THE

FOREIGN BIBLICAL LIBRARY.

EDITED BY THE
REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A.,
Editor of the "Expositor."

WEISS' MANUAL OF INTRODUCTION TO
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

XonOon t
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCXCVI

THE FOREIGN BIBLICAL LIBRARY.
Edited by the Rev. W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A., LL.D.
Twelve volumes, large crown 8vo, price, f/6 each.

I. Still Hours.
By Richard Rothe. Translated by Jane T. Stoddart. With
an Introductory Essay by the Rev. John Macpherson, M.A.
II. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Psalms.
By Professor Franz Delitzsch, of Leipzig. From the latest
edition, and specially revised and corrected by the Author.
Translated by the Rev. David Eaton, M.A. In 3 Vols.
III. A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament.
By Bernhard Weiss. Translated by Miss Davidson. In 2
Vols.
IV. Church History.
By Professor Kurtz. Authorized Translation, from the latest
Revised Edition, by the Rev. J. Macpherson, M.A. Jnj Vols.
V. Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher.
Translated by Mary F. Wilson.
VI. A Commentary on the Book of Isaiah.
By Professor Franz Delitzsch. Authorized Translation by the
Rev. J. Denney, D.D. In 2 Vols.

LONDON: HODDER AND STOUGHTON.

A
MANUAL OF INTRODUCTION
TO THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

BY
DR. BERNHARD WEISS,
Ober-Konsistorialrath and Professor of Theology.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY
A. J. K. DAVIDSON.

IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II.

Xonaon :
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCXCVI

PRESS OF
THE PUBLISHERS' PRINTING COMPANY
82-34 LAFAYETTE PLAOE (
NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. H.

APPENDIX. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
PAGB
§ 30. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. . . 1
1. The Assumption of the Pauline Authorship of the
Epistle.
2. Testimony of the Epistle Itself.
8. Style, and Relation to the Old Testament.
4. The Doctrinal View of the Epistle.
6. The Hypothesis of the Luke and Clement Authorship.
6. The Apollos Hypothesis.
7. The Composition of the Epistle by Barnabas.
§ 31. The Readers op the Epistle to the Hebrews . . 17
1. Epistolary Character of the Work.
2. Jewish-Christian Character of the Readers.
8. State of the Churches.
4. Hypotheses as to the Readers of the Epistle.
6, 6. Its Alleged Destination for Alexandria or Rome.
7. The Hebrews of the Epistle's Inscription.
§ 32. The Situation os the Hebrew Epistle with respect to
Time  30
1. Time of Composition.
2. Situation in Time and History.
S-7. Analysis of the Epistle.

SECOND DIVISION. THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
33. The Apostle John  44
1. Accounts of John's Life in Palestine.
2. John in Ephesus.
3. Th« Composition of the Apocalypse by the Apostle.

VI CONTENTS. PAOH
4. The Tradition respecting the Abode of John in Asia
Minor.
6. Traditions respecting the Patmos Exile and the End of
John.
§ 34. The Composition op the Apocalypse . • • • • 69
1. Nature of Apocalyptic Prophecy.
2. The Visions of the Apocalypse.
3. The Figurative Language of the Apocalypse.
4. The Arrangement of the Apocalypse.
5, 6. The Analysis of the Apocalypse.
7. Language of the Apocalypse.
§ 35. The Historical Situation op the Apocalypse ... 77
1. Internal Condition of the Seven Churches.
2. External State with respect to the World.
8. Apocalyptic Combination of the Apostle.
4. The Last Fortunes of Jerusalem (date of the Apoca
lypse).
5. The Anti-Pauline Conception of the Apocalypse.
6. Doctrinal Views of the Apocalypse.

THIRD DIVISION. THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
§ 36. The Brethren op Jesus  .89
1. The Brethren of Jesus in the New Testament.
2. Distinction between the Brethren of the Lord and the
Apostles.
8. The Way in which the true Brethren of the Lord are
explained away.
4. Change of the Brethren into Cousins of Jesus.
6. Identification of the Brother of the Lord with James
the son of Alphaus.
§ 37. The Epistle op James ....... 100
1. Readers of the Epistle.
2. The State of the ReaderB.
3. The Date of the Epistle.
4. Analysis of the Epistle.
5. Author of the Epistle.
6. The Older Criticism.
7 The Newer Criticism.

CONTENTS. Vll
PAGB
fj 38. The Epistle op Jude  118
1. Analysis of the Epistle.
2. The Libertines of the Epistle.
3. Its Readers and the Time of its Composition.
4. The Author of the Epistle.
6. The Criticism of the Epistle.
§ 39. The Apostle Peter . . , , 128
1. Gospel Accounts of Peter.
2. Character of Peter.
3. Peter in the Acts.
4. Peter in Rome.
6. Martyrdom of Peter.
§ 40. The First Epistle op Peteb  137
1. Readers of the Epistle.
2. State of the Readers (Relation of the Epistle to those
of Paul).
3. Analysis of the Epistle.
4. Author of the Epistle and its Doctrinal View.
5. Situation of the Epistle.
6. The Current Conception of the Epistle.
7. The Later Criticism.
§ 41. The Second Epistle op Peter  164
1. The Readers of the Epistle and the Opposing Principles
attacked.
2. Relation of the Epistle to that of Jude.
3. Analysis of the Epistle.
4. Doctrinal View and Language of the Epistle.
5. Date.
6. Criticism of the Epistle.
7. Concluding Result.
§ 42. The Firbt Epistle op John ...... 174
1. Its Epistolary Character.
2. The Errorists and the Object of the Epistle.
3. Analysis.
4. The Author of the Epistle and Peculiarity of hii
Doctrine.
5. Its Relation to the Gospel.

Vlll CONTENTS.
n.va
6. Relation to the Apocalypse.
7. The Composition of the First Epistle and the Criticism
to which it has been subjected.
§ 43. The Minor Epistles op John ...... 197
1. The Author of the Epistles.
2. Contents of the Epistles.
3. Their Criticism.

FOURTH DIVISION. THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.
§ 44. The Synoptical Question ....... 203
1. The Hypothesis of Mutual use.
2. The Primitive-gospel Hypothesis.
3. The Tradition Hypothesis.
4. The Mark Hypothesis.
5. The Tendency-criticism.
6. Return to Weisse. Revival Attempts.
7. The Hypothesis of a Primitive Mark.
§ 45. The Oldest Source ........ 219
1. Pieces of the Oldest Source Preserved in Matthew and
Luke alone.
2. DiscourBe-pieces of the Oldest Source in Mark.
3. Extent and arrangement of the Oldest Source.
4. Tradition respecting the Aramaan work of the Apostle
Matthew.
5. Tbe Gospel according to the Hebrews.
6. Date of the Hebrew Matthew.
7. The Oldest Apostolio writing and the Oral Type of
Narrative.
§ 46. The Gospel op Mark ...... 239
1. The Literary Character of the Gospel.
2. Griesbach's Hypothesis.
3. Doctrinal Character of the Gospel.
4. Mark's Gospel and the Oldest Source.
6. Analysis.
6. Tradition respecting Mark's Gospel.
7. The Origin of the Gospel.

CONTENTS. IX
PAGB
g 47. The Gospel op Matthew ....... 263
1. Dependence of the Gospel on Mark.
2. Dependence upon the Oldest Source.
8. Treatment of the two Sources in Matthew's GoE'pel.
4. Additions of the Evangelist, and his peculiarity.
5. Analysis of the Gospel.
6. Its Object.
7. Its Readers, Original Language, and Date.
% 48. The Gospel op Luee  , . 289
1. Dependence of the Gospel on Mark.
2. Dependence upon the Oldest Source (unacquaintedness
with the First Gospel).
3. The Source peculiar to Luke.
4. Literary Character of Luke.
6. Analysis of the Gospel.
6. Doctrinal Character.
7. Tradition respecting the Author and the Date.
§ 49. The Acts op the Apostles ...... 814
1-4. Analysis of the Acts.
6. Object of the Acts.
6. Doctrinal Character.
7. Credibility.
§ 50. The Sources op the Acts ....... 832
1. The Use of Sources in the Acts.
2. Source of the First Part.
3. Source of the Second Part.
4. Hypothesis of the Use of a Travelling-Diary.
5. The Apparent Traces of such Use.
6. The Impossibility of Carrying out the Hypothesis.
7. Date of the Acts.
g 51. The Gospel op John ......«• 855
1. Self-testimony of the Gospel.
2. Palestinian Character of the Gospel.
3. The Fourth Gospel and the Historical Figure of John.
4. Relation of the Gospel to the Synoptics.
5. Analysis.
6. Object of the Gospel.
7. Limitations of the Historicity of the GospeL

CONTENTS.

52. The Johannine Question ....
1. The Tradition respecting John's Gospel.
2. The Older Criticism of the Gospel.
3. The Criticism of the Tubingen School.
4. Apologetics.
5. The Newest Phase of Criticism.
6. Mediating attempts.
7. Solution of the Johannine Question.

APPENDIX.

VASB 386

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT.
L The Preservation op the Text ...... 403
1. The External Form of the Manuscripts.
2. The External Form of the Text.
8. The Divisions of the Text.
4. Corruptions of the Text.
5. Errors of Haste.
6. Emendations.
7. Citations of the Church Fathers.
II. Manuscripts  409
1. Number and Condition of the Manuscripts.
2. The Oldest MSS. of the Entire New Testament.
3. The MSS. of the Gospels.
4. The MSS. of the Paulines.
5. The MSS. of the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apo
calypse.
HI. Versions  • . . • 412
1. The Syriac Versions.
2. The Egyptian Versions.
8. The Gothic and Armenian Versions;
4. The Old-Latin Version.
6. The Vulgate.
IV. The Printed Text and Text-Criticism . • i • 417
1. First Editions of the Greek Testament.
2. The Origin of the Receptus.
8. The Collectors of Various Readings. Joh. Jas. Wetstein.
4. Bengel and Griesbach.

CONTENTS. Xi
PASS
6. Lachmann and Tisohendorf.
6. The Latest English Textual Critics,
7. Manual Editions.
V. The Philological Elaboration op the Text .... 423
1. Dispute between the Hebraists and the Purists.
2. New Testament Grammar.
3. New Testament Lexicography.
4. The Basis of New Testament Greek.
5. The Greek of the New Testament.

the epistle to the hebrews.
§ 30. The Author op the Epistle to the Hebrews.
1. Since the close of the Canon a fourteenth epistle, tin
so-called Epistle to the Hebrews, has been handed down as
Pauline. But the "West first adopted its Pauline authorship
from the East, where this view gained currency solely on
the authority of Origen (§ 12, 1, 2 ; § 11, 1). Yet Origen
himself has no doubt whatever that the Epistle cannot pos
sibly have proceeded from Paul on account of its language,
but that another must have written down the voij/iaro tow
djroo-ToA.ou supplied to him. Only so far does he consider
a Church justified in having it among the Paulines, which
was the case here and there in his circle, though only in
isolated instances, for, as he says, the dp^otoi aVopes (viz. his
teachers Pantaenus and Clement) would have handed it
down ovk eixfj as Pauline (inasmuch as it was at least in
directly Pauline even in his view). But by whom it is
written God alone knows (comp. Euseb., H. E., 6, 25). Hence
it is clear that the Pauline composition of the Epistle to the
Hebrews was not a tradition of the Church even in Alexan
dria, but only an opinion of the schools that had been adopted
by certain Churches in good faith. Origen so far adapted
himself to this aspect of the question, that with certain
reservations (comp. § 10, 6), he characterized and employed
the Epistle as Pauline, though only in the above indirect
sense. Whence Pantaenus and Clement, with whom the
view that the Hebrew Epistle is Pauline originated, derived
it, is by no means clear ; we only knew that even they try to
vnr,. n. B

2 AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
explain certain points that are apparently at variance with
it (ap. Euseb., 3. E., 6, 14) ; which certainly does not imply
that they regarded its Pauline origin as an indisputable fact.
Apart from the Alexandrian Church it is only in the Syrian
Church Bible that we still find the Epistle ranked with the
Paulines, which however by no means proves that it was
directly counted as one of them (comp. § 10, 1). In all other
parts of the Church it is either not recognised as Pauline or
is expressly designated as un- Pauline. Thus the ecclesias
tical reception of the Epistle among the Paulines is in fact
entirely wanting in all historical foundation. In the Refor
mation period the old doubts respecting it were again raised
by Cajetan and Erasmus ; but the Council of Trent made
haste to decree fourteen Pauline Epistles absolutely. The
Reformers did not regard it as Pauline, and only a few
Reformed Confessions have quoted it as such ; it was not
until after the middle of the 17th century that the traditional
view again became prevalent in the Lutheran Church, while
the opposition to it withdrew into Arminian and Socinian
circles.1 In the time of awakening criticism Semler and
Michaelis still hesitated ; but when Storr attempted to refute
the rising doubts of the latter (1789), Ziegler came forward
against him in his Vollstandige Einl. in den Brief an die Hebr.
(Gott. 1791). After that time Hug alone among critics
1 Luther separates it entirely from the Pauline Epistles, and even from
the "real, certain leading books " of Scripture (§ 12, 6) ; Melanohthon
invariably treats it as an anonymous writing, and only in the Latin
edition of the Form. Cone, is the author twice designated as Apostolus.
Calvin and Beza expressly characterize it as non-Pauline, and the
Confessio Gallicana still clearly separates it from the 13 Paulines, while
the Confessio Belgica counts 14 Paulines, and the Helvetica and Bohemica
cite it as Pauline. The Magdeburg centuriators, Balduia and Hunnius,
distinctly contest its Pauline origin, while Flacius IUyricus, in his Clavis
(1557), and Joh. Brenz the Younger, in his Commentary (1571), defend
ij. Since Joh. Gerhard and Abr. Calovius however, the view of its
Pauline authorship has again become prevalent; Luther's view being
defended only in isolated cases, as by Heumann and Lorenz Muller
(1711, 1717).

SELF-TESTIMONY. 3
still ventured to defend its Pauline authorship (in his Intro
duction), though with reservations in the later editions (comp.
also Hofstede de Groot, Bis-put. qua ep. ad Hebr. e Pauli. epp.
comp. Traj. ad Rhen. 1826) ; and since Bleek (Der Brief an
die Hebr., Berlin, 1828) the view of its Pauline composition
may from a scientific standpoint be regarded as set aside.2
2. Tbe Epistle to the Hebrews does not by the slightest
hint make any claim to have been written by Paul. It does
mot, like all the other epistles, begin with an address in which
the author gives his name with a description of himself.1
The writer does not call himself an apostle, nor does he
anywhere pretend to apostolic authority ; he speaks to his
readers not from an ofiicial or authoritative position, but
only exhorts them in a brotherly way (xiii. 22). While
Paul lays much emphasis on the fact that he had not received
his gospel from man, and traces all certainty respecting it to
the revelation he had received and to the Holy Ghost, the
author of this Epistle includes himself among those to whom
the salvation proclaimed by the Lord Himself viro t<Sv o.kov-
s It has indeed been again defended by Gelpke ( Vindicia orig. Plin.
ad. Hebr. epist., Lugd. Bat. 1832), as also in the commentaries of Paulus
and Stein (1833-34) ; but in recent times Hofmarm is the only scholar of
repute who has ventured to uphold it (comp. also Biesenthal, and Holtz-
heuer in his Commentary, 1883). Even the most resolute defenders of
tradition, as Guericke, Ebrard, Thiersch, and Delitzsch, and the greater
number of Catholic expositors, have ventured to adhere only to an
indirect Pauline origin.
1 Even Pantaenus and other Fathers were only able to account for the
Gentile Apostle not calling himself airoisToXos in an Epistle to the Hebrews,
on the ground that the Lord Himself had been their Apostle (ap. Euseb.,
H. E., 6, 14), a fact which however, by no means interfered with a men
tion of his name and of the readers in the address (comp. Phil. i. 1 ;
Pbilem. 1). If according to Clement of Alexandria (ibid.) Paul did not
wish by mentioning his name to repel the Hebrews, who entertained
mistrust and suspicion of him, yet the Epistle must have been conveyed
by somebody who gave the name of the writer. But the Roman and
Colossian Epistles show that the fact of writing to a Church he had
not founded does not, as Hofmann supposes, account for the omission of
the address.

4 AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
0-a.vTmv e/?e/3ai(u0i7, thus professing himself a disciple of the
primitive apostles in a passage where he had every induce
ment to lay stress on the special confirmation his preaching
of salvation had received, since he himself makes mention
of the signs and wonders by which it is attested (ii. 3f.).
Enthalius already perceived this difficulty, without being able
to solve it ; we learn from him on the contrary how weak
were the points of attachment supposed to have been dis
covered in the Epistle for its Pauline authorship. From
x. 34, where the reading is unquestionably tois oW/uots and
not tois Secr/wLi fnov, taken in connection with xiii. 19 it was
assumed that the Apostle was in captivity, although the way
in which he arranges his coming in xiii. 23 clearly enough
proves the contrary ; and from the greeting of the Italian
Christians (xiii. 24) the conclusion was drawn that it was
the well-known Roman captivity of the Apostle, although
the expression ol diro ti}s 'ItoAicis, while not making this lin
guistically impossible, makes it at least very improbable.
It was the mention of Timothy (xiii. 23) in particular that
always led to the thought of Paul as the author, although
wejknow nothing of a captivity of Timothy during the
Apostle's lifetime ; and although he does not appear here as
the disciple dependent on Paul, but as a Christian brother
who arranges his coming quite independently.3
3. The whole economy of the Epistle is entirely different
from that of the Paulines. The absence of a thanksgiving
introduction may be connected with the want of an address ;
2 It was therefore an entire mistake on the part of Schwegler, Zeller,
and others to assume that the dates at the close of the Epistle belong to
that outward form and literary fiction by which the author tried to per
sonate the Apostle Paul, since he would certainly in that case have
invented a corresponding address. Overbeck maintained still more
arbitrarily (Zur Gesch. des Kanons, 1. Chemnitz, 1880) that the conclu
sion xiu. 22-25 was added, and the address originally containing another
name cut off when the Canon was formed, in order to include the
Epistle in it as Pauline. Compare on the other hand v. Soden, Jahrb
fiir protest. Theol., 1884, 3, 4.

STYLE OF THE EPISTLE. 5
but the way in which the doctrinal and hortatory portions of
the Epistle, instead of being separated from one another, are
interwoven, manifestly with design, is quite at variance with
the Pauline method. Even Origen has remarked that the
•style of the Hebrew Epistle ovk e^ci to iv Xo-yui iSioitikov tov
airoo-roXov, ofioXoyno-avros lavrbv ISiwTinv etvat tu X6ya>, aXX
¦eariv f) imo~ro\yi crvvOicra t>js Aefeais kW-qviKiaTepa, as every one
who understands differences of style may perceive (ap. Eu-
«eb., H.E., 6, 25). As a matter of fact, no New Testament
writing is so free from Hebraisms or written in such good
Greek. While Paul struggles with his language, the dis
course here flows smoothly on ; and even copious and extended
periods, on which Paul almost invariably founders, are
finished with nice proportion and the most perfect regularity
(i. 1-4; ii. 2-4; vii. 20-22; xii. 18-24). Great pains have
¦evidently been bestowed on rhythmic harmony and effective
phraseology ; full sounding combinations (such as /uo-0airo-
•Soo-ia, opKiopLOcrCa, ai/uarcK^vcrta), sonorous adjectives, and every
kind of circumlocution give an oratorical fulness to the ex
pression that contrasts as strongly with the meagre dialectics
of the Apostle as with his wealth of words, which, though
pregnant with thought, have no regularity of form. On the
¦other hand, importance was erroneously attached in this
instance also to the lexical peculiarities of the Epistle, in
¦opposition to which it was easy to show a not immaterial
Agreement with the Pauline Epistles in stock of words. At
most, the evident preference for the use of oOev, of vwip and
irapd with the comparative, of oo-os-toowtos in comparisons,
for verbs in -l^av and substantives in -o-ts, has something
¦characteristic ; and it is certainly significant that the Pauline
Xpio-Tos 'hjcrovs never appears.1
1 It could only have occurred to Hofmann to explain this diversity of
*tyle on the hypothesis that Paul was anxious to give to the Jews of
Antioch with their Greek culture the best that the greatest attention
4o language would enable him to produce, and that while waiting for

6 FUNDAMENTAL LANGUAGE.
Clement of Alexandria already took it for granted that Paul must have
written to the Hebrews in Hebrew, for wliich reason he ascribed our
Greek translation to Luke on account of the similarity of language with
the Acts. This hypothesis became through Eusebius (H. E., 3, 38) and
Jerome (de Vir. 111., 5) the prevailing one with the Church Fathers ; an*
after Joseph Hallet (1727), was again defended by Michaelis, and recently
by Biesenthal (Das Trostschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die Hebr. Leipz.,
1878), who even ventured on a re-translation into Hebrew. It rests on
the idea, refuted long ago, that Greek was not understood in Palestine-
(comp. to the contrary Acts xxii. 2), and is shattered by the pure and
beautiful Greek of the Epistle, by its periodic structure which is entirely
foreign to the spirit of the Semitic language, by its predilection for com
pounds for which no adequate expression is conceivable in Hebrew
(comp. e.g. i. 1, voXv/iepas koX ir6\vrp6-ir<os ; v. 2, /xerpwiraBetf, v. 11,.
Svaepn-ijvevTOi; xii. 1, einreplo-raros) , and for paronomasias that could only
have originated or been reproduced by chance (e.g. v. 8, l/m0ev &$' oi-
twaBev ; v. 14, KaXov re noi kclkov ; viii. 7 f., dp.ep.-n~ros-p:enip6p.evos ; xiii. 14,
liivovirav-iiiWovoav), which may also be said of the play on the double
meaning of oiaB-fjirn (ix. 15 ff.). But the prevailing use of the LXX. is-
decisive for a Greek original of the Epistle.3
Paul too quotes chiefly from the LXX., but never where
it departs entirely from the sense of the primitive text, of
which he betrays a knowledge in other respects ; while the-
author of the Hebrew Epistle is evidently unacquainted with
it. Moreover the latter in his quotations from the Septua
gint seems to follow the form of the text in our Cod. Alexandra
almost exclusively, while Paul's rather follow the Vatican.
While the citations of Paul are in most cases introduced

Timothy he had more quietness for writing the Epistle. As if he had:
not, according to Rom. i. 14, ff . , far greater need of such care where the
Romans were concerned, and also more leisure during his winter abode in*
Hellas 1
2 The Old Testament citations might indeed, even in a translation,.
have been given in accordance with the Greek version familiar to the-
readers, but not mere allusions to Old Testament passages, as in this
case. Moreover citations occur, that only in the LXX. version were-
adapted to the author's mode of proof (i. 7 ; *. 37 ; xii. 5 f. ; xv. 26), or
that appear only in the LXX. and not at all in the primitive text (i. 6 ;
xii. 21), a thing which already struck Jerome [ad Jesaj., vi. 9) ; there is=
even one citation in which the whole reasoning ia based on a manifest
error in the LXX. (x. 6, 10).

ITS RELATION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 7
simply as the words of Scripture, sometimes even with
the name of the author, to which Heb. ii. 6 alone bears a
certain analogy, the citations regularly appear here as the
words of God (or as in iii. 7 ; x. 15 as words of the Holy
Spirit), even where God Himself by no means speaks ; a
thing we sometimes find in Paul also, but where God is
spoken of in the third person (i. 6 ff. ; iv. 4, 7 ; vii. 21 ; x.
30). Whereas Paul undoubtedly quotes from memory and
therefore with great freedom, our author cites long passages
so literally that he must of necessity have consulted the
originals. In addition to this we have the fact that the
latter often uses them word for word (ii. 6-9 ; iii. 7-iv. 10 ;
vii. 1-25) ; that he not only ponders on what the Scripture
says, but also infers what it does not say (vii. 3) ; and that
he sometimes justifies his departure from the historical
sense after the manner of a theologian (iv. 6-9 ; xi. 13-16),
which Paul never does. For all these reasons our Epistle
cannot proceed from Paul.
4. The traditional conception of the Epistle influenced
after-thought at least so far that the next view adopted was
that the Epistle, if it did not proceed from Paul, was at all
events the work of a Pauline disciple. Its polemic against
Judaism, which had probably led the Alexandrians already
to regard it as Pauline, seemed at least to point to the
Pauline school; but it was overlooked that the object of
attack as also the whole method, differed entirely from that
of Paul. It contains nothing peculiarly Pauline in doctrine
or range of thought, and where it does touch upon these the
differences appear the more striking ; the Christology alone,
with its peculiar stamp, shows a process of development
that is at least analogous.1 Little was gained for the
1 Haltzmann's endeavours to prove the use of Pauline Epistles
(Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1867, 1) have been quite in vain. It is just
where the thought is kindred that the alleged parallels show how very
differently it is conceived and carried out, while the correspondences of

8^ RELATION TO PHILO.
characterization of either by saying that the author of
the epistle to the Hebrews shows Alexandrian culture, while
Paul betrays Palestinian and Rabbinical learning. The
whole treatment of Scripture certainly recalls Philo, in
whom we find similar forms of quotation, as for example
ii. 6; iv. 4; the same use of Old Testament passages and
narratives, as iii. 5; vi. 13 f. ; vii. 1 ; the same conceptions of
Old Testament usage, as in vii. 27 ; and even a citation that
agrees word for word with xiii. 5. True allegory such as
undoubtedly appears in Paul (Gal. iv. 2 ; 2 Cor. iii. comp.
1 Cor. ix. 9 f.), is not indeed found in the Hebrew Epistle ;
but on the other hand we have a far-reaching typology in
the symbolism attached to the person of Melchisedek and to
forms of worship (comp. de Wette, die Symb.-typische Lehrart,
etc. in Schleiermacher's Theol. Zeitschrift., 1822, 3), which in
many respects recalls the way in which the Alexandrian
theology depreciated outward ceremonies while seeking
their true significance in their symbolical character (comp.
e.g. x. 4; xiii. 15 and expressions such as o-Kia, TrapdSay-
ra). In the same way we are reminded of our Epistle by
certain statements of Philo, such as that respecting the
sinlessness of the Logos-priest, respecting the heavenly
home of the patriarchs, and the Xoyos to/«i5s (comp. iv. 12) ;
but their whole meaning is entirely at variance with the

words are entirely without importanoe. The 6 0e&s tjjs elpfy-n* in xiii.
20 is the phrase to which most significance might be attached ; but
surely the exhortations to intercession (xiii. 18), to elp-fiv-qv Siibiceiv (xii.
14), to <pi.\aScX<pla and ipiKo^evla will not seriously be adduced as speci
fically Pauline. The aroixeia and the X6yt.a 0eoO (v. 12) are quite a
different thing from the parallel expressions in Paul, the airal- is in ix.
26 used of the death of Christ in quite a different sense from Rom. vi.
10 ; (ipQ/xa does not stand in opposition to milk as in Paul, but ore/ieA
rpoipii. The rest are all vocables and images, suoh as Kaixyp-a and
irXijpoipopla, TiXeios and frepyiis, Karapyeiv and rptyeiv, that can prove
nothing. It cannot therefore in any sense be said that the citation x.
30, whioh is certainly unique, is taken from Bom. xii. 19, in whatever
way the remarkable agreement be explained.

RELATION TO PHILO. 9
Epistle, while even the question as to whether a knowledge
of Philo's writings can be proved is still a matter of contro
versy.8 On the other hand Riehm (Die Lehrlegr. des Hebrder-
briefs. Ludwigsburg, 1858, 1867) has convincingly shown
that the authors conception of the two ages of the world,
of the mediation of the law by angels, of Satan as having
power over death, of angels, of the Sabbath rest of the
people of God, of the heavenly sanctuary and the heavenly
Jerusalem, are of Palestinian origin ; for which reason it has
been quite a mistake to put into the latter Philo's meta
physical distinction between the invisible, imperishable,
ideal world and the visible, perishable world of phenomena.
Even the Christology of the Epistle has no affinity whatever
with the Logos doctrine of Philo, since the diravyao-jua t»}s
86£rjs finds its most significant parallel in Wisdom vii. 25 f.
and in the Targ. on Isaiah vi. 1. In any case the author
has preserved his connection with the Old Testament more
faithfully than with Alexandrinism, to the influence of whose
Hellenic philosophy, notwithstanding its power, he has re
mained inaccessible. The Alexandrian culture of the author
has exercised most influence on the formal side of his teach
ing, and probably has its origin exclusively in the time
before he was a Christian. Since therefore he cannot be
a Pauline disciple, he can only belong to the primitive
apostolic circle, and in ii. 3 he expressly avows himself a
disciple of the primitive Apostles. Only from this point of

> While Bleek, following Clericus and Mangey, considered this very
probable ; and Schwegler, Kostlin and Delitzsch maintained that it was
bo, it has been contested by Tholuck, Riehm and Wieseler. After all,
the Epistle contains only isolated expressions that sound like an echo
of Philo, e.g. Se^ffeis Kal iKerriplcu, afrios ourqplas, Apr/rap, irpoo-ayopevffeis,
fuerpunraBelv, &KOv<rias apapravu-v, us liros el-ireiv ; even the passage x. 29,
comp. de Profug., p. 462 D., has only a formal and limited resemblance.
Of late Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Immer, Holtzmann and v. Soden in par
ticular have regarded the peculiarity of the Epistle as consisting in its
Alexandrinism in which it goes beyond Paul.

10 DOCTRINAL VIEWS OF THE EPISTLE.
view can the peculiar teaching of our Epistle be adequately
explained.1 The fundamental thought of the Epistle is the founding of the New
Covenant, which is destined finally to realize the fulfilment of the Old
Covenant promise that was not possible under the Old Covenant; a
thought scarcely touched upon in any of the Pauline Epistles. Hence
the object of the attainment of salvation is discussed with exclusive
reference to the nation of Israel, not because the author has any wish
to shut the Gentiles out from it, but because he is solely concerned
with the question as to how the original recipients of the promise should
attain to its fulfilment. This would in truth have been impossible
to the Gentile Apostle. The fact that salvation could not be attained
under the Old Covenant, did not, as with Paul, lie in the carnal nature
of man, but in the fleshly character of the law. The thought is not
here fixed on the law as a divinely given ordinance of life, as with
Paul, but on the legal expiatory institution, which could only atone
for sins of infirmity ; whereas Paul never contemplated this side of
the law or this distinction of sins. But if the law is not designed to
bring about the attainment of salvation, it is intended to prepare the
way for it, though not, as with Paul, by awakening the consciousness of
sin and exciting a desire for the attainment of salvation, but by the
typical prefiguration of the perfect atonement promised for the Mes
sianic time ; a thought that was first taken up by Paul in the Captivity
Epistles and manifestly adopted from the primitive apostolic sphere of
thought. For the purpose of establishing this, the uios already foretold
in the Old Testament, now appears upon the earth, which name here
denotes a being eternally co-equal with God, taking a more independent
part than with Paul in the creation and preservation of the world,
1 David Schulz in his Commentary (1818) had already declared the
fundamental conception of our Epistle to be essentially distinct from
that of Paul and still Jewish throughout, while Plank (Theol. Jahrb.,
1847, 2-4) interpreted it as the counterpart of Paulinism from the Jewish
Christian standpoint. Baur and Schwegler on the other hand sought
to prove that it was an attempt at reconciling Paulinism with Judaism,
while Kostlin (Theol. Jahrb., 1853, 54) first recognised it to be a remodel
ling of Jewish Christianity due to the influence of Paul ; Ritschl and
Riehm regarding it as a later development of the primitive apostolio
doctrine, comp. Weiss, Lehrb. d. Bibl. Theol., 4 Aufl. 1884, iv. 4 ; Kluge,
der Hebraerbrief. Neu-Ruppin, 1863, as also Mangold. The objections
recently made by v. Soden to the only interpretation of ii. 3 consistent
with the wording, for the purpose of combating this view, are quite un
important, for it remains unshaken, even if the passage allows inter
mediate members between the primitive Apostles and the author.

DOCTRINAL VIEWS OF THE EPISTLE. 11
and of whose relation to God a clear idea is sought to be given by the
help of the wisdom-doctrine of Alexandria. He is the mediator of the
new covenant, however, since He assumes flesh and blood, in order by
this means to become the sinless High Priest, liable to temptation, but
made perfect in obedience, the living image of whose humanity, handed
down by eye-witnesses, stands in vivid colouring before the author's
mind, quite otherwise than with the Apostle Paul. After having in His
death made perfect atonement, which is compared sometimes with the
sacrifice of the covenant, sometimes with the sacrifice offered up by the
high priest on the great day of atonement, He enters into the heavenly
holy of holies, there continually to give efficacy to the atonement He
had procured, and by His permanent office of High Priest to afford
seasonable help to believers in their temptations ; while the resurrection
and kingly rule of Christ, so strongly emphasized by Paul, are almost
entirely left out of sight. The effect of this sacrifice, the need of which is
exemplified in the Hebrew Epistle by a chain of reasoning quite different
from that of Paul (comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol., § 122), is purification by
sprinkling with the blood of the covenant, sanctification (in the theo
cratic sense) and perfection (reXeWis) which amounts in substance to>
what Paul in his reasoning calls Sucalaais — a reasoning that on account
of its different starting-point necessarily assumes an entirely different
form. By this means it is made possible for man to draw nigh to God.
and to have full participation in the covenant ; thus the new cove
nant is founded, and with it the Messianic time, the aiuv pUXXwv (which
to the Apostle is still entirely future), is already entered upon. Grace
is not, as with Paul, the principle of salvation but the favour of God
restored in this covenant to those included in it ; their sonship, though
seeming to have some affinity with the Pauline adoption, is yet in quite-
a distinctive way regarded as the claim to the birthright ; the Spirit is
not the new life-principle but the principle solely of gifts of grace. Of
election as distinguished from calling there is no mention ; the mem
bers of the Old Covenant are called to the salvation of the New Cove
nant, but on condition of holding fast hope in the fulfilment of the-
covenant-promise. Whoever neglects to fulfil this covenant-obligation,.
or ceases to fulfil it, commits the deadly sin for which the Old Covenant
had no atoning sacrifice and for which there is no propitiation under
the New Covenant. Faith is the condition of this fulfilment, and is
therefore partly confidence in the fulfilment of the Divine promise, and
partly a firm belief in the invisible institutions of salvation which have
made it possible. This faith, which already under the Old Covenant
formed the distinguishing mark of the pious, is the main constituent in
the righteousness required by God, for which reason the Pauline anti
thesis of faith and works is naturally wanting. Righteousness is at
tained not by community of life with Christ, by regeneration or sancti-

12 LUKAN AND CLEMENTINE HYPOTHESES.
fication through the Spirit as with Paul, but by the law written ir. tha
heart, by mutual exhortation and by the fatherly training of God. Even
in the eschatology of the Epistle, the resurrection and the new corpore
ality that form the centre with Paul, retire completely into the back
ground ; the foreground being occupied with the transformation of the
world, the heavenly Jerusalem and the eternal Sabbath-rest to be expected
there, while the wrath of God, who appears exclusively as the Judge
of the world, destroys all His enemies. That these thoughts, so har
moniously combined, are not drawn from the teaching of Paul, still less
from the Alexandrian philosophy of religion, but are allied to the Old
Testament and the primitive Apostolic teaching, is so obvious, that v.
Soden's attempted denial, based only on matters of detail (Jahrb. f.
protest. Theol., 1884, 4) must necessarily fail.
5. Origen (ap. Euseb., H. E., 6, 25) already names Luke
and Clement (of Rome) as the two disciples, to one of whom
jj l<f> 17/x.as <pdd.o-a.o-a, lo-ropia ascribed the immediate com
position of the Hebrew Epistle. An indirect Pauline origin
had therefore been thought of even before him. His teacher
Clement it is true only regarded Luke as the translator of
the Hebrew original (No. 3), but a translation of this kind
was certainly at that time regarded more in the light of
a free composition ; for Eusebius, who according to H. E., 3,
38 supposes Clement to be the translator, adduces not only
the style but also the similarity of thought in the first Epistle
•of Clement in proof of this hypothesis. Philastrius (Heer., 89)
and Jerome (de Vir. III., 5) also show an acquaintance with
the hypothesis of composition by Luke or Clement, only
that the latter speaks at the same time of the Eusebian
translation-hypothesis. The Luke-hypothesis was accepted
by Grotius and Crell, and recently by Delitzsch (Zeitschr.fur
luth. Theol. U.K., 1849, 2 and his Commentary, 1857). Ebrard
(Komm., 1850) and Dollinger (Christ, u. Kirche. Regensb.
1860) have adopted the view of a more or less independent
authorship of the Epistle on the part of Luke. The main
argument since the time of Clement has been the alleged
affinity of language between the Hebrew Epistle and the
writings of Luke (comp. Weizsaoker, Jahrb. f. deutsch. Theol.,

iUKAN AND CLEMENTINE HYPOTHESES. 13
1862, 3), which has certainly been much over-estimated.1
Moreover Luke shows no sign of the gift of oratory possessed
by the author of the Hebrew Epistle, nor of Alexandrian
culture ; in so far as any peculiarity of doctrine is to be
found in Luke, it is only a faded Paulinism, and it is solely
where he draws from primitive apostolic sources, that we
find points of contact with the Hebrew Epistle. Besides,
Luke was a Gentile Christian, a fact it is vain to try and
dispute in face of Col. iv. 11, 14 (comp. § 48, 7), while the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is rooted in Judaism ;
and although Luke naturally collected material for his
Gospel in primitive apostolic circles (Luke i. 2), he is
undoubtedly a true Pauline disciple, for which reason he
cannot be taken into account. The same thing applies to
the Roman Clement to whom Erasmus sought to attribute
the composition of the Hebrew Epistle. Catholic theolo
gians, such as Reithmayr and Bisping (in his Commentary,
1854) have gladly adopted this view and endeavoured to
reconcile it in some way with tradition ; but the remini
scences of the Hebrew Epistle contained in the first Epistle
of Clement (§6,3), by which Eusebius was already led
astray, form the most convincing argument against this
hypothesis, since we manifestly have here a partial imita
tion. That the Epistle of Clement is entirely wanting in
the oratorical sweep and peculiar doctrinal view of the He
brew Epistle, needs no proof. Mark and Aquila have also

1 The reason of this affinity, in so far as it actually exists, lies simply
in the fact that Luke too, like the author of the Hebrew Epistle, writes
t pure and more periodic Greek when he is not dependent on his
sources ; beyond this there is only a very narrow circle of expressions
occurring somewhat more frequently in both, but only to some extent
exclusively (apx^ds, ijyovpevoi, eiXafida, with deriv. x^/""1"0"^?, Hap-
rvpe'uxdai., xPVfMT^tel''' Karavoetv, 4ptpavl$eu>, peraXap.pa.veiv, ra rpos with
Ace). All other expressions that have been adduced in favour of this
view either appear too rarely in one of the two authors or too frequently
elsewhere in the New Testament to be able to prove anything.

14 APOLLOS HYPOTHESIS.
been named; but there is no reason for dwelling on this
point. 6. Luther named Apollos as the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, though not, as it appears, without predeces
sors ; and while Lucas Osiander and Joh. Clericus assented
to this hypothesis, Heumann and Lor. Muller defended it
against the traditional view that had again become pre
dominant. But it was through Ziegler's instrumentality in
the first place, and more particularly by Bleek's brilliant
defence of the hypothesis, that it became for a long time the
prevailing one. It has been adopted more or less decidedly
by Credner, Guericke, Reuss, Eeilmoser, Lutterbeck, Hilgen
feld ; and again recently by L. Schulze, as well as by most
commentators (Tholuck, Alford, Liinemann, Kurtz). Apol
los, according to Acts xviii. 24, was an Alexandrian Jew
learned in the Scripture and eloquent in discourse, which is
confirmed by the Corinthian Epistle : he was not a Pauline
disciple properly speaking, but worked independently with
and beside Paul, and, as it appears, by preference among
the Jews (xviii. 28). Just as little was he a disciple of the
primitive Apostles (Heb. ii. 3), nor do we know that he had
any connection whatever with primitive apostolic circles.
No one in ecclesiastical antiquity, not even the Roman
Clement who was acquainted with him as well as with
the Hebrew Epistle, brought him into connection with it ;
this view therefore remains a pure hypothesis, whose scien
tific value has nevertheless been much over-estimated. The
most striking proof of this is the Silas-hypothesis directed
against it. The latter it is true has only been supported by
v. Mynster (after 1808, lastly in Stud. u. Krit, 1829, 2) and
Bohme in his Commentary (1825) ; but Riehm has convin
cingly shown that if once the field of pure hypothesis be
resorted to, quite as much may be said in favour of this as
of the Apollos-hypothesis. As a native Jew, a prominent
member of the primitive Church (Acts xv. 22), as a com.

BARNABAS TRADITION OF AUTHORSHIP. 15
panion of Paul and Timothy for many years, and yet having
relations with Peter (1 Pet. v. 12), as a man of prophetic
gifts (Acts xv. 32) Silas is just as well fitted as Apollos,
in many respects decidedly better fitted than he, to be the
author of the Hebrew Epistle ; and the fact that we make
his acquaintance in Jerusalem by no means precludes his
having been a Hellenist of Alexandrian culture. But here
too we fail to get beyond abstract possibilities.
7. Antiquity supplies an actual tradition respecting the
author of the Hebrew Epistle, viz. a North African one.
Tertullian is not of the opinion that it proceeds from Bar
nabas, but he knows nothing to the contrary; and however
willing to invest it with apostolic authority, he is bound by
tradition (§ 9, 4), which the Stichometry in the Cod. Clarem.
(§ 11, 1) also impartially follows.1 We now know that
Joseph surnamed Barnabas, was a Levite of Cyprus (Acts
iv. 36), where, owing to the close connection in which the
island stood with Alexandria, he might easily enough have
acquired the degree of Alexandrian culture which we find
in the author of our Epistle (No. 4). The way in which
the ordinance of worship forms the centre of his view of
the law, is in keeping with his Levitical origin. Since he
appears so early as a prominent member of the primitive
Church, he must certainly have been a disciple of the primi
tive Apostles ; the Acts call him a dios irapa/cAiyo-eais, he could
therefore have probably composed a Xdyos mxpaKAiJo-ews such
as the Epistle to the Hebrews professes to be (xiii. 22).
1 The way in which Wieseler (Ghronologie, 1848, Untersuchungen iiber
den Hebrderbrief. Eiel, 1861. Stud. u. Krit., 1847, 4 ; 1867, 4) has
endeavoured to find this tradition everywhere, even in the Syrian-
Palestinian Church, is certainly carried to too great an excess ; but the
West would scarcely have been so obstinate in excluding the Hebrew
Epistle from the Canon, unless not only had nothing of its Pauhne
origin been there known, but had it not also been positively known to
have a different origin ; for even Philastrius and Jerome were well ac
quainted with this view though the latter cites Tertullian alone in iti
favour.

16 BARNABAS TRADITION OF AUTHORSHIP.
For years he worked with Paul in Antioch and on the first
missionary journey without giving up his independence to
him (comp. Acts xv. 39). How far he turned to the Gentile
mission after separating from Paul we have not the least
knowledge ; in any case this circumstance did not prevent
his turning to the Church to which he had belonged so long,
with a word of earnest exhortation. The so-called Bar
nabas-epistle can in no case proceed from him, on account of
its entirely anti-Jewish standpoint ; but the fact that this
weak imitation of the Hebrew Epistle, issuing in allegori
zing subtleties was in Alexandria ascribed to him after the
Hebrew Epistle had been made a Pauline production, pro
bably rests on misapprehended reminiscences of the original
circumstances of the case.3 One of the few Reformers who
emancipated himself from the tradition of the Church, the
Scotchman Cameron, declared himself in favour of Barnabas
so early as the beginning of the 17th century ; he was pro
nounced the author of our Epistle by Schmidt in his Intro
duction (1804), Twesten in his Dogm. (1826), and Ullmann
(Stud. u. Krit., 1828, 2). This view has been supported
not only by Wieseler, but also by Thiersch (de Ep. ad Hebr.
Comm. Marb. 1848), Adolf Maier in his Commentary (1861),
Ritschl (Stud. u. Krit., 1866, 1) and by Grau. Other
voices have been recently raised in its favour by H. Schultz,
de Lagarde, Renan, Zahn (R. Encycl. V. 1879), Volkmar,
1 The principal objection constantly urged against the Hebrew Epistle
having originated with him, viz. that the inexact knowledge shown in
ix. 1 ff. ; vii. 27 of the temple at Jerusalem and its services cannot be
attributed to a Levite who had lived there for so long, rests on a simple
misunderstanding. It is now more and more widely acknowledged
(comp. Zahn, Keil) and has been emphatically asserted by v. Soden
that the Hebrew Epistle does not speak of the temple at Jerusalem and
its services at all, but of the tabernacle and the legal worship as
presented in the typically prophetic Scripture of the Old Testament.
Whether it has always rightly apprehended what is there said, iB as
much a matter of indifference as whether the existing arrangements and
ordinances in the Jerusalem temple harmonized with its conception.

THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 17
Overbeck and Keil (Komm., 1885) ; and unless with Eich
horn, Kostlin, Ewald, Grimm, Hausrath, v. Soden and
others, we refuse to name any one as the author, this view
is certainly the only one that has every probability in its
favour.

§ 31. The Readers of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
1. Although the Epistle to the Hebrew begins without the
usual epistolary introduction and characterizes itself as a
A.oyos t»}s irapaKk-qo-£i>ys (xiii. 22), yet this very passage shows
that the document confesses itself a letter (Sta ySpa^cW £7re-
<rra\a vpiv), besides which, it closes with epistolary greet
ings (xiii. 24). Even before the solemn benediction (xiii.
20 f.) the purely epistolary relation of the author to his
readers appears, since he requests their intercession that he
may be restored to them the sooner (xiii. 18 f.).1 Thus the
conception that the document only presupposes an ideal
public, perhaps mainly Jewish Christians, a view adopted
by Schwegler, following Euthalius, Lightfoot and older
commentators (comp. Baumgarten and Heinrichs), and to
which even Guericke inclines, falls to the ground. The cir
cumstances of the readers, as presupposed by the author,
are entirely concrete (v. 11 f . ; xii. 5, 12), he speaks of their
conduct and welfare in the past (vi. 10; x. 32 ff.; xii. 4),
and it can only be a definite Church circle that he hopes to
1 Bergen (G'ott. Theol. Bibl., III. 3) already regarded the so-called
Epistle to the Hebrews as a homily, to which an epistolary conclusion
was only appended on its transmission (xiii. 22-25), Reuss regarded it as
a theological treatise, Ebrard (Komm., 1850), as a guide for Neophytes,
Hofmann as a written discourse which takes the form of a letter only
at the end. According to Kurtz (Komm., 1869) the original epistolary
introduction, which expressed severe censure on the recipients, was cut
away from the copies intended for others ; according to Overbeck this
happened at the formation of the Canon (comp. § 30, 2, note 2) ; while
according to v. Soden the want of the alleged original introduction to
the Epistle can no longer be accounted for.
VOL II. c

18 THE JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF THE READERS.
see again (xiii. 23). It does not indeed necessarily follow
that a single Church is in question, as Kostlin maintains ;
for however probable it may be that the Epistle was in
tended in the first place for a single Church, this does not
shut out the possibility of its having been destined at the
same time for a larger circle of Churches, each of which had
its own rulers (xiii. 7, 17, 24) and its assemblings for Divine
worship (x. 25) . On the other hand it is quite inconceivable
that the Epistle was intended only for a small circle within
a community, since even the aSeXtpoi addressed have those
-qyovfiaioi and i-mo-wayiayaC in common, and therefore con
stitute one or more Church organisms, being responsible as
such to one another (iii. 12 f . ; x. 24 f. ; xii. 13, 15). 2
Prom the form of the greeting (xiii. 24) it only follows that
the Epistle was not transmitted to the authorities of the
Church as such, but to individual overseers more closely
connected with the author, who were to give to all the rest
the greeting it contained as also to the entire Church before
whom the whole Epistle was to be read publicly (comp.
1 Thess. v. 26 ; Phil. iv. 21).
2. The Church or Church-circle to which our Epistle is
addressed, is unquestionably Jewish- Christian. Of the sal
vation destined for the people of God (iv. 9 ; comp. x. 30) or
' David Schulz entertained the very fanciful idea of a private associa
tion of mystic Christians outside Palestine, who like the Essenes and
Therapeutae, attached importance to all kinds of abstinence, Ebrard
thought of a closed circle of neophytes, while Wieseler and Hilgenfeld,
like Kurtz and Zahn, in accordance with their erroneous views respect
ing the address of the Epistle, thought of the Jewish-Christian portion of
a mixed Church, which is also inconceivable on other grounds (comp.
No. 2). According to Holtzmann (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1883, 1) the
Epistle was first to find out for itself within a large Church the circle
to whom it was intelligible and for whom therefore it was designed ;
which is excluded by xiii. 24, as also by the fact that the ^yoi/ievoi and
the i-TTorwayuyat of whom mention is made in the Epistle, cannot in
the nature of things belong to a circle of this kind but only to a whole
Church.

THE POSITION OF THE READERS TOWARDS JUDAISM. 19
for the people absolutely (ii. 17; xiii. 12) it is assumed
throughout that the readers either do or will participate in
it ; those addressed in ix. 14, unless we give up all the connec
tion, can only be the called who are to be redeemed from the
transgressions committed «rt rrj Trpuny SiaOyKy, i.e. members
of the old covenant ; they are characterized as cnrep/xa 'Afipadpi
in the true sense (ii. 11, 16), while their fathers are called
the Fathers absolutely (i. 1). The meats to which, accord
ing to 13, 9 ff., they attach importance can only be sacrificial
meats ; and the i^€p\e.o-0ai 2£<d Trapep.^oXrj's, xiii. 13, can only
denote separation from the nation and worship of Israel with
which the readers are associated.1 This corresponds to the
terribly earnest warning against apostasy that runs through
the Epistle (iii. 12 f .) ; for from the way in which such apostasy
1 All the arguments by which Wieseler, Hofmann, Hilgenfeld, v. Soden,
and others have endeavoured to explain away this fact are quite unten-
able. If Paul occasionally applies to Gentile Christians prophecies which
Bpeak of promotion to be the people of God (Rom. ix. 25 f. ; 2 Cor. vi.
16), it does not follow that here, where 6 Xao> (v. 3 ; vii. 5, 11, 27 ; ix. 7,
19) and 6 Xaos too Beov (xi. 25) are constantly employed of the Old Testa
ment oovenant-nation, the same expression can be referred to Christen
dom as such in the above passages. When Paul, in Gal. iii. 29 ; Rom. iv.
13, 16, expressly justifies the transference of the rights of the seed of
Abraham to Christians, it does not follow that the airipim 'Afipadp in
ii. 16, which, according to the only possible interpretation of ii. 11,
suitable to the context, has express reference to bodily descent, can be
here used in a remote sense. Whereas Paul describes Abraham as the
father of believers on account of their similarity of character (Rom. iv.
11 f.), or out of his Jewish-Christian consciousness calls the ancestors
of the Jews oi traripes -h,pG>v though they are by no means all fathers of
believers in the spiritual sense (1 Cor. x. 1 ; comp. Rom. iv. 1), our
author speaks of his ancestors and those of his readers as oi wardpes ab
solutely, to whom God has spoken by the prophets (i. 1). There can be
no reference in xiii. 9 to the ascetic choice of meats, since it is not absti
nence from certain meats but the use of them that is to strengthen the
heart ; and it is only by arbitrary twisting of the sense of the words that
we can get over xiii. 13. Just as certainly as we fail to find with Ritschl
a distinction in ix. 10 between the sacrifljS that are abrogated by the
offering of Christ and the other carnal ordinances to which this does not
apply, so certainly does reflection on the latter show that they too for.
merly had a meaning for the readers.

20 THE JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF THE READERS.
is conceived as irrevocable (vi. 6), as the specific deadly sin
(x. 26, 29) threatened with the most fearful punishment
(xii. 16 f.), it follows unquestionably that the reference here
is not to an error of doctrine or isolated sin, but to a
relapse from Christianity into Judaism. Those addressed
had already become indifferent and insensible to the preach
ing of the gospel of salvation (v. 11, 13) ; already they
refused to listen to earnest exhortation and began to forsake
the Church-assemblies (x. 25 ; xii. 25). There were already
members who wavered, and who were a source of the greatest
danger to the whole Church (xii. 13, 15) ; while the author
hopes that not only the overseers (xiii. 17f.), but also a part
of the Church, would, by zealous exhortation, work accord
ing to his mind (iii. 13; x. 24 f. ; xii. 15). He therefore
hopes by his Trapa/cA^cris to ward off the worst (vi. 9) ; and the
fact that he endeavours to do this by pointing out the all-
sufficiency of the salvation offered in Christ and the unsatis
factory character of the Old Testament plan of salvation
now done away by Him, shows irrefutably that we have here
to do with relapse into Judaism.3 Prom this it appears not
only that the readers are Jewish Christians, but that they
are exclusively Jewish Christians. It is inconceivable that
in all these warnings and exhortations, which are invariably
addressed to the Churches as such (No. 1), the author should

3 It does not indeed follow that the readers looked upon sacrificial
worship as necessary to the expiation of sin, as Bleek and Riehm
held, and were therefore not yet converted to true Christianity, nor
does it follow that they had already entirely broken with their Jewish-
Christian past, as Wieseler supposed, but only that they stood in danger
of finding satisfaction henceforward exclusively in the Old Testament
worship which they had hitherto held to be quite compatible with their
Christian faith (x. 25 ; xiii. 9). This too has been very decidedly dis
puted by Zahn and Keil ; but for that reason they can only characterize
the Judaism into whioh the readers were in danger of relapsing as with
out faith and without hope, i.e. as a Judaism that was, properly speaking,
no Judaism, and as a warning against, which the entire Old Testament
apparatus of our Epistle was certainly not required.

THE READERS EXCLUSIVELY JEWISH CHRISTIAN. 21
never have thought of those readers who did not stand at all
in the same danger ; inconceivable that there should not be a
word of allusion to the questions that must necessarily crop
up wherever Gentile Christians lived with Jewish Christians,
and especially where there was an inclination on the part of
the latter to relapse into Judaism ; inconceivable that along
with the utterances setting forth that salvation was destined
for Israel, its universal destination should not for their sakes
have been assured,3 if the Churches contained also Gentile
Christians. Finally, the author in ii. 3 speaks of his readers,
like himself, as having had the preaching of Jesus handed
down to them by ear-witnesses, viz. by the primitive
Apostles. Notwithstanding all this, it has in recent times been again maintained
by Wieseler, Hofmann, Kurtz, Zahn, Mangold, Hilgenfeld and others, in
connection with erroneous views respecting the readers of the Epistle,
that the Church to which the Epistle is addressed was a mixed one
(comp. on the other hand Grimm, Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Theol., 1870, 1).
Lastly, Roth's view (Epi-tolam vulgo ad Hebr. inscr. non ad Hebr. datam
esse. Francof. ad M., 1836), that the Epistle was entirely addressed
to Gentile Christians, hitherto regarded as " a manifest error," has in
pursuance of a hint of Schiirer's (Stud. u. Krit., 1886, 4) been revived by
v. Soden with great earnestness (Jahrb. fiir protest Theol., 1884, 3). But
it is just as inconceivable that the whole comparison of Christianity with
Judaism should only have been intended to enable Gentile Christians by
a comparison with the sole pre-Christian revelation of the Old Testament,
acknowledged also by them, to see the unique significance of Christianity,
as it is entirely incapable of proof, that apart from persecutions it was
only laxity of morals that had enticed the readers to fall back into hea
thenism. It is quite an error to assume that if a relapse into Judaism
were intended, the legal question in the acceptation of the Pauline
Epistles must have come under discussion. It is not with the necessity
* Such an assurance is by no means contained in ii. 9 ; v. 9, since
these passages, from their context, are not at all designed to restrict the
participation of the Gentiles in salvation. The more obviously it lies in
the nature of things that the author, whose aim it is to emancipate his
readers from Judaism in order to gain them for Christianity, cannot have
limited salvation to the Jews, the more incomprehensible is the absence
of all allusion to the participation of the Gentiles in it where a mixed
Church is addressed.

22 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CHURCH.
of fulfilling the law in order to attain to salvation that we have here to
do, but with the sufficiency of the Old Testament institution of atone
ment to this end. The question as to the attitude to be adopted by
the Gentiles with respect to the legal ordering of their lives, could not
come up at all in a purely Jewish-Christian Church.
3. The readers of the Epistle unquestionably belong to a
Church or Church-circle that had already existed for some
time. That we have not to do with a Church that was but
of comparatively recent origin, having arisen by the simul
taneous going over of a considerable number of Jews (as
Kostlin supposed), is evident from v. 12 ff., according to
which the readers had been Christians long enough to be
expected to have arrived at full maturity in the Christian
life, and even to be capable of teaching others. The author
already looks back to a past in which they had proved their
Christian brotherly love (vi. 10) and had either steadfastly
endured much suffering themselves or had given brotherly
help to those who were persecuted (x. 32 ff.). It is manifest
that the days of these persecutions, of which the author re
minds them, are already somewhat remote, and moreover the
persecution had consisted not only in abuse and oppression,
but even in imprisonment and loss of property. The bloody
persecutions of the Church as such had not yet indeed begun
(xii. 4) ; but some of the rulers of the Church, from whom
they had formerly received the preaching of the gospel
(therefore the d/coiVavTes, ii. 3), had probably sealed in mar
tyrdom the steadfastness for which they were commended
(xiii. 7). It is undoubtedly a second generation of r)yovp.evoc
who now stand at the head of the Church (xiii. 24) ; and the
fact that they no longer possess the influence they ought
to have (xiii. 17) is plainly due to the critical circum
stances which gave rise to the Epistle. But the immediate
cause that led to the threatened danger of apostasy only
appears indirectly from the exhortations of the Epistle.1
1 To suppose that the readers were threatened with exolusion from the

ARRANGEMENT OF THE EPISTLE. 23
These, however, give no indication of a special persecution
having broken out, nor even of such an one as they had
formerly experienced. That all kinds of oppression still
continued certainly appears from the constant recurrence of
admonitions to patience (x. 36 ; xii. 1) ; that they invariably
turned on the reproach with which the unbelieving Jews
covered their heretical countrymen is evident from xiii.
13 (comp. xi. 26) ; that they were threatened with the loss of
their earthly possessions appears from xii. 16 ; while xiii. 3
shows that there were still cases of imprisonment. Yet it
was not an unusual increase of persecution that made so
many lose courage but its continuance. This presupposes
that it had long been expected to come to an end, which
could only happen by the return of the Lord which was
immediately looked for. That the long and unexpected
delay had led to a decline of the Christian hope associated
with it is the fundamental assumption on which all the
exhortations of the Epistle to the maintenance of hope are
based, and the occasion of the repeated allusion to the near
ness and certainty of the fulfilment of the promise (vi. 10 f .,
18 f. ; ix. 28; x. 25, 37; xii. 28). It is apostasy from the
faith, involved in the giving up of Christian hope, and not a
relapse into heathen sin, as v. Soden thinks (No. 2), that is
the specific sin against which the warning of our Epistle is
directed (iii. 12 f; xii. 1, 4), and which is characterized as
apostasy from the living God, as fornication in the Old Tes
tament sense of the word, and as wilful, presumptuous sin
for which there is no forgiveness (iii. 12; xii. 16 ; x. 26, 29).
temple worship, as Ebrard and Dollinger held, or that such exclusion
had already taken place, as Thiersch supposed, is manifestly an error,
since this separation is just what is demanded of them in xiii. 13. That
they should have wished to defend themselves against heathen persecu
tion by placing themselves under the protection of Judaism as a religio
licita as Kurtz and Holtzman conjectured, is quite incredible, for such
cowardice would have been combated with far other arguments than by
showing that the Old Testament institutions ol salvation, as imperfect,
had been replaced by the more perfect dispensation of Christianity.

24 ARRANGEMENT OF THE EPISTLE.
The other exhortations that appear in the Epistle have nothing to d«
with its leading aim ; and it is quite inadmissible to conclude that each
one is called forth by distinct moral defects in the Church. Admonition
to brotherly love and its manifestation is always necessary (xiii. 1 ff.,
16 ; comp. x. 24) ; that xiii. 4 f . does not refer to the cardinal vices of
the heathen is shown by the fact that it is purity of marriage that is here
specially inculcated ; while covetousness, as appears from what follows,
is nothing but attachment to earthly possessions, leading to » lack
of contentment and trust in God (xiii. 5 f.) such as were specially
needed where outward existence was endangered by spoliation. That the
Church was threatened with any special errors connected with Essenism,
such as Holtzmann following Schwegler, found attacked in the christo-
logical statements of the Epistle, does not by any means appear from
xiii. 9, where, in conformity with the context, the new doctrines can only
be those by which it was deemed possible to prove the all-sufficiency of
the Old Testament means of salvation, and where it is not abstinence
from meats but from a false estimate of meat offered in sacrifice that is
spoken of (comp. No. 2, note 1).
4. So long as the Epistle to the Hebrews was ascribed to
the Apostle Paul or to one of his disciples, the Church for
which it was designed was naturally looked for in the
Pauline missionary field; and the impossibility thus made
apparent of finding one there which answered to the condi
tions presupposed by the Epistle is only a new proof that
it does not proceed from the Pauline circle. Hence most of
these views required the help of all kinds of hypotheses.
The alleged reference of 2 Pet. iii. 15 to our Epistle directed
Bengel's attention to the Churches of Asia Minor, in which
he was followed by Cramer and Chr. P. Schmidt in their
Commentaries (1757, 63). Storr (Komm., 1789) and Mini
ster (comp. § 30, 6) thought more particularly of the Jewish-
Christian section of the Galatian Churches and Stein
(Komm. zu Im-as, Halle, 1830) of the Laodicean Church, so
that the Epistle was identified with that mentioned in Col.
iv. 16, of which a trace was already professedly found in
Philastrius, Heer. 89 (§ 12, 5 ; note 2). Credner was led by
the mention of Timothy to think of his home in Lycaonia,
while Credner's view of Gentile-Christian readers suggested

HYPOTHESES RESPECTING THE PERSONS ADDRESSED. 25
the thought of Ephesus to Roth. Wolf in his Cures (1734),
following the lead of an Englishman named Wall, thought
of all the Jewish Christians of the Pauline missionary field ;
while Noesselt, in his Opusc. (1771), adopting Semler's view,
confined himself to the Jewish Christians of Macedonia,
particularly those at Thessalonica, thus making the Epistle
a pendant to the Thessalonian Epistles, just as Storr made it
supplementary to the Galatian Epistle. Weber (Be Numero
Epp. ad Cor., Wittenb., 1798-1806), who was followed by
Mack (Theol. Quartalschrift, 1838, 3), thought he had found
here a new Corinthian epistle. Finally exegesis went back
to Antioch, an hypothesis of Boehme (1825) which Hofmann
has advocated anew with the greatest confidence. Ludwig
(Ap. Carpzov Sacr. Exerc, Helmstadt, 1750), following in the
footsteps of Nicolaus v. Lyra, has traced the readers even
into Spain. But just as it is clear that neither the Gentile
Apostle nor one of his special disciples can have written to
a purely Jewish- Christian Church, so it is impossible to
fasten such a Church on the Pauline missionary field, for
which reason it has been found necessary, as by Hofmann,
to conceive of the Jewish-Christian part of such a Church in
particular (comp. on the other hand No. 1, note 2).
5. The mention of an Epist. ad Alexandrinos in the Mura
torian Canon (§ 10, 2, note 3), erroneously referred to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, led to the idea of finding the readers
of the latter in Alexandria. This view was adopted by J.
E. Schmidt in his Introduction, as also by Ullmann whose
attention in connection with the Barnabas-tradition was
directed to the Jewish Christians in Cyprus and Alexandria.
After the zealous advocacy of the view by Wieseler and
R. Kostlin (Theol. Jahrb., 1854, 3) it gained wide currency
for a time and was adopted by Bunsen (in his Hippolytus,
1852), Hilgenfeld (after 1858 in his Zeitschrift and Einl),
Sehneckenburger^Sfctd. u. Krit., 1859), Volkmar Ritschl,
Reuss and others. Nevertheless it assumed with its chief

26 INTENDED FOR ALEXANDRIA OR ROME?
representatives two very distinct forms. Wieseler thought
in the first place of a mixed Church, and attached most im
portance to the fact that the apparently inaccurate accounts
respecting the temple and the priesthood (§ 30, 7, note 2)
jould only be explained on the assumption that the author
had in his mind the temple of Onias at Leontopolis in Egypt.
But he has not succeeded in furnishing the least semblance
of proof that there was any difference between the temple of
Onias and that in Jerusalem with respect to the points under
consideration ; for the only difference mentioned by Josephus
has to do with the absence of the Xvxvia, which is expressly
mentioned in ix. 2. On the other hand the conception of
the priestly liturgy contained in vii. 27 is found also in the
Rabbis, as in Philo for example. Hence Kostlin has quite
given this up and has returned to the view of a purely
Jewish-Christian Church, whose only recent origin (comp.
No. 3) he tries to account for by making x. 32 ff. refer to
the persecutions of the Jews under Caligula, which is im
possible. All that he adduces in favour of the Alexandrian
character of the author from the language of the Epistle, the
use of the Septuagint and of the Book of Maccabees, proves
nothing respecting the readers except on the supposition
that the author proceeded from the Church of the readers,
which is not supported by xiii. 19. The fact that vi. 10
speaks of a collection for Jerusalem, to which special import
ance is attached on behalf of this view, only affords general
proof in favour of a Church outside Palestine ; but the refer
ence of the ayioi to the primitive Church is made absolutely
impossible by xiii. 24. There is positively no certain ground
for this view, on the contrary the fact that in Alexandria
where the Epistle was so highly valued, nothing was known
of this destination, but a different one taken for granted, is
decidedly against it.
6. Only in connection with the view prevalent for a time
that the Roman Church was essentially Jewish-Christian

INTENDED FOR ALEXANDRIA OR ROME ? 27
(§ 22, 3), is it intelligible how it could ever have been sup
posed that our Epistle was addressed to Rome. The chief
representative of this opinion, for which Wetstein and Baur
already paved the way, is Holtzmann (Stud. u. Krit., 1859,
2 ; Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1867, 1 ; 1883, 1), to whom how
ever Kurtz, Schenkel, Renan, Mangold, Zahn, even Harnack
in incidental utterances, Pfleiderer and others have recently
come over. But since the Roman Church was admittedly
at least of a mixed character, and certainly became more
and more Gentile- Christian after the Apostle Paul's abode
there, for which reason Ewald preferred to adopt the view
of another Italian town such as Ravenna, the Epistle must
still be regarded as addressed only to the Jewish part of the
Church, or else the readers must be looked upon as Gentile
Christians, as by v. Soden, who moreover maintains that it
was addressed only to Italian Christians generally. And
since it is universally conceded that the greeting in xiii.
24 does not necessarily imply that those who sent salu
tations were Christians absent from Italy, the Greek
Fathers and many later expositors having on the contrary
been led to conclude from it that Italy was the place of com
position, we have no indication whatever pointing to this
address ; for the fact that the Epistle was already known to
Clement of Rome proves nothing. The attachment of the
readers to the temple-worship (comp. xiii. 9-13), in which
however, the Jews of the Diaspora could only occasionally
take part, pre-supposed in the Epistle, is decidedly against
such an hypothesis, for which reason all possible means have
recently been employed to explain it away, although the
Epistle in its most comprehensive details is thus rendered
quite unintelligible. So too the passage xii. 4 ; since the
author could not, in face of the persecution of Nero, which
was certainly not very remote, have said that the readers
had not yet resisted unto blood. It is indeed true that the
readers had not yet shed their blood, which however it was

28 THE HEBREWS OF THE INSCRIPTION.
unnecessary to say; but withe ut arbitrary weakening of the
literal sense, it is impossible to get rid of the idea that no
bloody persecution of the Church as such had yet taken
place. 7. In the Greek Codd., as in the Syriac and Old Latin
translation (according to Tertullian), the Epistle bears the
superscription 7rpb<s 'EySpouovs. It is certain that this does
not proceed from the author as Bleek was still inclined to
believe, since the destination of the Epistle was undoubtedly
known to the bearer ; and equally certain that it represents
an old tradition, which we find in the earliest mention of the
Epistle by Pantaenus and Clement (ap. Euseb., H.E., 6, 14).
The name 'E/?p<uos is only in itself indeed a mark of national
Jewish origin (2 Cor. xi. 22 ; Phil. iii. 5), but it also denotes
the Hebrew-speaking (iftpa'io-Ti John v. 2 ; Apoc. ix. 11,
comp. Acts xxi. 40), i.e. Aramaic- speaking Jews as con
trasted with the Hellenists (Acts vi. 1), for which reason
the Hebrew composition of Matthew's Gospel is explained
by its destination for Hebrews (Iren., Adv. Heer., III. 1, 1 ;
Euseb., H.E., 3, 25). But since the superscription is un
doubtedly intended to point to a definite circle of readers,
just as the title of the well-known eiayyiXiov ko.6' 'E/Jpatous,
it can only refer to the Hebrew-speaking Jews of Palestine,
as in fact the Alexandrians assume by the way in which
they explain the want of the address, and suppose a Hebrew
original (§ 30, 2, note 1). To this view not only has ec
clesiastical antiquity adhered, but also, despite all newer
hypotheses, de Wette, Bleek and the greater number of
expositors down to Keil. Since unmixed Jewish- Christian
Churches were scarcely to be found in the post- Pauline time
anywhere but in Palestine, and since it was only there that
an attachment to the worship of the temple could arise
such as the Epistle presupposes, while it treats only inciden
tally of those acts of worship to which in the Diaspora the
greatest importance was naturally attached (ix. 10"; comp.

DESTINED FOR PALESTINE. 29
also the e£<o t^s ttuXijs xiii. 12), this destination of the Epistle
is in fact the only possible one.
The grounds on which this view is constantly represented as quite
impossible are manifestly untenable. The fact that the author writes
in Greek and employs the LXX. exclusively, only proves that he could
read neither Hebrew nor Aramaic, although his knowledge of the
Scriptures naturally enables him to reflect on the meaning of the name
Melchizedek (vii. 2). But that an epistle written in Greek could not
be understood in the Churches of Palestine, is a prejudice that has long
oeen set aside (§ 30, 3). The fact that the readers stood in connection
with Timothy and are greeted by Italians (xiii. 23 1), rests on relations
|ust as difficult to clear up in the case of every other Jewish- Christian
Church, as in that of the Palestinian ones. The first generation of
teachers of the Church being already dead (xiii. 1) and hence the death
of Stephen, of James the son of Zehedee and James the Just, being to
the author already things of the past, it is no wonder that he thinks of
the Church as consisting essentially of disciples of the Apostles and not
of Christ (ii. 3). The severe persecution they had suffered (x. 32 ff.) is
probably that which followed the martyrdom of Stephen, a persecution
which, though constantly renewed, only endangered the life of indivi
dual iryoiipevoi. The fact that one who is not an Apostle turns to the
Churches, presupposes that the Apostles no longer worked in them,
which probably accounts for their having fallen into a critical con
dition, so that the assertion that such a state of things is inconceivable
in the primitive Church, is quite untenable. The reference of vi. 10 to
the collection for Jerusalem, which alone would make the received view
impossible, is itself impossible (No. 5) ; but though it may be thought
that the notorious poverty of the Church is at variance with the acts of
love here commended, as also with the exhortation to hospitality and
beneficence (xiii. 2, 16), yet our author did not find them incompatible
with that spoiling of goods (x. 34) which was unquestionably the ground
of such poverty, or with the exhortation to contentment (xiii. 5). If
however the Churches in Palestine were in question, the Epistle would
naturally have gone in the first place to Jerusalem.1
1 Hase (Winer's u. Engelh. krit. Journal, II. 2) put forward the very
fanciful idea of an heretical Church in a remote district of Palestine,
while Grimm thought of the Church in Jamnia.

30 hypotheses respecting date.
§ 32. The Situation of the Hebkew Epistle with
eespect to Time.
1. For determining the time of the Hebrew Epistle, the
question as to whether it already presupposes the destruc
tion of the temple or not, is decisive. It has been urged with
great force, especially by Holtzmann, that all the passage*
describing the arrangements of the Old Testament worship
in the present tense (viii. 8, 20; viii. 3-5; ix. 6-9, 13;
xiii. 10) do not prove that this worship still existed in the
time of the author, a fact only indeed made fully evident
when with v. Soden we note that our Epistle does not
concern itself with actually existing arrangements, but with
the typically prophetic statements of Holy Scripture res
pecting them (§ 30, 7, note 2). But on the other hand it
must be maintained that, according to the view of our
Epistle, the old covenant comes to an end with the accom
plishment of the high-priestly offering of Christ; and that
with the new covenant the Messianic time has begun, so
that neither ix. 1, nor yet the fact that the author speaks
not of the temple but of the tabernacle, forms any argument
against the existence of the temple at that time.1 But the
manifest object (§ 31, 2, 3) of the statements the Epistle con- ¦
tains respecting the insufficiency of the Old Testament wor
ship and the fulfilment in Christ of that which it had striven
in vain to accomplish, is quite decisive. It is impossible that
1 Nothing at all follows from viii. 13, where it is only inferred from
the announcement of a new covenant in prophecy, that the old one is
characterized as about to vanish away ; nothing at all from ix. 9 f.,
where the Old Testament time, to which the arrangement of the taber
nacle corresponded, is only contrasted with the Messianic time as the
Kaipbs SiopBUnraDs ; nothing at all from x. 2, which contains only a reflec
tion on the cessation of sacrifice in the event of its object having been
attained. So too the passage xiii. 14 is sometimes employed as an ar
gument in favour of the continued existence of Jerusalem, and some
times against it, and is decisive for neither. The chronology based on
the passage iii. 9, is entirely uncertain and improbable.

HYPOTHESES RESPECTING DATE. 31
these statements with their minuteness of detail and inter
mixture with the most urgent warnings against a relapse
into Judaism, can be designed to establish in a purely theo
retical way the pre-eminence of Christianity over Judaism ;
they can only be intended to show that the readers cannot
find in the Old Testament worship what they have found in
Christ, and must lose by apostasy from Him. This very
thing, however, implies the existence of such worship ; and
it must have been the idea of a possible rebuilding of the
temple and restoration of its worship which first led to the
actual discussion of the judgment of God apparent in its
existing state of decay, since it is in truth inconceivable
that the Jew ish- Christian author should not in his argument
have turned this fact to account, as perhaps the Barnabas
epistle does in chap. iv. 16. If therefore the Epistle was
written before the year 70, it was undoubtedly not written
before the death of James ; for while this apostolic-minded
man stood at the head of the Church, one who was not an
Apostle would certainly not have felt himself called upon to
exhort it in such wise on his own behalf. We are thus led
beyond the middle of the seventh decade. But the Epistle,
even if addressed to Palestine, could not possibly have been
written during the Jewish war without making any allusion
to it whatever; on the contrary, it was more probably
written during the threatening symptoms of its breaking
forth, since the author sees in the signs of the times the
coming of the day of the Lord (Heb. x. 25), which Christ
had placed in immediate connection with it (Matt. xxiv. 15).
Those who set out with the Pauline authorship of the Epistle mostly
put it in the Roman captivity, except where the hypotheses regarding
the readers of the Epistle necessitated still more fanciful combinations.
Though Bleek tried to bring it down to 68-69 a.d. (comp. Grimm), more
recent expositors with little variation have adhered to the year 66, at
which from different views of the Epistle, Wieseler and Hilgenfeld,
Tholuck and Ewald, Riehm and Kostlin, Liinemann, Kurtz and Kiel
have practically arrived. Zahn alone comes down to the year 80. The

32 HYPOTHESES RESPECTING DATE.
Tubingen school endeavoured to bring it down to the end of the 1st
century, Volkmar, Hausrath and Keim even to the end of Trajan's time,
while Holtzmann; Schenkel, Mangold and v. Soden thought they re
cognised in the Epistle traits of the Domitian persecution, of which
however there is as little trace as of any other particular persecution.
2. The great importance of the Hebrew Epistle consists
in the fact that it affords a glance into the development of
the primitive Church at a time when a severe crisis was
at hand. It was not the legal question that disturbed the
Church.1 But the hopes with which the primitive Church
had formerly looked forward gradually to gain over the
nation as such to confess Christ had not been fulfilled. The
opposition of the unbelieving mass of the nation to the
primitive Church living and working in their midst became
more and more pronounced. Though matters seldom came
to bloodshed, yet reproach and oppression of every kind in
creased rather than diminished. In place of the hoped-for
golden age that was to bring the Messiah, a time of severe
calamity had set in; and the only thing that could bring
about a change, viz. the return of the exalted Lord, which
was so near and so ardently expected, was wanting. Under
these circumstances the question must come home to the
Church, whether they had found in faith in the Messiah
Jesus what they had formerly sought, whether the sacrifices
they were obliged to make daily for His sake in separating
from their countrymen, were really rewarded. Moreover the
1 We have seen how from the beginning the Church adhered faithfully
to the law of the fathers (§ 14, 1), regarding the Old Testament worship
as quite consistent with hope in the return of the Messiah manifested in
Jesus. The development given to the cause of Christianity by the great
Gentile Apostle, which it was hard for them to withstand, had indeed
been more and more favourable to the rise of a party zealous for the law,
who thought it necessary to protect the law of the fathers, which was
apparently threatened by the success of the free gospel (Acts xxi. 20).
But the zealots for the law had not succeeded in disturbing the develop
ment brought in by Paul in the outlying heathen lands ; and for the
primitive Church itself this development had no great significance, since
adherence to the law was here beyond dispute.

THE SITUATION OF THE HEBREW EPISTLE AS TO TIME. 33
old covenant, with its law and devotional exercises, its offer
ings and means of grace furnished them with what they
required in order to live piously and enjoy communion with
the God of their fathers. Nor had their old teachers and
leaders, some of whom had been taken from them by death
while others had gone out from them, ever taught them to
attach small value to such things ; and the coming of the
blessed consummation of the kingdom of the Messiah which
these had so confidently announced, and in hope of wliich
they had hitherto overcome all antagonism between the
present and the promised future of the prophets, seemed to
be further and further removed, and to become more and
more uncertain. Under these circumstances a suspicious
inclination to give up faith in the Messiah and become
reconciled to their fellow-countrymen, in association with
whom they might once more content themselves with the
worship of their fathers, began to gain ground. Adherence
to the law and the worship of their fathers, which had
formerly had so good a motive, the bond of national com
munion so faithfully cherished with the object of gaining
the nation as a whole, had become directly fatal. The ap
proach of the great revolutionary war increased the exaspe
ration of the nation against the apostates in their midst,
while inflaming all their patriotic feeling and bringing back
jjo their consciousness the full value of the sanctuaries for
which the final struggle was to be fought. Then it was that
a man who had formerly lived for a long time in the Church,
and yet owing to his Hellenic descent and lengthened absence
from it had retained a more unprejudiced view, recognised
the exceeding danger of the situation and saw the only
means of averting it. It was important now to effect the
resolute emancipation of the Jewish-Christian primitive
Church from fellowship of nation and worship with the
Jewish people, an emancipation such as had already been
accomplished under the influence of Paulinism in the case of
VOL. n. D

34 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the Jewish Christians of the Diaspora. The Epistle to the
Hebrews, while urging this decisive step (xiii. 14), prepares
the way for it by a copious statement of the motives which
justified this definitive breach of Jewish Christianity with its
past, and even made it obligatory.
3. Since the author had no authoritative position in the
Church of his readers, nor did any personal relations exist
that led him to write, he makes the subject of which he
treats speak for itself. But even here he does not set out
with the circumstances of the Church and the necessary
admonition and warning, but with the presupposition which
he has in common with a Messiah-believing Church formed
out of Israel, viz. that God has spoken to the Church of the
last days by His Messiah as He had formerly spoken to the
fathers by the prophets. After having laid the foundation
of the unique exaltation of this Son to an equality with
God in the government of the world, in His original essence
and primeval position, in a high-sounding period exhibiting
at once the lofty strain and the fulness of his oratorical
pathos which would have been weakened by any epistolary
introduction, and having confirmed it by His relation to
the angels — the highest order of created beings (i. 1-4), he
proceeds to prove his utterances respecting Him step by
step from the Old Testament. To no angel, as to Him, has
God given the name of son in a unique sense ; on the con
trary He has set before Him in prospect as the Firstborn
among the heavenly sons of God the worship of all angels at
the end of His course (i. 5 f .) . Whereas God calls the angels
His ministers, who according to the needs of their service
experience many changes in the kingdom of nature, He
has anointed Him above His fellows to an eternal Divine
supremacy; for the Son who took part in the foundation
of all created things remains superior to all the chances and
changes to which these are subject (i. 7-12). To none of the
angels has God ever promised a seat on His throne such as

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 35
the completion of the Messianic kingdom secures to Him;
they are only ministering spirits appointed to help others
to participation in the Messianic salvation (i. 13 f.).1 This
leads to the application of the discussion to such as, like the
Messiah-believing Church, are destined to participate in the
Messianic deliverance (forming the obverse side of the Mes
sianic consummation) and yet can only do so by adhering
with all diligence to the word of God which they had heard
from this unique Ambassador, not allowing themselves to be
carried away by the current of the times (ii. 1). For if the
word of the law, already made known by means of angels,
brought righteous retribution on all who transgressed or
neglected to hear it, how shall they escape the destruction
that accompanies the Messianic completion who neglect the
word of salvation first proclaimed by the Divine Lord Him
self and confirmed to us by them that heard Him, especially
since God Himself has attested it by signs and wonders which
by the communication of the Holy Spirit He directed those
who preached it to perform according to His will (ii. 2—4) ?
The general, practical inference drawn from the theoretical
introductory statement shows that this section is regarded as
an introduction.
4. Only now does the author turn to the first consideration
that bears specially on the need of the readers. Adhering

1 A polemic against views that aimed at lowering the exaltation of
Christ more or less by putting Him on a par with the angels is looked
for in vain in this theological exposition. It is only beoause His exalted
position with respect to the world is measured by his relation to the
angels that it is made the proper theme of this exposition (i. 4). Just
as the author's statement regarding Him began by giving Him the name
of Son in an exclusive sense (i. 2) and concluded with His elevation to a
seat on the throne of God (i. 3), so the Scripture argument begins and
ends in conformity with these two points (i. 5 f. ; i. 13 f.). The interven
ing statement sets out in a reverse order with the nature and vocation
of the angels (i. 7), in order to prove also from the Scripture (i. 8f. ;
i. 10 ff.) what had been said respecting the Godlike essence of the Son
and His original relation to the world (i. 2 f.).

36 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
to the fundamental thought of the introductory disquisition,
he proves that it is not the angels but the Son of man, who,
though for a time made lower than the angels, was crowned
with glory and honour; to whom, according to the word of
the psalmist, all things were put in subjection, and conse
quently the time of the Messianic salvation, which is the sub
ject under discussion in a writing of the Messiah-believing
author to his readers (ii. 5-8). If the perfect fulfilment of
this promise be still delayed, it has already begun in the exal
tation of Jesus. Moreover the way in which this was granted
to Him for the sake of His sufferings in death was condi
tioned by the Divine purpose of salvation. For it was only
by assuming the same ancestry as the seed of Abraham,
which He was to take upon Himself as the Mediator of sal
vation, in order to lead them to deliverance and to glory, and
by being made partaker with them of the same flesh and
blood, subject to suffering, that He could taste the whole
bitterness of death in their stead in order to free them from
all fear of death ; and by the sufferings He endured, being
tempted, that as a faithful high priest He could help those
who are tempted through suffering (ii. 8-18) -1 It is for the
very reason that they are thus tempted by suffering that the
author now turns to his readers as brethren who through
Christ have attained to true salvation, having become par
takers of the heavenly calling, requiring them to fix their
glance on the fidelity of Jesus, whom with him they recog
nise as the Ambassador and High Priest of God (iii. 1).
Moses verily was faithful in the house of God, in which he
1 This defence of the sufferings and death of Christ may certainly in
dicate that, with the fear lest the glorious second coming of Christ should
not be fulfilled, the old offence of the cross had again begun to disturb
the minds of the readers ; but the positive aim of the disoussion is to
show the readers, who are again in bondage to the fear of death and
dread of suffering, how their Messiah, raised to Divine supremacy, is by
His passion qualified to free them from their bondage and to succoui
them in every temptation.

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 37
served Him as a witness for that which was to be spoken
to the nation ; but the Messiah as the Son who in the capa
city of Founder of this house was exalted high above, Moses,
rules faithfully over it, and in this rule they may confidently
trust, if by firm adherence to the Christian hope they remain
members of the true theocracy (iii. 2-6). 2 Hence by way of
exhortation and warning the author holds up to them the
word of the psalmist, in which, reminding them how formerly
their fathers, led out of Egypt by Moses, had in their march
through the wilderness failed to enter into the rest of God,
he warns them against hardening their hearts in the same
way (iii. 7-11). For again there is danger lest by want of
faith in the Divine promise any should harden their hearts
and thus lose all participation in the Messiah, which can
only be preserved by holding fast the confidence unto the
end (iii. 12-15) ; and should fall under the same chastise
ment as befell the generation in the wilderness (iii. 16-19).
It would be a disastrous error for them to suppose that they
had lost the ancient promise of God (by the temptation of
suffering that had come upon them as an actual consequence
of their faith) ; for as their forefathers had received the
joyful message (of the near fulfilment of the promise), so too
had they. But just as it availed the former nothing because
they remained in unbelief, so it was by faith alone that they
too could enter into the rest of God, which was already pre
pared from the time of the Creation-Sabbath, but was closed
by the wrath of God against the generation in the wilderness
2 The comparison of Christ with Moses cannot possibly form a parallel
to the comparison of Christ with the angels (chap, i.), in order to com
plete the account of the elevation of Christ, since Christ's exaltation
above the angels naturally implies that He was raised above Moses. On
the contrary it is only the discussion of the fidelity of Christ that brings
the author to speak of the fidelity of Moses, for the readers in turning
from the former to the latter suppose they may find satisfaction in the
blessings of salvation already promised by Moses to the people of the
Old Testament theocracy, and which, in accordance with his fidelity,
must be fulfilled.

S8 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
on account of their unbelief (iv. 1-5). Hence this Psalm,
which must necessarily be interpreted in a Messianic sense
(comp. iv. 8), fixes a new day, when it will depend on the
attention paid to the warning against obduracy, whether
those who have again received the message of the approach
ing fulfilment of salvation attain to the hitherto unfulfilled
promise, and enter into the eternal Sabbath-rest prepared for
the people of God and prefigured by the divine rest (iv. 6—
10). It is therefore important for them to use all diligence
lest they fall into the same unbelief as the generation in tire
wilderness ; and the word of God in the Psalm, which reveals
the deepest depths of the heart, laying bare and judging even
the most secret beginnings of sin, is able to awaken this zeal
in us (iv. 11-13).
5. While the first reflection contained only an indirect
intimation that the readers, or at least some of them, were
in danger of giving up the fulfilment of the former promise
of God and the faith which leads to the expectation of such
fulfilment, amid the sufferings of the present, the second be
gins with an exhortation to draw nigh to the throne of grace,.
trusting in the High Priest who has passed into the heavens
in order to obtain His intercessory help in their temptation,
since He is not wanting in the feeling for our infirmities
necessary to every high priest, inasmuch as He also was
tempted in all points like as we are (iv. 14-v. 3). And since
it was necessary that He, like Aaron, should be expressly
called to be a High Priest, God proclaimed Him whom He
designated His Son in an exclusive sense, a High Priest for
ever after the order of Melchizedek, because, being tried by
the severest suffering, He had by His perfect obedience
qualified Himself to be the Author of an eternal salvation
(v. 4-10). The Apostle having thus come to the theme of
his second reflection, the doubt is forced upon him that his
readers, owing to the low state of their Christian intelligence,
might not be in a position to follow him (v. 11-14). It is.

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 39
his purpose indeed to leave nothing untried in order to lead
them on to perfection, not by again making known the prin
ciples of the doctrine of Christ, but by initiating them into
the depths of Christian truth, provided God permit ; for He
knows that where actual apostasy had taken place, according
to His holy arrangement it is impossible to renew them
again unto repentance by such enunciation of principles (vi.
1-8). But trusting in God, who will not allow the loving
zeal they had formerly manifested to go unrewarded, he is
persuaded better things of them, and hopes still to be able to
awaken them to the full assurance of hope enduring unto the
end, such as will make them followers of those who through
faith and patience inherit the promises (vi. 9-12). For as
God, by the oath with which He sealed His promise, enabled
Abraham to endure patiently, so the hope of the Christian
is an anchor to the soul, which remains immutable in the
heavenly holy of holies, whither Jesus as our Forerunner has
entered on our behalf, having been made a High Priest
for ever after the order of Melchizedek (vi. 13-20). The
author has thus come back to the subject of this reflection,
and is now anxious to make it clear to his readers what is
meant by the Messiah being a High Priest like Melchizedek,
of whom the Scriptures record neither descent nor end of
life, so that his priesthood has no end (vii. 1-3). In the
first place it follows from the fact that Abraham, and in him
the Levites themselves, paid tithes to Melchizedek, that the
priesthood of Melchizedek was exalted above that of Aaron
(vii. 4-10), and from the fact that Christ did not spring from
the tribe of Levi but from the tribe of Judah, and that He
received His priesthood not on the ground of human descent
but on the ground of His endless life, it follows that He was
different from all others (vii. 11-17). But a change of priest
hood, involving a change of the whole law, can only take
place if this latter prove powerless to attain its object, the
final attainment of which is now said to be in prospect

40 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
That the question turns on this point is shown by the oath
with which God instituted the priesthood of Melchizedek,
which, owing to its eternal duration, can be replaced by no
other, but attains its aim completely and for all time (vii.
20-25) ; and the service of which, on account of the sinless
perfection of its Bearer, no longer needs to be interrupted
by the offering of sacrifice for Himself (vii. 26-28), for His
ministry is not in the earthly sanctuary, which is a mere
copy, but in the archetypal heavenly one (viii. 1-5) -1
6. Since it was already intimated in vii. 22 that the
high priest is also the surety of a better covenant, the
third reflection reaches the true climax at which the author
wishes to arrive. Messianic prophecy opens up the prospect
of a new covenant, which could only have been needed in
case it promised to realize what the old one was unable to
accomplish; and the chief thing which it promises is the
full forgiveness of sins, which the service of the Messianic
high priest is to bring (viii. 6-13). This is already fore
shadowed in the arrangement of the sanctuary in the old
covenant, inasmuch as the permanent separation of the
forecourt from the place of the Divine gracious presence
proves that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were unable
to procure the perfection necessary to true communion with
God, being only carnal ordinances imposed provisionally
like all other legal observances (ix. 1-10). But Christ by
His own blood entered into the heavenly sanctuary and pro-
1 This concludes the argument that with the priesthood of Melchizedek
the hope of the final fulfilment of the promise is not only sealed by the
Divine oath, but is also assured by the exaltation of Christ to heaven
(vi. 19 f .). Here too the theologioal exposition serves the purpose of con
firming the wavering Christian hope ; and with true wisdom it is now
first intimated that the replacement of the Aaronio priesthood by the
higher one of Melchizedek can only be explained by the fact that the
former did not achieve its object of making the fulfilment of the promise
possible, so that every attempt to give up faith in the Messiah and Hia
high priesthood and to find satisfaction once more in the former priest
hood, is a priori rendered abortive.

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 41
cured an eternal salvation, for this blood is able not only to
sanctify to the purifying of the flesh, like the Old Testament
means of grace, but ia able to purge the conscience entirely
from the stain of guilt and to fit it for the true service of
God. Thus by His death He became the Mediator of a new
covenant, and by redemption of the transgressions com
mitted under the first, guaranteed the final reception of the
former covenant-promise (ix. 11-15). After the author,
ingeniously playing with the double meaning of the word
8ia8rJKri and alluding to the promise of the new covenant
given in the appointment of the Last Supper, has laid it
down as a premiss that a testamentary disposition only
comes into force if the death of the testator be proved (ix.
16 f.), he proceeds to show that even the Old Testament was
not dedicated without the blood of the covenant-offering,
and that under it there was no forgiveness of sins without
the shedding of blood (ix. 18-22). But Christ in the fulness
of time entered once into the heavenly sanctuary, in order
in the presence of God to blot out entirely the guilt of sin,
the punishment of which He had borne in His sacrificial
death ; and will return only for the definitive redemption of
His own (ix. 23-28). In this way the author proves that
the yearly sacrifices of the great day of atonement could not
effect their purpose of restoring the true holiness of the
covenant-nation, as already shown by the need of their
constant repetition and their rejection by the word of
prophecy, which demands the offering of His body from the
Messiah (x. 1-10). Moreover the daily sacrifices designed
to set individuals free from their sins, are equally ineffectual,
since the Messiah by His own offering brought final per
fection by means of the complete forgiveness of sins
promised with the new covenant, which made all further
sacrifice unnecessary (x. 11-18). It is now first shown that
only in the new covenant the readers can find that which
the old covenant neither could nor was designed to effect ;

42 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
while the author here first breaks forth in the highest strain
of his oratorical pathos into the exhortation that they should
hold fast the Christian hope, trusting in the blood of Jesus
and the government of the exalted High Priest, and instead
of forsaking the Christian assemblies, as they had begun to
do, should zealously make use of them for the purpose of
mutual exhortation, in face of the visible approach of the
day of judgment (x. 19-25). He now sets forth the fear
ful fate that awaits them, if after conscious rejection of
the Son of God and of the salvation brought by Him,
there remains no more sacrifice for their sin, but only the
judgment of an angry God (x. 26-31). He reminds them
of the better days they had had, and exhorts them not to
cast away their confidence, but in steadfastness of faith to
fulfil the condition on which the attainment of the promise
depends, reminding them yet again of the prophecy of the
near coming of the Lord who brings life and deliverance
from destruction only to those who believe (x. 32-39) . That
this faith is confidence in what is hoped for, as well as a
firm conviction of the invisible, is now shown by the ex
ample of all the pious under the old covenant, to whom the
Scripture bears witness on account of their faith (chap.
xi.) ; the readers being called upon to fight a good fight in
the presence of these witnesses, looking unto Jesus who
presented the highest type of such faith (xii. 1-3). He
reminds them that the suffering and temptation they have
endured are only marks of the fatherly love of God, whose
purpose it is to lead them by His chastening to full partici
pation in His holiness (xii. 4-11) ; and exhorts them to rise
as one man from their despondency and to strive together
that the holiness of the Church, without which it cannot
arrive at perfection, be not defiled by individual apostates,
who, having incurred the guilt of Esau, must likewise share
his punishment (xii. 12-17). In conclusion, by a sublime
comparison between that which Israel gained with their

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 43
entrance into the new covenant, and what they had suffered
under the old one (xii. 18-24), he sets before them the
immense weight of responsibility they incur if they refuse to
listen to Him who speaks from heaven, who will soon shake
heaven and earth to bring about the final decision (xii.
25-29) .1
7. Before the author comes to the last positive admo
nition to which he is leading up, he takes a new start, as
if the final exhortation were concerned only with what is
necessary for all Christians. He admonishes to brotherly
love and its active manifestation, to the preservation of the
purity of marriage, to contentment and to confidence in
God (xiii. 1-6). But he returns immediately to the main
theme of the Epistle, exhorting them to remember those
who first preached the word of God to them, whose faith
they are to follow, because Jesus Christ whom they preached
remains the same for ever (xiii. 7f.). He now warns them
against the new doctrines by which in divers ways it had
been sought to prove that even without faith in the Messiah
and the grace of God mediated by Him, it was possible to
attain to the certainty of salvation, by zealous participation
in the Old Testament worship with its sacrificial feasts. In
accordance with the Old Testament ordinances themselves,
it was impossible indeed to partake of the altar of the new
covenant, since it was not permitted to eat of a sin-offering
1 It is manifestly with a view to instruction that the author does not
point the exhortation of the epistle directly to the final aim he has in
view. Just as he passed from the most general exhortation to the
hearing of the word preached by God's unique and final Ambassador, so
in the three leading ideas of his Epistle he warns them with increasing
urgency against apostasy and exhorts them to hold fast the Christian
hope in faith in the salvation procured by the Messianic High Priest ;
but only in the second is it intimated that His exaltation above the
Levitical priests proves that the Old Testament means of grace were
powerless to effect what had been done by this Priest, much less to
replace what is relinquished in giving up faith in Him ; while only in the
third leading idea is this estabhshed on all sides.

44 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
such as that by which Christ had led the nation to true
holiness. On the contrary, just as the bodies of sin-offerings
were burned without the camp, so Christ suffered death
without the gate. It was necessary therefore for them to
go forth unto Him bearing His reproach, viz. to give up all
social connection with the old covenant nation, as well as all
participation in their worship, looking for the future and truly
continuing city ; and only to seek to please God by offering
Him the fruit of their lips and by doing good as a thank-
offering (xiii. 9-16). The author thus gives expression to
what in his view contains the sole deliverance from the ever
growing dangers of the present, putting it with full inten
tion in the form of hints such as could not be mistaken by
those who understood and laid the arguments of the Epistle
to heart. Those with whom this was not the case were at
least not to be frightened back by a too emphatic statement
of this last consequence. He urges them to obey their
rulers, of whom he hopes that they will act in the spirit
of his Epistle, and commends himself to their prayers, not
without intimating that he has some doubt whether his
attitude towards the questions of the day will be universally
approved. He concludes finally with a full-sounding bene
diction (xiii. 18-21). An epistolary postscript again solicits
a friendly reception for his word of exhortation, makes a
communication with regard to Timothy, with whom he hopes
shortly to come, if their prayers on his behalf (xiii. 19) are
heard, salutes all the rulers and members of the Church,
sends greetings from some members of it who are at the
time in Italy, with whom he seems to have spoken when
there,1 and again concludes with a brief salutation (xiii.
22-25). 1 From this interpretation of the words ol &-iro rijs 'IraXlas, which is at
all events the most probable, it follows that the author was no longer in
Italy, as was formerly frequently held in connection with the view of
its composition during Paul's Roman captivity. But we have no data
for a more accurate determination of the place where the Epistle wai
written.

THE APOSTLE JOHN. 45

SECOND DIVISION.
THE REVELATION OF JOHN.

§ 33. The Apostle John.
1. John (Jehochanan or Jochanan, i.e. whom Jehovah has
graciously given) was the son of a fisherman at the Lake of
Gennesareth, of the name of Zebedee (Zebadia), who cannot
have been without means, since he carried on his trade with
hired servants (Mark i. 19 f.). Since James is in ancient
tradition always named before him, he seems to have been
the younger brother, Luke alone putting him first as better
known to him (Lnke viii. 51 ; ix. 28 ; Acts i. 13). Salome,
mentioned in Mark xv. 40 f. among the women who had
supported Jesus in Galilee and followed Him. to the
cross, is described in the parallel passage (Matt, xxvii. 56)
as the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Called from the
beginning along with the sons of Jonas into the circle of
Christ's constant companions, they afterwards appear with
Simon as the most intimate friends of Jesus in the circle of
the Twelve (Mark v. 37 ; ix. 2 ; xiv. 33 ; comp. xiii. 3) ; so
that they were bold enough to ask for the highest places of
honour in the consummated kingdom of the Messiah (x. 37),
a request which Matthew tried to impute solely to the
weakness of a mother's heart (xx. 20). When Jesus on one
occasion called them the Sons of Thunder (iii. 17), their fiery
temperament is shown in the zealous wrath with which they
wanted to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritan
village that refused to receive the Master (Luke ix. 54) ;
in the firmness of purpose with which they were ready
to suffer the worst for the sake of the highest they

46 THE APOSTLE JOHN.
coveted (Mark x. 38 f.) ; and in the intolerance boasted of
by John, with which they forbad the exorcist who would
not join the circle of the disciples, to use the name of Jesus
in casting out devils (Mark ix. 38) .
The fourth Gospel by no means justifies the conclusion that the family
were not located at the Lake of Gennesareth, as Caspari maintained
{chronol. geogr. Einl. in d. Leoen Jesu, Hamburg, 1869), since the
business transactions of the father might easily have led to John's being
known (naturally among the servants) in the house of the high priest
Annas (John xviii. 15). There is no doubt that the younger of the sons
of Zebedee is the unnamed disciple of the fourth Gospel, who had already
been a follower of the Baptist and had come into the company of Jesus
at the Jordan (John i. 35-40). He seems to have returned with Him to
Galilee, to have accompanied Him on His first journey to the feast and
during His ministry of baptism in Judea, as also in His journey through
Samaria (John ii.-iv.), for which reason Mark too (i. 19 f.) seems to have
taken it for granted that Jesus, in the beginning of His Galilean ministry,
called him with his elder brother to be His constant companions
While early tradition only makes him one of the three confidential
friends, he appears here as the disciple for whom the Lord had a special
affection and to whom at the Last Supper He gave the place of honour
at His right hand (John xiii. 23 ; xx. 2 ; comp. xxi. 20). Here too his
ardent devotion to the Master impels him first to follow Him into the
palace of the high priest, and then to remain by the cross when all had
left Him (xviii. 15 ; xix. 26). Assuming, as is natural, that the three
women in John xix. 25 are the same mentioned in early tradition, and
that ilapta ij tov KXwirS cannot be the sister of Jesus's mother, since
two other sisters have the same name, it is far more probable that
Salome was this sister and the sons of Zebedee therefore cousins of Jesus
(comp. Weiseler, Stud. u. Krit., 1840, 3). This is the best explanation of
the fact that these two brethren with Simon, formed the closest circle
of the confidential friends of Jesus, and that they ventured on a request
such as that in Mark x. 37, as also of the intimate relation of Jesus to
the younger of them, to whose filial care He confided His mother even
from the cross (John xix. 26 f.).
But while the elder brother played so prominent a part
in the primitive Church that the enmity of the Jews cost
him his life earliest (Acts xii. If.), the passionate love
of John for his Master seems to have found satisfaction
in exclusive devotion to Him and loving absorption in His
nature. He was not adapted for active outside work; the

THE APOSTLE JOHN. 47
Acts show him only in pliant dependence on the forcible
and predominant nature of Peter (iii. i. 3 f ., 11 ; iv. 13, 19 ;
viii. 14). At the so-called Apostolic Council (Acts xv.)
he is quite in the background, although Paul names him
among the pillars of the Church (Gal. ii. 9). During Paul's
first visit to Jerusalem he must have jeen temporarily
absent (Gal. i. 19) ; but the fact that he is not mentioned at
all on his last visit (Acts xxi. 17 f.) only shows that he was
not the leading personality there. He seems never to have
resolved on independent missionary work ; but when the
Epistle to the Hebrews was written, in view of the near
approach of the last revolutionary war, John must already
have been absent from Jerusalem for a considerable time
(§ 32, 1).
2. Early tradition unanimously points to Asia Minor and
Ephesus in particular, as the scene of the later activity of
John.1 He cannot indeed have transferred his abode thither
1 It is only in connection with the opposition to the fourth Gospel
that this tradition has lately been rejected as unhistorical, first by Liitz-
elberger (die kirchl. Tradition iiber d. Apostel Joh., Leipz. 1840), whose
exposition was at that time almost universally repudiated (but comp.
Weisse, Jahrb. f. wiss. Krit. 1840) as extravagant (comp. Schwegler in
the Theolog. Jahrb., 1842) ; then " with dazzling ingenuity and the full
pathos of certain victory " by Keim (Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, Zurich,
1867) ; who were immediately followed by Wittichen (der geschichtl.
Character d. Evang. Joh., Elberf. 1868), Holtzmann (Schenkel's Bibel-
lexicon, HI., 1871), Scholten (der Apostel Joh., Berlin, 1872), Schenkel
(1873), Weiffenbach (d. Papiasfragment, Giessen, 1874) and others,
(comp. especially Holtzmann in his Introduction). On the other hand
the Tubingen school proper (comp. especially Hilgenfeld in his Zeit
schrift, 1867, 1 ; 68, 2 ; 72, 3 ; 73, 1 ; 74, 3 ; 75, 2) has energetically re
pelled this criticism. Comp. even Liidemann, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol.,
1879, 3, also Renan, Krenkel (der Apostel Joh., Berlin, 1871), Overbeck,
Weizsaoker, Mangold, Volter and others. Whereas Ewald (Gott. Gel.
Anz., 1867, 41) would scarcely take it in earnest, it has been attacked in
detail by Steitz (Stud. u. Krit., 1868, 3 and Art. Joh. d. Presb. in Schen
kel's Bibellex., III., 1871), W. Grimm. (Zeitschr.f. wiss. Theol., 1874, 1),
Leuschner (das Evang. Joh., Halle, 1873), Luthardt (der Joh. Vrsprung
des 4 Evang., Leipz. 1874), Keil (Komm. z. Johannes Evang., 1884) and
others.

48 JOHN AND POLYCARP.
during the life-time of Paul, since neither the farewell
speech of Paul to the Ephesian presbyters (Acts xx.) nor his
Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and Timothy, make
any mention of him ; but of course it does not follow from
this that he may not have there found a new field for
his guiding and fostering activity after Paul's martyrdom.3
On the other hand the tradition respecting the abode of
John in Asia Minor goes back indirectly to Polycarp. For
in an Epistle to Florinus the companion of his youth,
Irenceus reminds him of the intercourse he had with Poly
carp in early youth, a thing still vividly remembered ; and of
the communications made by Polycarp respecting his asso
ciation with John and others who had seen the Lord (comp.
Euseb., H. E., 5, 20). So too Irenaeus holds up to the Roman
bishop Victor the conduct of his predecessor Anicetus, when
Polycarp appealed before him to John the disciple of the
Lord and the other Apostles with whom he had celebrated
the passover after the manner peculiar to Asia Minor (comp.
Euseb., H. E., 5, 24). Finally we are also indebted to
Polycarp for the narrative of John's meeting with Cerin
thus, when the former, quite in the spirit of the synoptical
Son of Thunder, fears lest the bathing-house should fall upon
this enemy of the truth (Iren., adv. Heer., III. 3, 4, comp.
Euseb., H. E., 3, 28 ; 4, 14). With respect also to Papias of
Hierapolis, Irenaeus states that he had been an dfcovoTqs of
John (adv. Hair., V. 33, 4) ; while Eusebius in his Chron. ad
8 There is nothing strange in the silence of the Petrine Epistles re
specting him even if they are spurious, since they too in accordance
with the presumption they imply, belong to a time antecedent to the
activity of the Apo stle in Asia Minor. The fact that Ignatius of Antioch,
who is not made his disciple until the 4th century, does not mention
him in his Epistle to the Ephesians, can prove nothing to the contrary,
since he only alludes to Paul because he too had come to the Ephesians
on his way to death (xii. 2) ; and in xi. 2 expressly assumes that the
Ephesians had other Apostles dwelling among them besides Paul. Poly
carp of Smyrna in his writing to the Pauline Church at Philippi had
no occasion to mention him whatever.

PAPIAS AND THE TWO JOHNS IN EPHESUS. 49
Olymp., 419, 2 also describes him as auditor Johannis.3
Among the presbyters regarding whose utterances Papias
had made inquiry from their companions, he names first, it
is true, a number of Apostles who were already dead at the
time when he instituted his enquiries (tl 'AvSpe'as r) tl IIo-pos
tiffcv rj ti <3?iAwnros r) tl ®G>p.as r) 'IaK(o/?os r) tl- 'IaiaW^s ri
MoT^atos fj tis eTepos tcov tov Kvpiov pLaB-nriav),* and afterwards
the disciples of the Lord who were still alive (are 'Apio-TiW
koi o wpeo-/?urepos 'Iaiavnjs, oi tov Kvpiov p-aOrrral Xiyovo-iv), of
whose utterances therefore he was able to learn most (ap.
Euseb., H.E., 3, 39). But just as it does not follow from
the fact that he rests chiefly on their traditions, that he had
personal intercourse with them, so these inquiries do not
justify the conclusion that John was not among the pres
byters from whom according to the beginning of the Frag
ment he still received personal instruction, though only in
his earliest youth (oo-a irork rrapa. t<Sv TTpecrfivTepoiv KaAus ep,a-
6ov Kal KaXcos Ip.vrjpwveva-a.') ; so that Irenaeus may be right in
calling him axowmp 'IoidWov.
In order to shut out this possibility and to be able to contest the abode
of the Apostle John in Asia Minor, the expression -n-peo-fSirepoi has been
made to refer only to Apostolic disciples or even to Elders of the Church
(comp. Weiffenbach ante, also Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1877, 2, 3), although
Papias evidently understands by them the men of the first Christian
generation who in his day were gradually dying out, with whom in the
* On the other hand the latter certainly thought it necessarily followed
from the preface of Papias to his Exegeses of the Lord's words, that he
had not been an aKpoaj-ns Kai abr6irT7js of John, but an a&r-rjKoos of Aristion
and the Presbyter John, in support of which he appeals to the fact that
Papias cites many traditions of these very two (H. E., 3, 39). Even Hil
genfeld recognised that this rests on a false apprehension of the words
of Papias (Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1875, 77).
4 Keim appeals to the fact that John is only mentioned among the
Apostles at the very last, and could therefore certainly not have been
intimately known to Papias, but it is quite easy to understand that
Papias should have named those two Apostles last from whose pen
evangelical works had been handed down and with whose oral sayings
he was therefore less concerned. Comp. § 5, 7.
VOL. II.

50 THE APOSTLE JOHN AND THE APOCALYPSE.
following passage he expressly reckons the Apostles and those immediate
disciples of the Lord who were still alive at his time. To deny this
it is necessary to distort the plain words {el 8i irov Kal -irap-ijKoXovBriKcht
Tis tois irpe<r§\>Ttpois 'dXBoi. robs tuv irpetT^vripav avixpivov Xoyovs, tI 'Avdp. f)
rl TLirpos elirev  iire 'A/mot.  Xiyovsw) to mean that he had
subjected to a careful examination the statements of the presbyters
respecting what the Apostles and the Lord's disciples had said. On the
other hand Leimbach (das Papiasfragm., Gotha, 1875, comp. Art. Papias
in Herzog's Beal-Encycl., XI., 1883) following Guericke, Hengstenberg,
Lange, Zahn (Stud. u. Krit., 1886, 4), Klostermann (Marcusev., 1867),
Riggenbach (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1868, 2) maintained that by pres
byters Papias understood only Apostles, and consequently that the
Presbyter John named together with Aristion was none other than the
Apostle, and that it was a mistake to make thiB Fragment refer to
another John. But Papias discriminates most clearly between the John
named among Apostles only, and the John so-called in distinction from
him from his position as ruler of the Church, who could not possibly
have been described along with Aristion as a disciple of the Lord, such
as the previously named Apostles certainly were, if only in a wide
sense. It is thus established that there were two disciples of the Lord
of the name of John, one of whom was the Apostle, the other a mere
presbyter ; moreover two graves of John were still shown at Ephesus in
the time of Dionysius of Alexandria (Euseb., H.E., 7, 25).
3. The indirect testimony of Justin Martyr, who as
cribes the Johannine Apocalypse to the Apostle, is of de
cisive importance for the credibility of the tradition of the
residence of the Apostle John in Asia Minor (§ 7, 4). The
author of this book says that he was in the island of Patmos
for the purpose of receiving the revelations imparted to him
(i. 9), and sent the record of them to the seven Churches of
Asia Minor with whose external and internal relations he was
accurately acquainted (i. 4), first to Ephesus the metropolis
of Asia Minor (i. 11), which therefore was probably his real
abode. It is true John does not call himself an Apostle
(i. 4 ; xxii. 8), but only a servant of Christ (i. 1), their
brother and companion in tribulation (i. 9) ; but Paul is
the Apostle of the Churches of Asia Minor to which John
writes, and he never writes to them with apostolic, but only
with prophetic authority (comp. i. 3, oi Xoyoi rrjs irpo<pryrz(as,

TRADITION RESPECTING THE ORIGIN OF THE WORK. 51
comp. x. 11). On the other hand the claim this self-desig
nation makes to be sufficiently intelligible to the circle of
readers, can only be explained on the assumption that this
John was none other than the Apostle, whose fiery spirit
(No. 1) moreover speaks plainly enough in the imaginative
description of the judgment of an angry God ; as also in the
fearful threats and enticing promises of the book.1 Papias
was already acquainted with the Apocalypse, and recognised
it as a prophetic book (§ 6, 7) ; and Justin's direct state
ment that it was written by John, one of the Apostles of
Christ (Dial., 81), is the more significant since his home was
in Palestine, and he had learned in his wanderings to know
the Alexandrian and Roman Churches as also that of Asia
Minor in which the book had its origin, equally well, and
therefore represented the universal tradition of the Church
of the 2nd century. As a matter of fact we know of no
other tradition respecting the book. Irensaus of Lyons, who
is able to appeal for the true reading of the number of the
Beast to the testimony of those who had seen John face to
face (adv. Heer., V. 30, 1) ; Clement of Alexandria and the
North African Tertullian (§ 9, 6) ; the Muratorian Canon
(§ 10, 2) and Origen (§ 10, 7) ascribe it to the Apostle. It
was only after Dionysius of Alexandria that doubts of the
Apocalypse cropped up in the Church (§ 11, l).a His view,
1 The fact that the Apostles are spoken of quite objectively in xviii.
20, which is said to imply that they were dead, cannot possibly prove
anything against the Apostolic composition, since the prophets, from
whose number the author can by no means exclude himself, are quite
as objectively spoken of in the immediate context. The appearance of
their names on the foundation-stones of the heavenly Jerusalem (xxi. 14),
only gives expression to the fact that the Church is founded on Apostolic
preaching, and has a sufficient parallel in the way in which the Apostles
are (in 1 Cor. xii. 28) characterized as the pre-eminent gift-bearers whom
God has given to the Church (comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10). The four-and-twenty
Elders who stand round the throne of God (Apoc. iv. 4), are by no means
the Patriarchs and Apostles in person, but the ideal representatives of
the Old and New Testament Churches of God.
2 The arbitrary criticism of the Antimontanist Alogi (Epiph., Hair.,

52 CRITICISM OF THE APOCALYPSE.
supported by the authority of Eusebius who was also a de
cided antimillen arian and ascribed the Apocalypse still more
confidently to the Presbyter John, gained such influence in
wide circles of the East that the book was refused admission
into the Canon then in process of formation ; on the other
hand the West never doubted its apostolicity and canonicity,
and the East also gradually overcame its doubts. But the
whole history of criticism shows that what gave rise to the
authenticity of the book being disputed, was, as in the
early Church, in some cases antipathy to its contents and
in others a partiality in favour of the other Johannine books,
whose genuineness it was thought impossible to maintain
if the Apocalypse were apostolic, until at last it has been
deemed impossible to dispute the residence of the Apostle
at Ephesus, for which the testimony of the Apocalypse
is decisive, unless the Apocalypse together with the other
Johannine writings be declared non-apostolic.
If the Apocalypse, on Luther's and Carlstadt's authority, was for a
long time reckoned among the Apocryphal writings of the New Testament
in the Lutheran Church of the 16th century (§ 12, 6), yet Luther made
no secret whatever of the fact that he could not reconcile himself to the
book, and could find no indication that it was prompted by the Holy
Ghost (Vorr. v. 1522) ; whereas Melanchthon employed it without hesita
tion. Zwingli also ascribed the Apocalypse to another John, while
51), to which Dionysius of Alexandria (ap. Euseb., H. JE., 7, 25) probably
refers, only proves their utter incapacity to understand the book ; and is
already discredited by the fact that they ascribe it to Cerinthus. That
this was done also by the Roman presbyter Caius and that he entirely
rejected the Apocalypse, is quite improbable (comp. § 10, 4). Its absence
from the Syriac Church-Bible affords no presumption against its Apostolic
authorship (§ 10, 1). It was perhaps not merely Dionysius' dislike of
the support it gave to the Millenarianism he opposed that influenced him
against it ; but in any case his criticism set out with the assumption
that the fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles proceeded from the
Apostle, and because it differed from these, he concluded that it was
spurious, whereas the Apocalypse is unquestionably earlier attested than
those later works, and is incomparably more in keeping with the his
torical figure of the Apostle. He was unable to appeal to a different
tradition respecting its origin.

CRITICISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 53
Calvin used it as apostolic and oanonioal. Theod. Beza defended it
against Erasmus who was the first to draw attention once more to the
doubts of ecclesiastioal antiquity respecting it ; while Bullinger vindicated
it against the objections of Luther ; John Gerhard expended great learn
ing in the defence of its apostolicity, to which the Arminians and Soci
nians also adhered. After a work (by F. Abauzit : Discourse Hist.
and Crit. on the Bevelation, London, 1730) put forth anonymously had
again stirred up the question and called forth some rejoinders, a violent
controversy regarding the Apocalypse was excited in Germany by Oeder's
book, Ghristlich-freie Untersuchung uber die sogen. Offenb. Joh., edited
by Semler in 1769, which after the manner of the old Antimontanists
once more declared it to be a work of Cerinthus foisted on John (comp.
especially the Apologies for the Apocalypse, by Hartwig and Storr, 1780,
83). J. D. Michaelis did not venture on a decision respecting its author
ship ; but the idea of the fanatical and heretical character of the book
was gradually abandoned by Merkel and Corrodi even on the rationalistic
side, Herder and Eichhorn again leading the way to an appreciation of
its aesthetic value ; since whose time the proof of its apostolicity has been
looked upon as newly confirmed. It was in the school of Schleiermacher
that the criticism of Dionysius was again taken up in favour of the fourth
Gospel, the position being adhered to that only the Gospel or the Apoca
lypse can proceed from John.3 Setting out with the same dilemma, and
returning to the criticism of Semler, but distorting it in the interest of its
construction of history, the Tubingen school made this very book, which
it interpreted as crassly Judaistic and anti-Pauline, the most genuine
monument of primitive apostolic Jewish Christianity ; and on the pre
sumption of its genuineness rejected the fourth Gospel. Volkmar alone, in
his Commentary (1862), represents the Apocalypse as having been com
posed in the spirit of John by an anti-Pauline writer. It is only those
oritics who contest the Ephesian residence of the Apostle who can refuse
to acknowledge his authorship of a book that manifestly had its origin
in Asia Minor, in which case it is of very little importance whether
with Scholten we hold that the author wishes to be taken for the Apostle

' Thus the Apocalypse was ascribed by Liicke (Versuch einer vollst. Einl.
in die Offenb. Joh., Bonn, 1832, 2 Aufl., 1852) and Neander to another
John ; by Credner, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek (Vorl. iiber die Apoc, Berlin,
1862), Diisterdieck (in Meyer's Komm., 3 Aufl., 1877), Wieseler (zur
Gesch. der NTl. Schriften, Leipzig, 1880), Schenkel, Mangold and most
others to the Presbyter John ; and in one solitary instance to John Mark
(Hitzig, iiber Joh Marc. u. s. Schriften, Zurich, 1843, whom Weisse fol
lowed). For mediating views, according to which it was another John
who wrote, or the Presbyter under the authority of the Apostle, comp.
Renan and Grau.

54 ABODE OF JOHN IN ASIA MINOR.
or not. But even on this supposition, the fact that the book has been
ascribed to the Apostle since the time of Justin is in favour of his being
connected with the Church of Asia Minor, as the Apocalyptic writer
indisputably claims to be. On the other hand the axiom which has been
regarded by criticism as decisive since Dionysius of Alexandria, viz.
that only the Gospel or the Apocalypse can proceed from the Apostle,
was first shaken by Hase (die Tubinger Schule, Leipzig, 1855); and
even apart from those who adhere as a matter of course to universal tra
dition respecting the Johannine writings, it has by many been fully con
tested. Compare Elliott, Horat Apocalyptical, London, 1851 ; Niermayer,
Verhandeling over de Echtheid der Joh.-Schr., Gravenhagen, 1852 ; and
in addition Lechler, in the Stud. u. Krit., 1856 ; BShmer, iiber Verf. u.
Abfassungszeit der joh. Ap., Halle, 1855 ; Gebhardt, Lehrbegriff der Apo-
kalypse, Gotha, 1873
4. The first direct witness for the abode of the Apostle
John in Asia Minor is Irenaeus of Lyons, who was equally
familiar with the Churches of Asia Minor and of Rome, and
who expressly says that John remained with the Church at
Ephesus until the time of Trajan (adv. Heer., III. 3, 4). For
this he appeals directly to the testimony of those presbyters
of Asia Minor who had formerly been conversant with John
the disciple of the Lord (III. 22, 5), as also in the same pas
sage for his inference (incorrect however) from John viii. 57
respecting the age of Jesus, and in V. 30, 1 for the correct
reading of Apoc. xiii. 18, as in V. 33, 3 f. for a prophecy of
Christ respecting the glory of the finished kingdom of God,
wliich Papias too is said to have confirmed in his exegesis.
He also puts the composition of the fourth Gospel by the
Apostle in the time of his stay in Asia Minor (III. 1, 1), and
therefore indirectly the epistles of the same author with
which he was acquainted. Hence Irenaeus must not only have
misunderstood what he had heard from Polycarp respecting
his intercourse with John (comp. No. 2), but must also have
misunderstood all the presbyters of Asia Minor, if he erro
neously referred what he had been told of the Ephesian
Presbyter John to the Apostle, as he is accused of doing
by those who contest the Apostle's abode in Asia Minor;

CRITICISM OF THIS TRADITION. 55
although he knew, at least from the writing of Papias, with
which he was familiar, that besides the Apostle there had
been another Presbyter John in Ephesus.1 But the account
of Irenaeus is by no means so solitary that it can rest on an
individual misunderstanding. For Polycrates of Ephesus,
who even in manhood was associated with Polycarp, and
of whose relatives seven were bishops in Asia Minor, in an
official writing to the Roman bishop Victor names John
who lay on the Lord's breast along with the Apostle Philip
among the pillars of the Church of Asia Minor, and states
that he was buried in Ephesus (ap. Euseb., fl. E., 5, 24) .3
1 If IrenasuB in writing to Florinus, the companion of his youth, and
the Roman bishop Victor, could appeal to Polycarp's references to John
in cases where such appeal could have no meaning unless this John were
the Apostle, though both might have known even from other sources with
what John Polycarp had been connected ; he must at least on thiB occa
sion have been enlightened as to his error. Attention has, it is true,
been drawn to the fact that according to Eusebius Irenseus did actually
err in making Papias, who was only a disciple of the Presbyter John, an
okoiJottjs of the Apostle. But we bave seen that Irenseus was probably
right here, in opposition to Eusebius (No. 2) ; and in any case the state
ment is not due to a confusion of the two Johns ; but if it is a mistake,
it arose simply from the circumstance that Ireuseus assumed that because
the Johannine propheoy whioh he himself, according to adv. Hair., V.
33, 3 f., had received from apostolio disciples, had already been imparted
by Papias, he must have received it directly from the mouth of the
Apostle. It would indeed have been more suspicious if he had erro
neously traced back this prophecy as well as the whole Apocalypse to the
Apostle John instead of the Presbyter in question, as, for example, Steitz
holds ; but this opinion rests on a gross misunderstanding of the pro
phecy in question, and on a view with regard to the author of the Apoca
lypse which makes the testimony of Justin impossible (No. 3).
2 When he describes him as wearing the metal plate (rb ir£raXov) of
the high priest on his forehead, he plainly intends to intimate the high
position of chief pastor occupied by John in Asia Minor ; but when he
calls him pdprvs Kal 8iddo-KaXos, this points to the Apocalyptic writer and
the author of the Johannine Epistles just as the 6 iirl to o-ttjBos tov Kvplov
ava-ireo-tiv points to the Evangelist (comp. John xiii. 25). Appeal has,
it is true, been made to the fact that Polycrates confounds the Apostle
Philip, alleged to have been buried in Hierapolis, to judge from what he
tells of his daughters, with Philip the Evangelist (Acts xxi. 8 f.). But
apart from the circumstance that what is narrated of the daughters of

56 LEGEND OF JOHN'S BANISHMENT.
Even if it be said that the tradition of Asia Minor had an
interest in identifying the Presbyter John with the Apostle,
in order to raise the Churches of that place to apostolic rank,
which however they undoubtedly possessed already through
Paul, yet the view of the Apostle's activity in Asia Minor
was also shared by Alexandrian tradition at a time when a
high value was already attached to the apostolic origin of
Churches, and when therefore each Church was more likely
to claim this for itself than for others. Moreover Clement of
Alexandria in his work Quis Dives Salvus, relates the history
of the youth who was lost and found again, which he ex
pressly characterizes as well attested, and which assumes
that Ephesus was the proper abode of John. So too Apollo-
nius, in a polemic against the Montanists, appeals to John
the Apocalyptic writer, and tells of his having raised a per
son from the dead in Ephesus (comp. Euseb., H. E., 5, 18) .s
5. The idea of the Apostle's banishment to the island of
Patmos, which unquestionably arose from a false apprehen
sion of Apoc. i. 9 (comp. i. 2), first appears in Clement and
Origen of Alexandria.1 The former begins his narrative of
both is by no means consistent, and that the confusion may just as well
be on Luke's side, since Clement of Alexandria also speaks of the Apostle
Philip and his daughters (Strom., 3, 6) ; it is quite a different thing for
Polycrates to make what is told of the daughters of one Philip refer to
the Apostle, and for him to have regarded the Presbyter John who was
buried in his home as the Apostle of that name.
8 If, according to the ingenious conjecture of Steitz, this narrative is
nothing more than the mythical echo of the account of the saved youth
of whom we read in Clement, TiBrnKev . rlva 66.vo.tov ; 0ef riBv-qKev, and
whose conversion is described as a rpS-iraiov avaardo-eas ; the tradition
that could have been so distorted by myth already in the years 70-80 in
which time Apollonius wrote, must reach far back into the time of Poly
carp and the contemporaries of John. In any case it was as much a
matter of indifference to Clement where the scene of his story was laid as
of what John it was told, so that a confusion of names is here absolutely
precluded. 1 Hegesippus, who, according to Eusebius, H. E., 3, 20, told of the
persecution of the Church under Domitian, cannot have known of a
banishment of John, nor can his designation as pAprvs in Polycrates (No.

THE APOSTLE JOHN. 57
the rescued youth by saying that John tov Tvpdwov TeArarf
o-ai/Tos had returned to Ephesus from the island of Patmos,
although this has nothing whatever to do with the narrative
itself ; and the latter says that, according to tradition, the
Roman Emperor had banished him to Patmos (on Matt. xvi.
6). But when he appeals to the Apoc. i. 9 in support of
his statement, and expressly adds that John does not name
the emperor by whom he was condemned, it is clear that the
whole alleged irapaSoo-is has its origin in this passage of the
Apocalypse. Clement is naturally as ignorant of the name
of the Tvpawos as Origen ; but he is undoubtedly in favour
of Nero rather than Domitian. Tertullian too, according to
Scorp., 15, certainly refers the " relegatio in insulam," of
which he speaks in De Prcescr. Heer., 36, to the time of Nero,
and was already understood in this sense by Hieron., adv.
Jovin., 1, 26.s The later assertion, that it was Domitian who
banished him, manifestly rests only on the erroneous (comp.
§ 35, 4) view of Irenaeus, that the Apocalypse was seen under
Domitian (adv. Heer., V. 30, 3) ; and was also favoured by
the fact that banishments did actually take place under
Domitian (Dio Cass., 67, 14; 68, 1) ; but it never acquired
exclusive predominance.3 Whether the statement of Irenaeus
that John lived to the time of Trajan is indirectly confirmed
4, note 2) refer to his martyrdom. Irenseus tells nothing of it ; nor does
Hippolytus, although the latter mentions that John saw the revelation
in Patmos (De Christo et Antichr., 36).
8 At all events he transfers the sentence of exile to Rome, of which in
the former passage he says that there " apostolus Johannes, posteaquam
in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur. " The
legend of the boiling oil which he connects with it is like that of the
poisoned cup which he is said to have drunk (Augustine, De Sanctis,
Serm. 7), almost certainly taken from Matt. xx. 22 f. (Mark x. 38 f . ;
comp. xvi. 18), where reference is made to the baptism with which he
is to be baptized, and to the cup of which he is to drink.
8 Victorin v. Petav. goes back to Irenaeus when, in his Commentary on
the Apocalypse, he says that John, when he saw it, " erat in insula Pat
mos, in metallum damnatus a Domitiano Cassare ; " and Eusebius, H. E.,
8, 18, expressly refers to him for the fact that John was banished by

58 THE APOSTLE JOHN.
by Hegesippus is very doubtful ; * the anecdote handed down-
by Polycarp is more in its favour, for it assumes that John
was still living at the time of Cerinthus (comp. No. 2). In
itself, however, it is quite credible, and has at all events-
not been shaken by the latest attempts to impute to him.
an early death.5
Domitian (comp. Hieron., De Vir. III., 9), though quite erroneously, sine*
Irenaeus knows nothing of a banishment of John. In the same way
Eusebius has probably Clement of Alexandria in his mind when he says
in 3, 20 that John, according to ancient tradition, only returned to
Ephesus under Nerva, although Clement never mentions the emperor.
On the other hand Epiphanius (Heer., 51, 12, 33) puts the Patmos exile-
as early as the time of the Emperor Claudius, Dorotheus of Tyre under
Trajan, while Theophylact wavers between Nero and Trajan. Notwith
standing all this, the exile in Patmos has been defended as historical by
the adherents of collective tradition, of late also by L. Schulze and by
Keil (in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1881).
4 When Eusebius (ff. E., 3, 32) says that, according to Hegesippus,.
the Church remained a pure and spotless virgin until the time of Trajan,.
that it was only when 6 lepos tuiv diroo-rbXav x°Poi had in various ways
ended their lives and the generation of eye-witnesses had died out that.
the delusion of false doctrine had arisen and come forth without disguise
because there was no longer an Apostle alive, it seems to follow that at
least up to this time one Apostle was still alive. But from the words of
Hegesippus actually quoted in 4, 22, it only appears that he describes the
Church (perhaps only that of Jerusalem) as a virgin down to the time of
the Bishop Simeon (who suffered martyrdom under Trajan), because it
had not yet been corrupted by false doctrine ; so that Eusebius, who,
following Irenaeus, put his death in the Chronicon at about 100, might.
have been led to add the dying out of the Apostles as a reason. Epipha
nius quite arbitrarily makes the Apostle reach the age of 94, Chrysostom
of 120.
6 It is clear from No. 3, note 1 that Apoc. xviii. 20, xxi. 14 do not
prove that all the Apostles were already dead at that time ; nor is more
proved by the notice in the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos of the 9th
century, according to which Papias is said to have related in his exegesis-
that John was murdered by the Jews in fulfilment of Matt. xx. 20. For
apart from the fact that we apparently have here an interchange of the
two sons of Zebedee, this notice says nothing whatever with respect to
the time of such martyrdom, but is rather appended to the Ephesian
abode of the Apostle, who is said to have been still living there under
Nerva ; the martyrdom of John is moreover quite improbable, since Irenseus
and Eusebius, who had themselves read Papias, know nothing of it.
Respecting the alleged but equally worthless indireot testimony of Hera-

TRADITIONS RESPECTING JOHN'S END. 59'
Other later accounts of John betray only too clearly their mythical
origin. The touching picture in Hieron. ad Gal. vi. 16, according to
which the old man John, when he could no longer speak much, still had
himself carried to the Church-meeting and constantly repeated the words,
" Little children, love one another," but when asked why he always
repeated the same words, answered, " Because it is the command of the
Lord, and because it is enough to keep this one commandment," bears
quite the appearance of having been taken from the Epistle of John.
Tertullian already describes the Apostle as spado Christi (De Monog., 17) ;
in the Recension of the Ignatian Epistles we read that he died iv dyvda,
like the Baptist (ad Philad., 4) ; and according to Ambrosiaster (on 2 Cor.
xi. 2), he, hke Paul, remained unmarried. Hence he is frequently called
w&pBevos or rrapBtvios (comp. Hieron., adv. Jovin., 1, 26), which probably
rests on a misinterpretation of Apoc. xiv. 4, unless it was assumed ft
priori that this alone was worthy of the favourite disciple of Jesus. It
is only since the Nicene Council that he bears the surname 6 BedXoyos.
The expectation that he would not die (vers. 23) had its foundation in the
prophecy of Jesus (John xxi. 22) ; and when he nevertheless died, con
solation was found in the assumption that his apparent death was in
truth only a sleep (comp. Hieron., ante), an idea which was afterwards
more and more embellished in a legendary form (comp. August, in Ev.
Joh., tret. 124).

§ 34. The Composition of the Apocalypse.
1. The Adyoi Trpo<prjTeLas of this book, like all prophecy,.
have a hortatory and consolatory purpose ; they are intended
to be kept (i. 3 ; xxii. 7) ; they are meant for the strength
ening of patience and faith (xiii. 9f. ; xiv. 12 f.), to give
comfort and courage by their promises (xix. 9 ; xxii. 12 f.).
In the seven epistles in particular (chap. ii. 3) the general
substance of the book is adapted to the consolation and
exhortation of readers and to their special needs. But
the proper and leading aim of the book is the unveiling
of the future (i. 19 ; iv. 1 ; xxii. 6) ; a particular inscription
characterizes it as an diro/caAui/as effected by Jesus Christ
(i. Iff.).1 In so far it adheres more to the later prophets,
cleon for the martyrdom of the Apostle (ap. Clem., Strom., 4, 9) comp.
Grimm, Zeitschr. fiir wiss. Theol., 1874, 1.
1 This expression has nothing whatever to do with the designation of

60 APOCALYPTIC CHARACTER OF THE REVELATION.
as Ezekiel, Zechariah and Daniel (comp. ii. 19 : ™ Aavir/X iv
lpdp.aTiTr)s vu/ctos to p,vcrTrjpLov a.rr<-KaXv<pQr)) , without intending
by this self-designation to imply a characteristic difference
from earlier prophecy. Just as the latter invariably con
ceives of the final consummation as immediately connected
with the present, whether as a consequence of the conversion
to which it calls the nation, or as a consequence of the judg
ments which it announces to the unrepentant people, so it
is in the present book. Its only purpose is to make known
what will shortly happen (a. Sei yevicrOai iv rd\a, i. 1 ; xxii. 6) ;
the time when these things shall be fulfilled is at hand
(6 Katpos eyyus, i. 3 ; xxii. 10) .2 It rests on the presumption,
¦common to the whole New Testament, that the second com
ing of the Lord, and with it the final consummation, is at
hand (tSov, epxop.at rayy, xxii. 7, 12, 20). Like all Biblical
prophecy, it is not a prediction simply of future events, but
it promises the fulfilment of the Divine decrees of salvation
regarding the future consummation, the way to which is
the second coming of Christ as an arroKdXv^K 'Irjo: Xptor. (1 Cor. i. 7).
So too the later designation of the book as diroKaXvifiis 'lwdwov only
•denotes that it was an unveiling by John of the secrets of the future.
Christ's second coming, in the sense in which the synoptical discourses
of Jesus and the apostolic preaching announce it, by no means forms the
proper substance of the book.
3 For this reason early ecclesiastical exegesis, which regarded the Apoca
lypse as a description, veiled in enigmatical symbols, of a series of world-
and Church-historical events extending over hundreds and thousands of
years (comp. Elliott, Horai Apoc, London, 1851), contradicts the most defi
nite utterances of the book itself. The principle of this false exposition is
not, however, overcome in the so-called imperial-historical interpretation
which finds in it not indeed the prediction of separate events, but a
representation of the great phases of development and of the potencies
directing the history of the Church and its relation to the kingdoms of
the world (comp. Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenb. Joh.,
Basel, 1854 ; 3 Aufl., 1874, as also the Commentaries of Hengstenberg,
1849-51, 1862, and Ebrard, 1853) ; nor is it got rid of in the final-
historical interpretation founded by Hofmann in Weissagung und ErfuU
lung and in his Schriftbeweis, which entirely severs the history of the
last time said to be described in it, from the author's present (comp. the
commentaries of Kliefoth, 1874, and Fuller, 1874).

THE COMPOSITION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 61
already prepared and pointed out in the present. In so far,
the Apocalypse can only be explained from the history of
the time, as the form in which it looks for the commence
ment of such fulfilment is necessarily conditioned by the
relations of its present, and therefore cannot be understood
without a vivid realisation of the relations of the time amid
which it was written.8 Its only peculiar characteristic is
that it expressly treats of the events which must take place
before the final consummation can begin; a thing already
found in the eschatological prophecy of Christ (Matt, xxiv.)
and in Paul (2 Thess. ii. ; comp. § 17, 7). For just as cer
tainly as it is an act of God that brings about the final con
summation, so certainly can this, because it is associated
with the last judgment, only enter in when all has happened
that can and must happen in order to bring the world tc
repentance ; and when the power that is hostile to God has
risen to the highest summit of evil. The Apocalypse must
therefore seek to interpret the signs of the time, that is to
say, it must look at the phenomena of the time in their
relation to the kingdom of God, and unravel the laws of a
divinely appointed development which even in them are in
process of fulfilment ; whence we see what phases it still
has to go through in order to reach the climax at which the
world has become ripe for judgment. From the religious
point of view it is a kind of philosophy of history to which
3 This view of the Apocalypse, supported by Ewald, Liicke, de Wette,
Bleek, and Diisterdieck, and the only correct one, because the only one
that is in keeping with the character of Biblical prophecy, is by no means
to be confounded with the old rationalistic view represented by Eichhorn,
Herder, and others, which regards the book either as containing only
fantastic pictures of events of the time, or poetio descriptions of the
victory of Christianity over Judaism and heathenism, and thus comes
into touch with the old ecclesiastical allegorizing, individualizing inter
pretation, as also with the abstract modern imperial-historical interpre
tation by which the pictures are explained away ; it cannot, however, be
denied that the time-historical interpretation has in the course of develop
ment fallen into many of the errors of rationalism.

62 ESSENCE OF APOCALYPTIC
Apocalyptic prophecy gives birth, though not in the form of
calm reflection but in imaginative intuition. Comp. "Weiss,
Apokalyptische Studien (Stud. u. Krit., 1869, 1).
It is not without justice that the Revelation of John has been classed
with the Prophet Daniel and isolated kindred phenomena of Apocryphal
literature (the Book of Enoch, 4 Ezra, the Sibyllines, the Apocalypse of
Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah and others) under the concept of Apoca
lyptic Prophecy. But the way in which Liicke for example still sought
to define its essence, remains uncertain in respect to individual features,
such as the visionary form, the universal historical character and the
pseudo-epigraphical method, which in some respects do not suit all these
writings and in other respects have not been proved to be in necessary
connection with their nature. It is the merit of Auberlen on the one
hand and of Hilgenfeld (die jiidische Apokalyptik, Jena, 1857) on the
other, to have attempted the latter task ; but whereas the former looks
on it as the most wonderful acme of prophecy given to the Church of
the future, as a light for the time destitute of a revelation, the latter
regards it as an imitation of old national prophecy. Thus both try to
explain the peculiarities to which Liicke had previously drawn attention ;
the one from an unhistorical conception of inspiration, the other by a
complete cancelling of the book's prophetic character.
2. The Revelation of John represents itself to be a series
of visions which the Prophet saw and in which he professes
to have heard many voices from heaven. What he had thus
seen, he wrote down at the command of Christ (i. 11, 29).
Since the seeing of visions was a form in which the prophetic
gift frequently manifested itself in Apostolic times, it would
be purely arbitrary to treat this statement solely as a lite
rary fiction ; the way in which the initial vision is intro
duced (i. 19 f.) with all details of time and place, in order
that the right of the Prophet to turn to the Churches might
be based on it, would in this case no longer be a mere literary
fiction but an actual pia fraus, in which light it was in fact
regarded by Eichhorn. Hence the visions which awakened
and confirmed in the author the hopes with which he en
courages and animates the Christendom of his time, were
actually due to Divine agency.1 On the other hand, Heng-
1 We must not here overlook the fact that divinely wrought vision

VISIONS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 63
¦stenberg's theory that the visions were recorded at the
moment of their reception, is entirely at variance with the
nature of visions ; i. 9 even seems to indicate that when the
seer wrote down the visions he was no longer on the island
of Patmos where he received them. But it is altogether
inconceivable in this case that he should have given a
minute account of such a number of varied and complex
visions and of them alone, as Diisterdieck supposes. On the
contrary he can only have reproduced and expanded in a
free literary form what had been imparted to him in such
visions ; nor does this at all diminish the prophetic value of
the Apocalypse, for the spirit of prophecy that inspired him
was by no means limited in its operation to such moments
of vision.2 Moreover an essential difference may be per
ceived in the visions themselves. Some are expressly
assigned to being ev nvcv/um, i.e. to ecstatic vision ; and
does not directly impart a knowledge absolutely supernatural, any more
than other forms of revelation. Because it is and remains a psycho
logical phenomenon, even when employed by God as a medium of His
inspiration, therefore the image seen in it, and the hope it awakens, can
only assume a form conditioned by the individuality of the seer and his
ideas of time and nationality. It would be quite arbitrary, however,
only to concede a secondary degree of prescriptive authority to the
Apocalypse on account of this visionary character ; or to hold exclusively
to those fundamental ideas that appear elsewhere without metaphor in
the Apostolic preaching, since the same thing applies to inspiration in
all its forms.
2 Only in this way can we explain the artificial plan and carrying out
of the whole work, or the palpable literary dependence on Old-Testament,
perhaps even Apocryphal types. Only in this way can we explain how
it is that in the delineation of the visions, we meet with traits that are
absolutely incompatible with the reality at least of an ecstatic visionary
state (i. 12, 17 ; v. 4; vii. 14; x. 4, 9f.). The author of the Apo
calypse is fully conscious of this free reproduction ; for the epistles he
is told to write by Christ who appears to him in a vision, all conclude
with the exhortation to hear what the spirit of prophecy says to the
Churches (ii. 7 etc. ; comp. xiv. 13) ; the description of the vision fre
quently passing directly and without intimation into prophetic discourse
(xi. 4-14; xiu. 5-10, 12-17; xviii 9-19; xx. 7-10; xxi. 24-27; xxii.
3-5).

64 SYMBOLS OF THE APOCALYPSE.
all these, viz. the Christophany of i. 12, the Theophany of
iv. 2, the apparition of the great whore in xvii. 3 and of the
heavenly Jerusalem in xxi. 1, as also the o~rjp.v.a introduced
by &<p6r) in xii. 1, 3, or the forms of the living creatures
in chap, xiii., apart from occasional poetic colouring, may
very well be regarded in this light. On the other hand
there are certainly visions that cannot at all be presented
as such because deficient in all objective plasticity, such foi
example as many of those consisting of seals, trumpets and
vials.3 These can only be regarded more or less as literary
composition; the images outlined in them being only the
form in which the Apocalyptist expresses his prophetic con
ceptions. To such undoubtedly belong the introductory and
intermediate scenes which invest the whole with such ful
ness of dramatic life and such wealth of poetic imagery.4
The book must therefore be taken as a prophetic work based
on visions imparted to the prophet, and yet nevertheless,
as it lies before us, be treated as a free literary production.
3. The form of the symbol corresponds to the way in which
the revelations of the Apocalypse are presented in visions.
That only which from its nature is visible, can be seen ;
hence the ideas the seer wishes to evoke, must be embodied
in symbols. The figurative language of the East and the
Liicke already perceived that many images of the Apocalypse have
something extravagant and monstrous, which he attributed to the
striving after the things of the next world and the super-terrestrial, and
to the consideration of the world as divested of its present form. Others,
as de Wette, censured the imagery as an offence against aesthetics, over
looking the fact that it aims only at symbolical significance and not at
aesthetic effect. It is true, however, that many images plainly reveal the
motive of their composition ; and by this very means betray the me
chanism of their structure, which however leads to no clear result.
4 The prophet certainly heard heavenly voices in the visions that he
saw ; but here too the striking reminiscences of the Old Testament
show how much of this literary matter is subordinate in the visions of the
Book. In the introduction we have for example the old prophetic Xtyei
6 xipios (i. 8) ; and at the conclusion words of Christ (xxii. 12-16, 20),
even where no intimation is given that they were heard in a vision.

SYMBOLISM OF THE APOCALYPSE. 65
symbolism of the Old Testament worship supplied the
means to this end. Any phenomenon of nature or of human
life that suggests a particularly vivid image is stamped as a
symbol of it ; so too it is customary in the East to employ
symbol in describing events that from their supersensuous
or future character elude direct intuition. This symbolism,
having once become necessary for the delineation of visions,
passes over into the language of the Apocalyptic Epistles
as poetic embellishment.1 From a series of significant, sym
bolical traits, freely-formed pictures are constructed, the
meaning of which can only be perceived from a combin
ation of all these individual traits. Even such allegorical
forms may be the plastic expression of a general idea, just
as the three Apocalyptic riders of chap. vi. represent blood
shed, famine and universal death ; or they may be ideal
representatives of that which in reality is only conceived in
its genesis or is to be condensed out of the endless diversity
of aspect into unity of presentation. Thus the twenty-
four elders around God's throne represent the Church as it
stands before the face of God, completed from eternity, while
the four living creatures represent collective creation. But
these allegorical forms are usually images of terrestrial or
super-terrestrial realities which are meant to be thus charac-

1 All that is brilliant in nature, the glitter of the sun or of gold, the
lustre of precious stones or of pearls becomes an emblem of the Divine
glory ; all that is terrible in nature, lightning and thunder, the roar of
the tempest and the whirlwind, hail and earthquake, emblems of the
Divine justice. The horns are symbolical of power, the eyes of omni
science, the white hair of eternity, the diadem of supremacy, garlandB
and palms of victory, incense of prayer. The symbolism of colours and
of beasts is especially common ; white is the colour of purity, fiery red
is blood colour, black the colour of mourning, paleness the colour of
fear ; lion and lamb, eagle and serpent, dragon and beasts appear as
emblems of the qualities they represent. So too the symbolic acts of
sealing and unsealing, the blowing of the trumpet and the casting down
of the stone, the gathering of the harvest and the pressing of the wine,
are immediately intelligible.
VOL. H. *

66 TYPOLOGY OF THE APOCALYPSE.
terized according: to their innermost nature.2 The mode of
presentation most characteristic of the Apocalypse is typology.
If we assume that the Church of the New Testament is only
the continuation and completion of that of the Old Testa
ment, for which reason it always appears as the nation of the
twelve tribes gathered round their king who is enthroned on
Mount Zion, the history of the former is throughout a typical
prophecy in relation to the destinies of the latter. Her
seducer is said to be Jezebel ; her specific enemy, Babylon.
Hostile hosts continue to press forward from the Euphrates
and assemble at Megiddo ; while the final victory of the
Messiah over the enemies of God is completed in a great and
decisive battle. The deliverance of the primitive Church is
painted in colours taken from Israel's deliverance out of
Egypt ; the final exhortations to Israel to repent are given
through Moses and Elias whose fate seems to be modelled
on that of Christ. The plagues which come upon the world,
and from which believers are preserved, are copied from
those of Egypt from which Israel was delivered ; and withal
we have the plague of locusts and that of hostile armies, but
exaggerated by their demon origin in such a way as to
transform all that was figurative in the prophetic deline-
3 Many of these allegories are explained by the Apocalyptist himself,
others are intended to be and are easily recognised from their signifi
cant features. The first rider in the 6th chapter, as also that of the
19th, denotes the victorious returning Messiah, the form of the Son of
man in chaps, i. and xiv. the exalted Messiah, the dragon of chap. xii.
Satan, the woman clothed with the sun in chap. xii. the Old Testament
theocracy, the temple and its fore-court in chap. xi. believing and un
believing Israel, the bride of the Lamb the completed Church. The two
beasts in chap. xiii. are the Roman empire and the heathen false pro
phets, the whore is the metropolis of the world. These allegorical forms
are just as much misinterpreted when regarded as representations of
abstract ideas that are dissevered from the ground of reality as when
they are made to refer to particular historical events ; whereas their
specific meaning consists in the very fact that they denote the deepest
essence of a phenomenon which on this account is often unfolded in a
wealth of particulars.

TYPOLOGY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 67
ation, into fearful reality. The typology of the Apocalypse
culminates in the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem, in which
the abode of the blessed appears as the holy city of the
twelve tribes described with all the splendour of symbolism
as the habitation of the Divine presence and the site of
Paradise regained.3 The Apocalypse has not indeed a sym
bolical, allegorical or typical meaning throughout ; the gor
geous colouring, the change of scene or imagery, of heavenly
forms and voices, serves in many cases only as fanciful
adornment. The use of a devised number only subserves
the predilection for the concrete and plastic ; though the
choice made has frequently a symbolical or typical
meaning.4 3 This typical imagery enables the Apocalyptic writer to give concrete
fulness of life to those future events which he neither knows nor claims
to know. He does not profess to foretell what will be, after the
manner of heathen divination, but to depict the nature of it. He
describes the visitations and Divine judgments familiar in the history
of Israel, but always enhanced with new terrors ; and portrays Israel's
experiences of grace, but more glorious in repetition. To apply these
images, which were only modelled after the typical pattern, to separate
historical phenomena, has been the great mistake of that allegorical
interpretation common to the old ecclesiastical and the rationalistic
views of the Apocalypse.
4 The author is fond of giving clearness to abstract ideas of mul
titude and size, smallness and shortness, the whole and its parts, by
concrete numbers. A short time is now half an hour, now an hour, and
again ten days (viii. 1 ; xvii. 12 ; ii. 10) ; a small part is a tenth part ;
a larger part a fourth; a still larger, a third (xi. 13; vi. 8; viii. 7ff.).
All that is Divine or represented as divinely fulfilled bears the sign of the
number 7 ; the broken 7 (3 J) has since Daniel been the characteristic
designation of the last time of trouble, which is estimated in years,
months and days ; and from which, erroneously regarded as chrono
logical, the old misconception of the Apocalypse reckoned the last day.
The cosmic number is 4 ; 10 with its potentiality represents abundance ;
12 remains the mark of the Church of God on the basis of Apocalyptic
typology, and with its multiples dominates the description of the
heavenly Jerusalem. So too the numerical puzzle of xiii. 18, pro
posed for guessing the name whose letters taken in their numerical
value give the number 666, evidently interests the author by the pecu
liarity of this number. Strangely enough a gematrian art has been often
seen in it, suob as would not have been expected from a simple Apostle.

68 UNITY OF THE APOCALYPSE.
4. The Apocalypse forms an artistic whole. Just ai
Grotius formerly sought to reconcile the different views re
specting time and place of the Apocalypse's composition by
the theory that different parts were composed at different
times, partly in Patmos and partly in Ephesus, so Vogel
(Comm. VII. de Apoc. Joan., Eri., 1811-16) attempted to re-
concile the diverse opinions respecting the author by dividing
the separate parts between the Apostle and Presbyter. Nor
could Schleiermacher discover any connection between the
different visions proceeding from different times. But after
Bleek had expressly withdrawn his view that the second
part was of later origin than the first (Deri. Theol. Zeitschr.,
Bd. II.) , the unity of- the Apocalypse was held as fully
established down to the most recent time.1 The theory of
a recapitulation originated by Tichonius and Augustine,
virtually indeed gives up unity of composition in the
Apocalypse. According to it the single visions have no
internal connection, but only repeat in substance the same
thing in another form. Vitringa has made the most con
sistent attempt to carry out this recapitulating parallelism
(Anacrisis Apoc. Jba.,ap.Francof.,1705; Amstel., 1719); while
Hofmann and Ebrard who divide it into four sections or
visions occupy essentially the same standpoint ; as does also
Hengstenberg who divides it into seven groups. Eichhorn,

1 In pursuance of a hint from Weizsaoker, Vblter (Enstehung der
Apokal., Freiburg i. B., 1882; 2 Aufl. 1885) again attempted to find a
threefold elaboration of the primitive Apocalypse of the year 65-66, to
which the Apostle himself is said to have added an appendix in 68-69,
made in the time of Trajan, the years 129-30 and 140. Though set
ting out with the correct view, that the prevailing conception of the
united authorship of the Apocalypse is untenable, he has carried the
dissecting scissors into verses and parts of verses and applied to the
doctrine and representation of the book rules for discovering the various
authors, which are by no means adapted to its rich imaginative colouring,
nor yet to its eclectic use of the Old Testament or contemporary figures.
The uncertain foundation of his positive assertions is however shown by
the far-reaching diversities of the two editions.

PLAN OF THE APOCALYPSE. 6&
after the example of Parens (Komm., 1618) and Hartwig
(Apologie der Apoh., Chemn., 1781) declared the Apocalypse
to be a drama which after a prelude (iv. 1-viii. 5) repre
sents in three acts the victory over Judaism and Hea
thenism, as also the heavenly Jerusalem. But he is obliged
to confess that the description of a witnessed drama is
no drama whatever. The change of scenery and figures,
of speech and song, of symbolical acts and events, which
gives the book such dramatic power and life, is consistent
with the representation of the whole in visions.2 Since the
prophet was instructed in the first vision to write down what
he had seen for the seven Churches, all are virtually agreed
in regarding chaps, i.-iii. as an introduction to the whole.
With regard to the great majority of the visions, however,
Liicke adopted the view of a certain fluctuation between
pragmatically advancing and parallelizing recapitulation ;
while de "Wette discerned two development-series, the second
of which was supposed to begin with chap. xii. (according
to Volkmar, with chap. x.). But Bleek, Ewald, Diisterdieck
and Kliefoth (comp. also Rinck, Apohalypt. Forschungen,
Zurich, 1853) were the first to formulate with increasing
artificiality the conception that the visions might be resolved
into one continuous vision ; and it was only on account of
the apparent impossibility of carrying out this theory that

* Because the book is based on actual events, Diisterdieck calls it an
epic, ignoring the free elaboration that lies at the foundation of the
visions (comp. No. 2) ; while in strange self-contradiction he compares
it with Dante's Divina Commedia. Liicke was altogether in a false
position when enquiring into the " literary art " of the book ; for the
description of visions, such as was customary with the old prophets and
the Apocryphal Apocalypses, supposing that the author actually saw
such visions, is not a literary art. But to say that the book was an
Apostolic Epistle because the whole of it was adapted to the readers
by a written introduction (i. 4^-8) and conclusion (xxii. 18-21), was quite
a mistake, for the very reason that it has a peculiar inscription (i. 1-3),
which such Epistles never have.

70 DIVISION OF THE APOCALYPSE.
doubt was again thrown on the unity of the Apocalypse
(comp. Note 1).
This artificial distribution according to which the various parts of the
vision only seem to lead up to the end, while new developments are
again allowed to intervene, is accounted for by assuming that the object
was to keep expectation as to the nearness of the end continually on
the stretch, and to exercise the Christian in patient waiting. This view
moreover seems to have some support in the way in which the seven
trumpet- visions may be understood as unfolding themselves from the
last of the seven seals. Yet the section chap, xii.-xiv. which comes
between these and the seven vial- visions, is by no means a mere ex
position of what follows, but goes far beyond it, especially in chap. xiv.
The insoluble contradiction remains, that the end is again and again
announced as coming (vi. 17 ; x. 6 ff. ; xi. 18 ; xiv. 7 ; xix. 7) and yet as
a matter of fact does not come ; that the heavenly temple which the seer
already beholds in viii. 3, is in ix 19, xv. 5 again opened. To say that
a whole series of scenes is proleptic (as for example the 2nd half of chap.
vii. ; chap. xi. ; chap. xiv. 14-20 ; xix. 1-10) is only to admit that they
are just as much out of place in the representation of a development
progressive in time, as are the numerous alleged intervening scenes and
resting points. The change of scenery and ground, the appearing of
the same persons under different images and of the same images for
different persons and things in the same vision, is somewhat bewildering
and out of character. This view gives the impression of a refinement
of ingenuity of which the simple Apostle would justly be considered in
capable, especially as set forth by Rinck who includes all in one great
jubilee period, and by Ewald who elaborates a confusing play on num
bers ; nor has it an analogy in any Apocalyptio writing.
The very fact that the calling vision at all events forms
a part by itself makes it exceedingly probable that single
visions are distinct from each other in what follows. On
this point the older view was indisputably right ; for as a
matter of fact seven visions are most clearly separated by
distinct superscriptions, by introductory scenes, by change of
ground and the opening of new scenery. The older view
was at fault only in supposing that these visions stood side
by side without any connection and contained the same
thing ; whereas each one in skilful gradation stretches the
expectation in some point to what follows, which again com-

ANALYSIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 71
pletes some new particular in the development, each leading
surely on until the end is actually reached, and making this
itself even clearer and more definite. We do not by any
means deny that this composition is closely connected with
the way in which the visions had unveiled the future to the
author himself with growing clearness and particularity.
Comp. Weiss, Apocalyp. Stud. (Stud. u. Krit., 1869, 1).
5. The superscription not only denotes the substance
of the book, but also tells how the author arrived at it,
and urgently impresses it on the heart of the readers (i.
1-3). In the epistolary introduction the benediction is
expressed in a peculiarly trinitarian form ; it ends with a
doxology to Christ, to which is attached as it were a motto
for the whole book (i. 4-8). Theirs* vision is that of the
calling (i. 9 — iii. 22). The exalted Christ appears to the
seer as the heavenly High Priest in the midst of the seven
Churches and tells him to write a letter to each of them ; in
which in solemn conformity judgment is pronounced on each
one, promises or threats being dealt out respectively. These
Epistles by their imagery point forward in many ways, es
pecially in their promises, to the visions that follow, which
the seer is to write down for all. In the second vision the pro
phet is carried away in ecstasy into heaven (iv. 1 f.) directly
before the throne of God around which he hears resound
the praises of the four living creatures and the twenty-
four elders. On the right hand of God lies the great book of
the future which no man can unseal, until the slain Lamb
appears and receives it, whereupon He is greeted with songs
of praise from every creature in heaven and all creation (iv.
3-v. 14). He then begins to open the seals of the book; and
now follow the established starting-points already given by
Christ for all prophecy respecting the future : in the first
seal the promise of a victorious return ; in the three following
the three precursors of this return, war, hunger and pestil
ence, declared by Him to be the beginning of woes ; in the

72 ANALYSIS OF THE APOCALYPSE.
fifth His exhortation to the martyrs to have patience (comp.
Luke xviii. 7 f.) ; in the sixth the signs of the heavens pro
mised at the second coming, rightly interpreted by the inhabi
tants of the earth as forerunners of the great day of wrath
accompanying the destruction of the world (chap. vi.). The
scene that follows shows how the elect are sealed as a pro
tection from the plagues that were to precede this destruc
tion (vii. 1-8), and how the martyrs slain in the battles of
the last great tribulation triumph in heaven (vii. 9-17).
It is left to later visions to show what is meant by the
plagues and tribulation. When the seventh seal is opened,
and the whole contents of the book of the future are first to
be revealed, there is silence in heaven for a short space of
time (viii. 1) . In this vision the final ending still remains
completely veiled. The third introduces itself by a super
scription of its own as the vision of the seven angels of the
throne with their trumpets (viii. 2), and is ushered in by a
heavenly scene, which does not take place like the second in
the heavenly throne-room, but like the whole vision (comp.
ix. 13) in the heavenly sanctuary before the altar of incense
(viii. 3-5). The plagues announced in the former vision
under an entirely different image, from which the elect are
preserved, at the blast of trnmpets now come upon the
ungodly heathen world as a last but vain exhortation to
repentance ; the two great woes of the plagues of hellish
locusts and of hosts of demon-riders, of the 5th and 6th
trumpets, are depicted as the most terrible of God's scourges
(viii. 6-ix. 21). The prophet is warned by the voices of
thunder that he hears but is directed to seal up, and by the
little book that he is to devour but to keep with him, that
this time also he must be silent respecting the end to be
ushered in with the 7th trumpet (chap. x.). Then follows the
reverse side of the second woe, in which is described how,
after the deliverance of the believers in Israel, unbelieving
Israel is trodden under foot by the heathen during the last

ANALYSIS OF THE APOCALYPSE. 73
tribulation, but how God sends final exhortations to repent
even to them, and how in the great judgment of God that
then bursts forth a remnant of Israel at least is saved (xi.
1—13). With the sounding of the 7th trumpet the last woe
breaks in ; but we know already from chap. x. that this is
still kept secret, and only hear how the consummation that
accompanies it is celebrated in heaven (xi. 14-18). In the
description of the fate of the two last prophets the beast
ascends for the first time from the abyss (xi. 7), and strains
the expectation as to what such beast signifies.
6. This is first disclosed in the fourth vision which begins
with the opening of the whole temple of heaven even to the
heavenly holy of holies, amid voices of thunder and fearful
signs of judgment (xi. 19), when the seer first approaches
the concrete relations of its immediate presence. Hence
the more extended introduction. We see how the Messiah
is born of the Old Testament theocracy, and snatched away
to heaven from the pursuit of Satan. The victory over
Satan that is solemnized in heaven is thus won. The primi
tive Jewish-Christian Church is secured from his machina
tions in the wilderness for the last time of tribulation ; and
Satan sets out to war against the Gentile Christians (chap.
xii.). To this end he fits out the two beasts, the blasphemous
empire, whose deadly wound is healed, and heathen false
prophecy, which now in the last time of tribulation go forth
to wage war against the Church (chap. xiii.). The Lamb
with His elect marches to meet him (xiv. 1-5). But the
final conflict is not yet described. An angel appears with
the eternal Gospel and announces the coming of judgment,
another foretells the fall of Babylon with which the great
judgment begins (xiv. 6-8) ; and imagination is again on
the stretch as to the relation in which this Babylon stands
to the former beast. But after fearful threats, and pro
mises which are intended as an encouragement to stand
fast in the last struggle (xiv. 9-13), the final judgment ia

74 ANALYSIS OF THE APOCALYPSE.
only depicted in symbolical imagery (xiv. 14-20). A new
superscription describes the fifth vision as that of the seven
vials of wrath (xv. 1). It is introduced by a heavenly scene
(xv. 2-4) and begins with a renewed opening of the heavenly
temple (xv. 5). The pouring out of the first five vials
brings an aggravation of the plagues of the third vision
which now appear as the ushering in of the last great judg
ment of wrath (xv. 6-xvi. 11, comp. xv. 1). With the 6th
the Euphrates is dried up and the kings of the earth assem
bled for battle at Harmagedon (xvi. 12-16); expectation
being once more strained as to the meaning of this last
struggle. Finally the 7th ushers in the actual beginning
of the end with the fall of Babylon (xvi. 17-21). In chap.
xvii. desolated Babylon is shown to the seer; he learns
its meaning, its relation to the beast, how it comes to be
destroyed; and in chap, xviii. hears the lament of the
inhabitants of the earth over it. In heaven the hal
lelujah announces that with its downfall the last great
judgment of God has begun, and that the consummation has
come (xix. 1-10). Once more the heavens open for the sixth
vision, and now the returning Christ comes forth with hia
armies of angels to the final struggle and victory over the
two beasts and the kings of the earth who are in league with
them (xix. 11-21). After this the Devil is shut up in the
bottomless pit ; the earthly termination follows in the mil
lennium, and after the last assault of the enemies we have
the decisive victory over the Devil and the last judgment
(chap. xx.). But prophecy cannot end with judgment; the
destruction of the old world (xx. 11) necessarily requires
the description of a new one in which begins the completion
of salvation. The seventh vision also begins with a super
scription indicating the new world and the heavenly Jeru
salem as its subject (xxi. If.). Then follows again an in
troductory scene (xxi. 3-8) ; and now for the first time the
seer is caught away in ecstasy to a high mountain, from

LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 75
which he sees and can describe the descent of the new Jeru
salem, viz. its realization, prepared from eternity in the
decrees of God (xxi. 9-xxii. 5). Then follows the hortatory
and consoling conclusion of this vision, and with it of all the
rest (xxii. 6-17); as also the epistolary epilogue which con
tains a special warning against any alteration of the book
of prophecy by additions or omissions (xxii. 18-21).
7. The Apocalypse was originally written in Greek. It
is true that Harenberg and Bolten have supposed a Hebrew
original here also ; but the fact that it was designed for
Greek-speaking Churches of Asia Minor of itself refutes this
theory. The author in his A and O (i. 8) sets out with
the Greek alphabetical notation, speaks of precious stones
(xxi. 19 f.), measures (vi. 6; xiv. 20) and colours (vi. 3, 8;
xi. 17) by their Greek names ; is fond of using compound
words and adjectives for which there is no Hebrew equiv
alent (o-vv8ovXos, /jL£<TOvpdvr)p.a, rj/uuipLOV, Ovlvos, TaXavTiaws,
TETpayaii'os, rroTap-ocpop-nToi) and frequently follows the LXX.,
especially in the forms of the names. The adoption of
Hebrew words like a.p.r]v and aXXrjXovid is in keeping with
the solemn style of the Apocalypse : moreover they are ex
plained (ix. 11) or stated to be Hebrew (xvi. 6). The Greek of
the Apocalypse has often been said, in an exaggerated way,
to contain Hebraisms and solecisms (comp. Winer, De Sole-
cismus qui in Apoc. inesse discuntur, Erlang., 1825). That the
circumlocution involving the name of Jehovah which violates
every linguistic rule (i. 8 ; iv. 8), and is freely employed as
an indeclinable proper noun (i. 4), like the predicates of
Christ and of Satan (i. 5 ; xx. 2), or the masculine use of
axjtLvOos as the name of an darrjp (viii. 11), is not due to a
defective knowledge of Greek cases and genders, is ob
vious. The superfluity of expressions in repeating the sub
stantives instead of pronouns, of pronouns themselves and of
prepositions after the compound verb and entire clauses,.
also belong to the solemn style of the Apocalypse; the re-

76 LANGUAGE OF THE APOCALYPSE.
markable interchange of present, preterite and future is due
to the circumstance that the description of the visions fre
quently passes directly into prophetic discourse (No. 2). The
whole style of the book is Hebraistic in its thoroughly un-
periodic character, and in its simple joining of sentences by
xai, the frequent want of the copula, the putting of the verb
first, the avros after a relative clause or at the resumption
of participles, the separation of the relative and participial
clauses, as in the predilection for describing the cases by
prepositions. Proper Grsecisms that are wanting are the
gen. absol., the ace. with infin. and the infinitive with the
article; attraction occurs but rarely; and the use of the
singular with the neuter plural is fluctuating. On the other
hand we have the double negative, the impersonal use of
the 3rd person plural, and even the finer distinction of past
tenses. An improper use of later Greek occurs in the care
less employment of Iva and its connection with the future
indicative, the neglect of the finer distinctions in the em
ployment of the prepositions and in joining the cases with
prepositions and verbs. What is most anomalous is the use
of the participles, of participial or other appositions which
in the casus rectus are frequently found with a casus obliquus,
or stand quite irregularly and pass directly into relative
clauses, and of the extended use of the construotio ad sensum
in number and gender. To be sure we must not overlook
the fact that the text of the Apocalypse is very uncertainly
transmitted, and that many of these irregularities have mani
fest rhetorical grounds ; but in this we see most clearly that
the author does not enter into the spirit of the Greek lan
guage, that he employs a language originally foreign to him
without knowing or respecting the limits of possibility in
its use.

the historical situation of the apocalypse. 77
§ 35. The Historical Situation of the Apocalypse.
1. The seven Churches to which the Apocalypse is ad
dressed (i. 11) are the Churches of Proconsular Asia, in
whose capital, Ephesus, Paul had worked so long, and
where, since it is placed first, the Apostle John seems to
have his abode. Then follow Smyrna, situated somewhat
to the north in the territory of what was formerly Ionia ;
Mysian Pergamus still farther to the north ; then in a
south-easterly line the three Lydian cities Thyatira, Sardis
and Philadelphia ; and finally Laodicea in Phrygia.1 It is
generally taken for granted that all these Churches must
directly or indirectly be regarded as Pauline foundations ;
but this is by no means certain, for there were also in
olden times Jewish-Christian Church-foundations in anterior
Asia (1 Pet. i. 1 ; comp. § 15, 2 ; 18, 1 ; 25, 6) ; and in
point of fact our book shows (comp. No. 2), that although
without doubt preponderatingly Gentile- Christian, they were
by no means exclusively so. The inner relations presupposed
by the letters addressed to them, show their Christian life
in a state of decline and thus point to the later part of the
Apostolic period. Ephesus has relaxed in zealous Christian
brotherly love (ii. 4) ; Laodicea has become lukewarm ; in
over-estimating its Christian position it has given up earnest
striving (iii. 15 ff.) ; Sardis is for the most part dead,
lacking vigorous proof of a Christian state (iii. 1 ff.).
1 Church-history has indeed regarded them only as types of consecu
tive forms of the Church, as Vitringa held, or as being synchronous with
the last days, as Hofmann held ; while Ebrard seeks to unite both views,
although one is as arbitrary as the other. The reason that there are
seven is certainly not that there were no others in Asia Minor, since the
Churches at Troas, Hierapolis and Colosse, familiar from the history
of Paul, are wanting ; nor that these alone stood in relation with the
Apostle or required special admonition, against which the number seven
so important in the book militates ; but in the fact that the author
chose the number seven, in conformity with its import, as representative
of the whole Church for which his prophecy was designed.

78 INTERNAL STATE OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES.
These very phenomena lead to the inference that some
time had elapsed since the Apostle Paul had left his
former field of activity; and that the Churches had been
without definite Apostolic guidance ; that John therefore had
not had his home in them for long. But the most suspicious
thing was the appearance of apostles having a tendency to
libertinism, who not only declared the eating of flesh offered
to idols, but also fornication, to be permissible, and even
appealed to false prophecy and the deeper Gnosis in support
of their allegation (ii. 20, 24). Ephesus it is true had not
suffered the Nicolaitanes as the author calls them (ii. 6),
but Pergamus had tolerated them (ii. 14 f .) ; and in Thyatira
a false prophetess with her adherents had openly carried on
her mischievous seduction (ii. 20 ff., 24). Even the deadness
of Sardis, according to iii. 4, seems to be connected with the
influence of this tendency so fraught with danger to the
soul. This is easily explained by misapprehension and
abuse of the Pauline doctrine of freedom in Gentile- Christian
circles, such as might readily take place after the Apostle
had withdrawn from his field of work.2 Finally the fact
itself shows that a revelation, like that of this book, had
become a necessity, and was urgently impressed on the

3 Whether the name Nicolaitane was framed by the Apocalyptist
himself, or refers in some way to Nicolaus (Acts vi. 5) to whom the
Church Fathers traced it, we do not know. It was however incorrect
to seek in the adherents of the doctrine of Balaam (ii. 15) other
errorists than these. It is striking that criticism, though looking out
for traces of gnosticism everywhere in the New Testament, should
only recently have discovered such in ii. 24 ; for which reason it has
identified the libertines of our book with the Carpocratians of the second
century (comp. Volter). But if for the same reason an attempt has been
made to put the Epistles of Jude and 2 Peter, where this phenomenon
is manifestly combated, into the second century, it remains an undoubted
faot that in the Gospel of Matthew, so near to our book in time (perhaps
also in place), the very same libertine dvopla is attacked (vii. 22 ; xiii.
41 ; xxiv. 12). On the contrary the prophecy in 2 Tim. iii. 1-5 certainly
points to a universal corruption of morals, though not to such as con
sisted essentially in libertinism.

THEIR EXTERNAL CONDITION. 79
Church for the strengthening of their faith by animating
their Christian hope, causing a decline in their expectation
of the second coming, such as we have already fovnd pre
supposed in the Hebrew Epistle (§ 31, 3 ; 32, 2).
2. As to the external condition of the Christians, the
Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia, which must have been
preponderatingly Jewish-Christian, had much to suffer from
the synagogue. The former, like the Churches to which
the Hebrew Epistle is addressed (§ 31, 3), had been obliged
to suffer slanders, loss of property and imprisonment (ii.
9 f.) ; the latter had not only borne the enmity of tho
synagogue with patience, but in spite of its unimportance
had begun a successful mission therein (iii. 8 f.). Per
gamus in particular had suffered persecution from the hands
of the heathen; and during an outbreak of heathen fanaticism
against the Christians, Antipas, a prominent member of the
Church, had been slain (ii. 13). It seems as if here, at the
seat of supreme judgment and in face of the renowned
temple of Esculapius, whose altar can scarcely be intended
hy the 6povo<s tou o-arava, such an offering was first required.
But what stirred the mind of the author and his readers
most deeply were the misfortunes that had befallen the
Christian Church at Rome. The appearance of the citv
of the seven hills (xvii. 6) drunk with the blood of the
saints and martyrs of Jesus, and the characterization of the
fearful judgment that had come upon it as a direct punish
ment for what it had done to the saints, apostles and
prophets (xviii. 20), plainly shows the impression which the
horrors of the later time of Nero, viz. the persecution of the
Christians after the burning of Rome, and the martyrdom of
Paul and Peter had made upon the Church. Several years
however seem to have elapsed since this time, for according
to vi. 10 we find an expression of impatience that the
punishment for such sacrilege had not yet supervened ; but
there is no doubt that the impression they produced domi-

80 DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE.
nated the entire apocalyptic conception of the Apostle. It
is no longer unbelieving Judaism, though termed a synagogue
of Satan (ii. 9; iii. 9), that is the specific antichristian
power of the present, from which therefore its last and
highest potentiality and personification is to go forth, as
Paul had formerly supposed (§ 17, 7) ; but the beast from
the bottomless pit, which rises out of the sea (xi. 7 ; xiii. 1),
the Roman Empire, is the chief instrument of Satan. To it
applies the enigma that it was, and is not, and will be again
(xvii. 8) ; for since the allegorical form of the beast does
not denote the Roman Empire in its historical reality but
applies to its antichristian essence (§ 34, 3), it may be said
that it was, when the Roman Empire under Nero first
revealed itself in this antichristian character ; that it is not,
because the present ruler had so far shown no hostility to
the Christians; but that in future its whole antichristian
nature would be personified in the last emperor, and thus
bring on the judgment (xvii. II).1
3. The apocalyptic conception of the Apostle, combined
with the historical appearance of the Roman Empire, enables
us to arrive at a most accurate determination of the time
when he wrote. In the foreground of his historical view is
the world-stirring fact that the deadly wound of the beast
was healed (xiii. 3; xii. 14) -1 But since the beast received

1 The current application of this enigma to Nero, who though dead
will return from the bottomless pit as Antichrist, notwithstanding the
confidence with which it is usually put forward, rests merely on incorrect
exegesis ; for the beast is not a Roman Emperor, but the Roman Empire
collectively, and is only personified in the last of the emperors so far as
in him antichristian iniquity reached its personal culmination. That
the heathen Nero-tradition, in the form it assumed, gave no occasion
for this alleged Christian transformation has been fully shown by Weiss
(Stud. u. Krit., 1869, 1).
1 The current application of this imagery to Nero's return from the
kingdom of tbe dead (comp. No. 2, note 1) is quite untenable from an
exegetical point of view ; for Nero is not the beast, but one of its heads,
and the healing of the deadly wound is not future, but has already

THE HISTORICAL SITUATION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 81
the deadly wound at Nero's death, with which the old
Imperial Julian race became extinct ; since no one had full
and certain possession of the empire during the interregnum,
but as it seemed unable to go back to its former state of
security and thus continued to suffer from its deadly wound,
the deadly wound can only have been healed by Vespasian's
elevation to the throne on the 21st December, 69. For
since Vespasian was supported by his son Titus, a man ex
perienced in warfare, while a second son remained at a
distance, a foundation was laid for the new Imperial Flavian
dynasty, and the empire once more regained a firm footing.
This agrees perfectly with the fact that five of the seven
heads had already fallen (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Clau
dius and Nero), one (Vespasian) is, and the other (Titus)
is not yet come (xvii. 10) ? Attached to it is the apo
calyptic calculation of the end. For since the beast, in
which the four beasts of Daniel with their seven heads are
included has only seven heads, the Roman Empire also
according to Divine arrangement can only have seven
rulers ; the additional one, the eighth, is the personification
of enmity to God and can only attain supremacy by ungodly
means. As was so often the case in the struggles of the
interregnum, a revolution breaks out in all the provinces
at the same time against the seventh emperor ruling in the

happened. Whereas the last emperor in whom the antichristian nature
of the beast is personified, after having received the empire of the
world, at once begins the last conflict with Christ, in whioh he perishes
(xvii. 11, 13 f.), a space of 3} years is given to the beast with the deadly
wound healed, that he may strive with the Church of God during this
last time of tribulation (xiii. 5).
3 Since the emperors of the interregnum, which Suetonius also inter
prets merely as a rebellio trium principum, cannot here be reckoned,
the Apocalypse could not have been written under Galba, as Credner,
Ewald, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, Gebhard, Wieseler and most others hold,
that is about 68 ; but only in the beginning of Vespasian's reign, as
Eichhorn, Liicke, Bleek, Bohmer and Diisterdieck have already perceived,
therefore about the beginning of the year 70.
VOL. II. G

82 THE APOSTLE'S APOCALYPTIC COMBINATION.
world's metropolis who is destined to remain only for a
short time (xvii. 11) ; the governors of the provinces march
against Rome and destroy the city (xvii. 16), the supremacy
passing over to the last of the emperors who is of the
seven, and in Domitian, the third of the Flavians, already
stands within the seer's vision (xvii. 11) ; and he with his
supporters begins the last great persecution of the Chris
tians, in consequence of which judgment directly falls upon
him (xvii. 12 ff.). Comp. Weiss, Apohalyptische Studien
(Stud. u. Krit, 1869, l).3
4. The time of the Apocalypse is also definitely fixed by
the fact that according to the prophecy in chap. xi. it
was manifestly written before the destruction of Jerusalem,
which in xi. 1 is only anticipated.1 It is altogether incon
ceivable that a partial preservation of the temple should, in
most glaring contradiction with the transmitted prophecy
a The application of the numerical puzzle to Nero (xiii. 8), discovered
almost simultaneously by Fritzsche, Benary, Hitzig and Reuss, and
almost universally accepted, is highly improbable, since the book which
was written in Greek for Greek readers, and computes by the Greek
alphabet (i. 8) would hardly have made Hebrew forms of names and the
numerical value of Hebrew letters the basis of its reckoning, which for
this reason will never rightly fit in. But it falls to pieces when we
consider that we have here to do with the number of the beast, whieh is
not Nero, but the Roman Empire ; the name sought being certainly not
Bimply a proper name, but an indication of the nature characterizing
such name. Of late Volter has found the name Trajanus Hadrianus in
it ; whereas Iren reus, taking the numerical value of the Greek letters into
consideration, thought of Xarelvos.
1 That chap. xi. does not refer to the Christian Church, as allegorical
interpreters hold, but to the city of Jerusalem as the centre of the
people of Israel, is irrefutably shown by xi. 8. But even historical
exegesis is at fault in finding the destruction of Jerusalem, and again
only a partial destruction in xi. 13 ; for the judgment of God here pre
dicted falls immediately before the 7th trumpet, viz. before the last
judgment (xi. 14 ff.) and at the end of the great tribulation, during
which the heathen trample the holy city under foot, while God sends it
a final exhortation to repent (xi, 2) by the two prophets whose very
fate shows that the Roman Empire is supreme in the holy city (xi. 7).
Both however presuppose the conquest of Jerusalem, which must there
fore have been previously foretold.

THE JUDGMENT UPON JERUSALEM. 83
of Christ (Mark xiii. 2) be here foretold, which moreover
would have no connection whatever with the prophecy that
follows. Rather does the sanctuary in the midst of the
holy city, which is preserved from destruction by being
measured, refer to nothing else than believing Israel, un
believing Israel being represented by the forecourt.2 If the
abandonment of the latter to the heathen be prophetically
foretold, the conquest of the city by Titus must have been
directly at hand, and was already absolutely unavoidable.
This too points to the beginning of the year 70. While
the deadly wound of the beast was healed with Vespasian's
elevation to the throne and the last great tribulation ushered
in by the re-invigorated Roman Empire was to begin for
Gentile-Christendom ; Israel's great tribulation, which is
likewise its last time for repentance, begins with the con
quest of Jerusalem. Such is the position of the Apocalypse
in time. In characteristic manner it has moulded the
whole picture of the future drawn by tbe Apocalyptist.
Formerly Christendom looked for the coming of the end
immediately after the catastrophe of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.
29) ; now this is only the beginning of the end whose actual
coming is first signalized by the destruction of Rome.
With the primitive Church of Palestine, Paul still hoped
for the conversion of all Israel; the seer now goes back
to the old expectation of the prophets, that after all exhorta
tions to repentance and Divine judgments, nothing but a
remnant of Israel would be saved (xi. 13; comp. iii. 9).
2 This is expressly described as the place of a priestly Church gathered
about the altar of incense ; and xii. 6, 14 clearly shows that the Church
in question was preserved (by flight to Pella) in the great time of tribu
lation. That it was already separated from unbelieving Israel is shown
by the way in which the sanctuary is to be measured, though not the
forecourt ; but that the fate of unbelieving Israel is not yet accomplished
is clear from the &c/3a\e ZfaBev, as well as from the fact that the treading
of the holy city under foot is still future. The iS6Bn rots SBveo-iv can
therefore only be applied to the thing completed in the counsels of God.

84 JUDAISTIC APPREHENSION OF THE APOCALYPSE.
It is manifestly an error when in opposition to this clear testimony
of the Apocalyse itself, Irenaus (adv. Hair., V. 30, 3) says that the
Apocalypse was seen towards the end of Domitian's reign. But even
ecclesiastical antiquity did not hold to this view, as we see from the
various times attributed to the alleged exile of Patmos (§ 33, 5, esp.
note 3). Epiphanius' view that John prophesied at the time of th«
Emperor Claudius was adopted by Grotius and Hammond ; and an old
Syriac translation of the Apocalypse puts it in the reign of Nero (ap.
Lud. de Dieu). Nevertheless the view of Irenaaus holds good as the
traditional one,3 though in reality it is no tradition, but like all later
views an exegetical combination which probably rests on a correct
remembrance of the original- sense of the Apocalypse. For it does
actually apply to Domitian, inasmuch as it looks for Antichrist in him
(No. 3) ; but Irenaeus in accordance with his view of prophecy could
only interpret it as having been written in his reign, unless John were
made a false prophet.
5. It follows therefore that in the beginning of the year
70 John had not yet been settled in Asia Minor for any
length of time. It was not to escape from persecution
that he had gone to Patmos as Hilgenfeld maintains, but in
order to receive a promised revelation (i. 9) ; and what he
there saw he earnestly impressed on the Churches with whose
needs he had but just become acquainted, by means of ex
hortation and warning, threat and promise. The very fact
that after Paul's death one of the primitive apostles had
made his field of labour that was preponderatingly Jewish-
Christian, the scene of his own activity, manifestly excludes
the view that the primitive apostles were and continued
hostile to Paul and bis Gentile mission. The Tubingen school
8 It is defended as such by Hug and Ebrard, Hofmann and Hengsten
berg, Lange, Khefoth and others, and even by Schleiermacher ; whereas
it is given up by traditionalists themselves, like Guericke and Thiersch,
who put it under Galba (No. 3, note 2). The worthlessness of the
grounds on which Hengstenberg defends it, is sufficiently shown by his
assertion that imprisonments (xiii. 10) first took place under Domitian
(comp. on the other hand Heb. x. 34 ; xiii. 3), as also that the self-
deification of Ca?sarism points to his time ; whereas Cassar and Claudius
were already received among the gods, while altars were erected to
Augustus and Caligula; the assumption of the title of Augustus (o-efiaorbs)
being evidently regarded bv the author as blasphemy (xiii. 1).

ANTTPAULINE APPREHENSION OF THE APOCALYPSE. 85
it is true holds that John could only have entered into the
Pauline sphere of work with the object of reforming his free
Churches in a Judaistic sense ; but the whole doctrinal view
of the Apocalypse is at variance with such an idea. The
present Church of God is taken from all nations (v. 9 ; vii.
9 ; xiv. 3). After the type of that of the Old Testament it
is still made to consist of the twelve tribes of the children
of Israel whose heavenly king is throned in Zion (vii. 3-8 ;
xiv. 1 ff.) ; but the empirical Jerusalem has become a Sodom
and Egypt by the murder of the Messiah (xi. 8) ; the Chris
tian-persecuting synagogue has become a synagogue of Satan
(ii. 9; iii. 9).1 That the Apostle desires to incorporate those
gained from among the heathen with the Jewish- Christian
Church by making them subject to the law is directly ex
cluded by ii. 24 (comp. Acts xv. 28).2 It is arbitrary to
assume that the works, which with piety are a mark of the
true servant of God, are those legal works attacked by
Paul ; for the commandments of God which are required
to be kept (xii. 17 ; xiv. 12) are identical with the word and
work of Christ (iii. 8, 10; ii. 26), as also with the words

1 The idea that empirical Jerusalem still forms the centre of the Chris
tian Church even in the millennium, entirely mistakes the typical
character of such traits as xiv. 20 ; xvi. 12, 16 ; xx. 9 (comp. § 34, 3).
That the 144,000 were Christians who had formerly been Jews is impos
sible, for the reason that at that time there were no longer 12 tribes from
each of which 12,000 could have been chosen, so that these can only
have a figurative meaning. Moreover the Messiah who goes forth with
them to battle (xiv. 1-5) fights with the beast, through whom, according
to xii. 17, the dragon is to attack Christians from among the heathen
(comp. xiii. 7). The primitive Church has already been separated from
Israel and has escaped to her place of concealment (xi. 1 ; xii. 6, 14).
2 It is certain, moreover, that the Apostle, departing in this respect
from the freer Pauline view, holds the eating of flesh offered to idols as
a defilement with heathen practices on a par with fornication (ii. 14, 20,
comp. § 14, 4) ; but it by no means appears that it was his wish tp intro
duce this view first into Asia Minor. It seems much more likely that it
was directed against the custom prevailing there, to which the principles
laid down in 1 Cor. viii. 10 might easily have led.

86 DOCTRINAL VIEW OF THE APOCALYPSE.
of this book (i. 3; xxii. 7, 9). Hence they can only be the
commandments of God made known by Christ, in which He
fulfilled and taught the way of fulfilling the law (Matt. v.
17), but which according to the epistles (chaps, ii., iii.)
always presuppose purdvoia, and therefore do not enjoin the
external works of the law.3 The view that the Apocalyptic
writer combated Paul and his adherents under the name of
Nicolaitanes is excluded by the simple fact that Paulinism
in Asia Minor was not a party but the prevailing tendency ;
and that Paul condemned fornication no less strongly than
he. And to suppose that by the apostles who are not what
they profess to be (ii. 2) he meant Paul, and that in xxi. 14
he intended to exclude him from the apostolate, is to mistake
the meaning of this figure (§ 33, 3, note 1), which in accord
ance with the entire typical character of the delineation
made it impossible to represent any but the Apostles chosen
for the twelve tribes as foundation-stones of the heavenly
Jerusalem. The Apocalypse is just as far from advocating a
carnal chiliasm as it is from Judaistic anti- Paulinism. The
expectation of an earthly consummation (in the thousand
years' reign) was a natural consequence of the view that the
Roman Empire was the real anti-Christian power, after the fall
of which notliing more stood in the way of Christ's earthly
victory; but the highest promise given is only that the
priestly calling of Israel should now pass over to the
Church of Christ (xx. 6) to effect the salvation of all the
nations of the world. It is only by mistaking the figurative
character of the description of the heavenly Jerusalem that
it can be regarded as a revelling in sensuous expectations.
It cannot be stated more clearly than is here done that the
final heavenly consummation consists in nothing but an
eternal life of perfect communion with God, in which the
8 Just as httle does xiv. 4 f. refer to the requirement of abstinence
from sexual intercourse, since the juxtaposition of truth shows that we
have here only to do with purity from sins of the flesh.

DOCTRINAL VIEW OF THE APOCALYPSE. 87
blessed enjoying a state of completed holiness see God. Nor
does anything that is said of the final destiny of the enemies
of God go beyond the type of that which the whole New
Testament teaches of the judgment of an angry God, con
demning those who have fallen into corruption to exclusion
from salvation and therefore to eternal torment.
6. A book like the Apocalypse cannot possibly, in accord
ance with its substance and aim, be meant to develop the
author's entire Christian view of doctrine in all aspects.
So much however is certain, that whereas the worship
of angels is strictly forbidden (xix. 10 ; xx. 9), the exalted
Christ invariably appears in fulness and equality of glory
with God, being extolled and worshipped as God. He also
appears as the Ancient of Days (Dan. vii. 9), as having existed
from eternity (i. 14; comp. i. 17; ii. 8; xxii. 13), as i) dpxq
Tijs Krareojs (iii. 14), and therefore of Divine substance from
the beginning. As in the Hebrew Epistle, He is the
heavenly High Priest (i. 13) ; and He stands in the centre
of the Apocalyptic conception as the slain Lamb (comp.
Isa. Iiii. 7) who by His blood has cleansed His people from
the stains of guilt (vii. 14; xxii. 14) and redeemed them
from the power of Satan (i. 5 ; v. 9 ; xiv. 3) . That faith
in Jesus, proved by the confession of His name (xiv. 12;
comp. iii. 8), is to be kept in patience and fidelity, especially
in the struggle with temptation to apostasy, hes in the
whole situation and design of the book. And since the love
of Christ is the foundation of all salvation and of the life
of grace (i. 5 ; iii. 9), His efficacy alone supplying the defi
ciencies of the latter (iii. 18 f .) , such life already appears as
a constant communion with Him (iii. 20). Just as it is the
grace of God from which all salvation is derived, and whose
constant presence is invoked for the readers (i. 4 ; xxii. 21) ;
so the accomplishment of salvation appears as a free gift
of God (xxi. 6 ; xxii. 17), who already before the creation or
the world has written the names of those who are called and

88 DOCTRINAL VIEW OF THE APOCALYPSE.
chosen (xvii. 14) in the book of life (xiii. 8; xvii. 8; xxi. 7).
Hence this memorial of primitive apostolic Jewish Chris
tianity, recognised as such by the Tubingen school, is a
striking proof of the fact that this type of Christianity was
capable of a no less rich and deep development of the Chris
tian doctrine of salvation than Paulinism, though coloured
in many peculiar ways.1
1 That the author was acquainted with the Pauline Epistles is only
made probable by assuming that the introductory and concluding bene
diction (i. 4 ; xvii. 21) are copied from them, whereas it is by no means
certain that this Christian epistolary form is a Pauhne creation (§ 16, 4,
note 1). Nothing that Holtzmann has recently enumerated contains any
proof whatever, for the only thing of real importance adduced, viz. the
predicates of Christ, Apoc. i. 5; iii. 14 (comp. Col. i. 15, 18), is hardly
exclusive Pauline property, as the Epistle to the Hebrews shows.

THE BRETHREN OF JESUS. 89

THIRD DIVISION.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

§ 36. The Brethken of Jesus.
1. In the Gospel of Mark, in company with Jesus' mother
we hear of His brethren, who are evidently regarded as sons
of Mary and Joseph (iii. 31) ; while in Nazareth Jesus is
spoken of as the brother of four men who were well known
there, called James, Joses, Juda and Simon (vi. 3). Even
the Gospels which tell of the supernatural generation of
Jesus assume as a matter of course that Joseph's marriage
with Mary was a real marriage (Matt. i. 25 ; Luke ii. 7) ; and
therefore they certainly looked on the brethren in question
as true sons of Mary.1 Though the scene narrated in Mark
iii. 31-35 (comp. v. 21) does not by any means indicate an
estrangement from Jesus on the part of His relatives or any
hostility towards Him, since no definite persons are in the
oldest account (Luke viii. 19-21) placed in opposition to
them as His true (spiritual) relatives, yet it certainly shows
that they had not joined the circle of Jesus' inquiring fol
lowers, much less that they belonged to the Apostles (Matt.
1 The fact that conjugal intercourse between Joseph and Mary, natu
rally implied in the taking home of his wife, is in Matt. i. 25 expressly
excluded until the birth of Jesus, is meant to show that Joseph took Mary
home not in order to begin married life with her, but in order to fulfil the
command of God, who desired that the Son of Mary should be born of
the race of David, that He might inherit its promises. It is hereby un
doubtedly implied that after the birth of the Son the carnal intercourse
prohibited up to this time did actually take place. The fact that Luke
calls Jesus the firstborn Son of Mary (ii. 7) at a time when it must have
been already known whether Bhe had afterwards given birth to others or
not, clearly presupposes that such was the case.

90 JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER.
xii. 46-50), from whom they are still distinguished in Matt.
xxviii. 7, IO.2 But after the resurrection of Jesus, who had
appeared specially to James (1 Cor. xv. 7), they must have
become believers, for the Eleven appear from the first in close
connection with the mother of Jesus and His brethren (Acts
i. 14) ; Paul enumerates them along with the Apostles as
having power to take a wife with them on their missionary
journeys (1 Cor. ix. 5). James, who is named first in Mark,
and was therefore probably the eldest of the brethren, ap
pears as their natural head when Peter was prevented by
his imprisonment from superintending the primitive Church
at Jerusalem. Peter sends word of his release to him and
to the brethren (Acts xii. 17) ; and it is his word that is
decisive at the so-called Apostolic Council (Acts xv. 13-21) ;
Paul puts him in the first rank with Cephas and John as
a pillar of the Church (Gal. ii. 9), in which, moreover, he
appears as the highest authority (rives arrb 'laKwfiov, ii. 12).
When Paul comes to Jerusalem for the last time, he goes to
James, with whom the elders of the Church assemble (Acts
xxi. 18) .8 Of this James, Josephus relates that he was con
demned by the high priest Ananus to be stoned, who took

2 In John's Gospel also the brethren are distinguished from the believ
ing followers of Jesus with whom He appears in Cana (ii. 12) , and are
afterwards characterized as unbelieving in express opposition to the
Twelve (vi. 67 ff.), because they made their faith in His Messiahship
dependent on the carrying out of His Messianic calling in the sense of
popular expectation ; in behalf of which they tried to compel Him to come
forward openly at the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 3-5). Even at the cross
Jesus regards them as standing so far aloof from Him and His cause that
He confides His mother not to them but to His favourite disciple for pro
tection and support (xix. 26 f.) .
3 Even in Gal. i. 19 Paul speaks of him beside Cephas in a way that in
a certain sense puts him on a par with the Apostles ; and in 1 Cor. xv. 7
he is directly included among the d7rooroXoi iravres. Whether this was
justified in his eyes by the fact that a. special appearance of the Risen
One, such as that on which he himself based his apostleship, had been
vouchsafed to James (1 Cor. ix. 1), or solely by his important position in
Jerusalem, must remain uncertain.

THE BRETHREN OF JESUS NOT APOSTLES. 91
advantage for this purpose of the interregnum after Festus's
death, before the new governor Albinus had arrived in Judea
(a.d. 62). The indignation said to have arisen on this ac
count and which afterwards led to the deposition of Auanus,
shows that this James was held in high repute even among
his unbelieving countrymen (Antiq., XX. 9, 1).*
2. A consciousness that these brethren of Jesus, in particu
lar James, were distinct from the Apostles, was long retained in
the Church. Hegesippus speaks of James, the Lord's brother
who is said to have borne the surname of the Just through
out the whole nation, along with the Apostles, and mentions
grandsons of Jndas, who was a full brother of the Lord.1 In
4 This passage of Josephus was already suspected by Credner, and
recently by Schurer and bieffert (in Herzog's R.-Ency., VI., 1880) to be
an interpolation, but has been justly defended, formerly by Neudecker
and now by Volkmar (Jesus Nazarenus, Zur., 1882). Even if the pas
sage respecting Christ (XVIH. 3, 3) be entirely spurious, it is quite
possible that he may have called this James after his famous brother (toj>
&8eX<pbv 'IijcroD toO XeyopAvov XpurroD). If the Pseudo-Clementine litera
ture makes Peter die before James, we must remember that it is full of
notions in the interest of a tendency ; and in this case it is only a question
of the difference of a few years, which doubtless escaped notice. But
under all circumstances so much has to be subtracted as legendary colour
ing from Hegesippus's account of James and his martyrdom (ap. Euseb.,
H. E., 2, 23) that his statement as to its time (shortly before the destruc
tion of Jerusalem) and manner, which Clem, of Alex. (ap. Euseb., H. E.
2, 1 : 6 Kara, tov -irrepvylov fUXnBels Kal birb Kvaipim %vXt$ TrXrjyels els Bdvarov),
simply follows, cannot be put forward as historical evidence against
Josephus. 1 He says, ap. Euseb., H. E., 3, 32, SiaStxerai Si ttiv iKKX-qo-lar pera tuv
Avoo-toXuv 6 dSeXipbs tov Kvplov 'Id/cw/3os o ivopanBeU birb iravroiv SIkoios,
which he accounts for in what follows by his genuine Jewish piety and
constant intercession for the people. In Euseb., H. E., 3, 20 he tells of
Domitian's search for grandsons of Judas, too Kard adpKa XeyopAvov airou
(soil. Kvplov) dSeXipov. That this Xeyopfrov is not contrasted with the
matter-of-fact character of the actual brotherly relation is Bhown by the
Kara adpKa; it is only because the unique dignity and Divine glory of the
exalted Lord (toO Kvplov) seemed to preclude the idea of brotherly relation
with him, that the Xeyopivov is added and justified by Kara adpKa, and
therefore at the same time by a common descent from Mary. The
'laKiipy t$ XexBivn. &Se\<p$ too xvplov in Clem., Homil., ii. 35, may be
understood in the same way.

92 BRETHREN OF JESUS DISTINCT FROM THE APOSTLES.
the Jewish- Christian Pseudo-Clementines James even ap-
pears as higher in authority than the Apostles, as e7no-K07roj
eiruTK&irwv (Becogn., 1, 17. 43-59. 67. 73). Tertullian speaks
of the marriage of Mary as consummated after the birth of
Jesus (De Monog., 8), and mentions the brethren of Jesus,
whom he certainly regards as full brethren (De Came Chr.,
adv. Marc, 19). Since he calls the author of the Epistle of
Jude an Apostle (De Cultu Fem., 1, 3), he did not regard him
as the brother of Jesus. Clement of Alexandria says in
Euseb., H. E., 2, 1, that the three Apostles to whom the Lord
Himself gave the preference, viz. Peter, James, and John,
did not strive for the honour of becoming bishops of Jeru
salem after His ascension, but that the post was conferred
on James the Just, for which reason, following the precedent
of Gal. ii. 9, he puts this James before John and Peter as one
of those who had received the Gnosis from the Lord and had
transmitted it to the other Apostles (comp. Strom., 1, 1, 6, 8) ;
so that he already counts James, like Paul (No. 1, note 3), an
apostle in the wider sense.2 In the Apostolic Constitutions
'IaKto/Sos tc 6 rov Kvpiov dStAtpos Kal 'lepoo-oXvpimv irrio-Korros Kal
IlaSAos 6 raw iQvwv 8i8ao-Ka\os are enumerated with the
Twelve as oi K-npv^avrei rrjv KaBoXLKrjv SioWKaAiav (6, 14 ;
comp. 6, 12). In 7, 46 James calls himself a brother of
the Lord after the flesh, and seems in 2, 55 to be reckoned
among the 70 disciples. Eusebius directly enumerates 14
Apostles, putting Paul and James among the Twelve (Ad
Jes., 17, 5 ff.) ; he even incidentally cites James v. 13 as the
word of the tepos cwtoo-toAos, and represents him as having
* This has the less significance in Clement because he elsewhere makes
use of i,-ir6o-ToXos in its wider sense, even giving the name to men like
Clement of Rome and Barnabas (comp. § 9, 5). From the fact that he
expressly specifies only two Jameses, the son of Zebedee and James the
Just, it has frequently been inferred that he identified the brother of the
Lord with James the son of Alphseus ; but the simple explanation of this
is that only of them could he speak definitely. The James named befort
the heads of the Twelve is certainly not regarded as one of the Twelve.

THE TRUE BRETHREN OF JESUS EXPLAINED AWAY. 93
received his Jerusalem bishopric from the Lord and the
Apostles (H. E., 7, 19), from whom he therefore clearly dis
tinguishes him. He also mentions several other brethren of
Jesus (H. E., 1, 12 : eis Se Kai ovros tSv <pepop,£vo)v tov o-corrjpog
a8eX<pwv rjv, where the words [naOrp-mv aXXa p,kv Kal dSeXcpiSv are
spurious) ; and in 2, 1 tells how the designation of James as
a8eAcf>os toB Kvpiov is to be reconciled with the supernatural
conception of Jesus (comp. also Dem. Evang., 3, 5).
3. Origen already mentions (ad Matt. xiii. 15), a tradition
of the Gospel of Peter or the /JijSAos *IaKu>[3ov (comp. Pro-
tevang. Jac. 9), according to which the brothers of Jesus
named in the New Testament were sons of Joseph by a
former marriage. He justly remarks that this was intended
as a defence of Mary's virginity, and a safeguard against
the idea that she had indulged in carnal intercourse after
her miraculous conception ; from which it follows however
that this apocryphal statement does not rest at all on a
varying tradition but is a distortion of fact in the interest
of a tendency. Nevertheless Origen accepts it in interpret
ing John ii. 12 ; and because Jesus is thus removed from all
actual relationship with them, he says (contr. Cels., i. 47)
that James is in Gal. i. 19 called the brother of Jesus, oi
toitovtov Sia to irpos aip.aTos o-vyyevls r\ rrjv \0Lvrjv avrutv
avao-Tpoiprjv oo-ov Sia rb rjOos Kal tov Xoyov, which would not,
however, prevent him from classing these stepbrothers of
Jesus along with his teacher Clement, as Apostles in the
wider sense of the term (comp. § 10, 7, note 2).1 On the
other hand Jerome rejected this view of Origen 's expressly
on account of its Apocryphal source (ad Matt, xii., comp. De

1 Origen gave a great impulse to the spread of this view in the East ;
we find it in Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alex., Epiphanius, 03cumenius,
Euthymius, and even in the West in Hilary and Ambrose. Theophylact
so far modified it as to hold that Joseph, in accordance with the law of
Levirate marriage, had these sons to his deceased brother by his sur
viving wife.

94 THE TRUE BRETHREN OF JESUS EXPLAINED AWA"2.
Vir. BI., 2) ; but since he was actuated by the same motives
that had given rise to it, he identified James the brother of
the Lord with James the Apostle, the son of Alphaus, hold
ing that Mapta r) tov KXwrra mentioned in John xix. 25 is
designated as the wife of this Alpheeus and the sister of
Jesus' mother, so that her son James (Mark xv. 40) was a
cousin of Jesus, and was only called his brother in a figura
tive sense. Jerome has explained his view Adv. Helvid., 13,
but clearly betrays a consciousness that the statement in
John vii. 5 is at variance with it ; while in his Ep. 120 ad
Hedib. he only says that many consider Mary the mother
of James and Mapia r) tov KA<o7ra as identical. He seems
therefore not to have been quite certain on the point him
self.2 That the identity of James the Lord's brother with the Apostle James,
the son of Alphseus, was in any way made out before Jerome must
be distinctly disputed. In a passage of the Hebrew Gospel, given in
Jerome, De Vir. III., 2, Jesus appears to His brother James the Just, and
it is here taken for granted that this James was present at the last supper.
But it only follows from this that the narrator supposes the brethren of
Jesus to have been present with him at the last supper, or that we have
here a confusion of persons; for Jerome himself had to contend against
those who confounded him with the son of Zebedee. From Hegesippus
we learn that according to an old and unvarnished tradition Joseph had
a brother of the name of Cleophas (a statement accepted by Theophylact,
comp. note 1), whose son Simeon (Hebrew form of Simon, comp. 2 Pet.
i. 1) came to be head of the Church at Jerusalem after the death of
James. But when he accounts for the choice of this Simeon, whose
3 Augustine hesitates between the two views that appeared in ancient
times, and is content for his own part to pronounce James a relation of
the mother of Jesus, without defining such relation more closely (comp.
on Gal. i. 19 ; on Psalm cxxv. ; on Matt. xii. 55) ; whereas Isidore of
Spain declares him to have been the son of the sister of Jesus' mother.
So too in the East, Chrysostom (on Gal. i. 19) calls him the son of Cleo
phas, a designation which, judging from his appeal to the Evangelists,
can (in John xix. 25) only be understood of the husband of Mary, without
identifying the Lord's brethren with the Apostles ; whereas Theodoret
on this passage expressly designates the son of Cleophas as Jesus' cousin
and the son of His mother's sister.

THE BROTHERS OF JESUS CHANGED INTO COUSINS. 95
father he calls an uncle of the Lord (ap.Euseb., H. E., 3, 32), on the ground
that all irpoo-tBevTo 6vra dvitj/iov tov Kvplov Seirepov (ap. Euseb., H. E., 4,
22), and even if Seirepov be not supplemented by iirto-Koirov , this neither
proves that he was a second cousin of Jesus in addition to James the
son of Alphseus, as Neander and de Wette assume, since from the con
nection there can be no reference to the latter, nor does it prove that
James, whom he elsewhere calls the brother of Jesus (No. 2), was Jesus'
cousin, for in this case he would more naturally have spoken of Simeon
as the brother of this James, and only as the second relative of Jesus
who received the bishopric of Jerusalem. On this assumption the re
lationship came through Cleophas, the brother of Joseph (comp. Euseb.,
H. E., 3, 11), and did not consist in the fact that Cleophas was husband
to the sister of Jesus' mother. On Clement of Alex., comp. No. 2, note 2.
4. Origen'si view has found very few advocates in recent
times. Thus Thiersch, following the precedent of Dr.
Paulus, Michaelis and others, held that the brethren of
Jesus were stepbrothers by a previous marriage of Joseph's.
On the other hand Jerome's view has become the true tra
ditional one in the Protestant Church, virtually retaining
its supremacy even during the period of rationalism.1 The
true reason for this view, to which it owes its spread and
obstinate defence, was the reluctance to admit that Mary
should after the miraculous birth of Jesus have given birth
to others in the natural way ; and this made it necessary to
assume that the so-called brethren of Jesus could not be his
full brethren but only his cousins. Nor was it difficult to
extend the combination supplied by Jerome. Once admit
ting that Mapia r) tov KAa)7ra in John xix. 25 was the mother
of James the son of Alphaaus, it follows from Mark xv. 40
that the son of this Mary had another brother called Joses.
And if the louSas 'Ia/cui/Jou named among the Apostles in
Luke vi. 16 and Acts i. 13 were a brother of James the son
1 The view that the so-called brothers of Jesus were properly speaking
His cousins, is represented by Calovius and Buddeus, Lardner and
Pearson; we find it in Semler, Gabler, Pott, Schneckenburger, and
Theile, as also in Hanlein, Hug, Bertholdt, Guericke, Lange, and Heng
stenberg ; while it has recently been defended again by Keil in his Kom-
mentar zu Matthdus (1877).

96 THE BROTHERS OF JESUS CHANGED INTO COUSINS.
of Alphasus (comp. also Jude 1) and Simeon (Simon) the
second bishop of Jerusalem were likewise a son of Cleophas
(No. 3), we have here the same four names by which the
Nazarenes designate the brothers of Jesus (Mark vi. 3) ; and
the proof that these so-called brethren were in reality his
cousins seems complete. Nevertheless the combinations by
means of which four cousins of Jesus are made to bear the
same names with the four brothers mentioned in Mark vi. 3
have no certain foundation whatever. That the Judas of
James in Luke's Gospel should be intended for a brother of
James, when the genitive 'AXtpaiov is just before employed of
his father, is in itself inconceivable and certainly not the
meaning of Luke, who, departing from the original order of
the apostolic list (Mark iii. 18), puts Simon between the
two.1 Even the view that Mapia rj tov KAowra had two sons
of the name of James and Joses, rests only on the assump
tion, which though very probable has no historical confirma
tion, that the Mary mentioned in Mark xv. 40 (Matt, xxvii.
56) is the same spoken of in John xix. 25. But the view
that these sons were cousins of Jesus involves the most
improbable theory that the wife of Cleophas is in John
described as the sister of the mother of Jesus, and had
therefore a sister of the same name with herself (comp.
§ 33, 1) ; unless with Hofmann and Keil we arbitrarily
take dSeXtprj here as the sister-in-law, in order to be able to
identify the Cleophas here named with the brother of Joseph
in Hegesippus. In reality therefore we know only of one

1 In this case it would also be necessary to hold this Simon to be the
Simon named in Mark iii. 6, and so to make three of these cousins
Apostles ; yet it has not been successfully proved that a Simon was
brother to the cousins of Jesus, from a combination of John xix. 25
with Mark xv. 40. To the Cleophas' son of Hegesippus this combination,
which attaches itself to the sons of Mapla ^ toC KXuira, dare not appeal ;
because the former Cleophas was a brother of Joseph, the latter only the
husband of his sister-in-law ; the former son of Cleophas was a cousin
of Jesus by his father, these were sons of Cleophas by their mother.

THE BRETHREN OF JESUS. 97
cousin of Jesus, the Simeon of Hegesippus, to whom Jerome's
combination has no reference whatever (comp. note 2) ; while
he has not succeeded in proving the existence of other
cousins. But even if the existence of any cousins of Jesus
having the same names as the brothers mentioned in Mark
vi. 3 could be proved, it is quite incomprehensible how these
cousins could come to be called the brethren of Jesus, since
we see from Hegesippus how early offence was taken at the
latter designation (No. 2, note l).8
It was Clemen who, following in the steps of Richard Simon and
Herder, did more than any other to shake the current view (Winer's
Zeitschrift f. wiss. Th., 1829, 3). He was followed by Credner, Mayer-
hoff, Neander, Bleek, and others. De Wette gave up the traditional
view which he had advocated in his Introduction of 1826, as also did
Kern (comp. Tubinger Zeitschr., 1825, 2, and on the other hand his Jako-
busbrief, 1838). Compare also Ph. Schaff, das Verhdltniss des Jac. des
Bruders des Herm zu Jac Alp., Berl., 1842; Laurent, NTliche Studien,
1866 ; of late Holtzmann, Jahrb. f. w. Th., 1880, 1 ; Sieffert in Herzog's
R.-Enc, VI. 1880, and even L. Schulze.
5. The view that the brethren of Jesus mentioned in the
New Testament were properly speaking his cousins, which
is based on a dogmatic assumption, is quite independent of
the question whether there were cousins of Jesus among the
Apostles ; though even in Jerome we find this assumption
bound up with the view that the son of Mapia r) tov KAootS,
the sister of Jesus' mother (John xix. 25), who according to
Mark xv. 40 was called James, was identical with James the
Apostle, the son of Alphseus.1 This combination only com-
8 Lange had on this account to resort to the hypothesis that Joseph
adopted the sons of his brother (which these cousins were not, at least
according to Jerome) after his death ; Keil holding that after Joseph's
death the mother of Jesus went to live with her brother-in-law Cleophas,
which would manifestly explain the fact of her son being called the son
of Cleophas, but not why his sons were called brothers of her son.
1 Moreover according to the true interpretation of John xix. 25 (§ 33,
1) there were cousins of Jesus among the Apostles, viz. the sons of
Zebedee, who however have no connection with the brethren of Jesus
mentioned in the New Testament. Besides, the wholly untenable view
VOL. II. H

98 LDENTIFICATION OF THE LORD'S BROTHER WITH JAMES.
mended itself because, by making Judas of James his brother
(comp. note 1), the two Canonical Epistles would both come
into the category of Apostolic writings. Jerome's view
itself rests on the very uncertain assumption that KA.oi7ras
and 'AAcfiaTos were only different forms of the same name,
which has of late been warmly disputed (comp. Wetzel,
Stud. u. Krit., 1883, 3) ; and has been abandoned even by
Keil (Komm zu Petr. u. Jud., 1883) ; or else on the equally
arbitrary assumption of Hofmann and Keil, that the Cleo
phas of Hegesippus had this Greek name also. In opposi
tion to it, however, we have the express statement that the
brethren of Jesus did not believe in Him during His lifetime
(John vii. 5) ; as also the fact that Jesus' brethren were
clearly distinguished from the Apostles in the New Testa
ment and elsewhere (No. 1, 2). To get over these two
difficulties the poor expedient has been resorted to of
supposing that the distinction made between the brethren
and the Apostles referred only to Joses and Simon. On
the other hand, though the fact of Jesus having true
brethren was admitted, Eichhorn, Neudecker, and Schott
adhered to the identity of James the Just with James the
son of Alphaaus ; while Winer declared that the question
could not be definitely determined; and Hofmann has of
late again taken up the standpoint of Eichhorn. If, how
ever, Jesus had literal brothers, the impossibility of suppos
ing that one of His cousins was constantly spoken of as
His brother becomes apparent. For this reason Wieseler
maintained that the James at the head of the Church in
Jerusalem was the Apostle James, the son of Alphaaus ;
that the Judas of James named among the Apostles was a brother of
James the son of Alphseus and therefore a cousin of Jesus (No. 4), has in
itself nothing whatever to do with the question whether these brethren
were actual brothers of Jesus. Even Tertullian held that Judas the
brother of James, who professes to be the author of our Canonical
Epistle, was an Apostle ; without regarding him as one of these (aotual)
brothers (No. 2).

THE BRETHREN OF JESUS. 99
though distinguishing him from the Lord's brother in Paul
(Stud. u. Krit., 1840, 3; Comm. zu Gal., 1859). But it is
quite inconceivable that Gal. i. 19 and Gal. ii. 19 should refer
to different Jameses. What chiefly gave currency to this
view was, as appears in Wieseler, the totally unfounded
assumption that only an Apostle could occupy a post of such
high authority in Jerusalem.2 Winer's idea that because
Acts i. 13 mentions two Jameses among the Apostles, Acts
xii. 2, 17 could only refer to the same two, is equally un
tenable. For the same reason de Wette held that the
author of the Acts confounded the two Jameses.3 Finally
Hofmann takes up the position that Paul in Gal. i. 19
(comp. also 1 Cor. xv. 7) classes the brother of the Lord
with the Apostles ; whereas he only puts them on the same
level of importance with the latter (No. 1, note 3). But
his view is already excluded by the fact that in Gal. ii. 9
Paul puts him before Peter, and expressly avoids calling
the o-tvXol Apostles.

3 The view taken by Clement of Alexandria of the choice of James for
this post points exactly to the contrary (No. 2) ; and it is in fact quite
conceivable that when the Apostle appointed by the Lord Himself to
be the head of the Church was obliged to give up his post, his place was
not taken by one who had raised himself above the other Apostles in the
same arbitrary way, but by one who appeared specially adapted for it on
quite other grounds (owing to his relationship with Jesus). As a matter
of fact, after the death of James, although there were certainly Apostles
still living at that time, none of these was put in his place, but rather
a relation of Jesus (comp. No. 3).
3 The passage xii. 2 does not by any means refer to i. 13 where the
son of Zebedee moreover is not called the brother of John, and the
Apostles are only enumerated in the way that became customary after
Mark, without any designed preparation for the historical narrative that
was to follow. The fact that xii. 17 ; xv. 13 and xxi. 18 speak simply
of James plainly shows that this is not the James, the son of Alphaaus,
mentioned in i. 13 among the Apostles, but the highly honoured brother
of the Lord whom Paul too (1 Cor. xv. 7 ; Gal. ii. 9) calls simply James
(comp. Jude 1).

100 readers of the epistle.
§ 37. The Epistle of James.
The Epistle is addressed to the twelve tribes scattered
abroad (i. 1) ; the readers therefore belong exclusively to
tho Jewish nation and dwell in heathen lands outside Pales
tine. The view that this designation is merely a transfer
ence to the New Testament of an Old Testament character
istic, Christendom in general being meant, overlooks the
fact that from the relation of the people of Israel to the
twelve tribes and from their local concentration in Palestine,
the question is not of a characteristic belonging to it as a
theocratic Church but as a national community, and for this
reason cannot be transferred to the Christian Church.1 But
1 The fact that the typology of the Apocalypse, which is characterized
by a constant straining after plastic delineation throughout, represents
the Church of God of the Messianic time as a nation of twelve tribes
gathered about Mount Zion or having its centre in the holy city (§ 34, 3 ;
35, 5, note 1), does not prove that the simple language of the Epistle
allows such transference to be so far extended as to lose entirely its
original sense. For the mere circumstance that the Christians were
scattered among the Jews and heathen does not entitle them to be called
s, Diaspora, since they neither form nor are intended to form in space a
united whole, as a nation in the land of its home ; nor does the desig
nation apply to Christendom outside Palestine which neither has nor
desires to have a local centre in Jerusalem or elsewhere, from which it
feels itself divided when not belonging to the people of Israel. The
separation from a, heavenly home might indeed be characterized as a
state of alienation (1 Pet. i. 1), though not as a Siao-iropd ; and to conceive
of the earthly Jerusalem as a type of the heavenly home could only be
possible to Jewish Christians. This mode of expression has nothing
whatever to do with the Pauline transference of theocratic predicates to
Israel (§ 31, 2, note 1). Nevertheless KSster and Liicke (Stud. u. Krit.,
1831), de Wette-Briickner (Komm., 1865), Hengstenberg (Ev. Krchztg.,
1866, 93 f.), Grimm (Zeitschr.f. wiss. Theol., 1870, 4), and the Tubingen
criticism con amorc (although it makes analogous terms in the Apoca
lypse refer to Jewish Christians) have apphed the address to Christ
endom in general. Comp. finally Holtzman and v. Soden (Jahrb. f.
protest. Theol., 1884, 1). If it is to be taken in its true, i.e. its ethno
graphical sense, wo can neither refer it to mixed Churches, with Bleek
and W. Schmidt (der Lehrgehalt des Jacobusbriefes, Leipzig, 1869) ; nor
with Thiersch, Hofmann and others make it include the Palestinian

READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 101
that is already impossible because the Epistle is not a mere
collection of sayings with a dedication (comp. Palmer, Jahrb.
f. deutsch. Theol., 1865, 1), or a homiletic treatise, least of all
a pastoral writing (comp. Reuss), but one that presupposes
throughout concrete relations in which the readers are placed
and attacks special defects in Church-life. Of these the
author can only have gained his vivid perception from the cir
cumstances of definite Churches of the Diaspora ; 2 and the
general form of the address shows that the author presup
poses essentially the same conditions in the Churches of the
Diaspora throughout, and therefore intends the letter for
them all. He certainly does not address the Jews to whom
he writes as believers in Christ ;3 and his characterization of
them only in their relation to the Jewish Diaspora cannot
possibly be accidental. Rather does it prove that the be
lievers to whom he writes still felt that they belonged en.
tirely to the Israelitish Church, and that the bond of social
and religious fellowship with it had not yet been fully dis
solved. In ii. 9-11 and iv. 11 f. it is taken for granted that
the law has binding force on the readers ; they still par
ticipated with their fellow-countrymen in the worship of the
synagogue and were under its jurisdiction (ii. 2, 6).4 Since
In any case the Syrian Diaspora of which Beyschlag for example
thinks (Meyer's Komm., 1882) must have been much nearer to the Pales
tinian who wrote the Epistle than the Egyptian one (comp. Boumann,
Komm., 1886), that of Asia Minor (comp. Eichhorn) or even the Roman
one. 3 This cannot be explained by assuming that the author regards be
lieving Jews as the only true ones (comp. e.g. Huther, Komm., 1869),
since the address does not lay emphasis on the idea of true Jewish
nationality (Note 1) ; still less by supposing that he really writes to
converted and unconverted at the same time, as held by Hug, Credner,
Guericke, Lange and others, as also by Theile (Komm., 1833) ; for he
turns to them as the servant of Jesus Christ and repeatedly speaks of
their faith (ii. 1, 14).
4 All the arguments brought forward to prove that avvayaiy-fi. was a
name adopted from Greek worship and applied for centuries to Christian
assemblies for worship are powerless to make us believe that a Jewish

102 CONDITION OF THE READERS.
the hope of gaining their still unbelieving countrymen re
quired the readers to maintain social and religious fellow
ship with them as long and as far as possible, it was open
to the author to suppose that the former might possibly not
refuse to listen to a word from him as a servant of God
(i. 1) if it reached them through the medium of the first
readers. The rich Jewish merchants who in boasting of
their intended journeys seem entirely to have forgotten that
without God's will and pleasure they can do nothing (iv.
13-17), cannot be Christians any more than those who in
i. 10 f . and v. 1-6 are absolutely and unconditionally threat
ened with the judgment, especially as the (Christian) dSeA-
<£oi are expressly put in opposition to them. But it is
certain that in uttering these warnings and threats the
author had his unbelieving countrymen in mind ; and in so
far the Epistle addressed to the Jews of the Diaspora must
be regarded as having been intended for them also.
2. Just as Christianity frequently found acceptance else
where with the lower classes (1 Cor. i. 26 ff., comp. Luke vi.
20f.),so too in the districts of the Diaspora which the author
has in view, it was exclusively the poor whom God had chosen
(ii. 5, comp. iv. 2). The Christian brother stands in a position
Christian writing to Jewish Christians calls their Church-meetings (Heb.
x. 5 : iirio-vv ay oiy-q) by the name of the house of prayer of their unbeliev
ing fellow-countrymen, without distinguishing it in any way ; for the
bpuSv does not denote a Christian synagogue as distinguished from the
Jewish one, but that to which they resorted and in which alone the sup
posed case could have occurred. The reference is not indeed to official
arrangement of places but to the supposed case of a believer of Israel, for
the purpose of showing servility to a purse-proud Jew, obliging his poor
Christian brother to give up his comfortable place to him (ii. 3 f.). But
since a Jew of the class of those who tyrannized over the Christians and
dragged them before the judgment seats and blasphemed the name of
Christ (ii. 6 f.), would not have frequented the conventicle of those
Jews who believed in the Messiah, which naturally stood here side by
side with the public exercise of worship in the synagogue, as in Jeru
salem side by side with the worship of the temple, the scene must take
place in the Jewish synagogue. Compare Mangold.

MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITION. 103
of inferiority to his rich fellow-countryman (i. 9 f ., comp. No,
1), the poor sigh under the oppression of the rich in whose
service they have to seek their bread, and who curtail their
wages (ii. 6 ; v. 4) . Naturally their position was made in
trinsically worse by the fact that their oppressors looked
down on them as schismatics, and thought themselves justi
fied in all they did against them. They not only blasphemed
the name of Christ which they professed, but occasionally
dragged them before the tribunal of the synagogue (ii. 6 f.) :
it even seems as if sentence of death had been pronounced
in some cases (v. 6, comp. Acts xxvi. 10). These were the
divers temptations in which the readers were involved (i. 2,
12) ; and the second coming of Christ, which was to right
them with their oppressors and to reverse their fate, was
delayed beyond expectation (v. 7). Whereas faith in the
Messiah constantly led to the expectation that He would
bring the highest earthly happiness to His followers, the
very opposite had come about. Murmurs began to arise
against God, who tempted the poor too severely (i. 13).
While founding their hope of salvation on the new faith
(ii. 14) men forgot that a dead faith which does not prove
itself by works, cannot possibly justify before God (ii. 17,
24, 26). They were the more zealous to prove their newly-
gained faith by setting up as teachers of their still un
believing countrymen (iii. 1) ; but it was zeal mixed with
passion and dogmatic striving by which they tried to win
others to the faith (iii. 14, 16). They preached repentance,
indulging in what they thought was righteous anger
against those who would not hear, whereas they only gave
reins to their tongue (i. 19 f ., 26, comp. iii. 8) ; they spoke
evil of them and judged them, they cursed them (iv. 11 ;
iii. 9f.) and called to God for vengeance on them (v. 9).1
1 We here recognise the true Jewish propensity to set up as the teacher
of others (Rom. ii. 17-20), judging and correcting them (Matt. vii. 1-5).
Supposing the aXX-/jXov (iv. 11 ; v. 9) to refer to the behaviour of Christ.

104 MISINTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITION.
Such carnal zeal naturally could not attain its aim (i. 20 ;
iii. 18), but only served to bring forth strife and contention
(iv. 1, 2). The author justly traces this to secret envy of
the better position of their fellow-countrymen, to the lust
of possession in their hearts (iv. 2ff.). For this reason it
sometimes happened that a poor fellow-believer was dis
owned out of repulsive servility to the rich unbeliever (ii.
1-5) ; such partiality being still excused by the plea of
fulfilling the commandment of love (ii. 8).
The immature Christianity of the readers was manifestly shown in
the fact that their minds though actively stirred by Christian truth were
not yet vitally penetrated by it ; and that they proved the new faith by
envy and strife, not by active love and patience. In opposition to this
many profess to see traces in our Epistle of a declining Christianity,
which, sunk in worldliness and torn by doctrinal strife already betrayed
most suspicious signs of decay. But our Epistle has no mention of dis
pute with regard to doctrine, even in ii. 14-26 ; nor is it easy to under
stand how such could have arisen at all in circles where Christian doo-
trine is comprehended in the plain practical truths to which this Epistle
points. That chaps, iii. iv. have any reference to such is absolutely dis
proved by all correct exegesis of the connection in whioh speaking and
striving are mentioned. The worldliness supposed to have been found
rests on the totally impossible reference of i. 10 f. ; iv. 13-5, 6 to rich
Christians, whereas ii. 5 says in the plainest way that it is only the poor
that God has chosen ; or else on an interpretation of iv. 4 which entirely
ignores the context. Even passages like ii. 15 f . ; iv. 11 f. ; v. 9 can
only be taken as a proof that brotherly love had declined, if we forget
the special aim to which such example is directed or overlook the mani
fest concrete circumstances to which those exhortations refer.
3. The very conditions presupposed in our Epistle rele
gate it to a very early epoch of the Apostolic age.
Purely Jewish-Christian Churches whose life was lived
ians to one another, yet after the address has included believing Jews
with their unbelieving countrymen, it could only refer to the whole
community of which they formed a part ; and the rbv dSeXipbv airov (iv.
11), which was only intended to show the atrocity of the offence, is in
vers. 12 expressly applied to a fellow-countryman (t. -irXijo-lov). So also
the true Jewish propensity to swearing (v. 12, comp. Matt. v. 34) was
quite in keeping with that passionate zeal for the truth which heaven
and earth were called to witness.

DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 105
•entirely in the bosom of the synagogue can only have
-existed outside Palestine before the impulse given to
Gentile Christianity by the Pauline mission. Of the exist
ence of such a Church or of the questions that would
instantly arise where Jewish and Gentile Christians came
into contact, our Epistle shows no trace. Christianity still
appears as a movement entirely within Judaism, which was
threatened only with the hostility of unbelieving fellow-
countrymen and towards which the heathen rulers had as
yet assumed no special attitude.1 It is natural to assume
that so soon as faith in the Messiah caused a division in
the synagogue, the new party would elect presbyters of their
own (for their separate conventicles), just as the presence
<if elders in the Church at Jerusalem is taken for granted
(A.cts xi. 30; xv. 2). The presence of elders is therefore no
proof that the Epistle was composed at a later time, nor was
a priestly character yet ascribed to them ; for according to
v. 16 care of souls with intercession is expected from all ;
the elders only appearing as those who were immediately
called and qualified.2 The custom of anointing with oil (v.
1 Since J. D. Michaelis and Nosselt (Opusc. H., 1787) ; Eichhorn,
Schneckenburger (Beitrage, 1832), Neander, Thiersch, Ritschl, Lechler,
Mangold, and among expositors Theile, Huther, Hofmann, Erdmann
(1881) and most others have declared in favour of the high antiquity of
the Epistle. Comp. in particular Pfeiffer and Beyschlag, Stud. u. Krit.,
1852, 1 ; 1874, 1. It cannot however be proved, though generally as
sumed, that the Epistle must have been written before Paul's first
missionary journey (comp. Beyschlag) or before the Apostolic Council
(comp. Erdmann) . For the fact that the question of the obligations of
Gentile Christians to the law was here discussed, is no reason why we
should expect it to be discussed in Churches where there were no Gen
tile Christians and which did not come into contact with any such.
There might have been Churches of this kind in the Diaspora long after
purely Gentile-Christian or very mixed Churches had grown up in other
districts as a result of Pauline activity. It was only when they were
affected by the Gentile-Christian movement, that the increasing hos
tility of the Jews and the motive-power of Christian brotherly love would
of necessity loose the bond with the synagogue.
2 iii. 1 certainly does not refer to an intrusion of themselves into a

106 RELATION TO PETER'S FIRST EPISTLE.
14), of which we hear nothing afterwards, manifestly arose
out of a practice commended by Christ Himself to His dis
ciples (Mark vi. 13). The universal character of the address-
throughout is no proof that the Epistle already presupposes-
a wide spread of Christianity ; and even if ii. 7 referred to-
the name Xpumavoi, which is undoubtedly not the case, this,
according to Acts xi. 26 would not point to a later time;.
which is already excluded by the picture of the inner
relations of the Church (No. 2). A few not improbable-
echoes of the first Epistle of Peter, do not, if the right view
be taken of the latter, prove anything against its having.
been composed after the middle of the year 50.s
settled office of teaching; on the contrary, if the passage referred ta
teaching in the Church, which is undoubtedly not the case (comp. No.
2), it would only prove that every one who believed himself called and
fitted for the work came forward as a teacher, as in Old Testament times-
Even if ii. 2 f. referred to the assembling of Christians for worship-
(comp. No. 1, note 4), the passage in question would have no more
reference to an official order or adjustment of places by Church-servants
than to a comfortable arrangement of the localities for Divine worship.
3 Beyschlag does indeed maintain that recent criticism is unanimous-
in putting the dependence on the side of Peter ; but the relation has
recently been mostly reversed. Comp. W. Grimm. (Stud. u. Krit.,
1872, 4), W. Briickner, Holtzman (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1874, 4;.
1882, 3), v. Soden (Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1884, 1). As a matter of
fact the way in which the passage Prov. x. 12 is appUed in James v.
20 adheres closely to 1 Pet. iv. 8 (comp. the irXijBos &p.apr.) where it is
conditioned by the application of the passage and is much further re
moved from its original sense. So too the passage Isaiah xl. 6 ff . is in
Peter (i. 24 f .) applied exactly in its original sense, whereas in James i.
10 f. we have only a very free application of its constituent elements.
The citation also of Prov. iii. 34 arises more naturally out of the context
in 1 Pet. v. 5 than in James iv. 6, where the conclusion that Peter draws
from it (v. 6) does not appear till iv. 10 ; while in iv. 7 a thought is con
nected with it in which we have an echo of the remoter Petrine context
v. 8 f. In James i. 21 the idea contained in 1 Pet. ii. 1 appears in a
more definite relation to the exhortation intended, and in James i. 2 f.
the thought found in 1 Pet. i. 6 f. forms the assumption on which the
exhortation is based. Compare the t6 SokIplov ipwv t. irlo-reois, which
James, departing from the metonymical use of Peter, applies in its
original sense, with the -ireipao-pois ttoikIXois (1 Pet. iv. 10) which looks as
if the expression had been rather formulated by Peter.

