¦ ¦ . .

NEW TEST;
H I STORY

G.W.WADE

I give ' ImAs
for- the fanndiig of a Coltrt in this Colony"

0

'Y^LIE«¥Mn¥_E]^SJIir¥« o DLUBisAisy •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF
Professor benjamin W. Bacon

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

NEW TESTAMENT
HISTORY BY
G. W. WADE, D.D.

WITH A CONTRIBUTION BY
J. H. WADE, M.A.

WITH TEN MAPS AND PLANS

IIidavooTepov to €^r)Tacr/j,evov

NEW YORK 
E. P. DUTTON AND COM^ASfr/
PUBLISHERS
Ml Divtmty Lib.*?

AMABILI AMATAE

PREFACE
THE present work is intended to be a companion volume
to my Old Testament History (first published in 1 90 1 ) . But
the shorter period needing to be covered, and the greater
importance of the subject have rendered both possible and desirable
a difference in the manner of treatment ; and of the three parts
into which the book is divided two are devoted to introductory
matter. The first of these embraces a description of Palestine
in New Testament times ; an historic sketch of the causes
producing the pohtical and rehgious conditions of that country
at the beginning of the first century a.d. ; some account of the
external circumstances, Roman and Jewish, obtaining in the
same period ; and a short review of the Hterary tradition inherited
by the New Testament writers. The second, besides describing
the principal MSS. and Versions of the New Testament and the
methods of textual criticism, comprises a detailed investigation
of the historical value of the separate New Testament books.
In order, however, to preclude misapprehension, it is necessary
to qualify what has just been said by adding that the sketch of
Jewish history is restricted to such matters as explain the circum
stances mentioned or imphed in the New Testament, and that
the inquiry into the origin and authority of the New Testament
writings does not extend to those of the Pauline Epistles which
are sufficiently widely recognized to be genuine for their com
position by St. Paul to be here taken for granted. The third
and principal part of the volume contains a narrative of our
Lord's ministry, based on the earliest sources ; an account of
the Christian Church during the period included in the Book of
Acts ; and an attempt to trace the development of theological
thought in successive groups of New Testament documents.
Though I have not hesitated to indicate my own conclusions
when necessary or expedient, my chief aim has been to present
vii

viii NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
impartially in connection with matters of controversy such
amount of evidence as may enable readers to draw their own
inferences. It is, of course, impossible for anyone to deal with
an historical subject without certain presuppositions which
are the outcome of previous reading and experience, and many
factors have doubtless contributed to form my own ; but the
one which I feel has been most influential is my earher study
of the Old Testament.
The present work is comprehensive in scope ; but in order to
bring it within the compass of a single volume, severe compression
has been necessary, and this has rendered a superficial treatment
of various important matters unavoidable. Apart, however,
from the defects due to this cause as well as to my own limitations
of capacity and learning, it is hoped that not much of what is
essential to the scheme of the book has been sacrificed to brevity,
and that lucidity has not been seriously impaired by concentration
and compactness. Everywhere use has been made of information
furnished by other writers ; and many of the foot-notes indicate
the authorities to whom I am most indebted, though not the
extent of my indebtedness. But whilst I have borrowed freely
wherever I could in this way profitably supplement my own
resources (verifying to the best of my abihty what has been thus
derived), yet I have maintained independence both in the plan
and execution of the work ; and the book is not only more
substantial but more original than its predecessor.
I wish, in conclusion, to acknowledge most gratefully the
assistance I have received from my wife, who has not only aided
me in preparing the MS. for the Press, but also has given me the
advantage of her counsel ; from Principal Joyce, who has read
most of the proof sheets and furnished me with several ifiuminating
suggestions ; and from Miss Adela E. Joyce, who has prepared
all the maps. I owe the greater part of the opening chapter to
my brother, whose further collaboration was prevented by
consequences resulting from the Great War. Justice to these
generous helpers requires me to add that for everything in the
book to which exception may be taken the responsibihty is solely
mine. G. W. W.
Sit mihi remissio omnium neglegentiarum et ignorantiarum.

CONTENTS PART I PAGE
I The Topography of Palestine ...... 1
II Political and Religious Developments among the Jews from
the Exile to the Fall of Jerusalem . . . .13
III The Roman Empire  63
(a) The Provincial System.
(b) Conditions in the Empire conducive to the Diffusion of
Christianity.
IV Jewish Institutions ........ 90
(a) The Organization of Worship, Teaching, and Discipline.
(b) Religious Sects.
V Prevailing Ideas and Methods of Jewish Historians . . 106

PART II
VI Textual Criticism  124
(a) Early Writing Materials.
(b) Manuscripts and Versions.
(c) Principles of Textual Criticism.
VII Documentary Criticism  148
(a) The Synoptic Gospels.
(b) The Fourth Gospel.
(c) Acts.
(d) The Epistles and Revelation. ix

x NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
PART III PAGE
Preliminary Note : The Chronology of the New Testament . 341
VIII The Ministry of Jesus according to the Earliest Sources . . 350
Additional Note : Jesus' Ministry, according to the Fourth Gospel 484
IX The History of the Church in the Apostolic Age . . 490
X Theological Development in the New Testament . . . 597
(a) The Teaching of Jesus.
(6) The Teaching of the Primitive Church.
(c) The Teaching of Revelation.
(d) The Teaching of St. Paul.
(e) The Teaching of Hebrews.
(/) The Teaching of the Johannine Writings.
Appendix A ......... 681
Appendix B ......... 683
Index .......... 685

LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS
PACING PAGE
1. Map of Palestine in the Time of Christ .... 1
2. Site of Jerusalem ........ 9
3. Plan of Jerusalem . . . . . . . . 12
4. Map of Asia Minor ...... .66
5. Plan of Herod's Temple ...... .91
6. Map of the Province of Galatia . . . . 266
7. Map of the Sea of Galilee  .371
8. Map of the Environs of Jerusalem ..... 432
9. Map of Macedonia and Greece . . . . . .543
10. Map of the Mediterranean . . . . . .586
f.*t Of the above, Number 2 is reproduced from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, by the
kind permission of Messrs. A. and C. Black. In the preparation of Numbers 3, 5, 7
and 8 use has been made of the maps and plans in Sanday's Sacred Sites of the Oospels
(Clarendon Press, 1903). Number 6 is based on the map in Lake's The Earlier Epistles
of St. Paul (Rivingtons, 1911). For the assistance thus obtained I wish to express
my grateful acknowledgments.

XI

PALESTINE
n a io is go zg 30 Miles
§ Over 5000 feet above sea-level
gjg - 1000 •

Palestine in the Time of Christ.

Erratum.— The name Aimm, placed in the map south of Salim, should have been placed
at the same distance north of it.

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
PART I
i
THE TOPOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE
A FRENCH critic has said that in any attempt to explain a great
personality or a great movement regard must be paid to race,
period, and place. If this be so, as assuredly it is, topography is
as necessary a preliminary to the study of Christianity as ethnography or
contemporary history. The scenes associated with it have not only formed
the stage upon which the drama of its rise and early progress has been
enacted, but have materially helped to mould its development. Accord
ingly, before describing the circumstances and conditions of which some
knowledge is essential for understanding the contents of the New Testa
ment, it is expedient to furnish a brief account of the land that was the
sphere of our Lord's ministry and of the earliest labours of His Apostles.
The Hebrew race had a decided proclivity towards a religious inter
pretation of the universe ; and this was promoted and enhanced by the
character of its physical surroundings. Palestine is very insignificant
in size, measuring only 160 miles by 80 miles, and covering not more than
about 10,000 square miles ; but its features are so exceptional that it
could scarcely have failed to produce a peculiar people. Bounded on the
north by mountains, on the east and south by deserts, and on the west
by an almost harbourless coast-line, it has few points of attachment to
the outer world. Its chief characteristics are its isolated situation, its
prevailingly high altitude, and its variety of surface. Its isolation in
early times was almost complete, the only circumstance that brought it
into connection with neighbouring countries being the fact that along
the level shore that borders the Mediterranean ran part of the high road
between the basins of the Euphrates and the Nile. Except when the
great military powers of antiquity quarrelled amongst themselves for
the possession of this thoroughfare, they left Palestine severely alone;
and its isolation was only decisively destroyed when, in consequence of
the victories of Alexander the Great, the tide of Greek civilization inundated
the East, and when later it became incorporated in the comprehensive
dominions of the Roman empire. Between the Syrian desert and the
1 1

2 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
sea the land is virtually a southward prolongation of the two mountain
ranges that bound it on the north, Lebanon and Hermon. The parallel
ridges that constitute this southern extension attain a general elevation
of from 2,000 to 3,000 feet, and are severed from one another by a deep
depression, threaded by the river Jordan. The two, though both are
high, are very dissimilar in conformation ; for whereas the western in
its course from north to south is interrupted at one point by an extensive
plain called Esdraelon, and is then cut by a number of torrent valleys,
the southern extremity ending in a parched plateau called the Negeb or
"South/' which sinks into the desert of Sinai, the eastern, on the other
hand, consists of a tableland, almost unbroken save for three rivers. The
surface of the country, viewed from west to east, is equally diversified,
for part of the coastal plain is flanked on the east by a line of low hills
called the Shephelah (or " Lowland ") ; then comes a central range of
higher hills ; next to these is the gorge of the Jordan, which for almost
all its length is below sea-level ; and finally, between this and the Syrian
desert is the elevated tableland mentioned above.
As might be expected from this diversity of surface, the productiveness
of the soil varies greatly. Although both wheat and barley are grown,
it is only in the level strip along the coast that cereals are largely cultivated.
Numerous kinds of fruit are produced on the hill-sides, notably grapes,
olives and figs. The depth of the Jordan valley renders its air very hot ;
and where the valley, which is from three to fourteen miles wide, expands
to its greatest breadth, the soil is very fertile, and the heat makes the
vegetation extremely luxuriant. But the principal occupation of the
people of Palestine has always been in general the rearing of sheep and
cattle rather than the cultivation of the soil. The Negeb (or South), just
mentioned, and the high ground lying to the east of the Jordan are
especially adapted for pasturage ; and the incidents inseparable from a
shepherd's life have ever been an unfailing source of popular similes and
metaphors. In one district the inhabitants derived their subsistence
from the water as well as from the land. For though the Hebrews scarcely
came in contact with the Mediterranean Sea, yet they were not without
fisheries, since the Jordan, before discharging itself into the large lake,
of unexampled saltness, called the Dead Sea, forms in its course two
other lakes, the Sea op Meeom (Lake Huleh) and the Sea of Gennesaret
(Galilee or Tiberias) ; and the latter of these abounded in fish.
The principal political divisions of Palestine in New Testament times
were (beginning at the northern extremity) Galilee, Samaria, Judjea
(all on the west of the Jordan), and Peejea (on the eastern side). Of these,
the most important in connection with New Testament history are the
first three, which it is desirable to describe in some detail.
All of the Jordan north of the Galilean lake, and one-third of its length
to the south of that, was (it is said) reckoned to Galilee,1 so that the
boundaries of the latter reached from the foot of Lebanon to the southern
edge of the plain of Esdraelon ; and comprised the former territories of
1 Hastings, D.B., ii. p. 99. It was originally a small district near Phoenicia
(1 Kg. ix. 11).

TOPOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE 3
the tribes of Asher, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali. Though virtually
confined to the west of the Jordan and the lake, the province in strictness
" ran right round the lake, and included most of the level coastland on
the east." 1 It is the most productive and attractive part of Palestine,
for though its northern division is mountainous, yet since its southern
half embraces Esdraelon, it takes in a great proportion of flat or gently
undulating ground. The mists which condense on the summits of Lebanon
furnish the country with copious springs, so that its knolls are well
timbered ; and cornfields, vineyards, and olive groves (cf . Dt. xxxiii. 24r-28)
abound. And as the fruitfulness of the soil was supplemented by the
store of fish obtained from the lake, and the climate is genial, conditions
of life were very favourable, and the population was dense. The prospects,
where the ground rises, are exceedingly varied and impressive. In the
south the verdant level of Esdraelon extends to the base of the Samaritan
hills ; on the west stretch the tranquil waters of the Mediterranean ;
on the east is the oval lake ; whilst in the north the highlands, not sombre
like those of Judaea, but exhilarating in their aspect, are backed by the
massed heights of Lebanon, and the graceful cone of Hermon.
Galilee had formerly been known as Galilee (i.e. " circle ") of the
nations (Is. ix. 1, cf. 1 Mace. v. 15), and for long after the conquest of
Canaan by Joshua it had had a large Gentile population which the
Israelites had been unable to exterminate. After the deportation of the
Ten Tribes in 722, the non-Israelite element must have been greatly
increased, and the Jews who had settled there were in 164 B.C. all brought
back to Judaea (p. 32). But 60 years later submission to the Mosaic Law
was enforced upon its inhabitants (p. 37), who eventually became quite
loyal to the Jewish connection. Nevertheless, the Galileans remained in
many respects different from the people of Judaea, Through their situation
they were separated by a considerable distance from Jerusalem and were
brought into close contact with non-Jewish nationalities. Not only was
Phoenicia near their borders, but through their territory there passed the
roads connecting Damascus and the East with the Mediterranean sea
board, Egypt, and the south. The main route from the former crossed
the Jordan half-way between the lakes of Merom and Gennesaret, and then
sent off branches to Acco, to the maritime plain (across Carmel), to
Samaria and Jerusalem, and to the Jordan valley and Jericho. Conse
quently the Galileans were much more open to new impressions, and
much less under the influence of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, than was
the population of the Jewish capital.
Of the towns of Galilee the richest in sacred associations is Nazareth
(Na£aQeO, Na£aosT, Nd^aga), the modern El Nazirah. In position it
lies midway between the Mediterranean and the lake, being almost due
west of the southern extremity of the latter. It is built on the slopes of
a basin among the heights on the north of Esdraelon, and little can be
seen from the town itself but the rim of the encircling hills, though from
the summit of these some of the splendid views previously alluded to
(see above) are obtained. In our Lord's time it was insignificant, and it
1 G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, p. 458.

4 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
was regarded with contempt even in its own neighbourhood (Joh. i. 46).
Overhanging the town is an abrupt limestone clifi (30 or 40 feet high) ;
and at some distance from it there is a precipice descending 80 to 300 feet
(cf. Lk. iv. 29). Only two places in the vicinity of Nazareth receive
mention in the Gospels ; one is Cana of Galilee,1 the other is Nain.
A good deal of uncertainty exists with respect to the site of the former.
It stood on higher ground than Capernaum (cf . Joh. ii. 12) ; and has been
identified with two places, the modern Kefr Kenna, 3£ miles north-east
of Nazareth, and Khirbet Kana or Kana Jelil, a more distant village
7 or 8 miles north north-east of Nazareth. As the name of the second
corresponds closely to the ancient title (Jelil is the Hebrew Galil, " circle,"
p. 3), and the surroundings of the locality are reedy (the Hebrew Kwnah
means " a reed "), probability seems to be in its favour. The site of
Nain, on the contrary, is undisputed. It is the modern Nain on the
northern slope of "Little Hermon "—the ancient "hill of Moreh " — a
desolate-looking height rising abruptly at the eastern end of Esdraelon.
The three towns, or villages, just named are the only spots among the
hills of Galilee which, so far as is recorded, were frequented or visited
by our Lord, Whose ministry was chiefly discharged amid the cities situated
by the marge of the lake. This lies in a deep hollow, 689 feet below
sea-level, and is 12 miles long by 8 across. The descent from the western
uplands to the southern half of the lake is extremely steep ; but along the
northern half the hills on the west retire, leaving a plain of some 10 square
miles in extent, now called El Ghuweir. Elsewhere around the edge of
the water there runs a narrow level belt of green sward, fringed by a
strand of pebbles. In this sheltered hollow a semi-tropical climate prevails,
and the vegetation which clothes the foot of the hills is peculiarly rich.
Of the towns on or near the shore the most interesting for New Testament
history is Capernaum, the scene of numerous incidents. Its situation,
however, is left by the New Testament writers in great obscurity, and
the only indications of either its position or its size are the facts that it
was close to the lake, contained, or was near, a customs house (Mk. ii. 1, 14),
and was a Roman military post (Mt. viii. 5=Lk. vii. 2). To be a convenient
site for the collection of tolls, it must have stood on a road traversed by
merchants. Two localities have been identified with it. One is Khan
Minyeh, within the plain of El Ghuweir, described by Josephus (B.J. iii.
10, 8) as of wonderful fertility and beauty. Here are remains of buildings
(though not extensive), and not very far away are springs, one being of
great volume. The other locality is Tel Hum, which lies nearer the mouth
of the Upper Jordan, 2£ miles away. Here there occur heaps of shattered
masonry stretching for more than a mile along the shore, and a ruined
synagogue. The situation of the first-mentioned place is considered by
many observers to answer best to the allusions in the New Testament
and in Josephus, the latter applying the appellation Capernaum to a
copious fountain. Others, however, deem the second, as nearest the
border between the territories of Herod Antipas and Herod Philip (p. 51),
1 So designated to distinguish it from Kana (Kanah) in the former territory of
Asher (Josh. xix. 28),

TOPOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE 5
the most suitable for the collection of tolls ; and it is in favour of it that
its name appears to reproduce closely in its final syllable the termination
of the original Aramaic Caphar-nahum, whilst the greater extent of the
ruins here points to its being the site of an important town, such as
Capernaum must have been. Chorazin has been plausibly identified
with a ruin called Kerdzeh, in a valley 2\ miles north of Tel Hum. South
of Capernaum was Magdala, which is with much likelihood identified
with El Mejdel; the place had some reputation in antiquity for the
manufacture of woollen cloth and for dyeing. At the point where the
lake, as it stretches southward, begins to narrow, was situated Tiberias,
the most important city in Galilee, and the capital of the tetrarchy. It
was built by Herod Antipas on the site of the ancient Rakkath (Josh. xix.
35) ; and was more Gentile in character than most of the Galilean towns.
It was little frequented by the Jews, since Antipas was reported to have
disturbed the tombs of the dead in laying the foundations of his new
buildings, and so to have polluted the latter. At the extremity of the
lake was Tarichece (so called frorh the dried fish (toqIxti) prepared there) ;
but though it was a town of some note, it is not named in the New
Testament. Next to Galilee, in a southerly direction, lay the region of Samaria.
The northern limit was Engannim (Jenin) on the edge of Esdraelon, whilst
the southern border extended westward, down the present Wddy Ishar,
to the Shephelah, and eastward, down the lower end of the Wddy Farah,
to the Jordan. The district, which roughly corresponded to the territory
of the tribes Manasseh and Ephraim was less than 25 miles across from
north to south, with an undulating surface and very fertile soil. The
chief city, Samaria, the capital of the old Ephraimite kingdom, was
destroyed by the Jewish leader, John Hyrcanus (p. 37), rebuilt by Pompey,
and embellished by Herod the Great, who called it Sebaste, in honour of
Augustus (HePaorog). Another important locality was Shechem (the
modern Ndblus), between Mounts Ebal (north) and Gerizim (south).
Near this, to the east, was Sychar (El Aslcar). There is a copious spring
at Askar, and near it, a short way on the road to Jerusalem, is Jacob's
Well. A little distance east of Sychar is Shalem or Salim, which has
been identified with the Salim, near which was __Enon, where (according
to the Fourth Evangelist, iii. 23) John baptized. Salim is a village near
the Wady Farah, visible from Mount Gerizim, whilst some ruins called
Ainun are situated about seven miles to the north. But, as these are
on the top of a hill without any water, whereas at the Mnon of Joh. iii. 23
the writer states that there was much water, there are difficulties in the
way of identification.1
From the border of Samaria there stretches towards the Sinaitic desert
the land of Judjba, the least attractive and least fertile portion of western
Palestine. It is a bare and waterless plateau, a large part of it being
between 2,000 and 3,000 feet above sea-level, parched and barren. The
eastern side overlooking the Dead Sea was known as Jeshimon (" Desola
tion"), a solitary waste of ridged and furrowed rock, which is cut at intervals
1 A Wady Suleim occurs near Anata, the ancient Anathoth, not far from Jerusalem.

6 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
by deep gullies. This ends abruptly in cliffs which descend precipitously
some 1,200 feet to the margin of the water. The western flank is less
declivitous, the plateau breaking up into a number of more or less detached
hills, separated by deep and tortuous ravines, with here and there a wider
valley. From the base of these hills there rise farther westward the
series of lower heights constituting the Shephelah or Lowland (p. 2).
The exposed situation and stony soil of the centre of Judaea afford but
little scope for agriculture ; and the principal employment of its inhabitants
is the pasturage of sheep. The Shephelah, on the contrary, where streams
abound, admits of profitable cultivation ; and cereals and fruits are easily
produced there.
Of the Judsean cities the most important and interesting is
Jerusalem ; and of the situation and aspect of this in New Testament
times a separate account is given below (p. 9). As there explained, the
Jewish capital is flanked on the east by the gorge of the Kidron ; whilst
on the farther side of this there extends a range of heights, one of the
eminences of which is the Mount of Olives. On the south-eastern
slope of this stood Bethany (the modern El Azariyeh). This is now a
small and decaying village, which gets its present name from its association
with Lazarus (Joh. xi. 1).'-. Of the hamlet of Bethphage that once lay near it
no trace survives ; but it seems to have been situated somewhere between
Bethany and Jerusalem. Ephraim (Joh. xi. 54) is the modern et Taiyebeh,
some 14 miles north north-east of the latter. The site of Emmaus,
described as three score furlongs distant from the capital (Lk. xxiv. 13), is
uncertain. The name appears to be reproduced in the modern Amwds,
20 miles away in a west north-west direction, near Aijalon ; but this does
not agree with the distance mentioned. A more probable identification
is Mozah (Beit Mizzah), about 55 furlongs from Jerusalem. Near this is
the village of Koloniyeh, an obvious corruption of the Latin Colonia,
which must have derived its name from a settlement of veterans established
there by Titus (Josephus, B.J. vii. 6, 6), and which is said to have been
called Emmaus at the time when it was given to the soldiers. Others
suggest El Kubeibeh, 63 stadia from the capital, towards Lydda.
Arimathea is probably er-Ram, a village 5 miles due north of Jerusalem ;
though some identify it with Ramathaim (1 Sam. i. 1), the modern Beit
Rima, 2 miles north of Timnathah, in the district once known as Mount
Ephraim. Five miles south of the city is Bethlehem, situated along
the main ridge of the Judaean plateau and built on a narrow platform
projecting from the watershed. Vineyards are still luxuriant there, and
olive groves and fig trees are numerous. Some 17 miles south south-west
is Hebron, a city which, prominent in the Old Testament, is not named in
the New Testament.
On the northern frontier of Western Palestine there lay along the
Mediterranean coast the territory of Phcenicia, including the important
towns of Sidon, Sarepta (formerly Zarephath) and Tyre ; whilst south
of the latter, near the promontory of Carmel was the port of Ptolemais
(the ancient Acco and the modern Acre). South of Carmel and situated
either on the sea or within the maritime plain were a number of places

TOPOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE 7
that were seldom or never Jewish possessions. The most important was
G-ESAREA, previously known as Straton's Tower, and converted by Herod
the Great into a splendid harbour. When Judaea was reduced to a Roman
province, Caesarea became its administrative capital. Other towns that
may be mentioned in order from north to south are Joppa, Afolhnia,
Azotus (anciently Ashdod), Ascalon, Anthedon, and Gaza. The last was
originally 3 miles from the sea, but being destroyed in 96 B.C. (p. 38), it
was rebuilt later on a site closer to the shore. N .E. and S.E. from Joppa
were Antipatris and Lydda, within the Plain ; whilst in the Shephelah
were Modin and Gazara (the Gezer of the Old Testament). Along the
southern border of Judaea there stretched the country of Idum__ea (the
ancient Edom), which is of interest as being the home of the family of
Herod. In the description of the region east of the Jordan the order observed
will be, as before, from north to south. Beyond the sources of the river,
and outside Palestine proper, were two small states of which the capitals
were Chalcis and Abila. The first was situated in the gorge between
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ; it is not mentioned in the New Testament,
but requires notice here as being the kingdom of Herod, brother of Agrippa I
and of Herodias, and grandson of Herod the Great. The second of the
two places just named stood on the north slope of Hermon, and its territory
appears to have included both Hermon and Anti-Lebanon. South-east
of Abila was Damascus, a place of much antiquity and of great size, and
having even now a population of 150,000. In the second quarter of the
first century a.d. it was in the possession of an Arabian called Aretas,
who governed it by an ethnarch. South of Damascus stretched a district
which St. Luke (iii. 1) calls " the Ituraean and Trachonite country."
Trachonitis comprised the rugged plateau called Trachon (now known
as El Leja) together with the region lying between it and the ranges of
Hermon and Anti-Lebanon. But as Anti-Lebanon was the home of the
Itur_eans, a race of archers, whose influence extended over part of the
level ground at the foot of the range between it and the Leja, the Evangelist
seems to have used for one and the same country a designation com
pounded from names respectively appropriate only to the extremities of
it. On the southern slopes of Hermon was Caesarea Philippi (the earlier
Panias). Between Trachonitis and the Jordan lay Gaulanitis (which got
its appellation from the city of Golan (Josh. xx. 8) in the ancient Bashan) ;
and within this, near the spot where the Jordan enters the Lake of Galilee,
was Bethsaida Julias (p. 51), which is generally identified with a ruin
called El Tell. Half-way down the eastern shore of the lake is a locality
called Khersa, which seems to be the site of the Gerasa of Mk. v. 1. Some
of the towns on or near the lake, having a Hellenistic population, con
stituted a confederation of Ten, and were known collectively as the
Decapolis. They originally comprised Scythopolis, Pella, Gadara, Hippos,
Dium, Gerasa, Philadelphia, Raphana, Kanatha and Damascus. These,
with the exception of Damascus (which in position was far removed from
the rest, and has been noticed above), and Scythopolis, which was in the
Jordan valley west of the river, were all situated east of the river or the

8 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
lake, though not clustered together. Pella was in the river valley ;
Gadara on higher ground above it ; Hippos on the lake shore ; Dium
and Gerasa (the latter distinct from the Gerasa of Mk. v. 1) were in ancient
Gilead ; Philadelphia was in what was once the territory of the Ammonites ;
whilst Raphana and Kanatha were in the region known as the Hauran,
south of El Leja.
The country on the farther side of the Jordan, south of the Lake of
Galilee, is drained by three rivers, the Yarmuk, flowing into the Jordan
near the southern end of the lake, the Arnon, discharging itself into the
Dead Sea, half-way between its two extremities, and the Jabbok, midway
between the other two rivers ; and the name Per_ea probably applied
to all the district from the Yarmuk to the Arnon, though Josephus (B.J. iii.
3, 3) describes it as extending from Pella to Machaerus (p. 9). It thus
coincided with the former territories of the tribes Manasseh, Gad and
Reuben. It is an undulating tableland of high elevation, not unfertile
(since many of its watercourses are perennial), but mainly given over to
pasture, and chequered in places with extensive tracts of woodland. In
connection with New Testament history it is the least interesting of the
divisions of Palestine, for though it was probably traversed by our Lord
on His journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, no localities within it are named
in association with that occasion. One place, however, is mentioned in
Joh. i. 28 as having been a scene of the preaching of John the Baptist.
This is Bethany beyond Jordan, which has been identified with some
ruins called Betdne (probably the Betonim of Josh. xiii. 26). It is situated
on high ground, a little south of the Jabbok, near the modern Es Salt.
In Joh. i. 28, however, the Syriac versions (cur. and sin.) replace Bethany
by Bethabarah, wliich has been taken to be the same as a ford on the
Jordan called Abara near Scythopolis (the modern Beisan1). But such a
name, meaning " house of passing-over," must have been applicable to
more fords than one,2 and may have denoted a spot near Jericho, where
the Jordan could be crossed (Josh. ii. 7). It is difficult to feel great con
fidence in the details of the early part of the Johannine narrative (see
p. 223) ; and Mk. i. 5 suggests that the principal scene of the Baptist's
preaching was west of the Jordan, in the neighbourhood of Judaea, although
it is, of course, possible that he did not confine himself to any single region.
It remains to say something about the singular ravine which is the
most striking peculiarity of Palestine, and which severs it into two halves.
The depression within which the Jordan flows extends the entire length
of the country from north to south. Commencing as a mere mountain defile
between Lebanon and Hermon, it deepens and widens as it stretches south
ward, and eventually expands into a broad valley, in some places 14 miles
across and at its lowest point nearly 1,300 feet below the level of the
Mediterranean. This valley is traversed by the river, the sources of which
are the mountain torrents springing from the sides of Hermon. These
unite near the ancient city of Dan into a single stream, which plunges

1 See Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospel, p. 23.
2 Q. A. Smith, H.G.H.L., p. 496 note.

The Site of Jerusalem.

TOPOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE 9
down the great gorge just described, and finally, finding no exit, floods
the floor of the valley at its southern end, and forms the salt expanse of
the Dead Sea. In the course of its journey, it falls some 2,500 feet. The
secondary bed which its ceaseless flow has cut in the bottom of the main
valley is 100 feet deep, and here and there almost a mile wide ; but it is
so overgrown by a tangled thicket of canes and willows that the present
river winds its way through the jungle in almost complete obscurity. Of
the cities situated in the valley those which were of most importance
in New Testament times were Scythopolis, Pella (p. 7) and Jericho.
The first on the west of the river was the ancient Bethshan, and became
known as Scythopolis in the third century B.C. ; it was situated near a
road leading up from a ford (Bethabara, p. 8) through the valley of
Jezreel into the plain of Esdraelon. Pella was on the eastern edge of the
valley, about half-way between the Yarmuk and the Jabbok, and stood
at the base of the eastern tableland. It was thither that the Christians
retired from Jerusalem before the final phase of its siege. Jericho owed
its importance to its command of the southern fords of the Jordan and to
the exceptional fertility of its immediate surroundings. It stood on the
right bank, at the foot of the Judsean hills (whence it was reached by the
Wady Kelt, in the sides of which there are numerous caves, the resort of
robbers, cf . Lk. x. 30), and was 6 miles from the fords and about 10 from the
river's mouth. The fruitfulness of the neighbourhood, which was famous
for its groves of balsam and palm trees, was augmented by irrigation
works constructed by Herod the Great ; and both he and his son Archelaus
rebuilt and enlarged the city. On the heights above the eastern shore
of the Dead Sea was the fortified palace of Machmrus, which Herod the
Great built on a platform overlooking the picturesque ravine of the Calirrhoe,
which opens upon the lake about 12 miles from its northern end. Probably
at the shallow southern end of the Dead Sea once stood the cities of Sodom
and Gomorrah, though some authorities maintain that they were situated
at the northern extremity of the lake.1
The City of Jerusalem
The origin and meaning of the name Jerusalem are both uncertain.
In Hebrew it has the vowels of a dual — Yerushalaim, which may have
reference to the two hills on which the place stands, or to the Upper and
Lower cities of which during its later history it consisted. But it is
transliterated in the LXX as 'IeoovoaMm, and the last vowel of the shortened
form Shcdem (Ps. lxxvi. 2) is in Hebrew also e ; so Yerushalem may be
regarded as the primitive vocalization of the name amongst the Israelites.
But the earliest known appellation of the city is Urusalim, which occurs
in the Tel-el- Amarna tablets, dating from the fourteenth century B.C.
This is a Babylonian form of the name ; but whether it was from this
that the Hebrew form was adapted, or whether the latter is the original
Canaanite name which the Babylonians modified is uncertain. If the
1 See Driver, Genesis, pp. 170, 171.

10 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
name is Babylonian its meaning is probably " city of Salim " (Salim
being a god known in Phoenicia, Assyria, and North Arabia). But if the
Hebrew form of the word is the earliest, the signification is more doubtful ;
of various conjectures perhaps " Shalem founds " is best.1
Several other names at different periods were applied to the city.
In Jud. xix. 10, 1 Ch. xi. 4, it is called Jebus ; but this is probably only
derived by inference from the fact that its inhabitants in the time of
David were called Jebusites. A more frequent appellation is Zion (from
a Hebrew root meaning " to be dry "), which appears to have designated
originally only the lower extremity of the eastern of the two hills alluded
to above. By the Roman Emperor Hadrian the native name for the
city was replaced by Mlia Capitolma (p. 59).
In the New Testament the name " Jerusalem " appears both as
'Ieoovaolrjii (as in the LXX) and ' Ieooaohiua, (the latter being usually
a neuter plural).
The site of Jerusalem consists of twin promontories projecting south
wards from the main plateau of Judaea and separated from the surrounding
hills on the east and west by two deep ravines (which finally unite), and
from one another by a shallow valley. The depth of the ravines rendered
the city in early times almost impregnable on three sides : only on the
north where the summits of the hills connect with the plateau could it
be attacked with much prospect of success.
The eastern of the two promontories is flanked on the one side by the
gorge of the Kidron, now called the Wady Sitti Mariam (beyond which
rises the Mount of Olives, 2,693 feet above sea-level), and on the other
side by the shallow valley mentioned above, which, formerly known as
the Tyropceon (or valley of the cheesemakers), is now called El Wad.
The top of the eastern hill is not uniformly level, but is broken by four
distinct summits, the highest of which is 2,524 feet above the sea, but
only little more than 200 above the bed of the Kidron. The western
hill has on its east side the valley of El Wad, and on its western side the
second of the two ravines alluded to, formerly called the valley of the Son
of Hinnom, but now the Wady er Rababi. This hill is higher by one or
two hundred feet than the eastern hill, and reaches to more than 2,600 feet
above the sea, but is much flatter. It descends very abruptly at its
southern extremity, which is 400 feet above the point where the valleys
of El Wad and Er Rababi meet.
During the later period of the Hebrew monarchy, and through the
whole of the post-exilic age, Jerusalem extended over both the eastern
and the western hills ; but it is not certain when the occupation of the
second of these began. Solomon's Temple (the site of which was retained
for the two succeeding Temples, pp. 14, 47) was erected on the eastern hill ;
but it has been held by some that the Jebusite fortress of Zion, which was
captured in the previous reign of David, was on the western hill, which
is superior in height to the other. Probably, however, the earliest Jeru
salem was on the southern extremity of the eastern eminence alone,
1 See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, i. p. 258. The verb yarah is used of laying a corner
stone in Job xxxviii. 6.

TOPOGRAPHY OF PALESTINE 11
for this, unlike the western ridge, has an accessible water supply (at
Gihon in the Kidron gorge) ; and the relatively low elevation of this
part of the hill in comparison with the site of the Temple accounts for
the statement that when Solomon caused the Ark to be removed. from
Zion to the Temple it was " brought up " to the latter (1 Kg. viii. 4).
Zion was probably the citadel (fj axoa) during the Greek period (cf .
ljilacc. i. 33) ; and Josephus (Ant, xii. 5, 4), who describes it as built
in the lower city (rj xdrco nofag), must have been mistaken in stating that
it overlooked the Temple, though its garrison would be in a position to
interfere with the approaches to the latter.1
The side of the city most open to attack was the north (p. 10), and
here three walls were successively built. The earliest ran west from the
centre of the western wall of the Temple area ; whilst the second, outside
this, continued the northern wall of the same area,2 and so brought the
whole of the latter within the line of the fortification. Both these walls
existed in the time of our Lord. Outside the second there gradually
cams into being a suburb called Bezetha ; and this was eventually comprised
within the city through the erection beyond it of a third wall by Herod
Agrippa I (a.d. 37-44).
The mural boundaries of Jerusalem during our Lord's lifetime formed
an irregular trapezium. Among the buildings and other localities which
were enclosed by the fortifications, it will suffice to enumerate those
which are of interest in connection with the New Testament. (1) On the
western hill was the Prcetorium, once the palace of Herod the Great,
and afterwards the residence of the Roman procurator, whenever he
transferred his quarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem (p. 54). Near this
was the gate (now called the Jaffa gate) through which our Lord probably
passed when led forth to be crucified outside the walls (most likely some
where on the ground afterwards covered by the suburb Bezetha). (2) East
ward of, and opposite to, the palace of Herod stood the palace of the
Maccabean princes, which has been thought to be the residence occupied
by Herod Antipas when he visited Jerusalem (Lk. xxiii. 7). (3) At the
southern extremity of this hill is the so-called cenaculum, which, from the
fourth century a.d., has been believed to mark the site of the house where
the Last Supper was held ; and near it is (4) the reputed residence of
Caiaphas. (5) South of the eastern hill, at its foot, is the pool of Siloam,
fed by a conduit from Gihon (the modern Virgin's Spring) in the Kidron
ravine. (6) Higher up the eastern hill probably stood Zion, the citadel.
(7) North of this, at a still higher elevation, was the area of the Temple,
at the north-west corner of which was (8) the castle of Antonia (Acts xxi.
34), reached from the Temple courts by a flight of steps (Acts xxi. 35).
In the suburb Bezetha was (9) the pool of Beihesda? if this can plausibly
be identified with the present Birket Israil. When Bezetha was incorporated
in the city itself, the new wall then built may have comprised within
its compass the sites of Golgotha and of the tomb wherein our Lord's
1 G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. p. 447, 8.
2 Smith, op. cit., i. 208.
3 In Joh. v. 2 the uncials A C have Btjdeo-dd, NL BTj8fa6a,

12 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Body was laid after His crucifixion. The garden of Gethsemane was
situated at the base of the Mount of Olives, and reached by crossing
the Kidron (Mk. xiv. 26, Joh. xviii. 1).
When our Lord visited Jerusalem shortly before His arrest and death,
His voluntary movements were probably confined to the eastern hill,
on which the Temple stood. Perhaps not till after His arrest at Geth
semane was He taken to the western hill, where there were (according
to tradition) the house of the High Priest, and the Praetorium of the
Roman governor ; though the Last Supper is likewise associated with
the same locality.

PLAN OF
JERUSALEM

*n

C.E.R.

o m
1 Palace of Herod Z Palace of the Maccabees
3 Cenaculum 4- House of Caiaphas
5 Pool of Si loam 6 Zion
7 The Temple area 8 Castle of Antoni a, with stairs
9 Pool of Bethesda IO Virgin's Fountain.
»% To illustrate the fortifications and the sites of the chief buildings in Jerusalem
in the time of Christ.

II
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS
AMONG THE JEWS FROM THE EXILE TO
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM
THE circumstance that the Old Testament is written in Hebrew,
whereas the New Testament is written in Greek, although all of the
one and most of the other proceed from men of the same race, is
significant of the great difference in the conditions under which they were
produced. During the period within wliich the writings of the Old Testa
ment had their origin the Hebrew nation was an unimportant factor in
the principal movements of the ancient world, and occupied a backwater
in the stream of human history. Submerged successively beneath each
of the great empires which in turn dominated the East — Assyria, Baby
lonia and Persia — it remained largely unaffected by its contact with
them, and it was itself too insignificant and isolated to be an intellectual
and spiritual force among them. But it was otherwise when the Mace
donians advanced eastwards and broke the strength of Persia at Issus
(333) and Arbela 1 (331). By the conquests of Alexander and the estab
lishment, after his death, of Macedonian dynasties in Syria and Egypt,
the Hebrew race was swept into the main current of human progress.
Thenceforward, whilst not itself uninfluenced by Western ideas, it reacted
still more powerfully upon its surroundings. The Hebrew language and
the related Aramaic began to be replaced for literary purposes by
Greek. Knowledge of Greek enabled Jewish thinkers to become ac
quainted with the products of Hellenic culture ; and this modified in
some degree their outlook upon the problems of existence. But the
use of Greek had the far greater result of making known to non-Jewish
peoples Jewish religious writings ; and through them religious beliefs,
which otherwise might not have circulated beyond the limits of the Jewish
community, eventually penetrated throughout the Western world.
i. The Persian Period
List of Persian kings from the End of the Jewish Exile to the Fall of the
Persian Empire. B.C.
Cyrus (capture of Babylon) ....... 538
Cambyses .......... 529
1 Also called Gaugamela,
13

14

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Pseudo-Smerdis
Darius I (Hystaspis)
Xerxes I . . .
Artaxerxes I (Longimanus)
Xerxes II
Sogdianus
Darius II (Nothus)
Artaxerxes II (Mnemon)
Artaxerxes III (Oehus)
Arses . . .
Darius III (Codomannus)
Overthrow of the Persian Empire by

Alexander

B.C.
522521485 464424424423405 358
337
335 330

With the conquest of Judah by the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar
the last of the Hebrew kingdoms came to an end in 587 B.C., and was
not Tevived for more than 400 years (p. 36). The supremacy of Babylon
was short (587-538) ; but its displacement by that of Persia made no
alteration in the dependent condition of the Hebrew people, who remained
subjects of the Persian empire for two centuries (538-330). Nevertheless
an event of the greatest moment in their history occurred when Cyrus
the Elamite, after taking Babylon, determined in 537 to concede to such
of the Jews as desired it, restoration to their own soil, for it was to the
interest of his empire to have on the western border of his territory where
it touched Egypt a population conciliated in this way, whom gratitude
was likely to render loyal. How many of the Jews who were settled
in Babylonia took advantage of this grace is very uncertain ; but
though a number of the exiles continued to remain in the land of their
captivity, a certain proportion 1 under a descendant of the house of
David called Zerubbabel, who had been appointed by the Persian authori
ties governor (or Tir-shatha), returned to Palestine, and there enjoyed,
though tributary, some measure of self-government. The territory which
they occupied was much smaller than that embraced within the earlier
kingdom of Judah ; and some conception of the restricted area within
which they dwelt may be derived from the fact that, though it extended
eastwards to the Jordan and included Jericho, yet westwards it did not
reach beyond the Shephelah (p. 2), for it did not comprise Gezer ; and
neither Ramah, 5 miles north of Jerusalem, nor Hebron, some 22 miles
south of the same city, was within its boundaries (the former belonging
to the Persian province of Samaria, and the latter being in the possession
of the Edomites). Hence the region cannot have measured much more
than 20 miles from north to south, or more than 30 from east to west.
The first collective work undertaken by the Jews on their return to
their own country was the erection of the Second Temple. The foundation
was laid in the reign of Cyrus in 536 ; but in consequence of impediments
(p. 15), the building was not completed till the reign of Darius I in 516.
it is probable that its ground-plan was the same as that of Solomon's
previous structure, which consisted of a porch, a central hall and an inner

1 The number is represented in Ez. ii. 64 f. as nearly 50,000, but the items con
stituting this figure only amount to about 30,000.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS IS
sanctuary. Unfortunately no complete description of the second Temple
survives, and even its dimensions are imperfectly stated, for its length is
not mentioned at all, and its height and breadth are both given as 60
cubits (Ez. vi. 3). The contents of the new building differed in some
respects from that of the old, the ten lampstands made by Solomon being
replaced by one, and the Most Holy Place having nothing except a stone
marking the site where the Ark (now destroyed) had once been. In front
of the whole there were two courts (1 Mace. iv. 38, 48, cf. 3 7s. lxii.. 9),
and not one only.
It was 72 years after the completion of the Temple that the city was
successfully surrounded by a wall. In David's time Jerusalem seems to
have been confined to the eastern hill (p. 10), but by the date of the Exile
it had extended to the western also ; and when in 444 Nehemiah decided
to fortify it, the walls he constructed embraced both hills.
With the restoration of a section of the Jewish people to their own
soil there came into existence the distinction between those who inhabited
Judaea and those who constituted the " Dispersion." In a measure,
indeed, there had been a " dispersion " ever since a large proportion of
the kingdom of Israel had been carried into captivity by the Assyrians
in 722 ; and the number of persons of Hebrew race who were settled out
side the limits of Palestine was considerably enlarged by those Jews who,
after being deported to Babylonia, remained there, instead of returning
to their former country with Zerubbabel. Subsequent events caused a
still further diffusion, and in course of time the extent and importance of
the Dispersion not only in Asia but also in Africa and Europe became
very great, eventually exercising much influence upon the history both
of Judaism and of Christianity (see p. 77).
To the north of the Jewish community in Judaea there dwelt the
Samaritans, who were themselves, in part, of Hebrew stock and, in part,
the descendants of the settlers whom various Assyrian sovereigns had
successively established in Samaria, after the downfall of the Northern
Kingdom in' 722 (2 Kg. xvii. 24, Ez. iv. 2, 10). These, because they
came from Cuthah (near Babylon) among other places, were called Cuthites
by the Jews. With the immigrants the residue of the native population
amalgamated, and in the mixed community that resulted Hebrew influence
preponderated. Eor though at first the religion that prevailed was syn-
cretistic, combining the worship of Jehovah with that of various heathen
deities (2 Kg. xvii. 33, 41), yet ultimately the Samaritans became mono-
theists, rendering devotion to Jehovah exclusively. In the time of Zerub
babel (536), they desired to co-operate with the returned Jews in building
the second Temple (Ez. iv. 1-2) ; but their proposal being rejected by
reason of the Jews' desire not to contaminate themselves with a community
whose origin they regarded as tainted, the Samaritans in revenge impeded
the completion of the Temple by making misrepresentations to the Persian
authorities (Ez. iv. 4, 5, 24). About 433 the cleavage thus occasioned
was widened by Nehemiah, who tried to prevent intermarriage between
the two communities ; and a member of the high priest's house, who had
wedded a daughter of Sanballat, one of the leaders of the Samaritans

16 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(Neh. iv. 2), was expelled by him (presumably because he would not repudi
ate his wife x). The social division thus created was followed by a per
manent religious separation. The Samaritans were loyal to the leading
principles of Judaism. They acknowledged the law of Moses, practising
circumcision, and observing the Sabbath and the prescribed annual festi
vals ; they looked for a Messiah 2 (on the strength of the prediction in
Dt. xviii. 15, 18, cf. Joh. iv. 25) ; and they even adopted the regulation
which allowed only a single centre of sacrificial worship. But instead of
the 'Temple at Jerusalem they had as their sanctuary a temple erected
about 430 B.C. on Mount Gerizim (p. 5), the hill wherefrom the blessings
of the Law had been pronounced (according to Dt. xi. 29, Josh. viii. 33, 34) ;
and, whilst accepting the Pentateuch, they rejected all the other writings
which the Jews ultimately deemed canonical. It was probably the high
priest's relative expelled by Nehemiah (as mentioned above), and called
by Josephus Manasseh, who gave the Samaritans their Bible. When,
forced to leave Jerusalem he would naturally take refuge with his father-in-
law ; and he doubtless carried with him a copy of the Pentateuch which
had now been completed (p. 17) ; and this would give him a special
qualification for ministering as priest in the new temple reared on Gerizim.
It is not perhaps unlikely that the final purification of the Samaritan
worship from heathen admixture was the result of the introduction among
the Samaritans of the Law-book brought by Manasseh. In any case, the
Samaritans eventually became free from paganism, so that the Jews did
not universally deny that they might belong to the congregation of Israel,
' or invariably treat them as on the same level as heathens.3
The body of exiles who returned with Ezra in 458 brought with them
a code of laws much more elaborate in character than any that had existed
previously. There had been several codes in pre-exilic times. Two are
embodied in the constituent document of the Pentateuch which is com
monly known as the Prophetic narrative, and dates from the ninth, or
at latest, the eighth century, whilst another occurs in the book of Deutero
nomy, dating from the seventh century. But in the course of the Exile,
and in the century that followed it (when, in the absence of any independent
political life, the interest of the people was concentrated upon their reli
gion), a more extensive code was drawn up, and conveyed to Jerusalem
by Ezra and his companions.1 This code, probably combined with the
previously existing documents into the Pentateuch, in practically its
present shape, was solemnly promulgated in 444 (Neh. viii. ix). The
laws of this code, with some accompanying history conveniently designated
the Priestly narrative, were, as contrasted with those of earlier origin,
marked by several distinctive features, the most important being the
1 The right of a man to divorce his wife was recognized in the Deuteronomio
legislation (see Dt. xxiv. If.); and alliances with Canaanites were forbidden by the
same code (vii. 1-3).
2 Calif d the Tahebh, " the restorer," i.e. of true religion and Divine favour, from
tubh (Hebrew shubh) : see Expositor, Maroh, 1895.
3 See Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, I. 400-403,

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 17
institution of circumcision as a religious ordinance,1 an enlarged calendar
of festivals, the establishment of an annual fast (the day of Atonement),
a number of very minute enactments respecting the ritual of holy days
and sacrifices, and the restriction of the priesthood, hitherto shared by
all Levites, to the descendants of Aaron.
The expansion of the earlier legislation by this last body of laws, and
the consolidation of all the codes, together with the historical narratives
associated with them, into a single corpus — the Pentateuch — gave to
the Hebrew religion a complexion which was in some measure new. As
the authorship of the whole of the five books was ascribed to Moses, all
their contents were believed to come down from a venerable antiquity ;
and the enactments comprised in them, whether of an ethical or a cere
monial nature, were held to have been communicated to the great legislator
by God Himself. The nation's duties in every direction were now felt
to be precisely defined, and assumed a statutory character ; all command
ments were regarded as of equal obligation ; and a sense of proportion
was no longer preserved in the estimate of their relative value. In conse
quence, piety was not so much faith in the Divine goodness and spon
taneous devotion to the Divine service as fear of the Divine severity and
a meticulous anxiety to fulfil the letter of the Divine injunctions. This
legalistic conception of religion did not, of course, destroy in fine characters
true spirituality, but it inevitably tended in the case of the multitude to
render purity of motive of less account than external conduct, and to
place ritual on the same level as morality.
The introduction, among the post-exilic community, of the legislation
contained in the Priestly code had two important institutional results.
One of them was the elevation, into a position of great power and prestige,
of the High Priest, a title for the chief of the sacerdotal order now adopted
for the first time (p. 92). The other was the acquisition of much influence
among both the priesthood and the laity by a body of juristic experts,
whom the task, first of multiplying copies of the Law and then of expound
ing it, had brought into existence, and who were variously called Scribes
(Sopherim, yea/iuaretc.), Lawyers (vofimoi), and Teachers of the Law
(vo/j,o8iS doxakoi) .
The importance of the Priesthood serving the Second Temple, in the
centuries following the age of Ezra and Nehemiah, was due to two factors.
One was the protracted political subordination of the Jewish community
to foreign rulers, which, in consequence of the removal of most secular
matters from its control, left its ecclesiastical officials paramount among
their countrymen. The other was the inference drawn from past calami
ties, which were traced to disloyalty to God and His laws ; so that the
people sought to safeguard themselves against further chastisement by
showing greater concern for the regulations of their religion, and increased
respect for the priests, who were the persons expressly responsible for
enforcing them. The chief member of the priesthood, the High Priest,
1 This is enjoined in Gen. xvii. 9 f., a passage which comes from the Priestly docu
ment. 2

18 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
held his office (which was hereditary) for life ; and it was only through
superior force that in subsequent times secular rulers made and unmade
High Priests at their pleasure (pp. 30-1). The^High Priest was not only
invested with the prerogatives belonging to his sacred office, but, inasmuch
as in ancient societies there was not the same hard and fast line drawn
between Secular and religious functions as prevails now, he enjoyed political
as well as ecclesiastical authority. Nor did the influence of the priesthood
rest only upon popular sentiment. The enactments of the Law, in the
form in which it appeared after the time of Ezra, ensured for the priests
great wealth. In the legislation contained in the latest of the four codes
of Law comprised in the Pentateuch, the dues assigned to them were far
more extensive than those prescribed in the earlier codes.1 The possession
of material resources on such an ample scale reinforced the ascendancy
which they had as the hereditary intermediaries between the people and
the Deity, and contributed to render them predominant in the common
wealth. Within the Jewish community they were no longer overshadowed
by a native sovereign who could evoke the veneration due to the Anointed
of Jehovah ; nor was their influence disputed, as in earlier times, by
prophets claiming to be directly inspired by God ; so that to their power
there was little or no counterpoise.
The emergence into importance of the class of Scribes was due to the
great reverence now felt for the Law, and the intricacy of its directions,
which required authoritative interpretation. At an earlier period
acquaintance with the rules of the Law, and the solution of such difficulties
as presented themselves in the application of them to practical life were
expected of the priests (cf. Mai. ii. 7). But eventually there arose a body
of men who, without being priests, devoted themselves to the study of
the Law, and became its official exponents. The need of exposition and
explanation was all the greater because the Pentateuch was not a work
produced at one time, but was a combination of documents coniposed at
different times and reflecting conditions of life and phases of thought
prevailing in successive periods ; and the more the Law became valued,
the more influential and respected became the professed students and
interpreters of it. It was from them that the people in general sought
instruction about the contents and meaning of the Law, and about the
way to observe it in practice. Their decisions constituted a system of
oral tradition, and the respect paid to the rules which they laid down was
such that it was eventually declared to be more culpable to teach contrary
to the precepts of the Scribes than to teach contrary to the written Law
itself.2

1 For the emoluments of the Priesthood see Sohurer, Hist. Jewish People, II. i.
230 f., Bevan, Jerusalem under High Priests, pp. 9-11, and of. below p. 93.
2 Schurer, History of Jewish People, II. i. p. 334, ii. p. 12.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS

19

LIST OF HIGH PRIESTS
From the Return to the Fall of Jerusalem

Jeshua (contemporary with Cyrus, 538-
529 b.c.)
Joiakim Eliashib (c. with Artaxerxes I, 464-424)
Joiada Johanan or Jonathan
Jaddua (c. with Alexander the Great,
336-323)
Onias I
Simon I (the Just)
Eleazar (c. with Ptolemy II, 285-246)
ManassehOnias II (c. with Ptolemy III, 246-221)
Simon II
Onias III (c. with Antiochus IV, 175-164)
Jesus or Jason (c. with Antiochus IV,
175-164)
Onias IV or Menelaus (c. with Antiochus
IV, 175-164)
Jakim or Alcimus (c. with Demetrius I,
162-150)
[Judas] 1
Jonathan (153)
Simon (142)
John Hyrcanus (135-105)
Aristobulus I (105)
Alexander Jannaeus (104-83)
Hyrcanus II (69)
Aristobulus II (69-63)
Hyrcanus II (iterum)
Antigonus (40-37)
Ananel (c. with Herod the Great, 37-4)
Aristobulus IH (35)
Ananel (iterum) (34)

Jesus, son of Phabes
Simon, son of Boethos (24)
Matthias (5-4)
JosephJoazar Eleazar, son of Boethos (c. with Arche-
laus, 4 b.c.-a.d. 6)
Jesus, son of Sie
Joazar (iterum)
Annas (or Ananus, 6-15), 2 (c. with Quiri-
nius, 6)
Ishmael, son of Phabi (c. with Valerius
Gratus)
Eleazar,3 son of Annas.
Simon, son of Camithos (17-18)
Joseph Caiaphas 4 (18-36)
Jonathan,6 son of Annas (c. with Vitel-
lius, 35-39)
Theophilus, son of Annas (37 f.)
Simon Cantheras (c. with Agrippa I,
41-44)
Matthias, son of Annas
Elionaios, son of Cantheras
Joseph (c. with Herod of Chalcis, 41 48)
Ananias,6 son of Nedebaios
Ishmael, son of Phabi (c. with Agrippa
II, 50-100)
Joseph Cabi (61-62)
Ananus, son of Annas (62)
Jesus, son of Damnaios (62-63)
Jesus, son of Gamaliel (63-65)
Matthias, son of Theophilos (65)
Phannias (67-68)

Religion in the Persian Period
The experiences of the Exile and the conditions which prevailed in
Judaea for a long time after the Return made a deep impression upon
those of the Jewish people who had been restored to their own land.
They had come to entertain a profound sense both of Jehovah's power and
of His purity, so that they were for the most part not only estranged
from all tendency to idolatry,8 but were intensely concerned to avoid
everything that might infringe the Divine prerogatives, or offend the
Divine holiness. Their convictions about God's transcendent elevation
above the world, and His separateness from every form of evil, influenced
1 Josephus represents Judas as high priest in Ant. xii. 11. 2, but omits his name
from the fist of high priests in xx. 10.
2 The Annas of Lh. iii. 2. 3 Conjectured to be the Alexander of Acts iv. 6.
* The Caiaphas of Lh. iii. 2, Mt. xxvi. 57.
6 The 'Iw;<a0a. of Acts iv. 6, D. " The Ananias of Acts xxiii. 2.
' This survey includes features marking the prior Babylonian period.
8 The idolatrous practices denounced in 3 Is. lvii. (Trito-Isaiah) probably prevailed
amongst the population left behind in Palestine,

20 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
not only their forms of worship, but also their theological speculations ;
and in respect of both practices and beliefs they differed in a marked degree
from their forefathers of the pre-exilic period.
(1) It was the sense of God's sanctity and of the necessity of avoiding
in the approach to Him every kind of defilement that dictated the elaborate
ceremonial regulations of the Priestly code to which allusion has been
made (p. 17). To avoid any profanation of the Divine majesty by the
careless use of the Divine name of Jahveh, the very mention of it was
avoided by the employment, in speech, of various substitutes such as
My Lord (Adonai) or the Name, or the Blessed or the Heavens ; whilst when
the consonantal letters of the Hebrew Scriptures were supplied with vowels
the consonants of Jahveh received the vowels of Adonai, producing the
form Jehovah.1 But inasmuch as it is far easier to be careful about
external religious observances than to maintain a high standard of morals,
there not infrequently co-existed with great scrupulousness in regard to
the formal side of religion much inhumanity and even corruption 2 ;
whilst at the same time the burden occasioned by the attempt to keep a
number of minute rules of conduct inevitably induced a resort to various
subterfuges whereby the rules were kept in the letter, though violated in
the spirit. The importance which even the prophets of the post-exilic
period attached to ceremonial duties contrasts rather strikingly- with
the attitude of those of an earlier time. The pre-exilic prophets had
protested against the idea that rites and ceremonies could be in the sight
of God of equal value with the practice of the social virtues ; and had
contended that sacrifices and formal homage, if unaccompanied by obedi
ence to His ethical requirements, only angered Him,3 whereas some at
least of their successors placed ritual and moral ordinances upon the same
plane (cf. 3 Is. Ivi. 2, lviii. 13-14, Mai. i. 6 f., iii. 7 f.).
(2) The enhanced conception which the Jews of the post-exilic age
had acquired of God's greatness issued in a heightened consciousness
of the peculiar relation in which they believed their race to stand to Him.
They felt that between themselves and Gentile nations there was a deep
cleavage rendering intimate intercourse with them unlawful. Inter
marriage with neighbouring peoples like the Moabites, Ammonites,
Egyptians, was forbidden by Ezra ; and even the alliances already con
tracted were dissolved (Ez. x., Neh. xiii. 23 f .). In defence of such measures
a plea may, no doubt, be founded on the consideration that otherwise a
small and feeble community, deprived of national independence, ran great
risk of being absorbed by the heathen populations around it, and of losing
its distinctive religious faith. Even in the earliest code of laws prescribed
in the Pentateuch, prohibitions occur against unions with the Canaanites
(Ex. xxxiv. 12-16). Nevertheless, the exclusiveness of the post-exilic
Jews was in some measure a new departure. It did not prevail in the
times of the early monarchy, for King David was descended from a marriage
1 The circumstance that the first vowel in these words is respectively a and e
depends upon a particular rule of Hebrew vooalization.
2 Cf. 3 Is. lviii., Mai. iii. 5
¦a See Is. i. 10-17, Hos. vi. 6, Am. v. 21-24, Mie. vi. 6-8, Jer. vii. 4-7, 21-23.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 21
between a Hebrew man and a Moabite woman ; he himself had among
his wives a princess of Geshur, a small Aramean state ; and his son Solomon
wedded the daughter of the King of Egypt, as well as women of various
other nationalities. History shows, indeed, that the influence of such
unions upon the purity of the Hebrew religion was often injurious.1 Yet
whatever excuse there may have been for the policy adopted by Ezra
and his successors in the circumstances of the Jewish people, it could not
fail to have prejudicial results through fostering in the Jews themselves
spiritual pride and inhumanity, and earning for them the aversion of other
peoples. (3) The deeper conviction of the Divine majesty and purity which
marked religion after the exile, and the tendency to regard the Deity as
elevated above all immediate contact with the earth and with mankind,
led to a great development of Angelology. About the origin of the belief
in angels something will be said later (p. 110) : here it is only needful to
note the large space which they filled in theological speculation during
the period now considered. The idea that God was surrounded by a
host of ministering spirits, who were the agents alike of His beneficent
purposes and of IDs retributive judgments was prevalent in Israel from
very early times. But in proportion as He came to be viewed as farther
and farther removed from the world and from direct converse with men,
greater was the importance that was naturally attached to the subordinate
spiritual beings who spanned the chasm separating Him from humanity,
and the more increasingly were they regarded as the normal intermediaries
for the communication of His will and the accomplishment of His ends.
(4) The development of a belief in God's transcendent perfection soon
rendered it impossible any longer to consider Him (as He had previously
been considered) the source of the mischievous thoughts that so often find
entrance into human minds. Accordingly, to explain the facts of human
experience there arose the idea that the temptations which beset men
came from a Spirit of evil. Before, and even during, the exile Hebrew
writers did not hesitate to regard Jehovah Himself as the cause of evil
as well as of good (Am. iii. 6, 2 Is. xl. 7, Lam. iii. 38) ; and not alone of the
external ills that happen to men, but also of the wrongful impulses which
assail men from within (Ex. vii. 3, 1 Sam. ii. 25, 2 Sam. xxiv. 1). Jehovah
might indeed give scope to a subordinate spirit to tempt individuals to
wrong (1 Kg. xxii. 21), with a view to testing or punishing them ; but
such a spirit was still considered to be one of His servants and attendants
in the courts of heaven ; and though he might be styled the Satan (Job i.
12), the word was a descriptive title (" the adversary " of men) and was
not a proper name. But in the course of the post-exilic age the term Satan
became at last a personal designation ; and to the spirit so named were
ascribed the pernicious suggestions that took shape in men's hearts as
well as the physical sufferings that tormented their bodies. Hence when
in the interests of late religious conceptions some of the historical books
of the Old Testament were re-written by the author of Chronicles (possibly
1 See 1 Kg. xi. 5-8, xvi. 31.

22 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
at the very end of the Persian, though more probably in the succeeding
Greek period) the earlier representation that David was tempted by
Jehovah to number Israel (2 Sam.- xxiv. 1) was changed, and the tempta
tion was attributed to Satan (1 Ch. xxi. 1). Like Jehovah, Satan, as the
paramount spirit of evil, was also thought to have at his disposal the services
of inferior agents for carrying out his malignant designs.
It has been suspected that the growth of a belief in a predominant
Spirit of evil opposed to God, and in the activity of angels both good
and bad owed something to Persian influence during the period in which
the Jews were subject to Persian rule. Zoroastrianism recognized the
existence of two rival Spiritual Powers, one, Ahuramazdah (Ormuzd),
being the source of all good, and the other, Angra Mainhu (Ahriman),
being the source of all evil. Each of these had subordinate spirits under
his control, Ahuramazdah being attended by seven Archangels x and a host
of inferior angels, and Angra Mainhu beng served by a multitude of
demons. Amongst the good spirits were tihefravdshis or spiritual counter
parts of the pious, which, dwelling in heaven, aided men upon earth ; and
there seem to have been fravdshis of nations likewise. There also prevailed
a belief in a renewal of the world under a miraculous Being called
Saoshyant, "Benefactor." These beliefs have obvious analogies with the
Jewish belief in God and in Satan, in good and bad angels, in the guardian
spirits of nations and individuals (Dan. x. 13, 20), in the expectation of a
renovated universe (such as appears in 3 Is. lxv. 17, Ixvi. 22), and of a
Supernatural Deliverer, to whom reference will be made later. But
whilst the religion of Persia can scarcely have failed to leave some impres
sion upon Jewish thought, yet in view of the existence of elements in early
Jewish religion from which many features in the beliefs of later times
most resembling the Persian could have developed, it seems probable
that the influence of the Persian religion upon Jewish ideas was stimulating
rather than definitely creative.
(5) After the Return from the Exile the prophetic expectations about
the Future underwent a marked change, which will be best understood by
contrasting them with those which prevailed in the preceding age. Since
in the early days of Israel's history Jehovah was regarded as a national
God, who took part with His people in their conflicts with their enemies,
it was natural that His Day (i.e. the occasion when He would manifest
His superiority over Israel's foes and their gods) should at first have been
anticipated as a moment of unqualified triumph for Israel and of decisive
overthrow for its oppressors. By the prophets of the eighth century,
however, who believed that Jehovah was primarily a God of righteousness,
and who recognized how flagrant were their countrymen's sins against
Him, the Day of Jehovah was expected to be an occasion of chastisement,
though not of final destruction, for Israel itself. All moral and social
evils (for which no multiplication of sacrifices and material offerings could
procure condonation) would be eradicated through a searching judgment
executed by some hostile power ; and this, when its purpose was accom-
1 Cf. Tob. xii. 15, Enoch xc. 21, Bev. viii. 2.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 23
plished, would be followed by a period of permanent peace and felioity
for the purified remnant. The agency which, in the prophets' conceptions,
was to bring about the judgment was generally some foreign power within
the political horizon, while the era of happiness which was the prospective
sequel was to reproduce in a heightened degree the glories of the past.
Sometimes the future was depicted as a theocracy, administered by God
Himself, without mention of any human intermediary. Most commonly
the hoped-for felicity was expected to be realized under the rule of a succes
sion of just and beneficent kings of David's dynasty (Am. ix. 11, Is. xxxii.
1, Jer. xxiii. 5), in fulfilment of the covenant which was believed to subsist
between Jehovah and David, in whose family God's fatherly relations
with the nation were concentrated (2 Sam. vii. 14, Ps. lxxxix. 26, 27).
But in some few prophecies there was foretold the advent of a pre-eminent
descendant of David's house who would be exceptionally endowed with
qualities of wisdom, piety, and power, and who would be the agent and
representative of God (Is. ix. 1-7, xi. 1-9, Mic. v. 2 f.). Although the
term Messiah (" Anointed ") is not actually used of this ideal sovereign
in the prophecies referred to, it came to be employed as a distinctive
appellation for him ; and in consequence, the era of happiness destined to
end all sin and sorrow is generally styled, even when a personal Messiah
does not figure in the descriptions of it, the Messianic age, though a more
appropriate term might be the Golden Age.1
But whilst the expectation of the emergence from among the Hebrew
people of a Messiah persisted long after the eighth and seventh centuries,
yet in the course of time a different conception of the way in which the
relief from foreign oppression was to come also grew up. The expansion
of successive heathen empires by the absorption of the one immediately
preceding had enlarged for the Jews their view of the external world and of
the strength of the forces that held them in thrall, and caused them to
despair of the vindication which they desired, save through some extra
ordinary intervention of God. Accordingly, the prophets of this period
largely detached their minds from the processes and actualities of earth,
and looked for God to destroy from heaven their collective enemies super-
naturally. The occasion and manner of this great world- judgment were
imaginatively conceived, with much variation in detail ; and the overthrow
of the human foes of God and of Israel is sometimes represented as accom
panied by the punishment of hostile spiritual powers which were in alliance
with them. These are among the features that distinguish what has been
termed Apocalyptic prophecy, as it made its appearance during the Persian
period, beginning with Ezekiel (xxxviii.-xxxix.) in the sixth century, and
including Joel (eire. 400) and Is. xxiv.-xxvii. (fourth century). But
whilst the Apocalyptic prophets of the Old Testament; believed that the
heathen generally would be the objects of a consuming judgment, yet for
the most part they contemplated that there would remain survivors, who
would recognize the supremacy of Israel's God and the prerogatives of
Jehovah's people. Thus their hopes about, the future embraced in a sense
1 Cf. Lake, Landmarhs of Early Christianity, p. 19.

24 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the extension of a knowledge of Jehovah amongst mankind as well as
the predominance of the Jews over the rest of the nations.
(6) The most illuminating thought, however, respecting the diffusion
throughout the world of a knowledge of the true God was expressed by a
prophet living towards the end of the Exile, who declared that the calamities
endured by Israel were destined by Jehovah to be instrumental in acquaint
ing the heathen peoples with Himself and with their own sins against Him.
In 2 7s. Iii. 13— liii. 12, under the figure of Jehovah's Servant, collective
Israel seems to be portrayed, first as sustaining with patience the utmost
humihation and outrage, and next as undergoing national extinction ; but
subsequently as being revived from this condition and as creating by
such revival a conviction in the heathen peoples witnessing it that its suffer
ings were undeserved, and were designed by God to expiate the heathens' own
offences. The personification involved in such a portrayal rendered possible
the apphcation of the description to an individual Person ; and it proved
to be the passage in the Old Testament which was deemed by the Christian
Church to prefigure more accurately than any other the character and
work of our Lord.
(7) Prior to the seventh century God's dealings with His people are
usually represented as confined to the collective nation ; the rights and
responsibilities of the individual are lost sight of ; and his fate is merged
in that of the majority of his countrymen. But in the seventh century a
feeling that individuals ought to be credited with their own merits, and held
accountable for none but their own sins, began to arise ; and in both
Jeremiah and Ezekiel God is represented as declaring that the destiny of
each person should be determined by his own righteousness or wickedness,
independently of the conduct of others.1 In the unqualified way in which this
principle is stated by these prophets, the solidarity between the individual
and the community imposed by the facts of this life and the constitution
of human society, is ignored ; for the consequences of individual offences,
as a matter of experience, often fall upon others besides the actual offenders.
But the appreciation, at this period, of the claims and responsibilities of
individuals as distinct from the nation or the race to which they belonged
was a notable contribution to theological thought, and led to important
deductions at a later time.
ii. The Greek Period*
The dissolution of the Persian empire through the invasion of Asia by
the Macedonian Alexander seems to have been welcomed by its Jewish
subjects : so great a pohtical upheaval offered at least the chance of a
change for the better in their dependent condition. And although the
Persian kings had not been, on the whole, harsh rulers, nevertheless one
of them, Artaxerxes Ochus (358-337), had been severe in his treatment of
them, for he had deported to Hyrcania a number of Jews who had been
1 Jer. xxxi. 29-30, Ezek. xviii. 1 f.
a On the history of this period see Schurer, Hist. Jewish People, I. i. p. 186 f.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 25
involved in a rebellion organized in Phoenicia and Egypt against the
Persian domination; and consequently it was not unnatural that the
Jewish people should view with satisfaction the catastrophe which Alexan
der brought upon those who had been their over-lords for two centuries.1
The event, however, had for them evil results as well as good, though it
cannot be doubted that for the world at large the beneficent consequences
greatly preponderated.
The territory occupied by the Jews during the early part of the Greek
period did not differ greatly in extent from that which was in their hands
under the Persians. On the north it reached just beyond Bethel and
Bethhoron ; westwards the border ran along the Shephelah, Emmaus
and Timnath being included in Judaea, but Gaza being Philistine ; on the
south the frontier did not reach to Hebron (which belonged to Edom),
but Bethzur, 4 miles north of Hebron, was on the Jewish side of the
border-line ; whilst towards the east Tekoa was a Jewish possession, but
places like Jericho, and the Jordan valley, and Engedi by the western
littoral of the Dead Sea, were probably Idunisean. Thus the area of the
region which the Jews owned about the beginning of the third century
seems to have been somewhat enlarged towards the north, but diminished
on the east.
Alexander's invasion of the Persian dominions was the first occasion
when the Jews, in common with many other Asiatic peoples, came into
contact with Hellenism and all that the term connotes. Greek colonies,
indeed, had long existed on the seaboard of the Mediterranean and the
Euxine ; but not before this had Greek influence penetrated into the
interior of Asia Minor, or reached as far south as Palestine. Among the
characteristics of the Hellenic spirit were (a) individual liberty, so far as
it was compatible with the restrictions inseparable from participation in
the social and political hfe of a state ; (&) a large measure of emancipation
from the tyranny of tradition and custom, and the free exercise of a spirit
of scientific and critical inquiry ; (c) the systematic development, by
training, not only of the mind but of the body also ; (d) a love of the
beautiful in hterature and art. Hellenic influence, indeed, was not at
its highest and best as manifested by the Macedonians. But even so, with
its freedom, its intellectual interests, and its architecture and statuary, it
was bound to exercise a considerable attraction upon the populations of
Asia, or at least upon certain circles amongst them. And through the
agency of the Macedonians it at last produced an effect upon the civilized
world (as it then was) on a scale which in the hands of the true Greeks
themselves, divided as they were into a number of small city-states devoid
of any unity, it had never attained.
Alexander did not leave the Hellenization of Asia Minor to chance
enterprise, but pursued a systematic policy. After defeating the Persian
king Darius Codomannus at Issus, at the foot of Mount Amanus, in 333
B.C., he had Syria and Palestine at his mercy ; and as he advanced south
wards towards Egypt, his intention of permanently holding and organizing
the country was shown by his issuing money coined at Acco, Damascus,
1 Probably Is. xxiv.-xxvii. reflects Jewish feelings at this crisis.

26 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and other places, by establishing Greek colonies in several existing cities,
and by founding and equipping with Greek institutions a number of new
cities. To celebrate his success at Issus he reared at the head of the
Sinus Issicus (gulf of Alexandretta) a city which (like one of still greater
importance built in Egypt) he called after his own name Alexandria ; and
amongst towns in Palestine which he founded or colonized were Pella
(named after his birthplace), and Samaria, where in 331 he planted a number
of Macedonian settlers . He is even represented as having visited Jerusalem,
though the story in the form in which, it is given by Josephus (Ant. xi. 8)
is discredited by its anachronisms ; and he certainly seems to have shown
much favour to the Jews, many of whom were established by him in the
Egyptian Alexandria. Judaea was placed by him in the satrapy of Coele
Syria, the centre of government being at Samaria.
But the penetration into Asia of Greek culture involved the introduc
tion of Greek religion. Many of the most characteristic institutions of
Greece, such as the theatre, were inseparably connected with religion;
and the arts were widely employed in its service. This fact was not,
indeed, a serious obstacle to the adoption of Hellenic civilization by most
of the Asiatic communities, for these possessed considerable assimilative
power in connection with foreign cults, and the Greek deities were often
blended with the native divinities, though they seldom altogether replaced
them. Where, however, Hellenic customs, associated with the worship
of the Hellenic gods, were introduced among a people like the Jews, whose
rehgious principles at the time were of a most exclusive nature, and to
whom the representation of the Divine under material forms was abhorrent,
there, as might be expected, very fierce resistance was encountered.
PALESTINE UNDER EGYPTIAN RULE
Synchronism of Egyptian and Syrian Kings

Kings of Egypt.

B.C.306

Kings of Syria.
Antigonus

Ptolemy I Lagi (Soter)

305 301

Seleucus I (Nicator)

Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) .
285
281 261
Antiochus I (Soter)
Antiochus II (Theos)
Ptolemy III (Euergetes) .
246 226224
Seleucus II (Callinicus)
Seleucus III
Antiochus III (the Great)
Ptolemy IV (Philopator) .
221
Ptolemy V (Epiphanes)
205
Transfer of Palestine from
Egyptian
to Syrian rule
198 187
Seleucus IV (Philopator)
Ptolemy VI or VII J (Philometor)
182
175
Antioohus IV (Epiphanes)
164
Antiochus V (Eupator)
162
Demetrius I
150
Alexander Balas
1 There is reason to think that two other kings reigned for a few months between
Ptolemy Epiphanes and P. Philometor and between the latter and P. Physoon respec
tively.
JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 27
Kings of Egypt. B.C. Kings of Syria.
Ptolemy VII or IX i (Euergetes II
or Physcon)  146 C Demetrius II
145 ] Antiochus VI (Theos)
I Trypho
138 Antiochus VII (Sidetes)
_ 128 Death of Antiochus VII
Death of Ptolemy VII (IX) . . 116 ?
Alexander died in 323 B.C., less than 10 years after his final victory
over the Persians at Arbela ; and his empire then fell to pieces in the
course of a struggle between his principal generals. Out of the struggle
four emerged successfully, Antigonus, Ptolemy, Lysimachus and Cassander.
Of these Antigonus secured the greatest extent of territory, stretching
from the Mediterranean to the Indus ; Ptolemy had Egypt ; Lysimachus
Thrace 2 ; and Cassander, Macedonia. Antigonus eventually lost Baby
lonia and Persia, which were seized by Seleucus, another of Alexander's
officers. Each of the five had assumed the title of king by 305, though
the term had in strictness no territorial reference : they were Macedonian
kings ruling in different countries which formed part of the Macedonian
empire. In 302 an alliance was made against Antigonus by the rest ;
and in 301 he was defeated and killed in a battle at Issus in Phrygia by
the joint forces of Lysimachus and Seleucus. Between these two his
remaining dominions in Asia Minor were divided, Syria falling to Seleucus,
During the lifetime of Antigonus the occupation of Palestine had been
disputed between him and Ptolemy, since the command of the trade route
along the Mediterranean (p. 1) and the possession of the ports of Tyre
and Sidon brought great commercial advantages, whilst the forests of
Lebanon were of particular value to Ptolemy inasmuch as Egypt had
httle timber.3 After the death of Antigonus the country changed hands
several times ; but by Seleucus Nicator, who succeeded to the throne of
Syria, it was left to Ptolemy. As regards the conduct of the latter towards
the Jews the statements of Josephus (Ant. xii. 1) produce a rather con
flicting impression, but the fact that Alexandria came to have a very large
Jewish population seems to imply that the treatment which they received
from the Egyptian kings was in general favourable ; and this is confirmed
by the fact that whereas Seleucus founded in his dominions a number of
great cities, which he could scarcely do without impairing the rights of
the earher possessors of the soil, Ptolemy founded, or re-founded, only
one, viz. Ptolemais, the ancient Akko.4
Ptolemy I (known as Soter) was succeeded in 285 by his son Ptolemy
II (Philadelphus). If he was not actually the first to institute the famous
Library of Alexandria, he certainly did much to develop it, appointing,
as chief librarian, Zenodotus, the Homeric critic, who was tutor to his
1 There is reason to think that two other kings reigned for a few months between
Ptolemy Epiphanes and P. Philometor and between the latter and P. Physcon respec
tively. 2 Josephus (Ant. xii. 1) describes Lysimachus as governing the Hellespont.
3 Bevan, Jerusalem under the High Priests, pp. 24-5.
4 Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, pp. 89, 90.

28 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
son. It was probably in the reign of Philadelphus that a beginning was
made in the rendering of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Josephus (Ant.
xii. 2) represents that the Egyptian King, desirous to add to his library
a translation of the Jewish Scriptures, sought the favour of the Jews by
ransoming a vast number of Jewish captives and by sending a quantity
of valuable presents to Jerusalem, and obtained from the high priest
Eleazar a copy of the Law, and the service of 72 elders (six for each tribe)
to translate it. The narrative of Josephus, obviously embroidered as it
is,1 was still further exaggerated in later times, when each of the 72 trans
lators was related to have put the whole of the Old Testament into Greek,
with such accuracy that their translations agreed perfectly together.
It seems, on the whole, probable that the translation was really made
to meet the needs of the Jews settled in Alexandria ; that the several
parts of the Old Testament were rendered into Greek at separate times
(the merits of the rendering varying greatly in different parts) ; and that
the Pentateuch was the first group of books to be translated (as Josephus
represents). With the diffusion of Greek through the East generally,
and the disappearance of a knowledge of Hebrew amongst the Jews
(with the exception of those who, like the Scribes, were professed students
of the Scriptures), the Septuagint version (as the Greek translation came
to be styled) replaced the Hebrew text as the Bible of the common people.
It was from it that the writers of the New Testament usually quoted, and
the Old Latin Version was eventually made from it. In addition to the
LXX, a number of other Jewish religious writings, composed in Greek,
and comprised in the Apocrypha, were eventually produced at Alexandria.
Both Ptolemy II and his son Ptolemy III (Euergetes) were strong
enough to retain during their fives secure hold upon Palestine. The
boundary between their Palestinian territory and the dominions of the
Syrian kings was the river Eleutherus (the modern Ndhr el Kebir), a small
stream flowing from Mount Lebanon into the sea between Byblus and
Aradus. This was so dangerously near to Antioch, the Syrian capital,
as to make the recovery of Palestine (a country which geographically
belongs to Asia and not to Africa) a constant aim of the later Seleucid
kings. Antiochus III (224-187), the contemporary of Ptolemy TV (Philo
pator) and of his son Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), was the first to invade it,
unsuccessfully in 221, but with more success subsequently, when Egypt
was reduced to a state of weakness through internal disputes during the
minority of Ptolemy V. In 199 he was in occupation of Palestine, but
his forces were driven out almost immediately by Ptolemy's general Scopas
who placed an Egyptian garrison in Jerusalem. Next year, however,
Antiochus gained a victory near the site of the later Panias, close to the
sources of the Jordan, which proved decisive. It gave him possession of
Samaria, Juda.a, and the district on the east of the Jordan ; and from 198
for nearly a hundred years the Jews were included within the dominions
of the Syrian kings. As they were relieved of the garrison in Jerusalem
the change of rule was for a time grateful to them, especially as Antiochus

1 The translation is described as accomplished in seventy-two days (Ant. xii. 2, 13).

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 29
exempted from taxation anything intended for the Temple service, and
granted to the population of the capital many favours.
PALESTINE UNDER SYRIAN RULE
Synchronism of Jewish Leaders and Syrian Kings
Jewish Leaders. B.C. Kings of Syria.
187 Seleucus IV (Philopator)
175 Antiochus IV (Epiphanes)
Judas Maccabseus .... 165164 Antiochus V (Eupator).
162 Demetrius I (Soter)
Jonathan . . * . . . 161150 Alexander Balas
("Demetrius II
, .g J Antiochus VI (Epiphanes, Dionysus or
] Theos)
vTrypho
Simon ...... 142138 Antiochus VII (Sidetes or Soter)
John Hyrcanus .... 135
Judcea independent . . . . 128 Death of Antiochus VII
The reign of Antiochus III is important for Jewish history not only
because in it Judasa ceased to be an Egyptian, and became a Syrian,
province, but also because it witnessed the first entry of the Romans upon
the field of Asiatic politics, in which they were free to engage in consequence
of the overthrow of Hannibal and the Carthaginians at Zama in 202 B.C.,
and of Philip of Macedon at Cynoscephalse in 197 B.C. The ambition of
Antiochus led him to interfere in Greece, where the ^Etolians, who had a
grievance against Rome, applied for his aid ; and the consequent contest
with the Romans had momentous results not only for himself but also,
in the sequel, for the Jews. For after Antiochus had been defeated at
Thermopylae (191 B.C.) and driven from Europe, the Romans followed up
their success by crossing the Hellespont, and after vanquishing him again
at Magnesia (190 B.C.), deprived him of all his territory west of Mount
Taurus, giving it to Eumenes, King of Pergamum. They also exacted a
heavy indemnity and compelled him to furnish hostages for the payment
of it, among the hostages being his own son Antiochus. This success over so
powerful a ruler caused the Romans to be looked upon as- likely to be
the protectors of such Asiatic peoples as were hard pressed by the superior
forces of their neighbours ; and in the reign of Antiochus IV the Jews
were among those who turned to them for help.
Antiochus III was killed in Elam (Elymais) in 187, and was succeeded
by his son Seleucus IV. Seleucus enabled his brother Antiochus to return
from Rome by sending thither his own son Demetrius instead. His reign
was necessarily an unambitious one, since he was chiefly occupied in the
work of extracting money from the country in order to pay the indemnity
due to Rome. He was eventually murdered by a minister named Helio-
dorus ; and as Demetrius, his heir, was at the time in Rome, the crown
was seized (175) by his brother Antiochus IV (Epiphanes).
During the century and a half separating Alexander's death from the

30 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
accession of Epiphanes, the penetration of Palestine by Hellenic influences
had been continuously proceeding. Its progress was attested by the names
of many of the towns within it ; for Anthedon, Apollonia, Straton's Tower,
Ptolemais, Hippus, Scythopolis, Pella, Dium, Philadelphia, Antipatris
and Panias are all Greek appellations, applied either to new towns founded
by Greeks, or to existing Semitic cities containing large Greek colonies.
Coins were in circulation bearing not only Greek inscriptions but the
figures and emblems of Greek deities. Greek worship prevailed either
by the side of, or in combination with, native cults ; and Greek athletic
festivals were established in various places. It was in the districts sur
rounding Judsea, and especially in the towns on the coast, that Hellenism
was most influential ; but even within the ancient territory of Israel
there were localities where Greeks were settled. The small Jewish com
munity thus had near them numerous centres of Greek culture, with
which they came in contact through trade and other channels, and this
environment could not have failed in the long run to affect them, so that
the introduction of Hellenism among them might have been peaceful,
had it not been for the violent action of Epiphanes.
This Syrian king was a man of vehement impulses and extravagant
conduct, and, if opposed in his desires, tyrannical and cruel. Having
determined to spread Greek culture through his realm with a view to
unifying the diverse races contained in it and so rendering it more defen
sible against the Romans (who had interfered with him in a successful
war against Egypt), he had no scruple in trampling upon the feelings of
those of his subjects who, like the Jews, felt their religion to be outraged
by some of the most distinctive institutions of Greek life. Yet in the
innovations which he wished to introduce he was not without sympathizers
among the Jews themselves ; nor in attempting to apply compulsion
did he act without provocation. Many members of the priestly families,
whom the possession of civil power as well as of ecclesiastical dignity
(p. 18) had rendered worldly, were disposed to welcome the policy of
their Greek rulers, a symptom of this inclination among them towards
Greek ways being the adoption of Greek names. The High Priest, indeed,
Onias III, was opposed to the novel usages ; but his brother Jason induced
Antiochus to remove Onias from office in favour of himself, and to allow
the erection of a gymnasium in Jerusalem (1 Mace. i. 14). In consequence,
Jewish youths began to exercise themselves like Greeks, and to wear the
characteristic dress of the latter, the chlamys and the petasos.1 There
were numbers, however, who shared the views of Onias, and to whom such
athletic training was abhorrent, partly perhaps from sheer conservatism,
but largely, no doubt, because Greek public games were generally con
ducted in honour of some deity,2 and because there were various debasing
elements in Greek life and manners. Those who took up an attitude of
opposition to the spread of Hellenism were known as Hasidim or Asido3ans
1 The chlamys was a short mantle of oblong shape, pinned either at the throat
so that it hung down the back, or on the right shoulder so that it covered the left
arm. The petasos was a broad-brimmed cap of felt.
2 Certain games at Tyre, celebrated every fifth year, were held in honour of
Heracles (2 Mace. iv. 18-21).

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 31
(the Hebrew term being equivalent to " pious " or " godly "). Their
feelings were still further exasperated by the fact that the Syrian king
replaced the high priest Joshua or Jason by a more favoured rival called
Menelaus (who was not even a Levite but a Benjamite), and drove Jason
into exile. Menelaus added to the odium entertained for him by procuring
the death of the deposed Onias III, who had taken refuge at Daphne,
near Antioch (2 Mace. iv. 34r-35). The strained relations between the
king and the bulk of the Jews reached breaking-point in the course of the
war between Syria and Egypt (now under Ptolemy VI, Philometor).
A false report in 170 B.C. of Antiochus' death caused Jason to return to
Jerusalem with an armed force and to slaughter the adherents of Menelaus
(who represented the party loyal to the king). This not unnaturally
appeared to Antiochus to be a revolt against his authority at a critical
time, so that he hastened back from Egypt to Jerusalem, and wreaked
his vengeance upon it by a massacre of the citizens and by plundering the
Temple ; whilst two years later a garrison was placed in the citadel.1 Finally
he resolved to abolish the rites of the Jewish religion altogether. The
daily sacrifices (p. 93) were prohibited, an altar to Zeus Olympius was
erected on the altar of burnt-offering, and swine were sacrificed upon it ;
copies of the Law, wherever found, were destroyed ; and the possession
of such, together with the practice of circumcision and other Jewish
religious observances, was made punishable with death (Dec. 168 B.c .).
On the monthly anniversary of the king's birthday, the Jews were compelled
to partake of the idolatrous sacrifices then offered in every locality, and
were also constrained to keep the festival of Dionysus (1 Mace. i. 41 f.,
2 Mace. vi. 1 f., vii. 1 f ., Dan. xi. 31).
THE HASM0N.5-ANS
Genealogy or the Hasmon_eans
Mattathiah

John Simon Judas Eleazar ' Jonathan

John Hyrcanus

Aristobulus I Alexander Jannjeus = Alexandra

Hyrcanus II Aristobulus II

Alexandra = Alexander Antigonus

I  " I
Aristobulus III Mariamne
(married Herod)
%*% Those whose names are printed in capitals occupied positions of authority, either
as leaders of the Jewish armies, as High Priests, or as sovereigns.
i Cf. 1 Mace. i. 20-28, 33. For the site of the citadel see p. 11.

32 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
By such of the people as were faithful to their religious principles,
the tyrannical injunctions of the Syrian kings were defied ; and the same
spirit of loyalty to the Law caused many to die unresistingly when attacked
on the Sabbath rather than break the Law by standing on their defence
(1 Mace. ii. 29-38, 2 Mace. vi. 11). Leaders in the organization of resist
ance were forthcoming from the town of Modin (probably represented by
the modern el Medijeh) near Lydda, where a priest named Mattathiah
(who drew his lineage from a certain Hashmon, whence his descendants
came to be called Hasmonseans) set on foot a revolt (167 B.C.) by killing
both an apostate Jew and the king's commissioner ; and his five sons,
John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar and Jonathan, formed a rallying point
round which insurgents could gather. Though each of the five brethren
is said to have had a distinguishing epithet (1 Mace. ii. 2-^5), yet the title
applied to Judas, who was styled Maccabceus, " the Hammerer," was
extended to all, and they were known collectively as the Maccabees.
They did not themselves belong to the Asidean or pietist party (p. 30) ;
but in taking up arms against the Syrian tyrant they had its support.
They proceeded to destroy the heathen altars in their neighbourhood and
to restore, even by force, the observance of the Law (1 Mace. ii. 45-48).
After the death of Mattathiah in 167 Judas, whom his father had regarded
as best qualified to act as military leader, took command of the irregular
bands that collected for national defence. When the Syrian forces which
Antiochus (who was himself engaged in war with the Parthians) sent to
suppress the revolt moved against him, he defeated them in a series of
engagements at Bethhoron, Emmaus, and Bethsura (Bethzur).1 These
successes enabled him to take possession of Jerusalem (with the exception
of the citadel, p. 31). In Dec. 165 the Temple was re-consecrated, a new
altar was raised, and the sacrifices prescribed by the Law were renewed.
The day (the 25th of Chislev, equivalent to Nov.-Dec.) on which the altar
was dedicated was afterwards observed as an annual festival (the Encaenia
(Joh. x. 22) or Lights (Jos. Ant. xii. 77) ). The struggle, however, con
tinued some time longer ; and in the course of it the Maccabees, Judas
and Simon, brought from Gilead and Galilee a number of their country
men who were being persecuted by the heathen population around them.
They did not restrict themselves, however, to protecting the members of
their own faith, but made incursions into Edom and Philistia, destroying
Hebron, and overthrowing Ashdod ; and by these last achievements they
gave early indications of the desire for secular power which characterized
them at a later time.
Antiochus IV, who had made an expedition into Elam in order to obtain
money by plundering some rich temples there, but met with little success,
died in 164 a in Persia, and was succeeded by his son Antiochus V, a
1 1 Mace. iii. 10-iv. 35, 2 Mace. viii.
a If the death of Antiochus occurred about the middle of 164, the three and a
half years elapsing sinoe Dec. 168 (p. 31) when the Temple at Jerusalem was' dese
crated, correspond to " the time, times and half a time " of Dan. vii. 25 (cf. Driver,
Dan. p. 93). Por varying accqimts of Antiochus' death see 1 Mace. vi. 1 f„ 2 Mace.
i. 12 f., ix. 1 f.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 33
minor. One of the Syrian generals, Lysias, who had appointed himself
guardian of the young king, undertook to relieve the garrison besieged in
the citadel of Jerusalem, and with a powerful army met and defeated
Judas at Bethzacariah, a locality south-west of Bethlehem, Eleazar the
brother of Judas being killed in the engagement. Jerusalem was then
beleaguered ; but the appearance of a claimant to the Syrian throne in
the person of Philip (whom Antiochus IV had named as guardian to his
son) induced Lysias to come to an arrangement with the Jews. It was
agreed that the Jewish rehgious institutions should be restored, and that
the Jews should be allowed freedom to observe the injunctions of their
Law unmolested. This compact (in 163 B.C.) ended the war for rehgious
liberty, and none of the subsequent Syrian sovereigns interfered with the
practice of the Jewish faith. The fortifications of Jerusalem, however,
were dismantled by the orders of Antiochus in spite of a pledge which he
had given to the contrary.
With this result attained there ensued in course of time a readjustment
of parties among the Jews. Henceforward no overt disloyalty to the
written Mosaic Law was manifested by any. But it was inevitable that
some degree of estrangement should arise between military leaders like
the Hasmonseans and the section of the priests, who, previously known
as the Asideans (p. 30), came at a later period to be styled the Pharisees
(see p. 102). These, whose interest was centred in the practice of their
religion, ceased, as soon as religious liberty was secured, to feel much
concern for the pohtical ends that began to appeal to the Hasmonseans.
The latter, encouraged by the success which they had gained over the
Syrian forces, aspired to fling off Syrian control altogether, and to vindi
cate their country's independence ; whilst with these patriotic aims
there could hardly fail to be mingled some elements of human ambition.
Consequently (as will be seen), though they were originally the military
champions of the more rigid section of their countrymen against the
laxer party, within which the High Priests in general were included, yet
as they became more involved in political schemes, attained to greater
power and rank, and grew more worldly in character, they were gradually
alienated from their former associates, and came to share the views and
feelings of their original opponents, who were eventually represented by
the sect of the Sadducees (p. 100).
The attempt which the Hasmonseans now made to add pohtical inde
pendence to the rehgious freedom already secured was aided by the increas
ing weakness of Syria in consequence of the disputes for the succession
following upon the death of Antiochus IV. Not only were the material
resources of the Syrians divided and dissipated, but both the individual
capacity of the Hasmonseans and the forces which they had at their
disposal rendered them valuable allies to any party that could obtain
their support, so that rival claimants to the crown sought to outbid each
other in the concessions which they granted in order to gain their friend
ship. The Hasmonseans showed no lack of readiness to turn to account
the quarrels of their rulers ; and they were so adroit in taking advantage
of the situation that first the High Priesthood, andjshen indogeaiknt
o

34 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
political authority with the title of King, fell to their house. Nevertheless
their power was due to the divisions among their opponents more than to
any other cause ; so that it has been justly observed that its growth was
the work of the Gentile kings themselves.1 Another factor which in some
degree contributed to their success (at least indirectly) was the Roman
state ; and the early phases of Rome's interest in Jewish affairs deserve
notice in view of the decisive part which she came afterwards to play in
Jewish history. Knowledge of her victory in the contest with the most
powerful of the Seleucids (p. 29), and her later interference with Antiochus
Epiphanes when he was bringing to a successful close a war with Egypt
(p. 30) led the Hasmonseans to seek her help in their own struggles ; and
more than one embassy was sent to the west (1 Mace. viii. 17 ff., xii. 1 ff.).
These embassies, however, did not procure for the Jews, when fighting
for their liberties, more than diplomatic support. Rome was glad enough
to see a buffer state arise between Syria and Egypt,2 but she was not
prepared to help its development with military aid, and when the liberties
were actually won, the Romans' active intervention took a form inimical
to Jewish independence.
The pretender Philip, who appeared as a rival to Antiochus V (p. 33)
was speedily overthrown by Lysias ; but Demetrius, son of Seleucus IV,
and so cousin of Antiochus, who succeeded in escaping from Rome (p. 29),
now returned to Syria ; and as he detached the soldiers of Antiochus from
their allegiance, he was able to put to death both the King and his guardian.
The place of the High Priest Menelaus (who had been executed by
Antiochus) was filled, by the direction of Demetrius, with Alcimus, a
man of Aaronic descent but of Hellenist sympathies, whose Hebrew name
was Jakim or Eliakim, and whom, in virtue of his lineage, the Asideans
were content to accept and trust (1 Mace. vii. 13). But the appointment
of Alcimus, as the nominee of the Syrian king, the Maccabees, who saw
that the only hope of permanent peace for the country lay in independence
of Syria, would not tolerate ; and war broke out in consequence. Judas
defeated at Adasa, near Bethlehem (161), the Syrian general Nicanor,
who fell in the battle ; and he then tried once more to strengthen his
position by negotiation with Rome. The Romans, who were quite ready
to ^weaken the Syrian monarchy, concluded a treaty of alliance with the
Jews, and threatened Demetrius with their intervention if he gave further
ground for complaint (1 Macc.^viii. 31-32) ; but in spite of this they took
no action."* EVen if they had 'done so, it would have been too late, for
Demetrius [almost immediately avenged the death of Nicanor by sending
against Judsea a large force under Bacchides, who, in 161, overthrew and
killed the Jewish leader at Elasa (an unidentified locality).
Judas was succeeded (161) by his brother Jonathan (161-143), who at
first exercised;authority from Michmash (1 Mace. ix. 73). In spite of the
loss occasioned by the death of Judas, thejMaccabean party offered
sufficient resistance to Bacchides to induce the latter to make peace. A
decisive improvement in the position of Jonathan was caused by the
1 Bevan, House of Seleucus, II, p. 216.
2 Cf. Morrison, The Jews under the Bomans, p. 11.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 35
appearance of a rival to Demetrius called Alexander Balas,1 who was
favoured by Rome and who, by allowing Jonathan to occupy Jerusalem
and afterwards appointing him (152) High Priest (Alcimus having died
several years previously), obtained his aid against Demetrius, in spite of
the latter's attempt to seduce Jonathan by the offer of remitted tribute
and enlarged territory. The side to which Jonathan had committed
himself proved successful, for in 150 Alexander Balas defeated Demetrius,
who lost his life in the battle. The conqueror, however, was confronted
in 147 by a competitor in Demetrius II,8 the son of Demetrius I, who
entered Cilicia from Crete. The new-comer, who was styled Nicator,
obtained the help of Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt, and forced Alexander
Balas to take refuge in Arabia, where he was assassinated, so that Deme
trius II became king in 145. Jonathan was able to extort from the new
sovereign the territorial concessions offered by the latter's father ; and
the three Samaritan districts of Lydda, Ramah, and Ephraim were added
to Judsea. But in spite of this favour, on the rise of a new claimant to
the Syrian crown, Antiochus VI (son of Alexander Balas), who was put
forward by a minister named Diodotus or Trypho, Jonathan, whose
policy was dictated by his worldly ambition, deserted Demetrius, and
took part in the war against him, enlarging his own power whilst ostensibly
supporting the authority of Antiochus VI. He, too, like his brother,
entered into relations with Rome, and renewed the understanding previ
ously initiated by Judas (J Mace. xii. Iff.). His increasing strength
excited the fears of Trypho, who contemplated seizing the throne of
Syria for himself (1 Mace. xii. 39) ; and being treacherously induced to
place himself in the latter's hands at Ptolemais, he was murdered (143)
at Bascama, an unknown locality east of the Jordan.
Jonathan, who (as has been seen) was 'the first of the Maccabees to
attain to a recognized position of power through the acquisition of the
High Priesthood, was succeeded in that office by his brother Simon (143-
135), who received it not by the appointment of a Syrian king but by the
sanction of his fellow-countrymen.3 The assassination of Antiochus by
Trypho, who assumed the crown, caused Simon to reverse the policy of
Jonathan and to side with Demetrius II, receiving,as the price of his support,
exemption for the Jews from aU tribute to Syria (1 Mace. xiii. 36 f.).
This was tantamount to independence, so that documents were now dated
by the years of Simon's High Priesthood, the first synchronizing with
143 B.C. His authority as Prince and High Priest was finally confirmed
at an assembly held in 141 B.C., and declared hereditary " until there
should arise a faithful prophet" who should direct otherwise (IMacc. xiv.
41). Simon consolidated his power by obtaining possession of "Gazara
and of the citadel of Jerusalem (142 b.c;) 4 ; and he also annexed Joppa,
1 He rested his pretensions to the throne upon his claim to be son of Antiochus
,Epiphanes (cf. Jos. Ant. xiii. 2, 1), and is called Alexander Epiphanes in 1 Mace. x. 1.
Balas was his proper name, and Strabo calls him Balas Alexander.
2 The Demetrius of 1 Mace. x. 67, 2 Mace. 1. 7.
3 Probably Ps. ex. has the occasion in view.
4 Josephus (Ant. xiii. 6, 7) represents that Simon razed the citadel as well as the
hill on which it stood ; but the statement is difficult to understand.

36 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
which was valuable for its harbour. Simon sent an embassy to Rome
in order to cement the friendly relations previously existing between the
Romans and the Jews. An interesting fact recorded by the Roman
historian Valerius Maximus is that the envoys of Simon (1 Mace. xiv. 24)
attempted to spread among the Romans a knowledge of their national God
Jehovah Sebaoth (whom the historian confounds with Jupiter Sabazius),
and were sent home in consequence. Nevertheless the authority of Simon
was recognized by the Romans in a senatorial decree which was sent to
Ptolemy VII of Egypt (1 Mace. xv. 16 ff.). Simon continued to be involved
in the dispute concerning the succession to the Syrian throne ; and when
Demetrius II was taken prisoner by the Parthians, his brother Antiochus
VII, known as Sidetes (138-128), in order to ensure the continued support
of Simon, confirmed the concessions previously granted by Demetrius,
together with the privilege of coining money. An eventual breach between
them caused a war, in which Demetrius' forces were defeated. But
though Simon was successful against the Syrians, he, together with two
of his sons, fell a victim to his own son-in-law Ptolemy, who assassinated
him at a stronghold called Dok 1 near Jericho in 135. Ptolemy, however,
was disappointed in his hopes of fuling his place, for John, Simon's sur
viving son, whom he also tried to kill, took refuge in Jerusalem and at
once occupied his father's position.
John (135-105), who assumed the additional name of Hyrcanus, was
the first of the Hasmonseans to break decisively with the sect of the Phari
sees (whose name first occurs in this reign), and to attach himself to the
opposing body of the Sadducees. The cause of the Pharisees' opposition
to him was his ambition and increasing absorption in worldly policy;
and they also resented his retention of the High Priesthood, for which his
birth was held to disqualify him (since it was alleged that his mother had
been a captive (Jos. Ant. xiii. 10, 5) ). In consequence of their antagonism
he abolished certain rehgious regulations which they had imposed upon
the people ; but the growing hostility between the pietists and the worldly
Hasmonseans did not become extreme until later. Hyrcanus was involved
in war with his Syrian overlords at the outset of his reign ; and Antiochus
Sidetes, an abler sovereign than most of his predecessors, was strong
enough to wrest from him Joppa, Gazara, and other cities (places for which
Simon, his father, had refused to pay tribute), and to besiege Jerusalem,
demanding 500 talents as the price for withdrawing his forces from the'
capital. Hyrcanus, however, appealed to Rome; and the Romans,
for the first time, intervened effectively in Jewish affairs by directing
Antiochus to abate his claim, and especially insisting upon the restoration
of Joppa. This pressure caused him to grant Hyrcanus more moderate
terms, which were accepted; and the siege of the capital was raised.
Antiochus, however, fell in battle against the Parthians in 128 ; and then
the weakness of Syria under his brother Demetrius III and his successors
enabled Hyrcanus to recover from the subjection to which Antiochus had
reduced him. From 128 for nearly sixty years the Jewish commonwealth
was independent.

1 Probably the Dagon of Jos. Ant. xiii. 8, 1.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 87
JDD^A INDEPENDENT

Judcsa.

B.C.

Syria.

John Hyrcanus (see p.

31)

128
Demetrius III
125
Alexander Zabinas 1
122
Antiochus VIII (Grypus) 2
113
Antiochus IX (Cyricenus) 3
111
Antiochus VIII (iterum)
Judcsa under a monarchy
Aristobulus I .
. 105
Alexander Jannseus .
. 104
95
( The sons of Antiochus VIII 4
t The son of Antiochus IX 5
83
Tigranes (King of Armenia)
Salome Alexandra .
. 78
Hyrcanus II )
Aristobulus II J
•
. 69
Antiochus XIII
65
Syria made a Boman province
Aristobulus dethroned
,
. 63
Antigonus
. 40
Antigonus executed
' I
. 37
End of Jewish independence f
The prolongation in Syria of internal strife coincided with the rise,
in the farther east, of the power of Parthia ; and these two circumstances
left Hyrcanus free to pursue a career of conquest, in which he employed
mercenary troops. He first invaded the district east of the Jordan and
took Medeba ; then he attacked the Samaritans, captured Shechem,
and destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim (p. 16) ; next he subjugated
the Idumseans, who were compelled to practise circumcision and to
receive the Jewish Law ; and finally, again assailing the Samaritans, he
took Samaria in spite of the intervention of Antiochus IX and razed it
to the ground.8 Of these events the subjugation of the Idumseans and
the enforcement upon them of the requirements of the Law had in the
sequel important consequences for the Jews.
In 105 Hyrcanus, after ruling for thirty years, was succeeded in the
High Priesthood by his son Judas, who, in addition to his Hebrew name,
took the Greek name of Aristobulus. Though he died after reigning only
a single year (105-104), his short period of office was noteworthy for his
assumption of the title of king. The contrast in inclinations and sym
pathies which the Hasmonseans of this period offered to Judas Maccabseus
and his brothers is marked by the fact that Aristobulus was called a " lover
of the Greeks " ((pdiXXipi).7 .He undertook a war against the Iturseans
and incorporated with his own domains some territory which they had
occupied. This seems to have been a portion of Galilee ; and its popula
tion, hitherto more Gentile than Jewish, was compelled to submit to the'
Jewish Law.
Aristobulus I was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (104-78), who
1 An Egyptian pretender supported by Ptolemy VII (Physcon).
2 Son of Demetrius III. 3 Brother of Antiochus Grypus.
4 Seleucus, Antiochus, Philip, Demetrius. 6 Antiochus Eusebes.
6 For its rebuilding see p. 47. ' Jos. Ant. xiii. 11, 3.
38 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
took the Greek name of Alexander, adding to it his Hebrew name in the
Greek form of Jannseus. He was an ambitious and warlike ruler, and
the secular character of his pohcy excited the bitter resentment of the
Pharisees, whose influence was widespread among the Jewish people.
An insult which he received when discharging on one occasion the High
Priest's office led him to massacre 6,000 of his fellow-countrymen ; and
on another occasion when, after an unsuccessful campaign against the
Nabatseans, a rebellion broke out against him, he crucified after its sup
pression 800 Jewish prisoners. He extended the boundaries of his kingdom
by including within it the coast towns from the frontier of Egypt to Mount
Carmel,1 and the country east of the Jordan from the Dead Sea to the
Lake of Galilee. He also confirmed Jewish supremacy over Edom,
appointing as governor of the country a certain Antipater, probably a
native Idumsean,2 whose father or grandfather, like others of the same
people, had been forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus (p. 37).
By these enlargements his dominions approximated in area to those of
the early Hebrew sovereigns David and Solomon. At his death in 78
he committed his authority to his widow Salome (78-69), who, after the
fashion of the times, had assumed the Greek name of Alexandra. Revers
ing the internal policy of her husband, she made friends with the Pharisees
and restored the ordinances abolished by John Hyrcanus (p. 36). She
appointed her elder son Simon (also called Hyreanus) High Priest, and
destined the sovereignty for him also ; but after her death in 6& the
succession was disputed by her younger son Aristobulus, who foreed his
brother to resign both the High Priesthood and the throne. He was not,
however, allowed to reign (as Aristobulus II 69-63) in undisturbed tran
quillity, for the cause of the dethroned Hyrcanus was supported (from
interested motives) by Antipater, son of the Idumsean Antipater mentioned
above. The struggle that ensued, which it is unnecessary to follow here,
ended with the suppression of Jewish independence in 63, through the
interference of the Romans, which brought the Greek period to a close.
Religion in the Greek Period
It has been pointed out that the two centuries (538-331 B.C.), during
whieh the Hebrew people were subject to the rule of Persia, witnessed the
beginning of Apocalyptic prophecy (p. 23) ; and as this underwent further
development during the period here reviewed, the distinction between it
and the prophecy of earlier times requires some additional explanation.
(1) The tone of the Apocalyptic prophets was not in the main denunciatory,
like that of earlier prophets ; but consolatory, and aimed at fostering
faith in God and at encouraging their countrymen with the hope of speedy
relief from the evils that afflicted them. (2) Whilst, however, the deliver
ance of Israel from its troubles seemed overdue, the prospect of its being
brought about by God through ordinary human means appeared to be
1 Schiirer, Hist. Jewish People, etc., I. i. p. 306.
2 Bepresented by Nicolaus of Damascus as descended from a Babylonian Jew
(Jos. Ant. xiv. 1, 3).

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 39
altogether outside the range of pohtical eventuahties. The absorption
of the greater part of western Asia by a single colossal empire like the
Persian (and the position was not much improved when this was succeeded
by the Greek) caused the prophets of this age to look for judgment upon
their oppressors and redemption for themselves to be accomplished super-
naturally by the direct intervention of the Almighty. The manner of
such intervention was in general conceived vaguely ; but the most original
and significant conception was the substitution of a heavenly Deliverer
for a national Messiah. A superhuman Being, pre-existent with God, was
expected to descend from heaven to earth ; and He being appointed by
God to judge the world, would destroy sinners and save the righteous.
(3) Whereas in earher periods of Jewish history the claims of justice were
considered satisfied if the recompense which men deserved was realized
in the fortunes of their families, their country, or their posterity, this
solution had now come to be viewed as inadequate, and it was no longer
felt to be consistent with justice that men for their good or evil conduct
should be rewarded or punished by God in the aggregate, reason demanding
that each person should be held accountable for his own actions alone.
Hence there grew up the expectation that all who had died without receiving
their deserts here would severally meet with their due recompense hereafter.
The possibility of this development was ensured by the prevalence amongst
the Jews, from primitive times onwards, of a belief in the continuance of
the dead, in a shadowy state of existence, within Sheol, an abode under
the earth, where all the ' departed, whether bad or good, were gathered
without distinction. This belief that the human spirit persisted in Sheol
enabled the opinion to gain ground that, if the fortunes of individuals
during their lifetime had not corresponded to their merits, the balance
would be redressed after death. In consequence of this conviction, there
emerged the anticipation either of a bodily resurrection (regarded variously
as extending to all men, or as confined to the righteous only), or else of an
immortality of the spirit for the pious and of annihilation for the impious.
When the good and the bad were equally believed to experience resurrec
tion, the scenes of their final destiny (endless felicity, or equally unending
wretchedness, according to their deservings) was for the most part sensu
ously imagined ; the bliss of the former was represented as enjoyed on a
renovated and transformed earth, whilst the misery of the latter was the
suffering of ever-gnawing worms and of unquenchable fire.1 (4) The
conception of the Divine transcendence and of God's remoteness from
the world and human life, which is noticeable in the Persian period (p. 21),
became still more manifest in the age that followed ; and there ensued in
consequence an even greater development of Angelology and Demonology.
To evil spirits were ascribed not only the ills which troubled individual
men, but the calamities wliich afflicted nations ; for the various heathen
peoples were each supposed to have their guardian Spirits (cf. Deut. xxxii.
8, LXX), and the prostration of Israel beneath Persia and Greece was
accounted for by the hostile influence of the angels of these two "powers
(Dan. x. 13, 20). i Cf. 3 Is. Ixvi. 24, and see p. 424.

40 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
The Greek period may be regarded as extending from 331 (the date of
the overthrow of the Persian Empire by Alexander) to 63 (when the
independence enjoyed by the Jews under the Hasmonsean kings was
destroyed by Rome) ; but the limits within wliich were produced the
Apocalyptic writings characteristic of the period were narrower than these,
the earliest (so far as is known) originating in the second century B.C.
The precise date of these compositions, however, is not uniformly
ascertainable ; and the difficulty of placing them in their chronological
order is increased by the fact that many are either composite, or have
undergone extensive interpolation. A peculiarity common to all that
ostensibly proceed from individual prophets is that they are really pseu
donymous, being attributed to Enoch, Moses, Daniel (seemingly a righteous
character famous in tradition, Ezek. xiv. 14, xxviii. 3), and other great
characters of legend or of history. The reason for this is doubtless the
fact that prophetic inspiration by this time was beheved to have ceased
(cf. 1 Mace. iv. 46, xiv. 41), so that anyone who desired to influence his
contemporaries by making known his convictions about the future of his
race could only secure attention for his message under the name of some
earher prophet or patriarch ; and this he did the more readily as Semitic
writers were quite indifferent to hterary reputation (cf. p. 117). One of
these writings is included in the Hebrew Bible, and another has a place
in the LXX ; but the rest are outside of both the Hebrew and the Greek
Canon of Scripture.
The names and probable dates of the Apocalypses of the Greek period
are as follows, though many of the dates are rather uncertain : —
Enoch i.-xxxvi.  circ. 170 b.c.
Enoch Ixxxiii.-xc. (Dream Visions) . . . 166 B.C. ?
Daniel  166 B.C.
Enoch xci.-civ. .... end of second century B.C.
Sibylline Oracles (part) . . end of second century B.C.
Enoch xxxvii.-lxx. (Similitudes) beginning of first century B.C.
Testament of the XII Patriarchs (part) first century B.C.
Book of Jubilees .... first century B.C. ?
Wisdom of Solomon .... first century B.C. ?
The features which have been described above as characteristic of
these Apocalyptic works are by no means found uniformly or consistently
in all of them ; and it is desirable to draw attention to certain variant
representations occurring in several.
(1) In some Apocalypses (e.g. the book of Jubilees) the eajly prophetic
conception of a human king sprung from the tribe of Judah is retained ;
and it is noteworthy that in the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs the
Messiah (if the Messiah be really meant) is expected not only to save the
race of Israel, but to gather together the righteous from among the Gentiles
(Test. Naph. viii. 3). The Similitudes of Enoch stands apart from the
rest of the Apocalypses in respect of the Messianic anticipation which it
contains, since in it there is substituted as the agent of deliverance a

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 41
celestial Judge and Saviour instead of an earthly sovereign. This seems
to have been suggested by a passage in the book of Daniel, the original
significance of which was different In Daniel the prophet is represented
as seeing in vision successively four savage beasts come up from the sea,
symbolizing the consecutive empires of the Babylonians, the Medes,1 the
Persians, and the Greeks, and then " one hke unto a son of man " coming
with the clouds of heaven. This last figure is explained to mean " the
saints of the Most High," i.e. the Jewish people, who are thought of as
possessing the qualities of humanity as contrasted with the nations
preceding them, whose rule was based on brute force. To God's people
would be assigned universal authority ; and their dominion would be
everlasting. The figure " like unto a son of man " is in Daniel clearly a
personification of Israel in the future ; but in Enoch it is transformed into
a person. Enoch is described as saying " I saw one who had a head of
days (i.e. God, " the Ancient of days," cf. Dan. vii. 13), and His head
was hke white wool ; and with Him was another Being, whose countenance
had the appearance of a man. . . . And I asked the angel who went
with me . . . concerning that Son of man." He then learnt that He
had existed before Creation, and that to Him judgment was committed,
and that before Him all evil would pass away, whilst the righteous and
the elect would be saved and " with that Son of man would they eat and
he down and rise up for ever and ever." The transformation in Enoch
of a symbol for the Israehte people into a heavenly Person, the destined
Saviour of Israel, was probably aided by the fact that in the second century
B.C. there were beheVed to exist in heaven angehc representatives of nations
and peoples on earth (cf. p. 39). It may be conjectured that the Son of
man in Enoch is a development of the angehc representation of Israel,
who in Daniel is Michael, but in the work here under consideration has
been transmuted into a Personahty of still higher dignity and more com
prehensive functions. This conception of the future Dehverer as destined
to descend from heaven as the universal Judge and the vindicator of God's
loyal servants,is of great importance in connection with the New Testament,
since it furnishes a clue to the language used by Christ about Himself
(p. 460),
(2) Concerning the way in which the miscarriages of justice so often
occurring on earth would be redressed in the future, the ideas of different
writers varied considerably. The conception of a resurrection is found
both in Daniel and in parts of Enoch ; but the resurrection is only partial,
not universal. In Daniel it is declared that " many that sleep in the dust
of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting hfe and some to shame and
everlasting contempt." The reference is probably to such Jews as were
pre-eminent for righteousness or wickedness, the heroes and apostates
respectively of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. In Enoch i.-xxxvi. it
1 The author of Daniel regarded the Babylonian empire as destroyed by the
Medes (probably in consequence of the prediction in Is. xiii. 17, Jer. li. 11) ; and
considered that the empire of the latter was subsequently displaced by the Persians
(cf, Dan. v. 31 with vi. 28).

42 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
is represented that sinners who have met their deserts on earth will not
be raised from the dead; but that there will be a resurrection of the
righteous and of sinners unpunished in this hfe, that they may receive
respectively recompense and retribution. Though the nature of the
resurrection is not defined in these passages, it is no doubt to be assumed
that a revival of the actual bodies of the dead is intended. And in the
books of Maccabees, which reflect the beliefs of this period, the future hfe
destined to be enjoyed by the righteous after death is conceived on very
materialistic lines. One of the Jews tortured to death by Antiochus for
the sake of his religion is recorded to have put out his hands and his tongue
for severance, and to have said, " From heaven I possess these, and for
His laws' sake I contemn these, and from Him I hope to receive these
back again " (2 Mace. vii. 10, 11). But elsewhere the idea that prevails
is that of a spiritual immortality. In Enoch xci.-civ. and in Jubilees
the dead are to be raised from Sheol as spirits and will have much joy,
becoming companions of the heavenly hosts. And in the Book of Wisdom
it is the souls of the righteous that have a happy immortality. " The
souls of the righteous are in the hand of God and no torment shall touch
them. . . . For even if in the sight of men they are punished, their hope
is full of immortality ; and having borne a httle chastening they shall
receive great good ; because God made trial of them and found them
worthy of Himself " (iii. 1-5).
(3) Logically, the nature of a bodily resurrection should imply that
the scene of the future hfe is earth ; whilst a behef in the immortality of
the soul alone should involve the inference that the sphere of such immor
tality is heaven. But speculations of this character are governed by the
imagination rather than by logic, and consistency cannot be looked for.
The Hebrews, indeed, found it difficult to divest the idea of spirit altogether
from physical associations 1 ; so that the earth was often conceived to be
the abode of the righteous after death, and thought of as being fitted
for them through a transformation sensuous rather than spiritual (Enoch
xlv. 4, cf. 3 Is. lxv. 17 f .). Naturally when a writer on such a subject
went into details, it was from the earth that he took them. In Enoch L-
xxxvi. the earthly Jerusalem is the capital of an eternal kingdom, but in
lxxxiii.-xc. a New Jerusalem is described as descending to earth from
heaven. The doom of the wicked was represented by some Apocalyptists
[Enoch, "Dream Visions") as endless torture by fire, and the sight of
their suffering was even conceived to enhance the happiness of the righteous.
But by others none save the righteous were regarded as having a renewed
phase of existence, the wicked being seemingly annihilated.
(4) The important place which angels had in the theology and eschato
logy of this period is shown by the circumstance that numbers of them
received personal designations. In the book of Daniel only Michael (the
angelic prince of Israel) and Gabriel are mentioned by name ; but in
Enoch several others have individual appellations — Raphael, Phanuel
and Uriel. Raphael also occurs in the book of Tobit (v. 4). In the
Testaments of the XII Patriarchs the prince of evil spirits is called Beliar ;
1 For spirit conoeived materially and quantitatively see Num. xi. 17, 2 Kg. ii. 9,

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS

43

and in Tobit (iii. 8 f.) mention is also made of a demon called Asmodseus.
In Enoch lxix.-xc. there occur the names of no fewer than twenty evil
angels. The final judgment which is executed upon men is also sometimes
regarded as extending to the fallen angels, who had seduced human women
(cf. Gen. vi.. 1-4), and whose offspring had corrupted the world. These,
after being imprisoned under the earth, are, at the judgment, punished
with eternal torment.
iii. The Roman Period
Governors of Sybia from 65 b.c: to a.d. 69. *

M. .-Emilius Scaurus, 65 B.C.
[Gn. Pompeius Magnus; 64-63]
M. TRmiliiis Scaurus, 62
Marcius Philippus, 61-60
Lentulus Marcellinus, 59-58
A. Gabinius, 57^55
M. Licinius Crassus, 54-53
C. Cassius Longinus, 53-51
M. Calpurnius Bibulus, 51-50
Veiento, 50-49
Q. Metellus Scipio, 49-48
Sextus; Caesar, 47-46
C_9cilii_s Bassus,, 46
C. Antistius Vetus, 45
L. Statius Murcus, 44
C. Cassius Longinus, 44-42
Decidius Saxa, 41—40
P. Ventidius, 39-38
C. Sosius, 38-37
L. Munacius Plancus, 35
L. Calpurnius Bibulus, 32-31 (?)
Q. Didius, 30
M. Messalla Corvinus,, 29-

M. Tullius Cicero, 28 (?)
Varro, date uncertain
M. Agrippa, 23-13
M. Titius, about 10
C. Sentius Saturninus, 9-6
P. Quinetilius. Varus, 6-4
P. Sulpicius Quiriaius, 3-2 2 (?)
C. Caesar, 1 b.o.-a.d. 43
L. Volusius Saturninus, 4—5
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, 6 f .
0. Csecilras Creticus Silanus, 11-17
Gn. Calpurnius Piso, 17-19
Cn. Sentius Saturninus, 19~21
L. iElius Lamia, date vmeertain
L. Pomponius Placcus, 32-35 (?)
L. ViteUius, 35-39
P. Petronius. 39-42
C. Vibius Marsus, 42-44
C. Cassius Longinus, 45— 50i
C. Ummidius Quadratus, 50-60
Gn. Domitius Corbulo, 60-63
C. Cestius Gallus, 63-66
C. Licinius Mucianus, 67-69

The intervention of Rome in the affairs of Asia Minor began with
the war against Antiochus III of Syria (p. 29), which resulted, after the
battle of Magnesia (190 B.C.), in the enlargement, at the expense of his
territories along the iEgean, of the kingdom of Pergamum. Rather more
than half a century later Pergamum was bequeathed by its last king
Attalus to the Roman state (133), and this constituted the first Asiatic
province which the Romans acquired, and to which others were speedily
added. It was in the course of the war against Mithradates, King (74-66)
of Pontus, success in which rendered the Roman state paramount in
western Asia, that Pompey, who had been invested with almost autocratic
authority in the east, sent (65) his general Scaurus into Syria to interfere
in the quarrel between Aristobulus II and his brother Hyrcanus (p. 38).
Scaurus decided in favour of Aristobulus ; but in 63 Pompey himself

1 See Schiirer, Hist. Jewish People, I. i. 328-37Q.
2 See p. 343.
3 Some think that the actual legal i during these years were successively M. Loljius
and C. Marcius Censorianus, who were guardians of Gains Caesar,

44 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
proceeded towards Judsea. At Damascus both brothers appeared before
him to press their claims, whilst representatives of the Jewish people,
who were also present, desired the abolition of the monarchy altogether,
and the restoration of the High Priestly government. As Pompey delayed
a settlement, Aristobulus withdrew to Jerusalem and prepared for resist
ance ; but eventuaUy submitted to the Roman leader. His Sadducean
partisans, however, refused to do so ; and when the adherents of Hyrcanus
surrendered the city of Jerusalem, they retired into the citadel on the
Temple hill. This was stormed, and its capture was followed by a dreadful
massacre (cf. Ps. Sol. viii. 23), whilst the walls of the city were demohshed.
Pompey entered the Temple and penetrated even to the Holy of Hohes ;
but he did not rifle its treasure. Nevertheless the desecration of the
Temple left bitter memories, and must have filled those Jews who were
zealous for their religion with a deep hatred for their Roman conquerors.
Syria had been made a Roman province in 64 ; and Pompey now included
in it aU the coast towns, the Greek cities (the Decapolis) east of the Jordan,
and the districts round Scythopolis and Samaria. But Judsea itself was
placed under tribute, and its administration left to Hyrcanus with the
title of High Priest and Ethnarch, though not of king. His rival Aristo
bulus (whom Pompey held responsible for the resistance at Jerusalem)
and many other Jews were carried captive to Rome (Ps. Sol. viii. 24),
where, after figuring in Pompey's triumph (61 B.C.), the majority were
allowed to settle.
Hyrcanus did not retain for long the civil power given to him by Pom
pey. Gabinius, the governor of Syria in 57-55, took from him the pohtical
administration of the country, confining him to his priestly duties, and
incorporated Judsea in the province of Syria. The country, however,
did not remain free from disturbances. Aristobulus and his sons Alexander
and Antigonus, who had been imprisoned by the Romans, but had escaped,
made repeated attempts (56 and 55) to recover the power they had lost ;
but their endeavours all proved abortive and eventually Aristobulus
perished by poison (49 B.C.). In 54 Crassus, who succeeded Gabinius as
proconsul of Syria, showed nothing of the self-control of Pompey ; and
on his march to fight the Parthians he pillaged the Temple of its treasure.
An insurrection by the Jews, following upon the defeat and death of
Crassus at Carrhae (53 B.C.), was suppressed by Cassius, the heutenant of
Crassus, who sold 30,000 Jews as slaves. In the civil war between Pompey
and Caesar (49^48), Hyrcanus and Antipater supported Caesar, who received :
from the latter most valuable aid at Alexandria, where there was secured
for him the help of the Jewish population of that city (47 B.C.). As a
reward for this service Csesar (47) rescinded the arrangements previously
made by Gabinius in regard to Judsea, and Hyrcanus was again appointed
Ethnarch of the Jews ; whilst Antipater was made chief minister (inhoonoc),
having, as before, the control of the taxation. Jerusalem was permitted
to be fortified once more ; the country was freed from tribute ; and the
people were allowed the control of their own internal administration.
Further concessions were granted in 44, Joppa and various other places,
which had been severed from Judsea by Pompey, being now restored to

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 45
it. The favours shown by Caesar to the Jews were not confined to those
who were resident in Palestine, for Roman citizenship was conferred on
the Jews of Alexandria ; and when Caesar was assassinated in 44 the Jews
are recorded as having been conspicuous amongst foreign nations for
their grief (Suetonius, JuUus 84).
Antipater was murdered by a rival in 43 ; but he left two sons, Phasael
and Herod, the latter of whom became a conspicuous figure in Jewish
history for the next sixty years. The brothers, after being governors of
Jerusalem and Galilee respectively during their father's lifetime, were
made, during 41, tetrarchs of the Jews by Antony, Hyrcanus being
again deprived of his pohtical authority. It was not long before Hyrcanus
lost his liberty as well. Antigonus, the son of his brother Aristobulus,
had intrigued with the Parthians with a view to recovering his father's
throne ; and by a Parthian force that crossed the Euphrates and entered
Palestine, Hyrcanus and Antipater's son Phasael were made prisoners,
and Antigonus was appointed King (40 B.C.). Thereupon Herod, who
escaped capture, made his way to Rome.
The reign of Antigonus (whose Hebrew name was Mattathias) was a
brief one. Herod on his arrival at Rome secured the favour of both
Antony and Octavian ; and, in view of the Parthian invasion, was formally
declared King of Judaea by the senate. Returning to Palestine in 39 and
being supported at Antony's direction by two successive pro-consuls of
Syria, P. Ventidius (who conquered the Parthians in 38) and C. Sosius, he
was in a position to besiege Jerusalem in 37. The city offered a stubborn
resistance, but was at last taken, and Antigonus was carried away prisoner
by Sosius to Antioch, where he was executed. With him ended the Has-
monaean dynasty after a period of sovereignty lasting not quite seventy
years. TABLE OP THE ROMAN EMPERORS (TO THE MIDDLE OE THE SECOND
CENTURY) AND THE HERODS
B.c. Soman Emperors. The Herods.
37 Herod king of Judaaa, Galilee and Tra
chonitis
27 Augustus Archelaus ethnarch of Judsea
4 ¦ Antipas tetrarch of Galilee
Philip tetrarch of Trachonitis '
2 Birth of our Lord
A..D. j Archelaus deposed
6 t Judaea under procurators
14 Tiberius
29 The Crucifixion
34 Philip dies
37 Caligula Agrippa I king of Trachonitis
J Antipas deposed
"" I Agrippa I king of Trachonitis and Galilee
41 Claudius Agrippa I king of Trachonitis, Galilee, and
Judaea

(Agrippa I dies
J '

44 J Judaea, Galilee and Trachonitis under pro-
l curators

46 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
a.d. Boman Emperors. The Herods.
j Agrippa II king of Trachonitis
53 \ Judaea and Galilee under procurators
54 Nero x ¦
68 'Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian
70 Fall of Jerusalem
79 Titus
81 Domitian z
96 Nerva
98 Trajan
100 Agrippa II dies
117 Hadrian
132-135 Bevolt of Bar Oochbd
138 Antoninus Pius
161-180 Marcus Aurelius
The Herods3
Herod (distinguished as the Great) 4 was by nature ambitious, passion
ate, sensual, and cruel, but was nevertheless an energetic and capable,
if unscrupulous, ruler. Although he had mounted the throne (37 B.C.)
by the destruction of the last of the Hasmonaean kings, he was connected
with the Hasmonaean house by his marriage with Mariamne, the grand
daughter of Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus himself had been released from his
captivity among the Parthians (p. 45) ; but as his ears had been cut off
by his captors, and he was thus incapable of resuming the High Priest's
functions (Lev. xxi. 17-21), Herod chose as High Priest in 37 a certain
Ananel, with whose appointment the regular succession of descendants of
Aaron as High 'Priests was interrupted. After a. very brief interval it
was restored (35) by Herod's nomination of Hyrcanus' grandson Aristobulus
III ; but since the latter was a Hasmonsean, he was feared by Herod as a
possible rival, and was;put to death, and thenceforward the High Priesthood
was disposed of according to the pleasure of the secular ruler of the day.
At the outbreak of the war between Antony and Octavian, Herod, as
being greatly indebted in the past to Antony (p. 45), had prepared to
help him ; but he did not take active part against Octavian, and after
the defeat of Antony at Actium (31 B.c), he was able to conciliate the
conqueror, whom in the following year he met at Rhodes. Before leaving
Jerusalem he directed, as a precaution against plots in his absence, the
execution of Hyrcanus.
The territory which Herod possessed at the beginning of his reign was
not the whole of Palestine, for Antony in 34 had given to Cleopatra, Queen
of Egypt, the entire seacoast (except Tyre and Sidon) from the river
Eleutherus to the Egyptian border, as well as the district of Jericho. But
after the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra in 30 he received from Octavian
several of the southern coast towns as well as Jericho and Samaria ; in

1 With Nero the Julian dynasty ended.
2 Vespasian, Titus and Domitian constituted the Flavian dynasty.
3 See Sehurer, Hist. Jewish People, I. i. p. 400 f.
1 He is the Herod of Matt. ii. 1 f., Lh. i. 5.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 4ft
25 his realm was still further enlarged by the inclusion within it of Tracho
nitis, Batanea, and Auranitis (p. 7 ) ; whilst in 20 he obtained the
districts north and north-west of the Lake of Gennesaret. By these
additions his dominion grew to twice its original size. Within this extent
of territory he exercised sovereign rights ; he had the title of King ; he
could pass and execute laws ; he could impose taxes ; he had unrestricted
power of life and death over his subjects ; and he organized and controlled
his own army. But this considerable authority was qualified in certain
ways (cf. p. 69). (a) He could not make peace and war independently of
the Roman government ; (b) he had, in the event of Rome being at war
with a foreign power, to provide auxiliary troops and sometimes money ;
(c) he could only issue a copper coinage of his own ; (d) his nomination
of his successor had to be confirmed by the Emperor. His subordinate
position was evidenced by the fact that his subjects took the oath of
allegiance not only to him but also to the Emperor.
By the Jews he was regarded with much dislike, partly on account of
his origin, partly by reason of his dependence upon the Romans and his
Gentile tastes and sympathies, and partly because of his oppressive taxa
tion. By race he was an Idumsean (p. 38), though his family had been
Jews for three generations. He owed his position of sovereign to the
authority and support of Rome, and he was naturally indisposed to allow
the Sadducean priestly families to enjoy in addition to their ecclesiastical
prerogatives any secular power, maldng it his pohcy to conciliate the
opposite party of the Pharisees. This, however, did not prevent him
from indulging his inclination for Hellenic usages. He aggrieved the bulk
of his people by constructing a theatre in Jerusalem and an amphitheatre
in the Plain where games were held (Jos. Ant. xi. 8, 1), and he even made
provision for heathen worship within his dominions. Yet he did not
repeat the outrages of Antiochus Epiphanes ; and in order to avoid
offending in certain directions the rehgious sentiments of his Jewish
subjects, he refrained from the use, on his buildings or coinage, of repre
sentations of the human figure. And though some of the structures
wliich he reared were designed for his own sole pleasure and advantage
(like the palace at Jerusalem and the fortress (named Antonia) on the
north of the Temple, see p. 11), others were of real value to the people.
He adorned Samaria and called it Sebaste in honour of Augustas. He
replaced Straton's Tower by a new city which he named Csesarea (building
a palace there which afterwards became the residence of the Roman
procurator, Acts xxiii. 35), and provided it with a harbour by the con
struction of a breakwater. Among other undertakings he rebuilt the
fortress of Machaerus on a height above the eastern shore of the Dead
Sea and erected a palace within it. But his greatest architectural achieve
ment was the building of the Third Temple to take the place of the
comparatively humble one raised by Zerubbabel (p. 14). This was begun
in 20-19 B.C., and though the actual fane was completed in a year and a
half, the surrounding buildings took eight years, and the whole work was
not finished until a.d. 62-64, shortly before its destruction by the Romans
in 70. For a description of its plan see p. 90.

48 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
The domestic hfe of Herod was marked by a number of tragedies due
to his jealousy and his passionate temper. He had ten wives and fourteen
children, his favourite wife being Mariamne, granddaughter of Hyrcanus.
She was his first victim, being executed on a charge of unfaithfulness in
29 B.C. Alexandra, mother of Mariamne, was put to death in 28 for
attempted treason. Costobar, the husband of Herod's sister Salome,
whom his wife desired to get rid of, was betrayed by her and executed in
25. His two sons by Mariamne, Aristobulus and Alexander, excited his
suspicions in consequence of their natural resentment at the death of their
mother ; and being slandered by their half-brother Antipater (son of the
king's first wife Doris), were charged with plotting against him, and were
put to death in 7 B.C. Finally Antipater himself became suspected of
attempting his father's hfe, and he, too, was executed in 4 B.C. It is not
surprising that the Emperor Augustus should have said that it was better
to be Herod's pig (fig) than his son (vlog).
Herod in his old age was attacked by a loathsome disease (Eus. H.E. i.
8) ; and his death was eagerly anticipated by numbers of his subjects.
In the course of his life he altered his mind three times as regards the
disposal of his crown after his death. By his first will he left the succession
to his favourite son Antipater, directing that, if Antipater should die
before himself, it should then pass to Herod Philip, son of his third wife
who, like the second, mentioned above, was called Mariamne. In a
second will he wished Antipas (son of Malthace) to succeed him. But in
his final testament he divided his dominions, naming Archelaus (also son
of Malthace) his successor on the throne of Judaea (to which were attached
Samaria and Idumaea), giving the tetrarchy of Galilee and Peraea to
Antipas, and bestowing the tetrarchy of Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Batanea
and Panias upon Philip (son of Cleopatra).
TABLE OF THE HERODS AND THE ROMAN PROCURATORS
B.C. 37 Herod the Great, King of Jud_ea, Galilee, and Trachonitis
4 Partition of Herod's Dominions between his sons
Judjsa Galilee Trachonitis
Archelaus, ethnarch Antipas, tetrarch Philip, tetrurch
a.d. ( Deposition of Archelaus, and
6 [Appointment of Procurators
Coponius
9 M. Ambivius
12 Annius Rufus
15 Valerius Gratus
26 Pontius Pilate
36 Marcellus Death of Philip
37 Marullus Agrippa I, fcw^
39 {Deposition of Antipas and union of Galilee and
. I Trachonitis under Agrip;. a I
41 Unum of Judjsa, Galilee and Trachonitis under Agrippa I
44 Death of Agrippa ; Appointment of Procurators
Cuspius Fadus
Tiberius Alexander
48 Ventidius Cumanus

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 49

A.D. JtTD_EA

Galilee

Trachonitis

52-53 Judjea and Galilee under procurators

Trachonitis under a hiny

Felix

Agrippa II

60 Festus

62 Albinus

64 Gessius Floras
70 Jerusalem captured
73 JtrD.a_A made a province
100
Death of Agrippa II
The death of Herod was followed by a dispute between two of his
sons respecting the succession to the kingdom of Judaea. Against the
nomination of Archelaus as heir to his father's principal dominions appeal
was made by Antipas to the decision of Rome, whither both claimants
proceeded. In the meantime the Emperor Augustus had placed Judaea
temporarily under a procurator, Sabinus, whose rapacity and oppression
provoked a rebelhon. The rising in Judaea was accompanied by another
in Galilee, headed by Judas the Gaulonite (p. 55). These were only
suppressed by the intervention of Quintihus Varus, the governor of Syria,
who crucified 2,000 of the rebels. At Rome the dispute between Archelaus
and Antipas was argued before Augustus, and the strong f eeling against
the house of Herod entertained by the Jews was manifested by a request
that the Romans should allow no further members of the family to rule
in Judsea, but should suffer its people to be governed by their own laws
under Roman suzerainty. Augustus, however, decided in favour of
Archelaus, but severed from the territory assigned to him by his father
the cities of Gaza, Gadara and Hippos ; and instead of allowing him to
be king, gave him the title of Ethnarch. This, however, was superior
to the title Tetrarch borne by Antipas and Philip. It had been bestowed
on Hyrcanus II (see p. 44), but is otherwise rare. The term tetrarch,
which originally meant the ruler of a fourth part or division of a country
(rexQagxia being first used in connection with the four districts into whieh
Phnip of Macedon divided Thessaly (Dem. Phil. hi. § 26) ), by this time
had lost its former signification, and was used to designate a dependent
prince (as in Galatia (see p. 265) and elsewhere).
Abchelaus, by his father's last will, received as his possessions Judsea,
Samaria and Idumaea. Though not allowed by Augustus to retain his
father's style of king, he was promised this title by the Emperor, should
he prove worthy of it. He was not twenty when he assumed authority,
and his period of rule was short and troubled. By disposition he was
cruel and tyrannical (cf . Mt. ii. 22) ; and he gave great offence to the Jews
by marrying the wife of his half-brother Alexander, though she had children
by her former husband. He, too, like his father and brothers, interested
himself in building schemes, and founded the city of Archelais, near
Jericho. He so far respected his subjects' sentiments that he did not use
heathen symbols on his coinage. But his administration excited much
discontent; and the measures which he took in suppressing it caused
complaint to be made against him at Rome, whither he was summoned
by Augustus, and by him was deposed (a.d. 6). He was banished to Gaul,
though, since his grave was shown in the fourth century at Bethlehem,
4
50 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
he may have returned to Palestine before his death. His territory was
taken over by the Emperor, and except for a short interval (41-44) was
governed by a procurator (see p. 53). The transfer of Judaea to the direct
administration of Rome changed for the worse the position of its inhabitants,
for though the Herodian family were in general self-seeking and brutal,
they were bound to their subjects, at least ostensibly, by the tie of a common
rehgion, whereas between the Roman procurators and the people whom
they ruled there was no such link ; so that any consideration shown for
a race which they despised depended upon the pohcy of the Roman state
and the humanity of individual officials (cf. p. 55).
Hebod Antipas 1 (a shortened form of Antipatros), who was the
full brother of Archelaus, never really had the title of king, though he is
loosely styled so in Mk. vi. 14. His dominions were in two separate
halves. He possessed Galilee, on the western shore of Lake Gennesaret
(with his capital at Tiberias), and Peraea, on the east of the Jordan ; but
between them came the region of Decapolis (p. 7), the towns constituting
that confederation not being coterminous, but interpenetrating the tetrar-
chies of Antipas and his brother Philip (p. 51). In character Antipas
resembled his father, but was endowed with less abihty. Like him he
built extensively, the principal town that owed its foundations to him
being Tiberias, mentioned earlier (p. 5). Like his father also he respected
Jewish rehgious feeling to the extent of avoiding the use, on his coins, of
any image ; and he joined others of his family in protesting against the
conduct of the Roman procurator Pilate in setting up in the palace at
Jerusalem a shield with an emblem that gave offence to the Jews. His
first wife was the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas (cf . p. 370) ; but on
the occasion of a journey to Rome he became attached to Herodias, the
wife of one of his brothers, who, called by Josephus Herod but by St. Mark
Philip, and possibly having both names, occupied a private station, and
who entertained him on his way. In consequence of this passion he
divorced the daughter of Aretas and then married Herodias. According
to St. Mark, this union, effected whilst Herodias' husband was ahve, evoked
a reproof from John the Baptist, whose ministry, if exercised in Peraaa,
was within the dominions of Antipas, and the tetrarch in consequence put
him in prison, where his death was procured by Herodias. The place of
his murder is not mentioned by St. Mark ; but Josephus, who attributes
his captivity to Herod's fear of his influence with the people (Ant. xviii.
5, 2), represents that he was imprisoned and executed at Maehserus (p. 9).
Antipas' conduct naturally embroiled him with Aretas, who for the wrong
done to his daughter, and for other reasons, declared war (a.d. 36), and
defeated his forces. The Emperor Tiberius gave orders to the governor
of Syria ( Vitellius) to avenge the defeat of his vassal ; but as the Emperor
died shortly afterwards, Vitelhus proceeded no further with the punitive
expedition. It was within the dominions of Antipas that our Lord spent most of
1 He is the Herod of Lh. iii. 1, 19, ix. 9 (= Mk. vi. 14, Mt. xiv. 1), xiii. 31, xxiii.
1,Actsxv. 27, xiii. 1.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 51
His ministry. It was also to Antipas, when in Jerusalem, that our Saviour,
according to Lk. xxiii. 6-12, was sent for trial by Pilate.
When Agrippa, the brother of Herodias, was appointed by Caligula
to succeed Philip in the tetrarchy of Trachonitis (see below), he received
from the Emperor the title of king. This promotion caused Herodias
to persuade Antipas to seek the same honour for himself, and he went to
Rome to petition for it. Agrippa, however, had causes of resentment
against Antipas ; and he accordingly now accused him to the Emperor of
treasonable negotiations with the Parthians, and of having coUected
arms for some sinister purpose. As Antipas could not rebut the charge,
he was at once deposed by Caligula and banished, as Archelaus had been
(p. 49), to Gaul (a.d. 39),1 where he died ; whilst his tetrarchy was conferred
upon Agrippa.
The territory possessed by Philip (who is alluded to in Lk. hi. 1, but
must be distinguished from the Phihp of Mk. vi. 17 (see p. 50) ), consisted of
the region known in the Old Testament as Bashan (situated between the
Yarmuk and its sources, on the south, and Hermon and Damascus on the
north) and eaUed by St. Luke (iii. 1) " the Itursean and Trachonite coun
try," together with the district of Panias, near the sources of the Jordan.
Phihp, who married his half-niece Salome, was the best of the Herods.
Upright and unambitious, he ruled justly and pacifically. He had his
father's fondness for building cities, two of which are mentioned in the
New Testament. One of these was Csesarea Phihppi, which was an
enlargement of the earher Panias (p. 7), and the other was Bethsaida
Julias (p. 7), which was converted from a village into a flourishing town.
It was to his dominions that our Lord on one occasion retired when He
deemed it expedient to withdraw from the territory of Herod Antipas.
Phihp is said to have been the first Jewish prince to stamp a human likeness
upon his coins, which bore successively the features of Augustus and
Tiberius. He died in a.d. 33-34 ; and for a short while his realm was
incorporated in the province of Syria. Eventually, however, it was
conferred by Caligula, in 37 upon Agrippa, son of Aristobulus, the second
son of Herod the Great.
Agrippa I 2 had been educated at Rome, where, in consequence of his
extravagant habits, he had grown impoverished. He became, however,
intimate, during the lifetime of Tiberius, with Gaius Caligula ; and near
the close of Tiberius' reign, was put in prison by the Emperor for having
incautiously expressed a wish that Caligula might sucieed to the throne.
Released on the accession of Caligula, he received many favours from
him, being appointed to the tetrarchy of Phihp, to which there was
added later Abilene, the tetrarchy of Lysanias (executed in 34 B.C. by
Antony) ; and in 38 he was allowed the title of king. On the deposition
of his uncle Antipas, his territory was still further enlarged, since Caligula
appointed him in a.d. 40 to be. successor of Antipas in the tetrarchy of
1 Josephus' statements are inconsistent : in Ant. xviii. 7, 2, he gives as his place
of banishment Gaul ; in B.J. ii. 9, 6, Spain.
a The Herod of Acts xii, 1.

52 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Galilee and Peraea (p. 50). Finally, when Caligula was succeeded in 41
by Claudius, the latter, in gratitude for services wliich Agrippa rendered
him, gave him the territories of Judaea and Samaria, so that he possessed
at last all the domain once ruled over by his grandfather Herod (p. 47).
He is represented by Josephus (Ant. xix. 7, 3) in a very favourable
hght, being described as naturally generous and humane ; and though he
indulged his private tastes for Greek and Roman institutions, like the
theatre and the arena, his attitude towards his Jewish subjects was, in
general, very conciliatory. He carefully observed, at least within his
own realm, all the injunctions of the Mosaic Law ; and he used his influence
on one occasion to prevent a statue of the Emperor from being erected in
a Jewish synagogue at the Phoenician city of Dora (the ancient Dor).
His adherence to the Jewish faith inevitably inclined him to regard
unfavourably those who, like the Christians, might be considered disloyal
to it ; and he consequently persecuted them, putting James, the son of
Zebedee, to death, and imprisoning Peter, with the intention of executing
him also, though the Apostle was enabled to escape (Acts xii. 1-19). To
wards the end of his reign he became involved in a dispute with the people
of Tyre and Sidon,1 resulting in an economic war, which, as Phoenicia was
largely dependent upon Palestine for corn, wine, and oil (cf. 1 Kg. v. 9,
Ez. hi. 7, Ezek. xxvii. 17), ended in the submission of the former. He
died in a.d. 44 at Caesarea, after a very brief illness, the circumstances of
which are somewhat differently related in Josephus (Ant. xix. 8, 2) and
Acts xii. 19-23 (see p. 239). He left one son, Agrippa, and three daughters,
Berenice (Acts xxv. 13), Mariamne, and Drusilla. Of these, Agrippa
eventuaUy succeeded to his father's dominions, Berenice married, first,
Herod, son of Aristobulus, and afterwards Polemon of Cilicia, whilst
DrusiUa married, first, Azizus, King of Emesa,2 and next, Felix the Roman
procurator (Acts xxiv. 24), the last union taking place during her former
husband's lifetime.
Agrippa II,3 the only son of Agrippa I, was but sixteen at the latter's
death. In view of his youth, he was not allowed to succeed at once
(a.d. 44) to his father's possessions, all of wliich were placed under a Roman
procurator (Tac. Ann. xii. 23). But in 50 he received from Claudius the
kingdom of Chalcis (p. 7) ; and he was also permitted to nominate the
High Priest (p. 55). In 53 he was given, instead of Chalcis, his father's
original tetrarchy of Trachonitis, together with the tetrarchy of Abflene
and some other domains. At a later date Claudius' successor Nero like
wise bestowed upon him certain important cities in Galilee and Persea,
including Tiberias, Tarichese, and Bethsaida Julias ; and his tetrarchy
was also enlarged by Vespasian. He did not, however, obtain the whole
of Gahlee or Peraea, nor was he granted Samaria and Judsea (governed by
a Roman procurator), so that his realm was less extensive than that which
his father ruled at the time of his death. His capital was Csesarea Phihppi,
which he re-named Neronias.
Like his father, he kept on good terms with his subjects, observing
1 These places were inoluded in the Roman province of Syria.
2 On the Orontes. s The Agrippa of Acts xxv. 13.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 53
the Law himself and even requiring the princes Azizus and Polemon, who
married two of his sisters, to be circumcised. His professed devotion to
Judaism did not prevent him from maintaining friendly relations with the
Roman authorities, and on his coins he styled himself Philokaisar and
Philoromaios. On the entrance of the procurator Festus upon his office
after the recall of Felix (p. 58 ), he went to Caesarea with his sister Berenice
to salute him ; and on the occasion of the outbreak of the Jewish revolt
against Rome (a.d. 66), he joined the Romans. His sister Berenice (or
Bernice, Acts xxv. 13),1 who had been the wife of his uncle Herod, King
of Chalcis, shared his home after her husband's death, and the relations
between them caused much scandal.2 After marrying, as her second
husband, Polemon of Cilicia (p. 52), she returned to her brother ; and
then created further scandal by her relations with the Roman Titus,
who, it was rumoured, promised her marriage, though the promise, if
made, was never fulfiUed. After the accession of Titus (a.d. 79) to the
Imperial throne, httle is known of either Berenice or Agrippa. The latter
is said to have hved till the reign of Trajan and to have died about a.d. 100.
The Roman Procurators
It has been deemed expedient to narrate the history of the "Herods
consecutively, but the narrative has shown that at various intervals different
parts of the territories ruled by them came under the direct authority of
the Roman State, and were administered through procurators : it is now
desirable to consider both the functions and powers of these, and to say
something about such of them as figure in New Testament history.
Under the arrangement by which the provinces under the Empire
were divided into two classes, senatorial and imperial (p. 64), procurators
existed in both classes. They comprised, however, two types of officials
one being a finance officer merely, whilst the other had complete charge
of such countries as were not quite ripe for inclusion in the Roman provin
cial system. The second possessed authority similar, though inferior, to
that of legati. Like the latter they were military commanders, with some
military force at their disposal ; but as the force was small, they had, in
case of serious emergencies, to depend upon the army of a neighbouring
legatus. The latter, moreover, if invested by the Emperor with the
necessary power, could at his discretion interfere with the affairs of a
district under a procurator whenever he had reason to fear serious trouble
there. After the deposition of Archelaus in a.d. 6 (p. 49), his dominion was
placed beneath the control of a procurator of the second type, who was
under the authority, to the extent described above, of the governor of
Syria.3 Syria was defended by a large force of legions, there being three
in the reign of Augustus and four in the reign of Tiberius ; but the pro-
1 Berenice is a corruption of *e/>eWfcij, which is represented in Latin by Veronica.
" Cf. Juvenal, Sat. vi. 157-8.
3 See Jos. Ant. xviii. 4, 2, xx. 6, 2, but cf. Morrison, Hist, of the Jews under the
Romans, p. 121.

54 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
curator of Judsea, whose seat of government was Caesarea, had only
auxiliary troops. These troops appear to have consisted of one squadron
(ala, Ikrj) of cavalry and five battalions (cohortes, ansioai) of infantry, and
to have numbered in aU about 3,000 men. They were drawn principaUy
from the districts about Csesarea and Samaria, and accordingly were
caUed Kaiaaoelc xai Sefiaaxrjvoi. The title Augustan, apphed to a par
ticular cohort that is mentioned in Acts xxvn. 1, was probably an honorary
designation bestowed, as a distinction for conspicuous valour, upon one
of the five (cf. p. 73). It is natural at first sight to suppose that the
Italian cohort stationed at Caesarea (Acts x. 1) was raised in Italy, but
there is some difficulty involved in the inclusion of such a cohort among
the auxiliary forces stationed in Judaea, so that possibly the explanation
is that this particular cohort was composed of Roman citizens of Italian
origin but resident in Caesarea or Samaria. A detachment of the garrison
stationed at Caesarea, the centre of government, was usuaUy posted at
Jerusalem, occupying the fortress of Antonia on the north of the Temple
(p. 11), which could be easUy reached by a stairway. With the detach
ment there was a smaU body of cavalry.
The Roman procurator in Judaea, besides being invested with nrilitary
authority, also discharged judicial functions. The duty, however, of
administering justice did not belong to him alone, but was shared with
him as regards Jews by the Jewish Sanhedrin (p. 100). The procurator,
to whom all cases involving a death sentence had to be referred for con
firmation, was not bound to be guided in his decision by the Jewish Law ;
but it was within his competence to follow it, if he chose. The procurator's
authority to inflict capital punishment in the case of provincials was
unrestricted ; but in the case of Roman citizens, although, he could pro
nounce a capital sentence, he could not legally execute it, if the accused
appealed to the Emperor. Such an appeal could be made even at the
beginning of the judicial proceedings ; and entafled the transfer of the
trial to Rome. Cases could be decided by a procurator in accordance
with his own judgment alone ; but he frequently utilized the assistance
furnished by assessors constituting his council (ov/ifSovXiov).
In addition to the duties already described, there belonged to him
the care of the finance of his district. As he was an Imperial officer, the
revenue which he coUected was paid into the imperial fiscus. All the
gold and sUver coins that circulated in Judaea were Roman, and bore the
Emperor's image or emblem : the Jewish kings were only permitted to
issue a copper coinage. For the nature of the taxes and the methods
employed in levying them, see p. 70.
The situation created by the direct government of a race extremely
sensitive in regard to their rehgion by the representatives of a people in
which religious sentiment was conspicuously weak was a difficult one.
On the whole, the policy pursued by the Romans towards the Jews was
considerate. Though after the deposition by Archelaus in a.d. 6 the
appointment of the High Priests f eU to the legatus of Syria or the procurator
of Judaea for the next thirty-five years (a.d. 6-41), nevertheless when
Agrippa I in 41 became King of Judsea as weU as of Gahlee and Trachonitis

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 55
(p. 52), the right of nominating them was transferred to him ; whust
after his death in 44, though the administration of Judaea and Gahlee
relapsed to Rome, yet from 44 to 66 the right was not resumed by the
Romans but was given to certain Jewish princes, first to Herod, King of
Chalcis, and then to Agrippa II, King of Trachonitis. After a.d. 6 the
High Priest's robe was kept in the fortress of Antonia by the Roman
commander and allowed to be used only on the three great festivals and the
Day of Atonement ; the reason for its retention by the military authority
was that, since the vestment was essential for the religious ceremonies,
it enabled control to be exercised over the appointment to the High
Priesthood.1 In a.d. 36, however, the governor of Syria, ViteUius, at
the request of the Jews, gave it up altogether. The worship of the Em
perors (p. 81), though enforced elsewhere in the Empire for political
reasons, was not demanded of the Jews except in the reign of Caligula
(37—41). It was deemed sufficient if, in the Temple, sacrifice was offered
not to Csesar but "for Caesar and the Roman people," The soldiers were
even aUowed to dispense with their military standards whfle in Jerusalem,
for, as those of the legions bore an eagle and those of the cohorts a serpent
woven on a piece of cloth, under which might be placed the likeness of
the Emperor, they gave great offence to Jewish feeling. And although
the Emperor's head was stamped on the gold and sUver coins which were
not minted in the country, the copper coinage bore nothing but his name.
Nevertheless, whUst the Roman state in the principles of its administration
made many concessions to its Jewish subjects, the same considerateness
was not uniformly manifested by the officials representing the government.
Even those who were upright in character did not recognize that the
tranquillity of the country depended as much upon tact and sympathy as
upon justice ; and since many of them were not conspicuous for integrity
or moderation, it is not surprising that under their rule numerous insur
rectionary outbreaks occurred.
Between the dethronement of Archelaus in a.d. 6 and the appointment
of Agrippa I to be king of Judaea in 41, there were seven Roman procurators.
The first was Coponius (a.d. 6-9), the contemporary legatus of Syria
being P. Sulpicius Quirinius. It was Quirinius who undertook the " enrol
ment " of which mention is made in Acts v. 37. This, which occurred in
a.d. 6 or 7, included both a census of the population and a registration
of the value of their property, and gave great offence to the rehgious
sentiments of the Jews, since it was carried out by Gentile officials, and
did not conform to the regulations of the Jewish Law. Opposition to it
was offered by Judas, son of Hezekiah, a native of Gamala in Gaulonitis,
but usuaUy caUed the Gahlean. At this time GalUee was under Antipas,
and though the enrolment applied to the whole of the province of Syria,
it would only affect such parts of Palestine as were included in the province,
namely Samaria and Judaea. These accordingly must have been the
scene of the insurrection, which ended with the death of the leader and
the dispersal of his foUowers. The disturbance gave rise to the revolu-
1 Foakes- Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, Pt. I, p. 14.

56 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
tionary party of the Zealots (though this designation was perhaps of later
origin). The six procurators who followed Coponius were Marcus Ambivius
9-12 ?), Annius Rotus (12-15 ?), Valerius Gratus (15-26), Pontius
Pilatus (26-361), Marcellus (36-37), and Marullus (37-41). The
long tenure of office enjoyed by some of these exemplifies the tendency of
the emperors to change the governors of the imperial provinces as little
as possible, in the hope that they would have less temptation to rapacity
(cf. p. 70), though the practice was not always justified by its results.
This was manifestly so in the instance of Pontius Pilate. He is described
as unbending^and obstinate in disposition, and in his pubhc actions as
guilty of corruption, violence, oppression, and intolerable cruelty. On
more than one occasion he offended the rehgious susceptibilities of the
Jews, first by causing his soldiers to enter Jerusalem with their standards
bearing the figure of the Emperor (p. 55) ; and next by applying the
treasures in the temple to the building of an aqueduct (see Jos. Ant. xviii.
3, 1, 2 ; B.J. ii. 9, 2-4). On the first occasion he had to remove the causes
of offence. His indifference to aU considerations of justice when our Lord
was brought before him for trial wiU appear in the course of the history.
His want of humane feelings, illustrated by the occurrence recorded in
Lk. xiii. 1, was evinced repeatedly ; and finaUy the resultant complaints
against his conduct led ViteUius, governor of Syria, to send him to
Rome to answer for his proceedings. Of his subsequent fate nothing is
known with certainty, though tradition represents him as having committed
suicide in the reign of Caligula (Eus. H.E. ii. 7).
PUate's successor was Marcellus (36-37) ; and it was during his term
of office that Vitelhus at the Passover of a.d. 36 restored to the Jews the
High Priest's robe (p. 55). Like consideration for Jewish rehgious
feeling was shown by ViteUius (37) in a war against the Arabian king
Aretas, who had defeated the forces of Antipas (p. 50). The direct route
of his army from Antioch (the residence of the Syrian governors) to Petra
was through the Holy Land, but in deference to the Jews, who regarded
the passage of the Roman standards through their country as a profanation,
the Roman general avoided it.
The successor of MarceUus was Marullus (37-41), whose governorship
coincided with the reign of the Emperor Caligula. As has been stated,
the worship of the head of the Roman state had not hitherto been enforced
upon the Jews ; but by Caligula, whose weak mind caused him to take
seriously the divine attributes that were ascribed to him, an effort was
made to compel the Jews to conform to the prevalent usage. At Alexan
dria the synagogues were profaned by the erection in them of an image
of Caligula 2 ; and in Syria, ViteUius' successor, Petronius, was directed
to have a statue of the Emperor placed in the temple at Jerusalem.
Appeals addressed to Petronius by the Jews of the capital, who were
resolved to endure the utmost extremities rather than to submit to the
threatened sacrilege, induced him to send a letter of remonstrance to the
1 He was appointed in the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius (a.d. 14-37}
a Bus. H.E. ii. 6, 2, V ;"

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 57
Emperor ; whilst Agrippa I, who happened to be then in Italy, petitioned
Cahgula to refrain from dedicating the statue. From the goodwUl which
he entertained towards Agrippa he yielded ; but he resented the remon
strance of Petronius, who was only preserved from disgrace by the
Emperor's death through violence in a.d. 41.
In A.d. 41 the direct authority which Rome had hitherto exercised in
Judaea was for a time suspended, inasmuch as Claudius, on succeeding
Caligula, gave Judsea to Agrippa I (p. 52). But when Agrippa died in
44, aU his possessions came once more under the government of Roman
procurators, though Trachonitis and portions of Gahlee and Peraea were
afterwards (52-3) bestowed upon Agrippa II (p. 52). The first pro
curator after the reign of Agrippa I was Cuspius Fadus (45), who, though
an upright ruler, betrayed his lack of sympathy with Jewish sentiment
by an endeavour (f oUed through the influence of Agrippa II) to take back
into Roman keeping the High Priest's robes, which ViteUius had given
up to the Jews in 36 (p. 55). During the rule of Fadus there occurred
a threatening movement by a pretended prophet called Theudas, who
seems to have contemplated an insurrection, and sought to win popular
support for himself by telling his foUowers that he would open a way
for them across the Jordan by dividing the stream ; but the movement
was arrested by the dispatch against it of a body of horsemen who captured
Theudas and put him to death. The incident is of interest chiefly from
the aUusion made to it in Acts v. 36-7.
The successor of Fadus was Tiberius Alexander, who, though the
precise date of his entering upon his office is unknown, was procurator
untU 48. He executed James and Simon, the sons of Judas the Gaulonite
(p. 55), on suspicion that they meditated designs like their father's. A
severe famine which began during his predecessor's tenure of office extended
into his period of rule, and is of importance in connexion with the
chronology of Acts.
Tiberius Alexander was followed by Ventidius Cumanus (a.d. 48-52).
On the occasion of a sanguinary disturbance between the Jews and the
Samaritans, the former charged the procurator with acting harshly to
them, and with having taken bribes from the Samaritans. Agrippa II,
who was at Rome at the time, supported the Jews, and Claudius, deciding
in their favour, banished Cumanus.
At the request of the ex-high priest Jonathan, the head of the Jewish
delegation that accused Cumanus, the procuratorship was next given
to Antonius Felix (52-60), a freed man, who was brother of the Emperor's
favourite Pallas. Felix, who was three times married (the name of his
first wife being DrusUla, granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra (Tac.
Hist. v. 9) and that of his second being unknown1), had as his third
partner DrusUla, sister of Agrippa II and consequently a Jewess (Acts
xxiv. 24). In his administration of Judaea, his reliance upon the influence
of PaUas with Claudius led him to throw off aU restraint (cf . Tac. Ann. xii.
1 Like the others she was a princess, since Suetonius calls him trium reginarum
maritum (Claud. 28).

58 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
54) ; and his cruelty and misgovemment x rendered the condition of
the country, bad enough under his predecessor, stiU worse. The Zealots
and Sicarii committed many outrages, and the excitement among the
people was stiU further stimulated by rehgious enthusiasts who claimed
the power of working signs portending the advent of national liberation.
One of these latter was an Egyptian Jew who gathered round him a multi
tude of people by the promise that he would cause by his mere word the
walls of Jerusalem to fall, and so enable his foUowers to enter the city
and secure the government. Felix attacked and dispersed his adherents,
but the Egyptian himself escaped.2 With this insurgent St. Paul was
mistakenly identified by the mihtary tribune Lysias commanding at
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 38). It was during the governorship of Felix that the
Apostle was imprisoned at Caesarea, where he remained during the last two
years of the procurator's tenure of his office. Felix was recaUed by Nero
probably in a.d. 58 (see p. 347) and was succeeded by Porcius Festus.
Festus (58-61) was a man of better character than his predecessor,
but he was unable to repress successfully the disorders that were rife in
the country. By him St. Paul, who had been left in prison by Felix and
who as a Roman citizen had appealed to the Emperor for trial at Rome,
was sent to Italy. Festus did not occupy his office long, dying when he
had filled it barely two years.
Some short interval separated the death of Festus from the arrival of
his successor ; and during this time the duty of government was discharged
by the high priest Ananus, son of the Annas before whom our Lord was
tried. It was by Ananus that James the " brother " of our Lord is said
to have been put to death circ. 61 or 62 (see Jos. Ant. xx. 9, 1, cf. Eus.
H.E. ii. 23).
The procurator sent to succeed Festus was Albinus (62-64). He was
so corrupt that he accepted bribes from aU parties, from the Sicarii no
less than from the supporters of Roman authority ; so that both the
capital and the country were reduced to complete anarchy. He was
recaUed by the Emperor in 64.
The last procurator was Gessius Florus (64-66), who was even worse
than Albinus, and brought matters to a crisis by taking money from the
treasury of the Temple. This produced tumults which the procurator
punished savagely but was unable to put down. An attempt to pacify
the populace of Jerusalem was made by Cestius GaUus the legatus of
Syria, who was aided by Agrippa II ; but aU efforts were vain, and the
renunciation of aUegiance to Rome was openly marked by the cessation
in the Temple of the daily offering on behalf of the Emperor (see p. 55).
The Zealots, aided by Idumaeans, became masters of the city ; the palace
of the high priest Ananus was burnt, and Ananus himself kiUed. The
Roman garrison in the fortress of Antonia capitulated on terms ; but the
1 Of him it is observed by Tacitus (Hist. v. 9) that per omnem s&vitiam et libidinem
ius regium servili ingenio exercuit.
2 Josephus gives two rather inconsistent accounts of this Egyptian impostor in
B.J. ii. 13, 5 and in Ant. xx. 8, 6. The former acoount is reproduced in Eus. H.E.
ii. 21.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 59
compact was broken and the soldiers were aU massacred. In consequence,
GaUus besieged Jerusalem with a large force, but was compeUed to abandon
the siege with heavy loss, and the whole of Palestine broke into revolt.
The retirement of GaUus enabled the Jewish Christians about this time
to withdraw from Jerusalem and take refuge in Pella (Eus. H.E. iii. 5, 3,
cf. p. 446). Titus Flavius Vespasian was sent in 67 with a force of some
60,000 men to deal with the insurgents ; and Galilee, where John of
Gischala (a place south-west of the Waters of Merom) led the rebeUion,
was first subdued (a.d. 67) ; but John fled to Jerusalem, where he butchered
a number of the principal inhabitants. Vespasian, after subjugating
Idumaea, Samaria, and Persea, invested the Jewish capital in 68 ; but the
death of Nero (a.d. 68) and the dispute respecting the succession to the
Empire interrupted the siege, untU Vespasian himself became Emperor
in 69. Then early in 70 Titus, the new Emperor's son, was sent into
Judaea, and the investment of the capital was renewed. The defence was
weakened by conflicts, within the waUs, of rival sections headed by John
of Gischala and Simon Bar-Giora ; and finaUy, after a siege of many
months, the Temple was stormed and burnt, and the city, in which famine
had long raged, was captured and razed to the ground. With its over
throw the Jewish State ceased to be. The High priesthood was abolished,
the daily sacrifice came to a permanent end, the Sanhedrin was dissolved,
and the tax previously contributed by aU Jews for the support of the
Temple was henceforward paid to the Roman treasury. In the subsequent
triumph enjoyed by Vespasian and Titus the sacred vessels of the Temple
and the rolls of the Law figured among the spoU carried in procession,
whUst coins were struck to commemorate the captivity of Judaea. The
war, however, was not absolutely brought to a close until the last fortress
held by the insurgents, Masada, on the western shore of the Dead Sea,
south of Engedi, was successfully attacked in 73 ; but with the capture of
this the struggle was finaUy concluded.
After the destruction of Jerusalem, the country was constituted an
independent province, held by a legion, the commander of which was
the governor. The seat of Roman authority continued to be Caesarea ;
and since Jerusalem was now merely the site of a Roman camp, the only
centre of Jewish religion and of Rabbinical studies was Jamnia (the
ancient Jabneh x). It was not in Palestine but among the Jews of the
Dispersion that insubordination to Roman rule was first renewed. Shortly
before the end of the reign of Trajan (98-117) disturbances of a serious
character either broke out or were brewing in Cyprus, Egypt, Cyrene, and
Mesopotamia,2 where the Emperor was engaged in war with the Parthians.
The revolt was suppressed with severity, and under Hadrian (117-138)
the Jews were for a time more tranquil. Hadrian, who had a passion for
founding cities, rebuUt Jerusalem ; but was Ul-advised enough not only
to give it a new name — iElia Capitolina 3 — and to erect on the site of the
Temple a forum dedicated to Jupiter, but to forbid the practice of cir
cumcision. These outrages upon the sentiments of the Jews caused in
1 In the valley of Sorek, west-north-west of Jerusalem, near the sea.
* Eus. H.E. iv. 2. 3 Mlius was the nomen of the Emperor.

60 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
132 a violent insurrection in Judaea itself, the leader of which was Simeon
Bar-Coziba, who styled himself Bar-Cochba,—" son of the star," in aUusion
to the prophecy in Num. xxiv. 17. He was supported by a distinguished
Rabbi named Akiba, and was hailed by him as the Messiah (cf . Eus. H.E.
iv. 6). The movement was at first successful ; and since Teneius Rufus,
the contemporary governor of Judaea, was unable to suppress the revolt,
Sextus Julius Severus had to be recalled from Britain by the Emperor
in order to cope with the insurgents. By Severus the rebellion was queUed
in 135 ; and the bloodshed that accompanied its suppression is said to have
much exceeded that which marked the capture of Jerusalem by Titus.
The Jews were now forbidden under pain of death to set foot in Jerusalem,
which was occupied by heathen colonists ; and the country was hence
forward caUed by the Roman authorities Syria Palcestina.
The outbreak in the reign of Hadrian was the last attempt on the
part of the Jews to revolt against Rome. By Hadrian's successor, Antoni
nus Pius, the prohibition of circumcision was withdrawn ; and under
succeeding Emperors, many of their former privUeges, such as exemption
from military service, were restored. But the spirit of the race, though
subdued, was not conciliated ; and in spite of the toleration accorded to
their religion, they continued to cherish bitter animosity against their
rulers. It has, indeed, been a conspicuous feature of their later history
that they have never amalgamated with the peoples among whom they
have lived, and have repeatedly given countenance to Tacitus' description
of their distinctive qualities, — Apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia
im promptu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium.
Religion in the Roman Period
The control exercised by the Roman power over the Jews began in
63 B.C., and extended long beyond the limits of the time covered by the
present work. Of the principal Apocalyptic writings which throw hght
upon the development of Jewish rehgious thought during the period with
which alone we are concerned (namely from 63 B.C. to the end of the first
century a.d.), one — the Book of Revelation — is embraced within the
New Testament, and the leading ideas of this, which are Judaeo-Christian,
do not faU to be considered here, but wiU come under notice later. The
rest, of which one is included in the Old Testament Apocrypha, are the
following :
Psalms of Solomon x . . . 70-40 2 B.C.
SibyUine Oracles (part) . . . before 31 B.C.
Assumption of Moses 3 . . . a.d. 7-29.
Slavonic Enoch (The Secrets of Enoch) first half of the first century a.d.
Apocalypse of Baruch . . . latter half of the first century,
2 Esdras. ..... about a.d. 120. [a.d.
1 Now existing only in Greek, but originally in Hebrew.
2 That parts of this work date after 48 b.o. appears from reference in it to the
death of Pompey whioh ocourred in that year.
3 Originally written in Hebrew but translated into Greek.

JEWISH RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 61
AU of these works, hke most of the preceding period, are pseudony
mous. Several of them are composite, the dates of the constituent parts
Varying, and not being always easfly determined with certainty.
The distinctive speculations respecting the future which are con
tained in these books, though not without significance for the New Testa
ment, are of less importance than those reviewed in connexion with the
Greek period, and may be treated more briefly. An interesting proof
that there survived, by the side of the belief in the coming of a Heavenly
Man, the older expectation of a Messiah, born of the house of David, is
presented by the Psalms of Solomon. In Ps. xvii of the collection there
is a prayer that begins : " Behold, 0 Lord, and raise up unto them (the
Jewish people) their King, the son of David, in the time which Thou,
0 God, knowest, that he may reign over Israel thy servant ; and gird
him with strength that he may break in pieces them that rule unjustly."
The Messiah here described is clearly human, not superhuman ; and it
is anticipated that, exercising the authority of an earthly king, he will
not only overthrow the foreign oppressors of his people, but will destroy
the predominance of those Jews who, in the eyes of the party from which
these psalms emanated, were irreligious and unjust. This group of
psalms was the production of the Pharisees ; and the section of the Jews
against whom sentiments of hostility are manifested consisted of the
Sadducees. Another conception of earher days is preserved, with some modifica
tion, in the Apocalypse qf Baruch. Here the expectation of a great gath
ering of the enemies of Israel for a final conflict, which occurs in Ezekiel
and Joel (p. 23), survives. They are represented as mustered under a
" last leader," but they are destroyed and their leader is put to death
by God's Messiah, the protector of God's people. This representation
is of interest in connexion with various passages in the New Testament
(such as 2 Thess. ii. 8, Rev. xx. 7 foU.).
In some of these Apocalypses the thought of the evU condition of the
present world (though it is by no means confined to these but appears
earher) receives conspicuous emphasis. In 2 Esdras it takes the form of
a contrast between two worlds or ages, that which now exists and that
which is to come (see vii. 50). The one is corrupt and transitory, full
of sadness and infirmity, and will be ended by the judgment ; whilst the
other wiU be permanent and immortal, abounding in virtue and happiness
(iv. 11, 27, vii. 12, 13, 113, 114). The same idea of the two worlds recurs
in several places in the New Testament (see Lk. xx. 35, Mt. xii. 32, Eph.
i. 21). The only reaUy novel development of thought exhibited by these
Apocalypses of which account need be taken here is the anticipation of a
Millennium, which is of importance in view of the recurrence of the idea
in Rev. xx. 4. It appears first in Slavonic Enoch. The writer of this,
arguing from the fact that the earth was created in six days, which were
followed by a seventh day of rest, and assuming one day with God to be
as a thousand years, concludes that the ordinary history of the world
wiU be completed in 6,000 years, and that after the expiration of these

62 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
there wiU be a period of rest and bhss for another thousand years, after
which mUlennium time wiU pass into eternity.1 In Slavonic Enoch there
is no mention of a Messiah in connexion with the Millennium. A parallel
conception of a limited Messianic age on earth, lasting not a thousand
but only 400 years, occurs in 2 Esdras. During this space of time the
Messiah, whom God is represented as addressing as " My Son " (2 Esd.
vii. 28, xiii. 37), will be manifested, and at its expiration wiU die,2 The
origin of the number 400 has been sought in a comparison of Ps. xc. 15,
"Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us,''
with Gen. xv. 13, where the affliction of Israel in Egypt is described as
lasting 400 years.3 After the death of the Messiah there wiU ensue a
brief interval, and then a new era wiU begin, inaugurated by a judgment-
scene in which the Judge is God. There wiU be a resurrection of the
dead, and good deeds wiU be rewarded and evU punished. " The pit of
torment shah appear and over against it shah be the place of rest ; and
the furnace of Gehenna shall be shewed, and over against it the paradise
of delight " (2 Esd. vii. 36).
1 Charles, Eschatology, p. 261.
2 In 2 Esd. vii. 28 the correct reading is my son the Messiah, not my son Jesus
(see Box, The Ezra Apocalypse, p. 114).
3 Charles, Eschatology, p. 286.

Ill
THE ROMAN EMPIRE
BY the middle of the first century a.d. Rome had reduced under its
sway aU the southern parts of Europe, the western portion of Asia,
and the north coast of Africa. It was thus supreme over the Medi
terranean, ruhng aU the lands which are washed by that sea, and several whieh
are not. The frontiers of its dominions were on the West, the Atlantic ; on
the North, the Trent, the Rhine, the Danube, the Black Sea and the
Caucasus ; on the East, the upper waters of the Euphrates and a more
or less undefined line running from thence to the Red Sea ; and on the
South, the edge of the African desert. Authority over this vast territory,
stretching about 3,000 miles from East to West, and 2,000 from North
to South, was enforced, under republican forms, by a single ruler.
Octavian was the first to possess the supreme authority. Though by
a constitutional fiction he was the servant of the State, yet, since to him
alone the soldiers took their oath of aUegiance (sacramentum), this fact
made him its master. Accordingly, though in form many functions of
government were left to the Senate, the reality of sovereignty rested
with the Emperor. In the New Testament no distinction is made between
the titles Emperor and King, paodeo'g being employed for both (1 Pet.
ii. 17, Matt. ii. 1). The cognomen Ccesar, which was received by Octavius
when he was adopted by Gaius Julius Caesar and became C. Julius Caesar
Octavianus, and the title Augustus (in Greek Zepao-cos) which he then
assumed, were taken by all his successors ; for the use of these titles in
the New Testament, see Mark xii. 14, Lk. ii. 1, Acts xxv. 25.
(a) The Provincial System 1
The centre of government was Italy, outside of which the subject
lands of the empire were divided into provinces (inagyjai). The names
of these, as given below, did not always coincide in extent with the coun
tries which were denoted by them before their annexation by Rome ;
and in the New Testament some ambiguity is occasioned by the uncertainty
whether its writers in particular passages employ the names in the official
or the popular sense, the latter corresponding to the older kingdoms out
of which the Roman provinces had been constructed by combination or
division. Examples of such ambiguity are furnished by the terms
1 See Arnold, Roman System of Provincial Administration.
63

64 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Galatia (p. 266) and Pontus. The number of the provinces varied through
the inclusion in the provincial system of additional territories, or through
the subdivision of existing provinces. At the death of Augustus (a.d. 14)
there were about thirty, at the death of Claudius (54) thirty-five, under
Nero (54-68) thirty-six, and at the death of Trajan (117) the number had
been increased to forty-five.
Although the Roman empire constituted a unity under a single head,
there was no uniformity in the method of its administration. Amongst
the provinces there were two distinct classes ; whilst outside the provinces
there were numerous semi-independent States which, so long as their
external policy was controUed by the Emperors, were aUowed much
liberty in respect of internal government. The classification of the
provinces was effected in 27 B.C. by Augustus, who divided them between
the Senate and himself. Such of them as were little liable to disturbance
he assigned to the Senate, which appointed the governors of them by
lot out of ex-consuls and ex-praetors, the term of office being restricted
to one year. Two of the Senatorial provinces, Asia and Africa, were
reserved for ex-consuls (consulares), whUst the rest were given to ex-
praetors (prcetorii). Both classes of governors, however, were officiaUy
styled pro-consuls (avQvnaroi), though the pro-consuls of Asia and Africa
had twelve lictors, whUst the others had only six. None of the governors
of the Senatorial provinces had an army ; though each was aUowed a
smaU force for the purpose of maintaining order, and in Africa a legion
was stationed. The revenue of these provinces went into the State
treasury (cerarium) which was administered by the Senate, but in each
province certain dues were payable to a separate imperial treasury (fiscus),
which was under the exclusive control of the Emperor, and these dues
were placed in the charge of a special finance officer (procurator, see p.
53). The number of provinces belonging to this class remained constant.
On the other hand, those provinces which were less tranquU (requiring
the presence of considerable mUitary forces to ensure them protection
or to repress disorder) and aU new territories were under the exclusive
supervision of the Emperor, who nominated his own deputies (legati)
for such periods as he pleased, out of ex-consuls, ex-praetors, or even mere
knights. Imperial deputies who were ex-consuls or ex-praetors of Sena
torial rank were uniformly caUed legati Augusti (or Ccesaris) proprcetores
(nQsojSevral xai dvTiorgarrjyol rov Eefiacnov) and such had five lictors.
Certain officials drawn from the Equestrian order, who were placed by the
Emperor in charge of such provinces as either needed some, but not much,
mUitary force, or presented peculiar problems of administration had the
same style as the fiscal agents in the Senatorial provinces and were caUed
procuratores (imroonoi, enaoxoi, or ¦fyye/iovsg), but had judicial and
administrative, as weU as financial, powers. The governor of Egypt
had the special title of prcefectus. As the frontiers of the Empire were
extended, and additional regions were included in it, the Imperial provinces
increased in number, since the newly acquired countries naturaUy called
for military occupation, and so feU to the care of the Emperor. Circum
stances sometimes made it desirable for the Emperor to take over a

THE ROMAN EMPIRE

65

Senatorial province, and to surrender one of his own in exchange, so that
the distribution of the provinces between the two authorities was con
stantly being modified.
The foUowing is a list of the provinces in existence during the first
century. Those that at different times were transferred from one class
to the other and consequently appear twice are indicated by italics.

Senatorial under proconsuls
Africa Asia Sicily
Sardinia and Corsica (27 B.C. -a.d. 6
and after 67)
Hispania Bcetica
Dalmatia ("l (27 B.0._n B.a)
Illyncum) J v '
Macedonia (27 b.c.-a.d. 15 and
after 44)
Gallia Narbonensis (27-22 b.c. and
after 11 B.C.)
Bithynia and Pontus
Cyrene and Crete
Cyprus (after 22 B.C.)
Achaia (27 b.c.-a.d. 15, 44-67, and
after 74)

Imperial
(a) Under proprcBtors
Hispania Tarraconensis
Dalmatia (after 11 b.c.)
Moesia (divided by Domitian)
Pannonia (divided by Trajan)
Germania Superior
Germania Inferior
Achaia (a.d. 15-44 and 67-74)
SyriaLusitania Gallia Narbonensis (22-11 b.c.)
Cyprus (27-22 b.c.)
AquitaniaGallia Lugdunensis
Gallia Belgica
Galatia
Macedonia (a.d. 15-44)
PamphyliaBritanniaNumidia (6) Under procurators
CappadociaMauritaniaThrace
Sardinia and Corsica (a.d. 6-67)
Cilicia
Alpine Provinces ffies °ott™ '
r (Alpes Mantimse
Rhsetia Noricum Judaea (sometimes under native
rulers) (c) Under a prcefect
Egypt
A large proportion of the provinces of the Empire are either not men
tioned at aU in the New Testament or are only slightly alluded to, so that
they require no notice here, but several of them figure prominently in it.
Asia, in many ways the principal of the provinces by reason of its
5

66 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
population, wealth, and culture, was first organized in 129 B.C. out of the
kingdom of Pergamum, which its King Attalus III bequeathed to the
Romans in 133. It embraced Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, most of Phrygia,
and the numerous islands lying near the coast. Pergamum (on the
Caicus), the capital of the ancient kingdom, remained for a while the
capital of the province ; but, later, Ephesus, at the mouth of the Cayster,
became the seat of government. Rivals of Ephesus in importance were
Smyrna (on the coast) and Sardis (on the Hermus). Other towns men
tioned in the New Testament are MUetus, Troas, Assos, Adramyttium
(on the coast), Mytilene (in Lesbos), Thyatira, Laodicea, Philadelphia,
Colossae, Hierapolis (inland).
In Asia there existed a provincial association which had as its object
the encouragement of the worship of Rome and the Emperor. Its designa
tion was Koivov 'Ac lag (Commune Asice) and its members were termed
Asiarchs. They appear to have been the high priests of the new imperial
cult (which had its earliest centre at Pergamum), and administered funds
devoted to the maintenance of it. It naturally feU to the Asiarchs to see
that no forms of worship other than those allowed by the Roman State
were introduced into the province. It is not known for certain how long
they held office, but the title was seemingly retained after their office had
expired, and was one of much dignity. In neighbouring provinces there
were officials bearing analogous titles (Bithyniarchs, Galatarchs, Syriarchs,
etc.), and presumably invested with similar duties.
The name Asia was ambiguous (cf. p. 63), since, besides denoting the
Roman province, it might be used of that part of it in particular (exclusive
of Phrygia) which lay along the iEgean coast. It appears to have this
signification in Acts ii. 9, where it is distinguished from Phrygia.
Macedonia was conquered by the Romans at the battle of Pydna,
168 B.C., and was at first divided into four districts in which there were
established federations retaining a certain measure of independence. Of
this division possibly the memory survives in Acts xvi. 12. The arrange
ment proving unsatisfactory, the country was organized as a province
in 146. Its extent varied at different times. During the period covered
by the historical narratives of the New Testament it stretched from Thrace
(from which it was .separated by the river Nestus) to the Adriatic, and
included Thessaly and part of Epirus. By Augustus it was placed in
27 B.C. under the Senate, but at the beginning of the reign of Tiberius
(a.d. 15) it was transferred to the Emperor ; whilst by Gaudius in 44 it
was restored to the Senate. Its most important towns lay on the Via
Egnatia (p. 75) ; among these were Thessalonica, ApoUonia, Amphi-
polis and Philippi. Other places of some note were Neapolis (the port of
Phihppi), Beroea, and Pydna. Thessalonica and Amphipolis were both
" free " cities (p. 71) ; whilst Thessalonica was the seat of the Roman
governor. PhUippi had the distinction of being a Roman colony, for some of the
troops of Octavian and Antony were established there in 42 b.c, after
the victory gained over Brutus and Cassius ; and a second body of soldiers
were sent thither by Augustus after the battle of Actium (31 B.C.).

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 67
Achaia, conquered in 146 B.C., was at first included in the province
of Macedonia, but in 27 B.C. it was made a separate Senatorial province,
comprising aU Greece, from Thessaly and the southern part of Epirus to
the extremity of the Peloponnesus. At a later date Thessaly was dis
connected from it and attached to Macedonia (p. 66). In a.d. 15 Achaia,
together with Macedonia, to which it was once more joined, became a
single Imperial province, but it was retransferred to the Senate in a.d.
44, so that on the occasion of St. Paul's visit it was under a proconsul
(Acts xviii. 12). Its most famous city was Athens ; but its official capital
and chief trading centre was Corinth, of whieh Cenchrese was the eastern,
and Lechaeum the western port. Corinth was destroyed by Mummius
in 146, but the city was reftunded as a colony by Julius Caesar, its settlers
consisting largely of freedmen. (See further p. 553.)
Bithynia and Pontus formed a single province, constituted out of
the kingdom of Bithynia (left to the Romans by its king Nicomedes III
in 74 B.C.), and the western part of Pontus (the kingdom of Mithradates).
The joint province was under the Senate untU a.d. Ill, when it was trans
ferred to the Emperor. None of its towns is mentioned in the New Testa
ment, though Nicomedia, in Bithynia, was a place of importance.
Cyprus, when annexed in 58 B.C., was at first attached to Cilicia ;
then for a short period it was given to Ptolemy of Egypt ; but in 27 B.C.
it became a separate province, first under Imperial, and then, after a.d.
22, under Senatorial control, so that when visited by St. Paul and Barna
bas (Acts xiii. 7) it was governed by a proconsul. Its principal towns
were Paphos (the seat of the government) and Salamis.
Cyrene and Crete formed a joint province, the former being first
included in the Roman provincial system in 74 B.C. and the latter in 68
B.C., and the two being united by Augustus and placed under the Senate.
Of Crete the only localities named in the New Testament are certain
places on the coast, Salmone, Lasea, with a neighbouring harbour caUed
Fair Havens (KaXol Aifievsg), and Phoenix.
Galatia derived its name from a body of Gauls who in the third cen
tury b.c. crossed the Hellespont into Asia Minor, and after perpetrating
many ravages, finally settled in the region around Ancyra. In 64, Pompey
placed the Galatians under three chiefs, the ablest of whom was Deiotarus,
who afterwards received the title of king. The last king, Amyntas, was
killed in battle, and his realm in 25 B.C. was reduced by the Romans to a
province. This included, beside Galatia proper, parts of Phrygia, Pisidia,
Lycaonia, and Pontus ; and eventuaUy in a.d. 70 it was augmented by
the addition to it of Cappadocia. Of the northern portion of the pro
vince (the district inhabited by the descendants of the Gauis) the chief
cities were Pessinus, Ancyra (the modern Angora), and Tavium ; whilst
of the southern part the principal places were Pisidian Antioch,1 Iconium,
Derbe, and Lystra, aU of which were inhabited by Asiatic peoples (not
Celts), though Antioch and Lystra contained Roman colonies (p. 71).
Cappadocia was annexed in a.d. 17, and remained a separate province
1 Strictly Antioch ad Pisidiam, "Antioch bordering Pisidia." It was really in
Phrygia.

68 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
under procurators untU 70, when it was attached to Galatia (p. 67). It
was a poor district, possessing few towns.
Pamphylia was at first comprised in Cilicia, but was severed from it
in 25 B.C., and probably administered by the legatus of Syria. But when
in a.d. 43 Lycia was added to it, it became a separate province under the
Emperor. Among its chief towns were Perga and Attaha ; whilst others
named in the New Testament are Myra and Patara.
Cilicia was acquired in 103 B.C., but not effectively occupied until
67 B.C., when Pompey suppressed the pirates which had their haunts there.
The province varied greatly in the extent of territory included in it at
different times. Physically it consisted of two halves, a western section
of mountainous character (Cilicia Tracheia), and an eastern section, level
and fertile (Cilicia Pedia or Campestris). It was the western half alone
which constituted the province during the rule of Augustus, who placed
it under a procurator subordinate to the legatus of Syria. The country
was famous for a dark-coloured fabric made of goats' hair which was caUed
xdlmov, and furnished material for sackcloth (Rev. vi. 12) and tent
cloth.1 Its most important towns were Seleuceia (on the sea) and Tarsus
(on the Cydnus), the latter being a free city (p. 71) and the seat of a univer
sity whose students were not inferior to those of Athens and Alexandria
(Strabo, Geog. xiv.).
Syria was conquered in 64 b.c, when the dynasty of the Seleucids
was ended (p. 37). The province, which embraced aU the country from
the gulf of Issus to the borders of Egypt, and from the Arabian desert to
the sea, was placed under the control of the Emperor, who was represented
by a legatus. But at different times various parts of Syria (in the geo
graphical sense) were under gwm-independent native rulers, including Com-
magene, Emesa, Abilene, Chalcis, and others mentioned below. The most
important of its cities (outside those in native states) was Antioch, reckoned
as the third city of the Empire. This was buUt on the Orontes and was
distinguished from various other Antiochs by the designation 'Avrioxeia
fj Ttgdg Adgmrj (the latter place being a grove sacred to ApoUo). The city
was some 14 mUes from the sea, and had a port at the mouth of the Orontes
called Seleuceia, both it and Antioch being founded by Seleucus Nicator.
Of the semi-independent states which were in the vicinity of the
province of Syria, and some of which at different times were included in
it, the following, as being directly or indirectly aUuded to in the New
Testament, may be noticed here.
(1) The Kingdom of the Itur^ans. This tribe, famous as archers,2
hved on the slopes of Anti-Lebanon, their kingdom extending on both
sides of the range, and their capital being Chalcis, in the plain between
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. In the time of Antony, their king was
named Lysanias and was executed by the Roman triumvir in 36 B.C.
His kingdom was subsequently divided into four sections : (a) The
1 It was the weaving of this material that constituted the secular occupation of
St. Paul, who was a native of Tarsus.
* Cf. Verg. G. ii. 448 Iturmos taxi torquentur in arvus.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 69
Tetrarchy of Ulatha and Panias (the former, the region round Lake Merom
and the latter near the source of the Jordan), conferred in 20 B.C. upon
Herod the Great, and afterwards, in part, upon Herod's son Phihp, tetrarch
of Trachonitis ; cf. Lk. hi. 1. (b) The Tetrarchy of Abila, on the eastern
slope of Anti-Lebanon, bestowed in a.d. 37 upon Agrippa I (p. 51) and
in a.d. 53 upon Agrippa II (p. 52). (c) The Kingdom of Chalcis (north
of Panias), given in a.d. 41 to Herod, grandson of Herod the Great, and
afterwards (until 53) to Agrippa II (p. 52). (d) The Kingdom of the
Iturceans, in a restricted sense (between Heliopohs and Laodicea ad
Libanum. (2) The Kingdom of the Nabat^eans. This Arabian tribe in the
fourth century B.C. occupied Petra, driving the Edomites northwards.
From 9 B.C. to a.d. 40 they were ruled by Aretas IV, whose daughter was
married to, and afterwards divorced by, Herod Antipas (p. 50), and who
was in possession of Damascus (which he governed by an ethnarch) in
the time of St. Paul (2 Cor. xi. 32), circ. a.d. 35.
(3) Trachonitis. This, from 37 to 4 b.c, formed part of the kingdom
of Herod the Great, and at his death was bestowed upon his son Phihp,
who had the title of tetrarch. When the latter died in a.d. 36, it came
under the direct rule of Rome for a short while ; but in a.d. 37 it was
given to Agrippa I (p. 51), who was allowed the style of king. On
Agrippa's death in 44, it, together with the rest of his domains, passed
again under Roman rule ; but in 53 it was bestowed upon Agrippa II
(p. 52), who governed it until his death about a.d. 100.
(4) Galilee. This, hke Trachonitis, was included in the realm of
Herod the Great. At his death in 4 B.C., it, together with Peraea, was
given to his son Antipas (p. 50), who, hke his brother Philip, had only
the title of tetrarch. On the deposition of Antipas in a.d. 39 it was
transferred to Agrippa I, king of Trachonitis, but at his death in 44 it was
taken over by the Romans and governed by procurators.
(5) Zvdmk. This, with Trachonitis and Gahlee, constituted the
kingdom of Herod the Great. At his death (4 B.C.) it was bestowed on
his son Archelaus (p. 49), to whom was given the title of ethnarch ; but
when he was deposed in a.d. 6, it was placed by the Romans under pro
curators. In a.d. 41 it again received a king, being added to the other
territories conferred upon Agrippa I (p. 51). At his death in 44 it, like
the rest of his possessions, was once more deprived of independence ;
and though in 53 Trachonitis was separately treated, and given to Agrippa
1 1, the remaining portions of the territories of Agrippa I (Judaea and Gahlee)
continued to be ruled by Roman procurators, until after the fall of
Jerusalem in a.d. 70, when Judaea was made a separate province and
governed by a legatus of consular rank.
To the states here named and to others hke them the Roman Emperors
aUowed a measure of independence ; but their rulers were expected to
govern in the interest of Rome, and their foreign pohcy in particular was
controlled from Italy (cf. p. 49). Their independent status was not
guaranteed to them by treaty, but was granted or withdrawn by Rome
at will ; yet in practice the right of interference was not often exercised,

70 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
for the subservience which the Emperors required they could easUy secure,
since they had the power of removing an intractable ruler, or of augmenting
his authority and dignity if he became amenable to their wishes.
For the sake of completeness brief mention may here be made of a
few remote countries outside Roman territory to which occasional allusions
occur in the New Testament. The most powerful state in the east was
Parthia, situated south-east of the Caspian Sea. The Parthians were
at one time included in the dominions of Alexander and his successors ;
but in 256 B.C. they were constituted an independent kingdom by
Arsaces ; and eventually dominated the lands extending from India to
the Euphrates. At various times they were rivals of Rome for the mastery
of the East, and on more than one occasion they interfered in the affairs
of Palestine (p. 45). They are referred to in the book of Enoch (Ivi. 5)
and perhaps in Rev. ix. 14-16. Media lay south and south-west of the
Caspian and east of the Tigris. Elam was south of Media, and near the
head of the Persian Gulf. Mesopotamia, west of Media, was the region
between the Tigris and the Euphrates, the latter river separating the
Roman Empire from the group of countries here enumerated.
The division of the Roman provinces into two classes by Augustus
greatly improved the condition of many of the subjects of the Empire.
Even in the senatorial provinces, some check could be put on the rapacity
of governors by the Emperor in virtue of his proconsulare imperium,
and in the last resort a misgoverned region could be transferred to the
class of imperial provinces. In the latter there were not the same incentives
or opportunities for misconduct as in the countries under the immediate
control of the Senate, since their governors were appointed for variable
periods (five or even more years), were regularly paid, and were dependent
for promotion upon the Emperor, who generaUy exercised a close super
vision over them. But besides this, the whole system of provincial
taxation was changed for the better by Augustus. In the time of the
Republic the taxes and customs were not exacted by the state from the
taxpayers through its own officials ; but large companies (jpublicani,
rehmvai), consisting of wealthy persons, contracted for the coUection of
them, paying a lump sum to the state treasury, and re-imbursing them
selves for their outlay and their trouble by what they exacted through
their agents from the people. Both the amount of the taxes and the
method of coUecting them were naturaUy often oppressive, since there was
no definite register of property to enable the amount to be fairly appor
tioned to the different locahties, whilst the publicani were under the
temptation of extorting as much as they could for their own advantage.
Under the Empire two alterations were made. (1) A census both of the
population and of the taxable capacity of the various provinces was
instituted, such being taken, in the case of Judaea, certainly in a.d. 6, when,
after the deposition of Archelaus, it was included in the province of Syria
(p. 55), and possibly on an earher occasion (see p. 343). (2) The system
of allowing capitalists to contract for the coUection of the revenue was
discontinued in connection with the direct taxes, which were now placed
in the hands of government officials (the quaestors in senatorial, the

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 71
procurators in imperial provinces), and retained only in respect of the
indirect taxes.
In those parts of Palestine where authority was exercised by vassal
kings, such were empowered to levy customs for their own revenue. Hence
during our Lord's lif etime whilst the taxes and customs exacted in Judaea,
which was under a procurator, went to the Roman Emperor (Mk. xii. 14,
Lk. xx. 25), the customs levied at Capernaum in Gahlee (Mk. ii. 14) went
to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of that region The reXatvai mentioned in
the New Testament were not the Roman publicani, but their subordinate
agents (portitores) who, if Jews, were detested not only for the oppressive
ness of which, as a class, they were guilty, but also for being in many cases
the tools of a foreign power. The agxirelarvai (cf. Lk. xix. 2) were probably
more important agents, occupying a position intermediate between the
teAcwoi and their Roman capitahst employers. In addition to taxation
levied for secular purposes every Jew likewise paid an individual con
tribution of a half shekel (Sldoax/uov) for the maintenance of the Temple
worship. In respect of administration the large majority of provincial cities
were aUowed to have their own magistrates and civic regulations. In
most there existed a senate (PovXij) and a public assembly (&xxXrjai.a).
The regular meetings of the latter were called vo/u^oi (or xvoiai) sxxhrjaiai;
whilst extraordinary meetings could be held by permission of the Roman
authorities, such being styled (at least in some places) ovyxXrjroi binhqalai
(cf. Acts xix. 39). A certain number of towns were " free " (i.e. exempt
altogether from Roman taxation and from the control of the provincial
governor), among them being Tarsus, Thessalonica, and Athens. The
bestowal of this autonomy naturally encouraged much local pride and
patriotism, such as that evinced by St. Paul (Acts xxi. 39). Distinct from
these privileged cities, whose inhabitants were chiefly provincial, were the
Roman colonies, towns which ordinarily consisted of Roman citizens,
either established in places from which the previous population had been
expeUed, or planted in locahties where the existing citizens were allowed
to remain, and to share the privileges of the settlers. Under Augustus
colonies were mainly intended to serve as settlements for veterans ; and
compensation was sometimes paid to those who were dispossessed of their
farms or estates. But the name and status might also be bestowed
upon a place without the introduction into it of any new citizens, and
merely with the design of conferring Upon it rank and privilege. Among
the towns mentioned in the New Testament that had the style of " colony "
were Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, Phihppi, and Corinth. The titles of the
chief magistrates of provincial towns were very Varied. In Roman
colonies they were called prcetorS (orQar%jyol) or duoviri (dvavSgixoi). In
HeUenic cities the old term Archons was sometimes retained ; but more
common designations were oxQaxrjyoi and drj/Movgyol. In Thessalonica
(a free city) the principal officials were styled Politarchs (noUxagxal> Acts
xvii. 6), a title occurring elsewhere in Macedonia (where it seems to have
been frequent), in Bithynia, in Thrace, and in Egypt. An official who had
no counterpart in the Roman cities was the town-clerk or secretary

72 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(ygau/mxevg), who kept the city records and seems to have exercised
considerable authority (Acts xix. 35). In the island of Mehta (Malta) the
chief administrator was styled the Primus (6 no&xog).
The collective inhabitants of Roman colonics and municipia (the latter
differing from the former in history, but not at this time in legal rights)
possessed the Roman franchise ; but this could also be acquired by
individual residents of cities that were not colonies or municipalities.
It was obtainable in various ways : (a) as a mark of favour or reward,
(b) in exchange for money, (c) through manumission. Josephus, a native
of Jerusalem, received it as a distinction from the Emperor Vespasian ;
and Claudius Lysias, a tribunus militum, procured it by purchase (Acts
xxii. 28). The privilege of citizenship, however acquired, was transmitted
from father to son, as in the case of St. Paul. The possession of it was of
great value, since every Roman citizen (1) was exempt from scourging or
torture1 and from such an agonizing and ignominious punishment as
crucifixion ; (2) had the right to appeal to the Emperor (representing the
Roman people) against sentences pronounced by a magistrate ; (3) could
claim, if accused of a capital offence, to be tried by the Emperor before
being sentenced. Presumably the Emperor did not hear aU such appeals
in person, but tried most cases through his representatives at Rome ;
but the mere removal of the trial from places where local prejudice was
strong to the capital might in itself be an advantage. Persons who were
not Romans by race but who became Roman citizens, assumed Roman
names, in addition to, or in substitution for, their own. Thus, the Jew
Josephus took the name of Flavius, after the Emperor Tiberius Flavius
Vespasianus, and the Greek Lysias assumed the name of Claudius (Acts
xxiii. 26), after the Emperor Claudius. St. Paul either replaced his
Hebrew appellation Saul by the Latin Paulus, or united the two names.
The defence of the Empire against foreign foes, and the maintenance of
order within it was secured by a standing army. This consisted of two
sections, the legions and the auxiliary forces (auxilia), the former being
drawn from Roman citizens and the latter from provincials not possessed
of Roman citizenship. Jews (as has been said) were exempted altogether
from military service. The legions shortly after Actium numbered eighteen ;
in the time of Tiberius, they amounted to twenty-five ; and by a.d. 69 they
were further increased to thirty or thirty-one. A legion during this period
was composed of ten cohorts (ane'ioai), each divided into three maniples 2 and
each maniple comprising two centuries. The total number of men in a legion
was between 5,000 and 6,000, so that in size a legion would correspond
approximately to a brigade (which normaUy consists among ourselves of
four battahons each of 1,022 men). The legions were commanded by
legati legionum. Of the officers those of superior rank (corresponding
broadly to our commissioned officers) numbered six in each legion and
were styled tribuni militum (xiMoqxoi), whilst those of inferior rank

1 Cf. Cic. In Verr. ActH. v. 170. Pacinus est vincire, scelus verberare, prope parrici-
dium necare.
a In Polybius the term oTupa is periiap3 used of a maniple (xi. 23).

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 73
(non-commissioned officers) were called centuriones (Sxazovzagxai). Each
maniple was under the first of its two centurions. From the centuries
parties of four soldiers each (quaterniones, rexgaSia) were drawn for the
purpose of guarding prisoners, each party being placed on duty for three
hours (the night being divided into four watches and the duties of the day
being similarly apportioned). Prisoners were usually chained to one or
two of the soldiers who guarded them (Acts xii. 6, xxi. 33, xxviii. 20,
Eph. vi. 20, Phil. i. 7, cf. 2 Tim. i. 16), x and the guards were held responsible
for the safe custody of the imprisoned and suffered the penalty of death
if the latter escaped (cf. Acts xii. 19, xvi. 27). To every legion there was
attached a force of cavalry, the divisions of which were called alee (Mat).
The auxiliary forces, infantry and cavalry, were divided into cohortes and
alee respectively ; and the infantry officers bore the same titles as those
of the legions. The deSjioAafJoi mentioned in Acts xxiii. 23 were probably
javelin-throwers, constituting a variety of hght-armed troops, but the
precise nature of their equipment is obscure. The term speculatores,
which generaUy denotes military scouts, was employed to designate the
Emperor's bodyguard (Tac. Hist. II. 11), and was apparently also used of
the bodyguard of less important sovereigns (e.g. Herod Antipas, Mk. vi. 27).
In Italy no legion was stationed. The defence of the country and its
capital was entrusted to three or four urban cohorts and nine praetorian
cohorts, each containing 1,000 men, and recruited at first almost exclusively
from Italians. The urban cohorts (as their name suggests) were kept
within Rome ; whilst the praetorian cohorts had a camp just outside the
waUs, near the porta Viminalis. By Augustus only three of the praetorian
cohorts had been stationed near Rome, the rest being dispersed
among neighbouring towns ; but by Tiberius they were concentrated
in the camp just aUuded to, north-east of the city. The whole force was
known as prcetorium (see Tac. Hist. II. 11 veterani e prcetorio) and its camp
castra prcetoria (prcetorianorum). Besides these there were certain Italian
cohorts, consisting of Roman volunteers, but stationed in the provinces
(cf. p. 54). It was on the frontiers of the Empire and in those provinces
which were most exposed to invasion that the legions were quartered.
In Syria, during the reign of Tiberius, there were four legions, which
constituted the largest force in any single province, the reason being the
danger threatening from the Parthians. Soldiers belonging to a special
force engaged in conveying supplies and dispatches between the provinces
and the capital were caUed Frumentarii and Peregrini.
The separate legions were not only distinguished by numbers but by
names. These were sometimes local designations like Gallica and
Germanica ; others were complimentary titles, such as Victrix, Ferrata,
Fulminata. The cohorts and alee of the auxiliary forces were named
after the nation or people from which they were drawn, e.g. cohors
Ascalonitarum. Some also seem to have borne honorary titles such as
Augusta (Zsfiaaxrj) ; see Acts xxvii. 1 and cf. p. 54. The total mUitary

1 Cf. Seneca, Epist. v. 7 (quoted by Blass), Eadem catena custodiam (=vinctum)
et militem copulabat.

74 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
force of Rome in the middle of the first century a.d. has been estimated
at about 320,000 men.
The population of the Roman Empire at the death of Augustus has
been calculated to have been not more than 54 millions, the population
of the capital being placed at about 800,000. The figures given above
for the whole Empire can scarcely be more than conjectural ; whilst
even in regard to Rome opinions vary greatly, some authorities holding
that the total population was about 1,200,000. Be this as it may, it is
certain that slaves formed a very large proportion of it, for the conquests
made during the last century of the Republic and the early years of the
Empire greatly enlarged the sources from which they were procurable.
They were drawn especiaUy from the East, as shown by some of the names
common among them (e.g. Syrus). They were at the absolute disposal
of their owners ; and this fact throws hght upon the attitude of mind of
Christians when calhng themselves dovkoi 'Irjoov Xgioxov. But though
they were the property of their masters, they were frequently able to
save money to purchase their freedom, whUst a generous owner sometimes
bestowed it (cf. p. 72). When manumitted, they passed into the class
of libertini (cf. Acts vi. 9), from which several of the professions were
largely supplied.
(b) Conditions in the Empire conducive to the
Diffusion of Christianity
In spite of the cruelty and other vices which marked several of the
early Roman Emperors, as weU as many of their subordinate officials,
certain conditions which prevailed under their rule, and for the existence
of which they were largely responsible, were such as to contribute very
materially to the spread of Christianity. It wiU therefore be expedient
to enumerate a few of the factors which conduced most conspicuously
to this result.
1. The mere subjection to a central authority of a number of peoples
who had once been engaged in frequent hostilities with one another
ensured a peace which aUowed scope for mutual intercourse, and the
consequent spread of moral ideas and influences.
2. The security against external aggression afforded by the armies
posted on the frontiers prevented the extension of a new movement like
Christianity from being endangered in its early stages by the irruption of
barbarian tribes.
3. The existence of a common system of law throughout the civilized
world promoted the administration of justice. Though the Romans to
a large extent respected the native laws of the races and peoples under
their control, yet cases of injustice could be checked by the central power,
and individuals who enjoyed the Roman citizenship could, if accused j
where a current of prejudice ran strongly against them, make appeal to
have their case tried at Rome (cf. p. 72).
4. The growth of a community of sentiment between various races

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 75
and peoples was developed through inclusion in a common Empire and
participation in common advantages and privfleges.
5. Improved means of communication between distant places provided
by the construction of roads, and the more or less successful attempts to
suppress brigandage on knd and piracy at sea, facilitated evangelistic
efforts. Inasmuch as the journeys of St. Paul occupy much space in Acts, it
is desirable to say a little more about the principal routes linking Palestine
and Syria with the iEgean coast, Greece, and Italy.
The extensive system of roads instituted by the Romans had as its
main object the rapid transit of messengers bearing dispatches to and
from Rome, and the easy passage of troops ; but its existence also fostered
commercial traffic and encouraged intercourse for general purposes. The
development of such intercourse was itself a means for conveying a
knowledge of Christianity from one district to another, even apart from
direct missionary enterprise. The roads, paved with blocks of stone
resting on cement, were usually about 9 or 10 feet wide ; milestones
were erected along them ; and at various points military guards were
stationed for the protection of travellers, though it is clear, from St. Paul's
reference to perUs from robbers (2 Cor. xi. 26), that no little insecurity
continued to prevail. Along the roads generaUy there existed places
of entertainment (deversoria), but they were commonly of poor quality,
so that there was the greater need of, and scope for, the virtue of hospitality
which was so warmly enjoined by St. Paul and other Apostles (Rom. xii.
13, 1 Pet. iv. 9, cf . Acts xxi. 16). As regards the rate of travel it has been
estimated that Imperial couriers riding, and assisted by relays of horses,
could cover in a day about 50 mUes, persons using carriages about 25
miles, and pedestrians 15 mUes ; though under particular circumstances
these figures were doubtless not seldom exceeded. Infantry soldiers on
march accomplished 20 miles at the ordinary pace and 24 at a quicker
rate. From Palestine and Syria to Italy there were four main land and sea
routes. (1) A road leading from Jerusalem and Antioch through the
Syrian gates (the name given to the pass over Mount Amanus) to Tarsus,
thence through the CUician gates (over Mount Taurus) to the cities of
South Galatia, and thence to Laodicea, TraUes, Sardis, Adramyttium
and Troas ; from Troas by sea to Neapolis, by which Philippi could be
reached (Acts xvi. 11-12) ; thence along the via Egnatia through Amphi-
polis, Apollonia, and Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 1) to Dyrrhachium, on the
Adriatic ; and thence by sea to Brundisium, from which port the via
Appia crossed the Italian peninsula to the west coast, proceeding along
it from Sinuessa to Rome. (2) A route taking by land the same direction
as (1) as far as Laodicea, thence down the vaUey of the Maeander to Ephesus ;
and from the latter city by sea to Corinth, and thence along the west
coast of Epirus, whence the passage across the Adriatic could be effected
to Brundisium, and so, as in (1), to Rome. From Pisidian Antioch there
was an alternative route to Ephesus, which kept along higher ground,
away from the valley of the Maeander, and which was followed on one

76 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
occasion by St. Paul (Acts xix. 1) ; whflst from this another road diverged
to the city and port of Smyrna. (3) A coasting voyage from Caesarea,
Sidon, or Seleucia along the south and west shores of Asia Minor to Miletus
or Ephesus, whence the passage could be made to Corinth as in (2). (4)
A voyage from some Palestinian or Phoenician port along the south coast
of Asia as far as Myra, where a large corn ship from Alexandria might be
picked up (cf. Acts xxvii. 1-6) ; such could reach Puteoli or Ostia (for
Rome) by crossing to the straits of Messina, and proceeding through them
along the west coast of Italy (cf. Acts xxvii. 7, xxviii. 11-14). The most
expeditious was the overland route by the via Egnatia, for the others
involved a longer sea voyage, with the chance of bad weather. Naviga
tion over any considerable stretch of sea, though actuaUy suspended for
not more than four months in the year (November 10 to March 10), was
only regarded as safe between May 26 and September 14. It was in
consequence of the dangers attending voyages in the early spring that
Jews, resident over sea, usually made their pUgrimages to Jerusalem at
Pentecost rather than at the Passover (cf. Acts xx. 16). Even in the
summer the westward voyage was not unattended with difficulty, for in
the open sea ships encountered the Etesian winds which blew steadily
from the west for forty days after July 20. A voyage from Caesarea or
Sidon to Puteoli would under favourable conditions be accomplished in
six or seven weeks.
Merchant vessels, unlike ships of war which were equipped with both
oars and sails, usuaUy had sails only. The masts were generaUy two —
a main mast, carrying a large sail supported on a yard, and a much smaUer
mast, placed near the centre of the vessel and carrying a foresaU (dgxe/icnv,
Acts xxvii. 40). Latin writers also mention a top-mast carrying a triangular
top-sail (supparum), and some suppose that this is meant by the term
oxevog in Acts xxvii. 17. Sails were not shortened by furling, but
by lowering the yard with the saU attached. A vessel was steered not
by a rudder but by two paddles (nrjddXia) on either side of the stern.
These, when not needed, could be hoisted up and lashed to the vessel's
side until required again (Acts xxvii. 40). Several anchors were ordinarily
carried (Acts xxvii. 29, 30). The hulls of ancient ships were not very
substantially bunt, so that in rough seas the timbers were hable to start,
rendering it necessary to secure them by cables passed under the keel
and made taut on deck (Acts xxvii. 17). Vessels were distinguished by
names and emblems. The use of the verb dvxo<p8aX/j,elp (Acts xxvn. 15)
suggests that sometimes on either side of the stem eyes were painted.
As the compass was unknown, a ship's course, if out of sight of land, was
steered by the sun and stars (Acts xxvii. 20).
The size of ships and the number of persons which they could carry
must have varied considerably. Josephus (Vit. 3) relates that a vessel
in which he once voyaged had about 600 people on board. Even in
Homeric times vessels are represented as conveying 120 warriors (II. ii.
510). The rate of a ship's progress under favourable conditions might
amount to 110-150 nautical miles (125-170 ndles) in 24 hours,1 though an
1 Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 615 (Haverfield).

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 77
average daUy run would probably be less than this (96 or 100 nautical
mUes). (5) But besides the conditions favourable to the progress of Christianity
which were due to the order maintained by the Romans throughout their
empire, and their organization of traffic by land and sea, there were three
others even more advantageous. These were (i) the extensive dispersion of
the Jewish race throughout the world ; (ii) the widespread currency of
the Greek language ; (iii) the prevalence of religious unrest among pagan
peoples. (i) The wide diffusion of the Jewish race in the first century,1 in
consequence of which an acquaintance with the Hebrew Scriptures and
the prophecies in them relating to the Messiah penetrated in different
directions had various causes. One was the deportation of Jewish
captives by the several kings who from time to time obtained the mastery
over Palestine. Another was the anxiety on the part of dweUers in
Palestine to escape from the strife prevailing between the rival powers
of Syria and Egypt for the possession of the country (p. 27 f.). And a
third was probably the trading enterprise which marked the Jewish race,
and which led many to migrate to those lands where they could best
secure fortunes. They were sufficiently inteUigent and industrious to
make them desirable settlers ; and the rulers of many places encouraged
them by bestowing upon them favours. Possibly, too, among the incentives
to emigration were the greater intellectual freedom to be found in Greek-
speaking lands, and the aUurements which literature, art, and science had
for gifted individuals.2 After a.d. 70 the dispersion of the Jewish people
was greatly increased in consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem.
The countries to which bodies of Jews were first forcibly transferred by
their various conquerors were Assyria (with its subject territories) and
Babylonia. A portion of the population of the Kingdom of Israel was
deported by the Assyrian Sargon in 722 b.c, and settled in the neighbour
hood of the Habor (Chaboras, an affluent of the Euphrates), and in various
cities of Media (2 Kg. xvii. 6), and, as far as is known, remained per
manently in the land of their exile (see Jos. Ant. xi. 5, 2). Many of the
inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah were carried captive to Babylonia
by Nebuchadrezzar in 597 and 587 ; and though sections of them returned
to their own land with Zerubbabel in 537 (p. 14) and with Ezra in 458,
considerable numbers continued to remain in a land which in respect of
material advantages was much superior to Palestine. About the middle
of the fifth century B.C. Hyrcania, a district south of the Caspian Sea,
also received a number of Jewish captives (p. 24). But it was not alone
in the countries watered by the Tigris and Euphrates and in the regions
beyond those rivers that people of Jewish stock were to be found. Con
sequent upon the overthrow of the last of the Hebrew kingdoms, fugitives
from it made their escape into the adjoining lands of Moab, Ammon, and
Edom. Syria in the first century a.d. is represented as having a large
number of Jew!3 ; and both Antioch and Damascus were among the cities
1 Cf. Josephus, Ant. xiv. 7, 2, who quotes Strabo.
8 G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. pp. 393-4.

78 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
in it where thousands of them were settled. They were also to be found
in most parts of Asia Minor, such as Phrygia, Lydia and Galatia ; whUst
evidence of their presence in towns like Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna,
Pergamum, Adramyttium, MUetus, Hierapolis and Laodicea is^ forth
coming from official documents (quoted by Josephus), from inscriptions,
and from epitaphs.1
Africa as weU as Asia had a large Jewish population, which was con
centrated chiefly in Egypt. In 587 a number of Jews, from fear of the
Babylonians, migrated to Egypt, where they established themselves in
Noph (Memphis), Tahpanhes (Daphnis), Migdol and Pathros (Jer. xliv. 1).
AU these places were in Lower Egypt, but later in the sixth century Jews
also settled at Syene (Assouan) and Yeb (Elephantine) ; and in the last-
mentioned locality there was built a temple of Jehovah (Yahu). But the
principal city in Egypt where the Jews made their home was Alexandria,
for Alexander incorporated a number of them among the citizens of his
new foundation. The Alexandrian Jews contributed pre-eminently to
the diffusion of their own, and indirectly of the Christian, faith throughout
the world, for it was to meet their needs that there was produced the
LXX translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (p. 28), so that these became
inteUigible to a multitude of people who were acquainted with Greek
but not with Hebrew. Jewish settlements in Africa were not confined
to Egypt, for mention is made of such in connexion with Cyrenaica
(cf. Lk. xxiii. 26, Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1) and other parts of the African
continent. The distribution of Jews throughout various regions of Greece and
the islands of the iEgean is shown by mention of them in the Maccabean
period at Sparta, Sicyon, and in Cyprus, Delos, Samos, Cos, and Rhodes ;
whilst references to Jewish places of worship at Philippi, Thessalonica,
Beroea, Athens and Corinth occur in the account of St. Paul's missionary
travels in Acts (xvi. 13, xvii. 1, 10, 17, xviii. 4), and evidence of their exist
ence in various other localities (such as Argos and Tegea) is furnished
through documents conferring freedom on slaves and through inscriptions.2
In Rome the multitude of Jews was very large, especiaUy after Pompey
in 62 B.C. carried thither a great number of captives (p. 44). They
excited much dislike, and were expeUed both by Tiberius (in a.d. 19)
and by Claudius afterwards (eire. a.d. 49). This last expulsion (cf. Acts
xviii. 2) is connected by Suetonius 3 with disorders among the Jews caused
by one " Chrestus," the name being possibly an error for " Christus,"
and the disorders resulting from the hostility of the Roman Jews towards
the Christians.
The peculiar features of the Jewish rehgion distinguished the Jewish
communities so markedly from the adherents of other cults that it was
often found desirable to grant them in various localities certain powers
of self-government. At Alexandria, for instance, they were controlled
by an ethnarch of their own ; at Antioch there was an official called the
1 See Hastings, D.B. v. pp. 93-5. 2 Hastings, D.B. v. p. 97.
8 See Claud. 25, Judeeos, vmpulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes Roma expultt.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 79
Archon of the Jews ; and at Berenice, a city of Cyrenaica, the Jewish resi
dents appear to have formed an independent corporation (noXhev/ta) ruled
by aexovxeg. Throughout the Empire, indeed, the Jews were greatly
favoured ; for they were aUowed the free exercise of their religion ; they
had the right to administer their own funds (a privilege which enabled
them to remit money for the support of the Temple at Jerusalem, see
p. 71) ; they were permitted to inflict through the Sanhedrin correctional
disciphne upon their own members for breaches of their Law ; they were
not obliged to appear before a judicial court on the Sabbath Day ; they
were exempted from mUitary service (since the duties of such were in
compatible with the observance of the Sabbath) ; and imperial emblems
were usuaUy excluded from Jerusalem. Not all the emperors, indeed,
conceded uniformly the toleration here described, for Caligula attempted
to exact from the Jews Emperor-worship, which neither his predecessors
nor his successors demanded. After the fierce war which ended with the
destruction of Jerusalem, the condition of the Jews was not so favourable
(p. 59), but their rehgious freedom was not impaired untU the reign of
Hadrian (117-38), and even his restrictions were removed by his successor
(p. 60).
Among the Jews of the Dispersion at large there were two classes
differing in their rehgious attitude towards the Law. One section found
their situation among pagan surroundings a strong incentive to a rigid
adhesion to Mosaism, rendering them opposed to any departure from its
regulations, so that amongst them there was exhibited towards Christianity
much hostUity ; and Hellenists (i.e. Greek-speaking Jews) were prominent
in the persecution of both St. Stephen and St. Paul (Acts vi. 9, ix. 29).
The other section were led by contact with Greek culture, especially in
centres of inteUectual life, like Alexandria, Antioch and Tarsus, to adopt
a more liberal interpretation and apphcation of the Law, and were more
tolerant in their bearing towards GentUes and GentUe religions than their
countrymen in Palestine (cf. Joh. vii. 35). x
(ii) If the Jewish race in consequence of their extensive diffusion
spread far and wide a knowledge of their Scriptures, it was the prevalence,
throughout a large part of the Roman Empire, of the Greek language
that enabled them to do this. In the most distant provinces, indeed,
and doubtless in the rural districts of aU the provinces, native tongues
predominated among the masses of the people (cf. Acts xiv. 11). In
Judaea during the first century a.d. Aramaic (which had displaced Hebrew)
was still current. It was almost certainly the language spoken habitually
by our Lord, for various Aramaic phrases uttered by Him are preserved
(Boanerges, Talitha koum, Ephphatha, Eloi (or Eli), lama sabachthani) ; and
it was adopted by St. Paul when addressing a multitude at Jerusalem
(Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2). 2 The use of it is further attested by the occurrence
in the New Testament of words and names like Abba, Aceldama, Amen,
1 A Babylonian Jew called Ananias told Izates, son of Helena, queen of Adiabene,
that he might worship God without being ciroumcised (Jos. Ant. xx. 2, 4).
8 An Aramaic phrase, Maran atha (" Our Lord, come "), occurs in 1 Cor. xvi. 22.

80 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Corban, Gabbatha, Gehenna, Golgotha, Mammon, Raca ; and by personal
appellations such as Cephas, Martha, Tabitha, and the numerous class
containing the element bar (Barabbas, Bartholomew, Barnabas, Bartimceus).
It was even the medium for literary composition, for Josephus wrote in
it his History of the Jewish Wars, wliich he afterwards translated into
Greek. But notwithstanding the survival of this and other languages in
various districts within the Roman provinces, the Greek tongue was
understood and spoken almost everywhere by the educated classes, and
some acquaintance with it was possessed by numbers of the less educated,
since numerous slaves and freedmen were of Greek descent or drawn
from Greek-speaking regions. The conquests of Alexander had carried
Greek culture eastward and southward ; and when after his death Syria
and Egypt became respectively the kingdoms of the Seleucids and the
Ptolemies (p. 27), Greek speech and modes of thought penetrated even
among the ahen races living by the Orontes and the NUe. In Egypt, as
the evidence of recently found papyri shows, Greek was used with perfect
freedom by peasants, who at the same time talked and wrote their native
languages. The strongest opposition to the extension of Greek influence
came from the Jews of Palestine. But, as has been seen, HeUenic cities
were founded along, and even within, the Jewish borders (p. 26) ; Greek
words were stamped upon the money that circulated in the country ; and
the Aramaic-speaking population could scarcely have held commercial
or other intercourse with the peoples about them without being bilingual.
Greek influence in Palestine is also attested by the prevalence of Greek
names hke Andrew and Philip among our Lord's disciples, and Jesus
Himself, since He was able without an interpreter to converse with persons
who were not Jews (Mk. vii. 26), could probably, like many others, under
stand and use the Greek language. Among the Jews of the Dispersion
Greek must have been the vernacular tongue in which devotions were
conducted, those who thus habituaUy spoke Greek being styled Hellenists
(cf. Acts vi. 1). In Egypt the Old Testament Scriptures were translated
into Greek ; and in addition to this, books like the Wisdom of Solomon,
Susanna, the Song of the Three Holy Children, and others were composed
in Greek ; whilst the widespread use of the LXX outside Egypt is
evidenced by the fact that in most of the references to the Old Testament
occurring in the New Testament this version and not the original is quoted.
The extensive prevalence of Greek thus enabled the early preachers of
Christianity, though Jews by race and using Aramaic as their native
speech, to obtain a hearing from audiences of most diverse nationahties.
Latin was the only rival to Greek as a channel of communication
between different races and peoples ; but it was not a very serious rival,
except in the West, where it eventuaUy ousted the native tongues of
Gaul and Spain. The Romans seem to have made httle effort to diffuse
it in the East ; and though it was naturally employed there by Roman
officials in state documents and inscriptions, yet an announcement or
a record in Latin was generally accompanied by its equivalent in Greek.
Thus the monumentum Aneyranum, an aocount of the Roman Empire
drawn up by Augustus and found at Ancyra in Galatia, was composed

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 81
in Greek as well as Latin. Again; over our Lord's cross the superscription
was written not only in Latin and Hebrew (Aramaic) but in Greek hkewise.
In the Temple the warning to Gentiles not to enter the inner courts (p. 90)
was couched in Greek ; and it was in the same language that St. Paul
addressed the Roman tribunus militum (Acts xxi. 37). And the circum
stance that in the eastern part of the Empire the ruling authorities took
no steps to make Latin dispute for predominance with Greek witnesses
to the strong position occupied by the latter as a medium for practically
universal intercourse, as weU as to their own excellent sense in recognizing
the fact. Even at Rome itself the Christian Church which was established
there was as familiar with Greek as with Latin ; and when St. Paul ad
dressed an epistle to it, he wrote it in Greek. It was not at Rome, but
in the province of Africa that the need first arose for a Latin translation
of the Scriptures.
(iii) The rehgious unrest of the pagan world during the early centuries
of the Roman Empire contributed to the spread of Christianity, if not
directly at least indirectly, by creating an interest in it. The worship
of the traditional gods of Rome, though specially encouraged by Augustus
for State reasons, could not deeply influence the feelings or greatly move
the springs of conduct. Among the educated and thoughtful classes the
place of rehgion had been fiUed by the systems of different philosophers ;
but the masses to whom phUosophic reflection was uncongenial had, prior
to the first century B.C., no moral support but their current rehgious beliefs,
from which they could extract little to inspire hope ; and uneasy minds
had before them only a vague but alarming prospect of the pains of
Tartarus.1 There is small reason for wonder, therefore, that many whose
emotions were strong and whose consciences were sensitive, should have
yielded to the speU of the rehgions of the East and of Egypt, which taught
how the soul could be secured against the perils which the unseen future
might have in store. But before giving some account of the Oriental
cults which competed with Christianity, it is desirable to say something
about that feature in the State religion with which the Christian faith
came into deadly conflict, viz. the worship of the Roman Emperors ; and
to notice briefly two influential systems of philosophy.
The first suggestion in the direction of deifying a human being probably
came to Rome from outside ; but there already existed in Roman minds
an idea which prepared the way for its reception.2 This was the behef
in, and reverence for, the Genius, conceived as a spiritual counterpart,
accompanying each man through his hfe, and speciaUy concerned with
the perpetuation of his famUy and the maintenance of its welfare. From
a shghtly different point of view, it was a divine element which became
incarnate in successive generations, and which ensured the permanency
of the stock as contrasted with the transitoriness of individual fives. It
is obvious that the same idea could easUy be transferred from the individual
1 Cf. Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, i. Ill, Mlernas . . . pcenas in morte tvmen-
dum est.
2 See Warde Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity, pp. 81 f ., 107 f.
6

82 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and his race to the State. This also could be regarded as having its genius,
the source of its stability and prosperity. The massive strength of Rome,
the extraordinary good fortune which attended its enterprises, and the
authority attaching to its name or to the names of its official representa
tives could scarcely fail to make a great impression upon the provincials^
inducing a behef in some inseparable protective power that was more
than mortal ; and the awe which this behef created almost inevitably
found expression in acts of worship and adoration. A cult of the genius
of Rome had begun in the provinces as early as the second century b.c,
there being, for instance, a templum urbis Romce at Smyrna in 195. This
tendency to pay worship to the divinity of Rome would be intensified
through the estabhshment of the Empire. The substitution of order,
security, and peace for the social chaos, the massacres, and the confisca
tions of the preceding century must have led many to feel that in Augustus,
the author of so beneficent a change, there was inherent something divine.
Deification of human beings would be easiest, indeed, in the case of the
mighty dead, who had laid aside the infirmities of the flesh which linked
them so obviously to common men. Julius Caesar, for whom during
his lifetime Antony had proposed divine honours in 45 B.C., was the first
to be officially styled after his death Dims Julius, by an ordinance in
42 B.C. But from the deification of the dead to the worship of the hving
was only a step ; and the proneness of the human mind to desire some
concrete embodiment for an abstract conception would be gratified by
the thought of Divinity impersonated in the head of the State. Amongst
the Romans, indeed, the title Divus, used by a Roman Emperor, probably
did not mean that he was a Deity in the full sense, but merely that he was
worthy of the reverence and trust entertained towards the gods. And
even though the individual ruler might be contemptible, the principles of
Authority and Law for which he stood were deserving of veneration.
Moreover, in the provinces the less admirable side of the court-life at
Rome was lost in the distance separating them from the capital. The
Emperors themselves were naturally not blind to the advantage accruing
to their newly established imperial power from an attitude of adoration
on the part of the people towards the ruler of the state. The early
Emperors, however, were too sensible to aUow the cult of themselves to
run to extremes. Both Augustus and Tiberius would not let a temple he
dedicated to themselves during their lifetime in Rome itself, and only
permitted the raising of such in the Asiatic provinces (the first being built
at Pergamunl in honour of Rome and Augustus in 29 B.C.), though the
erection of temples in honour of Divus Julius was required at Ephesus
and Nicaea.1 Caligula, however, showed much less self-restraint, and
being intoxicated with vanity, was the first to promote vigorously the
deification of himself (p. 56). By Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, and Titus
the worship of the reigning Emperor was not enforced (though it may be
reasonably supposed that those who failed to render it, especiaUy in Asia
Minor, were always liable to persecution at the hands of local authorities).
1 Cf . Foakes-Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, Pt. I, p. 204.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 83
It was Domitian who first renewed the effort to compel his subjects to
pay him Divine honours ; and it was upon the Christians that the con
sequences of refusal pressed most heavUy. They had inherited the
monotheistic faith of the Jews, and some of the titles given to the Emperor,
such as Divi filius, were peculiarly abhorrent to those who beheved exclu
sively in the Divine Sonship of Christ. And whereas Judaism was a
religio licita, Christianity enjoyed no such toleration, and consequently
its adherents had no legal protection when they refused to render worship
to the Emperor — a refusal which could be treated as disloyalty to the
State as well as to its head. It is not surprising, therefore, that the
relations between the Christians and the Empire became, before the end
of the first century, very different from those subsisting earher, or that the
spirit in which the Emperor is referred to in the book of Revelation (xiii.
4 f ., 12, xiv. 9-11, xix. 20) contrasts strikingly with that which marks the
Epistles of St. Paul (Rom. xiii. 1-7, Tit. iii. 1 ; cf. also 1 Pet. ii. 13).
Among the thoughtful classes behef in the traditional mythology of
Rome was undermined by philosophy which, in general, substituted for
the conflicting wiUs of discordant divinities some unifying principle as an
explanation of nature and as a guide for human life. Here it is only
necessary to say something about the two philosophical schools which
are mentioned in the New Testament, namely Stoicism and Epicureanism:
Both were based on a materialistic view of the universe, but though they
started from similar premises, they differed widely in the practical con
clusions which they drew from them.
The founder of Stoicism was Zeno, a native of Cition in Cyprus,
who estabhshed about the end of the fourth century b.c a phUosophical
school which obtained its name from the place where he taught (the Stoa
Poecile, at Athens). The ethical teaching of the Stoics was a materialistic
pantheism. The ground-work of their system was the behef that the
only reality was matter, but that in matter there was an active, rational
principle, which was the source of all phenomena. This cosmic principle
they identified with God or Zeus, so that there subsisted a single Divine
entity beneath manifold diversity ; and just as from God all things came,
so to Him all things would ultimately return. Since God was the
immanent Reason pervading the universe, and mankind was part of
universal nature, men would attain to virtue through hving in accordance
with nature, regulated as this was by the Divine Reason. A good and wise
man would be indifferent to all external ills, for such iUs, being ordained
by God, could not really be evils. The basic materialism and fatahsm
of the system was thus qualified by the recognition of a moral order in
the world, by the admission of human freedom, and by behef in communion
between God. and man consequent upon the common possession of reason.
God was addressed in prayer, human effort was demanded, and human
duty and responsibihty were asserted. As the human will was free,
men could hve according to, or in defiance of, nature, just as they might
choose, and so could co-operate with, or oppose, the purpose of God of
wliich nature was the expression. There was even recognized a limited
immortality of the soul ; for the souls of good men were beheved to survive

84 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
until the return of all things into God, who at certain long intervals was
thought to re-absorb the Universe into Himself and then generate it
anew. Of all the Greek philosophies Stoicism had most points of contact
with Judaism, for hke Judaism it taught what in practice was mono
theism, though of a pantheistic type ; and Josephus was led to compare
it with Pharisaism (see p. 103). In regard to this comparison it is not
improbable that there was reaUy a Semitic element in Stoicism, which
has been described as the introduction into Greek philosophy of the
Semitic temperament and spirit. Zeno, its founder, was called the
Phoenician ; no less than six later Stoic teachers came from Tarsus ; and
two others from neighbouring Cihcian towns ; whilst others again were
natives of various places in Asia Minor, Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine.
St. Paul, who was not only brought up at Tarsus, but hved there after he
became a Christian (Acts ix. 30, xi. 25) probably gained there some
acquaintance with Stoic doctrine ; certainly his utterances present some
interesting paraUels to Stoic thought and language.1 In his speech at
Athens the Apostle quoted part of a verse from the Stoic poet Aratus
(Acts xvii. 28), who hke himself was a native of Cilicia. Nevertheless
there was a fundamental difference between the Stoic idea of God and
that of Judaism or Christianity, for whereas in the former a behef in the
Divine immanence was alone influential, in the latter this was supplemented
by a behef in the Divine transcendence, which ensured far more effectively
for ordinary minds a feeling of accountability to a Divine Judge ; whilst,
in addition, the self-sufficiency of most of the Stoic philosophers and their
unsympathetic temper were altogether ahen to the ideal Christian
character. Though the Stoics often spoke of God as a Father,2 they could
only do so at the cost of consistency ; and their system had no place for
a unique source of moral inspiration, such as Christians have in Christ.
Epicureanism, unlike Stoicism, had no Eastern affinities, but was
exclusively Greek. It originated with Epicurus, who, though born in
Samos (in 342 B.C.), was an Athenian by race and largely by residence.
His teaching was based on that of Democritus, whose determinist system
he modified in the interest of a doctrine of free wiU, with much resultant
loss of coherence. His theory of conduct rested, like that of the Stoics, upon
a materialistic theory of nature ; for he considered the world to be the
result of a clash of atoms which, falling downwards through space, swerved
shghtly, and so came into colhsion with one another, this initial swerve
not only occasioning ultimately the constitution of the physical universe,
but also explaining the existence of free-wUl in man. But the principle
recognized by Epicureanism as a guide to conduct was not, as in Stoicism,
accordance with nature conceived as an ordered system controUed by
reason, but the foUowing of such natural impulses and instincts as arise
1 The correspondence between the teaching of St. Paul and the maxims of the
Roman Stoic Seneca (the two were contemporaries) is especially close : see Lightfoot,
Philippians (1885), pp. 278-90.
2 Seneca described God as having a fatherly mind towards good men ; and Epic
tetus bade men consider all that belongs to God as belonging to a father.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 85
in the individual through sensation. Pleasure and pain, which are known
by immediate experience, were held to be the decisive criteria for deter
mining human behaviour, pleasure being the only good and pain the only
evU. Nevertheless, though pleasure was the end to be attained, it was
not necessarily the satisfaction of the moment that should be sought (for
this might be attended by disproportionate pain), but a stable condition
of mental and moral tranquillity. Hence temperance and self-control,
though not valued for themselves, were valued as means for reaching
the true end of life, which was, in theory, a surplus of pleasure over pain.
In regard to rehgion, Epicureanism did not deny the existence of the
gods, but only denied that mankind had anything to hope or fear from
them, for they were unconcerned for either the welfare or the woe of man.
After death no future hfe for man was possible, for the soul, being material,
perished with the body. As the earth was the sphere of conduct, so it
was the only scene of recompense and retribution for wise and for foohsh
behaviour.1 It will be seen that Epicureanism could, without inconsistency, advocate
the practice of several of the virtues ; but it was unable to supply a strong
stimulus to the pursuit of them. On the principle of Hedonism, which
constituted its foundation, it was always easy for individual disciples of
this school to reckon that the course of conduct to which their desires
impelled them would yield more pleasure than pain ; and in the absence
of a moral ideal, of the hope of a heaven, or of the fear of a hell, no
motive was afforded for the regulation of hfe other than the pressure of
the strongest impulse. Such a system at best could only produce a
balanced and placid frame of mind ; whUst upon gross natures its effect
tended to be disastrous, since it could readily be made to countenance
all kinds of self-indulgence and vice.
By numbers of people who were not attracted by phUosophical specula
tions emotional satisfaction was found in various religions that had their
origin in the East. These Eastern faiths were propagated by traders,
soldiers and slaves ; and when estabhshed in the Roman capital, they
were fostered by private associations (sodalitates), which were not only
religious confraternities but burial clubs. These embraced men of aU
nationalities and classes (for the countries in which they took their rise
had been absorbed by Rome and ceased to exist as independent pohties) ;
and so they tended to level the barriers between different races and ranks.
In this way they were inimical to patriotism ; but at the same time they
fostered in their votaries a sense of common humanity, and so prepared
men's minds for the conception of a universal religion replacing national
cults. The popularity which they enjoyed in the Early Empire was
occasioned by the appeal which the strangeness of their rites made to
the senses, the satisfaction which -they professed to give to the desire for
the removal of moral stains, and the assurance of safety which they
offered to souls dismayed at the prospect of death.
The most important of the cults from the East which, whilst competing
1 Cf. Lucretius, De Berum Natura, iii. 1025, Hi: Acherusia fit stultorum denigue
vita.

86 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
with Christianity in some respects, paved the way for its extension, were
those of Cybele and Attis, of the Eleusinian Mother (Demeter), of Isis and
Osiris, and of Mithras x ; whilst a rehgion which exercised much influence
upon thoughtful and spiritually-minded men was Judaism.
The worship of Cybele had been imported into Rome from Asia Minor
as early as the closing years of the second Punic War, when Attalus of
Pergamum, with the view of cementing friendship with the Romans,
presented to them in 204 B.C. a black fetish stone (perhaps of meteoric
origin) which was supposed to be the abode of the goddess. The worship
of the Great Mother (fuieydXrj fivrfg) as she was caUed, received, however,
little encouragement from the Roman authorities during the Republic,,
citizens being forbidden to enter her priesthood or to participate in her
rites ; and it was not untU the reign of Claudius that this prohibition was
withdrawn. The cult was of Phrygian origin, and was one of the many
developments of nature worship. Cybele was an earth-goddess, who
loved the youthful Attis, personifying the spirit of vegetation, mourned
over his death, and rejoiced when he revived. The cause of his death
was variously represented ; but according to one form of the myth, Cybele,
through jealousy, drove him mad, and in his frenzy he mutUated himself
at the foot of a pine-tree (which became his symbol). The goddess grieved
for him passionately, but after three days he returned to life, and her
grief was changed to joy. The day on which the death of Attis was
commemorated was marked by scenes of wUd and tumultuous sorrow ;
whilst the day that celebrated his return to life was characterized by
equally extravagant joy. But to this orgiastic nature-worship there
had come to be attached ethical and spiritual ideas. The restoration of
Attis from death became to his worshippers an assurance of their own
immortality after the termination of this life. Purification from sin
was a condition of this salvation, and was beheved to be effected through
a mystic baptism of blood (the taurobolium). A bull was sacrificed on
a platform built over an excavation in which the worshipper stood (as
in a grave), and when the animal was kUled, the blood poured down
upon him. The rite, no doubt, in origin goes back to a time when
the blood of some fierce and strong animal was thought to communicate
ferocity and strength to anyone who steeped himself in it ; but though
the repulsive immersion was retained, it came to be regarded as imparting
moral purity and not the animal's physical quahties. Another ceremony
practised in connexion with the worship of Attis also exhibits the spirit
ualizing of earlier crude conceptions. In primitive times the consumption
of food in common was believed to unite in a covenant men with men and
worshippers with their God, since they thereby became partakers in some
degree of the same physical nature. But when it ceased to be credible
that a divinity could eat material food, it was deemed sufficient for the
food eaten by his votaries to be brought into contact with his altar or his
emblem in order to effect the same union. Hence meat and drink con
secrated by having been contained in the tambourine which was among
1 See Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 87
the symbols of Attis were thought to be a means of communion with the
deity ; and the worshipper who partook became a mystic of Attis, and
was by the god sustained in his spiritual trials.
The Eleusinian mysteries (derived from Attica), in which worship
was offered to Demeter (the Corn Mother) and Gore or Persephone (the
Corn Maiden), were also marked by a sacrament. The worshippers
annuaUy partook of a posset of meal and water, representing the body
of the Corn goddess ; and this act renewed the bond uniting them to their
deity, as weU as the bond uniting them one to another. The meal likewise
purified them, and enabled them to see without danger the ear, or sheaf,
of corn which was believed to be the Corn Mother upon whose favour
the next harvest depended. Participation in, and abstention from,
these mysteries were held to be attended by rewards and punishments
both in this life and in the next. In the course of time ethical ideas
qualified the purely ceremonial aspect which the .mysteries first presented ;
and when Orphic doctrines were blended with them, there was developed
the behef that the retribution of the next life was spiritually and not merely
rituaUy conditioned.
The rehgion of Isis and Osiris came from Egypt. It spread into
Italy from the Mediterranean islands in the first century B.C. (there being
Collegia devoted to the worship of Egyptian deities in the time of Sulla)
and was at first regarded by the Roman Senate with grave disapproval,
owing to the corruption of morals which attended it. But after the death
of Caesar a temple was buUt to Isis and Serapis (a title of Osiris, as god of
the lower world) by the triumvirs for the sake of popularity ; and in the
reign of Cahgula it enjoyed imperial favour, whUst its character in some
measure underwent a transformation. The ablutions, which, were a
conspicuous feature in Egyptian ritual, and which at first were practised
with a view to physical purity, came to be regarded later as conducive
to the removal of moral stains. Physical abstinence and self-mortification
were .also beheved to expiate sins and to render the worshipper fitter for
approach to the deity (cf. Juv. Sat. vi. 523 f ., 537 f .). The cult also fostered
a belief in a future life. Osiris, like Attis, had been restored from the dead
after he had been slain by Set ; and celebration of his revival to life,
which took place in the autumn, was attended by emotional outbursts on
the part of the worshippers, similar to those whieh accompanied the
festival of Attis (p. 86). To the votaries qf the god, a future existence
of happiness was assured through initiation into certain mysteries, wherer
by they became assimUated to the Divine object of their devotion ; and
the prominence which was given to rthe hope of immortality was /the
principal reason for the .attraction which the religion: of Isis had for many.
Mithraism had its origin in Persia, Mithras being a sun-god, who in
some unexplained way had displaced Ahuramazdah (p. 22). It? pre
valence in Asia Minor is attested by the name Mifhradates occurring in
the list of the kings of more than one State. Although it reached Home
before .the ;Ohristian.era, it did not become influential there until two qr
three centuries later. Like the earher form of the Persian religion (p. 22),
it recognized two antagonistic powers, one of hght and good, and -the

88 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
other of darkness and evil, each controUing a host of spirits who were the
agencies that brought about the blessings and the calamities experienced
by mankind. Mithras seems to have been the leader of the armies of
light, and he stood perhaps to Ahuramazdah as ApoUo stood to Zeus. In
the perpetual conflict between the powers of good and evil men were
expected to take their part. The human soul was the scene of an inward
struggle corresponding to the greater struggle without, so that, as com
pared with many contemporary rehgions, Mithraismwas morally stimulat
ing. Its division of the world, into two mutuaUy hostUe camps was a
conception that speciaUy appealed to the fighting spirit in men, and made
it a rehgion that was particularly popular amongst Roman soldiers, whose
sympathies it also enlisted by the stress it laid upon truthfulness and
fidelity. Unlike so many Eastern religions, it gave no honour to the
female sex, and no woman's name is said to be found among its votaries.
It had its mysteries, into which the devout were admitted by successive
stages ; and the taurobolium, which was borrowed from the rehgion of
Cybele, had a place in its ritual. It, hke other religions, also encouraged
its foUowers to beheve in a future life which was enjoyed by the souls of
the righteous (after they had been tried by Mithras) in the celestial realms
of hght. A feature in these cults deserving notice is the apphcation of the term
Lord (xvgiog) to some of the deities worshipped in them. For instance,
in many recently discovered papyri the title is given to Serapis, whose
worshipper, when thanking him for having preserved him from peril,
or when inviting friends to supper in the god's temple, describes him as
the Lord Serapis. This, though it is not likely to have originated the
Christian practice of calling Jesus " Lord," may possibly have contributed
to the extension of it.
The interest of these religions for the study of the New Testament is
not merely the circumstance that they were symptomatic of certain
spiritual emotions and aspirations to which Christianity, when it entered
tne world, was able to appeal, but the fact that they were marked by
various features of ritual and teaching which occur also in the worship
and doctrine of the Church. It is especiaUy to Christianity as it is pre
sented in the writings of St. Paul that they offer resemblance. The
significance attached to sacraments, and the idea of a new birth and of a
union between the worshipper and the divinity worshipped, which were
effected by means of them, have their paraUels in his Epistles ; and it is
an important question how far his exposition of the Christian faith was
influenced by his acquaintance with these rehgions, which had their
followers among the GentUe peoples to whom he preached (p. 654). But
apart from the difference of moral standard distinguishing Christianity
from even the best of the heathen cults, the former had as its object of
worship and imitation not a shadowy mythical figure but an historic
character, whose life and teaching were sufficiently weU known through
trustworthy traditions handed down by a continuous succession of believers
from the time of His activity on earth.1
1 See Deissmann, St. Paul, p. 117.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE 89
In addition to the other Oriental religions just described Judaism
could not fail to have likewise an attraction for many persons in the Western
world, especiaUy the more reflective classes. The extent of the Jewish
Dispersion (see p. 77 f.) naturaUy spread widely some knowledge of the
leading characteristics of the Jewish faith, and afforded to the Jews
themselves exceptional scope for the propagation of their religious
principles. Various features, indeed, of the rehgious usages of the Jews
excited ridicule, especiaUy their abstention from the flesh of swine, their
practice of circumcision, and their rigid observance of the Sabbath ;
whUst their exclusiveness excited against them much hostile feeling.
Nevertheless, to rehgious minds, dissatisfied with the polytheism and
idolatry of current beliefs and the immorality of the age, there was much
in Judaism that was calculated to make a strong appeal. Its strict
monotheism, the absence in the practice of its worship of any image or
symbol of the Deity, its Scriptures purporting to contain a Divine revela
tion, and the behef in another life, which, though not universally accepted
by the Jews themselves (p. 101), yet had the adhesion of a powerful section
among them, were bound to arrest the attention of serious and earnest
thinkers. And although in the case of many such, the burdensome
requirements of the Jewish Law prevented them from becoming proselytes,
yet it was possible to adopt the monotheistic and spiritual faith of the
Jews without being circumcised or actuaUy joining the Jewish community.
Accordingly a considerable number of non-Jews attached themselves by
a loose tie to the Jewish religion, frequenting the synagogues and observing
the moral, and some of the ceremonial, rules of the Law. These constituted
the class described in Acts as " devout " and " God-fearing " persons
(x. 2f., xiii. 16, 26, 50, xvi. 14, xvii. 4, 17, xviii. 7). Although, indeed, in
one passage (xiii. 43) the expression " devout proselytes " is actuaUy
employed, it seems clear that this must be used with some inexactness.
That the " God-fearers " aUuded to were not really persons who accepted
the whole Jewish Law seems proved by the fact that the description
evaefSrjg xai tpofiov/ievog xov deov is applied to the Roman Cornelius (Acts x. 2,
cf . v. 35), who is definitely stated not to have been circumcised (xi. 3). The
familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures which this class acquired through
their attendance at the Synagogues would render them more accessible to
the arguments of the early Christian preachers than the heathen to whom
the Scriptures were wholly strange ; so that probably they constituted
a large proportion of the first GentUe converts to Christianity.

IV
JEWISH INSTITUTIONS
(a) The Organization of Worship, Teaching, and
Discipline
The Temple
THE Temple in existence during the period covered by the New
Testament was the Third, having been buUt by Herod the Great.
Possibly Herod's structure was a renewal of Zerubbabel's Temple
(p. 14), embellished and enriched, and furnished with more extensive
courts. The Third Temple, like its predecessors, was buUt on the eastern
of the two hills which Jerusalem at this time occupied (p. 10) and over
looked the Kidron. Adjoining on the north rose the castle of Antonia
(p. 11), manned by a Roman garrison, which was thus in a position to
interfere at once in the event of any rioting in the vicinity (cf . Acts xxi. 32).
The fabric of the Temple was surrounded by three courts, and as the
middle one of the three was subdivided into two halves, there may he
said to have been four in aU. AU the courts were roofless enclosures
(except so far as they had cloisters).
1. On the outside of all was a large court 500 cubits square, into which
GentUes were admitted, as weU as Jews,1 and which was styled, in conse
quence, the Court of the Gentiles. The waUs of this were bordered on the
inside by cloisters, of which that on the east was known as Solomon's
porch, or portico (Acts iii. 11, v. 12). It was in this court (from which
access was gained to the castle of Antonia by a flight of stairs, Acts xxi.
35-40) that cattle and birds were sold for sacrificial purposes, and foreign
money changed (Mk. xi. 15) ; whilst in its cloisters teachers used to sit
or walk whilst instructing their disciples (cf. Mk. xi. 27, xii. 35, Mt. xxvi.
55). 2. Within this external court was an interior court of oblong shape,
with its longer axis running east and west. This was situated on higher
ground than the outer court, and was separated from the latter by a
stone parapet about 5 feet high, beyond which no Gentile was aUowed
to penetrate on pain of death.2 Tablets were placed along the parapet,
warning trespassers of the fate to which they were hable ; and one of these
1 This is the ^ oi)Xt) tj ^u8ev rov xaoil of Rev. xi. 2.
8 It is to this that St. Paul alludes in Eph. ii. 14.
90

Court of
tKe Priests

Court i , .
Court
of the 2 of the
Israeli, i Women

Court of the Gentiles

C.E.R.

