 2, xii. 3. This is not the place to settle the question whether Luke is here relating an historical fact distinct from the anointing in Bethany, or whether the same fact has been handed down in the two entirely different forms, one of which is found in Matt., Mark, and John, the other in Luke. In favour of the latter hypothesis is the fact that in Luke the host's name is Simon, as in Matt, and Mark, and the fact that Luke, in view of his own distinct account of the anointing, omits the anointing in Bethany with which he was familiar from Mark (above, p. 102). On the other hand, it is not impossible that two different events, which, however, agreed in some points, were assimilated to each other in the oral tradition more than they should have been, which gave rise to resemblances that awaken suspicions on the part of critically disposed investigators. But this is a question having to do more with the do-draXeia of the traditions used by Luke than with the relation of John to the Synoptics. John agrees with Mark as against Matt, in the following points : (1) the valuation of the ointment at three hundred denarii (ver. 5 = Mark xiv. 5 preceded by iirdva, Matt. xxvi. 9 only 7roXXo£!) ; (2) in the use of almost exactly the same words, some of which are rare : Xafiovo-a Xirpav pvpov vdpbov iriariKys iroXvrlpov = Mark, e'xovo-a dXdfiao-rpov pipov vdpbov iriomKys TroXi/reXoSs (Matt., on the other hand, apparently has exova-a dX. pvpov fiapvrlpov). John xii. 8 is almost identical with Matt. xxvi. 11 ; only Mark xiv. 7 inserts Kal Srav BeXyre bvvao-Be (in other readings airois or airovs or aijTols irdvrore are added) ev iroiyo-ai. In addition to those already mentioned, the following are the more important variations in the Johannine account of Mary's action : (1) whereas the connection of the story in Mark and Matt, makes possible the impression — a possibility which dis appears when the words are carefully considered — that the event took place two days before the Passover (Matt. xxvi. 2, 6 ; Mark xiv. 1, 3, ZKom. Matt. 677), John says (xii. 1) that Jesus arrived six days before the Passover ; so that the feast given in His honour occurred either on the same or the next day, certainly on the day before the triumphal entry (xii. 12). This is not a correction of the Synoptics, any more than is iii. 24, but is intended rather to guard against a misunderstanding that might easily arise from the synoptic accounts, which do not follow exactly the chronological order. (2) John does not mention the host Simon, neither does he say who prepared the feast, con sequently he does not indicate in whose house it took place. That, however, John did not think of it as taking place in the house of the sisters, is evident from the fact that in that case it would not be necessary to mention the circumstance that Martha helped in the serving, and still less the fact that Lazarus was one of those at the table. (3) Only John mentions the amount or weight of the ointment (ver. 3, cf . xix. 39). (4) John puts into the mouth of Judas practically the same words which in Matt. xxvi. 8 the disciples as a body are represented as saying, and which are assigned to some of the dis ciples in Mark xiv. 4, with whose account, therefore, at this point John agrees more closely than with that of Matthew and Luke. The situation is exactly the same as in John vi. 5-9 (see above, n. 5), and here the work of the 288 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT harmonist is not a difficult one. The explanation of Judas' words in ver. 6 (cf. xiii. 29) seems to be derived from independent information, particularly since John says nothing about the payment of money to the traitor by the Sanhedrin, which is more easily understood if John's explanation in ver. 6 be correct. (5) Undoubtedly the correct reading in ver. 7 is iva els Tyv ypepav rov ivra(piao-pov pov rypyo-y airo. But since this Mary had nothing to do with the burial of Jesus, and since even those women who did desire to anoint Jesus failed to accomplish it (Mark xvi. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 56, xxiv. 1), the reading was easily replaced by rerypyKev omitting Iva, without thereby making the personages agree with Matt. xxvi. 12 ; Mark xiv. 8. According to the correct reading of ver. 7, Jesus' aim is to prevent Judas' words from affecting the future acts of Mary and the disciples. He assumes that Mary will gladly use the remainder of the ointment left in the vessel to anoint His body, when He is laid in the grave. At the same time He indicates that this will shortly take place. The only point which Matt., Mark, and John have in common is the notice of Jesus' approaching burial. 7. (P. 266.) In the first and second German editions the present writer preferred the reading in i. 13, ot . . . iyewyByaav, of the Textus receptus, and therefore found only an indirect confirmation of the statement that Jesus was born of a Virgin (cf. also the writer's work, Das apost. Symbolum, S. 62 f.). Since then, however, by more careful investigation of the tradition, and especially for reasons of style, he has become convinced of the originality of the reading iyewyBy without os, which prevailed until the fourth century in the Western Church. The proofs of this conclusion, which are not exactly simple, will be found in ZKom. Joh. Cf. Resch, Auserkan. Parall. iv. 57 ff. ; Ev. Joh., ed. by Blass 1902, p. xii. Readers, such as i. 13 presupposes, could not have been misled by Philip's remark on the first day that he met Jesus (i. 46), or by vi. 42, into supposing that Jesus was Joseph's own son ; since they knew that the Jews, notwithstanding their belief to the contrary, were not at all acquainted with Jesus' real origin (vii. 27-29, viii. 14), while it was not until later that Philip and the other disciples became aware of it (xiv. 8-11, xvi. 27-30). Neither did they need a learned dissertation to show that Jesus was really descended from David and born in Bethlehem, — facts which occasionally at least were questioned by some of the common people who knew Him only as a Galilean (vii. 41 f., cf. i. 45, 46, vii. 52). If the readers were not familiar with these facts, the evangelist certainly shows unpardon able carelessness, and defeats the purpose stated in xx. 31 in failing to answer these criticisms and in not denying — as, indeed, he could not deny— the basis of these opinions in Scripture (vii. 42), and in the Law and Prophets (i. 45). 8. (Pp. 268, 281.) That the events recorded in chaps, xiii.-xvii. belong to the time of the Passover the readers were already aware from xii. 1, 12, 20, since up to this point events have been recorded in strictly chronological order. Con sequently in xiii. 1, 29, the readers are not definitely informed of this fact again, but simply reminded of it incidentally in connection with remarks made for a different purpose. With regard to xiii. 1-4, we limit ourselves here to the following points : (1) Since v. 1 is grammatically complete, and since the object of elbas on in ver. 1 is entirely different from the object of elbits Sn in ver. 3, there is no occasion to assume a sort of a logical anacoluthon THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 289 between the two clauses and to take the second elbas as a resumption of the first, by means of these devices making the time indicated in ver. 1 cover the washing of the disciples' feet in ver. 4ff. (2) In ver. 1 there is as yet no reference whatever to the washing of the disciples' feet. Although strictly dyairav always means an emotion expressing itself in deeds (1 John iii. 18), and although occasionally, like (biXelv, the word is used for a peculiar ex pression of affection, namely, the kiss (Ign. ad Polyc. ii. 3 ; used by the same writer of the celebration of the love feast and the Lord's Supper, ad Smyrn. vii. 1 ; the word ayajri7 is found in Jude 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 13 ; vol. ii. 235) ; here yydiryo-ev must have the same meaning as aya7rijo-as which precedes, i.e. Jesus' devoted love to His own, which was naturally a love manifesting itself in words and deeds. The translation, " to give a proof of His love," referring to the washing of the disciples' feet, is not only in itself inadmissible and in compatible with the correlation between dyairyo-as and yydiryo-ev, but does not agree with els reXos ; for whether the latter phrase means " to the end " (Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13) or " finally " and " ultimately " (1 Thess. ii. 16 ; Luke xviii. 