RELATION TO PAUL. 107
When notwithstanding, de Wette, Credner, Bleek, Guericke, Ewald,
Wiesinger, W. Schmidt, Sieffert, L. Schulze and others still insist on
transferring the Epistle to the year 60, they base their opinion on the
assumption that the author is acquainted with Pauhne Epistles and in
ii. 14-26 attacks the Pauline doctrine of justification or rather a widely-
spread abuse of it. But apart from the fact that this doctrine was hardly
known in purely Jewish-Christian Churches and was certainly not
abused in the sense supposed, and that the section throughout attacks-
errors of life and not of doctrine, James's arguments are never directed to
a defence or exposition of the right view of the Pauline doctrine of justi
fication, but show an entire want of acquaintance with it. As exponents
of the different views respecting James's doctrine of justification, com
pare also Weiss, deutsche Zeitschr. f. chr. Wiss. etc., 1854, 51 f. ; Heng
stenberg, Evangel. Kirchenztg., 1866, 93 ff. ; Weiffenbach, Theol. exe.g*
Stud, iiber. Jac. ii. 14-16, Giessen, 1871 ; Kiibel, iiber das Verh. v. Glau-
ben und Werken bei Jac, Tubingen, 1880. But not to mention that.
James's conception of faith is essentially different from that of Paul and
that the works required by James are not the works of the law attacked
by Paul, the fact that the justification of which James speaks is not
as with Paul an act of grace in which righteousness is imputed to the
sinner, but the act of a judge who by his judicial decision attests the
righteousness as proved (Matt. xii. 37) and thus procures deliverance
from destruction, is decisive. James does not dispute the Pauline view
of Abraham's justification, but bases his exhortation as a matter of
course on the opposite view ; because he neither knows any other nor
regards it as possible (ii. 21 ff.). The alleged Pauline formulas (p^ irXav-
aoBe, aXX' ipet tis) belong to Rabbinical dialectics ; and expressions such
as cucpoar-qs, -iroi-qr-^s, irapa^drvs vbpov, Popov reXelv, SiKaiovo-Bai ££ ipyuv
(comp. also Jas. ii. 10 with Gal. v. 3) belonging to the legal doctrine of the-
time ; conceptions hke SiKaioaivn Beov, iXevBepla being employed in an en
tirely different sense. Echoes Uke i. 3 (Rom. v. 3 f.) ; iv. 12 (Rom. xiv. 4)
can prove nothing, for the reason that they contain nothing specifically
Pauline. The whole characteristicaUy Jewish-Christian teaching of
the Epistle still undeveloped (comp. No. 5) is only conceivable if we
suppose that the author had not yet come into contact with the richly-
developed Pauline theology. Undoubtedly we cannot assume a certain
knowledge of the Hebrew Epistle, for the act of Rahab is mentioned in
ii. 25 with a different object and in an entirely different way from Heb.
xi. 31 ; while nothing else that Holtzman puts forward has any weight
whatever. On the selection of the two examples of Abraham and Rahab,.
comp. Mangold in particular.
4. The introduction of the Epistle transfers us directly
to the suffering state of the readers and the divers temp-

108 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE.
tations arising out of it (i. 2-18). The author exhorts them
to count all such temptations as joy; pointing to the ful
ness of blessing that must follow if firmly trusting in God
they ask for wisdom, which alone could enable them to
attain to perfect patience (i. 2-8). He warns them against
attributing to God the seductive character of temptation,
which, if withstood, can lead to the most blessed goal ; for
it is only their own evil lust that makes trial a temptation ;
whereas God, the giver of all good gifts, has by virtue ol
His highest gift, regeneration through the word of truth,
given them power to overcome temptation (i. 12-18) -1 Pre
mising that this word must first of all be heard and received,
the author passes on to his first leading exhortation, according
to which the hearing of the word must not be unaccom
panied by the doing of it, because a piety which is not
manifested in the life is of no value and cannot meet with
Divine approval (i. 19-27). Just as hearing is first attested
by corresponding action, so the faith with which the word
is received is made manifest by conduct in keeping with it.
Hence an eye service that denies faith (ii. 1-7), as every
transgression of a single law, makes a man guilty of the
whole law and delivers him over to judgment without
1 Nor are the intervening verses, i. 9ff., by any means foreign to the
context, since they only serve to show that it is this very state of op
pression in which the readers are placed as compared with the rich,
-that leads them into temptation, and yet has the less power to rob
them of their triumphant joy in the greatness of "their Christian state in
proportion as they see the apparent glory of the rich in its true little
ness. This greatness however does not consist in the prospect of a
glorious goal (i. 12), but in the new birth of which they become dirapxl)
tuiv KTio-paruv (i. 18). We have here the reason why God-given wisdom
alone was still needed for the preservation of patience in every tempta
tion (i. 5) , since it was this which enabled a man to do what he felt was
right, though it did not prevent the constant recurrence of new tempta
tions through evil lust (i. 14). The circumstance that the temptation
involved in fighting against sufferings is traced back to evil lust, only
shows anew that in the readers' case it arose out of their oppressed
state which deprived them of the means for satisfying earthly desires.

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 109
mercy, from which the exercise of mercy alone can rescue
him (ii. 8—13). Hence the faith which does not prove it
self by works is dead and cannot save (ii. 14-26). 2 The
second leading exhortation begins with a warning against the
responsibility incurred in setting up as a teacher of others
(iii. 1 f.), because by so doing the temptation to sins of the
tongue, so difficult to avoid, becomes almost inevitable (iii.
3-8) ; the worst of these being held up to view in glaring
contrast with the nature of the Christian state (iii. 9-12).
Then follows a warning against impure and carnal strife,
which is no evidence of true wisdom but a denial of the
truth, and yielding no fruit (iii. 13-18). The author shows
that the deepest ground of such strife and jealousy lies in the
secret desire of earthly enjoyment, in hateful envy of their
more prosperous fellow-countrymen, and in unbroken love of
the world. God who desires the whole heart cannot supply
means for the gratification of their lusts (iv. 1-5). He
desires humble submission to the Divine guidance, which
can only lead to final exaltation through earnest struggle
with the tempter and sincere repentance ; whereas back
biting and judging one's neighbours are an encroachment on
the prerogative of the only judge (iv. 6-12) .3 The final
J While the very transition to this first leading part contains an
assertion that hearing is more important than speaking, to say nothing
of swiftness to wrath which in no , way tends to the exercise of Divine
justice (i. 19 f.), we have here, as in the antithesis of i. 26, the funda
mental idea of the second leading exhortation, and so far i. 19 has
not without reason been termed the theme in a certain sense of the
whole Epistle. The example of a denial of faith in actual conduct (ii.
1-7) is drawn from the concrete situation of the readers, which again as
in i. 9 f • shows them in opposition to rich unbelievers. We see, how
ever from i. 27 ; ii. 13 that the question of keeping the word that was
heard and of the preservation of faith turns mainly on the fulfilment by
the active exercise of mercy of the command to love one another ; for
whioh reason dead faith is incidentally illustrated by an inactive sym
pathy (ii. 15 f.) ; while the commandment of love is characterized as
royal (ii. 8).
3 The detailed discussion of sins of the tongue (iii. 3-12), like the

110 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE.
section goes back to the things discussed in the introductory
part of the Epistle, viz. to rich unbelievers as opposed to the
believing poor. To the former he holds up their defiant
boasting of their self-glorious projects of travel and trade
as a sin against their better knowledge and conscience (iv.
13-37), and threatens them with destruction of themselves
and all their treasures in the directly impending judgment,
as a punishment for their evil deeds (v. 1-6) ; the latter he
exhorts to leave judgment to God and patiently to await
the second coming of the Lord, like the pious sufferer Job
{v. 7-11). In a, postscript follows an express warning against
swearing (v. 12), with an indication of the right thing to
be done in case of sickness and sin (v. 13-18). The duty
of intercession for a brother naturally leads in conclusion
to anxious endeavours for the salvation of the erring (the
counterpart to their pretended zeal for conversion) ; while
the allusion to the blessing that follows such conduct forms
a fine justification for his own letter as also the expression
of his wishes on behalf of the readers (v. 19 f.).
There was no ground whatever for declaring section v. 12-20 to be
spurious (comp. Rauch, in Winer u. Engelh. krit. Journal, VI., 1827 and
against him Hagenbach, ibid., VII.), since the addition of detached
exhortations, in a postscript, perhaps caUed forth by definite occur
rences, only proves the epistolary character of the work. In spite of the
complaint frequently heard since Luther's time that the Epistle has
neither plan nor method (comp. Palmer, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol, 1868,
1), it is sufliciently clear that it consistently aims at inculcating an
active Christianity, not manifesting itself in talking and striving about
faith but in fulfilment of the perfect law and in patience ; and the de
velopment of ideas in the Epistle, if we bear in mind the gnomologic
form and free movement of the author, is perfectly transparent. Comp.
Pfeiffer, Stud. u. Krit., 1850, 1, as also Gams, iiber den Gedankengang
des Jacobusbriefes, Hannover, 1874.
oharacterization of egoistic wisdom, whose counterpart is again shown
in mercy and its fruits (iii. 15-18), only shows that the author looks
upon arrogant and unlovely loquacity as the besetting sin of beUevers
from among the Jews. The connection of chap. iv. can only be under
stood by a vivid perception of the entire situation of the readers.

THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE. Ill
5. It is clear that the Epistle became known to the Church
at a comparatively late period, from the circumstance that it
was addressed to strictly exclusive Jewish- Christian circles,
in whose possession it remained ; and referred to relations
that soon ceased to have any meaning for the great Gentile
Church. The fact however that the Syrian Church had it
in their Bible (§ 10, 1) is the more significant as they
probably stood nearest to the circles in which it first ap
peared (No. 1, note 2).1 Origen and Eusebius are the first
to tell us that it proceeded from the Lord's brother ; but the
former does not yet rank it with the writings of universally
recognised authority, while the latter classes it with the An
tilegomena owing to the scanty use made of it in the ancient
Church (§ 10, 7 ; 11, 4) . This circumstance alone formed
the basis of later doubts respecting the Epistle ; in spite of
which it attained to universal ecclesiastical recognition in the
4th century.2 In calling himself simply James and describ-
1 The history of the Canon teaches that although undoubtedly much
used by the Shepherd of Hermas (§ 6, 4) it does not at the end of the
second century yet belong to the New Testament, and is Uke wise wanting
in the Muratorian Canon (§9,5; x. 3). The fact that the author does
not caU himself an Apostle can have been no hindrance to its spread,
at least in the East, still less its doctrinal character, which necessarily
corresponded entirely with the more legal conception of Christianity in
the post-Apostolic period. But it does not appear from Ephraem the
Syrian which James was regarded by the Syrian Church as its author.
2 When Jerome (de Vir. III., 2) speaking of James the Just the brother
of the Lord, says, " unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quse et ipsa ab alio
quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore proce
dente obtinuerit autoritatem," he evidently goes back to Eusebius, H. E.,
1, 23, and misunderstands his voBeierai, which refers only to inclusion in,
the Canon, as implying doubts of its genuineness. So too Theodore of
Mopsuesta in rejecting it (Leant. Byz. c Nestor, et Eutych., iii. 14) un
doubtedly reverted only to the statement of Eusebius. Even if the
Epistle owed its later universal recognition to the circumstance that it
became more and more usual to regard the James who composed it as
the Apostle, such view was in nowise influenced by the wish to secure a
place in the Canon for a writing highly esteemed by the anoient teachers
of tbe Church ; for the principle to admit only what was Apostolic had
never been practicaUy carried out. Nor does the view of its apostolicity

112 THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE.
ing himself only as the servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ (i. 1), his self-designation would only be intelligible
to the readers on the supposition that he was the Lord's
brother, who by his authoritative position at the head of the
Church in Jerusalem (§ 36, 1) possessed such pre-eminence
that it was not necessary to distinguish himself from others
of the same name. It is only in the case of one who was
regarded by all Jewish Christians as the supreme authority
(Gal. ii. 12), that it is conceivable how he could address
himself to all the believing Jews of the Diaspora with words
of such earnest reproof and warning. Above all it is only on
the assumption that it was this James, who even among his
unbelieving countrymen was held in such high esteem, that
we can understand how he could hope that they too would
not refuse to listen to a word of exhortation coming from
him (comp. No. I).3 But the whole doctrinal peculiarity of
the Epistle is entirely in keeping with the historical por
trait of this James in whom alone, on account of his legal
piety, the Messianic faith seems to have fulfilled the ideal of
a genuine Israelite.
The authority of the law is throughout taken for granted as a matter
of course (ii. 9-11 ; iv. 11 f .) ; and it iB entirely arbitrary of Holtzmann
to set this aside (in his Introduction) by a simple denial. It certainly
prejudice the question as to its authorship ; since the question whether
the Lord's brother was one of the Twelve, or had only the dignity of an
Apostle in conjunction with them, was not yet determined at the time
when the Canon was formed (compare § 36).
3 It certainly does not foUow that because the author does not call
himself an Apostle, he was not one (comp. PhU. i. 1 ; 1 Thess. i. 1),
but only that a pseudonymous writer would not have chosen this form
for the purpose of giving Apostolic authority to his exhortations. Even
if the pseudonymous writer had the brother of the Lord in his mind, he
must have called himself such in order to vindicate his authority ; a thing
that was unnecessary only in case his readers knew that he really was
so. On the other hand the appeal made to the simUarity between the
epistolary greeting and Aots xv. 23 is very doubtful, since the authen
ticity of this portion of the Aots is not certain ; nor is such greeting
peculiar to it (comp Acts xxin. 26).

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 113
does not follow from the fact that the so-called ceremonial law is no
where expressly mentioned, that one who so emphaticaUy asserts the soU-
darity of the whole law (U. 10) regards it as no longer binding on the
Messiah-beUeving Jews. Moreover the circle of these, that might stiU
be entirely filled up by the Jews of the Diaspora, was essentiaUy limited ;
and if James had sought to fulfil the law in the sense of the prophets
whom he so highly esteemed (v. 10), this aspect naturally receded into
the background as compared with the moral essence of the law (comp. i.
27). But if the word of truth by which believers know that they are
born again (i. 18) is with him primarily a word that is to be done, a
perfect law (i. 22 f. 25), it is clear that he refers to such fulfilment of
the law as was taught by the Messiah who appeared in Jesus ; who
therefore seems to be also regarded in iv. 12 in the light of a lawgiver
and a judge.4 The word of truth contains at the same time an an
nouncement that the second coming of the Messiah who has been exalted
to glory (n. 1) immediately precedes the judgment (v. 3, 7-9) ; hence
this word, if rightly received and appropriated, must lead to the doing of
the Divine wiU revealed in it ; and faith in it to the performance of such
works as are pleasing to God, thus bringing about salvation (i. 21 ff. ;
ii. 14 ff.). Hence the salvation brought by the Messiah really consists
in the fact that He has given us power rightly to discern and fulfil the
Divine wiU, because the law is now written in the heart (comp. tbe
X6-/os ipipw-os i. 21, and with it Jer. xxxi. 33). Moreover trust in the
Divine goodness wliich hears the prayer of faith (i. 5-7), which draws
nigh to those who in repentance and humility draw nigh to Him and
lifts them up (iv. 8-10), gives succour in bodily need and forgives sin
(v. 13-18), rewards the pious sufferer with the crown of Ufe (i. 12 ; v.
10 f), promises the kingdom to them that love Him and grants mercy
in the judgment to the merciful (ii. 5, 8) ; aU this is presupposed as a
matter of course for the Israelite, requiring no special prelimmary
mediation by the Messiah. Such a doctrinal view is only conceivable in
the case of one who looks for salvation as a matter of course in the ful
filment of the Divine wiU not in the Pharisaic but in the true Old
Testament sense, and has found the required strength in faith in the
Messiahship of Jesus.
The fact that this James had during the lifetime of Jesus
held back from the circle of His disciples and had only been
* Hence he caUs the command of love to one's neighbour, quoted from
the Scripture, the royal law, after His example (n. 8, comp. Matt. xxii.
39) and lays special emphasis on mercy (i. 27 ; n. 13, 15 f. ; iii. 17) ;
after His example he declares judging and swearing to be positively for
bidden (iv. 11 ; v. 9, 12), and appears to regard anger as equivalent to
murder (iv. 2, comp. Matt. v. 22).
TOL. 11. I

114 RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
led to believe by His resurrection (§ 36, 1), explains- why
Old Testament types alone are employed (ii. 21, 25 ; v. 10 f.
17), and not the example of Christ ; while many of the utter
ances of Jesus current in Apostolic tradition are re-echoed.5
On the other hand it is in keeping both with the time of the
Epistle and with the singularly retired nature of this James,
that he is completely untouched by the deeper and richer
conception of the salvation given in Christ, as already de
veloped in the primitive Apostolic circle and in its entire
fulness by Paul; but rather seeks his life-nurture in Old
Testament Scripture, more especially in its proverbial
wisdom.6 * There can be no question that the sayings contained in Matt. vii. 1
(iv. 12; v. 9), vn. 7f. (i. 5; iv. 3), v. 34 (v. 12), xxiii. 12 (4, 10) belong
to earhest tradition ; and the same may be said of the saying repeated
in i. 6, 25, though only preserved for us in later records (Mark xi. 23 ;
John xiii. 17). There is nothing to show that as thus recorded they
are taken from our written Gospels; on the contrary we not seldom
find striking points of actual resemblance that show no trace of the
wording of our Gospels, thus for example i. 22 (Matt. vii. 26), ii. 8 (Matt.
xxii. 39), u. 13 (Matt. v. 7; xvUi. 33 f.), iv. 4 (Matt. vi. 24), iv. 17 (Luke
xii. 47) , and in the second half of v. 12 we even find an essentially dis
tinct form of Matt. v. 37, which, however widely spread throughout the
Church, is nevertheless the remodelling of a tradition. We are the less
justified in attaching importance to isolated expressions and images
which neither prove connection with the Gospels nor with the utterances
of Christ, such as riXeios, Six^Bai rbv Xbyov, elp^vrjv iroieiv, o-qTbfSpwros,
/loixaXlSes, or the figures in iii. 12.
6 With the exception of the words of the law in ii. 8, 11 and the cita
tion of Prov. iii. 34 borrowed from Peter, as also the references to Isa.
xl. 6 ; Prov. x. 12 (comp. No. 3, note 3) drawn from the same source,
our Epistle contains no actual quotation. On the other hand the
author's entire phraseology is modeUed on the language of the Prophets
(iv. 8, comp. Zech. i. 3) and Psalms (iii. 8, comp. Ps. cxxxix. 3 ; v. 3,
comp. Ps. xxi. 10), and particularly on the proverbial wisdom of the Old
Testament. This is shown less in individual resemblances than in
the general gnomologic form and figurative style, as also in the empha
sizing of wisdom (i. 5 ; iii. 13-17), in which, as in these, the knowledge
of the Divine will having become habitual, no longer appears to require
an external law. It has been incorrectly held by most that the author
adheres very closely to Jesus Sirach ; for with the exception of i. 19,
where in spite of apparent similarity in thought and expression the ten-

OLDER CRITICISM OF THE EPISTLE. 115
6. After Erasmus and Cajetan had already expressed
doubts respecting the traditional Apostolic origin of the
Epistle of James, Luther attacked it with great vigour.1
Calvin disputed his verdict and maintained that the Epistle
was not unworthy of an Apostle. On the other hand the
Magdeburg centuriators, Hunnius, Althammer, Wetstein and
the Lutheran Church in general so long as it tolerated a
departure from ecclesiastical tradition, followed Luther. It
is only of late that his polemic has again been revived in its
former keenness from a hyper-Lutheran standpoint (comp.
Strobel, Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. u. Kirche, 1857, 2; 1860, 1;
1869, 4 ; 1871, 2 ; whom Kahnis and Delitzsch occasionally
seconded). In recent times the critical question has more
correctly been limited to the point as to whether the
Epistle proceeds from James the Lord's brother. Schleier
macher found that it was pompous in style, the train of
thought being sometimes affected and again artificial and
awkward. He ascribed the "fabrication" to a pupil of
the Palestinian James who wrote down recollections of his
master's discourses in his name, in a language in which he
himself was not fluent. On the other hand de Wette found

denoy is entirely different from that of Sir. v. 11 ; i. 5 has only one ex
pression in common with Sir. xx. 14 without similarity of thought, and
i. 13 a thought resembling that of Sir. xv. 12 without similarity of ex
pression. But it must be distinctly denied that there is anywhere an
echo of the Book of Wisdom ; whUe Losner's uncritically gathered paral
lels prove nothing in favour of an acquaintance with PhUo ; for the ex
pressions in common belong solely to the Hellenistic stock of words.
1 He took offence at its contradiction of the doctrine of Paul and
silence respecting the sufferings and resurrection of Christ, as also with
respect to the spirit of Christ. He calls it a downright epistle of straw
that has nothing evangelical in character, and runs one thing into
another without any method. The author was some good and pious
man who caught a few sayings from the Apostle's disciples and put them
on paper in this form (Vorr. z. N. T., v., 1522). How Uttle he under
stood the question on which the origin of our Epistle turns, is seen
in the fact that he speaks of the Apostle to whom he denies the Epistle,
as James the son of Zebedee.

116 THE NEWER CRITICISM.
the ornate Greek style incompatible with the view of ita
genuineness.2 But although Schmidt and Bertholdt looked
on our Epistle as the Greek translation of an Aramaic
original, it is now fully recognised that even a Palestinian
might have acquired facility in writing Greek and must have
written in Greek to Jews of the Diaspora ; and the scruples
on account of style are removed simply by the author's
attachment to the Old Testament, which, owing to the de
fective knowledge of ancient Hebrew outside the theology
of the schools, could only be read in the LXX. even in
Palestine. The doubts to which Kern (Tub. Zeitschr., 1835,
2) gave currency on account of the alleged affinity of the
Epistle with the Clementines, owing to the use of Old
Testament Apocryphal writings, Philo and the Epistle to
the Hebrews, he himself has retracted in his commentary
(1838). On the other hand W. Grimm (Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol., 1870, 4) has substantially revived the scruples of de
Wette ; and Schenkel has described the Epistle as the work
of an unknown James at the end of the year 70, who wrote
to the Church in Rome.
7. To all appearance the Tubingen school could only look
upon the alleged polemic of the Epistle against Paul as a
confirmation of their assumption that a strong opposition
exists between James and the Gentile Apostle ; but since its
attitude in other respects towards the law was manifestly
not in keeping with this theory of the legal standpoint of
primitive Christianity, it must have been a pseudonymous
writer of a later time who made this James the mouthpiece
8 His remaining doubts, which are not unjust, only apply to the false
view of the Epistle that was prevalent. He rightly doubts whether the
Christendom outside Palestine was in James's time already so deeply
sunk in worldUness (comp. No. 2) ; and whether the historical James
could have carried on so keen a polemic against Paul without under
standing him (comp. No. 3), whereas his own standpoint over against
the law shows no trace of a narrow-minded, anti-PauUne Jewish Christ
ianity.

THE NEWER CRITICISM. 117
of his spiritualized Jewish Christianity in order to obviate
a view of the Pauline doctrine of justification which was de
trimental to practical Christianity. It was Schwegler who
first endeavoured to give a firmer historical outline to this
view of the Epistle taken by Baur, which was still quite
undeveloped. He regarded it as a parallel to the Clemen
tine Homilies, an apology for the two modes of thought
common to Ebionism, intended to reconcile the opposing
tendencies on the ground and within the principle of Jewish
Christianity. He makes the antithesis between rich and
poor that pervades the Epistle refer to secularized Pauline
Gentile Christianity as contrasted with primitive Christian
Ebionism. Polemical references to Gnosis and the persecu
tions of the time of Trajan are already visible.1 In this re
spect also Hilgenfeld sought to modify the conception of the
school, putting the Epistle back to the time of Domitian,
making out that the wisdom attacked was that of Paulinism
which had brought about the internal disunion of Christen
dom by its doctrinal disputes, drawing a distinction between
secularized Christians and the rich Gentile enemies of Christ
ianity, and finally declaring the Christianity of the author
to be Essene and Orphic in character. Holtzmann likewise
adheres to the same determination of time (Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol., 1882, 3) mainly on account of the alleged dependence
of the Epistle on the Paulines together with the Epistle to
the Hebrews, on the Apocalypse (in behalf of which, appeal
is made to i. 12, comp. Apoc. ii. 10; i. 18, comp. Apoc. xv.
4; ii. 5, comp. Apoc. ii. 9), on the first Canonical Gospel,
1 Peter, and the Epistle of Clement, declaring the rich to
1 The Epistle also belongs to this time in Hausrath's view, who regards
it as a direct answer of Jewish Christianity to the Epistle to the
Hebrews ; as also in the opinion of Bruckner (Jahrb. f. wiss. Theol., 1874,
4), who pronounces the whole address a literary fiction and makes it the
aim of the Epistle to keep a Romish conventicle of Essene-minded Jewish
Christians excluded from the heathen world and from the Christianity
that had been influenced by Paulinism.

118 EPISTLE OF JUDE.
be distinguished aspirants to Christianity. Finally v. Soden
also puts the persecutions of Domitian's time into the centre
of the presupposed situation and pronounces the author,
whom with Holtzmann and others he transfers to Rome, as
of a kindred spirit with Clement and Hermas.
AU these views are based on the arbitrary assumption of the Tubingen
school, that primitive Christianity was unable to sustain the position of
Jesus Himself with respect to the law ; they have to put a wrong inter
pretation on the address, at variance with the wording (comp. No. 1,
note 1), and thus create the opposition in which its universal form is
said to stand to the concrete relations presupposed in the Epistle itself ;
of which indeed they are only able to give a caricature. In particular
the rich of the Epistle are explained away in the most arbitrary manner,
or divided into Christians and non-Christians. V. Soden on the other
hand has with great impartiaUty shown that an attack on the Pauline
doctrine of justification, which Holtzmann also declared to be outside
all serious discussion, is quite out of the question, and has only by the
exercise of great ingenuity reconciled his assumption of a knowledge of
the Pauline Epistles with the entire absence of a more developed type
of doctrine, especiaUy with respect to the death of Christ. For this
reason he has decidedly rejected the fictions of Essenism or even Orphic
tendencies in the Epistle, as also the theory of a polemic against gnos
ticism, or a dependence on the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and the first Gospel. Thus criticism itself returns to the only correot
view of the Epistle, which not only makes its high antiquity and its
composition by the brother of the Lord possible, but directly necessary ;
though Holtzmann in his Introduction professes only to find in this
view a display of " childhke joy," which marks the " amiable oharaoter"
of Apologetics. § 38. The Epistle op Jude.
1. In the inscription with its invocation of a blessing the
author characterizes his readers in a general way as true
Christians (vers. 1 ff.), and explains that an exhortation to
contend against every danger threatening the faith common
to them with all the saints, forms the substance of his
epistle ; certain men having appeared, whom on account of
their perversion of the fundamental truths of Christianity,
he already finds condemned in Old Testament Scripture as

ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 119
ungodly (vers. 3 ff.). He reminds them of three well-known
examples of Divine punishment (vers. 5-7) and calls down
upon such as defile and destroy themselves with fleshly
sins, after the example of those who were overtaken by
these judgments, emancipating themselves from all that
is called dominion and speaking evil of dignities of whose
nature they are entirely ignorant, a woe that again recalls
three prominent examples of Old Testament sinners (vers.
8— ll).1 Prom the way in which they recklessly dese
crate without fear the love-feasts with rioting, he shows
in heightened imagery that they are not what they pro
fess to be, but are entirely devoid of spiritual life ; that
their nature impelled by wild passion attests their own
shame and can only end in destruction, which he foretells
in the words of the threat pronounced by Enoch on the
ungodly of his time ; finally setting forth the twofold con
trariety of their nature, in accordance with which they
murmur against God, although by their licentious life they
prepare their own fate ; and make boastful speeches, though
ready to cringe before those from whom they expect advan
tage (vers. 12-16). He recalls words of the Apostles fore
telling the appearance of frivolous mockers who should
walk after their own ungodly lusts, and not without irony
characterizes them as those who separate themselves al
though in reality they are psychists, not having the Spirit
(vers. 17 ff.). In opposition to such, the readers are to seek
an increase of faith, keeping themselves through prayer,
1 Just as Kvptor-nra in ver. 8 naturaUy referB to the Kvplor-ns of Christ
(ver. 4), although the expression is intentionally put in such a general
way because the object is to show that they virtuaUy disregard what
demands unconditional subordination, so ver. 9 undoubtedly shows that
by the 86foi of which they speak evil instead of trembling before them,
are meant the Satanic powers under whose dominion they fall in giving
themselves up to heathen abominations. While this only betrays de
fective knowledge of such supersensuous things, their instinctive know
ledge of sensuous things which they know how to use as means of
enjoyment, only leads to their destruetion (ver. 10).

120 PRESUMED ERRORISTS OF THE EPISTLE.
as taught by the Spirit, in the love of God, and expecting
to obtain eternal life from the mercy of Christ in the judg
ment. On their side they are then to have compassion on
these erring ones, only seeking to pluck those who still
hesitate, as a brand from the fire ; whereas with respect
to the rest, fear of infection is to keep them from all active
manifestation of compassion (3, 20-23). 2 The Epistle con
cludes with a solemn doxology (vers. 24).
2. The historical understanding of the Epistle depends
essentially on a correct view of the phenomenon against
which it is directed. The traditional view regarded it as an
attack on errorists, and judging by vers. 4, 17 f., on such as
were assailed and prophesied of in the second Epistle of
Peter (ii. 1 ff. ; iii. 2).1 But if we give up this reference,

* The reading of the Cod. Vat. : ofls piv iXe&re SiaKpivopivovs, <ri6fcTe ^k
¦x-vpbs apirdfovTes, oOs Si iXeare iv tpbpip purovvTes, etc. suspected entirely
without reason and accepted even by Westcott-Hort, is here assumed to
be correct. It is clear that the distinction of a double iXedv, an active
compassion that tries to save what may yet be saved, and a compassion
that is merely sympathetic, in which fear of hateful defilement of one's
self forbids aU approach and hence all attempt to save, was just as
unintelUgible to the copyists as the irregular aii^ere explanatory of the
first iXeare, which was necessary because, on account of the subsequent
participle dpirdfovres, it could not be participially expressed in the parallel
by pivovvTes. This explains all those variations, none of which gives a
supportable sense.
1 This is the view of Luther, Michaelis, and Hanlein, as of Thiersch,
Th. Schott (Komm., 1863), Hofmann, Spitta (der 2. Brief des Petr. und
d. Brief d. Jud., HaUe, 1885). But oi ir&Xai irpoyeypap-pAvoi in ver. 4
cannot possibly refer to a recently composed Apostolic writing, but only
to Old Testament scripture ; and apart from the fact that 2 Pet. iii. 2
refers to an entirely different manifestation and that the most peculiar
feature of the prediction in ii. 1 has here no analogy whatever; ver. 17 ff.,
apply not to the written prediction of an Apostle, but to the repeated
oral predictions of Apostles. Besides, the powerful originality of our
Epistle is altogether adverse to the assumption that its description of
these people, as also its imagery and examples are borrowed from the
second Epistle of Peter, which however from the extensive agreement
between them must necessarily have been the case, though denied by
Keil (Komm., 1883), if Jude had any reference to this Epistle.

LIBERTINISTS OF THE EPISTLE. 121
which is quite untenable, there is no longer the slightest
ground for thinking of errorists, as Ritschl (Stud. u. Krit.,
1861, 1) has already shown. No. mention is made anywhere
of doctrines disseminated by them nor are such doctrines
attacked; and to make airoSiopi^ovTes (vers. 19) refer to
divisions caused by them in the Church, is at variance with
the wording as well as the context.2 Nor can we agree
with de Wette, Reuss, Bleek and Schwegler in supposing
an allusion only to wicked men or only to such as by their
immoral life exercised a seductive influence in the Church.
It is not against individual moral errors or imperfections in
the Christian life that the Epistle is directed ; but the con
duct of these men is represented throughout as fundament
ally godless and immoral. We see clearly from vers. 3 that
they misinterpreted the doctrine of grace as a charter for a

1 How impossible it is to define these so-called errorists is best seen
from the fact that Schneckenburger (Beitr., 1832) regarded them as an
antithesis to the system of religion attacked in the Colossian Epistle,
misinterpreting ver. 8 as the denial of angels ; L. Schulze maintaining
on the contrary that they were an advanced form of the errorists there
attacked (comp. Sieffert in Herzog's R.-Enc, VII., 1880) ; as from the
fact that it is disputed whether they were Jewish Christians (Credner,
according to Hegesipp. ap. Eus., H.E., 4, 22 and also Grau), or Gentile
Christians, as has of late been generally assumed. It is only a false way
of putting the question to contend as to whether the adversaries of our
author kept their principles to themselves, as Ritschl maintains, in
which case our Epistle itself cannot have had any reference to them ; or
whether they made a propaganda for them as most recent critics infer
from the rejection of the former view, since in this case they would
certainly have been errorists and their doctrines would necessarily have
been attacked in our Epistle, which however is not the case. But be
tween these there is a third possibiUty that very naturally suggests itself,
viz. that they did try to extenuate and justify their conduct by appealing
to fundamental principles, but had no interest in formulating these
principles into a doctrine and disseminating them in opposition to the
prevailing doctrine ; for which reason the author does not consider it
worth his while to refute them. For the same reason Holtzmann's
assumption as a matter of course of a reference to the unsuitable pre
dictions of the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. If. ; iv. 3) is
simply at varianoe with the context.

122 LD3ERTINISTS OF THE EPISTLE.
licentious life, and what Paul distinctly repudiates in Rom.
vi. 15 they held to be the logical consequence of his doctrina
of grace, assuming that those who were in a state of grace
were emancipated from all external rule, and thus free not
only from the Old Testament law but also from every new
rule of life given by Christ ; a course of proceeding which
the author characterizes as a rejection of his Kvptonns. An
abuse of Pauline views is also shown in the fact, to which
the ironical allusion in ver. 19 to their separation manifestly
points, that they regarded themselves as the trne pneu-
matists, taught by the spirit to despise the devil (ver. 8)t
and to use for enjoyment what was made for enjoyment
(ver. 10). Hence their swelling words (ver. 16), with
which they raised themselves above the psychists who-
adhered to the common standpoint of faith, because their
assurance of faith was not weakened by any carnal pleasure ;,
for which reason the author so emphatically designates the
former traditional faith that needed no improvement as
"most holy" (vers. 3, 20). It is not therefore exactly the
misunderstood doctrine of Christian freedom on which they
took their stand, as Bleek maintains ; but as a matter of
fact we find them to be libertines on principle, who, unable
or disinclined to enter more deeply into questions of doctrine
(comp. Note 2), were content to have justified their immo
rality by an appeal to their unshaken state of grace and
their enlightened spiritual Christianity.8

• The Nicolaitanes of the Apocalypse (§ 35, 1) to which most critics
point (comp. Ewald, Huther, and others), unquestionably present a
phenomenon essentially similar, but the circumstance that Ubertinism
was grounded on a deeper gnosis, is here entirely wanting (ii. 24) since
aU references to Gnostic speculation which have been found here (e.g.
the bivirvia£6pevoi ver. 8) must first be artificially interpreted in this
sense. Hence there can be no question of precursors of the Gnostio
lystem of the second century, such as Thiersch, Wiesinger, Keil and
others here discovered and of which there is no proof whatever ; nor yet
of Sadduoean-minded Christians, as assumed by Bertholdt.

READERS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 123
8. An Epistle which deals throughout with a concrete
phenomenon which had evidently only a short time before
come into the readers' range of vision (ver. 4), which speaks
of people who desecrate their love-feasts (ver. 12), and gives
special directions for their treatment (ver. 22 f.), cannot
possibly be termed a Catholic Epistle in the strict sense ; as
maintained by Ewald, Sieffert, and Holtzmann.1 Since the
Epistle was of course personally transmitted, it did not re
quire any mention of place in the inscription; and since
moreover it was not addressed to the Churches in which it
was to be read, as such, for it was to these that the Liber
tines belonged, but expressly to those alone who had re
mained true (ver. 1), it was impossible to name a definite
Church or circle of Churches. The traditional view, that
the Epistle is connected with the predictions of the second
Epistle of Peter, led to the idea that it was addressed to the
Churches of Asia Minor ; but although this view is without
foundation, the historical analogy of the Nicolaitanes points
likewise to the Church-circle of Anterior Asia. It must
doubtless be conceded that analogous phenomena may
readily have appeared elsewhere, and that we might there
fore just as well think of the Syrian Churches, as de Wette
did. But it is at any rate more likely that such errors
would arise in a circle in which Paul had constantly worked
during the later years of his ministry, when his doctrine
of grace excluding all regulating principles of legality was
more sharply defined.2 This libertinism, appealing for its
1 Sieffert's view that the author originally intended to write an epistle
of universal purport (irepl ttjs o-ur-nptas) in keeping with the universal
address, and only found himself obUged to give it a more particular
character on the appearance of definite local phenomena in the Church,
rests on the very generaUy accepted (comp. Spitta), but utterly impos
sible distinction between an intended and a written epistle in ver. 3 ;.
and does not set aside the fact that a reference to local phenomena
presupposes also a local circle of readers.
3 The Jewish-Christian character of the Epistle naturaUy suggested

124 READERS AND DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
•basis to a principle, also affords the only secure foundation
for determining the time of the Epistle ; for it by no means
follows from ver. 17, where we are reminded of the words
of the Apostles, that all the Apostles were already dead, but
only that the Churches were at that time deprived of their
guidance.8 On the other hand the first appearance of this
false libertinism which, as the Apocalypse shows, had at the
end of the year 60 already made a theoretical foundation
for itself, having formed a school with apostles and pro
phets, and in opposition to which the Church as such was
forced to take up a position (§ 35, 1), may be put soon after
the middle of the year 60 ; when the longer removal of
the Apostle from his sphere of activity made it possible to
misinterpret his doctrine, for which the motive undoubtedly
lay in a lowering of the Christian moral standard already
^foreseen by Paul (2 Tim. iii. 1-5).
On the hypothesis, which however is very questionable, that Jude
would not have taken up the pen before the death of his renowned brother,
the year 62 is generaUy regarded as the terminus a quo for the composi
tion of the Epistle ; Credner and Sieffert making it 69. But although the
latter puts it between 70 and 80 because the form of error here attacked
is more developed than that of the Nicolaitanes, it is manifest that the
exact opposite is the case. The reasons for which Ewald, Th. Schott
the Churches of Palestine (comp. Credner, Wiesinger, Komm., 1862, with
an appeal to Euseb., H.E., 4, 22), although errors thus based on a mis
interpretation of PauUnism could only have appeared in Gentile-
Christian and not in Jewish- Christian circles ; while an acquaintance
with oral Apostolic predictions (ver. 17) is quite conceivable outside
Palestine. Hence the thought of any Jewish-Christian Church is for the
same reason equaUy shut out, whioh Spitta in an incomprehensible way
entirely overlooked.
8 Though ver. 5 certainly cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem,
as Hofmann supposes, yet seeing that the choice of the two other
examples had manifestly some special motive, we cannot maintain with
Bertholdt, Guericke and others that Jude must have named such de
struction among the chastisements to which he points, if it had already
lain behind him ; much less with Bleek, on the basis of a misinterpreta
tion of ver. 8 in our EpiBtle, can we regard it as referring to a poUtical
uprising of the Palestinian Jews before the final catastrophe.

TRADITION RESPECTING THE EPISTLE. 125»
and Hofmann go down to this time are still less defensible ; and if only
grandchildren of Jude were aUve at the time of Domitian (Eus., H. E.,
3, 20), it is most improbable that he himseU was stiU living towards-
the end of the year 70. That no determination of time with regard to
our Epistle can be drawn from the use of the Book of Enoch, to which
Credner and de Wette still attach importance, or even from the date of
the origin of the Assumptio Mosis, is now universaUy admitted. Renan
(in his Paulus) makes out that the Epistle was written as early as 54
against Paul, by the brother of James, who was embittered owing to the
manifestation in Antioch.
4. The Epistle, though not contained in the oldest Syriac
Church Bible, was early known in the West and was counted
a part of the New Testament by Tertullian who ascribes it
to the Apostle Jude, as also by the Muratorian Canon, prob
ably for the same reason (§9, 5; 10, 3). So too in the
Alexandrian Church it was already used and commented on
by Clement, and was very highly esteemed by Origen; al
though it was already known here that the brother of James
by whom it was written, did not belong to the Apostles in the
stricter sense (§ 9, 5; 10, 7). Eusebius classes it with the
Antilegomena for the same reason as the Epistle of James
(§ 11, 4) ; and from the fact that Jerome (De Vir. HI., 4),
certainly exaggerating, says that the Epistle of the frater
Jacobi a plerisque rejicitur on acccount of the citation from
Enoch, we see clearly that at his time, when a sharper dis
tinction was made between the apocryphal and the canonical,
offence was already taken at its use of a Jewish Apocryphon ;
but its ecclesiastical recognition was no longer endangered
by this. The author in ver. 1 styles himself the brother of
James, which, if this self-designation is to be intelligible, can
only mean the Lord's brother who stood at the head of the
Church in Jerusalem. He too, like James himself, was not
an Apostle (§ 36) ; he makes no claim, however, to apostolic
authority, but on the contrary in ver. 17 distinctly separates
himself from the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. That
the author was a Jewish Christian is seen from the whole
Epistle, which lives and moves in the figurative language of

126 AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE
the Old Testament (vers. 12 f., 23), as well as in its history
(vers. 5-7, 11), though likewise at home in Jewish tradition.1
This however is least of all at variance with the view that
the Epistle was composed by a prominent member of the
Jewish- Christian primitive Church. The fact that an author
who attacks a tendency arising out of a misinterpretation of
Pauline doctrine, has also points of contact with Pauline
idsas, is not enough to justify the conclusion that he was
acquainted with Pauline writings, as Wiesinger assumes
(comp. de Wette, who discovered that the concluding doxo
logy of the Roman Epistle had been made use of in ver. 25) ;
however facile such acquaintance would be in the second
half of the year 60. Although the Epistle itself gives no
indication of any former relation on the part of the author
with his readers, yet the very fact that Jude, who from his
calling himself ooOAos '1-qo-. Xptor. (ver. 1) certainly took an
active part in working for the kingdom of God, turns to the
Churches of Asia Minor in their danger, sufliciently proves
that such was the case. This can only seem strange if we
refuse to recognise what is undoubtedly affirmed in 1 Cor.
ix. 5, viz. that even the brethren of Jesus undertook mission
ary journeys at a very early date, naturally to the Jewish
Diaspora, whose believing members, however, had at this
time been long amalgamated in many ways with the Gentile-
Christian Pauline Churches.2
1 Hence it is a matter of total indifference whether he takes the nar
rative of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan for the body of
Moses to which he alludes in ver. 9, from it or from a Jewish Apocry-
phon ; (according to Origen, De Princ, 3, 2, from the Assumptio Mosis ;
comp. Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaiorum, Lips., 1869) ; it is certain that in
ver. 14 f . he quotes from the Book of Enoch (comp. Dillmann, Das Buch
Henoch., Leipz., 1853) and therefore probably also took the tradition of
the punishment of the sinful angels in ver. 6 from it ; for Hofmann's
view (comp. F. Philippi, Das Buch Henoch., Stuttgart, 1868), that on the
contrary the Book of Enoch quotes from the Epistle of Jude, and that
the latter has only drawn out the allusionB of the Old Testament inde
pendently, needs no refutation.
• We do not even know whether Jude was still in Palestine when he

CRITICISM OF THE EPISTLE. 127
5. Luther denied to this Epistle the apostolic origin to
which it lays no claim whatever, partly on the just ground
that the author speaks as an apostolic disciple, partly on the
¦quite erroneous assumption that it copies the second Epistle of
Peter and cites unbiblical sayings and stories. On this point
criticism for a time spent much fruitless groping,1 until Jes-
sien (De Authent. Ep., Jud., Lips. 1821) showed clearly that the
Epistle was not the work of an Apostle, but professed to come
and actually did come from the true brother of the Lord, the
well-known James of Jerusalem. Since his time the earlier
view, that it professed to come from Jude the brother of
James, one of the Twelve (comp. Bertholdt, Hanlein), has
only been advocated by such intrepid defenders of tradition
as Hofmann and Keil ; whereas all defenders of its genuine
ness, even L. Schulze, adhere only to the real brother of the
Lord. Even de Wette found no adequate reason for denying
the Epistle to this Jude. In Schwegler's opinion it was a
foregone conclusion that the author only borrowed the mask
of a brother of James, because the latter was in the eyes of
Jewish Christians the chief representative of that apostolic
paradosis which he desired to commend (vers. 3, 17 f., 20) ;
but it is inconceivable why in this case he should have chosen
wrote this Epistle, which Credner, Bleek, and de Wette only infer from
the fact that his grandchildren were settled in Palestine as agriculturists
<comp. Euseb., H. E., 3, 20) ; although Mayerhoff 's wonderful idea (in
his Einl. in die petr. Schriften), that the imagery of the Epistle points to
Egypt, has long been abandoned. There is the less reason to look for
an Aramaic original in the case of our Epistle, after the example of
Schmidt and Bertholdt, or to take offence at its ornamented Greek style,
especially as the somewhat overdone and far-fetched imagery of the
Epistle is actuaUy modelled on that of the Old Testament, while the
style least of aU shows facility in Greek structure.
1 Grotius held the author to be the 15th bishop of Jerusalem who
Uved under Hadrian (Eus., H. E., 4, 5) ; Dahl (De Authent. Ep. Petr.
Post, et Judce, Rost., 1807) as a presbyter of the name of Jude; whUe
Schott even thought of Judas Barsabas mentioned in Acts xv. 22 ; and
Eichhorn left the author quite undetermined. Nor could Schleiermacher,
Neander or Reuss make anything of the Epistle.

128 GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF PETER.
J ude who was quite unknown, and not James himself. Oe
the other hand the latest criticism, represented by Hilgenfeld
and Volkmar, Schenkel and Mangold, Lipsius and Holtz
mann, has interpreted the Epistle as an attack on the Anti-
nomian Gnosis of the second century, particularly that of
Carpocrates (comp. also Volter, and on the other hand § 35,
I, note 2), which Clement of Alex, already finds foretold in
Jude (Strom., 3, 2). But it is clear that the fundamental
principle of the libertinism here attacked, as shown in our
Epistle (No. 2), is the exact contrary of gnostic dualism in
which such gnosis had its root. Moreover it is purely ima
ginative to find a rejection of the world's Creator and Law
giver together with the angels who serve Him in vers. 4 and 8,
which only refer to a practical denial of the KvpioT-rji of Christ ;
and an allusion to " the decaying faith of the Church " in the
emphasizing of the traditional faith in vers. 3, 20. Comp.
on the other hand Spitta, ibid.
§ 39. T'he Apostle Peteb.
1. Simon, or Simeon (Acts xv. 14 ; comp. 2 Pet. i. 1,
according to the Hebrew, Shimeon), the son of one Jona
(Matt. xvi. 17), appears in ancient tradition as a fisher on
the Lake of Gennesareth, who with Andrew his (apparently
younger) brother, dwelt in Capernaum (Mark i. 16, 29). The
way in which his mother-in-law is mentioned on the occasion
of Jesus' visit to their house (i. 30 f.), makes it not improb
able that at that time he was already a widower; yet he
must afterwards have married again (1 Cor. ix. 5), although
the (rw£KXeKTrj of 1 Pet. v. 13 is no more his wife (in opposi
tion to Neander) than the Mark there named is his actual
son. At the beginning of His Messianic work in Galilee
Jesus had first called the two brothers to be his constant
companions (Mark i. 17 f .) ; or according to another tradition
chiefly and in the first place Simon (Luke v. 10), expressly

THE APOSTLE PETER. 129
requiring him to exchange his fisherman's calling for a higher
one. He is always named first, not only in the list of the
Apostles (Mark iii. 16), but also in the circle of Jesus' three
confidential friends (v. 37 ; ix. 2 ; xiii. 3 ; xiv. 33) ; he is
addressed by Jesus rather than the rest (xiv. 37) and ap
pears also on other occasions to be regarded as the chief
of the disciples (xvi. 7 ; comp. Matt. xvii. 24). Jesus had
given him the distinguishing name of Peter (Mark iii. 16) ;
and how He meant it is shown from the statement, certainly
drawn from earliest tradition, that on the basis of the rocky
nature expressed in this name Jesus expected him perma
nently to found the Church of the Messiah (Matt. xvi. 18). l
Jesus seems to be thinking of Simon when in answer to the
request of the sons of Zebedee for the highest places of
honour in His kingdom, He says they are not His to give,
aXX' ots rjTOLpiaoTai (Mark x. 40), viz. by God Himself accord
ing to their gifts and calling, as Matt. x. 23 correctly explains.
Even after His resurrection Jesus distinguished him by ap
pearing to him specially and apparently first (Luke xxiv.
34; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 5).
In the fourth Gospel the name of the father of the two brethren is
said to be 'Iwdvr-ns (John i. 43 ; comp. xxi. 15-17). The fact that Beth
saida is spoken of as the city of Andrew and Peter (i. 44), i.e. the city of
their birth and original home, is naturally not inconsistent with the
presumption that they had afterwards, in pursuit of their trade, settled
in Capernaum. Andrew there appears as a disciple of the Baptist (i. 40) ;
whereas Simon had probably come to the Jordan only for the purpose of
being baptized, when Andrew met him there and made him acquainted
with Jesus in whom he had found the Messiah (i. 41 f.). The narrative
of his having been called at the Sea of Galilee, far from being in contra
diction with this, would be quite unintelUgible except on the hypothesis
of such previous acquaintance. That Jesus gave him the name of Peter

1 On the contrary the giving of the power of the keys in the sense of
Isa. xxii. 22, i.e. of the chief direction and oversight of the house of the
Divine kingdom (Matt. xvi. 19) manifestly rests on a later application of
the words of Matt, xviii. 18 specially to him, in keeping with thepositioD
which in fact he ocoupied for a very long period in the Church.

VOL. II.

130 THE APOSTLE PETER.
at this first meeting (i. 42) is not inconsistent with Matt. xvi. 18, whera
Jesus only alludes to the character implied in such a designation.2 At
the close of the Gospel the supreme authority in the Church which Peter
had forfeited by his faU, as the probationary question put to him shows,
seems to have been made over to him again only after the resurrection
of Jebiis (John xxi. 15-17).
2. Peter was of a rash nature. Quick to resolve, we find
him first among the Apostles on every occasion, in speech as
well as in action. It is he who in the name of the Twelve
confesses the Messiahship of Jesus (Mark viii. 29 ; comp.
John vi. 69), and suggests the reward which they think
they earned by their fidelity (Mark x. 28). The later
Gospels also, as a rule, make him spokesman for the dis
ciples (Matt. xv. 15; xviii. 21 ; Luke viii. 45 ; xii. 41). Just
as in Mark xiv. 54 he alone follows Jesus into the palace of
the high priest, so the fourth Gospel represents him as the
first resolutely to examine the sepulchre on Easter morning;
and on seeing the risen One, to throw himself into the sea,
in order to be first with Jesus (John xx. 6 ; xxi. 7 ff.).
Lightly stirred by every impulse that affected his suscept
ible nature, he was hurried into thoughtless speech and
action. He presumes to reproach the Lord when for the
first time He speaks of His passion (Mark viii. 32) ; and pro
poses to build tabernacles on the mount of transfiguration
(ix. 5). Just in the same way the fourth Gospel depicts
him as first hastily refusing to have his feet washed, and
3 Mark certainly seems to have the idea that this name was given to
him at the time when the apostolic circle was constituted (iii. 14 f.) ; but
this is in itself very improbable, since the moment in question had no
special significance whatever for Simon, who had been caUed by Jesus
long before into His service ; and the idea probably originated only in
the fact that it was in the apostolic circle that Simon, whom Jesus alone
seems to have called by this name (Mark xiv. 37 ; Luke xxii. 31 ; Matt.
xvii. 25; John xxi. 15-17), first bore the name thus given to him by
Jesus. Paul speaks of him exclusively as Cephas, or Peter (Gal. ii. 7 f.)
as he calls himself (1 Pet. i. 1). It is in the Gospels that we first meet
with the name of Simon Peter, in addition to Peter alone (Matt. xvi. 16 ;
Luke v. 8 j comp. Acts x. 5 ; 2 Pet. i. 1).

THE APOSTLE PETER. 131
then, when the Lord makes participation with Himself de
pendent on this act, asking for more than Jesus offers him
(John xiii. 6-9). It is he moreover who is represented as
thoughtlessly using his sword in Gethsemane (xviii. 10).
He fails in his promise to remain true to the Lord even to
death though all should be offended with Him (Mark xiv.
29-31, comp. John xiii. 37) ; and denies Him in the court
of the high priest (Mark xiv. 66-72). 1 So too the narrative
of the first Gospel, describing the rash courage with which
he tries to go through the sea to Jesus, and then, no sooner
perceives the storm than he despairs and begins to sink
(Matt. xiv. 28-31), pourtrays his character in a way that
cannot be surpassed. Again we find him acting against
a conviction strengthened by long practice, because the
coming of messengers from Jerusalem made him apprehen
sive lest he should be suspected as an apostate from the
law of the fathers (Gal. ii. 11-13; comp. § 14, 6). Only
He who is unequalled in knowledge of the heart could
have detected in this apparently contradictory nature, so
open to varying impulses, the rocky heart which, when
fully developed, gave the right direction to his energetic
nature, and combined self-sacrificing endurance with his
rash initiative.
3. In the circle of the disciples, assembled at Jerusalem
after the departure of Jesus, Peter at once takes his place
1 The account given in the fourth Gospel (John xvni. 16-18 ; xxv. 27),
firtt makes this occurrence fully clear and comprehensible. It is only
when the maid by her untimely question exposes him to the danger of
losing the access he had luckUy gained to the high priest's palace, that
he gives an evasive answer wliich is already half a lie. Then when a
second question threatens to make him a laughing-stock to the rude
servants and to reveal him as a liar, he gets more and more deeply in
volved in untruth ; and when finally the discovery of his rash act of
violence exposes him to personal danger he is led to confirm his lie by
an oath. The crowing of the cock first reminds him that in his self-
forgetting rashness he has uttered the very denial that in his love for
Jesus he had deemed entirely impossible.

132 THE APOSTLE PETER.
as the leading personality, suggesting the choice of an
Apostle in the place of Judas (Acts i. 15 ff.). Thousands
were converted at the feast of Pentecost by his appearing
and discourse, and were added to the first Church of the
Messiah by means of the baptism that he required (chap.
ii.). It was by his discourse after the healing of the lame
man that he first drew down upon himself the enmity of the
chief council (chaps, iii., iv.) ; and on the occasion of his
second conflict with them he speaks in the name of the
Apostles (v. 29). He purifies the Church from the scandal
it had incurred through Ananias and Sapphira, by unmask
ing their deception (v. 1-11). He visits the newly-founded
churches in Samaria and on the Phoenician coast ; on which
occasion he is induced to baptize the first Gentile (chaps.
viii.-x.). At Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, he is so dis
tinctly the head of the primitive Church, that Paul desires
only to make acquaintance with him (Gal. i. 18) ; and after
the execution of James the son of Zebedee, it is chiefly
against him that Herod's enmity is directed (Acts xii. 3 f.).
Whither he turned after his release from imprisonment, we
do not know (xii. 7) ; the only certain thing is that from
that time James the brother of the Lord took his place at
the head of the primitive Church (§ 36, 1). We meet
with him again at the so-called Apostolic Council in Jeru
salem, where although he is the first to speak, it is evident
that he no longer occupies the leading place (Acts xv. 7 ;
comp. Gal. ii. 9). Soon afterwards we find him in Antioch
(Gal. ii. 11) ; and at Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, he is
manifestly no longer there (Acts xxi. 17 ff.). It is abso
lutely inconceivable that a man of such powerful initiative
should have confined his activity to Judea or Jerusalem,
especially after another had actually assumed the leadership
in that place. The way in which Paul speaks of him as
qualified for the drroo-ToXr) -rrjs rrepiTo/iLrjs in opposition to him
self (Gal. ii. 8), is only intelligible on the assumption that

PETER'S CONNECTION WITH ROME. 133
Peter had made missionary journeys to the Jewish Diaspora
his chief work; and Paul treats it as a fact well known
to the Corinthians that he went about with his wife on
journeys of this kind (1 Cor. ix. 5). We have indeed no
certain historical information as to where he went ; apart
from the conclusion that may be drawn from his first
Epistle.1 4. It is at all events credibly attested that Peter came
also to Rome towards the end of his life. The probability
is so great, that Clement of Rome supposes his martyrdom
to have taken place there (ad Cor. v. 4) ; he does not
directly state this however, and it is dangerous to conclude
from the words of Ignatius, oix "s Her/ros ko.1 UavXos
o\.aTdWo/«u vpuv (ad Rom. iv. 3) that both Apostles laboured
in Rome. On the other hand the account of Peter's abode
in Rome has since the last quarter of the second century
assumed definiteness of form, though manifestly in connec
tion with the claim of the Roman Church to have been
founded by the two chief Apostles Peter and Paul in
common. It is true that what Dionysius of Corinth (ap.
Euseb., H.E., 2, 25) says of a planting of Churches in Corinth
and Rome by both in common, is by himself virtually re
duced to a SiSao-Keu' on their part in the two places; but
Caius of Rome already speaks (ibid.) of the two Apostles
who founded the Church, and Irenaeus refers to the time when
1 Eusebius' statement (H.E., 3, 1) that he seems to have preached to
the Jews of the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia and
Asia — as to which it is entirely a matter of indifference whether the
later appeal to Origen refers likewise to this utterance — is unquestion
ably based entirely on 1 Pet. i. 1 (comp. H.E., 3, 4) ; however confidently
repeated by Jerome [De Vir. III., 1) and Epiphanius (Heer., 27). The
fable of his bishopric at Antioch is also an inference from Gal. U. 11.
On the other hand there is much to be said in favour of the supposition
that on his missionary journeys he came also to Corinth (§ 19, 4, note 2).
The idea that this would be at variance with the agreement come to in
Gal. ii. 9, rests on a total misunderstanding of the passage (§ 14, 5,
note 2).

134 PETER'S CONNECTION WITH ROME.
they preached the Gospel there and founded the Church
(adv. Heer., IY. 3, 1, comp. 3, 2, 3). Among the Ecclesise
Apostolicse Tertullian esteems the Roman one specially
happy, " cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo pro-
fuderunt " (De Prcescr. Hair., 36). Nevertheless the assump
tion that the idea of Peter's abode in Rome only originated
in a desire to unite the two Apostles in a peaceful relation
and to give Peter a share in the great work of the Gentile
Apostle, for the purpose of doing away with the primitive-
Christian opposition between them (comp. Baur, Tub.
Zeitschr. f. Theol, 1831, 4; 1836, 3), is wholly untenable.
The natural way in which the two Apostles are associated in
Clement of Rome and Ignatius entirely excludes all pre
sumption of such tendency ; since the former says nothing
whatever of the two Apostles working together, while the
latter does not expressly state that both worked personally
in Borne. Above all we find in Clement of Alexandria the
assumption of Peter's abode in Rome solely in connection
with an entirely artless statement respecting the composi
tion of Mark's Gospel, that has nothing whatever to do with
such tendencies and is confirmed by Papias (ap. Euseb. 3,
39) out of the mouth of the Presbyter (John), as also by
the character of the Gospel itself.1
Following a later development of Baur's view, Lipsius (die Quellen der
rom. Petrussage, Kiel, 1872, comp. also Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., 1876, 4)
and Holtzmann (in Schenkel's B.-Lex., IV, 1872) in particular have
endeavoured to interpret the CathoUc form of the tradition about the

1 Since Eusebius (H.E., 6, 14) himself quotes the passage from
Clement's Hypotyposes, in which the latter appeals to the tradition of
the old presbyters, it is entirely arbitrary to represent his own utterance
in ii. 15 as an appeal to Clement in favour of what had been said re
specting Simon, or in confirmation of his false interpretation of 1 Pet.
v. 13. Just as Uttle does he appeal to Papias in favour of Mark's Gospel
having been composed in Rome, which was quite impossible after the
passage he quotes from him in 3, 39 ; although it is probable that the
tradition in Papias supposes the Apostle to have written in Rome.

PETER'S CONNECTION WITH ROME. 135
common abode of the two Apostles in Rome as a later distortion of the
original anti-Pauline tradition in which Peter under the form of Simon
Magus pursues the Apostle Paul to Rome in order to attack and van
quish him there. (Comp. on the other hand Hilgenfeld, Ztschr.f. wiss.
Theol., 1872, 3 ; 77, 4 ; Joh. Delitzsch, Stud. u. Krit., 1874, 2). But the
Jewish-Christian fable in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recog
nitions looks for the scene of this struggle, consistently with the origin
of the idea (§ 14, 6), chiefly in Antioch; while the tradition of Peter's
sojourn at Rome, which again meets us in Clement's Epistle to James
(chap, i.) without any reference to the struggle with the magician,
was only made use of afterwards for the further extension of the Cle
mentine romance (comp. Const. Apost., vi. 8).2 Side by side with this
we find also in the Prcedicatio Petri the idea that the two Apostles first
made acquaintance in Rome ; and as in it, so too in the Acta Petri et
Pauli we have the tradition of Peter'B sojourn at Rome without any
mention of his conflict with the magician in either. That this event is
afterwards transferred to Rome is in keeping with the account of Justin,
according to which Simon is said to have come to Rome under Claudius
and to have been worshipped there as a God (Apol., I. 26).3 It was
Eusebius who first combined Justin's account with the Clementine
attack on Simon Magus by Peter, of which Justin, Irenaros and Ter
tullian are stiU ignorant, and which without perceiving its tendency he
takes for actual history, as Hippolytus had already done (Philos., vi. 20),
making out that Simon was pursued to Rome by Peter, who therefore
came to Rome as early as the second year of Claudius (comp. H.E.,
2, 14 and his Chron.) ; on which basis Jerome then founded Peter's
twenty-five years' bishopric in Rome (De Vir. III., 1). On this is bmlt
up the whole Roman tradition, stiU defended by Windischmann (Vindicite
a The Tubingen school, whose view on this point has been indefatig-
ably defended especiaUy by Lipsius (comp. Schenkel, Bibellex., v.), finds
even in Acts viii. a Catholic distortion of the anti-Pauline tradition which
stamped Simon first as the representative of Paulinism, and then of
Gnosticism. Comp. on the other hand Ritschl, Delitzsch, A. Harnack
(Zur Quellenkritik d. Gesch. d. Gnosticismus, Leipzig, 1873), Mangold,
and lastly Hilgenfeld himself (Ketzergesch. d. Urchristenthums, Leipzig,
1884). 8 It has long been shown that this statement is simply an error, since
it is connected with a statue dedicated to the Sabine-Boman deity Semo
Sancus, the inscription of which was incorrectly read by Justin as
Simoni Sancto. Since therefore this has no connection whatever with
the Jewish-Christian fable which represents Paul as having been pursued
under the mask of Simon Magus by Peter, Irenajus (Adv. Hair., I. 23, 1),
and Tertullian (De Anima, 34) borrow it from Justin without connecting
it in any way with Peter's sojourn in Rome.

136 peter's martyrdom.
Petrince, Ratisb., 1836) ; whereas it has been abandoned even by CathoUo
theologians such as Ellendorf (Ist Petrus in Rom. Gewesen 1 Darmstadt,
1841. Comp. § 22, 2).4'
5. A hint of the martyrdom of Peter, though not of his
crucifixion, is already found in a prophetic utterance of
Jesus, by the author of John xxi. 18 f. who therefore
assumes it as a well-known fact; but that he suffered
this martyrdom in Rome is not at least directly stated by
Clement of Rome (No. 4), nor does the Muratorian Canon,
which somewhere speaks of the passion of Peter, make any
definite statement as to place and time. On the other hand
Caius of Rome pledges himself to show, even at his time,
the rpoiraia of the two Apostles ; but even the i/JLapTvprjo-av
Kara, tov airov Kaipov of Dionysius of Corinth (ap. Euseb.,
H.E., 2, 25) is not to be taken in a strictly chronological
sense. It is with Irenaeus that the e|o8os of the two Apostles
first forms an express designation of time (Adv. Heer., III. 1,
1) ; but here as in the account of Dionysius it is quite
enough to assume the latter time of Nero in general. We
are as little entitled to draw from 1 Clem, ad Cor. vi. 1 the
indirect conclusion that it was in the massacre of the year
64 that both Apostles perished, as to conclude from Tertul
lian's statement that they died under Nero (Scorpiace, 15).
That Paul is said to have been executed with the sword in
distinction from Peter (De Prxscr. Heer., 36: "ubi Petrus
passioni dominicse adsequatur, ubi Paulus Joannis exitu
4 The Protestant polemic against this view already begins with U.
Velenus (Liber quo Petrum Romam non venisse asseritur, 1520, Frcf.,
1631) ; and reasons for it are put together by Fr. Spanheim, de ficta
profectione Petri ap. in urbem Romam, Lugd. Bat., 1679. But recent
theologians also in giving up the Roman fiction of the founding of the
Church by Peter and of his twenty-five years' episcopate in Rome, have
thrown doubt on the trustworthy tradition of Peter's sojourn (and
martyrdom) in that city (comp. Neander and Winer) ; or have disputed
it, as for example Eichhorn, who derives it from a false interpretation
of 1 Pet. v. 13, Hase, de Wette, Mayerhoff (Einl. in die petr. Schriften,
Hamburg, 1835), and Gundert (Jahrb./. deutsche Theol., 1869, 2).

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 137
coronatnr"), is on the contrary an argument against such
assumption; since the Apostle would hardly in those days
of horror have been protected from the death ->i a slave by
his Roman citizenship (comp. § 26, 6).1 It was Jerome (De
Vir. HI., 1) who first made them die on the same day. It is
even by no means improbable that Peter came to Rome only
after Paul's death ; though the hypothesis that he did not
wish to appear as an intruder into his field of labour can
hardly be taken to prove this (as Mangold maintains), since
we have no knowledge whatever of the circumstances
that led him to Rome. The martyrdom of Peter in Rome
has been adhered to by Olshausen (Stud. u. Krit., 1838, 4),
Gieseler and Niedner, Credner and Bleek, Ewald and Weiz
saoker (Jahrb. f. d. Theol., 1876, 2), Mangold, and even
Hilgenfeld (comp. Zeitschr. f. w. Theol., 1876, 1 ; 77, 4).
Compare finally Sieffert (ap. Herzog, B.-Enc, xi. 1883).
§ 40. The Piest Epistle of Peter.
1. The Epistle characterizes its readers as those who by
virtue of their election to be partakers in the fulness of
Divine salvation, are strangers here upon earth, but at the
same time designates them as belonging to the Diaspora of
Asia Minor (more definitely of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia and Bithynia, i. 1). According to this the readers can
only be regarded as Messiah-believing Jews.1 Consistently
1 Tertullian's statement as to the mode of Peter's death looks very
like a (false) interpretation of John xxi. 18 f., while suspicion is first
thrown on the assertion of Origen that he was crucified Kara KeipaXijs,
i.e. with his head down (ap. Euseb., H.E., 3, 1), by Jerome (De Vir. III.,
1) who moreover in direct opposition to Tert. De praiser. heer., 36, treats
it as a mark of humility on the part of the Apostle who would not put
himseU on an equality with his Lord.
1 Even if the iv r-j Siaairopa in James i. 1 could be a mere ethnogra
phical delineation (§ 37, 1, note 1), any other interpretation is herb
made quite impossible by the circumstance that the genitive of the
names of the countries (comp. John vii. 35) can only apply to those

138 READERS OF THE EPISTLE.
with this we have the circumstance that passages from th*
Old Testament (such as i. 16 ; ii. 6), are not only inciden
tally quoted, as often happens with Paul even when speaking
to Gentile Christians, but that much more frequent allusion
is made to Old Testament passages in a way that pre
supposes their familiarity and currency with the readers ;
since it is only on this assumption that such allusions reach
their object (comp. in particular i. 24 f . ; ii. 3 f. ; vii. 9 f.
22-25 ; iii. 10-12, 14; iv. 8, 17 f. ; v. 5, 7). In many cases-
the language also presupposes an understanding of Old Tes-
tament usages, ideas and narratives, with which the Gentile-
Christians cannot be credited to the same extent (comp. i.
2, 10 ff., 19 ; ii. 5, 24 ; iii. 5 f., 20) ? Prom the circumstance
that the Apostle in addressing the Jewish- Christian
Churches bears preliminary testimony by his word to the
truth of the grace of God made known to them (v. 13) ;,
districts where the Jewish community to which the readers belonged1
waB scattered. The very characterization of their Christian state by
iKXeKrol irape-irtSnpoi, makes it quite impossible to interpret the genitive
Siao-iropds only as an analogous designation of such state ; in which case
moreover it would after aU be applied in an entirely arbitrary way to
external dispersion as opposed to inner relationship (v. Soden, Jahrb. f.
d. Theol., 1883, 3), unless we introduce references which are entirely
inapplicable to Gentile Christians (comp. Holtzmann). It is quite im
possible to go with Mangold, who finds himself forced to acknowledge-
the proper signification of Siao-n-opd, in also explaining iraperlSitpoL
Uterally and from a Jewish-Christian standpoint, making the Gentile
Christians only associates of Jewish Christians in the Diaspora ; as the
parallel expression in i. 17 ; ii. 11 shows.
2 This view, though current, seems to us to be historicaUy incon
ceivable, and to go far beyond the Pauline transference of the theocratio-
predicates of Israel to the Christian Church as such ; it is a quid pro qua
by means of which the fact that believing Israel is in ii. 7-9 called the
chosen race (yivOs—iBvos) in consequence of the Divine foreknowledge
(i. 2) in opposition to those who were rejected on account of unbelief, ia
concealed. So too it is owing to a prevalent, but verbally impossible
misinterpretation of ii. 25, that we fail to see how the readers are there
designated in prophetic phraseology as sheep that have gone astray from
the fold of the true theocracy and are now brought baok to Jehovah
their Shepherd (comp. Ezek. xxxiv. 11 ff., 16).

HYPOTHESIS THAT THEY WERE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 139
whereas no trace of Jewish Christian errors by which the
Churches were disturbed is anywhere to be found in our
Epistle (as assumed by Neander, Credner, Guerieke, Bleek
and again by L. Schulze without any foundation in the
Epistle), it is clear that those who preached the Gospel *o
them (i. 12, 15) were not Apostles, and hence that we have
to do with Messiah-believing conventicles in the Diaspora of
Asia Minor, which owing to frequent intercourse with the
fatherland, had arisen naturally by means of the Propa
ganda of the Palestinian primitive Church, though without
premeditation. The current assertion that we have no
knowledge of such Jewish- Christian Churches in Asia Minor,
is entirely unmeaning ; since apart from what the Acts nar
rate of the Pauline mission and what the Pauline Epistles
presuppose, we know virtually nothing regarding the spread
of Christianity. On the contrary we have seen that Paul's
journey through Asia Minor (§ 15, 2), as also the Galatian
and Ephesian Epistles (§ 18, 1 ; 25, 6) already presuppose
the existence of such Jewish- Christian Churches, which
moreover are known even to the Apocalypse (§ 35, 2). That
individual believers among the heathen had attached them
selves to these Churches, though possible, cannot be proved ;
in any case it could not interfere with the presumption
that believing Israel formed the proper substance of the-
Christian Churches.
Notwithstanding the fact that in accordance with the precedent set.
by the Patristic expositors with scarcely an exception, aU earlier critics,
rightly interpreting the address, adhered to the view of Jewish-Christian
readers (comp. Augusti, kath. Briefe, 1801 ; Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug),.
admitting at most an intermixture of GentUe Christians (as done by
Schott and Jachmann in his Commentary, 1838, Winer and L. Schulze,.
after the example of Calvin), the view that the readers were Gentile-
Christian has after the example of Augustine, Luther, Wetstein since
Guericke's Beitr. (1828) and Steiger's Kommentar. (1832) become the
prevaUing one; MichaeUs, Credner and Neudecker are alone in sup
posing them to have been proselytes, as suggested by the Venerable
Bede. It was thought that i. 14, 18, and especiaUy iv. 3 contained an

140 HYPOTHESIS THAT THEY WERE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
allusion to the former Gentile sinful life of the readers, without regard
to the fact that it would not be the least surprising if the Jews in the
Diaspora without, were stiU more infected by the heathen social life that
surrounded them than the reXGivat, Kal apapruXol of Galilee with whom
the Gospels make us acquainted (comp. also Rom. ii. 1 ff. ; Eph. ii. 3 ;
Tit. iii. 3) ; and that these passages in many respects prove the very
contrary of that which they are said to prove.3 But it is quite at variance
with the context in behalf of this view to make i. 21 refer to conversion
to monotheism, i. 25 to the extension of Old Testament Scripture to
former heathen, and ii. 10 in opposition to the original sense of the
passage Hos. ii. 32 to the adoption of Gentiles, instead of to the re-
adoption of Israel who had obtained mercy in Christ, because Paul thus
interpreted the passage in Hosea. Finally, it is inconceivable how iii. 6
oan be regarded as a proof that the readers were Gentiles, because they
had only become children of Sara, a statement which certainly can be
taken only in a metaphorical sense (for the very reason that it appears
as dependent on their ayaBoiroieiv), for in this the highest honour for
born Jewesses consisted. The true conception, inevitably foUowing
from the address, has since Weiss (petr. Lehrbegr., Berlin, 1858 ; Stud.
u. Krit., 1865, 4 ; 1873, 3) been only of late acknowledged again by Bey
schlag (Stud. u. Krit., 1857, 4) and Schenkel.
2. It is certain that the existence of such essentially
Jewish- Christian Churches in Asia Minor presupposes that
the Epistle belongs to an early time, before Gentile Christ
ianity had (after 55 or 56, comp. § 18, 7, Note 2) neces-
* If the Hyvoia to which in i. 14 their former lusts are traced back, is
by no means necessarily heathen ignorance of the Divine wUl, but may
be a defective understanding of this will which they endeavoured to
satisfy by the outward fulfilling of the law ; and if i. 18 contains no
reference whatever to the vanity of worshipping idols, but to a walk
which had power over them by very virtue of the tradition of their
fathers ; it is quite clear that when in iv. 3 the readers are reproached
with having wrought the wiU of the Gentiles in their pre- Christian life,
they themselves cannot have been heathen. The plural elSoiXoXarp.
cannot possibly denote the actual worship of idols, but participation in
idolatrous works ; for example the eating of flesh offered to idols, taking
part in sacrificial meals (comp. Rom. ii. 22), which by the addition of
¦aBeplrois are shown to have been practised by those to whom they were
expressly forbidden. Moreover it is hard to understand how those who
interpret Rom. xiii. 13 as having been written to Jewish Christians
(§ 22, 3) can find this passage irreconcilable with the Jewish-Christian
address.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 141
sarily gained ascendency in Asia Minor by Paul's Gentile-
Apostolic ministry proceeding from Ephesus. We are
brought to the same time by the fact that there is no men
tion as yet of the legal question, which, as the Galatian
disturbances show, must instantly have become a burning
one when the Pauline creations came into contact with the
earlier Jewish-Christian foundations (§18, l).1 The fact
that the Churches had already presbyters (v. 1) is not
enough to relegate this Epistle any more than that of James
(§ 37, 3) to a later time ; especially as v. 5 shows that be
sides these there was no second office in the Church, but that
those who were younger in years (oi vewrepoi, comp. Acts v.
6, 10) rendered any inferior services that might be neces
sary, subordinate to the Presbyters, just as in the earliest
period of the primitive Church. The designation of the
readers as dpTiyevvr/Ta fipi<f>ri (ii. 2) expressly indicates that
they had but recently been converted, for it would have
sufficed in conjunction with the figure of the milk there
employed to have called them vrjmoi (1 Cor. iii. 1 f. ; Heb.
v. 13) ; and it fully agrees with this, that the troubles
which they had to endure in their Christian state still ap
peared strange to them, as being new and unexpected (iv.
12), inasmuch as the approach of the Messianic time seemed
to afford them a prospect of the greatest happiness. These
troubles seemed primarily to consist in the fact that the
readers were reproached by their former countrymen for the
name of Christ (iv. 14) ; and only in this connection does it
cease to appear strange that the Apostle should exhort them
1 Although this by no means proves that our Epistle does not belong
to the time previous to the Apostolic council (comp. § 37, 3, note 1),
neither does it prove that it belongs to a time when the above question
may be regarded as having been solved ; for at this time, as we see from
the Colossian and Pastoral Epistles, doctrinal errors of an entirely dif
ferent nature disturbed the Churches of Asia Minor, of which Th. Schott
alone (Komm., 1861) has been able to discover some trace in our
Epistle.

142 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
not to bring suffering on themselves by their sins, but tc
glorify God by the way in which they suffered <us Xpt-
a-Tiavoi (iv. 15 f.). It is certain that their relation to the
heathen world by which they were surrounded is already
taken into consideration in a way that is not done in the
Epistle of James ; but even here (iv. 4) we find that the
heathen regarded it as strange that they no longer took part
in their immoral life and conduct (comp. No. 1, note 2), and
on this account spoke evil of them, reviling (iii. 9) and slan
dering them (ii. 15). The Apostle again gives expression to
the hope that they may cease from their slander which is
founded on ignorance, and may themselves on the contrary
be won over to the gospel on a closer acquaintance with the
good works to which the Christians are brought by their
new faith (ii. 12 ; iii. 16) ; a hope which certainly could not
have been expressed after a long continuance of Christ
ianity in the Gentile world.3 It is entirely erroneous to
3 If the manifold afflictions spoken of in i. 6 are only hypothetical
(comp. in. 14, 17) and if v. 9 expressly gives prominence to the fact that
their sufferings are only such as all Christians are subject to, the theory
that our Epistle presupposes a time of special persecution is excluded.
A iraBeiv aapd is only spoken of in iv. 1 by way of contrast with the
sufferings of Christ ; and that the d-iroXoyla in ui. 15 does not refer to
lawsuits before heathen tribunals, is clear from the fact that it is the
giving an account of their Christian hope that is there spoken of. Hence
the idea that has gained currency since Eichhorn, Hug, de Wette, Nean
der and Ewald, viz. that it refers to the persecution of the year 64 under
Nero, which had altogether local grounds and of whose extension beyond
Rome we know nothing whatever, is quite untenable. Even Schleier
macher perceived that the passage commonly adduced in favour of this
view (Tac, Ann., 15, 44), and according to which the Christians were at
that time held up to the hatred of the people as the odium humani generis
and per flagitia invisi, proves on the contrary that the slanders, of
which our Epistle stiU entertains a, hope that they might be disproved
by the fact, had attained their aim ; and when Suetonius on that occasion
caUs the Christians a genus hominum superstitiosai et maleficee (Nero, 16),
the KaKoiroioi of our Epistle used in a, purely moral sense has nothing
whatever to do with this. On the other hand U. 14 would hardly have
been written in the latter time of Nero without limitation. Hence the
above combination has also been rejected by Berthold, Schott, Credner,

ITS RELATION TO THE PAULINES. 143
lay such stress on the sufferings of the readers (as done by
Th. Schott and Sieffert, Herzog, B.-Enc, XL, 1833, but espe
cially by the later school of critics, as Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer,
v. Soden and Holtzmann) as to make the whole Epistle,
which is purely hortatory (comp. Keil, Komm., 1883) appear
to be a writing intended to console them on this account,
and in particular to be a confirmation to them of the truth
of salvation (v. 12) ; whereas it is absolutely inconceivable
how suffering should have misled them as to the saving
facts of Christ's passion and exaltation so strongly empha
sized in our Epistle.
The view that the Epistle is addressed to the GentUe- Christian
Churches of Asia Minor which were founded by the ministry of Paul
(No. 1), already requires that it be put down to the later Pauline time
or even beyond it. The chief motive for this is to be found in the
view that has gained prevalence particularly since Dan. Schulze (der
schriftstellerische Werth und Charakter des Petrus, etc., Leipzig, 1820,
und des Johannes, Leipzig, 1811), viz., that the Epistle rests in the most
complete way on the Pauline Epistles, consisting almost entirely of
reminiscences of them. It is true that Rauch (in Winer u. Engelhardt's
kritischem Journal, VHL, 1828), Mayerhoff (Einl. in d. petrin. Schriften,
Hamb., 1835), Jachmann and B. Briiokner dispute any such relation;
but Weiss showed that it was incontrovertible at least with respect to the
Roman and Ephesian Epistles, since which time it has for the most part
been virtuaUy Umited to these two Epistles (comp. also Sieffert).3 But
Reuss, Guericke and commentators like Steiger and Bruckner (1865) as
very uncertain or quite inappropriate (comp. against this Mangold and
v. Soden, ibid.).
8 Holtzman has extended it once more to all the PauUne Epistles ; but
the uncritical heaping up of parallels in his Introduction affords no
confirmation of his allegation. It is quite an error to assert that the
whole groundwork of the Epistle is Pauline. It is true the invocation .
of a blessing is likewise detached here from the address of the Epistle,
but this is by no means exclusively PauUne (§ 16, 4, note 1) ; 1 Peter on
the other hand is quite unique in its use of -irX-qBwBel-q (i. 2), and has
the Jewish farewell greeting in place of the Pauline benediction (v. 14).
Instead of beginning with the Pauline thanksgiving for the state of the
readers, the Epistle commences by praise of the Divine acts of salvation ;
and the way in which the didactic and hortatory elements, instead of
being separated are closely interwoven throughout, is oharacteristicaUy
distinct from aU the Paulines.

144 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE.
though Sieffert makes out that our Epistle is an almost verbatim copy
of the Roman one (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1874, 3), and Holtzmann
finds reminiscences of the Roman one in i. 2, 4 f., 24 ; ni. 4, 18 ; iv. 1,
it has already been proved by Weiss that the actual paraUels between
the two Epistles are limited exclusively to Rom. xii. 13 ; and the mani
fest impossibUity that a writer so didactic as the author of our Epistle,
should, if acquainted with the Roman Epistle, have remembered only
this least characteristic chapter, makes it imperative to reverse the
relation (§ 23, 6). That this view should hitherto have " met with
universal condemnation," as stated by Holtzmann (but comp. die An-
zeige von Beyschlag, Stud. u. Krit., 1857, 4), rests solely on the totaUy
unfounded prejudice that Paul's originality as an author is thus in some
way compromised. On the other hand the dependence of the Ephesian
Epistle (assuming, however, its spuriousness), on this one is universaUy
recognised by the latest criticism (§ 25, 6) ; while Seiffert (Zeitschr. f.
wiss. Theol., 1881, 1, 2) even inclines to ascribe both to the same author.
The relation of our Epistle to that of the Hebrews, emphasized by
Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, v. Soden and others can be explained
without any such dependence, if the doctrinal character of the latter be
rightly understood (§ 30, 4). The assumed dependence on the Epistle
of James is excluded by a right conception of the relation (§ 37, 8,
note 3).
3. The very way the readers are characterized in the
address, which is most peculiar, points to a heavenly des
tination for the elect strangers and to their call to be obe
dient, on which the whole Epistle turns (i. 1 f.). Consistently
with this the Epistle begins with praise of God for the hope
of a heavenly inheritance revealed and in every way secured
to the readers by the resurrection of Christ (i. 3-5), an in
heritance which far from being obscured, is only enhanced
by all the afflictions of the present (i. 6-9), and which rests
on the firm foundation of the salvation already obtained
but which was only seen by the prophets in the future
(i 10-12). Immediately attached to the fundamental idea
of this introduction, we have in i. 13 the first series of
exhortations, enjoining on the readers a holy walk in the
fear of God (i. 14-21), unfeigned, steadfast love of the
brethren (i. 22-25), and genuine growth in salvation; by
which means they may be joined to the true people of God

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 145
in whom the Old Testament promise is fulfilled (ii. 1-10).1
With a second allusion to the alien position of believers in
the world, the Epistle passes on to the second series of ex
hortations, in which it treats of their relation to the sur
rounding world with its ordinances (ii. 11 f.) and in par
ticular to the relation of all to the heathen rulers (ii. 13-17);
as for example, of slaves to Gentile masters (ii. 18-25), and
of women to unbelieving husbands (iii. 1-6) ; to which is at
tached an exhortation to converted husbands as to the right
conduct towards their wives (iii. 7). With a glance at the
Christian mind in general, the author goes on to show how
Christians amid their hostile surroundings are not to suffer
themselves to be enticed to evil, but by perseverance in well
doing to overcome such hostility (iii. 8-16) ; and this leads
him to a detailed statement with regard to the blessing
connected with suffering borne in this way (iii. 17-iv. 6).2
Reminding them that the end is at hand, the Epistle finally

1 In i. 18 f. the exhortation is already supported by a reference to the
efficacy of Christ's death to redeem from the bondage of sin ; and in i.
21 we are again reminded that Christian hope is confirmed by the resur
rection and exaltation of Christ. The author then proceeds to show
in i. 23 ff. how regeneration is effected by the Gospel-word bearing the
same character as the Old Testament word of revelation, of which
the exalted Lord HimseU forms the substance (n. 2 f.) ; and how it is
only by adherence to him that believers can attain the end of their
oaUing (ii. 4ff.).
3 As in u. 21-25, in connection with the sufferings of Christian slaves,
we have a detailed description of the typical and salutary character of
the suffering of Christ, so in in. 17-22 it is shown how the suffering of
Christ (the SUatos) has not only had the effect of leading us into fuU
communion with God, but as a further consequence has also entitled
Him to preach salvation to the worst sinners of the past. Having by
His resurrection entered into glory, He is also able to deliver aU be-
Uevers from the counterpart of the judgment inflicted in the flood, by
which they formerly perished. Hence they are to bear in mind the
blessed fruit of the suffering that separates them from the sins of an
ungodly world, which, as is shown by Christ's preaching to the dead,
directly foreshadows the definitive judgment on the living and the dead
(iv. 1-6 .
vol. n. L

146 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE.
passes on to the third series of exhortations referring to the
life of the Christian community, where the first requirement
is a constant state of prayerfulness such as this nearness
demands, and secondly the manifestation of love in forgive
ness, in hospitality and in the mutual service of all gifts of
speech and labour (iv. 8-11). Although the author then
apparently goes back to the sufferings of Christians, his
point of view is an entirely different one here from that of
iii. 9-16. Por the question turns mainly on the point as
to how the Church should bear the sufferings arising from
the confession of Christ so as to glorify God thereby and to
be preserved in the judgment coming upon them through
these trials (iv. 12-19) ; so that even here the hortatory
point of view entirely outweighs the consolatory. Then
follows the exhortation to a right administration of Church v
offices and humble submission thereto (v. 1-5). The final
exhortation demands humble and trusting submission under
God's hand, with vigilance, in order by faith to overcome
the Satanic temptation involved in the sufferings of the
present; concluding with the invocation of a blessing (v.
6—11) followed by the epistolary ending (v. 12-14).
4. The Epistle, already known to Clement, Polycarp and
Papias (§ 6, 7) belongs to the New Testament in the cha
racter of a Petrine composition as early as the end of the
2nd century (§ 9, 5) ; and from the time of Origen and
Eusebius is rightly counted with the Homologumena (§ 10,
7 ; 11, 3) ; nor can it 'possibly have been wanting originally
in the Muratorian Canon (§ 10, 3). The author calls himself
an Apostle of Jesus Christ (i. 1) and a witness of His suffer
ings (v. 1) ; although he is so far from laying claim to
apostolic authority that in the latter passage he only speaks
of himself as a co- elder of the elders of the Church. In
keeping with this self -testimony of the Epistle is its most
prominent peculiarity, on account of which the author has
frequently since Steiger been designated with justice the

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 147
Apostle of hope. The rash nature of the Apostle (§ 39, 2)
led him from the beginning to direct all the energy of their
longing and striving to the promised final consummation,
and hence to find the highest good and deepest motive of all
Christian life in the lively hope which anticipates as it were
this end with joyful certainty.1 In like manner we recognise
the Apostle of the circumcision not only in his prevailing
dependence on the Old Testament with its words, narratives
and institutions (No. 1), but also in the way in which the
believing Church is admonished to realize the ideal of Israel
in becoming God's own people, God's house and priesthood,
God's flock (ii. 9f. ; ii. 5 ; iv. 17; v. 2 f.) ; in the way in
which as the servants of God, fearing and obeying Him
(ii. 16 f., comp. i. 17 ; i. 2, 14) they are to separate them
selves from those who on account of their disobedience fall
into perdition (ii. 7f. ; iii. 1 ; iv. 17), trusting in God as a
faithful creator, and walking in holiness before Him as the
impartial judge (iv. 19; i. 17). But although the require
ment of holiness is verbally reproduced from the Old
Testament (ii. 15 f.), we find no insistence on ceremonial
ordinances, which only come into question as fulfilled in
the Church in a higher sense (ii. 5). Finally we perceive
1 To him a Uvely hope is the highest gift (i. 3, 21 ; iii. 15) and problem
(i. 13 ; iii. 5) of Christianity ; a heavenly inheritance, the standpoint
from which the Christian stiU feels himself a stranger (i. 1, 4, 17 ; U. 11) ;
the gracious gift of (eternal) life the measure for estimating one's fellow-
Christian (in. 7) ; and future glory the motive of all Christian suffering
and work (iv. 13 ; v. 4, 10). The last times have already begun with
the manifestation of the Messiah fore-ordained before the foundation of
the world (i. 20) ; the last judgment, with the second coming of Christ,
is immediately at hand (i. 5, 7 ; iv. 5, 7 ; v. 4) has even already begun in
the sufferings and temptations of the Christians (iv. 17), who, notwith
standing these, experience a blessed joy in hope, in which the future
glory is as it were anticipated (i. 8 ; iv. 13 f.). It is in vain that some
recent expositors have tried to explain this tendency of the whole
Epistle towards hope only by the suffering state of the readers ; for the
Epistle is by no means a letter of consolation but of exhortation (comp.
No. 2).

148 RELATION TO CHRIST'S PERSON AND WORD.
that the author was actually one of the primitive Apostles
from the vividness with which the image of Christ's innocent
and suffering life is before his mind (ii. 21 ff. ; comp. i. 19 ;
iii. 18) ; from the way in which experience of the revolution
wrought by the resurrection of Christ and His exaltation in
those who witnessed them, evidently lies at the foundation
of the utterances in i. 3, 21 (comp. also iii. 19 ; iv. 13 ; v. 1) ;
from the manner in which he reflects on the loss of those
who have not seen Jesus and yet have loved Him (i. 8) ;
from the way in which he lives in reminiscences of the words
of Christ,2 while his whole doctrine is only a testimony, re
quiring no medium of reflection, to the acts of salvation and
their effects as witnessed by himself ; a fact admitted even
by Ritschl and Schenkel.
It is only by putting Pauline ideas into our Epistle that it has been
possible to arrive at the conclusion that it speaks Pauline doctrine
throughout ; and even then one is forced to admit that Paulinism has
here lost its mystical depth, its polemic point and dogmatic precision
(comp. last of all v. Soden), viz. that it is not Paulinism at aU. Christ
indeed is foreordained by God as the Redeemer before the foundation of
the world (i. 20), but only as the one endowed with the Messianic Spirit
already bearing witness in the prophets (i. 11) and efficacious in Him
even after His death (ni. 18 f.). Notwithstanding the clear statement of
His exaltation to Divine supremacy, however (in. 22), we find as yet no

* There can be no question that Bayings of Jesus with which we are
famUiar from the oldest and best authenticated traditions are re-echoed
in ii. 4, 7 (Mark xn. 9 f.) ; U. 17 (Mark xii. 17) ; iii. 14 (Matt. v. 10) ; iv.
14 (Matt. v. 11) ; v. 6 (Matt, xxiii. 12). But although the manifold
peculiarity of expression forbids aU thought of a use of the synoptic
Gospels such as Holtzmann assumes but v. Soden limits to a few points
of contact, we find an incomparably greater number of passages where,
without any direct contact with synoptic utterances, the thought un
doubtedly rests on words of Jesus. Thus i. 17 is unmistakably connected
with the Lord's prayer in Matt. vi. 9 ; iii. 14 f. with Matt. x. 28 ; iv. 8
with Matt. xvhi. 22 ; iv. 10 with Matt. xxv. 14 ff . ; iv. 13 with Matt. a.
24 f. ; v. 3 with Mark x. 42; i. 10 f. with Luke x. 24 f. On the other
hand passages Uke ii. 12 (Matt. v. 16) ; i. 13 (Luke xii. 35) ; n. 19 f.
(Luke vi. 32-34) make us doubtful whether in these cases the Petrine
tradition has not determined the form of our later Gospels.

DOCTRINAL VIEW OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 149
allusion to His pre-existenoe. The saving significance of His death is
asserted simply on the ground of an Old Testament prophecy, on which
the access of sanctified man to God is made dependent (ii. 24 ; iii. 18) ;
chief stress, however, being laid on its ethical effect (i. 18 f. ; ii. 24 f.),
proceeding from the example of His innocent and patient suffering
and from reflection on His saving efficacy. The Spirit of God rests it is
true on the elect, who by it are consecrated as His own in baptism (i. 2 ;
iv. 14), but only as the Spirit of gifts of grace (i. 12 ; comp. iv. 10 f.) ;
the new life of love and hope is begotten and nourished by the word of
evangelical preaching which is co-equal with Old Testament Scripture
(i. 23 ff. ; comp. i. 3, ii. 2) and announces our being called to sonship and
to eternal glory in Christ (i. 14 ; comp. v. 10), onr redemption in Him
and our future salvation guaranteed by His resurrection (i. 18, 21) ; bui
characterizes Christ as the corner stone of the completed theocracy (n.
3f.), predicting His second coming, which will bring their reward to
those beUevers who have remained patient and true (i. 7 ; v. 4). This
preaching of salvation, which, though simple, is powerful by its direct
ness, is wanting in aU the peculiarities of Pauline doctrine. Such
concepts as x°-Pls ani^ arroKdXvipis, KaXeiv and iKXenrbs, KX-qpovopla and
86 Ja, irlo-Tis and SiKaiotrivri, adp\ and -irvevpa (ifivxrf), or formulas such
as iv XpiirrQ are not Pauline but universally Christian, and do not even
appear in their Pauline stamp. Others, like o-vvelSno-is, iXevBepta, &<f>8ap-
tos, eb-irpdaSeKTos, or even avao-Tpi<peffBai, v^ifteiv, Karaprlgeiv, o-rqpifeiv are
not at aU specifically Christian, hut are taken from the treasury of con
temporary language. On the other hand there is no lack of striking
points of contact with the Petrine discourses of the Acts, both in matter
and form (Weiss, Krit. Beibl. zur deutschen Zeitschr. fur christi. Wis-
sensch., etc., 1854, 10 f. ; M. Eahler, Stud. u. Krit., 1874, 3), nor of pecu
liarities of expression distinct from Paul's (oIkos instead of vabs, |u\oi
instead of oravpbs, <pl~X-np.a aya-irns instead of <plX. ayiov, rb riXos instead of
ToXoiirir, etc.).8
5. Even the situation presupposed in our Epistle puts no
difficulty in the way of its genuineness. Peter must have
left Jerusalem at an early date (Acts xii. 17) and according
to Acts xv. he never appeared there again, but probably
8 It is only on the S priori assumption that a primitive Apostle must
necessarily speak the doctrinal language of the Gospels and the Apoca
lypse, and could only have learnt the saving significance of Jesus' death
from Paul, that v. Soden has found the dootrine and doctrinal language
of our Epistle irreconcilable with its having been written by Peter;
whereas Mangold recognises the primitive-apostoUc character of the
teaching of the Epistle.

150 CURRENT ACCEPTATION OF THE EPISTLE.
undertook missionary journeys to the Diaspora (§ 39, 3), so
that he might readily have formed relations with the Jewish-
Christian Churches of Asia Minor, although our Epistle does
not properly speaking assume the existence of such relations
before now. He was at this time on missionary travels in the
countries about the Euphrates ; for in v. 13 he sends greet
ing from the elect (Church) at Babylon.1 With him is
Mark, the son of a house to which according to Acts xii. 12
Peter at one time stood in the closest relation ; hence it is
not improbable that Mark was his spiritual son, i.e. was con
verted by him. Just as in Acts xiii. 5 ; xv. 39 he accompanied
Barnabas on his missionary journey, so now he went with
Peter to the East. The Epistle seems from v. 12 to have
been brought by Silvanus, which however does not necessa
rily presuppose his presence in Babylon ; since it may have
been sent to him for further dispatch to Jerusalem. But
since Silvanus only accompanied Paul on his missionary
journey in Macedonia and Greece, and was certainly still
with him in Corinth (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1), the Epistle
cannot have been written until after Paul's return from that
place (§ 15, 7), but not later than previous to the time when
Peter could have received intelligence of the Galatian dis
turbances (§ 18, 1, 2) or of the results of Paul's ministry
in Ephesus. Hence it certainly falls in the middle of the
year 50.
6. The authorised doubts raised by criticism respecting this
Epistle are entirely due to the current false conception of its

1 The patristic misinterpretation of this passage with which Eusebius
(H. E., 2, 15) has made us familiar, as if it referred to Rome, has been
revived not only by Hofmann and his disciples (comp. also Ewald and
Sieffert), but has also been emphatically reasserted by the Tubingen
school. It is of course entirely without foundation ; since the typical
and figurative language of the Apocalypse (§ 34, 3) cannot be regarded
as a criterion of simple epistolary style and has nothing whatever to do
with the designation of the readers as TrapeirlSrjp.oi in i. 1. Comp. on the
other hand Keil and even Mangold.

MODERN CRITICISM OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 151
address, and of its literary relation to the Pauline Epistles
(No. 1, 2). That Peter should have turned to Pauline
Churches for the purpose of confirming Paul's preaching by
what would undoubtedly in this case have been intentional
depeudence on his Epistles, although our Epistle shows no
trace of erroneous doctrine such as might have led them to
doubt, is unquestionably an historical impossibility. Nor
can it be supposed that they needed such confirmation on
account of their suffering condition. Hence Claudius ques
tioned with justice the genuineness of the Epistle (JJran-
sichten des Christenthums, Altona, 1808) ; and it was only the
weight of external testimony and the difficulty of conceiving
a supposititious aim in the case of so simple a hortatory
letter that hindered de Wette (comp. also Reuss) from carry
ing his strong suspicions against it to a definite rejection.
Since Semler's time therefore recourse has been had to the
unsatisfactory hypothesis that Mark, as Eichhorn main
tained, or Silvanus the companion of Paul, as appeared
more probable from v. 12 (comp. Ewald ; W. Grimm, Stud.
u. Krit., 1872, 4 ; Schenkel ; Renan ; and Weisse in his Evan-
gelienfrage, 1856), wrote the Epistle more or less indepen
dently under Peter's direction.1 The same false preconcep
tions likewise led to insoluble difficulties with respect to the

1 It was of course quite unsatisfactory when Bertholdt, on the hypo
thesis put forward by Jerome (Ep. 150 ad Hedib.) though certainly erro
neous, that Peter wrote in Aramaean, asserted that it was translated by
Silvanus (or Mark). If there had really been any difficulty in supposing
that the former fisherman had acquired the capabiUty of writing a Greek
letter, on which Holtzmann again lays great stress, the expression in
v. 12 would by no means exclude the presumption that Peter made use
of him as a scribe. But the simple, unskUled Greek of the Epistle might
well have been written by one who, Uving in GaUlee among Greek-
speaking people, certainly knew this language as weU as his mother-
tongue ; and who, just because he was deficient in aU Rabbinical culture,
muBt have had recourse to the LXX. in order to read the original text of
the Old Testament, if in his later position he desired to occupy himself
with this (comp. § 37, 6).

152 MODERN CRITICISM OF THE FIRST EPISTLE.
determination of the Epistle's date. If with B. Bruckner
we suppose it to have been written immediately after the
Pauline ministry in Asia Minor, it is impossible to conceive
why Peter, instead of their own Apostle and without/any
mention of him, should have been moved to admonisK the
Churches there, apart from the fact that the Epistle bears no
trace of the Galatian errors at that time still fresh in the
memory, and makes no allusion to the questions to which
these gave rise. If with Wieseler, Guericke, Bleek,1 Keil
and others we go down to the Roman captivity of Paul,
which is necessary if we are to assume that Peter knew and
made use of the Roman and Ephesian Epistles, we cannot
then account for the fact that we find no trace of the errors
that had cropped up in Phrygia; and that Peter makes no
allusion whatever to the imprisonment of their Apostle.
The difficulties are only increased, if with most critics
(comp. Sieffert and L. Schulze) we suppose the Epistle to
have been written after the persecution of the Christians
under Nero (No. 2, note 2).a
7. The Tubingen school was therefore justified, here if
anywhere, in regarding this Epistle, in which Peter is said
to bear witness to the orthodoxy of Paul (v. 12) and even to
teach a modified Paulinism, in which Silvanus and Mark,
both of whom belong to the primitive Church as well as
to the Pauline circle, play a part (v. 12 f.), as the tendency
* If Paul perished in this persecution, it is inconceivable why Peter
makes no mention of him, especially as this could be the only reason of
his turning to these Churches ; and it would be difficult to explain how
Mark, whom Paul summons to Rome from Asia Minor (2 Tim. iv. 11), is
found with Peter in Babylon. If however Peter be for this reason trans
ferred to Rome (as by Wiesinger and Th. Schott), the silence respecting
Paul's martyrdom, at the place where it occurred, is doubly incompre
hensible. But if on the contrary we regard Paul as having been freed
from captivity (comp. e.g. Hofmann, between 63 and 64), he had then
himseU returned to Asia Minor ; and apart from the fact that our Epistle
shows no trace of the doctrinal errors of the Pastorals, Peter had least of
all a motive for encroaching on the Pauline missionary field.

MODERN CRITICISM OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 153
work of a Pauline disciple whose object it was to unite the
divided parties of the Church. But Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. f.
wiss. Theol., 1873, 4), Pfleiderer, Holtzmann and Mangold
have already dissented from this view of Baur's (comp.
Theol. Jahrb., 1856, 2), Schwegler's and Hausrath's, because
they rightly fail to see dogmatic tendencies of this nature in
a writing whose aims are so purely practical, and attribute
only a subordinate significance to the passage v. 12. On
the other hand they have adhered all the more firmly to
its having been composed in the time of Trajan, whose
persecutions are said to form the proper occasion of the
Epistle. The passage iv. 15 f. is supposed to be only a remi
niscence of Pliny's question to Trajan, " nomen ipsum si
flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohserentia nomini puniantur "
(Epp. 10, 97f.);x the fact that the 7rao-x«>' here spoken of
cannot from the connection be judicial punishment but re
proach for the name of Christ, that iii. 15 clearly from the
tenor can have no reference to trial before a judge, and that
the Epistle shows no trace whatever of organized persecution
(comp. No. 2, note 2), being simply ignored. Schwegler
indeed attempted to prove that hierarchical tendencies al
ready appear in v. Iff. But the folly of finding the later
technical designation of the clergy in the tcov KXrjpalv of v. 3,
is now universally recognised ; nor can it be questioned
that the pursuit of gain and supremacy is natural to every
superior position. On the other hand an Epistle in which the
readers are still addressed as recent converts to Christianity
(ii. 2, 25 ; iv. 3f.), in which the charismata of the apostolic
time are still operative (iv. 10) and where the hope of the
immediate nearness of the end is so strong (No. 4, note 1),
while all contact with Gnosis either sympathetic or other-
1 Compare on the other hand v. Soden. ZeUer alone tried to go back
to the time of Hadrian ; and Volkmar down to 140 on account of the
aUeged use in 1 Pet. iii. 19 of the Book of Enoch, which according to
him originated in 132 (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1861, 4).

154 READERS OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE.
wise is lacking, is in the time of Trajan an historical impos
sibility no less than that from which this hypothesis was
intended as a means of escape. Por this reason v. Soden has
recently gone back to the time of Domitian, disputing all
ecclesiastico-political tendency ; and thinks it very probable
that Silvanus in the Apostle's name admonished the Churches-
in the universal persecution, which, however, cannot by any
means be proved of Domitian's time (comp. also Sieffert,.
Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1881). Moreover he has not suc
ceeded in proving the need of an apostolic mask for so simple
a letter of admonition and comfort.
§ 41. The Second Epistle op Petee.
1. That the general way in which the readers are charac
terized in the address (i. 1) does not forbid the assumption
that the Epistle was intended for a definite circle of
Churches, any more than the Epistles of James and Jude,
hence that it is not addressed to all Christendom, as de
Wette, Mayerhoff, Bleek, Schwegler and others maintained,.
is expressly shown by iii. 1, where the readers are spoken
of as the same to whom the first Epistle of Peter is ad
dressed. The Apostle now directly contrasts them with
himself, a born Jew, as shown by the use of his full name
Symeon (Simon) Peter, and his companions, characterizing
them as having obtained like precious faith, viz. as Gentile-
Christians.1 And since the Churches of Asia Minor were
essentially Jewish- Christian at the time when the first Epistle
of Peter reached them (§ 40, 1), a period of about ten years
must lie between the two Epistles, during which Pauline
activity had essentially transformed the national character
1 Spitta (Der 2. Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas, HaUe, 1885)
probably stands alone in assuming that the readers Uke those of the
the Epistle of Jude (§ 38, 3, note 2), were Jewish Christians, which he
attempts to prove by a very forced interpretation of the address and of
the introduction to the Epistle.

ERRORISTS COMBATED. 155
of Christianity in that country. The Churches are in fact
spoken of in iii. 15 as having received Epistles from Paulj
and according to iii. 2 other Apostles or apostolic-minded
men besides Paul, must have worked among them ; whereas
at the time of the first Epistle (i. 12 ; v. 12) no Apostle had
yet preached the Gospel in that circle.2 Why he gives special
prominence to the present essentially Gentile-Christian cha
racter of the Churches is manifestly due to the circumstance
that the most suspicious manifestation of his time, the occa
sion of his writing, proceeded from Gentile- Christian circles
and was operative in them. Por there can be no question
that it is the professed libertines of the Epistle of Jude
(§ 38, 2) who are attacked in chap. ii. In the circles to
which the author's attention is directed, or at the time
in which he writes, these libertines had already gone the
length of making a zealous propaganda on behalf of their
principles ; and had moreover already found the catchword
by which to allure the Christians, professing to be the first
to give true Christian freedom, however empty their great
swelling words might be (ii. 17 ff.). They had also already
begun to confirm this false freedom by a misinterpretation
of Old Testament Scripture and Pauline letters (iii. 16 f.).
Por this reason the Apostle feared that worse might follow.
These pernicious principles could not fail to be gradually
3 That the reading in iii. 1 is t&v diroo-roXuv ipuv and not %puv, is estab
Ushed beyond a doubt by textual criticism. The fact that the author
here forgets his part impUes a want of thought such as even a pseudony
mous writer would not be credited with, especiaUy as Paul himself is able
in 1 Cor. ix. 2 to distinguish between Apostles in general and those who
bear this character for particular Churches. That they had received oral
instruction from Peter, as Holtzmann maintains, and therefore that Peter
had perhaps visited them in the meantime, as EeU for example assumes
(Komm., 1883), by no means necessarUy follows from i. 16 ; although this
would not in any case imply that he might have counted himself as one
of their Apostles ; for he proclaimed the power and the return of the
exalted Christ in his first Epistle also, and the expression employed in
this passage is sufficiently explained by assuming a reference to the com
mon apostoUc preaching which had reached even to them.

156 ERRORISTS COMBATED.
developed into a formal heresy, which by its seductive lustre
and the zeal with which from interested motives it was
disseminated, gained a large following and thus directly led
to divisions in the Church (ii. Iff.).8 But the great danger
that lay in this manifestation was materially enhanced by
the whole character of the time. We have already seen
from the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse (§ 31,
3 ; 32, 2; 35, 1) how in the second half of the year 60 the
apparent tardiness of the second coming, once so confidently
looked for in the immediate present, led to a flagging of
Ohristian hope which had formerly been one of the most
powerful motives for striving after Christian virtue. We
now directly hear how the retarding of the second coming
began to give rise to complaints (iii. 9). And how would
it be when all the first Christian generation which had so
good a right to expect it (comp. Matt. xxiv. 34 ; Mark ix. 1)
had passed away ? The whole promise of the second com
ing could then not fail to be declared illusory; and while
scoffing at the vanity of further waiting, men would give
themselves up to their own lusts undisturbed by any thought
of it (iii. 3f.).*
* Here too the author has most unjustly been accused of incon
sistency, in first predicting a manifestation as future, and afterwards
¦describing it as akeady present. The distinction between present seducers
who aUure the simple with the catchword of true Christian freedom, and
the sect-founding errorists of the future is made sufficiently clear. It is
just as perverse to look for a background of Gnostic error where the
former are concerned, as is done by the extreme defenders of the Epistle
(comp. the Komm. of Dietlein, 1851, and Schott, 1883) in unison with its
extreme opponents, as to connect them with the errorists of the Pastoral
Epistles (comp. Guericke, Windiscbman) with whom they have nothing
whatever to do. Moreover the following exposition wiU show that the
view of a Uke contradiction in the manUestation spoken of in chap. iii. is
quite untenable.
4 The current notion that chap. iii. is directed against the same mani
festation as chap. ii. (comp. Spitta), at least in its ultimate consequences,
is entirely untenable, as even KeU perceives. The former treats of a
purely future manifestation for predicting which the present alone
offered a point of attachment; the latter of a present manifestation

RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO JUDE'S. 157
It is only the current incorrect view of the first Epistle of Peter that
makes the genuineness of the second a priori unacceptable. WhUe this
view necessarily puts the two Epistles close together in respect of time,
it leaves the question as to how there is no trace in the first of the
phenomena attacked and dreaded in the second, quite insoluble. But
if, on the contrary, it could be proved that the fact of the second
Epistle being chiefly directed to the danger threatening the life of the
Church within precluded an entering into the external oppressions of
which the first says so much, however much these might come into
consideration when the question of the delay of the second coming was
concerned ; the silence respecting it would be the more easily explained,
supposing that the irritation of the world against the new religion so
clearly accounted for in the first, had in the meantime diminished. The
Pastoral Epistles that are so near to ours know nothing at least of direct
oppressions of the Christians in Asia Minor.
2. There can be no question that in his description of
the libertines in chap. ii. the author had the description of
them in the Epistle of Jude before his mind. The whole
section with its accumulated images and examples, with its
excited polemic, consisting sometimes only of exclamations
and losing every syntactical thread, is as foreign to the or
dinary calm current of this Epistle as it is in keeping, both
in substance and form, with the Epistle of Jude. The
examples there adduced are widely expanded, prominence
being given to entirely new aspects of them other than
those which originally led to their being chosen (ii. 6-9,
comp. Jude ver. 7 ; ii. 15 f., comp. Jude ver. 11) ; again the
reference to the concrete example is abandoned and the
general thought alone abstracted, the example being of
course presupposed, the connection which called it forth and
without which it is scarcely intelligible being no longer
visible (ii, 4, comp. Jude ver. 6 ; ii. 11, comp. Jude ver. 9).
A peculiar expression is sometimes retained, whose motive
from which worse consequences are only apprehended in the future.
Though both undoubtedly threaten Gentile-Christian circles and the
author evidently regards the former in its very relation to the latter as
highly dangerous, yet they are quite distinct in their motives, and have
moreover no connection.

158 DISPUTE ABOUT THE RELATION.
is only explained by the context in Jude ; or else the expres
sion is woven out of reminiscences of the connection which
with him is purely local.1 In ii. 13 the shibboleth in Jude
ver. 12 is adopted (o-vvevtoxovfievoi) while the concrete allu
sion to the love-feasts is suffered to lapse, so that it is only
the sound of the words that regulates the choice of the ex
pression which is entirely different (cwraTais instead of aya-
7rats, o-rriXoi instead of o-mXd8es). But above all, depen
dence on the description in the Epistle of Jude is seen in
this, that wherever the expression coincides with Jade it is
unique in our Epistle, whereas when it is changed or added
to, it immediately finds parallels in the independent parts
of the second Epistle or in the first.2 The impossibility
of reversing the relation between the two Epistles actually
appears from the fact that the different application of the
figure in Jude 12 and the closer definition of the vrripoyKa in
vers. 16 are conditioned by the way in which the libertines
attacked in our Epistle appear directly as preachers of a
false freedom (ii. 17 ff.). That this dependence on the
Epistle of Jude is intentional and conscious cannot be
doubted.8 1 Compare the ot/h5tijtos in n. 10 with Jude ver. 8, the 6-iclaia o-apxbs
in Jude ver. 7, and the ToXp-nral after the iriXpijo-ev in Jude ver. 9 ; as
also ii. 15 where in carrying out the example of Balaam we have a
reminiscence of the 656s r. Katv in Jude ver. 11 ; or ii. 17 where the
figure is taken from Jude ver. 12, but the final clause from ver. 13. Thus
another tertium comp. underlies a figure in Jude, and yet the expression
which characterizes the comparison in the former is applied to the latter
(comp. the <pv<riKd in U. 12 with the ipv<riKus in Jude ver. 10) ; or the ele
ments of one figure in Jude are applied to two independent similes which
acquire an entirely new tertium comp. (ii. 17, comp. Jude ver. 12).
s Comp. Weiss, Stud. u. Krit., 1866, 2. Spitta has attempted to
weaken the proof there given by adducing a number of words that do not
affect the substance of it. According to him the expressions common to
Peter and Jude, but occurring repeatedly in the former, only prove the
dependence of Jude upon Peter ; how little they prove this is shown by
every estimate that goes beyond the mere coUection of words made by
Spitta (p. 459 ff.).
8 Moreover he does not go beyond the description of the libertines ; all

DISPUTE ABOUT THE RELATION. 159
That the reference of Jude's Epistle to the second of Peter, accepted in
tradition, cannot be thought of is clearly shown from the latter itself
(§ 38, 2) ; is even conceded by the advocates of the genuineness of second
Peter, as Guericke, Wiesinger and L. Schulze; and has not been refuted
oven by Spitta's recently attempted counterproof with its most violent
-exegesis and artificial criticism of the text. The whole question bas
been complicated from the beginning by being commonly made to turn
on the point as to whether one of the two is a dependent copy of the
other, betraying the imitator by its want of skill ; or whether it may be
directly designated as a plagiarism. Hofmann and Keil found it easy
enough to prove that each one pursues his own course of thought in an
independent and pecuUar way. Nor are the utterances in our Epistle
respecting the libertines suggested by that of Jude, but by an existing
manifestation which, though agreeing with that attacked in the Epistle
of Jude in its essential features, has peculiarities of its own (No. 1) ; to
which, however, he freely applies the original description and polemio
in so far as it suits his purpose.4 The attempt to acoount for the omis
sion of Jude ver. 14 ff. and the changing of Jude ver. 6, 9 by the wish of
the pseudonymous writer to avoid Apocryphal traditions (although what
he says in ii. 4 of the punishment of the angels is entirely taken from
the Book of Enoch, while ii. 11 is only intelligible by that tradition of
Moses) ; is based on the entirely false idea that the Epistle of Jude was
made use of and worked over, whereas many of its other images (vers.
12 f.) and examples (vers. 6, 11) are not adopted. Only such an idea

other echoes such as appear in the OTopipv-t/o-iceiv, o-irov8dpetv i. 12, 15
(comp. Jude vers. 3, 5) or iii. 3 (comp. Jude ver. 18) are quite involuntary,
although the concrete reference which the ipuraiKTai gains in con
nection with the Epistle of Peter, and whieh is quite unique, as also the
Kara, Tots ISlas i-iriBvplais abr&v iropsv6pevoi which has quite a secondary
meaning, clearly show that Ui. 3 is Ukewise based on a reminiscence of
the Epistle of Jude.
4 On the other hand it was quite a perversion to assert that although
the pseudonymous writer of our Epistle might, on the basis of the
Apostolic prophecy mentioned by Jude (ver. 18 f.), represent the pheno
mena of his time as condemned beforehand, he would yet be led by,
attachment to the Epistle of Jude to depict these phenomena as present.
For, apart from the fact that the attachment to the Epistle of Jude
is not so close as to make this possible, and that the opponents attacked
appear as present even where there is no such attachment (ii. 19 ff. ; ui.
16) ; the prophecy in n. 1-3 relating to the further development of this
hbertinism has nothing whatever to do with the ApostoUc prediction
quoted in the Epistle of Jude ; whUe iii. 3, the passage which really has
an echo of it, does not refer to the Ubertines who are there foretold at
all, but to doubters of the second coming.