PLAN OF HERODS TEMPLE

1 Solomon's Porch
2 Nicanor or Beautiful Gate
3 Altar of Burnt Offering

4> Porch of the Temple
5 /fo/jr P/ace
6 Ho/jr of Holies

7 Meeting Place of the Sanhedrin

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 91
has been found in recent years, bearing the inscription : firjQeva aXXoyevfj
slgrcogeveoOai ivxdg rov negl rd iegov xgvcpdtetov xai negifioXov, og d'av
XrjcpQfj iavxcp atxiog soxai did rd i£axoXovdsTv Odvarov. The inner court
itself was divided by a second waU into two halves: (a) an eastern
half, caUed the Court of the Women, because Jewish women as well as
men were aUowed to enter it ; and (b) a western half, more elevated than
the other, and styled the Court of the Israelites, only male Jews being
admitted to it. Entrance into the last was gained by nine gates, four
on the north and south and one on the east (opening from the Court of
the Women and caUed the Beautiful Gate, Acts hi. 2, 10). Round the
Court of the Women ran a series of colonnades, and under these were
placed receptacles shaped like ram's horns and numbering 13, which
were designed for receiving offerings bestowed for religious purposes.
This part of the Court was in consequence caUed the Treasury (Mk. xii.
41, Joh. viii. 20).
3. Inside the court of the Israehtes, on a stiU higher level, was an
innermost court, caUed the Court of the Priests, into which lay persons
were only permitted to enter for special purposes (such as certain rites
connected with sacrifice). This court formed an enclosure within which
the Temple itself was constructed. In the court, and in front of the
Temple, there stood the altar of burnt-offering (on the north of which was
the place where the victims were slaughtered and dressed) and the brazen
laver where the priests washed before discharging their duties. The
altar, made of unhewn stone, was 15 feet high and 48 feet square.
The actual Temple stood on ground rising above the level of the sur
rounding court, and was approached by twelve steps. It resembled, in
general plan, that built by Solomon, and hke the latter was 60 cubits long
and 20 cubits broad on the inside ; but must have greatly exceeded it in
height. Without, on three sides there were chambers arranged in 'three
stories, up to a height of 60 cubits ; but above these chambers the central
structure rose to an additional height of 40 cubits, containing an upper
chamber of equal area with the space below ; so that externally the
building was 100 cubits high in ah.1 The area of the surrounding chambers,
and the thickness of the various walls, must have made the exterior length
of the Temple 85 cubits, and the exterior breadth 70 cubits. At the
east end there was a porch 11 cubits deep, and of the same height as
the main building, but projecting 15 cubits beyond each of the external
waUs of the latter. The total length of the fabric (including the porch)
was, hke its height, 100 cubits^2 From the porch access was gained
to the building through a vast gateway without a door. The Temple
itself was divided within into two compartments, the Holy Place (40 X 20
cubits), on the east, and the Most Holy Place (20 X 20 cubits) on the
west. From the porch the Holy Place was separated by a veil ; whilst
from the Holy Place the Most Holy Place was marked off by two veils.
Within the former were the golden altar of Incense, the golden table of

1 Josephus, B.J. v. 6, 5.
8 On the dimensions of the Temple see Hastings,\D.i?, iv. pp. 714-5.

92 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
•Shewbread, and a seven-branched golden lamp-stand; whilst the latter,
constituting the innermost sanctuary, was entirely empty. Entrance into
the Holy Place was confined to Priests, whilst into the Most Holy Place
the High Priest alone penetrated once every year, on the Day of Atone
ment. Neither division was lit by windows.
The term rd iegov was sometimes apphed comprehensively to the
whole enclosure comprising the courts as weU as the actual structure of
the Temple (see Mk. xi. 16, Lk. ii. 37, 46, Acts xxi. 26, 27) ; and sometimes
designated the latter exclusively (see Mt. iv. 5 ( = Lk. iv. 9), xii. 6). The
Temple building was strictly termed 6 va6g (Mt. xxiii. 35, xxvn. 40, Lk. i.
9, 21) ; but this word is used irregularly in Mt. xxvn. 5 for one of the
Temple courts. The Priesthood and its Duties
The idea behind the conception of Priesthood in antiquity seems to
have been the possession of the special knowledge requisite for propitiating
the Deity, and offering acceptable service to Him (see 2 Kg. xvii. 24-28).
In an age when such service consisted mainly in external rites and practices,
and the arts of reading and writing were not widely diffused, acquaintance
with the right method of conducting worship would tend to be restricted
to certain experienced persons who were famUiar with it through fanuly
traditions, and. whose knowledge would be oraUy transmitted to their pos
terity. This was the case among the Hebrews. Before the ExUe, though
probably not in the earliest times, the priesthood was confined to the
tribe of Levi ; but in the post-exilic period the priestly office was legally
restricted to one Levitical famUy — the house of Aaron. Hence, when
the essential qualification for the priesthood was descent from Aaron, it
was of the utmost importance to establish this by carefuUy preserved
pedigrees. But though all descendants of Aaron were theoreticaUy on the same
level, this was not the case in practice. It was from certain families
only that the High Priests were commonly chosen ; and those who were
thus distinguished occupied a much higher rank than the rest. The
title High (Heb. Great) Priest seems to have originated in post-exilic
times, being used by the prophets Haggai (i. 1) and Zechariah (iii. 1) and
in the priestly code of the Pentateuch (Lev. xxi. 10) but rarely elsewhere.
In pre-exilic times the principal member of the sacerdotal order seems to
have been caUed simply the priest (2 Kg. xi. 9, Is. viii. 2), or the head
priest (2 Kg. xxv. 18). During the early monarchy he was removable
by the sovereign (1 Kg. ii. 26, 27) ; but in the post-exilic period his office
gradually became tenable for life. Under the Roman rule, however,
this arrangement ceased to prevail, and the High Priests were appointed
and deposed at the discretion of the secular authority. During their tenure
of the position, they were not only the rehgious heads of the nation but
exercised great secular power as weU. In consequence of the frequency
with which the office changed hands there was always a number of persons
who, though not discharging its duties, yet retained the title of it ; and
since (as has been said) the High Priests were usuaUy selected from a small

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 93
number of families, the same title (ol dgxiegelg, Mk. xv. 1, Mt. xxi. 15 x)
seems to have been also apphed comprehensively to the members of those
famUies. The rehgious duties specially required of the High Priest were
to offer sacrifices on various important occasions, such as the annual
feasts, and particularly on the Day of Atonement ; and he seems to have
been accustomed to officiate on the Sabbaths, and on the festivals of
the New Moon (Jos. B.J. v. 5, 7) The rest of his time was occupied with
the discharge of civil duties (p 92). Three High Priests are named in
the New Testament, Annas, Caiaphas, and Ananias (Lk. iii. 2, Joh. xviii.
13, Acts xxiii. 2).
Next in rank was the Captain of the Temple (6 orgarrjydg rov legov,
Acts v. 24) 2 whose function it was to preserve order in the Temple and its
neighbourhood. He was a priest, and bore in Hebrew the title of ruler
of the house of God (Neh. xi. 11). Other officials who acted under the
authority of the captain of the Temple bore a title like his, and were called
axgaxrjyol (Lk. xxii. 4, 52). These had under them numerous watchmen
(Levites) who attended to the opening and closing of the gates ; and kept
guard over the valuable treasures often stored in the Temple (cf . Jos. B.J.
vi. 5, 2 ff. ; see p. 44). There were also officials (treasurers) who had charge
of the large sums of money that were contributed for rehgious purposes.
The chief of such officials was naturally a person of much importance.3
The power and influence of the Priesthood was greatly increased by
the augmentation of their emoluments, as enjoined in the Priestly code,
which far exceeded those prescribed in the earher code of Deuteronomy.
Over and above a large share of various sacrifices, both pubhc and
private, there were given to the priests the first fruits of certain products
of the soil, the first-born of animals (or a sum of money in substitution)
and a proportion of the tithes (the rest going to the Levites). By the
more rehgious part of the population the tithes of even garden herbs were
paid with the greatest scrupulousness (cf. Mt. xxiii. 23). The expenses
of the services of the Temple were defrayed by a poll-tax of half a shekel
levied upon every male Hebrew above the age of twenty years (Ex. xxx.
13) and by voluntary gifts. For the coUection of the latter there existed
within the Temple* in the Court of the Women, the trumpet-shaped chests
mentioned on p. 91.
Of the numerous sacrifices offered in the Temple the two that were in
some ways the most significant were (1) the " continual " burnt-offering,
presented twice every day, at dawn and in the evening ; (2) the sacrifice
of the Day of Atonement. The interruption of the first, both in the
persecution of Antiochus /Epiphanes (Dan. viii. 11) and in the siege of
Jerusalem by the Romans (Jos. B.J. vi. 2, 1, see p. 59) was most acutely
felt. The victim was a lamb, the blood of which was dashed on the altar
1 The R.V. disguises the identity of the title by the rendering chief priests instead
of High Priests. The high priests are described as " the rulers " (ol apxovres) in
Acts iv. 5, but distinguished from them in Lh. xxiii. 13, xxiv. 20.
2 See Jos. B.J. vi. 5, 3.
" The principal treasurer was of sufficient dignity to form, with the High Priest,
part of a deputation to the Emperor Nero (Jos. Ant. xx. 8, 11).

94 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of burnt-offering, whilst the flesh was burnt. The second was of annual
occurrence, and was marked by two exceptional features. Two goats
were set apart, one for Jehovah, and the other for Azazel, a demon beheved
to haunt the desert. The first was sacrificed and its blood sprinkled on
the Mercy seat (or Propitiatory) in the Holy of Hohes, which the High
Priest entered on this occasion only. The second, after an acknowledg
ment of the people's offences had been made over it, was sent away into
the wilderness to carry with it symbohcaUy the national sins that had been
confessed by the priest. The days on which the annual feasts and fasts
were held, were as follows : — •
(a) The Passover on the fourteenth day of the First Month (Nisan =
Mar.-Ap.). (b) The feast of Unleavened Bread on the seven days immediately
following the Passover (Nisan 15-21).
(c) The feast of Weeks (Pentecost), on the fiftieth day after the second
day of Unleavened Bread.1
(d) The feast of Trumpets, on the first day of the Seventh Month
(Tishri = Sept.-Oct.).
(e) The Day of Atonement (a universal fast), on the tenth day of the
Seventh Month.
(f) The feast of Tabernacles, on the fifteenth day of the Seventh Month.
(g) The feast of Dedication, on the twenty-fifth day of the Ninth Month
(Chislev = Nov.-Dec), see p. 32.
(h) The feast of Purim, on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the
Twelfth Month (Adar = Feb.-Mar.).
Besides the fast on the Day of Atonement, fasts were also observed
in the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months in commemoration of the
overthrow of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Zech. viii. 19, cf . vii. 5, Jer.
xxxix. 2) ; and in the time of our Lord individual Jews of a strict type
also fasted twice a week (Lk. xviii. 12).
The Synagogue
The word synagogue means primarily " an assembly," but came to
mean secondarily a " place of assembly " for the purpose of rehgious
worship. The origin of synagogues must go back to tie earhest post-
exilic times. Inasmuch as some twenty-five years before the overthrow
of the kingdom of Judah, Josiah had confined aU sacrifices to one central
sanctuary, namely Jerusalem (in accordance with the directions of Deuter
onomy), the Jews, when they returned from captivity to their own country,
naturaUy maintained the same restriction and practised sacrificial worship
in the Temple only.2 This limitation of sacrifices to a single locality
caused religious devotion to seek satisfaction in other directions. The
1 In calculating the date of Pentecost from the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it
has to be remembered that the Hebrew months were lunar. Pentecost fell early
in the Third Month (Sivan = May-June).
8 In the sixth century B.C., however, an altar for sacrifice existed at the Jewish
settlement of Yeb (Elephantine) in Egypt.

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 95
suspension, during the period of exile in a foreign land, of the sacrificial
system confined pubhc worship to the reading" and exposition of the Scrip
tures (or at least to those parts which were then in existence) and united
prayer ; and though the offering of sacrifice in the Temple at Jerusalem
was resumed after the Return, the practices which had for a whole replaced
it were not discontinued. A single allusion in the Old Testament to
synagogues appears to occur in the present Hebrew text of Ps. lxxiv. 8,
" they (the enemy) have burnt up all the synagogues (hteraUy " appointed
places ") of God in the Land " ; but as the LXX has Asvre xai xaxanavaco/uev
rag iogxdg Kvgiov ano rrjg yr\g, it is very doubtful whether the apparent
allusion is a real one. But be this as it may, the need for appropriate
buildings where pubhc prayer could be offered and rehgious instruction
could be given was bound to arise when in the course of time the majority
of the Jewish people hved at a distance from Jerusalem. Synagogues
existed not only in the towns of Palestine (cf . Mk. i. 21, vi. 2) but in most
of the important cities of the Roman empire (Acts ix. 2, xvii. 17, xviii. 7,
etc.). In Jerusalem itself they were numerous, serving the needs not only
of natives of the capital, but of such Jews as, though resident elsewhere,
were sojourners in the city ; and reference is made in particular to those
of the Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cihcians and Asians as weU as of a body
of freedmen (Acts vi. 9). At Philippi, where the Jewish community was
perhaps small, mention is made not of a synagogue, but merely of a place
of prayer (ngoaevyfj, i.e. olxog ngooevyfjg).
Though there seems to have been no uniform practice in regard to
the choice of a site for a synagogue, the account of St. Paul's visit to the
proseucha at Phihppi, which he expected to find near a riverside (Acts
xvi. 13), suggests that, where possible, they were built close to streams,
perhaps for the convenience of obtaining the water needed for lustrations.
In plan the buildings varied ; at Capernaum, for instance, a synagogue
of which ruins remain had a double colonnade running down the centre.1
Of the furniture of a synagogue the principal articles were a chest, where
the copies of the Scriptures, wrapt in cloths, were kept, seats of honour
near it, a platform (or tribune) with a lectern, seats for the male congrega
tion, a gallery for women, lamps fpr lighting the building, and horns and
trumpets for blowing on festivals.
In places where a large population was entirely or mainly Jewish, and
where a considerable measure of local independence was allowed by the
foreign power to which the Jews were subject, the management of the
synagogue was in the hands of the same body of elders that directed civil
affairs. It is these elders who are presumably designated as ol ag%ovxeg
in Acts xiv. 5.2 Elsewhere the elders of the synagogue possessed authority
only over religious matters, and were in consequence quite distinct from
the civU magistrates of the locahty. There were no ministers formally
appointed to conduct the services, but there were particular officials
empowered to superintend them. These officials were (1) the " ruler of
1 See Edersheim, Life and Times, etc., i. p. 434.
8 Cf . the reading Of D. in Acts xiv. 2 oi Apxurvvayuyol run TovSaliav ical ol d/rxovres
rijs ffvvayaryijs.

96 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the synagogue " 1 (dgxiovvaycoydg), whose function it was to decide who
should take part in the service, to maintain order, and to prevent breaches
of the Mosaic Law (cf . Lk. xiii. 14) ; (2) the attendant (vjirjgexrig), who had
charge of the building and its furniture, handed the copies of the Scriptures
to the persons who were selected to read them (Lk. iv. 17, 20), and caUed
upon a priest, if present, to pronounce the concluding Blessing. The
service (at which alms were collected) was divided between different
members of the congregation. The several parts were as foUows : (1) the
recitation of three short sections from the Pentateuch, Dt. vi. 4-9, xi. 13-21,
Num. xv. 37-41 (the whole being styled from the opening word (" Hear ")
of the first (Dt. vi. 4), the Shema) ; (2) a series of Eighteen Blessings
(called the Shemoneh Esreh, the Hebrew for "eighteen"); (3) prayer;
(4) two Lessons, one from the Law and the other from the Prophets, which
included the Historical books (cf. Acts xiii. 15, xv. 21, Lk. iv. 17) ; (5) an
exposition of the Scripture read ; (6) the blessing, pronounced by a priest
(if one was present), but changed to a prayer if there was none. The
attitude adopted by those who offered prayer and read the lessons was
standing (cf. Lk. iv. 16), but the preacher who dehvered the exposition
sat. The lesson from the Law was fixed, the whole of the Pentateuch
being read through in a cycle of three years ; but the lesson from the
Prophets was left to the choice of the reader (cf. Lk. iv. 16, 17). As
Hebrew was little understood by the mass of the people even in Palestine,
the lessons, as they were read, were translated by an interpreter into
Aramaic wherever this was current, whilst amongst the Dispersion proh-
bably the Septuagint translation was used. The principal service took
place on the forenoon of the Sabbath ; but there were also shorter services
on the afternoon of the Sabbath, on Mondays and on Fridays. From
what has been said, it will be seen that though the synagogue was primarily
a house of prayer, it was also a place of instruction in the Scriptures,2
The elders of the synagogue had the right of exercising discipline over
its members ; and offenders were punished by exclusion, which might he
either temporary or permanent (Joh. xvi. 2) ; and the penalty was greatly
dreaded (Joh. ix. 22, xii. 42). It appears also that the elders had the
power of inflicting chastisement by scourging (Mt. x. 17, Mk. xiii. 9,
Acts xxii. 19), this sentence being probably carried out by the vnrjgexrjg,
For the conviction of a person the evidence of at least two witnesses was
required (see Dt. xix. 15, cf. Mt. xviii. 16, xxvi. 60, 2 Cor. xiii. 1).
The Scribes
The class of professional copyists and teachers of the Law, who were
designated by the names of Scribes or Lawyers (see p. 17), came into
existence after the Return from the Captivity. The origin and develop-
1 There were sometimes more than one (Mk. v. 22, Acts xiii. 15), the title being
perhaps retained by those who had once held the office.
8 The Jewish practice of reading Lessons at meetings for public worship was
adopted by the Christian Church, communications from Apostles and others being
read on such occasions (see Col. iv. 16, 1 Thes. v. 27, Rev. i. 3, and cf. Eus. H.E. iv.
23).

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 97
ment of such a class is readUy exphcable from the circumstances of that
period, and by the conditions prevailing in subsequent centuries, (a)
The disuse of Hebrew amongst the mass oil the people and its replacement
by Aramaic called for a body of persons capable of understanding the
Hebrew Scriptures and translating them into the current form of speech.
(6) The intricacy of a legislative system of which the several parts originated
at times widely separate from one another (p. 16) demanded the skiU of
a professional order to explain its provisions, (c) As the Jewish people
grew in numbers and were more and more widely diffused, the multiplica
tion of copies of the Law and the other Scriptures, the reading of which
entered into the synagogue services (p. 96), became increasingly important.
(d) The apphcation of the principles of the Law to every department of
life, with a view to emphasizing the difference between Jew and Gentile,
could not be accomplished without the help of trained expositors, able
to show how regulations should be fulfilled in a number of cases that had
not been contemplated when they were originaUy enacted. As new needs
arose to which the principles of the Mosaic legislation had to be adjusted,
there was wanted a system of oral comments more flexible than the
fixed rules of the written code.
The decisions of the Scribes respecting the meaning and requirements
of the Law had to be confirmed by the Sanhedrin (on which they had
representatives, p. 99) before they became binding ; but the respect
paid to their interpretations was such that sanction to their rulings was
customarily granted. In Jerusalem the Scribes met, for mutual con
sultation and for the communication of instruction to others, in some of
the cloisters within the outer courts of the Temple (p. 90). It was in
these that our Lord is represented by St. Luke as hstening to them (Lk.
ii. 46), and in these He Himself afterwards came into conflict with them
in the course of His teaching (Mt. xxi. 23, Joh. xviii. 20). The method
of instruction adopted was the constant repetition by the pupil of what
was imparted, the exposition of the Law as transmitted or originated
by the Scribes being dehvered oraUy and not written down.1 A Scribe,
before he was aUowed to teach pubhcly, had to be formally admitted
into the body of professional teachers of the Law a ; and with a view to
becoming qualified, an aspirant to inclusion in the order had to become a
pupU of some distinguished Rabbi. It was in accordance with this
practice that St. Paul came from his native town Tarsus to be trained at
Jerusalem under Gamaliel (Acts xxii. 3). In the interpretation of the
Scriptures there was room for differences of opinion ; and as a result
the decisions of famous Scribes were adopted by bodies of disciples, who
thus constituted Schools, called after their masters' names. Of such schools
the two best known were those that perpetuated the teaching of Rabbi
HUlel and Rabbi Shammai (contemporaries of Herod the Great). Since
it was held to be derogatory to the Law to make the study of it a means
1 The ideal student was one who like a water-tight cistern allowed nothing to
escape from his mind that was once put into it.
2 Morrison, Tlie Jews under the Romans, p. 286.
7

98 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of livelihood, every Scribe was expected to foUow some secular occupation.
Hence Hillel, mentioned above, was a hewer of wood ; others of almost
equal reputation were needle-makers, bakers, and tailors ; whilst St. Paul
was a weaver of Cilician tent-cloth.
In virtue of their profession great respect was both claimed for, and
rendered to, the Scribes, for the profound reverence felt for the Law was
naturally extended to its expounders, since the traditions of which they
were the channel were considered to have been derived from God no less
than the written Law itself. They were saluted by the title of Rabbi or
Rabboni (both meaning " my master ") ; and were accorded by the
populace various tokens of distinction. The deference thus paid to them
inevitably had upon those who were ambitious an injurious effect, fostering
in them a spirit of pride and ostentation, and creating in the unprincipled
a tendency to hypocrisy (Mk. xii. 38—40). And since the general trend
of their teaching was to treat the ethical and ceremonial regulations of
the Law as of equal importance, and, by insisting upon the observance
of the minutest details, to sacrifice the spirit of it to the letter, their
influence upon rehgion was often pernicious (Mt. xv. 3-6, xxiii. 16
foil.). Nevertheless, just as the Law could develop virtues of high
excellence, so among the professional teachers of it there were sincere
and noble characters (see Mk. xii. 34).
The Scriptures which in the time of our Lord constituted the subject
of the Scribes' studies were those included in the Canon of the Old Testa
ment. They were divided into three divisions, (1) the Law (consisting
of the Pentateuch), (2) the Prophets (subdivided into (a) the Former
Prophets, comprising the Historical books of Joshua, Judges, 1, 2 Samuel,
1, 2 Kings, and (6) the Latter Prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezclkl
and the Twelve Minor Prophets (the last being included in a single book) ) ;
(3) the Hagiographa or Writings (consisting of Psalms, Proverbs, Jab,
The Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel,
Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles). Of these three divisions (cf. Lk. xxiv.
44) the first was regarded as of the highest importance and value. But
though the Pentateuch was invested with pre-eminence, the other books
were held to be also Divine (cf. Mt. i. 22, Heb. i. 1), and the term " Law,"
indeed, was often extended so as to include them. iThus a .passage ifrom
the Psalms was cited by our Lord as " written in the Law " (Joh. x. 34) ;
and a quotation from Isaiah is simUarly represented by St. Paul as con
tained in the Law (1 Cor. xiv. ,21).
The body of expository and supplementary traditions which the
Scribes attached to the legislative parts of the Pentateuch was known as
the Halacha. This determined the manner in which the injunctions of
the Law were to be observed under varying circumstances, and how
difficulties arising out of its .obsourity or want of explicitness were to
be solved. The body of comments which accumulated around the narra
tive section of the Pentateuch and around the historical and prophetical
books was styled the Haggafla. This consisted of edifying ihustrationa
and imaginative expansions of those portions qf the Scriptures .which dealt
with the past fortunes and with the future destiny of Israel. Thus, for

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 99
example, the history of Abraham was enlarged by describing how he was
the first to teach men that there was only one God, the Creator of tiie
Universe, and how for this the people of Chaldea raised a tumult against
him (Jos. Ant. i. 2, 3 ; 7, 1). Numerous statements contained in the
New Testament for which no authority exists in the Old Testament seem
to be really drawn from the traditions included in the Haggada, such as
Acts vii. 22 (Moses' training in Egyptian wisdom), Acts vii. 53, Gal. iii. 19
(the Law ordained by angels), Gal. iv. 29 (persecution of Isaac by Ishmael),
1 Cor. x. 4 (the Rock that followed the Israelites in the wUderness), 2
Cor. xi. 14 (Satan fashioned as an angel of light), xii. 2 (number of heavens),
2 Tim. iii. 8 (Jannes and Jambres), Heb. xi. 37 (Isaiah (?) sawn asunder),
Jude 9 (dispute between Michael and the Devil for the bpdy of Moses).
In general the tendency of the Scribes in their exposition of Scripture was
to sacrifice history to edification. Hence narratives historical in charac
ter, or purporting to be such, were frequently aUegorized to the neglect
of the writer's original intention ; and the practice is foUowed by St.
Paul in Gal. iv. 22-25.
The Sanhedrin
The term Sanhedrin was an Aramaic adaptation of the Greek word
owedgiov, meaning a council or assembly. There existed among the
Jews more than one body denoted by the word ; for there was a great
owedgiov and two lesser owedgia ; but the title Sanhedrin was applied
par excellence to the former. The origin of this councU is very obscure
and both its constitution and its functions seem to have varied at different
periods of Jewish history. In the time of the Maccabees mention is
made of a senate (ysgovaia) in connection with both Judas and Jonathan
(2 M ace. i. 10, 1 Mace. xii. 6) ; and Josephus (Ant. xii. 3, 3) uses the same
term in relation to a still earher period, namely, the reign of the Syrian
king Antiochus the Great (224r-187). How the powers of such a senate
were adjusted to those of the Hasmonaean princes is unknown. When
the Romans became masters of Palestine, the authority of the Sanhedrin
was curtaUed by Gabinius (57-55 B.C.), but his arrangements were after
wards canceUed (p. 44). It ppntinued to exercise jurisdiction untU the
outbreak of the war against Rome in a.d. 66 ; and with the conclusion
of that war it finaUy came to an end (a.d. 70).
Its numbers seem to have been 71, the figure reproducing that formed
by the association with Moses of 70 elders (as related in Num. xi. 1.6). It
was composed in New Testament times of three classes, chief priests,
elders, and scribes (cf. Mk. xiv. 53, xv. 1, Mt. xxvii. 41). The collective
council, besides being styled the Sanhedrin, was also known as ro ngeafivzegiov
(Acts xxii. 5) ; whilst individual councillors were called (SovXsvxal (Lk.
xxiii. 50). How vacancies in it were fiUed is not known with certainty.
Its place of meeting was the Hall of Hewn Stone within the great (or
outer) court of the Temple. The president was the acting High Priest
(Mk. xiv. 53, Acts xxiii. 2, Jos. Ant. xx. 9). The members were set apart
by a rite of ordination, which was conferred by three persons, one of whom

100 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
at least could trace his own ordination back to Moses.1 Its functions
appear to have been partly judicial and partly administrative* the range
of its jurisdiction being confined to Jews except where profanation of the
Temple was concerned. As the highest court of justice, it decided suits
remitted to it when an inferior court failed to reach a decision. It alone
was competent to deal with cases affecting a tribe, a false prophet, or
the High Priest. In the New Testament several varieties of charges are
represented as brought before it for investigation, such as blasphemy
(Mk. xiv. 55-64, Acts vi. 13, 14), false pretensions (Acts iv. 7 f .), disloyalty
to the Mosaic Law, and profanation of the Temple (Acts xxiv. 5, 6). Its
authority was not restricted to Jews resident in Judeea, but extended to
those dwelling in other countries (Acts ix. 2) ; and the Roman officials
could bring accused persons before it (Acts xxn. 30). Nevertheless its
coercive powers were limited, for (a) according to Josephus (Ant. xx. 9)
it could not be assembled by the High Priest without the consent of the
Roman procurator, and after 20 a.d. could not of itself execute a death sen
tence 2 ; (6) it had no authority to proceed against Roman citizens except
in regard to the offence of trespassing upon the inner courts of the Temple
(p. 90). Twenty- three members out of the seventy-one formed a quorum ;
and whilst a majority of one sufficed for an acquittal, a majority of two
was required for conviction. (b) Religious Sects
It was not untU late in the Greek period that rehgious differences,
turning upon the attitude deemed desirable towards Gentile peoples and
their practices, manifested themselves among the Jews (p. 30) and
eventually resulted in the formation of two rehgious parties, the Sadducees
and the Pharisees. Some hght upon the origin of these parties is furnished
by the books of the Maccabees, and further knowledge about their
distinctive characteristics is afforded by the references to them in the New
Testament ; but the principal sources of information concerning them are
the writings of Josephus. The Sadducees
The sect of the Sadducees (though the word " sect " in this connection
does not connote severance from the rehgious unity of the nation) repre
sented, with some modification, the party which in the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes sympathized with that king's endeavour to introduce among the
Jews the usages of Greece (p. 30)> It seems to have consisted mainly of
the high priestly houses and their supporters, for the members of it are
described as few in number but men of wealth and distinction,8 such
1 Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, II. 554.
., 2 See Joh. xviii. 31. The execution of Stephen must have been in defiance of
the Law, which the Jews, in their exasperation at his speech, disregarded (Acts vii.
57 f.).! ¦
3 Jos. Ant. sviii. 1, 4 ; of. xiii. 10, 6.

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 101
language suiting those who possessed the means, and enjoyed the rank,
that pertamed to the priestly order.1 The appellation Sadducees is of
doubtful origin. It is most plausibly derived from Zadok, who was made
High Priest by Solomon (1 Kg. ii. 35), and to whose posterity the priesthood
was hmited by the legislation proposed in the writings of Ezekiel (xl. 46,
xliii. 19, xliv. 15, xlviii. 11) ; but it is some objection to this derivation of
the name that the d is doubled (though see Neh. iii. 29, xi. 11 LXX). Another
suggestion is that it represents Zaddikim, the righteous,2 though in this
etymology the substitution of u for i is a difficulty.
Since among the post-exilic Jews (deprived, as they were, of political
independence) it was the priests who came to enjoy a monopoly of civil
and religious authority, it was inevitable that the Sadducean party,
which included most of the priestly houses, should be infected with a
worldly spirit. They were naturaUy brought into closer contact than the
majority of their countrymen with Gentile peoples ; and were in con
sequence inchned to subordinate religious to political questions (cf . Joh.
xi. 48), valuing the priesthood chiefly for the secular power which it con
ferred. Even in the time of Nehemiah the family of the contemporary high
priest entered into alliance with the families of Tobiah the Ammonite and
SanbaUat, an official in Samaria 3 ; and during the reign of Antiochus IV
the high priest Jason co-operated with the king's desire to HeUenize
Jerusalem (p. 30). The later Sadducees, indeed, warned by the outbreak
of popular indignation headed by the Maccabees, did not, in the pursuit
of their pohtical interests, show any unfaithfulness to the letter of the
Mosaic law. But they lacked the enthusiastic devotion to it which caused
others of their countrymen to supplement its requirements by a number
of traditional rules ; and they kept to the written enactments (Jos. Ant.
xiii. 10, 6) without seeking, at least to the same extent as the Pharisees
(p. 102), to guard against possible infractions of them by the help of the
oral exposition of the Scribes (p. 97).4 The worldliness which
characterized them made them unsympathetic towards outbursts of
patriotic feeling ; and the fact that they attached little importance to
any part of the Old Testament Scriptures except the Law indisposed them
to share the Messianic expectations based on the writings of the prophets.
In their attitude to religious speculation the Sadducees were conser
vative. The principal points of difference between them and the rival
sect of the Pharisees were the following, (a) They did not share the
belief that there would be after death a second life and a discrimination
between the just and the unjust according to their deserts (cf . Mk. xii. 18,
Lk. xx. 27, Acts xxiii. 8). The belief in question found no expression in
1 Eor the connection between the Priesthood and the Sadducees cf. Acts iv. 1,
v. 17. 2 See Edersheim, Life and Times, etc., i. p. 323. It is implied that the Sad
ducees were content to call themselves " the righteous " in contrast to their rivals,
who might be regarded as the " unco guid."
3 Cf. Neh. xiii. 4, 28, Ez. ix. 2.
" When in office, however, they conformed to the practice of the Pharisees :, see
Edersheim, Life and Times, etc., I. p. 313.

102 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the Law, and to men devoid of religious fervour and spiritual feeling it
naturally made little appeal: According to Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1,- 4)
their own conviction was that the soul perished with the body ; and though
the correctness of this statement is disputed,1 it is generally agreed that
they did not accept the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (cf . Acts
iv. 2, v. 17, xxiii. 6). (b) They are represented as disbelieving in the
existence of angels and spirits, though it is hot clear how they reconciled
such disbelief with the repeated allusions to angels in the Pentateuch.
Possibly it was to the later developments of angelology only (p. 42) that
they were opposed, (c) They denied the absolute pre-ordination of
human fate by God, holding that good and evU were within man's own
choice. Their hostility to new departures in theological thought was
probably due in large measure to their absorption in secular affairs, which
led them to despise the imaginative elements entering into the beliefs and
hopes of religious enthusiasts. The Pharisees
Just as the sympathizers with Hellenism in the age of Epiphanes had
their later representatives in the Sadducees, so the spirit of the pietists
(the Asidseans), who under that king were rigidly loyal to the Law, was
reproduced subsequently in the Pharisees. Their name (Heb. Perushim),
which appears first in the time of John Hyrcanus (p. 36), and means
" these who separate therhselves from others " (through conviction of their
superiority in sanctity) was probably bestowed upon them as a reproach
by their opponents, though it eventuaUy became accepted by themselves.2
Such separation did not involve withdrawal from the mass of their country
men in worship, but only aloofness from social intercourse with such as
would not, or could not, avoid ceremonial defilement. Their characteristics
were an intense zeal for the strict maintenance of the Law, and a profound
contempt for aU who had less knowledge of, or less concern for, its require
ments than themselves (Joh. vii. 49). They shunned association not only
with the Gentiles but likewise with those of their own race who might
have been contaminated through cdhtact with them or in other ways
(see Lk. v. 30, xv. 2, dnd cf. p. 384). Yet notwithstanding the scorn which
the Pharisees felt for the bulk of their less scrupulous compatriots, they
enjoyed amOng therh much esteem ; and in their rivalry to the Sadducees,
they had the support of most of the people (Jos. Ant. xiii. 10, 5).
In order to preserve themselves from violating the Law unwittingly
even in the slightest degree, the Pharisees reinforced its regulations by
those contained in the traditions of the Scribes (p. 97) ; and since those who
originated and developed the system of oral traditions and those who
put it into practice were commonly of the same way of thinking, the most
influential of the Scribes belonged to the party of the Pharisees (cf. Mk.
ii. 16, Lk. v. 30). With the new developments in theological speculation
1 See Edersheim, op. cit. i. p. 315.
2 The title which they preferred to apply to themselves was Haberim (" com.
panions " or " associates ").

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 103
which the Sadducees rejected the Pharisees were in sympathy, (a) They
beheved souls to be imperishable, and held that after death a judgment
was in store for the righteous and the wicked, and that the souls of the
former would receive back their bodies, in which they would enjoy felicity,
whUst the souls of the latter would be eternaUy punished. The righteous
were expected to enjoy their merited happiness in a kingdom established
on earth by the Messiah, who would expel all sinners from it, and would
reduce the hGentiles to subjection, (b) They acknowledged the existence
of angels and spirits, attributed many maladies to the activity of demons,
and practised exorcism, (c) They conceded that men enjoyed a certain
measure of free wUl and so were responsible for their actions, but they also
maintained that Divine pre-determination was a factor in human conduct.
In regard to the questions of Free WiU and Determinism the divergence
between them and the Sadducees was probably not really so great as it
seems, and amounted to a difference of emphasis rather than of substance.1
In contrast with their rivals the Pharisees made, not pohtical power, but
rehgion their first interest, however formal and external their conception
of rehgion was ; and their zeal for spreading their faith was intense.
Their attitude to political issues was governed by the religious aspect of
the latter. It was because their race was the chosen of God that they
resented the supremacy of a heathen power over the land and people of
Jehovah, and waited expectantly for some act of Divine intervention
which would put an end to such usurpation.
By a smaU section who were impatient of delay the overthrow of Roman
rule was sought through force, and these came to be caUed Zealots. They
did not enter into existence as a distinct party until the date of the enrol
ment instituted in a.d. 6 (when Quirinius was legatus of Syria), which had
as its object the direct taxation of the Jewish people by the Romans.
This proceeding met with great opposition, which was headed by Judas of
Gamala (Acts v. 37), aided by a Pharisee caUed Sadduc (Jos. Ant. xviii. 1, 1).
Their example of armed resistance to Roman authority was foUowed in the
rebellion of a.d. 66 ; and a conspicuous part was taken by the Zealots in
the war that ended in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (cf. p. 58).
An extreme wing of this party was known as the Sicarii (cf. Acts xxi. 38),
Who practised secret assassination, and derived their title from the daggers
(sicce) with which they accomplished their murders.
The Essenes
Some notice is desirable of a small religious sect, or rather order, of
Jews, to which no aUusion, indeed, occurs in the New Testament, but with
which the early Christians have been often compared, whilst its tenets are
of interest in connection with St. Paul's Epistle to the Colossians. This
order was known as the Essenes 2 ('Eoaipoi, 'Eaaatoi, 'Oaoaioi), and is
1 Cf. Morrison, The Jews under the Romans, p. 322.
2 See Jos. Ant. xiii. 5, 9, xviii. 1, 5, B.J. II. 8, 2-13, Schurer, Jewish People,!!.
ii, 188 f., Lightfoot, Colossians (1886), p 347 f., Edersheim, Life and Times, I. 324 f.,
Morrison, Jews under the Romans, p. 323 f.

104 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
estimated by Josephus to have consisted of no more than 4,000 persons.
They are first mentioned, by the writer just named, in relation with the
history of Jonathan the Maccabee (161-142 B.C.) ; but the date of their
origin is quite obscure. Their name perhaps is most plausibly regarded
(on the assumption that it was conferred upon them by others than
themselves) as a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Hitsonim," outsiders,"
since they stood outside the rehgious system of their countrymen,1 though
it has also been traced to a place caUed Essa, on the shore of the Dead Sea,
near which they were principally found. They constituted a very close
society, and imposed a period of probation upon all who sought to join
them. They were governed by certain officials (im/isXrjral), a hundred in
number, elected by themselves ; and were under an obhgation to conceal
nothing from one another ; to divulge none of their peculiar doctrines to the
outer world ; and to transmit them to posterity in the exact form in which
they had received them. In their habits they were ascetic, being extremely
abstemious in regard to food, and averse to marriage, preferring to adopt
as their own the children of others. Many of them were credited with
remarkable prophetic powers, and great skiU in the interpretation of
dreams (see Jos. Ant. xiii. 11, 2, xvii. 13, 3).
In certain respects the Essenes resembled the Pharisees. Like them
they entertained the greatest reverence for Moses and the Hebrew
Scriptures ; observed the Sabbath with the utmost strictness ; were
exceedingly earnest in the pursuit of ceremonial purity, through the
constant use of lustrations ; and beheved in the existence of angels. But
in other respects they diverged widely from them. They offered no
animal sacrifices, did not recognize the Aaronic priesthood, denied human
free will altogether, and held that, though the soul was immortal, there
was no resurrection of the body, which was the prison of the soul and
perished at death. Certain of their principles of conduct present a likeness
to Christianity. Their rules pledged them to the practice of obedience,
piety, justice, and veracity ; the avoidance of all oaths (except on the
occasion when first admitted into the society) ; the promotion of peace ;
and the assistance of all needing succour. StiU more notable features of
resemblance to the early Church were their communism in respect of
property, and their participation in common meals. They kept no slaves ;
private possessions were disallowed among them ; and whatever they
earned by their labours (their sole occupation being agriculture) was put
into a common purse. Their meals, taken together, began and ended
with prayer ; and the meal of which they partook at midday seems to
have been regarded as a religious function. But the features of contrast
between them and the early Christians are no less striking. Members
of the primitive Church were not recluses or ascetics, but mixed freely
in the society around them, and at least one of the Apostles was married.
Jesus, so far from being careful to avoid ceremonial defilement, exposed
Himself to adverse comment by consorting with tax-gatherers and
1 Edersheim, Life and Times, etc., I. p. 332, who compares the Greek 'Ao-iSoiot
as the equivalent of the Hebrew Hasidim.

JEWISH INSTITUTIONS 105
" sinners " (Mk. ii. 15, 16) ; and both He and His disciples frequented the
Temple where worship centred in the sacrificial system (Mk. xi. 15, Acts
ii. 46, iii. 1). FinaUy there prevailed widely in the Church a belief in the
resurrection of the body.
By one curious characteristic the Essenes were distinguished from
Pharisees and Christians alike. This was the custom of addressing prayers
towards the sun, which they possibly regarded as a symbol of God (the
Source of spiritual Ulumination). This peculiarity has been variously
ascribed to the influence of Pythagoreanism (which, like other Greek
philosophies, entered Asia in the wake of Alexanders conquests), of
Zoroastrianism, and of Buddhism. As there is no evidence that the
Essenes shared the Pythagorean doctrine of metempsychosis, and as
reverence for the sun was much more distinctive of the followers of
Zoroaster than of those of Pythagoras or of Buddha, a connection between
Essenism and Persia seems most plausible.

PREVAILING IDEAS AND METHODS OF JEWISH
HISTORIANS
IN view of the discussion in subsequent chapters of the historical value
of the New Testament documents, it is desirable to consider the
psychological conditions of historical writing during New Testament
times, the pre-suppositions with which the New Testament historians
approached the tasks they set themselves, the conceptions which they
entertained about the natural world and its processes, and the literary
usages of their race. This can best be done by reviewing briefly the
governing ideas and the traditional methods of composition characteristic
of the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures, for the Old Testament constituted
the most potent influence, both spiritual and inteUectual, to which the
New Testament writers were subject. Some of the facts here surveyed
have come under notice previously, but it wiU be an advantage to regard
them again from a special standpoint.
Ruling Convictions, Beliefs, and Mental Habits
1. The dominant feature of the writings of the Old Testament is the
teleological view held by their authors about human history. They
believed that the processes of nature and the incidents of human life were
alike directly controlled by God, whose purposes they both subserved.
In order to exhibit this conviction in concrete form, and to Ulustrate it by
conspicuous examples, it was obviously expedient to show that events,
speciaUy if of a striking character, had been predicted or foreshadowed
before their occurrence, so that the coincidence between the prior announce
ments (through various agencies) and the subsequent fulfilments in
experience might leave no doubt that the events had been designed and
regulated by a Divine Power. Intimations about the future, illustrative
of the Divine government of the world, were most commonly represented
as conveyed through prophets ; but other means by which God's control
of human fortunes was evinced were angelic visits, dreams, and voices from
heaven. That there existed among the Hebrew people, though doubtless not
among them exclusively, persons gifted with an exceptional f power of
foresight is beyond dispute. A prophet, indeed, was not primarily a
106

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 107
fore-tellet of the future, but a spokesman for God, revealing to the mass of
those who were less well endowed with spiritual insight the Divine wUl.
Knowledge of God's will,- however, necessarily involved some measure of
prevision into the future, if events were really designed by Him, and if it
entered into the scheme of His Providence that men, for the guidance of
their conduct, should have some understanding of His plans (cf . Am. iii.
7). Prediction, throngh human agents, of future events is specially
adduced in 2 Is. xl.-lv. as evidence that Jehovah, the God of Israel, was the
Author Of aU that happens (see 2 7s. xli. 21-29, xliii. 9-13) ; and as instances'
of remarkable foresight exhibited by the prophets of Israel there may be
cited the prophecy of Amos respecting the deportation of the Ten tribes
(Am. V. 27, cf. 2 Kg. xvii. 6), that of Isaiah concerning, first, the siege of
Jerusalem by Sennacherib, and nextj the deliverance of the city from him
(Is. xxxvii. and cf . 2 Kg. xjx. 35; 36), and those of Jeremiah and Deutero-
Isdiah relating to the restoration of the Jewish exiles from the Babylonian
captivity (Jer. xxix. 10-14, 2 Is. xliv. 26-28, and oi.Ez.i.). The faculty
of prediction manifest in these and many other passages seerns, so far als it
admits of explanation, to be basSd on the strong faith which the prophets
had in the government of the universe by a righteous God, united with an
acute perception of the political forces in operation around them, so that
they did not hesitate to predict confidently thfe issues to which contem
porary movements seemed to be trending. But their anticipations about
even the near future were not always exactly verified 1 ; whilst their
prophecies relating to God's designs for His people at a more distant date,
though often substantiaUy realized, were yet not seldom realized in a
manner very Unlike their expectations. Of the habit shown by Hebrew
historians of drawing attention to such marks of Divine purpose as were
manifested by the agreement of events with prior predictions examples
occur in 1 Kg. xiv. 18, xv. 29, xvi. 34, 2 Kg. vii. 17, ix. 25, and various other
placfes. It is obvious that the impression made upon the bulk of their
readers would be the deeper in proportion to the closeness of the corre
spondence between prophecy and fulfilment ; and consequently both the
compilers of the historical books and subsequent copyists of them would
be tempted to adjust to a prediction the account of the event believed to
haVe fulfilled it, so thEit the agreement between them might appear as
detailed as possible. And that this was sOnietimes dOne can be shown to
be probable by one Or two instances. Thus in 2 K(j. xvi. 9, where it is
stated that the king of Assyria deported the inhabitants Of Damascus to
Kir, the words to Kir are absent from the LXX, which suggests that they
were inserted in the Hebrew in order to make the incident fulfil exactly the
prophecy of Amos i. 5. Similarly in 2 Kg. xxiii. 16-20 2 it may be suspected
1 For instance, Isaiah at one time segms to have expected that the Assyrian
army, which he regarded as designed by God to chastise Judah, would approach
Jerusalem from the north (x. 28-32) instead of from the south-west, as was actually
the case.
2 This passage is itself of late origin ; note the anachronistic allusion to the " cities
of Samaria " which did not become' «. province Until after 722 ; see Buniey, Notes
on Kings, p. 179.

108 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
that the statement that Josiah burnt the bones of the dead on the altar at
Bethel is an addition introduced to bring the king's action into accord with
the prediction related in 1 Kg. xiii. 2 : at least in the preceding v. 15,
the altar is said to have been destroyed. Conversely there also appear to
be cases where the account of the prophecy has been adapted to the event ;
in Is. xxxix. 6, 7, for example, the prediction that the possessions and
posterity of Hezekiah should be carried away to Babylon, not to Assyria
(which in the eighth century was the power that menaced Judah) looks
like a modification of Isaiah's actual prophecy by a later writer who was
acquainted with the deportation of the Jews to Babylon by the Babylonian
Nebuchadrezzar. Of the several ways by which the predetermination of history by God
is illustrated in the Old Testament the foUowing are examples : —
(a) Revelations of the future through prophets. The instances aheady
cited (p. 107) may be supplemented by Jud. iv. 7, 1 Kg. xvii. 1, xx. 13,
xxi. 19, xxii. 17, etc.1
(6) Predictions conveyed through angels. The visits of angels com
municating information about the future can scarcely be regarded as
anything but an impressive method of giving objective expression to the
Divine resolves of which the events foretold are held to be a realization.
Instances occur in Jud. vi. 12, xiii. 3.
(c) Announcements of the future through dreams. Examples are found
in Gen. xxxvii. 5-11, xli. 1-32, 1 Kg. hi. 5, Dan. iv., vii., viii.1
(d) Voices from heaven. The disclosure of a Divine decision through a
voice from heaven is not so common a representation in the Old Testament
as the methods just enumerated, but an explicit instance occurs in Dan.
iv. 31, and possibly 1 Kg. xix. 12 is meant to be regarded as such.
(e) The belief that everything in human history pre-existed in the
Divine mind likewise occasionaUy took shape in the representation that
the plan of an earthly institution or building was stored with God in heaven :
see Ex. xxv. 40, Num. viii. 4 (the Tabernacle), 1 Ch. xxviii. 19 (the Temple).
In one at least of the Old Testament books an effort has been made to
accredit prophecies about the future by blending with them statements
purporting to be predictions about an earlier future, but being (it would
seem) really descriptions of the past, in order that the known agreement
of past history with the alleged prophecies of it might create confidence
in the fresh predictions put forth concerning the actual future. This has
occurred in the book of Daniel, written probably about 165 B.C. In it
the experiences of Israel during the period between its subjugation by the
Babylonians and the outrages committed upon its rehgion by Antiochus
Epiphanes in 168-165 (p. 31) are represented as predicted by Daniel
(portrayed as one of the Jewish exUes in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.),
in order that certain prophecies relating to a time which was still future to
the author of the work might win credence from his contemporaries.
What distinguishes such vaticinia post eventus from genuine prophecies is,
1 Prophets and dreams were ohannels of revelation among the Greeks ; see^Esch
Theb. 611, Horn. II. v. 148-151.

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 109
in general, the greater minuteness of detail marking the supposed pre
dictions. Prophecy that relates to the real future is commonly rather
general and indefinite in its terms (cf. p. 107), whereas history presented in
the guise of prophecy is characterized by much precision and circum
stantiality ; so that where in Daniel exactness of definition gives place to
vagueness, it may be suspected that the writer is passing from an account
(however disguised) of the known past to a forecast of the unknown future.
The transition from exactness to vagueness occurs where the narrator
proceeds to deal with events subsequent to Antiochus' persecution of the
Jews, with which the author of the work was almost certainly
contemporary.1 2. A characteristic of the Hebrew mind was the tendency to invest
with sensible quahties, reahties wliich can only be considered by us to be
purely spiritual and imperceptible to the senses. Even in post-exilic
times rehgious thinkers, whose conception of God's spiritual nature was
exceptionaUy elevated, found a difficulty in reahzing His Presence with
His people, save through some manifestation appealing to the senses.
Fire is one of the most usual tokens of the Divine Presence in the Old
Testament (Gen. xv. 17, Ex. iii. 2, xiii. 21, Dt. iv. 12 2) ; whilst another is the
cloud, in which Jehovah is represented as descending from heaven (Ex.
xix. 9) and filling the sanctuary of the Tabernacle and of the Temple
(Ex. xl. 34, 1 Kg. viii. 10). No doubt both of these signs were invested
by the best minds of the nation with symbolic significance, the first
indicating the destruction awaiting everything that was inimical or
offensive to so holy a God (cf. Dt. iv. 24, Is. xxxiii. 14, Num. xvi. 35,
Heb. xii. 29), and the second suggestive of the mystery enshrouding His
Nature and Personahty. Nevertheless the circumstance that the Deity
was thus considered to be in a sense visibly present among His people,
shows how hard it was for the Hebrews to detach the notion of Spirit or a
Spiritual Being from materialistic conceptions.
Akin to the habit of thought just noticed is the tendency to represent
occasions when the Almighty was beheved to be operative oractive in an
exceptional degree, as marked by the occurrence of physical disturbances,
such as storm and earthquakes (Ex. xix. 18, Ps. xviii. 7, cxiv. 7, Joel iii. 16,
and cf. Mt. xxvn. 51, xxviii. 2).3
3. A further feature of much importance in Hebrew ways of thinking
was the absence, at least in comparatively early times, of any rigid separ
ation in idea between the human and the Divine. It was customary for a
Semitic people to regard the national God as the Author and Father of the
race, the director of its pohcy, and the co.ntroUer of its destinies ; and as
the Divinity exercised His authority and enforced His will through the
agency of human delegates, Divine titles and designations were ascribed
to these as being His representatives and vicegerents. Thus the term
1 See Driver, Dan. p. Ixvi.
2 It was a symbol of divinity in other religions : cf. Verg. A. ii. 682 f., and see
Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 193.
a Cf. Yerg. A. iii. 90-92.

110 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
El (God) is apphed to Nebuchadrezzar by Ezekiel (xxxi. 11, xxxii. 21) ;
and an ideal King who was expected to arise and safeguard Israel against
both the sins that provoked Jehovah's anger, and the calamities with
which they were punished, was called by Isaiah El Gibbor (Divine Warrior).
Similarly the title Elohim (God) is used of the judicial authorities of the
Jewish nation in Ps. Ixxxii. 1, 6 (cf. Joh. x. 34, 35), of a royal personage
in Ps. xlv. 6, and of the shade of the deceased prophet Samuel in 1 Sam.
xxviii. 13. Inasmuch as a national king was the representative of his
people, he was thought to stand in the same relation to the national
divinity as that occupied, according to Semitic ideas, by the people
themselves ; and hence, since the Israelites were regarded as the sons and
daughters of Jehovah (2 Is. xliii. 6), just as the Moabites were termed the
sons and daughters of Chemosh (Num. xxi. 29), and since Israel as a unit
could be styled Jehovah's son or first-born (Ex. iv. 22, Hos. xi. 1), the same
title could be applied in a stiU more intimate and personal degree to the
sovereign, and he, like his collective subjects, could be designated God's
son (2 Sam. vii. 14, Ps. lxxxix. 26, 27). The same title or an equivalent was
also applied to individuals other than the king, who by reason of their
character appeared to resemble God, or to be in an exceptional degree
deserving of His care (Wisd. ii. 18). x
(4) Another influential idea current in the ancient world and shared
by the Hebrew race was the behef in the existence of a multitude of super
human agencies, which at first, perhaps, were not clearly distinguished
from gods, but which eventually came to be regarded as inferior to gods,
though superior in power to men. The idea had its origin in primitive
animism. Early man, being conscious that he was subject to various
external forces, interpreted them as proceeding from a source analogous
to himself ; so that everything which happened, and which he could not
put down to any visible cause, he ascribed to the agency of unseen personal
spirits. Occurrences of a fortunate character were attributed to beneficent
spirits, and those of a calamitous kind to malignant spirits. By the
Hebrews, in consequence of the development among them of a behef in
the existence of one supreme God, these spirits were conceived, at least in
historic times, to be powers not independent of, but subordinate to, Jehovah,
constituting His court, His messengers, or His armies (Ps. ciii. 20, 21,
cxlviii. 2, Joel ii. 11). They were generaUy described as " angels " (Gen.
xvi. 7, xxxii. 1, Jud. xiii. 3), " holy ones " (Dt. xxxiii. 2, Zech. xiv. 5), or
" sons of God " (Gen. vi. 2, Job i. 6, Ps. lxxxix. 6) ; and were imagined
after the hkeness of men (Gen. xviii. 2, xix. 1, xxxii. 24, Josh. v. 13).
They not only fulfilled God's benevolent designs towards men (Gen. xlviii.
16, Ex. xxiii. 20, Num. xx. 16, 3, Is. Ixiii. 9, Ps. xxxiv. 7), but also carried
out His destructive judgments (2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 17, 2 Kg. xix. 35). All
1 The Hebrew terms for " God" (El, Elohim) when applied to human beings seem
to have signified what in Greek and Latin might have been expressed by the adjec
tives Belos and divinus, implying in them supernatural excellence of various kinds.
fleios is rarely found in the LXX. occurring only in Ex. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31, Job xxvii.
3, xxxiii. 4, Prov. ii. 17, Ecclus. vi. 35. It is even rarer in the New Testament (Acts
xvii. 29, 2 Pet. i. 3, 4).

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 111
through the Old Testament angels figure as the Divine agents ; but some
difference is observable in this respect between the earher and the later
books. In the earher writings revelations are commonly represented as
imparted by God to His prophets directly, but in consequence of the
increasing sense of the distance separating God from His creatures (p. 21),
communications from Him to them came, in books of exilic and post-exilic
date, to be described as made through angehc intermediaries (Ezek. xl. 3,
Zech. i. 9, 11, 12, iv. 4, 10, etc., Dan. x. 5 f ., xii. 6). At a later period even
the Law, recorded in the Old Testament to have been imparted to Moses
directly, was represented as mediated through angels (Acts vii. 53 mg.,
Gal. hi. 19).
But though the Hebrew writers certainly believed in the existence of a
host of spirits subordinate to God, the ascription of various events and
occurrences to angelic agency often does not mean more than that the inci
dents in question were providential. This is obviously the case in Gen. xxiv.
40, Ex. xxxiii. 2, Ps. xxxv. 5 ; and it is tolerably clear that in some of the
instances quoted above, where angels are represented as preserving,
destroying, or otherwise influencing, the hves of men, the mention of them
is only a .dramatic way of implying that what happened was due to Divine
Providence (see 2 Kg. xix. 35, Dan. vi. 22). In Daniel angels are associated
with the fortunes of nations ; and in the Apocalyptic writings attributed
to Enoch (e.g. lxxi. 10) are depicted as having charge over the elements
(the sea, frost, had, rain, snow, etc., cf. Rev. vii. 1, xiv. 18).
By the side of the view that angels were sometimes God's agents for
inflicting evil upon men by way of punishment (cf. Ps. lxxviii. 49), there
survived a behef in spirits or demons ess.entiaUy evil, inhabiting solitary
or desert places, and having sometimes the form of beasts, such as satyrs
or he-goats (Is. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14, Lev. xvii. 7, 2 Ch. xi. 15), to which
propitiatory sacrifices must have been occasionally offered (since such a
practice was .expressly forbidden). A generic term for these demons
seems to have been Shedim (Dt. xxxii. 17, Ps. cvi. 37) ; but individual
names or titles were given to some among them, such as Azazel (Lev. xvi.
10, 22). But with this belief in the demons of the deserts there came to
be , blended another of different origin. It has been shown that there
grew up a conviction that there was a supreme spirit of evU (once con
ceived to be an attendant upon God in heaven but sceptical of human
virtue), for whom a proper name was coined by converting the descriptive
epithet " the Satan " (i.e. " the adversary ") into the personal appella
tion -" Satan " (see p. 21). Under this powerful Spirit aU the other
spirits of iU were ranged. In Greek an .equivalent for " the adversary "
was found in 6 8,ia[}.oXog, " the slanderer '•' (the rendering employed by
the LXX in Job i. 6, .etc.), whence the English word " Devil."
In later Judaism, as in the contemporary world at large, the malignant
activity of demons, who had their abode principaUy in the air and acted
at the instigation of Satan (who was caUed " the prince of the power
of the air/-' Eph. ii. 2), was held to be the source of most of the worsjfc ills,
both moral and physical, that afflict mankind. They prompted men to
aU kinds of wickedness, inciting them to idolatry and inspiring them with

112 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
malicious and evU thoughts (cf. Joh. xiii. 2, 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8). Human
bodies as weU as human minds were exposed to their influence. To their
agency were ascribed various iUnesses (cf. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 2 Cor. xii. 7,
1 Tim. i. 20), more especiaUy those maladies of which the origin was more
than usuaUy obscure, and which were attended by convulsions, violent
screaming, or other alarming symptoms. Most afflictions, in fact, which
made the sufferers appear very different from their ordinary selves (so
as to suggest that they had come under the control of some alien power),
were explained as due to the action of demons. Insanity and epUepsy,
in particular, were put down to "possession" by demons; and even
infirmities of a more common kind, if marked by exceptional features,
were accounted for in the same way.1 The expulsion of a demon from a
possessed man could be accomphshed (it was thought) by several methods.
Amongst them was the pronunciation over the afflicted individual of
the name of a personahty more potent than the demon ; for since a name
and the personality designated by the name were very imperfectly dis
tinguished in antiquity, the mention of the former was supposed to put
into operation the powers inherent in the latter. Resultant cures are
explicable as the consequence of ' ' suggestion, ' ' the remedial effects of which
are weU known in modern science. If a " possessed " person could he
induced to believe that the personahty whose name was uttered over him
was superior to the demon in himself, the mention or invocation of the
name was calculated to tranquillize him, and so give the recuperative
capacity of nature scope to assert itself.
(5) A circumstance that affected deeply the view of human history
taken by the writers of the Old Testament was the conviction that marvels
of an extraordinary character were repeatedly wrought by the immediate
act of God, or through the agency of men speciaUy commissioned and
abnormally empowered by Him. The Old Testament historians hved in
a pre-scientific age, when there was little notion of physical law ; so that
the tendency of a religious people to discover in any impressive experience
proof of God's direct volition and operation was unregulated by any
adequate acquaintance with the methods of the Divine activity as we
have learnt them. Any theistic explanation of the universe, of course,
recognizes that everything that happens has its ultimate origin in the wUl
of God, and since He (so far as we are aware) is able to do as He pleases
without external restriction, and since human personalities are known to
be endowed by Him with delegated powers of initiative, the possibihty
of occurrences of an extremely abnormal character unparaUeled by
previous experience must be admitted by aU theists. " Laws of nature "
are nothing but generalizations from experience, and those which are
based on the most extensive series of observed occurrences are only
" justifiable expectations, that is, very high probabUities."2 The only
1 As far back as Homer's time a victim of a wasting sickness was described as
one whom " a hateful demon assailed " (Od. v. 395-6) ; whilst anyone whose conduot
was difficult to account for, or who appeared to be infatuated, was addressed as Sat/iivie
(II. ii. 200).
a Huxley, Science and Christian Tradition, p. 205.

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 113
" impossibility " is the self-contradictory, and the " possibUities " are
hkely to exceed rather than come short of anticipation. Nevertheless
experience has made it increasingly probable that the Divine modes of
working in the physical world are constant ; so that both our practical
enterprises and our scientific reasoning presuppose the prevalence of
such regular sequences as are styled natural laws.1 Hence there is a
strong presumption against the truth of reports of departures from weU-
established laws of .nature, and the evidence adduced for such departures
must be proportionately strong. So firmly grounded, indeed, is our belief
in the regularity of nature that, if there is good evidence for some abnormal
occurrence, it is attributed to the action of some physical law not yet
detected, and is not put down to the unaccountable will of God. And
though a real capacity of initiative has been bestowed by God on man,
so that human volition can interfere with the otherwise unvarying sequence
of one physical event upon another, yet the control which the human wUl
can exercise over the natural world is usually confined within narrow
limits. And if our acquaintance with the whole sphere of nature and
consequently of the Divine laws governing it is so imperfect that much
that is now regarded as incredible may become in the future worthy of
credence, yet scientific inquiry is sufficiently comprehensive and minute
as to render reported occurrences contravening weU-established generali
zations more questionable than they have appeared to be in the past,
though the relations of mind to matter are no doubt stiU inadequately
explored. But among the Semitic peoples in primitive times the scientific
investigation of nature scarcely existed at all, so that the imagination had
free play in picturing the method of God's activity in the universe, and
in estimating the range of the control over the external world conceded by
Him to particular individuals. In the prevalent ignorance of physical
law, it was inevitable that anything which excited surprise or awe should
be explained as due to God's immediate agency, or the agency of human
beings supernaturally endowed by Him. And though God's activity was
recognized, in the ordinary operations of nature, yet it was the exceptional
and unusual in natural phenomena or in human history that seemed in
that age to manifest His control over the world most clearly. This habit
of mind could hardly fail to produce a readiness to put a supernatural
construction upon any startling experiences suggestive of Divine Provi
dence, without inquiring whether they admitted of a natural explanation.
The stronger the religious faith of the Hebrew historians, the more uncritical
would their attitude tend to be towards anything witnessed or reported
which appeared to iUustrate the Divine power or goodness. Their
dominant interest was not historical accuracy but religious edification.
Accordingly, in regard to occasions on which God is represented to have
departed from His customary methods in the natural world (as ascertained
by us not merely through common experience but through scientific
research), or to have invested chosen individuals with an abnormal measure
of control over nature, we have to decide whether it is more probable that
1 Cf. Rashdall, Philosophy and Beligion, p. 158.

114 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the incidents happened as described, or whether the records are inexact
or faUacious. On the one hand, there is considerable evidence that the
influence of personality is much greater than is commonly supposed, and
that surprising power can be exerted by exceptional individuals over the
minds, and through them over the bodies, of other human beings. On
the other hand, there seems to be much less satisfactory evidence for the
direct influence of psychic forces over inanimate nature ; whUst it is a
matter of common knowledge that reports of occurrences by actual
spectators are liable to be inaccurate, and the transmission of such reports
to become distorted and exaggerated. The evidence of witnesses, however
honest they are, may at aU times mislead, unless they are also acute and
cautious observers ; for every account of an event involves not only the
witness's perceptions, but likewise his inferences, which are guided by his
past experience, and depend upon his range of knowledge, his faculty
of judgment, and other qualities ; so that a spectator requires to exercise
much circumspection lest he should imagine he sees what he expects to
see. And if first-hand evidence of the original witnesses may thus he
inaccurate, further error is likely to be introduced when their testimony
is handed down through a series of subsequent retaUers of it, whose
narratives are readily affected by imperfections of memory, looseness of
description, or the play of fancy. The variations which occur in versions
of events transmitted by word of mouth are notorious, so that even after
a very short interval, it is frequently impossible to recover the actual
detaUs ; and in such variations any features of the original account
appealing to the sense of wonder are generaUy enhanced by the successive
narrators, for as Aristotle observes, " the wonderful gives pleasure."1
Facts such as these are bound to affect our estimate of the accounts of
the marvellous proceeding from ancient times ; and from the tendencies
marking writers of antiquity in general, the authors of the Biblical records
were not exempt.
Of the attitude of the latter towards the miraculous illustrations are
afforded by a number of narratives in the Old Testament of which Moses
and the prophets Elijah and Elisha are the central figures, though some
of a remarkable character fall outside these groups of narratives. The
ascription of so many miracles to these three figures exemplifies the
proneness for stories of a marveUous character to gather round personalities
to whom great religious significance had become attached. How aU the
records of wonder associated with Moses and the other conspicuous
personalities named originated — how much substantial fact they contain,
and how far fancy has embroidered this particular or created that, it is,
of course, impossible to decide with certainty. The age which witnessed
their origin was one which was sure to invent stories of marvels, if none
were already current, about the characters which it held in admiration.
But in regard to a certain number of miracles it seems possible to arrive
at some probable conclusions as to the way in which they came into
existence. Of some the origin must (in all probabUity) be sought in
1 Arist. Poet. xxiv. § 17, to davjiaa-rov i)Si5.

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 115
various natural phenomena of an unusual kind, which were imagined to
be the result of supernatural agency. Of others an explanation appears
to be furnished by the prosaic interpretation of figures of speech, metaphors
being construed as descriptions of matters of fact. It is only a limited
number which can with some confidence be accounted for in this way ;
but the circumstance that in such cases good reasons are forthcoming
for the explanation offered, suggests that the conclusions reached admit
of a wider application, although specific evidence may be wanting.
(i) The narrative of the Plagues of Egypt represented in Exod. vii.-xi.
as brought about by Moses' rod, which he was directed to wield at Jehovah's
command, seems to have taken rise in accounts of various natural inflic
tions to which Egypt is exposed, and which, coinciding with a demand
from the Israelites for a release from bondage, were attributed to the
intervention of Israel's God. The first plague may be explained by the
reddish discolouration of the NUe either by mineral matter brought down
when its level rises, or to minute organisms of which it is sometimes full.
If the latter explanation be adopted the presence in the water Of so much
organic matter would lead to the multiplication of frogs J and heaps of
the latter, when dead and decaying, would breed flies and other insects.
Flies are notoriously disseminators of diseases, such as constituted the
fifth and sixth plagues. The occurrence of both thunderstorms and swarms
of locusts, though not common in Egypt, is not unknown. The darkness
represented as the ninth plague may have been caused by the Hdmsin
wind, which, blowing from the south or south-west, fills the air with
blinding sand and dust. The tenth plague is exphcable by some fatal
epidemic. The amplification of incidents such as these* with adjustment
of the detafls so as to make them befaU the Egyptians only (as the objects
of Jehovah's anger) or correspond more exactly to the offence committed,
would easUy result in descriptions such as are preserved in Exodus. In
the case of the eighth plague the invasion of the land by swarms of locusts
is expressly ascribed to a natural agency — an east wind blowing from
Syria#(where locusts are commoner than in Egypt) ; and their removal is
similarly accounted for by a veering of the wind to the west. The enhance
ment of the marveUous features in process of time is visible when the account
of the first plague in J E is compared with that in P ; thus in J E the
conversion of water into blood is confined to the NUe (vii. 17, 24), whereas
in P it affects aU receptacles of water throughout the land (vii. 19).
Similarly the narrative of the Passage of the Red Sea appears to
describe an event which can be explained likewise by the operation of
natural causes, but which, viewed in the light of religious belief, has been
imaginatively embellished and expanded into a miracle. The site of the
Israelites' passage is doubtful ; it may have been at the northern end of
the Gulf of Suez or the southern end of the shaUow Bitter Lakes, though
the conditions implied in the record seem best suited by the latter. The
narrative itself represents that the immediate agency which tendered a
passage through either practicable was a strong wind, and if this, designated
as an east wind, really blew from the south-east, it would have driven the
waters of the lake in a north-westerly direction, enabling the southerly

116 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
end to be crossed without danger. A sudden change in the course of the
wind would aUow the waters to be restored to their previous level, with
fatal results to any pursuers that had ventured to follow in the Israelites'
tracks. If this reconstruction of what happened is approximately correct,1
the incident was providential (as viewed from the Hebrews' standpoint),
not miraculous, but could not faU to be magnified into a wonderful marvel
in subsequent narratives (Ex. xiv. 29).
It may also be reasonably suspected that the narrative of the parting
of the Jordan when touched by the feet of the priests bearing Jehovah's
Ark (Josh, iii.) originated in some surprising but natural event. The
river near Jericho was fordable (Josh. ii. 1, 2 Sam. xv. 28) ; but the passage
would have been greatly facilitated if, just before the Israelite host had
approached the banks, the river's course had been temporarUy dammed
by a landslip at some spot above the fords,2 and the level of the water
below them had been consequently lowered. Such an occurrence would
readUy be converted into a story of miracle.
The narrative of the floating axe-head, related in 2 Kg. vi. 1-7, may
have been suggested by the circumstance that in the excessively salt
Dead Sea many things float that elsewhere sink. If some heavy object
liable to sink in the fresh waters of the Jordan was seen to float in the
lake near the river's mouth on some occasion when a prophet was present,
the experience might be explained as due to his wonder-working power.3
(ii) Though probably the most fruitful source of miracle stories in the
Old Testament is the expansion and embellishment of impressive but
natural incidents, yet some narratives of the miraculous appear to have
originated from a prosaic interpretation of metaphorical language. Thus
in a passage of the book of Jashar (a poetical record of Israelite achieve
ments to which a few aUusions are found in the Biblical writers), Joshua
was described as commanding the sun and the moon to stand stiU, the one
on Gibeon, and the other in the VaUey of Aijalon, till the nation should
avenge itself upon its foes. The poet's words are obviously imaginative ;
but by the historian who wrote Josh. x. 12-14 they were taken in a matter-
of-fact spirit and understood literally, and the sun is declared to have
stayed in the midst of heaven, and to have hasted not to go down about
a whole day. No other example is quite so clear as this ; but there are
several miracles of which some misinterpreted poetical phrase offers a
more or less plausible explanation, among them being those related in Num.
xx. 8 f . (cf . Num. xxi. 17, 18), Josh. vi. (cf . the Greek phrase avrofioel noXiv
iXelv, Thuc. ii. 81, iii. 113), and 7s. xxxviii. 7.
1 See McNeile, Exodus, pp. xcvii., xcviii. Another explanation of what occurred
is that the Israelites, escaping in the direction of the Mediterranean coast towards
Canaan, dammed back the eastern (Pelusiac) branch of the Nile, and so caused the
lower part of the channel to become a swamp ; that the Egyptians entered the boggy
ground ; and that the Israelites then cut the dam, allowing the waters to return, and
so overwhelmed them (see Willcocks, From the Garden of Eden to the Crossing of the
Jordan, p. 67).
8 This happened, according to Arabio historians, in a.d. 1267 (Sayce, Early
History of the Hebrews, p. 249).
* Cf . Sanday, Divine Over-ruling, pp. 72-4,

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 117
A certain number of Old Testament miracles offer parallels to some of
those which are recounted in the New Testament ; and the most con
spicuous (including some already referred to) may be enumerated here : — ¦
(a) The change of water into some other fluid (Ex. vii. 20).
(6) The instantaneous cure of leprosy, or the equally speedy production
of the same disease (Ex. iv. 6, 7, 2 Kg. v. 27).
(c) The multiplication of food (1 Kg. xvii. 14-16, 2 Kg. iv. 1-7).
(d) The restoration of the dead to life (1 Kg. xvii. 22, 2 Kg. iv. 18-37).
(e) The conception and bearing of a child by a woman of advanced
age (Gen. xviii. 11, xxi. 1, 2).
(/) The ascent of a human body into heaven (2 Kg. ii. 1-11).
It is convenient to append here an account of two cures related by
Tacitus to have been wrought upon sick and infirm persons by the Emperor
Vespasian (reigned a.d. 68-79). At Alexandria the Emperor's aid was
sought by two men, one blind, and the other crippled in his hand. The
former begged him to moisten his eyeballs with, saliva, and the other
desired him to tread with his foot upon the maimed hand. The Emperor
at first hesitated, but eventually consented, and at once (according to the
historian) the cripple recovered the use of his hand, and the blind received
his sight (Tac. Hist. iv. 81). The same miracles (with some variation)
are reported by Suetonius (Vesp. 7). Tacitus wrote his Histories during
the reign of Trajan (98-117) ; so that he was separated from the incident
recorded by only some twenty-five or thirty years. If the cures were
examples of faith-healing it may be suspected that the account (especially
as regards the rapidity of the recovery) has lost nothing by repetition.
Literary Methods
From this review of the dominant ideas prevailing among the Biblical
historians transition may be made to a consideration of their literary
aims and methods. The difference between their usages and those
foUowed by responsible modern historians is so great that, unless it is
recognized that each age must be judged by its own standards, there is
a hkehhood on the one hand of the historical value of some of the
Biblical writings being overrated and on the other of serious injustice
being done to the motives of their authors.
1. A general characteristic of Semitic writers, in making use of earlier
authorities, was the habit of reproducing not only the substance, but
even the actual wording, of such authorities without any indication of
indebtedness. At the present time hterary honesty requires that an
author, whilst assimilating the information of previous writers, should.
not appropriate their actual words on any substantial scale without
some acknowledgment of the debt ; but no sense of any obhgation to do
this was felt by the Hebrew historians. There existed among them no
notion of property in literary compositions ; authors rarely appended
their names to anything which they wrote ; and the important considera
tion for them was the utility and value of a work, not the interest or
reputation of its writer ; and if a book could be improved by being copied

118 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
with expansions, omissions, or ether modifications in various places,
large sections of it would be embodied verbatim in a new work by a sub
sequent writer without any sense that plagiarism (as it would be now
considered) was thereby committed. It was on this principle that the
author of the books of Chronicles proceeded in his use of the works of his
predecessors (the writers of Samuel and Kings) as appears from a com
parison of passages where the few verbal divergences are marked by
italics.1 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-4 1 Chron. x. 1-4
Now the Philistines fought against Now the Philistines fought against
Israel : and the men of Israel fled from Israel : and the men of Israel fled from
before the Philistines, and fell down slain before the Philistines and fell down slain
in mount Gilboa. And the Philistines in mount Gilboa. And the Philistines
followed hard upon Saul and upon his followed hard after Saul and after his
sons ; and the Philistines slew Jonathan sons ; and the Philistines slew Jonathan
and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons
of Saul. And the battle went sore against of Saul. And the battle went sore
Saul, and the archers overtook him ; and against Saul, and the archers overtook
he was greatly distressed by reason of the him ; and he was distressed by reason
archers. of the archers.
In the foUowing paraUel the Chronicler has handled his source more
freely, giving his own version of what is related ; but, through misunder
standing a phrase in the source, he has been betrayed into a blunder, for
ships of Tarshish, which probably describes a class of vessels, has been
interpreted by him to mean ships voyaging to Tarshish (in Spain), although
the port of departure was Ezion-geber (on the Red Sea).
1 Kg. xxii. 48, 49 2 Chron. xx. 35-7
Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish And after this did Jehoshaphat, king
to go to Ophir for gold ; but they went of Judah, join himself with Ahaziah,
not ; for the ships were broken at Ezion- king of Israel ; the same did very
geber. Then said Ahaziah, the son of wickedly, and he joined himself with him
Ahab, unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants to make ships to go to Tarshish, and they
go with thy servants in the ships. But made the ships in Ezion-geber. Then
Jehoshaphat would not. Eliezer the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah
prophesied against Jehoshaphat saying,
Because thou hast joined thyself with
Ahaziah, the Lord hath destroyed thy
works. And the ships were broken, that
they were not able to go to Tarshish.
2. Hebrew historians, when reconstructing past history, were fre
quently in the habit of transferring to earher times the conditions obtaining
in their own. It was thought that principles and observances which they
themselves were familiar with and valued must have been practised by
the great characters whom they venerated ; and so their origin was ante
dated. Thus the Chronicler, famihar with institutions and ritual wliich
were not developed untU after the Exile, represents them as existing in
the time of David and other early Hebrew sovereigns ; whilst the author
of the Priestly code attributes the legislation enjoining them to Moses.
1 Slight differences in the Hebrew, which are not easily represented in English,
are ignored.

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 119
It is impossible in the space here available to prove by examples the
statements just made x ; but the Priestly writer's habit of ascribing to
Moses usages which originated later may be iUustrated by the fact that he
carries back to Moses' time the custom of dividing war booty equally
between the fighting and the non-fighting men (Num. xxxi. 26, 27), which
is expressly asserted in 1 Sam. xxx. 24, 25 to have been initiated by
David. 3. A preference for the concrete over the abstract led the Hebrew
writers to represent rules which they desired to enforce, or principles
which they sought to affirm, as arising out of particular occasions, wliich,
as far as can be judged, were the inventions of the narrators. Names and
other detaUs were introduced, which give the appearance of historical
reality to the incidents described, but are no guarantee that what is stated
is actual history. Thus the punishment appropriate for one who
blasphemed the Name of Jehovah is described in Lev. xxiv. 10-23 as being
determined in the instance of a man who was the son of an Egyptian
father by an Israelite mother, the mother's name being given as
Shelomith, daughter of Dibri, a Danite. In spite of the circumstantiahty
of this account, it is practically certain that in so late a document as the
Priestly code the name must be fictitious. Again, the legislation respect
ing the right of daughters to inherit their father's property in the event
of his dying without a male heir is related to have arisen out of a claim
made by the daughters of a certain Zelophehad, a Manassite (Num. xxvii.
1-11). The names of the daughters are recorded as though they were
historic persons ; but the fact that they are almost or altogether identical
with the appeUations of certain towns or clans renders it extremely
probable that in this case, too, the occasion is imaginary, and the recital
of it is only a method of iUustrating a legal issue.2 The same fondness
for thus investing with an air of reahty the imaginative reconstructions
of the past has led the author or authors of this document to give names
to the tribal representatives described as assisting Moses and Aaron in
taking a census of the people, and to furnish precise figures of the numbers
included in each tribe (Num. i.). In reahty, the names are largely of a
late, and not an early type, and the figures are inconsistent and impossible,3
so that they can have no ancient documentary authority behind them,
but must be the arbitrary choice of the compiler of the hst. The presence
of other detaUs in a record is as httle a guarantee of its historical value
as the occurrence in it of personal names : for instance, the minuteness
of description marking the book of Esther does not justify the conclusion
that its contents are a trustworthy transcript of events.
4. In Hebrew historical writing a large place is occupied by speeches
for which in many cases the historian himself must be responsible, as
regards not only the wording but even the substance. This practice was
not peculiar to Hebrew writers, but was foUowed also by those of Greece
and Rome. For example, Thucydides, whilst claiming to have tried
» See Driver, L.O.T. pp. 129 f., 500, 501.
• See Gray, Numbers, pp. 392, 398. 3 Id. i&. pp. 6, 11, 12.

120 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to give the general tenor of what was actuaUy said, admits that he put
into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments wliich he deemed appro
priate to the several occasions (i. 22) ; and the admission is confirmed
by the fact that, though they are uttered by very different persons, they
are nevertheless all alike distinctly Thucydidean in style.1 Again, the
method pursued by Tacitus in recording speeches can be ascertained by
a comparison of his reproduction of one dehvered by the Emperor Claudius
to certain leading Gauls (Ann. xi. 24), with a fragment of the actual
address preserved on a bronze tablet found at Lyons. The historian,
though he retains the substance of the oration, condenses it to a con
siderable extent, departs from the order of the topics treated, and re
casts the whole in his own peculiar diction.2 And that the custom of
Hebrew writers was similar is proved by the speeches put into the mouth
of David or of his successors by the writer of Chronicles, for these contain
idioms that are distinctive of the Hebrew of the Chronicler's own age
(fourth century B.C.).3 In view of this it seems reasonable to suppose that
the same thing has been done by others whose special phraseology is not
so easily detected, and that many of the speeches which their narratives
contain are their own compositions, representing their ideas of what the
situations in question required.
5. Another feature marking the Hebrew historians which may be
noticed here is the frequent absence of any sense of proportion in deahng
with numbers and quantities ; so that they often mention figures which
must be greatly in excess of the reahty which they purport to describe.
Noteworthy instances of exaggeration occur in connexion with the
Israehtes who departed from Egypt at the Exodus (Ex. xii. 37, cf . xxxviii.
26), the men fit for mUitary service in David's reign (2 Sam. xxiv. 9,
1 Ch. xxi. 5), the sUver and gold amassed by the same king for the building
of the Temple (1 Ch. xxii. 14), and the sacrifices offered by Solomon at its
consecration (2 Ch. vii. 5). Such figures suggest caution in the accept
ance elsewhere of large numbers as accurate, even though they are of
more moderate proportions than these.
6. It has been aheady noticed that Hebrew writers took extremely
little care to connect their own names with the products of their pens.
Considerable as is the number of historical books included in the Old
Testament, yet in the case of only one is the title which it bears the name
of the author of the whole, or of the greater part, of the work ; aU the
others are reaUy anonymous. The same is true of some of the poetical
books, including the poem of Job. In consequence of this indifference
on the part of writers to the preservation of their memories, the recoUec-
tion of the real authorship of a book speedUy became altogether lost ; so
that when subsequent generations sought to associate a book with a
person, they had no trustworthy historic clue, and * accordingly ascribed
it to some distinguished personahty who happened to fiU a conspicuous
1 Bury, Ancient Greek Historians, p. 109. Jebb (Hellenica, p. 286) observes that
in the speeches oontained in Livy the rhetorioal colour is uniform,
2 See Eurneaux, Annals of Tacitus, ii. pp. 208-14,
3 See Driver, Expositor, April, 1895, p. 241.

IDEAS AND METHODS OF HISTORIANS 121
place in the history contained in it, even though his responsibility for it,
in any full measure, is clearly out of the question. Thus, for example,
the book of Samuel was attributed to the prophet Samuel, although the
prophet's death is related in the first half of the work (represented now
by the first book).1 In a sinular way the origin of the Pentateuch was
connected with Moses, although of the laws which it comprises a large
number can only have come into existence after his death.
The slight interest felt in the origin of hterary productions sometimes
seems to have caused works that almost certainly proceed from different
authors to be ascribed to a single writer, error being specially easy if they
happened to bear the same name. Such confusion may have occurred
in connexion with sections of the books of Isaiah and Zechariah.
Quite different from the attribution of books to the wrong authors
through ignorance is the dehberate adoption by a writer of another and
a greater name than his own in order to secure for his work more authority
than it would otherwise command. Of such pseudonymous works the
Old Testament contains two examples. One is the book of Ecclesiastes,
purporting to proceed from Solomon (eleventh or tenth century B.C.),
but probably not of earher date than the fourth century 2 ; the other is
the book of Daniel, professing to contain the visions seen and related by
a Jew in Babylon in the sixth century B.C., but being almost certainly
the production of a writer in the second century B.C.3 Outside the Hebrew
canon of Scripture there are numerous books bearing the names of
characters famous in Israel's history, such as Enoch, Moses, Solomon,
Isaiah, Baruch and Ezra, which appear to date from the first century
B.C. or later. This pseudonymity was rendered almost inevitable through
the reverence paid to the conspicuous personahties of antiquity, which
unduly depreciated the inspiration of writers hving in more recent times.
1 By the Jews Samuel was originally regarded as a single book ; and it is enume
rated as such by Origen, following Jewish usage (see Eus. H.E. vi. 25).
2 Driver, L.O.T. p. 446.
3 Driver, ib. p. 467.

PART II
A HISTORY depends for its essential value upon the truth and
fidelity of its representations ; and to ascertain the facts, if any,
lying behind a professedly historical narrative is the ultimate aim
of historical criticism. But before this end can be reached, various
preliminary inquiries are often indispensable. When a history relates
to ancient times, the preliminary work generaUy includes more than
one stage. (1) When an account is preserved not in the original manuscript
of the author but in several copies presenting numerous textual variations,
it is necessary to compare and appraise the different MSS. in order to
discover which among them is the least corrupted and best transmits
the authentic words of the author. (2) When there exist several records
purporting to relate the same series of events, but manifesting substantial
discrepancies, it is needful to estimate, if possible, their respective values
as historical authorities by considering what relation they bear to one
another, what special sources of information may have been used by the
several authors, and what aims and methods each pursued in his work.
It is only when these investigations have been undertaken that it becomes
possible to attempt to produce a narrative that may claim to be a fairly
trustworthy version of the events wliich it is desired to recount, so far as
the facts are recoverable.
Of these processes the first, distinguished as Textual Criticism, is, in
connexion with the New Testament, of much less moment than the
second. Though it is a matter of extreme interest to try to ascertain the
actual words penned by the authors of the New Testament books, issues
of material importance rarely hinge upon variations between MSS. But
upon the second process, known as Documentary Criticism, grave conse
quences turn. For since between the Four Gospels which profess to give
an account of one and the same Life there are certain divergences, the
tenor of the history that is to be constructed from them is bound to be
influenced by the conclusion reached as to which of the conflicting narra
tives is most authoritative. Documents which are not primarily historical
but didactic or homiletic, like the Epistles, furnish, of course, decisive
evidence for the teaching of their writers ; but inasmuch as one is anony
mous, and several raise doubts as to the correctness of their traditional
origin, there is need of criticism in regard to these also, with a view to
determining their authenticity and the value of such parts of their con
tents as depend upon this. 123

VI
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
(a) Early Writing Materials
THE commonest and cheapest material for writing purposes in
ancient times was papyrus (ndnvgog, caUed also fSvfSXog, whence
pifSXog and j3ij3Xiov x ). This was obtained from the pith of a
plant (cyperus papyrus), then found chiefly in Egypt and stUl occurring
in Nubia and Abyssinia, wliich grows in shallow water, and is about 6 feet
in height with a tufted head. The stem of the plant, which contains a
cellular pith, was cut into longitudinal strips (philyros) and these were
then laid side by side, whUst other strips were placed transversely across
them ; and the sheet thus formed, after being moistened with water and
paste, was pressed, dried, and smoothed. A number of such sheets,
varying in size but measuring on an average about 5 inches by 10 inches,
were then attached to one another by their longer edges, to constitute a
roll (volumen), the usual number of sheets used in Pliny's time being
twenty, though this figure was not constant. The writing as a rule was
arranged in columns from 2 to 3 inches wide (aeXideg) 2, usually on one
side only, the lines in the columns being paraUel with the long edge of the
roll. RoUs which had both their sides covered with writing (cf. Esek. ii.
10) were called biblia opisthographa, but these would rarely be intended
for sale, though authors sometimes saved material by writing on the back
of a roll already filled (cf . Juv. Sat. i. 4-6). 3 The length of a roU was quite
arbitrary, but since a long and heavy roU must have been very trouble
some to handle, there was probably a demand for a convenient length.
It has been calculated that the Gospel of St. Luke would require a roll
measuring 31 or 32 feet ; and inasmuch as Acts is about as long as the
Third Gospel, it has been inferred that when these works were written
the measurement named was that of a normal roll to which a writer

1 Similarly the Latin liber primarily means the bark of a tree. The English booh,
on the other hand, comes from the A.S. b6c, " a beech tree," beechen wood being an
early writing material.
2 The Hebrew term was deldtholh (mistranslated " leaves " in Jer. xxxvi. 23,
see mg.), a word which means literaEy " doors " ; oolumns of writing were so called
from their shape.
3 It seems probable that the sealed volume referred to in Bev. v. 1 was a book
or codex, not a roll, and that the passage should run a book written within, and on
the back (or outside) close sealed with seven seals.
124

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 125
adjusted his matter if he did not wish to occupy two or more rolls. St.
Mark's Gospel, which is the shortest of the four, would need a roU of 19
feet in length ; for the Epistle to the Romans one of 11| feet would be
necessary ; and for 2 Thessalonians one measuring 1| feet, with the
contents arranged in five columns. For smaU works, or subdivisions
of large works, there could be cut off from rolls of average length sections
of suitable size, such sections being termed tomes (rouoi). When a roU,
caUed xeipaXlg (Ezek. iii. 3) or xerpaXlg j3ij3Xiov (Ps. xl. 7), was fiUed with
writing, it was wound (cf. Lk. iv. 20, nxv£ag) either upon itself, or upon
a stick or two sticks (6/j,g>aX6g, umbilicus 1), fastened to one or both of its
shorter edges. In the last case it could be wound round one of the sticks
as it was unwound from the other. The application of papyrus to writing
purposes goes back to a remote antiquity. The earliest papyrus roll
now existing, which contains a portion of a work written in the Egyptian
hieratic script, has been assigned to about 2500 B.C.2 The same material
was employed for brief letters as well as for larger writings ; for instance
in 2 Joh. 12 x°-Qxrls doubtless means papyrus.
Papyrus was not the only material employed for writing ; more lasting
but more expensive materials were the skins of sheep or goats or other
smaU animals (dupQegai, membranw). Skins speciaUy prepared in such
a way that both sides could be used were known as membranm Pergamenw
(whence the French parchemin and our parchment) since they were produced
chiefly at Pergamum in Asia Minor, though they could be imitated else
where. The best parchment was made from the skins of very young
calves, and was called in consequence " vellum " (vitulinum or pellis
vitulina). The employment of skins as writing material is very early, one
in the British Museum going back to the year 2000 B.C. Reference is
made to /ueufigdvai in 2 Tim. iv. 13 (where the Latin term appears in a
Greek dress), and these may have been parchments, though the actual
term membrana Pergamena is said not to appear in use until the beginning
of the fourth century a.d. Probably aU the original autographs of the
New Testament books, as weU as the earliest copies of them, were on
papyrus.3 It was plentiful at Rome and probably elsewhere under the
Empire, whereas vellum was not a common writing material in the time
of the early Emperors. The latter took its place from the fourth century
to the fourteenth, and in turn was graduaUy superseded after the fourteenth
century by paper. There was, of course, some overlapping, the papyrus
period in the case of the New Testament lasting as late as the seventh
century.4 When veUum was employed, it was often coloured purple or
some other bright tint, and purple veUum codices (p. 126) occur among
extant MSS., one of them obtaining its name from its colouring (Codex
Purpureas Petropolitanus).

1 These terms probably denote the projecting horns at the extremities of a stick
or cylinder. 2 Papyrus rolls have been found not only in Egypt but in Italy at Herculaneum.
3 Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 26.
i Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 5.

126 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
For writing on papyrus the ordinary implement was a reed (xdXa/iog
(3 Joh 13), calamus) ; but for writing on the harder surface of parchment
a quiU could be used. In early times the ink (/idXav, /ueXdviov) commonly
employed was composed of water mixed with soot and rendered adhesive
with gum, whUst other ingredients for ink were gaU-apples and the liquid
of the cuttle-fish (sepia). What was written could be blotted out (cf.
Ex. xxxii. 33), or, if on parchment, could be washed off (Num. v. 23).
Coloured inks, especially red, were used in the Middle Ages, chiefly for
ornamental purposes (examples of such being found in existing MSS.),
whilst other materials both for writing and for decoration were silver
and gold. There exist no manuscripts of the New Testament inscribed
with gold lettering, but several are written in silver letters on a purple
ground. These purple codices are supposed to have originated at Con
stantinople. A roll, when completed, was tied, wrapped up in a cover (often of
coloured veUum) caUed cpaivoXrjg or ipaiXovrjg, labeUed, and then placed
for safe keeping in a circular box or canister (xifiwxog, xiaxrj, cista, capsa,
scrinium). If the matter inscribed on the manuscript was intended to
be protected against perusal by unauthorized persons, the edge of the roll
might be sealed. The trouble involved in continually taking out a roll
from its receptacle, unfolding it, and keeping it open for the purpose of
copying a statement was enhanced by the fact that ancient writers did not
use writing-desks large enough to accommodate an open roU, but unfolded
it upon their knees. The inconvenience of consulting documents of this
nature helps to explain the inexactness with which a writer sometimes
reproduced the authorities which he followed, preferring after the perusal
of a passage to draw upon his recoUection of it, when committing it to
writing, rather than go to the trouble of inspecting the original repeatedly.
Works produced under such circumstances could scarcely fad to exhibit
departures from the authorities transcribed ; and many of the divergences
manifest in those Gospels which seem to be directly dependent upon an
earlier document are readUy explained by failures of memory occurring
in the process of transcription. As roUs made of papyrus must have
been frail, the fact accounts for the non-survival of any MSS. of the New
Testament written on that material except the merest fragments (p. 128).
The process of frequently unfolding and refolding rolls of papyrus was
especiaUy calculated to cause harm to them at the ends ; and probably
the mutilation which the final chapter of St. Mark's Gospel has apparently
undergone finds in this its explanation.
Both papyrus and parchment, when intended for writings of con
siderable length, could be used in another form beside that of the roU —
viz. the codex. This was a collection of sheets of either of the two materials
named, which, folded down the middle and placed inside one another,
were then stitched or otherwise fastened at the crease. Owing to the
convenience of this arrangement for lengthy works by (1) affording ease
in handling, (2) facilitating the finding of references, (3) enabling both
sides of the material to be utilized* (4) admitting a number of separate
writings to be united in a single volume, the employment of codices made

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 127
of papyrus began as early as the third century a.d., and possibly earlier
(cf. p. 124).
The fact that codices are later than rolls is incidentally shown by the
circumstance that in the case of the earhest surviving, the contents of
each page are arranged in several narrow columns, though there was
obviously not the same necessity for such an arrangement in the case of
a page as in the case of a roU. The Sinaitic and the Vatican MSS., which
are the oldest (p. 142), have respectively four and three columns on a
page ; whereas those of a slightly later date, including the Alexandrian
MS., have only two. This last was the commonest number, though the
Paris and Bezan MSS. have only one. The circumstance that in the
case of many MSS. each page contained several columns conduced to the
habUity of passages becoming misplaced ; for if one or more verses
happened to be accidentaUy omitted by a copyist, who then inserted in the
space between two columns the passage which he had overlooked, the
marginal insertion might by a subsequent copyist be introduced into the
wrong column. In the codex, as in the roll, clauses were not regularly
separated by punctuation, or words accented, untU about the ninth century
a.d. The number of lines in the columns of a codex usually remained
fairly constant, though the figure varied somewhat. In the New Testa
ment the Vatican MS. (B) has from forty to forty-four lines in a column,
the Sinaitic MS (N) has forty-eight, and Codex Claromontanus has
twenty-one. As parchment or veUum would aUow the ink of a writing
to be washed or scraped off, codices of this material (which was not always
easy to procure) were sometimes used twice over, the earlier writing
being more or less thoroughly erased. Such codices are known as
palimpsests (of which the Paris MS. symbolized by C is a conspicuous
example), and others are those known as P, Q, R, Z and 3.
In connexion with the subject of ancient writing materials and the
impediments which their clumsy nature threw in the way of historical
and hterary researches, attention may be caUed to the absence in antiquity
of many of the facilities which in modern times are at the disposal of
investigators and writers, and enable them to attain a degree of accuracy
and precision which was impossible in the past.
1. There did not exist in ancient times anything equivalent to the
encyclopaedias and other books of reference which in the present day so
greatly aid inquiry. There were libraries in various places, the best-
known and most important being those at Alexandria, founded and
enlarged by various Ptolemies ; whilst two were established at Rome
by Augustus. But a visit to such collections was not within reach of
all ; and it is not likely that their treasures could be as easily consulted as
are those of modern hbraries.
2. A great drawback to accuracy of description was the absence of
maps. Without such helps statements as to distances and directions, at
least in Connexion with unfamiliar regions, can scarcely faU to be vague ;
so that it is not surprising that ancient writers were often loose and mis
leading in their references to the position of places and their relation to
other localities.

128 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
3. A stiU more serious obstacle to exactness in the writing of history
was the lack of a recognized chronological era. Early historians made
shift to date events by various devices, one of the commonest being to
fix the time when notable occurrences happened by reference to contem
porary kings or magistrates (like the archons at Athens or the consuls at
Rome). But this method furnished no clear historical perspective, and,
in the absence of a system of synchronisms, could only be of hmited
value. (In the books of 1, 2 Maccabees years are reckoned from the
Seleucid era, which began in 312 B.C. (see 1 Mace. i. 10, etc.) ).
(b) Manuscripts and Versions
As none of the autographs of the several writers whose works compose
the New Testament have survived, the original text of their writings,
from which the multitude of existing MSS. have descended through a
series of intermediate MSS. (likewise lost), has to be reconstructed so far
as possible by a process of inference from its present-day representatives.
It is the task of textual criticism to determine, with a view to this, the
value of the different authorities which are avaUable.
The principal authorities are four : — (1) Fragments of Greek papyri,
containing merely short portions of the New Testament ; (2) Greek vellum
MSS., divided into (a) Uncials, (b) Minuscules or Cursives ; (3) Versions
(in various languages) ; (4) Quotations in Patristic writers. Of these the
most important and valuable are the Greek MSS., for they were written
in order to reproduce accurately the original autographs of the New Testa
ment books. Versions were likewise designed to represent the original
text ; but they cannot do this with the precision of Greek MSS. owing to
inexactness in the equivalence of words belonging to distinct languages,
and differences between linguistic idioms, which often made it necessary
for a sense-translation to be substituted for a word-for-word rendering
(cf. p. 133). (1) Papyri
Of these there are nearly twenty fragments. They date from the
third to the sixth century, and are usually denoted by an antique p
and a distinguishing numeral. They are preserved in various places,
including London, Paris, Berhn, Philadelphia, Cambridge (U.S.A.), etc.,
and seldom contain more than a very few verses. The earhest are
p1 and' pB of the third century ; the most considerable in point of size is
p13 (fourth century).1 (2) Greek Manuscripts
Of the two classes into which Greek manuscripts are divided, Uncials
and Cursives, the former are the most important because the earher in
origin. Uncial MSS. or majuscules (as they are also caUed) are written
1 Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 19, 20.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 129
in characters resembhng capitals, each letter being separate.1 Minuscules
or cursives are written in a running hand, the letters in each word
being connected together. The term cursive, in strictness, describes a
careless running hand used in private writings (generally on papyrus),
whilst minuscule denotes a hterary hand, in which the letters, though
connected, are carefully formed.
The uncial manuscripts of the New Testament date from the fourth
to the ninth century ; whereas the minuscules vary in date from the
ninth to the sixteenth ; the oldest of which the exact age is known goes
back to the year a.d. 835. There is (as might be expected) some over
lapping in the use of uncial and cursive hands ; and an uncial at Oxford
reaUy forms one manuscript with a cursive at Petrograd. The MSS.
included in each of these classes are conveniently distinguished by symbols.
The uncials, of which there are about 168, and which are usuaUy described
by names der ved from the places whence they were obtained, or where
they are now preserved, or from persons associated with their history, are
denoted by the capital letters of the English (or Roman), Greek, and
Hebrew alphabets (the letter J being omitted from the first-named alpha
bet, and all the letters resembling Enghsh being omitted from the second).
The minuscules, which number about 2,318, are indicated by Arabic
numerals. In addition to manuscripts, there also exist some other authori
ties styled Lectionaries, which contain passages of Scripture from the
New Testament that were read at pubhc worship. These number 1,565.2
It wiU be seen from these statements that the manuscripts available
for determining the text of the New Testament are far more numerous
than those which are forthcoming in the case of any other ancient writings.
For though of the surviving plays of Sophocles there exist about 100
manuscripts, and of those of iEschylus some forty or fifty, yet for the first
six books of the Annals of Tacitus the sole authority is a single MS. The
uncial manuscripts of the New Testament also exceed in age those of
most classical books, for the earhest MS. of Sophocles is not older than the
eleventh century, the two earhest MSS. of Lucretius date from the tenth
and the ninth centuries, and only in the case of VergU are there MSS.
nearly as old as the earhest New Testament codices.
Since of the uncials there aTe more manuscripts than there are letters
of the three alphabets named above, it has been deemed expedient, in
order that the letters may suffice for all, to divide the books of the New
Testament into four groups, namely (1) the Gospels, (2) Acts and the
Cathohc Epistles, (3) the Pauline Epistles, (4) Revelation ; and to distribute
the successive letters to the severalMSS. of each group separately. Hence
the same symbol may denote different MSS., according as it is employed
in connexion with one group or another. For example, H represents three
distinct uncials, Codex Seidelianus II, Mutinensis, and Coislinianus,
1 The term litterce unciales is thought to mean " letters an inch high." No existing
MSS. have letters of this size, but some are written in characters f of an inch high,
with initials nearly twice as large.
8 The figures are taken from Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the New Testament,
p. 129. 9

130

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

according as the Gospels, Acts^ and Pauline Epistles are under considera
tion. The same system has been extended to the figures designating
minuscules, so that, since there are more minuscule MSS. of the Gospels
than of the Epistles, the same codex is indicated by 33 in connexion with
the Gospels and by 17 in connexion with the Pauline Epistles. But since
this method is apt to cause confusion to those who are not experts, some
textual critics wisely differentiate between the ambiguous symbols either by
placing distinguishing abbreviations over or beside these (H9*, H"*, HPM",
evan 2, act 2), or distinguishing numerals under these (Hlt H2, Ha).
The date of a manuscript is, for the most part, determined by palaeo-
graphical indications, such as the style of the letters and the presence or
absence of punctuation (the earhest lacking punctuation iaatks), though
it is occasionaUy fixed by a note in it stating the year when it was produced
(e:§. the cursive 481 bears the date May 7th, a.d. 835). The oldest uncials,
which are the most valuable, differ widely in their readings from one
another, whereas the minuscules, which are generally of later date than
the leading uncials, mostly present the same type of text. Some codices
are bilingual (Greek and Latin, Greek and Egyptian, Latin and Gothic,
etc.), the two languages being commonly written side by side on opposite
pages (as in Codex Bezse) ; though occasionaUy a Greek manuscript has an
interlinear translation (e.g. Codex Boernerianus). Corrections of the
original text are often introduced by later hands ; in such oases the original
reading is marked in textual notes by an asterisk, and the corrections by
a small letter (*• b' "¦) attached to tbe symbol of the MS. In some oodices
alterations have been made by a series of correctors, Codex Sinaiticus
having had eight correctors, and Oodex Bezse more than a dozen. It was
by such later (bands that the breathings, accents, a,nd punctuation marks
absent from the earhest text were commonly supplied.
The following is a list of the principal uncials (classified according as
they contain the groups of New Testament books mentioned above), with
the symbols, oharacter, and date of each, and the places where they are
severaUy preserved. The most important are marked by an asterisk.

(a) Manuscripts of the Gospels

Name.
*Sinaiticus N
?Alexandrinus A
?Vaticanns 1209 B
*Ephraemi G
*Bezsa (Gk. and Lat.) D
Basiliensis E
BOTeeliamus E
Seidelianus I (or Wolfii A) G
Seidelianus II (or Wolfii B) H
Cyprius K
Regius L
Campianus M
*Purpureus Petropolitanus N
•Sinopensis 0

Character.

Date.

complete

iv cent, or

begin, of v

almost complete

middle or end

of -V

complete

iv

incomplete

V

almost complete

v or vi

almost complete

viii

incomplete

ix

incomplete

X

incomplete

ix

complete

ix

almost complete

viii

complete

ix

incomplete

end of vi

fragmentary

vi

Place.
Petrograd London EomeParis
Cambridge
Basel UtrechtLondon and
Cambridge
HamburgParisParis
Paris
Borne Paris

TEXTUAL CRITICISM

131

Name. ,

Symbc

>l. Character.

Date.

Place.

*Guelpherbytanus I

P

fragmentary

vi

Wolfenbiittel

?Guelpherbytanus II

Q

fragmentary

V

Wolfenbiittel

*Nitrierjsis Valacanus 354

RS

fragmentary complete

vi
a.d. 949

LondonRome

*Borgiauus (Gk. and Lat.)

T

fragmentary

V

Rome

Nanianus

U

complete

ix or x

Venice

Mosquensis

V

incomplete

ix

Moscow

?Ereer or Washington

W

complete ?

V

Detroit

Monacensis

X

incomplete

ix or x

Munich

Barberini

¥'

incomplete

viii orix

Rome

?Dublinensis

Z

incomplete

v or vi

Dublin

Tischendorfianus IV

T

incomplete

ix

Oxford and

Sangahensis (Gk. and Lat.)

A

almost complete

ix-x

Petrograd
St. Gall

Tischendorfianus m

A

incomplete

ix

Oxford

?Zacynthuas

A

incomplete

viii

London

Petropolitanus

n

almost complete

ix

Petrograd

?Rossanensis

v

incomplete

vi

Rossano

?Beratinus

*

incomplete

v or vi

Berat

n[r

incomplete

viii orix

Athos

Q

complete

viii or ix

Athos

(b) Manuscripts of Acts and the Catholic Epistl

ss

Name. Symbol. Character,

Date.

Place.

?Sinaiticus

a

complete

ivor v

Petrqgrad

?Alexandrinus

A

'Complete

V

Londpa

?Vaticanus 1209

B

complete

iv

Rome

?Ephraemi

C

incomplete

V

Paris

?Bezse

D

Acts only, nearly

complete
vi
Cambridge
?Laudianus (Gk. and Lat.)
E2
Acts only, neariy
complete
vi
Oxford
Mutinensis
H2
Acts only, nearly
complete
ix
Modena
Mosquensis
K2
nearly complete
ix
Moscow
AngelieuB
L2
Acts incomplete,
Epp. complete
ix
Rome
Porphyrianus
P2
incomplete
ix
Petrograd
*
complete
viii or ix
Athos
(c) Manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles
Name. Symbol.
Character.
Date.
Place.
?Sinaiticus
X
complete
iv or v
Petrograd
?Alexandrinus
A
incomplete
v
London
? Vaticanus 1209
B
incomplete
iv
Rome
?Ephraemi
C
incomplete
V
Paris
?Claromontanus (Gk.aud Lat.) D2
nearly complete
vi
Paris
Sangermanensis (Gk.and Lat.')E3
incomplete
ix
Petrograd 2
Augiensis (Gk. and Lat.)
*l
incompleted
ix
Cambridge
Boernerianus (Gk. and Lat.)
G3
almost complete
ix
Dresden 3
1 This symbol has ibeen given by some New Testament Textual critics to a MS.
of ninth rcenifury date preserved at Banbury.
2 This is said to be only a faulty copy of D2. It is sometimes styled Petro
politanus. a By some authorities G3 is held to be a copy, by others to be the original, of E„,
It is said to have once formed part of Codex Sangallensis (A).
132

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Name.

Symbol. Character.

Date.

Place.

?Coislinianus 202

H3 incomplete

vi

Paris, Athens,
Petrograd, Moscow,Turin, Kief

?Ereer

W complete ?

V

Detroit

Mosquensis

K2 almost complete

ix

Moscow

Angelicus

L2 almost complete

ix

Rome

Porphyrianus

P2 incomplete

ix

Petrograd

^ almost complete

viii or ix

Athos

(d) Manuscripts of Revelation

Name.
Symbol. Character.
Date.
Place.
?Sinaiticus
fci complete
iv or v
Petrograd
?Alexandrinus
A complete
V
London
Vaticanus 2066 1
B2 complete
viii
Rome
?Ephraemi
C incomplete
V
Paris
Porphyrianus
P2 incomplete
ix
Petrograd
The foUowing is a short list of the most valuable
: minuscules : —
Symbols.
Contents.
Date.
Place.
1
ev. act. paul
xii
Basel
13
ev.
TTli
Paris
28
ev.
xi
Paris
33
ev. act (13), paul (17)
ix-x
Paris
61 ev.
act (34), paul (41), rev. (92)
xvi
Dublin
69 ev.
act (31), paul (37), rev. (14)
XV
Leicester
118
ev.
xiii
Oxford
124
ev.
xii
Vienna
131
ev. act (70), paul (77)
xiv
Rome
157
ev.
xii
Rome
209 ev.
act (95), paul (108), rev. (46)
xiv
Venice
346
ev.
xii
Milan
614
act. paul
xiii?
Milan
Of these 13, 69, 124, 346, with some others, are derived from a common
archetype, as proved by Ferrar, and are known as the Ferrar group.
They are remarkable for placing the section about the adulterous woman,
which is ordinarily found in Joh. vii. 53-viii. 11, after Lk. xxi. 38 (see p. 233).
Another group, which also originated from a common archetype, consists
of 1, 33, 118, 131, 157, 209 and one or two besides. The cursive 33 is the
most valuable of its class, and another very interesting one is 614.
(3) Versions
Versions are translations of the New Testament into the various
languages which were spoken in those parts of the Boman world into which
Christianity spread in the second and foUowing centuries. They became
necessary as soon as the new Faith was diffused among classes of people
who were not familiar with Greek. It is probable that they first originated
in glosses written in Greek manuscripts underneath the words of which
they were the equivalent. Such interlinear glosses, if afterwards coUected
1 Sometimes denoted by Q (Swete, Apoc. p. clxxxii.).
TEXTUAL CRITICISM 133
and copied into a separate volume, would furnish a continuous translation,
wliich could be used with most facility if it were transcribed on to pages
opposite the original. This seems to have been done in the case of the
uncial D, wherein each page of the Greek is faced by a rendering of its
contents into Latin. The countries in which versions were earhest made
were Syria, Italy (with Eoman Africa) and Egypt. Other lands in which
versions of less importance for critical purposes were produced include
Armenia, Ethiopia, and Moesia (the last being occupied by the Goths, for
whom a translation in the fourth century was made by Ulfilas). The
value of versions in textual criticism turns upon the closeness wherewith
they represent the original of which they are renderings. If a translation
is made with care and accuracy, it becomes comparatively easy to re
construct the Greek text from whieh it has been derived, and this re
construction adds to the existing Greek MSS. the equivalent of another.
And in the case of certain versions, the date at which they were made is
prior to that of the very oldest of surviving Greek MSS., the earhest Syriac
and Latin translations having been produced in the second cenbury, and
the earhest Egyptian in the third, whereas the Vatican MS. B1209 belongs
to the fourth century. Hence these translations are evidence for a Greek
text which was current at a date not very far removed from the age when
many of the original writings of the New Testament were composed.
Various causes, however, inevitably prevent a translation from being a
sure clue to the exact wording of the original. Among them are the
differences of idiom between one language and another, the fact that the
words of one language which are roughly equivalent to those of another
are rarely quite synonymous with them (making, it impossible to infer
with certainty from a particular rendering which of two or more synonyms
was used in the original), the absence in one language of distinctions
(e.g. gender) exhibited by another, and fluctuations in the translator's
skUl and consistency.1 Nor again is it always possible to discover the
date of a version, and so to ascertain whether it is likely to have been made
from early or late Greek MSS. Moreover, the autographs of the versions
have disappeared hke the originals of which they are renderings, and the
copies of the autographs have sustained textual corruptions. Sometimes the
original renderings have been dehberately corrected by reference to those
of other authorities, and sometimes unintentional errors have been
introduced in the mere process of copying. It is, however, obvious that
accidental errors of transcription will seldom coincide in the Greek and
in a translation : consequently when the quahty and character of a version
have been ascertained and chance mistakes have been ehminated, it
becomes extremely useful for determining the original text amongst a
number of variants. The maker of a translation is less likely to have
departed purposely from the original than the copyist of a Greek MS. ;
1 The lack of uniformity sometimes shown in rendering the same word, even in
contiguous verses, may be illustrated from the Vulgate, where in 1 Joh. ii. 3-5 rvpionev
rrjpav, and rypfj are represented by observemus, custodit and servat, whilst in Jas. iv. 4,
tou xoo-fiov is translated by both mundi and smculi. So Kepajuov is rendered in
Mk. xiv. 13 by lagenam but in Lk. xxii. 10 by amphoram.

184 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and if two or more versions, produced in places widely separate, agree,
there is strong probability that the reading which they have in common
goes back to the autograph. And in particular the evidence of a version
is of great value in connexion with questions of additions or omissions,
where accuracy of rendering is of no moment.
The different versions are about nine in aU, but, as will be gathered
from what has already been said, the most important are the Latin, the
Syriac, the Egyptian, and the Gothic. In the Case of Latin and Syriac,
there are early versions and later revised versions. Thus the Latin
versions are divided into the Old Latin, which dates from the second
century, and of which the various MSS. differ widely from one another,
and the Vulgate, a revision of the Old Latin, which was made (a.d.
384-5) j by St. Jerome. Of the Old Latin version there existed three types,
styled respectively, the African (the most primitive), the European,
and the Itahan. Of the MSS. of this version enumerated below k, e and h
are African, a, b and ff are European, whilst d, f, gig. are Itahan. Of the
Vulgate the best MSS. are am, dun, ful, and Und. Of the Syriac there are
similarly an Old Syriac (third century) represented by two MSS. known
as the Sinaitic and the Curetonian ; a revision of this, caUed the Peshitto
(fifth century) ; a revision of the Peshitto, of a somewhat free character,
made for PhUoxenus, a bishop of Hierapolis in 508 and caUed the Phil-
oxenian ; a revision of this (in the direction of greater literalness) produced
in 616 by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea) and caUed after him the Harkleian ;
and an independent version, existing only in fragments, which is assigned
to the sixth century, and known as the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) version.
The Egyptian or Coptic versions are distinguished, according to the dialect
in which they are written, as the Sahidic (sometimes cited as the Thebaic),
composed in the speech of southern (or Upper) Egypt in the third century,
and the Bohairic (sometimes caUed the Mempkiiic) and composed in the
speech of northern (or Lower) Egypt in the third or fourth century.1 The
Gothic version was made in the fourth century, and exists only in fragments.
AU the preceding versions were made directly from the Greek ; but there
are some versions of later date, which are translations not of the Greek
original, but of some other version. Among these are the Armenian,
made from the Syriac and Latin ; the Ethiopian (Abyssinian) from the
Syriac ; the Georgian from the Syriac and Egyptian ; and the Arabic
partly from the original Greek, partly from the Syriac and Egyptian.
The following is a hst of the Versions, with some of the principal MSS.,
their dates, and the localities where they are preserved : —
Version. MSS. Symbol. Date. Place.
*Latin Vetus Lat. vet ii cent.
Veroellensis (ev.) a iv Veroelli
Veronensis (ev.) b iv-v Verona
Colbertinus (ev. aot. paul) o xii Paris
Bezse (ev. act. paul) d vi Cambridge

1 Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 185. But by other scholars
this version is assigned to the sixth or seventh century.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM

135

Version.

Yulgite

*8yriac Veins

Peshitto

Palatums (ev.)
Brixianus (ev.)
Corbeiensis (ev.)
Corbeiensis (ev.)
QigaS (act. rev.)
Claromontanus (ev. act.)
Vindobonensis (ev.)
Bobiensis (ev.)
Anii^tinus Cavensis
Dublinensis
Dunelmensis Euldeusis
ToletanusLindisfarnensis

Curetonian
Sinaitic[numerous]

Philoxenian
Harkleian [several]
Palestinian [fragments]

um
Sahidic [fragments]
Bohairic [numerous]

Armenian Vetus

MthwpicGothic Arabic
GeorgianPersian

[several]
[several][several]

Symbol.

Date.

Place.

e

iv or v

Vienna^ Dublin

f

vi

Brescia

fii

X

Petrograd

fi2

V

Paris

g. gig

xii

Stockholm

h1

V

Rome

i

v-vi

Vienna

k

iv

Turin

Lat. vg

iv

am

viii

Florence

pav.

ix

La Cava, nr.
Salerno

dub.

viii or ix

Dublin

dun.

vii or viii

Durham

fuld

vi

Fulda

to!

viii

Madrid

Und.

vii or viii

London

Syr.

ii

Syr. vet

ii— iii

Syr. cur

V

Lpndon

Syr, sin.

iv-v

Sinai

Syr. pesh v

& foil, cenl

). London and else
where

Syr. phil

vi

Oxford, America

Syr. hi

vii

London, Cam
bridge, Rpme

Syr. pal

vi

London, Petro
grad, Oxford

Eg.

iii

Eg. sah (th)
iii
Paris
Eg. boh (me)
iii— iv
Oxford, Paris.Lon-
or vi-vii
don
Arm. vet
V
various places
Arm. vg.
xii
Eth.
v-vi
Paris and elsei
where
Goth. (Go)
iv
Upsala and else
where
(4) Patristic Quotations.
The assistance contributed to the Textual criticism of the New Testa
ment by Patristic quotations is qualified by considerations affecting both
the original writers and later copyists.2 (1) A Patristic writer usually
quotes only isolated and comparatively short passages from the New
Testament books, unless he happens to be a commentator. (2) In an
age when writings existed only in manuscript, and consequently were
difficult to consult (p. 126), quotations would naturally be often made
from memory instead of being verified by reference to documents, the
1 The symbp.1 h is also used in connexion •yejth Acts and the Cathplic Epp. to.
denote the Codex Floriacensis, a fragmentary palimpsest of the sixth century, now
at Paris, which is also occasionally represented by PI.
2 See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 195 foil. (Bebb).
136 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
tendency to trust to the memory being greatest in the case of homUetic
writings, where various passages were often combined. (3) The original
text of a Patristic work has often to be reconstructed from corrupt MSS.
before it can be used as evidence in textual criticism, and such recon
struction has been only partiaUy accomphshed. Copyists were inclined
to assimilate to the text current in their own time, and consequently
famihar to them, any divergences occurring in the works they were repro
ducing. In the case of the Latin Fathers in particular, the monks, to
whom the multiplication of manuscripts was often committed, and who
were weU acquainted with the Vulgate, were prone to substitute for the
readings of the manuscript they were copying, the readings of the Vulgate
text. If, however, the possibihty of errors arising from these sources is
kept in view, the quotations found in the writings of various Fathers are
of much value as confirming or discounting the readings of MSS. ; and
since the approximate dates of the Patristic writers are known, they throw
much light upon the text prevailing at a definite date. Further, as it can
generally be ascertained in what country the several Patristic writers
hved, the quotations in their works are also evidence for the type of text
used in certain parts of the world (e.g. Clement of Alexandria and Origen
for Egypt, Irenasus for Gaul, Tertullian for Carthage) ; and may help to
indicate the locality whence the readings characterizing certain MSS.
originated. A brief hst of important Patristic writings and writers is subjoined ; of
the dates many are only approximate and some uncertain : —
Clement of Borne, d. 95 or 100 ? Hippolytus, d. after 217
Epistle of Barnabas, 70-100 ? Tertullian, d. 220-240
Teaching of XII Apostles, " before Origen, d. 253
rather than after 100 " ? l Cyprian, d. 258
Ignatius, d. 107 or 117 Dionysius of Alexandria, d. 265
Hermas, d. early second century Methodius, d. 311
Aristides, d. after 133 Eusebius of Caesarea, d. 340
Marcion, d. after 138 Athanasius, d. 373
Justin Martyr, d. after 145 Basil, d. 379
Polycarp, d. 156 2 Gregory of Nazianzus, d. 389
Papias, d. 156 ? Gregory of Nyssa, d. 396
Tatian, d. 172 Ambrose, d. 397
Muratorian Canon, 170-180 Epiphanius, d. 403
Athenagoras, d. after 176 Chrysostom, d. 407
Hegesippus, d. after 180 Jerome, d. 420
Irenseus, d. 202 Augustine, d. 430
Clement of Alexandria, d. after 203
(c) Principles of Textual Criticism
As has been already said, the object of textual criticism is to produce
a text approximating to the original autographs by inferences based on a
1 J. A. Robinson places it later. 2 Studia Biblica, ii. ,p. 105 f. (Turner).

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 137
comparative valuation of the variant readings presented by existing MSS.
and the other authorities just reviewed. The divergences that mark these
authorities are due to two sources. One is the occurrence of errors of
transcription, which are almost inevitable whenever a writing of any length
is copied by hand. The likeness to one another of various letters, words,
or sentences within the same hne or neighbouring lines is apt to occasion
the eye of the copyist to pass insensibly from one to the other and lead to
the omission of all that intervenes. If the copyist is writing from dictation
he may mistake one word for another similarly pronounced. Injury to a
manuscript (and to accidental injury papyrus rolls, owing to the fragility
of their material, must have been peculiarly exposed) is liable to cause
words to be misread, and so reproduced incorrectly. Such errors as these
are mechanical and inadvertent. And since every transcription involves
the possibihty of mistakes, the chances of such happening are increased
indefinitely when a MS. becomes the ancestor of a long hne of later MSS.,
inasmuch as in every additional copy most of the earher mistakes will be
repeated and fresh errors made. The second source is the introduction of
intentional changes due to various causes, such as the desire to correct real
or seeming faults in the text copied, to render obscure passages more lucid,
to supply from another quarter additional matter, and the hke. Changes
of this kind, arising from the copyist's wish to replace what he has hefore
him by what in his opinion the original author wrote or ought to have
written, are more difficult to deal with than the changes resulting from
mere accidental mistakes in transcription. A constant motive for
intentional changes in the Gospels was the desire to assimilate the text
of one Gospel to the text of another, the shorter of the two texts being
expanded by the insertion of words occurring only in the longer, so as to
remove divergences between them, and thus to preclude sources of per
plexity. Thus in Mk. xiii. 18, where the best MSS. have 7tgoaei>xeo8e de Iva
\xvj yivrjxai xeW*'V0S! some introduce after yhrjxai the words rj qyoyrj v/ioov
from Mt. xxiv. 20. It was some time before the books of the New Testa
ment were placed on the same footing as those of the Old Testament, so
that the temptation to alter the original text of them by additions or
other modifications calculated to explain or improve the sense was not
counteracted by any feeling of their exceptional sacredness, such as that
which safeguarded in the age of the Massoretes the text of the Hebrew
Scriptures. The occurrence of transcriptional errors was facilitated by the presence
of contractions ; for instance_©2 was used for ®EOS, KS for KYPIOS, YL
for YIOS, HP for IIATHP, IS for IHSOYS, and such abbreviations were
hable to be expanded differently. The varieties of mechanical, or unde
signed, changes are too numerous to be iUustrated thoroughly ; but some
of the commonest may be briefly enumerated and exemplified. They
are : —
1. Confusion of letters formed similarly — 2 Pet. u. 13 ALT ATAIZ and
ATAIIAIZ ; Rom. v. 1 EXOMEN and EXQMEN; 2 Cor. i. 15 XAPIN and
XAPAN; Acts xii. 25 EIS and ES; perhaps 1 Tim. in. 16 027 and
&I( = 6e6g) ; 1 Tim. i. 4 OIKONOMIAN and OIKOAOMHN.

138 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
2. Confusion of letters similarly pronounced— Acts xxvn. 39 i£&aai and
exowoai ; Rev-, i. 5 Xvaavri and Xoiaavn ; xvh. 8 xaliteg. earl and xai
ndgsaxai ; Mk. ix. 40 rjfu&v and ifirnvf
3. Bepetition or omission of neighbouring syUables or letters (identical
orsimUar)— Acts xxvhi. 1 MEAITHNH H NHZOS and MEAITHHNHSOS;
xxvhi. 13 IIEPIEAONTEE and IIEPIEA&ONTE2 ; 1 TA. n. 7, iyevrfiimiev
rjmoi and iyev^Brj/MEv vfjnioi ; 2%. n. 5. o/:«oi;(>yoi>s and ohtmigryog ; £&.
vi. 35 ^aeji dnsknUlovxeg and prjbha. dneXnltovreg,
4. Transposition of letters or syUables — Mk. xiv. 65 eXafiov and ?j3aXXov
(efiaXov) ; Acts xxiii. 23 de£ioXdfiovg and 6e§iofi6Xovg.
5. Different division of adjoining words — 1 Tim. hi. 16 dfioXoyov/nhiug
and dfiaXoyovfiev d>g ; M#. xv. 6 6V raosf rftovmo and 6Wiso tjtoOjto ; 2 TA. ii. 13
d?i' agxfjg and anagx^-
6. Misinterpretation of abbreviations— 4c(s vii. 46 raj olxa> 'IaxoijS
(mistaken expansion of ra> xla (=xvgiq>) 'Iaxd>j3 ; Joh. i. 18 fiovoyevijg
fleo's (mistaken expansion of fiovoyevrjg vg (=v!6g)).
7. Confusion of letters and numerals — .4ofe xxvii. 37 IIAOIQ G (=nkojua
Siaxdaiai) and IIAOIQ DC (=nXolco cog).
8. Absence of punctuation and other diaoritic marks — Jas. v. 6 otix
dvxixdaoexai v/ulv (affirmatively or interrogatively) ; 1 Cor. vi. 4 xaBlCexe
(imperatively or interrogatively) ; 1 Cor. xvi. 3 (comma before or after
oV iniaxoXcov) ; Mk. iv. 20 iv rgidxovra and ev rgidxovxa.
9. Incorporation of words supplied in the margin or otherwise to
complete the sense — 1 Cor. iv. 6 iirj vneg a yeygarviai, with or without a
foUowing tpgoveiv ; 1 Tim. vi. 7, fixi or &fjXav on ; Mk. xii. 32 slg ionv or
slg ear iv deog ; Mt. x. 42 ipvxgott or ipvxgoii iidaxog.
In the correction of accidental errors of transcription it is a sound
principle, in cases where two alternative readings are equaUy plausible, to
prefer that which, if original, accounts best for the existence of the other.
The abundance of textual authorities (manuscripts and versions) for the
New Testament renders it seldom necessary to have recourse to conjecture ;
but in a few instances it seems probable that some errors (transcriptional
or otherwise) have occurred for which no surviving authority affords a
means of correction, so that conjectural emendation seems unavoidable.
Examples of such are Mk. iv. 29 6 xagnog, conj. 6 xatgdg ; v. 20 EN THI
AEKAnOAEI, conj. EN THI IIOAEI (cf. Lk. vhi. 39), the I of THI having
been taken for the numeral " ten" ; Rev. xviii. 17 TOIION, conj. nONTON;
Acts ii. 9 lovdalav, conj. rogSvalav ; xx. 28 roU idiov, conj. addition of vlov ;
Col. ii. 18 & i6gaxev ifi/HaxeiScov, conj . diga xevs[ij^axs<6(ov ] Heb. xi. 37
inetgdadrjaav, conj. ingtfadrjaav ; 1 Tim. vi. 19, defiiXiov, conj. di/ia Xlav.
But errors of transcription such as those iUustrated are much less
important than the alterations of the text that have been made by oopyists
purposely. Intentional changes owe their origin, as has been said, to
various motives ; and copyists, in making them, sought among other
things :
1 Probably there was little distinction in the pronunciation of these pronoun?,
and they seem often to have been confused : of. I Cor. xv. 14, 1 Th. i. 9.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 189
(i) to replace a rare or Unfamiliar word by one more readily intelligible
(e.g. 1 Cor. ix. 9 xr}ftd>a£ig and ipifecbaeig x).
(h) to substitute for a word which might be misunderstood another
more explicit and unambiguous (e.g. 1 Cor. vii. 39 xot/trjSfj and ajco&dvy).
(iii) to correct a real or supposed error (e.g. Lk. iv. 44 rfjg 'lovSatag and
rfjg raXiXaiag).
(iv) to harmonize discrepant statements in parallel passages (e.g. 1
Cor. xi. 24, the addition after elnev of Adders, ydtyEXE, cf. Mt. xxvi.
26). It is to this class, consisting of dehberate alterations, that most of
the variant readings occurring in the diSerent authorities belong, and
it is the chief task of textual criticism to endeavour to distinguish
among such those readings whieh reproduce the original, and those
which have been designedly introduced by some later copyist. The most
obvious test to apply is that of intrinsic probability, it being assumed
that the reading which yields the best sense is likely to be the text which
the author wrote. Under certain circumstances this is decisive ; but in
general, and when apphed in isolation, it is untrustworthy, since the author
may have expressed his meaning badly, and a copyist, improving upon
him, may be responsible for the more plausible reading. The test that
suggests itself next is that which is afforded by the mere process of counting
the number of manuscripts supporting the conflicting readings, and adopting
that which has the majority of authorities in its favour. This, however,
may also be misleading, for it assumes that of two MSS. one containing
a genuine and the other a corrupted text, the former would be reproduced
on a larger scale than the latter, whereas a great demand for copies in one
locality may have caused a bad MS., if the only one avaUable, to be
multiplied frequently, whilst the absence of any such demand in another
locality may have prevented the multiplication of copies of a much better
MS. there procurable. A more satisfactory, though, if taken by itself,
still a faUacious, test is the age of the manuscripts that can be cited in favour
of one or other of the variants. There is a presumption that the more
ancient a MS. is, the less corrupt it is likely to be. Nevertheless there is
no certainty that this is so, for of two MSS. which differ in respect of a
particular passage, the older may have been copied from another of only a
httle earher date than itself, whereas the younger may have been copied
from a very ancient MS. ; so that the relative age of the two surviving MSS.
is no sure clue to the antiquity of the readings contained in them. More
reliable evidence for the age of a particular reading is in some cases afforded
by the earliest versions (if the dates of these can be ascertained with fair
precision and by the quotations in the earliest Patristic writers (whose dates
are known). As has been seen, the chief versions that can be dated with
approximate exactness are the Latin Vulgate, the Gothic and the Harkleian
Syriac versions ; the dates of the others are inferential. But it seems
generaUy agreed that the Old Latin, the Old Syriac and the Egyptian
1 The various readings noted in the course of the following pages render the
multiplication of examples here unnecessary.

140 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Sahidic versions are the earhest, and go back to the beginning of the
third or even the end of the second century. These, therefore, must
have behind them better Greek manuscripts than any now existing ; and
subject to the qualifications previously mentioned (p. 133) they are them
selves practicaUy equivalent to very early Greek MSS. The same is true
of the Fathers. Various cautions have to be observed in appealing to the
evidence which their writings afford (see p. 135) ; but when it is sufficiently
clear that the text of these works has not been corrupted, and that then
writers, in quoting particular passages, were using a manuscript and not
drawing upon their memory, they are for those passages as good as dated
MSS. and show when and where a particular type of text prevaUed. Read
ings, then, which have the combined support of the earhest extant Greek
MSS., the oldest versions, and quotations from the most ancient of the
Fathers, especially if the evidence comes from widely-severed regions,
have strong claims to be original as compared with readings which have in
their favour the large majority of the remaining Greek MSS. but lack
attestation from the earliest versions and Fathers.
The agreement of the early versions and Fathers with certain MSS. or
groups of MSS. (if it is tolerably constant) accredit such MSS. as being good
ones, so that they have some claim to be trusted even in cases where on
grounds of intrinsic probabUity the readings of other MSS. seem to deserve
the preference. The prima facie plausibility of particular readings can
then be re-considered in the hght of the value of the documents containing
them ; and the latter factor may turn the balance against a reading which
at first sight appears to be better than its rival. The MSS. which are thus
recommended in consequence of the support which their peculiar readings
receive from versions and Fathers will best be shown by examining the
evidence for the various readings in a few selected passages.1
1. Mk. ix. 38.
(i) dg ovx axoXovOel rj/ilv xai ixmXvaafiev airov on ovx dxoXovdst fjiiiv
AEFGHKMN, etc., most minuscules, Syr. (hi.), Go.
(ii) xai exioXvofiev (or ixcoXvoa/xev) avrov 8n ovx d>:oXovdel t'lfilv (or /ied'
rju&v) J* BCLzd W, a few min., Lat. (vet./), Syr. (vet.'1"-, pesh., pal.), Eg.
(sah., boh.), Eth.
(iii) og ovx axoXovQsi ¦fjfilv (or /ied' rj/udjv) xai ixaiXvo/iev (or ixoXvaajiev)
avr&v. DX, a few min., Lat. (vet. a k), Syr. (hi. mg.).
2. Mk. ix. 49.
(i) nag ydg nvgl dXiodrfoexai xai ndaa Qvaia dXl dXiodtfoexai.
ACEFGHKMN, etc., most min., Lat. (vulg.), Syr.' (hi. pesh.), Arm.,
Go., Eth.
(ii) nag ydg nvgl dXiodtfoErai.
H ~BliA, some min., Eg. Lat. (vet. k), Syr. (vet.sin).
(iii) ndaa ydg Ovola dXi dXiadtfoerai.
D, two min., Lat. (vet.).
1 Cf. Westcott and Hort, New Testament, Introd., pp. 100-104 ; Souter, Novum
Testamentum Grace.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 141
3. Lk. xxiv. 46.
(i) oiiroog yiyganxai xai oiSrojg edei nadeiv rov Xgiarov.
ANXTAAII, other late uncials, Lat. (vulg.), Syr. (pesh. hi.), Eg. (sah.,
some codd.).
(ii) o(5ra>g yiyganxai nadeiv rov Xgiarov.
NBCDL, Lat. (vet.), Syr. (pal.), Eg., Eth.
(iii) ovrwg edei naOeiv rdv Xgiarov. Some min., Syr. (vet.8m), Arm.
4. Lk. xxiv. 53.
(i) alvovvreg xai siXoyovvrsg rov Beov.
AFHKM, aU min., Lat. (vulg.), Syr. (pesh. hi.), Arm., Eth.
(ii) efiXoyovvrsg rov Qsov.
NBCL. Syr. (vet. sta- pal.), Eg.
(iii) alvovvrsg rov Qsov.
D, Lat. (vet.).
An examination of the above passages shows that the readings under
(i) are much fuller than those under (ii) and (hi) and virtuahy include
them ; and the fact can be explained by one of two hypotheses. Either
the reading in (i) is the original in each case, and those in (ii) and (iii) have
been abbreviated from it ; or else the original reading is found in either (ii)
or (hi), whUst (i) has arisen from a combination of these (a process known as
" conflation"). Which of these explanations is the more plausible may
antecedently be a matter of opinion, though probably to the majority of
minds it will seem more likely that a copyist expanded by inclusion of
variants than shortened by omissions, and that consequently the readings
in (i) are conflate, combining those in (ii) and (iii) instead of these latter
being independent abbreviations of the more extensive texts in (i). But
a conclusion may be reached of a less subjective character if it is observed
that the readings marked (i) are attested mostly by late versions, like the
Gothic (fourth century), the Vulgate (fourth century), the Peshitto and
Harkleian Syriac (fifth and seventh century), the Armenian (fifth century),
and the Ethiopian (fifth or sixth century), whereas those marked (ii) and
(hi) have together the support in general of the Old Syriac (third century),
the Old Latin (second or third century), and the Egyptian versions ; though
this support is distributed between them. The two latter groups of
readings, therefore, appear to be earher than the first group, so that in
spite of the numerical preponderance of manuscript authority which can
be. cited in favour of the first group, this group is less hkely to be original
than its rivals, and the readings included in it reaUy seem to have been
formed by uniting the shorter readings in the other groups. If this is so,
then a clue is afforded to the relative authority of different MSS. ; so that
in judging of the support forthcoming for alternative readings in various
passages, the MSS. which attest each have to be valued as weU as counted,
their value depending upon the proof previously obtained that they are in
the habit of preserving readings of early date. Such proof is furnished
partly, as has been seen, by the evidence of the earhest versions, and
partly by the readings that occur in quotations by the earhest Fathers.
Now, in the case of the numerous MSS. which agree in having the readings

142 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
distinguished as (i), this proof seems to be lacking ; the supporting versions
are comparatively late, and the Fathers that quote their readings did not
hve before the fourth century. Accordingly where they conflict with MSS.
which, though fewer, can be shown in crucial instances to possess early
readings, as tested by Versions and Fathers, they must be judged to be of
inferior worth. Their greater numbers cannot outweigh the testimony of
those whose value has been estabfished in the way described. Though it
is by no means intrinsicaUy incredible that late MSS. should possess an
early text, through being copied from an early parent MS. (p. 139), yet
these, in reahty, seem to be derived from a comparatively late parent MS.,
the scribe of which aimed at producing as full a text as possible by incor
porating aU or most of the variations which he found in the manuscripts
before him, instead of adopting those only wliich rested on the earhest and
best authority. The mere numerical preponderance of the codices which
reproduce the readings of this hypothetical late document is for critical
purposes a matter of indifference. For if by some fortunate chance the
immediate ancestor of a group of MSS. should be found, it is plain that the
derivative MSS. could be disregarded ; and the same is also true, if the
existence of such an ancestor is not established by actual discovery but
only inferred on good grounds from a study of existing MSS. A group of
MSS. which share some peculiarity must have been copied from a single
MS. which was marked by it ; and if that peculiarity is judged, by com
parison with the readings o£ another group of MSS., to be an error, any
disproportion in the number of MSS. included in the two groups is of no
account. Thus the igenealogy of MSS., if ascertainable, nullifies the value
which would otherwise attach to numerical superiority of MSS. Partici
pation in erroneous readings points to derivation from a corrupted source,
and a thousand copies of a corrupted MS. are of no more worth than one.
Tbe choice between the readings grouped under fii) and (iii) on the
score of antiquity is difficult to decide. Those marked (ii) are supported
by the two oldest extant Greek MSS. K and B ; and the prima facie value
attaching to the readings of these MSS. by reason of their age is confirmed
by the corroboration which they receive from tho early versions. But the
readings arranged under (iii) are also bound to be ancient, for though D,
the only uncial that generally supports them, is a MS. of later origin than
X and B, its text often has the corroboration not only of the Old Latin
version, but of the Old Syriac versions, and so is both early and widely
attested. Hence in deciding between them the appeal in tne last resort
has to be made to the intrinsic probability of particular readings. As
compared with the text of N and B, the text of D and its supporters is
often marked by additions, of whieh some are certainly interpolations,
whust others have all the appearance of being original, so that the question
of the exact value of this text in general is a subject of much discussion.
An extensive comparison of existing MSS. and versions on the lines
just iUustrated haB caused them to be divided into three groups, exhibiting
different types of text, though many MSS. have a mixed text (see below,
p. 147). The first type corresponding to that which is exemplified by the readings

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 143
marked (i) above is conveniently known as the Syrian, or preferably the
Antioehene text, and has been designated by the symbol a. It is called
Antioehene because its readings coincide with those found in the writings
of St. Chrysostom (d. a.d. 407) and other Fathers connected with Antioch.
Its most striking characteristics are smoothness of (diction and fullness of
matter, results attained by the conflation of readings occurring in MSS.
of the other two types of text ; and where it has not combined the readings
of both, it reproduces first those of one and then those of the other, some
times with and sometimes without modification. These facts imply that
the writer or writers who originated this type of text had documents
belonging to the other groups before them, so that it must be later in date
than the rest. The inference as to its comparative lateness is confirmed
by the fact that readings marked by the features just described are not
found in any Fathers " before the middle of the third century at the very
earhest,"1 and occur chiefly in Patristic writings from the time of
Chrysostom onwards . The formation of this text is considered by Westcott
and Hort, on the strength of tfoie marked consistency of method observable
in it, to be the result of dehberate editing, it being supposed that a revision
of the text previously current in the Church took place at Antioch about
the middle of the fourth century, though there exists no direct evidence of
such a revision in any ecclesiastical historian. This text is virtually
identical with the so-caUed textus reeeptus,z which prevaUed in the Church
foe nearly fifteen centuries, and is represented by the Authorized Version.
The Uncial MSS. which in general exhibit this type of text are :
In the Gospels AEFGHKMN (generally) S U V r A (except in Mk.)
AII0 and most cursives.
In Acts and the Catholic Epistles H2 K2 L2 P2.
In the Pauline Epistles K2 L2.
In Revelation B2 (= Q).
Among the versions the Peshitto Syriac sometimes supports it.
The second type of text, iUustrated by the readings marked (ii) occurs
in the two most ancient of our existing Greek MSS. (viz. H and B) and in
some of the earliest versions. By Westcott and Hort it is regarded as
the residual text, which remains when aU readings are ehminated which for
various reasons (such as paraphrase, assimilation, interpolation, omission
or styhstic improvement) may be deemed corrupt. Hence, as being free
from the tendencies manifested by other types of text towards the deliber
ate modification of the original in divergent directions, it has been termed
by them the Neutral text, though, as its value is disputed by some textual
critics, it is best styled the j8 text. Its readings are found in the writings
of the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen as weU as in the later
writers Eusebius and Cyril, so that it might be caUed the Alexandrian text,
if this term had not been given by Westcott and Hort to another, differing
1 Westcott and Hort, New Testament, Int., p. 114.
2 A term derived from a phrase occurring in the preface of an edition of the New
Testament published by the Elzevirs in 1633, " Texim/m ergo habes nunc db omnibus
receptum." This edition was practically identical with those of Stephanus (1546,
1549 and 1550) and of Erasmus (1516-1535).

144 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
shghtly from the /S text and conveniently symbolized by y, which wiU be
noticed below. The |8 text has decidedly earlier attestation among Patristic
writers than the a text, the date of Clement being the end of the second
century, and that of Origen the first half of the third century. It is because
the MSS. N and B (if purely transcriptional errors on the part of the
copyists who wrote them be aUowed for) approach most nearly to this
type of text that they are rated so highly by Westcott and Hort. Of the
two B is considered by these scholars as the more authoritative when they
come into conflict with one another ; and though it is by no means exempt
from careless mistakes of transcription, it has been pronounced by another
scholar x to be the only MS. of the New Testament which preserves a text
free from any signs of dehberate revision. When K and B are in agree
ment, their authority is held by their defenders to outweigh, generaUy
speaking, that of any other combination of MSS. Thus in Mt. xi. 19 these
two MSS. are the only uncials that have xai idixaicodrj fj aocpia and rtov sgycov
avrrjg, though they are supported by Syr.pe8h, Eg.boh, and some Armenian
and Ethiopic manuscripts ; and their combined authority is held to out
weigh that of CDEFGKLMNT, supported by almost all cursives, the
Old Latin version, the Vulg. and the Syr.0" aad **, which instead of sgycov have
xixvcov. Their preponderant value, however, when united as witnesses
to the original text of the New Testament, or to such approximation to it
as is now attainable, is conditional upon their complete independence of
one another ; and some critics doubt this, though the fact that there are
no fewer than 3,000 differences between them in the Gospels alone2 seems
to dispose of the doubt. In some cases, however, both B and X, the chief
authorities for the j3 text, seem, as compared with the <5 text or even the a
text, to contain readings which are almost certainly erroneous (e.g. Mk. iv.
21, vnd rrjv Xvxviav, others, inl xfjv Xvxviav ; Acts xi. 20, 'E?.Xrjvurcdg,
A D "EXXrjvag ; Acts xn. 25, slg 'lEgovoaXrj/i, A ii 'leg., ~D E ano 'leg.
The principal MSS. (including the two just named) which support the
jS type of text are :
In the Gospels XBLC (less regularly) T X (both these sometimes) Y
and A (in Mk.).
In Acts and the Cathohc Epistles NBAC (generaUy).
In the Pauline Epistles NBACP2.
In Revelation (which is lacking in B) K C (generaUy).
Of the cursives 33 and 81 frequently exhibit readings of the /? type.
Among the versions that countenance it are the Egyptian (especiaUy the
Bohairic) and some form of the Old Syriac.
The subdivision of the /3 text which is denoted by y is not a very
important variety. Its pecuhar readings appear to be dehberate improve
ments of the style and diction, but are not in substance of great moment.
They are not found as a whole in any single MS., but they are thought to
be discernible in N C L X and the cursive 33 where these are not supported
by B.
1 B. Weiss (see Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 309).
' Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 600 (J. O. F. Murray).

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 145
The third distinctive type of text is customarily known as the Western
Text, though it is also caUed the Syro-Latin, and is best designated as the <5
text. The most important uncial that commonly, but not invariably,
exhibits it is D ; but it is also found in two of the oldest versions, the Old
Latin and the Old Syriac. It occurs in the quotations of Justin Martyr
(d. middle of second century), Irenseus (Q. circ. 180), Tertullian (fl. aire. 200),
and Cyprian (fl. circ. 240) ; so it is quite as old as, if not older than, 'the fi
text. But though, as has been already said, it contains some pecuhar
readings which seem to be authentic, yet in general in this variety of text
the original appears to have been treated with exceptional freedom, so
that one textual critic has pronounced it "by far the most depraved
text." It is characterized by paraphrastic interpretations, harmonistic
assimilations, the substitution of synonyms, remarkable omissions, and
even more remarkable additions, instances of the last occurring in Mt. xx.
28, Lk. vi. 4, xxiii. 53, and in numerous passages in Acts (see p. 252 f .). The
general prevalence of additions in the 8 text makes its occasional omission
of passages occurring in the fi text all the more noteworthy ; so that Westcott
and Hort in such cases give preference to its readings, holding that in these
instances the MSS. B and X, which are the main supports of the fi text,
have been interpolated. The passages in the 8 text from which such
interpolated matter is absent are styled by them " Western non- Inter
polations." Striking instances occur in Mt. xxi. 44, Lk. xxii. 19?, 20,
xxiv. 6, 12, 40.
The principal authorities for this text, viz. D, Latin vet. and Syr. sin.,
vary a great deal among themselves ; of these D seems the most arbitrary
in its readings, and some scholars think that a consensus of Lat. vet. and
Syr. sin. may yield a reaUy primitive text even when unsupported by the
great uncials.1
The uncials that preserve the <5 text more or less uniformly are :
In the Gospels and Acts D.
In the Pauline Epistles (lacking in D) D2 E3 F2 G3.
In Revelation P2.
Among the versions that display this type of text are, as has been said,
the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, the most valuable manuscript of the
former being k (p. 134). The Sahidic Egyptian version also often agrees
with this text.
In connection with the reasoning by which it has been sought to
establish the relative lateness and inferior value of the a text one argument
requires some qualification. It has been shown that a feature of the
a text is that its readings are usuaUy the longest ; this feature, however,
is not confined to it, but occurs occasionaUy in some forms of the 8 text,
and even of the fi text. A couple of examples wUl suffice :
(1) Joh. ix. 8.
a text, rvipXdg rjv.
fi text, ngoaairrjg rjv.
8 text, rvipXdg xai ngooalrrjg rjv.

1 Lake, Text of New Testament, p. 91.
10

146 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(2) Lk. x. 42.
a text, ivdg 8£ ianv XQs^a.
fi text, oXiymv di ianv %geia fj ivog
Instances like these may seem at first sight to destroy the olaim to
superior antiquity made on behalf of the fi and <S texts. But length is
only suggestf/ae of lateness ; the substantial evidence for the antiquity of
these texts, as compared with the a text, reaUy comes from their oocurrenoe
in the earhest versions and Fathers.
If the fi text is held to be the one that represents most nearly the
original autographs of the New Testament writers, the history of the
divergences from it has been thus desoribed.1 Corruption began at a
very early date. Absolute accuracy of transcription was httle prized,
and copyists freely amended or extended the text before them by additions
or supposed corrections. They did this especiaUy with regard to the
Gospels, since they were tempted both to incorporate incidents in our
Lord's life which were recorded in other writings, or in oral tradition,
and to correct one Evangelist by another. Hence as early as the second
century there came into existence, first in the East and then, by transfer,
in the West; a type of text characterized by very wide departures from
the original. This was the 8 text.8 MeanwhUe at Alexandria another
kind of modification was introduced, There copyists, who were accustomed
to Uterary Greek, made alterations of a verbal character in order to
improve the style of the original, whilst not seriously affecting its substance.
Thus arose the y text. At a later stage, as copies multiplied and textual
divergences became more marked, it was sought to provide a remedy
by an authoritative revision. The principles regulating it were : (1) the
combination, where possible, of variant readings ; (2) the removal of
roughnesses and obscurities. The first resulted in the production of
conflate readings, the second in the insertion of names instead of pronouns,
of conjunctions to avoid asyndeton, and of familiar phrases in the place
of unusual ones. These changes issued in the a text. The supposed
revision is thought to have been effected in two stages, the first being
preserved in the Peshitto Syriac, which is intermediate between the more
ancient texts and that represented by the fully developed a text, as seen
in E F N. and the bulk of the later uncials and cursives.
The relative exceUence of the leading MSS. is generaUy estimated by
the character which they present in the Gospels. But they are not
homogeneous throughout, so that the one which is of the highest merit
in the Gospels may not be equally good elsewhere. One cause of this
was doubtless the transition from rolls to codices as documentary materials.
Only small portions of the New Testament could be contained on a single

1 The description is taken with some abbreviation from Kenyon, Textual Criticism
of the New Testament, p. 300 f.
2 I.e. as represented by D ; the Sinaitic Syriac has a test ff#9 from §prne of the
unfavourable characteristics of D. It has been suggested by soine textual critics
that the S text includes a number of second century texts, varying among themselves,
which were current in different places ; and that the j3 and a texts represent succes
sive revisions of these local texts (see Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 534).

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 147
roU ; so that when roUs were replaced by codices (which were larger) the
contents of a codex would be drawn from several rolls, and these might
represent different types of text. Thus^l, a MS. of the four Gospels, in
three out of the four has the a text ; but in St. Mark it has readings that
agree with the fi text, so that in that Gospel it must have been copied
from a different original. SimUarly the Vatican MS. B, whieh in the
Gospels is the best representative of the fi text, is stated to have a
distinctly Western, or 8, type of text in the Pauline Epistles. A certain
number of MSS. have a mixed text throughout. Thus C belongs con
sistently neither to the a type nor to the fi type, and this prevents it from
being as valuable a witness to particular readings as might be expected
from its age. Other MSS. which have a mixed text are the purple manu
scripts (p. 126) N 0 2 and 0.
In the last resort when documentary authorities, appraised and
classified in the way desoribed, are equally divided, recourse, in the
choice of particular readings, must be had to intrinsic probability, but
to. this only when reviewed in the hght of considerations likely to have
influenced a copyist, so as to account for the origin of variants. In general,
where of conflicting readings one or more must be due to deliberate
alteration, it is a sound principle to prefer (a) the harder reading, since
a copyist is more likely to substitute for a word which he does not under
stand another which he do.es, than to replace a common or intelhgible
expression by one that is less familiar or comprehensible ; (6) the shorter
reading, for' copyists in the case of valued documents are more prone to
enlarge than to. reduce ; (o) the reading which most easily explains the
existence of its rivals.

VII
DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM
(a) The Synoptic Gospels
A CURSORY perusal of the New Testament is sufficient to shew
that the first three Gospels form a group which is distinguished from
the Fourth Gospel by pecuharities alike of contents, arrangement,
and style. A more careful reading reveals that the three Gospels thus
grouped together display remarkable resemblances to one another, which
are not sufficiently explained by the fact that they are occupied with
the same theme. Though two of them include a number of passages
which are not found in the remaining Gospel, there is nevertheless a
great quantity of matter common to aU three, and foUowing for the most
part the same sequence ; and, in addition, whilst much of this common
matter is described in variant terms by each, there occur in numerous
places identical phrases. The likeness, indeed, between them is so great
that for the purpose of more exact comparison Griesbach found it desirable
to place them in parallel columns, so as to form what he caUed a Synopsis
Evangeliorum, and in consequence they have since been known as the
Synoptic Gospels. Inasmuch as very important consequences turn upon
this combination of resemblances and differences, it is desirable that it
should be considered further.
The extent to which the three Synoptic Gospels not only cover the
same ground but also observe the same order in the arrangement of the
subjects treated wUl be apparent from the following table, which, though
not carried out into great detaU, will suffice for the purpose desired.
For convenience Mark, which is the shortest of the three, is placed in the
first column ; and paraUel passages in all three or in Mk. and Mt. together,
or in Mk. and Lk. together, have the same Arabic numeral prefixed, whilst
parallels in Mt. and Lk. together apart from Mk. are jointly distinguished
by Roman figures, so that they can be readily identified, notwithstanding
any difference in the sequence in which they occur. Passages found in
only one Gospel are marked by italics.
Mk. Mt. Lk.
(i) [Genealogy of Jesus] Birth of John.
(ii) [Birth of Jesus]. (ii) [Birth of Jesus].
Visit of the Magi. Circumcision and Pre
sentation.
Flight into Egypt. Finding in the Temple.
148

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM

149

Mk.
1. Preaching of John in
the wilderness of
Judsea.

2. Baptism of Jesus in
the Jordan.
3. Temptation of Jesus.

ia. Departure to Galilee.
46. Preaching there.
5. Call of Peter, Andrew,
James, and John in
Galilee.
6. Healing of Possessed
at Capernaum.

7. Healing of Peter's
mother-in-law.
8. Healing of many sick.

9. Healing of leper.
10. Healing of paralytic
at Capernaum.
11. Call of Levi (Matthew)
12. Debate about fasting.
13. Plucking ears of corn
on Sabbath.
14. HeaUng of withered
hand.
15. Appointment of the
xn.
His friends think Him mad.
16. Controversy about
Beelzebul.
17; His Mother and His
Brethren.

18. Parable of the Sower.
Parable of seed growing

Mt.
1. Preaching of John in
the wilderness of
Judaa.
(iii) Substance of John's
preaching.
2. Baptism of Jesus in
the Jordan.
3. Temptation of Jesus.
(iv) Details of Tempta
tion.
ia. Departure to Gahlee.

5. Call of Peter, Andrew,
James, and John in
Galilee.

46. Preaching in Galilee.
(v) Sermon on the Mount.
9. HeaUng of leper.
(vi) HeaUng of Centu
rion's servant.
7. HeaUng of Peter's
mother-in-law.
8. HeaUng of many sick.
(vii) Offers of Discipleship.
20. Stilling of the storm.
21. HeaUng of two demo
niacs.
10. HeaUng of paralytic
at Capernaum.
11. CallofMatthew(Levi).
12. Debate about fasting.
22. HeaUng of Jairus'
daughter.

23. • HeaUng of woman
with issue.
Healing of two blind men.
Healing of dumb man.
15. Appointment of the
XII.
25. Directions to the XII.

(viii) Message of John.
(ix) " Woe to the cities."
(x) " None knoweth the
Father save the Son."

Lk.
1. Preaching of John in
the wilderness of
Judsea.
(ni) Substance of John's
preaching.
26. John's imprisonment.
2. Baptism of Jesus in
the Jordan.
(i) [Genealogy of Jesus].
3. Temptation of Jesus.
(iv) Details of Tempta
tion.
ia. Departure to GaUlee.
46. Preaching there.
Preaching at Nazareth.
24. " Is not this Joseph's
son ? "
6. HeaUng of Possessed
at Capernaum.

7. HeaUng of Peter's
mother-in-law.
8. HeaUng of many siek.
5. Call of Peter, James,
and John in Galilee.
Miracle of the Fishes.
9. HeaUng of leper.
10. HeaUng of paralytic
at Capernaum.
11. CaUofLevr(Matthew).
12. Debate about fasting.
13. Plucking ears of corn
on Sabbath.
14. HeaUng of withered
hand.
15. Appointment of the
XII.
(v) Sermon on the Mount
(part).
(vi) HeaUng of Centu
rion's servant.
Baising of widow's son,.
(viii) Message of John.
A sinful woman anoints
Him.
18. Parable of the Sower.
17. His Mother and His
Brethren.

150

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Mk.
19, Parable1 of Mustard
Seed,
20. StilUng of the Storm.

21. Healing of a demoniac.
22. HeaUng of Jairus'
daughter.
23. HeaUng of woman
with issue.
24. " Is not this the car
penter ? "
25. Directions to the XII.

26. John's imprisonment
and death.
27. Feeding of 5,000.
28. Jesus' walking on the
sea.
29. Dispute about eating
with unwashen
hands.
30. HeaUng of daughter
of Syrophcenician
woman.
Healing of deaf-dumb man.
31. Feeding of 4,000.
Healing 6f blind man.
32. Peter's confession.
3». The Transfiguration.
34. Healing of afflicted
hoy.
35. " Who shall be great
est ? "
36j Forbidding one cast
ing out deVils.
37, Destruction of offend
ing member.

38a. Departure to Judaaa.
386. Question about
Divorce.

Mt.
13, Plucking ears' of corn
on the Sabbath.
14. HeaUng of withered
hand.
(xi) HeaUng of bUnd and
dumb man.
16. "Beekebul."
17. His Mother and His
Brethren.
18 Parable of the Sower.
Parable of the Tares.
19. Parable of the Mub-
tard Seed:
(xn) Parable of the
Leaven.
Parable of the Treasure.
Parable of the Pearl.
Parable of the Drag-net.
24. " Is not this the car
penter t "
26. John's imprisonment
and death,
27. Feeding of 5,000.
28. Jesus' walking on the
sea.
Peter's walking on the sea.
29. Dispute about eating
with unwashen
hands.
30v Healing of daughter
of Syrophosnician
woman.
31. Feeding of 4,000.
32. Peter's confession.
33. The Transfiguration.
34. HeaUng of afflicted
boy.
Finding of Stater in fish.
35. " Who shall be great
est ? "

37. Destruction of offend
ing member.
(xiii) Parable of Lost

(xiv) Forgiveness of
Offenders.
38a. Departure to Judsea.
386. Question about
Divorce.

Lk.
20. StiUing of the Storm.

21. HeaUng of a demoniac.
22. HeaUng of Jairus'
daughter.
23. HeaUng of woman
with issue.

26. Directions to the XH.

27. Feeding of 5,000.

32. Peter's confession.
33. The Transfiguration.
34. HeaUng of afflicted
boy.
35. " Who shall be great
est ? "
36. Forbidding one cast
ing out devils.
Bejection by Samaritans.
(vii) Offers of Disciple
ship.
Mission of the Seventy.

(ix) " Woe to the cities.''
(x) " None knoweth the
Father save the Son."
49. Question about the
greatest command
ment.
Parable of Good Samaritan.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM

151

Mk.

Mt.

39. Blessing little children.
40. The great refusal.
41. Request 0f the sons of
Zebedeo.
42. Healing of blind Bar-
timseus at Jericho.

43. Entry into Jerusalem.
44. Cursing of the Fig-tree,

39. Blessing Uttle children.
40. The great refusal.
Parable of the Labourers.
41. Request of the sons of
Zebedee.
42. HeaUng of two blind
men at Jericho.

43. Entry into Jerusalem.
45. Cleansing of the
Temple.

Lie.
Martha and Mary,
(v) Sermon on the Mount
(part).
(xi) HeaUng of dumb
man.
16. Controversy about
Beelzebul.
(xvn) Denunciation of
Pharisees and Law
yers.
Parable of Bich Pool.
(v) Sermon on the
Mount (part).
Parable of the Fig Tree.
Healing of an infirm
woman.
19. Parable of the Mus
tard Seed.
(xii) Parable of the
Leaven.
38a. Departure towards
Judsea.
(v) Sermon on the
Mount (part).
(xv) Lament over Jerusa
lem.
Healing of dropsical man.
(xvi) Parable of the Great
Supper.
Counting the cost.
(xiii) Parable of Lost

Parable of hst Piece of
Silver.
Parable of the Prodigal
Son.
Parable of the Unjust
Steward.
Parable of the Bich Man
and Lazarus.
(xiv) Forgiveness of
Offenders.
Healing of Ten Lepers.
Parable of Importunate
widow.
Parable of the Pharisee and
Publican.
39. Blessing Uttle children.
40. The great refusal.

42. Healing of blind man
at Jericho.
Zacchasus. Parable of the Pounds.
43. Entry into Jerusalem.

152

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Mk.
45. Cleansing of the
Temple.
46. Parable of the Vine
yard.

47. Question about
tribute.
48. Question about resur
rection.
49. Question about the
greatest command
ment.
50. Question about
David's son.
51. The widow's mite.

52. Prediction of the end.

53. The Anointing at
Bethany.
54. Judas agrees to betray
Him.
55. The Last Supper.
56. Prediction of Betrayal.
57. The Eucharist.
58. Prediction of Denial.
59. Gethsemane.
60. The Arrest.
61. Young Man with linen
cloth.
62. Trial before the High
Priest.
63. Denial by Peter.
64. Trial before Pilate.
65. Simon of Cyrene. ]
66. The Crucifixion.
67. The Burial.
68. Appearance of an
angel to the women.
[Account is not taken of
the Appendix, Mk.
xvi. 9-20, as being
probably unauthen.
tic]

Mt.
44. Cursing of the Fig-tree.
Parable of the Two Sons.
46. Parable of the Vine
yard.
(xvi) Parable of the Mar
riage Feast.
47. Question about
tribute.
48. Question about resur
rection.
49. Question about the
greatest command
ment.
50. Question about
David's son.
(xvu) Denunciation of
Pharisees and Law
yers.
52. Prediction of the end.
Parable of the foolish Vir
gins.
Parable of the Talents.
The Sheep and the Goats.
53. The Anointing at
Bethany.
54. Judas agrees to betray
Him.
55. The Last Supper.
56. Prediction of Betrayal.
57. The Eucharist.
58. Prediction of Denial.
59. Gethsemane.
60. The Arrest.

Lk.
45. Cleansing of the
Temple.
46. Parable of the Vine
yard.

47. Question about
tribute.
48. Question about resur
rection.

50. Question about
David's son.
51. The widow's mite.

52. Prediction of the end.

54. Judas agrees to betray
Him.
55. The Last Supper.
57. The Eucharist.
56. Prediction of Betrayal.
58. Prediction of Denial.
59. Gethsemane.
60. The Arrest.

62. Trial before Caiaphas. 63. Denial by Peter.

63. Denial by Peter.
64. Trial before Pilate.
Suicide of Judas.
65. Simon of Cyrene.
66. The Crucifixion.
Besurrection of Saints.
67. The Burial.
Sealing of the Tomb.
68. Appearance of an
angel to the women.
Appearance of Jesus to
the women.
Assertion that the body
was stolen.
Appearance to the disciples
in Galilee.

62. Trial before the High
Priest.
64. Trial before Pilate.
Trial before Herod.
65. Simon of Cyrene.
Address to the women.
66. The Crucifixion.
The Penitent Thief.
67. The Burial.
68. Appearance of two
angels to the women.
Visit of Peter to the Tomb.
Appearance of Jesus on
the way to Emmaus.
Appearance of Jesus to the
Apostles at ferusa*
lem.
The Ascension,

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM

153

Even from a brief examination of the preceding table a few sahent
facts at once emerge : (i) Although nearly all of the sections into which
Mk. is divided are included in Mt., the order of them, in the earher part
of the narrative, varies in the two. Gospels, (ii) A smaU group of Mk.'s
sections (as distinct from isolated sections) though comprised in Mt,
is absent from Lk. (hi) The number of sections which Mt. and Lk. have
in common but which do not occur in Mk. is considerable, (iv) Though
each of the Gospels has certain sections pecuhar to itself, the number
of such sections is largest in Lk. But closer consideration will reveal
other facts of greater significance on which it is desirable to concentrate
attention for the present. (I) Though each of the two longer Gospels
contains at its beginning and end matters not recorded in Mk. (each
differing from the other in respect of this additional matter), yet they
both include the beginning and the end of Mk. (II) WhUst (as has been
noticed) the arrangement of Mk. is considerably altered by Mt., and is
not uniformly maintained even by Lk., yet with very insignificant excep
tions the relative order of Mk.'s sections is preserved in one or other of
the companion Gospels. These two facts suggest that behind all three
Gospels there is a common written ground-work, for otherwise the sequence
of the separate incidents might be expected to vary more than it does,
inasmuch as the succession of a number of events becomes very easUy
confused if the memory is unaided by a document. But before coming
to any conclusion respecting the nature of the ground-work to which
both the range and the order of the common subject-matter point it is
expedient to examine in detaU the phraseology employed in paraUel
accounts of the same topics, with a view to observing again the features of
both likeness and unlikeness that are presented. It will conduce to
clearness if some accounts are placed side by side for comparison : —

(a) Mk. ix. 17, 18
Teacher, I brought unto
thee my son, which hath
a dumb spirit, and where
soever it seizeth him, it
dasheth him down, and he
foameth, and grindeth his
teeth, and pineth away ;
and I spake to thy dis
ciples that they should
cast it out ; and they
were not able.

(6) Mk. x. 13, 14
And they brought unto
him Uttle children, that
he should touch them ;
and the disciples rebuked
them. But when Jesus
saw it, he was moved with
indignation and said unto
them, Suffer the little

Mt. xvii. 15, 16
Lord, have mercy on my
son, for he is epileptic, and
suffereth grievously ; for
oft times he faUeth into
the fire, and oft times into
the water. And I brought
him to thy disciples, and
they could not cure him.

Mt. xix. 13, 14
Then were brought unto
him Uttle children that he
should lay his hands on
them and pray ; and the
disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer the
Uttle children, and forbid
them not, to come unto

Lk. ix. 38-40
Teacher, I beseech thee
to look upon my son ; for
he is mine only child, and
behold a spirit taketh him
and he suddenly crieth
out ; and it teareth him
that he foameth, and it
hardly departeth from
him, bruising him sorely.
And I besought thy dis
ciples that they should
cast it out ; and they
could not.
Lk. xvin. 15, 16
And they brought unto
him also their babes, that
he should touch them ;
and when the disciples
saw it, they were rebuking
them. But Jesus called
them unto him, saying,
Suffer the Uttle children

154

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

children to come unto
me 5 forbid them not, fop
of such is the kingdom of
God, (c) Mk. xi, 28
And they said unto him,
By what authority doest
thou these things ? or who
gave thee this authority
to do these things ?
(d) Mk. U. 9-12
Whether is easier, to say
to the sick of the palsy,
Thy sins are forgiven ;
or to say, Rouse thyself
and take up thy pallet and
walk ? But that ye may
know that the Son of man
hath power to forgive sins
on earth (he saith to the
sick of the palsy), I say
unto thee, Arise, take up
thy pallet and go unto
thy house. And he arose,
and straightway took up
the pallet and went forth
before them all.

me ; for of such is the
kingdom of heaven,

Mt. xxi. 23
And {they) said, By
what authority doest thou
these things ? and who
gave thee this authority ?

Mt, ix. 5-7
For whether is easier
to say,- Thy sins are for
given ; or to say, Arise
and walk ? But that ye
may know that the Son
of man hath power on
earth to forgive sins (then
saith he to the sick of the
palsy), Arise, take up thy
bed, and go unto thy
house. And having arisen
he departed to his house.

to come unto me, .and
forbid them not, for of
such js the kingdom of
God. Lk, xx. 2
And they spake, saying
unto him, Tell us ; by
what authority doest thou
these things •? or who is
he that gave thee this
authority ?
Lk. v. 23-25
Whether is easier to say,
Thy sins have been for
given thee ; or to say,
Arise and walk ? But
that ye may know that
the Son of man hath power
on earth io forgive sms
(he said unto bim that
was palsied), I .say unto
thee, Arise and take up
thy couch and proceed to
thy house. And at once
he stood up before them,
and took up that where
on he lay, and departed
to his house, glorifying
God,

In the passage marked (a) the three narratives obviously relate to the
same occasion, but the differences in them are very considerable, being
just such variations as might occur in independent accounts of the same
incident transmitted by hearsay. In (b) the resemblance between the
three reports is quite close, and though our Lord's utterance, as being an
impressive one, might be handed down oraUy with exactness, yet the
fact that aU three accounts use in the introductory narrative, the same
verbs brought (Ttgoayegsiv) and rebuked (imn/iav) is noteworthy. But
in (c) the speech quoted is not our Lord's, but that of the ecclesiastical
authorities who interrogated Him ; nevertheless, in aU the accounts the
same questions are couched in virtuany identical words. And, lastiy,
in (d) all three writers not only reproduce Jesus' address to the bystanders
and to the paralytic man in almost the very same terms, but insert »
parenthesis in the same place.
The facts that here emerge about the diction of the first three Gospels
point in the same direction as those already ascertained about their
arrangement. The previous comparison of the Synoptists in respect of
the scope and order of their contents has afforded reason for thinking
that they are constructed on a common ground-plan. And the comparison
just instituted between the wording of the three Synoptic Gospels in
various parallel passages renders stUl more inadequate the hypothesis
that they represent merely oral tradition. Suph an hypothesis, though

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 155
sufficient to explain the substantial agreement in matters of fact combined
with great verbal divergences, observable in the passages marked (a) above,
does not account for the degree of verbal similarity in the passages marked
(fy, (c), and (d). In these the resemblance in phraseology is so close,
amounting in places to identity, that it appears incompatible with their
complete independence of one another. It is true that the same narrator
often teUs a story in a stereotyped way ; but it is difficult to think that
so much agreement in phrase would mark an oral story transmitted by
a number of different narrators, separated in respect of locality and
surroundings. As has been shown, identical expressions are found not
alone in the speeches of our Lord, but also in the utterances of other
persons, and in connexion with unimportant particulars. The only
adequate explanation of suoh identity of phraseology is that it is derived
from a written source ; and that the original document, whatever it
was, though reproduced in some places with great looseness, has in others
been copied with precision.
The hypothesis of a written source as the best explanation of the
features just described oan take more than one form, (a) It is conceivable
that the written source was in Hebrew or Aramaic, so that the common
element in the three Synoptists represents a rendering of it, into Greek
by different translators. But the verbal agreements are too numerous
and striking to be accounted for by chance coincidences between separate
translations of the same non-Greek original. For instance, it is eminently
improbable that the three Evangelists would each have used the rare
word ngairoxa&edgia (Mk. xu. 39, Mt. xxiii. 6, Lk. xi. 43) as a translation
of a particular Aramaic term, or would have employed the verb anaigco
for " to take away " (as they do in Mk. ii. 20, Mt- ix, 15, Lk. v. 35), or
the words wg/urjasv 4 dyi^rj »ar« rov ngmmon (as in Mk, V. 13, M\. viii, 32,
Lk. viii. 33), or the noun x/aquvoi in the account of the Feeding of the
5,000, or the adverb 8vax6Xmg i for " hardly " (as in Mk. x. 33, Mt. xix- 23,
Lk. xviii. 24), had not "the written source before them been in Greek.
(6) It may be suggested that a narrative in Greek, now lost, was foUowed
independently by the individual authors of the three Synoptic Gospels.
(c) One of the three Gospels may be dependent upon the other two, or
they upon it. Consideration of the second alternative may prove super
fluous, if the third be examined first and found to explain the facts
adequately. Now, from the table of parallel passages given on p. 148 f .
it will be perceived that practically the whole of M&.— 610 out of 661
verses 8— is included in one or other of the two remaining Synoptists, or
in both of them together. This circumstance at once renders it probable
that Mk. has been used by the other two Evangelists. It is oonoeivable,
indeed, that Mh. has been compUed out of Mt. and Lh. by a process of
selection, but three general considerations render this decidedly unlikely.
* This adverb does not ocour elsewhere in the New Testament, and is not found
in the LXX.
2 The verses omitted in the R.V. and the last fourteen verses of oh. xv}. are npt
included.

156 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
For (i) sinoe Mk. is the shortest of the Gospels and lacks so much that
the others contain, and adds so Uttle to what they supply, it is difficult
to understand why it should have been written at aU, if it was composed
after them : it lacks a raison d'itre. It is true that there are also absent
from Lk. several sections which occur in Mk., but in point of fact, Lk.'s
omissions may be accounted for by want of space (p. 159), since, even if
it is assumed that the writer of Lk. was acquainted with Mk. in its present
form, his failure to include the whole of it can be explained by the desire
to incorporate additional matter which would else be crowded out. On
the other hand, the contents of Mk. are much less considerable than those
of Lk., so that if it were the latest of the three, the writer would not have
had the same motive for borrowing so sparingly from his sources, (ii) The
circumstance that when either Mt. or Lk. departs from Mk.'s order of
events, the latter almost invariably has the support of the other, points
to the arrangement in Mk. as being the original, from which both the
First and the Third Evangelist have occasionally diverged separately,
but have seldom chanced to do so together, (iii) Since it is probable
that of two writings, one of which has been used in the composition of
the other, the later is that in which broken constructions occurring in
one of them are corrected, monotonous expressions are varied, and the
style generally improved, this test also indicates that Mt. and Lk. are
later than Mk., for in these Gospels certain roughnesses discernible in
Mk. are absent, as wiU be seen from the foUowing examples : —
(a) Mk. iv. 30, 31, 32. Mt. xiii. 31, 32. Lk. xiii. 18, 19.
(b) Mk. v. 22, 23. Mt. ix. 18. Lk. viii. 41, 42.
Comparison of these passages in the Greek wiU show that, whereas
some of Mk.'s sentences are irregular and clumsy, Mt. has effected some
amendment, whilst Lk. has reconstructed them altogether.
(c) Mk. vi. 8, 9. Mt. x. 9, 10. Lk. ix. 3.
(d) Mk. viii. 27, 28. Mt. xvi. 13, 14.. Lk. ix. 18, 19.
Here improvement in Mk.'s Greek is produced best by Mt., for Lk.,
though he has abbreviated, is not quite grammatical.
(e) Mk. iii. 31-35. Mt. xn. 46-50. Lk. vhi. 19-21.
If these passages are examined it wUl be seen that, whereas Mk. has
(a) six consecutive sentences introduced by xai, (fi) four historic presents,
the other Evangehsts are more varied in their connectives and more
idiomatic in their tenses, for Mt. has (a) one sentence introduced by
ldo6, two by 8i, and one by xai, (fi) three past tenses ; and Lk. (who is
briefer than the rest) has (a) three sentences introduced by 8e and one
by xai, (fi) four past tenses.
Against the inference here drawn in favour of the priority of Mk. to
the other Synoptists, the weightiest considerations seem to be the
following : —
(1) In certain passages Mt. and Lk. use single phrases which in Mk.
are combined, a fact that suggests conflation by Mk., who therefore must
be later : —

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 157

(a) Mk. i. 32

Mt. viii. 16

Lk. iv. 40

At even, when the sun did
set
(6) Mk. i. 42
And straightway the lep
rosy departed from Mm
and he was made clean

And when even was come
Mt. viu. 3
And immediately his
leprosy was cleansed

And when the sun was
setting
Lk. v. 13
And immediately the lep
rosy departed from him

(c) Mk. xiv. 30
To-day, this night

Mt. xxvi. 34
This night

Lk. xxii. 34
To-day

(2) In several paraUel narratives Mt. and Lk. are less detailed than
Mk., who therefore may be suspected of having in these cases expanded
the accounts of the other Synoptists.
(a) Mk. i. 35-39 (note vv. 36, 37) = Mt. iv. 23 = Lk. iv, 42-44
(b) Mk. iv. 37-41 (note v. 38) = Mt. viii. 24-27 = Lk. viii. 23-25
(c) Mk. v. 1-17 (note vv. 5, 13) = Mt. viii. 28-34 = Lk. viii. 26-37
(d) Mk. vi. 35-44 (note v. 39) =Mt. xiv. 15-21 = Lk. ix. 12-17
But these features admit of a different explanation, and the comparative
brevity of the First and Third Evangelists in the paraUels just cited may
be accounted for by the desire to save space, whilst in regard to what is
exemplified under (1), Mt. and Lk may have simply chanced to select for
inclusion in these instances different parts of Mk.'s redundant phrases,
just as in other instances they have selected the same part (Mk. ii. 25
" when he had need and was a hungered," Mt xii. 3 and Lk. vi. 3 " when
he was a hungered "). The preponderant evidence thus seems to support
the conclusion that Mk. is the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels, and is, for
the sections that are common to all, the primary authority upon which
Mt. and Lk. have drawn.
Hitherto it has been assumed that the Second Gospel as we possess it
was in the hands of both the First and the Third Evangelist, but it is now
desirable to consider whether this was really the case. The facts which
cause the question to be raised are of the following nature : —
(i) A few narratives, short sayings, circumstantial details, and com
ments found in Mk. are absent altogether from both Mt. and Lk. Of
the narratives the principal are : —
(a) The attempt of Jesus' friends to seize Him because they deemed
Him mad (hi. 20, 21).
(b) The parable of the seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29).
(c) The healing of a deaf and dumb man (vii. 32-37).
(d) The healing of a blind man (viii. 22-26).
(e) The incident of the young man wearing a linen cloth (xiv. 51, 52).
Of the sayings and detaUs the most conspicuous are : —
(a) The note of time (ii. 26) when Abiathar was high priest.
(b) The saying about the Sabbath (ii. 27).
(c) The account (vii. 3, 4) of the Pharisees' habit of washing ceremoni
ally before eating.
(d) The saying (ix. 50), Have salt in yourselves, etc.

158 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(e) The saying (x. 24) about the rich.1
(ii) A certain number of phrases in passages derived from Mk. are
replaced in Mt. and Lk. by different phrases in which they both agree. The
most striking are the following :-?-.
Mb. Mt. Lk.
(a) iv. 11, is given the mystery xm. 11, vm. 10, is given to know the

(6) v. 27, His garment ix. 20, viii. 44, the border of His gar
ment
(c) vi. 14, King Herod xiv. 1, ix. 7, Herod the tetrarch
(d) ix. 19, 0 faithless generation, xvii. 17, ix. 41, 0 faithless, qnd perverse
generation
(e) x. 30, a hundredfold xix. 29, xviii. 30, manifold
(/) xiv. 72, and when he thought thereon xxvi. 75, xxii. 62, and he went out, and
he wept. wept bitterly.
PI] These particular features appear insufficient to justify the hypothesis
that Mt. and Lk. together used Mk. in a form rather difierent from that
which we possess. For, firstly in regard to what is absent from both, it has
already been pointed put that both Mt. and Lk. include much that is not
contained in Mk., so that these writers had a motive for saving space by
omitting portions qf Mk- if there were any parts that seemed relatively
unimportant ; and in sonie of the instances cited above, reasons for their
suppression readUy suggest themselves. Thus, of the two miracles of
healing, the second might be passed over because a similar case of the
restoration of sight occurs in both the First and Third Gospel ; the incident
pf the young man with the linen cloth might seem trivial ; the note of
time in ii. 26 is inaccurate- Secpndly in respect of the same phrases and
expressions substituted/ in both for those of Mk. the verbal change in some
instances (c and d above) may have been made independently by both
Mt. and Lk. in the interest of accuracy or for some other reason (Herod
was not reaUy king but tetrarch, and 0 faithless and perverse generation
is an adaptation to Pf xxxii. 5, LXX), whilst in other cases (a, b, eand/
above) the substitution may have originated with only one of the Evange
lists and tfyen at a later period been transferred to the other by copyists.
In regard to this latter explanation, it is known that assimUation of the
text of the different Gospels has already taken place in. surviving manu
scripts 2 ; so tha^; it may reasonably be inferred that it has oocurred in
some that no ionger exist, and that the phenomena here considered are
the' result.
There are, however, more splid grounds for supposing that an earher
form of Mk. was used by St. Lvfce alone, from whose Gospel a large pro-
1 Other instances of less interest) will be found in i. 13, 15, 33 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 5, 9,
17, 20-21, 30 ; iv. 34, 36 ; v. 5, 32 ; vi. 9, 13, '20,' 31, 37, 41 ; 'vii. 19, 24 ; viii, 14 ;
ix. 3, 10, 15, 27, 30, 39, 48-50 ; x. 16, 38-39, 49 ; xi. 4, 16 ; xii, 32 ; xiii. 36, 37 ;
xiv. 30, 72 ; xv. 21, 25, 44.
* In Mt. xiii. 11 the Old Latin arid the earUest Syriao version have tlie mystery ;
in Lk. viii. 44 D and some Old Latin MSS. omit the border of ; in Lk. xvuL 30 D and
the Old Latin have sevenfold ; and in xxij. 62 the Old Latin, omits and he, went out
and wept bitterly : see Biirkitt, Gospel Hist., pp. 42-58.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 159
portion of Mk. (as we have it) is missing, though present in Mt- It will
he seen from the table on p.148 f . that, besides the absence from Lk. of the
Marcan narratives already noticed, as well as ai other isolated sections
of Mk., like the account of the Baptist's death (Mk- vi. 19-29), the direction
to eradicate causes of stumbling (ix. 43-r47), the request of the sons pf
Zebedee (x. 35^-40), the anointing at Bethany (xiv. 3-9), and a few short
but important sayings, such as those in ix. 41, ^. 45, there is also absent
a consecutive group af sections in the second Gospel, extending from vi. 45
to ¥iU. 26. This includes, in addition to the healing of the deaf and dumb
man and the cure of the blind man (which is omitted also by Mt-)> the
foUowing narratives :—
(a) Our Lord's walking on the sea,
(b) His dispute with the Pharisees about eating with unwashen hands,
(c) The cure wrought upon the daughter of the SyrophceniGian woman,
(d) The feeding of the 4,000.
This disregard pf about one-ninth of the contents of the Second Gospel
at one stroke is in glaring contrast to the usage of St. Luke in other parts
of his work, wherein he foUows Mk. closely, with only small omissions
here and there. It is true that the author of Lk. had a strong mqtiye for
economizing space, since he aimed at comprising in the Jatter half of his
Gospel a number of parables and other matter which find no place even
in Mt., so that he may have felt compeUed to choose between several
stores pf material at his disposal and may have decided to use none of
these exhaustively. And no doubt reasons can be offered for some pf
the omissions here enumerated. The feeding of tiie 4,000 may have been
ignored because of its likeness to the feeding of the 5,000 x ; whilst the
discussion about eating with unwashen hands and about Pharisaic cere-
moniafism may have seemed to him superfluous through his inclusion
of the incident related in xi. 37-41. But it is difficult to think that the
author of this Gospel would have discarded, if he had known them, two
such narratives as, thpse pf pur Lord's, walking on the sea and of His
healing the Syrophcenician woman's daughter. The first is the story
of a very remarkable miracle, quite cjistinct from that of the StUling of
the storm (Mk. iv. 35-41) ; and the writer of Lk. is interested in miracles.
The second, can scarcely have been passed by (as some have thought) 2
because it was feared that the words of Jesus to the woman (Mk. vii. 27)
might prove repellent to the Gentiles ; on the contrary, the narrative as a
whole was calculated to appeal strongly to them. It is possible indeed
(as has been suggested) that at first Lk, may have omitted the seption by
accident, being milled by the occurrence pf the name Bethsaida in vi. 4$
and viii. 22, and then, when he discovered the error, deciding that the
matter thus passed by was not so necessary or suitable for inclusion as to
niake it wort}i while to repair the omission.3 But it is against this that
1 Nevertheless the heahng of the single leper in v. 12 f . does not lead him to exclude
the cure of the ten lepers in xyii. 12 f.
8 Stanton, The Gospels ax Hist. Doc, ii. p. 158.
3 See Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 66, 74 (Hawkins).

160 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the succeeding section viii. 22-26 is also absent from Lk. (as it is from Mt.
likewise). Accordingly, since the independent reasons advanced to
account for the omission of the several successive constituents of the
section are in many instances unsatisfactory, the hypothesis of two editions
of the Gospel (an earlier one, lacking vi. 46-viii. 26 and some, though
not all, of the other Marcan passages absent from Lk., and a later,
containing these sections) does not seem too bold a solution of the difficulty.
The disappearance of aU copies of the first edition (Proto-Mark) is not hard
to understand. Papyrus is an unsubstantial and perishable material;
and copies of the Gospel in its earliest form would depreciate in value as
soon as the later and expanded form of the work was procurable, and so
would cease to be multiplied. The second edition (Deutero-Mark) probably
received some small additions at the hand of a reviser or revisers, for it
seems to contain a few glosses.1
The conclusion just deduced from a comparison of the first three
Gospels that the writers of Mt. and Lk. used Mk. in its present or in an
earher form, as a source from which they took large sections and embodied
them in their own works is not the only inference to which the study of
the Synoptists leads. If, after the discrimination of those parts of Mt.
and Lk. which are derived from Mk., the residue of both Gospels be
examined, it wUl again be found that a number of sections, similar ahke
in matter and diction, are common to both the First and the Third Gospel.
These sections (marked in the table on p. 141 f . by Roman numerals) consist,
in the main, though not quite exclusively, of a series of our Lord's Sayings.
The close resemblance subsisting in many cases between this class of
parallel passages will be best discerned if illustrative instances are arranged
(as before) side by side ; though the likeness is not uniformly so great as
here shown : — •
(a) Mt. vi. 24 (a) Lk. xvi. 13
No man can serve two masters, for No servant can serve two masters,
either he will hate the one and love the for either he wiU hate the one and love
other, or else he will hold to one and the other, or else he wiU hold to one and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God despise the other. Ye cannot serve God
and mammon. and mammon.
(6) Mt. vii.. 3-5 (6) Lk. vi. 41, 42
And why beholdest thou the mote And why beholdest thou the mote that
that is in thy brother's eye, but con- is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
siderest not the beam that is in thine not the beam that is in thine own eye ?
eye ? Or how wilt thou say to thy How canst thou say to thy brother,
brother, Let me cast out the mote out of Brother, let me cast out the mote that
thine eye, and lo ! the beam is in thine is in thine eye, when thou thyself behold-
eye ? Thou hypocrite, cast out first out est not the beam that is in thine eye ?
of thine eye the beam, and then shalt thou Thou hypocrite ; cast out first the beam
see clearly to cast out the mote out of out of thine eye, and then thou shalt see
thy brother's eye. clearly the mote that is in thy brother's
eye to cast out.
1 Such may be v. 15 (even him that had the legion), xiv. 67 (even Jesus).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 161
(c) Mt. via. 8, 9 (c) Lk. vii. 6, 7, 8
And the centurion answered and said, The centurion sent friends to him
Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest saying, Lord, trouble not thyself, for I
come under my roof, but only speak am not worthy that thou shouldest come
with a word and my servant shall be under my roof, but speak with a word
healed. For I also am a man under and let my servant be healed. For I
authority, having under myself soldiers ; also am a man set vinder authority,
and I say unto this one, Go, and he goeth, having under myself soldiers, and I say
and to another, Come, and he cometh ; to this one, Go, and he goeth, and to
and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth another, Come, and he cometh ; and to
it. my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
(d) Mt. xi. 21-23 (d) Lk. x. 13-15
Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto
thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works
had been done (eyevovro) in Tyre and had been done (eyevrjOwav) in Tyre and
Sidon which were done in you, they Sidon, which were" done in you, they
would have repented long ago in sack- would have repented long ago, sitting in
cloth and ashes. Howbeit I say unto sackcloth and ashes. Howbeit it shall
you, it shaU be more tolerable for Tyre be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in
and Sidon in the day of judgment than the judgment than for you. And thou,
for you. And thou, Capernaum, shalt Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto
thou be exalted unto heaven ? Thou heaven ? thou shalt go down unto Hades.
sbalt go down unto Hades.
The extremely close verbal resemblance here observed requires an
explanation, and to account for it by a common oral tradition is as httle
adequate as in the preceding case. In the second of the paraUel passages
quoted the remarkable character of the likeness between the versions in
Mt. and Lk. is more obvious in the Greek even than in the English
of the R.V., because both contain the curious constructions
ovx fcavdg iva vno rijv ariytyv eloiXdrjg and aXX' elni X6ya>. It is also note
worthy that in (d) both Evangelists vary the affirmative sentences in the
first two vv. by a rhetorical question in the third verse. It is true that
the class of paraUel passages here under consideration consists mainly of
Christ's own utterances, which might be expected to be transmitted with
much verbal accuracy ; but they are not exclusively confined to these ;
and, as a matter of fact, of the four passages quoted at length^ one does
not contain any words of His. A fully satisfactory explanation of the
almost identical phraseology here employed by the two Evangelists can
only be found in the assumption of the use, by one or both writers, of a
documentary source. It has been shown that, in the case of another set
of parallel passages, the hypothesis that both writers have used a common
written source, sometimes with great exactness, sometimes with much
freedom, best accounts for the facts ; and analogy suggests a like
origin for the present set. The conclusion in one respect is not so cogent
here as in the former case, for the original document upon wliich it is
inferred that the paraUel versions depend cannot be produced. But short
of this decisive evidence, the conditions of the problem are much the
same as in the previous instance, and are best satisfied by a similar solution.
With regard to the nature of the document which is thus either par
tiaUy or in its entirety embodied in both Mt. and Lk. there is room for
much difference of opinion ; and in the absence of any general agreement
11

162 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
about it, it has come to be a practice to denote it by the symbol Q (standing
for the German word Quelle, " source "). The most striking feature in it is
the number of sayings or groups of sayings which it contains, including
various Parables or SimUitudes. Nevertheless, its contents are not
confined to our Lord's sayings, but comprise a few narratives. The
most important of these are the substance of the preaching of John the
Baptist, the accounts of our Lord's Temptation, of the healing of the
centurion's servant, of the inquiry sent by the Baptist to Christ, of the
offer of discipleship made by certain individuals, and of the cure of a
demoniac. The prominent place occupied in Q by our Lord's Sayings
has suggested that it was in reahty nothing but a coUection of such, the
narratives in it being merely intended to explain the circumstances under
which certain sayings were uttered, or the occasions which served to
ehcit them. Thus of the two miracles, the healing of the centurion's
servant can be regarded as introduced because of the declaration, I have
not found so great faith, no, not in Israel (Mt. viii. 5-10 — Lk. vn. 2-9) ; and
the cure of the demoniac as narrated for the sake of the saying, If I by
the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you
(Mt. xii. 22 f ., 27, 28 = Lk. xi. 14, 19, 20). But it is certainly strange
that Q, if it is only a coUection of our Lord's utterances, should include
the preaching of the Baptist, a narrative of our Lord's temptation, and an
account of the message of inquiry which the Baptist sent from prison.
These narratives seem out of place in a mere compUation of oracular
Sayings. Again, it has been suggested that the three narratives mentioned
above, together with the two miracles, do not reaUy belong to Q, but are
taken from Mk., though not from Mk. in its present condition (which
does not include them) but in a larger form known to, and used by, the
authors of the First and Third Gospels, and that from this they were
subsequently omitted.1 This view has the advantage of making Q a
much more uniform kind of document than it appears at present, for if
these narratives are subtracted, the rest of it will consist of Sayings only.
But a serious objection to it is the unlikelihood that Mk. was ever larger
than it is now, since there could have been no sufficient motive for reducing
it in size afterwards ; so that this solution also of the difficulty presented
by the peculiar contents of Q seems to require rejection. But the pecuhar
character of Q remains to be explained ; and a third suggestion may be
hazarded, namely, that Q, beginning as it does with the account of John
the Baptist's preaching of repentance, and going on to give a symbolic
account of Jesus' conquest over the temptations that assaUed Him in
connexion with His consciousness of Messiahship, was originaUy designed
to be a history of our Lord's ministry, including an account of its relation
to that of His predecessor. But the plan of its author, so far as can be
judged, was not carried to completion ; the work was left a torso. There
are only two miracles related, and there is no account of the Passion.
Consequently it seems best to regard Q as a Gospel which was begun
but never finished, and which, unlike Mk,, included a large number of our
Lord's sayings. 1 See Holdsworth, Gospel Origins, pp. 62, 63.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 163
This fragmentary Gospel was used by the authors of both Mt. and Lk. ,
whose treatment of it may plausibly be deduced from their handhng of
the Second Gospel ; and since it seems certain that they did not incorporate
the whole of Mk., it may be inferred that they did not embody the whole of
Q. But whereas we are acquainted with the real extent of Mk., we have
no means of estimating the real extent of Q, since the only possible recon
struction of it by the extraction of the passages occurring exclusively in
Mt. and Lk. together is hable to mislead as seriously as a reconstruction
of Mk. from Mt. and Lk. would do, for such would by no means correspond
accurately to the second Gospel as we possess it. It is likewise impossible
to determine with certainty whether, in the sequence of the different parts
of Q, the order of Mt. or of Lk. is to be preferred, since there is much
variation between them, and no independent witness to which appeal
can be made.
A review of the Synoptist Gospels shows that each of them has a certain
quantity of matter comprised in none of its companions ; but it wiU be
seen from the table which is given on p. 148 f . that the amount of material
contained exclusively in the Third Gospel greatly exceeds the material
that is found exclusively in each of the other two. Lk., hke Mt., has a
long narrative relating to the Birth of our Lord, though it is quite distinct
from that which occurs in Mt. But in addition to this and some other
isolated sections in the earher part of the book, which are peculiar to it,
the Third Gospel has a group of passages, occupying rather more than
eight chapters (ix. 51-xvin. 14), which, though consisting, to some extent,
of matter comprised in Q, yet in the main exists nowhere else. This
group of passages is inserted between two extracts drawn from Mk.,
which in that Gospel are in close contiguity though not quite consecutive
(occurring respectively in Mk. ix. 38-40 and x. 13). ; whilst the intervening
Marcan section, which in the original links the sections extracted, is
entirely omitted. This insertion (for such it may be termed in respect of
its position among the extracts which in Lk. have been incorporated from
Mk.) is sometimes termed St. Luke's Greater Interpolation, in contrast
to the group of passages contained in Lk. vi. 20-vin. 3, which has been
caUed the Lesser Interpolation. The Greater Interpolation calls for
notice here because it is frequently thought to be drawn from a written
source. Some scholars, indeed, hold that such written source is simply
Q, which the Third Evangelist may have used more extensively than the
First, or which he may have known and utilized in an expanded form.
There are, however, certain features about it which seem to sever it from
Q (see p. 198), so that another view, which likewise assumes that this
special matter had a documentary origin, is that it has been derived from
a written source which was not employed by any of the other Synoptists,
and which, owing to the occurrence in it of numerous references to our
Lord's journey from Gahlee to Judsea, has been styled St. Luke's " Travel
Document." There are reasons, however, which are adverse to the
hypothesis that this portion of the Third Gospel as a whole had any
documentary origin, and it is more probable that St. Luke has here
gathered together a number of traditions transmitted for the most part

164 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
orally, though the parables included may have existed previously in an
independent collection (p. 198). But whilst the derivation of the contents
of Lk. ix. 57-xviii. 14 from a " Travel Document " does not commend
itself, this part of the Third Gospel may conveniently, for the sake of
distinction, be termed St. Luke's " Travel Section," though it comprises
a few incidents that probably occurred before our Lord's departure on
His journey to Jerusalem.
The two documents, Mk. and Q, and possibly a summary of Parables
do not exhaust all the written Sources utUized in the composition of the
coUective Synoptic Gospels, but further consideration of other sources
may be deferred here. The acceptance of the theory that such
written sources as have just been described underlie the Synoptic Gospels
is not, of course, a denial that oral tradition was the earhest means of
transmitting the memory of the facts connected with our Lord's ministry,
but only denies that it was the stage immediately preceding the independent
composition of at least the two longest of these Gospels as we possess
them. It maintains that Mt. and Lk. are both separated from that stage
by an intervening documentary stage, which is represented by the shortest
of the Gospels and by another written work which has not survived.
The analysis of the Gospels into their sources, so far as these are dis
coverable, is only a preliminary step to an estimate of the historical
worth of their contents. It is clear that as historical authorities for New
Testament history, Mk. and Q must claim first attention. The contents
of these documents are not of necessity prior in date and superior in value,
to every one of those sections which are peculiar to Mt. and Lk. But
whereas in the instance of a passage occurring in only one of these Gospels,
it can merely be a matter of conjecture that it is an extract from a docu
ment accessible to the authors of both Mt. and Lk., but disregarded by
one of them, in the instance of a passage appearing in both we know that
it must come from a source earher than either. Mk. and Q are such
sources. They are documents which enjoyed sufficient currency to
become known to two different writers (viz. the First and Third Evange
lists) working independently ; and they had acquired sufficient authority
to induce both these authors to borrow from them. They are therefore
of primary importance to the historical investigator, and the value of
them it is essential to appraise as carefully as possible.
Of these documents Q is likely to be the older for two reasons. (1)
If in origin it is prior to Mk. and was known to the author of the latter, an
explanation is afforded of the fact that Mk. includes so smaU a proportion
of the Sayings of our Lord. In Q it is the teaching of Jesus that occupies
most space, whereas in Mk. it is the incidents of His life ; so that since
the two are in this way the complement of one another, and since Q is
(seemingly) incomplete and fragmentary, it looks as though the writer
of Mk. was acquainted with the scope of Q (so far as it went) and did not
wish to cover the same ground. (2) This presumption finds some corro
boration from an inspection of the few passages in both which relate to
the same occurrence. In regard to these a comparison between Mk.'s
account and the paraUels in Mt. and Lk. (derived from Q) suggest that the

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 165
former is abbreviated from the latter. The most conspicuous case where
the suspicion is raised is in connexion with the preaching of John the
Baptist ; and when the corresponding passages are placed side by side
the grounds for the inference will become apparent. It will suffice here
to reproduce Lk.
Mk. i. 7, 8 Lk. iii. 7, 16, 17
He preached, saying, There cometh He said therefore ... I indeed bap-
after me he that is mightier than I, the tize you with water ; but there cometh he
latohet of whose shoes I am not worthy that is mightier than I, the latchet of
to stoop down and unloose. I baptized whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose :
you with water, but he shaU baptize he shaU baptize you with Holy Spirit
you with Holy Spirit. and with fire : whose fan is in his hand
throughly to cleanse his threshing floor,
and to gather the wheat into his garner,
but the chaff he will burn up with un
quenchable fire.
The resemblance between Mk. and Lk. (whose narrative together with
the paraUel in Mt. is derived from Q) is sufficiently near to suggest that
Mk. is not independent of Q ; and if so, there are features in Mk. which
favour the conclusion that his account is secondary. Mk., for example,
contains the statement that John's Successor is to baptize with Holy
Spirit, but he has no mention of the baptism with fire. The reference in
Mt. and Lk., however, to this last must be original since it clearly has in
mind the subsequent statement about the unquenchable fire of judgment
in store for the unrepentant. A natural explanation of this difference
between the Gospels seems to be that Mk. was acquainted with, and used,
the passage from Q, which the other Evangelists have quoted at length
but which he has abbreviated ; and since he did not intend to include
the later mention of the unquenchable fire, he left out also the prior
aUusion to it occurring in the words " and with fire."
This is perhaps the most striking, though not the only instance where
St. Mark seems to show knowledge of Qf but it does not appear that
he used it at aU extensively ; and the suggestion has been made that he
• quoted it from memory. If Q was thus prior to Mk. and known to the
writer of the latter, and if it was an imperfect Gospel, lacking in its un
finished state a number of important detaUs about our Lord, especially
those connected with His Passion, a satisfactory motive is found for the
scheme foUowed in Mk. The latter seems to have been designed not to
supersede but to supplement Q by furnishing an adequate account of our
Lord's ministry, whilst omitting altogether, or repeating very concisely,
matters already contained in Q. In particular, the comparatively small
amount of discourse in Mk. as contrasted with the quantity in Q, thus
finds a simple explanation ; had the writer desired to supersede Q, he
would probably have preserved a fuU report of at least some of the dis
courses which it contained, instead of reproducing so little of them.
It is now expedient to consider some external evidence which may
1 Another is Mk. iii. 22-27 =Mt. xii. 24-29 =Lk. xi. 15, 17-22. See Oxford
in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 169 foil. (Streeter).

166 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
possibly throw hght upon the origin of Q or of some of its contents. This
evidence consists of certain statements made by the historian Eusebius,
which are partly his own and partly preserved by him from earlier authori
ties. (1) " Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he
was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his
native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave
for the loss of his presence " (H.E. hi. 24) ; (2) " Since Irenseus was one
of these (i.e. the ancient presbyters and writers of the Church), we wiU
now give his words, and first what he says of the sacred Gospels : ' Mat
thew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language,
whUe Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome ' "
(H.E. v. 8) ; (3) " Pantsenus was one of these (i.e. of many Evangelists),
and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons
there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew,
which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the
Apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew
in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved tiU that time " (H.E.
v. 10) ; (4) " [Origen] testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing
as foUows : ' Among the four Gospels which are the only indisputable
ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that
the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax-gatherer, but
afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts
from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language ' " (H.E. vi. 25) ;
(5) " But concerning Matthew [Papias] writes as foUows : ' So then
Matthew wrote the oracles (rd Xoyia) in the Hebrew language and every one
interpreted (i.e. translated) them as he was able ' " (H.E. hi. 39). The
term Logia used in this last passage admits of being understood as a
description of an historical work, including both narratives and sayings,
but the predominant sense in which it is employed in the LXX is that of
" Divine utterances " (Num. xxiv. 4, Dt. xxxiii. 9, Ps. xii. (xi.) 6, cxix.
11, 67, Wisd. xvi. 11, cf. also Acts vii. 38), and it has this meaning in
1 Pet. iv. 11, and perhaps in Rom. iii. 2.
Now if these statements and the First Gospel be compared together,
the foUowing conclusions seem to emerge, (a) Our First Gospel cannot
be the actual Gospel which St. Matthew is represented to have written,
for it is in Greek and not in Hebrew, (b) It cannot be a Greek translation
made by St. Matthew himself of his aUeged Hebrew Gospel, for it has
been shown that for a large part of the material embodied in it the writer
has been dependent upon Mk., and it is impossible to suppose that one,
who, like St. Matthew, was one of the Apostles and therefore a first-hand
witness of our Lord's ministry, could have been indebted on so great a
scale to the writings of one who was not included in the Twelve, (c) Nor
can the document used by Mt. and Lk. in common, which has been denoted
by Q and which seems to have been begun on the lines of a Gospel, though
never finished, have been a Greek rendering of the Gospel ascribed to
St. Matthew, partly because it is so incomplete, and partly because it
does not appear why, in this case, St. Matthew's name should have been
attached to the First Gospel in particular, seeing that Q is common to

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 167
both the First and the Third, (d) The numerous Sayings of our Lord
Which constitute so large a part of Q can with much more plausibility be
identified with a Greek translation of the collection of oracles compiled
by St. Matthew of which Papias speaks, for though these occur not only
in the First but also in the Third Gospel, yet the fact that they af e much
more impressively arranged in the former than in the latter wiU account
for the name of St. Matthew being associated with it.1 The conjecture
may also be hazarded that the existence of a coUection of our Lord's
Sayings in Aramaic made by St. Matthew and incorporated through the
medium of a Greek version, first in Q and afterwards, through Q, in the
First Gospel is the origin of the tradition that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel
in Hebrew (the term Hebrew being employed inaccurately instead of the
more correct word Aramaic.
It has been seen that Eusebius quotes Irenseus to the effect that Matthew
pubUshed his Gospel during the period that Peter and Paul were preaching
and founding the Church at Rome. Much uncertainty prevails as to
when the two Apostles were together at Rome ; but it seems probable
that if they were ever there in company, it was not before 59 or after
64. If, then, reliance be placed on the statement of Irenseus', and if what
is described as Matthew's Gospel was really his coUection of our Lord's
Sayings (or Logia), the date of the Matthsean compUation wiU fall between
the years just named ; and the date of Q, which has drawn material from
them, wiU be later than this. How much later depends upon the date to
which the composition of Mk. may plausibly be assigned ; and as reasons
wiU be given for thinking that Mk. was written befofe a.d. 70, the origin
of Q, which is probably earlier than Mk., may be placed conjecturaUy
about a.d. 65.
But it is not likely that Matthew's coUection of oracles was the first
of its kind. At the date suggested above (59-64) it is most likely to have
heen composed out of earlier and briefer summaries of our Lord's utterances,
Such as would almost certainly be caUed for, and circulated, long befofe
an account of His life was required. The latter would be superfluous
for such of the early Christians as had been His personal foUoWers ,' but
it was of great moment to know exactly what He had said about the
Kingdom of God, what His principles of conduct were, and how His
teaching and practice differed from the rules laid down by the Scribes
1 Buriritt (The Gospel Hist., etc., pp. 126, 127) holds that the Matthsean Logia
were a collection of Proof-texts (or testimonies) from the Old Testament made by
the Apostle for comparison with the history and teaching of our Lord. Many of the
quotations from the Old Testament that occur in the First Gdspel seem to be inde
pendent translations from the Hebrew, not taken from the LXX. (see p. 191), but
since they do not always agree with the existing Massoretic text, and since there are
some curious errors in the designations of the writers from whom the quotations are
drawn (a passage from Zechariah, for instance, being assigned to Jeremiah, see xxvii.
9), it has been thought that they camiot be taken directly from the Old Testament,
but from some intermediate source, such as a collection of texts designed to illustrate
the fulfilment of prophecy by Christ. A composite quotation drawn from such a
collection might be cited under the name of only one of the prophets referred to,
instead of both.

168 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and Pharisees. Of the probable character of the earhest coUections of the
Lord's memorable sayings or Logia a trustworthy idea may perhaps be
derived from the small group of sayings, inscribed in Greek on a papyrus
leaf, which was found in 1897 at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, and which has
been thought to go back at least to the second century. Of these seven
or eight sayings some resemble, without being quite identical with, certain
that are included in the New Testament, whUst others are altogether
difierent from any previously known ; whether the latter are genuine
or not need not be considered here. The greater part of it is transcribed
in this place merely because it is in aU probabUity analogous to the coUec
tions wliich paved the way for the compUation by St. Matthew. A few
of the sayings, some of which are only fragments, are as foUows : —
1. . . . " And then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote that
is in thy brother's eye " (cf. Lk. vi. 42).
2. " Jesus saith, Except ye fast to the world, ye shaU in no wise find
the kingdom of God, and except ye keep the Sabbath, ye shaU not see
the Father."
3. " Jesus saith, I stood in the midst of the world, and in the flesh
was I seen of them, and I found all men drunken, and none found I
athirst among them, and my soul grieveth over the sons of men, because
they are blind in their heart, and see [not, poor, and know not] their
poverty." 4. " Jesus saith, Wherever there are [two, they are not without]
God, and [if anywhere one] is alone, I say, I am with him. Raise the
stone and there thou shalt find me ; cleave the wood and there am I."
Two other sayings resemble in substance Mk. vi. 4 and Mt. v. 14V
It wiU be observed that in this coUection the occasions when the sayings
were uttered are not indicated. The document presents just a short
series of disconnected aphorisms, each prefaced by Jesus saith. A paraUel
example, more or less close, of seemingly detached sayings, which have
been brought together, occurs in Lk. vi. 39^45 : if they were separated
they would appear as foUows : —
(a) " Can the blind lead the blind ? shall they not both fall into a pit ? "
(b) " The disciple is not above his Master ; but every one when he is
perfected shall be as his Master."
(c) " And why beholdest thou the mote, etc."
(d) " For there is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit, etc."
In Mt. these sayings are not arranged as in Lk., but are placed in
connexion with difierent contexts ; for (a) Lk. vi. 39 appears in Mt. xv.
14 ; (6) Lk. vi. 40 in Mt. x. 24 ; (c) Lk. vi. 41-42 in Mt. vn. 3-5 ; (d) Lk.
vi. 43-45 in Mt. vii. 16-18, 20, xii. 34, 35.
If the larger part of Q has been rightly traced to a Greek rendering of
the coUection of our Lord's sayings attributed to St. Matthew, it foUows
that much of the contents of Q proceeds ultimately from one who was in
a good position to authenticate the subject-matter wliich he reports.
St. Matthew was not a conspicuous figure among the Apostles, but he was
1 See Grenfell and Hunt, Sayings of our Lord from an early Greek Papyrus.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 169
probably a man of capacity and experience, since he occupied the position
of collector of toUs. And as he had exceUent opportunities of hearing
our Lord's words, and (so far as can be judged) was well qualified to record
them clearly, so he may be credited with a desire to do so faithfully. At
the same time it is necessary to remember that the report which we possess
is separated from what Christ actuaUy said by two stages, for His words,
uttered in Aramaic, have been translated into Greek, and the Greek
translation, wliich does not exist independently, has to be recovered from
the reproductions of it preserved in Mt. and Lk. Moreover, in view of
the fact that the disciples occasionaUy misunderstood their Master during
His lifetime, it is possible that some of His utterances have been mis
apprehended, or that they have been translated unintelligently, and their
real significance, in consequence, has been disguised or distorted. Never
theless, the ethical and spiritual quality of His sayings, as contained in
Q, seem to warrant that in general His teaching has been recorded and
preserved without serious misrepresentation.
An estimate of the date of the composition of Mk. is more conveniently
deferred for the moment (see p. 171). The need of such a work would
not be felt tiU Christian preachers began to appeal to those who, like the
Jews of the Dispersion and the Gentiles among whom they lived, knew
nothing about Jesus, and untU the number of those who had been of His
company began to be thinned by death. But as soon as personal testimony
grew deficient, written narratives of our Lord's life would be required,
and required, too, in the Greek language, the chief medium of intercourse
throughout the Roman ^Empire (p. 79). There seems to be no sufficient
reason to suppose that Mk. was originally composed in Aramaic.1 The
features in it which suggest an Aramaic original may be accounted for by
the assumption that the writer reproduced in Greek, matter which was
oraUy related to him in Aramaic, or in imperfect Greek contaminated
with Aramaic. This assumption appears to be justified by what is
reported by Papias about the author of the Second Gospel. St. Mark
must have been acquainted with St. Peter at an early date in Jerusalem
(see Acts xii. 12 and p. 170), and was probably a companion successively
of both St. Paul and St. Peter at Rome, and it was doubtless while he was
associated with the latter that he obtained the information about our
Lord's life which he preserved in his gospel. For Papias (cf. Eus. H.E. iii.
39) states that " the presbyter (John ?) 2 related that Mark, having become
the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in
• order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For
he neither heard the Lord nor foUowed Him, but afterward,, as I said, he
foUowed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers but
with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses,
so that Mark committed no error whUe he thus wrote some things as he
remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of
the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."
1 An Aramaic origin for the Second Gospel is advocated by Allen, St. Mark,
p. vii. foil. 8 See p. 228.

170 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
This statement that St. Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's reminiscences
also appears in Justin, who Styles it 'Ano/u,vrjfiovetSfiara rov JJergov, and is
confirmed by Irenseus (cf . Eus. H.E. v. 8), who says that Mark, the disciple
and interpreter of Peter, after the departure (iko8ov) of Peter and Paul
at Rome, handed down in writing the preaching of Peter. Tertullian,
again, virtually repeats the statement of Irenseus about the derivation
of the Second Gospel from the preaching of Peter : " What Mark published
may be described as Petrine, for Mark was Peter's interpreter." Lastly,
Clement of Alexandria (cf . Eus. H.E. vi. 14) adds that Mark was urged
to undertake the task of preserving St. Peter's words by others, stating
that " as Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared
the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark,
who had foUowed him for a long time, and remembered his sayings, should
write them out. And having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those
who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly
forbade nor encouraged it (i.e. the request addressed to Mark)." These
various pieces of evidence agree in representing that the earhest of the
Synoptic Gospels, upon which the other two are so largely dependent,
was composed by one who was not an eye-witness of at least the greater
part of what he relates, but was indebted for his information to another.
St. Peter, however, the informant whose statements he reported, had
excellent opportunities of knowing almost aU the events and circumstances
related in the Second Gospel. He belonged to Gahlee, the scene of the
earliest incidents of our Lord's ministry ; he was an Apostle, and so a
constant companion of Jesus ; and he is one of the three who is recorded
to have been present on occasions when most of the other Apostles
were absent (v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3, xiv. 33). The account of Papias that St.
Mark reproduced information derived from St. Peter is confirmed by
certain features in the Second Gospel. Its narrative of our Lord's
ministry virtuaUy begins with the caU of St. Peter and his brother ; and
this is followed shortly by an account of a visit by Jesus to St. Peter's
house, where the Apostle's mother-in-law was healed of a fever. Moreover,
St. Peter is named first in the list of the Twelve (iii. 16), and he generaUy
acts as their spokesman (viii. 32, x. 28, xi. 21), and is addressed as their
representative (xiv. 37, xvi. 7). Nevertheless it is probable that St.
Peter was not St. Mark's sole authority when he wrote his Gospel. As
the latter's home was at Jerusalem, he may have come in contact with
others of the Apostles, whose recoUections about Jesus he would learn.
And it is possible that of certain scenes during the last week of our Saviour's
life, which was spent at the Jewish capital, St. Mark was himself a
spectator.1 It has been conjectured with some plausibUity that the young
man alluded to in Mk. xiv. 51, 52, was the writer of the Gospel, for the
incident, if a stranger were concerned, seems too unimportant to deserve
narration. If the conjecture is WeU grounded, Mark may have witnessed
1 It is not unlikely that the opening words of the Muratorian canon, quibus tamen
interfuit et ita posuit, which must relate to the author of the Second Gospel, mean that
St. Mark was present on certain occasions in the life of our Lord, quibus being a mutila
tion of aliquibus.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 171
what occurred in Gethsemane, whUst Peter and the other disciples slept
(Mk. xiv. 32-42). It has been objected to this, indeed, that since the
Crucifixion probably took place in a.d. 29 (p. 342) St. Mark, a young
man then, would have been rather old to act as the attendant (¦Snrjgerrjg)
of St. Paul and St. Barnabas in a.d. 47 (Acts xiii. 5, where John stands for
John Mark). If, however, St. Mark was not more than eighteen at the
date of the Crucifixion, he would not have been more than thirty-six in
a.d. 47. But be this as it may, the amount of matter in the Second
Gospel that depends upon the writer's first-hand evidence can, at most,
be very small ; the bulk of the statements contained in it may be regarded
as derived from the personal recoUections of St. Peter (and perhaps others
of the Apostles) communicated to St. Mark orally.
The conclusion that, though St. Mark was not an eye-witness of most
of the events he records, yet he had access to some one who was, is a fact
which justifies, in connexion with his account of our Lord's ministry, a
feeling of much greater security than would be reasonable if the source
of it were altogether unknown. The value, however, of information
resting upon personal recoUections communicated by word of mouth to
another individual who preserved this in writing naturally depends not
only upon the authoritativeness of the ultimate source of it, but also
upon the interval elapsing between the occurrence of the incidents related
and the time when the narrative of them was drawn up ; so that it is
necessary to investigate the probable date of Mk. It has been seen from
the passage quoted from Irenseus (p. 170) that St. Mark is said to have
handed down the preaching of Peter " after the departure " (i.e. death,
cf. 2 Pet. i. 15) of St. Peter and St. Paul, which probably implies a
date after a.d. 64. Clement, it is true, definitely asserts that St. Mark
wrote his Gospel at Rome whUst St. Peter was there. But if the Logia
compUed by St. Matthew were written when St. Peter and St. Paul were
together at Rome (p. 166), and time has to be aUowed for the composition
of Q (which probably embodies the Logia), and for the use of Q by Mark,
the date of Mk. is pushed towards 70, some years after the death of Peter
(probably) in 64. It has, indeed, been contended that the origin of the
Second Gospel is much earher than 64 x and that it was composed before
47, St. Peter's recollections of his Lord being communicated to St. Mark
before the Apostle was compeUed to leave Jerusalem in a.d. 44. But this
early date, which disregards the conclusions based on the evidence that
the Matthsean Logia were composed when St. Peter and St. Paul were
" founding " (perhaps in the sense of consolidating) the Roman Church,
and the presumption that the Logia were used by Q and Q by Mk. is
likewise not easUy reconcUed with the internal evidence of ch. xiii., whether
that chapter be the composition of St. Mark himself or incorporates an
Apocalyptic document (vv. 5-29) previously in circulation. For this
seems to contain references to trials in store for Christ's disciples, which
1 If St. Luke's writings (the Third Gospel and Acts) were composed, as some
contend, before 62 (see p. 252) an early date (somewhile before 60) is required for
St. Mark's Gospel (see Hai-nack, Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 126).

172 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
are so circumstantial that they appear to reproduce the experiences under
gone by St. Paul in 56-59 and the persecution of the Christians at Rome in
the time of Nero, there being a strong temptation, after such had occurred,
to make the language of prediction fit the event accurately (p. 108). A
date decidedly later than 47 is thus suggested for the book that includes
this chapter. But that St. Mark's Gospel was composed before a.d. 70
is rendered probable by two facts, (a) Notwithstanding the predictions
in xiii. 2 of the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, the reference to
the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans (v. 14) is not couched in the terms
used by Lk. in xxi. 20 (cf . xix. 43), but retains the enigmatic phraseology
of Dan. xi. 31, which the author of the Third Gospel discards, (b) The
direction in v. 14 bidding those in Judsea flee to the mountains betrays
no acquaintance with the circumstance that the Christians in Jerusalem
fled before the siege to PeUa, across the Jordan (Eus. H.E. iii. 5, 3). The
language here noted throws light, strictly speaking, only on the date of
the Apocalyptist whose work the Evangelist probably incorporates ;
but the fact that the latter has not qualified it points to his having pro
duced his Gospel before the events of 68-70. If the date of the book lies
between 64 and 70, it was in all likelihood written after the execution of
Peter (who probably met his death in 64) and 66 or 67 was perhaps the
year of its composition. That Rome was its place of origin, as the state
ment of Irenseus seems to imply, is confirmed by various pieces of internal
evidence. Among these are (a) the reference to Simon of Cyrene as the
father of Alexander and Rufus (xv. 21), a Rufus being mentioned in Rom.
xvi. 13 (but see p. 283) ; (b) the numerous Latinisms,1 Srjvdgiov, xsvrvguov,
xrjvaog, xodgdvrrjg, Xsyimv, poSiog, Siarrjg (= sextarius), ngahcogiov, ansxov-
Xdnog, (pgaysXUm (= flagelh) ; (c) the reference to the divorce of a
husband by a wife (x. 12), which was possible according to Roman, but
not according to Jewish, Law.
If the date here supported be accepted, it wfll appear that the interval
between the last events related in the Gospel and the committal of an
account of them to writing amounts to rather more than a generation.
During this period the preservation of the detaUs of our Lord's life and
ministry must have depended mainly (in spite of Lk. i. 1) upon the tenacity
of the memories of His disciples. Though they had not been trained in
the Rabbinic schools, where the pupUs were expected to transmit what
they were taught to others in the exact form in which it had been imparted
to themselves (p. 97), many of the scenes and incidents in which their
Lord had figured would doubtless remain fixed in their recoUections.
Yet there is an antecedent presumption that even the earhest Gospel
does not afford a perfectly trustworthy narrative. The actual spectators
of the occurrences related are not likely to have had either the necessary
motives or the necessary faculties for taking and preserving notes of aU
that they heard or saw, and when the reminiscences of even an Apostle
were first recorded thirty -seven years afterwards by one who was himself
1 The term KpifHarros, though adopted by the Romans in the form grabatus, was
a Macedonian word.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 173
an eye-witness of no more than one or two of the scenes recorded, it is
reasonable to suppose that a report was produced in which honesty of
intention did not keep the writer wholly free from errors due to defective
information, judgment, or insight. In the course of the interval separating
our Lord's death from the composition of Mk. the facts of His ministry
would be increasingly viewed through the refracting medium of current
ideas and beliefs respecting the Christ. Presuppositions as to the power
and authority over nature appropriate to the Son of God, presumptions
based on the history and prophecies of Scripture, liability to put a prosaic
interpretation upon figurative and rhetorical phraseology — all these
cannot have been without their influence in shaping a record of His life,
and have to be taken into account in estimating the historic value of its
various contents. Nor can it be overlooked that there is some reason
for thinking that there were two editions of the Second Gospel, and that
if so, then the matter that finds place in the Gospel as we have it, but was
absent from its earliest form, probably rests upon tradition rather than
upon the reminiscences of an authoritative informant hke St. Peter.
The Gospel according to St. Mark
Since so much has aheady been said about the origin, date, and
historical value of the Second Gospel, it is unnecessary here to do more
than summarize what is known about its author, and to caU attention
to certain features characterizing his work.
The writer is not named in the book itself, but according to tradition
he was Mark, whose Hebrew name was John, but who had taken as a
surname a Roman prcenomen Marcus.1 He was the son of a woman
caUed Mary, who was a resident at Jerusalem, his father's name being
unknown. It has been conjectured that it was at his mother's house
that our Lord partook of the Last Supper with His disciples, and that
Mark may have followed Him when He left to go to Gethsemane, and so
may have witnessed what happened there (see p. 170). His mother was
weU known to St. Peter, who went to her house after his escape from prison
(Acts xii. 12). That he was a Jew by race might be inferred from his
Hebrew name John, and is definitely affirmed by St. Paul in Col. iv. 10-11.
He was cousin to Barnabas ; and he probably met St. Paul for the first
time when that Apostle, together with Barnabas, brought relief from the
Church at Antioch to the Church at Jerusalem in a.d. 46 (Acts xi. 29, 30),
and he seems to have accompanied them to Antioch on their return thither.
When they departed on their First Missionary tour in a.d. 47 he went
with them in a subordinate capacity (vnrjgsrrjg, Acts xiii. 5), his duties
perhaps including that of baptizing converts. At Perga, for some reason
unexplained, he refused to go further, and returned to Jerusalem. When
about a.d. 50 St. Paul proposed to Barnabas that they should revisit
the cities where they had made converts on the previous journey,
1 Other instances of Jews who had taken Roman names are Joseph Barsabbas
who was also called Justus, and Symeon who was called Niger.

174 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Barnabas wished to take his cousin with them ; but St. Paul refused to
aUow it since Mark had deserted them on the former occasion ; and so
Barnabas, with Mark, proceeded to Cyprus, leaving St. Paul to go to
Galatia. Nothing is known of the work accomplished by the two in
Cyprus, or of Mark's subsequent career during the next ten years, untU
he is mentioned by St. Paul as amongst those who were with him at Rome
(59-61). The Apostle thus appears to have been reconcUed to him, and
to have found in him a zealous feUow-worker (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24,
cf. 2 Tim. iv. 11). If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine and St. Paul was
released from his first imprisonment, Mark must have returned to the
East, for the Apostle, when imprisoned again, wrote to Timothy at Ephesus,
directing him to bring Mark back to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11). It was in
any case at Rome that Mark became an attendant upon St. Peter.
From the affectionate term — " my son " — which that Apostle applies
to Mark in his First Epistle (v. 13) it has been inferred that he may have
been the younger man's instructor in Christian doctrine, since among the
Jews pupils were often addressed by their teachers as their " sons " (Prov.
i. 8, Ecclus. vii. 3). Probably it was after the death of St. Paul in 61
(see p. 348) that Mark attached himself to St. Peter, and rendered him
service until he, too, was martyred in 64 (p. 172). A tradition preserved
by Eusebius (H.E. ii. 16 and 24) relates that he was the first to go as a
Christian missionary to Egypt, preaching there the Gospel which he had
written, and was the first to establish churches at Alexandria, where he
presided over the Christian community until the eighth year of Nero
(i.e. a.d. 62) ; and the fact that he laboured in Egypt is asserted also by
Epiphanius, Jerome, and others. But the date mentioned in connexion
with his work in that country is not easUy harmonized with the better
attested record of his association with St. Peter at Rome.
As has been seen (pp. 169-70), Papias, Irenseus, Tertullian and Clement
(all included in the second century a.d., though Clement at least lived into
the third) state in various terms that it was the substance of St. Peter's
account of his Master, imparted to those whom he instructed, that St.
Mark reproduced in his Gospel. Certain points in their statements and
inferences from them deserve attention. (1) Mark is caUed St. Peter's
interpreter, so that it is a reasonable conclusion that what St. Peter
narrated either in Aramaic or in indifferent Greek to St. Mark, the latter
rendered into fair, though not polished, Greek.1 (2) The Apostle in relating
our Lord's words and works to his hearers, observed no systematic arrange
ment, so that if St. Mark reported faithfully but not in order what was
said and done by Jesus, the responsibility for the lack of order was not
his but St. Peter's. The statement that he wrote with accuracy but not
in order what he remembered of St. Peter's recoUections of Jesus'
ministry requires a little further comment. Although precise notes of
1 Zahn, holding that St. Peter did not need an interpreter in the ordinary sense
of the term, explains the words ipjj.ijvei'Tijs Jlirpov yevojievos to mean that St. Mark
became, through writing his Gospel, the channel whereby the Apostle's instruction
was transmitted to a wider circle than he himself oould possibly reaoh : cf. I.N.T.
ii. p. 455.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 175
time are not conspicuous in the Second Gospel and the sequence of events
is often indicated only vaguely (e.g. ii. 1, 23, iii. 1, iv. 1, viii. 1), and although
the writer rarely attempts to date the events which he relates by reference
to contemporary rulers, native or foreign, as the author of the Third
Gospel does, yet the incidents recorded by him in general foUow a natural
order. Thus the succession of occurrences is plainly marked in i. 21,
29, 32, 35, iv. 35, v. 21, vi. 1, vii. 24, 31, xi. 1, 11, 12, etc. ; and in spite
of gaps in the record (contrast iii. 13 with iii. 20), his narrative, judged
by internal evidence, " presents a reasonably consistent account of the
public life of our Lord."1 Accordingly it seems necessary to understand
Papias' description of St. Mark's work as written " accurately but not in
order " (axgifimg ov pihroi Tdfsi) to mean something else than grave
disregard for chronological sequence in the connexion of the events.
Possibly the criticism was designed to imply that it was deficient in the
studied arrangement to which the historians of antiquity devoted much
care, with a view to producing an impressive effect. Perhaps more likely
it refers to the fact that examples, now of Christ's works (i.-iu.), and now
of His teaching, are grouped together (iv. 1-32), instead of each instance
being placed in the situation where it occurred. In any case, the defect
of which complaint is made is not of such a character as to disturb the
impression produced upon the readers of the Gospel that there is in the
narrative an orderly development of events, culminating in the tragedy
of Calvary, which warrants the behef that in general it is faithful to facts
in its account of the main turning-points of our Lord's ministry. But
though the Gospel is a history, it was not with a purely historical aim that
its author composed it. His principal motive is suggested by the heading
of his work — The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of Goi.%
The purpose of the earliest Christian writers, like that of the earliest
Apostohc preachers, was to persuade men that Jesus was the Messiah,
and to refute the presumption raised against such a belief by the ignominy
of the Crucifixion. Such a purpose led to the selection of such incidents
in their Master's life as were most calculated to create in men a conviction
of His goodness and His power, to indicate correspondence between
previous predictions about the Messiah and their fulfilment in the
activities and the experiences of Jesus, and to reiterate His announcements
about the coming kingdom, so that their narratives were in a measure a
defence of the Faith in an historical shape.
As has been seen, St. Mark's Gospel is not a first-hand, but a second
hand authority for our Lord's life and teaching, though for most of the
events of His life it is the best we have. Amongst the sources upon which
it is based are (a) St. Peter's oral instruction ; (6) the writer's own memories ;
(e) possibly the document Q ; (d) probably (in ch. xiii.) " a fly-leaf of early
Christian Apocalyptic prophecy, pseudonymously put into the mouth
1 Buriritt, The Gospel History, etc., p. 75.
2 The word dpxfi seems intended to convey the thought that the good tidings
from God came first not through John the Baptist but through Jesus (cf. Heb. ii. 3,
Joh. i. 8), John being merely the herald of the latter.

176 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of our Lord " 1 ; (e) probably some narratives resting on tradition, one at
least appearing to be a variant version of an incident related in another
part of the Gospel (see p. 414).
The date of the Gospel has aheady been discussed, and it has been
shown to be probable (p. 171) that it was written between the death of
St. Peter in 64, and the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans
in 70 (about 67 ?), and most likely at Rome, where a work written in Greek
would easily circulate (p. 81). If written at Rome, it would be intended
for the use of GentUe Christians, and this conclusion is corroborated by
its explanations of the situation of certain places in Palestine (i. 9, xi. 1),
which would be unfamihar to residents outside that country, and of
Jewish customs, words, and phrases wliich would be unintelligible to
Gentile readers (see hi. 17, v. 41, vii. 3, 4, 11, xi. 1, xv. 22, 34, 42). If the
conclusion be correct that there were two editions of Mk., one used by
St. Luke and the other by the author of the First Gospel (p. 158 f .), the
later being identical with the book as we have it, and the earlier being
shorter (lacking vi. 45-viii. 26, and perhaps some briefer passages), the
interval 64-70 probably saw both editions issued, inasmuch as the
Evangehst nowhere gives any indication that he was acquainted with
the fall of the Jewish capital. It is of the first edition that Rome may
most confidently be regarded as the birthplace ; the enlarged second
edition was most likely prepared elsewhere (perhaps in Palestine).
St. Mark, in many passages common to him and the other Synoptists,
exhibits certain features which have a bearing upon his qualities as an
historian as compared with those of Mt. and Lk.
(1) In the following he represents our Lord as unable to do what He
desired on various occasions : —
(a) vi. 5. He could there do no mighty work . . . and he marvelled
because of their unbelief, changed in Mt. xni. 58 to He did not many mighty
works there because of their unbelief.
(b) vi. 48. He would have passed by them ; omitted in Mt. and Lk.
(c) vii. 24. He wished that no one should know, and could not be hid ;
absent from both Mt. and Lk.
(2) In the foUowing Jesus is depicted as deprecating the apphcation
to HimseU of the attribute " good."
x. 18. Why callest thou me good ? none is good save one, even God ;
changed in Mt. to Why askest thou me concerning that which is good ? one
there is who is good.
(3) Ignorance is attributed to Him in the following cases : —
(a) xi. 13. Seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he
might find anything thereon ; and when he came to it he found nothing but
leaves ; in Mt. our Lord's expectation is not exphcitly expressed.
(6) v. 9. He asked him (a " possessed " man), What is thy name ?
omitted in Mt.
(c) v. 30. Who touched my garments ? omitted in Mt.
(d) vi. 38. How many loaves have ye ? omitted in both Mt. and Lk.
(e) ix. 16. What question ye with them ? omitted in both Mt. and Lk'.
i Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 207.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 177
(/) ix. 21. How long time is it since this liath come upon him ? omitted
in Mt. and Lk.
(g) ix. 33. What were ye reasoning in the way ? omitted by Mt. and
Lk. (4) In the following instances Jesus is described as manifesting strong
human emotions, such as anger, surprise, or mental distress: —
(a) i. 43, He sternly (E/j.figii*rjodfj,evog) charged him ; the participle
is omitted in Mt. and Lk.
(b) ni. 5, When he had looked round about them with anger ; the whole
phrase is omitted in Mt., and the words with anger are omitted by Lk.
(c) vi. 6, He marvelled ; omitted by Mt. and Lk.
(d) x. 14, He was moved with indignation ; omitted by Mt. and Lk.
(e) xiv. 33, Began to be greatly amazed and sore troubled ; omitted
by Lk.
(5) The following phrases reflect severely on the mental and moral
qualities, or on the conduct, of the disciples : —
(a) iv. 13. Know ye not this parable .and how shall ye know all the
parables ? omitted by Mt. and Lk.
(6) iv. 40. Have ye not yet faith ? softened in Mt. to 0 ye of little faith.
(c) vi. 52. For they understood not concerning the loaves, but their
heart was hardened ; omitted by Mt. (Lk. does not retain the passage).
(d) vni. 17. Have ye your heart hardened ? omitted by Mt. (Lk. does
not contain the passage).
(e) viii. 33. Get thee behind me, Satan (addressed to St. Peter) ;
omitted by Lk.
(J) ix. 10. Questioning what the rising from the dead should mean ;
omitted by both Mt. and Lk.
(g) ix. 32. They understood not the saying and were afraid to ask him ;
omitted by Mt.
(h) x. 24. And the disciples were amazed at his words ; omitted by
both Mt. and Lk.
(i) xiv. 50. And they all left him and fled ; omitted by Lk.
In consequence of the conspicuous candour here displayed by St.
Mark, the confidence reposed in his Gospel, as compared with the other
Synoptists, on the ground of its priority, is further justified. It is not
unlikely that the severity of the judgments passed here and there upon
the Apostles is due to the derivation of the narrative from the teaching
of St. Peter. " It is the personal remorse of an impulsive nature that
shines through the many statements in the Gospel which describe the lack
of faith, the ambition, the sluggish inteUigence, the disgraceful flight of
the disciples."1
But St. Mark had been a companion of St. Paul before he acted as the
interpreter of St. Peter ; and if, when recording the latter's recoUections,
he preserved his tone of self-condemnation, he may reasonably be expected
to reflect something Of the mind of the former also. The employment of
Jesus Christ (i. 1) as a proper name probably reproduces the usage of the
Church generally (see Acts ii. 38, ni. 6, etc.), and not of St. Paul alone,
1 See Allen, St. Mark, p. 22.
12

178 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
but possibly the description of the Gospel not as of the Kingdom but as
of Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the addition in viii. 35, x. 29 to for my
sake of the words and the gospel's are due to Pauline influence (cf. the
Apostle's language in Rom. xv. 19, 1 Cor. ix. 23) ; the explanation of our
Lord's employment of parables (iv. 11-12) corresponds to St. Paul's
views as expressed in Rom. xi. 8 (ef. ix. 18) ; and there is a striking
coincidence between our Lord's use of the word ransom (Xvxgov) in con
nexion with His death (x. 45) and St. Paul's phrase " the ransoming
(anoXtkgmaig) that is in Christ Jesus " (Rom. hi. 24). It is also interesting
to note that the words Abba, Father, occur in the New Testament only in
Mk. xiv. 36, Rom. viii. 15, and Gal. iv. 6.
St. Mark's quotations from the Old Testament, which occur almost
exclusively in tne utterances of our Lord or of other persons figuring in
his narrative, and are rarely introduced by the Evangehst himself, are
usuaUy from the LXX. Thus in his citation (i. 3) from 2 7s. xl. 3, 4, he
connects with the words " The voice of one crying " the foUowing " in
the wUderness," as the LXX does ; whereas the Hebrew takes " in the
wilderness " with " make ye ready." The quotation in xn. 10 corresponds
verbally with the LXX version of Ps. cxviii. (= cxvii.) 22 ; whilst that in
vii. ,6, 7 reproduces substantially the LXX rendering of Is. xxix- 13,
which varies considerably from the Hebrew. There are, however, some
exceptions. The quotation in xii. 36 from Ps. ex. 1 has ¦dnoxdxco rwv
nodmv aov for the LXX's vnonodiov rebv nodcov aov (which is close to the
Hebrew) ; whilst that in xiv. 27, from 2 Zech. xin. 7, is nearer to the Hebrew
than to the LXX. The incomplete quotation in iv. 12 from 7s. vi. 9, 10
departs in the final clause from both the LXX and the Hebrew ; and the
quotation in i. 2 (really from Mai. in. 1, though ascribed to Isaiah) also
varies from the Greek version as weU as from the original Hebrew.1
St. Mark has certain features of style which, though most obvious in
the original Greek, are to some extent discernible even in an English
translation. One of the most prominent is a redundancy of expression
already alluded to (p. 156), of which the following are additional Ulustra-
tions : :— r
i. 28. went out everywhere into all the districts.
ii. 25. when he had need and was a hungered.
iv. 1. all the multitude were by the sea on the land.
v. 23. that she may be made whole and live.
vii. 21 . from within, out of the heart of man.
x. 30. now, in this present time.
xiv. 61. he held his peace and answered nothing.
In the fQllpwing examples the same idea is repeated in two fprms,
affirmative and negative : —
ii, 19. C<tn the sons of the bridechqmber fast while the bridegrgQWi is
with, tfem ¦ as long as they hive, the bridegroom with them they cannot fast,
1 The quotation from Malaehi in j. 2 has been asspciated with the one from Isaiah
in i. 3 through both having in common the phrase make ready (the way), Heb. pinnah,
which occurs only in these twq passages and in 3 Is. lvii. 14, lxii. 10.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 179
U. 27. The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
ui. 26. he cannot stand but hath an end.
x. 27. With men it is impossible but not with God, for all things are
possible with God.
xi. 23. shall not doubt in his heart but shall believe.
Other conspicuous characteristics are a fondness for the historic present
(i. 12, 21, 30, 38, 40, 44, etc., cf. p. 156) ; for the combination of elvdi
with a present or perfect participle (i. 6, 33, ii. 6, 18, iv. 38, v. 5, etc.) ;
for the use of rjgiaro (rjggavro) with an infinitive (i. 45, u. 23, iv. 1, v. 17,
20, etc.) ; for the employment of a superfluous on before statements in
the oratio recta (i. 15, 37, iii. 11, 22, iv. 21, v. 23, viu. 4, ix. 11, etc.) ; for
the adverbial use of noXXd (v. 10, nagexdXei avrov noXXa, vi. 20, noXXa
¦fjnogei, see also xv. 3) ; for a love of compound verbs ; for diminutives
(dvydrgiov, xogdaiov, nai8'iaxr\, Ix6v8ia, nXoidgiov, drxdgiov) ; and for
asyndeta (v. 35, ix. 38, x. 27, 28, 29, xii. 24, 29, xiv. 19). There is
also observable a tendency to accumulate negatives idiomaticaUy (i. 44,
hi. 27, v. 3, ix. 8, xi. 14, xii, 14, 34, etc.), and to employ with a preposition
a compound verb containing the same preposition (i. 16, 21, ii. 21, v. 13; 17',
vii. 25, ix. 42, x. 25, etc.). The connective xai is very frequently used
instead of the more idiomatic 8& even where an adversative particle would
be more appropriate (vi. 19, xii. 12). This is not the only H'ebrafe feature
of his style ; Other Hebraisms occur in i. 7 (oi . . . avrov), n. 7 (d'do
Sto, cf. vv. 39, 40), viii. 12 (si SoOrjaexai for ov /irj dodrj). Not a few of his
sentences are harshly constructed, the most notable occurring in iv. 31,
v. 23, vi. 8-9, 22, viii. 28, Xii. 19, 38, xv. 8, 11.
St. Mark has a number of favourite Words, amongst which ale the
following : —
again (or back), ndXw being interpreted, fxe6eg/xr]vsv6/j.Bvog
be amazed, ixQa/jifiEopm look around, nBgifiXinoftat
bring (or bring forth), tyegm much (or greatly), noXXd
centurion, xEvxvgiow no more, ovxexi
charge, diaaxiXXo/iai not yet, ovna>
come, igfOfiai pallet, xgdfiarrog
dumb, aXaXog plague (or malady), '(i&an%
dry up (or wither, or pine away), question, dw^ria)
^rjgalvoimi round about, xvxXco
go (or proceed) out, ixnogevopidi stand by (or is come), nagiaxrjxa
go in (or into), Bianogevo/iai straightiioay, edd-tig
gospel, ivayysXiov teaching, 8i8axri
hold (my, his) peace, aitondm which is (or that is to say), S ianv
in the morning, ngcot unclean, dxddagrog
It has been previously mentioned (p. 145) that a form of text which is marked by
certain peculiar characteristics, and which is commonly known as the "Western"
(or 5) text is found itt certain MSS., Versions and Fathers. The principal uncial
in which these peculiarities occur is the Bezan MS. (D) ; and as some of these are
of a rather remarkable nature, a list of the most notable in Mk. is here subjoined,
together with the readings (most commonly approved, as based on the best author
ities) which they replace or supplement.

180 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Approved Text 1 Western Text
i. 6, for camel's hair (rptxas) substitutes a camel's skin (oeppTjv)
i. 41, for being moved with compassion substitutes being moved with anger
ii. 14, for Levi substitutes James
iii. 18, for Thaddaeus substitutes Lebtoseus
iii. 21, for is beside Himself substitutes makes (people) beside them
selves
vii. 19, for draught (atpeSp&va) substitutes intestinal canal (dxerov)
viii. 24, after men omits for I behold them
ix. 12, for Elijah indeed cometh substitutes If Elijah cometh
x. 16, for And he took them in his arms substitutes And he called them
xiii. 2, after thrown down adds and after three days another shall
be raised without hands
xiv. 22, for and when he thought thereon substitutes and he began to weep
he wept
xv. 25, for crucified him substitutes guarded him
xv. 34, for Eloi substitutes Eli
The most important question in textual criticism relating to St. Mark's Gospel
concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses (xvi. 9-20).
The external evidence for their authenticity is their occurrence in the following
authorities.2 Manuscripts— A CDEFGHKLMWXrAn* 33,69 and all late manuscripts.
Of these L and ¦ir break off after v. 8. L introduces, with the words " these, too,
are somewhere current," the alternative short conclusion mentioned below ; and
finally adds, with the words " And there are these also current," the conclusion con
tained in the twelve verses 9-20. In the case of & the short ending follows imme
diately after v. 8 without any prefatory words. Certain cursives prefix a note to the
verses in question, stating that they are not included in some copies, whilst a few of
these cursives add that they occur "in the ancient copies." One cursive (22) has
tiSWs after both v. 8 and v. 20, and has at v. 8 the note " In some copies the Evangelist
is completed here, but in many these (i.e. vv. 9-20) also are current." Similar notes
occur in some other cursives. The uncial W after v. 14 inserts the following s : —
Kaicelvoi airekoyovvro Xiyovres Sri 6 altiw ovros ttjs avajxlas Kal ttjs awLo-rtas inri rov 'Zaravav
<rrlv, 6 jj.7) euiv ra bird t&v irvevjiaroiv aKadapra rr\v a\j)deLav tov deov KaTaXafteaOai <Kah
Sfoajiiv. diet, tovto airoK&hvr>ov aov ttjv Slkcuoo-vvtjv t)5tj. iofrnas* eKelvot IXeytw rip
Xm o-Tif, Kal 6 X/jiotos eKehois Trpo<re'\eyev bri ireTrXijpUTai 6 Spos rdv e'rCiv ttjs 6' f owlets rod
Xarava, &XKa eyyltei SXXa Seira, Kal irrep <rwvi [iSv] [e-y<!>] afw,pr'fi<raiiTWV <cyi!j»
7rape860Tjv els 'davarov tva vTrocrp^ojaLv els rijv a\ij8eiav Kal jx-qKeri ajxapTT)awaiv, IVa t?V
e'v rip ovpavip 7rvevfj,ariKT)v Kal a<f>8aprov ttjs SiKaioo-v'vTjs d6£av K\rjpovoji.T)(rwo-i.
"And they excused themselves, saying that this age of lawlessness and unbelief is
under Satan, that doth not allow the things rendered unclean by the spirits to appre
hend the truth and power of «God. Therefore reveal now thy righteousness. Thus
they spake to the Christ, and the Christ said to them that ' The limit of the years of
the authority of Satan is fulfilled, but other terrible things are drawing near. And
for the sake of those that sinned I was dehvered up unto death, in order that they
might return to the truth and sin no more and that they might inherit the spiritual
and incorruptible glory of righteousness in heaven.'"*
1 The phrase is borrowed from Ramsay (Expositor, Feb., 1895).
2 For a fuller aocount of the authorities for and against the verses, see Westcott
and Hort, New Testament, Appendix, pp. 28-51 ; Scrivener, Introd. to Criticism of
New Testament, ii. pp. 337-44.
8 Words that probably should be omitted or inserted are marked respectively
with square and pointed brackets.
' Part of this insertion is quoted by Jerome as found " in quibusdam exemplaribus
et maxime in grceais codicibus " : Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes, Sceculum istud iniquitatis
et incredulitatis sub Satana est, quce [qui] non sinit per immundos spiritus veram dei
apprehendi virtutem : idcirco iam nunc revela iustitiam tuam (quoted in Zahn, I.N.T.
ii. pp. 484-5).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 181
Versions — Lat. vet. (most MSS.) and Vulg. ; Syr. cur. pesh. hi. (text), pal., Eg. sah.
and boh., Arm. (most MSS.), Goth., Eth. (most MSS.).
In one of the Armenian manuscripts (dating from the thirteenth or fourteenth
century) there is prefixed to the verses in question the statement " This is unauthen
tic " and in another there appears the similar notice " This is an addition." 1
Patristic Writers — Justin (probably), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and others.
The external evidence against their authenticity is their absence from the following
authorities : —
Manuscripts — X B.
Of these B after v. 8 has a blank column, the copyist thereby indicating that he
was aware of the existence of one or other of the alternative conclusions, though neither
was in the copy which he was reproducing.
Versions — Lat. vet. (k), Syr. sin. hi. (mg.), Arm. (some MSS.), Eth. (some MSS.).
Patristic Writers — Eusebius (who states that the disputed verses were found in
only a few copies (<nravluis lv naiv avnypddiois) and not in the most accurate),
Jerome (" omnibus Grsecise libris paaie hoc capitulum fine non habentibus ").
The relative value of the external evidence for and against the verses depends
largely upon the estimate attached to the consensus of N and B, when opposed to
the remaining manuscripts. But the internal evidence supplied by the discontinuity
of the passage with its context, by its contents, and by its diction seems decisive
against its genuineness.
(a) The verses, though serving to round off the Gospel, which without them ends
so abruptly, are clearly not continuous with the preceding, (a) There is a violent
transition from the subject of v. 8 (the women) to that of v. 9 f. (Christ) ; (j9) Mary
Magdalene, who has already been mentioned in xv. 40 and xvi. 1, is named apart
from the other women and described afresh in v. 9. (7) The contradiction between
the statement in v. 8 that the women said nothing to any one and the assertion in
v. 10 that Mary Magdalene informed the disciples is left unexplained.
(6) In the account given of the appearances of our Lord after His resurrection
nothing is mentioned about any fulfilment of the prediction in 0. 7 (cf. xiv. 28)
that the disciples should see their Lord in Galilee, but a summary is furnished of
certain appearances of which the scene is clearly Jerusalem (or its neighbourhood),
and acquaintance is shown with the contents of the First, Third and Fourth Gospels,
as will be seen from the following parallels : —
vv. 9-10. Cf. Joh. xx. 1-17, Lk. viii. 2.
v. 11. „ Joh. xx. 18, Lk. xxiv. 11.
vv. 12, 13. „ Lk. xxiv. 13-35.
v. 14. „ Lk. xxiv. 36-43.
v. 15. „ Mt. xxviii. 19, Lk. xxiv. 47.
v. 16. „ Joh. iii. 18, 36, Acts xvi. 31.
vv. 17, 18. „ [Acts ii. 4, v. 16, x. 46, xvi. 18, xxviii. 3-5], cf. also Lk. x. 19, Eus.
H.E. iii. 39, 9.
v. 19. „ Lk. xxiv. 51 [Acts i. 11].
It will be also noticed that the passage, which lacks the detail generally character
istic of Mk., appears to reflect the experiences of the early Church as related in Acts,
the gift of tongues and immunity from poison (Acts ii. 4, xxviii. 3-5) being here pre
dicted as destined to mark the Apostles equally with the power of healing disease
and casting out devils (as prophesied in Mk. iii. 15, vi. 7).
(c) The vocabulary and style are unlike St. Mark's. Though eiayyiXiov (v. 15)
is a Marcan word (p. 179), and tpavepiw (vv. 12, 14) occurs once in Mk. alone of the
Synoptists (it appears also in Joh.), the following are not found elsewhere in Mk. —
6ei.op.ai, p.era ravra, ilo-repov, pTKiwrw, i.va\ap.§ava, dmarla, avvepyia, fiopipT), j3e/3aiiiw,
fTraicoXoupYw, XoXtii' yKiliiraais. The adjective 6avi.irip.os occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. Though the presence of some of these is not of moment
(since the use of them can be explained by the subject-matter), that of others is signi
ficant. Thus BeaojLai is found in all the other Gospels and in Acts ; jj.era ravra is
frequent in Lk., Acts and Joh. ; iarepov is found seven times in Mt. and once in Lk. ;
i.va\api.(3ivw three times in Acts ; arnariiji twice in Lk., once in Acts, once in 1 Peter
1 See Expositor, Dec. 1895, p. 404.