5), Jesus did not wash the disciples' feet to the end nor ultimately, nor was the washing of the disciples' feet the last nor the supreme proof of Jesus' love to His own. The greatest proof of His love was still in the future (xv. 13, xix. 17-37) ; such proof was not lacking even after the resurrection and the ascension ; nor between the washing of the disciples' feet and the laying down of His life. Furthermore, leaving out of account the fact that the discourses in xiii. 18-xvii. 26 evidence Jesus' very great love for His disciples (cf. especially xviii. 8, xix. 26 f .), the washing of the disciples' feet is not given as a proof of love, but as an example of humble service (xiii. 12-17). The words dyairiia-as airois serve as a heading for chaps, xiii.-xvii. or even chaps, xiii.-xx., and mean merely that Jesus kept to the end the love which He had ever manifested toward His own who were in the world, and who were to remain in the world after His departure. Unlike other men in a similar situation, as His terrible death approached, Jesus was not preoccupied with thoughts of Himself and anxious to receive help and comfort from His own. He was constantly thinking of how He could lovingly serve and help them. (3) Since els reXos must be equivalent to eas reXovs, the other temporal expression , irpb rijs eoprys tov irdo-xa, cannot be taken with the same phrase, but is to be connected with «8a>s, as in Ss. The scenes of violence which were to affect so deeply all the disciples and make them lose their self- command (xiv. 1, xvi. 20-33), did not overcome Jesus, because they did not take Him by surprise. " As one who knew before the Passover that the hour of His departure out of the world to God had come, Jesus continued to show His love for His own ... to the end." Just as the consciousness of the power which has been given Him forms the background for His humble act in washing their feet (ver. 3 ff.), so the consciousness of His approaching return to God, which He had before His Passion, explains the quietness and serenity with which Jesus suffered, and the loving spirit of sacrifice by which, up to the last moment, He showed Himself to be concerned not about Him self, but about His own. This is a thoroughly Johannine idea (xviii. 4, xix. 28 ; cf . vi. 64, vii. 8, ix. 4 f ., xi. 9 f., xii. 7, 23-36 ; with application to the disciples, xiii. 19, xiv. 29, xvi. 4). The placing of the time phrase first is just as natural if taken with elbas as with yydiryo-ev, and it is thus given the VOL. in. 19 290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT emphasis which the writer intends (cf . i. 1, 48) : " Even before the feast and not at the time of the feast," i.e. before the events happened (xiii. 19), not when the events had taken place, and because of them, did Jesus know that He was to suffer. In this way it is assumed and indirectly attested that the events, the account of which follows, took place during the Passover. (4) Even if ver. 1 referred to the washing of the disciples' feet, irpb r. e'. r. ir. could not determine the time of this event. In this case we should expect " shortly or immediately before the beginning of the feast " (Xen. Cyrop. v. 5. 39, irpb belirvov), which would be just before the killing of the Passover lamb, that is, the forenoon or noon of the 14th of Nisan ; but belirvov in ver. 4 (cf. ver. 30) places the time of the event in the evening. Assuming the usual meaning of irpb as contrasted with perd ryv e. or iv rrj e., the reader was left to choose for himself any moment between the last date mentioned (xii. I, 12) and the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. This would leave the day and the hour of the washing of the disciples' feet very in definite. Still more incredible is the supposition that John, who nowhere indicates that the meal in question is Jesus' last meal, and who makes no mention of very important events which took place during the Last Supper (the institution of the Lord's Supper, etc.), recorded in the Synoptics, should have corrected the latter, which say nothing of the washing of the disciples' feet, by merely assigning such a meaningless date to this event. The evangelist, who certainly had as much insight as some of his interpreters, has been supposed to mean : " Jesus did not partake of His last meal with His disciples at the time of the Passover feast, but in connection with a meal (belirvov, ver. 2, without the article) before the Passover, not more definitely described, He washed His disciples' feet " ; which would be as senseless as to say, "Luther did not burn the bull of excommunication on December 10, 1520, but rather on October 31, 1517, he did post the ninety-five theses." (5) Since belirvov yiverai signifies only "a meal takes place," not " a meal is being prepared " or " a meal is begun " (cf. ii. 1, x. 22 ; Matt. xxvi. 2), the reading belirvov yivopevov (x*BLX Orig. torn, xxxii. 2), which agrees better with ver. 4, means " during the meal " belirvov yevopevov (xaAD, etc.), " after the meal." The determination of the correct reading in this passage is of im portance to one attempting to harmonise the Gospels ; but of greater weight in the present connection is the fact that John does not consider it necessary to say explicitly that a supper was prepared in connection with which the following events took place (cf. per contra, xii. 2 ; Mark vi. 21 ; Luke xiv. 16), and that he does not specifically describe the supper in question, either positively or negatively. Having indicated to the readers in ver. 1 that from this point on he intends to tell what took place at the feast of the Passover (see above under 3), he was sure they would understand that the supper to be mentioned was the same with which the reader knew the Passover began, namely, Jesus' last meal. 9. (P. 269.) The designation of the crdp£ instead of the a-apa of Christ as the heavenly substance in the Lord's Supper by Ignatius, Justin, and Irenseus, also the conception of the Lord's Supper as (bdppaKov dBavaa-ias, is derived entirely from John vi. ; cf. Ign. Eph. xix. 2 ; Smyrn. vii. 1 ; Bom. vii. 3 ; Philad. iv. ; Just. Apol. i. 66 ; Iren. iv. 18. 5, v. 2. 2 f. ; Clem. Quis Div. xxiii. ; the writer's Ignatius vom Ant. S. 605 ; as to whether Marcion is THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 291 to be considered in this connection, see GK, i. 677, ii. 472. Churches in which the Lord's Supper was called eixapio-rla, and in which an annual celebration, the chief event of which was the Eucharist, was called the Pass over, were led to this understanding of the Lord's Supper by vi. 4 — which otherwise is only an unimportant parenthetical remark — and by vi. 11, 23. 