160 ANALYSIS OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE.
could give rise to the strange dispute as to whether this use of the Epistle
of Jude is worthy of an Apostle or not ; on whioh account the genuineness
of our Epistle was sometimes disputed, even by those who regarded the
first as " dependent " at one and the same time on James and Paul,
while others thought it necessary on behalf of its genuineness, to deny
such dependence- In any case the literary relation of our Epistle to that
of Jude has nothing whatever to do with the question of its genuineness,
and does not prejudice it in any way.
3. After addressing good wishes to his Gentile-Christian
readers (i. 1 f.), the Apostle shows them how by the know
ledge of the promises given in their calling they had
received everything that was necessary in order that the
Divine power might work in them a new life of piety;
and how it now depended only on their own zeal whether
this knowledge would prove fruitful in a comprehensive
life of Christian virtue, and whether, being kept from
falling, they would likewise finally attain the end of their
calling in the eternal kingdom of Christ (i. 3-11). To put
them always in remembrance of these things would be his
constant task during the short time he was still allowed to
pass on earth ; but he would (by this letter) take care that
even after his decease they might have something to remind
them constantly of these things (i. 12-15). This he is able
to do, because he can appeal on behalf of the power of God
and the return of Christ announced in the word of Apostles,
to the fact that he was an eyewitness, inasmuch as he had
seen the glory of Christ on the mount of transfiguration and
had heard the Divine attestation of His Messiahship (i.
16 ff.) ; as also because the prophetic word of the Old Testa
ment had thereby been made more sure to him and to his
co- witnesses ; a word which in accordance with its nature as
resting entirely on Divine inspiration, does not receive its
full interpretation from itself but from the day-dawn of ful
filment, whose prelude they had seen in the transfiguration
of Christ (i. 19 ff.).1 How urgent he regarded this task, ap-
1 It is a noteworthy circumstance that in the context of Mark's

ANALYSIS OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE. 161
pears from the great dangers whose approach the Apostle,
relying on the typical history of Israel, foresaw in the false
teachers of the future (ii. 1-3). But in his view the judg
ment prepared for them, as also the deliverance of the pious,
are already prefigured in Old Testament history (ii. 4-9) ;
and at the same time the judgment of those who now destroy
themselves by their unchaste and riotous life of sin, as for
merly the case with the Israelites who were led astray by
Balaam, whose folly verged on madness (ii. 10-16). The
author here refers to the preachers of a new freedom who
are themselves fallen under the worst bondage, drawing
down on themselves the curse of apostasy to a former life
of sin (ii. 17-22). Another reason why it is so necessary to
put them in remembrance of these things is that before
long there will come such as undermine the leading motive
to a Christian life of holy effort, maintaining the hope of
the hitherto unfulfilled promise to be altogether illusory,
and giving np all expectation of a change in the present
condition of the world (iii. 1-4). In opposition to them the
Gospel (ix. 2 ff.) just as here, the transfiguration on the mount appears
as an attestation given to the three confidential friends of Jesus, of
His first prophecy respecting the second coming. Whoever holds this
narrative to be a myth or symboUc fiction certainly cannot affirm the
genuineness of our Epistle, unless with Spitta he finds that the Gospels
contain an already distorted account of the original transaction which is
attested here only. But whoever explains i. 17 as a citation from the
Gospel of Matthew or even that of the Hebrews, and thence infers the
spuriousness of the Epistle (although the wording as we have it in the
Cod. Vatic does not in any respect coincide with these), simply takes for
granted the thing that is to be proved ; for if the Epistle be genuine,
Peter gives form to the words which the disciples at that time thought
they heard in the vision. Nor can those of course regard the Epistle as
genuine who hold that John xxi. 18 f. is a late fiction ; whereas Peter,
if he were akeady advanced in years, might certainly conclude from the
prediction of Christ, holding out to him the prospect of a violent death,
that his end must now be near at hand, since he was not to exhaust the
measure of human Ufe to which he had so nearly attained (i. 14). That
the author propounds in i. 20 f . a pecuUar and later doctrine of inspir
ation (comp. Holtzmann), is an entirely groundless assumption.
VOL. II. M

162 ANALYSIS OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE.
Apostle shows how neither the permanence nor the security
of the present state of the world, much less the apparent
delay of the second coming, justifies such doubts (iii. 5-9) ;
and that it rather depends on them to hasten the day of
the Lord, which will undoubtedly come, though the time
is not certain, and will with the destruction of the present
world usher in the new world of promise (iii. 10-13) .2 In
the conclusion terminating in a doxology the Apostle points
out that Paul in his letters to them as well as in others, had
given them the same exhortations to spotlessness of life,
which, because they contained many things hard to be
understood, had by those libertines been perverted like the
Holy Scripture of the Old Testament. He then admonishes
his readers to stand fast against these temptations, and to
grow in grace and knowledge, in accordance with the wish
expressed in his introductory greeting (iii. 14-18).8
s Offence has been taken without any reason at the author's aUeged
theories respecting the formation and destruction of the world; attempts
even having been made to show that they had their origin in contem
porary philosophies. But that the earth, which proceeded at the word
of God from the waters of chaos and took form by the dividing of the
water from the dry land (Gen. i. 2-9) after having continued for a long
time perished nevertheless by the waters of the deluge, is entirely taken
from early biblical history, as also that the present world, kept by God's
power from perishing in the same way (Gen. ix. 11), can only be de
stroyed by the judicial fire of Divine wrath, of which the entire Old and
New Testaments speak (iii. 6 f., 10, 12 f.). Nor is a renunciation of the
hope of the second coming implied, because in face of the fact that the
second coming was delayed longer than had been expected (comp. No.
1), it is urged that God does not measure according to human computa
tion of time, and that He only manifests His long-suffering in giving us
time for repentance (Ui. 8 f.), that by our holy walk we may render
it unnecessary, and even bring about a speedier coming of the day of the
Lord (iii. 11 f.).
3 According to this the reference to Paul is called forth entirely by the
misinterpretation and misuse of his Epistles. The Apostle has probably
in his mind the moral admonitions in the Epistles to the Galatians
and Ephesians addressed to Asia Minor ; but adds that admonitions of
this nature are to be found wherever Paul in his Epistles comes to speak
of moral questions, because there are many things in other Epistles, for

DOCTRINAL VIEW OF THE EPISTLE. 163
4. An Epistle that finds the chief danger threatening en
deavours after Christian virtue in the doubts already de
clared respecting the fulfilment of the promise, and knows
no better way of protecting the Church from the temptation
of a false doctrine of freedom menacing them in the present
and the future than by the well-timed refutation of such
doubts, unquestionably represents a view in which hope no
longer forms the central point of the Christian life, as in the
first Epistle (comp. § 40, 4, note 1). That knowledge forms
this centre instead of hope can only be asserted if we over
look the fact that the knowledge of God and of Christ, of
which i. 2 treats, is, as stated, not a theosophic speculation
but the knowledge of our being called through the instru
mentality of Christ to be partakers of the promises ; which
necessarily works a Godlike holiness in us (i. 13 f .) and is
directly productive of a moral life (i. 8; ii. 20; iii. 17 f.).1
Nor can it be disputed that the Epistle shows exactly
example that to the Romans, which were interpreted in the sense of carnal
hbertinism. To assume that we have here an aUusion to all the Epistles
now in the Canon and that their collection is implied, is entirely without
foundation. Nor does the rds Xourds ypaipds imply that they were put on
a par with the Old Testament writings in the sense in which they were
afterwards combined with them in the Canon, especially as their signi
ficance is made to depend on the wisdom of the Apostles and not on
their inspiration. Moreover we cannot understand howit can be asserted
that the PauUne Epistles are here aUeady regarded as the property of
the whole Church, since a distinction is expressly made between those
which were written to the readers, and others.
1 That it is not the subjective iXirlfciv which is here referred to, but the
substance of the iirayyiXpara and the irpoo-SoKav for it, is shown by the
circumstance that the former appears to be doubted even now, and still
more in the future ; whereas the latter is made necessary by the apparent
postponement of the fulfilment, the explanation of which does not by
any means imply a renunciation of the hope of the second coming (No.
3, note 2). The airoKaXvijiis Xpurrov (1 Pet. i. 7, comp. v. 4) is in fact
the irapovo-La of our Epistle ; aud the eternal kingdom (i. 11) is the KXnpo-
vopla hoped for in 1 Pet. i. 4. It is just because tbe ioxaT0" ™1' xpbvav
of 1 Pet. i. 20, has already come in with the first appearance of Christ,
that, instead of employing the formula of Jude's Epistle (ver. 8), iii. 3
speaks of the last days of this consummation, which alone remain. The

164 RELATION TO PETER'S FIRST EPISTLE.
the same Jewish- Christian character as the first one. If it
has fewer allusions to Old Testament passages, taking the
knowledge of them for granted (yet compare ii. 22 ; iii. 8, 13),
this is easily explained if we remember that the first Epistle
was addressed to Jewish- Christian Churches, whereas this
one is addressed to Gentile- Christians. But the way in
which promise and fulfilment are contrasted (i. 19 ff.), recalls
1 Pet. i. 10 ff. ; the way in which Old Testament Scripture
is put on a par with the oral and written word of the
Apostles (iii. 2, 16) reminding us of i. 22-25 ; and the way
in which the history of Israel is looked upon as typical of
the history of the Church (ii. 1), of ii. 9 f. ; iii. 6. Just as
the section depending on the Epistle of Jude expands the
narratives of Sodom and Gomorrah or of Balaam by inde
pendent borrowing from the Old Testament (ii. 6 ff., 15 ff.),
so here we have the history of the deluge added on, re
minding us most forcibly of 1 Pet. iii. 20 f ., not only in the
mention of Noah and the acre/Jew of his time (ii. 5) but espe
cially in the way in which it appears as a type of the last
judgment. Pinally the reflections on the origin of the world,
as also the conception and delineation of the great day of
the Lord, are founded on the Old Testament (iii. 6f., 10 ff.).
Nor are allusions to the Lord's sayings by any means rare,
for in these, as in ii. 5-7, the days of Noah and of Lot are
put in juxtaposition (Lnke xvii. 26, 28) ; the false prophets
of the future (ii. 1 f .) and the thief in the night (iii. 10)
having likewise been foretold by Christ (Matt. xxiv. 11, 43) ;
while ii. 20 is taken from Matt. xii. 45. But the com
mandment of the Lord transmitted by the Apostles is
expressly spoken of (iii. 2) ; and i. 16-18 recalls the way in
same long-suffering of God that formerly delayed the deluge (1 Pet. iii.
20) now delays the last judgment (iii. 9, 15) ; but that the present gene
ration will Uve to see it is shown by Ui. 11 ff. The idea of the oKi\vupia.
in i. 13 is quite in keeping with the figure of pilgrimage in 1 Pet. i. 1 ;
u.ll.

LANGUAGE OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE. 165
which the first Epistle is pervaded throughout by the re
membrance of the historical life of the Lord. In the Christ-
ology we find hardly any advance till the doxology to Christ
(iii. 18), for the tou Oeov r)p,C>v in i. 1 is scarcely genuine,
however intelligible in itself.2 The calling virtually implied
in election (i. 19) rests just as in the first Epistle (ii. 9 ; v.
10 ; i. 15) on the Divine dperr), guarantees the fulfilment of
the promise, and is the motive for striving to be like God
(i. 3 f.) through the mediation of Qua ovva/ws (comp. 1 Pet.
i. 5). Brotherly love here (i. 7) forms the climax of a holy
walk (iii. 11, comp. 1 Pet. i. 15) just as it does there (i. 22) ;
the im6vp.lai being its antithesis ; even the polemic against
false freedom in ii. 19 reminds us of 1 Pet. ii. 16 ; and the
motives in ii. 2 of 1 Pet. ii. 12 ; iii. 16. Prom a biblical and
theological point of view therefore, the second Epistle of
Peter is allied to no New Testament writing more closely
than to his first.
On the other hand it must be conoeded that the expression of doctrine
has much that is peculiar as compared with that of the first, favourite
expressions of which are here wanting while others take their place ;
and that the same ideas are in many cases differently expressed. But
Peter was hardly the man to coin a fixed didactic terminology like Paul
or John, and in any case the two documents bearing his name are too
Umited in extent to afford evidence of it. There is much that
reminds us of the doctrinal terminology of the Pastoral Epistles (such
as the emphasizing of eio-i^eia and Myvwo-is, ivroX-fi and i-iropov-fi,
o-ur-tip as applied to Christ, pvBoi, -n-Xovo-tios, i-irayyiXXecrBai and such
like), which are probably antecedent to our Epistle. The differentia
still observed by Jerome (De Vir. III., 1) is doubtless founded on the
impression made by chap. U., where the language is influenced by
the Epistle of Jude. The fact that the expression is periodic is easily
3 That an Epistle so exclusively directed to the ethical estimate of
eschatology, should contain no such express reference to the funda
mental facts of salvation, viz. the death and resurrection of Christ as an
Epistle whose aim according to 1 Pet. v. 12 is to confirm these facts by
the mouth of an Apostle, foUows as a matter of course ; nevertheless the
cleansing from sin and the dyopigeiv (i. 9 ; n. 1) exactly correspond to
the aaBapio-fuis and the X&rpacris of the first Epistle (i. 2, 18).

166 ALLEGED MARKS OF SPURIOUSNESS.
explained if the space of ten years intervenes between the two Epistles,
during which time Peter perhaps associated chiefly with Greeks and read
PauUne letters. That he was stiU unpractised in writing, is shown by
the irregularities in i. 17 and U. 8, as also by the prevaUing monotony of
the Epistle, a characteristic by no means lacking in the first. It is only
the assumption that our Epistles were written practicaUy at the same
time (comp. for example Hofmann) that has made it necessary to account
for the difference of style in an artificial manner, or to explain it away.
Over against the observations respecting the diversity in the lexical
stock of words and use of particles, we have a long series of very striking
resemblances.3 5. The presumption afforded by the second Epistle itself
is therefore perfectly consistent with its having been written
by the Apostle Peter. It is not the case that obscurity per
vades the Epistle as to the circle of its readers or the author's
relation to such circle, or that the description of the "error
ists " fluctuates inconsistently between present and future,
* Compare the sparing use in both Epistles of the article, and the predi
lection for the indefinite tis, for iv, els and Sid, the frequent plurals of
abstract nouns, participles put before the imperative, the predilection
for the perfect participle particularly of the passive, circumlocutions with
#X°"Tes, the putting of the negative expression before the positive with
dXXd. Of words that agree, compare dvao-rpotpifi, d-iroBetns, Sidvoia, laxis,
Kpipa, Kowavis, dperi} of God, yvdo-is in the sense of 1 Pet. iii. 7 (i. 5),
rtpii Kal Sb£a, the plural daiXyeiai, the ISios, rlpios frequent in both, the
airol in ii. 19 (comp. 1 Pet. i. 15 ; U. 5) and Scrns in ii. 1 (comp. 1 Pet. u.
11), irpoyivwoKeiv, avpfialveiv, Kopi^eoSai, SiJXowin the sense of 1 Pet. i. 11
(i. 14), dya-irav as in 1 Pet. iii. 10 (ii. 15), T-qpeiv as in 1 Pet. i. 4 (in. 17),
iropeieo-Bai, dvaarpiipeo-Bai and ai^dveiv with iv (comp. on the use of the
iv, also i. 4 ; ii. 13 with 1 Pet. i. 14 ; Hi. 16, 19 ; n. 7 with 1 Pet. ni. 2 ;
ii. 12 with 1 Pet. ii. 12 ; Ui. 16), imarpiipeiv iwl, rrapa Kvplif, del, lis
before the genitive absolute i. 3 (comp. 1 Pet. iv. 12), the el in U. 4, 20
(comp. 1 Pet. i. 17 ; ii. 3 ; iv. 17 f.), the ttoC in iii. 4 (comp. 1 Pet. iv. 18).
So too the i-ird-irTai in i. 16 reminds us of i-iroirreieiv (1 Pet. n. 12 ; iii.
12), Krjpv£ in ii. 5 of Kripiao-eiv (iii. 19), do-r-fipiKrbs and arr\piypJbs in ii. 14,
iii. 17 of arnpl&iv (v. 10), ipwXiKeiv in ii. 20 of ipirXoK-fi (Hi. 3), iirixopnyetv
in i. 5 of x°pnyeiv (iv. 11), latyripos in i. 1 of rroXiripos (i. 7), pariorns in
ii. 18 of pAraios (i. 18), bXlyas in U. 18 of i-Xlyov (i. 6 ; v. 10), Krlais in Hi.
4 of ktiotijs (iv. 19), ABeo-pos in ii. 7, iii. 17 of d6ip,tTos (iv. 3), o-iriXoi k.
pdpoi and &o-iriXos k. dpaptp-os in ii. 13, iii. 14 of Ao-iriXos k. dp.up.os (i. 19),
aKarawaio-ros apaprlas in H. 14 of -iriiravrai dpapriis (iv. 1). For furthel
detaUs see Weiss, Stud. u. Krit., 1866, 2.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 167
between immoral seducers and doubters of the second coming
(comp. No. 1). The dependence on the Epistle of Jude has
nothing embarrassing whatever, so long as we do not apply
an entirely false rule of literary usage to it (comp. No. 2).
The Epistle is deficient neither in close unity, nor in trans
parency of aim and composition throughout (comp. No. 3) ;
the complaints often heard as to poverty of thought, awk
wardness and latitude, want of freshness and vivacity, are
entirely subjective and prove nothing at all, since it cannot
be shown that pseudonymous writings alone suffer from these
defects. The doctrinal conception of the Epistle in so far
as it appears in an Epistle of so limited and practical an
aim, is closely allied to that of the first; while the diversity
of doctrine, style and phraseology, where not counterbalanced
by numerous resemblances, may be easily explained in the
case of an apostle who was not much of a writer, from the
difference of time between the two Epistles (comp. No. 4).
The alleged use of later writings of the New Testament is
entirely based on the preconception of its spuriousness, and
therefore cannot prove it (comp. No. 3, note 1) ;l just as of
course we can only speak of a strong desire on the part of the
author to pass for the Apostle Peter, in case the spuriousness
be established on other grounds. Traces of a later time are
vainly looked for in the explanation of the apparent delay of
the second coming (comp. No. 3, note 2), in the designation
given to the mount of transfiguration in i. 18, or in the men
tion of the fiWoi and aipeVras (i. 16; ii. 1), which only be-

• The affinity with the Clementines brought forward by Credner and
Schwegler is imaginary; even Holtzmann rightly declares the use of
a locus communis such as ii. 19 (comp. Recogn., 5, 12) to be entirely with
out significance. Reminiscences of PhUonian writings or of Jewish-
Alexandrian religious phUosophy cannot according to No. 3, note 2 be
thought of. The citation from a Jewish Apocryphon in 1 Clem, ad Cor.
xxiii. 3 (comp. 2 Clem. xi. 2 ff.) has nothing to do with iU. 4 and only
shows that doubts such as our author foresaw did actuaUy arise in the
tenth decade.

168 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
come suspicious if interpreted in the sense of a later time.
The reference to Paul and his Epistles in connection with the
commandment of the Lord and Old Testament Scripture
certainly admits of an entirely simple interpretation (comp.
No. 3, note 3). The relation to the first Epistle only gives
rise to difficulties if this also be put low down into the
seventh decade (comp. No. 1, 4). On the contrary it is quite
consistent with the fact that, in contradistinction from the
former Epistle, the Apostle here feels himself near his end
(i. 14) ; if the dependence on the Epistle of Jude written
after the middle of the seventh decade (§ 38, 3) and his
probable acquaintance with the Pastoral Epistles (No. 4),
make it imperative to put the second far down in the second
half of the seventh decade. That the Epistle was written
after Paul's death does not indeed necessarily follow from
iii. 15, especially as it contains no allusion to his martyrdom ;
but the way in which the Apostle in i. 12-15 feels himself
solely responsible for the Churches of Asia Minor, is at
least strongly in favour of the presumption that Paul had
been removed from them for ever. On the other hand it is
certainly no argument in favour of the Epistle having been
written before the year 70, that the destruction of Jerusalem
is not among the examples of punishment enumerated in
chap, ii., while the present as well as the anticipated doubts
owing to the postponement of the second coming are not put
in connection with this event, although they were so confi
dently expected with it (Matt. xxiv. 29). Since therefore
neither the martyrdom of Peter in the year 64, nor his death
simultaneously with Paul, is at all credibly attested (§ 39,
5), space enough remains in the latter years of Nero for the
composition of our Epistle ; so that the only doubt still em
phasized by B. Bruckner falls away. The current view, that
it was written in Rome (comp. Keil) does not find the
smallest support in itself ; and i. 14 is against rather than in
favour of the assumption that Peter was already in a position

DATE OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE. 169
to expect his immediate execution, as Th. Schott still main
tains. 6. The question of the genuineness of the Epistle assumes
another form, if we inquire into its external testimony.
Since the resemblances in Hermas, Justin and Irenaeus
(§ 6, 4 ; vii. 4 ; ix. 5) do not admit of proof, the fact is
established that no certain trace of it can be found until
far on in the 3rd century ; and all that apologetics has
hitherto adduced by way of illustration is entirely un
tenable. It first appears in Pirmilian of Csesarea in Cap
padocia, in the very district where we have to look for its
first readers, and is mentioned by Origen as being doubted,
but probably only with respect to its claim to belong to the
New Testament, since he himself used it without reservation
(§ 10, 7). Assiduous use was already made of it in the time
of Eusebius (H. E., 3, 3) ; but he himself naturally could
only reckon it with the Antilegomena (§ 11, 4). 1 The Church
did not suffer herself to be misled by this in her recognition
of the Epistle ; nevertheless the fact remains that the 3rd
century is the first that has any knowledge of a second
Epistle of Peter. Erasmus and Calvin revived former
doubts respecting it, the latter being inclined to attribute it
to a disciple of Peter, who wrote in his name with his autho
rity. Grotius ascribed it to Bishop Symeon of Jerusalem,
regarding as interpolation everything that told against this
view. So long as the Lutheran Church still admitted dis
tinctions within the traditional Canon, she classed our Epistle

1 The remark of Didymus respecting its spuriousness also refers only
to this ; and the frivolous criticism of Kosmas Indicopleustes with
whose views of cosmogony 2 Pet. iii. 12 did not harmonize, has no weight
whatever (§ 11, 6). It was Jerome who first said in his exaggerated way
that it " a plerisque ejus negatur " on account of the difference of style
(De Vir. III., 1), which he tries to explain on the assumption of different
interpreters (Ep. 120 ad Hedib. 11) ; but this criticism was probably
an hypothesis to account for its late and divided reception into the
Canon, more than the reason of it.

170 DATE OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE.
with tW apocryphal or deutero-canonical writings ; with
special reference*" to it Chemnitz declared the Church to be
unable " ex falsiii scriptis facere vera, ex dubiis et incertis
certa, canonica, ot legitima." Semler in his paraphrasis.
(1784) declared thit an Epistle which appeared so late in
the Church could only have been written towards the end
of the 2nd century. On the other hand the Eichhorn-de
Wette criticism, by which even Guericke (in his Beitr.) was
for a time imposed upon, adhered to the composition of the
Epistle by an apostolic disciple ; and since Neander in 1832
definitely declared in favour of this view, it has continued to
be the prevailing one down to the present time, even in the
circles of very conservative critics (comp. for example Lech-
ler). But the internal arguments put forward by these critics
are untenable (No. 5) ; and when we place the composition of
the.Epistle in the first century, as Ewald did, and come down
at latest to the first half of the 2nd with Credner and
Bleek, the latter of whom also committed the blunder of
supposing the author to have been an Alexandrian Gentile
Christian, the main doubt, arising from its late appearance
in the Church, is not practically diminished. On this ac-
account Mayerhoff already ascribed it to an Alexandrian
Jewish Christian in the middle of the 2nd century ; while
Reuss regarded it as one of the later pieces of pseudo-
epigraphic literature, declaring its reception into the Canon
to be the only example of a decided error on the part of the
Church. Schwegler and Volkmar were the first to come
down once more with Semler to the end of the 2nd cen
tury ; but the latest criticism, which interprets it, with
Grotius, as an attack on the Carpocratians like the Epistle
of Jude, seems inclined to adhere to the middle of the cen
tury (compare Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, Mangold, Holtzmann).
The Epistle has certainly never been at a loss for defenders. Nitzsche
wrote against Grotius (Ep. Petr. Post., Lips., 1785, comp. also Flatt,
Genuina Sec. Ep. P. Origo, Tub., 1806, and Dahl, De Auth. Ep. P. Post

CRITICISM OF PETER'S SECOND EPISTLE. 171
et Jud., Rost., 1807) ; MichaeUs and Hug adhered to its genuineness ;
Bertholdt, Uke Jerome, resorted to the theory of an interpreter and re
jected chap. ii. as an interpolation (comp. also Lange) ; Schott represents
it as having been composed after the Apostle's death by a disciple, in
accordance with his design ; while UUmann (Der 2 Brief Petr., Hdlbrg.,
1821) only tried to defend the first chapter as a Petrine fragment (comp.
also Bunsen). Against him Olshausen took up the pen (De Authent. et
Integr. P. Epist., Region., 1822, 23), only however arriving at a subjective
conviction of the authenticity ; against Mayerhoff Windischmann (comp.
Heydenreich, Ein Wort zur Vertheidigung , etc., Herborn, 1837). Gue-
ricke, Thiersch, Stier (Komm., 1850) and Dietlein (Komm., 1851) after
wards defended the Epistle, the last of whom was so fortunate as to
discover a mass of testimony to the Epistle in the apostolus Fathers.
Among later critics no definite decision has been ventured upon by Wie-
singer, B. Bruckner and Grau, who are rather in favour of the genuine
ness, or by Huther (Komm., 1877) and Sieffert, who rather incUne to the
spuriousness; on the other hand, Th. Schott, Hofmann and Kiel,
L. Schulze and Spitta are disturbed by no doubts. Comp. also Weiss,
Stud. u. Krit., 1866, 2.
7. In the event of its being impossible to explain the
silence of the second century respecting the second Epistle of
Peter from circumstances with which we are unacquainted
and perhaps cannot unravel, the Epistle cannot have arisen
earlier than towards the end of the 2nd century, when the
written memorials of the apostolic time first began to be used
as normative authorities.1 On this assumption a pseudony
mous writer then put words of exhortation to the Churches
of his time into the mouth of the Apostle, ostensibly ad
dressed to them by him shortly before his death. In this
1 The passage Hi. 2 certainly appears to regard the prophetic writings
and the commandment of the Lord handed down by the Apostles (not
yet in the Gospels) as the normative Canon ; and this would point to the
first half of the 2nd century, before a Canon of the Gospels was yet formed
(§ 5). But the preliminary conditions for the production of pseudony
mous apostolic writings were at this time and even later still wanting,
since the latter were by no means specific authorities in the Church
(§ 7, 7) ; moreover it would then be incomprehensible how a writing
which must have been intended to find acceptance with the Church,
could have remained ivnknown and even unmentioned for almost the
space of a century.

172 HYPOTHESIS OF SPURIOUSNESS.
case the fact that mention was made in Jude ver. 17 f. ol
apostolie predictions, which seemed to point to the libertines
of his time (for the description substantially taken from Jude
must at least have suited them), may certainly have had
something to do with the form in which he wrote ; inasmuch
as he was thereby convinced that he was attacking them
in the spirit of his Apostle, even if he extended the predic
tion to wicked scoffers at the Christian hope of the future.3
If once we find reason to regard the work in the light of a
pseudonymous piece of writing, we are certainly struck by
the intentional way in which it is characterized as having
been written by the Apostle for his Churches shortly before
his end and left to them as a testament (i. 14 f.), and by an
appeal to him as one of the disciples of the mount of trans
figuration is set forth in all its importance (i. 16 ff.). More
over the way in which the author adheres in iii. 1 f. to the
first Epistle of Peter and is only intent on repeating the
admonition there given by the Apostle to be mindful of the
prophetic word and the commandment of the Lord, now ap
pears in a new light; how earnestly he endeavours to write in
the spirit and sense of the first Epistle of Peter, not without
success, we have already seen ; as also how much of its ex-
3 But it is time to put an end to the idea that the pseudonymous
writer may be recognised by the fact that he moves in senseless contra
dictions (for example, lest he should betray himseU he dates the Epistle
to Christendom as a whole, and yet in iii. 1 assumes that he is writing
to the readers of the first Epistle of Peter, as he is accused of doing),
forgets his part, confounds present and future ; aU which things it is im
possible to impute to so thoughtful a composition, and moreover what
never happens in the case of a pseudonymous writing. The predictions
of chaps, ii. and iii. being put into the mouth of the Apostle, naturally
form a prophetic intimation on his part (ii. 9 ff.) of the libertines of the
2nd century, such as in our author's view he had in mind ; the scoffers
foretold in iii. 3 then being the nvis who account for their doubts by the
alleged delay of the second coming (ver. 9). Above aU it cannot be sup
posed that in using the Epistle of Jude, he wished to avoid what was
apocryphal, for a strict separation between the canonical and apocryphal
at the close of the 2nd century cannot be proved.

RESULT OF THE CRITICISM OF THE SECOND EPISTLE. 173
pression he adopts. So too the mention of Paul's Epistles in
iii. 15 f., apart from the fact that he wishes to denounce their
misinterpretation in the sense of libertinism, must then be
designed to show that the doctrine he has put forward is not
merely Petrine but Petro- Pauline, viz. in the opinion of his
time, universally apostolic.3 Then too we may take the Tas
Aowras ypd<pa<s in the natural though not necessary sense, that
the apostolic writings are placed side by side with those of
the Old Testament as the authorities from which each one
must seek to prove that his view is justified ; a thing which
certainly could only happen at the end of the second century.
A thoughtful criticism ought not however to shut its eyes to the great
difficulties that stand in the way of this apparently so transparent view.
The libertines attacked in chap. ii. do not present the features of the
dualistic gnosis of the second century any more than the Ubertines of
Jude's Epistle, however much we may look for them ; on the contrary,
the way in which they are represented in iii. 16 as taking their stand on
the Old Testament and on the writings of Paul, is altogether opposed to
the idea that they are meant. It is moreover striking that the author
does not put the prophecy of Jude ver. 17 f. at the head of the section in
which his chief opponents are attacked, although his whole composition
hangs by it ; as also that he adheres so closely to the writing of one who
was not an apostle, although anxious that his own words should pass for
those of an apostle. Consequently, unless we abandon the unity of the
composition, we must assume (however improbable it may be) that the
scoffers of chap. iii. were the very same libertines who mocked at the
threat of the judgment expected at the second coming of Christ, because
this second coming that had so long been delayed was no more to be
* Even then there can be no idea of a conciliatory aim, as Schwegler
emphaticaUy asserts and most critics admit to some extent. For "to
bring about the final and lasting conclusion of peace between Petrines
and PauUnes " would require more doctrinal detail than our Epistle
presents and not the mere assurance that Paul was at one with Peter in
Christian ethics (and for the most part in eschatology), a point that was
never in dispute between the parties of the apostoUc period. And it only
enhances the difficulty of understanding the pseudonymous composition if
on account of this passage we ascribe to it an aim that mantfestly does
not explain the greater part of its contents. But even on this assumption
there can be no thought of a " coUection " of Pauline writings belonging
to the whole Church (comp. No. 3, note 3).

174 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
looked for. But it is just in this that the main difficulty of the view Hes.
For it is quite incomprehensible how a delay of the second coming could
still be talked of (Ui. 9) at the end of the 2nd century, when it must long
have been admitted that the second coming had not taken place at the
time when it was first expected ; or how the doubts respecting it should
be explained in a way that so visibly points to the dying out of the first
Christian generation (Hi. 4). Moreover chap. i. certainly seems to imply
that the main object of the whole composition is to combat these doubts
(as Mayerhoff, Credner and others maintain), a view which again destroys
the unity of the Epistle, because, as akeady seen by de Wette, chap. ii.
has then no connection with chap. i. Finally it cannot faU to be seen
that if we once assume the pseudonymous character of the writing- and
its composition in the 2nd century, Hi. 16 points just as certainly to the
faot that the Canon was in a state of formation at the end of the first
century, as does Hi. 2 to the first haU of it (comp. note 1), whereby the
whole explanation of the writing becomes in this aspect very insecure.
Hence the possibiUty that the work is on the whole what it claims to
be, and that circumstances unknown to us alone prevented its recog
nition before the 3rd century, need not be excluded, nor the question of
its genuineness be declared definitely settled.
§ 42. The Eiest Epistle of John.
1. Since Heidegger it has often been doubted whether this
writing is intended for an epistle proper.1 It certainly does
not begin with the epistolary address and invocation of
blessing, such as we have hitherto invariably found except
in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and yet, as
already perceived by Liicke (Komm., 1836), the introduction
has unmistakably the character of an epistle. The author
does not give his name, but he describes himself as an eye
witness of the life of Jesus and a preacher of the gospel ; he
does not name his readers, but characterizes them as those
to whom he preached ; he expresses no wish for their hap
piness, but states that he writes in order to perfect his joy
1 Reuss would only go the length of calhng it a pastoral writing
(comp. also Holtzmann, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., 1881, 4 ; 1882, 1-3).
This question is usuaUy connected with the other one, as to the relation
of the Epistle to the Gospel of the same author ; but since that is just
as much matter of dispute, it must first be answered itself on the basis
of our Epistle.

ERRORISTS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 1^5
in that which this preaching had hitherto effected in them
{i. 1-4). Nor does he conclude with a benediction, but with
an impressive final exhortation outside the limits of the
usual stereotyped formula (v. 21). In no case is the work a
treatise ; the questions discussed by the author, in which he
•defends his views against doubts and attacks, are neither
theoretical nor practical ; they are meditations on the great
fundamental truths respecting which he is at one with his
readers, and which he elucidates now on this side and now
on that, spinning them out in contemplative fashion and
demonstrating their consequences as regards life. These
meditations however are not the object proper, they re
peatedly pass into direct admonition; nor is it an ideal
public to which he addresses them. It is made evident
again and again, as well as in i. 3 f. that it is a definite circle
for which and to which he writes (ii. 1, 7 f., 12 ff., 21, 26 ;
v. 13). It is the circle familiar to him, in which he works
and in which therefore he occasionally includes himself
(ii. 19), a circle which had long ago received the gospel (ii.
7), in which he pictures to himself persons of different ages
(ii. 12 ff.), which he sees threatened with errors (ii. 26 ; iii.
7), and of which he is able to speak words of praise (ii.
20 f . ; iv. 4). In any case it is mere disputing about terms
to say that a work of this kind is not an epistle in the sense
of New Testament epistolary literature ; for which reason
Liicke, de Wette, Bleek, Diisterdieck (Komm., 1852, 54) and
Huther (Komm., 1880) have rightly adhered to the view
that it is an epistle.
2. Herein lies the right to make enquiry respecting those
circumstances of the Church which gave rise to the Epistle.
The author himself represents it as characteristic of his time
that liars appeared who denied that Jesus is the Christ ;
and he attaches such significance to this phenomenon that
he regards it as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Antichrist
(ii. 18, 22). But that this is not meant in the sense of the

176 ERRORISTS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE.
Jewish denial of the Messiahship of Jesus, already appears
from the fact that he identifies the denial of the Father and
the Son, viz. of the perfect revelation of God in Christ, with
it (ii. 22 f .) ; and expressly says that it is a denial of the
confession of Jesus as the Christ who appeared in the
flesh (iv. 2). In the same way the antithesis in v. 6 that
these errorists denied the full incarnation of the eternal Son
of God and hence the identity of the man Jesus with the
heavenly Christ expressed in the author's view by the name
'Ir/o-ovs Xpto-Tos, implies that they could at any rate admit
that he came iv t<3 vSari, but not at all that he came iv t<S
aifiari. But this is nothing else than the teaching of Cerin
thus according to which the heavenly seon Christ united at
baptism with the man Jesus, but separated from him again
before his death, which therefore does not at all amount to
an actual incarnation and therewith to the perfect revelation
of God in the historical life of Jesus (comp. Iren., adv. Heer.,
I. 26, 1 ; Epiph., Har., 28, 1).
Setting aside as utterly untenable the views of older expositors ac
cording to which the errorists were now Jews and now representatives of
some Oriental wisdom, as also that of Bleek who adhered to the opinion
that they were in general Christians who had suffered shipwreck of their
faith, they were sometimes regarded as Ebionites, as by Eichhorn, some
times as docetists, as by Liicke, de Wette, Credner, Reuss, Hausratn
and Schenkel ; or it was supposed that two kinds of errors were com
bated, as by Sander (Komm., 1851) and Lange. But the idea that Jesus
had merely the appearance of a body is only an artificial inference from
the antitheses of the Epistle ; and it is this which constitutes the pecu-
Uarity of Cerinthian Gnosis, viz. that in it the denial of the essen
tial Divinity of Jesus is combined with the theory of a heavenly son
Christ, who was not reaUy man. For this reason Schleiermacher,
Neander and the later critics Diisterdieck, Ebrard (Komm., 1859),
Huther, Haupt (Komm., 1869), Braune (Komm., 1869), as also Keim,
rightly adhere to the view that the Epistle refers to Cerinthus. The
objections to this opmion, raised by Guericke, Thiersch, Ewald, Man
gold, Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann may be summed up in the position that
the Jewish-Christian teaching of Cerinthus could not have been associ
ated with Antinomianism. But no trace of Antinomianism on the part

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 177
of these errorists is anywhere to be found (comp. Huther and B. Bruck
ner, Komm., 1863). Nor is there the sUghtest reason for thinking of the
BasUidians (Pfleiderer, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, 4 and Holtzmann).
To assume that the appearance of these errors was the
proper occasion of the Epistle, as Holtzmann still emphat
ically asserts, is at variance with its professed aim.1 The
fundamental idea of the Epistle is, that the joy of the
writer in his readers can only be complete, if the fellowship
with God and Christ to which his preaching has led them,
be proved in a Christian and moral life. Hence it follows
that the Epistle cannot be directed against Antinomian
libertinism, even if such be looked for among these errorists
or by the side of them. Against this, it would not have been
necessary to argue that sin was dvopiia (iii. 4), but on the
contrary that dvopiia is sin.2 The error against which the
1 Nowhere do we find these controverted ; on the contrary in direct
opposition to them the readers are admitted to be in possession of a
knowledge of the truth (U. 20 f.), and in want of no teaching (H. 26 f.).
The errorists have akeady separated from the Church and that openly,
for the Church by holding fast to the truth has compeUed them to with
draw (iv. 4; v. 4f.). They are now only in that world which is com
pletely separated from the Church ; to it they belong and in it they find
sympathy (iv. 3 ff.) ; whioh naturally does not exolude the necessity for
the Church to be on its guard against their seductions and by careful
examination to distinguish the spirit which actuates them from the
Spirit of God (H. 26 f., iv. 1, 6).
3 Nevertheless there is something striking in this characteristic word.
If intentionally chosen, it can only mean that with every sin there is a
falling back into the dvopla abhorred by aU. In this case we can at
most assume that Antinomian Hbertinism had formerly prevaUed in the
circle of the readers, and is now looked back upon as a thing that has
been overcome. It is not improbable that the veviK-f/Kare rbv rrov-npbv in
H. 13 also has a retrospective aUusion to the overcoming of this Anti
nomianism, just as theiyvdiKare rbv air bpxv* has to the exolusion of
Gnostic Ebionism ; and as the vmav rbv xbo-pov in v. 4. is supposed to
have a double meaning. But it by no means follows that the Gnostics
were the Antinomians. Comp. to the contrary § 35, 1; 38, 2; 41, 1;
47, 7. The rrao-a dSixla dpaprla iorlv in v. 17 does not belong here at aU,
since it meiely introduces the distinction between mortal sins and sins
that are venial. On the other hand the final admonition in v. 21 is
VOL. II. N

178 OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE.
author contends is not that sin is allowable, under certain
circumstances : but he denies that good works, which exclude
all that is sin, may be neglected under any pretext. The
ju^Seis rrXavdru) v/x.Ss in iii. 7 shows unmistakably that it is
not a purely theoretical meditation in which he disputes this
view. There were those who thought they could be 81/caioi
without requiring the iroieiv rrjv SiKaioow^v ; these however
were no errorists but Paulines who in the righteousness given
by grace forgot that Paul enforces with equal earnestness the
carrying out of righteousness in works. In the very begin
ning we find a warning against the error of supposing' that
they were free from sin and no longer needed to turn away
with earnestness from all that was sinful (i. 8— ii. 1) ; and in
the very passage where the author shows how the endeavour
to fulfil the Divine commands, requiring constant growth (iii.
18 ff.), is quite consistent with full assurance of salvation
(rrapprjo-ia rrpbs tov Otov, iii. 21 ff., comp. iv. 17), we find the
thought that these commands are included in those of faith
and love (iii. 23). The whole discussion of the Epistle
amounts to this, that of these two things faith, even viewed
in its origin, is the first ; for which reason assurance of sal
vation is ultimately traced back in a certain sense to faith
(v. 13 f.). In the very circles possessed by the full con
sciousness of having overcome fatal error by means of faith
and of having fundamentally rejected all carnal libertinism
(comp. note 2), repose in the consciousness of being justified
by faith and the assurance of salvation founded on such con
sciousness might beget a certain quietism paralyzing the
energy of Christian endeavours after holiness.3 The hatred

probably intended to have a double application, referring to the idols of
false gnosis and of libertinism.
3 On the other hand it would be quite a mistake to infer from these
discussions on the part of the author that the Churches were in a criti
cal state, as Liicke does ; or that they were in a condition of moral de
pravity (comp. Erdmann, Prim. Joannis epist. argum., Berlin, 1855) ; o*

ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 179
of the world which can neither understand (iii. 1) nor love
Christianity, is mentioned in so incidental a way (iii. 12 f.),
that there cannot have been any special danger threatening
the Churches from without.
3. After the epistolary introduction (i. 1—4) the author
enters upon the fact of the revelation of God fulfilled in Christ,
showing how a walk in the light thereof must be manifested
by the constant acknowledgment of sin (i. 5-10) and a true
knowledge of God be attested by the fulfilment of the Divine
commands (ii. 1-6). Remarking that this requirement
though as old as the gospel which they had heard, was yet a
new one, viz. that it arose out of their present situation, he
characterizes this situation as one in which the light had
already become a victorious power in the world, and had
found a place in the Church (ii. 7 f.) ; from which he pro
ceeds to the inference that its members must love one
another as brethren (ii. 9ff.). But since the Church is
sharply separated from the world not less by possessing the
forgiveness of sins (ii. 12 ff.) than by the true knowledge
of Christ and the fact of having overcome Satan (comp.
No. 2, note 2), the reverse side of the love which binds their
members together is separation from all love of the world
(ii. 15 ff.). Pinally the immediate situation in which they
are placed is specially marked by the circumstance that the
appearance of antichristian error points to the conclusion
with Guericke and others to conclude from the fact that special stress is
laid upon love (a fact entirely conditioned by the author's pecuUar mode
of view) and from incidental exhortations on this subject (Hi. 18 ; iv. 7)
that their love had waxed particularly cold ; for nowhere do we find any
special expression of censure either as regards events that had taken
place in the Church or with respect to the condition of it. It would be
just as erroneous to conclude from the details which make the necessary
connection of Christian knowledge and Christian Ufe (iv. 6 f .) culminate
in the fact that a knowledge which does not lead to the keeping of the
Divine commands is untrue, that GnosiB in its more limited sense, and
moreover an Antinomian gnosis, is attacked (comp. in particular HH-
genfeld and Holtzmann).

180 ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE.
that it is the last time (ii. 18-22). The first inference to be
drawn therefrom is the duty of abiding on this account in
the truth and thus in God, in order not to be put to shame
at the directly impending second coming (ii. 23-28) ; and
secondly the necessity in face of the approaching complete
ness of their relation as children to purify themselves from
all that is not in keeping with this hope (ii. 29— iii. 6). These
three reflections on the nature of their Christian state and the
inferences to be drawn therefrom, manifestly form a kind of
introduction, for it is the warning in iii. 7 that first brings
into view a concrete motive for the subsequent discussions.
After the fundamental note has been sounded in ii. 29, it
is next shown how the practice of righteousness is the
specific mark of sonship to God as contrasted with sonship
to the devil (iii. 7-10), but in particular the exercise of
brotherly love, which is as characteristic of the children of
God who have obtained eternal life, as is the hatred of the
world (iii. 10-18) . The attestation of our Christian state, and
therefore the foundation of our assurance of salvation, lies
only in observance of the Divine commands, commands
which are comprised in the union of faith and love (iii. 19-
23).1 In this way the author first comes to his proper
1 This section gives us a clear glance into the practical aim of these
discussions. It cannot be overlooked that the idea of faith here appears
in the Epistle for the first time, and is moreover classed in the first
place with the ivroXal on the fulfilment of which our confidence of sal
vation is based. Nor can it be misapprehended that we have here an
antithesis to the view which regards confidence of salvation as having its
foundation in faith as such, in distinction from works. This is exactly
the Pauline view, with whose character and significance our author was
still unacquainted ; and it is manifest that he only contends against
false conceptions and appUcations of it. In opposition to the obvious
objection that our keeping of the Divine commands must always be im
perfect, the very one on which the Pauline thesis was based, he declares
in advance that He who knoweth the heart, knows that we are ix rijt
dXnBelas even when our hearts condemn us, always presupposing that
this is attested by active love (Hi. 19 f. Comp. also the way in which in
i. 8f.; u. 1 the consciousness of sin which always adheres to the Christian

ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 181
leading theme ; for the object is to show that in these two
things lies the proof of our fellowship with God and hence
of our salvation state ; and although faith is emphasized
throughout as being the first of these, yet chief stress is
always laid on the requirement of the second. If fellowship
with God culminates in His abiding in us, the fact may be
recognised chiefly by His Spirit being in us (iii. 24). But
since this Spirit is distinguished from the spirit of error
by the confession of Christ, therefore to hear (and believe)
it, is a sign of the presence of God (or His Spirit) in us
(iv. 1-6) ; and because love can only result from a know
ledge of God, which, impossible in itself, arises only when
the Spirit by sending the Son teaches us to know the
love of God and therewith the essence of love in general ;
therefore we know by our own love that God or His
Spirit is in us (iv. 17-13). By returning in iv. 13 to iii. 24
it is clear that the author concludes the first circle of ideas ;
hence the second now begins at iv. 14. For it is likewise on
the fact that the Apostles were themselves eye-witnesses of
the sending of the Son, that faith in the love of God mani
fested in Him rests, and with it the certainty that whoever
confesses Him in faith has perfect fellowship with God (iv.
14 ff.). Aud this certainty directly leads to the dwelling of
love in us, inasmuch as God's proper essence is love and is
now made perfect in us as in Christ, which thing of itself
gives a confidence in looking forward to the judgment, which
shuts out all fear (iv. 16 ff.). It is indeed love toward God
that is the firstfruits of His revelation of love, and love to
the brethren is necessarily bound up with it (iv. 19 ff.). The

is sUenced by pointing to the forgiveness of sins that is always ready for
us and to the intercession of Christ). It is clear that the author has
here reached the culminating point of his discussion, from the fact that
whereas reference is hitherto made only to abiding in God, at most to
the abiding of His word (ii. 17, 24), His anointing (ii. 27), His Beed (Hi.
9) in us, we now hear continually of the abiding in us of God HimseU.

182 ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST EPISTLE.
same course of thought recurs a third time ; but with express
reference to the power of faith to overcome the world, which
faith can only result from being born of God, viz. from the
self- witness of God dwelling and working in us (comp. ii. 29 ;
iii. 9 ; iv. 7), and has for its direct consequence the love of
God, out of which proceeds spontaneously the love of the
brethren and the fulfilment of all the Divine commands (v.
1— 4).2 The author has thus shown that the emphasizing of
love together with faith, does not rob the latter of its just
due and significance, but rather reveals them fully for the
first time, and so prepares the way for his declaration that
the faith which overcomes the world can be no other than
faith in the Divine sonship of Jesus, in a sense resting on the
witness of God at the baptism and the death of Jesus which
coincides with the testimony of the Spirit in the Apostles
(v. 6-9), as also on the evidence of individual experience of
the eternal life directly possessed in faith (v. 10 ff.). This
is immediately followed by the conclusion of the Epistle in
which the author reminds his readers how in faith they have
an actual assurance that God will hear their prayers, an
assurance only limited in the case of the sin unto death (v.
13-17) ; in the consciousness of being born of God a pro
tection against all the temptations of the devil (v. 18 f .) ;
and in fellowship with Christ a knowledge of the true God
and of eternal life (v. 20) ; whereupon the author concludes
with a warning against idols (v. 21, comp. No. 2, note 2).

3 Hence it is clearly shown that these two things, in which the guar
antee of our state of salvation lies, are not co-ordinate one with another,
but that on the contrary faith not only occupies the chief place in rela
tion to love, but is its efficient cause. As according to iv. 7-13 love not
only proceeds from a knowledge of God such as oan be attained by faith
in the sending of Christ alone ; and since according to iv. 19 abiding
in love presupposes a knowledge of His act of love towards us revealed
only to faith ; so faith born of God, which overcomes temptation to
error, develops spontaneously into love for the Creator and the feUow-
creature.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 188
Formerly there was much contention respecting the arrangement of
the Epistle of John (comp. Luthardt, De pr. Joh. epist. comp., Leips.,
1860 ; Stockmeyer, Die Structur des ersten Johannesbriefes, Basel, 1873).
It was first of aU attempted, after Bengel's example, to make it fit into
the Trinitarian scheme ; Liicke contented himseU with dividing it into
8-10 groups of ideas ; Ebrard (Komm., 1859), Hofmann (in his Schrift-
beweis), and Luthardt reduced this number to 5 ; while Huther finaUy
came down to 4. On the other hand de Wette, Ewald, Erdmann and
others adhered to u threefold division, HUgenfeld, Diisterdieck and
Haupt dividing it only into 2 parts ; aU however differing in many
respects as to the points of division, and not even aU perceiving that
the conclusion of the Epistle begins with v. 13. Holtzmann, foUowing
Flacius and Reuss, stUl doubts all logical division, and certainly such can
neither be proved by tracing the threads of a premeditated arrangement
nor be expressed by theoretical headings of the various parts (comp. for
example Diisterdieck, Gott ist Licht, Gott ist gerecht). The work is an
epistle not a treatise, the discussion has not the form of dialectio
development but of thoughtful meditation on certain great fundamental
truths ; of these however the progress is quite transparent, if only the
proper occasion of the Epistle be rightly understood. It is true the same
thoughts frequently recur ; but they are always placed in a new Ught by
their connection, and are looked at from new points of view. The unity
of the Epistle consists in its object, viz. in opposition to self-satisfaction
in the certainty of salvation, to admonish his readers to the observance
and attestation of it in a Christian and moral Ufe, especiaUy in love.
4. We have seen from the beginning how a knowledge
of the Epistle of John goes hand in hand with that of the
Gospel in the case of Barnabas and Hermas, though not so
much with Ignatius ; its use is in Polycarp and Papias
earlier attested than that of the former (§ 5, 7) ; even in
Justin we find echoes of it (§ 7, 3). At the end of the
2nd century it forms a part of the New Testament, and is
repeatedly quoted by Irenseus, Clement, and Tertullian as
Johannine (§ 9, 5) ; it is received into the Syrian Church-
bible as John's Epistle, is closely associated with the Gospel
in the Muratorian Canon (§ 10, 1, 2), and from the time of
Origen and Eusebius is reckoned a Homologumenon. The
author does not give his name, but classes himself with
those who were eye-witnesses of the earthly life of Jesus
(i. 1 f.) ; that he was so, is shown by the Epistle with its

184 AUTHORSHIP OF THE FIRST EPISTLE.
vivid recollection of the example (i. 6 ; iii. 3, 5, 7 ; iv. 17)
and word of Jesus (i. 5 ; iii. 23 ; iv. 21),1 as also of the
events that took place at His baptism and crucifixion (v. 6
ff.). He is undoubtedly a Jewish Christian, as is shown by
his conception of the Xpio-Tos and dvTixpurroe, of the xpicr/ta
and lAaoyios, of the cleansing from sin and of the sin unto
death, but above all by his entire fundamental view as
distinguished from that of Paul. In his eyes the doing of
God's will, the keeping of His commands and the practice
of righteousness are throughout the aim and guarantee of
a state of salvation ; that sin is dvopda (iii. 4) seals its
condemnation. The Word, as with James and Peter, is the
seed of the new life in which there is no more sin (iii. 9 ;
comp. ii. 14). All thought of the Old Testament law is
thus excluded ; the sum of the Divine commands is faith
in the name of the Son and love to the brethren which
proceeds from love to God (iii. 23 ; v. 2).a But the chief
peculiarity of the Epistle is the mystical character of ita
fundamental view. Eternal life is manifested in Christ
(i. 2), and is directly given to the believer in Him (v. 11
1 Express reference to isolated sayings of earUest tradition, such as
occur in James and Peter, the Epistle does not contain, much less points
of contact with the Gospels which Holtzmann professes to have found.
The fact that he, Uke James (iv. 2), puts hatred on a par with murder
(iii. 15), is in keeping with the spirit of his master, without any necessity
for supposing that he thought of Matt. v. 21 f. ; and his promise with
regard to the hearing of prayer (Hi. 22) required no reference to Matt.
xxi. 22 ; whUe v. 3 has no connection whatever with Matt. xi. 30. It is
moreover a strange fancy that the expression dcpeuvrai bpXv al apaprUu.
(H. 12) must be borrowed from the synoptic Gospels on account of the
Doric form of the perfect passive.
* Actual Old Testament citations are not found, because the Epistle is
addressed to Gentile-Christian readers. The fact that an author who
has such manifest regard for Paulinism, as he understood it and beUeved
it to be misunderstood, should have shown acquaintance with Pauline
Epistles would not in itself appear strange ; but there is no shadow
of proof for what Holtzmann adduces in favour of this, or of his
acquaintance with other New Testament writings.

PECULIAR TEACHING OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 185
ff., 21) ; the being and abiding in Christ and through Him
in God is nothing but the promised eternal life (ii. 24 f.),
into which the Christian already passes on this side of
death (iii. 14 f.), and in which he has fellowship with the
Father and the Son (i. 3, 6). Rarely however is there
any mention of mediation through Christ, as in v. 20 ; the
highest thing, to which the glance is always directed, is
rest in God who is fully revealed in Him (i. 5) and intui
tively apprehended (ii. 4, 14) in His deepest essence, which
consists in love (iv. 8) and therefore draws us into this
new life of love (iv. 16). The dwelling and abiding of
God in us corresponds to our dwelling and abiding in Him
(iii. 24 ; iv. 16), He gives us His spirit (iii. 24 ; iv. 13),
Himself working in us a new life ; we are born of Him
(iv. 7 ; v. 1), and may now be called His children ; being
of like nature with Him (iii. 1, 10), we cannot do otherwise
than love as He loves, the Father as well as the brethren
(iv. 19; v. 1). For those who are born of God, the com
mandment is no longer necessary ; they cannot sin, the
devil does not touch them (iii. 9 ; v. 18). Nevertheless,
the mysticism that so frequently strays into quietism
or even Antinomianism, is in this case the declared anti
thesis of both. The author knows how often the Christian I
is not what he ought to be ; his whole Epistle has no other
aim than to show that without practical attestation of a
knowledge of God, of fellowship with Him and sonship to '
Him, all is self-deception and a lie. It is a misappre
hension of this mysticism to suppose that it is not in
keeping with the description of the son of thunder pour
trayed in the Gospels (§ 33, 1). It is just because John
found in his ardent devotion to Christ the highest good,
viz. God Himself and fellowship with Him, that everything \
is in his view separated into these blunt antitheses that
know no medium, children of God and children of the devil ; ')
the brethren and the world, light and darkness, truth and

186 RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GOSPEL.
falsehood, love and hatred, life and death. In the mani.
festation he always sees the essence, in the beginning the
end, in the development the principle ; but for this very
reason he recognises only being and not being, all else is
self-deception or conscious falsehood. It is certain that he
can only by a slow process have arrived at this purified
mysticism in which all contrasts of knowing and doing,
ideal and realization, of this life and the next, of man and
God are solved, a solution that could only have been found
by him who had from the beginning been next to the heart
of Jesus, because he gave Him his whole heart.
5. That the Epistle and the Gospel proceed from the
same author is obvious. They are connected together not
only by numerous striking parallels of thought and expres
sion, but by the whole world of conceptions they have in
common, by the peculiarity of feature that characterizes
their entire theological view, as also by the same develop
ment of thought and mode of expression.1 Both works are
1 In both everything proceeds from the yiviia-xeiv rbv Bebv (rbv dXnBivbv)
or bpdv rbv Bebv to the elvai and piveiv iv Beo} (rip vlip, comp. the dweUing
and abiding of God and Christ or His word in one), yevvao-Bai and elvai
iK tov Beov (as opposed to ix tov BiafioXov). Christ is the Xbyos, the
p,ovoyevi)s and TapdKX-nros, the Son of God come in the flesh, faith a
mareieiv els rb fvopa airov, the Spirit rb irveSpa rrjs dXnBelas. Comp.
the contrasts of 0£s and o-Korla (with irepi-irarelv iv), dX-qBeia (iroieiv aXrfB.,
4k t. dXrjB. elvai, &X-qB. iv bp.) and ij/evSos (ipeio-rvs), of dSeXijiot (reKrla,
rraiSla, rixva. r. 8.) and Koo-pos (Ik tov Karpov elvai, vikov t. Koo-p.) ; the
ivroX^ Kaivii, the Tnpelr (SiSovai) ras ivroXds (t. Xoyov) ; alpeiv, fxelv an<i
woielv tV apaprlav, mareveiv and yiviio-Keiv, bpoXoyeiv and apvSo-Bai,
paprvpla and paprvpetv, BeaoSai and deupetv, xpelav &xeiv tva, dyvlteiv
iavrbv, iKeivos of Christ, dvBpa-iroKrbvos. Note the same predUection for
an unperiodio mode of expression and for irregularities, for antithetic
(oix-aXXa) and progressive parallelism, for carrying on the thought by
taking up again the preceding idea, for the heaping up and the re
currence of the same expressions, the demonstrative with Sri and tva,
the eUiptical dXX' tva, the KaBoSs-xal and oi KaBds, etc. Direct parallels
with the Gospel are i. 1 f., comp. Gosp. i. 1 ; i. 4, comp. Gosp. xvi. 24 •
ii. 8, comp. Gosp. i. 5 ; H. 11, comp. Gosp. xH. 35 ; H. 27, comp. Gosp.
xiv. 26 ; Hi. 1, comp. Gosp. i. 10 ; iii. 8, comp. Gosp. viii. 44 ; iii. 11 16

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EPISTLE AND GOSPEL. 187
nevertheless entirely independent. In many cases the Epistle
has been taken for the second (practical or polemic) part
of the Gospel (comp. Michaelis, Eichhorn, Storr iiber den
Zweck der evang. Cesch. u. Briefe Joh., Tub., 1786, 1810;
Bretschneider, in his Probab., 1820) or directly as an accom
panying and dedicatory work (comp. Hug, Frommann, Stud.
u. Krit., 1840, 4 ; Thiersch, Hofmann, Ebrard, Hausrath,
and likewise Haupt). But as a matter of fact no trace of a
reference to the Gospel can be found, since it lies neither
in the introduction (i. 1 ff.), nor in the eypa\j/a (ii. 14, 21) ;
and the Epistle by no means requires the Gospel as a com
mentary, such being supplied to the readers by the whole
teaching of the author. The Tubingen school first started
the question as to whether both writings proceed from the
same author, or whether on the contrary it is not more
probable that one was intentionally connected with the
other, their similarity resting on literary dependence; al
though these critics have never agreed as to which was the
original writing.
It is singular that Baur should have declared the Epistle to be the
eopy on account of its poverty of thought, its fluctuating and tauto
logical character and its want of logical power (Theol. Jahrb., 1848, 3 ;
1857, 3), whereas Hilgenfeld (Das Evang. u. die Briefe Joh., HaUe, 1849 ;
Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1859, 4 ; 1870, 3) maintained that it was the
earUer owing to its wealth of originality and its fresh, lively and attrac
tive character, neither of them insisting on difference of authorship.
Yet the question still remained whether the two works did not represent
different stages of development of the same author. WhUe Bleek,
B. Bruckner, and Huther adhered to the priority of the Epistle, as did
Pfleiderer and ZeUer (Theol. Jahrb., 1845, 4 ; 1847, 1) on the assumption
oomp. Gosp. xv. 12 f. ; Hi. 12, comp. Gosp. vH. 7 ; in. 13, comp. Gosp.
xv. 18 f. ; Hi. 14, comp. Gosp. v. 26 ; iv. 6, comp. Gosp. vui. 47 ; iv. 9,.
oomp. Gosp. Hi. 16 f. ; iv. 12, comp. Gosp. i. 18 ; iv. 14, comp. Gosp.
Hi. 17 ; v. 3, comp. Gosp. xiv. 15, 21 ; v. 6, 8, comp. Gosp. xix. 34 f. -t
v. 9, comp. Gosp. viH. 17 f., v. 32, 34, 36; v. 10, comp. Gosp. Hi. 33 i
v. 12, comp. Gosp. Hi. 15, 36 ; v. 13, comp. Gosp. xx. 31 ; v. 18, comp.
Gosp. xiv. 30; v. 20, comp. Gosp. xvii. 3.

188 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EPISTLE AND GOSPEL.
of different authors, Liicke, de Wette, Reuss, Guericke, Mangold, and
•Schenkel persisted in the opinion that the Gospel was written first ; the
Muratorian Canon likewise assuming a, reference to it on the part of
the Epistle. Finally Holtzmann, foUowing Hoekstra in this respect,
has interpreted the Epistle as a remoulding of the theology of the
Gospel in the interest of the popular conception of Christianity, thus
necessitating a difference of authorship ; for in his view it was the aim of
the author to introduce the Gospel also into wider cHcles.3
Notwithstanding all resemblances and borrowing, the
theological standpoint of both must be regarded as different.
•On this point indeed opinion has from the first been regu
lated by the false assumption that the discourses of Christ
contained in the Gospel were solely an exposition of the
theology of the author ; whereas, if historical recollections
lie at their basis, it is just as conceivable that they should
¦contain many ideas and trains of thought that have not been
fully assimilated by the author in his peculiar method of
teaching, as on the contrary that, however great an influence
his mode of teaching and expression may have had on his
rendering of the discourses, many peculiar forms of doctrine
specially characteristic of him should not have been put into
the discourses of Jesus consciously.3 On the other hand the
* He thinks he has found a number of proofs of this, even in verbal
•expression ; but apart from the fact that instead of &w6 the Gospel has
in some cases irapd, which is wanting in the Epistle (at least according
to the Sin. and Vat.), he has not been able to bring forward anything
•of the least weight when compared with the points of agreement to
which we drew attention in note 1 ; for the expressions he enumerates,
¦each of which occurs once or twice in one of the two, prove nothing
where the difference in the writings itself explains tbem, as it frequently
does. His attempt to show the intentional dependence of the Epistle
¦on the Gospel throughout, is very forced.
* Comp. Roos, Theol. Stud, aus Wiirtemb., 1881. If this can be shown
in the Gospel itself, where the doctrine of the Logos in the stricter sense
and the being born of God, which occupy so significant a place in the
prologue, have not passed over into the discourses at aU, the more
deeply stamped doctrine of the Epistle regarding the saving significance
of the death of Christ, the doctrine of the oirippa and xpwpa, of the
iaxa-Ti) tiipa and the Antichrist, or technical expressions of ApostoUc doo-

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EPISTLE AND GOSPEL. 189
alleged differences between Gospel and Epistle have only
been created by misinterpreting the former in a spirit
ualistic and Antinomian sense.4 It is only by forcing the j
religious mysticism of the Epistle into dogmatic formulas
entirely foreign to it, that a semblance of theological dis
crepancies with the Gospel may perhaps be made out.
Moreover it can hardly be supposed that there was any
considerable difference of time between the Epistle and the
Gospel which represented a further development on the
part of the author, as even B. Bruckner was willing to
trinal language, such as rrapovola, ¦n-ap'li-no-la, dpaprla irpbs Bdvarov, dvopla
naturally belong to it. On the other hand the Koivuvla of the Epistle is
only the expression for the iv elvai of the Gospel, and the term irapd-
kX-titos used of Jesus is only an appUcation of the utterance respecting
the &XXos irapdKXriTos (Gosp. xiv. 16) . So too the peculiar mysticism of
the writer of the Epistle is naturally in many cases put into the dis
courses of Jesus ; but whereas the Epistle is mainly directed to the
cUmax of these discourses, viz. our dwelling and abiding in God and His
in us, God's love to us and ours to Him ; in the Gospel their confirma
tion by personal community of life and love with Christ, is naturaUy
made prominent, to which the Epistle also points. Since the Gospel
only shows this highest aim prefigured in Christ, it lays chief stress on
discipleship with its duties and blessings and on the mediating efficacy
of Jesus, which was a foregone conclusion with the believers to whom
the Epistle is addressed and therefore needed no emphasizing. We
have thus disposed of everything from which Holtzmann in particular
endeavours to prove differences between the two writings, except in so
far as they rest merely on false exegesis. Of other non-assimUated ideas
in the discourses of Christ comp. the yevvaaBai e| iiSaros xal irveiparos, the
rrpoaKWeiv iv irveipan xal aXvBela, alreiv iv Ty bvbpari XpurTov, iXevBepovv,
elp-fprtpi ixeLVt diroSvrio-xeiv iv tJ dpaprla and suchlike, in particular the
rich symboUsm of Christ's discourses, of which only <j>ds and o-xorla are
actually adopted.
* It is not correct that the Gospel has transformed the hope of the
second coming (comp. xiv. 5) into the return of Christ in the Spirit, thus
abandoning the ground of primitive Christian eschatology on which the
Epistle unquestionably takes its stand ; the Gospel speaks of the resur
rection and the judgment at the last day (vi. 39 f . ; xii. 48), so that even
Holtzmann can count the avdaraais fw?)s and xplaews (v. 29) as its pecu
liar property. Neither is the Gospel Antinomian, even if like the
Epistle it haB for the disciples only a rripeiv rds ivroXds comprised in the
commandment of love.

y

190 PRIORITY OF THE EPISTLE.
admit. Nevertheless the prologue to the Gospel, with its
self-sinking into the pre-existence of the personal Logos and
into His participation in the creation of the world as in all
revelation, with its definitely expressed conception of the
incarnation and the resting of the Only-begotten in the
bosom of the Father, must always be regarded as the ripest
fruit of the author's contemplation, of which we should
certainly find further traces in the Epistle if it had been
written after the Gospel. And it is hardly conceivable that
the author after having once carried out the idea of the
Spirit as the Paraclete to so complete a personification as he
does in the farewell discourses of the Gospel, an idea more
over based on an undoubtedly genuine saying of Christ
(Matt. x. 19 f.), should have gone back in the Epistle to the
earlier notion of the xpicrp,a. In the Epistle, moreover, the
devil is not called 6 ap^tov tov Koo-pLov. So far the Gospel
must stand as the last word of the author.
6. However fully the substance and form of the Epistle
show that it was a work of the Evangelist, there is no doubt
that it cannot, as criticism has maintained since Dionysius
of Alexandria, have proceeded from the Apocalyptist (§ 33,
3). It is obvious indeed that a writing whose exclusive aim
it is to paint visions of the future and to strengthen in
patience and hope a Church that was threatened in times of
trouble with persecution by the secular power, presents few
points of comparison with a writing of fatherly admonition
to Churches which, scarcely yet threatened even from within,
only needed encouragement to persevere in the right way and
to attest their state of faith and salvation by works.1 The
1 Nor do the Epistles of the Apocalypse form any analogy (chaps, u.
and Hi.), since according to the situation assumed they are dictated by
Christ Himself, and utter praise and blame, exhortation and warning
respecting entirely concrete relations, in accordance with a stereotyped
plan, and therefore cannot contain personal outpourings of the author's
heart. Add to this, that the Apocalyptist was always to some extent
bound to a given form, or intentionaUy adhered to definite types;

PRIORITY OF THE EPISTLE. 191
world represented in the Apocalypse as overtaken by the
judgment of an angry God, is the heathen world with its
sinfnl abominations and false prophecy, which persecutes
Christianity and mocks at all exhortations to repent ; un
believing Judaism, the synagogue of Satan, being only in
cidentally included ; but even in the Epistle, notwithstanding
God's universal purpose of salvation, the world stands apart
from the children of God and is at enmity with them (iii.
1, 13). False prophecy and all dvop.ta are thrust out by the
latter and, like all sins unto death for which intercession is
no longer of any avail, falls under the judgment, a judgment
known also to the Epistle (iv. 17 ; v. 16 f.) ; whereas the
Church even in the Apocalypse is the seat of Divine love and
fellowship (iii. 9, 20). Hence any comparison which puts
the God of the Epistle who is love (but comp. also Gosp.
iii. 36) over against the angry God of the Apocalypse, is a
false one, ignoring the situation and aim of the two writings.
The lofty christological predicates of the Apocalypse only
reach their comprehensive expression in the God-like Son of
the Epistle, here as there His blood is the cleansing propitia
tion (i. 7 ; ii. 2) ; here as there the faith which confesses
Christ and does not deny Him, is the condition of salvation
along with the T-npeiv Tas ei/ToAas (tov Aoyov), as shown in
epya. The fact that special emphasis is there laid on the
vrropiovrj lies in the historical situation and corresponds to
the ixeveiv here required throughout ; the watchword of vlkSv

whereas the writer of the Epistle is quite untrammeUed in his medita- ,
tions. Even if what has been said of the Rabbinical learning of the
Apocalypse be imaginary, and a supposed artificial character only
ascribed to it by a false interpretation (comp. § 34, 4), yet in the case of
so fancUul a creation, the opportunity for artificiality of form is already
suppUed, just as it is entirely wanting where a writing of pastoral ad
monition is in question. The fact that the Apocalyptist gives his name,
whereas the author of the Epistle (as of the Gospel) only describes him
self as an eye-witness, rests on this alone, that it is only the person ol
the seer who guarantees the truth of his prophecy.

192 RELATION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE APOCALYPSE.
is common to both though its meaning is naturally modified
here owing to the situation. In both the second coming is
expected, which is to bring with it the completion of sonship
to God (iii. 2; comp. Apoc. xxi. 7). No actual difference
of doctrine can be absolutely proved.2 The Apocalyptist
still lives entirely in the Old Testament world of ideas and
images, to which moreover he is bound by its typology, now
virtually abandoned except for a few reminiscences. Instead
of it we have a religious mysticism developed entirely from
the contemplation of the Divine revelation perfected in
Christ and scarcely needing support in the religious con
sciousness of the Old Testament any longer (comp. No. 4).
That the necessary psychological conditions for the develop
ment of this mysticism did not exist in the Apostle John
from the beginning, cannot be shown from the Apocalypse,
which is exclusively directed to the warfare of Christian
life from without and has no motive for entering into the
development of the inner religious life. The explanation of
John's being so far emancipated from his Jewish- Christian
past however is simple enough, if the Epistle was not written
until some decades after the Apocalypse. At that time he
had but recently changed his Palestinian home for Greek
soil, Jewish- Christian for Gentile- Christian surroundings,
primitive apostolic for Pauline circles ; now he has long
been quite at home in them. For at the beginning of this
3 It cannot for instance be found in the circumstance that in the
Apocalypse it is the last Roman emperor who is Antichrist, whereas the
Epistle regards Antichrist as having come in the false prophets of Cerin-
thian gnosis. Only by a complete misapprehension of the essence of New
Testament apocalyptic can it be supposed to contain fixed doctrinal
opinions which exclude one another, instead of an interpretation of the
signs of the times necessarily varying according to the change of posi
tion. A false idea of inspiration must necessarily take offence at this ;
but it is not at variance with the biblical view of prophecy. Even Paul
at the time of the Thessalonian Epistles saw the false Messiah emerge
from apostate Judaism, and at the time of the Epistle to the Romans
hoped for the restoration of Israel (comp. § 17, 7, note 3).

LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIP OF JOHANNINE WRITINGS. 193
period the great judgment of God, which by the destruction
of the Temple detached the Christian Church from the soil
of national life and worship in which it was planted and
had grown up, was impending over Jerusalem. In this way
it became possible to take root in foreign soil of an entirely
different character. That these decades must also have
made a change in his language, may be assumed as a matter
of course.3 Exclusive intercourse with Greek-speaking
people must have familiarized him with the language of his
new home, and have smoothed away the asperities which the
Apocalypse still shows (§ 34, 7). The style, however, re
mains unperiodic, the construction the simplest possible, the
phraseology Hebraistic, and the expression as a whole mono
tonous ; it is only in the Gospel that the particles begin to
be more numerous, and attraction to be more abundantly
used, while the genit. absolute, ace. with inf. and suchlike
already appear. The stock of words must be very different
for the Apocalypse has to do with rich-coloured imagery, and
the Epistle with an analysis of the innermost religious life,
or with bare narrative, like the Gospel. Nevertheless
striking points of agreement are not wanting.
Traces, reminding us of the irregularities of the Apocalypse, are seen
in the irX-fipns, Gosp. i. 14, the quite structureless jjd-yei iv airy xv. 5
(comp. 2 John 2), the unnatural apposition rijv gwty t. aliliv 1 John H.
25, the wrong use of the constr. ad syn. Gosp. xu. 12 ( b txXos — dxoi-
o-avres, comp. xxi. 12; oiSels — elSbres), xvii. 2 (irav taken up again in
avrots and iKetvoi, as in xv. 6 rls in airb), 1 John v. 16 (Siio-ei avr$ — toii
ipaprdvovo-iv), 2 John 1 (o0s after rixva) and strong examples of the var.
struct, as in Gosp. ii. 24 f . ; Hi. 28 ; xiii. 29 (comp. also iv. 11 ; 3 John
10), finaUy the period Gosp. vi. 22 ff. which is at aU events somewhat
confused. The ytveaBai or etvai ets ti, Apoo. vHi. 4 ; Gosp. xvi. 20 ;

8 The assumption that John in the year 70 was too old for this, is
entirely arbitrary, since the younger of the sons of Zebedee may very
well have been only a youth in the beginning of the thirties. It was
singular enough that Eichhorn and Ewald should have supposed they
found traces of the weakness of old age in the Gospel.
VOL. II. 0

194 LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIP OF JOHANNINE WRITINGS.
1 John v. 8 are Hebraistic : the SiSovai ix, Apoc. Hi. 9 ; Gosp. vi. 11 ;
1 John iv. 13 (comp. the XaXeiv ix, Gosp. Hi. 31 ; 1 John iv. 5) corre
sponds to the ix instead of the simple genitive or rives with the genitive
used with Uke frequency in the Apocalypse and Gospel (comp. 2 John
4) ; the extensive misuse of tva is common to the three writings (comp.
in particular Gosp. xH. 23 ; xiii. 1 ; xvi. 32 with Apoc. ii. 21 ; also
fcpoc. xiU. 13 with Gosp. xv. 13 ; 1 John i. 9 ; iii. 1 and the elliptical
iva Apoc. xiv. 13 ; Gosp. i. 8 ; ix. 3 ; xii. 18 ; 1 John ii. 19). Compare
also tva with indicative in Gospel and Apocalypse.4 A predilection
for taking the nom. absol. up again with airbs is common to all the
Johannine writings, whUe in the Gospel (i. 27 ; xiH. 26), as in the Apo
calypse, abrbs very often foUows the relative and in the Apocalypse the
participle, which in the Gospel (comp. 2 John 9) is ordinarily resumed
with ixewos and oiros. Even the demonstrative before Sri so common
in the Gospel and Epistle is already found in Apoc. U. 6. Comp. also
the xal, Apoc. xix. 3 ; Gosp. xvu. 25, and with the solution of relatives
and participial clauses, Gosp. iv. 12 ; i. 32 ; v. 44. In comparison with
these how Httle importance can we attach to differences of language
which Holtzmann still adduces in his Introduction.

* For the usage of words compare in the Apocalypse and Gospel, be
sides numerous quite insignificant words, -h, dpireXos, avepos piyas, dpvlov,
Satpbviov (not Salpwv), S-qvdpiov, Sbl-a (S. t. Beov, 5b£av SiSbvai), i(ov<rla (c.
inf., i£. ixelv)> V ^pr)pos, -i) ijpipa (ixdvn), Bepurpbs, BXfyis (6X. tyeai), 8pl£
(rpixes), Bipa (metaph.), xdXapos, KarafSoXii xbirpov, KXiwrns (figuratively),
KoiXla, Kbiros, xplpa, xipie in address, Xapirds, Xixvos, pdvva, pipos (ix^i"),
pirpov, pvpov, vvpijrfi and vipipios, bSbs c. gen., fl</>«, bipis, -ir-qy^ (liSaros)
and worapol {iSar. £.), tttjxvs, irXolov, rro-H\piov, irpb^ara, ffaravas, o-ijpelov,
ititos, OKevos, iririjXa'iov, ffrdSios, o-riipavos, vSara, vlbs r. dvBp., <poTvi%,
tppiap, tpv\axij, Sid rbv ipbfiov, (puivij (peydXij <p., dxoieiv ttjs 0.), x^aPX°^t
Xbpros, ipevSos, IjXBev i] &pa (ixelvrj ij wp.), dirio-ros, (3aBis, yvpvbs, Sixala
xfiais, Sevpo (Sevre), ivrevBev and ixeiBev, ifipaio-rl, iyyis (of time), Bavpao--
rbs, tiros, iv XcvkoIs, XlBivos, piaov, piXas, vat, 8<ros and too-ovtos, rropipv-
povs, irrwxbs, raxi, ipirpooSev, iirlffta, iirdvu, biroKaTW, dyidfciv, dyopd£eiv,
atpeiv XlBov, avajHalveiv (to heaven), dvolyeiv, diripxeo-Bai irpbs, dpirdfeiv,
fUdirreiv, fSao-rdfiiv, yeplteiv Tl ix tip., Sieiv (SeSepivos), Siipav, 8o|df«c
(t. ivopa), ixfldXXeiv il-u, iKKevreiv, ixiropeieo-Bai, ixxieiv, iXiyxeiv, iwiri-
Bivai, etpnxa, iBevvdv, b ipxbpevos {ipxov xal (Se), iroipdfeiv, eixapurrelv,
8avpd£eiv Sid, Bepaireieiv, Beplgeiv, 'urrdvai (io-r-qxa, io-riis, ia-rrpi), taxieiv,
xaBrjisBai and xaBl^eiv, xaleoSai, xaraflalveiv ix t. oip, xaraipayelv, xaT-ij-
yopeTv, KXaieiv, KOiriav, xpd£eiv, xpareiv, xpi-irreiv dirb, kvkXovv, XaXeiv
peri (X4yuv),Xapfldveiv ix, Xoieiv, peBvo-Bijvai, p^XXeiv, pvr)0-8rjvai, pvnpovei-
av, i-npalvciv, bSijyeiv, iroieiv, irapeivai, rreiviiv, ireipdgeiv, rripireiv, TrepifldX-
\eiv, iridteiv, irlveiv, irlirreiv (irpbs r. irbSas), rrvieiv, iroipalveiv, irpooxweiv,
wpoiprjrevciv, lruXeiv, a-qpalveiv, axrfvovv, ffvpjloXeieiv, ewdyeiv, aw-

CRITICISM OF JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE. 195
7. Following the example of predecessors like Jos. Sca
liger, Cludius and others, whose opinion is quite without
weight, Bretschneider in his Probabilia (1820) was the first
to refuse the authorship of the Gospel, as also of our Epistle,
to John, and to attribute them, as Dr. Paulus has likewise
done (Komm., 1820), to the presbyter John, more especially
or. account of the doctrine of the Logos and the attack on
docetism. As a matter of fact, however, the Gospel only
attacks the gnosis of Cerinthus, with whom according to a
tradition that goes back to Polycarp, John was contem
porary (§ 33, 2). But since he is said to have lived till the
time of Trajan (§ 33, 4), and since the author's emancipation
from Judaism as well as the difference of language between
Gospel and Apocalypse is best explained by putting him
as late as possible, he cannot have written before 90 A.d.1
As de Wette adhered to the genuineness of the Epistle,
so Weisse (in his Evangel. Gesch., 1838) attempted by means
of it to separate the genuine from the spurious in the Gospel.
The Tiibingen school, whose conception of the Judaistically
limited standpoint of the primitive Apostles certainly falls
with the genuineness of the younger Johannine writings, first

rplfieiv, aipeiv , atpdrreiv , ff<ppayl£eiv, reXeiv, rvpeiv ix, rlxreiv, rpix^iv,
tpayeui ix, oSipeiv (oto-fiv), ipeiyeiv (<pei%eo-8ai) dirb, rj>iXeiv; tpofitiaBai (jurj
ipofleio-de), (puveiv, tpoirlfav, x°prdfeo-8ai. The Apocalypse shares with the
Epistle elSaiXa, o-xdvSaXov, \pevSoirpoip^Tris, lirxvpbs, \peiSe<r8ai, iroieiv r.
SiKaioo-ivvv ; in all Johannine writings compare SidploXos, SiSax-n, ivroXal,
Kplais, paprvpta and paprvpeiv, pioBbs, 6vopa [Sia t. &v.), o-irippa, xp&av ixeiv,
Sipa, dX-qBivos, dpri, icrxaros (of time), SXos, Spoios with dative, xds (never
avas) with a following articled participle and a foUowing negative, irav,
t>a p-i\, ivibwiov, atpeiv, diroo-riXXeiv, dpveiaBai, oTSa irov (irbBev), ela- and
i£ipxetr8ai, iJKeiv, Beupeiv, Bavpd^eiv, xeurBai, xXeleiv, Xieiv, piveiv, pmeiv,
vixdv, bpoXoyeiv, 6<pe<r8ai, irepiiraTeiv, nXavdv, lrXripovv (ireirXijpiapiivos),
r-qpeiv (t. ivr., r. Xby.), iirdyeiv, (palveiv, ipavepovv, xo-i-P^i"-
1 A nearer determination cannot be arrived at : that the Epistle
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (comp. tfiegler and
Fritzsche), or even that ii. 18 contains a reference to this event, as
Grotius, MichaeUs, Hanlein and even Diisterdieck maintained, is incon
ceivable.

196 CRITICISM OF JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE.
relegated these more or less far down into the 2nd century
(comp. on the other hand Grimm, Stud. u. Krit., 1849, 1) ;
and in connection with the repudiation of the Gospel it was
followed by the later critical school, to which Mangold also
belongs. But the theory that it contains echoes of Mon-
tanism, advocated by Baur after the example of Planck
(Theol. Jahrb., 1847, 4), has already been refuted by Hilgen
feld ; while Hilgenfeld's idea that traces of Gnostic dualism
are found in it, to which likewise Holtzmann assents, rests
on a misinterpretation of the Epistle with its purely
ethical distinction between children of God and children
of the Devil, as also does the alleged attack on a dualistic
gnosis (No. 2). Of the relations which gave rise to the
Epistle we have no definite knowledge. Hug sought to
prove that it was written in Patmos, on the assumption that
the author was without ink and paper, an inference drawn
from an incredible interpretation of 2 John 12 ; 3 John 13.
Others, such as Ebrard and Haupt, take their stand on the
very uncertain tradition that the Gospel was written in
Patmos ; although this is connected with the erroneous sup
position that he was banished to the island (§ 33, 5). It
must have been written in Ephesus where John had his
abode, and therefore cannot have been addressed to Ephesus
(comp. Hug), but to the Churches of Asia Minor in whose
! midst John laboured ; for it certainly is not a Catholic
Epistle in the most comprehensive sense, as Hilgenfeld and
: others maintain (No. 1). The view that it was designed
for Christendom outside Asia Minor, of late so emphatically
put forward by Holtzmann, is based on a false interpretation
of the Kai vp.lv and xal fyteis (i. 3). The earlier view, current
from the time of Grotius to that of Guericke, that it was
addressed to Jewish-Christians of Parthia, owes its origin to
the superscription ad Parthos prevailing in the West from
the time of Augustine (Quaest. Evang., 2, 39), which, though
not yet fully explained, is quite untenable ; for antiquity

THE MINOR EPISTLES OF JOHN. 197
knows nothing of relations between the Apostle John and
the Parthians.8 § 43. The Minor Epistles of John.
1. Citations from the second besides the first Epistle of
John first appear in Irenseus, in whose time the former was
not yet separated in recollection from the latter. By calling
the first one the larger, Clement of Alexandria shows that it
is not the only one ; and the Muratorian Canon recognises a
duas Joannis (§ 9, 5 ; 10, 3) . The third, a purely private
letter, even if known could not possibly claim admission into
the New Testament. Since Origen, however, the two smaller
Epistles are constantly named together, but as Antilegomena.
It may well be doubted whether they were ascribed to the
Apostle either by Origen, who never used them, or by his
pupil Dionysius of Alexandria, who in his critical examina
tion of the Apocalypse refers almost exclusively to the larger
Epistle ; Eusebius expressly leaves the question from whom
they proceeded, whether from him or from another of the
same name, undetermined (§ 10, 7 ; 11, 1, 4) ; and Jerome
directly states that they are attributed by most to the Pres
byter John (De Vir. III., 9, ll).1 It is quite incomprehen
sible, however, how these two small Epistles, the former of
which is in Irenseus directly coupled with the larger Epistle,
could have maintained their position and acquired canonical
authority in the Church at all, unless they had been handed
down as Apostolic memorials. Nevertheless, on the basis of
3 There is no foundation for thinking as Liicke does, that John is
designated as irdpBevos ; whtte to read irpbs rods Siao-irapaapivovs with
Holtzmann and Mangold after Wetstein and Michaelis, is purely arbi-
trary. The most likely thing is that a corruption has arisen out of 7rp6s
vapBivovs and that there is an interchange, since Clement of Alexandria
makes the second to have been written ad virgines.
1 It is clear that this view is only drawn from the superscription of the
Epistles, in which the author characterizes himseU absolutely as 6 rrpea.
f}iirepos (2 John 1 ; 3 John 1), as the other John was commonly caUed
after the time of Papias (§ 33, 2).

198 AUTHOR OF THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.
the passage in Jerome, Erasmus once more asciibed both to
John the Presbyter, and was followed by Grotius, J. D. Beck
(Observ. Grit. Exeg., 1798), Fritzsche and Ammon. But apart
from those who like Bretschneider attributed the Gospel and
the Epistles altogether to the Presbyter, Credner, Jachmann
(Komm., 1838), Ebrard and Wieseler have defended the
inthorship of the Presbyter John Yet it is intelligible
enough that two short letters, referring to relations that
were entirely concrete, should have more of an epistolary
character than the large pastoral writing. And since both
by their complete similarity of form betray the same hand
(comp. 2 John 1, 4, 12 with 3 John 1, 3f., 13 f.), while the
former follows the large Epistle in such a way that it can
only proceed from the same author, unless it be a copy with
out any object whatever, everything is in favour of both being
attributed to the Apostle.
It may remain a matter of speculation how the Apostle, who does not
give his name either in the Gospel or the first Epistle, was led to charac
terize himself as the irpea-fSurepos, whether on account of his great age
(Credner, Bleek) or owing to his position of dignity as supreme director
of the Churches (Liicke, Diisterdieck) ; but it is quite inconceivable how
the Presbyter John, who only received the designation of his official posi
tion to distinguish him from the Apostle, could call himself the presbyter
absolutely, although there were other presbyters besides himseU even in the
Church to which the Epistles went. Over against the resemblance which
the second Epistle of John bears to the first in thought and expression,
a resemblance that is obvious, the alleged differences [ipxbpevos iv oapxt
instead of iXip\v8iis, v. 9 : Bebv Ixeiv) and peculiarities of expression (ver.
9 f. : SiSaxfy rov X/jiot., SiSaxyv <pipeiv) prove nothing whatever ; nor can
it be said with any certainty that John would in ver. 6 have written irepi-
irdrctv iv instead of xard, in ver. 10 f . iav tis instead of ef tis, els rd ISia
instead of eis oldav, xoivavlav e^ei instead of Koivavei, since the expression
selected alone suits. AU other peculiarities adduced are taken from the
third Epistle where the reference to relations that were entirely concrete
naturally led to the use of expressions that do not appear in the other
Johannine Epistles. The assertion that these relations are inconceiv
able where Apostolic authorship is concerned, cannot be maintained.
2. The second Epistle of John is usually supposed to be

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND EPISTLE. 199
addressed to a Christian matron, but the substance of it is by
no means in keeping with this assumption. For all Chris
tians love her children (ver. 1) ; and after the Apostle has
commended the walk of a certain few, he exhorts the mother
to walk in the same way (ver. 4f.). Although he specially
addresses this person in ver. 5, yet the exhortation being
always in the plural applies to her and to her children at the
same time (vers. 6, 8), even where the duties of the house-
mistress are concerned (ver. 10 f.). In conclusion he sends
greeting from the children of her sister, without mentioning
the sister herself (ver. 13). From all this it is clear beyond
doubt that the mother and children are in this case identical,
viz that the Epistle is addressed to a Church, either collec
tively or individually.1 Ver. 4 does not imply that the
author had shortly before made a visit there ; rather does
ver. 12, where he promises to go to them soon, exclude such
a supposition. This Epistle presupposes relations exactly
analogous to those of the first, but must have been written

1 Clement of Alexandria in the Adumbrationes already speaks of the
Epistle as addressed " ad quandam Babyloniam Electam nomine," on
the ground of manifest confusion with 1 Pet. v. 13 ; but the supposition
that tbe woman was called Electa (comp. also Grotius and Wetstein) is
precluded by the dSeXifnj r\ eVXein-i} (ver. 13). That she was called Kvpla,
as most critics maintain, is linguistically impossible, since this would be
calling her Kvpiq. tj? iKXeKT-fj (comp. 2 John 1). Both are undoubtedly
appellatives, as after Luther, Schleiermacher, Sander and Braune (Komm.,
1869) held, even though falsely assuming that the Epistle was addressed
to a single individual. That this individual was Mary the mother of
Jesus (comp. Knauer, Stud. u. Krit., 1833, 2), or was called Martha as
Volkmar has discovered, are groundless conjectures. If we regard the
Kvpla as a collective person it would not apply to the whole Church
(comp. Jerome, Ep. 123, 12, and after him Hilgenfeld, Mangold and Lude-
mann, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol., 1879, 4), which is already precluded by ver.
13, but to an individual Church (comp. after earlier predecessors Mi
chaelis, Hofmann, Ewald, Huther and Wieseler) , caUed Kvpla not however
on account of its relation to the Lord (comp. Augusti, Komm., 1801),
but as being the domina familial. There is no reason for supposing with
Thiersch that it was the Church at Ephesus owing to its metropoUtan
position.

200 CONTENTS OF THE THIRD EPISTLE.
earlier, since its main object is to demand a decisive separa
tion from errorists (ver. 9 ff. ; comp. i. 7), who in the first
Epistle already seem to be excluded (§ 42, 2) . Moreover the
definite admonitions to love the brethren may here (ver. 5 f .)
point to dissensions which disturbed the peace of the Church.
The nature of these dissensions is, however, revealed in the
third Epistle ; for it is more than probable that mention is
there made in ver. 9 of our second Epistle (comp. Ewald).
In this case our Epistle cannot have been sent direct to the
Church, but either to Gaius, to whom the third one is ad
dressed, or more probably to a member of the Church called
Demetrius (ver. 12), 2 since John tells Gaius, in ver. 9, of the
letter. A certain Diotrephes, who probably held some office
in the Church and sought to gain the pre-eminence, had
calumniated the Apostle, and had not only succeeded in pre
venting the missionary he had sent from being received by
the Church, bat had also threatened those who would have
received him, with excommunication (ver. 9 f.). It is evident
that the Apostle is apprehensive lest he should likewise in
terfere with the reception of his Epistle by the Church if it
came to them direct ; and therefore he sends it to an in-

* Who this Gaius was, we do not know. That he held an office in the
Chuich does not appear ; he seems rather to have been a private person
who had formerly distinguished himself by showing love towards travel
ling missionaries (vers. 3, 6). From the frequency with which the name
occurs it is purely arbitrary to assume that he was Paul's host in Corinth,
famUiar to ub from 1 Cor. i. 14 ; Rom. xvi. 23, and therefore that the
Epistle was addressed to this Church (Koenen, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,
1872, 2), or with Wolf (Komm., 1881) and Thoma that it was addressed to
the Church at Pergamos because according to Const. Ap., 7, 46, a Gaius was
bishop in that place. Two Christians of the name of Gaius also appear
in Acts xix. 29 ; xx. 4. We know just as little of Demetrius, who is gene
rally regarded as the bearer of the letter, which would then be chiefly a
letter of recommendation on his behalf (comp. Liicke, Diisterdieck, HU-
genfeld and others) ; this however is not probable either from the word
ing of ver. 12 or from the substance of the Epistle ; moreover the mis
sionaries mentioned in ver. 6 ff . would as a matter of course have taken
the letter with them.

CRITICISM OF THE TWO EPISTLES. 201
dividual member, to whom he refers Gaius in words of high
praise (ver. 12). The proximate aim of the Epistle is once
more earnestly to commend travelling missionaries, probably
the bearers of the letter, to the man of proved hospitality
(ver. 6 ff.). The visit he promises to Gaius (ver. 13 f.) is
naturally the same of which he speaks in 2 John 12 ; and
the greeting to friends (ver. 14) is another proof that the
Apostle had only a party in the Church still favourable to
him. There is no indication that the coming forward of
Diotrephes was connected with the false doctrine that threat
ened the Church, nor is it at all likely, for in this event the
whole matter would have been treated from a different point
of view.8
3. Naturally it is no easy task to explain why these two
minor Epistles should likewise be regarded as products of the
pseudo- Johannine tendency-literature, as it was necessary
for the Tubingen criticism to make out. Baur's hypothesis,
that they were addressed to the Montanistic portion of the
Roman Church, Diotrephes being a symbolical name for their
bishop, has found uo assent. According to Hilgenfeld the
second is an official writing of excommunication, an utter
ance of Apostolic condemnation with respect to the Gnostics;
the third being an imo-ToXr] o-wtotikiJ intended to vindicate
the right of the head of the Church of Asia Minor to draw
up such letters of recommendation for orthodox teachers, a
right not yet universally conceded. How the author after
his first Epistle could have felt it necessary to compress
the substance of it into another second one ; or how an
B Other assumptions with regard to the Epistles, viz. that they were
written in Patmos (Hug, comp. § 42, 7), that they point to a visitation
journey, as set forth by Euseb., H. E., 3, 24 (Huther), that they pre
suppose the teachings of the first Epistle and were therefore written
after (Lucke, de Wette, Guericke), or even that 2 John ver. 10 f. is
an indication of fiery youth, and that the Epistle is more powerfuUy
written than the first which betrays the weakness of old age (Eichhorn) ;
aU these are of course mere conjecture.

202 CRITICISM OF THE TWO EPISTLES.
Epistle whose purely fictitious relations are apparently so
little adapted for the purpose, could have had the design
attributed to the third, he has not explained. Hence
Koenen contents himself with the idea that both were written
by the author of the Gospel and first Epistle, for the sole
purpose of showing by a reference to the Corinthian Gaius
and to 2 Cor. xi. 4 (!) that he belonged to the Pauline- Johan
nine time. But although both have given up the attempt to
supply these Epistles with a third pseudo-John as done by
Baur (comp. also Mangold), yet Spath in the Protestanten-
bibel has advocated a different author for each of the two
minor ones ; and though they have for the most part been
regarded as an after-drift of the pseudo-Johannine lite
rature, yet Liidemann (ibid.) has discovered that the two
smaller are linked in a perfectly natural way to the Ephesian
presbyter ; whereas identification with the Apostle begins in
the first Epistle and is completed in the Gospel. Holtzmann
on the other hand already finds this identification in 3 John
12 (comp. Gosp. xxi. 24), but transfers the Epistles with
Hilgenfeld to the time between 130 and 135, because the
itinerant teachers presupposed in the Didache are found here
likewise, although the relations 40 years earlier could hardly
have been essentially different. It cannot be maintained
that this criticism has promoted the historical understanding
of the Epistles.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 203

FOURTH DIVISION.
THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

§ 44. The Synoptical Question.
1. The first three Gospels that have been handed down to»
ns manifest a striking agreement with one another, not only
in the choice of what is told of the life of Jesus, but also-
in the arrangement of long narratives and in the manner
of representation down to individual expressions. Each one
has, it is true, something that is peculiar to itself; but
parallel sections are continually met with, sometimes in two
of the Gospels and sometimes in all three, that may be put
side by side, for which reason these Gospels since Griesbach
have gone by the name synoptical. In the old Church it
was not indeed this agreement that was most wondered at,.
but the differences that existed along with it. Papias
already expressed surprise that Mark should have given the
sayings of the Lord in a different order from Matthew ; and
at the time of Clement of Alexandria the absence of gene
alogies in his Gospel was explained by the theory that the
Gospels containing such genealogies were earlier written
and had satisfied this want. Even at that time attempts
began to be made to reduce Gospel texts to greater con
formity, and to explain their deviations from one another as
seeming contradictions only. Chrysostom says that their
agreement testifies to their truthfulness, while rj SoKovo-a iv
p\LKpols Siatjxovta removes all suspicion of collusion (Hom. 1 in.
Matt.). On the other hand Augustint frankly assumes that
each Evangelist was acquainted with the work of his predeces
sor ; and since the traditional succession was also regarded as
the chronological one, Mark was in his view the pedissequus et

204 THE MUTUAL USAGE HYPOTHESES.
breviator Matthosi (De Consensu Evang., i. 4). In accordance
with the theory of inspiration which prevailed at the time
of the reformation and was more and more sharply defined,
the Gospels could be rightly examined from a harmonistic
standpoint alone. The only critical question with which
this period was occupied was that raised by Erasmus, as to
the original tongue in which Matthew's Gospel was written ;
a question that was decided almost exclusively by dogmatic
and polemic considerations. The Arminians, who modified
the stringency of the old idea of inspiration, were the first
who attempted to explain the relation between the three
Gospels, and in this attempt naturally followed Augustine
and his order of the Gospels, maintaining that Mark made
nse of his two predecessors Matthew and Luke. So too
Hugo Grotius, Mill and Wetstein (1730). Compare also J.
A. Bengel, Bichtige Harmonie der vier Evangelien, Tubing.,
1736 ; Townson, " Treatise on the Four Gospels," translated
into German by Semler, Leipz., 1783. But Luke in his
preface cast blame on his predecessors, according to an idea
got from patristic times, for which reason it was natural to
deny with Beza, that Matthew and Mark were among these
predecessors, and rather to make Luke the earliest Evangelist
(comp. Walch, Harenberg and Macknight). The Englishman
Owen (" Observations on the Four Gospels," Lond., 1764)
having already made the briefest Evangelist the epitomist of
the other two, Biisching (Harmonie der Evangelien, Hamb.,
1766) now held that Luke had been used by Matthew, both
being excerpts from Mark (comp. also Evanson, " The Dis^
sonance of the Four Gospels," London, 1792). But the
Augustinian assumption of Mark's dependence on Matthew
which here still forms the basis, was so shaken by Koppe in
his Programm of 1782 (Marcus non epitomator Mattheei), that
Gr. Chr. Storr (Ueber den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte,
Tubing., 1786, comp. De Pont. Evang. Matth. et Luc, 1794)
declared Mark on the contrary to be the earliest of our three

HYPOTHESIS OF A WRITTEN PRIMITIVE GOSPEL. 205
Evangelists. Thus the synoptical question was soon reduced
to the dilemma, that Mark was either the root of the two
other Gospels or an abstract of them ; Griesbach's authority
however (Comm. qua Marci Evang. totum e Matth. et Luc.
tomm. descriptum esse monstratur, Jense, 1789, 90) gave a pre
ponderance to the second view.
Moreover J. Clericus (1716) and Priestley (1777) had already expressed
the opinion that the agreement of our Gospels rested on the common use
of older sources, a view accepted by MichaeUs who had hitherto repre
sented in his fourth edition (1788) the traditional form of the hypothesis
of mutual use. This view specially commended itseU to rationalism,
which loved to represent the heretical Gospels as prior to our canonical
ones. Stroth for example (1777) professed to have found in the Jus
tinian Memorabilia (§ 7, 1) the Gospel according to the Hebrews (compare
on the other hand Paulus in his Exeget. krit. Abh., 1784), and Semler
(Amn. zu Richard Simon, 1776-80) to have discovered a source of our
Luke in Marcion's Gospel (§ 8, 6) which Loffler ( Marcionem Lucas Evang.
adulterasse dubitatur, 1788) and Corrodi unhesitatingly declared to be
Luke's prototype (comp. on the other hand Storr and later Gratz,
Krit. Unters. iiber Marcions Evang., Tub., 1818 ; Hahn, D. Evang. Mar-
cions, Konigsb., 1823). Thus it came about that Lessing directly as
serted the Gospel according to the Hebrews to be the root of the whole
canonical and extra-canonical literature (Neue Hypothese iiber die Evang.,
1778). This hypothesis found much approval (with Niemeyer and Weber
for example), but was akeady so far modified by Corrodi (1792) and J.
C. Schmidt, that in place of the Gospel according to the Hebrews tbey
put the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. When in 1793 the theological
faculty of Gottingen made the Gospel question a subject for competition,
the prize-essajs of Half eld and Russwurm both endeavoured to trace
back the Gospels to common sources, only that the former assumed a
multiplicity of such sources after the manner of Clericus; while the
latter adhered to the view of one primitive Gospel. In fact the hypo
thesis of mutual use seemed to give no satisfaction in any form, since
whatever order might be assigned to the Gospels, it could never be ex
plained why the later writer should have changed the order of his p»r--
decessors in many respects, leaving out so much valuable material.
2. In the beginning of our century Eichhorn came for
ward with his famous hypothesis of a primitive Gospel.
Out of the forty-two sections common to all three Gospels
he constructed a short sketch of evangelical history said to

206 DEVELOPMENT OF EICHHORN'S HYPOTHESIS.
have been written about the time of the stoning of Stephen,
in Syro-Chaldaic, and to have been given to the Apostolic
assistants as a guide to their ministry. The sections com
mon only to two Gospels he explains by assuming that
several copies of this primitive Gospel were enlarged by
additions, and that two of our Evangelists made use of the
same copy ; the strange mixture of agreement and difference
in expression he explains by supposing that they had trans
lated these partly themselves and partly with the help of
translations already existing.1 This hypothesis, though
certainly pointing out the right way towards the solution of
the problem, was nothing but a web of historical impossi
bilities in the form given to it by Eichhorn. Such a guide
for evangelical preaching, of which moreover we find no trace
in the New Testament, would be too much at variance with
the spirit of Apostolic times. The preaching of the Gospel
outside Jerusalem began quite accidentally, before there
could have been any thought of linking it to a guide of this
1 Eichhorn had broken with the tradition respecting our Gospels. The
first could not proceed from the Apostle Matthew, on account of its
legendary matter ; the statements regarding the composition of the
second he rejected on account of its connection with the fabulous abode
of Peter in Rome ; the reference of the third to a Pauline disciple is said
to be connected with the misinterpretation of the eiayyiXibv pov in th6
Pauline writings. Room was thus made for hypothesis. The hypothesis
of mutual use in its various forms was shown to be unsatisfactory. On
the other hand he gave a complete genealogy of the numerous Hebrew
and Greek evangelical writings, concluding with our three Gospels which
originated from various copies of the primitive Gospel partly agreeing
and partly deviating, and were at the end of the 2nd century chosen
by the Church out of a great number of evangelical books. Eichhorn
had first propounded his view in the Allg. Bibl. fiir bibl. Literatur of
1794 ; but it was not until Hug objected that the coincident Greek ex
pression of our Gospels could not be explained by a Syro-Chaklaio
primitive Gospel, that he followed the EngUshman Herbert Marsh (" Notes
on Michaelis' Introduction," translated into German by Rosenmuller, 1795
-1808) in introducing various auxiliary translations into his Gospel-
genealogy, and thus in his Introduction of 1804 gave his hypothesis its
final form.

ITS DISSOLUTION. 207
nature, which moreover would have lost the only value it
could have had, by the supposed enlargements. Besides,
the idea of translators consulting other translations was
quite foreign to primitive Apostolic circles, where both
languages were equally familiar. Moreover the assump
tion that the Canonical Gospels originated in these ex
plained neither their prevailing linguistic and literary
peculiarity nor why they were chosen from a mass of evan
gelical writings such as implied indeed a singular love of
writing. Finally this hypothesis did not on the whole get
beyond that of mutual use, only that it transferred the latter
back to the hypothetical preliminary stages of the formation
of our Gospels. For Eichhorn's theory that Mark made use
of a copy in which those employed by Matthew and Luke
were already combined, has the hypothesis of Owea and
Griesbach for a background ; just as Marsh in his modification
of the primitive-gospel-hypothesis makes a background of
Storr's, and Kuinol (Komm., 1807) of Biisching's. Never
theless the hypothesis made a great sensation ; Ziegler (in
Gabler's Theol. Journ., 1800) and Hanlein adopted it ; Gratz
(Neuer Versuch, die Entstehung der drei ersten Evangelien zu
erhlaren, Tubing., 1812) endeavoured to simplify it, and
Bertholdt to reconcile it with tradition; but after two
decades it had already outlived itself, Eichhorn himself
appearing to have doubts of it in his second edition (1820).
It was Hug who criticised the primitive-gospel-hypothesis with most
acuteness, but he had nothing to offer in its stead except the hypothesis
of mutual use in its traditional form. In all its other forms it found re
presentatives likewise. Vogel (in Gabler's Theol. Journal, 1804) again
made Luke begin, but reserved the last word for Matthew ; while Ammon
(De Luca Emendatore Matth., Eri., 1805) revived the hypothesis of Gries
bach, and Seiler (De Temp et Ordine, quibus Tria Evang. Scripta sint,
1805) that of Storr, only that Storr made the Aramasan Matthew precede
Mark, whereas Seiler held the impossible view that the former was de
rived from the latter. By this means however the way was paved for a
material distinction between the Aramasan and Greek Matthew, since the
latter was now said to be a translation of the former with the assistance

208 GLESELER'S TRADITION HYPOTHESIS.
of Mark who had already enlarged it. It is noteworthy how near criti
cism here was to the true solution, though still groping in uncertainty.
Schleiermacher (Ueber die Schriften des Lucas, BerUn, 1817) endeavoured
to carry out with respect to Luke's Gospel the hypothesis which Paulus
had combined with that of Griesbach, of a use of several written
digests in our Gospels, however Httle this mosaio construction could
explain the essential uniformity of its language. On the other hand
Herder's attempt (Regel der Zusammenstimmung unserer Evangelien,
1797) , pointing out an entirely new way, went side by side with the
hypothesis of a primitive Gospel. He found in Mark the eariiest re
ceived type of that oral preaching formed in the ApostoHo circle, and
put him at the foundation of our Greek Matthew, which however ho
distinguished from the oldest Apostolic writing of Matthew ; whereas
Eckermann maintained that the earUest traditional type was fixed by
the Aramasan Matthew (Erkldrung alter dunklen Stellen des N. T., 1806).
3. Gieseler followed up the ideas of Herder and Ecker
mann (Histor. -krit. Versuch iiber die Entstehung der schrift-
lichen Evangelien, Leipz., 1818). He attempted to demon
strate more fully, how a fixed type of narrative, a sort of
oral primitive Gospel in the Aramaean language, must have
been gradually formed in the circle of the primitive Apostles
at Jerusalem, of which the Apostolic assistants bore the
stamp. It embraced the public ministry of Jesus, especially
in Galilee, but was now fixed now fluctuating according to
the more or less frequent recurrence of isolated events. It
was put into Greek in a peculiar form by Paul on his mis
sionary travels, and was afterwards changed in other ways
by the primitive Apostles when they left Palestine. Matthew
and Mark went back to the later form, the latter modifying
it still more, for foreign lands ; while Luke, whose Pauline
character is already exaggerated by Gieseler in the manner
of the later tendency-criticism, returns to the earlier form.
Oral tradition is said to have prevailed in the Church
for a long time, until the conflict with heretics first gave
rise to the need of common written Gospels, and Polycarp
introduced our four into his Church. This hypothesis is
based on premisses that are undoubtly correct ; for the fact

CRITICISM OF THE TRADITION-HYPOTHESIS. 209
that the missionary preaching of the Apostles was con
centrated in the great fundamental facts of the passion
and resurrection of Christ does not exclude the probability
that recollected words and acts of Jesus were imparted
for the edification of the Church. That these communica
tions must in a large circle of eye-witnesses have been
mutually supplemented and corrected, and owing to the
poverty of the Aramaean language must gradually have
assumed a stereotyped form especially in the parts recurring
most frequently, is beyond doubt. But to suppose that this
tradition-type was learnt by heart or even translated, is out
of the question. Even if the hypothesis be freed from
the mechanism still adhering to it in Gieseler's system, and
which already precludes the possibility of the smallest trace
of such a narrative-type being found in the fourth Gospel,
it by no means explains the agreement of our Gospels ; an
agreement which is not limited to such points as words, or
to fundamental features of the narrative, but frequently
extends to finishing touches and details of expression, as
also to introductory and transition formulas, and in many
cases continues throughout long speeches and even series of
narratives such as could never have been transmitted in oral
tradition. Neither does it explain the deviations often
apparently conditioned by literary motives and not by dif
ferences of recollection or the freedom of oral narrative, in
so far at least as this very freedom, hitherto current not
withstanding the fixed fundamental type, allowed the same
liberty to the Evangelists where their written material was
concerned. Hence Gieseler's tradition-hypothesis, though
unable to solve the synoptical question, has certainly put
forward points of view of permanent fruitfulness for its
advancement. Notwithstanding the great approval this hypothesis at once met with
(comp. Sartorius, Drei Abhandlungen, 1820 ; Rettig, Ephemerides, Gies-
gen, 1824), it was soon recognised that without being combined with
VOL. Ii. p

210 DISCOVERY OF THE OLDEST SOURCE.
others it was inadequate to the solution of the problem ; and Griesbach's
hypothesis having still found ingenious advocates (Saunier, Ueber die
Quellen des Marcus, BerUn, 1825 ; Theile, De Trium Prior. Evang. Neces-
situdine, Lips., 1825), de Wette, Schott and Neudecker endeavoured not
only to reduce the former within proper bounds but also to combine it
with this latter. De Wette also adopted the view of one common source
for Matthew and Luke, while Schott took the various digests mentioned
in Luke's preface, as sources. The tradition-hypothesis was especially
fruitful however on another side. In the dispute to which Bretschneid-
er's Probabilia (1820) gave rise respecting the Gospel of John, it became
necessary to pay closer attention to the differences between it and the
synoptic Gospels. If John's held its own agamst the latter, the differ
ences in question must be accounted for by the influence of oral tradition
on our synoptic Gospels which had grown up out of it. None of them,
not even the first, could in this case be a direct Apostolic writing, as
de Wette directly demonstrated, following the precedent of D. Schulz,
who in his " Doctrine of the Last Supper " (1824) had coUected aU the
evidence bearing on the point. By this means an entirely new way was
opened up to Gospel-oriticism. Now for the first time the question of
mutual use could be investigated with fuU impartiality: whereas an
Apostle could never in fact bring himself to depend on the work of one
who was not an Apostle, the latter could not make use of an ApostoUc
writing with the freedom which nevertheless actually existed. Moreover
the historically-attested work of an Apostle thus became a new medium
for the explanation of the relation between the Gospels, such as the
primitive-gospel-hypothesis had sought to construct in an arbitrary way.
Hence there was really no ground for despairing with Dr. Strauss (in
his Leben Jesu of 1835) of aU solution of the Gospel-question, or carrying
the tradition-hypothesis to its extreme consequences for explaining our
Gospels as the later deposits of a mythical formation that was already a
hundred years old.
4. In the year 1832 Sieffert's work Ueber den Ursprung des
ersten kanonischen Evangeliums (Konigsb.) appeared. He
showed unanswerably that tradition knows only an Aramaean
Matthew ; and that our Greek Gospel from internal evidence
cannot possibly be a direct Apostolic writing. Hence it be
came necessary to regard the former simply as a reproduction
of the latter.1 Simultaneously Schleiermacher (Stud. u. Krit^
1 Comp. also Klener, Recent, de Authent. Evang. Matth. quaest., Gott.,
1832. When Sieffert himself attempted to separate the additions made
by the compUer, he was unable to succeed, because being fettered by

THE MARK-HYPOTHESIS. 211
1832, 4) examined the testimony of Papias with respect to
a writing of Matthew and Mark, and came to the conclu
sion that these do not fit in with our two canonical Gospels,
but only refer to a collection of sayings by Matthew and un-
arranged notes of Mark. Lachmann (Stud. u. Krit., 1835)
was able to make the Greek Matthew originate in this col
lection of sayings and in the traditional historical narrative
(comp. Schneckenburger, note 1) which is preserved in its
purest form in our Mark (comp. also Herder, No. 2) ; while
Credner traced it to the collection of sayings, and to the
writings of Mark attested by Papias and worked over in our
second Gospel (Einl., 1836). But it was Weisse who first
took the decisive step (Evangel. Geschichte, Leipz., 1838), by
proving in opposition to Schleiermacher the applicability of
the testimony of Papias to our canonical Mark. Knobel (De
Evang. Marci Origine, Bresl., 1831) had already once more
entered the lists for the priority of Mark in opposition to the
current hypothesis of Griesbach, which Lachmann, Credner,
Tholuck (Glaubwiirdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, Hamb.,
1837) also gave up in favour of his view. The above collec
tion of sayings and our Gospel of Mark now became the only
sources of the two other independent synoptists ; the written
primitive Gospel was found, whose combination with Storr's
form of the hypothesis of mutual use threw an entirely new
light on the synoptical question and relegated the dissolving
view of an oral primitive Gospel, which still played so im-
Griesbach's hypothesis, he could not take into consideration the relation
of the first Gospel to the second, and was therefore thrown back entirely
on internal evidence. How little certain ground this afforded may be
Been from the works which attached themselves to Sieffert. Whereas
Schneckenburger (Ueber den Ursprung des ersten canonischen Evangeliums,
Stuttg., 1834) connected our Matthew with Apostolic writings only through
the medium of the Gospel according to the Hebrews (which had its
origin in the coUection of sayings and in Jewish-Christian tradition)
giving it alBo the use of Mark and Luke, Kern (Tiib. Zeitschr., 1834, 2)
reduced the evidence of spuriousness and at the same time the compiler's
additions, to a minimum.