182 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and twice in Paul ; crvvepytw four times in Paul ; [SeplaiSw five times in Paul and twice
in Hebrews ; XaXew jXiiicraais, four times in Acts and eight times in Paul. In addition
to these features it is noteworthy that n-opeiojuu (vv. 10, 12, 15) occurs only once
(ix. 30, doubtfully) elsewhere in Mk., but is frequent in Mt., Lk., and Joh. ; eKetvos
(vv. 10, 11, 13, 14)i " is never used merely to express the subject of a verb in Mk." *¦
though it is employed in this way in the Fourth Gospel (vii. 45) ; TrpiirrTj- aafifSarov
(v.. 9) seems employed where Mk. would probably have used tt) puq. t&v o-afiparuv,
as in xvi. 2 ; 6 Kipios (the Lord, vv. 19, 20) is not used as a title of Jesus in Mk., though
it is applied|to Him in Lk. and Joh. (cf. pp. 206, 231). a And perhaps as significant
as anything is the fact that as a connective between sentences de appears more
frequently than Kal.
The marked lack of connexion between these twelve verses and the preceding
context makes it improbable that they were supplied by a copyist's own invention
to make good the defective ending at v. 8. The unexpressed subject of avaaras . . .
ediavy (viz. Jesus) must have occurred in some previous sentence, so that the passage
has every appearance of being " the beginning of a narrative taken from another
source " 3 and severed from its true context. A plausible explanation of its origin
came to light at the end of last century; It has been mentioned that the passage
occurs in many, though not in all, of the MSS. of the Armenian version ; and in one
of them, found in 1891 at Edschniatzen, near Mount Ararat, and dating from a.d. 986;*
its authorship is ascribed to a presbyter called Ariston, who has been conjecturally
identified with the Aristion who is included by Papias amongst the disciples of the
Lord (Eus. HiE. iii. 39, cf. p. 2285), and on whose authority some of Papias' accounts
of the words of , the Lord were based. If this is correct, the passage probably dates
from early in the second century a.d., since it seems to have been known to Justin
Martyr and to Irenseus.
In addition to, or in place of, vv. 9— 20 there appears in certain manuscripts another
and shorter appendix to the Gospel, which is as follows : —
" And all that had been enjoined1 on them (the women) they reported briefly to
the companions of Peter. And after these things Jesus Himself from the east even
to the west sent forth through them the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal
salvation." Both the Longer and the Shorter appendix are found in the Uncials L <1> and two
fragments (the Shorter being placed before its companion) ; but a translation of the
Shorter alone occurs in the Codex Bobiensis (k) of the Old Latin version, and in some
Ethiopic manuscripts ; and it is also inserted in the margin of the cursive 274 of the
Harkleian Syriac, and of some manuscripts of the Egyptian versions. No mention
of the Shorter conclusion has been found in any Father.8
This Appendix (it will be seen), hke the Longer, represents that the women carried
out the directions of the Angel recorded.in v. 7 without smoothing over the discrepancy
with v. 8 ; but whilst, mentioning that our Lord appeared to His disciples, it gives no
details. It has little documentary support, and the internal evidence is against its
authenticity, the expression " the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal
salvation " being suggestive of a second-century date. In spite of the inconsistency
noticed between it and v. 8, it has, unlike the Longer, conclusion, all the appearance
of having been expressly composed by an unskilful writer to round off the awkward
termination of tho Gospel in ,v. 8. The reference to the diffusion of the Gospel from
the east to the west has suggested that, it had its origin at Rome.'
Though it is improbable that either of the two Appendices is the Gospel's original
en,ding, it is. equally improbable that it was brought by its author intentionally to a
conclusion at v. 8. The book manifestly cannot have finished without relating how
1 Allen, St. Mark,, p. 192.
a The combination, 6 .Kipios 'Irjo-oSs occurs, within the [Gospels, only in Lk. xxiv. 3,
but is found several times in Acts (xx. 24, etc.) and in St. Paul (2 Cor. xi. 23„ xvi. 23).
3 Westcott and Hort, New Testament, App., p. 50.
4 See Expositor, Oct. 1893, p. 241 f .
5 Against th© identification see Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 238.
8 Westcott and Hort, New Testament, Appendix, p. 38.
' Swete, St. Mark, p. oi.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 18g
the; promise that Christ would meet His followers in Gahlee (a. 7)1 was" fulfilled ; but
how the conclusion came to be mutilated can only be conjectured. A possible explana
tion is that it was due to accident at a very early date (before copies of the autograph
had been multiplied), through the fragility of the material upon which the Work was
written' (wf. p. l'26)l Another is1 that-St. Mark intended' to include, in addition't'o the
account of the Resurrection appearances, some matters relating to the early Chutch
(pf.. p. 243),; but was interrupted before he could embody in his Gospel the remainder
of the material he had collected.1
The Gospel accardmg to St. Matthew
In regard to theorigin of the MrBt' Gospel the external' and the internal
evidence are in conflict. It1 has been seen (p. 166) that Irenseus, Origen,
and Eusebius aU attribute its authorship to Matthew, who, from being a
toU-coUector; became a disciple arid' Apostle of our Lord', though since
they likewise agree in representing that he wrote it in Hebrew, the existing
(xospel which we have can; at most, Be only' a translation of the' original
work. But this account is at variance with the evidence afforded by the
book itself. As has been shown, it incorporates almost all the substance
of Mk., omitting (pp. 149-52.) only three miracles (i. 23 1, vii. 32 L, viii. 22 f.)',
two other incidents (ix. 38-40, xii. 40-44), and' one parable (iv. 26-29),, in
addition tosome slighter matters (i. 45, iii. 20, 21', vi. 12, 13) ; whUst'to
some extent there is retained even Mk.'s phraseology (see pp. 153-4ahdcf.
xiv. 22-26' with Mk. vi. 4&-50 ; xv. 32-39 with Mk. viii. 1-10'; xvii. 1-7
with Mk. ix. 2-5;; xx. 23-28 With Mk. x. 40-45). It is extremely impro-
abl'e either that" an Apostle and eyeVwitness of Our Lord's ministry should
Have depended'ih this way for: his information upon the production of one
who was not an eye-witness, or^that a Greek rendering of his wori: should
agree so closely with St. Mark's Greek. But the inconsistency between the
exteraaltestiinony and 'the internal conditibhs admits of being reconciled;
if account be taken of the statement of Papias that St. Matthew composed
in Hebrew a work, which PapiascaUs rd X6yia. This. term, though applic
able to an historical work like the First Gospel, is equaUy appropriate to a
coUection of oracles or sayings (See p. 166"),; and evidence has been adduced
that the First Gospel, besides' embodying St. Mark's Gospel, also includes
in whole or in part another source, Q, which embraces a number of
parables, detached' utterances, and connected discourses of Jesus. If,
then, it is assumed that a coUection of 'these was cOmpUed by Sti Matthew
in Hebrew (by wliich term is doubtless meant Aramaic) and entitled Xoyia
Mgiaxa in' a Greek translation, and' that the Greek rendering of this
coUectiOn, first incorporated in Q, entered through the latter into tftp
composition of. the ' First' Gospel, the ascription of that ' Gospel to St.'
Matthew can be reasonably' explained. The book is anonymous, and 'the
author was probably obscure ; so that if there prevailed a tradition that
a work. by an Apostle had been drawn upon, it Wouldbe natural for the
name of that 'Apostle to be associated with it, in order to enhance its:
authority. It is true that the Xoyia appear to be embedded likewise in the
Third Gospel^ but > inasmuch as* this ^Gospel1 was1 knoWn',' or- generally
1 Cf. Zahn, I.N.T. ii. p; 4791'

184 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
beheved, to be the production of St. Luke, there was not the same motive
for displacing the name of the real author by that of one who had only
contributed some of the materials of it.
About the actual writer of the Gospel nothing is known, though it
may be inferred from the general character of the work, especiaUy from
the interest displayed in the fulfilment of Hebrew prophecies by the acts
and experiences of Jesus, and from various other features noticed below
(p. 187) that he was a Jewish Christian. Little more is known about the
Apostle whose name is connected with it. St. Matthew was a coUector of
toUs at some place on the Sea of Gahlee near Capernaum (p. 4), within the
dominion of Herod Antipas. It appears from the paraUel narratives of
his caU (Mt. ix. 9= Mk. ii. 14) that he was also named Levi, both of his
names being Hebraic.1 Shortly after he was summoned by Jesus to join
Him, he entertained Him at a feast (though see p. 384), but apart from
this incident he does not figure in the Gospel history. Though he is
represented in the Talmud as having been put to death by a Jewish court,
he is expressly declared (in Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9) not to have suffered
martyrdom.2gj$8' The two sources already mentioned, St. Mark's Gospel and Q, do not
exhaust the materials employed in the composition of the First Gospel.
The writer also had at his disposal much other (presumably oral) infor
mation ; and his Gospel is, next to St. Luke's, the longest. As it embodies
the Gospel of St. Mark almost in its entirety, and supplements it with
matter derived alike from Q and from current tradition, it naturaUy
exceeds the Second Gospel considerably in extent. But in respect of the
matter common to both, it is of inferior authority wherever the two are in
conflict, for it is one degree farther removed from the primary source,
viz. the reminiscences of St. Peter. Nor, indeed, in respect of our Lord's
Sayings, as preserved in St. Matthew's Logia, does it stand any nearer to the
original source, if the writer became acquainted with them through an
intermediate channel, the document Q. Nevertheless for the Sayings it
is, in common with St. Luke's Gospel, our sole authority, since neither
the coUection of the Logia nor Q has survived in an independent form.
Those parts of its contents which are common to it and to the Third Gospel,
and which come from Q, naturaUy as a whole command greater confidence
than those passages which it alone contains. Among the latter, however,
there are many which on grounds of intrinsic probabUity have every
claim to credence. Such in particular are those which consist of parables
and aphorisms, for these are antecedently less likely to be the creations of
pious fancy than narratives of incident (e.^. xxvii. 52, 53). Whether the
account of the supernatural Birth of Jesus, and the incidents that are
related to have attended it (ch. i., ii.), is a history of actual occurrences is
considered elsewhere (pp. 360-2). Probably the title of the book — fiifiXog
yEviaemg 'Irjaov Xgiarov vlov Aaveld vlov 'Afigad/u — does not relate to
1 It is said by Edersheim (Life and Times, etc., i. p. 514) to have been the custom
for natives of Galilee to have two names — one Jewish and one Galilean.
2 Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 296.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 185
the circumstance that it contains a genealogy of our Lord and the story
of His nativity (though yevsaig is used of this in i. 18), but is to be under
stood in the sense of " Book of the history of Jesus Christ," etc. (like
" the book of the history of Adam," LXX, r) fiifiXog yeveosojg dvOgwnaiv
(= Heb. Adam) in Gen. v. 1).
In the endeavour to estimate 'the qualities of the writer of the First
Gospel as an historian, much help may be obtained by examining the way
in which he has dealt with his principal source, the Gospel of St. Mark ;
and the foUowing are some of the characteristics that emerge from such an
examination. 1. In the early part of his appropriations from St. Mark he has made
some strange changes in the order of events, as wiU be seen from the table
(p. 148 f .) ; and it is not until the account of John the Baptist's death
(xiv. 1-12 = Mk. vi. 14-29) that the alterations are abandoned, though
passages which in Mk. are in juxtaposition are stiU often separated by the
insertion of matter derived from Q. The reasons for the writer's departure
from Mk.'s order of events in the early part of his book are not always
very apparent. But in one or two incidents he produces a more logical
(as contrasted with a chronological) sequence than is found in Mk., as
when (in x. 5-42) he attaches to the account of the appointment of the
Twelve the directions given to them by their Master, which in Mk. are
related subsequently (see Mk. vi. 7-13, compared with iii. 14-19). The
desire to secure this result wUl also account for his transference of some of
our Lord's utterances from the position which they occupy in Mk. : the
saying for instance about the proper place for the lamp (Mk. iv. 21) is
removed from after the parable of the Sower to after the declaration that
the disciples are the light of the world (Mt. v. 15) ; whUst the direction to
forgive, when praying, aU offences is moved from its position after the
statement of the need of faith in making requests of God (Mk. xi. 25), and
is placed after the Lord's Prayer (Mt. vi. 15).
The principle of associating with one another passages simUar in contents
or tenor, which is observable in the instances just enumerated, is a general
feature of the author of Mt. The grouping together of kindred incidents
or discourses is found (as has been noticed, p. 175) in Mk., but it is much
more conspicuous in the First Gospel. Thus three miracles, two from
Mk. and one from Q, are brought together in Mt. viii. 1-17 ; four miracles,
two from Mk. and two from traditions preserved only in this Gospel, are
united in ix. 18-34 ; three parables, two from Mk. and one from Q, are
associated in xiii. 1-32. Groups of three are exceptionaUy common, and
occur in connection with warnings (v. 22, vi. 2-18), classes of persons
(xix. 12), contrasts (xxiii. 23), and addresses (" Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites,
xxiii. 13, 15, 23, etc.), aU these being confined to this Gospel, though it
has many others which come from its sources, e.g. the threefold temptation
(iv. 1-11), and- the triple question about the Baptist (xi. 7-9), both from
Q, Christ's three prayers in Gethsemane (xxvi. 36-46), and St. Peter's
three denials (xxvi. 69-75), both from Mk. But the writer does not restrict
himself to threefold groups ; he also arranges his matter by fives and
sevens. Thus five discourses are each closed with the same phrase "it

186 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
came to pass when Jesus ended . . ." (vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1) ;
and the first of these discourses, the' Sermon on the Mount,, contains five
contrasts drawn between directions delivered " to them of old time,"
and the commands enjoined by Jesus (v. 21, 27, 33; 38, 43). Grouping
by seven is found in connexion with the parables contained in ch. xiii.
(where only two are derived from Mk.) and with the Woes contained in
ch. xxiii. (of which four alone eome from Q). Three, five and seven aire aU
favourite' numbers with Hebrew writers, audi the frequent adjustment of
the subject matter to these figures gives to* the First Gospel an exception-
aUy formal aspect. And to what lengths the author was prepared to* go
in the interest of symmetry is weU iUustrated by the construction of the
genealogical table in his> opening chapter, where in order to adapt to tlie
number of generations from Abraham to' David the number from David
to Jeconiah he omits the names of three kings (Ahaziah, Joash, and
Amaziah) between Joram and Uzziah.
The fact that the author of Mt. supplemented what he drew from the
Second Gospel by matter taken' from Q almost inevitably rendered space
animportant consideration, so that it was natural that he should not only
omit a»few incidents recorded by Mk. (seep. 183), but should also frequently
abbreviate his- language. Thus where Mark uses two synonymous, or
almost synonymous-, phrases, he frequently omits one (p. 156). Other
examples1 of smaU omissions, where the Second Evangelist is redundant,
are found in xii, 3 ; compared' with Mk. ii. 25, in xiii'. 2, compared with Mk.
iv. 1, in xv. 6 compared with Mk: vii. 13, and in xix. 26 compared with
Mk. x. 27. ^ Similarly to save space long passages in Mk. are sometimes
much eurtaUed, as-is the case with Mk.ii. 1-12 (the paralytic at Capernaum),
Mk. v. 1-20 (ttie- demoniac at Gerasa); Mk. v. 22-43 (Jairus5 daughter),
and Mk. ix. 14-29 (the epUeptieboy), which are reduced to much smaller
compass in- Mt. ix. 1>~$; viii. 28-34, ix. 18-26, and xvh. 14-20 respectively.
But alterations of Mk. are occasioned by other considerations than the
dbsire forf brevity. Some changes- are introduced in the interest of clearness
or* accuracy, as- when1 there' is substituted1 the later name Matthew for the
earlier Levi inix. 9! (¦=- Mk. ii. 14)».the verb crucify for kill in xx. 19 ( = Mk.
x. 34); the description m> the holy place for where he' ought not in xxiv. 15
( = Mk. xiii. 14), the title tetvarch- f Or king in xiv. 1 (= Mk. vi. 14) 2;. or
an erroneous1 statement is omitted as in xii. 4 (compared1 with Mk. ii. 26);s
There are also some' changes in local names such as Gadarenes (viii. 28)
for Mk.'s Gerasenes- (v. l)iand Magadan (xv. 39) for Mk.'s Baihnanuthu
(viu. 10) . To the passage mMk. viiii 14-21s relating our Lord's warning to
His disciples to' beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, there is added the
explanation that by the term, " leaven " was meant the teaching of the
Pharisees (xvi. 12); SimUarly to Mk. ix. 13, containing Jesus' statement
1 Cdnversely, however, Mt. x. 9 has " nor silVer, nor brass " where 8 Mk. vii. has
"no brass?' and) Lk. ix. 3 has "no silver."
* In xiv. 9 ¦¦king, is- retained,
3 In view, of these corrections it is remarkable that in xxiii. 35 the priest Zachariah
(son of Jehoiada) is described as the son of Barachiah, whereas the error is not made
in Lk. xi. 50, where' the father's'- name is- absent.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 187
that Elijah had already come, the First Evangelist appends a verse (xvii. 13)
explaining that the disciples uederstoodJHim to refer-to John the Baptist,
In certain instances it is the form rather than the substance of Mk.'s
statement that he improves, by smoothing out awkward constructions as
in ix. 18 (cf . Mk. v. 23), xiii. 8 (cf . Mk. iv. 8), xiii. 32 (cf . Mk. iv. 31), xix. 29
(cf. Mk. x. 29, 30), xxi. 26 (cf. Mk. xi. 32), xxiik 6, 7 (cf. Mk. xii. 38, 39),
xxiv. 15, rd. fi8skiy/j,ai . . iarog (cf. Mk. xiii. 14, to fidiXvyfia iaxrjxord);
xxii. 24 (cf . Mk. xii. 19) and xxvi. 56_(cf . Mk. xiv. 49). In xvi. 4 (ov 8odijaexai)
the Hebraic idiom eidoQvjaerai, employed in MK viii. 12, is replaced by
one more consonant with Greek usage ; and in xxiv. 31 he substitutes the
more natural phrase an axgcov ovgavaiv id>g axgcov aircov for Mk.'s curious
expression dm' axgov yfjg emg dxgov adgavov (xiii. 27),
0n the otherjhand some of the compressions of Mk. for which the
author of the First Gospel is responsible have resulted in a lack of lucidity.
Thus, in xiv. 9 the reference* " to them that sat at meat with him " is very
abrupt because of the omission of Mk.'s statement that Herod on his
birthday had' made a supper to the members of his court ;, and in xxvi.
67-68 the taunt " Prophecy " uttered' by the soldiers when buffeting our
Eord is obscure by reason of the absence of aU mention of the previous
blindfolding. In some places the First Evangelist, in his reproductions of
Mk., gives quite a difierent turn to- the statement of his authority, notable
instances occurring in xxi. 3 as compared' with Mk. xi. 3 (see p. 434) and
in xxvii. 48, 49, as compared' with Mk. xv. 36 (p. 468).
More important than this proneness to introduce verbal alterations into
Mk.'s narrative are certain other aims and tendencies manifested by the
First EvangeUst. These are (i) a desire- to trace throughout our Lord's
ministry a close fulfilment of prophecy, leading in some places to a. modifi
cation of tile statements derived' from his' authorities in order to render
the correspondence more exact ; (ii)' an inclination to omit or to qualify
expressions implying in our Lord human weaknesses or« human limitations ;
and conversely to enlarge or enhance the detaUs of wonders^ attributed, to
Him, so as to make them more impressive ; (iii) a like inclination to remove
or to minimize statements reflecting- unfavourably upon the disciples.
(i) As one of the purposes of the writer in composing his Gospel was to
convince those of his readers who were Jews that Jesus was the predicted
Messiah of their race, attention is- repeatedly drawn to the fact that
numerous incidents recounted about- Him accorded with statements
contained in the Scriptures (i. 22, 23, ih 17, 18, 22, 23, iv. 14-16, viii. 17,
xii. 17^-21, xiii. 34; 35, xxi. 4, 5, xxvii. 9). The desire to illustrate the close
correspondence between prediction and' event has in one instance: caused
him to do violence to the sense of the Hebrew paraUelism occurring in the
prophecy quoted' (xxi. 2^-5, contrast Mk. xi. 2), In a second instance
(xxvi. 15) he alters the words of Jf&. (xiv. 11) in such a way as to reoaU a
passage from Zechariah (xii 12, LXX) without actuaUy citing it. Andina
third instance (xxvdL 34) relating to our Lord's action in refusing the wine
offered to Him on the Cross, he departs from Mk.'s representation (xv. 23)
merely (as it would appear) in order to secure a fulfilment of the words of
Ps. lxix. 21 (<= lxviii. 22). In a simUar spirit he seems to have put an

188 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
erroneous sense upon our Lord's declaration that to those who desired of
Him a sign none should be given save the sign of Jonah (xii. 40) (see p. 414).
(ii) A sense of profoundest veneration for Jesus and of reverence for
His Apostles leads to the introduction of changes in passages derived from
the Second Gospel which might appear incompatible with these feelings.
Thus in regard to our Lord, Mk.'s numerous statements attributing to
Him some inability to do aU that He wished, questions implying ignorance,
or the display of some strong emotion are often omitted or modified (see
p. 176 f .), though this is not done quite uniformly (see ix. 30). It is probably
from the desire to remove any suspicion of Jesus' powerlessness to protect
Himself against those sent to arrest Him, had He wished to do so, that
there is inserted between Mk.'s verses xiv. 47 and 48 the three verses
xxvi. 52-54 (suggesting that more than twelve legions of angels were
available for His defence). In certain passages, as compared with the
paraUels in Mk., there is some enhancement or accentuation of the
miraculous : for instance, in viii. 16 Mk.'s many is changed to all ; in
ix. 22, xv. 28, xvii. 18 (aU passages derived from Mk.) the immediacy of
the cures is emphasized by the addition that they took place from that
very hour ; and in xxi. 20 the withering of the barren fig tree, observed,
according to Mk. xi. 20, only on the following day, is expressly stated to
have happened (and presumably to have been observed) at once. More
over in the narrative of two miracles derived from Mk. the number of
sufferers relieved is doubled, two demoniacs being substituted for one at
Gadara (Gerasa), and two blind men for one at Jericho (viii. 28, xx. 30),
though there may have been another motive for this (p. 431).
(iii) SimUarly in regard to the Apostles, the writer was unwilling to see
them placed in an unfavourable light, and so he removed many passages
in Mk. that were calculated so to place them. Instead of Mk.'s (ix. 34)
" They had disputed one with another in the way who was the greatest "
he substitutes (xviii. 1) the less invidious inquiry, " In that hour came the
disciples unto Jesus, saying, ' Who, then, is greatest in the kingdom of
heaven ? ' " and in Mt. xx. 20, 21, the request attributed by Mk. (x. 35-37)
to the sons of Zebedee that they might occupy places of distinction near
Him in His glory, is ascribed to their mother. He retains, however, in
xvii. 14-20 the story of the disciples' inability to heal the epUeptic boy
(taken from Mk. ix. 14-29), and even adds a verse (xvii. 20) in which the
disciples' want of faith is emphasized.
From the comparison here instituted between the First and Second
Gospels, it is clear that when Mt., in borrowing from Mk., has departed
from him, his divergences from his authority, viewed from an historical
standpoint, are, in general, for the worse. In particular, his departure
from Mk.'s order involves a much less inteUigible sequence of occurrences.
Thus MA. represents our Lord as at first preaching freely in the synagogues,
as subsequently evoking strictures from the Scribes' by declaring to a
paralytic the forgiveness of his sins (ii. 6), and as finaUy incurring the
murderous hostility of the Pharisees and Herodians by His cure, on the
Sabbath, of the man with a withered hand (iii. 1-6). After this, our Lord
is not again related to have entered a synagogue in Galilee except on one

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 189
occasion at His own town of Nazareth (vi. 1, 2). The breach with the
Jewish reUgious leaders thus accounts for His organization of His f oUowers
into a distinct body (as narrated in Mk. iii. 13-19).1 But in Mt. the
organization of the Apostolic company (Mt. x. 1-4) is recounted before
the healing of the man with the withered hand (xii. 9-14), which, as in
Mk., is the incident that determines the adversaries of our Lord to seek
His life ; and in consequence, the development of events is less compre
hensible. As a narrative, then, of objective facts Mt. is inferior to Mk.
But it is probable that Mt. was not greatly concerned to relate the incidents
of Christ's ministry in exact chronological sequence (for the artificial
system in which he has arranged so much of his materials appears to be
incompatible with this) ; his real interest lay in Ulustrating effectively
certain aspects of Jesus' hfe and work with a view to proving that He was
the Messiah of Jewish hopes, and in preserving a record of His discourses.
And if his book is, in consequence, a less valuable historical document
than St. Mark's (recording less accurately both what actuaUy happened
and how it came to happen), yet it attests most significantly the heightened
appreciation by the Christian community of our Lord's Personality, and
is of the greatest worth through containing so much of His teaching which
is absent from the Second Gospel, and even from the Third Gospel.
A large proportion of the teaching of Jesus finds a place in Mt. through
the inclusion in the Gospel of extracts from Q. The freedom with which
the writer of Mt. has handled the order of the occurrences in Mk. (see
p. 148) renders it probable that he has used the same liberty in re-arranging
the sections derived from Q, though the question cannot be tested. But
of the actual phraseology of the sections Mt. probably preserves more than
Lk., who seems to have endeavoured to improve the Greek (see p. 201).
On the other hand there occur a few passages derived from Q in which it is
the author of Mt. who seems to have modified the original. Thus in
Mt. vi. 33, which is paraUel to Lk. xii. 31, the First Evangelist has Seek ye
first His kingdom and His righteousness, whereas the Third Evangelist has
merely Seek ye His kingdom ; and the prevalence of Jewish-Christian sym
pathies in Mt. and his frequent use of righteousness (seven times)2 suggest
that in this instance Lk. preserves the saying in the most authentic form.
Even in the matter of style, Mt. occasionaUy is more literary than Lk., e.g.
in vi. 30 he has a(iq>lewvaiv, where Lk. (xii. 28) has the HeUenistic a/iyidfei.3
The First Gospel, besides combining materials taken from Mk., with
others derived from Q and modifying these in various ways, also includes
(as has been said) much substantial matter not found elsewhere. This
matter consists partly of Sayings of our Lord and partly of incidents
occurring in His ministry ; and since the source of it cannot be traced
either to St. Peter (as in the case of the materials obtained from St. Mark)
or to St. Matthew (as in the case of the sayings or discourses drawn from
Q), its origin is doubtful, and the historical value of parts of it open
1 See Burkitt, The Gospel History, pp. 67-69.
a Not found in Mk. and only once in Lk.
3 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 486.

190 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to question. The Longer Sayings include various utterances comprised
in the Sermon on the Mount ; the Parables of the Tares, the Hid
Treasure, the Pearl of great price, the Drag-net, the Unmerciful Servant,
the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, and the Marriage Feast;
certain words addressed to the Scribes and Pharisees ; the additional
Parables of the Ten Virgins and of the Talents ; and the dramatic picture
of the Judgment in xxv. 31-46. The parables can hardly faU to be
authentic utterances of Jesus. On the other hand, the Judgment Scene,
im which the Son of Man is depicted as separating those who are brought
befoue Him as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats, has been
suspected of not being our Lord's, at least in its present form. It has
been suggested that it is a Christian homUy1 ; and certain features have
been pointed out in it (e.g. the description of the Son of Man as " sitting on
the throne of His glory " (v. 31, cf. also xix. 28) andof " the eternal fire
prepared for the >devU and his angels " (v. 41), which recaU the language of
the Book of EmochP- Among the Shorter Sayings (which cannot be enu
merated here) perhaps those of which the genuineness is most doubtful are
the passages in xvi. 17-19 concerning St. Peter and the Church, the passage
in xviii. 17, in whieh mention is again made of the Church, and the passage
in xxviii. 19, 20 in which the Risen Lord directs His disciples to baptize
in the name of the Trinity. The references to the Church are isolated in
the Gospels; and though the word itself may weU have been used by
Jesus of His foUowers as constituting the real Israel (see p. 389), yet of
these two references at least the first seems to have in view a stage of
organization that was not reached until after our Lord's death (see p. 418),
The direction to baptize disciples in the name of the Trinity also seems,
in the light of the fact that the baptismal formula both in Acts and in tho
Epistles of St. Paul is in the name of Jesus, or the equivalent of this
(see p. 628), to be most probably anachronistic.
As is shown in the table (p. 148 f.) there are several incidents in the
narratives of our Lord's birth and death which occur only in Mt. In view
of the inferior authority for them as a whole, and the internal improb- ¦
abUity of some, it is likely that several are unhistoric, but a discussion of
them wUl be most in place in the course of the history.
Numerous features in the First Gospel favour the conclusion already
mentioned that the author of it was a Jewish Christian, who composed it
for the benefit of his feUow countrymen. To preclude as far as possible
the impression that there was any serious inconsistency between our
Lord's teaching and the enactments of the Jewish Law he omits (xii. 8);
in reproducing Mk., Jesus' saying " The Sabbath was made for man, not
man for the Sabbath " ; and in connection with defilement (xvi. 16, 17)
the earlier evangehst's comment on our Lord's decision, " This He said(
making aU meats clean," is not retained. Jesus' essential harmony with
the Law he further seeks to illustrate by the inolusion of a command to
His disciples to observe and do all that was enjoined by the Scribes and
Pharisees (xxiii. 2, 3), and a direction to them, in bringing an accusation,
1 Allen, St. Mt.v. 316.
a Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, ii. p. 341.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 191
to produce at least two witnesses, in accordance with Dt. xix. 15. He
lays (as has been said) great stress upon the accomplishment by Jesus of
numerous Old -Testament prophecies ; and those whidh he himself quotes
(unlike the citations from the Old Testament occurring in our Lord's
own discourses, or in the utterances of others; which are generally taken
from the LXX1) he mostly translates from the Hebrew (thoiugh mot always
accurately), or else adapts from some Greek ooUectioia <©f texts (see p. 167,).
Examples are found in U. 15 (= Hos. xL 1), ii. 18 (= Jer. xxxi. 15), iv. 15, 16
(— Is. ix. 1, 2), viii. 17 (= 2 7s. liii. 4), xii. 18-21 (=*= -2 Is. xiii. 1-4), xin. 35
(= Ps, Ixxvui. -2), xxi. 5 (=? 2 Zech. ix. 9), xxvii. 9 (= 2 Zech. xi. 13). The
only exception seems to be i. 23 (-= Is. vii. 14), where the LXX version is
almost verbally followed.2 Mt. traces our Lord's idescent back to Abraham
and no foarther ; and though he throws into relief the hostility shown to
the Messiah by His own countrymen and their responsibility for His death
(xxvii. 24, 25), he Ulustrates how Jesus desired the salvation of His own
people before that of others (x. 5, 6, 23), amid how the transfer of the
privileges of the Jews to the Gentiles (xxi. 43) was the consequence of their
own ingratitude. Even the language used toy the Jews in speaking of
Gentiles is ascribed to Jesus (vii. 6, icf . xv. 26). The writer more than once
designates Jerusalem " the holy city " (iv. 5, xxvii. S3) ; and he almost
invariably, in the spirit of Jewish scrupulousness, replaces Mk.'s expression
>f the kingdom of God," by " the kingdom of heaven." And that he was
not only himself a Jewish Christian, but wrote for Jewish Christians and
not for Gentiles appears from his use of Jewish expressions which to
Gentile readers must have been perplexing or unintelligible (v. 22 Raca),
xvi. 19, xviu. 18 (to bind and to loose), and from the omission, in his extracts
from Mk., of explanations which for Jewish readers were superfluous.
Thus he omits the explanatory note about the Jewish practice of oere-
moniaUy washing the hands before eating (Mk. vii. 3, 4) and the identi'
fieation of the first day of unleavened bread with the Passover (Mk. xiv. 12,
cf. Jos. B.J. y. 3, 1). And though he was fully aware that Jesus had
contemplated the inclusion of Gentiles amongst those who were destined
to share the kingdom of heaven, and retains utterances of His implying
this (viii. 11, 12, xxi. 43, xxiv. 14, xxvhi. 19), he probably thought that
they would fit themselves for it by adopting and observing aU the injunctions
of the Mosaic Law, for he adds to our Lord's direction to seek God's
kingdom the words " and his righteousness " (doubtless meant in the
Jewish sense, as including the ceremonial as weU as the moral requirements
of Judaism). Hence though nothing is known about the personality of
the author of the First Gospel, much may be inferred respecting his
interests, and the purpose with which he wrote. He sought to show that
if Jesus occupied a lowly station during His earthly life and died an
agonizing and ignominious death, nevertheless by descent He was the
1 He sometimes quotes the K£X more fully than the sources which he uses, cf,
xiii. 14, 15, with Mk. iv. 12. In ix. 13 the quotation by our Lord from Hos. vi. 6
is nearer the Hebrew than the Greek ; but in xxi. 16 the quotation from Ps. viii. 2 is
given in the Greek version, which differs seriously from the Heb.
• See Stanton, Op. eit. pp. 342, 343.

192 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Son of David, and fulfiUed the Messianic predictions of the prophets ; and
that if He overruled in some respects the letter of the Mosaic Law in pro
moting mercy and humanity, in other respects He enforced its demands
in a far more stringent form (v. 21-37).
A conspicuous feature of the First Gospel is the prominence in it of St.
Peter. Not only does this Gospel alone mclude two miracles with which
St. Peter solely is connected (xiv. 28-32 and xvii. 24-27), but it alone adds
to the account given by Mk. of the Apostle's confession of our Lord's
Messiahship the singular blessing pronounced upon him (xvi. 17-19) ;
whilst it is not perhaps unsignificant that in Mt.'s list of the Apostles
St. Peter is not only placed before the others, as is the case in the remain
ing two Synoptists, but he is distinguished as " the first " (x. 2).
According to Origen (Eus. H.E. vi. 25, 4) Mt.'s Gospel was the earhest
written ; but if the writer has used Mk. in its compUation, this is impossible.
The probable date at which the book was written can only be determined
vaguely by its dependence upon Mk. and by a comparison between it and
Lk. In the first place, as Mk. was probably composed between 64-70, it is
likely that Mt. was written after (perhaps some years after) the latter date.
It has indeed been argued that a date prior to the FaU of Jerusalem in 70
is more plausible, since the writer has not altered (xxiv.15) Mk.'s language
relating to that event as St. Luke has done ; but he may have preferred
to retain in this case the actual words of his authority.1 And there seems
to be at least one passage in the Gospel reflecting the writer's acquaintance
with the destruction of the Jewish capital, for the words of the Jews to
Pilate, " His (Jesus') blood be on us and on our chUdren " (xxvn. 25), acquire
a deep significance if the writer who records them (they appear nowhere
else) wrote after the event that so plainly appeared to fulfil them.
Secondly, the fact that the First and Third Gospels are seemingly quite
independent of one another is most intelligible if they were both composed
about the same time, and the work of each was unknown to the other.
And if Lk. was written about 80 (see p. 204) it may be presumed that
something hke this date saw the production of Mt. Which of the two was
slightly the earher is a question not easy to decide, and not very important.
The author of the First Gospel, like the other evangelists, has a favourite
vocabulary, the foUowing being some of the expressions and. phrases which
occur in his work most frequently and distinctively. Those that are
included in the list are either found only in Mt. amongst the Synoptists, or
else appear in Mt. at least twice as often as in Mk. and Lk. together.8
afterward, ilarsgov come, ngoaigxofiai
altar, dvaiaartfgiov come (imperative), Sevte
appear, be seen, ipalvo/uat coming (of Christ's Return), nagovola
as, &aneg command, xeXev'to
be it done, yevrjdrjroi depart, be removed, nexafiaiv<a
called (with a name), XBy6/.isvog dream, 3vag
1 Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, ii. p. 367.
8 Use has been made of Hawkins' Hora Synopticos*, pp. 3-8.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM

193

the end of the world, rj awireXeia rov
almvog
evil, the evil one, rd novrjgov, 6
novrjgdg
exceedingly, oq>68ga
Father (our, your, etc.), naxrjg (fjjj.a>v,
etc.)
Father which is in heaven, naxrjg 6
iv roig ovgavoig
Father, Heavenly, narrjg 6 oigdviog
food, xgoipfj
fool, foolish, ficogog
fulfil, nXrjgooi
gather, take in, avvdyco
gift, Scogov
gnashing of teeth, 6 figvy/tog r&v
686vxojv
governor, rjye/idtv
henceforth, an agxi
hide, xgvnxco
hypocrite, vnoxgixrjg
iniquity, dvo/iia
judgment, xglaig

keep, observe, rrjg&io
kingdom of heaven, rj fiaaiXsia r&v
ovgavcov
now, agn
only, fidvov
profess, 6/ioXoysco
profitable, expedient, ov/iq>igei
raiment, ivfru/ia
reward, hire, /iiadog
righteousness, Sixaiooilvrj
Sadducees, Ea88ovxaioi
said (was), spoken, iggedrj, gnBiv
sheep, ngofiarov
swear, ojxvvoj
take counsel, avfifiovXiov Xapfidvco
that (= in order that), Sna>g
then, rore
think, doxsi with dative.
weeping, xXavd/uog
wise, cpgovi/xog
withdraw, avaxcogico
worship, ngoaxwica

He shares with Lk. a fondness for l8ov (xai ISov) and for the particle
ovv (which is very rare in Mk.). He has in passages peculiar to himself one
or two Latin words hke fiiXiov (v. 41), xovarcodla (xxvni. 65), besides
those contained in sections derived from Mk. or Q (daadgiov, Srjvdgiov, xfjvaog,
ngaircogtov, q>gayeXX6a>.) But more noteworthy than the preference shown
for certain words are the changes of construction which the author of
the First Gospel introduces into the sections which he has appropriated
from the Second Gospel. He seldom retains on before the or. recta, or
EvOiigf and he sometimes omits ndXiv — all these three words being
characteristic of Mk. (p. 179). In some respects his Greek is less Hebraic
in structure than Mark's ; and in particular his use of connective particles
is more varied, 8i being frequently substituted for the xai which is so
common in the Second Gospel. He often replaces Mk.'s historic present
by past tenses (cf . Mt. xiii. 2 with Mk. iv. 1 ; Mt. viu. 25 with Mk. iv. 38) ;
and Mk.'s imperfects by aorists (cf. Mt. x. 1 with Mk. vi. 7, Mt. xiv. 5 with
Mk. vi. 20, Mt. xiv. 19 with Mk. vi. 41, Mt. xvii. 10 with Mk. ix. 11) ; and
he sometimes prefers to use the passive voice where Mk. has the active
(cf. Mt. vhi. 15 with Mk. i. 31, Mt. xiv. 11 (bis) with Mk. vi. 28 (bis),
Mt. xix. 13 with Mk. x. 13, Mt. xxiv. 22 with Mk. xiii. 20). He rarely
reproduces the periphrastic expressions formed by the verb el/tl and a
present or perfect participle, of which Mk. is so fond ; and he often avoids
1 Mt. has ei06$ only seven times as compared with Mk.'B more than forty times.
On the other hand Mt. has eiiSiigs twelve times as contrasted with its entire absence
in Mk. 13

194 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Mk.'s asyndeta1 (cf. Mt. xix. 26, 28 with Mk. x. 27, 29, Mt. xxn. 29 with
Mk. xii. 24, Mt. xxiv. 7 with Mk. xih. 8), his employment of rjggaxo
(cf . Mt. x. 5 with Mk. vi. 7, Mt. xix. 27 with Mk. x. 23), and his practice
of repeating, after a verb compounded with a preposition, the same pre
position (e.g. he uses r)X6ev elg xrpi awayayrjv (xu. 9) for Mk.'s elorjXQev elg
owayaiyrjv (iii. I2)). He uniformly substitutes 6 fiannorrjg where Mk.
has 6 fianrtt;a>v to designate John the Baptist (cf. Mt. hi. 1, xiv. 2, 8
with Mk. i. 4, vi. 14, 243). Though he exhibits a certain sameness of
phraseology, he displays in general more variety of diction than characterizes
his principal source.
It will be of some service to append here, as was done in the case of Mk., a few
of the most interesting readings of the Western text (5) as represented by the Bezan
MS. (D) with support from some of the manuscripts of Lat. vet., and from one or
more of the Syriac versions.
Approved Text. Western Text.
v. 22 after angry . . . brother adds without cause.
x. 3 for Thaddaeus substitutes Lebbseus.
x. 23 after flee unto the next adds and if they persecute you in the
second, flee unto the next.
xx. 28 after many adds Seek ye from little to increase, and
from greater to become less. And
when ye enter and are bidden to sup,
do not recline in the prominent places
lest one more honourable than thou
come, and the host come and say to
thee, Go lower ; and thou be put to
shame. But if thou settest thyself
down in the inferior place and one
inferior to thyself come, the host will
say to thee, Come higher ; and this
shall be profitable for thee.
xxv. 1 after the bridegroom adds and the bride.
xxv. 28 for to him that hath the ten substitutes to him that hath the five
talents talents.

The Gospel according to St. Luke
The Third Gospel differs from the other Gospels in being dedicated
to an individual, one TheophUus, a person of rank,4 who had been instructed
in the history and doctrines of the Christian faith, but who had probably
not yet become a member of the Church. Like the rest, it is anonymous,
but is traditionaUy ascribed to St-. Luke, being first attributed to him
by Irenseus and the Muratorian Canon. He is also credited by tradition
with the authorship of Acts, the two books being successive volumes of
a single work, and it is the later of the two that furnishes means for
1 Por asyndeta in Mt. see xxvi. 34, 35, 42, xxvii. 2.
2 For detailed proof see Allen, St. Matt. pp. xix.-xxx.
' Mk. has 6 /3ajrrio-Ti}s in vi. 25, viii. 28.
4 The title Kpartaros applied to Theophilus was used of the governor of Palestine
(Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3) and of other officials and persons of distinction. Cf. Jos,
Vita, 76.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 195
deciding whether the traditional assignment of both to him is justified ;
so that the question is most conveniently discussed in detaU in connection
with Acts (p. 234 f.). Here the results of the discussion may be assumed,
and it suffices to say that St. Luke is one of some three, or more, possible
authors of Acts, and since he is the only one whose name is connected
with it in antiquity, the hypothesis that accounts satisfactorUy for the
work being ascribed to him is the assumption that he reaUy wrote it.
His authorship of Acts carries with it the authorship of the Third Gospel
likewise, since the two works are too simUar to one another in style and
phraseology to be attributed to different writers (p. 237).
By various early authorities St. Luke is described as of Antioehene
parentage (Eus. H.E. iii. 4, 7) ; and his connexion with Antioch is
confirmed to some extent by the fact that he shows much interest in the
city, and seems to have had special knowledge about it and its people
(Acts vi. 5, xi. 19-28, xiii. 1, etc.). His name, Aovxag, is probably an
abbreviation for Lucanus, a form of the name which actually occurs in
certain MSS. of the Old Latin version, in one MS. of the Vulg.,* and in
one, if not more, sepulchral inscriptions containing the names of the
Evangelists.1 It can, however, stand for names as dissimilar as Lucianus,
Lucius, or Lucilius (cf. Theudas for Theodorus, Antipas for Antipater,
Demos for Demetrius, as well as Silas for Silvanus). It may be inferred
that St. Luke was of GentUe, not Jewish, origin, since in Col. iv. 10-14,
where he is mentioned, he is not included amongst " those of the circum
cision " ; and the inference is confirmed by his use of ol fidgfiagot to
describe the natives of Melita in Acts xxviii. 2, 4, a phrase more natural
to a Greek than to a Jew (though cf. Col. ui. 11). He is represented by
St. Paul (Col. iv. 14) as a physician ; and this description of him is perhaps
corroborated by the use of a number of words and phrases which, though
not exclusively medical, appear to have been commonly employed by
physicians (see p. 206). It is also noteworthy in this connexion that he
alone records our Lord's quotation of the proverb Physician, heal thyself.
It has been conjectured that he belonged to the class of freedmen (libertini),
among whose ranks many physicians were found : for instance, Antiatius,
the surgeon of Julius Caesar, and Antonius Musa, the physician of Augustus,
were both freedmen.2 The interest which in Acts he displays in those
persons of GentUe origin who felt the attraction of Jewish monotheism
and morality, and whom he caUs the devout (oi aefio/ievoi) or the God
fearers (ol (pofiov/ievot rov 6eov), favours the belief that he was included
amongst them before he was converted to Christianity ; and the supposition
that he had in this way become familiar with Jewish rites and usages
wUl account for his aUusions to matters connected with the Jewish rehgion
without any explanation being offered of them (see Acts ii. 1, ix. 1, xii. 34,
xviii. 18, xx. 6, xxi. 23-27, xxvii. 9). If he were reaUy an Antioehene,
it has been suggested that he may have been won to the Christian faith
by some of the Cypriote and Cyrenian Christians who went to Antioch
1 See J.T.S. Jan. 1905 (p. 257), Ap. 1905 (p. 435).
8 Plummer, St. Lk. p. xviii.

196 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
after the death of Stephen (Acts xi. 20). He became (probably when he
was quite a young man) attached to St. Paul, though the place where
they first met is uncertain. According to the 8 text of Acts xi. 28 (p. 253),
the two were together at Antioch certainly before 46 and probably before
41 (see p. 345) ; but otherwise there is no evidence of their meeting until
St. Paul went to Troas about the end of a.d. 49, or the beginning of 50 ;
for it is only in Acts xvi. 10 that, according to the majority of early MSS.,
the extracts incorporated in Acts from a diary kept by the writer begin.
In any case he accompanied St. Paul on the latter's Second missionary
journey (circ. a.d. 50) and traveUed with him to Philippi, but stopped
in that city (which may have been then his ordinary abode) whilst the
Apostle and his companions, SUas and Timothy, went on to Thessalonica.
On St. Paul's Third Journey he rejoined him, some five or six years later,
as he returned through Macedonia from Greece, probably at Phihppi,
where the second extract from the diary occurs ; and according to the
subscription to 2 Cor. in some MSS. and versions, he conveyed, in company
with Titus, that letter to its destination. From Macedonia he went with
St. Paul to Jerusalem, was probably with him when he was taken thence
to Caesarea, and certainly was his companion when the Apostle was sent
to Rome (Col. iv. 14). At Rome he apparently did not share his imprison
ment, but took part in his evangelistic labours (Philemon, 24). If,
as is unlikely (p. 594), St. Paul's trial ended in his acquittal, which was
followed by a second imprisonment at a later date, St. Luke was again
with him during this second period of captivity, when the Pastoral
Epistles, if genuine, were written (2 Tim. iv. 11). He is represented
variously by later authorities to have been a missionary in Achaia and
in Egypt, being described as the second bishop of Alexandria in the latter
country. According to tradition he died in Bithynia at the age of 74, one
account stating that he was martyred, and another that his end was natural.
In his preface the Evangelist aUudes to the existence of many previous
attempts to narrate the facts that were generaUy beheved among the
Christian communities ; and of such the Third Gospel has incorporated
in whole or in part at least two (pp. 155, 161). These are (1) the
document commonly symbolized by Q ; (2) the Gospel of St. Mark.
(1) In regard to Q, since it no longer exists, it is impossible to say how
much of it is embedded in Lk.
(2) With respect to the use of Mk. the table on p. 148 f . shows that a
large portion of that Gospel as we know it is not reproduced in Lk.
The neglect of certain of the contents of Mk., especiaUy of the section vi. 45-
viii. 28, has been accounted for on various grounds, and among explanations
that have been offered are the preference for other more or less similar
narratives, the need for some omissions in order to include additional
matter, the rejection of such parts as appeared unsuitable for the writer's
special purpose, or even some accidental oversight (see p. 159).1 But it
1 Cf. Holdsworth, Gospel Origins, p. 154 ; Carpenter, Christianity according to
St. Luke, p. 131 f,

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 197
is difficult to think that any of the reasons suggested sufficiently explain
the absence from the Third Gospel of the whole section just cited, which
comprises narratives that can hardly have faUed to appeal to St. Luke
if he had known it ; and the most plausible account of the omission is
that he used an early edition of Mk. (Proto-Mark) which did not include
this section (p. 160). This conclusion seems to carry with it the coroUary
that St. Luke was not acquainted with the First Gospel, which is based
on Mk. as we possess it, and confirmation is furnished by the fact that
several passages of Mt. of much interest to Gentile readers, for whom
St. Luke wrote (p. 202), have no place in his Gospel (see Mt. ii. 1-12,
xxi. 43).
(3) Besides the portions of St. Luke's Gospel which are derived from
Q and Mk., there are others that occur in neither of the remaining
Synoptists ; and the character of these (if minor incidents and sayings
are ignored) can be seen from the table on p. 148 f . They may be classified
as (a) the narrative of the Nativity (ch. i., ii.), with the genealogy in
iii. 23-38 ; (b) certain occurrences and discourses represented as happening
either in Galilee or after our Lord's arrival in the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem ; (c) a long section (including various materials from Q and a
few from Mk.), which extends in the gross from ix. 51 to xviii. 14, and
is brought into connexion with Jesus' journey from Galilee to Judsea ;
(d) the narrative of the appearances of the Risen Lord in xxiv. 13-53.
The sources from which these originated are uncertain, (a) The matter
comprised within the first two chapters of the Gospel looks like the contents
of a separate document, incorporated by St. Luke. It reflects, in general,
the mentahty of a Jewish (not a GentUe) Christian ; and reproduces the
literary manner of the Old Testament. Possibly two or three originally
detached narratives have been combined in it ; of which the conclusions
occur in i. 80, ii. 40, 52. On the other hand, so much of the diction is
Lucan that, if St. Luke has used earlier documents, he has either himseU
translated them from the Aramaic, or has recast the translation of
another.1 The sections (b) and (c) consist probably, in the main, of
oral traditions coUected and written down by St. Luke. The section
marked (c) is very extensive, and embraces both incidents and discourses,
the former including three miracles (xiii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6, xvii. 11-15),
and the latter a large number of very impressive parables, amongst them
being those of the Good Samaritan, the Rich Fool, the Barren Fig-tree,
the Great Supper, the Lost Piece of SUver, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust
Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Unrighteous Judge, and the
Pharisee and the Tax-gatherer. Two hypotheses framed to account for
1 There are certain reasons for conjecturing that the first two chapters (or rather
i. 5— ii. 52) are an addition to the Gospel as at first written, and prefixed to it probably
by St. Luke himself, (a ) In Acts i. 1 the Gospel is described as concerning all that Jesus
began to do and to teach, a description which is more appropriate, if the book once began
at iii. 1 and not at i. 5. (/3) The comprehensive chronological statement given in
iii. 1 is more suitable at the outset of the narrative than at a later stage. If these
reasons have weight, it must be inferred that the Third, Hke the Second Gospel, once
opened with the mission of the Baptist and our Lord's baptism by John. Cf . Moffatt,
L.N.T. pp. 272-3.

198 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
its origin postulate for it documentary sources. Some scholars think that
it comes from an expanded form of Q.1 As has been seen, Q contained
incidents as weU as discourses ; and it is quite possible that an enlarged
form of it was used by St. Luke, just as the enlargement of the earliest
edition of Mk. was utilized by the writer of Mt. It is, however, against
this hypothesis that the section in question comprises so many parables ;
for Q, as it exists in Mt. and Lk. together, contains comparatively few ;
so that, if it was expanded before St. Luke became acquainted with it,
it must have changed its character in some considerable measure. Others
prefer to assume the existence of a distinct written source, which has
been described as a " Travel Document," relating the most notable
occurrences that happened in the course of our Lord's journey from
Galilee to Jerusalem, which seems to be represented as accomplished
by way of Samaria (ix. 51-53, xvii. 11), and not as in Mk. (x. 1), through
Peraea. Certainly, portions of its contents "are linked with stages of that
journey (ix. 51, 57 ; x. 38 ; xm. 22 ; xiv. 25 ; xvii. 11). But there is no
list of places passed through, which is the more remarkable in view of
the interest displayed in locahties by St. Luke in Acts ; local references
are vague (x. 38, xi. 1, xiii. 10, xiv. 1) or absent (xi. 14, 29, xii. 13, xv. 1) ;
and the lack of any definite trace of systematic structure favours the view
that the matter in this section (apart from the extracts from Q and Mk.)
is not taken from an independent document, but consists of a number of
oral traditions relating partly to our Lord's journey from GalUee to
Judsea, and partly to other periods of His ministry. At the same time,
there are certain ; special features connected with some of the parables
comprised in the^section which suggest that St. Luke may have drawn
upon a separate coUection of these. Not only do a number of them lack
specific references to the Kingdom of God (in this contrasting with the
series in Mt. xiii., cf. Mk. iv. 26-32) and convey ethical and rehgious
teaching of a general character, but they also, for the most part, begin
with the same or similar stereotyped phrases — A certain man had or did
something, or There was a certain man who— (see x. 30, xii. 16, xhi. 6,
xiv. 16, xv. 11, xvi. 1, 19). " Different kinds of parables spoken by
Christ . . . may have had a special interest and attraction for particular
individuals, and so may have been Separately coUected and preserved."2
One of the authorities from whom St. Luke drew some of the traditions
incorporated in this Travel Section (to use this designation for the sake
of convenience) was perhaps PhUip the Evangelist ; for certain references
are made to the Samaritans, amongst whom Phihp laboured (Acts vm. 5).
Another may have been a woman of the company that ministered to
Christ of their substance. Among them was Joanna, the wife of Chuza,
steward of Herod Antipas, who is mentioned as having been with Him in
Galilee (Lk. viii. 3), and may have attended Him on the way to Jerusalem,
and so would be in a position to impart information about incidents on
the road, (d) The account given of the appearances of our Lord after
1 See Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, ii. p. 227 foil.
2 Stanton, Op. cii. ii. p. 231.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 199
His death (xxiv. 13-53), whicbjfdifiers from|that contained in Mt. XXviii.
9-20, seems to represent traditions derived from circles in Jerusalem.
St. Luke, in describing the reasons that led him to write his GoSpel,
though he admits that he was not an eye-witness of what he records,
seems to claim for his work in comparison With earlier narratives of a
simUat character (i. 3), superior completeness, arrangement and accuracy.1
And Certainly the Compass of the Third (gospel much exceeds that of
the only one (St. Mark's) Which is reaUy known to have preceded it in
date. It begins, for instance, its account of Christ's life with His birth
(not His baptism), gives greater space to incidents in His Ministry connected
with Jerusalem, and concludes with mention of His final departure to
heaven. It Comprises much mote of] His teaching, pays more attention
to synchronisms (i. 5, ii. 1, iii. 1), and is sometimes more circumstantial
in f e'speCt of the place or occasion of events (cf . v. 12 with Mk. i. 40 ;
vi. 6 With Mk. iii. 1 ; ix. 37 with Mk. ix. 14). As concerns arrangement,
St. Luke, in dealing with material taken over from the Second Gospel,
generaUy foUows the order of Mk., and in this regard is superior to Mt.
In respect of those of Our Lord's utterances which he shares With the
First Gospel and which come from Q, he does not betray the same tendency
as1 Mt. to aggregate them in long discourses. In connexion With some of
the differences between him and the First Evangelist in the handling of Q,
a reason for the arrangement adopted seems to have been a silperiot
sense of hattiral fitness, as Where Christ's reference to the Queen of Sheba
is placed before that to the Ninevites (in accordance with the Sequence
iii Which the narratives in question occur in the Old Testament), instead
of vice versa (as in Mt. xii. 41, 42). In a few cases he likewise Clears up
obscurities or avoids errOrs occurring in the other Synoptic Gospels,
replacing, for example, an indefinite by a definite subject (cf. vi. 7, With
Mk. iii. 2), and omitting in xi. 51 the erroneous description of the murdered
priest Zachariah aS " son of Barachiah " (given in Mt. xxiii. 35).
But Whilst in some Ways the Third G6spel thus appears to advantage
as compared with the remaining Synoptists, and whilst it presents, by
the side of both Mk. and Mt., more the aspect of a history, yet closer
investigation reveals features Which qualify the high estimate Which
might otherwise be formed of the merits of St. Luke as an historian
(cf . p. 247). Thus, though he preserves fof the most part Mk.'s order of
events, he departs seriously from it by placing before any account of our
Lord's activity at Capernaum (iv. 31 f., Mk. i. 21 f.), a description of a
visit paid by Him to Nazareth (iv. 16 f .), which in Mk. is represented as
Occurring much later (see Mk. vi. 1-6), and, by St. Luke's oWn acknow
ledgment, certainly followed, instead of preceding, the beginning of the
niinistry at Capernaum (See Lk. iv. 25). Although he retains Mk.'s
account of St. Peter's confession of Jesus' Messiahship, he omits all mention
Of the journey (through the viUageS of Csesarea PhUippi, Mk. viii. 27) in
the course Of which the incident took place (see Lk. ix. 18 f.). And these
1 Eusebius (H.E. iii. 4 and 24) explains St. Luke's superior accuracy as due
to his intimacy and stay with St. Paul and his acquaintance with the rest of the
Apostles.

200 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
instances, where he has diverged for the worse from his sources in respect
of occurrences, are paralleled by others where he has done the same in
respect of sayings. In more than one passage he seems to have obscured
the meaning of the original utterance which he purports to reproduce.
For example, in connexion with Christ's denunciation of those who buUt
the tombs of the prophets whom their ancestors killed (from Q), the force
of the reproach is destroyed in xi. 47-48 ; in Mt. xxiii. 29-31, our Lord
contends that the builders of the prophets' tombs, by denying that they
would have slain the prophets as their fathers had done, at least acknowledge
that they have in them the blood of murderers ; but there is a lack of
reason in His words as represented by St. Luke, " So ye are witnesses
and consent unto the works of your fathers, for they kUled them, and ye
buUd their tombs."
It is thus apparent that in regard to material which he has derived
from others, he has not uniformly improved upon his authorities, but that
his presentation of it is sometimes inferior, so that his imphed disparage
ment of St. Mark in i. 1-3, is scarcely caUed for. In respect of material
found only in his own Gospel any judgment passed upon its historical
value must be based largely upon presumption ; but certainly as regards
the parables and discourses of our Lord occurring only in Lk., their striking
character is sufficient warrant for the conclusion that in substance they
are generaUy authentic.
The large amount of matter which St. Luke desired to include in his
Gospel as compared with that comprised in Mk. must have made necessary
some compression of what was borrowed from the Second Gospel, in order
to economize space. Presumably for this reason he abbreviates con
siderably (iii. 19, 20, ix. 7-9) the account given by Mk. vi. 17-29 of the
Baptist's imprisonment and death. From the same motive he often
reduces St. Mark's duplicate expressions or detaUed descriptions (see
p. 156 f ., and cf. also xxii. 34, with Mk. xiv. 30, and xxiii. 38, with Mk. xv.
26) ; and in other ways simplifies his reports (cf. iv. 31, 32 with Mk. i.
21, 22 ; v. 22 with Mk. ii. 8 ; viii. 4 with Mk. iv. 1, 2 ; viii. 52, 54 with
Mk. v. 40, 41). But the changes made in the form of what has been
transferred from Mk. are not due merely to the need for brevity. St.
Luke possessed literary qualities superior to those of St. Mark, and
introduced into the latter's language verbal alterations to improve the
style. Thus he (a) generally supplies conjunctions to avoid asyndeton
(cf . ix. 49 with Mk. ix. 38 ; xviii. 28 with Mk. x. 28 ; xx. 33, 34 with
Mk. xii. 23, 24) ; (6) sometimes substitutes for two co-ordinate verbs a
participle and a single verb (cf . ix. 1 with Mk. vi. 7 ; ix. 10 with Mk. vi.
30) ; (c) occasionaUy replaces an unusual word or a vulgar phrase by a
more usual or fitting one (cf. v. 18 with Mk. ii. 4 ; viii. 42 with Mk. v. 23) ;
(d) frequently exchanges Mk.'s historic present for the more appropriate
aorist (cf . v. 20, 22, 24, 27 with Mk. ii. 5, 8, 10, 14) ; (e) sometimes dispenses
with Sxi before the oratio recta (cf. v. 12 with if k. i. 40 ; xxi. 8 with
Mk. xiii. 6) ; (/) almost invariably omits Mk.'s repeated eddiSg and ndhv.
Some of the awkward constructions which are apparent in certain of
Mk.'s sentences are improved by St. Luke (of., for example, xviii. 29-30

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 201
with Mk. x. 29, 30 ; xx. 6 with Mk. xi. 32 ; and xx. 28 with Mk. xii. 19).
On the other hand, St. Luke himself is not altogether free from anacolutha
and other varieties of careless expression, instances occurring in ix. 3,
xxiv. 27, 47.
The sections derived from Q which are contained in Lk. appear in
general to reveal traces of modification as compared with those in Mt.
The following wUl serve as an Ulustration : —
Mt. v. 39, 40, 42 Lk. vi. 29, 30
(39) f cms <re frairlfei els rijv Set-lav aidyovd (29) Tip tAtttovtL ae eirl rrjv aiayova irapexe
gov, arptyov ai5rcjj Kai tt)v &Wtjv, Kal ttjv &X\7]v. Kal dirb rod aipovros
(40) Kal rtp .dtXovrl aoi Kpi6r)vai Kal rbv aov rb IjjAtiov, Kal rbv xiT&va /J-7)
Xirdva aov \a(3eiv, &<pes avroj Kal rb KuiKtiaris.
¦ l/xariov. (30) irdvrl alrovvri ae SISov, Kal airb tov
(42) rtp alrovvriae 56s, Kal rbv B^Xovra dirb atpovros ra ad pA) diralTei.
aov Savlaaadat piAj diroaTpaipijs.
The verbal differences between these paraUel passages seem due to
the same endeavour on the part of St. Luke to improve the order and
diction. The substitution of the participle rq> xvnxovxl ae for the relative
used by Mt. renders the clause more symmetrical with the two that
foUow ; the pleonastic T<j> BiXovn . . . arpeg avr<i> is avoided by the sub
stitution of and rov aigovrog . . . /m) xoiXtiarjg ; the order in which the
Xixdiv and the Ifidnov axe mentioned is reversed, in accordance with the
hkehhood of the outer garment being first taken rather than the inner ;
and instead of rov BeXovxa . . . jurj dnoaxgaqpfjg there is used the more
efiective turn and rov aigovrog /it) dnairei, the verb dnaireiv contrasting
well with the previous alxstv.
The hterary power of St. Luke is further manifested by the versatility
with which he varies his own style. Sometimes he is conspicuously
Hebraic in his constructions, at others he is as conspicuously free from
Hebraisms. The contrast between these two aspects of his Gospel is
most plainly discerned when a reader passes from the preface (i. 1-4) to
the narrative of the Nativity (i. 5 f .). The prefatory address to TheophUus,
presumably a GentUe, is composed in exceUent Greek ; whereas the rest
of the chapter, of which the scene is Palestine, the personahties Jews,
and the atmosphere that of the Old Testament, is written in a style which
abounds with Semitic phrases. But he employs Hebrew or Aramaic
constructions elsewhere than in the narrative alluded to (see v. 1, 17,
ix. 38, 51, 52, x. 6, xvi. 6, 7, 8, xix. 11, xx. 11, 36, xxn. 15) ; and it is
quite probable that his adoption of them in particular places is inten
tional, and that he " has aUowed his style to be Hebraistic [where] he
felt that such a style was appropriate to the subject-matter." x An
Ulustration of his resourcefulness in diversifying his expressions is the
number of constructions which he employs after xai iyivero or iyivero de,
viz. (a) the simple indicative (e.g. iyivEro 8i . . . dnrjXdev, i. 23) ;
(b) the indie, with xai (e.g. iyevero 8e . . xai airdg ivifirj, vm. 22) ;
(c) the accusative and infinitive (e.g. iyivero 8e . . . 8ianogev'scdai
1 Plummer, St. Luke, p. xlix, cf. Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 47P,

202 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
avrov, vi. 1) ; (d) the ace. and infifi. with rov prefixed to the latter (e.g.
dig 8i iyivsxo xov eloeXdeiv xov Ilergov, Acts x. 25).
The circumstance that the Third Gospel was written primarily for an
individual did not preclude it from being useful to a larger cirCle ; and the
fact that most of its readers were likely to be Gentiles has caused its author
to aim at arresting and holding the interest of non-Jews by the exclusion
of subjects not likely to attract them, and by explaining matters which
might be obscure to them. Accordingly a feature of the Gospel is the
prominence in it of those parts of our Lord's ministry and teaching which
made the most universal appeal, and the absence of certain aspects of
them which more particularly concerned the Jews and the Jewish Law.
Thus in it the genealogy of Jesus is traced back to Adam (hi. 38) ; in it
alone is mention made of the widow of Zarephath to whom Elijah was
sent (iv. 26), and of Naaman the Syrian, the only leper recorded to have
been cured by Ehsha (iv. 27) ; and it is the only Gospel that preserves
the rebuke addressed to James and John for desiring to caU down fire
on a Samaritan village (ix. 53, 54), relates the parable of the Good Samaritan
(x. 30-35), and tells of the gratitude of the Samaritan leper (xvn. 11-19).
On the other hand, it concedes httle space to examples of the fulfilment
of prophecy, since this Would have less interest for the GentUes than for the
Jews. Local allusions difficult of comprehension to persons iU-acquainted
with Palestine are elucidated, Nazareth and Capernaum being described
as cities of Gahlee (i. 26, iv. 31), the country of the Gerasenes as over
against Galilee (viii. 26), Arimathsea as a city of the Jews (xxni. 51),
Emmaus as three-score furlongs from Jerusalem (xxiv. 13). The same
motive accounts for the substitution of Greek for Hebrew names, words,
and titles, such as 6 IjfXoyirjg (vi. 15) for Mk.'s " The Cananaan," rj nalg
iysigs (vni. 54), for Mk.'s Talitha koum, imaxdra (ix. 33) for Mk.'s Rabbi,
Kvgie (xviii. 41) for Mk.'s Rabboni. Various features betray the direction
of the Writer's sympathies, the quahty of his disposition, and the sphit
of his piety. Stress is laid on the lowly circumstances of our Lord's
birth (ii. 7, 24, also i. 52, 53), and on the concern which He showed in His
teaching for the humble and the poor (xiv. 13, 21, xvi. 19-31, and contrast
vi. 20 with Mt. v. 3). The number of women receiving mention is unusually
large (i. 5, U. 36, vii. 12, vhi. 2, 3, x. 38, 39, xi. 27, xih. 11 f., xv. 8 f., xxiii.
27-31, the instances cited occurring in passages pecuhar to the GoSpel).
The writer has removed Some of Mk.'s expressions attributing to our
Lord feelings or utterances which he deemed unsuitable (cf . vi. 10 with
Mk. iii. 5, and xvUi. 16 with Mk. x. 14), thoUgh he has not done so to the
same exteht as the author of Mt. (see xviii. 19, and contrast Mt. xix. 17).
Consideration for the Apostles is manifested by the omissioh of various
incidents, related in Mk., which reflect unfavourably upon them (e.g.
the rebuke addressed to Peter (Mk. viii. 33), the ambition of James and
John (Mk. x. 37), and the flight of the Apostles when their Lord was
arrested (Mk. xiv. 50)), though again St. Luke is not quite So careful
in this respect as the First Evangelist. Prominence is repeatedly given
to the influence of the Holy Spirit (i. 15, 35, 41, 67, n. 25-27, iv. 1, x. 21) ;
and attention is often drawn to occasions when gratitude was rendered to

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 203
God by those who witnessed the signs of His mercy (ii. 20, v. 25, 26,
vii. 16, xhi. 13, xvn. 15, xviii. 43, xxiii. 47).
In his quotations from the Old Testament St. Luke generaUy follows
the LXX. Thus in U. 23, iii. 4, iv. 4, 12 he adheres closely to the Greek
version. In iv. 8 and in x. 27, however, he departs sUghtly from the LXX
tendering of Dt. vi. 13 and vi. 5 ; whilst iniv. 18, where he cites 3 7s. lxi. 12,
he diverges, towards the end of the quotation, considerably from the LXX,
and introduces into the passage a clause transferred from another part of
3 Isaiah (lviii. 6). It is noteworthy, too, that in xxii. 37, When quoting
from 2 Is. liii. 12, he has juexa dvoixom iXoyladrj, which is nearer to the Hebrew
than to the Greek (which has iv xotg dvofioig iXbyia&rj).
The date of Lk., so far as it can be approximately determined, depends
upon its relation to (a) the Gospel of St. Mark, (6) Acts.
(a) Since St. Luke made use of Mk. as one of his sources, his Gospel
is, of course, later than the Second Gospel, but the factor which helps to
determine more exactly the date is the treatment by St. Luke of Mk. xiii.
14 (based on Dan. ix. 27). This will be seen best if the two passages are
placed side by side.
Mk. xiii. 14 Lk. xxi. 20, 23b, 24
But when ye see the abomination of 20. But when ye see Jerusalem com-
desolation standing where he ought not passed with armies, then know that its
(let him that readeth understand), then desolation is at hand. Then let them
let him that is in Judaea, etc. that are in Judsea, etc.
23b. For there shall be great distress
upon the land and wrath upon this people.
24. And they shall fall by the edge
of the sword, and shall be led captive
into all the nations ; and Jerusalem shall
be trodden down by the Gentiles, until
the opportunities of the Gentiles be
fulfiUed.
St. Luke also describes (xix. 41—44), in a passage inserted between Mk.
xi. 10 and 11, how Jesus Wept over Jerusalem, and represents Him as
saying, " For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies shall
cast Up a bank about thee, and Compass thee round, and keep thee in on
every side, and shaU dash thee to the ground, and thy children within
thee, and they shaU not leave in thee one stone upon another, because
thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." And a feature Worth noting
in this connexion is the occurrence, in the Parable of the Pounds, of
references to the hatred of the citizens for the nobleman and the punish
ment decreed for them by the latter (xix. 14, 27), since these verses seem
to have httle relevance to the import of the parable. The replacement
of Mk. xin. 14 by Lk. xxi. 20, and the insertion of the other passages
quoted, have the appearance of being due to the interpretation of our
Lord's words suggested by the events that occurred in a.d. 70, with which
the writer was famihar ; so that, if this inference be accepted,- it foUows
that the Third Gospel is later than 70.
(6) A summary statement is given elsewhere of the leading features
of a comparison instituted between the diction of Lk., and that of Acts,

204

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

which, whUst showing that the two works have so many words in common
as to render almost certain their origin from a single author, yet exhibits
a number of differences between them, suggesting that some considerable
interval separated the periods of their composition. Reasons have also
been adduced for thinking that Acts was written after the production by
Josephus of his Antiquities about a.d. 95, and that this date can be brought
within the limits of St. Luke's hfe, so far as it is known (p. 240). If, then,
Lk. was written several years before Acts, a plausible date for it wiU be
about a.d. 80. There are, indeed, not lacking statements even in the
Third Gospel which, like some in Acts, appear at first sight to be mistaken
inferences from Josephus. The most notable relates to the description
in iii. 1 of Lysanias as tetrarch of AbUene. Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6, 10,
xix. 5, 1, cf. xx. 7, 1) speaks of " The territory of Lysanias " and of " AbUa
of Lysanias " promised by Cahgula, and given by Claudius, to Herod
Agrippa II in a.d. 53 ) and it has been supposed that St. Luke carelessly
concluded from this that Lysanias was tetrarch of AbUa (or AbUene) not
very long before ; whereas, in point of fact, Lysanias had been put to
death by Antony previous to 36 B.C. (Ant. xv. 4, 1). There seems, how
ever, to be evidence that the Lysanias mentioned by Josephus left chUdren,
and that there was a tetrarch Lysanias at the time when Tiberius was
associated with Augustus in the duties of the Empire, so that the proof
that St. Luke had read and misunderstood Josephus prior to writing the
Gospel is not very cogent. Probably, therefore, a.d. 80 as the date of
the Third Gospel is not gravely erroneous.
The locality where the work was written can only be conjectured.
St. Jerome represents that he wrote the Gospel in Achaim Bosotimque
partibus, where some MSS. replace Bwotice by Bithynice. Other places
suggested are Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Csesarea, and Ephesus. It is
slightly in favour of Rome that Mk. was probably written there ; and
since St. Luke draws upon the Second Gospel in its earhest form, it seems
not unlikely that he became acquainted with it at the Roman capital
and was led, in consequence, to make it the basis of his own work. But
he may, of course, have carried a copy of St. Mark's Gospel with him
when he left Rome after the death of St. Paul, and have written his Gospel
at some other place.
St. Luke has a much larger number of distinctive words and phrases
than the other Synoptists. The principal are the foUowing : — ¦
bring in, Eiatpigm
bring (preach) good tidings, evayysXi-
£o/iai
called, xaXo^/ievog
come out, i^igxo/iai
command, 8iardaaco
daily, xaff ¦fj/iigav
deliverance, salvation, aanrjgia
expect, look for, ngoaSoxdm
favour, mercy, thanks, xdgig

after these things, fiexd ravra
all the people, nag (dnag) 6 Xa6g
another, exegog
apostles, andaroXoi
ask, igoixdm
babe, figicpog
before the face of, ivcbmov
behold. i, ISoti
behold, consider, xaxavoito
beseech, ddo/iai

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 205
friends, q>iXoi master, iniaxdxrjg
from henceforth,, and tou vvv name, ovo,ua
go (pass) through, 8tsgxo/uai observe, qrvXaooco
heal, ldo/j.ai peace, Eigrjvrj
hold, awiym reasonings, 8iaXoyiapioi
howbeit, nevertheless, nXrp> rejoice, be glad, %aiga>
immediately, at once, nagdxgrjfia return, vnoargiipm
justify, 8ixai6a> rich, nXotiaiog
lawyer, vo/uxdg rise up, avaaxfjvai
lift up, inalga send forth, i£anooxeXXa>
likewise, 6/ioicog speak a parable, Xiym nagafioXrjv
the Lord (of Jesus in narrative), turn, turn back, argiqico
6 Kvgiog weep, xXaim
man, avrjg which of you, rig ii v/i&v.
marvel, wonder, 8av/j,d^a>
The Third Evangehst follows Mk. in using the phrase the kingdom of
God, instead of employing the substitute adopted by Mt, the kingdom of
heaven. To denote the Jewish capital he has two forms, 'IsgoadXvfia and
'IsgovaaXrin, preferring the latter, which occurs only once in Mt. xxiii. 37
and never in Mk. In connexion with the sea of Gahlee he uses the term
Xiuvrj instead of the word ddXaaaa employed by Mk. and (after him) by
Mt. (cf. Lk. v. 1, with Mk. i. 16, and see also Lk. viu. 22, 23). Among the
styhstic features of St. Luke is a fondness for the conjunction xai to
introduce a principal clause after a preceding subordinate clause (see v. 1,
12, 17, vn. 12, ix. 51, xiv. 1). One pecuharity of his vocabulary is dis
guised in the R.V. : straightway in the English version, for the most
part, 'represents not Mk.'s eidv'g (which he only uses once, vi. 49), but
EvBimg, which never occurs in the Second Gospel. He omits most of
St. Mark's Latinisms, but employs (xii. 58) dog igyaaiav ( = da operam).
As might be expected from the fact that St. Luke was for a long period
a companion of St. Paul's, there is much simUarity between the vocabulary
of the Third Gospel and that of the Pauline Epistles. The foUowing
statistics of the number of the words that occur only in each of the Gospels
named and in St. Paul's letters (including the Pastorals) are significant.1
Gospel Words peculiar to the several Gospels
and St. Paul.
Mt. 25 (3 in the Pastorals)
Mk. 16 (2 in the Pastorals)
Lk. 59 (9 in the Pastorals)
More striking, however, than such figures are various parallels in
thought and expression between the contents of the Third Gospel and
St. Paul, of which a few of the closest may be here adduced : —
1 The figures are taken from Hawkins, Hor. Syn.2, pp. 189 f., but words are omitted
which occur in Acts as well as in the several Gospels named.

206

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

you

1. Believe and be saved (viii. 12).
2. Eat such things as are set before
(x. 8).
3. Who then is the faithful . . . steward
(xii. 42).
4. They ought always to pray (xviii. 1)
5. AU live unto him (xx. 38).
6. Watch ye at every season,
supplication (xxi. 36).
7. The power of darkness (xxii. 53).

1. To save them that believe (1 Cor. i. 21).
2. Whatsoever is set before you eat (I Cor.
x. 27).
3. It is required im, stewards that a man be
found faithful (1 Cor. iv. 2).
4. Praying always (Col. i. 3).
5. Alive unto God (Bom. vi. 11).
6. Praying at aU seasons . . . and watch
ing (Eph. vi. 18).
7. The power of darkness (Col. i. 13).

It was probably due to St. Luke's familiar acquaintance with St.
Paul's habits of thought and expression that the title the Lord in connexion
with Jesus appears so much more frequently in the Third Gospel than
in the other Synoptists. It occurs about twelve times in Lk., where the
combination the Lord Jesus is also found (xxiv. 3) ; this latter title
figures neither in Mk. nor in Mt. The expression the Lord Jesus occurs,
indeed, in the last sixteen verses of Mk. (xvi. 19) but these are not a
genuine part of that Gospel (p. 180 f.).
A conspicuous feature of the diction of the Third Gospel is the large
number of medical or quasi-medical terms employed. Perhaps the most
notable of those which occur in Lk. but nowhere else in the New Testament
are the following1 : —
Qinreiv (iv. 35), used of an epUeptic seizure.
nvgsxdg juiyag (iv. 38), fevers by medical writers being distinguished
as " severe " (jxiyag) and " shght " (/jixgog).
nagaXeXv/isvog (v. 18), the medical term, instead of the common
nagaXvnxog
orrjvai (vhi. 44), used of a flow of blood being stanched (con
trast Mk. v. 39, Lk. ix. 22).
dvaxvntEiv (xiii. 11), a medical term for recovery from curvature
of the spine.
¦SSgwnixog (xiv. 2), an expression used by Hippocrates, Dioscorides
and Galen.
iXxovadai (xvi. 20), a technical term for being ulcerated.
fieX&vrj (xvhi. 25), the proper term for a surgeon's needle
(instead of Mk.'s §aq>ig).
The presence of these and other simUar words has been supposed to
confirm in a striking degree the description of St. Luke as a physician.
It would only do this, however, if the words in question were used exclu
sively or mainly by medical writers of the same age ; whereas some of
those that have been adduced occur in non-medical writings like the
LXX, or the works of Josephus, whilst others, which are not found in
the LXX and Josephus (Uke tiSgamixog, and iXxovadai mentioned above)
are met with in Plutarch. Consequently, although there is no reason
to question the truth of St. Paul's description of St. Luke, the Evangelist's
use of phrases common in medical works may be explained not by any

1 See Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, pp. 1-52.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 207
close acquaintance with such works, but by his general culture, educated
persons often exhibiting a preference for accurate over popular termino
logy.1 The most important or interesting of the readings in Lk. distinctive of the Western
(or 8) text represented by D and by other authorities which generally agree with the
Bezan MS. are as follows : —
Approved Text Western Text
iii. 22 for Thou art my beloved son, in substitutes, Thou art my son, this day
thee I am well pleased. have I begotten thee (cf. Ps. ii. 7).
v. 10 for and so were . . . catch men substitutes, And James and John, sons of
Zebedee, were his (Simon's) partners ;
and he said unto them, Come and
do not be fishers of fishes, for I will
make you fishers of men.
vi. 5 for And he said . . . sabbath substitutes, The same day, seeing a man
(which is transferred to the end of v. 10) working on the sabbath he said
unto him, If thou knowest what thou
doest, happy art thou ; but if thou
knowest not, accursed art thou and
a transgressor of the law.
xiv. 5 for ass or son substitutes sheep.
xviii. 30 for manifold substitutes sevenfold.
xxiii. 53 after lain adds And when he had laid him, he placed
against the tomb a stone which
scarce twenty men used to roll (cf.
Horn. II. v. 302).
xxiii. 55 for the women substitutes two women.
One or two readings not occurring in D but found in the Old Latin version
which often supports D deserve notice.
xxiii. 2 after perverting our nation Lat. vet. (some MSS.) adds and annulling
the Law and the prophets.
xxiii. 5 after place Lat. vet. (two MSS.) adds and turneth
aside our sons and our wives from
' us, for they are not baptized as we
nor purify themselves (cf. Mk. vii. 4).

(b) The Fourth Gospel
The Fourth Gospel, like the other three, is anonymous. In the last
chapter, which seems to be an epUogue appended to the book after its
writer's death, probably by some leaders of the Church at Ephesus (see
xxi. 23 and p. 232) who were responsible for publishing and circulating
the work, its authorship is assigned to one described as the disciple whom
Jesus loved (Sv rjyana 6 'Irjaovg, xxi. 7, 20). It is nowhere exphcitly
stated who the disciple thus aUusively designated was beheved to be ;
but the various references made to him in the course, of the book enable
us by a process of elirnination to draw a probable conclusion as to the
individual intended.
(a) The narrative in ch. xxi. relates the appearance of Jesus after His
1 See Cadbury, Style and Literary Method of Luke.

208 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
resurrection to a small group of disciples near the sea of Tiberias, the
group comprising Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee and
two other disciples. As the beloved disciple was included among them
(vv. 7, 20), it seems most likely that he is to be identified either with one
of the sons of Zebedee, who are not designated by name, or with one of
the other two unnamed disciples.
(6) In three passages in which the beloved disciple is mentioned, he
is brought into connexion with St. Peter. In xiii. 23 f. he is asked by
St. Peter at supper to inquire of the Lord whom He meant when He said
that one of them should betray Him. In xx. 2 f . it is to him 1 and to
St. Peter that Mary Magdalene brings word that the Lord's body had
been removed from the tomb, and it is he and St. Peter who run to the
sepulchre together. In xxi. 7 on the occasion of Jesus' appearance
by the lake, he tells St. Peter that it is the Lord ; and it is about him that
St. Peter afterwards asks : " Lord, and what shah this man do ? " The
particular disciple who elsewhere is most uniformly associated with St.
Peter is St. John (see Mk. v. 37, ix. 2, xiv. 33, Lk. xxii. 8, Acts in. 1, iv. 13.
viu. 14, Gal. n. 9) ; so that it is probable that by " the beloved disciple "
who in the Fourth Gospel appears as St. Peter's companion the author
meant St. John.
(c) In xix. 26 the beloved disciple is described as standing by the
Cross of Jesus, and as being directed by Him to take charge of His mother.
In the Synoptists three Apostles on various occasions are speciaUy privi
leged by our Lord, viz., St. Peter and the two sons of Zebedee (Mk. v. 37,
ix. 2, xiv. 33) ; so that the action of Jesus here related is consistent with
the conclusion that the beloved disciple was St. John, who is never named
in the Gospel, though the names of many of the Apostles occur frequently.
If, indeed, the statement that all the disciples forsook Jesus at His arrest
be pressed, St. John cannot have been present at the foot of the Cross ;
but as the same statement would also exclude St. Peter from the scene
of our Lord's trial, where it is certain that he was present, the word ell
may reasonably be interpreted in a general, not an exact, sense.
But whilst it is plain that the persons who published the Gospel and
attached to it the statement contained in xxi. 24 beheved that it originated
with the beloved disciple (who, at the time when the Appendix was written,
must almost certainly have been dead, see v. 23), and whilst it is probable
that this expression denotes St. John, it is nevertheless difficult to tMnk
that St. John was the actual writer of the book, for if by the disciple
whom Jesus loved, the Apostle St. John is meant, it is a most unnatural
designation for the author of the book to use of himself. It is unsatis
factory to explain 2 that the words might be apphed by the writer to
himself as an expression of gratitude, because he felt that he was the one
disciple who above aU others would have been lost had not Jesus' love
found him and changed his whole spirit ; it is only appropriate if it is
employed by the writer of another than himself. It has been suggested
1 Here the phrase used is (Si> e'0(\ei (not ^dn-a) 6 'Ljo-qus.
' See Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 394-5.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 209
that such another might be an ideal figure invested with exceptional
faculties of spiritual discernment ; but though there are some passages
which favour this view, yet in general " the beloved disciple " does not
appear on some occasions where, if this suggestion were true, he might
be expected (e.g. vi. 68) ; 1 and probably a real character is intended.
But before the Johannine authorship is rejected, it is desirable to
consider what hght (if any) is thrown by the work upon the author's
circumstances, race, and place of residence.
The first point to be noticed is that the work purports to represent
testimony borne to Jesus by one who had personal knowledge of our Lord,
see i. 14. The verb we beheld (i8eaad/j,s6a) here employed seems to be
used in the New Testament exclusively of physical sight, so that the
writer appears to include himself among a number of persons who had
been actual eyewitnesses of our Lord's life (cf. 1 Joh. i. 1-4).
In the next place attention must be paid to the incidental references
in the book which iUustrate the nature and extent of the writer's acquaint
ance with local and temporal conditions.
(a) Considerable familiarity is displayed with Jewish usages and
sentiments. The writer mentions that certain water-pots at a marriage
feast had been placed where they were, in accordance with the Jews'
manner of purifying (ii. 6). In describing the surprise of a Samaritan
woman at a request put by Jesus (iv. 9) he explains that the Jews have
no dealings with the Samaritans. When relating that certain women
enveloped the dead body of Jesus with linen cloths and spices, he observes
that they did so because such was the custom of the Jews in burying
(xix. 40). He shows intimate familiarity with the religious festivals of
Palestine, naming the Passover, the feast of Tabernacles, and the feast of
Dedication (p. 32), the last being mentioned by him alone of the New
Testament writers. The eighth and final day pf the feast of Tabernacles,
a day which, according to Lev. xxiii. 36, was to be kept as a Sabbath, he
styles " the great day of the feast " (vii. 37). Jesus' invitation to the
thirsty to come to Him and drink (vii. 37) and His declaration that He
was the hght of the world (viii. 12) are appropriately assigned to the
occasion of the same festival, on the first seven days of which water from
the pool of Siloam was poured into a silver basin near the altar of burnt
offering ; whilst on the first night, and perhaps other nights, candelabra were
lit in the Court of the Women.2 He delineates accurately the character
of the Pharisees, who were the most religious of the Jewish sects and
intensely zealous for the rigorous maintenance of the Mosaic Law, for
they are depicted as inquiring who of expected messengers from God
John the Baptist might be (i. 24), as censuring the cure by Jesus of a
blind man on the Sabbath (ix. 13, 14), and as exhibiting scorn for all
that were ignorant of the Law (vii. 49). Those who arrested Jesus are
faithfully represented as refraining from entering the Roman Governor's
palace in order to avoid pollution (xviii. 28). The Jews after the Cruci-
1 Stanton, Gospels as Hist. Documents, iii. p. 135.
* It is assumed that the intervening pericope aduUerce (vii. 53-viii. 11) is unauthen
tic (see pp. 232-3).
14

210 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
fixion are described as desiring that the bodies of the crucified might be
removed (in accordance with Dt. xxi. 23) before the next day (xix. 31).
In view of this knowledge of Jewish habits and the conditions prevailing
amongst them in Palestine it is difficult to suppose that the statement
that " Caiaphas was high priest " in the year of the Crucifixion (xi. 49,
51, xviii. 13), which, on the surface, seems to implythe erroneous conviction
that the high priesthood was a yearly office, is a real mistake 1 : it is more
probable, especiaUy in view of xi. 50, that the writer means that Caiaphas
occupied that office in the year (iviavrdg) which was marked by the
sacrifice of the Messiah.
(b) Much knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures and interest in the
fulfilment of prophecy is shown by numerous quotations from the Old
Testament which the writer judged to be iUustrated by the life of Jesus.
His entry into Jerusalem whUst riding on a young ass is regarded (xii. 14,
15) as realizing the prediction of Zechariah (ix. 9). The unbelief of the
Jews in Jesus, in spite of the signs He had done before them, is viewed
(xii. 38, 40) as fulfilling two passages in the book of Isaiah (liii. 1 and vi.
10). Parallels are drawn (xix. 24, 28, 36, 37) between various incidents
accompanying the Passion — the division by the soldiers of our Lord's
garments,2 the casting of lots for His seamless robe, His cry " I thirst,"
the offer to Him of vinegar, the circumstances that His limbs were not
broken (like those of the malefactors), but His side was pierced-^and
various Old Testament passages (Ps. xxii. 18, lxix. 21, Ex. xii. 46, Zech.
xii. 10). Neither these quotations by the Evangelist nor those represented
as cited by various characters in the Gospel history are taken from one
uniform source. Some are identical with both the Hebrew and the LXX.
(where these agree), viz. xii. 38 (from 2 7s. liii. 1), xix. 24 (from Ps. xxn. 18),
x. 34 (from Ps. Ixxxii. 6) and xv. 25 (from Ps. xxxv. 19) ; and so may be
derived from either. Others are independent renderings of the Hebrew,
viz. xix. 37 (from 2 Zech. xii. 10), vi. 45 (from 2 Is. hv. 13), and xiii. 18 (from
Ps. xli. 9). Others again, which differ from both the Hebrew original
and the Greek translation, are either reproduced from memory or are
free adaptations, viz. i. 23 (from 2 Is. xl. 3), ii. 17 (from Ps. lxix. 9), vi. 31
(from Ps. lxxviii. 24), xii. 14, 15 (from 2 Zech. ix. 9), xii. 40 (from 7s. vi. 10),
xix. 36 (from Ex. xii. 46). " There seems, however, to be no case where
a quotation agrees with the LXX against the Hebrew " ; so that the
writer, though often dealing loosely with both, never seems to have
preferred the Greek version to the original.
(c) Besides acquaintance with the Hebrew Scriptures there is evinced
much famUiarity with Jewish Messianic anticipations current in the
time of our Lord. John the Baptist is represented as being asked whether
he was the Messiah, Elijah, or " the prophet." Nathanael salutes Jesus
as " the Son of God and the King of Israel." The discussions among the
Jews about Jesus, narrated in vii. 25 ML, xii. 34, iUustrate various
1 As represented by Schmiedel, The Johannine Writings, p. 188.
2 The statements in the two halves of Ps. xxii. 18, which are probably synonymous,
are represented as being eaoh separately and hterally fulfilled : contrast Mk. xv. 24.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 211
speculations prevailing about the Messiah, the place of His origins the
duration of His rule, and the proof He was expected to furnish about
Himself. (d) There occur in the book a number of references to places within
the border of Palestine, suggestive of familiarity with its soU, although
some of the localities named cannot be identified with complete certainty.
Mention is made of " Bethany beyond Jordan " (i. 281), and of iEnon,
near to Salim (iii. 23), both of them being spots where John baptized ;
Nazareth, the home of Jesus (i. 46) ; Cana in GalUee,2 (ii. 1) ; the Sea of
Gahlee, caUed also the Sea of Tiberias (vi. 1) ; and certain towns, Bethsaida
(i. 44, xii. 21) and Capernaum (ii. 12, iv. 46). In Samaria, the Evangelist
names Sychar near Sichem, the ancient Shechem (iv. 5, cf. Gen. xxxiii.
18, 19, Josh. xxiv. 32), close to which was Jacob's weU ; and he represents
the Woman with whom our Lord conversed there as alluding to the moun
tain (Gerizim3), in the neighbourhood of which the well is situated. He
seems to have been more especiaUy acquainted with Jerusalem and its
vicinity. He aUudes to Bethany near the Jewish capital, the home of
Lazarus, Martha and Mary (xii. 1), to Ephraim, a place near " the wilder
ness " (probably of Judsea, xi. 54), and to the gorge of the Kidron (xviii. 1).
Of places within Jerusalem or just outside its waUs he mentions the pool
of SUoam (ix. 7), the pool of Bethesda (v. 2) near the sheep gate (cf. Neh.
iii. 1), the Temple-porch caUed Solomon's (x. 23), the prostorium, once the
palace of Herod the Great (xviii. 28), the tessellated pavement in front
of it caUed Gabbatha (xix. 13), and Golgotha (xix. 17). WhUst some of
these are aUuded to in the other Gospels (Bethsaida, Capernaum, Bethany,
the praetorium, Golgotha), the rest occur exclusively in Joh. In regard
to the alternative name given to the Sea of GalUee in two places (vi. 1,
xxi. 1), the appeUation " sea of Tiberias " is said not to be found in any
author until the last quarter of the first century A.D. ; Strabo and Pliny
(a.d. 23-79), for instance, use the term " sea of Gennesar " or " Genne
saret," * though Josephus employs the other name in his Jewish War
(iv. 8, 2), a work produced at the end of the reign of Vespasian (a.d.
68-79). The acquaintance manifested by the writer with Jewish religious
customs and the Jewish scriptures, his preference for the Hebrew Old
Testament over the LXX., his familiarity with current Messianic expecta
tions, and his various topographical aUusions Combine to suggest without
proving 5 that he was a Palestinian Jew by birth, or at least that he had
been trained in the Jewish religion, had probably resided in Palestine and
had learnt to know thoroughly Jerusalem as it existed before its destruc
tion by the Romans. If he were not a Jew by descent, he recognized
1 In contrast to Bethany near Jerusalem.
a In contrast to Cana in Cselo-Syria (Jos. Ant. xv. 5, 1).
3 The place identified with Jacob's well (p. 5) is really nearer! Ebal, but Gerizim
was the mount on which, according to the Samaritans, the altar reared by Joshua
was erected, and on which the temple built to rival that at Jerusalem was situated.
1 Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 549.
s See Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 551.

212 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the Jewish race to be pre-eminently God's people (i. 11) ; and he repre
sents Jesus as declaring that salvation was " from the Jews " (iv. 22) and
as implying that the Jews were first and foremost the flock of the Good
Shepherd (x. 14-16). But it does not follow that his book was written
in Palestine or intended for Jewish readers ; on the contrary, he repeatedly
styles the adversaries of our Lord by the general term " the Jews " (v.
10, vi. 41, 52, vii. 13, ix. 22) in a manner which is only natural if he writes
either as a Gentile Christian (an alternative opposed by the facts already
adduced) or as a Jewish Christian, who when he wrote was outside the
borders of the Holy Land, and who had been altogether alienated in
early manhood from those of his countrymen who were responsible for
his Lord's death. x The conclusion that his work was composed for GentUes
amongst whom he was living is favoured by his aUusions to, and explana
tions of, Jewish customs which would be f amUiar to Hebrew Christians ;
and it is further corroborated by the fact that he furnishes interpretations
of certain Aramaic words — Rabbi (i. 38), Messiah (i. 41), Cephas (i. 42),
Siham (ix. 7), Rabboni (xx. 16), such as would be needed by readers of
GentUe rather than of Jewish origin.
It wiU next be expedient to consider whether the contents of the
Gospel confirm the claim apparently made in i. 14 that it proceeds from
an eye-witness of all or some of the events narrated. In support of the
view that it is the work of one who was himself a spectator of many of
the scenes described, attention has been drawn to the manner in which
incidents are localized, persons figuring in them are designated, specifica
tions of time, and other detaUs introduced, and knowledge of the sentiments
of those present indicated.
(a) The places where various events occurred are mentioned. The
interview between John the Baptist and the emissaries from the Pharisees
took place at Bethany beyond Jordan (i. 28). The conversation with
the Samaritan woman was held as Jesus sat by Jacob's weU (iv. 6). The
nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum went to seek the help of
Jesus when the latter was at Cana (iv. 46, 47). Jesus' declaration that
He was the light of the world, and the ensuing controversy with the
Pharisees occurred in the " treasury " of the Temple (vm. 20). When
the Jews came to Jesus and asked Him not to keep them in suspense
about His identity, He was walking in Solomon's porch (x. 23). When,
after this, He withdrew beyond Jordan, He went to the place where John
at first baptized (x. 40). When, after the raising of Lazarus, the Jews
planned to put Him to death, He departed to the city of Ephraim (xi. 54).
When He crossed the brook Kidron He entered a garden, and it was there
that He was taken.
(6) In connexion with many incidents and scenes several of the actors
in them are named, even when in the other Gospels they are left unspecified.
In the narrative of the Feeding of the 5,000 the writer attributes to Philip
and Andrew utterances which in Mk. are assigned vaguely to the disciples
(vi. 7-9 contrasted with Mk. vi. 37-38) ; in the description of the anointing
of Christ by a woman he alone represents that the woman was Mary, the
sister of Lazarus (xii. 3) ; whilst in the account of our Lord's arrest, he

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 213
alone states that it was Peter who smote off the ear of the high priest's
servant, and that the wounded man was called Malchus. In various
narratives pecuhar to the Fourth Gospel the names of disciples who answer
the questions of Jesus, bring information to Him, or put inquiries are
given with similar precision : see vi. 68 (Simon Peter), xi. 16 (Thomas),
xii. 22 (Phihp and Andrew), xii. 4 (Judas Iscariot), xiii. 24, 36 (Simon
Peter), xiv. 5 (Thomas), xiv. 8 (Philip), xiv. 22 (Judas, not Iscariot).
The ruler with whom Jesus conversed about the New Birth is stated to
have been Nicodemus (iii. 1) ; the name of the father of Judas Iscariot
is mentioned (vi. 71, xiii. 2) ; and the man represented as raised to life
after four days' burial is designated as Lazarus of Bethany (xi. 1 1, xii. 1).
(c) Strangely minute particulars are supplied in the recital of some
of the events recorded. The successive days on which certain incidents
foUowed one another are marked (i. 29, 35, 43, ii. 1, vi. 22, xii. 1, 12).
The duration of our Lord's stay amongst the Samaritans (iv. 40, 43),
and the interval between the supper at Bethany and the last Passover
are both indicated. Even the very hour when something happened. is
specified (i. 39, iv. 6, xix. 14). Other detaUs of a similarly precise character,
relating to numbers or distances, occur in ii. 6 (six water-pots), v. 5 (thirty-
eight years), vi. 19 (five-and-twenty or thirty furlongs), xix. 23 (four
soldiers), xix. 39 (about a hundred pound weight), xxi. 8 (two hundred
cubits), xxi. 11 (a hundred and fifty and three fishes). It is also noted
that the loaves used in the Feeding of the 5,000 were of barley (vi. 9) ;
that the garment of Jesus for which the soldiers cast lots was seamless ;
and that when His disciples entered the tomb of Jesus, they saw the
napkin that had been about His head roUed up by itself (xx. 7).
(d) Allusions are repeatedly made to what on certain occasions the
disciples of Jesus said or thought. When their Master cleansed the
Temple, they recalled the words of Ps. lxix. 9 (ii. 17) ; after His resurrection
they remembered His words about raising up the Temple (if destroyed)
within three days (ii. 22), and His fulfilment, by the entry into Jerusalem,
of the prophecy of Zechariah (xii. 16) ; His speaking to a woman evoked
their wonder (iv. 27) ; and His saying that He had meat to eat that they
knew not prompted them to ask one another whether anyone had brought
Him aught (iv. 33).
This circumstantial exactness is, at first sight, very suggestive of the
first-hand evidence of an actual spectator of the scenes described or an
actual hearer of the speeches reported. Nevertheless the instance of
St. Mark's Gospel, which contains much vivid detaU and yet is an account
of Christ's ministry at second hand, is sufficient to show that the inference
may be mistaken.1 And it has already been made plain (p. 119) by
examples from the Old Testament, that local and personal names, definite
figures, and other particulars are no proof that the narratives in which
they appear are derived from eye-witnesses or are historicaUy weU grounded.
Account has to be taken of the habit of a Semitic writer " to throw his
thoughts into the form of concrete pictorial history, whether that history
1 Peake, Int. to the New Testament, p. 209.

214 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
is real or imagined." x Numerous illustrations of this habit can be
added from Apocryphal writings which purport to supplement the Gospel
reoords. Thus in the ProtevangeUum of James the parents of the Virgin
Mary are caUed Joachim and Anna, and the servant of the latter is caUed
Judith ; whUst in the Acts of Pilate the woman with the issue of blood
(Mk. v. 25) is given the name of Bernice ; and the two thieves who were
crucified with our Lord are styled Dysmas and Gestas.2 Moreover into
a narrative designed to set forth ideas rather than to relate actual facts,
detaUs may be introduced not merely to give life and colour to it, but
for the sake of the symbolism which they are capable of expressing. Hence
the numerous minute particulars marking so many of the narratives of the
Fourth Gospel do not go far to prove its first-hand authority; and a
more trustworthy clue to a just decision about its historical value may
be derived from a comparison of its contents, viewed broadly, with those
of the Synoptic Gospels.
It has been seen that the Gospel of St. Mark upon which the other
two Synoptic Gospels are based (so far as the incidents recorded are
concerned) presents an account of our Lord's pubhc life in which there is
traceable a development of events that, on the whole, commands confidence
as historical. With these the Fourth Gospel, if written by the Apostle
St. John, ought to be in general accord. On the supposition that it
was composed independently of Mk. and the other Gospels, many differ
ences between it and them might be anticipated, some matters being
omitted which they relate and others, being reported which they ignore;
but the same level of historical plausibility could reasonably be looked
for. On the supposition that it was written with Mk. and the other
Synoptists in view and designed to supplement, or to provide an inter
pretation of, what they supply, it might be expected, when departing
from the Synoptic outline, to present an even more convincing narrative.
For whereas all other Gospels are the works of authors who wrote at
second hand, St. John was not only a companion of Jesus, but was one
of the smaU group of Apostles to whom their Master granted a very
privileged position ; so that a history proceeding from him should commend
itself to its readers as, in the main, better than the others in proportion
to the greater opportunities which its author had of acquiring accurate
information. Similarly in regard to our Lord's utterances, his Gospel
might be expected to pass over many that are contained in the other
Gospels and to include many that are missing from them ; but a general
likeness might be anticipated between those which he reproduces and those
which the other evangelists have preserved. The differences between
them ought not to exceed, for instance, such as subsist between the tenor
of the report of Jesus' teaching contained in the three sources Mk., Q,
and St. Luke's Travel Seotion when compared together.
A comparison instituted between the Fourth Gospel and the Second
is far from realizing such expectation. The different conceptions of the
course of Christ's ministry presented by the two narratives wiU be best
1 Sanday, Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 109.
2 See Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 376-9.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM

215

understood from the foUowing table, in which the principal contents of
the Fourth Gospel are enumerated, together with such parallels to them
as occur in the Second : —

Mk.
I.1 The preaching of John the Baptist.
5. Call of Peter, Andrew, James and John
in Galilee.
4. Departure of Jesus to Gahlee and
preaching there.

27. Feeding of the 5,000.
28-. Walking on the Sea.

32. Peter's Confession.

53. Anointing; at Bethany.
43. Entry into Jerusalem.
45. Cleansing of the Temple.
55. The Last Supper.

Joh.
Prologue.John the Baptist.
The Baptist and Jesus.
Adhesion of Andrew and Peter to Jesus
beyond Jordan.
Departure of Jesus to Galilee.
Call of Philip and Nathanael.
Water converted into wine at Cana.
Stay at Capernaum.
Journey to Jerusalem for the Passover.
Cleansing of the Temple.
Discourse with Nicodemus.
Questions put to the Baptist about
Jesus.
Journey through Samaria.
Discourse with a Samaritan woman.
Return to Galilee.
Cure of Nobleman's son at Capernaum.
Journey to Jerusalem for an unnamed
Feast.
Cure of blind man on the Sabbath at the
pool of Bethesda.
[Return to Galilee.]
Feeding of the 5,000.
Walking on the Sea.
Discourse at Capernaum about the Bread'
of Life.
Peter's Confession.
Journey to Jerusalem for the Feast of
Tabernacles.
Controversy among the Jews about Jesus.
(A woman taken in adultery).8
Controversy with the Jews.
Cure of a blind man on the Sabbath.
"I am the Good Shepherd."
Charge of blasphemy.
Withdrawal beyond Jordan.
Return to Bethany and raising of
Lazarus.
Plot of the Jews to kill Him.
Withdrawal to the city of Ephraim.
Return to Bethany.
Anointing by Mary at Bethany.
Entry into Jerusalem.
Certain Greeks desire to see Him.
The Last Supper.
Washing of the disoiples' feet,
Judas indicated as the Betrayer.

1 The figures correspond to those prefixed to the table on pp. I48jfolI., and serve
to show how much of the contents of the Synoptic Gospels has place in the Fourth
Gospel and how much has none.
2 This section is probably not genuine, see pp. 232-3.

216 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Mk. Joh.
Promise of the Comforter.
" I am the true vine."
Renewed promise of the Comforter.
Prayer to the Father.
60. The Arrest. The Arrest.
62. Trial before the High Priest Trial before the High Priest.
63. Denial by Peter. Denial by Peter.
64. Trial before Pilate. Trial before Pilate.
66 The Crucifixion. The Crucifixion.
67. The Burial. The Burial.
Visit of Mary Magdalene, Peter, and the
Beloved Disciple to the Sepulchre.
Appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene.
Appearance of Jesus to the disciples
(without Thomas) at Jerusalem.
Appearance of Jesus to the disciples (with
Thomas) at Jerusalem.
Appearance of Jesus to seven disciples in
Gahlee.
From the above table of parallel passages it wiU be seen that a very
small proportion of the incidents and discourses narrated in the Second
Gospel have anything corresponding to them in the Fourth Gospel, and
that the latter contains a quantity of material altogether pecuhar to itself.
The few subjects, however, which find place in both of the paraUel columns
given above do not really exhaust aU the points of contact between the
Second and the Fourth Gospel. To certain incidents, of which the author
of the latter affords no account, he makes definite aUusion. Thus, though
he furnishes no narrative of the Baptist's preaching and baptizing, such
as is contained in Mk. i. 4, 5 (cf. Mt. hi. JL-6, Lk. hi. 1-7), he refers
to it in i. 26, 31, 33, iii. 28. The words attributed in i. 15 to the Baptist,
" This was he of whom I said, ' He that cometh after me is preferred before
me,' " recaU no statement found in the Fourth Gospel itself, but
appear to relate to the declaration in Mk. i. 7 : " There cometh after me he
that is mightier than I." Again our Lord is described as " Jesus of
Nazareth " (i. 45), the expression implying that He had His home there
(as represented in Mk. i. 9, 24). The term " the Twelve " in vi. 67 pre
supposes the appointment of the Twelve Apostles, as recorded in Mk. hi. 14.
Our Lord's question to Philip in vi. 5, inquiring how bread could be
procured to satisfy the multitude, presumes the circumstances that the
people had long been in attendance upon Him, and were faint for lack of
food (as described in Mk. vi. 35). 1 The Fourth Evangelist thus appears
to assume in his readers some f amiharity with the substance of the history
related in the Second Gospel. And the fact that he himself was reaUy
acquainted with Mk. seems put beyond reasonable doubt by the identity of
diction occurring in the parallel passages Mk. xiv. 5-8 and Joh. xii. 5, 7, 8
(cf. xi. 2). They are here placed side by side, and the common elements in
the phrasing are indicated by itahcs : —
1 Cf. Bacon, Introd. to the New Testament, p. 263.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 217
Mk. Joh.
5. For this ointment might have been 5. Why was not this ointment sold for
sold for above three hundred pence and three hundred pence and given to the poor ?
given to the poor. And they murmured * * *
against her. 6. But Jesus said, Let her 7. Jesus therefore said, Let her alone.
alone (aqiere avrijv) ; why trouble ye her ? (a<pcs avrijv) 1 ; it was that she might
She hath wrought a good work on me. keep it against the day of my burying.
7. For ye have the poor always with you, 8. For the poor ye have always with you,
and whensoever ye will, ye can do them but me ye have not always.
good : but me ye have not always. 8. She
hath done what she could ; she hath
anointed my body aforehand for the
burying. The inference that in Joh. xii. the Evangehst has appropriated part of
the very wording of Mk. is confirmed by the employment, a few verses
earher, of the rare expression vdgSog nianxrj ; he uses Mk.'s term dtrdgiov
of Malchus' ear ; and he also employs (v. 8) in connexion with the cure
of the infirm man at Bethesda the precise words which Mk. records to have
been used by Jesus, when He healed the paralytic at Capernaum — " Arise,
take up thy pallet (rdv xgdfiarrov aov) and walk " (Mk. n. 11).
It may Ukewise with some plausibihty be surmised that the Fourth
Evangelist was also acquainted with the remaining Synoptists, Mt. and
Lk. Knowledge of the First Gospel seems betrayed in the following
instances, both being cases where the other Gospels vary from Mt. : —
Mt. Joh.
(a) Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah ; (a) Thou art Simon the son of John ;
... I also say unto thee that thou art thou shalt be called Cephas (which is by
Peter (xvi. 17, 18). interpretation Peter) (i. 42).
(6) A rich man from Arimathea, named (6) Joseph of Arimathea, being a dis-
Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' ciple of Jesus (/j.a8riTT)s tov '\vaov)
disciple (ep.a9nTei8rj rip 'iTjaov) (xxvii. (xix. 38).
57). Acquaintance, too, with the Third Gospel is suggested by the
following : — Lk. Joh.
(a) She began to wet his feet with her (a) Mary therefore took a pound of
tears and wiped them with the hair of her ointment . . . and anointed the feet of
head and kissed his feet, and anointed Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair
them with the ointment (vii. 38). (xii. 3, cf. xi. 2).
In John allusion is made (xi. 1) to Mary and her sister Martha, as
though they. were well known, but the only reference to them in the
Synoptic Gospels is in Lk. x. 38, 39. In the prediction of Peter's denial the
words used (xin. 38) are in closer verbal agreement with Lk. xxii. 34 than
with Mk. xiv. 30 or Mt. xxvi. 34. It has also been pointed out that both
Lk. and Joh.2 use 6 Kvgiog of Jesus in narratives, and employ of Him
the phrase the son of Joseph (Lk. iv. 22, Joh. i. 45, vi. 42) ; whilst these two
1 The singular verb refers to Judas, who speaks the words in v. 5.
1 Lk. xxii. 61 ; Joh. iv. 1.

218 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Evangehsts alone represent Jesus as applying the term friends to His
disciples (Lk. xii. 4, Joh. xv. 14, 15). In the account of the Eesurrection
Joh., like Lk., confines the appearances of the Lord to Jerusalem.1
From these comparisons it seems probable that the author of the
Fourth Gospel drew upon the three Synoptists, just as Mt. and Lk. drew
upon the Second Gospel, though he handled his predecessors with more
freedom than the First and Third Evangelists handled Mk., and pursued
a plan of his own. There is nothing antecedently surprising in the
supposition that even an Apostle may have acquainted himseU with the
works of earher non- Apostolic writers, with the design of supplementing
deficiencies in them, correcting their errors, and presenting an aspect of
his Master's teaching to which they had done inadequate justice. But
when the contents of the Fourth Gospel are carefUUy examined, as a whole,
the contrast offered by it to the other Gospels is not, in general, that which
might be expected to characterize the production of one possessed of first
hand knowledge as compared with narratives resting upon second-hand
information ; and illustrations of the fact are readUy forthcoming.
No great stress, indeed, can be laid on the omission by the writer of the
Fourth Gospel of some features which are conspicuous in the record of St.
Mark and his feUow Synoptists : if the author were St. John, a desire not
to illustrate superfluously sides of Jesus' benevolent activity or of His
teaching, which had been sufficiently exemplified by previous writers,
might account for the absence from the book of aU cures wrought on
demoniacs, and perhaps of all parables. There is no narrative of our Lord's
baptism (though it is plain that the writer knew about it, from the Baptist's
reference to the descent of the dove in i. 32, 33), and there is no description
of Jesus' institution of the Eucharist (its place being taken by an account
of the symbolic act of washing the disciples' feet), though a discourse
containing expressions that recall words used at the Eucharist (cf . p. 679) is
represented as being dehvered, long before, in Gahlee. Rather more
remarkable is the absence of any mention of the Temptation, the Trans
figuration, or the Agony in Gethsemane. It is, however, the discrepancies
in connexion with some of the incidents recorded in common by the
Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist which chiefly raise grave doubts as to
whether the latter can reaUy be St. John. The foUowing are among the
most conspicuous, (a) In Mk. (taken as representing the Synoptists)
Simon Peter and Andrew are related to have been summoned by Jesus to
f oUow Him as they were fishing in the Lake of GalUee ; but by the Fourth
Evangelist Andrew is described as being a disciple of the Baptist, as
attaching himself to Jesus in consequence of some words from the Baptist,
and as then bringing his brother to Jesus. (6) In Mk. the cleansing of
the Temple is placed at the end of our Lord's ministry, and it is represented
as the action that finaUy led to His death being compassed by the Jewish
ecclesiastical leaders ; whereas by the Fourth Evangelist it is assigned
to a very early period in the Ministry, (c) St. Mark states that Jesus
began His teaching (in Gahlee) after John had been committed to prison,
1 The Appendix to the Fourth Gospel is here excluded.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 219
but the Fourth Gospel imphes that Jesus began to teach and make disciples
(in Judsea) at a time when John was stiU baptizing and before he was
imprisoned, (d). The offence taken at Jesus by the people of His own
locaUty, ehciting from Him the comment that a prophet has no honour
in his own country, is placed by Mk. (vi. 1-6) seemingly at Nazareth
(cf. i. 9, Lk. iv. 16, 23) ; but by the Fourth Evangehst in Judsea (iv. 43, 44).
The latter, however, separates from the incident the question, " Is not this
the carpenter ? " which Mk. joins to it, and which he places (hke Mk.) in
Gahlee (vi. 42). (e) Peter's confession, of which in Mk. (viii. 27) the
scene is Csesarea Phihppi, seems in the Fourth Gospel to be made at
Capernaum (vi. 69, cf. v. 24) and is couched in different words. (/) The
incident of the Anointing of Jesus at supper by a woman is placed by Mk.
after the entry into Jerusalem ; the woman is nameless and anoints
Jesus' head ; whilst the host is caUed Simon the leper. But in the
Fourth Gospel the incident is placed before (though only shortly befoie)
the entry into Jerusalem ; the woman is Mary (sister of Lazarus) and
anoints our Lord's feet (hke the woman described in Lk. vii. 37 f.) ; and the
host is not designated. The account reflects some of Lk.'s phraseology
(see p. 217). (g) At the Last Supper Jesus is described in both Mk. and
the Fourth Gospel as being asked which of the disciples was to betray
Him ; but whilst Mk. relates that our Lord merely responded in vague
terms that it was one of the Twelve that dipped with Him in the dish, the
Fourth Evangehst states that Jesus rephed that it was he to whom He
should give a sop, and that He thereupon dipped a sop and gave it to
Judas, thus marking him out to the rest, (h) In regard to the Last Supper
and the Crucifixion there is a variation of date. Mk. represents the Supper
as the regular Passover meal, and consequently as eaten on the evening of
Thursday, Nisan 14 (according to our reckoning), which by the Jews was
regarded as the beginning of Nisan 15. It is, therefore, imphed that the
Crucifixion took place after the Passover had been held (though in xiv. 1, 2
the chief priests seek to destroy Jesus prior to the feast, and there are some
other facts in Mk.'s account which conflict with the conclusion that the
Last Supper took place on the Passover day, see p. 344). But the Fourth
Evangehst describes the Supper as eaten before the Passover (xiii. 1,
xvui. 28, xix. 14), and the Crucifixion as occurring on the actual Passover
day (though before the evening), (i) The arrest of our Lord is represented
by Mk. (xiv. 43). as accomplished by an armed multitude assembled by
the chief priests, scribes, and elders; but in the Fourth Gospel (xviii. 3)
it is effected by a cohort (or perhaps a maniple) of Roman soldiers, (j)
In the account of the Crucifixion Mk. relates that the soldiers compeUed
Simon, a Cyrenian, to carry the cross for Jesus to the place of execution,
but the writer of the Fourth Gospel pointedly affirms that Jesus carried
the cross for Himself, (k) In respect of the Resurrection appearances a
direct comparison between Mk. and the Fourth Gospel is rendered
impossible by the loss of the original ending of the former (p. 180) ; but
if, as is probable, Mk. represented the Risen Jesus as appearing first to
St. Peter and his f eUow apostles in Galilee (xvi. 7), it is clear that the two
Gospels must have conveyed very different impressions, since the Fourth

220 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
represents that our Lord was seen first by Mary Magdalene at Jerusalem,
which is also described as the scene of other appearances to the disciples,
whUst nothing is recorded of any appearance in GalUee except in the last
chapter, which is of the nature of an appendix (p. 232). (I) It is also
noticeable that whilst in Mk. and the other Synoptists, scribes, tax-
gatherers and " sinners " are conspicuous, in the Fourth Gospel these
classes of persons are not mentioned at aU.
But remarkable as these differences are, there are two others far more
fundamental. One concerns the duration of our Lord's ministry. Mk.
(with whom apparently the remaining Synoptists agree) represents Jesus'
pubhc ministry as almost entirely confined to Gahlee, or districts near it,
and does not relate that He went into Judsea until He proceeded to Jeru
salem on the occasion that ended in His arrest and trial, whilst he mentions
only a single Passover, viz. that for which the disciples prepared the
Last Supper (xiv. 1). But the Fourth Evangelist, on the contrary, describes
Jesus as visiting Jerusalem three times (U. 13, v. 1, vii. 10) prior to His entry
into the city in procession, represents much of His teaching as conducted
at the Jewish capital, and mentions three Passovers as occurring in the
course of the ministry (n. 13, vi. 4, xiii. 1). Among the occasions on wliich
our Lord is recorded to have gone up to Jerusalem in addition to the
Passovers named in ii. 13, xiii. 1, are an unnamed feast (v. I)1 and the
feast of Tabernacles, in the autumn (vii. 2, IO)2 ; and He is also said to
have spent at Jerusalem the feast of Dedication, in the winter (x. 22).
From the fact that St. Mark gives account of only one Passover it is a
natural inference that the Second Evangehst regarded the events of our
Lord's ministry as aU taking place within a year (cf . Eus. H.E. hi. 24, 8).
St. Luke also does not mention any journey to the Jewish capital
after Jesus had attained to manhood except the one which ended in
the Crucifixion. But the definite aUusions in the Fourth Gospel imply that
the writer meant to represent the ministry as extending over more
than two years, so that unless good reason is discovered for qualifying the
inference about St. Mark's conception of the duration of Jesus' pubhc
activity, there is a grave divergence between the Evangelists.
The other fundamental difference between the Second and Fourth
Gospels relates to the course pursued by our Lord in respect of His self-
disclosure, and to the character of His discourses. In the Second Gospel
Jesus is represented as announcing the near approach of the Kingdom of
God and the need for a change of heart in aU desirous of entering that
Kingdom (Mk. i. 14, 15) ; and His teaching about it is iUustrated by par
ables, the Evangehst even going so far as to say (iv. 34) " without a parable
spake He not unto them " (the multitudes). The parables apart, most of
His utterances are exceptionaUy concise, aphoristic, and pointed, easUy
retained in the memory, and stimulating reflection. And though He is
addressed by some of the sufferers whom He heals as the Holy One of God
1 The true reading is probably iopn) " a feast " (Pentecost, Trumpets or Purim)
not vj eoprij (Passover or Tabernacles).
2 If chapters v. and vi. ought to be transposed (p. 232), this feast may be the same
as that mentioned in v. 1.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 221
and as the Son of God, He tries to sUence them and to prevent them from
making Him known: it is not until His journey into the villages round
Csesarea Phihppi that He elicits from St. Peter an acknowledgment of
His Messiahship, and alludes to His future coming in the glory of His
Father. But almost from the beginning of the Fourth Gospel there is in
the speeches of Jesus nothing of the protracted reticence about Himself and
His Personahty which marks His utterances in the first half of the Second
Gospel. As has been seen, He is designated at the outset by John the
Baptist as the Lamb of God ; Andrew teUs his brother Peter that he has
found the Messiah ; Nathanael salutes Him as the Son of God and the King
of Israel ; and He exphcitly informs the Samaritan woman that He is the
Messiah. Moreover, His utterances, instead of being brief and pregnant,
emphasizing, even at the cost of exaggeration, the point wliich it is desired
to drive home, are largely argumentative and abstract. No doubt numer
ous concise and pointed sayings occur in the discourses contained in the
Fourth Gospel (see ii. 16, 19, hi. 3, 6, iv. 21, 44, vi. 27, 35, vii. 24, 37, viii. 34,
xii. 24, 25, xviii. 36, and several others1) ; but many of them are in contexts
which by their general spirit produce a very different impression from that
conveyed by the discourses in the Synoptists. In place of being devoted
to the enforcement of the ethical principles on the observance of which
entry into the Divine Kingdom was dependent, Jesus' longer utterances
are mainly concerned with the relation of His own Personahty to the Father
and to mankind, and with the necessity of behef in Himself as a condition
of possessing enduring hfe (see v. 19-47, vi. 26-40, 44, 58, viii. 31-58,
xiv.-xvi.). The prominence of the pronoun iy6 is very noticeable in all
these. Jesus describes Himself mystically as the bestower of the Water
of Life, as the Bread from heaven, as the Light of the world, as the
Door of the sheep, as the Good Shepherd, as the Resurrection and the
Life, as the True Vine. And whilst there are numerous figurative expres
sions like these, there are none of the vivid and forcible parables of the
kind exemplified in the Synoptic Gospels. And though it is inteUigible
that Jesus might have varied His teaching according to the needs of
particular occasions and the character of His audiences, and that the writer
of the Fourth Gospel may have aimed at Ulustrating exclusively a type
of instruction wliich the Synoptists had altogether omitted to reproduce,
the explanation lacks plausibility when it is discovered that some of the
speeches ostensibly reported as uttered by Jesus closely resemble reflections
proceeding from the historian himself, and that Jesus and the Evangehst
speak in the same style (cf. in. 5-12 (15) with 13 (16)-21, and v. 20-24
with iii. 31-36). In fine, the discourses in the book wear the aspect less of
utterances actually spoken by Jesus, and remembered by one who heard
them, than of meditations wherein the author expounds his own ideas
about the significance of Jesus' Person.2
In regard to some of the minor divergences just noticed, they are not
absolutely irreconcUable with one another and mutuaUy exclusive. St.
1 See Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 18, 19.
4 The style of the Fourth Gospel has numerous points of contact with that of 1 Joh.
(see p. 320).

222 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Mark's Gospel is not an exhaustive account of our Lord's ministry (nothing,
for instance, is said in it about the preaching at Chorazin and Bethsaida
aUuded to in Mt. xi. 21, Lk. x. 13). He, like the other Evangelists, was
interested primarUy, not with recording fully the results of historical
inquiry, but with confirming his readers' Christian faith ; and this could
be done by a selection of Jesus' deeds and sayings which left much for
another writer to relate. Consequently the meeting of Peter and Andrew
with Jesus beyond Jordan may have preceded, and prepared the way for,
their call in Galilee ; so that the account in the Fourth Gospel may in this
respect be complementary to that in the Second. SimUarly Jesus' preach-
, ing in Galilee after John's imprisonment may have been preceded by some
preaching in Judsea prior to it1 ; and the journeys to Jerusalem mentioned
by the Fourth Evangelist may have been omitted by St. Mark because he
purposely restricted the scope of his work, or for some other reason. It
nas been contended, indeed, that there are features in the Second Gospel
itself favouring a longer duration than a year for our Lord's ministry,
since the plucking by the disciples of ears of corn (after Jesus' ministry had
been some time in progress, Mk. ii. 23) can only have occurred between the
middle of AprU and the middle of June, whereas the later incident of the
Feeding of the 5,000 happened when the grass was green (Mk. vi. 39), i.e.
not before the spring of the foUowing year ; so that the Crucifixion^
Passover must have been the second, at least, that feU within the ministry.
It has also been argued that for a visit or visits to Jerusalem previous to the
processional entry evidence is forthcoming in the Lament over Jerusalem
quoted in Mt. xxiii. 37 f ., Lk. xiii. 34 f. (from Q) ; and if this reasoning is
sound, the chronology of the Synoptists affords room for two cleansings of
the Temple, one at the beginning, and the other at the end of Christ's
ministry. It seems more likely, however, that the detaU about the green
grass was due to St. Mark's faculty for describing a scene pictoriaUy than
that it was actually remembered by St. Peter ; whilst for the inference
deduced from the Lament over Jerusalem see p. 448. And though in
view of the incompleteness of the Gospels as histories the abstract possibility
must be admitted that various narratives in the Fourth Gospel fiU gaps in
the accounts contained in the Synoptists, yet on a general view of the two
records the conclusion to which a broad comparison of them points is
different from this. The impression left is that, if events foUowed the
course described in the one, they did not foUow the course described by the
other. In regard, for instance, to the divergence respecting the journeys
to Jerusalem, the supposition that the narrative of these in the Fourth
Gospel supplies a defect in the Second 2 is not reaUy probable, for the fact
that Mk. could relate the journey from Galilee to the borders of Tyre and
1 Any corroboration, however, for this which may be derived from the reading
in Lk. iv. 44 rfjs 'lovSalas (XBCLQR Syr. (vet.) Eg.) instead of tj)s Fa'KiXalas
(AD X T A Lat. Syr. (vulg.) Eg. (some codd.) ) is delusive, since Judcez can be regarded
as the equivalent of Palestine, as in Lk. xxiii. 5, Acts x. 37 (see Plummer, St. Luke,
p. 141). Jesus' teaohing began in Galilee (Lk. xxiii. 5).
2 See Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 541, and of. Sanday, Criticism of Fourth Gospel, pp. 144-
148, Peake, I.N.T. p. 214.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 223
Sidon renders it unlikely that he would have omitted the more important
pilgrimages from Gahlee to the Jewish capital related in the Fourth Gospel,
if such had reaUy occurred ; and even if he did omit these for some reason,
it is eminently unlikely that the two other Synoptists would have been
equaUy sUent about them.1 Again, although one cleansing of the Temple
by Jesus does not absolutely preclude a second, it is scarcely likely that
there should have been two, marked by almost identical features but
foUowed by very different consequences, and that one should have produced
from the priesthood only a remonstrance, but the other a decision to take
His life. And again, on comparing the versions of our Lord's reply to the
question who was to be the traitor, we can have no doubt which is the one
that bears the stamp of probability. And once more, if our Lord had
endeavoured at the outset of His ministry to avoid being addressed as the
Holy One of God or by a simUar title, it is not easy to believe that He could
have plainly declared Himself to be the Messiah to the Samaritan woman.
Finally, if the general style of our Lord's discourses is f aithf UUy represented
by Mk. and by Q, it is difficult to think that His manner of speech could
have resembled the style of the Fourth Evangelist. Consequently, we
seem driven to choose between the two representations ; and to conclude
that if one, for the most part, is approximately true to external facts, the
other in the same proportion is untrue to them.
Now if in the Fourth Gospel we have a work by one of the Apostles,
we might anticipate (as has been aheady observed) that in its narrative of
Jesus' pubhc ministry the development of events, if not agreeing whoUy
with the account of the Synoptists, especially of St. Mark, would be even
superior in naturalness and credibility ; and the critical moments in it
would appear in their proper sequence. But the antecedent expectation
based upon the supposition that it is the work of the Apostle John is not
corroborated by the results of a comparison of its contents (as just instituted)
with those of the earliest of the Synoptic Gospels, St. Mark's. For although
there may be good grounds for preferring, in a few instances, the repre
sentations of this Gospel to that of Mk., yet, on the whole, it can scarcely
be denied that the general course of events as narrated by the Second
Evangelist produces the impression of being more historical than that
traced by the Fourth. The hesitation which, according to Mk., Jesus
evinced in making known His Messianic office, His efforts to avoid notoriety,
relinquished only as the nature of His destiny and its duties grew clearer,
the slowness with which His disciples came to understand who and what
He was, the various causes of, and the gradual stages in, the development
of the animosity displayed towards Him by the ecclesiastical authorities—
these are aU features which give to the record in the Second Gospel a
plausibUity which is lacking to that of the Fourth Gospel. But if the
latter conforms to historical probabilities less closely than the former,
which comes from one who was not among the immediate followers of
Jesus, it is exceedingly difficult to think that the history which commands
1 Mt. xxi. 10 implies that the people of Jerusalem, when Jesus went thither at
the close of His ministry, were unacqxiainted with Him.

224 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
less confidence than its rival can be the composition of one whose oppor
tunities of obtaining information were so much better.
But if it is unlikely that the Fourth Gospel is the production of St. John,
it may be next inquired whether there is any individual mentioned in the
Gospel to whom its authorship can be conjecturaUy attributed. In the
course of perusal attention is arrested by xix. 35, where after the statement
that blood and water came from the side of the dead Jesus when pierced
by a soldier, there is added, " He that hath seen hath borne witness, and
his witness is true, and he (ixetvog) knoweth that he saith true." The
most natural interpretation of the passage is that the writer is describing
himself as the eyewitness of the fact related, and though it is not clear to
whom he appeals in ixeivog ol8ev xrX, the pronoun is perhaps best
understood to refer to the Risen Christ (cf . p. 469), as One who could vouch
for his truthfulness. If this is correct, the writer was probably a recent
disciple who witnessed the last scenes of Jesus' life, but httle more. Now,
in the account of our Lord's trial, reference is made (xviii. 15) to a disciple
who entered into the court of the high priest, and being known to the high
priest, brought in Peter. It has been assumed by many that the disciple
was St. John. But this is improbable if the " beloved disciple " is reason
ably identified with St. John (p. 207 f .), for the epithet is absent here, and it
is not likely that an individual thus designated on the occasion of the Last
Supper would so soon afterwards be described simply as " another disciple."
Who he reaUy was is not explained. But if he were present at the trial,
he was doubtless present at the Crucifixion ; and as the writer of xix. 35
was a spectator of the latter scene and clearly a disciple (for only to a
foUower of Jesus would the effusion of blood and water from our Lord's
side be a fact of importance), it may be conjectured that he was the disciple
mentioned in xviii. 15, and that he was the author of the Gospel.
It is now desirable to consider the statements of various ecclesiastical
writers which purport to throw light upon the origin of the Gospel. The
external authorities which either certainly or probably identify the Fourth
Evangelist with St. John the Apostle are the foUowing, the names being
arranged in approximate chronological order backwards.
1. Eusebius (bishop of Csesarea 314-340) explains the reason why John
(into whose hands the other Gospels had come) composed a fourth Gospel
to have been the fact that there was lacking in them an account of the
deeds done by Jesus at the beginning of His ministry (H.E. iii. 24, 7).
In the context of this passage Eusebius implies that the author of the
Fourth Gospel was the Apostle John ; and elsewhere (iii. 23, 1) expressly
speaks of the Apostle and Evangelist John, " the one whom Jesus loved "
as having returned from exile on the island (of Patmos) after the death of
Domitian (a.d. 96).
2. Origen (b. at Alexandria a.d. 185, d. 253) wrote a work entitled
" Exposition of John's Gospel," from which Eusebius (H.E. vi. 25, 9)
quotes the words " Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the
bosom of Jesus, John, who has left us one Gospel, though he confessed
that he might write so many that the world could not contain them ? "
(see Joh. xxi. 25).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 225
3. Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus circ. a.d. 200-210) mentioned, in a
letter addressed to Victor, Bp. of Rome, that John who was both a witness
(pdgrvg) and a teacher, and who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and
being a priest wore the neraXjov (see Ex. xxviii. 36), slept at Ephesus
(Eus. H.E. iii. 31, 3).
4. Clement of Alexandria (d. after a.d. 203) describing the order of the
Gospels according to the tradition of the earliest presbyters (r&v dvixadsv
ngeafivrigayv) relates that after the first three Gospels, John last of aU,
perceiving that the external facts (rd aco/jianxd) had been made plain,
and being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit, composed a
spiritual Gospel (Eus. H.E. vi. 14, 5-7).
5. Irenseus (bishop of Lyons, b. in Asia Minor probably between a.d.
120 and 130 and d. about 202) states (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. v. 8, 4)
that after the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been written, John,
the disciple of the Lord, who also recUned on His bosom, pubhshed his
Gospel whUe staying at Ephesus in Asia. Irenseus apphes the same
description (" the disciple of the Lord ") to John elsewhere (H.E. iii. 23, 3),
relating that he remained in Asia until the time of Trajan (98-117).
6. The Muratorian Canon (or catalogue), generaUy assigned to the
last quarter of the second century, attributes the Fourth Gospel to John,
one of the disciples. It represents that when his fellow-disciples and
bishops urged him to write, he bade them fast for three days, and then
tell one another whatever should be revealed about the execution of their
request; and that on the same night it was disclosed to Andrew that
John should relate all things under his own name, but subject to the
revision of all the rest. The author of the catalogue then quotes the
opening words of 1 Joh. i., and adds that the writer of those words thereby
confessed that he had been not only an eyewitness, but also a hearer and
a writer of aU the wonderful works of the Lord in order. The account of
the circumstances under which the Gospel was written is doubtless legend
ary, but the growth of the legend imphes that when it arose the Gospel
was connected with the name of John the Apostle.
The passages here quoted from various patristic writers, including
some hving in the last quarter of the second century, agree generally in
representing the Fourth Gospel as being the work of the beloved disciple
whom they name John, and whom there can be httle doubt they identified
with the Apostle, the son of Zebedee. No real importance can be attached
to the fact that by certain of these he is designated as a " disciple " and
not as an " Apostle " of Jesus. The prevalent behef of the early Church
was disputed only by a small body, caUed the Alogi (circ. a.d. 170), who
declared the author of the Johannine writings to have been Cerinthus
(said to have been a contemporary of St. John's). By Eusebius, the
Evangelist is declared to have returned from his exile at Patmos after
the death of Domitian in a.d. 96 ; and by Irenseus he is definitely asserted
to have been alive as late as the beginning of Trajan's reign (a.d. 98),
and consequently if he is identified with John the Apostle (as he is by
Eusebius), he must have attained a very advanced age, and presumably
died a natural death.
15

226 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
The tradition, howpyer, that .describes John the Apostle as having
suryivcd to nearly the end <?f the fi&st century is not the only one relating
to. him : theife is another which, represents him as having perished by
violence, TMs is found pnly in two late ecclesiastical writers, but is
based by them on the authority of Papias, who wrote in the first half af
the second .century,
,(1) In a single manuscript pj a nipth-centory historian named Georgkis
Hamartplus, it is stated that John, after writing his Gospel, was deemed
worthy of martyrdom, " For Papias the bishop of Hierapohs, having
been an eyewitness of -it, alleges in the second book of The Qraolea of the
Lord (x&v xvgiaxSn Aoyicov) that he was put to death by Jews (feip
'Iovdalcoii wwgEQrj), having plainly fulfiUed, together with his brother,
the prediction of Christ about them and their own confession and agree
ment concerning it " (the last words referring to Mk. x. 38, 39).
(2) In the fragment lately fpund of an Epitome (se¥enth or eighth
century) pf tije Chronicles, of Philip of Side (in Pamphyha), a Church
historian of the. fifth century, itj is affirmed that " Papias in his second
book says tiiqt John the Diyjne *wd James his brother were put to death
by Jews."
The statement m,ade by Papias finds some confirmation from three
other quarters.
(3) A Syriac calendar dating from the fifth century, and drawn up at
Edessa, commemorates on Dec. 27 -1 the martyrdom of " John and James
the Apostles at Jerusalem."
,(4) A Syrian hpmily by 4phrahat (Metropolitan of Nineveh) belonging
tp the fpurth century, .after enumerating the names of numbers who had
suffered mar^dom or persecution, including Jesus, Stephen, Simon
(i,e. Peter) and Paul, adds that James and John " trod in the footsteps of
their Master Christ."
,(5) Clement pf Alexandria .cites an ahusion by Heracleon (aire. A.n.
160-170) tp some who had escaped martyrdom ; and the hst, whUe k>
eluding the names of Matthew, Phihp, Thomas, Levi (here distinguished
frpm Matthew)) ftud " many others," pmits any mention of John ; and
the absence of the name of the son of Zebedee is difficult to account for,,
if he feaUy died a najtuial death,2 Clement himself states that the te'aehiag
pf .Clirist's Apostles., up tp the ministry of Paul, was brought to a dose in
the time of Nero (a.d. 54-t68), which seems to. presuppose the death of all
the Apostles before 70-
Attention has alsp been called ? to the fact that Ignatius (eire. llfl),
writing to Ephesus,, makes no aUusion to St. John in connection with that
Church, whilst mentioning St, Paul, hie sUence thus suggesting that ha
1 In a calendar of Carthage ©eo. 27 is the commemoration of John the Baptist
and of J ames the Apostle ; but since. June 24 is also represented as the commemoration
of ihe ^aptjist, ifj js prpj>a,ble thftt jn ,th^ .cajend^r P^c. 27 once comrnemijfiated Jokp
the Apostle, together with Ms h/oth,er,(see Burjatt, Gospe$ History, p\o„ p. £/$),
2 For the passage quoted see Moffatt, L.N.T. pp. 605-6 ; $. L. j'acks.en, Problem
of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 145^147.
8 See Charles, Revelation, i. p. xlv.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 227
was unaware that the Apostle John ever resided in that city with which
his name was afterwards associated.
In none of the documents here quoted as affirming that John suffered
martyrdom is the year of his death given. Some scholars who accept the
statement attributed to Papias conjecture that he was put to death at
the same time as his brother James (Acts xii. 2) by Herod Agrippa I in or
before a.d. 44. But this date seems out of the question in view of the
mention of John, together with Peter and James the "brother" of the
Lord, in Gal. n. 9 (if that letter was most probably written after a.d. 50,
or even (as is possible) between 47 and 49). A more plausible date for
John's death would be shortly before the siege of Jerusalem, if that city
were the scene of his death, as the Calendar cited above seems to imply.
Of the conflicting traditions here oompared, the one which represents
that St. John, like his brother St. James, perished as a martyr, seems to
have most claim to be credited. Though the testimony supporting it is
smaU in extent, and reaches us through late sources, yet it ostensibly rests
upon the early authority of Papias ; and it is favoured by our Lord's
prediction that both the brothers should drink of the same cup whereof
He drank (Mk. x. 39). If the prediction had been unfulfilled, there is
considerable probabihty that Jesus' words would have been passed over
in sUence by the Evangehsts. The opposing tradition that connects the
authorship of the Fourth Gospel with St. John, and represents him as
hving tiU nearly the end of the first century a.d. is in collision with the
internal evidence of the Gospel, which (apart from the statement in the
Appendix, xxi. 24) is unfavourable to the supposition that it was written
by an Apostle, who would hardly have produced a work diverging so
remarkably from the Synoptic Gospels and presenting a far less plausible
narrative of events.
But if the contents of the Fourth Gospel appear to be incompatible
with the traditional view that it was written by St. John, and if the
evidence of Papias that the younger brother of James died at the hands
of the Jews (presumably before a.d. 70) be accepted, the connexion of the
Gospel with the name of St. John has to be accounted for. At first sight
the most satisfactory explanation would seem to be that St. John was
responsible for the Gospel indirectly. There is nothing in the evidence
for his martyrdom to show that he suffered at the same time as James,
prior to a.d. 44 ; so that he may have hved long enough to reflect deeply
upon the work of the glorified Christ as manifested in the spiritual hfe of
the Church, and to have imparted his thoughts to others. It is conceivable
that an intimate disciple of St. John's received oraUy from him a great
deal of instruction during the Apostle's lifetime ; and put on record the
substance of his teaching at a period when further intercourse with him
had been prevented by death. It has been argued, indeed, that the
impression of the sons of Zebedee which the Synoptic Gospels convey
discountenances the idea that one of them was calculated by disposition,
to produoe so spiritual a work as the Fourth Gospel. He was a GalUean
fisherman, and if better off than some of his feUow-Apostles (since his
father had hired servants (Mk. i. 20)), yet was regarded as unlearned and

228 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
ignorant (Acts iv. 13) ; and he was characterized in early manhood by
intolerance, ambition, and a passionate temper (Mk. ix. 38-40, x. 37,
Lk. ix. 51-56). This objection, though serious, is not by itself fatal, for
since Jesus is represented as having chosen both of them, together with
Peter, for special and privUeged intimacy, it may be supposed that He
perceived in them a capacity for exceptional spiritual development. But
the circumstance that St. John is grouped by St. Paul (in Gal. u. 9) with
St. James as occupying a simUar (though not perhaps exactly the same)
standpoint does not favour the conclusion that he reaUy developed
into a thinker of such mentahty as that reflected in the Johannine Gospel.
And if the possibihty of such development cannot be positively denied,
it is stiU scarcely credible that St. John's recoUections of the objective
facts of his Lord's ministry (even if the transmission of them to us through
another person be aUowed for) could depart so widely from the reminis
cences of St. Peter (as reproduced by St. Mark), or could leave on the reader
so inferior an impression of historical reahty.
The extreme difficulty of believing that the Apostle John was in any
way responsible for the contents of the Fourth Gospel renders it necessary
to explain the traditional association of it with the younger son of Zebedee
as due to confusion between two persons bearing the same name. There
would be a tendency for a work known to have been written by a John
to be attributed to the most famous possessor of that name, and this would
certainly be the Apostle. And there is not lacking some ground for
identifying the Fourth Evangelist with a John mentioned by Papias, who
(as quoted by Eusebius H.E. in. 39, 3 f.) aUudes to two persons caUed
John, one being the Apostle and the other being styled " the Presbyter."
He is reported as saying, " If anyone came who had been a foUower of the
elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew
or what Peter said, or what Phihp or Thomas or James or John or Matthew
or any other of the disciples of the Lord said, or what things Aristion
and the presbyter John the Lord's disciples say. For I did not think
that what was to be gotten from the books (i.e. probably written exposi
tions of the Gospels) would profit me as much as what came from the
hving and abiding voice." Eusebius regards the mention by Papias of
two Johns as confirming the statement of persons who asserted that at
Ephesus there were two tombs, each of which was caUed John's. The
fact that there were at Ephesus two tombs to which the name of John
was attached is not very important, for the name was a common one ;
but the mention by Papias of a presbyter caUed John is suggestive. For
the Second and Third Epistles, which are traditionally attributed to John,
purport to be written by a presbyter (or elder), and the connexion in
thought and diction between these two letters on the one hand and the
Gospel and the First Epistle on the other is close enough to justify the
inference that they aU come from one source (p. 320 f .), and if so, from the
pen of John the Presbyter. The individual who thus became subsequently
known by this title was probably a resident at Jerusalem and became an
adherent of Jesus very shortly before the latter's arrest (Joh. xviU. 15),
and by mentioning that he brought St. Peter into the high priest's court

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 229
(v. 16) he has introduced his own figure into a corner of one of the scenes
which he describes (just as the Second Evangehst has done in Mk. xiv.
51, 52). One who had come into contact with Jesus for the first time not
long before His trial might stiU claim to have seen and heard Him (i. 14).
One or two guesses as to the Beloved Disciple made by scholars who
are (Usinclined to identify him with St. John the Apostle may be mentioned
here. One is that he was Nathanael, the Israelite " in whom was no
guUe " (i. 47). Nathanael is not included in the hsts of the Apostles
given by the Synoptists, unless he is identical with Bartholomew, but he
is comprised in the smaU group described in Joh. xxi. 2. If, however, he
was reaUy the same as Bartholomew, the difficulty found in ascribing the
Gospel to an Apostle remains as serious as ever. Another conjecture is
that the Beloved Disciple was Lazarus, of whom it is said that Jesus loved
him (xi. 3, 5, 36). 1 A third is that he was the young man of great wealth
mentioned in Mk. x. 17, for of him, too, it is recorded that Jesus loved him
(v. 21), and though he then went away from our Lord sorrowful, it has been
asked whether Christ's love may not have avaUed to bring him back.2
None of these conjectural identifications has any plausibUity.
In the Gospels generaUy (as has been aheady observed) the biographical
interest is subordinated to the rehgious (cf. Mk. i. 1, Lk. i. 4), and the
purpose with wliich the Fourth Gospel was composed is exphcitly stated
in xx. 31, " that ye may beheve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that believing ye may have life in His name." In promoting this
end the author seems to have felt that the previous delineation of the
historical Jesus did inadequate justice, to the significance which the
Christ had come to have for the Church.3 He therefore sought to replace
it by another, corresponding more closely, as he beheved, to Christian
experience. This fresh portraiture of the Lord he produced partly by
re-arranging and modifying the recorded sequence of the events of the
ministry, but more especiaUy by introducing a different conception of
Jesus' Personahty through a series of discourses ascribed to our Lord
Himself. Yet if the writer, to express his conviction of what Jesus was
to mankind, handled with great freedom the actual incidents of His hfe,
and inserted in his work discourses largely unhistorical, his procedure was
not out of keeping with earher precedent, and he only carried into practice
principles of historical composition previously exhibited in the Old
Testament. If he reconstructed the past so as to harmonize the record
of it with ideas about Jesus current during his own later hfe, which the
Church had only recently come fully to entertain, he merely pursued a
method followed by the author of the Books of Chronicles in his revised
account of the reigns of the early Judasan kings (p. 118). If he put into
the lips of the Lord Himself some speeches which were probably never
delivered, in order to give greater force to the truths which he believed
and valued, he only imitated the example of the writer of Deuteronomy
1 The same two verbs are used in these passages as are employed in reference to
the Beloved Disciple.
8 H. L. Jackson, The Problem of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 164, 167.
s Cf. Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 295 (Brooke).

230 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(seventh century B.C.) who, to impress on his contemporaries duties which
he deemed of highest importance, placed his appeals in the mouth of
Moses. In view of the proneness of Jewish writers to communicate
abstract ideas through the medium of circumstantial narratives Which
were the creations of fancy (p. 119), it is most likely that the Evangelist,
in associating with definite times and localities some of the utterances
attributed to Jesus, drew upon his imagination, choosing for them what
seemed appropriate settings* This may be the explanation of certain of
the visits of Christ to Jerusalem which figure in the Fourth Gospel, the
ritual of the festivals held there being thought to afford a suitable environ
ment for discourses designed to convey particular ideas ; though another
reason may be found in the desire to emphasize the sin of the ecclesiastical
authorities in rejecting the Messiah, who is accordingly depicted as giving
to them the fullest opportunity of hearing Him (cf. vn. 3, 10). How smaU
the Writer's real interest was in the recording of events appears from the
way in which some of the scenes and occurrences described by him lack
all proper conclusion, e.g. the conversation of Nicodemus with Jesus
(iii. 1-15 (21)), and the dispute of the Jews with Him about breaking the
Sabbath (v. 10-47). On each occasion it is the discourse and not the
situation that is, for the narrator, of any importance. Of the seven
miracles contained in the Fourth Gospel (five being pecuhar to it) several
are plainly regarded as symbols of various aspects of Christ's Personahty
(the Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Resurrection and the
Life) which are expounded in succeeding addresses.1 The circumstance
that his work is an interpretation of a Life rather than a transcript of it
does not, of course, rob of credibility aU the detaUs contained in it which
are not found in the Synoptists. But it ib inevitable that the nature of
his work must reduce the confidence that can be reposed m such detaUs ;
and though there are cases where his representations seem more accurate
than those of St. Mark (p. 344), it is impossible that such are numerous.
The date when the Gospel was written, if the view here adopted of its
origin be correct, can be confined within comparatively narrow limits.
The author appears acquainted with aU the Synoptists, so that he must
have produced his own book after the publication of the latest of the other
Gospels, which was probably subsequent to a.d. 80 (p. 192). If he was
an actual witness, when a young man, of our Lord's trial and death in
a.d. 29 (p. 342), and was, at the time, not more than seventeen, he may
have lived till, but can scarcely have outlived, the end of the first century 5
and the composition of the Gospel may accordingly be dated about A.D. 90.
The locality where it was written can only be conjectured. Some confusion
seems to have happened in connexion with the authors of the Fourth
Gospel and of the Book of Revelation (p. 326) ; and the confusion is most
intelligible if the two were alike associated with the same region. The
second of these works was almost certainly written in the Roman province
of Asia ; and Irenseus probably reflects a well-grounded belief in asserting
that Ephesus, the capital of Roman Asia, was the place where the Gospel
known as John's originated. The Appendix to the Gospel (xxi.) must
1 Cf, ix. 39, and see Sohmiedel, The Johannine Writings, pp. 95 f., 113 f.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 231
have been added bt another hand (p. 232) after the death of the Evangelist,
who had come to be mistakenly identified with John the son of Zebedee ;
the use of the present tense in v, 24, " this is the disciple which beareth
witness of these things," doubtless refers merely to his permanent
testimony imparted through his book.
The literary style of the Fourth Gospel has several peculiarities.
Though the Greek in whieh it is written is correct as regards the Construc
tion of the Words composing each clause or sentence, it is very unidiomatic
in respect of the arrangement of the clauses or sentences themselves.
These, for the most part, are loosely co-ordinated with one another,
instead of being compacted into a period by appropriate subordination.
Some of the peculiarities distinguishing it from Classical Greek are Semitic
in character ; and among such features may be reckoned the frequent
addition to an affirmative statement of its equivalent in a negative form
(or vice versa), this recaUing the parahelisrn so customary irt Hebrew
(i. &V 20, iii. 16, x. 5, xviii. 20). AJsubstantive is often repeated where a
pronoun would serve as weU (i. 4, 10, 44, 45, ii. 9) ; instances' of asyndeton
are extremely numerous ; and when a conjunction at the beginning Of a
sentence is employed, a preference is shown for ovv, sometimes Without
any trace of its proper meaning (xviii. 4, 28). The final particle Ina is
almost twice as common as ih aU the Synoptists- taken together.
The vocabulary speciaUy distinctive of the Gospel includes the follow
ing words and phrases :
abide in (a person), fievat iv love, to, dyandco
Comforter, the, 6 nagdxXtjrog manifest, to, ytavegdtia
darkness (spiritual), tiHorta openly, naggrjOia
eternal (or Enduring), akofidg proverb, nagot/xia
keep (a commandment or a word), true, dXrjOrjg, aXrjdivog
rrjgeOi (ivroX^jy or Xoyov) truthj AXrjdeid
last day, the, rj iaxdrrj fjiiiga witness, fiagxvgla
lay down life, to, xidivai ipV%?jv withers, to bear, /tagxvgiaj
life (spiritual), tojfj Word, the, 6 Aoyog
light (spiritual), <pmg works, igya
lotie, &y®nrj worldj xoojiog
Of the two equivalents for behold ! or see / — I8i and ido4~^-the former
is mUch more common than the latter. Of the alternative forms for the
name Jerusalem 'legoooXv/ia is uniformly employed to the exclusion of
' legdvaaXrjiJi. The word 'A/i^v is invariably doubled. There is a com
plete absence of the Substantive nlaxig ; but the verb niorev'w is excep-
tionaUy frequent. The title 6 fianridrrjg is not Used of John the Baptist.
The Johannine writer, like St. Luke (p. 205), sometimes applies the title
6Ki5giog to Jesus in narrative passages, these two being in this except
tional among the Evangelists (see JoL iv. 1).
The Latin words that occur in this Gospel comprise Srjv&giov, Xevriov,
aovodgiov, (pgayiXXiov, rirXog.
Certain awkward transitions, and a lack Oi cbnriexidn between various passages
suggest that the Gfosp'e'l hais tmdefgone sdnte1 dislocation afid perhaps interpolation.

232 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
The most notable of the unevennesses which call for explanation and are best accounted
for by the supposition of some disarrangement of the text or the insertion of glosses,
are the following :
(a) In ch. i. the three verses 6-8 break the natural connexion between v. 5 and
v. 9 ; whilst v. 15 disturbs that between v. 14 and v. 16. They are perhaps editorial
additions intended to prepare the way for the reference to John the Baptist in v. 19.
(6) In ch. v. the scene is Jerusalem, but in ch. vi. it is imphed that Jesus is in
Gahlee, v. 1, and Capernaum, o. 59, without any mention being made of His return
from Judsea. Probably the order of the two chapters should be inverted : vi. 1
would follow naturally upon the close of ch. iv. (where Jesus is represented in Galilee) ;
and vii. 1 (which states that Jesus walked in Galilee because He would not walk in
Judaea, since the Jews sought to kill Him (see v. 18)) would form an appropriate
sequel to the conclusion of ch. v. But within ch. vii. itself there appears to be some
disorder ; in w. 14-24 the subject of discussion is Jesus' authority to heal on the
Sabbath, which is the same as that in ch. v. Accordingly the proper order is probably
v. 1-47, vii. 14-24, vii. 1-13 (the " feast " of vii. 14 being the " feast " of v. 1).
(c) In ch. xii. the narrative passage 366-42 seems out of place, for it separates the
discourse in xii. 20-36a (which ends with an exhortation to men to walk while the Hght
is among them) from xii. 44-50 (where Jesus declares that He has come as a light
into the world), the two sections being marked by kinship of subject. The misplaced
passage should probably follow at the close of the chapter.
(d) In ch. xiii. vv. 18 and 19 disturb the sequence between v. 17 and v. 20.
(e) The conclusion of xiv. 31 (" Arise, let us go hence ") has its proper sequel in
xviii. 1 (" When Jesus had spoken these words he went forth," etc.), not in the con
tinuation of Jesus' discourse and prayer contained in ch. xv., xvi. and xvii. These
three chapters appear to be a later addition after the original plan of the book was
complete. (/) Chapter xxi. is of the nature of an appendix to the Gospel, which has its proper
close at xx. 30, 31. Within the appendix v. 24 is an insertion by some persons (pro
bably ecclesiastical authorities) who beheved (mistakenly, if the reasoning of the
preceding pages is of any value) that the Beloved disciple was a witness of all that
was recorded in the book, and were wishful to vouch for his veracity. It seems most
hkely that the rest of the Appendix was not attached to the book by its author, for
not only does the concluding v. 25 suggest a different hand from xx. 30, 31, but, though
there are points of contact between this chapter and the preceding part of the book,
yet certain slight peculiarities in the vocabulary are unfavourable to the supposition
of identity of origin.1 Thus whilst ch. xxi. has some pecuhar words and phrases in
common with the earher chapters (i) ddXaaaa ri)s Ti/3epid8os (vi. 1, xxi. 1 only),
bipapiov (vi. 9, 11, xxi. 9, 10, 13 only), the names Didymus (xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2 only)
and Nathanael (i. 45-49, xxi. 2 only), and the double 'Ajxt)v ), yet ipavepovaffai and
tpavepovv eavrbv in connexion with the Besurrection appearances (vv. 1, 14) only
recur in the ungenuine section at the close of Mk. (xvi. 12, 14) ; oi &8e\$ol for members
of the Christian community (v. 23) is isolated in the Gospel, though common in Acts ;
and instead of dpvlov (v. 15) and wpofianov (vv. 16, 17) John elsewhere uses djivbs
and irpifiarov ; and it is, at least, rather noteworthy that three such common verbs
as tTiarpe'tpw, laxtiw, and toA/uiw, which are altogether absent from ch. i.— xx. should
appear in ch. xxi. If the conclusion is correct that the last ch. is by another hand,
it is idle to speculate who was responsible for adding it, or where he wrote (though
both Ephesus and Rome have been suggested).2 It is distinguished from the body
of the work by showing acquaintance with the tradition that associated some of the
Resurrection appearances with Galilee, whereas in the preceding chapter they are
confined to Jerusalem ; and it is not improbable that it owed its origin to a desire
to adjust the account preserved in ch. xx. to that contained in the Synoptists (as
represented by Mt. xxviii. and the lost conclusion of Mk. (which must have recorded
an appearance of the Risen Lord in Galilee) ).
The most important textual problem presented by the Fourth Gospel is the ques-
1 See Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 572.
3 Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, iii. pp. 19, 21.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 233
tion of the authenticity of vii. 53-viii. 11 (known as the pericope adulterce). The pas
sage is contained in D P G H K.U r and some cursives ; in some manuscripts of Lat.
vet. (b ceff g) and in Lat. vg. ; in Syr. (pal.), Eg. (some MSS.), Eth. Arm. (some
MSS.), and is recognized by the Latin Fathers, Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine.
It also occurs in the cursives 1, 19, 20, 129 and others at the end of the Gospel ; whilst
in the cursives 13, 69, 124, 346, 556 it is placed at the conclusion of Lk. xxi. But it
is absent from N A1BC1L2NTWXA! and numerous cursives (including 22, 33);
from Lat. vet. (a f g), Syr. (cur., pesh., hi.), Eg. (sah. and boh. (some MSS.)), Goth.,
Arm. (some MSS.), and from all Greek patristic writers prior to Euthymius (twelfth
century), who states that it was either absent from, or obelized in, the accurate copies.
It will be seen that the weight of MS. authority is decidedly against it ; and that
the earhest external evidence is chiefly Western. Internally, the text of the passage
" varies much in the documents which contain it." s Against the supposition that
it is genuine, and was removed for prudential reasons, is the fact that in the authorities
which omit it the omission is not confined to viii. 3-11, but includes vii. 63-viii. 2.
On the other hand, the hypothesis that it is an interpolation is greatly favoured by
the facts (a) that its presence disturbs the appropriateness of the pronoun them in
viii. 12, and of the Pharisees in viii. 13, which cannot relate to the scribes and Pharisees
of viii. 3 (since these had departed (viii. 9) ), but find a natural explanation in vii. 45 ;
(6) that its occurrence between the two discourses vii. 37-39 and viii. 12-19 destroys
the appositeness of the occasion for the second, which, if the passage be omitted,
appears to have been uttered, like the first, on the last day of the Feast of Taber
nacles, marked by certain ceremonies (p. 209). A narrative concerning a woman
" maliciously accused before the Lord touching many sins " is said by Eusebius
(H.E. iii. 39, 16) to have been contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; and
the description is sufficiently suitable for the passage here considered to render it
probable that the source whence it was taken is the work to which Eusebius refers.
It has been mentioned that the section by some cursive MSS. is included in St.
Luke's Gospel ; and certain phraseological features in it are suggestive of St. Luke,
as will be seen from the following table, where the number of times that various words
found in it occur in the several Gospels, together with Acts, are noted : —
Mt. Mk. Lk. Acts. Joh.

Trapaylyvo/mi

. 3

1

8

20

1

Xaos, \aot .

. 10

2 (or 3)

36 (or 37)

43

2

dvb rov vvv

—

— ¦

5

1

elrrev Si

1

—

58

16

1

dpl-dfievos dirb

1

—

3

'A

?X<<> with infin. .

1

—

5

6

2

On the other hand iparda (v. 7) is more common in the rest of Joh. than in
St. Luke's two works taken together.

(c) Acts
The scope of the Acts of the Apostles (as it is termed in codex B)4
extends from the Ascension of our Lord to the imprisonment of St. Paul
at Eome, a period of about thirty-two years ; and in it is traced the
1 These MSS. are here defective, but could not have contained the verses.
2 These MSS. leave a blank space suggesting that the existence of the passage was
known to the copyist but that it was not found in the copies reproduced.
3 Westcott and Hort, App. p. 88. The most interesting variation occurs in the
uncial U, which at the end of viii. 8 adds after lypaipev els rrjv yijv the words evos
cK&arov airwv rds d/iaprlas ; whilst in a codex of the Armenian version there is
appended the further statement " and they (the accusers of the woman) were seeing
their several sins on the stones."
4 Abbreviated in codex X to Acts.

234 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
diffusion of the Christian faith from Jerusalem to the Roman capital.
The title given to the book is not a very accurate description oi its
contents. For if the term Apostles be understood in a restricted Sense, and
be confined to the Twelve appointed by Our Lord when on earthj the
labours of most of them are ignored. Even of St. Peter, who is the
principal figure in the first half of the" Work, nothing is said after ch. xv. St.
John is mentioned in connexion with two occasions only ; whilst the rest of
the Twelve are passed over altogether. And even if the term AposUes
be taken in a wide* Sense, it is only a few outside the Twelve" Whose
activities are described, namely St. Stephen, St. Phihp, St. Barnabas,
and St, Paul. It is the last named who is the chief character in the history,
the place he fiUs exceeding even that occupied by St. Peter ; and about
two-thirds of the book are devoted to him. The writer does not naine
himself in it, but its composition is ascribed by tradition to St. Luke
(Eus. H.E. ii. lij 22, iii. 4, 3l, vi. 25). Inasmuchj however, as the question
of its origin is not free from certain difficulties, it is desirable to consider
the internal evidence which the work itself affords about the Methods
foUpWed in its production and about its author.
Since the book covers a considerable period^ and deals with persons
and events widely sundered, it is clear that its author must have depended
for at least some of his information eithei upon oral testimony, of upon
documentary sources, or upon both. It is practicaUy certain that at least
one written source has been utUized in the production of the book* For
in the second half of it there occur four detached passages ((a) xvi. HH7j
(b) xx. 5-16, (c) xxi. 1-18, (d) xivii. 1-xxviii. 16), in which the first person
plural is used by the narrator, whilst in the Bezan MS. a fifth instance is
found in the first half of the book (after xi. 27, see p. 253). AU of these,
except the one peculiar to the Bezan MS., record journeys or stages of
journeys undertaken by St. Paul : (a) from Troas to PhUippi ; (6) from
PhUippi to Miletus ; (c) from MUetus to Jerusalem ; (d) from Csesarea
to Rome. These passages can only have been derived from a person who
was present on the occasions described. The precision with which localities
passed, or touched at, during various voyages (xvi. 11, xx. 13-16, xxi. 1-3;
xxvii. 2-8, xxviii. 11-15) are mentioned, the number of days spent at sea
or at stopping places (xx. 6, xxi. 4, 7, xxviii. 7, 12) are noted, and the
incidents that happened in a storm are recorded (xxvii. 14-44), points
to the use of a diary kept, during the journeys referred to, by an actual
companion of the Apostle. The passages wherein the first person plural
is found have, in short, all the appearance of being extracts from such a
diary, which have been embodied in the book, without any alteration in
the original wording. It is quite conceivable, of course, that the diary
has been used in the composition of the work by one who was not the
diarist, and who has incorporated portions Of it as they stood.1 The
retention of the first personal pronoun might be due to mere mechanical
copying, or to a desire to mark the employment of a contemporary source,
1 The personal memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah have teen utilized unaltered by
the author of the books Ezra and Nehemiah (see Es. vii. 27-viii. 34, ix, 1—15 ; Neh,
l 1-vii. 5, xii. 31, xiii. 6-31).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 285
or even to a wish on the part of the bbrroWer to induce the belief that he
himself was the author of that source and so an eyewitness of what it
records.1 If the writer of this diary were St. Luke, his name might become
attached to the subsequent work in which portions of it had been embodied
by another person-, just as St. MattheW's name has been given to the
First Gospel in consequence of its including some or aU of the Sayings of
Jesus of which St. Matthew was the coUeCtor and arranger. But it is
antecedently more probable that the Writer of Acts (who shows no httle
literary skill) has extracted sections from a diary made by himself. If
the diary were his own, the retention of the first person, whether through
accident or design, is inteUigible enough* especiaUy in view of the fact
that the book was written primarily for "a personal friend (TheophUus),
who would understand its significance at once.2 And this antecedent
presumption is confirmed by certain coincidences. (1) In one of the
we passages (xxi. 8) reference is made to " Philip the evangelist," a
description which is only exphcable by what is related in the early part
of the book (vi. 5, viii. 5, 40). (2) St. Paul's purpose Of passing through
Macedonia and Achaia and then proceeding tb Jerusalem is mentioned in
xix. 21 (outside the we sections). (3) The we passages coUectively are
marked by a vocabulary which is characteristic of the book as a whole.
Thus twenty-one words or phraBes are found within the rieW Testament
only in the we sections and the rest of Acts ; whilst there are Only two
expressions peculiar to the we sections alone to which any importance
can be attached, the others " being amply accounted for by the Subject
matter." 3 This being the case, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
the writer of the we sections was also the authOt of the whole book;
The Words and phrases cited as common to the we sections and the rest of Aots,
but found nowhere else, are ihe following : —

&,TT07r\4w

eTrLjSovkfi

veavlas

dtpvu

rjjitp'ai iKavdi

oil tvx&v

Pla,

T)pi4pai TrXeloVes

Tfp'oak£K\ijp.dl (with aec.)

Siarpl/3m (with ace. of time)

Tjfiepai rives

rk vvi)
ixeTife
KadJ 8v TpblTOV
Ty eiriovarj
eKir\4u
jiivu (with ace.
pers,)
{/ireptp ov
lieip.1
jj.eTa\aiL@dvus rpoa\rjs
VTrovo'ela
There are also seventeen words and phrases found only in the we seotions and the
Third Gospel " with or without the rest of Acts also."
The two expressions of importance wholly peculiar to the we sections are vepalvoi
and irepiaipeto. Among those Which, though peculiar to these sections, arfe explicable
through the nature of ,the subjects dealt with are such as relate to sea-Voyages
(eiBvSpojiiw, Kardyojiai, TTapaXeyofiai, irXbosi i/7ro7r\eti>) and ships (dpreju&tn aKntyij,
tevKnjpla). The identity Of the diarist can be ascertained with Some plausibility
from the names of the persons (1) Who accompanied St. Paul on the
journey from Troas tb Philippi (where the we first appeafs in most early
1 Enc. Bib. I. eoh 39.
* See Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 9.
3 Hawkins. Horn Synopticmf ppi 185-188,
236 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
manuscripts (Acts xvi. 11)) ; (2) who accompanied the Apostle to Rome
(as related, in the last of the we sections (Acts xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16)) and are
aUuded to in the Epistles which were written during his imprisonment.*
(1) The Apostle's companions on the voyage from Troas to PhUippi
were (so far as is known) only Silas (xv. 40), Timothy (xvi. 1) and the
writer of the diary, who might be either of the two named, or a third
person. Silas, however, does not seem to have been with St. Paul after
nis Second missionary journey ; he is not named in Acts after xviii. 5,
and is only mentioned in 1 Th. i. 1, 2 Th. i. 1 (written from Corinth), and
in 2 Cor. i. 19 (written from Macedonia). Moreover, it is against his
authorship of the we passages that he was certainly with St. Paul on many
occasions where the first personal pronoun does not appear in the narrative
(Acts xv. 40, xvi. 19, 25, 29, xvii. 4, 10, xviii. 5). Timothy, though he
accompanied St. Paul on his outward journey from Troas to Phihppi
and went on to Greece, did not on the return journey saU with the Apostle
from PhUippi to Troas (where the we again appears), but waited for him
with others at the latter place (Acts xx. 4). Silas and Timothy being thus
eliminated, the diarist must be a person unnamed.
(2) The friends who are mentioned in the Epistles as being with St.
Paul at Rome, presumably at different times, were Timothy (just con
sidered), Tychicus, Aristarchus, Epaphroditus, Epaphras, Onesimus,
Mark, Justus, Demas, and Luke.1 Of these the first three were among
those who waited for St. Paul at Troas ; Epaphroditus and Epaphras
seem not to have accompanied the Apostle on the voyage from Csesarea
to Rome, but to have gone to him from Phihppi and Colossse respectively
(Phil. iv. 8, Col. i. 7, 8, iv. 12) ; the slave Onesimus may be excluded at
once ; whilst Mark was absent from the Second missionary journey
altogether. Such facts seem to limit the possible writers to Justus,
Demas, and Luke2 ; and of these, if any importance be attached to tradition,
it is obvious that Luke is marked out as the actual author. But before
considering his claims further, account must be taken of one of St. Paul's
friends who is not mentioned in Acts, but who is known to have been with
St. Paul some time during his Second missionary journey, namely Titus
(see 2 Cor. vii. 6, viii. 16, xii. 18). The mere fact that he is not named
in Acts has been taken to support the conclusion that he was the anonymous
writer of the diary ; but otherwise there seems nothing to favour such a
conclusion ; and the same silence of Acts can be adduced on behalf of
Luke. Moreover Titus was with St. Paul on the occasion of his visit to
the Apostles at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1), so that it is impossible to think that
such difficulty would attend the reconcihation of the narrative contained
in Gal. ii. and Acts xv. (see p. 245), if Titus had been the author of Acts,
or had been in any way responsible for information included in it. On
the other hand, Luke's authorship is supported by both external and
internal evidence. His name is attached to the work in a number of
1 See Col. iv. 10-14 ; Philemon 23, 24 ; Phil. ii. 25.
2 Mention should perhaps be made of four others alluded to in the Pastoral
Epistles — Cresoens, Eubulus, Pudens, and Linus ; but the authenticity and date of
these letters are too uncertain for the names cited from them to bs considered here.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 237
cursive manuscripts ; and the composition of it is ascribed to him by the
Muratorian Canon, by Irenseus, by Clement of Alexandria, and. by
Tertullian ; and this testimony is confirmed by various literary features.
(1) The allusion to a former treatise (i. 1), sent (as Acts was) to Theophilus,
can only be to the Gospel associated with the name of Luke. (2) There
appear in Acts references to incidents related only in the Third Gospel
(cf. Acts i. 4 with Lk. xxiv. 49, Acts iv. 27 with Lk. xxiii. 7-12). (3) The
occurrence, in connexion with infirmities and disease, of medical terms
(though see p. 206) agrees with St. Paul's description of Luke as a physician,
the most noticeable of such terms being d^Aus (of a mist darkening the
eyes, cf . Galen, ayXveg raw 3<p0aX/Mov), dvaxadifeiv (" to sit up in bed "),
nipngaodai (of inflammation), Svaevrsgia. (4) The simUarity between the
vocabularies of Acts and the Third Gospel. It wUl be sufficient here to
cite the following statistics in respect of words peculiar to Acts and the
Third Gospel as compared with Acts and each of the other three 1: —
Acts and Lk. Acts and Mt. Acts and Mk. Acts and Joh.
58 17 14 13
This last evidence, derived from the diction of the two works, establishes
a strong presumption in favour of their common authorship, which is
further confirmed by the description of the Apostle Simon as the Zealot,
which occurs in Acts i. 13, and Lk. vi. 15 only ; by the use of the expression
the Most High God five times in the Third Gospel and twice in Acts (whereas
it occurs only twice elsewhere in the whole of the New Testament) ; and
by the not infrequent doubling of a vocative (cf. Acts ix. 4, xxii. 7, xxvi. 14
with Lk. x. 41, xxii. 31). s
At the same time there are sundry linguistic differences between Acts
and the Third Gospel which caU for attention and require explanation.
(a) There are certain words and phrases which are frequent in Lk.,
but wholly absent from Acts : —
ayanda) iyivexo with a finite verb nXaiawg
dftagrcoXog dfiouog argaxpelg
(b) There are also conversely several words or phrases which never
occur in Lk:, but are frequent in Acts :
aigeaig imxaXdo.uai (to caU upon) ngoaxagregico
dvaXa/j.fidva> iniftivco ngoaXa/ufidvo/iai
dvdvnarog iniara/xai rigag
yivog /Mexani[ino/j,ai rrjgico
SuiXiyo/iai 6fio8v/ua86v xlMagxog
inavgiov Sga/ia xcaQl°v-
imxaXio/tai (to be named) naggrjaidZo[iai
These distinctive expressions can be supplemented by others which
are frequent in one of the two books, but are found only rarely in the
other. And even more significant than such differences of vocabulary
1 Hawkins, Hor. Syn.2, pp. 175, 176. 2 Burkitt, The Gospel History, p. 114.

238 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(partly explicable by difference of subjeot-matter) are certain constructions
constituting stylistic features. Amongst those which are characteristic
of Lk. but are seldom used in Acta are the foUowing : —
iydvEro foUowed by xat (eleven times in Lk., once doubtfuUy in Acts).
iv t<5 with the infinitive (thirty-two times in Lk., seven times in Acts).
xai. a$xfe (forty-one times in Lk., eight times in Acts).1
The replacement pf grammatical usages, which are conspicuous in the
Gospel by other equivalents in Acts (e.g, iyfv&io foUowed by an infinitive),
in writings which various other phraseological facts cpnnect together
(as shpwn on p. 237), seems only explicable by the assumption that, if
the two books proceed from one writer, they must have been composed
at different periods ; and since the Gospel is clearly the earher, Acts
must be separated from it by some considerable interval during which
the author's fondness for particular expressipns and CQnstruptipns. changed-
If the conclusion be accepted that the Third Gospel and Acts were
composed by the same individual, the inference just drawn that Acts
was written some years later than the Gospel, after an interval at least
long enough to aUpw for some alteration in the writer's style, carries
with it the consequence that it was probably produced in the tenth decade
of the firgt century. For it has been already shown (p. 203) that the Third
Gospel bears indication of having originated after the destruction of
Jerusalem ^n a-d. 70, perhaps about 80, and if the two works were both
composed by St. Luke, but severed by seyeral years, the later of the two
must have been written within the first century, but not far from its close.
This result is confirmed by a second consideration. Certain historical
events or circumstances described or aUuded to in Lk. and Acts are also
mentioned by Josephs, and a comparison between the accounts given pf
the same facts by the two writers raises the question whether the author
of Acts was acquainted with the works of Josephus, the dates of which
are approximately known. Josephus wrote his Jewish War probably
between 70 and 79, his Antiquities in 93-94, and his Life after a.d. 100.
The most noteworthy instance in the Third Gospel, in connexion with
which St, Luke has been suspected of having read Josephus and drawn
a mistaken inference from his statements has already been considered
(p. 204). In regards to Acts the most important passages for the purpose
of comparison are the foUowing : —
(a) Acts v. 36, 37. Gamaliel is represented as saying (in a speech
delivered probably about a.d. 30), " Before these days rose up Theudas,
giving himself out to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about
four hundred, joined themselves, who was slain. . . . After this man
rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away
some of the people after him ; he also perished." Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 1)
relates that whilst Cyprus Fadus was procurator of Judsea (circ. a.d. 45)
a certain Theudas, processing to be a prophet, persuaded a great part of
the people to foUow him to the Jordan which he declared he would divide,
1 Hawkins, Hor. Syn.2, pp. 178-180.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 239
and afford them an easy passage through it, but that Fadus dispatched
against them a troop pf horsemen who took Theudas prisoner and cut off
his head. The historian then proceeds to state that in the procuratorship
of Fadus' suooessor, Tiberius Alexander, there were executed the sons of
Judas of Galilee, who must be the Gaulonite of that name (Ant. xviii.
1, 1), the instigator of a revolt when P. Sulpicius Quirinius was governor
(legatus) of Syria (a.d. 6-11). It wiU be seen that whilst the revolt of
Judas, according to Josephus as weU as St. Luke, occurred before Gamaliel's
speech, the disturbance caused by Theudas (as described by Josephus)
took place some fifteen years after it ; but that Josephus mentions the
name of Theudas before that of Judas, so that the writer of Acts, who, if
Josephus is correct, commits an anachronism in the case of Theudas,
may have been led to arrange the insurrections in the wrong order and to
misdate that of Theudas through a careless reading of Josephus.
(b) Acts xii. 20. In the account of the death of Herod Agrippa it is
related how the king, when addressing the people of Tyre and Sidon, was
greeted with great adulation by them, his speech being described as the
voice of a god, and how, because he gave not the glory to God, he was
smitten by an angel and was eaten by worms. The paraUel account in
Josephus (Ant. xix. 8, 2) makes no mention of the Tyrians and Sidenians,
but represents that at a festival. Herod, gorgeously arrayed in a robe
covered with sUver, appeared so resplendent that his flatterers declared
that he was a god, and that they would henceforward regard him as more
than mortal ; that he accepted the impious adulation without protest,
but almost at enee perceived an owl perched above his head, which he
took to be a messenger of doom (ayyeXog xax&v), and that he died of a
disease of the intestines in great agony in five days. There is nothing
materiahy inconsistent between the two accounts (for audience may have
been granted to the ambassadors from Tyre and Sidon on the occasion
of a festival which was calculated to impress them) ; and there is little
here which suggests bor-rowing on the part of the writer of Acts, though
the use by both authors of the word ayyeXog is a curious coincidence.
The ascription, however, by St. Luke of Herod's iUness to an angel of the
Lord is fully in accord with Hebrew habits of thought (see 2 Sam. xxiv.
1€, 2 Kg. xix. 35) ; and the two narratives may be quite independent.
(e) Acts xxi. 38. In the conversation between St. Paul and the military
tribune (xiXiagx°g) who, during the governorship of Felix, dehvered him
from the mob at Jerusalem by arresting him, the Apostle is represented
as being asked by the officer whether he was the Egyptian who had stirred
up sedition and led into the, wUderness 4,000 Assassins. Josephus (B.J. ii.
13, 5) refers to an Egyptian false prophet who, when Felix was governor,
gathered on the Mount of Olives 30,000 adherents, and prepared to break
into Jerusalem, but who was attacked by FeUx, and the greater part of
his foUowers were either destroyed or taken. It is probable that both
writers refer to the same occurrence, but there is not sufficient resemblance
between their language about it to serve as eonvineing evidence of indebted
ness on the part of St. Luke.
In addition to these passages there occur a few verbal resemblances

240 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
between Acts and the writings of Josephus to which Uttle significance can
be attached, since similar circumstances, at distinct periods in history, may
not unnaturaUy be described by different writers in simUar (if common)
words quite independently. The only case, therefore, which reaUy occasions
serious suspicion of acquaintance by St. Luke with Josephus' Antiquities,
is that marked (a). In this instance, though it is, of course, possible that
in the two writers the name Theudas designates different persons,1 it
seems more likely that St. Luke has made a blunder which becomes
explicable if it is assumed that he had been betrayed into it by a cursory
perusal of Josephus, whose narrative he reproduced inaccurately from
memory. And if the suspicion be justified, the date of Acts, in which the
statement apparently derived from the Antiquities occurs, is thrown
almost to the end of the first century a.d., since the work from which it
borrows was written in a.d. 93-94. There is nothing incredible in this
conclusion, for, on the supposition that St. Luke was not more than
twenty-five when he joined St. Paul at Troas or PhUippi about the year
a.d. 50, he would be no more than seventy by the time the Antiquities
was published. There are numerous instances of works of importance
having been produced by their authors at an age more advanced than
this ; and Acts is not an extensive book, or beyond the capacity of a
septuagenarian to compose. If there is anything in the tradition that
St. Luke's age at his death was seventy-four, it foUows (on the previous
assumption that he was twenty-five in a.d. 50) that he died in a.d. 99,
and that Acts probably had its origin between 95 and that year. There is,
indeed, another tradition that he was martyred under Domitian (81-96) ;
but accounts concerning the manner of his end vary, and the weight of
evidence seems to be on the side of the date suggested above.
As to the place where the book was written, there are no indications ;
and conjectures differ according to the view taken of the time of its
composition. If it were written before the termination of St. Paul's trial,
no place is more likely than Rome. But as this date is improbable, there
is nothing to connect the work with Rome any more than with several
other localities ; and Greece, Palestine, and Ephesus have aU been proposed,
without any plausible evidence being adduced in favour of any of them.
The conclusion that Acts probably originated as late as 95-100, entails
the consequence that the book was separated from the latest incidents
recorded in it (viz. St. Paul's voyage to Italy, and his two years' imprison
ment at Rome, circ. 59-61) by an interval of about thirty-five years. In
the case of the earliest parts of Acts the interval is much greater, since aU
that is recorded in these occurred (on the hypothesis of St. Luke's age
adopted above) in the writer's boyhood. It therefore becomes a question
of great moment, in connexion with the value of the history contained in
Acts, to inquire how much of it depends upon previous written records,
and how much upon tradition and oral communications.
But before investigating the authorities used by St. Luke in his second
1 The name Theudas oan represent Theodoras, Theodotus, and several similar
appellations.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 241
work and estimating its historical worth, it is desirable to consider the
several purposes which the author had in view, since various omissions
noticeable in it may be accounted for by the fact that some matters
passed over by him did not faU within the aims which he was pursuing.
It is manifest that the book does not comprise an exhaustive account of
the early history of the Christian Church. Attention is confined to the
activities of some five or six of the principal figures in it (p. 234) ; and the
author's concentration upon these few leading characters and upon various
incidents in which they took part, renders' it probable that his design was
not to furnish even a genenal sketch of the development of the Church
during the first thirty or thirty-five years of its existence, but to iUustrate
only certain aspects of that development. The purposes which he set
before himself and which presumably dictated his choice of materials,
seem to have been : —
(a) to iUustrate the influence of the Holy Spirit in directing the under
takings of the Church (cf. i. 8, iv. 8, viii. 29, xiii. 2, xv. 28, xvi. 6, etc.),
such influence being regarded as continuing in the world the work of
Jesus (cf. xvi. 7) ;
(6) to trace the extension of the Gospel from Jerusalem through
Samaria (viii. 5), Phoenicia, and Greece to Rome 1 (cf . Acts xxiii. 11), which
was not only the capital of the empire, but might from an eastern point
of view be regarded as tantamount to the ends of the earth 2 ;
(c) to show how the Gospel, before it was preached to the Gentiles,
was offered to the Jews, and how, in general, they rejected and opposed
it, in spite of the testimony rendered to it by their own Scriptures (xi. 19,
xiii. 5, 46, xvii. 2, xxviii. 25) ;
(d) to exemplify the favourable judgment passed upon the Christian
preachers by the Roman authorities with whom they came in contact
(xiii. 12, xvi. 35, xviii. 12, xix. 35, xxvi. 32), as contrasted with the
persecution which they sustained from the Jews and which was unprovoked
by any disloyalty on the part of the Christians towards their nation or its
rehgious institutions.
If these were the principal aims which the author of Acts had in mind,
it is plain that the scheme of his work was a hmited one. Such a limitation
of .plan being perfectly legitimate, there is no justifiable ground for
criticism if there is not found in his book matters which we have no right
to seek in it. It was natural that he should devote more attention to the
missionary labours of St. Paul than to those of the other Apostles, since
he had himself shared many of them.
But though the travels and the preaching of St. Paul occupy nearly
half of his work, it was not his object to give a complete account of St.
Paul's career. He was the historian of the expanding Church, not the
biographer of an individual Apostle, however eminent. This fact accounts,
at least in part, for the absence from Acts of many incidents in St. Paul's
1 This is not really disproved by the facts that there were Christians at Rome
before St. Paul went there (xxviii. 15). The writer, in the latter half of his work,
is concerned with tracing the extension of the Gospel through the labours of St. Paul.
2 In Ps. Sol. viii. 16 Pompey is described as o air'1 eaxdroiv rrjs yrjs.
16

242 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
experience which are mentioned in the Epistles. The writer omits, for
instance, aU reference to the Apostle's retirement from Damascus into
Arabia, and his return thence (Gal. i. 17) ; he relates nothing about his
work in Cilicia (Gal. i. 21, cf. Acts ix. 30, xi. 25) ; he gives no information
about the five occasions when he was flogged by the Jews ; he represents
Timothy and Silas as joining him at Corinth from Macedonia (Acts xviii. 5),
but says nothing about Timothy's previous arrival at Athens and his return
thence to Macedonia (1 Th. iii. 1, 2) ; he mentions two visits to Corinth,
but is silent concerning another which intervened between them (p. 276) ;
he narrates the story of only a single shipwreck, though St. Paul, previous
to the one described by St. Luke, states that he suffered as many as three
(2 Cor. xi. 25) ; whilst he makes no mention of Titus, to whom the Epistles
contain so many allusions ; and never refers in his narrative to St. Paul's
coUection of money for the rehef of the poorer Christians at Jerusalem,
though it figures frequently in the Apostle's letters (Rom. xv. 26, 1 Cor.
xvi. 1, 2 Cor. vm. 1-4, ix. 1-5). x It is noteworthy, too, that there is no
hint anywhere that St. Paul ever wrote letters to his converts ; and there
is little sign that St. Luke, in composing Acts, ever consulted them. Doubt
less the latter, in his selection of materials, was guided by two main
considerations, one being the particular ends which he had set before
himself (see above, p. 241), and the other the sources of information at his
disposal (if, as in his Gospel (Lk. i, 3), he aimed at reporting only those
matters which rested upon what he deemed to be good evidence). But he
is hardly likely to have been altogether indifferent to a third, namely,
Umits of space, which, in view of the tolerably uniform extent of the
longest of the New Testament books, seems to have been to their writers
a matter of some moment.
It is now desirable to proceed with the attempt to value the worth of
Acts as a history by considering the nature of the authorities available
for the historian and the care and judgment he has shown in the use of
them. It is obvious that for acquiring information about the earhest
events which he sought to record, he was not so favourably situated as he
was in regard to the latest. The narrative of Acts includes incidents which
occurred very shortly after our Lord's death (circ. a.d. 29), whereas the
Writer, if identical with St. Luke, did not, in aU probability, come into
contact with any of the chief actors in the history which he relates until
more than twenty years afterwards (circ. 50-57 a.d.). For events prior
to this date he was dependent upon information supplied by others.
As to his informants for different parts of his narrative some plausible
conjectures may be ventured : —
(1) For his account of the occurrences related in the opening chapters
of Acts, in which the scene is Jerusalem and St. Peter is the most prominent
figure, his informants were probably persons who were not primary
authorities, and of whom only one can reasonably be thought to have
preserved written notes of what had been reported to him. St. Luke
(for it will be henceforward assumed that he was the authoT of Acts)
1 In Acts xxiv. 17 St. Paul is represented as alluding to it in a speech.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 243
accompanied 8t. Paul to Jerusalem, and whUst it is improbable that he
met there either St. Peter (to whom there is no allusion in the second half
of the work) or St. John (p. 497), he can scarcely have failed to have had
some intercourse with members of the Church who had consorted with
these and other leading Apostles during the period immediately succeeding
Pentecost. Possibly, too, some particulars relating to the earhest days of
the Church may have been derived from Mnason, who is described as an
original disciple, and with whom St. Luke and St. Paul lodged on the
journey from Csesarea to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 1.6). But it seems not
unlikely that St. Mark was his principal source of information for the
imcidents in which St. Peter took the chief part. St. Mark acted as St.
Peter's interpreter (p. 169), and it is antecedently probable that he took
down from St. Peter's recoUections matters relating not only to our Lord's
hfe, but also to the period following the Crucifixion and Resurrection.
St. Mark went to Rome (p. 174), and there St. Luke must have become
associated x with him, and if St. Mark, who had presumably had oppor
tunities of meeting St. Peter at Jerusalem, had preserved any notes of
what he had then learnt from him, he may well have communicated some
of them to St. Luke, when he encountered him at the Roman eapital. It
is, at any rate, worth observing that the word xgdfiarrog, which in the
Synoptic Gospels is distinctive of Mk., occurs in Acts v. 15, ix. 33, in
connexion with accounts of two miracles of healing wrought by St. Peter.
It is perhaps also not without significance that the verb fj.Edeg/j.rjvsv'ouat,
which is almost pecuhar to St. Mark's Gospel among the Synoptists, is
found twice in Acts, once in a narrative in which St. Peter figures (iv. 36-
v. 11), and once in connexion with an incident in St. Paul's First Missionary
journey when St. Mark accompanied him.2 St. Mark could also furnish
information respecting Barnabas, to whom he was related.
(2) Some knowledge concerning Stephen's trial and death could be
procured from St. Paul, who was present at Stephen's execution ; whilst
another source of information about the events of that particular crisis
would be Phihp, who, like Stephen, was one of the Seven " deacons," and
at whose house St. Paul and St. Luke stayed when at Csesarea. The
narrative of Philip's own activities St. Luke is also hkely to have owed to
Phihp himself or to his daughters (from whom Papias (Eus. H.E. iii. 39, 9)
records that he heard a wonderful tale about one who rose from the dead,
1 " Wherever in the Pauline Epistles St. Luke's name is found, there also we find
the name of St. Mark " (Harnack, Date of Acts, p. 29).
4 By some scholars it is thought that in Acts i.-v. a series of doublets can be
detected, as the contents of ii. 1 to end and v. 17-42 are in some degree parallel to
those of iii. 1-v. 16. Thus : —
A B
ii. 1-13 (the gift of the Spirit) = iv. 23-31.
ii. 14-36' (a speech of St. Peter) = iii. 11-26.
ii. 37-41 (a large number of converts) = iv. 1-4.
ii. 42—47 (the prevalence of communism) = iv. 32-v. 18.
v. 1.7-42 (attempt to suppress Christian preaching) = iv. 5-22.
If these series of passages are really parallel, but in some measure divergent,
accounts of the same incidents, which have been united by St. Luke, then the series
marked B probably proceeds from St. Mark. See Hastings, D.A.C. i. pp. 23, 24.

244 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
clearly implying that they transmitted stories of their own, or of an earher,
time).1 (3) Several incidents relating to Antioch (xi. 19 f.) could have been
ascertained from St. Paul, who laboured there for a year (xi. 26) ; whilst
by tradition St. Luke himself is said to have been an Antioehene, and so
may have had many acquaintances there who could give him information.
(4) Various facts connected with the Herods may have been obtained
from Manaen, who is described as avvxgoq?og of Herod Antipas the tetrarch
(Acts xiii. 1). Antipas himself does not appear in the scenes depicted in
Acts, but Manaen may have been in touch with the households of some of
the other Herods (Agrippa I and Agrippa II), though this can only be
conjecture. (5) For no inconsiderable part of Acts St. Luke could draw upon his own
personal reminiscences. He seems to have met St. Paul first at Troas
(Acts xvi. 8-10) during the Apostle's Second Missionary journey ; and
traveUed with him to Phihppi ; but apparently stopped there. On the
Apostle's return from his Third journey into Greece, he went with him to
Jerusalem ; and since he gives a detailed account of the trial at Cassarea,
he was probably with him when he was taken thither ; and, in any case,
was his companion both on the voyage to Rome, and during his two years'
detention in the capital prior to his trial. He was thus an eye-witness of
many of the scenes and incidents which he describes ; whilst for what
occurred at various places included in St. Paul's journeys, when he himself
was absent, he had access to others of the Apostles' companions (like SUas,
Timothy, Aristarchus, and Tychicus) who could supply him with facts
when his own opportunities had not enabled him to gather them for himself.
From what has been said, it is apparent that the narrative of Acts
rests upon authorities of varying value. For aU the early part of his
history the writer's information is second-hand ; and it is doubtful whether
for this he had any written sources at his disposal. The expectation
current amongst the first Christians that existing conditions were about
to come to an end, and the world was to be transformed into the Kingdom
of God, was not conducive to the production, at the earhest period, of
written accounts of the beginnings of the Christian Church (for it would
seem idle to write historical memoirs on the eve of so stupendous a con
vulsion), and the principal sources of information at the service of a late
historian would be fallible memories and floating traditions. It has been
pointed out, indeed, that in the earher chapters of Acts, Greek phrases
which show the influence of Hebrew or Aramaic idioms are more frequent
than in the later part of the book ; and the circumstance has suggested
that the author here used documents composed in Aramaic. It seems
more probable, however, that such Aramaic colouring is due to the fact
that St. Luke has reproduced the idioms which some of his informants,
speaking in Aramaic, or in Greek tinctured with Aramaic expressions,
used ; whilst it is not impossible that he deliberately adopted in certain
passages a style modelled on that of the Old Testament scriptures (cf . p. 201).
1 Cf. Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 153.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 245
Evidence of the use of documents has also been traced in various abrupt
transitions and in what appear to be editorial insertions. Thus xi. 19
looks like the resumption of a source dropped at viii. 4 ; whilst in xiii. 1
there seems at first sight to be utilized a source in which Barnabas and
Saul were mentioned for the first time, although in the book, as it stands,
both have been introduced previously (iv. 36, vii. 58). Editorial hnks
and comments have been held to occur at ii. 43-47, iv. 4, vi. 7 and other
places. But in the absence of phraseological distinctions, the hypothesis
of earUer constituent sources united by an editorial process lacks adequate
support. The facts for which it is intended to account admit of being
explained on the assumption that the author has employed detached notes
taken by himself embodying oral communications made to him on various
occasions by his informants. His practice of incorporating in his history
memoranda which he himself had written down in the course of his travels
with St. Paul is attested by the inclusion of passages from his Travel diary ;
and he may well have done the same in connexion with information
coUected from various quarters and based on personal authority or on
tradition. There is, perhaps, some slight evidence in favour of his having
used a documentary source originating with St. Mark (p. 243). In his
report of Stephen's speech, which differs rather markedly from most of the
discourses attributed to the various personages that figure in the history,
he may have availed himself of notes1 taken at the time of the trial by one
of the audience. Apart from these possibihties the authority behind the
first half of the book2 cannot be regarded as other than far inferior to that
which is at the back of most of the contents of the second half. The long
interval sundering many of the events from the record (more than sixty
years probably separated Pentecost from the written account in ii. 1-42
of what occurred at it) was, in all hkehhood, bridged, in the main, by nothing
more rehable than oral tradition, and renders it impossible to place the
same measure of confidence in the first part of the work as in the second
part, which reproduces St. Luke's own testimony (preserved in a diary,
compUed contemporaneously with the incidents witnessed), or is the result
of inquiries put by him to persons in close touch with the facts. Thus
even in regard to an important event in the early hfe of St. Paul himself —
the Apostle's first visit to Jerusalem, wliich took place before the EvangeUst
met the Apostle — there is a discrepancy between St. Luke's account in
Acts and St. Paul's own statement in Galatians. In Acts ix. 28 it is related
that St. Paul, when he came from Damascus to Jerusalem and was brought
by St. Barnabas to the Apostles, " was with them, going in and going out
at Jerusalem, preaching boldly " ; and in Acts xxvi. 20 St. Paul himself is
reported as saying that on that occasion he taught not only at Jerusalem
but throughout aU the country of Judsea. But the Apostle in Gal. i. 18
affirms that when he first went up to the Jewish capital, three years after
1 In trials before the Sanhedrin two shorthand writers are said to have been
present to note down the speeches for and against the accused (Edersheim, Life and
Times of Jesus, II, p. 555).
2 The most natural division of the book into two (unequal) halves occurs between
chapters xii. and xiii.

246 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
his conversion (an interval far knager than is suggested by anything in
Acts ix.), it was to visit St. Peter, with whom he stayed only fifteen days,
and that he saw none of the other Apostles except St. James ; and adds
that when he returned to Syria and Cilicia he was stiU unknown by face
to the churches of Judsea (Gal. i. 21-22). On the other hand, as the work
progresses its value as a rehable record improves ; and in his Travel diary
the author shows himself to have been a close observer of the localities
viewed or visited, and a careful recorder of special features distmguishing
different places, and of circumstances f ailing under his own notice ; so that if
aUowance is made for the influence of the writer's particular interests, aims,
and point of view, the second half of the book appears to be an historical
document of high quahty, as evinced by numerous passages where its
statements or allusions can be tested.
In the account of St. Paul's journeys St. Luke mentions a large number
of countries, provinces, districts and towns ; and, in general, his geo
graphical and topographical references are correct. His accuracy in this
respect is particularly noteworthy in his description of the voyage from
Csesarea to Italy in ch. xxvii., which has been termed " the most valuable
nautical document of antiquity that has come down to us," being marked
not only by an exact knowledge of localities, but also by acquaintance with
the characteristic phrases of seamen. The writer displays the hke accuracy
in the use of the proper contemporary titles of Roman magistrates or
provincial officials. Thus he employs correctly the term proconsul for
Sergius Paulus, the Roman Governor of Cyprus, an island which up to
22 B.C. had been among the Imperial, but was then included among the
Senatorial, provinces ; and similar precision is displayed in connexion
with the title of Galho, who is appropriately termed proconsul of Achaia,
a province which, like Cyprus, had been transferred from one authority to
another (see p. 65) and at the date imphed (50-52, p. 348) was under
the control of the Senate, not of the Emperor. The official at Mehta is
described as the Primus (6 ng&xog) ; and an inscription discovered in
the island shows that this was a current style for the official there.
The magistrates at Thessalonica are described as politarchs, and this
title, which does not occur in any classical author, has been found on
an arch in the present city dating from the time of Vespasian. To the
chief magistrates of Phihppi, which was a colony (p. 71), St. Luke apphes
the term axgaxrjyot. This was the ordinary Greek equivalent for the
Latin prcBtores, which was the title bestowed on the magistrates of certain
colonies in Italy and Gaul of early date (occurring, for instance, at Narbo,
founded in 118 B.C.). Elsewhere the usual designation was duoviri (Greek
8vav8gixol ), and this was probably the correct title for the officials of
Philippi (founded 42 b.c.) ; but the term employed by St. Luke was just
what the local magistrates are likely to have arrogated to themselves.1
The city of Philippi is rightly described as a colony (Acts xvi. 12), having
received this status from Octavianus and Antony (after the defeat of the
Republican leaders Brutus and Cassius in 42 B.C.). In regard to the Temple
1 The Duumviri of Capua oalled themselves prastores (Cic. de lege Ag. II, § 93).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 247
at Jerusalem, too, an incidental Ulustration has come to hght of St. Luke's
correctness in his account of the grave offence beheved to have been
committed by St. Paul when it was suspected that he had taken bis
companion Trophimus into it (see pp. 90-1).
But in forming a judgment upon the qualities of Acts as a history, a
recognition of these exceptional merits of St. Luke must be qualified by
considerations in part affecting generaUy writers of his time and race, and
in part pecuUar to him as an individual author. In the first place, he was
very tolerant of inconsistencies in what he wrote, and aUowed discrepancies,
sometimes sUght, but at other times of more importance, to exist side by
side ; he was not very critical of the materials at his disposal, or exacting
in his estimate of evidence ; and he was much attracted by stories of the
marvellous.* And secondly, in composing his history, he did not view
his subject from a detached standpoint and in a dispassionate spirit, but
he was inspired by the desire to commend a cause in which he was deeply
interested, and with some of the leaders of which he had been closely
associated ; and he was consequently subject to the temptation of putting
upon what he included in his work as favourable a colouring as possible.
Illustrations of these characteristics are as follows : —
i. (a) Of carelessness in adjusting one statement to another an
example is furnished by the narrative (xix. 13-17) in which the sons of
Sceva figure, for though these are described as " seven " in v. 14, reference
is made in v. 16 to " both " of them, as though they were only two.2 The
accounts in ix. 15-16 and xxn. 14-15, of the charge given to St. Paul to
preach to the GentUes differ from that contained in xxvi. 16-18 ; for whilst
in the two earher chapters the commission is represented as communicated
by Ananias, in xxvi. it is imparted by Christ Himself. Even in the descrip
tion of the vision of the Risen Christ seen by the Apostle some sUght
discrepancies are observable: contrast ix. 7 with xxii. 9 and xxvi. 14
(of. p. 514).
(b) The account given of the occurrence at Pentecost (ii. 1-42) is not
what might have been expected if the writer had checked what he had
been told or imagined about it, by information which St. Paul could have
supplied. St. Luke conveys the idea that the gift of tongues enabled the
speakers to praise God in foreign languages intelligible to a multitude of
persons gathered from distant countries, whereas there is nothing in St.
Paul's allusions to such a gift (see 1 Cor. xiv.) to suggest that it carried with
it any suoh power, whilst there are several facts that negative this
supposition (see p. 494 f .).
(e) The strong appeal which stories of wander made to St. Luke is
exemplified by the number of miracles which he relates (iu. 1-10, v. 19-20,
ix. 36-42, xu. 7-10, xin. 11, xiv. 8-10, xvi. 18, xix. 12, xxvhi. 8). Most of
them were not witnessed by himself but reported to him, so that the
responsibUity for any exaggeration in the accounts may rest upon others
who were his informants. But the narrative of an incident at wliich he
1 Cf. Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 123 (the language on p. 1 12 is too strong),
* But see p. 254, -

248 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
was present makes his predUection sufficiently clear, for in the case of
Eutychus at Troas (xx. 7-12), though the natural interpretation of St.
Paul's words in v. 10 is that the young man was not dead but stunned,
yet the historian definitely asserts that he was taken up dead, and so
implies that when the Apostle embraced him (as related), he was restored
to hfe. ii. (a) One of the principal motives which led St. Luke to write Acts
(p. 241) was the wish to show how, during the period covered, the Christians
commended themselves to the favourable judgment of the Roman authori
ties ; and it was possibly for this reason that he refrains from mentioning
all the occasions (three, according to the evidence of 2 Cor. xi. 25) on which
St. Paul underwent the Roman punishment of scourging.
(6) It is not unhkely that a subordinate consideration actuating St.
Luke was the desire to present a picture of concord and harmony sub
sisting within the early Church. His sympathy and goodwiU towards all
its leaders appear to have caused him to seek to preclude the inference from
being drawn that of the two principal figures in the history which he
relates, St. Peter and St. Paul, the one in any way dwarfed the other ; and
it was probably with that object in view that he made the accounts of their
respective miracles and experiences to correspond so closely. Thus St.
Peter's heahng of a lame man (in. 2 f.), the cures sought by placing the sick
where his shadow might fall (v. 15), the opening by an angel of the prison
where he lay (v. 19, cf. also xu. 3 f.), and his restoration of Tabitha to hf e
are paralleled by St. Paul's heahng of a cripple (xiv. 8), the cures wrought
by means of handkerchiefs and aprons taken from his body (xix. 12), the
loosing, through an earthquake, of the chains by which he was bound in
prison (xvi. 26), and the representation that he restored Eutychus to
life (xx. 10). The impression left by Acts that no friction occurred between
the two Apostles is not altogether borne out by the account of St. Paul in
Gal., which contains a narrative that is difficult to reconcUe with the record
of St. Luke in Acts xv. For the latter relates that, though an attempt on
the part of Jewish Christians to impose circumcision upon St. Paul's
Gentile converts was defeated, yet a resolution was passed at a CouncU
held at Jerusalem about a.d. 49, whereby the Gentiles were required to
observe certain limitations in regard to food in order to satisfy the scruples
of the Jewish Christians ; and he states that St. Paul conveyed the decisions
of the Council to the churches in Galatia (p. 267), when he proceeded on his
Second Missionary journey. The inference from Acts is that in regard to
these food regulations St. Paul united with St. Peter and the other leaders
of the Church at Jerusalem in restricting the liberty of the GentUes;
whereas St. Paul in Gal. ii. 6 f . affirms that they communicated nothing to
him, beyond what he had previously taught ; and goes on to allude to a
charge of inconsistency which he brought against St. Peter, who, after
having ignored Jewish scruples in respect of eating with GentUes, sub
sequently separated himself from the latter, and this aUusion shows no
knowledge of any such public agreement having been made as Acts
represents. As the date of Galatians is disputed (p. 270 f.) it is possible,
indeed, that the occurrence to which St. Paul refers happened before 49 ;

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 249
but it is extremely strange that in an Epistle (1 Cor.) certainly written
after 49, in which the practice of eating certain meats is considered, the
Apostle makes no mention of the resolutions passed at Jerusalem. It
consequently seems probable that St. Luke in his account of the Council is
in error as regards either the details or the occasion — a conclusion not
surprising if Acts was not composed until some forty years after the events
in question, perhaps under circumstances when verification of impressions
or behef s relating to it may have been no longer possible.
From the facts here considered, it is reasonable to draw a distinction
not only between the value of the sources of information at St. Luke's
disposal for different parts of his history, but also between his own qualifi
cations for dealing with different kinds of subject-matter. He was clearly
endowed with a keen faculty of observation in respect to local conditions
and circumstances that came under his notice ; and the accuracy with
which he is proved to have described topographical facts justifies confidence
being reposed in him where his assertions relating to such facts cannot be
corroborated. But he does not appear to have been equally competent in
the handhng of testimony ; and where there was need of a sober judgment
in the reconstruction of the past, his critical powers seem to have been
occasionaUy at fault. Even in cases where he himself was a spectator,
his statements about what he witnessed are probably more trustworthy
than the explanations furnished of it. A capacity for noting and reporting
carefully what actually passes before the eyes is not the same as that needed
for sifting and appraising evidence, verbal or documentary, or for
ascertaining the real causes of visible effects ; and it is a mistake to suppose
that the possession of an aptitude for doing the one ensures the possession
Ukewise of all the quaUties requisite for the other.
The numerous speeches in Acts 1 demand some comment. The
antecedent probability that the traditional practice, foUowed by ancient
historians, of composing speeches appropriate to the persons and situations
described (p. 119) was adopted by St. Luke is strengthened by consideration
of the actual conditions in which he was placed with regard to the utter
ances of some who figure in his narrative. The principal speeches are
(1) St. Peter's at Pentecost ; (2) St. Peter's after the cure of the lame
man ; (3) Stephen's ; (4) St. Peter's after the conversion of Cornelius ;
(5) St. Paul's at Pisidian Antioch ; (6) St. Paul's and Barnabas' at
Lystra ; (7) St. Peter's at Jerusalem ; (8) St. James' at Jerusalem ; (9)
St. Paul's at Athens ; (10) St. Paul's at MUetus ; (11) St. Paul's to the
Jews at Jerusalem ; (12) St. Paul's before Felix ; (13) St. Paul's before
Agrippa ; (14) St. Paul's to the Jews at Rome. St. Luke was not present
at the first nine ; and almost certainly not at the thirteenth and the last.
He was, however, among the audience when the tenth was delivered ; and
he may have heard the eleventh and twelfth. For reports of the first four
(if he had such at aU) he must have been dependent on information suppUed
by others than the respective speakers. In the case of Stephen's defence
it seems not unlikely that some written report may have been preserved
1 On St. Paul's speeches in Acts, cf. Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 381 f. (Gardner),

25ft NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to which St. Luke had access (p. 245). In regard to St. James' speech
(xv. 14-21), represented as dehvered to the OoumcU at Jerusalem, it is
noteworthy that the speaker, though addressing Jewish Christians, quotes
from the LXX version of Amos, not from the Hebrew original, the differenoe
between the two being in v. 17 (= Am. ix. 12) very considerable, and the
Greek alone yielding a sense relevant to the speaker's purpose. Of those
of St. Paul's addresses which the author of Acts did not hear, accounts
might have been obtained from the Apostle ; and St. Luke, at aU events,
must have been sufficiently familiar with his general style of speaking to
be able to reproduce not only some of the matter of his missionary dis
courses, but also something of their manner and spirit.1 It is reasonable
to suppose that the most authentic of the addresses is that which was
delivered at MUetus (xx. 18-35) : not only was St. Luke present at it, but
it alludes to facts mentioned in St. Paul's Epistles, 9 and contains words
occurring in them but otherwise rare in the New Testament.^ It is
worth noting, too, that the claim which the Apostle is reported to have
made in his speech before the Jewish councU (xxiii. 6) that he was a
Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee agrees with the statement in Phil. hi. 5.
The address to the Jewish mob at Jerusalem (xxii. 2-21) was in Aramaic,
so that in any case the reproduction of it can only be a translation. In
this speech St. Paul is represented as using, in reference to the martyrdom
of Stephen, some of the phrases employed by St. Luke in his narrative of
that event (of. xxii. 20 with vii. 58, viii. I).4 As regards the discourses for
which the historian probably had to draw upon his own ideas of what the
several occasions required (helped by his knowledge of the Apostle's actual
practice), they seem to be designed to iUustrate briefly (for most are very
short) the arguments best calculated to commend the Christian faith to
diverse audiences. The tenor of the parting address to the Jewish com
munity at Rome (xxviii. 25-28), whieh whoUy ignores the existence of a
Gentile Church there, to which St. Paul had previously sent a letter (p. 280),
is less appropriate as a discourse dehvered in the circumstances described
than as a conclusion to a history narrating the rejection of the Gospel by
the Jews and its transfer to the GentUes.
In the case of St. Peter's speeches, St. Luke can scarcely have had the
same acquaintance with that Apostle's style of speaking as he had with
St. Paul's ; and in spite of the faot that shorthand was known in antiquity,5
1 Thus, certain phrases characteristic of (3t. Paul's theology are found in xiii. 39
(qf, Rom. iii. 38), xvi. 31 (cf. Bom. x, 8-13), xx. 2,8 (of. Eph. i. 7), xxvi. 18 (cf. Eph.
i. 18). 2 Of. Acts xx. 34 with 1 Th. ii. 9, 1 Cor. iv. 12.
3 Among these are to. avpinepov (1 Cor. xii. 7, 2 Car. xii. 1, Heb. xii. 10), $el5ea8at
(six times in the Pauline Epistles, twice in 2 Pet.), kottioii (eleven times in the Pauline
Epistles (excluding the Pastorals), elsewhere only in the Gospels and Bev.), SovXeieiv
tv Rvply (Bom. xii. 11, Eph. vi. 7).
* The speeoh as given in Acts contains some words whioh elsewhere in the New
Testament only occur in St. Luke's writings (rfXaiSijs, avveipat, avrv rjj &pf), and
als,a others whioh are characteristic of St. Luke (ivurriptu, broarpeipeai, e'jfqjroffTeXXe^),
0 The abbreviations used in stenography were called an/ieta (Latin, noto), and
shorthand writers were termed aTjjitioypaipoi, raxvypiipoi, and i^vypdijioi (Latin,
notarii).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 251
it is improbable that he possessed written notes of any of St. Peter's,
discomrses. The Apostle doubtless on most occasions spoke (at least to
Palestinian Jews) in Aiamaic, so that in general his speeches (if any reports
were preserved) would have to be rendered into Greek. Though probably
much common, matter and phrasing lecurred in the actual addresses of the
various Christian missionaries, there are observable certain simUarities in
the arguments and language put into the mouths of both St. Peter and St.
Paul, suggesting that the speeches as they stand are the work of St. Luke :
instances may be seen by comparing ii. 25-27 (Peter) with xiii. 35 (Paul),
iii. 25 (Peter) with xiii. 26 (Paul), iii. 17 (Peter) with xvii. 30 (Paul), x. 4CMfe2
(Peter) with xvii. 31 (Paul), x. 43 (Peter) with xiii. 38 (Paul). But if of
Apostolic discourses few records, ox none, were avaUable for the historian,
the stronger is the proof of his great skiU in depicting so realistically the
mental atmosphere and outlook of the early Churoh. For example, the
speech at Pentecost " moves within the circle of Jewish Messianic hopes," x
and represents what can scarcely be other than a genuinely primitive form
of Christian Apologetic ; whilst such addresses of St. Paul as those delivered
to the Jews at Antioch and to the philosophical audience at Athens not
only differ appropriately from one another in substance and tone, but also
contain various characteristics of actual Pauline teaching. The discourses
in Acts show that if its author did not possess good authority for them he
was at any rate endowed not only with unusual literary capacity hut like
wise with exceUent historical imagination.
Acts contains two letters. One is the decree represented as passed at
the CouncU at Jerusalem, and circulated afterwards among the Gentile
churches (xv. 23-29). It has, however, been pointed out already that
grave doubts rest upon the accuracy of St. Luke's description of the Council
(p. 248) ; and if the gathering of the CouncU has been antedated by him,
and St. Paul was not present at it and did not convey its decree to his
converts, the authenticity of the letter, at least in the form in whieh it is
reproduced, is clearly impaired, since in it aUusion is made to St. Paul,
together with others, as conveying it to Antioch. This conclusion is
confirmed by the vocabulary and style, for the following words occurring
in it are most commonly found, within the New Testament, in St. Luke's
own writings : forasmuch (ineidrj), at (or with) one accord (6no6v/u.a36v),
choose out (exXeyeoQai), far the Name (tinig rov dvdftarog), who themselves
(xai avxal}, tell (dnayiXXeiv), keep (Siamjgeiv). In spite, therefore, of
the presence in it of certain words and phrases that do not occur in St.
Luke's writings or only in the letter of Lysias (dvaoxevafeiv, SiaaxiXXeaBai,
inavdyxeg, sS ngdrreiv, ol dyanrjrol tf/iibv, together with the greetings
xatgeiv (in the infin.) 2 and eggmao), it may be suspected to be St. Luke's
own production. The other letter is the one forwarded by Claudius Lysias
to Felix (xxiii. 26-30) ; and this, too, has a few words found nowhere in
the New Testament except in the Third Gospel and Acts — most excellent
1 See Chase, The Credibility of the Acts, p. 294 and cf. p. 125 f. Chase thinks
that at Pentecost St. Peter spoke in Greek. Notable, in partioular, is the use of
b Trafr 8eov (Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30).
1 Cf. James i. 1, and see p. 261.

252 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(xgdxiaxog), questions (£rjxrj/taxa), plot (inifiovXij), accusers (xarrjyogoi),
a charge (eyxXrj/ia), whilst it has several more which, though not exclusively
Lucan, are characteristic of St. Luke (dvrjg, ovXXafifidvsiv, dvaigelv,
inusrfpai, il-aigeiv, imyiyvibaxeiv, iyxaXelv, xardyeiv, i^avrfjg, nagayyeXXeiv).
The only word that appears not to occur in either of St. Luke's two
books is pavOdveiv ; so that it is probable that this letter likewise owes
its existence to the Evangelist's skill in composition.
The abruptness with which Acts ends (terminating as it does with the
statement that St. Paul preached and taught " the things concerning the
Lord Jesus Christ with aU boldness, none forbidding him ") is strange
enough to call for remark. If the weight of evidence be held to incUne to
the view that Acts was written after 70, if not after 95, it foUows that the
writer was acquainted with the death of St. Paul at the hands of the Roman
authorities ; so that his curious silence about the end of St. Paul's trial
must be explained by the fact that it did not result in a full acquittal, and
by the consideration that, if he mentioned any other ending (whether
conviction foUowed by execution, or liberation merely in consequence of
the prosecutors.' f aUure to proceed with the case within the legal period of
perhaps two years),1 he would stultify his purpose of showing that the
Romans in general were not unfavourable to Christianity (see p. 241).
On the other hand, if the grounds for dating the Third Gospel after a.d. 70
(p. 203) and Acts after a.d. 95 be considered inadequate, the strange
termination of the latter book can be converted into an argument for
placing the composition of the work at an early date, prior to the end, in 61,
of St. Paul's trial, the result of which St. Luke at the time of writing did
not know.2 By some who take this line it has been contended that the
author contemplated a third work which he did not succeed in writing,
though the support for this contention, derived from the use in Acts i. 1
of rdv fiiv ngcorov Xoyov in reference to the Gospel (where rov fiiv ngorsgov
X6yov might be expected, if only two books were designed), is neghgible
(see Mt. xxvii. 64, Acts vii. 12 and note Joh. i. 15, xv. 18).
It has already been noted in connexion with some of the Gospels that certain
remarkable variations of text occur in the Bezan MS. (D) ; and similar variant read
ings, much greater in number, and almost as striking in character, are presented by
it in Acts. In many instances its pecuhar readings are supported by one or two
other uncials (C E), by one or two cursives (especially 137) and by some codices of
the Old Latin (especially gig.). The departures from the best-attested text are
sometimes in the direction of greater brevity, but more often in the direction of greater
length and completeness. Their nature will best be realized from a selection of
examples, others being noticed elsewhere (pp. 519, 536, 560, 567).
Approved Text D
x. 19 three 3 otnils.
xi. 12 making no distinction „
XT: „_ [ and from what is strangled „ ¦
1 See Lake, Interpreter, Jan., 1909 ; Hastings, D.A.C. i. p. 20.
2 Harnack holds that Acts, up to xxviii. 28, was written during the second year of
the Apostle's imprisonment (61 or 62), and that it. 30, 31 are a postscript added soon
after a change had occurred in his situation (see Date of Acts, p. 94).
3 Read by X C E etc. ; B has two.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM

253

Approved Text
xvii. 18 because he preached Jesus and
the resurrection.
iv. 6 for John
iv. 24 after heard it
v. 15 after them
v. 18 after public ward
v. 39 after them
vi. 8 after people
viii. 24 after upon me
x. 25 for And when it came to pass that
Peter entered, Cornelius met him

xi. 2 for And when Peter was come up
to Jerusalem they of the circum
cision . . .

D

omits.

xi. 27 after Antioch
xi. 28 for And there stood up one of them
named Agabus and signified
xii. 3 for it
xii. 10 after went out
xii. 22 for And the people
xiii. 8 after the faith
xiv. 2 after the brethren
xv. 20 after blood

xv. 29 after it shall be well with you
xv. 34 (mg.) after there
xvi. 30 after out
xvi. 35 after the magistrates

xvi. 39 for and they came and . . . from
the city

xvii. 15 after Athens

substitutes Jonathan.
adds and perceived the working of God.
adds for they were freed from every
infirmity which each of them had.
adds and each one went to his own house.
adds neither you nor kings nor tyrants.
adds through the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
adds and he did not cease weeping much.
substitutes And when Peter drew nigh to
Csesarea, one of the servants ran
forward and signified that he had
come. And Cornelius sprang forth
and met him.
substitutes Peter then after some time
wished to go up to Jerusalem, and
having summoned the brethren and
having confirmed them, making a long
discourse, (went) through the coun
try places teaching them. And he
met them [the brethren at Jerusa
lem] and reported to them the grace
of God. But the brethren of the
circumcision . . .
adds and there was much joy.
substitutes And we having been gathered
together, one of them named Agabus
spake signifying.
substitutes his attack upon the faithful.
adds and went down the seven steps.
substitutes And he having become recon
ciled to them of Tyre, the people.
adds since he heard them gladly.
adds but the Lord quickly gave peace
(cf. ix. 31).
adds and that whatsoever things they
wish not to be done to themselves,
do not to others.
adds being influenced by the Holy Spirit.
adds and Judas alone went forth.
adds having secured the rest.
adds gathered together in the market
place and, remembering the earth
quake that had taken place, were
afraid and.
substitutes and they came with many
friends unto the prison and exhorted
them to go forth, saying, We were
ignorant in regard to you, that ye
are righteous men. And having
brought them out, they exhorted
them, saying, Go forth from the
city, lest they collect together again,
crying out against you.
adds And he passed by Thessaly, for he
was prevented from proclaiming the
Word there.

254

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Approved Text
xviii. 17 after all
xviii. 27 for And when he was minded
to pass oyef into Achaia, the
brethren encouraged him, and wrote
to the disciples to receive him.

xix. 9 after Tyrannus
xix. 14 for And there were seven sons
of one Sceva a Jew, a chief priest,
which did this.

xx. 15 after at Samos and
xx. 23 after abide me
xxi. 1 after Patfuta
xxi. 16 for bringing one Mnason of
Cyprus, an original disciple, with
Whom we should lodge.

D
adds the Greeks.
substitutes And certain Corinthians,
sojourning in Ephesus, having heard,
exhorted him to pass with them to
their country ; and he having con
sented, the Ephesians wrote to the
disciples in Corinth to receive the
man.
adds from the fifth to the tenth hour.
substitutes Among whom the sons of a
certain Sceva, a priest, wished to do
the same, who were in the habit of
exorcizing such persons ; and enter
ing in unto the possessed man, they
began to call over him the Name,
saying, We command thee by Jesus
whom Paul preacheth to xjome forth.
adds having stayed at Trogyllium.
adds in Jerusalem
adds and Myra
substitutes and they brought us to those
with whom we should lodge, and
having arrived at a certain village,
weA stopped with Mnason a Cypriot,
an original disciple.
From xxii. 29 to the end of the book D is defective, but some variants in xxii.
30-xxviii. 31 deserve notice which occur in the authorities most akin to the Bezan
MS., e.g. the cursive 137, and the Syriac and the Old Latin versions.

Approved Text.
xxiii. 24 after the governor

xxiv. 27 for and desiring to gain favour
with the Jews Eelix left Paul in
bonds.
xxviii. 19 after my nation of
xxviii. 31 after none forbidding him

137, Syr. or Lat. vet.
add for he was afraid lest the Jews should
seize and kill him and he himself
should meanwhile be accused of
having received money
substitute and left Paul in custody on
account of Drusilla.
add but in order that I might ransom my
soul from death
add saying that this is Jesus Christ the
Son of God, through whom the whole
world will begin to be judged. ¦
The quahty and extent of the longer readings found in the 8 text but absent from
the Approved text have suggested that they are not copyists' insertions in the one or
omissions in the other, but that both the longer and the shorter texts are authentic,
and proceed from St. Luke himself ; and that of the two the fi text is the earher copy
(subsequently modified by the author), on the ground that if the S text is assumed to
be the later, its comparative prolixity cannot be accounted for.1 It certainly contains
a number of duplicate phrases and other superfluities lacking in the alternative text
(e.g. viii. 1 Stay/ibs /juiym khI eXtyis for diayjws /tt-7as ; xvii. 6 poavres k&1 XeTwrra
for \eyovrts, etc.) ; but, on the other hand, it also in many passages has readings
superior in lucidity to those ocourring in the majority of manusoripts (e.g. xiv. 2, cf.
p. 531 ; xix. 14, cf. p. 562 ; xx. 14, cf. p. 567 and xxi. 16, cf. p. 570). And if it is
assumed that the more lucid text is the earlier, which was afterwards altered by its
author, it follows that St. Luke's first thoughts were often better than his second,
1 See Blass, Acta Apostoloram (1895), pp. 30-32.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 255
and that he obscured sentences which, as originally penned, were perfectly clear,1
But on the same presupposition that both texts are authentic productions of St.
Luke's, the view that the S text is the later of the two is also confronted with a serious
objection in the restricted currency of the text, which has survived in only a few
manuscripts, whereas an improved text might be expected to have the wider circula
tion. Hence it is probable that the presupposition ip question is erroneous ; that
St. Luke did not prepare two texts ; and that what he actually wrote is not preserved
exclusively in either the Approved or the 5 text."

(d) Epistles and Revelation — The Epistle of James 3
The Epistle that goes by the name of James is the first of those which
are called Cathohc because they are addressed not to some particular
Church, but to Christians scattered over a wide area (ef. p. 257). It
purports to be written by a James who describes himself merely as a
servant (or slave) of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. The name (which
comes from Jacob (Jacobus4)) is apphed to three persons in the New
Testament — the two Apostles, James the son of Zebedee and James
son of Alphffius, together with James, " brother " of our Lord, The
letter can scarcely have been written by the first,5 since he was put to
death as early as a.d. 44 [p. 522) ; so that on the supposition that the
Epistle is genuine, the authorship really lies between the second and the
third, unless the two, as some have argued (p. 364) are one. The absence
of any definition serving to distinguish the author from other Jameses
favours the conclusion that he was the most important of those who
bore the name, and this was he whose relationship to Jesus was hkely,
after his conversion, to secure for him special regard.
James (if rightly identified with one of the younger sons of Mary),
became eventually a leading figure in the Christian Church at Jerusalem
(see Acts xii. 17, Gal. i. 19, ii. 9, Acts xv. 13, xxi. 18). His sympathies
were Judaistie, and the Jewish Christians who sought to perpetuate
within the Church the cleavage between Jew and Gentile seem to have
regarded him as their leader (cf. Gal. ii. 12), though they probably took
up a more extreme position than he. It appears that he was mainly
responsible for imposing on Gentile Christians certain requirements, cal
culated to concihate Jewish sentiment (Acts xxi. 25, cf . xv. 13-29 and pp.
571-2). The influence which he exerted in the Church doubtless accounts
for th« representation that he was the first bishop of Jerusalem (Bus.
1 Cf. Mac. Bib. i. col. 53-
2 Cf. Ramsay, Expositor, Dec, 1897, p. 460 f. (especially p. 469). Por a suggested
explanation of some of the features of this text see Eendel Harris, A Study of Codex
Bezos ; cf. also Lake, Text of New Testament, p. 85 f.
3 The ,order in which the Epistles are arranged is approximately chronological,
but has in places been modified in order to keep together certain books rightly or
wrongly attributed to the same writer.
* Por the replacement of the 6 by m in English (as also in the Italian Giacenlo
and the Spanish Jaime) cf . the Preach Sarrmdi from Sabbati Dies.
6 It is ascribed to the son of Zebedee in a manuscript of the Old Latin version
(Zahn, Int. New Testament, i. p. 106).

256 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
H.E. iii. 7, 9, iv. 5, 3). By Josephus (Ant. xx. 9, 1) he and some others
are stated to have been accused before the Sanhedrin by the high priest
Ananus during the interval between the procuratorships of Festus and
Albinus (i.e. 61-62), and to have been stoned to death as breakers of the
Law. Hegesippus (cf . Eus. H.E. ii. 23, 3-18) gives a much more detailed,
and in many ways improbable, account of his end, Which is placed shortly
before Vespasian's siege of Jerusalem.
But though the Epistle under consideration, if genuine, most probably
proceeds from the James here described, both its authenticity and its
origin in the Apostohc age have been denied, and it has been regarded
by many (chiefly on the ground of defective external attestation) as
dating from the second century a.d. ; though a few scholars (in consequence
of its rather peculiar contents) have taken it to be in the main a pre-
Christian work. It is therefore necessary to illustrate briefly the nature
of the external evidence and to consider a httle more carefully the internal
characteristics. External Evidence
(a) In Clement of Rome (circ. a.d. 95) there occur certain verbal parallels
with the Epistle, e.g. ch. 21 iyxavxoifiivoig iv aXa£oveiq rov X6yov avrcbv
(cf. Jas. iv. 16), ch. 46 iva rl spsig xai Bv[iol xai 8ixoaraaiai xai axiajiara
noXe/uog te iv ifiiv (cf. Jas. iv. 1). Both writers quote Prov. hi. 34.
(6) The Teaching of the XII Apostles (beginning of second century ?)
has the command ov 8iy>vxrjaeig n6rsgov Sarai, rj ov (cf. Jas. i. 8).
(c) Ignatius (d. a.d. 117) uses the word aSidxgixog in the sense of
" unhesitating," " whole-hearted " (cf. Jas. hi. 17).
(d) Hermas (circ. a.d. 130) has so many resemblances to expressions
and ideas found in the Epistle that some who reject St. James' authorship
of the latter do not deny the dependence of the former upon it.1
(e) Justin (d. eire. 160) has in Tryph. 49 the phrase (Xgurzip) ov xai
rd 8ai/i6via cpgiaaovaw (cf. Jas. ii. 19).
(J) The Muratorian Catalogue (170-180 ?) omits the Epistle, together
with Hebrews and 1, 2 Pet., but the catalogue is imperfect.
(g) Clement of Alexandria (d. 200-220) has the following suggestive
parallel in Strom, iv. 6 aocp&g ivdeixv^adoi rr)v aoiplav abrov /j,t) Xoyotg [iovov
dXX' iv egyoig ayaQolg (cf. Jas. iii. 13).
(h) Origen (d. 253) cites numerous passages from the Epistle, and
quotes ii. 26 as iv rrj apsgofiivrj 'Iaxoifiov imaroXfj, and iv. 10 with the
words iprjoi ydg 'Idxcofiog.
(i) Eusebius (d. 340) reckons the Epistle among the disputed books
(rd dvriXsydusva) ; and elsewhere (H.E. ii. 23-25) remarks of James
that he " is said to be the author of the first of the so-called Catholic
epistles ; but it is to be observed that it is regarded as spurious (vodm'isxai)
— at least not many of the ancients have mentioned it. . . . Nevertheless
we know that these (the seven so-called Cathohc Epistles) also, with the
rest, have been read pubhely in most churches."
1 Cf. Moffatt, L.N.T., p. 467.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 257
Evidence for the use of the Epistle prior to the date of Hermas is not
very strong, and the doubts prevailing about it in the time of Eusebius
naturally make its genuineness suspected ; but whether such doubts are
explicable by uncertainty about the Apostohc authority of the writer
(who does not style himself an Apostle), or justify the conclusion that
the letter does not proceed from James the Lord's brother but is of later
origin, must be decided in connexion with the impressions left by the
internal evidence of its contents and style.
Internal Evidence
The book, though beginning with the customary superscription of a
letter, is, in substance, really of the nature of a homily, and consists of a
series of short, practical counsels on various subjects. It is addressed
to the Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion, who, since the Epistle in its present
form is a Christian document (i. 1, ii. 1, 7, v. 7, 8, also i. 18, 21), 1 are
most naturally understood to be Jewish Christians outside Palestine.
Taken strictly the words mean the whole body of the Jewish people (cf .
Acts xxvi. 7) scattered among the Gentiles ; and the use of this strange
expression for the comparatively few Jews who were converted to Chris
tianity is probably due to the writer's conception of them as the true
Israel (cf. p. 389). That both those addressed in the letter and the writer
of it were Christians of Jewish origin is probable from various features in
it. The former's assembly for worship is called a synagogue (ii. 2) ;
allusion is made to their confession (so characteristic of the Jews) of the
Divine unity (ii. 19, cf. Dt. vi. 4) ; and faults conspicuously Jewish are
denounced (i. 26, hi. 9, v. 12). The latter uses Hebrew phraseology hke
" Gehenna " (iii. 6) and " the Lord of Sabaoth " (v. 4), and refers several
times to the Law (ii. 9-11, iv. 11, 12) ; perhaps (in v. 20) draws upon the
Hebrew original of Prov. x. 12, where the LXX diverges, though elsewhere
(ii. 23, iii. 9) he seems to cite the LXX (Gen. xv. 6 in i. 26) ; and employs
various Old Testament similes and figures of speech (see i. 10, iv. 4, 14).
The most remarkable characteristic of the work is the paucity of the
references to Christian doctrines, such as the Messianic dignity of Jesus,
the significance of His death, and the fact of His risen life (though see ii. I).2
The author's interest is centred in the sphere of conduct, his aim being to
encourage patience, to insist on the valuelessness of faith apart from works,
and to warn against various prevalent vices and faults. ' ' Much of it might
have been written by one who remained at the Old Testament point of
view." s In consequence it has even been suggested by some that it was
originally the production of a Jewish writer, wliich has been adapted for
Christian use by small insertions in i. 1, ii. 1. But the reference to Jesus
Clirist in the second of these passages has hardly the appearance of being
inserted ; there are Christian elements in the book besides these ; whilst
1 Cf. also v. 14 with Mk. vi. 13.
' In v. 11 Job, and not Jesus, is adduced as an example of patience ; contrast
Heb. xii. 1, 2 and 1 Pet. ii. 20-23.
3 Peake, Int. New Testament, p. 84.
17

258 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
a Jewish work would almost certainly have contained allusions to the
ceremonial injunctions of the Law. Moreover the description of those
to whom the letter is sent as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty
(ii. 12), the reference to the gift of the Spirit (iv. 5), and the expectation
of the coming of the Lord (v. 7, 8) are difficult to reconcile with the sup
position that the writer was a non-Christian Jew ; the tone of the book
is that of Judaistie Christianity, not of pre-Christian Judaism. By others
who recognize that it is a Christian work various features in it have been
held to be inconsistent with St. James' authorship, and to indicate that
it was written at a date outside the limit of St. James' life. The principal
of these are : —
(a) The parallels traceable between it and some of St. Paul's Epistles,
especially Romans, of which it must suffice to notice only a few.
James Bomans
i. 2, 3. Count it all joy when ye fall v. 3. Let us boast in our tribulations,
into manifold trials, knowing that knowing that tribulation worketh
the proof of your faith worketh patience.
patience.
i. 22. Be ye doers of the Word and ii. 13. Not the hearers of law are
not hearers only. just before God, but the doers of
law shall be justified.
iv. 1. Come not they (wars and fight- vii. 23. I see » different law in my
ings) hence, even of your pleasures members, warring against the law
that war in your members ? of my mind.
From these parallels it has been inferred that the author of the Epistle
was acquainted with Romans, and as Romans was not written until 55
or 56 (p. 287) and St. James perished in 61, indebtedness on the part of
the latter is rather improbable.
(b) The contention that " by works a man is justified and not only by
faith " (ii. 24), which looks like an intentional correction of St. Paul's
conclusion that " a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the
Law " (Rom. hi. 28).
(c) The quahty of the Greek in which the Epistle is composed, for
since there occur in it a number of words very common in classical writers
which are not found in other parts of the New Testament,1 this rich
vocabulary is thought to have been beyond the resources of an unlearned
Jew like its reputed author St. James.
(d) The character of the teaching, with a meagre Christology resembling
that of the Teaching of the XII Apostles (second century a.d.).2
[$ Accordingly the book has been assigned to the period which saw the
production of the latter work, i.e. the half-century between a.d. 100 and
150. These reasons are inconclusive, (a) If the parallehsm imphes indebted
ness on either side, the priority may be on the side of St. James. (6) The
suggestion that the passage (ii. 14-26) denying that faith can justify without
works is aimed at controverting St. Paul or correcting a perversion of his
1 Mayor, St. James, p. ccxix. a Moffatt, L.N.T., p. 471.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 259
views is not supported by the nature of the argument, for the writer takes
as an example of valueless faith the mere behef, not that Jesus is Lord
or that He was raised by God from the dead (Rom. x. 9), but that God is
One ; and he may have in view the idea cherished by some Jews that
though they were sinners, yet because they knew God, the Lord would
not impute sin to them.1 (c) It was not impossible for one born in Gahlee
of parents occupying a lowly station to acquire not only familiarity with
the Greek language, but, if a man of capacity, also something of Greek
culture. Moreover, the construction of the sentences is comparatively
simple, and the use of particles is hmited. (d) The character of the
teaching may be due to the early, rather than the late, date of the work,
for the absence of any exposition of the significance of Christ's death is
paralleled by the early speeches in Acts. And thab the late period to which
the origin of the Epistle has been assigned is really improbable appears
from the manner in which many passages of the Epistle reflect various
parts of the Sermon on the Mount, and others of our Lord's discourses.
It is the substance rather than the actual form of our Lord's maxims
that is preserved, as will be seen from a comparison of the following passages
out of a larger number.
James i. 5. Mt. vii. 7. " Ask and it shall be given you."
ii. 5. Lk, vi. 2Q. " Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the
Kingdom of heaven."
ii. 13. Mt. v. 7. " Blessed are the merciful, for they shall
obtain mercy."
hi. 12. Mt. vii. 16. " Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs
of thistles? "
Mt. v. 9. " Blessed are the peacemakers."
Mt. vi. 24. " Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Mt. xxiii. 12. " Whosoever shall humble himself shall
be exalted."
Mt. vii. 1. " Judge not that ye be not judged."
Lk. vi. 24, " Woe unto you that are rich."
Mt. vi. 19. " Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon
the earth where moth and rust doth consume."
v. 12. Mt. v. 34. " I say unto you, Swear not at all."
It is difficult not to regard the statements and counsels in St. James as
reproducing memories of our Lord's injunctions and admonitions, but
equally difficult not to consider that they would have been verbally much
closer if the Epistle had been written in the first quarter of the second
century, when the Synoptic Gospels were in existence (p. 192),2 The
" brethren " of our Lord, though they did not beheve in His claims whilst He
1 Cf. Mayor, Op. cii., p. cxxxv.
a Contrast the Teaching of the XII AposO.es, where there occur quotations
from the Gospels such as " Bless them which curse you, and pray for your enemies."
..." Por what thank have ye, if ye love them which love you 1 do not even the
Gentiles the same ? " . . . "If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek, turn to
him the other also. If any impress thee one mile, go with him two ; if any take thy
cloak, give him also thy tunic " (see Lk. vi. 27-29, 32, Mt. v. 39, 40).

iii.

.18.

IV.

,4.

IV.

10.

iv,

,12.

v.

1.

v.

2,3,

260 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
was with them, can scarcely have failed to be acquainted with the principles
of His hfe and with the tenor of His utterances, caught from Him before
or during His pubhc ministry.
On the whole, then, acceptance of the traditional authorship is con
fronted with shghter obstacles than either of the suppositions (1) that it
is a late production falsely attributed by its actual author to James, in
order to secure for it authority (which is unlikely in view of the absence of
any title hke " Apostle " being attached to the name (contrast 2 Pet. i. 1)) ;
(2) that the author was an unknown James (of first century date) whose
name led to his becoming confused with the " brother " of the Lord (which
is improbable, since an obscure and unauthoritative writer would scarcely
have addressed a letter to an extensive, instead of a local, circle of readers).
The doubt expressed in Eusebius about its genuineness (p. 256) is certainly
a fact of importance, but does not seem entitled to outweigh counter-
considerations. Supporters of the view that the Epistle is the work of James the Lord's
" brother " and of pre-Pauhne date mostly place it very early, e.g. between
40-50 (in which case it must precede in point of time all the other New
Testament writings). One reason for dating it within this decade is the
assumption that, if it were written after 50, it must have contained allusions
to the settlement reached at the Council of Jerusalem (usually assigned to
circ. a.d. 49). But even if St. Luke's account of the Council is correct and
the Council described in Acts xv. took place in 49, the contention is not
very convincing ; and since considerable doubt attaches to the accuracy
of the narrative in Acts xv. (see p. 248) and the date of the concessions
required of the Gentile Christians was probably later than 49 (p. 538),
there is no necessity to confine the Epistle narrowly within the fifth
decade a.d. And if its origin be placed rather later than 50, at some
date between St. Paul's Second and Third Missionary journeys (say
a.d. 52), certain facts are accounted for. St. Paul's work in Asia Minor
during his First Journey, when reported to James (Gal. ii. 1-10), would
draw the latter's attention to the Jewish Christian converts in those parts,
whose needs would the more appeal to him as St. Paul's special province
seemed to be the Gentiles. If the Epistle was dispatched before St. Paul
started on his Third Journey, that Apostle might find copies of it in the
course of his tour through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii. 23), which
would account for such resemblances as exist between it and the Epistle
to the Romans (written in 55-56). On this view it may be a httle later in
date than 1 and 2 Thessalonians. The place of origin may be assumed to
have been Jerusalem ; certainly the allusions in i. 11, iii. 12, v. 7 (end) are
consistent with conditions prevailing in Palestine.
An interesting suggestion 1 which explains many of the peculiarities of the letter
is that it was written by James the Lord's " brother," after his conversion, to his
unconverted countrymen. By the best of these he was held in esteem (see Jos. Ant.
xx. 9, 1, Eus. H.E. ii. 23, 10) ; and in the hope of predisposing them to faith in
Jesus, he sought in, the Epistle to bring before them the spiritual beauty of His teach
ing, without naming Him (the references to Him in i. 1, ii. 1 being regarded as inser-
 __ 
1 See J. H. Moulton in the Expositor, July, 1903.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 261
tions by one who wished to adapt the work to Christian use). But to this, as to another,
view, the explanation of the words Jesus Christ in ii. 1 as a gloss presents difficulties
(p. 257). The Epistle contains sixty-four words which are not found elsewhere in
the New Testament ; thirteen of them are apparently used for the first
time by St. James.1 Certain words and phrases have been noted as
common to the Epistle and to the speech and letter attributed to St.
James in Acts xv., viz. the salutation xaiQeiv and the words imaxinrsadai,
iniargiopsiv, rrjgEiv, 8iarrjgstv, dycairjrdg ; cf . also the address axotiaare, aSsXqyol
[iov (Jas. ii. 5) with avSgeg &8eXq>ol, axovoaxe j:iov (Acts xv. 13). But see
p. 251.

The Epistles to the Thessalonians
The Church of Thessalonica
Of the founding of the Thessalonian Church an account will be given
on p. 548. From the narrative in Acts it might be inferred that the
Church consisted partly of Jews, but mainly of " God-fearing " Gentiles.
The evidence, however, of 1 Th. makes it plain that of the Gentiles who
were converted the majority had once been pagans. This appears from
(a) St. Paul's statement that those to whom he wrote " had turned to
God from idols " (1 Th. i. 9) ; (b) the exhortation to them to refrain
from immorality (1 Th. iv. 3 f .), which is more natural if addressed to former
heathens than to Gentiles who had been previously God-fearers. There
is thus a serious omission in Acts xvii. 4, if the text found in most manu
scripts (including N and B) is correct — xai nveg sf aurarv (i.e. the Jews)
ineladrjoav . . . x&v xs aefio/xivaiv 'EXXrjvarv nXrjdog noXv. But certain
codices (including AD 33), supported by the Vulgate, replace the last words
by xwv xs aefio/isvcov xai 'EXXrjvmv nXfjQog noXti, and it may be urged in
favour of this reading that it gets rid of the expression ol OEfio/tevoi "EXXrjvsg
which does not occur elsewhere.
The only allusion in Acts to the time spent by St. Paul at Thessalonica
is the statement that he preached in the Jewish synagogue on three Sabbath
days (or perhaps " for three weeks "). But the fact that the Apostle
appears to have converted a number of Gentiles directly from heathendom
almost necessarily imphes that he spent at the place much more than the
three weeks (at the most) suggested by Acts. This conclusion is supported
by the circumstances (a) that during his residence there he had to maintain
himself by his trade (1 Th. ii. 9) ; (6) that whilst there he twice received
gifts of money from the Christians at Phihppi (Phil. iv. 16), a place 100
miles away ; (c) that he was there long enough to estabhsh some kind of
organization for the Church (1 Th. v. 12) ; (d) that from thence he probably
engaged in mission work elsewhere in Macedonia (1 Th. i. 7). Accordingly
the whole interval spent in the place may have amounted to some months.
*, Mayor, St. James, p. ccxviii.,

262 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Place of Origin, Occasion, and Date of the Epistles
The Epistles purport to have been written by St. Paul, Silvanus (or
Silas), and Timothy, so that the three must have been together when the
letters were composed. Some MSS. (A CK.) and the Syriac and Ethiopic
versions attach to the end of both letters a note stating that they were
written from Athens. It was to Athens that St. Paul went from Beroea,
and there he was joined certainly by Timothy (1 Th. hi. 1) and probably
by Silas likewise (Acts xvii. 14, 15). But before the first of the two letters
was written Timothy was sent back to Thessalonica (1 Th. iii. 1, 5), seem
ingly as a substitute for the Apostle himself (whom some cause hindered
from going (1 Th. ii. 18)) ; and if Silas had also reached Athens, he, too,
had been dispatched on some mission, since St. Paul speaks of being left at
Athens by himself. It may therefore be inferred that 1 Th. was written not
from Athens, but from a city where St. Paul was once more joined by his
companions, this being Corinth, whither he journeyed from Athens, and
where both Silas and Timothy came to him from Macedonia (Acts xviii. 5).
The occasion for writing 1 Th. was a report brought back from Thessa
lonica by Timothy (hi. 6). The report was in part satisfactory, and in
part disappointing ; for it seems to have represented that the Christians
there were showing under persecution much patience and mutual affec
tion} but that these virtues were accompanied by a tendency to sensuality
(iv. 3-4), and some unsettlement of mind (due to anxiety about their
friends who had died before the Lord's Second Advent), It is also probable
that information had reached St. Paul that he had been traduced by certain
enemies (perhaps Jews), who had misrepresented his motives, and accused
him of being actuated by self-interest. In order to encourage the Thessa
lonian Christians in well-doing, to warn them against their temptations; to
relieve them of their fears, and to clear his own character St. Paul wrote
1 Th. in the course of his stay at Corinth, where he spent a year and a half
(Acts xviii. 11). It was not composed until sufficient time had elapsed
to allow the excellent example set, in some respects, by the Thessalonian
Church to become known in Achaia (1 Th. i. 7, 8), so that, if the Apostle
reached Corinth in the summer of a.d. 50, the date of the letter may be
the end of that year, or early in 51.
The Second Epistle contains nothing which directly throws hght upon
the place, occasion and date of its composition ; but if the First Epistle
was sent from Corinth, it is highly probable that the Second was dispatched
from the same place. The occasion which produced it was possibly some
information about the Thessalonians (brought by the unnamed friend
who had carried to them the First Epistle) which confirmed the impression
already received of their many virtues ; but indicated that they had drawn
from the Apostle's previous letter hasty conclusions concerning the immuv
ence of Christ's Second Coming. Consequently there was needed from
him some qualification of his former language, which might prevent them
from abandoning their ordinary avocations through anticipations of the
nearness of the end of the world. Since in subject matter and diction
the Second Epistle closely resembles the First, it must, if genuine, have

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 263
followed very closely its predecessor ; and may be dated early in a.d. 51.
Probably these two letters are the earhest of St. Paul's that have been
preserved. Authenticity of the Epistles
The genuineness of all the Epistles bearing St. Paul's name has been
questioned by various scholars ; but it does not fall within the scope of
the present work to discuss the extravagances of criticism, so that in the
case of several of the Epistles their authenticity will be assumed. There
are, however, some which have been suspected for reasons deserving of
consideration, and among them are 1 and 2 Th.
In general the absence from these Epistles of the phrases most dis
tinctive of St. Paul's theology renders it highly improbable that they are
forgeries, for anyone who wished to make his own productions pass for
St. Paul's would naturally introduce as much as possible of the Apostle's
characteristic phraseology. Moreover it is eminently unhkely that a
forger, writing after St. Paul's death, would have attributed to him the
expectation that he would survive until the return of Christ (1 Th. iv. 15-17).
Nevertheless the Pauline authorship of both has been impugned.
(1) Against the genuineness of the First Epistle the most solid objections
are based on (a) 1 Th. ii. 16, (6) 2 Th. ii. 2.
(a) In 1 Th. ii. 16 the concluding sentence " But the wrath is come
upon them to the uttermost " seems most intelligible if understood as a
reference to the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, in which case the Epistle
cannot proceed from St. Paul. It is, however, possible either to interpret
the words not of external overthrow but of spiritual blindness and obduracy,
viewed as a proof of God's wrath (cf. Rom. xi. 8, 25) ; or (since this is not
the prima facie sense) to understand the past tense scpdaaev as anticipatory,
implying the certainty of the vengeance ; or to consider the clause a
gloss introduced into the text after a.d. 70. (6) In 2 Th. ii. 2 the final
words of the sentence elg rd /it) raxicog oaXsv8fjvai v/iag . . . /irfxe Sid
miEvpiaxog /uijxb 8ia Xoyov firjxe 81 iniaxoXrjg &g 81 fjfiibv have been
thought to refer to a forged letter which was in circulation, and which (it
has been suggested) must be the present First Epistle. But if the words
8i iniaxoXrjg dtg Si' fjn&v were meant to be taken together (in the sense
of " by a letter purporting to come from us ") the expression used would
probably have been Si iniaxoXrjg <hg nag" r\pi(av (cf . Acts ix. 2, xxii. 5) ; and
it seems hkely that the real meaning of the whole passage is " That ye
be not quickly disturbed . . . eitheT by spirit (i.e. prophesying) or word
(i.e. oral teaching) or letter, as if such disturbance really came through us "
(d>g 8i rj/icov going with aaXevdfjvai).
(2) It is the Second Epistle that has been most widely suspected of
being unauthentic. The chief cause of such suspicion is its great similarity
in general to 1 Th.,1 coupled with the contrast between its eschatological
1 Cf. the following parallels —
I. i. 1-3=11. i- 1-3 I. iv. 11=11. iii. 11-12
i. 4 = ii. 13 v. 23= iii. 16
ii. 9 = iii. 8 y. 28= iii. 18

264 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
section (ii. 1-12) and the corresponding section in 1 Th. iv. 13-18. In
consequence it has been argued that the letter was composed after St.
Paul's time by a writer who wished to circulate the idea about the Man
of Sin contained in ii. 1-12 by enclosing it in a letter modelled upon a
genuine Epistle of St. Paul's. But the allusion to the Temple in ii. 4 points
to the letter having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem in
a.d. 70 ; and it is improbable that a forged letter written at that early
date would be accepted at Thessalonica. The similarity of the two
Epistles is sufficiently explained if they were written by St. Paul within
a short period of one another, his thoughts when composing the second
moving on the lines followed by him when engaged on the first. And the
difference between the two eschatological passages 1 Th. iv. 13-18 and 2
Th. ii. 1-12 involves no contradiction. The expectation of the Lord's
near advent expressed in 1 Th. is not abandoned in 2 Th. ; it is only
asserted that His coming will not occur until a prehminary sign of the end
(the revelation of the Man of Sin) has taken place. Some scholars have
held that the second Epistle is really earher than the first.1 Space only
permits notice of one or two reasons urged in favour of this position. It
is argued (a) that the writer would not call attention to his autograph as
a proof of genuineness (2 Th. hi. 17) except in the first letter sent to his
readers ; (6) that the reference in 1 Th. iv. 11, " That ye study . . . to do
your own business and to work with your hands even as we charged you,"
must refer to a command in a previous letter, and such is found in 2 Th.
iii. 10 ; (c) that the tone of 2 Th. is more Jewish than that of 1 Th.2, which
is natural if it is the earhest letter, since the Jewish element in the
Church was probably stronger at first than it was later. But (a) attention
is drawn to his autograph in 1 Cor. xvi. 21, although this was not the first
letter sent to Corinth (see 1 Cor. v. 9) ; (6) the allusion to a prior command
may relate to the Apostle's oral teaching (as in 2 Th. hi. 10) ; (c) before St.
Paul wrote either letter, the Gentiles preponderated in the Church, and
there was no consideration requiring him to write first to the minority.

The Epistle to the Galatians
The Galatian Church
The identity of the community which constituted the Galatian Church,
and which received from St. Paul the Epistle to the Galatians, is a warmly
debated question ; and in order to understand the point at issue, it is
1 See J.T.S. Oct., 1913, pp. 66 f.
* This impression is favoured by the reference to " the man of sin," which would
be more intelligible to Jews than to Gentiles, and by the reading in ii. 13 dirapxi)''
(supported by BPG?P_.) instead of dir' apxys (given by S ADEK2L2) which, if
original, is inappropriate to the Thessalonian Church as a whole (since it was not
the first to be founded by St. Paul in Macedonia or elsewhere), but becomes intelligible
if understood of the Jewish section of the Churoh, for it was amongst the Jews that
the Apostle won his first converts (Acts xvii. 4) in this city.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 265
necessary to consider to what peoples the name Galatians could be applied,
and to indicate the districts which they occupied.
The people who were originally designated by this term were a division
of the Celtic race. It was not the only name by which they were known,
for besides being called by Greek writers raXdxai, they were also described
as KeXrol and rdXXoi. Of the three terms, KsXrol is the earliest that occurs
(see Hdt. ii. 33) and rdXXoi the latest, the last being a transliteration of
the name (Galli) employed by the Bomans. The regions which they
occupied when they first figure in history were in Western Europe (Hdt.
iv. 49), the present France, whence they had penetrated to the British
Isles. But in the fourth century B.C. they began to migrate southwards.
Some crossed the Alps, invaded Italy, and sacked Borne (390 B.C.), others
a century later pressed into Thessaly and Greece, but met with a repulse
at Delphi (279 B.C.). A detachment of this latter body transported
themselves over the Hellespont, and in the course of fifty years devastated
a large part of Asia Minor, as far as the Taurus. But after sustaining a
severe defeat from Attalus, Bang of Pergamum, about 232 B.C., they were
confined to a district some 200 miles long and 100 broad lying along the
40th parallel of latitude (about that of central Mysia), and between the
29th and 33rd meridians of longitude. This was divided between the
three tribes of which the invaders were composed, the Tolistobogii, who
settled round Pessinus, the Tectosages, whose centre was Ancyra, and the
Trocmi, whose principal town was Tavium.
The territory thus occupied had previously been in the possession of
the Phrygians. These were likewise immigrants from Europe, who had
crossed the Hellespont about 1000 B.C., and established themselves in
most parts of the peninsula of Asia Minor, south of the Propontis and the
Euxine, the best known of their settlements being Troy. Though at one
period a dominant people, they eventually • degenerated, so that they
offered little resistance to the warlike, though less civilized, Galatse. The
latter became the ruling class amid a larger subject population, to whom
they left the industrial occupations of the cities and the labour of culti
vating the soil, whilst they devoted themselves to pasturage and to war.
The Phrygians, hke the Galatse, had also, on their entry into Asia,
found in possession an earlier people whose racial affinities can only be
conjectured ; they are supposed to have been allied to the Lycaonians,
who retained their own tongue as late as the first century a.d. Other
elements in the mixture of nationalities that resided in Galatia and the sur
rounding regions were Bomans, Greeks, and Jews ; so that the population
of the country was of an extremely diverse character in St. Paul's time.
In the course of the second century B.C. the Galatians became
unwilling subjects of the Kingdom of Pontus; but the overthrow of Mith-
radates Eupator (111-67) by the Bomans brought them under the influence
of a still greater power. Borne at first aUowed them their independence ;
and in 64 B.C. Pompey gave to each of the chiefs of the three Galatian
tribes the status of tetrarch, whilst Deiotarus, tetrarch of the Tolistobogii
(for whom a speech was once delivered by Cicero) was eventually made
king of Galatia. But when one of his successors, Amyntas, whose

266 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
possessions comprised Pisidia, Pamphylia, and parts of Phrygia and
Lycaonia besides the old kingdom of Galatia, died in 25 B.C., his dominions
were incorporated in the Eoman Empire, and with the exception of
Pamphylia, which was treated separately, were constituted a single
province, It is from the inclusion of the territory of the three Galatian tribes
within the larger Boman province of Galatia that there has arisen the
uncertainty about the Galatian Church. The appellation Galatia may
denote either the Eoman province, which extended northward and south
ward almost from the Euxine to the .ZE/gean (or more exactly from the
border of Bithynia-Pontus to that of Pamphylia), or only that part of
it which once formed the Kingdom of the Galatse ; and the description
Galatians could be used of the inhabitants of any portion of the province,
or could be applied in a distinctive sense to those (in the north of it) who
were Galatians by descent, and whose chief towns were Pessinus, Germa,
Ancyra, Pteria, and Tavium. In contrast to these, the population of
the southern part of the province was mainly Phrygian and Lycaonian
by race, and Galatian only politically ; and the districts occupied were
probably known as Phrygia Galatica and Lycaonia Galatica, since there
were districts of ancient Phrygia and Lycaonia outside the province of
Galatia, which were called Phrygia Asiana and Lycaonia Antiochiam,
and from which it must have been desirable to distinguish them. The
chief towns in this portion of the province were Antioch (usually called
Pisidian, because on the borders of Pisidia)', Iconium, Lystra and Derbe,
the two former being Phrygian and the two latter being Lycaonian. It
is in consequence debatable whether St. Paul, in writing his Epistle to
" the Galatians," directed it to the people who dwelt in North Galatia,
and who were Galatians by race as well as by inclusion in the Eoman
province, or to the people who lived in South Galatia, and who were
Galatians only in virtue of a political arrangement. The use of the term
Galatia (cf , 1 Cor. xvi. 1) and Galatians by St. Paul himself settles nothing,
for he habitually employed geographical names (like Asia, Macedonia,
Achaia) in the Eoman sense, and so probably meant by Galatia the Boman
province,1 and would describe as Galatians any of its inhabitants, whether
living in the north or the south of it. St. Luke, on the other hand,
who, besides employing the Eoman provincial names (Asia, Bithynia,
Macedonia, Achaia), is fond of using geographical names in an historic
or a popular sense like Phrygia (Acts ii. 10), Lycaonia (xiv. 6), Pisidia
(xiv, 24), Mysia (xvi. 7), Hellas (xx. 2), would perhaps have employed
Galatia to denote the district that had anciently been the territory of the
Galatse ; but he does not happen to mention the name at all, and only
has the adjective Galatic in two passages, which are ambiguous. The
passages are as follows : — ¦
(a) Acts xvi. 1-8. The historian, in his narrative of St. Paul's Second
Missionary journey (49-52 a.d.), after relating that the Apostle, accom
panied by Silas, " went through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches "
1 Of, Tac Hist. ii. 9, Galatiam, ac Pamphyliam provincial

»** To illustrate the North and South Galatian Theories, and St. Paul's First Missionary Journey.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 267
(xv. 41), goes on to state that " he came also to Derbe and Lystra "
(xvi. 1), and that he and his company, now increased by Timothy, " as
they went on their way through the cities delivered to them " certain
decrees to keep, so that the Churches previously established there " were
strengthened in the faith and increased in numbers daily " (xvi. 4, 5).
The narrative then continues : " And they went through 1 the Phrygian
and Galatic region (rfjv 0gvyiav xai faXa,xixr)v x&Qav), having been
prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the Message in Asia ; and
when they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia."
(6) Acts xviii. 23. After the historian in the preceding context
(v. 22) has described the return of St. Paul from his Second Missionary
journey, he goes on to relate his departure upon his Third journey as
foUows : " And having spent some time (at Antioch) he departed and
went through the Galatic region and Phrygia (xrjv FaXaxixrjv x&Qav xai
Ogvyiav) in order, stablishing all the disciples,"
These two passages are explained differently according as " the
Phrygian and Galatic region " in the first, and " the Galatic region " in
the second are identified with (1) the former kingdom of Galatia, con^
stituting the northern part of the Eoman province (a view which may be
styled the North Galatian theory), or (2) the southern part of the Eoman
province (a view which may be caUed the South Galatian theory). These
theories have been presented by different scholars in somewhat varying
forms ; but each wiU be here considered under what appears to be its
most plausible aspect.
1. According to the North Galatian theory St. Paul's movements
were as foUows. (a) On his Second journey late in 49 he proceeded
through Syria and Cilicia by way of Laranda to Derbe, Lystra, and other
towns in South Galatia ; then, having reached the border between the
provinces of Galatia and Asia (perhaps at Antioch or Apollonia), and being
prohibited from preaching in the latter province, he turned northward
along a road passing through Asia to Nacoleia and Dorylaeum ; and next,
bending eastward, entered the northern part of Galatia, which (it is held)
is described by St. Luke as " the Phrygian and Galatic region " because
historicaUy it had been successively both Phrygian and Galatian (p. 265).
According to this view "Galatia" was not evangelized until 49-50.
(6) On his Third journey he passed in succession first through North
Galatia (reached from Syrian Antioch in a north-west direction by way
of Tyana and Nazianzus, and supposed to be described by St. Luke as
" the Galatic region " because inhabited by a people who were Galatians
ethnologicaUy as weU as politicaUy), and secondly through Phrygia,
travelling in a south-westerly direction through the hiUy country of
central Asia (xa dvcoregixa /xigrj) towards Ephesus.
2. According to the South Galatian theory St. Paul's course was as
foUows. (a) On his Second missionary journey, after coming to Derbe
and Lystra (evangelized in 47-48) and strengthening the Churches there,
1 In Acts xvi. 6 all the best MSS. (K A B C D E) have SitjKBov, not Sie\dovres,
read by the mass of later authorities.

268 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
he sought from Lystra or Iconium to cross into Asia (perhaps near
Tyriseum) ; but being forbidden to preach in Asia, turned south-west
and proceeded through that part of South Galatia which trends from the
neighbourhood of Tyriseum westward, and which (it is probable) was
caUed Phrygia Galatica, and with which, it is assumed, St. Luke's phrase,
" the Phrygian and Galatic region," is synonymous. When this region
had been traversed, he turned north along the road leading to Bithynia,
through Nacoleia and Dorylseum. At the last-named place he was opposite
to Mysia (lying on his left) ; and as he and his companions felt themselves
prevented by the Spirit of Jesus from preaching in Bithynia, the borders
of which they had nearly reached, they passed through Mysia (though
refraining from preaching there since it was included in Asia), and so
proceeded to Troas. (6) On his Third journey St. Paul foUowed the same
route as on the Second journey (viz. through Laranda) to the towns
(Derbe, Lystra, etc.) previously visited in South Galatia, which St. Luke,
on the second occasion, calls simply " the Galatic region " ; and from
thence traversed Phrygia, or strictly that part of Phrygia which was
outside the province of Galatia, and which would have been more correctly
described as Phrygia Asiana, journeying westward to Ephesus, but foUow
ing, not the regular route along the Mseander, but a road on high ground
to the north of the river (p. 75).
In a comparison between the two Galatian theories the most sub
stantial argument in favour of the North Galatian theory is that in Acts
xvi. 4, the words " as they went on their way through the cities " suggest
that St. Paul and his companions traversed all the places evangelized in
the First missionary journey, i.e. Pisidian Antioch no less than Derbe,
Lystra, and Iconium, before entering the Phrygian and Galatic region
(Acts xvi. 6) ; in which case this latter must have been distinct from
South Galatia. Nevertheless, the arguments against the North Galatian
and in favour of the South Galatian theory preponderate.
(a) A j oumey nort hward from North Galatia could not be said to bring
St. Paul and his company " over against " Mysia (for the preposition cf.
xxvii. 7) since the chief towns of North Galatia were in the latitude of
Mysia (p. 265).
(b) The assumption that a large district like North Galatia was first
evangelized on St. Paul's Second journey (accomplished between 49
and 52) leaves, after the time already spent in Syria and Cilicia (Acts
xv. 41) and among the cities of South Galatia (Acts xvi. 1-5), a scant
margin for the Apostle's subsequent labours in Macedonia, Greece (where
he spent more than eighteen months, Acts xviii. 11) and Ephesus ; and
the difficulty is only partiaUy reduced by the suggestion that merely the
western half of North Galatia, and not the whole of it, was covered in a
missionary tour,1 so that the interval spent there would be much less.
(c) The words in Galatians ii. 5, " to whom (i.e. the Judaizers) we gave
place in the way of subjection not even for an hour that the truth of the
Gospel might continue with you," where the writer is referring to the
1 See Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 94.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 269
interview he had with James, Peter and John in a.d. 49, suggests that he
had been among the " Galatians " prior to that year, which was not the
case if " Galatia " is taken to be North Galatia, and to have been visited
first in 49-50 (p. 267).
(d) The aUusion to Barnabas in Gal. ii. 13, " even Barnabas was
carried away with their dissimulation," is much more inteUigible on the
assumption that he was personally known to the Galatians, as was the case
on the South Galatian theory (since he accompanied St. Paul when, on
his First journey, he went to Pisidian Antioch and its adjacent cities in
the south of the Eoman province), than if he were not, as the North
Galatian theory requires.1
(e) Since St. Paul included Macedonia and Greece in his Third Journey,
it would have been more natural for him to have gone thither from North
Galatia by way of Troas, instead of proceeding first to Ephesus, which
he could have taken on his return. The fact that from " the Galatic
region " he went straight on to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1) points to
the identification of that region with South Galatia, " the upper country "
through which he passed (Acts xix. 1) being the higher ground north of
the vaUeys of the Lycus and Mseander.2 To assume that in proceeding
from Antioch " through the Galatic region and Phrygia " to Ephesus he
passed through North Galatia involves the supposition that he pursued
a most circuitous route, covering some hundreds of mUes. On the other
hand, the circumstance that he did not go to Ephesus when in South
Galatia on his Second journey (Acts xvi. 6 f .) is explained by the prohibition
then imposed against preaching in Asia. $$'$,
(/) The contention urged against St. Paul by bis opponents that he
preached circumcision (Gal. v. 11) finds on the South Galatian theory
an easy explanation in his circumcision of Timothy, who was a native of
Lystra, a town of South Galatia (Acts xvi. 3).
(g) Jewish emissaries would more easUy be tempted to foUow St. Paul
and disturb the peace of the churches he had founded, if the latter lay
along the via Egnatia, as did those of South Galatia, than if they were
situated in the remoter regions of North Galatia.
(h) It is suggestive that among St. Paul's companions on his way to
Jerusalem from his Third journey (Acts xx. 4) with offerings for his country
men (xxiv. 17) there were delegates, on the South Galatian theory, from
aU the Eoman provinces which he had visited, Gaius and Timothy (from
Derbe and Lystra) representing the province of Galatia. On the other
hand, on the North Galatian theory there were no representatives from
the " Galatian " Church to which the Epistle to the Galatians is addressed.
These reasons create a strong impression in favour of the South
Galatian theory. The opposing view depends mainly upon the assump
tion that when St. Paul was forbidden to preach in Asia, he had crossed
the whole of South Galatia. But this assumption is not self-evident, and
1 On the other hand, Barnabas is mentioned in letters written to churches which
it is not known that he visited (see 1 Cor. ix. 6 ; Col. iv. 10),
2 See Lake, Early Epistles, etc., p. 260.