10. (P. 270.) The opinion that John iv. 46-54 is a working over of Matt. viii. 5-10, Luke vii. 2-10, is untenable. The point in the synoptic narrative is the fact that the centurion is a Gentile whose faith puts to shame that of Israel. John's royal official, on the other hand, is treated by Jesus as a representative of the Galilean populace, whose eagerness to see miracles Jesus condemns (ver. 48) ; he is therefore to be regarded as a Jew, and belongs to the group of officials of " King " Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 9 ; Mark vi. 14) to which reference is made in Luke viii. 3 ; Acts xiii. 1. The idea of the synoptic account would have been in place in John's narrative ; Judeans (iii. 22-iv. 2), Samaritans (iv. 3-43), and then a Gentile, would form a climax, and there are no general reasons why John should have failed to recognise the strong faith of a Gentile (cf . x. 16, xi. 52, xii. 20, 32, xvii. 2, 20). More difficult to decide is the question of the relationship of John ii. 13-22 to the very similar story in Matt. xxi. 12-16 ; Mark xi 15-18 ; Luke xix. 45 f. It is possible (1) that the Synoptists, who narrate only a single visit to Jerusalem, have included in this account facts which belong to an earlier visit, and that John, in placing this event earlier, rectifies the earlier accounts without comment. It is also possible (2) that Jesus did the same thing twice, at the time both of His first visit and of His last visit to Jerusalem. Since it was John's purpose to omit after xii. 19 the later event, with all that happened on the following days, he tells of the earlier cleansing of the temple. The saying of Jesus which accompanies the action is in each case different. On the occasion of His first visit to the temple after His baptism, Jesus felt Himself to be the son in His Father's house, as He did when a boy (Luke ii. 49), exercises the authority of the head of the house, and condemns the use of the holy places for purposes of trade (John ii. 16 ; cf. Luke ii. 49). Three years later (Matt. xxi. 13 ; Luke xix. 46) it is the prophet whom Jerusalem will murder, as it has His predecessors (Luke xiii. 33 f.), who speaks, using the language of the prophets, relative to the proper use of the temple (Isa. lvi. 7), which the Jews have turned into a robbers' cave, believing that they and their booty were safe from the arm of divine justice (Jer. vii. 2-11). On both occasions He was asked to justify His action ; but the first time His answer is a riddle, understood by neither friend nor foe (John ii. 18-22), but the second time His answer is a counter-question, the purport of which could not be misunderstood (Matt. xxi. 24 ff.). When one considers, in addition, the many things peculiar to John, even where the narratives are parallel (the Keppa of Kepparicrral, the scourge of cords, the words spoken to those who sold doves, and the anxious foreboding of his disciples), he is confronted by the alternative of supposing either that a writer — for some unknown reason — has taken old material, and with wonderful skill fashioned it into a new picture remarkably suited to the assumed situation, or that an eye-witness is here faithfully reproducing impressions received at the time. 11. (Pp. 270, 271.) Ss (in all probability earlier than this Tatian ; cf. ThLb, 1895, col. 20 f.) placed John xviii. 24 directly after ver. 13, and inserted 292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT vv. 16-18 between ver. 23 and ver. 25. The marginal reading of Ss (probably also an Alexandrian MS. collated by Thomas) and Cyril of Alexandria (Migne, lxxiv. 539) place only ver. 24 after ver. 13, and a cursive 255 has ver. 24 after irparov of ver. 13a. This interpolation has also crept into one of the three MSS. of Sh, namely, the Vatican MS., which until recently was the only one known ; according to Adler, de NTi vers. syr. p. 196, " margini adscripta " ; according to the more exact statement of Lagarde in his edition, p. 393, it is an addition of C (the corrector), "non vetus in inter- cohomnion." In the edition of Lewis and Gibson nothing is said concerning this interpolation on p. 193 ; and in the preface, p. lxi, one only finds something which is inconsistent with the text and notes on p. 193. As for the rest, all three MSS. of Sh agree in omitting from ver. 13 the words yv yap irevBepbs rov Ka'id(f>a, so that concerning Annas alone the statement is made : os yv dpxicpevs r. eV. ex. This omission, as also the insertion of ver. 24 in or after ver. i3, is to be judged as an act of short-sighted arbitrariness, which is shown also by the fact that, in spite of this insertion, all the witnesses which have been mentioned have ver. 24 also in its proper position. Cyril's reflec tions (Migne, lxxiv. 608 f.) on this repetition are merely amusing. Ss, on the other hand, offers a text which, in itself, does not appear untrustworthy. However, it has an arbitrary emendation, the causes for which are evident. (1) The need of the harmonists, who wished to remove the contradiction between Matt. xxvi. 57 (irpbs Ka'idcpav) and John xviii. 13 (irpbs "Awav irparov). By means of this change it was lessened, in that it appeared that Matthew had passed over a very subordinate event. (2) Added to this was the astonishment that, according to John xviii. 24, as long as this sentence remained in its position nothing at all seems to have taken place before Caiaphas. (3) Finally, there was the consideration that, according to xi. 49-51, xviii. 13 f., 24, by 6 dpxiepevs of w. 19, 22 it seemed possible to designate only Caiaphas and not Annas. One who, like Sh, would cut the knot by evident violence to the text and meaning of ver. 13, could be easily led to infer that a hearing, in which the high priest Caiaphas was the principal person, would have taken place in his dwelling, and not in the house of his father-in-law Annas. He would, for this reason, suppose that ver. 24 had its correct and original position after ver. 13. The premise in No. 3 is correct, but the conclusion is wrong. Since John everywhere emphasises in the strongest manner the high priesthood of Caiaphas, and, on the other hand, never calls Annas high priest (Luke iii. 2), nor even says that he had held the office earlier, but gives as the only reason why Jesus was led before Annas, the relationship of the latter to the high priest Caiaphas, there can be no question that Caiaphas is meant in w. 19, 22 and also in vv. 10, 15, 16, 26. But this does not in the least invalidate John's statement to the effect that they led the prisoner first to the older man, Annas, before whom was held a preliminary hearing, at which, according to Matt. xxvi. 57, 59, Mark xiv. 53, 55, many members of the Sanhedrin were present. That the official high priest should ask Jesus a few questions in the house of his father-in-law (John xviii. 19) is not Btrange, any more than that later they should go to the house of the ruling high priest with the prisoner for the purpose of holding a formal session, which must have been previously appointed for a very early morning hour at a definite place (ver. 24). The former assumption that Annas and THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 293 Caiaphas dwelt in separate wings of a single large palace, which enclosed a court, has much to commend it, in the light both of the comparison of John xviii. 25-27 (between ver. 24 and ver. 28) with Luke xxii. 61, and because of xviii. 15. In order to reach Annas, or in order to be near Jesus, who was brought before Annas, it was necessary to enter the aiXy tov dpxiepias (John xviii. 