212 THE MARK-HYPOTHESIS.
portant a part with Sieffert and Schneckenburger, with
Schleiermacher, Lachmann and Credner, more and more into
the background. The view of Mark's priority among our
synoptical writers constantly gained new adherents (comp.
Sommer, Synoptische Tafeln, Bonn, 1842 ; Reuss, Geschichte
der heiligen Schrift, 1843 ; Credner, Das N. T., Giessen, 1843),
even among Catholics like Sepp (in his Leben Jesu, 1846) ; in
face of which Griesbach's hypothesis could no longer be de
fended (Schwarz, Neue Untersuchungen iiber das Verwandt-
schaftsverhaltniss der syn. Evang., Tub., 1844). The priority
of Mark would probably have been established still sooner,
if it had not at the same time been rendered suspicious by
exaggeration and by intermixture with other strange hypo
theses. In Mark, Wilke found the primitive Evangelist who
freely moulded the traditional historical material in pursu
ance of literary aims ; Luke is therefore to be explained by
it alone ; and Matthew, as the least independent of all, by
both (Der Urevangelist, Leipz., 1838). He was followed by
Bruno Bauer, who with his theory of a creative primitive
Evangelist endeavoured to dissipate the last remnant of
transcendentalism, at which Strauss afterwards still stopped
half way (Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker,
Leipz., 1841 ; Der Syn. u. d. Joh., 1842). Hitzig, however,
maintained that Mark was the Evangelist already praised by
Paul in 2 Cor. viii. 18, and the author of the Apocalypse, by
which suggestion he threw light on the linguistic peculiarities
of the second Gospel (Ueber Johannes Marcus unds. Schriften,
Zurich, 1843).
Notwithstanding all this, the criticism of Wilke put forward a new
argument that was of great importance for the synoptical question. Not
only did he throw much clearer light on the literary relation of the Gos
pels to one another, thus paving the way for later criticism, but also
more strongly emphasized the literary motives and peculiar style of each
individual EvangeUst. The fundamental error of all former attempts to
solve the synoptical question was that the same motive had more or less
consciously been attributed to each Evangelist, viz. the wish to write as

THE TUBINGEN TENDENCY-CRITICISM. 213
oomplete and correct a history of Jesus as possible ; a theory on which
the procedure of the later writers must undoubtedly always remain unin-
telUgible, whatever opinion might be held as to the sources and their
order. How great acceptance this new point of view obtained even
among critics of very different tendencies, is especially illustrated in the
case of Ebrard (Kritik. der evang. Geschich., Frankf. a. M., 1843), who
thought that by consideration of the plan and subjective peculiarity ot
each Evangelist he could refute all criticism of the sources, and establish
oral tradition as the only one. There was indeed forthwith no lack of
exaggerations of this point of view, as in the case of the anonymous
Saxon (Hasert), who made the Apostles Peter and Paul violently antago
nistic in the Gospels, and traced their peculiarity to personal invective
against one another (Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihre Verfasser, und ihr
Verhdltniss zu einander, Leipz., 1845). His view was a caricature of the
Tubingen tendency-criticism just emerging.
5 The Tubingen school openly expressed the opinion that
the Gospels were not to be viewed under the aspect of his
torical documents, but that as a product of the dogmatic
consciousness of the time they assumed new forms with its
development. Hence they could not be looked upon as history
any more than with Strauss who traced them to the myth-
forming ecclesiastical consciousness ; in place of the literary
individuality emphasized by Wilke, we have here the ten
dency of each separate Evangelist to enter into the ecclesias
tical development-process. But since none of our Gospels
represented any longer the mutual antithesis which the school
thought it had pointed out in the Apostolic period, they must
have been the last deposit of a Gospel-literature mediating
these original antitheses. With respect to Luke's Gospel
Schwegler and Zeller (Theol. Jahrb., 1842, 43) had already
attempted to show that Pauline universalism was here com
bined with Jewish-Christian particularism by the interweav
ing of Petrine and Pauline traditions. Ritschl (Das Evange-
Uum Marcions, Tiib., 1846) taking up hints thrown out by
D. Schulz (Stud. u. Krit., 1829) and following in the foot
steps of Schwegler, thought he could directly prove that
the basis of our Luke was the ultra- Pauline Gospel of Mar
cion (comp. No. 1). The original strictly Jewish- Chris tian

214 CHANGES WITHIN THE SCHOOL.
groundwork of Matthew was found in the (Petrine) Gospel
according to the Hebrews, which Credner in his Beitrage
(1832) again tried to demonstrate to be the Gospel of Justin.
Thus it became possible now for Schwegler and Baur (Krit.
Untersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, Tiib., 1847)
to find in the first and third Gospels the antitheses of primi
tive Apostolic Jewish-Christianity and Paulinism, though
already weakened by the adoption of opposing elements ;
while they measured the third on every occasion by the first,
which it had already used. By this means, with the help
of Griesbach's hypothesis once more revived (comp. Zeller,
Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1865, 3, 4), Mark as the final medi
ator might be made the author of an entirely neutral
Gospel. Consistently with this the origin of our Gospels
was brought down to 130-170, a time when their canoni
zation had hitherto been regarded as already complete.
This original position of the Tubingen school was however
maintained only by Strauss and Keim in their representa
tion of the life of Jesus (1864, 67) ; although the latter con
siderably shortened the time allowed for the composition of
the Gospels. A reaction took place within the school itself.
That Marcion's Gospel was the original one, was first dis
puted, Luke being reinstated in his right of priority.1 Then
1 The lead was here taken by Volkmar (Theol. Jahrb.', 1850) and HU-
genfeld (Krit. Untersuchungen iiber die Evangelien Justins, d. Clem.
Hom. u. Marc, HaUe, 1850), after which Ritschl abandoned his view
with respect to the Gospel of Marcion, and completed his breaoh with the
Tubingen school by recognising the priority of Mark (Theol. Jahrb., 1851).
FinaUy Volkmar (Das Evangelium Marcions, Leipz., 1852) settled the
question so thoroughly, that even Baur (Das Ghristenthum und die Kirche
der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, Tiib., 1853) was obliged virtuaUy to surren
der (comp. also Frank, Stud. u. Krit., 1855, 2). This reaction within the
school was likewise represented by Kostlin (Der Ursprung und die Komp.
der synopt. Evangelien, Stuttg., 1853), who interwove into Baur's scheme
the Logia, the primitive Mark attested by Papias, another Petrine Gospel
that had grown up on this foundation, a Jewish-Christian genealogy and
the GalUean traditions, and thus sought to combine the results of the
criticism of Schleiermacher and Weisse entirely rejected by the rest of

CHANGES WITHIN THE SCHOOL. 215
followed a long contest between Hilgenfeld and Baur, in
which the former victoriously vindicated the priority of Mark
to Luke and thus broke the spell of Griesbach's hypo
thesis even within the school itself. But his claim to have
advanced Baur's tendency-criticism to the level of literary
history is quite illusory, for in making a strictly Jewish-
Christian writing the basis of the first Gospel as distinguished
from its universalist remoulding, his point of view is purely
dogmatic ; and though more just to the literary peculiarity
of Mark, who now once more occupies the middle place be
tween Matthew and Luke as formerly, yet he interprets
Luke's Gospel as opposed to Matthew in the interest of a
tendency.3 Of late Holsten Die drei Ursprungl., noch un-
geschriebenen Evang., Karlsr., 1883 ; Die synopt Evang.,
Heidelb., 1886) while adopting the same succession of the
Gospels began to carry the tendency-criticism to its ex
treme consequences ; the Petrine Gospel of Matthew being
interpreted as the remodelling of an earlier one representing
the anti-Pauline Judaism which afterwards predominated in
the primitive Church, Mark as the Pauline antithesis, and
Luke the intermediate Gospel. The Tubingen school could
even adopt the Mark-hypothesis in the extreme form given
the school ; but he only succeeded in producing an exceedingly com
pUcated development-history which has found no other representative.
3 The dispute respecting Mark's Gospel (Hilgenfeld, Das Marcusevan-
gelium, Leipz., 1850; Baur, Das Marcusevangelium, Tiib., 1851) was
carried on for years in the Theol. Jahrb. Comp. HUgenfeld, Die Evange
lien nach ihrer Entstehung, etc., Leipz., 1854 and the new defences of
his standpoint in his Zeitschrift, continued in his Introduction (1875)
and afterwards (comp. the Zeitschrift of 1882, 1), in which he modified
this standpoint, though not materially, by giving up a very shadowy
Petrine Gospel which he had formerly foisted into the development series
(comp. on the other hand Ritschl, Theol. Jahrb., 1851), as also by declar
ing (after 1863) that the original Aramasan Hebrew Gospel, in a transla
tion of the years 50-60, was the foundation of the canonical Matthew.
Next to him stands E. d'Eichthal (Les Evangiles, Paris, 1863), who how
ever derives Mark not from the canonical Matthew, but from its Jewish-
Christian basis.

216 RETURN TO WEISSE.
to it by Wilke. Volkmar (Die Beligion Jesu, Leipzig, 1857;
Marcus und die Synopsis, Leipz., 1870) interpreted our Mark
as the primitive Christian epic of the first appearance of
Christ, in the Pauline sense. On the other hand Jewish
Christianity lifted up its head in the original Matthew, ad
vanced Paulinism in Luke answered to it, the latter Gospel
being worked over in our Matthew by a liberal Jewish-
Christian (comp. H. M. Schulze, Evangelientafel, Leipz.,
1361, 2. Aufl., Dresd., 1886). In Volkmar's view Gospel
literature already begins with the year 73, whereas Hilgen
feld puts the original Matthew back into the fifties and con
cludes with Luke, about the year 100. Hence the school
which promised to give a true solution of the synoptical
question by genuine historical criticism for the first time,
did not agree as to time, succession, or tendency of the
Gospels. 6. The contest with the Tubingen school was begun by
Ewald in his Jahrbiicher f ihr biblische Wissenschaft, after 1848 ;
his own opposition to it only consisted in a return to the
fundamental position laid down by Weisse, though he also
maintained that the collection of sayings was followed by a
very old Gospel of Philip already used by Paul, and Mark
by a book of higher history (to which however he only as
signed fragments of the oldest sources after all), while from
Luke's Gospel he made out three other written sources dis
cernible only by himself (Die drei ersten Evang., Gott., 1850,
1871). His view, stripped of its eccentricities, was followed
after 1853 by Meyer who had formerly adhered to Gries-
bach's hypothesis, though like Ewald going beyond Weisse,
inasmuch as he affirmed that Mark had already used the
Logia. Reuss maintained a position of complete independence
with regard to the Tubingen school. Taking his stand on
the two primitive writings attested by Papias, he affirmed that
the second canonical Gospel used the original Mark, the first,
the Logia and the canonical Mark, the third, this and other

REPRISTLNATION ATTEMPTS. 217
sources besides. Reville went back entirely to Credner's
Einleitung (Etudes Critiques, 1860). Following in the foot
steps of Weisse who once more advocated his view in the
EvangeUenfrage (Leipz., 1856), we find Glider (in Herzog's
B.-Enc, IX., 1858), Tobler (Die EvangeUenfrage, Zurich,
1858), Plitt (De Composit. Evang. Syn., 1860) and Freitag
(Die heiligen Schriften des N. T., Potsd., 1861). The priority
of Mark was adopted even by Thiersch in his Kirche im
apostolischen Zeitalter (1852), and by Jacobsen (Untersuchung
iiber die syn. Evang., Berlin, 1883) though from quite another
point of view, for he tried once more after the manner of
Bruno Bauer to explain the deviation from it in the other
synoptics by all kinds of literary misconceptions, again made
Luke entirely dependent on Matthew, by which means he
was enabled to dispense with the view of any Logia, and
separated from our Mark a genuine nucleus though compara
tively wanting in substance. Griesbach's hypothesis was
again revived by Bleek's Introduction published after his
death (in essential agreement with de Wette) who there
fore found it necessary to postulate a Greek primitive Gospel
for Matthew and Luke, exactly corresponding to our Mark,
only that use was made in it of older records of Apostles and
eye-witnesses, such as have been found since Schleiermacher
in the Logia. Delitzsch, Kahnis and Nosgen have also it is
true expressed themselves incidentally in favour of Gries
bach's hypothesis, but without putting it on a new founda
tion. The middle place of Mark and therefore the old
ecclesiastical view is still represented by Aberle (Tiibingen
Quartalschr., 1863, 1), Hengstenberg, (Evang. KZ., 1865) and
commentators like Bisping, Schanz and Keil ; but also by
Klostermann (Das Marcusevang., Gott., 1867), who, though
his endeavour to prove that Mark originated in the discourses
of Peter was certainly exaggerated, yet discovered in it
the use of a written source corresponding substantially to
our Matthew. The apologetics according to which it is

218 weisse's views.
necessary on dogmatic grounds to reject all use of sources,
withdrew into the background behind the tradition-hypo
thesis of Gieseler. Guericke still hesitated to combine with
it any form of the hypothesis of mutual use (comp. also
L. Schulze) ; but Kalchreuter (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1861,
4) and commentators like Godet and Schegg think with
Ebrard that it is possible to agree with it altogether.
Finally Wetzel (Die synopt. Evang., Heilbronn, 1883) has
declared our Gospels to be three distinct transcripts more or
less complete of what Matthew the Apostle narrates.
7. The chief work of recent times has its centre in the fur
ther construction of Weisse's hypothesis. B. Weiss thought
it required amendment in two ways ; he regarded the oldest
source not only as a collection of discourses, as currently
supposed since Schleiermacher, but though finding it to con
sist mainly of sayings of the Lord, endeavoured to prove that
it contained at the same time a not inconsiderable series of
fragmentary narratives ; and with Ewald and Meyer held
that this oldest source was already known to Mark, not
to say used by him (comp. Stud. u. Krit., 1861, 1, 4 ; Jahrb.
fiir deutsche Theol., 1864, 1; 65, 2). He carried out this view
exegetically and critically in his two commentaries on Mark
and Matthew (1872, 76) and embodied its historical result in
his Leben Jesu (1882, 84). Holtzmann attempted to solve
the difficulties left by Weisse's hypothesis, in another way,
viz. by supposing that the written synoptic basis, which in
his view held an independent position over against the Logia
and was used along with the first and third Evangelists, was
not our Mark, but that this stood next to it and was mainly
an abridgment of it (Die synoptischen Evang., Leipz., 1863).
This hypothesis met with much approval ; Schenkel (1864)
and Wittichen (1876) making it the basis of their repre
sentations of the life of Jesus, and Sevin (1866, 73) of
his synopsis and interpretation of the Gospels (comp. also
Mangold in Bleek's Einl., 3 Aufl., 1875). It soon became

THE PRIMITIVE MARK-HYPOTHESIS. 219
evident, however, that the separation of Mark from the hypo
thetical primitive .Mark, presented new and formidable diffi
culties. In the various modifications of this hypothesis by
Weizsaoker (Unters. iiber die evang. Gesch, Gotha, 1864),
Wittichen (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol, 1866, 4), Scholten (Das
alteste Evang., deutsch v. Bedepenning, Elberfeld, 1869) ,J Bey
schlag, (Stud. u. Krit., 1881, 4 ; comp. on the other hand
Weiss, ibid., 1883, 4), and Feine (after Lipsius, Jahrb. f.
protest. Theol., 1885, 1 ; 86, 3), Mark constantly assumed new
forms, whose untenableness has repeatedly been shown by
Weiss. In his last utterances the originator of this hypo
thesis practically gave it up. Wendt, like Jacobsen (No. 6),
also renounces it (Die Lehre Jesu, Gott., 1886), and by once
more adopting with Simons (Hat der 3. Evang. den kanon.
Matth. benutzt ? Bonn, 1880), Jacobsen, Mangold (in Bleek's
Einl., 4 Aufl., 1886) and now Holtzmann, the view of a
use, though a subsidiary one, of our Matthew by Luke, and
by furnishing the Logia-source with histories and parables
specially taken from Luke, which were entirely foreign to it,
has made it possible to explain the first and third Gospels
with the exception of a few additions for the most part
legendary, entirely from Mark and the Logia-source.
§ 45. The Oldest Source.
1. The oldest source owed its discovery to a perception
that the first and third Gospel, although independent one
of another had nevertheless many parts of discourses in
common which are not found in Mark, and yet resemble
1 According to Him this proto-Mark, which in the deutero-Matthew
(as in Luke) is combined with the Logia, was practicaUy an essential
remoulding of an older sketch by John Mark, a conclusion at which
Jacobsen (No. 6) also arrives by a critical rejection of strong interpola
tions out of our second Gospel, whUe the deutero-Matthew has in our
canonical Matthew, which is used by the canonical Mark, been subjected
to a second revision.

220 PIECES OF DISCOURSES IN THE OLDEST SOURCE.
one another so closely down even to details of linguistic
expression (comp. for example the imovmov, Matt. vi. 11 ;
Luke xi. 3) that they can only proceed from a second source
common to both.1
The first example is afforded by the sermon on the mount, comp.
Matt, v.-vn. with Luke vi. But in Matthew the Lord's prayer and the
promise with regard to the hearing of prayer are found already inter
polated (vi. 9-13; vii. 7-11), pieces which Luke gives with their his
torical occasion and in a connection which the reference of the latter to
the parable of the importunate friend shows to have been original. In
the same way the series of maxims with regard to anxious care and the
laying up of treasure (Luke xii. 22-34), which are most clearly conneoted
with the historical motive narrated in xii. 13-21, are interwoven in the
sermon on the mount in an inverted order (vi. 19-21, 25-34). So too
detached sayings that have their original connection in Luke are found
interpolated in the sermon on the mount. Thus for example v. 13
(comp. Luke xiv. 34 f.), vi. 15 f. (comp. Luke xi. 33), v. 25 f. (comp.
Luke xn. 58 f., where the original figurative sense is retained), vi. 22 f.
(comp. Luke xi. 34-36), vi. 24 (comp. Luke xvi. 13), vii. 13 f., 22 f.
(comp. Luke xni. 24-27). Attached to the discourse on the sending out
of the twelve Apostles, we find the series of sayings with respect to per
secution (Luke xii. 2-12), impossible here because at variance with the
historical situation, and moreover again in inverted order (Matt. x.
17-33), as also Matt. x. 34 ff. (Luke xn. 51 ff.) ; to the great discourse
on the second Coming, pieces from a second discourse on the same
subject are attached (Matt. xxiv. 26 ff., 37-41, comp. Luke xvii. 23-37)
as also from a parable (Matt. xxiv. 43-51, comp. Luke xii. 39-46). In
both, the discourse after the Baptist's message (Matt. xi. 2-19 = Luke vU.
19-35), the discourse against those who asked for a sign (Matt. xii. 39-45
= Luke xi. 29-36) and the discourse containing the invocation of woes
(Matt, xxiu., comp. Luke xi. 39-52) are found independently. Frag-
1 The possibility that the first Gospel could have got them from the
third is already excluded by the obvious and recognised fact that the first
has them for the most part in an undoubtedly more original text ; while
the possibUity that the triird oould have got them from the first is ex
cluded by the fact that the third frequently gives them in a detached
form, either without aUeging any reason, thus giving rise to a suspioion
that they were selected by a pragmatic process, or with the accompani
ment of short introductions which have historical probability entirely
in their favour, whereas they appear in the first in artificial connection
with others. Nor is there any lack of isolated cases in whioh the third
has more fully preserved the original text or the connection.

PIECES OF OLDEST SOURCE IN MATTHEW AND LUKE. 221
ments of the discourse on offences in Matt, xviii. are found in Luke xvu.
1-4, and above aU the parable of the lost sheep (Luke xv. 1-10) ; and
Luke i. 13-15, 21-24 is found in Matt. xi. 21-27; xiii, 16 f. It is
sometimes the case, however, that Luke has incidentally made a dif
ferent application of detached sayings whose original connection is
retained in Matthew (Matt. v. 18, 33 f. ; xi. 12; comp. Luke xvi. 16 ff.).
A consideration of these fragments of discourses makes it
clear that the common source cannot be regarded as a col
lection of discourses, as Weisse, Ewald and Weizsacker
held, nor as a collection of sayings, as it is generally de
signated. For the more comprehensive compositions made
up of discourses with which the record of Jesus' sayings
certainly did not begin, are unquestionably literary produc
tions, of the first Evangelist; and it cannot by any means be
shown that isolated sayings were here recorded. Even
parables hardly ever stood alone ; but except when attached
to other pieces of discourses, were put in pairs (comp. Luke
xiii. 18-21 with Matt. xiii. 31 ff.) or in larger groups (Matt.
xiii., Luke xii), even where this can no longer be certainly
proved, as in the case of the parables of the great supper
(Matt, xxii., Luke xiv.) and of the talents (Matt, xxv.,
Luke xix.). They are rather to be regarded as larger or
smaller groups of sayings turning on the same subject, oi
where they are called forth by a concrete occasion extend
ing to small discourses.2 It is true that in many cases they
3 Only in the sermon on the mount have we a discourse with formal
prologue and epUogue, which in the first Gospel is preserved in a very
much expanded form, and in the third is very much abridged. Although
the first Gospel has much that is given in a more complete and copious
form than in the third, especially the series of sayings respecting offences
(Matt, xviii.) with the parable of the wicked servant attached to it, yet
it has scarcely preserved one actual piece out of the source alone. On
the other hand we certainly have such a piece in the third Gospel, xiu.
1-9 (comp. also xni. 31-33 ; xiv. 7-11 ; xxn. 35-38 and others), as also
the aUegory in xvi. 1-12, which perhaps in the source formed the pen
dant to xix. 11-27 (Matt. xxv. 14-30), and much that is at least more
extended, where the first evangelist has only known how to turn the
leading particulars of a series of sayings to account (comp. Luke xn.
54-59).

222 PIECES OF DISCOURSES OUT OF THE OLDEST SOURCE.
were strung together quite loosely (eXeyev ovv Luke xiii. 18,
cAeycv 8e rois o^Aots xii. 54, elrre Se 7rpos rois pLaOrjrds xvii. 1,
22), but most of them had an historical introduction how
ever short, which in the case of the discourse after the
Baptist's message, and of the sayings with regard to prayer,
solicitude and the laying up of treasure, already extends to
a small narrative. We can even show three narratives of
cures, which must have originated in the same source, for
the very same reasons that apply to these fragments of
discourses : viz. the centurion of Capernaum (Matt. viii.
5-13 ; Luke vii. 1-10), the dumb demoniac (Matt. ix. 32-34 ;
Luke xi. 14 f.), and the healing on the Sabbath day, Luke
xiv. 1-6 (comp. Matt. xii. 11 ff.). Add to this the fact that
the first Gospel also contained fragments of preliminary
history, as for example the words of the Baptist (Matt. iii.
7-12; Luke iii. 7-9, 16 f.) and the three temptations of
Jesus (Matt. iv. 1-11 ; Luke iv. 1-13), of which the latter
are mainly narratives ; although the Lord's words form their
proper point, while their connection with the words of the
Lord that follow necessarily presupposes a certain historical
framework. 2. But the reconstruction of the oldest source cannot stop
with those sections exclusively retained in the first and third
Gospels. Of some larger discourses only preserved in their
full extent in these Gospels, or at least in one of them,
detached fragments are likewise found in Mark.1 Many
1 Thus we find sayings from the missionary discourse (Matt. x. 5-16 •>
Luke x. 1-12) in Mark vi. 7-11 (comp. also Matt. x. 40, 42= Luke x. 16
with Mark ix. 37-41), from the defensive discourse (Matt. xii. 24-37 =
Luke xi. 17-23, xii. 10, vi. 44 f.) in iii. 22-30, from the series of say
ings with regard to discipleship (Luke xiv. 25-35 = Matt. x. 37 f . ; v. 13)
in vui. 34 f., ix. 50, from the discourse on the dispute respecting
priority (Luke xxu. 24-30= Matt. xxin. 11, xix. 28, xx. 16) in x. 42-45 ;
x. 29-31. Note also that these discourses apart from some historical
introduction, are quite inconceivable, as also that the healing of the
demoniac in Luke xi. 14 f. manifestly formed the introduction to the
defensive discourse (No. 1).

PIECES OF DISCOURSES OUT OF THE OLDEST SOURCE. 225
indeed suppose that we have here in Mark an independent
tradition apart from that of our source; but this assnmp.
tion is forbidden by the far-reaching similarity which exists
in the Greek wording of these sayings, notwithstanding
the freedom of Mark's rendering. Moreover almost all the
sayings retained by Mark outside the connection of his
narrative, may be traced to reminiscences of discourses
and sayings whose presence in the source is already
attested ; and here too the same thing may be said of the
diction.2 That the parables preserved in Mark are inde
pendent of those contained in the source, is quite incon
ceivable; for the parable of the grain of mustard seed in
Mark iv. 30 ff. is unquestionably a descriptive paraphrase
of the first parable of the pair of parables in the source
Luke xiii. 18-21 (No. 1), while the parable of the sower
(Mark iv. 3-9) is found in an incomparably simpler and
more original form in the source (Luke viii. 5-8) ; and
Mark iv. 26-29 is a remould of Matt. xiii. 24-30.3 So too
the only larger discourse given by Mark, viz. that on tho
3 Mark i. 7 f. is borrowed from the words of the Baptist ; iv. 24, x.
11 f. from the sermon on the mount ; i. 2 from the Baptist's discourse ;
xi. 24 f. from the maxims with regard to prayer (Luke xi. 4, 9) ; vni.
12, iv. 21 from the discourse against those who asked for a sign (Luke
xi. 29, 33) ; iv. 22, viii. 38 from the series of utterances with regard to
persecution (Luke xii. 2, 9) ; ix. 42-47 from the discourse on offences
(Luke xvn. 2 = Matt. v. 30); the closing utterance in iv. 24 from the
parable of the talents ; xii. 38 f . from the invocation of woes. Wendt
(comp. § 44, 7), who again asserts the mutual independence of a series
of simUar sayings in the Logia and in Mark, did not venture to carry
out this view, or in other cases to make the first EvangeUst interweave
a saying from Mark in his use of the Logia or combine Mark and the
source. 3 But in this case the only other parable that Mark has, viz. that of
the workers in the vineyard (xii. 1-9) must come from the source, for
Matthew's text (xxi. 33-41) is in many ways seen to be more original ;
and the interpretation still retained in xxi. 43 is at variance with the
appUcation borrowed from Mark. It is not improbable that it there
formed a parable-pair (No. 1) in conjunction with the aUegory of thb
great supper, attached to it by the first evangeUst (xxn. 1-14).

224 NARRATIVE PIECES OF OLDEST SOURCE IN MARK.
second coming (xiii. 5-31) must proceed from the source,
especially as xiii. 9-13 is clearly an interpolation, obviously
originating in a series of sayings already familiar to us in
the source (Matt. x. 17-22=Luke xii. 11 f. ; comp. also
Mark xiii. 21 ff. with Luke xvii. 23) ; while the conclusion
appended by Mark (xiii. 32-37) also contains reminiscences
of pieces of the source already known to us (Matt. xxv.
13 ff. ; Luke xii. 36 ff.). Here too the more original text is
in many instances preserved in the first Gospel. But if it
is once established that in Mark pieces of discourses are de
rived from the source common to the first and third Gospels,
Mark ii. 24 ff., 28 must also be taken from a larger collec
tion of sayings in which the utterances of Jesus respecting
the keeping of the Sabbath were put together (Matt. xii.
2-8) ; so too Mark iii. 31-35, of which Luke viii. 19 ff. has
preserved an incomparably simpler form, and Mark xii. 28-34,
much more simply given in Matt. xxii. 35-40 (comp. Luke
x. 25 ff.). The fact that we are not concerned here with
isolated utterances of Jesus, but with discourse and counter-
discourse, cannot surprise us in face of the temptation
history contained in the source.*
3. For a methodical investigation of the oldest source, it
is of decisive importance that it contained many pieces of
discourses which are still preserved in Mark in a secondary
form and connection (No. 2). And since we have also been
able to show the presence of some pieces of narrative in the
portions preserved only by the first and third Evangelists
(No. 1), there is nothing to prevent our tracing to this source
also such pieces of Mark's narrative as have a simpler and
4 It is true we thus assume what cannot be proved untU afterwards,
viz. that Mark was not acquainted with our first and third Evangelists ;
but even here it is clear, that if he had foUowed them as exten
sively as he would have done if the case had been reversed, it would be
impossible to understand why he should give the discourses in so frag
mentary a form and scatter the elements of whioh they are composed
hither and thither so arbitrarUy.

THE OLDEST SOURCE. 225
more original form in the first Gospel, especially if Luke too
retains traces of such a source. To this category belongs
first of all the story of the Canaanite woman (Matt. xv.
22-28), where the motives of the change made by Mark
(vii. 24-30) are so obvious, that the change is in truth not
denied ; then we have a series of stories, which in the first
Gospel (and in many instances also in the third) are pre
sented in a form so short, sketchy and withal so polished
and condensed, that they cannot possibly be explained as an
extract from Mark's richly coloured representation amplified
by numerous details and yet constantly going back to the
earlier narrative-form, by which the flow of the narrative
is often injured. They are simply accounts of cures ; but,
like the centurion of Capernaum, the healing on the
Sabbath-day, and the Canaanite woman, they are evidently
told not so much on account of the cure, as for the sake of
some word of Jesus spoken on the occasion, the recurrence of
the same forms and turns of expression frequently pointing
to a common source.1 With these however must be classed
three narratives which manifestly mark three epoch-making
points in the life of Jesus, viz. the feeding of the multitude,
the transfiguration, and the anointing, where a comparison
1 The relation is most apparent in the account of the leper (Matt.
viii. 2-4, comp. Mark i. 40-45) and the palsied man (Matt. ix. 2-8,
comp. Mark ii. 1-12), in which cases it has recently been admitted by
Feine (§ 44, 7), in the account of the raising of Jairus' daughter (Matt.
ix. 18-25, comp. Mark v. 21-43 and with it the discussion between
Holtzmann and Weiss, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., 1878) and the healing of
the lunatic (Matt. xvii. 14^18, comp. Mark ix. 14r-27), whose origin in
the oldest source is already shown by the concluding words (Matt. xvU.
20 = Luke xvii. 6 = Mark xi. 23) which undoubtedly belong to it. A
reminiscence of the narrative of the healing of the two blind men is
only found with Mark in the repetition of a similar narrative (x. 46-52).
The textual relation also obliges us to reckon with these the account of
the driving out of the devUs on the other side of the sea of Galilee,
introduced by the tempest on the passage across (Matt. viii. 23-34,
comp. Mark iv. 35-v. 20) whose introduction in Matthew viu. 18-22 ia
necessarUy traced to the source through Luke ix. 57-60.
VOL. II. Q

226 ITS COMPASS AND ARRANGEMENT.
of the text shows traces of an older representation through
out. While the first turns on the miraculous fulfilment of
the apparently incomprehensible saying of Jesus in Matt.
xiv. 16, the second has its climax in the voice of God speak
ing, Matt. xvii. 5, and the third in the prediction of death,
Matt. xxvi. 12. But the same voice of God (Matt. iii. 17),
as well as the baptism of Jesus with the words of the
Baptist which precede (Matt. iii. 13-16), must therefore
have been in the source, which must be an a priori assump
tion in the case of a writing containing the Baptist's words
and the temptation of Jesus (No. l).a Now a source which
contained the Baptist's words, with the baptism and temp
tation of Jesus, must necessarily have had some kind of
introduction, and the last piece of it which can be pointed
out, viz. the story of the anointing, itself points, in the
prophecy of the immediately impending death of Jesus,
to the close of His history. In this case the portions of
narrative contained in it must themselves have formed the
boundary-stones according to which its collected discourses
were divided ; and it is highly probable that the formula
marking them as such may yet be shown.8 Little as a
2 Thus indeed it is definitely shown that the conception of a collection
of sayings such as Holtzmann constructed with exclusive reference to
Luke, as an unorganized heaping together of greater or smaller pieces
of discourses and parables does not correspond to the picture which a
methodical investigation of this source gives of it.
3 It is certainly the prevailing opinion that the recurring formula of
transition in Matt. vii. 28 ; xi. 1 ; xiii. 53 ; xix. 1 ; xxvi. 1 belongs to
the first EvangeUst. But this is impossible for the reason that its pre
sence does not by any means correspond to the manifest divisions of
the first Gospel. It is definitively excluded by the fact that the same
transition-formula appears in Luke vn. 1 between the sermon on the
mount and the narrative of the centurion of Capernaum, i.e. between
two pieces which without doubt belonged to the source (No. 1), between
which according to Matt. vii. 28 it also stood in the source ; and by the
fact that a trace of the same formula is also found in Luke ix. 28 in
passing to the account of the transfiguration. The source must there
fore have employed this formula in passing from the separate groups
into which the discourses were divided to the pieces of narrative by
which they were separated.

ITS COMPASS AND ARRANGEMENT. 227
writing that had no continuous narrative was able or in
tended to arrange the different series of sayings and parts
of discourses that had been collected, in their chronological
order, although these were certainly in many cases put to
gether on account of the similarity of their contents, yet it
naturally sought in certain prominent events of the life of
Jesus, which were undoubtedly stamped on the memory at
least in their relative consequences, to find a guide for the
division of the collected discourses and thus to gain a certain
organization for its collected matter. Nevertheless the fact
remains, that the writing did not aim at a chronological or
pragmatic combination of what it communicated, nor yet at
continuous narrative and biographical completeness.
A closer analysis of our three Gospels and of the way in which then-
composition is conditioned by the use of a common source, leads to a
series of disclosures with regard not only to their substance, but also to
their arrangement, which have at least great probabiUty in their favour,
as shown particularly by Weiss in his Leben Jesu. In accordance with
this analysis the sermon on the mount formed the chief part after the
introduction, and this was foUowed by the three great miracles of the
first period, viz. the leper, the centurion, and the raising of the dead
maiden. Then came the Baptist's message, the maxims with regard to
the observance of the Sabbath and the first parable-discourse, which
again led on to the expedition to the eastern side of the lake and the
curing of the palsied man ; incidents stiU belonging to the earlier time.
Then foUowed the discourses on the sending out and the return of the
disciples, and this section probably contained the great bulk of the
discourses designated in the source as disciples' discourses, e.g. the
discourse respecting the strife for precedence and the parables treating
of the use of earthly wealth, and particularly the maxims with regard to
prayer, to which examples of the hearing of prayer are attached (the
Canaanitish woman and the heaUng of the bUnd men). The casting
out of the devUs then led on to the defensive discourse of Jesus, foUowed
by the denunciation of those who demanded a sign, and the invocation
of woes, which, considering that the source contained no account of the
passion, must here be anachronistic though in keeping with the subject,
and to which the prophecy of persecution was attached. The narrative
of the feeding of the people was perhaps followed by the sayings with
regard to solicitude and the accumulation of treasure ; the parables of
the second coming and the last exhortations to repentance ending with

228 THE APOSTLE MATTHEW.
the parables of the vinedressers and of the great supper, as also with the
sayings regarding true discipleship (Luke xiv.) and the discourse on
offences. Then followed the transfiguration with the healing of the
lunatic and the discourses relative to the second coming, certainly
belonging to the latter days of Jesus, to which the story of the anointing
formed the conclusion. It is certain that much of this classification
can only be conjectural, but undoubtedly much could be rectified and
estabUshed by a more exhaustive analysis of our three Gospels, for
example by fixing the place of the healing on the Sabbath-day (Luke
xiv.), of the discourse regarding the greatest commandment or the
promise to Peter (Matt. xvi. 17 f.) which was unquestionably in the
source and therefore presupposes some statement of Peter's confession.
4. The first composition of a Gospel-writing is ascribed
in ecclesiastical antiquity to the Apostle Matthew (Mark iii.
18), who is expressly designated in the first Gospel as the
publican (Matt. x. 3). The same Gospel (ix. 9) identifies
him with Levi the toll-gatherer, the son of Alphseus, who
according to Mark ii. 14 was called away from the receipt
of custom to follow Jesus.1 The remark has frequently
been made, that it is easy to understand how the toll-
gatherer, who had greater facility with his pen than the
other Apostles, should likewise have been the first who
advanced beyond the immediate practical need of epistolary
communication to literary records. Moreover Papias of
Hierapolis states in Eusebius (H.E., 3, 39) that he put the
Xoyia together in the Hebrew (i.e. the Aramaean) dialect.
Although Eusebius unquestionably repeats words spoken by
1 The view that the only thing here meant is a call into the wider
circle of disciples, rests on a quite untenable idea of the nature and
origin of this so-called wider circle of disciples. The fact that Mark
only speaks of him in the Ust of Apostles as Matthew, i.e. given or given
by God, without marking his identity with the former Levi, only proves
that he first began to have this surname in the ApostoUc circle, and that
Mark had no precise knowledge as to when and how he received it.
But there is not the remotest foundation for doubting the very early
tradition represented by the first Gospel, or for adopting tbe view of an
interchange, as done by Neander, Sieffert, Ewald, Reuss, Hilgenfeld,
and others, after the example of Heracleon and Origen, Grotius and
Michaelis. Of his later life we have no certain knowledge.

PAPIAS'S TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE. 229
Papias, yet their substance is most probably derived from
the Presbyter (John), ivhose communications respecting
Mark's Gospel already presuppose a knowledge of this
writing of Matthew's ; so that the poor attempts which some
have made to trace this testimony to an error on the part
of Papias, are a, priori without reason. It is only by the
connection with what Papias has imparted respecting Mark's
Gospel from the same source, that we learn that the Logia of
which he speaks are the Lord's words, and why he expressly
emphasizes the fact that every one was obliged to interpret
this Hebrew record of the Lord's words as well as he could
(that is when they were read in the Church to Greek-
speaking Christians).3 From the way in which Papias
mentions the original language of this writing and speaks
of the need of interpreting their Lord's words as a fact
of the past, it is clear beyond a doubt that no Aramaean
Matthew was at his time any longer in use, whether it had
been put aside by a Greek translation or by Greek revisions.
In any case it is evident from the connection in which he
speaks of it, that Papias was not so much concerned to give
an exact account of what this writing contained as to
emphasize the fact that he had not given the Lord's words
aphoristically or only incidentally, but had arranged them
in good order and in their original connection (in series
of sayings and discourses) ; yet in spite of this the way in
which at the same time he characterizes Matthew alone,

1 The words MarBaios piv obv 'EfipatSi SiaXixTip rd Xoyia owerd£aTO,
rjpptfvevo-e Si aird &s fy Swarbs ^xaoros therefore do not refer to written
translations as is generaUy supposed, much less to enlargements and
explanations of that earUest ApostoUc writing (comp. Schleiermacher),
which the wording absolutely forbids; they show moreover that the
view that it was merely an assumption on the part of Papias that a
writing designed for beUeving Hebrews must have been written in
Hebrew (comp. also Hilgenfeld), is quite untenable, since he says nothing
as to the work having this design, but rather infers its use in wider
circles.

230 PAPIAS'S TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE.
shows that he regarded this arrangement of the Lord's
words as its proper object and its peculiar feature.
It is obvious that this characterization of Papias does not apply to an
evangehcal history such as our first Gospel contains, which begins with
a detaUed account of the infancy and concludes with an uninterrupted
narrative of the passion and resurrection, which pursues a didactic aim
in its historical matter as in its pragmatic reflections, and plainly repre
sents itself as an original Greek writing.3 But although Schleiermacher,
and in spite of the opposition at once raised against him by Liicke and
Frommann (Stud. u. Krit., 1833, 40) the entire criticism that attaches
itself to Weisse, asserts that according to Papias the old Apostolic writing
was exclusively a collection of sayings (comp. Weiffenbaoh, Die Papias.
fragmente, Beriin, 1878, and Mangold), this does not by any means follow
from his words. From the connection with what has been said respect
ing Mark, the chief aim of Papias is to emphasize the fact that Matthew
has actuaUy given the o-ivra^is tuv Xoyluv xvpiaxuv missed by Mark,
and not that in opposition to Mark he has recorded only rb, XexBivra.
Though the earUest narratives of the Ufe of Jesus were undoubtedly
intended only to give the occasion on which this or that momentous
saying of the Lord was spoken, Papias certainly does not intend to say
that Matthew had omitted from his coUection these transmitted words
of the Lord with the occasion of their utterance. It is not his aim to
form a counterpart to a continuous narrative of Jesus ; rather does this
counterpart result from the fact that Papias does not speak of a Gospel
of Matthew in which importance is attached to a classified arrangement

1 Nevertheless not only apologists down to L. Schulze and Keil, but
also critics like de Wette, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Keim and others still
reassert that Papias had only our Gospel of Matthew in view, unhesita
tingly rejecting his statement as to its having been written in Hebrew,
either as an error on the part of the narrow-minded man, as Eusebius
caUs him on account of his miUennarianism, or as a legend handed down
from the Ebionites, as for example Hug, Bleek and Keil (Komm., 1877);
or else accounting for it by supposing that Matthew himself (comp.
Bengel, Guericke, Olshausen, Thiersch and L. Schulze) or some other
simply translated it. But the attempt to prove from the misapprehended
testimony respecting Mark, that Papias understood by the \byia the
XexBivra xal irpaxBivra, or to appeal in favour of this view to later
Church usage, according to which the Gospels were caUed the \byia
xvpiaxd on account of their proper canonical import (§ 9, 1 ; note 1) or
the Scripture revelation of God tA Xbyia (Beov) generally, is impossible ;
as if there could be any meaning in Matthew's making a ooUoction of
the Xfryio in this sense.

TRADITION RESPECTING THE HEBREW MATTHEW. 231
of the Lord's words, but only affirms in general that Matthew undertook
such a work.*
But even in Alexandria there was no knowledge but that
the Apostle Matthew had written in Hebrew, since it was
there said that Pantaenus found among the Indians (i.e. in
South Arabia) the Hebrew writing of Matthew formerly
brought thither by Bartholomaus (Euseb., H.E., 5, 10).
That he did actually carry it to Alexandria, is an addition
of Jerome's (De Vir. HI., 36), resting entirely on a miscon
ception of the passage in Eusebius. On the contrary this
writing was as little known in Egypt as in Asia Minor,
although there might have been an interest there in saying
that Pantsenus had seen it among the Indians ; but Origen
(ap. Euseb., 6, 25) still adhered to the old tradition that
Matthew wrote first in Hebrew (on the assumption of course
that he wrote for the Hebrews). Even Irenseus is unable
to prove that he takes his declaration on this point from
Papias, for in his statement as to the time when the work
was composed and the fact that it was intended for the
Hebrews he goes beyond him (Adv. Heer., III. 1, 1) ; and
the circumstance that all the Fathers hold to this tradition
with Eusebius (3, 24) is the more remarkable, since they
unhesitatingly refer it to our Greek Gospel, without con
sidering how this contradiction is to be explained. Jerome
alone speaks of a translation of the Hebrew writing of the
Apostle, but hazards no conjecture as to it origin (De Vir.
HI., 3).
5. It is probable that at the time of Papias and Pantaenus
some early knowledge of the Hebrew writing of the Apostle
Matthew still existed, but this being no longer present, it is
4 It is worthy of note that the latest construction of the Logia
(WendV comp. § 44, 7), though excluding from it all the narrative
portions of Mark, inserts many such portions found only in Luke, thus
simply giving up the reiterated assertion, that to put pieces of narrative
into the source is to abandon the ground of Papias' testimony.

232 TRADITION RESPECTING THE HEBREW MATTHEW.
the less likely that the Fathers could still have had a sight
of the work at the end of the 2nd century. On the other
hand it was known that a Hebrew Gospel was in use among
the heretical Ebionites, to koO' *E/?p<uous eiayyiXiov, from
which Eusebius is said to have found Hebrew citations in
Hegesippus, and in Papias the story of the woman who was
a great sinner (HE., 4, 22; 3, 39). Hence Irenseus, who
knew of the original Hebrew writing of the Apostle Matthew,
freely credits them with the use of Matthew's Gospel (Adv.
Heer., I. 26, 2 ; III. 11, 7). Clement on the contrary and
Origen his pupil, who know and employ the Hebrew Gospel
(§ 7, 6, note 2 ; § 10, 6), regard it as an entirely independent
work by the side of our Gospels, and know nothing of any
connection with the work of Matthew (comp. also Euseb.,
H.E., 3, 25 ; 27, who moreover seems not to have any
knowledge of it) . Nevertheless Epiphanius still proceeds so
positively on the assumption that the Ebionites must have
made use of Matthew's Gospel, that he derives the name
Ka6' 'E/Jpaious from the circumstance that Matthew alone
wrote in Hebrew; and yet he himself shows that the Hebrew
Gospel with which he was acquainted was a very much
falsified and mutilated Matthew (Hair., 30, 3 ; 13), that
it was in fact by no means our Matthew. Moreover the
numerous extracts preserved by him out of it (comp. Hil
genfeld, Nov. Test, extra canonem receptum, Lips., 1866, IV.)
leave no doubt that it already makes use of Luke's Gospel
in the form of it with which we are familiar, along with
our Greek Matthew, so that a connection with the Hebrew
Matthew is not to be thought of.1 The older form of
1 It contains most decided echoes of the introductory history in Luke
i. 5 (comp. ui. 2 f.), of tbe account given of the baptism in iii. 21 f.,
even with the subsequent statement as to age in vers. 23, and of the
choosing of Apostles in vi. 13, 15, as also of the form given by Luke in
viii. 21 ; xu. 58 ; xxii. 15, to the words of the Lord. The characterizing
of the lake of Gennesareth as Xlpvn liflepidSos has even an echo of John
vi. 1 ; xxi. 1 ; and the changing of dxplSes in Matt. iU. 4 into iyxpts iv

THE GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS IN EPIPHANIUS. 233
this Gospel, in use among the Nazarenes, which, however,
he knew only from hearsay, since he is unable to tell
whether the genealogies are wanting in it too, is certainly
regarded by Epiphanius as the Hebrew original of Matthew
(Heer., 29, 9) ; but Jerome, who both knows and freely uses
it, must have been convinced that such was by no means
the case, since otherwise he would not have ventured to
translate it into Greek and Latin, as according to De Vir
HI., 2, he actually did. All fragments of it, however, that
have come down to us in him and elsewhere show, notwith
standing all Hilgenfeld's endeavours to dispute the point,
that even this form of it is by no means connected with
Matthew's Gospel exclusively, that it perhaps even pre
supposes his Greek text, and is in any case quite a secondary
gospel-formation already rich in apocryphal embellish
ments.2 Jerome himself clearly distinguishes between it and
iXaltp (comp. Exod. xvi. 31) undoubtedly shows that the Greek text of
our Matthew has been used. The Gospel according to the Hebrews
known to Epiphanius certainly professes to be written by Matthew in
the name of the twelve Apostles; but its introduction in the interest
of a tendency clearly shows that the claim to identity with the writing
of Matthew which did not originally belong to it is raised here for the
first time. From this it appears that it is simply reversing the true
state of the case to say that the Fathers inferred the existence of a
Hebrew original of Matthew from the circumstance that the Ebionites
possessed a Hebrew Gospel ascribed to Matthew. On the contrary,
the fact that tradition knew of such a Gospel, gave rise to the as
sumption that the Hebrew Gospel of the Ebionites must be our
Matthew (Iren.), and to the derivation of the name xaB' "Eppalovs from
it (Epiph.) ; whereas in point of fact the Fathers, who are acquainted
with the earUer forms of the work (Clem., Orig.), know nothing of this
identity, and it is only claimed by the latest form of it known to us
(Epiph.). 3 The Lord's saying preserved in Ign., ad Smyrn., 3, which Jerome
(De Vir. 111., 16) found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews trans
lated by him, is connected with Luke xxiv. 36 f. ; the narrative pre
served in Papias, which according to Euseb., H.E., 3, 39 was also in the
Hebrew Gospel, is connected with Luke vU. 37 ; the appearing to James
(De Vir. III., 2) with Luke xxiv. 41 f. ; the history of the baptism given
by Jerome (on Isa. xi. 1) even betrays reminiscences of John i. 32 ;

234 THE GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS IN JEROME.
the primitive Hebrew text of Matthew, which he believed
to be still in existence in the library of Pamphilus in Caasarea
and among the Nazarenes in Syrian Bercea (De Vir. HI., 3).
Afterwards indeed he must have convinced himself that the
Hebrew Gospels to be found there were only copies (perhaps
other forms) of the Hebrew Gospel ; and it is only in defence
of his former view that he emphatically states that they
were mostly characterized as Evangelium juxta Matthceum or
as Mattheei authenticum (Adv. Pelag., 3, 2 ; ad Matth., 12, 13).
His commentary on Matthew certainly shows that he was
not acquainted with a Hebrew original of Matthew, for he
never makes use of it for purposes of explanation. The
conjecture that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was in
any way related to the Hebrew Matthew, or that we might
learn anything regarding it from the fragments here pre
served, must be entirely abandoned. All our knowledge
of this book, that had already gone out of use in the time
of Papias and was no longer known by those who came
after him, is what he tells us of it.
6. The very fact that the form of the Lord's words as
given in our first Gospel is the predominant basis of their
citation in the second century (§ 5, 6 ; § 7, 2), shows that
the Church was conscious of possessing in it the richest
in. 34 (comp. also the vli 'liadvvov). Echoes are elsewhere found of
Luke iii. 3 ; xxiii. 19, of the form given to a saying of the Lord in Luke
xvii. 4, of Luke's rendering of the parable of the talents and of the
allegories in Luke xv., xvi. Even the recension of the story of the rich
young man, known to Origen (tract. 8 in Matt.) presupposes the account
of our Greek Matthew (Matt. xix. 16, 19), and the Nazarene Gospel
must have contained the citation (Matt, xxvii. 9 f.), otherwise it would
not have been inserted in an apocryphal Jeremiah ; and perhaps the
explanation filii magistri eorum in Jerome (ad Matth. xxvii. 16) may be
traced to the Greek accusative 'BapafSfidv. Mangold indeed holds that
it cannot certainly be shown that the Gospel according to the Hebrews
came from a Greek text, and deolares the idea of the Holy Ghost as the
mother of Jesus to be a proof of Aramsean origin. On the secondary
traits and apocryphal colouring, comp. Weiss, Matthausevangelium,
Einleitung, § 1.

THE HEBREW MATTHEW AND THE OLDEST SOURCE. 235
treasure of authentically transmitted sayings of the Lord ;
and since according to Papias these were first collected by
the Apostle Matthew, his Gospel must necessarily stand in
close connection with this old Apostolic writing. Moreover
since the end of the 2nd century the Fathers without
exception look on the first Gospel as that of Matthew,
although they know that it was written in Hebrew, showing
that they must have had information that it was specifically
connected with the former early Apostolic writing. Hence
this oldest source, which we have found most comprehen
sively and faithfully preserved in the first Gospel, which
moreover was known to Mark and employed in the third
Gospel, can only have been the work of the Apostle Matthew.1
In point of fact all that we have ascertained respecting its
character, corresponds very exactly with the representation
given of it by Papias. It was not a connected historical
narrative, but was mainly intended as a collection of the
Lord's sayings, these being given in their original order, in
series of sayings and discourses of greater or less length.
The assumption that it also contained words spoken by Jesus
on the occasion of different acts and therefore individual
narratives from the life of Jesus is the less at variance with
Papias' statement, since these would serve to give a fuller
knowledge respecting the (chronological) order of the dis
courses. The writing which lies at the basis of our three
Gospels cannot however have been the primitive Hebrew
work of Matthew itself, since they agree so closely in many
instances in the Greek wording, but can only have been an
old Greek translation of it ; from the statement of Papias
we see clearly how early the need of such a work arose,
1 If with Holtzmann this source be construed as substantiaUy a col
lection of sayings from Luke (oomp. No. 3, note 3), or with Wendt as
containing a series of narratives that are specificaUy Luke's (No. 4, note
2), it becomes incomprehensible how the Fathers could have arrived at
such identification.

236 TIME WHEN THE HEBREW MATTHEW ORIGINATED.
owing to the use of the Lord's sayings in Greek-speaking
circles.3 When therefore Irenaeus says that Matthew wrote
while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome,
by which time he can only mean the second half of the
sixties (after the persecution by Nero and before his death),
he does not of course refer to our Greek Gospel but to the
Hebrew work which he ascribes to Matthew. We are also
led to the same time by the statement of Eusebius that
Matthew wrote when he was leaving Palestine, in order to
furnish the Hebrews with a substitute for his oral preaching
(H.E., 3, 24) ; for it is probable that Matthew, like most of
the primitive Apostles, only left Palestine definitively after
the breaking out of the Jewish war. The remarkable co
incidence of these two independent accounts is however
strongly in favour of the assumption that they have their
foundation in historical recollections. Moreover the only
indication given by the source itself as to the time of its
composition, is perfectly in keeping with this view. For
the 6 dvayiviDo-Korv voeiTta (Matt. xxiv. 15) can only have one
meaning, if it is intended as an exhortation to the readers
to fulfil the requirement attached to the last catastrophe in
face of the prognostics of its approach foretold by Jesus. It
was so natural, immediately after the first success of the
Jewish revolution when the intoxication of victory had taken
possession of the whole people, to call to mind the fact that
it was only the fulfilment of the signs of the time announced
by Jesus as significant of the beginning of judgment upon
Israel, and that the time foreseen by Him for the flight of
believers who wished to escape this judgment, was come.
The narrative of Eusebius as to a prophecy imparted by
3 The Hebrew foundation of this source does in fact consist in the
frequent recurrence of ISoi, xal ISoi, dpijv Xiyu ipiv, in words Uke yievva
and oipavol, in the form of the name 'lepovcraX-^p, in the entirely un-
periodio diction, and in many particulars that are sufficiently obvious
(crmp. ex. gr. Matt. xvi. 17 f.l.

RISE OF THE OLDEST SOURCE. 237
revelation to the heads of the Church at Jerusalem which
occasioned their flight to Pella (H.E., 3, 5),3 is only a legen
dary echo of the circumstance that this earliest Apostolic
writing appeared about the year 67 and by its interpolation
in Matt. xxiv. 15, with its unmistakable application to the
historical situation, exhorted the Christians to flee.
Eusebius in his Chronikon puts the composition of Matthew's Gospel
in the year 41, which seems to be based on the view that Matthew at the
time of Acts xii. had already left Palestine ; but to this idea he himself
according to H.E., 3, 5 did not probably adhere. Such determination
of time has nevertheless become traditional. Of late Plitt, Hilgenfeld
and others have again gone back to the fifties ; but the circumstance
that no trace whatever of a written record of the Lord's sayings is found
in the ApostoUc Epistles, is quite at variance with their view and only
serves to confirm the above time. Most of those who adopt the view of
a collection of sayings hold to the seventh decade. Compare Mangold.
7. In this earliest Apostolic writing we have manifestly
found the primitive Gospel, which not only explains num
berless points of agreement between the synoptical Gospels
in their choice and presentment of the words and acts of
Jesus, but has also impressed all the written Gospels with
one indelible type ; for even the Evangelists, striving after
pragmatic presentation and biographical completeness, never
quite got beyond their anecdotal way of making each piece
of narrative or discourse follow the other in a sort of neces
sary sequence. This character belonged to the oldest source,
not only because it was a priori intended simply as a col
lection of the utterances of Jesus, but because it manifestly
grew up out of oral tradition and in truth had only the
" Later criticism (comp. after Colani, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Keim,
Hilgenfeld, Weiffenbach, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, Leipz., 1873, as
also Holtzmann and Mangold) has indeed in many cases made this
account refer to a pamphlet or to a smaU Apocalypse, of which Matt.
xxiv. (not to speak of Mark xiii.) is said to be a remould ; but compara
tive textual-criticism teaches that the very section attributed to it forms
the proper nucleus of the authentic discourse on the second coming ac
cording to the oldest tradition.

238 THE OLDEST SOURCE AND ORAL NARRATIVE TYPE.
design of fixing the narrative-type in the form it had as
sumed in the Apostolic circle at Jerusalem (§ 44, 3). It
is too generally overlooked that the attempt not only to
fix separate utterances of Jesus, but to reproduce whole
series of sayings in which He expressed his views on this
or that subject, or even longer and shorter discourses held
on particular occasions, almost forty years after His death,
was inconceivable even in the case of an ear- witness, unless
this material had long before actually taken definite form
in the circle of ear-witnesses from the mutually supple
menting and corrective recollection of its various members.
So too we must account for the form of the narratives,
polished and close and yet so pithy and complete in itself,
in many cases making but a sketchy frame for some im
portant word of Jesus, by the fact that the view was in that
circle mainly directed to the reproduction of the utterances
of Jesus ; the frequent repetition of separate narratives only
serving as an illustration of this or that truth. There was
no aiming at historical detail, relations of time and place, or
names and relations of persons besides Christ who played
a part in the scene. And since the communications in this
circle did not tend to satisfy the desire for historical know
ledge, but to edification, more especially to the strengthening
of faith in the Messiahship of Jesus, they did not relate to
that which belonged to his natural human development, and
therefore to the history of the infancy and youth of Jesus,
but exclusively to His public life and Messianic activity.
It has been said that if the source likewise contained narra
tive portions, such a writing would be quite inconceivable
without a history of the passion. But apart from the fact
that this could not possibly be given without a continuous
historical narrative, such as our source neither offered nor
was intended to offer, the very circumstance that it was a
product of the oral type of narrative as developed in Jeru
salem, sufficiently explains the want. For there could be no

THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 239
object in imparting to that circle what for the most part was
universally known, and had taken place before the eyes of
all. The same thing explains the almost invariable limita
tion of the source to the Galilean ministry, for only the
invocations of woe which were indispensable as illustrating
the position of Jesus with respect to the authorities of the
nation, and the discourse on the second coming, strictly con
fined to the circle of the disciples, probably belong to the
Jerusalem activity. If the oldest Apostolic work was essen
tially the fixing in a written form, of recollections that had
been gathered in the circle of the primitive Apostles and
had already become more or less stereotyped in their mode
of presentment, these earliest records must have been prac
tically intended for purposes of instruction and edification.
Thus the primitive-gospel-hypothesis itself is the first step
to the solution of the synoptical problem only when as
sociated with a right apprehension of the tradition-hypo
thesis. § 46. The Gospel of Mare.
1. The most striking peculiarity of the second Gospel is
its descriptive character. It is not intended to give a
chronological or pragmatic history of the public life of Jesus,
but a picture of it. Hence the repeated descriptions of the
thronging of the people to Jesus, of His teaching and healing
activity, of the vain attempts of Jesus to forbid all report
of His miracles, and of His ineffectual retirement into soli
tude (i. 32, 36, 45 f. ; ii. 13; iii. 7ff., 20; iv. Iff. etc.). In
the case of a separate narrative the locality is specified and
the situation depicted as clearly as possible, fulness of con
crete details enliven the representation, Jesus' method of
healing is vividly described (comp. the healing of the deaf-
mute and of the blind man, Mark vii. 8), the separate traits
of the transaction are fully accounted for, the relations ex
plained, the emotions and gestures that accompany the acts

240 THE LITERARY CHARACTER.
with the impression produced, are described. Hence the
predilection for accounts of demon-expulsions, where the
peculiar conditions and accidents of the afflicted persons
afford the richest material for such descriptive detail (comp.
i. 26 ; v. 3 ff. ; ix. 18, 20, 26). In this Gospel we see clearly
how the ministry of Jesus, beginning in the region of the
sea of Galilee and making its centre in Capernaum, ex
tended to ever- widening circles ; and how His fame spread
in all directions and attracted ever-increasing masses. Over
against the enthusiastic populace we have the scribes and
Pharisees, whose opposition which rapidly develops into
deadly enmity brings into view a series of narratives chosen
with design (ii. 1-3, 6) ; while the account of the final
ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem places him once more in
opposition to all the hostile powers and tendencies of the
nation, to the high priests, the Pharisees and Sadducees,
with the scribes (xi. 27-xii. 40), down to the Herodian party
so frequently mentioned by Mark (iii. 6 ; xii. 13). Again we
see how a band of zealous hearers separates from among the
masses who are driven to Him solely by the need of having
their sick healed, who at His entry extol Him as the Messiah
and after the interval of a few days impetuously demand
His crucifixion (iii. 34 ; iv. 10) ; we learn His relation to His
kindred (iii. 26, 31 ff.) ; we hear of the ministering women
who remained true to Him at the cross and even to the
grave ; of the unknown one who placed at His disposal the
foal of an ass and a room for the Passover-feast; of the
youth who followed Him stealthily to Gethsemane, of Simon
of Cyrene who bore His cross, and of Joseph of Arimathea
who provided His grave. Above all we see the growth of
His relation to the disciples whom He gradually calls to be
His companions, and from whose circle He chooses out twelve
whose names are enumerated and whose constant weakness
of faith and slowness of understanding are again and again
pourtrayed (comp. No. 5, note 3), until Jesus devotes Him-

ITS LITERARY CHARACTER. 241
self entirely and exclusively to their instruction. But even
from these there is again separated the closer circle of His
confidential friends, among whom Peter is especially prom
inent. His great confession evidently forms an epoch-
making climax of the narrative.1 It is by no means correct
to say that the Gospel is only concerned with the acts of
Jesus. It is certain that no discourse, with the exception of
that on the second coming (chap, xiii.) is given solely on
account of its instructive matter. We have not a statement
of what Jesus taught in the synagogue, but a description of
the impression produced by His method of teaching (i. 21 f. ;
vi. 2). Chap. iv. explains how Jesus came to teach by
parables, illustrating this by examples which at the same
time make the meaning of His parables clear (comp.
vii. 14-23). In a series of sayings which the Evangelist
strings together in a chain, he describes His gnomologio
form of teaching (iv. 21-25; viii. 34-ix. 1; ix. 34-50; xi.
23-25). But the Gospel is particularly rich in lively dia
logue, giving us an insight into the striking way in which
Jesus could answer interpellations and repel attacks. It is
just because it presents the course of events so directly that
he prefers the dialogue-form, making use of direct discourse,
even to words of Jesus preserved in Aramaean.
In keeping with this mode of presentment we have the linguistic ex-
pression down to the smaUest detail, the predUection for the descriptive
1 In the account of the entry into Jerusalem the procuring of the
ass's foal by the disciples is described at length, the short account of
the purification of the temple is framed in by the cursing of the fig-tree
with the instruction to the disciples attached to it, and the narrative of
the Jerusalem activity concludes with the most minute instruction to
His confidential friends respecting His second coming. In the narrative
of the last supper the providing of it by the disciples and the unmasking
of Judas play a part that has no connection with what is told of Jesus
Himself ; so too does the prediction to the rash Peter on the way to the
Mount of Olives, the sleeping of the disciples in Gethsemane and the
thoughtless blow with the sword, as also the denial of Peter at the scene
of judgment. The Gospel might very properly be caUed the Disciple-gospel.
VOL. H. R

242 ITS LINGUISTIC CHARACTER.
imperfect, for the vividly realistic historical present, for emphasizing ths
commencement of an act (fafa-ro 26 times), for plastic, marked and
richly-coloured expressions, more especially for diminutives and every
form of climax (voXis 43 times, iroXXd 15 times, doubling the expression
for the same thing, particularly the negative, and the combination of
positive and negative), as also for the constantly recurring eiBis (40
times). Answering to the descriptive character we have the circum
stantial particularity of expression, the recurrence of simUar features
expressed in almost the same way, the repetition of the same or cognate
words, the noun instead of the pronoun, the abundance of pronominal
and adverbial turns of expression, the paraphrasing of the finite verb
by elvai with the participle. The language is strongly Hebraistic, as
shown particularly in the simple form of construction, the sentences
being carried on by xal and Si ; cases of participial construction are
comparatively rare, but where they do occur are sometimes awkwardly
heaped together. PecuUarities are found in the pregnant use of els, of
the narrative Sri, where the Evangelist himself shapes the diction, and a
series of Latin words (xevrvpiiav, xpdflfiaTos, ^iorvs, -irpairiipiov, KoSpdvT-rp,
o-ireKovXdrwp, qipayeXXovv) and phrases (ii. 23 ; xv. 15).
2. It is only by an entire misapprehension of this prevail
ing, clearly-stamped peculiarity of the second Gospel, that
the Owen-Griesbach hypothesis (§ 44, 1) could arrive at the
conclusion that it is an extract from the other two synoptics.
The assumption that its occasional agreement with them is
most easily explained in this way, inasmuch as the Evange
list, who avoids the longer discourses always leaves his
former subject when these begin and passes over to the other
Evangelist, is clearly untenable, since in the very points
wUere the hypothesis professes to be able to prove this pro
cedure, it is found to be a delusive appearance, while on
other occasions it can be shown not to exist.1 But in general
the entire hypothesis that the second Gospel follows the first
1 In order to avoid the sermon on the mount, we are told, Mark passes
on in ?. 21 to Luke, although in i. 22 he brings in the concluding words
of the discourse (Matt. vii. 28 f.), and therefore only leaves his former
guide after he had overpassed it. In order to avoid the sermon on the,
mount of the third Gospel, he returns in iii. 20, it is said, to the first,
although he has previously made a transposition (Ui. 7-12) which, as
weU as the expression, shows that he is influenced by the first Gospel, to
whieh ther eforo he has already returned before Luke's sermon on the

ITS LINGUISTIC CHARACTER. 243
and third alternately, is not verified ; for m a section where
Mark seems to follow the third (iv. 35-vi. 44), he suddenly
interpolates Matt. xiii. 54-58, xiv. 3-12 and leaves out the
saying in Luke v. 39, which is likewise wanting in the first ;
in another place where he seems to follow the first (vi.
45 ff.), he interpolates Luke ix. 48-50, not to speak of
smaller additions, and leaves out such portions as are also
wanting in Luke (Matt. xvi. 17 ff. ; xvii. 7,24 ff; xix. 28;
xx. 1-16). Therefore even where he follows one, he must
invariably have looked out and collated the parallel account
of the other, a proceeding which in truth the hypothesis pre
supposes throughout ; for it was thought to celebrate its
chief triumph in proving that the text of Mark is in many
passages a mixture of the two parallels. But it overlooked
the fact that the predilection for abundant, and often appa
rently twofold expression (as in i. 42) is just a peculiarity of
the second Gospel (No. 1) ; that in the passages to which it
gives prominence the expression is shown to be peculiar to
the Evangelist by entirely analogous passages in which its
interpretation fails (comp. i. 32 with xvii. 2 ; ii. 11 with ii.
9, v. 41 ; iv. 39 with vi. 51), and that the appearance of such
a mixture of texts must necessarily have arisen wherever each
compiler adopted only one of each of the above abundant
duplicate expressions. Such a mixture of texts, however, is
quite inconceivable where in the middle of a section in which
the Evangelist seems to follow one of the two Gospels exclu
sively, a single expression is suddenly borrowed from the
mount. It is no less an error to suppose that in iv. 35 he leaves the first
Gospel for the purpose of avoiding the subsequent parables, since he
previously adopts iv. 11 f., 21-25 from the third, and omits Matt. xiu.
24-30, 33, without going away from the first ; and if he leaves it in xii.
37 in order to avoid the discourse in Matt, xxui., he would not return to
it after 7 verses in order to take an equaUy long discourse from it (Mark
xiii. On the contrary in vi. 56 and ix. 40 he does in fact leave the third
Gospel after having followed it for a long time, without being impeUed to
do so by the commencement of a long discourse, and in ix. 48 f . he omits
a long discourse of the first Gospel without passing over to the third.

244 RELATION TO THE FIRST AND THIRD GOS1ELS.
other (iii. 2, 5 ; v. 2, 21), or where his text is made up of th«
words of both, promiscuously interchanged (comp. for ex
ample i. 34; ii. 24). This combining of expressions, which
appears as unnatural as objectless, is quite untenable if we
consider that nothing of those peculiarities of expression in
the first and third Gospels which are most characteristic of
the two Evangelists, has passed over into the second, but that
on the contrary it has assumed throughout a peculiar charac
ter of speech and representation (No. 1). But assuming that
the author was acquainted with the first and third Gospels,
his choice of material from them is inexplicable ;3 and more
over it is hardly conceivable how an author could make it his
aim from two copious Gospels to produce a third which is
meagre as compared with them, when in addition to two
narratives of healing he had nothing to add but a few orna
mental details ; Keim's mockery of which, though in this case
just, is only a satire on the combination-hypothesis to which
he himself still adheres. This hypothesis is in fact the
sole critical error, which has not only long prevented the
simplest solution of the synoptical problem, but has also
made it impossible to estimate the second Gospel in its pecu
liar character. So long as it is judged only by its deviations
from the first and third Gospels, it remains absolutely in
comprehensible.3 2 Even if the omission of the longer discourses be explained by the
objects of his composition, it is stiU incomprehensible how an epitomist
could replace the shorter narratives of the first Gospel by the more copious
and richly coloured representation of the third, especially as he did the
reverse in the case of Peter's caUing and the scene in the synagogue at
Nazareth ; or how, though mainly foUowing the first, he could have left
out narratives of healing such as are contained in ix. 27-31 or xU. 22 f.,
or the stories regarding Peter in xiv. 28-32, xvii. 24-27, and the end of
Judas, as also so many detaUs in the history of the passion and resurrec
tion ; or how, out of the rich contents of the third Gospel, which he
nevertheless foUows in the final touches of so many of his narratives, he
could have adopted only what was the very poorest (i. 23-28, 35-39 ;
iii. 13 ff ; vi. 12 f., 30 f. ; ix. 38 f. ; xii. 41-44).
3 Herewith faU at the same time aU the hypotheses which assign to

MARK AND THE TENDENCY-CRITICISM. 245
3. The tendency-criticism of the Tubingen school thought
it had found a new motive for working up the two larger
Gospels into our second one, in the attempt to reconcile
the antitheses in them by leaving out of the first what was
offensive to the Gentile Christians, and out of the third
what was offensive to the Jewish Christians, thus vindicating
the standpoint of complete neutrality (§ 44, 5).1 But a
dogmatic tendency of this kind can only be ascribed to the
second Gospel by complete misapprehension of its literary
character (No. 1). To impose a tendency-character on a
Gospel which so manifestly aims at description and vivid
pourtrayal and in which an artless delight in narrating
and word-painting evidently predominates, is only possible
by arbitrarily interpreting its historical representation as
allegorical, and in the most artificial way putting views into
it that are as foreign as possible to the naivete of the author.
This Gospel is not by any means a purely historical work,
but it is written with a religious object and adapted to the
needs of the Church. Its didactic aim, however, has nothing
to do with dogmatic questions or with the antitheses of the
Apostolic age.3 The fact that the only long discourse which

this Gospel an intermediate place between the first and third ; for a de
pendence on the former alone is not only precluded by its prevaUing
literary pecuUarity, but also makes the explanation of its deviations from
it, especially in the choice and arrangement of material, still more diffi
cult. These hypotheses however rest at least partially on correct observ
ations, which must therefore be taken into account.
1 In order indeed to measure this standpoint by what is left out of the
other two Gospels, it is necessary to assume what was first to be proved,
viz. the knowledge and use of them on the part of the Evangelist ; and
even within the school itself this was contested with respect to Luke by
Hilgenteld and Holsten, and by Volkmar with respect to both. But even
the above alleged mediating r61e of the Evangelist is abandoned by the
school itself, inasmuch as Hilgenfeld finds in him a mild Jewish Christ
ianity tolerant towards Paulinism ; Holsten and Volkmar on the con
trary tfie specific Pauline standpoint impressed with all sharpness.
3 It is manifest that a Gospel which avows the fulfilment of the deca
logue to be the way to the attainment of eternal life (x. 17, 19) and yet

246 MARK AND THE TENDENCY-CRITICISM.
it gives is the one respecting the second coming, shows un
answerably that its chief aim was to strengthen hope in
the second coming of Jesus ; while the fact that the instruc
tion to the disciples so emphatically put forward turns on
the thrice repeated teaching of Jesus as to the necessity that
He should suffer death (viii. 31 ; ix. 31 ; x. 33 f.), with the
explanation of which it concludes (x. 45) ; and that it is
repeatedly made prominent in the history of the passion how
in accordance with the Scripture it was necessary that every
thing should happen thus (xiv. 21, 27, 49), shows that the
Church needed above all to understand why it was necessary
for Jesus to enter into His glory through death. A work
which announces itself as a Gospel of the Son of God (i. 1),
which brings Peter's confession to the Messiahship of Jesus
to its climax (viii. 29), and finally makes even the heathen
centurion concur in this confession (xv. 39), shows without
doubt that it has no concern with disputed points of dogma,
but with the strengthening of Christian faith in the saving
mediation of Christ, which, having its foundation in His life
and work on earth cannot be shaken by the death prophesied
and explained by Him in its saving significance, and will find
its final confirmation in the second coming which He promised.
4. But although the second Gospel is thus shown to be
allows that the Sabbath was only estabUshed as a blessing to man (ii.
27), and declares the knowledge of the priority of the duty of morality
over that of worship to be a necessary condition of participation in the
kingdom of God (xii. 33 f.), cannot occupy a tendency-position in the
question of the law. A Gospel which regards the kingdom of David as
having come with the Messiah (xi. 10), which makes Jesus declare Him
seU the King of the Jews (xv. 2) and in the most naive way retains the
prerogative of Israel by twisting a saying of Christ, while at the same
time it guards against a misunderstanding of its exclusive pretension
(vn. 27) ; which first expressly introduces into the earlier words of Christ
a presupposition of the Gentile mission (xiii. 10 ; xiv. 9) and yet nowhere
makes the Apostles give the commission for it, is evidently far beyond
the dispute about the Gentile question. Utterances, however, Uke x. 18 ;
xni. 32 show that the Evangelist has not inserted later Christologicai
ideas into the Lord's words.

mark's gospel and the OLDEST SOURCE. 247
independent of the first and third, it is impossible to under
stand how it originated, without assuming the existence of
some written source. The discourse on the second coming
(chap, xiii.) is much too comprehensive to have been trans
mitted by oral tradition ; and when critically analysed be
trays a series of interpolations and additions so plainly taken
from an original form of it that one such must have lain
before the author in fixed written shape. But since these
additions themselves may again be traced to pieces of
discourses in the oldest source, the groundwork of the dis
course must also be borrowed from it (comp. § 45, 2). We
might rather assume that the fragments of Jesus' defensive
discourse (iii. 23-29), of the discourse on the sending out of
the disciples (vi. 7-11) or of the dispute regarding precedence
(x. 29-31, 42—45) rest on independent oral tradition ; but
notwithstanding the great freedom with which these are
rendered as compared with the more original tradition in the
older source, their wording shows too great a resemblance to
that of the first and third Gospels to admit of the supposi
tion that they were formed independently of them.1 It
has already been shown in § 45, 3 by a series of narrative
pieces, that it can only be conceived of as a richer and freer
embellishment of a more simple form of narrative so familiar
to our author that his adherence to it often disturbs the flow
of his own description (comp. Weiss, Marcusevangelium),
and which must therefore have lain before him in writing.

1 The same thing may, however, hold good as § 45, 2 shows, not only of
the parables of the second Gospel (Mark iv. 3-9, 26-32 ; xii. 1-9), but
also of all the elements of the connected sayings in iv. 21-25 ; vni.
34-38 ; ix. 37-50 ; xi. 23-25, as also of the words of the Baptist in i. 7f.,
of the denunciation of the scribes in xu. 38 f., and the sayings with regard
to the Sabbath in U. 24 ff., 28. The connection between the more origi
nal form of these sayings in the older source may be proved throughout ;
and the latter holds good also of the pieces iii. 31-35 ; xu. 28-34 ; but
the form is always too simUar to be put on an independent, Uterary
footing.

248 hypothesis of a primitive mark.
Obviously this does not imply that the Evangelist copied
these pieces of narrative or the sayings and parables in the
written source and must therefore have drawn from it, but
only that from his acquaintance with their written type in
the oldest source, he had become so familiar with a particular
wording of them, that it involuntarily influenced his render
ing. A duplicate saying like ix. 35 (comp. with x. 43 f.)
plainly shows that the same saying is at one time given with
a distinct remembrance of its wording and at another time
without such remembrance in an incomparably freer and
therefore more independent form. So too in the healing of
the blind man (x. 46-52) recollections of the narrative of
Matt. ix. 27-31 are mixed with independent tradition, and
the twofold repetition of the story of feeding the multitude
can only be explained by assuming that the Evangelist
regarded the independent tradition which he possessed of it
(Mark viii. 1-8), and which differed from its fixed written
form (Matt. xiv. 15-21), as a second history (comp. also the
repetition of vi. 14 f. in viii. 28). Moreover the citation with
which our Gospel begins, so foreign to its manner (i. 2 f .), the
manifest secondary form of the voice from heaven at the
baptism (i. 11) and the reference to the temptations of Jesus
in the wilderness which is scarcely intelligible except on the
presupposition of a more detailed account of them (i. 12 f.),
point to an acquaintance on his part with an earlier writing.
And since the second Evangelist undoubtedly had no know
ledge of our first and third Gospels (No. 2), this writing
can only have been the Apostolic source lying at the founda
tion of those two Gospels.2
2 From this it is clear that the true problem of Gospel-criticis-n lies
in the fact that although Mark not only proves itself independent
throughout of the first and third Gospels, but, as we shaU show, one
of their sources, yet because in aU pieces of discourses and narrative*
common to him with the above Apostolic source he shows for the
most part only more or less free recollections of this source which they
used, he has therefore a secondary text as compared with one of them

ITS UNTENABLENESS. 249
Advocates of an originality on Mark's part that was influenced by
no previous written records of any kind, endeavour, it is true, to Umit
as much as possible the points in which our second Gospel shows a
secondary text as compared with the first and third, not only where
portions of discourses are concerned, but especially in narrative-pieces ;
that such do exist, however, even Wilke (§ 44, 4) cannot deny alto
gether, for which reason he adopts the view of a series of later addi
tions to the text of our Mark. On the other hand the preconceived
opinion that the oldest source was merely a coUection of sayings (§ 45,
4), obliged Weisse to assign to the second Gospel-source a number of
pieces common to the first and third Gospels alone, which according
to the above preconception the first source could not have contained.
By a consideration of both sides Holtzmann arrived at his hypothesis of
a primitive Mark (§ 44, 7). According to him our second Gospel was not
the direct source of the first and third, but a closely connected remould
of a primitive Mark, which therefore in those points where the text of
our second Gospel appears to be secondary, is preserved in a more origi
nal form in the first and third Gospels, and moreover originally contained
a number of pieces which these alone have preserved but which are
already omitted from our second Gospel. Owing however to the strongly
marked linguistio and descriptive character of the second Gospel the
portions originaUy belonging to it but now only retained in tbe first and
third Gospels, would be immediately recognisable ; which is evidently
not the case. Hence Weizsacker, who moreover discovered secondary
portions in the second Gospel in far greater number than Holtzmann; in
his construction of the synoptical fundamental writing once more removed
the pieces attributed to it by Holtzmann and assigned them to the source
at times, and at times as compared with both, so that he seems to be
dependent on them. Henoe in opposition to the considerations which
prove the priority of Mark, others may always be adduced, according to
which the first and in many cases the third has a more original text as
compared with his ; and the attempt to dispute one series of considera
tions in the interest of the other is quite in vain. This holds good in
particular of the considerations of Zeller who endeavoured from the stock
of words in the Gospels to prove the dependence of the second on the
first (Theol. Jahrb., 1843). The truth regarding them is that out of the
reminiscences of the source so faithfully preserved in the first Gospel, an
element originally foreign to the peculiar linguistic character of the second
Gospel penetrated into it (dpr/v Xiyo> ipiv, ISoi, oval, Tore) the plural
oipavol, the substantive ipvpos), which is especially noticeable where an
expression frequent in the source is but once preserved in Mark. Com
pare 6 irarqp b iv rots oipavois (xi. 25), dvBpiaTos with the substantive
addition (xiu. 34), Bijo-avpbs (x. 21), yievva (ix. 43-47), bpoiovv (iv. 30), vol
(vU. 28) and the like.

250 ITS UNTENABLENESS.
of the discourses, to which alone they belong, but found the differenoe
between the primitive Gospel and our second one in a series of more oi
less extensive additions ; so that according to him the former was shorter
than the latter, whereas Holtzmann represented it as longer. It cer
tainly does not call forth confidence in an hypothesis said to be necessary
for the explanation of existing facts, when its chief representatives are
not agreed as to whether our second Gospel is an abridgment or an en
largement of the hypothetical primitive Mark. Considering the unique
Unguistic and descriptive character of the second Gospel, the latter view
however is manifestly quite impossible; for though Holtzmann sought in
vain to find any convincing mark by which to distinguish the hand of the
compiler from that of the primitive Mark yet owing to the pieces that
have been added to our second Gospel, Weizsacker found it necessary
to adopt the view, quite inconceivable where authorship in those
days was concerned, that the reviser imitated the peculiar form of the
work before him. It was therefore not to be wondered at, if Scholten
again returned to WUke, and reduced the distinction between the primi
tive Mark and our second Gospel to a number of unimportant additions ; •
while the later advocates of this hypothesis minimized the differences
more or less, in opposition to Holtzmann and Weizsacker. But then no
motive whatever can be shown for a departure, after aU so trifling, from
an earUer Gospel writing.4 Hence although the hypothesis of a primi
tive Mark undoubtedly makes many phenomena in the relation of our
8 The proto-Mark which Scholten and Jacobsen have extracted from
this primitive Mark or our second Gospel by purely internal criticism
(§ 44, 7, note 1) has no longer anything to do with the synoptical problem.
* If the motive of placing a purely historical source side by sido with
the source of the discourses, put forward by Holtzmann but in itseU
improbable, is proved untenable by the circumstance that the second
Gospel has retained more discursive material than according to him it
has omitted, yet the traces of a specifically Roman revision to whioh
Beyschlag points are entirely isolated, and explain only the smallest frac
tion of the deviations he admits. But whatever view we may take of
the revision of a primitive Mark said to exist in the second Gospel, the
adoption of the former makes it imperative to diminish the traces of a
secondary form of presentation and of text in the latter as much as
possible, in particular to look upon the manifestly simpler and more
sketchy form of many portions of narrative in the first (and to some
extent also in the third) Gospel as an abridgment, for which no motive
whatever can be found (hence Peine, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol., 1886, 3, now
assigns many of these shorter narrative forms to the primitive Mark), and
to explain utterances in the source of the discourses and in the primitive
Mark as independent tradition-forms, much too similar in wording not
to be traced baok to one common written basis.

ANALYSIS OF MARK'S GOSPEL. 251
parallel texts easier to explain, and seems by the assumption of two in
dependent sources to simplify the synoptical problem, it must neverthe
less be abandoned, because it cannot be reduced to a satisfactory form
and only gives rise to other greater difficulties, as even its originator
virtually admitted. Compare § 47, 3 ; § 48, 2.
5. The Gospel begins by showing how the appearing of
the Baptist was quite in keeping with the Old Testament
prophecy of the forerunner of the Messiah, and that he
referred to the Messiah who was to come after him (i. 2-8) ;
going on to tell how Jesus of Nazareth was anointed with
the Spirit at His baptism, declared to be the Messiah, and
by His temptation in the wilderness directly proved as such
(i. 9-13). x The first part (i. 14, 15) begins with His public
appearance in Galilee, whose Messianic character is at once
revealed by a condensed announcement of His kingdom and
by the calling of the first disciples (i. 14-20). It presents
a picture of the teaching and healing activity of Jesus,
which centres in His appearance in the synagogue at Caper
naum, and His first visit there to the house of Simon (i.
21-38), giving an entirely favourable impression of His
ministry. The Evangelist puts the healing of the leper
which was probably the first account of healing in the
Apostolic source (§ 45, 3) into the wandering life of Jesus
then commencing, because he believed that by it he could
show the height of enthusiasm to which His activity roused
the nation (i. 39—45). — The second part gives a counter
1 Although the description of the Baptist (i. 4-6), which fuUy exhibits
the EvangeUst's peculiar manner of representation, certainly proceeds
from the hand of the latter, which is likewise seen in the short aUusion to
the baptism and temptation of Jesus, scarcely intelligible, at least in i.
12, without an older and more copious account ; yet in i. 7 f . the Baptist's
discnurse is manifestly taken from the Apostolic source ; and since
among the Old Testament citations that are quite foreign to him and
are therefore often (as by Simons and Weiffenbach) erroneously said to
be spuriouB, i. 2 certainly proceeds from the same source (Matt. xi. 10=
Luke viU. 27), i. 3 may likewise be traced back to it with the greatest
probabiUty (comp. Matt. in. 3; Luke iii. 4).

252 ANALYSIS OF MARK'S GOSPEL.
picture of the opposition which Jesus met with from the
Scribes and Pharisees, in its beginning and rapid growth tc
deadly enmity (ii. 1-3, 6). The Evangelist intimates in the
clearest way that the narratives here combined to enhance the
opposition, partly in form and partly in essence, are not pat
together according to time but according to matter. Only
in the healing of the paralytic (ii. 1-12) do we find a nar
rative of the older source characteristically enlarged and
embellished ; while the narrative of the plucking of the ears
of corn which belongs to tradition is in ii. 25 f., 28 extended
by some maxims with regard to the Sabbath. All the rest
proceeds from his own hand. — The third part (iii. 7-vi. 6)
shows how even among the constantly gathering masses (iii.
7-12) the distinction between the susceptible and insuscept
ible became more marked. Full of significance throughout,
it receives its frame as it were from the choosing and first
sending out of the Twelve (iii. 13-19 ; vi. 7-13), who as His
constant companions and co-workers stand out pre-eminent.
The narrative in iii. 20-35 and the parable in iv. 1-34 then
show how from the great mass of the people a narrower
circle of susceptible hearers became separated, whom He
characterizes as His true relatives, and to whom He can
give not only the parables, but also their interpretation
which is withheld from the insusceptible masses of the
people.2 Insensibility however soon made its appearance
a The way in which the refutation of the calumnious accusation of
being in league with the devU (iii. 22-30), which is quite foreign to the
point of view of the section, is parenthetically inserted in the former of
the two pieces, is only intelligible on the assumption that Mark found
them in this connection in the Apostolic source ; from which, moreover,
he has taken scarcely anything except a few parables which appear to
be specially characteristic. The beautiful parable-trilogy of chap. iv.
borrows the separate allegories from the same source, the second one
perhaps in consideration of the point of view running through it in a
peculiarly abbreviated and altered form. But the most significant
thing in the Gospel in this connection, viz. the conversation respecting
the object of the parable and its interpretation (iv. 10-20), as also the

ANALYSIS OF MARK'S GOSPEL. 253
even where His healing activity was concerned, for on the
east coast He was driven out in consequence of the healing of
a demoniac ; and on the west coast when He spoke of raising
up the child He was laughed to scorn (chap. v.). From this
point of view the Evangelist has combined and embellished
two large pieces of narrative belonging to the oldest
source as shown by the fact that the narratives of crossing
the lake (iv. 35-41) and of the woman who had the issue
of blood (v. 25-34), which have nothing whatever to do
with this point of view, are adopted only because they were
inseparably bound up with them there. Moreover Jesus
finds the same insensibility to His teaching and healing
activity in His native city (vi. 1-6) ; and from the mis
sionary discourse of the source, only those words are re
tained which refer to the insensibility which the disciples
too would meet with (vi. 10 f.), apart from the words which
merely describe their setting out (vi. 8f.). — The fourth part
is the most artistic in its construction (vi. 14-viii. 26) ; it
shows Jesus at the height of His activity among the people,
but at the same time prepares us for its discontinuance. It
begins with an account of the spreading of Jesus' fame to
the king's court, on which occasion the narrative of the
Baptist's death is rehearsed (vi. 14-29). It is then grouped
round the two accounts of the feeding of the multitude,
which show Jesus surrounded by many thousands (vi.
30-44 ; viii. 1-10) ; each of which is followed by a stormy
conflict with the Pharisees (vi. 54-vii. 13; viii. 11-13), an
example of the insensibility of the disciples (vii. 14-23 ; viii.
14-21) and a narrative of healing which shows that Jesus no
longer intended to exercise His healing activity amongst the
people as such (vii. 31-57; viii. 22-26). It is manifestly
the author's intention to show how experience of the in-
introduction and conclusion (iv. 1 f ., 33 f.) belong entirely to his hand,
from which the inteUigent combination of the series of sayings (iv. 21-
25) also proceeds.

254 ANALYSIS OF MARK'S GOSPEL.
creasing malice of His opponents and of the great need His
disciples still had of instruction, moved Jesus to give up His
ministry amongst the people and to withdraw entirely into
the circle of His disciples.3 — Hence the fifth part now shows
(viii. 27-x. 45) how Jesus devotes Himself entirely to the
instruction of His disciples. It groups itself round the
triple instruction as to the necessity of His suffering which
is therefore intended as the principal subject. The first of
these, which is expressly connected with Peter's confession
(viii. 27-33), is followed by a series of sayings mostly taken
from reminiscences of the oldest source, setting forth the
necessity that His disciples too should suffer, but at the
same time pointing to the nearness of the Lord's second
coming (viii. 34-ix. 1), for which a guarantee is given to the
three intimate disciples in the transfiguration on the mount,
an event closely connected with it in time.4 The second
prediction of His sufferings (ix. 30 ff.) is followed by the
instructions to His disciples connected with the dispute
regarding precedence, in which many reminiscences from the
oldest source occur (ix. 34-50). On the other hand the
subsequent instructions respecting marriage and children

8 How predominant these points of view are, is seen in the circum
stance that the narrative of the night-crossing (vi. 45-51) is manifestly
told only on account of the insensibUity of the disciples then observed
for the first time (vi. 62), but afterwards described with ever-increasing
frequency (vn. 18; vin. 17 f., 21). So too the sole portion of the oldest
source (except the account of the first feeding of the multitude), which
is inserted in vii. 25-30, is only added in connection with the journey
into heathen landB, where the conduct of Jesus is intended as an illus
tration of His saying with regard to clean and unclean (vu. 24^31). On
the other hand the account of His entrance there (viii. 11-13) scarcely
shows any reminiscence of the paraUel description contained in the
oldest source.
4 It is clear that this narrative is taken from the oldest source, from
the fact that the healing of the lunatic, which is entirely foreign to the
point of view by which this portion is characterized, is connected with it
because it was closely joined to it in the source ; only that to both the
EvangeUst attaches his own instructions to the discinles (ix. 9-13, 28f .).

ANALYSIS OF MARK'S GOSPEL. 25£
(x. 2-16), respecting riches and compensation for the sacri
fice of them (x. 17-31) down to some very freely treated
reminiscences (x. 11, 15, 29 ff.), are quite original.6 The
third prediction of His sufferings when setting out for
Jerusalem (x. 32 ff.) is followed by a conversation with
tbe disciples, which ends with a very free reminiscence
of sayings from the oldest source and with the utterance
regarding the saving significance of His death (x. 35-45) . —
In the sixth part (x. 46-xiii. 37) the healing of the blind
man at Jericho forms an introduction to the entry into
Jerusalem (x. 46-xi. 11), to which the cursing of the fig-tree
and the purification of the temple are attached (xi. 12-26).
Jesus then appears once more in conflict with all the lead
ing powers in Jerusalem, the chief priests (xi. 27-xii. 12),
the Pharisees and the Sadducees (xii. 13-27), the scribes
(xii. 28-40) . Down to separate sayings (xi. 23 ff . ; xii.
38 f.), the parable of the vineyard (xii. Iff.) and a reminis
cence, manifestly very freely handled, of the conversation
respecting the greatest commandment (xii. 28 ff.), we owe
everything here to the hand of the Evangelist, even the
charming story of the widow's mite (xii. 40-44) ; it is only
in chap. xiii. that the description of the Jerusalem ministry
closes, with the great discourse on the second coming drawn
from the oldest source. — In the seventh part, viz. the history
of the passion (chap, xiv., xv.) all that is interwoven from
the source is the narrative of the anointing in Bethany ; the
rest belongs entirely to the Evangelist. With the scene at
6 That these instructions, which are attached to definite events, are
also given for the sake of the former, and are arranged purely in accord
ance with their matter, is already shown by the succession in which the
subjects are taken. It cannot therefore be said that x. 1 begins a new
section in the sense of the Evangelist. On the contrary the remark
that Jesus finaUy transferred the scene of His activity to Judea and
Perea, belongs only to the last visit to Capernaum, where alone Jesus
stiU remained incognito (ix. 30, 33), and therefore to the definitive cessa
tion of His GalUaean ministry ; for the author shows that there too He
devoted HimseU mainly to His disciples.

256 TRADITION OF MARK'S AUTHORSHIP.
the open grave, where the resurrection of Jesus is announced
by the mouth of an angel, and a promise given that He will
appear to the disciples and to Peter (xvi. 1-8) the Gospel
closes.6 6. Tradition ascribes the second Gospel to Mark, and con
stantly characterizes him as the disciple, companion, or
interpreter of Peter. Without doubt he is identical with
John Mark (§ 13, 4 ; 15, 1) familiar to us from the Acts of
the Apostles, and whom we find in Csesarea in company
with Paul (§ 24, 5, comp. also § 27, 3).1 We learn from

6 The present conclusion (xvi. 9-20) in which nothing is told of the
appearing in Galilee so expressly announced, but on the contrary a few
of the appearances of the Risen One known to us from the later Gospels
are briefly mentioned in an epitomized form, sharply contrasted with
the whole descriptive detaU of the Gospel, ending with a discourse
visibly connected with the conclusion of our Gospel of Matthew, as also
with a reference to the ascension and the preaching of the disciples
undoubtedly does not belong to our Gospel, with whose language it is
characteristically at variance. At the time of Eusebius and Jerome it
was stiU wanting in almost all manuscripts, and is even now absent from
our oldest and most important (Sin., Vat.). Sure traces of it are first
found in Irenaius and Hippolytus. Notwithstanding all this however it
is still defended by R. Simon and Eichhorn as also by Hug and Guerioke;
in particular by the adherents of Griesbach's hypotheses (comp. also
Hilgenfeld). Compare on the other hand Wieseler, Comment., num
loci Marc. xvi. 9-20 et Joh. xxi. genuini sint. Gott., 1839. That the
Gospel had originally a different conclusion (compare Ritschl who tried
to restore it from the conclusion of our Mark, and Volkmar who restored
it from Matthew), or remained incomplete, are entirely groundless as
sumptions. i According to Acts xii. 12 he was the son of a certain Mary with
whose house in Jerusalem Peter, who repaired thither immediately on
his release from prison, must have been closely connected ; which is
confirmed by the fact that Peter calls him his spiritual son. Since
according to Colossians iv. 10 he was an dvepfibs of Barnabas it is easy
to understand that through him he was brought into relation with Paul
(Acts xu. 25) ; a relation which after temporary estrangement (xv. 37 ff .)
must have been again restored (Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11). In the.
meantime he may very probably have been with his spiritual father in
Babylon (§ 40, 5), and may afterwards have attached himself to him
completely ; so that it was quite arbitrary to distinguish two different
Marks as done by Schleiermacher and Kienlen (Stud. u. Krit., 1832 u.

PAPIAS'S ACCOUNT OF MARK'S GOSPEL. 257
the preface of Papias of Hierapolis (ap. Euseb., H. E., 3, 39)
that the Presbyter (John, comp. § 33, 2) had already in
formed him that Mark had accurately recorded all that he
still remembered of the words and acts of Jesus, though
without arrangement; in explanation of which statement
he himself tells us that Mark was not an immediate disciple
of the Lord, but of Peter, who had not given an orderly
collection of the Lord's words but had made use of them
according to requirement in his discourses.2
These statements exactly suit our second Gospel, whioh in its vivid
detaUs obviously points to the testimony of an eye-witness, which is as
much taken up with external history as with the inner development of
the disciples, which gives a disproportionate number of stories of the
disciples and a series of statements emanating from the circle of Jesus'
three intimate disciples ; of which the entire first part centres in Jesus'
first visit to the house of Peter, of whioh Peter's confession forms the
ohmax, and which concludes with a reference to the appearance of the
Risen One to Peter. The Presbyter's remark as to the want of arrange
ment can of oourse only refer to its deviation from the order of the
discourses and acts in a writing with which he was famUiar and whose
arrangement he regarded as the original one ; and this can only have
1843) after the example of Grotius. When Irenseus speaks of bim as
the ipp-nvevriis of Peter (Adv. Hair., iv. 1, 1), he does not mean by that
an interpreter who was his medium of intercourse with Greek and Latin-
speaking people as W. Grimm (Stud. u. Krit., 1872) and Bleek stiU
maintained ; but according to Jerome (Ad Hedib. 11) a secretary who
assisted him in writing the Epistles. But compare Note 2.
2 It was formerly very generaUy overlooked, but since Bleek, Steitz
(Stud. u. Krit., 1868, 1) and Holtzmann it has been more and more
generally recognised, that Papias accurately distinguishes between the
information given by the presbyter and his explanations, in which in a
certain sense he justifies Mark in face of the blame attached to him in
the oi) pivroi rdi-ei (Siare oiSiv rjpapre MdpKos, oirras ivia ypd\j/as us direpvij-
pbvevo-ev). From the former we learn moreover that the designation
ipp-nvevr-lis as applied to Mark had not originaUy the sense attributed to
it by Jerome (Note 1), but only referred to the fact that by his written
record he had made the Church acquainted with the communications of
Peter (Mdpxos piv ipp-rjvevriis Hirpov yevbpevos Sera ipvnpbvev<rev dxpifSwi
(ypaipev) ; from the latter, that Mark was not one of the seventy disciples
(ovre ydp -iJKovae rod Kvplov, otre irapiixoXoi8r)o-ev airrif, iarepov Si in (<pir)
Uirpif), as later tradition assumed (Epiph., Heer. 51, 6).
VOL. II. S

258 TRADITION RESPECTING MARK'S GOSPEL.
been the old writing of the Apostle Matthew of which also he had told
Papias (§ 45, 4). This writing, so far as we can ascertain, had in many
respects quite a different order, especially in the discourses so frequently
taken out of their connection by the second Gospel and newly linked
together ; a fact to which Papias, who probably only knew the order
from our first Gospel, gives prominence. But when the Presbyter
praises hiB accuracy and Papias his completeness (ivbs ydp iiroi-^o-ara
rcpbvoiav, rov pijSiv Sv ijxovo-e irapaXiireiv r) ipevoao-Bal Tl iv avrois), this
again corresponds entirely to the wealth of detaU with which Mark has
in many cases enriched the sketchy narratives of the oldest source, and
to some extent corrected them (comp. ex. gr. v. 23 with Matt. ix. 18),
Hence it was obviously a blunder on the part of Schleiermacher (Stud.
u. Krit., 1832) to say that the account of Papias does not suit our Gospel.3
It is thus assumed that Papias (or the Presbyter) spoke only of un-
arranged records, of which indeed it is difficult to form an idea, and
these are said to have served at most as the foundation for a Gospel so
weU arranged as our second next to the hypothetical primitive Mark.
But since neither the Presbyter nor Papias knew the actual order of the
words and deeds of Jesus, their judgment with regard to the defective
rd£is of Mark obviously cannot be estimated by what appears to us in
the present day to be a good arrangement either chronologically or
pragmaticaUy, but only by the rdfis of the earliest Gospel with which
they were acquainted ; not however the Gospel of John as maintained by
Ewald. Whereas Baur indulged in wonderful conjectures as to the
nature of the writing mentioned by Papias ; his disciples who broke
through the limits of Griesbach's hypothesis, as for example HUgenfeld
8 His close connection with one of the eye-witnesses, more especially
with Peter, can only be mistaken when everything that agrees with the
first and third Gospels is, under tbe influence of Griesbach's hypothesis,
regarded as borrowed from them; but it iB hardly conceivable how
Weiffenbach and Beyschlag could revive Schleiermacher's view. Nor is
the fact that the first Evangelist was likewise able to adduce isolated
Petrine narratives (Matt. xvi. 17 ff.; xvii. 24 ff.; xviii. 21 f.) any argu
ment against the view that the second Gospel proceeds from the com
munications of Peter ; while tbe circumstance that Matt. xv. 15 and
Luke viii. 45 ; xxU. 8 directly name Peter instead of the unnamed dis
ciples in the second Gospel, only proves that they too trace its traditions
chiefly to Peter's recollections. Those who hold that the Petrine dis
courses of the Acts and the second Epistle of Peter are genuine, can
also appeal to the fact that special prominence is given in Acts x. 37 f .
not only to miracles of healing but also to the expulsion of devils, just
as here (comp. Mark i. 32, 39 ; iii. 11) ; and that the history of the
transfiguration appears in 2 Pet. i. 16 ff. as a guarantee of the pro
phecy of the second com ng, just as in Mark.

TRADITION RESPECTING MARK'S GOSPEL. 259
and Volkmar, recognised the fact that the aooount of Papias referred to
our second Gospel.4
Justin already characterizes our second Gospel simply as
the diropivrip,oi>evp<,aTa Tlirpov (Dial., 106, comp. § 7, 2), and
Tertullian says : " Marcus quod edidit evangelium Petri ad-
firmatur" (Adv. Marc, 4, 5). Irenaeus too states that after
the death of Peter and Paul, Mark ra vtto Tlirpov K-npvo-o-opzva
iyypdfbuis rj/uv rrapiSioKe (Adv. Hair., IV. 1, 1), in which he
entirely agrees with the oldest account, for Papias and his
Presbyter evidently assume that when writing Mark con
sulted only his memory, so that Peter was no longer living.
Hence the idea that Mark's Gospel contains references to
Peter, by no means originated in the desire to procure
Apostolic sanction for it ; for Clement of Alexandria con
fesses in the most naive way that he knows nothing of such
a work, and even Origen makes no reference to it, Eusebius
and Jerome being the first to give an account of it, of whom
the latter seems to regard the Gospel as directly dictated by
Peter.5 So too it is Eusebius (H. E., 2, 15) who first sap-
4 Those who adopt the view of a primitive Mark naturally make the
account of Papias refer to it (comp. for example Mangold), as Jacobsen
in his critical separation of the groundwork of the second Gospel.
Only isolated critics have adhered to a quite unfounded scepticism
with regard to the statements of Papias. Wendt makes those respect
ing Mark refer to a series of narratives, which, with a complete mis
apprehension of the composition of the second Gospel, he thinks he
can critically separate from it, and thus practically goes back in sub
stance to Schleiermacher. Yet in the same exaggerated way as Klos-
termann in his Gospel of Mark (comp. § 44, 6) he holds that they
contain oral accounts of Peter which had received a fixed form, but
maintains that along with other less certain traditions they were freely
worked up by Mark into a chronological coherent representation for
which they were not designed ; an idea in glaring contrast indeed with
the decisive importance he attaches to this source.
6 Speaking of the composition of the Gospel, about which the Apostle's
hearers are supposed to have interrogated him, Clement says (ap.
Eusebius, H. E., 6, 14), Sirep iiriyvovra rbv Tlirpov Tporpnrrixus p-t\re
KuXvo-ai p-lpe -irporpi<pa<r8ai. The assumption here that the Gospel was
written whUe Peter was stUl aUve, does not agree with his assertion

260 TRADITION CONFIRMED BY THE GOSPEL ITSELF.
ports Clement's attestation of Mark's Gospel having been
composed in Rome, by a false interpretation of 1 Pet. v. 13,
and combines it with the Simon legend (comp. § 39, 4) ; so
that suspicion has been attached to that account without
any reason whatever. On the contrary the explanation of
Aramsean words and Jewish customs (vii. 3f., 14, 12; xv.
6, 42) is in favour of the assumption that the Gospel was
written for Gentile-Christian readers; while the reference
to the Roman practice of divorce (x. 12), the reduction of a
coin to the Roman quadrans (xii. 42), the presumption of
a knowledge of Pilate on the part of the readers (xv. 1),
as also the numerous Latinisms of the Gospel (No. 1)
obviously point to its having been written in Rome.6 The
tradition of the second Gospel having been composed by
Mark would receive most remarkable confirmation, if the
frequently expressed conjecture were assured, that the
that the Gospels with the genealogies were written first, which, not
withstanding his appeal to the old presbyters, is manifestly an error.
It originated in an attempt to explain the absence of the genealogies
in Mark (§ 44, 1) and was perhaps originaUy connected with the mis
taking of our first Gospel for the Apostolic Matthew, and of Luke for
the source from which he drew his genealogy, which therefore may
very probably have been older than Mark. Origen adheres to the
opinion that it occupied the second place, and holds that the matter
was supplied solely by Peter (eis TLirpos btpny^o-aro airb)), which does not
necessarily imply that Peter supplied it during his lifetime (ap. Euseb.,
H. E., 6, 25). It is Eusebius himself who, in speaking of the writing
forced from Mark by the hearers of Peter, first says that Peter xvp&o-ai tV
yparf>-fiv els ivrevfyv rais ixxX-qirlais (ii. 15) and in favour of this statement
appoals quite erroneously to Clement, who according to the passage he
himself quotes, says the contrary. Jerome who (De Vir. III., 8) simply
follows Eusebius, says (Ad Hedib. 11) that the Gospel of Mark " Petro
narrante et illo scribente compositum est."
6 The opinion expressed in old manuscripts and translations, that on
this account it must originally have been written in Latin (comp. on the
other hand § 16, 7, note 1), was defended by Baronius in the interest of
the Vulcrate, but has been given up even by the Catholics since Richard
Simon, Chrysostom's transfer of the origin of the Gospel to Alex
andria, is connected with the fact that Mark was afterwards supposed
to have founded the Church in that place, manifestly on account of his
relations with Barnabas.

ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 261
youth of whom xiv. 51 f. contains a notice otherwise quite
incomprehensible, was the author of the Gospel. For since
the young man crept after Jesus and His disciples from the
house in which they kept the Passover, nothing is more
natural than to infer that this son of a Jerusalem house
was the son of that Mary whose house afterwards served
as a refuge for the disciples of Jesus (Acts xii. 12).
7. After Peter's death, when Mark began to note down his
recollections of what the Apostle had told him of the acts
and discourses of Jesus, it could not of course occur to him
to give a chronological or pragmatic history even of the
public life of Jesus ; for the communications of Peter con
sisted only of isolated details ; at most he had strung to
gether, according to the requirements of his discourses,
events that seemed to him to have a similar significance,
rehearsing utterances of Jesus on the same subject one after
another, without regard to the time or occasion when the
former took place and the latter were spoken. It was only
in the history of the passion that Mark could give a some
what connected account partly of what he himself had seen,
and partly of what he had gathered from those who wit
nessed the crucifixion. Hence he could only attempt to give
a picture of the public life of Jesus by grouping kindred
narratives in such a way as to throw light on its various
aspects, in particular on the Master's relation to the people, to
his opponents and to his disciples, on its different epochs and
the gradual progress of its development, so far as he could
form an idea of it from the fragments of tradition to which
he had access. From this naturally resulted a writing such
as is presented by our second Gospel in its literary pecu
liarity and composition, a writing which in its descriptions
as in its pictured details produces throughout a vivid im
pression that it is the narrative of an eye-witness. What he
found in the oldest Apostolic writing (No. 4) might probably
supplement his recollection here and there, regulate hie

262 ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK.
combinations, and exercise a more or less involuntary in-
fluence on the details of his description ; but could not hava
a pervading influence on his composition, which followed
entirely different aims by different means.1 The doctrinal
standpoint of the Gospel (No. 3) of itself brings us to a time
when the declining hope of the second coming was in urgent
need of reawakening on account of the apparent postpone
ment of that event ; and it became necessary to show how
even in the facts of His earthly life, apart from His glorious
return, Jesus had sufliciently attested the Messianic char
acter of His mission. We found already an indication of
this decline of hope in the Epistle to the Hebrews (§ 21, 3;
32, 2) and in the second Epistle of Peter (§ 41, 1), whioh
finally called forth the chief product of Christian prophecy
(§ 35, 1) in the Apocalypse. Between the former and the
latter writings comes in the Gospel of Mark written after the
death of Peter. Though the immediate connection between
1 It is quite in vain to appeal, in opposition to the view of an acquaint
ance with this Apostolic writing, to the fact that the oldest tradition
knows nothing of it. Apart from the question as to whether Papias or
rather his Presbyter was fully informed of aU the conditions under which
Mark's writing originated, their declarations make no claim to discuss
these conditions under every aspect, but only give prominence to what
in their eyes was of most importance and explain their peculiarity as
distinguished from the old Apostolic writing. Even on the above as
sumption the fact remains that by far the greatest part of the Gospel
has its origin in recollections of communications made by Peter ; for
even in those sections where the Gospel comes in contact with the former
Apostolic writing, what is drawn from these communications is far more
than what was known to the narrator from that Apostolic work. The
statement that an Evangelist acquainted with the rich discourse-material
of the former writing would naturally have communicated more of it, is
only a remnant of the idea that made all solution of the synoptical
question so long impossible, viz. that every Evangelist must necessarily
have noted down aU that he knew or could ascertain of the life of Jesus.
It was an entirely different aspect under which he put together a picture
of the life of Jesus from his recollections ; and therefore he had only
taken out of the substance of the discourses, apart from that on the second
coming, what he could attach to a definite situation and turn to account
in his descriptive representation of the life of Jesus.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 263
the second coming and the catastrophe in Judea is undoubt
edly already broken (xiii. 24) in it, yet we find no reference
whatever to the destruction of Jerusalem which had already
taken place, even in the case of a prophetic saying such as
is recorded in xiii. 2 ; on the contrary the form of the
saying in ii. 26 leads rather to the inference that the shew
bread was still laid out in the temple.2 We are thus referred
to the end of the 7th decade, a time when Matthew's writing
which originated in the year 67 was very probably known
already in Rome in a Greek translation.
§ 47. The Gospel of Matthew.
1. As a matter of fact the entire substance of Mark is
taken into our first Gospel even down to small unimportant
parts whose omission explains itself on the clearest grounds
(comp. No. 5). The materials of it are here however for the
most part found in the same order, without exception from
chap. xiv. onward, although this order is in many cases not
chronological, but rests on matters of fact contained in the
3 Although Bleek, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Beyschlag, Mangold and
others maintain that the second Gospel cannot have been written before
the year 70 on account of xiii. 24, where Mark however only quietly
changes the ei8is into an iv ixelvais rais ijpipais ; yet the Apocalypse
proves the contrary, for it separates the destruction of Jerusalem from
the second coming by the whole of the last times of tribulation, though
stiU written before the catastrophe (§ 35, 4). But the fact that no closer
aUusion, such as is directly made in the second or third Gospels, to the
circumstances under whieh the destruction of Jerusalem actuaUy took
place is anywhere found, is the more significant since the prophecy of xni.
2, which can hardly be connected with it, is undoubtedly first recorded
by the Evangelist. It is impossible indeed to go back with Hitzig and
Schenkel to the last of the fifties. Volkmar made a definite calculation
that it was the year 73 ; Hilgenfeld was obliged to come down to the
early time of Domitian, viz. to the first of the eighties, because he as
sumed a use of the canonical Matthew ; and Keim even came down to
the 2nd century (115-20) because Mark was in his view the youngest
of the synoptics ; whUe Baur for his part went beyond the middle of the
second century (130-70). Herewith every support for a more exact date
faUs away.

264 THE FLRST GOSPEL'S DEPENDENCE ON MARK.
composition of the Gospel, and for the most part is not re
cognised as such by our Evangelist but is taken as chrono
logical, or loses its original motive in the connection given to
it.1 Moreover in the section v.-xiii. where the Evangelist
forms the sequence independently and in so doing breaks
through that of Mark in many instances, what is manifestly
connected in substance is in some cases torn asunder (ix. 1-17
and xii. 1-14; viii. 18-34 and ix. 18-26), while the new order
rests essentially on points of view which had been fixed by
Mark. So too in chaps, v.— ix. the description of the teaching
and healing activity of Jesus only carries out in a more ex
tended way the point of view taken in the first part of Mark;
while in chaps, x.-xiii. the description of the insensibility
and hostility encountered by Jesus combines the second and
third parts of Mark (§46, 5). Even in those delineations
peculiar to himself the Evangelist is dependent on Mark
(comp. ex. gr. iv. 23-25 with Mark i. 14, 39, 28 ; iii. 7 f.). In
the mass of the narrative part, however, the account of
the first Evangelist is throughout seen to be secondary; and
conditioned in its deviations by literary motives. Localities
and persons are more exactly defined ; explanatory, amplify
ing and embellishing additions are made ; while entirely
new features are inserted in the text of Mark. Words that
1 The connection of the group of narratives in Mark ii. 1 — iii. 6, clearly
marked as a connection purely of subject, is in Matthew ix. 9, 14;
xii. 9 mamfestly taken for one of time ; simUarly Matt. xni. 1, comp.
Mark iv. 1 ; xix. 13, comp. Mark x. 13 ; xxii. 23, 34, 41, xiii. 1, comp.
Mark xu. 18, 28, 35, 38 and oftener. In the passage Matt. xii. 15 f. the
connection is explained in a way that is historicaUy inconceivable ; while
in xiv. 12 f. an obvious anachronism has even arisen from a misappre
hension of the sequence in Mark. In other passages the connection of
time in Mark is at least more strongly marked (xii. 46 ; xvni. 1 ; xix. 1)
and explained in a way that is historically untenable (iv. 12). The
evening cures (viii. 16) lose their motive in the Gospel before us, for it
is not recorded that it was on a Sabbath that Jesus healed Peter's
mother-in-law; in xiii. 34 f., xxi. 45 f. a concluding observation is
adopted from Mark, which loses its significance in our Gospel because
other parables follow.

MATERIALS OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 265
were only indicated are expressly formulated by him;
answers to questions introducing a saying of Jesus are more
exactly defined; the whole representation appears to be
smoothed and simplified. Nowhere does this revision of
his text strike us more forcibly than in the history of the
passion, which in Mark is undoubtedly original throughout.3
3 The wilderness in which the Baptist appeared, is more exactly de
fined as the wUderness of Judaea (iii. 1) ; the way in which the activity
of Jesus centres in Capernaum being explained by the statement that
He went there to settle (iv. 13, comp. ix. 1). John is immediately on
this first appearance called 6 Paimar-iis (in. 1), Simon by his surname of
Peter (iv. 18), Levi by his ApostoUc name Matthew (ix. 9), the high priest,
Caiaphas (xxvi. 3, 57) ; Herod is described by his more exact title of
Tetrarch (xiv. 1), Salome as the mother of Zebedee's children (xxvU.
56), the rich man as a youth (xix. 20), Pilate by his full name and as
rryepiiv (xxvii. 2). There is a more exact description in viii. 15 of Jesus'
manner of healing, in xU. 1 of the object of plucking the ears of corn, as
in xxvi. 58 of the following of Peter, in xiv. 24, 26 of the distress and be
haviour of the disciples, in xx. 19, xxvi. 28 of the mode of Christ's death
and the object of the shedding of His blood, in xxvi. 68, xxvii. 1 of the
subject of prophecy and of the counsel of the Sanhedrim, in xvi. 12, xvii.
13 of the meaning of the word leaven and the saying about Elias. In
xiv. 21, xv. 38 the number of those fed is exaggerated ; in xvi. 1 the
Sadducees are added to the Pharisees, in xix. 19 the commandment of
love to the decalogue, whUe in xxvn. 29 the reed as a sceptre is added to
the mocking array of Jesus. Even embellishing touches such as the
stretching out of the hand (xu. 49, xxvi. 51), the falhng down (xvii. 6)
and the solemn adjuration (xxvi. 63) are not wanting. AU this is the
more striking since Mark with his descriptive, explanatory and embel-
Ushing manner would certainly not have aUowed theBe touches to escape
him. Fully formulated words are found in iii. 2, xvi. 22, xxvi. 27, 50,
52, 54, a saying amplified from the Old Testament in xxi. 43, and ques
tions modified in accordance with their answers in xiii. 10, xvii. 19, xvin.
1, xix. 3, 27, xxiv. 3. Examples of polished description occur in parts of
discourses (xiii. 19-23, xv. 16-20, xvn. 10-12), as in narrative-pieces
(xiv. 34-36), and manifest interpolations in Mark's text (xiv. 28-31, xvn.
24-27, xxvii. 3-10, xix. 24 f., 52 f., 62-66, xxviii. 2-4). The very begin
ning of the history of the passion (xxvi. 1-4) is mamfestly a paraphrase
of Mark xiv. 1. Judas' demand for money and his payment with thirty
pieces of silver (xxvi. 15), his direct unmasking (xxvi. 25), the three acts
of prayer in Gethsemane and the three denials (xxvi. 42, 44, 72, 74), the
governor's proposal that a choice should be made between Barabbas and
Jesus (xxvii. 17, 21) are manifestly secondary touches. That the text of
the first Gospel in most of its actual narrative-parts is seen throughout

266 USE OF THE APOSTOLIC SOURCE IN MATTHEW.
The existence in the first Gospel of such revision is also
shown by the way in which so much of Mark's peculiar
phraseology has passed over into it.3
2. The first Gospel, however, likewise contains a mass
of material not found in Mark, mainly indeed discourse-
material, but much too extensive to be ascribed to oral
transmission. Hence we are naturally led to assume a use
of the Apostolic Matthew, whose main object it was to col
lect such discourse-material (§ 45). This material whose
presence here can already be demonstrated is with great
prominence inserted in the structure of various passages of
the Gospel (chaps, v.-vii. ; x.-xiii. 18; xxiii.-xxv.). More
over that it was already found by the Evangelist in a fixed
written form, is shown by the fact that we are still in a
position, with the help of Luke's re-arrangement of it in his
Gospel, to trace it back to the original form employed by
our Evangelist as the basis of his larger discourses, and to
discriminate between its original meaning and that which it
receives in the context of the Evangelist.
It is already manifest that the Evangelist had the sermon on the
mount before him in his source, from the fact that while he evidently
conceives the masses of the people to be the auditory (v. 1 ; vii. 28 f.), it
to be a Uterary revision of Mark's text, as far as the latter is original,
has however been proved by Weiss, Marcusevangelium, 1872, by a minute
exegesis of parallels.
3 The eiBis, ijp^aro and jroXXd so pecuUar to Mark (§ 45, 1) occur it is
true outside the paraUels, as also the technical terms xvpvo-o-eiv, eiay
yiXiov, irvevpara dxdBapra introduced by him into the historical narrative,
and favourite expressions like iirepurrav, ixiropeveo-Bat, i£ovala and others.
The Evangelist may nevertheless have appropriated these from him. It
is however only in the paraUels that the descriptive participles dvaords,
dvajUXixj/as, ipfiXiipas so characteristic of Mark, appear, as also the
abundant use of airb paxpbBev, the expressions elo-iropeveffdai and irapa-ro-
peieoBai, ixirX-^rreo-Bai, iwiripav, Beupeiv, SiaXoylfcaBai, frnpaiveiv, that are
comparatively frequent in Mark besides the words Siaypbs, o-ivSwv, ara-
Xvs, xoirdfeiv, piXei o-oi, arpilivvvpi, roXpdv, irepiaodis and the Latinisma
irpairibpiov, and <t>payeXXovv. For further details compare Weiss, Mat-
thausevangelium, Einleitung, § 2.

USE OF THE APOSTOLIC SOURCE IN MATTHEW. 267
is clear from v. 2 that in the source it was addressed to the paBrrral.
But if with the help of Luke's redaction we remove the interpolations of
the Evangelist (§ 45, 1), whose original connection Luke still retains, we
have a discourse which by its closeness of connection and the aUusions
to the history of the time perceptible throughout, shows itself to be the
original form of it, and such as the oldest source alone could have pre
sented. In the same way the missionary discourse, when the historically
impossible interpolation x. 17-39 is removed, resolves itself into a source-
discourse whose essential state is attested by Luke x. ; the Evangelist
having merely introduced a piece independently for reasons connected
with his composition (xi. 21-24 = Luke x. 13-15). l The way in whioh
the parable is followed by three other parables (v. 44-48) notwithstanding
the conclusion borrowed from Mark xiii. 34 f., makes it highly probable
that the Evangelist found this already in connection with what is before
adduced. (Comp. the similar case xxu. 1-14, where moreover the second
part of the parable does not by any means suit the connection there
given to it by the Evangelist), even though the two aUegories in xni. 31-
33 according to Luke xiii. 19-21 certainly do not belong to this series.
That a long discourse from the source is in xviu. 6-35 attached to a piece
taken from Mark, is shown by the fragments of it that are preserved in
Luke xvii. 1-4, as also by the circumstance that the sayings in xviu. 8 f .
already interwoven by the Evangelist in the sermon on the mount (v.
29 f .) , find their true meaning only in this connection ; and that the
parable in xviu. 12-14 (comp. Lukexv. 4-7), notwithstanding the strange
way in which it is attached, stUl makes its original meaning clearly seen
and has retained its original wording. So too the wording of the invo
cation of woe in chap. xxhi. may be completely restored by a com
parison with Luke xi., after separating from it the passage v. 8-12 which
is undoubtedly extraneous ; while the expansions of the discourse on the
second coming are shown from Luke to be constituents of the Apostolic
source, in some instances directly (comp. Luke xvn. 26-37 ; xii 39-46 ;
xix. 11-27), in others, as the parable of the ten virgins, by their un
doubted reminiscences (xn. 35 f. ; xni. 25 ff.) ; for in the source they had
originaUy no reference, or at least no direct reference to the second
coming. The conclusion is proved by the contrast between the form
1 The construction of xi. 24 also shows in the clearest way that x. 15
was the original place of this section ; while xi. 25-30 was also according
to Luke x. 21 f. connected in the source with the sending out of the
disciples. Between them stands the discourse after the Baptist's mes
sage (xi. 2-9) which is undoubtedly drawn from the source. The sayings
of the oldest source respecting the Sabbath are in xii. 2-8 interpolated '
in a narrative of Mark, with which from their substance they are hardly
in keeping. The two anti-Pharisaic discourses in xn. 22-45 are stiU
retained in Luke xi. in the same grouping.