270 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
therefore the inference that the Phrygian and Galatic region, next traversed,
must have been other than part of South Galatia is not necessitated.
And though no complete proof is forthcoming that this phrase, "the
Phrygian and Galatic region," was used to describe South Galatia, yet
fairly close paraUels occur ; and on the whole, it seems more probable
that it designates a country which was both in Phrygia and in the pro
vince of Galatia, than that it denotes one which had in a distant past
been successively inhabited by Phrygians and Gauls.
Date, Occasion, and Place of Origin
Conclusions respecting the date of the Epistle are largely affected by
the opinions entertained about (a) the locaUty of the Galatian Church
addressed in the letter, (6) the question whether the meeting between
St. Paul and certain of the elder Apostles aUuded to in Gal. ii. occurred on
the occasion of the councU at Jerusalem held later than his return from
his First missionary journey in 48 and described in Acts xv. In regard to
(a) the conclusion has just been reached that the Galatians to whom the
letter was sent were Christian communities of the cities of Antioch,
Iconium, Lystra and Derbe in South Galatia. But the question marked
(b) requires to be discussed, since the identification of St. Paul's visit to
Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. ii. with that related in Acts xv. is keenly
disputed. In Gal. i. 18-23 St. Paul refers to his first visit to Jerusalem (perhaps
in a.d. 35), three years after his conversion, and though there are some
serious discrepancies between what he says about it and what is related
by St. Luke in Acts ix. 26-30, the same occasion is probably meant in
both passages. But the visit of which St. Paul gives an account in Gal.
ii. 1-10 is held by some scholars not to have occurred at the time indicated
in Acts xv., but on the occasion when St. Paul was one of the delegates sent
to convey relief from Antioch to Jerusalem during the famine in 46 (as
briefly recorded in Acts xi. 30 *). In favour of this view it has been argued
(a) that the famine-visit in Acts xi. 30 and the visit described in Gal. ii.
are each represented as the Apostle's second visit ; (6) that on the famine-
visit St. Paul was accompanied by Barnabas only, whilst on the visit
mentioned in Gal. ii. • Barnabas was likewise his sole companion on a
footing of equality, though Titus was also with him as a subordinate ;
(c) that the famine-visit was undertaken as the result of a prediction by
Agabus, a prophet, whilst the visit of Gal. ii. was simUarly in consequence
of a revelation. The circumstance that, when Barnabas and Paul carried
the money sent by the Antiochenes to the Jewish Church, they gave it
into the hands of the presbyters and not of the Apostles, whose leaders
were at the time at Jerusalem, is explained by the fact that it was not the
function of the latter to administer relief funds (cf. Acts vi. 2). There
are, however, very serious difficulties in the way of this supposed identifi
cation, (i) One is raised by the chronology. The famine-visit occurred,
1 In Acts xi. 30 mention is only made of Judsea.but that the visit included Jerusa
lem appears from Acts xii. 25.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 271
if not early in St. Paul's ministry, at least earlier than the time assigned
to the visit of Gal. ii. For if St. Paul was converted not earlier than 33,
and first visited Jerusalem in 35, his second visit on the occasion of the
famine in 46 took place only eleven years after his first. But the visit
recounted in Gal. ii. occurred fourteen years (according to the natural
interpretation of the words, "Eneira 8ia 8exareaadgmv ermv ndXiv x.r.X.)
after the first, i.e. in a.d. 49. 1 (ii) A second difficulty is the difference
in the relative positions of Paul and Barnabas at the two periods. At
the famine-visit Barnabas stiU took priority of St. Paul in virtue of his
greater age and experience, but by the time when the visit of Gal. ii.
occurred St. Paul was the more important and influential personage of
the two, claiming that he, in a degree beyond others, had been entrusted
with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (Gal. ii. 7). (iii) And a third
and most formidable difficulty is furnished by the nature of the controversy
. at the meeting of St. Paul and the elder Apostles related in Gal. ii. — a
Controversy which is almost out of the question at the time of the famine-
visit. Before the meeting with the Apostles recounted in Gal. ii. St. Paul
had been taking a foremost part in the evangelization of heathen GentUes,
like those at Lystra (Acts xiv. 8), and the question of their submission to
circumcision had by that time become acute, just as represented in Acts
XV. 1 . But there is no evidence that the same question had been raised as
acutely respecting the Greeks to whom the Gospel was preached at Antioch
prior to the famine-visit (Acts xi. 20), especiaUy as these Greeks may
nave been " God-fearers." These objections to the identification of the
visit of Galatians ii. with the visit at the date of the famine appear to be
insuperable, and it remains, therefore, to regardjt as one with the visit
related in Acts xv. The latter, indeed, is represented by St. Luke as the
third of St. Paul's visits to Jerusalem, whereas the interview with the
Apostles in Gal. ii. occurred, according to St. Paul, on his second visit ; but
it is reasonable to suppose that St. Paul omitted to mention the famine-
visit because it did not result in a meeting with any of the Apostles. The
view that Gal. ii. and Acts xv. relate to the same occasion involves, indeed,
the conclusion that St. Luke's account is extremely inaccurate and mis
leading (see p. 535 f .) ; but the errors which seem to be comprised in that
account do not call for notice here, and it is sufficient to use the identifi
cation of the visit in Gal. ii. with the visit described in Acts xv. as a
help towards dating the Epistle.
The journey of St. Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to discuss the
question of circumcising the GentUe converts (Gal. ii. 1-10) took place
after the return of the two Apostles from their First missionary journey,
seemingly in a.d. 49 ; and the letter to the Galatians must have been
written after this date. But it was probably not written immediately
after this journey, for in Gal. iv. 13 St. Paul implies that previously to
writing it he had. been twice among the Galatian Churches ; and if no
distinction is drawn between the visits paid to the South Galatian cities
on the outward and the homeward routes (Acts xiv. 21) but both are
1 The date (33) for St. Paul's conversion is not certain (p. 345).

272 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
counted as one, then the second occasion when St. Paul was in Galatia
occurred in the course of his Second missionary journey between 49 and
52 (Acts xvi. 1-6). Accordingly the Epistle must have been composed
either during that journey (after Galatia had been traversed) or after the
Apostle's return from it. On the former hypothesis, it may have been
written at Corinth between 50 and the beginning of 52. On the latter
supposition, the place of origin was perhaps Antioch (Acts xviii. 22), and
its date the summer of 52, during the months elapsing between the Second
journey and the Third. It is against the first alternative that the Epistle
contains no greetings from SUas and Timothy, both known to the South
Galatians and both with St. Paul at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5), unless the
letter was written before their arrival,1 which the unlikeness of Galatians
to Thessalonians (sent from Corinth, p. 262) renders improbable. It is
also in favour of the second alternative that it brings the Epistle rather
closer in point of chronology to the Epistle to the Romans (written early
in 56, see p. 281), with which it has some features in common.2 At the
same time an ample interval is left between these two Epistles to account
for a difference in tone between them, for whereas in Galatians there is
manifest a feeling of bitterness towards the writer's countrymen, this, at
the date when Romans was composed, appears to have become aUayed.3
It has been objected, indeed, to the date here advocated that in the
Epistle itseU there is no aUusion to any impending visit to Galatia,4
though, according to the view here adopted, it was foUowed almost at
once by St. Paul's departure to that region (see above). But it may weU .
have been that, as St. Paul had only just returned, after a long absence,
to Antioch, he at first thought that a severe remonstrance by letter
would meet the situation ; and that it was only on later reflection, after
the Epistle had been sent, that the exigency appeared too serious to be
dealt with in this way, and his actual presence seemed required to cope
with it successf uUy. Of the Pauline letters preserved in the New Testament
it was probably the third, being preceded by 1, 2 Th. alone.
Advocates of the South Galatian theory who identify the famine visit
of 46 with the visit described in Gal. ii.,5 and who regard the return
visit to Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, in Acts xiv. 21, as distinct
from the visit on the outward journey a few weeks before, can assign the
Epistle to 48, after St. Paul's return to Antioch from his First journey
(Acts xiv. 26), and so make it decidedly the earliest of his letters. But
supporters of the North Galatian theory (if, in iv. 13 ngoregov means
" on the former of two occasions " and not merely " formerly," as in
Joh. ix. 8, 1 Tim. i. 13) must place it later than the tour through " the
1 On this supposition Galatians is slightly the earliest of the Pauline Epistles.
2 See Lightfoot, Gal. pp. 45-48.
3 Cf. Rendall, Expos. Ap. 1894, p. 261.
» Backham, Acts, p. 336.
6 This identification renders it necessary to assume (very unnaturally) that in
Gal. ii. 1 the space oi fourteen years inoludes the three years of i. 18, and is reckoned
from the Apostle's conversion in a.d. 33, otherwise this last event has to be pushed
back to a.d. 30, which seems too early after the Crucifixion in a.d. 29.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 273
Galatic region " mentioned in Acts xviii. 23, and must assume that it was
written in the course of the Third missionary journey between 52 and 55,
in either Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-10) or Greece (Acts xx. 2), or Macedonia
(Acts xx. 3), or else later than the Third journey, after 56. A few MSS.
and versions add at the end of the Epistle iygdiprj ano Pcbjxrjg, making its
date 59-61.
The occasion which evoked the Epistle was information to the effect
that emissaries of the Jewish party were insisting that the Galatians
should submit to circumcision, and keep the other requirements of the
Jewish Law. It was to combat this teaching that St. Paul dispatched
the letter, which is marked by great vehemence and indignation. It was
probably dictated to an amanuensis, but the Apostle attached to it a
postscript rather longer than usual (vi. 11-18).

The Epistles to the Corinthians
The Church at Corinth
Corinth was the city at which St. Paul spent, at least as a free man, a
longer time than anywhere else in Europe. Of his successful establishment
of a Christian Church there an account is furnished on p. 555. Most of
his converts were drawn from the Eoman colonists (p. 67) and the native
Greeks ; and it appears from 1 Cor. i. 26 that the Christians were mainly,
though not quite exclusively, of humble rank. Their external circum
stances were happier than those of the Thessalonians (p. 262), for in
consequence perhaps of the tolerance created by the presence in the city
of the many religious cults introduced by sailors and traveUers, there was
little persecution. In character the Corinthian Church exhibited many
of the qualities which distinguished the Corinthians as a whole. It was
marked by party spirit, litigiousness, sexual licence, proneness to idolatry,
disorder in public worship, unruliness, insolence, and disloyalty towards
those in authority. The defects which chiefly evoked the censure of St.
Paul were moral ; but there also prevaUed intellectual doubts and
difficulties relating to the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. xv. 12).
Date, Occasion, and Place of Composition of 1 and 2 Cor.
The time when St. Paul founded the Church at Corinth, the period
within which the two Epistles preserved in the New Testament were
written, and the place from which they were dispatched, can be determined
with approximate accuracy. But the futt number of the visits paid by
the Apostle to Corinth and of the letters he sent to it and their true
sequence are so uncertain and obscure that the occasions which elicited
the two Epistles wiU best be understood if they are included in a summary
review of the whole history of his relations with his Corinthian converts,
so far as it can be ascertained. And it wiU save space, and conduce to
clearness if, instead of a discussion of alternative constructions of the
18

274 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
history, there is presented as a working theory the conjectural scheme of
events which most commends itself,1 attention at the same time being
drawn to the indecisiveness of part of the evidence. Some anticipation
of what is related elsewhere is unavoidable.
(1) 2 St. Paul first visited Corinth in the course of his Second missionary
journey (a.d. 50), and stayed there untU the middle of 52.
(2) In 52 he left the city for Ephesus, where he spent only a short
time, and then went to Syria and Palestine. In the autumn of the same
year he started on his Third missionary journey and again reached Ephesus,
where on this occasion he spent in aU two years and three months (Acts xix.
1, 8, 10). Here he planned another visit to Macedonia and Achaia ; but
before setting out for these countries he sent two of his companions,
Timothy and Erastus, before him into Macedonia, whilst he himself
continued to stay for a whUe in Asia (Acts xix. 22).
It was whilst St. Paul was at Ephesus that some correspondence took
place between him and the Corinthian Church, and communications
about the Church reached him from other sources.
(a) A letter (the first of four) was written by St. Paul to the Corinthians
warning them against associating with people guilty of immorality — an
admonition which was misunderstood. The dispatch of such a letter is
implied in 1 Cor. v. 9 ; and the plural " letters " in 2 Cor. x. 10, 11 makes
it clear that another communication besides 1 Cor. had passed between
St. Paul and the Corinthians, when 2 Cor. x. was written. It has been
suggested that of this letter a fragment is preserved in 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1.
This passage, urging believers not to associate with unbelievers and
idolaters, interrupts the context, for the words of the preceding w.
(vi. 12, 13), " Ye are straitened in your affections ... be ye also (as well
as I) enlarged," find their fitting sequel, not in v. 14, but in the exhortation,
" Make room (in your hearts) for us," occurring in the more remote
passage vii. 2 f . ; whereas the advice contained in the intermediate section
2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1, which is directed against unions between believers and
unbelievers, is appropriate to a letter like that to which St. Paul refers,
commanding Christians to have no dealings with unchaste persons.
(6) Information about the condition of the Corinthian Church, as
regards the prevalence there of a spirit of partisanship (1 Gor. i. 11), and
possibly of the occurrence of a grave case of immoraUty (cf . 1 Cor. v. 1),
came to the Apostle through some members of the household of a lady
caUed Chloe, who either resided at Corinth or had connexions with it.
(c) A letter was received by St. Paul from the Corinthian Church
(1 Cor. xvi. 17), containing a number of requests for the Apostle's advice
and some statements calculated to interest him. This is an inference
from the manner in which the Apostle, in our 1 Cor., deals with certain
matters that are introduced by a recurring formula (1 Gor. vii. 1, 25,
viii. 1, xii. 1, xvi. 1, 12), suggestive of subjects submitted for his considera-
1 The scheme follows in the main those of Lake (Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp
120-175) and Plummer (2 Corinthians, pp. xiii,-xxxvi,).
2 In each of the sections thus numbered is mentioned a journey of St. Paul's either
to or from Corinth.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 275
tion, and from the nature of certain aUusions occurring in the same
Epistle (see xi. 2, xv. 1).
The existence in the Church at Corinth of the disorders reported by
the household of Chloe caused St. Paul to dispatch thither Timothy, who
with Erastus was going in that direction,1 by way of Macedonia (Acts xix.
22), and who (it was hoped) would be able to check the abuses which had
taken place (1 Cor. iv. 17, xyi. 10). But since the land route through
Macedonia was circuitous, and a communication conveyed by sea would
reach Corinth before Timothy, St. Paul also wrote to the Corinthians a
second letter, our 1 Corinthians. In this letter he dealt with the matters
about which news had reached him through the servants of Chloe, and
also replied to the letter that had arrived from Corinth. He condemned
with vigour the party-feeling, licentiousness, and other faults which
(he was informed) had manifested themselves in the Corinthian Church ;
answered a number of inquiries concerning marriage, the eating of meat
offered to idols, spiritual gifts, and other subjects mentioned in the letter
that had come from Corinth ; expressed his purpose of going himself into
Macedonia, and of proceeding from thence to Corinth (where he hoped
to winter) ; excused himself for not going first to Corinth by sea and thence
to Macedonia (since this would involve a merely passing visit) ; gave
directions about the fund to be raised for the poor at Jerusalem2 ; and
commended Timothy to the consideration and caTe of the Corinthian
Christians. This letter, our 1 Corinthians, was written at Ephesus or in its neigh
bourhood, perhaps six months before the close of St. Paul's stay there.
Neither the date of his departure from Antioch on his Third journey, nor
fchetime spent in passing through the Galatic regionand Phrygia (Acts xviii.
23) is known ; but if the scheme of dates given on p. 348 be approximately
qorrect, according to which he left Antioch late in 52, and if a sufficient
interval be allowed for work in the districts named, he probably did not
reach Ephesus until the early part of 53. As he stopped more than two
and a quarter years there, his stay in the city must have lasted at least
until the summer of 55, it being his purpose when he wrote 1 Cor. to remain
there until Pentecost (1 Cor. xvi. 8), whilst in aU likelihood he reaUy
Stopped until the autumn (see below). He clearly wrote 1 Cor. before
the Pentecostal season of the last year of his stay ; and on the assumption
that the Third missionary journey began in the autumn of 52, the date of
1 Cor. wiU he the early spring of 55.3
The conclusion that 1 Car. was written from Ephesus is confirmed by a
statement to. this effect attached to the end of the Epistle in the uncial P2,
and some other manuscripts. On the other hand, the uncials F2L2 and
some Latin manuscripts represent it as written at Philippi in Macedonia.
This finds some superficial support in the phrase used in xvi. 5, Maxedoviav
1 Erastus was probably a Corinthian (p. 281) and returning home.
2 Directions about the fund had been given in Galatia (1 Cor. xvi. 1), which St.
Paul had visited in the early part of his Second journey, before his arrival at Corinth
(Acts xvi. 6).
8 Perhaps about the time of the Peast of Passover ; cf. 1 Cor. v. 7, 8.

276 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Siigxojjiai, but this need only mean " I intend to pass through Macedonia ";
and that the province of Asia was the country of origin is practicaUy
placed beyond doubt by the fact that the letter conveys to the Corinthians
the salutation of the Churches of Asia (xvi.l9),and of AquUa and PrisciUa,
who were at Ephesus during the period when it was written (Acts xviii.
18, 26). It has been objected to Ephesus as the city whence it was sent
that the writer in xv. 32, xvi. 8 refers to Ephesus as if he were not there.
But it may be reasonably supposed that just as St. Paul, in common
with other writers of the time, could use the epistolary aorist iygaipa
instead of the present ygdipco because the former tense would become
appropriate by the time his letters reached those for whom they were
intended, so he might refer by name to the place whence he happened to
be writing (instead of using here or this place) because such mention of it
would similarly be more convenient for his readers at a distance. The
letter was probably carried by Titus (who had a companion, 2 Cor. xii. 18),
for in it, as has been said, St. Paul gives orders for coUecting the money
required for the relief of the Jewish Church (xvi. 1, 2), and Titus seems
to have been instrumental in setting the coUection on foot (2 Cor. viii. 6).
It has been seen that Timothy was sent to Corinth by way of Macedonia,
before 1 Cor. was composed. If he arrived at his final destination, he must
have been unable to allay the dissensions, or to put an end to the scandals
in the Church. No particulars, however, are given of his mission, and he
may not have reached Corinth at aU ; but if he did, it must be assumed
that he returned to Ephesus unsuccessful.
(3) The faUure of Timothy to deal with the situation in the Corinthian
Church seems to have induced St. Paul himself to leave Ephesus at once
for Corinth, probably travelling by sea, for the voyage was, under normal
conditions, a short one. A visit to Corinth under circumstances which
caused the Apostle great distress, is implied in 2 Cor. ii. 1, and it is styled
the second in xiii. 2 ; whilst it is clear from 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1 that the
visit contemplated in these last passages and finaUy carried out (see
below, p. 279) was the third, not the second, which it would have been if
none had previously occurred except the one in a.d. 50 (p. 274). Apparently
St. Paul's authority had been disputed, probably by some Jewish Christians
who had recently come to Corinth, perhaps from Jerusalem (cf. 2 Cor. xi.
4, 22), who contended that their views corresponded to Christ's own
teaching (cf. 2 Cor. x. 7), and who also supported their pretensions of
superiority to St. Paul by claiming a right to maintenance which he had
not done (2 Cor. xi. 7-13, xii. 13) ; and he seems for the time to have
failed to regain his influence. In the course of this visit, which by some
scholars is placed in a different connexion,1 it is probable that St. Paul
was insulted by some members of the Corinthian Church (2 Cor. ii. 5-7,
vii. 12).2
1 By Zahn and others the visit in question is thought to have preoeded the writing
of 1 Cor. But it is fairly clear from 1 Cor. ii. 1, iii. 2, xi. 2 that only one visit to Corinth
had occurred when 1 Cor. was written — viz. that on the ocoasion when the Church
there was founded.
2 Whether the wronged person in 2 Cor. vii. 12 was really St. Paul is not quite
certain.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 277
(4) The Apostle returned speedUy to Ephesus, apparently as unsuccess
ful in his attempts to subdue the disorders at Corinth as Timothy had
been ; and from Ephesus he wrote in great sorrow another letter (the
third of the series), which was conveyed by Titus, and in which he adopted
a very stern tone. Such a letter is aUuded to in 2 Cor. ii. 4, vii. 8 ; and it
has been conjectured with much probabUity that a part of this severe
letter is preserved in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. Several features in this section
combine to favour such a conclusion, (a) Whereas the language of the
first nine chapters of 2 Cor. is concUiatory, eulogistic towards, and full
of confidence in, those addressed, is plainly designed to remove any soreness
created by previous occurrences, and is imbued with intense thankfulness,
that of the last four chapters fluctuates between hope and fear, and is
marked, in general, by self-assertion, vaunting, indignation, sarcasm,
and threats. In particular, whilst the second chapter breathes the writer's
sense of relief at the steps taken to vindicate him by the punishment
of some offender, and appeals for the latter's restoration (ii. 5-8, cf. vii.
9-12), and the ninth chapter concludes with an expression of deep
gratitude for the generosity of the Corinthian Church in contributing to
the coUection for the needy Christians of Jerusalem, on the other hand
the tenth opens with a menacing tone towards certain members of that
Church, and the thirteenth declares that the writer, if he should visit
Corinth again, wiU not spare (xiii. 2). In fact, the whole character of
the last four chapters corresponds to that of the letter written " out of
much affliction and anguish of "heart and with many tears," mentioned
in 2 Cor. ii. 4, vii. 8, and does not look like the sequel of a confident appeal
for funds, such as occupies so much of chapters viii. and ix. (b) The
circumstance that in ch. i.-ix. there seem to occur aUusions to matters
contained in ch. x.-xiii. renders it probable that the latter chapters are
prior in date to those which in the present arrangement precede them.
The most noticeable of such aUusions are the following : —
x.-xiii. i.-ix.
x. 6. Being in readiness to avenge all ii. 9. For to this end also did I write
disobedience when your obedience that I might know the proof of
shall be fulfilled. you, whether ye are obedient in
all things.
xiii. 2. If I come again, I will not i. 23. To spare you I forbore to come
spare. to Corinth.
xiii. 10. I write these things while ii. 3. I wrote this very thing, that I
absent, that I may not, when might not, by coming, have sorrow.
present, deal sharply.
(c) The hope expressed by the writer in x. 16 of being able to preach
the Gospel " even unto the parts beyond you " (i.e. Corinth), suggests
that ch. x.-xiii. were not written, like ch. i.-ix. (see below), from Macedonia,
but, like the second letter (1 Cor.), from Ephesus. H (as is natural) the
parts meant are Italy and Spain (see Rom. xv. 24, 28), they would be
more appropriately described as "beyond Corinth," if the writer were
east of Corinth, than if he were situated to the north of it. These features
constitute a plausible argument for disconnecting the last few chapters.

278 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of 2 Cor. from those to which they are now attached, and assigning: them
to a different occasion, although there is no textual evidence or traditional
support for the proposed separation. If this account of the last four
chapters is accepted, it may be assumed that having lost their beginning
they were appended to the first nine because these had lost their conclusion.
ParaUels for such procedure are furnished by the attachment of the latter
part of the Epistle of Polycarp to the former part of the Epistle of Barnabas,
and by the addition to the Epistle of Diognetus of two chapters belonging
to a different work.1
(5) Having delayed at Ephesus probably longer than he intended
when he Wrote 1 Cor., and abandoning the route which he had originaUy
planned (2 Cor. i. 15-16), St. Paul, accompanied by Timothy, eventuaUy
left in the summer of 55 for Macedonia (Acts xx. 1), passing through Troas,
where he was disappointed at not finding Titus (2 Cor. ii. 12, 13), from
whom he expected a report concerning the situation in Corinth. In
Macedonia he at last was met by Titus (2 Cor. vii. 6), who brought good
news. St. Paul's severe letter, aided presumably by Titus' own efforts
on the spot, had effected an improvement in the Corinthian Church
(2 Cor. vii. 6-15) ; and the person who had insulted the Apostle had been
punished by a Vote of the majority (2 Cor. ii. 6, mg.). St. Paul, full of
joy at the change in the position of affairs at Corinth, wrote from Macedonia
a fourth letter, Our 2 Corinthians (lacking ch. x.-xiii.),2 in which he
explained, amongst other things, his reason for not having repeated so
painful a visit to Corinth as the preceding had been (i. 23, ii. 1), and in
which he expressed a wish that the contribution of money for the poor of
Jerusalem, which had been in preparation for some time, should be
in readiness against his arrival at Corinth (2 Cor. ix. 1-5). This com
munication was conveyed by Titus, who was accompanied by two others
(2 Cor. viii. 17, 18, 22, 23). The success which Titus had already met
with clearly rendered him an appropriate messenger, and he was himself
eager to complete the coUection which he had helped to begin when he
took 1 Cor. to Corinth (2 Cor. viii. 6, 17, xii. 18).3
2 Corinthians, consisting of ch. i.-ix. only, was certainly written from
Macedonia (cf. viii. 1, ix. 2), through which. St. Paul had expressed his
intention of passing when he wrote 1 Cor. xvi. 5 (p. 275) ; and according
to a subscription found in the uncial K2, and in some cursives and versions,
it was sent from Philippi. The date was probably the autumn of 55,
later than October. The first month of the Macedonian year, as weU as
of the Jewish civil year, coincided with Sept.-Oct., so that the preceding
spring, when 1 Gor. was composed, could be described as " last year "
(And nigvai, 2 Cor. viii. 10 referring to 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2). Of the individuals
who accompanied Titus with the letter, one is identified in the subscription
appended to K_, as St. Luke. The conjecture is not improbable, for if
Philippi was the place whence the letter was dispatched, St. Luke may have
1 Plummer, 2 Cor p. 385
2 Probably lacking also vi. 14-vii. 1 (p. 274).
* In viii. 17, 18, 22, ix. 3 the aorists iSi^aro, 4l-rj\9ev, o-vveirejuj/anev, tmivpa
are epistolary aorists and equivalent to presents.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 279
remained there ever since the occasion when he went thither with St. Paul,
in the course of the latter's Second journey (Acts xvi. 11-40).
After writing 2 Cor. i.-ix. (a letter overflowing with expressions of
satisfaction) St. Paul proceeded from Macedonia into Greece. His original
design had been to go to Corinth by sea and from thence to Macedonia,
returning from the latter country again to Corinth1 (2 Cor. i. 15, 16) ; but
he had been prevented from carrying it out. He probably reached Greece
in November or December, a.d. 55, and stayed there three months
(Acts xx. 3). Though the city where he stopped is not named, it cannot
be doubted that it was Corinth ; so that to that place he seems to have
gone three times.
(6) At the end of the three months he decided to return to Syria by
sea ; but a plot against him formed by the Jews led him to alter his
route, and early in 56 he started on his homeward journey through
Macedonia (Acts xx. 3).

The Epistle to the Romans
The Roman Church
It is tolerably clear from the contents of the Epistle that the Church
at Eome consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. The transportation of
large numbers of Jews as slaves to the Eoman capital was one of the
consequences of the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C. (p. 44),
so that even as early as 59 B.C. Cicero could allude to the great amount
of money sent yearly by the Jews of Italy to the Temple at Jerusalem
(pro Flaeco, § 67). That those to whom the letter was sent comprised
many Jews appears from the writer's statement in vii. 1, that he is speaking
to " men that know the Law " ; from the regard shown by him to Jewish
objections to certain aspects of his teaching (iii. 1, 31, vii. 7, 13) ; from the
aUusion to Abraham as " our forefather according to the flesh " (iv. 1) ;
from the discussion of the rejection of the Gospel by Israel as a whole
(ix.-xi.) ; and from the exhortation to discharge faithfully all duties to
the State (xiii. 7), since the Jews were more than once driven from Eome
for turbulence (p. 78). And that numbers of non- Jews also were included
is equaUy evident from the direct address to the recipients of the letter
as Gentiles in xi. 13 ; from the enumeration of them with other Gentiles
in i. 6, 13 ; from the reference to the writer's special vocation to be a
minister to the Gentiles (i. 5, xv. 15-16) ; and from the warning lest their
Christian privUeges (rejected by the Jews) should foster self-conceit
(xi. 25).
How Christianity first reached Eome is obscure. That the Church
* The return visit contemplated on this occasion explains the " second benefit "
alluded to in 2 Cor. i. 15. The following Kat is explanatory, not connective (cf.
Mpjfatt, L.N-T, p. 118). But some suppose that the vjsjl. when the Corinthian Church
was founded was the first benefit ; that the second visit (p. 276), as being distressful, is
omitted ; and that the visit of Acts xx. 2 was the second benefit (Plummer, 2 Cor. p. 32),

280 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
there was not founded by St. Paul is certain, for the letter to it was
composed some years before that Apostle went thither (see xv. 24 and
p. 281). Nor is it likely that it owed its origin to another Apostle, since
in this very letter St. Paul declares that it was his aim not to take as the
sphere of his preaching a region already evangehzed by any one definitely
known (xv. 20). Probably the Christian faith had been introduced into
the Eoman capital by traders or immigrants who, going thither on business
or for other reasons, had carried their rehgion with them. There was
naturaUy extensive intercourse between the East and Italy, for the
Egnatian road was a great channel of communication by land (p. 75) ;
whUst there were sea-routes both from the nearer ports of Asia
(through Corinth) and from the more remote coasts of Syria and Egypt
(p. 76). If there was an expulsion of Jews from Eome in a.d. 49, and
this had any connexion with disturbances between Jews and Christians
(p. 78), a Christian Church must have been founded there before that
date. Numerous traditions preserved in Patristic writers connect' St. Peter
with Eome, where he is represented to have laboured together with
St. Paul, to have been bishop of the Church for twenty or twenty-five
years, and to have suffered martyrdom. The date of his arrival is some
times stated to have been the third year of Cahgula, i.e. a.d. 39 or 40,
and sometimes the second year of Claudius, i.e. 42 or 43 ; whilst his death
is variously assigned to the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero, i.e.
67 or 68. But St. Peter could scarcely have been at Eome as early as
42 or 43, since he was imprisoned by Herod Agrippa I at Jerusalem
shortly before the King's death in a.d. 44 (Acts xii.) ; and, as has been
said, it is unlikely that any Apostle had been at Eome prior to the year
when St. Paul wrote to the Church there (55 or 56, p. 281). In view, too,
of the silence of Acts xxvhi., it seems very improbable that St. Peter
could have been there during the two years of St. Paul's imprisonment
(59-61). If, then, St. Peter reaUy visited the Eoman capital as a free
man (and the tradition, though doubtless erroneous in detaU, is sufficiently
widespread to render this probable), the most plausible period would be
between 61 and 64. Had he been at Eome in the latter year, during the
persecution of the Christians, he would scarcely have escaped the fate
that overtook his fellow-behevers at that time ; he probably perished three
years afterwards. The Date, Occasion, and Place of Composition
A clue to the period in St. Paul's ministry when the letter was written
is afforded by the allusion in xv. 26 to the completion of a certain contri
bution intended for the poor among the Christians at Jerusalem, which
the writer was about to convey thither. This coUection St. Paul brought
with him when he returned to Jerusalem from his Third Missionary journey
in a.d. 56 (Acts xxiv. 17) ; and it is reasonable to infer that the letter
was composed and dispatched to Rome from some place at which the
Apostle stayed in the course of that journey. That the destination of the

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 281
letter was Eome need not be doubted (see i. 15), though in i. 7, 15 the
words iv Pd>/*n and rolg iv Poipfl are omitted by Gs, and were not read
by Origen.1 The locaUty whence it was sent is more uncertain. Several
references in the last chapter suggest that it was Corinth; and if this
chapter really belongs to the letter (see below),, the bearer of the Epistle
was Phoebe, who was a member of the Church, at Cenchreee, the eastern
port of Corinth (xvi. 1). St. Paul's host at his place of sojourn was Gaius
(xvi. 23), and a Gaius was onefof the few persons whom he had baptized
at Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14-16). The treasurer (oixovo/iog) of the city where
the letter was written was Erastus, who is represented in 2 Tim. iv. 20 as
staying at Corinth. These aUusions in the letter point to Corinth as the
place of origin; and though Corinth is not actually mentioned in St.
Luke's account of the Third journey in Acts xviii. 23-xxi. 15, as a city
in which St. Paul stayed when in Greece, it was the seat of Eoman
authority there and had a Church. This conclusion is further confirmed
by one or two other coincidences between the Epistle and the narrative
in Acts. Timothy and Sosipater (or Sopater) are among those who join
with the writer in the salutation with which the letter concludes (xvi. 21) ;
and these two were also among the companions of the Apostle when in
the course of his Third journey he returned from Greece (Acts xx. 2-4).
And though by reason of the doubts attaching to the connexion between
ch. xvi. and the rest of the letter, these references cannot be relied on for
dating the Epistle, yet, since the letter was written just before St. Paul's
departure for Jerusalem (xv. 25), Corinth, the principal city in Greece
(the country whence the Apostle turned his face homeward, Acts xx. 3),
is stiU the most probable place of origin. The occasion of the letter was
the fact that on the outward stage of his Third journey he had contemplated,
when at Ephesus, a visit to Eome (Acts xix. 21) ; but when he was in
Greece he was unable to gratify his wish ; and accordingly desired to
explain the cause. 'Feeling himself under the necessity of returning
to Jerusalem with the money collected in Macedonia and Achaia (cf.
2 Cor. viii. 1 1, 1 Cor. xvi. 1 f.) before proceeding further westward, he
wrote to the Eoman Christians to teU them of the alteration of his plans,
and to express his intention of seeing them as soon as his urgent business
of taking rehef to Jerusalem had been dispatched (xv. 22-28). The
date of the Epistle will accordingly be very early in a.d. 56, prior to
the plot laid against him by the Jews, which led him to return to Asia
through Macedonia, instead of by the direct sea route (Acts xx. 3 2). It
is thus of later origin than the Epistles to the Corinthians, as shown by
the contrast between 2 Cor. viii. (with its allusion to a contribution only
then begun at Corinth), and Rom. xv. 26 (which refers to a contribution
completed in Achaia), though it was not separated from these by any long
interval. But whUst the immediate motive for the letter was the need of account
ing for the postponement of a contemplated visit, there were circumstances
1 G3 has iraffiv rois oytfiv €v ayairy deov K\ijrois or/Lots.
2 The fear of the Jews ai Jerusalem which St. Paul entertained when writing the
letter (xv. 30) is reflected in Acts xx. 22, 23.

282 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
that caused St. Paul to take the opportunity of giving his opinions on
certain important questions of Christian doctrine. As has been shown,
the Eoman Church consisted of both Jews and GentUes. The Jewish
Christians generally, as he knew by the trouble he had had with the
Galatian Church (p. 273), entertained views which in certain points he
considered to be gravely erroneous ; and it was always possible that they
would seek to imbue the GentUe Christians with the same errors. One of
the features distinguishing Jewish Christianity was a behef in the per
manent obligation of the Mosaic Law. Another was probably an under'
rating (as St. Paul deemed it) of the importance of Jesus' death, which,
to judge from the speech of St. Peter at Pentecost (Acts n. 23) and on
other occasions (Acts hi. 13, 14, iv. 10, x. 39), was regarded indeed as
being a murder of more than ordinary heinousness (since the Victim was
the Messiah, as shown by His resurrection), but was not considered to be
of greater moment spirituaUy than the death of the many prophets who
had perished at the hands of their countrymen.1 And since St. Paul was
writing to Eome, the centre of a large population and the capital and
most influential city of the Empire, he avaUed himself of the occasion
to place before the Church there his dehberate conclusions about the
authority of the Law, and about the significance of the death and resurrec
tion of Jesus. The Epistle is consequently the most theological of the
writer's letters, and is the most valuable source from which to obtain some
knowledge of his distinctive views.
The Integrity of the Epistle
Doubts of different degrees of seriousness have been raised in regard
to the authenticity of the whole or part of the last two chapters, and in
regard to their connexion with the rest of the Epistle. The circumstances
creating these doubts are that the final doxology (xvi.. 25-27) is differently
situated in difierent manuscripts, the uncial L2, a number of cursives,
and Syr. (hi.) omitting it at the end of ch. xvi., and having it, instead,
at the end of ch. xiv., whilst A P2 have it in both places, and Gg omits it
in both ; that in the codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate a heading summarizing
the contents of ch. xiv. is followed immediately by a summary of xvi. 25-27 ;
and that Cyprian, Tertullian and Marcion do not quote from ch. xv., xvi.
From these facts it has been inferred by some that both these two chapters
are not really part of the Epistle ; but the plausibility of this inference
is very different in the case of each of the two.
(1) In regard to ch. xv. it is decidedly small, (a) The MS. authority
for the position of the doxology at the end of ch. xiv. is not great, for
almost all the best MSS. (ii BCD) and several versions place it after
xvi. 23 or 24. (fi) The beginning of ch. xv. (1-6) is a conclusion to
the preceding argument in ch. xiv., without which the previous chapter is
incomplete : vv. 7-13 support the argument by quotations from the
Old Testament ; whilst the subsequent passage (vv. 14-end) relates to
1 Cf. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 408, 409.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 288
the coUection for Jerusalem, to which references occur in 1 Cor. xvi. 1 f.,
2 Cor. vhi. 1 (letters which were composed almost contemporaneously
with Romans, though before it). The omission of ch. xv., as weU as of
ch. xvi. , by Marcion was probably due to his objection to the Old Testament,
from which ch. xv. contains citations (cf. also v. 4), and to the statement
that Clirist was a minister of the Circumcision (v. 8). Where the same two
chapters were omitted (after his example), as would appear to have been
the case in Africa, the position of the doxology at the close of xiv. 23
in A L2 Pa can be accounted for by the supposition that it was added for
the purpose of Church reading, in order to give to the Epistle an appro
priate termination.1
(2) In regard to ch. xvi. it is otherwise. The chapter is preceded by a
benediction (at the close of ch. xv.), which is appropriate to the end of a
letter ; and is itself marked internally by features which appear strange
in a letter sent to Rome. Verses 3-16 contain salutations to an exceptionally
large number of persons, and vo. 17-18 show intimate knowledge of
disputes in the Church addressed — circumstances wliich are surprising
in hght of the fact that the Eoman capital was a city which St. Paul had
never previously visited. As AquUa and PrisciUa (Prisca), whose names
occur in xvi. 3, were at Ephesus when St. Paul wrote 1 Cor. from that
place (see 1 Cor. xvi. 8, 19), and were probably also there at a later date
(2 Tim. iv. 19), it has been suggested that this chapter is part of a letter
sent, not to Eome but to Ephesus, where the Apostle's friends must have
been numerous, and where his knowledge of the Christian community
was great. It is true, indeed, that the names found in ch. xvi. can almost
all be paralleled from inscriptions found in Eome ;2 that Aquila and
PrisciUa had originally been residents at Borne, and having been compeUed
to leave by Claudius (Acts xvhi. 2), may naturaUy be supposed to have
returned thither after the death of the Emperor in 54 ; that Eufus,
who is greeted in v. 13, seems to be the same as the Eufus mentioned
in Mk. xv. 21 (a Gospel written at Eome, p. 172) ; that the names of
Aristobulus and Narcissus (vv. 10, 11), whose slaves are greeted, coincide
with those of a grandson of Herod, who lived in retirement and died
at Eome, and of a notable Eoman freedman who was put to death
in the reign of Nero ; and that the name of Prisca (or Priscilla) has been
associated with a church on the Aventine hill since the fourth century,
and with a cemetery in the catacombs.3 Nevertheless, most of the names
in the chapter occur in other places besides Eome ; and the difficulties
of regarding the chapter as belonging to a letter sent to Eome are really
serious, (a) It is strange that so many persons who had laboured with,
or befriended, St. Paul (vv. 3, 9, 12, 13), or had been fellow-prisoners with
him (v. 7) should all have gone to Eome, and that the Apostle should be
familiar, in some cases, with their activity there (vv. 6, 12). (6) It is
1 See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. xcvi., xcvii. Zahn holds that the doxology
originally stood after xiv. 23 (I.N.T. i. p. 382 f.).
1 See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 421 f.
s Lake, Early Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 332, 333 ; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
pp. 419, 420.

284 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
rather curious that there should have been " a church " in the house of
PrisciUa and Aquila both at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 19) and at Eome (as
stated here, v. 5). (c) It is hard to understand how St. Paul, who had
never been at Eome, should have been acquainted with the divisions in
the Church there, and the character and methods of the persons occasioning
them (vv. 17, 18), or, if he had come to know of them by report, should
not have indicated the source of his information. On the other hand, the
references at once become plain if this chapter was originaUy part of one
to the Church of Ephesus, where St. Paul had laboured for some years,
where Priscilla and Aquila were staying shortly before he came there
(Acts xvhi. 24-26) and before he wrote Romans, where the aUusion to
Epsenetus as the first-fruits of Asia would be appreciated (v. 5), and where
St. Paul had anticipated that rehgious dissensions would arise (Acts xx.
29, 30). These considerations point to Ephesus as the destination of the
letter to which the chapter originaUy belonged,1 and which was probably
written from Corinth, to commend Phoebe to the Ephesian Church (v. 1).
The allusion to Andronicus and Julius as the writer's feUow-prisoners
may be explained by reference to the many imprisonments mentioned by
St. Paul in 2 Cor. xi. 23, of one of which Ephesus may have been the
scene.2 This fragment of a letter to Ephesus was perhaps attached to
the Epistle to the Romans, on the occasion of a copy of the latter (which
was of a character hkely to cause its circulation outside Eome itself)
having reached Ephesus.
(3) In ch. xvi. the majority of the best uncials (H A B C) have the
words ' ' The grace of our Lord, " etc. , only at v. 20 ; D E F2 G2 have it only
in v. 24 ; L2 has it in both these places ; and P2 has it after v. 27. The
preponderance of textual authority is in favour of v. 20 as the right position.
The chapter was doubtless meant to end originaUy at v. 20, then a post
script (vv. 21-24) to the letter (to Ephesus) was added (partly by Tertius,
the Apostle's amanuensis), and to this was finaUy appended by the Apostle
himself the doxology in vv. 25-27 to round off the conclusion. By some
scholars, however, this doxology (marked by an anacoluthon) is considered
to be an unconnected fragment.3
Attempts have been made to explain the peculiarities just described
by supposing that St. Paul issued the Epistle in two forms (or recensions) —
as a letter addressed to the Eoman Church and as a circular letter suited
for other Churches. The supposition that it served as a circular letter
will account for its having been received at Ephesus, where a fragment
of another letter became appended to it (if ch. xvi. originaUy had no
connexion with the other fifteen chapters). The hypothesis, however,
of two recensions does not find much support in the usage of St. Paul,
who certainly in one case, when wishing a letter to reach more than one
Church, directed that it should be sent on by the Church that first received
i Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 135 f.
2 Cf . also the allusion in 2 Gor. i. 8 to the afflictions sustained by St. Paul in Asia,
and 2 Cor. vi. 5 (in imprisonments).
» See Bacon, I.N.T. p. 104 (note).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 285
it (see Col. iv. 16) ; whilst the instance of a circular letter, supposed to
be furnished by Ephesians, is probably illusory (p. 291). x

The Epistle to the Colossians
The Church at Colossoz
The town of Colossse (or as it was caUed later, Colassse) was comprised
in the country of Phrygia, but belonged administratively to the Eoman
province of Asia (p. 66). It was situated on the Lycus, a small affluent
of the Mseander, which in the time of Herodotus ran underground for
half a mUe (Hdt. hi. 30), though this feature, if the site of the place has
been correctly identified, has now disappeared. Styled by both Herodotus
(fifth century B.C.) and Xenophon (431-355 B.C.) an important city, it is
described by Strabo (b. about 63 B.C.) as a small town (noXiaua), the
inhabitants of which derived much revenue from a dye to which the place
gave its name. During the reign of Nero in a.d. 60 or 64 (according to
Tacitus and Eusebius respectively) it, together with the cities of Laodicea
and Hierapohs, was destroyed by an earthquake,2 and perhaps (unlike
Laodicea) it never recovered from the disaster.
The Christian Church at Colossse was not founded by St. Paul, for
in his letter to it he represents his acquaintance with its rehgious life as
depending not upon personal knowledge, but upon hearsay (i. 4, 9) ; and
he seems to include the members of it among those who had never seen
him (ii. 1). The circumstance seems strange in view of the fact that the
main road from South Galatia to Ephesus passed through it ; but the
perplexity is cleared up by the statement in Acts xix., that when St. Paul,
in the course of his Third Missionary journey, traveUed from the Galatic
district and Phrygia to Ephesus, he did not take the regular route (p. 269).
But if the Apostle never visited Colossse personaUy, he was doubtless
responsible for its evangelization. During his protracted residence at
Ephesus between a.d. 52 and 53, it is reasonable to suppose that in
prosecuting his missionary labours in the province of Asia (Acts xix. 26),
he largely used the aid of some of his disciples. In the case of Colossse
he employed the services of Epaphras (Col. i. 6, 7), whose efforts to
disseminate the Christian faith extended, to Laodicea and Hierapohs
also (Col. iv. 12, 13), and who was probably helped by Philemon (Phm. 1).
Nothing is known of the nationality of Epaphras beyond the fact that he
probably belonged to Colossse (Col. iv. 12), and was presumably not of
Jewish origin, since he is not comprised in iv. 11 amongst those of the
Circumcision. Certainly the Colossian Christians were in the main Gentiles,
for St. Paul speaks of " the mystery among the GentUes which is Christ
in you the hope of glory " (Col. i. 27) ; aUudes to their uncircumcision
1 See a long discussion in Lake, Earlier Epp. of St. Paul, p. 335 f .
0 By Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 27) Colossse is not mentioned, but the shock which des
troyed Laodicea doubtless extended to the towns in its vicinity as represented by
Eusebius.

286 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(ii. 13) ; and refers to their hves before their conversion in terms not
generally appropriate to Jews (i. 21). The Christian community at
Colossse seems to have met in the house of Philemon (Phm. 2), and
Archippus was a leading member and minister in it (Col. iv. 17).
Place, Date, and Occasion of the Letter
The Epistle, which contains greetings from Timothy, was composed
when St. Paul was a prisoner (iv. 3, 10) ; and though he was in confinement
at Csesarea (56-58) before being carried to Eome (where he was in captivity
from 59 to 61), it seems more probable that it was written from the latter
than from the former place. The Apostle, it is true, was not treated
rigorously at either city (Acts xxiv. 23, xxvhi. 30, 31), and Aristarchus
(iv. 10) was at both places with him> for he accompanied him on the
voyage from Palestine to Italy (Acts xxvii. 2). But the runaway slave,
Onesimus, who was the companion of Tychicus, the bearer of the letter
(iv. 9), would be more secure at Eome than at Csesarea ; and if the Epistle
had been sent from Csesarea, the aUusions to friends who were sending
greetings (iv. 10-14) would have doubtless included the name of Phihp
the Evangehst,1 who was a resident there (Acts xxi. 8). Moreover, it is
improbable that the evangelistic work aUuded to in the letter (iv. 11)
could have been carried on at Caesarea, whereas it was possible at Eome
(Acts xxvhi. 30) ; and a fact also pointing to Eome is the expectation,
entertained by the Apostle at this time, of an early decision of his case
(Phm. 22, a letter written simultaneously with Col., see p. 293). The
date of its composition was probably 59 or early in 60, for there is no
aUusion in it to the earthquake which, according to Tacitus, destroyed
the cities of the Lycus vaUey in the latter year.
Information about the Colossian Church had reached St. Paul through
Epaphras (i. 8), and had rendered him anxious about it. There had been
introduced into it doctrines which in the field of both thought and conduct
were inconsistent with the true faith of the Christian Church. These
doctrines attached importance to circumcision (ii. 11), to matters of
food, and to the observance of Sabbaths, new moons, and other feasts
(ii. 16) ; so that they point to contact with Judaism. It does not appear,
hpwever, that the advocates of these views contended, like Judaistie
Christians in general, that circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic Law
were essential tp salvation, but only that they conduced to Christian
perfection ; and they were characterized by certain tenets distinct from
those of the Judaizers, such as the worship of angels and the practice of
abstinence not only in respect of meats and drink but perhaps also of
marriage (ii. 21), amounting to asceticism. The angels seem to have been
regarded as elemental powers controUing the planets and other luminaries
(ii. 18, ra aroixela rov xdafiov), and perhaps determining, through the
motions of these, the days and seasons which were religiously observed.
Prayer to the angels as intercessors, instead of appeals addressed directly
1 Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 159.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 287
to God, was claimed to be a mark of humUity and of spiritual superiority
(ii. 18), whilst the ascetic practices mentioned seem to imply that contact
with material things was avoided so far as possible, as involving poflution
by evil. The innovators thus appear to have made pretensions to a,
deeper wisdom and to a more refined purity than were possessed by their
feUow-Christians (ii. 23). It is an attractive suggestion that the views
current among the Colossians were akin to those of the Essenes, for, as
has been shown, these were especiaUy careful to do no work on the Sabbath,
drank no wine, abstained from marriage, and believed in the existence
of angels (see p. 104). The communities of the Essenes, indeed, lived
in Palestine, not in the Eoman province of Asia ; but it is not improbable
that sympathy with some of their doctrines prevailed amongst Jews
resident elsewhere ; and numbers of Jews are known to have been settled
in Lydia and Phrygia, whither they were deported from Babylonia by
Antiochus the Great (Jos. Ant. xii. 3, 4). But though there are affinities
between the errors of the Colossian Church and the beliefs of the Essenes,
the importance assigned to angels, which is among the principal of the
errors combated by St. Paul, seems to go beyond anything known to have
been distinctive of Essenism. These angel mediators bear some resemblance
to the hierarchy of subordinate agencies which in the system of the later
Gnostics were thought to intervene between the Deity and the material
worid ; so that, on the whole, the views introduced into Colossse by certain
teachers (ii. 8) under the name of " philosophy " were most likely
syncretistic — a mixed product of Judaism and of local speculations of
the kind that subsequently developed into Gnosticism. To counteract
such St. Paul insisted upon the sufficiency, for redemption and reconcilia
tion, of Christ, in whom dwelt aU the plenitude of the Godhead in corporeal
form, through whom aU things were created and in whom aU things
consisted, who was the head of aU the angelic powers worshipped by the
Colossians, and in whom they were circumcised with a circumcision
which divested them of all the corrupt affections of the flesh. In Him
was to be found the true wisdom and the perfect knowledge (ii. 3, cf . i. 9)
to which those who sought to mislead the Colossians falsely laid claim
(ii. 8).
The Epistle was conveyed to Colossse by Tychicus, a native of the
province of Asia (Acts xx. 4), who was accompanied by Onesimus, a slave
who had escaped from his master, and whom St. Paul was sending back
(see p. 293). The Epistle to Colossse was not the only one written to the
Christians of Asia about this time by St. Paul. A letter was also carried
by Tychicus, intended, mediately or immediately, for Laodicea, a city
some twelve miles west of Colossse ; and in the Colossian letter directions
were given (iv. 16) that the communications received by these two churches
should be exchanged.1 It has been suspected by some that the Epistle
styled To the Ephesians is reaUy the letter which the Colossians were to
get from Laodicea ; and the resemblance between Col. and Eph. is certainly
1 In Col. iv. 16 the epistle from Laodicea obviously means a letter which the Colos«
sians were to receive from the Laodiceans, to whom it had been sent by St. Paul.

288 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
so striking that, if they are both St. Paul's, they must have been written
within a very short period of one another ; or else one has been composed,
on the basis of the other, by a later writer. The question, however, of
these two alternatives is best reserved for consideration in connexion
with Eph.

The Epistle to the Ephesians
Authenticity
The authenticity of Ephesians has been denied more persistently
than that of any of the letters associated with St. Paul, except the Pastoral
Epistles. This is not occasioned by any serious deficiency in the external
evidence, for it is reckoned as St. Paul's in the Muratorian Fragment, and
it has early attestation from Patristic writers, as wiU appear from the
foUowing instances of its use.1
(a) Clement of Eome (d. circ. a.d. 95) ch. 46, " Have we not one God
and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that has been shed upon us, and
one caUing in Christ ? " (cf. Eph. iv. 4-6) ; ch. 36, " The eyes of our hearts
were opened " (cf. Eph. i. 18) ; ch. 38, " Let each man be subject to his
neighbours " (cf. Eph. v. 21).
(6) Ignatius (d. 110-120) ad Eph. i., " Being imitators of God " (cf.
Eph. v. 1) ; ad Pol. 5, " To love our partners as Christ loved the Church "
(cf. Eph. v. 29).
(c) Polycarp (d. 156) ch. 1, " By grace are ye saved, not by works "
(cf. Eph. ii. 5-9).
(d) Irenseus (d. 202) adv. hair. v. 2, 3, " As the blessed Paul saith in
his letter to the Ephesians that we are members of his body, of his flesh
and of his bones " (cf. Eph. v. 30).
These quotations suffice to prove that it was in existence at the end
of the first century, or beginning of the second century a.d., and that by
the end of the second century it was believed to be St. Paul's.
The reasons that have caused its genuineness to be doubted are
internal, and are of the foUowing nature.
(1) It bears an extremely close resemblance to Colossians, it being
stated that out of the 156 verses of Eph., seventy-eight contain expressions
identical with those in Col.,2 and that the parts of the latter which are
not represented in Eph. are almost confined to the warnings against the
false teaching prevalent at Colossse (Col. ii.) and the personal salutations
and messages (Col. iv. 10, 18). It is impossible here to compare aU the
similar passages,3 but besides the beginning and the conclusion (Col. i.
1,2 = Eph. i. 1, 2 ; Col. iv. 7, 8 = Eph. vi. 21, 22) the foUowing parallels
are typical : —
1 See Abbott, Eph. and Col. pp. ix.-xiii. ; Bacon, Int. N. T. p. 116 note.
2 Davidson, Int. to N.T. ii. p. 200.
8 A very full hst of parallel passages is given in Moffatt, L.N.T. pp. 375-381 ;
see also Paley, Horai Paulinos, oh. vi.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 289
(a) Col. i. 13, 14. The Son of his love, Eph. i. 6, 7. The Beloved, in whom we
in whom we have our redemption, have our redemption through his
the forgiveness of our sins. blood, the forgiveness of our tres-

(b) Col. ii. 19, Prom whom all the body Eph. iv. 16 Prom whom all the body fitly
being supplied and knit together framed and knit together (crvv^a-
(iirixoprjyoi/ievov Kal <rui/j3t/3a_"(fytei>o;') fd/ievov) through every joint of the
through the joints and bands supply (ttjs evixopriylai) . . . maketh
increaseth with the increase of God. the increase of the body.
(c) Col. iii. 6. Because of which things Eph. v. 6 Because of these things cometh
cometh the wrath of God upon the the wrath of God upon the sons of
sons of disobedience. disobedience.
(d) Col. iii. 9. Seeing that ye have put Eph. iv. 22. That ye put away, as con-
off the old man with his doings and cerning your former manner of life,
have put on the new man. the old man . . . and that ye . . .
put on the new man.
Cf . also the foUowing : —
(e) Col. ii. 13, 14. Eph. ii. 1, 5, 15.
(/) Col. iii. 16. Eph. v. 19.
(g) Col. iii. 22. Eph. vi. 5, 6.
(2) The vocabulary of the Epistle is rather peculiar. Some thirty-eight
words (exclusive of proper names and quotations from the Old Testament)
occur in it, which are found nowhere else in the New Testament ; and
about the same number are said not to occur elsewhere in St. Paul (if
the Pastorals are assumed to be not genuine), though found elsewhere
in the New Testament.1
(3) The style is involved and rather verbose, beihg characterized by
lengthy and badly articulated sentences (e.g. i. 3-10, 15-21, iii. 1-7,
8-12, 14-19), by the frequent occurrence of particular constructions
(such as the use of the genitive case and of the preposition iv), and by a
tendency to pleonasm (e.g. i. 5, rrjv eiSoxiav rov OsXij/iaxog avxov, i. 11,
xr)v fiovXrjv rov BeXrjfiarog adrov, u. 2, xov agxovxa rfjg igovoiag rov aegog,
iv. 23, rep nvEVfiari rov vobg vuebv.
(4) Two phrases in particular have been deemed suspicious, viz.
the reference to Apostles and prophets (ii. 20), and to the holy Apostles
and prophets (iii. 5), suggesting that the writer was not himself an Apostle ;
and the claim in in. 3, 4 to have understanding in the mystery of Christ,
suggesting that the writer wished his teaching to be taken for St. Paul's,
and appealed to the letter he was composing to justify his pretensions.
In view of these features it has been concluded by many that Eph. is
an expansion of Col., lacking the local references and personal greetings
of the latter ; and was produced by a later writer for the benefit of the
Church in general. But the reasons for denying its Pauline origin are not
convincing. (1) Its resemblance to Col. is more inteUigible if it was
written by St. Paul about the same time as the latter, than if composed
by another person, who by extracting on a large scale phrases, from Col-,
1 Notable among them is o 8iaj36\os for which elsewhere St. Paul uses o 'Saravas.
The phrase ev rois iirovpaviois is found five times in Eph., but nowhere else in St.
Paul (though he has eirovp&vios five times (1 Cor. xv.*.40, etc.) ).
19

290 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
constructed a patchwork counterfeiting an original work. For the com
position of such, involving great trouble, there seems to be lacking any
adequate motive, in view of the co-existence with it of Colossians, its
model. (2) The number of words peculiar to the Epistle can be paraUeled
from other letters of St. Paul ; for example, Galatians, a work not quite
so long as Ephesians, has not less than thirty-one ; and Philippians, only
two-thirds as long, has at least as many. It may be noticed that Seven
wordSj if not more, are common to Colossians and Ephesians, but absent
from every other Pauline Epistle. (3) The style appears not so much
to be unlike that of St. Paul as to exhibit extreme examples of features
occurring in letters of indisputable genuineness ; for long and loosely-
jointed sentences are found in Rom. i. 1-7, Col. i. 9-12. Moreover the
connective 816, which is frequent in the acknowledged Pauline Epistles
(occurring twenty-one times) appears five times in this Epistle. (4) The
pre-eminent place which St. Paul assigned in the Church to the Apostles
appears from 1 Cor. xii. 28, where " Apostles '51 are named first and
" prophets " are enumerated next ; nor is the use of the epithet dytoi
in connexion with them impossible for St. Paul, since it is clearly to be
understood in the sense of "consecrated" (by calling), not "saintly"
(in personal character)2 ; and St. Paul's modest estimate of himself is
manifest in iii. 8. Nor is there anything incompatible with St. Paul's
authorship in iii. 3, 4, since the appeal to the contents of the letter as
proof of his inspiration is natural in an Epistle sent to churches which he
had never visited (p. 285).
On the whole, then, both the likenesses and the differences between
CoL and Eph,. seem sufficiently accounted for (a) by the usual explanation
that both letters were written under simUar circumstances (Col. iv. 3,
Eph. vi. 20), but that in CoL he was addressing a Church in which certain
erroneous doctrines had been introduced, whUst in Eph. he was writing
to churches (p. 292) where no such teaching was current, but where much
of the contents of the previous letter was likely to be of service ; (6) by
the supposition (if the features of style seem to require it) that St. Paul
dictated the two letters to different persons who acted on occasions as
his secretaries. Colossians was clearly written by an amanuensis (Col. iv.
18) ; and it is not unreasonable to suspect that the Apostle was simUarly
aided in the penning of Eph., though not by the same individual.
Destination
But whilst it is probable that the Epistle was written by St. Paul, it
is equaUy probable that it was not written to the Church of Ephesus.
(1) In i. 1 the words iv 'Eyiaia are omitted by the uncials N and B, and
by the corrector of the cursive 67. (2) The Patristic writers Tertullian,
Origen, and BasU furnish evidence of the existence of manuscripts from
1 The term need not be oonfihed to the Twelve, but taken to inolude all travelling
missionaries of the Gospel.
» Cf. Peake, Int. to N.T. p. 57.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 291
which the words ev 'Eqiiacp were absent. Tertullian (circ. 220) affirms
that Marcion falsified the title of the Epistle, asserting that it was sent to
the Laodiceans ; but in support of the charge of falsification he appeals
not to the evidence of the text but to the truth of the Church, so that in
the manuscripts used by both himself and Marcion the words iv 'Ecpiaio,
which would have settled the matter, cannot have been included.1 By
BasU (circ. 350) it is stated that his predecessors (ol ngd ¦fni&v) and the
most ancient manuscripts which he had consulted ahke recorded the
latter half of the opening verse in the form to Xg dyioig roig odai xai niaroig
iv Xgiorco 'Itfoov. (3) The contents of the letter are very difficult to
reconcUe with the supposition that it was intended expressly for the
Ephesians, amongst whom St. Paul had lived and worked for nearly
three years (Acts xx. 31, cf. xix. 8, 10, 22), for (a) it seems to be implied
that the writer's knowledge of the Church addressed, and its knowledge
of him, had been obtained by report only, as in the case of the Colossians
(i. 15, iii. 2, iv. 21), and that he had had no share in founding it ;
(6) there is a complete absence of salutations and of personal reminiscences,
such as occur in Colossians, though that was written to a Church which
St. Paul had never visited. It is almost incomprehensible that an Epistle
" more like a treatise than a letter,"2 in which no individual friends are
greeted, should have been sent to a Church with the members of which
the Apostle had the affectionate relations represented in Acts xx. 17-38.
If the letter was not directed to Ephesus, it must have been either
(1) a circular letter meant for several churches in the province of Asia,
but for none of them in particular, so that no name was inserted in it
by the writer ; or else (2) it was dispatched to some individual Church
other than Ephesus, the name of which was lost at an early date.
(1) The first of these alternatives has been held to be favoured by the
absence of local or personal allusions, and it has been suggested (a) that
in i. 1, after the words roig ayloig roig oiai a blank was left,3 in which
the name of each Church that the letter reached could be inserted when
it was read ; or (6) that no name was intended to be mentioned, but that
the words roig dyioig rolg oSai xai niaroig were meant to signify " to
the saints that are also faithful," or " to the saints existing and faithful,"
or " to the saints who are reaUy such, and faithful." It can be urged
against the various forms assumed by this explanation (a) that for the
hypothesis of a blank space in a circular letter no support is afforded by
other Epistles intended for readers scattered over a wider area than a
single city, since in these either a comprehensive address occurs (as in
1 Cor. i. 1, 1 Pet. i. 1), or the name of the Church receiving the letter
first is used, and a direction added that the communication is to be
forwarded to a second Church (as in Col. i. 2, iv. 16) ; (b) that the proposed
1 TertuUian's words are Ecclesue quidem veritate epistulam ista/m " ad Ephesios "
habemus emissam, non " ad Laodicenos" sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolate
gestiit. This passage in Origen is given at length in T. K. Abbott, Eph. and Col. p. ii. ;
J. A. Robinson, Eph. p. 292.
1 T. K. Abbott, Eph. and Col. p. iii.
* In this case an iv might be expected after rois ovaiv.

292 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
translations of roig dyioig roig ov"ai xai niaroig axe unnatural, and that
the presence, originaUy, of a place-name after roig otioi is rendered
extremely probable by the close paraUels of Rom. i. 7 ndaiv roig oSaiv ev
Pcb/ir] ayanrrxotg deov, 2 Cor. i. 1 xfj ixxXrjalq. rov Beov rfj ovarj iv KoglvOq
aim roig dyioig naaiv xoig oiaiv iv oXrj xfj 'Axaia, and Phil. i. 1 naaiv
roig dyioig iv Xgiarw 'Irjaov roig oiaiv iv 0iXljinoig.
(2) Since the difficulties attaching to the first alternative render the
second the most probable, it remains to consider what name (other than
Ephesus) has been accidentaUy lost after roig oSai. It is clear from
CoL iv. 16 that a letter was received from St. Paul by the Church at
Laodicea ; and this has been identified with the present Epistle. The
identification is plausible and may be accepted, but it is not necessary to
suppose that the first destination of this letter was Laodicea, and that
the words that originaUy foUowed roig otioi were iv Aao8ixsig. It is a
serious objection to such a supposition that greetings to the brethren at
Laodicea are conveyed to them in a communication sent, in the first
instance, to the Colossians (Col. iv. 15). In view of this, it may be here
suggested that the name lost after roig oSai is that of Hierapolis (cf.
Col. iv. 13). This place, situated six miles to the north of Laodicea, would
be the first of the three cities in the Lycus vaUey to be reached by Tychicus,
the bearer of " Ephesians " (vi. 21), if he traveUed from Eome to them
by the overland route along the via Egnatia (p. 75), and through Neapolis,
Troas, Pergamum and Sardis ; and, as it was not visited (so far as is known)
by St. Paul, it may weU be that neither he nor his friends at Eome had
personal acquaintances there. The absence of any mention of the city
in Revelation favours the inference that the Christian Church there was
smaU. If " Ephesians " were reaUy directed to Hierapolis in the first
instance, it was probably intended to be sent on next to Laodicea, and
afterwards to Colossse (Col. iv. 16). It is noteworthy that in the passage
just cited the Apostle describes the letter which the Colossians are to
read as the Epistle from (not to) Laodicea, wliich suggests that the letter
in question was not sent directly to the Laodiceans. The words iv 'IeganoXEi
may have been obhterated in i. 1 through some injury to the papyrus on
which the letter was written ; and the absence of them (it may be presumed)
has been faithfully reproduced in N and B. But since any writing of
St. Paul's would be valued at Ephesus, no doubt copies of the letter to
Hierapolis would reach it, or be made there ; and later transcribers of
these might easUy assume that the city where such copies occurred was the
original destination of the letter, and so supply the lost words by ev 'Epiao>,
which are found in aU uncials except the two just named.
Occasion and Date
H the Epistle was reaUy written by St. Paul, its close relation to Colos
sians shows that it must have been composed when his mind was still
fuU of the ideas and phraseology that occur in the latter, so that the
occasion and time of its production are determined by those of the com
panion Epistle. As has been seen, Col. was written during St. Paul's

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 293
imprisonment, probably at Eome,1 at the end of 59 or the beginning
of 60, and was conveyed to Colossse by Tychicus. The dispatch of this
letter, eUcited by the erroneous teaching which was penetrating the
Colossian Church, afforded an opportunity of sending by the same messenger
another (the present) letter, written under the same circumstances (iv. 1,
vi. 20), to the adjoining town of Hierapolis, whence it was to be passed
on to Laodicea. Although the letter to Hierapolis would reach first those
for whom it was intended (p. 292), yet if it was to be transmitted to Lao
dicea and then to Colossse, it would not arrive at the latter town until
after the receipt there of the Epistle to the Colossians (as implied in CoL
iv. 16).

The Epistle to Philemon
Destination, Occasion, and Date
This Epistle is the only private letter of St. Paul's (apart from the
Pastorals) [that has been preserved, and was penned by his own hand
(v. 19). It was addressed by St. Paul (who in writing it associated Timothy
with himself, cf. Col. i. 1, Phil. i. 1) to Philemon (together with Apphia 2
and Archippus, probably his wife and son). PhUemon seems to
have been a resident at Colossse, where the Christian community met at
his house (Phm. 2). He had been converted to Christianity by St.
Paul himself (v. 19), doubtless during the latter's long residence at Ephesus
(Acts xix. 8-10) ; and perhaps subsequently taken part in spreading
the Gospel among his feUow-citizens (v. 1). The occasion which elicited
the letter was the return to him, at the instance of St. Paul, of Onesimus,
a Colossian slave 3 (Col. iv. 9), who had escaped from him, taken refuge
at Eome (see p. 286), and there been won to the Christian faith by
the Apostle, who, though wishful to keep him owing to his helpfulness
(vv. 11-13), yet sent him back with a letter explaining the circumstances.
Onesimus accompanied Tychicus, who was the bearer of the Epistle to
Colossse ; and the letter to Philemon was obviously composed at the
same time and place as the latter, since aU the persons mentioned in it
as sending their salutations (w. 23, 24) occur amongst those named in
Col. iv. 10-17 ; so that if the argument (p. 286) that Colossians was written
from Eome be sound, the conclusion foUows that Philemon was sent from
the same city, the date being probably 59, or the beginning of a.d. 60.
The Epistle to the Philippians
PhUippi was the first place where the Christian faith was preached
in Europe. Of the character of the Christian Church established there a
1 There is a suggestive coincidence between the phrase (vi. 20) irpeo-peioj iv aXvtrei
and Acts xxviii. 2 rijv SXvaiv rai'mjv ireptKeipuu., the singular being used in each case.
2 This is thought to be a Phrygian name and not the Boman Appia.
8 The name was specially common amongst slaves.

294 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
very favourable impression is derived from St. Paul's letter to it. His
high opinion of it is manifest in more than one expression of commendation
and affection (ii. 12, iv. 1). Though it was almost entirely GentUe, it
was not marked by the licence which was so often rife in Gentile Churches.
The letter, indeed, contains warnings against those who seemingly abused
the Apostle's doctrine of righteousness through faith, and made it a
pretext for profligacy, but there is no suggestion that such antinomianism
was widespread in the PhUippian Church. Nor again does it appear that
emissaries of the Judaistie Christians were active there. Cautions are
given against yielding to the claims of Judaism ; but there is no hint that
those who advocated such claims had in any way diverted the allegiance
of the PMlippians from St. Paul. Their principal fault was a tendency
to dissensions, which seem to have been due not to doctrinal differences
but to personal rivalries and ambitions (iv. 2). In consequence of such,
St. Paul presses upon them the need of unity, counseUing them to avoid
disputes and disunion, to cultivate self-effacement, and to keep in mind
the humUity of Christ (i. 27, n. 2-8).
Place of Origin, Date, and Occasion of the Epistle
The letter was written by St. Paul when a prisoner. Since he was a
captive for at least two years both at Csesarea and at Eome and had been
imprisoned for shorter periods in other places (2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 23), Ephesus
being probably among them (cf. p. 284), it is, in the abstract, possible
that it was composed at any of these cities. But that Eome was reaUy
the place of origin is favoured by various aUusions. (a) Timothy is
included with the writer, as in the case of Col. and Philem. (probably
written from Eome, p. 293). (b) Eeference is made to the fact that his
imprisonment for the Christian faith had become known to the Prsstorian
guard (i. 13), for that this is the sense of r6 ngaircogiov (whieh might
otherwise signify the Government House at Csesarea, and its occupants),
is favoured by the addition to it of xai roig Xounolg naaiv. (c) The
writer expected shortly a favourable decision of his case (ii. 24, cf. i. 26),
which is against Csesarea. (d) He sends greetings from Christians belong
ing to the Emperor's household (iv. 22). These features in the letter do
not exclude Ephesus, for (a) Timothy was there (Acts xix. 22) ; (b) the
Apostle was probably imprisoned there ; (c) Prsetorian troops and (d)
members of the imperial household were there (as proved by inscriptions) 1 ;
but they point with greater plausibility to Eome. If this conclusion be
accepted, the date of it must faU within 59-61, the two years which St.
Paul spent in prison at the capital whilst awaiting trial. The occasion
which led to its dispatch was the intended return to Phihppi of Epaphro
ditus, the messenger who had brought to St. Paul funds supplied by the
Philippians, and who, having recently recovered from a serious illness,
was desirous of seeing his friends again (ii. 25-27). The Apostle took
advantage of his journey to send by him2 a letter to the PhUippian
1 These are quoted in McNeile, St. Paul, p. 229.
* In ii. 25 the aorists ¦fiyrja-a/j.riv and (ireji\pa are epistolary.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 295
Church, perhaps in answer to a letter from it (cf. ii. 25), conveying to its
members his gratitude for their kindness, and giving them information
about himseU and his prospects, at the same time addressing to them such
admonitions as they seemed to him to require. In the salutation (as has
been said) he unites with himself Timothy (who was known to the Philip
pian Christians (Acts xvi. 1 f . and p. 542 f .) and had joined him at Eome) ;
but the Epistle is written throughout in the first person singular.
It has been questioned whether the letter was composed at an early
or a late period in St. Paul's imprisonment ; but the considerations that
favour the latter view preponderate, (i) Sufficient time had elapsed
for his influence as a prisoner for the Christian faith to extend to his sur
roundings (i. 12, 13). (ii) Several communications must have passed
between Eome and Philippi, for (a) news had reached PhUippi of St.
Paul's imprisonment at Eome ; (o) money had been sent from PhUippi
to Rome through Epaphroditus (iv. 18), who after his arrival had fallen
UI ; (c) information of his Ulness had been received at Philippi (ii. 26) ;
(d) word must have come of the Philippians' distress at the tidings (ii. 26).
(iii) After the departure of Epaphroditus, the only person in full sympathy
with St. Paul was Timothy (ii. 19, 20), so that it may be inferred that
Aristarchus and Luke, who had accompanied the Apostle to Eome (Acts
xxvii. 2), can have been no longer there. Moreover when Phil, was
written Timothy was shortly leaving Eome (Phil. ii. 19), whereas nothing
is said about his departure in Col. or Philem. (iv) A crisis in his imprison
ment was close at hand (ii. 23) ; and though he professes himself hopeful
of the result of the trial (which was clearly impending when he wrote),
the tone of the Epistle is not so buoyant as that of the letter to Philemon,
which was written at the same time as that to Colossse (p. 293). (v) When
Philippians was written, St. Paul seems to have contemplated a visit to
Macedonia in the event of his release (Phil. ii. 24), whereas when composing
Philemon he had looked forward to a visit to Colossse (v. 22), so that the
change of plan presumes some interval between these two letters. The
date of Phil, may therefore be plausibly assigned to the beginning of 61.
The only counter-balancing arguments of any weight are (a) various
paraUels in thought and expression between this Epistle and that to the
Romans (written in 56), suggesting that a shorter interval separated
these than elapsed between the other Epistles of the captivity and
Romans 1 ; (6) the less lofty heights of doctrine attained in this Epistle,
as compared with the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, pointing
to the existence of a less advanced stage of Church development at PhUippi
than at Colossse or Ephesus, so that it is argued that Philippians is prior
in time to Colossians or Ephesians.2 But the difference in the teaching
may be explained by a difference in the character and circumstances of
the Churches concerned, as easily as by any sequence in time.8 Advanced
1 Cf . i. 10 with Bom. ii. 18, ii. 2 with Rom. xii. 16, ii. 3 with Rom. xii. 10, ii. 10 with
Rom. xiv. 11, iii. 4, 5 with Rom. xi. 1, iv. 18 with Rom. xii. 1. See further in Light
foot, Phil pp. 43, 44.
2 See Lightfoot, Phil. pp. 41-46.
3 Cf. Vincent, Phil. xxiv. ; Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 170.

296 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
theological speculations may be current earlier in one place than another,
and a wise teacher adapts his instructions to his disciples' needs. It
would have been superfluous for St. Paul in a letter to Philippi to deal
with errors which had not appeared there, though prevalent at Colossse.
The letter appears not to have been dictated uninterruptedly. The
conclusion, begun at iii. 1, is re-commenced at iv. 8 ; and there is a bene
diction both in iv. 7 and iv. 23. The argumentative and denunciatory
tone of the passage iii. 2-iv. 1 (so unlike the rest of the Epistle) has sug
gested to some that it is part of a different letter.
The Pastoral Epistles
The Pastoral Epistles, unlike aU the other letters ascribed to St. Paul
(except Philemon), are addressed not to Churches but to individuals.
The three letters (1,2 Timothy, Titus), which are coUectively thus desig
nated on account of the pastoral duties enjoined in them, exhibit so much
resemblance to one another that, if authentic, they must have been written
within a short interval of each other, and in any discussion of their origin
they are best treated as a group. Of no others of the letters associated
with the name of St. Paul is the genuineness so widely disputed, partly
on external grounds, but chiefly in consequence of their contents and
style. The chief feature in the external evidence against them is their
rejection by Marcion (circ. a.d. 140), who, since he sought to free the
Church from the influence of Judaism, and accordingly attached great
value to St. Paul's writings, would probably have included these Epistles
in his New Testament canon if he had not entertained doubts about their
authenticity. It is, however, mainly for internal reasons that their
genuineness has been caUed in question, so that consideration of the
external evidence may be more advantageously deferred tiU later (p. 303).
These internal reasons are : (1) The allusions in them to various circum
stances and incidents to which there are no references in Acts, and which
are not very easily fitted into the period of history covered by Acts. (2)
The character of the protestations and admonitions addressed in them to
Timothy and Titus, which appears out of keeping with the long and
intimate friendship subsisting between St. Paul and both of them. (3)
The emphasis laid upon Church organization, to which it is thought St.
Paul would have attached less importance. (4) Suspicions raised by the
nature of the erroneous teaching denounced, which has been regarded as
pointing to conditions prevailing after St. Paul's lifetime. (5) The stress
placed upon " works," which is unlike St. Paul's habit. (6) The contrast
presented by the style to that of St. Paul's undisputed letters, and the
large number of words either peculiar to each of the three Epistles or
occurring in these coUectively but nowhere else in the New Testament.
(1) Preparatory to considering in detail the allusions to temporal
and local circumstances comprised in the Epistles, it will be convenient
to summarize what is narrated elsewhere respecting the relations of
St. Paul to the two individuals to whom the letters are inscribed.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 297
(a) Timothy, the son of a Greek father but a Jewish mother, and a
native of Lystra, was converted during St. Paul's First missionary Journey,
probably by the Apostle himself (1 Cor. iv. 17), and was taken as his
companion in the course of his Second Journey. He was with him in
Macedonia, was left behind at Beroea, joined him at Athens, was sent
back to Thessalonica, rejoined him at Corinth and, though his subsequent
movements are not described, he may have accompanied St. Paul to
Ephesus and have stayed there (Acts xviii. 19). At any rate he was at
that city when the Apostle visited it during his Third journey (Acts xix. 1),
and was sent by him, towards the close of his stay there (wliich lasted
more than two years and three months), to Corinth by way of Macedonia
(p. 276). He returned quickly from Corinth and then went again with
St. Paul to the same locality. From Corinth he returned with the Apostle,
but instead of traveUing by land, went by sea to Troas and joined him
there (Acts xx. 4). After this he is not again named in Acts. He was
with St. Paul at Rome (Col. i. 1, Philemon 1, and Phil. i. 1), and from
thence the Apostle thought of sending him to Phihppi (Phil. ii. 19). He
is nowhere again mentioned except in the Pastoral Epistles.
(6) Titus, born of Gentile parents (Gal. ii. 3), was at Antioch when
St. Paul went thither after his First journey, and was taken by him to
Jerusalem, when he had an interview with the elder Apostles in 49. On
St. Paul's Second journey he was with him at Ephesus, and probably
went three times to Corinth on missions for the Apostle, (a) He was most
likely the bearer of 1 Cor. ; (fi) he carried the severe letter with which
2 Cor. x.-xiii. is plausibly identified (p. 277) ; (y) on returning from
Corinth by way of Macedonia, he met St. Paul there, and was sent back
with another letter, comprised in 2 Cor. i.-ix. (p. 278). After this there is
no aUusion to him in the New Testament outside the ietters here discussed.
Of the three Epistles the one which contains the largest number of
aUusions to persons, places and circumstances is 2 Tim. These aUusions,
notably the directions in iv. 13-14, together with the urgent commands
in iv. 9, 21, are not exactly of the character hkely to proceed from a
forger ; but they are difficult to harmonize with one another and with
the recorded events of St. Paul's life.
(i) Two passages — i. 15-18 (with which cf. i. 8, ii. 9) and iv. 6-18 —
point to a period when St. Paul was in prison at Eome. The first refers
to the kindly services there of a certain Onesiphorus ; the second implies
that St. Paul, when he wrote, was lonely and had been in danger of death ;
and it repeats a figure of speech used in Phil. ii. 17. Demas, who, when
Colossians and Philemon were written from Eome (probably early in the
imprisonment, p. 293), was with St. Paul, had now forsaken him and gone
to Thessalonica. Mark, who was at Eome when the same two letters
were written, must have left, and his return was desired. Others who
are not mentioned either in Col. or in Philemon had also departed, one
(Crescens) to Galatia, another (Titus) to Dalmatia, and only Luke remained.
The circumstantial evidence of these passages is consistent with a date
between 59 and 61, and suggests that the Epistle in whole or in part,
was written at Eome, about the same time as, though later than, Philip-

298 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
pians, and not long before the writer's execution. Tychicus, who carried
Colossians to its destination (Col. iv. 7), had been dispatched to Ephesus,
presumably on his way to Colossse (v. 12). The first hearing (prima actio)
of the Apostle's trial had taken place (v. 16), and had issued in a remand
(ampldatio), whereas when Phil, was composed the trial had seemingly
not begun (cf. Phil. ii. 23). Timothy, to whom the letter purports to
be written, and whom St. Paul had with him when Phil, was composed,
had seemingly gone to Asia, and being expected to return to Eome by
way of Troas, was requested to bring with him some articles which
St. Paul, if he was writing from Eome early in 61, must have left there
some three years before.
(ii) On the other hand, the short passage iv. 19-22a 1 does not
appear to be reconeUable with a date during the imprisonment at Rome
recorded in Acts. Clearly v. 216, conveying salutations from a number
of people, is inconsistent with the statement in v. 10 that only Luke was
with the writer. Allusion to the fact that St. Paul had left Trophimus
sick at Miletus leads to the inference that this section was written shortly
after the Apostle had been at that place whUst stUl a free man (as happened
during the Apostle's Third journey (Acts xx. 15)). But inasmuch as
Trophimus was with St. Paul at Jerusalem at the termination of his
Third journey (Acts xxi. 29), it seems necessary to conclude further that
the section was written at some city where St. Paul stayed some little
time prior to going to Jerusalem, and where Trophimus could have rejoined
him. A city which would meet these requirements is Csesarea, where
St. Paul spent many days on his way from Ptolemais to the Jewish capital
(Acts xxi. 10). From here it may be supposed that this short section was
written by St. Paul in the spring of 56 to some friend at a place (Ephesus ?)
where he must have had many disciples. The friend, however, can
hardly have been Timothy, for Erastus is mentioned as having stayed
at Corinth (he is not in the list of those who accompanied St. Paul from
Greece to Asia, Acts xx. 4), and Timothy must have been acquainted
with this circumstance, since he was one of the Apostle's companions
who joined him at Troas on his last journey to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 5).
The connexion with Asia of Onesiphorus, to whose household greetings
are sent, is implied in 2 Tim. i. 18 ; whUe the residence at Ephesus of
Aquila and Prisca (PrisciUa), who are likewise saluted, appears from Acts
xviii. 18-26.
So far as this reasoning is sound, it foUows that 2 Tim. is not a coherent
whole but consists of portions of at least two letters, composed at different
dates, which have been united together. ParaUels, if not certain, at least
probable, are afforded by the combination in 2 Cor. of two distinct letters
(p. 277), and the attachment to Romans of a fragment of a letter seemingly
sent to Ephesus (p. 283).
Another possible analysis is to assign i. 15-18 and iv. 6-10 (only) to Rome and
iv. ll-21a to Csesarea after St. Paul had been transferred thither from Jerusalem by
Claudius Lysias (Acts xxiii. 31 f.). This explanation makes more inteUigible the
1 In contrast to 22a, which is addressed to a single individual, 226 is a salutation
to several persons.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 299
request for the cloak and other articles whieh the Apostle may have left at Troas on
his journey to Jerusalem less (perhaps much less) than two years before. The " first
defence " will then be the hearing before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts xxii. 30) ; the
desertion of friends may be that of the Jewish Christians ; the support given by
the Lord (v. 17) may refer to what is related in Acts xxiii. 10 ; the " proclamation "
to the Gentiles may have in view the defence at Csesarea before the Roman governor
Felix and his retinue ; and the dehverance from the lion may be explained by the
adjournment of the case in spite of the eagerness of the Jews for the Apostle's con
viction (Acts xxiv. 22). This analysis, however, leaves the reference to Trophimus
and Miletus (v. 20) quite obscure ; and it is difficult to think that St. Paul could have
looked forward to spending the winter with his correspondent (v. 21) unless he were
a free man.
The Epistle which, next to 2 Tim., preserves most references to the
circumstances in which it was written (whoUy or in part) is Titus. In
i. 5 it is impUed that the writer had been with Titus in Crete, and had
left him there. No precise ^indication is furnished of the place of origin
of the letter ; but in iii. 12,\the writer directs Titus, on the arrival of a
messenger (Artemas or Tychicus) to join him at Nicopolis. There were
more towns than one which bore this name (in Cilicia, Thrace, and Epirus
respectively) ; but it is generaUy assumed that the place meant was in
the last-mentioned country, near the entrance of the Ambraciot gulf.
If this is correct, the letter might be written from any town lying between
Crete and North-West Greece. It is not easy to adjust to the narrative
of St. Paul's movements in Acts a visit to Crete ; but it is certain that Acts
is a -very imperfect record ; and in view of this incompleteness a voyage
to Crete may easUy be among its omissions. The period which affords
most room for the occurrence of such a visit is the interval of nearly
three years spent at Ephesus (52-55) during his Third journey ; and it
may be supposed that he went to the island with Titus, whom he left
there on his departure, and afterwards sent to him the letter here con
sidered (perhaps from Ephesus) through Vthe agency of ApoUos 1 and
Zenas. But if so, Titus came back to Ephesus before 55, for he was the
bearer of various letters to Corinth from that city for the Apostle. Scope
for the missionary work in Crete that is here implied is afforded by no
other occasion within the period covered by Acts, for when the Apostle
was in the island at the end of 58, on his way to Eome, he was there only
through stress of weather, was a prisoner, and was seemingly not accom
panied by Titus (see Acts xxvii. 2). Whether the contemplated journey
to Nicopolis was ever accomplished there is nothing to show. Possibly
the Apostle intended to break new ground in Epirus via Macedonia ;
but in consequence of his anxiety about the Corinthian Church (p. 278),
changed his plans, and proceeded from Macedonia to Achaia and Corinth
as related in Acts xx. 1, 2 (p. 279).
In 1 Tim. the only local reference is in i. 3, where the writer aUudes
to a previous exhortation to Timothy to stay at Ephesus whilst he himself
goes to Macedonia. Since Timothy accompanied St. Paul to Macedonia
on his Second journey in 49 (Acts xvi. 1, 11) and on his Third journey in
1 Apollos, who had left Ephesus for Corinth before St. Paul's arrival at the former
city (Acts xix. 1), must have returned.

300 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
52 (Acts xx. 4, 2 Cor. i. 1, p. 297), the occasion here implied, when he
left Timothy at Ephesus, must be passed over by St. Luke in Acts. The
only period to which such an occasion can be assigned is the long stay
at Ephesus between 52 and 55 ; but the fact that within this period he
went to Corinth (p. 276) and possibly to Crete (see above), renders the
supposition less probable than it might otherwise appear to be.
This review of the aUusions to St. Paul's movements in these Epistles
seems to show that though it is not easy, it is not insuperably difficult
to explain some, if not aU, as having occurred within the period of history
included in Acts. Eusebius, indeed, repeats a tradition that the Apostle
was released after the two years mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, became
again a travelling evangelist, and was imprisoned at Eome a second time,
during which captivity he wrote 2 Tim. (H.E. ii. 22, 2) ; whilst the Mura
torian fragment represents that he went from Rome to Spain. If St.
Paul was not put to death until 64 or 67, there is ample space between
61 and even the earlier of these dates for journeys not only to Spain but
also to the East (Ephesus, Crete, Macedonia, Greece, Miletus, Troas) ;
and many find it easier to accept the tradition of a release in 61 and a
second imprisonment than to adjust to the history comprised in Acts the
aUusions in these letters. But the assumption of a release in 61 involves
the assignment of the composition of Acts to a date anterior to such
an occurrence, since it is incredible that St. Luke knew of St. Paul's
liberation without saying a word about it when he wrote Acts xxviii. ;
and the objections to placing Acts so early are serious enough (p. 240) to
render preferable the dating of the Pastorals prior to 61, if their genuineness
can be successfuUy defended against the other suspicious features occurring
in them, which remain to be considered.
(2) Even though the circumstantial aUusions may admit of being
more or less plausibly explained, the general tenor of the letters is not
very favourable to their authenticity. For on the hypothesis that St.
Paul, before writing 1 Tim., had left Ephesus on a short visit to Macedonia,
leaving Timothy behind (1 Tim. i. 3, cf. iii. 15), there hardly seems
occasion for so considerable a letter of instructions to him as the one in
question, seeing that the writer himself must have spent a long whUe in
training and organizing the Ephesian Church, and certainly Timothy
can scarcely have required at this late date a solemn assurance of St.
Paul's apostleship (1 Tim. ii. 7). SimUarly, if St. Paul, before writing
the Epistle to Titus, had been recently in Crete, and had left Titus there
to carry on his work, a description of the qualities essential for a bishop
(or overseer) (Tit. i. 7 f.) seems rather superfluous. These features become
more inteUigible on the hypothesis that the Epistles are not wholly genuine,
but whilst comprising authentic extracts from St. Paul's correspondence,
have been expanded and modified by some later adapter for the purpose
of giving to Church officials counsel which he judged to be in accordance
with St. Paul's mind.
(3) The suggestion that, as the letters now stand, they include elements
which do not proceed from St. Paul, but have in view conditions existing
after his time, is favoured not only by the stress laid upon ecclesiastical

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 301
organization, but also by certain features of that organization. St. Paul
was not indifferent to rule and order in the Church : both he and Barnabas
when in South Galatia are expressly said to have appointed elders in
every Church (Acts xiv. 23) ; elders from Ephesus were addressed at
Miletus and styled bishops (Acts xx. 17, 28) ; bishops and deacons are
greeted in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 1) ; and there is nothing
inherently unlikely in the representation that St. Paul commissioned
Titus, as his delegate, to appoint elders in the cities of Crete (Tit. i. 5).
But the space given in these letters to the subject of Church officers is
more than might be expected from St. Paul ; there is a conspicuous absence
of references to the gifts of the Spirit (save for the aUusions to prophecies
in 1 Tim. i. 18, iv. 14) ; and in addition to bishops (or overseers) and
deacons, there appears also an organized body of widows (1 Tim. v. 9).
(4) The kind of false teachers whom the writer has in view is not
easily determined, for their characteristics are only vaguely described.
It is clear that some of those whose doctrines are denounced were Jews,
who were led away by " fables (jivBoi) and endless genealogies " (1 Tim.
i. 3-11, Tit. i. 14, in. 9), such fables and genealogies perhaps being
legends (supposed to be edifying) about the patriarchs and heroes figuring
in the Scriptures.1 But others were probably Gentiles of incipient Gnostic
tendencies, who were disposed to regard matter as evil and to, advocate
asceticism (1 Tim. iv. 3-5), to multiply mediators between God and
man (1 Tim. n. 5) and to disparage the Old Testament (2 Tim. iii. 16, 17),
and for whose teaching the writer wished to furnish a corrective. New
departures in intellectual or religious development are very difficult to
date with certainty ; but on the whole the phases of thought against
which these Epistles are directed seem to belong to a period rather later
than St. Paul's Ufetime.
(5) Much importance is attached in these letters to correctness of
behef. In several passages here, but probably nowhere else in St. Paul
(though see Rom. i. 5 mg.), fi niang appears to designate the intellectual
content of the Christian faith formulated as a body of doctrine (1 Tim.
iii. 9, iv. 1, 6, v. 8, vi. 10, 21, 2 Tim. iii. 8, iv. 7 and perhaps Tit. i. 13).
¦ (6) Much stress is put upon good works (1 Tim. ii. 10, v. 10, 25, vi. 18,
2 Tim. iii. 17, Tit. ii. 14, iii. 4) ; no others of the Epistles attributed to
St. Paul " lay at aU the same emphasis on right hving as the index to
right behef." 2
(7) Both the style and the vocabulary are unlike those of St. Paul's
acknowledged correspondence. There is a variation in the opening
salutation, " grace, mercy, and peace " being substituted for the " grace
and peace " found in Thess., GaL, Cor., Rom., and the Epistles of the
Captivity ; though this is of little significance. There is a comparative
absence of the impetuous manner of the Apostle that elsewhere often
results in broken sentences (Eph. in. 1-7, iv. 1-6) 3 ; clauses are arranged

1 Cf. Hort, Judaistie Christianity, pp. 135, 136. Reference is made, by way of
illustration, to the book of Jubilees.
2 Bernard, Pastoral Epistles, p. 46.
8 An incomplete sentence occurs in 1 Tim. i. 1-4.

302 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
with a good deal of symmetry (1 Tim. v. 10, 2 Tim. ii. 11-13, Tit. i. 7-8) ;
and there is much repetition of stereotyped phrases (" sound doctrine "
(4 times), " faithful is the saying " (5),1 " knowledge (inlyvmaig) of the
truth " (4), " keep (the) deposit " (3) ). The vocabulary pecuhar to these
epistles is very noteworthy. There are at least 130 substantives, verbs,
and adjectives which do not occur anywhere else in the New Testament ;
and the total number of &na£ Xeyd/ieva has been calculated to amount to
176, a figure " proportionately twice as great as in any other " of the
letters bearing St. Paul's name.2 Certain words which, though not &raf
Xeyo/iEva in the New Testament, yet are not found in any other reputed
Pauline epistle are frequent here (dgvio/uai 6 times, fiifirjXog 4, ixrghw/iai
4, ivaefisia 10, ftvdog 4, nagairiopiai 4, ngoasxa) 6, vyutivoj 8). Conversely,
numerous words which occur frequently in the other epistles, and which
may be deemed characteristically Pauline, are here lacking ; among such
are axgofivaria (found elsewhere in Paul 19 times), yvcogl£a) (18), Svxavom
(27), iXetidsgog (16), ivsgyico (17), xaxagyeoi (25), xaregyd£o/iai (20),
xavxdo/uai (35), ovgavog (21), negwaeim (26), neginario) (32), ngaaam (18),
aib/ia (91), ipgovico (24), xagifrfiai (16). Certain adverbs, particles, and
prepositions, not uncommon in other letters, are also wanting, e.g. aga
(15 times elsewhere), aga odv (12), Sio (27), Si&ci (10), ineira (11),
ovxiri (15), oSv (38), ware (39). No doubt the diction of an author varies
greatly with his subject-matter ; and the unique occurrence in these
letters of terms like dvrCBeaig, yevsaXoyia, iniaxonri, Xoyo/iaxia, veoqmtog,
ndgoivog, ngeafivrig, XExvoyovetv, vdgonorsiv, iplXavrog, with many others,
is amply explained by the nature of the topics dealt with. Again,
the absence from the Pastorals of the words cited above is paraUeled by
the absence of some of them from genuine Pauline letters (for yvmgit,a>,
xarsgydCofiai, cpgoviai, and xagi£opai are missing from 1, 2 Thess., axgo
fivaria from 1, 2 Th., 2 Cor., and PhiL, and Sixaiooo from the same, as
well as from the other Epistles of the Captivity). Even the non-occurrence
of certain of the particles just noted is not unexampled elsewhere, for aga
is absent from Phil, and CoL, otixixi from the same and 1 Cor., and ineira
from Rom. and 2 Cor.3 Nevertheless, though these considerations impair,
they do not destroy the force of the argument based upon the difference
of phraseology subsisting between these Epistles and the rest of the letters
associated with St. Paul's name.
In view of these pecuharities of both matter and manner (and it is
the combination that is significant), it is difficult to think that the Pastorals
are throughout St. Paul's handiwork. It is not improbable, indeed, that
portions of original letters written by the Apostle have been used in their
composition,4 for it is unhkely that an admirer of St. Paul's, in producing
a letter ostensibly proceeding from him, would have represented him as
1 Turner, who favours the Pauline authorship, suggests that this phrase is the
marginal note of an appreciative reader (The Study of the N. T., p. 21).
2 Bernard, Pastoral Epistles, p. xxxvi.
8 See Expositor's Greek Test. iv. pp. 69, 71.
1 The abruptness of 2 Tim. i. 15-18 in its present context is very marked.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 303
forsaken both in Asia and at Rome (2 Tim. i. 15, iv. 16). 1 But if so,
authentic fragments seem to have been made the basis of complete Epistles
which in their entirety are not the Apostle's. The practice of composing
letters to represent the sentiments and views of another person seems to
have been not uncommon in antiquity.2 St. Paul himself refers to the
possibUity of letters circulating in the Thessalonian church which falsely
purported, to come from him (2 Th. ii. 2). Under these circumstances
it seems the most plausible explanation of the conflicting features of the
Pastoral Epistles to suppose that a writer, beUeving himseU to be in accord
with St. Paul's teaching, and possessing some remains of his correspon
dence, expanded such into these letters, in order to combat erroneous
speculations in the Church by opposing, to them sound teaching and
an objective standard of behef. He probably lived at a time when ecclesias
tical organization was growing in importance, and seemed to offer a
safeguard against the spread of moral and inteUectual error. Timothy
and Titus are thus representative figures, standing for those whom the
writer really wished to admonish and instruct.
If genuine portions of Pauline correspondence are embodied in the
letters, the largest element is to be found in 2 Tim., the smallest in
1 Tim. It is, of course, impossible to distribute with any confidence the
several sections of 2 Tim. and Tit. between St. Paul and the writer who
may have incorporated Pauline fragments ; but it may be suggested
that the foUowing passages are authentic : —
2 Tim. i. 1-10 ? 15-18 3 ; ii. 1-10 ? hi. 10-12 ; iv. 6-18,3 19-22.4
Titus i. 1-5 ; in. 12-15.5
In 2 Tim. it seems probable the iv. 1-5 is not part of the authentic
material, since there is an inconsistency between v. 5 (implying that the
person addressed is to remain where he is), and v. 9 which bids him join the
writer (St. Paul ?) as soon as possible. In the case of 1 Tim. there are
no sufficient criteria for discriminating between what comes from the
Apostle, and what does not. Possibly the Epistle is altogether the work
of the pseudonymous writer who, in mentioning a journey to Macedonia
(i. 3) and expressing a hope of returning! shortly (iii. 14, cf. iv. 13), only
seeks to give verisimilitude to a letter falsely purporting to be composed
by St. Paul.
The date of the Epistles as they stand cannot be much later than the
end of the first century a.d., for though the evidence of acquaintance
with them by Clement of Eome (a.d. 95) and Ignatius (circ. 110) seems
doubtful, that adduced from Polycarp (d. 156) appears undeniable.
The most cogent paraUels are as follows 6 : —
Clement, ad Corinth, i. § 2. ihoi/ioi elg ndv igyov dyaBov (cf. Tit. Ui. 1,
2 Tim. n. 21).
1 Cf. Conybeare, Myth, Magic, and Morals, p. xxvi.
a Cicero on one occasion wrote to Atticus, Si qui erunt, quibus putes opus esse meo
nomine lilteras dari, velim conscribas curesque dandas (ad Att. iii. 15).
8 Dating from 59-61. * Dating from 56 ?
5 Dating from 52-55.
* See Expositor's Greek Testament, iv. pp. 76, 79,

304 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
§ 45. ra>v iv xaOagq. avveiStfaet Xaxgetiovxaw
(cf. 2 Tim. i. 3).
Ignatius, ad Polycarp. § 3. irego8iSaoxaXovvreg (cf. 1 Tim. i. 3, vi. 3).
§ 6. agiaxere $ argareijeade (cf. 2 Tim. n. 4).
§ 7. ixoifiol iaxe slg evnoitav 6ea> dv^xovaav (cf.
Tit. in. 1).
Polycarp, ad Philipp. § 4. dgxv °^ navroyv xaXenwv q>iXagyvgla. eiSdrsg
ovv 8ri ofiSiv elarjviyxafiev slg rdv xoaimv,
aXX' ovSe O-Evsyxetv xi exofisv (cf. 1 Tim. vi.
10, 7).
§ 5. idv noXirevocb/ieda a£ia>g aSrov, xai av/ifiaai-
XBiioofiev abr& (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 12).
§ 9. oi ydg rdv vvv fjydnrjaav atibva (cf. 2 Tim.
n. 2).
As regards the locahties where the three Epistles were written, notes,
not always consistent or plausible, are appended to them in certain manu
scripts. 1 Tim. is associated with Laodicea in A K2 L2 but with Nicopolis
in P2. 2 Tim. is also assigned to Laodicea by A, but to Eome by K2 L2 P2.
Tit. is connected with Nicopohs by AH3K2L2P2.
These statements seem to be merely conjectures based on names
mentioned or impUed in the letters themselves and on the assumption
that they proceed from St. Paul.
The Epistle to the Hebrews
The Epistle to the Hebrews, though lacking in the best manuscripts
an author's name, is ascribed in several later codices (L2 P2 and many
cursives) to St. Paul. Of the Patristic writers who refer to it, some
attribute it without hesitation to St. Paul ; others imply the existence of
doubts about his responsibUity for it ; whUst others again either themselves
assign, or repeat traditions assigning, its origin to some other writer.
As regards its destination the title To (the) Hebrews found in MSS. and
versions seems, indeed, definite enough, but it is not part of the letter ;
and even if it were, it is not free from ambiguity, and nothing is said
about the locaUty to which the letter was sent. Consequently it is desirable
to consider in some detail both the external and the internal evidence
bearing upon its authorship, the place of its origin, the persons addressed,
and its date. Authorship
The earhest views respecting the authorship of the book vary with
the regions where they were current, there being a decided difference of
judgment among writers belonging to the eastern churches compared
with those of the western churches.
(i) In Egypt the view generally prevailed that the Epistle proceeded

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 305
indirectly, though probably not directly, from St. Paul. The following
expressions of opinion are preserved by the historian Eusebius : — ¦
(a) Clement of Alexandria (d. after 203) is reported as saying that the
Epistle is the work of St. Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews
in the Hebrew language ; but that Luke translated it carefully and
pubhshed it for the Greeks, and hence the same " colour " of expression is
found in this Epistle and in Acts. He is further represented as explain
ing that the words, " Paul the Apostle," were probably not prefixed
because, in sending it to the Hebrews who were prejudiced and suspicious
about him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by
giving his name (H.E. vi. 14).
(6) Origen (185-253) is quoted (Eus. H.E. vi. 25) as stating that the
diction of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not marked by the rudeness of
speech with which the Apostle charged himself (2 Cor. xi. 6), but that in
its composition it is better Greek ; and again, that the thoughts of the
Epistle are admirable and not inferior to those of St. Paul's writings.
He further expresses the opinion, " I should say that the thoughts are
those of the Apostle, but that the phraseology and composition are those
of some one who remembered the Apostohc teachings and made notes, as
it were, of what was said by his teacher " — and he reports the view
of some that the author was Clement of Eome, of others that it was Luke
(H.E. vi. 25).
(c) Dionysius (a student under Origen, and subsequently Bishop of
Alexandria, d. 265), quotes Heb. x. 34 as St. Paul's.
(ii) On the other hand, in the western churches of Italy and Carthage
the Pauline authorship was denied. At Eome, Gaius, a writer of the
early third century, counted only thirteen letters of the Apostle, not
including Hebrews (Eus. H.E. vi. 20), and both he and Irenseus are said
by Stephanus Gobarus (a writer of the sixth century) to have expressly
denied St. Paul's authorship of the Epistle. That the Eoman Church
disputed its authenticity on the ground that it was not by St. Paul is
expressly affirmed by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 3, vi. 20) ; and St. Jerome
re-asserts the same statement, remarking that the custom of the Latins
did not receive it among the canonical Scriptures as St. Paul's. The
denial in the Eoman Church of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle is
the more significant from the fact that the letter was known there at a
very early date, the first traces of its use being found in the writings of
Clement of Eome (circ. a.d. 95). At Carthage, TertuUian (circ. 220),
quoting Heb. vi. 1, 4-6, attributed its origin to Barnabas.
This evidence, which, on the whole, is adverse to the conclusion that
the letter proceeds from St. Paul, must now be examined in the hght of
the contents and style of the book.
Internal Evidence
This may be considered under the heads of (a) incidental aUusions ;
(6) dominant theological ideas ; (c) vocabulary and stylistic features.
(a) The letter differs from all the Epistles commonly regarded as St.
20

306 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Paul's by beginning without any personal greeting from the writer to
those whom he addresses. Both he and they appear to have been Jews
by race_ since he exhorts his readers to renounce with him f eUowship with
those who had crucified and kiUed Jesus (xm. 13) and this imphes that
the readers of the Epistle had been previously in close association with
them. But the circumstance that the letter was sent to Christian Jews
(Hebrews in the racial sense) is rather unfavourable to St. Paul's authorship,
for it was the Gentiles and not his own countrymen that he considered to
have special claims upon his care. The writer reckons himself amongst
such as received the tidings of salvation from the actual hearers of the
Lord (u. 3), whereas St. Paul strenuously contended that he had received
through revelation the Gospel which he taught (Gal. i. 12, cf. Eph. hi. 3).
A reference, indeed, occurs to St. Paul's frequent companion Timothy.
who appears to have been recently released from prison (xiii. 23) ; but
Timothy must have been a friend of many others beside the Apostle.
Clearly the features here noticed are opposed for the most part to the
supposition that the letter is the production of St. Paul.1
(b) Some of the elements of likeness and unlikeness between the
theology of the Epistle and that of the Pauline writings are reviewed
elsewhere (p. 668), so that here it will suffice to notice only a few points
emerging from a comparison. Common to the writer and St. Paul are
an extremely high estimate of Clirist as the Divine Son, the Creator and
Sustainer of the world, and exalted, after enduring death, to heavenly
glory (CoL i. 15-17, Phil. ii. 9, Heb. i. 3) ; the use of expressions borrowed
from the Jewish sacrificial system in order to describe His death ; the
temporary value assigned to that system ; and the stress laid upon " faith "
as the condition of salvation. But the attitude of the two writers to the
Jewish Law is quite different : and the contrast drawn between the Law
and grace by St. Paul is absent from the Epistle, Christ being regarded
not as the annuller but as the fulfiller of the Law 2 ; whilst faith, which
is in St. Paul an act of trust in Christ, is in this author an act of trust in
God and in the Unseen (such as was shown by the great characters in the
Old Testament). And whUst the essence of Christ's redemptive work for
mankind was, in the mind of St. Paul, His death in the flesh and His
renewed hfe in the Spirit, whereby the strength of sin was destroyed in
believers and poWer to live a new Ufe was communicated to them, in the
mind of the Writer of Hebrews it was partly the expiation of sin through
His blood, partly the example of His patient hfe, and partly His inter*
cession in heaven. There is only one reference to the Eesurrection —
xiiL 20.
(c) There is a decided dissimilarity between St. Paul's Uterary manner
(even though this varies a good deal) and that of the writer of Hebrews.
The style of the former is impetuous, marked on some occasions by abrupt
1 In x. 34 the reading tois Sto-jiots jiov has the support of X and the Old Latin,
but roTs d<;<rp,Lois is found in AD 33 and most of the versions.
2 Cf. Stevens, Christian Doctrine of Salvation, p. 78. Nevertheless the writer
speaks of an " annulling of a foregoing commandment on aooount of its weakness and
unprofitableness " (vii. 18).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 307
transitions, by broken constructions (e.g. Gal. ii. 6-10), by frequent rhetori
cal questions, or by impassioned pleadings (see, for instance, Rom. iii. iv. vi.,
1 Gor. vi.), and at other times by long and almost breathless statements
(see Eph. i. U., Col. i.). But the latter's style is distinguished by a tranquil
and measured movement ; he has his thoughts weU under control ; his
arguments are effectively articulated ; and his work has a more literary
quahty than any other in the New Testament. One striking contrast
is observable in the way in which St. Paul's own personality comes into
prominence throughout his correspondence, as compared with the almost
complete self -suppression of the author of this Epistle . This is exemplified
by the fact that the pronoun iym (in the nominative) occurs more than
60 times in St. Paul (exclusive of quotations), whilst in Hebrews it is found
nowhere outside of quotations. Characteristic features of diction cannot
be illustrated extensively here ; and vocabulary is always very largely
determined by subject-matter. Nevertheless the use of particular con
junctions and other connectives often throws Ught upon identity or
difference of authorship, and of such several that are frequent in the
Pauhne Epistles are absent or rare in Hebrews, and vice versa. Thus aga
or aga oiv is found 27 times in St. Paul, but only twice in Hebrews ; and
vmil appears eighteen times in St. Paul but only once or twice in Hebrews.
The rhetorical question xl oSv ; or xi oiv Xiyw (igov/iev) ; so common
in Romans has no place in Hebrews. Conversely 80ev (" wherefore ") is
absent from the Pauline Epistles, but occurs six times in Hebrews. Very
significant is the circumstance that whereas the combinations 'Irjaovg
Xgiarog (especially 6 ^/isregog xtfgiog 'Irjaovg Xgiardg) and Xgiardg 'Irjaovg
are extremely common in St. Paul, the first is used by the author of
Hebrews only three times, and the latter never, the simple 'Irjaovg or
Xgiarog or 6 Xgiardg being otherwise uniformly employed. And another
conspicuous difference is the formula with which quotations from the
Old Testament are introduced. St. Paul generaUy prefaces them with
xadcog (xaddnsg, &ansg) ysyganrai or xard rd yeyga/ifievov x ; but the
author of Hebrews uses xaOdog Xiysi (or some equivalent), the subject of
the verb being God or the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The united effect of these differences is fully to confirm the judgment
of the early Western Churches that the Epistle is not the work of St. Paul.
It is not hkely to be a translation of an Aramaic letter, written by him,
which has been rendered into Greek by a companion hke St. Luke (as
Clement thought), for the argument in ix. 15, 16 turns upon the ambiguity
of the Greek word SiaBrjxrj. The authorship must therefore be sought
elsewhere. As has been seen, it was attributed by some in ancient times
to Barnabas, Luke, and Clement of Eome ; and it has been assigned in
modern times to Silas, ApoUos, Aquila, Priscilla, Phihp and St. Peter,
though the last, at least, was an actual disciple of Jesus (contrast ii. 3).
The choice between these (if the author is to be looked for in the New
Testament) may be postponed until after a consideration of the place
where it was probably written, and the community to which it was sent.
1 In Rom. ix. 17 there is used the phrase \iyei rj ypatjrlj.

308 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Destination, Place of Origin and Date
The first two of these questions are conveniently dealt with together,
since the most plausible answer to one or other of them is furnished by
the salutation forwarded through the writer from " Those of Italy (xih.
24, ol dnd rfjg 'IraXiag). This phrase suggests that the author was either
writing from Italy to a definite group of persons outside that country
who had connexions in Italy, or to Italy from a land where he was sur
rounded by some Itahan friends. On the surface, indeed, the title of the
Epistle To Hebrews seems most appropriate to the Jews of Jerusalem who
spoke Aramaic, and were distinguished as " Hebrews " from their feUow-
countrymen of the Dispersion, who, as speaking Greek, were styled
" HeUenists " (Acts vi. 1) ; but various features in its contents almost
decisively negative this conclusion. It is very improbable that Jewish
Christians resident at Jerusalem should aU have owed their faith to the
teaching of Jesus' disciples (ii. 3, xiii. 7) and not to Jesus Himself ; that a
letter to such would be composed in Greek, or be fiUed with citations from
the LXX and not from the Hebrew Bible ; that a body which at one
time received help from Gentile Christians (Acts xxiv. 17) should here be
commended for relieving others (vi. 10) ; and that there should occur no
aUusion to the Temple, but only to the Tabernacle. And the fact that
the earhest quotation from the letter occurs in the writings of Clement
of Eome (circ. a.d. 95) strongly favours the inference that the second of
the alternatives stated above is the true one, and that the letter was sent
to Italy, and, most likely, to the capital Eome. At Eome there were
large numbers of Jews (p. 78), some of whom had been converted to
Christianity, so that the title To Hebrews (if taken to mean Jews by descent
though not by language) is not inconsistent with the supposition that
Eome was the destination of the Epistle. Other suggested destinations
besides Eome (Antioch, Ephesus, Csesarea, Alexandria) are Uttle better
than guesses.
If the letter was really sent to Eome, then, since the writer had hved
amongst those whom he addresses, and looked forward to rejoining them
(xiii. 19, 23) he is most plausibly to be sought for amongst those individuals
of the Apostohc age who had been at Eome ; but who at the time of
writing were living somewhere outside Italy (there being no clue to the
precise locaUty). This condition (as far as is certainly known) is met
neither by Barnabas 1 (p. 541), who possessed a faculty for exhortation
(Acts xi. 23, cf. iv. 36 and Heb. xui. 22), and who, being a Levite (Acts
iv. 36), might be expected to be interested in the Jewish sacrificial system ;
nor by Apollos, who was a Hellenist and whose eloquence, Alexandrian
learning,2 and knowledge of the Scriptures (Acts xviii. 24) would render
him competent to write such a letter ; nor by the EvangeUst Phihp. It
is satisfied, however, by St. Peter, by St. Luke, by Silas (probably), and
1 He is, however, represented in certain traditions as having visited Rome (Zahn,
I.N.T. i. p. 433).
2 The Epistle exhibits numerous parallels to the phraseology of the Alexandrian
Philo : see Parrar, Hebrews, pp. 38^41.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 309
by Aquila and PrisciUa. Certain resemblances have been traced in the
book to St. Peter's Epistle ; but St. Peter was himself one of our Lord's
disciples, and not a follower of them, as the writer seems to have been
(n. 3), and he was probably deficient in his command of Greek (p. 174),
whereas the author writes good Greek. The inference that Silas went to
Rome is derived from the assumption that 1 Pet. is genuine (p. 312) and
was written from that city by SUas with considerable freedom at St.
Peter's dictation (1 Pet. v. 12). But Silas was a member of the Church
of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 22) whereas the author of Hebrews was probably a
HeUenist. Luke went to Eome with St. Paul (Acts xxvii. 1) and most
likely left it after the latter's execution : and facts favouring his authorship
are his capacity for writing excellent Greek (see Lk. i. 1-4), and some
points of contact between his vocabulary and that of the Epistle (e.^.
the frequent use of re, which is rare in the New Testament except in Lk.,
Acts and Rom., the occurrence of xaravoioj twice in the Epistle, eight
times in Lk., but only four times in the rest of the New Testament, and
the numerous instances of xad' fj/j,igav and xalavrog (pp. 204, 238); whilst
a few words (like dgxrjyog, aaretog, 8iafialva, Siarids/uai, eiiderog,
IXdaxo/mi, ndggoidev) are found only in Lk. and Heb. But to be set
against this agreement in diction are certain differences, notably the
absence of some Lucan words and phrases Uke and rov vvv, nagaxgfjfta,
and especiaUy of the preposition avv. Moreover, it is extremely improb
able that Luke, who was a Gentile, would have elaborated such a com
parison between Christianity and the Law of Moses as appears in this
Epistle. Aquila and PrisciUa resided at Rome until they were expeUed
with other Jews by Claudius (Acts xviii. 2), and since the others who
satisfy the condition of acquaintance with Rome have been eliminated,
the book may be conjecturally assigned to either of these. Some scholars 1
found an argument in favour of Priscilla upon the circumstance that the
letter does not at present begin with a salutation from the writer, for,
if the author were a woman, there would be a temptation to suppress the
fact in view of St. Paul's dishke of female teachers. But the occurrence
of the masculine participle in a self-aUusion by the writer (xi. 32) is against
this identification unless the grammar is intended as a disguise, or is the
substitution of a copyist. If the letter was written by either Aquila
or his wife, the place of origin may have been Ephesus, for they were
both there when St. Paul wrote Rom. xvi. (see v. 3), if that chapter was
reaUy sent thither from Rome (see p. 283).
The persons to whom the letter was addressed must have previously
been adherents of Judaism, since only for those who were contemplating
a relapse to Judaism would the author's argument for the superiority of
Christianity to the rehgion of Moses have any force ; and only from
those who accepted the Old Testament would his appeals to its evidence
evoke a response. But amongst such there might be proselytes from
heathenism, or individuals belonging to the class of " God-fearers," and
it is perhaps these, who (he apprehended) might fall away not from Christ
1 See Peake, Hebrews, p. 37 f.

310 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
only but from the hving God, and return to heathen vices (hi. 12, xu. 16,
xui. 4). Christians of Gentile, as well as of Jewish, race could be regarded
as the seed of Abraham (n. 16), since Christians constituted the true
Israel (Gal. iii. 29, cf. Rom. iv. 1, 12). Nevertheless that those to whom
the Epistle was sent had been Jews by rehgion and were also for the
most part Jews by birth seems clear alike from particular passages hke
vi. 6, x. 29, xiii. 13), and from the general drift of the contents. The
word " GentUes " indeed, does not occur in it.
For the settlement of the date few indications are afforded by the
book. If it were sent to Christians of Jewish origin in Palestine, the
absence of any reference to the Temple and the Temple sacrifices seems
to exclude a date previous to 70, and to point to its being written many
years after the destruction of Jerusalem, for, had the memory of that
event been recent, aUusion to such a judgment of God would have added
force to the writer's arguments. But if, as seems probable, it was addressed
to a body of Christian Jews at Rome (p. 308), the fact that the writer
deals with the ritual of the Tabernacle as described in the Old Testament
Scriptures, and not with that of the Temple, is not surprising, and is
compatible with a date prior to a.d. 70. And the aUusion to sufferings
(x. 32-34, xn. 4, 7) finds a natural explanation in the hostility felt at
Rome towards the Christians, which rendered it easy for Nero in 64 to
incite the populace against them. The Jewish rehgion was tolerated by
the Roman State (p. 79) whereas the Christian was not, and there would
be a tendency for Jewish Christians in times of trouble to revert to their
earher faith. Nevertheless, it looks, in view of xn. 4, 7, as if those addressed
had only experienced imprisonment and confiscations, and the full horrors
of the persecution following the burning of the city had not yet begun.
A plausible date would, therefore, seem to be shortly before a.d. 64.
If it was composed, as some think, during the reign of Domitian (81-96) 1
it is difficult to understand how the author could say that those to whom
he wrote had not yet resisted unto blood.
The First Epistle of St. Peter
Both of the letters bearing St. Peter's name claim to be written by the
Apostle, but the authenticity of the First is much better established than
that of the Second. The genuineness of the First, indeed, is supported
by such strong external attestation that discussion of its authorship might
here be dispensed with (as in the case of most of St. Paul's Epistles), were
it not for certain internal peculiarities which throw some doubt upon its
origin. Authorship
Patristic evidence for the existence and authority of the Epistle in the
Church is generally allowed to be both ample and early.2 Under these
1 See McGiflert, Apostolic Age, pp. 463-4. a Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 335.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 311
circumstances it seems unnecessary to adduce Ulustrations at any length,
and it wiU suffice to quote the foUowing parallels : —
1. Clement of Rome (d. 95-100) 1 Pet.
vn. 4. yvmuev &g iariv rlfiiov (i.e. i.. 19, ripicp a'lfian . . . Xgiarov.
rd atfia «w Xgiarov).
xlix. 5, dydnrj xaMnrei nXfjdog iv. 8, dydnrj xaXtinxet nXfjdog djjiag-
d/uagxuov.1 riarv.1
Clement also uses the words dyaBonoiia, dSeXxpdrrjg, dngoffconoXfj/inrcog,
vnoyga/i/idg, which, within the New Testament, only occur in I Pet.2
2. Teaching qfthe Twelve Apostles
(circ. 100) 1 Pet.
i. 4, dnexov rcbv aagxixarv xai oco/ua- ii. 11, nagaxaXco . . . dnexeodai rwv
rixarv iniBviii&v. aagxixmv inidv/juwv.
3. Polycarp (d. 156) 1 Pet.
i. 3, slg ov ovx I86vreg marevere i. 8, elg Sv agri pit Sgawteg, moreii-
%agq. avexXaXtfrcp xai 8s8ol-ao- avrsg 8s dyaXXiaade #aga avex-
(livr) XaXrjrcp xai SeSogaa/iivi).
vii. 2, vqipovreg ngdg rag eiixdg. iv. 7, vfjtpare elg ngoaevxdg.
4. Irenmus. (d. 202) quotes in adv. hcer. (iv. 16, 5, v. 7, 2) from the
Epjstle, introducing the citation with the words, " Peter says " (cf. Eus.
H.E. v. 8).
5. Eusebius states that Papias (aire. 130) used testimony from the First
Epistles of both St. John and St. Peter (H.E. iii. 39, 17) ; and after dividing
Christian writings into three classes Accepted (6uoXoyov/t£vq), Disputed
(&iriXeyo/iiev,q.) and Spurious (voda), he places 1. Pet. in the first class
(of. ni. 25, 2). The Epistle is not enumerated in the Muratorian Canon,
but that catalogue appears to be mutUated at the beginning and end, and
may have suffered loss in the middle also.
But though the external evidence for the early origin and circulation
of the First Epistle is thus convincing, its Petrine authorship has been
questioned on various grounds. The principal of these are the foUowing.
(a) The Greek is too correct and idiomatic to proceed from St. Peter, who
though doubtless sufficiently acquainted with the Greek language to speak
it, yet required the assistance of an interpreter when at Rome (p. 169).
(6) The Epistle contains fewer references to incidents in our Lord's ministry
and to His teaching than might be expected from an Apostle, especiaUy
one who enjoyed a special degree of intimacy with his Master, (c) It
exhibits both in ideas and language a close resemblance to some of the
Epistles of St. Paul, so that it is surprising to find " the first and nearest
of the Twelve so much more affected, apparently by the teaching of Paul
1 The quotation comes from Prov. x. 12, where the LXX rendering is v&vras roils
p.7] <j>CKoveiKopvras KaKiirref, tfiChla,
• Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 8, where, however, flmnXos and irapowla are
wrongly included.

312 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
than of Jesus." x It has also been held to show unmistakable traces of its
writer's acquaintance with the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf . 1 Pet . i. 2 with
Heb. xii. 24). (d) The persons to whom the letter was addressed were
residents in five districts (constituting four Roman provinces) in Asia
Minor— Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (see p. 65)—
with which St. Peter cannot be shown, independently of this epistle, to
have had any connexion.
The weight of these reasons, substantial though they are, is much
reduced by several considerations.
(a) The comparative scholarliness of the Greek, which is exemplified
by the frequent use of /iev . . . 8i (i. 20, n. 4, Ui. 18, iv. 6), by such an
arrangement of the article as is seen in r) rov Osov /taxgodvpia (iii. 20,
cf. i. 17, iii. 3, iv. 14, v. 1, 4) and by the paucity of Hebraisms, though a
certain number of such occur (rixva vnaxofjg, i. 14, cf. iv. 3, i. 13, etc.),
may be due to an amanuensis. This is not hkely to have been St. Mark,
though he is mentioned as joining in the salutations sent by the writer of
the letter (for there is Uttle likeness between the style of the Epistle and
that of the Second Gospel), but may have been Silvanus. It was certainly
in some sense through the agency of Silvanus that the letter was written
(v. 12), and though the expression employed may, and probably does,
imply that he was the bearer of the letter to its destination, it is equaUy
probable that it means that it was also composed by him, though whether
St. Peter dictated it in Aramaic, which was rendered by the amanuensis
into Greek, or whether he spoke in Greek, which was corrected or improved
by his assistant, or whether he left the latter free to express as he deemed
best the thoughts communicated, cannot, of course, be decided.
(b) The small number of references to our Lord's works and words can
be accounted for in some measure by the fact that the Apostles and early
preachers of Christianity were certainly more concerned to encourage their
hearers with the hope of their Lord's Second Coming from heaven than to
inform them about the details of His hfe on earth (cf . p. 497). There are,
however, in the Epistle two or three references which unobtrusively
harmonize with the supposition that the writer was an eyewitness of
Christ's earthly life and a hearer of His words (see v. 1 ; and cf. i. 13 with
Lk. xii. 35 ; ii. 12 with Mt. v. 16 ; and iii. 14 with Mt. v. 10). Moreover
there are a few paraUels to ideas occurring in connexion with St. Peter in
the narrative of Acts (cf. i. 17 with Acts x. 24 ; iv. 13 with Acts v. 41 ;
v. 1 with Acts v. 32, x. 39 ; ii. 4 with Acts iv. 11).
The reasons marked (c) and (d) are most conveniently discussed in
relation to the questions when and where the Epistle was written.
Place and Date
The letter purports to have been written in Babylon (v. 13)2, but it is
disputable whether the name is to be understood hteraUy or in a transferred
1 Baoon, Int. to N.T. p. 153.
2 The phrase ij ev BafivXwvi o-vveieKeKrJi has by some been strangely taken to
mean the writer's wife ; it is no doubt really a figurative expression for the Church-

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 813
sense, (a) If Babylon be taken to denote the city on the Euphrates, there
seems to be no independent evidence connecting St. Peter with that place.1
(6) The name was apphed to a fortress in Egypt at the south angle of the
Delta on the site of the modern Cairo, where in the first century a.d. was
the camp of one of the three corps forming the Roman garrison in Egypt
(Strabo, xvn.) ; but there is no tradition associating St. Peter with this
region either, (c) In a figurative sense the appeUation was given to Eome
by at least one Christian writer in the first century (see Rev. xiv. 8,
xvi. 19, xviu. 2) and by the author of the Sibylline Oracles 2 ; and, as
employed in this Epistle, it is expressly taken in this sense by Eusebius
(H.E. n. 15). 3 If such a metaphorical interpretation of the name is correct,
the implication that the letter was composed at Eome finds support in the
traditions representing that St. Peter, like St. Paul, laboured in Eome and
suffered death there (see Eus. H.E. U. 25, vi. 14, cf. p. 174). The truth of
this tradition there seems no reason to doubt, but certain chronological
notices respecting the length of time which St. Peter spent at Eome are
not so credible. Whilst Eusebius (H.E. ii. 14 and 25) states in general
terms that the Apostle went to Eome in the reign of Claudius (a.d. 41-54)
and was put to death in the reign of Nero (a.d. 54-68) Jerome specifies the
second year of Claudius (i.e. 42-43) as the date of St. Peter's arrival, adds
that he was bishop of Eome for 25 years, and asserts that he perished in
the last year of Nero's reign (i.e. 67-68). It is, however, very difficult
to reconcile this long residence at Eome with the facts stated or imphed in
the Epistles of St. Paul and in Acts. For St. Paul wrote his letter to the
Romans late in 55 or early in 56 (p. 281), and gives no indication that the
Roman Church had been founded by an Apostle (see especially xv. 20) ;
whilst the sUence of St. Luke in Acts about the presence of St. Peter at
Rome either before or during St. Paul's imprisonment in 59-61 is even
more unfavourable to the representation of Jerome that the elder Apostle
spent 25 years in the Roman capital.4 In view of the negative evidence of
the Pauhne Epistles and of Acts it seems most probable that St. Peter
visited Rome after St. Paul's death in 61. The supposition that at any
rate he outlived St. Paul and suffered a martyr's death (cf. Joh. xxi. 12)
either at the end of Nero's reign (67-68) or, more probably, during the
persecution of the Christians in 64 (since an Apostle is not likely to have
escaped when numbers of obscure Christians were destroyed) affords some
solution of the last two difficulties (c) and (d) which are urged against the
Petrine authorship of the Epistle and which now require to be noticed.
(c) The paraUels in both thought and diction traceable between 1 Pet.
and certain of St. Paul's Epistles are close enough to suggest that with some
in the city named. In the uncial N, some cursives, and the Vulgate and Peshitto
versions eKtihijo-la. is inserted before o-vveKKeKrij (Zahn, I.N.T. ii. p. 157).
1 Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 769.
2 Quoted in the Expositor's Gk. Test. v. p. 19.
* For a parallel figure of speech cf. Rev. xi. 8, where Jerusalem is called " spiritu
ally " (i.e. figuratively) Sodom and Egypt.
4 " The tradition of a twenty-five years' Episcopate is unhistorical " (Hastings,
D.B. iii. p. 778).

314 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of these the author of 1 Pet. must have been acquainted. The corre
spondence is most conspicuous in the case of Romans.
1 Pet. Mom.
i. 14. Not fashioning yourselves accord- xii. 2. Be not fashioned according
ing to your former lusts. to this world.
i. 17. Who without respect of persons ii. 11. Por there is no respect of
judgeth according to each man's persons with God.
work.
i. 21. Who through Him are beUevers iv. 24. Who believe on Him who raised
in God which raised Him from Jesus our Lord from the dead.
the dead..
ii. 13. Be subject to every ordinance of xiii. 1. Let every soul be subject to the
man for the Lord's sake; whether higher powers, for there is no power
it be to the King as supreme, etc. but of God, etc.
ii. 24. That we having died unto sins, vi. 11. Even so reckon ye also your.-
might live unto righteousness. selves to be dead unto sin, but alive
unto God in Christ Jesus.
iii. 9. Not rendering evil for evil. xii, 17. Rendering to no man evil for
evil.
iv. 13. Insomuch that ye are partakers viii. 17. If so be that we suffer with
of Christ's sufferings. Him.
The author of 1 Pet., hke St. Paul, quotes Hos. u. 23 (see 1 Pet. U. 9, 10,
Rom. ix. 25) and combines together Is. viii. 14 and xxviU. 16 (see 1 Pet. n. 6, 8,
Rom. ik. 33) ; and the coincidence is the more remarkable since in quoting
7s. viu. 14 both diverge from the LXX in the same way. A further point of
resemblance between the two epistles is the common use of the adjective
Xoyixog (1 Pet. n. 2, 5, Rom. xii. 1), which is not found elsewhere in the
New Testament.1
There are paraUels with other Pauline Epistles, especiaUy Ephesians,
which have to be passed over here,2 and with the Epistle of St. James
(cf. 1 Pet. i. 7 with Jas. i. 2, to SoxI/mov vp&v rfjg nlarecog in both ; and
1 Pet. v. 6 with Jas. iv. 10). Acquaintance with, and use of, St. Paul's
writings seems at first sight remarkable if the author of the letter was
St. Peter. But that Apostle was a man of sympathetic and receptive
character, who readily yielded to the influence of other personahties ;
and the supposition that he only reached Eome after the Epistle to the
Romans was written affords ample space for his becoming familiar with it.
It is not so easy to explain the paraUels subsisting between 1 Pet. and some
others of St. Paul's letters, which were sent to other destinations than
Rome. But these may not be due to actual perusal of them ; and some
knowledge of St. Paul's ideas may have come to St. Peter (if he reached
Rome after St. Paul's death) through St. Mark, who, having ministered to
St. Paul (2 Tim. iv. 11), may be assumed after his execution to have become
the companion of St. Peter, when the latter visited Rome (cf. p. 174).
To the date here advocated (namely between a.d. 61 and 64, and most
likely nearer the latter than the former year) it has been objected by a
i Cf. Kennedy, Theol. of the Epistles, p. 168.
2 See Bigg, St. Peter and St. Jude, pp. 16, 17 ; Salmon, Int. N T. pp. 467, 8 ;
Zahn, I.N.T. ii. pp. 186, 7.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 315
large number of scholars that the circumstances in which Christians were
placed at the time when the Epistle was Written were such as prevailed
not in the time of Nero (54-68) but in the reigns of Domitian (81-96) and
of Trajan (98-117). It is contended that it was not until then that the
profession of Christianity (iv. 16) was, of itself, apart from any criminal
.charge, deemed an offence punishable by extreme measures 1 ; and that
such measures are imphed in the words, " the fiery trial among you (fj iv
vjutv ntigoiaig) which cometh upon you to prove you " (iv. 12). If this
argument is justified it is highly improbable that the letter was written by
St. Peter, who, had he lived to such a late period, would have been a very
old man. But by the maUcious, or by persons whose practices or occupa
tions were discouraged by Christians, Christianity could be construed as
an offence against the State at a much earher date (see Acts xvi. 21, xix. 23)
for it was not a religio licita. The prevailing tenor, however, of the refer
ences to persecution in 1 Pet. is not suggestive of violent repression but
rather of calumny and social injury, not generally involving loss of Ufe
(U. 12, Ui. 16, iv. 1 2, 4, 14). The term ntigwoig seems to be borrowed from
Prov. xxvn. 21 (LXX), where the Heb. has " the fining pot is for silver,
and the furnace for gold," and to be used metaphorically. There conse
quently is no cogent reason for placing the Epistle later than the middle
of the reign of Nero ; and the very different spirit manifested by the
writer towards the Imperial authorities (ii. 13, 14, 17) from that displayed,
for instance, in the book of Revelation (composed under Vespasian or
Domitian, p. 333) not only renders a date within the reigns of Domitian
or Trajan extremely improbable2' but makes it unhkely that the cruelties
perpetrated on the Christians by Nero in 64 had yet taken place. It has,
indeed, been urged that the name Babylon would not have been used to
describe Rome until Rome, by its persecution of the Church, had come to
be regarded by the latter as the true successor of historic Babylon.3 But
if Christians could be termed coUectively the Dispersion (p. 257), there is
nothing unnatural in the application of the name Babylon to the principal
city of the heathen world, throughout which Christian behevers were
scattered, without any suggestion of its being the scene of abnormal
brutaUties. (d) The circumstance that the Epistle under consideration was
addressed to the dweUers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
1 In the time of Trajan, Pliny, when governor of Bithynia, put to death persons
charged with being Christians, who, after being thrice interrogated with threats of
punishment, did not deny the accusation ; but becoming dissatisfied with this course
of action, he consulted the Emperor. In his letter he stated that previously he had
never taken part in the trials of Christians ; and was consequently uncertain about
various matters, not knowing, for instance, whether nomen ipsum, si jkigitUs careat,
an fiagiitia cohcerentia nomini puniantur. The Emperor approved of his procedure
in general, but directed that Christians were not to be sought out ; that suspected
persons, if they renounced Christianity, were to be released ; and that anonymous
accusations were not to be received.
2 " When the imperial cultus was in force, an unqualified phrase like ii. 17, ' Honour
the Emperor,' becomes almost incredible." Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 341.
3 Salmon, Int. N. T., p. 465.

316 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Bithynia, districts which St. Peter is not known to have evangehzed (for
the statement that he preached in them, contained in Eus. H.E. Ui. 1,
merely reproduces 1 Pet. i. 1), does not admit of being fuUy explained.
Possibly St. Peter, if he was in Rome after St. Paul's death, might consider
it his duty to extend his care to those localities in which St. Paul had
taken so much interest and to the countries immediately adjoining them
(which had perhaps been evangehzed by some of St. Paul's disciples).1
St. Mark may have been the means of speciaUy interesting St. Peter in
them, for he was contemplating a journey to Asia when St. Paul wrote the
Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 10), and he was already known to those to
whom St. Peter was writing, since the letter contains a greeting from him
(1 Pet. v. 18). 2 In any case, the difficulty of explaining quite satis
factorily why St. Peter was led to write to the Christian communities of
Asia Minor is not an adequate reason for questioning his authorship.
The persons to whom the letter was sent appear at first sight to be
Jewish Christians, since the most obvious sense of the word Dispersion is
the literal sense (cf. Jas. i. 1). But the Christian communities in Galatia,
at any rate, were predominantly, though not exclusively, GentUes (Acts
xiii. 46, Gal. iv. 8) ; and various passages in the Epistle make it clear that
the readers of it must have been, in the main, of GentUe origin, since
allusion is made to the vices which had marked them before their conversion,
and which are much more characteristic of heathens than of Jews (see i. 14,
18 , and especiaUy ii. 10, iv. 3, 4). And inasmuch as the expression
" sojourners " (i. 1) must be understood figuratively of those who whilst
on earth were exiles from heaven, their true home (cf . i. 17, U. 11, Heb.
xi. 13, xni. 14), it is not putting a violent strain upon the whole phrase,
" sojourners of the Dispersion," to take it as describing Christians (whether
Jews or Gentiles) who constituted the true Israel and who during their
earthly pUgrimage were dispersed (cf. Acts xi. 19), like historic Israel,
among pagan populations.
The Epistle of Jude
The Epistle passing under the name of Jude describes itself as written
by a Judas, who styles himseU a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of
James. As the name " James " is apphed in the New Testament to three
different individuals — the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphseus, and one
of the " brothers " of our Lord — it is not quite certain which of the three
is meant ; but it is obvious that the reference is most likely to be to the
best known. This was certainly the last-named, who is aUuded to as
" James " without further definition in Acts xu. 17, xv. 13, 1 Gor. xv. 7.
It may be taken, then, that the Judas or Jude mentioned in the heading
is meant to be identical with the person of that name who is enumerated
in the hsts of our Lord's " brethren " given in Mk. vi. 3, Mt. xni. 55. The
1 That more than one evangelist had contributed to the conversion of the persons
addressed is imphed in i. 12.
2 Cf Zahn, I.N.T. ii. pp. 148-9.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 317
precise relationship imphed by the word " brethren " is considered on
p. 364, where it is concluded that the four individuals so described were
probably sons of Mary and Joseph, and born after, the nativity of Jesus . If
so, Jude, who occupies either the third or the fourth place in the lists, may
have been six or more years younger than our Lord.
As the authenticity of the Epistle has been disputed by several scholars,
and the UkeUhood of its having been written by the Jude of Mk. vi. 3 has
been widely questioned, it is desirable to review briefly the evidence for
and against its genuineness. External Evidence
(a) If the conclusion is correct that portions of Jude have been incor
porated in 2 Pet. (see p. 337 f .), and the date of the latter is the first half of
the second century, this is the earUest testimony to the existence and
use of Jude. Apart from this there are a few suggestive coincidences in
Polycarp (iXeog xai elgrjvrj xai aydnrj nXrjdwdetrj, cf. Jude 2).
(6) The Muratorian catalogue includes the Epistle among those received
in the Catholic Church.
(c) Clement of Alexandria comments upon the book in his Outlines
(Eus. H.E. vi. 13 and 14) and quotes it in various passages.
(d) TertuUian refers to it in the words Enoch apud Judam apostolum
testimonium habet.
(e) Origen alludes to it in words of commendation, as " full of vigorous
words of heavenly grace," but in one passage implies doubts of its authority,
and his doubts reappear in later writers.
(/) Eusebius in one place includes Jude among the disputed writings
(ai avriXeyd/xsvai) and in another imphes that it was regarded as spurious
(vodsvsrai), adding that, as in the case of the Ep. of James, not many of
the ancients had mentioned it, but admitting that both letters were read
pubhcly in most churches (Eus. H.E. iU. 25, ii. 23).
(g) Jerome (346-420) states : Judas, frater Jacobi, parvam quae de
septem catholicis est epistolam reliquit. Et quia de Ubro Enoch, qui apocryphus
est, in ea assumit testimonia, a plerisque reicitur, tamen auctoritatem vetustate
iam et usu meruit et inter sanctas computatur.
Among the Versions the Syriac Peshitto does not contain it. The
circumstance mentioned by Jerome to account for its rejection by many,
namely its use of the Apocryphal book of Enoch (see v. 14) together with
its brevity, explains sufficiently the comparatively few aUusions to it in
Patristic writers ; whilst the inclusion of so much of it in 2 Pet., if the
priority of Jude may be considered to be estabUshed with fair probability,
carries the external evidence for it back as far as can be expected.
Internal Evidence
The reason for rejecting the book, which many in antiquity found in its
appeal to the book of Enoch as to a genuine prophetic work does not exert
much influence now, for if St. Paul treated as historical the legends of the
moving rock that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness (1 Cor.

318 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
x. 4) and of Satan's disguise as an angel of hght (2 Cor. xi. 14), it is not
surprising that a contemporary of St. Paul's should have both used as
authoritative the pseudonymous book of Enoch (v. 14) and drawn for
material upon another apocryphal work called The Assumption of Moses
(in v. 9). The feature of the Epistle which at the present time has chiefly
caused it to be denied to Jude and to be regarded as a second-century
production is the nature of the doctrine against which it is directed. The
writer denounces a body of antinomian teachers, professedly Christians
(v. 12), whose principles and practices were grossly immoral (v. 7, 16),
whose attitude towards authority was arrogant and unruly (v. 8), and who
probably justified their conduct and pretensions by claiming possession
of the Spirit equally with the official leaders of the Church (like Korah in
his address to Moses, Num. xvi. 3) and contending that this freed them
from aU subordination to law and order. It has been maintained that
such must have been early representatives of some of the Gnostic sects
of the second century, whose tenets defended hbertinism. But similar
tendencies were manifest at Corinth in St. Paul's time (see 1 Cor. v. 1 f.,
vi. 12 f., 2 Cor. xii. 21) ; so that it does not appear impossible that such
tendencies may have developed during the first century a.d. elsewhere,
even in the virulent and repulsive form described in this Epistle. The
book has been thought to show acquaintance with some of St. Paul's
Epistles (cf . v. 1 with 1 Th. i . 4, and Rom. i. 7, and cf . v. 24 with Rom. xvi. 25).
The resemblance, however, is not close enough to suggest borrowing, and
if it were, it would be quite possible for Jude, presumably born about
a.d. 4, to have read some of St. Paul's writings, and to have produced this
letter between a.d. 65 and 70 (or 75). There is no conclusive evidence
that the writer aUudes in vv. 17 and 18 to 1 Tim. Ui. 1- (where the term
" mockers " is not emphasized) ; the reference may be not to any Apostohc
or professedly Apostohc writings, but to oral teaching (cf . Acts xx. 29) ;
and the allusion to " the Apostles " is no more inconsistent with Jude's
authorship than the similar aUusipn in Eph. ii. 20, Ui. 5 is incompatible
with St. Paul's (p. 290). A Hebraistic colouring has been noticed in the
style of the book 1 ; and both this fact and the use in it of Jewish Apocalyptic
writings favours the inference that the writer was a Hebrew Christian.
The internal evidence, then, as httle as the external, justifies the
rejection of the opening statement of the letter that it proceeds from
Jude the brother of James. The presumption that it is correct is decidedly
more plausible than the hypothesis either that the Epistle is pseudonymous
(for Jude was scarcely important enough for his name to be used by another
writer to lend authority to his own work) or that it is the production of
Judas Barsabbas (Acts xv. 22), or of some altogether unknown Judas
(the words " and the brother of James " being the insertion of an editor or
copyist). Upon the precise date and place of origin no light is thrown by the
contents of the Epistle. The occasion seems to have been the sudden
appearance of a number of false teachers whose doctrines were marked by
1 Cf. Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 347.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 319
tendencies of a peculiarly sensual and vicious character ; the urgent need
of counteracting these seems to have caused the writer, abandoning his
purpose of writing a letter of different character, to issue promptly a
warning against their pernicious errors (v. 3). The year of composition
perhaps falls, as has been said, within 65 and 75 ; the place has been most
plausibly conjectured to have been Palestine or Syria (Antioch), but
without any evidence from tradition to support the guess.
Two grandsons of Jude were arrested in the reign of Domitian (81-96) and brought
before the Emperor on the suspicion that, being the descendants of David, they
cherished pretensions to royalty. They explained, however, that they were poor
men, occupied with agricultural labour, and looked not for an earthly but a heavenly
kingdom, and in view of this they were dismissed. They are reported to have sur
vived until the reign of Trajan (98-117) : see Eus. H.E. iii. 20, who gives Hegesippus
as his authority.
The Epistles of St. John
Consideration of the three Epistles which, though all anonymous, are
traditionally ascribed to St. John cannot be separated from that of the
Gospel, for the Second and Third Epistles have so many features in common
with the First, and the latter so closely in ideas and diction resembles the
Gospel, that it may be said at once that to regard them as having an
independent origin is very difficult. It is expedient, however, to discuss
in detail, though briefly, both the external evidence relating to each, and
the internal characteristics of thought and style which unite them together.
1 Joh.
The First Epistle contains no mention of the author's name or office,
nor does it afford any indication of being sent to some particular Church
or locality (for it lacks both greeting x and benediction). It appears to be
intended for a wide circle, consisting of Gentile Christians (v. 21) ; and is
of the nature of a homily, developing a few ideas (such as that God is the
centre and source of Light and of Love), insisting on the obligations
entaUed by the profession of feUowship with God, testifying that God had
sent His Son to be the saviour of the world, and uttering warnings against
such Ss denied Jesus to be Christ — men whose views were probably in
sympathy with Docetism, and who laid claim to a spiritual Ulumination
superior to that of ordinary Christians.2
External Evidence
The foUowing are among the paraUels subsisting between the First
Epistle and the early patristic writers, pointing to a knowledge of the
former by the latter.
(a) Clement of Rome (1. 3) employs the phrase ol iv dy&nrj xeXeiojBev-
reg, which suggests acquaintance with 1 Joh. iv. 18.
1 In this it resembles Hebrews. a Cf. Moffatt, L.N.T. p. 586.

320 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(6) Ignatius (Eph. 7) uses the phrase iv aagxl ysvofievog Bsog (though
Lightfoot reads iv dvBgoincp Bsdg), recalling 1 Joh. iv. 2.
(c) Polycarp (ad Ph. 7) has nag ydg Sg av fifj dfioXoyfj 'Irjoovv Xgiarov iv
aagxl iXrjXvBivai avrfygiordg ianv, which summarizes 1 Joh. iv. 2, 3.
(d) The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles contains the expressions
rsXsuaaai avrfjy (i.e. the Church) iv rfj ayanrj aov (ch. 10), and nageXBhw 6
xda/jiog oirog (id.), which resemble 1 Joh. iv. 12, 18, and ii. 17.
(e) Papias (according to Eusebius, H.E. iii. 39, 16) used testimony
from the First Epistle of John.
(/) Justin Martyr (in Tryph. 123) seems, in the words Beov rixva
aXrjBivd xaXaifisBa xai eo/uev, to have in mind 1 Joh. iii. 1.
(g) Ireneeus is stated by Eus. H.E. v. 8 to have mentioned the First
Epistle of Joh., and to have taken many proofs from it ; and he quotes
1 Joh. ii. 18, naidia, iaxdrrj &ga iariv.
(h) The Muratorian Catalogue does not expressly aUude to the First
Epistle by name but has a rendering of its opening words : " Quae vidimus
oculis nostris et auribus audivimus, et manus nostrse palpaverunt, hsec
scripsimus vobis."
(i) Clement of Alexandria (Str. ii. 15, 66) explicitly quotes as the
teaching of " John in his longer Epistle (iv rfj pett,ovi imaroXfj) " the words
of v. 16, 17 ; and cites a number of other passages from the First Epistle
as proceeding from John.
(j) FinaUy, Eusebius (H.E. iii. 24) declares " of the writings of John
not only his Gospel, but also the former of his Epistles has been accepted
without dispute both now and in ancient times " (cf. also iii. 25).
The evidence of Polycarp (circ. 120) and of Papias (circ. 130) proves
that the Epistle must have been in existence very early in the second
century), and the use of it by later writers is fairly common.
Internal Evidence
That the First Epistle and the Gospel of St. John proceed from the
same author is a conclusion favoured by the results of a comparison
between them in respect of phraseology, as the foUowing instances out of
a large number show : —
Epistle Gospel
i. 6, If we walk in the darkness (o-kStm , xii. 35, He that walketh in the dark-
but in ii. 11 o-Korla) ... we do ¦! ness (aKorla).
not the truth. viii. 21, He that doeth the truth.
i. 8, We have not sin. ix. 41, Ye would not have sin.
ib. The truth is not in us. viii. 44, Truth is not in him.
ii. 3, 5, Keep his commandments (or word) xiv. 15, 23, Keep my commandments
(or word).
ii. 16, Is of the world. viii. 23, Ye are of this world.
ii. 28, Abide in him. xv. 4, Abide in me.
iii. 1, Children of God. i. 12, Children of God.
iii. 3, Purifieth himself. xi. 53, To purify themselves.
iii. 4, Every one that doeth sin. viii. 34, Every one that doeth sin.
iii. 5, He was manifested to take away i. 29, He that taketh away the sin of
sin. the world.

Epistle

111.
14,
We have passed
out
of
death
into life.
in.
15,
A murderer.1
HI.
16,
He laid down his hfe for
us.
DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 321
Gospel
v. 24, He hath passed out of death into
life.
viii. 44, A murderer.1
x. 11, The good shepherd layeth down
his life for his sheep.
iv. 6, The spirit of truth. xiv. 16, The spirit of truth.
iv. 9, His only begotten Son. i. 18, The only begotten Son.
v. 4, Overcometh the world. xvi. 33, I have overcome the world.
v. 13, Have eternal life. iii. 15, Have eternal life.
Besides the common use of a number of phrases like those illustrated
above,2 which reflect the same or kindred religious conceptions, there are
several passages in the Epistle which appear to presume the teaching of
our Lord as described in the Gospel. The foUowing are a few parallels
where the passage from the Gospel seems to have been in tbe mind of the
writer of the Epistle :
Epistle Gospel
ii. 25. This is the promise which He x. 28. I give unto them eternal life ;
promised us, even the life eternal. and they shall never perish, and no
one shall snatch them out of my
hand.
iii. 11. This is the message which ye xiii. 34. A new commandment I give
heard from the beginning, that we unto you, that ye love one another.
should love one another.
v. 14. This is the boldness which we xiv. 13. Whatsoever ye shall ask in
have towards Him, that if we ask My name, that will I do.
anything according to His will, He
heareth us.
There is also between the Epistle and the Gospel a noticeable resem
blance in a fondness for combined affirmative and negative clauses (cf.
p. 231), for sentences of a peculiar structure (e.g. avxrj iaxlv . ¦ . iva,
avrrj iarlv . . on, iv rmhco yivoiaxo/iev . . . idv) and for xai . . . Si,
for n-as d with a participle, and for xaBdig . . . xai.3 The two works are
also marked by the absence from both of the terms eiayyeXiov (for which
ayyeXla is used as an equivalent in the Epistle.i. 5, Ui. 11) and svayyeXiCEoBai*
It is true that accompanying these simUarities there are a few phraseo
logical divergences, for both have a certain number of words peculiar to
themselves ; and whereas the Gospel repeatedly employs ov /ifj and psv,
the Epistle has no instance of either. But though there are these and some
other sUght variations of style, as well as some variety in the treatment of
the ideas common to the two,6 they do not amount to any serious difference
1 Within the New Testament this word (av0paiToKr6vos) only occurs in these two
Cf. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, pp. ii.-iv.
8 See Brooke, Johannine Epistles, pp. vi., vii.
« Zahn, I.N.T. iii. 373.
5 See Moffatt, L.N.T. pp. 590-592 ; Brooke, op. cit. pp. xi.-xvi. Among the
most conspicuous is the use of Paraclete in connexion with Christ Himself (ii. 1),
not with the Spirit (Joh. xiv. 16, though by calling the Spirit " another Para
clete " the Evangelist imphes that Christ is a Paraclete) and the conception of Anti-
21
322 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of either matter or manner ; and since it is unreasonable to suppose that
a writer never alters at intervals his customary forms of expression, or
modifies in course of time earher thoughts, it seems hypercritical to con
clude, in consequence of such distinctions, that these two works, dissimUar
in plan but so essentiaUy ahke in outlook and diction, cannot proceed from
one author.
If the Gospel and the Epistle really come from one and the same
writer the Epistle, in view of what has been said above (p. 321), is likely
to be the later of the two ; and was presumably designed to enforce, in a
simple and practical way, the difficult teaching embodied in the Gospel.
The First Epistle throws no direct hght upon the question of the name
and standing of the common author of the two works, though at the
beginning of it the writer classes himself amongst those who had seen
Christ in the flesh (cf. p. 209) ; but a suggestion is furnished by a con
sideration of the Second and Third Epistles.
2 Joh.
The Second Epistle, unlike the First, is not of the nature of an encycUcal
letter, but was sent to a particular destination. Though anonymous, it
purports to have been written by an elder, and is addressed to " the elect
lady," which, in view of the plural pronouns in vv. 6, 8, 10, and the paraUel
expressions in v. 12, 1 Pet. v. 13, is probably a figurative designation for a
Church (the thought of the coUective Church as the wife of the Lord (cf.
Rev. xxi. 9, Eph. v. 23 f.) being apphed to an individual community).1
There is, however, no evidence to show for what local Church the letter
was intended. Its aim is to denounce teachers propounding Docetic
views about the Person of Christ.
External Evidence
The Second Epistle has not the same early attestation as the First ;
and evidence for it is not anterior to the last half of the second century.
(a) The Muratorian Catalogue has the statement that Joannis dum
(Epistolce) in Catholica (ecclesia) habentur.
(b) Irenseus quotes 2 Joh. 7, 8, Multi seductores exierunt in hunc mundum,
etc., though he erroneously imphes that the passage occurs in the First
Epistle. (c) Clement of Alexandria aUudes to a " larger " Epistle of John's
(p. 320), thus implying acquaintance with a smaUer ; and a fragmentary
translation of his Outlines mentions Secunda Joannis epistola, and
christ (absent from the Gospel). Conversely there is no mention in the Epistle of
the " Word " (o A6yos) in an absolute sense, though it has the phrase " the Word of
Life " (<5 \6yos ttjs fwi.s i. 1). Por 1 Joh. v. 7-8 as represented in the A.V., see p/675.
1 It is improbable that licXam. Kvpia means " the elect Kyria " (the Greek' for
which would probably be Kvpia ^ exXeKTij, cf . v. 13), though this feminine name occurs
ininsoriptionsfoundinAsiaMinor(Zahn,i.JV'._p.__i. pp. 382-3). It is still more unlikely
that the phrase means "the lady Electa."

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 323
speaks of it as being written ad quandam Bayloniam Electdm nomine,
signiflcat autem electionem ecclesice sanctos.
(d) Origen (cf. Eus. H.E. vi. 25) states that John, " who reclined upon
the bosOm of Jesus, left, beside the Gospel and the Apocalypse, likewise
an Epistle of very few lines, perhaps also a second and third, but not aU
consider them genuine."
(e) Dionysius of Alexandria (cf . Eus. H.E. vii. 25) in denying the book
of Revelation to be the work of John the son Of Zebedee (p. 328) contrasts
the mention in it of the author by name with the anonymity of the Second
and Third Epistles.
(/) Eusebius in his enumeration of the New Testament Scriptures
places among " the disputed writings " thOse " that are caUed the second
and third of John."
In view of the paucity of patristic literature belonging to the first
half of the second century and the slightness of the Second Epistle, the
absence of early reference to it is not surprising.
Internal Evidence
Just as there is a marked simUarity in phraseology between the First
Epistle and the Gospel, so there is a likeness almost as marked between
the Second Epistle and the First, as will be seen from the following : —
2 Joh. 1 Joh.
1. Love ... in truth. iii. 18. Love ... in truth.
5. Not as though I wrote to thee a new ii. 7. No new commandment wrote I
commandment, but that which we unto you, but an old commandment
had from the beginning. which ye had from the beginning.
6. Even as ye heardj from the begin- iii. 11. (The message) which ye heard
ning. from the beginning.
7. They that confess not that Jesus iv. 2. (Every spirit) which confesseth
Christ cometh in the flesh. that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh.
| This is . . . the antichrist. ii. 22. This is the Antichrist.
9. The same hath both the Pather v. 12. He that hath the Son. . . .
and the Son.
12. I hope to come unto you and to i. 4. These things we write that our
speak face to face that your joy joy may be fulfilled.
may be fulfilled.
The last passage from the Second Epistle gains in point if it is assumed
that the person or persons addressed were acquainted with the First
Epistle, and that the writer looks forward to conferring by personal
intercourse the joy which he previously was only able to impart by letter.
It is impossible to suppose that it was worth while for one wishing. to
imitate the First Epistle to produce a letter of such small extent. _ The
internal evidence of the two points unmistakably to identity of origin.1
I* The Second Epistle (as has been said) purports to have been written by
an elder (" the presbyter "), a term which may be used in a literal sense, or
may be an official title. The description is important in the light of the
1 The absence of the Johannine words fui., 0ffis, a'ubvios, Tno-reveiv (Stanton,
Gospels as Hist. Doc. iii. p. 107) from a letter of thirteen verses is not very remarkable,

324 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
statement of Eusebius (H.E. iii. 39, 7) that Papias was acquainted with a
presbyter John. Though the name " John " was not uncommon, the
coincidence between the facts that Papias knew, and was a hearer of, " the
presbyter John," and that there exists an epistle, written by " the presbyter,' '
which became known as John's, is suggestive. As has been seen, this
Epistle resembles too closely the First to be the work of any but the author
of the latter, whilst the First Epistle almost certainly proceeds from the
author of the Gospel. It has been shown that the difficulties of ascribing
the last-named book to the Apostle John are very great (p. 224) ; but the
name of John is the only one that was ever associated with it in antiquity,
and it seems a plausible hypothesis that in the presbyter John who wrote
the Second Epistle and (as wUl be seen) the Third also, we have the author
of the Gospel as weU as of the First Epistle. He may have been a youth
at the time of the Crucifixion (a.d. 29) ; and if he Uved to a considerable
age, surviving into the second century, it would have been quite possible
for Papias to have come in contact with him.' If this hypothesis is correct,
the date of 2 Joh., and most probably of 1 Joh. and the Fourth Gospel, may
be approximately assigned to the last decade of the first century. It is
not inconsistent with this date that the First and Second Epistles denounce a
group of teachers who maintained a kind of Docetism (1 Joh. iv. 2, 2 Joh. 7) ;
for though Gnosticism flourished chiefly in the second century, it did not
enter full-grown into the world, and the rudiments of it may have been
diffused at the end of the first century, when Cerinthus was influential.
On the assumption that John the Presbyter was the actual author of the
books enumerated, his name eventuaUy became confused with that of
John the Apostle, and his works came to be attributed to the more dis
tinguished personahty.
3 Joh.
The Third Epistle bearing the name of John is, like the Second, a
letter in substance as weU as in form (with superscription and final saluta
tion). It is written, too, hke the Second, by one who calls himself " the
elder " (or presbyter), and is addressed to a certain Gaius, expressing the
writer's satisfaction at his loyalty to the true faith, and his practice of
hospitality. Gaius was apparently a member of the particular Church
to which 2 Joh. was directed (see v. 9) ; but nothing is known or can
plausibly be conjectured about him. The external attestation of the
Epistle is inferior to that which has been adduced for the preceding.
There is, indeed, a curious expression used by Papias, who (in a passage
quoted by Eus. H.E. iii. 39, 3) says, " I did not take pleasure ... in
those that report strange commandments, but in those that report the
commandments given by the Lord to the faith (i.e. believers) and springing
from the truth itself ; and the last words coincide with 3 Joh. 12. But
the letter is not quoted by Tertullian, Irenaeus, or Cyprian ; and it is said
that " we find no certain trace of language of the Third Epistle tUl the time
of Augustine and Jerome."1 It has been seen that the Muratorian
1 Brooke, Johannine Epistles, p. lxi.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 325
Catalogue mentions two Epistles of John ; but the reference is probably
to the First and Second. Origen states that the Second and Third Epistles
were not universaUy considered genuine, and Eusebius reckons them both
among the disputed books. Nevertheless, the internal evidence for its
authenticity is substantial, for its phraseology Unks it with the Second, if
not with the First. 3 Joh. 2 Joh.
1. Whom I love in truth. 1. Whom I love in truth.
3. I rejoice greatly . . . thou walkest 4. I rejoice greatly . . . certain of
in truth (cf. also v. 4). thy children walking in truth.
13. I had many things to write unto 12. Having many things to write
thee, but I am unwilling to write unto you, I would not (write this)
(them) with ink or pen ; but I hope with paper and ink, but I hope to
shortly to see thee, and we shall come unto you and to speak face
speak face to face. to face.
In 3 Joh. 9 the writer mentions that he " wrote somewhat unto the
church," and the aUusion seems to be to the Second Epistle, " the elect
lady " to whom that letter is addressed representing a church (p. 322).
The language of the First Epistle is not so fully echoed, but the foUowing
is significant :

11. He that doeth good is of God ; he (lv- $• ^,are of Go?- ,, , ., .
«._4. j„_m. __ji\.4t. _„*  r.' j i iv. 20. Whosoever sinneth hath not

3 Joh. 1 Joh.
eth good is of God ; hi
that doeth evil hath not seen God. (. seen Him.
Moreover the phrase " bear witness " (vo. 3, 6, 12) recaUs Joh. xix. 35
and other passages in the Fourth Gospel.
Acceptance Of the Epistle as a piece of genuine correspondence seems
warranted by the circumstantial aUusions which it contains (vv. 9, 12),
for the letter is not important enough to make a theory of forgery plausible.
The defective external attestation is fairly inteUigible in view of the private
nature of the communication, which would hinder it from being read in
the pubhc services of the church,1 and prevent it from coming into general
circulation untU late.
The place of origin was probably Ephesus. This was the locality
associated by tradition with the publication of the Gospel (cf. Eus. H.E.
Ui. 31, 3) ; and at none other are the Epistles so likely to have been
composed. RevelationAuthorship
Revelation,2 hke the Pauline and Petrine Epistles, and those of St.
James and St. Jude, but unlike the Gospels and some other of the New
Testament writings, contains the name of its real or ostensible author,
1 Cf. Salmon, I.N.T. p. 282.
" Charles' Revelation appeared too late for the present writer to~do more than
check by it a few statements.

326 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
who styles himself John (i. 1, 4, 9, xxU. 8), and reckons himself among a
body of Christian prophets (xxn. 9, cp. xix. 10). His name points to his
having been of Hebrew lineage, and his numerous Hebraisms confirm this.
His work (described as a prophecy (i. 3, xxii. 7, 10, 18, 19) is addressed to
certain churches in the Roman province of Asia (p. 66), and his acquaint
ance with their conditions and circumstances proves that he must some time
have resided in that region. He expressly states, indeed, that he had
shared in the trials which those to whom he wrote (i. 9) had undergone in
consequence of their Christian faith (i. 9), and implies that he, for the same
faith, had suffered exUe in the island of Patmos (one of the Sporades,
situated almost opposite to MUetus). This is aU that the book itself
discloses about his personality and experiences, though various aUusions
in it throw some light upon the date at which it was written (as explained
below). Ecclesiastical tradition, however, adds materiaUy (whether also
accurately remains to be considered) to this information by identifying
the author with the Apostle and " Evangelist " St. John. Some pf the
passages from Patristic writers which relate directly or indirectly to the
origin of Revelation have already been quoted pp. 224, 323), but parts of
these, with some others, may be reproduced here, the earhest being
placed last.
(1) Eusebius (H.E. iii. 18, 23) records a report that in a persecution
of the Christians by Domitian, the Apostle and Evangelist John, who was
then alive, was condemned to dweU on the island of Patmos, in consequence
of his testimony to the Divine Word ; that he returned in the reign of
Nerva (a.d. 96-98) and lived at Ephesus ; and that in the reign of Trajan
he was stUl Uving in Asia, and governing the churches of that region,
having returned after the death of Domitian (a.d. 96) from his exUe on
the island. Elsewhere, however (H.E. Ui. 25, 4), he places Revelation
doubtfuUy among the spurious writings (iv roig voBoig), adding " which
some reject (adsrovai) but which others class with the accepted books "
(roig ofioXoyovfiiyoig).
(2) Origen (as quoted by Eusebius H.E. vi. 25) asks, " Why need we
speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, John, who has left us
one Gospel ? . . . and he wrote also Revelation." He also in some of his
commentaries (in Joh. i. 14) introduces a statement with the words
" John the son of Zebedee says in Revelation . . ."
(3) Hippolytus (d. after 217) identifies the Apostle John with the writer
of Revelation in the words, " TeU me, blessed John, apostle and disciple
of the Lord, what thou sawest and heardest about Babylon ? "
(4) Polycrates (fl. circ. 200) refers to John, " who was both a witness
and a teacher and who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord," as being
buried at Ephesus (Eus. H.E. Ui. 31, 3).
(5) TertuUian mentions that the Apostle John, after he had been
plunged into boiling oil without suffering harm, was banished to an island.
(6) Clement of Alexandria (ap. Eus. H.E. iii. 23, 5) mentions that John
the Apostle after the death of the tyrant (Domitian or Nero) returned
from the island of Patmos to Ephesus.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 327
(7) Irenasus (ap. Eus. H.E. iii. 23, 3) writes : " AU the elders that
associated with John, the disciple of the Lord in Asia, bear witness that John
dehvered it (the Apostolic tradition) to them. For he remained among
them untU the time of Trajan." And again, " The Church in Ephesus
also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time
of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the Apostolic tradition." And else
where (ap. Eus. H.E. iii. 18 ; cf . also v. 8) he declares that the Revelation
was seen by John " almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign
of Domitian" (a.d. 81-96).
(8) Justin Martyr states that " a certain man named John, one of
the Apostles of Christ, in a Revelation made to him, prophesied that
those who beheved in our Christ would spend a thousand years in Jerusalem
(c. Tryph. 81, cf. Eus. H.E. iv. 18, 8).
It wiU be seen that some of these passages expressly assign the author
ship of Revelation to the Apostle John, whUst others, without mentioning
Revelation, represent the Apostle as being banished to Patmos and as
returning from thence to Ephesus. Irenams, however, only caUs the John
who was connected with the Church in Asia " the disciple of the Lord,"
so that his evidence is compatible with the supposition that the John he
refers to was not the Apostle. Nevertheless, the passages quoted point
as a whole to the prevalence of a traditional belief in the early Church
that the exUe of Patmos, who wrote Revelation, and who Uved and died at
Ephesus, was the Apostle John.
It has, however, been shown that, besides the tradition reflected in
these quotations, there is another based on the authority of Papias,
representing that John the son of Zebedee was killed by the Jews (see
p. 226). Though neither the place nor the date of his martyrdom is
mentioned, this tradition, whilst not absolutely contradictory of, is not
easUy reconcUable with, the behef that he died and was buried in Asia,
some time after the beginning of the reign of Trajan (a.d. 98). The
existence of it, indeed, in view of the early date of Papias (d. circ. a.d. 160),
casts very grave doubt upon the trustworthiness of that which is preserved
by Eusebius, Origen, and the other writers just cited. And when the
evidence furnished by Revelation respecting its author is considered, it
cannot but seem strange that the writer, if an Apostle, should not describe
himself as such,1 but should count himseU among the prophets of the
Church. The circumstance that he bore the same name as the Apostle
'• whom Jesus loved " is a coincidence to which smaU importance can be
attached, for the name was exceedingly common, four other Johns being
mentioned in the New Testament, more than a dozen in the Old Testa
ment, five in the books of the Maccabees, and seventeen in Josephus.2
On the other hand, whUst the identity of the name, unless supported by
other evidence, affords little ground for the identification of the persons,
it wUl account, if there is reason to think that they were reaUy distinct,
for the occurrence of some confusion between them.
1 St. James, though regarded as an Apostle by St. Paul and St. Luke, doeB not
style himself so in his Epistle.
2 Swete, Apocalypse, p. clxxi,

328 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Whether St. John was the writer of the Fourth Gospel is discussed
elsewhere ; here it is only necessary to consider whether Revelation proceeds
from the same author as the Gospel. That this is improbable is the con
clusion suggested by the contrast between them in respect of (i) their
theological interest and outlook, (ii) their style, including both the general
quality of the Greek and the vocabulary employed.
(i) The differences in the theology of the two works are most con
spicuous in connexion with (a) Eschatology, (b) Angelology, and (c)
Christology. These differences wUl come under detaUed consideration
later : here it must suffice to notice a few of the most obvious contrasts.
(a) The writer of the Fourth Gospel, though he aUudes to the Last
Day (vi. 39, vii. 37, xii. 48), is so little interested in Eschatology that he
omits aU reference to our Lord's discourses about the end of the world
which are contained in the Synoptists, although he was acquainted with
them. But the writer of Revelation makes Eschatology his principal
interest, and the book is mainly occupied with describing the portents
that are to mark the end of the world.
(b) The writer of the Fourth Gospel very rarely refers to angels, whereas
in Revelation angels are the most prominent figures, being mentioned
nearly sixty times.
(c) Though the Christology of both books is marked by certain common
doctrines, yet the two works present a noteworthy contrast even in con
nexion with some of the ideas which they verbaUy share. For example,
both use the term Adyog of our Lord, but the Fourth Gospel by it identifies
Him with the principle of Reason discernible in Creation, whereas Revela
tion, which uses it only in the phrase 6 Aoyog rov Beov, means that He is
the intermediary of God's communications.
(ii) In regard to the style of the two works, as long ago as the third
century a.d., Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (247-265), maintained that
the Gospel and the First Epistle were written not only without error in
the Greek, but with eloquence in their expressions, and betrayed no
barbarism, solecism, or vulgarism ; whereas the dialect and language
of the writer of the Apocalypse were not accurate Greek, and use was made
of barbarous idioms and in some places of solecisms (Eus. H.E. vii. 25).
The estimate of modern scholars agrees with this judgment. The Fourth
Gospel shows less trace of Hebrew idiom even than the Synoptists, and
the author's Greek is correct, though his sentences are too short and his
constructions too simple to afford much room for mistake. But of
Revelation it has been said that it " stands alone among Greek literary
writings in its disregard of the ordinary rules of syntax. . . . The book
seems openly and dehberately to defy the grammarian." It abounds in
Hebraisms, neglect of concord (especiaUy in cases of apposition), novel
constructions of verbs, adjectives, etc. It has been suggested that the
author, though writing in Greek, thought in Hebrew, and that he never
mastered Greek — even the Greek of his own period — idiomatically. But
whatever the explanation may be, it is manifest that the diction of the
book offers a striking contrast to that of the Gospel.
Less decisive, but still important, is the difference in the vocabulary.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM

329

There are, indeed, a certain number of phrases which are common to both
the Fourth Gospel and Revelation, though rare elsewhere in the New Testa
ment, such as vixdco and diyida (in a spiritual sense) ; rrjgico with Xdyov
or ivroMg ; negmarim employed with <p(bg or axoria ; the substantive
/nagrvgia ; the adjective aXrfiivog ; the construction XaXico fierd nvog ;
and the use of fierd ravra in transitions. And some variation in vocabu
lary is attributable to the dissimilar contents of the two books. Thus
little weight attaches to the fact that the phrase answered and said occurs
thirty times in the Gospel but never in Rev., since the former work contains
much dialogue, and the latter little. The occurrence, too, of UagdxXrjrog
four times in the Gospel, and its absence from Rev. is adequately accounted
for by the difference in the subjects treated. But after allowance has been
made for this, the number of words found frequently in the one but rarely
or never in the other is remarkable. Amongst substantives, adjectives,
and verbs, the following figures are significant : —

Fourth Gospel.

Revelation.

dyanrj

8 times

2 times

dyandm

34 „

4 „

aloiviog

17 „ (always with £wfj) 1 time (with

evayyiXtov)

aXrjBrjg

14 „

0 time

dX.ijBsia

25 „

0 „

agxcov rov xoa/iov

3 „

0 „

mdfoj

8 „

1 „

to (p&g rov xoa/j,ov

3 „

0 „

vndyco

32 „

6 times

Xagd

9 ¦,

0 time

Xalgoi

8 „

2 times

'IsgoadXvfia

12 „

0 time

SovXoi Beov (avrov, i/tov) 0 time

11 times

oixovfiivrj

0 „

3 „

navroxgdrmg

0 „

9

niarig

o „

4 ..

aoq>ia

0 „

1 „

ino/iovrj

o „

7 „

'IsgovaaXfjn

o „

3 „

But more significant still are the figures relating to

particles and the

like, for these are little affected by difference of subject

-matter.

Fourth Gospel.
Revelation.
aXXd
90 times (or more)
13 times
ydg
60 „ (or more)
17 „
i[i6g
36 „
01 time
M
15 „
0 „
1 Rev. uses e'/ixoQ or juri instead.
330 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Fourth Gospel.

Revelatio

&Se ("

thus ")

4 times

0 time
xaBoig
31 „
0 „
/iiv . .
. Si
6 „
0 „
ofiv
190 „ (or
more)
6 times
&XQI
0 time
11 times
ivcbmov
1 „
31 „
ISov
4 times
26 „
A few other distinctions are the foUowing. The Fourth Gospel prefers
6 Xeydfisvog, Rev. 6 xaXov"/j.svog ; the former has /if] with the participle
eleven times, the latter never ; the former has Iva or iva pr) more than
140 times, the latter less than fifty times ; the former, on the only
occurrence of 8£iog, constructs it with Iva, the latter nowhere has this
construction, but on five occasions places after it the infinitive ; the
former uses ovxexi twelve times, the latter, only three times, more commonly
separating erw from the preceeding negative (e.g. 6 Bdvaxog ovx sarai
hi ).1 This examination seems to justify the provisional conclusion previously
stated. The combination of a considerable divergence in the character and
spirit of the theology with a marked difference in the character of the
Greek constructions, the vocabulary, and the articulation of the sentences
makes it virtually impossible to think that the two books are the produc
tions of one hand. Whether the Fourth Gospel was reaUy written by
St. John or not, Revelation with its intense interest in eschatology and its
pecuhar style cannot with any plausibility be attributed to the same
author. It has been sought by some advocates of St. John's authorship of both
the Gospel and Revelation to meet the difficulty occasioned through the
diversity of style by the hypothesis that Rev. was written much earher
than the Gospel, before the Apostle had become proficient in Greek com
position ; and since the author of Rev., previously to producing it, had
suffered persecution, it has been supposed that his banishment to Patmos
took place during the reign of Nero (54-68) and that the book was written
between 68 and 70 ; whereas the Gospel was the work of his latest years
(between a.d. 80 and 100). But the gap between the two books in respect
both of outlook and style is too great to be bridged by the supposition of
a change in the author brought about by the lapse of some ten or twenty
years, especiaUy in mature life (for if St. John was no older than 19 at
the Crucifixion in a.d. 29, he would have been 60 in a.d. 70, and 80 in
a.d. 90). St. John's responsibiUty for both works thus seems out of the
question, and if it has been successfuUy shown that St. John was not the
author of the Gospel (p. 224), the only question left for discussion is whether
he was responsible for Rev.
It has been seen that a statement attributed to Papias declares that
1 See further Charles, Rev. i. pp. xxix.-xxxi.
DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 331
St. John was put to death by the Jews ; and though the occasion is not
indicated, his death at their hands is more Ukely to have happened at
Jerusalem before the destruction of the city in a.d. 70, than elsewhere
after 70. There is not lacking from other sources some confirmation of
the fact contained in this statement (see p. 226) ; and its acceptance
makes very improbable the Apostle's traditional authorship of the
Johannine Gospel. But if St. John was put to death before a.d. 70, it is
impossible that he can have written Revelation. There is internal evidence
(as wiU appear) that Revelation in part was written in the reign of Vespasian
(68-79), whilst the external evidence favours the view that the writer
was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian (81-96), and died in
Asia under Trajan (98-117) ; and this date is corroborated by the intensity
of the writer's hatred for Rome, which is best accounted for by Domitian's
claim to divinity and the persecution of those who, Uke the Christians,
refused to acknowledge it. But if the work was not completed or pubUshed
until after the end of Domitian's reign in a.d. 98, and if St. John was not
killed by the Jews as represented by Papias, he would have been 86, had
he survived until 96, which renders his authorship of it improbable,
though not impossible. And this adverse conclusion is strengthened by the
circumstance that the writer does not style himself an Apostle but a
prophet (xxii. 9) and refers to the Twelve Apostles in a manner suggesting
that he was not amongst them (xxi. 14). 1 It appears probable that he
was a Palestinian Christian by origin. Not only does he draw for material
upon Jewish writings (see below), but his thoughts move on Jewish lines.
Thus he represents the site of the great battle between the armies of the
dragon and of the Lord as Har-magedon (xvi. 16) or Megiddo : the song
sung by the redeemed is " the song of Moses, the servant of God," as well
as " the song of the Lamb " (xv. 3) ; Jerusalem is called " the holy city,"
and " the beloved city " (xi. 2, xx. 9) ; and he gives to the angel of the
abyss a Hebrew name which he translates into Greek (ix. 11).
Occasion, Date, and Place of Origin
The Book of Revelation has the characteristic beginning and ending
of an epistle (see i. 4, xxii. 21), is addressed to seven Churches included in
the Roman province of Asia, and was perhaps meant to be communicated
to others of inferior importance in their neighbourhood. For the seven
were not the only places in the province where Christian communities
were settled, since there were bodies of Christians also at Troas (Acts
xx. 5 f.), Hierapohs, and Colossse (Col. i. 1, U. 1, iv. 13). The number
probably was chosen for its symbolic significance, conveying the idea of
completeness ; so the seven Churches designated by name were perhaps
regarded as typical of the Christian Churches generally. The seven were
situated in regard to one another at the angles of an irregular trapezium,
the Unes of the figure passing north from Ephesus through Smyrna to
Pergamum (about 80 miles as the crow flies), thence east-south-east to
1 On the other hand, St. Paul's references to Apostles (Eph, ii. 20, iii. 5, iv. 11)
should be noticed.

332 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Thyatira (about 40 miles), thence south-east through Sardis and PhUadel-
phia to Laodicea (about 110 miles), the last mentioned place being about
the same distance east of Ephesus. The occasion which eUcited the
book was the outbreak of persecution directed against the Christians of
these places for refusing to participate in the worship of the Roman
Emperor (p. 81). The political advantage of this cult was great, since
it afforded a bond of union between a number of races and peoples differing
in language and reUgion ; and encouraged a spirit of loyalty to the sovereign.
The early Emperors Augustus and Tiberius, however, kept the extension
of it within bounds ; and the first to insist upon it was CaUgula (37-41),
whose attempt to enforce it outraged most acutely the reUgious feelings
of both Jews and Christians (p. 56). The first persecution of the
Christians as a distinctive body took place under Nero, who, however,
seems to have inflamed popular indignation against them, suspected and
hated as they were by the mob, chiefly in order to divert attention from
his own infamies. By the Flavian -emperors the same hostUe attitude
to the Church continued to be maintained, though by Vespasian and
Titus probably not with equal brutality. It is indeed asserted by Eusebius
(H.E. iu. 17) that Vespasian undertook nothing prejudicial to the Christian
body. Titus, however, at a councU of war held after the faU of Jerusalem,
is said to have been among those who thought the destruction of the
Temple desirable in order to abolish the more completely the rehgion of
the Christians as well as of the Jews,1 and it seems likely that neither he
nor his father would pass over any neglect of Emperor-worship if brought
before the notice of either, though both may have refrained from en
couraging informers. But by Domitian (81-96) Caligula's effort to render
the worship of the Emperor compulsory was revived ; and in his reign
the second great persecution of the Christians occurred. The province
of Asia was Ukely to be the scene of much severity towards them, for the
cult of the Emperors was popular there, Pergamum having a temple of
Augustus, Smyrna one of Tiberius, and Ephesus one probably of Claudius.
The province also contained a number of Jews, and these, who were
privileged to practise their rehgion without interference (p. 79), were
sure to endeavour to distinguish themselves from the Christians, and to
exasperate the multitude against the latter.
It was to encourage the Asiatic Christians to support with fortitude
the trials confronting them that the book was designed. It did this by
predicting the speedy overthrow of their oppressors by their Lord, and
the fehcity of those who, faithful to Him, endured to the end. Destruction
was to overtake not only the Emperor (symbolized by a beast rising from
the sea) and the pagan priesthoods of the province of Asia (symbohzed
by a second beast rising from the land), but Satan himseU, the prompter
of all the evil. Prefixed to the specificaUy Apocalyptic section of the
book are letters in which the individual Churches are encouraged or
warned according to their qualities and conduct.
The clearest evidence which the book furnishes about the date at

1 See Severus Sulpicius ii. 30, quoted in Ramsay, Church of the Roman Empire,
pp. 253-4 ; Swete, Apoc. p. Ixxx.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 333
which it was written is the allusion in xvn. 10 to seven kings, of whom it
is declared that " the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come ;
and when he cometh he must continue a Uttle while." This is followed
by a reference (v. 11) to another, described figuratively as " a beast that
was, and is not," and who " is himself also an eighth and is of the seven."
On the assumption that the five faUen kings begin with Augustus, who
was followed by Tiberius, Cahgula, Claudius and Nero, " the one that is "
(with whom the author of this passage was contemporary) must be
Vespasian,1 whUst the one that " is not yet come, but when he cometh
must continue a httle whUe," is presumably Titus, who was of weak health
and whom the writer expected to be short-Uved (his reign, in point of fact,
lasting only two years). This passage, if a unity, indicates as the date
of at least this part of the book the reign of Vespasian ; nor is the con
clusion disproved by the ensuing reference to an eighth, who must be
Domitian, the successor of Titus. For the reference does not demonstrate
that the writer was acquainted at the time with the reign of the eighth ;
his language need not mean more than that he was aware of an expectation
that Nero, one of the seven, was destined to return to Ufe and power, an
expectation which is known to have actually prevailed.2 On the other
hand, if this internal evidence is to be harmonized with the statements of
Irenseus and Eusebius (p. 326), as also of Victorinus (circ. 270),3 that
the writer was banished to Patmos by Domitian, and returned thence
after the tyrant's death, it seems necessary to assume that, whUst the
work was begun in the reign of Vespasian, it was completed (during exUe)
under Domitian, and pubUshed after the latter's death. And this view
is reaUy favoured by two facts. One is that the writer appears acquainted
with the Gospels of Mt. and Lk. (cf., for instance, Ui. 3 and xvi. 15 with
Mt. xxiv. 43 ; Ui. 5 with Mt. x. 32 ; perhaps xxi. 14 with Mt. xvi. 18 ; and vi.
10 with Lk. xviu. 7, 8 ; xix. 9 with Lk. xiv. 16 4) ; and these were probably
not written until about a.d. 80 (p. 192). The other is that whereas in
the preliminary letters to the Seven Churches only one martyr (U. 13) is
alluded to (a feature which points to the book having been first planned
at a period when the persecution of the Christians was not vigorous), in
the later parts of the book reference is made to numerous martyrs (vi. 11,
xx. 4), including Apostles and prophets (xviii. 20), and the occurrence of
many martyrdoms ; and the fierceness of the writer's indignation towards
Rome in various passages finds a natural explanation in the severity with
which the Church was treated by Domitian. Hence, on the whole, it is
probable that the ascription of it, at least in its final form, to the reign
of Domitian, is correct, for it was he who before his death enforced Emperor-
1 Galba, Otho and ViteUius, who came between Nero and Vespasian and reigned
all together less than a year, are naturally passed over.
2 Cf. Tac. Hist. ii. 8. Achaia atque Asia falso exterrita velut Nero adyentaret
vario super exitu eius rumore, eoque plurihus vivere eum fingentibus credentibusque.
Even in the time of Trajan some persons beheved Nero to be still hving.
3 Victorinus (in Apoc. xvii. 10) : intelligi oportet tempus quo scripta Apocalypsis
edita est, quoniam tunc erat Cmsar Domitianus.
4 Charles, Rev. i. pp. Ixxxiv. -lxxxvi.

334 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
worship, which by his predecessors Vespasisin and Titus was not taken
very seriously.
The external evidence, however, does not uniformly support the time
of Domitian as the date of composition, though the alternative dates
command little confidence. Two of the Syriac versions, the Philoxenian
and the Harkleian, assign the origin of the book to the reign of Nero
(54-68), when the first savage persecution of the Christians took place
(a.d. 62). But this view makes it necessary to reckon the five faUen
kings in xvii. 10 as including JuUus Csesar, which is improbable ; whUst
the impatience of the souls of the martyrs (vi. 9, 10) who may be assumed
to have perished in 64 is not very inteUigible if only two or three years
had elapsed since their death, instead of a much longer period. By
Epiphanius (a.d. 350) the book is dated in the reign of Claudius (41-54),
which seems quite incompatible with the internal evidence ; whilst by
Theophylact (eleventh century) it is placed in the time of Trajan (98-
117), which is perhaps an inference from the language of Irenseus (p. 327).1
About the place of pubhcation nothing is known for certain, but the
importance of Ephesus renders it not unlikely that the book was first
circulated in that city.
The occurrence of rather violent transitions in the course of the book, and the
Jewish character of some passages in it unite to favour the supposition that the writer
has incorporated certain earher materials, though in what degree he has modified
them cannot be ascertained. The principal sections which seem to be derived from
other writings are the following : —
(a) vii, f-8. The sealing of 144,000 out of every tribe of Israel.
Although the Christian Church in the New Testament is often regarded as repre
senting the true Israel, yet the detailed enumeration of the twelve tribes here, and
the similarity to Esek. ix. 4 f . suggests that this passage has been borrowed from some
Jewish Apocalyptic work, in which those Jews who had not participated in heathen
idolatry were described as " sealed " to save them from being destroyed with such
of their countrymen as had been disloyal to their God.
(b) xi. 1-13. The two witnesses.
Tins seems to be taken from some earher source, since the direction to measure
the Temple assumes that it was in existence, so that the passage dates from before
a.d. 70 ; and as nothing is said about the execution of the command, it looks as if
the section had been incorporated from some Jewish or Jewish Christian source, a
verse or verses being omitted between v. 2 and v. 3. The two witnesses are probably
Elijah and Moses (cf . vv. 6, 12), who were to appear before the Second coming of the
Messiah. (c) xii. 1-17. The woman arrayed with the sun.
This section seems to be of Jewish, not Christian, origin, for it represents the
Messiah as taken up to heaven at His birth, and depicts the expulsion of the dragon
from heaven as achieved by Michael (the celestial prince of the Jews, Dan. x. 21).
The woman in the original source probably symbolized historic Israel whence the
Messiah was to spring (cf. Mix,, v. 2-3), the twelve stars in her crown corresponding
to the twelve tribes.
(d) xiv. 14-16. One like unto a son of man having in his hand a sharp sickle.
The same figure is used in Dan. vii. 13 as a personification of Israel, and in the
book of Enoch and in the Gospels describes the Messiah. The transition from the
one meaning to the other was facilitated hy the conception of supramundane per
sonalities which were both the counterparts of the peoples of the world and the
guardians of their interests (as in Dan. x. 13 f.), Michael being the angehc prince that
watched over Israel. In the present passage the figure seems to be both an angel
1 Swete, Apoc. p. xovi.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 335
(since the next figure described is called " another angel," v. 15) and the Messiah
(since he is seated on a cloud and is crowned), and thus appears to represent a tran
sitional stage between the personification of collective Israel in Daniel and the heavenly
Messiah of Enoch and the Gospels. If so, the section is likely to be Jewish in origin.
The Second Epistle of St. Peter
The Second Epistle bearing the name of St. Peter expressly professes,
Uke the First, to proceed from the Apostle, and there is employed in it
the same salutation, " grace to you and peace be multiphed " ; whUst
aUusion is made in the course of it to a previous letter (iii. 1). Moreover
the writer refers to our Lord's Transfiguration, which he claims to have
witnessed (i. 16, 17) ; and to the prediction of his own death uttered
(according to Joh. xxi. 18, 19) by Christ after His resurrection. Neverthe
less, it differs from 1 Pet. in being addressed to no particular body of
Christians ; there is no indication of the place of its composition ; and. on
Various grounds its authenticity has been more widely doubted than that
of any other New Testament writing. These grounds are both external
and internal. 1. External Evidence
The earhest Father who shows conclusive knowledge of it is Clement
of Alexandria, with regard to whom Eusebius (H.E. vi. 14, 1) states :
" To sum up briefly, he has given in his ' Outlines ' abridged accounts of aU
canonical scriptures, not omitting the disputed books (ai avxiXEyofisvai) — ¦
I mean Jude, and the remaining catholic epistles, and that of Barnabas,
and the so-caUed Apocalypse of Peter." But conflicting assertions of a
later writer, Cassiodorus, make it questionable whether Clement placed the
Second Epistle on a level with the First. In respect to writers anterior to
Clement, it must suffice to quote the words of a defender of the genuineness
of the book : " Before the time of Clement, if we put aside the Apocalypse
[of Peter] and Jude, we can only detect scattered phrases and words which
are found in 2 Peter, and of which several are not found elsewhere in the
New Testament."1 After the time of Clement references to it occur in
various Fathers, but several make it plain that its authenticity was by no
means uniformly acknowledged. This wiU appear from the foUowing
quotations : —
Origen. " Peter, oh whom the Church of Christ is buUt, against which the
gates of heU shaU not prevail, has left one acknowledged (6/noXoyov/iivr]v)
Epistle, perhaps also a second (iarco Si Sevrigav), for this is donbtful "
(Eus: H.E. vi. 25, 8).
Eusebius. (a) " One Epistle of Peter, that called his first, is acknowledged. . . .
But the Epistle in circulation as the second we have had handed down
to us as uncanonical (ovx kvSiaBrjxov), though, as it has appeared to many
, St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 211.

336 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to be useful, it has been employed (ianovSaa&rj) with the other Scriptures "
(H.E. iii. 3, 1).
(6) " Among the disputed writings which are nevertheless known to
most there are circulated . . . also the second Epistle of Peter "
(H.E. iii. 25, 3).
Jerome (346-420).
(a) Scripsit (Petrus) duos Epistolas quce Catholicce nominantur ; quarum
secunda a plerisque eius esse negatur, propter stili cum priore dissonantiam.
(b) Duce Epistolce qumferuntwr Petri stilo inter se et charactere discrepant
structuraque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diversis
eum usum interpretibus. 2. Internal Evidence
The internal features of the book which cast suspicion upon its genuine
ness are principaUy two : (a) the contrast in vocabulary and style to
1 Pet. ; (b) references to conditions that are unlikely to have prevaUed in
St. Peter's lifetime, (c) A third factor bearing upon the question of
authenticity arises from the simUarity which it exhibits to the Epistle of
Jude, if such simUarity proves to be best accounted for by the assumption
that the writer of 2 Pet . has borrowed from Jude, and .not the writer of
Jude from 2 Pet.
(a) Before considering the stylistic differences which are manifested in
2 Pet. as compared with 1 Pet., and were noticed in the time of Jerome
(see above), attention may be drawn to a distinction between the two
letters in respect to the use made of the Old Testament. In the First
Epistle there are at least fifteen quotations from the Old Testament
Scriptures, or passages which reproduce their language ; whereas in the
Second there are only two or three, and these perhaps doubtful. In regard
to vocabulary it has been reckoned that some 360 words occur in 1 Pet.
which are not found in 2 Pet., whilst conversely there are about 230 in
2 Pet. which are absent from 1 Pet.1
This Epistle, like every other of the New Testament writings, contains
a number of words altogether pecuhar to itself ; but the proportion of
such &na( Xeyd/uEva, viz. 56, is, in view of the brevity of • the book, very
large. Many are classical words,2 but the employment of them is accom
panied by the use of others in a sense contrary to that conveyed by them
elsewhere (e.g. fiXifiua (" glance ") for " seeing," fieXXfjooj for " I shah be
ready," /ivfj/urpi noietoBai (" make mention of ") for " to remember,"
oeigdg (" pit for keeping grain ") for " dungeon." Hence the writer seems
to have aimed at an ambitious phraseology, but has sometimes only
succeeded in producing solecisms. A special feature of his manner,
suggestive of deficient literary feeling, is the repetition of words in close
contiguity (see i. 3, 4, SsSaigrifiivog, SsSotgrjrai ; i. 10, 15, anovSdaars,
anovSdaat ; i. 17, 18, qxavfjg ivexBetarjg, q>d>vrp> ivexBeiaav ; i. 20, 21,
ngooprjrela bis ; ii. 1, dncoXelag, dndbXetav ; ii. 13, 15, fiiaBdv aSixlag bis ;
1 There are, however, a certain number of wdrds whioh, within the New Testa
ment, occur only in these two books together.
2 See the list in Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 807 (Chase).

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 337
U. 14, 18, SsXedCovreg, SeXed^ovaiv ; ii. 18, 20, dnoipsvyovxag, dnoqpvyovxeg ;
iii. 10, 12, aroxEia xavaov/xEva bis, etc.). A notable point of contrast
between the two Epistles is the absence here of the particle /isv, and the
numerous instances of j ydg ; and whereas the general style of the First
Epistle " shows that the writer within certain limits had a very considerable
appreciation of, and power over, the characteristic usages of Greek,"1
that of the Second Epistle is often cumbrous, involved and obscure.2
It has been seen that to account for the difference in style Jerome suggested
the employment of different amanuenses ; but though this is an admissible
explanation, there is nothing in 2 Pet. that actuaUy favours the idea that
the author had assistance in writing it. If 2 Pet. is genuine, the style is
probably the Apostle's own.
(o) The chief passages suggesting that the letter originated at a period
later than any that can have been included within St. Peter's Ufetime are
the foUowing. (a) In iii. 4 f . it is implied that a long interval had elapsed
since Christ's speedy Return had been predicted (contrast 1 Pet. iv. 7),
so that mockers were asking, " Where is the promise of His coming ? for
from the day that the fathers feU asleep, aU things continue as they were."
The writer, in strictness, foretells that such mockers will appear ; but it
is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the writer reaUy has in mind not
a future, but an existing, situation (in ii. 13, 17, etc., present tenses are
used), in which he seeks to encourage those whose hearts were made sick
by deferred hopes. Since by the expression " the fathers " the Apostles
are most naturaUy designated, the reference to these as dead involves the
conclusion that the writer of the Epistle belonged to a later generation.
(fi) In iii. 15, 16 there occurs a reference to what St. Paul wrote in " all
his Epistles," 3 the contents of which the ignorant and unsteadfast are
declared to " wrest unto their own destruction, as they do also the other
Scriptures " (rag Xomdg ygaqpdg). This passage seems to imply that when
it was penned the Pauline Epistles had been coUected, and had been
invested with aU the authority of Sacred Scriptures. They can scarcely
have attained to this distinction within the lifetime of St. Peter, especiaUy
if he only outlived St. Paul by three or four years.4
(c) The question of the relation between 2 Pet. and the Epistle of
Jude is interesting in itseff, apart from the light which the inquiry
throws upon the priority and originaUty of the two works. That in
one of them use has been made of the other becomes apparent when
the two are compared together. The most striking paraUels are the
foUowing : —

1 Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 782.
2 Though the classical arrangement of the article noticed in 1 Pet. (p. 312) is
rare in 2 Pet., it occasionally occurs, see ii. 7, iii. 12, 14.
3 In iii. 16 whilst ABC and a few cursives have iraaais e:7ri<rro\ais, most
other uncials and cursives have iraaais ra7s emo~ro\ais.
* Defenders of the genuineness of the Epistle suppose that ai ypacpal is not here
used in its technical sense as a collection of Sacred Writings, but refers to books of a
rehgious character generally circulating in the Church.
22

338

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

2 Pet.
(a) ii. 3. Whose judgment now from of
old lingereth not.
(b) ii. 4 foil. (Examples of Divine retribu
tion) Pallen angels, the Plood,
Sodom and Gomorrah (the story of
Lot being mentioned).
(c) ii. 10, 11. They tremble not to rail
at dignitaries, whereas angels bring
not a railing judgment against
them.
(d) ii. 13. Spots (o-irl\oi) and blem
ishes revelling in their love feasts
(v. Is deceits) while feasting with
you.
(e) ii. 15. Having followed the way of
Balaam (the story of the ass being
mentioned).
(/) ii. 17. These are springs without
water and mists driven by a storm,
for whom the blackness of darkness
hath been reserved.

Jude
4. Who were of old set forth unto this
judgment.
5 f. (Examples of Divine retribution)
Israel in the wilderness, Pallen
Sodom and Gomorrah.

8, 9

12.

They rail at dignitaries, though
Michael the archangel, when dis
puting about the body of Moses,
did not bring against Mm a rajling
judgment.
The spots (oi o-iriKdSts) in your love-
feasts, while feasting with (you).

(g) ii. 18. Uttering swelling words
vanity.
(h) iii. 3. In the last days mockers
shall come with mockery, walking
after their own (Ibias) lusts
(there being added an illustration
of the mockery).

11. They went in the way of Cain
and ran riotously in the error of
Balaam.
12, 13. These are . . . clouds without
water carried along by winds . . ,
wandering stars for which the black
ness of darkness hath been reserved
for eyer.
of 16. Their mouth speaketh swelling
words.
18. In the last times there shall be
mockers walking after their own
(eawuiv) lusts.

The similarity between these passages is too great to be exphcable by
mere coincidence, and points to indebtedness on one side or the other.
Some instances like (o), (e) and (h) may be explained either as an expansion
of Jude by the writer of 2 Pet., or a modification and abbreviation of
2 Pet. by St. Jude. The instance (a) looks rather more inteUigible and
original in 2 Pet. than in Jude, for in the former " judgment " has the
natural sense of a sentence of punishment, whereas in the latter it must
mean a sin (explained in the rest of the v.) which is its own punishment.
On the other hand, in the case of both (c), (/) and (g), the originality
appears to be on the side of Jude, for in 2 Pet. the aUusion to the angels
is quite obscure and is only elucidated by reference to the passage in Jude ;
the " blackness of darkness " is much less appropriate in connexion with
the metaphors of waterless springs and mists than in connexion with the
figure of wandering stars, whilst the phrase " uttering swelling words of
vanity " as compared with " their mouth speaketh sweUing words " is
less close to the language of the Assumption of Moses (an Apocryphal
work written between a.d. 7 and 29), which seems to be the ultimate
source, and of which a fragmentary Latin version has os eorum loquetw
ingentia.1 And that Jude is really the original, of which use has been
made in 2 Pet., becomes highly probable in view of the circumstance that

James, 2 Pet. and Jude, p. xlv.

DOCUMENTARY CRITICISM 339
it is much the shorter and that most of its contents are represented in
2 Pet., which adds a great deal to them ; for on the opposite supposition
it is difficult to understand why Jude should have been written,1 since it
supplements 2 Pet. in so smaU a degree.
This conclusion that in 2 Pet. there is incorporated so much of Jude
does not necessarily involve the result that it cannot have been written
by St. Peter, for both the First and Third Evangelists have drawn largely
upon St. Mark's Gospel. Nevertheless, it seems rather improbable that
St. Peter, whose power of thought is evinced by the First Epistle bearing
his name (even though the language of it may be due to SUvanus, p. 312).
should have borrowed on so extensive a scale from the short letter of
Jude. On the whole, then, the inference that 2 Pet. is dependent upon
Jude and not vice versa is unfavourable to the view that St. Peter was its
author, and confirms the decision already reached from a consideration of
its style and its apparent anachronisms.
H 2 Pet . is not by St. Peter, and yet purports to be written by him, it
is in strictness a forgery, though the judgment to be passed upon its
author must be qualified by considerations that are inapplicable to similar
forgeries at the present day. What Uttle hesitation was felt in antiquity,
even by individuals of great repute, in regard to composing, or procuring
the composition of, letters bearing a false name may be seen from the
request put by Cicero to his friend Atticus, quoted on p. 303. And during
the centuries immediately preceding and following our Lord's birth there
was a strong motive from reasons already explained (p. 121) for the
production both by Jews and Christians of pseudonymous works. It is
from this point of view that the conduct of the writer of 2 Pet. must be
estimated. His work has been described as that of a man who was
confronted with a special crisis : " Two forms of false teaching were
current in his circle ; one that of the Libertines, the other that of the
deniers of the Second Coming. There was need that the members of his
Church should be reminded of the teaching of the first preachers of the
Word upon these points. ... To meet the danger of the Libertine
teaching he borrows and expands the words of an Apostohc writer (Jude)
who himself refers back to the Apostles ; to meet the other error he quotes,
it may be, real words of St. Peter, or else an ancient writing in the prophetic
manner ; and he puts the whole of his warning into the form of a letter
from St. Peter, feeling that he is taking the attitude which St. Peter
himseU would have taken, and perhaps knowing that he is to a great
extent using words which were handed down to him as St. Peter's own." 2
If the preceding reasoning is sound, the name of the author is entirely
unknown, and the date at which he wrote is conjectural. It is not
altogether unhkely that he was acquainted with some, if not all, of the
Gospels. At any rate, the words in ii. 20, " the last state is become worse
than the first," appear to reproduce the saying of our Lord in Mt. xii. 45
(= Lk. xi. 25). Mention has already been made of the aUusion in i. 17
to the Transfiguration (where, however, the words represented as heard
1 James, 2 Pet. and Jude, pp. xii., xiii., xvi.
2 James, op. cit., pp. xxxiii. -xxxiv.

340 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
from heaven, though nearly resembling those in Mt. xvii. 5, are not
exactly identical with them 1). FinaUy, the allusion in i. 14 to Christ's
prediction of St. Peter's speedy death looks like a reference to Joh. xxi.
18, 19, though the verbal resemblance is not close. If the Epistle reaUy
shows that the writer knew the Fourth Gospel, the date cannot be earUer
than a.d. 100 ; and many scholars place it either in the first or the second
quarter of the second century. As the Epistle was known to Clement of
Alexandria (p. 335) it must certainly have been composed before the end
of that century. The destination and place of origin are quite obscure.
The persons for whom the letter purports to be intended are some to whom
the writer had preached (i. 16), and to whom St. Paul had written (iii. 15) ;
but no further clue to their identity is afforded. Some scholars, who
consider the Epistle an authentic production of St. Peter's, and caU
attention to the author's seU-designation £v/iicov nirgog,2 naturaUy
suppose that they to whom it was sent were Jewish Christians, probably
resident in Palestine and its vicinity ; they suggest Antioch as the place
where it was written, and date it between 60 and 63, making it earlier
than 1 Pet. (p. 314).3
1 The difference between 1 Pet. i. 17, Mk. ix. 7, and Lk. ix. 35 is greater.
1 Described by Zahn (I.N.T. ii. p. 271) as "strikingly original " and " unheard
of elsewhere in Petrine and pseudo-Petrine literature."
3 See Zahn I.N.T. ii. pp. 208-10.

PART III
PRELIMINARY NOTE
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
THE ascertainment of the precise year in which each of the principal events
recorded in the New Testament took place is a very difficult task, and the
inquiry into it does not lead to results that are beyond question. The civilized
nations of antiquity did not use for the fixing of dates any generally recognized era ;
and ancient historians, including the historical writers of the New Testament, were
commonly content to indicate the succession of incidents by giving the corresponding
regnal year of some contemporary sovereign, or the names of the magistrates in whose
term of office they severally happened. But it is not always possible to state with
confidence the equivalent of such dates measured by the Christian era, partly because
the season varied at which the Calendar year in ancient times began, partly because
the years of a reigning king might be reckoned in various ways (e.g. the beginning
of the year next after his accession might be counted as the opening of his second
year, the preceding few months being regarded as constituting his first year, or the
years of his reign might be calculated accurately by every twelve months), and partly
because the months of which account was taken might be lunar. And in connexion
with the New Testament there are special difficulties. Firstly, since the New Testa
ment writers composed their histories less from an interest in the accurate presenta
tion of events than from a desire to confirm the rehgious faith of their readers (cf.
p. 175), they were Uttle concerned about dating exactly many of the matters recorded.
Secondly, it is not always easy to decide whether certain accounts in which dates
occur, and which, if historical, should be considered in the construction of a chrono
logical scheme, have an historical basis or have merely a poetic or symbolical value.
Details of time and place are not, as has been shown (p. 119), sufficient proof that
the accounts in question have a foundation in external facts. Thirdly, in regard to
our Lord's life, the EvangeUst who supplies the most numerous and the most precise
chronological figures is St. Luke, so that many of the most definite dates available
are furnished by a Gospel which, as compared with St. Mark's, is in certain respects
secondary. And fourthly, there exists in respect to the duration of Jesus' ministry
a grave divergence between the Synoptists coUectively and the Fourth Gospel (which
gives a series of references to various Jewish feasts, including three Passovers, see
ii. 13, v. 1, vii. 2, x. 22, xi. 55), and imphes a ministry lasting more than two years,
whereas the Synoptists mention only one Passover ; so that some of the results reached
must vary according as one or other of these authorities is foUowed. In the calcu
lations here made it wiU be assumed (for reasons given elsewhere) that the estimate
of the Synoptists is for the most part the more trustworthy.
For the Gospel history the date that can be determined with most confidence is
that of our Lord's Crucifixion ; and this is best taken as the point from which to
calculate the year of His Birth, for with the date of the Nativity few persons can have
been acquainted, whereas the Crucifixion was known to numbers of people, so that
any precise dating of it, even if found only in comparatively late Patristic authorities,
seems deserving of confidence, the information having " filtered down in oral tradition
or lost document through the obscure generations that intervene." *
1 Hastings, D.B. i. 414 (Turner).
341

342 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
By three Patristic writers, TertuUian, Hippolytus, and Laotantius the Crucifixion
is represented as having taken place in the consulship of L. BubeUius Geminus and
C. Pufius Geminus (there being some Uttle variation in the forms of their names),
who were consuls in a.d. 29 (=782 a.tj.c). By Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and
TertuUian this year is equated with the fifteenth of the reign of Tiberius, whereas
JuUus Afranius and pseudo-Cyprian equate it with the sixteenth year of Tiberius.1
In strictness, the spring of a.d. 29 feU within Tiberius' fifteenth year, not within the
sixteenth, for Augustus, his predecessor, died on August 19th a.d. 14. According
to Lk. iii. 1, 2 the fifteenth year was the date at which John the Baptist began his
mission, and nothing is said as to when our Lord commenced His. Jesus, indeed,
according to Mk., did not begin His ministry until after the Baptist's arrest (i. 14) ;
but there is no indication how long the latter's mission lasted. But if it is assumed
to have occupied only a few months and our Lord's ministry to have lasted less than
a year (as the absence of any mention by the Synoptists of a Passover prior to the one
that synchronized with the Crucifixion suggests), St. Luke may have placed the Passion
within the sixteenth year of Tiberius, i.e. within a.d. 30 ; and those writers who assign
the Crucifixion to Tiberius' sixteenth year may merely have inferred it from St. Luke.
But the three authorities who expressly name his fifteenth year as the date of that
event probably preserve an independent tradition ; and on the strength of their
evidence it will here be accepted that our Lord's death occurred in a.d. 29, in the
consulship of the two Gemini, during the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate (26-36),
and the high-priesthood of Caiaphas (18-36).
On the basis of this date an attempt may be made to calculate the year of His
nativity. It has been seen that the Synoptists treat the pubhc ministry as lasting
rather less than a year. If, then, the Crucifixion occurred in a.d. 29, Jesus' first
preaching may be placed in a.d. 28. If this was reaUy the date when TTis ministry
began, the year of His birth may with some probability be fixed at 2 B.C., since He
is stated by St. Luke to have been about thirty years old when He began to teach
(iii. 23). The Evangehst's expression " about thirty," however, leaves room for a
margin of a year on either side ; and the Nativity may have happened in any one
of the years 3, 2 and 1 B.C., aU being included within the reign of Augustus (27 b.c.-
a.d. 14=727-767 a.tj.c.), though aU falling outside the reign of Herod the Great,
who died in 4 B.C. By St. Luke no year of the Emperor is mentioned, but the event
is described as occurring when an enrolment, distinguished as " first " of a series, was
taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Lk. ii. 1). PubUus Sulpicius Quirinius
is only known with certainty to have discharged the office of legatus of Syria from a.d.
6 to 11. During this period of his service in the East there was held about a.d. 7 an
enrolment which extended to Gahlee (though that region was at the time under the
immediate authority of Herod Antipas (tetrarch from 4 B.C. to a.d. 39) ) and to which
aUusion is made in Acts v. 37, for it had provoked a revolt headed by Judas the
Gaulonite (Jos. Ant. xvii. 13, 5, xviii. 1, 1). But a mutilated inscription (found near
Tibur in 1764) refers to a Boman official in the reign of Augustus who was legatus
of Syria twice, and though the name of the official has been lost many scholars con
sider that he must have been Quirinius. If so, he was governor of Syria not only in
a.d. 6-11, but on some occasion prior to a.d. 6, and the governorship in question
has been thought to have been the years between the periods of office of P. Quintdlius
Varus (6-4 b.o.) and C. Csesar (1 b.c.-a.d. 4), i.e. the three years 3-1 B.C. If this
conclusion is correot, it wiU be seen that 2 b.o., the year deduced independently as
the probable date of the Nativity, f aUs within the first of Quirinius' two governorships.
The conclusion, however, that Jesus was born about 2 B.o., though based largely
on data supphed by St. Luke, conflicts with one statement made by him, viz. that
John the Baptist, who was (according to the EvangeUst) only six months older than
our Lord, was born in the reign of Herod King of Judssa, if by Herod is meant Herod
the Great (37-4 B.o.) and not his son Archelaus (4 b.o.-a.d. 6). By the First Evan
geUst the Herod to whose reign the Nativity is assigned was certainly taken to be
the father of Archelaus (ii. 1 foU., 20, 22) ; and if the narrative in his second chapter
is viewed as historical, our Lord's birth cannot have happened later than 5 or even
6 b.o. (see v. 16). And it has been urged in favour of the stiU earher year 7 B.o. that
1 Hastings, D.B. i. pp. 413, 414.

CHRONOLOQY OF THE N.T. 343
there then occurred a remarkable conjunctiqn pf Jupiter and Saturn, wbjch was
perhaps accompanied by the appearance of an evanescent star (such as was seen in
A.D. 1604) and may have prompted the visit of the magi to. Bethlehem. But the
reality of this visit and its sequel is not above suspicion (p. 363), so that it is precarious
to construct a chronological scheme upon it. As regards St. Luke it probably should
be assumed that by Herqd the King of Judsea (i. 5) he meant Herod the Great but
placed t-he birth both of John the Baptist and of Jesus in his reign erroneously. For
if Quirinius was really legatus of Syria twice, his first period of office could not have
fallen within Herod's Ufetime, since the legati from 10 to 4 B.C. are known (M. Titius,
0. Sentius Saturninus (9-6), and P. Quintilius Varus (6-4) ).
An interesting attempt to show that an enrolment may have taken place at a
time when both Quirinius was in command in Syria and Herod the Great was King
of Judaja has beep made by the help of evidence furnished by papyri found in Egypt
and by some recently discovered inscriptions.1 In Egypt there prevailed between thp
years A.D. 90 and 230 a system of periodic enrolments, the interval between them
being fourteen years (since actual census papers occur belonging to the years a.d.
20, 34, 48, 62). It is argued that the system was probably instituted by Augustus,
and was not confined to Egypt, but apphed generaUy, though not universally, to the
provinces of the Empire. The purpose of the enrolments conducted in Egypt was
the enumeration of the inhabitants, not the, valuation pf their property. The papyri
(it is said) show that every person to be enroUed was required to return to his own
c;ty and village.* If the system yras really apphed tp qther provinces beside Egypt,
and dated from the time of Augustus, the years when enrolments took place within
his reign would, reckoned backwards, be a.d. 6 and 8 B.C. ; and of these two the first
mentioned would be that of Acts v. 37 and the last mentioned that of Lk. ii. 1, 2.
This latter would faU within the period of King Herod's rule over Palestine ; and it
is suggested that the method of it was possibly left tp the King, who, to conciliate
Jewish feeling, gave it a tribal character, and directed those who were to be enumerated
to repair to their ancestral homes. The governor of Syria, however, from 9 to 6 B.<3.
was not Quirinius but C. Sentius Saturninus, to whose term of office the first census
in Syria is attributed by TertuUian ; and an explanation of the circumstance that St.
Luke represents the enrolment as occurring in the " governorship " of Quirinius is (it is
argued) to be found in the fact, attested by inscriptions, that for twp years between 10
and? B.C. he was engaged in fighting the Homanades (a tribe occupying the mountain
chains of Taunus and Taurus along the north of Cihcia and Pisidia), and that St. Luke,
foUowing perhaps popular usage, dated the enrolment by the successful soldier's
period of command, and. not by tije period of office of the actual provincial governor.
But if Jesus was born in 8 B.p. he would have been thirty in a.d. 22, and it is impossible
tp reponcUe this with the statement that tj^e preaching of the Baptist, shortly before
the beginning of Jesus' ministry, occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius except
by the assumption that " about thirty " means thirty-three, and that the fifteenth
year of Tiberius is reckoned not from the death of Augustus in a.d. 14 but from the
datq (a.d. 11) when that Emppror bestowed upon Tiberius authority over the legions
and prpvinces equal tp his own. For such a mode of reckoning 9- par^llpl has beep
adduced from the case of Titus, whose reign was counted from tlie day when hp was
made the colleague of Vespasian.
This endeavour to bring the date of pur Lord's birth into connexion both with
Quirinius and Herod (Lk. ii. 1, i. 5, Mt. ii. 1) involves an historical construction
resting upon analogy. It extends to other parts pf the Boman empire a systpm pf
.enrolment pnly known to have been adopted in Egypt, and extends to the regnal
years of Tiberius a method pf reckoning only known tq have been applied to thp
regnal years, of Titus, The tfyepry also renders it necessary to explain the words
rjyejj,ovfioyrqs rrjs Xvplas Kvprjyiqvi npt pf the ordinary authprity of the legatus mit
pf an extraordinary miUtary cqmmand exercised by anpther officer, operating with
an army on thp nprthern frontier qf the province of Syria.2
1 See Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem ? p. 131 f. ; Calder in Discovery, Ap.
1920, p. 103.
2 Quirinius could not in virtue of such a command be accurately termed eirlrpoiros
(procurator) in Judsea (Justin, Apol. i. 34, a passage to which Plummer (St. Lk. p. 51)

344 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Attention may now be turned from the years of our Lord's Birth and Death to
the days on which these events occurred. The day of the week on which Jesus was
crucified is represented both by the Synoptic writers and by the author of the Fourth
Gospel as the day before the Sabbath, i.e. Friday (Mk. xv. 42 ; Joh. xix. 31) ; but
in respect of the day of the (Jewish) menth Nisan there is a discrepancy between them,
The Arrest was effected on the evening on which He shared with His disciples the
Last Supper, and by St. Mark, foUowed by the other Synoptists, the supper is regarded
as the Passover (Mk. xiv. 14). The time for the qbservance of the Passqver was the
fourteenth (natural) day of Nisan ; but though the Paschal lambs were kiUed in the
afternoon of that day, they were not eaten until after sunset ; and since the Jewish
day began at sunset, the eating occurred, according to Jewish methods of reckoning,
on the fifteenth. Our Lord was arrested immediately after the supper, and was
crucified on the day foUowing, i.e. on Nisan 15th, on the evening of which the Sabbath
(Saturday), which would be Nisan 16th, began (Mk. xv. 42). But the Fourth Gospel
represents the Crucifixion not as foUqwing, but as preceding, the celebration of the
Passqver (Joh. xviii. 28). The Last Supper, therefore, was not an observance of the
Passover meal, but must (according to the Fourth Evangelist's narrative) have
occurred on the evening of the thirteenth (natural) day (counted by the Jews as the
beginning of the fourteenth day).
As the two accqunts are manifestly incqmpatible, and a choice has to be made
between them, that of St. Mark and the other Synoptists might seem, on the strength
of their superior credibility in general, to be in this case also the mqre deserving of
credence. But there are certain features in the Synoptic account itself which raise
doubts of its correctness. (1) In Mk. xiv. 1, 2, it is stated that the chief priests
expressly desired to avoid the execution of Jesus during the feast ; but if the Last
Supper was the Passover meal, Jesus was arrested after the feast had begun, and
was put to death on the 15th of Nisan, the first day of Unleavened Bread. (2) In
Mk. xiv. 47 one of the disciples is described as carrying a weapon, a proceeding which
is unhkely on so solemn an occasicn. (3) In Mk. xv. 21 Simon the Cyrenian is repre
sented as coming out of the country, seemingly from work ; if the day were the 14th
it would be natural for him to be returning from labour in order to partake of the
Passover the same evening ; but he would not be at work on the 15th, the first of
the days of Unleavened Bread — see Ex. xii. 16. (4) In Mk. xv. 46 Joseph of Ari-
mathsea is related to have bought a linen cloth wherein to wrap our Lord's body,
which he would not have done on a f eastday like the 15th.1 Thus St. Mark's narrative
seems to be characterized by internal inconsistencies which create a disposition to
reject its representation that our Lord's death took place on the 15th of Nisan, and
to adopt the Johannine account, which dates it on the 14th. And although in general
the Second Gospel is a better historical authority than the Fourth, yet of the closing
scenes of our Lord's life the account in the latter may proceed from an actual eye
witness (see p. 224). Consequently there appears to be good reason for accepting
the conclusion that the day of the Crucifixion was Friday, Nisan 14th.
It has, however, to be considered whether this conclusion is compatible with the
inference already reached about the year of our Lord's death, since it was not possible
for Friday to faU on the 14th of Nisan in every year indifferently. Now it has been
calculated that the 14th of Nisan was a Friday in each of the two years 29 and 30,
one or other of which has been shown to be probably the year of the Crucifixion.2
The calculations are too intricate to be reproduced here ; but if the results of them
stand investigation, it wiU be seen that the conclusion that our Lord suffered on
Nisan 14th is consistent both with the statement of TertuUian, Hippolytus, and Lac
tantius (p. 342) that His death took place in the consulship of the Gemini, a.d. 29,
and with the inference conveyed by St. Luke's Gospel that He was crucified in a.d.
30 (ibid.). St. Luke is an earUer authority than the Patristio writers named ; but
a.d. 29 has been taken as correct because it seems unhkely that TertuUian and the
other Fathers would have departed from the inference deducible from St. Luke's
date for the Baptist's ministry in in. 1, 2, had there not been a trustworthy tradition
associating the Crucifixion with the year of offioe of the oonsuls mentioned. And (as
1 See AUen, St. Mark, p. 170.
2 See Hastings, D.B. i. pp. 411, 412.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE N.T. 345
has been said) it is not impossible that St. Luke may have had the same year in
mind, for if the beginning of Tiberius' second year was equated with the spring and not
the autumn of a.d. 15, the beginning of the Emperor's sixteenth year would be the
spring of a.d. 29. And in any case, even if the view be preferred that the year of
the Crucifixion was a.d. 30, it is equaUy in agreement with the conclusion that the
day was Nisan the 14th. The equivalent days in our calendar would be, for A d 29
March 18th or April 15th, for a.d. 30 April 7th.
About the month and day of Christ's birth nothing is reaUy known. The date
December 25 (associated in primitive times with the worship of Mithras) has been
regarded as the anniversary of the Nativity since the fourth century, but does not
agree weU with the representation of St. Luke, who relates that sheep were stiU in
the fields at night.1 In the time of Clement of Alexandria the day was identified
by some with April 21 or 22, by others with May 20. a
Por the history inoluded in Acts and in St. Paul's Epistles there are no specific
dates furnished by the books named. Conclusions respecting the chronology can
only be reached through a combination of the aUusions made by these authorities
to various contemporary rulers and officials in connexion with successive events,
and by the intervals of time here and there related to have elapsed between different
occurrences ; and since the limits of the reigns and governorships within which the
events mentioned feU are not always ascertainable with exactness, whilst the intervals
separating one occurrence from another are not uniformly noted, it is clear that any
chronological scheme can at the best be only approximate.
The following are the principal marks of time in Acts and the Pauline Epistles
which can be made the basis of some inferential dates.3
1. The feast of Pentecost marked by the occurrences described in Acts ii was
that belonging to the year of the Crucifixion, a.d. 29. It seems probable that the
growth of the Church recounted in Acts ii-v, and the persecution and death of Stephen
(Acts vi., vii.), foUowed within a very few years, perhaps not exceeding three. If
Stephen's death be assigned to 32, then another year seems sufficient for the extension
of Christianity to Damascus, where beUevers were found shortly afterwards (Acts ix. 1).
2. The conversion of St. Paul took place not long after the death of Stephen and
three years before the Apostle's first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18). This visit fol
lowed immediately upon his escape from Damascus (Acts ix. 25, 26), which happened
when that city was included in the dominions of Aretas IV, who was King of the
Nabatseans from 9 B.C. to a.d. 39 (2 Cor. xi. 32, 33). As the place was under Eoman
authority in a.d. 33, 4 it cannot have become the possession of Aretas before a.d. 34,
and St. Paul's escape and first visit to Jerusalem must have occurred at the earnest
in a.d. 35. If the interval of three years mentioned in Gal. i. 18 is taken inclusively,
the date of his conversion, reckoned, backwards from 35, wiU be 33, the year after
that which has just been conjecturaUy assigned to the martyrdom of Stephen. St.
Paul, after his visit to Jerusalem, withdrew to Tarsus (Acts ix. 30) where he seems to
have stayed for some time, and whence he was brought by Barnabas to Antioch,
where the two laboured together for a whole year (Acts xi. 26). This coUaboration
appears to have occurred before the arrival at Antioch of certain prophets from Jeru
salem (Acts xi. 27).
3. The year in which Agabus (included among the prophets just mentioned)
visited Antioch and there foretold a severe famine seems to have preceded the death
of the Emperor Cahgula, since it is expressly noticed that the famine (in contrast to
the prediction of it) happened in the reign of Claudius (a.d. 41-54). As Cahgula died
in 41, the prophecy was perhaps dehvered in 40. This date will thus reflect hght
upon the period during which St. Paul and Barnabas were together at Antioch, and
which must have faUen between 35 and 40, probably nearer the latter year than the
former. 1 But see Edersheim, Life and Times, i. pp. 186-7.
2 Plummer, St. Luke, p. 55.
* Hastings, D.B. i. pp. 415-425, from which many of the facts are drawn, though
some of the conclusions differ.
* Damascus coins between 65 B.C. and a.d. 33 supply evidence that the city was
then under Boman authority, but between A..D. 34 and 62 evidenoe is lacking.

346 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
4. The execution of James the son of Zebedee took place by order of Herod
Agrippa I (Acts xii. 2), who died in a.d. 44. James probably perished not long
before the king's death ; and his execution may therefore be plausibly dated
about a.d. 43.*
5. St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (according to the enumeration of Acts)
coincided with the occurrence of the famine in the reign of Claudius. The precise
date of the famine in Judsea is not known. Josephus (Ant. xx. 5. 2, cf. 2. 6) states
that a great famine happened in the procuratorships of Fadus and Tiberius Alexander
(p. 57), i.e., between 44 and 48, and no greater precision than this seems obtain
able from ancient sources ; but there is a general concurrence of opinion that the
famine was felt in Judaea about a.d. 46. If this was the year in which St. Paul and
Barnabas went from Antioch to Jerusalem with reUef (Acts xi. 30), it seems likely
that after the fuU year's co-operation between them at Antioch (p. 345), one or both
of them departed from the place, but subsequently returned to it before 46.
6. The interval separating this famine-visit to Jerusalem from the departure of
St. Paul and Barnabas on their First Missionary journey is not stated ; but their
start may perhaps be placed early in a.d. 47, and the journey itself be assumed to
have lasted fifteen or eighteen months, ending late in 48. In the course of it the
Apostles were at Cyprus during the proconsulship of Sergius Paulus. The date of
his period of office is not known ; but from the fact that the proconsul of 51 was
Julius Cordus, and the proconsul of 52 was L. Annius Bassus, it is clear that Sergius
Paulus must have governed the island either before the first-named or after the last-
named. The summer of 47 assumed for the Apostles' visit wiU agree with the first
of these alternatives.
7. In the interval between the First and the Second Missionary journeys St. Paul
went to Jerusalem for the third time (reckoned as the second in Gal. ii. 1), fourteen
years after the visit mentioned in Gal. i. 18 and Acts ix. 27, 28. It is possible, indeed,
that the fourteen years include the three years named in Gal. i. 18 ; but this is an
unnatural interpretation, and the other is preferable. On the assumption that the
fourteen years are exclusive of the three, and the two intervals constitute, if taken
together, a period (reckoned exclusively) of sixteen years after the Apostle's con
version in 33 (p. 345), the date will be a.d. 49. According to the narrative of Acts xv.,
a general councU was gathered at Jerusalem during this visit, but as has been shown
(p. 271), there are grounds for suspecting the accuracy of St. Luke's account of the
conference of St. Paul and Barnabas with tbe elder Apostles. The meeting of the
former with James, Peter, and John described in Gal. ii. 1-10 was probably altogether
a private interview, which was not foUowed by any conference of the Church at that
time (a.d. 49) ; and the general councU which passed resolutions subjecting the Gentile
Christians to certain regulations was held at a later period (see p. 538).
8. The time intervening between the private meeting of St. Paul and Barnabas
with the three representatives of the Jerusalem Church, and St. Paul's start on his
Second Missionary journey, though it cannot be determined with certainty, is scarcely
hkely to have been long ; and his departure may be plausibly assigned to the autumn
of 49. This date harmonizes with the dates of two other occurrences, the expulsion
of the Jews from Rome by Claudius, and the appointment of GaUio to the proconsul
ship of Achaia. For St. Paul in the course of his journey reached Corinth, where he
found Aquila, who was one of the Jews recently expeUed by Claudius (Acts xviii. 2),
and where his own arrival seems to have preceded GaUio's appointment. The date
of the expulsion of the Jews was Claudius' ninth year ;2 and as he entered upon his
reign in 41, the ninth year would begin in 49. Of GaUio's proconsulship the date
is not known exactly ; but since GaUio's brother Seneca was in exUe until a.d. 49,
and as it is not probable that GaUio would have received promotion during his brother's
disgrace, the year '50 seems the earhest for his entry upon his provincial command.
It appears, however, from the order of events in Acts xviii. 11, 12, that GaUio did not
reach Achaia until St. Paul had been at Corinth for eighteen months. The Apostle's
Second journey was » protracted one ; for he passed through Syria, Cilicia, South
1 In Acts xu. 1 the words about that time in reference to the famine year, if this
was a.d. 46, must be interpreted loosely.
2 This date is given by the historian Orosius (circ. 410 a.d.).

CHRONOLOGY OF THE N.T. 347
Galatia (p. 268), Macedonia, and Athens before his arrival at Corinth, spending time
enough hi Macedonia to found Churches at Philippi and Thessalonica ; so that he
can hardly have reached Corinth much before the summer of 50. If he was there a
year and a half before GaUio came, the actual date of the latter's entry upon his office
must have been late in 51. 1 The abortive attempt by the Jews to bring St. Paul to
trial before GaUio occurred shortly afterwards ; but since the Apostle did not leave
Corinth immediately (Acts xviii. 18), he probably did not depart much before the
spring of 52. He does not appear to have stayed long anywhere on the homeward
journey, and his arrival at Jerusalem and his return to Antioch may be fixed for the
summer of 52.
9. The duration of the Apostle's stay at Antioch before departing on his Third
Missionary journey is vaguely described in Acts xvui. 23 as " some time " ; but his
desire to revisit the numerous churches estabUshed in the previous journey must have
oaused the period spent in rest to be short ; and he may have left before the end of
52. In the course of this journey he stopped two years and three months at Ephesus
(Acts xix. 8-10), a whence he can scarcely have departed before the early summer of
55 (see 1 Cor. xvi. 8) ; and as he afterwards proceeded through Macedonia (where
he stayed long enough to give the converts there much exhortation (Acts xx. 2) ) to
Greece, spending in the latter country (reached in the autumn, perhaps October or
November, of 55) three months, he probably did not leave Greece (Corinth) for Pales
tine until the beginning of 56. He kept the feast of Unleavened Bread (in March) at
Phihppi (Acts xx. 6), and he hoped to spend Pentecost (in May) at Jerusalem (Acts xx.
16). It was probably whilst St. Paul was absent on this journey that the Council of
Jerusalem was held (pp. 571—2), though there is nothing to indicate whether the date
was nearer 52 or 56.
10. On the Apostle's arrival at Jerusalem in the early summer of 56, he was arrested,
and spent two years in custody at Csesarea (Acts xxiv. 27), the imprisonment there
lasting until the supersession of the procurator PeUx by Festus. The date of Felix's
recaU is uncertain. After he was deprived of his office, he was prosecuted by the
Jews of Csesarea, but unsuccessfuUy, his acquittal being attributed by Josephus (Ant.
xx. 8, 9) to his brother Pallas, who interceded for him with the Emperor. According
to Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 14), Pallas feU from power in a.d. 55 ; but being a wealthy man,
he may have retained sufficient influence to secure Felix from punishment some years
afterwards. FeUx seems to have entered upon his office in 52 3 in the reign of Claudius,
and as St. Paul, when tried before him, spoke of him as having been long in authority
(Acts xxiv. 10), it is difficult to account for the Apostle's words if they were uttered
before 55. Moreover, Josephus (Ant. xx. 8, 5) records a large number of incidents
that occurred under FeUx's rule subsequent to the accession of Nero to the throne in
54 ; and this, again, favours the behef that he was in office some years after the date
of PaUas' faU. Accordingly, the year of his recaU may have been as late as 58, to
which the previous dates reached in connexion with St. Paul point. It must, however,
be aUowed that this date contradicts that which is given by Eusebius for the super
session of Felix by Festus, which is assigned to the second year of Nero, whose acces
sion occurred in 54.
11. After Festus in 58 replaced Felix in the procuratorship, St. Paul was sent for
trial to Rome. The voyage was a slow one ; and the vessel was in a haven of Crete
some time after the Day of Atonement, which feU in the autumn (Acts xxvii. 9), whilst
after the shipwreck at Mehta three months were spent on that island (Acts xxviii. 11) .
1 A fragmentary inscription containing a letter from the Emperor Claudius to the,
people of Delphi, and aUuding to GaUio seemingly as proconsul, has been plausibly
dated about the beginning of 52 : see Deissmann, St. Paul, pp. 235-260 ; McNeile,
St. Paul, pp. xv.-xvii.
2 The time is described in Acts xx. 31 as three years.
3 Josephus (Ant. xx. 6, 3 ; 7, 1 ; B.J. ii. 12, 7) states that Felix was the suocessor
of Cumanus, whose office lasted from 48 to 52. Taoitus, indeed, speaking of the year
52, represents Felix as having been then for some time governor of Judsea, and Cumanus
as contemporary governor of Galilee. But Josephus (b. a.d. 37) lived nearer the date
in question than Tacitus (b. a.d. 54), and there is no evidence of a division of Palestine
between two governors.

348

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

so that it was probably not till the spring of 59 that the Apostle reached Rome. There
he was kept in custody for two fuU years, i.e., according to previous calculations,
59-61, beyond which the narrative of Acts does not carry the history. For reasons
given elsewhere (p. 300), it seems likely that St. Paul was brought to trial, condemned,
and executed at the close of the two years' imprisonment (i.e. in 61). Those who
think that he was acquitted mostly suppose that he Uved three years longer, during
which he visited Gaul and Spain (in accordance with the purpose expressed in Rom.
xv. 28), and afterwards journeyed again to Greece and the East (see 1 Tim. i. 3 ;
2 Tim. iv. 13, 20 ; Titus iii. 12). At the end of this period he met his death in the
persecution of the Christians by Nero, a.d. 64. x His age at bis death is unknown.
In Philemon 9, written during his Boman imprisonment (p. 293), he describes himself
as " Paul the aged," but probably he was worn by toU and suffering rather than by
years, since he is represented as a young man at the time of Stephen's death (Acts
vn. 58) about the year 32, so that he can scarcely have been much more than sixty if
he was executed in 64, and probably under sixty if his death happened in 61.
The foUowing is a summary table of the dates resulting from the foregoing
discussion : —

Birth of our Lord
Beginning of His Ministry
CrucifixionPentecost
Death of Stephen
Conversion of St. Paul
St. Paul's First Visit to Jerusalem

2 B.C. [Augustus, 27 b.c.-a.d. 14]
28 a.d. [Tiberius, a.d. 14-37]
29 „
29 „
32 „
332 .,
35 „

Activity of St. Paul and Barnabas at Antioch 39 or 40
Death of St. James, son of Zebedee 43
St. Paul's Second (Famine) visit to Jerusalem 46
First Missionary journey (to Cyprus and Galatia) 47-48
Third visit to Jerusalem and Second to the
Apostles 49
Second Missionary journey (to Galatia and
Greece) 49-52
Arrival at Corinth Summer of 50
1, 2 Thess. 51
Departure from Corinth Spring of 52
Return to Syria Summer of 52
James, Gal. 52
Third Missionary journey (to Galatia, Asia,
and Greece) 52-56
At Ephesus 52-55
1 Cor. Spring of 55
2 Cor. Autumn of 55
In Greece Autumn of 55
Rom. beginning of 56
Departure from Greece beginning of 56
At Philippi Maroh, 56
Return to Jerusalem May, 56
The Council of Jerusalem
? between 53 and beginning of 56
St. Paul's imprisonment at Csesarea 66-58
Arrival at Rome 59

[Caligula 37-41]
[Claudius, 41-54]

[Nero, 54-68]

1 Eusebius places St. Paul's martyrdom in 68, but this is probably an error.
5 If the fourteen years of Gal. n. 1 include the three years of Gal. i. 18 the Conver
sion might be plaoed in 36, and the death of Stephen one or two years later than 32 ;
but the longer interval after the Crucifixion which this involves makes these dates
less probable.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE N.T.

349

Col, Eph., Philem. late in 59 or early in 60 A.D. [Nero

54-68]

Phil. late in 60 or early in 61 ,

,

St. Paul's death at Rome 61 ,

Death of St. James, the Lord's "brother" ? 62 ,

1 Pet- 1 63 ,
Death of St. Peter ? 64
Heb. ? 64 '
Death of St. John, son of Zebedee ? 66 ,
Mk. ? 68 ,
FaU of Jerusalem 70 ,
[Vespasian, 68-79]
Jude ? 70-75 ,
99
Mt., Lk. ? 80 ,
[Titus, 79-81]
Joh., 1, 2, 3 Joh. ? 90-100 .
[Domitian-Trajan, 81-117]
Rev., Acts ? 96-100 ,
[Nerva-Trajan, 96-117]
Pastoral Epistles ? 100 ,
[Trajan, 98-117]
2 Pet. 1 100-110 ,
»
VIII
THE MINISTRY OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE
EARLIEST SOURCES
The Sources
FOE the Ministry of Jesus the primary source is, in the main, the
Gospel of St. Mark (p. 164) ; and from this the narrative that
follows is principally drawn. Even the contents of the Second
Gospel, however, are probably not uniformly of equal value ; at any rate,
if there were two editions of it (p. 160), it is antecedently hkely that what
appears in the second alone is derived not from the reminiscences of
St. Peter but from tradition. Into the narrative based on Mk. some
details contained in the parallel accounts of the other Synoptists but
absent from the Second Gospel have been introduced where they seem to
be intrinsically probable ; whilst where there are discrepancies attention
has been called to them. There have been embodied also such of the contents
of Q as concern occurrences and incidents, though some uncertainty
attaches to the proper arrangement of these, since they are not always
placed in the same order or setting by the First and Third Evangelists.
Events mentioned by either Mt. or Lk. alone have also been noticed, but
have not been, as a rule, incorporated in the history because, though
many may well be true, they have not, like most of those included in
Mk., the authority of an Apostle behind them. The Johannine Gospel
is not drawn upon prior to the period of the Passion, except for the
purposes of comparison ; for besides the fact that the work is probably
of much inferior historic value, it is almost impossible to dovetail into a
scheme of events occupying only a year another, in most respects very
different, which extends over more than two.
The Ministry of Jesus
§ 1. Proclamation by John of the Judgment and the Kingdom
The Book of Malaehi, the last of the Prophetic writings of the Old
Testament (according to the arrangement of the Hebrew Canon), closes
with a prediction of the coming of the great and terrible day of Jehovah.
All through Israel's history, indeed, God had sent His messengers from
time to time with predictions of mingled tenor, announcing chastisement
350

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 351
for Israel itself by reason of its offences, as well as redemption from
external subjection for those who, through repentance and amendment,
should be spared in the approaching crisis. But by Malaehi an announce
ment of unprecedented nature was made. The prophet Elijah was to
reappear in order to heal family divisions and social disorders, and so
to prepare his countrymen for the ordeal awaiting them, lest the whole
population of the land, should be utterly destroyed under Jehovah's ban.1
With the closing of the Canon of the Jewish Scriptures, Prophecy in
Israel was believed to have come to an end ; and for a long interval there
ceased to be any authoritative channel of communication from God to
His people. The withdrawal of the Almighty's customary means of
revealing His will was fervently deplored, and the renewal of it was
longingly awaited (see Ps. lxxiv. 9, 1 Mace. iv. 46, xiv. 41, Song of the
Three Children, 15). The only oracles of God to which recourse could
be had were written records, consisting of the Old Testament books,
preserved and expounded by the Scribes, and pseudonymous works of
more recent dates, circulating as productions of some of the great per
sonalities of the past (p. 121). In such conditions it occasioned all the
greater excitement shortly after the beginning of the second quarter of the
first century a.d., when there suddenly appeared in Judsea one in whom
the spirit of prophecy, so long in abeyance, seemed once more to revive.
The man who thus startled his contemporaries with an announcement,
after the manner of the ancient prophets, about the near future was called
John (the Greek name 'Icodvrjg representing the Heb. Johanan, " Jehovah
hath been gracious "). By St. Mark no account is given of his parentage,
but he is described by Lk. as the son of Zachariah and his wife Elizabeth
(Ehsheba, cf . Ex. vi. 23), his father being a priest belonging to the " course "
of Abijah,2 and his mother being also represented as a descendant of
Aaron. It is related, too, that Judsea was the country of his birth, though
the name of the town where he was born is not given, for there is no
plausibility in the view that by noXig 'IovSa (Lk. i. 39), where his parents
dwelt, is meant the town of Juttah, a place enumerated among the cities
assigned by the Priestly code of the Pentateuch to the priesthood (Josh. xxi.
16, cf. xv. 55).
The account of the circumstances of John's birth furnished by St. Luke (who dates
it in the reign of Herod the Great,3 see p. 342) breathes the atmosphere of the Old
Testament. Zachariah and EUzabeth were childless, and being both advanced in
years entertained Uttle expectation of having offspring, for which they craved (Lk.
1 According to Rabbinic teaching the period of Elijah's advent would be a time
of genuine repentance by Israel, the prophet's special function consisting in settling
perplexing questions, making peace, and restoring to, and excluding from, the con
gregation of Israel, those who were wrongfully outside or within it (Edersheim, Life
and Times, etc., ii, p. 708).
2 The priests, according to 1 Oh. xxiv., were divided by David into twenty-four
courses, each being on duty for a week. Of the twenty-four only four returned from
the Exile (E.Z, ii. 36-39), but it must be supposed that these were subdivided into
twenty-fopr, which revived the names of the original courses. Abijah's was the
eighth. 2 In Lk. i. 5 Judcea is used in » comprehensive sense, including Gahlee and other
districts.

352 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
i. 13). On an occasion when the former was offering incense during the weekly tuni
of his course within the Holy Place of the Temple (p. 91), there appeared to him the
angel Gabriel (see Dan. viii. 16 and cf . p. 42), who announced that his wife should bear
him a son, whom he was to name John, and who, refraining from aU products of the
grape (cf. Jud. xiii. 5, 7), should be flUed with God's Spirit, and be endued with the
power of EUjah in order to prepare a people for the Lord (cf. Lk. i. 17 with Med. iv. 6).
Zachariah, being incredulous and asking for a sign (cf. 2 Kg. xx. 8), was told, both as a
pledge that the promise would be fulfiUed, and as a punishment for his disbelief, that
he should be stricken with deafness and dumbness (Lk. i. 62-64) until the child's
birth. When he reappeared from the sanctuary, the worshippers in the court of
the Israelites (p. 91) remarked his speechlessness, and concluded that he had seen a
vision. In accordance with the angel's announcement, Elizabeth conceived (with
Lk. i. 25 cf. Gen. xxx. 23) ; and in the course of her pregnancy she was visited by
Mary, the mother of Jesus (p. 360), who was her kinswoman. When she was dehvered
and her relations assembled to circumcise the chUd, it was proposed to caU him after
his father ; but bis mother declared that his name was to be John, and when his father
was consulted, and by means of a writing-tablet confirmed Elizabeth's words, he
immediately recovered his hearing and speech and praised God. The occurrence
created much awe and expectancy as to the child's future ; and Zachariah uttered
the prophecy known as the Benedict/us.
The narrative admits of being taken in three ways : —
(1) It may be accepted UteraUy as a report of experiences perceived through the
medium of the senses.
(2) It may be given a psychological interpretation, the scene with the angel, his
communication, the infliction of the dumbness for disbeUef , and the sudden recovery
of the power of speech being regarded as a dramatic externalizing of Zachariah's
inward beUefs and misgivings respecting God's graciousness, and his maintenance of
sUence about his hopes and fears untU the desired event came to pass.1
(3) It may be viewed as the creation of reUgious fancy, owing its origin to John's
subsequent career as a prophet, which caused it to be thought that such a remarkable
personahty could not lack, in the circumstances of his birth, features that marked the
history of such Old Testament figures as Isaac and Samson and Samuel, a paraUel
with the second of these in particular being suggested by John's ascetic habits (Mt.
xi. 18). The pre-announcement of the name to be given to the chUd foUows the
precedent recorded in the instance not only of Isaac but of Ishmael and Solomon.
The words put into the mouth of the angel concerning the destiny of him whose birth
was predicted reproduce the prophecy of Malaehi (iv. 5), the comparison of John with
Elijah perhaps originating with our Lord (Mk. ix. 13, Mt. xi. 10 (=Lk. vii. 27, from
Q). The Benedictus consists largely of expressions drawn from the Psalms and other
books of the Old Testament (see Ps. xU. 13, exxxii. 17, cvi. 10, 45 ; Is. ix. 2).
Of John's childhood no details are recorded. But in early manhood
he withdrew into the desert to spend there a period of solitude. The
reasons that led him to sunder himself from his home and family, and to
abandon the priestly life with its prerogatives and privileges (p. 93) to
which his birth entitled him, can only be conjectured. Possibly he had
grown dissatisfied with the formal type of piety which was the prevailing
characteristic of contemporary rehgion, and had come to recognize its
unworthiness of God, whom it was supposed to content and gratify.
And if feehng himself to be in touch with a Source of spiritual inspiration
(cf. Lk. i. 80), he had begun to cherish the thought that he might be
destined by God to bring about a spiritual renewal among his countrymen,
it was in the wilderness that a Divine revelation might be most confidently
expected to come, for there he would be free from the distractions that
1 Cf. B. Weiss, Life of Christ, i. p. 237 (E.T.).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 353
elsewhere might dull his sensitiveness to the Divine monitions. It was in
the desert that both Moses and Elijah had held communion with God,
and had been inspired to accomplish for Him their great achievements
(Ex. hi., 1 Kg. xix.).
The scene of his retirement was probably the desolate waste which
slopes eastward from Hebron down to the shores of the Dead Sea, and is
known as the Jeshimon. The term, derived from a Hebrew root meaning
" to be desolate," is applied in the Old Testament to several localities,
e.g. the wilderness of the Israelites' wanderings (Dt. xxxii. 10, Ps. lxviii. 7,
lxxviii. 40), the waste part of the Jordan valley, north of the Dead Sea
and east of the river (Num. xxi. 20, xxiii. 28), and the desert stretching
between Canaan and Babylonia (2 is. xliii. 19, 20). But it was also used to
designate the wilderness near Ziph (a little to the south-east of Hebron),
where David concealed himself from the pursuit of Saul (1 Sam. xxiii. 19,
xxvi. 1). . This is a region which, in all, covers an area thirty-four miles
by fifteen. The cultivated land near Hebron is quickly replaced, as the
traveller moves eastward, by rolling hills and waterless vales, each ridge
crossed being barer than the last. These are succeeded by a limestone
plain, where the only vegetation consists of short bushes and thorn-
brakes ; and then, when the sea comes fully into view, there is a precipitous
descent, amid crags and boulders, down to the margin of the water.1
It was to this barren country that John withdrew, sustaining himself with
such meagre fare as locusts (which, unlike most winged creeping things,
were not forbidden by the Law to be used as food (Lev. xi. 22 2) ) and the
honey stored by wild bees 3 (cf . Dt. xxxii. 13, Jud. xiv. 9, 1 Sam. xiv. 27,
Is. vii. 22). The outer garment (ifidxiov, simlah) customarily worn was
in his case made of camel's hair,4 which recalled the hairy mantle associated
in the Old Testament with the prophetic character (2 Zech. xiii. 4) 5 ; and
his undergarment was fastened about tbe waist with a leathern girdle,
such as Elijah was accustomed to gird himself with (2 Kg. i. 8, LXX, t^covrjv
8Eg/j,axivr}v). The duration of John's seclusion in the Jeshimon is unknown. In the
course of it he became possessed with the conviction that a crisis in his
nation's history was close at hand, and that he was charged to prepare
his countrymen for it. Had John been of the number of those who
beheved that the racial privileges of Israel were indefeasible, such a
conviction might have caused him to seek to fortify in them the hope,
never far from the hearts of most, that God would shortly intervene to
1 See G. A. Smith, H.G.H.L. pp. 312, 313.
2 Locusts prepared in various ways are still eaten by the modern Arabs. The
idea that John's food consisted of the pods (mpovria in Lk. xv. 16) of the carob tree,
caUed the " Locust tree " or " John the Baptist's tree," is erroneous.
3 The neighbourhood of Jericho, in particular, abounded with honey (Jos. B.J.
iv. 8, 3). The term "wild honey," however, is said to be apphed generaUy to the
sweet sap of certain trees (Gould, St. Mark, p. 8).
4 In Mk. i. 6, D and some Old Lat. MSS. have Bipprjv xau-fiKov (i.e. a camel's skin)
instead of rptxas nafirfKov.
6 In the Ascension of Isaiah,ii. 10, the prophets are represented asaU clothed with
garments of hair.
23

354 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
restore to His people their national independence, and subjugate before
them those who held them in subjection. By numbers the Kingdom of
God was identified with a Kingdom for Israel. But John realized that
merely to belong to God's chosen race conferred no title to His favour,
and that if a judgment was in store for the Gentile oppressors of Israel, a
judgment also awaited unrepentant offenders within Israel itself. So
when under the influence of the behef that God was about to vindicate
Himself finally, he abandoned his solitude and appeared among the people
in the spirit of a prophet, it was to convey a warning rather than to impart
consolation, and to address to them an urgent call to repent, if they hoped
to escape the Divine wrath and to fit themselves for the Divine Kingdom,
which those who should survive the judgment might look to share.
It has been maintained that St. Mark affords no support for the behef that the
nearness of the kingdom of God had any place in the preaching of John, who only
proclaimed the need for repentance.1 But it is unlikely that the Second" Evangelist
would have apphed to John the quotation from the Second Isaiah (xl. 3), which is
prefixed to his account of the Baptist's preaching if he regarded him as a herald of
the judgment only, and not of the kingdom also. Mt.'s statement that John declared
the kingdom of heaven to be at hand (iii. 1) is confirmed by Lk. iii. 18 (" he preached
good tidings unto the people "). Moreover in Q (as good an authority as Mk.) there
is evidence that John set before his hearers substantiaUy the idea of the kingdom ;
for he declared that at the cleansing of the threshing-floor (see below, p. 356) the
wheat would be stored in the garner ; and the garner is equivalent to the kingdom
(Mt. in. 12= Li. iii. 17).
The year when John emerged from his retirement with his message
was probably very early in a.d. 28 (see p. 28). Judaea at this time was
under the direct control of Rome, Tiberius, who had succeeded Augustus in
a.d. 14, being the reigning emperor. Syria, in which Judsea was included,
was an imperial province (p. 65), the legatus being Lucius iEhus Lamia ;
but Judaea was under the special charge of a procurator, Pontius Pilate,
who had entered upon his office in 26. Various parts of Palestine, however,
were governed by sovereigns who were aUowed by the Emperor to enjoy
some measure of independence (pp. 68-69). The Jewish High Priest
was Joseph Caiaphas, who was appointed about a.d. 18. But the personal
authority of his father-in-law Annas, who after having been nominated
High Priest in a.d. 6, had been deposed from his office in a.d. 15, continued
to be so great that even during the high priesthood of Caiaphas he enjoyed
his former title, and St. Luke treats him and his son-in-law as jointly
" high priest " (ini agxiigscog "Awa xai Kaidopa).
Rehgious enthusiasm has always been prone to consider the conditions
of its own age to be critical ; and no doubt there were circumstances, both
pohtical and social, which helped to shape John's conviction that the
time had come for God to interpose for the dehverance of His faithful
servants and the confusion of His enemies. Foreign rule was a continuous
outrage upon the rehgious sentiment of the Jews, who had constantly
before them in the presence of Roman soldiers at Csesarea and Jerusalem
1 See Loisy, Les Evangiles Synoptiques, i. p. 435, who thinks that Mt„ in iii. 2,
has adjusted John's proclamation to that of Jesus (Mk. i. 15),

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 355
(p. 54), and in the circulation of a coinage bearing the representation of
the Roman emperors, evidence of their subordination to the hated Gentiles.
Taxes were exacted to swell the revenues of the aliens, and were rendered
not the less odious because Jews were found base enough to become the
agents of the Roman publicani in their collection (p. 70). Nor were the
Roman officials and their underlings the only oppressors. Annas had an
evil reputation for avarice ; and the indignation which he and his family
excited by their injustice and rapacity is evidenced by the curse pronounced
upon them in the Talmud : " Woe to the house of Annas ; Woe to their
serpent-like hissings." 1 Nor was it only the sins of the chief priests
that must have seemed to John provocative of the Divine wrath. One to
whom the ethical side of religion appealed strongly must have felt the
same repulsion as did prophets like Amos and Isaiah towards the prevailing
conception of rehgious duties fostered by the [Scribes (see p. 96). And
whilst the age by reason of its wickedness might seem ripe for God's
judgment, there had been indications that men, in their impotence to
remedy peaceably some of the evils, were eager to adopt methods that
John beheved to be not those whereby God designed to vindicate the cause
of His people, as when Judas of Gamala caused an insurrection in a.d. 6
or 7 (p. 55). In view of such attempts in the past (which might be repeated
at any moment) by a section of his countrymen in order to effect a change
of conditions by force (cf. p. 58), John might perhaps have deemed that
the occasion had come for God to forestall all such human schemes by His
own intervention. But whatever may have been the signs of the times
which led him to infer the nearness of the Divine judgment and to predict
the estabhshment of the Divine kingdom, the issue once more illustrated
how, in the utterances of God's prophets, illusion and truth were mysteri
ously blended.
It was probably in the neighbourhood of the Jordan (perhaps between
Jerusalem and Jericho)2 that John first announced his message. This
" wild land " is likened by St. Mark to the desert traversed by the Hebrew
exiles when returning from Babylon ; and John himself to the Voice which
the prophet of the Captivity heard crying there (2 7s. xl. 3, LXX), " Prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." 3 Upon the people his
words made a profound impression ; and the population of the capital
and of the surrounding districts quickly gathered round him, many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees minghng with the multitude. It was upon
the sterner aspect of the impending crisis that his austere temperament
caused him mainly to dwell. An exacting search (he declared) into the
secrets of men's lives was imminent ; and that they might face the ordeal
in hope and not in despair they needed to be convinced of, and to confess,
their offences, and prove by amendment of hfe the sincerity of their
contrition. Repentance and obedience, indeed, as conditioning national
1 Quoted in Hastings, D.B. i. p. 100.
2 St. Luke's phrase els irao-av rijv ireplxiapov rod 'lopd&vos must include the Jordan
vaUey ; cf. Gen. xiii. 10, 11, LXX. Mt. has " in the wilderness of Judaea."
3 The Hebrew connects " in the wilderness " with " prepare," but the parallel
to this (" in the desert ") is omitted by the Evangelist.

356 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
deliverance were not wholly ignored in the teaching of the Jewish Rabbis
(p. 606). But among many of the Jews a serious obstacle to a genuine
endeavour after a better hfe was the prevailing confidence in their descent
from Abraham, to whom God had imparted pledges of eventual fehcity
for his posterity. How profound was the conviction entertained about
their privileged position as God's people appears from the appeal made
to the Almighty in 2 Esd. vi. 55 : " All this have I spoken before thee, 0
Lord, because thou hast said that for our sakes thou madest the world
(cf. vii. 11). As for the other nations which also come of Adam, thou
hast said that they are nothing, and are like unto spittle ; and thou hast
likened the abundance of them unto the drop that falleth from a vessel "
(cf. 2 7s. xl. 15). This delusion that, because they were of the seed of
Abraham, they were immune from the judgment, John bade them dismiss.
God was able of the very stones to raise up in their stead children unto
Abraham. It was probably (as stated by the First Evangehst, Mt. hi.
7-10) the Sadducees and Pharisees whom he saw amongst his audience
that he chiefly sought to disabuse of their trust in their descent ; for the
scathing terms with which he prefaced his exhortation — " Ye offspring
of vipers" (cf. Mt xii. 34, xxiii. 33), "who warned you to flee from the wrath
to come ? " — are more appropriate to the leaders of rehgion, the tendency
of whose teaching he deemed pernicious, than to the multitude (Lk. hi. 7).
Retribution (he declared) was imminent, and only practical proof of
repentance could avert from them the impending destruction.
Lk. (ui. 10-14) reports replies which John returned to the inquiries of various
classes who sought his counsel as to the conduct required of them. He bade the tax-
gatherers, who were especiaUy exposed to the temptation to be dishonest and rapa
cious (p. 70), to refrain from exacting more than was due. Soldiers on service
(o-rparev6p.evoi ), discharging garrison or pohce duties for Herod Antipas, whose
territories included Peraea (p. 50), were admonished to abstain from intimidation
and false charges, and to be content with their pay. Nor did he limit his counsel
to mere prohibitions, but enjoined aU who had goods to supply the needs of those who
lacked.1 If this representation is true to fact John, in placing exclusive stress upon
the discharge of social duties without any mention of ceremonial obUgations, pre
sented a contrast to some preceding prophets. Among certain of the post-captivity
prophetic writers there was a tendency both to give prominence to the ritual side of
religion (cf. p. 20), and to accentuate the distinction between Israel and the rest
of mankind. Prom such tendency John diverged, and reverted to the standpoint
of the eighth-century prophets, such as Amos and Isaiah. But though he reproduced
in some measure the spirit of these, he was not altogether exempt from the pre
dominant influences of his own age. His temperament inclined him to self-mortifi
cation, and his disciples are expressly described as observing fasts (Mk. ii. 18).
The execution of the judgment and the inauguration of the age of
happiness which for the survivors was to be its sequel, he represented as
destined to be carried out by One mightier than himself, Whom he was
not worthy to serve even in the humblest office, and Whom he described
in vivid metaphor as about to cleanse his threshing-floor, to consume the
chaff with unquenchable fire, and to gather the wheat into the garner.
He went on to declare that whereas he himself baptized with water, his
1 In Lk. iii. 11 the words rendered "two coats" are Sio x'tuwis. Travellers
sometimes wore more than one xiriiv (see Jos. Ant. xvii. 5, 7).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 357
Successor would baptize with Holy Spirit (ensuring the penitent from
relapse, cf. Acts i. 5) and with the fire of judgment1 (destroying the
unrepentant). Scripture had foretold both the effusion of the Divine
Spirit (7s. xxxii. 15, 27s. xliv. 3, Ezek. xxxvi. 27, Joelii. 28) and the infliction
of penal fire (Mai. iv. 1) ; and the association of the two with his predicted
Successor imphed that John thought of the latter not as an earthly
Messiah, but as a superhuman Personality, a celestial Being, such as was
described in the Similitudes of Enoch.
John accompanied his call to repentance, in the case of such of his
hearers as responded to it, by a symbolic act ; he took them to the river
and there baptized them. Probably the locality was near Jericho, where
crowds both from Judsea and from Persea could equally easily gather.2
John's practice of .baptizing all who were convinced by his preaching,
caused him to receive the distinctive appellation of the Baptist (6 fianxlCam,
d fianriarrjg). In a primitive stage of thought water was believed to remove
not only visible uncleanness or defilement, but likewise invisible contamina
tion (cf . Num. xix. 7, 8, Eur. Ale. 98-100), probably through neutralizing
impurity by some supernatural quality ' attributed to it, since springs
and rivers were regarded as the abodes of Divine powers. At a more
advanced stage, the idea that physical washing could of itself cleanse
moral stains was abandoned, and it became merely a figure for the cleansing
of the spirit from pollution, the figure obtaining expression either in speech
(cf. 7s. i. 16, iv. 4, Jer. iv. 14, Ps. li. 7) or in action. John's use of such
dramatic symbolism as immersion in water was perhaps not unconnected
with the employment of it in certain rites enjoined by the Law (see
Lev. xiv. 9, xv. 13, 16-27),3 and seemingly in the reception of proselytes ;
but more influential probably was the prediction of Ezek. xxxvi. 25, that
God would sprinkle water upon His people to cleanse them from all their
foulness at the beginning of a new and better age. It was the idea under
lying this passage which most likely dictated the practice of baptism
adopted by John, for this, unlike the lustrations of the Law, was final
and not repeated, and unlike the baptism of proselytes, it did not mark
entrance into a new rehgious organization. It was designed to testify,
in those who underwent it, the occurrence of a decisive change of mind
(and hence was called fidnrto/ta peravoiag), in consequence of which they
might encounter hopefully the searching scrutiny of God and receive
forgiveness for their past sins .4 That the inward purification of which
it was the emblem and seal could be deemed likely to last until the advent
of Him Who baptized with Holy Spirit and with fire, presupposed that
the interval before the judgment would be short.
1 For " baptize " in connexion with the infliction of suffering cf. Mk. x. 38 and
p. 430. 2 On the places mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, Bethany beyond Jordan and
Mnon near Salim, see p. 5.
3 Cf. also Elisha's direction to the leprous Naaman to immerse himself in the
Jordan. * In Mk. i. 4 els Htpeo-iv ajxapriCiv means that remission of sins was the result to
which baptism conduced.