15 ; Mark xiv. 54, vol. ii. 504), the palace (consisting of several buildings, wings, and courtyards) of the reigning high priest, i.e., according to John, of Caiaphas. This assumption makes it all the more clear why, as regards the assignments of the separate acts to the various places and assemblies, the tradition of the group of men, who in other respects had the best information, is uncertain. Everything took place in the aiXy or oikio roC dpxiepeas (Luke xxii. 54). 12. (P. 273.) In regard to the disputes concerning the date of Easter, already touched upon (above, pp. 177, 192 f.), cf. E. Schiirer, De Controversiis Paschalibus, 1869 ; in German ZfHTh, 1870, S. 182-284, where the earlier literature on the subject is indicated ; cf. also GK, i. 180-192 ; Forsch, iv. 283-308. 13. (P. 275.) The Tubingen critics (Baur, Krit. Vnters. 273 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, Paschastreit, 159 f., 222 f.) conceive John to be strongly influenced by the idea that Jesus was the Passover lamb of the New Testament, and therefore must have died on the 14th of Nisan, in reply to which it may be remarked, in addition to what has already been said (above, p. 273 ff.), that while the idea of Christ as the Passover lamb certainly seems to be suggested in John i. 29, 36 by the Baptist, there is no particular reference to the Passion history. Moreover, it is at least a question whether the reference in xix. 36 is not to Ps. xxxiv. 21 rather than to Ex. xii. 46 ; Num. ix. 12. 14. (P. 277.) How Irenseus, Tertullian, and Origen dealt with the chronological allusions in the Fourth Gospel, especially xviii. 28, unfortun ately we do not know (cf. GK, i. 190 f. A. 1). Tatian solved the difficulty in a peculiar manner, by referring John xiii. 1-20 to the day before the appointed day for the feast of the Passover, then inserting Luke xxii. 7-16 ; John xiii. 21 ff., etc. (GK, ii. 551) ; probably also by rendering xviii. 28, as in Ss, " That they might not be defiled, while they ate the Azyma " (ThLb, 1895, col. 21 ; cf. Burkitt, Ev. da-Mephar. ii. 79, 83, 313, and Hjelt, Forsch. vii. 1. 105, on the translation of irdo-xa by ntbb chosen by Ss only in the Fourth Gospel). Consequently, according to Tatian, they did not fear, lest by defilement they should be hindered from participating in the approaching feast of the Passover, but lest their eating of the Azyma, which lasted for seven days, should be interrupted. Similarly, Maimonides and Bartenora (in Surenhus on Pesachim ix. 5) refer a sentence of the Mishnah, which treats only of the Passover lamb, to the seven days' eating of the unleavened bread. 15. (P. 278.) It is not possible, also hardly necessary, to give here an enumeration of the various attempts which, under the supposition that John correctly dates Jesus' death on the 14th of Nisan, have been made from the time of Eusebius on (cf. his writing De Pasch. in Mai, N. Pair. Bibl. iv. 1. 214 ff.), either to discredit the synoptic account, according to which Jesus celebrated the feast of the Passover on the 14th of Nisan and died on the 15th, or to show that, notwithstanding some inaccuracies of expression, the synoptic account is essentially historical and in harmony with 294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT John — the Last Supper really being the Passover feast, although held on the 13th of Nisan. The present writer is not acquainted with an adequate survey of the literature dealing with the question. References to the more important of the earlier literature will be found in the commentaries in Winer, BW, ii. 202 f., and in Schiirer (fiber qbayelv to irdo-xa), S. 8f. ; for more recent statements, see R. Schapbe, Das Herrenmahl nach Ursprung und Bedeutung, 1897, S. 53-99. Chwolson attracted attention by his Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes nach den in Ubereinstvmmung gebrachten Berichten der Syn. und des Jo. (Mem. de l'Acad. de St. Pftersbourg, Serie vii. Tome xii. No. i. ; it also appeared separately in St. Petersburg, 1892) ; see also a paper by the same author in MGWJ, 1893, also published separately, Breslau, 1893. Further treatises in ZfWTh, 1894, S. 542 ff., 1895, S. 335 ff., 1898, S. 250 ff. Cf. the discussion by E. Riggenbach, ThLb, 1894, No. 51. Chwolson denies what, in view of the agreement of Josephus and all three Synoptics, seems beyond dispute (n. 17, Nos. 2 and 3), namely, that the 14th of Nisan could be included in the feast of the Azyma. Accordingly, Matt. xxvi. 17, on which Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7, must be dependent, is meaningless as it stands, and must be corrected by conjecture. In the Aramaic Matt, the reading was : " The first day of the Azyma drew near, and the disciples of Jesus drew near (mpi np) to him." The letters i mp were dropped out by mistake before mp, and, in order again to give the words meaning, the preposition a was inserted before the first word kdi\ The harmonising of the synoptic account thus corrected with the Johannine tradition is effected, through the hypothesis that in that year, when the 14th of Nisan fell on Friday, the Passover lamb was killed on the evening of the 13th, in order to prevent a desecration of the Sabbath, which otherwise would have been unavoidable, because presumably at that time the lamb was not slain before sunset, as in the time of Josephus and the Mishnah (see note 16), but after sunset, so that it would have fallen on the Sabbath, i.e. on the 15th of Nisan. The Passover could be celebrated immediately after the lamb was slain on the evening of the 13th, or not until the evening of the 14th. Jesus and the Pharisees kept the Passover on the former, the Sadducean high priests on the latter day. According to J. Lichtenstein (from his Hebrew commentary on the N.T. 1895, Schr. des lnstit. Jud. zu Leipzig, No. 43, S. 24-29), this difference between the majority under the leadership of the high priests and a minority to which Jesus belonged arose from the fact that the Sadducees, in accordance with their view that Lev. xxiii. 11 refers to the Sabbath, falsified the dates of the new moon, so that in this year the first day of the Passover fell upon a Sabbath. 16. (P. 281.) John xii. 1 seems to be an exact date, and it is naturally to be taken not as Hilgenfeld takes it (Der Paschastreit der alten Kirclie, S. 221 f.) as the peculiar terminology of the Roman calendar, but as an ordinary Jewish expression (2 Mace. xv. 36 ; Jos. Bell. ii. 8. 9 ; Winer, sec. 61. 4 end ; Wieseler, Beitrage, 264) ; and is unquestionably to be reckoned from the be ginning of the celebration of the Passover, i.e. from the slaying of the Pass over lamb between three and five o'clock on the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan (Jos. Bell. vi. 9. 