268 USE OF THE APOSTOLIC SOURCE TN MATTHEW.
retained in xxv. 34-46 and the introduction in v. 31 ff., modified by th»
EvangeUst, to have been borrowed from a written source.3
Wo have, however, obvious proof of this discourse-material
having been drawn from a written source, in the duplicate
sayings, at one time given by the Evangelist in Mark's con
nection and with adherence to his form, at another time in
quite a different connection and in a modified acceptation;
a circumstance which can only be explained on the assump
tion that the Evangelist looked on the sayings that lay be
fore him in different written forms, as distinct utterances.3
And since the centurion of Capernaum (viii. 5-13) certainly
3 To these may be added the Baptist's discourses and the account of
the three different temptations in the introduction (ni. 7-12, iv. 3-11),
which are certainly in Mark's context interpolated, from another source.
But since Mark not only freely appUes a number of separate sayings
from portions undoubtedly borrowed by our Evangelist from the ApostoUc
source, or weaves them into his own series of sayings, but also retains
fragments of larger discourses (§ 45, 2 ; 46, 4), therefore such discourse-
material as is preserved in Mark, not only in its fuU extent but even in
many cases in an enlarged shape, must be regarded as borrowed from
this source, but as pointing by the more original form in which it is
retained in our Gospel to a knowledge that it was recorded in an older
source. To this category belongs in the first place the original discourse
on the second coming itself (chap, xxiv.) the conversations with respect
to true relations (xn. 46-50) and regarding the greatest commandment
(xxii. 35-40), as also the sayings respecting compensation in xix. 22 f.,
whose introduction in vers. 28 and conclusion in the parable in xx. 1-16
are respectively attested by Luke xxii. 30 and xiii. 30 as belonging to
the source.
8 Thus the saying with regard to offences (v. 29 f .) is repeated in xviu.
18 in a form modified in accordance with Mark, the saying with regard
to divorce (v. 32) being repeated in xix., the saying respecting the bear
ing of the cross and losing one's Ufe (x. 38) in xvi. 24, the saying with
regard to the reception of disciples (x. 40) in xviii. 5, the saying with
regard to the sign of the prophet- Jonah (xii. 39) in xvi. 4, the saying
with regard to miracle-working faith (xvii. 20) in xxi. 21 ; and conversely
xui. 12 which follows Mark is repeated in xxv. 29 according to the
ApostoUc source ; xix. 30 in xx. 16 ; xx. 26 in xxiii. 11 ; even xxiv. 23 in
xxiv. 26; xxiv. 42 in xxv. 13. But the most striking repetition of this
kind is the series of sayings in x. 17-22, which, evidently because put by
Mark into the discourse on the second coming, again recur in it (xxiv
9-14).

USE OF THE APOSTOLIC SOURCE IN MATTHEW. 269
belongs to this source, with its interpolation borrowed from
a discourse there contained (Luke xiii. 28 ; comp. the healing
of the demoniac in ix. 32 ff. = Luke xi. 14 f., which formed
the introduction to the defensive discourse), it is natural to
suppose that those narrative-portions which exhibit a shorter
or more original text as compared with Mark's account, also
proceed from it. All attempts to regard these narratives, in
themselves so harmonious and in spite of their brevity so
clear and free from discrepancies, as abridgments of the
richly-coloured detailed narratives of Mark, are abortive
owing to the fact that the sole actual abbreviation of an
account in Mark clearly shows how easily inconsistencies
and inequalities of statement thus arise, apart from the
circumstance that no valid motive for such abbreviations
can be adduced.4 Here too we have an instance where a
narrative manifestly drawn from the written source (ix. 27
-31) again recurs in a form that essentially agrees with
Mark (xx. 29-34) ; moreover the Evangelist would hardly
have adopted the double feeding unless he had recognised
the narrative of his older source in the first account.
* In the abbreviation of the story of Herodias (Mark vi. 21-29) in
Matt. xiv. 6-12, not only is 6 f3a<riXeis retained in ver. 9, though pre
viously corrected, but guests appear, without allusion having been made
to a feast (comp. also the unexplained iv piatf), whUe Xv-ir-ijBels mani
festly contradicts the statement of the same Gospel in ver. 5. By con
necting this chronologically with what follows in Mark, not only has a
gross anachronism arisen (comp. No. 1, note 1), but also an account of
the return to the east coast which is unexplained either by historical or
local relations (xiv. 12 f .). Moreover the story of the Canaanite woman,
of which Mark's text is most undoubtedly a secondary one, shows that
his text may on occasion be the shorter one ; and here the original nar-
native may still be clearly distinguished from the evangelist's framing,
which certainly bears indications of being taken from Mark and is
secondary as compared with him (xv. 21, 29). The narrative of the lake-
crossing is assignable to the source of the discourses by the saying in
viii. 19-22, only intelligible in this connection and manifestly put by
Luke into a false one (ix. 57-60), as the healing of the lunatic is by th«
utterance in xvii. 20, only possible here (comp. Luke xvii 6 ; Mark xi
23). Compare also §§ 45, 3 ; 46, 4.

270 THE NARRATIVE-PIECES OF MATTHEW.
3. It is obvious that the Evangelist regards the Apo
stolic source as his main fountain. Only in this way can
it be explained why he should frequently have gone back
to the text of the oldest source, even where it can be shown
that Mark's text was before him (comp. ex. gr. xiii. 24-30),
and should thus, notwithstanding his dependence on the
latter in these passages, have retained the original in op
position to him. But even where we are able to check
what is drawn exclusively from the Apostolic source by com
paring it with the revision in the third Gospel, it constantly
appears how much more faithfully as compared with Luke
he has reproduced the text of it; just as he has worked up
Mark's text much more freely than that of the source.1 It
is only in this way that we can explain the going back from
Mark's richly coloured detailed narratives to their sketchy
form in the Apostolic source. This however by no means
implies that with nice critical perception he gave the pre
ference to the primary Apostolic source rather than to the
secondary source of the Apostolic disciple. But there are
only a few narratives in which the Evangelist has gone
back entirely to the oldest text, for example that of the
leper, of the palsied man, of the raising of the dead, and of
the Canaanite woman ; generally speaking he has adopted
more or less traits from the representation of Mark, such
as appeared to him indispensable or conducive to a right
understanding of the narrative ; for a critical comparison of
the text proves that in such cases the original is preserved
in Mark.2 This is still more plainly seen in the parts of
1 Only in this way is it possible for the more original sense to appear
even where the connection and to some extent the form of the dis
course-material have been altered by distortion or fresh combination as
in v. 25 f., 29 f. ; xii. 5ff. and in particular xiii. 16 ff. (comp. with Luke
x. 23 f.) or in the parables in xvni. 12-14 ; xxi. 33-43.
2 Compare the forty days in the history of the temptation in iv. 2, tha
stilling of the storm in viii. 26, the more exact statement of place in vni.
28, the motive assigned for touching the garment in ix. 21, the looking

TREATMENT OF THE TWO SOURCES IN MATTHEW. 271
discourses which were open to the Evangelist in both sources.
Truly it may be doubted whether in a section like xx. 24-28
the Evangelist perceived that the piece of discourse which he
copied from Mark was a free rendering of a portion of the
Apostolic source (Luke xxii. 24-27; comp. Matt, xxiii. 11).
But it is likewise clearly seen, especially in the parables,
that the Evangelist did not limit himself to the adoption of
Mark's embellishing touches, as in the parable of the workers
in the vineyard (comp. xxi. 33 and the entirely allegorical
conclusion in xxi. 38-41) and in the parable of the grain of
mustard seed (xiii. 31 f.), where we have strange mixture
of narrative and description and a confusion of the mustard
tree and the mustard plant. In some cases he has directly
preferred the more richly coloured form of Mark to that of
the source, because it seemed to him to be more lucid and
significant (xii. 29; xiii. 3-9). So too in the missionary
discourse (9 f. ; xi. 14), in the defensive discourse (xii. 25 f.,
31), and more especially in the discourse on the second com
ing, the Evangelist has adopted not only the larger inter
polations of Mark (xxiv. 9-14, 23 ff.), but also a series of
distinct traits (xxiv. 4, 6, 36) ? Whereas in the conversation
up at the blessing of the bread in xiv. 19, a series of details in the history
of the transfiguration xvn. 1, 2, 4, 8, the expulsion of the devU in the
history of the lunatic who was not originally supposed to be possessed
in xvn. 18, the introduction to the healing ofthe blind men in xx. 29, and
the concluding saying of Jesus in the story of the anointing in xxvi. 13.
In the same way the history of the baptism contained in the Apostolic
source has become involved in the strange obscurity which now belongs
to it by the intermixture of iii. 16 a from Mark, the use of which is
shown by the introduction in ver. 13.
8 Only in this way can we explain the fact that in xviii. 6-9 he not
only distorts the words of Luke xvU. 1 on account of his adherence to
Mark, but afterwards modifies the sayings with regard to the avoiding of
offences in accordance with Mark, although he had them here before
him in the more original form into which he had already brought them
in v. 29 ; and that although xix. 28 ; xx. 1-16 show that he fully per
ceived the portion of the Apostolic source lying at the foundation of
Mark x. 29 ff., he not only adopts an essential feature from Mark in ver.
29, but also in ver. 30, although the original form foUows immediately in

272 THE COMPOSITION OF MATTHEW.
respecting the greatest commandment (xxii. 24-40) he sim
ply went back to the account of the earlier source, a mixture
of texts has arisen in the paragraph respecting the true
relatives of Jesus (xii. 46-50), which considerably enhances
the difficulty of arriving at a judgment as to the original
form. The acceptation familiar to the Evang elist may have
influenced even the shape given to different maxims which
Mark has put into entirely different places.* From this
xx. 16. Conversely in the account of Peter's confession (xvi 13-20)
which substantially agrees with that of Mark, we seem to find reminis
cences from the parallel account in the oldest source, from which xvi.
17 ff. necessarily proceeds.
4 It is these phenomena which the advocates of the primitive-Mark-
hypothesis (§ 46, 4) have principally employed in order to tax with arti
ficiality the view that the ApostoUc source lies at the basis of many
portions of Mark, and that the first Evangelist sometimes goes back to
the mere original form of them, at another time showing himseU depen
dent on Mark's additions. It has even been declared inconceivable that
he should have preferred the secondary to the primary source. But it
is obvious that critical considerations such as were entirely foreign to
that time, are thus foisted on the Evangelist. Just as he does not hesi
tate to depart from the material borrowed from the Apostolic source,
when by new applications or touohes he can make it more lucid, more
emphatic, more vivid, or more edifying, so he does not hesitate to accept
the same modifications when he finds them in Mark. Hence it is natu
ral to assume the consciousness that a representation of events, accurate
and complete in every detail, a transmission of the (Aramasan) sayings
of Jesus authentic in every word, did not exist even in the ApostoUo
source, a consciousness that was still strong in his time and was kept
alive by the variations in oral tradition. If he prefers this, he does so in
accordance with his literary plan, but not with the principle of historical
source-criticism. That the mixing of primary and secondary traits in
his text as in that of Mark (§ 46, 4, note 2) presents a problem to criti
cism which cannot be solved by a simple formula, even the primitive-
Mark-hypothesis cannot deny ; notwithstanding its attempts to minimize
the problem, at one time by denying the manifestly secondary character
of narrative portions of Mark, and again by conceiving of discourses as in
dependent, their Uterary affinity being just as great as the dependence on
the second Gospel is apparent. This hypothesis itself has been obliged
to assume that the first Evangelist, in sections where he visibly follows
the oldest source, suddenly interweaves isolated sayings from Mark (not
to speak of the primitive Mark), or vice versa, and even that he inter
mixes tbe two texts (§ 45, 2, note 2). Compare also § 48, 2.

MATERIALS PECULIAR TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 273
treatment of his two sources the fundamental idea of the
Evangelist's work is most clearly shown. It was not his aim
to enlarge Mark's Gospel by adopting fresh material from
another source, however naturally such an idea might be
supported by a superficial glance at the way in which such
materia] is distributed in his Gospel, but to expand the old
Apostolic source, whose form no longer met the needs of the
time, into a history of the life of Jesus wliich would corre
spond to these. The means for this were supplied by the
historical framework of Mark's Gospel, which he only modi
fied in an immaterial way in the two first parts. But in
order to bring into it the rich material of his main source,
although it offered no direct point of attachment for much of
this, and inasmuch as he did not by his modifications create
snch points of attachment, he was obliged to combine the
scattered groups of sayings and parables in the oldest source
into larger discourses.6 That he did not succeed in turning
the whole material of the source to account in this way, is
shown by Luke's Gospel ; but there is no doubt that he has
preserved it most fully and faithfully, and so far his work
has justly been regarded as the old Gospel of Matthew
although an enlarged edition of it.
4. It is certain that even Mark's Gospel did not suffice for
shaping the old Apostolic Gospel into a formal life-history of
Jesus ; for this purpose it was necessary above all to have a
history of the birth and childhood, and to conclude with the
appearances of the Risen One. But there is no reason what
ever for supposing that in chaps, i., ii. or xxviii. the Evan
gelist employed other sources besides ; the genealogy which
is planned entirely with reference to his didactic points of
• It was only the discourse conneoted with the dispute as to precedence
that he found it necessary to resolve into its elements, of which he could
avail himself where Mark's source offered points of attachment, for Mark's
Gospel seemed to present an analogous discourse, to whioh however Mat
thew attached the one on offences.
VOL. It. T

274 the evangelist's peculiarities.
view, is certainly not taken from such. What he here nar.
rates is as unmistakeably drawn from oral tradition, as all
the material with which he has enriched the narrative of
Mark.1 To the Evangelist belong undoubtedly the interpre
tations of the parables of the tares and the draught of fishes
(xiii. 36-43, 49 f.), as also the reflections running through
his narrative as to the fulfilment of prophecy in the history
of Jesus. Throughout these pieces first added by the Evan
gelist there runs a peculiar phraseology, distinguishable
from that of his sources and only appearing in his revision
of them, which clearly betrays the hand of the Evangelist.8
1 To this category belong the stories about Peter in chaps, xiv., xvii. and
the end of Judas, the dream of PUate's wife and the washing of his hands,
the miraculous signs at the death of Jesus and the narrative of the watch
at the grave (chap. xxvU.). Moreover many utterances of Jesus, whose
connection in the Apostolio source can no longer be shown, may come
from oral tradition, as for example the three beatitudes (v. 7 ff.), the
figure of the city on the hill, of the dogs and swine, of the doves and
serpents, of the plants not planted by God (v. 14 ; vii. 6 ; x. 16 ; xv. 13) ;
the sayings respecting readiness to be reconciled, the angels of children,
the eunuchs of the kingdom of heaven, the praise of infants (v. 23 f. ;
xviii. 10 ; xix. 10 ff . ; xxi. 14 ff.) ; the word spoken when Peter struck the
blow with his sword (xxvi. 52 f.) and the farewell-words of Jesus (xxviii.
19 f.). What Holtzmann and again Mangold have conjectured as to
Jewish-Christian sources peculiar to the first Gospel, is entirely without
foundation. 2 Compare the monotonous rbre in the narrative, the absolute Xiyoiv
and diroxpiBels, the irpooipxeo-Bat (irpoo-eXdiiv) and dvaxoipetv, fiyyeXos Kvplov,
il ay la irbXis, the plural oi 6xX°i (iroXXol), Kar' bvap, pixpi (^us) rijs o-ripepov,
iv ixelvip t£ xalPVi iroieiv &s, evpfioiXiov Xapfidveiv, rl aoi (iplv) Soxei and
the standing formula in the pragmatic references. Note the intrusion
of ApostoUc doctrine in the technical terms irapovala, avvriXeia toO aluvos,
6 aiuv oSros-piXXav, b irovnpbs of the devil, 6 xbspos and ij yij of the un
godly human world, dvopla and suchlike. PecuUar to the Evangelist, in
distinction from his sources we have ol dpxiepets xal irpeo-jHirepoi r. Xaov
instead of the three-membered expression of Mark, 'lepoirbXvpa instead of
the 'lepovaaX-fip of the source (xxiii. 37), fiao-iXeia r&v oipavuv instead of
r. Beov (comp. the fiao-iXela of Christ, xiii. 41 ; xvi. 28; xx. 21, the viol r-
flao-iXelas, the eiayyiXiov r. paa.), 6 Bebs b £wv, 6 irarrip oipdvios (instead of
iv t. oipavoTs), dirb instead of ix. For further details compare Weiss,
Matthdusevangelium, Einleitung, § 4, where it is likewise shown that the
Evangelist employs numerous expressions differently from the ApostoUa

THE EVANGELIST'S PECULIARITIES. 275
His use of written sources is also shown by the fact that
sayings which he has already freely quoted from memory are
again brought forward in the connection in which he fonnd
them in one of his sources (comp. ix. 13 with xii. 7 ; xvi. 19
with xviii. 18, and similarly compare x. 15 with xi. 24), or
conversely (comp. iii. 7 with xxiii. 33, iii. 14 with vii. 19;
v. 34 with xxiii. 22.) This too is the only explanation of the
circumstance that the casting out of the devil (ix. 32 ff.)
drawn from the oldest source, practically recurs in xii. 22 ff.,
where the Evangelist gives the discourse to which it is there
attached. But the hand of the reviser appears in a remark
able way in the Old Testament citations. For example,
whereas citations from the Old Testament were in the Greek
translation of the Apostolic source as well as in Mark uni
versally given in accordance with the LXX., the Evangelist
appears as a Jew learned in the Scriptures and familiar with
the primitive text of the Old Testament. For while he gives
an independent translation of the passage ii. 6, he has a num
ber of citations which he could not possibly have got through
the medium of the LXX., and which therefore show that he
was at home in the primitive text (ii. 15, 23 ; viii. 17 ; xii.
18-21 ; xxvii. 9 ff.) ; a circumstance that does not prevent
his adhering occasionally more or less closely to the Greek
translation with which he was equally familiar (i. 23 ; ii
18 ; iv. 15 f . ; xviii. 21 ; xxi. 5), when its expression suited
his purpose. In xiii. 14 f ., 35 ; xxi. 16 he even arrived at
his citations through it.
This phenomenon has already been observed by Bleek, de Wette,
Ewald and others, but has erroneously been reduced to the precise state
ment that all context-citations foUow the LXX., and all citations occur
ring in the pragmatic reflections of the author the primitive text ; since
even in the context-citations there is much that proceeds from the hand
of the EvangeUst (ex. gr. xni. 14 f. ; xxi. 6 and the modifications of his
source in accordance with the primitive text xxii. 24, 37) for he too knows

source and from Mark. But the fact that none of these expressions re-
ours in Mark, clearly shows his independence of our Matthew.

276 ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
and employs the LXX. Hence this view has justly been disputed by
Delitzsch, Ebrard and others. The modifications put forth by Ritschl
and Holtzmann rest more especially on the passage Matt. xi. 10, an ex
ceptional case, where an undoubtedly original citation in the discourses
of Jesus, deviating from the LXX., seems to follow the primitive text ;
but since the translation of the LXX. (iiripxiiperai) there destroyed the
applicability of the passage, the translator of the Aramsan source was
forced to give an independent rendering of it. The same thing occurs
in Matt. xxvi. 31 where the Evangelist simply foUows Mark (xiv. 27), who
here indeed does not employ the primitive text and naturally could not
give the prophecy quoted by Jesus in Aramaean, in the form of the LXX.
which was not suitable to the case, but only in a more original form
better adapted to the purpose. The entire difference of the mode of
citation was erroneously disputed by Credner (Beitrage, Bd. 2, 1838) who
made the Evangelist quote from a text of the LXX. altered in the
Messianio passages in accordance with the primitive text or an old
Targum, and by Anger (Ratio qua loci Vet. Ti. in Evang. Matth. laudantur,
Lips., 1861, 62), who held that the Evangelist only departed from the
LXX. where it was less or not at all in keeping with the aim of his
citation. 5. The genealogy with which the Gospel begins has not
only the avowed object of proving that Jesus was the son of
Joseph the son of Abraham, but also that He was the son
of David, with whom according to the Divine dispensation
manifest in the history of His race the time had come for
the re-establishment of the throne of David ; and at the same
time of showing how the way in which Jesus became a son
of Joseph through. Mary, alone answered to the way in which
in this history the race was continued by women who became
ancestresses of the Messiah in a manner that was quite
extraordinary (i. 1-17). Chap. i. 18-25, however, explains
more definitely how Jesus became the legitimate heir of the
house of David by the fact that Joseph, though knowing
that Mary was divinely pregnant in accordance with pro
phecy (i. 22 f.), yet took her home, not for the purpose of
beginning conjugal life with her, but in order from the first
to acknowledge her son as his. The second chapter pro
ceeds to show how homage was paid to this new-born king
of the Jews by wise men of the heathen, while the then

ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 277
king of Israel attempted His life, so that His parents had
to fly with Him from the old capital into Egypt, and after
wards to settle down with Him in a corner of Galilee; all
which indeed had already been foreshadowed by prophecy
(ii. 5 f., 15, 17 f., 23).1 In the preliminary history (iii. 1—4,
22) the Evangelist borrows the Baptist's discourse, with
the baptism and temptation of Jesus, substantially from the
Apostolic source; and only the description of the Baptist
(iii. 4 ff.), Jesus' appearance in Galilee and the calling of
the first disciples (iv. 12, 17-22) from Mark. He him
self already makes the Baptist like Jesus announce the
nearness of the kingdom of heaven ; he makes the Baptist
direct his philippic against the two chief parties in the
nation who afterwards proved so hostile to Jesus (iii. 2, 7),
and by making Jesus settle in Capernaum shows how the
prophecy that salvation would proceed from the half -heathen
territory of Galilee was thus fulfilled (iv. 13-16). The
description of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus,
whose fame spread even to Gentile lands (iv. 23 f.), forms
the heading of the first leading part ; for in the sermon on
the mount which it contains and which is expanded into a
new legislation for the kingdom of heaven, the Evangelist
gives a picture of the teaching activity (chaps, v.-vii.),
introducing it with a description of the thronging of the
people to Christ taken from Mark iii. 7 f. and concluding
(iv. 25 ; viii. 28 f.) with a ponrtrayal of the impression
produced by the discourse, drawn from Mark i. 22. Then
follows a picture of the healing activity (chaps, viii., ix.),
1 These chapters so fuUy express the fundamental idea of the Gospel,
and so completely betray the hand of the Evangelist, that offence at
the miracles can alone have led earUer critics such as Stroth, Hess
and Ammon to pronounce them spurious. That they cannot indeed
belong to the Apostolio groundwork of the Gospel, since the author
evidently did not even know that the parents of Jesus dwelt origi-
naUy in Nazareth (ii. 22 f.), was already perceived by Eichhorn and
Bertholdt.

278 ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
most skilfully put together from the two sources.2 The
occurrence in ix. 35 of the general description in iv 23,
but without the remark respecting the universal enthusiasm
which Jesus inspired, shows clearly enough that the second
3 Just as in Mark the first picture of the public activity of Jesus
centres in his first visit to Capernaum, whither he returns after a
lengthened journey (ii. 1), so too this part groups itself round two days
in Capernaum (vUi. 1-17 ; ix. 1-34) , between which lies an excursion to
the east coast (viii. 18-34). Nothing but the fact that the leper and
the centurion's son formed the first pieces of narrative in the Apostolic
source can have induced the Evangelist to begin with them his tableau
of the healing activity of Jesus (viii. 1-13) ; though he does not fail to
characterize the second narrative as a type of the calling of the Gentiles,
by interpolating the words of ver. 11 f. Only then does Mark's
narrative of what occurred in Simon's house follow, for after JeBUs'
sermon on the Mount His appearing in the synagogue was without
significance, and therefore Mark i. 21-28, of which moreover i. 22, 28
(comp. iv. 24) had already been used, feU away. It was only the oir-
cumstance that the description of the numerous cures there given
formed the most suitable occasion, which could have induced the
Evangelist to insert the evidence that this healing of the Bick by Jesus
was already foreseen in prophecy (viii. 14-18) in this place, and not at
the close of his description of Jesus' healing activity. Since he was
no longer able to give Mark's description of the circuit made by Jesus
u. 35-45), only characterized by the healing of the leper which had been
akeady anticipated, we find in its stead the excursion to the east coast
drawn from the Apostolic source (viii. 18-34) ; which at the same time
afforded a much more significant example of the expulsion of a devU
than the healing of the possessed in Mark which occurred along with
the whole synagogue scene. The second visit to Capernaum begins
as in Mark with the healing of the palsied man, which he gives in
accordance with the older source (ix. 1-8) ; but since the Apostle's
calling was according to Mark (at least as he understands him) im
mediately connected with it in time, and since he gave a new account
of the Apostle's work, as also of the proceedings connected therewith
respecting Jesus' association with publicans and the non-fasting of His
disciples, he was obliged to give this section (ix. 9-17), otherwise quite
foreign to the point of view of this part, in accordance with Mark.
And since that which foUows in Mark contains no account of heaUng,
he puts the narrative of the raising of Jairus' daughter from the dead
(ix. 18-26), which in the oldest source probably foUows immediately
that of the centurion's son, into the second day in Capernaum ; and on
account of xi. 5 joins with it the healing of the bUnd men, taken from
the same source (ix. 27-31), and the casting out of the devil probably
connected with it there (ix. 32 ff.).

ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 279
leading part begins. The reason of the missionary-discourse
being placed at its head (chap, x.) is that the Evangelist by
interpolating the saying respecting the fate of the disciples
(x. 17-39) has made it refer to the later mission, thus
shaping it into a prediction of the insensibility and hostility
which Jesws and His cause would meet with; for which
reason also the Evangelist says nothing of a present setting
out of the disciples. And this prediction is at once fulfilled
when even the Baptist is at a loss what to make of Jesus,
as his message shows ; while in the discourse which follows
Jesus discloses the reason why the people are offended in
Him (xi. 2-19). In a portion of the missionary discourse,
and that to the returning disciples, the Evangelist then
shows how Jesus pronounced judgment on the impenitent
nation, on the self-righteous, and such of the people as
prided themselves on their wisdom (xi. 20-30). This
naturally leads him back to the place where he left Mark,
because the conflicts with the Pharisees follow there; and
he makes use of a description of Jesus' ministry among the
people for the purpose of showing by one of its features
(singularly conceived indeed) how even Jesus' conduct to
His opponents had been foreseen in Old Testament prophecy,
and moreover in a passage of Isaiah where repeated allu
sion is made to His agency among the Gentiles (xii. 1—21 ).
Adhering to Mark he then gives the entire discourse of
Jesus against his calumniators in accordance with the
source, in harmony with which he connects it with the
discourse against those who demanded a sign (xii. 22—45) ;
then returning to Mark he gives the parable discourse which
bears witness to the insensibility of the people, as also the
rejection of Jesus in Nazareth (chap, xiii.), concluding with
the part containing the narrative of the Baptist's death
(xiv. 1-12), which like the introduction points prophetically
to the fate of Jesus.3 Henceforward the Evangelist follows
8 Whereas the discourse against the calumniators is given in fuU, the

280 ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
Mark exclusively, and we can only conjecture that ha
regards the third part as continuing from xiv. 13 to xx.
16 ; for even with him xix. 1 does not form a section of
essential importance. In order to show that the benefit
accorded to the Canaanite woman should in no wise interfere
with the salvation destined for Israel, he has substituted
for the healing of a deaf-mute in Mark the description
of a comprehensive healing activity on the part of Jesus
(xv. 29-31), which at the same time forms a most suitable
transition to the second feeding (comp. xiv. 14). He has
sharpened the antithesis between Peter's confession and the
demand of a sign by the Pharisees and Sadducees (xvi. 1,
comp. iii. 7) who with their false doctrine (xvi. 12) lead
away the people from faith in Jesus ; whereupon the healing
of the blind man in Mark viii. was allowed to drop. By
adopting the promise to Peter from the source he has then
made Jesus foresee the founding of God's kingdom by Peter,
who plays the chief part even in the pieces inserted from
independent tradition (xiv. 28-31; xvii. 24-27) ; and now by
interpolating extensive discourse-material from the Apostolic
conclusion is evidently wanting in the one against those who asked for
a sign (Luke xi. 33-36), because the sayings of which it is composed are
already turned to account in the sermon on the mount. The fact that
the piece regarding true relatives (xn. 46-50) is here inserted, though
it by no means suits the point of view of this part, is only explained on
the assumption that the Evangelist read it in Mark and probably also
in the Apostolic source, after the first discourse ; and put it after the
second one only in order not to separate the two discourses, which were
so closely connected in substance. In the parable-discourse he himself
has given greater prominence to the point of view under which it comes
into consideration, by interpolating the prophecy from Isaiah in fuU
(xiii. 14 f.), and has completed Mark's parable-trilogy up to the number
of seven in accordance with the Apostolic source. The apparent omis
sion of Mark iv. 35-v. 43 ; vi. 7-13 explains itself, for he had akeady
given those narratives of healing as well as the missionary-discourse.
On the otbsr hand the introduction of the narrative of the Baptist's
death (xiv. 1 f.), so foreign to the point of view of the section, can be
explained solely by Mark vi. 14 ff., to which this narrative was attached
there only by way of appendix.

ANALYSIS OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 281
source (xviii. 1-35, where Mark ix. 37 f. is perceptibly
displaced by it, and xix. 27-xx. 16) the Evangelist has
developed the instruction of the disciples in Mark into a
continuous legislation for the kingdom of God (comp. also
xix. 11 f.). The fourth part only begins in xx. 17 with the
setting out for Jerusalem and an explanation of its object.
In the account of the entry into Jerusalem the fulfilment of
prophecy is repeatedly shown (xxi. 4 f., 16) ; the first conflict
with the hierarchs is immediately exaggerated, while in an
emphatic climax Jesus proclaims their guilt and punishment
in three parables instead of in one (xxi. 28-xxii. 14) ; then
again it is the Pharisees and Sadducees who alternately
try to tempt Jesus and who finally send a lawyer against
Him, after disposing of whom Jesus Himself takes the
initiative, and having reduced them to embarrassed silence,
concludes with the terrible philippic in chap, xxiii. Thus
the loosely-connected scenes in Mark have become one scene
of combat carried to a dramatic point, making it necessary
of course to omit the anecdote in Mark xii. 41-44, which
only disturbs the context. The part concludes with the
discourse on the second coming (chaps, xxiv., xxv.) ex
tended by a quantity of analogous material and leading up
to the final consummation of the kingdom of God (xxv. 34).
In the fifth part (chaps, xxvi., xxvii.) the history of the
passion again contains some direct and indirect allusions to
the fulfilment of prophecy (xxvi. 54 ; xxvii. 34, 43) ; above
all in the narrative of the end of Judas (xxvii. 3-10). The
people instigated by the chief priests, here make the choice
suggested by Pilate between Barabbas and Jesus still more
directly than in Mark; and when Pilate, warned even by
his wife, washes his hands in innocence, they go as far as
to call down the vengeance of God upon themselves (xxvii.
19-25). The last addition (xxvii. 65-66) prepares the way
for the concluding chapter, which goes beyond Mark's descrip
tion of the visit of the women to the open grave, not only by

282 CHARACTER OF MATTHEW'S TEACHING.
making Christ appear to the women (xxviii. 9 f.), but more
especially by the narrative of the way in which the chief
priests employed the watch at the grave (comp. xxviii. 4),
in order to paralyze the influence of the resurrection-fact by
this last monstrous deception (xxviii. 11-15)! Finally Christ
exalted to Divine glory appears on the mount of Galilee,
where He had proclaimed the fundamental laws of the
kingdom of God, for the purpose of sending His disciples
forth to all nations with the commission to make them His
disciples by baptism and to teach them to observe His com
mandments, with a promise of His abiding gracious presence
(xxviii. 16-20).*
6. The fact that the first Gospel bears a Jewish- Christian
character can never be mistaken, owing to the emphasis
with which it points out Jesus' descent from the house of
David and the fulfilment of prophecy in His life. Hereby,
however, little is said with regard to the fundamental ideas
of the Gospel.1 It is true chap. i. shows how it was divinely
4 Attempts to discover the arrangement of the first Gospel (comp.
Pelt, Theol. Mitarbeiten, 1838, 1 ; Harless, De comp. Evang. Matthtei,
Erlang., 1842 ; Delitzsch, Neue Untersuchungen iiber Entstehung und
Anlage des ersten kan. Evangeliums, Leipz., 1853, who regards it as a
counterpart of the five books of Moses ; Hofmann, Zeitschr. f. Protest, u.
Kirche, Bd. 31, 1856; Luthardt, De co-nap. Evang. Matth., Leipz., 1861),
which do not take into account the relations of its sources, must inevit
ably remain unfruitful and lead to arbitrary assumptions.
1 Even the Tubingen school could not support the view that it repre
sented an anti-Pauline Jewish-Christianity, and that the history of Jesus
received its stamp in this interest, since beside such features as could
be interpreted in a legal and particularistic, or even anti-Pauline sense
(v. 17 ff. ; xvi. 27 ; xix. 17 ff. ; xxiii. 2 f. ; xxiv. 20 f. ; vn. 6 ; x. 5 f., 23 ;
xv. 24 ; xix. 28), just as many might be placed which manifestly express
the contrary (v. 20-48 ; vu. 12 ; xv. 11-20 ; xxii. 40 ; xxvni. 20-viii
11 ff. ; xxiv. 14; xxvi. 13; xxviii. 19). Some indeed have resorted to
the view of a universalistic revision of an older Gospel- writihg which
gave clear and undisguised expression to the contrast ; and HUgenfeld's
attempt to separate this revision from the Judaistic writing at its founda
tion is not wanting in acuteness ; but it stUl remains very improbable that
the aUeged antithesis of the Apostolic age should have been mediated ;
critics bringing forward contradictory utterances and ideas which

CHARACTER OF MATTHEW'S TEACHING. 283
ordained that the son of Mary should have all the rights
of that son of David who in the fulness of time was to re
establish the throne of His fathers ; but chap. ii. in the
history of the childhood immediately shows how the
heathen come to worship the child Jesus, whereas the king
of Israel persecuted the new-born king of the Jews and
ultimately compelled Him to leave the ancient capital and
settle in a corner of Galilee. It is true the Baptist proclaims
the nearness of the kingdom; but already he is forced to
announce to the ruling parties of the nation the judgment
of the coming Messiah (iii. 2, 7 ff.). Jesus indeed comes
preaching the kingdom ; but by settling in Capernaum He
shows that salvation is to go forth to the Gentiles (iv.
15 f., 17, 24). He proclaims the inviolability of the
law ; but teaches an understanding and fulfilment of it at
variance with that of the scribes and Pharisees (chap. v.).
Immediately after His second miracle of healing He points
prophetically to the rejection of Israel and the calling of
the Gentiles (viii. 11 f.). By the choice of twelve Apostles
He nevertheless points to their being destined for Israel, and
in His missionary discourse declares in the most definite
way that their mission was originally intended for Israel
exclusively (x. 2, 5 f., 23), although He can only hold out
to them a prospect of the severest persecutions on the part
of this nation (x. 17-39). Just as the prophet of God is
in danger of being mistaken in Him, so the people are
only moved by His preaching to press violently into the
kingdom of God, mistaking the wisdom of God in the
appearing of the Baptist as in that of the Messiah ; the
cities in which He did most of His miracles remain impeni
tent, while Jesus by God's decree may not reveal His saving
counsel to the wise of the nation, but must conceal it from
are close together and unmediated. As a matter of fact our Gospel
itself offers the simplest mediation of these supposed contradic
tions.

284 CHARACTER OF MATTHEW S TEACHING.
them (chap. xi.). The Pharisees harden themselves to
deadly enmity against Him, and in calumniating Him blas
pheme the Holy Ghost ; the discourse following the demand
for a sign shows how, after apparent improvement through
the instrumentality of the Baptist, matters seem to have
gone worse with the nation than before (chap, xii.) ; and tho
parable-discourse how the judgment of obduracy foretold by
Isaiah had already come upon them (xiii. 14 f.). Tet again
the Evangelist shows how Jesus, true to His calling, did
not yet enter heathen territory but only accords a benefit
to the heathen woman while maintaining all the prerogatives
of Israel by word and deed (xv. 21-31). Just as in xv. 13 f.
he sets forth that the Pharisees by their additions to the
law lead the people to destruction, so in xvi. 12 he shows
how they along with the Sadducees seduce the people with
their false doctrine. _Jt-is-now no longer possible for Jesus
to establish the kingdom of Godsin the nation, but only
to charge Peter with gathering the Church of the Messiah,
in which the kingdom of God would h^e realized under his
guidance (xvi. 18 f.). The judgment ofNjhe returning Son
of man can now no longer be regulated by the law, but by
a right attitude towards the Messiah (xvi. 24-27). In the
last conflicts at Jerusalem it becomes more and more evi
dent that the kingdom of God must be taken from Israel
and given to the heathen (xxi. 43) ; the account concludes
with the great denunciatory discourse which indeed still
defends the true claim of the scribes and Pharisees in so far
as they only profess to be successors of Moses (xxiii. 2 f.),
but to them as the seducers of the people announces judg
ment, with the beginning of which Jehovah withdraws His
gracious presence from Jerusalem (xxiii. 23), and the temple
becomes a ruin (xxiv. 2). In the history of the passion and
resurrection special emphasis is attached to the circumstance
that the people led astray by their guides call down the
blood of Jesus upon themselves (xxvii. 20-25), and in con-

PLACE WHERE THE GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN. 285
elusion to the fact that the seducers of the people do not
hesitate to stoop to the lowest intrigue in order to stifle in
its birth a belief in the resurrection (xxviii. 13 ff.). When^
therefore in the concluding scene, Jesus, who is exalted to \
the throne of all worlds instead of to the throne of His
fathers, no longer sends His disciples to Israel but to the
Gentiles, teaching them no more to make circumcision and
the law obligatory, but baptism and the keeping of His
commands, and promises His abiding gracious presence to
the community of disciples in whom the former promise that
Jehovah would dwell among His people is fulfilled (xxviii.
19), we now know how this issue, so contrary to all the
hopes of Israel, has come about. The Gospel is not written
for the purpose of taking part in current disputed questions,
but is meant to explain how the sending of the Messiah
who was destined to be the king of Israel and called to
re-establish the Messianic kingdom in Israel, fulfilling its
law and promise, had nevertheless led to the gathering of a
Messianic Church essentially composed of Gentiles, living
solely in accordance with the commands of their exalted
Lord and yet appearing as heirs of the prerogative of Israel.
It is a question calculated to move deeply the heart of every
believer of the Jews who tries to answer it.2
7. The customary view, that the author of the Gospel
was a Palestinian, is manifestly incorrect, for Palestine is to
him only r) yr) iKuv-q (ix. 26, 31). He is undoubtedly a Jew
learned in the Scriptures, reading the Old Testament in the
original text (No. 4) ; Jerusalem is unquestionably in his
view the holy city (iv. 5 ; xxvii. 53) ; but the native soil of
Palestine has already become strange to the Jew of the
Dispersion.1 A Palestinian whose aim it was to expand the
3 Against a strange interpretation of the Gospel as intended for a
reply to official lies contained in a circular writing of the Sanhedrim
(Aberle, Tiibinger theol. Quartalschrift, 1849, 4), comp. Hilgenfeld,
(Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1864, 4.)
1 An author who makes John, baptizing in the Jordan, appear in the

286 PLACE WHERE THE GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN.
oldest Apostolic writing into a complete history of the life
of Jesus, would not in Palestine, where many eyewitnesses
of His life must still have been present, have been able to
adhere exclusively to the writing of one who was not an eye
witness, whose account he has in many instances arranged
in a way historically impossible (Nos. 1, 3) ; nor could
he have contented himself with adding nothing more
from an independent source than a small number of tra
ditional matters which to say the least bear evident traces
that they were not had at first hand (comp. also his igno
rance of the original dwelling of the parents of Jesus, ii.
22 f.). Many indeed have inferred from xix. 1, without
reason, that he wrote in the district east of Jordan ; but it
is clear that his readers like himself were Jews of the
Diaspora, from the fact that he is obliged to interpret the
names Immanuel and Golgotha for them, as also the words
of the psalm used as a prayer by Jesus on the cross (i. 23 ;
xxvii. 33, 46) .2 Above all the polemic against Gentile-
christian libertinism, which the author repeatedly brings
wUderness of Judah (iii. 1, 6), who seems to take the city on the East
coast mentioned in his source viii. 33 f. for Gadara (viu. 28), who
hardly knows that the Arimathaa taken from Mark (xxvii. 57) is the
very Rama he has mentioned before (ii. 18), who makes Pharisees and
Sadducees together come to the Baptist and to Jesus (iii. 7 ; xvi. 1) and
Jesus " depart " to GalUee or to the east coast of the lake of Gennesareth
in consequence of the intelligence of the Baptist's fate (iv. 12 ; xiv. 13 ;
comp. also xu. 15), has hardly a proximate idea of Palestinian locahties
and relations.
2 Certainly the signification of the name of Jesus common in all
places among the Jews (i. 21) was known to the readers ; it is not
necessary for him to explain to his readers, as in Mark vii. 3 f., the
purification-customs practised throughout the Diaspora, nor yet the
customs of the Passover no doubt known to every one by a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem (comp. xxvi. 17 with Mark xiv. 12 ; xxvii. 57 with xv. 42 ;
comp. also xxii. 23 with Mark xu. 18) ; but a custom such as the annual
Easter amnesty does not appear to be known to them (xxvn. 15), whUe
localities like Nazareth and Capernaum, Gethsemane and Golgotha are
adduced in a way that does not show an acquaintance with them on the
part of the readers (ii. 23 ; iv. 13 ; xxvi. 36 ; xxvii. 33).

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE GOSPEL. 287
into sayings of Jesus (vii. 22 f., xiii. 41; xxiv. 12), shows
that the Jewish-Christian readers for whom the Gospel was
intended in the first place, lived surrounded by Gentile-
Christians ; and these indications point to Asia Minor where
we have seen this libertinism make its most threatening
manifestation in the later time of the Apostolic period
(§ 35, 1; 38, 2; 41, 1). Herewith the question as to
the original language of our Gospel is likewise definit
ively settled, which language obviously can only have been
the ordinary Greek used by the author as well as by his
readers. The question as to the primitive language of our Gospel has been
ventilated from early times in the criticism of the Gospels. Since the
Church-Fathers ascribed it to the Apostle Matthew, though affirming
that he wrote in Hebrew (i.e. Aramaean), it seems as it it must in
some way be the translation of a Hebrew original (comp. Hieron., De
Vir. III., 3) ; but Erasmus and Calvin doubted this opinion. When
Catholics appealed on behalf of the authority of the Vulgate to the fact
that even our Gospel of Matthew was only a translation, Protestant
polemio rejected the view that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, on purely
dogmatic grounds, though the hypothesis was not quite without unpre
judiced advocates even in the Protestant Church. The question was
first discussed in a more scientific way between J. D. MichaeUs and G.
Marsh (Abhandlung von der Grundsprache des Evangelium Matthdi,
Halle, 1755), the former of whom was more and more decided in favour
of its Hebrew origin ; but after Eichhorn's criticism had shown how
hazardous this view was with respect to the credibility of the first
Gospel, expositors declared almost universally in favour of a Greek
original, not only Hug and Schott, but also Paulus and Fritzsche.
Guericke and Olshausen alone made the Apostle simply translate him
self. But just as de Wette had so early as 1826 thrown equal doubt on
the tradition of the Hebrew original of our Gospel and on its Apostolio
origin, so in 1832 Sieffert proved unanswerably that we cannot adhere to
the tradition of a Gospel-writing by Mark unless at the same time we
assume that the Apostle wrote in Hebrew ; but that a Greek original of
our first Gospel is not thereby exoluded if we Buppose that the Aramaean
Matthew in question was only a source. Most later critics take this
path, though many Uke Bleek and Hilgenfeld stiU reject the tradition
of an Aramaean Matthew (comp. § 45, 4, note 3), but without defend
ing the apostoUcity of the Greek like Harless, Anger and Keil, or
compromising the matter by holding our Gospel to be a translation,

288 DATE OF THE GOSPEL.
either of the Hebrew Matthew itself (comp. Thiersch and L. Schulze),
or of a Hebrew enlargement of it (comp. Meyer and Delitzsoh). The
mistakes of translation professedly found by earlier criticism having
long been recognised as pure fiction, whUe it has been adequately shown
that the going back of citations to the original text presupposes an
author versed in the Scriptures but not a Hebrew original, nothing
more can be said in favour of a translation. The explanations of
separate Aramaean words, certain plays upon words (such as vi. 16 ; xxi.
41 ; xxiv. 7), or genuine Greek constructions (such as fSarroXoyeiv and
voXvXoyia, vi.'7) might certainly have been introduced with some freedom
on the part of the translator ; but the citations which the author could
only have got from the LXX. (No. 4), the linguistic dependence on the
Greek Gospel of Mark (No. 1) and the fact that it was designed for
Greek-speaking Jews, are decisive for the Greek original of our Gospel.
The attempt to prove from the sayings of Jesus in our
Gospel that it presupposed the existence of the Jewish state
and the temple worship is vain, since this is only an argu
ment for the genuineness of such utterances. Nor does it
follow from the fact that the prophecy in xxiv. 29 is pre
served in its most original form that the Gospel was
written before the catastrophe of the year 70 (comp. also
Beyschlag, Mangold), since it was possible to hope for an
immediate ushering in of the second coming soon after this
event. On the other hand xxiv. 9 already points to a great
persecution of the Christians, xxiii. 35 probably to the
murder of Baruch at the conquest of Gamala ; xxiv. 30 to an
acquaintance with the Apocalypse ; while the allusion to the
destruction of Jerusalem inserted in xxii. 7 is quite decisive
(comp. Weizsacker). Passages such as xvi. 28; x. 23 show
however that it must have been written very soon after this
event.1 In any case the Evangelist has already given up
1 Even Hilgenfeld and Kostlin refuse to go beyond the first ten years
after the destruction of Jerusalem; whereas Volkmar, who found Luke
used in our Gospel, put it in 110; and Baur who made Matt. xxiv.
refer to events under Hadrian went still farther into the second cen
tury. The old Apostolic writing of the year 67 and Mark's Gospel of
the year 69 might have been known to the author who Uved in Asia
Minor, soon after the year 70. Earlier determinations of time rest for

THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. 289
all hope of a completion of the kingdom of God in forms
of the national theocracy and only now expects its heavenly
completion, for which reason he coins the expression r)
fiao-iXeia tS>v ovpaviov. To strengthen the faith of his fellow-
countrymen who in face of the destruction of the national
hcpes of Israel were sorely troubled and had gone astray in
their belief, and to show them how it happened that the
Messiah who came to fulfil the law and the prophets did
not in fact fulfil these hopes (comp. No. 6), this is the
historical and deeply religious tendency of our Gospel.
§ 48. The Gospel op Luke.
1. Apart from greater and smaller omissions the causes
of some of which are still quite transparent, the third
Gospel has adopted the entire substance of the second in a
still more complete way than the first; even in the rare
instances where a narrative piece of Mark is visibly re
placed by the parallel account of another source (as in the
scene in the synagogue at Nazareth or Peter's draught of
fishes), we always find features of Mark's representation
interwoven (comp. iv. 22, 24 ; v. 10 f .) ; and notwithstand
ing the apparent freedom by which the history of the
passion is frequently characterized, Mark's narrative in
variably shows through. Apart from the manifestly inten
tional precedence given to the synagogue scene at Nazareth,
which has led to the transposition of the disciples' calling
and the borrowing of both parts from another source (comp.
also the transposition of the piece viii. 19 ff., which is
equally self-explanatory, and is likewise given in accordance
with another source), the Evangelist follows Mark's se
quence still more exclusively than is done by the first
Gospel, foreign to his literary manner as is its grouping,
the most part on the identification of our first Gospel with the Apostolia
writing of Matthew, and are therefore without value.
vol. II. n

290 LUKE'S DEPENDENCE ON MARK.
which for the most part is broken up by the fresh material
he adds to it, and is moreover evidently no longer recognised
by him as such. The literary, reflective, explanatory and
expansive elaboration of Mark's text appears even more
strongly throughout the third Gospel than the first ; details
only mentioned in Mark where they have importance for
the narrative, are here anticipated in order to make the
implied course of events clear from the beginning; or con
versely, details here omitted or modified are presupposed
in the subsequent narrative as in Mark.1 So familiar is
Mark's narrative to the Evangelist, that he not unfrequently
makes use of it to embellish accounts drawn from other
sources. Thus the remonstrance in vii. 6 comes from Mark
v. 39, and the words with which Jesus raises up the young
man at Nain (vii. 14), from Mark v. 41 ; the conclusion

1 The comparison of the text in Weiss, Harcusevangelium, 1872,
furnishes proof of this throughout, and every paragraph selected affords
the most numerous examples of it. Compare in the first connected
paragraph taken from Mark, the literary elaboration in iv. 32, 36, 37,
the explanatory irbXis t. TaXCXalas in iv. 31, irxwv irvevpa Saipovlov dxaB.
in iv. 33, iv i£ovo-. xal Svvdpei in iv. 36, ovvexopivn irvp. pteydXa in iv. 38,
yevopivns r/pipas in iv. 42, and the paraphrase of xvpi£o> in iv. 43 ; the
more exactly defining pfyav airbv els rb piaov in iv. 36, dvaarbs dirb r.
away, in iv. 38, rjpibrqaav airbv. for Xey. air. in iv. 38, the threatening of
fever and the irapaxpvpa dvatsrdo-a in iv. 39, the healing mediated by the
laying on of hands in iv. 40, the reflective pnSiv pXd\j/av airbv in iv. 35,
the irdvres So-oi eixov daBevovvras in iv. 40, the xpavyd^ovra Kal X^yoira
etc. (comp. the rbv Xpierbv airbv elvai) in iv. 41, the Sn iirl rovro
direo-raXm- in iv. 43, the ipiavri peydXv in iv. 33 anticipated from Mark i.
26, and the statement in iv. 42 anticipated from Mark i. 37. Similarly
we find in v. 17 the anticipatory remark that Pharisees and doctors of
the law were present, in viii. 23 that Jesus slept, in viii. 27 that the
demoniac wore no clothing, in vni. 42 the age of the maid, in viu. 51
the presence of the parents, and in ix. 14 the number of those who were
fed and such Uke. Conversely we have in v. 19 the presupposition that
Jesus was in the house and was thronged by the multitude, taken solely
from Mark, in v. 22 Jesus in accordance with Mark guesses their
thoughts, although Luke makes them express these openly ; in viii. 13 a
feature of the parable is interpreted as in Mark, which is wanting in tbe
parable itseU because it proceeds from another source (viii. 6).

THE MATERIALS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL. 291
of the story of the anointing (vii. 50) from Mark v. 34 ; the
avb, Suo on the sending out of the seventy (x. 1) from Mark
vi. 7; Luke xv. 1 from Mark ii. 15 ; Luke xvii. 14 from Mark
i. 44; Luke xix. 28 from Mark x. 32. Hence too the influence
of Mark's peculiar phraseology may still be seen in various
ways in the third Gospel.2
2. The use of a second source in addition to Mark is also
clearly visible in the third Gospel in the way in which
sayings already adopted from Mark afterwards recur in
another connection where the author must have found
them in a fixed written form.1 The most striking instance
of such duplicates is found in the missionary discourse
taken from Mark in chap, ix., recurring in chap. x. in an
altered address. That this discourse was in Luke's source
addressed to the Twelve is unanswerably shown by the
allusion to x. 4 (xxii. 35) which appears in a speech to
the Twelve. It not unfrequently happens elsewhere, how
ever, that series of sayings or parables still clearly betray

3 The ei8is bo frequent in Mark is in Luke generally replaced by
rrapaxpripa, and is only retained in v. 13 ; the virdyeiv elsewhere avoided
occurs in xix. 30, the els rb iripav in viii. 22, tbe Nafapnvbs instead of
Nafwjocuos in iv. 34. Expressions which are comparatively frequent in
Mark only recur in isolated cases in the parallels in Luke (irepipXe\j/dpevos,
KaBeiSeiv, itfpalveiv, SaipovlfeffBai, arrapdaaeiv , aiTOKaBiardveiv , SiSax^,
irvevpa dKaBapr., alvSuv, araxis, xixXip, Svvarbs : possibly) ; while other
favourite expressions of Mark, though here and there again used inde
pendently by Luke, are borrowed from him (xpareiv, ov^vreiv, ixirXifr-
reaBai, etc.).
1 AU the separate elements of the series and sayings in viii. 6-18
( = Mark iv. 21-25) again recur in xi. 33; xn. 2; xix. 26; as also ix.
23-26 ( = Mark viii. 34-38) in xiv. 27; xvU. 33; xu. 9. Conversely
Luke xx. 46 ( = Mark xii. 38 f.) is already found in xi. 43; Luke xxi.
14 f. (a free rendering of Mark xiii. 11) in a more original form already
in xii. 11 f. But Luke also interweaves sayings independently, sayings
which he has before him in writing in a different place and connection,
and which he adopts (comp. xvii. 31 with xxi. 22 ; xviii. 14 with xiv.
11). In the same way the EvangeUst prefaces the introduction to the
discourse against those who demanded a sign (xi. 29) in xi. 16 by another
one, a reminiscence of Mark viii. 11.

292 luke's dependence on the apostolic source.
a sense at variance with the connection to which Luke has
transferred them, and therefore can only be taken from
another context already fixed in writing.3 This naturally
leads to the oldest Apostolic source, which had mainly in
view a collection of discourse-material ; and in fact the
great mass of such material which the third Gospel has
over and above Mark, is again found in the first Gospel,
and in those parts of it moreover, which he had to trace
back to the Apostolic source (§ 47, 2). Thus for example
the Baptist's discourse and the three temptations in the
wilderness, the sermon on the Mount and the Baptist's
message, the discourse against those who demanded a sign
and the invocation of woes, the discourse on the second
coming and many smaller series of sayings and parables.
Nevertheless the Evangelist cannot have taken this material
from our first Gospel, for in many cases the series of sayings
there skilfully formed into discourses are given by him
in their original unconnectedness and with a statement of
the original cause (xi. 1-13 ; xii. 13-34, 54-59 ; xiv. 25-35 ;
xvii. 22-37) or in a manifestly original connection (xi. 33 ff. ;
xiii. 24-29 ; xxii. 25-50), though sometimes also where
he himself assigns no motive whatever (xii. 51 ff. ; xiii.
18-21; xvii. 1—4), or one that is palpably false (xii. 2 f.;
3 By being joined to the saying with regard to leaven (xii. 1) the sense
of xii. 2 f. is manifestly perverted, for the continuation of the discourse
still shows clearly the original meaning. The sense which the saying
respecting blasphemy against the Holy Ghost gets by being connected
with xii. 11 f., is certainly not the original one, nor is that of xiii. 30,
in its connection with xiii. 28 f. ; while the saying in xni. 34 f. is his
torically unintelligible by its attachment to xiii. 33. The parables in
xiv. 16-24 ; xv. 4-10 ; xviii. 2-8 ; xix. 12-27 stiU clearly show a sense
at variance with their literary insertion in xiv. 15 ; xv. 1 f. ; xviii. 1 ;
xix. 11 ; even the parables in xiv. 8-14 lose their exact paraboUc mean
ing by their insertion in xiv. 7, 12, the meaning of the first of which is
clearly shown from xiv. 11. Compare also the allusion to the parable
of tbe ten virgins in xiii. 25 ff. Even the invocations of woe are trans
ferred to a Pharisaic feast where they could not possibly have been spoken,
only because they are attached to the washing of cups and platters.

LUKE'S DEPENDENCE ON THE APOSTOLIC SOURCE. 293
comp. note 2), therefore where their separation from the
beautiful connection they have in the first Gospel would be
quite unintelligible.3 Without doubt Luke has preserved
the most original form of the similes of the seed-corn and
the grain of mustard seed (viii. 4-8 ; xiii. 18 f.), to which
the first Gospel, following Mark, has given a very different
shape ; while even elsewhere he sometimes differs from it
in keeping the original text (comp. for example xi. 30).
In the discourse on the second coming the second of the
interpolations adopted from Mark in Matt. xxiv. 23 ff. is
at least wanting, while the unusually free treatment of the
flrst (Luke xxi. 12-19) seems to indicate that it did not
belong to the original form of the discourse on the second
coming known to the Evangelist. He must therefore have
taken this discourse-material not from our first Gospel
but from the source of it. He has given it a much
stronger revision almost throughout, and has therefore
preserved less of the original, in both however we fre
quently find only independent and different elaborations
of the original.4 The same relation exists between the
* Matt. iii. 7 and Luke iii. 7 are manifestly distinct attempts to
give the Baptist's discourses a definite address by literary combination.
It is certain that if the Evangelist had only known the parable of the
lost sheep in Matt, xviii. where it refers to God's solicitude for His
children, he could not have given it an application so much nearer to
the original sense, as he does in chap, xv., or even have given back in
Luke x. 23 f. ; xii. 58 f. their original sense to those sayings which
Matt. xiu. 16 f. ; v. 25 f. had diverted from it. Compare the retention
of vi. 39 in the sermon on the mount (against Matt. xv. 14), of vu. 29 f.
in the Baptist's discourse (against Matt. xxi. 31 f.), of x. 13 ff. in the
missionary discourse (against Matt. xi. 21 ff.), of xn. 32 against Matt. vi.
34. In the very rare cases where the third EvangeUst has removed
eayings from the more original connection preserved in the first Gospel
(comp. vi. 40 ; xvi. 16-18 and xii. 10 which is put out of its original
place by the transposition of xi. 24 ff.), the reason is always clearly seen
(comp. especially xiii. 34 f. and with it note 2).
4 The sermon on the mount is certainly not original either in the
form of the first or of the third Gospel ; just as in the former we have
an enlargement of it, so in the latter we have an abridgement, whioh

294 LUKE'S UNACQUAINTEDNESS WITH THE FIRST GOSPEL.
first and third Gospels where both employ our Mark. Both
have on occasion broken through the order of it, each
in a different way ; the different way in which they inter
pret a text that is liable to be misunderstood is shown by
the parallels to Mark ii. 15-18 ; the different way in which
they explain a figure, by Matt. xvi. 12 and Luke xii. 1
(comp. with Mark viii. 15) ; and the different way in which
they illustrate an obscure connection, by their revisions of
Mark ix. 33-37. Of the characteristic additions in the
first Gospel to Mark's text (e.g. iv. 13 ; ix. 9, 13 ; xii. 5 ff.,
11 ff. ; xvi. 17 ff.; xvii. 24 ff. ; xx. 1-16) Luke is as little
aware as of the dramatic point given to the last scenes
of conflict in Jerusalem (comp. Luke xx. 45-xxi. 4) and
of all its peculiarities in the history of the passion and
the resurrection. The preliminary narratives in the two-
Gospels are directly antagonistic, as also their accounts of
the appearances of the Risen One,6 while Luke has not
the slightest trace of those linguistic peculiarities which
characterize the hand of the first Evangelist (§ 47, 4,
note 2). It is thus established as one of the most indis
putable results of Gospel-criticism, that Luke's acquaintance
with and use of the Apostolic source of the first Gospel
necessitated formal remouldings. In the very introduction the three
beatitudes of the first are brought up to seven, in the third they are
Strengthened by the paraUel invocation of woes. The parables of the
talents and of the great feast are in both carried out in an allegorical
form, but in a way entirely distinct. It has been exhaustively shown
in detail by Weiss, how a comparison of the text leads to the result
that the original is preserved sometimes in the first and sometimes
in the third Gospel (Das Matthdusevangelium und seine Lucasparal-
lelen, 1876).
* One who was acquainted with Matt. U. could not possibly have
written Luke ii. 39 ; it could not have occurred to one who was ac
quainted with a genealogy of Jesus which proved that he was a de
scendant of David in the royal line, to trace back his descent to an
obscure coUateral branch (iii. 27-31) ; nor could one who knew from the
first Gospel of an appearance of Jesus in Galilee, have excluded it by
xxiv. 49.

LUKE'S UNACQUAINTEDNESS WITH THE FIRST GOSPEL. 295
is just as certain as his want of acquaintance with this
Gospel itself.
However evident this may be as a general result, it cannot be denied
that a number of separate phenomena exist which do not appear to fit
in with it (comp. Ed. Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen
Matthdus benutzt t Bonn 1880). Even in the historical portions of the
Gospel, such as aU three have in common, we find points of agreement
between the first and third Gospels, in opposition to Mark, which seem
to indicate a literary connection between them. In these phenomena
the primitive-Mark hypothesis has its most specious support (§ 46, 4),
for the simplest explanation of them seems to be that the first and third
Gospel only preserved the original text of the narrative-source which had
already undergone a revision in our Mark. But apart from the sus
picion which must attach to every separation of our Mark from the source
of the other two Gospels, the form of expression in the specified devia
tions of our second Gospel appears in many ways so much the more
difficult and so much more in keeping with the peculiarity of the
whole Gospel, that it cannot have been introduced by revision (comp.
the incomplete perd rpets rjpipas in viii. 31 ; x. 34, the Sis in xiv. 30, the
(iraio-ev in xiv. 47, the iiriftaXwv IxXaiev in xiv. 72, the ivelXncrev xal xari-
Bvxev in xv. 46). The greater number of these phenomena are better
explained by far if we assume that the Apostolic source contained a
series of narrative-pieces, to the shorter form of which Luke often
adhered with the first Gospel and even in opposition to it (comp. ex.gr.
viii. 19 ff. ; ix. 28), as also to the more original expression (comp.
Matt. ix. 20 with Luke viii. 44), with short introductions to the larger
discourses, of which traces are still preserved both in the first and third
Gospels (comp. in the introduction to the Baptist's preaching, the men
tion of ireplxwpos r. 'lopS. Matt. iii. 5 ; Luke iii. 3, the transference of
the sermon on the mount els rb 6pos Matt. v. 1 ; Luke vi. 12, 20, the
introduction to the missionary discourse Matt. x. 1 ; Luke ix. 1). Other
phenomena remain, however, especially in the history of the passion,
which can only be traced to current variations of oral tradition (comp.
the parallels to the above cited passages of Mark) or to very old text
conformations (comp. § 44, 1) or to the influence of the sources peculiar
to Luke. In again admitting an acquaintance with the first Gospel on
the part of the third, against the collected criticism that follows Weisse,
Simons, Holtzmann, Mangold and Wendt (Lehre Jesu, 1886) give up all
certain point of attachment for the discovery of this source, notwith
standing that they deny its having been extensively used, and trace back
the great mass of coincidences to a common source. The Evangelist is
accused of the neglect, quite inconceivable in face of his own declara
tion (i. 3), of a source with which he was acquainted and which had

296 COINCIDENCES OF THE FIRST AND THIRD GOSPELS.
such importance for him, or even (with Wendt) of a criticism foreign t(
his whole manner, which besides being untenable and contradictory in
itself, is often Umited to the fact that he preferred one single expression
of the first EvangeUst against Mark (or the ApostoUc source). Comp.
also § 47, 3, note 4.
3. The third Gospel contains a great mass of material
which can neither be derived from Mark nor from the
Apostolic source, but must yet have lain before the Evange
list in a fixed written form. This is seen in the glaring
contrast between the classic Greek of the prologue and
the history of the birth beginning in i. 5, so strongly
Hebraistic in language and delineation ; and also in the
way in which Luke has sometimes combined narratives of
one source with parallel accounts of others, which evi
dently do not entirely harmonize with the text before
him.1 It is most probable, however, that this material
belonged for the most part to one source which embraced
the entire life of Jesus, for excepting the preliminary
history (chaps, i. ii. with the Baptist's preaching, iii. 10-
14 and the genealogy iii. 23-38) it represents all sides
of the public life of Jesus commonly illustrated in evan
gelical tradition. It contained a calling of the disciples
(chap, v.), narratives of the intercourse of Jesus with
publicans and sinners (comp. the story of Zacchseus in chap.
xix. and the anointing by the woman who was a sinner,
in chap, vii.), the healing of the centurion's son (chap, vii),
a healing of lepers (the grateful Samaritan, chap, xvii.),
1 Thus the insertions from Mark in the history of the calling and in
the synagogue- scene at Nazareth (20, 1) clearly disturb the flow of the
narrative, in the story of the anointing the name of Simon suddenly
crops up in vu. 40 (from Mark xiv. 3), although the name of the host is
not given, while the account of the healing of the centurion's son taken
from the Apostolic source (vii. 6-9) does not quite suit the other account
before him (vu. 1-6, 10) , and the paragraph with regard to the greatest
commandment (x. 25-28) manifestly borrowed from the same source
does not quite suit the conversation connected with it respecting ths
meaning of irXrio-lov drawn from the source peculiar to him (x. 29-37).

luke's peculiar source. 297
a raising from the dead (chap, vii), a healing on the
Sabbath-day and a legal question (chaps, xiii. x.), the
woman who blessed Jesus (xi. 27 f.) and the narrative of
Mary and Martha (chap. x). Of parables it certainly con
tained the prodigal son, the rich man and poor Lazarus,
the Pharisee and the publican (chaps, xv., xvi, xviii.), and
perhaps also the parable xvii. 7-10. That it likewise in
cluded the history of the passion, is more than probable
from the fact that a series of pieces, such as the prediction
of the betrayal and of the denial, the prayer in Gethsemane
and the proceedings before the chief council in it deviate
so strongly from Mark ; the account of the crucifixion pre
senting such striking additions (comp. in particular xxiii.
4-16, 27-31, 39-43, 46), that the narrative can only be
explained by the fusion of Mark with another source.
Finally, to this source certainly belongs the story of the
disciples at Emmaus, as shown by its awkward combination
with the appearance on Easter Eve, perhaps even (in another
order) this itself.2 Of the origin and character of this
source nothing more definite can be made out than the
certainty that, in accordance with its entire mode of pre
sentment, it proceeded from Jewish-Christian circles. It
contains a remarkable series of points of contact with tra
ditions which crop up in the fourth Gospel.3
3 How many of those sayings (v. 39 ; ix. 61 f. ; xii. 49 f. ; xix. 39 f. ;
xix. 42 ff. ; xxi. 34 ff.) or details (viii. 1-3 ; ix. 51-56), especially in the
history of the crucifixion, which Luke alone has retained, belong to
this source and are taken from oral tradition cannot of course be de
monstrated. » Compare iv. 29 f. with John viu. 59; the miraculous draught of
fishes in chap. v. with John xxi. ; vii. 38 with John xii. 3. The stories
of the Samaritans in chap. ix. 17 with John iv., of Mary and Martha in
chap. x. with John xi. 12, the parable of Lazarus with John xi., in the
history of the passion the transference of the prediction of the denial to
the last supper, and the denial itself before the transaction in the chief
council ; the proposal of scourging instead of crucifixion Luke xvui. 16
(comp. John xix. 1 ff.) and the appearing on Easter Eve.

298 THE COMPOSITION OF LUKE'S GOSPEL.
4. The Evangelist in his preface expressly classes his
work with the attempts of those who have put together a
description of the Gospel history from the tradition of eye
witnesses, and declares (i. 1 ff.) that for his part, after having
carefully followed everything from the beginning, it is his
intention to write it down in the natural order of time. He
too therefore had followed as far as he could the tradition of
eye-witnesses, and since this was already fixed in writing in
the oldest source (the Apostolic Matthew), he must have
adhered mainly to it (No. 2). It being essentially, how
ever, only a collection of material, predominantly discourse-
material, he was mainly thrown back for a connected narrative
of the life of Jesus on the attempts of his predecessors
who had tried to compile such a narrative from the written
and oral tradition of eye-witnesses. Far as these must have
been from satisfying him since he made a fresh attempt,
he can have had no intention of blaming them as the
Church- Fathers supposed, since he puts his own quite on a
par with theirs. It is true he speaks of a number of such
attempts, but it is very possible that many of them were
known to him only from hearsay and that many contained
only separate portions of the life of Jesus or were simply
a compilation of a certain kind of material ; in any case an
analysis of his Gospel points with certainty only to his
having employed our Gospel of Mark and probably some
attempt of the same kind (Nos. 1, 3). It was, however, by
no means his intention to join these sources together like
mosaic, but with their help to create a new and independent
work. For this reason he has worked them over entirely,
and hence it is that in a certain degree a uniform linguistic
character runs through the whole work, discernible also in
the Acts which are written by the same hand (Acts i. 1).
Nevertheless he has by no means composed it in classic Greek,
with which, to judge from the beautiful period of the preface
(i. 1-4) he was familiar. Through his predecessors the

LUKE'S use OF SOURCES. 299
character of Old Testament history and a Hebraizing ex
pression had been made the type of Gospel-narrative ; and
unless he had entirely recast his sources or written in an
insufferably diversified style, it was necessary for him to
accommodate himself to it as far as possible.1 But in many
instances he has even worked over the substance of his
sources. He had already accumulated such a wealth of
material from them that he was obliged to think of abridg
ing. Analogous narratives in his sources, such as the two
accounts of the calling, the two synagogue-scenes in Naz
areth, and the two conversations respecting the command
ment of love, he blends harmoniously together (comp. No. 3,
note 1) ; duplicates he avoids on principle, even omitting
one of two somewhat similar narratives. This must have
been the reason why he went back in many cases from the
wealth of detail in Mark's narratives to the shorter account
of the older source (comp. No. 2) ; and even elsewhere he
has left out a number of smaller details which had lost their
meaning or their perspicuity for his readers. The same
1 Throughout the entire Gospel the praotised Greek author is seen
in the more abundant use of particles, in the predilection for com-
posita and decomposita, in the frequent use of the optative, and the
infinitive with the article, in the neuter adjective or participle with the
article, in interrogatories with the article, in the nominative with the
article instead of the vocative, in the use of the indefinite tis, in the
predUection for the genitive absolute and for attractions. The addressing
of Jesus as iiriardra is peculiar to Him, as also His designation in the
narrative as b xipios, X'V'S (jC/sifarflcu), o-oirvpla (o-ar-lip), i<pio-rdvai&nad(j>i-
crdvai (araBels, iarws), arpaipels, elo-dyeiv, iraveaBai, ebtppalveeBai, birdpxeiv,
the middle voice ldo-8ai,pera ravra, and the predilection for the expressions
6vopa, pijpa, ipwv-fi, dv-i\p, rbiros, Xabs, Ixavbs of a, great number, Kal airbs,
xaXelv (to name), piXXeiv, iropeieoBai, dvlarnpi (dvao-rds), dyeiv, SiipxecrBai,
viroariipeiv, Set, Si Kal and the like. Everywhere he effaces the expression
iMa, and BaXaaaa for the sea of GalUee, in most cases he replaces eiBit
by irapaxpTJpa,, iirdyeiv by iropeieo-Bai, dpfy frequently by dXvBSs, and the
dative after the verb of saying by irpbs with the accusative. On the
other hand he has appropriated to his own use the frequent ISoi of his
sources, circumlocutions with yevioSai, and the plastic expressions with
wpbo-ajirov, X^P, KapSla, orbpa, ffira, bipBakpol, etc.

300 LITERARY CHARACTER OF LUKE.
regard for his readers is also shown in the removal of all
matter which had lost its meaning for them because of itg
special reference to internal Jewish relations. For the same
reason all that is liable to be misunderstood is left out.3
Naturally this abridging operation did not prevent the
author adding an explanatory or embellishing touch where
it seemed necessary to an understanding of the narrative
(No. 1, comp. his predilection for the mention of Jesus
praying), nor did it interfere with his giving allegorical
features to the parables (comp. No. 2, as also 5, 36), or
strengthening the discourse with a fresh example (xi. 12;
xvii. 28 ff., 32, 34) or a new parallel (vi. 27 f., 32 ff., 37 f.
comp. also the adding of the invocation of woes to the beati
tudes, vi. 24 ff.). As in Mark's Gospel, so likewise in the
* That the Evangelist avoids duplicates on principle, is shown for
example by the omission of Mark iv. 23 f., of the second account of the
feeding and of the demand for a sign in Mark viii. ; where duplicate
sayings have remained (No. 2, note 1) he probably has not observed
it. The second lake-miracle in Mark vi. is omitted, the second
healings of the deaf-mute and the blind in Mark vU. 8, the second
account of the anointing in Mark xiv., the dispute as to precedence in
Mark x. 35 ff. on account of Luke xxii. 24, the cursing of the fig-tree in
Mark xi. 13 f . on account of Luke xiii. 6-9, and Mark xv. 16 ff. on ao-
count of Luke xxii. 62 ff., xxiii. 11. The details respecting Levi the
toll-gatherer, the blind man at Jericho, Simon the Cyrenian, the names
of Zebedees and Herodians have disappeared. For the sake of his Gen
tile-Christian readers he has omitted the whole intarpretation of the
law and the anti-Pharisaic polemic from the sermon on the mount, as
also the dispute respecting the washing of hands and divorce (Mark vU.
10). Conflict with the Pharisees could not of course be left entirely
out of a history of Jesus ; but Luke confines himseU to the disputes
concerning the Sabbath and the invocation of woes, in whioh also much
that would be unintelligible to his readers is either altered or omitted.
The sayings respecting forgiveness, Luke xvii. 3f., are abridged on
account of their reference to Jewish circumstances, the mention of pre-
Christian righteous men (Matt. x. 41 ; xiii. 17 ; xxiu. 29), the reXavat
and iBviKol (Matt. v. 46 f.) are omitted. The story of the Canaanite
woman, sayings such as Matt. x. 5 f . and the second half of the parable
of the feast (xxii. 11-14), perhaps also vii. 6 are left out as liable to be
misunderstood ; so too in another connection is Mark ix. 43-48 (comp.
also the recasting of Matt. xii. 28).

LITERARY CHARACTER OF LUKE. 301
third, the discourses of the Apostolic source suffer much
stronger revision than in the first ; interpretations ex eventu
(xxi. 24) and instructive applications are inserted with much
greater freedom (comp. No. 6). Where he finds discourses
whose occasion is not thus specified, he supplies one by
literary combination (iii. 7, 15 ; vii. 21 ; x. 1 ; xi. 16 ; xi.
37 f. ; xviii. 1, 9), often by a question or a petition (xiii.
23 ; xvii. 5), frequently explaining turns of the discourse in
that way (xi. 45; xii. 41; xvii. 37). Already the alter
ations which Luke makes in his texts rest on pragmatic
reflections, already later events are carefully anticipated
by earlier indications or attached to previous occurrences.3
Having promised to relate everything in order, the Evan
gelist concludes the history of the Baptist, iii. 18 ff., before
passing on to the history of Jesus, and has attempted to
divide His public ministry, purely according to time, into
work in Galilee, outside Galilee, and in Jerusalem (qfrmp.
No. 5). Finally he has already begun to connect the sacred
history, by the notices in ii. 2 ; iii. 1 ff., with great historical
events, and has thus entered on its treatment more as a
historiographer.4 8 In vi. 11 he seems to think it too soon for the Pharisees to have
designs on the Ufe of Christ ; he no longer ventures to attribute the gross
popular superstition to Herod (ix. 9), nor does he any longer address the
man who was palsied on account of his sinful life, as riKvov (v. 20). The
transposition of the temptations (chap, iv.) likewise rests on pragmatic
reflections, as also the pieces xi. 24 ff., 31 ff. In iv. 13 the Evangelist
paves the way for the appearing of the devU (xxii. 3), in viii. 2f. for the
appearing of the women (xxui. 55-xxiv. 10), in ix. 9 for that of Herod in
the history of the passion (xxiii. 8) ; in the same way the Se-rjaeis iroiovvrai
(v. 33) paves the way for the passage xi. 1, the mention of Bethsaida (ix.
10) for the passage x. 13, the passage xi. 53 ff. for the last struggles in
Jerusalem (xx. 20), and xxi. 37 f. the way to Gethsemane. Thus xi. 16;
xii. 1 account for the combination of two subsequent discourses taken
from his source. Conversely iii. 3 is joined on to i. 80 ; iv. 1 to iii. 22 ;
v. 12 to iv. 43 etc. On the other hand an historical and critical selec
tion and revision of the material of his sources is only attributed to the
Evangelist, as recently by Wendt, on the basis of a misinterpretation
at variance with the wording. Comp. No. 2 at the end.
* It is vain to try to explain " the literary plan and historiograph! cal

302 ANALYSIS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL.
5. After the introduction (i. 1—4) the Gospel begins witk
announcements of the birth of the Baptist and of Jesus,
which are found skilfully interwoven in the section i. 39-56.
Then follow the birth and circumcision of the Baptist, and
in chap. ii. the birth of Jesus, to which are attached tradi
tions from the history of His infancy and youth. The
Baptist's ministry is illustrated solely by the completed
citation from Isaiah and by his own discourses, concluding
with a notice of his imprisonment (iii. 1—20). Then to a
short mention of the baptism of Jesus and His entering upon
His ministry a genealogy of Jesus is attached (iii. 21-37)
immediately followed by the history of the temptation (iv.
1-13). x The first leading part of the Gospel contains an
account of Jesus' Galilean activity (iv. 14-ix. 50), iv. 14-vi.
19 simply following Mark's Gospel, whose order Luke, like
the first Evangelist, manifestly regards as chronological.3

treatment of Luke " (Nosgen, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1876, 77) if we practi
cally leave his use of sources out of consideration. The view that he
arranged his material essentially according to its substance (comp.
Ebrard, Hofmann, KeU and others), solely devised in a harmony-seeking
interest, is at variance with his express declaration in i. 3 and leads to
arbitrary arrangements of the Gospel.
1 The two introductory chapters are declared by the Eichhorn school
of criticism to be spurious, without any foundation whatever, and are
assigned by Baur, Scholten and Wittichen to a later revision of it, in the
interest of arbitrary conceptions of tendency on Luke's part. It is note
worthy how in the history of the Baptist the description of his appear
ance (Mark i. 5 f .) faUs away, although according to iii. 3, 22 ; iv. 2, Luke
undoubtedly knows Mark's account. Since the entire preliminary
history with the genealogy proceeds from the source peculiar to him
(No. 3), and the history of the temptation from the Apostolic source
(No. 2), he has ranged the material presented by both side by side in
the Baptist's discourses.
3 The sole deviation from him consists in the fact that he gives the
rejection of Jesus in Nazareth (iv. 16-30) essentially in accordance with
the source pecuUar to himself, in whose account it already forms a pre
diction of His rejection by Israel and of the calling of the Gentiles ; and
he therefore puts it at the head of his narrative, though clearly in
dicating that it belongs chronologicaUy to the middle of Jesus' ministry
(iv. 15 f., comp. iv. 23). By this means the caUing of the disciples is

ANALYSIS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL. 303
The fact that he first narrates the choosing of the Apostles
and then the thronging of the people to Jesus in distinction
from Mark (vi. 12-19) has no material significance ; because
here, where Jesus is on a mountain and surrounded by the
people, he is able to introduce the first large portion of the
Apostolic source, viz. the sermon on the mount (vi. 20-49).
Along with it he now repeats from this second source all
that seemed to him to belong to the earlier time, down to
the parable (viii. 4-8) ; in which way the first great inter
polation in Mark's text arises. From it we see therefore,
that the healing of the centurion's son (vii. 1-10), the raising
from the dead (for which, on account of vii. 22, Luke is
obliged to substitute the raising from the dead given in his
third source, vii. 11-17, since he desires to reproduce Mark's
more detailed account) and the Baptist's message (vii. 18-
35), must certainly have stood between these two discourses;
for the story of the anointing, with the notice of the minis
tering women (vii. 36-viii. 3), is merely an illustration of
vii. 34, interpolated from the third source. With the parable
of the sower, which he explains in accordance with Mark
(viii. 9-18), Luke again returns to Mark iv., and only now
needs to repeat the anecdote of the relations of Jesus which
there immediately precedes the parable-discourse (viii. 19-
21) ; for even in the second Gospel, Mark iii. 22-30 clearly
appears as an interpolation, which Luke desires to give in
the connection of the older source. He is then able to follow
the thread of Mark uninterruptedly, from viii. 22 to ix. 50,
where Jesus' Galilean activity ends in this Gospel also.8
forced out of its place at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (iv. 15 f.,
comp. iv. 23). And since Luke gives it also in accordance with the
account of another source (v. 1-11) which presupposes an acquaintance
with Jesus and His miraculous power on the part of Peter (v. 5), it
can only follow the first mamfestations of this power, in Capernaum
(iv. 31-44) ; although, it is true, the visit to Simon's house thus loses
its explanation that is so natural in Mark.
s The Beene in the synagogue at Nazareth which was aheady referred

304 ANALYSIS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL.
The second leading part (ix. 51-xix. 27) describes the work
of Jesus outside Galilee, evidently conceived by Luke as
Jesus's going about in parts of the country outside Galilee,
Jerusalem being His final aim. That He confined His activity
entirely to Samaritan soil has been erroneously inferred
from the fact that Luke significantly begins his account
with an anecdote showing that Jesus was rejected even
in Samaria (ix. 51-56) ; His rejection in Nazareth having
foreshadowed the result of His Galilean activity. The
first section of this part is thus the missionary-discourse
of the Apostolic source, wliich Luke finds it necessary
to refer to the sending out of a larger circle of disciples
(x. 1), since he had already given the sending out of the
Twelve in accordance with Mark (chap, ix.), and since x. 2
seemed to point to a number, if only a small one, of co
workers. The passage x. 13 ff. shows clearly that this
discourse belongs to a time when Jesus looked upon His
Galilean ministry as concluded ; hence Luke infers that
it, and all that follows in the source, occurs on extra-
Galilean soil.4 Taken from it, therefore, we have now th»
to in iv. 22, 24 was necessarily omitted, as also the imprisonment of the
Baptist already mentioned in iii. 19, and his beheading already pre
supposed in ix. 9. Hug tried to explain the omission of Mark vi. 45-
vni. 26 by the theory that our Luke is defective, Reuss by assuming that
he had a defective copy of Mark ; but the absence of the various pieces
of this section is explained by the literary tendency of Luke (No. 4, note
2), to which may be added the fact that in this very section Jesus it,
found on journeys outside Galilee (Mark vU. 24, 31 ; viii. 10). But the
emphatic way in which Luke adheres in this section to the standpoint
of Jesus's Galilean activity, is shown by the fact that in the healing of
the demoniac on the east coast he emphasizes the circumstance that it
took place avniripa t. TdXiX. (viii. 26), and that, following Mark vi. 45,
he puts the feeding into the neighbourhood of Bethsaida (ix. 10) ; as also
that he leaves out the specification of locality in Peter's confession
(ix. 18). That he was acquainted with the section from Mark, is how
ever clear from xii. 1 (comp. Mark viu. 15), not to speak of ix. 10.
4 In so doing he erroneously presupposes that everything in the Apos
tolic source is given in chronological order. Since the second great
interpolation from this source now begins, the missionary discourse must

ANALYSIS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL. 305
discourses on the return of the disciples (x. 17-24), those on
prayer (xi. 1-13), the anti- Pharisaic disputes (xi. 14-52),
the predictions of the disciples' fate (xii. 1-12), the dis
course on care and the accumulation of treasure (xii. 13-34),
the parable of the second coming (xii. 35-48), the sayings
with regard to the beginning of the crisis and the signs
of the time (xii. 51-59), the last exhortation to repentance
(xiii. 1-9, 18-35), with the parable of the feast and the
discourse on true discipleship (xiv. 15-35), prefaced by the
Evangelist with the Sabbath-healing of the Apostolic source
and two small parables (xiv. 1-14) probably for the sole
reason that they seemed to him from their substance to be
long to the same place. With this exception he appears to
have followed the thread of the Apostolic source entirely,
for it is evidently taken up again in chap. xvii. where we
find the remainder of the discourse on offences and of the
narrative of the mount of transfiguration (xvii. 1-6, comp.
Matt, xviii. 6 f., 21 f . ; xvii. 20) as also the discourse on the
second coming (xvii. 20-37) which concludes with the par-

in it have followed the parable discourse, where Luke left it. From this
it follows with the greatest probability that between these two came
the sayings contained in ix. 57-60 which he erroneously puts at Jesus'
setting out on His wauderings, but which according to Matthew vui. 19 ff.
belonged to the narrative (which he has aUeady given in accordance
with Mark) of the expedition to the east coast ; so that for this reason
also it must have stood in the source and moreover between the above
two discourses (comp. §45, 3, Note 1). Thus we see in the clearest
manner how by combining his two sources the Evangelist came to
separate the activity of Jesus in Galilee from His work outside GalUee.
The earlier idea that this section contains a continuous account of his
journeying, as also the view devised in an harmony-seeking interest that
different journeys to Jerusalem may there be distinguished, are frustrated
by the fact that we find no mention of the stations of such a journey,
but on the contrary the explanatory remark in one of the latest pieces
that Jesus was on the border between Galilee and Samaria (xvn. 11).
As to the rest we are constantly reminded that Jesus was on a journey
(x. 38; xiv. 25), on a journey moreover whose final aim was Jerusalem,
as we are again told in explanation of what fcUows (xiU. 22 eomp. xii.
oof.).

306 ANALYSIS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL.
able xviii. 1-8 (comp. § 45, 3). With this material from the
Apostolic source is connected a quantity of other material
drawn from the source peculiar to Luke, in particular x. 25-
42; xiii. 10-17; xv. 1 f., 11-xvi. 31; xvii. 7-19; xviii. 9-14,
of which we are no longer able to state whether or how
far Luke was led by this source to give them their present
chronological position, since all knowledge of the arrange
ment of the source is wanting.5 On the other hand it is quite
clear that in the second section of this part Luke gives all,
with a few easily explained omissions (No. 4, note 2), that in
Mark plays a part in Jesus' activity outside Galilee down to
the healing of the blind man in Jericho (xviii. 15-43) ; he
only adds the story of Zacchasus, which took place at Jericho,
from the source peculiar to himself (xix. 1-10), and the
parable of the talents from the Apostolic source, which from
his interpretation he expressly regards as having been spokeD
when approaching Jerusalem (xix. 11-27). The third part,
in the beginning of which the lament over the obduracy ol

* This is the only point in Luke's composition which we are no longer
able to clear up ; but xi. 27 f. is manifestly substituted for the piece
formerly given by Luke in viii. 19 ff. but standing in the source between
the two anti-Pharisaic discourses, and xii. 49 f. may very well have been
inserted as an introduction to what follows. Moreover it is not im
probable that in the source peculiar to Luke these pieces were attached
either in substance or in timo to those pieces whose parallels he had
given in the former connection from the Apostolic sources. The nar
rative of Mary and Martha alone (x. 38-42) might have been devised and
arranged by himseU as a kind of counterpart to the paragraph respecting
the chief commandment (x. 25-37). The main difficulty, however, lies
in the fact that as in the latter the conversation regarding the highest
commandment from the Apostolic source is connected with a piece of the
source peculiar to himseU (No. 3, note 1), so parables from the latter
(xy. 3-10; xvi. 1-3) are manifestly joined to the parables in xv. 11-32
(comp. xv. 1 f.) and xvi. 19-31 (comp. xvi. 14 f.) from the former, on
account of the supposed relationship of subject between them ; so that
these too are taken from their original place, by which means, as also
by the arrangement of xiv. 1-14 according to substance, the thread ol
the ApostoUo Bource, so easUy foUowed elsewhere, is no longer equally
visible.

THE PAULINE CHARACTER OF LUKE'S GOSPEL. 307
Jerusalem is directly interwoven (xix. 41-44), gives the Jeru
salem activity in strict accordance with Mark (xix. 28-xxi.
38), from whom the story of the fig-tree (on account of xiii .
6-9) and the conversation on the greatest commandment
(on account of x. 25 ff.) are alone omitted. The conclusion
is then formed by the history of the passion (chaps, xxii.
xxiii), which also follows Mark, and is modified and en
larged throughout from his own peculiar source ; a piece
from the Apostolic source being again inserted in it into the
history of the last supper (xxii. 24-30, 35 ff.). Finally in
the resurrection-chapter the appearances of the Risen One
(xxiv. 12-^3) are attached to the scene at the open grave
taken from Mark (xxiv. 1-11). The conclusion with the
last charges of Jesus to the Apostles and His parting from
them (xxiv. 44-53) certainly proceeds from the hand of the
Evangelist. 6. Our Gospel is therefore a doctrinal writing, notwith
standing that it has more the character of historiography
(No. 4) ; the author expressly says that he desires by his
historical narrative to attest the credibility of the doctrines
in which Theophilus had been instructed (i. 4). The as
sumption that these were the Pauline doctrines is certainly
correct. All three leading parts begin very significantly
it is true with narratives setting forth the insensibility of
Galilee, Samaria and Jerusalem with regard to Christ
(comp. No. 5). Already in the synagogue at Nazareth Jesus
points to the possibility that God might bestow on the
heathen the salvation that was despised by Israel (iv. 25 ff.) ;
a saying uttered by Jesus at the height of His activity is
expressly applied to the calling of the Gentiles and the rejec
tion of Israel (xiii. 30) ; in an allegorizing feature of the
parable of the feast expression is given to the Pauline idea
that the calling of the Gentiles is designed to fill up the gap
which has arisen by the falling away of many Israelites (xiv.
22 ff .) ; and in the end the Apostles are sent to all nations

308 THE PAULINE CHARACTER OF LUKE'S GOSPEL.
(xxiv. 47 f.).1 The Evangelist loves to dwell on the narra
tives and parables which set forth God's love to sinners
and speak of the forgiveness of sin ; in the saying in xi. 13
the petition for the Holy Ghost is brought in, who is once
more expressly promised in xxiv. 49. The willing hearing
of the word as the one thing needful (x. 42) is significantly
put over against the exhortation to fulfil the commandment
of love (x. 37). The story of the anointing emphasizes the
love that is born of faith (vii. 47, 50) ; that of the publican
and the thief, the mercy shown to the repentant sinner
(xviii. 14 ; xxiii. 43) ; the parable in xvii. 7-10 forbids all
seeking of recompense, while the recommendation of prayer
runs through the whole Gospel and is specially enforced by
the example of Christ. These confirmations of Pauline doc
trine have not however a polemic tendency as opposed to
other views of doctrine, but have the edifying purpose of
strengthening faith in the Pauline sense and of promoting
the life of faith.2 This is evident above all from the fact that

1 On the other hand the fact of the genealogy being carried back to
Adam has certainly been erroneously adduced as evidence of the author's
universalism, for he evidently does not perceive its artificial arrangement
and has therefore simply adopted it from his own source ; ii. 32 also un
doubtedly belongs to this source. Nor can we attach any importance
to the seventy disciples as a type of Gentile messengers, because the
author adopted the sending of them solely from his sources (No. 5), be
cause they were by no means destined for Samaria, and because, owing
to the want of a irdvra, x. 7 can contain no reference to intercourse with
the Gentiles at meals. The assumption of a peculiar friendship towards
the Samaritans in the Gospel is excluded by ix. 52 ff.
3 An anti- Jewish tendency is already out of the question, for the reason
that the preliminary history which begins and concludes in the temple
at Jerusalem commends the Old Testament piety of the persons who
there appear, and sets forth the Messianic hope entirely with the national
theocratic stamp. Later too, in the Gospel itseU, Jesus is the Son of
David (xviii. 38 f . ; xx. 41 ff.), the theocratic king (xix. 38) ; and ns it
begins with the fulfilment of the ypaip-f/ (iv. 21), so it concludes with the
proof of this fulfilment (xxiv. 44 f.). Likewise in xiu. 16; xix. 9 salva
tion is destined in the first place for Israel ; and in xxii. 30 the Twelva
are appointed for the twelve tribes of Israel. Just as little is there anj

THE ASCETIC CHARACTER OF LUKE'S GOSPEL 309
the most prominent tendency of the Gospel has nothing what
ever to do with the antithesis of Paulinism and Jewish Chris
tianity. It consists in the recommendation of benevolence
put into various utterances of Jesus (xi. 41 ; xvi. 9), which
is to extend to the total sacrifice of property ; the demand of
Jesus in a single instance (xviii. 22) being thus made abso
lute (xii. 33). This manifestly rests on the idea that wealth
is pernicious in itself and poverty salutary in itself; an idea
already stamped on the beatitudes of the sermon on the
mount (vi. 20 ff.) and carried in xvi. 25 so far as to conflict
with the obvious sense of the parable. From this it is clear
however that the author has hardly apprehended the mind
of Paul fully ; just as the setting of the sayings in xvii. 10 ;
xviii. 14, if they are meant to reflect Pauline doctrine, does
not express them correctly.3
The Tubingen school has nevertheless endeavoured to prove the exist
ence of a Pauline tendency in Luke's Gospel, partly by a comparison of
its peculiar character with the first Gospel, with which the author has no
acquaintance whatever (No. 2) ; and which in its great concluding scene
gives a still more solemn form than it, to Christ's institution of the
Gentile mission (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; comp. also xxiv. 14 ; xxvi. 13) and to
his announcement of judgment upon Israel (xxvU. 25) ; partly by arbi
trarily allegorizing in an anti-Jewish sense, narratives such as that of
evidence of an antinomian tendency. Even in the case of the child
Jesus all legal prescriptions are fulfilled (n. 21, 27, 39) ; in v. 14 ; xvii.
14 their fulfilment is enforced ; and in xxiU. 56 it is presupposed ; in x.
26 ; xviii. 20 reference is made to the Old Testament commandments ;
and in xvi. 29-31 to the permanent significance of Moses and the pro
phets. Narratives and sayings which might be interpreted in an anti-
Pauline sense, are omitted (comp. No. 4, note 2), or illustrated and ex
plained by a new combination (xvi. 16 ff).
8 The frequent assumption that this ascetic view of the world is a
peculiarity of one of Luke's sources is altogether untenable, since, ti is
stamped on parts which unquestionably proceed froia the Ap^stolio
source, and recurs in the Acts. Aberie (Tiib. Theol. Quartalschr., 1863,
1) claimed for the Gospel a peculiar tendency-character, maintaining that
it was written by Paul's legal counsellor as a defence against the reproach
that Christianity preached hatred of mankind (oomp. on tho other hand
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr., 1864, 1).

310 THE TENDENCY HYPOTHESIS OF LUKE'S GOSPEL.
Mary and Martha, of Zaccheus, or of the thief on the cross (comp. alsos
the parable of the unjust steward), or by giving an anti- Jewish ex
planation to parables which Luke himself interprets as anti-Pharisaio
(xiv. 15; xv. If. ; xvi. 14 ff.) ; partly by emending xvi. 17 in a Marcionite
sense and putting xvi. 16 in unauthorized opposition to Matt. xi. 13.'
Just as Uttle can evidence be given of a tendency directed against the
primitive Apostles. The view that the so-called account of Jesus'
wanderings is wholly confined to Samaritan soU, is already precluded by
the appearing of the scribes and Pharisees, as well as by the scene in xiu.
31 ff. ; Samaria does not represent heathen lands, nor are the seventy
disciples types of the Gentile messengers (comp. note 1). Hence a
degradation of the Twelve as compared with these cannot be thought of,
since they as well as the Seventy received power to drive out devUs, and
moreover give an account of their success (ix. 1, 10). Even in the part
where the Seventy are to take their place, the Twelve are closest to Jesus
(ix. 54; xvn. 5; xviii. 31). 5 Hence there only remains the view taken
by Baur, viz. that our Gospel was the revision of a hypothetical one
sided Pauline primitive Luke written with a conciUatory aim (comp.
Scholten, Das paulinische Evangelium, deutsch von Redepenning, Elber-
feld, 1881), if not quite in the interest of outspoken Jewish Christianity,

4 The view that Jesus appears from the beginning in Luke as the con
queror of demons, i.e. of the powers of heathenism, is incorrect for this
reason, that the demon expulsions practised also by the Jews cannot
according to xi. 19 be regarded by Luke in this sense. Nor does Jesus
first appear in Luke as in Mark the caster-out of devUs, but as the
preacher of the fulfilment of Scripture, and while laying much less
stress than Mark on the casting out of devils, he gives a warning against
attaching too much value to this power in the only case where mention
is made of it in advance (x. 17-20).
6 The observation respecting the defective understanding of the Twelve
(xviu. 34) comes solely from Mark (ix. 32) and takes the place of one of
the worst examples of such slowness of perception (Mark x. 35-40). A
Gospel which furnishes the call of Peter with the miraculous draught of
fishes, which in v. 11, 28 (comp. xviii. 18) gives still greater prominence
to the fact that the disciples had left all, and omits features such as Matt.
xxvi. 35, 56 (Mark xiv. 31, 50), which gives the confession of Peter with
out the reproof tbat follows it, which combines a pre-eminence of Peter
even with the prediction of his denial (xxii. 31 f.) and makes the Risen
One appear first to him (xxiv. 34), which promises the Twelve that they
shall sit on twelve thrones and commits to them the Gentile mission
(xxii. 30 ; xxiv. 47 f.), cannot possibly intend to degrade them. If x. 20
had been meant to contain an antithesis to Apoc xxi. 14, the Evangelist
would hardly have put Apoc xi. 2 almost word for word into the mouth
of Jesus (xxi. 24).

TRADITION IN REGARD TO LUKE'S GOSPEL. 811
(comp. Wittichen, Zeitschr. j. wiss. Theol., 1873, 4, and Leben Jesu, Jena,
1876), for which all support is wanting when once the priority of the
Marcionite Gospel over that of Luke had been universally abandoned
(comp. § 44, 5) ; or else with Hilgenfeld and Zeller to regard the author
himself as a moderate, conciliatory Pauline, who according to Overbeck
v/!is already infected with Judaism. Holsten finally went the length of
ascribing to Luke's Gospel the mediation-tendency which according to
the earlier Tubingen programme was reserved for Mark ; according to
which the separation of all that was Judaistio and Pauline in principle
led to the recognition of that which both tendencies had in common.
Thus the tendency-view which culminated in this difference of opinion
refutes itself.
7. Tradition from the time of Irenseus ascribes our Gospel,
which was already used by Justin (§ 7, 2), to Luke, who
according to Col. iv. 14 (comp. Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11)
was a Greek physician, a friend and co-worker of Paul,
and his companion in Csesarea as well as in Rome. Even
Irenseus seems to know nothing more definite respecting him
than what may be inferred from the Pauline Epistles and Lh(?
Acts of the Apostles, on the assumption that Paul's writing
travelling-companion there mentioned was this Luke (Ado.
Heer., III. 14, 1). Eusebius (H. E., 3, 4) is the first who
professes to know that he was a native of Antioch, and later
writers copy the statement from him.
Some, suspecting Eusebius of confounding him with the Cyrenean
Lucius in Antioch (Acts xiii. 1), object to his statement on this account ;
others, such as Hug, Guericke, Bleek and Hilgenfeld (comp. Nosgen,
Apostel geschichte, 1882) defend it with more or less confidence. Origen
(on this passage) certainly confounds him with the Lucius of Rom. xvi. 21 \
and yet Luke cannot be another name for Lucius though it might possibly
be an abbreviation of Lucanus. To identify the name with Silas (Stt-
vanus; lucus = silva) was entirely arbitrary (Hennell, Untersuchung iiber den
Urspnmg des Christenthums, Stuttgart, 1840; v. Vloten in Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol., 1867, 2 ; comp. on the other hand Joh. Cropp, ibid., 1868, 3).
Though Paul expressly distinguishes him from the 6vres ix wepiTopijs (Coi.
iv. 11), Eichhorn, Tiele (Stud. u. Krit., 1858, 4), Hofmann, Wittichen
(Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1866 ; Zeitschr. /. : wiss. Theol., 1873; Jahrb.
f. protest. Theol., 1877) and K. Schmidt make him a Jewish Christian,
Hug, Bertholdt and others a proselyte. But neither his knowledge of
Jewish relations, which he might have acquired in Paul's company, nor

312 TRADITION IN REGARD TO LUKE'S GOSPEL.
his Hebraizing language, which comes from his sources and gives way in
his preface to a Greek that is almost classical, affords any proof of this.
It is at variance with the distinct testimony of the author himseU (Luke
i. 1 f.) when later critics since Epiphanius (Hair., 51, 12) make him one
of the Seventy disciples (comp. Hug) or count him the unnamed dis
ciple of Emmaus (Lange, following a conjecture in Theophylact). Nice-
phorus is the first to make him a painter, in spite of Col. iv. 14.
When Irenseus says that Aou/cas 6 axoXovBos TlavXov to vir'
ixeivov K-npvo-0-oii.evov evayyiXiov iv f5i/3Xi(p Karedero (Adv. Hmr.,
III. 1, 1) he hardly means that Luke received the materia]
of his Gospel from Paul, since in 10, 1 he calls him the
" sectator et discipulus apostolorum," and in 14, 2 makes
him transmit what he had learnt from the Apostles, appeal
ing to Luke i. 2 in favour of this view. It was only on the
ground that the prcedicatio apostolicorum virorum needed the
auctoritas magistrorum (Tert., Adv. Marc, 4, 2, 5) that 2 Cor.
viii. 18 was afterwards regarded as a eulogy of Luke's Gos
pel (comp. Origenes ap. Euseb., H. E., 6, 25), and that Paul,
when speaking of his Gospel was supposed to refer to Luke
(co<mp. Euseb., H. E., 3, 4) ; although Eusebius (H. E., 3, 24)
as well as Jerome (De Vir. HI., 7) has preserved the correct
meaning of Luke i. 2. There was therefore no reason to
dispute the relation of Luke's Gospel to Paul, said to be
adopted solely in the interest of a tendency (comp. Eichhorn,
de Wette, Reuss and others), a relation already suggested
by its Pauline character (No. 6) and obviously confirmed by
the fusion of the Pauline account of the last supper (comp.
1 Cor. xi.) with that of Mark (Luke xxii. 19 f.). Only
Thiersch, Aberle and Godet (Komm., 1871) have ven
tured to maintain that Paul himself gave the historical
material to Luke.1 Though the tradition therefore is by no
1 To profess to discover traces of medical knowledge in iv. 38 and viii.
43 is mere trifling ; and the agreement of xxiv. 34 with 1 Cor. xv. 5 though
striking, is not decisive, because the former notice apparently proceeds
fiom Luke's source. What is more important is that the saying of Matt.
x. 10 appears in Luke x. 7 in the same form as in 1 Tim. v. 18. Yet this
is as little proof of the knowledge and use of Pauline Epistles as the

DATE OF LUKE'S GOSPEL. 313
means improbable, a final judgment in the matter can only
be pronounced after an examination of the Acts of the
Apostles. On the other hand it was quite a mistake to infer
on the ground of a false conclusion drawn from the fact of
the latter breaking off about the year 63, that the Gospel
was composed antecedent to this year (comp. Ebrard, Gue-
ricke, Thiersch and in addition Ndsgen and L. Schulze) ; for
it is quite evident that the predictions in xix. 43 f . ; xxi. 24
were remoulded ex eventu and presuppose the destruction
of Jerusalem. The fact that the second coming was still
expected by the first Christian generation (xxi. 32) hardly
allows us to put the date further down than the year
80.2 Respecting the immediate circumstances of its com
position, we have no certain knowledge. The book accord
ing to i. 3 is dedicated to a certain Theophilus, who is
hardly a mere fictitious person as Volkmar and Aberle, fol
lowing Epiphanius, assume, though we have no definite
knowledge whatever respecting him.8 This dedication is not

reference to the Pauline account of the last supper. AU that has been
adduced in its favour (comp. in particular Holtzmann), even that which
has actually some show of probability (x. 8, comp. 1 Cor. x. 27 ; xii. 35
with Eph. vi. 14 ; xviii. 1, comp. 2 Thess. i. 11 ; xxi. 34, comp. 1 Thess.
v. 3) amounts solely to this, that Luke's mode of expression shows
a certain affinity with the Pauline, which cannot appear strange in
the case of a companion of Paul's. A really kindred thought which
points by similarity of expression to a Pauline one, is nowhere to be
found. 8 When Hilgenfeld and Volkmar come down to the beginning of the
second century, and Baur, Zeller and others even beyond 130, their con
clusions are entirely arbitrary. In support of them Holtzmann and
Krenkel (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol, 1873,1880), Keim, Hausrath, Wittichen
and others have recently maintained that Luke was dependent on Jose
phus. Compare on the other hand Schurer (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,
1870) and Nosgen (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1879).
* The usual assumption that he was a man of eminence is entirely
uncertain ; for the address Kpdrio-re (i. 3 ; comp. Acts xxiii. 46 ; xxiv. 3 ;
xxvi. 25) is wanting in Acts i. 1 and is therefore hardly a title. Nosgen
makes him a treasury official in the territory of King Agrippa n. (Stud.
u. Krit., 1880, 1).

314 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
of course inconsistent with its having been destined for a
larger circle of readers ; and the manifest regard to Pauline
Gentile Christians (No. 6), as also the explanation of places
in Palestine (i. 26; iv. 31; xxiii. 51; xxiv. 13), shows that
this circle is to be looked for in the distant heathen world.
The readers' acquaintance with Italian localities, implied in
Acts xxviii. 13, 15, is in favour of its being sought in Italy.
All conjectures as to the place of composition are however
quite visionary and have no value whatever.*

§ 49. The Acts op the Apostles.
1. The author of Luke's Gospel himself describes it as a
first part, a narrative only of the beginning of the work and
teaching of Jesus, and desires that the ministry of the
Apostles whom the Lord had empowered for that purpose
by His forty days' appearances and by the preparation of
the Spirit which He had promised them, should be regarded
as a continuation of it (Acts i. 1-5). He therefore begins
with the ascension, on which occasion Jesus expressly
authorizes them to bear witness to Him in Jerusalem and
all Judea, in Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the
earth (i. 6-11, comp. more especially vers. 8), and shows
how the Apostles, at Peter's instigation and by way of
preparation for the carrying out of this mission, began by
filling up by lot, with an appeal to Jesus, the gap that had
arisen in their number by the secession of Judas (i. 12-26).
Then follow the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, the
founding of the Church at Jerusalem by Peter's preaching
and the institution of baptism, as also a description of the
4 Jerome (pruef. in Matt.) makes out that it was written in " AchajsB
Boeotiasque partibus," while Godet supposes Corinth in particular.
Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch and others settled on Casarea ; Hug, Ewald,
Holtzmann, Keim and otherB on Rome ; Kostlin and Hilgenfeld on Asik
Minor. Comp. § 50, 7, note 3.

ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS. 315
Bocial life of the Christians (chap. ii.). All else which the
first part narrates of the history of this Church visibly
centres in the growing conflict between it and the heads of
the nation. The healing of a lame man by Peter and his
discourse on that occasion (chap, iii.) lead to the first inter
position of the chief council, which, notwithstanding Peter's
defence, ends with a prohibition of his preaching. This,
however, only impelled the Church to more zealons prayer,
to which God accorded a miraculous answer (iv. 1-31). A
fresh description of the life of love led by the Church,
cleansed from incipient impurity by the judgment on
Ananias and Sapphira (iv. 32-v. 11), as also of its growth
by the Apostles' miracle-working power especially that of
Peter (v. 12—16), introduces a second solemn transaction
before the chief council. As a consequence of this the
Apostles are punished for infringement of the prohibition
against preaching, but are only by this means stimulated to a
more zealous proclamation of the Gospel (v. 17-42). In the
same way the choice of almoners (vi. 1—7) only forms the
introduction to the successful labours of Stephen and to the
stirring up of the people against him (vi. 8-15) ; which ends
with his martyrdom after he had made a speech in his
defence (chap. vii). A general persecution now arises for
the first time, by which the Church at Jerusalem is dis
persed ; occasion being thus given for the preaching of the
Gospel in wider circles (viii. 1-4) -1
2. In exact agreement with the programme set by Jesus
Himself for the mission (i. 8), the second part begins with
the conversion of Samaria by Philip, to which Peter's
conflict with Simon the Sorcerer is attached (viii. 5-24)

1 This narrative of the founding and fortunes of the first Church in
Jerusalem,, in which Peter plays a leading part, manifestly forms in the
author's view a united whole. It is quite in his literary manner to
make the appearance of Saul in the history of Stephen (vii. 58, 60;
viu. 3) and the intimation in viu. 1-i prepare the way for what follows.

316 ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS.
Samaria however being only a half-heathen country, this
account is followed by the conversion of the Ethiopian
chamberlain by Philip, which, he being a proselyte from
Judaism, represents the transition to the Gentile mission
proper (viii. 26— iO). But before this can be accomplished,
it is necessary for Christ Himself to prepare a specific
instrument for it by the conversion of Saul, whose first
experiences point the way to distant Gentile countries
(ix. 1-30, comp. in particular ix. 15). Now first follows
the great section in which Peter is led by miraculous pro
vidences to the first baptism of one who was uncircumcised.
It is introduced by the Apostle's visitation-journey to the
Phenician coast (ix. 31-43) from which he is called to
Csesarea to the centurion Cornelius by divine intimation ; and
it relates how Peter converted him by his preaching (chap.
x.), concluding with his defence of his conduct, in Jerusalem
(xi. 1-18). In Antioch we have the founding of an entire
Church which is mainly composed of Hellenes, and in which
Saul as well as Barnabas finds room for successful activity
(xi. 19-26). With the account of the collection-journey
from there to Jerusalem undertaken by these two, is inter
woven the narrative of the execution of James by King
Herod and of the incarceration of Peter, who only escaped
the same fate by his miraculous deliverance from the prison
(xi. 27-xii. 25). They are manifestly intended to be wit
nesses of the way in which the final hardening of Israel
against the Gospel is set forth in the person of the king
speedily overtaken by divine punishment; for it is not
without significance that the resolution to undertake a first
real missionary journey is made after this very experience
in Antioch (xiii. 1 ff .) . They go first to Cyprus where they
preach in the synagogues, and after vanquishing a false
prophet, gain over to the faith the proconsul who was
already inclined to Judaism (xiii. 4-12). In Pisidian
Antioch we have an example of Paul's powerful preaching

ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS. 317
in the synagogue, which leads to a rupture with Judaism
and to the solemn proclamation of the Gentile mission (xiii.
13-52). In Iconium and particularly in Lystra, we see the
missionaries gain more and more success among the Gentiles,
though pursued at the same time by the hatred of the Jews
with ever- increasing fanaticism (xiv. 1-20), until, their
work being accomplished, they enter on the homeward
journey (xiv. 21-28). But the way for the Gospel to pass
from the Jews to the Gentiles was not yet made easy, so
long as the latter were not secured against the necessity of
first becoming Jews by the adoption of the circumcision, in
order to participate in salvation. Hence there follow the
solemn transactions at Jerusalem in which the Gentiles are
formally exempted from the adoption of the law (xv. 1-33).
The Apostle Paul is now able for the first time to turn with
unabated joy to his proper Gentile mission.
3. How completely the third part makes Paul personally
the real actor is shown by the detailed way in which
xv. 35-xvi. 5 narrates how it came about that he made
his second journey not with Barnabas and Mark, but with
Silas and Timotheus. Then, after it has been shown how
he was led to Philippi by manifest Divine guidance (xvi.
6-12), we have an account of the conversion of Lydia in
that place, which is immediately followed by the events
that brought about his imprisonment and release, and
ultimately his departure from Philippi (xvi 13-40). Of
Thessalonica we hear only that Paul preached there in the
synagogue, at first not without success, gaining many
proselytes, until the enmity of the Jews who accused him
to the rulers of the city, compelled him to leave that place
and soon to fly from Berea also, where in the beginning he
had promise of still more favourable results (xvii. 1-15).
Paul's temporary abode in Athens is then employed for
the purpose of giving a richly-coloured example of his
missionary preaching among the Gentiles, in his discourse

318 ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS.
on the Areopagus (xvii. 16-34). Of his more than one and
a half year's ministry in Corinth, we have, apart from the
acquaintanceship with Aquila and Priscilla, only a more
detailed description of the crisis when the breach with the
Jews came to a head, by which the Apostle was led to turn
entirely to the Gentiles ; as also of the way in which the
accusation of the Jews was set aside by the Proconsul (xviii.
1-17). His return through Ephesus to Antioch concludes
the description of the Macedonian-Greek mission (xviii.
18-22); and xviii. 19 ff. prepares the way for his settle
ment in Ephesus, which from this point forms the centre
of the narrative. After an introductory account of the
way in which Apollos was there prepared by Aquila and
Priscilla for his Corinthian labours and sent cut (xviii.
24-28), the narrative turns to the permanent and successful
activity of Paul in that place. But apart from his meeting
with the adherents of John's baptism (xix. 1-7) and his
secession from the synagogue (xix. 8-10), we have only a
few anecdotal outlines of this time, intended to illustrate
his great power over Jewish and heathen superstition (xix.
11-20). On the other hand the Apostle's plan to go to
Rome, after visiting his European missionary-field and Jeru
salem, now appears, in preparation for which he sends
Timotheus and Erastus to Macedonia (xix. 21 f.). Then,
after a very full account of the events to which the tumult
stirred up by Demetrius the goldsmith gave rise (xix.
23—41), Paul carries out the plan of his journey through
Macedonia and Hellas, but is prevented by the snares of
the Jews from choosing the direct sea-route to Syria, and
thus comes once more to Philippi and Troas (xx. 1-12).
He then calls the Ephesian presbyters to Miletus; where
his long farewell speech with its references to his work
among them and his final leave-taking with many tears (xx.
13-38), brings the Ephesian section to an end.
4. The Apostle's prediction in his farewell discourse (xx.

ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS. 319
22 ff.) has already prepared us for the contents of the fourth
part. In the detailed account of the journey to Jerusalem
the narrator is specially interested in the repeated attempts
to dissuade the Apostle from it ; against which he remains
steadfast until hi has reached the end he had in view (xxi.
1-16), We are told at length how he there endeavours to
silence the distrustful Jewish-Christians, by taking a Naza
rite vow upon himself, but how on his carrying out the
plan an uproar of the people took place, by which he fell
into the power of the Roman magistracy (xxi. 17—40).
Then follows the first speech to the people in his defence,
by permission of the military tribune (xxii. 1-21), and the
account of his being saved from scourging by appealing to
his Roman citizenship (xxii. 22-29). The treatment of his
case before the chief council only led to a division between
the Pharisees and Sadducees; and when the tribune had
saved him from the fanaticism thus inflamed, he received
the Divine assurance that he should bear witness also at
Rome (xxiii. 1-11). A conspiracy against his life is dis
covered ; and the tribune sends him under strong escort to
Csesarea, to the Procurator Felix, with a letter of convoy
written in extenso (xxiii. 12-35). In Felix' presence Paul
again defends himself against the legal counsellor of the
Sanhedrin, but Felix puts off the Apostle's case for two
years until his relinquishment of office (chap, xxiv.) ; and
when his successor Festus seems about to deliver him up
to the Sanhedrin, Paul finds it necessary to appeal to the
emperor (xxv. 1-12). Agrippa then appears in Csesarea;
and after Festus has posted him up in Paul's case, it is once
more discussed by the king's desire in his presence (xxv.
13-26). Paul has thus a third opportunity of defending
himself before the Jewish king (xxvi. 1-23) ; and the result
is that Agrippa declares he might have been set free if he
had not appealed (xxvi. 24-32). Then follows the transport-
journey to Rome with the shipwreck at Malta (chap, xxvii.),

320 ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS.
the wintering on the island (xxviii. 1—1 0) and the comple
tion of the journey to Rome (xxviii. 11-16). The Apostle
there puts himself at once in connection with the heads of
the Jewish nation, but the transactions with them end in
his announcement to them of judicial hardening and his
turning to the Gentiles (xxviii. 17-28). With a glance at
the two years' labour in Rome, according to which it was
specifically Gentile- Christian (xxviii. 29 f.), the Acts of the
Apostles conclude.
No proper indications respecting the division of the Acts are to be
found in the continuous flowing narrative. There can, however, be no
doubt as to the closing of the first part at viii 4 (naturally not vi. 7,
as L. Schulze maintains), and from this at least so much is clear, that
the twofold division which puts the leading section between chaps, xii.
and xiii. (comp. de Wette ana the 4th edition of his Commentary by
Overbeck, 1870 ; Klostermann, Vindic Lucana, Gotting., 1865 ; Holtz
mann, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1885) or the threefold division which
puts the first leading section in the same place (comp. Nosgen, Komm.,
1882) , does not coincide with the author's meaning. The section which
forms the transition to the Gentile mission closes with chap. xv. (comp.
Hilgenfeld) ; hence neither can that threefold division be correct whioh
makes the second part extend only to chap. xii. (comp. also Baum-
garten, Die Apostelgeschichte, Halle, 1852 ; 2 Ausg., Braunschweig, 1859).
But the actual missionary activity of Paul is so sharply separated in
its contents from the narrative of his last fortunes which lead him to
Rome, that it is advisable to regard this as a distinct part ; only in this
case we must not of course make it begin with xx. 1, as Nosgen does,
or even with L. Schulze at xix. 21. Whether we then put the first two
and the last two parts together, which must in a certain sense be done
in inquiring into the sources, and thus retarn to the two-fold division,
is practically immaterial ; but the significant division of the first part at
viU. 4 must not be ignored.
5. Even a survey of the contents of the book shows that
it does not profess to be a history of the Apostles, as the
old title of the book (§ 9, 3) would lead us to expect, or of
the Church in a comprehensive sense ; but that the material
taken from this history is here selected and set forth from
a definite point of view.1 It is vain to suppose that the
1 Notwithstanding the significant way in which the twelve Apostles

ANALYSIS OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 321
author had perhaps only fragmentary material at command,
or to assume that all the rest was known to his readers,
which is a, priori quite improbable. The former is no doubt
in many instances the case ; but this does not suffice to
explain a composition so full of design as that of the book
in question. It is likewise certain that consideration for the
need of the readers influenced its form ; this need however
did not consist in historical knowledge but in a religious
understanding of the course of development which the
preaching of the gospel had taken. Just as this course is
already indicated in the missionary command of Jesus (i. 8),
so the whole delineation of the founding and development
of the Church at Jerusalem in the first part is only intel
ligible on the supposition of an interest in representing how
the increasing enmity of the Jews to the Gospel finally led
to the dispersion of the primitive Church and so to the
spread of the gospel into wider circles. Still more clearly
does it appear in the second part that it was a Divinely
purposed and directed development which led Philip to the
baptism of the first proselyte (viii. 26, 29), Peter to the
baptism of the first Gentile (x. 28 f. ; xi. 18), and, after
God's judgment on the enmity of the Jews, the Gentile
messengers to their first missionary journey (xiii. 2). It
are enumerated in the introductory chapter, the sons of Zebedee alone
are mentioned in passing ; of many ApostoUo disciples, such as Stephen,
Philip, Barnabas, Apollos, and even of Mark, we are told much more
than of them. Peter it is true is put forward with as much significance
in the first part as Paul in the last ; but the former disappears from the
history in xii. 17, nor is any explanation given of his reappearance in
Jerusalem (chap, xv.) ; and not only have we no account of his end.
but merely a very fragmentary notice of his personal fortunes, as a
glance at 2 Cor. xi. shows. A Church- history cannot be intended, since
it is only of the internal development of the Church at Jerusalem that
we are told anything definite ; nor yet a history of the Christian (comp.
Eichhorn) or at least the Pauline mission (comp. Credner), since the
former only begins with chap. viii. and the latter with chap. xni. ; whUe
from chap. xx. down to the concluding words of the book, no further
mention is made of the mission.
VOL. II. T

322 OBJECT OF THE ACTS.
was the same Divine guidance which prepared in Paul an
instrument for the Gentile mission (ix. 15) ; and after the
enmity of the Jews had thwarted his first attempts in the
Jewish mission (ix. 23, 29), led him to find his true sphere
of activity in the Gentile-Christian Church at Antioch (xi
25), to be directed to the Gentiles on his first missionary
journey, by the enmity of the Jews (xiii. 46 f.), and to have
the way to the Gentile mission opened up to him by the
primitive Church (xv. 28 f.). The third part shows most
clearly how it was the finger of God that led the Apostle
Paul to his European mission-field (xvi. 6 f ., 9 f .) ; and how
the enmity of the Jews here again drives him further and
further in this direction (xvii. 10, 14), until in Corinth and
Ephesus it opens the way for his going over to the Gentile
mission proper (xviii. 6 ; xix. 9) . Above all, the detailed
representation of the first part is only intelligible on the
assumption that the narrator's real aim is to show how all
the enmity of the Jews, which seems to thwart his human
plans, only serves to open up a way for the Apostle to Rome
(xxii. 11) ; until after wonderful signs of Divine guidance
and deliverance (chap, xxvii.) he arrives in that city and
there again finds that the enmity of the Jews points out his
path to the Gentiles (xxviii. 25-28). It cannot therefore be
denied that the book is intended to set forth the develop
ment of the Church from Jerusalem to Rome, from the
metropolis of Judaism to the capital of the world, and
therewith the transition of the gospel from the Jews to the
Gentiles, carried out under Divine guidance through the
guilt of the former.
These fundamental thoughts of the Acts of the Apostles have already
been set forth with substantial correctness by Mayerhoff (Einleitung in
die petrinischen Schriften, Hamburg, 1835), Guericke, Lekebusch (Die
Composition und Entstehung der Apostclgeschichte, Gotha, 1854) ani
Baumgarten. It has been vainly contended on the other hand that
Borne at the time when our hook was composed had not yet by any
means such great importance for Christianity; but since Paul had

DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF THE ACTS. 323
already clearly recognised the importance which the Church in the
world's capital must eventually have for the Gentile Church as a whole,
as shown by his Roman Epistle, his disciple, as he is pourtrayed in the
Gospel (§ 48, 6), may very probably have regarded a firm foundation
for the mission of Christianity to the world as having been laid in the
establishment of Christianity in Rome (i. 8). The fact that we have no
account of the founding of the Church in that place proves nothing to
the contrary, for the author looks on Paul's three years' ministry there as
having prepared a place for the (PauUne) gospel, by which the importance
of the community for the great Gentile Church was secured. On the
other hand it is this view of the Acts that alone adequately explains
its breaking off with Paul's two years' ministry in Rome, making it
unnecessary to assume that the author had still a rplros Xbyos in view
(Credner, Ewald, Meyer and Jacobsen ; comp. also Weizsacker and
Mangold). Nosgen has put the narrative of the Acts in too close rela
tion to the fundamental ideas of Rom. ix.-xi.; while K. Schmidt (Die
Apostelgeschichte, Erlangen, 1882), following Hofmann, has put the
whole emphasis on the separation of the gospel from the Jewish nation.
6. It was natural to attribute to so systematic a work a
special doctrinal tendency; and yet even in its extended
discourses the Acts contains far too little actual doctrine
for such a purpose. Though some, as Meyer and de Wette,
talk of a confirmation of Pauline teaching or a defence of
Pauline Christianity, yet the characteristic doctrines of Paul
are scarcely touched upon, though perhaps referred to in
xiii. 39 ; xxvi. 18.1 At the same time it was only the destin
ation of the gospel for the Gentiles that could be treated
1 On behalf of this view, appeal is made to the gospel (i. 4), on the
assumption, mostly regarded as self-evident, that the preface of the
Gospel refers also to the Acts (comp. in particular Schleiermacher,
Credner, Baur, Volkmar and Nosgen). But this assumption has been
contested with perfect justice by Schneckenburger (iiber den Zweck der
Apostelgeschichte, Bern, 1841), Lekebusch, Zeller (Die Apostelgeschichte,
Stuttgart, 1854), Oertel (Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte, Halle, 1868),
Overbeck, Reuss and others. The preface in question speaks only of
the delineation of those completed facts attested by eye-witnesses, while
much is narrated here as having been experienced by the author himself.
Nowhere does the Gospel point forward to the Acts (not even in xxi. 13,
15, or by the omission of Acts vi. 14 in Luke xxii. 66 ff., as Holtzmann
supposes) ; nor is the latter connected with the above preface, but has
a preface of its own in Acts i. 1-5, which links on to Luke xxiv. 29.

324 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF THE ACTS.
of, as already seen by Michaelis ; this however does not
appear in our book as a doctrine of Paul's, but as in accord
ance with the gospel it must necessarily be, the will of
Christ, to the accomplishment of which the fortunes of
Peter and Paul must be subservient. Inasmuch therefore
as Paul incurred great hostility from the Judaists, just
because he brought the gospel to the Gentiles as such ;
the evidence that the passing of the gospel from the Jews
to the Gentiles was Divinely ordained and resulted from
the guilt of the former, is itself an apology for the Gentile
Apostle who only followed the Divine leading throughout,
whether accorded to him directly, or indirectly by his ex
periences. But this apology is not equivalent to an antithesis
within Christianity itself. For the very purpose of showing
that he gave no offence by his conduct to the Jews who
rejected his preaching, we have an account of the circum
cision of Timothy (xvi. 3, Sta rovs 'lovSaiovs) at the beginning
of his proper Gentile mission ; reference being made to it as
a refutation of the calumny of the Jews against him (xxi.
22 ff.) ; while his new and successful speeches in his defence
are brought forward as evidence that he was entirely
innocent of the hatred with which he was pursued by
unbelieving Judaism. It is certainly not without design
that such intentional prominence is given to Paul's close
relations to the primitive Church, as also to his preparation
for the Gentile mission by its authorities; or that so detailed
an account is given of the transactions with regard to the
emancipation of the Gentile-Christians from the law ; for
the process of development is certainly not intended to
appear as the work of Paul, but as the necessary result of
the Church's guidance by its exalted Lord. That the
Apostle's defence against Jewish- Christian attacks was ir
any sense the object cf the work, cannot be proved.
Following the precedent cf Griesbach and Frisch (in Dissertationen of
1798, 1807) and in pursuance of hints given by Baur (No. 7), Schnecken-

THE TENDENCY ASCRIBED TO THE ACTS. 325
burger tried to explain the entire composition of the Acts by assuming
that its aim was to defend the Apostle against all the reproaches of the
Judaists. The view that a parallel between Paul and Peter, in their
miracles as weU as their sufferings,3 runs through the book, is certainly
forced ; and it is quite a mistake to suppose that Paul by his journeys
to Jerusalem, his keeping of feasts and religious exercises is meant to
be represented throughout as a pious Jew.3 The detailed discussion
of his quarrel with Barnabas (xv. 36-39) is opposed to the view that
prominence is given to his friendly relations with the men of the primi
tive Church in the mterest of a tendency ; while the assumption that

* When Peter heals a lame man in Lydda (ix. 33) as weU as in
Jerusalem (chap. Ui.), it is clear that simUar cases were of frequent
occurrence (comp. viii. 7), and hence that the healing of the lame man
in Lystra by Paul (chap. xiv. ) cannot be meant as a counterpart ; on
the other hand neither the healing of the man who was sick of a fever
at Malta, nor the casting out of a devil in PhUippi, has a counterpart in
Peter, since the expulsion of devils is only mentioned in xv. 16 in quite
a general way (and according to v. 16 is certainly attributed to the
Apostles generally, just as in viu. 7 to PhiUp). Whether a raising from
the dead did actually take place on occasion of the incident at Troas
(xx. 9 f.), is left much too obscure to admit of the assumption that a
counterpart to the raising of the dead at Joppa (ix. 40) could here be
intended. To make Peter's scene with the sorcerer Simon, who by no
means assumes a hostile attitude towards him, a paraUel to that of Paul
with the sorcerer Elymas, whose blinding is farther said to form the
counterpart to the so-caUed punitive miracle of Peter (Acts v.), or
to make Paul's laying on of hands (xix. 6) a parallel to that of the
primitive Apostles (viii. 17), although the same thing is done by Ananias
with similar effect (ix. 17 f.), is entirely forced.
1 His first journey to Jerusalem has exactly the same object as in
Gal. i. 18, viz. to make the acquaintance of the primitive Apostles
(ix. 27), his second in which he by no means appears as the actor was
for the purpose of deUvering * collection (xi. 30; xii. 25), the third
(Acts xv.) has its object confirmed by Gal. ii., whUe the fourth is so
obscurely intimated in xviii. 22 that it is even yet a matter of doubt
whether the words imply such a journey (§ 15, 7; note 2). Tbe cele
bration of the Passover in xx. 6 only comes into consideration as a
determination of time ; and the intention of celebrating Pentecost in
Jerusalem (xx. 16) appears from what follows to have been given up,
for its fulfilment is certainly not implied in xxiv. 11. Paul's vow
(8 15, 7, note 1) is so slightly mentioned in xviu. 18, that it is stiU
disputed whether the reference be to him or AquUa, and the Nazarite
vow (xxi. 26) is accounted for in a way that is entirely credible (§ 24, 1,
note 2).

326 HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE ACTS.
silence is observed respecting his conflicts with the Judaists in behalf
of a similar interest is excluded by the detailed description of their
thorough defeats in chap, xv., upon which alone stress is laid in the
context, as also by the almost exaggerated mention of them in xxi. 20,
where it is important to the narrative ; the silence regarding the dispute
at Antioch, attributed to a tendency-interest, is sufficiently explained by
the fact that the book in accordance with its whole plan in no case
enters into the inner development of the Churches ; while the coUection
said to be passed over in silence is abruptly mentioned in xxiv. 17. The
view that silence is intentionaUy preserved with regard to the sufferings
of the Apostle (2 Cor. xi.), and that his visions are legitimated by those
of Peter (chap, x.), is very far-fetched.4
The fact that the alleged aim of the Acts does not suffice
for the explanation of every single detail, does not invalidate
this aim. In many cases the author was naturally influenced
by the fulne3s or poverty of his (oral or written) sources
(comp. No. 5) ; while a special interest for the author, which
can no longer be explained, undoubtedly attached to this or
that particular. Moreover much is visibly conditioned by
the artistic composition of the whole; for example Paul's
three great defensive discourses in the last part (before the
people chap, xxii., before Felix chap, xxiv., before Agrippa
chap, xxvi.), manifestly correspond to the three great
speeches in the earlier parts (before Jews chap, xiii., before
Gentiles chap, xvii, before Christians chap. xx.).
7. It is imperative that an historical narrative which is
dominated throughout by a definite view, should not be
incorrect, if as in our case, this view is derived from the
history itself and not obtruded on it; if looked at from
the standpoint of an historical source, it may be said to
be one-sided. The Acts, however, is not by any means
4 Nevertheless even Klostermann found it possible to assume from
Hofmann's standpoint (comp. No. 5) that Paul is defended against the
reproach of being a wanton disturber of the religion of his fathers;
while Aberle too (comp. also Ebrard) interprets this writing of Luke's as
a defence against the accusations pending against Paul (comp. Tiib.
theol. Quartalschr., 1855, 63, and on the other hand Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr.
f. wiss. Theol., 1864).

HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE ACTS. 327
an historical writing in our sense of the word, but is
intended to enable the great crisis manifested in the history
of primitive Christianity to be understood in its deepest
motives and rightly judged from a religious standpoint.1
The account it gives is no doubt sometimes inexact, as may
still be shown from the Pauline Epistles ; respecting the
beginnings of Paul (§ 13, 3), perhaps also with regard to the
circumstances of the second journey to Jerusalem (§ 13, 4)
and respecting the missions of Silas and Timothy (§ 15, 5,
note 1) it is imperfectly instructed ; and this must be the
case in many passages regarding which we are no longer in
a position to adduce evidence. It must likewise be con
ceded that the relations of the primitive Christian time
are in many cases no longer quite clear to the narrator.3
1 The way in which the history of the mission is from chap. xi. stiU
attached solely to Antioch, and from chap. xv. almost exclusively to
the person of Paul, certainly gives an incorrect picture, if we infer
from it that the primitive Church did nothing for the spread of Christ
ianity (§ 14, 2, 5, note 2). Undoubtedly the narrative of the founding of
the Macedonian Churches, in which the author follows only those points
of view that had importance in his own view, gives a totally inadequate
description of them, which we have to supplement by the Pauline Epistles
(§ 15, 3, 4). An account of the inner development of the Church ought
certainly not to pass over the dispute at Antioch, nor the Galatian and
Corinthian disturbances ; but the Acts does not claim to be such an
account. 3 Just as he no longer rightly apprehends the original sense ol
the Apostolic decree (xxi. 25, comp. § 14, 4, note 3), and has perhaps
erroneously made Paul publish it in tbe Lyeaonian Churches (xvi. 4,
comp. § 15, 1, note 4), so too in attempting to give a sermon preached by
Paul in the synagogue, he has probably somewhat effaced its unique
character by the infusion of reminiscences of Petrine discourses, and
has certainly not reproduced his doctrine of justification in its genuine
form (xiii. 39) ; but this cannot appear strange after § 48, 6. Just as in
the dispute between the parties of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, he
has perhaps unduly emphasized their dogmatic differences (xxin. 8, comp.
iv. 1 f. and with it § 50, 2), so in Paul's defensive discourses he has
probably not given adequate expression to the Apostle's fundamental
position with regard to the law, and in emphasizing his advocacy
of the hope of Israel has attached too onesided an importance to the
question of the resurrection.

328 THE ACTS AS A FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY.
But in all this there is not the smallest support for the
assertion of the Tubingen school that the author in the
interest of a tendency gave a different representation
throughout of relations with which he was perfectly familiar,
in order, after having smoothed away the conflicting anti
theses of the Apostolic period by mutual concessions, to
effect a reconciliation between them by setting forth this
mediating standpoint as the original one.
In the Tiibingen Zeitschr. (1836, 3; 38, 3) Baur had already
treated the narrative of the Acts as not purely historical ; but after
wards in view of the evidence alleged by Schneckenburger of a tendency-
representation (No. 6) throughout (though only in the choice of material)
he endeavoured to prove in his Paulus (1845) that a representation
of this kind must necessarily be altogether untrustworthy and un
historical. In order to uphold Paulinism over against Judaism which
had gained the ascendancy, the author, according to Baur, softens its
antithesis to the law and Judaism, throws a veil over Paul's differences
with the primitive Apostles, and tries to throw the inner-Christian anti
thesis into forgetfulness by the common hatred of unbeUeving Judaism.
Whereas Schwegler (1846) viewed the book in the light of a vindi
cation of the Gentile Apostle and an attempt to mediate, in the form
of a history ; ZeUer (Theol. Jahrb., 1849-51, comp. his Apostelgesch.,
Stuttg., 1854) foUowed out Baur's view by an acute criticism of the
Acts in all its detaUs. It is a proposal of peace on the part of a Pauline,
who by concessions to Jewish Christianity, endeavours to obtain from it
a recognition of GentUe Christianity.3 Proof of this falsification of
history in the interest of conciliation can of course only be drawn from
the PauUne Epistles; and from these it has already been shown,
that on the contrary the Tubingen idea of an antithesis between Paul
and the primitive Apostles is unhistorical, the acoount of the Acts
being quite compatible with the Epistles in every essential particular
* According to Zeller he sets aside the chief points of Pauline teach
ing, leaves the law and circumcision to the Jewish Christians, makes
Paul himself a zealous servant of the law, carrying on the GentUe
mission only by constraint, under Peter's protection and by the per
mission of the Jerusalemites. His object is to justify Paul to Jewish
Christianity and to influence the Gentile Christians to open the way for
an understanding with Jewish Christianity by removing those aspects of
Paulinism most offensive to it. In this sense the Pauline part is a great
forgery, and the primitive Apostolic part in reaUty pure fiction.

TJNTENABLENESS OF THIS CONCEPTION. 329
(comp. esp. § 14).4 Against the Tubingen school Ebrard came forward
in his scientific criticism of the gospel history, especially Baumgarten,
who indeed resolved the narrative into a great allegory, while re
garding it as trustworthy throughout ; as also Meyer and Lekebusch
(1854), who however were more temperate in their criticism. Comp.
also Trip, Paulus nach der Apostelgeschichte, 1866 ; Oertel, Paulus unci
die Apostelgeschichte, Halle, 1868 ; and of late K. Schmidt and Nosgen
(1882). Even in Hilgenfeld we have a very modified form of the cus
tomary criticism with regard to the Acts ; while critics such as Reuss,
Grimm, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker and Keim have acknowledged the trusts
worthy character of much that has hitherto been strongly disputed, ad
mitting that where we have an actual departure from the historical
relations it is not intentional, but is due to the fact that the author took
this view of the relations from the standpoint of his time. So far as
a tendency to reconcile party-antitheses from this standpoint is conceded,
the author is represented as having onesidedly emphasized only those
particulars favourable to such a tendency, out of love to it. Thiersch

4 It is by no means correct to say that according to the Acts Peter's
Gentile mission was begun and sanctioned by the primitive Church ; for
the first baptism of a Gentile that took place in it appears an isolated
case brought about by special Divine providence, the primitive Church
only admitting that Peter's entering in to the Gentiles, evidently com
manded by God, was justified (§ 14, 2, note 2). Not even in Acts xv.,
where according to Gal. ii. there was every inducement for it, is the
Gentile mission as such sanctioned by the primitive Church ; it is not
Peter but the deacon Philip who makes the first step towards breaking
through the limits of the Jewish mission pure and simple. The legal
question is first discussed at the Apostolic council. Peter and James
do not by any means assign reasons for the freedom of the Gentile
Christians after the manner of Paul; nor does Paul make the con
cession of allowing at least a part of the law to be imposed on the
Gentiles (§ 14, 4). The way in which Paul according to the Acts is led
to his GentUe mission, as also the way in which in pursuance of it he
constantly goes after the Jews, is quite in keeping with his declarations
in Rom. xi. (§ 13, 6 ; 14, 5, note 2) and with the nature of the case
(comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 24). The enmity of the Jews against him, to which
such prominence is given, is fully corroborated by the first Epistle to the
Thessalonians (§ 17) as well as by Bom. xv. 31 (comp. Acts xx. 3), and
by the way in which success among the Jews and persecutions by Gen
tiles are frequently related ; so that the description is secure against aU
suspicion of having been fabricated in the interest of a tendency. The
circumcision of Timothy (xvi. 3) so hotly contested, and the taking of
the Nazarite vow (xxi. 26) are perfectly consistent with the fundamental
principles of Paul (§ 15, 1, note 3 ; § 24, 1, note 2).

330 XJNTENABLENBSS OF THIS CONCEPTION.
even finds it possible to reooncUe this with perfect fideUty to the
truth.6 Apart from the question as to whether such alleged falsi
fication of history can in any way be proved, and whether
such refinement is in keeping with the simple character of
the narrative, this tendency- view is in itself impossible. To
concede circumcision and the obligation to observe the law
to Jewish Christians, was impossible after the fall of the
temple had made the fulfilment of the latter to a large
extent impossible, and would not have healed the breach
but have only perpetuated it. The fact of ascribing
Pauline doctrine to Peter, and representing him as ap
proving of and inaugurating the Gentile mission so hateful
to the Jewish Christians, could only excite bitterness against
the slanderous Paulines who sought by silence and obvious
lying to whitewash the image of the hated Paul, which was
only too well-known.6 But what hope could there be of
gaining over the Paulines to this compromise, when a cri-

' On the other hand Holtzmann (in Schenkel's Bibellex.,1., 1869) has
recently modified his view of a more naive influence of the author's
conciliatory tendency on the narrative, in the direction of the Tubingen
tendency-criticism (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1882, 83); while even Man
gold has at last admitted a conscious altering in some parts, in conse
quence of the conciliatory tendency.
6 It is vain to say that the original antithesis was intended to be
thrown into forgetfulness by means of the common hatred against un
believing Judaism. The fact that their unbelieving fellow-countrymen
hated Paul just as much as they hated him themselves and that he him
self was furious against them before his conversion, could not make the
Jewish Christians more mildly disposed towards him ; nor could peace
be promoted by the calumniating Paulines attributing the worst perse
cutions of Christianity to their fellow-oountrymen. Neither could the
Gentile Christians be gained over in this way, when they saw that the
unbelieving Jews hated their Paul no less than the Jewish-Christians,
whose opposition to him breaks out in the clearest way in xxi. 20, in
spite of all concealment. Internal dissension may certainly be forgotten
in face of a common adversary ; but unbelieving Israel was by no means
an adversary of believing Israel in the same sense as the GentUe
Christians.

JUDAISTIC CONCEPTION OF THE ACTS. 331
terion of the Apostolate was set up a priori (i. 21 f. ; x. 41)
which in the view of the Judaists would have excluded Paul
from it, and a false position assigned to him with regard to
the primitive Apostles which entirely destroyed the inde
pendence he continually asserted with so much emphasis.
These considerations necessarily led to the view that the
Paulinism which speaks in the Acts was already complete ;
or else that it was no longer a Pauline but on the contrary
a Jewish Christian who set forth the history of primitive
Christianity in his sense of it.
Bruno Bauer (Die Apostelgeschichte,'Ber]ia,1850) already proceeded on
the assumption that the settlement which according to the Tubingen
school was first attempted by our book had in fact aUeady been accom
plished when this was written, and that the former antithesis had long
disappeared and become unintelligible to the standpoint of Christian
conservatism, in which Judaism had conquered. Overbeck practically
returns to this standpoint (Komm., 1870, comp. also Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol., 1872, 3), and for the most part acknowledges the objections that
have been made against the conciliatory tendency. It is certainly pos
sible to transfer the standpoint of his time back to the ApostoUc past,
but quite impossible to regard the primitive ApostoUc standpoint with
him as already overpast, and from love of the present to falsify the tra
dition respecting authority on which it was based (comp. on the other
hand Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1871, 1 ; 72, 3).' Hence
nothing remained but to make the author of the Acts a Jewish
Christian, as done by Wittichen (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1873 ; Jahrb.
f.prot. Theol., 1877, compare to the contrary Bahnsen, ibid., 1879, 1)
and Scholten (das Paulinische Evangelium, 1881); a Jewish Christian

1 Overbeck regards the Acts as the attempt of a Pauline to come to an
understanding with Paulinism and its founder Paul ; of a Pauline for
whom the fundamental questions of the Apostolic period had long lost
their significance, and who no longer recognised the ideal founding of
GentUe Christianity in the Pauline gospel but regarded it as the legiti
mate fruit of primitive Christianity, making the Hellenists in particular
play a quite unhistorical part in its founding. He makes the primitive
Apostles represent a standpoint which is no longer that of their time ;
because it no longer advocates entire adherence to the law on the part
of the Jewish Christians, and aUows an intentional modification of the
Pauline tradition with which the author was acquainted.

332 ALLEGED POLITICAL TENDENCY OF THE ACTS.
who indeed made certain concessions to advancing Gentile Christianity
and its Apostle, but sacrificed the independence of both, to Jewish
Christianity. The tendency acceptation of the Acts having proved itself
untenable by the fact that it terminated in such contradic
tion, the historical depreciation of the Acts could now be
undertaken only from an entirely different aspect. It ia
Overbeck more especially, who, following the example of
Schwegler and Schneckenburger (comp. even Mangold) has
laid chief stress on the political side of the Acts, inasmuch
as in addition to a strong national antagonism to Judaism
it bears the character of an apology for Christianity over
against the Gentiles.8 Although the tendency-hypothesis
here passes entirely into the assumption of a refined falsi
fication, which is the more inconceivable in proportion as
the book could have less hope of finding credit if all that it
contained were pure invention, yet the judgment as to its
credibility depends ultimately on the position of the author
with respect to the events which he narrates, viz. on the
question as to how far he himself was an eyewitness or
possessed sources that conld be depended on.
§ 50. The Sources of the Acts.
1. Since Luke's Gospel is almost entirely composed out of
sources, it is natural to suppose that the continuation of it
8 From this standpoint even such features as had hitherto been be
yond dispute are said to be pure invention ; for example, the Roman
¦citizenship of Paul, his protection by Roman troops, the detaUs of his
lawsuit whose delay is said to be attributable only to the violation of
duty on the part of a few officials, the conversion of Roman officials, etc
For this reason the Acts makes Paul in conclusion execute the duties of
his apostleship in Rome under the protection of the Roman laws, and
passes over his end in sUence in the interest of a tendency. According
to Wittichen the author even means to insinuate to the Gentile Christians
that only by adhering closely to Jewish Christianity could they acquire
chil security under the protection of Judaism as a religio licita.

THE SOURCES OF THE AOTS. 333
must also rest upon sources. The uniform linguistic charac
ter of Luke's writings has indeed been urged against this
view, but in so far as such uniformity actually exists,
it only points to a revision of sources throughout, such as
is demonstratably present in the Gospel (§ 48, 4, note 1).
But as a matter of fact the linguistic character of our book
is anything but uniform. It is obvious that the first half
is as a whole much more strongly Hebraistic than the
second ; that the latter is written in purer Greek, more and
more so as it proceeds, coming nearer to the language
of the prologue of the Gospel ; while the lexical stock of
words is different in the two halves.1 So too the close con
nection of the narrative with its frequent prospecting and
retrospecting is an argument solely in favour of a revision
of the sources employed, since the same thing is found in
the Gospel, and here by no means without exception. Not
only however does the linguistic character point to the use
of sources but also the contents, especially in the first half.
Since we have at all events the work of a Pauline disciple
in the continuation of tbe Gospel, all that belongs to the
history of Paul (and this includes the entire second half)
might of itself easily rest on oral tradition or on the testi
mony of eye-witnesses. But the first part contains a fulness
of detail respecting the history of the primitive Church which
goes far beyond what can be traced back to oral tradition.
To such category belong in particular the great speeches of

» Expressions are found which occur very frequently, but only in the
first part (a-opela k. repara, Saos, i^iardvai, irpoa xaprepeiv) besides such as
occur frequently only in tbe second part (xaravrdv, StaXkyeoSai, irpotrXap-
pdveaBai, iwifialveiv, do-irdteaBai, irov-rjpjs, xaxei) and of which it cannot be
said, as may perhaps be the case where xariryopetv , diroXoyeurBai, eyxa.
Xeto-Bat ((yxX-npa), are concerned, that they are sutrgested by the subject
of the narrative, especiaUy if we take into consideration such as pre
viously occur separately (edv, a-eftec-Bai r. Bebv, dvayyeXXeiv, eiriXappive-
r6ai, irapaXapBdveiv, Siarpifieiv, Kpafav, dvdyeeBai, iirioraoBai, eirl of the
duration of time, Sib, bSbs metaph., a-i)pepov, rh -rept rtvos, etc.).

d34 THE SOURCES OF THE ACTS.
this part, which, by those who deny all use of sources, are
necessarily regarded as free compositions of the author.3
But these discourses, as well as many narratives in this
part, contain a greater number of allusions to Old Tes
tament stories and passages as well as of Old Testament
expressions, than could possibly have been at the disposal
of the Gentile-Christian author of the book.
The question respecting the sources of the Acts was first raised by
Konigsmann (De Fontibus Comm. Sacr. qui Luca nomen praferunt, 1798),
against whom Eichhorn came forward in his Introduction (1810).
Riehm too held that the first part was drawn from sources (De Font. Act.
ap. Traj., 1821), while Bertholdt and Kuinol (comp. also Volkmar)
speciaUy characterized the x-qpvypa Herpov as such. According to
Schleiermacher the first part was taken from single written digests,
traces of which he thought he stiU perceived in repetitions and interrup
tions of the sequence ; de Wette, Bleek and likewise Ewald thought of
a history of Peter, a memoir of Stephen, and a missionary account in
chaps, xiu. and xiv. ; for which Schwanbeck (iiber die Quellen der
Schriften des Lucas, Darmstadt, 1847), who first attempted to make a
really critical separation of the sources, substituted a biography of
Barnabas. On the whole, however, discord prevailed; Mayerhoff,
Credner, Schneckenburger, Ebrard, Reuss and Lekebusch declared de
cidedly against the view of written sources, and where these were more
or less definitely conceded, as by Guericke, Meyer, Mangold, L. Schulze
and even the Tubingen critics, it was nevertheless held that they could

2 In this case it is commonly overlooked that the custom of classic
authors to put declamation into the mouths of their heroes offers no
analogy whatever; inasmuch as the Gospel of our author does not
give the slightest support to the conjecture that he did so likewise.
Conversely the attempt has frequently been made to prove, especially
where the Petrine discourses are concerned, that they have too much
that is peculiar in Unguistio and doctrinal character to have been con
ceived by the author of the Acts (comp. Seyler, Stud. u. Krit., 1832, 1 ;
Weiss, Krit. Beibl. d. deutschen Zeitschr. f. christi. Wist., 1854, 10, 11;
Kahler, Stud. u. Krit. 1873). Though all the observations there made
may not be tenable or of decided weight, and though in particular the
view that traces may stiU be shown ; in various misunderstandings of
the Aramaean dialect of the source from which they were drawn, must
be abandoned, yet enough remains to make the opinion that the author
had written sketches of these discourses before him, in the highest
degree probable.

DISPUTES ABOUT THE SOURCES. 335
no longer be ascertained.8 Nosgen attempts to return entirely to oral
tradition. In the whole of the second part, where it is possible that a
travelUng-companion of Paul is the narrator, the question assumes an
aspect so entirely different that it requires distinct investigation, in
which moreover the position of the various critics with regard to it first
comes to be discussed.
2. That the first part, which treats of the history of the
primitive Church (§ 49, 1), is based on a source, can be
proved, with as much certainty as can be attained in such
matters, by a critical analysis of the narrative. It is im
possible that the account of making up the number of the
twelve Apostles (i. 15-26) should have been composed by
the author, who gives no intimation of the importance of this
number, with whom the Twelve as such play no part, and
who finds his chief hero outside their circle.1 The narrative
of the history of Pentecost (chap, ii.) is pervaded by the
contradiction not yet explained by any exegesis, that on the
one hand a unique miracle of tongues is incontestably meant
to be narrated, while on the other there is much that
points to the first manifestation of speaking in tongues ; so
that here at any rate an older foundation must be distin
guished from the revision of the narrator. By this means
some uncertainty is imparted to the indications respecting
time, place and auditory. But the following Petrine dis-
8 What HUgenfeld, Hausrath and others have conjectured respecting
the Judaistio rrpdgeis Tlirpov, is purely imaginary. According to Jacobsen
(Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, Berlin, 1885), who adopts the view of
a Barnabas Bource for chaps, xiu.-xv., chaps. i.-xU. are freely fabricated
on the basis solely of Paul's Epistles, partly after evangelical types.
1 But in this narrative we have the first discourse of Peter, where i.
18 f. is clearly seen to be a foreign interpolation that only obscures the
interpretation of the following words of Scripture which the context
necessarUy requires. Hence the author, whose revising hand is again
visible in vers. 16, 22, must have had this discourse before him in a
written form, and with it the entire narrative whose beginning is clearly
enough seen in i. 14 in the whoUy unexplained appearance of the hun
dred and twenty brethren along with the relatives of Jesus, and women
who are entirely unspecified.

336 SOURCE OF THE FIRST PART.
course, though likewise showing traces of revision (ii. I4
86), knows nothing of the above miracle of tongues, and
therefore certainly proceeds from the source; in the same
way ii. 39 contains an allusion to an Old Testament pas
sage, which can only have been applied at first to the
calling of the Gentiles, but in the connection in which it is
put by the narrator must be referred to the Jews of the
Diaspora. Finally the original conclusion of the narrator
(ii. 41 f.) may still be clearly distinguished from the ex
planation appended by the reviser (ii. 43-47) ? In the next
narrative-portion not only do the healing of the lame man
and the speech made by Peter (chap, iii.) show clear traces
of revision, but the transaction between the chief priests and
Peter, which manifestly took place in the court of the
temple in presence of the healed man and the people, is
transferred, after an arrest that has neither aim nor motive,
to a full sitting of the Sanhedrim, which could not possibly
have been convoked so speedily (iv. 3-7). So too the in
terpellation, manifestly called forth by the characterization
of the murder of Jesus, indirectly caused by the people them
selves, as an outrage needing to be repented of (iii. 13, 17,
19), is traced back in an impossible way to the aversion of
the Sadducees to the doctrine of the resurrection (iv. 2) and
to the question as to the means by which the miracle was
effected (iv. 7, 9). Finally, the limitation of punishment to
the prohibition against preaching, iv. 16 ff., is accounted for
* Here the Apostles at once perform miracles, although in the foUow
ing part of the source the healing of the lame man obviously appears
as the first of its kind (iii. 11 f. ; iv. 16, 21) ; here the three thou
sand of the source, which number probably included most of the guests
at the feast who immediately returned home (whereas Luke certainly
supposes that they were living in Jerusalem, U. 5), are all daily reas
sembled in the temple and the houses ; a manifest impossibility ; here
the narrator, in accordance with his predilection shown in the Gospel for
the giving up of all property (§ 48, 6), describes a universal carrying out
of the community of goods, which acco-ding to the foUowing narratives
derived from tbe source cannot have taken place.

SOURCE OF THE FIRST PART. 337
otherwise than in the simple narrative of the source (iv. 21
f.) ; and a miraculous effect is substituted for the natural
result of the prayer of the Church, iv. 33 f. (which likewise
betrays the hand of the reviser), in the strengthening of the
Apostles to bear witness of Christ, and in the popular favour
accorded to the Church which was distinguished by ardent
love (iv. 31) .3 In the source the sacrifice of Barnabas was
3 Because in the source Peter speaks in the name of the Twelve, and
the interference of the chief priests with his preaching naturally refers
to his equaUy guilty companions also, for which reason the plural was
there employed (comp. also iv. 13), therefore the narrator represents
Peter from the first as accompanied by John (ni 1, 8) who had no part
whatever in the whole transaction, and who, as is especiaUy seen in hi.
4, 11 ; iv. 13, is constantly named along with hi™ hi a way for which
no reason can be assigned. The addition of Ui. 4 f., which only disturbs
the connection, implies that the Apostles are already known as miracle-
workers, which is undoubtedly the case according to U. 43 but not
according to the source. The addition of iii. 8 ff., descriptive of the
result and impression produced by the miracle of healing is at variance
with the simple way in whioh the source in iii. 11 evidently leads up to
the discourse. Here the outrage perpetrated by the people is in accord
ance with Luke xxiii. 16-21 more fuUy explained (iii. 13 f., comp. also
the unsuitable addition of dpxovres in ver. 17) and its meaning obscured
by the prominence given to the raising of Jesus from the dead, whioh
was akeady implied in eSbi-atrev (Ui. 15) according to the source. Because
the PauUne makes Christ of the seed of Abraham, the varpial (Luke U.
4) are explained of the tribes of Israel, contrary to the sense of the pas
sage and the irp&rov in ver. 26. Between the arrest added by the reviser
and the sitting of the Sanhedrim, the way in which the impression of
the discourse on the people (iv. 4 a) is in the source contrasted with the
interruption of the chief priests who were likewise present, is still pre
served, awkwardly enough. With these additions may be classed the
setting aside of the disciples and the consultation of the Sanhedrim (iv.
15-17), the anticipation of v. 29 in iv. 19 f., impossible here and directly
excluded by iv. 29, as also the dismissal with the ambiguous irpbs r. ISlovt
(iv. 23). In the prayer the hand of the reviser is seen in the expression
in iv. 25, the awkwardness of which is due solely to the insertion of the
Holy Ghost (comp. i. 16), in the particular appUcation of the passage
from the Psalm, certainly not intended (iv. 27), in the explanatory xal
BovXrj aov (iv. 28), and in the ripara *. aijp. ylvea8ai in iv. 30, whioh is
also an awkward expression. The incongruous account in iv 32-35 can
only be explained on the assumption that the reviser again tacks on his
description of the community of goods to the result of the prayer as
recorded in the source (comp. note 1) ; a description that is in direct con
tradiction to the history which immediately foUows in the souroe.
VOL. II. 7.

338 SOURCE OF THE FIRST PART.
evidently only an illustration of this loving zeal (iv. 36 f.)
and formed the transition to the hypocritical imitation of it
by Ananias and Sapphira, who were immediately overtaken
by punishment for having tempted God ; an act merely
apprehended by the reviser as an offence against the spirit
animating the Apostles (v. 3, 9). Another narrative por
tion describes the timid reverence of the people for the
Apostles (v. 14, 16) and the open preaching by the latter
in the temple (v. 21) which leads on to their being cited
before the chief council (v. 25 f.), where the proceedings
relative to their disobedience to the prohibition against
preaching end in disciplinary punishment (v. 28-41). Here
all difficulties are removed simply by assuming a re
vision.4 Although it is only Peter's acts and speeches
which have been hitherto traced to this source, there is
no reason why the Stephen- episode should not also be re
ferred to it. The profound discourse, testifying to an
intimate knowledge of the Old Testament, cannot possibly
have been composed by the author of our book; whose
additions on the contrary are blamable, if the course of
thought and the tendency of the discourse have here and
there been rendered obscure.6 It is therefore proved, that
* The very obscure account in v. 12-16 is at once cleared up, if we
assume that vers. 14, 16 were added by the reviser, whose hand bas also
to some extent transformed the introductory ver. 12. The unexplained
imprisonment of the Apostle and his entirely motiveless release are
undoubtedly embeUishments drawn from reminiscences of the later
history of Peter (chap. xii.). It is still quite clear from v. 25, that in
the source it was the intelligence of the public transgression of tbe pro
hibition against preaching (v. 21) that first led to the intervention of
the chief priests. Tbe following transac tions, down to v. 33 where the
intention to slay the Apostles is certainly put too early, may very
probably have belonged to the source ; while the notorious difficulty in
the speech of Gam aliel is got rid of simply by assuming that tbe reviser
inserted the example of Theudas in the wrong place. The conclusion in
ver. 42 also unquestionably belongs to his hand.
6 We see that even tbe introduction to it (vi. 1-6) comes from the
source, by the fact that the augmentation of the Church now comes in

SOURCE OE THE FIRST PART. 339
apart from the introduction and the account of the Ascension
(i. 1-13), the entire first part of the book proceeds from a
Jewish-Christian source undoubtedly emanating from an
eye-witness of the events narrated. The revision of this
source is seen to be explanatory and embellishing, just as in
the Gospel ; and even where it blunders, only such traits as
were supplied to the author by other narratives of his source
were employed. The idea of the rapid growth of the
primitive Church and its community of goods, realizing (in
the author's view) the ideal of Christian life, is a result of
the natural idealization of the Christian primitive time; and
has not effaced the contradictory traits of the source any
more than the conception of the miracle of tongues at Pente
cost or of the Divine omen in iv. 31. Nowhere do we find
any trace of a dogmatic or ecclesiastical tendency.
3. Use is also made in the second part of the Acts (§ 49,
2) of a series of pieces from the same source. To these
belong in the first place the stories about Philip contained in
chap. viii. The first piece is already connected with the
source by Peter's transaction with Simon, which forms the
leading part of the source, although the introduction alone
is important for the pragmatism of the narrator ; the second
for the first time, and that the systematic maintenance of widows is
taken for granted, in direct contradiction to the repeated descriptions
of numerous conversions (comp. also vi. 7) and to a completed com
munity of goods, amid its brevity and obscurity implying a knowledge
on the part of the readers of our book of much which they could not
have known, without once indicating that the chosen Seven were all
Hellenists. Above aU the account of the murder of Stephen itself
fluctuates between an act of mob-justice and a judicial proceeding ; the
difficulties of the narrative so often remarked being produced solely
by the reviser'B having introduced it. So too in the conclusion of the
narrative, the imitation of Jesus', words on the cross (vii. 59), the in
troduction of Paul (vii. 58, 60 ; viii. 3) and the certainly exaggerated
notice respecting the dispersion of the Church (viii. 1 b) are additions
to a foreign text which ended simply with the statement that not
withstanding the persecution which immediately arose, the last honours
were paid to the first martyr.

340 TRACES OF THE SOURCE IN THE SECOND PART.
in accordance with this pragmatism represents the conversion
of a true proselyte ; which, however, according to Deut. xxiii.
2, a eunuch could not have been.1 From the source we have
also the story of Cornelius with its introduction in ix.
31—43, which has no manner of importance for the pragma
tism of the narrator. This is shown not only by x. 42,
according to which the twelve Apostles in opposition to
i. 8 are destined for Israel, and x. 46 f . where in opposition
to chap. ii. the Pentecost story is taken not as a miracle of
speaking in unknown tongues but as a manifestation of
glossolaly, but also by the fact that the reviser, whose hand
is likewise visible in other places (comp. for example x. 37
with Luke xxiii. 5 ; x. 41 with Luke xxiv. 43), adds xi.
1-18, as seen by the many inaccurate references in this part
to the previous narrative (comp. vers. 5, 8f., 10 ff., 14 ff.).
From the same source probably comes the history of Peter
in xii. 1-17 which gave the narrator a model for his
revision of chap, v., and which in all likelihood was simply
attached to xii. 23 ; so that xii. 18-22 is interpolated in
accordance with the author's predilection for the data of
1 It may however be observed, that tbe great difficulties of tbe
Samaritan story are perhaps got rid of simply by assuming that in tbe
source, Peter, with whom the reviser associates John (as in iii. 4),
attracted by the success of Philip, comes to Samaria, and the Samaritans
are now received into the Church by baptism. But as the source,
owing to the connection with what follows (viii. 18) mentioned only the
commnnication of the Spirit, which of course according to primitive
ApostoUc views, presupposed baptism ; the reviser erroneously under
stood this to mean that the latter had taken place without the former
(viii. 12 f., 16), although the source contains no intimation that in
consequence of what Philip had done the communication of the Spirit
was looked for in vain, and viii. 14 refers only to the success of his
preaching. Moreover the reviser, whose pragmatism led him to assume
the conversion of the whole province (viii. 25), thought first of all of
the city of Samaria (viii. 5), which according to the source (viii. 14)
was evidently not the case. But in the second history tbe Divine
guidance was traced back in the source to the dyyeXos Kvplov (viii. 26),
for which the reviser in accordance with his view substitutes the Spirit
(viii. 29, 39).

PAULINE SECTIONS OF THE SECOND PART. 341
profane history (§ 48, 4) ; as may be said above all of the
account of the transactions at Jerusalem in chap. xv. It
is impossible that the words of Peter and James which are
so characteristically distinct (§ 14, 4, note 2) could have
been conceived by the author ; the transactions themselves,
which according to the source are conducted by the Church,
according to the reviser by the Apostles and Presbyters,
are in the former brought about by a dispute in Jerusalem
(ver. 5), by the latter through the dispute at Antioch
(vers. 1-4) ; so that it even becomes doubtful whether the
transactions with Paul and Barnabas (Gal. ii.) are actually
those referred to by the source (§ 14, 3). The document of
the Church, devised by the reviser (vers. 23-29) does not
quite agree either in form or matter with the resolutions
before adopted, and was probably called forth only by the
mention in the source of the sending of Silas and Judas,
which must there have had a different meaning (§ 15, 1).
That these parts are taken from the source, is clear, how
ever, from the fact that their arrangement is conditioned
by the pragmatism of the author and in some measure
contradicts indications supplied by themselves.2 The case
is quite different with the Pauline sections of the second
part. The accounts of the beginnings of Paul (ix. 1-30)
and of the Church at Antioch (xi. 19-30; xii. 25) are in
* The story of Cornelius aocording to xv. 7 must belong to a much
earUer time, and shows that the Apostles had already made missionary
journeys through Palestine long before chap. viii. ; in vui. 26 the
description of the way pointed out to PhUip clearly impUes that he (by
whom perhaps the Apostle was intended in the source) was in Jerusalem,
thus making the connection of viii. 5 with what goes before very doubt
ful (§ 14, 2, note 2). Peter's release immediately before the death of
Herod Agrippa cannot coincide with the coUection-journey chronologi
cally (§ 13, 4, note 2) ; it implies that James was at the head of the
Church (xii. 17), and therefore that Peter had aheady given up his
position there, on account of his missionary-journey ; and the iiropeiBi)
tis erepov rbirov, which would be impossible in the source, can only serve
to conceal a missionary journey of this kind, which the pragmatism of
the author would not allow him to mention here.

342 PAULINE SECTIONS OF THE SECOND PART.
themselves so meagre and inexact (§ 49, 7), that they might
very well have been written by a Pauline disciple from
hearsay. Above all, it was quite a mistake to make the
account of a journey by the author himself a necessary
foundation for chaps, xiii., xiv., as is still done by Hilgen
feld, Mangold, Jacobsen and others (comp. also No. 1) ; for
this account is in truth so sketchy, giving a picture of the
relations of the time and the actual results of the journey so
far from clear that it too was almost certainly composed in
accordance with mere hearsay.3 Actual details are only
supplied in the episodes in Paphos and in Lystra (xiii. 6-12 ;
xiv. 8-18), the latter of which certainly shows traces point
ing to the revision of a source.* But there is not the least
occasion on this account for thinking of a special source
concerning the life of Paul or the history of the Church at
Antioch. On the contrary there is nothing to prevent our
assuming that the source which treated of the history of
the primitive Church and moreover contained not merely
speeches and acts of Peter but also the stories of Stephen
.ird Philip, introduced Paul into the narrative, of which
we have perhaps evidence in his being mentioned in vii. 58
3 The events in Pisidian Antioch are most fuUy narrated; but the
great speech in xiii. 16-41 is manifestly an attempt on the part of Luke
to represent the way in which he had heard Paul argue in the synagogue
in favour of the Messiahship of Jesus ; while the description of the result
(xiii. 42-52) is so closely connected with the leading points of view of the
narrator (§49,5), that it cannot possibly be borrowed from a source;
and the same thing holds good also of the events in Iconium (xiv. 1-7,
comp. also iv. 19 f.).
4 The statement contained in xiv. 6 f. in the introduction to the heal
ing at Lystra is very striking, for the flight to Derbe and the ministry
in that place are afterwards related again almost in the same words (xiv.
20 f .) ; in xiv. 8, 10 the embellishing touches from chap. iii. may still be
clearly distinguished from a text which lies at the foundation ; and the
words of Paul with which the author was no doubt acquainted (ver. 16 f.)
interrupt the connection of vers. 15, 18 so awkwardly, that they may
very likely have been interpolated by the reviser (comp. also the Bapv.
«. IlaCX., vers. 14, which after xni. 13 gives way to HavX. k. Bapv., and
with it § 13, 5).

THE SO-CALLED WE-SECTIONS. 343
as veaw'as, not quite in keeping with viii. 3 ; ix. 1. This
assumption is absolutely necessary, if Barnabas and Saul
were actually present in the source employed in chap.
xv. ; as seems probable from the position of the two names
(xv. 12). For it is impossible that this passage should
have contained merely the above bald notice ; it must have
given a more definite account of their missionary journey
and have illustrated the success of the missionaries by
examples such as those taken from Paphos and Lystra.5
The obscurity with regard to this question, which can
hardly now be fully cleared up, must not, however, in any
way prejudice the certainty with which the use of the source
may be pointed out in the Jerusalem sections.
4. If the greater part of the first half of the Acts rests
upon a source, it is very natural to form a similar conjecture
as to the second part. Traces of such were supposed to
be visible in many of the sections where a travelling-com
panion of Paul is evidently the speaker, for he expressly
includes himself by a " we " among the persons of whom
the narrative treats.1 Moreover it is by no means impos
sible that the wording of such a source should go much
farther than is directly shown by the presence of this 17/Mts ;
for it is in accordance with the nature of the subject that
' But this again presupposes that reference had already been made in
it to the conversion of Saul and his appearance in the primitive Church,
as also to his connection with Barnabas; to which account certain
striking features in the history of Ananias (ix. 10-19), in ix. 271, as
also in the history of the Church at Antioch (xi. 19-30, comp. esp. xiii.
1) might be traced.
1 This peculiarity first appears in xvi. 10 at the setting out from Troas
(eiBias i^rrrioapjev i£eX8eiv els 'M.axeSovlav) and continues to xvi. 17, where
the first meeting with the soothsaying damsel at PhUippi is described
(xaraxoXov8ovaa r. WavXy xal r\pxv). It recurs in xx. 5 in PhUippi (o8t<h
Si irpoeXBbvres Ipevov rjpds iv TpipdSi) and continues throughout the whole
journey to Jerusalem up to xxi. 18 (elo-fiei 0 nauXos obv -ripiv irpbs 'IdxaBov).
It appears for the third time in the journey to Rome, from xxvn. 1
(ixpiBrj rov diroirXeiv iipas els 'IraXlav) to xxviii 16 (eio-nXdopev elt t.
Viipiir).

344 HYPOTHESIS OF A DIARY.
most of what it has to relate concerned Paul alone, and
afforded no opportunity for mentioning the person of the
narrator also.2 On the contrary the entire last part of the
Acts, with the exception of the piece from xvi. 10 to xvi. 39
at most, might be taken from this source, beginning with
the departure to Jerusalem (xx.— xxviii.). On the other
hand it may be said with perfect certainty that not only is
it impossible for section xvi. 1-8, where we are not even
told of the founding of the Galatian Churches, to be drawn
from this source but also chaps, xvii.-xix. ; for the com
munications of the narrator are here much too meagre and
inexact, and the choice of what is narrated too fully con
ditioned by the points of view of the author of the Acts,
especially in chaps, xvii. and xviii, to have originated in a
source emanating from an eye-witness.3 But it must be
1 It is impossible indeed that he could have been in the Apostolio
company during the events narrated in xvi 1-8, otherwise tbe iipeis
would appear throughout this part also ; but in xvi. 18-39 he could not
include himseU ; and it first becomes evident from xvi. 40 that at least
at Paul's departure from PhUippi he was no longer in his company.
Nor do we find any trace of him in chaps, xvii.-xix., although there was
frequent opportunity for mentioning him. On the other hand tbe
ffvvelirero in xx. 4 makes it very probable that the narrator again accom
panied Paul from Corinth (§ 24, 1, note 1), although the ripJds first occurs
in vers. 5 ; and conversely the absence of the ijpets in xx. 16-38 by no
means interferes with the supposition that it is the travelling-companion
who speaks there too. So also the ceasing of the r/peis at xxi. 18 by no
means proves that his narrative stops there, since there was not tbe
most remote possibUity of its coming up in xxi. 19-xxvi. 32, nor yet
in xxiii. 31 ff. where Paul is brought to Csesarea under military escort
and therefore could not have been accompanied by friends. Just as little
oan xxviii. 17-28 be regarded as a proof that the travelling-source ceases
with xxviii. 16 ; for the companion has nothing to do with tho trans
actions there recorded ; and even in xxviii. 30 f . the exclusive mention of
Paul is so entirely in keeping with the aim of our conclusion that it
cannot be regarded as evidence that the narrator was no longer in his
oompany. " Nor does the Athenian discourse in chap. xvii. prove the contrary ;
for since (according to 1 Thess. iii. 1) Paul cannot have had any of his
companions there with him, the recording of this discourse can in no

HYPOTHESIS OF A DIARY. 345
confessed that it is impossible to form a direct conclusion as
to the extent of this source from the measure in which our
author has used it ; since for reasons belonging to his com
position he could only make partial use of it, and had to
set it aside even in parts where his account is more or less
abbreviated; but it is quite improbable that it extended
to the first missionary-journey (comp. Hausrath, Holtz
mann, Zeitschr. f. w. Th., 1881, 4) ; of which, as also of the
journeys in the second part, more chronological details
would in this case have certainly been given (comp. No. 3).
Konigsmann was not indisposed to ascribe to Timothy the record
of the eye-witness employed by the author in the second half of his
work; and since Schleiermacher and de Wette, wide currency has
been given to the view that a travelling diary of Timothy lies at its
foundation (oomp. Bleek, Ulrich, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit., 1836,
37, 40, 64).4 But this hypothesis is quite excluded by xx. 4f., where
Timothy belongs to the oCtoi with whom the narrator contrasts himself
by ipms; an argument which no subtlety of exegesis in this passage
has yet been able to refute. If appeal is made to the fact that
Timothy was nevertheless demonstrably with the Apostle in Cssarea
and Rome, it by no means follows from xxiv. 27, xxviii. 30 that the
narrator of that part shared the Apostle's imprisonment ; though that is
case lead to the inference of the use of tbe source of an ear-witness. On
tbe contrary, like the discourse at Antioch in chap, xiii., it must bave
been projected in accordance with what the author knew by experience
of the GentUe missionary preaching of the Apostle, and from what he
had heard of the particular way in which Paul at Athens accommodated
himself to that situation. Comp. § 15, 5, note 2.
4 In favour of this view it is adduced that Timothy was actually
received into the company of Paul shortly before the record of the
travelling-companion begins (xvi. 3) ; and yet in this case it is less in-
teUigible than ever why he did not give a fuller account of the journey
from Lystra to Troas, of the entire Macedonian-Hellenic mission and
the time at Ephesus, and finally of the journey from Ephesus to Corinth
where Timothy was demonstrably for the most part in the Apostle's
company ; or why the author of the Acts, whUe he frequently mentions
him (xvii. 14 f . ; xviii. 6; xix. 22) did not make more extensive use of
his account. On the contrary the only thing belonging to this time
that he relates in detail, viz. the revolt of Demetrius in Ephesus (xix.
23-41), belongs to a period when Timothy, as can be shown, was no
longer with Paul.

346 AUTHOR OF THE ALLEGED DIARY.
not impossible. The hypotheses which made Silas (comp. Schwanbeok
and of late von vloten, Zeitsch. f. wiss. Theol., 1867, 1871, on the
assumption it is true of the identity of Luke and Silvanus, comp. § 48,
7) or Titus (comp. Krenkel in his Paulus, 1869, Kneucker, Auf. des r'om.
Christenth., 1881, Jacobsen after Hitzig) the author of this source are
purely visionary. On the other hand the Tubingen criticism (and now
Holtzmann and Mangold) has with perfect justice adhered to the opinion
that if the Acts is founded on the record of a travelling-companion, he
can have been none other than Luke, for only on this assumption is it
inteUigible how tradition could have come to ascribe the whole work to
a companion of Paul's to whom so Uttle prominence is given in the
PauUne Epistles.'
5. Stringent proof of the use of such a source could only
be adduced if the sections belonging to it presented a
peculiar phraseology distinct from that of the reviser, such
as can be shown in his use of Mark in the Gospel (§ 48, 1,
note 2), or in the strongly Hebraizing language of the
second half of the book which is based on the Old Testa
ment and conditioned by a Jewish-Christian source.1 The
fact however is incontestable, that a purer and more facile
Greek is found in the last part of our book, mainly in
those parts which might most readily have been drawn
from this source ; a Greek which coincides for the most
* The fact that we first make his acquaintance in the Captivity Epistles
naturally proves nothing whatever to the contrary, since we possess no
Pauline Epistles after the time when, according to his account of the
journey, he appears continuaUy in the company of the Apostle ; the fact
of his not being mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians, although
according to xvi. 10-17 he was with the Apostle at PhiUppi, proves at
most that he was not in Rome at that time ; which however is probable
from Phil. U. 20, and is by no means excluded by Acts xxvni. 30 (vid.
ante). His use as a GentUe Christian of the Jewish feast-calendar is
certainly strange, but may arise simply from his having heard the time
reckoned according to it when in Paul's company.
1 What Zeller and Overbeck have endeavoured to prove in this direc
tion, appears quite unimportant, and certainly has no weight as opposed
to the striking similarity of diction in these pieces to that of the most
diverse passages of the Gospel and the Acts set forth by Oertel, Kloster-
mann and others, which is much too great to have been stamped on
them merely by the reviser.

AUTHOR OF THE ALLEGED DIARY. 347
part with that of the preface to the Gospel (Luke i. 1-4),
and therefore oertainly points to the latest reviser of the
whole work.
Overbeck thought he could show in another respect a peculiar Uterary
character in those sections which the f/peis leads us to assign to the
source, inasmuch as they manifest a predilection for treating of journeys
more especiaUy sea-voyages, are distinguished by exact statement as to
route as also by chronological and other details, while the points of
view characteristic of the narrator recede into the background and the
miraculous character stamped on the narratives of healing in particular
iB absent. But the fact is here overlooked, that in the nature of
things the "We" of an eye-witness must necessarUy be prominent*
especiaUy in recording traveUing occurrences which affected Paul's com-
panions just as they affected himself ; and that it was equaUy necessary
to give the details in question since no opportunity for asserting his
doctrinal points of view presented itself (§ 49, 5) ; as also that it is only
natural if a miraculous character be more strongly stamped on those
stories of healing told merely from tradition than on those witnessed by
the narrator himself. Hence aU these phenomena are equally inteUigible
if the writer of the above sections had reaUy been a travelUng-companion
of the Apostle's.3
The only question finally remaining is whether the
second part of the Acts can be shown to contain pheno
mena similar to the inequalities and contradictions of the
3 Since we can form no clear idea of a source containing exclusively
the above aocount of a journey, as even Zeller and Overbeck admit, the
question arises, how the author of the Acts, who as a matter of fact
foUowed points of view so entirely different, has adopted only those
parts of the said source which contained details apparently so unim
portant to him. But although it may be deemed possible to discover
motives of some kind for his having given the preference to these, it is
incontestable that they are only strengthened if we assume that the
author himself was the travelling-companion in question ; which accounts
for the obvious interest he takes in events he had himself experienced.
Add to this, that the above details are by no means of equal accuracy
throughout, even in the sections characterized by the "We," so that
Overbeck was obliged to assume that the reviser had sometimes oblite
rated them. The argument drawn from the stories of healing has no
importance whatever ; for although the narrative of the youth in Troas
and of the viper in Malta may certainly be explained in a natural way,
this can by no means be said of the healings directly connected with
them (xxviii. 7 ff.).

348 APPARENT TRACES OF THE USE OF SOURCES.
first part, which pointed to the revision of an independent
source, by the author of the book. It cannot certainly be
denied that such traces are not entirely wanting ; but their
importance is already diminished by the circumstance that
they also occur in the section chaps, xvii.-xix., which cannot
in any case be based on the source of an eye-witness. Hence
the most that can be inferred is that the author mixed up
his recollections of oral traditions with reminiscences of
written accounts of the life of Paul such as we found in
the second section (No. 3). In any case such phenomena
are not entirely wanting even in those sections which are
directly related by an eye-witness, or which agree with the
parts narrated by him. From the narrative of the cata
strophe in Philippi which, owing to xvi. 17 must necessarily
have been mentioned in the source, the prison-scene (xvi.
25-34), in itself quite incomprehensible, drops off as a later
addition, and without it the narrative runs on quite intel
ligibly; while the scene at Troas (xx. 7-12) shows many
indications of being an embellishment of a shorter account.3
It is still more remarkable that the farewell discourse at
8 The way in which xxi. 27 is attached to what goes before may also
give rise to the suspicion that the transaction relating to James in
v. 1 9-26 is an interpolation ; but since vers. 17 is uninteUigible without
it, and vers. 20, which is not explained by any part of the earlier
narrative, does not look Uke an interpolation by the reviser, and since
xxi. 27, if it does not refer to the days of the Nazarite vow, can only
refer to the days of the feast of Pentecost at whose celebration Paul
according to xx. 16 (the very passage objected to by criticism) had
intended to assist, an intention whieh according to the chronological
statements in the account of the journey he must soon have abandoned
however for otherwise his delay at the last stations, which evidently
made this impossible, would be incomprehensible (§ 24, 1), and since
finally the ol dirb rijs 'Adas 'lovS. is sufficiently explained by xx. 3, 19 ;
the above view cannot be carried out. The episodes of the shipwreck,
•of Paul's vision in a dream and of the last supper (xxvii. 21-26, 33-38),
to which Overbeck attaches special importance, and whose narrative-
tone is to some extent set off by its surroundings, by no means belong
to this category, since they are indissolubly interwoven with the whole
context, and the subject fuUy justifies the pecuUarity of expression.

APPARENT TRACES OF THE USE OF SOURCES. 349
Miletus presents a series of features which, credible as they
may be in themselves, have nothing to correspond to them
either in the previous or the subsequent narrative, and
seem to be directly at variance with it.4 From this it
follows, however, that the episode at Miletus (xxi. 8-14),
for the same reasons as that at Cassarea (xxi. 8-14), cannot
possibly have been interpolated by the author of the Acts
in the account of an eye-witness, as critics maintain; but
that these discourses and utterances must have been recorded
by an ear- witness himself, either without regard to the
historical narrative in which we now have them interwoven,
or else in spite of it, to preserve the special colouring of
the particulars there described, — particulars of which he
still had a lively remembrance. But this phenomenon re
peatedly recurs in the defensive discourses of the last
part (chaps, xxii., xxiv., xxvi.), not only in what Paul there
relates of his beginnings, in relation to what is told in
chap, ix., but also in opposition to the history in which they
are interpolated (comp. xxiv. 11, 17). The latter is the
case in the account of the military tribune, xxiii. 26-30,
and in Festus' description of the events formerly related
(xxv. 14-21, 24-27) ; while even in Paul's transaction
with the Jews (xxviii. 17-23), so much disputed and un
doubtedly closely bound up with the narrator's points of
view, there is much that owes its striking character to the
very fact that it is by no means adequately accounted for in
4 The Ephesian section has no knowledge of snares laid by the Jews,
of the appointment of Presbyters or of the Apostle's Uving by his trade
(xx. 19, 28, 33 f .) ; the three years in xx. 31 appear to contradict chrono
logical statements there made ; the prophecies mentioned in xx. 23
were not yet referred to ; the entire previous account gives not the
slightest occasion for the fear expressed in xx. 29 ; the Gospel has no
knowledge of the words of the Lord alluded to in xx. 35 ; and the pro
phecy in xx. 25 was certainly by the author's own account not fulfilled
in the sense which from its connection it undoubtedly bears (§ 26, 6);
just as little as the prophecy in xxi. 11 or the expectation lying at the
basis of xxi. 13.

350 PROBLEM OF THE DISCOURSES IN THE SECOND PART.
the previous representation of our book. It would never
theless be an error to conclude from this that all such
discourses were contained in the source of an eye-witness
upon which the author of the Acts had lighted, since they
could not have been written down at all without the inter
vening history, and though certainly based on recollections
which are substantially true, yet contain much that consists
with views of the author which are demonstrably incorrect
(comp. ex.gr. Paul's return to Jerusalem following directly on
his conversion, xxii. 17; xxvi. 20). But if the differences
between the narrator's account (xi. 1-18) and that previously
given in accordance with a source (No. 3), abundantly seen
in the still- remaining contradictions in the sources used by
the first half (No. 2) and in much of the same kind in the
source-usage of the Gospel; if such differences show that
the author's mode of narrative is naive and careless, and
does not recognise as contradictory much that appears so
to a keener criticism, yet the said phenomena are too
numerous to be traced to the mere accident of a negligent
manner of writing. This much alone can be said with
certainty, that the hypothesis of the use of a written source
does not explain them, but only increases the difficulty of
such explanation.
6. Not only can this hypothesis not be proved, but it is
irretrievably destroyed by the 17/ms still remaining in the
sections alleged to be borrowed from the source. Schwan-
beck, it is true, has pointed to chronicles of the middle
ages, and Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann to Ezra and Nehemiah,
where pieces are adopted from sources, without the per
sonality of the narrator who speaks in them being effaced.
But Luke's writings are not a mosaic of this kind; for
just so far as the use of a source in the last half of our
book seems capable of proof, does this part show a revision
so excessively free, that to leave the ij/tets standing, which
destroys the whole tenor of the narrative, would have

THE HYPOTHESIS OF A DIARY UNTENABLE. 351
been a sheer impossibility.1 Since therefore a source con
sisting only of those sections characterized by the rjpeii is
absolutely inconceivable (No. 4) ; the representatives of the
Timothy-hypothesis have found it necessary to assume that
the author sometimes blotted out the ij//,eis and sometimes
allowed it to remain ; an inconsistency quite inconceivable
in connection with his literary art. Hence it is that later
criticism has frequently adopted the view that the author
of the Acts allowed the ^ueis to remain intentionally in
order to make it appear that he was an eye-witness ; while
Overbeck has assumed with regard to two passages at least
that he even inserted it for the same reason in pieces that
originated with himself (xxi. 17 f. ; xxviii. 15). This how
ever is a confession that the reader must conclude from the
presence of the r)p.eis that the narrator took part in the
events that follow. But in such a case, unless the use of
the r)p.tis be regarded simply as deception, the view we meet
with in Irenams (Adv. Heer., III. 14, 1; 15, 1), viz. that
the author characterizes himself as Paul's travelling-com
panion for a time, must be the only correct one.3 Add to
1 Nor does the closer connection, which is not deficient in references
to what has been previously told in parts aUeged to be drawn from tbe
source nor in preparation for that which is taken from it, prove any
thing against the use of such a source, but only against its having been
adopted just as it waB, as the fact of the -ijpeis being suffered to remain
would imply.
2 Moreover we cannot understand how this view can be said to present
any difficulty, since TheophUus and the readers for whom the book was
designed knew who had written it, as also that he had accompanied Paul
from time to time on his journeys, and therefore did not need the intro
duction of his personality when he included himself by the i/peis with
Paul and his companions. Hence it is scarcely necessary to point out
that other persons frequently appear in the book in Paul's company,
without any preliminary account as to how they came to be so (xix. 22,
29; xx. 4; xxvn. 2), which could not have happened here without
destroying the whole tenor of the narrative, apart from the fact that
it was unquestionably known to the hearers. If there is a difficulty
here not only is it not removed, but it is made more difficult by
assuming an account of a journey in which the readers could not

352 THE HYPOTHESIS OF A DIARY UNTENABLE.
this, that we cannot form a right idea of a source which
contained only the journey to Jerusalem and that to Rome
with the intervening events, and at most also an introduc
tion in which the author gives an account of his first
intercourse with Paul ; and yet beyond this nothing in it
can be proved with any certainty (No. 4). But no sooner
do we regard the source as extending beyond the period in
which its traces are visible, than it becomes incomprehen.
sible why the author did not use it in other parts of which
he has given a very fragmentary account. If we assume
with Overbeck that he removed or even replaced by con
trary pieces all that did not harmonize with his view,
adopting only simple itineraries and records of miracles, this
is no longer the use of a source but gross falsification, so
that we only wonder why the author should have troubled
himself with adjusting this source instead of simply making
what he had invented (with a free use of its materials)
appear as the account of an eye-witness by introducing the
said ^/ueis, by which he undoubtedly deceived his readers
more or less intentionally. Thus we are again led to as
cribe the whole of the second half to Paul's travelling-
companion alone. The strange mixture of detailed narrative
and excessively scanty notices is best explained by assuming
that he accompanied Paul from time to time, but had not
collected special intelligence respecting the intervening time,
not having then formed the intention of writing his book ;
and hence could only communicate what he remembered
having incidentally heard.3 The remaining inequalities and
know who was the speaking person and whose author is nevertheless
not expressly introduced at the beginning. Moreover U the narrator
intentionally left the ijpeis standing in pieces which he altered and inter
polated, and even inserted it himseU, it is incomprehensible why he did
not by this ripeis represent himself as a travelling-companion throughout
the whole section which treats of the journeys of Paul.
• A use of Pauline Epistles can as little be proved in the Acts as in
the Gospel (§ 48, 7 ; note 1). but is rather excluded by the way in which

TRADITION OF THE ACTS. 353
contradictions of the narrative (No. 5) must then be ex
plained on the assumption that the author himself had made
notes, or had formerly noted down a series of events with
some other object in view, when in connection with his
great historical work he began to describe the same things
with the help of the above notes but in the spirit of the
religious pragmatism which pervades his work and in the
style of the whole, making it necessary to give a more
detailed account of many occurrences, and not only to repro
duce the large discourses of the Apostle from memory, but
also to enliven the narrative by the introduction of other
persons as speakers.4
7. Traces of an acquaintance with this work are already
found in the Apostolic Fathers (§ 5, 6, note 4), as also in
Justin and Tatian (§ 7, 4, note 1, 7). At the end of the
second century it belongs to the New Testament (§ 9, 3), and
only heretics such as the extreme Ebionites (Epiph., Heer.,
30, 16), the Marcionites (Tert. c. Marc, 5, 2), the Severians
(Enseb., H. E., 4, 29) and the Manichaeans (August., De Util.
the narrator faUs to make any use of the rich material they offer,
not even avoiding many deviations from them. Eohoes such as the
b rropB-rjtras (ix. 21), Sid r. retxovs xaXwravres (ix. 25) and the many
PauUne expressions and ideas are intelUgible in the case of one who had
perhaps been in Paul's company for years, without cognizance of the
Epistles. It is remarkable enough that most real eohoes of them may
be traced back to the letters which date from the imprisonment at
Caisarea (x. 3 f., comp. Eph. ii. 17 ; xx. 19, comp. Eph. iv. 2 ; xx. 32,
comp. Eph. i. 18; viii. 21, comp. Col. i. 12; xxvi. 18, comp. Col. i. 22 f.).
Comp. also xx. 24 with 2 Tim. iv. 7.
4 Nosgen and K. Schmidt have arrived at similar views, though from
premises that are very different in some respects. The latter main
tained that the author wrote the second part, beginning with chap, xiii.,
earlier than tbe first, and interpolated in it an earlier writing concerning
his journey to Rome with Paul ; while the former held that in the
sections where the "We " appears, he had only worked up the notes of
his own diary. Hence the way in which Philip and Agabus (xxi. 9 ff. )
are introduced may also have been aUowed to stand from the notes
whose existence we have assumed, whereas in the complete work they
must naturally have been made known to the reader from the beginning
(vi. 5 ; xi. 28).
VOL. II. A A

354 TRADITION OF THE ACTS.
Cred., 2, 7) rejected it. But Chrysostom in his homilies
complains of the limited circulation of the book, likewise due
to the uncertainty of its text. In the Church it has always
passed for a work of the Pauline disciple Luke.1 But no
thing definite as to the circumstances of its origin has been
handed down to us. The book, like its first part, is dedicated
to Theophilus and to the circle of readers represented by
him, and naturally cannot have been written until after the
Gospel (§ 48, 7), and therefore after the year 80. The tradi-
tional view, that the book was written at the time with
which it breaks off, hence about 63-64 (comp. L. Schulze),
lias no support whatever in itself,3 and is rendered impos-
1 It is incomprehensible how a fluctuating tradition could have been
found in Photius (Quast. Amphil., 145), where we have a simple
interchange with the tradition respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The genuineness of our book was first disputed by Schrader (in bis
Apostel Paulus, 5 Theil, 1836) who interpreted it as a bundle of legends
composed in the anti-Gnostic and hierarchical interest of the second
century. The Schleiermacher-de Wette criticism doubted whether a
writing, which only used Timothy's diary, proceeded from a Pauline
disciple, because it contains so much that is inexact, incorrect and even
legendary. Mayerhoff alone attempted to ascribe the whole writing to
Timothy, rightly perceiving that the eye-witness himseU is the narrator
in the second part, although we cannot understand how tradition should
have put one who was quite unknown in place of the well-known
Pauline disciple. HenneU (Untersuchungen iiber den Vrsprung des
Christenthums, 1840) attributed it to Silas (who in his view was indeed
identical with Luke, comp. § 48, 7). On the other hand, if the entire
tradition rested solely on the fact that a travelUng- diary of Luke's had
been turned to account in the book (§ 50, 4), we might bring it down to
the time of Trajan, in favour of which view Schwegler already appealed
to its apologetic character. Overbeck regarded it as the direct precursor
of the apologetics which flourished under the Antonines. Volkmar even
endeavoured to put a final clerical revision of it as late as the middle of
the second century; whereas Hilgenfeld went back again to the last time
of Domitian, and Mangold to the beginning of the nineties.
3 The close of the book does not say that Paul had until now been two
years a prisoner, but its meaning is not explained by assuming that Luke
was prevented from finishing (comp. Schleiermacher), or that the conclu
sion was lost (comp. Schott), or that he intended to write a third part, as
Credner, Ewald, Meyer and others supposed, or that he suppressed the
death of Paul in the interest of some tendency, as even Mangold and

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 355
sible by the time of the composition of the Gospel. On the
basis of false exegesis Hug and Schneckenburger it is true
found in viii. 26 a sign that Gaza was destroyed, and there
fore that the book was written after the Jewish war ; but
even Nosgen's assertion that the aim of the book is only in
telligible before the year 70, and that it has respect to the
kingdom of Agrippa II. as still continuing, is quite untenable.
Apart from what may be inferred from the chronological
relation to the Gospel, nothing can be established as to the
time of its composition ; and conjectures regarding the place
where it was composed are entirely visionary.3
§ 51. The Gospel op John.
1. The fourth Gospel differs from the earlier ones inas
much as it claims to proceed from an eye-witness of the life
of Jesus. Even in the preface the author classes himself
with those who have seen the glory of the Word who was
made flesh (i 14) ; and towards the end he appeals to his
testimony as an eye-witness and to his veracity on behalf
of a fact which was of special importance in his view (xix.
34 f.).1 And since the disciple whom the Lord loved is
Wendt (in Meyer's Comm., 1880) hold along with the Tiibingen school,
but simply by the fact that the theme of the book was exhausted with
the establishment of Christianity at Rome through Paul's two years'
ministry. 8 The view current since Jerome's time (De Vir. III., 7), viz. that the
Acts was written in Rome, is connected with a false idea as to the time
of its composition (comp. L. Schulze) ; nor is it proved by the different
arguments of Schneckenburger, Ewald, ZeUer and Lekebusch. Mill trans
ferred the composition of the whole work to Alexandria on the ground of
subscriptions to the Gospel in codices and versions ; HUgenfeld, who
formerly thought it had been written in Achaia or Macedonia (Zeitschr.
f. wiss. Theol., 1858), now adheres with Overbeck and others to Asia
Minor more particularly Ephesus.
1 It has been said indeed that the iBeaadpeBa rijv Sb%av airov, i. 14,
might also be a spiritual seeing, an intuitive perception ; but in the con
text of the prologue where the incarnation was mentioned as the means
by which the knowledge and apprehension of the Divine Logos was made
possible, the seeing of His glory (in tbe wonders of His omnipotence) can

356 SELF-ATTESTATION OF JOHN'S GOSPEL.
described just before as standing by the cross (xix. 26), it is
clear that the author, who appeals to the fact of his having
been an eye-witness, refers to himself as this favourite dis
ciple, in which character he already appears when mention is
made of the disciple who lay on the Lord's breast at the last
supper (xiii. 23). We must therefore look for the author in
the circle of Jesus' three confidential friends (§ 46, 1) ; and
since Peter is repeatedly named along with him (xiii. 24;
xviii. 15 f . ; xx. 2) , and James who died early (Acts xii. 2)
does not come into consideration, there remains only John,
who in this indirect way describes himself as an eye-witness
of the events related in the Gospel. He is also undoubtedly
one of the two disciples of John who appear in the very be
ginning of the Gospel; one named, the other anonymous.3
This indirect way of describing himself itself excludes all
only be mediated by it and must therefore be regarded as the seeing of
His human, bodily life by eye-witnesses. In the same way the b ew/>aK(i>s
pepapripnxev xal dXnBivij airov i<rrlv ij paprvpla, xix. 35, has been inter
preted as applying only to the eye-witness to whose testimony the author
owes his knowledge, because in what foUowB (KdKeivos olSev Sri dXridij Xeyei)
he expressly distinguishes him from himseU. But we see from ix. 37
that by ixeivos the speaker may likewise refer to himself ; and here it
must be taken in this sense, since the narrator could certainly vouch for
the veracity of his witness but not for his consciousness of veracity (comp.
Steitz, Stud. u. Krit., 1859, 2 ; 1861, and Buttmann, ibid., 1860, 3 ;
Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1862, 2). The fact that he speaks quite ob
jectively of the signs which Jesus did in the presence of His disciples
(xx. 30) cannot exclude himself from these pnSrrral, since he never speaks
of himself in the first person.
2 We must not however regard this indirect designation of himseU as
a mark of special modesty or deUcacy on the part of the EvangeUst, as
Ewald and Meyer did, since it was the only form in which the author
could bring him seU into the history without interrupting the objectivity
of the historical narrative in an unnatural way. On the other hand,
when it has been said that a pupil of John's might certainly have de
scribed his master as the favourite disciple of the Lord, but not himself,
an altogether false standard of modesty is applied, since we have here
to do with a preference perceptibly given to him by Jesus by placing
him at His side, which Peter takes for granted as well known (xiii.
24 f.), and which moreover Jesus substantially confirmed even on the
cross by giving His mother into his charge (xix. 26 ff.). Whether it ia

SELF- ATTESTATION OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 357
possibility of his having intended to give to his narrative
of Christ merely the authority of an Apostle, for the fact
that he does not openly give the name of his alleged
authority is quite at variance with the naivete1 of the
pseudonymous authorship of antiquity. Renan has truly
said that this way of suggesting the idea that his work pro
ceeded from John (directly or indirectly) is not pseudony
mous authorship, but simple (and certainly refined) deception.
But the indirect testimony of the Gospel itself is confirmed
by the appendix to it in a way that cannot be disputed. For
the editors of the Gospel here affirm that the favourite dis
ciple of whom this appendix treats (xxi. 7, 20), is the same
who wrote the book (xxi. 24 : oBros icrriv 6 piaOr/T-tji 6 p.aprvpiov
irepi tovtoxv koX ypdi/ras ravra) and attest the credibility of
his testimony. This assertion has neither sense nor object,
assuming that nameless men attest the genuineness of a
pseudonymous production ; it can only have been the autho
rities of the circle in which the Gospel first appeared who,
from independent knowledge of the facts communicated in it,
bear witness to their authenticity and to the circumstance of
their having been recorded by the favourite disciple.3
in keeping with this, that the Evangelist, who so frequently names indi
vidual disciples, never mentions his brother James, and even describes
his mother (comp. § 33, 1) only as the sister of the mother of Jesus (xix.
25), may be left undecided ; as also whether it was because he himseU
was the other John, that he always speaks of the Baptist as John abso
lutely. In any case it was quite a mistake to suppose that the favourite
disciple is introduced into the Gospel under the name of Nathanael
(Spaeth, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1868, 80) whom others after the ex
ample of Holtzmann (Sohenkel, Bibellex., IV., 1872) even interpret as
Paul (comp. 0. L. and Heenig in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1873, 1 ;
1884, 1).
3 Ii, as Baur thought, the Evangelist only wished to intimate that he
wrote in the spirit of the Apostle, since he was more concerned with the
thing than with the person, he had then no reason for not directly naming
his authority, or for implying by the way in which he spoke of him on
every occasion as a participator, that his accounts, even if indirect, pro
ceeded from him. But it was the more necessary for him to do this, since
according to the critical conception, John was the bearer of a spirit quite

358 LANGUAGE OF JOHN'S GOSPEL.
2. The Gospel was written for Greek- speaking Gentile
Christians, as shown by the frequent explanation of Aramaean
words and Jewish customs. This corresponds to the indis
putable tradition that the Apostle John found his later sphere
of action in the Churches of Asia Minor which were essen
tially Gentile Christian (§ 33, 2-4). For this reason also it
was naturally written in Greek; but although it shows a
certain facility and tact in handling the Greek language,
implying a long sojourn in Greek surroundings, yet the
linguistic type of the Palestinian, whose mother-tongue
was Aramaean, is seen through the Greek dress on every
occasion.1 That his Old Testament citations should be
opposed to his, and no one could take the view of Jesus' Ufe represented
in our Gospel to be that of the Apostle unless he had been directly
pointed to. The design attributed to the Gospel, of exalting this favourite
disciple above Peter in the interest of a tendency is absolutely excluded
by the fact that Jesus on firBt meeting the latter gives him the honorary
name of Cephas, that here too Peter makes his great confession and is
finally appointed to be even the chief shepherd of the Church (i. 42 ; vi.
68 f. ; xxi. 15 ff.). If John comes to Jesus sooner than he, he is accom
panied by Andrew (i. 35, 41), with regard to whom a tendency of this
kind cannot be thought of ; moreover the Acts (in. 8) and even Luke
xxu. 8 represent him as closely connected with Peter. The way in
which Peter is led by him into the forecourt of the high priest is exempted
from the suspicion of being intended to make him the more courageous
by the manner in which it is accounted for (xviu. 15 f .) ; while the lively
description of both going to the grave (xx. 4 ff . ; comp. also xxi. 7) is by
no means intended to indicate that he alone believed, or even that he
believed before Peter, as shown by the reasons adduced and the conse
quence that directly follows (xx. 8 ff.).
1 Compare the simple unperiodic construction, the monotonous com
bination of clauses by xal, Si, ovv, showing no knowledge of the rich
Greek treasury of particles by whioh to indicate their logical relation,
the Hebraistic phraseology, the cUcumstantiality and monotony of ex
pression, the predilection for antitheses and parallelisms as also for the
Hebraistic eis rbv alava, the use of Aramaean words and names ipaB&l,
fiaBBovl, K-n<pas, peao-las, yaBB",Ba, 70X70^3), especially the dp-hy dprjv (comp.
Delitzsch, Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol., 1856), the explanation of aiXuidp (ix. 7)
and for further detaUs on the subject, § 42, 6. Hence it is just as perverse
to conceive of an Aramsean origin, with Grotius, Bolten and Bertholdt,
as to doubt whether the Galilean fisherman, who owing to the linguistio
relations of his home certainly understood the popular Greek language
from the beginning, could have written a Greek work such as our Gospel.

PALESTINIAN CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL. 359
taken preponderatingly from the LXX., which alone was
known to his readers, is only natural ; hence it is the more
significant that he could only give the citations xiii. 18;
xix. 37 in accordance with the primitive text, as also that the
influence of this text is seen in vi. 45 ; xii. 15 ; and that
the form of expression frequently follows the Old Testa
ment without the mediation of the LXX. The author of
the Gospel shows himself equally well acquainted with
Palestinian localities. He knows the distance of Bethany
from Jerusalem (xi. 18), the situation of the unimportant
town of Ephraim (xi. 54) as well as that of Aenon entirely
unknown to us (iii. 23) ; he expressly distinguishes Cana in
Galilee from another place of the same name (ii. 1), and
knows that from there to Capernaum is a descent (iv. 47).
He is acquainted with Jacob's well as also with the tradi
tions attaching to it (iv. 5, 12) ; he names particular places
in Jerusalem (ix. 7 ; xix. 13) and in the temple (viii. 20 ;
x. 22) .2 As a native of Palestine he invariably reckons
according to Jewish time, which alone answers to all his
dates ; he knows and names the Jewish festival times and
customs, even the time occupied in building the temple
(ii. 20), the ritual practice regarding circumcision (vii. 22),
the domestic customs at marriage and burial, and the relation
between Jews and Samaritans (iv. 9 ; viii. 48). It is through
him that in the Gospels we first learn the close relationship
between Annas and Caiaphas (xviii. 13), the limits of the
power of the Sanhedrim (xviii. 31) and the part whieh the
Scribes with their conceit of learning and the Pharisees played
* It was the greater mistake to try to show that in this respect the
Evangelist had made errors, such as the confounding of the Bethany in
Perea with the one on the Mount of OUves ; although x. 40 (comp. with
xi. 6, 17 f.) shows most clearly how accurately he knew the distance be
tween them ; or the aUeged misinterpretation of the name of the brook
Cedron (xviii. 1), which can only be laid to the charge of the copyists.
On the contrary the knowledge of Bethesda tbe house for the sick (v. 2)
and of the more insignificant Sychar in addition to the better known
Sichem (iv. 5) only proves his accurate knowledge of places.

360 JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL.
in it; the priests with their Levitical attendants (i. 19), and the
punishment of excommunication from the synagogue (ix. 22).
In face of all this, the attempt to prove that when the Evan
gelist describes Caiaphas as high priest in the year of Christ's
death (xi. 49-51 ; xviii. 13) he meant that the high priest
was changed every year, cannot be taken seriously. Just as
in the fourth Gospel we have the most vivid representation
of the manifold forms of the popular expectation of the
Messiah, so in it Jesus appears almost more prominently
than even in the first as the f ulfiller of direct as well as
typical Messianic prophecy, who accomplishes in Israel first
the salvation proceeding out of Israel, and notwithstanding
the high aims He has in prospect for the future, presents
the image of an Israelite faithful to the law in His earthly
presence.3 To the Evangelist also Israel is the peculiar
people of the Logos, for whom salvation is first designed
* If Abraham already rejoiced in the Messiah and Moses wrote of Him
(vui. 56 ; v. 46), and if the Scripture cannot be broken (x. 35), then x. 8
cannot be directed against Moses and the prophets, but only against
those who at the time led the people astray, which is all that the expres
sion can possibly mean. Just as salvation comes from the Jews (iv. 22)
and the Baptist already represents the manifestation of the Messiah as
destined for Israel (i. 31), so Jesus leaves Samaria after a short residence
that was not of His own seeking, in order to concentrate His activity on
His home (iv. 44) ; and only looks for His glorification in the Gentile
world after His death (xU. 23 f. ; comp. x. 16 f.) ; no mention is here
made of a calling of the Gentiles or of sending disciples to them, though
so frequent in the other Gospels. Jesus goes up to Jerusalem to the
feasts oftener in this Gospel than in the rest, and begins by cleansing
His Father's house (ii. 15 f.) ; worship in spirit and in truth certainly ex
cludes worship at Jerusalem in the future, but expressly not in the present
(iv. 21-23). He denounces the transgression of the law by the Jews, He
argues ou the assumption that circumcision and the observance of the
Sabbath are equally binding (vii. 19, 22 f.), He alone, by His unique rela
tion to the Father, being exalted above the latter (v. 17). Hence he can
appeal only to the authority they also recognised, but has no desire
to repudiate it for Himself, when He speaks of the law as their law
(viu. 17; x. 34; xv. 25) ; while in the new ivroX-q which He gives (xiii. 34)
He can only see the fulfilment of the wiU of God revealed by Him, as it
appears in the earlier Gospels (comp. Matt, xxviii. 20 with v. 17).

OLD TESTAMENT BASES OF THE JOHANNINE TYPE. 361
(i. 11; xi. 51 f.), and Isaiah saw the glory of the Logos
(xii. 41) ; but already he has before his eyes the historical
fact that the Jews as such have rejected salvation and are
the real representatives of unbelief and enmity to Jesus.4
He speaks of the festivals and customs of the Jews in a way
which shows that they had already become strange to him
and his circle ; but the law which was given by Moses (i. 17)
is not on this account the less a Divine revelation like that
manifested in Christ, although God's judgment on Jerusalem
had already emancipated even believers in Israel from that
law. It would no doubt be impossible for the Gospel to proceed from a
primitive Apostle, if it bore an anti-Jewish and antinomian character,
even going far beyond Paul. But the semblance of the former could
only arise U Jesus' polemic against hostile Judaism, assuming the un
historical character of the Gospel, were explained merely as a mask under
which the author gave expression to his opposition against Judaism as
such (therefore Old Testament Judaism also) ; the semblance of tbe
latter, if we overlook the fact that the actual emancipation of the
Evangelist from the law has nothing in common with the essential
principle of Paul's and is therefore by no means carried back into the
history of Jesus. An attempt has been made to show the presence
even of Gnostio ideas in our Gospel, in particular the dualism of
two classeB of men, one of which is destined for salvation and is
therefore susceptible of salvation in Christ, the other by nature un
susceptible and hence shut out from it. But throughout the Gospel
emphasis is laid on the universaUsm of the Divine intention to save,
while the fundamental opposition which is certainly present in humanity
and is only revealed and brought to a definite crisis by the appearance
4 Hence it is quite a mistake to try to find a proof that the author can
not be a Jew, from the way in which the fourth Gospel speaks of the
'lovSaioi (Fischer, Theol. Jahrb., 1840, 2), although Paul (1 Cor. ix. 20),
Mark (vii. 3) and Matthew (xxviii. 15) do exactly the same thing. The
very zeal with which he makes Jesus expose the ground and the guUt of
their unbelief and hostility, shows the deep interest with which he follows
up the judgment which the manifestation of Jesus had brought upon his
people resulting in his mental separation from them. But the chief
priest of this nation is still so high in his estimation in the time of
Jesus, that he represents him as chosen to be the instrument of (un
conscious) prophecy (xi. 51).

362 OLD TESTAMENT BASES OF THE JOHANNINE TYPE.
of Christ, is traced back to moral causes and personal responsibility, for
which reason it allows a constant passing from one Bide to the other
even in the region of actual empiricism (comp. Weiss, Der johanneische
Lehrbegriff, Berlin, 1862). In recent times more importance has been
attached to the Alexandrianism of the Gospel ; and if the spread of the
Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy of religion to Asia Minor were more
capable of proof than is actually the case, we see no reason why the
Apostle John also should not have been influenced by it after his long
residence there.6 The real peculiarity of our Gospel is the mysticism
common to it with the Johannine Epistles (§ 42, 4), but which, unless
misinterpreted in a spiritualistic sense, is nowhere at variance with its
Old Testament groundwork ; on the contrary, though certainly accruing
to the Apostle from the new knowledge he had found in Christ, it can
only be rightly understood and estimated in its combination with his
Old Testament fundamental views (comp. Weiss, Johanneischer Lehr
begriff, Abschn. 2, and especially Franke, Das A. T. bei Johannes, Gott
ingen, 1885) ; as appears in particular if the first Epistle of John, which
is indissolubly connected with the Gospel in tradition as also by its
kindred form and substance and in which the said mysticism is stiU
more strongly prominent (§ 42, 4, 5), be regarded as a commentary
upon it.

6 As a matter of fact the revelation of God completed in Jesus
does not in our Gospel exclude the Uving relation of God to the world ;
who from love to it sends the Son, Himself continuing to work with
out intermission, though frequently in and through the Son; who
HimseU draws men to the Son and gives them to Him; who makes
His dweUing in believers and awakens the dead ; who forms in short the
most direct antithesis to Philo's lifeless conception of God resting on
phUosophic abstraction, a God who required the Logos as a medium for
His world-agency. It is for this very reason that the personal, godlike,
incarnate Logos of our Gospel is something so entirely different from
the Logos of PhUo which fluctuates between an hypostasis and the
concept of the Divine powers, called Seirepos Bebs only by an abuse of
the term and already bearing his name in an entirely different sense of
the word (reason), a Logos whose cosmological dualism a priori excludes
incarnation, so that there can be no idea of the Logos-conception or
the Logos-speculation having been borrowed from him. Tbe question
as to whether the designation of the pre-existent son as the Logos is
borrowed exclusively from the Old Testament (comp. Hoelemann, de
Evang. Joh. introitu, Lips, 1855 ; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des N. T., § 145, b),
or from the Targum, or is formed in relation to a terminology that had
become current in his circle through the influence of the Alexandrian
phUosophy, thus loses all importance for the question respecting au
thenticity.

John's gospel and the apocalypse. 363
3. In the Gospel John still has the characteristics of
the son of thunder, such as we know him from the earlier
Gospels (§ 33, 1). The place of honour at the right of the
Messianic throne, which in the ardour of youth he once de
sired (Mark x. 38), he has indeed found in the remembrance
so fresh in the Gospel (No. 1), of the place Jesus accorded
him on His breast (John xiii. 23). The intolerant anger in
which his fiery love to his Master once found expression
(Mark ix. 38 ; Luke ix. 45) is again reflected in the lofty
idealism which everywhere sees the end in the beginning,
the whole in the individual, the essence in the aspect, in
whose view everything is split up into the sharpest anti
theses between which it knows no medium (§ 42, 4), and
which on this account has so frequently given rise to
the semblance of a metaphysical dualism (No. 2). Hence
it is that in this Gospel the earthly life of Christ appears
as the great struggle of light with darkness ; in which the
apparent victory of unbelief becomes its judgment. In this
respect, in spite of all the differences inherent in the nature
of the subject, there is a real affinity with the Apocalypse
which only represents the last phase of this struggle and
the final judgment on the enemies of Christ. Even Baur
recognised this affinity and called the Gospel the spirit
ualized Apocalypse,1 but for this very reason agreed with
all critics since Dionysius of Alexandria (comp. § 33, 3),
in declaring it impossible for the author of the Gospel to
have been the writer of the Apocalypse. Here indeed it

1 Even the very criticism which declares the Gospel to be spurious,
has to acknowledge this affinity, since the Gospel professes to be written
by the Apostle John (No. 1) who was known in the Church as the seer
of the Apocalypse, and therefore the author must have had some reason
for connecting himseU with the name of the Apocalyptist, and must
have felt himself in some sort of relationship to him. If the Gospel be
intended for an anti- Apocalypse (comp. Thoma, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,
1877, 3) it is impossible to understand how the author could be content
to adopt the mask of the Apostle whom he desired to attack,

364 John's gospel and the apocalypse.
must not be overlooked that the Apocalypse is by these
critics misinterpreted in a Judaistic and carnal sense
(§ 35, 5) ; just as the Gospel is, in an anti- Jewish and
spiritualistic sense.2 The Apocalypse certainly pourtrays
the Apostle as living much more fully in Old Testament
views and has scarcely the least trace of the religious
mysticism which pervades the Gospel as well as the Epistle
(Apoc. iii. 20) ; but since the Epistle, which was probably
written before the Gospel (§ 42, 5), refers us to the end
of the century (§ 42, 7), a sufficient period certainly hes
between the two writings to account for the author's change
of ideas and expression. Least of all can it appear strange
if the Apostle, who had passed more than two decades after
the destruction of Jerusalem in Gentile-Christian surround
ings, had assumed a different position with respect to the
law of his fathers from that which the primitive Apostles
originally held (No. 2). It has indeed been supposed that
the way in which in the passover-dispute the Church of
Asia Minor appealed to the Apostle John against the Roman
•Church, keeping the 14th Nisan with him on the basis
of the Old Testament (comp. Euseb., H.E., 5, 24), proves
that the latter still adhered to the law in his ministry in
Asia Minor. But according to 1 Cor. v. 7 f. Paul was
already able to apprehend and interpret the observance of
the Old Testament passover in the Christian spirit; and
just because Jesus died on the 14th Nisan according to his
3 It is a fact that the lofty Christology of the Apooalypse (§ 35, 6),
which even gives to the returning Christ (though in another sense) the
name 6 Xbyos rov Beov (xix. 13), forms the first step to the Christologicai
conceptions of the Gospel ; that its figurative language is in many cases
allied to the symbolical language of tbe discourses of Christ in the
¦Gospel ; and that even the diction of the Gospel, as well as that of the
Epistle, with aU its dissimilarity, also shows many points of resemblance
(§ 42, 6). It is also noteworthy that the freedom with whioh the dis
courses and conversations are rendered (comp. No. 7) is very closely
akin to the freedom with which the visions, and the voices heard in
them, are given in the Apocalypse (§ 34, 2).

JOHN'S GOSPEL AND THE PASSOVER-DISPUTE. 365
Gospel, it was natural for John to transform the old accus
tomed observance of this day into a specific Christian cele
bration, either on the ground that the passover-meal had
been replaced by the institution of a solemn supper, or
directly by the commemoration of Christ's death.
The Tubingen school Bupposed that because the fourth Gospel de
clares Jesus to be the true passover-lamb, and therefore makes Him die
on the 14th Nisan, it cannot proceed from the Apostle John, to whom
appeal was made on behalf of the observance of tbe passover in Asia
Minor.3 But it can by no means be proved that in celebrating the 14th
Nisan by a supper, the Oriental observance originally rested on the fact
that Jesus kept the passover meal with His disciples on the 14th Nisan
and thus instituted the supper, as Keim, Mangold and Holtzmann stUl
maintain in adherence to the Tubingen school. Such observance is
therefore by no means at variance with the fourth Gospel, according to
which Jesus kept the last meal with His disciples on the 13th, so that
representatives of this view, such as Polycrates of Ephesus, are already
familiar with the Gospel without finding it in opposition to this ob
servance. At this opinion Gieseler and Hase, Liicke and Bleek have
already with justice arrived (comp. also Schurer, De Gontroversiis Pas-
chalibus, Lips., 1869). On the other hand Weitzel (Die christliche
Passahfeier der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, Pforzheim, 1848) and Steitz
(Stud. u. Krit., 1856, 4 ; 57, 4 ; 59, 4, Jahrb. f. d. Theol., 1861, 1) have
sought to prove, in pursuance of a hint given by Neander, that the
Oriental passover was originally a celebration of the day of Christ's
death, which had its foundation in the fact that Jesus died on the 14th
Nisan as represented in John's Gospel, and that the Judaizing Quarto-
decimans who appealed to legal prescription and to the example of
8 The question whether the fourth Gospel reaUy declares Jesus to be
the true passover-lamb or not, is here quite immaterial. It is not at
aU probable, for i. 29 cannot by any means apply to the passover-lamb,
and in xix. 36 a reference to Ps. xxxiv. 21 is on purely exegetical
grounds (vid. Meyer- Weiss on the passage) at least considerably more
probable than a reference to the ordinances respecting the passover-
lamb. And since this typological idea by no means requires that Jesus
should have died on the very day when the passover-lambs were
slaughtered, it cannot be inferred from the fact that Jesus died on the
14th Nisan according to the fourth Gospel. Finally the chronological
alterations which tbe Evangelist is said to have made for the purpose
of carrying out that view, are inconceivable for the very reason that
their meaning could not possibly have been intelUgible to the GentUe
Christians.

366 gospel's ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE SYNOPTICS.
Christ, are entirely distinct from the common Church of Asia Minor,
With them agree Jacobi, Ritschl, Lechler, Weizsacker, and other
side with them, while Hilgenfeld (comp. in particular Der Passahstreit
der alten Kirclie, HaUe, 1860) and others have warmly contested tbe
point. This dispute has at all events made it clear that however the
question may be decided, the assertion of the Tubingen school that the
position taken up by the Church of Asia Minor on the passover-question
makes the composition of the fourth Gospel by the Apostle John im
possible, is quite incapable of proof.
4. If the fourth Gospel was written towards the end of
the first century, there is every probability in favour of
the assumption that it implies a knowledge of our synop
tical Gospels ; nor is it by any means at variance with the
view of its having originated with an eye-witness, that
this eye-witness in his repetition of events already related
by them or even of sayings preserved by them, should
either voluntarily or involuntarily have followed the form
in which such events were known to the Church by means
of the older Gospels. A dependence of this kind can only
indeed be directly proved in the case of Mark's Gospel ; but
an acquaintance with our Gospel of Matthew can scarcely
be doubted. It is only with respect to Luke's that the
proof cannot be carried through, for one of its sources
shows so many points of contact with the specifically
Johannine tradition (§ 48, 3, note 3), that even in cases
where echoes might be due to literary attachment to Lnke
on the part of our Gospel, this explanation is possible.
Neither of course can it be ascertained whether the author
was acquainted with the Apostolic source, since we have
it only in the form of a revision of our Gospels with which
the Apostle was familiar.
Whereas Weisse disputes a knowledge of the older Gospels and Liicke
declared that it was problematical, whUe de Wette and Bleek even
maintained that on the contrary John's Gospel was used by Mark and
Luke ; such knowledge is now admitted by the advocates of the Johannine
origin as weU as by its opponents. Even Holtzmann still thinks of a
Gospel alUed to the synoptics, by means of which he tries to explain

THE SYNOPTICS PRESUPPOSED IN THE GOSPEL. 367
many deviations from the synoptics as weU as supplementary matter in
them. The Uterary dependence on Mark is so obvious in v. 8 f.
(Mark ii 11 f.), vi. 7, 11, 19 f. (Mark vi. 37, 40, 49 f.), xii. 3, 6, 7 f.
(Mark xiv. 3-6), xiU. 21 (Mark xiv. 18), not only in the agreement of
natural traits but also in singularities of expression, that more trifling
coincidences (ix. 6 lirrvaev, comp. Mark viii. 23 ; xvui. 10 tiraio-ev-
lirdpiov, comp. Mark xiv. 47 ; xviii. 18, 25 Beppaivbpevos, oomp. Mark
xiv. 64, 67 ; xvni. 22 j>dmo-pa, comp. Mark xiv. 65) acquire a higher
significance.1 We are reminded of our Gospel of Matthew by the
citation from Zechariah in the narrative of the entry into Jerusalem
(xu. 14 f.) and by that from Isaiah respecting the hardening of tho
people (xii. 39 f.), as also by a touch Uke xvui. 11 (comp. Matt. xxvi.
52) ; Luke is recalled mostly by the prominence given to the right ear
in xviU. 10 and to the two angels at the grave in xx. 12 (comp. Luke xxn.
50 ; xxiv. 4). Whether sayings such as xii. 25; xiii. 20 ; xv. 20 (comp.
the different appUcation of it in xiii 16) proceed from the Apostolio
source, from our Gospels, or from the author's own recoUection, it is
impossible to say.2
Of still greater weight is the fact that the Evangelist
1 From Mark, too, probably come reminiscences suoh as iv. 44 ; xiv. 31 ;
xvi. 32, and above all the new turn given by Mark to the figure, in the
words of the Baptist in i. 27, which in their beginning still show the
original form retained by Matthew. On the other hand John xni. 18
deviates from Mark xiv. 30 (comp. the corresponding feature in the
narrative xvui. 27 in its distinction from Mark xiv. 71), because, as
both the other synoptics show, the more simple form had here become
as common in tradition as the form there given to the saying of the
Baptist by Mark. So too he foUows the later tradition in saying that
the grave in which Jesus was laid was one that had not yet been used
(xix. 41, comp. Matt, xxvii. 60 ; Luke xxiu. 53).
2 According to this, aU the points of contact with the synoptics whioh
Holtzmann in his exaggerated way has coUeeted (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,
1869), can prove nothing against the Gospel having proceeded from an
eye-witness. If indeed Christ's discourses in the fourth Gospel were
merely free revisions of synoptio pieces of discourse, as Weizsacker
(Untersuchungen, etc., 1864) attempted to prove, then the Gospel could
no longer proceed even from a Johannine disciple, who must have had
independent traditions of his master at his disposal throughout (comp.
on the other hand, Weiss, Theol. Stud., 1866, 1). But in fact he has
only proved that everywhere the same thoughts and motives for using
imagery lie at the foundation of the Johannine discourses of Christ as
at that of the synoptical ones ; only the discourse in xv. 18-27 mani
festly reproduces the same recollections as Matt. x. 17 ff., but without
foUowing the form of the words there.

368 SUPPLEMENTING OF THE SYNOPTICS BY JOHN.
not only knows the synoptic tradition himself, but also
implies an acquaintance with it on the part of his readers.
Without having told anything of the appearing or baptismal
ministry of John, he bears testimony to him in i. 19 ; and
yet his baptizing is incidentally implied as a well-known
fact (i. 25 f.), just as the baptism of Jesus in i. 32 ff., of
which nothing has been related, and the imprisonment of
John in iii. 24. As Simon Peter is spoken of as a familiar
personality before he appears in the history (i. 41 f.),
so too mention is made of the Twelve and of their having
been chosen (vi. 77, 70), without any previous account of
it. We hear incidentally of the home of Jesus, of His
mother, His brethren and His father (i. 46 ; ii. 1-12 ; vi.
42), without anything preliminary to these statements
having been told by the narrator. He transfers us to the
midst of Jesus' Galilean activity (vi. 1 f.), of which, though
giving a hint of its beginning (iv. 43 ff.), he has practi
cally told nothing. The narrator assumes an acquaintance
with the sisters Mary and Martha as well as with the story
of the anointing before he has related it (xi. 1 f.). He
passes over the proceedings before Caiaphas, although he
points to them (xviii. 24, 28), and only indicates by Pilate's
question, what the Jews had accused Jesus of (xviii. 33).
But where he touches upon the synoptic tradition, he dis
plays throughout a knowledge of details far surpassing that
of our Gospels, just as he shows a recollection of the
minutest particulars where his narrative is independent.8
8 He knows the place where the Baptist first appeared and the im
mediate occasion of the Baptist's saying recorded in the synoptics
(i. 19-28), he knows the native town of PhUip and of the sons of Jonas
(i 46) and is aware that the father of Judas was called Simon Iscariot
(vi. 71) ; in the story of the feeding he names the two disciples with
whom Jesus immediately acts, and the way in which they had come
by their small provision (vi. 5-9) ; he knows how far the disciples
thought they had proceeded on the sea when Jesus appeared to them
(vi. 19) ; he knows the part played by Mary, Martha and Judas in
the history of the anointing (xU. 2 ff.) as by Peter at the arrest; eveP

THE SYNOPTICS SUPPLEMENTED BY JOHN. 369
The more we inquire critically into the conditions under
which our older Gospels originated, the clearer it becomes
that the fourth Gospel could not possibly proceed from an
eye-witness without containing an abundance of material
which he had added from his own recollection to what
was there treated of. To what extent it contains such
additions needs no proof. In like manner it is inconceivable
that he should not have found much to be corrected in
the view taken by Mark's Gospel of particular events, for
Mark after all is only a secondary source ; and in fact
many a circumstance is thus by the help of the account
in the fourth Gospel made intelligible to ns for the first
time. Above all, the whole historical framework of the
synoptics rests on Mark, who was not an eye-witness him
self and could not give a pragmatic account of the history
of Jesus nor professed to do so, but endeavoured to sketch
a picture of its development, from the fragmentary tra
ditions which, in the nature of things, first begin where
his authority entered into constant companionship with
Jesus; a picture therefore whose individual features can
after all only represent his view of the history (§ 46). If
the fourth Gospel betrayed a dependence on this plan,
it could not proceed from an eye-witness. But when the
Evangelist in one passage at least (iii. 24) and probably
the name of the high priest's servant is known to him (xvui. 10). He
kniws why it was Joseph of Arimathsea who gave his grave for the
disposal of the body of Jesus (xix. 41 f.). So too he has a most accurate
remembrance of the day and hour of his first acquaintance with Jesus
(i. 29, 35, 40), he names the hour at Jacob's weU and the hour when
the nobleman's son was healed (iv. 6, 52). He knows the connection
of Jesus with Cana (ii. 1 ; iv. 46) and first gives us the key to the
relation between him and his brethren, incidentaUy mentioned also in
the earlier Gospels (vii. 5). He names the place where John afterwards
baptized (iii. 23) and still accurately remembers the place (vi. 59 ; vni.
20) and time (vii. 37 ; x. 22) of many of Jesus' most important speeches
(comp. also xvi. 4). He knows of Jesus' return to Bethany in Perea
and to Ephraim (x. 40 ; xi. 54) ; and describes the place and hour where
PUate gave his definite decision (xix. 13 f.).
VOL. II. B B

370 THE SYNOPTICS SUPPLEMENTED BY JOHN.
more often (comp. xii. 1 ; xiii. 1 ; xvi. 4) expressly opposes
an idea which has gained currency on the basis of early
tradition, he must be conscious of knowing and understand
ing things better from his own independent knowledge,
and assume that his readers take this for granted, i.e. he
must have been an eye-witness. In truth all unbiassed
criticism teaches that in every important point in which
he deviates, he has historical probability in his favour, as
also in most cases the evidence of those facts which the
older tradition has preserved, without overlooking their
consequences. The Schleiermacher-de Wette criticism in its predilection for the fourth
Gospel sacrifices to it without examination the tradition that is more
than two decades earlier ; but it is no less onesided for later criticism
to accuse the account of the fourth Gospel of misinterpretation in
the interest of a tendency, wherever it deviates from Mark, as if the
chronological and pragmatic combinations of Mark were unconditionally
trustworthy. The testimony of the Baptist which declares Jesus to be
the Messiah, is not in contradiction with the synoptic account, but is
obviously confirmed by Matt. xi. 6. The description of the first ac
quaintance of John, Andrew and Simon with Jesus, which enabled tbem
to see God's chosen One in Him, first makes tbe synoptical history of
the calling altogether intelUgible from a psychological point of view, and
is only at variance with Mark's erroneous conception of the significance
of Peter's confession, a view justly abandoned even by his revisers (chap.
i.). Jesus' repeated journeys to festivals and the consequent extension
of His labourB to two years at least are likewise required by many indi
cations in the synoptic tradition ; and just as it is clear why it was
necessary for this tradition, in accordance with the scheme on which it
was based, to transfer the cleansing of the temple to the passover
immediately connected with his death, so it manifestly acquires its true
meaning for the first time when Jesus made it the opening of His
ministry (chap. ii.). His return to the work of baptizing in Judea
(chap, iii.), quite inconceivable as fiction, explains simply enough why
nothing respecting the whole of this period passed into tradition ! His
contact with the Samaritans (chap, iv.) throws new light on many features
of the Gospels as weU as of the Acts. His breach with the hierarchy in
Jerusalem, so clearly accounted for (chap, v.), first explains the attention
bestowed on the Galilean Messiah, even according to the synoptics, by
the metropolitan authorities. The attempt of the people, after the
feeding, to proclaim Him the Messianic king is certainly opposed to tho

THE SYNOPTICS RECTIFIED BY JOHN. 371
idea historically impossible in itself and which cannot be explained from
the synoptic account, that the people first recognised and proclaimed
Him as the Messiah on the occasion of his entry into Jerusalem among
palms ; but it is the only key to Jesus' abandonment of His ministry to
the people, which took place according to the synoptics in the later time
of His Galilean labours ; the apostasy of the people in consequence of
their being undeceived first teaches us to understand the true meaning
of Peter's confession and of the predictions of Jesus concerning His
passion which were now beginning, just as it prepares us for the change
in Judas (chap. vi.). The long activity of Jesus in the capital, with its
varying results (chap, vii.-x.) only prepares us in reality for the cata
strophe which takes place without any specified cause in the synoptical
Gospels. The anointing in Bethany, brought about by the raising of
Lazarus, here for the first time receives its true chronological position,
as opposed to the false appearance due to the fact that Mark assigns
it a place purely in accordance with its subject ; the narrative of the
entrance into Jerusalem, which is simply incomprehensible as told by
the synoptics, only here finds intelligible explanation (chap. xii.). Not
only is aU historical probabiUty in favour of the assumption that Jesus
celebrated the last meal with His disciples on the 13th Nisan and was
therefore crucified on the 14th; but the synoptics, who regard it as
a legal passover-meal, have themselves preserved a number of traits
directly opposed to such a view. The object and connection shown in
Jesus' aUusion to His betrayer, quite unintelhgible in Mark, first receive
their explanation in John (chap, xiii.), as also the story of the denial,
which our Gospel first puts in its right place and time because it has
retained the hearing before Annas (chap. xviU.). Tbe conduct of PUate
becomes inteUigible by his examination of Jesus, related in this Gospel
alone ; the strange inscription on the cross being explained by what
took place on that occasion (xix. 19-22). Comp. Weiss, Leben Jesu,
2 Aufl., Berlin, 1884.
5. In the prologue with which the Gospel opens (i. 1-18),
the Evangelist himself explains the points of view from
which he desires the following history to be considered. The
eternal, Godlike Logos, the mediator of all life and all light
from the beginning, became flesh in Jesus Christ. But
whereas the world in general, represented first and foremost
by His peculiar people, did not receive Him, believers by
seeing His glory attained to the more and more abounding
grace of a full knowledge of God and thus to the highest
privilege of sonship to God. The question therefore turns

372 ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL.
on his self-revelation and its reception. The first part there
fore describes Jesus' introduction to the world by the testi
mony of the Baptist and by His revelation of Himself in the
circle of His first believers (i. 19— ii. 13). To the Jews, whose
official representatives interrogate him as to who he might
be, John confesses that he prepares the way for a greater
than himself who comes after him and already stands un-
recognised in their midst, (i. 19-28) ; to his disciples he
confesses that Jesus is the Lamb of God and had been before
him, whom he recognised as the Messiah because he had
seen the Spirit descending upon Him (i. 29-34). Jesus
by what He says to Simon reveals Himself as knowing all
hearts (i. 35-43) and speaks a word of Divine omniscience
to Nathanael (i. 44-52), while He manifests His Divine
glory to His disciples at the marriage at Cana by His first
omnipotent miracle (ii. 1-12) -1 It is only in the second part
at the passover-feast in Jerusalem, that Jesus begins His
public ministry with the cleansing of the temple (ii. 13-22) ;
and this part describes how in the progress of His self-
revelation He seeks to raise the belief in miracles which
meets Him at first, to faith in His word (iv. 43-54). So in

1 Certain as it is that the two testimonies of the Baptist are selected
as important, yet the enumeration of the time shows that they remain
so indelibly fixed in the memory of the EvangeUst because they imme
diately preceded the memorable day on which he himseU came into
relation with Jesus. Tbe particular account of this meeting, entirely
without importance in itself, is only explained by the personal interest
which attaches to it for the narrator, as also the notice of Jesus' first
visit to Capernaum, with which the section closes (comp. also the scene
in xix. 25 ff.). The account of Philip coming in between the two
significant sayings of Jesus is only explained on the supposition of a
definite remembrance of the fact that Jesus came into contact with
Nathanael through him ; and the wa.v in which tbe latter is introduced,
without his being identified with any of the disciples known from older
tradition, is in favour of independent knowledge on the part of tbe
Evangelist, whose communications concerning the appearance of Jesus
at the marriage in Cana still precede His entrance on His pubUo
ministry.