358 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Crowds flocked to seek baptism from the new prophet, not only from
Judsea and Perasa, but from more distant Gahlee (Mt. xi. 9 = Lk. vii. 24) ;
and among those who came from the last-named district was Jesus of
Nazareth. The lack of any detail in Mk. about Jesus, except His connec
tion with Nazareth, though intelligible enough in view of the knowledge
presumably possessed by the majority of those for whom the Evangehst
wrote, leaves us without information from a source whence information
would have been of inestimable value. As it is, there is no means of
ascertaining what was really known or beheved about the early hfe of
Jesus by the writer who is the primary authority for the history of His
public ministry. No mention is made either of the place where He was
born or of any remarkable circumstances attending His birth. It may
be inferred from the statement that He came to John from Nazareth
that it was at the time His home. His name is a Greek equivalent for
the Hebrew Joshua (" Jehovah is salvation "), of which it is the regular
representative in the LXX. From His connection with Nazareth He came
later to be known as the Nazarene (6 Na^agrjvog or 6 Nal~a>galog).
By St. Mark nothing is recorded about His hneage beyond the fact
that His mother was called Mary, a name designating as many as eight
different women in the New Testament, and the equivalent of the Hebrew
Miriam (Ex. xv. 20, 1 Ch. iv. 17). The earhest Gospel makes no reference
to Mary's husband, but in the other Synoptists and in the Johannine
Gospel He is called Joseph, and by Mt. and Lk. is represented as descended
from the house of David. There are good reasons, outside the statements
of these evangehsts, for concluding that legaUy Jesus really drew His
lineage from David. The earhest direct testimony comes from St. Paul
(Rom. i. 3) 1 ; and there are also indications in the primary Synoptic
authorities that He beheved Himself to be a descendant of Israel's royal
house. For (a) one of the temptations which assailed Him after He grew
conscious of His Messiahship was the impulse to become the pohtical
Dehverer of His country, and a world-conqueror (Mt. iv. 8 = Lk. iv. 6) ;
and it is hardly likely that such a thought would have occurred to Him
unless He knew that He was connected with the stock of Israel's greatest
King, whose career might conceivably mark the course which his descendant
should pursue. And. (b) Jesus, when He journeyed, at the close of His
ministry, from Galilee to Jerusalem, entered the capital in the character
of the King portrayed by the Second Zechariah (Mk. xi. 1-10), and this,
again, it is not probable that He would have done, unless He thought
that He had some title to appear before the inhabitants of Jerusalem
as the representative of her ancient sovereigns, however dissimilar His
conception of sovereignty was to that which commonly prevailed.
(c) Finally, on that occasion He heard, without protest, a bhnd man
in the crowd address Him as Son of David (Mk. x. 47, 48). It has been
argued, indeed, from the question which He put to the Scribes in connexion
1 Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 8, Heb. vii. 14, Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16. Jesus is represented as a
descendant of David in St. Peter's speech at Pentecost (as reported in Acts ii. 30, 31)
and in St. Paul's at Pisidian Antioch (Acts xiii. 23).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 359
with the opening words of Ps. ex. (Mk. xii. 35-37) that He meant the
inference to be drawn that the Messiah was not David's son by physical
descent ; but it is more hkely that His aim was quite different from this
(see p. 442). No serious objection to His legal descent from David can
be based on his humble trade, which was that of a carpenter (Mk. vi. 3).
Jesus had four " brothers " (see p. 364), whose names were James (the
equivalent of the Hebrew Jacob), Joses (the Hebrew Joseph), Judas
(Judah) and Simon (Simeon). He also had at least two " sisters," whose
names, which do not occur in the New Testament, are said by tradition
to have been Salome and Mary.
The Gospels of Mt. and Lk. contain genealogies (Mt. i, 1-16, Lk. iii." 23-38), one
of which records the pedigree of Joseph forward from Abraham, and the other traces
his lineage backward to Adam, it being assumed that though Jesus (as related by
these Evangehsts elsewhere) was not the offspring of Joseph, yet the latter's guardian
ship of the child supernaturaUy born of Mary made Him legally his son. The two
genealogical trees are in the main divergent, but concur in the names between Abraham
and David, and touch one another again in the common mention of Shealtiel and
Zerubbabel. If both are based on genuine registers, some of the differences are best
explained by the supposition that one represents legal inheritance and the other
physical descent, since for various purposes putative fatherhood was recognized by
the Jews (cf. Dt. xxv. 5 f., Mt. xxii. 24). It is probably Mt. who has deserted the
order of natural generation in order to trace from David a royal hne through Solomon,
whilst Lk. gives the real ancestry through Nathan (2 Sam. v. 14). The Ust in Mt.
is artificiaUy divided into three sections of fourteen names each, covering respectively
the periods of time ending with the reign of David, the Captivity, and the birth of
Jesus. But in order to equalize as regards numbers the names in the second period
with those in the first, the writer has omitted between Jehoshaphat and Joram, the
three kings Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah ; and between Josiah and Jeconiah ( Jehoia-
chin) he has also omitted a generation ( Jehoahazl and Jehoiakim, both sons of Josiah).
In the third period the separate names given amount only to thirteen. Jehoiachin
(son of Jehoiakim) was childless (Jer. xxii. 30), so that Shealtiel, whom he is said
to have begotten, could not have been his son but only his heir. Here, too, a genera
tion is passed over, for Zerubbabel was reaUy grandson of Shealtiel (1 Ch. in. 17-19),
though caUed his son in Ez. iii. 2. In the Lucan genealogy the names number Seventy-
six, or rather seventy-five, since in iii. 27 Rhesa is probably a title (" head " or
"prince") attached to Zerubbabel. Abiud (Mt.) and Joda (Lk.) probably each
represent the Hodaiah of 1 Ch. iii. 24. If it is assumed that EUaMm and Josech were
both sons of Abiud (or Joda), and that the line of the former came to an end with
Jacob, then Joseph, who was the actual son of HeU, became Jacob's heir. If this
method of adjusting the two genealogies be correct, it wiU be seen that in Mt. the
verb eyhvrjo-e is used in some places (i. 12, 16) in a non-literal sense. 1 The most probable
reason for the special mention by Mt. of unchaste women (Tamar, Bahab, and Bath-
sheba) and of the Moabitess Buth (cf . Dt. xxiii. 3) is that it was to show the Jews that
any reproach cast unjustly on Mary could be retorted with justice in connexion with
some of the ancestresses of their own royal hne. Neither genealogy relates to Mary,
whose lineage, according to Jewish ideas, would not affect that of her child : from
the fact that in Lk. i. 36 she is regarded as the kinswoman of EUzabeth, belonging to
the tribe of Levi, it might be inferred that she was not of David's stock, though the
1 In Mt. i. 16 there are some important variant readings containing this Word :
(a) The cursives 13, 69, 124 and others of the Ferrar group (p. 132) have 'IttK(i/3
Si tyivvfjae rdv 'Iiio-rji> # janjo-revBelo-a wapBivos Mapia/J, eyivVijo-ev 'Jtjo-ovv rov \ey6ji£VoV
Xpurrdv. With this text most MSS. of the Old Lat. agree.
(6) The Sinaitic Syriac has : Jacob begat Joseph. Joseph, to whom was betrothed
Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus called the Messiah. In v. 21 this MS. (supported by Syr.
our.) has she shall bear to thee a son ; and in v. 25 has and she bore a son to him and he
called, etc. One MS. of the Old Latin also omits knew her not till.

360 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
kinship of the two might be only on the maternal side, and in Lk. ii. 4 the Sinaitic
Syriac implies that both Joseph and Mary belonged to the house of David.
Though popularly Jesus was regarded as the son of Joseph (Mt. xiii. 55, Lk. iv. 22),
and Mary herself refers to her husband as Jesus' father (Lk. ii. 48), both Mt. and Lk.
affirm that Mary was a virgin when she became the mother of Jesus. The First Evan
geUst relates how Joseph to whom she was espoused, when he learnt, before marriage,
her condition, intended to put her away privately (the annulling of a betrothal, since
the man was virtually the husband of the woman (Gen. xxix. 21, Dt. xxu. 23, 24),
in strictness requiring a formal separation, cf. Mk. x. 2) ; but in a dream was warned
by an angel that she had conceived through Holy Spirit (i.e. the creative power of
God) and that the Son to Whom she would give birth should be caUed Jesus (p. 358)
because He should save His people from their sins ; how in this way (according to
the historian) the prediction in Is. vii. 14 was fulfiUed ; how Joseph acted upon the
admonition and took Mary to be his wife ; and how in due course her Son was born,
the place of His nativity being Bethlehem, which the sequel of the narrative imphes
to have been the home of Mary and her husband. Lk.'s account, though not designed
to supplement Mt.'s (since there is Uttle or nothing to suggest that either Evangelist knew
the work of the other), is largely complementary of it, carrying back the story to an
earlier stage ; but in some respects it conveys a different impression from Mt.'s.
The home of the betrothed pair was Nazareth (i. 26, 27), where the angel Gabriel (p.
352) announced to Mary. that through the descent upon her of Holy Spirit, she would
bear a Son Who would in consequence be caUed Son of the Most High, and Who would
receive the throne of His ancestor David and endless sovereignty. Mary was strength
ened in her faith in the angel's communication by being told that her kinswoman
Elizabeth had, though old, conceived a child (p. 352) ; and to verify the fact she
visited the latter, who recognized, through the movement of her unborn babe,1 that
Mary was the destined mother of the Messiah. Mary therefore gave utterance to
the Magnificat,2 and shortly afterwards returned to her home. Before the birth of
her Child she and Joseph, in consequence of an imperial decree directing an enrolment
of the population (p. 343), went to Bethlehem in Judah,3 since Joseph belonged to
the house of David. There, crowded out of the ordinary lodging place,4 they found
shelter in a cattle-staU, where the Child was born, and was laid by His mother in a
manger. The two accounts, if historical, may be regarded as derived from Joseph and Mary
respectively ; but their value as history has been much disputed. The foUowing
are in brief the principal considerations urged in favour of their substantial accuracy.
(as) The narratives are mutually independent ; but although they are not quite
consistent in detaU, they agree in representing that Mary while still a virgin conceived
through the influence of the Divine Spirit, and that her Son was born at Bethlehem.
The communications through angels can be regarded merely as a Semitic method of
indicating that certain inward convictions were really intimations from God (cf.
p. 352). (b) The silence of Mk., Q, St. Paul, and the Fourth Evangelist admit of explanation.
1 For ea/clprijo-ev in this connection cf. Gen. xxv. 22 (LXX).
* It has been debated whether this was originaUy put into the mouth of Mary or
EUzabeth (i. 46). All Greek MSS. and almost aU versions ascribe it to the former ;
but three MSS. of the Old Latin version (a, b, 1) attribute it to the latter. The facts
(a) that in v. 56 the statement " Mary abode with her " (EUzabeth) suggests that
Elizabeth was the speaker of vv. 46-55, (jS) that the hymn is based on the Song of
Hannah (1 Sam. ii. 1-10), and that Elizabeth's position, and not Mary's, resembled
that of Hannah (a married woman who had conceived after a long period of chUd-
lessness) favour the oonolusion that the hymn is hers. But the omission from it of
any v. corresponding to 1 Sam. ii. 5b, whioh would be most appropriate to EUza
beth, and the preponderant weight of the textual authorities assigning it to Mary,
seem decisive for the latter (see Emmet, Eschatological Question in the Gospel, p. 175 f.).
8 There was a Bethlehem in Gahlee, once belonging to Zebulun (Josh. xix. 15).
* The term Kara\vp.a moans " guest-ohamber " in Lk. xxu. 11, but "lodging
place " in Ex. iv. 24 (LXX).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 361
Mk. embodies only the Apostles' (particularly St. Peter's) personal witness to Jesus'
ministry ; but that the author was acquainted with the Virgin Birth is suggested
by his avoidance of the expression " the son of Joseph " in connexion with Jesus,
Whom he caUs " the son of Mary " (vi. 3). The document Q was almost exclusively
a record of Christ's teaching. St. Paul dwells so httle upon the facts of our Lord's
earthly Ufe that his sUence is in no way remarkable ; but by the parallel drawn between
Jesus and Adam (Rom. v. 12-21) he suggests that His birth, Uke the origin of Adam,
was a new creative act of God. The author of the Fourth Gospel was certainly
acquainted with the First and Third Gospels (p. 217), so that it was unnecessary for
him to supply what was already narrated in them ; nevertheless he betrays his know
ledge of the Virgin Birth by recording Mary's expectation at Cana that her Son could
work miracles (ii. 3-5).
(c) The difficulty of explaining how narratives of such an Hebraic character as
those in Mt. i., Lk. ii. can have been invented is greater than that involved in accepting
them as founded on fact. In the Hebrew Scriptures there is no instance (on which
the New Testament account might be supposed to be modelled) where a virgin is
represented as becoming a mother through Divine Power ; and the prophecy in Is.
vii. 14 (LXX), predicting that a virgin is to bear a Son, is isolated in the Old Testament.
and being quoted in the New Testament by Mt. only, is not Ukely to have produced
the narratives in question.
(d) The very idea of the Incarnation of the Son of God seems to involve the neces
sity of His birth otherwise than by the ordinary process of human generation ; and
the most natural way in which a Divine Personality can be imagined to have assumed
human flesh is by being conceived and born of a virgin mother.
(e) Without a departure from the normal mode of birth the taint of moral corrup
tion inherited by men from Adam (or if the account of the Fall in Gen. iii. be discarded
as serious history (cf. p. 655), the moral infirmity universal in mankind) would have
attached to our Lord. The miracle of His sinlessness requires for Him a miraculous
physical origin, involving both His community with human nature and His exemption
from its proneness to sin.1
Some counter-considerations, stated with equal brevity, are as foUows : —
(a) The conclusion that the accounts in question are historical is not easUy recon-
cUed with the impression left by Mk. of Jesus' relations with His own fannly and
with John the Baptist, (a) It is difficult to suppose that, had Mary been aware that
her ChUd was of supernatural origin, she would have taken part in an effort to put
restraint upon His actions (Mk. iii. 21, 31). (_3) It is strange that the Baptist
suspected Jesus to be His predicted successor only from the reports heard about Him
(Mt. xi. 2, 3 =Lk. vii. 18, 19) when he could scarcely have failed, if Lk. i. 39-45 is
historical, to be made acquainted with the truth by bis mother EUzabeth.
(6) If the Virgin Birth was a fact, it is reasonable to think that Mary would have
disclosed it, after the wonder of the Besurrection, to the Apostles, from whom infor
mation would have reached St. Mark (the interpreter of St. Peter), St. Paul, and
others. Mk.'s use of the phrase " son of Mary " instead of " son of Joseph " is com
patible with the supposition that Joseph, at the time aUuded to, was dead.2 St.
Paul's statement that " God sent forth His Son born of a woman " clearly involves
no necessary reference to our Lord's birth of a virgin (see Mt. xi. 11 ; Job xiv. 1).
And the tone of Mary's address to her Son in Joh. ii. 5, whilst it is in keeping with the
Johannine representation that quite early in Jesus' ministry His Messiahship was
known to many (see i. 36, 41, 49), does not carry with it any conclusive inference as
to the writer's acceptance of the narratives of His birth in Mt. and Lk.
(c) If the historical testimony to the Virgin Birth appears defective, the alterna
tive is not to suppose that the account of it was produced solely in consequence of
the prophecy in Is. vii. 14 (LXX), and designed to supply a fulfilment of it. It is
more probable that increasing reflection upon the title " Son of God " caused the
moment when Jesus became " the Son " to be carried back in Christian thought
1 See Gore, Dissertations, pp. 1-68 ; Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus ; Plummer,
St. Mt., p. 3 f. ; St. Luke, p. 35 ; McNeile, St. Mt. pp. 10-13.
2 Cf. 2 Sam. iii. 39 (of Joab and Abishai) " the sons of Zeruiah,"

362 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
from His Baptism, when the Holy Spirit came (according to Mk. i. 11) upon Jesus
Himself, to His conception, which was traced to the Spirit's descent upon His mother.
But the tendency to seek in the Old Testament predictions relating to Jesus would
draw attention to Is. vii. 14 ; and the rendering of it in the LXX * was calculated to
react upon the behefs of the Church. It has been conjectured that in Lk. i. the last
clause of v. 34 has been introduced into an older version of Jesus' Birth : vv. 32, 35
need not meafti more than that Mary's offspring was to be a human Messiah (cf. Ps.
ii. 7, Is. ix. 6, 7), and mention to Mary (v. 36) of Ehzabeth's pregnancy in her old
age is more naturaUy understood as a Sign of the future eminence of the ChUd she
was to bear than of His supernatural origin (for this latter would be self-manifest
to the mother, if she conceived before union with her husband, and would not require
a premonitory token, whereas a prediction of future greatness for a child born in the
usual way would call for the guarantee of a previous sign that could at once be tested). 2
(d) In our prof ound ignorance of God it is impossible to determine from antecedent
presumptions how the union of the Divine with the human in One Who was both " Son
of God " and a son of man must have been conditioned. To some it wiU appear
most reasonable to suppose that His Divine sonship was constituted by perfect spiritual
, communion between Him and the Father rather than by His having entered the world
through a unique process of physical generation. It is clear, at any rate, that two of
the Evangehsts could relate the hfe of Him Whom they beheved to be the Son of God
(Mk. i. 1, Joh. xx. 31) without recording that He was born of a virgin.
(e) It is not very comprehensible how the entail of corrupt propensities in human
nature could [have been severed by our Lord through His not having a human father,
so long as He had a human mother, who inherited and could transmit it. And if
such severance were possible, it would only render Him less qualified to be an example
to mankind. His abihty to sustain men under stress of temptation is expressly con
nected by the writer of Hebrews with His having been likewise tempted (ii. 18) :
the reasoning would plainly lose in cogency if the power of resistance in His case and
theirs were essentiaUy different. And it is remarkable that St. Paul, who of the New
Testament writers dwells most upon the depravity transmitted by Adam to his pos
terity (p. 649), is silent about the Virgin Birth of Jesus. 3
St. Luke relates that the birth of Jesus was announced to some shepherds (watching
by night their flocks in the fields) by an angel who, as proof of his words that a ChUd,
born that day in the city of David, was Messiah Lord, explained the circumstances
in which He would be found ; and that there then appeared a multitude of other
angels proclaiming " Glory to God in the highest height, And on earth peace among
men of His favour." 4 The shepherds put the angel's message to the test, and finding
the Child as described, caused great astonishment When they related their experiences.
Luke proceeds to record the circumcision of Jesus (cf . Lev. xii. 3) Who then received
His name (cf. Lie. i. 59), the Purification of Mary,6 the Presentation (or consecration)
of her Child to the Lord (cf . Ex. xiii. 12, 13, 1 Sam. i. 24-28), and the offering by Mary
of the sacrifice required on the former occasion (Lev. xn. 8), which would not be earher
than forty-one days after the birth of her Son.6 When the Christ-child was taken
into the Temple He was seen there by two aged and devout persons, Simeon and
Anna, who both spoke of His mission and destiny, the utterance of the former including
1 The Heb. word which is represented in the LXX by wapBivos means a young
woman of marriageable age, without any imphcation of virginity ; and even irapOhos
itself is in one passage used of a girl who was not a virgin (Gen. xxxiv. 3).
2 Cf. Lk. ii. 12.
3 Cf. B. Weiss, Life of Christ, i. p. 230 (E.T.).
4 In the Song of the Angels the reading ev avdpilmois eiSoiclas (H A B D, Lat. Eg.
(sah^ ) ) renders the hymn a distich and makes the clauses more symmetrical than the
alternative ev avBp&irois eiSoKla (L P, etc., Syr. Eg. (boh.) ), for this involves a
triple arrangement, with no conjunction between the second and third members,
which are almost tautological.
6 Edersheim, Life and Times, etc, i. p. 194.
" In Lk. ii. 22 atirQv is probably a subjective gen., and refers to the Jews : cf.
Mk. i. 44 (aiVois);

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 363
the Nunc Dimittis. After the rites were ended, Jesus returned with Mary and Joseph
to Nazareth. The story of the herald angels is obviously poetry rather than history. If a Hebrew
poet could declare that at the Creation the morning stars sang together and aU the
sons of God shouted for joy ( Job xxxviii. 7), it would be felt to be not less appropriate
that the heavenly host should hymn the opening act of human Bedemption (cf. Lk.
xv. 7). The pubhc testimony borne by Simeon and Anna in the Temple to Jesus
as the Messiah is difficult to reconcile not only with the lack of insight in regard to
Him afterwards manifested by His relations but also with the widespread surprise
and incredulity which He encountered during His ministry. The narrative may
have been created by the conviction that the childhood of One who was the Author
of salvation could not have passed without some intimation of the truth faUing from
prophetic Ups.
Whereas Lk. represents that Jesus was taken back to Nazareth after the rites in
the Temple were completed, Mt. imphes a stay of more than a, year at Bethlehem,
and relates an incident which occurred when the ChUd was between one and two.
Whilst Herod the Great was stiU on the throne (p. 342), there arrived at Jerusalem
certain Magians1 (or astrologers) from the East,2 inquiring where they could find
and worship the new-born King of the Jews, whose star they had seen at its rising.
Herod hearing of their errand, and ascertaining that the Messiah was expected to be
born at Bethlehem (in accordance with Mic. v. 2, cf. Joh. vii. 42), learnt from the
Magians when the star first appeared, so that he could infer the Child's age, and com
manded them to inform him when they had found Him. Guided by the star to the
house where the Child and His mother were dwelling, they gave Him gifts of homage,
gold and frankincense and myrrh ; but, in consequence of a dream, they returned
home without again seeing Herod. Joseph, by direction of an angel seen in a dream*
took the ChUd to Egypt, and so saved Him from Herod, who, since his first plan for
destroying Him was foUed by the Magians, sought to gain his end by putting to death
aU the male chUdren in Bethlehem under two years of age (cf. Jer. xxxi. 15). When
Herod died, Joseph, informed by an angel in a dream as before, returned from Egypt
with the ChUd (cf. Hos. xi. 1) ; but learning that Archelaus had become king of Judsea,
refrained, through fear, from dwelling again in Bethlehem, and retired to Nazareth
(in Gahlee (ruled by Antipas) ), so that Jesus became known as a Nazarene.
Whether this narrative is substantiaUy true or is the creation of fancy is a matter
of debate. It may be argued that there prevaUed a widespread expectation of a New
Age,3 that stars were deemed the celestial counterparts of great personaUties (cf.
p. 60), that some Eastern astrologers, acquainted with Hebrew Messianic prophecies,
may have inferred from the appearance in the heavens of a nova, that the Ipredieted
King had been born amongst the Jews, and that they came to investigate the truth.
A serious obstacle to the acceptance of the story as history is that after such an incident
as that recounted, the lack of faith in Jesus shown by His family is almost inexplicable.
If the narrative owes its origin to the imagination it may be accounted for by (i) the
wish to show that the extension of a knowledge of Christ among the Gentiles was
foreshadowed in His chUdhood ; (ii) an inclination to draw paraUels between Jesus
and Moses and between Jesus and Israel by representing that (a) His life was sought
by a contemporary Jewish king as Moses' was by Pharaoh,4 and (/3) that He, Uke the
Israelite people, after sojourning in Egypt, came out from it. A reason why Herod
the Great and not Archelaus (in whose reign Jesus was probably born, p. 342) is
depicted as the tyrant can be discovered in his notorious jealousy and cruelty (p. 48).
1 Magi, originaUy the name of a Median tribe constituting a priestly order among
the Persians (Hdt. i. 101, 132), came to be used generaUy of Magicians (cf. Dan. ii. 2 ;
Acts viu. 9 (piayeiwv), xui. 6, 8).
2 Justin, c. Tryph. 78, has oi airb 'kpafilas pAyoi.
8 Cf. Verg. E. iv. 6, 7 (written in 40 B.C.), lam, redit et Virgo (Astraea), redeunt Satumia
regno, ; iam nova progenies calo demittit/ur alto.
* See Box, Virgin Birth of Jesus, pp. 20, 21, who observes (p. 12) that Mt. i., u.
seem " to exhibit . . . the characteristic features of Jewish Midrash oi Haggada."
Midrash has been defined as " a didactic or homUetic exposition or an edifying
reUgipus story" (Driver, L.O.T. p. 497). See also p. 98 above.

364 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
As Herod ruled over Gahlee and other adjoining regions as weU as Judsea, Egypt was
the most natural place of refuge for his intended victim. The passages cited from
the Old Testament (Hos. xi. 1, Jer. xxxi. 15) did not create the account,1 but were
adduced to iUustrate it after it had taken shape ; it is noteworthy that Num. xxiv. 17
is not included among them in connexion with Mt. ii. 2. What prophecy is aUuded
to in Mt. n. 23 is obscure ; probably it is Is. xi. 1, where the Heb. for " branch " is

The only other incident in the early life of Jesus that finds a place in Gospel records
is narrated by St. Luke, who relates that He was taken, when twelve years old, by
Mary and Joseph to Jerusalem on the occasion of the annual Passover festival. When
they started on the return journey, Jesus, without their knowledge, remained behind ;
and it was not until He had been missing for three days that they came back to the
city and discovered Him in the Temple courts seeking instruction from the teachers
gathered there (cf. Acts xxii. 3), who were astonished at His inteUigence. When He
was found, His mother remonstrated with Him ; but Jesus expressed surprise that
they did not reaUze that it was His duty to be in His Father's house. 2 The fact that
His answer was not understood cannot but cast some further doubt upon the historical
reahty of the narratives just recounted.
As mention has been made of the " brethren ' ' of Jesus (p. 359) it is desirable to con
sider here the precise relationship impUed.8 Three opinions have been held, distin
guished as (a) the Helvidian, (b) the Epiphanian, (c) the Hieronymian, these being
so called from their respective supporters in the fourth century, Helvidius (circ.
a.d. 380), Epiphanius (circ. 370) and Jerome (Hieronymus, circ. 342—420).
(a) The Helvidian view (previously entertained by TertuUian) represents that they
were the younger children of Mary by Joseph. This is the most natural inference
from the language of the Evangehsts in Mt. i. 25, Lk. ii. 7 (" her first-born son ").
It is stated in Joh. vii. 5 that the brethren of Jesus before Wis resurrection did not
beheve in Him, and their disbeUef is borne out by the conduct ascribed to them in
Mk. iii. 21 (p. 392). The conversion of James, the eldest of them (Mk. vi. 3), was
doubtless caused by the appearance to him of our Lord after His death (1 Cor. xv. 7) ;
and James probably convinced his brothers of their previous error (cf. Acts i. 14).
The chief difficulties attaching to the Helvidian theory arise from two circumstances :
(a) that the attempted control of Jesus by His " brethren " suggests that they were
older and not younger than He ; (j3) that when dying, He commended His mother
to the care of St. John and not to His " brethren," which seems to imply that they
were not Mary's children at aU. But these difficulties are adequately met by the
pleas (a) that, if aU the four named in Mk. vi. 3 had by that time reached manhood,
their interference with Jesus under the impression that His mind was unhinged ia
not unnatural, even though they were His juniors ; (/3) that if they were aU married
before the date of the Crucifixion and not present at the scene of it, a sufficient explana
tion is afforded of our Lord's act in consigning Mary to the charge of St. John, who
may have been her nephew (p. 365).
(6) The Epiphanian view, which had been favoured by Origen, maintains that the
brethren of Jesus were the sons of Joseph, not by Mary, but by a former wife. This
opinion seems to have arisen from the unwillingness to beUeve that Mary, after having
borne the Son of God, could have given birth to other chUdren. There is no evidence
that Mary was Joseph's second wife, and the only argument for this view furnished
by the Gospel narrative is the attitude of our Lord's brethren towards Him in Mk.
in. 21, which has been considered above.
(c) The Hieronymian view, as explained by St. Jerome and developed by others,
regards our Lord's " brethren " as strictly His maternal cousins. James, the eldest
1 The passage in Jeremiah relates to the departure of the Jews into exUe in 587
B.C., which is imagined as bewailed by Rachel, buried in Ramah, five mUes north of
Jerusalem. The evangehst has brought Rachel into connexion with the massaore
at Bethlehem seemingly through the association of Rachel's grave with Ephrath or
Bethlehem in Gen. xxxv. 19.
2 For this rendering of ev tois toO irarpSs /to" of. Gen. xli. 51 LXX ; for the alter
native " about my Father's business," of. Mk. viu. 33.
3 See Lightfoot, Gal. p. 252 f. ; Mayor, St. James, p. i. f.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 865
of the brothers, is identified arbitrarily with James, son of Alphasus ; and Alphseus
is identified with Clopas (both names being assumed to represent the same Aramaic
original, Halphai), whose wife, Mary, is supposed to be one with the Mary described
as mother of James the Little and of Joses (Mk. xv. 40), and with the sister of our
Lord's mother (Joh. xix. 25). It foUows, then, that James and Joses, together with
Judas x and Simon (Mk. vi. 3) were reaUy cousins of Jesus. A variety of this theory
represents the brothers as the paternal cousins of Jesus, Alphseus (or Clopas) being
regarded as brother of Joseph, a view having the authority of Hegesippus (Eus. H.E.
iii. 11). There are some serious difficulties attending both forms of the theory, (a)
Although it is possible that ade\tp6s might be used in Greek for " cousin " (hke the
corresponding word in Hebrew (1 Ch. xxiii. 21, 22) and the Latin frater), it is improbable
in the New Testament, where dve\pi6s is employed (Col. iv. 10). (/3) It is almost
impossible to suppose that any of our Lord's brethren can have been included among
His disciples during His lifetime, in view of the statement in Joh. vn. 5. (7) The
identification of the wife of Clopas and mother of James and Joses with the sister of
our Lord's mother (Joh. xix. 25) is not very plausible, since it involves the assumption
that two sisters bore the same name ; a more Ukely supposition is that Mary's
sister was Salome, the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John. (5) It is
unhkely that the " brethren of the Lord," if the sons of Mary and Clopas and cousins
of Jesus, should be mentioned so often in company with our Lord's mother, who on
this theory was only their aunt (see Mk. in. 31 ; Joh. ii. 12). (e) The theory makes
it logicaUy necessary to understand our Lord's words in Mk. in. 34, 35, " my brethren
. . . my brother and sister," to mean " my cousins," which is unnatural.
Of the three views here discussed the Helvidian appears the best grounded.
§ 2. The Baptism and Temptation of Jesus
It is rather difficult to determine the motive which led Jesus to come to
John to be baptized. But the fact (which the subsequent narrative
makes clear) that He had not yet attained to a full consciousness of His
relations to God and His future destiny renders possible some solution of
the problem. It seems, indeed, inadmissible to assume in order to account
for His action, that He was already beginning " to bear upon His heart the
burden of the sins of others, even as . . . He was to bear them in His body
on the tree,"2 so that He submitted to the rite vicariously. Nor again
does it appear appropriate to think of Him, just at this stage, as seeking to
consecrate Himself to His life's work 3 ; and the less so, inasmuch as there
seems no instance elsewhere of water being used as a medium for con
secration. An explanation, however, may perhaps be found in another
direction. Since even at a later time than this Jesus asked of one who
addressed Him as " Good Master," why he called Him good, and declared
none to be good save God, it is intelligible that He, however unsullied by
actual sin, could feel that mere experience of temptation (to which it is
recognized that He was exposed (Mk.i. 13, Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15) ) made baptism
fitting for Him as for others. " To have been tempted is to have seen sin
face to face,"4 and to have become sensible of the need of such spiritual

1 In Lk. vi. 16 " Judas of James," one of the Twelve, is understood to mean
Judas brother of James (cf. Jude 1). Some have thought that Simon the Zealot,
also among the Twelve, was the Simon enumerated among the Lord's brethren in
Mk. vi. 3.
2 See Hastings, D.C.G. i. p. 864.
3 AUen, St. Mark, p. 55.
* Thompson, Jesus according to St. Mark, p. 117.

366 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
help as a symbolic act could supply. A consciousness of imperfection
presupposed in all process of growth and development (cf . Lk. ii. 52) might
well cause Him to wish to brace Himself for the better achieving of whatever
God might require of Him by submitting to a rite significant of a self-
committal to a life of increased devotion to the Divine will.
The place where Jesus was baptized is not stated in the earhest accounts : only
in the Fourth Gospel (Joh. i. 28 and its context) is it imphed that it was Bethany or
Bethabara beyond Jordan, and these localities are not easy to identify (p. 8). Prom
the narrative of the Baptism contained in Mk. and Lk. it appears a reasonable inference
that Jesus was not recognized by John as the destined Successor of whom he spoke
(p. 356), though the contrary is virtuaUy affirmed in Mt. iii. 14, where it is added that
John would have hindered Him from His purpose, asserting that he had need to be
baptized (with Holy Spirit) by Jesus ; but that the latter persisted, declaring that it
became Him an__ others (rjji.lv) to fulfil aU righteousness. The supposition that John
did not know Him explains the inquiry which, when he was in prison, he sent to Jesus
(p. 404). Moreover it is unhkely that if John had been convinced of the Messiahship
of Jesus before, or at the moment when, he baptized Him, any of his disciples would
have been aUowed to constitute an independent body caUed after his own name (Mt.
xi. 2 (=Lk. vii. 18), Acts xviii. 25, xix. 3), instead of becoming foUowers of the Christ.
The Baptism of Jesus was the occasion when probably for the first
time He realized His relation to God and God's people, and had to face
the question what His part in the accomplishment of God's purposes was
designed to be. As He came up out of the water He saw the heavens
rent asunder, and the Divine Spirit as a dove descending into Him ; and a
Voice came out of the heavens, " Thou art my Son, the Beloved, in thee I
am well pleased-" The narrative, presumably derived in the last resort
from Jesus Himself, is evidently symbolical in character, representing
dramatically with the help of external imagery the moment when within
Him there first emerged into full consciousness the internal con
viction that He was the Messiah of God, and, for the purpose of dis
charging so august an office, was endued with the Divine Spirit. The
moment was probably the climax of a protracted process of reflection and
introspection, which, in the spiritual tension accompanying the reception
of Baptism, had reached a clear issue. If it is permissible to distinguish
some of the factors which humanly speaking contributed to the conclusion,
they may have included the foUowing : (a) the influence of prophecy,
which led Him to cherish with peculiar intensity the prevalent expectation
of a Messiah ; (6) the impression produced by John's declaration that his
own mission was only preliminary to the advent of a Mightier Personahty ;
(c) a sense of being in possession of a profound insight into God's character
and requirements, and of a harmony of will between Himself and the
Almighty, such as subsists between a Son and a Father ; (d) the discovery
of the presence in Himself of unusual psychical endowments, enabling Him
to produce by an exertion of will-power marvellous effects upon other
minds and bodies. Of these factora the most decisive and fundamental
was the third. For as regards the fourth, though at a subsequent date our
Lord appealed to His abihty to work miracles as evidence of His being
endowed with the Holy Spirit, yet miracles were no conclusive proof that
the Spirit animating one who performed them was good and not evil

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 367
(Dt. xiii. 1-3, Mk. xiii. 22). And, as will be seen, a choice between
divergent ends to which the exercise of supernormal powers might be
directed afforded occasion, in the case of Jesus, for a series of severe
spiritual conflicts.
The expressions and imagery marking the description of Jesus' inward
experiences at His Baptism have their origin in the Old Testament. The
dove as a symbol of the Spirit seems to be a development of the idea
underlying the figure of speech in Gen. i. 2, where the Divine Spirit is said
to have " brooded " (like a bird) upon the face of the waters at the Creation.
By Philo the turtle dove (rgvyojv) is represented as an emblem of Divine
wisdom, being a bird of solitary habits and accustomed to soar aloft, in
contrast to the pigeon (nsgiorsgd), which signifies human intelligence,
since it is tame and mixes with men. If Philo drew upon some current
system of symbolism, it is possible that the same may be the immediate
origin of the imagery here, though the word used is not rgvyoiv but nsgiorsgd. x
The words uttered by the heavenly Voice (for which cf. Dan. iv. 31 and
see p. 108) reproduce those of Jehovah to the Messianic King in Ps. ii. 7,
but in a modified form, Yldg /iov si av, iyd> a'/jfiegov yeyiwrjxd as being
replaced by Zv si 6 Yldg fiov d dyanrjrdg, iv aoi eiSdxrjaa (though D and
some other " Western " authorities seem to have assimilated the text
here to that of the psalm). The epithet " The Beloved " (6 dyanrjrdg),
here addressed to Jesus, is a title applied to Israel in Is. v. 1, whilst the
equivalent, 6 rjyanrjfiivog, is also used of Israel in 2 7s. xliv. 2 (cf. also
Dt. xxxii. 15, xxxiii. 5).2
Some smaU but noteworthy variations from Mk.'s account of the Baptism of Jesus
are introduced by the other two Synoptists. Both substitute in connexion with
the Spirit's descent upon Jesus the preposition iirl (cf . 2 Is. xhi. i) for Mk.'s els, whilst
Lk. represents the Spirit as being " in bodily form " hke a dove and Jesus as praying
at the time. The words of the Voice from heaven are given in Mt. as " This is my
son, the Beloved, in whom I am weU pleased," a change which imphes that the address
was regarded by the First Evangehst as an assurance about Jesus imparted to John ;
whereas Lk. follows Mk.'s version.
The clearness of conviction with which Jesus at His baptism appre
hended His exceptional relation to God was not unaccompanied by
uncertainty on many points. The consciousness of being the Son of God,
and of being endowed through the Divine Spirit with mysterious powers,
still left obscure the objects for which He might draw upon them, the
extent to which He might presume upon God's protective care, and the
course of action whereby He could best accomplish the end which God
desired. For the leisure and reflection needed for a solution of such
problems a return to His own home, close to the busy arteries of traffic
which intersected Galilee, and to the populous shores of its lake (p. 3),
offered no fit opportunity. Only in the solitude of the wilderness could the
spiritual struggle, as opposing alternatives presented themselves to Him,
1 See Conybeare, Expositor, June 1894.
2 Cf. the application to Jesus of Hos. xi. 1, (originaUy relating to Israel) in Mt.
ii. 15.

368 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
be fought out. And so He felt impelled to withdraw1 into some lonely
region (the locality of which is quite unknown, though tradition has placed
it near Jericho) in order to decide whether various suggestions that forced
themselves upon Him called for adoption or for rejection. But though
it was during the period spent in the wilderness that such spiritual debate
was most intense (inasmuch as certain initial decisions had to be reached),
yet seasons of inward conflict must often have recurred all through His
life (cf. Lk. iv. 13 6 SidfioXog Aniarrj an airov &xgi xaigov, xxii. 28), as
the pressure of material circumstances, the opposition of foes, or the
promptings of friends revived past trials and solicitations (Mk. viii. 33,
Joh. vi. 15) and created fresh misgivings. Though His behef in His
Messiahship, once acquired, does not seem to have really faltered, yet it
was not until after some considerable interval that it became robust
enough to be avowed even to His most intimate companions.
The account, which occurs in both Mt. and Lk., and was doubtless
derived by them from Q, must in substance come from communications
imparted by Jesus at a later date to His followers. It is marked by the
same externalizing of purely spiritual experiences which is discernible in
the story of the Baptism, and Jesus Himself is known to have used such a
fashion of speech (Lk. x. 18) ; though there are features in the narrative
(Mt. iv. 2 (= Lk. iv. 2), 11) which look as if they had been introduced into
it through the literary influence of the Old Testament. The temptations
with which Jesus is represented as assailed by the Devil are three in number,
but the order of the second and third is different in the two Evangelists.
That of Mt. seems psychologically to be the most probable, and is adopted
here. Jesus, after fasting forty days (for this figure cf . Ex. xxiv. 18 (Moses),
1 Kg. xix. 8 (Elijah) ) became a-hungered, and was approached by the
Tempter who bade Him, if He were Son of God, convert the stones about
Him into bread, and to whom He replied by quoting the words of Dt. viii. 3
LXX, " Man shall not live on bread alone [which in the original passage
refers to the manna], but on every word that proceedeth from the mouth
of God " 2 (cf . Joh. iv. 34). The idea intended to be conveyed must be that
Jesus, under stress of physical needs, felt an impulse to put to the proof
His filial relationship to God by trying whether it empowered Him to work
a miracle to relieve His wants ; and to doubt the reality of His Sonship,
should the power to do so be withheld. But the true proof of Sonship was
obedience to His Father's monitions and the discharge of the duty com
mitted to Him. Next, the Devil took Him (in spirit) to a wing-like pro
jection (perhaps a cornice) of the Temple cloisters3 (p. 90), and again
casting doubt upon His being Son of God, directed Him, if He were truly
such, to cast Himself down, in reliance upon the promise, in Ps. xci. (xc.)
11, 12, LXX, of angelic protection. Jesus' reply was again a quotation
from Dt. (vi. 16, LXX), " Thou shalt not put to the proof the Lord thy
1 With Mk. i. 12, rb irvevna airrbv exfidWei kt\. should perhaps be compared
1 Kg. xviii. 12 ; 2 Kg. ii. 16 ; Acts viu. 39.
' The seoond clause is absent from Lk.
" The Greek is rb Trepiyiov toO lepov (not tou vaoP].

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 369
God." The test of Sonship which, in this case, suggested itself was to
discover whether, if He were really God's Son, His Father would shield
Him from harm, even though He should place Himself deliberately in
harm's way. Possibly the thought of the particular test to be applied
occurred to Him from the recollection of what He had seen as a youth on
the occasion of one of the annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem, for on some
lofty point of the Temple buildings a priest was every day stationed to
watch for the earliest sign of dawn in order to announce it as the signal
for offering the morning sacrifice.1 Finally, the Devil took Him to a high
mountain (Lk. merely has " led Him up ") and showing to Him2 from
thence all the kingdoms of the world, over which he claimed control
(cf . Joh. xiv. 30), offered them to Him on condition that He would worship
him. In answer Jesus bade Satan depart, and drawing once more upon
Dt. quoted the injunction in vi. 13 in the form " Thou shalt worship3 the
Lord thy God, and Him alone thou shalt serve." The Devil then left Him
and angels came and ministered to Him (cf. 1 Kg. xix. 5, 6 (Elijah) ). The
nature of this last temptation differed from that of the two earlier. Mis
givings as to His filial relation to God ceased to be felt ; but there were two
ways of achieving the universal supremacy promised in prophecy to God's
Son, the Messiah. One was to adopt the worldly methods of force and
violence, involving allegiance to the prince of this world ; the other was to
prevail through the spirit of meekness and patience, whatever the experi
ences which God might require Him to undergo. From the decision to
which Jesus now came, He never swerved.
- The narrative in various ways illuminates the development of our Lord's
character. It demonstrates that the sinlessness which the New Testament
writers recognize as marking Him was consequent not upon exemption
from suggestions to sin but upon conquest over them. It shows, too, that
(as might be expected) He had steeped Himself in the study of the Hebrew
Scriptures, and drew upon them for support and guidance in repelling the
assaults of temptation. It confirms the inference, deducible from other
evidence, that He shared the belief of His age in the existence of a pre
dominant evil Personality, the author of all forms of physical and moral ill.
Moreover, the account of the First and Second Temptations throws light
upon the limits within which He came to deem it permissible for Him
either to seek to exert the exceptional powers with which He found Himself
endowed, or to presume upon the omnipotence of God for His aid and
protection. He concluded (it would seem) that He might not use His
powers to satisfy His own needs, and that He might not expect God to
suspend the operation of His laws in response to eccentric demands.
The principal difference between Mt. and Lk. consists in the fact that Lk. places
last the Temptation of which the Temple is represented as the scene. Probably Mt.
adheres more closely to the original order ; Lk.'s motive, if it was he who departed
from that order, was perhaps a feeling that what occurred at Jerusalem could most
fittingly be regarded as the cUmax of the series. With Lk.'s oWyavy&K . . . fiyaye
in a spiritual or mental sense cf. Ezek. xxxvn. 1 (LXX), Rev. xvii 3 ; Mt. has irapa-
1 Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, i. p. 303.
2 Lk. adds "in a moment of time." 3 The LXX has shaU fear.
24

370 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
~Kap.l3avei. Mk 's account looks like an abbreviation of the longer one in Q (reproduced
in Mt. and Lk.) of which he probably had knowledge (see p. 164). His addition that
Jesus " was with the wild beasts " was probably designed to accentuate not so much
the idea of Jesus' loneliness as of His being in the haunts of demons, which were thought
of as dwelling, under animal forms, in desert places (cf. Mt. xii. 43, Lev. xvi. 10, and
see p. 94).
At the end of the period spent in the wilderness, Jesus returned with
His mind cleared as to certain issues. But a decision as to His immediate
course of action was the result of information which He received about
John the Baptist. The duration of the latter's ministry is unknown, but
was probably brief, perhaps only a few months (p. 342). It was brought to
an end by Herod Antipas (p. 50), who apprehended him when engaged in
preaching and baptizing on the other side of the Jordan (within his
territories), and committed him to prison at Machserus on the Dead Sea
(p. 9), and before long put him to death there (p. 406). The motive of
Antipas in arresting him is represented differently by Josephus and St. Mark
(whose account is adopted by the other Synoptists). The former (Ant.
xviii. 5, 2) states that it was due to the fear of John's influence over the
people, since it was in his power to raise a rebellion among them ; but the
latter attributes it to John's rebuke of Herod for marrying Herodias, his
niece and the wife of his brother Herod Philip, during her husband's life
time. The Herod Philip1 here meant is distinct from the Phihp (Herod's
son by Cleopatra) who ruled the tetrarchy of Trachonitis (p. 51). He was
the offspring of Herod by Mariamne,2 and had been named in his father's
first will (p. 48), but] was omitted from the second, and remained in a
private station. Antipas, journeying to Rome, had lodged with him,
and there met Herodias. A passion sprung up between them ; and it was
agreed that the two should marry as soon as Antipas could divorce his own
wife (who was daughter of the Nabatsean king Aretas). The latter, on
hearing of the compact, fled to her father ; and Antipas felt himself free to
carry out his desires in regard to Herodias. The consequent feud with
Aretas caused Antipas to take up his quarters at Machserus, as being near
the Arabian frontier where he might expect hostilities to develop^ St.
Mark's statement about the cause of the Baptist's imprisonment is not
absolutely incompatible with the representation of Josephus, but it is
difficult to understand how John, whilst at liberty, came into personal
contact with Antipas ; so that possibly he was really arrested in conse
quence of the tetrarch's fears lest the religious excitement caused by his
preaching might issue in a popular rising, and that the censure which he
passed upon the conduct of Antipas occurred during his captivity on the
occasion of an interview (cf. Felix and St. Paul, Acts xxiv. 26). The
tetrarch's feelings about John were mixed, and he could not make up his
mind what to do ; but Herodias' hatred for him was unrelenting, and the
revenge she took will come under notice later.
1 He is called Phihp (only) in the New Testament. In more than one case the
same name was borne by two or more cluldren of Herod, for two, if not three, sons
were caUed Antipater or AntipaS.
2 Two of Herod's wives were named Mariamne.

e>

Bethsaida yJulias o

Chorazin' q
(Ker&zeh) \
Capernaunv (Tell Hum) '-

°,£sr

irbetKhna)

0Cana? (KefrKenna)

Capernaum|
(Khan Minyeh) '

Magdalao (Mudel)

TIBERIAS

©NAZARETH

•M*;Tabor

THE
SEA OF GALILEE

Miles

C.E.R..

*** To illustrate the Galilean Ministry.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 371
§ 3. Jesus' Renewal of John's Announcement, and His Cure of
Diseases
It was apparently the tidings of John's arrest that determined for Jesus
His immediate course of action. This was the prosecution of the work
which, hitherto carried on by John, the tyranny of Antipas had now
interrupted ; the captivity of the first herald of the kingdom of God, if
the time of it could be ascertained, would date the commencement of his
Successor's efforts to proclaim the same message. The Fourth Gospel,
indeed, describes Him as making disciples in Judeea and baptizing there
(through the agency of those whom He had previously gathered about
Him) before John was arrested (Joh. iii. 22, iv. 1,2); but this representation
is probably unhistoric,1 being contradicted by the tradition preserved in
Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 23, 24, which implies that the beginning of Jesus'
preaching dated from the close of John's. It was not to Judsea but to
Galilee that He directed His steps after His return from the wilderness.
His motive for going to that district first of all was not (so far as may be
judged) that it was the neighbourhood of His home, since for some while
He avoided His own town Nazareth,2 but that He felt a profound sympathy
for those who, like the majority of the Galilseans, were deemed, by the
ecclesiastical leaders of the people outcasts from the pious circles of Israel.
To these whom their countrymen despised and who, less immersed in the
traditions of the Scribes than the population of Jerusalem and Judsea,
were Ukely to be more open to fresh spiritual influences, He was strongly
drawn ; and among them He might look to find a readier hearing than
among the denizens of the capital and its vicinity. Accordingly in their
cities and villages He began to renew the announcement which had
previously been the burden of John's utterances, that the kingdom of God
was at hand, and that those who sought to enter it must repent of the sins
wliich would else exclude them.3 The time when He embarked upon His
ministry, as far as it can be fixed with some probability, was the year
a.d. 28, the fifteenth of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (see p. 342), His
age being about thirty.
It is not stated exactly where He commenced to preach, but it seems
most likely that it was along the shores of the Galilean Lake. This was
fringed with flourishing towns, but so far as available evidence goes, it
was not the largest and most important (hke Tiberias), but the less con
siderable that He made the chief centres of His activity.
As has been said, the beginning of His ministry was a continuation of
the mission of John ; and the substance of His earliest proclamation was
the same (cf. Mk. i. 15 with Mt. iii. 2). There was, however, a distinction
1 That Jesus did not preach in Judsea prior to going to Gahlee is confirmed by
the fact that Scribes and Pharisees proceeded from Jerusalem to GaUlee in order to
interview and question Him (Mk. iu. 22, vii. 1).
2 Yet Mt. iv. 12 represents that He went from Judaea to Nazareth, and from the
latter town to Capernaum.
' In Mk. i. 15 the addition to repent ye of the words and believe in the Gospel, which
is pecuUar to the Second Gospel, is perhaps due to Pauline influence (see Menzies, The
Earliest Gospel, p. 64), or to later editing : cf . viii. 35, x. 29.

372 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
between them as regards both spirit and method. A difference of emphasis
caused Jesus' declarations about the approaching crisis to be more of a
Gospel — " good tidings " — than John's, in whose utterances the Judgment
had occupied more space than the Kingdom, and whose preaching is only
once described by the term EvayyeXifeodai (Lk. iii. 18) And this was
accompanied by a difference of bearing. John had pursued the severe
life of an ascetic ; his very garb contrasted with that of ordinary folk ;
he made his abode in solitary places, and those who desired to hear him had
to seek him there ; so that the people who were thus forced to leave their
customary resorts were by that very fact the more liable to have their
emotions violently stirred. But Jesus, less austere in His habits, betook
Himself to the dwellings of men, frequented their synagogues, shared on
occasions their simple pleasures, and so made His appeal to them more
temperately and tranquilly. And though He did not conceal from His
hearers the doom in store for the unrepentant (and as He increasingly
encountered hypocrisy and mahce His language grew stronger), yet He
addressed Himself to their reflection as well as to their iears, and laid
stress on the consolation that was soon to be forthcoming for the suffering
and the troubled. And a still more impressive contrast was presented by
the fact that whereas John did nothing to relieve the afflicted, Jesus
accompanied His preaching by numerous cures of the infirm and suffering
(cf. Joh. x. 41, Acts x. 38). The possession and exercise of this faculty of
healing could not fail to signalize Him as more amply endowed with the
Divine Spirit than His predecessor.
The Kingdom of God was an idea sufficiently familiar for Him to
assume that it would be inteUigible to His audiences, though the notions
which different individuals attached to it must have varied greatly. It
admitted of both a concrete meaning — an organized external polity ruled
by God either directly or through His appointed representatives and
ministers1 — and a more abstract sense — the supremacy of God and His
hoUness over human nature. The two were in a measure complementary,
for an external kingdom of which God was the ruler must involve the
suppression in it of everything base and unworthy, whUst the sovereignty
of God over human hearts would leave the claims of justice unsatisfied
unless recompense objectively corresponded to desert. In the case of
Jesus it was the spiritual aspect that was the more absorbing ; so far as
the external realization of it was concerned, He left it obscure whether
the sphere of it was to be earth or heaven. He concentrated His efforts
upon the task of making His hearers understand the quaUties of character
and temper which alone could have place within it, and the principles of
conduct which alone could afford men any hope of entering it. But
whilst He did not explain the nature and constitution of the Kingdom,
He certainly seems to have thought of it not as destined to be evolved
gradually out of the circumstances of the existing world, but as about to
be ushered in supernaturally by an immediate act of God. Of the precise
time of its manifestation He claimed no knowledge (see p. 445) ; but it
1 CA . Mic. iv. 7 ; Is. ix. 6, 7, xxiv. 23 ; Ps. ii. 6.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 373
appears beyond doubt that He Himself expected it, or at least caused others
to expect it, within a very short interval — within, indeed, the lifetime of
His own contemporaries.
It was then merely as a herald of the coming Kingdom and a teacher
of the morahty conditioning participation in it (cf. Mt. iv. 23, xi. 1, Lk. iv.
43), Uke John the Baptist himself, that He appeared first to His country
men. Although He had gained the behef that in destiny and dignity
He was more than this, and that He was preordained to fill, under God,
the most exalted station in that Kingdom, yet He gave at the outset
no hint that He was superior to aU prophets. To declare Himself at
once the destined Messiah of His race, would be to excite in the people
expectations of a poUtical character which He was convinced He was
not meant by His Father to fulfil. So it was simply as a prophet that
He was regarded by those of the people whom His discourses impressed,
and it was only as a prophet that He at the outset described Himself
(Mk. vi. 4, 15, Mt. xxi. 11).
In proceeding to proclaim the advent of the Kingdom, Jesus did not
rely upon His own unaided exertions ; but sought in the towns of Gahlee
and by the shores of its lake sympathizers who were willing to make the
sacrifices necessary to assist Him. It was both the practice and the duty
of a Rabbi or Teacher to gather round him a circle of disciples,1 and His
doing this would assimilate Him in popular estimation to the class of
Rabbis. The first Gahlseans whom He enlisted in His service were two
brothers, sons of Jonas or John (Mt. xvi. 17, Joh. i. 42), one named Simon
(Simeon, Symeon), and the other called Andrew. They were both fisher
men, residents of Capernaum ; and at the time when Jesus, as He passed
along the shore, summoned them to join Him, were engaged in their usual
occupation. Our Lord, playing with the word "fishers," bade them
foUow Him and He would make them fishers of men ; and they, at once,
abandoning the business which occupied them, attached themselves to
Him and became sharers in His work. The words in the narrative of
St. Luke (v. 11) " they left all " need not be understood Uterally. The
summons meant, indeed, a call to subordinate their worldly ties and
interests to the duty of extending a knowledge of the Kingdom and its
nearness, and of the conditions controlling participation in it ; but it
did not involve immediate surrender of their homes or of their other
possessions (see Mk. i. 29, ii. 15). The call of Simon and Andrew was
succeeded by the caU of another pair of brethren. These were James
(or Jacob) and John, the sons of Zebedee (= Zebadiah) and of his wife
Salome,2 who were Ukewise fishermen (represented as partners of the
other two, Lk. v. 7, 10) and were busy at the time, together with their
father and some hired servants, in putting their nets in order. They
showed as Uttle hesitation as Simon and his brother, and without delay
foUowed after Him. The readiness with which these men rehnquished
their calling and threw in their lot with Jesus favours the idea that they
1 Edersheim, Life and Times, etc., i. p. 474.
a Cf. Mk. xv. 40 with Mt. xxvii. 56.

374 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
may have encountered Him before. An explanation of how this could
have happened is afforded by the assumption that Salome, the mother
of James and John, was a sister of our Lord's mother (see p. 365). Their
kinship would lead to intercourse between the two houses ; and when
Jesus visited His cousins by the lake-side, He would naturally become
acquainted with others, hke Simon and Andrew, who followed the same
pursuit. Nevertheless, the obedience shown by aU the four to His sudden
command to leave their avocations is perhaps to be accounted for by
their sharing the beUef that He was a prophet. Prophets were thought
to act abruptly, and their bidding was usuaUy obeyed without hesitation
(See 1 Kg. xix. 19-21, 2 Kg. ix. 1-3).
The four who thus became our Lord's first disciples were aU friends of
one another (as has been said), and partners in the business of fishing
(Lk. v. 10). Though their occupation was comparatively humble, they
were ndt employed by others, 'but had boats of their own ; whilst Zebedee,
the father of James and John, had servants under him (Lk. v. 2, 3, Mk. i.
20). Simon ^also caUed Cephas or Peter) was married (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5),
and with him and his wife there Uved the latter's mother. AU the four
disciples named must have been acquainted with Greek, for in Gahlee
there was a great [mixture of nationahties (see p. 3), and the names
Peter and Andrew are both Greek. Nevertheless their knowledge of it
was probably coUoquial rather than Uterary. The tongue they usuaUy
employed was Aramaic ; and GaUlsean Aramaic, as compared with that
which was current at Jerusalem, was marked by distinctive features
(Mk. xiv. 70, Mt. xxvi. 73).
The reason is fairly clear why the circumstances in which the four
just mentioned were caUed by Jesus are described, whilst the occasions
when He summoned various others whom He associated with Him are
not related. Peter, James, and John became in a special degree the
intimate companions of their Master, and reference to Peter's caU naturaUy
Carried with it Andrew's also. The only disciple besides these whose
call is recounted by Mark is Levi (or Matthew), whom Jesus summoned
to follow Him at a somewhat later date ; and the aUusion to the occasion
is explained by its connexion with an incident that foUowed upon it
(Mk. n. 15-17).
An account of the caU of Peter, Andrew, James and John which is given by St.
Luke (v. If.) differs from that contained in Mk. and foUowed by Mt. (iv. 18, 22) in
various details, (a) Jesus is described as entering Simon's boat in order to preach
from it, without being thronged by His hearers. (6) After concluding His discourse,
He directed Simon, who had fished fruitlessly through the night, to let down his nets,
Which then enclosed such a quantity of fish that they nearly broke, and the fishers
had to summon their partners to help them, both boats being fiUed tUl they began
to sink, (c) On this Simon Peter threw himself at Jesus' knees, saying, " Depart
from' me, for I am a sinful man, 0 Lord" ; but Jesus bade him dismiss his fear, for
from thenceforth he should oatch men ; and when the boats were brought to land,
the four left all and followed Him. The miraculous catch of fishes may be an elabora
tion of the metaphor of " fishers of men," symbolizing the numbers that through
their exertions were to be secured ; and the figure of speech may have been converted
into a physical occurrence (cf . Lk. xi. 29, 30, 32 with Mt. xu. 39, 41, 40). A miracu
lous catch of fishes oocurs likewise in the post-Resurrection narrative comprised in
Joh. xxi. ; and the fact that Peter's words to Jesus are more appropriate to a time

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 375
after his denial of his Lord has suggested that St. Luke has blended with a report
of the caU of the disciples some tradition connected with the appearance to them of
the Risen Christ (p. 476).
The Pourth Evangelist represents that before the arrest of John the Baptist,
Andrew (of Bethsaida) and an unnamed companion were disciples of John, who
directed their attention to Jesus, with Whom they spent the day ; and then Andrew
sought his brpther Simon and brought him also to Jesus. But though an earUer
meeting between Jesus and the two brothers explains very naturaUy the promptitude
with which the latter are described as answering the caU of our Lord by the lake-side,
yet the language attributed on this occasion to the Baptist (who aUudes to Jesus as
the Lamb of God), to Andrew (who informs Simpn that they had found the Messiah),
and to Jesus (Who tells Simon that he should be caUed Cephas (or Peter) without any
reason being given or impUed for such a change of name) is so difficult to reconcUe
with the representation of Mark and the other Synoptists that the historical value
of the narrative falls under grave suspicion.
The Pourth Gospel (i. 43-E.l) contains also, an account of the call by Jesus, when
in GalUee, of another disciple, Phihp, who is related to have brought to our Lord
Nathanael of Cana (xxi. 2). The latter is not named in the New Testament outside
the Pourth Gospel, but has been generally identified with Bartholomew.* The cir
cumstances that here, at a very early period in our.Lord's ministry, Phihp is. described as
recognizing in Jesus " Him of whom Moses and the prophets wrote," and that Nathanael
is stated to have addressed Jesus as the Son of God and the King of Israel, are features
in the narrative which cannot be easdy harmonized with the Apostles' first confession
of Jesus' Messiahship at a much later date, as represented by the Synoptists (Mk.
viii. 27 f.).
It was with a sound judgment, as the event showed, that Jesus avoided
at the. outset of His Gahlsean mission, His native Nazareth (cf. iff k. vi.
1-6, and p. 402) ; and the first place where He is recorded to, have preached
wap Capernaum. Here He, in company with spme qf the disciples whpm
He had already attracted to Him, entered the, synagogue of the, town,
where, as was customary, a stranger, if known pr conjectured to belong
tq the lettered class, might be asked, after the reading of the Scriptures,
to instruct the worshippers (p. 96). In the course of ,the service, Jesus
was invited by the president of the pynagpgue to undertake this duty.
Although nqthing on this occasion is recorded of the tenqr qf His teaching,
yet the manner and tone of it at once arrested attention by the contrast
it afforded tp the characteristic practice of the Scribes. The latter were
conscious of no inspiration which would justify them in handhng boldly
the difficulties which the Law and its apphcation to the complexities of
life presented, so that their comments upon it could hardly fail to be hair
splitting and pedantic, and were based, where possible, upon the pro
nouncements of their predecessors. Yery different was the spirit which
marked the teaching of Jesus, if it exhibited in the synagogue there the
s,arne features as thpse which are apparent in the discourses delivered
elsewhere, or at other times,. His principle? will fall to he, considered
more in detail later (p. 602 f .) ; here it suffices to notice summarily what
lay at the root of the difference between His method of dealing with the
Law and that of the Scribes. Like them He acknowledged its Divine
1 He has also been identified with others of the Twelve, see Hastings, D.B. iii.
488-489. The meaning of Iris name favours the suggestion that he was the same as
Matthias.

376 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
authority ; and its rules He honoured ahke in precept and in practice.1
But unlike them He subordinated the letter to the spirit, whUst insisting
that the scope and intent of its spiritual meaning should be construed
in the most comprehensive and exacting measure. In thus passing
judgment upon current rehgious standards He assumed the same attitude
of authoritative criticism as was manifested by certain of the Old Testament
prophets.2 Filled with a tranquil confidence that He possessed a true
insight into the character of God, He freely corrected contemporary
notions of rehgious duty, wherever these clashed with, or feU short of,
His own conception of the Divine nature and wiU. In consequence He
created amongst His hearers great astonishment, conveying to them the
impression that He was Divinely empowered to teach as He did.3
The independence which distinguished the teaching of Jesus as con
trasted with the spirit in which the Scribes commented upon the Law
was not the only fact that excited wonder amongst those who were gathered
in the synagogue. There chanced to be in it a man suffering from a
disordered mind, one of a class in whom the existence of mental derange
ment, sometimes accompanied by physical afflictions (cf. Mk. ix. 17),
was popularly ascribed to the presence in them of demons or spirits of
evil, by whom their victims were controUed (just as a prophet might be
controUed by the Spirit of God, Mk. xii. 36). The afflicted man in the
synagogue (presumably admitted there during a lucid interval) had
probably had his attention arrested and his fears excited when Jesus,
Whose name he had learnt, made the subject of His preaching the approach
of the Kingdom of God, the estabhshment of which meant the overthrow
of all demon powers. Inferring that such a herald of the Divine Kingdom
must occupy a special relation to God, and therefore be hostUe to the
demons that had the mastery over hirnseU, he screamed, " What have we
to do with thee, thou Jesus the Nazarene ? Art thou come to destroy
us ? I know who thou art, the Holy One of God." The title by which
he addressed Jesus was appropriate to One whom he judged to be conse
crated in a pre-eminent degree to the service of God (the same is used of
Aaron in Ps. cvi. 16) ; and his outcry expressed his shrinking from Him.
Jesus, so far as can be ascertained, participated in the contemporary
behef respecting the activity of demons as the source of various mental
and physical disorders ; and presuming that an evil spirit was really
present in the man, bade it be silent and come out of him. The command
had its effect ; and after a final paroxysm of madness, and a loud cry,
the sufferer was restored to sanity.
This narrative (omitted by Mt.) of the heahng of a demoniac is an
example of a class of cures attributed repeatedly to Jesus in the Synoptic
Gospels, four instances being described in detail in Mk. (i. 23-26, v. 2-15,
vii. 25-30, ix. 17-27), whilst there are, in addition, three general references
1 See Mk. x. 17-19; Mt. v. 18 (=Lk. xvi. 17); Mk. i. 44.
2 Is. i. 11-17 ; Mic. vi. 6-8.
* In Mk. i. 22 the word e!-ovala, in us e£ov<rlav f^iox, is probably equivalent,
in this connexion, to the Power of God : of. Camb. Biblical Essays, p. 178 and see
Ml. ix. 8.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 377
to simUar cures (i. 34, 39, ui. 11). The possession, however, of abihty
to effect such cures was not confined to Jesus, but was at least claimed
by Jewish and other exorcists (Mt. xii. 27 ( = Lk. xi. 19), cf. Acts xix. 13).
There was, indeed, a marked difference between the methods pursued..
Contemporary exorcists either used certain physical agencies which were
thought to expel the evil spirit, such as smoke with a foul smeU, or a ring
with the root of some herb under the signet (Tob. vm. 2, 3, Jos. Ant. vni.
2, 5), or else uttered over the afflicted person the name of some superior
Power to whom the demon yielded (Mk. ix. 38, cf. Mt. vn. 22). On the
other hand, Jesus with a mere word (cf. Mt. viii. 16), bade the demon
depart, and it obeyed Him. Nevertheless, Jesus HimseU seems to have
recognized that His exorcisms and those of others were not essentiaUy
different in kind ; and it may be inferred that when He cast out demons
it was through the exertion not of supernatural power but of natural
faculties possessed by Him in a supernormal degree. The maladies
which were ascribed to the presence of evil spirits doubtless had their
source in brain disturbance, and would now be considered cases of mania
and insanity, epUepsy, hysteria, and the Uke ; and where behef in demonic
" possession " prevailed, persons of morbid temperament would be hable,
even from slight causes, to imagine themselves under the influence of a
demon.1 But so long as the brain cells, or the nerves connected with
them, are not destroyed, an adequate stimulus may restore their balance.
Such a stimulus is hkely to have been supphed in an exceptional measure
by words proceeding from Jesus. The circumstance that He was known
as a herald of the Kingdom of God, the anticipation that powers of various
kinds would attend the manifestation of that Kingdom, and the authorita
tive tone with which He spoke were all calculated to relieve the tension
of a mind obsessed by a behef in demonic control, and so restore the
tranquillity needed to enable the brain to resume its normal function.
The cure wrought on the present occasion created amongst those who
beheld it profound amazement, enhanced probably by the contrast which,
in respect of doing such wonders, Jesus presented to John the Baptist
(Joh. x. 41) ; and His fame spread throughout Gahlee and the adjoining
districts (with Mk. i. 28 cf. Mt. iv. 24).
The restoration of the demoniac to mental health was followed by
another act of heahng of a different character. Of the four fishermen whom
Jesus had summoned first to be His disciples Peter and Andrew had their
home in Capernaum, and the former was married. At their house the
mother of Peter's wife was lying prostrated by a fever. It was perhaps
the cure which they had witnessed in the synagogue that inspired in the
two brothers the hope that the same remedial power which had been
manifested in the instance of the demoniac, Jesus might be wining to
exert in the case of the sick woman, if He were taken to her. Jesus went
with them, accompanied by James and John ; and when they reached
1 Myers (Human Personality, i. pp. 303-5) quotes the case of a Prenchman who
attributed his blasphemies against rehgion to a devil inside him, moving his tongue
Against his wiU.

378 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the house the woman's condition was explained to Him. He thereupon
approached her and taking her hand, raised her 1 ; and the fever left her,
so that she was able to minister to them.
This second miracle differs from the first in the circumstance that
the malady relieved was physical and not mental ; and as a number of
other physical cures are subsequently recorded to have been effected
by Jesus, it is desirable at this point to draw attention to one or two
considerations in regard to them. The influence of the mind upon the
health of the body is as widely recognized as the converse ; and it is probable
that the explanation of our Lord's cures of bodUy iUnesses and diseases
is to be found in the reaction of the minds of the sufferers to emotional
stimulus proceeding from Him, followed by physical effects consequent
upon the mental relief. Disease in general is a struggle between some
harmful agent that has been introduced into the system, and the resistance
of the constitution to it ; and any reinforcement of the latter retards the
progress of the disease and conduces to its defeat. So long as the bodily
organs, though functioning imperfectly, remain potentiaUy efficient, they
will recover their normal activity if a reserve of vital energy can be released
through some impulse from without. Such an impulse Jesus must have
been supremely qualified to impart. Firstly, His complete confidence
in God and in Himself as God's Son could scarcely fail, even if disclosed
only by His bearing and His authoritative tones, to create faith, and to
renew hope, in the afflicted, and so reinvigorate the recuperative forces
of the body in their conflict with the disease. And secondly it is likely
that He was endowed with exceptional psychic powers, so that by " sug
gestion " He could impress His will upon another's vohtion and so neutra
lize the mental torpor which so often prejudices recovery. Medical
science, distinguishing between organic and functional disease, finds
nothing incredible in cures, of the latter, brought about by faith; and
some distinguished medical authorities seem prepared to admit that
occasionaUy even cases of true organic disease can be cured through the
same means.2 On the other hand, it has to be aUowed, in regard to the
New Testament miracles of healing, (a) that scientific diagnosis of the
diseased conditions represented as healed is lacking, and (6) that there
were factors in the reUgious beliefs of that age and country calculated to
produce magnified reports of the miraculous (cf. p. 114).
In respect of the incident here under consideration, , febrUe disorders,
if due to infection, are not among those mPst readily amenable to emotional
stimulus ; but there is the possibihty that the woman's fevered state
was largely due to nervous causes, which would be apt to yield to. such
stimulus. And if it is true that the subsidence of a state of fever is not
likely to be so rapid as the recovery of speech or of the use of a hmb (where
the response of the nerves to surprise or some other intense feehng may
be sudden), the account does not necessarily represent the cure as iinmedi-
1 Mt. substitutes " he touohed her hand" (viii. 15, cf. p. 380, note) ; Lk. has " he
rebuked the fever" (iv. 39).
2 See British Medical Journal, June 18, 1910, p. 1468.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 379
ate (for Mark's straightway, i. 29, is merely a feature of his style, p. 179) ;
and the recovery, in view of the brevity of the narrative, may have been
less instantaneous than is commonly thought.
The two occurrences just related took place on the Sabbath. In the
course of the day information about what had happened spread through
the city ; but the injunctions in the Law respecting the observance of
the Sabbath, and the strictness with which these were interpreted by
the Scribes, prevented the help of Jesus from being sought for other
sufferers. But when at even the Sabbath came to a close,1 then the
inhabitants gathered round the door of Peter's house, bringing with
them all their sick, whether physically or mentally afflicted. St. Mark,
by stating that our Lord healed many sick and cast out many demons,
may have meant to convey the inference that not aU, but only a large
proportion, of those who needed help actuaUy received it, there being
absent, most probably, in some cases the faith that rendered a cure
possible (cf. Mk. vi. 5). Nor can there be left out of account the
Ukehhood that in various instances recovery was impossible for other
reasons, such as the atrophy or decay of the injured members and
organs. In the case of the demoniacs that were cured, Jesus is represented
as not permitting the demons in the afflicted persons to speak because
they knew Him.2 The EvangeUst probably has in mind the cry of the
sufferer healed in the synagogue (p. 376). Though the title used on that
occasion did not necessarily convey a Messianic meaning, it was conducive
to surmises about Jesus which might cause among the people misdirected
enthusiasm. He had come to a clear decision that God did not design
Him to fulfil the popular ideal of a national Dehverer and a triumphant
Conqueror (p. 369) ; but it was just such a role that would be expected
of Him, if the multitude was led to beheve that He was more than a
teacher of righteousness like John the Baptist. His true mission, for the
time, was to proclaim the repentance conditioning entry into the Divine
kingdom ; and anything calculated to interfere with this duty was to be
sedulously avoided. Accordingly in the morning following the evening
when He had wrought so many cures He withdrew from the city by
HimseU whilst it was yet dark, and went first to a lonely place where He
could obtain both physical and spiritual, rest, exhausted as He must have
been by the calls upon His strength. His retreat, however, was discovered
by His disciples,3 who tried to induce Him to take advantage of the
interest He was arousing. But in reply Jesus told them to accompany
Him to the neighbouring villages, that He might preach there also, for
He had left Capernaum with that intent.4 He and His f oUowers then
1 Mk.'s language is modified by both Mt. (vm. 16) and Lk. (iv. 40, 41), see
p. 157 ; Mt., whilst retaining Mk.'s mention of the eventide, omits to explain that the
day was the Sabbath.
2 Lk. has " knew that he was the Christ."
8 Lk. represents that it was the multitudes who came to Him (iv. 42).
* Lk. (iv. 43), interpreting Mk.'s itfj\6ov to mean " came forth from God," sub
stitutes aire<rrd\T)v.

380 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
proceeded through Gahlee,1 preaching in the synagogues and healing
those who were " possessed " by demons.
It was in the course of this tour, though the precise locahty of the
occurrence is not described,2 that the next miracle narrated in detail by
Mk. took place. The reports which had spread about Jesus' healing
faculty caused a leper to come to Him seemingly when He was alone in
a house (Mk. i. 43, 44) 3 and entreat Him to remove his affliction, saying
" If Thou wilt, Thou canst cleanse me." The near approach to Him of
a person in such a condition is strange, since a leper was required to keep
aloof from passers-by (cf. Lk. xvn. 11-19) and to make known his state
by crying " Unclean " (Lev. xhi. 45). But Jesus did not avoid him as
a Rabbi would have done, but was moved by his appeal, and touching
him said, " I wiU, be thou cleansed." St. Mark seems to imply that the
leprosy was at once healed,* and the man was sternly charged not to
disclose to anyone what had occurred (cf. p. 401) but to show himself
to the priest that he might by him be declared ceremoniaUy clean, and
then offer the sacrifices prescribed by the Mosaic Law (Lev. xih., xiv.) as
a proof to people that a complete cure had been effected. The account
is not without difficulties. The particular nature of the malady repre
sented as cured instantaneously is not specificaUy explained, and under
the term leprosy (Heb. tsara'ath) the Bible includes more than one kind
of cutaneous disease. One variety seems to be what modern medical
science terms psoriasis, which is neither contagious nor dangerous to life.
But real leprosy (elephantiasis) is contagious, though not easily communi
cated ; and whilst not rapidly fatal, is rarely cured, and if it yields to
remedies, the curative process is protracted. The immediate response
of Jesus to the leper's petition, and the fact that He did not shrink from
touching s the poUuted flesh, could not fail to stimulate into action any
latent reserves of vitality in the sufferer, enabUng diseased to be replaced
by healthy tissue. But whether the disease was of the gravest variety
is not stated ; and the direction to the man to show himseff to the priest
might apply to the time when the process of recovery, started at once,
was, after an interval, completed.
The command that what had occurred should not be made known was
disobeyed by the leper, who proclaimed the rehef that he had experienced.
There ensued the consequences which Jesus had sought to avoid : multi
tudes flocked around wherever He went, bringing (it may be presumed)
1 In Lk. iv. 44 K B C L, the Sinaitic Syr. and some other authorities have Judaa
instead of Galilee ; if this is accepted as the true reading, Judcea must be understood
to mean Palestine as a, whole.
2 Mt. has " when he had come down from the mountain " (vin. 1) ; Lk. has " wlule
he was in one of the cities " (v. 12).
3 Ml. (viu. 1) imphes that Jesus was attended by large crowds, which renders the
subsequent injunction of secrecy unmeaning.
1 This follows from the general tenor of the narrative, not merely from the writer's
characteristic e696s. Old Testament stories of leprosy appearing and disappearing
in a moment (Ex. iv. 6, 7, 2 Kg. v. 14, 27) may have been influential.
6 Por Jesus' practice of touching many of those who sought to be cured by Him
cf. Mk. v. 23, vi. 5, vii. 32, viii. 23; Lk. iv. 40, xxu. 51.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 381
their sick relations to be healed, so that when He entered a city, the
delivery of His Message was much impeded. Accordingly He withdrew
again to lonely locahties where they who wished to hear Him could come
to Him, but where the diseased and infirm could not so easily accompany
them, for His mission was to save men's souls, not to cure their bodily
ills. The journey through Gahlee being ended (nothing is said about its
duration), Jesus returned to Capernaum. It was apparently a Roman
military post, and when He entered the place, He received a request
from a centurion 1 belonging to the Roman force there. The man must
have been one of those GentUes who, by St. Luke in Acts, are called " God-
fearers " (p. 89). This is at least a plausible inference from the fact
that those who (according to Lk.) conveyed his petition to Jesus were
Jewish elders.2 The petition was on behalf of his servant (Mt. nalg, Lk.
SovXog) who was near death 3 ; and the Jews who came to Jesus declared
that the centurion was deserving of consideration, since he was attached
to their nation and had built for them their synagogue. Jesus consented
to go to the man's abode ; and on the way thither was met by others of
his friends through whom he begged Jesus not to trouble himself further :
he had regarded himself unworthy to approach Jesus or to receive Him
into his house (to enter which he supposed Jesus as a Jew would regard
as poUuting), but felt assured that the latter had only to express His
will, and the servant's recovery would follow. He himself knew what
it was both to obey and to command, and he implied that Jesus could
control disease as easily as he could rule his subordinates. On this Jesus
turned to the crowd that followed Him and declared that equal faith He
had not found in Israel.* He then gave the messengers to understand
that the request was granted, and on their return to the centurion's house
the servant was found restored.
This miracle 5 is of a startlingly different kind from those previously
encountered, involving, as it does, a cure at a distance. That the cen
turion's servant knew of his master's appeal to Jesus for help, and looked
forward with hope to His intervention; may be assumed ; but the difficulty
is to explain how Jesus' wiU to heal was communicated directly to the
sick man, so that through his mind his physical powers were at once
reinforced and the recovery of health vigorously started. Consideration
of the way in which one person's thoughts are conveyed to another through
spoken sounds wiU perhaps suggest an explanation. Certain mental
1 Only in Lk. is the request conveyed by others, in Mt. the centurion makes his
own appeal.
2 The fact that these approached Jesus on behalf of the centurion suggests that
there was as yet no open breach between them and our Lord, and so favours the
assignment of the incident to this early stage in the Ministry, instead of after the
appointment of the Twelve Apostles, where it is placed by Lk. (vii. 2-10).
3 Mt. describes him as paralysed and in great agony.
4 Mt. adds here that Jesus went on to declare that many foreigners would feast
with the patriarchs in the kingdom of heaven, whereas the Jews, heirs of the kingdom
by race, would be excluded ; but Lk. places the utterance in a different connexion
(xiii. 28-29).
5 On a similar case in Joh. iv. 46-54 see p. 485.

382 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
processes in the first individual are transformed into nerve-energy con
trolling his organs of speech, and by these are transmitted as vibrations
of the ether to the ears of the second, and the impressions produced on
the latter's auditory nerves connected with his brain are converted into
thoughts. If it is assumed to be possible for mental impulses to be trans
mitted without speech to some medium analogous to the ether, and,
conveyed by this, to enter (otherwise than through the organs of hearing)
another brain, thought-transference between two persons at a distance
becomes inteUigible. If telepathy is a real process, and if Jesus possessed
great powers of " suggestion," a volition on the part of our Lord to heal
the servant might influence the latter, and set in motion forces conducive
to his recovery. This is not the place to consider the evidence for telepathy,
but the hypothesis of thought- and will-transference, if justified, will
account for what is narrated.
§ 4. Antagonism of the Ecclesiastical Authorities
Up to this point the prominent feature in the historian's narrative is
the impression made by Jesus upon the mass of the people by reason
of the authoritativeness with which He taught, and His exceptional
faculty for reUeving sufferings. But among the reUgious leaders causes
of resentment towards Him could not for long be absent. The priesthood,
prone to be guided by precedent, inevitably disapproved of those elements
in His teaching which clashed with traditional views ; whUst His habit
of consorting with persons whom the pious held in contempt gave scope
for suspicion and dislike. And occasions speedUy presented themselves
when the secret feelings of hostility which had been growing found vent
in open complaint and censure.
The first was soon after His return to Capernaum. He took up His
abode in a house (perhaps His own, p. 384), and as soon as it was heard
that He was within, a great number of people assembled, so that further
access to the entrance of the building was precluded. He proceeded to
address them, but it was not long before He was interrupted. Four men
approached the house, carrying between them a paralytic, and finding
it impossible to bring him to'f Jesus through the doorway by reason of
the crowd, they mounted by an outside stair to the flat roof, and. dislodging
part of it,1 lowered the paUet, on which the man was lying, intolthe room
where Jesus was. The determination which the paralytic and his friends
showed in thus overcoming the obstacles that impeded them manifested
great faith in Jesus' graciousnessfand power ; and Jit had itsfreward.
Jesus appears to have possessed a'J wonderful faculty|for penetrating into
men's secret thoughts 2 ; and divining that what was likely to hinder
the paralytic from making the effort essential to his recovery was the
1 Mk. (n. 4) has Aireo-riyao-av r^v <rreyqv ... koi itopit-avres ; Lk. (v. 19) sub
stitutes 5ia r&v Kepipuav ; Mt. omits this and other details (ix. 2).
2 Por other instances see Mk. xu. 15 ; Lk. vi. 8, ix. 47 j and cf. Joh. ii. 25, xvi. 30.
A Uke power of reading the hearts of others is attributed to St. Prancis : see Little
Flowers of St. Prancis, ch. 34.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 383
consciousness of some sin, presumably repented of but not felt to be
pardoned, He said to him, " ChUd, thy sins are forgiven." Among the
audience were certain Scribes, andJHis words caused them in their hearts
to charge Him with blasphemy : God could forgive sins, but a man who
claimed to do so, without giving proof that He was a spokesman (or
prophet) for God, invaded the Divine prerogative. Jesus discerned at
once their secret reflections upon His conduct ; and being assured both
of the mercy and forgivingness of God towards the penitent, and confident
of the effect that a declaration of pardon would exert upon the man's
torpid nerves and muscles through the removal of the burden upon his
mind, He turned to the murmurers with the question which of the two
was the easier, to teU the sufferer that his sins were forgiven, or to bid
him take up his paUet and walk. Then, since the one was incapable of
proof or disproof, whereas the other could be put to the test at once, and
the command, if obeyed, would afford a presumption that He reaUy had
authority to speak as He had done, He ordered the man to rise, take up
his paUet, and go home. The paralytic at once did as he was bidden,
to the amazement of aU present, who praised God and acknowledged that
they had never previously witnessed the like.
This cure, impressive as it must have been, has its analogies. Intense
surprise, unexpected joy, passionate indignation, or other powerful
emotion, has been known to restore to activity limbs long disused, provided
the muscles have not become atrophied. A sudden and violent impulse,
affecting the brain ceUs, can restore the suspended action of various nerves
and the organs with which they are connected, sometimes for a limited
period only, but sometimes permanently. The mPst noteworthy circum
stance on this occasion was Jesus' appeal to His faculty of healing as
evidencing His right to pronounce a sinner forgiven. It was not, however,
the mere abiUty to perform a wonder that necessarily afforded such proof,
for a wonder, according to the Jewish Scriptures, might be performed
by a false prophet (Dt. xiii. 1, 2) ; it was rather the beneficent quality
of the miracle th&t warranted the conclusion that the miracle worker
was Ukely to have a true insight into the Divine character.
In St. Mark's narrative as it stands, Jesus is represented as applying
to Himself for the first time the designation " the Son of man." The
Greek phrase 6 vlbg rov dvOgcbnov x seems to be an unidiomatic rendering of
the Aramaic bar-endsha, which is a synonym for " the man," and of which
the true Greek equivalent would be 6 avOgconog. By the title " the Son
of man " (or " the Man ") Jesus appears to have meant the Personality
that is described under that name in the Similitudes of Enoch as destined
to act as God's vicegerent in the final judgment of the world (p. 41) ;
and it was the function of this Heavenly man that He believed Himself
destined to discharge (p. 41 6). But since at this early stage of His ministry
He checked such utterances of the sufferers healed by Him as were calcu
lated to create perplexity and to prompt conjectures about Him before
1.This combination does not occur in the LXX, which only has vibs avBpdiirov,
usually an equivalent for ailBpairos (Ps. viu. 4(=5), cxhv. 3).

384 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
He was prepared to disclose the truth Himself,1 it seems improbable that
He could have used a term which would have a definite significance for
all who were acquainted with the book of Enoch. Hence it has been
surmised that in this and some other passages the Evangelist has antedated
Jesus' application of this title to HimseU, and that on the occasion here
considered He reaUy used the first personal pronoun (see pp. 615-6).
After this incident Jesus again left Capernaum and pursued His way
along the shore of the lake. He continued to be attended by crowds,
and these He instructed as He journeyed. Proceeding in a northerly
direction, and following the Upper Jordan from the point where it enters
the lake, He would reach the spot beyond the Waters of Merom known
as the " Bridge of Jacob's Daughters," where the road from Damascus
and the east to Judsea and Egypt crossed the river. Here merchandise
passed from Itursea, the territory of PhUip (p. 51), into Gahlee, which
was part of the dominions of Antipas, and tolls would be exacted by the
latter (cf. p. 50). At the toU-house was a coUector named Levi, the
son of Alphseus 2 ; and Jesus, as He came by, called him and bade him
foUow Him. By this time our Lord must have been sufficiently well
known in the neighbourhood for Levi to have heard of Him ; and the
summons met with a response, the official of Antipas becoming a disciple
of Jesus. By Mt. (ix. 9, cf. x. 3) he is caUed Matthew (Mattai or Mat-
tithyah) ; and the double Hebraic name has a paraUel in Joseph Caiaphas
and possibly Nathanael Bartholomew (p. 375). The reason which led
the Evangelist to mention in particular the caU of Levi was probably the
nature of his occupation, which gave occasion to another adverse comment
passed by the Scribes upon Jesus. Levi's adhesion to our Lord probably
brought the latter into contact with many persons of the tax-coUector's
own class, who, as regards their relations with GentUes, were neglectful,
if not actuaUy of the written Law, at least of the Scribal rules (cf . Acts x.
28, xi. 2, Jos. Ap. ii. 29), observance of which constituted in the opinion
of the Pharisees " righteousness." Shortly afterwards a number of
them were present at a meal with Jesus and His disciples. The fact that
Jesus, who was ostensibly seeking to fit men to participate in the Messianic
kingdom, partook of food with such people elicited censure from the
Scribes of the Pharisaic party, and it reached His ears. Whereupon,
assuming in irony the standpoint of His censurers, and taking for granted
that they were the spirituaUy healthy, whilst the toU-coUectors and their
like were the spiritually diseased, He defended His association with the
latter on the ground that it was they who needed a spiritual physician.
His mission was to caU not righteous persons but sinners.3
In Mk. u. 15 his house probably means that of Jesus (whither Levi foUowed Him) ;
and Mt. styles Capernaum, where the dwelling was situated, Jesus' own city (ix. 1).
On the other hand, Lk. takes the house to be Levi's (v. 29).
Lk. represents that a Uke complaint against Jesus was made by Pharisees and
1 See Mk. i. 25, 34.
2 Probably distinct from the father of James (Mk. iii. 18), for Levi (or Matthew)
and James are never assooiated together as a pair.
3 Lk. adds els jxeravoiav, and Mt. represents Jesus as quoting Hos. vi. 6 (cf . xii. 7).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 385
Scribes on a, later occasion (xv. 1, 2) ; and narrates that our Lord in reply related
the three parables of the Shepherd and his Lost Sheep, the Woman and her lost Coin,
and the Pather and his Prodigal Son, in which He illustrated the joy felt by God
and His angels over the repentance of the sinful, and impUcitly reproved the Pharisees
for not showing the like satisfaction. In connexion with the self -righteousness of
certain classes, Jesus is recorded by the same Evangelist (xvui. 9-14) to have recounted
the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-gatherer (the self-complacency of the one
and the self-abasement of the other, as expressed in their prayers, causing the former
to be rejected, and the latter to be accepted, by God).
The censorious temper now manifested towards Jesus was again
exhibited on the occasion of one of the fasts, prescribed by reUgious
custom (p. 94), which was observed by the adherents of both John the
Baptist and the Pharisees, but not by the disciples of Jesus. For this
difference of behaviour our Lord was asked 1 the reason. In reply He
did not denounce the practice of the Pharisees, or of John's disciples,
but drew attention to a principle whereby the conduct of His own followers
was defensible. At wedding festivities, He asked, could, the guests be
expected to fast ? The happiness occasioned by the presence of the
bridegroom was obviously incompatible with self -mortification and other
tokens of grief, which would only be appropriate, should the bridegroom
be suddenly removed by death.2 The brief apologue imphed that in
connexion with rehgion, fasting should be the spontaneous expression
of genuine feeling ; where it was practised as part of a system, it was
hkely to be regarded as having in itself rehgious value. And then Jesus
proceeded3 to indicate that between the spirit which He was seeking to
introduce into rehgion, and that which prevailed among the Pharisees, there
was a difference whiph made the retention of their practices inexpedient
for His followers. Spirit must, indeed, have forms to express itself in ;
but these should be appropriate : it would be as useless to try to breathe
into the old ceremonial system a new spirit as it would be to patch a worn
garment with a strip of undressed (and so unshrunken) cloth, which, if
it were to shrink, would cause a rent in what was patched ; or to put into
old wine-Skins freshly-made wine, which by fermenting would burst them.
St. Luke (v. 36) modifies Mk.'s version of the comparison of the patched garment,
representing the patch as consisting not of a strip of undressed cloth but of a piece of
(dressed) cloth torn from a new garment, so that the rent occasioned is not in the old
garment but in the new, and the patch sewn on the old garment does no more than
disfigure it by its incongruity. He also represents our Lord as recognizing as intel
ligible the hesitation of such as were reared in the tradition of Judaism to abandon
it at once for His own teaching, by saying that no one having drunk old wine desires
new, since he finds the old good.
The disapproval and dishke with which the Pharisees had regarded
Jesus' conduct in minghng with persons whom they deemed irreligious,
1 In Mk. the questioners seem to be the disciples of both John and the Pharisees ;
in Mt. they are the former, in Lk. the latter.
2 In Mk. h. 20 the words " the days shaU come when the bridegroom shaU be taken
away " seem to reflect the writer's knowledge of Jesus' violent death, so that what
was probably a hypothetical statement has been converted into a prophecy (Weiss,
Life of Christi ii. p. 136).
3 This may have been said on a different occasion : cf . Lk. v. 36.
25

386 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and in countenancing exemption from the recognized fasts, reached a
cUmax when He disregarded the decisions of the Scribes respecting the
observance of the Sabbath. The Mosaic Law required abstention from
all work on that day ; but the motive assigned for such requirement
varied in the different codes. In the earliest enactment deahng with the
subject, the motive is purely humanitarian (see Ex. xxiu. 12 Ej) ; but in
later directions, the Sabbath rest is invested with an exclusively rehgious
significance (see Ex. xx. 8-11 E2, xxxi. 12-17 P, xxxv. 2, 3 P), and death
is the punishment imposed for working upon it (cf. Num. xv. 32 f.). No
precise definitions, however, were given of what constituted work ; and
it was the Scribes who made good this defect by determining what might,
and what might not, be done on the day. The first occasion on which
Jesus came into collision with their decisions was when on a Sabbath
His disciples were passing through a field of ripe corn (the time being
probably May), the ears of which they plucked as they went along (this
being allowed by the Law, Dt. xxiii. 25) and, after rubbing off the husks,
ate the grain to satisfy their hunger. This, according to the Scribes,
amounted to field-labour, and so was prohibited. The Pharisees observed
what they did, and drew their Master's attention to their infraction of
the Law. Jesus defended the disciples' conduct on the principle that the
keeping of the Sabbath rest was subordinate to human necessity, or to a
higher duty, citing a parallel from the hfe of David, who, when he went
to the sanctuary at Nob, received from the priest (erroneously in Mk.
caUed Abiathar1) some of the Shewbread (1 Sam. xxi. 1-6) ordinarily
eaten by none but the priestly order (Lev. xxiv. 5-9). And He defined
the true relation between rehgious forms and the human beings whose
welfare these are designed to serve by declaring, " The Sabbath was made
for man and not man for the Sabbath, so that man is lord of (i.e. has
authority over) the Sabbath also." 2
Mk, (foUowed by the other Synoptists) for the last sentence has " so that the Son
of mania Lord of the Sabbath also " ; but in view of considerations to whiGh attention
has previously been caUed (p. 383), it is probable that by the Aramaic term employed
Jesus meant " man " (which has been substituted above) but that Mk. thought that
only by the Messiah could authority over the Sabbath be exercised, and explained
accordingly. By Mt. and Lk. the preceding clause (Mk. ii. 27),. as well as the mistake
respecting Abiathar, is omitted.
The First EvangeUst (xu. 5, 6) considerably expands St. Mark's report of our Lord's
words. He represents Jesus as further defending His disciples (1) by arguing that
the Temple service exempted the priests from the rule of the Sabbath (Num. xxviii.
9, 10) and something of more importance 3 than the Temple (i.e. the diffusion of the
Good News which He and His disciples were engaged in promoting) was here involved ;
(2) by referring to Hos. vi. 6, " I (Jehovah) desire mercy and not sacrifice," i.e. considera
tions of humanity must take precedence of legal obligations. In Lk. vi. 1 A C D and
1 The priest from whom David received the Shewbread was Ahimeteoh, father
of Abiathar (1 Sam. xxi. 1 f.). The clause " when Abiathar was high priest " is absent
from D. Lat. (vet.) Syr. (sin.).
1 I.e. as weU as over the obligation to fast.
3' The true text has jiellfov, not pelfuv : oi. Mt. xn. 41 (irXstov). The reading
julfav makes Jesus exonerate His followers by appeaUng to His own pre-eminent
authority as the Son of man (the Messiah),

the Ministry of jesus 38?
a number of cither textual authorities have the Curious expression " on the second-
first sabbath " instead of " on a sabbath " (X B L and various cursives and versions).
The simplest explanation of it is that it has arisen from a dittograph that has been
imsihterpreted, ev <rafjftar(p parip being read as iv tra^drip pa-r'ip the superfluous fia
being taken for numerals, and the whole phrase being understood to mean iv &d/3(3aTtp
Sevrepoirpibriji.1 In Lk. vi. the Bezan manuscript transfers v. 5 tb after v. 10 and
substitutes after v. 4 the narrative of the man working on the Sabbath, which is
reproduced oh p. 207.
The conduct of Jesus in excusing His followers for breaking the Sabbath
gave to the r-ehgious authorities such offence, that on a following Sabbath
(Lk. vi. 6) they watched Him narrowly-. He had entered, as was His
wont, the synagogue (the locahty is not stated in Mk., but it was presum
ably Capernaum) ; and amongst the people Assembled in it, there chanced
to be a man with a withered hand. The Scribes and Pharisees (Lk. vi. 7),
from previous experience, did not doubt Jesus' power to heAl the man's
infirmity ; the question they sought to solve was whether He would do
So on the Sabbath, and by causing the afflicted person to exert himself,
would give them a handle for accusing Him of occasioning the Sabbath
to be broken. The Sanhedrin had authority to punish infractions of the
Mosaic Law (p. 100) ; and if Jesus should do anything in violation of the
Law, He would be liable to be Charged before that body. Jesus discerned
their intentions (Lk. vi. 8), and did not shrink from the issue. He bade
the man stand forth in full view of the whole assembly, and then challenged
His toould-be accusers to. say whether it was lawful on the Sabbath to do
good or to do ill, to save life or to kiU. To the questiPn so put they would
have had ho difficulty in returning an answer : their own principles
allowed the "Sabbath rest to be disturbed if life were in danger.2 And they
might have contended that they were in no way if alse to those principles,
if, in the case before them, they demurred to the cure which they perceived
Him to be contemplating, for a withered hand (they could have argued)
did not imperil Ufe, and it was better that the man's relief should be
postponed for a day (cf. Lh xiii. 14) than that the Sabbath should be
profaned; But a consciousness of their own malice and the contrast to
it presented by His gracious purpose kept them silent. And then Jesus
bade the toan stretch forth his helpless hand ; and faith in Him Who gave
the Command enabling hint to do what had been previously impossible,
he stretched it forth and it was restored; If the description of the man's
hand (the whole arm being perhaps meant) as " withered," with the
bones and muscles atrophied, is accurate, an emotional impulse was not
calculated to restore it to normal conditions instantaneously ; so that
unless there is some exaggeration, the cure was a very remarkable one.
Lk. records two other instances ai cures effected by Jesus on the Sabbath, with
consequent indignation among certain who witnessed them. These instances are
placed by the EvangeUst in the Travel-sectiori of his Gospel (p. 198) ; but they may
really have occurred in Galilee. Of the one occasion (xui. 10-17) the scene was a
synagogue, and the person healed was a woman suffering from curvature of the spine ;
* BurMtt, Gospel History, p; 81, note.
2 Mt. (xu. 11) represents Jesus as telling them that none would hesitate on thfe
Sabbath to save a sheep that 'had fahen 'into a pit.

388 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and exception was taken to His action by the president of the synagogue. Of the
other (xiv. 1-6) the scene was the house of a Pharisee where Jesus was a guest ; the
sufferer relieved was a dropsical man ; and those that eyed His action malevolently
were Scribes and Pharisees who were present. In both cases Jesus defended His
action by the practice of His adversaries, who were accustomed on the Sabbath to
reheve the wants of their cattle or to deliver them from situations of peril.1
The conduct of Jesus in heahng on the Sabbath infuriated the Pharisees,
and they determined to compass His death. The Sanhedrin, however,
had no power to inflict a capital sentence (p. 100) ; and so it was not
enough to bring against Him a charge of breaking the Law, for the Boman
authorities, by whom questions of hfe and death were decided, might
not consider such a charge, even if proved, deserving of the extreme
penalty. Accordingly the Pharisees to accomplish their end consulted
with the Herodians.2 These were partisans of the ruhng dynasty in
Gahlee, and being interested in worldly pohtics rather than in rehgious
questions, were not the Pharisees' natural allies. But in the present
instance they were likely to co-operate with them, since they would
regard with suspicion any rehgious reformer who might create an agitation
among the populace and. so endanger the security of Herod, who would
be held responsible by the Bomans in the event of disorder. Antipas
had imprisoned John the Baptist through fear of his influence with the
people (p. 370) ; and a similar motive might induce him to seize Jesus
and possibly to destroy Him.
The occurrence in the synagogue marked a crisis in the career of our
Lord. At the outset of His ministry He sought to discharge His mission
within the organization of the Jewish religious system. But the heads of
that system had become openly antagonistic to Him, and He could not
again with any safety place Himself in His enemies' power. Accordingly,
henceforward He kept away from the synagogue, never entering another,
at least in Gahlee, save on one occasion, when He visited His own town of
Nazareth (Mk. vi. 1, 2). He withdrew once more to the seashore, where
He was attended by large crowds. His fame by this time had spread far.
From Judsea and even Idumsea (whither Jewish influence had extended,
p. 37), in the south ; from the country to the east of Jordan ; and from
the neighbourhood of the Phoenician towns, Tyre and Sidon, in the north,
people hearing of what He did, are represented as flocking to see Him,
just as they had coUected around John the Baptist. But in the case of
Jesus the crowds must have included numbers of afflicted persons who
desired to obtain the benefit of His heahng power. It was beheved that
even to touch Him brought rehef to sickness and infirmity (cf. v. 28,
vi. 56) ; so that they pressed upon Him and hampered the dehvery of
His Message. Consequently, in order that He might give instruction
without impediment, He asked for a small boat to be placed at His disposal,
from which He could speak at the water's edge. He did not, however,
refuse to relieve suffering ; but continued to heal both physical and mental
1 In Lk. xiv. 5 vibs t) /3o0s has the support of A B N, Lat. vet. (some codd.) and Eg.
sah., foot fi j3oDs that of N L, Lat. vet. (some codd.), Syr. sin., and Eg. boh.
1 Mention of these is absent from Mt. (xii. 14) and Lk. (vi. 11).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS

389

diseases. And as on previous occasions (i. 24, 34), the demoniacs who
addressed Him as the Son of God (cf. Lk. iv. 41),, thereby implying that
He was the Messiah, were charged not to make Him known. The time for
His self -disclosure had not yet arrived.1

§ 5. The Nucleus of a New Ecclesia
The schemes of the Pharisees after the last incident in the synagogue
showed clearly that henceforward the ecclesiastical leaders would no
longer tolerate Jesus. If He had ever hoped to bring them to share His
own spiritual convictions, or to enlist their co-operation in calling the
nation to repentance, He could do so no more. He accordingly retired
from the sea to the hiUy country in the vicinity of the north-west shore of
the Lake. There (according to Lk. vi. 12) He spent the night in prayer ;
and in the morning He selected Twelve (the figure clearly having relation
to the number of the tribes of Israel, cf. Mt. xix. 28 = Lk. xxii. 30) to
be His constant companions, whom He might train, and eventually send
forth in various directions to impart His Message and to heal disease.
The existing age was believed to be largely under the domination of
Satan and his demons ; but the dawn of a new age was on the point of
breaking, and to the Spirit of God working in Jesus the predominance of
the spirit of evil was already giving way (cf. Mi. xii. 28 = Lk. xi. 20).
But whUst the Twelve were meant to be His helpers in announcing the
nearness of God's Kingdom and its' conditions, and in releasing men from
the power of Satan, they also constituted the nucleus of a new society, a
spiritual Israel within which were to be incorporated all who accepted
His teaching.
The Twelve whom our Lord chose tb be His emissaries and delegates
(St. Luke says that He called them Apostles) 2 are variously named in
the different hsts enumerating them, and it is a little doubtful whether the
same twelve individuals are meant ; but the circumstance that so many
Jews had double names (p. 384) renders it probable that some, if not all, of
the variations in hsts are due to the fact that the several writers use only
one, but not the same, element in such compound names. The order
in which the names are arranged differs in the several lists, which are as
follows :—

Mk.

Mt.

Lk.

Acts.

1. Simon Peter

1. Simon Peter

1. Simon Peter

1. Peter

2. James, son of

2. Andrew

2. Andrew

2. James

Zebedee

3. John

3. James, son of
. ¦ ¦ . Zebedee

3. James

3. John

4. Andrew

4. John

4. John

4. Andrew

5. PhUip

5. Phihp

5. Phihp

5. Phihp

1 Ml. (xii. 18-21) quotes, in connection with His desire to avoid notoriety,
2 Is. xhi. 1-4.
2 In Mk. iii. 14 ois ual airo<rr6\avs tbvdjmaev has the support of S BC and the Eg.
and Ethiopic versions. Jesus Himself could be regarded as the Apostle of God (Heb.
W- 1), s

390. NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Mk.

Mt.

Lk.

Ac,(s.

6.

Bartholomew 6,

Bartholomew 6.

Bartholomew

6. Thomas

7.

Levi or Matthew 7.

Thomas 7.

Matthew

7. Bartholomew

8.

Thomas 8.

Matthew 8.

Thomas

8. Matthew

9.

James, son of 9.

James, son of 9.

James, son of

9. James, son of

Alphseus

Alphseus

Alphseus

Alphseus

10.

Thaddseus 10.

Thaddaeus 10.

Simon the Zealot 10. Simon the Zealot

11.

Simon the Zealot 11.

Simon the Zealot 11.

Judas, son of
James

11. Judas, son of
James

12.

Judas Iscariot 12.

Judas Iscariot 12.

Judas Iscariot

12 [Judas Iscariot]

The appellation Bartholomew is a patronymic (son of Talmai), and
possibly the Apostle's real name was Nathanael (Joh. i. 45), who was a
friend of Phihp, with whom in the Synoptic fists Bartholomew is associated.
In the enumeration of Mk- and Mt., Tha4dceus is replaced in the Bezan
codex and some Old Latin manuscripts by Lebbmus ; whilst in the two lists
of St- Luke his place is taken by Judas, son of Jq,mes x ; and it seems
probable that the same individual is meant. The name Peter (the Greek
rendering of the Aramaic Cephas, Joh. i. 42, 1 Cor. xv. 5) seems to have
been given to Simon by Jesus Himself, Who also caUed the two sons of
Zebedee Boanerges, a title which is interpreted to mean " Thunderers,"2
presumably because of a certain vehemence of character (cf. Mk. ix. 38,
Lk. ix. 54). Thomas and its Greek equivalent Didymus (Joh. xi. 16)
was a nickname, " Twin " : according to the Acta Thomce his real name
was Judas. James, the son of Alphseus, was known as " the Little," or
" the Yqunger " (6 ftixgog), if he can be identified with the James of
Mk. xv, 40. The epithet the Canancean given to Simon in Mk. and Mt.
is equivalent to the epithet 6 ZrjXa>rrjg in Lk. The name Iscariot ('Iqxaoicod),
apphed to the last of the Twelve, is generally taken to be a transliteration
of the Hebrew Ish Keriyyoth,3 " man of Kerioth " (perhaps Kerioth-Hezron
in Judah (Josh. xv. 25), or Kerioth on the east of the Dead Sea, the modern
Kureiyat). The Apostle in question would then perhaps be the only
non-Galilsean among the Twelve.
It was probably after the appointment of the Twelve that Jesus
dehvered the discourse which is generally, but seemingly erroneously,
called the Sermon on the Mount. The name is derived from Mt. v. 1,
but the address which follows in Mt. v., vi., vii., is lacking in unity as
regards its contents ; and comparison with Lk., where in vi. 20-49 there
is a discourse much briefer in extent, but beginning and ending similarly,
seems to show that the Sermon in Mt. is drawn from various sources.
AU that Mt. and Lk. have together may be presumed to come from Q,
whilst the considerable sections which are pecuhar to Mt. probably have
some other origin. Not all the material assignable to Q occurs in Lk. vi.
20-49, some parts being found elsewhere in the Third Gospel. But the
Lucan section just mentioned exhibits a unity of tenor which, combined
1 It has been conjectured that Lebbmus is meant to represent Levi (as distinct from
Matthew), though this is unlikely.
2 The title seems to be a transliteration of the Heb. bene rogez^ the last term being
used in connexion with thunder in Job xxxvii, 2.
8 Mt. converts the name into an adjective — 6 'lo-Kapubryis.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 891
with a formal beginning and end, renders it hkely that it really represents
a single discourse. And if so, the occasion to which it is ascribed by Lk.
is much more plausible than that to which it is attributed by Mt. By
both it is described as addressed by Jesus to His disciples, but whereas
Mt. has previously related nothing about the disciples except the call of
Peter, Andrew, arid the two sons of Zebedee, Lk. has recorded the selection
of the Twelve Apostles from among other followers ; and the choice of
them would afford an appropriate opportunity for an exposition of the
characteristics which were to mark the adherents, and especially the
emissaries, of Jesus, the principles which were to guide their conduct, and
the recompense which they might look for. The conclusion that the
occasion of the Sermon is more faithfully represented in Lk. than in Mt.
makes the designation of it as the Sermon on the Mount unsuitable, since
St. Luke records that it was delivered on a level place after Jesus had
descended from the mountain. Mt., who in his additions has aimed at
throwing into relief the difference between the teaching of Jesus and that
of Moses, has intentionaUy brought the two into comparison by representing
that the Law of the Christian community, like the Law of the Jews, was
deUvered on a mountain.1
The substance of the Sermon, so far as can be judged, consisted of
four divisions, (a) Four Beatitudes pronounced upon certain classes
and conditions of people — the poor, the hungry, the sorrowful, the
unpopular — who were such for the sake of Jesus and the principles which
He taught 2 ; (V) Injunctions to display submissiveness under wrong, and
to practise unlimited charity both in action and judgment, and towards
enemies no less than friends ; (c) Cautions against self-deception in
condemning others ; (d) A Warning that professions would be tested by
conduct ; (e) Descriptions of the happy and unhappy consequences of
obedience and disobedience.
In Lk. to the four Beatitudes there are attached four Woes pronounced upon the
rich, the full, the gay, and the popular, to which nothing corresponds in Mt.
Mt. qualifies the first and second Beatitudes, representing them as applying to
the poor in spirit, and to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness a ; and he
adds four others, relating to the meek, the merciful, the pure-hearted, and the peace
makers. He further expands the Sermon (as it is contained in Lk.) by incorporating
with it (1) a series of contrasts between the legislation and rules of conduct prescribed
in earher times, which prohibited murder, adultery, and perjury, but aUowed retaUa-
tion and resentment against enemies, and the corresponding precepts of Jesus, forbid
ding even anger, lustful looks, oaths, and resistance to evil, and enjoining love for
enemies ; (2) a series of passages, contained also in Lk. xi., xn. and other places,
inculcating (a) trust in God's providential care, (b) confident prayer to Him ; (c)
need of undivided service ; (d) expediency of repairing wrongs to feUow-men before
1 Cf. Loisy, Les Evangiles Synoptiques, i. pp. 539, 540.
2 Mt. has for righteousness' sake ... for my sake " ; Lk. " for the Son of man's
sake." The fourth beatitude seems to have been expanded to make it reflect more
closely the persecutions sustained, after Jesus' death, by His foUowers at the hands
of the Jews.
3 That Lk.'s version here is nearer than Mt.'s to the actual words of our Lord is
probable from a comparison of Mk. x. 11-12 with Mt. xix. 9 (where the latter qualifies
his source).

392 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
satisfaction is exacted by the Divine Judge; The injunctions relating to the practice
of prayer include the model form of suppUcation known as the Lord's Prayer. This
(which in Lk. xi. 1 is represented as furnished in answer to a request made to Jesus
by His disciples that He would teach them to pray) appears in a shorter and a longer
form in Lk. and Mt. respectively, the former lacking the third petition and the second
half of the sixth, as well as having other differences. In regard to it, only two expres
sions caU for note here : (a) The phrase rbv aprov . . . rbv iirioitnov is best explained
on the supposition that rj iwiouaa, strictly " the coming day," had become synony
mous with " the day" (cf. Prov. xxvii. 1, LXX), so that the words in question mean
" the bread of the day " (cf. Lat. vet. panem quotidianum) ; (b) the combination
pueai. thiols airb rov irovrjpov is more natural if the genitive comes from 6 wovrjpos (cf.
Mt. xui. 19) rather than from rb irovijpdv (Lk. vi. 45) : cf. 2 Th. ni. 1, Rom. xv. 31 and
contrast 1 Cor. i. 10. The implication in the fifth petition that God's forgiveness is
dependent upon a forgiving spirit shown by the petitioner towards his feUows is made
explicit in Mt. vi. 14-15 (cf. Mk. xi. 25, Ecclus. xxviii. 2) ; and the consequence of
failure on the part of men to forgive one another is enforced in Mt. xvui. 21-35 by
the parable of the Unforgiving Debtor. Nevertheless forgiveness is to be conditional
upon acknowledgment of the offence ; and if, after every means of convincing the
offender of the wrong done has been exhausted, he remains obdurate, relations with him
are to be broken off (Mt. xvui. 15-17, see p. 424). The duty and potency of importunate
prayer are emphasized by two parables pecuUar to Lk. : (a) the Friend at Midnight (xi.
5-8) ; (b) the Widow and the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1-8). The fact (iUustrated
in them) that importunity prevails even where right motives are inoperative, leads
to the conclusion that it cannot fail to prevaU with God Who is both righteous and
gracious. After the delivery of the Sermon Jesus seems to have returned to
Capernaum, for this is probably the scene of the next incident related by
St. Mark. In spite of the animosity of the Scribes and Pharisees towards
Him, the popular interest which He caused did not diminish. As soon as
it was known where He was,1 the crowd intruded upon Him and His
disciples even at meal times. A report of His proceedings, and especiaUy
(it may be supposed) of His disregard of the rules laid down by the Scribes
for the observance of the Sabbath, and the offence thereby given to that
influential class, had reached His relatives 2 at Nazareth, and had caused
them much distress. In His youth and early manhood He had apparently
shown no disposition to subvert traditional standards, and the only explana
tion of His conduct now was that He was beside Himself with morbid
self-exaltation ; so they left home with the intention of placing some
restraint upon Him. But if His relatives were only animated by a wish
to protect Him against HimseU, there were others, Scribes from Jerusalem,
who were actuated by suspicion and prejudice, and prepared to put the
worst construction upon the exercise, by One Whose teaching they disliked,
of powers which they could not deny. They appear to have witnessed a
cure by Him of a demoniac. By St. Mark no account is furnished of the
occasion which the subsequent narrative imphes, but both Mt. (xu. 9 f.),
and Lk. (xi. 14 f.), drawing upon Q, relate that there was brought to Jesus
a man who was dumb;3 his infirmity being attributed, hke so many others,
to the influence of a demon. When Jesus enabled the man to regain his
1 In Mk. ui. 20 tpxerai eis oTkov may mean that He went home (see p. 384).
2 In Mk. iii. 21 the meaning of oi irap airov is explained in v. 31 ; the Vulg.
has sui.
3 Mt. xu. 22 adds that the man was bhnd also.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 393
lost capacity for speech,1 the Scribes, since His success in effecting a cure
was indisputable, accounted for it, in their malice, by the presence in
Him of a demon, Beelzebul, contending that with the authority of Satan,
the ruler of the demons (p. 22), He had driven out the subordinate demon
that had caused the man's dumbness. Jesus detected their unuttered
thoughts (cf. Mk. ii. 8), and rephed that variance between Satan and one
of his subject spirits was as suicidal as variance between members of a
kingdom or a household. What the Scribes and others had witnessed could
only mean that Satan himself had been mastered by One Who was stronger
than he ; and that Jesus, in recovering the dumb man from the power of
the demon, had despoiled Satan of what he had held in possession. In
ascribing a work of beneficent, not malign, character to Satanic agency
they were incurring the guilt of blaspheming the Divine Spirit through
which Jesus cast out the spirits of evil (Mt. xii. 28, cf. Lk. xi. 20) ; and
this sin was less pardonable than any other.2
The word Beelzebul is elsewhere unknown as the name of a demon. It may mean
either " Lord of the lofty abode " (cf. 3 Is. Ixiii. 15, Heb.) or " Lord of dung " (a con-'
temptuous substitution). The Syr. and Vulg. have Beelzebub ("Lord of flies"),
the name of the god of Ekron mentioned in 2 Kg. i. 6.
In Mt. xn. 27, 28 and Lk. xi. 19, 20 Jesus cites as a paraUel to His own action the
exorcism of demons practised amongst the Jews, which they would not aUow to be
due to Satanic agency. Lk. attaches to this context two sayings of Jesus derived
from Q : (1) a warning that in a conflict between good and evil neutrality is equivalent
to hostility towards the good ; (2) another warning (having in view the recent cure
of the demoniac) that an evil spirit, when expeUed from a man, returns reinforced,
if the man meanwhile has not come under the control of a good spirit. Mt. places
the first saying here, but the second in a different connexion.
Meanwhile there had arrived 3 from Nazareth His relatives, including
His Mother * and His " brethren," who had left their home in the hope that
by their interference they might prevent Him from pursuing His present
course of conduct. When they came, He' was no longer engaged in
controversy, but in a house surrounded by a multitude of persons
attentively Ustening to His teaching. The interest and sympathy mani
fested by them (Mt. xii. 49, Lk. vhi. 21) caused Jesus to feel a sense of
spiritual kinship between them and Himself. The crowd hindered His
Mother and her companions from approaching Him, but they succeeded
in getting a message transmitted to Him, informing Him that they were
outside, and wished to see Him. Jesus seems to have divined their
intentions. Probably He had previously found them prone to misunder
stand and misinterpret Him, and He felt that in spite of their relationship
to Him, there was in them httle affinity of spirit to Himself. And so,
when He received the message, He asked, " Who is my mother and my
i In Mt. xii. 23 the multitudes ask whether Jesus can be the son of David.
2 Mt. (xn. 32) seems to draw a distinction between the humanity of Jesus and the
Divine Spirit within Him, an utterance against the former being pardonable, but
against the latter unpardonable ; but see p. 616. Lie. (xu. 10) has this verse, which
must come from Q, in a different context.
3 Mk. hi. 31 resumes the narrative left unfinished in vv. 20, 21,
* Joseph was probably dead,

394 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
bpethren ? " and then looking around on those who were seated near
Him, He answered His own question by saying, " Behold my mother
and my brethren. Whoever doeth the wUl of God is my brother and
sister and mother."
This incident is preserved in a less inteUigible form in Mt. (xu. 46 f.) and Lk. (viii.
19) than in Mk., for the two later Gospels omit Mk.'s statement that the relations of
Je^us started from home in order to put some check upon His movements, and the
absence of this leaves the attitude of Jesus towards His Mother and brothers unex
plained. They also virtuaUy retain Mk.'s " standing without," though by them no
previous mention is made of His being in a house.
An occurrence similar in tenor to the foregoing is related by Lk xi. 27, 28. When
a woman pronounced blessed the mother who bore Him, Jesus declared that they
rather were blessed who heard the word of God and kept it
St. Mark, haying thus briefly traced our Lord's ministry from the
beginning up to the point where an open breach occurred between Him and
the Scribes and Pharisees, and having also shown how unsympatheticaUy
He was regarded by members of His own family, proceeds at this point
to exemphfy the matter and manner of His instruction ; and relating
how, after the occurrence just recorded, He again began to teach, seated
in a boat on the Lake, takes the opportunity of describing how He taught
by parables. Parables, as well as fables, were favourite means of pointing
a moral among the Hebrews (Jud. ix. 7 f ., 2 Sam. xii. 1-4, 2 Kg. xiv. 9,
Is. v. 1 f., Ezek, xvii. .3), so that Jesus, in employing the former, foUowed
the precedent of other teachers.1 Though the term parable was used to
include brief aphorisms and proverbs (Prov. i. 6, Ezek. xu. 22, Mk. hi. 23,
vii. 17, Lk. iv. 23), it strictly signified an extended simile, without the
comparison being made explicit. Parallels were drawn from the natural
worLd and from the ordinary proceedings of men to throw hght upon
spiritual principles ; and in them lessons,2 which in the abstract might be
difficult to grasp, or might fail to arrest or retain the attention, were
conveyed by concrete and realistic stories, embellished by detaUs calculated
to render them attractive, but not necessarily answering to anything in
the subject which they were intended to iUuminate. They thus differed
from allegories, in which a number of points in the illustration correspond
to an equal number of points in the matter illustrated. Some of our
Lord's parables, indeed, are not easily distinguishable from aUegories;
but in general to press the parallehsm through aU the details is to distort
the true significance of the narratives, and leads to mistaken inferences.
It was the Kingdom of God which many of our Lord's parables were
designed to explain. The similitudes which He employed were meant to
impress upon men's minds the supreme importance of the Kingdom, the
suddenness of its advent, and the necessity of being ready for it. But
though it is certain that Jesus made parables a vehicle for instructing the
people at large, it is remarkable that of the few preserved in the Second
Gospel some at least appear from their purport to be reaUy intended for
His Apostles rather than for the multitude, and to be calculated to prepare
1 Mt. (xiii. 35) in connexion with Jesus' use of parables quotes Ps. lxxviii. 2 (attri
buted to " the prophet," probably David being meant).
• In Mk. xiii. 28 TapafioKr) virtuaUy has the meaning of " lesson."

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 395
them for experiences awaiting them, in their prpclamatior. of the Kingdom,
and tp encourage them to sustained effort in their work.
The first parable narrated is that of the Sower. Though it is not
expressly said, like those that follow it, to relate to the Kingdqin, it
unmistakably does sq, since the Seed so^n is " the Word.,"1 i.e. the message
concerning the. Kingdom (Mt. xui. 19), the Sower being Jesus Himseif,
pr anyone engaged in the same mission. Under the figure of a husbandman.
sowing his land, whose seed is sometimes thrown accidentally beyond,
the limits of the field on to the road, where it is devoured by birds, Pi falls
where the rpck comes near the surface and the soil is quickly baked by the
sun (said to be a characteristic of the corn-lands of Gahlee), pr gets cast
among patches pf thorn? which choke it, but at, other times is scattered
upon fertile soil, there is set forth both the failure? and the. successes o,f
those who were, or would; be, engaged in dispersing among men the
announcement of the coming of God's Kingdom. The various places
where the seed faUs correspond to human characters, some pf wJiich
produce no good result, either because the impression made by the Message
IS destroyed at once by evil influences,2 or becomes evanescent iA conse
quence of tribulation, or is impaired through the competition of p^her
in.te1.e9ts, whilst others yield the fruit of a good hfe, meet for inclusion
in; the Divine Kingdom, The explanation of both this and further parables
Jesus was begged by His disciples to communicate to them ; and He
accordingly interpreted it in detail.
Parables were in general designed as a vehicle for popular instruction (Mk. iv. 2;
33) ; and in order to serve as such their import was bound to be perspicuous' and
easily apprehended, There was always, however, the possibihty of their true signifU
cance being missed by some of the hearers ; and even the chosen Twelve were not
invariably quick or sure in comprehending their Lord's meaning. And inasmuch
as these were to aid Him in His teaching, it was important to explain fuUy to them
the lessons whioh the parables were intended to oonvey if anything in them was
obscure. The purport pf the parable of the Sower is expressly said to, have bepn
expounded to the Twelve at their own petition,3 though Jesus expressed His surprise
at their finding it difficult to understand ; and the same request is represented as put
and fulfiUed in the case of another, reported by Mt. alone (but see p. 396) ; whilst
Mk. iv. 34 suggests that the hke was done in other instances. But it is strange that
the Second Evangelist should also (iv. 11 f.) represent Jesus as avowing that He was
ready to impart the secret of the Kingdom (i.e. the laws conditioning participation
in it) plainly to the Apostles, but purposely spoke to the multitude (described as ol
2£w) in parables which conveyed the truth only indirectly, in order that (in the words
of Is. vi. 9, 10) it might be concealed from them, to the end that they might not turn
and be forgiven. Such an intention it is impossible to attribute to our Lord } the
potion must represent the beUef entertained by St. Paul and adopted here by St. Mark,
that the rejection of Jesus by the mass of the Jews was Divirfely ordained (Rom. xi.
7, 8), and that the enigmatic form in which His teaching was couched served, in Qod's
purposes, to bring about the result.4
* In the course of the interpretation the seed becomes identified with the hearers
of the Word whose characters result from the seed, according to the soil receiving it.
2 Mt. and Lk. identify the birds with the devil and his agents.
' In Mk. iv. 13 Jesus' words presuppose a question from the disciples hke that in
Lk. viu. 9 ; their question in Mk. iv. 10 is more clearly expressed in Mt. xiii. 10.
* Mt. (xin. 13) for Mk.'s iva j3\iirovres flkiiroHnv, kt\. (foUowed by Lk. viu. 10)
substitutes SKivovres oi BXiirouinv kt\., and represents Is. vi. 9, 10 as thereby
fulfiUed.

396 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Jesus proceeded to enjoin the Apostles, in figurative terms, not to
keep to themselves, but to transmit to others, any knowledge which they
received from Him : a lamp was riot meant to be put under a corn-measure
or under a bench (or couch), but in a lampstand, where it could shed its
light (cf . Lk. viii. 16, xi. 33). 1 And He went on to affirm that recompense
and retribution awaited men's treatment of His message ; and that whilst
effort to retain truth imparted would be rewarded by the communication
of further truth, indifference would be penahzed by the loss of what was
already acquired.
The parable of the Sower, according tp St. Mark, was followed by
another parable, the Seed growing secretly (found only in the Second
Gospel) . In it the interval elapsing between the announcement to mankind
of the message about the Kingdom and the actual reahzation of the latter
was compared to the period of inaction between sowing and harvest.
Like the seed germinating in the ground, so the message was working
secretly in men's hearts ; but just as the ripening of the grain was awaited
by the husbandman before he put in the sickle, so God was awaiting the
maturity of the spiritual conditions which He desired before intervening
to preserve and to destroy. From such a comparison those who were
entrusted with the diffusion of the message among men might learn not
to lose heart because the consummation of their hopes was delayed. To
this parable was appended a third, the Mustard Seed, in which the Kingdom
was likened to a seed of the mustard-plant, of which, though the smaUest
of all seeds, the upgrowth exceeded in size aU herbs.2 This is sometimes
thought to imply that the Kingdom would be consummated by a process
of development, or to depict it as an expanding institution (the Church).
But such explanations are contrary to the general drift of Jesus' teaching,
at least in Mk., for this represents the realization of the Kingdom as
abrupt and sudden, and the parable is probably meant to encourage the
disciples with the prospect of seeing momentous results in the future,
though the immediate outlook was so unpromising.
Both Mt. and Lk., drawing upon Q, place in succession to the last
mentioned parable another, wherein the Kingdom is compared to leaven
mixed in three pecks (adra = Heb. Seim, Gen. xvui. 6) of dough, the
whole of which it causes to ferment, the truth illustrated being the power
of the unseen forces that were secretly at work to bring about the Divine
ends. With the parables of the Sower, the Mustard Seed and the Leaven Mt. combines
four others : (1) the Wheat and the Tares,3 (2) the Hidden Treasure, (3) the Pearl
1 Mt. v. 14-16 gives to the figure of the lamp a rather different significance by
representing Jesus as commanding those addressed to let the hght of their good works
shine forth that men might glorify God. In Lk. xi. 33 kXwi. is replaced by icpvirrr)
("cellar"). 2 The Sinapis arvensis (field mustard) is said togrow in Palestine under favourable
conditions to a height of 10 or 12 feet (Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 463). The description
in Mk. iv. 326 is conventional : cf. Ezek. xvii. 23, Dan. iv. 12.
3 Thought to be, not a vetoh but the Bearded Darnel (Lolium temulentum), a plant
as taU as wheat or barley and at an early stage resembling them. The interpretation
of this parable, at least in its present form, probably does not proceed from our Lord.,

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 397
of great price, (4) the Drag net. The first and fourth throw Ught on the mixed char
acter of the aggregate of people drawn together by the proclamation of the Kingdom,
of whom the good and the bad would only be separated at the end of the age ; whilst
the second and the third iUustrate the surpassing value of the Kingdom, in comparison
with which aU else is worthless. In connexion with Jesus' use of parables, the Pirst
Evangehst quotes Ps. lxxvni. 2.
§ 6. Unfriendliness on the other side of the Lake
At the conclusion of the section in Mk. which furnishes examples of
Jesus' parabolic teaching, the Evangelist resumes his narrative of events
interrupted at iv. 2. Our Lord, after He had finished His instruction of
the multitude, remained in the boat, and bade His disciples cross to the
other side of the Lake. There He was less known,, so that for a brief
while He hoped to have respite from the numbers that thronged Him ;
whilst in view of what is said in Mk. v. 19 He may have contemplated an
attempt to preach on the eastern shore. The disciples at once did as
He wished, and leaving the crowd behind, but being accompanied by some
enthusiastic foUowers in other boats, they started. In the course of the
passage there sprang up one of the violent squaUs to which this low-lying
sheet of water is subject. The waves that were raised promised to swamp
the boat, so that the disciples grew seriously alarmed for their safety.
Jesus was asleep on the helmsman's cushion in the stern, and was
awakened by them with the words, " Teacher, carest thou not that we
perish % " He at once arose, and according to the Evangelist's narrative,
He rebuked the wind and said unto the sea, " Hush, be stUL" The wind,
thereupon, fell, and the storm was succeeded by a profound calm. Then
Jesus turned to the disciples and said, " Why are ye timid ? How is it
that ye have not faith ? x The experience filled them with awe, and they
began to wonder, in the light of it, Who their Master could be.
The narrative is obviously meant to- describe a miracle, for though the
wind might drop suddenly, the sweU resulting from it would not naturaUy
subside with the same rapidity. But whether Jesus reaUy controUed
the elements as here related, or whether the miracle has been imported
into the story, is a question to which the answer depends upon the pre
suppositions with which the account is approached. If it is assumed that
Jesus had at His disposal the resources of omnipotence which He drew
upon, or dispensed with, at pleasure, acting as God and man by turns,
the narrative is credible as it stands. But on the assumption that His
miracles in general were accomplished through faculties of Divine origin
inherent in His humanity and occurring, though in a much smaller degree,
in other individuals, parallels to such control over natural forces as is here
related are more difficult to find than parallels (admitted by medical
science) to His miracles of healing. And although the future may
Who at this stage of His ministry could scarcely haves spoken of Himself as the Son of
man (cf. p. 383) or of His Angels and His Kingdom (Mt. xiii. 41). The authenticity
of the explanation of the parable of the Drag net is also open to suspicion in consequence
of its resemblance to that of the Tares : cf . vv. 49, 50 (which suit ill the figure of " fish ")
with vv. 41, 42.
1 In Mt. the reproof is uttered before the 3torm is calmed. '

398 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
enlarge our knowledge pi the range of power to which human person
alities (participating as they do in varying measure in the Spirit of God)
can attain, yet until further evidence is forthcoming for the exercise by
the human will Pf control over the elements, we are left to conclude that
the present narrative has been shaped under the influence of later religious
reflection. If this conclusion is justified, it may be supposed that Jesus,
in reality, encouraged His terrified disciples to have faith in God's pro
tecting providence, and that His own tranquU Confidence in His Father
proved well founded through the speedy lulling of the tempest ; but that
the incident has been enhanced in consequence of presumptions as to
what was appropriate for the Son of God in such an emergency (cf; Ps:
lxv: 7, lxxxix. 9} civ. 7, cvii. 29).
This narrative is the first of a series of four reports of miracles related
by St. Mark consecutively; The second is connected with the eastern
shore of the Lake. This is variously described as the country of the
Gerasenes, Gadarenes, and Gergesenes, in Mk., Mt. and Lk.1 respectively-.
The best-known places bearing the names Gerasa and Gadafa are too far
away to be meant (the first being in GUead, 30 mUes from the Lake, and
the second 5 or 6 miles from it). But there is a modern village caUed
Khersa situated on the Shore, with a steep precipice in its neighbourhood,
of which Gerasa or Gefgesa may have been the ancient name. As Jesus
landed here. He was met by a madman,2 whose mania was so violent that
people had been unable to provide fetters sufficiently strong to Control him ;
and naked and bleeding from self-inflicted gashes he used to haunt the
tombs in the vicinity of the place, thereby confirming the popular idea
that he was a victim of the demons supposed to frequent such localities.
When the poor wretch saw Jesus approach, he ran towards Him ; but
cowed by the command which Jesus addressed to the unclean spirit to
cotae forth, he fell down prostrate; with a loud petition that He, Son of
the Most High God, would not torment him. Mk. describes the demoniac
as balling Jesus by His personal name ; but this is difficult to understand.
unless the narrative is much compressed and Jesus had been there long
enough for His name to have reached the man's ears. The address,
" Thbu Son of the Most High God " is more inteUigible, even if the man
were a heathen, for the Divine appellation " God Most High " (El Elyon)
was not confined to the Jews (Ps. xviii; 13. Ecclus. vii. 15), but was in use
among pagans 3 ¦; and the madman in his awe would not unnaturaUy
saltite Jesus by the highest titld he could think of. Jesus, in answer,
asked his name, the commonplace question being perhaps designed to
help him (accustomed as he was to be mocked and jeered at) to feCover,
at least momentarily, his Self-possession. The riian, with a touch of
1 There is, however, strong support for Gerasenes in Lk. viu. 26 (B D, etc.), and in
v. 37, where C has the same reading.
a Mt. viu. 28, whb omits the account of the demoniac at Capernaum (Mk. i. 23^-28),
mentions two demoniacs dn this occasion, whb rendered the road dangerous.
3 It was known at least to 'the Phoenicians, in whose theogony there was an 'EXiow
na'Koiuevos "t\pi<rros (Driver, Gen. p. 165). In the Old Testament it is put into the
mouth of Melchizedek, Balaamy and the King of Babylon.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 89*
sardonic humour suggestive of a semi-lu'cid interval, replied " Legion "
(as though he would say, " I feel as if I were possessed by 5,000 devfls ¦").*
The tranquillizing influence whieh Jesus was beginning to exert over him'
was manifest by his1 begging that Jesus would riot send the" demons out
of the country,2 biit that they might be allowed to enter a vast herd of
swine feeding on the cliffs. Wandering Spirits (it was assumed)' needed
a tenement, and could dweU1 in the bodies' of animals as well as in those of
human beings. Jesus consented to' the petition, and though the Evangelist
doubtless assumes that the demoniac's madness was now transferred to
the swine, probably in reality the' man, believing himself delivered from
his tyrants', who had passed into the' swine, strove with shouts and violent
gestures to drive* the latter as far from him as possible ; arid thereby sd
frightened them that they plunged madly down the' steep into the water
and were drowned. The relief arising from the reflection that the evil
spirits had left him for ever was calbuMed to aid the maniac's cure, So'
that he became calm and aUowed himself to' be clothed. Those who had
charge of the herd (presumably an aggregate of srrtetUef herds belonging
to' different owners), when they saw the occurrence; hurried away and
reported it in the town and outlying farms, a targe crowd gathering in
consequence, to ascertain the circumstances. They found the man, with'
his senses restored, seated' quietly in the company of Jesus ; and the
prodf of the' latter's power, afforded both by the cure of the demoniac and
by the destruction of the swine; fiUed' them With a sense of fear. But the
relief rendered' to- their f eUow-mari moved them less than' the loss of their
property,, and they entreated Jesus to withdraw from' them'. He did not
hesitate to leave those who' did not want Him ; and He entered a) boa,t
to return. The'maii who had been healed begged'that he might accompany
his- Deliverer ; but Jesus would1 not permit it, and since He Himself was
not aUowed1 to stay in the district, directed him, instead, to go' home strid
tomake known to his friends the mercy which God had shown him. Oilr
Lord's injunction possibly had in view the prospect of a second1 and more
successful' visit to the east of the take, for which the tidings of what had
happened might prepare the Way(cf. Mk. vii. 31). The man obeyed, arid
proceeded to proclaim throughout1 the district of the' Ten' Towns3 (p. 7)
tfhe wonderful cure that Jesus had wrought in him.
The question has been raised whether it was justifiable for our Lord
to. inflict on the' owners of the swine the' heavy loss caused by the destrilc-
tion of the herd. It is a precarious explanation to' suppose that the owners
were Jews; who by keeping pigs broke the Jewish' law, arid consequently
had' no claim to consideration ; for it is by ho means clear that the in
habitants' of this district were predbmiBantly JeWs.* A preferable
solution of the difficulty is that Jesus did. not foresee what would happen
to the swine. There' is considerable evidence that Jesus' knowledge.
1 Cf. Gould; St. .Mk. p. 00.
*' Ek'. represents that they asked not to besent.' into 'the abyss (probably meaning;
the sea, of. Job xxviii.- 14, LXX).
3 Lie. has "throughout the whole city" (of. p.- 138).
* Josephus describes them as a mixture of Jews and Syrians ($. J. iii. 3, §)'.'

400 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
during His earthly life, was not aU-embracing (Mk. v. 31, vi. 38) ; and
He possibly thought that in unclean beasts unclean spirits would find a
congenial home, without considering such a contingency as the com
munication to the herd, through the man's behaviour, of panic terror.
The boat in which Jesus re-embarked crossed to the western shore,
seemingly putting in at Capernaum.1 There a multitude at once flocked
to Him, and He apparently resumed His teaching by the sea. Knowledge
of His ability to cure diseases was by this time widespread ; so that it is
not surprising that one of the presidents of the local synagogues (p. 95),
Jair (cf. Num. xxxii. 41), or Jairus, by name, whose only daughter, a
girl of 12 (Lk. viii. 42), was at the point of death, came to Him, beseeching
Him to lay His hands upon her, that she might recover. Touch was
sometimes employed by our Lord in performing works of healing (see note,
p. 380) ; so that His habit was perhaps commonly known. Jesus
immediately accompanied His petitioner, and was foUowed by a large
crowd that pressed close to Him in eagerness to see another marvel.
Among those who had also heard of the cures effected by Him was a
woman who had suffered from haemorrhage for twelve years, and who, in
spite of expensive treatment by physicians, had not regained her health.
She now came behind Him amid the crush, in the confident hope that she
would be healed if she could but touch one of the tassels hanging from
His outer garment.2 She succeeded in doing so, and her faith brought
about her relief. Possibly the cessation of the haemorrhage was gradual,
but it began from the moment that she touched the Lord's raiment. But
what she did was not undetected by Jesus, Whose extraordinary psychical
sensitiveness (it would seem) caused Him to discern near Him an intense
desire for His help, which the woman probably shrank from seeking
openly because her malady rendered her rituaUy unclean (Lev. xv. 25 f.).
Turning to the crowd, He asked who touched Him, some of the disciples
being surprised at His question under such circumstances. As He
glanced about Him, the woman, fiUed with apprehension, came and
confessed the truth ; whereupon Jesus at once calmed her fears, and
declaring that her faith had healed her (cf. Mk. x. 52, Lk. xvu. 19), bade
her go in peace and be fuUy restored.3
Meanwhile messengers had come from the house of the president of
the synagogue, announcing that his daughter was dead, so that there was
no need to trouble the Teacher further. Jesus overheard the message,
and bade the father take courage and have faith. When the house was
reached, He aUowed none to enter except Peter, James and John. Then
going in with them He found the professional mourners 4 already gathered.
He ordered them to cease their wailing, for the maid was not dead but
1 Cf. Mt. ix. 1. The Pirst EvangeUst inserts a number of incidents between the
occurrence just related and the next whioh by MR. are placed earUer.
2 These, made of white wool, fastened with a cord of blue, every Jew was required
by the Law to attach to the four corners of his garment (Num. xv. 38 f .).
8 Eusebius H.E. vii. 18 represents that the woman was a Gentile and belonged to
Caesarea PhUippi, and tradition names her Bernice.
1 References to such occur in Am. v. 16, Jer. ix. 17, 2 Ch. xxxv. 25. For fife-
players on such an occasion (Mt. ix. 23) of. Jos. B.J. iii. 9, 5.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 401
sleeping ; but His words were received with derision. He turned them
out of the house ; and. then in company with the parents entered the room
where the maiden lay. Then He took her by the harid, and addressing
her in Aramaic said, " Damsel, arise." The touch, the voice, the aid
given by the hand — aU (it may be supposed) contributed to rouse her
from her death-like trance, and she got up and was able to walk, to the
amazement of those who were present. Jesus then directed that the
occurrence should not be made known (cf. i. 44, vii. 36), perhaps because
it would encourage hopes that could seldom be fulfiUed ; and He told her
parents to give her food.
It is, of course, possible that when Jesus said ovx dnidavsv dXXd
xadevSei, His meaning was that a state of death from which there was
to be an immediate awakening could only be regarded as a sleep.1 But
if death had really occurred, He must have brought back the soul which
had departed, and instantaneously restored the physical organism, fatally
injured by disease, to a condition enabling it to retain the vital principle ;
and if He, being human as well as Divine, actually possessed power to do
this, it might be expected that something analogous would occur in
ordinary experience, for which there does not appear to be adequate
evidence. It seems, therefore, preferable to conclude that our Lord,
when using the words just quoted, meant exactly what they signify when
taken UteraUy. Though (if the narrative is accurate) He was not at the
moment in the room where the maid lay and so could not have detected
by the evidence of sight signs of life imperceptible to her parents, yet He
may have been sensitive to indications other than those which appeal to
the organs of vision. " There is probably no such sensitive receptor as
certain developments of the human body, and when one asserts that he
has feeling of a certain kind, or that he can see or hear certain things
which to other less receptive organisms are not apparent, we should be
able to aUow that the condition is quite possible, and that the recipient of
the impression is a living scientific proof of it." a Such assertions, of course,
if they are to carry conviction to the minds of doubters, require to be
supported by evidence that can be tested ; but in this case, according to
the historian, it was forthcoming in the fact that the maid awoke and rose
up. Although the persons in the house are represented as believing that
death had taken place, error, especiaUy in an age when medical knowledge
was very defective, must have been easy. Nevertheless if life was not
really extinct, so that there was no restoration of the actually dead, yet
the existence of Old Testament narratives relating the revival of the
dead (p. 117) would almost inevitably create the belief (reflected in the
Evangelist's narrative) that re-animation of the lifeless had on this occasion
also occurred.
Mt. represents that Jairus told Jesus at the outset that his daughter was dead
(not dying), and begged Him to restore her to hfe ; whilst Lk. (who confuses our Lord's
i Swete, St. Mk. p. 102.
2 British Medical Journal, June 18, 1910, p. 1473 (T. Claye Shaw, M.D., P.B.C.P.).
The passage in the original context is not brought into connexion with the miracle
here discussed. 26

402 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
entry into the house with His entry into the child's chamber) states that when Jesus
bade the maid arise her spirit returned.
In Mt. the raising of Jairus' daughter is foUowed by two other miracles recorded
in the First Gospel alone. One, wrought seemingly at " the house " in Capernaum
(p. 384) was the restoration of sight to two blind men (ix. 27-31). This has been
suspected of being a duplicate of the very similar miracle at Jericho in Mt. xx. 29-34
(=Mk. x. 46-52) : common features are the afflicted men's address to Jesus (" Have
mercy upon us, thou Son of David ") and His touching of their eyes.1 The other,
also at Capernaum, was the expulsion of a demon from a dumb man, whose speech
thereupon returned (Mt. ix. 32-34). The comment of the Pharisees in v. 34 is omitted
by D and the Old Lat. and Syr. versions, and may be interpolated from xn. 24.
Lk., prior to relating the raising of Jairus' daughter, narrates how on going to a
place called Nain (p. 4), Jesus met a funeral procession carrying to burial a young
man, the only son of a widow ; and how Jesus, stopping the bearers of the bier, bade
the young man arise, whereupon he sat up and began to speak (vii. 11-17). The
explanation suggested above would apply to this instance likewise.
From Capernaum Jesus, foUowed by His disciples, went to His early
home Nazareth (15 or 20 miles away to the south-west, p. 3). It was
the first occasion on which He had visited the town since He had begun
His public ministry ; so that when, according to the custom which He
had followed elsewhere (Mk. i. 21, iii. 1), He entered the synagogue on
the Sabbath and taught, He created great astonishment among those who
had been acquainted with Him as a youth, by the character of His teaching.
But whilst this impressed numbers who heard Him, it also perplexed them ;
and the perplexity was increased by reports of His wonderful works. His
authoritative words, and the marvellous cures which He had effected,
could not be accounted for by either heredity or training. Previously
when living in the place, He had only been known as a carpenter,2 not as
a Rabbi, much less as a prophet ; and His mother, His brethren and His
sisters were in no respect distinguished above their neighbours. The
contrast between His past and His present, and between His relatives
and Himself, was a baffling problem ; and being inexphcable, was irritat
ing. Consequently people took refuge in the conclusion that He was
seeking to impose upon them. Such a repulse from His feUow-citizens, so
unlike that which He had received in many places, drew from Him the
comment, couched in a current proverb, that it was what prophets,
honoured though they might be by strangers, were to expect from their
own country and kin. This failure to inspire any general confidence in
Himself and His mission limited the scope of the relief which He could
bring to the diseased. Where faith was wanting He could do nothing,
and only a few sufferers had sufficient trust in Him to enable them to
experience the benefits He was ready to confer.
St. Luke strangely places the visit to Nazareth almost in the forefront of our Lord's
pubUc ministry (iv. 14-30), though he inconsistently includes in his account of what
Jesus said there a reference to previous work at Capernaum (v. 23). He represents
Jesus as reading on the Sabbath, for the second lesson, 3 Is. lxi. 1, 2 (quoted from the
LXX with an insertion (v. 18, last clause) from 3 Is. lviii. 6), and declaring in a dis
course which He proceeded to deUver (cf. Acts xiii. 15 and p. 96) that the prophet's
1 Cf. McNene,. St. Mt. pp. 128-9.
2 Mt. has " the carpenter's son," Lk. " Joseph's son."

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 403
words were then and there fulfiUed. His lowly station made His hearers sceptical,
and they bade Him do there miracles simUar to those reported from Capernaum ;
but instead of gratifying them, He Ukened them to the widows and the lepers of
Israel who were unreheved by Ehjah and Ehsha, when those prophets benefited a
widow of Sidonian Zarephath, and Naaman the Syrian captain. Infuriated, they
endeavoured to destroy Him by flinging Him from the hiU (p. 3), but He neverthe
less went on His way unharmed.1
The repulse which our Lord encountered at Nazareth led Him to leave
the place for a renewed tour of instruction in the neighbouring towns ;
but He did not now confine Himself to His own individual efforts. The
time had at length come for using the help of the Twelve whom, after
the hostility manifested in the synagogue at Capernaum (p. 388), He had
chosen and taught with a view to employing them as agents for
extending a knowledge of the Kingdom independently of the opportunities
presented by the Sabbath meetings for public worship. Accordingly He
began to send them forth in pairs to declare amongst men the need of
repentance as an essential condition for entrance into the Divine Kingdom.
And as the spiritual influences of that Kingdom were already making
themselves felt, His own preaching being accompanied by the expulsion
of demons and the cure of the sick, so He likewise now commissioned His
Apostles to exorcize in His name unclean spirits and to heal diseases (cf.
Mk. vi. 13, Mt. x. 1 ,2 Lk. ix. 1) . They were to take with them no provisions
for their journey, nor even the means of buying or carrying such ; they
were to restrict themselves to such garments as were absolutely necessary
(even an additional tunic being disallowed) ; they were to depend for their
sustenance upon the hospitality of those, to whom they preached ; and
they were not to be fastidious about their lodging, but remain in the house
which they first entered.3 Should shelter be refused and the people of
any place decline tp give them a hearing, they were to make it plain to
such that further intercourse or warning was impossible for the future,
and that they were free from aU responsibUity for any consequences that
might ensue.4 These directions were obeyed, and the Twelve went forth
preaching, exorcizing demons, and healing many sick persons. In the
cure of disease they employed as an aid the external application of oil, a
remedy, often figuring in ancient medical treatment,5
Between the different Synoptic accounts of the injunctions given by Jesus to the
Twelve there are a certain number of discrepancies. In Mk. a staff is not forbidden,
and footgear, is allowed, but restricted to sandals, whilst all money, even copper, }s
1 Loisy, LesEv. Syn. i. p. 839s supposes that Lk. has transposed the visit to Nazareth
from its true chronological position in order to symboUze, at the outset of his history,
the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and the consequent extension of the Gospel tb the
Gentiles. 2 Mt. (x. 8) adds " raise the dead," but the words are not in aU MSS.
3 In ML they are directed to find out some one fitted by character to entertain
them. 1 For the symboUc act of shaking off the dust of a place which is to be left to its
fate cf. Acts xiii. 51.
s Cf . Pliny, H.N. xv. 7 veteri oleo usus est ad quaedam genera morborum, Jos. B.J,
i. 33, 5 (Herod Agrippa in his last illness, was put into a bath of oil). , The use of saliva
by our Lord (Mk. vn. 33, viu. 23) is a paraUel.

404 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
prohibited. Mt. and Lk. ahke exclude both staff and shoes (for the latter cf. also
Lk. x. 4), but whereas ML, Uke Mk., forbids aU kinds of coins, Lk. excludes sUver
only (unless apyipiov is a general term for money). Mt.'s account is expanded by
the addition of some Marcan passages which ia the Second Gospel occur in another
connection (ch. xiii.), as well as sections which are partly derived from Q and partly
are pecuhar to himself. The First EvangeUst (x. 5) represents our Lord as directing
the Twelve to go neither to the Gentiles nor to the Samaritans, but to " the lost sheep
of the house of Israel," and with this Jesus' own practice agreed (cf. Mk. vii. 27 ;
ML xv. 24). The appended sections from Mk. and from Q warn against aUowing the
fear of men and of human tribunals to take the place of the fear of God ; and declare
that strife and not peace must be the result of His mission in the world. The appro
priations from Q are by Lk. (xii., xiv.) placed in a different context.
Before Jesus had entered upon the opening stage of His mission, His
forerunner, John the Baptist, had been arrested by Herod Antipas (p. 370).
At some period during his imprisonment he had heard of Jesus' activity,
and the report of it now 1 prompted him to send some of his disciples to
Him with the question whether He was reaUy the expected Messiah.2
As there is nothing in the earliest authorities to favour the view that John,
when baptizing Jesus, had recognized Him to be his destined Successor
(p. 366), the inquiry must have proceeded not from waning faith or flagging
patience because Jesus' career so far had not answered his expectations
(though this, in view of Mt. iii. 14, 15, may be in the mind of the First
Evangelist), but from a nascent hope, roused by what he had heard, that
Jesus might be the anticipated Deliverer. The question was not answered
directly (Jesus had not yet determined to reveal the truth about HimseU
even to His own chosen disciples, p. 389), but the inquirers were told to
inform John of the cures wrought on the diseased and infirm, of the raising
of the " dead," and of the preaching of good news to the poor, all such
occurrences suggesting that the powers of the Messianic age were already
at work (cf . 7s. xxxv. 5, 6, 3 Is. lxi. 4) ; and a caution was added against
aUowing disappointment at the want of explicitness in the message to
stand in the way of belief. On their departure Jesus imparted to the
multitude His own judgment concerning John, to see whom crowds had
gone forth into the wilderness. He declared that he was more than an
ordinary prophet ; that he was the Messenger whom Malaehi (iii. 1) had
predicted Jehovah would send to prepare the way before Him s ; that
none among mankind was greater than he ; but that even he, as being
only a herald, and so outside, of the Kingdom of God, was inferior to an
actual member, however insignificant, of that Kingdom. And then, in
view of the fact that, whereas numbers of the common people had been
influenced by John, the Pharisees and Scribes had rejected his teaching,
Jesus went on to compare the attitude of the latter towards John and
1 Mt. places the incident after the Mission of the Twelve, Lk. earher.
8 It is possible, though not likely, that by orb el b tpxiptevos John meant " Art
thou Elijah 1 " (cf. ML xi. 3, 6 epxbp-evos, with v. 14, 'HXeias 6 jiiWuv (pxeo-Sai).
* The quotation from Mai. iii. differs from the original by the insertion of irpb
irpoo~(birov aov in the first clause, and the replacement of irpb irpoirilnrov jiov by e'jj.irpotrdev
aov in the second. It does not appear that John was regarded either by himself or
by the people as discharging the office of Ehjah, but only by Jesus : cf . Mk. ix. 11-13,
Mt xvii. 12.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 405
Himself to that of children who would not play either at dances or at
dirges when their playmates wished ; the religious authorities thought
John too ascetic and Jesus not ascetic enough (p. 385). But from wise
men 1 the methods of the Divine Wisdom that sent both John and Himself
received vindication, for if some people had been unresponsive to both,
yet the wise and discernmg had responded either to the one or to the
other. In ML xi. 3 (=Lk. vii. 19) the phrase " he that.cometh " seems to have been drawn
from Hab. ii. 3 ipxbpevos iji-ei (though in the original the verb refers to Kaipbs),
and had seemingly become descriptive of the Messiah or of the Heavenly man (Lk.
xiii. 35, Heb. x. 37). In Jesus' answer to John, the sentence " the dead are raised
up " was doubtless taken literaUy by both the First and Third Evangehsts, and the
latter, who has placed the incident of Jairus' daughter after John's inquiry, introduces
the narrative of the widow's son at Nain immediately before it. But venpol may
have a figurative meaning, designating such as were dead in sin : see ML viii. 22
(=Lk. ix. 60); Lk. xv. 32; Joh. v. 25; Eph. U. 1.
A reference in ML xi. 1'2 to the impetuosity with which numbers sought to enter
the Kingdom since its first proclamation by John is placed by Lk. (xvi. 16) in a different
context. At this point Mt. introduces two further passages from Q. The first
(xi. 20-24= Lk. x. 12-15) is a denunciation by Jesus of Chorazin (p. 5),
Bethsaida, and Capernaum for their unresponsiveness tojHis appeal, in
spite of the mighty works done by Him in their midst. The position is
appropriate, since the reference to the miracles performed in the Galilsean
cities seems to be called forth by the report of them which John's disciples
were to carry back to their Master (xi. 5). Lk. brings the passage into
connexion with his account of the Appointment of the Seventy (p. 426),
where it has less relevance. The second passage (xi. 25-27= Lk. x. 21, 22)
is a thanksgiving by Jesus to God for imparting His revelation to the
simple-hearted (like the disciples) rather than, to the wise (such as the
Scribes thought themselves), foUowed by a declaration that the Father
alone had knowledge of the Son, and the Son alone (with those to whom
He should disclose it) knowledge of the Father. This declaration is most
illuminating by reason of the light which it throws upon our Lord's own
conviction about His relation to God and about His mission in the world,
and is discussed on p. 617.
To the foregoing there is appended by Lk. from Q a beatitude pronounced by Jesus
upon His disciples because they were privileged to enjoy experiences (i.e. such know
ledge of God as He alone imparted) which had been desired by prophets and kings,
but had been withheld from them. This is. brought by Mt. (xui. 16) into connexion
with the interpretation of the parables, which was granted to the disciples only ; but
the context in Lk. is the more appropriate.2
To our Lord's declaration concerning His unique knowledge of the Father the
First Evangelist attaches a short saying (preserved only by him, xi. 28-30), in which
Jesus exhorts men to seek rehef from the burden of legal requirements (laid upon them
by the Scribes, cf. xxiii. 4) by taking Himself as their Ideal, Whose example would
' In Lk. vii. 35 the best attested reading seems to be r&v rixviov a6rr)s (cf. Ecclus.
iv. 11), whereas in Mt. xi. 19 it is r&v Ipywv abrrjs, though even there the 8 text has
rtuvoiv, 8 For Lk.'s /3ao-t\eis Mt. has StKacoi.

406 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
prevent the spiritual commands which He imposed, however exacting they might
be, from being grievous.
John's imprisonment (probably of only a few months' duration at
most) ended with his execution. Herodias (p. 370), moved by revenge
and by fear lest the Baptist might cause Antipas to renounce her, found
an opportunity of getting rid of him on the occasion of a birthday (or
perhaps accession) feast given by Antipas (presumably at Machserus) to
which he invited the officers of his army and the grandees of Gahlee.1
At the banquet Herodias' daughter (by her first husband) Salome, who
became the wife of Phihp, tetrarch of Itursea, so delighted Antipas by
her dancing that he promised in a conventional phrase (cf. Esth. v. 3,
1 Kg. xiii. 8) to present her with anything she asked. At the instigation
of her mother, she demanded on a dish then and there the head of John,
and Antipas very unwillingly giving orders that her wishes should be
gratified, John was beheaded in his dungeon. His corpse was buried by
his disciples.
In Mk. vi. 22 instead of rrji Bvyarpbs airrjs rrjs 'Hpwbi&Sos, " Herodias' own
daughter " 2 (A C N and most uncials), there occurs in x D B L the curious reading
ttjs Bvyarpbs airov rijs 'KpuSiaSos, " his (Herod's) daughter Herodias."
ML xiv. 5 (in contradiction to Mk. vi. 19, 20) represents that Antipas, when he
arrested John, was only deterred from putting him to death by fear of the people
who regarded him as a prophet, but the Evangelist retains Mk.'s statement that,
when his execution was demanded by Herodias, he gave way much against his wiU.
By Lk. the death of John is not mentioned except allusively (ix. 9).
How long the mission of the Apostles lasted is left quite undefined,
and neither the range of their movements, the extent of their success, nor
the place where they reassembled, is indicated. It seems unhkely,
however, that the mission, though zealously conducted and exhausting,
was prolonged. It attracted to Jesus the attention of Antipas, and in
view of the design of the Pharisees and the Herodians to kill Him, it is
possible that fear of what the tetrarch might do contributed to bring this
tour to a close and to cause Jesus to withdraw to the other side of the
Lake. Yet inasmuch as the report of the cures wrought on the sick by
Him and His Apostles, which suggested to some persons that Jesus was
Elijah (whose return was predicted by Malaehi) or a prophet, Uke those
who had appeared in the past, led Antipas to beheve that He was John,
restored from the dead and in his renewed phase of existence endowed
with extraordinary powers, it would appear that the first feeling inspired
in him was apprehension.3 Consequently when Jesus bade His disciples
accompany Him in a boat to a lonely spot across the Lake, probably the
sole motive was the desire to gain for them some repose, since the numbers
of people that flocked around prevented them from taking any rest. The
place to which they retired is not named, but it has been plausibly con-
1 In Mk. vi. 21 Galilee no doubt includes Perma, which also belonged to Herod.
2 The curious phrase seems to be meant to emphasize the faot that Salome was
the daughter of Herodias but not|of Antipas.
* Lk. (ix. 9) states that Herod, perplexed about Jesus, desired to see Him. Cf.
Lk. xxin. 7-11.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 407
jectured that it was a locaUty now called El Batihafy a little south of
Bethsaiida1 Julias (cf. Lk. ix. 10) on the north-east shore.1 But the efiort
to avoid the multitude proved unavaiUng. As soon as their departure
was known, crowds went on foot round the head of the Lake to rejoin
them. Such an earnest desire for instruction on the part of those whom
the authorized exponents of rehgion despised appealed to Jesus' com
passion ; and notwithstanding the exhaustion of Himself and His com
panions He proceeded to teach them.
When the end of the day approached, the disciples suggested that the
concourse should be dismissed in order to procure for themselves food ;
but were told by Jesus to provide them with it. In surprise they asked
whether they should go and buy bread to the value of 200 denarii to supply
their wants', for they explained, in answer to His inquiry, that they had
with them no more than five loaves and two fish (probably salted or cured).
And then the EvangeUst narrates that Jesus commanded that all should
sit down in orderly groups2 ; and taking the loaves and fishes1 He offered
thanks to God and then divided the food into pieces for distribution by
the disciples among the people, who, numbering 5,000 men, were all
satisfied, whilst the fragments that remained filled twelve baskets.3
This miracle, which alone figures in all the Gospels, is among the
most difficult to understand for several reasons, (a) The instantaneous
production of a large quantity of food (either out of nothing, or out of
chemical constituents of food present in the atmosphere or elsewhere)
is strange in view of Jesus' repudiation, in the wilderness, of the suggestion
that He should convert stones into bread, even if in the one case it was
the need of strangers, and in the other His own need that was to be
Satisfied, (b) The call for such a miracle seems inadequate, since there
was within reach opportunity of procuring provisions at the cost of some
expenditure of toil and money (Mk. vi. 37). (c) The process whereby the
small supply was augmented must have been the immediate and con
tinuous replacement of the pieces broken from the loaves and fishes, or
else the sudden appearance of additionlal loaves and fishes where none
existed before — both alternatives being very difficult for modern thought
to entertain, (df Though it is reasonable to assume that in One who was
in a uniqtte sense the Son of God there were present exceptional faculties,
yet the exercise by Him of such creative power as is here implied seems
inconsistent with His true humanity, since no satisfactory parallel or
analPgy to it is furnished by human experience. It therefore seems best
to Suppose that no physical miracle was wrought but that some arresting
figure of speech used on the occasion has been misunderstood, and has
caused some non-miraiciilous incident to be transformed into a miracle,
silch transformation being promoted by the occurrence in the Old Testa
ment Scriptures of an account of a prophet's multiplication of food in
1 Swete; St. Mk. p. 122.
* In Mk. vi. 40 irpaaial is UteraUy " leek beds " (from irpdaov).
a The term used (wtyii'oi). could describe agricultural baskets, , or such as were
employed for carrying clay or bricks (Ps. Ixxxi. 6, cf . Jos. B.J. iii. 5, 5)' ; bit in Juv.
Sat. iii. 14, Judosis quorum cophinus fcenumque supellex; it seems to denote a waUet.

408 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
order to provide for a number of hungry men (2 Kg. iv. 42-44, cf. also
iv. 1-7, 1 Kg. xvii. 8-16). It may be suggested that Jesus had been
speaking of the surpassing importance of spiritual, as compared with
material, food ; that when He urged His disciples to reUeve, so far as they
could, the physical needs of the multitude (v. 37), others gave up for the
same purpose whatever provisions they had ; and that the absorption of
all in our Lord's teaching caused them to feel httle lack of bodUy fare in
spite of the scanty supplies. This explanation, though purely conjec
tural, finds some countenance in the following facts : (a) Metaphors
drawn from food and from eating and drinking to describe spiritual susten
ance were especially common among the Jews, see Prov. ix. 5, 2 Is. lv. 1,
Ecclus. xv. 3, xxiv. 21, and cf. Joh. iv. 14, 34, vi. 27, vU. 37. (b) Such
metaphors were sometimes misunderstood, see Mk. vni. 15, 16. (c) The
possibility of a figure of speech, taken hterally, giving rise to a story of
miracle is proved by the instance in Josh. x. 12-14 (p. 116). That the
record of Elisha's miracle has helped to mould the one under discussion
is suggested by the circumstances that food is described as left over, even
in excess of the original store (a superfluity of the supernatural which is
not characteristic of our Lord's miracles in general, but accountable by
the influence of 2 Kg. iv. 44), and that in Joh.'s version of the narrative
the loaves are said to have been of barley (cf . 2 Kg. iv. 42).
Between the Synoptic accounts the variations are mostly verbal, but Mt. to the
5,000 men adds women and chUdren (xiv. 21). The Fourth EvangeUst assigns the
miracle to the season of the Passover, names two of the Apostles who took part in
the discussion (p. 212), and appends a discourse in which Jesus bids men work for
meat which does not perish but abides unto eternal hfe.
There follow at this point in the Second Gospel a number of sections
which are reproduced by Mt. but not by Lk. If, as is argued oh p. 160,
there were two editions of Mk., one lacking and the other including these,
this part of the Gospel cannot be regarded as having quite the same good
authority behind it as the rest, though certain portions, by the character
of their contents, authenticate themselves.
The first of the series relates that when the multitude had been fed,
Jesus constrained His disciples to embark for Bethsaida JuUas, on the
northerly side of a little bay near the scene of the incident just related,
He Himself staying behind to dismiss the crowd, and intending, after
retiring to the hill-side for prayer, to rejoin the Apostles at some point
further along the shore. Meanwhile darkness had come on, and the boat
on the sea made httle progress, for the wind was contrary (blowing,
apparently, from the north), and the waves rough, so that the rowers
were much distressed. The narrative states that Jesus, an hour or two
before sunrise, seeing the disciples in difficulties, came towards them,
walking on the sea, and would have passed them by, had they not taken
His figure for a phantom, and in their terror cried out. Their cry reached
Him, and in answer He bade them fear not, for it was He. Their alarm
being thus allayed, He got into the boat ; and as soon as He was on board,
the wind, previously so boisterous, suddenly dropped, the occurrence
filling them with great amazement.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 409
The Evangelist's narrative seems to imply not only that Jesus walked
on the sea,1 but also that, as on a former occasion, He controlled the wind.
But there are some features in it that are exceedingly puzzling, for (a) it
is strange that the disciples, starting in the evening for a place only a few
miles away, should stiU be on the sea not long before daybreak ; (b) if
the miracle of walking on the sea was to enable Jesus to reach His com
panions (though the statement that He sought to pass them implies the
opposite), it supplied His own wants, contrary to His habitual practice,2
since at the cost of a httle exertion He could have rejoined them later at
Bethsaida or elsewhere ; (c) if the miracle was a mere display of super
natural power, it was equally opposed to His habit ; (d) if the miraculous
causing of the wind to lull was to relieve the disciples' distress, it could
as easily (it might be thought) have been accomplished from the shore.
If these difficulties be set on one side, and the narrative be accepted as it
stands, it must be concluded that our Lord possessed and exercised a
faculty of levitation, instances of which some investigators beheve to have
occurred in modern times.3 If, on the other hand, the narrative, in
consequence of the features noticed above, is rejected as an inaccurate
record of what actually happened, the origin of it may be explained in
one of two ways. (1) The boat had drifted closer to the shore than was
suspected ; the disciples, strained and nervous from toil and anxiety,
when they saw Jesus on the edge of the land, imagined in the gloom that
He was on the sea, and fancy was afterwards reported as fact. (2) The
figurative language of religious faith (Christ at hand to help His servants,
embarked on troubled waters, cf . Ps. xlvi. 1-3, xciii. 3, 4) has been taken
literaUy and interpreted as relating to an historical occurrence.
ML by stating that the boat was " in the midst of the sea " seems to mean that
it was far from the land ; and the uncial B and some other textual authorities
represent that it was many furlongs away (cf. Joh. vi. 19). The First EvangeUst
adds that when St. Peter heard Jesus' voice, he tried to cross to Him over the waters,
but, becoming affrighted and beginning to sink, cried for help to his Master, Who took
him by the hand and saved him ; and that when Jesus got into the boat, all acknow
ledged Him to be the Son of God (though the writer records later the incident at
Csesarea (xvi. 16), which was clearly the first occasion of the confession). Sym
bolism here is plainer than in the preceding Marcan passage, St. Peter's impulsive
promise of aUegiance, his later denial of his Lord, and his subsequent restoration
(Mk. xiv. 27-31 ; Lk. xxn. 32) being emblematicaUy portrayed.1
The Episode (without the Matthsean addition) also appears in Joh. vi. 15, 21, where
the reason for Jesus' withdrawal to the mountain is the desire to frustrate the wish
of the multitude to make Him King ; the destination of the disciples is Capernaum ;
and the boat, as soon as Jesus entered it, is represented as being at once at the land
whither it was going.
When Jesus rejoined the Apostles they did not proceed further in the
direction of Bethsaida, but towards the western shore of the lake, reaching
1 In strictness iirl ri)s Sa\do-o"rjs may mean no more than " by the sea " : cf.
Joh. xxi. 1.
2 See Mt. iv. 3, 4 (=Lk. iv. 3, 4), and cf. Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 113.
8 See Barrett, On the Threshold of the Unseen, p. 70 f.
* Cf . Bacon, Beginnings of Gospel Story, p. 83. The use of rb. SSara seems to reflect
the influence of Ps. xlvi. 3, LXX, more clearly than the earUer narrative which Mt.
has in common with Mk.

410 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
it at the plain of Gennesaret (p. 4). As soon as Jesus landed He was
recognized ; and at once the people began to bring to Him for restoration
to health those of their friends who were diseased. He did not remain at
the place where He disembarked but seems to have made a progress
through the surrounding country : and wherever He came, sick and
infirm persons were laid in the market-places of the towns in order that
they might touch even the tassels of His robe, and so obtain reUef ; and
those who did so were healed.
§ 7. Renewed Opposition ; Withdrawal from Galilee
The return of Jesus to the western shore of the lake was sure, sooner
or later, to embroil Him once more with the religious authorities ; and a
collision with His antagonists soon came. Certain Pharisees, perhaps
belonging to local synagogues, had been joined by some Scribes who had
recently arrived from Jerusalem ; and together they had noticed the
disregard shown by some of our Lord's disciples for the traditional rules
of Rabbis like HiUel and Shammai for the preservation of ceremonial
purity. These prescribed that, before eating, the hands should be washed
vigorously x . that the body should be sprinkled 2 with water after return
from the market-place ; and that aU drinking cups, measures,3 and copper
vessels should be rinsed. These practices were designed not to ensure
physical cleanliness but to remove ceremonial poUution, which might
have been contracted through touching persons or things considered
defiling. The negleet of such by the disciples caused the Pharisees and
Scribes to ask our Lord why they thus ignored reUgious tradition. The
answer which He is represented as giving is not a direct justification of His
disciples, and perhaps is only a summary of His rejoinder. In it the
tradition of the Scribes, intended as a safeguard for the written law (p. 18),
was denounced for what it had in practice become — a substitute for it ;
and to the supporter's of it were applied the words of Is. xxix. 13 (quoted
from the LXX with some variation), describing the futUity of professed
devotion, when Divine directions were replaced by human regulations.
Arid Jesus illustrated how the laws in the Pentateuch (Ex. xx. 12, xxi. 17)
enjoining filial duty were contravened by the rule of the Scribes that if
anyone pronounced the word Corban (" gift or offering to God ") over any
property from which another person might expect to benefit, it was placed
out of that person's reach, even though it was not reaUy expended on the
Temple Service ; so that by this formula a son was enabled to relieve
himself of his obligation to support his parents. It has been, indeed,
pointed out that the Mishnah allows the cancelling of such a vow where
1 This seems to be the meaning of Tuyjj.rj (hterally " with the fist " in Mk. vn. 3,
though Edersheim (L. and T. etc., u. 11) thinks it equivalent to a Heb. or Aramaio
term signifying " down to the wrist."
2 In Mk. vn. 4 N and B have (lavrto-iovrat, though most MSS. have pairrlctuvrai.
3 The Greek feim.s is the Lat. sextarius, holding about a pint. The vessels in
question were those which were made of materials other than earthenware, and so
could not be destroyed if polluted : cf. Lev. xi. 32, 33.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 4il
parents are conoerned 1 ; but the general trend of the oral Law was to
confuse the real values of conflicting obligations and to subordinate the
essential side of religion to the formal.
After thus replying to the Scribes, Jesus summoned to Him the multi
tude, and dealt with the principle which underlay the specific attack
made upon His disciples, expressing His thoughts enigmatically, so as to
prompt reflection in those who heard Him. " There is nothing," He
declared, " outside a man which by entering into him can pollute him ;
but the things which come forth from a man are they which pollute him."
The import of the saying was, on the surface, ambiguous ; for whilst the
first half of it denied that defilement oould be caused by eating certain
kinds of food (as the taw of Lev. xi. implied), the second half of it might be
taken to re-affirm the taw (Lev. xv.) that various issues and haemorrhages
poUuted religiously the person suffering from them. Accordingly His
disciples, when He went indoors, asked of Him His meaning. He showed
surprise at their want of inteUigence ; and explained that spiritual beings
could not be defiled in a religious sense by certain kinds of material food
entering the body, for these did not penetrate into the heart, the seat of the
inteUectual and moral life, whereas it was from the heart that there came
aUthatreaUy defiled — vicious thoughts, having their issue in vicious words
and deeds. This declaration was a momentous one, for since the distinc
tion of clean and unclean meats was drawn by the written law itself,
Jesus' denial that defilement could be caused by particular kinds of food
destroyed the authority of the ceremonial rules of the Jewish Law (which
constituted its most characteristic part) and so in principle abrogated it,
without giving scope for antinomian deductions, such as St. Paul's un
qualified statements afterwards occasioned.2
The obscure saying in Mk. vn. 15 is modified in Mt. xv. 11, where ra ix rod avBpiiirov
iiciropevdjieva is replaced by rb iiciropevdfjLevov ix rov ardjiaros, so that the ambiguity
in the original largely disappears and an explanation is scarcely required. ML adds
that the disciples reported that the Pharisees were offended by Jesus' saying,
that our Lord rejoined that every plant not planted by His heavenly Father must
be rooted up (cf . xui. 30), and pronounced the Pharisees blind guides, this last utterance
appearing in a different form and context in Lk. vi. 39.
St. Luke, in place of the occurrence here narrated (which has no place in his gospel),
relates (xi. 37-41) that a sinular complaint against Jesus Himself for not having washed
before meat was made by a Pharisee when entertaining Him ; and that Jesus, in reply,
contrasted the Pharisees' care for external cleanness with their indifference to
internal sanctity, and bade them escape defilement not by cleansing vessels but by
giving their contents as alms. This passage is followed by a denunciation of the Phari
sees because of their concern for the minor, and their indifference towards the major,
requirements of the Law, and because of their pride and self-assertion. This reproach
a Scribe felt to be leveUed at his own class, and Jesus then denounced the Scribes also,
for making rehgion burdensome to the people, and declared that upon that generation
should fall vengeance for all the murders of the prophets recorded iii the Hebrew
1 Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, i. pp. 164-166.
2 In Mk. vii. 19 the weight of manuscript authority (itABEL, Eg.) is in favour
of KaBapifav, which must be a comment of the Evangelist's (cf. St. Paul in 1 Cor.
viii. 8; Rom. xiv. 17). The variant ttaBaplfov (K M V etc., and Syr. sin.) means
that evacuation places clean and unclean food on the same level, and so extinguishes
the difference between them.

412 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Scriptures from Genesis (iv. 8) to 2 Chronicles (xxiv. 20-21). This discourse Caused
the Scribes and Pharisees, when He left the house, to assail Him vehemently ; whilst,
He, when the multitudes again gathered round Him, cautioned them against the
leaven of the Pharisees, which He declared to be hypocrisy. Much that Lk. recounts
here is reproduced from Q, but is placed in a somewhat different setting from that to
which it is assigned by ML (xxiii. 23-36). 1
A further denunciation of the Pharisees on the ground of their love of money
occurs in Lk. xvi. 14-15.
The attitude of Jesus, now so plainly evinced, towards the traditions
of the Scribes, which were held to be of more binding importance than the
ordinances of the Scriptures themselves, made it certain that, if His
opportunities of giving further instruction were not to be abruptly ended,
He would have to take steps for His self-preservation. And it must have
been in the hope of escaping for a while hostile molestation that He now
withdrew from the borders of the Holy Land altogether, into the country
of Tyre and Sidon. Here He entered into a purely Gentile district,
though not to impart His message to its people ; and it is uncertain how
far He penetrated in the direction of the chief towns, Tyre (40 miles from
Capernaum) and Sidon (30 miles farther). Tyrian territory came as far
south as Gischala, south-west of the Waters of Merom ; and in Mk. vii. 24
the words and Sidon are omitted by some textual authorities.2 Probably
He did not go much beyond the Jewish frontier, where Jewish homes
might stiU be found ; and it was in one of these that He seems to have
taken up His abode, but with the intention of keeping His presence in the
neighbourhood a secret. This, however, proved impossible, for rumour
about Him had preceded Him (cf. Mk. iii. 8, Mt. iv. 24). A woman who
was a Syro-Phcenician 3 by descent, but whose mother-tongue was Greek,
had a daughter who was demented (according to current behef) through
an evil spirit in her ; and she, having heard of Jesus, came to Him with an
entreaty that He would cast the demon out of her child. Jesus did not
judge that His mission included more than His own countrymen 4 ; so,
adopting, more ironically than seriously, the contemptuous language
common amongst the Jews when referring to members of other nations,
He declared that the children of the house had a right to be satisfied first ;
the bread that was due to them should not be given to the dogs. The
woman was familiar with the scornful term employed (cf. Mt. vii. 6),
and humbly assented, but added that even the dogs under the table had
the crumbs which the children let fall. The apt reply made its own
appeal, and Jesus bade the woman return, in full assurance that her request
was granted ; and on going to her house she found His words fulfilled. In
this instance Mt. (xv. 28) attributes the cure to the mother's faith ; but it
1 In Mt. xxiii. 35 Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, is described (by confusion with
Zachariah the prophet) as son of Barachiah.
2 The words xai SiSBros are absent from D, Lat. (vet.), Syr. (vet.).
3 The term is used in contrast to Libyphosnician, apphed to Phoenicians hving in
North Africa. ML caUs her a Canaanite.
* Mt. represents that the woman came out from the borders of Tyre and Sidon
(so that he supposes Jesus to be still on Israelite soil) ; that she saluted Jesus as the
Son of David (of. ix. 27) ; that the disoiples urged Him to dismiss her ; and that Jesus
told her plainly that He was sent to none but the lost Bheep of Israel.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 413
may be presumed that the mother had imparted her own hopes to her
daughter ; and the stimulus towards recovery afforded by the knowledge
that the help of the Hebrew prophet was being sought may have been aided
by psychic influence actively exerted by Jesus (cf. p. 381).
How long our Lord spent on Phoenician soU is unknown ; and uncertain,
too, is the route by which He returned southward. Mk. represents that
from the borders of Tyre He passed through Sidon. If so; He must have
foUowed a road which crossed the slopes of Lebanon and the river Leontes
to Csesarea PhUippi, whence He could descend along the banks of the
Upper Jordan to the eastern shore of the Galilean lake, which was the
locaUty He reached.1 But it seems unlikely that, if He passed by Caesarea
Philippi on this occasion, He would have gone thither a few days later
(Mk. viii. 27) ; and it has been conjectured that in Mk. vii. 31 Sidon is a
mistake for Bethsaida, so that the route foUowed to the east of the lake
was reaUy much shorter than that just described. Be this as it may,
Jesus eventuaUy came into the region of Decapolis ; and here He performed
another cure which is recorded in the Second Gospel alone. The afflicted
man was deaf and had a difficulty in speaking (the latter disabUity being
often occasioned by the former) ; and our Lord was entreated to put His
hand upon him (cf. v. 23, vi. 5). A crowd surrounded them; but Jesus
drew the deaf and dumb man apart (thereby securing his undivided atten
tion, cf . viii. 23) 2 ; and then thrusting His fingers into his ears and touching
his tongue with saliva, He looked up to heaven with a sigh, and said in
Aramaic, " Be opened." The physical acts, and the use of saliva, a famUiar
remedy in antiquity (p. 117), could be understood by one to whom words
were inaudible, and were likely to encourage the man (in whom the fame
of Jesus as a Healer must have already created hope of relief) to make the
effort expected of him, and when he did so, he found that he could both
hear and speak. Jesus, perhaps fearing that people would be more
interested in the physical cures that He wrought than in the spiritual
instruction which if was His principal aim to give, bade the eye-witnesses
be silent about what had occurred, though unsuccessfully. Beports got
abroad, and produced a profound impression, which was perhaps the
greater because the restoration of hearing to the deaf and speech to the
dumb was a feature in prophetic predictions of the Messianic Age (Is.
xxxii. 3, 4, xxxv. 5, 6).3
The view already adopted that the section in St. Mark's Gospel, which
is comprised between vi. 45 and viii. 21 (or 26), rests, as a whole, upon
a less trustworthy basis than the remainder of the work, is confirmed by
the next narrative occurring within it, which relates another occasion
when a large multitude was satisfied with a few loaves and fishes, and which
presents features suggesting that it is a duplicate of the Feeding of the
5,000 (vi. 30-45). The time is vaguely indicated as " in those days " ;
there is no explanation of the cause that brought large numbers of people
1 Cf. Burkitt, TU Gospel History, etc., p. 92.
2 Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, p. 159.
3 ML generalizes and represents that numbers of afflicted persons were healed.

414 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
together ; and there is a remarkable resemblance, though accompanied
by certain divergences, between the detaUs. Thus the scene (a desert
place, east of the lake), Jesus' motive (compassion), His question to the
disciples (" How many loaves have ye ? "), His command to the people
to sit down, His thanksgiving before dividing the food,1 the distribution by
means of the disciples, the satisfaction of the people's hunger, the gathering
of the fragments, and the subsequent departure by boat, are the same in
both. The differences occur in respect of the numbers of the loaves and
fishes (five and two, seven and a few), the number fed (5,000, 4,000),2 the
number and kind of baskets fUled with the remains (twelve xoipivoi,
seven anvgiSeg), and the subsequent destination of the boat (Bethsaida
(the actual arrival being at Gennesaret), Dalmanutha).3 Two such stories
can scarcely relate to distinct events ; the very lack of definition in the
second as regards time and circumstance suggests a floating tradition ;
and the disciples' question in viii. 4 shows that the emergency which
confronted them was new, and evinces no recoUection of how it had been
met previously. Consequently this incident (except for the return to the
west of the take) may with some confidence be discarded from among
those which constitute the brief history of our Lord's ministry.
The immediate sequel to the narrative just discussed was also probably
absent from the earliest form of Mk., but the internal character of the
account is strongly in favour of its being a trustworthy piece of tradition.
It is pre-supposed that Jesus was on the west of the lake ; and the
Pharisees are represented as asking for a sign from heaven in proof of
His claim to speak for God (cf . Ex. iv. 1^9). The sign desired was probably
some wonder from the sky, if not as destructive as that by which in the
Scriptures Elisha vindicated himself when he caUed down fire from
heaven (2 Kg. i. 10), at least as spectacular and impressive as the return
of the sun's shadow on the dial of Ahaz, with which Isaiah gave assurance
from Jehovah to Hezekiah (2 Kg. xx. 8-11). But with such a demand
Jesus refused to comply ; it was not in this way that He felt certain that
God wiUed that He should manifest His Divine Mission ; and so He curtly
declared that no sign should be given to that generation.
That a reply of this tenor was returned by Jesus on one occasion in response to
a demand for a sign is put beyond doubt by the evidence not only of the present
passage in Mk., but also by one in Q. In Mt. there are two accounts of a request for
a sign followed by a refusal from Jesus : (a) Mt. xii. 38-40, (6) ML xvi. 1-4*. It is
the latter that probably corresponds to the Marcan passage ; whereas the former,
to which Lk. xi. 16, 29, 30 seems to be paraUel, appears to be derived from Q. In
the version from Q the refusal of a sign is qualified by a reference to " the sign of the
prophet Jonah," who, through announcing to the Ninevites that they would perish
with their city unless they repented,1 was declared by Jesus to be typical of Himself,
Who warned the Jews that they would perish at the Judgment unless they, too,
repented. This reference to Jonah seems to have been introduced by Mt. into xvi. 4
1 In vm. 6, 7 the thanksgiving or blessing is uttered twice.
2 Mt. adds women and children (cf. xiv. 21).
3 Mt. xv. 39 has Magadan (late MSS. Magdala). Mk.'s Dalmanutha[ may be a
corruption of Magdalutha.
4 Verses 2 and 3 are omitted by N B, and by the Syr. (vet.) and Eg. versions.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 415
(if this v. comes from Mk. viii. 12) in order to bring it into aecord with the earUer
passage extracted from Q.
To ML xu. 38-39 there is appended a different explanation of how Jonah was a
" sign " of our Lord, vit. through his imprisonment in the belly of the sea-monster
for three days and nights, which prefigured Jesus' entombment for the same period
in the earth. This explanation seems to have originated after our Lord's Resurrection
(for, if given by Jesus at this stage of His Ministry and addressed to Scribes and Phari
sees, it would have been quite uninteUigible) ; but the writer, for the sake of drawing
the desired paraUel, has forsaken Christian tradition, according to which Jesus lay
in the grave not more than one whole day and parts of two others, and only two nights
at most.1 In ML xu. 41, 42 (=Lk. xi. 31, 32) our Lord goes on to contrast with (a) the Nine
vites (who repented at the preaching of Jonah) and (6) the Queen of Sheba (who came
from far to hear Solomon) the Jews of His own generation who refused to heed One
Who was more than either.
Our Lord's stay on the GalUssan side of the lake must have been brief ;
at any rate, after the preceding incident He is represented as once again
crossing to the eastern shore. But since in the ensuing narrative reference
is made to the two accounts of feeding a multitude on a few loaves and
fishes as though they related to distinct occurrences ; and since reasons
have been adduced above for considering the two accounts to be variant
versions of one event, it is impossible to feel confidence at this point in the
accuracy of the record, and it is perhaps not unhkely that the incident
which foUows really happened after the early crossing in which the storm
occurred (iv. 35-41). In any case, the scene was the east shore. Jesus,
reflecting on the aUiance between the Pharisees and the Herodians (iii. 6),
addressed to His disciples a caution against becoming infected by their evil
influence — the religious formalism of the one, and the worldliness of the
other — using, to describe the corrupting nature of their principles, the
metaphor of leaven (cf. Mt. xiii. 33. 1 Cor. v. 6, Gal. v. 9), and bidding
them beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod. But the
disciples happened to have with them but a single loaf ; and with a strange
lack of penetration they supposed that He had this deficiency in mind,
and was warning them against replenishing their store from members of the
two classes named, should they be inclined tp do so. But how exactly
He corrected their misunderstanding cannot be ascertained with certainty
from St. Mark's narrative, which relates that He bade them remember
the many baskets of fragments gathered on both the occasions when the
needs of thousands were satisfied with a few loaves and fishes, as though
He meant them to understand that so long as He was with them, they
could not lack bread. For the reference to these two miracles throws no
hght upon the figure of speech (viii. 15) which they had failed to compre
hend ; and if the second miracle is only a duplicate version of the first
(p, 414), the reported allusion to it must be an error.
In Mt.'s reproduction of Mk. Jesus cautions the disciples against the leaven of
the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the EvangeUst, conscious that Mk.'s account leaves
something to be desired, explains that after Jesus' reply, the disciples understood
that the term " leaven " was a metaphor for " teaching." In the Third Gospel the
1 Cf. AUen, St. Mt. p. 139 ; see also p. 418 below.

416 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
only aUusion to the occurrence, whatever it was, is a command to beware of the leaven
of the Pharisees, which is declared to be hypocrisy (cf. p. 412).
The scene of the next incident recorded is definitely stated to have been
Bethsaida Julias, where a cure was wrought by Jesus on a blind man.
This, like the restoration of hearing and speech to the person who was
deaf and almost dumb (vii. 32-37), is related by St. Mark alone, and has
some details in common with it. In this instance, too, our Lord isolated
the afflicted man from the crowd of onlookers (taking him out of the
village),1 used saliva (putting it on his eyes) and laid His hands upon him.
But the unusual feature about this case is the fact that the man's sight was
only restored gradually. He had once enjoyed the power of seeing, and
he knew what men looked like. But his first experience of recovered sight
only enabled him to distinguish men from trees by their movements ; and
it was not until Jesus touched his eyes again that he regained fuUy his
faculty of vision, and saw everything clearly. After the cure he was
bidden not to enter the village, but to go straight to his home (apparently
on its outskirts) that less attention might be attracted to the marvel.
The similarity of the language describing this incident and that in Mk. vu. 32-37
has led some scholars to deem them variant narratives of the same occurrence. As
there are in aU probabihty two accounts of a single miraculous feeding of the multi
tude (p. 414), there may weU be two accounts of another miracle ; but the arguments
for such a conclusion in this instance are not so cogent.
§ 8. Avowal of Messiahship : Predictions of Death and
Resurrection
Henceforward St. Mark's narrative is again used by both of the other
Synoptists (see p. 408). From the vicinity of Bethsaida our Lord went on
to that of Csesarea Philippi (p. 7), the modern Banias, a town occupying
a site of great beauty more than 1,000 feet above the sea and 1,700 feet
above the lake. The route to it was rather circuitous, since the plain
north of Lake Huleh (the Waters of Merom) is very marshy ; and from
the " Bridge of Jacob's Daughters " (p. 384) the Damascus road would
have to be followed for some distance. Jesus now reached the crisis of
His ministry. The conviction entertained by Him since His baptism that
He was the Messiah, predicted by the prophets of His race, He had hitherto
kept to Himself. He had announced the near approach of the Kingdom
of God, but had said nothing concerning Himself as its King. The only
suggestion in His own utterances (as recorded by the earhest authorities)
hinting of mystery about His Personality is the enigmatical title " Son of
man," and it may be that this is due to an error on the part of the historians
(p. 383). He had prohibited any words of others that were calculated to
suggest the truth (cf. i. 34, iii. 12) ; and He had left those whom He had
chosen as His companions to form their own inferences as to His Personality
and mission. At last, however, the moment had come for a more explicit
disclosure about Himself ; and the tenor of it constituted for His followers,
after His departure from earth, an essential element of the Gospel which
1 To the viUage Herod PhiUp had given the dignity of a oity (Jos. Ant. xviU. 2, 1).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 417
they proceeded to communicate to the world (p. 624). For He had at last
realized what the malice of His enemies portended : and He had discerned
the significance of the issue that confronted Him. If a violent death was
to be His destiny, that death must have both a purpose and a sequel
commensurate with the Messianic office. Nevertheless the idea of a
Messiah who should suffer and die was so unfamUiar to Jewish minds
that it was necessary to prepare His disciples for such a result. He
therefore determined to reveal to them more definitely than heretofore
Who He was and what was to befall Him, lest, when there should take
place the event which He expected, it might prove too great a strain for
their faith in Him to support.
With this purpose in view, when crowds were no longer around them,
He asked them1 who He was thought to be. Peter, acting as spokesman
for the rest of the Twelve, mentioned the various conjectures that cir
culated, some persons supposing Him to be John the Baptist (cf . vi. 14, 16),
others Elijah, others one of the prophets.2 He then asked them plainly
of their own conclusions about Him, and Peter at once replied, " Thou
art the Christ." The successive steps by which Peter and his feUow
Apostles had been led to this belief, it is, of course, impossible to trace.
But the fact that they had reached it shows that, notwithstanding their
dullness of perception, they had spiritual vision enough to see that He by
His character and works of healing had demonstrated His title to exercise
the function of God's vicegerent. Peter's conception of the Messiah's
office (as was shown almost immediately) was, indeed, as yet not that
which was entertained by Jesus Himself. Nevertheless the confession
was a momentous one, constituting the earhest creed of the society of
which the Apostolic band was the nucleus. But for the present, the fact
that the belief had behind it the authority of Jesus Himself was not to be
divulged ; and by His express direction it was to remain for a time a secret
of the Apostles. The reason why Jesus thus enjoined silence was perhaps
to avoid, so far as possible, the risk of interference with His movements
before He could reach Jerusalem. That city was the religious centre of
the nation, and He desired to present Himself there before the expected
end came.
Mt. (xvi. 17-19), expanding Mk.'s account, represents that Jesus pronounced
Simon Peter blessed for recognizing His Messiahship, since the revelation of it came
from God only ; solemnly affirmed his name to be Peter 3 (Rock-man), and upon
him as upon a rock (cf . Eph. u. 20), in virtue of the faith he had j ust been the first to
confess, He would buUd His Church, against which the gates of death, which close
1 Lk. (ix. 18) says that the disciples were with Jesus as He was praying in a soUtary
spot, but does not name the locaUty.
2 Mt. (who in Jesus' question replaces our Lord's /xe by rbv Tlbv rov avBptiirov,
cf. p. 383) has " Jeremiah or one of the prophets " (cf. 2 Esd. u. 18). The coming of
Jeremiah in particular was perhaps looked for on the strength of the representation
that he had secreted in a rock the .Tabernacle and the Ark when Israel was carried
into captivity, and might be expected to divulge their hiding-place before the Messianic
age should begin (see 2 Mace. ii. 1-8). For the honour in which he was held in post-
Captivity times see 2 Mace. xv. 13-16.
3 Jesus would probably use the Aramaic Cepha (of. Joh. i. 42).
27

418 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Upon aU individual men (cf. Wisd, xvi. 13), should never prevail ; declared that He
would authorize Peter to dispense the privileges of the Kingdom, and asserted that
whatever regulations he on earth might impose or relax would possess the sanction
of heaven. The passage probably proceeds not from our Lord but from the Evan
geUst, who regarded the Church on earth as the antechamber to the Kingdom of
heaven, the motive for the insertion being the desire to emphasize the prominence of
St. Peter in the Christian body, and to represent it as foretold and authorized by
Christ Himself.1'
According to Mt. xiv. 33, Joh. i. 41, vi. 69, Peter and others of the Apostles had
acknowledged the Messiahship of Christ, before the journey to Cssarea Philippi
(pp. 409, 375).
Jesus having thus drawn from His disciples a confession of belief in His
Messianic dignity proceeded to explain to them the destiny in store for Him.
His ideal of religion and His conception of the Messianic office so clashed
with the ideal and the conception cherished by the bulk of His country
men that the coUision could only result in the rejection of His claims to
be the Messiah by the chief council of the nation, and His execution at
their hands, His death being preordained by God. Nevertheless He was
not to remain in the realm of the dead, but after a brief interval would rise
again from it (for death without a renewal of life was incompatible with
Jesus' conception of His Messianic function). This announcement of His
impending destruction He uttered within the hearing of aU His disciples.
To St. Peter the mere contemplation of such a fate for One who had just
avowed Himself to be the Messiah seemed intolerable, since it impUed
defeat and degradation. He therefore took Jesus aside and began to
remonstrate with, and to censure, Him for entertaining such a thought.
But his Master, turning round, rebuked him (as one possessed, cf. Mt.
xvii. 17) with the words, " Get thee behind me, Satan, for thy thoughts are
not those of God but those of men." 2 And then summoning to Him the
multitude, not to make as yet the same avowal to them as He had just made
to His Apostles, but in order that none who contemplated becoming His
disciples might be under any delusion as to the cost (cf . p. 426), He declared
that any who wished to follow Him must forgo his own aims and interests
and be prepared, like Him, to face death3 ; but that the sacrifice, for the
sake of Christ*s cause, of the lower, the physical, Ufe, would ensure the
preservation of the higher, the spiritual, life ; that for the loss of the latter
no material gain, however vast, would compensate ; and that any who
Should reject Him and His message would be rejected by the Son of man
when He Should come in the glory of His Father with the angels.4 And
He then added that within the Ufetime of some of the bystanders the
Kingdom of God would be manifested with power.
Our Lord's prediction in Mk. viu. 31 that He would rise again " after three days "
is replaced in ML (xvi. 21, xvii. 22) and Lk. (ix. 22) by the statement that He would
be raised up " on the third day." There are other variations in reokoning the interval
1 Cf. AUen, St. Mt. p. 179 and see below p. 612.
" The protest of St. Peter and JeSus' rebuke of him are omitted by Lk.
* Under Roman rule death by crucifixion was common enough for our Lord to
use ZLpai rbv trravpbv airov as equivalent to facing death in an extreme form.
* Mt. adds " and then shall He render unto every man according to his deeds."

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 419
between His death and resurrection ;, Joh. ii. 19-22 has " in three days," whilst Mt.
xu. 40 has " three days and three nights " (p. 415). Probably all the expressions
are meant to denote a brief but not closely defined period (cf. Lk. xiii. 32, 33 ; Hos.
vi. 2 ; 2 Kg. xx. 8). Instead of Mk.'s ttjv fiao-ikelav rov Beov i\rj\vdviav iv Svva/iei
(ix. 1) Ml. has rbv vibv rov dvBpiiirov ipx6j£evov iv r-ij j3airi\ela (xvi. 28) ; Lk. merely
ttjv /SatrtXetai- tou Beov.
Some difficulty is presented by the inconsistency between the prohibition, imposed
on the disciples (viii. 30), of any disclosure of His Messiahship (cf. Mt. xvi. 20) and
the apparent identification of Himself with the Messiah in the address to the multitude
(viii. 38). But the words in the latter verse seem carefuUy chosen in order to leave
scope for His hearers to take, if they pleased, rejection by the Son of man to mean
rejection by another than Himself. The right moment for a pubhc identification
of Himself with the Messiah had not yet come.
The concluding words of this discourse (ix. 1) involve the inference that
our Lord expected that He would return a second time within a generation,
for not only is this sense put upon Mk. ix. 1 in Mt. xvi. 28, but it is con
firmed by the statement in Mk. xiii. 26, 30, Mt. x. 23, and by the belief
entertained by the Apostles and others. Jesus' expectation (if the Evange
list's language does not misrepresent it) was not fulfiUed in a literal sense ;
nevertheless there occurred within the period He named events manifesting
in a signal way the presence of Divine activity in the world, namely, the
destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish commonwealth, and the rise of
the Christian Church, and this in a measure— though only in a measure —
verified our Lord's faith in God's vindication of Himself and His Gospel
(cf. Lk. xxi. 20-24).
To the north-east of Csesarea Philippi, 14 miles away, rise the lowest
slopes of Hermon, and here, on the sixth day after Jesus, with His disciples,
had reached the place, He underwent a remarkable psychical experience.
As He had done on a previous occasion (p. 400), He drew apart Peter and
the two sons of Zebedee, and with these He ascended the mountain side.
With a violent end confronting Him, Messiah though He was, His thoughts
turned both backward to the preannouncements of the Messiah's advent in
the previous history of His nation, and forward to the realization of the
Messianic glory to which the way of attainment was to be through the gate
of death. Becoming rapt in contemplation He saw Himself transfigured
in the dazzling light of heaven, His garments white and lustrous, and
Moses and Elijah talking with Him. This vision of HimseU, by some
transference of thought, He communicated to His three Apostles, who
consequently, in a trance-like condition, saw the same two figures which
appeared to Jesus' mental view ; and Peter, speaking for himself and his
companions (they were aU fiUed with fear and bewUderment), said it was
weU that they were there ; and should they construct three tents (or booths)
to shelter their Master and those who were conversing with Him ? And
then, as the conviction of His Father's approval impressed itself again
upon Jesus' spirit with the same intensity as once before at His baptism,
He caused the impression of this likewise to reach the disciples, who in
wardly heard, as out of the cloud that concealed the Deity Himself,1 the
words, " This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him " (cf . Dt. xviii. 15 end).
1 Cf. Ex. xvi. 10, xix. 9, xl. 35 ; Num. xi. 25.

420 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
And suddenly the state of abnormal sensibility which for a brief time had
marked the three Apostles passed away, and they found themselves with
Jesus only.
The supposition that what is recorded in Mk. ix. 2-8 represents psychic
experiences which had their origin and centre in the mind of Jesus and were
transmitted by Him to Peter, James and John, best explains the fact that
the three Apostles became sensible of the presence with Jesus of Moses and
Elijah. The hypothesis of an actual appearance to the disciples of the
spirits of the dead Legislator and the dead Prophet is faced with the
difficulty of explaining how they were recognized ; whilst if it is suggested
that the disciples' vision of them had its source in themselves independently
of Jesus, the Messiah being associated by them with the two great per
sonalities named, such a solution is not plausible in view of the fact that
their belief in Jesus' Messiahship had only recently found expression, and
they are scarcely likely at this stage to have searched the Scriptures for
passages throwing light upon the nature of His office. It seems probable,
therefore, that it was in Jesus' mind alone that the Transfiguration scene
originated ; that He mentaUy saw Himself transformed from earthly to
heavenly conditions ; that He thought of Moses and Elijah as witnessing
to Him 1 by reason of the predictions found in Dt. xviii. 18 f. and Mai.
iv. 4-6 ; and that in order to confirm the Apostles' faith, He conveyed to
their minds by some process of telepathy, both the vision which then fiUed
His own mind and the voice of Divine approval of which He was more than
ever conscious.
In Mt. the words of the Voice from heaven are assimilated to those at the Baptism
(in 2 Pet. i. 17 the assimilation is carried further stiU), and the Apostles' fear is
experienced when they hear the Voice. In Lk. the Transfiguration is placed " about
eight days " after the avowal at Csesarea PhUippi ; Jesus is stated to have ascended
the mountain to pray ; Moses and EUjah speak to Him of His approaching death
(cf. Lk. xxiv. 25, 26), and the words heard from heaven are, " This is my Son, my
chosen (cf. Mt. xii. 18, 2 Is. xhi. 1), hear ye him."
As Jesus and the Three returned to the rest of the disciples, Peter and
his companions were directed by their Master (who desired to retain within
His own control the right time for His self-disclosure (cf. viii. 30)) not to
reveal what they had seen until after He, the Son of man, should have risen
from the dead. The injunction perplexed them, for though they were
familiar with the idea of a general resurrection at the last day (p. 41),
their Master clearly had in view His own individual resurrection prior to
that ; and they discussed therefore with one another what He meant.
Nor was this the only element in His recent utterances which puzzled them,
for He had declared that He, the Christ, the Son of man, was destined to
suffer ; so they called His attention to the statement of the Scribes that the
coming of Elijah must precede that of the Messiah (it being understood that
the purpose of the former's advent was to set everything right for the tatter)
and asked how it was that prophecy affirmed (as He implied it did) that the
Messiah must suffer and be rejected ? Jesus acknowledged that (according
1 The same are probably the " two witnesses " of Rev. xi. 3.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 421
to the Scriptures) Elijah, when he came, was to effect a moral reformation
(Mai. iv. 5, 6, cf. Ecclus. xlviii. 10) ; but He declared (having in mind
John the Baptist, cf . Mt. xvii. 13) that he had aheady come, and men had
worked their will upon him, as had also been predicted (the reference being
probably to the persecution of Elijah by Ahab and Jezebel, 1 Kg. xviii., xix.).
The disciples were seemingly meant to infer from His words that there was
a foreordained paraUelism between the destiny of John and Himself, and
as the former had suffered death, so they must expect that He too must
suffer. In Mk. ix. 12, 13 some misplacement of clauses seems to have occurred. In v. 12
the order of the two halves of the verse ought probably to be transposed, so that the
question in 126 may form part of what the disciples said, and 12a may immediately
precede v. 13 as it does in ML xvn. 12 ; and this transposition has been adopted above.
Mk. ix. 11-13 is absent from Lk.
When Jesus and His companions rejoined the rest of the Twelve,
next day (according to Lk. ix. 37) they found a multitude gathered round
them, listening to a dispute between them and some Scribes. As soon as
the crowd saw Jesus, Whose unexpected arrival startled them, they ran
towards Him ; and when He asked them why they were disputing, a man
explained that he had brought to be cured by the disciples (in the absence
of Jesus) his son,1 who was deaf and dumb and suffered from convulsions ;2
but they had failed to heal him, It was possibly this failure that occasioned
the dispute with the Scribes, who contended that it proved that Jesus,
Whose name had presumably been used to expel the evil spirit distressing
the boy, was an impostor. Jesus, rebuking the lack of faith evinced by
the disciples, bade the sufferer be led to Him. The boy, when he reached
Jesus' presence, had one of the violent seizures with which he had been
afflicted from childhood, causing him to fall to the ground ; and the father
entreated our Lord to help them if He could. Jesus declared that every
thing was possible to one that beUeved ; whereupon the father, begging
Him to aid his unbehef , recovered from the mistrust caused by the disciples'
failure, and perhaps by look and bearing imparted something of his own
renewed faith to his unhappy son. For when Jesus addressed the evil
spirit that was held to occasion the maladies which He was asked to cure,
Baying, " It is I that command thee to come out of him," the boy, after
another convulsion, became as still as a corpse, and was deemed by the
bystanders to be dead ; but Jesus, taking him by the hand, raised him
and he stood up. It is apparent from the account that, as in other cases,
faith contributed to the cure, though the faith in question was primarily,
at any rate, the father's, the influence of this upon the son being only an
inference. On the other hand, lack of sufficient faith in their own power
to convey reUef had occasioned the failure of the disciples (as implied in
Mk. ix. 19, cf. Mt. xvii. 20). This was explained to them afterwards by
Jesus, Who intimated that for such a case as that which they had vainly
1 According to Lk. ix. 38 his only son ; cf. vn. 12, viu. 42.
2 In ML xvii. 15 he is described as a lunatic (o-eKrjvii^erai).

422 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
sought to heal their spiritual resources required to be reinforced by
prayer ; 1 and in such preparation they had been deficient.8
§ 9. Departure for Jerusalem
Jesus' premonition that He was destined to be killed by His own
people now led to a decisive change in the sphere of His activity. If He,
the Son of man, the Heavenly Messiah, foreboded that He would be put
to death by those whom He had come to save, it was inconceivable that
such a crime should be perpetrated until the supreme ecclesiastical
authorities, the priests and elders at Jerusalem, had an opportunity of
fully considering His claims. His work in Gahlee, if not altogether a
failure, had been successful only in a qualified degree. It is clear, from
the denunciation of woe against Chorazin, Bethsaida, and even Capernaum
(Mt. xi. 21-24 = Lk. x. 13-15), that His preaching had made comparatively
little impression upon these places. But even if it had not tacked success,
His mission was incomplete so long as it did not include the capital. He
must, of course, have been fully aware of the increased danger that He was
incurring from the hostility of the Pharisees and the priesthood by
proceeding to Jerusalem, the centre of their influence. But there seems
no sufficient reason for supposing that He went thither with the settled
intention of provoking His death.3 That He really went up to Jerusalem
in order to address to its inhabitants the same call to repentance as He had
urged upon the Galilseans seems certain from His lament over the city
in Mt. xxiii. 37-39 ( = Lk. xhi. 34, 35) ; whilst the conviction which He
entertained before leaving Gahlee that He was going to destruction is
sufficiently accounted for by the probabilities of the situation, without
being attributable to a dehberate resolve to throw away His hfe as a
sacrifice for the people. Accordingly, from the vicinity of Caesarea
Philippi, Jesus turned southward in the direction of Judaea and Jerusalem.
He had journeyed to Csesarea Phihppi along the east bank of the Lake of
Galilee and the upper waters of the Jordan ; but He now directed His
course along the western side of the river and the lake, taking Capernaum
on His way. He kept His movements as secret as possible, for He did not
wish His design of ascending to the capital to be interrupted, and He
desired to familiarize His disciples with the thought of His death as being
part of the predetermined counsel of God and as having its sequel in His
resurrection after a very brief interval. But when He proceeded to speak
of it, the idea was altogether too strange and mysterious for them to
comprehend it ; and in their awe of Him, now that they acknowledged
Him as Messiah, they were afraid to ask for an explanation, and so passed
on their way full of perplexity and mental distress.
Mt. has a narrative of an incident that occurred on their arrival at Capernaum.
The coUector of the Temple-tax of half a shekel, or two drachma (p. 71), about 1*. Id.,
1 In Mk. ix. 29 A C D L and several versions add " and by fasting."
2 In ML the faUure is simply attributed to their insufficient faith, and they are
told that faith no greater than a mustard seed would enable them to remove moun
tains (cf. p. 434).
8 As represented by Schweitzer, Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 389.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 423
asked Peter whether Jesus paid the tax and was answered in the affirmative. When
Peter entered the house where Jesus was, the latter showed His knowledge of what
had taken place by reminding Peter that kings took tribute from subject-peoples,
not from their own famUy, and that by analogy He and His disciples, as members
of God's famUy, should be free from contributing to the support of God's Temple.
But to avoid offence He bade Peter cast a hook into the lake, and he would find in
the mouth of the first fish caught a stater (the equivalent of four drachmce), which would
suffice for the tax due from two persons. To regard this narrative as recording a
real miracle is to suppose that Jesus avatted Himself of supernatural power or knowledge
to provide money which could have been otherwise obtained. To avoid this conclu-
sion, it has been suggested that He reaUy bade St. Peter procure the money by fishing
and then selling what he took. But it seems more likely that the story is the product
of a subsequent time (but prior to a.d. 70), when Christian and non-Christian Jews
were becoming more and more sundered, and some of the former were inclined to
refuse the Temple-tax, an inclination which the narrative was designed to repress.
Jesus' words about His impending death made so httle impression
upon His disciples that they were chiefly occupied with mutual rivalries.
On the way to Capernaum He had overheard, or perhaps detected by
His preternatural insight into men's thoughts (cf . p. 387), a dispute between
them as to which enjoyed pre-eminence over the rest. The discussion
had possibly been occasioned by the privilege granted more than once
to Peter, James and John. He now questioned them about it, and shame
kept them sUent. So after reaching the house (p. 384), He took the
opportunity of explaining how real pre-eminence was to be attained,
namely, not through lordship and mastery, as the Gentiles thought,
but by way of service : he who would be first of all must be the servant
of all. And in order to rivet upon their minds by a concrete illustration
the lesson that unassumingness (in contrast to self-assertion) was the
quahty of highest excellence, He placed a Uttle child (perhaps playing
near the house) in the midst of them, so that when they in the future saw
a child, they might mark the character to which they were to conform
their own. And He then took the httle one into His arms and declared
that whoso welcomed a child because children and childlike dispositions
were commended by Him,1 thereby welcomed Him, and a welcome
extended to Him was a welcome to God (cf. Mt. x. 40, Lk. x. 16).
In Mt. xviii. 2-4 the words of Jesus to the disciples after this dispute are given
rather differently from Mk.'s version, for He is represented to have begun by taking
a httle child and saying that except they turned and became as Uttle children they
should in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven ; and that whoso should humble
himself as a Uttle child was greatest in the heavenly kingdom.
The rebuke which the disciples had just received created in them
misgivings about their conduct on a recent occasion, which was now
related to Jesus by St. John. They had encountered (possibly in the
course of their evangelistic tour, see Mk. vi. 7) a man who had presumably
noticed them using the name of Jesus for the purpose of exorcising demons,
and had copied their example (cf . Acts xix. 13) ; but because he did not
belong to their company, they had sought to stop him ; so they wished to
know what Jesus thought of their action. Their Lord rephed that their
1 Cf. AUen, St. Mark, p. 129.

424 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
interference was unjustified : in combating evil as Jesus and His disciples
combated it, the man was enhsted on the same side.1
After this interruption our Lord resumed His previous train of thought.
The principle that the reception of a little child because the childlike
nature was approved by Christ was equivalent to the reception of Christ
Himself, admitted of wide apphcation. The smaUest service to one of
His disciples because they were Christ's (Jesus here for the first time
unmistakably used the title Christ (or Messiah) of Himself) would not
go unrewarded : conversely, the occasioning of such a one's spiritual
downfall would entail retribution so severe that drowning in the sea would
be a preferable fate. Jesus then warned His hearers that to avert spiritual
destruction in Hell,2 the self-inflicted sacrifice of any faculties which were
likely to prove incentives to sin was expedient. Every hfe devoted as
an offering to God, to be burnt (as it were) in His altar-fire, must at all
cost be preserved from moral corruption (just as sacrificial flesh was
salted to keep it from physical corruption). Then, varying the metaphor,
He imphed that the Apostles were meant to be in a moral sense the salt
of mankind, keeping the world wholesome by their spiritual influence ;
but if they themselves became corrupt (through mutual jealousy and
wrangling), they were useless for the purpose they were intended to serve.3
Mt. (xvui. 10-35), after including most of this passage from Mk., adds (a) a warn
ing against despising Uttle ones 4 ; (6) a simiUtude (drawn from Q, see Lk. xv. 4-7)
illustrating the care shown for the erring by God, Who.is Ukened to a shepherd seeking
straying sheep ; (c) directions how men are to treat offending f eUow-men 5 ; (d) the
parable of the Unforgiving Debtor (with vv. 21, 22, cf. Lk. xvu. 3, 4 and see p. 392),
who, though a debt of 10,000 talents (nearly 2£ miUions sterling) owed by him has
been remitted, yet exacts a debt owed to him of 100 denarii (£4).
From Capernaum Jesus now proceeded to turn His back finaUy on
1 For Mk.'s Kaff tjjiCiv . . . iirip ijp.uiv Lk. (ix. 50) substitutes the second person.
The incident is absent from Mt. Both ML (xu. 30) and Lk. (xi. 23) elsewhere include
(from Q) a converse saying, " He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth
not with me scattereth." Varying circumstances may make each of the aphorisms
equaUy true.
2 The word here used, Viewa, is the Greek transhteration of the Hebrew Ge
Hinnom, the valley of Hinnom (p. 10), which had once been the site of human sacri
fices, had been in consequence desecrated by King Josiah (2 Kg. xxiii. 10), and had
become a receptacle for the refuse of Jerusalem, for the destruction of which fires
were often kindled. Its associations led to its name being used to denote the place
of punishment for the wicked after death. The language of Mk. ix. 43, 48 is derived
from 3 Is. Ixvi. 24.
3 At the end of Mk. ix. 49 there is added in A C D N Lat., Syr. (pesh., hi.), etc.,
the words Kal iratra Bvaia dXi a\to-8^<rerai (taken from Lev. a. 13). The addition is
probably a gloss, but seems to give the right clue to the thought expressed in the
rest of the v., which is otherwise obscure, the obscurity being increased through the
R.V. rendering of irvpl by " with fire." The only translation which yields sense is
" for fire " (cf. for the dat. 2 Pet. in. 7 (re8rjo-avpurp.ivoi el<rl irvpt) ).
4 For the " angels " of children cf. Jubilees xxxv. 17, " the guardian of Jacob is
great . . . and praised more than the guardian of Esau."
6 ML xviii. 15 (=Lk. xvii. 3) seems to come from Q. On v. 17 (" the church ")
see p. 418. On v. 18 see p. 612. Vv. 19, 20 imply the existence of the Church after the
Resurrection when Jesus' bodily presence with His disciples was replaced by His
spiritual presence (cf. xxvni. 20).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 425
Gahlee, and bent His steps towards Judaea (Lk. ix. 51) ; but the route He
followed is not easily determined. St. Mark says nothing about the
journey itseU, but merely describes Him as coming " into the borders of
Judsea and beyond Jordan." This, on the surface, means that He went
first through Samaria into Judsea, and then into Persea, whence He returned
through Jericho (Mk. x. 46). But the passage last cited more naturally
describes His first entry into Judsea, implying that He travelled towards
Judsea through the country east of the Jordan. Nevertheless, that His
original intention was to journey through Samaria appears from Lk. ix.
51-56 (a section which, in view of what it relates about James and John,
is not hkely to be an invention), and it was only abandoned by reason of
the hostility of the Samaritans. It is related that these refused to receive
Him because He was travelling to the rival Temple of Jerusalem, and
that, in consequence, the two sons of Zebedee wished to call down fire
from heaven upon the offenders (cf. 2 Kg. i. 10-12), thereby evoking a
rebuke from their Master.1 The abandonment, indeed, of the western
route is not actually asserted, and at first sight is implicitly denied by
the statement in Lk. xvii. 11, as translated in the Bevised Version, that
on the way to Jerusalem He passed " through the midst of Samaria and
GalUee " (though the order of the words, if He were travelUng from north
to south, is very unnatural). And inasmuch as Perasa, like Galilee, belonged
to Herod Antipas, in whose power He did not wish to place Himself
unnecessarily, it has been suggested that Jesus Himself really took the
route through Samaria, whilst some of His company, including Peter,
went by Peraea, the two parties meeting at Jericho.2 This is an ingenious
explanation ; but it seems unhkely that, at a time when our Lord was
anxiously engaged in instructing His disciples, any of them would be
separated from Him ; and in point of fact, aUusion is made to the Twelve
(Mk. x. 32), and to the Ten in contrast to James and John (Mk. x. 35, 41),
before Jesus reached Jericho (Mk. x. 46). Probably, therefore, Jesus,
meeting with a repulse from the Samaritans, did not proceed farther on
the road leading to Jerusalem through Samaria, but passed " between
Samaria and Galilee " (Lk. xvii. 11)_ crossed the Jordan at the ford near
Scythopolis (p. 8), pursued His way through Persea, notwithstanding
the circumstance that it was within the territories of Herod Antipas, and
recrossed the Jordan near Jericho.3
1 The clauses in Lk. ix. 54, 55 which are relegated by the R.V. to the mg. have
no place in K B L and the Sinaitic Syr.
2 See Burkitt, Gospel History, pp. 95-98, who rejects the reading in Mk. x. 1
els rd Spia rijs 'lovSatas Kal iripav rov 'lopSdvov (though having the support of KBCL)
in favour of the omission of Kal, which is absent from D, Lat., Syr. (sin. pesh.), and
from the parallel text in Mt. xix. 1 ; and thinks that the words iripav rov 'lopSdvov
in relation to rd Spia rrjs 'lovSatas describe the borders of Judsea as looked at from
the Perasan side, and may represent the point of view of Peter, who was St. Mark's
authority (p. 174). There is »¦ paraUel to this mode of expression in 1 Kg. iv. 24,
where Solomon's dominions are described as " beyond the River " Euphrates (see
mg.) from the point of view of the post-exilic historian who wrote on the east side of
the Euphrates.
* It seems necessary to adopt the reading of D and other authorities mentioned
in the preceding note, which omits Kal before iripav rod 'lopSdvov, and to interpret

426 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
It was probably as Jesus departed from Gahlee that there occurred certain incidents
which, recorded in Q, are assigned by ML and Lk. to distinct periods. A man (caUed
by ML a scribe) came to our Lord declaring that he would foUow Him wherever He
should go ; but Jesus, in order that he, before impulsively undertaking to do so, might
count the cost, told him that the Son of man, unhke foxes and birds, had no assured
place of shelter. To a second Jesus addressed a command to join Him in His mission * ;
and when the man, perhaps shrinking from what it involved, asked that he might
first bury his father, he was bidden to leave the physicaUy dead to be buried by such
as were spirituaUy dead, and to devote himself to proclaiming the Kingdom. Lk.
adds another offer of adherence from one who wished first to say f areweU to his friends,
but who was told that fitness for the Kingdom of God was incompatible with divided
interests, just as a straight furrow could not be driven by a ploughman whose eyes
were always directed backwards (cf. Hes. Op. 443-5). By Mt. (viii. 18-22) the inter
views are placed after the cure of St. Peter's mother-in-law and just before the first
journey across the Lake of GalUee, the account of them, indeed, interrupting the
narrative of the latter. But the circumstance that Jesus is represented as declaring
that He had nowhere to lay His head is inconsistent with the conditions in Galilee,
where, even if He had not a house of His own (see p. 384), the house of Peter at Caper
naum must have been always open to Him ; whereas on the journey to Jerusalem
He could not count upon any settled abode.
Jesus' practice of urging would-be followers to estimate the sacrifice which adhesion
to Him would involve may be further iUustrated by TTia declaration that none could
be His disciple who was not prepared to renounce his nearest and dearest, if necessary,
in order to be loyal to Him. This utterance comes from Q (Mt. x. 37, 3S= Lk. xiv.
26, 27), and the Third EvangeUst appends to it two additional sayings expressing the
same lesson by reference to the prudence shown in the affairs of ordinary hfe by those
engaged in building or in warfare, who, before entering upon their undertakings,
calculate in the one case the cost of materials and labour, and in the other the relative
strength of their own forces and the enemy's.
By St. Luke it is related (xvii. 11-19) that as our Lord journeyed towards Peraea,
passing between Samaria and Gahlee (p. 425), He was met at a certain viUage by ten
lepers who, recognizing Him and knowing His power to heal (cf . Mk. i. 40-45), begged
Him to have mercy upon them. On this occasion (unlike the former, -when a single
leper entreated Him to cleanse him, p. 380) Jesus did not touch them or utter more
than a command that they should show themselves to the priests ; and as they went,
their leprosy was cured. AU by their obedience demonstrated their faith, but only
one, a Samaritan (whom a common affliction had associated with a company of Jews),
had sufficient gratitude to thank his Healer ; and his isolated action naturaUy caused
Jesus to contrast his conduct with that of his companions.
Shortly after recording our Lord's departure on TTia journey to Jerusalem St.
Luke narrates (x. 1-20) that He sent forth besides the Twelve to be His emissaries
and heralds, seventy (K A C L) or seventy-two (B D Syr. vet.) others. The first
figure recalls the elders who were appointed by Moses (Num. xi. 16), or who accompanied
birvi up the mount (Ex. xxiv. 1). The historian represents that Jesus gave them
directions almost identical with those elsewhere enjoined upon the Twelve (see. ix. 1-6,
and cf. x. 2, 3, 5-7 with Mt. ix. 37, 38, x. 16, 12, 13, 10), bidding them heal the sick
and announce the nearness of the Kingdom ; that they returned with joy, having
found even the demons subject to them through His name ; and that Jesus saw in
their success Satan's overthrow, but told them to rejoice less because of their control
over evil spirits than because their names were on the roU of heaven. There is nothing
intrinsicaUy improbable in an account of the dispatch by Jesus, on the ocoasion of
His last attempt to convert His countrymen, of a larger number of His foUowers to
propagate His message ; but the faot that no record of His having thus acted is pre
served in the earhest authorities has raised the Suspicion that the narrative is intended
to be symbohc of the evangeUzation of the Gentile world (the number of nations
the latter phrase in the sense put upon it by A N and other MSS. which replace it by
Sid rov iripav rov 'lopSdvov.
1 In Mt. he is represented as already a disciple.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 427
enumerated in Gen. x. being seventy).1 On Lk. x 21, 22 see p. 617. Lk. x. 23, 24
recurs in Mt. xhi. 16, 17 in another connexion. The Third Evangehst also introduces
here a question, put by a lawyer, which resembles that in Mk. x. 17, but ehcits an answer
hke that given in Mk. xu. 30, 31, and is foUowed by the Parable of the Good Samari
tan (see p. 429).
Another occurrence related by St. Luke alone seems to belong to this period.
The district of Persa formed part of the dominions of Herod Antipas, who appears
to have heard that Jesus was passing through it. The same motive that caused him
to fear John the Baptist's influence with the people (p. 370) likewise made him appre
hensive of Jesus, but it served his purpose as weU to drive Him out of his territory
as to kiU Him ; and it was probably with this end in view that he uttered threats
to take His life, hoping that they would be reported and would induce His withdrawal.
Information of such threats was carried to Jesus by some Pharisees, and as it
cannot be assumed that aU Pharisees were equaUy hostile to Him, those who com
municated Herod's words probably did so from friendly reasons. Jesus, however, felt
so fuUy assured that His destiny was determined by His Father's wiU that He was
undisturbed by tidings of Herod's menaces ; but He penetrated the tetrarch's motive,
and bade His informants carry word to " that fox " that however he might threaten,
yet for a short whUe stiU (cf. Hos. vi. 2) He Himself had works of mercy to perform,
and only when those were accomphshed would His career reach its prescribed com
pletion. Nevertheless He was departing from Herod's dominions (though not from
fear of him) for no prophet of God could perish elsewhere than at the religious capital
of God's own people ! (cf . 2 Ch. xxiv. 20-21 ; Jer. xxvi. 20-23).
It was seemingly in continuation of the journey through Persea that
Jesus was approached by a party of Pharisees, who demanded His opinion
on a legal point — the lawfulness of divorce, Their object was to discover
whether His teaching was at variance with the Law, in order that, if it
proved to be so, they might convict Him of encouraging disloyalty to the
Mosaic legislation. In it the right of a husband to divorce his wife was
recognized (though the purpose of the enactment in Dt. xxiv. 1-4 to
which they referred was to impose Umitations upon the exercise of the
right 2) ; and Jesus did not dispute that the Law aUowed it. But He
declared that it was a concession to avoid worse evils, and that it did not
correspond to the purpose of God, Who at the Creation designed the union
between a man and a woman to be permanent. When Jesus reached a
house where He meant to lodge, His disciples questioned Him about the
same subject ; and to them He laid down the principle that divorce, foUowed
by a second marriage, involved adultery. The conclusion to be drawn
from the statement here made is considered elsewhere (see p. 610).
In Mt. 3 the question put to Jesus is couched in the form " Is it lawful for a man
to divorce his wife for every cause ? " thus inviting Him to take a side in a dispute
between two Rabbinic schools (p. 609). His utterances concerning re-marriage after
divorce are differently worded in various Synoptic passages. Adultery is committed
(a) in Mk. x. II, 12 by a husband or wife divorcing the other and re-marrying ; (b)
in Mt. xix. 9 by a husband divorcing his wife, except for fornication, and re-marrying,
1 It is noteworthy that Lk. xxu. 35 (addressed to the Twelve) refers to x. 4 addressed
to the Seventy. Eusebius (H.E. i. 12) mentions as included by tradition among the
Seventy Barnabas (Acts iv. 3), Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1), Matthias, Joseph (Acts i. 23)
and Thaddeus (enumerated by Mk. among the Twelve (p. 390) ).
2 See Driver, Dt. p. 269 f.
3 The inoident is absent from Lk., but Jesus' decision on the subject appears in
Lk. xvi. 18.

428 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and by the man who marries the divorced woman 1 ; (c) in Lk. xvi. 18 as in ML xix. 9,
but without the exception, (d) In ML v. 32 a man divorcing his wife except for fornica
tion is said to cause her to commit adultery, and the man who marries her is declared
an adulterer. The case contemplated in Mk. x. 12 of a woman divorcing her husband
was only possible according to Roman, not Jewish, Law, though it had occurred in
the instance of a Jewish princess, Salome, sister of Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. xv.
7, 10). In Mt. the disciples, after Jesus' reply, are represented as saying that on the
principle affirmed by their Master, it was better not to marry, and He is said to have
rephed that abstinence from marriage was expedient only in certain circumstances
due to physical or reUgious causes.
The reputation of Jesus as a prophet had preceded Him, and probably
it was in the expectation that mere physical contact with Him (cf . Mk. vm.
22) would impart a blessing that some httle children were brought to
Him that He might touch them. The disciples, jealous that the time and
attention of their Master should be thus occupied, censured those who
had charge of them. But Jesus indignantly checked their interference,
and bade them aUow the chUdren to come to Him, for they only would
enter the Kingdom of Heaven who received the message about it with the
trustfulness and docility of children. And taking them in His arms,
and laying His hands upon them (cf . Gen. xlviii. 14, 15), He blessed them.
From the house where He had stayed (Mk. x. 10), He was again
departing, when there ran up a man who, addressing Him as " Good
Teacher," asked Him what he should do to inherit eternal life. Jesus,
conscious that God was the Source of all goodness, including His own
(cf. Joh. v. 19), remarked the epithet, and asked why he had so saluted
Him, since none was good but God. Then adopting the man's assumption
that he could gain eternal hfe by doing certain acts instead of being of a
certain character, He cited some of the commands of the Decalogue
(vi., vii., vih., ix. v.).2 These the other declared he had always kept ;
and though his reply seemed to reflect seU-complacency, yet the fact that
he was not content with negative virtues, but was eager to attain to
positive merits, won for him our Lord's affection. Nevertheless he had
to learn that he sought his end along mistaken hnes ; and since he supposed
that it could be reached by obedience to external commands, it was
needful to impose one which he would find it difficult to discharge. So
Jesus directed him to bestow all his possessions on the poor, and follow
Him. To the demand thus made he was unequal, for he had great wealth,
which he could not bring himself to sacrifice.
The inquirer is described by Mt. (xix. 20) as a young man, by Lk. as a ruler (of a
synagogue, p. 95, ci.Joh. iii. 1), the two descriptions not being very consistent. For
" Good Teacher, what shaU I do ? " ML substitutes " Teacher, what good thing shaU
I do ? " with a corresponding change in our Lord's reply (see p. 176), and adds to the
commandments cited " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself " (Lev. xix. 18).
Lk., in addition to reproducing Mk.'s narrative, recounts also (x. 25-37) that the
same inquiry was put to Jesus by a lawyer ; that when Jesus asked him what was
directed in the Law, he cited the words of Dt. vi. 5 and Lev. xix. 18 enjoining love to
God and to one's neighbour ; that Jesus approved the answer, and when the man
1 The last clause is absent from N D, Lat. (vet.), Syr. (vet.) and Eg. (sah.).
2 Lk. has the order vii., vi., vui., ix., v. (cf. Rom. xui. 9). Mk. adds " Do not
defraud."

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 429
rejoined by asking who was his neighbour, Jesus related the parable of the Good
Samaritan, who succoured a wounded Jewish traveUer, whom a priest and a Levite
passed by. The parable did not answer the inquirer's question directly (contrast
w. 36, 37 with v. 29), but by the instance of the Samaritan who considered even a
hated Jew, when in misfortune, his neighbour, imphed that every one, especially if
needing help, should be counted such.
Jesus, as His questioner withdrew, remarked how difficult entrance into
the Kingdom of God was for the rich.1 His words greatly astonished His
disciples (since there prevailed the behef that prosperity was a proof of
God's approval). But Jesus affirmed that it was more difficult than the
passage of a camel through the eye of a needle, causing His f oUowers to
ask who, if the rich were excluded, could possibly be included ; and Jesus
thereupon explained that God's power could not be measured by man's.
The recent incident reminded the disciples that they had done what
another had found too hard, and Peter gave expression to their reflections.
Jesus repUed that sacrifice made for Him and for His message had abundant
compensations (though not without persecutions2), even in the present
(ties of blood being replaced by ties based on spiritual affinity, cf . Mk. iii.
35) ; and would be recompensed in the future by eternal hfe. But God's
estimate of merit was not man's, and many who supposed that they had
first claim to a reward would find themselves accounted last.
ML prefixes to the promise of compensation for sacrifices in Christ's cause an
assurance (drawn from Q, cf. Lk. xxu. 30) that when the Son of man should sit on His
throne, TTia Apostles should also sit on thrones administering justice to 3 the tribes
of Israel. He also appends (xx. 1-15) the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard,
wherein an employer is represented as duly paying to some labourers the stipulated
day's wage but no more, whilst generously giving the same wage to others who had
done less than a day's work, and thereby ehciting murmurs from the former. The
parable seems out of harmony with its immediate context, and appears to be directed
against the discontent of the Pharisees, who were lifelong observers of the Law,
with the Divine mercy shown to tax-gatherers and sinners who for a large part of their
hves had neglected it (cf. p. 384).
Attention may be caUed here to certain1 parables pecuhar to Lk. which relate to
wealth and its use. An appeal to Jesus made by a man who had a dispute with his
brother about the division of an estate and who wished our Lord to decide it (xn.
13-15), evoked a warning against covetousness, embodied in the Parable of the Rich
Fool (whose end came as soon as he had amassed the fortune he had hoped to enjoy).
The wisdom of so using wealth lawfully acquired as to promote its owner's spiritual
welfare in the next world was iUustrated (xvi. 1-12) by the Parable of the Unrighteous
Steward (who shrewdly provided for his future material needs even by fraudulent
apphcation of what was not his own). FinaUy, the truth that the possession of great
wealth was calculated, if not employed for the rehef of others' necessity, to have as
its sequel torment in Hades, whilst extreme poverty, if patiently borne, might be the
prelude to eternal fehcity, was set forth in the parable of the Rich Man and the beggar
Lazarus (xvi. 19-31). This parable is an expansion of the First Beatitude, as
expressed in Lk. vi. 20, and requires to be qualified in the same way as the latter.
1 In Mk. x. 24 " the rich " of v. 23 is replaced by " those who trust in riches " on
the authority of A C D N Lat., Syr., but the substitution is not found in N B Lat.
(vet. k). Eg. (sah.).
2 This clause, absent from Mt. and Lk., may reflect the conditions of the Apostohc
age, and be unauthentic.
' For " judge " in the sense of rule cf. Jud. x. 2, xu. 9, etc.

480 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
As the company proceeded towards Jerusalem, Jesus went on alone,
in front of His disciples ; and the prospect of the fate awaiting Him there
invested His mien and bearing with a solemnity that awed His foUowers.
When He aUowed them to rejoin Him, He explained for the third time what
He expected to befall Him. The account of what He said on this occasion,
as compared with the two preceding, corresponds so much more closely
to the events which actuaUy occurred, including not only His condemnation
by the Sanhedrin and His consequent execution by the Gentiles (results
which perhaps might be confidently anticipated (p. 100) ), but also the
mocking and other incidents of His trial, that probably the historian,
in the hght of what he knew to have taken place, has made our Lord's
words more precise than they actually were. Had so exact a prediction
of His sufferings been uttered, the close agreement of events with the
pre-announcement of them should have caused the Apostles to abide the
fulfilment of the prophecy about His resurrection with greater hopefulness
than was the case.
But it was the prospect not of outrage and death for their Master, but
of a share in His ultimate triumph, that principaUy engaged the minds of
the Apostles : and James and John, still prompted by ambition, despite
Jesus' earher rebuke (ix. 35 f.1), asked that when He entered upon His
glory, they might fill the places of most honour next to Himself. Jesus
gave them to understand that closeness to Him in His glory must depend
upon nearness to Him in the prior sufferings 2 ; and asked whether they
were able to drink of the same cup of destiny3 as He, or be immersed in
the same flood of ill.4 They responded in the affirmative ; and their
Master thereupon declared that they should ; but that in the bestowal
of the honour they coveted, fitness (not favour) would decide. The
request of the two became known to the rest, who were indignant at their
conduct ; and the quarrel did not escape the notice of Jesus. CaUing them
to Him He contrasted the principles prevailing in the world and in the
Kingdom of God : in the one, primacy and greatness were associated
with mastery ; but in the other it was dependent upon service. For He
Himself had come not to be served, but to serve, and to give His hfe as
a ransom for many.
In ML the request for precedence put by James and John proceeds from their
mother (cf. p. 188 ). After xx. 28 there is added in D * Lat. (vet.) and Syr. (cur.)
a passage transcribed on p. 194, the greater part of which is parallel to Lk. xiv. 8-11.
From Lk. the request of the sons of Zebedee is absent, but a contention as to which
of the Apostles was greatest appears in the account of the Last Supper (p. 456) ; and
1 The paraUeUsm in substance between Mk. ix. 30-37 and x. 32-45 is suggestive of
variant versions of a single occasion (cf. Loisy, Les Evang. Syn. h. p. 235).
2 Cf. the Agraphon, Qui iuxta me est, iuxta ignem est; qui longe est a me kmge
est a regno.
3 For the metaphor of. xiv. 36 ; Rev. xiv. 10, xvii. 2, 4 ; 2 7s. U. 17 ; Jer. xxv. 15 ;
Ezek. xxiii. 32; Hab. ii. 16; Ps. xi. 6, lxxv. 8; Horn. II. xxiv. 527, Soiol ydp re
irlBoi KaraKelarai iv Aids oUSei Siipuv bia SlSavi kukuv, erepos Si idav.
1 In Mk. x. 28 for the sense of j3airrlfop.ai of. Is. xxi. 4 (LXX) r) dvo/ila pe pairrlfri.
In Ps. lxix. 2 Symmachus has ifiairrlo-Brjv els dwepdvrovs KaraSiaeis, and in Jer.
xxxviii. 22 he has ifidirrioav els ri\im roils irbSas cov.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 481
in this the substance of Jesus' reproof (Mk. x. 42-45) is reproduced, but without any
equivalent for the words " and to give His Ufe a ransom for many."
Jesus, in the aUusion to His impending death just related, attached to
it a significance of which there is no suggestion in the earlier references to
His end. It is plain that He now thought of His death (in some measure
voluntary, since by derehction of duty He could have shunned it) as
a means of bringing within the Kingdom numbers who would other
wise be left outside it ; but it is not equally clear whether by the words
6 vlog rov dvOgibnov . . , fjXOs . . . dovvat rrjv ipvxrjv avrov Xvrgov dvrl
noXX&tv He meant that His impending death was to be regarded as
Substitutionary, His Ufe being deUvered up to save the forfeited lives of
sinners, or was to be viewed merely as a means of dehverance for them
from the control of sin (through the appeal which His self-sacrifice in
pursuance of His mission was calculated to make to their hearts) without
any idea of substitution or exchange being involved. The question is
discussed further on pp. 620-1.
The road from the Jordan towards Jerusalem passed through Jericho
(p. 9). A report about Jesus had preceded His approach to the place,
so that as He departed from it, He and His disciples were attended by a
great concourse. The tramphng of the crowd attracted the attention of
a bhnd beggar named Bartimseus, who was seated by the wayside. In
spite of Jesus' instructions to the Apostles to disclose to none that He was
the Christ (viii. 30), hints of it had doubtless got abroad and had reached
the bhnd man ; so that when he asked who was passing and was told it
was Jesus the Nazarene, he cried out " Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy
on me!" The crowd bade him hold his peace ; but he was too intent
upon recovering his sight, if that were possible, to heed their interference,
and only repeated his appeal. His cry reached our Lord's ears ; and
stopping, He directed that he should be brought to Him. Bartimseus
at once sprang up (the bystanders no longer rebuking but encouraging
him), and casting aside his loose upper garment lest it should impede
his movements, went to Jesus. In reply to a question, he explained that
he wanted to regain his sight ; and Jesus at once declared that through his
faith, his impaired power of vision was restored to soundness. In response
to so stimulating an assurance the inactive organs and nerves resumed their
suspended functions ; and once more able to see, he mingled with the
crowd to foUow his Benefactor on His way.
Mt. (xx. 29-34), who with Lk. omits the cure of a bhnd man at Bethsaida (Mk.
Vm. 22-26), represents that Jesiis restored sight (by touch) to two men and not to
one alone (cf. p. 398). St. Luke follows St. Mark in mentioning one Mind man olily.
but diverges from the Second Evangehst by placing the cure in the course of Jesus'
approach to Jericho, and not of His departure from it.
St. Luke also narrates that Jesus, after healing the bhnd man, entered Jericho.
The town, as being on the road from the fords of the Jordan to Jerusalem (from which
it was distant between fifteen and twenty mUes), was a suitable spot for collecting
toUs on merchandise passing from Peraea, the territory of Herod Antipas, to the Roman
province of Judaea. One of the chief coUectors (dpxireKiivrjs) of such tolls, probably
in the service of the Roman publicanij though a Jew by race, Who had his residence
here and whose name was Zacchaeus (=Zaccai, cf. Ez. u. 9), wished to see Him ; but

432 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
being overtopped by the crowd in consequence of his shortness of stature, cUmbed a
tree known as a fig-mulberry * (avKouopia). Jesus presumably overheard the man's
name shouted by the multitude, perhaps accompanied with expressions of execration
on account of his profession, and was filled with the pity He always felt for such social
outcasts as he. So He called to him, and told him that He was going that day to
rest at his house. Zacchseus, full of joy, descended and prepared to receive Him ;
but our Lord's words at once drew murmurs from the crowd, prejudiced as they were
against the tax-gatherer's calhng. It looks, indeed, as though Zacchseus had in the
past been as unscrupulous as his class were generaUy reputed to be ; for while Jesus
was in his house, he declared his intention of giving 2 half his possessions to the poor
and of making fourfold restitution (cf. Ex. xxii. 1, 2 Sam. xu. 6) to all whom he had
wronged by false statements or unjust exactions. In the resolve thus made known
Jesus saw the fruits of His compassion for one who, disUked by his compatriots, was
yet an IsraeUte, and if a sinner, was for that very reason an object of sohcitude to
Him who came to seek and save the lost in Israel (cf. ML xv. 24, x. 6).
§ 10. Entry into the Capital and Purification of the Temple
When our Lord turned His steps from Gahlee towards Jerusalem, it
was in the expectation that He was going to His death (p. 422). His
hfe had been sought, indeed, in the course of His Galilean ministry, in
consequence of His attitude towards certain regulations of the Jewish
Law, which the zealous upholders of the Law would not tolerate (p. 388).
But the certainty with which He anticipated death at Jerusalem was
due to His determination to make known there His conviction that He
was the Messiah, with the result of exposing Himself to repudiation by
the priesthood and deliverance to the Boman authorities for execution
as an impostor. Such an issue He could only avoid by remaining in
obscurity, and to dp this would be to abandon the very purpose which His
Father had designed Him to accomplish — the revelation to God's people
¦ of the Divine nature and the Divine requirements. It was therefore with
the intention of chaUenging acceptance or rejection by the hierarchy of
the capital that Jesus determined to enter Jerusalem in a manner that
would caU attention to His Messianic claim. The Messiah was a King, and
it was as a King, and not as a prophet merely, that Jesus resolved to
present Himself to them. But His conception of kingship did not involve
regal state or warhke equipment : the qualities which He deemed kingly
were those of humility and peaceableness, and it was in the aspect of the
king portrayed in 2 Zech. ix. 9 that He wished to appear at the rehgious
centre of His race. Although it is probable that He had not previously
been in Jerusalem during His ministry (see p. 220), He must have been
there in earher years, for one of His disciples was seemingly a Judsean
(p. 390), and the fact that after a few hours' stay in Jerusalem, He retired
to Bethany to spend the night (Mk. xi. 11) shows that He had acquaintances
there. Bethany was a village less than two miles east of the city (Joh. xi.
18), near the Mount of Olives, the site being commonly identified with the
modern El Azeriyeh (which owes its name to the association of Bethany
1 The tree has a short trunk, leaves resembling those of the mulberry, and fruit
Uke the fig.
2 In Lk. xix. 8 the presents SISujju and droSlSiajxi probably mean " I give," " I
restore " here and now.

' oel-KubSbeh

,, o Ramah
Gibeon \ ^ (er-R&m)

oMiipah

Kaldniyeh
JEmmaus?)

oAnathoth

JERUSALEM

JJethphaJ Bethany

Rachel's Tomb A

Bethlehem

ENVIRONS
OF JERUSALEM
1 g Miles

^ ^ To illustrate the fudaan Ministry.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 433
with Lazarus (Joh. xi. 1)). Here He seems to have been received and
entertained by a woman named Martha, whose sister Mary became
preoccupied with listening to His discourses, leaving the task of providing
the meal to Martha, who in consequence complained to Him, but was
told ambiguously that one, not many, things were needed, and what
Mary had chosen could not be taken from her.1 These particulars are
furnished by Lk. only, but though he leaves unnamed the village where
Martha dwells, St. Mark's statement aheady referred to imphes that
Jesus found hospitahty at Bethany, and St. Luke's narrative suits weU
the circumstances. Apparently between Bethany and the Mount of
Ohves was another viUage called Bethphage, and the nearness of the two
locahties to one another enabled Jesus to make arrangements for a plan
which He carried out next day. On Nisan 9 (Sunday), He sent to Bethphage
(cf . Mt. xxi. 1) two of His disciples, teUing them that at the entrance of
the place they would find an ass's colt 2 tied at a house-door, and were to
unloose it and bring it to Him ; and in case they were questioned about
their proceedings, they should say that their Master needed it and would
return it. They carried out the directions, and bringing the colt, which
was without trappings, to Jesus, put upon its back some garments in
place of a saddle, and then Jesus mounted it. To do Him honour some
carpeted the road with their outer robes (cf. 2 Kg. ix. 13), whilst others
strewed upon it layers of faUen leaves.3 A joyous procession, with Jesus
in the centre, was formed ; and by both those who were in front and those
who were behind was raised a song of prayer and praise, drawn in part
from Ps. cxvin. 25, 26, a psalm Uturgically used at the feast of Tabernacles,
and containing words which, originally meant as a welcome to the pUgrims
that came up for the feast, were now employed to greet Jesus as One whose
approach preluded the establishment of the kingdom of the national
hopes : " God save him ! " " Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord : Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David ; Save him
from on high." The words do not necessarily imply that Jesus was
greeted as the actual sovereign of the coming kingdom ; they were
compatible with His being the herald of it, and Mt. records that when it
was asked who He was, the multitude rephed that He was the prophet,
Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee. Jesus, after having thus entered the
city, proceeded to the Temple courts (p. 90) ; and having looked around
and observed much that called for reform, He withdrew, since the hour
was late, and returned to Bethany.
Mk.'s description of the colt whereon no man had ever yet sat reproduces the
idea found in the Old Testament that what had previously been used was unsuitable
for sacred purposes (Num. xix. 2 ; Dt. xxi. 3 ; 1 Sam. vi. 7 ; 2 Sam. vi. 3 ; cf. Lk.
xxiii. 53). Mt. in his account of the entry (xxi. 1-11) quotes freely the prophecy from
Zech. ix. 9, which seems to have been in our Lord's mind, but misunderstanding the
parallehsm of the words " an ass, and a colt, the foal of a she-ass " (describing a single
1 In Lk. x. 42 jiepls is used in the double sense of a portion of food and of a lot
in Ufe (Ps. lxxiii. 26).
2 Joh. has " branches of the palm trees " ; cf . 1 Mace. xiii. 51.
s Mk. merely has irCiKov, which is applicable to both a horse and an ass.
28

434 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
animal) represents that the disciples brought to Jesus a she-ass together with its
colt, and placed their garments on them both. Our Lord's undertaking to send back
the colt is replaced by an assurance from Him that the owner of the ass and the colt
would send them. ML has for the greeting of the crowd " God save the Son of
David " ; and the Evangelist adds that in the Temple He healed the bhnd and the
lame. The same words " God save the Son of David," shouted there by the chU-
dren, were made by the priests and scribes a subject of complaint to Jesus, but He
bade them take note of what was said in Ps. viii. 2 (LXX), which was then finding
its fulfilment. Lk. has " Blessed is the king that cometh in the name of the Lord :
peace in heaven and glory in the highest " ; and adds that when some of the Pharisees,
as Jesus descended the Mount of Olives, bade Him rebuke the disciples for so hailing
Him, He rephed that, if they ceased, the very stones would immediately take up
the cry (cf. Hab. ii. 11). Lk. also records that as Jesus drew near the city He lamented
over its insensibUity to its true welfare (as evinced by these complaints of the Phari
sees), and the retribution which was so shortly to overtake it.
Joh. who states that Jesus " found a young ass and sat thereon" in fulfilment
of Zech. ix. 9, appears to place the Entry on Nisan 10 (Monday), if the " six days
before the Passover " (xii. 1) be reckoned inclusively, for the sixth day would be Nisan
9 (Sunday), and the entry occurred on the day foUowing (xu. 12).
The next day (Nisan 10, Monday) He started early from Bethany
for Jerusalem. On the way, according to the historian's narrative, He
saw a solitary fig tree prematurely in leaf ; and since the fruit usuaUy
appears before the leaves, which afterwards screen it, the sight of the
foliage caused Him (for He had seemingly not yet broken His fast) to
hope to find, if not ripe figs (these are not forthcoming until May or June,
and this was only March or AprU), at least immature green figs. The
tree, however, proved to have none. Jesus, therefore, in His disciples'
hearing, addressing the deceptive tree, sentenced it to perpetual sterility.
After He had carried out at Jerusalem the design for which He went
thither and which is related below (p. 435), He returned to Bethany ;
and on the ensuing morning when He and His disciples passed the tree
a second time, it was noticed that it had withered. Peter drew his Lord's
attention to it ; whereupon Jesus bade them have faith in God, and
declared that anyone who should bid the neighbouring hih (the Mount
of Olives) be transported into the sea, without doubting that his desire
would be fulfilled, should find it realized. And He went on to assure
them that whatsoever they prayed for, with full confidence that they
would receive, they should have ; but He enjoined them that their prayers
should be accompanied by the forgiveness of such as had wronged them
(cf. p. 392).1
The beginning of this narrative represents Jesus as cursing the tree
for false pretensions to fruitfulness, His action admitting of being under
stood as a warning to the bystanders against insincere professions and
hypocrisy, although no such warning is explicitly enforced in words.
But in the conclusion the lesson conveyed is the power of prayer, when
accompanied by faith, a further and more extreme iUustration of what
faith can accomplish being added. But the tatter — the removal of
mountains — was a common figure of speech for the surmounting of diffi-
1 Mk. xi.26 (R.V. mg.) is found in A 0 D, etc, and Lat. vet. (most codd.), but is
absent from X B L, from Lat. vet. (some codd.), Syr. (sin.), and Eg. : cf. ML vi. 15.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 435
culties (see 1 Cor. xiii. 2, Mt. xvii. 20, Zech. iv. 7 x) ; and this suggests
that the withering of a tree by a word may also have been a rhetorical
hyperbole, used by our Lord to indicate how much could be achieved by
faith— a hyperbole which has been taken literaUy and converted into an
occurrence (cf. p. 116). If a figurative expression has thus been material
ized into an actual incident, the need at a later period of accounting for
Jesus' action would naturaUy lead to the invention of circumstances
supposed to be appropriate, such as those which are described in the
opening of the story. This explanation seems preferable to believing
that Jesus reaUy treated an inanimate object as if it were a responsible
agent, and that His words caused the tree to decay within a few hours.
ML represents that as soon as Jesus imprecated barrenness upon the fig tree, it
withered away immediately (cf. p. 188). In Lk. xvii. 6 (cf. Mt. xvii. 20) a petition
by the Apostles that Jesus would increase their faith is answered by the statement
that if they had faith as a grain of mustard seed, they might bid a sycamine tree 2
plant itself in the sea, and they would be obeyed. The Third Gospel does riot contain
the cursing of the fig tree, but has a parable (xiii. 6—9) in which the owner of a vine
yard, when ordering the felling of a fruitless Eig tree, is entreated by bis vi.ne dresser
to spare it for another year in the hope that after being pruned and manured, it may
produce fruit ; if it then fails to do so, it deserves no further respite. The fig tree
stands for the Jewish people, and the postponement of its destruction illustrates the
Divine mercy. Some suppose that it is this parable that has been transformed into
the narrative of the Cursing of the Eig Tree.
On the morrow of the day which had seen Jesus enter Jerusalem
attended by an acclaiming multitude, He again (as has been said) returned
thither accompanied by His disciples alone. On the preceding visit He had
gone to the Temple and had noticed what took place in the outer court,
where it was customary to offer for sale the animals and birds required
for the altar, together with the other commodities (like wine and oil)
which were used in connexion with various sacrifices. Here, too, were
the tables of the money-changers who were wont to supply the half-shekels
paid as the annual Temple dues (p. 71), receiving their value (no doubt
with a substantial commission for the accommodation) in the several
sorts of coins which pUgrims from foreign countries brought with them.
This traffic was permitted by the ecclesiastical authorities, and the market
in the Temple for the sale of sacrificial victims seems to have been known
as " the bazaars of the sons of Annas," Annas himself having a bad reputa
tion for avarice as weU as violence (Jos. Ant. xx. 9, 2 f .).3 The merchandise
sold thus brought in much gain both to the vendors and to the priesthood ;
and the desecration involved was increased by the fact that the Temple
court was made a thoroughfare between the eastern and western sides of
the city. To sueh desecration Jesus proceeded to put an end. He drove
from the court the sellers and buyers, turned out the tables of the ex
changers and the seats of the dealers in doves, and stopped the passage
of those who carried goods through the court ; and He justified what
He did by reference to 2 Is. Ivi. 7, " My house shall be called a house of
1 A famous Jewish teacher is said to have been known as " a rooter-up of moun
tains." 2 The Black Mulberry (Moms nigra). s Edersheim, L. and T. i. p. 371.

436 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
prayer for aU the nations," adding, " But ye have made it a robbers' cave "
(cf. Jer. vii. II).1
St. Mark cites no further utterance of our Lord's in connexion with
His cleansing of the Temple, but there is reason to suspect that He said
more than the words here recorded by the Evangelist. For at His trial
there was brought against Him the charge that He had said, " I will
destroy this temple which is made with hands, and in three days I wiU
build another made without hands " (p. 460) ; and it seems probable
that the charge rested upon the distortion of some expression used on
the occasion just described. That the words attributed to Him before
the Sanhedrin were not those which He actuaUy said is an almost certain
conclusion from the circumstance that, though they were uttered only
a few days before, the witnesses summoned to testify to them could not
agree about them ; but unfortunately the earliest authorities do not
enable their original form to be recovered. Under these circumstances
it seems necessary to have recourse to the version of them which appears
in Joh. ii. 19 (where the purification of the Temple is antedated, p. 218)
and which are appropriate to the situation. " Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up." This version may correctly preserve
the fact that the words which were misrepresented at His trial reaUy
began with an imperative, the priests being ironicaUy bidden to bring
to final destruction, by a continuance of their conduct, the reUgious
system of which they were the authorized guardians and of which the
Temple at Jerusalem was the local centre, and Jesus going on to declare
that He Himself within a brief interval would restore it in a worthier
form. The Fourth Evangelist has explained that by the Temple which
was to be destroyed and then restored Jesus meant His body ; but if so,
His meaning was expressed so enigmaticaUy that the import of His words
could scarcely fail to be misunderstood. It seems much more likely
that He really referred to the actual Temple and the religious system
which hinged upon it, and that His words were a declaration that the latter
would before long be replaced by another from which the abuses He had
condemned would be absent.2
§ 11. His Death Devised
The utterances and actions of Jesus were bitterly resented by the
High Priestly party and the Scribes; and in consequence. they sought
His destruction. They did not, however, find it easy to accomplish it,
since upon the multitude, here as in Galilee (Mk. i. 22), His teaching of
which the Temple (it would appear) was daUy the scene (cf. Lk. xix. 47)
made a deep impression, and an attempt at open violence might have
been attended by danger to themselves (Mk. xi. 18, cf. xii. 12, 37). Nor
was assassination under cover of darkness altogether feasible, for Jesus
1 Eor the account of the cleansing of the Temple in the Fourth Gospel see p. 485.
2 The Jewish and Christian reUgious communities might be described figuratively
as buildings : cf. 1 Cor. in. 16, 17 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 21.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 437
did not remain in the city during the night, but every evening retired with
His disciples to Bethany for rest.
In these circumstances it was decided to proceed circumspectly and
to try to draw from Him statements clashing with the Law, or calculated
to awaken the suspicions of the Boman governor, or in some way likely
to turn the tide of popular feeling, now running in His favour. Bepre-
sentatives, therefore, of the High Priests, Scribes, and Elders (the three
constituent elements of the Sanhedrin, p. 99) took the opportunity when
He and His disciples again came to the city on Nisan 11 (Tuesday) to
ask Him, as He was walking and teaching in the Temple courts (cf. Lk.
xx. 1), the nature and source of His authority for interfering with arrange
ments that had their sanction.1 Their own authority had been transmitted
to them from their predecessors : the prerogative of priesthood, for
example, belonged exclusively to the descendants of Aaron, and Scribes
who undertook to teach had themselves been instructed by Scribes (p. 97).
Hence they desired to know what warrant Jesus possessed, that He had
presumed to decide adversely to their own regulations. But they over
looked the fact that there was another kind of authority besides theirs,
having its origin in the Ulumination imparted directly by the Spirit of
God, and manifesting its credentials through the intrinsic appeal which
it made to the reason and conscience of men. Such in all ages had marked
the prophets ; and it was this which Jesus claimed, even in a higher
measure than the prophets had done. But instead of affirming plainly
His possession of this kind of authority He was content to suggest it.
So He said that He would put to them a prior question, and upon their
response His own reply would depend. Was the teaching of John, which
had its symbol in the baptism which he administered, of Divine or human
origin ? His interrogators were confronted with an awkward dilemma.
If they said that it came from a Divine source, i.e. that John was endowed
with the spirit of the ancient prophets, not only might Jesus claim for
what He Himself had said and done the same authority, but He could
ask them how it was that they, for the most part, had rejected John (cf.
Lk. vii. 30) ; whUst if they replied that it was of human origin (their real
opinion), they feared a violent protest from the people, who (with an
appreciation of vital rehgion truer than their own) held that John was
reaUy a prophet, and who might stone those who denied it (Lk. xx. 6).
So they escaped the dilemma by professing ignorance ; and thereby
released Jesus from any obligation to give them the explanation which
they had sought from Him.
When our Lord was in Galilee one of the forms into which He cast
His teaching was the parable (p. 394). The same method of instruction
was now adopted by Him in an attempt to expose to the members of the
Sanhedrin the true bearing of their attitude towards Himself, some ima
ginary incidents being recounted, which reproduced under a transparent
disguise the conduct of the Jewish ecclesiastical rulers.