3 ; cf. Pesachim v. 5), which makes Jesus come to Bethany on the afternoon of the 8th of Nisan. If now, as the Synoptics imply, Jesus died on Friday the 15th, then the 8th of Nisan fell also THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 295 on Friday. If, on the other hand, as the Johannine account is supposed to necessitate, Jesus died on the 14th, and if the 14th was also Friday, then the 8th, the date on which Jesus arrived in Bethany, must have been a Sabbath. But that is impossible, since Jesus could not travel on the Sabbath. One is compelled to make the very improbable assumption that Jesus arrived in the vicinity of Bethany on the 7th — so that on the 8th He was compelled to make only a Sabbath day's journey. But why should Jesus have planned the journey so badly as, within a short distance of His destination — the friendly home in which He regularly lodged during the last days of His life — to be under necessity of seeking quarters for Himself and the large company with Him ? It was only necessary to start fifteen or twenty minutes earlier, or to hurry a little, in order to avoid this. But if the day of Jesus' arrival in Bethany, according to John xii. 1, the 8th of Nisan was not a Sabbath, then, according to John, the 15th of Nisan was not a Sabbath ; in other words, the Sabbath, during whicii Jesus was in His grave (John xix. 31, 42, xx. 1), was not the 15th of Nisan. Since to assume in this particular year, in addition to the synoptic and the alleged Johannine chronology, a third arrangement of the days of the week in relation to the days of the month, for which there is no evi dence whatever, is entirely arbitrary, it follows that John and the synoptics are in perfect agreement at this point. In xii. 2 we are not told that Jesus and the disciples ate supper at the end of their journey, — something indeed which would not have been worth telling, and which would have been men tioned incidentally, like the supper in xiii. 2, — but that a feast was prepared in His honour (above, p. 287, n. 6), which probably did not take place immediately upon Jesus' arrival on Friday the 8th, but on the Sabbath, the 9th (cf. Luke xiv. 1). If Jesus arrived in Bethany early in the afternoon of the 8th, when the usual preparation of the food for the coming Sabbath was made, the arrangements for the feast of the following day could still have been completed before sunset and hence before the beginning of the Sabbath. This would make the entry into Jerusalem take place on Sunday the 10th. The time mentioned in xii. 12 can only be the day after the anointing, since vv. 10, 11 contain no indications as to time. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that in xii. 2 the relation of this event to the time indicated in xii. 1 is left indefinite. The same thing occurs, e.g., in i. 41 in relation to i. 39, and yet the narrative is continued in i. 43 with rfj iiravpiov. John is not writing a journal, in which no day may be passed over, especially is he not doing so in the Passion history. He simply desires to call attention to the fact that on the day after the quiet anticipation of His burial in Bethany, Jesus entered Jerusalem amid universal rejoicing, which to His enemies seemed so terrible (xii. 12-19). The common view has been thought to have support in xix. 14, on the assumption that irapao-Kevy rov irdo-xa corresponds to the Jewish nDsn any, which means literally evening, i.e. eve, of the Passover, being also parallel to -wv nya-ist, the common term for the whole of the 14th of Nisan (e.g. Pesachim iv. 6), and, like nae- a-ij>, a designation of the day before the Sabbath, e.g. Friday. John, according to this view, presents the case in which the 14th of Nisan, the 'ereb happesach, falls on a Friday, on 'ereb shabbath (Pesachim v. 1). But it must first be shown that irapao-Kevy is ever used as an equivalent for a-iy, and, like the 296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT latter term, came to be regarded as needing a modifying genitive, like o-afifidrav or tov irdo-xa. In the N.T. and Christian literature the word is complete in itself, and always used like the Aram. «$}"$ (anai-iy) for the sixth day of the week, namely, Friday. Where a qualifying word is found, it is not the name of the following day in the genitive (Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2, iv o-dfifiao-iv y rfj irpb airys irapao-Kevfj). The word irapao-Kevy without any modifiers whatever is used of the day of Jesus' death in Mark xv. 42 ; Matt, xxvii. 62 ; Luke xxiii. 54 ; John xix. 31, 42, consequently also in John xix. 14. John lays great weight upon the days of the week on which the crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection took place, and upon the fact that this whole series of events took place during the time of the Passover (above, pp. 276 f ., 280 f.). The two ideas are associated in the passage, xix. 14, where he men tions the day and the hour when sentence of death was passed upon Jesus : "It was Friday at the time of the Passover, and about the sixth hour." These statements serve at the same time as a preparation for what follows. Because the following day was a Sabbath falling within the Passover period, it was especially holy, and every desecration had to be avoided (xix. 31, 42), even more scrupulously than on other Sabbaths (v. 9, vii. 23, ix. 14). The fact that in the Bab. Sanhedrin 43a, 67a, it is thrice stated that Jesus was crucified "on the 'ereb happesach" (fol. 43a, according to the Florentine MS., quoted by Dalman following Laible's Jesus in Talmud, S. 15*, "on 'ereb shabbath and 'ereb happesach") contributes nothing to the understanding of the Fourth Gospel. The rabbis obtained their knowledge of the gospel his tory mostly from uncertain hearsay and Christian tradition which had begun to fade ; cf . GK, ii. 673 ff. If these statements were derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic translation of John's Gospel, which was read by Jews at Scytho- polis in the fourth century (Epiph. Hcer. xxx. 6), the translation of John xix. 14 could not have been very happy. Sh (in two MSS. against one) has wmiy in xix. 14, 31, 42 ; S1 has wiany in xix. 14, 31, but in xix. 42 renders quite freely "because the Sabbath had begun." Ss has the same in xix. 42 with a different verb ; but xix. 14, 31 is lacking in Ss, and all three references in Sc. 17. (P. 282.) Sohueer in his festal publication, Uber qbayelv to irdo-xa (Giessen, 1883), strongly opposes the interpretation briefly outlined above. It has recently been defended by J. van Bbbbee (Zur Chronol. des Lebens Jesu, 1898, S. 5-81), partially on new grounds. Here discussion must be limited to bare essentials, nacrxa means in the N.T. as in the O.T.^(l) The Passover lamb, as object of Bieiv, (payelv, etc. ; Ex. xii. 21 ; Deut. xvi. 6f. ; 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 18 ; Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12-14 ; Luke xxii. 7, 11, 15 ; 1 Cor. v. 7 ; (2) the observance of the 14th of Nisan, i.e. the feast of the Passover, including the slaying of the lamb, which preceded, to be dis tinguished from the seven days' festival which followed, called the afypa, generally used as the object of iroielv, Ex. xii. 48 ; Lev. xxiii. 5 f. ; Deut. xvi. 1 ; Philo, De Septen. xviii. 19 ; Jos. Ant. ii. 14. 6, iii. 10. 5 ; Bell. vi. 9. 3 ; Matt. xxvi. 18 ; Mark xiv. 1 ; Heb. xi. 22. In the case of iroipd&iv to it., Matt. xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16 ; Luke xxii. 8, 13, we have the choice of either meaning. (3) The name 3£vpa is also applied to the Passover which precedes, Jos. Ant. ix. 13. 2. 3 (Niese, §§ 263, 271) ; Bell, ii 12. 1, iv. 7. 2, so that the Azyma includes eight days (Jos. Ant. ii. 15. 1), and the 14th of Nisan could be reckoned as the first day of the Azyma (Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12), or THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 297 even more broadly, simply as the day of the Azyma (Jos. Bell. v. 3. 1 ; Luke xxii. 7). (4) On the other hand, the name irdo-xa is also made to cover the days of the Azyma, and the two terms are used quite synonymously, Jos. Bell. ii. 1. 3, vi. 9. 3 (where certainly uninformed readers could not infer that the feast called the " Passover " is only a part of the previously mentioned feast of Azyma) ; Ant. xiv. 2. 1, xvii. 9. 3, xviii. 2. 2 ; Luke xxii. 1 ; cf. Acts xii. 3 with xii. 4. This wider use of irdo-xa is evidently found in John ii. 23, xviii. 