1 In Mk. xi . 28 " these things " refer to what is recorded in xi. 15-18.

438 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Mt. places in immediate succession to the interview just narrated three parables,
the first of which was addressed to the Scribes and Pharisees and iUustrated their
attitude to John the Baptist. This described how a man had Two sons, one of whom
at first met with a refusal his father's orders to go to work, but afterwards repented
and went ; whilst the second at first professed obedience, but did not carry out his
promise. The first son represented the tax-gatherers and loose women, who though
leading, at first, godless hves, yet repented at John's appeal ; whilst the second son
stood for the professedly pious classes, who nevertheless repudiated the teaching of
John. The Vatican MS. and some versions alter the order in which the two sons are
mentioned, and in Mt. xxi. 31 replace 6 irpdros by 6 ilarepos as the argument requires.
But D, Lat. vet., and the Sinaitic Syr., which have the ordinary arrangement adopted
above, nevertheless replace in v. 31 6 irpuros by 6 (axaros, which supposes that the
priests, recognizing that Jesus' question was intended to condemn themselves, refused
to draw the inference He wanted.
Mk. illustrates by only a single parable (which by Mt. is placed second
in his group of three) the way in which Jesus sought to create in His
opponents a sense of the real significance of the course they were pursuing
in regard to Himself. The parable in question (the Wicked Husband
men) was designed to be a warning of what the consequences of their
conduct would be, if it remained unchanged. The owner of a vineyard
after fencing it against depredators (cf. Ps. Ixxx. 12, 13), excavating a
wine v&t (vnoXrjvtov), and building a tower to shelter a watchman (Is.
v. 2), let it to tenants while he went abroad. At the vintage season he
sent several servants in succession to demand the proportion of the produce
due to the owner, but these the tenants either beat or murdered. FinaUy
he sent his only weU-beloved son, in the hope that he at least would be
respected ; but the occupants of the vineyard, recognizing him to be the
heir, and hoping by his death to secure the property for themselves, kUled
him likewise and cast out his body.1 Such conduct could have only one
issue ; the owner would come and destroy the tenants and would transfer
the vineyard to others. And then Jesus asked His audience whether
they were unacquainted with the purport of even so familiar a passage
in the Old Testament Scriptures as Ps. cxviii. 22, 23, describing how the
stone which human buUders rejected was deemed worthy by God of the
position of greatest eminence and importance.
The general meaning of the parable was clear on the surface. By a
vineyard of which the owner was God, Israel was frequently symbolized
in the Old Testament (Is. iii. 14, v. 2 f .), and the figure as now used by our
Lord had the same import. To those who were responsible for the spiritual
welfare of the people, God had sent His prophets to demand His due ;
but they had maltreated or killed them and were now meditating the
destruction even of God's Son, a crime which would cause their overthrow
and their replacement by others (i.e. the class whom the religious leaders
despised, but from whom the adherents of Jesus were drawn and who
constituted a new ecclesia). The apphcation of the passage from Ps.
cxviii. to the situation was equaUy plain. The stone, originally a figure
for Israel, once despised and oppressed by the great powers of the east,
1 ML and Lk. represent that the husbandmen ejected the son from the vineyard
before kiUirig him (cf. Heb. xui. 12).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 439
but afterwards vindicated by God, was here used as a symbol of Jesus
Himself, Who, rejected by the contemporary ecclesiastical authorities,
was destined to unite the waUs of the spiritual building which God was
about to rear.1 This reference to themselves was not lost upon the
representatives of the Sanhedrin, and they were eager to arrest Him ;
but the fear of the multitude continued to deter them, and they were
constrained for the time to abandon their purpose and to leave Him.
Mt. impUcitly and Lk. expressly represent the parable as addressed not to the
deputation from the Sanhedrin but to the people, though they inconsistently retain
St. Mark's words in xii. 12, the former evangelist appending as an explanation from
Jesus that the Kingdom of God should be taken from them (the Jews) and given to
another nation. The alteration reflects the condition of the later period when the
Jewish poUty came to an end through the FaU of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., and when the
Christian Church became almost exclusively GentUe. To Christ's quotation from
Ps. cxvui. both Evangelists 2 add from Q the statement that he who should faU on
the stone would be shattered in pieces (cf. Is. viu. 14-15), but he on whom it should
faU would be scattered like chaff.
ML subjoins a, third parable which likewise is assumed to be addressed to the
Jewish people as a whole, not to the hierarchy only. In it the Kingdom of Heaven
is likened to a royal Marriage Eeast, to which those who were invited refused to come,
some proceeding about their business, whilst others kiUed or injured the servants
who were sent to apprise them that the feast was ready. The king, in anger destroyed
the murderers and their city, and bade his servants fill their places with persons
gathered from the highways. Lk. xiv. 15-24 has what appears to be a duplicate
version of the parable,3 but differing in respect of the giver of the feast ("a certain
man ") and the, classes of persons brought to fiU the vacant places (poor from the
streets, as weU as traveUers from the highways), and not mentioning any maltreatment
of the bearer or bearers of the invitation. Of the two versions Lk."s is Ukely to be
the most original, the invited guests representing the Jewish religious classes, who
for the most part rejected God's message, the poor from the streets standing for the
publicans and sinners, and the travellers from the highways symboUzing the Gentiles
(cf. ML viii. W=Lk. xiii. 28). In ML, where there are only two classes, the invited
guests are the Jews coUectively (who reject the Divine invitation, kill Jesus and some
of His Apostles and EvangeUsts (St. Stephen, St. James " brother " of our Lord,
and probably St, John (p. 226) and are punished by the destruction of, Jerusalem),
wlulst the traveUers from the roads are the Gentiles. The modifications reflect events
subsequent to the Crucifixion. There is also appended to this, parable in ML a portion
of another (ML xxii. 11-13) of which the beginning is lost. This rnust have described
how a King issued invitations to a feast, the surviving part of the story narrating
how the King came in to see the guests and observed one who lacked a wedding gar
ment, and who, haying no excuse for his discourtesy, was cast forth. This clearly
can be no part of the first parable, for persons gathered from the roadside could not
be expected to be properly attired. The lesson imphed is that inclusion within God's
favoured people Israel does not of itself ensure salvation (cf . ML iii. 9, xui. 47, 48).
On one occasion during our Lord's ministry in GalUee there had been
formed against Him a rather unnatural aUiance between the Pharisees
and the Herodians (p. 388). The same alliance was now renewed with
the sinister purpose of putting to Him a question seeming to admit of
only two answers, either of which would compromise Him. Some repre
sentatives, of both parties came to Him under pretence of seeking from
Him,, as a candid and fearless instructor in religious duty, a solution of
1 Of. Acts iv. 11 ; 1 Pet. ii. 4-7.
2 ML xxi. 44 is omitted by D, Lat. vet., Syr. vet.
8 This is represented as narrated at a meal where, Jesras w«a present.

440 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
a difficulty, and asked Him whether it was right for them to give tribute
to the Roman Emperor (p. 71). The Law enjoined certain dues to God,
but said nothing about dues to a foreign potentate, the payment of which
appeared like disloyalty to their Divine King. They anticipated that
He would be driven either to deny the lawfulness of tribute paid to the
Emperor and so render Himself liable to be viewed by the Romans as a
plotter of sedition, or else to admit its lawfulness and so disavow any
claim to be the Messiah of popular expectation, with consequent loss of
popular sympathy. Jesus detected the insincerity of their pretended
interest in religious truth, and told them to bring Him a denarius as a
specimen of the coinage in which the tribute was paid. This, being sUver,
bore (unlike the copper coins) the head of the Emperor ; so when they
produced one, He inquired with whose effigy and title it was stamped,
and on being informed, He bade them pay both to the Emperor and to
God what belonged to each. The answer surprised the questioners,
partly because it successfully evaded the snare which they had laid for
Him, and partly, perhaps, because it presented the subject of the question
in a new aspect. For it suggested the reflection that inasmuch as Caesar,
whose coinage circulated among them, gave the country security and
orderly rule (cf. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14), he had a claim to a return 1 in the shape
of tribute. Between his rights and God's there could be no necessary
conflict (since God was the ultimate source of aU government, cf. Rom.
xiii. 1-7), and loyalty to their Divine King was not incompatible with
submission to their human ruler.
The f aUure of the Pharisees together with their Herodian allies did not
discourage their opponents, the Sadducees, from propounding to Him a
problem, bearing upon one of the principal matters of reUgious controversy.
They denied a future life in which the Pharisees beheved (p. 101), and
they professed to be desirous of an opinion about it from the new Teacher.
Their question, however, was not intended to elicit fresh Ught upon the
subject, but to expose Jesus to derision, whilst it might also damage the
rival sect. The popular conception of a future Ufe took a very materialistic
form (see p. 42), and it was supposed that the bodUy functions and social
relationships of the present age would be restored in the next. This
enabled them to submit to Him a case, possible rather than actual, in
which a widow whose husband had died chUdless was married, acccording
to the law of Dt. xxv. 5, 6, to his six brothers in succession, each of whom
had no chUdren ; and they wished to know whose wife of the seven she
would be in the life after death. Jesus replied that in considering such a
contingency as an impediment to belief in the resurrection they showed
themselves ignorant both of the power of God and of the evidence furnished
by their own Scriptures. In the first place, God was able not only to
restore men to life after they had died, but to alter the conditions of life,
so that they would not be the counterpart of those of the present world ;
and the complications that perplexed the Sadducees would not arise.
The state of human beings after the resurrection would resemble the state
1 For the Sovvai of the Pharisees Jesus substitutes dirbSore.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 441
of angels (whose reality the Sadducees also denied, p. 102), and a relation
ship Uke marriage, which was necessary now for the continuation of the
race, would then not be caUed for,1 since those who should share that
second life would be immortal (cf. Lk. xx. 36). And in the next place,
evidence that death did not end human existence was furnished by the
passage of Exodus (iii. 1 f.) caUed " the Bush " 2 (the authority of which,
as part of the Law, the Sadducees admitted, p. 101). In this Jehovah,
addressing Moses, declared that He was the God of Abraham, of Isaac and
of Jacob 3 ; and since He entered into such intimate relations with the
patriarchs as to be caUed their God, they must be stiU aUve, otherwise
the privUege and distinction conferred by intimacy with the Deity would
be as transitory as ordinary human intimacies. Death changed the
position of men relatively to this world, but not relatively to God, in
regard to Whom they were alive even after they had died.
The argument for human immortality here used by Jesus appears
on the surface to lack cogency ; for Jehovah's words, " I am the God of
Abraham," etc. (there is no verb in the Hebrew), only mean that He was
the Deity formerly worshipped by the patriarchs, and no more necessarUy
imply their survival than the words of Pharaoh's counseUors (Is. xix. 11),
" I am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings," imply the continued
existence of the ancient kings. Yet if not in form, yet in essence the
reasoning of our Lord is the same as that which appeals most forcibly to
the human mind stiU. In the race of men, who physicaUy have so much
in common with the brute creation, there are present moral and intellectual
qualities, such, as the sense of right and the desire for truth, which not
only create belief in, and worship of, God, but crave for satisfaction from
God. But this craving is too persistently baffled and foiled here for this
life to be the limit and sum of our being, unless it can be assumed that
the Creator has meant such a yearning to be finally disappointed. If
this is too pessimistic a view of God and the world to be permanently
harboured, another sphere of existence must be postulated, wherein right
wiU be vindicated and truth attained.
It wiU be observed that Jesus' reasoning points to the immortality
of the human soul, not necessarUy to the resurrection of the body, against
which the Sadducees' argument was directed ; and it can only afford
countenance for the latter, if it is assumed that the body is an inseparable
constituent of human nature.
The discussion between the Sadducees and our Lord was heard by a
Scribe whose sympathies were with the Pharisees * on the question
debated, and who (in common with others to whom Lk. xx. 39 aUudes)
approved of the answer returned by Jesus to His recent questioners.
1 Contrast the materiahstic view in Enoch x. 17-19.
* Cf. Rom. xi. 2 (mg.) " in Ehjah," i.e. in 1 Kg. xix. 14 f . So PhUo refers to God's
words iv rats 'Apais, i.e. in Gen. Ui. 15 f. It is noticeable that the citation comes
from the " Law " (p. 98).
3 Lk. represents that Moses caUed the Lord by this title.
4 Mt. xxii. 35 describes him as a Pharisee. The incident is omitted by Lk., though
there is some similarity of diction in Lk. x. 26, 27

442 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
He now came forward with an inquiry of his own. Although aU the
commandments of the Law were believed to have Divine authority behind
them, and although the Rabbis, whilst distinguishing between " light "
and " heavy " commandments, declared the former to be as binding as
the latter, nevertheless thoughtful minds could not but feel that they
were not all really on the same level. Self-distrust, however, caused
the Scribe to seek some authoritative guidance ; so he asked Jesus which
commandment took precedence of the rest as most fundamental. Jesus
in reply affirmed it to be that contained in Dt. vi. 4, declaring Jehovah,
the God of Israel, to be One — Indivisible and Alone ; and enjoining for
Him fervent devotion of both the inteUect and the affections. Our Lord
then went beyond what was asked of Him by adding that the command
ment next in importance was that given in Lev. xix. 18, directing a man
to love his neighbour as himself.1 The Seribe approved of the answer
which Jesus had given, saying that love for God and for one's neighbour
was superior to all material offerings. Jesus, seeing the inteUigence that
marked the man's comment, told him that he was not far from the Kingdom
of God, since he understood and appreciated the principles of spiritual
religion which conditioned entrance into it. It may be perhaps assumed
that the dialogue between Jesus and the Scribe washeard by many listeners,
who could not but recognize the penetration marking the replies of the
former to the problems submitted to Him ; at any rate, none of those
who from malicious motives were wishful to shake His authority attempted
to interrogate Him further.
After thus reducing His adversaries to sUence, Jesus continued to
teach in the Temple courts ; and in the course of His instruction He asked
those who listened to Him for an explanation of an assertion made by the
Scribes and generaUy accepted, that the Messiah was to be a descendant
of David. Their assertion was, no doubt, countenanced by passages Hke
Is. xi. 1, or Jer. xxiii. 5 ; but it caUed for explanation in view of the
utterance of David himself in Ps. ex. 1 (allowed to he a Messianic psalm),
where he used the words " Jehovah said unto my Lord, ' Sit at my right
hand until I place thine enemies beneath thy feet.' " If David caUed the
Messiah " Lord," how could the latter be his son, one among a number
of other members of his dynasty, a sovereign of the same type as himself ?
To solve the problem no explanation is related to have been offered by
the Scribes or supplied by Jesus ; and the latter's purpose in putting
the question is not quite certain. It is not likely that He wished to deny
that by physical birth He, the Messiah, was sprung from David, a con
clusion to which several considerations point (p. 358). Indeed, there
must have been many living at the time who could trace their Uneage
to that King.2 On the assumption that Jesus believed HimseU to belong
to David's line, probably His aim was to suggest to His hearers that His
descent from David was the least important part of His real dignity.
1 In Mt. our Lord ooncludes by saying that on these two commandments the whole
Law and the Prophets depend.
2 The Rabbi Hillel, who in early life was a poor man, is said to have been of Davidio
descent (Kennett, Interpreter, Oct. 1911, pp. 45, 46).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 443
His right to deference from the people, when He taught and acted authori
tatively, was independent of it, and based upon His occupying a more
intimate relation to God than the Messianic King of popular expectation.
He accordingly drew attention to a Davidic psalm wherein the writer, by
applying to the Messiah the title " my Lord," showed that he looked for
a Messiah who was not to repeat (as a dynastic successor might do) his own
earthly glories, but was to discharge an office of transcendent dignity.
Ps. ex. is described in the title prefixed to it as a psalm of David, and our Lord's
argument assumes that David was its writer. Though it is possible that in doing so
He only took up the standpoint of the Scribes themselves, reasoning with them on
their own ground, yet it seems most Ukely that He really shared their behef, His
Divine Sonship being manifested under the inteUectual limitations of human nature,
which caused Him to participate in the literary and historical ideas of His age.1 The
real origin and date of the psalm is obscure. Its very inclusion ha the Fourth book
of the Psalter is in itself unfavourable to its composition by David ; and a view which
has some plausibility is that it was composed in the second century B.C., and relates
to Simon Maccabseus. He was of priestly descent (p. 32) but not of high-priestly
lineage, and the bestowal upon him of secular rule and of the High Priesthood (1 Mace.
xiv. 41, see p. 35) recaUed the combination of functions discharged by Melchizedek
(Ps. ex. 4, Gen. xiv. 18). It has been pointed out that of vv. 2, 3, 4 (apart from the
opening words of the psalm) each begins with one of the four letters that compose
Simon's name. If the psalm is not of Davidic authorship, our Lord's argument here
faUs to the ground ; but He could easUy have expressed in another way the con
clusion which He wished to suggest.
The Scribe who had recently questioned Jesus about the relative
importance of the various parts of the Law showed that the body to which
he belonged included men of honest and truth-loving disposition. But
there were others of a different character ; and these were more repre
sentative of their class as a whole. A feature about them which speciaUy
excited the, indignation of our Lord was the disparity between their
profession and their practice. By profession they were exponents of
the Divine Law, and therefore might be expected to observe in their
conduct the moral principles therein enforced — especially consideration
for the poor ; but in practice they were grasping and pitiless. The
reputation for piety which they acquired by the length of their devotions
won them influence, through which they were able to gratify their avarice,
eating the unprotected out of house and home (in violation of the Law in
Ex. xxii. 21). Hence Jesus, in His teaching, denounced them. Their
vices (He affirmed) were aggravated by their hypocrisy, and would
consequently bring upon them a proportionately stern judgment.
In ML xxiii. 1-8 our Lord's denunciation, which in Mk. is Umited to the Scribes,
is made to include the Pharisees also. According to the First EvangeUst's account
He declared that since the Scribes were the successors of Moses and expounded the
Law, the precepts which they enjoined were to be observed, but their example was
to be avoided,2 their dominant motive being ostentation. Mt. also (xxiii. 13-36)
1 Cf . Lux Mundi, pp. 359, 360 : " Christ's true Godhead is shown in His moral
and spiritual claims . . . not in any miraculous exemptions of Himself from the
conditions of natural knowledge in its own proper province."
2 The phylacteries mentioned in ML xxiii. 5 were leather cases containing strips
of parchment inscribed with certain passages of Scripture, wliich were bound on -the
forehead and arm. For borders or tosSefa, see p. "400.

444 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
appends to the section derived from Mk. a series of seven Woes * directed against
the Scribes and Pharisees. These are expanded from a shorter series of denunciations
which the writer took from Q and which occur also in Lk. xi. 42-52 (see p. 411). In
the passages pecuhar to Mt. (xxiii. 15-22) the Scribes are denounced for their casuistry
in respect of oaths, and the unreal character of their ostentatious reUgiousness.
St. Luke also (xiv. 7 f.) records that Jesus when sitting at meat at a Pharisee's
house (where the dropsical man was healed, p. 388) noted how the guests chose the
most prominent seats, and thereupon deUvered a warning against self-assertion ;
and Ukewise exhorted his host to invite to his table not his friends who could repay
his hospitahty, but the poor and the afflicted who could not, and to await a recompense
at the resurrection of the just. It is with this occasion that St. Luke connects the
parable of the Great Supper (p. 439).
The scene of Jesus' teaching in the Temple was usuaUy the court of
the Gentiles (p. 90). It was in aU probability here that (according to
Lk. xiii. 1-5), our Lord was informed of a massacre of certain GaUlsean
pilgrims at Jerusalem by Pilate, who had butchered them in the Temple
courts, where their blood mingled with that of the animals they were
slaying for sacrifice. Our Lord's informants seem to have inferred that
such a slaughter pointed to exceptional sinfulness in the victims of it,
but Jesus declared that a fate as tragic as that which they had mentioned,
or as that of eighteen men killed by the fall of a tower near the pool of
Siloam, would overtake themselves unless they repented.
On another occasion He passed with His disciples from the court of
the Gentiles into the court of the Women, from which aU non- Jews were
debarred (p. 90). Here, opposite to the Treasury (p. 91), our Lord
took His seat,2 whence He observed the people depositing, in the receptacles
placed there, their various gifts of money. The rich and the poor were
doubtless easily distinguishable by their dress and appearance, and whUst
the wealthy contributed much, a poor widow put in two l&pta, the whole
sum scarcely exceeding the value of half a farthing of our coinage (p. 683),
and being the minimum allowed to be given. Jesus must have penetrated
into the widow's secret thoughts ; and comparing the proportion of her
gift with the smallness of her means, He caUed His disciples to Him and
declared that the widow had contributed more than any of the offerers,
for whilst the others had bestowed what they could spare, she had given
what amounted to all her possessions.
When Jesus left the Temple courts for the last time, one of His disciples
drew His attention to the magnitude of the building and its materials.
The Apostles were almost all Galilseans, unfamiUar with the capital, so
that the size and costliness of its splendid fane had made the deeper
impression. The great bulk of the stones of which it was built may be
judged by the figures furnished by Josephus, who describes some of them
as being 25 X 12 X 8 cubits (Ant. xv. 11, 3). But Jesus could find
nothing to admire in the external splendour of a religious system or of its
environment when the true spirit of devotion was absent ; and He anti
cipated that the insincerity marking so much of the Temple worship
1 Mt. xxiu. 14 making the number eight, is absent from the earhest MSS. and Vers.
and comes from Mk. xu. 40.
2 This narrative is omitted by ML, but is reproduced in Lk.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 445
would speedily bring down a nemesis from a God for Whom the material
apart from the spiritual could have no value. So in answer to His disciples'
expressions of wonder and admiration, He returned the reply that of the
structure at which they were gazing not one stone would be left resting
on another. Though this conversation took place privately between
Jesus and His disciples, yet possibly some part of it in a garbled form got
abroad, and a distorted version of what our Lord really said may have
constituted the basis of the accusation afterwards brought against Him
(but see p. 436). The substantial fulfilment of His words is recorded
by Josephus (B.J. vn. 1, 1), who relates that after the siege of Jerusalem
in 70, when the population had been massacred, Titus ordered the eastern
city and the Temple to be demohshed, though some of the towers and
the western waU were left.
Jesus' startling response must at once have turned the thoughts of
the disciples towards the end of the existing age, for only in conjunction
with such a catastrophe was the destruction of the Temple imaginable ;
and when the party had crossed the Kidron and reached the Mount of
OUves, which confronted the Temple from the other side of the ravine,
four of the Apostles, Peter, James, John, and Andrew, asked Him privately
when the event of which He had spoken would happen, and by what
indications they could judge of its near approach. The particular informa
tion which they wanted He could not give. He answered solemnly
and impressively that heaven and earth would pass away sooner than
His prediction fail of fulfilment (cf . 2 7s. li. 6) ; and that it would be accom
plished within a generation (cf. Mt. xxiii. 36) ; but of the precise time 1
none but the Father — not even the Angels or the Son — had any knowledge.
They must therefore be on their guard lest the crisis should overtake
them unawares, hke the sudden return from abroad of a householder who
on his departure had appointed to his servants their duties without intimat
ing when he might be expected back. Their only security against being
surprised by the impending overthrow was unceasing watchfulness (cf.
Mt. xxv. 1-13).
To the disciples' question our Lord's reply as represented in Mk. xui. is
long and detailed, a number of premonitory signs being given, divided into three
stages : (1) the appearance of impostors claiming to be the Christ, the occurrence of
international strife and physical calamities, the prosecution of Christ's followers
before both Jewish and Gentile courts, and the proclamation of the Gospel to all
nations ; (2) the desecration of Jerusalem and the Temple, foUowed by a time of
great tribulation for the Jewish people ; (3) a convulsion of nature, and the descent
from heaven of the Son of man. Both in manner and matter this section presents
various singular features, (a) Its length in the Second Gospel is altogether excep
tional ; and it is marked by a fourfold use of rbre^ found only twice elsewhere in Mk.
(u. 20, ui. 27), though frequent in ML, and by the phrase " the elect," occurring
nowhere else in Mk. 2 but common in the Book of Enoch, (b) The parable (vv. 28,
29) of the fig-tree (the unfolding foliage of which heralds the summer as the signs
described are precursors of the end) is introduced otherwise than is usual in our Lord's
parables.8 (c) There is an inconsistency between the enumeration in w. 5-29 of a
1 In Mk. xni. 32 ignorance of the day and hour is a rhetorical expression for
complete ignorance of the occasion. 2 It is found in Lk. xviii. 7.
3 Lk. modifies the phrase in Mk. (cf. Lk. xxi. 29 with xvui. 1).

446 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
series of signs of the catastrophe, presaging by their succession its nearer and nearer
approach, and the stress laid in v. 35 upon the need of watchfulness, because of the
uncertainty whether it wiU happen sooner or later. The latter alone is in harmony with
Jesus' assertions elsewhere ; for that He anticipated that the Judgment would take
the world by surprise, without any prehminary warning, is clear from ML xxiv. 37-
39, 43-51 (=Lk. xvii. 26, 27, xu. 39-46) aU from Q (cf. also. Lk. xvii. 20). (d) A
specific prediction by our Lord that the Gospel was to be proclaimed universally
(cf. Mk. xiv. 9) is difficult to reconcile with the astonishment caused when the first
Gentiles were admitted into the Church (Acts x. 34, 45). These peculiarities render
it probable that the passage xiii, 5-37 is composite, that our Lord's actual reply to
the inquiry in v. 4 is confined to vv. 30—37, and that it has been expanded by the
inclusion of a smaU Apocalypse of Christian origin, or, if of Jewish origin (as many
think), yet adjusted to Christian behef. On the other hand, between vv. 30 and 32,
the superficial inconsistency is not substantial enough to prevent both of these verses
from being assigned to our Lord, for He certainly expected the Judgment and the
estabUshment of the Kingdom to take place soon (Mk. i. 15, ix. 1), and v. 32 is most
unhkely to be an invention. The Apocalyptic passage intervening between the
disciples' question (v. 4) and Jesus' answer in vv. 30—37 appears to reflect occurrences
or conditions of the Apostohc age, and to date from shortly before 65 a.d., when there
had appeared impostors Uke Theudas and Simon Magus, pretending to be prophets,
or incarnations of divine power (Acts v. 36 and p. 238, viu. 10), when there had occurred
notable famines and earthquakes (pp. 521, 286), when the Jewish revolt was on the
point of breaking out, when the diffusion of the Gospel among the Gentiles had been
some time in progress, when Christian evangehsts had been brought before not only
Jewish but Roman authorities (Uke Felix, Festus, and the Emperor), and when CaU-
gula's attempted profanation of the Temple (p. 56) had created an expectation that
a Uke or greater enormity would be perpetrated before the end of the age (cf . 2 Th.
ii. 4). That this Apocalypse was a written document warning Christians to seek
safety in time by calling attention to indications of the impending overthrow of the
Jewish poUty is suggested by the parenthetic " let him that readeth x understand "
(v. 14) ; and that it was produced before the actual EaU of Jerusalem seems put
beyond doubt by the fact that the Christians did not escape to the mountains (usual
places of refuge, 1 Mace. u. 28) but to the town of PeUa in the valley east of the Jordan
(Eus. H.E. iii. 5, 3). The language of v. 25 reflects thoughts that occur in various
Old Testament passages (Is. xiii. 10, xxiv. 23, xxxiv. 4, Ezek. xxxii. 7) ; whilst in
v. 26 the writer has drawn upon Dan. vii. 13, 14 (reproduced also in our Lord's words
before the Sanhedrin, Mk. xiv. 62). The expression in v. 8 " the beginning of travaU "
also recalls the figure of the pains of chUdbirth used in the Old Testament to describe
great tribulation (Is. xm. 8, Hos. xui. 13) ; and in Rabbinical teaching there was
developed the behef that the appearance of the Messiah would be preceded by war,
famine, and other afflictions, which were caUed " the birth-pangs of the Messiah "
(hable shel Mdshiah). In xiii. 13 the writer appears to have been influenced by our
Lord's words in Mk. viu. 35.
Among the most noteworthy changes effected by the other two Synoptists in
borrowing from Mk. are the following : —
ML represents the disciples as asking what was to be the sign of their Lord's return
(irapovala)f though Jesus in what preceded had said nothing about this ; qualifies
the obscurity of the phrase '! standing where he ought not " (Mk. xiii. 14) by " stand
ing in the holy place " (xxiv. 15, cf. Acts xxi. 28) ; replaces Mk.'s " the Son of man "
(xiii. 26) by " the sign of the Son of man " 3 ; substitutes for the Ulustration drawn
from the return of a householder a similar but longer passage derived (in common
with Lk. xii. 39-46) from Q (which includes a warning drawn from the Flood, Lk.
xvii. 26, 27) ; and appends two parables — the Ten Virgins awaiting a bridal pro
cession, and the Talents entrusted by a master to bis servants to trade with (the
1 Cf. Rev. i. 3, jxandpLos b dvaytryvdxrKajv.
2 This word is found within the Gospels only in ML, but is common in St. Paul
(1 Th. U. 19, iii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 23, etc) ; cf. also Jas. v. 7 ; 1 Joh. u. 28 ; 2 Pet. i. 16,
iu. 4.
8 The genitive is probably explanatory ; of. Mt. xn. 39, and perhaps Lk. xxu. 69.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 447
parables iUustrating respectively the rewards of forethought and fideUty and the
penalties attending heedlessness and untrustworthiness), and » graphic description
of persons (compared to sheep and goats) in the Judgment whose fate is determined
by their treatment of the afflicted and distressed, with whom the Son of man identifies
Himself. Lk.'s modifications reflect the experience of the Siege and FaU of Jerusalem, for
" the abomination that maketh desolate " is replaced by " Jerusalem compassed
with armies " (xxi. 20), and it is declared that the citizens are to be enslaved or
slain and the city itself crushed by the GentUes until the opportunities of the latter's
conversion to God are complete (xxi. 24, cf. Rom. xi. 25). The statement (Mk. xiii.
32) of the Son's ignorance of the day and hour of the End is omitted. Lk. elsewhere
(xvii. 20, 21) records that in answer to the Pharisees, who asked when the Kingdom
of God should come, Jesus rephed that there would be no external token marking its
approach ; the Kingdom (i.e. God's reign) was within men's hearts (where signs of
its progress were not easUy discerned by observers). Yet though the Kingdom in
one sense, as here represented, was inward and spiritual, stiU our Lord certainly expected
it to have eventuaUy an outward and unmistakable manifestation, for His advent
to inaugurate it was to be as conspicuous as the lightning (see Lk. xvu. 2i=Mt. xxiv.
27). A parable similar to that of the Talents in Mt. xxv. 14-30 is found in Lk. xix.
11—27, but represented as narrated by our Lord before Jerusalem was reached. In
it Mt.'s three servants are replaced by ten, the talents (five, two and one) by mince
(one to each), and the general commendation bestowed on the faithful servants by a
recompense proportionate to their success in trading. In Lk. the master of the Ser
vants is a man of high birth (eiyevrjs) whose absence from home is due to his seeking
a kingdom and whose apphcation for it is opposed by his feUow-citizens. This feature
is drawn from the history of the Herods (pp. 49, 51) ; but is designed to suggest
the opposition to Jesus manifested by the Jews.
At the time when this dialogue between Jesus and His disciples occurred,
the Passover festival (the only one mentioned in the Second Gospel)
was drawing near ; and two days before it (Nisan 12, Wednesday) the
chief priests and Scribes concerted together to arrest Jesus by a stratagem
and put Him to death. They desired, however, to avoid taking Him on
the day of the festival, since the occasion of the Passover was likely to
fiU Jerusalem with pUgrims, including many from GaUlee, who, it was
feared, might interpose in His defence. In any case secrecy was still
essential if they were to effect His seizure safely. What made them
wishful to bring Him to trial as soon as was feasible was the fact that
they had obtained at last a handle against Him which would enable them
to secure His condemnation. This was a garbled version of some words
of His about the destruction of the Temple (p. 445) ; and in the hope that
with the help of adequate evidence to sustain a charge that He had used
menaces against the national sanctuary, they lost no time in scheming
to remove Him.
During His visit to the capital Jesus made Bethany His place of
sojourn, returning to it each evening (xi. 11, 19). It was probably on
the last of these evening journeys that from the Mount of Ohves, which
was crossed on the road to Bethany, He uttered the Lament over Jerusalem
which is preserved in Q (Mt. xxiii. 37-39 = Lk. xni. 34-35). Apostro
phizing the city as the murderess of those sent to warn her of her sins
and of the doom that in consequence threatened her, and reflecting how
often (in Galilee) He had desired to save from the coming judgment her
people (of all of whom, GaUlseans as weU as others, she could be regarded

448 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
as the mother, 2 Esd. x. 7) as a hen gathers her brood under her wings
to protect them against peril, but how they had refused to be preserved.
He declared that her dwelling was forsaken by God (cf. Jer. xii. 7), and
that He Himself would never again be seen by her citizens until He should
come as the heavenly Messiah and be greeted by the saved with blessings
as God's representative. The occasion of the Lament is given differently
in the First and the Third Gospels, Mt. placing the utterance before, and
Lk. after, the Entry into Jerusalem ; but the latter occasion alone seems
appropriate (see p. 222).
At Bethany, Jesus had friends and acquaintances (p. 432), and on
Nisan 12, Wednesday, He was entertained by a man named Simon who
had formerly been a leper (possibly the same as he whom Jesus had healed
in Galilee (Mk. i. 40, p. 380)). Whilst He was seated at the meal, a
woman came with a flask (aXdfiaargog) 1 of genuine (martxrjg),2 and
consequently costly, nard, and emptied it over His head to do Him honour
(cf. Ps. xxiii. 5). She was doubtless one who accepted Him as the Messiah,
and thus manifested her veneration and devotion. To some who were
present the unsparing use of the ointment seemed wasteful, for, if it had
been sold, it would have fetched a price (300 denarii) that might have
afforded rehef to many indigent persons. But Jesus would not aUow
the woman's conduct to be thus made the subject of censure. Her motive
rendered her act a' very graceful one. There would never be any lack
of poor to receive the alms of the charitable ; but He would not always
be with them, and the opportunity for those who beheved in Him to
show their faith and love might not recur ; and convinced as He was
that His death was imminent, and that the body of one executed as a
criminal was not hkely to receive the anointing usually bestowed on the
dead by their friends (cf. 2 Ch. xvi. 14), He declared that what had been
done would supply what might be lacking at His burial, and would be
recorded to the honour of the doer wherever the Gospel should be pro
claimed.3 The circumstance that the earhest EvangeUst, notwithstanding
this declaration, does not state who she was suggests that by the time he
wrote, her name had passed into oblivion.
In Mt. xxvi. 8 the complaint about the waste of such valuable ointment proceeds
from the disciples ; and in v. 13 Jesus speaks of " this Gospel " (i.e. the record of His
life and death, a later meaning of the word).
In Lk. the occurrence here related is missing ; but in vii. 36-50 there is found a
narrative of an incident sinular in character (in both Jesus' host is caUed Simon *
and the woman brings an ahd§ao-rpos jxipov), but differing in so many particulars
that the two cannot easUy be taken to be variant versions of the same occurrence.
The chief divergences appear in connexion with (1) the place and time (during the
1 Cf. PUny, H.N. xui. 3, unguenta optima servantur in alabastris.
2 Swete quotes Theophylact, rijv S.So\ov vdpSov Kal jierd irltrreias Karao-KevaaBcio-av :
contrasted with this kind was a pseudo-nard. The Vulg. has here nardi spicati
and some suspect iruxriKijs to be a corruption of a-iriKarijs or o-iriKdrov.
8 The language of Mk. xiv. 9 seems to reflect the conditions of the EvangeUst's
own day.
* The name was very common ; seven persons (besides the individual here men
tioned) are called by it in the New Testament.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 449
GaUlsean ministry) ; (2) the host (described as a Pharisee, with no mention of his
having been a leper) ; (3) the woman (described as a sinner and probably a prosti
tute) ; (4) the details of her act (she wets Christ's feet with her tears, wipes them with
her hair, and then anoints them) ; (5) the comment (made by the host on Jesus'
conduct for aUowing such a woman to touch Him) and the reply (explaining the inten
sity of the woman's gratitude by the magnitude of the sins which had been forgiven
her, and iUustrating it by the parable of the Two Debtors, whose debts, unequal in
amount, are remitted by their creditor).1
In Joh. xn. 1-8 there is an account of an incident more nearly resembling that of
Mk., but it is placed six days before the Passover and just before the Entry into Jeru
salem ; the name of the host is omitted ; Lazarus (not named in Mk.) is said to have
been one of the guests ; the woman is identified with Lazarus' sister Mary ; the stricture
upon her is passed by Judas Iscariot, whose interest in the poor is described as insin
cere and whose real motive was covetousness (since if the ointment had been sold,
and the price put into the common purse, he could have dishonestly purloined from
it) ; and Jesus' words (in Mk. xiv. 8) are reported differently. There is also some
confusion as regards detaUs between this incident and the incident in the Third Gospel
related above (cf. p. 217). It seems improbable that the Johannine account in which
Lazarus and Mary figure can be historicaUy accurate. It presupposes the miracle
of Lazarus' restoration to hfe, an occurrence about which grave doubts are unavoid
able ; whilst on the assumption that it happened, it is almost incredible that amongst
the company acquainted with such a wonder any, even Judas, could have taken
exception to Mary's token of devotion. And against the supposition that Mary under
any circumstances was really the woman in question is the fact that Lk., who is an
earher authority than Joh. and who mentions Mary and the attention with which she
listened to Jesus' words (x. 38-42), does not connect such an incident with her.
The wish entertained by Jesus' enemies not to risk such disturbance
as was hkely to attend an attempt to seize Him during the Passover
might have led them to defer His arrest until after the festival had closed,
had not treachery on the part of one of the Apostles given them an oppor
tunity of accomphshing their purpose earUer. The traitor was Judas,
the motive of whose baseness is left to be conjectured. Possibly his
Master's declaration that He was destined to be put to death and that
He expected His disciples to be capable of self-sacrifice like His own, had
shattered the hopes which he had cherished about the expected kingdom ;
and the disappointment caused him to seek revenge on one whom he
held to have deceived him, and at the same time to ingratiate himself
with such as might do more for him. Acquainted as he must have been
with the hostiUty felt by the priests and Scribes towards Jesus, and either
inferring that they would be glad to compass His death, or actually
getting to know their secret intention to do so, he now went to them and
expressed his willingness and power to further their aims, for through his
knowledge of Jesus' movements he could enable His enemies to arrest
Him before, instead of after, the feast. It was with much satisfaction
that the priests and Scribes received the traitor's offer, and they readily
promised to reward him for his services.2 He arranged to guide under
1 In Lk. vii. 47 the first half of the verse seems to mean that the forgiveness of
the woman's many sins (which she herself knows has been granted) can be inferred
by others from the great love she has manifested (for Sri referring to a thought unex
pressed cf. Horn. Od. iv. 206). Tier faith was the cause of her pardon, her love was
its consequence. But vv. 48, 49 do not cohere with the context, and seem to repro
duce v. 20, 21 (=Mk. n. 5-7).
2 Mt. represents that the price of his treachery was thirty silver pieces (dpyipta)
29

450 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
•cover of night an armed band to the spot where Jesus was most likely to
be found and where He could be made a prisoner with smaU danger of a
disturbance being occasioned or a rescue effected. The sign by which He
could be identified in the darkness was a kiss, to be given Him by Judas.
§ 12. The Last Supper
The conference between Judas and the chief priests may have occurred
early on the morning of Thursday, Nisan 13th. In the course of the same
day (immediately preceding the Passover day, Nisan 14th) Jesus was
asked by His disciples where He wished preparations to be made for the
observance of the Feast. During one of His daily visits to Jerusalem from
Bethany our Lord had apparently made acquaintance with a resident in
the capital, who was probably a sympathizer and who had Undertaken
to place at His disposal a room where the Passover meal could be eaten.
It is not unlikely that the house was the home of the Evangehst St. Mark,
and that the owner was his father (p. 458). 1 Jesus had not disclosed His
plans to any of the disciples ; but as He knew that water for the household
would be fetched at a certain hour of the day, it was easy to direct some
of the Apostles to the house by telling them to go into the city at a par
ticular time when they would meet a man (presumably a servant), bearing
a pitcher, whom they were to follow to the dwelling into which he entered,
and the owner of which would, in answer to their inquiries, show them
the room which had been reserved for their Master's use. Two of the
disciples (Lk. names Peter and John), carrying out these instructions,
found the house ; and there they made such preparations as the occasion
required and the circumstances admitted. The lamb that was needed
could not, of course, at once be provided by the two disciples. This had
to be killed On the 14th of Nisan (which began at sunset on the Thursday
and ended at the same hour on the Friday), the time of the slaughter
being the afternoon of Friday, the person who should stay it being the
head of the household or company that was to share it, and the place
being the court of the Priests within the Temple area. The Passover
meal would be eaten on the evening of the same day before sunset, after
which the 15th day of Nisan would begin, constituting the first day of
Unleavened Bread. The preparations made by the two disciples would
therefore include the provision of unleavened cakes, of bitter herbs, and
of the other minor accompaniments of the Passover, but not the killing
or the roasting of the lamb, which was its central feature; these acts
would be deferred until the morrow.
Under ordinary circumstanoes JesuB would presumably have stayed
at Bethany until the afternoon of Friday, Nisan the 14th, and then have
proceeded to the Temple in order to offer the Passover sacrifice. But
as it was, He felt sure that He would be dehvered into the hands of His
enemies before the Feast began. His power of penetrating the minds of
paid at once. If these were tetradraohms or Bhekels, they would amount to about
£4 15a. » By the time the incident related in Acts xu. 12 occurred, he was probably dead.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 451
those with whom He was brought into contact must have enabled Him
to read the heart of Judas, even if the latter's mien had not revealed his
change of attitude. He therefore suddenly returned to Jerusalem with
the Twelve on the evening of Thursday (Nisan 13th) ; and they all supped
together. The seats round the table were probably arranged in horse
shoe fashion, every one present reclining with his left elbow resting on a
cushion, and his right arm free.1 Jesus knew it to be the last meal that
He would share with His followers ; and in the course of it He disclosed
the foreboding which possessed His mind. As they were eating He
unexpectedly declared that one of them would betray Him. Such an
utterance could not but fiU most of them with astonishment and dismay,
for the very fact that they were partaking of a common meal should, of
itself, have been an assurance against such treachery as He spoke of.
Jesus, in answer to their inquiries, did not expose the traitor, but re
iterated His statement that it was one who was actually present at the
table and sharing the meal (cf. Ps. xh. 9). And He then added that His
departure from earth in the way He had just indicated had been foretold
in the Scriptures (the reference being presumably to 2 Is. Uii.) and was
therefore predetermined by God ; but the fact that the traitor's design
was not independent of the Divine wiU did not relieve him of responsibihty
for his sin : it would have been better for him had he never been born.
ML represents that Jesus intimated to Judas himself in answer to. the latter's
question, that he was the traitor (the Evangehst perhaps supposing that the com
munication was made in a whisper, so that none of the others heard). In Lk. the
prediction of the betrayal is not uttered until after the institution of the Eucharist.
In Joh. it is stated stiU more improbably than in ML that Jesus in reply to the disciple
" whom He loved " (p. 207) declared that the traitor was he to whom He should give
the morsel of bread which He should dip in the dish, and that He then handed it to
Judas, bidding him do quickly what he had in hand (none at the table understanding
the significance of the words).
In the narrative above it has been assumed that the Last Supper was
held on Nisan 13th . but the day of the month is reaUy uncertain. St.
Mark in xiv. 12 relates that the disciples prepared for it on the first day of
Unleavened Bread when the Passover was sacrificed (cf. Mk. xiv. 1,
Lk. xxii. 1), such language identifying two days which in strictness were
distinct, the Passover being the 14th (natural reckoning) and the first day
of Unleavened Bread being the 15th. But since Josephus (B.J. v. 3, 1)
represents the day of Unleavened Bread as occurring on the 14th day of
Xanthicus (i.e. Nisan), Mk. may be presumed to have adopted a popular
usage, and to have meant by his composite phrase the same date. If so,
he represents the preparations for the supper to have been made early on
the 14th, and the supper itself to have occurred on the evening of the same
day (as we divide time), but on Nisan 15th (as the Jews reckon), and so to
have been an actual Passover meal (cf. Lk. xxii. 15). The Crucifixion,
therefore, which, according to this account, was subsequent to the Passover,
must have taken place during Nisan 15th. But by the Fourth Evangelist
the Last Supper is placed before the Passover (xiii. 1, 2, 29) ; and the Jews
1 Edersheim, Life and Times, etc., ii. p. 494 ; cf. Joh. xiii, 23.

452 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
at the trial of Jesus are expressly declared to have avoided entering
the residence of the Boman Governor lest they should, through con
tracting defilement, be prevented from eating the Passover (xviii. 28).
Consequently the Johannine writer seems to have thought that the
Last Supper happened on the 13th of Nisan, and the Trial and
Crucifixion on the 14th. Of the two authorities the Second Gospel is
in most respects much superior to the Fourth ; but in connexion
with the days of the Crucifixion and of the preceding meal the latter
probably deserves the preference ; and even in Mk. there are features
difficult to reconcile with the representation that the Last Supper was
held on the 14th and was a Passover, and that our Lord's death occurred
on the 15th (see p. 344). On the whole, it seems most likely that the
disciples' preparations were really made on the 13th (for the 14th), but
that Jesus, expecting to die before the festival,1 partook of the supper
(though not as an anticipatory Passover, as has been suggested by some)
on the evening of the 13th, and suffered on the 14th.
In the course of the meal, Jesus made of the bread and the wine which
formed part of it emblems of His impending death, and a means of uniting
in spirit His followers with Himself. Having taken an unleavened loaf
(or cake) and having blessed God for the material good (cf . Mk. vi. 41,viii. 6),
He broke it up and gave the portions to His disciples, saying (though the
precise words cannot with confidence be ascertained), " This is 2 my body,
which is being broken for you : do this in commemoration of me."
Similarly at the close of the Supper He took a cup of wine, and when He
had again given thanks, He handed it round, and when they had drunk of
it, He said, 3 " This is 2 my blood of the new 4 covenant (rfjg xaivrjg SiaQtfxrjg),
which is being spilled for (vnsg) many : do this, as oft as ye drink it, in
commemoration of me." And He then went on to declare that He would
not again 5 drink of wine until He should drink it new l in the Kingdom of
God : the Supper was a farewell meal.
Our Lord's procedure on the occasion, interpreted by His words,
constituted an enacted symbol. The loaf of bread represented 6 His Body,
and the breaking of the loaf typified the violence shortly to be inflicted
upon Him, causing the destruction of His physical life ; whilst His distri
bution of the fragments amongst the disciples for their consumption
intimated His desire that they should assimUate the Spirit which animated
Him, and by imitating His self-surrender might thereby gain their true
life (cf. Mk. viii. 34, 35). The pouring of the wine and the passing of the
1 In Lk. xxii. 15 the words " this Passover " possibly refer to the Passover of that
year falling on the morrow, participation in which Jesus had desired, but (as He now
realized) in vain. See J.T.S. July, 1908, pp. 569-72.
2 In Aramaic the copula would be absent.
* Mt. aUows it to be inferred that the words that foUow were uttered not after,
but before, the wine was drunk.
* The adjective Kaivbs as contrasted with v&s means something fresh or new in
kind : cf. Mk. u. 22, Rev. xxi. 5, and the significance of dvaxatvao-is in Horn. xn. 2,
Tit. iii. 5.
5 This imphes that Jesus partook of the cup whioh He handed to the others.
* For this sense of earl cf. Gal. iv. 24.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 453
cup for His disciples to drink its contents had the like import. But the
resemblance of red wine to blood (leading it to be called the blood of the
grape, Gen. xlix. 11) caused Jesus to attach to it a significance which the
bread could not equaUy well convey. In antiquity the tie of common
blood was the closest of bonds ; and where it did not exist by nature, it
could be created artificiaUy. Probably the primitive method of contract
ing a blood covenant was for the parties concerned to open their veins
and suck one another's blood (as is stUl done by certain Arab tribes), or
to draw blood from each other and aUow it to flow together into a bowl,
the mixture being drunk (see Hdt. iv. 70) ; but a less repulsive method was
to smear the blood from the two upon a stone, where it could commingle.1
A modification of the tatter method admitted of being adapted to the
institution of a covenant between worshippers and their god, the blood of
a victim being applied to the persons of the former and to the altar of the
latter. This was done on the occasion of the covenant which was
contracted between Israel and Jehovah at Mount Sinai ; for Moses,
after reading the book of the covenant to the people, then took the blood
of sacrificial victims and sprinkled part of it upon Jehovah's altar and
part on the people, saying, " Behold the blood of the covenant which
Jehovah hath made with you on aU these conditions" (Ex. xxiv. 1-8).
Since, however, Israel's continual infraction of Jehovah's commands
brought constant retribution upon them, the prophet Jeremiah, at a later
date, was inspired to declare that Jehovah would make a new covenant
(SwBrjxrjv xaivfjv) with His people, putting His law in their hearts and
forgiving their iniquity (Jer. xxxi. 31-34). It was of this new covenant
that Jesus, when He gave to His disciples the cup of wine to drink, affirmed
Himself to be the mediator (cf. Heb. ix. 19-22). Through His Blood God
and man, estranged by the sins of the latter, were to be re-united ; and the
spirit which impeUed Him to sacrifice HimseU for human redemption
would, if absorbed and reproduced by them, preclude the recurrence in
them (at least to the same extent as before) of the offences which had
come between them and their God. His blood-shedding was the
evidence and demonstration of the love which fiUed Him, and which, as
evoking from others love in return, was calculated to exert over them
redemptive power. But it seems possible that Jesus also thought of His
death as having an atoning value in the sense of being expiatory of human
transgressions ; and if so, He departed from the ideas conveyed both by
the Sinaitic covenant and by the new covenant of which Jeremiah spoke.
The victim, whose blood at Sinai was the medium of the covenant effected
between Israel and Jehovah, was not a sin-offering ; and Jeremiah, when
he asserted that God would forgive His people's sins and remember their
iniquities no more, made no allusion to the necessity of any sacrifice upon
which the'Divine pardon was dependent. But the idea that the suffering
and death" of the innocent could avaU with God for the forgiveness of the
sinful was implied in 2 Is. liii. (p. 24) ; and the words of Jesus, rd alud pov
. . . rd ExyywdpiEvov vnsg noXXcov, viewed in the light of His earlier
declaration (Mk. x. 45), 6 Yldg rov avQgdmov . . . tjXOev . . . Sovvai rrjv
1 Cf. W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 315.

434 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
tiw%r\v airov Xihgov dvrl noXXcdv, appear to show that He regarded Himself
as realizing the prophet's description of the vocation and function of
Jehovah's Servant, and as offering, through His own life-blood, an atoning,
as weU as a covenant, sacrifice.
At the Supper, however, Jesus had in contemplation not only His
impending sacrifice of His life, but likewise His eventual entrance into His
glory. In addition to intimating that the broken bread and the poured-out
wine were symbols of His, approaching death, He also encouraged His
disciples by His concluding words (Mk. xiv. 25) to believe that the Kingdom
whieh they were to share with Him was not far away. To eat and drink
in God's Kingdom or in His Presence was a famUiar figure of speech for
participation in supreme fehcity (cf. Lk. xiii. 29, xiv. 15, Mt. xxii. 1 L,
Rev. xix. 9, and see 7s. xxv. 6), and the Supper of which Jesus and His
loyal foUowers were then partaking could thus be regarded as an antici-
pative symbol of a happier and more blessed Feast in the near future
(oi Lk. xxii. 29, 30).
Of the institution of the Eucharist there are four accounts, one in each of the
Synoptists, and a fourth in St. Paul. These accounts faU into two divisions, Mt.
agreeing closely with Mk., and Lk. with St. Paul. The differences affect ehiefly the
words of our Lord, and wiU be most easily discerned if the reports of them are placed
in paraUel columns for comparison. Words in brackets have inferior textual author
ity. Mk. xiv. 22-25 Mt. xxvi. 26-29
And as they were eating,, he took a And as they were eating Jesus took a
loaf and, having blessed, brake it and loaf and, having blessed, brake it ; and
gave it to them and said, Take ye, this he gave to the disciples, and said, Take
is ray body. And having taken a. cup ye, eat, this is my body. And having
and given thanks, he gave it to them ; taken a (or the) cup and given thanks he
and they all drank of it. And he said gave to them, saying, Drink ye aE of
unto them, This is my blood of the (new) it ; for this is my blood of the (new)
covenant which is spilled for many. covenant which is spiUedi for many unto
Verily I say unto you, I will no more remission of sins. But I say unto you,
drink of the fruit of the vine until that I wiU not drink henceforth of this fruit
day when I drink it new in the kingdom of the vine until that day when I drink it
of God. new with you in my Father's kingdom.
1 Cor. xi. 23-25 Lk. xxii. 17-20
. . . The Lord Jesus, in the night in And having received a cup and having
whieh he was betrayed, took a loaf, and given thanks, he said, Take ye this, and
having given thanks 1 he brake it and divide it among yourselves j for I say
said, This is my body which is (broken) unto you, I wiU not drink from henoe-
fot you ; this do in commemoration of forward of the fruit of the vine until the
me. In hke manner also the cup after kingdom of God shaU come. And having
supper, saying, This cup is the new cove* taken a loaf and having given thanks,
nant in my blood : this do yc, as of t as he brake and gave to them, saying, This
ye drink it, in com meinoration of me, ia my body * a which is given for you, ;
this doye in commemoration of Me. Arid
the cup in like manner after supper, say
ing,. This cup is the new covenant in my
blood, even that which is spilied for you.*

1 ei\oyiu (Mk. xiv. 22) and eixapioriu are virtuaUy synonymous : see 1 Cor.
xiv. 16.
2 AU the words between the two asterisks are omitted! by D and1 some MSS. of
Lat. vet.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 455
Of these four authorities St. Mark and St. Paul x are the earUest and best, and the
account given above (p. 452) is based on them. Between Mk. and Mt. the only
noteworthy difference is the addition by Mt., to what was said in connexion with the
cup, of the words eh &<peo-iv duapriav (cf. Mk. i. 4). Between these two and St.
Paul the most serious variation is the absence from the former, and the presence in
1 Cor., of the direction of Jesus to the disciples to perpetuate His symboUc action.
It has been argued that the command originated with St. Paul, who, in saying tbat
he received from the Lord that which he deUvered (v. 23), meant that it came to him
through a special revelation ; and that St. Mark's account of the Eucharist, in which
the words in question are not included, is nearest to Jesus' ipsissima verba at the
supper. But the fact that the Eucharistic rite was observed in the primitive Church
from the earUest times, so far as our authorities go (Acts u. 42), affords strong support
to the conclusion that the observance really had its origin in an actual injunction
of our Lord's ; for without such, it is difficult to understand why such enacted sym
bolism should have been at once regularly repeated by His followers. Lk. has expanded
the words used of the cup in St. Paul by rb [virip i/iuiv ] iKXwvbjievov, derived
from Mk. ; but, added as they stand (in the nom.), they agree with rb irorrjpiov
instead of rip a'1/j.ari. In Mk. the addition of Kaivijs has the support of A alone
among the great uncials, though it appears in the Old Latin, the Sinaitic and other
Syriac versions, but in ML it is supported by C D likewise.
It wiU be seen that Lk. speaks of two cups, one before mention of the bread and
one after ; and places after the first and before the second Jesus' declaration that
He would not again drink of the fruit of the vine save in the kingdom of God — a
declaration which in Mk. forms the conclusion of our Lord's words at the supper.
The variation in the Third Gospel can be explained by the supposition that Lk.,
whilst wishing to preserve Jesus' statement that He would not again drink of the
fruit of the vine tUl the kingdom should come, sought to preclude the impression
that He partook of the wine that symbolized His own blood ; and so distinguished
between two cups, one of which Jesus shared, and the other He did not. A difficult
textual problem, however, is raised by the omission in Lk. xxiii of v.. 19 (from rb iirep
bfi&>> to dvdjj.vr\aiv) and v. 20 by D and certain codices of the Old Latin version (a,
e), and the omission of v. 20 (alone) by the Old Syriac. If this represents the original
text, the Third Gospel then mentions only one cup, but places the administration
of it before that of the bread (cf, 1 Gor. x. 16), and Bays nothing of its symbolizing
Christ's blood. This is, no doubt, the harder reading, and has weighty support,
but not enough to counterbalance the MSS. and versions that contain the disputed
words ; and the Omission by the S text of v. 20 may at least be sufficiently accounted
for by the desire of Copyists to get rid of the mention of more than one cup.
Joh. does not narrate the institution of the Eucharist, but relates that Jesus,
in the course of the Supper, rose from the table, took water and a towel, and washed
the feet of His disciples (in spite of a protest against His doing so from St, Peter) ;
and after He had sat down again, He declared that He had given them an example
which they should follow.
When the Supper was ended, a hymn was sung a ; and on the conclusion
of this the company left the house. Judas withdrew from the others to
execute his part of the compact with the priests ; whilst Jesus and the
rest of the Apostles departed from the city, as had been their previous
custom at nightfaU (Mk. xi. 11, 19). The direction taken was towards the
Mount of OUves. On the road Jesus intimated to His disciples that He
anticipated immediate violence from His foes and desertion on the part of
His foUowers, quoting the words of Zech. xiii. 7 (with some modification),
" I wiU smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad ; " 3 but
1 The Apostle's account probably came " from the Lord " through the Twelve.
8 If the Last Supper was reaUy a Passover meal, this would be part of the HalUl
(Ps. cxiii.-cxviii. ).
3 In LXX A the passage runs Hdra^ov rbv TOijiiva Kal SiaaKopvurBijaovrai rd
irp6j3aTa rrjs iroijunjs, the imperative being addressed by Jehovah to His sword.

456 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
He added that after He was raised from the dead He would precede them
into Galilee. He clearly expected that as soon as He feU into the power of
His enemies, His Galilaean disciples would, in panic, return to their homes ;
and that in the country where He had first gathered them round Him He
would manifest to them His triumph over death. Jesus' declaration that
He looked to be abandoned by His most familiar friends caused St. Peter
to protest that he, at least, would be staunch, whoever else might quail ;
but his self-confidence only elicited a prediction of stiU baser conduct ;
before cock-crow,1 i.e. the third watch (Mk. xiii. 35) of that very night, the
boaster would thrice deny his Master. St. Peter reaffirmed in still stronger
terms that he was incapable of acting so ; and similar assurances came from
them all.
The conversation between Jesus and the eleven Apostles is placed in the supper-
room by St. Luke, who gives a much altered account of it. After representing that
the dispute among the disciples about pre-eminence took place on this occasion (p.
430) he relates that Jesus went on to say that to them, His constant companions,
He appointed a kingdom (cf. Mt. xix. 28) ; that Satan would sift them like wheat ;
but that He had prayed for Peter that his faith might not fail utterly; and He com
manded him, when his own faith was restored, to strengthen the rest. Peter's, con
fident assurance of loyalty and our Lord's prediction of his denial foUow ; and these
are succeeded by an admonition that whereas the disciples had formerly been sent
forth without money (Mk. vi. 8 ; Lk. x. 4), they would thenceforward need not only
money, but arms, so hostile would be their surroundings, for He, their Master, was
about to suffer as a felon, as had been predicted (2 Is. liii. 12). He was informed
that they had among them two swords, and He rephed that it was enough.
The little company on leaving the city crossed the Kidron, and reached
an enclosed plot of ground2 called Gethsemane, which, as its name implied,
had once contained an oil press, and to which Jesus and His disciples must
have resorted on previous occasions (cf. Lk. xxii. 39, Joh. xviii. 1) since it
was known to Judas. Bight of the Apostles were bidden by their Master
to stay by the entrance ; whilst He Himself, accompanied by St. Peter and
the two sons of Zebedee, advanced farther into the enclosure to pray.
There, teUing the three that He was in great anguish of spirit, He directed
them to stop and keep watch near Him, that He might be sustained by a
sense of their companionship and sympathy. He went forward a Uttle
way, though remaining within earshot of the three so long as they were
capable of listening ; and kneeling, petitioned His Father that, if it were
possible, He might be spared the fate that confronted Him, but declared
that to the Divine will He submitted His own. The ordinary shrinking
of human nature from a violent death was immeasurably intensified by the
appalling contrast between the Messianic dignity which He beheved to be
His, and the doom now before Him. He had, indeed, previously foreseen
that such an end to His earthly life was to intervene before He entered
upon His exalted office ; but now that it was actuaUy facing Him, the
1 Mk. xiv. 30 has " before the cock crow twice.'' Possibly St. Peter, whose recol
lections Mk. preserves, remembered the twofold cock-crowing (xiv. 68, 72) ; and
Jesus' prediction, which referred to a recognized division of the night, has been made
more exact by the introduction of Sis. But Sis is absent from N C and other weighty
authorities. 1 Eor x«/>£ok in this sense of. Joh. iv. 5, Acts v. 3. Joh. here has kTjitos.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 457
thought that God's Messiah should be kiUed by God's own people produced
the acutest agony of mind ; and extorted the prayer that the Divine
purpose might be accomplished in some other way (cf. Heb. v. 7). The
prayer ended, Jesus returned to the three disciples and found them fallen
asleep ; and when He awakened them He bade them be on their guard lest in
the emergency before them human weakness should sap their resolution.
He again withdrew to pray a second time ; and on returning discovered
them asleep once more, and unable, when awakened again, to say anything
in reply to His remonstrances. He retired a third time to renew His
prayers, and on His return, they were once more slumbering. With
gentle irony He bade them sleep on ; but detecting indications of an
approaching body of men, He resumed His seriousness of manner, and told
them that the need for the effort which He had called upon them to make
was over. The predicted betrayal was near, and they must go to meet
the crisis.
In the account of the Agony ML foUows Mk. closely ; Lk. summarizes the latter,
and does not mention either the privilege granted to the three or the threefold prayer,
but relates that an angel came from heaven to strengthen Jesus, His distress being
so intense that blood-drops exuded from His pores. The two vv. (xxu. 43, 44) are
found in 8 D E G K L, etc., Lat. vet. and most Syr. versions, but are absent from A B
Syr. sin. and most codices of Eg.
§ 13. Arrest, Trial, and Execution
As He spoke Judas appeared, accompanied by a mob of people, some
of them with weapons, these being probably Temple guards (p. 93),
addressed Him as Babbi, and (that the guards might make no mistake)
kissed Him, as one friend might salute another after absence. But the
seizure of Him was not effected without a blow being struck to prevent it,
for one of the disciples drew the sword which he was carrying and smote
the High Priest's slave, who was among the crowd, cutting off one of his
ears. Jesus, however, did nothing to countenance any attempt on the
part of His f oUowers to rescue Him, but only remonstrated against the
indignity of the manner of His arrest, an armed force being employed for
His capture, as though He were a brigand. He was (He said) a religious
teacher, who had for the last few days regularly given instruction in the
Temple courts without being molested, though it would have been easy to
seize Him there ; but through the treatment of Him as a malefactor the
Scriptures (2 Is. liii. 12 being doubtless in His mind) were obtaining fulfil
ment. His meek submission to His captors, in spite of His claim to be the
Messiah, so disheartened His disciples that they thought of resistance no
further, but yielding to despair, left Him to His fate and fled (cf. Joh. xvi.
32). That they might have been arrested with Him, had they not done
so, is suggested by an occurrence recorded by Mk. only. As Jesus was led
away, He was foUowed at first by a young man, who, with merely a linen
wrap cast about him, had, seemingly just recently arisen from sleep. He
attracted, however, the notice of the guard, who thought him an adherent
of their prisoner, and they tried to take him ; but he slipped from them, and
leaving the wrap behind him escaped. Since the incident is otherwise

458 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
unimportant, it has been conjectured that it was recounted only because
it had interest for the writer and his friends ; and the young man has
accordingly been identified with St. Mark, who, if Judas, before leading
the guard to Gethsemane, had guided them first to the house where the
Last Supper was held (p. 450), had probably been disturbed by the visit
and had followed them to ascertain the sequel.
The other Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist add to, and in other ways alter,
St. Mark's account. ML states that when Judas kissed Jesus, the latter bade him
carry out the purpose for wliich he had come,1 and told the disciple who struck the
high priest's slave, to put up his weapon since violence provoked violence, and but
for the need of fulfiUing the Scriptures, He could ask from His Eather the help of
twelve legions (p. 72) of angels. Lk. gives as Jesus' address to Judas the question
" Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a Mss 1 " and adds that Jesus healed the ear
of the man who was smitten. He omits the flight of the disciples and also represents
that among the multitude that came to effect the arrest were the chief priests, the
captains of the Temple and the elders themselves (contrast Mk. xiv. 43, " a multitude
. . . from the chief priests," etc,). The Fourth Evangelist asserts that those by whom
Judas was attended consisted of the cohort (aireipa) of troops garrisoning the castle
of Antonia (p. 54) under the command of a mUitary tribune (this being a force not
only in character and size altogether disproportionate to the occasion, but also not
hkely to be procurable, as Jesus had not yet been denounced to the Roman authori
ties) ; that when they drew near (Judas merely standing amongst them) Jesus asked
whom they wanted ; and on their explaining, answered that He was the Man (where
upon they stepped back and prostrated themselves before Him), and begged them,
if they took Him, to let His companions go ; and the writer further adds that the
Apostle who used his sword was Peter, and the slave whom he wounded was named
Malchus. The details of the proceedings after the arrest are difficult to ascertain,
for there is much divergence between what seem to be the most
authoritative sources. One of these is, of course, St. Mark, but the
account Contained in his Gospel is obscure, Since it conveys the impression
that the trial of Jesus took place during the hours of the night in which He
was made prisoner, which is exceedingly improbable, inasmuch as during
the second century A.D. at least, criminal cases heard before the Sanhedrin
had to be begun and finished in the day time, and the rule perhaps dates
from an earlier period.2 Moreover, St. Mark's information here cannot
depend upon reports from St. Peter, who was not present in the room. His
account therefore is likely to be inexact, and requires, if possible, to be
supplemented . and another informant with better opportunities for
learning some of the facts seems to be forthcoming in the " other disciple "
mentioned in Joh. xviii. 15, if, as has been suggested (p. 224), he is the author
of the Fourth Gospel. This man was known to the High Priest and
therefore in a position to be acquainted with the external circumstances of
the trial, and with some of the incidents that transpired in the course of it.
Accordingly a narrative based upon the combined evidence of the Second
and the Fourth Gospel (which here should be a good authority) comes
perhaps as near history as is now attainable. A comparison of these two
1 In Mt. xxvi. 50 the words to be suppUed with lo? S iripei are really uncertain.
a See McNeile, St. Matt. p. 398.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 459
authorities renders it probable that Jesus was led first to Annas,1 who had
been High Priest from a.d. 7 to 14, and, though no longer in office, stiU
exercised much influence owing to his great wealth, and who perhaps still
had rooms in the official residence of the actual High Priest Caiaphas
(a.d. 18-36).
Although an examination of the prisoner was conducted at night by
Annas, it was probably no part of the formal trial, but designed merely to
satisfy the curiosity of the ex-High Priest.8 Annas questioned our Lord
concerning His teaching, and Jesus replied that, as it had always been given
publicly, information about it could he procured from those who heard it.
For so answering He was struck on the face by one of the attendants, to
whom He addressed a remonstrance as gentle as it wds reasonable. Mean-
whUe, Peter, recovering from the panic into which he and his fellow-
Apostles had been thrown by Jesus' surrender to the officers of the
Sanhedrin, came to the High Priest's residence, and through the inter
vention of the " other " disciple aUuded to above, was aUowed to pass the
outer gate. The building where the investigation was conducted appears
to have been arranged round a courtyard which was reached through a
forecourt (ngoa.6% uyv). The portions of the main structure occupied
by Annas and Caiaphas respectively were possibly on opposite sides, and
the trial was held in a Toom on an upper floor (Mk. xiv. 66). Peter was
admitted into the courtyard, where a fire of charcoal had been kindled
(the air being cold) ; and the portress,3 observing in the fire-light that
Peter, who was warming himself, was a stranger, declared that he too
(as well as the High Priest's acquaintance) was one of Jesus* disciples.
Peter denied being so, protesting that he did not understand what she
meant by her words. Perhaps to avoid further notice he went out into
the forecourt, and heard a cock crowing. The maid who had questioned
him seems to have foUowed him, and expressed to some, who were near,
her belief that he was one who had been with Jesus ; and Peter, who
overheard her, again denied the fact. A Uttle later a man who, along with
others, was standing close to him, and who was related to Malchus whom
Peter had wounded, asked him if he had not seen him in the garden, and
drew attention to his Galilean manner of speaking. Peter renewed with
great vehemence his former denials, and then hearing a second time the
cock's crowing, he recaUed, conscience-stricken and remorseful, the
prediction of his Master.
Jesus, after being interrogated by Annas,4 was taken presumably in
the early morning (ef . Lk. xxii. 66) to Caiaphas, with whom were assembled
representatives of aU the classes that constituted the Sanhedrin (twenty-
1 He is probably meant in Mk. xiv. 53", but the rest of the v. anticipates, the late?
meeting of the Sanhedrin in the house of Caiaphas. It was to the latter that Jesus
was at once taken, according to Mt. xxvi. 57.
2 Two investigations, one at night and one in the morning, are impUed in ML
xxvi. 57, xxvii. 1.
8 For a woman as porter cf. 2 Sam. iv. 6, LXX.
* If the account of Lk. is to be harmonized with that of Joh. the moeking and beat
ing of Jesus related in xxu. 63-65 may have taken plaee after this interrogation.

460 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
three members sufficing for a criminal case). The formal trial was begun ;
but though the investigation that was now conducted before Caiaphas
may be thus designated, it appears to have violated a number of legal
principles. These required, for instance, that a trial should be held at the
regular meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, not in the High Priest's palace ;
and that judgment should not be passed until the morrow of the day of trial.
The body of judges, however, before whom Jesus was arraigned were bent
not upon trying but upon destroying Him, before the ensuing Feast, and
were not disposed to respect restrictions that would hamper their purpose.
Nevertheless in seeking evidence against Him they were desirous of observ
ing the Mosaic regulation that every charge should be proved by the
testimony of at least two witnesses (Dt. xix. 15) ; but though many came
forward to bring charges against the Prisoner, their evidence was too
inconsistent to make their statements credible. The accusation that
promised best to achieve the wished-for result was to the effect that Jesus
had declared that He would destroy the Temple which had been con
structed by human hands, and would in three days buUd another made
without hands.1 It is difficult to conjecture with any confidence what
words of Jesus afforded a colour for this accusation, though utterances
which might be thus distorted have been considered on pp. 436, 445. But
even those who perverted our Lord's words (whatever they were) were unable
to support the charge coherently ; and the only prospect of obtaining the
conviction of the Accused was to induce Him to inculpate HimseU in the
direction they desired. Accordingly, when Jesus made no reply to the
witnesses (cf. 2 Is. liii. 7), the High Priest, abandoning the accusation just
preferred, himseU advanced indirectly one suggested by the cries of the
multitude on the occasion of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem ; and in order to
extract an incriminating confession, asked Him, " Art thou the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed ? " 2 To this question Jesus did not shrink from
replying, and now uttered publicly the same avowal as He had made not
long before privately to His disciples, saying in answer to the High Priest,
" I am " ; and He then added, " And ye shall see the Son of Man sitting
at the right hand of Power (cf. Ps. ex. 1) and coming with the clouds of
heaven " (cf . Dan. vii. 13). On this admission (which was also a warning)
Caiaphas in horror rent his robes (cf . 2 Kg. xviii. 37, Ez. ix. 3), and asked .
the rest of the council whether there was any further need of witnesses,
after such a blasphemous claim had been made in their hearing. Then he
demanded their judgment ; and all who were present decided that His
offence rendered Him liable to death (Lev. xxiv. 16). This condemnation
of the Prisoner at once exposed Him to foul insults and outrage from
some of those in the court 3 ; and His assertion that He was the Messiah
was mocked by His being blindfolded and struck, and then chaUenged to
detect (by the supernatural powers to which He implicitly laid claim)
1 Mt. xxvi. 61 has, " I am able to destroy the Temple of God and to build it in
three days."
2 Gi. 2 Esd. vn. 29.
8 Lk. desoribes these as " the men that held Jesus."

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 461
who it was who smote Him.1 He was then handed Over to the servants in
attendance who received Him with blows.
The examination before Annas is narrated only in Joh., where mention is made of
Jesus' subsequent removal to the court presided over by Caiaphas ; but nothing is
said about His trial in the latter. Mk. (foUowed by Lk.) does not give the name of
the High Priest, but Mt. xxvi. 57 renders it clear that the High priest before whom
the formal trial occurred was Caiaphas. Lk. omits all mention of the witnesses and
their evidence, though he imphes that some had appeared ; and expands and modifies
our Lord's answer to the High Priest. The particulars of Peter's denial are given
variously by the EvangeUsts. The persons who successively address the Apostle
are, in Mk. a maid, the same maid, and the bystanders ; in ML a maid, another maid,
and the bystanders ; in Lk. a maid, a man, another man ; in Joh. a maid, the by
standers, and a, kinsman of Malchus. The accounts of Mk. and Joh. are the most
authoritative and serve to supplement each other. Mk. (foUowed by Mt.) alone
describes Peter's withdrawal to the forecourt (irpoatiKiov), which Mt. caUs the porch
(irvXtiv). In Mk. xiv. 72 imj3a\il>v in the sense of " having thought upon " (it)
seems adequately supported by the use of irpoalxeiv " to give attention " (with
rbv vovv or ttjv Si&voiav understood). St. Luke's representation that Jesus turned
and looked upon Peter (Lk. xxn. 61) is only inteUigible if it is supposed that the final
denial took place whUe Jesus was being led across the courtyard from Annas to Caia
phas, and that Peter had returned to it.
The decision that Jesus in declaring Himself to be the Messiah was guUty of blas
phemy assumed that TTia claim needed no further investigation, but was plainly false.
But as Divine titles were ascribed to human beings in the Scriptures as God's repre
sentatives (p. 109), whUst " to sit at the right hand of God " did not necessarily connote
more than an extraordinary degree of Divine favour (cf. Ps. Ixxx. 17, " the man of
thy. right hand "), Justice was glaringly violated through the absence of any inquiry
into the grounds of the claim to Messiahship.
The Sanhedrin, as soon as they had convicted Jesus as deserving of
death, consulted how they could accomplish His execution ; and in view of
the nearness of the Passover, lost no time in coming to a decision or in
carrying it out. Accordingly, whilst it was stiU morning, they bound their
Prisoner and led Him to Pilate, the Boman procurator, to induce him to
pronounce a capital sentence. The reason for their bringing Him before
the secular power is not quite clear. In Joh. xviii. 31 they are represented
as giving as their motive the fact that they had not the right of inflicting
capital punishment themselves, this right having been taken from them in
a.d. 30. But if the proceedings here related occurred in 29 (p. 342) it
seems necessary to seek for another explanation, and it appears to be not
improbable that they desired to avoid, if possible, the execution by their
own authority of One against whom the only offence that could be proved
was the claim to be the Messiah of their race. But they could accomplish
their wish to destroy Him by maintaining before Pilate that His words
involved pretensions to political sovereignty, and so were treasonable
(cf . Lk. xxiii. 2). The official residence of the representatives of the Boman
Emperors in Palestine was at Csesarea (p.! 54) ; but if the procurator had
occasion to visit Jerusalem, two places were there available for his accom
modation, the palace of Herod, on the western hill (p. 11), and the castle of
1 Mt. renders the command unintelligible by omitting to mention the previous
bhndfolding ; Mk., who relates the blindfolding, makes the smiters merely bid
Him prophesy ; but Luke's account is clear. Some, however, suppose that Mk.'s
" Prophesy" means " Predict retribution upon the smiter."

462 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Antonia (p. 90) ; and he would most likely occupy the tatter at such
seasons as the Passover, when Jerusalem was crowded with pilgrims, and
disturbances were liable to occur in the neighbourhood of the Temple,
demanding mUitary intervention. If so, the distance from the residence
of the High Priest to that of the governor was short. Of the arraignment
of Jesus before Pilate the report in Mk. is so condensed that there is no
statement even of the charge preferred against Him, and it is a matter of
inference only that He was brought before the procurator as one who
pretended to be king of the Jews and consequently was a dangerous rebel.
Pilate asked the Prisoner whether He reaUy claimed to be such, and Jesus
returned the seemingly non-committal answer, " Thou sayest so." The
charge was then amplified by the chief priests and their supporters, but
Jesus made no further reply, to the great astonishment of the Boman
official. The latter however, was convinced that the Accused was no
aspirant to political power, but only a deluded reUgious enthusiast (cf .
Joh. xviii. 36) whose influence had awakened the jealousy of the official
religious leaders. At the same time, to acquit the Prisoner as not guUty
of the charge brought against Him might expose himself to Jewish mis
representations calculated to create in the Emperor suspicions of his loyalty.
An opportunity, however, of avoiding this risk without doing too great
violence to his Boman sense of justice was offered by a custom, probably
instituted by himself (since no mention of such occurs elsewhere), of
granting at the Passover x an amnesty to a single prisoner, a choice from
among those in custody being left to the populace. So when the mob came
up to the castle in order to request the usual concession, PUate, hoping to
escape from his dflemma, asked them whether they wished for the release
of " the king of the Jews." But his hopes were disappointed. There
happened to be in prison at the time a certain Barabbas,2 who had been
arrested in company with a body of insurrectionaries that had committed
murder. He may have been a Galilean and taken part in the disorder
which, according to Lk. xiii. 1, PUate had put down brutaUy (p. 444), but
this is only a conjecture. In any case he seems to have been a conspicuous
and popular character ; and when the governor suggested the release of
Jesus, the people, whose previous enthusiasm for Jesus had not survived
His condemnation by the Sanhedrin, were incited by the priests to demand
the release of Barabbas instead, it being doubtless easy to kindle sympathy
for one who had shown hatred for the Boman authorities, though the
insincerity of the political charge against Jesus thereby became manifest.
So when Pilate proceeded to ask what he should do with their " King,"
they cried out, " Crucify Him." The shout surprised PUate, who demanded
to know what harm the Prisoner had done ; and the repetition of the shout
in more vehement tones daunted him. He would probably have been
glad to flout the priests by disappointing their wish to have Jesus executed ;
but he was afraid to risk an outbreak among the populace. His sense of
1 In Mk. xv. 6 Kard loprijv may mean " feast by feast " (i.e. on the occasion of
every festival).
" In ML xxvn. 16 some cursive MSS. (including 1), the Sinaitic Syr., and the Ann.
version, have Jesus Barabbas.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 463
justice was not strong enough to resist his fears, and so he infamously gave
way to the clamour of the mob (nothing being said by Mk. about a formal
sentence of death). Those who were condemned to the punishment of
crucifixion (a method of execution eminently, though not exclusively,1
Roman) were usuaUy scourged prior to being fastened to the cross (see Livy
xxxiii. 36, Jos. B.J. ii. 14, 9). This prehminary torture PUate inflicted
upon Jesus ; and then delivered Him to the soldiers, who were to carry
out the capital sentence.
Mt. relates that when Judas inferred, from seeing Jesus taken before Pilate, that
He had been condemned by the Sanhedrin, he in remorse returned the price of his
perfidy and afterwards hanged himself (see p. 491).
The account of Jesus' trial before Pilate is much expanded by the two other Synop
tists. Mt. adds that whUe PUate was on his tribunal, he received a message from his
wife (caUed by tradition Procula, and represented as a Jewish proselyte) urging him,
in consequence of a dream, to have nothing to do with such a righteous man ; and that
before he deUvered up Jesus to be crucified, he washed his hands before the multitude,
affirming that he was free from the responsibUity of his death (the symbolic action
being not Boman but Jewish, cf . Dt. xxi. 6, 7, Ps. xxvi. 6, lxxiii. 13), 2 and that the
people, in reply, claimed the responsibihty for themselves. The latter addition was
perhaps suggested by the nemesis which afterwards overtook the Jews in a.d. 70.
Lk. relates that the accusers of Jesus declared that by His teaching He had played
the part of an agitator throughout the country from GalUee to Jerusalem, had
denounced the payment of tribute to the Emperor, and had claimed to be Messiah,
a king ; that when Pilate learnt that He was a Galilean, he sent Him (with the accu
sers) to Herod Antipas (who was then at Jerusalem, presumably residing in the
Maccabean Palace close to the Temple, p. 11), since Gahlee formed part of Herod's
dominions ; that Herod, who hoped to see a miracle wrought by Him (cf. Lk. ix. 9),
questioned Him, but drew no answer from Him ; that the tetrarch, resenting His
silence, mocked Him, and in derision of His claims to be God's " anointed " garbed
Him in bright-coloured raiment, but did not pass any sentence upon Him, and remitted
Him to PUate, with whom (in consequence of the respect shown to him by the pro
curator's action) he became reconcUed after a previous quarrel.3 The incident is in
keeping with Pilate's desire to evade the guilt of sacrificing to Jewish malioe one whom
he beheved to be innocent of wrong ; and a possible source of the account, if weU-
founded, is the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, since she was one of the women who
ministered to Jesus and TTia disciples (Lk. viii. 3), though for PUate to aUow Herod
to act as a judge in Jerusalem was utterly irregular. The Third Evangelist also repre
sents that Pilate, in a further attempt to escape the responsibihty of sentencing Jesus,
proposed to flog Him in order to teach Him caution * and then to release Him, vainly
hoping in this way to satisfy Jesus' enemies. Lk., who represents Jesus as mocked
by Herod and his troops, omits the mockery by the Roman soldiers mentioned by
Mk. ; and perhaps a desire to relieve the latter of odium, as far as possible, has caused
him to transfer this piece of brutaUty from the one to the other.
1 It was practised by the Carthaginians (Livy xxu. 13), and on one occasion by
the Greek Alexander.
2 Cf. Ovid, Fasti, u. 45, 46. Ah nvmium faciles, qui tristia crimima ccedis Fhiminea
tolli posse putatis aqua.
' It has been argued that PUate sent the Prisoner and His accusers to Herod
merely to ascertain whether the tetrarch concurred in the charges brought by the latter,
that in Lk. xxin. 11 the verb O-ovBevfiaas means not " set Him at nought," but
" thought Him of no importance," and that " the bright raiment " was a royal gift
bestowed to indicate publicly disagreement with the accusers (see J.T.S., April,
1909). It is difficult to think that this was the significance that Lk. meant his narra
tive to convey, especiaUy in view of the fact that l£ov6evrjaat is foUowed by ipnralfas.
The o-rpaTevjiara of Herod must be bis guards.
1 The verb used is iraiSeiw.

464 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
In the Fourth Gospel the Jews are described as not entering the governor's head
quarters in order to escape defilement 1 and as having an interview with PUate outside
the buUding. Pilate bids them try Jesus by their own law (probably meaning that
they had power of inflicting punishment sufficient for the case, though not extending
to the imposition of a capital sentence 8) ; whereupon they reply that they have no
power to punish with death (which they imply that Jesus deserves). On Pilate's
re-entrance into his quarters, and on his asking JesuB whether He is the King of the
Jews, Jesus declares that His Kingdom is not of this world ; , that His mission is to
bear witness to the truth ; and that every one who is of the truth hears Him — a reply
which draws from the Roman the cynical question, "What is truth ? " Pilate then
reminds the people of the custom of amnestying one prisoner, and asks them whether
he shaU release Jesus ; but they demand Barabbas. The conversation here repre
sented as taking place between Jesus and Pilate is in conflict with the account of the
former's silence in Mk. xv. 5. The phrase " to be of the truth " (v. 37) is character-
isticaUy Johannine (see 1 Joh. ii. 21, in. 19).
The scourging to which Pilate had sentenced Jesus was inflicted
outside the castle ; and at the conclusion of it, the soldiers took their
Prisoner within the courtyard of the building (called by Mk. ngairibgiov) ;
and then, summoning such other members of the cohort (constituting
the garrison, p. 54) as were within call and at leisure, they made sport of
Him. They stripped Him of His outer garment and substituted for it a
discarded officer's cloak (a scarlet 3 paludamentum), and placed on His head
a garland of thorns designed as a travesty of the laurel wreath worn by
victorious generals (cf. Suetonius, Tib. 17) ; and then they mocked Him
with the pretence of homage, bowing before Him and saluting Him with
" Hail, King of the Jews," in imitation of the Ave Ccesar used in addressing
the Boman Emperors. The mockery was accentuated by being accom
panied by blows and spitting. When they had had enough of their brutal
sport, they replaced the scarlet cloak with His own garment ; and a
quaternion of soldiers (p. 73), under the command of a centurion, led
Him out of the city (cf. Heb. xiii. 12) for execution, conducting Him
probably by a road passing from the castle to the " Damascus " gate, in
the northern wall of the fortifications. Persons condemned to crucifixion
were usually forced to carry their crosses to the place where they were
to be erected,4 but Jesus, faint from the scourging, broke down under the
weight, and so the soldiers impressed a passer-by, one Simon, a Cyrenian,
who was returning from the country, and compeUed him to bear the cross.
Nothing more is related about Simon, who was doubtless a Jew of the
Dispersion, for there was a large Jewish colony at Cyrene (p. 78) ; but
his sons, Alexander and Bufus, appear to have become weU known to
the Christian Church at large, since Simon's relationship to them is expressly
1 This would not have disqualified them from eating the Paschal Lamb if the day
was Nisan 14, but it would have prevented participation in the Hagigah, a festive
offering brought on the first Paschal day, if the day was Nisan 15th ; it has accordingly
been argued that Joh., Uke the Synoptists, represents the Crucifixion as occurring on
Nisan 15th (Edersheim, Life and Times, etc ii. pp. 567-8).
' Cf. Stanton, Gospels as Historic Documents, iu. p. 261.
8 Mk. and Joh. have purple, but Mt. has scarlet, and since purple was the colour
reserved for the Emperor, the latter is probably correct.
* Swete quotes Plutarch, De ser. Dei virid., rav KoKa^ojUvav iKaaros r&v Kaxoipyuv
ixqXpei rbv airov aravpbv: cf. also Mk. viu. 34. In many instances it was probably
only the oross-bar that was carried.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 465
mentioned by St. Mark (xv. 21, cf. Rom. xvi. 13). The place to which the
cross was borne was a mound known as Golgotha,1 the name (" Skull ")
perhaps describing its shape. The site has not been identified with
certainty ; but the locaUty, though outside the city, was near it (cf .
Joh. xix. 20), and is described by Eusebius as being on the north of Mount
Zion. There is a knoll close to the Damascus road which may be the spot ;
but it is possible that the name was not derived from the shape of the
place, but from some other cause. Two malefactors were also led forth
to be crucified with Him.
Mt. adds to the mocking, the placing in the Prisoner's hands of a cane or reed (as
a sceptre), with which He was afterwards beaten about the head. Lk., who passes
over the mocking by the Roman soldiers (p. 463), relates that in the procession to
Golgotha were a number of women who bewailed Him, and that Jesus, turning to
them, bade them weep rather for themselves and their children, for a time of such
distress was approaching that the curse of barrenness would be counted a blessing
(cf. Mit. xni. 17).
Joh. gives a different description of the scourging and mocking. Pilate, after the
mob's demand for Barabbas, directs Jesus to be scourged (apparently as a Ughter
punishment in Ueu of the extreme penalty clamoured for by the Jews, cf. Lk. xxiii.
22) ; and the soldiery, in addition, mock Him in the way recorded by the Synoptists.
Then PUate presents Jesus, wearing the scarlet (or purple) robe and the wreath of
thorns, to the Jews, who raise the cry " Crucify him " ; whereupon the governor
bids them take the responsibUity of His execution upon themselves, for he regards
Him as innocent. The Jews declare that by their Law He deserves death for repre
senting Himself as the Son of God. This alarms PUate, who, returning into the
castle, asks Jesus of His origin. Receiving no answer, he reminds Him of the power
he possesses over Him, and Jesus repUes that such power is only delegated to him
(by God). Pilate makes another effort to save Jesus' Ufe ; but fear of a charge of
treason which the mob begin to suggest at last causes him to surrender Him to His
enemies. The Fourth EvangeUst states that Jesus bore the cross for Himself (in
contrast to Mk. xv. 21).
§ 14. The Crucifixion and Burial
Before being fastened to the cross, Jesus was offered a draught of
wine drugged with myrrh, intended to dull the senses to the impending
torture ; but wishing seemingly to keep His mind unclouded as long as
possible, He refused it. The method of crucifixion is not indicated in the
Synoptists, but the victim's hands were usually made fast to the cross-bar
by nails (cf . Joh. xx. 25), and the feet were probably secured in the same
way (cf. Lk. xxiv. 40). The upright post projected above the cross-bar,
so that over the sufferer's head a notice could be placed, bearing his
name and describing his offence. Jesus was stripped of His garments
before He was fastened to the cross, and these fell as a perquisite to the
quaternion of soldiers who conducted the execution, and who divided
the different pieces among them, casting lots, if not for all, at least for
the tunic (xir<ov)f Above Jesus' head was placed a board bearing in
the three languages current in Palestine — Latin, Greek and Aramaic 3 —

1 More correctly Golgoltd.
2 Joh. xix. 23, 24, where the soldiers' action is regarded as a fulfilment of
Ps. xxn. 18.
3 These are mentioned only in Joh. xix. 20.
30

466 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
an inscription, of which the most probable Greek version, out of the four
given by the Evangehsts, is that which occurs in Joh., 'Irjaovg 6 Na£a>gaiog
6 [taaiXsvg r&v 'IovSaicov, though Mk. has no more than the last four
words. The title must, as the Fourth Evangehst represents, have given
great offence to the Jews, and there is nothing impossible in the statement
that the Boman governor, when they wished him to replace it by the
words, " I am the King of the Jews," found satisfaction for the mortification
they had occasioned him by curtly refusing to alter what he had written.
On either side of our Lord were crucified the two malefactors, robbers,
who were brought to be put to death with Him. By those of the passers-by
who were acquainted with the charge laid against Him, that He had
claimed to be able to destroy the Temple and restore it in three days,
these words were flung at Him, as He hung dying ; and He was bidden,
if possessed of the power to which He made pretensions, to descend from
the cross. Similar taunts were offered by such of the priests and Scribes
as watched His agonies : they 'exclaimed that His ability to save men
did not extend to Himself, and professed that if He, the Messiah, Israel's
King, would now perform before them the miracle of releasing Himself
from the cross, they would believe in Him. Even His feUow-sufferers
joined in deriding Him, and reproached Him for not using for His own
dehverance and theirs the superhuman resources which as Messiah He had
at His disposal. But the scoffing priesthood and its supporters were not
the only witnesses of the Lord's death, for a small group of broken-hearted
women also stood by the cross. They were those who had ministered to
Him in Gahlee, and had come with Him from thence to Jerusalem. Three
are named in particular by Mk., Mary of Magdala (who, according to
Lk. viii. 2, had once been a victim of demoniacal possession and had been
healed by Jesus), Mary, mother of James the Little and Joses (see p. 365),
and Salome, who may have been sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
These, whom devotion and sympathy chained to the spot, remained
until the end came.
ML, instead of the wine drugged with myrrh, substitutes wine mingled with gaU
(presumably to recajl Ps. lxix. 21 1), and gives for the title on the cross ovrbs iariv
'lijaovs 6 paaikebs r&v 'lovSalav. Lk. omits to mention the offer of the drugged
wine to Jesiis ; but states that the soldiers, mocking Him, offered Trim vinegar (cf.
Mk. xv. 36) ; relates that whilst our Saviour was being crucified, He prayed, " Father,
forgive them (i.e. the Jews, who were responsible jfor His death), for they know not
what they do " (cf. Acts in. 17) 2 ; and represents the inscription above the cross as
ourbs ia-nv 6 fiaqCKebs r&v 'lovSatuv. The scoffing attributed by Mk. (who is fol
lowed by ML) to both the malefactors is here ascribed to one only : the other, rebuking
his companion, begged Jesus to remember Him when He should come in His Kingdom,
and received from Jesus the reply that that day he should be with Him in Paradise
(the place of repose for the righteous after death (cf . 2 Cor. xn. 4, Rev. U. 7) ).
Joh. does npt allude to the mockery pf the priests and passers-by ; and in enumer
ating the women who stood by the Cross probably names four — the mother of Jesus,
her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Of these the last three may
with some plausibility be identified with those named by Mk., the sister of our Lord's
1 Mt. xxvii. 34 is adjusted to the psalm by the substitution in A and some other
textual authorities of 6fos for ofe(w.
2 Lk. xxiii. 34" is absent from B D W Lat. vet. (some codd. ), Syr. sin. and Eg. sah.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 467
mother being assumed to be Salome, and Mary the wife of Clopas to be Mary the
mother of James and Joses, The Evangelist relates that when Jesus saw His mother,
He commended her to the charge; of the disciple " whom He loved," and she was
taken by him to his own home. The Committal by Jesus of His mother to the care
of St. John (if he is meant fey the beloved disciple, p. 208) is inteUigible enough in
view of the fact that Mary's other chUdren did not beheve in His claims (p. 393),
and of the probabiUty that St. John was Mary's nephew ; but the absenoe of all
mention by St. Mark Of Mary's presence at the Cross is strange if she were reaUy there.
The crucifixion took place three hours before noon * ; and it is related
that, from midday until the time when Jesus breathed His last, darkness
covered the whole country (cf. Am. viii. 9). Any interval of gloom, from
whatever cause, coinciding with the last hours of the Saviour's dying
agony would inevitably become invested by Christian believers with
significance, since portents in the sky were thought in antiquity to mark
the death of great personalities.2
Of the last moments and dying words of our Lord the records preserved
are separately very brief in compass and divergent from one another
in detail. If the substance of Mk.'s account be followed (it most hkely
rests in the last resort upon the reports of witnesses hke the women and
Simon the Cyrenian), Jesus at the ninth hour from daybreak (i.e. about
three in the afternoon at this season of the year), cried (in the words of
Ps. xxii. 1), " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me '? " The
cry caused some who were standing near to think that He caUed for help
to Ehjah.3 One of the crowd, probably a Boman guard, compassionating
the inevitable thirst of the Sufferer, dipped a sponge in the mixture of
acid wine and water which, under the name of fosea, was used by the
soldiers as a beverage, and fastening it upon a reed or cane, pressed it
to His hps, whilst deprecating interference from his companions on the
plea that they should wait to see whether the appeal to Ehjah was answered.
After receiving the wine Jesus uttered a loud cry and then yielded up His
Spirit. The Evangelist records that at the moment when He expired
the veil of the Temple separating between the Holy Place and the Most
Holy was rent throughout. The statement is often taken hterally ; and
the occurrence attributed to the effect of an earthquake shock,4 such as
is recorded in Mt. But it is not ascribed to this cause by the only writer
who mentions an earthquake ; and it is probably to be understood in a
figurative sense, symbolizing the removal, through Christ, of every obstacle
impeding the approach of Christians to the very presence of God (cf.
Heb. x. 19, 20). Upon one of the spectators the circumstances of the
Lord's death produced a deep impression. This was the centurion, who
1 According to Joh. xix. 14 it was noon before Pilate deUvered Jesus to be crucified.
2 Cf. Verg. G. i. 466-8. Ille (the sun) etiam exstincto miseratus Ccesare Romam.
Cum caput obscura nitidum ferrugine texit, Impiaque ceternam timuerunt scecula noctem.
3 In Mk. xv. 34 most MSS. give as the opening words of our Lord's cry, 'EXwi;
'EW ; but D E have 'S\ei, 'R\el, which transUterates the Hebrew of the psalm and
explains better the mistake of the bystanders. In Mt. xxvn. 46 there is stiU stronger
authority for this reading.
* According to Jewish tradition there were two veUs before the Most Holy Place,
so thick and heavy that a rent in them could scarcely have been caused by an earth
quake (Edersheim, L- & T. u. p. 611).

468 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
was in command of the soldiers, and who may have heard the reason why
the Jewish priests had brought about His execution. From this man
the meekness and patience of Jesus (so unUke his previous experience of
similar scenes) and perhaps the gloom that shrouded the landscape,
extorted the confession that He whose sufferings he had watched was a
Son of God (the words perhaps meaning that He must have been a super
human Being,1 though interpreted by the EvangeUst in a Christian
sense (cf. Mk. i. 1) ).
The words which by Mk. (xv. 36) are put into the mouth of the soldier who offered
Jesus vinegar are attributed by Mt. to the rest of the spectators, and this is rather
more natural, since only Jews would be Ukely to mistake our Lord's cry for an appeal
to Ehjah. The First Evangehst mentions an earthquake as foUowing Jesus' death
and opening tombs from which rose the bodies of Christian beUevers,2 and entering
Jerusalem after Jesus' Resurrection appeared to numerous persons there. The
passage clearly preserves traditions of visions of the dead, seen, or supposed to be
seen, at a much later date than the Crucifixion, with which they are inappropriately
brought into connexion, through the fancy that the graves were opened by the
earthquake. Mt. unites others with the centurion in the acknowledgment that Jesus
was divine.
Lk. represents the darkness prevaihng from noon till our Lord's death as due to
the sun faiUng.3 If this is meant to suggest an eclipse (though it does not necessarily
do so), such an occurrence is impossible when the moon is full, as is the case on the
14th of a lunar month. The Evangelist omits Jesus' anguished appeal to God ; and
represents that the cry which He uttered just before He expired was, " Father, into
Thy hands I commend My spirit " (cf. Ps. xxxi. 5). For the centurion's oiros 6
dvBpairos Tibs Beov Ijv he substitutes 6 dvBpwiros ovros SlKaios %v (cf. Wisd. ii. 18) ; and
relates that the multitudes who witnessed what happened returned home smiting
their breasts.
; Joh. records that Jesus, after commending His mother to " the beloved disciple "
(p. 208) cried, " I thirst," thereby fulfilling the words of Ps. lxix. 21 ; that some one
raised to His hps a sponge f uU of vinegar by means of a hyssop-stem,4 and that Jesus,
when He received it, cried, " It is finished," and expired. If Joh.'s account is derived
from an eye-witness, the cry, " I thirst," though not mentioned by Mk., explains what
is related in Mk. xv. 36.
It was now late in the day (Friday, called the Preparation, cf. Jos.
Ant. xvi. 6, 2), and within a few hours there would begin the Sabbath,
which coincided with the Passover festival. The Mosaic Law forbade
that the corpse of a person hung or impaled should be left in that condition
during the night (Dt. xxi. 22, 23, cf . Jos. B.J. iv. 5, 2), so that no Jew who
respected his rehgion would have suffered those who had just been executed
to remain where they were. But the body of Jesus was not allowed to
be disposed of with the indignity with which the corpses of the two
criminals crucified with Him were probably treated, though it was not
the Apostles (perhaps by this time on their way to their Gahlean homes)
who saved it from being dishonoured. A member of the Sanhedrin and
1 Cf. Swete, St. Mk. p. 366.
2 For ayioi (ML xxvu. 52) cf. Actsix. 13, 41.
3 In Lk. xxiii. 45 rov ij\lov iKXelwovros is read by K B C L and the Eg. versions,
though A D, etc. and the Lat. and Syriao versions have xai iaKorlo-Bij 6 ^Xios.
4 Hyssop, a species of marjoram, though having a straight slender stalk, is not a
very suitable means for the purpose desoribed (contrast Ex. xii. 22, 1 Kg. iv. 33),
and it has been conjectured that iaaibirip is a textual error for ih-<rip, " a spear-shaft."

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 469
a man of position, caUed Joseph, a resident of Arimathea (p. 6), who,
looking for the Messianic Kingdom (with Mk. xv. 43 cf. Lk. ii. 25, 38),
had probably come to identify Jesus with the Messiah (cf . Mt. xxvii. 57,
Joh. xix. 38), and had taken no part in condemning Him (cf. Lk. xxiii. 51),
found courage to apply to the Boman governor for permission to pay the
last offices to Him. Pilate was surprised at the information that He was
already dead, and it was only after verifying the fact through the centurion
that he granted the request. Joseph, having bought a hnen cloth, and
probably obtaining help from a friend or friends, took the Body down
from the Cross, wrapped It in the hnen, and carried It to a neighbouring
tomb hewn in the face of a rock, the entrance of which he closed with- a
stone. The place of burial is represented as observed by Mary Magdalene
and Mary the mother of Joses.
ML, who describes Joseph as a rich man, and the tomb in which he laid Jesus as
newly made and intended for himself (cf. 2 Is. Uii. 9), proceeds to relate that on the
morrow (i.e. on the Sabbath) the priests and Pharisees petitioned Pilate to make the
sepulchre secure until the third day, lest the disciples pf Jesus should secretly remove
the Body, and then pretend that His prediction that He would rise from the dead
after three days had been fulfiUed. 1 Pilate gave them leave to take a guard of Roman
soldiers and secure the sepulchre, which they did by sealing the stone (cf . Dan. vi. 17)
in the presence of the soldiers. In view of the fact that the Apostles themselves did
not understand what our Lord meant when He spoke of His rising from the dead (Mk.
ix. 32), it is unlikely that the Jews attached any importance to His words, even if
they were acquainted with them ; and such an apphcation, as here described, to a
Gentile on the Sabbath, and the performance, on that day, of such work as was involved
in the sealing, seems even more improbable. In Mk., who is followed by Lk., there
is no hint that the tomb was sealed and guarded.
Joh. relates that the Jews asked Pilate, in case those who had been crucified were
not yet dead, that their legs might be broken to put an end to the remnant of Ufe
in them, and so enable the bodies to be removed. The two robbers were stiU aUve ;
but Jesus had already expired. One of the soldiers, however, stabbed His side,
causing to issue forth a gush of blood and water. The occurrence is vouched for by a
witness who is possibly the writer of the Gospel (p. 224) ; and who affirms emphaticaUy
the certainty of his knowledge. 2 If the narrative reaUy rests upon such good authority,
the details it supphes supplement very considerably the brief account in Mk. The
explanation of the outflow of blood and water is obscure ; but it has been suggested that
there occurred a rupture of the heart, foUowed by an effusion of blood into the lungs and
the filling of the pericardium with serous fluid. This blood (it is supposed) had rapidly
separated into its more solid and more liquid constituents ; and these, when they
issued forth after the pericardium had been penetrated by the soldier's lance, were
distinguishable to the sight.3 Iii the circumstance that Christ's Umbs were not
broken, but that His body was pierced, the EvangeUst saw a fulfilment of certain
Scriptural passages — Ex. xu. 46, Num. ix. 12 (referring to the Paschal Lamb), Ps.
xxxiv. 20, 2 Zech. xu. 10 (where, though the majority of Heb. MSS. have me, some read
him). The Fourth Evangehst, in his account of the Burial, states that Joseph was aided
1 As the prediction is represented as " remembered " by the Pharisees the reference
seems to be to Mt. xU. 40.
2 In Joh. xix. ,35 the witness appeals to some one who is acquainted with the
truth of his statement, " He (iKeTvos) Jaioweth that he (the witness) saith true " ;
but it is uncertain who is meant by eKeivos. The pronoun has been taken to refer
(a) to the writer himself (cf. ix. 37) ; (6) to the disciple " whom Jesus loved " (mentioned
in xix. 26) ; (c) to the Living Christ (see 1 Joh. in. 3, 5, 16, and cf. the asseveration
in 2 Cor. xi. 31). The last seems the best explanation.
3 Stroud, Physical Cause of the Death of Christ, quoted by Westcott.

470 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
in the removal of the Body from the Cross by Nicodemus (previously mentioned in
iii. 1 f., vii. 50)_ and that the two brought a mixture 1 of spices, weighing about a
hundred pounds, which they used in preparing it for burial. It is not. asserted that
what is here recorded rests (hke the statement in xix. 34) upon the first-hand testimony
of an eye-witness ; and the quantity of spices seems excessive ; but if there was any
thing done to embalm the Body, the appropriate occasion would be before (as here
represented),! and not after, It was laid in the tomb.
§ 15. Life from the Dead
It has been seen that Jesus, after His avowal to His disciples at Csesarea
Phihppi that He was the Christ, explained that suffering and death awaited
Him, though He was not destined to remain in the world of the dead, but
to rise again from it. But their expectations prevented them from
understanding Him ; to them the death of the Messiah was an idea
unfamiliar and umnteUigible. Consequently, when He was arrested, they
forsook Him and fled ; and when He ended His earthly life on the Cross,
the hopes which they had fixed on Him ended also. From this condition
of despair they emerged within a very brief period (not exceeding, at
the most, a few weeks), with their faith in Him not only renewed but
heightened ; and they proceeded to attempt to convert their countrymen
to the1 same behef which they themselves had regained, namely, that the
Jesus Who had been crucified was reaUy the Messiah predicted by the
prophets. This transition from the profoundest despondency to buoyant
confidence, inducing multitudes of persons to credit their statements and
resulting in the rapid growth of the Christian Church, has to be accounted
for ; and the existence of that Church is the best evidence that some
real experiences he behind the records im the Gospels and elsewhere in
the New Testament, representing that Jesus after His death and burial
showed Himself to be alive. The nature of those experiences it is now
necessary to examine by consideration of the earhest testimony available.
Unfortunately the earhest Gospel on which principal rehance has
been placed for the history of our Lord's earthly life is, as regards an
account of His Eesurreetion, incomplete. Of the concluding chapter of Mk.
only the first eight verses are genuine. The remaining twelve verses are
absent from the oldest MSS. and various other textual authorities, and
seem to be of decidedly later origin (p:. 180): Of the rest of the Gospels
only one, viz. Mt., contains a narrative which in part, at least, may with
some plausibility be regarded as based upon the missing portion of Mk.
In, the instance of Lk. the divergences from what is suggested by Mk.
and related by Mt. are too considerable to be derived from Mk.'s lost
conclusion. In the first chapter of Acts there is a description of Christ's
final departure to heaven, which conveys a different idea from that
produced by the account in the last chapter of the Third Gospel, though
both proceed from the same author. The Fourth Gospel has a narrative
virtually peouliar to itself, though not without points of contact with
the other Gospels.
In consequence of the mutUation of Mk., evidence from the Gospels
1 Most MSS. have puyim, but N B have SXiypu (" a roU ").

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 471
respecting the circumstances and manner in which Jesus gave proof,
after He had been put to death, that He was ahve, comes from relatively
tate sources. Happily this deficiency of early evidence from the Gospels
is in sOme measure made good by information forthcoming from another
quarter. This is the testimony of St. Paul, afforded partly by himself in
1 Cor. xv. (which is prior in date to any of the Gospels), and partly, through
St. Luke, in various narratives comprised in Acts. The most trustworthy
account, then, of the Besurrection must be looked for from the witness of
St. Paul (direct or indirect), in combination with the narrative of Mk. xvi.
1-8,- supplemented by that contained in Mt. xxviii. 10, 16, 17 (as presum
ably resting upon what was once included in Mk.). The accounts of Lk.
and Joh. require, of course, to be noticed ; but in consequence of their
later date, and the difficulty of tracing their origin, they wiU be treated as
of secondary value.
It wUl conduce to clearness to consider separately: —
I. The earhest evidence relating to the time when Jesus rose from the
dead, and to the occasions when He showed Himself ahve.
It. The earhest evidence bearing. upOn the nature of the appearances
of the Eisen Lord.
III. Various conclusions deducible from such evidence.
I. The Earliest Evidence for the Time qf the Resurrection and of the
Appearances of- the Risen Jesus
The documentary testimony earUest in date is that of St. Paul, who
in 1 Gor. xv. 3 f.,teUs the Corinthians that what he had related to them
concerning the appearances of the1 Bisen Lord he had himself received
from members of the Church. He recounts how that Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried; that He had
been raised- On the third day according' to the Scriptures ; that He had
appeared to Cephas (Peter) ; then' to the " Twelve " ; then to above
500' brethren together ; then to' James ; then to all1 the Apostles ; and,
last of all, to himself. It is desirable to comment briefly upon various
matters contained in this statement.
(i) The six appearances enumerated are not necessarily exhaustive
of all that had come to St. Paul's knowledge, though there is nothing
that suggests a Selection out of a large number. Only two can be plausibly
identified with any recorded in the Gospels. The first (to Peter alone)'is
perhaps alluded to in Mk. xvi. 7, by the separate mention of that Apostle ;
the' second (to the Twelve) is probably the Same as that related m'Mt. xxviii.
16, the " twelve " being strictly eleven.
(ii)' In regard to the scenes of these appearances no particular localities
are specified by St. Paul. But from the evidence of St. Mark and of the
First Evangelist it seems probable that the earhest, at least, occurred
in Gahlee. (a) According to Mk. xiv. 28 Jesus, when predicting His
resurrection, declared that He would go; befbre His Arjostles ihtb Gahlee.
(b) Mt'., whose account in xxviii. 1-8 agrees substantially with MTc. xvi. i^4,
and who may be presumed in xxviii. 16 f . to have made some use also of the
missing part of the Second Gospel^ expressly states that' it was in Gahlee

472 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
that the eleven disciples saw their Lord (xxvni. 16, 17). The third appear
ance — that to 500 together — probably occurred in GalUee ; for at Jerusalem
even by Pentecost the number of believers appears to have been not
more than 120 in all (Acts i. 15). Presumably the 500 included Joseph
Barsabbas and Matthias.1
(iii) St. Paul represents that Christ was raised " on the third day
according to the Scriptures " ; and the form of the statement leaves it
uncertain whether the Apostle's assertion had behind it the testimony
of witnesses independently of the Scriptures, or whether it was a prediction
in the Scriptures (Ps. xvi. 10 and Hos. vi. 2) which afforded ground for it.
None of the New Testament writings affirms that any human eye beheld
Jesus rise from the dead ; but St. Mark has a narrative which imphes
that proof was forthcoming early on the third day after the Crucifixion
that He had already risen from the grave. Three women, Mary Magdalene,
Mary, mother of James the Little, and Salome (the same that had watched
the Crucifixion, Mk. xv. 40), went to the tomb of Jesus very early after
sunrise on Sunday morning to anoint His body ; discovered to their surprise
that the stone closing the sepulchre had been removed ; saw a young
man (clearly an angel 2) seated within, who declared that Jesus was risen
and was not there (they might see where He had been laid) ; and were
directed by him to inform His disciples and Peter (assumed to be stiU in
Jerusalem) that they should see Him in Gahlee as He had previously
told them (see Mk. xiv. 28) . The narrative goes on to relate that the women
fled from the tomb in a panic, and said nothing to anyone because they
were afraid. The Gospel now ends abruptly with the words iyoflovvro
ydg, but it is unhkely that it originaUy concluded thus ; and in view of
what is recorded in Mt. xxvhi. 16, 17 (if this may be assumed to be
dependent on Mk.), it seems probable that the women's fear did not
prevent them from conveying the angel's message eventuaUy to the
disciples, perhaps in Jerusalem, possibly in Gahlee, and that in Gahlee
the latter saw their Lord. To this visit of the women to the grave St. Paul
makes no aUusion, though, as he confines himseU to mentioning successive
appearances of Jesus to the Apostles and others, and there is no record in
Mk. of any appearance of the Lord to the women, his silence about it, if
he knew of it, is exphcable.
The earhest evidence, then, concerning the time of the Besurrection,
and the scenes and occasions of the Appearances, yields the foUowing
conclusions : —
According to Mk. it was beheved that Jesus rose from the dead (not,
was seen ahve) on the third day after His death, because on that day
an angel announced the fact to some women at the grave, which was found
1 Since St. Luke wrote Acts, it is natural to suppose that, when in it St. Paul is
represented as saying at Pisidian Antiooh that Jesus was seen at Jerusalem by those
who had attended Him on His journey thither from GalUee (Acts xiii. 30), the writer
has in mind the occasion described in his own Gospel (xxiv. 36 f.). It is curious that
there is no mention in Acts of the appearance to the 500 recorded by St. Paul
(1 Cor. xv. 6).
2 Cf. the descriptions in Mk. xvi. 5, Lk. xxiv. 4, Acts i. 10.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 473
empty ; but the testimony of St. Paul (an earUer witness), who, though he
mentions the burial of Jesus, does not aUude to any discovery that the
grave was empty, makes it possible that the behef that the Besurrection
occurred on the Third day originated in consequence of an Old Testament
prophecy. Jesus showed HimseU aUve in Gahlee, probably first of aU
to St. Peter, and then to the rest of the Eleven, but, if so, not untU an
interval had elapsed after the Crucifixion long enough to aUow them to
journey thither from Jerusalem.1 In connexion with subsequent appear
ances to 500 beUevers coUectively, to James individuaUy, and to aU the
Apostles (i.e. including others besides the Eleven) no locahties are anywhere
mentioned. An appearance many years later was seen by St. Paul near
Damascus. The accounts contained in the other three Gospels are as foUows : —
In Mt. the narrative describing how the Jews, after our Lord's burial, sealed the
stone closing the sepulchre, and set a watch (p. 469), naturaUy affects the writer's
story of the Resurrection. He recounts that late on the Sabbath day, as it was
drawing close to the first day of the week (i.e. late on Saturday evening),2 Mary
Magdalene and " the other Mary " (i.e. the mother of James and Joses) went to see
the grave (contrast Mk. xvi. 1) ; that there occurred a great earthquake, and that
an angel descended to remove the stone, causing the guards to be paralysed with
fear. After the latter had reported to the Jewish authorities what had happened,
they were bribed to say that they had slept at their posts, and that during their
slumber the body of Jesus was taken from the tomb by His disciples. The story
must have arisen at a time when the behef that the sepulchre was found empty was
undisputed, or could not be refuted, but when controversy prevaUed between Christians
and their Jewish adversaries as to how the circumstance was to be explained. Certain
improbabUities attaching to the account in Mt. xxvn. 62—66, of which the narrative
in xxviu. 11-15 is the sequel, have already been noticed (p. 469). Besides making
this addition to Mk. the Eirst EvangeUst expands and modifies the latter's narrative
concerning the women. By the angel, who was seated on the stone and so was outside
the grave (contrast Mk. xvi. 5), the two women were told that Jesus had risen, and
were bidden to inform TTia Apostles that they were to see Him in Gahlee. EiUed
with fear and great joy they ran with aU speed to convey the tidings (contrast Mk.
xvi. 8) ; and on the way were met by Jesus Himself, Whose feet they clasped, and
by Whom the angel's message was repeated. The Apostles went to GalUee to a certain
mountain appointed by Jesus ; saw their Lord there ; and worshipped Him, though
some others doubted. Nothing is said of their subsequent movements. The narra
tive finally represents that the Lord instructed them to make disciples of aU nations
(cf . xxiv. 14 = Mk. xiii. 10, and see p. 613) and to baptize them -' into " the name
(p. 628) of the Trinity, and assured them of His continual presence with them.
The account of Jesus' appearance to the Apostles in Galilee probably reproduces
the lost conclusion of Mk. (p. 471) ; but it is unhkely that the meeting of the women
with Jesus was related by Mk.,3 for it is difficult to reconcUe it with the inference
that may reasonably be drawn from St. Paul and the surviving portion of Mk.'s last
chapter combined together. These convey the impression that the appearance of
the Lord to Peter and the other Apostles in Gahlee, which could not have occurred
on the third day after the Crucifixion (see above), was the earliest oi aU. The compara
tively late origin of the contents of ML xxviu. is suggested by the tenor of the
final instructions represented as given to the Apostles by Jesus, for these seem to
reproduce conceptions of the scope of the Christian Church which were only realized
1 The distance between them could be covered in three days (Jos. Vii. 52).
2 For the use of r% iiri<pw(rKoi<rri els filav o-apipdruv (Saturday passing into Sunday)
cf. Lk. xxiii. 54 xai ad§j3arov iirlqiuo-Kev (Friday passing into Saturday).
3 " This incident [related in ML xxviii. 9, 10] is probably a late addition," McNeUe,
St. Mt. p. 432.

474 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
graduaUy, and to embody a formula of baptism which is not that which was used in
early Apostohc times (p. 628).
Lk., in the early paft of his account, foUows Mk. xvi. 1-8, but with conspicuous
differences. It is related that a group of women, including, but not confined to,
Mary Magdalene, Joanna wife of CBuZa. and Mary the mother of James, after resting
on the Sabbath, came at early dawn on the first day of the week to render the last
tribute of care to their Lord's body, and discovered the stone which had closed the
tomb (not previously mentioned in Lk., but in Mk. xv. 46) roUed away. When tliey
entered tlie tomb they did not find the Body ; and whilst they were perplexed, tvti! 1
angelb (contrast Mk. xvi. 5) stood by' them, who declared that1 Jfesus was not there
but riseni Instead!,, however,, of charging them with a message for the Apostles.
bidding them go to GalUee (as in Mk. xvi. 7), where they would see the Lord, they
merely reminded them of an utterance of Jesus whilst He was yet in Galilee (see Lk.
ix. 22 2 and contrast Mk. vm. 31), the departure' from Mk.'s account being necessitated
by the Third EvangeUst's subsequent representation that the Lord appeared to the
Apostles only in Jerusalem. The women informed the Apostles and others of their
experiences at the sepulchre, but were disbelieved. Of any appearance to them of
Jesus Himself (as in ML xxviu. 9. 10) no mention is made here.
From this point Lk.'s narrative is independent of Mk. Three incidents are recorded.
(o) Peter, to test the story of trie women, went to the tomb, found the Body absent,
but saw the Unen cloths that had wrapped It, and departed wondering to his home
(seemingly in Jerusalem). s (b) The same day two disciples (one being named Cleopas) ,
whilst journeying.to a village caUed Emmaus (p. 6), were overtaken by a Stranger,
to Whom tbey related how Jesus ot Nazareth, Who, they had hoped, would prove the
predicted Redeemer of Israel (cf. u. 25, 38, Acts i. 6), had been crucified, how certain
women, visiting His sepulchre, had discovered it empty, and had been told by angels
that He was ahve, and how the emptiness of the tomb had been confirmed by some
of their own number (this incident not being otherwise recorded in Lk. ). The Stranger
chided them for not crediting the prophecies which foretold the Christ's suffering's
prior to His entrance upon His glory, and which He now interpreted ; and when they
invited Him to sup with them, He Himself broke the bread, as though presiding a"t
the meal (cf. Mk. vi. 41, viu. 6, xiv. 22), and immediately vanished from their sight.
Returning to Jerusalem, they informed the Apostles, and were told by them * that the
Lord was risen and had appeared unto Simon (this appearance being apparently
identical with that to Peter recorded in 1 Cor. xv. 5, but represented as occurring in
Jerusalem, not, as suggested by Mk. xvi. 7, in Gahlee). (c) As the two related their
experiences, Jesus stood in the midst of the company, greeted them,5 reassured them
(for they were terrified) by showing them His hands and feet, bearing the marks of
the nails,6 bade them handle Him, and ate food before them (cf. Acts x. 41). He
then declared that by what had happened certain words of His, spoken before His
death, were fulfilled ; helped them to understand the Scriptures, which had foretold
His Passion, Resurrection, and the universal preaching, in His name, of repentance
and forgiveness (cf . ML xxviu. 19 and p. 473) ; and enjoined them to wait at Jerusalem
untU they were endowed with the Spirit (cf. Lk. ni. 16, Acts i. 8). After this (appar-
1 The tendency for numbers to increase with the lapse of time is iUustrated by
Mt. viii. 28, and xx. 30 as compared with Mk. v. 2 and x. 46. Two angels figure in
the narrative of the Ascension (Acts i. 10).
2 The declaration here recorded was addressed to the Twelve.
3 Lk. xxiv. 12, recounting the episode, is absent from D, and from' several MSS.
of the Old Latin and Old Syriac ; it has been suggested that it originated with Joh.
xx. 2-10. It is possible that irpbs abrbv should go with Bav/tdj;av (" wondering to
himself "ty and not with dirijXBev.
1 In Lk. xxiv. 34 most MSS. have Xiyovras, but D has Xiyovres, implying that
Cleopas and his companion told the Apostles that Jesus had appeared unto Simon,
which involves the improbable conclusion that one of the Apostles (either Peter or
Simon the Zealot) Was Cleopas' companion. The two traveUers when they returned
found "the eleven" (i.e. all the Apostles except Judas) gathered together ,(w. 33).
6 In Lk. xxiv. 36 the greeting is absent from D and Lat. vet. ; cf. Joh. xx. 19.
6 Lk. xxiv. 40 is absent from the same authorities.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 475
entry on the evening of the same day, though the narrative may be compressed and
the contents of v. 50 may not be meant to be continuous with those of int. 44-49).
He led them out to the neighbourhood of Bethany, aild tlhere, after blessing them,
He was separated from them and carried1 up into heaven.1'
This account of the Ascension is modified by St. Luke in Acts. There (i. 1-11)
it is related' that Christ appeared unto the. Apostles at intervals during forty days (a
conventional figure (Mk. i. 13, Ex. xxiv. 18, Ezek. iv. 6, Jonah iu. 4) ) ; that at the end
of this period He was taken up visibly into the clouds ; and' that as the disciples
gazed after Hun two angels stood by them, and declared that Jesus Who had just
been received into heaven was destined to return thence' in Uke manner.
Lk.'s account in xxiv. 36 f . cannot be reconcUed with the'narrative of Jesus' appear
ance to the Eleven contained in Mt. xxviu. 16, the scene of which is a mountain in
Gahlee. There- is, of Course, no difficulty in supposing that our Lord' appeared at
one time to the Apostles in GalUee, and was seen at another time by them in Jerusalem ;
but certainly Lk. and almost certainly Mt. regard the Appearance which each separ
ately records as being the first manifestation of the Risen Lord' to the Eleven. Lk.
omits both Jesus* prediction that His disciples would be scattered', and the record
of its fulfilment (Mk. xiv. 27, 50) ; and by representing the Apostles as directed to
stay in Jerusalem until they received power from on high (xxiv. 49) expressly excludes
any appearances in Galilee prior to the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. It
becomes necessary, therefore, to choose between the two accounts ; and'it seems toler
ably certain that Mt. (p. 471) contains the earUer and that Lk. has transferred the
Appearance in Galilee to Jerusalem intentionaUy. This transfer has occasioned
the Third Evangelist to modify seriously the passage in Mk. xvi. 7 '('see Lk. xxiv. 6, 7)'.
If the appearance to Simon, referred to in xxiv. 34 is the same as that to St. Peter
mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. 5, and the scene of the latter was originally Gahlee (as Mk.
xvi. 7 suggests), this, too, has been transferred by Lk. to Jerusalem. No other evange
hst describes JesUs' Ascension into heaven (though see Mk. xvi. 19), and the two
versions of it, in the Gospel and Acts, are not, as they stand, easily harmonized. Pre
sumably in Acts the EvangeUst sought to preserve a tradition which he had learnt
since the composition of his first Work.
Though the period of forty days (Acts i. 3) is conventional, yet inasmuch as no
appearances of the Risen Lord are recorded after Pentecost (fifty days after Easter)
except that seen by St. Paul, it seems probable that all, with this exception, occurred
approximately within six weeks.
Joh. describes how Mary Magdalene, seemingly unaccompanied by other women 2
(contrast Mk. xvi. 1, Mt. xxvui. 1, Lk. xxui. 55 (cf. vm. 2) ), came early to the tomb,
on the first day of the week (Sunday) whilst it was yet dark (contrast Mk. xvi'. 2),
her purpose not being mentioned.3 On reaching it, she found the stone removed ;
and on discovering that the tomb was open, she inferred that the body of the Lord
had been taken away, and returning hastily, she reported to Peter and John her con
clusion. The two Apostles, on hearing her tale, ran to the sepulchre and looking
into it, found' it empty save for the cloths in which the Body had been wrapped and
which retained the relative positions that they occupied when they swathed' the
Body.* They drew the same inference as Mary, and returned to their home (assumed
to be Jerusalem). Mary, who had seemingly foUowed them back to the graveside,
remained by it weeping ; and, Uke the Apostles previously, she looked into it and saw
two angels within (cf . Lk. xxiv. 4). In answer to their inquiries why she wept, she
explained that the' Body of her Lord, Which she was Seeking, nad beett'removed. Then
turning round, she suddenly beheld the Lord Himself, though she did not recognize
Him. He put to her the same inquiry as the angelis ; and she, taking Him to b!e
the gardener, asked Him, in case He had taken aWay the Body, to teU her where it
1 In Lk. xxiv. 51 the words Kal dveQlpero eis rbv pipavbv are absent from N I),
Lat. vet. (most codd.), Syr. vet.
2 Note however the we in xx. 2.
3 It could not have been to anoint the Body, since, according to the writer, tliis
had previously been done by Joseph and Nicodemus (xix. 39, 40).
* Attention is drawn to the' fact in order to show that the Body had not been
removed in haste by human hands.

476 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
had been laid. Jesus then addressed her by her name, whereupon she knew Him
and tried to embrace His feet, but was forbidden to touch Him, since He had not yet
ascended to His Father ; and she was then directed to teU His disciples that His ascen
sion to God was near, and this command she fulfiUed. Occurrences that are pecuhar
to this narrative are the information carried by Mary Magdalene to Peter and John,
the visit of these to the tomb together, and the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene
alone. It wiU be observed that the message here conveyed by Mary Magdalene to
the Apostles differs alike from the message committed to the women by the angel
in Mk. xvi. 7, and that carried by the women in Lk. xxiv. 9. It would seem that
the visit of St. Peter and St. John to the sepulchre here recorded can hardly have
found place in Mk., though the latter Gospel is based on the reminiscences of St. Peter.
But the most notable feature in the Johannine account is the reason for our Lord's
refusal to allow Mary to touch Him. Iu view of the fact that a week afterwards
(as related below) He expressly bade St. Thomas feel His hands and His side, it
looks as if the writer supposed that the Ascension occurred between the appearance
to Mary and the appearance to the eleven Apostles.
It was in the evening that Jesus is described as first presenting Himself to
the disciples as they were gathered together within closed doors for fear of the Jews
(St. Thomas being absent). He displayed to them His hands and side to convince
them of His identity ; and then by breathing on them He imparted to them the Holy
Spirit, and empowered them to forgive or to retain the sins of men. This incident
seems to be another version of that narrated in Lk. xxiv. 36, the scene of both being
placed in Jerusalem, though in the Third Gospel the gift of the Spirit is promised for
a future time, a promise represented in Acts U. as fulfilled at Pentecost.
A second appearance to the Apostles on the same day in the foUowing week is
narrated in the Fourth Gospel only. St. Thomas, on his return to the rest of the
company, had doubted whether He Whom the other Apostles declared they had seen
was really the Jesus Who had been crucified. When the Eleven (Thomas now being
included) were gathered together under the same conditions as before, Jesus once
more appeared, and, after the customary greeting, bade St. Thomas satisfy himself
that his Master really stood before him. St. Thomas, without applying the test he
had desired, confessed himself convinced, saying, " My Lord and my God " ; whereupon
Jesus pronounced blessed those who, without seeing, yet beheved. It is not improb
able that the narrative is introduced for the sake of this Beatitude. The author of
the Gospel had in mind the numerous Christian beUevers who had never seen Christ,
and in whom faith had been created (independently of any proof appealing to the
senses) by the evidence of the Scriptures and by an affinity of spirit between them
and their Lord ; and so, desiring to assure them that Christ counted them more
deserving of blessedness than those whose eyes had beheld Him, he embodied his
conviction in the narrative just considered.
In addition to the accounts of our Lord's appearances contained in the original
portion of the Fourth Gospel, there is another in the Appendix (ch. xxi.), which is of
an exceptional character. It relates that when seven of the disciples — Peter,, the
two sons of Zebedee, Thomas, Nathanael and two others that are unnamed — were
in GalUee (whither they cannot have gone until at least a week after the Resurrection,
if the contents of this ch. are supposed to be subsequent to those of ch. xx.), and were
fishing by night in the lake unsuccessfuUy, they saw in the morning on the beach
one whom they did not recognize, but who haUed them and inquired whether they
had aught to eat. On their replying in the negative, they were told to cast the net
on the right side of the boat ; and at once they enclosed so large a catch that they
were unable without assistance to drag the net to land. The marvel of the occurrence
led St. John to exclaim to St. Peter that it was the Lord, whereupon St. Peter leaped
into the sea to go to Him. When the boat came to shore, the occupants found a
fire kindled there, with bread and fish ; and Jesus bade them bring of the fishes which
they had taken (in aU they numbered 153) 1 and break their fast ; and Himself dis
tributed the food. The passage is foUowed by a narrative of a conversation between
our Lord and St. Peter, in which Christ eUcited from the Apostle a three-fold confession
1 Possibly aU the various kinds of fish were considered to amount to this number,
and to represent symbolically all mankind or all the Gentiles.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 477
of affection, enjoined upon him the care of His flock, and indicated that he would
suffer martyrdom ; whilst an inquiry by St. Peter about the fate in store for St; John
was answered in a way that left his curiosity unsatisfied. What makes the first part
of this account remarkable is the close resemblance which it bears to a narrative,
including a miraculous catch of fishes, which is contained in Lk. v. 3-11, and which
St. Luke substitutes for the account of the caU of Simon, Andrew, and the two sons
of Zebedee given in Mk. i. 16-20 (p. 374). The features of likeness are (a) the fruitless
night's fishing, (6) the direction by Jesus that the fishermen should let down the net
again, (c) the immediate success that attended their obedience, (d) the need of help
to bring the laden net to land. If, then in view of these simUarities a common
tradition Ues behind both of these narratives, one of them has been distorted from
its original significance. Prima facie the large catch of fish common to both is rather
more congruous with a caU of the disciples to become fishers of men (as in Lk.) than
with an appearance of the Risen Christ (as in Joh.). On the other hand, St. Peter's
confession of sinfulness in Lk. v. 8 (though absent from Joh.) is not adequately motived
by anything previously recorded of him in the Third Gospel ; and accords better
with the supposition that it was once connected with some incident subsequent to
his denial of Ius Master. If the original source of the narrative was a tradition referring
to a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to His disciples (as recorded in Joh.), the
particular miracle occurring in it may have caused St. Luke to regard it as really
relating to the caU of the disciples to become fishers of men ; and he would be the
more inclined to view it in this hght since he wished to confine the Resurrection
appearances of our Lord to Jerusalem. As the account stands in Joh., it is the third
appearance of the Lord to members of the Apostohc band (cf . Joh. xxi. 14), though the
first in Gahlee ; and is clearly distinct from that in ML xxviu. 16. The representation
that the disciples were engaged in fishing in the Lake of Gahlee when they saw their
Lord seems to reflect a tradition that after the Crucifixion they not only returned to
GalUee but resumed their ordinary avocations there.
FinaUy, aUusion may here be made to the narratives in the unauthentic endings
of Mk. (p. 180f.). Neither adds anything of importance or of independent value to
what is related elsewhere. It is noteworthy that the Longer Ending seems to represent
the Ascension as taking place from the chamber where Jesus manifested Himself to the
Eleven as they sat at meat ; but the discrepancy with Lk. xxiv. 50 is probably due to
compression. II. The Earliest Evidence for the Nature of the Appearances
No light is thrown upon the nature of the first appearance of the
Lord in Galilee by the two Gospels which allude to, or narrate, it, for
Mk.'s account of it is lost, and Mt.'s account is too brief to be illuminating.
Mk., however, with whom aU the other Gospels agree, represents that
the Sepulchre was found on the third day empty (p. 472), and this, if a
fact, implies a physical resuscitation of the Lord's body. This idea is
accentuated and amplified in the narratives of Mt., Lk. and Joh., which
respectively describe how the women whom Jesus met as they were leaving
the grave took hold of His feet (Mt. xxviii. 9) ; how, when He appeared
to the Apostles at Jerusalem, He bade them handle Him and see that He
was not a spirit, but was possessed of flesh and bones, showed them His
hands and feet that had been pierced with the nails, and ate before them
(Lk. xxiv. 36-43) ; and how He told Thomas to satisfy his doubts by
putting his hand into the wound in His side (Joh. xx. 27). It is also re
asserted by St. Luke in Acts, where he reports that both St. Peter and St.
Paul declared that Christ's flesh saw no corruption (Acts ii. 31, xiii. 37),
and that St. Peter affirmed that certain chosen witnesses (the Apostles)
ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead (Acts x. 41). But
since both Lk. and Joh. ascribe to the Risen Lord the power of appearing

478 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and vanishing at wUl, and the latter emphasizes the circumstance that He
could enter and depart through closed doors (Lk. xxiv. 31, Joh. xx. 19, 26),
it follows that these Evangelists must have thought that the stone was
supernaturally removed from the entrance of the grave not in order to
allow the Lord to issue forth, but to aUow those who visited the sepulchre
to see that it was no longer tenanted. It is possible that the same belief
lies behind the narrative of St. Mark (see especiaUy xvi. 6) ; but the
absence of any account of the meeting between Jesus and the Apostles
prevents a confident conclusion.
The Gospels, however, are not the only evidence relating to the nature
of the Resurrection Body. Among those who saw the Risen Christ was
St. Paul, and though he gives no detailed account of the vision which he
beheld near Damascus, he explains in 1 flor. xv. his convictions about the
Resurrection of dead men, which must have been based to some extent
upon his personal experiences. Of the vision near Damascus three
narratives are contained in Acts (ch. ix., xxii., and xxvi.) ; and it is expe
dient to notice these as weU as the conclusions expressed by the Apostle
in 1 Cor.
(a) The author of Acts was a Companion of St. Paul at several periods of
his career (p. 235 f.), so that he was in a position to know what explanation
the Apostle gave of the great crisis in his life ; whilst he probably heard
the speech delivered to the Jews which is reported in xxii.1 The three
narratives are compared with one another in some detaU elsewhere :
here it will suffice to treat them together. They aU agree in affirming
that an intense light was seen, and a Vpice heard ; but they leave it
doubtful whether the Voice was audible to any but St. Paul, and say
nothing of a visible or tangible Form. But as the Apostle in certain
passages of his Epistles declares that he had seen the Lord, it must be
inferred that he was conscious of a Presence near him, and believed that
he had direct intercourse with the Living Messiah.
(6) St. Paul's own statements about the Resurrection relate primarUy
to the resurrection of Christians ; but it seems legitimate to gather from
these his convictions about that of Christ. Since he anticipated that not
aU Christians would die before Christ's Return, he takes account of two
classes — those who would then be alive and those who would have pre
viously passed away. Though it is only in connexion with those dying
before the Second Coming that the Apostle's expectations throw any
light upon his thoughts respecting Christ's resurrection, yet it wiU be
expedient to notice what he says of each class. (1) Those who would be
alive at the Return he anticipated would be changed in an instant, their
mortal and corruptible bodies being replaced by spiritual bodies, immortal
and incorruptible (1 Cor, xv. 51-53). Such a transformation he regarded
as inevitable, since flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God.
The body with which the human soul was invested during this Ufe of
humiliation would be refashioned and conformed to Christ's Body, which
1 This was deUvered in Aramaio, but St. Luke (especiaUy if he were an Antioehene,
p. 195), may have been acquainted with the tongue.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 479
was a glorious Body (Phil. iii. 21). The new tabernacle for the soul,
described as reserved for it in heaven (2 Cor. v. 1), would be, as it were,
drawn over .the existing fleshly habitation (which would then be dissolved
in some unexplamed way), so that what had been previously a material
body would become a spiritual body, and what was mortal would be
swaUowed up by life (2 Cor. v. 4). (2) In the case of the dead, the Apostle
thought that the soul, abiding in the nether world, would also be suddenly
invested with a spiritual and glorious body and would rise with it. He
seems to have conceived of the souls of the dead, during the interval
between death and the Return of Christ, as disembodied, " naked and
unclothed " (2 Cor. v. 3, 4), a state from which he himself shrank, and
which he desired to escape by surviving till the Coming of Christ, and so
to be put in possession of his spiritual, incorruptible tabernacle, without
experiencing the bodiless condition of those Christians who died before
the Lord returned. It is difficult to feel much certainty about the
Apostle's final conclusions, for his thoughts seem to have fluctuated some
what and his language leaves it doubtful whether he believed or not in
an actual transformation of the body previously buried (contrast 2 Cor. v. 2
with Rom. viii. 23). Perhaps the more likely view is that he did not. He
seems to have held that at the Coming of the Lord the disembodied soul
of the believer would receive from God a new body, spiritual, incor
ruptible, and immortal. This bestowal of a body different in substance
from that deposited in the grave he iUustrates by the parallel of the new
corn, which through God's creative power replaces the grain which, put
in the ground, has decayed there (1 Cor. xv. 36-38). The body of the new
corn cannot be a reconstruction of the particles of the seed previously
sown (from which it differs widely) but is supplied by God ; and similarly
the spiritual body with which the human personality will be invested
after death will not be a reconstitution of the material elements of the
body that has been buried, but will be provided, through Divine power, to
meet the requirements of a heavenly environment, essential identity of
the person being preserved.
It is possible that, in the paraUel drawn between what happens in the case of
mankind and what happens in the case of seeds, it is not the burial of the dead but
the entrance of the soul (or vital principle) into the material world at birth which is
described as a process of b,eing sown (} Car. xv. 42-44). The child, when bprn, may be
said to be " sown in corruption " since St. Paul regarded human existence here as
being in the bondage of corruption (Rom. viii. 21, cf. Phil. ui. 21). This explanation
of I Cor. xv. 42-44 has the advantage of avoiding the designation of a corpse as a
<raj/ua \j/vxik6v (v. 44) ; and it is also urged against the common interpretation (adopted
above) that ttie use of airelpew in connexion with burial is unattested.1 This latter
argument, however, is not very weighty, since it is only in a writer who beheved in a
Resurrection that it is hkely to occur.
The evidence relating to the character of the Appearances leads to
different conclusions, according to the value attached to the account in
the earUest Gospel that the Sepulchre was found open on the Third Day
and the Body of the Lord seen to be absent. It may be urged in favour
1 See Charles, Eschatology, pp. 392, 393, Robertson and Plummer, \ Cor. pp. 380,
381, Expositor's N.T. ii. p. 936 (Findlay). ,

480 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of the credibUity of this account (a) that the adoption of the first day of
the week (in place of the seventh) by Christians for the weekly meetings
for common worship obtains an explanation if the Resurrection occurred
on that day ; (b) that St. Paul expressly affirms that Jesus rose on the
third day, and implies by mention of His burial that the grave was on
that day found empty, as St. Mark, represents ; (c) that if the sepulchre
was not discovered empty, the contention of the Apostles that their Lord
was risen could have been disproved by the Jews through an investigation
of the tomb and the production of the Body ; (d) that Jesus' body is
affirmed by both St. Peter and St. Paul not to have experienced corruption
(Acts ii. 31, xiii. 34-37). These arguments are open to certain counter-
considerations, (a) The observance of the first day of the week may
commemorate what happened on Pentecost, which feU on that day, for
the descent of the Spirit on that occasion was ascribed to the action of
the Lord (Acts ii. 33). (b) St. Paul's assertion that Jesus was raised on
the third day may be an inference from Scripture (p. 472), and the mention
of His burial may be only meant to complete the account of His death.
(c) If the earliest appearances of the Risen Lord occurred in GalUee, a
considerable interval must have elapsed before those who witnessed them
gave their testimony in Jerusalem ; and by the time they did so, identifi
cation of the Body would have been difficult, if not impossible.1 (d) The
speeches of St. Peter and St. Paul were not heard by St. Luke, who reports
them, and there is no first-hand evidence avaUable to show in what terms
the Apostles, on the occasions in question, really proclaimed the resurrec
tion of their Lord. It may be added that some features in Mk.'s account
of the visit of the women to the sepulchre create suspicions of its accuracy.
(a) The anointing of Jesus' body, for which purpose the women are repre
sented as going to the tomb, is less natural after the burial than before it
(as described in Joh.). (/?) The direction, communicated by an angel to
the women, that the Apostles should proceed from Jerusalem to GalUee
in order to meet their Master seems to be arbitrary and to lack motive,
for proof of Jesus' conquest over death could have been given as easUy
in the former locality as in the latter, (y) The supposition that our
Lord's physical body was actuaUy raised from the grave without dissolution
renders His resurrection less illustrative of our own, since our bodies do
not escape corruption or eventual absorption by other forms of organic
life. The representation of St. Luke that the Risen Christ declared that He had flesh
and bones, and showed by act that He could take food, is opposed to the view of St.
Paul, who denied that flesh and blood could enter the kingdom of God, and who
would probably have agreed with the observation that " eating is a function which
belongs to the reahty of this life and not to that of immortality.".,2 The same Evange
list's account of the visible ascension into heaven (Acts i. 9-11) involves the assumption
that heaven is a locality overhead, which the conception of the earth as a globe,
instead of a flat disc, now renders difficult to retain.

1 Cf. Maimonides (quoted by Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vi. p. 299) Si triduo elapso
mortuum conspicimus, dignoscere eum licet, post hcsc, immutatur eius facies.
2 Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, p. 146.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 481
With the account in Mk. xvi. 1-8 the statements of St. Paul in 1 Cor.
are not, indeed, absolutely incompatible. The fact that he mentions the
Lord's "burial leaves room for the supposition that he believed that He
rose from the grave ; and if so, that His post-resurrection body, though
glorified, was identical with the body previously buried. Nevertheless
the Apostle's thoughts were little occupied with the grave or with what
may have happened in connexion with its contents ; they were almost
exclusively concentrated upon the evidence for Jesus' continued life and
activity in the spirit ; and this evidence was for him furnished partly by
the appearance to himseU of the Lord in glory (Phil. iii. 21, cf . Acts xxii. 11),
and partly by the spiritual experiences of which he was inwardly conscious.
And ii, in consequence of the difficulties attending the Marcan narrative
(see above), the Apostle's language is considered independently of this, it
suggests, taken by itseU, an explanation of the Appearances that does not
involve the empty tomb, for resurrection in a spiritual body need not
imply the reanimation, or even the transmutation, of the physical body.
Of a " spiritual body," however, it is difficult to form any conception, since
spirit and body convey to our minds notions that are essentially opposite,
though the realities exist in us at present in closest union ; and it is
equally difficult to decide whether a " spiritual body " should, or should
not be thought of as making itseU visible and audible directly to the organs
of sight and hearing. But how a Personality existing under conditions
purely spiritual (if such are those of the Ufe after death) can have revealed
His Presence to His f oUowers stiU on earth otherwise than immediately
through their organs of sense it is perhaps possible to explain. The brain,
the seat of perception, can not only be affected by sense-impressions,
produced through some cause outside the organism, and carried to it by
the nerves, but can also react to an inward stimulus, and under certain
circumstances can produce upon the optic, aural, or other nerves, the
effect of sense-impressions. It may be suggested that it is in this way that
the Resurrection Appearances in general (for St. Paul draws no distinction
between those that were seen by himself and those seen by others) are to
be accounted for. Our Lord, having passed into the spiritual sphere,
acted upon the senses of His disciples from within, the brain-ceUs being
stimulated in such a way as to create the same impressions as would have
been caused if a Figure had been presented to the sensory organs from
without. Such impressions, it may be assumed, would reproduce images
previously stored in the mind ; and these would probably vary with in
dividuals. In the case of St. Paul, by whom Jesus is described as being
seen in the midst of radiant light, the idea of Jesus in glory must often
have been present to his imagination, since among the themes upon which
the Christians whom he persecuted dwelt was the exaltation of their Master
to heaven, where He was invested with Divine splendour. And if the
details of the Appearances (dress, speech, wounds, etc.) were mediated
through the memory, the fact that in Acts xxvi. 14 Jesus is represented
as speaking in Aramaic is accounted for. It may be added that, though
St. Paul was convinced that his conversion was due to the initiative of
Christ, by whom he had been " apprehended " (Phil. iii. 12), yet he seems
31

482 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to have been conscious that the Lord had manifested HimseU to him
otherwise than in an external way since he declared that it had been the
good pleasure of God to reveal His Son in him (Gal. i. 15, 16).
If there is any plausibility in the conclusions here suggested, and if the narratives
representing that our Lord rose from the dead with the same body which had been
laid1 in the grave, and that the grave was found on the third day to be empty, must
be regarded as deficient in historical value, their origin requires to be explained.
It may be conjectured that the process of their development was something Eke
this : —
(I). The materialistic conception of the Ufe after death generaUy current among
the Jews (2 Mace. vii. 10-11, xiv. 46, cf . Mk. xu. 18-27) would speedily lead to the
replacement of such a conception of the Resurrection as occurs in St. Paul by the
idea of the reanimiation of the physical body which had been buried ; and ia the
case of our Lord the tendency im this dissection would be furthered in the Church by
the need of counteracting Docetism (cf. p. 671). The fact that the Risen Christ is
represented as having flesh and bones and as eating food, and yet as being able to
passthrough closed doors (Lk. xxiv. 361, Jdn. xx. 19 f.), imphes that He was thought
to. retain in His Resurrection Body, fleshly though it was, the same rniraeulous powers
which during His previous life on earth, enabled Him (it was beheved) to walk upon
the sea without sinking into it.1
(2) When it was credited that Jesus rose from the grave, His Resurrection woukl
necessarily be regarded as oeeurring not later thain the third day after burial (for the
soul was supposed' to linger' near the body for' three days, and then finaUy depart,
leaving, the; body to decay) ;, and the conclusion that it happened ore the third day
would be promoted by passages in the Scriptures Uke Hos. vi. 2 (interpreted UteraUy).
(3) The desire, characteristic of the BibUcal writers in general, to prove that
events take place' in accordance with God's predetermined counsels (p. 106) was
calculated! to* create* a representation that the locaUty where the first Appearance of
the Risen i Lord to His Apostles occurred was pre-announced by an angel; and it
would also seem meet that the- women, whose fidelity to their Lord contrasted
with the Apostles' desertion of Him, should be the first to hear that He had risen,
and even the' first' to see Him- (ML xxviii. 9, 10. Joh. xx. 14-18.)
It, is. desirable to- notice briefly an explanation of the Resurrection
Appearances which, denying that they were actual impressions on the
sensory nerves produced either from without or from within, represents
therm as conscious and deliberate externalizations of the convictions which
shortly after Jesus-' death the- Apostles, and at a later date St. Paul, came
tpi entertain about Him, namely that He had been deUvered from the
world oft the dead' and' exalted to glory. It is not alien to Semitic habits
of thought to givevividness'to mental ideas by means of sensible imagery
(see, for example, 1 Kg: xxii. W-22, 2' Kg: vi. 16, 17'; cf.-also Mt i. 10, 11) ;
bub it -may be' doubted1 whet/her this way of accounting- for the New Testa
ment-, narratives- in question will stand' examination. Neither in the
instance of' the Eleven Apostles, nor subsequently* in the case of St. Paul,,
doesithere'seem to be sufficient groundis-'fbr attributing the chahge'ih their*
beliefrabeuti Jesus- merely to'theirownreflections: It is difficult to suppose"
that the Apostles' return tb* Galilee; the district where- memories' of' Jesus"
would be recalled- tb' their* minds with fresh force,2 would of itself have
owroome the despondency ihtb- which1- they had' been plunged by His"
1 Cf. Lake, Hist: Evidence for the Resurrection, p. 221!
2 Cf.1 Weizsacker, The- Apostolic Age-, i. pp; 2-^$'.

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 483
ignominious death. They had not understood their Master's predictions
of His resurrection when originally uttered (Mk. ix. 10, 32) ; and it is not
apparent how a return to the sights and sounds of Galilee would render
these either more inteUigible or more credible after the Crucifixion.
Rather weightier considerations can be urged in the instance of St. Paul.
He had failed to attain peace of mind through a rigorous observance of
the regulations of the Law (Rom. vii. 7 f.) ; doubts about the justice of his
persecution of the Christians may have f orced themselves upon him through
deeper study of the Scriptures ; and he may have been impressed by the
constancy of Stephen and his dying utterances (Acts vii. 5,6-^60)-^ But
though the way to a revulsion ,of feeling and reversal of belief may have
been thus prepared, yet the Apostle gives no hint in his letters that his
persuasion that Jesus was an impostor had been in any way shaken until
{as he felt assured) Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Thus
the available evidence, in the case alike of the Eleven Apostles and of St.
Paul, points to the conclusion that the accounts of their visions of the
Rjsen Christ are not were .dramatic expressions of inteUeetual convictions
attained solely fey reasoning and reflection, but that certain visions were
creative causes of those convictions.
1 Compunctions of conscience seem to be expressed ,by the proverbial saying
used in Acts xxvi. 14.

ADDITIONAL NOTE
JESUS' MINISTRY ACCORDING TO THE FOURTH
GOSPEL
THE record of the Ministry in the Fourth Gospel touches that of the Synoptists
at only three points — (a) the Preaching of the Baptist, and Jesus' departure
into GalUee ; (b) the two miracles of the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Walking
upon the Sea ; (c) the Entry into Jerusalem, with its sequel, the Arrest, the Trial,
the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Even in the accounts of some of these
occurrences there are decided variations, which have been noticed in connexion
with the Synoptic paraUels. In respect, however, of the intervening events there
is virtuaUy no agreement at aU. Whereas the Synoptic report relates that Jesus
began His ministry in Gahlee and in the course of it went to Jerusalem only once
(on the occasion which ended in His death) and so covers a space of no more than
a year, the Johannine report represents that Jesus made TTia first disciples not in
Gahlee but in Bethany beyond Jordan ; went thence to Gahlee ; and from there
journeyed twice to Judsea (on the occasion of two Passover seasons) before He went
thither for the Passover at which He was crucified ; so that the period comprised is
between two and three years at least. In view of this fundamental divergence con
cerning the duration of Jesus' activity, it has been impossible, in drawing up a narrative
of the Ministry based upon data supphed by the Synoptists, to take notice of the
greater part of the Pourth Gospel, only such few detaUs admitting of being brought
under discussion as refer beyond doubt to the same incidents. The events which
constitute the remainder of the Johannine Gospel it is desirable to summarize briefly
here in the interest of a rather more comprehensive comparison than that which has
been made on pp. 215-6 ; and the chronology imphed wUl be the better understood
if such events are arranged according to years, each year, for the sake of convenience,
being assumed to end with the Passover Festival.1
First Year. Jesus, after the adhesion to Him (in the neighbourhood of Bethany
beyond Jordan) of Andrew, Peter, Philip and Nathanael (p. 375), departed for Gahlee.
Here He appeared in company with His mother (there being no trace in this Gospel
of any such division between them as is suggested by Mk. in. 31-35) ; and at Cana
(p. 4) on the occasion of a wedding feast, where He and she and His disciples were
among the guests, Mary drew His attention to a deficiency of wine, and beUeving
that He was able to supply the need, told the servants to carry out any directions He
might give. The water which by His direction they drew from six capacious jars 2
intended for purposes of purification and fiUed by His orders, was found when tasted
by the president of the feast to be converted into wine of the best quality. This is
noted by the Evangelist as the first sign which Jesus gave of His glory ; but unlike
some of the seven miracles chosen by the writer for inclusion in his work, it is not
made the subject of spiritual instruction, though it is possible that the reader has
been left to infer for himself that the wine represented the spiritual sustenance afforded
by Christ's Flesh and Blood (cf. vi. 53-56) in contrast to the purification by water
from defilement, which was aU that Judaism afforded.
1 The Passover fell in Nisan, in strictness the first month of the Jewish ecclesiastical
year. 2 For the equivalent of the measure lierprjTiis (Joh. ii. 6), see p. 683.
4S4

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 485
From Cana Jesus, with His mother and His other companions, departed to Caper
naum. Thence after no long stay He and His disciples went up to Jerusalem for the
Passover (spring of a.d. 27), where He ejected from the Temple the seUers of cattle
and birds, and the changers of money who desecrated it, and bade them refrain from
making His Father's house a market (contrast Mk. xi. 17), His action recalling to the
disciples Ps. brix. 9. The Jews did no more than demand authority for His proceed
ings ; and in answer He said, " Destroy this Sanctuary, and in three days I wiU raise
it up." TTia words were, seemingly, an ironical command to complete, by a con
tinuance of their practices, the destruction of spiritual rehgion, which He within a
brief period would restore. The cryptic terms in which this answer was couched
were taken literaUy by the Jews, but by the Evangehst are interpreted to refer to the
sanctuary of His Body ; and after He was risen from the dead were regarded by His
foUowers as prophetic of His death and resurrection. The cleansing of the Temple,
which is thus placed by the Fourth EvangeUst two years prior to Jesus' death, is
related by the Synoptists to have preceded His death by a very brief interval and
to have been the immediate cause of it (Mk. xi. 18) ; and the moderation of the Jews'
protest in Joh. is in striking contrast with the violence of their resentment in the Synop
tists. This transposition of the Cleansing of the Temple to the beginning of Jesus'
ministry is exphcable as the logical consequence of the Johannine representation
that Jesus from the outset of His ministry acknowledged Himself to be the Messiah
(i. 41, 49, 50) — an avowal which it is impossible to reconcile with the tentative steps
which, according to the Synoptists, marked His disclosure of His Personality and
Office. At Jerusalem Jesus is represented as winning many to faith in Himself ; and
amongst those who were attracted to Him was a member of the Sanhedrin caUed
Nicodemus,1 who, coining by night (through fear) to learn more about the Kingdom
of God, was told by Jesus that a complete change of disposition was needed before
a man could hope to enter it ; an aspirant to it must figuratively " be born from
above » of water and the Spirit " (see further p. 678). From Jerusalem Jesus went
into the country parts of Judsea, and there baptized through the agency of His dis
ciples. John, at this time (according to the Evangelist's view), was not yet impri
soned (contrast Mk. i. 14), and to some of his own followers, who were jealous of the
numbers who flocked to Jesus, he again affirmed that Jesus was his Superior.
Second Year. From Judsea (where He is assumed to have stayed until the end
of the year, iv. 35) Jesus, suspecting that His increasing influence would excite the
hostihty of the Pharisees, started on His return to Gahlee and passed through Samaria.
There through weariness He stopped at a place caUed Sychar (p. 5), where there
was a weU ; and whilst the disciples departed to buy food, He asked drink of a Samari
tan woman (in spite of the antagonism between Jews and Samaritans), and in the
course of converse told her that He could quench the thirst of the spirit. Displaying
acquaintance with the woman's past and present Ufe, He impressed her as being
a prophet, and she sought from Him a decision of the controversy respecting Jerusalem
and Gerizim (p. 5) as the true sanctuary of God ; whereupon He declared that
spiritual and inteUigent worship, such as God desired, was not hmited by locaUty
but turned upon a true knowledge of the Divine nature. When the woman said
that she knew that the Messiah (caUed by the Samaritans the Tahebh, " Restorer,"
p. 16) would explain aU things, Jesus affirmed Himself to be the Messiah. To His
disciples, who had returned with food and pressed Him to eat, He declared that His
food was to do the wiU of God ; and He bade them note the promise of a spiritual
harvest in the Samaritans whom the woman had fetched from the city to hear Him.
Many of these were convinced by His words, and acknowledged Him to be the Saviour
of the world.
When He reached Gahlee, He was welcomed by the Galilseans who had been at
Jerusalem with Him. When He was again at Cana He was asked by an officer of
the King (Antipas) to heal his son, who was sick at Capernaum ; and in response He
declared that the sufferer was already restored to health, his recovery being reported
to the father before the latter reached his house. This miracle bears some resemblance
1 The Aramaic was probably Nakdimdn.
2 For the sense of dvuBev in. Joh. see iii. 31, xix. 11 ; and cf. i. 13, 1 Joh. iii. 9,,iv. 7.

486 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to the case of the centurion's servant related in Q (ML viu. 5 f. = Lk. vii. 2 f .•). In
both cases (a) the miracle is placed early in Jesus' Ministry; (6) the appeal to Jesus
is made by a person of authority,- (o) the locaUty is Capernaum, (d) mention is made
of the man's faith. On the other hand in Q the appeal proceeds on behalf of a servant
from a Roman centurion who deprecates Jesus' coming to his hbuse, whUe in Joh.
it is made for a son' by one who is seemingly a Jew, and who is urgent that Jesiis
should hasten t6 his house. If the two are Variant versioris of the same occurrence,
a contributory cause of the variation was probably the ambiguity of the word irais
(ML) Which, intended in the sense of SovXbs (Lk.), was taken to mean vibs (Joh.).
In Mt; the sufferer is described as being tortured with paralysis ; in Lk. he is simply
designated as sick and near to death ; in Joh. he is also near death, but suffering
from fever. Like the sign at Cana this miracle is not made by the Evangehst an
occasion for explicit spiritual teaching.
To explain our Lord's next movements it seems necessary to assume some dis
arrangement of the text, and to find the sequel of ch. iv. in ch. vi. (see p; 232). After
what has just been related, Jesus crossed the sea of Gahlee and there fed the 5,000
who gathered round Him (p. 470). The Evangelist represents that this " sign "
persuaded those who witnessed it that Jesus was the expected Prophet of Dt, xviii. 15
(of j Acts ni. 22), and they were ready to make Him their King ; so that to avoid them
He withdrew into the neighboiirihg hills. In the evening the disciples took a boat
and Started for Oaperriaum ; and when three or four mueS out they saw Jesus walking
on the sea to them. In spite of the alarm they felt, they took Him on board arid
found themselves straightway at their destination (p. 409). The multitude which
witnessed the miracle of the Feeding came thither later in boats from Tiberias, and
once more flobked about Him. Addressing them in the synagogue (vi. 59) He bade
them seek not material but spiritual food, which they would receive through behef
in Hims'elf, Who had been sent by God. To test His words a sign was demanded
of Him (such as the descent of manna from heaven, an accompaniment of the Messianic
Age in Apoc. Baruch xxix. 8), but He declared that He was the true bread from heaven
(cf. Ps. lxxviii. 24), arid that beUef in Him ensured eternal life. When some objected
that His lowly birth did not justify such language about Himself, He explained that
only those could accept His teaching who were drawn to Him by God. In reiterating
His assertion, He used even more mysterious language, affirming that unless they
ate His flesh arid drank His bldod they lacked true Ufe (see p. 679). In Consequence
of this perplexing teaching, numbers withdrew from Him ; but when the Twelve
were asked by Him whether they too would, forsake Him; Peter, answering for the
rest, declared that they believeid and knew Him to be the Holy One of God.
The transposition of ch. vi. to form the continuation of ch iv. makes chs. v. and
vn. the immediate sequel of vi. The ocoUrrenCe of an unnamed feast, which can
plausibly be identified with the Passover x (flee vi. 4), caused Jesus to go a second
time to Jerusalem, where at the pdol of Bethesda (p. 11) He cured a man infirm for
thirty-eight years 2 who had been Unable to profit by the intermittent healing pro
perties which the water was credited with possessing. As this deed of mercy was
done ori the Sabbath, the fact of the man's carrying ,his paUet attracted the notice of
the Jews, who charged Jesus with breaking the Sabbath ; and His defence that He
drily worked as did His Father merely made them more eager to destroy Him for
blasphemy, Jesus proceeded to declare that the Father, from whom the Son derived
aU His jlower, would enable Him to perform a stiU greater marvel by giving life to
the SpirituaUy dead, and that honour dbne to the Son, by response to His teaching,
was honour rendered to the Father also. And then to authenticate His right to
speak as He did; He cited the testimdny of the Baptist, of His own miracles, and of
the Scriptures ; but added that, if men would not beUeve Moses who wrote of Him,
He oould not expect them to credit His own words. The violence whioh menaced
Jesus riow caused Him to withdraw from Judsea to GalUee (vu. 1) ; .but there His
brethren were sceptical of His claims (cf. Mk. iii. 21> 31) because He had sought
1 In Joh. v. 1 there is considerable authority for the reading ij taprii found in
N C L, 33 and the Eg. versions ; and the addition rav dtipuav occurs in A.
* Josus' words to the infirm man are similar to thdse addressed to the paralytic
in Mk. ii. 11 ; cf. also the Jews' aoousation in Joh, v.. 18 and Mk, n. 7,

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 487
retirement instead of remaining at the oapital, and they bade Hiin show Himself in
pubhc. Third Year. When the feast of Tabernacles (Sept;-Oct.) came round, JesuS,
after first refusing to go again to Jerusalem (where death threatened Hiin, v. 18)
without a clear perception that the time had come for Him to face it), went thither
in secret ; and His teaching made a great impression upon some of the people, who
were ignorant of their leaders' desire to kill Him. They could not, however, reconcUe
His known origin from Gahlee with the mystery which was expected to surround the
Messiah. On the eighth and last day of the feast (p. 209) Jesus reiterated the state
ment which He had made once before (iv. 10) that belief in Him was the means of
allaying spiritual thirst.1 He again produced upon some of His hearers (though not
aU) the conviction that He was the expected Prophet (Dt. xvUi. 15, 18) ; and even
the officers whom the priests and Pharisees sent to arrest Him had to abandon the
attempt. The authorities only felt scorn for the populace, and flouted the appeal
of Nicodemus that they should give Him a fair trial ; but they felt it desirable to
undermine His influence before renewing the effort to destroy Him.
Opportunity for further controversy came when Jesus in the Treasury of the
Temple (p. 91) declared that He was the Light of the world (p. 91), and that whoso
followed Him would enjoy the Ught of Ufe ; for the Pharisees continued to deny
His claims to have God as His Father and to speak for Him, whilst He affirmed that
their father was not God but the DevU, for otherwise they would riot seek to kill
Him. When He went on to say that if a man should keep His saying He would never
die, they charged Him with having a demon, since He imphed that He was greater
than Abraham who had succumbed to death. A climax Was reached when He asserted
that He existed before Abraham (cf. Joh. i. 1, 14), this causing His adversaries to
endeavour, though unsuccessfuUy, to stone Him.
The sight (on a foUowing Sabbath) of a man bhnd from birth having led the dis
ciples to ask whether his misfortune was the penalty of his own or his parents' sin
(cf. Ex. xx. 5), Jesus rephed that it was designed to furnish an occasion for displaying
God's goodness ; and then in order to heal him, He anointed his eyes with Clay (cf .
Mk. vii. 33, viii. 23) made by spitting on the ground,2 and bade him wash in the pool
of SUoam (p. ll).s The circumstance that the cure was wrought on the Sabbath
prompted the Pharisees first to seek to disprove that a cure Could have been accom
plished by a Sabbath-breaker, and then to contend that it was performed through
Satanic agency (cf. the accusation in Mk. iu. 22). Jesus, avowing to the man that
He was the Son of God, won his adhesion ; and then iUustrated by His recent restora
tion of physical sight His primary mission to impart Spiritual enlightenment and to
convict of blindness those who claimed to be enlightened already.
In a subsequent discourse, deUvered at the feast of Dedication (p. 94), Jesus styled
Himself the Good Shepherd of the sheep, contrasting Himself with other leaders
whose motives of conduct were different from His own, for He was prepared to lay
down i His life for His sheep, which were not confined to those of the Judsean fbld.6
A demand from the Jews that He should say plainly whether He was the Christ caused
Him to complain of their disbelief in His earher statement, and to declare that He
and the Father were One. This renewed the attempt to stone Him for blasphemy,
1 In Joh. vU. 37-38, Jesus' words should be punctuated, " If any man thirst, let
him come unto me, and drink he that beUeveth on me." The words quoted as from
Scripture are perhaps Ex. xvii. 6 ; cf. 1 Cor. x. 4.
2 " The use of saUva was a well-known Jewish rerriedy for affections of the eyes.''
Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. p. 48.
8 The interpretation " Sent " attached to Siloam (ix. 7) has reference to the Hebrew
Shiloah (from the root shaldh, '« to send "), represented by SAai/i (LXX);
* It has been suggested that in Joh. x. 11 ttSljaii) Hfli fvxrfv means "to stake, or
risk, Ufe." The usual expression for this is iraparlBeaBai rty tpvx^v.
6 The figure of the" Door "in x. 7, 9 disturbs awkwardly the figure of the "Good
Shepherd." In x. 8 the words irpb i/iov are absent from N and the Lat., Syr. (sin.) and
Eg. versions ; and the omission makes it easier to understand 8<roi tfX&ov to mean
those who entered the fold otherwise than by the door, as the Shepherd did, the refer
ence being to the Jewish hierarchy.

488 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
a charge which He met by citing the scriptural appUcationof the title " gods " to such
as acted as God's intermediaries (Ps. Ixxxu. 6, cf. p. 109). An attempt to arrest Him
led Him to withdraw across the Jordan to Persea after some three or four months had
been spent in Judsea.
From Persea He was recaUed, by the illness of a friend caUed Lazarus, to the west
of the river, in spite of the danger from Jewish hostihty to wliich He thereby exposed
Himself and of which the disciples reminded Him. The house of Lazarus (described
as the brother of Mary and Martha, who are mentioned in Lk. x. 38, 39) was at Bethany
(two miles from Jerusalem), which Jesus, apparently in consequence of waiting for
Divine guidance (cf . ii. 4, vii. 6), did not reach until after Lazarus' death. He sought
to console Martha by telling her that belief in Him (such as Lazarus, it is imphed, had
gained) ensured the continuance of true life in spite of physical death ; and then with
her and her sister Mary He went to the tomb in which the dead man had lain for four
days (by which time decay was thought to set in). There Jesus ordered the stone to
be removed, and after a thanksgiving to His Father for hearing an unuttered prayer,
bade Lazarus come forth ; and the command was obeyed. The miracle won for Jesus
a number of adherents ; but the priests and Pharisees, fearing that popular excitement
and resultant disorder might embroU them with the Roman authorities, and being
advised by Caiaphas, the high priest, that it was better to sacrifice a single life than to
expose to destruction the whole nation, determined to bring about His death without
further delay. Jesus, becoming apprised of His peril, retired from the vicinity of the
capital to a locaUty caUed Ephraim in the wilderness.1 The Passover, however, was
approaching, and six days before its occurrence (Nisan 9, Sunday) He returned to
Bethany and supped with Lazarus. In the course of the meal, Mary, one of the sisters
of Lazarus, anointed with precious ointment the feet of Jesus. The recent miracle
wrought by Jesus in raising the dead continued to induce so many to beheve in Him
that the Jews began to plot the death of Lazarus also.
On the day foUowing the supper Jesus entered Jerusalem, and from this point
onward the Synoptists and the Fourth EvangeUst narrate the incidents of the Betrayal,
the Arrest, the Trial, the Passion, and the Resurrection in common, though Joh. departs
from the accounts of his predecessors in numerous particulars. He adds that after
the entry into Jerusalem certain Greeks sought to see Jesus through the help of PhiUp
and Andrew ; and Jesus in a discourse declared that only through death could a
spirituaUy fruitful life be attained, though human nature shrank from the trial. Not
able among the omissions of the writer is that of the institution of the Eucharist at the
Last Supper, which he does not regard as a celebration of the Passover (contrast Mk.
xiv. 12 f.), and at which he describes Jesus as washing the disciples' feet and bidding
them, after His example, wash one another's feet. Between the accounts of the
Supper and the Arrest there are interposed a series of discourses in which Jesus
describes Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and as the true Vine ; predicts
the coming of the Comforter (YlapdKXrjros) in order to guide the disciples into all the
truth ; and in a long petition addressed to His Father prays both for them and for aU
who through them should beheve on Him. In the present arrangement of these dis
courses there appears to be some disorder, the proper sequence being probably xv.,
xvi., xiv., xvu. (the scene of the last being perhaps the road from the Upper Room to
the Garden where He was betrayed).
This short summary of the contents of the Fourth Gospel wiU sufficiently confirm
what has already been said (p. 218 f.) about the different idea which it produces of our
Lord's ministry from that which is created by the other three, in spite of certain points
of contact with them. It diverges from them in respect of the locaUty (largely Judsea,
not Gahlee),2 the duration (substantiaUy three years instead of one), the development
of events (the final resolution of the Jews to kill Jesus 8 formed after the Raising of
Lazarus, not after the Cleansing of the Temple), the principal subjects of the discourses
1 UsuaUy thought to be the wilderness of Judsea (p. 353), but taken by some to
be on the east of the Jordan.
2 There are three visits to Gahlee (i. 43, iv. 3, 43, vi. 1), each foUowed by a return
to Judsea (u. 13, v. 1, vii. 10), the last including a stay in Persea (x. 40).
3 Six resolves, or attempts, to seize or destroy Jesus are mentioned — v. 18, vii. 30
44, viii. 59, x. 39, xi. 57 (which led up to His arrest).

THE MINISTRY OF JESUS 489
(Jesus' own Personahty, and His relation to the Father, not the Kingdom of heaven
and the Scribes' interpretation of the Law), the style of speech (the absence of parables,
so conspicuous in the Synoptists), and the movement of Jesus' utterances (wliich from
the first circle around His Messiahship, instead of progressing towards a pubhc disclosure
concerning it). It is true that the actual Ministry must have comprised numerous
acts, occurrences, and utterances which find no place in the Synoptists, and which a
later author might aim at supplying ; yet the impression left by the Gospel is not that
another's memory has filled up gaps in preceding memoirs, but that there has been a
subordination of the facts of history to an ideal reconstruction of Jesus' life, for the
promotion of certain desired ends. What those probably were is explained elsewhere
(p. 670 f.).

IX
THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN
THE APOSTOLIC AGE
§ 1. The Events of Pentecost
THE balance of evidence (as has been shown) points to Galilee as
the locality where the Apostles first became convinced that their
Lord had triumphed over death. The conviction that He was
aUve re-established their faith that He was the Messiah, and altogether
changed their outlook upon the future. They could now anticipate with
confidence that He would speedUy return from the heaven to which God
had raised Him, and would usher in the Divine Kingdom. But it was not
Gahlee but Jerusalem that would seem to them the most appropriate
scene of that event. The capital was associated with all the glories of
past Jewish history ; it was the site of God's Temple ; thither Jesus had
gone to make His final appeal to His countrymen, and there He had died ;
and it was impossible not to think that the city which had witnessed
His ignominious and agonizing death would see His vindication. Accord
ingly, they returned to Jerusalem as soon as possible, to make known
the experiences which had happened to them, and to await what was in
store for them. Around them there gathered in the capital other disciples,
including the remaining children of the Lord's mother, who had been
converted to behef in Him (see p. 364), and certain women who had
attended Him in His journey to the capital, and who perhaps had remained
there when the Apostles fled to their distant homes.
In the number of the Twelve a, gap had been created by the defection
of Judas, who had come to a violent end, and more than one tradition
circulated concerning the manner of his death and the reason why a
locality near Jerusalem was caUed, through association with him, " the
Field of Blood." As soon as his end was known, the Eleven Apostles
assembled together, and after prayer, drew lots to decide which of two
who, like themselves, had been witnesses of Jesus' Eesurrection, should
make up the original figure of twelve. The two were Joseph Barsabbas
(" Son of Sabba "), who bore, besides, the Eoman name of Justus, and
Matthias ; and the lot fell in favour of the latter. St. Luke (Acts i. 22)
represents the Twelve as constituting an official body of witnesses to the
Resurrection, and Matthias' election as designed to fill a vacancy in their
490

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 491
number, regarded from this standpoint. But since the testimony of one
whb had seen the Risen Jesus would be of equal value, whether he was
included in the Twelve or not, it is perhaps more Ukely that the fining of
the vacancy in the number of the twelve had in view the twelve positions
of dignity and authority Whioh Jesus had declared the ApOstles were to
occupy in the Kingdom of God (Mt. xix. 28 = Lk. xxii. 30),
One tradition about Judas' end, found in ML xxvu. 3-10, related that when on
the morning of Jesus' trial he saw that the Master was condemned, he in remorse
brought back the thirty pieces of sUver to those who had paid him, declaring that he
had betrayed to death the innocent, flung the money down in the Temple court,1 and
then took his own life. The priests felt some Scruple about putting blood-money into
the Temple treasury (here called the corban), and so bought with it a plot of ground to
serve as a cemetery for foreigners. The purpose for which the money was originaUy
giveri to Judas caused the spot to be called, or its real name (perhaps Aceldamach,
" field of rest =Koi/Mtr^piov) to be corrupted] into, Acelddrha, " the field of blood." The
number of sUver pieces for which Judas sold his Master recalled to' the First Evangelist
the sum mentioned in 2 Zech. xi.[12, 13 as the hire given by the people to the prophet,
arid he quotes the passage with considerable variation (replacing, for instance, ' I cast
them unto the potter"2 by "I (or they) gave them for the potter's field ) ; biit
thrdugh a lapse of meinory or from Some other reason he assigns it to Jer einiah. 3 The
section in ML containing this riarrative is riot consecutive with the preceding context.
in which the chief priests are represented as in the quarters of the Roman procurator,
not in the Temple.
A different tradition, pTdbably of later origin, is preserved in Acts i. 18-20. This
relates that Judas retained the money and that he himself bought with it a field where
he met with a bloody death, though how it occurred is left obscure * ; and the name
attaching to the field is supposed to have been suggested by the blood with which it
was stained.
Not long after the return of the Apostles to Jerusalem, there took
place amongst them an occurrence to which they attached the greatest
significance. After the lapse of seven weeks, or, reckoned inclusively,
fifty days, the Feast of Unleavened Bread (the morrow of the Passover)
was followed by the Feast of Weeks. Pentecost; or Harvest (see Lev. xxUi.
15-21). Early in the morning (the day being Sunday) the disciples,
prbbably including Others than the Twelve (of. Acts i. 14), were assembled
in a, hduse for participation in common devotions, when suddenly and
simultaneously a Divinely-inspired impulse to praise God seized the whole
company. The minds of aU being engrossed with the wonderful experiences
which had befallen some of theif number since the recent Paschal festival;
their feelings of gratitude and enthusiasm became so intense that they
1 In Mt. xxvn. 5 b vdbs (the Sanctuary) must be used irregularly for rb Iepbv : cf.
Joh. ii. 20 when vais seems to CoinpriSe all the Tfemple buUdings.
2 The original reading; found in a few Hebrew MSS. as in the Syriac, was probably
the treasury.
3 The error was perhaps helped by Jeremiah's purchase of a field and his visit to
the potter's house (xxxu. 6 f., xvui. 2 f.) : See MeNeile. Bi. ML p. 408,
* In Acts i. 18 it is generaUy assumed that irprjvijs yevijievos means " having faUen
headlong, or prostrate " ; but it has been suggested that irpiivijs has the sense of
" swoUen " (cf. irpjjBa), and that what is signified is that Judas sweUed to such a bulk
that he eventuaUy burst. A fragment of Papias represents Judas as irpijoSels iirl
roaoiirov ttjv adprca. Stare /iijSi birbBev ti.p.ata paSiuis Siipxerai iketvov SivaaBal SieXdeTv, nr\k
See J.T.S, Jan. 1912, p. 278 f. (Chase).

492 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
could no longer retain their self-control. They were carried away by a
tide of emotion which was too strong and impetuous to find expression
in connected or ordered speech, and obtained relief in fervid thanksgivings,
partly coherent and partly fragmentary, uttered not only in one or other of
the tongues, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, with which most were acquainted,
but also in words and phrases of some of the strange languages heard at
Jerusalem on festivals, and perhaps Ukewise in inarticulate cries and
ejaculations. In their excitement they seem to have made a common
move towards the courts of the Temple ; and they at once attracted
attention from the crowds there. In the strange sounds that proceeded
from them some of the bystanders who had come from foreign lands
here and there caught words that were familiar to them, and fiUed with
astonishment, formed the impression that the Apostles, simple GaUlseans
by birth, had been miraculously gifted with ability to speak other tongues
than their own. But for the most part, those who heard them could not
understand them, and attributed their unintelligible utterances to the
effect of wine.
The mockery of those who accounted for what they witnessed by the
supposition of intoxication reached the ears of St. Peter, who, recovering
his self-control, stood up and, addressing the multitude, proceeded in a
speech not only to correct the misconception about the condition of
himseU and his fellow- Apostles, but also to explain the import of the
occurrence. The discourse which he deUvered was the first Christian
sermon ; and its burden was the Messiahship of Jesus attested by His
Besurrection, and confirmed by the outburst of ecstatic speech among
His followers which had just been heard, and of which the Scriptures
contained prediction. With what accuracy the speech, as reported,
represents the actual tenor of what was said is quite uncertain. St. Luke
was not present, and it is not likely that he received written notes of it
from any who listened to it. The wording bears marks of his style (p. 204) ;
but the argument from the Scriptures which occupies so much space in it
must reproduce with tolerable faithfulness the real character of the
Apostles' preaching at this stage of their missionary activity (cf. 1 Pet. i.
10-12, 24, 25, U. 6-10, 22-25).
St. Peter began by asserting that what had attracted so much notice
was not the result of drunkenness (wliich was excluded by the earliness of
the hour J), but evidence of the fulfilment of a prediction once made by
the prophet Joel, who (ii. 28-30) had foretold that in the last days God
would diffuse His Spirit throughout His people, who should be endowed
more widely than before with the faculty of " prophecy " ; and that such
an experience would be among the signs that should herald the approach
of the Day of the Lord. The Apostle then went on to make known the
truth which he and his companions were speciaUy concerned to proclaim.
Jesus the Nazarene, a man whose Divine Mission was evidenced by the
1 The hours in Roman usage were measured from sunrise to sunset, each being
one-twelfth of the period of dayhght. At this time of the year (end of May) the third.
hour would be about 8 o'clock.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 493
wonders He wrought among the people (as many who were present knew)
had been surrendered to the Gentiles in accordance with God's plan that
He should undergo sufiering, and had been put to death by them.1 But
though allowed to die, He was not allowed to be retained by death,2 as,
indeed, had been predicted in Ps. xvi. 8-11, wherein David declared that
God would not abandon his soul in Hades 3 or let him undergo corruption
in the grave. David himself had died (his tomb was among them, Neh. iii.
16), so that his words could not apply to himseU ; but being endowed
with the spirit of prophecy, and believing that among his posterity there
would arise the Messiah, or Christ, he, identifying himseU with his greater
descendant, expressed his confidence that God would not leave him in
the power of death. This Messiah was Jesus, whom God had actually
raised, as all the Apostles could testify. And Jesus, having been exalted
to heaven, had from thence bestowed upon His followers the Holy Spirit,
the Source of the ecstatic utterances to which all present had just listened.
This exaltation of Jesus to a dignity which David did not attain had
Ukewise been predicted by David himseU, who in Ps. ex. 1 represented
One whom he styled his Lord as invited by Jehovah to sit at His right
hand until He should make His enemies His footstool. And finally Peter
concluded his speech by emphaticaUy bidding the whole people recognize
that God had made Jesus, Whom they had crucified, both Lord and
Christ. St. Peter, in representing David as the author of the psalms cited, shared a beUef ,
current in his own day, which has been questioned in ours (cf . p. 443) ; but as regards
Psalm xvi., it was not very material to the Apostle's argument whether it proceeded
from David, or from another prophet, who might be supposed to speak in the person
of the Messiah. St. Peter put upon the passage quoted from this psalm a meaning
almost certainly not intended by the psalmist ; for the true rendering of v. 10 ( = Acts
n. 27) is " Thou wUt not abandon my soul to Sheol, Thou wilt not suffer Thy godly one
to see the pit," the writer believing that God would preserve him from premature
death, and grant to him fehowship with Himself during the normal period of human
existence (v. 11). Nevertheless God's care for, and interest in, the righteous (in which
the psalmist expresses bis faith) reaUy constitutes a basis on which an expectation of
renewed life after death can reasonably be built (cf. p. 441).
The audience was profoundly moved, both by the prophetic ecstasy
which they had witnessed and by St. Peter's subsequent discourse. Some
among the multitude must have been spectators of the tragedy of Calvary ;
and those who were now convinced of the appalUng guilt of their nation
asked remorsefully what they were to do. St. Peter in answer bade them
repent, and be baptized " after " the name of Jesus Christ, thereby acknow
ledging the Crucified as the Messiah and avowing themselves His followers :
by so doing they would obtain forgiveness of their sins and receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with God's promise imparted through
1 In Acts ii. 23 by " lawless men " are meant the Romans : cf. 1 Cor. ix. 21 (where
rois dvb/wis refers to Gentiles).
2 In Acts ii. 24 St. Peter, drawing upon the LXX of Ps. xvUi. 5, uses the term
" pangs of death " where the Heb. has " cords of death " which the verb " holden "
requires. 3 In early Greek Hades was the name of the god who presided over the nether
world, not of that world itself.

494 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Joel (ii. 32). The words here reproduced are declared by the historian
to be only a summary of a longer exhortation to seek safety whilst they
could from the vengeance impending over a guilty age {cf. Gal. i. 4).
To this earnest address there came a great response if, as the historian
relates, those who were persuaded by the Apostle's words numbered
about 3,000 persons. Figures in ancient writers are seldom trustworthy
(p. 120) ; but it is clear from later narratives that the Christian body at
Jerusalem soon reached considerable proportions (since seven individuals
were shortly required to superintend the distribution of rehef to its indigent
members). Loyalty and brotherhood were conspicuous features of. the
community — loyalty to its teachers and brotherhood among its various
members. This prevailing harmony was marked and fostered by participa
tion in united prayer and common meals at one another's houses, whereat
the breaking of a single loaf between a large number of persons was a
continual reminder of the fellowship which all had with one another in
virtue of their relation to their common Lord, and a commemoration of
the last occasion when, supping with His disciples, He constituted the
bread and the wine symbols of His Body and Blood, given and shed for
many. For this memorial observance every day's united meal afforded
an opportunity, and Jesus seems to have expected that it should be made
such, if St. Paul's report of His words preserves a true tradition — " Do
this as oft as ye drink it (i.e. the wine ordinarily consumed at meals) in
commemoration of me."
An element of awe entered into the feelings with which the Christians
were now regarded, for the multitude was deeply impressed alike by the
evidence of prophetic inspiration manifested from time to time among
them, and by the many striking cures (for such seem to be meant by the
" wonders " and " signs " of Acts ii. 43, cf . in. 2 f.) which were wrought on
the sick by the Apostles. Yet not only wonder but admiration must
have been evoked by two other features. One was the unselfishness
diptin,gms,liing beUevers in Christ ; for private possessions were not
retained by their owners for their personal use if a f eUow-Christian needed
help, but were sold voluntarily to supply the assistance required (see
Acts v. 4). The second was the joyousness of their rehgious Ufe, which
was observable bptji in .tb,e,ir pubUc devotions at the Temple, and tlieir
private JSucharistic meals. Such traits made a strong appeal to the
populace of Jerusalem, and attracted numbers to the Christian ranks.
St. Luke represents (1) that the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost was accompanied
by a sound as of a violent wind, .fining the house and heard outside it,1 and by the
settling of a tongue, Uke fire in appearance, upon each of the assembled disciples ;
(2) that when the disciples began to speak, they became inteUigible to the whole of
the audience, though this was composed of persons drawn from aU regions of the
known globe. The wind-Uke sound and the flame-like tongues are doubtless meant
as symbols of a Spiritual Presence (cf. p. 109) ; for the words " wind " and " spirit "
are indistinguishable in Hebrew (cf . 2 Is. xl. 7, 13) ; tongues are a natural emblem for
the diffusion of a Divine Message ; and " fire " is a frequent mark of a theqphany in the
Old Testament (of. Ex. iii. 4, xix. 18). But the rest of his account (Acts ii. 4, ll),
whether it imphes the miraculous endowment of the apostles with a faculty for speak-

1 In Acts ii. 6 for cpwvrj of the noise of wind cf. Joh. iu. 8.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 495
ing foreign languages or a miraculous change of what they said in their own tongue
into the various tongues familiar to their hearers as it passed from their Ups to the
other's ears, creates a different impression from that left by other references to the
gift of tongues in the New Testament, especiaUy by the first-hand evidence of St. Paul.
The Apostle's allusions to it in 1 Cor. xiv. 4-6, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, show that it was
generally incomprehensible, though capable of being understood by some persons.
In consequence of its being usually unintelligible and therefore unedifying, the Apostle
attached Uttle value to it, and discouraged it (v, 19). It may sometimes have con
sisted of altogether unmeaning sounds and cries, in which violent religious emotion
found vent. But the facts that it bore the name it did (ykiiaorj or 7X160-0-1115 XaXeiv),
that it was compared by St. Paul to the use of a foreign language (1 Cor. xiv. 11), and
that it sometimes admitted of being interpreted, point to the conclusion that it might
consist in part, at least, of words and expressions which could be understood by some
of the hearers whilst remaining uninteUigible to others and even to the speaker himself.
With regard to this last statement, there is evidence that words once heard without
being comprehended and afterwards forgotten may eventuaUy emerge from the
subliminal into the suprahminal consciousness under stress of excitement. It seems
probable that it was this kind of mixed speech which marked the Apostles at Pentecost :
foreign phrases and idioms,*caught from traveUers along the trade routes of Galilee, and
perhaps sounds whoUy inarticulate, were mingled with their native Aramaic as they
lost their self-control in the course of their fervent thanksgivings; The surprise with
which such foreign words would be recognized by those who were acquainted with
them was calculated to occasion magnified reports. Possibly a consideration causing
St. Luke to give readier credence to such reports and to put upon what occurred the
construction that appears in Acts was the idea that the inauguration of a religious
movement 'designed to embrace within its scope ail mankind was likely to have been
accompanied by some reversal of the harriers interposed between men by the curse
of Babel (Gen. xi. 7-9).
Illustrations of the way in which persons under certain conditions are able to speak
in a language of whieh in a normal state they are ignorant have been adduced from
modern times. One, mentioned toy tColeridge, is the case of a young woman who could
neither read nor write, but who, when sufiering from a nervous fever, continuously
talked Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, the explanation being that she Jp.ad previously been
a servant in the house of a pastor who was accustomed to walk up and down near the
kitchen, reading aloud to himself passages from his favourite books.1 Such pheno
mena can he accounted for by the supposition that speech is ordinarily under the
control of the suprahminal consciousness, rbut that when this is disturbed through some
exceptional strain, the subhmmal consciousness becomes active, and persons can
recall languages which they have previously had opportunities of hearing without (it
may be) in the least understanding them.2
, Anotihar explanation of what is related bySt. Luke is that the feehmgs and thoughts
of the Apostles on the occasion were communicated to the bystanders by it/hoiught-
transference, and that the mental impulses thus created in them clothed themselves in
appropriate words in their own motner tongues.'3 Thisisaniore plausible hypothesis
in cases where <(he speaking with -tongues occurred at exclusively Christian gatherings,
tike those which St. Paul has in view in 1 'Gor. xiv. 28, ithan in connexion with Pente
cost ; in the one instance there was at the start a bond of sympathy ;between the
speakers and hearers which was lacking in the other, (for the "multitude " in Acts u.
* was non-Christian.
The esffaot produced upon the populace ,at Peaatecost was -enhanced toy
-a, remarkable cure wrought on a lame man who was well iknown to all
who visited the Temple. He was accustomed .to Ue at the eastern entmsuice
of the Court of the Women, which was called the Beautiful Gate (p. 91)
-and to beg alms of the worshippers as they passed in. When on a certain
1 Quoted by' Wright, 'Some New Testament Problems,, m. 29-2.
a15ee Lake, 'Edriy *EpiMes of St. Paul, pp. 241-252.
8 Joyce, Inspiration of Prophecy, p. 149.

496 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
day, late in the afternoon, St. Peter and St. John went thither to pray,
the infirm man begged of them as of others. In reply St. Peter told him
that though he could not bestow upon him money, he would give him
such reUef as was in his power, and then commanded him in the name of
Jesus Christ to walk, helping him at the same time to rise (cf. Mk. i. 31,
v. 41). The man responded to the stimulating address, and. standing up
began to walk. When he found that he had recovered his power of
movement, his feelings of gratitude led him to enter with the two Apostles
into the Temple in order to render thanks to God for the mercy experienced.
To the cure probably two factors contributed. One was the renewed
hope and confidence inspired by St. Peter's words in the man himseU,
who may have recognized the leader of the Nazarenes on whom the Spirit
of God had descended ; the other was the exercise by the Apostle of
" suggestion " to promote the afflicted man's recovery. To the possession
of heahng powers which may thus be described St. Paul at a subsequent
date laid claim, ascribing them to the Spirit as their source (1 Cor. xu. 10, 11,
Gal. Ui. 5) ; and as he counted them among the marks of an Apostle
(2 Cor. xii. 12), his evidence corroborates St. Luke's account of the exercise
of hke powers by St. Peter. The only feature in the present narrative
which causes serious difiiculty is the statement that the man, who was
forty years old, had been lame from his birth. Joints and muscles long
disused become atrophied ; and reports of similar cures wrought on
crippled limbs are in general the more credible the shorter the period
during which the infirmity is represented to have lasted. In the case of
congenital lameness the limbs afflicted are likely not to develop equaUy
with the rest of the body, so that the report, in representing the man as
a cripple from infancy, may be inaccurate.
News of what had occurred speedily spread through the city ; and as
the two Apostles, accompanied closely by the man to whom had been
given back the use of his feet, were returning from the Court of the Women
into the Court of the GentUes, they were met at the portico known as
Solomon's (p. 90)1 by a crowd filled with wonder and curiosity. St.
Peter, seeing this, availed himseU of the opportunity to speak to them of
Him Whose emissaries and messengers he and his feUow-disciples were.
The speech repeated much that had abeady formed the substance of the
Apostle's address at Pentecost (Acts u. 14r-36) ; but it introduced certain
new thoughts called forth by the event they had just witnessed. The
tenor of it was as foUows : —
(1) The power that had recovered the cripple of his lameness was not
their own, but proceeded from Jesus Whom God had glorified by the
miracle — Jesus, God's Servant (2 Is. xiii. 1, Iii. 13), the Holy and Bighteous
One, the Pioneer of Life, whom they had rejected before Pilate in favour of
a murderer, and had killed ; but whom God had raised from the dead, as

1 In Acts iii. 1 1 the fact that the crowd ran to meet Peter and John and the lame
man as they left the Court of the Women is made clear in D, and the Old Latin
codex h which after Kparovvros . . . 'ladvvijv add iKiropevojilvov Si rov llirpov Kal
'loidvov.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 497
His disciples could bear witness. It was faith inspired by Him * that had
restored to the cripple the soundness which they observed.
(2) Through repentance for the execution of the Messiah (a sin
committed in ignorance by His slayers and fulfilling the Divine plan that
the Christ was to suffer (cf . Lk. xxiv. 26) ) they might hope for relief in
the period of distress destined to precede the Messianic age,2 and
eventually for the speedy return of Jesus the Christ from heaven where
He was reserved against the time appointed for the re-establishment in
the world of the perfect order intended by God (cf. Mk. ix. 12, Acts i. 6)
and foretold in prophecy. Moses, for instance, had predicted the coming
of a Prophet greater than himself (Dt. xviii. 15), obedience to whom was
the only safeguard from destruction.
(3) They whom the Apostle was addressing were the disciples of the
prophets and heirs of the covenant made by God with their fathers
(Gen. xxii. 18) ; and to them, in the first place, God, having raised up
Jesus as Moses' greater successor, nad sent Him to bless them by turning
each of them from his iniquities.
St. Peter's speech was followed seemingly by one from St. John, and
the summary purporting to reproduce what was said by tbe former may
represent the substance of addresses from both the Apostles. But they
were not permitted to disseminate their teaching without serious opposition.
The High Priesthood was in the hands of the Sadducees (p. 101) ; and to
them such discourses as the Apostles had so far deUvered were offensive
on many grounds, (a) The Sadducean priesthood had been chiefly
responsible for the death of Jesus Whom His disciples represented as the
promised Messiah of their race, (b) The declaration that He Who had been
executed by them as an impostor had been raised from the dead proved,
if true, that one of their most distinctive beliefs was untenable, (c) The
contention that Jesus, as the Messiah, would shortly return, was likely
to foster among the people expectations that might lead to outbreaks
against Boman rule, involving peril to, and perhaps forfeiture of, their
own prerogatives. But whilst the Apostles' preaching thus alarmed and
irritated the ecclesiastical authorities of the nation, it met with a diSerent
reception from the people at large. There was less sympathy among the
mass of the Jews with the Sadducees than with the Pharisees, who cherished
a beUef in a future Ufe and the resurrection of the dead ; and claims
advanced on behalf of a Messiah, even though not a Messiah of the type
popularly expected, generally evoked enthusiasm among the multitude.
And though the Apostles did not shrink from placing the responsibUity
for slaying Jesus upon their countrymen, they reassured those whom they
addressed by declaring that through repentance and faith they could
still share in the Messianic kingdom. Consequently many amongst those
who listened to the Apostles beheved ; so that the number of the converts
was increased to about five thousand.

1 This seems to be the sense of rj irlaris rj Si airov (Act% iu. 16).
2Cf. Mk. xiu. 8.

32

498 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
§ 2. Persecution by the Priesthood
The High Priestly party did not delay long before taking action. The
Apostles had scarcely brought their speeches in the Temple to a conclusion
when a body of priests,1 together with the captain of the Temple (p. 93),
attended doubtless by a body of men belonging to the Temple guard,
suddenly appeared and arrested them, consigning them to prison with a
view to examining them on the morrow. Next day a meeting of the
Sanhedrin was called, which was presided over probably by the High
Priest himself, Caiaphas, who was supported by his father-in-law Annas,
with other of the high priest's relations, of whom two, John and Alexander,
areespeciallymentioned.2 Before this Court the two Apostles were brought ;
and without being arraigned on any definite charge, were interrogated as
to the power or name by which they had effected the healing of the lame
man. The use of spells as means for the expulsion of demons or the cure
of physical infirmities Was a familiar practice in this age (p. 112), it being
believed that the malignant spiritual agency causing the malady could be
forced to retire before a Superior Power, if the latter's name were pro
nounced over the afflicted individual. The inspired courage previously
evinced by St. Peter when he spoke to the people was even more manifest
now, when he stood before the chief council of the Jewish nation. He
replied without hesitation to the High Priest's question that it was by
the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom they had crucified, but whom
God had raised from the dead, that the former cripple, standing in their
presence, had been restored to soundness. Quoting Ps. cxvui. 22 (cf.
1 Pet: ii. 6, 7), he declared that Jesus was the stone which, despised by
them, the builders, had been made by God the angle-stone consoUdating
the walls of the spiritual structure which was to defy overthrow. And
he then added with great emphasis that through no other name or per-
sonaUty was the Messianic salvation which they, the JewS, looked for,
to be secured.
The bearing and Words of the Apostles, and their apphcation to Him,
Whom they maintained to be the Christ, of a figure of speech Used in the
Scriptures originally of Israel but appropriate to the Messiah, Who could
be regarded as the representative of Israel, recaUed to their minds Jesus
Himself, Who had made use of the same passage from the Psalms (see
Mk. xii. 10-41), and Whose influence was traceable in the transformation
that had taken place in His followers, who earlier had seemed very ordinary
persons, quite untrained In Babbinical learning. The members of the
Sanhedrin, who now bade the accused withdraw whilst they consulted
among themselves,3 were in a difficult position. The cure wrought on
1 In Acts iv. 1 the reading ofSADEP, Lat., "Syr., (pesh. hi.), Eg. is oi lepels, but
B C and the Arm. and Eth. versions have ol dpxiepeis.
2 Of these neither is mentioned elsewhere, but for the latter the uncial B has
Jonathan, who was the son of Annas and succeeded Caiaphas in the high priesthood.
3 The account of the subsequent disoussion may be based on a report furnished by
some members of the Sanhedrin who later grew sympathetic towards the Christian
faith, or is perhaps constructed by inference from the decision reached.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 499
the crippled man was undeniable, and to account for it they had no
explanation to set against that supphed by Peter and John. But it was
dangerous to leave them and their companions alone, for fear of rehgious
excitement and consequent disorder among the populace ensuing upon
their activity ; whilst it was equally dangerous to suppress them by
superior force, since the marvellous cure had created a great impression.
Under these circumstances they contented themselves with merely
prohibiting them from speaking in the name of Jesus, a policy of which
the feebleness was apparent when the Apostles asked them whether they
or God had the most right to their obedience. However, not seeing their
way at the moment to any other course of effective intervention, they
threatened them further and discharged them.
When Peter and John returned to the rest of the disciples, and related
what had occurred before the Sanhedrin, the whole company united in
prayer to God, recaUing how the words of Ps. ii. 1-2 had been fulfilled
by the alliance of Gentiles (Uke Herod and Pilate) with the Jews against
Jesus, God's Anointed, and how the only result of their conspiring was
to bring to pass the Divine counsels ; and they petitioned for boldness to
deUver their Message, and for signs and wonders, wrought through the
name of Jesus, to attend it. Proof that their prayer was answered was
seen in the persistency with which they, inspired by the Spirit,1 continued
to preach and to bear their testimony to the resurrection of Jesus.
The Christian community did not cease to be marked by unity and
brotherhood. None regarded his property as exclusively his own, but
deemed it a trust, designed to be used for the support of others no less
than of himseU. Probably there was no merging of private possessions
into a single stock,3 but voluntary contributions were made on a generous
scale to a sustentation fund (cf. Acts iv. 37, v. 1). Such spontaneous
benevolence had nothing in common with socialistic communism, of
which the essence is the exploitation of the industrious, thrifty, and honest
by the idle, thriftless, and dishonest, but had its motive in a feeling of
spiritual kinship (one of the terms by whioh they described themselves
being "the brethren" (Acts ix. 30, xi. 29, xii. 17, xv. 1, xvii. 10, etc.)) ;
whilst an auxUiary cause was the prevaUing belief that Christ's Second
advent was near at hand and would inaugurate a new age, in which aU
their interests were oentred, so that much provision for the brief future
that remained to be spent under ordinary conditions appeared to fee
unnecessary. Nevertheless, as the interval expected to elapse before the
Lord's return grew longer and lomgea:, the experiment, however well-
intentioned, proved disastrous ; and it is not surprising that eventuaUy
the Jewish Christians had to be relieved at the expense of a number of
GentUe communities (see Acts xxiv. 17, 1 Cor. xvi. 1-3). But whilst
during the period described there was no replacement -of voluntary
1 The descent of the Spirit is represented by the historian as accompanied (hke the
theophanies in the Old Testament) with a shaking of the place where they were assem
bled (see Ex. xix. 18, Ps. xviii. 7, lxviu. 8, Is. vi. 4, Hab. in. 6) : 'cf . Verg. A. vi. '256,
Sub pedibus rMvqire solum et inga ccepta moveri Sikarum . . „ adventemte dea.
2 Cf . Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 48.

500 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
generosity by compulsory communism, there was some attempt at
organization, for the owners of property, when they sold it to supply the
needs of the necessitous, placed the proceeds at the disposal of the Apostles,
who became responsible for disbursing the money in the relief of want.
One who sold an estate and gave the price to the Apostles was a Levite
called Joseph Barnabas,1 a native of Cyprus, who was destined afterwards
to figure conspicuously among the evangelists of the Church. The action
of Barnabas, though not exceptional, is mentioned as a contrast to the
conduct of another individual, one Ananias, who, having disposed of some
property, brought to the Apostles part of what it fetched, professing that
it was the whole. He thus laid claim to greater credit for liberality than
was his due. The presentation of the money seems to have been made at
a public meeting of the community, in the presence of which St. Peter
(having learnt the facts through some ordinary channel of information
or penetrating, through some faculty of thought-reading, to the man's
consciousness of guilt)2 taxed him with his duplicity, declaring that he
had attempted to deceive not merely his feUow-men but the Holy Spirit,
that was in the midst of them. Ananias was so conscience-stricken at
the Apostle's words that he died on the spot.3 It is likewise represented
that his wife Sapphira, who was an accomplice in her husband's deceit,
and who a few hours later came in without being aware of what had
happened, was questioned by Peter about the transaction and repeated
her husband's falsehood ; and when the Apostle exposed to her the gravity
of the sin, she too feU dead. There is some improbability in the account
that the circumstances of the husband's sudden end were so closely
repeated immediately afterwards in the case of the wife, and that St. Peter
addressed to the latter words amounting to a sentence of death (contrast
his language to Simon the Magian, Acts viii. 21-23). But though the
report in this respect may weU have been heightened, yet what occurred
struck awe into all who heard of it both within and without the Christian
body, here caUed by St. Luke for the first time the " congregation " or
" church " (the Greek term implying that it was the true successor and
representative of God's chosen People (see p. 389) ).
The power of healing possessed by the Apostles, of which an Ulustration
has already been furnished, and of which further instances occurred that
are not described in detail, increased their influence among the people
and much augmented their adherents. Even those who through fear of
the ecclesiastical authorities shrank from joining the group of believers
who were accustomed to unite together in Solomon's Porch (p. 90),
1 In Acts iv. 36 the name " Barnabas " is explained to mean " son of encourage
ment " (vibs irapaKXfoeus), but the true etymology seems to be " son of prophecy "
or " of a prophet " (from the root nabd). Encouragement and consolation were func
tions of a prophet (cf. 2 Is. xl., 3 Is. lxi.). The rule that members of the tribe of
Levi should be landless (Num. xviii. 24) did not extend to such as resided outside
Palestine. 2Cf. 2 Kg. v. 26.
3 A somewhat paraUel occurrence is commemorated by a monument in the market
place of Devizes, WUts.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 501
nevertheless held them in great esteem, and even used to carry J their
sick into the streets in order that, as Peter passed by, at least his shadow
might fall upon the sufferers, in the hope that relief might thereby be
brought to them. The report of cures effected spread beyond the confines
of Jerusalem, so that persons afflicted with physical or mental diseases
were conveyed from the neighbouring towns to the capital, and received
benefit. The widespread influence which the Apostles acquired created such
indignation amongst the Sadducean party that Caiaphas and his supporters,
in spite of their fears of the people, decided to check the Christian movement
forcibly, lest popular enthusiasm for the disciples of Jesus, with their
declaration that He was the Messiah, should imperil their authority.
They accordingly seized, not Peter and John only, but the Apostles
collectively, and put them in prison. But by some means not explained,
but attributed to God's providence, and so represented as the work of
an angel (cf . p. Ill), their escape by night was secured ; and in the morning
they entered the Temple courts as before, and there proceeded to teach.
The Sanhedrin had intended to try them ; and with this purpose in view,
sent for them from the prison, and were much . perplexed and disturbed
when their officers reported that they could not be found. Information
presently came that the Apostles were in the Temple courts ; and the
captain of the Temple guard (p. 93) brought them thence, though without
violence, since the use of force to them might have been resented by the
populace. By the Sanhedrin they were charged with defiance of authority,
and with seeking to induce the people to hold them responsible for the
execution of Jesus. But Peter again, acting as spokesman for the rest
of the Twelve, reiterated his earlier plea (cf. Acts iv. 19) that their duty
to God transcended any duty owed to the Council ; and renewed his
assertion (cf. Acts iii. 13) that the God of Israel had raised up Jesus to
fulfil the Divine promises, that the authorities of the nation had killed
Him, but that He had been exalted by God to be the Messianic Deliverer,
whose mission it was to lead Israel to repent, and to procure for it forgive
ness, and that of His exaltation to heaven both they and the Holy Spirit
present among them could affirm the truth.
This answer so exasperated the majority of the Sanhedrin that they
were prompted to have them executed, though they lacked legal authority
to do so. But before they gave expression to any such decision, one of
their number, when the prisoners had been temporarily removed, recom
mended caution. This was Gamaliel,2 known as " the elder Gamaliel,"
to distinguish him from his grandson of the same name. He himself was
grandson of HiUel, one of the most famous of Jewish rabbis, and was
conspicuous among contemporary teachers for the sympathy which he
showed for Greek learning.3 Gamaliel belonged to the sect of the Pharisees
1 In Acts v. 15 the subject of iK<pipeiv is 6 Xabs mentioned in v. 13, the intervening
v. 14 being parenthetical.
2 It seems possible that Gamaliel was the ultimate source whence some information
about the proceedings that foUowed was derived.
* As a rule the Jewish Rabbis discouraged acquaintance with Greek;

502 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
who, though they had been hostile to Jesus on account of His disregard
of the letter of the Mosaic Law, and His claim to be the destined Messiah,
yet were not antagonistic to a belief in the resurrection of the dead and
did not cherish the same class-interests as the Sadducees (p. 101). Conse
quently, like others of his party, Gamaliel was disposed to be more tolerant
than the High Priest and his adherents towards the Christians. So he
proceeded to deprecate any hasty action by the Sanhedrin, urging that
if the new movement was of purely human origin, it would not last,
whereas, if it were Divinely inspired, opposition to it was futile and
impious. Some such adviee as this seems consistent both with the tenets
of the Pharisees, who, without being fatalists, placed great stress upon
Divine Providence as a factor in human history (p. 103), and with the
reputation that Gamaliel bore for liberality of thought. But in the
speech attributed to him by St. Luke, his citation of instances of abortive
movements in the past appears to involve a serious chronological error,
so that unless this is explained away by the assumption that two ringleaders
of sedition bore the same name, the speech would seem to have been
composed without sufficient care by St. Luke himseU (see p. 238f.).
"The suggestion of Gamaliel, who must have had many supporters
belonging to his own sect in the Sanhedrin, was adopted '; and the CouncU,
after beating the Apostles for their disregard of the orders previously
given them, and again admonishing them to speak no more in the name
of Jesus, released them. The second warning had as Uttle effect as the
first. The Apostles left the eouncil-chamber counting it an honour to
incur suffering and humiliation for the Name (i.e. the combination Jesus
Christ!), and continued as hitherto to proclaim both in the Temple and in
private houses that Jesus was the Messiah.
The point in the history here reached marks the end of a stage in the
relations between Christianity and Judaism. So far, there had faUen from
the Christian teachers no word derogatory to Jewish institutions ; and
the leaders of the Church had only come into coUision with the Jewish
officials who had been mainly responsible for the death of their Lord.
But henceforward there began to be displayed in certain quarters within
the Church an attitude of criticism and detachment as regards the Jewish
Law and its ordinances-, so that there graduaUy developed between
Christianity and Judaism a rift which time has not yet bridged.
§ 3. Appointment and Work of the Seven " Deacons "
As the number of disciples increased and there was, as yet, little
organized distribution of functions among the infant community, it was
inevitable that some defects or oversights should occur, causing complaint.
The occasion is only vaguely indicated by the phrase " in those days "
(Acts vi. 1, cf. i. 15), so that its relation to the events previously recorded
cannot be precisely determined. The friction was due to the composite
character of the growing Church. Having originated in Palestine, it
consisted at first of Jews who habituaUy spoke Aramaic (p, 79). But
Jerusalem was the resort of numerous Jews from countries where the

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 503
medium of intercourse was Greek (p. 80) ; and of these some had become
converts to the Christian faith. Such, however, were a minority, and the
administration of the affairs of the whole body naturally rested at the
outset with the Aramaic-speaking section of it. The chief duty which
caUed for attention was that of providing support for the poor and
unprotected. In that age the absence of any form of state relief rendered
the obligation of supplying the needs of the indigent one of the most
imperative of religious duties ; and liberality to the necessitous was not only
inculcated in the Old Testament (Ex. xxiii. 11, Dt. xv. 11, Lev. xxv. 35),
but was speciaUy enjoined by the Pounder of Christianity (Mt. v. 42 =
Lk. vi. 30). Among those whose poverty was greatest were widows ; and
their daily wants were supplied from the common fund (Acts iv. 34, 35),
by individuals appointed for the purpose, probably by the Apostles
(in whose hands the money contributed to the fund was placed, see
p. 500). These individuals were taken exclusively at first from among the
" Hebrews " ('Epgaioi), as those were called who used the Aramaic
vernacular ; and in the distribution of alms the widows of the Helenists
('EXXrjviarai) 1 or Greek-speaking Jews did not receive their proper
share. This led to dissatisfaction, which it was expedient for the Apostles
to remove as soon as possible. They therefore summoned a meeting of
the whole body of the Church and explained the situation. It was clearly
undesirable that the time which they devoted to imparting the Christian
message should be consumed in providing for the physical necessities of
the poorer disciples. They proposed, therefore, that seven persons (the
number having a sacred character2), all of good report and characterized
by religious enthusiasm and practical wisdom, should be elected by the
rank and file of the Church, and f ormaUy appointed over the administration
of relief by the Apostles, who should confine themselves to more strictly
religious functions, prayer and the proclamation of the Message. The
proposal met with approval, and the assembly chose Stephen, Philip,
Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolaus. AH the names are
Greek, and prudence would dictate the inclusion among the seven of
some who were Hellenistic in sympathy. One, indeed, Nicolaus, was of
Gentile origin, and had been converted to Judaism before he became a
Christian. When elected, they were brought before the Apostles, who,
after prayer, laid their hands upon them, the rite, in accord with traditional
Usage, symbolizing the transmission to them of authority to act as the
Apostles' representatives in regard to this particular duty (see Num. xxvii.
18, 20, 23, Dt. xxxiv. 9). From the employment of the words Siaxovla
and SixutovEiv in connexion with their appointment, the Seven are often
described as the Seven Deacons. But their proper title seems to have been
" the Seven " simply (Acts xxi. 8) ; they are never explicitly styled
deacons in the New Testament, and they really discharged only a temporary
function, which after the death of one of their number, and the dispersal
of the others, was eventually transferred to a different body (Acts xi. 30).
1 The term "EKX-qvurral (unlike "EXXi.xes) marks a class within the Jewish people.
2 It probably went back to the " seven planets " known to the Babylonians (Sun,'
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn).

504 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
The dissatisfaction manifested by the Greek-speaking Jews seems to have
been allayed by the measures adopted to deal with it. The numbers of
the disciples gained for the Christian faith kept constantly increasing ;
and amongst those who accepted its promises and obligations were a large
body of priests (probably from the inferior ranks of the Jewish priesthood).
In the account of the Seven contained in Acts, a perplexing feature
is the way in which the history passes over the exercise of their duty as
relieving officers and proceeds to narrate the activities of some of them
as Evangelists. The most remarkable among them was Stephen, eminent
even among his companions for grace of speech1 and for healing power.
His varied endowments made him an influential and convincing advocate
of the Christian faith. But if his success as a preacher and controversialist
eclipsed that of the rest, it also concentrated upon him the antagonism
which Christianity encountered from a section of the Jews. As one who was
famUiar with Greek, Stephen would naturally address himself principaUy
to his fellow HeUenists. Although the Jews of the Dispersion were
probably, in general, more liberal in thought than those of Palestine
(p. 79), there were some who were no less zealous for the traditional
beliefs of Judaism than their Palestinian countrymen. Stephen belonged
to the liberal section amongst the Hellenists, and it was seemingly from
some fellow-Hellenists that he encountered most opposition. These were
members of a synagogue caUed the synagogue of the Libertini (manumitted
descendants of Jewish slaves, p. 44), Cyrenseans and Alexandrians (p. 78),
and were supported by other Hellenists from CUicia and Asia. Unequal
to him in debate, they procured men to misrepresent his words, and to
charge him with having declared that by Jesus the Nazarene the Temple
would be destroyed and the institutions of Moses changed (the accusation
resembling that brought against our Lord HimseU, Mk. xiv. 58, Mt. xxvi.
61). The ground of such a charge, which St. Luke describes as false, is
not explained. It is not likely that Stephen disparaged the distinctive
institutions of Judaism openly and explicitly, for such a contention at
this early stage would have alienated from Stephen the sympathies of
the Twelve no less than of other Jews. Probably he affirmed, like Jesus
Himself, that the mere external performance of the commands of the
Law, apart from real sympathy with its ethical principles, would not
ensure admission into the kingdom of God. Any denial of the intrinsic
value of the Temple ritual and the ceremonial regulations so carefully
guarded by the oral traditions of the Scribes would suffice to provoke the
Pharisees, who had the support of the mass of the people (p. 102) ; so
that the offence with which he was accused at once created a commotion.
He was arrested and brought into the presence of the Sanhedrin, presided
over by the High Priest (p. 99) ; and before this ibody the witnesses
suborned by his opponents gave evidence. But the seriousness of his
position did not dismay Stephen, whose countenance, indeed, so far from
wearing the depressed look of a prisoner on trial for his life, seemed to
1 In Acts vi. 8 irXifipns xfyiros may perhaps be iUustrated by Lk. iv. 22 ; cf. also
Ps. xlv. 2, Horn. Od. viii. 175 x^P'S d/i$iirepi(rrp($erai iirieaaaii

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 505
some of the bystanders to be irradiated with supernatural dignity and
glory. To the High Priest's question whether the accusation was true; he
replied in a long and reaUy remarkable speech. Although it contains
a certain number of phrases characteristic of St. Luke,1 it has some
expressions which do not recur anywhere in the New Testament, and a
few of which are rather noteworthy. 2 In general it is sufficiently distinctive
amongst the speeches recorded in Acts to render it probable that it preserves
something of Stephen's actual address. In it various incidents of Hebrew
history are related, but with numerous and striking divergences from
the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the speaker (or the historian who
reports him) either depending upon the LXX (where it departs from
the Hebrew), or drawing upon a treacherous memory, or else substituting
for the Statements and figures of the Scriptures others resting upon
tradition.3 To the charge of having used words derogating from the
honour due to the institutions and possessions upon which the Jews
placed such value, the speech indirectly supplies some sort of answer ;
for in it Stephen magnifies three things highly esteemed by his countrymen,
namely (a) the land of Canaan, as having been destined for their race by
God from the time of Abraham ; (6) the Law, as containing living oracles,
and as imparted through Angelic agency ; and (c) the tabernacle, the
precursor of the Temple, as built according to a Divinely communicated
plan. Nevertheless, there were implicit in his argument three contentions
that reaUy impugned the importance of the Mosaic Law and the Temple.
The first was that God's relations with men were independent of place, since
He had revealed Himself to the patriarchs and to Moses in Mesopotamia,
in Haran and in the wilderness ; the second was that Moses had foretold
the advent of another prophet [Jesus], so that the Law could not be the
final disclosure of God's intentions for His people ; whilst the third was
that every material buUding was inadequate and unessential as a dweUing-
place for the Creator of all things. And though formaUy the speech
was Stephen's plea in his own defence, it was in substance an indictment
of his countrymen, in which the Jews were arraigned as persistent rebels
against God ; and the charge was supported by instances drawn from
their past history, iUustrating the way in which they, in contrast to their
great ancestors, had repeatedly opposed the schemes of Divine Providence.
The speech may conveniently be divided into five sections : —
(1) In the first place, attention was drawn to the faith and obedience
of Abraham, who by Divine direction left his native land for another
which was to be shown him, and proceeded first to Haran, and thence,
after his father's death, to Canaan, where, however, God gave him no
inheritance, though promising it (at a time when he had no offspring)
1 E.g. ifairotrriXXeiv, o-urrvpla, Karavoeiv, Siardirireo-Bai, <pvXdaoeiv, see pp. 204-5.
8 Such are o Bebs rijs S6%rjs (cf . Ps. xxix. 3), Xvrparijs, IXeviris. The expression 6 vlos
rov dvBpiiirov attributed to Stephen in Acts vn. 56 does not occur elsewhere in Acts or,
indeed, anywhere in the New Testament outside the Gospels.
' Cfi also Lk. iv. 25 and Jos. v. 17 with 1 Kg. xviiii 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 8 with Num. xxv. 9,

506 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to his posterity, who would enjoy it only after suffering bondage 400 years.
(2) The next feature in the national history which was emphasized
was the way in which the sons of Jacob, though actuated by evil motives,
nevertheless, ' through their conduct, unwittingly brought about the
fulfilment of God's purposes ; for though from jealousy they sold Joseph
into Egypt, yet there he was promoted to high office, and was able to
support in that country during/a period of famine his kindred, seventy-five
persons in aU. Prom thence Jacob and his sons, when dead, were carried
into Canaan for burial in the tomb bought by Abraham of the sons of
Hamor at Shechem (thereby acquiring a possession in the promised land,
though only a grave).
(3) Another feature emerging from the history was Israel's rejection
of the leader whom God sent them, and their disobedience to the Divine
commandments. When a successor of the Pharaoh who had promoted
Joseph enslaved the Hebrews, Moses was born. The king's design to
destroy him with the other Hebrew children was overruled by God's
providence, since he was rescued by the king's own daughter, who nourished
him and instructed him in all the wisdom of Egypt. When he was come to
forty years, he saved from an Egyptian one of the Hebrews, and thought
that the people would understand that he was their destined deliverer,
but they failed to do so ; and when he subsequently tried to part two
Hebrews who were at strife, he was repeUed. Yet forty years later, a
Divine communication was conveyed to him at Sinai, and he was appointed
to be the liberator of his countrymen. But even Moses was not a final
saviour, for he predicted that God would raise up another (and greater)
propheti1 And he, though the intermediary in the wUderness between
the angel that spoke at Sinai and the people of Israel, was repudiated by
the latter, who sought to return to Egypt instead of advancing towards
the promised land ; and who, abandoning the worship of the God Who
had done so much for them, rendered adoration to a caU which they
themselves had made. Consequently God left them to their own devices,
and allowed them to worship the heavenly bodies, as described in Am. v.
25-27. (4) This idolatry on the part of Israel occurred in Spite of their
possessing, first, the tabernacle, built by Moses after God's own design,
and next, a temple, built by Solomon. Shrines, however, constructed
by human hands could be no real abode for the Most High, for heaven
was His throne, the earth His footstool, and the universe His creation
(3 7s. Ixvi. 1, 2).2
(5) FinaUy, it was declared that the resistance to God's Spirit exhibited
by the people in the past had been repeated recently by those whom the
Speaker was addressing. Their fathers had killed the prophets who foretold
the coming of the Righteous One3 ; and Him, when He came, they
themselves had delivered up to be put to death. Though they had received
1 In Acts vii. 37 ibs ijii does not mean like me but as (he raised up) me.
2 Cf. the argument of St. Paul in Acts xvii. 24, 25.
8 Cf. Acts in. 14, 2 Is. liii. 11.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 50?
the Law as an ordinance transmitted through angelic agency,1 they had
not kept it.
The principal divergences in the speech from the Old Testament are as foUows :¦ —
Acts vii. 3. The words quoted were spoken in Haran (Gen. xu. 1, though cf . Neh. ix.
7).
„ 4. Terah was 70 when Abraham was born, Abraham was only 75 when he
left Haran, and Terah did not die until he was 205 (Gen. xi. 26, xu. 4,
xi. 32).
„ 6. Four hundred years agrees with Gen. xv. 13, but not with Ex. xii. 40 (four
hundred and thirty years).
7. The words they shall serve me in this place (from Ex. ni. 12) refer in their
original context not to Canaan but to Horeb.
„ 14. Threescore and fifteen souls agrees with Gen. xlvi. 27, LXX, but not with
the Heb. (seventy).
„ 16. The tomb bought by Abraham was not at Shechem, nor got from the
sons of Hamor, but at Machpelah and purchased from Ephron the
Hittite (Gen. xxiii. 19), Neither Jacob nor any of his sons except
Joseph was buried at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 32).
„ 22, 23. Neither the instruction of Moses in the wisdom of the Egyptians nor
bis age when he intervened to save his feUow-eountrytrian is mentioned
in the Old Testament.
„ 30. The scene of the revelation at the Bush is caUed Horeb in Ex. in. 1 f.
„ 38. At Sinai God Himself, not an angel, spoke to Moses (Ex. xix. 3 f.).
„ 42-43. The passage quoted foUows the LXX, which differs considerably from
the Heb., especiaUy in the substitution of beyond Babylon for beyond
Damascus.
The concluding words of the speech were more than the patience of
the audience could brook, and the assembly burst into a frenzy of rage.
Stephen, looking up to heaven, cried that he saw (in mental vision) the
heavens opened 2 and the Son of man standing at God's right hand ; but
the people, stopping their ears, tried to drown his voice, and making a
simultaneous rush towards him, hurried him out of the city and stoned
him. Those who had appeared as witnesses against him were the first to
begin the stoning (in accordance with the direction in Dt. xvii. 7) ; and
before doing so they laid down their outer garments at the feet of a young
man caUed Saul (from whom St. Luke in later years may have derived an
account of the scene). Stephen commended his soul to the Lord Jesus,
and then, kneeling down, prayed that the sin of his murderers might not
be fastened irremovably upon them, and so praying, died.
The execution, though carried out in an ebullition of rage, was the
issue of a formal trial, for Stephen was brought before the Sanhedrin
(Acts vi. 12), and stoning was the penalty imposed by the Law for trans
gressing the Divine covenant, of which in the opinion of his judges he
might be held to be guUty (see Dt. xvii. 2-5). It was probably, however,
Ulegal (p. 100) ; and the circumstance that the perpetrators were not
called to account was perhaps due to the Roman procurator's lack of
principle. The year of the occurrence cannot be determined with any
accuracy, but it is not likely to have been long after the Crucifixion, though
1 For the attendance of angels at Sinai cf. Ps. lxvtti. 17.
2 Cf. Acts x. 11, Mk. i. 10 (Mt. Ui. 16, Lk. iii. 21).

508 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
later than 30, and almost certainly fell within the procuratorship of
Pilate (2(5-36). If so, the fact that the illegality was overlooked can be
explained by Pilate's fear of the Jews (cf . Lk. xxiii. 23, Mt. xxvii. 24) and
his indifference to the claims of justice.
Stephen was buried by some devout persons, who, whether actuaUy
Christians or not, had sufficient sympathy with him to see that his body
received the last rites. His death marked a crisis in the fortunes of the
infant Church. Hitherto its opponents had been chiefly the High Priests
who belonged to the sect of the Sadducees (Acts v. 17). But the spirit of
Stephen's teaching, depreciating, as it really did, the importance of the
institutional and ceremonial elements of the Jewish religion so dear to the
Pharisees, rendered them also hostile to those who were in accord with
him. Such were mainly drawn from the HeUenist Jews, and a vigorous
persecution was directed against them. One who took part in this
persecution was Saul or (to give him his full name, so far as it is known),
Saul Paul,1 a Hebrew by race, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. \,Phil.
iii. 5, 6), but a native of Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts xxi. 39), who was a zealous
Pharisee (Acts xxiii. 6, Gal. i. 14, Phil. iii. 5), and had been trained from
his early youth by Gamaliel at Jerusalem (p. 501), where he presumably
became proficient in Aramaic. He possessed the Roman citizenship by
inheritance ; and though he was taught a handicraft (as Jews, whatever
their station, generally were, p. 98), he was a man of position and possibly
of wealth, for in the course of his career he was treated by numerous
persons in authority with a degree of respect and consideration not
commonly shown to poor men.2 As a worshipper in one of the HeUenist
synagogues (presumably that of the CUicians and Asians (Acts vi. 9) ), he
had been brought into contact with Stephen ; had been animated with a
fierce antagonism to his teaching ; and had been present at his execution,
of which he had fully approved.3 Por the attempted suppression of the
new movement within Judaism, which appeared to be so disloyal to its
principles, he was thus a most suitable agent. Houses where suspected
Christians lived were visited, and aU the inmates who avowed any leanings
towards the heresy were committed to prison. The severe measures
which were adopted by the Jewish authorities resulted in a scattering of
all in Judsea and Samaria whose safety was imperiUed, and who were able
to take flight in time. The Apostles, however, though the leaders of the
Church, appear to have escaped arrest, probably because (apart from
maintaining that Jesus was the Messiah) they afforded no handle for a
charge of seeking to subvert Mosaism.
The dispersion of the Christian Hellenists 4 in consequence of the search
made for them in Jerusalem contributed to promote the diffusion of the
Gospel (Acts viii. 1, xi. 19). Amongst those who left Jerusalem was
1 Cf. the names John Mark, Jesus Justus, Symeon Niger.
2 See Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 310-312.
8 This is perhaps the sense of / gave my vote against them in Acts xxvi. 10. It
seems unhkely that he was a member of the Sanhedrin.
* It is clear that in Acts viii. 1 all cannot embrace the entire Christian community
at Jerusalem ; cf. viii. 14, ix. 26j

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 509
PhUip, one of the Seven, who went to a city of Samaria (Acts viii. 5). The
reading here varies, for whilst NAB have rfjv noXiv rfjg Za/iagiag,
which must mean Sebaste (p. 5), C D E omit the article before n6Xw,
Sebaste must have been largely Gentile (p. 47) ; so that in spite of the
superior MSS. authority for tj.v noXiv there is something to be said for
adopting noXiv and conjecturing that Shechem is meant (cf. Ecclus. 1. 26).
The Samaritans (p. 16) accepted the Pentateuch as authoritative and
inspired ; and in consequence of its prediction of the coming of another
Prophet, they hoped, like the Jews, for a Messiah (p. 485). PhUip, there
fore, was able to appeal to this expectation ; and in the course of proclaim
ing the imminence of the Kingdom of God (Acts viii. 12), declared that the
looked-for Messiah had actually come in the person of Jesus, Who was
destined to return with power and inaugurate the Messianic age. The
effect of his preaching was enhanced by the cures which he wrought upon
numbers who were either mentally or physically afflicted, so that his visit
to the city occasioned much rejoicing.
Previous to Philip's arrival in Samaria, there had come thither
a certain Simon who had produced a great impression upon all classes
through magic arts (i.e. occult practices whereby it was claimed by the
magician that he could constrain demons to do his wiU). According to
Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 26) he was a native of Gitta, three miles from
Samaria, and was honoured by the Samaritans as " the first god " (6 ngdirog
Beog), or, as elsewhere explained (c. Trypho, 120), Beog vnegdva> jidarjg dgxfjg
ual igovolag xai Swdfisiag. He probably aUeged that he was an
incarnation of Divine Power in a pre-eminent degree (cf. Acts viii. 10),
and perhaps supported his pretensions by the exercise of psychic powers
or by imposture. His influence, however, though previously extensive,
appears to have been eclipsed by that of Philip, who won many converts
to faith in Jesus as the Christ, so that they were baptized ; and among
those who received baptism was Simon himself, who attended Philip,
being deeply impressed by the marvels worked by him, which transcended
his own.
Information of the reception of the Gospel by the Samaritans was
carried to the Apostles at Jerusalem, and must have created much surprise.
The Twelve can scarcely have yet realized the comprehensive character
which in the scheme of Divine Providence was to mark the Christian
Church ; but they were prepared to foUow the guidance of events, and
accordingly sent two of their number, Peter and John, to Samaria to
ascertain whether the facts corresponded to the report which they had
heard.1 What the two emissaries learnt satisfied them ; and they there
upon prayed that the newly-baptized converts might receive the Holy
Spirit, for as yet there had been among them none of the outward signs
especiaUy associated with the Spirit's Presence (p. 492). After praying
for them, they laid upon them their hands, and they received the Spirit
(as evidenced, presumably, by an outburst of ecstatic praise). The
precise significance of the symbolic act of the imposition of hands, which
1 Cf. the similar mission of inquiry undertaken by Barnabas (Ads xi. 22, 23).

510 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Seems to have different meanings in varying circumstances, is, on the
present occasion and in Acts xix: 6; not quite obvious. At first sight, the
paraUel of Dt. xxxiv. 9. where it is stated that Joshua " was full of the
spirit bf wisdom, for Moses had Md his hands upon him " suggests that the
physical act in itself was believed to be a means whereby the possession
Of certain spiritual gifts was actuaUy conveyed to another person, after the
andlogy of the transfer of property. But in Num-. xxvii. 18 from P
Joshua is represented as already possessed of the Spirit before the im
position of Moses' hands ; so that possibly the practice which the rite
repf Odubed was that of placing the hands upon, or lifting them towards, a
person or persons for whom a blessing from heaven was implored (see
Gen. xlviii. 14 f -., Lev. ix. 22, cf ; Mk. x. 16). In any case prayer accompanied
the act. Whether the reason why PhUip himseU had not previously
prayed that his converts might receive the Holy Spirit was that this
function was already reserved for the Twelve Apostles only, or that he
shrank from the responsibility of discharging it in the instance Of
S&miaritans,1 the New Testament evidence is not decisive.2
SiihOh thb Magian was a witness of what occurred . and thinking that
if it were possible to secure that the Same effects should foUow similar
action on the part Of himself, his own importance and reputation would be
augmented, offered the two Apostles money if they would impart power
to him so that all upon whom he laid his hands might receive Holy Spirit.
He Seems to have supposed the Apostles to be in possession of a magical
secret, ignorant that what he had seen was not the result of a speU or
charm which could be bought for a price. But Peter, indignantly exclaim
ing, " Thy silver go to perdition with thee," declared that one whose
motives were evU could have no share in an experience which was dependent
upbii a right disposition ; and bade him repent of his wicked thoughts,
for he was on the way to prove a poisonous influence and harmful impedi
ment 3^tb the Church into which he had been baptized. Simon was much
alarmed, and he petitioned Peter and John-, as potent intercessors, to pray
to the Lord that the evil which he had incurred might be averted.4
What the two emissaries from the Church at Jerusalem had seen in
Sairi&ria convinced them that it was the Divine wiU to include the
* See Theology, May. 1921, p, 227.
2 St Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, laid his hands on converts and they
received the Spirit (Acts xix. 6) ; but he strenuously asserted his equality with the
chiefest Apostles (2 Cor. xi. 5).
' In Acts villi 23 x'oM. riKplas seems to mean " a bitter gall-root " ; see Dt. xxix. 18.
4 For ah account of Simon Magus' career subsequent to his encounter with Sti
Peter see Justin, Apol. i. 26, Eus. H.E. n. 13 and 14. where it is stated that he went
to Rome, and was there honoured as a god, a statue being ereoted to him, but was
confronted duririg the reign of Claudius by St. Peter. Justin states that the inscrip
tion plated oh the statue began with the words Simone Deo Samcto, but Seems to have
been misled s for in 1574 a statue was found in the Tiber, bearing the inscriptioil
Semoni Sanco Deo Fibio Sacrum Sex. Pompeius Sp. F. Col. Mussianus Qutn-
(Juennalis Deoub. BibENTALis Donum Dedit, which was doubtless the statue referred
t6 by Justin, but which was reaUy dedicated to the Sabine god Semo SancuS. The
historian is also probably in error as regards the date of St. Peter's visit to Borne,
whither he must nave gone later thah Claudius' reign (41-54) ; see p. 313.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 511
Samaritans hi the Messianic kingdom ; so that on their rekirh journey
they preached in varibus Samaritan villages. Philip, however, did not
accompany them to Jerusalem ; but with the aim of prosecuting furthef
evangelistic work, turned to the south-west, and jbined the road leading
from Jerusalem to Gazi. He did riot go to the new town, but journeyed
past the ruins of the older city (p. 7), and an incident that occurred on
the way led him to believe that he Was Divinely guided in his choice of
routes. For he overtook a high official of the reigning quCen of Ethiopia,1
who had charge of her treasury. Like many other thoughtful Gentiles)
this man had been attracted by Judaism, and though incapable of being
included, as a proselyte, in the community of Israel, since he was a eunuch
(Dt. xxiii. 1), he was presumably a " Gbd-fearer " (p. 89) and had been to
Jerusalem to worship there. He was acquainted with the LXX version
of the Old Testament (which was made in Egypt (p. 28)) ; and whUst
seated in his chariot was perusing iii it the book of Isaiah. A monition
from the same Divine source as that which had led PhUip to take the road
along which he was travelling; impeUed him to join the Stranger, of whom
he inquired whether he understodd what he was reading* namely, 2 Is. liii.
7, 8. The passage in Isaiah occurs in the account of Jehovah's Servant,
whose sufferings, undeserved by any offences of his own* are represented
as avaiUng to atone for the offences of others, including those who
maltreated him. The Hebrew of v. 8 probably signifies that Jehovah's
Servant was taken away from life by an bppressive judgment, whilst none
of his contemporaries reflected on the reason for his removal from the
world of the living • but the LXX admits of the meaning that when he
humbled himseU tb death, the judgment executed upon him was reversed
by God. and that none would be able to recount the numbers of his spiritual
descendants j for his life was removed from the earth to a higher sphere.
It was probably in this sense that the passage was interpreted by Philip,
whom the eunuch had taken into his chariot and who, in answer to his
question whether the prophet spOke of himself or another, declared that
his words were fulfiUed by Jesus ; and explained the purpose of His death
and the significance of His risen Ufe and exaltation; On reaching a sheet
of water. Philip's companion asked whether there was any hindrance tb
his being baptized and made a member of the Christian body. After his
experience in Samaria Philip felt persuaded that neither the Ethiopian's
race hor his physical defect (See 3 Is: Ivi: 3. 4) was an impediment to his
inclusion in the Church; and. being assuted of his sharing the Christian
belief about Jesus (i.e. that He was the Christ or Messiah 2)_ he baptized
him; The conversion and baptism of the eunuch being accbmplished by
Phuip. the two parted . and whUst the one. fuU of happiness, returned tb
1 The name Canddce (Acts viii. 27) seems to have been transferred from an indivi.
dual female sovereign to a series of successors (Pliny, H.N- vi. 29), Uke the Roman
title Ccssar.
2 Acts viu. 37, given in the R.V. ing., is found in E, sdme few cursives, and the
Lat. (vet.), Syr. (hi.), and Arm. versions, but is absent from it ABC, Lat. (vulg.),
Eg., Eth; Biit some confession of beUef, sucih as that Jesus was Christ (cf. Acts ii,
38 and p. 493), if not formaUy expressed, must have been imphed.

512 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
his own land, the other went to Azotus1 (the ancient Ashdod), situated
north of Gaza (p. 7), and made an evangelistic tour through the towns
on the coast lying between it and Caesarea. The last-mentioned city (p. 47)
distinguished from other places of the same name as Ccesarea Sebaste,
was the place where Philip at a later time made his home (cf. Acts xxi. 8).
§ 4. The Conversion of St. Paul
The dispersion of the Hellenist Christians, in consequence of the
execution of Stephen, had carried some of them outside the limits of
Judaea (p. 508) ; and certain of them withdrew beyond the boundaries of
the Holy (Land to Damascus (p. 7). This, at the period here under
consideration, circ. a.d. 33, was included in the Roman province of Syria ;
but since the Romans conceded to the Jewish Sanhedrin authority to take
proceedings against such of their compatriots as offended against the
religious institutions of their race (p. 100), this body, knowing or suspecting
that adherents of the Christian faith had fled thither, gave to Saul of
Tarsus (p. 508), at his own request, letters to the synagogues there, empower
ing him to arrest and bring to Jerusalem any members of the Jewish
community that foUowed the Christian rule of Ufe. Saul's activity in
calling offendersjto account is affirmed by himseU (Gal. i. 13, cf . Acts xxii. 19,
xxvi. 10, 11) ; and he started for Damascus (about 150 mUes from
Jerusalem, as the crow flies), accompanied by a sufficient retinue to escort
safely to the Jewish capital all whom he might seize. He was close to his
journey's end when, at noontide, he was suddenly conscious of an intense
light about him, and in the midst of it, of a Presence near him. He feU to
the ground, and he then heard a Voice saying to him, in Aramaic, " Saul,
Saul, why persecutest thou me ? " To his inquiry " Who art thou,
Lord ? " there came the reply, " I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."
When he rose from the earth he discovered that he was unable to see, and
had to be guided by the hand. His companions led him to Damascus,
where he found lodging in the house of a certain Justus, and where he
remained in darkness for three days, which he spent in prayer and fasting.
Information conveyed by Paul's retinue that he, who was on his way to
Damascus, with powers from the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to arrest and
imprison beUevers on Jesus, had suddenly abandoned his purpose, must
soon have spread through the Christian community in the city. Among
those whom it reached was a certain Ananias, to whom the narrative of
what had happened occasioned much reflection. He was aware of the
severity with which Saul had persecuted the Christians at Jerusalem, and
it was difficult to suspect a man of such determined wUl of any faltering
in his purpose ; yet the circumstance that he had remained secluded for
three days, without placing his commission in the hands of another to
carry out, really pointed to a sudden change of mind in the persecutor.
As a Christian, Ananias knew that Peter and the other disciples had been
transformed from cowardly deserters to courageous champions through
1 With Acts viu. 39 " The Spirit of the Lord daught away Phihp," cf. 1 Kg. xvui.
12, 2 Kg. ii. 16.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 513
the appearance to them of Jesus ; and' he felt an impulse (owing, as he
beheved, its origin to the Lord Himself) to conclude, in spite of plausible
reasons pointing to a contrary inference, that the risen Jesus had made a
changed man of Saul, who would then, in virtue of the very qualities which
had made him so formidable an opponent to the Church, prove aU the more
intrepid and devoted an adherent of it. But if he had been divinely
guided to this conclusion, it could only be with the design that he should
be instrumental in helping Saul at so critical a moment of his life by im
parting to him instruction ; and so he resolved to seek him at his lodgings
in Straight Street (a name — Derb El Mustakim — still borne by the main
thoroughfare in Damascus),
Some such inward debate in the mind of Ananias seems to be
reflected in the historian's account, written in the light of subsequent
events, which describes how the Lord in a vision bade Ananias inquire
for Saul, since the latter had seen Ananias come to him and restore
to him his sight 1 ; how Ananias replied that he had heard of the evil
which Saul had done to the Christians of Jerusalem, and of his com
mission to imprison those of Damascus ; and how the Lord answered
that Saul was a chosen agent to make known His revelation to Gentiles
and their rulers as weU as to Jews, even at the cost of great sufferings.
The representation that Paul saw (in a vision) the visit of Ananias (who
was a stranger to him, as implied in Acts ix. 13) prior to its occurrence, and
that this vision of Paul's enters into one received by Ananias himself, can
be little else than a method of indicating that every step in St. Paul's
conversion to Christianity was foreordained and determined by Jesus
(cf. Acts x. 3, xvi. 9, xxvii. 23, 24 and p. 106). Certain features in the
historian's narrative seem to reflect his further acquaintance with St.
Paul's subsequent career, including his labours for the conversion of the
GentUes, and his examination before King Agrippa and the Roman
Emperor. Ananias, on going to Saul's abode, laid his hands upon him and greeting
him by the term " Brother " (i.e. as a feUow- Christian) told him that he
had been sent by Jesus, Who had appeared to him on the way to Damascus,
in order that he might recover his sight and receive the Holy Spirit. With
the sudden relief which Ananias' words brought to Saul's depressed and
despairing heart there came back to him his power of vision (the sensation
of returning sight being likened by the historian to the removal from his
eyes of scales) and he thereupon received baptism and took food.2 Ananias
in laying his hands upon Saul made use of the same symboUc action as
St. Peter and St. John. in Samaria, having the same end in view, though
Ananias (so far as is known) was only an ordinary member of the Church
and held no office in it.
1 Acts ix. 12 (which aUudes to Saul's recovery of sight through Ananias, without
previous mention to the latter of Saul's bUndness) is omitted by the Old Lat. MS. h.
2 It is possible that the narrative of the blindness and its cure is symboUcal (cf.
Weizsacker, Apos. Age, i. p. 92). It is noteworthy that only in St. Luke's account
mention occurs of either the blindness or its cure (Acts ix. 9, 18) ; and the historian
may have interpreted Hterally a figure of speeoh used by St. Paul himself.
33

514 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Of the circumstances of St. Paul's vision of the Lord and its sequel there are three
accounts in Acts ix., xxu., and xxvi. which present some divergences : —
In ix. (a) His companions, standing speechless, hear the voice but see no one.
(b) He is directed by Jesus to enter the city, where he wiU be told what to do.
(c) Reference to his bearing the name of Jesus before Gentiles and Jews
occurs in the vision received by Ananias. .
In xxii. (a) His companions behold the hght but hear not the voice.1
(b) On asking what he is to do, he receives the same directions as in ix.
(c) Reference to his being witness for Jesus to aU men occurs in the conversa
tion between Ananias and St. Paul.
In xxvi. (a) His companions, Uke himself, fall to the earth.
(b) Jesus, after the question " Why persecutest thou me ? " adds " It is
hard for thee to kick against the goads," 2 and appoints him a minister
and witness both of what he has already seen and what he wiU see
later, and promises to deliver him from both the Jewish people (see
xxii. 17, 18) and the GentUes, to whom he is to be sent to effect their
conversion.
Some of the important questions raised by this narrative have been
considered abeady (pp. 481 f .). It is only necessary to say here that whatever
explanation of the occurrence be adopted, it is essential that it should be
adequate to account for a momentous fact, namely, the sudden conversion
of an active opponent of the Christian faith into one of its most enthusiastic
defenders, to whose penetrating insight and tireless activity it was chiefly
due (humanly speaking) that the Christian Church ultimately became
the most powerful spiritual force in the world.
For a certain time after his baptism St. Paul stayed with the Christian
community at Damascus, and then retired into Arabia (presumably the
desolate region lying to the east of Damascus, between that city and
Babylon3). An explanation of this retirement (mentioned in Gal. i. 17) is
not difficult to suggest. Withdrawal to some locaUty for protracted
reflection would be essential, since his previous inferences from the pro
phecies of Scripture as to the character and functions of the Messiah had
to be reconsidered in the light of his newly-gained conviction that the
Jesus who had been crucified was the Messiah. Moreover, the views he had
hitherto held respecting obedience to the Law as the Divinely ordered
method whereby the people of God were to become qualified for partici
pation in the Messianic Kingdom had to be adapted to the conception of
salvation through Jesus which prevaUed amongst Christians (Acts iv. 12,
x. 43). He had, in short, to endeavour to lay the foundation of a Christian
system of theology, both in order to satisfy his own inteUectual needs and
in order to make it easier to appeal to the thoughtful amongst his country
men ; and the leisure and seclusion needed for this he would obtain most
easily in the desert.
1 There seems to be no justification for the distinction (drawn by Rackham, Acts,
p. 131) between the use of the gen. (" hearing the mere sound ") and the ace. (" not
hearing the articulate words ") : cf. Joh. v. 25 (gen.) with Joh. ui. 8 (ace), and note
the equivalence of dKoveiv rois Xbyovs and aKOveiv ruv Xbywv in Mt. x. 14, Lk. vi. 47.
2 The proverb is only found in Greek and Latin (AZsoh. Ag. 1026, P.V. 323, Eur.
Bacch. 795, Ter. Phorm. i. 2, 27).
3 Damascus itself was acoounted as belonging to Arabia (Justin Martyr, Tryph.
78). But Lightfoot supposes the Apostle to have gone to the Sinaitic peninsula
(Gal. p. 88).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 515
St. Luke passes over the period spent in Arabia altogether. Chrono
logically it probably comes between Acts ix. 19 and 20. It must have
been after his return, not prior to his retirement, that he began to proclaim
in Damascus the fact which he had formerly denied ; viz. that Jesus was
the Son of God. Such a change of belief on the part of one who had
previously gone thither to arrest those who acknowledged Jesus as the
Messiah caused extreme astonishment. But he was a man of great natural
ability ; and as a Christian preacher he increased in effectiveness as his
understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures became enlarged and
deepened. To his former associates, however, he must have seemed a renegade and
traitor ; and he inevitably became the object of their bitterest enmity.
Failure to encounter him successfully in argument at last led to the
formation among them of a plot against his life. The particular design,
however, by which at first his enemies hoped to accompUsh their purpose
was disclosed, and precautions were taken against it ; so that the con
spirators, deferring but not abandoning their aim, had to content themselves
with guarding the gates of the city, in case he attempted to leave it.
But when it became desirable that he should place himseU in touch with
the Apostles at Jerusalem, the watch at the gates was eluded by his
disciples, who lowered him by night in a basket through a window in the
city-waU.1 This happened at a time when Aretas IV, the king of the
Nabatsean Arabs, exercised some authority over Damascus, and whose
subordinate (edvdg%rjg, 2 Cor. xi. 32) in command of the city was amenable
to the wishes of the Jews, and seemingly furnished them with some soldiers
to aid their schemes. The date of the occurrence is difficult to decide with
confidence. Damascus was under Roman administration in a.d. 34 (as
known from the evidence of coins), so that it cannot have been in the
occupation of Aretas before that year ; but how long after 34 it came into
his possession can only be conjectured. But since the chronology of St.
Paul's career seems to harmonize best with the assumption that his
conversion took place in 32 or 33 (see p. 345), probably no great error wiU
be committed U the Arabian king's acquisition of the place is assigned to
34 or 35, and St. Paul's escape from it to the last-mentioned year.
When the Apostle reached Jerusalem and sought to mi-y with the
disciples there, it was natural that the latter should view him with appre
hension. This mistrust was ended by an act of generous confidence in
him displayed by Barnabas (p. 500). Whether the latter had been
previously acquainted with St. Paul or not does not appear ; but he knew
the story of his conversion and credited it, and was aware that he had
courageously preached in Damascus the faith which he had once defamed ;
so bringing him to St. Peter and St. James (p. 491) he related the facts to
them and convinced them of his sincerity. Through converse with them,
especiaUy with the former, St. Paul must have learnt much about the
,  —  —  1  .  ___
1 In Acts ix. 25 it is said that the Apostle was lowered to the ground in a o-irvpls,
in 2 Cor. xi. 33 in a aapydvn. Both terms can describe flexible baskets used for carrying
fish. Probably Saul was put into one, and the opening closed by sewing (see J.T.S.
July, 1909, p. 571).

516 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
ministry and teaching of the Lord. He then began to pursue evangeUstic
work among the Greek-speaking Jews at Jerusalem ; and the fact that
his activities were confined to this class of his countrymen accounts in
some measure for the circumstance that he did not see any of the other
Apostles (Gal. i. 19), whose work probably lay amongst the Aramaic-
speaking part of the population in the surrounding neighbourhood, and
that he did not become known to the Christian brotherhood in Judaea
outside the Jewish capital (Gal. i. 22). 1 His preaching, however, met with
great opposition, so that an endeavour was again made to MU him ; and
this being discovered, the disciples, after he had been in Jerusalem only a
fortnight (Gal. i. 18), sent him away to Csesarea and then to Tarsus, the
order of the words (elg ra xXijxara rfjg Svgiag xai rfjg KiXixiag) in
Gal. i. 21 suggesting that he went by land. It was probably in the two
provinces just named that he spent a large portion of the fourteen years
which elapsed between the visit to Jerusalem just recounted and the third,
which took place in 49 (p. 271), this period, however, including the eighteen
months or more that were occupied by the First Missionary journey through
certain other provinces of the Empire (p. 524). It seems likely that it was
in the course of his activities in Syria that he converted Titus (Gal. ii. 1)
to the Christian faith.
§ 5. The Admission of Gentiles into the Church
With the transformation into a believer of one who had been so active a
persecutor as Paul, the Church,2 which now extended not only through
Judsea and Samaria but also into Galilee, enjoyed a period of peace, which
resulted in a stiU further increase in numbers and spiritual progress.
Though the hostility of the Jews did not abate, their attention was soon
withdrawn from the Christian body to a danger threatening themselves,
for it was about the year 39 that Caligula directed that his image should be
placed in the Temple at Jerusalem (p. 82), a proceeding which, if persisted
in, would have driven the Jews to armed rebeUion. This absence of
molestation St. Peter turned to account by visiting some of the Christian
communities in the maritime Plain, which had been the scene of the
preaching of PhUip, whose work in converting not only a number of
Samaritans but also a Gentile (pp. 509, 511) probably in the sequel helped to
dispose the Apostle towards enlarged views respecting the admission of
non- Jews into the Church. The first place he stopped at was Lydda3
(p. 7). Here there was a paralysed man caUed iEneas (described by St.
Luke as having been bedridden for eight years), to whom the Apostle
restored the use of his limbs by addressing him with the words, " Jesus
Christ healeth thee " (cf. Acts iii. 6). The report of the cure spread among

1 With St. Paul's own statements the account in Acts is not quite in accord
(p. 245).
2 In Acts ix. 31 instead of ij iKKXijo-la etxev E and other Greek MSS., with the
Old Lat. and the Syr. (hi.) have al iKKXijo-lai eTxov: cf. xvi 5.
8 Famous as the birthplace of St. George.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 517
the residents of Lydda and the neighbouring plain of Sharon and led to
conversions there.
Christian disciples existed also at Joppa (p. 7), which was only some
ten or twelve mUes from Lydda ; and among them was a woman caUed
Tabitha or Dorcas (the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic name, meaning
" gazeUe "), whose deeds of benevolence and charity were numerous.
WhUst St. Peter was at Lydda, she died ; and the members of the Church
there sent word by two men to the Apostle, requesting him to come to
them. He at once did so ; and found Tabitha laid out in an upper room,
where the indigent widows, who were supported by their fellow-Christians
(cf. 1 Tim. v. 3 f.), showed him the garments for the poor which she had
made. The historian relates that St. Peter put them aU forth (cf . Mk. v. 40) ;
and after praying, turned to Tabitha and bade her arise, whereupon she
opened her eyes and sat up ; and he then summoned the others in the
house and restored her alive to them. In regard to this narrative, it seems
less probable that so great a miracle as the revival of a person actually
dead really happened (cf. p. 401) than that a less remarkable occurrence
has been magnified. Such a miracle is isolated in the Apostolic history,
for the account of Eutychus (Acts xx. 7-12) does not point to more than a
recovery from a state of unconsciousness consequent upon a faU (p. 567) ;
and St. Paul, who declared that in nothing was he behind the very chiefest
Apostles, and that through him were wrought the signs of an Apostle by
wonders and mighty works (2 Cor. xii. 11, 12), never aUudes to having
performed such a marvel as the restoration of the dead to life (though
sUence is, of course, rarely conclusive evidence). In the case under con
sideration the facts recorded are consistent with the supposition that the
woman was in a death-like swoon, from which she was roused by St. Peter,
who detected in her signs of Ufe which had escaped others. At the same
time there is no reason to doubt that something unusual reaUy took place
at Joppa ; for the town was not very far from Csesarea, and at the latter
St. Luke came in contact with PhUip, who had his home there (Acts xxi. 8),
and who would naturaUy hear of any matter of interest relating to a district
which he had evangelized (p. 512). The incident contributed to the
influence exerted at Joppa by St. Peter, who stayed there for some time
with a certain Simon who practised the trade of a tanner.
It was whUst he was at Joppa that another important step was taken
in the direction of incorporating GentUes in the Church. The case was
more crucial than that of the Ethiopian eunuch (p. 511) ; for whereas the
latter, after baptism, had returned to his own distant home, it was now a
question of including in the Christian body residents within Palestine
itseU where acute difficulties relating to social intercourse between Christian
Jew and Christian Gentile were [likely to occur. At Csesarea (p. 7),
some 30 mUes north of Joppa, there was a Roman garrison consisting of five
cohorts of infantry and a squadron of cavalry. The infantry did not
consist of legionary troops, but was drawn from the auxiliary forces of
the Empire, being mainly recruited in Syria (Jos. B.J. ii. 13, 7) ; but it
included a cohort constituted (it would seem) of ItaUan volunteers (p. 54)
and hence caUed the " Italian cohort." One of the six centurions of this

518 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
cohort 1 was an officer named Cornelius, who was a " God-fearer," with aU
his household, and devoted to prayer and almsgiving. This man was
doubtless attracted towards the Christian faith, and hearing that Peter,
one of the Apostles, was staying at Joppa, he was Divinely prompted
(the impulse being described, after Old Testament analogies (Jud. vi. 12,
2 Kg. i. 3, 15) as a direction imparted by an angel) to dispatch two of his
servants and a pious soldier to Joppa with a request that the Apostle
would come to instruct him. Peter, who was now in a district where
Gentiles were numerous, had had, prior to the arrival of the messengers
from Cornelius, much seU-communing as to the terms on which Gentiles,
if they sought to become Christians, should be included in the Church.
On the one hand, there was the requirement of the Mosaic Law, that a
Jew should keep himseU from contact with any who were ceremoniaUy
defiled, this demand pointing to the imposition of circumcision and the
rest of the ceremonial regulations upon GentUes desirous of being admitted
to Christian f eUowship. On the other hand, the persecution of the disciples
by the Jews, Stephen's speech at his trial, wherein he had shown that the
Jewish people had constantly opposed the Divine purposes (p. 505), and
the descent of the Spirit upon the Samaritans converted by PhUip, were
considerations favouring a new departure and a policy of comprehension.
Some such mental discussion seems to be imphed in the symboUcal narrative
(Acts x. 9-16 2) that relates how Peter, after praying at noon on the flat
roof 3 of his house, became hungry, and whilst food was being prepared
feU into a trance, and saw a great sail or sheet lowered from heaven by
the four corners, and supporting aU manner of Uving creatures ; how he
heard a Voice bidding him kiU and satisfy his hunger ; and how he,
replying that he had never eaten anything rituaUy unclean (see Lev. xi.,
and cf. Dan. i. 8, 1 Mace. i. 62), was told by the same Voice that what God
had declared clean, he was not to deem unhaUowed. He had scarcely
made up his mind that Jewish exclusiveness could not stand in the way
of God's larger design, when the messengers from CorneUus reached his
house.4 On learning their errand he took the occurrence as being Divinely
appointed for putting into practice the decision he had come to. He
therefore lodged them that night, and next day, accompanied by six
Jewish Christians of Joppa, he went to Csesarea. There CorneUus had

x Evidence of the existence of an ItaUan cohort in Syria some thirty-five years
later than the time here under consideration is furnished by an inscription found about
1895 al; Carniintum, a Roman station on the Danube in Pannonia, near Vienna, and
dating from about a.d. 69. It is an epitaph of a soldier caUed Prooulus, who is styled
OPT. COH. II ITALIC. C.R.P. . . . TINI EX VEXIL. SAGIT. EXER. SYRIACI,
i.e, optio (an officer serving as an assistant to a centurion) cohortis secundo- Italices
civiium Romanorum Faustini ex vexiUariis sagittariis exercitus Syriaci. See Expositor,
Sept. 1896.
2 Cf. Ezek. xxxvii., Zech. i. 7 f., n. 1 f., etc.
3 The flatness of the roof of an Eastern house enabled it to be used for aU kinds
of purposes (1 Sam. ix. 26 mg., 2 Sam. xi. 2, xvi. 22, 2 Kg. xxin. 12, Neh. viu. 16,
Jer. xix. 13, Dan, iv. 29 mg.).
* In Acts x. 17 the " gate " is the gateway leading into a court from whioh the
rooms of the house were entered (of. Acts xii. 13).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 519
placed one of his servants to watch for Peter and his companions, and
when on the second day their approach was announced (Acts x. 25 and
p. 253), he met Peter and prostrated himself before him. The Apostle,
with a protest against such homage, entered the house, where a company
was gathered, and explained that God had convinced him that the rule
prohibiting Jews from associating with GentUes was not in accord with
His wiU, and asked why he had been summoned, Cornelius in reply
related how, when engaged in prayer, he had been inspired to send for
Peter ; and begged him to make known the truths with which as an Apostle
of Jesus he was entrusted. In answer Peter said that what had taken
place showed that God made no distinction between the righteous, whatever
their nationaUty. AU present knew that the Gospel message had its
beginning in GalUee, where, after the. preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus
of Nazareth, endowed with the Spirit and the power of God, went about
healing physical and spiritual maladies. He had been put to death by
the Jews, but had been raised by God from the dead on the third day ;
and His Apostles, who were witnesses of His Risen Life,1 were charged by
God to declare to the people that Jesus was the appointed judge of living
and dead.2 To Him testimony was borne by the prophets, that, through
the revelation which He conveyed, all believers in Him should receive
forgiveness of their sins. As he finished, there broke from CorneUus and
his friends an ecstatic outburst of praise to God, such as had occurred at
Pentecost. Then Peter asked whether baptism could be refused to GentUes
who had received the Spirit as plainly as had the Apostles themselves ;
and he answered his own question by directing them to be baptized in the
name of Jesus as Christ. It was natural that the newly baptized converts
should desire further instruction from Peter,, and they accordingly asked
him to spend some days at Csesarea with them,
Though the Jewish Christians who had witnessed at Csesarea the
bestowal of the gUt of tongues upon the Gentiles were convinced that the
admission of GentUe believers to an equal footing with themselves had the
sanction of God, it was otherwise with the Jewish section of the Church at
Jerusalem. Information must soon have reached the Apostles and the
rest of the Christian community at the capital ; and as soon as Peter
returned, the Jewish Christians3 complained of his action in taking part
in social intercourse with GentUes. Peter met their chaUenge by explaining,
as he had done at Csesarea, that he had been prepared by God for the
abolition of the lines of division separating Jew and non-Jew ; and that
when the messengers came from Cornelius he felt that he was under the
guidance of the Spirit in going with them. He went on to recount what
Cornelius had related to him and what had happened among those who
were gathered at his house * ; and he declared that, since God had conferred
upon GentUe and Jew alike the same gift of the Spirit, it was not for him
to dispute God's ordering. The cavillers were silenced, and even gave
1 On Acts x. 40, 41, see p. 480. 2 Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 5.
8 This is explicitly stated in D (oi in irepirofirtjs dSeXipol).
* In Acts xi. 16 the. aUusion to the Lord's word is to Acts i. 5.

520 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
utterance to praise that God had granted to the GentUes repentance unto
life. Nevertheless it is not likely that they contemplated the eventual
admission into the Church of large numbers for whom freedom from the
Jewish Law would be claimed as a normal right and not as an exceptional
privilege.1 It is now necessary to recur to the persecution of the Hellenist Christians
which ensued on the death of Stephen.2 One consequence was the depar
ture of Philip to Samaria, and the preaching of the Gospel among the
Samaritans (p. 509). Another result, and one that eventuaUy led to more
momentous issues, was the dispersal of several Greek-speaking evangeUsts
into GentUe lands. Some traveUed over sea to Cyprus, in which, under
the rule of the Ptolemaic dynasty, numerous Jews had settled.3 Others
proceeded northward along the Phoenician coast to Syrian Antioch (p. 68).
The evangelists, Jews by race, at first addressed themselves to their
fellow-countrymen only. But when Antioch was reached some among
them, who belonged to Cyprus and Cyrene, preached to Greeks* (i.e.
uncircumcised Gentiles). This was a new departure, which, though it
had a paraUel in St. Peter's exposition of the Christian faith to the Roman
Cornelius, yet in some measure went beyond that, since the Gospel was
now imparted not to a single household but to a considerable body of
Gentiles. In the absence of any indication by the historian of the order
in which the two events at Csesarea and Antioch occurred, it is impossible
to decide which was actuaUy the first occasion on which GentUes were
converted to Christianity. But in neither case, so far as can be judged,
was there a transition to Christianity immediately from heathenism,
certainly in the instance of Cornelius, and probably in the present instance
the converts were " God-fearers."
A report of what had happened at Antioch reached the Church at
Jerusalem, and, as on the occasion when the Samaritans accepted the
Gospel preached by Philip (Acts viii. 14), a representative of the parent
Church was sent to learn the facts at first-hand. The representative chosen
was Barnabas (p. 515), himself a Cypriot, and therefore the more likely to
be a sympathetic observer of the results attained. He was a man of
kindly disposition, inspired with enthusiasm, and strong of faith ; and he
was filled with unqualified satisfaction at the proof of God's grace manifest
in the conversion to the Christian faith of so many GentUes, whom he urged
to cleave to the Lord s with all their hearts. His encouragement helped
1 Cf. Bartlet, Acts, pp. 241-2.
2 Acts xi. 19 resumes Acts viu. 1. a Hastings, D.B. i. p. 540.
1 In Acts xi. 20, though the textual authorities usuaUy commanding most con
fidence have'EXXi.i'ioTas, the true reading must be "J&XXijvas, for there would be nothing
remarkable in the fact that the EvangeUsts, themselves Greek-speaking Jews, addressed
fellow-HeUenists. The exceptional fact was their preaching to non-Jews. The MS.
evidence for the two readings is as foUows : (1) 'EXXijvurrds N (whioh by a scribal error
has eiayyeXtirrds) B E H L P and most MSS. ; (2) "EXXrjvas A I) and one cursive. The
conjunction xai, whioh is inteUigible only when prefixed to "EXXiji-as, ocours intt B,
though these have, or imply, 'EXX?.><ioT<i$.
5 In Acts xi. 23 iv before rip xvplip is only found in B, 181, Syr. (hi.) and Eg.
If it is retained, irpoa-jj,iveiv goes with tjj irpoBiaei rrjs KapSlas.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 521
to increase the numbers of those who gave their aUegiance to Christ, and
eventuaUy Antioch became for some time a centre of Christian activity
exceeding in importance any other. But Barnabas did more than use his
own gifts in the cause of the Church. He sought the help of one whose
powers of leadership exceeded his own, and went to Tarsus to find Saul,
who had gone thither when his life was endangered at Jerusalem (Acts ix. 30
and p. 516). Having discovered him, he brought him back with himself to
Antioch. There they were hospitably entertained1 by the Antioehene
Church for a whole year, which they spent in instructing more fuUy the
converts already made. The large numbers of those who professed to be
Christ's adherents attracted the attention of the populace of Antioch, who
instead of styling them, as the Jews did, Nazarenes, caUed them Christiani,
'^Christ's men " (after the model of Pompeiani, Herodiani, etc.). The
Sinaitic manuscript writes the title Xgrjanavol ; and the fact that in this
form it would gain in significance for Greek speakers through association
with the Greek adjective xgrjarog,2, " worthy," makes it not improbable
that Chrestiani (retained in the French Chretien) was the way in which the
word was popularly pronounced. Like some other appeUations applied at
first jestingly or scornfully,3 this name, coined by the Antiochenes, eventu
aUy became the accepted designation of our Lord's disciples even among
themselves, appearing first in 1 Pet. iv. 16 (cf. Tac. Ann. xv. 45).
The next incident related by St. Luke and vaguely connected with the
preceding by the loose term " in those days " (Acts xi. 27) is the arrival
at Antioch from Jerusalem of certain Christian " prophets." These were
a class of persons who did not ordinarily discharge any regular office in
the Church, but who were endowed with certain spiritual faculties enabling
them by penetrating insight and fervent language to guide, encourage, and
edify the Church (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 3, Acts xv. 32). Like the ancient Hebrew
prophets, some or aU possessed in a remarkable degree the gUt of prescience ;
and among those who visited Antioch from Jerusalem was one named
Agabus, who predicted the occurrence of a great and widespread famine
throughout the Roman Empire. The prediction was probably uttered
before the death of Caligula in 41, for it is speciaUy noted by the historian
of Acts that it was fulfilled in the reign of Claudius. Confirmation of this
is in some measure afforded by the evidence of Tacitus (Ann. xii. 43) and
Suetonius (Claud. xvUi.),4 though they do not mention Judsea. The predic
tion as reported in Acts xi. 28, " a great famine over all the world " (iqp' SXrjv
xrp> oixov/uhrjv) need not be pressed strictly ; probably great scarcity
prevaUed over a large area for a considerable time, but in different years was
more keenly felt in some regions than in others. In Judsea the severest
pressure of want is generaUy assigned by chronologists to the year 46.
It did not extend simultaneously to northern Syria where Antioch was
situated, so that the Christians of Antioch were enabled to send help to
1 For this sense of vvvaxBvvai in Acts xi. 26, cf. ML xxv. 35, Jud. xix. 18.
2 This is the form in wliich it is probable our Lord's name appears in Suet. Claud.
25 ; see p. 78.
3 Cf . Tory, Whig, and perhaps Cynic.
' See also Dion Cassius lx. 11, Jos. Ant. xx. 2, 6, Eus. H.E. ii. 8 and 12.

522 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the Church at Jerusalem, the decision to do so being doubtless taken at
the time when the need for aid became urgent, and not (as the brevity of
St. Luke's aocount suggests) on the occasion of Agabus' prophecy. The
requisite supplies were conveyed to Jerusalem by Barnabas and Saul.
One or both of these must have left Antioch after the expiration of the
twelve months mentioned in Acts xi. 26, and gone back thither shortly before
the year of the famine. At Jerusalem the supplies were delivered not to
the " Seven " (p. 503) but to the presbyters of the Church. It may be
assumed that in consequence of the persecution foUowing the death of
Stephen, the organization of the Seven had been broken up and their
duties subsequently undertaken by a body of Elders constituted on Jewish
lines (cf. p. 631). The two bearers of the bounty, after discharging their
mission, returned from Jerusalem 1 to Antioch, bringing with them John
Mark. The account of the measures taken to aUeviate the famine rather
anticipates the actual course of events at Jerusalem. Hitherto such
persecution as the Christians there had suffered proceeded chiefly from the
priesthood ; but now a blow was dealt them by the civU authority. In
the spring of 44 Herod Agrippa I (p. 51), whose pohcy it was to keep on
good terms with the leading classes among his subjects, gratified their
enmity towards the Christians by putting to death James the son of
Zebedee.2 Then, from a desire to give the Jews further satisfaction, he
arrested and imprisoned St. Peter, intending publicly to sentence him
also to execution. Peter was secured in the usual way (p. 73) ; but
he had friends outside who not only prayed (Acts xii. 5) but presumably
worked for his deliverance. If there were Christians like CorneUus (p. 519)
in the Roman forces at Csesarea, there may have been Christians in the
garrison maintained in the castle of Antonia by Agrippa. In any case,
on the night before sentence was to be pronounced on St. Peter, means were
provided for his escape ; and on his finding himseU outside the walls he
proceeded to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark (p. 173), with
whom he may possibly have made his home. His sudden appearance
there caused intense surprise3 and joy; but after bidding his friends
report to St. James and to the rest of the disciples how God had delivered
him, he left the city for some place of safety. The escape of the prisoner
was discovered in the morning, and the soldiers were put to death.
The narrative of the incident in Acts xii. 1-16 is composed in the spirit of
the Old Testament historians, by whom God is not seldom represented as
delivering His servants, when in peril of their lives, through the agency of
angels (1 Kg. xix. 5, Dan. iii. 25, 28, vi. 22).
Agrippa shortly after this retired from Jerusalem to Csesarea ; and the
1 In Acts xii. 25 N B and some other authorities have inriarpeij/av els 'lepovo-aX-fjp.,
but this makes nonsense of the passage, and has probably originated from an accidental
repetition of a frequent phrase ocourring in Lk. u. 45, xxiv. 33, 52, Acts i. 12, xui. 13.
Of the other MSS. A, some oursives, with the Syr. Eg., and Arm. versions, have cf 'I. ;
D E with the Lat. versions have dirb 'I.
2 Por an account of his death see Eus. H.E. ii. 9.
3 In Acts xn. 16 for his angel of. ML, xvui. 10.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 523
rank and file of the Church would have been more than human U they had
not felt some satisfaction at the fate which speedUy overtook him there.
An occasion of offence having arisen between him and the citizens of Tyre
and Sidon, he pursued the quarrel by means of an economic war (the only
kind he could prosecute, since they were included in the Roman province
of Syria), prohibiting the export to them of the corn and other products
which his dominions usuaUy supplied.1 This poUcy compeUed the two
cities to negotiate for a settlement, which they were enabled to secure
through the good offices of Blastus, Agrippa's chamberlain, whose friend
ship they had obtained. A deputation came to Csesarea to hear the king's
favourable response to their appeal. Agrippa, taking his seat in the
amphitheatre, where audience was given, delivered a speech, which the
envoys, with servUe flattery, declared to be such. as no man but Only a
god could utter. This adulation the king did not reject, and the historian
saw a fitting nemesis for such impiety in a loathsome disease which
presently brought about his end.2 Josephus (Ant. xix. 8, 2) gives a variant,
but not essentiaUy dissimUar, account of Agrippa's decease (see p. 239, and
cf. Eus. H.E. U. 10), both narratives relating that his acceptance of
flattery more than OrdinafUy fulsome was foUowed almcist at once by a
horrible death. For the subsequent disposal of his dominions see p. 57.
§ 6. St. Paul's First Missionary Journey
About this time in the Church at Antioch there originated an under
taking which in the sequel had momentous consequences. This was the
propagation of the Gospel message beyond the limits of Palestine and
Syria. The extent of ground covered on the first attempt was not great ;
nor, so far as can be judged, was it at the outset the purpose of those who
took part in the mission to address their appeal to others than Jews.
But the enterprise had unexpected results and proved the beginning of a
movement' which eventuaUy brought about the evangelization of the
Western world.
The responsibUity of it rested, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
with five prophets (p. 521) and teachers of the Antioehene Church, Barna
bas, Symeon (surnamed Niger), Lucius (a Cyrenian), Manaen or Menahem
(described as avvrgorpog 3 of Herod Antipas), and Saul. The five were
led to the decision to diffuse the knowledge of Christ beyond the sea at a
moment when they were engaged in reUgious worship.4 One of their
number, presumably in the course of some ecstatic utterance, to which the
i Cf. 1 Kg. v. 11, Ezek. xxvii. 17.
2 For the representation of his death as caused by an angel cf . 2 Sam. xxiv. 16,
2 Kg- xix. 35 and p. 110. The statement in Acts xu. 23 that he was eaten by worms
recaUs the account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Mace. ix. 9).
8 The term was an honorary title ; cf. 2 Mace. ix. 29 (where a certain Phihp is
styled ativrpoipos of Antiochus Epiphanes).
4 The Greek is Xeirovpyovvruv ; but though Xeirovpyta came to be used especi
aUy of the Eucharist, the verb cannot here imply that service, since those who were
ministering are said to have been fasting, and the Eucharist at this period foUowed
upon the meal caUed the Agape (1 Cor. xi. 20).

524 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
term " prophesying " was appUed (p. 492), directed that Barnabas and
Saul should be separated for a certain work to which their Lord caUed them,
and which had perhaps occupied the thoughts of aU ; and this command
of the Spirit was obeyed. Both of those designated for the undertaking
were known to have had previous experience of evangelistic labours
(Acts xi. 26), this being especiaUy true of St. Paul (Gal. i. 21). After
further fasting and prayer, the other three laid their hands upon those
who had been expressly designated, and released them for the special
service required of them. ;
The significance of the ceremony on this occasion may have been
merely the bestowal of a blessing upon their enterprise (cf. Gen. xlviii.
14, 17, and see p. 510), or it may have been an act symbolizing that they
were delegates of the Church, commissioned as " Apostles " (in the Uteral
sense of the word) to disseminate a knowledge of the Christian faith in
distant regions.1 St. Paul, indeed, at a later period claimed that he had
not received his Apostolate from man or through men (Gal. i. 1) but only
through Jesus Christ ; and rested his title to it on the ground that he
had seen the Lord (1 Cor. ix. 1, cf. Acts xxii. 14). But " Apostleship "
may be used with more than one meaning ; and although from one point
of view St. Paul could contend that the original impulse which sent him
on the mission to the Gentiles came from Christ (Gal. ii. 6-8), yet mediately
he went forth at first by the direction of the Church at Antioch ; and the
imposition of hands probably implied that he and Barnabas were regarded
as being that Church's representatives and emissaries in the spread of the
Gospel in parts to which'it had not hitherto penetrated.
Commissioned to enter upon a new field of labour by the Divine Spirit,
and having the formal sanction of the local Church, Barnabas and Paul
started, probably in the year a.d. 47 (p. 346), on what is usuaUy styled
the First Missionary journey (or tour), taking with them John Mark,
the cousin 2 of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10) as their attendant, perhaps for the
purpose of baptizing such converts as they might make (cf. x. 48, 1 Cor.
i. 14-16), and afterwards instructing them. They went down from Antioch
to its port of Seleucia, fourteen mUes distant (p. 68), and from thence
sailed to Cyprus. The choice of this island as the sphere of their first
missionary efforts outside Syria was obviously dictated by several motives,
such as the connexion of Barnabas with it (Acts iv. 36), the circumstance
that it had a large Jewish population (cf. p. 78), and the fact that the
ground had been already prepared in some measure for them by preceding
evangelists, who had gone thither not primarily to preach there, but in
order to escape persecution (Acts xi. 19). The place of landing was
Salamis, an important city at the eastern end of the island, with a good
harbour. That there were numerous Jews in the locality may be inferred
from the existence in it of more than one synagogue ; and the Apostles
1 When in Old Testament times the Levites were " separated " for special duties,
the children of Israel laid their hands upon them : see Num. viu. 10, 14.
2 The word dveipibs is better rendered thus than by " nephew " (cf. ftm. xxxvi.
11). The proper word for " nephew " is dSeXqiiSovs, though dve\//t6s has this sense
in very late writers (Lightfoot, Col. p. 235).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 525
(as St. Luke caUs them, xiv. 4, 14) made it the starting point of their
mission, preaching in the Jewish places of worship. In the course of
their activities they traversed the island (about fifty miles long) from east
to west, finaUy reaching Paphos, the capital of the province under the
Romans, built some ten miles from the site of the ancient town, which
had been associated with the worship of Aphrodite. Here they attracted
the attention of the Roman governor (p. 246), the proconsul Sergius
Paulus, who being, if not a " God-fearer," at least interested in religious
speculations, summoned them before him. The name of a proconsul
Paulus occurs in an inscription found in the island x ; and though there
is no date in it to prove his identity with the official mentioned in Acts,
the coincidence is interesting. Among the retinue of the proconsul was a
certain Jew described as a Magus (p. 363) whose name was Bar-Jesus or
Bar-Joshua.2 Such an appeUation is, in form, only a patronymic, and it
is possible that he was reaUy caUed Elymas,3 since by the historian in
xv. 8, Bar-Jesus is replaced by this name. But St. Luke's phrase, " Elymas
the Magian, for so is his name by interpretation," is perhaps more intelli
gible if Elymas be taken as a title (from the Arabic alim, " wise ") of
which 6 fidyog is given as the equivalent. This man had perhaps acquired
influence over the proconsul and others partly through some knowledge
of natural processes beyond the average of the time, and partly through
skill and sleight of hand.. In the interview between the Roman governor
and the two Apostles, the former probably elicited the fact that Saul also
bore the same Roman name as himself 4 and possibly gave in consequence
most of his attention to him, for of the two Apostles Paul, in the incident
that followed, took the lead. So great an impression was made by the
Christian teachers upon the proconsul that the Magian was afraid that
his own influence would be shaken 5 ; so that he interfered and sought
to neutralize their efforts. But St. Paul, turning upon him, denounced
him as a son of the Devil (not a son of salvation, which is the meaning of
Bar-Joshua), and bidding him cease to pervert the truth and righteousness,
declared that as a penalty for his wickedness he should suffer temporary
blindness. What was predicted ensued, and the man at once began to
grope for some one to take him by the hand and guide him. Possibly the
explanation of the sudden blindness which he experienced is that terror
caused by the Apostle's words suspended for a time the activity of the
sensory nerves connected with the organs of sight. The occurrence had
a profound effect upon the proconsul and (according to the historian)
he believed, being amazed at teaching which was supported by such
proofs of Divine power (cf. Acts viii. 13). It does not follow, however,
that he became an adherent of the Christian faith and was baptized, for
had this result been produced, it is probable that it would have been
1 The inscription, which is much mutilated, contains the words twv iirl _IIauXoi>
(dvB)virdrov. 2 Cf. Bartim&us, Barabbas, Barsabbas.
3 In Acts xui. 8 the uncial D substitutes 'Eroi/ids.
1 It is at this point that St. Luke first caUs the Apostle by the name of Paul.
5 At the end of Acts xiii. SDE and Syr (hi.) add iireiSij ijSurra fJKovev airrdv.

526 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
stated in definite terms. The belief attributed to him was perhaps a
persuasion that St. Paul was reaUy the messenger of some divinity, but
did not amount to a conviction of the supreme claims of Christianity, The
interview with the Roman official and the impression produced on him
may have resulted in turning St. Paul's thoughts for the first time towards
the evangeUzation of the Roman empire,1 though the idea, no doubt,
was brought to maturity by later occurrences.
This is the last incident related in connexion with Cyprus, and from
that island the Apostles crossed to Pamphylia,2 no doubt landing at
Attalia (cf. Acts xiv. 25), a city founded by Attalus II, King of Pergamum
(159-138 B.C.), and serving as the principal port of the country. They
did not stay there, but passed on to Perga on the river Cestrus, some twelve
miles north-north-east, which was one of the chief towns of the province.
Here a dissension occurred among the party, for Mark withdrew from
the others and returned to Jerusalem. The cause of the disagreement
is not described. St. Paul at a later date complained that Mark had not
gone with them to the work (Acts xv. 38), so that the younger man must
have shown an unwillingness to faU in with St. Paul's plans which, in
the opinion of the latter, convicted him of faint-heartedness and want of
resolution. On the other hand, Mark displayed no disinclination after
wards to join Barnabas in missionary exertions in Cyprus (Acts xv. 39) ;
nor was Barnabas disposed to take the same unfavourable view of his
action now as did St. Paul. The occasion of the difference could have
been no dispute about the duty of offering the Gospel to the GentUes,
for it was not untU later that the Apostles addressed themselves directly
to the heathen (Acts xiii. 46, cf. xiv. 27). The quarrel therefore must
have related to the local sphere of their labours. It is observable that-
it was not until Perga was reached that Mark severed himseU from his
companions, whUst, after his departure, St. Paul and Barnabas appear
not to have stayed at Perga, but to have gone to Pisidian Antioch. This
suggests that Mark was desirous of remaining in PamphyUa, whereas
St. Paul, who carried Barnabas with him, wished to transfer their efforts
elsewhere. Some idea of the direction in which St. Paul wished to go is
indicated by the mention of two provinces which at a later date he tried
to evangelize, namely Asia and Bithynia (Acts xvi. 6), and to either of
them, Antioch offered access ; for from thence it was possible to go west
wards to Ephesus, the capital of the former province, and northwards
to Nicomedeia, the principal town of the latter.3 If this is the right
explanation of the dissension, it turned on Mark's unwiUingness to partici
pate in the more ambitious enterprises which commended themselves to
St. Paul. That the rift between them was not permanent appears from
Col. iv. 10.
1 McGiffert, Apost. Age, p. 175.
2 St Luke indicates that St. Paul, from Cyprus onward, was more prominent
than Barnabas by using in Acts xni. 13 the phrase oi irepi naBAox, " Paul and his
company " ; contrast xn. 25, xin. 2. But the order " Barnabas and Paul " is retained
in xiv. 14 and xv. 12.
3 See the map of Asia Minor in Hastings, D.B. vol. v, between pp. 400 and 401.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 527
After Mark's return to Jerusalem, the others left the plains of Pam-
phyUa and proceeded over Mount Taurus to Pisidian Antioch (100 mUes
distant). The designation Pisidian is strictly a misnomer, since the
town, founded by Seleucus Nicator (312-280) and called after his father,
was really in Phrygia ; but it was so close, to the borders of Pisidia that
it was distinguished as Antiochia ad Pisidiam. Though it was not the
original intention of St. Paul and Barnabas to stop here, they were com
peUed to do so through some malady that attacked the former (Gal. iv. 13).
The nature of this malady is quite obscure, and among the guesses hazarded
are ophthalmia, epilepsy, and malaria.1 It is against the two latter
conjectures that the affliction seems to have rendered the sufferer
unsightly (Gal. iv. 14) ; whilst ophthalmia, which is certainly disfiguring,
appears inconsistent with the intense gaze which St. Luke seems to attri
bute to St. Paul as weU as to others (Acts xiii. 9, xiv. 9 2). On the whole,
it seems most likely that the trouble which at intervals distressed him
was some cutaneous and repulsive disease, such as erysipelas.3 But be
' this as it may, the illness detained him at Antioch, and his enforced
sojourn there altered his own and his companion's plans and caused
them to evangeUze a district in which (it would seem) they did not origin
aUy intend to preach, but which was nearer than that previously con
templated (cf. Gal. iv. 13).
Antioch, though in Phrygia, was likewise in the Roman province of
Galatia and indeed the centre of military and civil administration 4
in the southern part of the province. Whether it was to the people of '
Antioch and of the towns in the vicinity, mentioned below, that the
Epistle to the Galatians was afterwards addressed, is a much debated
question, which is discussed at length on p. 266 ; and the conclusion
there reached that the letter was reaUy sent to converts made in this
district, the southern half of the Roman province, and not to dweUers
in the northern haU, is adopted here, allusions in the Epistle being used
to supplement the statements of Acts. The Antiochenes, though politicaUy
Galatians, were raciaUy a mixed population. There was the original
Phrygian stock ; there must have been a Greek element (p. 68) ; there
were Roman settlers, for it had been made a colony by Augustus ; and
there were also numbers of Jews who had a synagogue in the place. The
inclusion of Jews among the inhabitants gave the Apostles an opening,
and it was to their own countrymen that they first imparted the Gospel
message. 1 Ramsay supposes that St. Paul was attacked by malaria in the enervating
climate of low-lying Perga and went to the higher ground of the interior to get rid
of it (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 93). But the journey to Pisidian Antioch was one of
five days at least and involved an ascent to a city 3,600 feet above the sea, an arduous
undertaking for an invalid.
2 Cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 38, 39.
3 Of erysipelas in the face it is stated that " redness graduaUy appears over the
whole surface of the face, and is accompanied with swelling, which in the lax tissues
of the cheeks and eyeUds is so great that the features soon become obliterated and
the countenance wears a hideous aspect " (Enc, Brit. viu. p. 531).
1 Ramsay, op. cit. p. 104.

528 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
When they entered one Sabbath the Jewish place of worship, their
presence in it was noticed.^and after the reading of the two lessons, the
presidents of the synagogue sent to ask them to address the congregation
(p. 96). St. Paul, though he was a more recent convert to the Christian
faith than Barnabas, was the better speaker (Acts xiv. 12) ; and he seized
the opportunity of delivering a discourse, addressed both to the Jews and
the God-fearing Gentiles present, of which St. Luke purports to give the
tenor. The Apostle took as the subject of his discourse the same idea as that
expressed in Dt. i. 31 (a chapter which may have furnished the lesson
from the Law read on the occasion), namely the graciousness of God to
Israel. He began by relating the Divine favours successively conferred
upon the Chosen people — :their deliverance from Egypt, the support
afforded to them x in the wUderness, their settlement in Canaan, and the
bestowal upon them first of judges and then of kings ; next, he explained
how the promises made to David, the king after God's own heart (2 Sam. .
vii. 12, 16), had been realized by the advent of Jesus, a descendant of
David's race, to be a Saviour, as previously announced by John the Bap
tist ; for though the Jews of Jerusalem, not recognizing Him, nor under
standing the utterances of the prophets, had MUed Him, yet He had been
raised by God from the dead, and had been seen by His GaUlsean disciples 2 ;
then he affirmed that the object of the presence of himseU and Barnabas
among them of the Dispersion was to communicate this good news, pointing
out that the Messianic dignity of Jesus and His resurrection from the
dead were fulfilments of prophecies in Ps. ii. 7 3, 2 Is. lv. 3, and Ps. xvi. 10 ;
and finally, he declared that through Jesus was offered the forgiveness
of their sins, so that [through faith in Him] beUevers [on repentance]
could receive from God that acquittal for their offences and shortcomings
which they could not secure by attempts to fulfil the Law [which were
bound to prove futile], whilst he warned his hearers in the words of the
prophet Habakkuk (i. 5, LXX) against courting destruction by despising
the Divine Mercy.4
The speech put into St. Paul's mouth in Acts xiii. 17-41 is doubtless
the free composition of St. Luke (who was not present), in accordance
with the regular practice of ancient historians (p. 119) ; for it has several
marks of his style (e.g. dvrjg, erog, eiayyeXl^o/iai, i^anoarEXXm, fieri
ravra, nag 6 Xaog, ngooridrj/ii, auytrjgla, ¦dnoargiqpoi).6 In general tenor
it bears some resemblance to the speeches to the Jews of Jerusalem
attributed to St. Peter in Acts ii. and iii. (cf. especiaUy vv. 27-31 with
f,' In Acts xui. 18 irpoiroa^bpijo-ev is read by N B D, Lat. vg ; irpo<po<f>6pTjaiv by
ACE, Lat. vet. and some other versions. The latter occurs in the text which the
Apostle seems to have had in his mind (Dt. i. 31, LXX.).
' It is strange that there is no reference to the vision of Jesus witnessed by
St. Paul himself.
3 This passage, here applied to the Resurreotion (of, Rom. i. 4), is in Lk. iii. 22 (D)
used in connexion with the Baptism.
4 The Heb. of Hab. i. 5 has in the first olause, " Behold ye among the nations and
regard and wonder marvellously, for I work," etc
6 See p. 204 and Hawkins, Horce Synoptical-, pp. 16-23.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 529
Acts iii. 13-18 and vv. 35-37 with Acts ii. 29-31, v. 38 with Acts ii. 38, iii. 19,
vv. 40, 41 with Acts iii. 23), and like St. Stephen's in Acts vii. it contains
some figures (vv. 19, 21) which do not occur in the Old Testament. In
representing, however, the chief Apostles as pursuing much the same
train of argument when seeking to commend the Christian faith to audiences
similarly composed, it is probable that St. Luke is true to fact. All
alike are sure to have declared Jesus, Whom the Jews in their ignorance
of His true character had crucified, to be the promised Messiah, to have
appealed to His resurrection as proof of their contention, to have cited
prophecies predictive of Him, to have preached repentance and remission
of sins in His name, and to have declared the peril of disbelief and dis
obedience. But St. Luke had less close acquaintance with St. Peter
than with St. Paul ; and in the close of the speech delivered at Pisidian
Antioch (see v. 39) there occur phrases which reflect the latter Apostle's
distinctive doctrines (cf. p. 250), and which the narrator must often have
heard from him when, on other occasions, he was his companion.
The speech made an impression upon the audience, so that a request
was put to the speaker and his companion Barnabas to address them on
the foUowing Sabbath ; and when the assembly dispersed, many of both
Jews and " God-fearers " followed the Apostles to their lodgings, pre
sumably seeking further instruction, which they gave, urging them to
persevere in the course upon which by the grace of God they had entered.
In the codices D E and one MS. of the Old Latin version, it is added
that it came about that the Word of God passed through the whole city.
So the next Sabbath saw a large concourse gathered to hear the Message ;
but it also witnessed violent opposition manifested to the Apostles by
the Jews, who, angry at the effect which St. Paul's preaching had produced,
now contradicted his statements, probably representing that Jesus, so
far from being the predicted Messiah, was a criminal, who by His death
on the cross had incurred the Divine curse (Dt. xxi. 23). The controversy
became so vehement that St. Paul and Barnabas realized that further
success among the Jews, at least at Antioch, was out of the question, and
that if they were to win many converts, it could only be from among the
Gentiles.1 They therefore boldly declared to the Jews that whilst they
had duly delivered God's message of salvation to His chosen people first,
yet inasmuch as they rejected it, they were free to turn to the Gentiles,
to whom it had been predicted that Jehovah's Servant should bring
enlightenment and salvation (2 Is. xlix. 6). This announcement found a
welcome among those of their hearers who were not Jews ; and the Apostles
seem to have devoted themselves for some time to evangelistic work
among the GentUe population, belonging not only to Antioch itself but
to the surrounding district, from which the country folk would resort
to the city for trade and other purposes. The southern portion of the
Roman province of Galatia comprised (p. 265) people of two distinct races,
Phrygian and Lycaonian ; and the discovery of an inscription at Antioch
1 That there were some Jews in the Galatian Church appears from Gal. iu. 28,
v. 11, though the majority in it consisted of Gentiles (Gal. iv. 8, v. 2, vi. 121.
34

530 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
mentioning a regionary centurion (&xarovrdg%rjv gEyecovdgifrv) suggests
that an official was in command there who had jurisdietiorj PYer a certain
area in which there perhaps resided the greater- part of that section of the
population which was of Phrygian origin, This would be the region
(xojga) described in Acts xvi. 6 under the term " the Phrygian and Galatip
region," \ because it was inhabited by Phrygians, but for-nied part pf
the Galatian province. In any case the Apostles' preaching extended
beyond the confines of the city ; and the faith of Christ through their
efforts appears tp have gained many adherents, who eventuaUy consti
tuted thpre (Acts xiv. 21) a Christian community.
The length of time spent by St. Paul and his cornpaniops at Antioch
is not stated. St. Luke here, as elsewhere (cf . xvii. 2), notices the occasions
when on the Sabbath they spoke to the Jews, but leaves quite undefined
the interval occupied with work amongst the GentUes. It seems to
fqUpw, however, from the statement in xiii. 49 that " the word of the
Lord was spread abroad throughout aU the region," that the Apostles'
stay must have covered at least two or three months. It was brought
to a close by a persecution organized hy the Jews, who, through influence
exerted upon the leading men and women of the city, caused thei? expul
sion. As Antioph was a Roman colony, it was possible for the Jews to
excite the suspicions of the civic authorities by representing the Christian
missionaries as guflty, through proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah, of
treason against the E.mperor. Such a charge was a grave one, and inevit
ably led to the adoption pf strong measures against any to whom it attached.
But though, in consequence of Jewish machinations, they were compeUed
to leave the city, they did not desist from their efforts to evangeUze other
places in the prpyince, but departed fpr Iconium, which, though not so
considerable as Antioch, was nevertheless an impprtant town.
Iconium (the modern Konieh), between 80 and 100 mUes east-squth-east
of Antioch, is despribed by Strabp, Pliny, Cicero and other writers as a
Lycaqnian city ; but by St. Luke it is distinguished from the Lycaonian
towns Lystra and Derbe (Acts xiv. 6), and in this he is confirmed by
Xenophon, whp in An. I, ii. 19, calls it a border city of Phrygia. Though
not a Roman colony, it received the honour of being aUowed by the Emperor
Claudius to change its name to Glavdiconium. Here St. Paul and his
companion renewed their endeavours to spread the Christian faith-
Although the antagonism of the Jews at Antioch had turned St. Paul's
thoughts in the direction of addressing his appeals to the heathen, he
did not at once abandon the practice of preaching first to his own country
men ; and as there was at Iconium a Jewish community, the Apostle
entered their synagogue and made many converts both among the Jews
and the God-fearing Greeks who attended it. There is some obsourity
about the events that followed, since in Acts xiv. v. 3 cannot be the
immediate sequel of v. 2. The gap hetween the statement (u 2) that
the unconverted Jews created among the Gentiles opposition for the
Christian evangelists, and the succeeding representation in v. 3 that the
1 See Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 102-4.

THE CHURCH IN; THE- APOSTOLIC AGE 531
Apostles therefore stayed a long tiipe ip the place, is bridged ip, the.Bejzap
MS. by the explanation attached to v. 2 that " thp< Lord quipkly gftve
peace," But in view, pf the united effort (recorded ip v. 5), as made, by
both GentUes and Jews to assault the Christian teachers, it seenis n^e
probable that there is some slight; disprder in the text ; apd that v. 3
should- follow v.l. On this assumption it would seem that the pppye;rsijpn
of many of the frequenters of the synagogue encouraged St, Paul tp ren^aifa
a considerable time in the city, wjiere by hirnself, and his ppnipapipn
many "signs and wopders," presumably cures, of diseases, were wrought.
But the antagonism manifested at Antioch by the majority Pi the. Jews-rp-
appeared at Icpnium, and through their malice hostility was excited amopg
the GentUes likewise. There was. however, a division of feeling in the
city at large, there, being a septiop that sympathized with the Christians
as weU as another that supported the Jews. Nptwithstapddng th§
friendliness of part of the multitude, the opposition became so. threatepipg
that to avoid maltreatment St- Pah. and his feUow- Apostle fled to. Lystra,
twenty mUes distant so.uth-sputh-west. This was. situated in Lycaonia
(strictly Galatic Lycaonia). where the, populatipp retained its native
language ; but since the place was a Roman colony and known as Colonia
Julia Eelix Gemina Lustra, there must have been a considerable Roman
element in it. Of Jewish residents, however, there were but few, the
only Jewish family to which reference is made being that of a widow paUed
Eunice, who had married a Greek, and who, with her son Timothy,, lived
at the home of her mother Lois, where both the women, together with
Timothy, were converted to the Christian faith (cf. Afcte xvi. 1, 2, 2 Tim- i-
5). . consequently the town (which has beep identified with the modern
Khatun Serai) was the first locaUty where St. Paul must have preached,
from the outset, to heathen audiences. As. neither St. Paul nor Barnabas
seems to have been acquainted with the Lycaonian tongue (xiv. 11, 14),
it is possible that in addressing those who understood no other language,
they may have had the help of some converts from Iconium, whUst' they
themselves spoke in Greek tp such as were |amUiar with it.
The impression which they made upon the people was aided by a
cure wrought by S*- PauI upon a cripple, who was ip the habit of Usteping
to him, and whose lameness is represented as being lifelong. The asser
tion that his infirmity dated from his hirth, if true, renders the explanation
of his cure as a case of faith-heaUng difficult (cf . p. 49$) ; and it is possible
that St. Luke, for whom accounts, of miracles had an attraction (p. 247),
may in this respect have magpified the wonder (cf. iii. 2). St. Paul,
fixing his eyes upon the afflicted man, addressed him with the words,
" I say unto thee, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, arise and stand
upright on thy feet," and the direction was obeyed! The restoration to
the cripple of the power to rise and walk excited the amazement of the
spectators whq witnessed it. It was a cqmpiop behef among prhpitive
peoples that the gods not seldom roarned through the cities of men in
the guise of strangers ; and Lystra, though in Lycaonia, was but a short
way from the borders pf Phrygja, where £eps and Herrnes were fabled
to have visited Philemon and his wife Baucis. It was pot uppatural,

532 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
therefore, that the inhabitants of Lystra, who must have been familiar
with the Greek legend, should conclude that the authors of the miracle
were superhuman beings, that they were, in fact, the two deities about
whom the story was told.1 There was no hesitation in deciding which of
the strangers was Zeus and which Hermes. St. Paul's appearance, if
the description of him given in the Acts of Paul and Thecla contains any
elements of truth, was incompatible with the dignity appropriate to the
Greek King of Heaven, for he is represented as short in stature (though
strongly built), bald-headed, and bow-legged ; whilst his gift of speech 2
was consistent with his being Hermes, the messenger of the gods, whom
Lucian caUs 'Eg/ifjg Xdyiog.3 On the other hand, the fact that Barnabas
was probably the older of the two, more reserved in utterance, and more
tranquil in demeanour, would predispose the crowd to identify him with
Zeus. When this conclusion was reached, the next step was to do sacrifice
to them. Zeus was the guardian divinity of the city, for before the
entrance of it stood a temple where he was worshipped under the title of
Zsvg 6 ngo rfjg ndXecog.4, Accordingly the priest of the temple brought
to the gateway oxen decked with the usual garlands, and prepared to
offer them to the supposed divine visitors. Information of what was
contemplated reached the two Apostles, who, in horror at the thought
of it, at once rushed forth and sought to deter the people from their
design. In accordance with his custom the writer of Acts reproduces what
purports to be the speech deUvered by the Apostles on the occasion. As
St. Luke was neither present himself nor Ukely to have had notes preserved
by others, the address he reports can hardly be the Apostles' actual words,
but it is so suitable to the circumstances that it doubtless represents the
gist of what was said.5 The audience consisted not of Jews or of persons
familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, but of pagans who were probably
uncultured and ignorant, so that at the time any announcement respecting
the distinctive features of Christianity would have been premature, and
there was only scope for a protest against polytheism and an appeal on
behalf of a monotheistic faith. The speakers confined themselves to two
points : first, a declaration that they themselves were just ordinary men
who were entrusted, indeed, with a Divine message, but were not themselves
Divine beings ; and secondly, that their message came not from one or
other of the many gods whom their hearers were accustomed to worship,
but from the One Living God, the Creator of the universe, Who desUed
that they should turn from their imaginary gods to Him ; and Who,
though He had long allowed men to follow their own devices, yet through
the beneficent processes of nature had afforded some evidence of His
existence, activity, and character. The address, brief and hurried, was
1 See Ovid, Met. viii. 631 f.
2 Some Corinthians at a later period deemed this to be of no account, but their
contempt was probably due to their preference for the rhetorical style of Apollos
(2 Cor. x. 10).
3 Quoted by Blass, Acta Apost. p. 160.
1 Cf. the title Zeis irpo&a-rios (Ramsay, Church and Roman Empire, p. 51).
6 With Acts xiv. 16 cf. Rom. iii. 25.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 533
no complete refutation of polytheism, and the Apostles, Uke the Hebrew
prophets before them, affirmed rather than reasoned ; but what they said
served its purpose, though it was only with difficulty that they prevented
the multitude from offering the intended sacrifice.
The favourable impression made at first upon the people of Lystra
by the Apostles was not without results, for it appears that there gathered
round them the nucleus of a Christian church. But any prolonged stay
was precluded by the arrival of a party of Jews from Pisidian Antioch
and Iconium, whose representations so worked upon the mob, that with
characteristic fickleness they were ready to kill as deceivers the men
whom shortly before they were eager to worship as gods. St. Paul
seems to have been the principal object of Jewish animosity ; and it was
probably at the instigation of Jewish emissaries that an attack of the
populace was made upon him in particular. He was so severely stoned
(cf. 2 Cor. xi. 25) that he was rendered unconscious, and was dragged out
of the city as dead. His companions, however, who were fortunate
enough to escape violence, were not interfered with, when they sought
for and found him ; and as they stood about him, he recovered his senses.
Probably with the help of sympathizers, he was enabled to re-enter the
city and receive shelter and treatment ; but inasmuch as it was necessary
to allow time for the hostility excited against the Christians to subside, he
and Barnabas went next day to Derbe. This place was about thirty miles
south-east of Lystra, and was the last town in that direction within the
Roman province of Galatia. Though not a colony Uke its neighbour,
it had been favoured by the Emperor Claudius, who had dignified it with
the title of Glaudio-Derbe, and it was a centre of Roman influence. No
particulars are recorded of the stay of the Apostles there beyond the fact
that they made many disciples ; and it may be presumed that the Jews
who had caused such trouble for them at Lystra did not pursue them
further. Beyond the Galatian border lay the semi-independent state of
Commagene, ruled by Antiochus, to whom the Emperor Claudius had
ceded eastern Lycaonia. It was St. Paul's plan to confine his evangelistic
activities within the Roman provinces ; and it was doubtless Ms unwilling
ness to go outside them, as well as the expediency of consoUdating the
little bodies of converts that had abeady been won in the towns previously
traversed, that caused him and Barnabas to make Derbe the hmit of their
First missionary journey, and to retrace their steps, instead of returning
to Syria through CUicia and across Mount Amanus. They accordingly
went back to Pamphylia and the sea through Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian
Antioch, strengthening in each place the faith of the disciples there and
encouraging them to support the tribulations which their Christian
profession was Ukely to entail, and which was the avenue wherethrough
the Kingdom of God was to be attained. It may be assumed that on
their return journey they avoided the synagogues and refrained from
any conduct calculated to create a renewal of disorder.
It is in connexion with the Christian communities in these places
that we first meet with the appointment by the Apostles of a definite
ecclesiastical organization. Since these churches consisted principally

534 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of Gentiles, against whom their Jewish neighbours Were much 'embittered,
it was necessary to institute for them :some form of government Separate
from that of the local synagogue's. In the Church at Jerusalem there
existed a body of elders who took charge of the money contributed by
the 'Christians at Antioch for the reflet 'of the distress occasioned by the
famine of 46 (Acts xi. 30). These wele probably not officials (for the
Christians at Jerusalem still worshipped at the Temple, and still recognized
the Jewish ecclesiastical authorities), but such members of the Church
as were marked out by age Or experience as best fitted to discharge impor
tant duties. But in the Gentile churches of South Galatia more formal
arrangements were needed; and the Apostles to whom these churches
'owed their existence appointed 1 officials, also styled " elders," to admin
ister the affairs of each church and to instruct and control the y6unger
•portion of the several'communities. The term " elder " apphed to them
followed not only Jewish but GentUe analogies, for members of corporations
in various Greek towns, invested with authority over both rehgious and
secular matters, Were caUed by this title. But whilst this word was
fitted to describe their dignity, another Was used to designate them as
'entrusted with the duty of supervising th'e conduct of those in the Church
who Were youthful and irresponsible. This was "Overseers "'(inlaxondi),
an expression applied in the LXX to certain officials appointed over the
Temple (2 Kg. xi. 18), and to the heathen commissioners who under
Antiochus Epiphanes enforced idolatry upon the Jews (1 Mace, i. 51),
and employed in several places in Greece to describe functionaries who
regulated 'colonies, finance, or the worship of certain deities ; and
'adopted by the Christian cornmunity to denote those in the several churches
who were qualified and authorized to exercise spiritual oversight over
their brethren.
HoW long the Apostles spent on their return journey from Derbe to
Antioch — !a journey which seems to have passed without incident —
there is nothing to show. But on proceeding from Antioch dowh to the
clblast, they took the bpportunity of stopping at Perga, a place where
"they did not stay on their accent from the Coast to the interior, and there
tiiey preached. They were perhaps enabled to do so through hearing
xthat there was no ship at Attalia in which they could at once saU for
Syria ; and so had to await the arrival of a vessel. They eventually
f ourid one to convey them, before the season of navigation closed, from
Attaha to Seleucia, whence they had embarked perha'ps eighteen months
'before '(spring of a.d. 47). FrOm the latter port they went up to Syrian
Antioch, pfobably arriving in the autumn Of 48, and reported to the
Church 'there 'the success granted to them. The interest of this report
centre'd in the a;cc6unt of the conversion of the Gentiles to whom God
(it Was plain) was 'granting admission to His kingdom through faith in
Jesus (Acts xiv. 27) and not (as hitherto beheved) only through submission
to the Mosaic Law. Upon St. Paul individuaUy the experience obtained
1 The word for '"appointed" (xelporovelv) Strictly refers to a popular election
by show of hands '(cf, 2 Cor. viii. 19), but is also used of nomination by individual
authority: of Jos. Ant. vi. 3, 4.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 555
during the journey just accomphshed must have made a deep impressioU,
and placed beyohd doubt any incipient conviction that he may have
previously entertained that his own field of activity must henceforward
lie chiefly not among his own countrymen but among men of aUen race.
§ 7. Controversy about the Relation of Gentile Christians
to the Jewish Law
But the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church without any enforcement
upon them of circumcision and the other requirements of Judaism was
an event which could not fail to attract unfavourable comments from
Jewish Christians at Jerusalem. Jesus was by them regarded as the
Messiah of the Jews exclusively. He had HimseU received the seal of
circumcision, had worshipped in the Temple, and had declared that the
Law should pass away as Uttle as the heaven or the earth (Mt. v. 18 =
Lk. xvi. 17). It might therefore be urged that the salvation which He
came to bring would be confined to Israel and to those Gentiles' who by
obedience to the Law should become members of Israel. To such the
announcement that salvation had been offered to the Gentiles indepen
dently of the Law was sure to be most disturbing ; and a sharp collision
of opinion, with resulting bitterness, might ensUe. It is true that there
had Been precedents of a kind. The Roman centurion Cornelius had
beep admitted into the Church, but he at any fate had been previously
a " God-fearer " (p. 518) ;• and both he and his companions had been
endowed with the " gift of tongues," which was regarded as a iaanifest
token of the presence with them of the Holy Spirit, and which therefore
warranted their baptism. Some Greeks,1 too, at Antioch had been
addressed by disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene, and perhaps converted
by them (Acts xi,- 20), but they, like CorneUus, may have been1 " God-
fearers " ; and at aU events were probably not numerous. But! nOw
considerable bodies of heathen at Lystra, Derbe, and1 other places in South
Galatia had been converted by Paul and Barnabas without any mention
of circumcision as essential to salvation ; and many feais could not but
occur to the minds of both St. Paul and Barnabas; but especiaUy of the
former, as to the spirit with which their course of action Would be regarded
by their feUow-Christians at Jerusalem. It was therefore desirable that
a consultation with the latter should take place before any further mis
sionary enterprises among predominantly GentUe populations were
pfefflned; and accordingly a journey was made from Antioch to the Jewish
CSpiM with that end in view.-
At Jerusalem a settlement (though not an immediately decisive settle
ment) of the question was reached ; but it is unfortunately impossible-
to trace with complete' confidence the? steps Which led to it. For of the
proeeedifigs there are preserved two accounts', one' ill' Act's xv1. from St.
Luke, and the other in Gal. U. from St. Paul, and these appear m some
vital features to be incompatible. Since it seems impracticable to dovetail

Eor the text of Acts xi. 20, see pJ 520.

536

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

the two accounts satisfactorily into one another, it is expedient to follow
the one which has the best authority behind it. This is clearly St. Paul's,
which comes from an actor in the scene described, whereas St. Luke, who
was not present at Jerusalem on the occasion in question, was dependent
upon the information of others or upon his own inferences.
It has been shown (p. 271.) that of the three occasions when St. Paul was at Jerusa
lem the one recounted in Acts xv (not in Acts xi. 30) x is probably identical with that
described by the Apostle himself in Gal. ii. ; but the differences between the two narra
tives are sufficiently great to make it necessary to choose between them. The points
of divergence will be best appreciated if they are summarized in parallel columns.

Acts xv.
(a) Certain persons who had come to
Antioch from Judaea having insisted
upon circumcision for the Gentiles as
necessary for their salvation,2 Paul,
Barnabas, and certain others went as
delegates from the church at Antioch
to the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem
to discuss the necessity of it.
(6) At a general conference Peter,
recalling the fact that through himself
the first Gentiles had been converted,
deprecated the imposition upon the
Gentiles of a burden intolerable to Jews
themselves,3 and expressed the belief
that both Jews and Gentiles would be
saved through the grace of Jesus Christ ;
next, Barnabas and Paul related the
signs and wonders wrought by them
among the Gentiles ; thirdly, James,
appealing to Am. ix. 11, 12 (LXX),
proposed that the Gentiles should only
be required to refrain from meats
polluted, by being offered to idols, from
blood, from the flesh of animals strangled,
and from fornication; and finally this
proposal was adopted and embodied in a
letter sent in the name of the whole
Church to the Church at Antioch and
elsewhere in Syria and Cilicia through
Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by
Judas, Barsabbas and Silas.

Gal. ii.
(a) Paul, accompanied by Barnabas and
taking Titus with him, went by revelation
from Antioch to Jerusalem to lay before
the leading Apostles privately the Gospel
he had hitherto preached to the Gentiles.

(6) Paul refused to let Titus, a Greek,
be circumcised under compulsion, in
order to safeguard the Christian hberty
menaced by the Judaizers ; and received
from the leading Apostles no directions
supplementary to his Gospel ; on the
contrary, when they recognized that he
had been entrusted with the Gospel for
the Gentiles, as Peter with the Gospel
for the Jews, James and Peter and John
gave to him and to Barnabas the right
hand of fellowship, agreeing to a division
of the spheres of work, and only stipu
lating that Paul and his colleague should
remember the poor.

(c) Subsequently at Antioch, Peter,
who at first had eaten with the Gentiles,
no conditions about food having been
imposed upon them, yet afterwards
withdrew from such association on the
arrival of certain persons from James ;
and his example was copied by other

1 In Acts xv. 2, D, supported by the Old Latin codex gig., after no small discussion
and questioning with them adds fXeyev ydp 6 IlaBXos piiveiv ofhois KaBiis iirlarevo-av :
cf. 1 Gor. vii. 18-20.
2 McGiffert thinks that the narratives in Acts xi. 30 and Acts xv. refer to the same
event, of which St. Luke found two independent and divergent aocouuts and took
them to relate to distinct occurrences (Apost. Age, p. 171).
3 Cf. Gal. ii. 16, v. 3.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 537
Acts xv. Gal. ii.
Antioehene Jews, including Barnabas.
Peter's inconsistency was rebuked by
Paul, who asked him why, after disre
garding Jewish scruples and mixing
freely with the Gentiles, he should, by
withdrawing from them, seek to compel
them to adopt Jewish restrictions.
(d) Paul, on his second journey a.d. (d) Paul, in writing to the Corinthian
50, when passing through the cities Church early in 55, when discussing the
of S. Galatia, delivered to the churches question of eating food offered to idols,
there the resolutions passed at the Jeru- does not allude to the resolutions of the
salem conference. Jerusalem conference (see 1 Cor. viii.
x. 23-end).
It has been attempted to account for the discrepancies between these two accounts
by assuming that whilst St. Luke records the action of the church at Antioch, the
pubhc deliberations of the Conference at Jerusalem, and the decisions reached by it,
St. Paul confines himself to explaining his own motives and his private consultations
(prior to the Council) with the leading Apostles at the Jewish capital.1 Both, indeed,
agree in representing that the source of the trouble was an effort made by certain
Jewish Christians to impose Jewish obhgations upon the Gentiles. Nor is there any
inherent incompatibility between the assembling of a general meeting of Apostles and
elders at Jerusalem, attended by a deputation from Antioch (including St. Paul and
Barnabas), and the occurrence of a private interview between St. Paul himself (accom
panied by Barnabas) and the three Apostles James, Peter, and John. But besides
the strangeness of the fact that each writer should exclude from his own account so
much that is related by the other, St. Luke's report of the general meeting, with
its sequel, and St. Paul's narrative of the earUer private interview, assumed to have
been a preliminary to it, are not easily harmonized, (a) St. Luke records that at the
pubhc conference, though circumcision was not required of the Gentiles, certain
restrictions in regard to food were imposed on them as essentials, if intercourse was
to take place between them and Jewish Christians ; whereas St Paul asserts that at
the interview no addition was made by the three to his Gospel (which is not likely to
have included any food regulations). And if the private agreement between St. Paul
and the other three Apostles had been modified by what was settled at the public
conference, described by St. Luke, St. Paul was disingenuous in not mentioning the
circumstance to the Galatians. (b) It is almost impossible to adjust to St. Luke's
account of the conference such an incident as that which happened at Antioch (nar
rated in Gal. ii. 11-14). The " certain [that] came from James," alluded to in Gal. ii.
12, can scarcely be separated from the " certain [that] came down from Judsea "
mentioned in Acts xv. 1. But if so, it is clear that St. Peter's inconsistency occurred
before any general council was called. To refuse to regard Gal. ii. 12 and Acts xv. 1
as referring to the arrival at Antioch of the same people, to place the incident of St.
Peter's vacillation after what is related in Acts xv. (the council being assumed to have
been held between the occurrences in Gal. ii. 10 and 11), and to suppose that a public
decision, requiring the Gentiles to discriminate between certain kinds of food, was
almost immediately ignored by St. Peter, who is described as hving as did the Gentiles
until a second group of Jewish Christians arrived from Jerusalem, is extremely arbi
trary. It is more natural to think that what St. Peter did when, after consorting
at meals with the Gentiles, he subsequently withdrew from them was to violate only
a private understanding with St. Paul that no observance of Jewish food regulations
of any kind should be required of the Gentiles as a condition of intercourse with Jewish
Christians, (c) St. Luke in Acts xvi. 4 represents St. Paul as subsequently conveying
the decisions of the conference to the churches which he had founded in Galatia :
whereas St. Paul (according to his own testimony), when the lawfulness of eating
meat offered to idols became at a later time a serious question at Corinth, decided
it, in a letter to the Corinthians, without any reference to a resolution of the collective
¦Church (see 1 Cor. x., of. also Rom. xiv.).
, _ __
1 See Rackham, Acts, p. 239, Hastings, D. B. iii. p. 706.

538 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
In view of these facts it seems necessary to reject St. Luke's account in favour
of St. Paul's, which is a first-hand narrative. Nevertheless, St. Luke was not mistaken
in representing, 'whin 'he Wrote Acts, that by the authorities at Jerusalem the eating
of certain meats (as well as the practice of fornication) had been forbidden to Gentiles,
for this he learnt when he went to Jerusalem with St. Paul at the end of the latter's
Third Journey (Acts xxi. 25). He has erred, however, in the time to which he assigns
tiie prohfbitiori, which seems to have been issued during St. Paul's absence from
Jerusalem between 52 and 56 (not in 49, when the Apostle was present at the Jewish
capital). From the attitude taken Up by St. Paul in 49 (as described by himself in
'Gcadtittns ii.) it appears impdssible that'he would at that period have consented to
any restrictions upon Gentile freedom in respect of food, though in 56 he Was, no
'doubt, willing to acquiesce for the sake of peace in a course of action for which he
was not responsible and 'which he could not counteract (see p. 572). *
In the Ught, then, of the conclusion just reached, it will be -desirable
to construct the history of the meeting which St. Paul and Barnabas had
•with the principal Apostles at Jerusalem by drawing exclusively upon
St. Paul's own narrative. St. Paul, having misgivings as to the view
Ukely to be taken in Palestine pf the character of the Gospel which he
had preached among the Gentiles, was prompted (perhaps by -a revelation
'communicated by one of the prophets of tbe Church at Antioch, Acts xiii.
1) to go Up to Jerusalem in company With Barnabas to 'confer privately
with ;the Apostles of greatest reputation, especiaUy those who had been
the closest companions of the Lord -HimseU during His earthly ministry,
in order to save from collapse '(through the opposition of Jewish Christians)
both his past and his future efforts to present Christianity to the Gentiles
unfettered by Mosaic regulations. In proceeding to the Jewish capital,
he took with him also Titus, 'a full Greek (perhaps a native of OUicia),
;as representing those whose position was the subject of controversy.
The presence of Titus among the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem would
raise in an acute form the question of equaUty, within the Church, of
Jews and uncircumcised GentUes. It was probably contended by many
that all 'Gentiles ought to be circumcised, but the demand was speeiaBy
pressed in "the case of any, who, like TitUs on that occasion, were introduced
into a distinctively Jewish community. St. Paul, however, reaUzing
how much was at stake, refused to allow him, Gentile as he was, to undergo
the rite,2 evep though he was present among those who Tegarded
Contact with ah uncircumcised Gentile as a defilement. Among 'the
leaders of the ChurCh at Jerusalem was James (p. 255), whose doubts
respecting Jesus' Messiahship had been dispelled hy a vision, of the risen
1 -Another View, which also assumes that the Council has been misdated 'by St.
Ltike, 'represents that it really occurred at aln earher period than A.n. 49, before the
death df James the son df Zebedee (previous to a.d. 44), with -whom the James of
Gal. ii. 9, 12 and Acts xv. 13 is identified. -Support for this view has been found in
the fact that the letter sent by the Counoil Was directed only to the 'Gentile Christians
of Syria arid Cilicia (Aits Xv. 23), regions where St. Patil 'had 'begun to. labour notlong
after 'his cohvisrslbn, pel-haps about 36 (Gal. i. 21) : see Peake's Commentary, s_p*p
793, 4 (Menries). Acts xV. Should therefore precede .dcfexii. Brit 'this explanation
seems less probable.
2 In'Qdl. ii. 3-45 there is much variety df reading, aMd room (fdr differences 'of inter
pretation ; but the text which has the strongest attestation 'seems to mean that Titus
was not oircumcised. The question is disoussed in Lightfoot, Gal. pp. 121-3, amj
Lake, Early Epp. of St. Paul, pp. 275-278.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 589
Christ fp. 471). At some subsequent period he had 'apparently been
included among the Twelve, perhaps to fill the vacancy caused through
the death Of Ms namesake, the son Of Zebedee '(p. 522) ; and he now
Occupied a position amOng them as eminent as that of Peter or John.
With these three Apostles, St. Paul had aft interview, :and to them he gave
an account of the mission wMch he and Barnabas had conducted among
the GentUes Of Galatia and elsewhere. It is possible that at the outset
they regarded him with som'e suspicion ; but when he had laid before
them the principles of the Gospel wMch he was accustomed to preach,
arid explained the success that had attended Ms activities amOngst those
who were not Jews, they expressed their satisfaction, and made PO claim
that he should preach otherwise in the future than he had done in the
past. They recognized that the Gentile world Was Ms special sphere of
work as the Jewish world Was in a predominant degree St. Peter's, and
they supplemented Ms teacMng in no respect, insisting neither on eir-
•cumdsioh nor on any other part of the ceremomal Law as obligatory on
'Gentile Christians, for otherwise they would have stultified What he had
done. It was doubtless understood on both sides that exemption frpm
"the 'Mos'aic requirements was to be confined to Gentile Christians ; Paul
was ftbt to release Jews from them any more than the elder Apostles were
Jto 'burden the Gentiles with them. Thereupon the Three gave to both
'St. Paul and St. Barnabas pledges Of felloWsMp, though their fields of
labour were to be distinct. They only begged them to remember the
needs of the poor among the Christians at Jerusalem for reasons wMch,
though not stated, are teadily inteUigible. Material Telef from the
Gentiles seemed only a fitting return for the spiritual privUegPs wMch
they had imparted to them, and liberaUtyon the part of the latter was
calculated to disarm oppdsition amongst those who 'advocated the Uniform
'Obligation of the LaW. St. Paul, who some 'three years before had, in
company with Barnabas, Conveyed to Jerusalem the charity of the An
tiochenes, was quite willing to meet the wishes of the Three, and, as will
be seien, did Ms 'best to stimulate the generosity Of his fGentile converts
towards their poorer fenow-CMistiafis at the Jewish capital (p. 541).
St. Paul, as has 'been pointed out, amides to no pubhc conference
following upon the private interview just related ; and he does not imply
tirat Ms -teaching was submitted to the general body of Jewish ^hristiahs
at Jerusalem, or received their approbation. Some among these persisted
in wishing to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, and became bitterly
hostile to St. Paul (p. 558). Others, vin consenting ;to rehevefthe GentUes
of this and other ceremomal obUgations, still felt themselves, in virtue of
keeping the Law, on a Mgher plane of sanctity, wMch would-be impaired
by unrestricted intercourse with uncircumcised Christians ; so that
they tacitly assumed that the two secitions of the 'Church would Uve apairt.
But such separation couldndt be umversally or permanently maintained,
and it 'became essential, 'if the two parties were to mix hatatomously,
either that the Jewish Christians should abandon some of the Mbsaic
regulations respecting defilement, or that the GentUe Christians should
forgo part of their Uberty. An occasion speedUy occurred wMch brought

540 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
tMs issue to the front. St. Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch,
where, witMn the Church, Jews and GentUes appear to have Uved in
close intercourse with one another.1 TMther St. Peter soon afterwards
went down, and at first mingled freely with the Gentile CMistians at their
meals. But when some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem joined Mm
there, they expressed their surprise that he should eat with men who
were ceremonially unclean ; and influenced by their reflections upon Ms
conduct, he withdrew Mmself from further converse with the Gentiles,
thereby proving disloyal to the understanding reached at Jerusalem,
at least as St. Paid represents it. The contagion of Ms example extended
to others of the Jews of Antioch, including even Barnabas. TMs incon
sistency provoked a rebuke from St. Paul, who asked St. Peter, how, after
he himself had laid aside Jewish habits, he could now, by a sudden resump
tion of them, put pressure upon the Gentiles to adopt the same if they
wished to associate' with Jewish Christians on an equal footing.
How St. Peter received St. Paul's remonstrance, is not explained ; for
St. Paul does not carry Ms remimscences of the occasion further. At a
later date the Jewish party at Jerusalem were strong enough to impose
certain Tules regarding food upon the Gentiles, not as necessary for salva
tion but as expedient for the avoidance of friction ; and under the leader-
sMp of St. James, who was more consistently Jewish in Ms sympathies
than St. Peter, they demanded that the GentUes should abstain from
food offered to idols, from blood and from the flesh of ammals slaughtered
by strangling, as well as from the vice of fornication so habitual among
the Greeks (p. 273). The imposition of these restrictions St. Luke seems
to antedate, assigmng them to the year 49, instead of placing them five
or six years later, wMch seems to be the real date (p. 572).
In the absence of further information from St. Paul's correspondence,
it is necessary to recur to the narrative of Acts. The historian represents
that St. Paul and Barnabas, when returmng to Antioch, were accompamed
by Judas Barsabbas and Silas. Of these, Judas went back to Jerusalem
before long, but Silas (or SUvanus) appears to have stayed at Antioch
(p. 541). ' Though he was a Jewish Christian, he was a Eoman citizen,
and the circumstance may have enlisted Ms sympatMes on the side of
those, who, like St. Paul, advocated a Uberal attitude towards the GentUes.
At any rate, he won the esteem of St. Paul, and the latter's confidence in
him was soon to be strikingly mamfested.
§ 8. St. Paul's Second Missionary Journey
The fact that Barnabas, on the occasion of St. Peter's visit to Antioch,
had imitated him in his defection from Ms former principles, did not at
once interrupt the friendship between him and St. Paul ; but an occasion
of serious friction arose when St. Paul proposed that they should go
together on a second evangeUstic tour embracing all the cities in wMch
ChristiaMty had been previously preached by them. Barnabas, whilst
1 Weizsacker, Apost. Age, p. 189.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 541
acceding to the proposal, wished to take Ms cousin John Mark also. St.
Paul, however, resented what he considered to be Mark's desertion in
refusing to proceed with them from Pamphylia to the regions lying beyond
it (p. 526) and declined to allow him to accompany them. Neither would
yield ; so it was decided to break up the partnersMp. Barnabas, taMng
Mark, went again to Cyprus (p. 524) ; and after tMs disappears from the
Mstory, though it is clear from 1 Cor. ix. 6 that he was pursuing missionary
work as late as 52-55 (p. 275). Meanwhile Paul chose Silas (who either
did not accompany Judas Barsabbas when the latter went back to Jerusa
lem, or else returned thence to Antioch shortly afterwards),1 and planned
with him to reach the cities in South Galatia by the road that led from
Antioch and Northern Syria into Cilicia by the pass through Mt. Amanus,
called the Syrian gates.
This Second Missionary journey, probably begun m the autumn of
a.d. 49, was in some ways the most momentous of St. Paul's travels, for
in it he carried the Gospel into Europe. In accordance with his original
design he first of aU revisited certain Churches in which he had formerly
laboured, and pursuing the main route from Syria to the west by way of
Tarsus, he traversed CiUcia, strengthening in the faith the little com-
mumties of Christians which he had established there during the many
years spent in this region after his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 21).
Then, advancing farther through Laranda, but probably not staying to
evangelize either that or any other place within the kingdom of Antiochus
of Commagene (p. 533), he entered once more the Roman province of
Galatia. The Churches founded here on the earlier journey he now
visited, as was natural, in the reverse order (since he approached them
from Cilicia and not from Pamphylia), beginning with Derbe and going
on to Lystra, and probably Iconium. Lystra was the home of Timothy
(p. 531), and St. Paul, who had contended strenuously for freedom from
the Jewish Law in the case of converts of Gentile origin on both sides
(p. 538), was yet so wishful to concUiate his countrymen that he circum
cised Timothy because his mother was a Jewess. Timothy bore an
excellent reputation not only in his native town of Lystra, but also in
Icomum ; and St. Paul being desirous of having his assistance in his
further labours and intending to pursue his previous policy of delivering
the Gospel to his own countrymen first, wherever it was possible to do so,
wished to avoid any cause of offence which might prejudice the success
of his preaching (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 20). That Timothy fully answered the
expectations with which St. Paul took Mm as his companion appears
from numerous eulogistic references to Mm in the Apostle's correspondence
(1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, Rom. xvi. 21). It was probably in the course of
this Second journey through Galatia that the Apostle set on foot the
coUection for the poor of Jerusalem, who had been commended to his
consideration by James, Peter and John (p. 539). It was seemingly
started among the Galatian Churches (1 Cor. xvi. 1) and continued in the
provinces subsequently traversed.
1 In Acts xv. 33 most MSS. represent both as going back to the capital, but C D
and some other authorities imply that Judas went alone.

542 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
When the Apostle, accompanied by Silas and Timothy,1 aftei; re
visiting most of the South Galatian towps, reached the frontier between
Galatia and Asia, he seems to, have meditated breaking new- ground by
entering and evapgelizing the latter province. It, offered an attractive
field for ope with St. Paul's missionary ambitions, for it was the most
important of the Roman provinces, contained a number of populous
cities (p. 66), and afforded the most copvenient approach to Rome apd
the West. But becoming convinced (perhaps by some intimatipp cpp-
veyed by Silas, who was a prophet, Acts xv. 32); that the Holy Spirit did
noifc sanctiop Ms, intentions there at, that particular time, he, with Ms two
cpmpapions, went, through " the Phrygian and Galatic region." The
denotation of this; ternj, has been disputed, it having been identified both
with North Galatia, which historically had been first Phrygian and sub
sequently Galatiap, and with that part of South Galatia wMch ethnologi-
caUy was Phrygian, but, administratively was included in the Roniap
province of Galatia, though the second view seems the most probable
(p. 2(58). The chief objection to it is that it involves the supposition that
in Acts xvi. 4 the cities referred to in the words dig Sienogevovro rds
nilsig did not in the writer's, mind include Pisidian Antioch, and that St.
Paul, according to his original intention, had omitted it from the plan of
his jpurpey through Galatia. This objection seems to be outweighed by
the difficulties, attending the alternative view ; and the " South Galatian
theory ' ' wUl be adopted here as, a working hypothesis . It may be assumed,
then, that the party, havipg gone straight from Ipomurn to, the border of
Asia, pear Tyriseum, and there finding themselves proMbited from preach
ing in Asia, changed their route, and keeping for a Uttle whUe longer
within the confines of Galatia, proceeded, after aU, to Pisidian Antioch,
instead of leaving it on one side. After tMs was reached, a new course
had to be chosen. Ip view of the prohibition of work in the province of
Asia,, it was useless to go westward along the road to Ephesus. But there
was situated away in the north another Roman province, Bithynia-Pontus
(p. 67), apd a road leading to Nicomedeia, its capital, was easUy gained
from Aptioch. TMs road the Apostle and his compamons probably
foUowed as far as Dorylseum, where they would be near the frontiers pf
Bithynia, a ^territory containing numerous important towns, and then
seeming to offer a, favourable field for missionary effort. Put here an
admonition from the Spirit once more checked them ; and they were
prevented from entering this province also. In these circurnstances they
must have felt, at a loss as to the direction which they should take ; so,
having at Doryleeum the country of Mysia at their left hand, they turned
towards it. Mysia was included within the province of Asia, so they did
not feel themselves at, liberty to preach there ; and accordingly passing
through it without stopping,2 they arrived at Troas, a port on the iEgeau
poast, which was more fully styled Alexandria Troas, and which, founded
1 See Acts xvii. 14, xviii. 5, 1 Th. i. 1.
2 In Acts xvi. 8 rrapeX&bvres means " neglecting it " (passing by it with unconcern) ;
cf. Horn. II. viii. 238-9.

MACEDONIA &
-ACHAIA

JS°Miles

,,,% To iUustrate St. Paul's Second Missionary fourney (part).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 54?
or refoupded by Lysimaphus, one of, Alexander's successors about, 300' B.C.,
had beep constituted a Rpman colony by Augustus. In entering Mysja
and descending to the coast* they were rpaUy waiting on Providence ;
and at Troas the wishedrfaD iptimatiap as to their- future course pame.
St. Paul had a vision in which a Macedonian appeared- to him, beseeching
him to come over to Macedonia apd help his countrymen. Troas was
dopbtless much frequented by Macedonians, w,hp were distinguishable by
wearing a broad-brimmed cap eaUed, cassia and a. chlamys of peculiar
shape ; so that, the Apostle Wrould be able to; identify the nationality of
the figure seep in Ms dream. But his conviction that, Macedonia was his
proper destination (Acts xvi. 10) must have been greatly strengthened by
intercourse with one whom he met first at Trpas,, and who afterwards
became a close and beloved companion.* TMs was Luke, who, though
represented by tradition, as a native of Syrian Aptioeh (p. 195), may have
beep reaUy a Macedonian, or at lea<st have had MP home in that country.
Whether- Luke was already a Christian or whether he was converted to
Christianity by St. Paul' is, a matter of conjecture only ; and it, is equally
unpertajp how the two came into contact with one another, though it is
ppt an unreasonable guess a that St. Paul, in an attack of UMess, sought
advice from Luke, who was a physician by profession. Hpweyer this may
be, they became associated ; and Luke, whose permanent residence seems
tp have been at PhUippi, not only seconded the Apostle's resolve to go
thither,, but accompanied him op the voyage.
St. Paul, without staying long enough at Troas to fpppd a Church (pne
was established there later, see. 2, Cor, ii. 12, f.).,, set sail with his three
f eUpw-traveUersj, and having a favourable wind behind them 3 they f pUowpd
a straight course of about 140 miles past the islands of, Imhros apd Saipo-
thra.ee to Neapolis, a tpwp situated on the via Egnatia (probably on the
site pf the modern Kavalla) and serving as the port of PhUippi, 10 mUes
away. This was separated from the sea by Mt. pangaeus, but easy com
munication with the coast was rendered possible by a depression at the
east extremity of the hiUs. It was built by PMUp of Macedon, (circ.
357 B).c.), who caUed it after- his own name, and was, a Roman colony
(p. 71), having been made such by Qptaviapus, and Antooaius after the
victory in 42 B.C. gained in itspeighbpurhppd over Brutus and Cassius, and
honoured with tifte title ftf Colonia Julia Augusta, Yictrix PhUippensium.
Its magistrates are styled by St. Luke _$jyb.o?s (argarrjym), but since the town
was not among the polonies of early foundation, in connexion with which
the title is usuaUy fqund, their proper designation was probably duumviri
(SvavSgixol). It is described with excusable pride by St. Luke as a
leading city in its district of Macedonia (ng&rrj rfjg fi£g(Sog MaKsSaviag).
By " its district " is probably meant one of the four divisions into which
1 Bamsay supposes that St. Paul after meeting with Luke dreamt about him
(St. Paul the Traveller, p. 203).
* Ramsay, ap. cit. p 205.
3 This may be inferred from the fact that they reached their destination on this
occasion in two days, whereas a later voyage in the reverse direction lasted five days
(Acts xx. 6).

544 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the Romans partitioned Macedonia at the conquest of it in 168 B.C.
(Livy xlv. 29) ; if so, the one wherein PhUippi was situated was that which
included all the country between the Strymon and the Nestus, of which
Amphipolis was reaUy the chief city.1 Besides the native Greeks and the
Roman colonists (inscriptions are said to render it probable that at least
half the population was Latin in origin and speech) there was a certain
number of Jews. A stay was made in the place for some days ; and on
the Sabbath St. Paul with his companions sought and found the Jewish
place of prayer (ngoaEvxri) 2 outside the town by the banks of the river
Angites (p. 95). There were gathered at the spot a group of women,
and these the Christian teachers addressed. Among them was a native
of Thyatira caUed Lydia, who, as her husband is not mentioned, was
perhaps a widow and who, from her name, was probably a freedwoman.3
Thyatira was famous for its trade guilds, especiaUy those of the copper
smiths and dyers ; and Lydia made her living by seUing cloth dyed purple,
which she imported from her former home. TMough attendance at the
Jewish place of prayer she had become a " God-fearer " (p. 89), and she
was consequently the better able to understand and appreciate St. Paul's
appeal on behalf of the Christian faith. The Apostle's discourse so
impressed her that she was baptized ; and in gratitude she begged him
and his friends to make her house their temporary abode. The names of
two other women who became Christians are also known, Euodia and
Syntyche (Phil. iv. 2) ; and also of two men, Epaphroditus and Clement
(Phil. ii. 25, iv. 3).
Although there was clearly a body of Jews at PhUippi, and their place
of prayer was the earliest scene of St. Paul's preaching, it is probable from
the comparative smallness of their numbers that the Christian Church
which he established there was mainly GentUe. This circumstance, U the
inference is correct, helps to account for the affectionate relations which
continued to exist between the Church and the Apostle. On several
occasions, when he was at Thessalonica, at Corinth, and at Rome, the
Philippian Christians sent him gifts ; and these he accepted from them,
though he refused to be a burden to certain other Churches (Phil. iv. 16,
2 Gor. xi. 8, 9). And the liberality which they displayed to the Apostle
personaUy they also showed towards those in whom he was interested,
contributing even beyond their means to the fund which he coUected for
the poor at Jerusalem (2 Cor. viii. 2). The Philippian Church underwent
much persecution (2 Cor. viii. 1-4), for wMch the unconverted GentUes
rather than the Jews were most likely responsible. Before St. Paul wrote
to the members of the Church a letter from Rome (p. 294), there had been
1 In Acts xvi. 12 irpCrrij cannot mean the first city of Macedonia reached by the
travellers, for this was Neapolis. It seems needless to replace rrpirrrj rrjs pieplSos by
irpiimjs jxeplSos (as proposed by Blass and others).
8 In Acts xvi. 13 X A B C have ivojil^ojiev irpotrevxhv eivai ; E H L and many
other Uncials have ivoul^ero irpoo-evx'f) (" where prayer was wont to be practised ") ;
D has iSbKei irpoaevxh eivai. Tor irpoo-evx/j in the sense of a place of prayer cf.
3 Mace. vii. 20, Juv. Sat. iii. 296. *
8 National names hke Syrus, Thrax, to which Lydia is parallel, were usually borne
by slaves or those who had been slaves.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 545
instituted among them some measure of ecclesiastical organization,
reference in that letter being made to " overseers " (or bishops) and
" deacons " ; but it seems probable that such orgamzation (p. 631) came
into existence at a later period than the Apostle's first visit.
The evangelists' stay at Philippi was brought to a close by an incident
which occurred when they were proceeding to the place of worship alluded
to. On the way they were met by a slave girl who is described as having
an oracular spirit, called by the Greeks a Python, but who reaUy (it would
seem) possessed the faculty of ventriloquism,1 and who, by giving to
persons that consulted her what purported to be oracles imparted by some
Divine agency, was a source of income to her masters. On encountering
St. Paul and his companions she turned and foUowed them, exclaiming,
" These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way
of salvation." She may have listened to one of St. Paul's discourses and
heard Mm speak of the Most High, and of the way of salvation revealed by
Christ, though, since the epithet "Yy>iorog was not confined to the God of
the Jews and CMistians,2 and many religions offered salvation to their
votaries (cf. p. 85), it cannot be inferred that she had been won to the
Christian faith. She repeated this behaviour on several successive days,
untU St. Paul, addressing the spirit believed to dwell in her, charged it in
the name of Jesus Christ to depart out of her. The Apostle's words so
disconcerted her that she could no longer exert her faculty for ventrilo
quism, and so ceased to be valuable to her owners. The latter, enraged
at the loss of the income which she had brought in, seized St. Paul and
SUas (Luke seems to have been absent at the time, or at least was not
arrested), and dragged them before the local magistrates (p. 543). It was
represented that they were Jews who instead of being content with the
toleration extended to them by Rome in permitting the exercise of their
own religion, had sought to introduce Jewish usages amongst the Roman
commumty with the object (it might be supposed) of making proselytes
(Mt. xxiii. 15). Probably, too, they were aUeged to employ magic arts to
the injury of Roman citizens, for what had been done to the slave girl
could be so explained, and the use of magic practices was a charge not
lightly regarded by Roman authorities (cf . Tac. Ann. xii. 59). The populace
sympathized with their feUow-townsmen, and made a demonstration
against the accused ; and the magistrates, perhaps intimidated by the
mob, gave them no proper trial but ordered them to be stripped and
flogged, St. Paul's claim (if he made it) that they should be exempted
from this degradation on the ground of their Roman citizenship, being
perhaps unheard amid the uproar.3 They were then consigned to prison,
1 Cf. Suidas, iyya<rrpl/iv9os iyyao-rpljuavris Sv rives vvv iriBwva. In the LXX
iyyoffrpljuvBos is often used of one who had a " familiar spirit " •- cf. 1 Sam. xxviii.
3 f. 8 It is used of Zeus in the Greek poets (Pindar, .aBschylus, Sophocles), whilst its
Semitic equivalent occurred among the Canaanites and Phoenicians (p. 398).
3 That St. Paul did not always plead his right, or that it was sometimes ignored
appears from the fact that on three occasions he was beaten with the rods of Roman
lictors (2 Cor. xi. 25).
35

546 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the gaoler receiving such strict orders to keep them in safe custody that
he thrust them ipto an interior underground1 cell and put their feet into
Wfflodep stocks, probably a plank pierced with holes, the ends of which
were inserted in the walls. The prisoners spent the early hours of their
captivity in prayer and thanksgiving ; but at midnight there occurred an
earthquake and the prison was so shaken by it that the doors were opened
a»d the prisoners' fetters were loosed. " Anyone that has seen a Turkish
prison will not wonder that the doors were thrown open ; each door was
merely closed by a bar, and the earthquake, as it passed along the ground,
forced the door-posts apart from each other, so that the bar slipped from
its hold and the door swung open. The prisoners were fastened to the
wall or in wooden stocks ; and the chains and stocks were detached from
the wall* which was shaken so that spaces gaped between the stones."1
The gaoler, roused from sleeps saw the doors of the prison unbarred ; and
knowing that he would be held responsible if any of the prisoners should
escape (cf. Acts xii; 19), was on the point of killing Mmself. He was*
however, prevented by Sit. Paul, Who, discerning his purpose, stopped him
by declaring that they were aU there (fear, no doubt, rooting the others
to the spot until the chance of flight was lost) . The man, on this, recovered
his presence pf mind, and having secured the rest (as the Bezan text
represents), and procuring lights, entered the ceU where Paul ajid SUas
were, and first kneeling before them and then leading them out, asked
thpm what he should do to be saved. He may have known of the change
caused in the slave girl by St. Paul ; and the occurrence of the earthquake
now overawed him, persuading him that he had to do with the ministess
of some supernatural Power. The two prisoners took the opportunity
of deepening the impression created. In answer to the question puit by
the gaoler, they ,bade him believe in the Lop! Jesus, and then both he and
his house would be saved. Such a statement would need much expl&naT
tion ; and the gaoler gathered ^around the two EvangeUsts aU who iformed
his household, including probalbly his slaves and wanders, and together
they listened to the Divine Message. They were attentive .and responsive
hearers, and the words addressed to them produced conviction. After
the .discourse was .ended, the gaoler first attended to the injuries received
by Ms instructors, in consequence of the scourging, and then with the rest
of his house Deceived baptism. After that he led them from the dungeon
to the dweUing-rooms built above it, and there suppUed them with the
faod they needed, whUst rejoicing at the salvation which had come to
him and his.
The .next morning saw a surprising alteration ,of attitude on the part
of the magistrates, who the day previously had, after the most perfunctory
investigation, beaten those who had been accused before them, and com
mitted them to prison. They now sent their lictors to order the gaoler
tp let Ms prisoners gp; The change in them requires an ,explanatiop, and
the Bezan MS. supplies -.a, plausible one, by attributing it to alarm oaused
1 Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 220-1. Possibly there may te an element
of exaggeration in St. Luke's narrative : cf. Acts xii. 7.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 547
by the earthquake of the preceding night, for an occurrence that had
worked on the fears of the gaoler was likely to have impressed the minds
of Ms superiors also. The message was reported to St. Paul and Silas ;
but they were not prepared to accept release without pointing out to the
magistrates the illegal conduct of which they had been guUty. So the
Apostles replied that those who had publicly beaten two Roman citizens
and had even denied them a proper trial x must come themselves
and release them. The Uctors duly conveyed the message ; and the
magistrates, filled with fears at having disregarded the constitutional
rights of Roman citizens,2 came in person, accompanied, accoTdmg to the
Bezan text, by a number of their friends, and apologized for what had
happened. The same text represents that they excused themselves as
being unaware that the prisoners were innocent persons, and requested
that they would leave the town lest the populace should again coUect and
make an outcry against them. The Apostles, recognizing the feebleness
of the civic authorities, aocepted the apology for what it was worth, and
leaving the prison went to the house of their former hostess Lydia. There
they met a number of those whom they had recently converted, and
having given them encouragements and perhaps taken counsel about
their own immediate plans,3 departed, from Philippi, leaving behind them
Luke (whose home was seemmgly here) and proceeded along the Egnatian
road in the direction of Amphipolis and Apollonia.
The narrative of what occurred at Phihppi has been reproduced as it is related in
Acts xvi., including the account of the earthquake and the conversion of the gaoler
in mi. 25-34. But to render it plausible, use has had to be made of clauses found
only in the 5 text ; and the general character of that text raises a suspicion that
the. clauses jn question may have been introduced just to render the incidents more
intelligible. In the best-a,ttested text there is no reference in vv. 35-40 to the earth
quake as accounting for the change of mind exhibited by the magistrates when they
directed the prisoners to be released.'
Amphipolis, situated on the Strymon, was a place founded by the
Athenians as a colony in 437 B.C. ; and having been made a free city by
the Romans 270 years afterwards, was now the capital of the division of
Macedonia which included Philippi. Being about 30 miles from the
latter town, it marked the first stage pf St. Paul's journey along the via
Egnatia ; but he did not delay there, perhaps because the Jewish com
munity in the pity was smaU. He completed the next day's stage by
arriving at Apollonia, 29 miles distant, near Lake Bolbe ; but here, too,
he did not stay. Op the third day he reached Thessalonica (the modern
Saloniki), about 38 miles frpm AppUonia and once called Therma, giving
to the Thermaic gmf, on which it stood, its designation. Something
ahopt its origin is said on p. 66. It was a place of much importance, for
being both on the coast and on the via Egnatia, it occupied a position
1 In Afts xvi» 3.7, dKaravplrovs seems to be used in the sense of d/cp.Touj.
* A Lex Porcia prohibited a magistrate from beating a Roman citizen ; see Livy
x. 9y gravi poena si qais verberasset necassetae civem Romanum scmxit.
3 Cf. Ramsay, St. P<ml the Traveller, p. 226.
4 See McNeile, St. Paul, p. 61

548 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
extremely favourable for commercial development by sea and land. It
had been made by the Roman Senate in 168 the capital of the second
division of Macedonia ; and when the country was formally constituted
a province in 146, was selected to be the seat of government. During
the war between Csesar and Pompey it was the head-quarters of the latter ;
but in 42 it supported the Ceesarians, Octavianus and Antonius, against
the Republican leaders Brutus and Cassius. Like Amphipolis, it was a
free city (p. 71), and was governed by local magistrates styled politarchs
or " burgomasters," a title not uncommon m Macedonian towns (p. 246)
but rare elsewhere. Unlike the two cities which the Apostles had passed
through on their journey from PhUippi, Thessalomca seems to have con
tained a considerable number of Jews. Here St. Paul and his compamons
decided to stop, finding hospitality in the house of a certain Jason, probably
a Jew whose Hebrew name was perhaps Joshua (cf. p. 31), and who may
have been the same as the Jason from whom at Corinth St. Paul after
wards sent salutations to Rome or Ephesus (Rom. xvi. 21, cf. p. 283). As
usual, the Apostles began their evangelistic work in the local synagogue.
Por three successive Sabbaths x they tried to win to the CMistian faith
those who gathered there, seeking to show from the Scriptures that there
was foretold in them the coming of a Messiah who was destined to suffer
and die, and then to rise from the dead (the passage adduced being, no
doubt, 2 Is. Iii. 12— liii. end) and then claiming that Jesus was proved to be
the Messiah in virtue of the coincidence between His experience of death
and resurrection and the prophecy in question. Their reasoning per
suaded a certain number of Jews (one of whom was the Aristarchus
mentioned in Acts xx. 4, Col. iv. 10) ; but was more convincing to the
class of devout (i.e. God-fearing) Greeks, including some ladies of rank
who were wont to worship in the synagogue (p. 89). The majority of
the Jews (as at Pisidian Antioch and Iconium) rejected the appeal made
to them ; and probably rendered it impossible for St. Paul and SUas to
continue to frequent the synagogue. For it is clear from the Epistles
which St. Paul afterwards wrote to the Thessalonian Church that it
consisted mainly of Greeks and other Gentiles who had been converted
from heathenism and heathen vices (p. 261). It appears therefore that
St. Luke's account of the Apostles' sojourn in the place is incomplete,
and that they must have stopped there much longer than the two or tMee
weeks implied in Acts xvii. 2. A comparatively protracted stay is further
indicated by the facts that St. Paul practised there Ms occupation of making
tent-cloth (1 Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8), and that he twice received supphes
from his converts at Phihppi (Phil. iv. 16). Their departure from the
city was eventually brought about by a disturbance orgamzed by the
Jews, who, resenting the success of the Christian preachers with the
" God-fearers " (who might be regarded as prospective proselytes), got
together a number of bad characters from among the loafers in the market
place, and caused a riot. They assaulted the house of Jason, the host of
the Apostles, but failed to find the men whom they wanted to bring before
1 Or " for three weeks " (cf. p. 261).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 549
a mass meeting, which might have lynched them. Disappointed of their
prey, they dragged Jason himself and some of the Christian converts before
the burgomasters, accusing them of having harboured persons of treason
able designs who belonged to a widespread society that was supporting
the claims of a rival Emperor, a certain Jesus (whom Christians were
accustomed to call their Lord (Kvgiog, Dominus) ). They created much
excitement among the multitude and perturbation among the magistrates,
for a place suspected of being the seat of treasonable plots might lose its
privileges. But the magistrates recogmzed that those who were brought
before them were not the responsible parties, so they contented themselves
with taking security from them that they would not shelter Paul and
Silas any longer, and then discharged them.
It is plain from 1 Th. U. 14 that the Jews had kindled for the time at
least among the populace at large such indignation against the Christians
that it was dangerous for the Apostles to continue to remain in the place.
Accordingly Paul and Silas were sent away by night to Beroea (the modern
Verria), some fifty miles south-west of Thessalomca. St. Paul seems to
have thought that the disturbance might subside, for he looked forward
to an early return to Thessalomca. Meanwhile he continued his evan
gelistic efforts at Beroea, where, as there was a Jewish synagogue, he and
SUas were able to pursue their customary practice of addressing first their
countrymen who worsMpped there. The reception they met with was
much more favourable than that which they had previously experienced,
for the passages of Scripture to which they appealed in support of the
plea for the Christian faith were candidly examined. In consequence,
¦ many converts were made both of Jews and of Greeks, the latter including
a number of women of position ; and among the disciples specified by
name whom St. Paul gathered about him here was Sopater (mentioned
in Acts xx. 4). How long an interval the Apostles spent in this town is
not indicated. But it is possible that it was a period of some duration,
and that the place was made a centre for evangelistic work in the surround
ing regions, for in Rom. xv. 19 (written prior to a.d. 56) St. Paul claims
to have preached the Gospel as far as Illyricum, and among the Macedoman
cities where he is said to have stayed, Beroea lies farthest west.1 It is not,
however, likely that he actually penetrated into Illyricum (a province
lying along the Adriatic), for this would have involved a protracted
journey which St. Luke is not hkely to have omitted. Probably the
Apostle only reached its borders,2 in the course of missionary tours within
Macedonia. The work here was at last interrupted through the machinations of
the Jews of Thessalomca, who, receiving information of what was being
accomplished at Beroea, followed the example of their countrymen at
Pisidian Antioch and Iconium (cf. Acts xiv. 19), and sent emissaries to
excite amongst the populace hostility against Paul and Silas. It accord-
1 On his Third Missionary journey, when he passed through Macedonia about
a.d. 55, he was too anxious about the Church at Corinth (p. 278) to have undertaken
work in an unfamihar country hke Illyricum.
' For this exclusive sense of jj^xjii cf, Horn. II. xiii. 143-144.

550 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
ingly became necessary for the former, as the one whom danger cMefly
threatened, to withdraw from the place ; and a body of Ms converts
escorted Mm as far as the sea. It is possible that he then took sMp at
Dium or Pydna ; but since he is represented as being conducted to Ms
ultimate destination by some compamons ot attendants, it seems probable
that he accomplished the whole of Ms journey by land, and was guarded
by Ms disciples against possible attempts of the Jews to assassinate him.
The road southward has to turn the flank of Mount Olympus, which
approaches close to the Thermaic gulf, near the borders of Thessaly ; and
it was presumably to this point that the bulk of Ms escort accompamed
him.1 The city he was bound for was Athens (distant from Beroea in a
direct line about 200 miles), where he arrived without Ms feUow-workers
Silas and Timothy. These, if they set Mm on Ms Way, returned to Beroea ;
but those who attended the Apostle as far as Athens were directed to
carry back a message bidding them rejoin Mm as soon as possible. It
may be conjectured that St. Paul, on leaving Beroea, had not decided on
Ms plans, and that until he had done so the others would be of greater
service in helping the infant Church at the place wMch he had just left.
The Bezan text explains that he was prevented from preacMng in Thessaly
(as previously in the case of Asia and Bithyma, Acts xvi. 6, 7), wMch seems
to imply that he had meditated work in that region, for there were not
lacking towns of importance in it (e.g. Larissa) ; but was led to abandon
his purpose, and did not see his way to renew Ms missionary efforts until
Athens was reached. When there, he felt the need of Ms compamons,
and so summoned them to Mm.
At Athens the Apostle was in another province, that of Achaia. wMch,
after several changes of administration, was now under the control of the
Senate, and governed by a proconsul (p. 67). Athens was not the capital
of the province, but it Was the most famous city in Greece both for its
illustrious history in the past and for its existing umversity, to which
resorted lovers of learmng from all parts of the Roman world. It was
renowned ahke for pMlosophy, art, and Uterature, though at the era when St.
Paul visited it, its reputation rested upon its former acMevements in these
various spheres of culture rather than upon its contemporary activities.
Its citizens were described by Josephus as the most pious of the Greeks
(Jos. c. Ap. ii. 12), and the streets were full of temples and Statues, Livy
(xlv. 37) mentiomng, among conspicuous features in it, simulacra deorum
hominumque, omni genere et maleriw et artium insignia.3 TMs aspect of
the city was not unnoticed by St. Paul, as he awaited the arrival of Silas
and Timothy. In every Jew all plastic or carved representations of the
human form, if connected with rehgious worsMp, excited abhorrence (cf.
Dt. iv. 16-19, Rom. i. 23) ; and the sight of the masterpieces of Athenian
sculpture must have suggested subjects for the discourses which, according
to Ms custom, he delivered in the Jewish synagogue. Though for the
Jews themselves who worshipped there reflections upon, and arguments
against, idolatry were superfluous, such might be helpful to the God-fearers

1 See Rackham, Acts, p. 300. a Quoted in Hastings, D.B. i. p. 197.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 1551
who Were not at once able to free themselves frOm earlier practices
and associations. It was not, however, only to those who formed his
audience in the synagogue that St. Paul addressed himself. His experi
ences at Lystra and elsewhere inevitably disposed hilfl to appeal to a wider
circle ; and in the Agora, the resort alike of men of affairs and of idlers, df
the learfied classes and the unlearned, he used to reason with all whom he
encountered. The discussion of novel speculations was pursued at Athens
with the more zest as, under the rule of Rome, there was no scope for
political debate. Among those whom he met were certain adherents of
both the Epicurean and the Stoic schools of philosophy (p. 82 f.) ; and ill
Conversing With them his reasomngs would embrace both a discussion of
the BeiPg of God and the duties of man towards Him (as these were
deduoible from the principles of natural theology), and also an exposition
Of the special doctrines of Christianity. By some of the self-complacent
disciples of the popular philosophies of the day he Was Spoken Of with
contempt as a mere smatterer (anegjioXoyog, " seed-picker "), gathering
Up scraps of learMng Which he did hot understand, and prating of subjects
too Mgh and deep for Mm. In others he excited some amount of curiosity,
because, by Ms allusions to " Jesus " and to " Resurrection," he seemed
to be advocating the claim of new divinities to veneration and worship.1
The name " JeSUS." recalling the verb Ido/iai, might suggest a god of
healing ; wMlst " Resurrection " CAvdaraatg) might WeU Sound Uke the
name Of a goddess to a people who erected altars to " Reverence " (AlSoig),
" Rumour " (9-Afirj) and " Energy n ('Evsgyeia).2
The Apostle's conversations with the frequenters Of the market place
attracted sufficient attention to cause Some of his hearers to bring him
to the Areopagus (iitl rdv "Ageitiv ndyov) with a request that he would
explain more fuUy and exphcitly the nature of his Urif amiliar teaching.
The term Areopagus is ambiguous; and may signify both (1) the hill of
Ares, a rocky eminence to the West of the Acropolis, and (2) a Council, or
Court, which usually held its meetings on that hill, and Was ordinarily
called in consequence fj iv 'AqeIio ndym (or e£ 'AgeioV ftdyov) fZovhfj, but
sometimes simply "Agstog ndyog} It is therefore debatable whether St.
Paul was brought to the hill as a Convenient place where an address could
be deUvered, or to the Council that met there. But the Summit Of the
Mil is said to be too confined for a large crowd to gather on it ; whilst a
comparison of the phrase in Acts xvii. 22 (oraOslg Ss LJavXog iv psam roU
'Ageiov ndyov) with the corresponding expression of v. 33 (ovra>g 6 IlaSXog
igfjXSev ix fieaov avr&v) supports the conclusion that the council, and
not the hill, is really meant. This WaS a body Which had jurisdiction
in cases of homicide, but also exercised control over the morals of the
citizens and superintendence over the state reUgion. It is possible,
therefore, that St. Paul was led before this council in order that it might
1 Cf. the charge made against Socrates (Plato, Apol. 246, " He does not recognize
the gods of the state, but ether new divinities ").
2 See Pausanias i. 17 (quoted by Rackham, Acts, p. 309).
8 See Cic. Ail. I. 14; 5, Senntus "Apeios irdyov. An inscription oi the first century
A,D. also has "Apeios irdyos iv 'i&\evo-ivi Xofovs irtodjo-aro.

552 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
see whether he was Uable to the charge of introducing unauthorized
objects of worship. But since the speech which he made does not appear
to be a defence against an accusation, and since there is some evidence
that the council had certain duties in connexion with education,1 it has
been suggested that he was conducted before it in order that he might prove
to its satisfaction that he was a competent teacher of pMlosophy or
religion.2 This view accords best with the tenor of the speech dehvered
by the Apostle, and with the disparaging epithet (p. 551) wMch was
applied to St. Paul by some of the pMlosophers, who were perhaps desirous
of finding out whether he really had any qualifications for the role he
assumed. With this intention it may be presumed that they took him
to one of the colonnades adjoimng the Agora, and there interrogated Mm.
The speech which St. Luke puts into the Apostle's mouth as a reply,
though no doubt owing its form to the author of Acts, probably represents
substantially the manner in which St. Paul addressed a cultivated
audience. He took as his subject one that was suggested to Mm by an altar
which he had seen inscribed AFNQZTQI &EQI. Inasmuch as the various
divinities worshipped by most of the peoples of antiquity presided over
different provinces in nature, or departments of human Ufe, it was im
portant to direct prayers and thanksgivings for particular favours to the
appropriate god ; but since it was not always certain who tMs was, an
altar under such circumstances might be erected with the inscription t<3
ngoorjmvn deep or ayvibario &sa>.3 The ambiguity of tMs last pMase
(which could mean " To Unknown God " as well as "To an unknown
god ") enabled St. Paul to assume that the Athemans, being rehgious
above the average of men, had been worshipping, though ignorantly, the
One true God ; so that he proceeded to explain something about His
nature, deducing from His relations to the Universe and to mankind His
immanence and transcendence, the unreasonableness of idolatry, the
Divine forbearance in the past, and the nearness of a future judgment
through the agency of One who had been designated as the Divine repre
sentative by His resurrection from the dead. A rather fuUer analysis
of the argument of the speech is as follows : —
(a) As the Maker of the Universe, God could neither dweU within
temples built by human hands, nor require offerings tendered by the
same.4 (6) As the Creator of men, the Arbiter of their destimes, and the Disposer
of their places of habitation, He had given to them clues to guide them to
Him, though He was not really a remote God, inasmuch as He encompassed

1 See Plutarch Vit. Cic. 24, Sieirpd£aro Si (b KiKipuv) rty e| 'Apetov irdyov j9oi/XV
\l/rj(plffao-Bai Kal Sen8ijvai /xiveiv airbv (Cratippus) iv 'AB-tjvais . . . Kal SiaXiyeaBai rots
veols u)S Koo-jxovvra r^jv irbXiv.
2 See Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 243-247
8 The inscriptions of a parallel character mentioned by secular writers or discovered
by explorers are usually in the plural. At Olympia, for example, there was an altar
" to Unknown Gods " (dyvworois Beois).
* This would have received the assent of the Epicureans : cf . Lucr. Pe rer. not,
ii. 646-50 divum natura . . . nil indiga nostri,

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 553
their whole existence, and was immanent in them ; as their own Stoic
poet (Aratus, circ. 270 B.C.) had written (in his poem/7eg£ raw 0aivofievcw),
" For of Him we are also the offspring." 1
(c) Since God's Personahty transcended man's personality, it was
irrational to suppose that material images, devised by human art, could
in any way represent the Divine nature.
(d) The idolatry of the past due to ignorance God had overlooked,
but now He required repentance from the guilty, whom He was about to
call to account and judge through One of whose Divine authority He had
given assurance by raising Him from the dead.
The Greek philosophic mind was generally more appreciative of
intellectual truth than sensitive to moral obUgations, and the Apostle's
hearers, whilst they would readily acquiesce in his statement that witMn
God men had their existence and from Him drew their origin, would be
less responsive when he declared that God would exact a reckomng from
them. And as soon as he proceeded to speak, in connexion with Divine
judgment, about resurrection from the dead, some of those present began
to scoff ; and though others expressed a wish to hear more from him on
another occasion, it was clear that his speech exerted little influence upon
Ms audience. He won a few converts, including a member of the Council
of Areopagus, Dionysius by name, and a lady of rank called Damaris2 ;
but on the whole his endeavours to evangelize the Athenians were un
successful, and he may have received an intimation that he would not be
allowed to teach further in the city.
St. Paul when he first reached Athens had sent back word by his
attendants that Timothy and Silas were to come to him there from Beroea
(p. 550). It is plain from 1 Thess. iii. 2 that Timothy carried out his wishes
and rejoined Mm, but was sent back speedily to Thessalonica. Prom
1 Thess. Ui. 3 it may be inferred that the Christians at Thessalonica were
exposed to severe trials, and Timothy's presence was perhaps desirable
to encourage them to endure such bravely. Nothing is said about Silas'
movements, but if he accompanied Timothy to Athens, he, too, must
have been dispatched on a similar mission (perhaps to Phihppi), for St.
Paul after Timothy's departure was left alone.3
Dispirited in consequence of his want of success at Athens (cf. 1 Cor.
ii. 3) the Apostle proceeded to Corinth, about fifty miles distant. This was
a city both politically and commercially much more important than
Athens, since it was the residence of the Roman proconsul (p. 67), and
being situated on the isthmus umting the Peloponnese to Northern Greece
and separating the CorintMan guU (on the west) from the Saronic gulf
(on the east) it was on the highway between north and south and east and
1 A close parallel occurs in Oleanthes (300-220 B.C.), Hymn to Zeus, iK aov ydp
yivos io-pJv.
2 There is some inconsistency between the mention of these converts at Athens
and the statement in 1 Cor. xvi. 15 that the household of Stephanas (apparently a
Corinthian) formed the first-fruits of Archaia (the province in which Athens was
situated). 3 In 1 Thess, iii. 1 the plural is probably epistolary,

554 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
west. The small area of the CorintMan territory and its position between
the Mediterranean and iEgeaP Seas oaused its population to turn for its
main support to a seafaring life, and for several centuries prior to its
conquest by Rome it Was a maritime and colonizing power conspicuous
for its enterprise. Its downfall occurred in the war between the Romans
and the Achasan league (of which it was a member) ; and it was taken and
dismantled by the consul Mummius in 146 B.C., reinahnng for a hundred
years a mere village. But in 46 b.c. it was re-founded by Julius Csesar as
a Roman colony, receiving the title of Colonia Laud Julia Corinthi ; and
in 27 B.C. it became the capital of the Rpman province of Achaia
In consequence, its population, besides comprising native Greeks, was also
partly Roman, and included, in addition, a considerable number of Jews
(cf. Acts xviii. 4). PMlosophy, rhetoric, and the fine arts were cultivated .
but the citizens, though quick-witted, were vain, turbulent, and factious .
whilst the tendency to licentiousness, which was characteristic of the
Greeks generally, was aggravated by the circumstance that it was the
resort of traders from the East, bringing thence, especially from PMygia.
the impurity which was there So closely associated with rehgion, so that
the place became a by- word for sexual immorality.1
Though the prevalent wickedness might seem to caU for the preaching
of Christ's Gospel immediately to all classes of the population without
distinction, yet here, as elsewhere, St. Paul made the Jewish synagogue
the first scene of Ms labours. There before the arrival of Timothy and
Silas he found companions in a certain Jew caUed Aquila, a native of
Pontus by Mrth, and his wife Prisca or PrisciUa. Aquila had previously
been a resident at Rome ; but in consequence of an edict issued by
Claudius in A.d. 49 (p. 78) expelling aU Jews from Rome, he had settled in
Corinth. Like St. Paul, he was a weaver of tent cloth (p. 68), and the
circumstance that the two had a common occupation bringing them
together, the Apostle stayed at Ms house. Since no mention occurs of
the conversion and baptism of Aquila and PrisciUa, it is natural to assume
that they were Christians before meeting St. Paul, foT a Christian Church
was in existence at Rome (p. 280). At any rate, if they were stiU Jews
when at Corinth, they are represented as Christian teachers not long after
this date (Acts xviii. 26).
As usual, St. Paul took the Opportumty offered by the Sabbath services
at the synagogue to reason with both the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks ;
but his teaching there does not seem to have been very persuasive.2 His
first converts Were Stephanas and his household (1 Gor. xvi. 15), and
probably Gaius (1 Cor, i. 14), though it does not appear whether these
were Jews or Gentiles. The Sense of his failure at Athens, and perhaps
his anxiety about the Thessaloman Church, which had compelled him to
send back Timothy to Thessalonica (p. 553), may have impaired for the
moment his powers.4 Encouragement, however, came with the arrival
of Ms two friends from Macedonia. Timothy brought good news (1 Thess.
1 It gave rise to the verb KoptvBid^ea-Bai.
2 See Acts xviii. 4 t-n-eiBep (imperfect). 3 Cf. Rackham, Acts, p. 324,

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 555
iii. 6 f .), and the reception of it led the Apostle to write to the Church at
Thessalonica the First Epistle to the Thessalonians (p. 262) late in 50 or
early in 51. Possibly the friend who conveyed the First Epistle speedily
returned with further news. Seemingly, too, Silas brought from the
Church at PMUppi funds which Set him free from the necessity of earmhg
Ms own living (2 Cor. xi, 9). Being thus relieved from many anxieties,
St. Paul became immersed1 in his Message, the tenor of which he himself
describes in 1 Cor. ii. 2 as "Christ crucified." The renewal of Ms vigour,
however, was not attended by any greater success among the Jews ; and
their rejection of the Gospel, accompanied, as it was, with blasphemy
against Christ (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 3), caused Mm finally to abandon the syna«
gogue, and to declare that henceforward he would address himself to the
Gentiles, He accordingly left the house of Aquila 2 and took up Ms abode
with a pertain Titus (or Titius) Justus, a " God-fearer," whose house
adjoined the synagogue ; and the bulk of those whom he influenced were
non- Jews (cf. 1 Cor, xii. 2). Yet he was not entirely unsuccessful even
among Ms countrymen (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 18), for his converts included the
ruler of the synagogue (p. 95), whose name was Crispus, and who seems
to have been, Uke Gaius, • among the earliest of the Corinthians to be
admitted into the Christian Church (cf, 1 Cor. i. 14).
Henceforward his evangelistic work was confined to the Gentile section
of the population. Some features in Corinth were conducive to the spread
of the Christian faith. Its people were familiar with the religions of the
Mast (p. 85), which at this time were extending their influence Westward,
so that in some of the doctrines and rites of Christianity (such as the idea
of a Divine Saviour and the use of sacraments) they would find nothing
strange (cf. p. 86 f.) ; and such points of likeness to other cults would
prepossess them in its favour. On the other hand, the sexual licence
prevalent in Greece generaUy and in Corinth in particular, the factious
spirit and fickleness inherent in the Greek character, and its preference
for inteUectual subtlety and rhetorical skiU over ethical qualities made
numbers of the Corinthians (as 1 Cor. reveals) very unsatisfactory converts.
Although St. Paul won many to the Christian faith (as presaged in a vision
with which the Lord is represented to have encouraged Mm), so that the
Corinthian Church became one of the most important of those founded by
Mm, yet he had in it cause for much anxiety in consequence of the self-
conceit, the unruliness, the partisanship, and the tolerance of immorality
which conspicuously marked it. The Christians of Corinth seem to have
been exposed to less persecution than those of other localities, and this
immunity may have contributed to the prevalence among them of many
undesirable developments.
The time spent by St. Paul in Corinth amounted to a year and a half,
during which he extended his labours not only to the port of Cenchf eas,
on the Saronic gulf, but likewise to other parts of the province of Achaia
(Rom. xvi. 1, 2 Cor. i. 1). The bulk of those who were converted consisted
1 This seems to be the sense of avVel%ero in Acts xviii. 5. ,
2 In Acts xviii. 7, the Bezan codex replaces iKe?0ev by dirb rov 'AtvXa,

556 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of persons in a humble station of life (1 Cor. i. 26) ; but there were a few
of higher rank and better circumstances. Besides Crispus and Gaius
others (designated by name) included Erastus (who was the treasurer —
ohtovdfuog — of the city), Tertius,1 Quartus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus
(Rom. xvi. 22, 23, 1 Cor. xvi. 17). As the last four names, as weU as that of
Gaius, are Latin, it is possible that St. Paul's influence penetrated among
the Roman residents in the place (p. 554).
The lapse of time did not mitigate Jewish animosity against St. Paul,
to which reference is made in 1 Thess. ii. 7 ; and after the appointment of
GaUio to the proconsulship of Achaia, an attempt was made by the Jews
to procure the Apostle's punishment by the Roman authorities. GalUo,
who was the brother of Seneca the philosopher, and uncle of the poet
Lucan, and whose full name (through adoption) was Junius Annsens
GaUio, probably did not reach Ms province tUl a.d. 51 (p. 346) ; and it
may have been late in this year that a concourse of Jews brought St.
Paul before Mm. The charge was similar to, but not quite the same as,
that laid against the Apostle at Philippi (Acts xvi. 21). There the native
population complained that St. Paul and Silas (taken to be Jews) were not
satisfied with practising their own reUgion, which the Roman government
allowed them to do (p. 79), but sought to extend it among non-Jews.
Here the Jews accused St. Paul of teaching a form of religion which was
not Judaism recognized by the Romans as a religio licita and was
therefore Ulegal. GaUio, however, was not inclined to adjudicate between
what he took to be rival Jewish sects. So before St. Paul could say a
word in his own defence, the proconsul declared that the charge was not
any offence against the statutes or against morality, of wMch he as a
Roman magistrate was bound to take notice, but turned upon questions
relating to the interpretation of their own Law, which the Jews were
empowered to decide themselves. He accordingly dismissed the case
and directed the court to be cleared. The scanty respect wMch the
Roman official showed for the Jews encouraged the Greek populace 2 to
manifest their dislike for the latter by beating Sosthenes,3 the successor
of Crispus as ruler of the synagogue, who had presumably taken a promi
nent part in the accusations against St. Paul ; and GaUio aUowed this
piece of mob violence to be enacted without interference.
The rebuff which the Jews sustained in the proconsul's court secured
for St. Paul freedom from further molestation ; but his plans were too
comprehensive to suffer him to remain indefinitely in any one place or
province. And as one of his objects was to consoUdate the Church by
keeping the Christian communities that had been founded in various
localities in touch with one another, and with the parent communities at
Antioch and at Jerusalem, he determined to return to Syria, probably
early in 52. Having taken leave of his Corinthian converts and being
accompanied by Aquila and Priscilla, he went to Cenchreae, where he had

1 He was St. Paul's amanuensis when he wrote Rom. xvi., see ver. 22,
2 In Acts xviii. 17DEHLP supported by Lat. vet. (gig.) have irdvres ol "EXXijves.
8 Probably distinct from the Sosthenes of 1 Cor. i. 1.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 557
Ms hair shorn 1 after having left it untrimmed for a certain period in
consequence of a vow. At the expiration of such vows it was usual for the
hair to be cut or shaved and probably (as in the case of temporary Nazarites)
to be burnt on the altar (Num. vi. 18). The customs involved in the
observance of vows like this must have long been conventional, but
probably they had their origin in the practice of making offerings of hair
to a divinity, the usage being not confined to the Hebrews but occurring
amongst other peoples, and the hair being allowed to grow freely for a period
in order that there might be more to offer as a sacrifice (perhaps as a
substitute for the whole person of the offerer2). The fact that St. Paul
had taken such a vow shows that whilst he vindicated for Gentile Christians
freedom from the obligations of the Jewish Law, he himseU nevertheless
continued to take part in practices to wMch he, as a Jew, had been
accustomed in his youth. From Cenchrese he and his companions crossed
to Ephesus, where Aquila and PrisciUa took up their abode. St. Paul,
however, appears to have remained there only as long as the ship was in
port, or (if he had to change vessels) until he could find another going to
Syria. Ephesus was the principal city in the Roman province of Asia ;
and the Apostle seems to have felt that the prohibition against his preach
ing in that province was now removed, for during his stay in the place he
reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews. The Ephesian Jews seem to
have given him a favourable hearing, since they appealed to him to remain
longer. But this he was unwiUing to do, giving as his reason (according
to D and many other manuscript authorities) that he wished to keep the
approaching feast (the Passover 1) at Jerusalem. Doubtless, too, he
wished to discharge there the duties connected with his vow (by offering
certain sacrifices in the Temple), and to bring into relation with the Church
at the Jewish capital the new Churches he had established among the
Gentiles ; so promising to return to Ephesus if God allowed him, he took
his leave and saUed for Csesarea . His next movements are rather uncertain .
The text of Acts xviii. 22 merely has " he went up and saluted the Church
and went down to Antioch," and " the Church " is generaUy taken to
mean the Church at Jerusalem. But usage makes it probable that it
refers to the Church of the place previously named (cf. Acts viii. 1, 3,
xi. 26, xiv. 26, 27, xv. 4), so that dvapdg may mean that the Apostle
went up from the harbour of Csesarea into the city . and this is the way in
which the passage is understood by the Bezan MS., which in xix. 1 has
OiXovrog Se tou IlavXov xard rrjv ISlav flovXrjv nogeveadai elg 'IsgoaoXv/ua
slnev avrip rd nvtvjxa tinoorgerpEiv elg rrjv 'Aalav, SieXOwv Si rd dvojrsgixd
etc. On the other hand, it may be argued that the words " he went
down (xarii3rj) to Antioch " are more appropriate to a journey from
Jerusalem than from Caesarea. If St. Paul on this occasion really pro
ceeded to Jerusalem (as his going to Csesarea implies that he intended to
do), it may perhaps be conjectured that the reception which he met with
there was an unfriendly one, since on the next occasion when he went
1 Some suppose that it was Aquila and not Paul who took the vow, a view which
Acts xviii. 18 admits of ; but cf. xxi. 24.
2 Cf. Gray, Numbers, p. 69.

558 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
thither he did so with much trepidation (Acts xx. 22). In any case,
either from Csesarea or from Jerusalem he returned to Antioch, the place
whence he had departed on the important tour just concluded,
§ 9. St. Paul's Third Missionary Journey
It has been assumed here that the Apostle's return happened in the
summer of a,d. 52, the Second Missionary journey having occupied between
two and three years. The length of his stay at the Syrian capital is not
stated ; but since he was now responsible for the care of so many Churches
both in Asia and Europe, it is scarcely likely to have been protraoted.1
There was, indeed, a speeial reason for his revisiting some of the districts
he had previously traversed. He probably received about this time
disheartening news concerning the Galatian Churches. Although in
preaching salvation through faith, independently of circumcision and the
Geremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law, he had had the countenance
of the leaders among the Apostles (p. 539), there was an influential section
in the Church at Jerusalem that took strong exception to this, his funda'
mental principle, and insisted that circumcision was obligatory upon all
Christians. In doing so they could appeal not only to the observance of
the Law by Jesus during His earthly ministry (p. 380), but also to
certain parts of His teaching, whieh seemed to imply that the Law was,
for His followers, to be of perpetual validity (p. 607). And in accordance
with this contention they had sent emissaries into Galatia to impress upon
the Churches at Derbe, Lystra, and the neighbouring towns, wMch had
been evangelized by Paul and Barnabas (p. 530), the necessity of submitting
to circumoision. This mission, about which nothing is mentioned in Acts,
and which seems to have been headed by a person of some eminence in the
Church (of. Gal. v. 10), was engaged not only in neutralizing St. Paul's
teaching but in undermining his authority. Information about its
activities caused the Apostle to write to the Churches in question, that
were lending a ready ear to the arguments of the Judaizers, the Epistle to
the Galatians, the date of whioh, though not ascertamable beyond doubt,
seems to be most plausibly assigned to the interval between its author's
return from his Second journey and his departure upon his TMrd (p. 272).
If this conclusion is justified, St. Paul must have felt, immediately after
the dispatch of it, that the situation was too grave to be dealt with by
correspondence ; for he determined to appeal to the seceding Churohes
onee more in person, by going to them for the third time, this visit, how
ever, being intended to constitute the initial stage of another journey to
the West.
Accordingly he left Antioch before the end of a.d. 52, and foUowing
the same route as on the previous journey (Acts xvi. 6 f.), he quickly
crossed Cilicia and the territory of King Antiochus, and reached Southern
* Some scholars think that the visit of St. Peter to Antioch when he was rebuked
by St. Paul (Gal. ii. 11-16) occurred during the interval between the latter's Second
and Third journeys (Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 709).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE
Galatia. St. Luke's rapid narrative dismisses the time spent there almpst
in a line, merely statmg that the Apostle passed through the Galatic
region and PMygia * in order, estabUshing all the disciples ; so that this
is the only light thrown by the account in Acts upon the success that
foUowed his efforts to defeat the Judaizers. He was under promise to go
to Ephesus (p. 557) . and it was with this end in view that, after traversing
what St. Luke rather ouriopsly describes as " the Galatic region," he
entered Phrygia, crossing the border probably near Metropolis. Here
the road to Ephesus forks, one branch foUowing the valley of the Mseander
through Apamea, Colossae, and Laodicea (this being the easier and more
frequented route), and a second keeping upon higher ground (ra dvmregixA
ftigrj) some distance north of the river, It was the latter road that was
taken by St. Paul, who would pass through Tralles, traverse the lower
slopes of Mt. Tmolus, and reach his destination by way of the valley of
the Cayster.
Previous to the Apostle's arrival at Ephesus there had been staying
there a Jew of Alexandria eaUed Apollonius or Apollos, who, besides being
an eloquent speaker, was deeply versed in the study of the Scriptures,
and perhaps trained ia the allegorical system of interpretation for which
Alexandria was famous. When he came to Ephesus he was not a Christian,
but a disciple of John the Baptist. He had' been instructed by the latter
m the way of the Lord (cf; Mk. i. 3), and, like him, was intent upon pro
moting among his countrymen the reformation which was tbe necessary
condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God. He was familiar with
the prophecies relating to the Messiah (cf. Lk. xxiv. 27), whose speedy
advent John had announced ¦; but ha was ignorapt of the fact (as Christians
held it) that the Messiah had already come in person, if not in function.
He accordingly expounded in the synagogue the prophecies about the
Christ, but did not identify the Christ, as Christian teachers did, with
Jesus. This explanation of the statement in Acts xviii, 25, eSLSaamv
&fegij3&g. rd negl tad 'hjeov, assumes that the latter words do not bear
the sense wMch they have ip Lk. xxiv. 19, and that a more correct descrip
tion pf the instruction given by Apollos would have been that he taught
parsfuUy td neql <tov Xgiatoii, which only to a Christian meant to mgl
''Itjao&i and that tMs phrase has been substituted by St. Luke as an equiva
lent, though ApoUos Mmselfreoiuld not have used it until he met Christian
believers able to show him that the Christ had already appeared in the
person of Jesus,2 Those who convinced him that this was so were Aqpila
and PrisciUa, who had made Ephesus for a time their home (p. 557), and
who, having learnt the nature of the teachipg he had been imparting,
communicated to him what they knew and -believed about Jesus, and.
thereby led him to recognize that of the Messianic prophecies which he
bad studied Jesus had already fulfiUed some, and was expected to fulfil
pthers when He should cop.e a, second time. It may be assumed that

1 In Acts xviii. 22 Qpvylav (without the article) is a substantive ; cf. Acts xjvji. 5
'(Rap.<l>vXlav), 1 ThesS. i. 8 (Axauif).
2 See J.T.S. Oct. 1905 ; Lake, Early Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 108-10.

560 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Apollos, being thus brought to accept the Christian faith, received Christian
baptism (cf. Acts xix. 5). The zeal that had marked him as a disciple
of John was not likely to be impaired when he became a Christian. But
Ephesus, where he had been so recently active in continuing the mission
set on foot by John, was not the best sphere for him to advocate the new
faith of which he had become an adherent. Achaia offered a more favour
able field ; so when he was disposed to go thither x the Christians at
Ephesus encouraged him to do so, and wrote on his behaU a commendatory
letter to their feUow-Christians at Corinth. There he became a great
source of help to the Church (Acts xviii. 27, 28, 1 Cor. iii. 6), usmg his
knowledge of the Old Testament and his rhetorical skill to much effect in
controversy with the Jews, contending that their Scriptures proved the
Messiah whom they looked for to be Jesus. Upon the Corinthian
Christians he made such an impression that some professed to be his dis
ciples rather than St. Paul's (1 Cor. i. 12). But although by zealous
partisans he was thus brought into rivalry with the latter, no feeling of
jealousy subsisted between him and the Apostle ; and on a later occa
sion, after Apollos had left Corinth and returned to Ephesus, St. Paul
earnestly exhorted him to visit the Corinthian Church once again (1 Cor.
xvi. 12).
It was during the absence of ApoUos from Ephesus, when he went to
Corinth shortly after his acceptance of the Christian faith, that St. Paul
reached the Asian capital from Galatia. When he had come there, he
found a smaU body of men, twelve in aU, who, though they had been
baptized, had not experienced the ecstatic state usuaUy associated with the
presence of the Holy Spirit, and indeed, were not even aware of the
occurrence of such experiences.2 Further inquiry eUcited the fact that
they, like ApoUos, had undergone oMy the baptism of repentance preached
and administered by John,3 and had not become beUevers in TTim Whom
John had foretold as destined to f oUow him, and to baptize with the Spirit.
This, however, was due not to rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, but to
ignorance of the evidence pointing to His bemg such. When this evidence
was placed before them, they became beUevers in Him, and were baptized
into His name. And when St. Paul laid his hands upon them (cf. p. 509),
the same ecstasy seized them as had marked other beUevers at a similar
critical moment in their religious Ufe (cf . Acts x. 45, 46) ; and they spoke
with " tongues " and " prophesied." It appears from this narrative that
Baptism at this period was " into the name " of Jesus, and that the rite
was the symbol of admission into the Christian body regarded as the
sphere wherein alone the gUt of the Spirit was conferred. But there is a
difference of view discernible between this passage and the one just cited :
in x. 45 no hint is given that the bestowal of the Spirit did not occur until
1 The Bezan MS. represents that the suggestion of a missionary journey through
Greece came from certain Corinthian residents at Ephesus, who heard his preaching
and pressed him to accompany them on their return home (p. 254).
2 In Acts xix. 2, D for lo-riv has Xap.j3dvovo-lv rives.
3 In Acts xix. 1 it seems necessary to assume that by liaBrjrds is meant disciples
of John the Baptist.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 561
Apostolic hands were laid on the baptized, whereas here the gift is repre
sented as following the laying on of St. Paul's hands.
At Ephesus St. Paul continued the same policy as he had observed
previously, addressing first his own countrymen in the synagogue and
seeking to win them (Acts xix. 8, jzbiOow, present tense) to Christianity.
He persisted in doing this for three months, taking as the subject of his
discourses the Kingdom of Heaven and the conditions of entrance, namely,
repentance towards God and faith in Jesus (cf. Acts xx. 21). The length
of time that he taught in the synagogue suggests that he was tolerated by
the Jews longer at Ephesus than at many places. But when some of them
not only refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah, but calumniated the
Christian profession, he at last withdrew both himself and his disciples
altogether from the synagogue and transferred his preaching to the lecture-
room of a certain Tyrannus (perhaps a teacher of philosophy or rhetoric)
which, according to the Bezan manuscript, was avaUable from shortly
before midday till late in the afternoon.1 This was the scene of Ms
labours for two years. His first convert was Epsenetus (Rom. xvi. 5), and
if the last chapter of Romans is really part of a letter to Ephesus (p. 283), a
considerable number of Ephesian Christians are also known by name, of
whom Andronicus, Junias, and Herodion certainly were Jews and probably
a woman caUed Mary likewise. The first two of these were not converted
by St. Paul, but had been members of the Christian Church before him.
There is mention of other Ephesians also in 2 Tim. i. 15, 16. In his
preaching the Apostle must have displayed much conciliatoriness and
tact, since among the friends he made were certain of the religious officials
of the province caUed Asiarchs (p. 66). Whether he confined his residence
to Ephesus aU the whUe is not clear. On the assumption that in the
Pastoral Epistles are contained portions of letters written by St. Paul, or
that the letters are based on trustworthy traditions of his missionary
enterprises, it is not improbable that the evangeUstic work which he
initiated in Crete and left to Titus to continue (Tit. i. 5) was undertaken
from Ephesus (p. 299). During this sojourn in the principal city of the
province of Asia he had an exceptional opportunity of extending the
CMistian faith, smce the city was the seat of the Roman government, a
great emporium for trade, and a place of resort for the numerous votaries
of the goddess Artemis (p. 564) ; so that among those who heard him
would be many who had connexions with other towns, and would carry
thither information about Mm and his Message. Possibly PhUemon, a
native of Colossse, who was converted by the Apostle presumably at
Ephesus, made known his teaching to his fellow-townsmen. At any rate,
Christian churches were eventuaUy founded in various localities in the
neighbourhood (cf . 1 Cor. xvi. 19, " the churches of Asia "), among them
bemg Hierapohs, Colossse, and Laodicea. In the last two St. Paul was
personaUy unknown (Col. ii. 1), so that it is clear that the Apostle's
evangelistic work in the vicinity of Ephesus was prosecuted partly through
1 St. Paul presumably spent the earher part of the day in working1 at his trade
to supply his needs.
36

562 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the agency of disciples, among whom was Epaphras (Col. iv. 12, 13) ;
and so vigorously must it have been carried on that St. Luke represents
that the whole province heard the Word of the Lord, both Jews and
Greeks. The impression produced at Ephesus by St. Paul's preaehing was
enhanced by various cures whieh he wrought amongst those who had
come under the influence of his personality. Such confidence came to be
felt in his power to heal disorders that even handkerchiefs and aprons
which had been in contact with his body were beheved to have beeome
imbued with remedial virtue, so that when they were carried to afflicted
persons the sufferers received relief (Acts xix. 11, 12), the demons to wMch
many of the maladies were attributed being expeUed. It is not stated
that the practice was authorized or countenanced by the Apostle ; but
that cures occurred need not he questioned. Such might well result
from the renewed faith and hope which even material articles associated
with the Apostles might create in many who had despaired of recovery ;
and what is related in Aots xix. 11, 18 is readUy paralleled by the cures
sometimes foUowing upon contact with relics or the use of charms. It
appears that St. Paul must also have healed cases of " possession" (p. 112)
by pronouncing over the " possessed " the name af Jesus (ef. Mk. ix. 38 f .)-
For certain Jewish exorcists proceeded to imitate him in tMs, adjuring
the evil spirits by the Jesiis Whom Paul preached to leave the unhappy
men into whom they were supposed to have entered. On one occasion
two 1 of the sons of a certain Jew called Sceva, who is described as a chief
priest (see pp. 92-3), are related to have done this.2 But when they went
to the house of an afflicted person whom they hoped to deUver from Ms
malady by the speU of Jesus' name, he turned upon them with the words,
" Jesus I know, and Paul I know ; but who are ye ? " and being endued,
no doubt, with the strength that madness often confers, attacked them so
violently that, though they escaped from the house, it was not without
much injury both to their garments and to their persons. This occurrence,
when it became known, caused the name of Jesus to be held in greater
reverence by all, both Jews and Greeks. The awe which was thus inspired
had an important consequence upon many of the Christian converts at
Ephesus. The city was one of the principal seats of Oriental magic, certain
magical formulse deriving their designation from it and being entitled
'Eq>ea<ia ygd/xfj,a<va. These were employed as spells to exert constraint
over demons, either neutralizing their maUgn influence 3 or compelling
them to serve the purposes of the utterers of the speU. The words thus
used as charms and incantations, though <oftem transformed by constant
use into meaningless jingles like daxi, wrdatti, ai§, r&rgag, were probably
1 In Acts xix. 14 'iirra is omitted by D, and the number two, iread by the Old Lat.
codex gig, is confirmed by d/uporipoiv in v. 16, though H L P and some versions there
have avrQv or omnium. Indeed, all is said to "be a possible meaning of dpupirepoi in
papyri. 2 In Acts xix. 13 after i^opKl^w b/j.ds presumably i^iXBere must be supplied.
8 Of. Plut. Symp. vii. 5, 4, oi p,dyoi robs Saifiovifrojiivovs KeXevowi rd 'HL(pi<na
ypdp.p.ara irpbs abrobs KaraXiyew (" repeat ").

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 563
corruptions of names once fuU of significance. The source of some is no
longer recoverable, but of others the origin is clear enough. For instance,
in a tablet on which is inscribed a long adjuration addressed by a girl to
a demon, invoking the latter to bring her lover to her, the potent name
by wMch the demon is adjured is that of Jehovah Sabaoth (reduced to
law, 'Acod and "Aftaotf).1 Among the Ephesians who had been converted
to Christianity many, previous to the incident m which the sons of Sceva
figured, had been in the habit of practising such magic ; but now, alarmed
by what had occurred, they eame forward and confessed what they had
done.2 And not a few brought the roUs in which the magic formulae were
contained, and burnt them publicly, though such rolls were of no small
value, and the destruction of them was a considerable sacrifice on the
part of their owners. St. Luke represents that the total worth of those
whioh were burnt on this occasion amounted to 50,000 drachmce, or not
very much less than £2,000, whilst if the purchasing power of the sum
mentioned be considered, the actual equivalent was greatly in excess of
this. During these two years spent at Ephesus where the Apostle had the
compamonship and help of Timothy, Titus, and some other disciples,
he had much trouble with the Church at Corinth. That city was a hot-bed
of vice (p. 554), and the pervading immorality was calculated to exercise
a perMcious influence upon the Christian commumty. To put its members
on their guard against this, St. Paul wrote a, letter (now lost) counselling
them not to associate with immoral persons, by wMch admomtion he
meant them to exclude from social intercourse any professing Christian
who pursued a vicious Kfe, but whioh was taken to be a direction to have
nothing to do with anyone, Christian on non-Christian alike, who was
guUty of licentious conduct — advice wMch, in a place Uke Corinth, would
have been impracticable (1 Cor. v. 9, 10). Of this letter a fragment may
survive in 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 (p. 274). Information also reached Mm
from Corinth through the servants of a lady called CMoe, indicating the
existence in the Church there of much that was unsatisfactory, more
especiaUy the tolerance shown towards one of its members who had been
guilty ol a grossly incestuous union; whilst he also received from the
Corinthian Christians themselves a letter wherein they sought his opinion
on various subjects concerning wMch they were much perplexed. To
put an end to the evils wMeh had been brought to his notice, he directed!
Timothy, accompanied by Erastus (who was a native CorintMan), to go
to Corinth through Maoedlonia (Acts- xix. 22) ; whilst in order to pave the'
way foe Timothy's arrival and to answer the questions which bad' been
put to Mm, he wrote a second letter (out 1 Corinthians, p. 275) whieh
Titus conveyed by sea, and wMch would reach its destination before
Timothy. Timothy, however, never got as far as Corinth, or if he did,
failed to effect any reform ; and, in consequence, St. Paul himself paid
a hurried visit to the-Cbrmthian Church, crossing to Greece by sMp (p. 276}.
1 See Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 211 , and Deissmann, Bible Studies,.-p. 271 f.
2 In Aids xix. 18 rds irp$,£eis abrSiy may mean " their spells. "*

564 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
On this occasion he seems to have been grossly insulted,1 and had to
return without bringing about any improvement in the situation. He
thereupon wrote to the ofiending Church a tMrd letter, couched in a tone
of great severity, of wMch a part has been plausibly identified with
2 Cor. x.-xiii. (p. 277). TMs letter, Uke the one immediately preceding
it, was carried by Titus. MeanwMle events occurred at Ephesus, wMch,
coupled with St. Paul's impatience to ascertain what effect Ms stern
language had had upon the Corinthians, caused Mm to leave Ephesus
and to set out for Macedoma, in the hope of meeting Titus there. His
intention was to return from Greece to Jerusalem, and eventuaUy to proceed
to Rome (cf. Rom. i. 13), a goal wMch he was destined to reach indeed,
but otherwise than he had hoped.
Ephesus, as has been said, was famous for the great temple of Artemis,
built in the fourth century B.C., on the site of one destroyed in 356 on
the day when Alexander the Great was born. The shrine contained an
image of the goddess, consisting of a block of wood, the upper part of
wMch was carved in the shape of a woman's head and bust (the latter
being covered with a number of breasts). TMs image was of great
antiqmty ; so that in the absence of any knowledge of its origin, it was
reputed to have fallen from heaven (Sionsrig). It reaUy represented
not the Greek goddess Artemis, but a native deity, personifying the
productive power of nature, who had been identified with the huntress-
goddess of Greece. Of it Ephesus was styled the sacristan (vecbxogog).
The existence, within the city, of tMs emblem of the goddess, and the
celebrated fane in wMch it was kept, brought to its citizens much profit.
Not only was the festival of the Artemisia held there, attracting crowds of
worshippers, but smaU models of the shrine of the goddess, enclosing her
image, were in much request among them. These were made by a guild
of silversmiths, whose trade and prosperity were hkely to be injured by
the spread of a rehgion wMch was hostile to aU idolatry. Consequently,
the influence which St. Paul was exercising in the city's neighbourhood
impelled the warden or president of the guUd, caUed Demetrius, who
organized the trade and so brought business to Ms feUow-members, to
take steps to render unpopular the man who was responsible for their
losses. Summomng a meeting of Ms fellow-craftsmen, he reminded them
that their occupation was the source of their wealth, and that St. Paul,
not only at Ephesus, but almost throughout the province, had convinced
many that gods made by human hands were no gods ; and he insisted
that there was danger lest their own craft should be discredited, the
temple of the goddess depreciated, and her magnificence impaired. TMs
appeal to trade interests and reUgious fanaticism was successful. The
guildsmen, filled with rage, began a tumult wMch extended to the whole
population. Two of St. Paul's compamons, Gaius and Aristarchus (both
styled by Luke in Acts xix. 29, Macedonians, though in xx. 4 Gaius is
represented as belonging to Derbe and so a Galatian), were seized and
carried into the theatre2 where an irregular mass meeting assembled.
1 Some think that Timothy was the person who had been insulted ; see Hastings,
D.B. iii. 711. ' It is said to have been capable of holding 24,000 persons.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 565
TMther the Apostle, as soon as he heard what had happened, wanted to
go, in order to speak on their behalf and Ms own ; but he was prevented
from doing so by the disciples, and he was also counselled by some of the
friends whom he had among the Asiarchs (p. 461) not to venture himself
among the mob. As the demonstration was held in defence of the local
cult and of idol worsMp generally, it was obviously not more menacing to
the Christians than to the Jews, whose hostility to idolatry was notorious ;
and the latter, reaUzing this, put forward one of their number called
Alexander, with instructions to speak for them and dissociate them from
St. Paul and Ms feUow-Christians. But the populace, recogmzing his
nationaUty, would not give him a hearing ; and for two hours kept shouting
in honour of their divimty.1 The tumult was only calmed by the action
of the Clerk of the City,2 who, addressing the multitude, declared that
the reputation of Ephesus for devotion to Artemis was world-wide, and
that under such circumstances there was no need for the assertion of it
by any rash proceedings ; that Gaius and Aristarchus were not charged
with robbing their temple (cf . Rom. ii. 22) or insulting their goddess ;
that if Demetrius and his fellow-guildsmen had any private suit against
them, they could obtain a decision from the Roman proconsul on the
regular court-days ; and that if anytMng further was called for,3 the
matter could be settled in the lawful assembly, which alone was competent
to transact public business, whereas they ran a risk of being brought to
account for that day's concourse, for which no sufficient explanation could
be given. With these words he closed the meeting, which dispersed.
It is clear from' the incident that the danger wMch the Christians
incurred in the course of their missionary efforts did not always proceed
from the antagomsm of the Jews. Amid a heathen population they had
often to advocate a monotheistic and spiritual faith in opposition to
polytheism and idolatry ; and in doing so they were Uable to give great
offence to various classes of people whose personal interests were bound
up with the maintenance of idolatrous rites.4 The peril to which St.
Paul was exposed at Ephesus is possibly understated in the account given
by St. Luke in Acts xix. 23-41, for the Apostle MmseU refers to a very
dangerous situation in which ihe had recently been placed when he
wrote 2 Cor. i.-ix. (see i. 8-11 5). Moreover, the disturbance orgamzed
by Demetrius was probably only one of several of Uke character ; and in
some that had occurred at an earlier date St. Paul was subjected to mob
violence, allusion to such being made in 1 Gor. xv. 31, 32 (a letter probably
written prior to the incident related in Acts xix. 23-41), where he speaks
1 In Acts xix. 34, D, instead of reading MeydXij ij "Apre/jus 'Eq^ecrloiv, omits the
article and makes the cry an appeal to the goddess.
2 The function of the ypa/j,/j,arebs rrjs irbXeus doubtless varied at different times
and places, but at this period he was responsible for the form of the decrees submitted
to the people after approval by the Council or Senate. At Ephesus he seems also to
have acted as chairman of the popular assembly (see Hastings, D.B. iv. p. 800).
8 In Acts xix. 39 irepl iripuv is read by K A D and other uncials and most versions ;
irepavripoj by B, 431 and Lat. vet. (gig.).
* Cf. the experience at Philippi (Acts xvi. 19 f.).
6 Some conjecture that the passage refers to a dangerous illness.

566 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of having " fought with beasts at Ephesus." In view of the' fact that
he was a Roman citizen, it is not probable that he ever fought in the
arena (if he had, he would scarcely have escaped with Ms hfe) ; and the
expression (Uke the phrase in 2 Tim. iv. 17, " I was dehvered out of the
mouth of the hon," cf. Ps. xxii. 21) is doubtless to be understood otherwise
than literally. If Rom. xvi. was directed to Ephesus (p. 283), it must be
concluded from it that at some period during Ms sojourn in the city he
was imprisoned, since he there speaks of Andronicus and Jumas as Ms
fellow-prisoners. It is noteworthy, however, that at tMs period there is
no trace of persecution of Christianity because its foUowers did not take
part in the worship of Rome and the Emperor. It has been seen that of
the Asiarchs whose function it was to foster that worsMp (p. 66) some
were friends of St. Paul, and the Apostle used to admomsh his converts
to honour aU civil rulers (Rom. xni. 1-7). Probably at tMs time the
CMistians generally were regarded as merely a Jewish sect ; if so, then
as Jews they were exempted by law from any obligation to render divine
honours to the head of the State (p. 79).
The outbreak of popular indignation just described happened in the
summer of 55 ; and shortly afterwards St. Paul, when he had taken leave
of the disciples there, departed for Macedoma by way of Troas, where an
opportunity offered of preacMng the Gospel (2 Gor. U. 12). His anxiety,
however, caused him to proceed on Ms journey without any long delay.
In Macedonia his soUcitude about the Corinthian Church (p. 278) was
relieved by the arrival of Titus, who reported that the disorders in the
Church had diminished, and that the Apostle's authority there had been
vindicated. It was from Macedoma, and perhaps from the city of PMUppi
that he expressed Ms deep satisfaction at tMs good news by sending
to Corinth the communication contained in 2 Cor. i.-ix., chapters differing
widely in temper from the four that follow, and seeming to constitute a
distinct Epistle, written at a rather later date than ch. x.-xiu. TMs
letter was speedily followed by another journey undertaken by the Apostle
to Greece (Acts xx. 2), when he can scarcely have failed to stay at Corinth.
If tMs supposition is correct, he must have visited that city tiiree times.
On tMs occasion he spent tMee months there, or in other parts of the
province (Achaia), though unfortunately no particulars of his work have
been preserved ; and during tMs period he wrote the Epistle to the Romans
(p. 281). He probably entered Greece at the close of 55, so that Ms stay
ended early in the spring of 56. It had been his original purpose to sail
for Syria as soon as navigation opened (p. 76) ; but a plot of the Jews to
murder him when he was embarking, or else in the course of the voyage,
decided Mm to travel back by Macedoma, the route by wMch he had come.
At the interview wMch he had had with the three leading Apostles in 49,
before starting on his Second journey (p. 539), he had been requested by
them to remember the poor of Jerusalem ; and during Ms TMrd journey
he had set on foot a fund for their relief . Delegates from the churches
through which he had passed in Galatia, Asia, and Macedonia had accom
panied him to Corinth with the sums coUected ; and they were now to
go with him to carry the money to Jerusalem (the Apostle Mmself being

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 567
seemingly entrusted with the contributions of the churches in Achaia).
The delegates were seven, including Sopater of Beroea, Aristarchus and
Secundus of Thessalomca, Gaius of Derbe (p. 564), Timothy of Lystra,
and Tychicus and TropMmus of Ephesus1 (cf. Acts xxi. 29). But
the reasons that rendered it expedient for St. Paul to return by land did
not apply in the case of the delegates just named ; so they adhered to the
original arrangement and went by sea to Troas, where they agreed to wait
for the Apostle. The latter journeyed through northern Greece to
Macedonia ; and at Philippi he was joined by St. Luke. Prom Philippi,
after the Passover festival (a.d. 56), the two went down to Neapolis,
and thence took ship for Troas, not reacMng it until the fifth day out, in
consequence of unfavourable winds (contrast xvi. 11), and staying there
seven days.
The vessel seems to have arrived at the port on a Tuesday, so that
the day before the resumption of her voyage was Sunday. This being
the first day of the week, which began according to the Jewish system of
reokomngon the evemng of Saturday, the travellers assembled with the
Christian converts whom St. Paul had made there on his way to Macedonia
(2 Cor. U. 12), to partake of the Agape (of wMch the Eucharist seems to
have formed the conclusion, cf. 1 Cor. xi. 17-34). The place of meeting
was a room in the third story of the house ; and there St. Paul discoursed
at some length, prolonging Ms address until midnight. Though it was
only March or early April, the number of lights in the chamber made the
atmosphere hot ; and tMs and the lateness of the hour caused a young
man named Eutychus, who was seated in the window (unprotected by
lattice-work) to slumber, and in Ms sleep he sUpped and fell to the ground.
He was picked up, as the bystanders believed, dead ; but St. Paul
descending and embracing Mm, told them to desist from the distress
wMch such a beUef had occasioned them, for Ms life was yet within
him (cf. Mk. ix. 26, Acts xiv. 19). The stunned man was carried home ;
and the Apostle, with the rest of the company, re-ascended to the upper
room, where the interrupted meal was proceeded with, and where converse
was oontinued until break of day. In the mormng, as St. Paul
and Ms fellow-travellers were taking leave of the rest, Eutychus, who
was sufficiently recovered to move about, was brought by his friends to
join in the fareweUs, to the great reUef and comfort of those who had
witnessed the accident. It seems reasonable to infer from St. Luke's
narrative that, though Eutychus was found unconscious after his fall
and was taken for dead, yet he was not reaUy MUed. The fact that St.
Luke, whose interest in miracles has been noticed (p. 247), and who
appears to have had in mind, when writing Ms account, the stories told
of Ehjah and Elisha (with Acts xx. 10 f. cf. 1 Kg. xvii. 21, 2 Kg. iv. 34),
has, nevertheless, not left a decisive impression that a stupendous miracle
was wrought by St. Paul (it is noteworthy that there is absent from the
narrative anything eqmvalent to the explicit statements in 1 Kg. xvii. 22,
1 In Acts xx. 4 for 'Aaiavol D has "&(pio-ioi. For Tychicus cf. Col. iv. 7 ; f or
Trophimus see 2 Tim. iv. 20.

568 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
2 Kg. viii. 5), afiords sufiicient ground for concluding that St. Paul's
words in v. 10 were strictly correct, and that the Apostle was sure, when he
felt the body, that Ufe was not extinct.
The ship in which St. Paul and the delegates of the churches were
making their way towards Syria was a coasting vessel, its first port of
call after leaving Troas being Assos, on the gulf of Adramyttium, a Uttle
to the east of the promontory of Lectum. St. Paul consequently decided
to cross to Assos by the shorter land route, about twenty miles in length,
leaving Ms companions to proceed tMther by sea and pick Mm up there.
This they accordingly did, St. Luke going in the sMp. The stopping-place
next to Assos was Mitylene, the principal town in the island of Lesbos.
Sailing from thence, and probably anchoring the foUowing mght close to
the mainland opposite Chios, 1 the vessel touched at Samos on the second
day out from Mitylene ; and after passing 2 TrogylUum (the promontory
at the end of the peninsula of Mycale confronting Samos) came next day
to Miletus. Miletus Ues south of Ephesus, at the mouth of the Mseander, and the
circumstance that St. Paul had embarked on Ms homeward voyage in a
sMp that did not call at the latter city, where he had resided so long,
was due to his wish to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost. To have gone to a
place to which he was bound by many interests and where he had provoked
much hostility (Acts xix. 23) would have delayed Mm seriously. Neverthe
less, he could not approach Ephesus so closely (it was only thirty-five
miles from Miletus) without seeking to give to the representatives of the
Church there some words of admomtion on what he seems to have felt
might prove, and St. Luke appears to imply, did prove,3 the last occasion
of their meeting. So from Miletus he sent for the Elders of the Christian
body at Ephesus to come to him ; and when they reached Mm he deUvered
to them, in the interval before the sailing of the vessel, a parting address.
It was devoted to (a) a vindication of his conduct and ministry during
the period of his residence in the province of Asia ; (6) a charge to the
elders of the Church ; (c) a farewell and concluding exhortation. The
speech, wMch must have been heard by St. Luke, and wMch, though
contaimng various features of the latter's style,4 is likely to reproduce
more closely than most of those contained in Acts the matter and the
manner of the speaker, naturally falls into tiiree sections, the divisions
between them occurring at vv. 28 and 32. The foUowing is a brief summary.
(a) The Apostle declared that his mode of life, marked by humUity,
sorrow, and trials, was known to aU of his hearers, who could testify to
the outspokenness and candour of Ms teaching, and to the impartiality
and persistence with which he had sought to win both Jews and Greeks
to repentance towards God and faith towards Jesus. He felt bound to
1 This seems to be the significance of the statement in Ads xx. 15, rrj iiriobar)
Karijvr'fjcraji.ev dvriKpvs ~K.lov.
2 The Bezan MS. has " anchoring off."
3 This is a natural deduction from the emphasis placed jn V, 38 upon St. Paul's
words in o. 25.
* E.g. SirjXBov (v. 25), irpoo-ixere iavrois (v, 28).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 569
go to Jerusalem,1 and he anticipated tribulations in the future similar
to those which he had experienced in the past ; but he set no value on his
Ufe, provided he could accomplish the duty imposed upon him by the
Lord Jesus of preacMng the Gospel of God's grace. And as he believed
that the end of Ms career was not far off, and that they would not see him
again, he solemnly declared that he had discharged his responsibilities
as a revealer of God's purposes to mankind.
(b) Those whom he addressed likewise had responsibilities. They had
been made by the Holy Spirit overseers of the Church wMch God had
acquired by the death of His own Son 2 ; and as the Church was exposed
to the inroads of unscrupulous intruders from without and to the lures of
false teachers from within, he warned them to be on their guard, and to
keep in mind the admonitions wMch he had incessantly given them
during the three years he had spent among them.
(c) PinaUy he commended them to God,3 whose graciousness was
disclosed by His Word ; and he called their attention to his own dis
interestedness (for he had, out of the proceeds of Ms own manual labour,
both supported Mmself and helped others (cf. 1 Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8,
1 Cor. iv. 12) ) in order to encourage them to follow his example, remember
ing the saying of the Lord Jesus that to give was more blessed than to
receive.4 At the conclusion of the address, St. Paul prayed with his hearers,
who, broken-hearted at the thought that they would never see him again,
took a sorrowful leave of Mm, and then escorted him to Ms ship.
When the voyage was resumed the vessel had a straight run to Cos,
and then doubhng the pemnsula of Cnidus, reached Rhodes the next day ;
and finally arrived at Patara, a port of Lycia, or, according to the Bezan
text, Myra (cf. xxvii. 5), a harbour as far east from Patara as the latter
is from Rhodes. The ship either reached the termination of her voyage
at one or other of these places, or else was bound for some other destination
than Syria ; in any case, it became necessary for the passengers for the
latter country to find another vessel sailing to a port nearer Palestine
and Jerusalem. - They succeeded in getting taken on board a sMp bound
for Phcemcia ; and in it they crossed to Tyre, sighting Cyprus and keeping
to the south of it. TMs ship discharged her cargo at Tyre, so the travellers
had to stay in that port for a week until the operation of unloading was
completed. They searched for and found a body of Christians known to
be there, who were inspired to warn St. Paul not to set foot in Jerusalem,
though the warning did not deter Mm from Ms purpose. When the ship
was once more ready to sail, the travellers were escorted by the members
of the Tyrian Church until they gained the beach ; and then, after umted
1 One reason for this constraint was the conveyance of the money collected for
the relief of the poor there (cf. xxiv. 17).
2 If in Acts xx. 28 the reading of X B, rrj v iKKXtjalav rov Beov be adopted in pre
ference to rijv i. toO Kvplov (i.e. Jesus), found in A C D E, it seems necessary to assume
at the end of the verse the loss, after rov ISlov, oi the word vlov.
8 B and Lat. vet. (gig.) read Kvploj.
1 This is the only saying of our Lord included in the New Testament outside the,
Gospels.

570 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
prayer, they took leave of one apother, St. Paul and his companions going
on jb@ard the vessel.
Frpm Tyre the travellers sailed to Ptolemais (p. 6), about twenty-five
mUes south of Tyre. Here there was a body of Christians, with whom they
spent a day ; and then on the morrow they left for Csesarea (more than
thirty miles further south), though whether they proceeded tMther by sea,
changing ships, or went by land is obscure. At Csesarea they stopped
at the house of PMUp, one of the Seven (p. 503), here by St. Luke styled
the Evangelist, who had four daughters endowed with the spirit of
prophecy,1 It is not recorded that any prediction about St. Paul was
uttered by these prophetesses, but one was deUvered by the same prophet
Agabus, who had at an earlier date foretold the famine of a.d. 46 {p. 521).
This man, who had come from Jerusalem, on entering Phihp's house
took St. Paul's girdle to illustrate by a significant action (after the custom
pf the ancient prophets2) what he was about to announce, bound with
it Ms own hands and feet, and declared that the Jews at Jerusalem would
bind in like manner the owner of the girdle, and deUver him to the Gentiles.
Such an utterance naturally eaused great distress amongst those to whom
it bepame known, and they entreated St. Paul not to go up to the Jewish
capital, But as he could not be turned from Ms aim, but declared that
he was ready to incur not imprisonment only but death for the sake of
the Lord Jesus, they desisted from their efforts to dissuade him.
§ 10. Peril at Jerusalem
The Apostle's previous haste (Acts xx. 16) gave Mm some days' leisure,
which he spent at Csesarea, and during which he may have written to
some friend at Ephesus the letter of which a fragment is preserved in
2 Tim. iv. 19-22 (p. 298), whilst the rest of the party made preparations
fpr a journey to Jerusalem by road (probably procuring horses to carry
the baggage 3), When they started they were aecompamed by some
disciples belonging tp Csesarea, who came with them to conduct them to
the house of a certain Cypriot called Mnason, an original (dg%alog) disciple,
probably Plie pf those who were associated with the Apostles before
Pentecost, or converted after it, who Uved between Caesarea and Jerusalem
and at whose house they could break their journey, since the distance
between the two cities was more than fifty miles.4 When they finally
arrived at their destination, they were warmly welcomed by the Church
there ; and on the f pliowing day they had an audience with St. James
* Though at this time all were unwedded, two married at a later period, and with
their father removed from Caesarea to Hierapohs (in the province of Asia) ; see Eus.
H.E. iii. 30, § 1, 31, § 4, v, 24, § 2. Euspbjus, however, seems to confuse Phihp the
Evangehst with Philip the Apostle.
2 See 1 Kg. xi. 29-31, xx. 35., xxii. 11, Is. xx. 2 f., Jer. xix. 1-13, eto.
3 Ip Acts xxi, 15, tihP Spnse of HripKevacrunevoi is probably the same as that of
biroltfyia iirurKevdaaaBai, " tp lade teggage-aruinals," in Xen. Hell, vii, 1, 18,
4 In Acts xxi. 16 dyovres Tap' ip Haua-tWi/xev Mvdawvi must be a compressed
phrase, for &yoy.jes wapd Wv&wa ?W (ev.io-B.(b,iiev trap' abrip ; cf. the reading of D
(p. 254).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 571
and the elders (cf . Acts xi. 30), To them St. Paul gave an account of Ms
ministry among the GentUes, and the success which God had granted Mm.
He must have felt, however, no Uttle anxiety about the reception he would
meet with from the Jewish section of the Church generaUy. AJthough
the three principal Apostles, in the course of his interview with them
in 49, had not required the imposition of circumcision upon Gentile
beUevers, or qualified in any way the terms in wMch he presented the
Gospel to non-Jews (p. 539), yet ever since that understanding had been
reached there had occurred a vigorous and unscrupulous effort on the
part of the Judaistie Christians to make Ms converts in Galatia believe
that their salvation depended upon their submission to the Jewish Law.
An apprehension of their hostility and a desire to disarm it as far as
possible had probably been factors in causing him to promote so ener
getically the coUection of a fund for the relief of the poor in the Church
of Jerusalem, in accordance with the wishes of the elder Apostles (Gal. ii.
10). This must have helped in some measure to placate his opponents ;
but the position was an awkward one. St, Paul, in consequence of Ms
contention that to a believer in Christ circumcision was a matter of
indifference (Gal. v. 6), could easily be represented as discouraging even
Jewish Christians from practising that rite, and this charge he learnt
had been actuaUy brought against him. St. James and the elders of the
Jerusalem Church, wMlst rejoicing at the progress of the Gospel among
the Gentiles tMough Ms agenoy and thanking God for it, yet told Mm
that the Jewish CMistians, who were very numerous and extremely
zealous for the Mosaic Law, had had the statement pressed upon them
that he was in the habit of dissuading their countrymen of the Dispersion
(p. 77) from circumcising their cMldren or respecting the customs of
their rehgion. Therefore to avoid the friction which was Ukely to ensue
as soon as Ms arrival at Jerusalem became widely known, they recom
mended that he should demonstrate the falsity of such a charge by himself
observing the Law to wMch as a Jew he was subjeet. They represented
that an opportimity of his doing tMs was afforded by the preseppe among
them of four men who had undertaken a vow (similar to that with wMch
St. Paul had once bound himseU, Acts xviii. 18, see p. 557) and had
allowed their hair to grow for a certain time, and who, now that the
interval had expired, were wishful to shave their heads and offer the
necessary sacrifices, but being poor men, found it difficult to defray the
expense. St. Paul, therefore, through associating Mmself with them and
by paying for the sacrifices (wMch consisted, in the case of each individual,
of two lambs and a ram, as well as cereal and drink offerings (]$um. vi.
13-15) and so were costly) could prove that the accusations against him
were unfounded. The proceeding recommended was not unwonted, fpr
Herod Agrippa I, when the Emperor Claudius enlarged Ms dominions
(p. 52) and he offered sacrifices of thanksgiving at Jerusalem, is related
to have ordained that many of the Nazarites should shave their heads
(the period for which they had become such having expired), the funds
that enabled them to do so being no doubt supplied by Mm (Jos. Ant. xix.
6, 1). St. James also explained another source of trouble in the Church

572 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
which they had already taken steps to remove. Social relations between
the Jewish and Gentile sections of the Church were prejudiced by the
fact that the latter, through the sexual hcence to wMch they were
accustomed by reason of the impurity so common in heathen countries,
and through their habit of eating certain Mnds of food forbidden to the
Jews, rendered themselves " defiled," and unfit for Jews to associate
with. Consequently, to facilitate intercourse, they had required of the
Gentiles abstinence from meats offered to idols, from the use of blood as
food (see Lev. iii. 17, Gen. ix. 4, Dt. xii. 16, and cf. 2 Zech. ix. 7), from
eating the flesh of animals strangled (from which the blood had not been
drained, in accordance with the command in Lev. xvii. 13, cf. 1 Sam. xiv.
32, 33), and from fornication, and had conveyed to them these their
decisions in writing.
What is here related is for reasons given previously (p. 538) a reconstruction of
the history contained in Acts respecting the resolution of the Council of Jerusalem
about the measure of submission to the Jewish Law required of the Gentiles. In
view of the absence of all reference by St. Paul to its provisions, in letters written
(so far as can be judged) not very long after a.d. 49, the year to which the Council
appears to be assigned in Acts xv., it seems impossible that the Council can have
met at so early a date. On the other hand, it is clear from St. James' speech in Ads
xxi. 25, at which St. Luke was present, that a resolution of the nature described above
had been passed prior to a.d. 56, when St. Paul returned to Jerusalem from his Third
journey (begun about 52). From this it appears probable that the Church at Jerusa
lem came to the decision in question during the absence of St. Paul, who was not a
party to it, but found it an accomphshed fact on his arrival. The passing of the '
resolution was seemingly the work of St. James and the Jerusalem elders, both St.
Peter and St. John apparently being absent. It was a departure from the under
standing with St. Paul* reached at the'private interview in 49, as described in Gal. ii.
1-10 ; for St. Paul then received tho impression that no Jewish ceremonial restrictions
were to be imposed on the Gentiles (p. 537). But St. James may now have considered
that a modification of the understanding with St. Paul was necessitated by circum
stances, in view of the spread of the Gospel among the Jews of Palestine (Acts xxi.
20), 1 if peace and friendliness were to be maintained between the two wings of the
Church. Restrictions about eating flesh with the blood prevailed at a later period
in certain churches, and were probably based on such » decision as is recorded in
Acts xxi. 25 (see Rev. ii. 14 and cf. Eus. H.E. v. 1. 26).
The precise purport of the decree of the Jerusalem Council (whatever the date
when it was passed and circulated) is a matter of dispute in consequence of a serious
variety of readings in Acts xv. and xxi. The chief uncial MSS. (s A B C) and many
other textual authorities represent the decree as consisting of four clauses ; of which,
according to the natural interpretation, only one is a moral requirement, whilst the
other three are ceremonial regulations relating to food. But Codex D, together with
one Old Latin manuscript (gig.), omits in xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25 all reference to things
strangled (ttvikt6v, irviKrd), and the omission appears in various Latin Fathers. If
the reading of D and its supporters, which make the decree to consist of three clauses
only, is the original text, it is possible to regard all the three clauses as prohibiting
infractions, not of ceremonial, but of moral laws. " things offered to idols " being
equivalent to sacrificial meals in a heathen temple (and not merely meat bought in
the market after consecration to » heathen god, cf. 1 Cor. x. 25-28), and " blood "
standing for " murder." This gives to the provisions of the decree a uniform ethical
character. It is, however, against the originality of the reading of D that (a) in
Acts xv. 29, this and some other MSS. and versions, after " from fornication '
add, in dislocation of the oonstruotion, the words " and whatsoever ye wish not to
> The words wbaai p.vpidSes are, of course, not to be understood literally.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 573
be done to yourselves do not do to another," 1 which suggests that the shorter reading
has arisen through tampering with the text, in order to convert into a moral injunction
what was originally, in the main, a ceremonial rule ; (b) the word al/ia in the context
in question is not a natural expression (in spite of Acts v. 28, Rev. vi. 10, xix. 2) for
" murder " (Qbvos, which occurs in Acts ix. 1, Lk. xxiii. 19, 25, Rom. i. 29). Moreover
it is hard to beheve that the Jerusalem Church deemed it necessary to embody in a
decree sent to Gentile Christians such elementary moral prohibitions as those which
this reading represents (though see 1 Pet. iv. 15). The question, however, is com
plicated by the fact that the reading of D is supported by Irenseus, who lived in Gaul,
where a food law was observed (see Eus. H.E. v. 1, 26), and where consequently
there would be Uttle motive for altering the text, if it was at first a food law, into a
moral enactment.9
The suggestion made by St. James to St. Paul that the latter should
aUay the suspicions of the Jewish Christians by participating in the
sacrifices offered by the four men under a vow was readily accepted,
for St. Paul maintained that a person, if he was a Jew when he became a
Christian, should continue to be such in his religious practices (1 Cor. vii. 18,
cf. ix. 20). The interval included in the vow of each of the four seems to
have ended on successive days, so that St. Paul, who had already spent
two days in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 17, 18), had to stay there four days more
in order to accompany each individual into the Temple courts to announce
the termination of the vow, and to declare Mmself responsible for the
cost of the offerings. His assuming responsibUity for the expenses of the
men seems to have been held equivalent to taking the same vow as they
(see Acts xxi. 26, where dyviadetg and raw fj/isgcov rov dyvio/tov reproduce
the language of Num. vi. 5, LXX). 3 The last of the four, with the Apostle's
help, was discharging the duties obligatory upon him just before the
expiration of the seven days (reckoned inclusively) to which St. Paul's
responsibUity for the four compeUed him to prolong his stay, when certain
Jews from Asia, residents in Ephesus, recognized Mm in one of the inner
courts of the Temple, which could be entered by Jews but not by Gentiles
(p. 90). These men raised an outcry, caUing the attention of all bystanders
to Mm as the man who showed MmseU everywhere antagonistic to the
Jewish people, their Law, and their Temple, and who had defiled the last
by introducing Greeks mto a part of it from which they were excluded
on pain of death. The latter charge was based upon the fact that they
had observed in the city their feUow-Ephesian TropMmus, whom they
maliciously aUeged that St. Paul had taken with him when he passed
from the Court of the Gentiles into one of the interior courts. The state
ment conveyed from mouth to mouth spread through the city, and at
once created a tumult. St. Paul was seized as he was standing probably
in the Court of the Women, was hurried out of it (the gates of which
(p. 91) were immediately closed by the Temple Guard (p. 93), and was
on the point of being lynched by the enraged mob, when information
reached the mUitary tribune in command of the cohort that occupied
the castle of Antonia (p. 54). The Boman officer, who was caUed Claudius
1 The addition of the command interrupts the connexion between the prohibition
diri'xeo'&ai ebSiaXoBvruiv ktX. and the relative clause i% &v Siarrjpovvres, ktX.
2 See Lake. Early Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 48-60.
3 See McNeile, St. Paul, p. 97

574 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Lysias, taking a body of troops at once rushed down the steps leading
from the fortress to the outermost Temple court (p. 11) and intervened
between the mob and their intended victim. After arresting St. Paul, he
directed him to be bound by chains to two soldiers, and then sought to
learn the offence he was charged with. As the uproar prevented him
from ascertaining the facts on the spot, he ordered the prisoner tp be
escorted to the castle ; but such was the violence of the multitude thirsting
for his life 1 that the Apostle had to be carried by the soldiers. But before
St. Paul entered the gates he asked leave in Greek to speak to the officer,
much to the latter's surprise, who said that he had taken him for an
Egyptian impostor, whom he described as having recently raised a sedition
and placed himself at the head of a body of Assassins (p. 103), though
Josephus represents that the pretender in question claimed to be a prophet
and led a great multitude to the Mount of Olives by a promise that from
thence they would see the waUs of Jerusalem faU at his command.^ The
Roman had probably inferred from the scene he had just witnessed that
St. Paul was the impostor in the hands of his enraged dupes. But the
Apostle answered, not without some natural pride, that he was a Jew by
race and a Tarsian by birth, and consequently a citizen of no insignificant
city (p. 68) ; and with great courage and with a desire to conciliate Ms
fellow-countrymen, he begged the tribune's permission to address the
people. The officer granted Mm leave ; so standing on the stairs, he faced
the surging crowd below, and having by a gesture gained sUence, he tried
to vindicate Ms conduct, speaking to them in Aramaic,3 a fact which
helped to secure Mm for a time a quiet hearing.
Though St. Paul had not been guilty of taking TropMmus beyond the
barrier separating the court whieh the GentUes might enter from that
which they might not, yet he was conscious that he had demed that the
institutions distinctive of his race were essential to participation in the
Messianic Kingdom. It was, therefore, his object to show that it was only
through Divine direction that he had preached to the GentUes and
presented to them the good news of the Kingdom in a form acceptable
to them, and he sought to prove this by recounting the circumstances of
his conversion and certain incidents that foUowed it. Consequently, Ms
speech (which St. Luke probably heard and has reproduced m Greek)
repeats to a large extent matters already related in Acts (see ix. 1-30).
There are, however, various differences between the two narratives
(p. 514) ; and these, added to the evidence supplied by similar divergences
between several paraUel passages in the Old Testament serve to illus
trate the comparatively sUght interest that the Biblical writers took
in historio preeision and consistency.
In the speech stress was laid upon a number of facts all indicating that
it was not through any predisposition on the part of St. Paul himself that
he had preached to the Gentiles. (1) He was a Jew by race and1 a Jew by
1 With Acts xxi. 36 cf. Lk. xxiii. 18.
2 See Jos. Ant: xx. 8, 6, B. J. ii. 13, 5, cf. p. 58.
3 St. Paul would be acquainted with this in oonsequence of his early education
(see 2 Cor. xi. 22, Phil. iii. 5).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 575
training, having been taught by Gamaliel, one of the most famous Scribes
of the time (p. 501). The genuineness of his zeal for the Law (of. Gal. i. 14)
which had been implanted in him by heredity and education he had
manifested by persecuting the Christians, as the High Priest and Elders
could themselves testify, since they had authorized him to bring to
Jerusalem from Damascus such Jews as had aocepted the Christian faith.
(2) On his way to Damascus he had heard at noontide, One speaking to
Mm from the midst of a blaze of Divine glory, Who had asked why he
persecuted Him in the persons of His followers, and declared Himself to
be Jesus of Nazareth. The Speaker then bade Mm go to Damascus, where
he would be instructed in what was required of him, and he obeyed, going
thither blinded by the supernatural light which he had seen. (3) At that
city a certain man called Ananias, himself a Jew and a devout adherent
of the Law, had restored to him Ms sight and had declared that what
had happened to Mm was of Divine arrangement, for it was the God of
Israel who had appointed him to know His purpose, and to see and hear
the Righteous One (cf. Acts iii. 14, and see p. 496) ; that he was to bear
witness to aU the world of his experience ; and that he should at once be
baptized for the cleansing of Ms sins, and invoke the name of Him whom
he had seen (thereby acknowledging Him as Lord). (4) At a later date
(St. Paul here omits aU reference to the interval spent in Arabia (Gal. i. 17)
and his subsequent aetivity at Damascus (Acts ix. 19-22)), the samp
Heavenly Pigure that had previously appeared to him near Damascus
had directed Mm when in a trance at Jerusalem to leave the city because
its people would not receive his testimony ; and that when he represented
that their attitude was not unnatural after the part he had taken in
persecuting Christian beUevers, and in abetting the murder of Stephen,
he was told that he was to be sent unto the Gentiles. (This last account
diverges from that contained in Acts ix. 30, where it is represented that
the Christians at Jerusalem, to save Mm from an attempt hj the Jews
to kill him, sent him away first to Csesarea and then to Tarsus . and the
divergence may be explained by the assumption that St. Luke describes
the external facts of the occasion in question, whilst St. Paul in tips speech
traces to the overruling of Christ the course of events whieh ultimately
ended in Ms mission to the Gentiles.)
Up to this point the people had listened patiently to the Apostle's
self-defence ; but as soon as they heard him mention the GentUes they
raised a clamour for Ibis death. The tumult grew so threatening that
the Roman officer ordered Mm to be brought at once into the castle ;
and, as he had been unable to understand the Apostle's Aramaic speech,
hedireeted that he should be interrogated under torture (on the assumption
that he was & foreigner, if not a slaye) in ojjder to extract from Mm the
nature .of the charge agamst him. But as the soldiers were stretching him
forward with thongs to a post, preparatory to scourging him, he asked the
centurion in charge whether it was lawful for him to scourge a Rpipan,
and that, too, untried.1 The illegality of such teeatmppt was notorious,,
1 In Acts xxii. .25 aKaraKpiros geems to be used for dgpiros.

576 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
so that the centurion at once informed Ms superior officer of the statement
made by the prisoner. The tribune questioned St. Paul whether it was true,
and on his answering in the affirmative, he could not repress his surprise,1
saying that he himself had paid a large sum for his Roman citizenship,
and implying doubt whether the prisoner (whose clothes may have been
tattered in consequence of his maltreatment by the mob) could really
have been in a position to do the same. In the reign of Claudius the
Roman franchise had been freely sold (Dio Cass. LX. 17), and the tribune's
name of Claudius suggests that it was under that Emperor that he had
become possessed of it. Paul's citizenship, however, went further back
than his questioner's ; and he answered that he was free-born. Scourging
was not to be thought of after this (p. 72). He was at once loosed from
the thongs, and the mere fact that he had been bound for the purpose
of undergoing this torture rendered the tribune apprehensive of the
consequences. As the Roman was thus afraid to extort information from his prisoner
' in the way he intended, he determined to bring him before the Sanhedrin
(p. 100), not for decisive trial but for prior examination ; and the next
day, summoning that body, he placed Paul before it. The president was
the High Priest Ananias, son of Nebedeus, who had been appointed in
a.d. 47 by Herod, King of Chalcis. A very compressed report of the
proceedings before the Sanhedrin is furnished by St. Luke, for the charge
laid against the Apostle by his accusers is omitted by the historian, who
begins his account with the words with which St. Paul opened his defence.
But the accused had no sooner stated that he had conducted MmseU
hitherto with the full approval of his conscience (meaning, probably, that
he had been faithful to the institutions and the spirit of Judaism as he had
understood them) than the High Priest ordered Mm to be smitten on the
mouth. St. Paul, after having protested against illegal treatment by a
Roman official, was not disposed to submit to such from a Jewish court.
Turning to Ananias he said hotly, " God wUl smite thee, thou wMtewashed
wall," 2 and asked with what face he, when trying another according to
the Law, could himseU break the Law. The bystanders angrUy told him
that the person he was revUing was God's High Priest ; and St. Paul,
in reply, said that he did not know that he was the High Priest, and
MmseU quoted the passage in Ex. xxii. 28, which prohibits the reviling
of God's representative. It is difficult to think that St. Paul was reaUy
ignorant of the rank of the man who was responsible for maltreating him,
for this was probably indicated by his position and dress. Irony, however,
was not alien to St. Paul (see 1 Cor. iv. 8, 10, viii. 1), and he might well
mean that such unpriestly conduct effectively disguised from him the
High Priest's dignity. And, having shortly before turned to account
in his need his Roman citizenship, he now took advantage of the com
position of the court to escape, if possible, an unfavourable decision.
1 In Acts xxii. 28 the Eg. boh. version makes the tribune say ; How easily thou
oiliest thyself a Roman citizen.
3 During the siege of Jerusalem Ananias was caught in an aqueduct, where he.
had concealed himself from the partisans of Menahem, and slain (Jos. B. J. ii. 17, 9).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 577
It contained members of both the Sadducees and the Pharisees, sects
sundered from one another by deep religious cleavages (p. 101), and
St. Paul, observing the fact, exclaimed that he was a Pharisee by training
and descent, and that he was being examined in connexion with the hope
of a resurrection of dead men.1 It might have been thought that the
Pharisees would have been too intent upon promoting the punishment of
one whom they regarded as a renegade to be led away by such a tactical
device ; but to a party appeal the response is often speedy. The Apostle's
expectation of creating a division among Ms judges was not disappointed.
On such an issue as that which he raised the Pharisees at once took his
part. As he had defended his conduct in preaching to the GentUes by
pleading the directions of a superhuman Personality who had appeared
to him from heaven, they were willing to accept his defence, and declared
Mm innocent of wrong, and if a spirit or an angel had really spoken to
him  1 The aposiopesis meant, as plaiMy as any words, that they
were not prepared to fight against heaven. The dissensions that ensued
caused the Roman tribune to fear for Paul's safety amid the contending
sects, and he, therefore, had him removed back to the castle. On the
foUowing night, the historian relates that the Lord appeared to the Apostle,
and announced that he was to bear witness to Him at Rome as he had
already done at Jerusalem (cf. p. 106 f.).
The circumstance that their intended victim was thus snatched from
their grasp so exasperated a number of the Jews that more than forty of
them bound themselves under a curse that they would not touch food
until they had compassed his death. Their plan was that the chief
members of the Sanhedrin (to whom they communicated their design)
should apply to the Roman tribune for a further inquiry into St. Paul's
case,8 and that they themselves should waylay and assassinate the prisoner
as he was being brought down for examination. The Apostle's conversion
to CMistiamty does not appear to have caused a permanent breach between
Mm and his famUy ; and his nephew who was in Jerusalem at the time,
having overheard the contrivance of the plot, at once proceeded to the
castle, where the Apostle, though chained to a soldier (cf. xxviii. 16), was
easily accessible to any who wished to visit Mm, and informed Mm of
what he had learnt. St. Paul thereupon asked a centurion within reach to
take his informant to his superior officer, since he had an important
commumcation to make to him. Lysias listened to the young man's
report and his urgent appeal that he would not give way to the request of
the conspirators ; and being naturaUy unwilling to see a Roman citizen
faU a victim to Jewish fanaticism, he ordered the matter to be kept secret,
and immediately took precautions to defeat the design.3 He directed
1 In Acts xxiii. 6 Tepl iXirldos Kal dvaardireias seems to be a hendiadys. Syr.
pesh. omits Kal.
1 In Acts xxiii. 20, though most uncials (N ABE) have /xiXXiav (referring to
Lysias) the true reading may be jiiXXovres (found in the Latin and some of the Syriac
versions) or p,iXXov, referring respectively to oi 'lovSaioi and rb avviSpiov (cf. v. 15).
3 In Acts xxiii. 24 the cursive 614, an Old Lat. codex (gig.) and some other authori
ties after irpbs $i$Xura rbv rjyejxbva add (as an explanation of Lysias' action) iqioB^Brj
yap /xi.irore dpirdaavres abrbv oi 'iovSaioi dTOKrelviiaiv, Kal airbs pierai-d HyxXijpLa lxv
37

578 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
two of his centurions to get together, by the third hour after sunset, a
force of no less than 470 men (a surprisingly large body), consisting of
heavy-armed infantry (200), cavalry (70), and a special class of light-armed
troops x (200) termed SeZjioXdpoi, to provide horses for the prisoner and Ms
attendants (probaMy St. Luke and Aristarchus, see Acts xxvii. 1, 2), and
to convey them safely to Csesarea, where Antomus Pelix, the procurator
of Judaea (p. 57), was residing. He forwarded with them a letter partly
to explain to his superior Ms reasons for sending St. Paul to Mm, and partly
to specify the nature of the charge against him (so that the letter was
equivalent to the usual elogium or abstract of a prisoner's offence, which
went with Mm to the magistrates who were to try him). The original
was written in Latin, and as St. Luke is not likely to have seen it, the
Greek version of it whieh he supplies must express his own idea of its
contents (wMch was probably not seriously divergent from the truth).
In it Lysias is represented as explaining that he had rescued the prisoner
from a Jewish mob after he had learnt that he was a Roman (though
in reality this fact had oMy come out when he Mmself was on the pomt
of scourging him, p. 575), had brought Mm before the Jewish Sanhedrin
in order to ascertain the accusation against Mm, had discovered that it
turned upon disputed interpretations of the Jewish Law (a term wMch
could be appUed to the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole, p. 98), and did
not involve any criminal offence ; but, as he had learnt of a plot against
him, he sent him to the procurator, before whom he had directed the
accusers to bring their case.
The march of between 60 and 70 mUes from Jerusalem to Csesarea
was accomplished in two stages, the troops halting at Antipatris (p. 7)
35 or 40 mUes away. Here the infantry, thought to be needed only as
long as the force was in the neighbourhood of the Jewish capital, returned,
wMlst the troopers proceeded another 30 mUes to Csesarea with their
prisoner. Pelix, having read the letter brought from Lysias, asked St.
Paul of what province he was., in order to assure himseU that he came under
Ma jurisdiction ;. and having been informed that he belonged to CUicia,
which was subject to Syria (p. 68), he arranged! to hear the case as soon as
the accusers arrived, and oudered him meanwMle to be kept in custody in
the Prmtormm, or Government House, wMch had once been the palace
of Herod (p. 47).
Five days after St. Paul's arrival at Csesarea, the High Priest. Ananias
and several elders representing the Sanhedrin reached Csesarea, accom
panied by a certain TertuUus,8 probably a Roman causidicus, or pleader,
whom, as better acquainted than themselves with the. usages of the Roman
law-courts, they brought with them as counsel for the prosecution ; and
eis dpyipiov elXij<piis. The charge of having received bribes in order to connive
at deeds of violence had been brought against Ventidius Cumanus, procurator of
Judsea between 48 and 52 (see p. 57).
1 This word is translated in the Vulgate by lancearii : the Alexandrian MS. reads
Se£ioB6Xovs. See p. 73.
2 The name is a, diminutive of Tertius ; cf. Lucullus and Lucius, Marullus and
Marius, Catullus, and Qatius.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 579
they presented before the procurator their case against St. Paul. The
speech of TertuUus must have been delivered in Latin, and St. Luke was
probably there and heard it ; at any rate he has skUfuUy reproduced in
brief the purport of such an oration as would be delivered under the Uke
circumstances. In the best manuscripts the summary is remarkably
concise ; but some textual authorities have a rather more extensive
version *¦ which is here foUowed. The speaker began with compliments
(the usual captatio benevolentim of a Latin orator) calculated to prepossess
Felix in favour of the prosecutors, alluding to the tranquillity secured by
his admmistration and the reforms he had introduced (contrast p. 57) ;
and then proceeded to complain that the prisoner (a) was an instigator of
insurrection among the Jews generally ; (b) was a ringleader of the sect
of the Nazarenes ; (c) had attempted to profane the Temple. The man
(he said) had been seized and would have been tried by the Jews, but the
tribune Lysias had taken him out of their hands by mam force, and had
commanded his accusers to attend before the procurator, who would be
able to form a judgment about the truth of their accusations by examining
Lysias Mmself . After the conclusion of TertuUus' speech, asseveration of
the truth of his statements came also from the Jews who appeared with
him. The charges thus advanced against St. Paul were all serious. The
first represented him as an habitual fomenter of treason ; the second
asserted that he was a leader of a Jewish sect which the Jews disowned,
and consequently had no claim to the toleration which they enjoyed
(p. 79) ; and the third accused him of attempting to ignore the prohibition
(sanctioned by the Romans) excluding aU Gentiles from the inner courts of
the Temple (p. 90). The speech of TertuUus glossed over the attempt
to lynch St. Paul without a trial, and implied that Lysias had interfered
with the exercise by the Jewish authorities of powers aUowed by the
Emperor (p. 100).
In answer to the Charges brought by his accusers Paul was caUed upon
by Felix to rebut them, if possible ; and he replied to them in order.
After expressing satisfaction that he had to appear before so experienced a
judge (Felix had probably been procurator of Judsea for four years, p. 347),
he first repelled the accusation of creating a sedition by statmg that it was
less than twelve days 2 since he had arrived at Jerusalem (which was a
short period for treasonable macMnations, inasmuch as for several days
he had been in custody), and denying that he had been found disputing in
the synagogues or coUecting a concourse in the city. Next, as regards
the imputation that he belonged to the sect of the Nazarenes, he admitted
that he foUowed a Rule of life (cf . Acts ix. 2, xxii. 4) which his opponents
thus described, but denied the impUpation that such a Rule was incon-
1 In Acts xxiv. 6-8 the passage noted in the R.V. mg. is contained in the uncial
E, the cursive 614, Lat. vet. (gig.), Syr. (pesh. hi.), Eth. ; but omitted by X A B H
L P, Lat. (vulg.), Eg. The longer text makes the sentence (v. 8) trap oti Svvxjo-g,Gto.,
which will then refer to Lysias, not St. Paul, much more intelligible ; cf. v. 23.
2 In Acts xxiv. 11 the twelve days named appear to be the sum of the seven days
of xxi. 27 and the five days of xxiv. 1, these last being reckoned from St. Paul's
departure from Jerusalem to his trial before Pelix

580 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Bistent with the Jewish faith or praotice, since he accepted, just as they
did, the teaching of the Law and the Prophets, and expected, as they did, a
resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous ; and in consequence
he trained himself to avoid any conscious offence towards either God or
man. Thirdly, in respect of the charge that he had profaned the Temple,
he had come to Jerusalem after an absence of many years to bring alms to
his countrymen, and it was whilst he was presenting certain offerings in
the Temple (p. 573) without disorder that they found him there. Those
who alleged the opposite — certain Jews from Asia— should have attended
to prove it, or else they who were in the court should show what offence
they had found him guilty of, unless it was the expression of his belief in the
resurrection of the dead.
In spite of the corroboration given to the statements of TertuUus by
the deputation from the Sanhedrin, it was impossible for the procurator
to give his decision at once. The letter received from Lysias made it
plain that in the tribune's opinion the prisoner had not been guUty of
treason or sedition ; but it was possible that by his evidence the other
charges might be established. Felix therefore adjourned the case, until
the arrival of Lysias at Csesarea, by pronouncing the usual formula Amplius
(sc. cognoscendum). He no doubt sMewdly suspected what the motives
were which animated the accusers in bringmg forward the case, since the
historian represents that he was weU acquainted with the principles of the
Christians (he had been for some years in the country) ; and it was probably
this knowledge that convinced him that Lysias was right in judging St.
Paul to be innocent of any political offence. Accordingly, though he
retained him in custody, he allowed him as much indulgence as possible,
the prisoner being chained to a soldier who guarded Mm, but permitted
to receive attention and care from his friends.
The contemplated second hearing of St. Paul's case before FeUx never
occurred. Lysias did not attend ; and since it was clear to the Jews that
without Ms testimony they could not succeed in obtaining a conviction
and that, even if he were willing to give evidence, it might not be favourable
to them, they, for the time, took no steps to pursue the matter further.
If they had failed to destroy the man they hated, they had, at any rate,
secured his incarceration. On the other hand, the procurator was
sufficiently indifferent to the claims of justice to aUow the accused to
remain in captivity without further trial. He was not, however, without
interest in his prisoner ; which was increased by the fact that DrusUla
(the third daughter of Agrippa I), who now passed as Ms third wife (p. 57),
was a Jewess, and was perhaps curious to know sometMng about St. Paul.
Accordingly the two came to the palace of Herod where St. Paul was
confined, and summoning Mm before them, heard him discourse about his
faith in Christ. The Apostle must have known the relations subsisting
between Ms two hearers, and was not likely to let slip an opportunity for
trying to awaken Felix to a sense of the fundamental principles of religion —
righteousness, self-control, and responsibUity to a future Judge. His
words alarmed Felix, but do not seem to have produced in him any real
reformation, for he hoped that his captive would offer him a bribe to secure

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 581
his release ; and in order to encourage him to do so, he had frequent
interviews with him. His expectations of receiving money from St. Paul
and of hearing the evidence of Lysias were both disappointed ; and when
he was removed from his office two years later (a.d. 58), the Apostle was
stiU in prison.
The recaU of Felix followed upon some violent disputes at Csesarea,
between the Jewish and the Syrian inhabitants of the city, respecting
equality of political rights (iaonoXireta), the Jews claiming precedence.
On the occasion of a fight between the two parties, Felix had let loose
upon the Jews his soldiers, who killed many and pillaged their houses.1
In consequence, he had reason to fear Jewish complaints at Rome about
his conduct (complaints which were actually made, and almost resulted
in his punishment) ; so that when he was displaced from his procurator-
ship in 58, it was from a desire to concUiate those whom he had offended
that he left St. Paul in prison.2 He was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and
it was during the latter's period of office that St. Paul's captivity at Csesarea
came to an end, though it was followed elsewhere by another term of
imprisonment equaUy long.
§ 11. Appeal to Ccesar and Voyage to Italy
The appearance of a new procurator afforded to the Jews the prospect
of carrying to a successful issue their design of destroying St. Paul.
Ananias, the chief priest, had been deposed by Agrippa II and succeeded
by Ishmael ; but there was no change in the malevolence of the Sanhedrin.
Accordingly, when Festus, two days after his arrival at Csesarea, went up to
Jerusalem, the principal members of that body petitioned him to bring
St. Paul to trial before them at the Jewish capital, intending to effect Ms
assassination on the road. The procurator, however, since the prisoner
was at Csesarea and he himself was shortly returning thither, saw no reason
for the transfer ; and directed that the more influential individuals among
them should attend there and conduct the prosecution before him.
After an interval of little more than a week, Festus returned to Csesarea ;
and next day he took his seat on the tribunal surrounded by his legal
assessors (consiliarii, cf. Suet. Tib. 55), and ordered the trial to be begun.
The charges were naturaUy a repetition of those previously alleged (p. 579).
The accusation of treason against the Emperor was doubtless based on
St. Paul's preaching of Jesus as the Messiah, Who, risen from the dead, was
to come again to inaugurate the Kingdom of God (cf. Acts xxv. 19) ; for
such could easUy be distorted into a design to set up a rival emperor.
The prisoner again denied that he had been guilty of any offence against
the Mosaic Law, against the Temple, or against the state. The witnesses
1 Jos. Ant. xx. 5, 17.
1 On the other hand another motive is suggested by an interesting variant reading
in Acts xxiv., where in place of v. 27b the cursive 64 and the Harkleian Syriac mg.
have rbv Si IlavXov etao-ev iv rijprjo-ei Sid ApovffiXXav. Drusilla's feelings towards
the Apostle probably resembled those of Herodias (whose conduct she had closely
reproduced) towards John the Baptist.

582 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
that had deposed to his profanation of the Temple (Acts xxi. 27, 28) were
seemingly not present ; but Festus, as an official who had only just entered
upon his office, was desirous of conciliating the disaffected race whom it
was his lot to rule, if he could do so without injustice ; and the circum
stance that the charges concerned not only disloyal intrigues but religious
dissensions, with which he was unacquainted, now disposed Mm to accede
to the Jews' request to have St. Paul tried before the Sanhedrin (with
himself presiding), if the prisoner consented. This, however, the Apostle
refused to do. He saw that the procurator recogmzed that he had com
mitted no crime against the state ; and he was not wiUing to be sacrificed
to the religious animosity of the Sadducees. He was a Roman citizen, and
had a right to be tried by the Emperor. That right he now claimed by
saying Ccesarem appello, " I appeal unto Csesar." The reason why he took
this course is not quite clear. He might have claimed to be tried at
Csesarea before Festus himself, where he would be more sure of a fair trial
than at Jerusalem before the Sanhedrin. Probably he feared that the
occasions on which disturbances had taken place about him were capable
of being so misrepresented that an acquittal in the procurator's court was
far from certain, and it would be better to have his case tried at Rome,
whither Ms enemies might not be prepared to follow Mm.1 The appeal
havmg been made, the procurator's legal advisers were consulted ; and
when they decided that the appeal was in order, Festus, who was a man of
higher character than Felix, at once aUowed it.
Shortly after this decision, the new procurator received a state visit
from Herod Agrippa II, king of Itursea, Trachomtis and AbUene (p. 52),
who was accompanied by his sister Bernice2 (or Pherenice), the eldest of
Agrippa I's three daughters, and widow of Herod, king of Chalcis (p. 69).
As the two visitors stayed at Csesarea for some time, and as Agrippa II,
though educated at Rome and thoroughly GentUe in sympathies, was
nevertheless interested in Jewish questions, Festus, who had much less
familiarity with the religious disputes of the Jews than his predecessor
Felix, took the opportunity of consulting Mm about St. Paul, in order to
gain a clearer understanding of the issue between Mm and his accusers,
with a view to sending a report to the Emperor. The account which St.
Luke gives of the private interview between him and his guest (Acts
xxv. 14-22) must be constructed out of inferences deduced from the
preceding trial (xxv. 6-12) and from the subsequent pubUc " hearing " of
St. Paul at which the historian may have been present. It seems possible
that in representing the procurator as declaring that the Jews had asked
for sentence to be pronounced upon Paul without further trial (contrast
Acts xxv. 3) and that he had replied that it was not the Roman custom to
surrender any man without giving him an opportunity of seU-defence,
St. Luke has aimed at accentuating the difference between Jewish and
Roman ideas of justice. The narrative goes on to state that, after the
x Cf. MeGiffert, Apost. Age, p. 354 note.
2 The relations between her and Agrippa were the subject of scandal (Jos. Ant.
xx. 7, 3).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 583
procurator had related to Agrippa the course of the trial held at Jerusalem,
and St. Paul's appeal to the Emperor (here designated His Majesty x), the
king expressed a wish to hear the prisoner. Festus was wUling to gratify
him by holding an informal investigation of St. Paul's case before him ;
and on the foUowing day an assembly was held in the audience-chamber
of the governor, to which Agrippa and Bernice came in state, and which
was attended by the officers of the Roman garrison and the principal
civilians, perhaps as the procurator's assessors (cf . Acts xxv. 12). Probably
Festus assigned to the kmg the seat of honour, and allowed Mm fbrmaUy
to preside. When St. Paul was brought in, still fettered tp the soldier who guarded
Mm, Festus addressed the gathering, statmg that both at Jerusalem and
at Csesarea the Jews had preferred capital charges against the prisoner,
but that as he himseU had failed to discover that he had committed any
offence meriting death, and as the accused had appealed to His Majesty,
he had determined to send him to Rome for trial. But since he was
perplexed as to the nature of the report which would have to go with the
prisoner to the Sovereign,2 he had had him produced before the king and
the rest of the distinguished company there assembled, in order that he
might be able to explain the accusations advanced against Mm.
Agrippa was well acquainted with Jewish religious beliefs ; and he
thought that the best way of discovering how far Paul differed from the
majority of his Countrymen was to aUow him to give an account of his
opmions. The Apostle was not, of course, on his trial, and a legal defence
of Ms conduct was not required untU he appeared before the Emperor's
court. But he was always ready to make known his Convictions, and he
was not likely to miss the opportunity of explaining the Christian faith to
an influential audience ; so he at once took advantage of the permission
afforded Mm. The discourse which he proceeded to deliver followed, in
general, the Unes of the speech addressed to the Jewish populace from the
steps of the castle of Antoma (p. 574), but since, unlike the latter, it was not
interrupted, the speaker was able to enlarge upon the fact that the Gospel,
of which he was a preacher, was intended for the GentUes as well as for the
Jews. After a conciliatory preface in which he expressed Ms satisfaction at
def endmg himself in the presence of one who was versed in Jewish practices
and doctrines, he first declared that the Jews were fuUy acquainted with
his mode of Hfe both at his native Tarsus and at Jerusalem. Brought up
as a strict Pharisee, he shared the national hope based upon the promises
of God. It was upon the way in which its realization was to be attained
that the accusations against Mm hinged. But at this point (if the speech
is correctly reproduced) St. Paul left a gap in his argument, and instead of
1 The title Augustus, represented in Greek by XeBaarbs, was synonymous with
Sanctus, and was originally applied to sacred buildings, rites, etc. (cf. Ovid, Fast, i.
609). It was bestowed on Octavianus by the Senate in 27 B.C., and was subsequently
distinctive of the Princeps (or Head of the State).
"The Greek is 6 Kvpios, the Lat. Dominus (Suet. Domit. 13). A better Greek
equivalent for Dominus would be Ae<rirbrijs.

584 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
going on to explain, as might have been expected, the different ideas
entertained by his countrymen and MmseU about the fulfilment of the
Divine promises (the Jews looking for a conquering Messiah and for partici
pation in the Messianic Kingdom tMough observance of the Law, whilst
he believed in a suffering Messiah Who had died and had risen from the
dead, and looked for entrance into the Kmgdom through faith) he abruptly
asked his hearers why it was deemed incredible that God should raise the
dead. Then resuming his account of his past lUe, he described his activity
in persecuting the foUowers of Jesus of Nazareth, and recounted anew his
experience on the road to Damascus, though departing in detaUs from the
recital in Acts xxii. 4-21 as well as from St. Luke's narrative in ix. 1-19
(p. 514). He then related how he had obeyed the directions he had received,
and had preached first at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and tMoughout
Judsea (the last statement conflicting with Gal. i. 22, see pp. 245-6), and
finaUy to the Gentiles. Because he had thus preached to the GentUes,
Ms life had been attempted, though unsuccessfully, by the Jews, notwith
standing that he had only taught that the predictions in the Law and the
Prophets had come to pass, ii, as he contended, the Messiah was reaUy
liable to suffering (cf . Lk. xxiv. 26), and U He, as the first to be raised.
from the dead, was to bring spiritual Ulumination to Israel and to the
Gentiles.1 As the Apostle drew to the climax and close of his speech, he spoke with
heightened enthusiasm . Toa Roman like Festus, whose mind was probably
of a severely practical bent, with smaU interest in rehgion or pMlosophy,
the idea of a resurrection from the dead was doubtless strange and un-
inteUigible, and the fervour with which his prisoner spoke caused Mm to
think his mind unhinged. He noticed the references to the Jewish
Scriptures, and suspected that St. Paul's study of them had impaired his
sanity ; and so raising his voice, he declared that Paul's great learning
was driving him mad. But St. Paul replied with calmness and courtesy
that there was nothing mad in what he had said, for king Agrippa could
testify that he had spoken of occurrences that were notorious. Then he
directly asked Agrippa whether he believed the prophets, as mdeed he
was persuaded he did. But Agrippa was not to be betrayed into saymg
anything about the new sect which might compromise him with the
Jews ; and he parried the question with the bantering remark that Paul was
persuading himself that with a smaU 'effort he had made him a CMistian.2
The Apostle rejoined with great earnestness that whether it cost him a
1 In Acts xxvi. 23, el iraBijrbs 6 Xpio-ros, el irpioros il; dvaordo'etvs vixpoiv (" first
from among a resurrection of dead men ") cius jiiXXei KarayyiXXeiv, etc., is very diffi
cult to construe with v. 22 ; the construction would be much easier if v. 8 (rl dvitrrov
Kplverai Tap' bpiiv el b Bebs viKpovs iyetpei ;), which is very awkward in its present
context, were placed after v. 22 and continued by v. 23.
2 In Acts xxvi. 28 it seems impossible to extraot sense out of the reading of N B,
iv bXlytp jie Tet&eis ~K.pianavbv Toirjaai, unless ~Kpioriavbv Toietv is treated as a
Latinism ( = Christianum agere, "to play the Christian " ). The reading of E and of the
majority of manusoripts . . . p.e TelBeis . . . yevicrBai looks like a correction. A
has iv bXtyip pe irelBij Xpiirriavbv iroifjaai, which, in view of velBo/Mii in v. 26, appears
to deserve confidence, and is adopted above.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 585
smaU effort or great he would to God that not the king only but all his
hearers might become such as he, save for the chains he was wearing.
With this the assembly broke up. St. Paul was taken back to his
quarters, wMlst Agrippa, Festus, Bernice, and the rest of the assessors
retired to confer together. They agreed that there was nothing in the
prisoner's conduct to render him deserving of death or imprisonment ; and
Agrippa, as having presided over the informal investigation just held,
gave to the procurator his considered conclusion that the accused might
have been discharged, had he not appealed to the Emperor. In putting
on record this decision, St. Luke brings to a termination one of the objects
which he had in view in composmg Acts. It was amongst his purposes to
iUustrate how St. Paul, as a representative Christian, though he was
calumniated and persecuted by the Jews, was yet uncondemned by a
succession of judges who heard his self-defence.
In consequence of St. Paul's appeal to the Emperor it was decided
that he ought to be conveyed to Italy for trial, and the Apostle and certain
other prisoners were placed in the charge of a centurion named Julius,
belonging to a cohort caUed the " Augustan (or ' His Majesty's ') cohort "
(aneiga EeBaarrj). It seems best to explain the title in this way, for if the
cohort in question got its name from being one of the five stationed at
Cassarea or Samaria (Sebaste), it would, if caUed after the latter city, have
been styled aneiga SeBaarrpifj. It has been conjectured that this cohort
belonged to a body of legionaries employed on the Unes of communication
between Rome and the provinces and engaged in the transport of supplies
to the armies (and hence caUed frumentarii), in carrying dispatches,
and in escorting prisoners. Honorary titles, indeed, such as ZEfiamfj
would be, though conferred upon legions (p. 73), do not appear to have
been commonly borne by cohorts. Nevertheless in an inscription from
Berytus a certain Quinctius Secundus " who took the census of the city
of Apamea at the command of Quirinius " (cf. p. 55) styles himseU " a
prefect of the first Augustan cohort, 1 " so that if this evidence is trustworthy
the occasional use of the epithet " Augustan " in connexion with a cohort
seems to be established. To convey the prisoners to Rome the centurion
embarked in a ship of Adramyttium (in Mysia), which, though not bound
for Italy but only to certam places on the coast of the province of Asia,
could take them to a port where another ship, sailing for Italy, might be
found. Among those who accompanied St. Paul on the voyage were the
Thessalonian Aristarchus (Acts xx. 4) and St. Luke. The former may
have been a prisoner (cf . Col. iv. 10), arrested with the Apostle at Jerusalem.
The second was perhaps allowed to attend St. Paul in the capacity of his
physician, or even as his servant, for Pliny (Epist. iii. 16) mentions that in
the reign of Claudius a certain ex-consul, Psetus, when brought as a prisoner
from Illyricum to Rome, was attended by several slaves, whose duties his
wife Arria was ready to discharge, if permitted to accompany him.2
, _ _ . j
1 The inscription is cited in Rackham, Acts, p. 497. The epithet was also applied
to alts, an ala being called in an inscription ala Aug. ob virtutem appellata.
"See Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 316,

586 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
The ship left Csesarea probably in September (cf. Acts xxvii. 9). Her
first port of call was Sidon, where St. Paul had friends, whom the centurion
allowed him to visit and whose attentions would be grateful. She was
next bound for Myra in Lycia, so that a straight course would have taken
her to the south and west of Cyprus. But at this period of the year the
prevailing winds were westerly, so that the vessel had to saU east of that
island, keeping under its lee. According to some textual authorities in
Acts xxvii. 5, it took fifteen days to cross the Cilician guU between Cyprus
and the mainland. In consequence of the unfavourable conditions, it was
also necessary to hug the Cilician and Pamphylian coast in order to catch
any land breezes that might help her on her way. At Myra, Julius
found a ship bound from Alexandria with corn for Italy, and to this he
transferred his prisoners, who, with the guards and saUors, made up a
total of (probably) 276 persons on board (cf. p. 588). The winds continued
baffling, so that it took many days of coasting to arrive off Cnidus, the most
westerly extremity of Caria. To cross from thence the open sea direct to
Malea, the southernmost point of the Peloponnese, was impossible in the
teeth of the wind ; so the ship, steering south, rounded Cape Salmone
(north-east of Crete), and then saUed under the lee of the island, reaching
with difficulty a harbour caUed " Fair Havens," a smaU bay on the south
coast, east of the promontory of Lisses, near which was a town caUed Lasea.
By this time October must have begun, for the Day of Atonement, the
10th of Tishri (which fell at the end of September or the beginnmg of
October) was past, and navigation (which closed on November 10th) was
already becoming dangerous. A consultation was accordingly held by the
officers of the ship ; and St. Paul, in consequence of Ms importance (as
indicated by the favour shown him by distinguished people like Felix,
Festus, and Agrippa) and perhaps of his experience as a traveUer by sea
as weU as by land, was also asked for Ms opmion. He pointed out the risk
not only to the ship and her freight, but also to the Uves of those on board,
if the voyage were continued. But the centurion, with whom, as an officer
in the imperial army, the decision rested, was gmded by the advice of the
pUot and the sMpmaster, and resolved to proceed. The harbour " FaU
Havens," in spite of its name, was Ul-suited for wintering in ; so it was
deemed advisable to try to make for another, about 40 miles farther west,
called Phoenix. This was a smaU bay, now caUed Loutro, situated not
far from the town of Lappa. It lay on the eastern side of a narrow
peninsula projecting from the island southward, and in it ships could
remain securely sheltered from the prevaUing winds during the winter
months. On the west of the peninsula is another bay, now caUed
Phineka. By St. Luke the harbour of Phoenix is described as facing
south-west and north-west («ard Xlfia xai xard x&gryv), whereas 'Loutro
looks eastward. It has been suggested, indeed, that Phineka is Phoenix
(the name of which it clearly preserves), for it fronts to the west or south
west.1 But a harbour facing these quarters of the compass would be a
very exposed anchorage for a ship when west winds were blowing, and
1 See Page, Acts, p. 256.

THE MEDITERRANEAN
O SO IQO 2QOy,;i„

„,** To illustrate St. Paul's voyage to Italy.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 587
probably Loutro was the harbour in which it was proposed to pass the
winter. ,As St. Luke never saw the place, he may have misunderstood
some expressions used in connexion with it by the saUors, who perhaps
said that it could be reached from Fair Havens by sailing first south
west (to double the promontory of Lisses) and then north-west, the direction
in which Loutro Ues, when the promontory is passed. With the intention,
then, of gaining Phoenix, the seamen took advantage of a gentle southerly
breeze to try to weather the intervening cape by keeping close to the shore.
But they faUed in their purpose, since a violent squaU from the east-
north-east (Euraquilo) suddeMy rushed down from Mount Ida and caught
the vessel, so that she could not double the point, and the crewihad to let
her run before the gale. Getting under the lee (i.e. west) of the little
island of Cauda or Clauda (the modern Gozzo), they were able, though
with difficulty, to haul in the boat (St. Luke helping) ; and then inasmuch
as the cargo of wheat was likely to swell in consequence of the seas that
were shipped, and the hull to be strained through the pressure of the wind
on the mast and its saU, they had to " frap " the vessel by passing ropes
under the keel and tightening them with a windlass in order to prevent
the planks from starting.
As the wind continued to blow furiously there was danger lest the ship
might be carried on to one or other of the Syrtes, the great sandbanks
along the north coast of Africa, so that it became necessary to lower the
mainsaU (together with the yard to whioh it was attached) and so check
the ship's way. There is, however, some uncertainty as to the meaning
in Acts xxvii. 17 of %aXdaavreg ro axEVog, for though it seems possible
to take to oxsvog to mean the mainsail (cf. Acts x. 11), it has been inter
preted to denote a sea-anchor or some other heavy article, which, attached
to a cable, was dropped into the sea from the stern and towed behind tP
reduce the ship's speed.1 As the vessel laboured heavUy, on the next day
they proceeded to Ughten her by throwmg overboard some of the cargo,
and on the day foUowing even the ship's fittings, which were, perhaps
fastened along the taffraU. And since the sky was too obscured by the
clouds for their position to be ascertained from sun or stars, and the storm
did not abate, the crew began at last to abandon all hope of safety. As
theU fears took away aU appetite for food, there was some risk of their
becoming too weak to save their Uves, U a chance of doing so should present
itseU ; so St. Paul came forward at this critical juncture to encourage and
advise them. After having reminded them of the counsel he had given at
Fair Havens, he conveyed to them a Divine assurance (graphicaUy repre
sented as imparted to him by an angel) 2 that he was destined to stand
before the tribunal of the Emperor, and that not only his own life, but
those of his feUow- voyagers would be preserved, though the vessel would be
wrecked on an island. On the fourteenth night after leaving Fair Havens,
as the ship continued to drift across that part of the Mediterranean
stretching between Greece and Sicily, which St. Luke calls the Adrias, but
1 See Blass, Ada Apostohrum (1895), p. 277.
2 For an inward intuition similarly commumcated cf. Acts viii. 26.

588 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
which was more commonly styled the Ionian Sea, about midnight the
sailors suspected (probably from the sound of breakers 1) the nearness of
land ; and on sounding twice in succession they found the water shoaling.
Fearing that they might, under these circumstances, run aground on a
reef, they cast out four anchors from the stern and waited for daylight.
The sailors lowered the boat under pretence of casting additional anchors
from the bow also, to enable the vessel to ride the more steadUy, but
really in order to escape, believing she would founder ; but at the suggestion
of St. Paul, who declared that the only hope of safety lay in remaining on
board, the soldiers cut the ropes, so that the boat floated away. Whilst
day was dawning the Apostle urged them all to take food, which they
greatly needed ; and himself set the example by breaking, with thanks
giving, a loaf, of which he ate and distributed the rest to his companions.2
After they had been refreshed, the crew proceeded to Ughten the ship still
further by casting more of the wheat into the sea (cf. Acts xxvii. 38 with
v. 18). When it became light, they saw land close to them, but did not
recognize it. Noticing a bay with a shelving beach, they decided to try
to run the ship aground upon it ; and with this object they slipped the
anchor cables (leaving the anchors in the sea), loosed the rudder-bands
which lashed to the sides of the vessel the steering paddles (p. 76) when they
were not needed, and hoisted the foresaU in order to get way on the ship.
But before going far, she struck on a ridge of sand or mud below, or just
rismg above, the surface of the sea, with deep water on either side, so that
whilst the bow remained immovable, the stern began to break up through
the stram caused by the heavy sea that was running. The soldiers,
knowing themselves to be responsible for the safe custody of the prisoners,
wanted to kill them to prevent them from attempting to escape. But the
centurion, wishing to preserve St. Paul, interfered, and directed that those
who could swim should by that means reach the land, whUst the rest should
support themselves on planks or broken timbers ; and eventuaUy m these
various ways all on board, numbering, as has been said, probably 276
souls,3 succeeded in getting safe to shore.
The shipwrecked crew discovered that the name of the island was
Melita. Its identity has been disputed, since there are two islands bearing
names which resemble the Greek MeXittj, namely Melida in the Adriatic,
near to the coast of Illyria, and Malta, in the Mediterranean, 60 miles
south of Sicily. The principal reason for identifying the scene of the sMp-
wreck with the former is its situation in the Adriatic, which is supposed
to be denoted by St. Luke's term Adrias. This, however, though derived
from the Italian town of Atria (near to the mouth of the Padus) and
originaUy applied to the northern half of the modern Adriatic, was later
(in the second century a.d.) used to describe that part of the Mediterranean
1 In Acts xxvii. 27 X A C H L read irpoadyeiv (or 1rpoo-a.7a.7efi') -riva airrois xwpai',
but B has vpoa-axelv and. the Old Lat. (h.) resonare.
aIn Acts xxvii. 35 after io-Bleiv t\ie cursive 614 and the Syr. (hi.) and Eg. (sah.)
versions add iwiSiSobs Kal ¦fi/uv.
3 In Acts xxvii. 37 most MSS. have Siaxbo-ia iBSov-^Kovfa 2f, but B and Eg. (sah.)
read iis iBSo/i-fjKovra ?£ (cf. p. 138).

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 589
(outside the Adriatic) wMch was more commonly known as the Ionian
or SicUian sea ; and this extended use may weU have begun to prevaU
when St. Luke wrote. If so, the position of Malta, which would lie in the
course of a ship driven by a gale from the east, and the local tradition in
the island, where a bay on the north-east coast is called St. Paul's Bay,
render it probable that it was here that the shipwreck occurred. The
conclusion is further confirmed by the circumstance that a corn ship from
Alexandria wintered here (Acts xxviii. 11), for the island is in the track of
traders between Egypt and the west coast of Italy. Moreover, St. Luke's
account can be readUy explained from the conditions at St. Paul's Bay.
On the northern side of the entrance there is a smaU islet, known as
SaUnonetta or Salmun ; and U a spit of land, washed by the sea on either
side, then joined the islet and the shore, it would correspond to the ronog
SiSdXaaaog mentioned in Acts xxvii. 41. For the vessel to clear the
promontory of Koura Head (forming the southern side of the entrance)
and to take ground between Salmonetta and the mainland, it is only
necessary to assume that the wind, which had previously been east- north
east, had veered to east-south-east. It is true that the local tradition
connects the scene of the wreck with a spot on the south shore of the bay,
to wMch the ship might have been forced by an east- north-east wind, but
modern investigators seem to agree that the details of the narrative are
best satisfied by the site described above.1
The earUest inhabitants of Malta (the area of which is small, its length
being 17 mUes and its breadth about 9) are said to have been Phoenicians
(Diod. v. 12) ; and though the island had afterwards been colonized by the
Greeks, probably the original stock was predominant (especially as at a
stiU later date it passed into the possession of Carthage, the chief colony
of the Phoenicians of Tyre) ; and St. Luke calls them jSdgBagoi,. They
treated the shipwrecked crew with kindness, providing them with fire
(for doubtless the late autumn was cold and rainy) and probably with
food also. St. Paul took part in the collecting of fuel, and when he laid
the faggots on the fire,, a smaU snake, which was taken to he a viper, was
roused to activity by the heat, and fastened on his hand. The natives
standing round at once thought that the death whieh he had escaped at
sea he had now incurred on shore ; and that it was inflicted upon Mm
by the goddess of Justice for some heinous crime. But as no evil conse
quences ensued from the bite, they shortly changed their minds and
concluded that one who was immune to snake-poison could oMy be a god
(of. Acts xiv. 11). The fact that vipers do not now occur in Malta has been
urged against the identification of the scene of the shipwreck with that
island, or even against the whole story. But vipers, though not found
there now, may have existed in earUer times (like wolves in Englapd) ; .
or the snake may have been reaUy non-poisonous, but popularly thought
to be venomous (as so many harmless creatures are). There are said to
be in Malta two snakes of the f amUy Coronella, lacking poison fangs, one of
which is like a viper in colouring.2
1 See Hastings, D.B. iii. pp. 336-7.
* Ramsay, Luke the Physician, pp. 64.

590 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Near the place where the landing from the wreck was effected there
were the estates of a certain Roman caUed PopUius or PubUus,1 who is
styled by St. Luke the Primus (6 TJg&rog) of the island. The title seems
to be official rather than a mere honorary epithet, for it occurs in two
inscriptions 2 ; but its real significance is obscure, and at one time under the
Empire the island was governed by a procurator.3 If PopUius was a
Roman official, it was natural that he should entertain JuUus, a mUitary
officer ; and he would doubtless extend Ms invitation to the centurion's
distinguished prisoner and Ms friend and physician Luke. Circumstances
enabled the kind attention to be almost at once repaid, for the father of
their host was UI with fever and dysentery, and to the sufferer the Apostle
brought reUef. St. Paul's gUt of healing had doubtless become known
through Aristarchus and Luke, and his reputation for more than ordinary
powers must have been enhanced by the incident of the snake. The hope
which information about his son's guest probably created m the sick man
must of itseU have helped him to resist the malady wMch had attacked Mm ;
and when the Apostle, coming to him, prayed and laid his hands upon Mm
(cf. Acts ix. 17), he recovered. This cure was the first of many, for other
persons in the island who were suffering from various diseases received
relief, some cures perhaps bemg effected by Luke's skUl as a physician (for
he participated m the honours bestowed by the people upon their bene
factor), but others bemg instances of faith-heaUng.
The party spent the winter in the island, staying there tMee months
after their arrival (probably about the middle of November), and when
they left, those whom they had benefited were led by gratitude to put on
board the ship that conveyed them away the things wMch they needed for
the voyage. Navigation reopened on March 11th ; and as another corn-
ship, called the Dioscuri (whose effigies formed the figurehead of the vessel
(p. 76), and bound from Alexandria to Rome, had wintered at the island,
they embarked upon her. The ship touched at Syracuse on the east coast
of SicUy, some 90 mUes distant, stoppmg tMee days there ; and then as
the wind was not favourable for a straight run, they had to tack* to reach
Rhegium (Reggio) on the Italian side of the straits of Messina, 60 or 70
miles from Syracuse. After a day spent there, the wind shifted to the
south, so that PuteoU (or DicsearcMa), 200 mUes or more from Rhegium,
was gained by the next day. Puteoli (Puzzioli), though 120 or 130 miles
from Rome, now served, at least for traveUers, as its port, since entrance to
Ostia at the mouth of the Tiber was impeded by sUt. CMistiamty had
already spread to it, and the body of Christians there entreated St. Paul and
1 PopUius is a Roman cognomen, PubUus is a praanomen ; and though IIoVAtos is
the usual equivalent of PubUus, a Roman of rank would be most hkely designated by
his cognomen ; cf. Felix, Festus, etc.
1 One is in Latin Meli[tensium] primus omni[um\ ; the other is in Greek, Aovkios
KXavSlov vibs . . . HpovSijvs lirirebs Ptojialuiv Tp&ros "M-eXeTaltov Kal TarpQv.
3 An inscription (quoted by Rackham, Acts, p. 493) has Chrestion, a freedman of
Augustus, procurator of the islands of Melita and Qaulos,
* In Acts xxviii. 13 the reading of most MSS. vepieXBbvres yields the best sense ;
that of >5 B irepieXbvres, " having detached " the anchor cables (cf. xxvii. 40), seems a
superfluous observation, and rds dym'pas would scarcely be omitted.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 591
Ms two companions to stay with them a week, Julius seemingly aUowing
them to do so under guard. From PuteoU there ran a road (the via
Campana) to Capua, where the traveUers could get on to the via Appia,
which was the main highway between Rome and Brundisium for the
east (p. 75). Then they passed successively through Appii Forum and
Tres Tabernse, both near the Pomptine marshes, about 45 and 35 mUes from
Rome respectively, where they were met by parties of feUow-Christians,
who, having heard of their arrival, had come to pay them a tribute of
respect. The meeting was very welcome to St. Paul, who at the sight of
friends thanked God and took courage.
TraveUers along the Appian way entered the walls of Rome by the
Porta Capena. As soon as the capital was reached, Julius handed over
his prisoners to the commander of the force to which he belonged. This
officer is described by a number of manuscripts (H3L2P2, etc.) in Acts
xxviii. 16 as 6 argaroneSdgxm, and it has generaUy been thought that
he was the commander of the Prsetorian guards (p. 73), whose camp was
outside the Porta Viminalis, and who as a body could be designated as
prcBtorium, the term used in Phil. i. 13. x But if the conjecture is correct
that the guards who conveyed Paul to Rome were drawn from the
Frumentarii (p. 585), it would be to the principal officer of this force (whieh
had its camp on the Cselian MU) to whom the prisoners would be transferred
(Acts xxviii. 16 mg.). That this was the case is implied by the reading of
one of the MSS. (gig.) of the Old Latin version which renders rip argaxo-
mddgxti by principi peregrinorum, the Frumentarii bemg also known as
Peregrini. In any case the officer, whoever he was, who had henceforward
the responsibility of keeping St. Paul in custody against the time of Ms
trial, aUowed Mm to reside by himseU in a lodging outside the camp,2
with a soldier who guarded him.
At Rome there was a very large Jewish community (p. 78), and St.
Paul was naturaUy anxious to ascertain their feelings towards both the
Christian faith and MmseU. Accordingly three days after Ms arrival he
mvited to Ms lodging the leading Jews from the various synagogues, with
a view to explaining both the reason for his appeal to the Emperor and the
consistency of Ms Christianity with the ancestral faith of Ms race. He
declared that, though he had been disloyal neither to the Jewish people
nor to the Jewish religion, he had been delivered as a prisoner into the
hands of the Romans ; and that though the Romans after inquiry had been
ready to acquit Mm, the Jews had opposed it, and he had been compeUed
to appeal to the Emperor, not in order to accuse Ms countrymea, but to
save Ms own Ufe.3 The cause of the Jews' animosity and of his imprison
ment was reaUy the reUgious hope which both they and he alike cherished,
but which both interpreted differently . and it was in order to set forth to
them his convictions about it that he had sought an interview with them.
In reply the Jewish representatives said that they had not received any
1 See Lightfoot, Phil. pp. 101-2.
2 Added in Ads xxviii. 16 by the cursive MS. 614 and the Stockholm MS. (gig.) of
the Old Lat.
8 This is added by a few authorities in Ads xxviii. 19.

592 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
unfavourable report about St. Paul from Jerusalem either by letter or by
word of mouth ; but as regards the Christian sect, they knew that every
where it was the subject of adverse comment. StiU they wished to arrive
at an equitable decision concerning it, and desired to gam from him
information about it. In view of the facts that there existed at Rome a
Christian Church numerous enough to have made it worth whUe for St.
Paul to write a long letter to it (p. 279), and that disturbances caused by
disputes about Christ may have occasioned the expulsion of the Jews from
Rome in the reign of Claudius (p. 554), the ignorance concermng CMistiamty
here professed by the Jews of Rome is rather perplexing x ; but if the report
of their words is accurate, it may perhaps be assumed that they wished to
pose as impartial judges of St. Paul's case, whilst desirous of concealing the
progress which Christianity had already made in the Roman capital.
Arrangements were accordmgly made for a meeting on an appointed
day, and a large gathering assembled at St. Paul's lodging. To it he set
forth his conception of the Kingdom of God, as he had come to entertain
it under the influence of Ms beUef that Jesus was the destined Messiah,
pre-announced in the Law and the Prophets. But to the idea that Jesus,
known to have been put to an ignominious death at the instigation of the
authorities of their nation, was nevertheless the Son of God and the King
of Israel, and that the salvation of wMch it was claimed that He was the
source was independent of the Law, the keeping of which was the absorbing
interest of their lives, the majority of the Jews manUested an mvmcible
repugnance. Though the Apostle won some to his views, upon others he
made no impression, and before the assembly dispersed he pointed outiow
aptly the Holy Spirit, through the prophet Isaiah (vi. 9 f .) 2 had spoken to
their ancestors, whose true descendants they showed themselves to be,
affirming that the wiUul closing of their mmds to the truth would in the
end render them impervious to it. But the gracious purpose of God was
not destined to be baffled ; the salvation which the Jews refused would be
offered to and be accepted by the GentUes. These concluding words of the
Apostle's speech are not very relevant to the situation, since (as has been
seen) there was abeady existing in Rome a Christian Church ; so that
they should perhaps be taken to represent not so much what St. Paul said
on this occasion as St. Luke's final statement of the reason why the CMistian
Church, though originaUy of Jewish origm, had, by his time, become
predominantly GentUe.
With this unsuccessful appeal made to the Jewish commumty at
Rome the account of the early Church contained in Acts closes. It marks
the completion of another of the purposes wMch St. Luke had in view in
writing the second of Ms two works. It was part of his design to illustrate
how untiringly St. Paul sought to commend the Christian faith to God's
chosen people, and how it was only after their repudiation of the Gospel
that it was offered to the GentUes. The antagonism to it manUested at
Pisidian Antioch (Acts xiii. 45), at Corinth (xviii. 6) and at Ephesus (xix. 9),
1 Contrast Acts xvii. 6, xxiv. 5, and cf. McGiffert, Apost. Age, p. 362.
« The same passage is quoted in Mk. iv. 12, Mt. xiii. 14-15, Joh. xii. 40, Rom. xi. 8.

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 593
was finaUy repeated at Rome, and demonstrated that henceforward
between the Jewish synagogue and the Christian Church there would be
severance. The trial of St. Paul was postponed for at least two years. During this
interval he lived, under guard, in a house which he rented, welcoming those
who cared to converse with Mm, and expoundmg to them the Kingdom of
God and the relation to it of Jesus Christ. In this work he met with no
hindrance. Even some members of the Emperor's court (perhaps minor
officials) became CMistians (Phil. iv. 22). Moreover, he was not the only
Christian worker m the city, where his example encouraged others. His
activity even stimulated some who were not very sympathetic towards
him to emulate or to surpass him in zeal (Phil. i. 15), such rivals being
probably members of the Jewish section of the Church, who were perhaps
envious of the growing numbers of Gentile Christians.1 But whatever
their motives may have been, their efforts only caused St. Paul to rejoice
greatly that the name of Christ was being more and more widely made
known among the citizens of the capital. St. Luke in bringing Acts to an
end by describing the absence of any impediment to St. Paul's proclamation
of the Gospel at Rome was clearly wishful to emphasize the toleration
extended to Christianity by the imperial authorities up to the close of the
period covered by his history. The book of Acts bemg probably written
after a great change had taken place in the attitude of the Roman govern
ment towards the Christians (p. 240), it'was natural for its writer to contrast
with the injustice and cruelty of the Rome of his later years (spent under
Domitian (81-96) ), the reasonableness and fairness of the same great power
in his earUer days, prior to a.d. 64.
Why the Jews at Jerusalem were so dilatory in pressing their suit
agamst St. Paul at Rome is far from clear. That the Roman Jews had
heard nothing to St. Paul's prejudice before his arrival at the Capital is not
uninteUigible, since the Apostle's appeal to the Emperor may have taken
his opponents by surprise ; and in any case during the winter the usual
communications between the east and the west must have been interrupted.
But it might have been expected that m the course of the foUowing summer
the prosecution would have been resumed with vigour. Possibly the
long delay is to be accounted for by the accusers' desire to wait until they
could obtain the countenance of some individual powerful enough with the
Emperor to ensure the conviction of the prisoner. Their experience of
FeUx and Festus had not been encouraging ; and they may have anticipated
defeat unless they could secure the assistance of one who was in a position
to exert influence at the Imperial Court.2
During the two years of his imprisonment at Rome (59-61), St. Paul
wrote four letters that have been preserved in full, namely Colossians,
Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians, probably in this order (p. 295), and
a fifth (later than Philippians), part of which may be embodied in 2 Tim.
iv., 6-18 (see p. 303). From the Church at PhUippi he received help
1 The same are described most contemptuously in Phil. iii. 2.
' Nero's mistress Poppsea was a Jewish proselyte.
38

594 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
through Epaphroditus (Phil. iv. 18), as he had done previously at other
places (p. 548) ; and Ms affection for his converts there was so great that
he accepted their bounty without hesitation. The loneliness of his
captivity, which, notwithstanding Ms opportunities for missiopary labour,
must have been trying, was relieved by personal intercourse with several
friends. Aristarchus and EpapMas seem to have been Ms fellow-prisoners
(Col. iv. 10, Phm. 23). Others who were at Rome for shorter or longer
periods, and some of whom conveyed the letters mentioned above to their
destination, were Timothy, Tychicus, Mark, Demas, Jesus Justus, Onesimus,
Onesiphorus and Luke. If 2 Tim. reaUy includes portions of a letter
written during the years 59-61, two more can be added, Titus and Crescens.
When St. Paul's trial came on, Demas and perhaps Titus and Crescens
abandoned him, leaving Rome for other places ; and of those who were
at the capital at the time Luke alone proved staunch to the last
(.2 Tim. iv. 10).
The Apostle at one period in Ms captivity was very hopeful of acquittal
(Phil. ii. 24, Phm< 22). His case, when brought up for decision, was
probably heard not by the Emperor MmseU but by some subordinates,
acting as his representatives, who were perhaps chosen from the officers
of the prsetorian guard (prcefecti prcetorii, p. 73) and are denoted by the
term rd ngairtbgiov in Phil. i. 13. To those who > tried Mm the Apostle
had an opportunity of showing that he was a prisoner for the sake of the
Christian faith and of exhibiting the fortitude which it inspired m him.
The accusation preferred against Mm which by the Romans would be
considered most serious was not that of being a Christian (for U CMistiamty
had been accounted a crime at this date, not St. Paul alone but others
would have been mvolved), but of being a danger to the peace of the
Empire, in consequence of the disturbances that attended his activity in
various places. This was one of the charges brought against him by the
Jews (Acts xxvi. 5) ; and evidence in support of it could be produced from
many localities (Pisidian Antioch, Lystra, PhUippi, Thessalomca, Beroea,
Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusalem). The trial seems to have occupied two
hearings (2 Tim. iv. 16) ; whether it resulted favourably or unfavourably
is disputed. If, as appears most probable, it ended in his condemnation,
his conviction would be f oEowed by his execution. .Since he was a Roman
citizen, he was exempt from the more barbarous punishments often
inflicted upon such as had no civic rights ; and he was presumably beheaded.
The traditional site of Ms death is now occupied by the Abbey pf Tre
Fontane, three miles from Rome on the road to Ostia (Eus. H.E. ii- 25}>
Those who believe that the Apostle was acquitted, or that the charge
against Mm was held to be not proven, and who think that the Pastoral
Epistles are genuine in their entirety .and written after his release, can,
from the aUusions in these letters, construct a conjectural outline pf Ms
movements after leaving Rome. As he contemplated, when writing to
the Romans, a journey to Spain (Rom. xv. 28), he may have travelled
tMther from Italy, and the Muratorian Canon represents him as doing so,
its statements beipg held to be confirmed by Clement of Rome, who
describes the Apostle as having preached righteousness to the whole world

THE CHURCH IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE 595
and reached the end of the west (r& rigpia rrjg Svaecog).1 Later, he returned
to the east (having intended to do so when the Epistle to the Philippians
was written (Phil. i. 27, U. 24) ) ; proceeded to Ephesus ; and from thence
departed for Macedonia by way of Troas, leaving Timothy behind at
Ephesus, and sending 1 Timothy to him there. Possibly from Macedonia
he went back to Ephesus, and thence sailed to Crete, where he left Titus
in charge, whUst he himself once more returned to Ephesus and wrote to
Titus the Epistle bearing his name. He even planned to go to Nicopolis
in distant Epirus (Tit. iii. 12). But in 64 occurred the fire at Rome,
responsibUity for which Nero fastened on the Christians. The consequent
persecution which started m the capital would give scope for any dormant
hostility felt towards them to become active elsewhere ; and St. Paul
was amongst those arrested (perhaps at Miletus), and was sent to Rome
by way of Corinth for trial. From Rome he wrote 2 Timothy. About the
circumstances of Ms second trial as Uttle is known as about those of his
first, though the few detaUs mentioned in 2 Tim. (ii this was composed
during a second captivity in 64) can be employed to illustrate it, instead
of bemg appUed to the trial m 61. On the assumption that the Apostle,
released in 61, lived to be imprisoned and tried again, the year 64 seems
the most probable date of his execution, though Eusebius assigns Ms death
to the tMrteenth year of Nero, i.e. a.d. 67. Accordmg to Dionysius, Bishop
of Corinth, St. Paul and St. Peter were executed about the same time
(Eus. H.E. ii. 25).
The fact that so much more is known about St. Paul 2 than about the
rest of the Apostles justifies a few words of comment upon his life and
labours. By none was greater work accomplished for Christianity. His
ambitions were remarkable (cf . Rom. i. 14, 15, xv. 24) ; but the sagacious
methods byjj which he pursued them and his success in realizing them were
almost equaUy remarkable. His aim was the diffusion of the CMistian
faith through the Roman Empire, and if he really effected his design of
penetrating into Spain, he may be said to have carried the Gospel of Christ
almost from one end of the Empire to the other. In any case, he spread
the knowledge of it tMough four provinces in Asia, and two of the most
important provinces in Europe. This was one of his great achievements ;
and he thereby had a prominent share in transferring a religious movement
from the region of its birth, whence it eventuaUy almost disappeared, to
another where it took firm root, and whence it has been disseminated across
the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. And a second achievement, which was of
equal importance, and upon which the permanent success of the first
depended, was the emancipation of Christianity from the fetters of the
Jewish Law. This was the more noteworthy because it involved a
departure not only from the attitude towards Judaism taken up at first
by the personal disciples of Jesus, but from the precedent set by our Lord
1 Probably Clement's statement is only an inference from Rom. xv. 28, and does
not preserve any independent tradition.
2 Of the great personalities of antiquity the two best known are Cicero and St.
Paul (Inge, Outspoken Essays, p. 205).

596 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Himself. Yet the step taken by St. Paul was crucial in the history of
Christianity. Without Ms insight and courage m contending for the
exemption of the Gentiles from the distinctive requirements of Judaism,
the Christian Church might have survived only as a Jewish sect or perished
altogether. He started it upon a separate career ; and it was owing to
his exertions that it became independent of the organization within wMch
it originated, and was enabled to pursue a course of continuous expansion
among the Gentile races of the western world. Whether or to what
extent these great services have been qualified by the influence exerted
by various aspects of Ms theology this is not the place to determine.
Certainly there were elements in it tendmg to blunt the keen edge of Jesus'
declarations about the real conditions of salvation.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT
IT does not faU within the scope of this volume to give a comprehensive
account of the Theology of the New Testament, nevertheless even a New
Testament History may reasonably be expected to trace briefly the
historical development of the theological ideas found in its constituent
writings. The cMonological succession, indeed, in which the New Testa
ment books were composed is not quite identical with the natural succession
of the theological conceptions in them ; for the Synoptic Gospels, Acts,
and Revelation are probably later than most of the Epistles. But the
Synoptic Gospels and Acts rest upon sources (oral narratives, if not
documents) which are anterior in date to the Epistles, whilst the theology
of Revelation is of an obviously early type. Chronology is therefore not
seriously violated if, for the purpose of sketching the historic growth of
the Theology of the New Testament, a beginning is made with the
earliest of the Synoptic Gospels and the document symbolized by Q (since
these are the best authorities for the Teaching of Jesus) ; if, next, there
are considered the early chapters of Acts and some of the Catholic Epistles,
as representative of the Primitive Church ; if the book of Revelation is
treated after these ; and if this is foUowed in order by the Pauline Epistles,
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Johanmne writings.
(a) The Teaching of Jesus according to the Earliest Sources
For our Lord's teaching about God, about the future, and about His
own mission and Person, the primary authorities are St. Mark's Gospel and
Q. It cannot, indeed, be assumed that every statement even in Mk.,
which is represented as proceeding from our Saviour reaUy does so. For
since the Gospel was probably separated by a whole generation from the
lifetime of Him Whose words are recorded, and since during that generation
the Christian community to which the writer belonged had passed through
many experiences, it is not unlikely that these experiences are reflected
in his report of the age preceding, the origin and currency of various beliefs
and practices of the Church being antedated. And since in the early
Church there were one or two personalities of outstanding distinction who
were sure to impress deeply men of shghter individuaUty with whom they
came in contact, and since St. Mark, at more than one period, was a.
597

598 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
compamon of St. Paul, it may be suspected that his work is not altogether
free from Pauline ideas and phraseology. Still, the discoverable traces
of such influence are not numerous, and do not seriously affect the
confidence which can be reposed in the Second Gospel as affording, so far
as it goes, a faithful testimony to our Lord's utterances. The contents
of Mk. can be supplemented by most valuable materials from Q, the
author of wMch seems to have especially aimed at reproducmg our Lord's
sayings, more particularly those of a terse and aphoristic character.
But though Mk. and Q are our most authoritative sources, it would
be unreasonable to exclude from the list of trustworthy data everything
that appears only in Mt. or in Lk. For it is intrinsicaUy probable that
many statements occurring in only one of these two Gospels may reaUy
come from Jesus ; and though it may be difficult to reach a confident
decision about such, yet two criteria are helpful. One is the tenor of a
saying, for if this impUes a condition or standpoint which eventuaUy
ceased to obtain in the Church, it is not Ukely to have been invented.
The other is the form in wMch a saying is cast : parables, for instance,
scarcely occur in the New Testament outside the Synoptic Gospels,
so that the genuineness of those which rest upon the testimony of no
more than one Gospel need not be questioned.
Before an attempt is made to describe even briefly the substance
of Jesus' teaching it is desirable to note certain features mariring the
language in which it was conveyed and wMch is liable to be a source of
misunderstanding. (a) Since our Lord, in His discourses, aimed at impressmg upon His
hearers the vital importance of the issues whieh He placed before them,
His commands and statements were often of a sweepmg and unqualified
character (Mt. vii. 1= Lk. vi. 37, Mt. vii. 7, 8 = Lk. xi. 9, 10, Mk. xi. 24).
He presented alternatives in vivid contrast ; emphasized now one, now
another, line of conduct, as varying conditions demanded ; depicted
classes of people in strong colours ; pronounced summary judgments ;
and did not refrain from the use of irony (Mk. vii. 9, cf. Mt. xxiii. 32).
For the guidance of men's actions He did not legislate or impose rules,
but affirmed principles ; and even these He did not always present in
an abstract form, but substituted concrete illustrations of them (Mk. ix.
41, Mt. v. 39-40 = Lk. vi. 29-30) which furnish mstraction but not
definite regulations for other cases. In consequence, there occasionally
appear in what He said verbal discrepancies ; and His injunctions do not
always admit of being literaUy obeyed, independently of circumstances.
(b) Like the Hebrew prophets our Lord constantly used figurative
language to express His thoughts arrestingly 1 ; but His metaphors were
liable to be misapprehended, and as the EvangeUsts' own narratives show,
sometimes were misapprehended even by the Apostles.2 A proneness to
put a literal construction upon figures of speech is confined to no class or
1 See Mk. x. 25, xi. 23, xii. 40, Ml. vii. 3-5 (= Lk. vi. 41, 42), xxiii. 24, Lk. xix. 40,
xxi. 18 (cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 45, 2 Sam. xiv. 11).
8 See Mk. viii. 14-21.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 599
period ; and accordingly " the abuse of metaphor has been one of the
standing errors in theology."
(a) Confirmation of His convictions about Himself and His mission
He sought for in the Hebrew Scriptures, sometimes giving to their words
an import other than that which was seemmgly intended by the original
writers ; and in referring to the various books composing the Old Testa
ment He shared the current views of their authorship,1 from which the
conclusions reached by modern investigators often diverge.
Jesus, in proclaiming the nearness of the Kingdom of God, could
count upon His announcements being inteUigible to His contemporaries.
The actual expression " the kingdom of God " or " the kingdom of the
heavens " 2 occurs nowhere in the Old Testament, but the nature of
God's " sovereignty," exercised first over Israel and destined to be exercised
finaUy over aU the world, was a famihar idea to the Jews. The thought
of Jehovah as Israel's King is found in 1 Sam. viii. 7, xii. 12 — passages
reflecting the ideas of a Deuteronomic writer (seventh century b.o.) ;
and the complementary notion that the IsraeUtes were Jehovah's subjects
and servants finds frequent expression (Lev. xxv. 55, Ez. v. 11, etc.).
Their service, indeed, was very imperfectly rendered ; and it was recog
nized that not by the people universaUy, but only by a fraction of them
was the Divine rule faithfully obeyed. Nevertheless Israel as a whole
was distinguished from other communities by its knowledge of the one
true God and by the possession of His written Laws, so that the Almighty
could be represented as declaring that it should be for Him a kingdom
of priests (i.e. agents to instruct all mankind in His requirements)
and a holy nation (Ex. xix. 6) ; and in a measure it really became such.
The experience of the ExUe put an end to all formal disloyalty to Jehovah ;
whilst the diffusion of Jewish communities in many parts of the world
(p. 77 f.) made numbers of GentUes acquainted for the first time with a
spiritual and monotheistic rehgion. Israel's subjection, however, to
foreign powers for centuries after the Return from the ExUe appeared
to the faithful to be so incompatible with the privUeged relations granted
to the nation by God, that they anticipated that He must soon intervene
to redeem them ; and that by some decisive interposition He would
deliver them from their oppressors and establish for ever His own sole
and perfect rule, securing for them perpetual righteousness and peace.
Of the- circumstances destined to mark God's intervention in the
fortunes of His people, various ideas were entertained in different circles
(p. 40 f .), and found expression in prophecies and apocalypses. Sometimes
the Divine Kingdom was thought of as being established on earth, without
any mention of the presence in it of a human king, representative of the
Divine King (see Dan. vii. 18, 27). At other times it was hoped that
God would raise up a sovereign of David's line, by whom aU offenders
would be extirpated from Israel, and aU the heathen would be subdued
(Ps. Sol. xvii. 23 f •)• A third form which the hope of redemption assumed
1 See Mk. i. 44 (referring to Lev. xiv. 2 f.), xii. 36 (referring to Ps. ex.).
2 For such substitution from motives of reverence, see p. 20, For " heavens " of,
Dan. iv. 26.

600 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
was that a Heavenly Man would descend from God, to hold for Him a
universal judgment and to bring all mankind before His bar (Enoch,
Similitudes). After the severance of the wicked from the righteous, and
the consignment of the former to annihilation or to unending tortures,
the latter were to enjoy endless felicity, either on a new earth or in heaven.
Of the expectations here enumerated the one with which that of
Jesus accorded was the last. He looked for a universal judgment (over
which He believed that He Himself would preside), to be foUowed by the
entry of the righteous into the Kingdom of God. Of the nature of the
Kingdom and the sphere where it was to be inaugurated He gave no account ;
and the fact that in speaking about it He used language which is largely
metaphorical leaves His thoughts concerning it very obscure. When
He spoke of many " reclining " (i.e. at a banquet) with the Hebrew patri
archs in the kingdom (Mt. viii. 11 = Lk. xiii. 28), He was clearly employing
a figure of speech and not describing in matter-of-fact terms a scene
that could only be enacted on a material, U a renovated, earth.1 When,
however, He told His Apostles that they should sit on tMones judgmg
the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt. xix. 28 = Lk. xxii. 30), it is not quite
certain whether He thought of them as exercising authority upon earth
or as descending with Him on the clouds as His assessors at the Judgment
and afterwards returning to reign with Him in heaven. As wUl be seen,
there prevailed subsequently in some quarters witMn the CMistian Church
the belief that there would be a reign of Christ on earth for a thousand
years before the final consummation of the existing age and the beginning
of the next (p. 61). But there is no clear hint of a MUlenmum m our
Lord's references to the future ; and what seems to throw most light
upon His thoughts about the hereafter, and suggests that He regarded
the conditions supervening upon the judgment as celestial and spiritual,2
is His declaration that those who should attain to the resurrection from
the dead would neither marry nor be given in marriage but be in heaven
as angels (Mk. xii. 25). To be a denizen of the kingdom is represented
as equivalent to the possession of life (Mk. ix. 43, 45, x. 30) ; but the
idea of corporeal existence, if not excluded, is discountenanced rather
than favoured.
The substance of our Lord's earliest utterances may be fittingly classed
under the head of Eschatology, for in them He announced the nearness
of the kmgdom and of the judgment preliminary to it ; and explamed
the conditions governing human destinies in the approacMng crisis. Of
the actual time when the judgment would take place He disclaimed all
knowledge (Mk. xiii. 32). Nevertheless, He anticipated its occurrence
within the existing generation,3 so that watchfulness was imperative, U
men were not to be taken by surprise, like the servants of a householder
whom their master on returning from a long absence found sleeping (Mk.
1 Cf. Mt. xxii. 1-14 (Parable of the Marriage Feast), Lk. xiv. 15-24.
2 In Hebrew thought, however, "Spirit" was conceived after a semi-physical
fashion, as though it were a rarefied substance ; and St. Paul could speak of a spiritual
l^ody ; see p. 478.
!See Mk. ix, 1, xiii. 30,

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 601
xiii. 34-37). * They should not be misled by the lack of aU outward signs
of what was at hand. Events were movmg towards an inevitable end,
and God was only abiding the opportune moment for intervention, Uke
a husbandman awaiting the right time for harvesting the grain already
sown in the earth (Mk. iv. 26-29). Unseen forces were at work, destined
to cause a momentous change in prevaUing conditions, like leaven mixed
with meal (Mt. xiii. 33 = Lk. xiii. 20-21). And the contrast between
the smaU promise, which, at the time, there seemed to be, of such a reality
as the kmgdom of God and the impressive manifestation of it which
would shortly be witnessed was compared to the contrast observable
between a tiny mustard seed and the tall and spreading plant that springs
from it (Mk. iv. 30-32).
Whether Jesus reaUy gave to His disciples any indications whereby
the approach of the final judgment could be mferred is doubtful. There
is found in Mk. xiii. 5-29 an enumeration of various signs heralding the
event, which is comprised withm a discourse ascribed to our Lord. But
such a recital of premomtory tokens would only have blunted His frequent
counsels to His followers to keep watch, and there are internal reasons
for suspecting that this passage does not reaUy proceed from Him (p. 445).
The eschatological expectations entertained by our Lord, when con
sidered in the light of J experience and of modern conclusions respecting
the earth and the system of which it forms part, appear to have comprised
elements of temporary as weU as of permanent value. It is possible,
indeed, that His meaning was not clearly understood, and that His lan
guage has not been reported accurately ; and that what He uniformly
had in mind was an inward kingdom of pure motives, without any trans
formation of outward circumstances except such as might result from a
change in the human spirit. Nevertheless, it is difficult to suppose that
the expectation of the Lord's near return would have prevailed so widely
in the primitive Church (Jas. v. 8, 1 Pet. iv. 7, 1 Cor. vii. 29, Rom. xiii. 11,
Rev. i. 3) had there been no support for it in the actual teaching of Jesus
Himself.2 But if so, His anticipation that within a generation He would
descend in visible state from heaven to judge the world has been proved
by the subsequent lapse of nearly 2,000 years, within which no such event
has occurred, to have been iUusory. Great cataclysms both physical
and political have, it is true, taken place in the course of those 2,000 years,
which were veritable judgments from God ; but none of them correspond
¦ to the form in which our Lord's predictions about the nature and the
time of the End were couched. And the idea of a visible descent of a
supreme Judge from heaven to earth clearly impUes a pre-Copernicap
theory of the Universe, in which the globe was imagined to be a flat disc
overarched by the sky as a solid vault, above which was the abode of
God ; and like that theory it is no longer tenable. With the substitution
of a heliocentric theory of the solar system, and the disappearance of the
conception of heaven as a locality above men's heads, the idea of CMist's
1 Cf. also ML xxiv. 43-51 (= Lk. xii. 39-46) and Mt. xxv, 1-12 (The Ten Virgins).
2 Cf. Hastings, D.B. ii. p. 635 (Sanday).

602 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
bodily Return from it (like that of His bodUy Ascension to it) needs to
be reformed. When the scenic and dramatic features in the traditional
representation have been discarded, there remains as a permanent element
in it the thought of a spiritual judgment, enacted we know not how, in
which the conduct and motives of men, after death, wiU be scrutinized
impartially and receive their due recompense. Ultimate arraignment
before Divme Justice seems to be a vital factor in any theory of morals
recognizing that the human conscience speaks with authority. Nor have
Jesus' warnings about the shortness of the interval before that judgment,
and the consequent need of watchfuMess, lost their force. Though the
continuance of the world is prolonged, the mdividual Ufe is still short,
and men's souls are often required of them suddenly and unexpectedly
(cf . Lk. xii. 16-21), so that the error in our Lord's eschatological expectations
is of slight importance.
Whilst Jesus said Uttle about the detaUs of the judgment and the
kingdom, He spoke more fuUy concerning the conditions wMch men had
to satisfy in order to sustain the one and gain the other. A mam part
of the burden of His preaching, like John's, was Repentance. There
was, indeed, nothing novel in the declaration that such was needed. It
was universaUy reoognized that to the sms and foUies of the people was
due the delay in their deliverance from calamity ; and it was currently
said that if Israel would repent together for a whole day, the redemption
by Messiah would come.1 But Jesus' idea of the conduct pleasing to
God was more exacting than that of His contemporaries, and the change
of mind (fierdvoia) which He declared to be necessary was more compre
hensive and complete. It was equivalent to entrance upon a new lUe
marked by the docUity, receptiveness, and humUity characteristic of
childhood (Mk. x. 15). In stimulating His hearers to amend their ways,
Jesus had recourse to both warnings and encouragement. On the one
hand, He admonished them that their destinies would be decided, and
their admission into, or exclusion from, the kingdom determined, not by
their professions but by their practice. They would be judged by then
works, as trees by their fruits (Mt. vii. 18-27 = Lk. vi. 43-49) ; and the
worth of their works would be estimated by the spirit which inspired
them. The greatness of the exertions demanded was iUustrated by the
metaphor of a passage along a hampered road and tMough a narrow
gate (Mt. vii. 13-14 = Lk. xiii. 23-24). The neglect of faculties and
opportunities would result in their withdrawal ; (Mt. xxv. 29 = Lk. xix. 26) ;
and the scrutiny would be speedy, sudden, and searching (Mt. v. 25 =
Lk. xii. 58, 59). The perishable treasure of earth must be forgone for
the sake of enduring treasure in heaven a ; but no haU-hearted measures
would avail ; men could not serve both God and their own worldly interests.
Riches, indeed, were calculated, save for God's grace, to render the salva
tion of their Owners impossible. It was better for a man to sacrifice
1 Schtirer, Hist, of the Jewish People, II, ii. 163.
2 Cf. the Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price (ML xiii.
44-46).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 603
any one of his physical members, however precious, than to imperil,
through preserving it, the attainment of true life (Mk. ix. 43-48). On
the other hand, God was both able and wiUing to help men in their
endeavours towards such attainment. Petitions and appeals addressed
to Him were answered (Mt. vii. 7-11 = Lk. xi. 9^13) ; prayer might even
hasten the coming of His Kingdom, and so they were bidden to pray for
it (Mt. vi. 10= Lk. xi. 2 )x ; and He was ready to forgive their offences
and shortcomings, if they, on their part, forgave those of their f eUow-men
(Mt. vi. 12, vii. 1, 2, xviii. 21, 22 = Lk. xi. 4, vi. 37, 38, xvi. 3, 4)3. He
was unwUling that any should perish (Mt. xviii. 12-14 = Lk. xv. 4-7),
for He was more tender and gracious than any human father (Lk. xv.
11-32) . and they who subordinated all earthly considerations to the
desire to reach His Kingdom would find, as birds and flowers could teach,
aU their necessities supplied by Him (Mt. vi. 8, 25-33 = Lk. xi. 9-13,
xii. 22-34, Mt. x. 29-31 = Lk. xii. 6, 7). The Message about the Kingdom,
giving rise to the impulse to seek it, proceeded from Him ; and like a
seed, U its growth was not prevented or counteracted by evil influences,
it would produce in time due result (Mk. iv. 1-20).
It is sometimes represented that the stress laid by Jesus upon the
fatheriiness of God was a new feature in Jewish religious teacMng, and
indeed, constituted the heart of His own revelation about God. Yet in
point of fact, in the Old Testament God is not seldom described as a
Father to Israel, not only in virtue of His relation as Creator (3 Is. lxiv. 8,
Mai. ii. 10) or as its Redeemer from bondage (Dt. xxxn. 6, Hos. xi. 1),
but by reason of His pity, tenderness, and loving-kindness (see 3 7s. Ixiii.
16, Jer. iii. 4, xxxi. 9, Ps. oiii. 13, and cf. Mai. iii. 17) ; and the title also
occurs in the Apocrypha (Wisd. xiv. 3, Ecclus. xxiii. 1, 4, li. 10, Tob. xiii.
4). What Jesus really did was not to introduce a novel conception of
God, but to make a not unfamiliar aspect of Him a more effective motive
for influencing individual conduct. In current thought and practice
God was principaUy viewed as the Father of the nation (though see Wisd.
u. 16), wMlst the loving side of the Divine parenthood was obscured by a
sense of God's transcendent digmty, creating a meticulous fear of infringing
the honour due to Him (cf. Mai. i. 6) ; Jesus, however, sought to lead
men to tMnk of Him as of One in Whom every member of God's People
might repose perfect confidence, just as a child trusts fully Ms earthly
father. Yet there was no lack of sternness in our Lord's teacMng about
God. The measure wMch men meted to others would be returned to
them (Mt. vii. 1, 2 = Lk. vi. 37, 38) ; the unforgiving would be unfor
given ; and the reparation due to fellow-men but not rendered here, would
hereafter be exacted by God to the uttermost (Mk. xi. 25 (cf. Mt. vi. 14,
15), Mt. v. 25, 26 (= Lk. xii. 58, 59) ). The mercy which men desired from

1 The shorter form of the Lord's Prayer found jn Lk. must be more original thfip
the longer in Mt.,ior it is incredible tha£ if the latter were the earher version, it would
have been reduced in compass. In Mt. the Doxology occurs only in the later uncials
E6KL, etc., and in the Lat., the Syr. (cur. pesh. pal.), aud some other versions.
2 Cf . the Parable of the Two Debtors in Mt. xviii. 23-35.

604 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
God, and which He was prepared to show to them, was conditional upon
their displaying Uke compassion to their fellows (Mt. xviii. 21-35). Jesus
thus depicted God's love for mankind as having in view their moral
perfection : in His thought human salvation meant redemption from sin
and its replacement by righteousness and holiness.1 The emphasis put
by popular Christiamty upon God's mercy, without any proportionate
stress upon the stringent terms conditioning it, is a caricature of its Foun
der's attitude, Who insisted that only sin repented of and forsaken was
pardonable, and the sincerity of the repentance and the reformation
would be judged by One Who could read men's hearts. The Gehenna of
fire of wMch He spoke (see Mk. ix. 43-48, Mt. x. 28 = Lk. xu. 5, and cf.
Lk. xvi. 23 f.), even if only a metaphor, must have represented in His
mind a terrible reaUty.
The profound confidence wMch our Lord placed in God's care for
His creatures is one of two factors that must be taken into account in
considering the aspect in wMch He viewed property and wealth. He could
call upon men to lay aside anxiety about the morrow and its needs because
He felt assured that God was fully acquainted with their necessities, and,
if it was for their ultimate weUare, would satisfy them. It was, however,
rendered clear both by other utterances of His (e.g. Lk. xvi. 20, Mt. viii.
34) and by His own actual experiences that God's servants cannot with
perfect certainty and in aU circumstances expect to be sustained or pro
tected by Him in a world wMch He in part governs by physical laws and
in part allows to be controlled by free human agents whose motives are
often evil. God's love for the dutiful and trustful will be reahzed in the
long run ; but it may not be in this stage of existence, but only in the
next. The other factor was the conviction wMch He entertained that
the interval destined to elapse before the crisis wMch was to usher m the
Divine Kingdom would be brief. It was natural that having tMs expecta
tion He should regard the husbanding of possessions and the exercise of
anxious forethought about them as superfluous in an age hastening to its
end. The like anticipation was a motive that led His foUowers after
His death to adopt for a wMle a voluntary form of commumsm (p. 499).
But Jesus, in exhorting men to give and to lend to all who begged or
borrowed, had no thought of promoting an economic revolution, or of
advocating a uniform distribution of wealth (cf. Lk. xii. 13-15). The
notion of transforming the circumstances of eartMy Ufe tiirough a recon
struction of society must have been as far from His mind as was the
notion of disturbing the existing political relations of Judaea and Rome
(Mk. xii. 13-17). All such ideas, even if it is imaginable that they ever
occurred to Him, were precluded by the shortness of the time for putting
them into practice. But though He expected all earthly institutions to
be replaced speedily by a Divine Kingdom supernaturally revealed, it is
not true that Jesus' moral precepts as a whole were only adapted for
the short interim that was expected to precede the end of the present
age. He clearly thought of the Kingdom of God as a realm wherein the
1 Cf. Stevens, Christian Dodrine of Salvation, p. 36.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 605
ruled would be like their Ruler, and where consequently good will and
love would be umversal, though the mamfestation of such quaUties would
presumably take other forms than those peculiar to earthly conditions.
The ethical principles wMch He enjoined He did not deem to be valid
for a brief interval only ; He believed them to. be of absolute and per
manent worth.1
The future feUcity, the attainment of wMch was represented as depen
dent upon obedience, patience, and self-sacrifice in the present was vari
ously represented in its relation to the conditions determimng it, according
to the particular thought which it was desired to emphasize.
(a) Sometimes in order to iUustrate God's justice, it was made to
appear as recompense for service rendered, the reward being graduated
according to desert (Mt. xxv. 14-30, Lk. xix. 11-27).
(b) At other times in order to accentuate God's graciousness the
recompense was depicted as given independently of what is in strictness
due, and as bestowed by way of bounty (Mt. xx. 1-16).
(c) And again occasionally the result secured by the observance of
the Divme commandments, and the sacrifice of everythmg impeding
acMevement of the desired end was described as life (Mk. ix. 43-47), man's
true goal being the perfection wMch marks the living and eternal God
HimseU (cf. Mt. v. 48).
What was distinctive in Jesus' rehgious teaching viewed in detail
wUl be best brought into reUef by comparing it with the ideas and hopes
prevaUing among various sections of His contemporaries. In general,
both national independence and the moral purification of Israel itself
entered into the conception of salvation cherished by the rehgious classes.
The section in wMch selfish and party considerations were uppermost was
that of the Sadducees, who were cMefly interested in safeguarding the
authority and privUeges wMch they enjoyed through their possession of
the priesthood, and who lacked the religious hope inspired by the belief
(wMch they rejected) in a resurrection to another life after death (p. 101).
With them our Lord came into colUsion through the stir which His Per
sonahty and teacMng occasioned among the people, and which seemed to
tMeaten their tenure of power by exciting the suspicions of the Romans.
To another section, which, Uke the Sadducees, pursued poUtical schemes,
though with a different aim from theirs, no reference occurs in the New
Testament, though it looks as if one of Jesus' disciples at one time
belonged to it (Mk. iii. 18, cf. Lk. vi. 15). This was the party of the
Zealots (p. 103), to whose fanatical and reckless patriotism, Jesus' idea
about the Kingdom of God, and the means by which its advent was to be
promoted, was altogether opposed. It is probable that He had their
schemes in mind when He inculcated the principle of non-resistance to
exactions and tyranny,2 wisMng men to understand that the estabUshment
of the Kingdom could never be advanced by violent and bloody enter
prises. With the views of the Pharisees, so far as these were indisposed
1 Cf. Moffatt, Theology of the Gospels, p. 60.
2 That the Fourth Evangelist did not think that Jesus meant the direction in Mt.
v. 39 to be carried out quite hterally appears from what he records in Joh. xviii. 22, 23.