39, perhaps also in xix. 14 ; and there is clearly no intention of dis tinguishing the Passover proper from the feast of the Azyma in John ii. 13, vi. 4, xi. 55, xii. 1, xiii. 1 ; Luke ii. 41. (5) The rabbis also were quite familiar with this usage. The Mishnah tractate dtidb treats of the festival of the entire seven days, which as a whole is there called ijnrjii (i. 3) or nosn (ii. 2-7). The latter term had entirely replaced the original name nraon >n. Consciousness of the divergence from the original usage betrays itself. In Pesachim ix. 5 we read : " What [is the difference] between the Egyptian Passover and the Passover of the generations (i.e. the yearly Pass over feast) ? The Passover of Egypt : it [took place] beginning with the 10th [of Nisan] (Ex. xii. 3), and it was necessary to sprinkle the lintel and the two side posts of the door with a bunch of hyssop (Ex. xii. 22), and it was eaten in haste in one night (inx nV^a) ; but the Passover of the Genera tions is customary (:n'u, custom) for the whole seven [days]." From this it follows not only that the learned rabbis used the term nan to include the Passover proper and the Azyma, but also that they spoke of the seven days' celebration as " eating of the Passover." The phrase, " whole seven days," can stand in contrast to nothing save " in a single night." Moreover, since no new verb takes the place of " eating " the Passover in the original celebra tion, this same verb is to be supplied in the second instance also. This same usage is found in 2 Chron. xxx. 21 f. : " And the children of Israel . . . kept the feast of the Azyma seven days with great gladness ... so they did eat throughout the feast for the seven days, offering sacrifices of peace-offerings and making confession to Jahweh, the God of their fathers." When Bleek (Beitrage zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, S. Ill) suggests modestly, and Schiirer, op. cit. S. 12, claims confidently that, instead of iSas'i attested by the massorah and without the keri, by the Targum, the Peshito, and Jerome, the correct reading is ib'i (LXX o-wereXeo-av), they fail, in the first place, to show that n^3 ("to complete"), followed by an object such as njno, in, etc., means any where in the O.T. or even in late Jewish literature, to celebrate a feast. In the second place, they have not given due weight to the fact that witnesses mentioned above for the reading " they ate " are very much stronger for the usage of the Jews of Palestine among whom John belonged than for the usage of the Alexandrian translators. If this reading were a later correction of the original reading preserved in the LXX, then it only goes to prove that the expression "to eat the seven days' feast" (i.e. the Passover, called a potiori a " seven days' feast ") was much more familiar among the Jews than the expression " to complete," i.e. to celebrate a feast of seven days, which occurs nowhere else. The expression (payelv to irdo-xa, in this broader sense, is no more peculiar than Josephus' Biopev iopryv irdo-xa KaXovvres, Ant. ii. 14. 6, xvii. 9. 3, infra, and the corresponding Bvo-ia for the entire observance of the 14th of Nisan, or also of the seven days, Bell. vi. 9. 3. The only 298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT difference is that the latter expression represents classical usage (Bveiv ra AvKaia, Xen. Anab. i. 2, 10 ; rois ydpovs, Philostr. Vita Apoll. vii. 7 ; see Bebber, S. 55, and the lexicons), whereas cbayelv to irdo-xa represents Jewish usage, which John everywhere follows more closely than does Josephus. Jewish idiom is peculiar in a very broad application of the idea " to eat," e.g. " to eat the years of the Messiah," Bab. Sanhedrin 986 ; " eat up widows' houses," Mark xii. 40 ; " to taste death," John viii. 52, etc. ; cf. Bebber, S. 55 ; and it was very natural to speak thus broadly of the Passover, because the act after which the whole observance was loosely called was a meal, and because the sacrificial meals as well as the eating of unleavened bread were characteristic of this feast. On the other hand, the regular technical expres sion for the celebration of the 14th of Nisan is not cpayelv but irotelv ro irdo-xa, Ex. xii. 48 ; Num. ix. 2, 5, 6, 10, 12-14 ; Deut. xvi. 1 ; Matt. xxvi. 18 ; Heb. xi. 28. In the celebration of the Passover, eating is only one feature along with the Bveiv, and is never mentioned unless the more general expres sion iroielv or Bveiv has preceded, or unless the Passover has been previously spoken of; Num. ix. 11 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 18; Matt. xxvi. 17 (cf. vv. 1, 5 ; Mark xiv. 126 (cf. vv. 1, 2, 12a) ; Luke xxii. 11, 15 (cf. w. 1, 7, 8). The full expression ov koX 6 6e6<; fiov, who at first was unwilling to believe. What heretofore had escaped from Jesus' heart in excited and often in obscure language He did not state in unmistakable terms to His disciples until on the last evening (xvi. 24-30). The development of faith from the first (i. 45-49) to the final confession (xx. 28) of 312 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT the disciples is proof of the truth of such sayings of Jesus as iii. 21, xviii. 37. It is the way, the goal of which John desires that the readers of his Gospel shall not fail to attain (xx. 31). How anxious he is that this shall be the case is evidenced in the prologue, which begins with the affirmation of the eternal being of Christ with God. Moreover, in the course of this prologue he represents the Baptist as bearing testimony (i. 15) in the same words as are used in i. 30, where they are recorded for the first time in their historical connection, and the prologue con cludes with a confession of Jesus as the " only-begotten God" (i. 18, n. 3), an expression which seems self-contra dictory. This and not " the Logos doctrine " is the thing peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, and indeed the only new thing in the representation of the person of Jesus as com pared with that of the Synoptics (n. 4). It would be possible to speak of John's Logos doctrine, or of a Logos doctrine in the Gospel of John, only in case John formally identified the Logos which was familiar to the readers (i. 1) with Jesus the Christ (i. 17), or in case he formally stated that Jesus Christ whom the readers know is the divine Logos, or an incarnation of it, and if by the unfolding of the conceptions involved in one or the other of these propositions he went on to make some further statements about either the Logos or Christ. But nothing of this kind is found in the prologue (n. 5). Although the historical name of the Eedeemer does not occur until i. 17, any reader at all acquainted with the gospel history would understand when he read i. 6-13, if not before, that the author was speaking of Jesus ; since the Baptist's testimony was concerning Jesus the Christ, not concerning a being called " Logos " or " Light " (i. 7 £), and since the name on which the children of God believe is none other than the name of Jesus Christ (i. 12, cf. ii. 23, iii. 18, xx. 31). In i. 4-5 also the only possible subject is Jesus. When and while He dwelt upon the THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 313 earth He and He alone was the light of men (i. 4, cf. viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 35 £, 46, iii. 19). Although He may not be the light now in the same sense, nevertheless the light which He was is not entirely lost, but continues to be manifested in the children of light (xii. 36), in whom He lives by word and spirit and who are in Him (xv. 5, 7, xvi. 7-15, xvii. 8, 17, 23). Nor has the dark world in which this light has long been shining (1 John ii. 8) and in which