606 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to take up arms against Rome, trusted that God would rescue them
from subjection by some supernatural act, and believed that they could
best hasten His vindication of them by repentance for the past and a
closer adherence to His Laws for the future, Jesus was in accord ; but at
the same time, from their conception of the kind of conduct that would
win, and of the nature of the sins that would forfeit, the Divme approval,
His own convictions diverged widely.
Injustice is Uable to be done to the reUgious sentiments of many
Pharisees if the traits wMch evoked severe denunciation from Jesus are
treated as bemg universal among them, and if spiritual elements are
regarded as altogether absent. They professedly held that participation
in the Kingdom of God was eoatingent upon faithful service ; and that
obstinate sinners, even if of Jewish descent, would be excluded from it,
whilst the righteous of other nations would have a place withm it.1 Never
theless to the preacMng of John the Baptist most of them turned a deaf
ear (cf. Lk. vii. 30), through their Confidence m the prerogatives of their
race 2 ; wMlst between them and Jesus there was even greater variance,
hinging upon a different estimate of God's character.
In the view of the Pharisees at large aU parts of the Law represented
the mind of God, and equally demanded obedience.3 The provisions
relating to the various classes of sacrifices, to the kinds of food that might
or might not be eaten, to the avoidance of ceremomal uncleanness, and to
the measures to be undertaken U it were accidentaUy contracted, were
of Divine origin no less than the commands enjoining moral duties. And
since the written code was not sufficiently comprehensive and precise
to settle all questions that might arise tMough the great variety of human
circumstances, the commands of the Pentateuch had been supplemented
by the oral traditions of the Scribes (p. 97), adhesion to wMch was con
sidered to be a duty as bindmg as obedience to the Law itseU. This
anxious solicitude to carry out the Law to the letter, though it was com
patible, in the finer characters, with true spirituaUty (cf . Mk. xii. 32-34),
was liable to produce among persons of a more ordmary type, results of
a very unsatisfactory kind, (a) It tended to destroy aU sense of the
intrinsic superiority of the etMcal over the ceremomal regulations of the
Law, and even to cause the subordination of the former to the latter when
they came into collision, for it is so much easier to be careful about the
formal rites of rehgion than to cultivate the social virtues or the graces
of character. (6) It fostered the idea that so long as the outward conduct
was beyond censure, the motive that prompted it was negUgible. (c)
The effort to obey a legal system must often have checked spontaneity
of devotion, and impaired the idea wMch men were meant to have of
God's nature, (d) It was apt to oreate in those who succeeded m keeping
the ceremonial Law better than others a feeling of intense self-satisfaction
and a profound contempt for their laxer countrymen (cf. Lk. xviii. 10).
1 Montefiore, Teaching of Jesus, pp. 61, 62, 66.
2 Mt. iii. 9 = Lk. iii. 8.
3 JjTevertheJess the Talmud contains the statement-^" What is hateful to thee do
not to thy neighbour . that is the Law, all the rest is commentary."

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 607
(e) The reputation which accrued to the pious in proportion to their
dUigent practice of the Law was conducive to hyppprisy, since the less
conscientious sought to gam a character for being religious by acts of
formal devotion wMch were belied by the prjnpiples ruling their conduct
in social relations.
Yet if reUgious duty really consists in the strict observance pf a body
of external regulations, of aU of wMch God was the Author, there was
nothing unreasonable in the endeavour to adjust discrepancies or explain
obscurities by the deliberate conclusions reached by learned men ; and
Jesus, in describmg the traditions pf the Scribes as having only human
authority, in contrast to the injunctions of the Law as being the Word
of God (Mk. vU- 9-13), appears, on the surfape, to be showing as much
reverence as the Pharisees fpr the written code with a less practical realiza
tion of the difficulties of its interpretation. But in point of fapt, our
Lord penetrated beneath the letter of the Law to the principle underlying
it. He regarded its coUectiye enactments as designed to express the
will of a Deity Whose supreme attributes were His justice and beneyplence,
and Who sought the true welfare of His creature^ . so that conflicting
regulations ought to be judged by reference to this principle. Imitation
of the Divipe goodness should accordingly be the rule for human conduct ;
and the truest way of honouring God was to serve mankind. This con
viction that love and pity and impartial justice between individuate, were
pharacteristics of God thus became a touphstppe for determining wMch
pf the commands of the Law was mpst important, whenever a collision
occurred between them. Consequently the relief pf human wanjb pr sufferr
ing, and the performance of duties to parents or dependants, took precer
dence oyer the discharge of cerenionial requirements, though these were
to be observed when not overruled by higher considerations (Mk- i- 44,
Mt. xxiii. 23 = Li, xi. 42). FundamentaUy, indeed, the commands of
the Law were as permanent as heaven and earth (Mt. v. 18 x = Lk, xvj, 17) ;
but since inward sincerity was essential to rehgion, cppyentipnal religious
observances were better disregarded if the reahty of the feeling they
purported to express was absent (Mk. p. 19, 20). Eyen social arrangements
wMch had the expUcit sanction pf the Law, if they violated principles
to wMch the facts of human pature bore witness, were open to criticism.
The ideas governing pur Lord's teaching, as compared with those to which
the Sprib.es and Pharisees .attached importance, were illustrated by the
decisions He enunciated in the course of discussions concermng the Sab
bath, defilement, fasting, vows, and divorce.
(a) Rest from work on the Sabbath was prescribed in the earliest
code of the Pentateuch as well as in the latest (see Ex. xx. 8-11, xxiii. 12
(E), xxxiv. 21 (J), Lev, xxiii, 3 (P), apd enforced fey a narrative recounting
how a man who gathered fuel on that day was put to death by Divine
sanction (Num. xv. 32-t36, .see p. 386). Moreover, in latpr Jewish history
the scrupulousness with wMch pious Jews observed the injunction was
1 In view of the context it seems necessary to regard the words lois dv vdvra. yivjjrai
as a gloss on " till heaven and earth pass away " (cf. MdNeile, St. Mt. p. 59).

608 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
strikingly exemplified by an incident in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes
(p. 32). The prohibitions of Sabbath work contained in the Law had
been elaborated by the Scribes ; and though it does not appear that
necessary labour on the Sabbath was forbidden (see Lk. xm. 15), yet every
concession was hampered by restrictions. By our Lord the obligation of
the Sabbath rest, imposed as it was by a Law wMch He as well as they
regarded as of Divine origin (Mk. vii. 13), was not demed ; but when the
Pharisees complained that His disciples were breaking the Sabbath by
plucking ears of corn on that day, He refused to subordinate to the Scribes'
interpretation of the commandment the duties of mercy and humamty ;
and was able to cite precedents wMch His opponents were forced to
recogmze (p. 386). He might, indeed, have appealed to the principle
expressly represented as dictating the rule of the Sabbath rest m the
earliest of the Pentateuchal codes, namely, that it was designed to secure
repose and refreshment for all who laboured, and consequently ought
in no way to be an impedUnent to the relief of human necessities (see
Ex. xxiii. 12 (E) ; contrast xxxi. 12-17 (P) ). But though He did not
actually go beMnd the later precepts of the Law to the regulations of an
earlier time which were marked by a different spirit, He affirmed the
principle imphcit in them, namely, that the Sabbath was intended to
be a blessing and not a burden, by declaring that the Sabbath was made
for man and not man for the Sabbath. And later when He saw in the
synagogue on the Sabbath a man with a withered hand, He did not, as
He might have done, bid Mm come to Him on the next day (smce the
case was not urgent), but healed Mm on the spot. On neither occasion
did He repeal the Law of the Sabbath x ; but when the prophetic principle
was at stake that God desUed mercy and not sacrifice (Hos. vi. 2) our
Lord did not hesitate to reassert it.
(b) A conspicuous feature of rehgious practice amongst the Jews was
the habit of frequent ablutions both of the person and of utensils in order
to remove causes of ceremomal defilement (Mk. vu. 3, 4). TMs usage
had its origin in the beUef, transmitted frOm primitive times, that various
objects (such as a human corpse or the bodies of certain beasts and reptiles)
were sources of mysterious danger wMch infected all persons and things
that came in contact with them, and wMch could be commumcated
through touch by these to others (see Num. xix. 11, Lev. xi. 24 f .).' Where
contamination was known to have been mcurred, particular rites of puri
fication were prescribed ; but besides such occasional lustrations, regular
washings were practised with a view to counteracting inadvertent defile
ment. The conception of uncleanness wMch such washings presupposed
was essentially external, and to tMs our Lord's view of what constituted
defilement was diametrically opposed. So when wonder was expressed
that His disciples ate bread with "defiled" hands, He declared that
real pollution came not from without but from witMn and had its seat m
1 For instances in the earhest sources of Jesus' observance of the Law and His
inculcation of obedience to it see Mk. i. 44, xiv. 12, Mt. v. 18 (= Lk. xvi. 17), xxiii.
23 (= Lk. xi. 42) ; of. also Mt. xxiii. 2, 3, xvii. 27.
3 See Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 446 f.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 609
the heart, whence evil thoughts had their origm. What caused a man to
be defiled in the sight of God was nothing external wMch could be removed
by outward purification, but an inward disposition of the will, deliberately
harbouring the maUgn suggestions to which human nature was Uable.
The spirit of man (He imphed) could only be poUuted by spiritual f ouMess ;
and in the Ught of such a principle, contact with anything physical, clean
or unclean, became reUgiously a matter of indifference (Mk. vii. 14-23).
(c) In the Mosaic Law a single annual fast was enjoined, namely on
the Day of Atonement, to wMch at a later age others were added in com
memoration of certain signal calamities sustained by the Jewish people
(Zech. vU. 5, viii. 19) ; wMlst in our Lord's time there were also two
weekly fasts. The fact that there existed in the Law an expUcit direction
to fast on a particular occasion makes it difficult to suppose that our
Lord was altogether opposed to fasting by rule. But the multiplication
of fasts was based on the belief that self-mortification in itself gave satis
faction to God, and averted His wrath ; and tMs tended to impair the
sincerity of the reUgious Ufe, wherem the external manifestation of joy
or sorrow should correspond to the inward emotions. Hence Jesus
defended His disciples for their non-observance of the fasts practised
by the Pharisees and the followers of John the Baptist, on the ground
that such were not in consonance with the sense of joyous satisfaction
wMch His foUowers derived from His presence among them. Nevertheless
Jesus recogmzed that reUgion appealed differently to various tempera
ments ; and that the asceticism of John the Baptist, so far as it was a
gemrine token of humility and pemtence, had, no less than His own less
austere manner of life, its defence and justification (Mt. xi. 16-19 = Lk.
vii. 31-35).
(d) The tendency of the Scribes to promote (as they imagined) the
honour of God even at the cost of annulUng and destroying the most
solemn obUgation subsisting between men led them to decide that if any
one vowed to God something wMch might otherwise have been applied
to the relief or comfort of Ms nearest relations, the vow held good ; and
the mere fact that by a hasty word some property of value had been
dedicated to sacred purposes, was held to prevent it from being used for
any other. TMs ruling, which rated the formal service of God higher
than the service rendered to Him through the discharge of family and
other human obUgations, was declared by our Lord to amount to the
cancelling of a divine commandment by a human regulation. The teach
ing of the Scribes, though designed to conserve God's dignity, really
derogated from it, since it subordinated the performance of a duty, having
for a moral God a Mgh value, to an offering wMch for Him could be of
no intrinsic worth.
(e) A declaration respecting divorce was obtained from Jesus through
an effort made by the Pharisees to induce Him to give a decision on a
question wMch was debated between the supporters of two Rabbis,
Hillel and Shammai. The Law enacted that adultery on the part of a
woman should be ptmished by her execution, her paramour bemg put to
death with her (Dt. xxii. 22, cf. Lev. xx. 10, Joh. viii. 5) ; and in such a
39

610 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
case the wronged husband was free to marry again. The Law also allowed
a man to put away Ms wife " because he had found some imseeinly tinhg in
heT," the divorced woman, and a fortiori the husband, being permitted
to marry a second time (Dt. xxiv. 1, 2). There was thus no room for
dispute that divorce was permitted by the Mosaic Law ; but the Law
did not explain what was meant by " some unseemly tinhg," wMch was
interpreted by the disciples of Shammai to sigmfy unchastity only, but
by those of Hillel to cover trivial offences.1 Jesus, in givmg His decision,
restricted divorce further than even the school of Shammai, and asserted
that the right of divorce was only a concession to men's hardness of heart ;
according to the original purpose of God, as implied in Gen. n. 27, marriage
was indissoluble (Mk. x. 11, Lk. xvi. 18).
The principle affirmed by Jesus was reasserted by St. Paul as regards marriages
where both parties were Christians, for he directed (and expressly affirmed that his
direction was the Lord's) that a wife was not to depart from her husband (if she did,
she was to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to him) and that a husband should
not leave his wife (1 Cor. vii. 10, cf. Rom. vii. 2—3). But where one of the partners
was an unbeliever, and left the other, the Apostle seems to have modified the com
prehensive principle laid down by the Lord, and declared (1 Cor. vii. 15) that the
believing partner was not under bondage in such cases (i.e. apparently was not bound
to consider the union permanent, but was free to marry again). But even in respect
of marriage subsisting between professing Christians, it might be contended, in view
of our Lord's habit of making comprehensive statements requiring qualifications
suggested by reflection and experience (p. 598), that TTia assertion of the indissolubility
of marriage presented an ideal 2 which, in view of the actual conditions of life, could
not be Uniformly maintained ; and that where departures from it were expedient, the
circumstances in which they were admissible must be left (at least for Christians) to
the Christian society to determine. This seems to be the explanation of the addition
with which the First Evangehst (Mt. v. 32, xix. 9) qualifies the prohibition of divorce
and remarriage in Mk. x. 11, the inserted clause " except for fornication " representing
the judgment 6i the contemporary Church as to one, though the sole, ground upon
which a marriage might be dissolved and seemingly remarriage sanctioned. If so,
the Evangehst, or those whose opinions he expresses, held the same view as the school
of Shammai. It is difficult to account quite satisfactorily for Mt.'s use of irapenrbs
Xbyov iropvelas and jiij iTl Topvela, where jxoixelas and jioixelif might be expected,
but it seems more natural to assume that the term employed is meant to embrace
post-nuptial, as well as pre-nuptial, unchastity than to confine it to the latter only
(which cannot be supposed to be worse than the former), or to take it to mean prosti
tution in the strict sense (cf. Hos. ii. 5).3
TMs brief comparison will suffice to tiirow mto reUef the different way
in which the contemporary leaders of rehgion and our Lord viewed rehgious
problems, and to exemplify how remote the spUit of Jesus was from the
rigid but casmstic legalism of the Pharisees.
It has been seen that m the early utterances of our Lord the Kingdom of
God was a reahty expected to be mamfested in the future. This is clear
not only from the announcement with which His mmistry opened, that
1 The supporters of Hillel included among adequate causes of divorce even such a
trifle as burning the husband's food. (Driver, Dt. p. 270.)
2 Cf . the idealistio, but generally impracticable, principles enunciated in Mt. v.
33-12, vii. 1.
3 For discussions of, the whole question, issuing in conflicting conclusions, see
Charles, The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce ; Chase, What did Christ teach
about Divorce?

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 611
the Kingdom was at hand (rjyyixev f\ BaoiXela rov deov),1 but also from
the fact that men were bidden to pray for its coming (Mt. vi. 10 = Lk. xi. 2).
In strictness, however, the term rj fiaaiXeia rov deov means God's " reign "
rather than God's " realm," so that a commumty yielding present obedience
to God amidst an evU world would constitute a " Kingdom " of God. Such
a Kingdom was, in idea, to be looked for in the Jewish people as a race,
since they in a degree beyond the other nations of the earth were acquainted
with the Divine reqmrements. The great majority of them, however, so
far from receiving Jesus as a messenger from God, empowered to instruct
them, forced Him to withdraw from their synagogues and sought His life.
In these tircumstances He began to despair of savmg His countrymen
as a whole ; and it was in the small band of disciples, who witMn the racial
Israel adhered to Him and accepted His teaching, that He saw the spiritual
and essential Israel of God. TMs conception seems to be implied in the
choice of Twelve, corresponding to the number of the Israelite tribes
(cf. Mt. xix. 28 = Lk. xxu. 30), to be His intimate companions and
missioners (Mk. m. 14, vi. 30). The same idea underUes the term ecclesia,
wMch, though witMn the Gospels it is only found in Mt. xvi. 18, xviii. 17.
(see p. 612), yet from its currency amongst His followers, immediately
after His death, would seem to have been employed by Hmi. The word
occurs in the LXX as one of the renderings (the other being Synagoge) of
the Hebrew terms 'eddh and kahal, both meamng " assembly," especiaUy
of the IsraeUte people ; and since the assembly of Israel was represented
as the Lord's assembly (Dt. xxui. 2, Mic. ii. 5, cf . Neh. xm. 1, Eeclus. xxiv.
2), it was probably in consequence of this that Jesus adopted it to denote
the body of His followers. These, as already conforming to the laws of the
future Kingdom, could be regarded as potentially included in it ; indeed,
since, so far as the influence of Jesus was mamfest in an inward change of
heart,2 it was evident that the Kingdom of God in the sense of His acknow
ledged sovereignty was aheady present, at least witMn a narrow circle.
Although it was not yet consummated as it was designed to be in the
future, the first stages of its realization were actuaUy accomplished. Its
potency was active in HUnself, and was mamfested by His control over
demon powers (Mt. xu. 28 = Lk. xi. 20). And if the Kingdprp was
regarded as having its visible inception on earth in the coUective body of
Jesus' disciples, it becomes inteUigible how one as great as John the
Baptist could be pronounced to be not, as yet, included within it.
Over tMs " Assembly of God " (cf. Acts xx. 28) the Apostles can have
exercised no authority during theU Master's hfetime on earth ; they only
enjoyed a closer intimacy with Him and the privilege of fuller instruction
(Mk. iv. 10, 11, 34, vii. 17, x. 10) than the rest. They were, like Jesus
HimseU, preachers of repentance and healers of disease ; and the name
"Apostle " had reference to theU being " sent forth " in these capacities
1 For other passages implying that the kingdom was in the future see Mt. viii.
11 = Lk. xiii. 25, Mk. xiv. 25.
2 Cf . Lk. xvii. 21. In the only other passage in the N. T, where ivrbs occurs, it
means " within " and not " among " (see ML xxiii. 26), though it has the latter
sense in various passages of classical authors.

612 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(Inolrjaev SibSexa . . . iva cmoar&XXrj avrovg xrjgtiaaEiv), the word being
thus equivalent to "envoys " or " emissaries." Nevertheless, in the choice
and appointment of these there was the germ of an orgamzation wMch
came into existence after Jesus' death ; and even wMlst Jesus lived
the body of His followers entered upon its career as a society. Though
stiU witMn the pale of Judaism, it was marked by attachment to One
whom the reUgious leaders of the people rejected, and by the adoption
of His rule of Ufe. Inclusion in tMs Society (forming a sphere witMn wMch
certain qualities of character, fitting men for admission into the con
summated Kingdom, could develop) was probably accompamed by
submission to the rite of Baptism. It is not actually stated in the earliest
documents, Mk. and Q, that tMs was enjoined by Jesus upon His foUowers.
But He HimseU had been baptized by John ; and, inasmuch as the tenor
of His earUest preaching was the same as John's (cf. Mk. i. 15 with Mt. iii.
2), it seems most likely that He required of those whom He moved to
repentance the same symboUcal act of immersion in water (cf . Mk. i. 4, 5, 8).
Indeed, the circumstance that after our Lord's death the Apostles regularly
baptized those whom they won over to their own faith finds its natural
explanation in the supposition that they had previously been accustomed
to practise the rite by Jesus' own direction.1 Whether any, and U so,
what, form of words was used with it cannot be ascertained ; but it seems
most Ukely that baptism " into the name of Jesus " came into use after,
rather than before, His death, for it imphed an acknowledgment on the
part of the baptized that they accepted Jesus as the Messiah of prophecy,
and Jesus did not openly claUn to be the Messiah until shortly before
His death (see p. 616), and was finaUy demonstrated to be such (in the
belief of His foUowers) only by His resurrection from the dead (cf . Acts ii.
32-36, Rom. i. 4).
The conclusion that Jesus probably used the term iKKXijala in connexion with
the body of His followers is supported (as has been said) by the employment of it,
after His death, by His Apostles ; but that the actual utterances containing it which
are found in Mt. xvi. 18, xviii. l7 are authentic is difficult to beheve. In the case of
the second passage its genuineness seems improbable in view of the authority implicitly
ascribed to the iKKXijala ; for the Christian brotherhood is not likely to have exercised
such authority over its individual members so long as Christ was with it. The infer
ence seems reasonable that the whole section (ML xviii. 15—20) " in its present form
belongs to a date when the Church was already an organized Body." 2 This is con
firmed by the language of v. 20, which clearly has in view Christ's spiritual Presence
with His Church8 (cf. 1 Gor. v. 4). The section Mt. xvi. 17-19 is even less likely to
have proceeded from our Lord. It seems impossible to suppose that if a pre-eminent
position among the Apostles had really been given to St. Peter by his Master as is here
imphed, there could have arisen between them later any dispute as to which of them
was the greatest (Mk. ix. 34). The passage seems to reflect the position and leadership
which St. Peter acquired amongst the disciples after the Crucifixion, by reason partly
of his tendency to take the initiative (Mk. viii. 29, ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 29, cf . Joh. xviii. 10)
and partly of his being the first to see the Risen Jesus (1 Gor. xv. 5) and the influence
1 Cf . Headlam, The Doctrine of the Church, pp. 39, 40.
' McNeile, St. Matt., p. 266.
8 This seems to negative the idea that our Lord by the Ecclesia in this passage
meant the local Jewish Ecclesia to which both the offender and the offended belonged
(Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 10).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 613
which he in consequence probably exercised upon his companions (cf . Lk. xxii. 32) ;
and, like ML xviii. 17, it points (v. 19) to a time when the Church was an organized
community, wherein St. Peter, with the rest of the Apostles (cf. Mt. xviii. 18), was the
dispenser of the spiritual blessings with which the Church was entrusted, determined
who should be admitted into it, and decided what its members might or might not do.1
That Jesus adopted Baptism as a symbolic rite from the precedent set by John is
probable, since His doing so accounts for the subsequent practice of the Early Church
(Acts ii. 38) ; but the particular injunction ascribed to Him in Mt. xxviii. 19, that the
Apostles should make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is difficult to reconcile with the evidence
of Acts, (a) It is impossible to think that if such a command had been given, there
would have been any question about baptizing Gentiles (Acts x. 47), or that surprise
could have been expressed that God had granted to the Gentiles repentance unto hfe
(Acts xi. 18). (6) It is less easy to suppose that a command to baptize into tbe name
of the Trinity was by the Early Church disregarded, and baptism into the name of
Jesus (Acts viii. 16, xix. 5) substituted in its stead, than that the Trinitarian formula
eventually in Church practice replaced the formula containing only the name of Jesus
Christ.2 A not improbable conclusion is that the present text of Mt. xxviii. 19 is
designed to give the sanction of Christ to contemporary ecclesiastical usage ; but
since a number of passages in the historian Eusebius reproduce the verse in question
in the form wopevBivres jiaBijrevo-are iravra rd iBvij iv rip bvbjuarl juov, it has been
inferred by several scholars that this last was the original reading in ML,3 though
there are no variations in the existing MSS., and though in certain passages Eusebius
quotes our Lord's command in the famihar form.
The earUest Synoptic accounts of our Lord's Ufe thus make it clear
that at first He conceived the Kingdom of God to include in general
only His own countrymen.4 Though qmte early in His mimstry it was
evident that the Pharisees were hostUe to Him, and, as being the most
influential sect, were certain to carry numbers of the populace with them
in their opposition to Him, yet He appears never to have preached outside
His own land, and it was only from Jews that He constituted the society
that was to be a traimng-school for the Kingdom of God.5 That He
contemplated that Gentiles would find a place in the Kingdom is, indeed,
apparent from at least one passage in the earliest sources (see Mt. viii.
11, 12 = Lk. xui. 28, 29). But in view of His declarations about the
permanence of the obUgation of the Law — see Mt. v. 18 ( = Lk. xvi. 17)
and cf. Mt. xxin. 23 ( = Lk. xi. 42) — it must be supposed that He looked
forward to their inclusion as proselytes of Judaism, through acceptance
of the Law (interpreted in the Ught of His own spiritual teacMng). In
one parable, it-is true, viz. that of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mk. xii. 1-12),
He appears, at first sight, to represent the Kingdom of God as destined
to be transferred from the Jews to the GentUes ; but probably the predicted
1 This is the sense of ML xvi. 19 ; the keys are those carried by the steward in the
Divine household (cf. Is. xxii. 22, Rev. iii. 7) and are thus a figure for administrative
authority ; whilst " to bind " and " to loose " signify to forbid and to allow respectively
and stand for the exercise of legislative authority.
2 The Teaching of the XII Apostles has both Bairrtfeiv els bvop-a Uarpbs Kal Tlov
Kal 'Ayiov TLvevjuiros and/3, els Svopia Kvplov (ch. vii., ix.).
8 Cf. Foakes-Jackson and Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I. pp. 335-7.
On the other hand see J.T.S., July, 1905, pp. 481-572.
1 In the First Gospel Jesus is represented as expressly forbidding the Apostles
to go either to the Samaritans or to the Gentiles (x. 5, cf . v. 23).
6 In ML viii. 12 the Jews are " the sons of the kingdom," i.e. the original heirs.
St. Paul calls Jesus a minister of (i.e. to) the Circumcision (Rom. xv. 8).

614 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
transfer is not from the Jews to the Gentiles, but from the religious leaders
of the Jews to others of their compatriots whom they despised (see p. 438).
The prediction in Mk. xiii. 10 that the Gospel was to be preached to
" all the nations " occurs in a passage wMch probably comes from an
independent Apocalypse reflecting conditions of the Apostohc age (p. 445 f.).
Nevertheless, Jesus' discrhmnation between the values of the Ceremonial
and the moral Law reaUy cut at the root of the distinction between Jew
and Gentile, and paved the way for the recogmtion that God would
judge each by an etMcal standard, independently of the ritual provisions
of the Mosaic Law.
It is now desirable to consider the Personahty of Jesus, so far as it is
revealed through His own teacMng preserved in Mk. and Q, or, in other
words, the Christology of the earhest Gospel records. If, as seems prob
able, the narrative of the Baptism is based on intimations conveyed by Jesus
HimseU to His disciples, it is apparent that our Lord beUeved. HimseU to
have been endued with the Divine Spirit prior to, and in preparation for,
His ministry. And it was certainly through the Spirit of God that He
shortly afterwards claimed to cast out demons, in contradiction to the
assertion of the Scribes that He expeUed them tMough the power of
Beelzebul (or Satan). To a spirit from God was attributed by the Hebrews
generally any extraordinary faculty, or even any unusual conduct (madness
not excepted).* But what was pre-eminently regarded as marking the
presence of the Divine Spirit was the endowment distinctive of the class
of prophets, including not only those who were ecstatics (Num. xi. 25,
1 Sam. x. 10), but also those who, as rehgious teachers, reasoned with theU
countrymen in the name of God (2 Is. xlvm. 16, 3 7s. lxi. 1). There had
appeared, however, no prophet for many generations until the emergence
from the wilderness of John the Baptist ; and it was as a prophet that
Jesus also both described HimseU and was described by the multitudes
(Mk. vi. 4, 15, viii. 28, cf. Mt. xxi. 11, 46, Lk. vn. 6, xiii. 33, xxiv. 19).2
But wMlst Jesus spoke of Himself as a prophet, He had felt sure, ever
since the occasion when He came to John and was baptized by Mm, that
He was sometMng more, that He stood in a closer relation to God, not
only than ordinary men, but even than the inspired order of prophets —
that He was, m fact, the Messiah, 6 Xgiarog, of whom these had spoken.
So far as it is at all possible to penetrate into our Lord's self-consciousness,
and to follow the development of His thoughts, an attempt has already
been made to indicate the source of such a conclusion, wMch seems to
have had its origin in a pre-eminent sense of SonsMp (p. 366). There were,
however, two conceptions of the Messiah. The one was that of a national
sovereign of Davidic stock, with whom the title was usually, though not
exclusively, associated. The other was that of a celestial Being who would
descend from God to judge the world, and who, though for the most part
1 See Judges xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14, Ex. xxxi. 3, xxxv. 31, 1 Sam. xvi. 14.
2 So too in Joh. iv. 19, vi. 14 (Ads iii. 22, vii. 37). The usual title, however, by
which He was addressed, or alluded to, by His immediate disciples and by others was
the Aramaic Rabbi, or its Greek equivalents SiSdo-KaXos or iiriaTdrns (" Teacher," cf.
Joh. i. 38)— see Mk. iv. 38, v. 35, ix. 5, 17, x. 17, 20, 51, xi. 21, etc., Lk. ix. 33.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 61 S
caUed in the Apocalyptic work (the Similitudes of Enoch) that predicted His
coming, " the Son of man," was yet also designated God's " Anointed,"
or Messiah (see Enoch xlyui. 10). The difference between the two con
ceptions was wide, and it would appear that both occurred to Jesus'
mmd, and that it was only after an intense spiritual struggle that it
became clear to Him what kind of destiny God had in store for Him.
The nature of tMs conflict is summarized under vivid symbolism in
the story of the Temptation. After Jesus had overcome promptings to
test the truth of His Divine Sonship by seeing whether He could work a
miracle in reUef of His own physical needs, or whether God would perform
one for Him, U in reUance upon Divine protection He placed Himself in
a position of perU, there presented itself to Him the role of the Messiamc
King, reducing to subjection the GentUe nations. When this suggestion
was repeUed by Hhn as another enticement from Satan, there remained
the alternative that in God's design He was intended to discharge the
function of the Son of man who should descend from heaven as the Judge
of mankind. But in the prophecy describing such a Son of man there was
no allusion to His prior appearance on earth, unaccompanied by the glory
that was to mark His descent from the skies. It may be conjectured,
then, that the disparity between His lowly estate in the present and the
digmty that He anticipated would be His in the near future created in
His mind some doubt, probably not about the truth of His conclusion,
but about the issue of His earthly existence, if He were really the Messiah
in person, but not yet in function ; and so caused Him to withhold for
some time His thoughts about Himself and His destiny even from His
most intimate disciples, And though, in reply to the Baptist's inqmry
" Art thou He that should come ? " (Mt. xi. 2 f . = Lk. vii. 18 1), He
referred to His works as affording a due wMch would enable John to
answer Ms own question, yet in point of fact the response must have left
the inquirer stUl in the dark as to who Jesus really was.
In view of Jesus' reticence about His being more than a prophet, and His repression
of the demoniacs and other sufferers when they addressed Him as the Son of God
(Mk. iii. 11, 12), a problem is occasioned by the fact that even in the earhest Gospel
records, Mk. and Q, He is represented as using the Messianic title " Son of man " in
connexion with Himself at a stage in His ministry when He appears to have been
desirous of concealing from the world the truth about Himself. The passages in the
Second Gospel and in Q where Jesus, either certainly or probably, before the avowal
of His Messiahship to TTia Apostles at Csesarea Philippi, styles Himself the " Son of
man " are the following : — .
Mk. ii. 10, 28.
Q— ML viii. 20 (= Lk. ix. 58), xi. 19 (= Lk. vii. 34), xii. 32 (== Lk. xii. 10), xii. 40
(== Lk. xi. 30).
It may also be noticed that in Mk. v. 19, He is represented as referring to Himself
as the Lord (b Kvpios).
In the following parallel passages derived from Q, the title under discussion appears
in only one of the Gospels : — ¦
Mt, v. 11 (" for my sake ") = Lk. vi. 22 (" for the Son of man's sake ").
ML x. 32 (" me ... I ") = Lk. xii. 8 (" me . . . the Son of man ").
Possibly the explanation of the early use of the name " Son of man " by Jesus in
relation to Himself is that He knew acquaintance with the prophecies of Enoch to be
so hmited that this title did not really divulge His thoughts about His destiny ; or
that, if any should surmise what He meant, the surmise would seem too plainly

616 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
contradicted by His external circumstances to be seriously harboured (cf. p. 460).
But there is also the possibihty that the problem is really occasioned by the fact that
the New Testament writers have carried back into the earher ministry a phrase really
only used by Jesus at a later period, and that in the passages cited above from Mk.
and Q, " the Son of man " has replaced a different phrase. An examination of them
shows that the sense is not injured by the substitution in some places of the pronoun
" I " and in others of " man " (in the generic sense of the term). Thus : —
(a) In Mk. ii. 10 the objection of the Pharisees that none could forgive sins but God
was a denial that a man could forgive sins unless he could produce proof that he was
acting as God's representative. Such proof would be the working of a sign, this being
evidence of prophetic authority (Dt. xviii. 22). Jesus accepted the imphed challenge,
and His words would have been in keeping with the situation if He had said, " But
that ye may know that I have authority on earth to forgive sins."
(6) In Mk. ii. 28 the sense is improved if it is supposed that Jesus' words were " so
that man is lord even of the Sabbath ; which (as is stated in the previous verse) was
instituted for his advantage.1
(c) In Mt. viii. 20 (= Lk. ix. 58) the supposition that Jesus said " I " and not " the
Son of man " leaves the meaning unaffected whilst rendering it more lucid.
(d) In ML xi. 19 (= Lk. vii. 34) the same supposition leaves the sense undisturbed.
(e) In Mt. xii. 32 (= Lk. xii. 10) it may be suspected that " the Son of man " has
been mistakenly substituted for " a son of man " (= a man), which in Q was the
equivalent of " the sons of men " (== men) in the parallel passage, Mk. iii. 26.
(/) The occasion of this saying (ML xii. 39, 40 = Lk. xi. 29, 30), which is reproduced
in Mt. with what is probably a gloss on Jesus' actual words (p. 415), is placed by the
First Evangehst prior to the confession at Caesarea Phihppi ; but by the Third it is
put after it. If Luke's arrangement is correct, the use here of " the Son of man " does
not require explanation.
In regard to Mk. v. 1.9, the term b Kvpios is ambiguous, and need mean no more
than " the Master " (see ML x. 24 = Lk. vi. 40).
The journey to Csesarea PMHppi saw in Jesus a new departure m
regard to His self-disclosure, for there He purposely evoked from St.
Peter the confession that he and his fellow Apostles beheved Him to be
the Christ ; and He tacitly confirmed the correctness of their behef,
though commanding them to keep it to themselves. The title " CMist "
is the Greek equivalent of " Messiah," wMch is a Hebrew participle
(Mashiah) sigmfying " Anointed," the Hebrew term being apphed in the
Old Testament not only to kings like Saul and David, and to the High
Priest (Lev. iv. 3, 16, and probably Dan, ix. 25, 26), each of whom was
anointed in a literal sense, but also to others, such as the Hebrew patriarchs,
the collective Israehte people, and even the Elamite Cyrus, who could
all be considered to be consecrated to God for service in general or for
some particular mission.2 The Apostles in calling Jesus the Christ
probably meant that He was the Messiamc King of Hebrew prophecy
(p. 23), for there seems no adequate reason for doubting that He was
reaUy known by them to be of the family of David (p. 358) ; but Jesus
Himself most likely accepted the title in the same sense as it is used of
the Son of man in Enoch xlviii. 10. After His avowal that they were
justified in styling Him the Christ, He no longer maintained the same
attitude of reserve about Himself and His future destiny as He had
manifested previously. For shortly afterwards, before the multitude,

1 Foakes- Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, Part I. pp. 378-9.
2 See Ps. ov. 14, xxviii. 8, 2 Is. xlv. 1.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 617
He declared that whosoever should for His sake lose Ms life, should save
it ; and that whoso should be ashamed of Him and His teaching! of Mm
the Son of man should be ashamed when He should come in the glory of
His Father (Mk. viii. 35, 38, cf. Mt. x. 32, 33 ( = Lk. xii., 8, 9) ) ; and His
words could scarcely leave in those who heard Him much doubt that by
" the Son of man " He really meant Himself. A claim to men's devotion
superior to the claims of their nearest and dearest finds expression in a
statement reported in Mt. x. 37-39 ; and though the particular phrase
hsxev i/uov is absent from the parallel in Lk. xiv. 26, 27, the sense is
not substantially different. Other scarcely veiled disclosures of His
consciousness of being an altogether exceptional Personality appear in
His declaration that the fate of cities that had ignored His call to repentance
would in the judgment be worse than that of Tyre and Sidon (Mt. xi.
21, 22 = Lk. x. 13, 14), and in His assertion that in Him was a greatness
surpassing that of Jonah and of Solomon (Mt. xii. 41, 42 = Lk. xi. 31, 32).
But even more significant than any of the utterances just cited was that
wMch is preserved in Mt. xi. 27 ( = Lk. x. 22), " All tMngs have been
dehvered unto me by my Father, and no one knoweth the Son save the
Father, neither doth any know the Father save the Son, and he to whomso
ever the Son wiUeth to reveal Him."1 The words " all things have been
dehvered unto me " are most reasonably interpreted by the sentences
that follow, and understood to mean that He was given a perfect compre
hension of the Father's thoughts and purposes, so far as these concerned
the salvation of mafikind, and that He was in consequence the channel
of a complete revelation of God. By the words " no one knoweth the Son
save the Father," He probably had in view the fact that men in general
had been bUnd to the truth about Him ; only the Father HimseU knew
Him to be His Son. The claim to exclusive knowledge of God asserted
in the concluding clause must not be pressed to the length of supposing
that Jesus demed that God had previously revealed Himself to the Hebrew
prophets and others in varying measures (Am. iU. 7, cf. Heb. i. 1). But a
process of Divine seU-disclosure throughout previous Mstory had now
attained its culmination, and Jesus was conscious of having a supreme
insight into the essential character of God, amongst whose attributes He
discerned a quaUty of sympathy which would shrink from no seU-saerifice
for a meet end ; so that where there was failure to understand the duty of
self-sacrifice there was failure to enter into the mind of God (cf. Mk. vni.
32, 33). 2
Eventually, when near the close of His ministry Jesus entered Jeru
salem, He adopted for the moment the conception of the Messiah entertained
by the Apostles, though with a difference. He pubhcly assumed the
character of David's royal descendant, alluded to in Scriptural prophecies ;
but He appeared only as the King portrayed in 2 Zech. ix. 9, who is depicted
1 In Mt. some Patristic writers have or imply obSels iyvw rbv Xiaripa el iiAj b libs,
obSi rbv Tlbv el jirj b Ilarrjp Kal $ idv BovXrjrai b Tibs diroKaXvfai. When the clauses
are thus transposed, the object of dvoKaXv^/ai must be eavrbv, " Himself " (not as in
the generally received reading, abrbv, ' the Father ").
2 Cf. Moffatt, Theol. of the Gospds, pp. 106, 107.

618 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
not as a warrior riding in his pride upon a war-horse, but as lowly and
seated upon an ass, the ammal of peace.1 Yet that He felt Himself to
have a claim to eminence Mgher than any that mere descent from David
could confer was shown by His subsequently bidding the Scribes explain
the words in Ps. ex. 1, which were popularly attributed to David himseU
(Mk. xii. 35, 36), and in wMch the Psalmist refers to the Messiah as
" my Lord." And finally before the Sanhedrin, when asked whether
He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, He repUed that He was, but
revealed what kind of function and digmty was in His mind associated
with the title by adding that His judges would see Him sitting at the
right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mk. xiv. 61, 62).a
Thus, though born in a lowly station, meek under maltreatment, and an
inculcator of humUity, He did not shrink from declaring Himself to be
the Heavenly Messiah, the future Judge of mankmd.
There is no expUcit assertion in the earhest records that the Son of
God, before His appearance on earth, existed from etermty with the
Father; any conclusion respecting His pre-existence (so far as these
records are concerned) must rest upon the passage (Mt. xi. 27 ( = Lk. x. 22) )
just considered. That Jesus' knowledge of the Divine counsels did not
carry with it complete ommscience is expressly impUed in Mk. xm. 32,
and may be inferred from other evidence (Mk. v. 30, vi. 38). Further
light is tMown upon His thoughts about His relation to God by His words
to the inquirer who desired to know how to gain eternal Ufe. When the
latter saluted Him with the address, " Good Teacher," Jesus rephed,
" Why callest thou me good ? None is good save one, even God " (Mk. x.
17-22). The comment showed that He drew a distinction between His
own character, pure as it was, and the transcendent hoUness of God, not
by reason, so far as we know, of His having any sense of actual sm, biit
because He felt Himself exposed to the assaults of temptation, whereas God
was incapable of being tempted by evU (Mt. iv. 1 f . ( = Lk. iv. 1 f .), Mk. vm.
33, cf. Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15, contrast Jas. i. 13). Nor was He devoid of some
of the weaknesses inseparable from man's fleshly constitution. When
confronted with the prospect of a violent end, He experienced the intense
shrinMng from suffering and death to wMch humamty is so Uable (Mk. xiv.
35, 36). And finally on the Cross His sense of God's near presence seems
momentarily to have failed Him (Mk. xv. 34). It was thus, so far as
can be judged, through the channel of a real human nature, with the
limitations inherent in it, that in Jesus a disclosure was made of Deity in
a degree beyond that conveyed through the best and greatest of other men.
There is no reference to the Virgin Birth either in Q or in St. Mark's
Gospel, which begins with an account of John's preaching, just prior to
our Lord's baptism. As St. Mark was the interpreter of St. Peter, the
absence of all allusion to it is sigmficant, for had there been any remarkable
facts connected with Jesus' birth, they would hardly have been withheld
by Mary, after the Resurrection, from the knowledge of the Apostles,
It remains to say something about the Sotebiolog y of the earliest Gospel
1 Num. xxii. 21, 1 Kg. xui. 23. 2 Cf. ML xxiv. 27 (= Lk. xvii. 24).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 619
records. The impression left by the accounts of the early days of Jesus,
mimstry is that for means of promoting human salvation He did not;
during that period, look beyond the influence of His teaching and example.
But before the close of His hfe He uttered words wMch prima facie suggest
that He had come to entertain another idea about the way in which He was
to contribute to tMs end. By the date of His retreat to Caesarea PMUppi,
He had not only gained sufficient confidence to announce His behef that
He was the celestial Son of man, the heavenly Messiah, but He had also
begun to realize in what manner He was destined to pass from a humble
estate on earth to heaveMy glory. The Scriptures, indeed, contained two
examples of individuals who had been so favoured by God that they were
transported from earth to heaven without dying (Gen. v. 24, 2 Kg. ii. 1),
and Jesus may once have imagmed that He would similarly be translated
to the heavenly regions whence He was afterwards to descend. But He
at last recogmzed that for Him the passage from the one to the other
must be through the gate of death ; and on three separate occasions He
gave utterance to tMs behef (Mk. vin. 31, ix. 31, x. 33, 34). The reasons
that led Him to tMs conclusion may perhaps be traced. The virulence
with wMch from a comparatively early stage in His mimstry He had
been persecuted must have impressed Him with the conviction that a
violent death was in store for Him. Reflection upon the fate of many of
the prophets, as related in the Old Testament, and the execution of John
the Baptist could not but fill Him with presages of evil (cf . Mt. xxiu. 37
( = Lk. xm. 34), Mk. ix. 13). The thought, however, of the death of
God's CMist tMough the machinations of God's People must have seemed
too shockmg to be dehberately harboured, if no explanation of it was
forthcommg. But it seems probable that He found a clue in a certain
passage of the Scriptures, viz. the description, in 2 Is. Mi., of the sufferings
and death of Jehovah's servant. The Servant is there represented as
enduring, though innocent, the chastisement deserved by others, in
expiation of whose sins His Ufe is sacrificed, but as being revived after
death. The figure of. the Servant appears to have been intended by the
prophetic writer to persomfy the Jewish people, whose national life,
extinguished by their enemies, was afterwards renewed, and whose experi
ences caused them to become an agent of Divine revelation to others,
the spiritual weUare of marddnd being thus promoted at the cost of Israel's
tribulation.1 But Jesus, it would seem, applied the prophet's ideal creation
to HimseU, and saw in it a key to the fate before Him, evidence that He
so regarded it coming from the language in wMch on a certain occasion
He repUed to a request of the sons of Zebedee.
The two brothers had put to Him a petition that they might sit on
His right and left hand when He appeared in His glory. In response He
explained that the ambition and seU-aggrandisement marking those who
were accounted great among the Gentiles were not to be displayed by His
disciples. The only road to pre-eminence among them was exceptional
1 See The Book of the Prophet Isaiah in the " Westminster " Commentaries, pp.
267 f._ 336 f.

620 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
service, for the Son of man had come not to receive service but to render
it, and to give His Ufe a ransom for many (Xvrgov dvrl tioXXmv,
Mk. x. 35-45).
There are considerations which, on the surface, favour the inference that
by these words Jesus meant that the surrender of His life was substitu
tionary, (a) Although the term " ransom " does not actuaUy occur in
2 7s. liii., the word " many " occurs twice (vv. 11, 12) ; and in view of the
use of the prophecy in connexion with Jesus elsewhere (Acts vm. 32, 35,
1 Pet. ii. 24), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus Himself
had it in mind, and applied to His own death the prophet's description
of the Servant's vicarious death. (6) In the persecution by Antiochus IV
(see p. 30 f .), it was beheved that God would accept the death of His f aitiUul
servants as an atonement for the sins of the unfaithful, for when a certain
Eleazar was about to be executed, he prayed that God would let His
punishment be a satisfaction on behalf of the people, would make Ms
blood their purification, and would accept Ms soul as an eqmvalent for
their souls (dvrlipvxov avrmv).1 (c) On the occasion of the Last Supper,
when Jesus took a loaf and brake it as a memorial of the rendmg of His
flesh, so soon to occur, He declared (according to St. Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 24),
" This is my body, which is for (vnsg) you " ; and when He took the cup
He said (according to Mk. xiv. 24), " TMs is my blood of the [new]
covenant which is spilled for (vnig) many." In view of tMs, then, it
appears at first sight probable that Jesus considered that the death wMch
He foresaw to await Him was to be a substitute for that wMch was
deserved by others, and that the sacrifice of His Ufe would procure the
pardon of many sinners.
Nevertheless, even if Jesus thought of His approacMng death m this
light and viewed it as making atonement for human sin, such a way of
regarding it has been felt to involve grave difficulties wMch can be
indicated only briefly. In the first place there is a lack of eqmvalence
between the physical death wMch our Lord endured and the spiritual
death wMch is the consequence of unrepented sin. Secondly, it seems
incompatible with Divine justice that the retribution due to offenders
should be averted through the suffering of the innocent. These two
difficulties are inadequately met by the suggestions that the sanctity of
the moral law, violated through sin, required to be vmdicated tMough
suffering, that the physical death of the Son of God had an incalculable
value, and that mankind who deserved to suffer reaUy participated in
what the Christ underwent because through His soUdarity with humamty
He represented the race, or because His Personahty was inclusive of all
other personalities (see p. 653). And reason for hesitating to conclude
that Jesus reaUy looked upon the sacrifice of His Ufe as substitutionary
may be found in the fact that in His previous teacMng He had never
imphed that the pardon of sinners depended upon expiation being offered
and satisfaction rendered, by themselves or another, for their sins : He had
consistently affirmed the forgivingness of God and His readiness to pardon
1 4 Mace. vi. 27.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 621
aU who were sincerely pemtent and forgiving, without any reference to
the need of an atomng sacrifice (Mk. xi. 25, Mt. vi. 14, 15, xviu. 23-35,
Lk. xv. _ 11-32, xviii. 9-14, cf. also vii. 41, 42, 47). In the Ught of
tMs consideration, it is expedient to re-examine the declaration contained
in Mk. x. 45 (end). It will be noticed that the preceding context of the
passage creates an expectation that Jesus' self-sacrifice would be of a kind
wMch His disciples could themselves emulate. And, whUst the term
Xvrgov can be used of something actually surrendered in Ueu of a forfeited
Ufe (Ex. xxi. 30, xxx. 11), it can also be used in a metaphorical sense, for
the Hebrew eqmvalent for it occurs as a figure of speech to describe the
costUness of some deUverance achieved ( Job xxxiii. 24, Ps. xlix. 7) without
implying that anytMng is given in substitution or exchange for what is
rescued. Consequently, it is possible that Jesus meant no more by the
words in question than that He was prepared to make the last sacrifice,
that of Ufe itself, in the effort to convert sinners from the error of their
ways, rehnqmshment of wMch conditioned their salvation. And greater
proof of love than tMs there can be none, whether the death thus undergone
was strictly vicarious or not.
A conspicuous feature in Jesus' teaching was the value placed upon
Paith. The primary object of faith was God. Men were exhorted to
beheve the Gospel as being the Gospel, or " Good News," of God (Mk. i.
14, 15). Confidence in His providential care should free all seeking His
Kingdom from anxiety respecting. the supply of their bodily needs (Mt. vi.
25-33 = Lk. xii. 22-31), and from fear on occasions of danger (Mk. iv. 40).
Faith, should accompany prayer; and would ensure the fulfilment of it
(Mk. xi. 22-24). The faith of those who sought from Jesus reUef from
various maladies is generaUy represented as a factor contributing to
bring about the desired cure (Mk. ii. 5, v. 34, 36, vi. 5, 6, ix. 23, 24, x. 52,
Mt. viii. 10, 13 = Lk. vn. 9).1 In such cases it was in God's wiUingness
and potency to grant reUef that the faith of the sufferer was essentially
reposed (Mk. ii. 12, Mt. xii. 28 ( = Lk. xi. 20), Lk. vii. 16, xvii. 18, 19,
xviii. 43) ; but such faith also included belief in Jesus as empowered
by Him to convey that reUef . And it was on behalf of God that Jesus
exphcitly clahned to speak and act. Though He did not openly declare
Himself to be the Messiah until the close of His ministry and so could not
demand faith in Himself as such,2 yet it is clear that throughout He
expected from men recogmtion of HimseU as an authoritative Intermediary
commissioned by the Almighty to reveal His purposes ; and He finally
claimed to possess a unique understandmg of the Divine character. Of
such an expectation and claim He appears to have based the proof upon
the spiritual appeal presented by His teaching, upon the moral quahty
of His wonderful deeds, and upon His life of seU-sacrifice.

1 Cf. Mt. ix. 29, xv. 28, xvii. 20, Lk. xvii. 19.
2 The only passage in Mk. where Jesus is represented as speaking of believers in
Me is ix, 42, where the words eis ipii are absent from NCD, Lat. vet.

622 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
(6) The Teaching of the Primitive Church
For the recovery of the theology of the primitive Church the materials
are neither ample nor for the most part of first-rate value. They consist
mainly of certain speeches and discourses delivered by St. Peter, Stephen,
and Phihp, and preserved in Acts. These are almost all short, and, at
best, must represent only a portion of what was actuaUy said on the various
occasions, and their worth as evidence depends upon the source or sources
from which St. Luke, the author of Acts, derived them, since he himself
was not a hearer of them. It seems unUkely that he possessed notes
taken by persons actually present, except possibly in the case of Stephen's
address before the Sanhedrin ; and since Acts seems not to have been
composed until some fifty or sixty years after the incidents recorded
(p. 240), there is no likelihood that the utterances reported in the early
Chapters represent the ipsissima verba of the speakers. Nevertheless,
Luke certaUdy came in contact with several leading figures in the early
Church, so that he was in a position to ascertain the general purport of
the doctrine taught by them ; and Ms accounts in Acts may reasonably
be regarded as furnishing, in general, trustworthy testimony to the beliefs
current in the Church during the first decade or two foUowing the
Crucifixion. The book of Acts, however, is not the sole authority for the theology
of the early Church. It has been contended in Part II (above) that the
three epistles, 1 Peter, James, and Jude, are the genuine productions of
those whose names they bear ; and they wiU be here used as sources
supplementary to Acts. In regard to the constitution of the early Church
some information can also be derived from the writings of St. Paul, whose
originality was shown more in the sphere of ideas than in that of ecclesi
astical organization, and who in regard to the latter seems to have adopted
the arrangements commonly prevailing.
A comparison between the Theology of the Primitive Church and our
Lord's own teacMng (so far as tMs is ascertainable from the earhest
sources) will be most easily followed if the subject-matter be considered
under the three heads of Eschatology, Christology and Soteriology.
1. Eschatology
It has, been seen (p. 600) that the message proclaimed by Jesus was
the nearness of the Kingdom of God, and the imminence of the Divine
judgment, which was to decide who should participate in the Kingdom, and
who should be excluded ; and the task of diffusing the same announce
ment, committed to His disciples by Him in His Ufetime (Mk. iii. 14,
Mt. x. 1, 7), continued to be their duty after His death and resurrection.
The evidence which many of them had experienced of His renewed lUe
had restored their faith in Him wMch His execution had shattered ; and
they looked forward with fresh confidence to the estabUshment of the
promised Kingdom, which was expected to be a realm in wMch their own
nation would enjoy, if not exclusive, at any rate predominant, rights

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 623
(cf . Acts i. 6). Any delay in its inauguration was attributable to the mercy
and longsufiering of God, Who desired to give to His people an opportumty
of repentance before the retribution due to the unrighteous should overtake
them. The circumstance that Jesus, Whom they believed to be the Messiah
of their race, had been put to death by His own countrymen had enhanced
the national guilt, pumshment for wMch nothing but the sincerest pemtence
could arrest. Accordmgly, the departure of Jesus only augmented the
obligation resting upon His disciples to turn to account the period elapsing
before His re-appearance by efiorts to induce in the people a sense of their
sin and a change of heart.:
The persuasion that there was imminent a catastropMc termmation
of the existing order of things and its replacement by a new world is
found in most of the writings that belong, or relate, to tMs period. It
is imphed in St. Peter's identification of the spiritual experiences at
Pentecost with the prediction of Joel relating to the last days (Acts ii. 16 f .).
It is plainly asserted in the same Apostle's words in Ms Epistle, " The
end of all things is at hand " (1 Pet. iv. 7). It is equally unmistakably
affirmed by St. James, " The coming of the Lord is at hand " (Jas. v. 8).
TMs anticipation that the end of the age drew near was accompamed by
the behef that Christ HimseU would appear a second time (1 Pet, i. 7, 13,
iv. 13, Jude 21) to estabhsh superpaturally. the Divine Kingdom. The
earnestness of conviction prevailing in the infant Church upon tMs subject
was evidenced in a practical way by the communism wMch obtained
among them for some wMle, A principal motive leading those who
possessed property to forgo any exclusive enjoyment of it, and to place
it at the disposal of the Apostles, or of others deputed by them, for the
relief of want among fellow-CMistians was, no doubt, the memory of
their Master's teaching (Mt. v. 42 = Lk. vi. 30) ; and reaUzing intensely
as they did the fatherhood of God which Jesus had emphasized, they
regarded one another as brethren. But this ethical motive must have been
reinforced by the consideration that the existing world-system was
transitory, and about to come to a close ; so that it was useless to provide
for the needs of a future resembling the present. It was not untU the
interval before CMist's Return grew long that the necessity for making
provision for age and sickness reasserted itseU ; and the evU effects of
indiscriminate charity upon men of weak character and slothful habits
caused its discontinuance (cf, p, 499).
2. Christology
The first public announcements made by Jesus (p. 600) were purely
eschatological, and related only to the approach of the end, and the condi
tions governing entry into the expected Kingdom of God ; He said nothing
about any part which He Himself would fill ; and Christianity, as it was
first preached by its Founder, contained no mention of Christ, Even
tuaUy, however, He gave both His immediate foUowers and others to
understand that He was the Messiah, In those who credited His assertion
the belief was temporarily eclipsed by His death, but was restored by the

624 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
visions of His renewed and glorified life, which were seen by many (cf.
1 Cor. xv. 5-7), and which attested that He had entered upon His Messiah-
ship (cf. Acts ii. 36, Kvgiov avrov xai Xgiarov ijiohjOBv 6 0s6g). The
Apostles made it their object at the outset to disseminate among others
their own convictions about Him, so that there entered mto their teaching
a factor which had no place in their Master's pubUc utterances until near
the very end of His Ufe, but wMch now marked a distinct stage in the
presentation of Christianity. What they thought about the Person of
their Master, and about His significance for Israel and for the world had,
indeed, a basis in His own convictions concernmg HimseU (p. 616) ; but
whereas He, during the greater part of His ministry, reframed from any
overt declaration that He was the Hope of Israel, His foUowers now made
this the central theme of their preaching. To His message respecting
the Kingdom they added a declaration about Him, so that the Gospel
(or " good news ") which they delivered related not merely to the Kingdom
of God (Acts viii. 12, xix. 8) but to Jesus as God's vicegerent (Acts v. 42,
x. 36), the Person through whom the Divine promises were to be fulfilled.
Like their Lord they summoned the people to repent, but their exhorta
tions to repentance could not f aU to reflect their convictions of the enhanced
guilt of their countrymen and their rulers in consequence of the rejection
and execution of One whom they believed to be the Messiah of their race
(Acts ii. 38, iii. 13, 19).
The proofs which they offered in support of their contention were
drawn from three sources — their own witness of His Risen Ufe, the pre
dictions of His triumph over death contained in the Scriptures, and the
evidence of His spiritual activity afforded by the gUts of " tongues " and
of " prophecy " with which so many of His foUowers found themselves
endowed. The restoration of their Master from the world of the dead
cancelled m their view the ignominy and degradation of the Crucifixion
and triumphantly vindicated His claims to be the Messiah. But it was
not possible for them to impart to prejudiced minds the strength of their
own convictions that Jesus was reaUy aUve from the dead ; whilst the
gifts of the Spirit which they believed, to be bestowed by Him could be
made by the sceptical the subject of mockery (Acts ii. 13, cf . 1 Cor. xiv. 23).
Consequently it was upon the evidence of Old Testament prophecy that
they chiefly relied to dispose their hearers to accept their assurances.
Thus (to take a single example) St. Peter (who is depicted by St. Luke as
sharing the same conception of the Resurrection as that which appears
in the Third Gospel) appealed at Pentecost to Ps. xvi. 8-11 as a prediction
that the Messiah was to be restored to physical Ufe as he mamtained Jesus
had been restored, without having experienced corruption. As David,
the traditional author of the psalm, had died and undergone dissolution,
he was represented as speaking propheticaUy, in the person of his de
scendant the Messiah, of his corporeal resurrection. The LXX, however,
is an inaccurate rendering of the Hebrew, which shows that the Psalmist
only intended to express his confidence that his feUowship with God would
ensure for him preservation from premature death, and the enjoyment on
earth of such a life as was alone deserving the name. The passage, there-

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 625
fore, can be regarded, at most, as containing an intimation of human
immortality, such as all belief in communion between God and man appears
to involve (cf. Mk. xii. 26, 27), and as constituting an argument for the
survival of the spirit of Jesus, not in the gloom of Sheol, forgotten by God
(Ps. lxxxviii. 5), but in the light and joy of the Divine presence. Appeal
was simUarly made by the Apostle to Ps. ex. 1 as a prophecy of the
Messiah's exaltation to God's right hand, and as supporting the contention
that Jesus had been made both Lord and Christ.
The speech of St. Peter at Pentecost iUustrates both the methods of
argument foUowed generally by the advocates of the Christian faith in the
Apostolic age, and the titles which they claimed for Jesus. Of the two
titles specificaUy mentioned in the speech as reported by St. Luke, the
name Xgiarog or " Messiah " has been previously discussed (p. 614) ;
and it only requires to be noted here that Jesus is represented as being a
descendant of the royal house of David (cf. Rom. i. 3). The title Kvgiog
was probably applied to Jesus on the strength of the use of the term in
Ps. ex. 1, where the Psalmist is assumed to be speakmg of the Messiah.
In Mk. and Q the apphcation of it by the Apostles to Jesus in His life
time only appears m Mk. xi. 3 ; and its real significance is doubtful
(cf. v. 19). But after His death the use of itm the sense of "Lord" became
current. Just as St. Peter is represented in Acts ii. 36 as saying Kvgiov
avrdv xai Xgiarov inoirjasv 6 Bsdg, so the same Apostle in 1 Pet. iii. 15
writes Kvgiov rdv Xgiarov dyidaare ev ratg xagSiaig vju&v (cf . also i. 3, 6
Kigiog rj\i(av 'Irjaovg Xgiardg). The combinations Kvgiog 'Irjaovg Xgiardg
and d K6giog rjjx&v 'Irjaovg Xgiardg occur also in James i. 1, ii. 1. It
is likely, however, that the increased employment in the Church, after
the extension of Christianity to the Gentiles, of d Kvgiog as a title for
Jesus, equivalent to the Aramaic Mara (cf . 1 Cor. xvi. 22), was not un
connected with the prevalence of it among Greek-speaking peoples to
designate any Divine Personahty who was the object of devotion to a
body of worshippers.1 Besides Christ and Lord, other names are in the
early speeches of Acts employed of Jesus. Of these one is God's Servant
(Acts iii. 13, 26), with its equivalent God's Holy Servant (Acts iv. 27, 30).
In the Old Testament the term " God's Servant " is applied to the coUective
people Israel (Ps. exxxvi. 22 (SovXog), 2 Is. xli. 8, xliv. 1, xlv. 4 (naig), cf . Lk.
i. 54), and to various individual Israelites like the patriarchs (Gen. xxvi. 24,
Dt. ix. 27), Moses (Num. xii. 7), David (2 Sam. vii. 8, cf. Acts iv. 25), and
several of the prophets 2 ; and in Acts (where the Greek equivalent is
naig) it appears to be used, of Jesus as endowed by God with prophetic
attributes in a pre-eminent degree. For He is described by Peter (Acts iv.
27, x. 38) as having been anointed by God with Holy Spirit ; and the
statement seems to point to 3 7s. lxi. 1 as the passage wMch suggested the
application of the expression to Jesus, Who in Lk. iv. 18-21 is related to
have declared that the words of that passage were fulfilled in HimseU.
The conception of Jesus as a Prophet (the view most commonly taken of
Him by the populace during His ministry, p. 373) appears also in the
1 See Foakes-Jackson and Lake, Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, p. 411.
2 In Wisd. ii. 13 Tais Kvplov is used of the righteous man.
40

626 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
reference in Acts iii; 21, 22 to the prediction ascribed to Mbses ih Dt. xviii:
15, that Jehovah would raise up a prophet like himself, a prediction wMch
(it is implied) was fulfilled by Jesus, though the origmal has in view not
an Mdividual ptophet but a lifie of ptopheta. Another designation for
Jesus is the' Holy and tlighleous One, a title which ' is probably derived
frbm Enoch xxxviii. 2 (ci the Rightebus One ") and Uii. 6 (" the Righteous
and Elect Onfe "); both passages referring to the heavenly Messiah, and
has its remote origin in 2 Is. liii. 1 1 . But a negative feature ih the ahusidhs
made to Jesus iti the early speeches of Acts is the absence' of both the
titles " Son of man " and " Son Of God." The first Of theM, indeed.
bccurs Once m the book, namely in the dying utterance of Stephen (vii: 56) ;
whUst thfe second has place in the answer Of PMUp tb the Ethiopian
nimister (viii. 37) which is contained in certain manuscripts.1 Otherwise
6 vlog ro'G dvd'gconov is not found elsewhere, whilst o vldg rov dsbv only
occurs in the account of St. Paul's preaching at Damascus (ix. 20): Oti
the other hand, St. Peter in his Epistle implicitly calls Jesiis the SbP Of
God by,writmg ddeog xai narfjg tov Kvgiov rjfiaiv 'Irjoov Xgiarov (1 Pet. i. 3):
So far as the theology of the earliest age of the Church can be thus
fecbfistrhcted froih. the documents reflecting the thdught Of that peribd;
its Christology was confined tb asserting the exaltation of Jesus, after' His1
death, to God's right hand, and to supremacy over Ajigelic powers (1 P&:
iii. 22). The Apostle^' central contention was that the historical Jefcus
was the Christ (or Messiah) of projmeejr. It was the Resurrection that
marked out Jesus as such, and affbfded promise bf His return m glory.
speculation about Him had not yet advanced tb the point of affitMing
His pre-existence ih heaven prior to His appearance on earth. Hfe was
held to have been a Man sinless 2 ana guUeless (1 Pet. ii. 22, cf . 2 Is. liii. 9),
who had discharged a Divine mission, as was proved by His miracles
(Acts ii. 22) ; ahd His abUity to work such wonders was attributed to His
having been consecrated with Holy Spirit, Seemingly at His baptism by
John (Acts iv. 27, x. 38). There is no aUusion to His birth from a Virgm ;
and the fact that the author of Acts has prefixed to his Gospel an acCbhnt
of the Virgin Birth Makes the absence of any reference to it in Acts remark
able, and warrants the conclusion that he sought to reproduce faitMully
the conditions of belief in the early Church, as far as he could ascertain
them. In 1 Pet. iii. 19, iv. 6 there bccurs an idea without parallel else
where in the New Testament respecting Christ's activity during thfe
interval between His Crucifixion and His Rfesurrectibn. It is represented
that He, retaining His life in the Spirit, after having Suffered death in the
flesh, weht to the prison where the souls of those whb had sinned m the
dtiyi of Noah were detained, ahd therfe proclaimed to thfem His GbspfeL
The thought of a prison for offending Spirits occurs in Is. xxiv. 22 (cf . also
Jude fi), and the imprisonMent of Satan in the abyss for a thousand
years is described in Rev. xx. 2, 3.

1 Viz. E, some cursives, Lat. (vet.), Syr. (hi.) and a, few other authorities.
2 Cf. 2 Cor. v. 21, Heb. iv. 15.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 627
3. Soteriology
It has been shown that the Eschatology of the primitive Chureh in4
eluded the expectation that Jesus would shortly come a second time to
execute judgment : His previous appearance m the vrorid had been fdr a
different end and was connected with human salvation. In regard to this
there is attached, m the utterances of the Apostles reported in Acts i.-vi.>,
ho special significance to thfe death of Jesiis, which is alluded to as though
it were nothmg but a sMgulariy atrocious judicial murder (Acts ii. 23,
iii. 13). It was, indeed, represented as ioreSeeh and predetermined by
God, Who had foreshown through the agehCy of the prophets that the
Christ was Ordamed to suffer (the reference, no doubt, being to 2 Is. liii.) ;
but the death df the Christ was hot expressly brought into connexion Witt
human redemption from Sin. But it was inevitable that further reflection
Upon the prophetic passage just cited (to which attention had beep drawn
by JeSus' own use of it, Mk. x. 45) should eventuaUy lead those who, like
the Apostles, were trained to assign extreme value to the sacrificial system
of the Jewish religion, to attribute greater and greater importance to the
death of the Christ ; and how theif minds were influenced by the prophet's
Words appears from the account of Philip's conversation with the minister
of Queen Candafee (Acts viii. 26-40). It is therefore Pot unreasonable to
_see in the language of 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, U. 21-24, iii. 18. a fairly typical
example of the theorizing Which after the lapse Of a few years began to bfe
current m the Church respecting the value of Christ's death for thfe salvation
of Mankind: In the first of these passages the Apostle desdfibeS those tb
whom he writes as knowing that they Were redeemed (&Xvrg&>6firBj Cf.
Mk. x. 45. Xvtgov) frbm their reckless manner of living Which had been
inherited from their fathers not with perishable tMngs, such as silver and
gold, but with the precious blobd of Christ, as bf an unblemished and
spotless lamb. In the second and third he declares that Christ suffered
for therP, the righteohs for (vn&g) the unrighteous, and bare (&vtfvEyx®», 2 Is.
Uii. 12) men's sins in His bWh body on the tree-. Another Old Testament
passage Which Seems to have afforded ideas about the import of Christ's
death is Ex. xxiv. 5 f ., for the account Of Mbses sprinkUng the people With
the blood of the victim sacr ifiGed to solemnize the Sinaitic covenant must
be the source of St, Peter's Wbfds (1 Pet: i. 2), " caUed unto obedience and
unto Sprinkling with the blobd of Christ." The author of this Epistle
may be shspected of having been influenced in certain of his expressions
by the language of St. Paul (cf . ii. 24 (end) with Rom. vi. 2, 4. 11, Col. iii-. 3,
and iii. 16 with Rom. vi. 11) ; but he does not afford muoh evidence of
having adopted the Pauline Soteriology as a whole*
The remission of sMs was represented as dependent not only oh repefl-
tance (Acts iii. 19) but also oh faith in JeSus as the Christi That faith
was the condition and means of Salvatitm is asserted or impUed in 1 Pel.
i. 5, v. 9 ; and Confession of beUef in Jesus was marked by submission tb
the rite of baptism (see Acts ii. 38). This, as administered by John the
Baptist, had been a seal of penitence and a pledge to a new course of life ;
but the rite now connoted more than this. ThoSe who underwent it were

628 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
baptized " in " or " into " the name of Jesus Christ, which was pronounced
over them (cf. Jas. ii. 7, rb xaXdv bvofia rd inixXrfilv iq>' v/xag), so that
it became a pledge not only of a changed mind and purpose, but also of
belief in, and acceptance of, Jesus as the final revealer of God's wiU, and
so fitted them to receive the Holy Spirit with which He had been endowed,
and which He now bestowed from heaven upon His foUowers, such a gift
demonstrating that they who received it stood right with God. Usually
this proof followed baptism, supplication for it being accompanied by
" laymg on of hands " (p. 509) ; but occasionaUy signs of the Spirit's
presence preceded baptism (Acts x. 44-48). Seemingly any Christian
could admmister the baptismal rite (cf. Acts ix. 18).
In general it is faith that is represented as cleansmg the heart (Acts xv.
9), though St. James insists that faith without works is dead and has no
saving virtue (Jas. ii. 14-26) ; whilst St. Peter directs the minds of his
readers to the contemplation of Christ's Ufe on earth, wMch furnished an
example for them to foUow (1 Pet. ii. 21, iv. 1, 13). The act of baptism,
which ensued upon a convert's confession of faith, was regarded as a symbol
of moral cleansing, not as an effectual means of producmg it, U an inference
may be drawn from the obscure passage 1 Pet. iii. 21. Here the writer,
after declaring that in the Ark eight souls were brought safely through
water, proceeds " which (i.e. water) also in. the antitype brings you to
safety, even baptism," and the meamng seems to be that the water of
baptism spiritually sustains the baptized (i.e. supports their new resolutions
by the puhlicpromise Mvolved) as the Flood sustamed the Ark, and carries
them into safety. The Apostle guards MmseU from bemg understood to
attribute a mechanical effect to the rite by addmg that what in baptism
reaUy saves is the search after God wMch a good conscience continually
pursues.1 There may be noticed here the various phrases used m connexion
with Baptism in Acts. They are (a) jSohtICeiv (or Banrlfeodai) inl rot
dvd/iari 'Irjaov Xgiarov (ii. 38, with a variant iv) ; (b) /?. iv r5> dvd/iari I. X.
(x. 48) ; (c) j3. slg rd ovopa rov I. X. (viii. 16, xix. 5). Of these the expression
jSanrtfeiv iv rip dvd/tan seems to relate to the form of words used, " to
baptize with the name " ; whUst B. inl ra> dvd/uan is virtuaUy eqmvalent
to this and means " to baptize after the name " (cf . xsxXfjaBai lid nvi).
But B. slg rd ovofia appears to imply a consecration to the service of the
Person whose name is used, for this must be the significance of passages
like 1 Cor. i. 13, slg rd ovo/ia IlavXov iBamiadrjrE ; and 1 Cor. x. 2,
ndvrsg elg rdv Mwvarjv IBanriaavro iv rrj vsipiXi] xai iv rfj OaXdaarj.
It will be observed that tMoughout the period covered by Acts the
Name in, or into, which converts to the Christian faith are represented as
bemg baptized is that of Jesus Christ, or the Lord Jesus, not that of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts ii. 38, x. 48 (Peter), viii. 16
(Philip), xix. 5 (Paul) ). It is extremely difficult to think that if the name
of the Trinity were reaUy used baptismally in the early Apostolic Church
1 In favour of construing els Bebv with iirepilrnjixa is the parallel use of the same
_prej>osition after iircpwrav in 1 Kg. xi. 7. But see Bigg, St. Peter and SL Jude, p. 165.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 629
there would have been so Uttle trace of it in Acts ; and the circumstance
tMows doubt upon the authenticity of the command m Mt. xxviiL en-
jommg it (see also p. 613).
Baptism marked the inclusion of believers x within the Church (¦>)
ixxXrjala). This term, which was probably, though not quite certamly,
employed by CMist HimseU (p. 611), was at any rate used from very early
days by Christians to designate their united body (Acts v. 11, viii. 1,
xi. 26). Each of the Christian communities in. the several cities where
converts were made could be called an ecclesia (see 1 Thess. i. 1, 1 Cor. i. 2,
Rom. xvi. 1, Rev. i. 4, ii. 1, 8, 12) ; but their members were aU included
m one comprehensive ecclesia. The term impUed that the Christians,
through beUevmg Jesus to be the Messiah, were the Spiritual Israel, the
Jews, though bearing the name of Israel, havmg showed themselves
tiirough their unbeUef to be no true part of it (cf,. Rom. ix. 6, 7). And as
an mdication that this was the Ught m which the Christians in the early
Apostohc age regarded themselves is the fact that they continued to worship
m the Temple (Acts iii. 1, v. 42), though they gathered m turn at each
other's houses for prayer and other reUgious purposes. Their private
gatherings did not replace, but oMy supplemented, the Temple services ;
and so long as they were tolerated, they did not segregate themselves from
theU feUow-Jews.
The principal end for which they met privately was to preserve, by a
solemn Breakmg of Bread together, the memory of the Last Supper. TMs
apparently formed part of an ordinary meal (Acts U. 42, 46, cf. 1 Cor. xi.
20, 21), occurring in the evening, especiaUy on the first day of the week
(Acts xx. 7, 8). The act of sharing a meal in common, the bread being
broken and the wme drunk after the example set by their Master when He
was last with them, and the words He used on that occasion repeated,
must have conveyed a mysterious sense of continued union with Him,
and through Him with God. Whether it was also regarded as an em
blematic foretaste of the Messianic banquet (cf. Mt. viii. 11, Mk. xiv. 25)
there is notMng to show. There is no evidence to prove that the offering
of the accompanying thanksgiving (eixagiarla, 1 Cor. xiv. 16, cf. Acts
xxvii. 35) for the boon alike of material food and spiritual sustenance was
restricted to any Church officials, though presumably this function was
ordinarily discharged by some one mvested with authority (see p. 631),
if such were avaUable. NotMng, however, is said that "would justUy
us m thmMng that if a body of Christians were present with no duly
appointed mimster they would abstain from the Breakmg of Bread."2
Nor is there anytMng to decide whether the bread and the wme were
distributed to each person by the presiding official, where one was present,
or by a substitute in Ms absence, or whether they were passed around.
Another ceremony practised was that of the Laying on of hands. This,
1 This was one of the terms employed by Christians to designate themselves (see
Acts ii. 44, iv. 32) ; others were " the brethren," " the disciples," " the saints " (Ads
xv. 1, 32, xi. 26, xiv. 28, ix. 32, 41 ; cf. Rom. viii. 27, xii. 13, 1 Cor. vi. 1, etc.). The
name " Christians " seems to have originated among the heathen populace (p. 521).
2 Cf. Headlam, The Dodrine of the Church, p. 81.

630 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
accompanied by prayer, was observed on various occasions, includmg the
appointment of persons to an office (Acts vi. 6, and cf . p. 503), the choice
and dispatch of emissaries from the Church on a missionary enterprise
(Acts xm. 3), and suppheation for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Acts
viii. 15-17, cf. xix. 6). The precise significance attached to the act of
laying on of hands is left quite obscure, though it seems to have been
associated with the, bestowal of a blessing. It is noteworthy that, whilst
on two occasions the rehgious rapture, associated with the descent of the
Holy Ghost, followed this rite, on another the like spiritual ecstasy was
experienced by certain Gentiles even before they had, received Christiap
baptisra (Acts x. 44-47).
After the death of Jesus the need for some sort of authority in the
Church would quickly arise ; and so long as His Apostles lived they would
naturally, occupy the position of leaders. TMs (it would appear) was M
consequence not so much of any forrpal commission of authority g_iven
them by CMist m His lifetime to exercise government over the Church
after His departure aa of their special competence: to transmit His teacMng,*
After His death they were the surest source whence new disciples copjd
deriye a kpowledge. o£ Christian principles, and probably of Christian
interpretations of prophecy ; they constituted a centre of feUowship. in
wMch others could join (see Acts ii. 42) ; they were regarded as the responr
sible heads ol the commimity, to whom was entrusted such property as,
in the voluntary communism that prevailed, was devoted to the general
needs of the society (Acts iv. 35) ; and they convened meetings of jthe
Church. (Acts, y\, 2). As the OMistian faith extended and communities of
CMistians became established elsewhere than at Jerusalem, the Apostles
at the latter, place sent some of their number to these to bring them mto
relation with the central body, so. as to quahfy them for receiving whatever
privileges tMs enjoyed (A@ts vm. 14 f., cf. xix. 5, 6). To representatives
of the Apostles also a missionary of mdependept disposition Uke St. Paul
deemed it expedient, ip the interest of umty, to give an account of Ms
labours {Gait ii. 2- f.). Amongst the Apostles themselves the lead was
geaerajly taken by St- Peter ; but it is plain that he enjoyed no primacy,
for he was subject to -the control of the whole body, wMch on one occasion
sept. Mm apd JoMi . tp, see the converts at Samaria, and to wMch, on
.another, he gave an explanation of Ms havmg baptized and held social
intercourse with certain Gentiles (yip. 14, xi. 1 f.). One who was not
originally included M, the Twelve seems at a later date to have filled a
position superior ,ev«p to St. Peter's. TMs was James (see p. 255), whose
kinsMp with, Jesus probably contributed to his .authority in the Church
when he became a member of it (Acts xxi. 18, Gal, i. 19, u. 9).
There were , others who discharged important functions m the com
munity besides the Aposties.8 The next m digmty were those who were
1 Cf. Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 84. The most authoritative passages are Mt.
x. 40 (= Lk. x. 16), adx. 28 (= Lk. xxii. 30) ; cf. also Joh. xiii. 20.
2 The name was not oonfined exclusively to the Twelve ; for it is apphed to St.
Paul, Barnabas, James (the Lord's " brother"), and seemingly to Andronicus and
Junias (Rom. xvi. 7).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T, 631
known as Prophets (1 Cor. xp. 28, Eph. iv. 11, pf. Rev. xviii. 20). These
owed the influence they exerted not to any official standing but to their
possession of a certain faculty for emotional speech and a gift pf foresight.
ascribed to the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The duties of
" evangehsts," " pastors," and " teachers " are sufficiently explaiped by
their names ; and aU of them probably exercised an itinerant spiritual
ministry. But there was another class of stationary officials who hecarpe
necessary as soon as it was deniable to give tp the Church sopie adnUnJLS-
trative organization independent of that of Judaism. The first group
of such officials, speciaUy created at Jerusalem for the better .distribution
of relief to the needy, consisted of Seven persons, who were chosen by the
Church coUectively and then empowered by the Apostles to act as its
agents and representatives. TMs body seems oMy to have been appointed
to meet a temporary want ; and later their duties were apparently
absorhed by another body caUed " Elders " or " Presbyters " (Acts xi. 3,0,
xv. 2, xx. 17). These were no doubt the counterpart of the Jewish
"elders " (p. 95), though they must have been free from many ,of the
secular responsibiUties that rested upon the latter. They were primarily
local Church rulers, but gradually came to discharge Ukewise such spiritual
functions as preacMng and teaching (cf. 1 Tim. y. 17). Sipce the Apostles
in their missionary tours were unable to stay long at any ope city, they
were accustomed before their departure to appoint officials with tMs
.title to take charge of the Christian communities wMch they had
estabfished in various places (Acts xiv. 23, xx. 17, 1 Pet. y. 1). Such were
also.caUed " Overseers" or " Bishops " (inlaxonoi), tMs term describing
the oversight wMch they were expected to mamtam over their feUpw-
CMistians in their several locahties, in consequence ahke of their age .apd
their authority (Acts xx..2S, 1 Pet. v. 1, 2). Eventually the words " Elder "
(or •" Presbyter ") and " Bishop " became aUpcated .to .distinct orders of
Church officers, the latter denoting the superior order ; but tMs occurred
outside the period. covered by the New Testament writings. The separa
tion .of the two orders and the subordination of Presbyters tp Bishops was
an arrangement demanded by the exigencies of the developing (Church
and not enjoined by any command of ..Christ so (far as .extarjjt eyjdepce
shows.1 Nowhere in the New Testament is the term legEig, ,the desigpa.-
tion of the Jewish priests (Mk. i. 44, ii. -26, etc.), apphed to the elders or
any .other ministers of .the (Christian) Church, (though. CMistians .collectively
are described as isgeig i(Rev. i. ;6, v. 10, xx. ,6, cf. 1 Pet- ii. ;5, 9), theU-
relation to Cod .and the world being considered to be the ,same as that pjf
ancient jlsrael, the priestly nation of mankind,(cf . Ex. xix. 6, 3 Zs. lxi., 6, apd
•pp. 23L-r4) ; whilst St. Paul uses the verb iegovgysiv pf ,mims:teripg the .Cps-pel
to the (Gentiles (Rom. xv. 16i). Below the Presbyters was another pr,de^
1 St. Jerome (quoted 'by Gohu, Evolution of the Christian Ministry, p. 2-7.) .writer :
'' Let bishops lfee. also .aware that they^re. superior to presbyters mpreflwingtp^u^tpm
than to any actual ordinance of the Lord." Possibly the beginnings of the monarchical
episcopate are reflected in the conduct of Diotrephes described in 3 Joh. 9, 10, not
without protest on the part of the writer of that Epistle ; cf . Purchas, Johannine
Problems, p. 14.

632 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of officials called " Deacons " (Phil. i. 1, cf. 1 Tim. iii. 3), the name being
eqmvalent to " mimster " ; they were perhaps primarily charged with the
admimstration of charity, when the Presbyters became immersed m other
duties. It is possible that women could act as such (Rom. xvi. 1), though
the term here may mean no more than " helper."
All those who served the Church in the several capacities just enumer
ated, as well as in some others, did so because they were, or appeared to be,
endowed with certain bountiful gifts (xagia/mra) from above (Rom. xii.
6 f., 1 Cor. xii. 4 f.). Nevertheless they naturally feU into two distinct
classes. Some were universally recogmzed to possess certam qualifica
tions fitting them for special functions, and did not require, in order to
perform them, any commission from the general body of the Church.
Among such, no doubt, were the Prophets and Teachers. But there
were others who, though none the less gifted in various ways, yet seemed
to need pubUc authorization if they were to exert proper influence ; and
so they were expressly appointed to such offices as involved the exercise
of rule and the management of affairs. Such were the " Seven," the
Presbyters (or Bishops), and the Deacons. The " Seven," who seem to
have been intended to meet a particular emergency, were chosen by the
whole Christian commumty at Jerusalem, and were then appomted to
their office by the Apostles (Acts vi. 5, 6). Presbyters m the Churches of
South Galatia were appointed by St. Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv. 23) ;
but at Ephesus those whom the Apostle at Miletus mentioned as havmg
been made overseers (or bishops) by the Holy Spirit may have owed their
position to the action of the local Church gmded by precedent. If the
Pastoral Epistles are genmne (p. 296 f .), it may be inferred from them that
Timothy was appointed a Presbyter by St. Paul acting in conjunction
with a body of presbyters (1 Tim. iv. 14, 2 Tim. i. 6), the hands of aU bemg
laid upon Mm ; whilst Titus was commissioned by the Apostle to act as
Ms delegate in Crete and to appoint Presbyters there (Tit. i. 5) after
the precedent set by MmseU and Barnabas m Galatia.
It will be seen, from what has been said, that the different orders m the
Church appear to have come into existence as the necessity for them arose.
As the Christian commumty was at first oMy a sect witMn the pale of
Judaism (cf. Acts xxiv. 5, 14), there was at the outset no caU for any
separate orgamzation. It was oMy when the Jewish authorities rendered
it impossible for the CMistians to umte with them for worsMp or other
purposes that the latter had to provide for their own religious and social
needs ; and they naturally modelled theU new arrangements upon those
with wMch they were familiar. From the Synagogue they adopted the
Presbyterate ; out of tMs there was evolved the monarcMcal Episco
pate, by wMch it was apparently sought to reproduce the Apostolate;
wMlst the Diaconate, which was origmaUy constituted (though with
out tMs particular title) in order to distribute relief to the indigent
and then discontinued, was afterwards revived under pressure of similar
urgency,

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 633
(c) The Teaching of the Revelation
The book of Revelation was probably composed, at least in its present
form, in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, perhaps between a.d. 90
and 96 (p. 333), so that it is later by some thirty or tMrty-six years than
the latest of the Pauline Epistles. But development of thought does not
uniformly keep pace with succession in time ; and the theology of Revela
tion is of a somewhat primitive character. Accordingly consideration wUl
best be given to it here, before attention is turned to the theological con
structions of St. Paul.
The book is of a very pronounced Apocalyptic type. Like so many
other Apocalypses, it was the production of an age marked by deep
depression in consequence of the conditions surrounding the Christian
Church. The latter haU of the first century a.d. witnessed outbreaks of
fierce persecution of wMch CMistians were the victims. Nero (54-68)
diverted upon them the odium wMch his responsibihty for the burmng of
Eome, had the fact become widely known, would have excited against
MmseU ; whilst under Domitian (81-96) Christiamty as a rehgion was more
directly proscribed by the State. It was with the aim of encouraging Ms
co-religiomsts under the severe trial to wMch they were subjected that a
certam John, seemingly a Christian prophet, wrote the work here under
notice, seekmg to sustain their courage by holding out the prospect of
speedy dehverance for them and of retribution for their adversaries.
The author has been greatly influenced by earher writings and his
work is so permeated by the conceptions, vocabulary, and even the style
of the Old Testament that it is much the most Hebraic work of any of
the books of the New Testament. In a measure it Ues in the succession
of the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. More especially does
it recall the Apocalyptic parts of Daniel ; for, hke the latter, it is fuU of
symboUc ammals, numbers, and names. It is not unhkely, indeed, that
it incorporates portions of earUer productions of Jewish origin, wMch have
been adapted by the author to Ms own purposes (p. 334). As might be
expected from the object and design of the book, the Eschatology is the
most conspicuous and distinctive element in it, the Christology and
Soteriology adding comparatively httle to the results of previous thought.
1. Eschatology
The writer's aim, as has been said, was to comfort his distressed fellow-
Christians with the anticipation of a speedy conclusion to their sufferings ;
and he claimed to reveal what was shortly to come to pass (i. 1, xxii. 6, 10).
He sees in vision a umversal and final judgment embracing the dead and
the Uving (xx. 11-13). The Judge is unnamed, but is probably God (xx. 11,
cf . Rom. xiv. 10, Dan. vU. 9, 10), though Jesus HimseU is to come with the
clouds, visible to aU, and causmg umversal consternation (i. 7). The
judgment is foUowed by the appearance of a new heaven and a new earth,
the vamsMng of the sea (the prophet's attitude towards wMch reflects the
idea of the antagomsm between Jehovah and the Deep, p. 640), and the

634 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
descent from heayen of the b°ly pity, new Jerusalem (cf. p. 108), the
destined home for ever of God's faithful servants. But the most prominent
characteristic of the book's Eschatology is the space ^.ven to various
events preceding the final judgment scene. These are marked by the
activity of certain powers, hostile to Christ's people. wMch are symboUcally
represented by various figures, viz. (1)- a dragon, (2) a beast with ten
horns and seyen heads, (3) a second beast with two horns (styled the false
prophet, xvi. 13), (4) a harlot mounted on a scarlet-coloured beast.
These stand respectively for (1) Satan, (2). the imperial hne of the Caesars,
(3) the heathen priesthood devoted to the cult of the Emperors, and (4)
the city of Borne itself ; and they are all inflamed with ammosity agamst
Christ and His followers. The successive events that occur prior to the
universal' judgment are (1) the destruction of the harlot Borne (the city ,
on seven hills (xvii. 9) being called symboUcally Babylon (xvii. 5, xviii. 2,
cf. 1 P&t. v. 13) ) by the first beast, which, from representing the Caesars,
comes to stand for a single emperor (xvii. 11) who is inspired by hatred of
Ms native country and Ms people (xvii. 16) ; (2) a war between the same
beast, aided by the false prophet, against CMist, Who descends from
heayen and vanqmshes them, afterwards casting them into a lake of
fire ; (3) the chaimng in the abyss for a thousand years of the dragon,
Satan (who gave to the beast Ms authority), and the reign of Christ on
earth with His martyred saints for the same duration of time -; (4) the
unloosing of Satan at the close of tMs period, and a renewed struggle at
Harmagedon between Mm, at the head of a host of nations, and the forces
of God, resulting in his being cast into the same lake of fire as Ms minions,
the beast and the false prophet. After tMs there ensues the umversal
judgment. The author in representing the Eoman government under the figure
of a many-headed and many-horned beast uses the symbolism of Daniel;
and he also apphes to his own purposes Daniel's symboUc numbers (xi. %,
xni. 5, where forty- two months is the equivalent of the tMee and a haU
years of Dan. vii. -25, xii. 7). In styhng the nations wMch Satan gathers
for the decisive struggle by the names Gog and Magog he draws upon the
apocalyptic prophecy constituting Ezek. xxxviii. and xxxix. Har
magedon, in spite of its meaning the mountain of Megiddo, is clearly
intended to denote the valley of Megiddo, the scene of more than one
great conflict in Hebrew Msjtpry. The. description of the glories of the
New Jerusalem in xxi. 10 f . is influenced by 3 Is. lx.-lxii. But whilst the
eschatology thus reflects the imagery of. the Old Testament, it also contains
features wMchreproduce contemporary beliefs of the Eoman world. Nefo,
who perished by Ms own hand, was shortly afterwards believed by many
not to have died but to be m Mding a in PartMa or elsewhere, and was
expected 'to return tp take vengeance upon the inhabitants of his capital.
To tMs expectation the writer seems fro refer when he speaks of an Emperor
who is ope pf seven and is included among five who have fallen, but who is
destined to return as an eighth (xvii. 11, see p. 333). The name Neron
1 jSee Ta,c. Hisf. ii. 8,,qu,o]l|eid,on p. ;333. Jp SjbM. Pr. v. 2J f. aUusjonjs made jo
the return of iftero, designated by the numeral 50 (ST')-

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 635
Kesar, written in Hebrew characters, is the most probable explanation
of the numerical cypher 666, since the omission of the final n of Naran,
yielding the number 616, accounts for the substitution of this figure in
place of 666 in the uncial MS. C and two cursives.} The ten Mngs who
are described as aiding Nero against Eome can thus be plausibly identified
with the longs that eanie from the sun-rising (xvi. 12) and taken to denote
PartMan cMefs, whom Nero, it was anticipated, would bring with him.
The representation of the New Jerusalem as descending from heaven
to- earth appears to have its roots in the behef prevailing in some of the
later writings of the Old Testament that everything round wMch the
rehgious emotions of the Jewish people more particularly clung had its
counterpart m heaven, where there was supposed to exist the original,
of which the object visible on earth was only an image or copy: The source
of such a conception would seem to be a confusion between the idea of a
thing as i^ exists in the mind of God Who knows and designs aU, and the
concrete embodiment of the idea ; the latter is strangely thought of as
bemg aU the whUein heaven, reserved against the due time for its raaaifestar
tion on earth.
Among the smgular. features in the eschatology of the book is the
announcement of a reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, to share
in wMch aU Christian martyrs are expected to rise from, the dead before
the general resurrection and the destruction of the existing world. This
representation embodies the notion (finding expression mi certain Apoca
lyptic writings) that between the present age and a future age belonging
to a difierent order there wUL be an interval, wMch, wMlst continuous
with the present age, wUl be marked with great felicity for God's servants.
TMs is a compromise between the view common in the Old Testament
that the endless bUss for the righteous people of God will ensue, without
any abrupt break, upon the conditions now prevailing (see 7s. ix. 1-7,
Mic. v. 2 1, Jer. xxxUL, Joelii. 18, iiii. 21), and the view that the future
age of happiness wiU be ushered in by a final judgment accompamed by
the disappearance of the present world. The idea of a Milienmum has
paraUels elsewhere, though the particular number of years varies or is
left undefined1. It occurs in the Apocalypse of Baruch, xl., xiii. "And
Ms (the Messiah's)^ principate wiU stand for ever, until the world of corrupt
tion is at an end- and1 until the times aforesaid are fulfiUed." Then
" corruption wUl take those that belong to it, and Ufe those that belong
to it." It is found also in a different and more defimte form in 2 Esdras
vii. 28. " For my son the Messiah 2 shall be revealed with those that be
•with him, and shall rejoice them that remain four hundred years. And
after these years shall my son the Messiah die. and aU that have the breath
1 Among pther proposed solutions of the cypher are Aareivbs and (on the assump
tion that 616 was the original figure), Eaiirap 9e<5s]and Tdi'os Kalffap (i.e.' Gaius Caligula);
For the use of a number to represent a name an interesting parallel is quoted from a
j^oeptly-jfound papyrus, " I love her, the number of whose honourable, pame is 547 "
— Moulton, From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, p. 33.
2 This is the reading of the Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic versions ; the Latin has
" my son Jesus," a Christian modification : see Box, The Ezra Apocalypse, p. 114.

636 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
of Ufe." But though the conception in Rev. is in some measure similar,
both the expression which it obtains and the motives inspiring it are
distinctive. For (a) the period of Christ's reign is fixed at a thousand
years (for wMch see p. 61) ; (b) Christ does not die at its close ; and (c)
there is a preliminary resurrection of martyrs to share it. It seems clear
that this representation owes its origin to the persecutions to wMch
Christians were at the time exposed ; and was due to the conviction that
the exceptional sufferings of the martyrs entitled them to an exceptional
reward, a claim wMch at a time when a beUef was entertained m a general
resurrection of aU men could best be met by predicting for the martyrs a
revival to Ufe prior to that enjoyed by the rest of the righteous. The
conflict at Harmagedon imtiated by Satan, after bemg loosed from the
abyss at the termmation of the Millennium, is modeUed, as has been said,
upon the account in Ezekiel of the assault by Gog and Ms aUies upon
Israel. In the Old Testament writer the attack is made upon God's
people by the most distant nations of the earth, who, previously havmg
heard nothing of Israel's God, at last, m this way experience His might, as
He repels them and defends His servants. In the same manner the author
of Revelation, after describmg the overtMow of the Eoman empire and
the fehcity of God's samts during the thousand years that foUow it,
supposes that the rest of the heathen world at the close of that period will
be incited by Satan to provoke a final display of Divme power, wMch will
be manifested in their destruction. 2. Christology
The conception of Christ's Person which the book presents is rather
lacking in precision, and the language used, whilst suggesting ideas wMch
obtain more explicit expression elsewhere m the New Testament, leaves
the actual views of the writer somewhat ambiguous and obscure. Jesus,
described as " like unto a son of man " (i. 13, and cf. Enoch xlvi.), is desig
nated the Son of God (ii. 18, cf . ii. 27, iii. 5, xiv. 1), seemingly bemg such by
origin and in essence, though other men may become the sons of God (xxi.
7, ci.Joh. i. 12, xii. 36). He shares God's tMone (vii. 10, Ui. 21, xxii. 1) ;
and to God and to Him worship is offered in common by the inhabitants
of heaven and by the redeemed of earth (v. 13, 14, vii. 10, cf . xx. 6). In
some passages the title of the " Alpha and the Omega, the first and the
last," which is claimed by the Almighty as His own (i. 8, cf. xxi. 6 x) seems
to be ascribed to Jesus (i. 17, ii. 8, xxii. 13), Who is also styled the beginning
of the creation of God (¦rj dgxri rfjg xrlaecog rov Oeov, iii. 14), a phrase in
which, if xrlaig means the physical universe, ¦rj dgyfi may mean that He
is the embodiment of the prmciple governmg it (cf . Rom. viii. 28), whilst
if it signifies the new creation of redeemed humanity, ?J dgxrf may mean
that He is the origmating Source. The latter is rendered probable by the
fact that whereas in iv. 11, xiv. 7 it is God Who is praised as the Creator,
in v. 9, 10 Jesus is praised as the Eedeemer. Jesus possesses the seven

1 Cf. 2 Is. xliv. 6, xlviii. 12.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 637
spirits of God, an expression probably denoting the plenitude , of the
Divine energies (iii. 1). One of the principal functions attributed to Him
is that of revealing the future. He alone is able to unfold the sealed book
of destiny (v. 5) ; and is the faithful witness Who testifies to the Divine
purpose, and communicates it to His servants, the CMistian prophets ;
for the testimony borne by Jesus to God (xii. 17) constitutes the spirit of
prophecy (i. 5, 2, xix. 10). It is perhaps as the channel of Divine revelation
that He is caUed " the Word of God " (xix. 13, cf . i. 9). Like God HimseU
He searches men's mmost thoughts (ii. 23, cf . Ps. vii. 9, xxvi. 2, Jer. xvii.
10, xx. 12), and He determmes who shaU be consigned to, or released from,
the regions of the dead (i. 18). On the other hand, His participation of
God's throne appears as a privUege bestowed upon Him as a recompense
for His triumph over temptation and trial (iii. 21).
Jesus in His human Ufe is regarded as bemg sprung from the tribe of
Judah and from the house of David (v. 5, xxii. 16). He is entitled " the
Lion of the tribe of Judah," the designation going back to the imagery
employed in Jacob's Blessing (Gen. xlix. 9) ; and in keeping with the
mUitant associations suggested by it is the martial role in which He
figures, making war at the head of the armies of heaven. It is seemmgly
in consequence of the victory He thus gams over His foes, executing upon
them the vengeance of God, that He acquires the name " King of kings,
and Lord of lords " (xvii. 14, xix. 16).
3. Soteriology
The writer in his opening utterances of praise to Jesus describes Him as
One " Who loveth us and loosed x us from our sins by His blood " (i. 5).
In other passages when aUuding to Jesus as the Author of human salvation,
he employs for the most part phraseology of a more decidedly sacrificial
character. The name most commonly used to designate Jesus is the
" Lamb " (v. 6, 12, vi. 1, vii. 10, xiv. 1, xix. 9). The seer beholds in heaven
a Lamb standmg as though it had been slain, and hears a song of praise
addressed to Him, declaring that He had purchased unto God with His
blood, men of every tribe and tongue and people and nation (v. 9, xiv. 3, 4).
A white-robed multitude before God's throne are described as havmg
washed their robes m the blood of the Lamb (vii. 14, cf. xxii. 14), whose
death had been pre-ordamed by God from the foundation of the world
(xiii. 8). Because of the shedding of His blood men were able to get the
better of Satan, their accuser before God (xii. 11). The figure of the Lamb
is most likely derived from 2 7s. liii., a passage which itself reproduces
sacrificial ideas of expiation and atonement (p. 24). But no effort is
made by the author of Revelation to penetrate behmd the imagery or to
explam the necessity of the death of Jesus, and the way in which His
blood avaUed for the remission and purification of sins. He appears to
have accepted the idea countenanced m 2 Is. that Christ, tMough His
death, had rendered satisfaction for men's offences and had redeemed
1 In i. 5 the reading \v<ravri occurs in X A C, and some other authorities : Xowram
is found in a number of cursives, Lat. vet. (gig.) vulg. and Eg. boh.

638 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
them from a pCwer possessing hold over them ; but he does not indicate
from Whom they were purchased, or offer any explanation calculated to
throw light upon the spititnal fact which the metaphor employed leave's in
obscurity; In xvii. 14 there is presented a difierent conception of the
Lamb Who, it is predicted, wiU overcome m war ten kings (perhaps
Parthian chiefs, cf . p. 635) . and df this idea of the Lamb as a conqueror the
original is perhaps to be found in Enoch (cf . xc. 9. 12), where the martial
Judas Maocabeeus is symbolized as a horned lamb.1
The spiritual benefits procured for men by Christ are offered to theto
freely (xxi. 6, xxii. 17) ¦ but final salvation can oMy be gamed through
amendment of life mamtamed to the end; It is thus conditioned fey
repentance, faith, love, and endurance. By faith must be meant belief
in Jesus (see ii. 13, xiv. 12,. rijv niariv 'Irjaov, where the genitive is probably
objective) . and it is assumed that such faith has its outcome m works
(ii. 19, 23), caUed the works of Jesus (ii. 26), which foUOw the dead " who
die in the Lord " 2 to the judgment (xiv. 13), and deterrmne their sentences
(xx. 13, xxii. 12). The writer regards salvation as open to aU men mde-
pendently of race Pr nationaUtyi At first sight he seems m cM vii. to
mention separately the saved of Israel and the saved of the GentUe peoples
(v. 4f:, v. 9 f.); Probably, however, by the 144.000 " sealed out of every
tribe of Israel " he means not Jews m particulat Who had become CMistianS,
but Christians generaUy, viewed as the true Israel (ii. 9 and cf. xiv. 1,
where the same number occurs without any suggestion that the persons
meant are of Jewish race), who, however, are here distinguished from the
great multitude of aU nations, tribes, peoples and tongues spoken of
subsequently, because regarded as constituting the Church mflitant in
contrast to the Church triumphant. The Writer never uses the term
ixxirjala of the coUective Christian community, but oMy of mdividual
Christian bodies in different cities of Eoman Asia, each Church bemg
figuratively represented as a lamp-stand (ii. 5).3 The relation of Christ to
the whole body of believers is represented as the relation of a bridegroom
to a bride (xix. 7, xxi. 2), a figure of speech Which also appears m St. Paul
(Eph. v. 2S).
There is no allusion to the Christian rite of Baptism, for it is unlikely
(in spite of Eph. iv. 30) that this is meant by the " seaUng " mentioned lh
vii. 3. The latter appears to be somewhat analogous to a protective mark,
such as Ezekiel (ix. 4-6) speaks of (see p. 334). The idea of a Seal was
probably suggested to the writer by the branding wMch was imposed On
slaves, or the tattoomg to' Which votaries of a deity submitted, m order hb
distinguish them as belonging respectively to a human or a divme owner
(cf. 2 Is. xUv. 5 mg., Lev. xix. 28, xxi. 5, Dt. xiv. i, Gal. vi. 17).
About the companion rite of the Lord's Supper there is the same
silence, the subject of the book naturaUy not calling for mention of it.
There dppears to be no reference to Church organization beyond aUusiolis
1 See Charles, Rev. I. p. c'xiii.
2 Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 16, 1 Cor. xv. 18.
3 In i. 4 the " seven churches " are no doubt representatives of the whole Church
(seven being a sacred number, p. 603), over which Christ's care extends (ii; 1).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 639
td Apostles and prophets (xvm. 20, xxi. 14). The' "angels" of the
Churches (i: 20 and in eh. ii;, iii.) have sometimes been takfeh to designate
" Mshops " ; and in favour of this explanation' are the circumstances that
the angel is to be directly addressed (ii: 1) through the Writmg of the
prophet ; is held to be responsible for the retention m the Church of
unworthy members (ii. 14, iii. 4) . is bidden to be watchful and to
strengthen the feeble ; and that in ii. 20 some MSS. (A By many Cursives,
Lat. vet.) have rfjv yvvbJixd aov (" thy wUe ") instead of rrjv yvvalxa only.
Elsewhere in the book, however, the word ayysXog always means " angel,"
and in the passages cited the angel of a Church is perhaps its spiritual
counterpart or genius distinguishable from, though embodied in, the com
munity. It is noticeable that in this bd6k alone, withm the New Testament,
mention occurs of the " Lord's Day " (rj xvg'iaxfj rjusga, i. 10) ; in
other books the only designation for it is the Jewish title of " the first day
of the week " (Mk: xvi. 2, Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor: xvi. 2);
(d) The Tmehmg of St; Paul
St. Paul, after his conversion in c&nsfe'quehce of the viiitth 6i Jesus seen
neat Damascufe, wits baptized into the Christian ChUrch ; and hfe' Would
naturaUy become acquamted With thfe beliefs current among thfe Apostles
and other disciples (cf . i Cor. xv. 3) r'esp'eb'ting the Last Things, the Person
of Christ, and the process of Saivatioh, of which Christ Was the mediator.
But thfe diff ferfehce separating hint ff o'M the' Twelve by reason partly of thfe
fact thai his early life had bfeen spent hot in Galilee Mit at Tardus and
Jerusalem, partly of thfe violent rfeactidn frbm His previous religious position
which occurred at his co'nvfersion, and partly of Ms greater mental activity,
waS bound to cause him tb develop and re-shape the idfeaS received from
others ; so thai iherfe is observable in his Epistles a considerable modifi
cation of the beliefs of the Early OMirch &S these find expression in Acts
and elsewhere. Thfe comparison betwefen his leading theologic'al Con
ceptions arid ihoSe of his predecessors wUl most conveniently follow thfe
lines previously laid dbwfi. 1; Estihattiltigy
That St. Paul shared the prevalent expectation of the nearness of the
end of the Age and Christ's Second coming is apparent aUke from express
statements to thai effect (1 Cor. vii. 31, Rom: xiii. 11, 12, Phil. iv. 5),
from his anticipation that he and many Of his conteniporaries would be still
alive at the time (1 Th. iv. 15 f.), and from the fact thai he makes the
imminent prospect of it a constant ground of appeal to his converts to be
blameless in their bearing ahd conduct, since a reckoning Would be so soon
required (1 Cor. iv. 5, 2 Cor. y. 10, Rom. xiv; 10, 12 x), and to be fuU of hope
and joy, since relief from their tribulations was so close at hand. His belief
in the nearness of Christ's Eeturn influenced his advice in respect oi certain
social relations. In view of the circumstance thai the Second Commg of
1 In this passage God is the Judge (cf. Rom. ii. 6) ; but in general St. Paul expected
Christ to judge as God's delegate (Rdm: ii. 16; 2 Cor. v. 10).

640 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the Messiah, and the estabUshment of His Kmgdom, were expected to be
preceded by distress of the extremest kind, which would be the birthpangs
of the Messianic Age (p. 446), he wished his converts to be free from
entanglements and connexions which might augment the severity of the
trial ; and in. general he recommended aU to remain m their present
condition, whatever it might be, without bemg anxious to change it (1 Cor.
vii. 8-24). 1 Thus, though the shortness of the mterval did not, so far as
can be judged, affect the Apostle's conception of the moral duties Mcum-
bent on Christians, since from them the highest possible conduct was
required by their relation to Christ, it seems to have been a factor in the
opinions he expressed about the expediency or inexpediency of certain
courses of action which were morally indifferent. His prudential advice,
but not his ethical standard, was ruled by regard for the interim.
The most interesting addition m St. Paul to the eschatology of the
Gospels and Acts is the warnmg that the Day of the Lord could not be
looked for until after the appearance of the " Man of Sm " or " of Lawless
ness " (2 Th. ii. 3 f.), a conception of wMch some explanation is needed.
The Pauline prediction of the advent and final destruction by Christ
of such an embodiment of wickedness stands m Une with a primitive
myth, which described a conflict between the God of order, light, and good
ness on the one hand, and the spirit of disorder, darkness, and evU on the
other ; and which gave rise to anticipations of a final triumph for the
former. The myth was origmally prevalent among the Babylonians and
other nations as weU as among the ancestors of the Hebrews, though the
god and his antagonist were known by different names. It was an
imaginative method of depicting the creation of the physical world out of
chaos, and especiaUy the emergence of the dry land out of the primeval
sea (cf. Ps. civ. 7), which was personified as a monstrous dragon, and
amongst the Hebrews was sometimes designated by the name Rahab,
" boisterousness " (see 2 Is. li. 9, Ps. lxxxix, 9, 10, Job xxvi. 12). This
dragon, with its helpers, was thought of by the Hebrews as having been
wounded and subdued by Jehovah (Who, in the encounter, was attended
by the " sons of God " or " the holy ones," Job xxxviii. 7, 8, Ps. lxxxix.
7, 9, 10), but as not yet destroyed ; see Am. ix. 3 and perhaps 2 Is. li. 9
(where the Vulg. replaces " cut m pieces " by " smote "). The idea which
the representation was intended to express was that every display of
Jehovah's control over the violent sea (cf. Ps. lxxiv. 13) was a wound
inflicted upon it, though its complete subjugation was expected oMy m a
more or less distant future (cf. Rev. xxi. 1).
But whUst aUusions to this ancient myth of creation survive in the Old
Testament Scriptures, yet for the Hebrew people the mterest of the contest
between God and the rival power confronting Him was soon transferred
from the physical to the national and the moral spheres. The growth
of a monotheistic faith among them, alone of aU races, inspired m them a
profound sense of separateness between themselves and the surrounding
1 In 1 Cor. vii. 21 the second half of the v. is probably a limiting parenthesis —
" though if thou hast the power to become free, use that power " (rip SbvaaBai
fKe^Bepos yeviaBai, not rrj SovXela, being supplied after xp^cai).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 641
peoples who were stiU polytheists, so that Israel and the rest of the world
stood henceforth in spiritual no less than m poUtical antagonism to one
another. And in periods of humfliation the conviction that they were the
chosen people of the one true God led them to take comfort in the thought
that the longer God deferred the triumph of His worshippers and the
overtMow of their oppressors, the more complete at last the triumph and
the overthrow would be. Predictions of a colossal conflict between them
and their enemies who, filled with animosity, would seek their destruction,
but would only compass their own annihUation, occur in the earUest
Apocalyptic prophecies contained in the Old Testament, the detaUs of
which show much diversity (see Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix., 3 Is. Ixvi. 18-24,
Joel iii. 1 f., 2 Zech. xii, xiv.). But in the second century B.C. a fresh feature
was mtroduced into Jewish expectations of the future. The outrages
committed on the Jewish rehgion by Antiochus Epiphanes (pp. 30-1)
impressed those who witnessed, or heard of, them with a deeper sense
than ever of heathen profanity. And the fact that a smgle person was
responsible for such impieties now suggested that the outbreak of hostiUty
against God and His people which was to precede the final victory of the
latter would take expression in one individual who would concentrate in
himseU aU the wickedness of coUective heathendom (just as the ideal
quaUties of Israel and the highest hopes of its destiny had become centred
m an expected Messiah). Accordmgly, over agamst the Messiah or Christ
there was now arrayed m Jewish conceptions of the future the malign
figure of an anti-Messiah or Antichrist, m whom sacrilegious miquity
would culmmate.
It is tMs conception which, with some modification, lies behind St.
Paul's description of the advent and the ultimate destruction of the man
of sm. Prior to the Day of the Lord there would occur " the faUMg away "
(dnoaraaia) and the revelation of a smister personahty, who, impious m
character and ambitions, would be manUested as soon as a restraming
power that for a whUe retarded him was removed. This monster of
wickedness would be endowed by Satan with abUity to work signs and
wonders, m order to deceive such as were doomed to perish ; but he was
destined to be slam by Christ when the latter came for the second time.
As St. Paul is here aUudmg to matters which formed part of his oral
teaching, he leaves unexplamed whether the man of sin was to be (1) a
supramundane Bemg, who would descend upon the earth from above,
or (2) a human person born amongst men. The first alternative is favoured
by the use, m connexion with Mm, of the verb dnoxaXfatzeaBai, smce the
same verb and the corresponding noun are employed of a revelation from
heaven (Lk. xvii. 30, Rom. i. 18, 2 Th. i. 7). But on the whole, it is most
probable that he was thought of as a human personahty, for smce the term
dnoaraaia in. the LXX seems uniformly to mean a revolt against God on
the part of men (Josh. xxii. 22, Jer. ii. 19, 1 Mace. ii. 15), the " falUng
away " wMch is here contemplated should denote an outbreak of human
wickedness, reacMng its climax m an exceptionaUy impious mdividual.
But this bemg taken for granted, it is not clear whether he was expected
to emerge from among the Jews or the GentUes ; and some features in the
41

642 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
description of him seem to be taken from both. "On the one hand, it was
from the Jews that the bitterest opposition to CMistianity had hitherto
proceeded, for they not only killed ita Founder but persecuted His foUowers,
and it was to them that the wonders worked by him would especiaUy
appeal (1 Cor. i, 22). x On the other hand, the account of him as " opposing
and exalting MmseU agamst aU that is caUed God or that is worshipped,
so that he sitteth (or attempts to sit) in the temple of God, setting himself
forth as God," seems to have been suggested by the profane design of the
Eoman Emperor Caligula to place a statue of himseU m the Temple at
Jerusalem (p. 82). Caligula] died in a.d. 41, and was succeeded by
Claudius (41-54), who avoided outraging the feelmgs of his Jewish subjects
(Jos. Ant. xix. 5, 3, xx. 1, 2). Consequently, so long as Claudius Uved, a
repetition of Caligula's conduct was not feared, and in that Emperor (or
the authority exercised by him) is found the most plausible explanation
of d xarixarv (or rd xardxov), used to mdicate the impediment that
delayed the appearance of the man of sin.2 But smce the deification of
the Eoman emperors was at the time a well-established principle of Eoman
rule (at least in the provmces), there was ground for fearing that after
the death of Claudius (when the restraimng power might be said to be
removed) the impiety of Caligula would be renewed.
In regard to the Besurrection of the dead St. Paul seems to have departed
from the view generaUy prevalent in the Jewish-CMistian section of the
Church, (a) Whereas it was commoMy expected that the wicked as well
as the righteous would rise (cf . Mt. xxv. 31—40), the Apostle, though in
some passages he implies the appearance of aU men before God's judgment
seat (Rom.ii. 6 f ., cf . 2 Cor. v. 10), yet m general thought that the Besurrection
would be confined to the righteous, and that aU m whom the prmciple of
spiritual Ufe was lackmg would remain in the nether world, (b) Whilst the
ordmary Jewish conception of the resurrection body was materialistic
(p. 42), St. Paul held that flesh and blood could not inherit the kmgdom
of God, and that the bodies of those who should share the resurrection would
be " spiritual " (p. 478). One passage (1 Cor.xv. 25-28) suggests that he
entertained the anticipation of a temporary reign of CMist on earth,
lasting untU His subjugation of aU tMngs to HimseU should be complete,
when He would finaUy surrender aU rule to His Father. In this St. Paul
shares an idea wMch finds expression in Revelation ; but whereas the
Apostle does not define any period, and thinks that the samts coUectively
are to have part m CMist's temporary reign, there is m Revelation a limit
both to the time of His reign and to the participants in it (p. 635).

1 There prevailed a behef that the Antichrist would be born of the tribe of Dan,
but it is uncertain whether this expectation was ourrent as early as St. Paul's time.
2 If the Antichrist be taken to be a supramundane personahty, 6 narixvv must
be some celestial power (hke Miohael, the angehc prince of Israel, Dan. x. 13, 21) ;
but it is then difficult to give an appropriate sense to the words " until he be taken
out of the way." It is still harder to put a natural meaning on these words if 6 Kartxwv
be rendered "he that holdeth sway," and understood to refer to Satan.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 643
2. Christology
In the teachmg of the " Twelve " and of the Primitive Church (as it is
represented in Acts and the other sources previously reviewed) the central
fact upon which emphasis was laid was that Jesus was the Messiah (p. 626),
NotMng was affirmed about His existence prior to His birth ; it was only
contended that He had been declared by God both Lord and Christ through
His resurrection from the dead and His reception mto heaven, whence He
had shed upon His foUowers the gift of the Holy Spirit. But tMs simple
Christology was replaced by a more complex theory when St. Paul's
reflection began to be exercised about the Personahty of Jesus, after he
had been brought to acknowledge Him as the Messiah. The conclusions
wMch find expression in his Epistles are principaUy concerned with the
relations of the Messiah, Who was God's Son m a pre-emment sense, and
consequently styled " the Son " without quaUfication (1 Cor. xv. 28, cf .
Mt. xi. 27 (= Lk. x. 22), Mk. xin. 32) to (a) the Creator and the created
Universe, (b) the Holy Spirit, (c) other spiritual powers, (d) the Church.
(a) The dommant factor in St. Paul's thoughts about CMist was that
He was the Mediator of human redemption ; and it was this that controlled
Ms conceptions concernmg His cosmic relations. As the Son had not
eome mto the world with a redemptive purpose apart from the wfll of the
Father, the salvation of the world must have entered mto the Divme
purposes from the beginning ; and it was therefore necessary to bring the
Agent of redemption mto connexion with the work of creation. Two
suggestive Unes of thought, both within St. Paul's mental horizon, were
avaUable for this. One was the personification of the Divine Wisdom in.
the Apocryphal book of Wisdom (ch. vii.), where it is described as an
» image of God's goodness, as possessed of aU power (ndvra Svvarai) and
as renewmg aU things (vv. 26, 27). The other was the Stoic idea of Eeason
as an immanent prmciple m the world. It is not improbable that St. Paul
drew upon both of these sources in. givmg form to his ideas about the
relation to the UMverse of Him Who was its Eedeemer ; at any rate, there
are features in his language about CMist which recaU both the passage just
cited from Wisdom and the pMaseology of contemporary Stoicism.1 In
developmg his thoughts about the essential dignity of Christ, he expanded
the impUcations mvolved m the conception of His bemg the Son of God.
Although it was through the Besurrection that Jesus was distinguished as
the Divine Son in. a way convincmg to human witnesses (Rom. i. 4), yet
He occupied this relationsMp before bemg born on earth. He was the
image (elxdtv) of the mvisible God, the first-born of the miiverse, of wMch
He Was the creative agency, the final end, and the sustaimng and umting
principle (Col. i. 15, 16, 17, cf . 1 Cor. vui. 6). In Him during His eartMy
life the plenitude of Deity dwelt under bodily conditions (Col. i. 19, ii. 9),
the essential attributes of Godhead co-existing m Him with the funda
mental attributes of humamty (so far as such are compatible). In one
passage (Rom. ix. 5) which admits of bemg variously punctuated, it is
1 Cf. Kennedy, Theology of the Epistles, pp. 155, 156.

644 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
possible that He is expressly caUed God, and described as " He who is
over all, God blessed for ever " (cf. Tit. ii. 13, Joh. xx. 28, 2 Pet. i. 1).
If attention is confined to these passages, it is aUowable to put upon
the Apostle's Christology an Alexandrme mterpretation, and to suppose
that he meant that the Divine graciousness, evmced m the eartMy life of
Jesus and in the beneficent purposes which He pursued, was a principle
which God had had abiding with Him from eternity, and wMch had
governed the act of Creation from the first. But another passage seems
to show that his notion of Christ's pre-existence was not as abstract as
this, and that he thought of CMist as pre-existing as an mdividual Person.
For he represents that the Son origmaUy possessed with God a standmg
such as might have kindled unbounded ambitions ; yet that He did not
aspire to grasp at equality with God (as some of the angels may be supposed
to have done,1 or as Adam is described in Gen. iii. as essaying to do 2), but
divested HimseU of His heaveMy digmty, assummg, mstead, the form of a
bond-servant and submitting to the death of the Cross (Phil. ii. 6). TMs
conception of Jesus as having an individual and personal existence with
God prior to His birth on earth seems to have Hebraic rather than HeUemc
or HeUenistic affinities, and was perhaps derived from the portrayal of the
" Son of man " contained in the Similitudes of Enoch (see p. 41) ; for
though the Apostle does not use the title " Son of man," he seems to betray
famUiarity with the idea through his use of the pMase " the (second) man
from heaven " (1 Cor. xv. 47). 3 And beMnd it was probably the beUef
current in Jewish circles that of what had been, or was to be, manUested
on earth there existed a counterpart m heaven (p. 108), which might be
regarded as descending thence when the person or thmg appeared M
terrestrial surroundmgs. How St. Paul imagmed the Incarnation of the
pre-existent Son to have been effected is not clear. He represents CMist
as sprung from the family of David (Rom. i. 3) ; but he nowhere aUudes to
the Virgin Birth (p. 360). In consequence of the humUity and seU-
sacrifice which He had displayed m taking human flesh and m undergomg
aU the ignominy and agony of crucifixion, God had supremely exalted Him,
so that to Him every creature, terrestrial, celestial, or infernal, must
yield homage (Phil. ii. 10) and render the title of Lord (this bemg the
title used in the LXX as an equivalent for the ineffable name Jehovah,
Ex. iii. 15, 2 Is. Iii. 8, etc.).
But although the Apostle thus emphasized the Mgh dignity wMch CMist
enjoyed before His appearance on earth, and the glory to wMch He was
raised after His submission to death, yet he retamed the Jewish
monotheistic faith and affirmed the Son's subordination to the Father,
representing that to the latter, Who is termed His God (2 Gor. i. 3, cf.
1 Pet. i. 3, Rev. i. 6, Joh. xx. 17), He was destined to restore aU the
authority entrusted to Him, and to place HimseU in subjection, so that
God in the end might be aU in aU (1 Cor. xv. 28).
(b) St. Paul's conception of the Holy (or Divme) Spirit had, Uke that of
1 Cf. Bashdall, Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, p. 127.
2 Cf. Kennedy, op. cit. p. 159. _
3 Cf. Foundations (by Seven Oxford Men), p. 173.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 645
other New Testament writers, its Unks with the Old Testament. In the
Jewish Scriptures various capacities and aptitudes, physical, artistic,
inteUectual, ethical, and prophetic, were ascribed to the gift, conferred on
favoured Mdividuals, of the Spirit (see Jud. xiv. 6, Ex. xxxi. 3, Is. xi. 2,
3 Is. lxi. 1 , Joel ii. 28) . In the early Church, reUgious ecstasy, abUity to pre
dict the future, possession of qualities leadmg to office m the Church, and
a heightened consciousness of love to God and of moral power were aU
simUarly attributed to the presence of the Spirit as their immediate
occasion. The bestowal of the Spirit upon men might be referred to the
grace and bounty either of God or of Christ (Rom. viii. 9% and 1 Cor. iii. 16,
Rom. viii, 9b, Gal. iv. 6). But St. Paul's strongest reUgious conviction was
that his spiritual Ufe was due to his union with Christ (see p. 657), so that
he was led not only to regard the dweUing of the Divme Spirit in the hearts
of men as equivalent to the dwelUng therein of Christ (Eph. iii. 16, 17), but
even to identify Christ with the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 17, 18). 1 Christ was
both the spiritual Mfluence that penetrated and swayed the mmds of
mdividual believers, so that He could be said to be " in them " (Rom.
viii. 1, 10, 2 Cor. v. 17, xiii. 5, Col. i. 27), and He was also the mfluence
pervadmg the Church withm wMch beUevers were Mcluded, and envelopmg
its members like an atmosphere, so that they could be likewise said to be
" in Him " (Rom. xvi. 7, 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2 Cor. v. 17). Since the heavenly
CMist was a Spiritual Bemg, and smce M the case of spiritual realities it is
difficult to discrimmate between cause and effect, it was almost mevitable
that in St. Paul's language the conceptions of CMist and of the Spirit
should sometimes merge mto one another in the manner iUustrated. Yet
smce he thought of Christ as still an mdividual Person (cf. p. 644), he
might, U caUed upon to distinguish between CMist and the Holy Spirit, have
said that the former was the active Source of the effects manifest M
Christians, whUst the latter was the sum of the moral and mteUectual
energies emanating from Him and present m them. Nevertheless there
are passages where he ascribes to the Spirit ItseU personal activities
(e.g. Rom. viii. 26), and seems to co-ordmate the feUowship of the Spirit
with the grace of the Lord Jesus CMist and the love of God (2 Cor. xiii. 14),
so that there appears m his writings the germ of the later definition of the
Trinity.2 The most important difference between St. Paul and the Primitive
Church m general as regards the Spirit related to the value of the various
endowments mariring mdividuals M the Church, to which aUusion has been
made. It has already been noticed that among the gUts of the Spirit
mentioned in the Old Testament is prophecy, a word which could describe ¦
equaUy the agitated outbursts of partially inteUigrble or wholly un-
mteUigible speech mariring the bands of religious fanatics that roamed
about the country in the time of Samuel (1 Sam. x. 5, 6, xix. 23) and the
UlumMating and impressive addresses of an Isaiah. In the early Church
there occurred phenomena simUar to both of these varieties of prophecy,
1 In this passage the words xaBdirep airb Kvplov irvevnaros seem to mean " as may
be expected from the Lord Who is Spirit."
a Cf. also 1 Cor. xii. 4-6, Eph. iv. 4-6, and see 1 Pet. i. 2, 1 Joh. iv. 2.

646 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and it was the first that attracted most attention. The ascription of
uncontrollable utterances to Divine mfluence was not confined to the
Christian community ; in other religions rapturous excitement was believed
to betoken the descent of a god upon his votaries. In such conditions
there was danger of excessive value being attached to the emotional side
of religion ; and it was due to St. Paul that " prophesying " and " speak
ing with tongues " were not aUowed to be overrated as gifts of the Spirit.
Though he did not desire to suppress such outbreaks of pent-up f eelmg,
he pointed to the virtues of love, joy, peace, forbearance, kmdness, self-
control, and other moral qualities (Gal. v. 22, 23, Rom. xiv. 17, cf. 1 Cor.
xii. 28-31, xiii. 1) as the most precious marks of the presence, with the
Church, of the Divine Spirit, which for him represented " not so much an
ecstatic as an ethical power 1 ; " and by his diserimmatmg judgment he
contributed greatly to the maintenance of Church Ufe on sane and sober
lines. (c) It has already been shown that St. Paul represented Christ Jesus as
exalted by God over all other existences in the universe, givmg Him the
name (probably Kvgiog) that is above every name (Phil. n. 10, see p. 644) ;
but he had occasion to emphasize m particular His superiority to the
elemental spirits which were thought to control the movements of the
heavenly bodies, whereby the occurrence of holy days (weekly, montMy
or annual) was determmed and which in this way exercised mfluence over
human fortunes. The Apostle feared that the observance of the Jewish
Law, with its festivals and fasts, would bring Christians under bondage to
such spirits (Gal. iv. 3), who would be on the watch to exact from them the
penalties awaiting Mf ractions of the Law ; so he contended that the bond
written in the ordmances of the Law to men's prejudice had been canceUed
by Christ. He had naUed this bond to His Cross ; and as He hung there,
He had stripped from HimseU those principalities and powers which
during, and m consequence of, His life m the flesh, had had a hold upon
Him ; and had displayed them in triumph, ensuring thereby for aU beUevers
freedom from their authority and influence (Col. ii. 8-23).
(d) In St. Paul's writings the thought of the Kingdom of God is largely
replaced by that of the Church. Although aUusion occurs to the kmgdom
as an inheritance m the future (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, xv. 50, Gal. v. 21, 1 Th. u. 12),
yet it is also spoken of as a sphere into which Christians had already been
translated (Col. i. 13); so that it must have been, m a measure, identified
with the Church. To the Church the relation occupied by Christ is
illustrated by a number of metaphors. Sometimes the figure of speech is
derived from a buUding, the Christian commumty bemg a sanctuary of
which Christ is the chief corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20-22) ; at other times it is
drawn from marriage, Christ loving and cfaerishmg the Church as a man
does his wife (Eph. v. 28-30, cf. 2 Cor. xi. 2). But most often the Church
is described as the Body of Christ of which Mdividual Christians are the
limbs and members (1 Cor. xii. 27, Rom. xii. 4, 5, Eph. iv. 12). The
thought inspiring this conception is the mutual benefit which comes to each
1 Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism, p. 41.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 647
mdividual from others through incorporation in a common Society, the
importance and value of such union bemg probably impressed upon him
by his experience of the unity of the Eoman Empire, cemented as it was
by Imperial rule.1 The analogy of the unified State he extended to the
Christian community. Though Christ M His distinctive Personahty was
in heaven, yet He was present through His Spirit M the Church, the
constituent members of which became channels for imparting to the
rest the advantage of the spiritual gifts with which they were endowed,
and also reciproeaUy derived profit from those which had been conferred
upon the others. 3. Soteriology
It has been shown that there existed in the Primitive Church the belief
that the death of Jesus had been predetermmed by God, and that through
Him forgiveness of sins was conveyed and salvation obtamed (Acts iv. 12,
xiii. 38, 39) ; and though an explanation of the way in which His death
was connected with the benefit to men of which He was the source had not
yet been produced, the search after such was turmng towards the prophecy
in 2 Is. Uii. (see 1 Pet. ii. 23, 24, Acts viii. 30-35). With the tentative
speculations that were current St. Paul would become acquamted when he
first came M contact with St. Peter, Barnabas, and other members of the
CMistian body (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 3). But inasmuch as he was not oMy a
man of greater culture than the rest of the Apostles, but had at his con
version undergone an exceptional experience, these circumstances combmed
to give to Ms development of the ideas received from others a distinctive
character wMch is discernible in aU but the earliest of his Epistles (1, 2
Thess.). By speech a Hebrew 2 and by trammg a Pharisee he was famUiar both
with the Old Testament Scriptures (in which he was accustomed to find
a clue to God's purposes) and with the body of tradition that had gathered
round them ; and in early Ufe he was devoted to the observance of the
Law, looking to acMeve through obedience to it the righteousness required
by God.3 And smce the Founder of Christianity had in His teaching
disregarded m various ways the traditional Mterpretation of the Law, he
could only suppose that He, Mstead of bemg the Messiah, was an impostor,
and through the circumstances of His death had incurred the Divine
curse (Dt. xxi. 23, cf . 1 Car. i. 23). But the vision of Jesus M glory (Acts ix.)
left Mm in no doubt that Jesus reaUy was the Messiah ; and this change of
mteUectual conviction was accompanied by a spiritual revolution, inasmuch
as he felt MmseU endowed with a degree of moral power he had never
experienced previously, and with a peace of mmd which Ms efiorts to keep
the Law had never conferred. These two facts — the endurance of the
shameful death of the Cross hy One who was the Messiah, and the inward
1 Cf. McNeile, St. Paul, p. 8.
2 I.e. a speaker of Aramaic.
8 This, if attained, might be termed a, man's own (ij Idta Sucaioovvij, Rom. x. 3,
cf. Phil. iii. 9).

648 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
transformation which had taken place in himseU through faith m Jesus —
raised a problem of which he essayed to furnish a solution by a more
thorough use of the Old Testament (handled after contemporary methods
of interpretation) than had hitherto been attempted.
There prevaUed in this age a belief that satisfaction for coUective sm
could be rendered to God through the death of some individual member
or members of the sinful community (see p. 620). The belief (it may be
supposed) was based partly upon the ideas expressed m 2 Is. liii. and partly
upon the analogy of the sacrifice of animal victims enjomed by the Law,
such sacrifices being Mterpreted as substitutionary. It was on these
lmes that St. Paul sought an explanation of the death of Christ. Although
he hardly reproduces the language of 2 Is. liii. at aU, yet the ideas conveyed
by it seem to lie behind his reference to " the redemption " (d-noXvrgoiaig),1
which we have in Christ Jesus (Rom. iii. 24, cf . Col. i. 14), and his declaration
to his Corinthian converts that they had been bought (rryogdadrjaav) at a
price (1 Cor. vi. 21, vii. 23). 2 Such figures of speech, however Uttle may
be the uniformity with which they are worked out m detaU, suggest that
the Apostle considered that Christ's death was m some sense vicarious,
and that on the Cross He, the guUtless (2 Cor. v. 21), underwent the fate
deserved by the guilty (cf. Gal. i. 4, ii. 20, Rom. iv. 25, v. 6, 8). The same
conclusion is deducible from the metaphors drawn from the Jewish
sacrificial system. Although the principle underlymg that system is
obscure (probably more than one is traceable M it), certain features con
nected with it pomt to the supposition that the animal victims were
thought of as suflermg death M place of human offenders whose sins they
expiated. To such victims St. Paul likens Christ, describmg Him as a
sin offering (Rom. viii. 3, cf. 2 Cor. v. 21) 3 ; he speaks of His bemg set
forth by God to make propitiation by His blood (Rom. Ui. 25, where the
ritual of the day of Atonement is perhaps m his mmd) ; and he declares
that He gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice (Eph. v. 2).* In
accordance with the conviction, iUustrated by these phrases, that Christ
suffered for men as their substitute he represents m forensic language that
men are justified by His blood (Rom. v. 9), their acquittal at the bar of
God on the counts which were entered agamst them bemg secured by His
death on their behaU. In the sacrifice thus regarded as necessary for
human salvation God is represented as participating m so far as He had
not spared His only Son but had sent Him to effect the redemption of
mankmd (Gal. i. 4, Rom. viii. 32) ; and hence men could be said to be
justified or saved by His grace, smce the initial purpose was His (Rom. iii.
1 Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 6, " Christ Jesus Who gave Himself a ransom (dvriKvrpov) for
all." 2 The masters from whose control believers had been liberated at such cost are
variously conceived to be the Law (Oal. iv. 5), or sin (1 Gor. vi. 20, cf. Rom. vi. 17, 18),
or the evil spirits that were served through the worship of idols (Oal. iv. 8).
3 The words irepl ajxaprtas and ap.aprla in these passages reproduce the' phrases
used for the sin offering in Lev. iv. 3, 25, and other places by the LXX.
* Christ is also compared to the Passover Lamb whose blood (according to Ex. xii.
23) preserved the Israelites from the angel whieh destroyed the first-born of the
Egyptians (1 Cor. v. 7).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 649
24, Eph. ii. 5, 8). The benefit of what had been gamed for sinners by Christ
was appropriated by them through faith, which was thus the condition of
justification (Rom. v. I).1
But by a substitutionary theory of this simple character St. Paul's
mward experiences were unaccounted for. He was sensible of being saved
from sin, not merely assured that he would be spared the consequences of
sin ; and so the explanation had to be expanded in order to embrace this
fact also.
Though the conception of religion entertamed by the Pharisees in
general was liable to foster formalism and unreality, it cannot be supposed
that such traits were universal among them ; and certainly it cannot be
doubted that St. Paul had had as a Pharisee a sincere zeal for righteousness.
Nevertheless the efforts which he made to attain it were accompanied by
an ever-mcreasmg sense that it was beyond his reach. Though from an
external pomt of view he knew that he fulfiUed the Law blamelessly
(Phil. iii. 6), he found himself Mcapable of bringmg his nature into complete
conformity with the Divine will. The prmciple upon which the Law
proceeded was that God's favour depended on merit, as measured by
obedience to His commands (Lev. xviii. 5, cf . Rom. x. 5) ; but with those
commands the Apostle's natural Mstincts and desires came Mto perpetual
coMsion, and mdeed, were oMy stimulated by the Law's prohibitions
(Rom. vii. 7). He was thus conscious of an intense inward struggle, the
inevitable issue of which fiUed him with despair (Rom. vii. 14-24, cf.
Dt. xxvii. 26). And what he knew by experience to be true in his own case
he beheved to be equaUy true of others. Amongst mankmd at large sin
and depravity prevaUed ; for though this was most conspicuous M the
heathen, who were made -aware of God's requirements through their reason
and conscience (Rom. ii. 14, 15), it marked the Jewish people also, who
possessed His written commandments (Rom. ii. 20, 23). And as the
impression thus derived from his own observation was corroborated by
various statements contamed M the Scriptures, representing wickedness
as universal in extent (Ps. xiv. 1-3, quoted in Rom. iii. 10 f.), he was
convmced that by Law no flesh in God's sight could possibly be justified.
Of the entry among mankind of the ingrained corruption wMch
precluded perfect obedience to the Divine injunctions, the Apostle found
(as he beUeved) a trustworthy Mstorical account in the book of Genesis.
Adam first sinned, and by Ms sM introduced, if not death,2 at least
shortened Ufe 3 ; involved the natural world in suffering and mefiectiveness
(Rom. viii. 20) ; and also infected human nature with evil, wMch had its
seat in the flesh, and gave to the flesMy instincts a decided bias in a

1 By faith Christians are also said to become the sons of God (Oal. iii. 26), so that
" adoption " (vloBeo-la) is virtually a synonym for justification.
2 Man being framed from the dust of the earth is represented in Gen. iii. 19 as
destined by his physical constitution to return to it (cf. Job xxxiv. 15). On the other
hand, in the Apocrypha, several passages suggest that death entered the world as
the result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve ; see Wisd. ii. 23-24, Ecclus. xxv. 24,
2 Esd. iii. 7.
3 Cf. Gen. iii. 3, with iii. 22.

650 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
direction contrary to God's law. St. Paul's view of the results of the Fall
is not quite clear ; but he probably held that Adam bequeathed to Ms
posterity not complete depravity of wUl, but a strong inclination to evil
which could only be resisted by great efiorts, but wMch at the same time
was not so constraming as to reUeve Ms descendants from responsibility
for their individual offences.1 Adam's transgression, though a causal
principle (Rom. v. 16, 19) of human sinfuMess, was not the sole cause of
its universal prevalence. It predisposed the race towards evil, but every
man was independently accountable for his own sins. TMough Adam all
mankind became exposed to God's wrath in the course of their natural
development (cf. Eph. ii. 3, rexva rpvaei dgyfjg), the bias to lawlessness
inherited from their first father leading to actual transgression tMough the
voluntary choice of each individual man.2
TMs belief that Adam transmitted to Ms posterity a bias towards
evil is found neither in the book of Genesis 3 nor in the rest of the Old
Testament. The first unambiguous statement conveymg the idea that
Adam's transgression caused a proclivity to evil in Ms offspring, wMch
rendered good more difficult of attainment than before, seems to occur
in 2 Esdras, a work of the first century a.d. Here (m. 21) it is declared,
" For the first Adam, bearing a wicked heart, transgressed and was
overcome, and not he only but all they also who were born of Mm. Thus
weakness was made permanent " (cf. vii. 118, " 0 thou Adam, what hast
thou done ! For though it was thou that sinned, the faU was not tMne
alone, but ours also who are thy descendants."). The writer's view, as
here expressed, is that, though Adam when created was not whoUy free
from evil impulses, yet before the FaU these had no overwhehning
ascendancy ; but after, and in consequence of, the FaU they became
mtensifled, so that Ms descendants through heredity were crippled, though
not whoUy incapacitated, for resisting sM. But by the side of tMs view
there was current another which accentuated more strongly every man's
accountabiUty for his own conduct. TMs is found in the Apocalypse of
Baruch Uv. 15, 19, " For though Adam first sinned and brought untimely
death upon all, yet of those who were born from Mm each one of them
has prepared for his own soul torment to come, and again each one of
them has chosen for himself glories to come. . . . Adam is, therefore,
not the cause save only of Ms own soul, but each one of us has been the
Adam of his own soul." It was with the first of these two opimons that
St. Paul's own vieW seems to have accorded most olosely, for he appears
to imply in Rom. vii. 18, 24, that through Adam's fall there had been
perpetuated in the human raoe a predommance of evU tendencies over
good, causing actual sin to be almost inevitable and certamly universal
in all Ms progeny (Rom. v. 19).

1 Cf. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 136-138.
a Cf. Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, pp. 359-360.
0 It is noticeable that of Adam's descendants living before the Flood some are
described as pleasing God and being righteous and blameless, e.g. Enoch and Noah
(Gen. v. 24, vi. 9).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 651
The Apostle, then, concluded that the Divine Law was of no avail
in withstanding the desires of man's carnal nature. It confronted those
desires with the demands of a righteous and holy God, exhibitmg by
contrast to these, the wickedness of sin . but it afforded no aid towards
its conquest. On the contrary, though good in itseU, it became an incentive
to evU, the proMbitions which it contained only provoking the natural
passionsto defiance (Rom. v. 20). x From the hopeless situation in which,
before his conversion, St. Paul felt MmseU placed, with Ms true seU bent
upon the fulfilment of the Divme requirements, but with aU Ms efiorts
baffled tMough his MabUity to subdue the solicitations that were centred
in Ms flesh, he was deUvered tMough the revelation made to Mm by the
glorified Jesus. And in consequence of the faith thus acqmred in Jesus as
the Messiah, he found that, in. the moral conflict witMn Mm, the victory
wMch had previously gone in favour of his lower, now incUned towards
Ms Mgher, nature. The strength of the opposition wMch Ms fleshly
impulses had offered to the Law of God was broken ; and what he had
formerly been impotent to accomplish, he was at last able to achieve
(Phil. iv. 13, Rom. vn. 25).
TMs transition from a feelmg of spiritual bondage and helplessness to
a feelmg of spiritual freedom and power raised several problems. Of these,
one was to understand what purpose, if mankmd were meant to attain to
righteousness tMough faith, the Law, through wMch he had previously
pursued righteousness so ineffectually, was designed to serve. The idea
might have suggested itseU that the Law was the method originaUy
intended by God ; but that as tMs had broken down, faith had been
substituted in its stead. But this conclusion bemg derogatory to the
Divme foresight, St. Paul avoided it, and fastened on an instance of
faith wMch, prior to the enactment of the Law, had been reckoned to a
man for righteousness, so that faith as the means of spiritual salvation
appeared to be God's origmal plan. Such an instance was afforded by the
history of Abraham, of whom it was related that, many centuries earlier
than the time of Moses, he had beUeved God and it was counted to Mm as
righteousness (Gen. xv. 6, Rom. iv. 3).2 Moreover, this occurred before
he was cUcumcised, and had not yet received the covenant-sign, on which
the Law placed so much stress (Rom. iv. 9-13). From this (St. Paul held)
it was to be gathered that by faith and not by the Law men from the first
were meant to become righteous ; and the original stipulation was not
canceUed by the later legal system. The Law was promulgated subse
quently with qmte another end in view, namely to exMbit the exeeedmg
sinfulness of sin, and so intensify the desire for some more effective way
of attammg to the righteousness which God required. Like the slave who
took a Eoman boy to school (naiSaycoydg), its office was to lead men
to Christ (Gal. iii. 24). The Law was thus in the Divine scheme of redemp
tion a kind of parenthesis (vdfiog Si nagsiafjXBsv, Rom. v. 20),3 designed
1 Cf. Ovid, Am. iii. 4, 17, Nitimur in vetihim semper cupimusque negata.
2 Cf. Hab. ii. 4 (quoted in Rom. i. 17, Gal. ih. 11) and le. xxviii. 16 LXX (quoted
in Rom. x. 11).
8 Sanday and Headlam, Rom. p. 143.

652 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to promote a subsidiary purpose in a comprehensive plan wMch really
aimed at accomplisMng human salvation by a different method.
From the settlement of tMs problem St. Paul approached afresh the
question why the Messiah, belief in Whom had wrought in Mm so signal
a change of disposition, had undergone death, and that, too, a death
which the Law represented as a mark of God's curse . To the Jews generally
the Crucifixion was an obstacle wMch especially deterred them from
acknowledging that Jesus was the Messiah (1 Cor. i. 23) ; and as St. Paul
had come to regard their incredulity mistaken, it was essential for Mm to
show how the death of Jesus had contributed to the accomplishment
of God's purpose. What God had desired for man was mamfestly his
release from the tyranny of sinful impulses, the restoration to him of
spiritual liberty, and the bestowal upon Mm of moral power. Now he
knew by experience that all this had been for him effected tMough faith
in the crucified Jesus as the Messiah ; he felt that Ms former seU, wMch
had evinced such antagonism to God's holy reqmrements, had died;
and he had entered on a new phase of existence. The paraUelism between
his own death unto sm (potentially, if not yet actually and completely,
Phil. iii. 11, 12), and the death of the Messiah on the Cross, between the
newness of hfe of which he MmseU had become conscious, and the resurrec
tion of the Son of God, was too obvious to be ignored ; and the inference
was irresistible. The CMist, the destined Judge of the world, had come
from heaven on a preliminary mission to mediate righteousness for men,
and to deliver them from the destruction impendmg over the sinful. He
had died that through Him men might die unto sin ; and He had risen
from the dead that men might live unto God.
The process by wMch, in St. Paul's mmd, CMist's physical death was
equated with a death unto sin had its origm m the idea that temptation
assailed men through their fleshly nature (Rom. vn. 23, vM. 7, Gal. v. 17),
the body being regarded as the tabernacle, or the garment, of the soul
(2 Cor. v. 1-4, cf. 2 Pet. i. 14). The only way of escape from sin was to
escape from the flesh. But as long as the bias to sin was paramount in
the fleshly body by reason of the Fall, men could not, even tMough death,
escape from the consequences of sin ; the flesh infected the spirit, and so
the latter could have no hope of participating in a blissful immortaUty,
since tMs in St. Paul's view was confined to the righteous (p. 642). Thus
it was sin that made death terrible and constituted its sting (1 Cor. xv. 56).
Christ, however, when He died on the Cross, ceased to have further contact
with sin, such as His existence in the flesh had entailed (Rom. vi. 10) ;
for since sin had gained no hold upon the spirit of One so holy, it foUowed
that, when His body of flesh was once laid down and He rose to renewed
life, He, as a spiritual BeMg, was no longer liable to temptation. And men,
tMough umon with Him in His death and resurrection, could Ukewise
share in the deliverance whieh He had acMeved. So long, indeed, as
they were still in the flesh, they were not free from promptings of evil,
and their bodies, the seat of such solicitations, were doomed to physical
death. Yet in spite of this they who became united to CMist were not,
as before, under the mastery of sin, but even in their present phase of

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 653
existence had at their disposal for resisting it superhuman resources
(Eph. vi. 10) ; and their spirits, when released from the bondage of the flesh
(cf . Rom. vni. 23), were destined" to share His immortality (Rom. vi. 23,
vni. II).1 During the present lUe, too, the relation of such to Law was
altered. Law had authority oMy over the Uving, not over the dead
(Rom. vn. 1) ; so when Christ died He became free from Law, and beUevers,
through sharing His death and risen Ufe, were also freed from the same
control (Gal. v. 18, Rom. vi. 14).
In what way St. Paul explained to MmseU how the death and resurrec
tion of Christ carried with it a death unto sin and a resurrection unto
righteousness for those who beheved in Him is not so clear. It is possible
that in constructing Ms soteriological theory he proceeded on the prmciple
of representation. Jewish thought in general was characterized by a
defective sense of individuaUty, so that solidarity was considered to
subsist between members of one family, or of one race, in a degree which
to modern mmds seems unreal (cf. p. 24). Inheriting tMs manner of
thinkmg, St. Paul may have supposed that the Messiah, through taking
flesh, became representative of humamty at large, so that His experiences
were attributable to the race. Or he may have thought that the Messiah,
in assummg flesh, m some way included in HimseU aU humanity, somewhat
as Adam included in MmseU aU Ms descendants (cf. Heb. vn. 9, 10). The
Apostle does not seem to have felt the need of elucidating what to many
appears to require explanation ; and it is impossible to feel sure that even
to himseU Ms language represented a clear and definite conception.
As has been seen, faith was regarded as the condition of participating
in the salvation which CMist, through His death and renewed Ufe, com
municated to men (cf. Rom. x. 9, Phil. Ui., 9, 10). But believers in Jesus
as the Christ constituted a commumty, the Church ; and into tMs com
mumty members were admitted through the rite of baptism. The CMistian
society was the sphere witMn wMch spiritual gifts (p. 647) were in evidence,
and masmuch as it was Christ, now a fife-giving Spirit, who was the
Source of the extraordinary faculties mamfest witMn the Church (Eph. iv.
8), it was not unnatural that spiritual participation in CMist's death
and rising again should be brought into parallelism with membersMp of
the Church. Hence baptism, wMch was the rite that umted beUevers
to the Church, came to be looked upon as the visible means whereby they
were uMted to CMist (Gal. Ui. 27, Rom. vi. 3-5, 1 Cor. xii. 13, Col. ii. 12),
of Whose body the Church could be viewed as the counterpart (p. 646).
This idea was promoted by the nature of the rite itseU ; for the immersion
of the baptized in the water and their re-emergence out of it reproduced
dramaticaUy the descent of CMist to the world of the dead and His
resurrection therefrom, and there was a tendency M contemporary thought
to consider that to partake in the representation of a religious mystery
was an effectual means of sharing in the reaUty that was represented
(p. 86). Hence, converts to Christianity from heathendom were prone
1 St. Paul expected the personahty to be invested with a " spiritual " body,
fitted for the life after death, see p. 478.

654 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
to conclude that the sacrament of baptism ensured salvation ; and
against such an inference St. Paul had to caution some, illustrating the
futility of such presumptuous confidence by the fate of the IsraeUtes in
the wilderness, who, during their escape from Egypt, had undergone in
the Eed Sea an experience analogous to baptism, yet perished m conse
quence of their subsequent offences (1 Cor. x. 1-10). In view of this
caution, it is the more surprisMg that he did not express disapproval of
vicarious baptism for the dead (1 Cor. xv. 29), wMch must have originated
tMough the currency of a view about baptism wMch looked upon it as
bemg in itseU a means of salvation independently of moral conditions.
Baptism, however, was not the only Christian rite. The Church had
received from its Founder the celebration of the Eucharist, instituted by
Christ as a memorial of His death and of the new covenant wMch His Spirit
of seU-saerifice was instrumental in estabhsMng. And tMs view of the
rite as a perpetual reminder of the Lord's death until His Eeturn was
reaffirmed by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 26), who added the further idea that
it was a symbol of the umty subsisting between aU who partook of it,
since they all shared one loaf, and so, though many, constituted one body
(1 Cor. x. 17 mg.). The nature of the rite, however, laid it open to another
construction. The appeal made to the senses by the physical acts of
eating the bread and drinkmg the wme tended to displace m the minds
of many the thought of the acqmsition of spiritual sustenance by reflection
and meditation upon Christ's seU-sacrifice, and to substitute the notion
of an actual feeding upon His Body and Blood, beheved to be present
materiaUy in the elements of Bread and Wine. The practice of consuming
consecrated food seemingly in the behef that it would ipso facto bring
aboutumon between worsMppers and the divimty worsMpped, was prevalent
in contemporary rehgions (p. 87) ; and it was easy for CMistian believers
who were familiar with the usages of such religions to transfer the same
conception to their own rite.1 And tMs way of regarding the Eucharist
finds some reflection even in St. Paul's own language, when, after saymg
" The bread wMch we break, is it not a communion of the body of CMist ? "
he goes on to declare, " Whosoever shaU eat the bread or drink the cup
of the Lord unwortMly wiU have to answer for the body and the blood of
the Lord " (1 Cor. xi. 27). In what precise sense these last words were
meant to be understood is not clear. Smce he does not speak of " eatmg
the body " or of " drinking the blood " of the Lord, the gmlt that he had
in mind was probably that of dishonouring peculiarly sacred symbolB.
But it is not impossible that tMough the subtle Mfluence upon Mm of
the rehgious beUefs encountered m Greece and elsewhere, he modified
the original conception of the Eucharist m the direction of contemporary
Gentile conceptions. As he did not censure the custom of vicarious baptism
for the dead (a usage wMch imphes a magical notion of that sacrament),
he may have been prepared to countenance, or at least to take advantage of,
1 The apparent parallelism between the meals held in heathen temples and the
Lord's Supper seems even to have led some to frequent both, in the hope of ensuring
their salvation with more certainty (1 Cor. x. 21 ; cf. Morgan, Religion and Theology
of St. Paul, p. 214).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 655
ideas that were in the air, so long as they were calculated to help the
extension of CMistiamty ; and such ideas, if harboured, were not unhkely
to react m some measure upon Ms own views.1
The conviction that righteousness could not be attained by the Mosaic
Law, but only tMough the redemption effected by Christ (wMch faith
rendered available), carried with it the corollary that salvation was
conditioned by the same terms in the case of the whole human race, and
that CMist had broken down the wall of partition between Jew and
Gentile (Eph. i. 11-18, cf. Gal. iii. 28). But the circumstance that few of
God's ancient people had accepted CMistiamty constituted for St. Paul
a serious problem. They had originally been the recipients of great
privUeges (Rom. iii. 2, ix. 4, 5) ; yet notwithstanding such favours, they
had, as a body, rejected God's grace ; and only a remnant had beheved,
and their place in His Kingdom seemed to have been taken by the Gentiles.
Such an issue could, no doubt, be accounted for in more than one way.
From a human standpoint, it might be put down to the free choice of
individuals in welcoming or refusing God's conditions ; wMlst from a
Divine standpoint it could be attributed to the unchaUengeable right of
the Creator to dispose the hearts of His creatures according to His pleasure.
This, however, could not really be a satisfactory explanation, for on one
side the comprehensiveness of the Divine mercy, and on the other the
eqmty of the Divine control over human destimes was left permanently
impaired. But an Mstoric retrospect reheved the distress wMch the
wiUuMess of Israel occasioned the Apostle. It was through the obstinacy
of the Jews in repudiating the Gospel message that he had turned from
them to the Gentiles ; and this caused him to hope that the conversion
of the Gentiles would stimulate Ms countrymen to seek agaM what they
had previously rejected (Rom. x., xi.). If so, God's ways would be vmdi-
cated, and His mercy would ultimately be seen to embrace aU the world.
St. Paul's exposition of the Divme scheme of salvation, inspired
maMly by the spiritual change wMch he MmseU had experienced, was
shaped by the inherited traditions and prevalent ideas of Ms race, wMlst
Ms statements sometimes show the influence of current controversies.
Consequently, certain aspects of it call for remark.
(i) The historical worth of the narrative of the Fall m Gen. m. is not
sufficient to support the inferences drawn from it. To the idea that there
existed in the first human pair, U not an origmal harmony between the
flesh and spirit, at least no predommance of the fleshly over the spiritual
impulses, but that the balance was disturbed by theU sm, wMch corrupted
their nature and was pumshed by death, and that such moral disturbance
wascommumcatedtoaU subsequent generations by physical descent there
are various grave objections, (a) Death existed in the animal World long
before the appearance of man on earth (as shown by the sciences of geology
1 Several phrases especially associated with the Greek Mystery religions occur in
St. Paul's writings — ri\eios, reXeiovo-Bat, jiveto-Bai, jiera/iopgiovo-Bai, <porrl^e<r8ai, as Well as
ji.vo-rijpiov itself. The last word, however, is not apphed by him to the Lord's Supper,
but is used to describe a truth long concealed, but destined eventually to Be
brought to hght, see Eph. iii. 3-7, Col. iv. 3, and cf. Wisd. ii. 22, vi. 22.

656 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and palseontology) ; and, according to the science of physiology, it is a
consequence affecting aU orgamsms by reason of their physical structure.
(6) The evidence of antMopology points to the conclusion that mankmd,
so far from having fallen from a condition of internal peace and external
happiness, have slowly developed from a state of brute-like savagery.
(c) It is difficult to understand how a smgle act of transgression could
exert such serious consequences upon the human constitution, permanently
corrupting and depraving it. (d) If tMs is assumed to be possible, it is
uncertam whether qualities acqmred by an mdividual in the course of
life (such as a sinful bias contracted by a person previously smless must be)
are transmissible to his progeny, many biologists mamtaimng that only
congemtal variations are inherited. In view of these objections it appears
probable that the universal proneness to sm ought to be explamed as
due to the continuance m man of certaM natural Mstincts, the unconditional
gratification of wMch, originally non-moral (as it is in beasts), has come
to be immoral, because it conflicts with a sense of obUgation that has
gradually emerged in the course of social Ufe. If man has been evolved
from an ancestor created on the plane of the lowest creatures save for
the -capacity of development, sm appears not as an innovation, but as
a survival.1 Its essence is the wilful indulgence of propensities wMch,
at one time blameless, become m certaM circumstances blameworthy
when confronted with an emergmg moral sense. If this is a truer account
of human sinfuMess 2 than one wMch is based on the narrative m Gen. m.,
St. Paul's doctrine, so far as it depends on the latter, requires modification.
(U) The theory, so far as it imphes (as, on the surface at least, it appears
to do) that Christ's redemption of mankmd was accomphshed m some
other way than tMough the example of His seU-sacrifice, has been criticized
on the side either of justice or of MteUigibUity. If He, beMg sinless,
endured instead of aU other men (though St. Paul never uses the preposition
dvrl in tMs connexion) the death merited by the sms of the latter, and
bore the consequences of God's curse for (vnig) them,3 it is difficult to
see how such a substitution could be acceptable to a moral Deity. If it
vMdicated God's righteousness by mamfesting His wrath against sm (see
Rom. Ui. 25, 26), it could only do so at the cost of His justice, wMch did
not discriminate between the mnocent and the guUty. Ii it is supposed
that m CMist's death, viewed as penal, sinners participated because their
race was included in His Personality (as bemg Man and not an mdividual
human bemg), the supposition seems to be laclring M actuafity and
comprehensibleness. For Man, in the sense intended, is an abstraction,
whereas the Mstoric Jesus died a man, a concrete mdividual Person, in
whose particular sufferings other persons did not share in any proper
sense. And if, instead, His death be viewed as the climax of His homage
1 See Tennant, Origin and Propagation of Sin, p. 96.
a The problem of evil as a whole is, of course, not here considered.
3 Gal. ih. 13. It is assumed that the curse which God had once pronounced on
sin had to spend itself upon some one, and that when Christ submitted to the death
of the Cross and thereby became accursed, its power was exhausted ; cf . Rashdall,
Idea of Atonement, p. 93.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 657
and obedience to God, others can have part in that death only in a non-
Uteral sense, i.e. by reproducing the Uke spirit of seU-surrender.1
(iii) If Christ's death can be regarded as in any real sense vicarious,
there is a lack of e jmvalence between the death wMch He underwent
and that for wMch (incurred by men) it was substitutionary. For the
first was physical, whereas the second was spiritual. The human race
has not been saved from physical mortahty ; and the salvation of free
human spirits (i.e. their dehverance from the control of seU-seeking
impulses) can, it would seem, be accompUshed in the last resort only by
the action upon them of moral influences.
(iv) Faith, wMch St. Paul in certain passages seems to identify with
belief, is not invariably attended by the moral effects wMch alone can
give occasion for the Divine justification of sinners without involvmg a
fiction. Where faith is accompamed by sincere repentance and a change
of heart, a sMner does, indeed, really cease to be deserving of God's
condemnation ; he can be acqmtted as being no longer in sympathy with
Ms sins, and can be accounted righteous, although Ms righteous acts are
all M the future. In such cases justification is not a fiction, for the
righteousness wMch it pre-supposes, though not present in maturity,
exists potentiaUy and in the germ. But intellectual beUef in Christ can
subsist without the moral sympathy with Him which alone can entitle
the sinful to a verdict of acqmttal by a righteous God.
(v) In regard to the rites of the Church — Baptism and the Eucharist —
the Apostle, in certain places, appears to use language countenancmg
the behef that they produce effects in the spiritual sphere otherwise than
through the ideas and resolves wMch are either inspired by them directly
or are imparted tMough feUowsMp with the Christian Church, with the
corporate Ufe of which these rites are intimately connected.
Nevertheless, though the Pauline theory of Salvation is not free from
grave difficulties, yet it is not hard to understand how it took the shape
it did, or to discern the essential truth wMch in the Apostle's own case it
represented. The reversal, through the Vision seen near Damascus, of
Ms previous judgment about Jesus was attended by a violent rebound
from his own past, and by most fervent gratitude towards Him Whose
graciousness had overlooked and pardoned that past. To such a proof of
love St. Paul's soul responded M an ecstasy of devotion. The intensity
of his revulsion from Ms former attitude could (as it seemed to Mm)
be adequately expressed by no ordinary metaphors. He could only
declare that with Christ dymg on the Cross Ms former seU had died ;
and that with Clirist rising from the dead he, too, had risen to a new Ufe.
Between MmseU and Christ there had been established such perfect
umty of will that he could no longer distingmsh MmseU from Ms Eedeemer :
they were no more two but one. He was " in Christ " (2 Cor. xu. 2) and
Christ " M Mm " (Gal. U. 20). He and all who were CMist's had crucified
the flesh with all its desires. BeUef about Christ was thus in the Apostle
blended with an intense and absorbing love for Christ : and he found his
' Cf. Phil. iii. 10, 1 Pet. iv. 13.
42

658 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
moral ideal to be most inspiring when embodied in a Person, obedience
to whom was free from all sense of constramt such as was mseparable
from a legal system.1 TMs combination of into lectual conviction and
passionate attachment the Apostle caUed Faith. And if we were left to
judge the aptness of his language exclusively from what we know concerMng
Ms own character and Christian Ufe, we should be conscious of Uttle
inappropriateness in Ms figures of speech. It is only when applied to the
generafity of professing Christians that these appear out of touch with
fact. Spiritual oneness with Christ is for most men not a reahty, but a
distant ideal. And the exigencies of controversy with the Jewish CMistians
often caused the Apostle to contrast " faith " with " works " mcautiously,
and prevented Mm from adequately safeguarding the watchword of Ms
theological system from grave abuse, to which he was not altogether
unaware that it was exposed (see Rom. iu. 8, vi. 1, 15).
TMs sketch of St. Paul's theology shows that in certain respects the
Apostle differed markedly from Ms Master. In regard to Ms eschatological
outlook, indeed, he entertained substantially the same expectations as
Jesus save for the idea about the " man of sin " ; but m Ms CMistology
and Soteriology there are various degrees of divergence.
(a) Jesus beheved, and before His death asserted, HimseU to be the
Christ, and God's Son ; to have in a unique degree knowledge of the Divme
character (Mt. x. 32, 33 = Lk. xii. 8, 9, Mt. xi. 27 = Lk. x. 22) ; to be
destined to reappear m glory after His death ; and to be the authoritative
exponent of the true way of hfe, so that men could reject His teacMng
only at the risk of being repudiated by Him at the judgment (Mk. vm.
34^-38). In view of these claims of Jesus it is apparent that the supreme
place wMch He occupied in St. Paul's teacMng was not without warrant
in His own convictions about HimseU and His relation to God. Neverthe
less, St. Paul framed a doctrine concermng Jesus wMch went beyond
anytMng exphcitly contained in the earhest authorities for our Lord's
utterances, affirming His pre-existence before the World, His agency in
the work of creation, and the expression in Him of the fuUness of Godhead.
(b) The word " faith " in Jesus' use of it seems to have signified
primarily trust in God. and only secondarily trust m HimseU as an agent
of God to instruct men and to heal them ; and though in His disciples
He created faith in HimseU as the Messiah of God, He did not exact as
the condition of salvation a defimte and expUcit belief about HimseU.
He made performance the touohstone of professions, and the test of
attachment to Himself to be obedience to His Father's will (Mt. vii.
17-27 = Lk. vi. 43-49). But St. Paul gave to faith the import of a
particular persuasion concermng Jesus (Rom. x. 8, 9) ; and though there
entered into Ms own CMistian behef an intensely strong moral element,
yet Ms assertion that faith and not works conditioned salvation afforded
a colourable pretext for antinomianism.
(c) Jesus, during the most part of His mmistry, did not look beyond
speech and example for the agency designed to save men's souls, and
1 Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 6, " The letter (i.e. of a written code) killeth but the Spirit (i.e.
the inspiration communicated by Jesus Christ) giveth life."

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 659
represented God as freely pardonmg human offences if repented of (see
especiaUy Lk. xv. 11 f.) . and though towards the close of His eartMy career
He thought of His life as destined to be surrendered as a " ransom " for
men, He did not explain how it would avail for the purpose. But Sti Paul
altered the balance of Christ's teaching ; and whilst, in his Epistles at
least, he dweUs comparatively Uttle upon the record of our Lord's Ufe,
with its stimulating appeal to' the heart,1 he gives much prominence to
the idea that the sacrifice of God's Son was essential that God might be
both just m HimseU and the justifier of sinners (Rom. iii. 26).
(d) Our Lord declared that He was sent to the house of Israel only
(Mk. vii. 27, cf . Mt. xv. 24, x. 5, 6) ; He discharged no ministry among
non-Israelite peoples ; He did not deny the Jewish Law to be a means of
attainmg righteousness (cf . Mk. x. 19), although He censured the spirit
in which it was often mterpreted ; and He affirmed that no jotfor tittle
of it should pass away (Mt. v. 18 = Lk. xvi. 17). But St. Paul claimed to
be entrusted by Christ with a mission to the Gentiles ; asserted that Christ
had put an end to the Law as an Mstrument for achievmg righteousness
or salvation ; and that as regards religious standing before God there was
no distinction between Israelite and non-IsraeUte. &ws.
It was in respect of this last head that the difference between St. Paul
and his Master was most conspicuous. Yet the contrast even here was
not so great as appears on the surface ; for there were indications in
certain of Christ's utterances that He recognized M some of the Gentiles
spiritual quaUties lackmg in the Jews, and that He expected many of
them to find a place m the Kingdom of God (Mt. viii. 10-12 = Lk. vii. 9, 10,
xiii. 29). And the distinction which He drew between the relative im
portance of ceremonial rules and ethical precepts where they came into
collision established a prmciple which was reaUy fatal to the prerogative
which the Jews believed to be theirs in consequence of their possession of
the Mosaic Law.
(e) The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews
The aspects of Christian Theology with which the writer of Hebrews
principaUy concerned MmseU were mainly determmed by the particular
end which he had M view when composmg the book. This was to persuade
those for whom he wrote to remam faithful to Christ in the face of strong
mducements to abandon Christianity and to revert to Judaism. Hence
he made it his endeavour to convmce them that the religion, which, through
the circumstances wherem they were livmg, they were bemg tempted by
their unconverted feUow-countrymen to forsake, was superior to its rival
on every ground. The non-Christian Jews contended that the^Law had
been, according to tradition, delivered by God HimseU through the
agency of angels to Moses, who had imparted it to the people of Israel.
The priests, who administered the rites of the Law, were descendants of
1 See, however, the allusions to Christ's character and conduct in 2 Cor. x. 1,
Phil. i. 8, and cf. Kennedy, Theol. of the Epistles, pp. 104-5.

660 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
Aaron, who was appointed by God to exercise it ; the tabernacle which
formed the scene of the priests' ministrations was constructed by Divme
direction ; and the function of the priesthood was to offer gUts and sacrifices
for human sins and faUings. These features of Judaism, of acknowledged
value, were missing in the CMistian Church ; and U those to whom the
Epistle was addressed were unable to trace their equivalents in Christianity
they might be led, through the stress of trouble, to contemplate the
relmqmshment of a faith which, unlike Judaism, was not f ormaUy aUowed
by the state authorities, and was Uable to mvolve its votaries in persecution.
In order to demonstrate that their dissatisfaction with CMistiamty was
ill-grounded, the author of the Epistle enters upon a systematic comparison
of the two rehgions. He seeks to show that CMist, as an agent of Divme
revelation, was greater than the angels, and than Moses ; that He was a
Priest of a higher order than the Jewish priests ; that He mmistered
in a better sanctuary ; and that He had offered a more effectual sacrifice.
The Epistle, wMch is described by its writer as an address of exhortation
(xiii. 22), is thus designed to meet a particular emergency, and is by no
means a comprehensive exposition of the whole of the author's CMistian
belief. Nevertheless, the points upon which he lays stress offer a sufiicient
contrast to those that are emphasized by other New Testament writers
(e.g. St. Paul) as to render a comparison between Ms predommant ideas
and theirs valuable. The arguments employed by him are drawn from
the Jewish Scriptures (through the medium of the LXX),1 the authority
of which is treated as undisputed, and to which more frequent appeal is
made in tMs Epistle than m any other.
The author of Hebrews, like so many other New Testament writers,
shows little regard for the historic sense of the Old Testament passages
which he quotes, and he puts upon their statements a sense clearly not
intended by their writers. In this respect he goes even beyond St. Paul
(with his strange deduction (Gal. iii. 16) from the use (m Gen. xni. 15) of
the singular anigua instead of the plural anig/iara). Thus, for instance,
he draws a surprising inference from the mere omission by the historian
of Gen. xiv. of any mention of the parentage of MelcMzedek (vn. 3) ;
and agam, using the word SiaBrjxrj, wMch has the two meamngs of
" covenant " and " testament " (or " wUl "),2 he passes easUy from the
one signification to the other (ix. 15-20), although m the Old Testament
passages which he has in mind (Ex. xxiv., Jer. xxxi. 31-34) the word is
employed only with the first meamng.3 But even more important for a
valuation of some of his arguments is his presupposition that the principles
underlying the system of the Mosaic Law are of eternal vaUdity, although
in that system he beUeved them to have received only imperfect and
transitory expression. Thus, he takes for granted the necessity of the
1Invi. li(=Gen. xxii. 17), ix. 20 (=Ex. xxiv. 8) andx. 30 (= Dt. xxxii. 35) there
are departures from the LXX.
a The word has the sense of " testament " in recently discovered papyri.
3 It has been suggested that the connecting thought in the writer's mind is that
both were associated with death, a victim having to die in the solemnization of a
covenant, and a, testator having to die before his will could be executed.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 661
institution of Priesthood and Sacrifice ; he declares that apart from the
sheddmg of blood there is no remission of sMs ; and he assumes that the
representation m Ex. xxv. 40, that the tabernacle and its furniture were
made by Moses after a pattern shown to Mm by God is UteraUy true,
and that accordmgly there exists a heavenly tabernacle arranged and
furnished in the same way as its eartMy counterpart, and actuaUy requiring,
like the latter, to be cleansed by sacrificial blood (Ex. xxix. 36, Lev. xvi. 16).
Several of the writer's references to conditions or proceedings enjomed
in the Law diverge somewhat from the Old Testament, such departures
either arismg from defects of memory or reflecting Jewish traditions
(see ix. 4, 19, 20).
In comparing the theology of the Epistle with previous theological
conceptions the subject wiU be discussed most conveniently under the
same heads as before. 1. Eschatology
The eschatological ideas of the Epistle present no novelty. The
Christian revelation is regarded as havmg occurred at the " consummation
of the ages " (ix. 26, cf. i. 2). Christ HimseU is expected to appear a
second time (ix. 28) ; and there is anticipated a convulsion of the whole
umverse in. the near future, precedmg the establishment of a kmgdom
destined to last for ever (xii. 26-28). The writer bases on the prospect of
the approach of the Day of the Lord an appeal to his readers mutuaUy
to encourage one another (x. 25) ; so that he clearly shared the view
current m the primitive Church that the end of the existing age was
close at hand. 2. Christology
The principal features m the writer's doctrine of Christ's Person and
office emerge from his comparison of Christianity with the Jewish religion.
The Law, accordmg to Jewish tradition, had been communicated to
Israel by God through the agency of angels (ii. 2, cf . Acts vii. 53, Gal. iii. 19,
and see Dt. xxxiii. 2 (LXX 1) )"; and Israel's history had been marked by
the appearance, at different periods, of great personalities like Moses,
Aaron, Joshua, and the prophets. Moses had been the mediator of the
covenant between God and His people ; Aaron was the ancestor of the
Jewish priests, who were the mmisters of reconcUiation ; Joshua had led
the nation Mto the promised land of Canaan ; and the prophets had been
the channel of Divme revelations. The argument that to these advantages
possessed by Judaism CMistianity offered no equivalent, the Epistle
was intended to refute. Jesus, it is maintamed, was superior to all the
personalities, angeUc as weU as human, m whom such confidence was
placed. He was the most authoritative agent of the Divme revelation,
1 Here, however, Jehovah is said to have come with ten thousands of His holy ones
not to but from Sinai.

662 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
for God, Whose Self-disclosure through the prophets had been only partial
and fragmentary, had at last spoken in the. person of One who was a Son
(i. 2, iii; 6, v. 8, vi. 6, vii. 3, 28, x. 29). Jesus, the Son of God, was the
Creator. Sustainer,'.and Heir of aU things. He was the effulgence (dnavyaa/ia.)
of the Divine glory, and the impress (xagaxr^g) of the Divine essence
(God being the primal Source from whom, tMough the Son, the umverse
proceeds and for whom it exists, ii. 10, cf. iii. 4). Jesus consequently
exceeded in dignity the angels, who had never been bidden to share
God's tMone, who were, on the contrary, directed to worsMp the Son
(i. 6), and who were merely mimstering spirits, Uable to fluctuation of
form and function, accordmg to the Divme will ; whereas the Son abides
ehangelessly (i. 2-14). And if He was greater than the angels, He was
necessarUy greater than Moses, who was not a son but only a servant M
God's household (Num. xii. 7) ; than Aaron, a descendant of Abraham
who had acknowledged the superiority of Melchizedek, a priest and long
about whose origm and end Scripture was altogether sUent, and who was
consequently typical of the Son of God ; and than Joshua, who did not
give God's people a permanent rest, for otherwise David, Uvmg long after,
would never have spoken in Ps. xcv. of a rest stiU open to be enjoyed.
In this conception of Jesus as the eternaUy existent Son of God, the
writer of Hebrews resembles St. Paul (see Col. i. 15, 16, and p. 643) ; but
the writer in Ms distinctive treatment of the idea seems to have been
definitely influenced by the Alexandrine book of Wisdom. For M that
work (vii. 26) Wisdom is described as an effulgence (dnavyaa/ia) from
everlasting light, and an image (eixcov) of God's goodness ; and the
resemblance to this passage presented by Heb. i. 3, Sg d>v dnavyaa/ia
rfjg Sdirjg xai %agaxrijg rfjg vnoardaemg avrov (i.e. rov Osov), is sufficiently close
to justify the conclusion that the author of the Epistle has drawn upon it.
He thus represents Jesus, in virtue of being the Divme Son, as occupyMg
the place which in Hebrew thought was filled by the Divme Wisdom.
The author of the Epistle ip support of Ms claim that Jesus stood M a
far more mtimate relation to God than any of the angels, and was endowed
with prerogatives higher than theirs (i. 1-ii. 8), appeals to various passages
in the Scriptures, Ps. ii. 7, 2 Sam. vii. 14, Dt. xxxii. 43 (LXX), Ps. civ. 4,
xlv. 6, 7, cii. 25-27, ex. 1, viii. 4-6. In some of these the primary meanmg
intended by the origmal writer is disregarded, for in Ps. ii. 7, and 2 Sam. vii.
14, the words m the first instance had reference to a human kmg. In
Dt. xxxii. 43, where the LXX has, without any authority from the Hebrew,
the clause svqjgdvdryce, odgavol, &/ia avrio, xai ngoaxwrjadrcoaav avra> ndvreg
ayyeXoi Beov, the pronoun relates to Jehovah HimseU. In Ps. civ. 4,
the context seems to require the meanmg " Who maketh his angels (not
into but) of winds, and his mmisters (not into but) of flaming fire,1
i.e. employs natural forces like storms and Ughtnmgs as agents for executing
His purposes. In Ps. xlv. 6 the title " God " is used by the poet of the
sovereign for whom the psalm (a nuptial ode) was mtended (cf. Ex. xxi. 6,
1 Sam. ii. 25, where the same term probably denotes priestly judges) .
_ j , __ .
"¦For the construction of. Ex. xxv. 28, Heb.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 663
but it is not improbable that the readmg is corrupt.1 Ps. cii. 25, 27, is an
address to Jehovah, not to the Messiah. Ps. ex. is of uncertam date, but
most likely was composed m honour of Simon Maccabseus (p. 443), though
it was applied by our Lord Himself to the Celestial Messiah (Mk. xii.
36, 37). 3 The writer of Hebrews thus abandons m many cases the real
significance of the passages quoted, and in the spirit of Alexandrme
exegesis adapts them to a subject of thought outside their authors' range
of contemplation. Nevertheless, although the superiority of Jesus over angehc powers
and the most illustrious characters in Hebrew history is emphasized by
an appeal to Scripture mterpreted m this manner, yet the writer asserts
with uncompromismg directness that He was a man, partaker, with other
men, of flesh and blood (ii. 14), made simUar to mankind m aU respects
(ii. 17), sharing human infirmities, and like the rest of humanity, liable to
temptation. This was by the design of God, Whose purpose was to aid
the race of men, and Who, to sustam them in the effort to reach the glory
intended for them, subjected Him who was to be their Pioneer m the
enterprise to the same conditions as those wherem they were placed
(ii. 10). It was through exposure to temptations and through successful
resistance to them that Jesus became perfect, learnmg obedience through
the Bufferings which He encountered (v. 8, 9). In consequence of His
unconquerable endurance, He had been crowned by God with glory and
honour, as manifested by His exaltation to heaven (ii. 9, cf. xii. 2). His
experience of trials on earth qualified Him to intercede with God in
heaven on behalf of men, smce through His acquaintance with the
circumstances of human Ufe He was able to sympathize with those who
confronted tribulation less successfully. It has, indeed, been justly
observed that the conception of Jesus m this Epistle is more humanitarian
than in any other, though, as has been seen, a more exalted idea of His
Bigmficance for the religious Ufe of mankmd can scarcely elsewhere be
found. In what way the eternal Son of God " having neither beginnmg of
days nor endof Ufe " became one with the man Jesus is left quite obscure.
No reference is made either to the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism or
to the Virgm Birth. 3. Soteriology
Salvation is variously represented as access to the presence of God and
enjoyment of His Eest (vii. 19, 25, x. 19, iv. 9). And smce the obstacle
to such felicity was human sin, it had been the object of the institutions
established ip the Mosaic Law to bring men into right relations with
God through sacrifices or other rites, designed to atone for sins and to.
remove defilement. A covenant had been set on foot between Israel
1 It has been conjectured that the original text had Yihyeh, "¦ shall be " ; that this
was corrupted into Yahweh, " O Jehovah " -, and that for Yahweh an editor
substituted Elohim, " 0 -God."
s Following the precedent of the psalm the writer of the Epistle apphes to Christ
the title Kvpios (ii. 3, vii. 14, xiii. 20).

664 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
and God on the basis of the observance by the people of the Divme com
mandments ; and the enactment of the covenant had been accompamed
by the shedding of the blood of animal victims (ix. 19-21). A Une of
priests had been mstituted in order to offer the gUts and sacrifices needed
for the expiation of sins (v. 1) ; and the priesthood might be regarded as the
fundamental feature of the Mosaic constitution (vii. 11). The slaughter of
an animal and the use of its blood (or of its ashes after burnmg, Num. xix.)
were required, both for the remission of offences and the cleansmg of
impurity (ix. 13, 22). The rite which was most significant of the connexion
which the Mosaic system implied to subsist between the removal of sm
or defilement and the effusion of blood, was that which marked the Day of
Atonement. Once a year the innermost sanctuary of the Tabernacle,
viz. the Holy of Holies, was entered by the High Priest alone, who, after
offering M succession a bullock and a goat for the sins of MmseU and the
people, took their blood and sprinkled it upon the front of the mercy-seat
(or propitiatory) ; see Lev. xvi. Seemmgly, too, the blood was put on the
altar of incense which stood M the Holy Place, to make atonement for
it (Ex. xxx. 10). The facts that only with the accompamment of such rites
could the High Priest, as bemg both sinful MmseU and the representative
of a smful people, approach the presence of God, and that by this the
defilement contracted by the material furniture of the Tabernacle had to
be cancelled, showed that only tMough the offermg of blood could the
barrier which sin occasioned between man and God be surmounted.
It is on the basis of the regulations of the Mosaic Law, especiaUy those
relatmg to the sacrifices required for the atonement of sin, that the writer
of Hebrews explains the necessity of the death of Christ. The lmes upon
which the Jewish reUgious system was constituted are presupposed to
be permanently vaUd ; but the actual system is regarded as mherently
defective and temporary. In the first place, that the covenant contracted
between Israel and God m the wflderness was faulty and unable to acMeve
the end for which it was designed was proved by the fact that the prophet
Jeremiah (xxxi. 31 f .) represented God as declarmg that a time would
come when He would make a new covenant with His people. Next, the
priestly order established under the Law consisted of a succession of men,
each of whom was sinful and short-lived. Thirdly, the tabernacle M wMch
the priests discharged their duties was a mere copy of an original wMch
was in. heaven.1 FmaUy, the victims wMch they offered were only cattle,
whose blood could never reaUy take away human sm. In contrast to the
covenant mediated through Moses, the author of the Epistle sets forth
the covenant mediated through CMist ; to the Jewish priests he opposes
CMist as a Priest of a superior order ; he pomts out that the scene of
their mmistrations is a mere eartMy copy of a heavenly sanctuary, wherem
CMist discharges His priestly function ; and he insists that animal
sacrifices are insufficient to cleanse the conscience, and cannot be compared
with Jesus' sacrifice of HimseU.
1 Cf . Wisd. ix. 8, " Thou gavest command to build a Banotuary in thy holy moun
tain . . . a, copy of the holy tabernacle which thou preparedst beforehand (i.e. in
heaven) from the beginning."

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N?3^ 665
(a) The first covenant, being a written code of external regulations,"'
was rigid, and could not meet aU the exigencies of human life without
growmg burdensome and harsh ; whilst the offences for which under it
sacrifices could be offered by way of atonement were oMy such as were
inadvertent (cf. ix. 7, vnig rdjv . . . dyvorjudrav), there bemg for
sins committed wittingly and presumptuously no atonement (Num. xv. 30).
But under the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah and mediated by
Christ (viii. 6, xii. 24, xin. 20) God promised to write His laws on men's
hearts (so that problems of conduct would be determmed spontaneously
by the decision of mdividual consciences M harmony with the Divme
requirements), whilst aU past offences would be forgiven. In the establish
ment of this new covenant Christ's death had a place, for as the earlier
covenant was solemnized by the blood of sacrificed animals, so the later
covenant was Maugurated with the blood of a nobler Victim. But whereas
the blood sprinkled at Sinai, partly on the people and partly on God's
altar (Ex. xxiv. 6-8), merely established a contract (the making of
wMch in antiquity was often accompanied by the partakmg M common
by the two contracting parties of blood, or m lieu of it, food),1 the blood of
CMist is regarded by the writer as havmg been shed not oMy to inaugurate
the new covenant, but likewise to atone for the sms which had been
committed under the old covenant apd which (cf . i. 3, ii. 17, ix. 28) separated
men from God. Thus " the same event (the death on the Cross) is regarded
both as an inaugural and as an atoning sacrifice." 2 What part Christ
discharged m putting God's laws in men's hearts is not explained. Probably
He is thought to do so partly tMopgh the force of His perfect example,
bemg the Pioneer and Perfecter of faith in the Unseen (xii. 2, and
see p. 663), and partly perhaps tMough the gUt of the Holy Spirit (cf.
vi. 4).
(b) The Levitical priests who under the Law offered sacrifices for sm
and probably, m post-exUic times, gave spiritual counsel to burdened
consciences,3 suffered from a twofold Umitation. (i) They were mortal,
so that a continuous succession of them was needed to fiU up vacancies
caused by death, (ii) They were themselves stained by sins, and conse
quently had to offer sacrifices for their own offences as weU as for those of
the people. Like them, Christ, too, had offered up a sacrifice (one, indeed,
far superior to the cattle which constituted the offerings under the Law),
and He was also able to deal gently with the erring, smce He had learnt
obedience tMough suffering, havmg thereby become perfect (v. 8). But
He had two advantages over the Jewish priests ; for inasmuch as He
possessed an endless life, His ministrations were unmterrupted ; and smce,
bemg sinless, He had no offences of His own to atone for, His sacrifice
was whoUy avaUable for the expiation of the sms of others. Christ's
perpetual mimstry is regarded as consisting M mtercession for sinners m
1 See Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 315 f. ; cf. Josh. ix. 14 f. and
p. 453 above.
a Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles, p. 212.
3 Kennedy, op. cit. p. 208.

666 ^ NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
¦*me presence of God (vii. 25) ; but the sacrifice which He offered was
single and was accomplished once for aU (vii. 27, x. 12).
{c) The Jewish priests mmistered m a material tabernacle of which
the Holy of Holies was separated from the rest of the buUdmg by a veil
beyond which none was allowed to penetrate save the High Priest once a
yiear, and only after his own and the people's sms had been atoned for;
and the structure and its furniture cleansed by the blood of sacrifices.
This tabernacle on earth, made by men's hands, was but a copy of a more
perfect tabernacle in heaven, of which God was the Maker ; and mto its
innermost sanctuary (strangely called in ix. 12 " the Holy Place," mstead
of "the Holy of Holies") Christ had passed once for aU tMough the
Offering of His own blood. The heavenly tabernacle is assumed to be the
exact counterpart of the earthly structure (of which it had been the
origmal), havmg a similar plan, with two chambers -divided by a veil,
and requiring no less than the other to be cleansed, as though the infection
of human sin even reached to heaven. In x. 20, as rendered m the E.V.,
" the veil " before the heavenly sanctuary is mterpreted to mean " CMist's
flesh " ; but this introduces confusion, and the words rfjg aagxdg avrov
are probably not to be construed in apposition to rov xarajierdafiarog, but
to be regarded as explanatory of dSov ngdacparcm xai t,maav, " a way consist-
mg of His human na/ture," God's presence bemg accessible to men by the
road alongwhich Christ, through His eartMy lUe, has furnished guidance.1
(d) Both the Jewish priests and 'Christ (the CMistians' High Priest)
offered sacrifices before God ; but there was a difference between their
offerings. The blood which was reqmred by the Law to be offered for
sins was the blood of cattle. But this could not cleanse the human
conscience from sin (x. 4, 11) ; to effect this there was wanted the blood
of a Victim, sharing the same human nature with those for whose sake
< the offering was needed ; and such a Victim was CMist, Who sacrificed
Himself, being at the 'same time both Priest and Victim. It is nowhere
explained in the Old Testament how the blood of slaughtered cattle in
primitive times was thought to avail for atonement, smce the statement
in Lev. xvii. 11 that it did so " by reason of the Ufe " stiU leaves the matter
obscure. Possibly the quality of Ufe in the blood was originaUy thought
to neutralize the corruption of death wMch was mvolved in aU defilement,
physical 'or spiritual. But reflection could not permanently be content
with this ; 'and the author of Hebrews seems to have been sensible that
difficulty 'likewise attended the cleansing of men's consciences from sin
through Christ's blood-shedding (ix. 14), regarded as a mere physical
occurrence. He does not exphcitly solve the difficulty ; but a passage
quoted by Mm in x. 5 f. from Ps. xl. 6-8, points in the direction whence
he lodked for a sdlution. He supposes the psalmist to speak M the name
of the Messiah, who, denying that any satisfaction is derived by God
from animal or other offerings, declares that God has prepared for him a
.body2 t(i.e. a human frame fitted to serve as the instrument of mpral
and spiritual life, and not, fike the bodies of cattle, of physical.Ufe only) ;
1 Cf. Westcott, Hebrews, p. 320, who, however, interprets differently.
2 The Heb. has " ears hast thou digged (i.e. opened) for me " ; and of this the LXX

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 667
and then affirms that He comes to do the Divine will. TMs points to
CMist's submission of His own will to God's wiU as constituting the
effectiveness of His atomng work. It was the presence in CMist's death
of a moral quahty appeaUng. to aU in whom the germs of moral life exist,
that enabled His death on the Cross to avail for the removal of sm, through
the repentance and change of heart wMch it brings about M the sinner.
TMs is perhaps the real sense of the obscure phrase occurring in ix. 14,
" Who through eternal Spirit offered HimseU . . . unto God." It was
because the death He underwent was not merely physical, but the outcome
of seU-surrender m the sphere of His spirit (described as " eternal " because
the spirit of man comes from God1) that it differed in potency so widely
from the involuntary deaths of ammal victims, and could set at one men
and their Creator.
That the writer of the Epistle, in spite of the persistency with which he
draws paraUels between CMist's death and the animal sacrifices enjoined
by the Law (cf. especiaUy x. 22 with ix. 13, gsgavria/ihoi, gavrllavad),
yet saw m the effect produced upon men's minds by His perfect submission
and obedience to the will of God, a vital factor in the salvation of which He
is the cause (alnog, v. 9) is shown by the view taken oi faith wMch leads
to the savmg of the soul (x. 39). Faith is such confidence in the reality
of tinngs hoped for, but not yet seen or experienced (xi. 1), as causes the
believer to commit Mmself to a venture from wMch present conditions
are calculated to dissuade him. Of such faith God is the object (cf. vi. 1),
not CMist, Who is our Pioneer (dgxrjydg, xii. 2, ii. 10) 2 and Forerunner
(ngdSgo/Jiog, vi. 20) in the enterprise upon wMch trust in God leads us to
embark (for faith is clearly regarded as issmng in action, see xi. 33) and
Who HimseU accomphshed it perfectly (reXeKotfg). To iUustrate the
nature and effects of faith the writer adduces numerous examples from
the Old Testament — Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others — men whose
conduct was ruled by the belief that God would accomplish for them in
the future sometMng of wMch there appeared to be no prospect in the
present. It was m the strength of the like faith in the future that Jesus
HimseU was undeterred by the suffering and shame to wMch He was
exposed (xn. 2) ; and it is to Him that we are bidden to look, in Order to
obtam inspiration and encouragement in our own trials. The author,
mdeed, is far from systematically interpreting Christ's death in purely
etMcal terms, for his language about it is dominated by analogies derived
from the use of blood under the Law and its indispensableness for the
remission of sin ; and in one passage (n. 9, Snwg x&Qm 0e°v *^@ navrdg
yetiorjrai Odvarov) he comes near to a substitutionary view of CMist's
death, though even there the preposition employed is not dvrl. Yet
the death of CMist, whether viewed as the inaugural sacrifice of a new
text (followed" in the Epistle) is probably in part a mere textual corruption,
(C)OTIA being misread as CfiMA.
1 Cf . Gen. ii. 7, Eccles. xii. 7.
2 In strictness the word seems to have been used of the founder of a family or of a
city (Isocrates, 32 C, 6 rov yivovs ijfubv apxrjybs, Plato, Tim. 21, E, rrjs irb\ews Bebs
&PXnybs ns eariv).

668 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
covenant between God and man, or as an offering in expiation of human
sm, does not exhaust for the writer the significance of CMist's work for
human salvation. On the contrary, so far as he tries to explam why
CMist's sacrifice is of greater efficacy than the Jewish sacrifices both for
mediating fellowsMp with God and for removing sin, Ms explanation
appears to be that it brings about the sanctification of the sinful tMough
moral influences. The redemption of men is thought of as resulting from
the obedience rendered by CMist to His Father's will, and from the
inspiring contemplation of such an example ; whilst they are not regarded
as left to themselves to derive what support they can from His pattern
life, but are aided by His continuous and sympathetic intercession for
them with God in heaven (vii. 25, iv. 14-16).
In the Epistle no express [allusion occurs to the Church, though it is
impUed that the body of CMistians to whom the letter is written is an
orgamzed commumty (xiii. 7, 17), accustomed to meet together for worsMp
(x. 25), and having Church officers M authority over them (xm. 24).
The only ecclesiastical rites mentioned are those of Baptism. and the
Laying on of Hands (vi. 2). Eeference to the former is made m the pMase
" the teacMng of baptisms," where the use of the plural perhaps has in
view the prevalence of simUar lustral ceremomes m both the Jewish and
the CMistian commumties, and the " teacMng " perhaps means Mstruction
in regard to the difference between them. The practice of " Laymg on of
hands " was observed in the Church on various occasions from early days
(pp. 503, 524), bemg associated generally with the idea of blessmg (cf . p. 510) ;
but the special sigmficance wMch it eventually came to convey was a
prayer for the imparting of the Holy Spirit to those upon whom hands
were laid (cf. Acts vm. 17, xix. 6). The Lord's Supper is not named,
though it is probable that the writer's idea of CMistiamty as a new
covenant, established between God and man, was Mfluenced by our Lord's
words when He supped for the last time with His disciples (Mk. xiv. 24,
cf. 1 Cor. xi. 25).
From what has been said, it will be seen that between the theology of
Hebrews and that of the PauUne Epistles there are certaM obvious re
semblances. The author, like St. Paul, affirms Christ's pre-existence
with God before His appearance upon earth, and attributes to Him cosmic
functions. He describes His death in sacrificial terms (using them, Mdeed,
more extensively than the Apostle), and represents it as analogous to
more than one of the rites prescribed in the Jewish Law. He views the
relation instituted between God and mankmd by Christ in the hght of a
new covenant superior to the Mosaic covenant (cf. 2 Cor. m. 6, 14). He
speaks of beUevers as having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit.
But by the side of these similarities there are some strikmg unlikenesses.
(a) As compared with St. Paul, the writer of Hebrews, wMlst asserting
Christ's superhuman digmty prior to His Incarnation, lays less stress
upon tMs than upon His human life on earth and His sharmg the lot of
mankind. (b) Whereas St. Paul considers Christ's death to have been necessitated
through the satisfaction required by God's violated laws, there is notMng

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 669
in tMs Epistle defimtely countenancmg the idea that Christ endured for
man the curse imposed m the Law on sin ; and the evil heritage trans
mitted to mankmd by Adam is not here mentioned.
(c) Whilst St. Paul generally employs " faith " to describe belief in
Jesus as the Messiah, acceptance of Him as the Divinely appointed bestower
of Salvation, and a sense of oneness with Him, the writer of Hebrews
returns to an earUer view, wMch regarded it as trust in God, and confidence
in Him as Protector and Eewarder (see p. 621).
(d) UnUke St. Paul, who held that Christ abolished the Law (wMch
was itseU posterior M origm to the prmciple of salvation through faith),
the writer of Hebrews tinnks of CMist as fulfiUing the same ends as those
wMch the system of the Law subserved, only achievmg them more
perfectly. The PauUne antitheses of Law and Grace, of Works and Faith,
of Flesh and SpUit, are absent from the Epistle, and are replaced by con
trasts drawn between eartMy copies and heaveMy realities, shadow and
image, the first covenant and the second, the priesthood after Aaron
and the priesthood after MelcMzedek, things temporal and transitory
and tMngs eternal and abidmg.
(e) In St. Paul's theological theory the centre is occupied by the death
and resurrection of Christ, with Whom " faith " unites the behever, and
enables Mm to share alike CMist's death in the flesh (where the incentives
to sin have their abode) and His resurrection in the Spirit. It is upon this
that the experience of redemption turns, and comparatively little pro
minence is given by the Apostle to the moral effect on human hearts
proceedmg from the example of Christ's conquest over temptation. But
in the theology of Hebrews the PauUne conception of the beUevers' umon
with CMist seems to be absent (for in m. 14 the words iiiroxoi rov Xgiarov
yeydva/iev probably mean " we are become partakers (of salvation) with
the Christ " (cf. U. 10), and not " partakers of CMist ") ; and the writer's
most helpful thought is the stimulus afforded by Christ's earthly Ufe of
patience and smlessness, " faith " giving the beUever a hold upon spiritual
reaUties. (/) WMlst in St. Paul it is the Spirit as weU as CMist to Whom the work
of intercession is ascribed (Rom. viu. 26, 34), in Hebrews it is Christ alone
Who is the Intercessor, His Ufe on earth having been Divmely ordered so
as to fit Him for such a function.
(g) St. Paul's conception of the Church as the Body of CMist, of which
individual CMistians are members, does not occur in this Epistle.
In a certain measure the writer of Hebrews anticipates the attitude of
the Fourth Evangelist in viewing CMistiamty under the aspect of a
revelation. For mstance, he regards CMist as standing in Une with the
prophets as an agent of God's communications to men, but as conveying
them in a completer form (i. 1, 2) ; and he lays stress upon the fact that
Ms readers, as Christians, have received knowledge of the truth (x. 26) and
have been enUghtened (tpconodivrag, vi. 4, x. 32), these latter phrases
resembling the ideas expressed in 1 Joh. ii. 21, Joh. i. 9.1 Another feature
1 The terms " enlightened " and " enlightenment " also occur in St. Paul
18, 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6).

670 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
in which he anticipates the author of the Johanmne writings is the con
ception of Christ's intercession in heaven on behalf of mankmd, for though
the phraseology of Heb. vii. 25, ix. 24 is not the same as that of 1 Joh. ii. 1
(LJagdxXrjrov ¦ ix°llev ne°? t^v Hariga, 'Irjaovv Xgiarov Sixaiov), the idea
conveyed is similar.
(b) The Teaching of the Johannine Writings1
It has been shown (p. 230) that the Fourth Gospel was probably written
about the Close of the first century a.d., so that in point of time both the
Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels lie beMnd it. It is impossible
to tinnk that at tMs date St. Paul's letters were unknown to the Fourth
Evangehst, especially as the latter seems to have spent the closmg period
of Ms life at Ephesus, a city with which the Apostle had been intimately
connected, so that there is room for the supposition that for some of the
theological ideas which are promment in the Fourth Gospel the author
may have been indebted to St. Paul (p. 673). And that he Ukewise was
acquainted with, and made use of the Synoptic Gospels is apparent not
only from the fact that his work, though in essence a doctrinal treatise
rather than a history, is yet modeUed upon the writings of the Synoptists,
but also from the fact that he aUudes McidentaUy to occurrences related
at length in the other Gospels, and that direct obUgations to them are
discernible even in the wording of Ms narrative (p. 217). But whilst there
are elements in the Fourth Gospel wMch are clearly derived from earUer
sources, it is equally plain that Whatever has been borrowed has passed
through the crucible of the author's own mind, and bears the mark of Ms
own reflections. Though virtually notMng is known about Ms Ufe and
personality, it is possible to trace with some plausibUity m Ms theological
constructions not oMy the influence exerted on Mm by contemporaneous
Greek pMlosopMcal ideas (similar to the fusion of Hebrew and Greek
notions in the system of the Alexandrian PMlo) but also the effect produced
by the circumstances of the contemporary Church. During Ms Ufetime
there appear to have occurred many movements affecting the Church
from outside, and various developments of thought witMn it, wMch seemed
to him to call for opposition or correction. Thus firstly there was the
virulent animosity of the Jews, who contended that One Who Uke Jesus
had lived on earth a life of poverty termmated by an agomzmg death
could not possibly have been a HeaveMy Being, as the Christians repre
sented Him. Then it is not unlikely that there was some rivahy pro
ceeding from those partisans of John the Baptist, who refused to be
absorbed into the CMistian Church and opposed the claim that Jesus was
John's superior.2 Next, there was the difficMty, felt by certaM CMistians,
of reconciling the transcendent dignity of the Son of God with the sufferings
1 It is the Fourth Gospel which is here mainly under review, but relevant passages
from the Epistles are also considered.
2 E. E. Scott (The Fourth Gospel, p. 80) quotes from the Clementine Recognitions
(possibly a third-century work), " Some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be
great ones, have separated themselves, and proclaimed their own master as the Christ "
(i. 54).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 671
of the Cross, so causing them to take refuge in the thought that those
sufferings must have been undergone oMy in appearance.1 Fourthly,
there must have prevailed amongst many faithful believers great despon
dency m face of the delay m their Lord's expected Eeturn. In the fifth
place, there was a danger lest " faith " should be emphasized to the dis
paragement of conduct, and spiritual Uberty should degenerate into
license. FinaUy, there was Ukely to be in some quarters an incfination,
fostered by acquaintance with certain sacramental rites in the Mystery
religions, towards explaming the Christian sacraments on analogous lines.
It may be inferred from the contents of the Fourth Gospel that conditions
like these were influential factors leading to its composition, and that the
author wrote it with the design of controverting the external enemies of
the Church, and of counteracting certain fears and tendencies amongst
its own members. He sought to adduce more fully than had hitherto been
done, evidence that Jesus' eartMy life had attested His heavenly origm,
to exhibit the Baptist as merely bearing witness to a greater Successor ;
to oppose any proneness M the Church towards Docetism ; to assert,
without breaking with current eschatological expectations, the truth that
the Lord, in accordance with His promise, had already returned, and was
really present with His followers ; to insist that faith in, and love for, Him
meant obedience to His commandments ; and to guard against a mechanical
conception of the virtue of the Sacraments.
The nature of some of the reasonmg and ideas against wMch he directed
Ms efforts goes far to explain why his work took the form of a Gospel
instead of a treatise. The adversaries of the CMistians, especially the
Jews, were able, in opposing the claims made for Jesus as Divine, to appeal
to the Synoptic representation of His earthly career, which in many ways
was so human in respect of physical weakness and other Umitations ;
wMlst conversely the Docetists also supported from the Synoptists their
deMal of the Lord's real humamty and His liabiUty to pain and distress.
Accordingly, to cut the ground from under these errors the writer of Joh.
composed a new narrative of the Lord's acts and experiences, calculated
to evince more clearly His superhuman glory during His earthly life, and
the reaUty of His sufferings in His passion and death. His miracles
(wMch in the Synoptists are mainly evoked by compassion for the afflicted
and the helpless) are represented as " signs " (ii. 11, Ui. 2, iv. 54, vi. 14,
xx. 30, 31) intended to reveal Jesus' prseternatural power ; incidents
which in the other Gospels are suggestive in Him of ignorance are modified
(vi. 6, xiu. 26, xviii. 4, ll)a ; and the proof of His endurance of physical
angmsh is revised and rendered more telUng (see xix. 17 (contrasted with
Mk. xv. 21) and xix. 28), though it is made plain that He submitted to
humiliation and suffering of His own free wiU (x. 17, 18, xvm. 11).
Against other misconceptions, actual or possible, precautions were taken
by means of discourses attributed to CMist, Who therem refutes them by
1 A Docetic view of our Lord's agony on the Cross finds expression in the Gospel of
Peter. 2 On the other hand contrast iv. 6, xi. 34, xii. 27.

672 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
anticipation.1 And besides desiring to furmsh a defence against attacks
and dangers, the writer wished to accentuate the fact that the gift of the
Spirit wMch was ppssessed by the Church and wMch was attributed to
Jesus as its [Source, had been dependent upon His death. Jesus is
represented as declaring that, through the passing of the Son of God from
earth, the Divine powers inherent in Him became more fully available
for conferring benefits upon His foUowers (xvi. 7).
The Evangelist, in furmshing another version of the ministry of Jesus,
drawn up in the light of the ideas wMch he had come to entertain about
it, and of inferences deducible from them, kept MmseU witMn the general
outlines of the Mimstry, as transmitted by the Synoptists, wMlst sifting,
omitting, supplementing, and modUying in a remarkable degree, the
detaUs of their record. Smce, however, there was every prospect of the
earUer Gospels survivmg by the side of Ms own, it is possible that some of
the alterations which he introduced into the sequence of events as narrated
by Ms predecessors were not offered as more trustworthy Mstorical
statements than theks, but were intended merely as concrete Ulustrations
of truer conceptions (as he beheved) about CMist's Personahty. And
just as he did not break entirely with the Synoptic tradition of events, so
he did not directly negative certain current beUefs and expectations, based
on the Synoptic record, wMch he did not share, but contented MmseU
with doing verbal homage to them, whUst unobtrusively emendmg them.
In accordance with the arrangement previously foUowed, the theology
of the Gospel will be here considered M further detail under tMee heads.
1. Eschatology
Probably the most important contribution wMch was made by the
author of the Fourth Gospel to the theology of the Early Church was Ms
transmutation of contemporary eschatological hopes. The expectation
of their Lord's 'speedy return in visible form was for the early CMistian
community the cMef incentive of their missionary efforts and the mam
source of their fortitude under persecution. But as time passed, and the
long delay began to elicit the mockery of unbeUevers, a growing depression
among the faithful was inevitable ; and to counteract such the Fourth
Evangelist transformed current eschatological conceptions altogether.
The method which he pursued was not to affirm the groundlessness of
the anticipation of a Last Judgment, Maugurated by CMist's descent
from heaven and followed by the entrance of the righteous upon an endless
life, but to acquiesce in the general view 2 and at the same time to qualify
it, suggesting ideas which might graduaUy come to replace it.3 The new
thoughts to wMch he directed the mind of the Church were three : —
(1) In the first place he drew attention to a process of judgment already
taking place in human lives, of which the Last Day would only witness the
1 Cf. Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 255 (Inge).
2 See v. 28, 29, vi. 39, 40, 44, xii. 48.
8 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 257 (Inge). " The Parousia remains, but only as
an otiose feature in his system."

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 673
final issue. God (whose nature is declared to be Love, 1 Joh. iv. 8) did
not desire the condemnation, but the salvation, of mankmd (iii. 17) ;
nevertheless salvation could only be secured by those who satisfied its
conditions, and from the sending of His Son into the world a test and trial
of the world was inseparable. CMist had been a source of Ulummation
to the world in the midst of darkness, impartmg to mankind a revelation
of God's nature and will ; and through the attitude wMch men assumed
towards Him and His teacMng, they passed judgment upon themselves.
Notwithstanding that He had come from God with a savmg purpose,
judgment was the mevitable result of His message (xv. 22, xvi. 9). The
acceptance or rejection of Him was a disclosure of men's own characters,
goodness welcoming the Ught wMch He brought and wickedness shrinking
from it.
(2) Secondly, he endeavoured to habituate the mind of the Church to
the thought that Christ's Second coming had abeady taken place, tMough
the bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon beUevers. The coming of the Spirit
is sometimes represented as being occasioned by Jesus (xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26,
xvi. 7, 14), but sometimes is identified with a return of Jesus Himself
(xiv. 18, 23), so that in place of a future descent of the Lord on the clouds
of heaven, there was substituted the idea of His restored presence with
His foUowers as mediated tMough, and evidenced by, spUitual experiences.
(3) Thirdly, he represented that the resurrection unto lUe, wMch was
prevaUmgly regarded as an event awaiting beUevers M a more or less
distant future and preceded by death, was reaUy an occurrence in the
spiritual sphere, talring place before death. He did not, indeed, contradict
the prevalent notion of a future resurrection any more than that of the
Last Day (v. 29, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54) ; but he taught that the moral change
caused by behef m Jesus as the Messiah was itself a transition from a state of
spiritual death to a state of spiritual Ufe (v. 24, 1 Joh. iu. 14, v. 12). Hence
forward beUevers were aheady in possession of eternal lUe ; so that to those
who had experienced the spUitual resurrection wMch was the consequence
of faith, physical death coMd only be an incident that left true life un
disturbed (xi. 25-26).
Of some of these Johanmne conceptions the elements are found in
the language both of our Lord (as represented in the Synoptic Gospels)
and of St. Paul. " Light " is a symbol for spiritual iUumination in
Jesus' teacMng as it is preserved in Q (see Mt. vi. 22, 23 = Lk. xi. 34, 35),
and St. Paul also speaks of Ms converts as bemg " light " (i.e. illummated)
in the Lord (Eph. v. 8). Jesus had likewise spoken of His coming into the
world as introducing divisions among men, accordmg as they were ammated,
in respect of Him, by sympathy or antipathy (Mt. x. 34 = Lk. xn. 51).
He had also occasionally used " life " as an eqmvalent for the Kingdom
(Mk. ix. 43, cf . v. 47) ; and, Uke the Kingdom, tMs had been represented
as having its beginmngs on earth, as He implied when He bade one who
wished to become His disciple to let the dead (i.e. the spUitually dead)
bury their dead (Mt. viii. 22 = Lk. ix. 60). x Similarly St. Paul, though
1 See p. 426 aud cf. E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, pp. 237-243.
43

674 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
he contemplated the resurrection from the dead as an event in the future,
yet described the baptized as aheady risen (Col. U. ,12, m. 1). The
Fourth | Evangelist in this connexion, then, does not reaUy innovate, but
develops ideas existing germinaUy in prior teacMng and adapts them to
the altered outlook of a later period. He retains Jesus' conception
both of the Kingdom (iii. 3, xvui. 36) and of LUe ; but he has a marked
preference for the latter, wMch he represents as sometMng enjoyed m the
present phase of existence and persisting without break into the next.
2. Christology
It has been seen that the most conspicuous advance made by St. Paul
upon earlier Christological thought was the expUcit assertion of CMist's
pre-existence (p. 658). This (it seems probable) influenced both the writer
of Hebrews and the author of the Fourth Gospel ; but the latter presented
the doctrine in a distinctive shape. He had come in contact with current
Greek pMlosophy, and took over from it the term Logos, wMch was used
to express the principle of Divme Order and Purpose observable in the
world ; but instead of confining tMs pMlosopMcal term to the customary
meaning of a pervading force or rMMg law, he associated it with the
Mstorical Personality of Jesus. The relation of Jesus to the Logos prm-
cipaUy calls for attention here, but some notice must be taken likewise of
His relation to the Holy Spirit.
(a) The use in the Fourth Gospel of the term Logos, wMch has the two
sigmfieations of " word " (or " utterance ") and " reason," has Mdeed
been traced to two sources — one Semitic and the other HeUemc. In the
Hebrew Scriptures the world was represented as brought mto existence
by God's utterance of His flat (Gent i. 3, 6, 11, etc., cf. Ps. xxxm. 6, 9) ;
and the tendency in later Hebrew thought to regard God as a transcendent
Power, Who exerted His wiU and revealed His designs not directly but
only through intermediaries (p. 21), led to the Divme " Word " (Memra
or Deburd) bemg substituted in the Aramaic parapMases caUed the
Targums for the Deity HimseU in passages wMch described God's activity
under antMopomorpMc expressions.1 By Greek phUosopMc writers, on the
other hand, the term Logos was employed to denote the rational prmciple
discernible in the Universe, whereby its manifold diversity was unified
and rendered comprehensible ; and tMs is the conception that appears to
underlie the use of it in Joh., where it seems intended to bring under one
comprehensive view the revelation of God both in physical nature and M
the human conscience, so that the use of it is HeUemc rather than Semitic.
But from that form of contemporary Greek phUosophy with which alone
the author is most likely to have had some acquamtance, viz. Stoicism
(p. 83), he diverges m one respect profoundly. For whereas Stoicism,
a materialistic system, denoted by Logos (" Eeason ") an impersonal
1 See Westcott, St. John, p. xvi. f., where passages are quoted representing how
the " Word of the Lord " was with Ishmael in the wilderness ; how at Bethel Jacob
made a covenant that " the Word of the Lord " should be his God ; and how the
" Word of the Lord " talked with Moses.

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 675
principle pervadmg the world, the Johannine writer speaks of the Logos
in terms of Personality. Not oMy is the Logos said to have existed like
God before the Universe took form (i. 1, xvii. 5, cf . Gen. i. 1) and to have
been with God (ngdg rdv deov) but also to have been God (or Divine,
p. 110). And whUst PhUo, a Jew born about 20 B.C. conversant with
Greek learnmg, who also uses the term Logos, applies to it such personal
expressions as the Son of God, the Man of God, a Second God, and thus
offers (at least on the surface) a close paraUel to Joh., the latter differs
from him m representmg that the Logos took flesh and became Mcarnate
m Jesus. But though the Evangelist places M the forefront of his Gospel his
conviction that Jesus was the Logos mvested with human nature, he
ceases to use the expression after the opemng paragraph of his first
chapter.1 Instead of recalUng at intervals the previous identification of
Jesus with the Divme Eeason, the Creator's Agent in creation and the
IUumMator of human minds (i. 3, 4, 9), he designates Him most frequently
as the Son (or the oMy begotten Son 2) of God. This conception is very
imperfectly adjusted to the earUer, for the Son is represented to have
exchanged one state of existence for another (xvii. 5), renouncmg, on
assuming flesh, the enjoyment of a glory which had previously been His,
but no explanation is furnished how tMs transition was related to the
permanent functions discharged by the Logos M the Universe. He leaves
quite unharmonized the relation of the Logos to the Spirit that descended
on Jesus at His baptism. Another term which is apphed m the body of
the Gospel to our Lord is " the Son of man," this bemg the title by which
Jesus, accordmg to the Synoptists, most commoMy designated Himself
(p. 615). In the employment of these appeUations the writer reverts to
certaM conceptions which, unUke the idea of the Logos, had their origin
witMn Hebrew circles, and Mdeed the dommant thought pervadmg the
greater part of the Gospel is the MessiahsMp of Jesus, a doctrine resting
upon a distinctively Hebrew foundation.
The relation of Jesus to God which is expressed by the designation of
Him as the Son of God is regarded as implying perfect unity of wiU, so
that Jesus is recorded to have declared that He and the Father are one
(x. 30). Such unity, however, is consistent with dependence and sub-
ordmation, for what the Son says or does is derived from the Father, Who
is consequently greater than He. Of HimseU He can do nothmg, but the
Father through His love for the Son shows to Him all that He Himself
does (v. 19, 20, 30). The Son speaks not of Himself but communicates
the commands of the Father, and the works which He does are the work
of the Father abiding M Him (xii. 49, xiv. 10, 24). Such unity subsisting
1 The term occurs once again but without adequate authority in 1 Joh. t. 8, where
a very few codices of the Old Lat. and Vulg. have tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in
coelo, Pater, Verbum, d Spiritus, and are followed by two very late Greek MSS.
2 The term jiovoyev/js, besides being used of an only child (Lk. viii. 42, Tobit iii 15,
Hes. Op. 374), was also employed to connote uniqueness of nature (Wisd. vii. 22) :
Bee Westcott, Epp. of St. Joh. p. 169. The Son gives to men power to become children
(rixva) of God (i. 12, cf. xi. 52, 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2), but the term viol Beov is not used of
them by the Evangehst : contrast Heb. ii. 10,

676 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
between HimseU and the Father, Jesus regarded as the ideal relation
between His disciples and Himself, and He bade His followers seek to
realize it (xiv. 20-24, xvii. 21),
In what manner the Incarnation was effected is not explained. The
writer must have been acquainted with the narratives of the Virgin Birth
in the First and Third Gospels, but he altogether disregards them,1 possibly
from a wish to avoid any reference to the Birth or chUdhood of Jesus, since
from these stages of human Ufe conditions of immaturity and imperfection
are inseparable (cf . Lk. ii. 52), and he desired to avoid the idea of such M
connexion with the Christ.
Nevertheless, though the Johannine portraiture of the Incarnate Son
is much less human ip its Uneaments than that of the Synoptists, the
author's condemnation of Docetic views is very decisive. In his FUst
Epistle he denounces as inspired by a spirit of AnticMist those that demed
Jesus CMist to have come in the flesh. Such seem to have contended that
the heaveMy Christ was not united to the human Jesus tMoughout the
whole of the latter's eartMy existence, but after having descended upon
Him at His Baptism, departed from Him before His execution. In
opposition to this the writer declared that the Son of God did not come
through (i.e. undergo)^ the waters of Baptism oMy, but the blood-sheddmg
of the Crucifixion also, and sustained the agony usuaUy experienced by
such as were thus put to death (1 Joh. v. 6).
(6) The gift of the Spirit ip the post-Besurrection part of the writer's
historical narrative is represented as conveyed by " Msufflation " (xx. 22),
this being apparently the Johannine counterpart of the descent of the
Spirit at Pentecost.? The Evangelist, unlike St. Paul and St. Luke,
makes no aUusion to the special endowments (" tongues," " prophecy,"
etc.) which m the Early Church were considered to attest peculiarly the
Spirit's presence, His owp conception of the Spirit's activity was that it
was a reyealmg and informing Power, enabUng the Church to enter fufiy
into the mind of CMist and so extend the work wMch He came to acMeve
(xvi- 13-15). And since that work was to commumcate to men the
kngwledge of God, and it is in that knowledge that eternal Ufe consists
(xvii. 3), the Spirit, like the Divme Son HimseU, is represented as imparting
Ufe (vi. 63, cf. v. 21). It has already been noticed that the Fourth
Evapgelist regards the bestowal of the Spirit as eqmvalent to the return
of Jesus HimseU (xiv. 3, 18, 19, 28). Consequently, smce Jesus is also the
Logos, it wUl be seen that the process of divine revelation M the pre-
Christian ages (i. 9), in the Incarnation, and m the Church is unified, and
traced to a single mediating agent.
1 It has been argued indeed that a definite allusion to the Virgin birth occurs in
i. 13 where the Verona codex (6) of Lat. vet., supported by TertuUian, Irenseus, and
possibly other patristiq authorities, has bs (the Logos) ovk *| atjtaros obSi en BeXtfpMros
oapubs obbi en. BeX-fi/iaTOS avbpbs, dXX' e'/c Beov eyev/jBij ; but the weight of MS.
authority against the reading is too preponderant for it to be plausible. See Box,
The Virgin Birth, pp. 2,28-31.
2 For this sense of iXBCiy 5ict of. Plut. Ale. i. 142 A Sib. toXXwv ki^S/jvuv frffivres-,
3 Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 286 (Inge).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 677
3, Soteriology
The Soteriology of the Fourth Evangelist bears, on the surface, soipe
rgsemblane e to that of St. Paul and of the author of Hebrews, inasmuch as
in various places pur Lord's death is presented M a sacrificial aspect. Ip
the Gospel John the Baptist is represented as ppintmg to Jesus as the Lamb
(d d/jivdg) of God * that taketh away (d atgaw) the sin of the world (i."2,9,'36),
the imagery bemg borrowed apparently from the lambs kiUed as a dauy
offermg (Ex, xxix. 38 f., Num. xxviii. 3 f.). In the First Epistle J.esus is
declared to have been manifested to take away sins (1 Joh. iii. 5% and to be
the propitiation (IXqopdg) for sins (1 Joji, ii. 2 _ cf, iv. 10 and Rom. iii. 25,
iXqorrfgiof) ; and His blood is described as cleapsMg from aU gM (1 Joh. i. 7)..
The voluntary nature of His sacrifice is iUustrated by a figure taken hot
from the flock but from the shepherd, Jesus bemg reported as declarmg
that as the Good Shepherd He lays dpwn His lUe for (vnig) His Sheep
(x. 11, cf , xy. 13, 1 Joh. ni. 16).2 That the writer likewise shared the Pauline
Universalism, and thought oi GentUes equaUy with Jews as the recipients
of the benefits that Jesus conferred, is apparent not oMy from some of the
statements just cited, but from the declaration ascribed to the Samaritans,
" we know that this is, indeed, the Saviour of the world " (rpii x/iaiiov^, iy, 42,
cf . i. 29, 1 Joh. ii. 2), from Jesus' assertion that He had .other sheep which
were not of the same fold as His Jewish foUowers (x. 16), and from the
representatiop that Caiaphas, m affirming it to be expedient that ope man
should die for the people, uttered an unconscious prophecy that Jesus was
to die not oMy for His nation but fpr aU the children of God.
Nevertheless ip spite of the likeness in the passages just noted between
the views of the Fourth Evangelist and those of his predecessors respepting
the death pf pur Lord, it is accompanied by some strikMg differences.
There is no adoption of the PauUne theory described on p. 653. The
phrase in i. 29 d qigmv Trjv dpagriav (cf. 1 Joh. iii. 5) is ambigupps, and
may mean either to remove sin or to bear the copsequences of sin, the
common usage pf aigm favouring the first alternative (see xi, 48, xv. 2,
xvii. 15). And the prevaUing Soteriological idea of the Johamune Gospel
is that Christ saved men by the revelation of God's character which He
imparted to them.- Gpd showed men what, in order tp attain salvation,
they had to be by reveaUng to them, through Jesus, what He HimseU was.
No man had ever seen God, Who was Spirit (iv. 24, cf . Is, xxxi. 3), unpon-
fined to any special locality and invisible to mortal sight (cf, i. 18, v, 37,
vi. 46) ; but the oMy begotten Son interpreted Him (f.krjytjaqro, i. 18).
Through the Son came graee and truth (i, 17), the disclosure of the Divipe
love (iii. 16, pf, xv. 9), which is the essence of the Divme nature (.cf. 1 Joh,
iv, 7, 16, v. 1) ; and the knowledge of God thus communicated constitutes
man's enduripg life. Hence Jesus is represented as desoribmg Himself as
the Way, the truth, and the Life, thrpugh Whorn alone men could come to
1 Cf. 1 Pet. i. 19, Rev. v. 12, xix. 7 {where rb apvlov is used).
2 The writer here goes on to infer that we ought to lay down our lives for the
brethren, the self-sacrifice by Je?us being assumed to have been Af such a character
that men could imitate it ; cf. our Lord's own language in Mk. x. 43-45.

678 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the Father (xiv. 6). Whoso had seen Him had seen the Father. This
conception of the mission of Jesus as consisting m a disclosure of the
Father's essential nature made through the Son, has its counterpart M
one of the most trustworthy reports of our Lord's actual sayings, viz.
Mt. xi. 25-27 (= Lk. x. 21, 22), a passage discussed on p. 617.
It has been seen (p. 673) that the Fourth Evangelist regards salvation
as Life. The agencies whereby, in general, Ufe is represented as com
municated are two, the words of Jesus, imparted by Him personaUy to His
disciples as long as He lived with them, and the DivMe Spirit, which was
to recaU and elucidate them after his death. The words of Jesus (called
" the words of eternal life," vi. 68) had been committed to Him by His
Father (xvii. 8, 14) ; and through them He revealed the DivMe Name
(i.e. the DivMe character) to those whose spiritual msight and receptiveness
caused them to Usten to, and beUeve, Him (xvii. 26, cf. x. 3). His words
had a cleansing power (xv. 3) ; and U a man kept them, the Father and He
would abide M him (xiv. 23). To them there seems to be ascribed an
Mherent potency to produce an effect beyond the measure of any merely
human utterances. With the JohannMe conception of salvation tMough
Christ's words may be compared not oMy St. PaM's (M Col. iii. 16, Phil.
ii. 16) but also St. James' (i. 21), " Eeceive with meekness the implanted
word which is able to save your soMs " (cf. likewise Acts v. 20). BeUef M
the words of Jesus necessarily involved acceptance of His claim to be the
Messiah, the Son of God, and consequently the authoritative channel of
the Father's seU-revelation. St.' PaM's characteristic word " faith "
(nlang) does not actually occur M the Gospel, but the exercise of faith,
expressed by the verb marsvEiv,1 is repeatedly accentuated as essential
(i. 12, iii. 36, vi. 29, xii. 42, cf. xvi. 9, 1 Joh. iv. 15). The Evangelist is
more explicit than the Apostle M Msisting upon the moral obligations of
faith or belief. In one passage he makes obedience to the Son synonymous
with belief in the Son (iii. 36) ; and, M general, he represents Jesus as
declaring that oMy by keepMg His commandments coMd beUevers be
truly His disciples and abide in His love (vui. 31, xv. 10, 14, cf. xiv. 21,
1 Joh. ii. 3, 4, iii. 6, 24, and our Lord's words M Mt. vii. 21 f. = Lk. vi. 46 f .).
He thus does not hesitate tp depict Christianity under the aspect of a law
(sin being expressly defined M the First Epistle as " lawlessness " (1 Joh.
iii. 4)), a view of it which is rare in St. Paul, although the two writers were
really dommated by the same motive of devotion to the Person of Christ.
In the Fourth Gospel no aUusion is made in expUcit words to the
Church, though believers are spoken of as composmg a body distinct from
the world whilst still abiding in it (xvii. 6, 14), and the Church is mentioned
in the Third Epistle (v. 6). The rite of Baptism is described as being
practised by the disciples during Jesus' ministry (iii. 22, iv. 1, 2), seemmgly
after the example of John the Baptist ; but the only reference to its
significance occurs in the interview between Jesus and Nicodemus (ch. iii.),
1 The construction of this verb in Joh. is usually viareveiv els (i. 12, ii. 11, 23, iii.
16, 18, 36, iv. 39, etc). It is rare in the Synoptists (Mt. xviii. 6, and perhaps Mk. ix.
42).

THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE N.T. 679
where our Lord is reported to haye declared that except a man be born of
water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. In the
rest of the discourse mention of the water is lacking, and the mysterious
movements of the Spirit are compared to the untraceable course of the
wind, though Its presence can be discerned by its effects just as the wind
betrays itself by its sound. The aUusion to the water is so isolated that
the word has been suspected of being an ecclesiastical interpolation. But
the explanation of the slightness of the reference may be that the writer,
without wishMg to ignore the rite or deny its importance, aimed at dis-
couragmg the belief that the Spirit through it was physicaUy conveyed,
or that the Presence of the Spirit coMd be MfaUibly inferred wherever the
rite had been undergone.
Nothing is said about the institution of the Eucharist. An account is
given of the Last Supper ; but it contains a narrative of quite a different
symbolic act on the part of Jesus, Who washed successively the feet of the
Twelve and then bade them do to one another as He had done to them.
The reason for the substitution of this for the Eucharist is perhaps due to
the fact that when the Evangelist wrote, the latter rite was ceasing to
convey the significance which he beUeved its Founder intended it to have ;
and so he replaced it by an account of another symbolic act more plamly
suggestive of humUity and brotherly service. But earlier in the Gospel
there occurs a passage which is thought by many to have the Eucharist in
view. In a discourse (vi. 32-65) placed after the miracle of the Feeding
of the 5,000, Jesus is represented as declaring that He was the true
bread which came from heaven (and not the manna expected by the
Jews to descend agam from on Mgh 1); that the bread which He woMd
give was His flesh for the life of the world ; and that to eat His flesh and to
drink His blood was to become united to Him and to gain eternal life. It
is possible that the writer here sets forth his view of the significance of the
Eucharistic rite, as observed by the Church, and regards it as the indis
pensable means for uniting believers with their Lord.2 It is, however, really
questionable whether the discourse in vi. 32-65 had, in the mMd of the
EvangeUst, any direct reference to the Eucharist at aU. (a) There is an
absence throughout of the combmation of the terms " body " and " blood,"
which are elsewhere used M connexion with the Eucharist, the words
employed bemg " flesh " and " blood," which, together, are a frequent
synonym for a human personality (Mt. xvi. 17, Gal. i. 16, Eph. vi. 12).
It is, therefore, probable that here their import is similar, and that they
refer to our Lord's human nature, (b) Food, and the eatmg and drinkmg
of it, are metaphors often found in Hebrew thought for purely MteUectual
or spiritual realities and processes (Ecclus. xv. 3, xxiv. 21, and ef. Joh.
iv. 10, 14, 34, vii. 37-39). 3 Accordingly, M the passage here considered,
1 Cf. Apoc. Baruch xxix. 8, " The treasury of manna shall again descend from on
high." 2 Some, in support of this view, appeal to the parallelism between vi. 51-53 and iii.
3-5 ; and, holding that in ch. iii. baptism is affirmed to be essential for receiving the
Spirit, contend that in ch. vi. the Eucharist is similarly presented as the necessary
medium for drawing spiritual sustenance from Christ.
3 J. Lightfoot quotes from the Talmud the phrase " to eat the days of Messiah."

680 NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY
the expression " to eat the flesh of tlie Son of man and to drink Hfe blood "
(V. 53) admits of bemg Mte'rpreted pf belief in Jesus" humanity as the
medium of a divine revelation, (c) This is confirmed by the occurrence of
" believe " m connexion with " bread of Ufe " in vv. 35, 47, 48 (" I am the
bread of life, he that cometh to me ShaU not hunger' and he that believeth
ail Me ShaU never thirst." " He that bdlieveth hath eternal life. I am
the bread pf Ufe."). These phrases seem to impty that the belief that Jesus
is the revealer, under the conditions of human nature, of God's character
becomes an unfaUing source of spiritual sustenance, (d) A caution agamst
a possible misunderstanding of the Metaphor is apparently' added in v. 63 '
Jesus' flesh, it understood M a material Sense, profits not at aU ; His words
about feedmg upon His flesh and blood must be interpreted Spiritually,
i.e. figuratively,1 and only then do they origMate and sustain true lUe.
If this is the teal tenor of the discourse, it relates to the Eucharist oMy so
far as that Sacrament is one Of the methods ^whereby the spiritual support
afforded by JeSuS* eartMy1 Ufe, crOwned as it was by His seU-sacrificMg
death (v. 51), of which it is a Memorial, reaches men and conduces to their
Salvation. Before this slight account of the Johannine theology is Concluded
attention may be briefly recaUed to two features of it already noticed,
which, M spite of the EVangelist'S blehdMg ol the ideal with the real m his
historical narrative in a mahher alien to our conception of how history
Should be written, yet exhibit in Mm a spirit congenial to the present age.
The first is the introduction of the idea of Continuity M connexion with
(tt) the DiVMe Judgment, (b) the KeSurrection unto Ufe, which are regarded
aS processes rather than eVentS. The Second is the promMehce given to
the idea of Unity perVading Kevelation, which, proceedMgf rom the DivMe
Reason, is imparted through (a) the Common conscience of mankMd, (6)
the historic life Of.JesuS, (c) the Spiritual presence of JesUs with the Church.
indeed, smtie the Universe is also' declared to have been created through
the DiVMe Reason, a unity Of Prigin is attributed alike to the order
discernible in the Material world and the Ordef MdUced M the moral
Sphere by spiritual enlightenment. These features combmejto give to
the Fourth Gospel a more Modern aspect than is Manifested by ahy other
work M the New Testament.
* For this sense of irvedfia cf. Rev. xi. 8, ij fbhis ij jUeftiXi. fpis KaKeirai irvevp-ariKCis
DbSo/ia Kal Atyvrros:

APPENDIX A
PASSAGES IN MT. AND LE. ASSIGNABLE TO Q.
Mt. Lk,
iii. 7-12 iii. 7-9, 16, 17
iv. 3-11 iv. 3-13
v. 3, 4, 6, 11, 12 vi. 20-23
v. 13 xiv. 34
v. 18 xvi. 17
v. 25, 26 xii. 58, 59
v. 32 xvi. 18
v. 39, 40, 42, 44-47 vi. 27-33, 35
vi. 9-13 xi. 2-4
vi. 19-21 xii. 33, 34
vi. 22, 23 xi. 34, 35
vi. 24 xvi. 13
vi. 25-33 xii. 22-31
vii. 1-5 vi. 37, 38, 41, 42
vii. 7-11 xi. 9-13
vii. 12 vi. 31
vii. 13 xiii. 24
vii. 16-18 vi. 43, 44
vii. 21 vi. 46
vii. 22, 23 xiii. 26, 27
vii. 24-27 vi. 47-49
viii. 5-10, 13 vii. 1-10
viii. 11, 12 xiii. 28, 29
viii. 19-22 ix. 57-60
ix. 37, 38 x. 2
x. 106, 12, 13, 15, 16 x. 76, 5, 6, 12, 3
x. 24 vi. 40
x. 26-33 xii. 2-9
x. 34-36 xii. 51-53
x. 37, 38 xiv. 26, 27
xi. 2-11 vii. 18-28
xi. 12, 13 xvi. 16
xi. 16-19 vii. 31-35
xi. 21-23 x. 13-15
xi. 24 x. 12
xi. 25-27 x. 21, 22
xii. 11 xiv. 5
xii. 22 xi. 14
xii. 27, 28, 30 xi. 19, 20, 23
xii. 35 vi. 45
xii. 38, 39 xi. 16, 29
681

682

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Mt.
xii. 41, 42
xii. 43-45
xiii. 16, 17
xiii. 33
xv. 146
xvi. 2, 3
xviii. 7
xviii. 12-14
xviii. 15, 21, 22
xix. 286
xxi. 44
[xxii. 1-6, 8-10
xxiii. 4
xxiii. 12
xxiii. 13
xxiii. 23, 25-27, 29-31, 34-36
xxiii. 37-39
xxiv. 26-28
xxiv. 37^1
xxiv. 43-51
[xxv. 14-29

Lh.
xi. 31, 32
xi. 24-26
x. 23, 24
xiii. 20, 21
vi. 39
xii. 54-56
xvii. 1
xv. 4-7
xvii. 3, 4
xxii. 306
xx. 18
xx. 9-17] '
xi. 46
xiv. 11, xviii. 146
xi. 52
xi. 42, 39, 41, 47-51
xiii. 34, 35
xvii. 23, 24, 37
xvii. 26, 27, 30, 34, 35
xii. 39, 40, 42^16
xix. 12, 13, 15-26.] 1

1 These parallel passages are equivalent rather than identical, and their derivation
from Q is rather doubtful.

APPENDIX B
TABLES OF MEASURES, WEIGHTS, AND MONEY *

Measures

of Length

Cubit (nfjxvg) .

17£ Mches

Fathom (dgyvid)

5 feet 10 inches
Furlong (ardSiov) .
194 yards
Mile (fiiXiov) .
1,613 yards
Sabbath day's journey
1,000 yards
Measures of Capacity
Seah (odrov)
3 gallons
Firkin (fisrgtjrrjg) .
Bath (Bdrog) .
':}
9 gallons
Cor (xdgog)
¦
90 gallons or 11 bushels
Weights
Pound (Xirga)
5,050 grains or almost 12 ounces
Talent (== 125 Xirgai) .
about 90 lb.
Money
Mite (Xsnrov)
rV-
Half-fartbing (daadgwv)
id.
Farthing (xoSgdvrrjg)
.
¥¦
Shilling, " Penny " (Srjvdgiov, Sgaxprj)
9id.
Half-shekel (SiSgaxftov) .
Is. Id.
Shekel (ararrjg)
3s. 2d.
Mina " Pound " (/iva)
£4 0s. Od.
Talent (rdXavrov) .
£240 0s. Od.
1 The Tables are taken from Hastings, D.B. iii. p. 427 f., iv. p. 901 f . (Kennedy).
The EngUsh equivalents are approximate only.
683
INDEX

Abila, Abilene, 7, 69
Acco, 6
Achaia, 67, 550
Acts, Book of, 233-255
Adrias, The, 587, 588
jEneas, 516
JSnon, 5
Agabus, 521, 570
Agrippa I, 51, 52, 522, 523
Agrippa II, 52, 53, 682, 584
Albinus, 58
Alexander the Great, 25
Alexander Jann^us, 37, 38
Alexander, Tiberius, 57
Alexandrine Text, 143, 144
Ananias, 512, 513
Ananias (High Priest), 676
Ananias and Sapphira,- 500
Andrew, St., 373-5, 488
Angels, Angelology, 21, 42. 43, 110, 111
Angels of the Churches, 639
Annas, 354, 435, 459
Antioch, 68, 520, 521, 540
Antioch, Pisidian, 527-530
Antioehene Text, 143
Antiochus III (The Great), 29
Antiochus IV (Eptphanes), 29-32
Antipas, Herod, 48, 50, 51, 342, 370,
406, 463
Anttpater, 38, 44
Antipatris, 7, 578
Antonia, Oastle of, 11, 54, 573
Antoninus Pius, 60
Antony, 45, 46
Apocalypses, 40, 60, 445, 633 f.
Apocalyptic Prophecy, 23, 38-40
Apollos, 308, 559, 560
Aquila, 283, 309, 554, 555
Arabia, 514
Aramaic phrases in the N.T., 79
Archelaus, 48-50, 342, 363
Areopagus, The, 551
Aretas, 50, 345, 370, 515
Arimathea, 6
Aristarchus, 564, 585
Aristobulus I, 37
Aristobulus II, 38, 43, 44
Artemis, 564

Ascension, The, 475
Asia, 65-66
Asiarchs, 66, 561, 565
Asidseans, 30-31
Assassins, 574 (see also Sicarii)
Athens, 67, 550-553
Attalia, 68, 526
Augustan Cohort, 54, 73, 585
Azotus, 7, 512
Babylon, SymboUc sense of, 312, 313, 634
Baptism, 357, 4S6, 612, 613, 627-629,
653, 654, 668, 678, 679
Barabbas, 462
Bar-cochba, 60
Barnabas, 500, 515, 520 f., 538, 540; 641
Beelzebul, 393
Beloved disciple, The, 207-209, 229
Bernice (Berenice), 52, 53, 582, 583
Beroea, 549
Bethabarah, 8, 366
Bethany, 6, 432, 448, 475, 488
Bethany beyond Jordan, 8, 484
Bethesda, 11, 486
Bethlehem, 6, 360, 363
Bethphage, 6, 433
Bethsaida Julias, 7, 5i, 408, 416
Bezetha, li
Bishops, see Overseers
Bithynia-Pontus, 67, 542
Breaking of Bread, see Eucharist
" Brethren " of the Lord, 359, 364, 365,
392-393
Caesar, Appeal to, 72; 582
Cjesarea, 7, 47, 54, 512, 617, 557, 570,
678, 581
G^s'areA Philippi, 7, 51, 416
Caiaphas, 459, 460
Caligula, 56, 82, 516, 642
Cana, 4, 484, 485
Candace, 511
Capernaum. 4, 373, 376. 381, 382, 384,
387, 392, 400, 422, 423, 485-6
Cappadocia, 67, 68
Captain of the Temple, 93
Chalcis, 7, 69
Chorazin, 5, 406

685

686

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

" Christians," The name, 521
Christology, 614-618, 623-626, 636, 637,
643-647, 661-663, 674-676
Chronology, 341-349
Church, see Ecclesia
Cilicia, 68, 516, 541, 558
Citizenship, Eoman, 72, 575-576
Claudius, 78, 345, 521, 642
Claudius Lysias, 573-4
Cleopas, 474
Codices, 126-127
Cohort, 72
Colonies, 71
Colossians, Epistle to the, 285-288
Community of Goods, 494, 499
Conditions conducive to the Diffusion
of Christianity, 74-89
Conditions of Salvation laid down by
Jesus, 602-610
Conflation, 141
Coponius, 55
Corinth, 67, 273, 553, 556
Corinthians, Epistles to the, 273-279
Cornelius, 517-519
CouncU of Jerusalem, 536-539, 572-573
Crassus, 44
Crete, 67, 5S6
Crucifixion, Date of the, 342, 344, 345
Cumanus, Ventidius, 57
Cybele and Attis, Cult of, 86
Cyprus, 67, 524, 526
Cyrene, 67
Damascus, 7, 512, 515
Day of Jehovah, 22 (see also Eschato-
. logy)
Dead Sea, The, 2
Deacons, 545, 632
"Deacons," The Seven, 502, 503
Decapolis, 7, 399, 413
Defilement, Jesus' teaching about, 410,
411, 608, 609
Demetrius, 564, 565
Demons, 111, 112, 376-7, 399
Derbe, 533
Devil, 111
Dispersion, The Jewish, 15, 77-79
Divine titles apphed to men, 109, 110
Divorce, Jesus' teaching about, 427-8,
609, 610
Documentary Criticism, 148-340
Drusilla, 52, 57, 580
Eastern Cults, 85-88
Ecclesia (Church), 389, 417, 418, 611, 612,
629, 638, 646
Elam, 70
Elders, Jewish, 95
Elders, Christian, 545, 568, 631, 632
Eleusinian Mysteries, 87

Elizabeth, 351, 352, 360
Elymas, 525
Emmaus, 6, 474
Emperor Worship, 81-83, 332
Enccsnia, 32
Ephesians, Epistle to the, 288-293
Ephesus, 66, 557, 559-566
Ephraim, 6, 488
Epicureanism, 84, 85
Eschatology, 600-602, 622, 623, 633-636,
639-642, 661, 672-674
Esdraelon, 2, 3
Essenes, 103-105
Eucharist, 452-455, 494, 567, 629, 654,
679-680
Eunuch, Ethiopian, 511
Eutychus, 567
Exorcism, Exorcists, 393, 562
Fadus, Cuspius, 57
Fair Havens, 586
Faith, 621, 651, 653, 657, 658, 667, 669,
678
Famine in Judsea, 521, 522
Fasting, Jesus' attitude to, 385, 609
Feasts and Fasts, Jewish, 94
Felix, Antonius, 57, 58, 578-581
Festus, Porotus, 58, 581-585
Floras, Gessius, 58
Fourth Gospel, The, 207-233, 484-489,
670-680
Free Cities, 71
Frumentarii, 73, 591
Gaius, 564, 567
Galatia, 67, 265-270, 542, 559
Galatians, Epistle to the, 264-273, 558
Galilee, 2, 3, 69
Gallio, 346, 556
Gamaliel, 501, 508
Gaza, 7, 511
Gennesaret, Lake of, 2, 371, 397, 406,
409
Gentiles admitted into the Church, 511,
516-519, 520, 531, 659
Gerasa, 7, 398
Gerizim, 5, 16, 485
Gethsemane, 12, 456
" God-fearers," 89, 511, 518, 520
Golgotha, 11, 465
Greek Language, Diffusion of the, 80, 81
Greek Manuscripts, 128-132
Greek Period of Jewish History, The,
24-43
Hadrian, 59
Haggada, 98, 99
Halacha, 98
Hasmonseans, 31-38
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 304-310,

INDEX

687

Hebrews, Teaching of the Epistle to the,
659-670
Hellenism, 25
Hellenists, 503, 520
Hermon, 2, 419
Herod the Great, 45-48, 342, 363
Herod Philip, 50, 370
Herodians, 388, 415, 439
Herodias, 50, 370, 406
Hierapolis, 292, 293, 561
High Priests, 17-19, 54, 55, 99, 459-460,
504, 576
" Holy and Righteous One," 626
Holy Spirit, 476, 491-5, 509, 519, 624,
644-646, 676
Hyrcanus, see John Hyrcanus
Iconium, 530
Illyricum, 549
ImmortaUty, Jesus' teaching about
human, 440, 441
Imperial Provinces, 64 f.
Imposition of Hands, 509, 510,524, 560,
630
Isis and Osiris, Cult of, 87, 88
Italian Cohort, 54, 517, 518
Itureans, 7, 68, 69
James (son of Zebedee), 373, 400, 430,
456, 522
James (" brother " of the Lord), 265,
359, 364, 473, 538, 570-571, 630
James, Epistle of, 255-261
Jason. 548, 549
JEHOVAH, 20
Jehovah's Servant, 24, 511, 529, 619
Jericho, 9, 357, 425, 431
Jerusalem, 9, 10, 15, 59, 432 f.
Jeshimon, 5, 353
Jesus Christ —
Jesus' Ministry according to the Ear
Uest Sources, 358-483
Genealogies, 359
Birth and Childhood, 360-364
Baptism, 358, 365-367
Temptation, 367-370
Beginning of the Ministry, 371-373
CaU of certain disciples, 373-375, 384
Authoiitativeness of His Teaching, 375,
376
Wonderful cures and other marvels,
376 f. (see Miracles)
Antagonism of the Ecclesiastical Auth
orities, 382-388, 393, 410, 427, 436,
439-440
Appointment of Apostles, 389
Sermon on the Mount, 390-392
Parabolic Teaching, 394, 395 (see also
Parables)
Rejection at Nazareth, 402

Despatch of the Twelve on a Mission,
403
Answer to John's enquiry, 404
Claim to unique knowledge of God, 405
Temporary withdrawal from Gahlee
into Phoenicia, 412
Return through Decapolis, 413
Avowal of Messiahship at Caesarea
Phihppi, 416
Predictions of Death and Resurrection,
418, 422, 430
Transfiguration, 419
Departure for Judsea, 422, 425
Entry into Jerusalem, 432-3
Cleansing of the Temple, 435 (cf. 485)
His death devised, 436
The Anointing at Bethany, 448
Treachery of Judas, 449
The Last Supper, 450 f.
Agony in Gethsemane, 456
Trial by the High Priest, 458-9
His Execution conceded by Pilate,
462-3
The Crucifixion and Burial, 465-470
The Risen Life, 470 f.
Jesus' Ministry according to the Fourth
Gospel, 484-489
Jesus, Teaching of, 597-621
Jewish Historians, Ideas and Methods of,
106-121
Jewish Institutions, 90-105
Joanna, 198
Johannine Writings, The, 207-233, 319-
325, 670-680
John Hyrcanus I, 36, 37
John Hyrcanus II, 38, 43-45
John the Baptist, 351-357, 370, 404-406
John (son of Zebedee), 224-227, 373,
400, 430, 456, 475, 496, 537
John (the Presbyter), 228, 323-324
Jonah, Sign of, 414, 415
Jonathan Maccabeus, 34, 35
Jordan, The, 2, 8, 9, 355, 425
Joseph, 359
Joseph (of Arimathssa), 469
Joseph Barsabbas, 490
Judaism, 89
Judas Barsabbas, 540
Judas (of Gamala), 55, 238
Judas Iscariot, 390, 449, 455, 457, 491
Judas Maccabeus, 32-34
Jude, Epistle of, 316-319
Judgment, The, 22, 39, 355-6, 372, 445,
653, 600-602, 623, 633, 639, 661, 672,
673.
Kidron, The, 10, 456
Kingdom of God, The, 23, 41, 61, 355.
371, 372, 428, 429, 599 f., 604, 613, 622,
646, 674

688

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

" Lamb, The," 375, 637
Laodicea, 66, 292
Last Supper, The, 450-465, 654, 679-680
Latinisms in the Gospels, 172, 193, 205,
231
Lazarus, 449, 488
Lebanon, %
Leptionaries, J29
Legion, 72
Levi, see Matthew, St.
" Lion of the Tribe of Judah," 637
Logia, 166-168
" Lord," The title, 88, 206, 231, 616, 625,
644, 646
Lord's Day, The, 639
Lord's Prayer, The, 392, 603
Luke, St., 195, 196, 236, 237, 643, 585
Luke, Gospel according to St,; 194-207
Lydda, 7, 516, 517
Lydia, 544
Lysanias, 204
Lystra, 531-533
Maccabees, The, 32-38
Macedonia, 66, 543 f,
Macjlerus, 9, 47, 370, 406
Magdala, 5
Magi, Magian, 363, 364, 509, 510, 525
Magnificat. Tbe, 360
" Man of Sin," The, 640-642
Manuscripts, 128-132
Marcellus, 56
Mark, St., 169-171, 173-179, 243, 524,
526
Mark, Gospel according to St„ 153-160
173-183
Martha and Mary, 483, 488
Marullus, 56
Mary (mother of Jesus), 358-360, 362,
393, 408-467, 484
Mary (mother ef James the Little). 365,
466, 473. 473
Mary (mother of Mark), 522
Mary Magdalene, 466, 475. 472, 476
Matthew, St., 166, 167, 384
Matthew, Gospel according to St., 183-194
Matthias, 490
Media, 70
Medical Language of St, Luke, 206, 237
Melita, 588, 689
Merom, Waters (Sea) of, 2, 416
Messiah, 23, 40, 41, 61, 366-7, 416-420,
432, 460 (see also Christology)
Miletus, $0, 568
Millennium, 61, 62, 635, 636
Miracles of Jesus —
Incident of great catch of Ash, 374 (of.
476) [ cure of demoniac, 376-7 ;
of Peter's mother-in-law, 377-8 j of
leper, 380 ; of centurion's servant,

381 ; of paralytic, 382-4! ; of man
with a withered haud, 387 ; of
woman bowed together, , 387 ; of
dropsical man, 388 ; of blind and
dumb man at Capernaum, 392;
StiUing the storm, 397 j cure of dV
moniac at Gerasa, 398-9 ; of woman
with an issue, 400 ; raising of Jairus'
daughter, 400-401 ; cure of two
blind men at Capernaum, 402 ; of
dumb man at Capernaum, 402;
raising of widow's son at Nain, 402 ;
feeding of 5,000, 407-8, 486 ; walking
on the sea, 408-9, 486 ; cure of
Syrophoenician woman's daughter,
412 ; of deaf and dumb man in De.-
capohs, 413 ; feeding of 4,000, 413-
414 ; cure of blind man at Beth
saida, 416 ; of demoniac boy, 421 ;
incident of coin found in mouth of
fish, 422-3 ; cure of ten lepers, 426 ;
of Bartimseus, 431 ; withering of fig.-
tree, 434-5. change of water into
wine, 484 ; cure of courtier's son,
485 ; of infirm man at Bethesda,
486 ; of a man blind from birth,
487 ; raising of Lazarus, .488
Mithras, Cult of, 87
Mnason, 570
Nabat^eans, 69
Nain, 4, 402
Nathanael, 229, 375, 484
Nativity, Date of the, 342, 344, 345
Nazareth, 3, 358, 360, 363, 371, 393,
402
Nero, 315, 595
Nero, Expected Return of, 333, 634-5
Neutral Text, 143
Nicodemus, 470, 485
Number 666, The, 635
Olives, Mount of, 6, 10
Onesimus, 293
Overseers, 534, 545, 631
Palestine, Topography of, 1-12
Palestine under Egyptian rule, 27, 28
„ „ Syrian rule, 29-38
Palimpsests, 127
Pamphylia, 68, 526
Papyrus, papyri, 124-126, 128
Parables of Jesus —
Lost slice p. lost coin, prodigal, Pharisee
and pubhean, 385 ; friend at night,
widow and judge, 392; sower, 395;
seed growing secretly, mustard
seed, leaven , tares, hidden treasure,
pearl of price, 396-7 ; drag net,
397 ; unforgiving debtor, 424 j

INDEX

689

good Samaritan, 429 ; labourers in
the vineyard, 429 ; rich fool, 429 ;
unrighteous steward, 429 ; rich man
and Lazarus, 429 ; unfruitful fig-
tree, 435 ; two sons, 438 ; wicked
husbandmen, 438 ; marriage feast,
439 ; ten virgins, 446 ; talents
(pounds), 446 ; two debtors, 449
Parthia, Parthians, 70, 635
Pastoral Epistles, The, 296-304
Patristic Quotations, 135, 136
Paul, St., 471, 472, 478-481, 483, 508,
512-516, 523-596, 639^659
Pella, 7, 8, 26, 446
Pentateuch, The, 16, 17
Pentecost, Occurrences at, 491-495
Per^a, 8, 425-427
Pergamum, 66
Pericope Adulterte, 232-3
Persian Period of Jewish History, 13-24
Peter, St., 169-174, 280, 373, 376, 377,
390, 400, 417, 419, 423, 434, 450, 456,
459, 461, 471, 475, 476, 484, 492-3, 496-
501, 509-10, 515-519, 522, 536-537,
539-540, 623-5, 630
Peter, First and Second Epistles of St*,
310-316, 335-340
Pharisees, 102, 103, 356, 384, 385, 388,
415, 427, 439, 606 f.
Philadelphia, 66
Philemon, 561
Philemon, Epistle to, 293
Phtld? (son of Herod), 48, 51
Phtld?, St. (Apostle), 375, 484
Philip (the " deacon "), 509-512, 570
Philippi, 66, 543, 544
Philippians, Epistle to the, 293-296
Phosnix, 586
Phylacteries, 443
Pompey, 43, 44
Pontius Pilate, 56, 461-469
Population of the Roman Empire, 74
" Possession," Demoniacal, 377
Prcetorium, 11, 578
Praetorian Cohorts, 73, 591
Presbyters, see Elders, Christian
Priesthood, 92 f., 631
Priscilla, 309, 554
Procurators, 53-58
Prophets, Christian, 521, 631, 632
Proto-Mark, 158-160
Provincial System, Roman, 63-74
Ptolemais, 6, 570
Q, 160-164, 168, 681, 682
Quirinius, 55, 343
ReUgious Sects, Jewish, 100-105
Resurrection of the Dead, 41, 42, 440,
441, 673

Resurrection of Jesus, The, 470-483
Revelation, Book of, 325-335, 633-639
Roads and Sea Routes, 75, 76
Rous, 124-126
Roman Empire, The, 63-89
Roman State Religion, 81-83
Romans, Epistle to the, 279-285, 566
Sabbath, Jesus' attitude te the, 386-388,
486, 487, 607, 608
Sacrifices, Chief Jewish, 93, 94
Sadducees, 33, 100-102, 440, 441, 497,
501, 577, 605
Salamis, 524
Saltm, 5
Salome, 365, 466-7, 472
Salome Alexandra, 38
Samaria, 5, 26. 425, 5Q9
Samaritans, 15, 16, 37, 425, 485, 509
Sanhedrin, 99, 100, 459-461, 501, 576-580
Sardis, 66
Sarepta, 6
Satan, 21, 22, 111, 368, 369, 634
Saul, see Paul, St.
Scribes, 17, 18, 96, 98, 41Q, 442, 443, 606-
609
Scriptures, The, 98
Sebaste, 47
Second-first Sabbath, 387
Senatorial Provinces, 64
Septuagint, Origin of the, 28
Sergius Paulus, 525
Shechem, 5, 37, 509
Shephelah, 2, 6
Ships, 76
Sicarii, 58, 103
Sidon, 6, 412-413, 523
Silas (Silvanus), 309, 312, 540, 541,
542, 549, 553
Sdloam, Pool of, 11, 487
Simon (the Magian), 509, 510
Simon Maccabeus, 35, 36, 443
Slaves, 74
Smyrna, 66
" Son of David," 23, 61, 358, 431, 442,
443
" Son of God," 361, 366-369, 398, 480,
617, 618, 643, 662, 675
" Son of Man," 41, 383, 384, 615-617, 675
Soteriology, 618-621, 627-632, 637-639,
647-659, 663-670, 677-680
South, The, 2
Spain, 594
Spirit, Hebrew conception of, 109, 494
Stephen, 504-507
Stoicism, 83, 84
Synagogue, 94-96
Synoptic Gospels, 148-207
Syria, 68
Syrian Text, 143

690

NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

Tabitha, 517
Tables of Measures, etc., 683
Tariohea, 5
Tarsus, 68, 508, 516
Temple, Herod's, 90-92
„ Zerubbabel's, 14, 15
Tertullus, 579
Tetrarch, 49
Textual Criticism, 124-147
Thessalonica, 261, 547, 548
Thessalonia/ns, Epistles to the, 261-264
Thomas, St., 476
Thyattra, 66, 544
Tiberias, 5
Tiberius 342
Timothy,' 236, 297, 531, 541, 542, 553,
554, 663
Titus (Emperor), 53, 59
Titus (companion of St. Paul), 236, 277,
297, 516, 538, 561, 563, 566
Titus (Titius) Justus, 555
Tongues, Speaking with, 492, 494, 495,
645-6
Trachonitis, 7, 69
Treasury of the Temple, 91, 444
Tribute, Jesus' teaching about, 440

Troas, 542, 567
Twelve Apostles, The, 389, 390, 490-1
Two Ages, 61
Tyre, 6, 412, 523
Ulatha and Panias, 69
Versions, 132-135
Vespasian, 59
Via Appia, 75, 591
Via Egnatia, 75, 269, 547
Vicarious satisfaction for sin, 24, 430,
620, 621, 648
Virgin Birth, The, 360-362
Vows, 557, 571
Vows, Jesus' teaching about, 609
Western Text, 145, 194, 207, 252-255
Writing Materials, Ancient, 124-128
Zacch^ius, 431-2
Zachariah, 351-2
Zealots, 56, 58, 103, 605
Zerubbabel, 14
Zedon, see Sidon
Zion, 10, 11

Printed in Great Britain
by Butler & Tanner,
Frame and London

2421

•¦¦'-. : : ¦ j : It .'
' ' ¦ '¦-. ' "\