it still shines, been able to overcome and extin guish it (i. 5). Throughout the passage, 6 \dyos like rb $&<: is a name applicable only to the historical Christ. Even assuming that the proposition, " Christ is and is called the Logos," may contain a logos doctrine, — in the nature of the case a Christian Logos doctrine, — this doctrine is not expounded but presupposed in the prologue. From the simple designation of Christ as Logos, even if this be found in an independent statement (n. 5), the existence of a Christian Logos doctrine cannot be inferred any more than a Christian doctrine of light can be inferred from John viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 46, or from the numerous sug gestive designations of Christ an equal number of doctrines bearing these distinctive names (John vi. 35, 48, 51, — x. 11,— xi. 25,— xiv. 6, — xv. 1, — Col. i. 27, ii. 2, — 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Col. i. 15). Such an inference would be justified only if it were known that the Christians of that time derived further propositions from the identification of the Logos with Christ, or of Christ with the Logos, which would then likewise be silently taken for granted in the prologue. Certainly in the prologue nothing is deduced from this identification only presupposed of Christ with the Logos. The original existence of the Logos with God and its divine nature are not derived through a definition or development of the Logos idea ; they are simply affirmed. Since essentially the same expressions (viii. 58, xvii. 5, cf. xii. 41) recur as utterances of Jesus concerning Himself without any connection with the name of the Logos, the 314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT statements of i. 1 would have exactly the same meaning, if their subject were 6 Xpio-ro? instead of o Xoyo?. This is the language Paul would have used (n. 5). The idea of the creation of the world through Christ (i. 3) is expressed in the Fourth Gospel only in this one passage, but is found elsewhere in the N.T. without any discernible dependence upon the Logos idea (1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Col. i. 15-17; Heb. i. 2f. ; Eev. iii. 14). Consequently, there is no basis for assuming that John derived his statement from the Logos idea,' or, on the other hand, that he called Christ the Logos because this was one of the articles of the common Christian faith. He does not in any way intimate that this was the case ; and if this thought had been in his mind he would certainly have repeated the name of the Logos in i. 3, in order to direct the readers' attention to Gen. i. 3 ; Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9. That John does not regard the name of the Logos as a mine of speculative ideas is evidenced by the fact that the prologue does not contain any such ideas, and more especially by the fact that from i. 4 onward the Logos idea is replaced by that of light, and the former idea does not recur until i. 14, and then nothing is said which could have been derived from the Xoyos conception. We conclude, then, that in the prologue no Christian or non-Christian Logos doctrine is expounded or presupposed, but that the author assumes that the readers are familiar with the term X070S as a designation of the Christ. The question then arises how this usage originated, and why John employs it in the prologue. He does not represent Jesus as using it, nor is there any obvious basis for it anywhere in the Fourth Gospel (n. 5). On the other hand, we do find the term used in two other writings of John's which confirms what is apparent from the pro logue, namely, that the name was in more or less common use in the Church circles where these writings originated. In 1 John i. 1 the term 6 \670s t»)s ?&>»}? is used to describe THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 315 not the gospel preaching, but the personal centre of that preaching — the person of Jesus, who, on the one hand, is without beginning, and, on the other hand, one whom the disciples heard speak, whom they saw walk and act, a man whom it was possible to touch, whom they perceived with all their senses. This eternal person is the eternal life, and as such has existed eternally with the Father. But because this life has issued from its silent abode with God, appeared in tangible form among men and become manifest to them, it can be called the " Word of Life." In His own person Christ is the eternal life (John xiv. 6), and consequently the life which became visible and which could be heard is " the word of life." Hence 6 X670S is a designation, not of the pre-existent Christ as such, but of the incarnate Christ (n. 6). In Eev. xix. 11-16 John is represented as seeing Christ coming from heaven to judgment with the insignia of royal and judicial power (n. 7). In this vision He bears one name related to the work He had come to do at this time (ver. 16) ; also another, inscribed apparently on His diadem, which no one knew but Himself (ver. 12, cf. ii. 17). John saw this name inscribed on the diadem, but could not decipher it, hence was unable to express it. This means that for human thought and speech there is no term suited to express the entire significance of Christ and His being which is fully known only to Himself. But it is impossible for men not to give Him names, in which the attempt is made to express this thought. The name 6 Xoyo<; rod Oeov (ver. 13) is one such attempt. It will be observed that John does not see or hear the name in the vision, but that he simply remarks at the close of the description of the personal appearance of Christ that this name was given to Him. It was the name used for Christ in the Church, and He was so called when it was desired to express in a comparatively comprehensive way what He is and what He signifies. He is the Word of God 316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT expressed in the world. His person represents completely what the numerous revelations of God by word are in part. The attributes of truth and trustworthiness belong to Him, just as they do to these revelations (xix. 9, xxi. 5) ; but because He is a person they are expressed by a proper name (xix. 11, cf. 1 John i. 9, v. 20?). The fact that Christ revealed the Word of God as a faithful witness (Eev. i. 5, iii. 14) is only one way in which He proved Himself to be the Word of God. He Himself is " the Amen," or, as we should express it, " the Amen in person," i.e. God's solemn declaration of His will and of His thought toward men (Eev. iii. 14, n. 8). He is not an amen or a word, but, since God has revealed Himself finally and definitely in Christ (Heb. i. 1), the Amen and the Word of God. This thought is not without analogies in N.T. writings other than those of John (n. 8). This is the conception which we have in the Fourth Gospel. The general presuppositions and analogies are found here in the words of Jesus Himself. Jesus is the life, but also in His own person the truth (xiv. 6, xi. 25), the visible manifestation of God (xii. 45, xiv. 7-10), and He supplies men with the knowledge of God necessary to life, not simply through the words which He speaks as a teacher, but also through His deeds, i.e. during His earthly life He is the light of men (ix. 4-5, viii. 12, xii. 35 £, 46). He distinguishes Himself from all the official representa tives and mediators of divine revelation who came before Him by affirming that, whereas they became what they were for other men through some word of God that came to them from without, He in the whole compass of His life is the one consecrated by God for His mission to men and sent by Him to fulfil it (x. 35 £). If, as the prologue taken in connection with 1 John i. 1, Eev. xix. 13 proves, 6 Xoyovtos. Matt. xvi. 16 was preferred to Mark i. 24 ; Luke iv. 34 (cf. Acts iii. 14, iv. 27, 30). Cf. also John x. 36, xvii. 19. John uses also 6 Xpiaros 14 times, 'lyo-ovs Xpiaros twice (i. 17, xvii. 3), once Xpiardv (ix. 22), as a predicate. Mention may be made also of 6 fiao-iXeis rov 'lo-payX or tS>v 'lovbaiav (above, p. 309), and on iXa elpi, viii. 24, 28, where 6 Xpio-rds, or a synonym, must be supplied. 3. (Pp. 310, 312.) The stately tone of the English phrases " The only- begotten " (John i. 14) and " The only-begotten Son of God " (iii. 16, 18 ; 1 John iv. 9) is lessened when we remember that every only son is spoken of in this way (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38 ; Tob. iii. 15 ; Clem. 1 Cor. xxv. 2 of the Phoenix). The word is used to translate iw and -prr p in Judg. xi. 34 ; Ps. xxii. 20 LXX ; Gen. xxii. 2 ; Jer. vi. 26Aquila ; Heb. xi. 17 (6 ibios vlos instead in Rom. viii. 32). But since the same expression is usually translated in the LXX by dyairyros (Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16 ; Zech. xii. 10 ; Jer. vi. 26, see also the variant reading in Judg. xi. 34 (it follows that dyairyros in Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5 ; Mark i. 11, ix. 7, xii. 6 (eva . . . vlbv dy.) ; Luke iii. 22, xx. 13 ; 2 Pet. i. 17 (cf. Col. i. 13), is synonymous with /ioi/oyev^s in John. • It may be con sidered as proved that the correct reading in John i. 18 is povoyevfjs Beds without 6 (not 6 povoyevys vlos) ; cf. Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876 ; GK, i. 736, Forsch. i. 122. The following is the sense of the two affirmations of i. 1 and i. 14 : One, who was God, and therefore One who in His essence is and con tinues to be God, since He cannot cease to be God, and who at the same time by reason of His incarnation is God's only Son, has revealed to us men the God who otherwise cannot be known. In x. 33-38 also the conception of the Son of God is such as to include His divine being. Not only the accusation of the Jews, but also the scriptural proof adduced by Jesus, show that He called Himself God — a claim which the Jews repudiated, but which Jesus held to be justified. When in x. 36 Jesus calls Himself " Son of God " instead of God, the title is in accord with His matter of fact method of speech ; but is so much the less to be regarded as an intentional weakening of what He has just proven from the Scriptures, namely, His right to call Himself THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 327 God, since in Ps. lxxxii. 6 "gods" and "sons of the Highest" are used inter changeably. Because His consecration to His calling coincides with His sending into the world or even precedes it, He is in person and vocation the Son and the Holy One of God (x. 36, cf. vi. 69). But since the consecration and the sending presuppose His existence, that is to say, His supramundane and ante-historic existence, His Sonship of God includes His deity. Every thing He possesses, even life itself, is a gift of God, and yet possessed by Him as God Himself possesses it ; in other words, He does not, like created beings, find the conditions and means of life outside Himself, but in Himself. For this reason also he has the Godlike power to impart His life without Himself losing it, v. 26, vi. 57. 4. (P. 312.) Valentinus, the Gnostic (above, p. 176), and Justin, "the philosopher," were the first to discover in the prologue a Logos doctrine, or rather they were the first to read the doctrine into the prologue. That this was not the way in which the original readers understood the prologue is evidenced by Ignatius, earlier than either Justin or Valentinus, and the first clear witness for the Fourth Gospel, when, in Magn. viii. 2 he writes : " God is one, who has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son, who is His Word proceeding out of the silence, who in all things was well -pleasing to the one who sent Him " (Patr. Ap. ii. 36, 201, also editions of Lightfoot and Funk). Consequently the man Jesus is called the Word of God, because, after a long silence, in Him, His Son, God finally spoke clearly and audibly to men, revealing Himself not only through Jesus' teachings, but equally through His deeds (cf. Ign. ad Eph. xv. 1). As to His person, Jesus is " the infallible mouth, by which the Father has truly spoken " (ad Bom. viii. 2), the yvapy of the Father (ad Eph. iii. 2), the yvams of God (ad Eph. xvii. 2) ; cf . Zahn, Ignatius von Ant. S. 382 f., 472 f. Traces of this early Christian " Logos Doctrine " are found elsewhere, e.g. in the " Kerugma of Peter " in Clem. Eel. Proph. 58 (vopos ko.1 Xdyos airbs d o-aryp Xeyerat), and in later writers ; cf. the writer's Hirt des Hermas, S. 147 f. The one-sided tendency to consider only the name of the Logos and not the many similar titles found especially in the Fourth Gospel, such as Truth, Light, Life, etc., is appropriately condemned, especially by Origen, in his Commentary on John, torn, i, 21-39. The opinion which, notwithstanding this protest, has remained prevalent no one has expressed more unfortunately than Keim (Gesch. Jesu i. 125) : " Cannot all the flesh and blood in this history be explained from the philo sophy which sits at the entrance and distributes the admission tickets and the programmes?" 5. (Pp. 312, 313, 314.) To be compared with the lack of all explanation of the readers' familiarity with the use of 6 Xoyos as a name for Christ, which familiarity is presupposed in the prologue, is the manner in which Paul connects with Christ ideas not directly derived from the gospel history or from current ecclesiastical usage (1 Cor. x. 4 ; Col. i. 27, ii. 2), or lets such ideas appear as predicates in sentences where Christ is the subject (1 Cor. i. 30 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17, iv. 4 ; Col. i. 15 ; Eph. v. 23), and this peculiarity of John may also be compared with Ignatius' procedure in similar cases (see preceding note). In addition to analogies and foreshadowings of the use of the name " Logos " noted in the text and in notes 6-8, special attention is called to x. 35 (cf. n. 3, and Luthardt, Das joh. Ev.2 i. 273). Where the O.T. 328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT prophets are spoken of as those to whom the word of God came (Jer. i. 4 ; Luke iii. 2), and Jesus likewise is represented as having to do with the word of God (John vii. 16, viii. 26, xiv. 10, xvii. 6-8, 17), it would seem almost necessary that the distinction between them and Jesus should be brought out, namely, that this connection with the word of God is original, involving His entire personality. But even in x. 35 the author does not attribute these thoughts to Jesus. The use of the term in i. 1 and i. 14 is mainly responsible for the opinion that 6 Xoyos in the prologue is a specific name for the pre existing Christ, or for His eternal and unchangeable essence. But it must be remembered, first, that the apostolic Church had no specific name for Christ's essence apart from His human manifestation. Even when speaking of Him as pre-existing the Church used names applicable to men — Jesus, Christ, the Son of God, the Lord, Eph. i. 3 f. ; Phil. ii. 5 f. ; Col. i. 13-20 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6, x. 4, 9. In a sentence like John i. 1, Paul would have used d Xpiaros ; according to xii. 41 (cf . ver. 32, viii. 58 ; Jude 5 (vol. ii. 252 f.)), John might have used even 'lyaovs instead of 6 Xoyos in i. 1, just as well, however, 17 fari (1 John i. 2) or rd