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL. 373
Jerusalem, where this is seen in His conversation with
Nicodemus (ii. 23— iii. 21) ; so in Samaria, where His reve
lation of Himself to a sinful woman at once awakens a
readiness to believe, on which account He leaves the rich
future harvest in that place to His disciples, in order to
begin the work of a sower in His own home (iv. 1—42) ; so
in Galilee, where He leads the nobleman's son from belief in
a miracle to faith in His word (iv. 43-54). How little even
this part is composed merely in accordance with a model
(comp. note 1), is shown by the way in which the account
of Jesus' baptizing in Judea, unimportant in itself, is
inserted in the narrative, serving only as a means for the
communication of an additional testimony to Him as the
Messiah on the part of the Baptist (iii. 22-36). The third
part leads directly to the crisis which His self-revelation
calls forth. In Judea the unbelief with which it is met
immediately turns to deadly enmity (chap, v.) ; in Galilee,
when the wonder- seeking multitude are undeceived, their
half -belief changes into unbelief ; only the small number of
the Twelve remaining faithful to Him, with one exception
(chap. vi.). In this part Samaria can no longer come under
consideration, because Jesus, after His first experience there,
gave up a Samaritan ministry on principle. In like manner
Galilee disappears from the history after the crisis which
took place there ; for Judea still remains the actual chief
seat of unbelief in Jesus; hence it is here that the last
struggle with it must be fought out. The fourth part (chap.
vii-x.) shows Jesus still victorious in this struggle, because
His hour had not yet come. The introduction relates how
for His part He kept out of the way of it as long as He dared
(vii. 1-13). When therefore at the feast of tabernacles
the chief priest sought for the first time to arrest Him, the
attempt turned out a miserable failure (vii. 14-52) ? Equally
3 The section respecting the woman taken in adultery (vu. 63-viii 11)
according to the testimony of the oldest codd. and according to the

374 ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL.
vain is the attempt, when it proves impossible to succeed
in arresting Him, to make the populace stone Him in their
anger (viii. 12-59). So too the attempt to intimidate His
followers by threatening them with excommunication from
the synagogue, shown in the history of the man who was
born blind, fails, and only draws down on the chief priests
the sharper condemnation of Jesus, who already looks for
ward with definite prescience to His death (ix. 1-x. 21).
The struggle culminates in the excited scene at the feast of
the Dedication, where Jesus although He again escapes their
twofold attack ultimately finds Himself compelled to avoid
further struggles by retreating to Perea (x. 22-42). The
fifth part brings the completion of Jesus' self-revelation in
the raising up of Lazarus, which on this account provokes
His opponents to resolve finally on His death chap, xi,
before the people in the Messianic triumphal procession,
which is only fully explained by its connection with the
history of the anointing, and in the scene with the Greeks
(xii. 1-36) ; after which the Evangelist concludes the history
of His public ministry with a backward glance at its results
(iii. 37-50). It is only now that he turns to the comple
tion of this self-revelation in the sight of believers, in the
history of the last meal, which he characterizes by its super
scription (xiii. 1) as a love-feast, and to which the farewell
discourses and the farewell prayer are attached (chap, xiii-
xvii.). The apparent victory of unbelief culminating in
enmity to Jesus is then described in the history of the

more synoptical character of its language and presentment, does not
belong to the text of the Gospel ; although it was early introduced as an
unsuccessful attack on Jesus and perhaps as an illustration of viii. 15 f.,
it is foreign to the plan followed in the ^connection of the section and
evidently belongs to Jesus' last stay in Jerusalem. It is even given up
by expositors like Hengstenberg, Luthardt and Godet ; and apart from
Ebrard and Lange, is only now defended by those who dispute the au
thenticity of the Gospel, such as Bretschneider, Strauss, Bruno Bauer,
by Hilgenfeld in particular and others.

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL. 375
passion, which is intended in the first section to show how
the prediction respecting Judas and Peter is fulfilled (chap.
xviii. 1-27), and therefore dwells exclusively on the history
of the arrest and the occurrences in the palace of Annas ; in
the second, how in spite of all delay and resistance on the
part of Pilate, Jesus' saying with regard to His crucifixion
(xviii. 32) must necessarily be fulfilled (xviii. 28-xix. 16) ;
in the third, how His very death on the cross was the most
glorious confirmation of His Messiahship (xix. 20, 24, 28;
36 f. ; xix. 17-42). The sixth part then relates three ap
pearances of the Risen One, the last of which sets forth the
completeness of faith in Him as the Divine Lord (xx. 28) ;
whereupon the Gospel concludes with a declaration of its
purpose (xx. 30 f.).3
Formerly the Gospel was for the most part divided in accordance with
geographical or chronological views, the three feast- journeys being
' From this it aheady follows that ohap. xxi. can only be an appendix.
But since vers. 22 f. clearly Bhows that it is intended to correct a mis
understanding of a saying of Jesus, whose current acceptation was only
proved erroneous after the Apostle's death, and since ver. 24 evidently
speaks of the author of the Gospel as another person (comp. also the
mention of the sons of Zebedee in ver. 2); this concluding chapter
can only have been added by another hand after the death of the
Apostle, even if the fact that it rests on Johannine tradition pre
vents it showing any essential deviations from the Johannine language
and mode of presentment, and must have been already added at the
time of its publication, because the Gospel never appears without it
(comp. No. 1). Many of those who defend it as belonging to the Gospel,
have pronounced vers. 24 f. at least to be the addition of a foreign hand
(comp. Luthardt, Ebrard, Godet and KeU) ; wherea3 Weitzel (Stud. u.
Krit., 1849), Lange, Hengstenberg and in the interest of the spuriousness
of the Gospel Bretschneider, Hilgenfeld, Honig, Thoma and Jacobsen
regard the whole chapter as belonging to the Gospel. On the other
hand its composition by the Apostle was aheady disputed by Grotius
and Clericus, its spurious character having been proved in detaU by
Seyffarth (Beitrage zur Spezialcharakteristik der Johanneischen Schriften,
Leipz., 1823) and Wieseler (Dissert, von 1839, comp. jj 46, 5, Note 6)
and acknowledged even by Baur and most of the adherents of the
Tubingen school (Schwegler, Zeller, Kostlin, Keim, Scholten and
Holtzmann).

376 ECLECTIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL.
specially taken into account (comp. Olshausen). Since Liicke and de
Wette chief importance has been attached to the section formed by the
reflections contained in xii. 37-50, although it only concludes Jesus'
ministry to the people, whUe the point of view of the completion of
Jesus' seU-revelation is certainly common to chaps, xi., xii. and chaps.
xiii.-xvii It was Baur who first tried to divide the Gospel according
to the fundamental ideas it contains, since which time its thoughtful
composition has been recognised on aU sides, except that the points of
view by which it is dominated are in many cases drawn out in too
artificial and arbitrary a way ; while Keim, Holtzmann, Hengstenberg
and others find a play of numbers in the arrangement and contents of
the separate parts which is quite foreign to the EvangeUst. There is
also a general agreement with regard to the chief individual groups ; and
the question whether they should be ranged in two or three, five or
seven leading parts is in truth a matter of comparative indifference.
In addition to the Commentaries compare more particularly Hbnig
(Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1871, 1883, 84), Holtzmann (ibid., 1881) and
lastly Franke, Stud. u. Krit., 1884, 1, who gives an exceUent survey and
criticism of the different attempts at classification.
6. That the fourth Gospel does not properly aim at
historiography, appears from the circumstance that it
assumes a knowledge on the part of the readers of the
Evangelical history in general, as well as of many individual
details (No. 4). The fact that we are told nothing of the
actual ministry of the Baptist, but only of certain testi
monies on his part, and that the feeding of the multitude is
the only event, apart from the first miracle, recorded of the
whole Galilean ministry so minutely treated in the Gospels
with which he was familiar, of which ministry it forms the
crisis, as also that the proceedings before Caiaphas are
entirely passed over in the history of the passion, though
expressly hinted at (xviii. 24, 28), shows indisputably that
it was not his aim to relate all that he knew, as is expressly
stated with regard to the crriij.ua (xx. 30). The above
analysis of the contents (No. 5) makes it sufficiently clear that
certain events are chosen throughout in order to illustrate
by and in them the chief points of view which were im
portant to the Evangelist. Hence it was quite a mistake to

OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL. 377
suppose that he meant to exclude what he does not expressly
relate, as not happening, because it was not in keeping with
his view of Christ.1 Just as little can the eclectic pro
cedure of the Evangelist be explained by assuming that he
intended to supplement the synoptic account.3 This is
directly contradicted by the assertion of the Apostle, accord
ing to which the object of his choice of narratives is the
confirmation of faith in the Messiahship of Jesus in his
sense, i.e. in His eternal Sonship to God, which leads to

1 Now he is said to exclude the history of the birth, in particular the
miraculous conception, now the baptism and temptation of Jesus, now
the transfiguration and the prayer in Gethsemane, although these were
universally known to the readers through the familiar synoptic tradition ;
and again the institution of the last supper whose memory was kept
alive by the constant practice of the Church. But he has also passed
over the healing oi the lepers and the casting out of devils, tbe inter
course of Jesus with publicans and sinners, the legal disputes with the
Pharisees and the parables of the kingdom of God, the detailed utter
ances of Jesus respecting the righteousness of the kingdom of God and
the position towards earthly possessions, as also respecting the manifold
duties of discipleship, predictions of the catastrophe in Judea and of
the manner of His second coming, not to speak of much for the omission
of which no critical ingenuity can find a reason. It could never occur
to any reader, that all not here related of the wellknown events of Jesu3'
life, did not happen. Hence it is quite inconceivable that because
the Evangelist gave the preference to events occurring in Judea, in
accordance with his plan (No. 5), he intended to characterise Judea as
the true scene of the work of Jesus in opposition to the earUer Gospels ;
though he makes Jesus return repeatedly to GaUlee (i. 44 ; iv. 3, 43),
and in vi. 2; vii. 1 implies a continuous ministry in GalUee, while
in vii. 41, 52 Jesus expressly appears as the Galilean prophet.
2 This view is again adopted by Ebrard and Godet after the example
of Eusebius (ff. E., 3, 24) and Jerome (De Vir. III., 9) Michaelis and Hug,
but also by Ewald and Beyschlag. It was only natural that an eye
witness should prefer to dweU on such recollections as had not been put
forward in the earlier Gospels ; but to assume that the Gospel had the
aim above stated would necessarily imply that the biographical point of
view was actuaUy the leading one ; besides which there are far too many
express points of attachment to the earUer narrative, especially in the
history of the passion, all of which can by no means be shown to be
indispensable to his account (comp. ex. gr. the histories of the anointing
and of the entry into Jerusalem), to admit of such a view.

378 OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL.
perfect blessedness (xx. 30 f.). This doctrinal aim certainly
implies that he believed faith in the Son of God or the
incarnate Logos to be endangered or needing confirmation
in his circle ; and the Epistle so closely connected with the
Gospel shows that it was Cerinthian Gnosis to which this
was due (§ 42, 2). For this reason it is impossible to speak
of the Gospel having either a polemic or an apologetic
tendency, or to explain the choice or presentment of material
in this way.8 The danger threatening the true faith in
emerging Gnosis can alone have been the occasion which
prompted him in presenting and illustrating the leading
particulars in the life of Jesus, to make his own testimony
as an eye-witness (i. 14) the basis of proof that the Divine
glory of the incarnate Logos had appeared in Christ, and in
victorious struggle with the unbelieving world had brought
the highest blessedness to all believers. It is undoubtedly
for this purpose that reference is constantly made to words
* In assuming that the Gospel specially attacked the Gnostics, the
Ebionites, or as Irenseus already maintained, Cerinthian Gnosis (Adv.
Heer., III. 11, 1), the Church Fathers only expressed their conviction that
these errors were refuted by the Gospel ; but their opinion is without
value as regards the determination of its historical aim. Nevertheless
it has again and again been regarded as an attack either on Dooetism
(comp. Niemeyer, De Docetis, Halle, 1823) or on Ebionism (comp. Lange,
Die Judenchristen, Ebioniten, etc., Leipz., 1828), or on both, as by
Ebrard; or rather as a defence of the trne faith opposed to these
errors, as by de Wette, Hengstenberg and others Passages such as i.
14 ; xix. 34 ; xx. 20, 27 are at one time said to present an antagonism to
Docetism, while again other things are said to be omitted lest they
should foster these doctrinal errors. It has even been conjectured on
the ground of passages such as i. 6ff., 15, 19 ff.; iii. 22 ff., after the
example of Grotius, that the Gospel was speciaUy designed as an attack
on the so-called Johannine disciples (comp. Overbeck, iiber das Evan-
gelium Johannes, 1784, as also Ewald and Godet) ; whUe Aberle (Tubing.
Quartahchr., 1864, 1) finds here too a defence against the insinuating
propaganda of re-established Judaism, in particular against the intrigues
of the Jews at Jabne (comp. on the other hand Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. f.
wiss. Theol., 1865, 1), as Liicke against the objections of the Gentile and
Jewish xoo-pos; all whioh do equally little justice to the systemati*
unity of the Gospel.

OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL. 379
of Divine omniscience spoken by Jesus, and that a number
of great omnipotent miracles are represented as visible signs
of this Divine majesty ; but that the form of Christ in the
Gospel ia not by such means made a Docetic one is already
seen in the fact that this glory appears far more promi
nently than in the synoptics as a thing conferred upon Him ;
miracles being represented as asked of God and performed
by His miraculous help.4 A. predilection indeed is shown
for the discourses in which He triumphantly asserts His
heavenly origin and the saving significance of His coming,
in opposition to the doubts and objections of unbelief ; while
the dispute as to the relations of the time and the exhorta
tion respecting the manifold relations of life recede entirely
into the background (comp. Note 1) ; but to maintain that
these are mere expositions of the doctrine of the Logos is

4 It is certainly characteristic of the eclectic manner of our EvangeUst,
that he does not pourtray the healing ministry of Jesus but describes
at great length a limited number of miracles of healing most of whioh
are marked with importance ; but to say that the healing of the noble
man's son is depicted as more wonderful because Jesus was not yet
in Capernaum but in Cana, or the heaUng of the lame man because
he had already lain sick for thirty-eight years, is quite absurd ; whUe
even the facts that the blind man, at whose healing JeBns made use of
external means just as in Mark, was born bUnd, and that Lazarus had
already lain in the grave for three days, lose aU significance as soon as
we reflect that the heaUng of the blind and the raising from the dead
are also undoubtedly regarded by the synoptics as miracles in an absolute
sense. The changing of the water into wine in Cana is no greater
miracle than the multiplying of the bread at the feeding of the mul
titude, common to the Evangelist with tbe synoptics. The walking on
the sea is unique in both ; only that in the synoptics it is preceded by
the stUling of the storm. In the synoptics too Jesus appears as one
who knows the heart and who Ukewise gives occasional proof of super
human foreknowledge ; but even in John Jesus asks questions (ix. 35 ;
xi. 34 • xviii. 34) and does not invariably possess Divine omniscience.
On the contrary aU that He says and does is given by God (v. 19 f., 30;
viii. 28; xii. 49 f . ; xiv. 10), He receives in answer to prayer (xi. 41 f.)
Divine miraculous help (xi. 52) and Divine miraculous protection (vni.
29) ; God gives Him the Spirit but without measure (Ui. 34), and to
Him Jesus owes aU His success.

380 THE PORTRAIT OF CHRIST IN THE GOSPEL.
only possible if they are misinterpreted in the old dogmatic
way. Even if narratives such as the history of the tempta
tion, the prayer in Gethsemane or the cry of lamentation
on the cross found no place in an historical account intended
to set forth the Divine glory of the Incarnate, yet the fourth
Gospel shows much more forcibly than the earlier ones the
real human participation of Jesus in joy and sorrow, in
human feelings and agitations of mind, and refers His sin-
lessness to the victory over self-will and ambition, to
obedience and love to God, qualities which earn the good
pleasure of God and are typical for mankind.6 Hence
the doctrinal tendency of the Gospel is not to be under
stood in the sense that a higher idea of the person of
Christ is made prominent by narratives of His life, thus
making the history the mere representative of an idea. On
the contrary, as is alone in keeping with its historical occa
sion and the strong emphasizing of the personal experience
of an eye-witness, the object is to prove in opposition to
a Gnosis which resolves living faith in Christ into empty
6 What the prologue intimates as to the creation of the world and aU
illumination being mediated through the Logos (i. 3f.), never recurs in
the discourses of Christ ; what they teach respecting His oneness with
the Father, His being in the Father and the Father in Him, and the
seeing of the Father in Him, contains no declaration of a Divine
nature in the metaphysical sense, but only confirms the perfect revela
tion of God mamfested in Him. He speaks of the only true God (xvii.
3) as His God (xx. 17), who is greater than He (xiv. 28), whose glory He
alone seeks (vii. 18), whom He honours (vni. 49) and worships (chap.
xvii.), whose wiU He performs out of love to Him (xiv. 31 ; xv. 10). In
truth His discourses by no means tend to the glorification of His person,
but show that by virtue of the loving counsel of God accomplished in
His mission, fuU salvation for time and eternity is given by faith in Him.
A man who is tired (iv. 6) and thirsty (xix. 28), who sheds tears at the
grave of a friend (xi. 35), who speaks of His peace and His joy (xiv. 27;
xv. 11), of whom we are told that He was troubled in spirit (xii. 27 ; xiii.
21) and that He chafed (xi. 33, 38), is not merely a God going about in
a human frame, whose history is invented only in order to demonstrate
the incarnation of the Logos ; and the assertion that this view is only
not carried out, is an empty pretext.

OCCASION LEADING TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 381
speculations, how it is only by looking at the perfect revela
tion of God in the facts of the human life of Jesus, that
faith finds full blessedness. In this way alone is it possible
to explain the peculiar fusion of an historical account which
only takes up and illustrates certain chosen prominent facts
in their deepest meaning, with loving absorption in the
minutest details and personal recollections of the most
trifling kind extending even to the correction of mistaken
ideas of the external framework of the history (No. 4), such
as characterize our Gospel. A representation of this kind,
if estimated according to its value as an historical source,
which it neither is nor pretends to be, may show deficien
cies ; but it will never answer to reduce its materials to
purely ideal forms.
7. Owing to the distance between the events and the time
at which the Evangelist wrote of them, a verbal repetition
of long discourses and dialogues is naturally out of the
question.1 In truth, all that can be said is that the author
sought to reconstruct them from fragmentary recollections.
In not a few cases he has evidently only interwoven
these recollections in an exposition of Jesus' leading points
of view projected according to his own plan (comp. especi
ally chap, v.) ; and in so doing has also joined together, on
account of their similarity of subject, utterances of Jesus
that were separated in time ; a proceeding in which he was
anticipated by the first Evangelist (comp. chap. vi. 14-16).
Just as certain as it is that the misunderstandings into
which the conversations are drawn out, said to be so incom
prehensible, are vindicated as historical by exactly similar
ones in the synoptics (comp. Mark viii. 16 ; Luke xxii. 38),
1 It is an utterly untenable hypothesis, to have recourse to earUer
records or even to protocols of the synagogue and temple (comp. Ber
tholdt, Paulus). To say that the Evangelist must often enough have
heard these discourses orally repeated before he wrote them down, does
not exclude the assumption that the form of their rendering graduaUy
became freer and freer as recoUection became less accurate.

382 THE WORDS IN THE GOSPEL SPOKEN BY CHRIST.
so certain is it that in many cases they may only in point
of fact be attempts of the Evangelist to illustrate the pro
gress of the discussion; such as we already find in Luke.
Just as certainly as the synoptic discourses of Jesus are
neither devoid of paradox (Matt. viii. 22 ; Mark x. 25) nor
of apparent contradictions (Luke ix. 50 ; xi. 23, comp. with
John v. 31 ; viii. 14, or iii. 17 ; ix. 39), such as are called
forth by the gnomologic pointing of the discourse, so cer
tainly may the increase of paradox here and there, alleged
to be frequently without motive or instruction, be due to
the fact that it was only the climaxes of the discourse
that remained in the author's memory. The separate
gnomes recur in different forms and with different applica
tions, just as in the synoptics (comp. xiii. 16; xv. 20) ; so
that it is by no means certain that John has always em
ployed the gnomes familiar from the synoptics, in their
original connection. The fact that xvi. 25 expresses a clear
consciousness that the words of Jesus were essentially
figurative, is itself an intimation that where they pass into
abstract reflection or more detailed expansion, it is due to
the explanatory elucidation of the Evangelist. On the other
hand the parabolic speaking of Jesus which is already mixed
with allegorical features and allegorizing explanation in the
synoptics, is here so overladen with both that it is scarcely
recognisable in its true character.3 That the Evangelist
3 The gnomologic character of Jesus' discourse (comp. iv. 37; viii.
34; xvi. 16) and His figurative language is the same in John as in
the synoptics. We have tbe same circle of homely symbols drawn from
bodily Ufe, as weU as from the life of nature and the family ; life and
death, seeing and blindness, hunger and thirst (from which the symbolism
of bread and water, parallel with that of salt and leaven in the synoptics,
foUows of itseU), light and darkness, seedtime and harvest, shepherd
and sheep, master and servant, father and child, house and cup, some
of which may be used in preference to others and with wider embel
lishment. Nor is there any lack of paraboUc sayings which have quite
the synoptic character (iii. 8 ; xii. 24 ; xvi. 21) ; but just as figure and
interpretation are in vin. 35 mixed up in one of these, so the two

THE WORDS IN THE GOSPEL SPOKEN BY CHRIST. 383
is fully conscious of not giving a verbal rendering of the
discourses and conversations is shown by the very fre
quent references to former words existing only in wording
essentially different (i. 30 ; vi. 36, 65 ; xi. 40), or to words
and facts belonging to a connection entirely remote (vi. 68 ;
vii. 19, 21 ; x. 26) ; and even to words which in their
framing are evidently connected with words of the Evan
gelist (vi. 67 ; viii. 28) or in which Christ is spoken of in
the third person (xvii. 3). This appears still more clearly
where the discourse of Jesus passes directly into the Evan
gelist's explanation (iii. 19 ff.), or where the Evangelist,
taking up the substance of Jesus' words spins it out into
reflections of his own (xii. 44-50). Owing to this free,
explanatory and elucidatory rendering of the words of
Jesus, for which moreover there is no lack of precedent in
the synoptical discourses of Christ, it cannot be matter of
surprise that the discourses of Christ in the fourth Gospel ex
hibit the linguistic and doctrinal character of the Evangelist
throughout, as he is known to ns from his Epistle.3 Hence
it is that not only the original wording, but also the concrete
historical references of the words of Jesus are often effaced,
because the Evangelist in his conception of the person of
Christ is only concerned with their permanent significance
and edifying worth.4 It was the very Apostle who was

parables drawn from shepherd-life and from the vine (chap, x., xv.) are
abundantly interwoven with allegorising interpretations, though without
their original form becoming quite unrecognisable.
3 It is vain to appeal to the presumption that the favourite disciple
who entered most deeply into the spirit of his' master, would also have
formed his manner of speech most closely in accordance with that of the
Master ; for in proportion as his discourses of Christ bear a Johannine
character do they differ also in form from the synoptic ones, which in
accordance with their origin as weU as all historical probability bear the
stamp of authenticity; besides, the same Johannine character is also
impressed on the discourses of the Baptist and of other persons speak
ing in the Gospel.
4 Because the Apostle in conformity with the aim of the Gospel is

384 THE WORDS IN THE GOSPEL SPOKEN BY CHRIST.
conscious of having received his entire spiritual life from
Christ and also of having learnt to understand the true
meaning of Christ only in those deeper experiences revealed
to him by the illumination of the Spirit (xvi. 13 f.), who
could thus freely reproduce discourses of Christ which he
could not possibly render verbally, without fear of mixing
them with foreign matter.6 That which holds good where
the reproduction of the discourses is concerned, also holds
good to a certain extent with regard to the narrative part
of the Gospel. It certainly shows no lack of the most vivid
only concerned with the salvation which the individual finds in faith in
Christ, the discourse respecting the kingdom of God almost invariably
turns into discourses on the highest blessing of salvation the individual
finds in Him, viz. eternal life, which, like the kingdom of God, appears
at one time as present and again as future, and has received its specific
Johannine stamp in the conception of an intuitional knowledge of God
and of mystical communion of life with Christ as its essence. Just
as the Apostle's view of the saving significance of Jesus' death and of
His pre-existence is put into the words of the Baptist (i. 29 f.), the
latter being inextricably interwoven with the wholly different views of
the Baptist (iii. 31-36) ; so in the discourses of Christ side by side with
certain enigmatical intimations which bear the stamp of originality
throughout, the Apostle's views of the origin of Jesus from a primeval
existence and of God being seen in Him, as also his mystical conception
of tbe relation between Father and Son, are expressed with a dogmatio
precision which compels us of necessity to separate the original words
of Christ from their Johannine revision and interpretation.
6 Nevertheless various traces show that the Evangelist was by no
means dead to aU distinction between his exact recollections of the words
of Jesus and his theology that had grown out of them; for many doo-
trinal views are found in the prologue and tbe Epistle which have not
passed into the discourses of Christ ; and there are many ideas in the
latter which John has never turned to account as doctrine (comp. § 42, 5,
note 3). The Evangelist repeatedly distinguishes between his interpreta
tion and the words of Jesus (comp. vii. 38 f.), even where the wording is
still retained (xii. 32 f.) or the connection (xviii. 9, comp. xvii. 12) makes
such interpretation quite impossible ; or where he expressly states that it
was only revealed to the disciples afterwards (U. 22). The passage xiv.
26 certainly testifies to a consciousness on the part of the Apostle that
recollections came back to him even of sayings of Jesus which had
not passed over into earlier tradition ; and unquestionably he stiU pre
served an abundance of such recollections, which his hand left untouched,

LIMITS OF THE GOSPEL'S HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 385
and minute recollection, such as generally comes up with
great freshness in advanced age. It follows from the whole
plan of the Gospel, which has to do with the representation
and elucidation of certain decisive leading points, that it
reveals to us for the first time in various ways the prag
matic connection and motive of events (No. 4). But this
by no means excludes the possibility that the connection
may frequently be destroyed in isolated cases, the his.
torical colouring dimmed; the representation of events,
owing to the meaning they have acquired for the narrator,
being misplaced.
Nothing indeed is more incorrect than the assertion so confidently
made, that the Gospel is wanting in aU development and is therefore
pervaded by a duU monotony, that everything is prepared from the be
ginning, so that the catastrophe can only be brought about at last by
artificially inserted springs ; as the analysis of the Gospel (No. 6) has
sufliciently shown.6 By the question in x. 24 the Gospel attests in the
clearest way that the current objection of Jesus here confessing His
Messiahship from the first in the faoe of all, is altogether incorrect.
But it is true that the way in whioh he points out at every stage of
development how the matter stands, and sees the end prefigured in the
beginning, demands a certain foresight toward an historical estimate of
the Gospel. Although the Apostle speaks of faith in the name of Jesus
as a matter of course, he himself supplies enough material for dis
tinguishing between its various stages ; as also between the different
kinds and forms of discipleship, for which he has only the expression
paBrrral, and between the different forms of unbelief, which the 'IovScubt
are made to represent.! AU this demands also criticism of his state-
" How Uttle the Gospel presents things in accordance with a model is
shown by the way in which in the pilgrimage to tbe feast at Galilee, not
withstanding the apostasy of the people so decisively emphasized in
chap, vi., faith in the Messiahship is again and again reawakened, until
at the last visit of Jesus to the feast it breaks forth once more ; as also
by the way in which in the Jerusalem struggles Jesus continuaUy con
quers new ground, even in the capital and in hierarchical circles, a
success whioh however was of short duration and had no decisive im
portance. 1 It is certain from the way in which John describes the nobleman's
attaining to faith in the word of Jesus, the way in which he represents
even the multitude as being fed, and in which he depicts Jesus' free
VOL. II. C C

386

THE JOHANNINE QUESTION.

ments, but is so far from making it impossible for them to proceed
from an eye-witness that nothing but a completely unpsychological and
unhistorical idea of the range of human memory could require the
absence of such phenomena, or deny their presence.

§ 52. The Johannine Question.
1. The Johannine Gospel, in common with the Johannine
Epistle, belongs to those New Testament writings whose
language and views exercised the earliest and the most
general effect on the literature of the second century (§ 5, 7).
Everywhere we come upon traces of its existence and of an
acquaintance with it ; it seems to have been most fully turned
to account theologically from early times in Gnostic circles
(§ 8, 3). But it was powerless by its discourses of Christ,
so different in many respects from those of the synoptic Gos
pels, to supplant or supplement the tradition of the Lord's
words fixed by these, especially by the Gospel of Matthew
tens of years previously ; as we see in the case of Justin
whose whole theology was nevertheless greatly influenced
by it (§ 7, 3). It was only when the beginning of the read
ing of the Gospels in the Church and the introduction of
heretical Gospel-writings made it necessary to limit the
number of those that were ecclesiastically valid, and when
this Gospel was everywhere classed with the earlier ones,
that its historical value first became matter of reflection
(§ 5, 6) ; although ideas drawn from the synoptics, such aa
that of the one year's ministry of Christ, had nevertheless
surrender of Himself in Gethsemane, that his recollection of the history
was modified by the importance which these events had acquired in hia
view. In this way it may have come about, that the miracles of fore
sight at the marriage in Cana and at the feeding of the multitude were
in his eyea transformed into miracles of Divine omnipotence ; and that
he adopted the later view of the occurrence during the night-crossing,
although his account supplies the particulars by which to rectify it.
Thus he may even have over-estimated the pragmatic importance of
the raising of Lazarus.

TRADITION RESPECTING THE GOSPEL. 387
long been preserved (comp. Orig., De Princ, 4, 5). But the
reason why this Gospel, so peculiar as compared with the
earlier ones, and of which so early and so great an abuse was
made by the heretics, nevertheless belongs from the begin
ning as a matter of course to the Gospel-Canon in process of
formation, we first learn from Theophilus of Antioch, accord
ing to whom it must always have been handed down as
Johannine (Ad Autol., 2, 22) ; for Clement, Tertullian (Adv.
Marc, 4, 2) and Irenseus at the end of the second century all
attribute it to the Apostle John. The fact that Marcion did
not adopt it into his Canon, on the ground of his repudiation
of primitive Apostolic authority (§ 8, 6), can only prove that
it was handed down as primitive-Apostolic, for otherwise
he might easily have arranged or interpreted it in his own
sense ; while the fact that the later Alogi of Epiphanius
(Heer., 51 ; comp. Philastrius, Heer., 60) taking their stand
solely on internal evidence drawn where the Gospel was
concerned from its differences with the earlier ones, denied
the Gospel and the Apocalypse to the Apostle John and as
cribed them to Cerinthus, with whom even Polycarp repre
sents the Apostle as having lived (§ 33, 2), only proves that
even they could have entertained no doubt as to the Gospel
having originated towards the end of the Apostolic period.1
With more exact information as to its origin, we are very
scantily supplied. All that Clement of Alexandria knows
from the old tradition of the Presbyters is that John
wrote last, to which opinion all who follow adhere, and
1 It is matter of dispute whether it is this or another party of which
Irenaras says (Adv. Har., HI. 11, 9) that they " illam speciem non ad-
mittunt, qua est secundum Joannis evangelium ; " but in every case even
this probably antimontanistic (as Baur, Liicke, Ritschl and Mangold have
shown in opposition to Volkmar, Scholten and Harnack) party have
nothing against it except that in it " Paraoletum se missurum dominus
promisit ; " and it is quite improbable that the party ever had any im
portance in tbe Church, owing to the very incidental mention made of
them by Irenaus, who does not think it worth his whUe to defend the
Gospel against them.

388 BEGINNINGS OF THE GOSPEL'S CRITICISM.
only gives the current impression as to the peculiarity of his
Gospel when he says that John owiSovTa on to. o-iopariKa bi
rots eiayyeXCois SeS^AaiTai, rrporparrevra vrrb rcov yvtapipuov, rrvtv-
pa.Ti.Kbv iroi-ijo-ai enayyeAioj' (ap. Euseb., H. E., 6, 14). Irenaaus
transfers the Gospel to the sojourn at Ephesus (Adv. Hosr.,
III. 1, 1 : cfeSmice to eiayyiXiov iv 'E<f>«ra> Trjs Aerias 8iarpij3tt>v).
The decision of later critics respecting the time of its com
position is without value for us, because it is bound up more
or less with a false idea of the exile of the Apostle in Patmos
(§ 33,5; comp. Epiph., flier., 51, 12). Its very relation to
the Johannine Epistle obliges us to put the composition of
the Gospel in the nineties (§ 42, 5, 7). The later we bring
it down, the easier it is to understand the Apostle's estrange
ment from his Jewish past, and the different character of
the book as compared with the Apocalypse.2
2. Opposition to the genuineness of the Gospel originated
with the English deists at the end of the seventeenth
century, against which Lampe defended it in his Comm.
Exegetico-Analyticus (Amsterdam, 1724-26). It was not
however till the end of the eighteenth century that the oppo
sition was properly shaped by Evanson (" The Dissonance of
the Pour generally received Evangelists," London, 1792), who
ascribed the work to a convert of the Platonic school in the
second century, and was immediately attacked by J. Priest-
• It was quite a mistake on the part of Semler, Tittmann and even
Schleiermacher to attribute earlier composition to the Gospel, in order
not to credit the Apostle with too long a memory ; and on the part of
Lampe, Wegscheider and Lange to put it even before the destruction
of Jerusalem, in favour of whieh appeal was made to v. 2. It is likewise
too early to go back to the year 80 (comp. Meyer, L. Schulze) or to
the eighties (comp. Ewald and Keil). The definite account of the
Muratorian Canon as to the motive of its composition, viz. that John
wrote at the instigation of his fellow-disciples and of the bishops
more especially of Andrew, and with their consent, is echoed in Clement
and again in Jerome (De Vir. III., 9 : " rogatus ab Asias episcopis) ; " but
this is unquestionably only an idea taken from xxi. 24 and from the
mention of Andrew in the introduction of the Gospel in i. 41.

BRETSCHNEIDER AND HIS OPPONENTS. 389
ley and David Simpson. In Germany the question was first
raised by Eckermann (in his Theol. Beitrage, V. 2, 1796), who
thought the Gospel should be traced back merely to Johan
nine notes. He was opposed by Storr and Siisskind in
Flatt's Magazin (1796). The frivolous attack of an anony
mous writer excited a somewhat livelier discussion in the
beginning of the present century, terminating only in a
universal conviction of the unshaken genuineness of the
Gospel.1 The question was lifted to a higher stage of scien
tific examination by Bretschneider's epoch-making work,
Probabilia de Evang. et Epistol. Joannis Apost. indole et origine,
Lips., 1820). In this volume the contradictions between
the fourth and older Gospels were set forth in detail, the
unsatisfactoriness of external testimony attempted to be
proved, and the difficulty of bringing the entire character
of the Gospel into consistence with the historical picture
of John the Apostle, prominently set forth. In all modern
criticism of the Gospel there has hardly been one important
euspicion advanced against its genuineness that was not
here discussed. This criticism soon called forth a deluge
of counter writings proceeding from all theological sides,9
so that Bretschneider himself declared his object to induce

1 The anonymous work entitled, Der Evangelist Johannes und seine
Ausleger vor dem jiingsten Gericht, 1801, the author of which was soon
discovered to be Superintendent Vogel, maintained that the Gospel writ
ten by u Jewish Christian, was based upon a Johannine treatise largely
wrought over and interpolated ; while Horst (in Henke's Museum, 1864)
thought it was composed from sources of different kinds by an Alexan
drian. The genuineness of the Gospel was subsequently attacked by
Cludius (Uransichten des Christenthnms, 1808) and Ballenstedt (Philo und
Johannes, 1812). But rationaUsm itseU steadfastly adhered to the
genuineness. Comp. Wegsoheider, Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung
in das Evangelium Johannes, Gotting., 1806); Tittmann, Meletcmata
Sacra, Lips., 1816, and the Introductions of Eichhorn, Hug, and Bertholdt.
Ammon, however, in a programme of 1811 proposed to separate ths
editor from the author of the Gospel ; and Paulus (Heidelb. Jahrb., 1821)
traced it back to a disciple of John.
3 Comp. Stein, Authentia Evg. Jo., Brandenb., 1822 ; Hemsen, Dm

390 THE CRITICISM OF THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL.
a better confirmation of the Johannine origin to have been
attained (comp. Tzschirner, Magazin fiir christUchen Pre-
digten, II. 2, 1824). De "Wette alone never got over the
doubts raised by Bretschneider ; though he never reached
so far as to entirely reject the Gospel's genuineness (in his
Introduction since 1826). In favour of its apostolicity ap
peared the commentaries of Tholuck (after 1827) and Klee
(1829), Guericke's Beitrage (1828),Hase's Leben Jesu (1829),
the Introductions of Schott and Feilmoser (1830), and finally
a specially apologetic work by Hauff (Die Authent. und der
hohe Werth des Evangeliums Johannes, Nurnberg, 1831).
Through Schleiermacher the Gospel again became the spe
cial favourite of modern theology ; and out of love for it the
synoptics had to suffer much unreasonable neglect, while the
Apocalypse was decidedly rejected.8
3. The Johannine question properly dates from the appear-
Authentie der Schriften des Evang. Joh., Schlesw. , 1823. Usteri, Comm.
critic, in qua Evg. Jo. genuinum esse ostenditur, Zur., 1823 ; Calmberg,
De Antiq. Patr. pro Evg. Jo. aiBevrla test., Hamb., 1823. Olshausen,
Die Echtheit der vier kan. Evang., Konigsb., 1823. Crome, Probabilia
haud probabilia, Leyd., 1824 ; besides the Komm. of Liicke (1820) and of
Kuinol (3 Aufl., 1825).
* The controversies originating in the Leben Jesu of Strauss (1835) in
which the credibility of the Gospel history was chiefly attacked and
John's Gospel only indirectly, besides aU the literature that followed
were external to the proper Johannine criticism. Strauss himself (3rd
ed., 1838) was perplexed for a moment regarding his doubts about the.
fourth Gospel through the reply of Neander (in his Leben Jesu, 1837) ;
even Gfrorer came to acknowledge the Gospel's genuineness in spite of
his negative position with respect to the Gospel history (Geschichte dee
Urchristenthums, 1838) ; and Weisse tried to preserve a genuine nucleus
at least in the Johannine discourses (Evangel. Geschichte, 1838). But
Strauss took back in the fourth edition (1840) all his admissions ; Bruno
Bauer (Krit. d. ev. Gesch. d. Joh., 1840) went beyond him in his negations;
and Liitzelberger (Die kirchl. Trad, iiber den Apostel Johannes, 1840)
rejected all the Johannine writings as well as the entire tradition of the
Apostle's Ephesian abode. Comp. on the other side the Introductions of
Credner and Neudecker (1836, 40) Frommann (Echtheit und Integr. <fe*
Evangelium Johannes, Stud. u. Krit., 1840) and Ebrard (Wissenschaftlicho
Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, 1842).

THE CRITICISM OF THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL. 391
ance of the Tubingen school, though it only sharpened and
deepened the arguments advanced against the Gospel by
Bretschneider. But the treatment it received was not the
statement of a number of weighty doubts against it; the
genuineness of the work is a, priori inconceivable from the
standpoint of the school's conception of the history of the
Apostolic age, which stands or falls with the denial of
the Gospel's Apostolic origin. The Apostle John, one of the
Judaistically narrow primitive Apostles irreconcilably at
variance with Paul, the author of the strongly Judaistic and
anti-Pauline Apocalypse, cannot possibly have been the
writer of a Gospel which was interpreted not only in a
spiritual method throughout, after the example of Schleier-
macher's school, but as anti-Jewish and antilegal. The way
that Baur took to establish his conception of the work was
entirely new. By an acute analysis of the Gospel, which
first opened up in various ways a knowledge of its composi
tion, he endeavoured to prove its thoroughly unhistorical
character, and to show that it is a purely ideal composition
making no pretence to the character of a historical work.
The Evangelist dealing freely with the synoptical traditions,
giving them, a tendency character and supplementing them
with new, independent doctrinal fictions, intended solely to
develop and work out dialectically the fundamental ideas of
his Logos-doctrine in all its particulars, clothing it in the
dress of a history of Jesus. But he also tried to make the
origin and history of the Gospel intelligible. It intervened
between the opposing elements by which the second century
was agitated, resolving them into a higher unity ; and soon
gained the approval of all parties. Arising out of the Gnostic
current of the time, it came in contatt with Montanism
through its doctrine of the Paraclete ; in the Easter contro
versy it appeared on the side of the Roman custom, and by
representing Christ as the true Passover Lamb slain on the
14th Nisan furnished the means of finally severing the

392 THE CRITICISM OF THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL.
Church from the observances of Jewish worship. The view
of a literary fraud is decidedly rejected. The person of the
Apocalyptist, to whose work the Evangelist largely links his
spiritualizing treatment of the Gospel, is made much more
significant as the bearer of a new conception of Christ's per
son by which the Gentile-Christian author in a truly Apos
tolic spirit elevates Christianity into a universal religion.
His work is the crown of all mediating attempts by which
the antagonism of the Apostolic age was overcome in the
second century, and the founding of a Catholio Chnrch
brought within practical limits.
In attacking John's Gospel, Baur's disciples preceded him. Schwegler
had already attempted to show in his work on Montanismus und die
Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts, 1841, how the Gospel proposed to
reconcUe the antagonisms of Montanism (Ebionitism) and Gnosticism
with ecclesiastical unity and to pave the way for the Western observance
of the Passover (comp. also Theol. Jahrb., 1842, 1, 2) ; and Kostlin had
investigated its doctrinal system on the presupposition of its spuriousness
(Der Lehrbegriff des Evangel, und der Briefe Johannis, BerUn, 1843 ; comp.
Theol. Jahrb., 1851, 2). The epoch-making essays of Baur upon the
Gospel of John appeared in the Theol. Jahrb. of 1844, and were completed
in his KritischenUntersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evangelien, 1847
(oomp. Theol. Jahrb., 1848, 2). Zeller endeavoured with the aid of sharp
criticism to prove that the external testimonies on behalf of the Gospel
are insufficient (Theol. Jahrb., 1845, 4; comp. also 1847, 53, 58). Hil
genfeld, who pronounced Baur's exegetical analysis unsatisfactory,
wished to show in the Gospel in a doctrinal-historical way a transition
from the Valentinian to the Maroionite Gnosis (Das Evangelium und die
Briefe Johannis, Halle, 1849 ; comp. Die Evangelien nach ihrer Ent
stehung und geschichtlichen Bedeutunq, 1854, and Einleitung, 1875);
whUe Volkmar thought that the anti-Jewish dualistio Gnosis of Marcion
was presented in it as superseded by the Logos doctrine of Justin, whioh
gave a check to Monism about 150-160 (Religion Jesu, 1857 ; Geschichti-
Irene Theologie, 1858). According to their conception of the Gospel the
Tiibingen school had to date it in or after the middle of the second cen
tury ; but HUgenf eld went gradually back again into the thirties
4. The appearance of the Tubingen school called forth
fresh zeal in defending the Johannine Gospel. Thus Merz
immediately stepped forth in the Studien der evange-

OPPOSITION TO THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL. 393
Kschen Geistlichkeit Wwrtembergs (1844, 2) and Hauff in the
Studien und Kritiken (1844, 46) against Baur and Zeller.
Thiersch attacked the entire fundamental standpoint of the
school (Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts
fur die Kritik der NTlichen Schriften, 1845) ; and Ebrard
(das Evangelium Johannes und die neueste Hypothese Baur's,
Zurich, 1845) directed against it his rough polemic which
he continued in later editions of his Wiss. Kritik (1850, 68 j
comp. his revision of Olshausen's Comm., 1861). The most
important and most thoughtful work proceeded from Bleek
in his Beitrage zur Evangelienkritik (Berlin, 1846 ; comp. his
Einleitung, 1862). Weitzel, in his book on the Christian
Passover (1848), endeavoured to overthrow the arguments
taken from the history of the Passover controversy against
the Gospel, which course was followed by Steitz after 1856
(comp. § 51, 3) ; who defended against Baur in the Stud. u.
Krit., 1849, the testimony of the Evangelist himself. After
1851 Ewald appeared on behalf of the Gospel in his Jahr-
biichem fiir biblische Wissenschaft (comp. the Johanneischen
Schriften, Gott., 1861). In the year 1852 Meyer published
the first fresh revision of his commentary on John, in which
he entered most carefully into the criticism of the Tubingen
school. B. Bruckner elaborated the commentary of de
Wette in a method decidedly apologetic (1852, 5. Aufl.,
1863), and Luthardt (das Johanneische Evangelium, Niirn-
berg, 1852, 2. Aufl., 1875) united with a recognition of the
Gospel's apostolicity and credibility a conception of its
composition in accordance with ideal points of view based
in ma ay ways upon Baur. In the same year appeared
the Catholic Introductions of Adalb. Maier and Reithmayr,
and the Dutch Niermayer tried to prove in a prize essay
of the Hague Society (Over de Echthied der Johanneischen
Schriften) the agreement of the Apostolic composition of the
Apocalypse with the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, for
which Hase also appeared in his Sendschreiben an Baur (die

394 APOLOGISTS OF THE GOSPEL.
Tubinger Bchule, Leipz., 1855) The external evidences on
behalf of the Gospel were examined by Ewald in his Jahr
biicher, 1853, and by Schneider (Die Echtheit des Johanne
ischen Evangeliums, Berlin, 1854). In the same year appeared
K. Mayer's Die Echtheit des Evangeliums Johannes, Schaff-
hausen, 1854, as well as the new edition of Guericke's
Introduction. Apologists afterwards entered with great zeal into the subjeot of
external evidence, having been stirred up to it by Tischendorf's Wann
wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst ? Leipz., 1865, a work which appeared
in a fourth edition in 1866. Riggenbach wrote against Volkmar's Der
Ursprung unserer Evangelien, Zurich, 1866, in his Die Zeugnisse fiir
das Evangelium Johannes neu Untersucht, Basel, 1866 ; and against
Scholten (Die altesten Zeugnisse in Betreff der Schriften des N.T.'s,
deutsch von Manchot, Bremen, 1867) appeared Hofstede de Groot (Basi
lides als erster Zeuge fiir das Alter der NTlichen Schriften, insbesondere
des Johannes, Leipz., 1868). It cannot be denied that the Apologists
obtained very decided success in this subjeot. The publication of tbe
Philosophumena (ed. MUler, 1841), the discovery of the conclusion of
the Clementines (Dressel, 1853), and finally the Commentary of Ephraem
Syrus on Tatian's Diatessaron (§ 7, 6) refuted assertions of the Tubingen
school that had been long and obstinately held. It was driven back
Step by step from its positions professedly supported by the late origin
of the fourth Gospel. Hilgenfeld admitted that Polycrates and Apol-
Unaris were acquainted with it ; it had to be conceded that Jnstin knew
it (§ 7< 3) > and its effect, as far as the Apostolic Fathers were concerned,
was admitted to go back earlier and earlier, particularly after Keim.
But the importance of these successes has perhaps been much over
estimated by apologists.
Since the middle of the last fifty years the zeal of apolo
gists has slackened, and particular questions have been more
discussed. In the first years of 1860 appeared the com
mentaries of Hengstenberg (1861), Lange (2. Aufl., 1862),
Baumlein (1863), Godet (1864), which were in favour of the
genuineness ; which were followed in more recent times by
Keil (1881), Schanz (1885), and "Wichelhaus (Akad. Vorles.,
3, 1884). The best summaries of apologetic results were
given by Luthardt (Der joh. Ursprung des vierten Evang.,

LATEST CRITICISM OF THE GOSPEL. 395
Leipz., 1874) and Beyschlag (Zur joh. Frage, Stud. «. Krit.,
1874, 5 ; also printed separately ; Halle, 1876 ; comp. Leben
Jesu, Halle, 1885, 86).
5. Notwithstanding a number of important treatises by
apologists, the attack on the genuineness of the fourth
Gospel has merely reached that result of the Tubingen
school which has obtained most approval beyond the circle
of its proper supporters. Apologists have been at fault in
directing their polemic almost entirely against the original
form of Baur's criticism of the Gospel, which presents many
transparent weak points. Strauss in his Leben Jesu (1864)
had already stripped Baur's analysis of its modern philoso
phical character, and followed out the tendency-elaboration
of synoptical material into the finest details (comp. also
Scholten, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, deutsch von Lang,
1867). Keim (1867) was able to establish this still more
effectively because he thought he had got a well-attested
picture of the history from the synoptics, which supplied a
sure rule for the rejection of all presumed remodellings and
transformations in the fourth Gospel. It is clear that all
who set out from the same historical view, such as Haus
rath, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Wittichen and others must of
course adopt his position toward John's Gospel. It should
be added that Keim had already abandoned the obvious
error of attributing the work to a Gentile Christian, and
acknowledged the attestation of it to such an extent as
to carry up its origin to the second decade of the second
century ; though he afterwards brought it later down by
a decade. It is true that he was compelled by such means
to take the desperate step of disputing the entire tradition
which makes John live and labour till the end of the century
at Ephesus, and at the same time his authorship of the
Apocalypse, so that he returned to the hypercriticism of
Liitzelborger (No. 2 ; note 3) ; a position against which the
*rue adlereuts of the Tubingen school have energetically

396 THE OLDER MEDIATING HYPOTHESES.
protested (comp. § 33, 2; note 1). All the more favour
did this view meet with among the representatives of the
modern critical school.1 Even beyond the circle of those
who decided to go along with Keim and others in this path,
the opposition to the Gospel's genuineness found approval,
such as that pronounced by Mangold in his revision of
Bleek's Introduction (1875, 86) ; for though it is consciously
reserved, it is beyond doubt favourable to it in result,
Thoma (Die Genesis des Johannesevangeliums, Berlin, 1882)
has recently endeavoured by means of a strict analysis of
the whole Gospel, investigating the sources and occasions
of every individual thing, to attribute it to a Jewish Chris
tian of Alexandrian culture in Ephesus (the presbyter
of the second and third Johannine Epistles), subsequently
perhaps to the war of Barkochba (comp. against this Volter
in the Theol. Studien aus Wwrtemberg, 1). Jacobsen (Unter-
euchungen iiber das JohannesevangeUum, Berlin, 1884) tries
to establish the spuriousness of the Gospel by the applica
tion of means entirely new, while pointing out its general
dependence on Luke's Gospel.
6. Mediating hypotheses were put forward as might have
been naturally expected. Eckermann and Vogel had already
admitted a kind of Johannine basis for the Gospel (comp.
also Rettig, who supposed that a disciple of John introduced
his Logos philosophy into the Apostle's notes ; see Ephem.

1 Wittichen thought for a long time that even on this supposition he
could defend the genuineness of the Gospel as a doctrinal work directed
against Essene Ebionism, between 70 and 80 in Syria (Der geschichtliche
Charakter des Evangeliums Johannes, Elberfeld, 1869 ; oomp. against it
Pfleiderer, Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1869, 4); but he himself abandoned
this view which reminds us of the oddities of the anonymous Saxon
(Die Evangelien, ihr Geist, ihr Verfasser, etc., 1845). Schenkel, who
supposed that the Gospel had its origin in the Ephesian circle (Charak-
terbild Jesu, 1864), in order to secure the historical character of some
Johannine traditions in it, passed over entirely in the fourth edition to
the opinion of Eeim, whose denial of the Ephesian John even Ho>>«-
mann in his Introduction opposes with much aouteness.

THE OLDER MEDIATING HYPOTHESES. 397
exeget., 1824) ; Ammon separates the editor from the author;
and Paulus, the disciple of John as author from the eye
witness (No. 2, note 1). Weisse, who held the Epistle of
John to be genuine, looked for the authentic basis of the
Gospel in a series of Johannine studies, in which the Apostle
meant to set forth the doctrine of his master more con
nectedly (Evang. Gesch., 1838; comp. on the other side
Frommann, Stud. u. Krit., 1840, 4) ; adhering as he did to
his opinion not only after the appearance of the Tubingen
school (Die EvangeUenfrage, 1856), but also finding a follower
in Freytag (Die heil. Schriften des N.T.'s, Potsd., 1861 ; Sym-
phonie der Evang., 1862). 1 Reuss followed a course directly
the reverse in abandoning from the first the discourses as a
development of the Johannine theology ; admitting the pos
sibility at least of an Apostolic authorship. Renan, who in
the 13th edition of his "Life of Jesus" (1897) adduced
against the entire Tubingen criticism the irrefutable argu
ment that parts of the work contained too much firm his
torical rock to be dissolved into purely ideal formations, and
openly said that the way in which the Gospel gives itself out
as Johannine is no pseudonymous bookmaking but down
right fraud, gave up the speeches, but assumed that the
Gospel itself had its origin and basis in Johannine dictations.
Ewald, in spite of his energetic opposition to the Tubingen
school, thought that the friend who put the addition to the
end of the Gospel had some share in moulding the present
form of the work which the Apostle dictated ; and Thenius
(Das Evangelium der Evangelien, Leipz., 1865) assigned at
least some explanatory additions to the words of Jesus, with

1 As Schenkel tried to separate the genuine pieces (Stud. u. Krit.,
1840, 4) ; so Schweizer attempted, after extracting the Galilean parts
which he ascribes to the author of the 21st chapter, to save the re
mainder as a description of the extra-Galilean ministry of Jesus (comp.
also Kruger-Velthusen, Das Leben Jesu, 1872) ; but both subsequently
retracted their opinion.

398 LATER MEDIATING HYPOTHESES.
the designation of John as the beloved disciple, to the
hand that worked up the whole. Michel Nicolas (Etudes
Critiques sur la Bible, 1864) thought that John the Pres
byter the disciple of the Apostle, was the author; and
Tobler, who at first assigned the Gospel to Apollos a disciple
of the Apostle, basing his work on the communications he
received from the Master (Die EvangeUenfrage, which ap
peared anonymously at Zurich, 1858, comp. Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol., 1860, 2), afterwards assumed a genuine Aramaic
foundation which he even attempted entirely to restore (Das
Evang. Joh. nach dem Grundtext., Schaffh., 1867). The most
conspicuous attempt toward a mediating hypothesis was
made by Weizsacker, who after giving a series of instructive
investigations in detail (Jahrb. f. d. Theol, 1857, 59, 62),
published his Untersuchungen iiber die evangelische Ge
schichte, Gotha, 1864) in which he assigned it to a disciple
of John who based his work upon Apostolic traditions but
betrays his discipleship partly by using the synoptical
accounts of speeches, partly by mixing up things that took
place with the Apostolic impression they made. This hy
pothesis has obtained much weight by the fact that Hase,
who for a long time defended the Gospel against the
Tubingen school, finally embraced it in his History of Jesus,
Leipzig, 1876). But although it certainly solves many
difficulties of the Johannine question, it is irretrievably shat
tered by the testimony of the Evangelist himself (§ 51, 1)
which cannot be reconciled with it except by assuming
manifest falsehood.3
3 Wendt after hints thrown out by Ritschl (comp. Stud. u. Krit., 1875,
3) has finally returned to Weisse's mediating hypothesis (Die Lehre Jesu,
Gott., 1886). Following the analogous way in which the logia are
worked up in the first Gospel, he has attempted to definitely separate a
series of Johannine logia belonging to the later time of Jesus's ministry
which were provided with brief historical notices and introduced by the
prologue, and to show their revision by the fourth EvangeUst whose
credibUity as an historian he gives up in the main. Such remodelhng

THE JOHANNINE QUESTION AND CRITICISM. 399
7. The solution of the Johannine problem must begin at
the point where Baur instituted his criticisms. It may be
possible to perceive many departures of the fourth Gospel
from the older ones, and to apprehend many features pecu
liar to it and much of the material as ideal, explaining them
by new points of view from which the author set out. But
it contains a fulness of detail of every kind, of supplements
to the synoptic tradition, of direct contradictions to it and
even of intended corrections of it, which the ingenuity of
criticism can never trace to the author's ideal views, but
on the contrary present difficulty of union with them.
And it is unquestionable, that the author, who only made
the reception of his work difficult through these depar
tures from the tradition that prevailed in the Church, was
limited by definite recollections or traditions which would
no longer have existed in the 2nd century. Besides, all
assumption of ideal inventions is inconsistent with the
weight which the Gospel lays upon the actuality of what
it narrates, as Beyschlag in particular has convincingly
proved; and it can be well shown that the speeches of
Christ in the Gospel are absolutely unintelligible as mere
expositions of the theology of logos-philosophers. But
criticism has not succeeded in fixing the date of the Gospel
viewed as a pseudonymous production. Apart from the fact
that it is much unsettled respecting this point, the post-
Apostolic time of the second century presents no person,
nor even any definite tendency of thought from which a
work of such spiritual significance as criticism itself allows
the Gospel to be, could have emanated. The work cannot be

of the logia he explains by the views of his circle and his time, renounc
ing aU idea of fabrication or falsification. But this dividing hypothesis
cannot escape the objection of being made according to preconceived
premisses, and is neither able to defend against criticism that which
is admittedly Apostolic, nor to justify against apologetics the rejection
of what is separated as a later addition.

400 SOLUTION OF THE JOHANNINE QUESTION.
either the cause or the product of a reconciliation of contend
ing opposites in the second century, since such reconciliation
did not take place ; on the contrary, the struggle between
ecclesiastical consciousness and gnosis only became sharper
after Judaism had been overcome. And yet both parties
frequently appealed to this very Gospel with like zeal ; tho
gnostics first, so that the Church had every reason for dis
avowing a pseudonymous production so suspicious. The
greatest riddle is always the pseudonymity itself. It is
inconceivable that the unknown could connect his writing
directly with the Apocalypse which, according to the concep
tion of its relation to the Gospel set forth by criticism itself,
and in spite of all that has been said about a certain affinity
of the two works, is still thoroughly adverse to the Gospel.
So also is the way inconceivable in which the writer claims
for himself identity with the Apostle John, though this is
only indirectly or slightly intimated; a procedure opposed
to that of all pseudonymous writing ; as is the fact that he
directly vouches for his own ocular testimony, which can
only be pronounced a plain deception. On the other hand,
the Johannine question is not solved so long as nothing but
the hypothesis of spuriousness is proved untenable. By the
process of criticism the difference between the Gospel and
the synoptics, and the impossibility of sacrificing at once to
that latest product of the Apostolic age the older tradition
absolutely attested in its credibility, has been set forth
with an acuteness and lucidity which necessitates an ex
planation of such difference.1 But such explanation is only
possible if it be conceded that this Gospel presents ApostoUc
1 To sacrifice the Apocalypse to the Gospel, after the early attestation
and internal proof of its Apostolicity appears to be a highly dangerous
proceeding ; and therefore the question as to the ApostoUc origin of
both must be again taken up. In doing so, stress must be laid on
viewing tbe theology of tbe fourth Gospel in its Old Testament founda
tion anJ its mysticism as purely religious ; not as the product of a
phUosophy of the time, which would be to mistake its specific character.

THE JOHANNINE QUESTION. 401
reminiscences according to ideal points of view and a repro
duction of Christ's historical discourses combined with
Johannine elucidation and explanation. Though it is usual
to concede this much in principle (comp. even Luthardt and
Bruckner, particularly Gran and Beyschlag) yet little has
been done as yet to point out thoroughly both in detail
(comp. Weiss 6. Aufl. of Meyer's Handbuch to the Gospel of
John, and Leben Jesu, 2 Aufl., 1884). It is only by such
proof that the conception of the Gospel as a work con
taining purely ideal creations without a basis of historical
reminiscences can be decidedly surmounted. The solution
of the Johannine question lies in an impartial criticism of
the Gospel conducted on these lines.

voi. n. D D

APPENDIX.

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT.
Thouoh the history of tbe text does not certainly belong to the de
partment of Introduction to the New Testament (§ 4, 4 note 3) but to
Hermeneutics, yet for tbe sake of those who are accustomed to look for
it in a work like the present, I must not entirely omit the subject. The
foUowing account makes no pretension to an independent investigation
or scientific advancement of textual history ; whatever is necessary to be
known by those who proceed to the study of the New Testament is put
together in a summary way.

I. The Preservation of the Text.
Comp. Montfaucon, PaltBographia Gfrtsca, 1708. Wattenbach, Anleitimg «ur
Griech. Pal&ographie. 2 Aufl., 1875. Dos Schriftwesen im, Mittelalter. 2
Aufl., 1875. Gardthausen, Griech. Pal&ographie, 1879.
1. The autographs of the New Testament authors were certainly lost
at an early date. They were mostly written on Egyptian paper (xdprvs I
2 John 12) made of the bark-like coverings of the papyrus (/3(/3\cs), with
a reed-pen (xdXapos 3 John 13), and black ink (piXav 2 Cor. iii. 3). In
consequence of the slight durability of such material it was soon worn
out ; and as the writiugs had not for the most part the intrinsic value
which would have belonged to them had they proceeded from the hands '
of the Apostles themselves (§ 16, 3), they were early replaced by clean
copies. As early as the fourth century parchment supplanted this frail
material (pepppdva 2 Tim. v. 13), so that Eusebius was charged with the
duty of having fifty Bible MSS. made of it for use in Constantinople
(§ xi. 4) ; and but smaU fragments of New Testament papyrus MSS.
are now preserved. The roU form disappeared with the papyrus (comp.
Luke iv. 17; Bev. vi. 14), and the book form came into vogue with
sheets of four double-leaves (quaterniones) usually put together in a
revxos (volume) ; with the writing in three or four columns (o-eXlSes,
rpicad, rerpao-o-d) till the continuous mode appeared. The costliness
of this material, which led to the fatal washing of old parchments and
their use for new writing (palimpsests, codd. rescripti), at last compelled
men to Beek for a substitute ; and that was found in cotton paper which
403

404 EXTERNAL FORM OF THE TEXT.
came into use in the West from the eighth century and onwards. It was
> not however tiU the thirteenth century that its use became general ; soon
after which time it was suoceeded by linen paper. Our present pens
came into use after the sixth or seventh centuries.
2. The writing consisted of uncials, that is of stiff, square-shaped,
unconnected letters, without division into words or clauses (scriptio con-
tinua), without accents, breathings and iota subscribed, the last appearing
occasionally as a post-scribed letter (Tfll). But few traces of marking
leading paragraphs, of a free interpunction and aspiration signs are
found in the oldest MSS. It was not till the ninth century that uncial
>" writing gradually merged into the cursive, and this became prevalent
in the tenth, uncials being confined to copies particularly handsome.
Accents as weU as iota subscript came into general use along with cur
sive writing after the eighth century ; after a gradual and increasing
accentuation. It is true that the present accentuation is attributed to
Aristophanes of Byzantium (200 b.c), who is also said to have intro
duced aspirates ; but both were used at first only in the schools of the
grammarians. In the fifth century the Alexandrian deacon EuthaUus
furnished his edition of the Acts and Catholic Epistles with accents,
such as aheady existed in several ancient MSS. In order to facilitate
the reading of the text in these books EuthaUus divided it as he
' had done before that of the Pauline Epistles into arlxoi, i.e. lines,
containing just as many words as could be conveniently uttered in
a breath ; and such stichometrioal way of writing was afterwards ap
plied to the Gospels and came into common use even beyond Egypt.'
As tbe putting of these Unes made MSS. more bulky and costly, the
beginning and end of them received some kind of marks, creating a sort
of interpunction. Yet the beginnings of this method take very different
forms along with stichometry, especially the usage of the Greek gram
marians according to Dionysius tbe Thracian (comp. Isidore of Spain,
Origen, i. 19). It was not tiU the ninth century after which a division
into words prevailed, that such interpunction became general though
differing greatly, till it attained its more settled form from Aldus and
Paulus Manutius, after the invention of printing.
3. When Clement of Alexandria speaks of rcepixortal, TertulUan and
Dionysius of Alexandria of capitula (xeipdXaia), it is doubtful whether
they were merely fanciful divisions made by the reader for a right un-

1 The same is found as early as the fourth century in Greek and Latin
classics (erixySbv or cnxnpS'S yplQeiv, /Si/3Xot anxvP^h o-nxoperpia).
Origen arranged the poetical books of the Old Testament xard arixovs,
and Jerome adopted it in his translation. EuthaUus gives an account
of his procedure, in Zacagni, Collectanea Monum. Vet. Eccl, Rom., 1698,
i p. 403 ff. The length of the stichs varied greatly among different
transcribers and in different writings. The account of the number of
stichs at the end of the books (comp. the stichometry of the Cod.
Clarom., § 11, 1) continued long after the stichometrical mode of writing
had been given up.

DIVISIONS OF THE TEXT. 405
derstanding of the contents ; or sections, which each copyist marked as
he pleased. Greater currency was obtained by the division of the Gospels
into sections, which Eusebius numbered in the Gospel-harmony cf
Ammonius of Alexandria (3rd century) for the easier finding of parallel
sections. By his ten canons he thus characterised the passages found
in one Gospel, in two, three or in all four. Besides these 1162 xeip&Xaia
(Matt. 355, Mark 234, Luke 342, John 231) later MSS. have the more
comprehensive t£t\oi (for the most part with an announcement of tbe
contents: titulum), that are almost Uke the present chapters (accord
ing to Suidas Matthew 68, Mark 48, Luke 83, John only 18). EuthaUus
found in the Pauline Epistles an ixBeo-is rCiv xeepaXaluiv (148 altogether)
which he took into his stichometrical edition, and completed by a like
division of the Acts into 40 and of the Catholic Epistles into 31. Andrew
of Caisarea in Cappadocia, who lived at the end of the fifth century,
divided the Apocalypse into 24 \6701 and 72 xetpiXaia. The present
distribution into chapters comes from Hugo a Sancto Caro in the 13th
-century, who is said to have introduced it into his Latin postils on
account of his projected concordance. As early as the 13th century
theologians began to quote according to it ; and it was transferred from
the Vulgate into the Greek text in the first printed editions.2 Robert
Stephens the printer made the present division into verses, putting it
into his edition of 1551. The superscriptions and subscriptions of the
Individual books in the New Testament, originally short, gradually
lengthening and containing all sorts of notices relating to time and place
are aU of later date, as appears from their own statements even where
these are apparently incorrect (§ 1, 1).
4. The purity of the original text was vitiated from the first by
copies which could easily be disfisured by every kind of careless and
arbitrary procedure, in the absence of all official control, since careful
adherence to the letter was completely unknown at that time. On the
other hand, the mode of citation in old time was so careless in respect
to the words (§5, 6) , and the means of giving the intended sense to the
written word so easily applied, that every inducement to intentionally
alter the text was wanting. Heretical tendencies departing from the
traditional Apostolic doctrine were the first to feel the need of grounding
¦their foreign doctrines upon the writings that were handed down, by

! From these must be distinguished ecclesiastical reading sections
(repiKoiral). EuthaUus divided the Acts and Epistles into 57 dvayvib-
o-eis in his stichometrical edition. Collections of ecclesiastical pieces for
reading (lectionaria, ixXoydSia), of Gospel pericopes (eiayyeXiapta or
-Xio-rdpia) and of pericopes from the Acts and Epistles (irpa£a-irb<Tro\oi)
are found in the West after the fifth century ; in the East not before the
.seventh or eighth. Comp. Ranke Ueber den Ursprung unseres heutigen
Perikopensystem, Berlin, 1847. In MSS. their extent is often marked
ty a (dpxfy and r (riXos). A list of the reading sections according to the
words at their beginning and end is called Capitulare (awa^dpiav) or,
when designed for holy days pnvoXbyiov.

406 ORIGIN OF TEXT CORRUPTIONS.
text-changes (§ 8, 4. Comp. Euseb., B. E., on the passages there cited).
But many textual falsifications discussed between heretics and catholics
were harmless variations, each party preferring those that suited it
(comp. Matt. xi. 27 ; John i. 10) ; and real falsifications of the text could
no longer succeed in opposition to the jealous watchfulness of the Church.
It was not until a much later period, when firmly formulated ecclesias
tical dogma was no longer in harmony with the freer expressions of the
1 New Testament, that doctrinal alterations were really attempted ; ani
they could be removed easily enough from the original text, because the
latter was preserved in so many MSS. But along with this complaints-
were made about the differences in the dvriypacpa already noticed by
Irenseus (Adv. Hares., v. 30, 1), which Origen refers partly to the care
lessness of transcribers, partly to the audacity of improvers (in Matth.y
torn. 15, 14). He himself however did not refrain from such procedure,
as is shown by his introduction of the Gergesenes (Matt. viii. 29) and
of Bethabara (John i. 28) into the text. The MSS. made or revised by
him as weU as by his successors Pierius and Pamphilus, were particularly
valued (comp. Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 36, De Vir. III., 75, Euseb., H. E.,
vi. 32) ; but that he undertook a formal critical recension of the New
Testament as of the Septuagint text he himself expressly denies (on
Matth., torn. 15, 14). Something of this nature certainly appears to have-
been done by the Egyptian bishop Hesychius and the Alexandrian pres
byter Lucian (3rd century, see Jerome, Ep. ad Damasum, De Vir. III.,
11, comp. Decret. Gel., 6, 14, and besides § 12, 4) ; but we know nothing-
of the method and results of their endeavours, which were at all events
entirely rejected in the West. On the other hand, the traces of various-
correcting hands in our MSS. show that the latter were often compared
with others and corrected by them, so that though many errors caused
by carelessness were removed, only secondary readings were usually
introduced. How many of our MSS. rest upon such corrected copies
is shown by the mixed readings and half alterations which they contain.
It was not until the seventh and eighth centuries when Constantinople-
became tbe chief seat of transcribers that a more equable and correct,.
but much emended text was restored to the younger MSS.
5. The commonest mistakes are the omission of letters, syllables,.
words and clauses in cases where the like or same foUowed, and the eye
of the copyist wandered from the one to the other (by homoioteleuton).
The instances in which letters or syUables were doubled are much less-
frequent. Many letter sin the square character like one another were-
readUy interchanged. In dictating, consonants of Uke sound were very
often exchanged; while vowels and diphthongs similarly pronounced
chiefly in consequence of itacism were also confounded. The expres
sion was often involuntarily conformed in words to the context ; even to.
senselessness in tbe endings of words. It is hard to say how far the
interchange of synonymous expressions, pronouns, and of simple and
compound words is owing to sheer carelessness. Many transpositions.
arose merely from the fact that a word was omitted by mistake; and

THE EMENDATIONS. 407
since the omission was soon observed it was rectified by the first tran
scriber putting the word in a later place, or, after the corrector had
marked the error, the word was introduced into a wrong place by a later
copj ist. Abbreviations also were sometimes read incorrectly, original
glosses erroneously put into the text, a word altered or supplied after New
Testament paraUels or (in citation) after the LXX. either unconsciously
or on the presupposition of the text's being necessarily wrong because it
does not agree with the parallels passing through the mind of the copyist.
The older are the sources of the text the more numerous are the mistakes
in them which have arisen solely from the negligence and haste of tran
scribers, or from the more or less arbitrary alterations of words and want
of care in reproducing letters.
6. The text has suffered much greater injury from intentional emen
dations, which always advance towards the formation of one that is
essentiaUy uniform. In this respect there is naturaUy a superabun
dance of additions consisting of subject and object, copula and verb,
genitives (especially pronouns) and adjectives (or pronouns), of articles
and appositions, of conjunctions, adverbs and prepositional additions
even amounting to glosses of aU kinds which serve the purpose of
elucidation. Synonyms and pronouns, simple and compound words
(especially verbs), conjunctions and prepositions, tenses, moods and con
jugations, cases and persons, word-forms and flexions are here exchanged
with one another ; sometimes to make the expression more correct or
to beautify it, sometimes to make it more emphatio or more conformable
to the context. To this head belong the majority of word-transpositions,
serving the purpose of emphasis or elucidation. OccasionaUy real
difficulties are removed, at other times there is an intentional conform
ing to paraUels especially in the Gospels, respecting which Jerome
complains in the Epistle to Damasus. Many emendations are meant to
facilitate the sense or to obviate the misunderstanding of it ; they also
express the exegetical mind of the transcribers ; but on the whole we
must not attribute too much exegetical reflection to emendators. Above
aU, no consistency should be looked for in these emendations, especially
as they have passed over into later copies but partially, or have been
partially corrected again by means of an older text. The fact that
emendations continued to increase for a length of time in spite of the
growing reverence for the letter was probably owing to the perception of
the circumstance that the difference of texts which had been observed
from the first helped the meaning, so that the original which had been
lost through the carelessness of transcribers could be restored by their
means. 7. The quotations of the Fathers appear to be the surest evidences of
the text as it was read at a definite time and in a definite place. These
begin in fact with the time of IrensBus,3 whose chief work however has
* We learn from the history of the Canon that the words of the Lord
were muoh used at first, but for the most part very freely without ad-

408 QUOTATIONS OF THE FATHERS.
been preserved only in a fragmentary way in Greek, so that at the turn
of the second and third centuries Clement of Alexandria is the only
writer appUcable to the present purpose. Origen is of more importance
for the third century, especiaUy on account of his exegetical works,
though they are preserved only in part, and in a pretty free translation.
In the fourth and especiaUy the fifth century there are besides Chrysos
tom, Athanasius, Epiphanius and Eusebius, together with the inter
preters Theodoret and Theodore of Mopsuestia, of whose commentaries
nothing but fragments are preserved in catena? and some in a Latin
translation. Cyril of Alexandria may also be mentioned, and the com
mentary of Andreas of Crete, specially useful for the Apocalypse. In
the West the learned Jerome alone occupied himself with the Greek
text ; whue the Latin Fathers, as well as the translators of Irenseus
and Origen are availablo only for the text of the Old Latin version.
Of special importance are TertuUian and Cyprian in the third cen
tury ; in the fourth Augustine and Pelagius ; Ambrose and the so-
called Ambrosiaster (Hilary the deacon), Victorin and Rufinus, HUary of
Poitou and LucUer of CagUari ; in the fifth century Fulgentius, Sedulius,
Vigilius ; and in the sixth the commentary of Primasius on the Apoca
lypse. These citations, however, present nothing but very fragmentary
material ; and the necessary critical preparatory works are stiU wanting
in which they might be coUected and appraised.4

hering to the individual Gospels, and generally in the form of mere
allusions to the gospel narrative. AU that is of any importance for the
text of the Gospels prior to Irenseus, whether in ecclesiastical or heretical
circles, is coUected by R. Anger, Synopsis Evangeliorum M. U. L., Lips.,
1852. The very free reminiscences of passages in the Epistles and Acts
cannot prove anything in establishing their text, except some indistinct
examples (especially in Polycarp).
4 The Church Fathers can only be sure witnesses for the form of the
text they had, in cases where their exegesis or their doctrinal and
polemic exposition is attached to the wording of the New Testament ;
in other cases it is stiU doubtful how far they quote from memory
or from consultation of the passage. Besides, there is a possibility that
their copyists or editors adapted the quotations to the current text before
them. It is also to be noted that satisfactory critical editions of the
Fathers are still wanting, as well as complete coUections of their citations
Uke what has been attempted in a masterly way by Ronsch, Das Neue
Testament Tertullians, Leipz. 1871 (comp. also his collections relating
to the other Latin Fathers in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol., 1867, 69, IX,
76).

APPENDIX. 409

II. Manuscripts.
Oonro. 0. ft. Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischmdorf't Eighth Edition, Leipzig,
1884, 1.
1. We posseSB between sixty and seventy uncial MSS.; and nearly two-
thirds of them contain more or less extensive fragments, about twenty-
five, single parts of the New Testament or the whole. On the other
hand there are upwards of 1,000 cursive MSS. apart from Lectionaries,
for the Gospels alone above 600, for the Pauline Epistles above 300 ; but
as they are not older than the end of the ninth century, and contain
with few exceptions the later adjusted text, they are of less value. The
age of the codices can be determined in almost every case by indirect
means alone; by the state of the MS. (i. 1), or the manner of writing
(i. 2), and the divisions that appear in it ; for even if a remark is found
upon the MS. as to date or other particulars, it may have originally been
due to the copyist and been adopted from him along with the MS. itself.
But the age of a MS. does not determine the value of its text ; since
¦even a proportionately late MS. may have much older contents. As it
is certain that only separate parts of the New Testament were transcribed
at an early date, a MS. that embraces at the present day tbe entire book
may be referred in its various portions to contents bearing a different
character and value, as is apparently tbe case with respect to the Cod.
Alex. It is often very difficult to distinguish the hands of different
correctors (lectio a prima, a secunda manu, etc.). The codices bilingues
{GrsBColatini, GrsBCocoptici) have the translation in a particular column,
in the margin, or between the lines (versio interlinearis). The suspicion
raised by R. Simon, Michaelis and especially by Wetstein that the Greek
text in the Greek-Latin MSS. has been altered from the Latin is now
universally abandoned. The so-caUed mixed codd. (opp. puri) are fur
nished with scholia or a commentary. The present mode of marking
the uncial MSS. with large Latin letters, the cursive with Arabic letters,
has this inconvenience that the same letter frequently denotes different
MSS. in different parts of the New Testament ; and particularly in the
case of the cursives different parts of the same MS. have a different
cipher; an arrangment whieh is chiefly owing to Wetstein.
2. Only four uncials belonging to the fourth and fifth centuries,
probably made in Egypt (Alexandria) contain the whole of the New
Testament in addition to the Old, or embraced so much at first. The
most valuable of them is the Vatican (B) in the Vatican library (No.
1209). Unfortunately it is defective from Hebrews ix. 14 to the end, so
that the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon and the Apocalypse are wanting.1

1 Formerly there were only incomplete and unreliable collations of it ;
and the edition superintended by Cardinal Mai (Rome, 1858) proved
thoroughly unsatisfactory. Tisohendorf's edition (Leipzig, 1867) was
derived from an examination too narrowly circumscribed by the author
ities ; but it gives in conjunction with the splendid faosimue edited by

410 OLDEST MSS. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
To the fourth century also belongs the Codex Sinaiticus (N) discovered
by Tisohendorf in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. It
has tbe advantage of embracing all the New Testament without a gap;
and was published by the discoverer in a splendid edition (Petersburg,
1862), as also in minor editions (Leipzig, 1863, 1865) .2 To the fifth
century belongs the Codex Alexandrinus in the British Museum, whioh
wants, however, the greater part of Matthew and Second Corinthians,
while in John's Gospel there is a gap of two chapters. The two epistles
of Clement are at the end of the MS. It was published in fac-simUe by
Woide in 1786, edited again by Cowper; and in 1879 issued by the
curators of the Museum in a splendid fac-simne edition. The Codex
Ephraem Syri or Regio-Parisiensis (C) belonging to the Ubrary of Paris,
a rescript, is about the age of the Alexandrian ; but it is so defective as
to contain only five-eighths of the New Testament, and has not been
deciphered for the most part tiU recently.8
3. The Gospels were earUest and oftenest copied. Upwards of twenty
complete or at least extensive portions of them are contained in uncial
MSS. Besides the codd. mentioned in No. 2 there is the sixth century
and Western stichometrically written Greek-Latin Cod. Beza; or Canta-
brigiensis (D), containing the Gospels and Aots, having however im
portant gaps (ed. Th. Kipling, Cambr., 1793 ; Scrivener, London, 1867).
In addition to it there are the Codex Regius (L) in the national Ubrary
of Paris, No. 62, a MS. which is often in contact with the oldest text,
and belonging to the eighth century (ed. Tisohendorf in the Monumenta
sacra inedita, Leipz., 1846) ; and the Cod. Sangallensis (A) a Greek-
Latin MS. with an interlinear version in tbe Ubrary of St. GaU. and of
the ninth century (ed. Rettig, Zurich, 1836), both containing the four
Gospels though not without gaps. Numerous fragments of aU four
VerceUone and Cozza (Band V. 1868) a satisfactory knowledge of its text.
Editions ad fidem Cod. Vat. were pubUshed by Euenen and Cobet
(Lejden, 1860) and by Phil. Buttmann (BerUn, 1862).
3 The parts of the Old Testament discovered in 1844 were pubUshed
at Leipzig as the Cod. Friderico-Augustanus, in 1846. Besides the Old
and New Testaments the Cod. Sinait. contains the Epistle of Barnabas
and part of the Shepherd of Hermas. Comp. Tisohendorf, Aotitia edit.
Cod. bibl. Sinait., Lips. 1860. Die Sinaibibel, Leipz. 1871. As to the
value of the MS. comp. K. Wieseler Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1861, 64,
Hilgenfeld, who puts it into the sixth century, in his Zeitschr. f. wiss.
Theol. 1864, 1, and against him Tisohendorf in the same journal 1864,
2. Comp. also Phil. Buttmann in the same, 1864, 66, Scrivener, A Full
Collation of the Cod. Sin., London, 1864, 67. The MS. is in Peters
burg. 8 In this paUmpsest the entire writing was washed off in the twelfth
century, and the parchment furnished anew with the Greek text of
ascetic writings belonging to the Syrian Ephraem. At the end of the
seventeenth century, the old, effaced characters were discovered and
brought out again after the Giobertine tincture had been appUed, 1834,
35. The text was actually deciphered by Tischendorf, and that of the
New Testament edited in facsinule, Leipzig, 1813.

OTHER MSS. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 411
Gospels are also in the Cod. Guelpherbytanus (P) of the sixth century
(ed. Tisch., Monum. nova coll., 1869), and Codex Monacensis (X) belong
ing to the beginning of the tenth century. Important fragments of
Matthew are contained in the Cod. Dublinensis rescriptus (Z) of the
sixth century (ed. J. Barrett, Dublin, 1801; T. K. Abbott, Lond., 1880).
Fragments of Luke are in the Cod. Nitriensis (R) a palimpsest of the-
Bixth century (ed. Tisch., Monum. nova coll., 1857) and the Cod. Zacyn-
thius (S) , a palimpsest of the seventh or eighth century (ed. TregeUes,
1861). Fragments of Luke and John are in the Cod. Borgianus (T) of
the fifth century (ed. Georgi, 1789) and the Cod. Guelpherbytanus II.
(Q) about the same age (ed. Tisch., Monum. nova coll., 1860). AU other
uncials from the Cod. Basileensis (E) of the four Gospels (eighth century)-
contain on the whole nothing but the later emended text. Here too
belongs the Cod. Rossanensis (2) of the sixth century lately discovered
by 0. v. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, who edited it in 1883.
4. Next to the Gospels the Pauline Epistles were most frequently-
transcribed. Besides the uncials mentioned in No. 2 there is the Codex.
Claromontanus (D) belonging to the sixth century, and now in the
Paris library No. 107, written stichometrically in Greek and Latin, and
belonging to the West (ed. Tisch., Leipz., 1852) ; of which the Cod-
Sangermanensis (E) is a late copy not without gaps, the original text
being mixed up with corrections. Valuable fragments of the Pauline
Epistles are also contained in the Cod. CoisUnianus (H) of the sixth
century. It is probable that one and the same original MS. is repro
duced in the Cod. Augiensis (F) which Scrivener edited at Cambridge
(1859), and the Cod. Boernerianus (G) now in Dresden, edited by Matthsei
(Meissen, 1791, 1818) ; both belonging to the ninth century. Of the
same date are the Cod. Mosquensis (K) which contains the Catholic-
Epistles also ; the Cod. Passionei now Angelicus (L), which has also the
Acts; the Cod. Porphyrianus (P) having the Apocalypse besides (ed.
Tisch., Monum. nova coll., 1865, 1869) and the Cod. Uffenbaohianus or
Ruber (M) having valuable fragments of the Epistles to the Corinthians-
and Hebrews (ed. Tisch., in the Anecd. sacr. et prof., Leipzig, 1855,
1861). 5. For the Acts we have in addition to those mentioned in No. 2 the
Cod. Cantabr. (D, comp. No. 3) and the Codd. L P (comp. No. 4) besides.
the Cod. Laudianus (E) in Oxford, a stichometrical Greek-Latin MS.
belonging to the sixth or seventh century (ed. Th. Hearne, Oxford, 1715 ;
Tisch., Monum. nova coll., 1870) and the Cod. Mutinensis (H) of the ninth
century. For the Catholic Epistles there are only those mentioned under
No. 2 and 4 (K L P). For the Apocalypse there is in place of the Cod.
Vaticanus here defective a MS. also in the Vatican Ubrary (No. 2066)-
belonging to the eighth century (B), pubUshed by Tisohendorf in the
Monum. (Leipzig, 1846, comp. also the Appendix Novi Testamenti Vatic,
1869) whioh is inferior in value to Cod. P (No. 4).

¦412 APPENDIX.

III. Versions.
What are given here are only such as serve for sources of the text and
therefore those taken directly from the Greek. Being considerably older
than the oldest MSS. they may be of the greatest importance so far as
the words of the original can be safely ascertained from them. But the
MSS. of them which are extant vary as well as the Greek codd., and lie
under the suspicion of having been altered after the current Greek text.
-Critical editions are also wanting.
1. In Syria there appeared soon after Tatian's Diatessaron (§ 7, 6)
" The Gospel of the Separated," i.e. a Syriac version of the four Gospels
complete. This was published as preserved in extensive fragments by
¦Cureton : Remains of a Very Ancient Recension of the Four Gospels in
Syriac, London, 1858 (in Tisch. Syr '<"). The MS. was found among
the monasteries of the Nitrian desert, and belongs to the fifth century
(comp. F. Bathgen, Evangelienfragmente. Der Griechische Text des
curetonschen Syrers, Leipz., 1885). More recent probably is the Peshito,
i.e. simple, faithful, a verbal but not slavishly literal translation repre
senting the Umited canon of the Syrian Church at the beginning of the
third century (§ 10, 1). It was published at Vienna in 1555, afterwards
by Leusden and Schaaf (Leyden, 2nd ed. 1717, in Tisch. Syr !ch), lastly
¦by Lee (London, 1823) and W. Greenfield (London, 1828) ; but it stiU
awaits critical elaboration. In the year 508 the Monophysite bishop
Philoxenus had a new translation made by his rural bishop Polycarp
which slavishly adheres to the Greek text even to the extent of being
ungrammatical. But it is preserved only in a revision by Thomas of
•Charkel in the year 616, who compared it with later Greek MSS. and
furnished it with critical signs after the manner of Origen (ed. J. White,
¦Oxford 1778-1803, comp. in Tisch. Syr p, and the Gospel of John accord
ing to it, pubUshed by Bernstein, Leipzig, I853).1
2. Their nearness to the oldest text makes the Egyptian versions
almost more valuable than the Syriac ones. Tbe former seem to have
¦originated in the third century, since monks who knew and used the

1 The Charklensian translation contains the four Catholic Epistles
wanting in the Peshito, but not the Apocalypse. The relation which
these bear to the four Epistles published by E. Pocoeke (Leyden, 1630)
and usuaUy taken into editions of the Peshito is matter of dispute.
Formerly it was believed but wrongly that the original text of the
Philoxenian was preserved in tbem, just as it was supposed that the
Apocalypse published by Lud. de Dieu (Leyden, 1727J and taken into
editions of the Peshito was the work of Thomas of Charkel. Comp.
Bernstein, De Charklensi N. T. transl. Syriaca, Breslau, 1837. 2
Ausg. 1854. Bickell, Conspectus rei Syrorum literaria, Monast., 1871.
There is an EvangeUsterium which Adler discovered in the Vatican
Ubrary written in a sort of Aramasan dialect, and said to have been made
from the Greek in the fifth- century, published by Count F. Minischalchi
Erizzo as an Evangelium Hierosolymitanum (1861-64), marked by Tisch.
as Syr te.

EGYPTIAN, ETH10PIC AND GOTHIC VERSIONS. 413
Bible were acquainted only with the language of the people. Of the
oldest Upper Egyptian translation in the Thebaic or Sahidic dialect (in
Tisch. Sah.) nothing but fragments have been published as yet. These
were collected and published by W. Ford (Appendix to Woide's edition
of the Cod. Alex., 1799), by Zoega (1810), Engelbreth (1811) and by 0. v.
Lemm (Bruchst. d. sahid. Bibeluebersetzung, Leipz., 1885). On the
other hand, the somewhat younger version in the dialect of Lower Egypt
(Memphitic) usually caUed the Coptic (in Tisch. cop.) was pubUshed by
Wilkins (Oxf., 1716), by Schwartze (Die Evangelien, Leipz., 1846, 1847)
and by P. Boettioher (Acts and Epistles, Halle, 1852). There is nothing
but unimportant fragments of a version in the Basmurio dialect, tho
knowledge of whioh we also owe to Zoega and Engelbreth (see above).
Christianity came to Ethiopa in the fourth century, and even then a
translation of the Bible seems to have been made in the prevaiUng Geez
language. That which has been preserved (in Tisch. ^Ith.), foUowed
various Greek MSS. whose readings were occasionally mixed. It was
edited at Rome in 1548 ; but a more exact Latin translation than this
edition was made by Bode (Brunswick 1753). A new edition prepared
for the Bible Society of London by Th. PeU Piatt (London, 1826, 1830)
makes no pretence to a critical character.
3. The Goths in the fourth century received through their bishop Ul-
filas a translation of the Bible from the Greek (comp. G. Waitz, Leben
und Lehre des Ulfilas, Hannover, 1840). The Gospels are preserved in
the Cod. Argenteus at Upsala, a MS. of the fifth or sixth century, cele
brated both for its beauty and its singular fortunes. Since 1665 it has been
repeatedly edited, last of aU by Uppstrom (Upsala, 1854, 1857). Frag
ments of the Epistle to the Romans were edited by Enittel from a Wolf en-
biittel palimpsest (Braunschweig, 1762), considerable fragments of the
Pauline Epistles by Count Castiglione from paUmpsests found by Mai
in the Ambrosian library at Milan (Mail., 1829, 1830). The whole was
edited by Gabelentz and Loebe (Leipz., 1836-1846; comp. in Tisch. go),
and lastly by Bernhardt (1884 ; comp. also Bernhardt, Kritische Unter
suchungen iiber die gothische Bibel, Meissen, 1864 ; Elberf eld, 1868 ;
Vulfila, oder die gothische Bibel, 1875). The history of the Armeniaa
version is well known through the Armenian history of Moses of Chorene.
It was made from the Greek in the first haU of the fifth century, not
without having been influenced from the first by the Peshito whioh the
Armenians had used before. It has also been conjectured that it has
been influenced in the MSS. and even the editions of it, by the Vulgate
(ed. Uscanus, Amsterd., 1866 ; Zohrab., Venedig, 1789, 1805; comp. in
Tisch., arm).*

a Of still less value for the criticism of the text are existing Arabic
versions (in Tisch., ar., arr.) because they were usually made from the
Syriac and Coptic, when Islam overspread western Asia and Africa and
suppressed the languages of the people there (comp. the Arabs Erpenius,
Leyden, 1616, published from a Leyuen MS. of the New Testament by

414 THE OLD LATIN VERSION.
4. StiU earlier than in Syria the need of a Latin translation was felt
in the West, naturally not in Rome and scarcely in Italy, but in the
provinoes where Christianity had earliest taken root, as in Africa, where
Tertullian speaks of the translation of a Greek expression " qua in usum
¦exut " (De Monog., 11). The agreement of his quotations with those in
the Latin text of Irenseus shows that there must have been a tolerably
wide-spread translation even at the end of the second century. But it
unquestionably belongs in its origin to a time when the Gospels alone
were read in churches and the need of a version in the language of the
country was felt. The apostolic writings were translated gradually,
according as they came into general use ; so that one translator for the
whole is out of the question. Jerome knew only an " antiqua translatio,
vulgata editio " (comp. Cassiodor., Institut. Divin., Ut. 14, vetus transla
tio) the MSS. of which he found in such confusion that each one appeared
to be a peculiar form of the text (Praf. ad Damasum ; tot exemplaria,
quot codices), a fact which he imputes to the carelessness of transcribers,
but above all to the temerity of emendators, whom he calls " vitiosi
interpretes, imperiti translatores," because they improved the version
mainly by the original text. When Augustin speaks of the " infinita
varietas latinorum interpretum" (De Doctr. Christ., 2, 11 ; " nullo modo
numerari possunt ") , his language favours the idea that he refers to emen
dators rather that to translators of the entire N. T ; but he considered
the MSS. which had become by such means oharacteristicaUy different

Thomas Erpe). Yet there must have been an older translation of the Gos
pels derived directly from the Greek and underlying more or less various
later versions (Storr, De Evv. Arabicis, Tiib., 1775 ; Gildemeister, De
Evang. in Arab. Transl., Bonn, 1865). It was edited at Borne in 1590,
and again by Lagarde from a Vienna MS. (Leipz., 1864). But it is very
questionable whether it belongs to a time prior to Mohammed. In like
manner, the Arabic versions of the N. T. in the Polyglotts made directly
from the Greek (comp. also the editions published by the Roman Propa
ganda, 1671, and the London Bible Society, 1827) are of very uncertain
origin, and have been altered in part in the editions after the Vulgate or
the original Greek. Other Oriental translations are wholly worthless.
The Georgian (Grusinian) did not exist before the end of the sixth cen
tury ; whether it was made direct from the original is doubtful ; and it
was revised in the edition of Moscow (1743, 1816) from the Slavic-Russian
Bible. This Slavic translation, said to proceed from the two apostles of
the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, in the ninth century (in Tisch., si ) was
made indeed from the Greek, but was influenced from the first by the
Vulgate, since according to the papal decree of 880 the Gospel was
always to be read in Latin first, and then in Slavonic. It has been
examined by Dobrowsky (Slovanka, 2 Lfg., Prag., 1815) and by Muralt,
(1848). The Gospels were printed as early as 1512 in Wallachia, the
entire N. T. at Wilna, 1623 ; at Moscow, 1663, 1751. A Persian transla
tion of the Gospels made from the Greek was edited by Wheloc and
Pierson (Lond., 1652-57), but it belongs to the fourteenth century (in
Tisch., perswho). The Gospels in the Polyglotts (in Tisch. pers.D) have
been translated from the Peshito.

THE OLD LATIN VERSION. 415
in different districts (comp. Retract., I. 21, 3; Codices Afri, contra
Faust., 11, 2 : " codd. aliarum regionum ") as so many different ver
sions ; among which he prefers the Itala (i.e. the one that originated in
Italy, De Doctr. Christiana, 2, 15). This appellation is the traditional
designation of all memorials of the old Latin translation now extant
whether they really go back to a common root or to different translators).8
These memorials, even apart from the patristic citations which are
doubly precarious in the present oase (ii. 7) are very numerous es
pecially in the Gospels, furnishing by their excessive literality very safe
references to the text whioh is at their basis, and going back as high at
least as our Greek copies. They are marked with smaU Latin letters in
the critical apparatus.4
8 This question cannot be decided either by the above statements of
the Church Fathers, or by the extant remains of the old Latin transla
tion, since the separate parts of the writing refer back in any oase to
different translators, since different translators could hardly have worked
quite independently of one another, and since a version revised through
out according to the original text differs from one made in dependence
upon an older, by a fluctuating line. The majority of modern textual
critics abide by one. common basis (oomp. also Eichhorn). Michaelis
supposes several translators, as do de Wette, Hug, Reuss, especially
Zeigler (Die lateinischen Bibel Uebersetzungen vor Hieronymus, Miinchen,
1879). The question too whether the language of the extant fragments
of the old Latin translations points to an African or an Italian origin is
still doubtful. Comp. on this subject Ronsch, Itala and Vulgata, Marb.
u. Leipz., 2 Aufl., 1875, and his comprehensive studies of the Itala in
the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol, 1868, 83.
4 John Martianay published at Paris in 1695 after the Cod. Corbejen-
sis (ff ') the Gospel of Matthew and James's Epistle. In 1735 (ed. Aucta,
Paris, 1749, 51) Sabatier published in his Bibl. s. Lat. Vers. Antiq., in
vol. iii. the Gospels after the Cod. Colbertinus (c) of the eleventh century.
In 1749 Jos. Blanohini, in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex, published at
Rome, the Gospels after the Cod. Veroellensis (a) of tiie fourth century
(whicb Irici had already edited at Milan, 1748), the Cod. Veronensis (6)
of the fifth century, and the Cod. Brixianus (f ) of the sixth. The Cod.
Palatinus (e) of the fifth century was published by Tisohendorf (Evang.
Palat., Leipz., 1847) ; and the same scholar also pubUshed important
fragments of the Cod. Bobbiensis (k) of the fifth century in the Vienna
Jahrbiicher, 1847, 48. Mark and Luke were published by Alter, and
recently by Belsheim (Leipz. , 1885) after the Cod. Vindobonensis (t) of
the sixth century. The Cod. Rhedigeranus (1) of the seventh century
was published by Haase at Breslau (1865, 66). Comp. the old Latin
Bible texts now appearing at Oxford. In addition to these, besides nu
merous fragments, there are the Latin translations in the Codd. Grasco-
Latini (comp. ii.), always denoted by small letters corresponding to the
large ones of the Greek text, which extend to the Epistles also. The
Itala fragments of the Pauline and Petrine Epistles have been recently
published by L. Ziegler (Marburg, 1876). Comp. too the fragments of
the Roman Epistle published by Knittel (Braunschweig, 1762), and of
the Roman and Galatian Epistles by Ronsch (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.,
1879). The Acts and Apocrypha were edited by Belsheim from the Gigas
Libiorum, Miinst., 1879. The Anglo-Saxon, which was made from the

416 THE VULGATE.
5. In order to rectify the great confusion arising ont of such differences
among the codd., Jerome, urged by the Roman bishop Damasus, under
took a revision of the old Latin translation. It was not without suspicions
of the offence which his work would excite and with the greatest caution
that he altered only where the sense was expressly wrong, and solely by
Greek MSS. conformed in their general character to the old Latin trans-
tion. Even in cases where he preferred another reading in his commen
taries, his revision was often allowed to remain in the old text. He began
his work with the Gospels (383 a.d.), and has given an account of his
procedure in the preface addressed to Damasus. Without doubt he
extended it to the whole of the N. T. (comp. De Vir. Ill, 135).6 Nor
was he wrong in foreseeing that the undertaking would bring upon him
the reproach of a sacrilegium. In the fifth century, Leo the Great still
used nothing but the old Latin version. On the other hand Cassiodorus
declared in favour of the new one ; and by the authority of Gregory the
Great who used both indiscriminately but with a preference for Jerome's,
it acquired more and more recognition, till it became in reality the Vul-
gata, i.e. the universally received version, after the eighth century.
Scarcely however had the Vulgate attained to general currency when
the MSS. of it had already fallen into confusion not merely by the fate
naturaUy attending all manuscript tradition, but by the readfly occurring
admixture of its text with that of the old Latin. Hence endeavours to
improve the text of the Vulgate from old MSS. date from the time of
Cassiodorus. Charlemagne commissioned Alcuin to make such a revi
sion. But all these attempts only increased the confusion, until after the
thirteenth century some proposed to themselves at least the task of
emending the MS. text, putting in the margin nothing but various read
ings and critical remarks. This was done in the Correctoria Biblica (Corr.
of Sens, conducted by the theological faculty of Paris, 1230) in which the
different orders of monks zealously laboured. After the middle of the
fifteenth century begin printed editions (the first dated at Mainz, 1462)
of which there were upwards of 200 tUl 1517 ; but they only present a
late, mixed, and irregular text.6
old Latin in the eighth century is also a source for the knowledge of it
(ed. M. Parker, Lond., 1751 ; Benj. Thorpe, Lond., 1842).
6 Comp. G. Biegler, Krit. Gesch. der Vulg., Sulz., 1820; Leander van
Ess, Pragm. krit. Gesch. der Vulg., Tiib., 1824 ; Kaulen, Gesch. der Vulg.,
Mainz, 1868. The publishers of Jerome, Martianay (1692), Vallarsi and
Maffei (1734) were the chief persons who laboured to restore the text.
Of MSS. of the Vulgate, we have, of the sixth century, the Cod. Amiati-
nus (am.), the high age of which has been recently denied by Langen and
Lagarde, probably wrongly (ed. Tisohendorf, Leipz., 1850, 54), the Cod.
Fuldentis (fu) put by Lachmann and Buttmann at the basis of their
editions (ed. Ranke, Marburg, 1868), and the Cod. Forojuliensis (for.) of
the eighth century, with the Cod. Toletanus (tol.). Comp. the ProU. to
Corssen. Epistula ad Gal. ad Fid. opt. Cod. Vulg., Berlin, 1885.
* The first critical edition is that in the Complutensian Polyglott
(1517, comp. iv. 1). The chief Protestants who busied themselves with

APPENDIX. 417
IT. The Printed Text and Text-oriticism.
Oomp. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Grceei. Brunsv., 1872.
1. The Vulgate had been printed for haU a century ; there were now
printed German and Hebrew Bibles, when some specimens of the New
Testament in Greek first proceeded from the press of Aldus, in Venice,
because the study of Greek was so backward. But after 1503 the Spanish
cardinal, Franz Ximenes of Cisneros, archbishop of Toledo, laboured to
produce an edition of the Greek Testament for his Polyglott. It was
completed in 1514 ; but "the Bible of Aloala (Complutum) " could not
be pubUshed till 1522 after the papal permission had been obtained.
Meanwhile the bookseUer Frobenius, in Basel, had got Erasmus to pre
pare an edition of the Greek Testament, which appeared with his own
translation at Basel, 1576, so that it attained precedence over the Com-
plutensian Polyglott as the editio princeps. Both editions were derived
from late MSS., and were therefore relatively alike ; besides, that of
Erasmus was very hastily made, as Fr. Delitzsch (Handschriftliche Funde,
Leipz., 1861, 1862) has pointed out by the way in which a Reuchlin MS.
of the Apocalypse was used. In the Polyglott the Greek is printed with
out accents and spirits ; it has become very rare, but was reprinted by
Gratz, N. T. Grmo-Lai. Tubing., 1821, 27, 51.
2. Erasmus himseU prepared four other editions of his text. Luther
translated from the second (1519) ; the fourth and fifth (1527, 1535) were
altered according to the Complutensian Polyglott ; yet it was repeated
till 1705 in some thirty editions. That of Simon Colinseus, at Paris,
1534, presents a mixed text taken from these two editions. More import
ant service was rendered to the history of the text by the Paris printer,
Robert Stephens, and his learned son Henry. In the first two editions
of the former (edd. mirificae, 1546, 1549), he foUows in the main the
Complutensian ; in the splendidly printed third (ed. regia, 1550), he
attaches himself chiefly to the fifth of Erasmus. Theodore Beza made
this text the foundation of the numerous editions he superintended
(1565-1598), using the various readings coUected by H. Stephens in those
issued after 1582. Stephens had coUated the two MSS. Codd. D. But

the text of the Vulgate were Andreas Osiander (1522) and Robert Stephens
(after 1523), whose best edition appeared at Paris, 1540. After the
CouncU of Trent declared the Vulgate to be the authentic Bible text
(Session iv. decret. 2 of April 8, 1546), the papal see was obliged to pro
vide for an authentic edition of it. But that proclaimed as such by the
Bull Mternus ille (Sixtina, 1590) was withdrawn immediately after the
Pope's death, and a new one completed by Clement VHI. (Clementina,
1592, 3, 98). Comp. Thomas James, Bellum Papale s. Concordia Dis
cors Sixti et Clem., Lond., 1606 ; Heinr. v. Bukentop, Lux de Luce, Col.
Agr., 1710 ; and for the history of the Clementine, Ungarelli in the ProlL
of VerceUone, Var. Led. Vulg., Rome, 1860, who also published a critical
edition of the papal Vulgate. Manual editions by L6ander van Ess
(1822) and Fleck (1840).
TOL. 11. B E

418 APPENDIX.
the various readings were used only in part, since Beza ventured upon a
more searohing improvement of the text only in his translations and
annotations. While his text had great repute in the Reformed Church,
the brothers Elzevir at Leyden foUowed the improvements made in it
in their edition of Stephens's text (1624). The second edition (1633)
calls itself in the preface " textus nunc ab omnibus receptus ; " and though
that text was so far from corresponding to the fact that Reuss counts
up 188 other editions differing from it, yet, through the efforts of these
bookseUers, the correctness and portableness of their editions, of which
five containing about 8,000 copies were issued, the text differing but
Uttle from that of Stephens became in fact the textus receptus (S- in Tisch.
and where it departs from the ed. regia of Stephens S"8). Imperfect as it
is, it obtained an almost sacred authority in the Lutheran Church, which
had before adhered to the Erasmian text used by Luther.
3. Collections of various readings began to be made, especially in
England, on the basis of the recepta. In his London Polyglot (1657)
Brian Walton gave the various readings of Cod. A, Cod. D and of many
other MSS. John FeU (Oxford, 1675) enlarged the number ; and John
Mill urged on the continuance of such work, having in his edition (Ox
ford, 1707, reprinted by L. Kiister, Amsterdam, 1710), furnished with
comprehensive prolegomena (ed. Salthenius, Konigsberg, 1734), increased
the variations from MSS., versions and Fathers to the amount of 30,000.
His contemporary and friend, the great classical philologist Richard Bent-
ley, intended on such basis to make a critical edition with a text repre
sented by MSS. at least 1,000 years old, such as it was, about the time
of Jerome ; but only a specimen of it appeared, the last chapter of the
Apocalypse (1720). The last scholar who still issued the simple textus
receptus, because he could not pubhsh an edition except on this condition,
was John James Wetstein (Amsterd., 1751, 1752). But in his prolego
mena, which had already appeared in 1730 (ed. Semler, with remarks,
1764, 66) he not only increased the critical apparatus, but described,
named, examined MSS. and pronounced his opinion of their critical value.
The text according to his intentions was published by W. Bowyer
(Lond., 1763) ; but as he held that the Western codd. were corrected
from the Latin text and therefore rejected them, whUe he also supposed
that the ancient Oriental codd., agreeing with the Western, had been
corrected, his text does not materially depart from the textus receptus.
4. Meanwhile Joh. Albr. Bengel had broken through the band of the
recepta in Germany, following in the wake of some English predecessors,
by altering it in his edition of the New Testament (Tiib., 1734, 5th ed.,
1796, superintended by his grandson) ; but only where another edition
had led the way (except in the Apocalypse). Undisturbed by the in
security appearing to attach to the text of the New Testament in view of
the ever-increasing coUeotions of various readings, he endeavoured to
reach a firm judgment as to the value of the evidences for the text, and
discovered that they separated into two families according to their peou-
Uar characteristics, viz. the African represented by Cod. A and the oldest

APPENDIX. 419
versions; the Asiatic by the younger MSS.; so that it beoame possible
to classify individual readings according to their real value. His Appar
atus Criticus was published after his death by Burck, Tiib., 1763 ; and
his ideas having been adopted by Semler were expanded tiU they took
the form of different text-recensions (Hermeneutische Vorbereitung, IV.,
1765; Apparatus ad liber. N. T. interpr., 1761) ; and in this shape they
formed a basis for the recension-system of the great textual critic John
James Griesbach. According to him Bengel's African family (traced
back by Semler as the rec. occid. to Origen) should be resolved into two
recensions, the Western belonging to a time before the Canon was
formed, bearing a rougher, more Hebraising Unguistio character and
showing more exegetical glosses, explanations and paraphrases (Cod. D,
in the Gospels, Codd. D, E, F, G, Pauline, the Latin Fathers and ver
sions) ; and the Alexandrian (occidental), originating in the middle of
the second century when the Canon was being formed, and having more
regard to purity of language (Cod. B, C, Gospels, A, B, C, Epistles, the
Greek Fathers and some versions. From them he separated the Con-
stantinopoUtan (Byzantine) recension representing a mixed text origin
ating in the fourth century, which he found in the younger MSS. (for
the Gospels also in Cod. A). This corresponded to the Asiatic family of
Bengel (traced back by Semler as the Orient, recension to Lucian). In
many witnesses he found a mixed text. The different recensions were
regarded in his critical procedure each as one witness, setting forth firm
principles for weighing their testimony as well as for estimating the
internal grounds of readings, according to which the more or less pro
bable might be taken into the text. In this respect he always continued
largely dependent on the recepta.1 While v. Matthaei combated in the
strongest and most passionate way Griesbach's recension-system (oomp.
Ueber die sogenannten Recensionen, etc., Leipzig, 1804), Eichhorn and
Hug tried to give it a stronger historical basis, whioh remained however
purely hypothetical.3 On the other hand A. Scholz went back to the

1 In his first edition (Halle, 1774, 75) the first three Gospels were
printed synoptically, in which form they were repeatedly reprinted ;
whUe the historical books subsequently, in a second edition contained
the text of the synoptics separately (Halle, 1777) and afterwards became
the first volume of his edition. In his second edition of the New Testa
ment (1796, 1806, comp. vol. i. of a third edition edited by D. Schulz,
Berlin, 1827), he was able to use the materials that had been accum-
mulated in the mean time. Ch. F. v. Matthai (Das N. T., Riga, 1782-
88, 2nd ed., 1803-7) coUated more than 100 Moscow MSS., K. Alter
(Nov. Test., Wien, 1786, 7) cited Vienna MSS., Andr. Birch (Quatuor
Evang., Kopenh., 1788, and Varia Lectiones, 1798-1801) published the
fruits of his critical journey undertaken with Adler and Moldenhauer.
Griesbach developed his principles in the Symbols Critical (Halle, 1785,
93) and in his Commentarius Criticus in Textum. N. T., Jena, 1798, 1811.
* Hug called the Western recension of Griesbach which had certainly
no claim to be styled a text recension, the xoivr\ SkSoo-is, as Jerome caUed
the unrevised text of the Seventy in opposition to the Hexapla ; and

420 APPENDIX.
two text-families of Bengel, arriving in this way again at the textus
receptus, as Matthaei had done in his ; and the same text in the main
was afterwards defended by Reiche with the sharpest opposition to
Griesbach.8 5. WhUst the philologist K. Lachmann adopted the idea of Bentley
he abandoned the purpose of restoring the original text, intending
nothing more than to present the oldest traditional text of the fourth
century although the number of testimonies in his time was too smaU
to justify such an undertaking, and many were still insufficiently col
lated.4 It is Constantine Tischendorf's great merit that he devoted
himseU to the task of enlarging and examining the textual apparatus.
In numerous and extensive journeys he made a great number of dis
coveries among which the Cod. Sinait. is the most prominent, collated
MSS. with the greatest care and edited many afresh or for the first time
(comp. Codd. B, C, D, Paul, E, Acts, L, P, Q, R, Gospels, e Gosp. am.),
besides collecting and revising the patristio quotations. His editions
exceeding twenty in number, the first of which appeared in 1841, and
graduaUy reaching the " editio octava critica major " (Leipz., 1869, 72,
oomp. the prolegomena that appeared after his death written by C. R.

thought it became more and more confused till the middle of the third
century ; referring the Oriental recension to Hesychius and the Byzan
tine to Lucian, of whose critical labours however we know nothing ; and
a degenerate form of the text to Origen. Since we know for certain that
Origen did not undertake a recension of the N. T. text (i. 4) Eichhorn
dropped this and assumed a twofold type of the unrevised text as Asiatio
and African as early as the second century ; the former revised by
Lucian in the third century, the latter by Hesychius ; and this naturaUy
led to a somewhat different division of the text authorities on the part of
the two scholars.
3 WhUe Matthaei reverted on the whole to tbe recepta in consequence
of his Moscow MSS. (note 1) which generaUy present a younger emended
text, A. Scholz pronounced the Alexandrian form in the text found in
the oldest Greek and Latin authorities to have been arbitrarily corrupted,
and found the original text most correctly handed down from the auto
graphs of the Apostles, in the Constantinopolitan authorities (comp. The
Proleg to the N. T., Leipzig, 1830, 36, and his Bibl. krit. Reis, 1823,
in which however his communications respecting the MSS. collated by
him are said to be very unreliable). Reiche collated chiefly Paris MSS.
(Gott., 1847), and appeared in his Commentarius Criticus (Gott., 1853-
62) a very violent opponent of Griesbach's recension system. It was also
modified by F. W. Rinok (Lucubr. Critica, Basel, 1830) who compared
for the most part Venetian manuscripts.
4 He explained the principles on whioh he proceeded in the Stud. u.
Krit., 1830, 35 (oomp. in opposition 0. F. A. Fritzsche, De Conf. Ni. Ti.
Crit. quam Lachm., ed. Giess, 1841). His manual edition appeared in
1831 ; a larger one witn oritical apparatus and the Vulgate under the
supervision of Phil. Buttmann jnr., appeared at Berlin, 1842, 50. By Ed.
v. Muralt, 1846, 48, and Phil. Buttmann, 1865, 5th ed. 1874, were chiefly
based upon the Cod. Vat. In the same way Bornemann pubUshed th«
Acts according to the Cambridge MS., 1848.

APPENDIX. 421
Gregory, 1 , 1884) present a textual apparatus ever increasing in fulness
and certainty. The text is always independently constituted after the
oldest testimonies, but he has wavered greatly in the principles from
which he set out, as is shown by the changes which the text has suffered
in the various editions. Beginning with Lachmann's method, he had
gradually come nearer again to Griesbach and the recepta on the basis
of a system alUed to Rink's of four textual classes, the Alexandrian
(current among the Jewish Christians of the East) and the Latin; the
Asiatic (among the native Greeks of Asia Minor and Greece) and the
Byzantine text (comp. Stud. u. Krit., 1842). These he distinguished
without desiring to make out anything about their origin and without
finding them always preserved in purity in the textual authorities.
FinaUy he returned again to the fundamental ideas of Lachmann,
although his inordinate attachment to the Sinaiticus hindered him from
carrying them out exactly, and though he never renounced the desire to
restore the original text by a criticism based on internal grounds.15
6. England, whence the first impulse came has again applied itself to
textual criticism with the greatest zeal. S. P. Tregelles worked since
1844 with industry similar to that of Tisohendorf in securing a critical
apparatus of the text by means of scientific journeys and reUable coUa-
tions of MSS. His large edition with an excellently arranged apparatus
appeared from 1857-1872 ; but unfortunately the Sinaitic Cod. and the
new editions of the Vatican could not be used till the Epistles. In
forming the text he proceeded in the main on the Ben tley -Lachmann
principles (comp. An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Tes
tament, London, 1854, and his elaboration of textual criticism in Home's
Introduction, London, 1856). Where the oldest codd. disagree, the
doubtful readings are given in the margin or in brackets. The pro
legomena were added after his death by Hort and Streane, 1879. Be
sides him, F. H. A. Scrivener (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of
the New Testament, 1862, 3rd ed., 1884) has stood up for the claim ofthe
younger MSS., and meritoriously examined cursives. In 1852 (Cam
bridge) he published the text of the ed. regia with the variations of the
latest critical editions. Scrivener and Palmer have given the results of
the Revised Version of the EngUsh translation completed in 1881, setting
forth very clearly the Greek text at the basis of the revision. The ap-

• Even after the labours of Tischendorf much remains to be done in
order to make the rich critical apparatus we possess really useful, since
it is only by a thorough examination in all details of every individual
authority, its peculiarity and its relation to others that a safe judgment
can be formed as to its readings. Such examination must be under
taken and carried throughout the separate parts of the N. T., since the
two leading points to be here investigated present premises that are
different in part. The beginnings of such investigations may be seen in
Weiss's Introductions to his Commentaries upon Matthew and Mark
(1872, 76), and upon the Galatian Epistle by Wieseler (Komm., 1859) and
Zimmer (Zeitschrift. f. wiss. Theol, 1881-1883).

422 APPENDIX.
pearance of the edition prepared by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort
from 1853 and subsequently Cambridge and London, 1881, 2nd ed. 81,
82, was of striking importance, since it was accompanied by a second
volume in which the history of the text and the principles of their
criticism based upon it were unfolded with great clearness.6
7. The polyglott Bible published by Stier and TheUe as a convenient
manual gives the textus receptus with the variations of modern critical
editions (5th ed., Bielef., 1875). The stereotyped edition issued by
Tittmann (Leipz., 1820, 24, 28,31) afterwards revised by A. Hahn (1840,
61) mainly foUows the same text. Bengel' s text was printed five times
forming a manual edition, from 1734-90. The editions of Knapp (HaUe,
1797, 5th edition after his death 1840) 1 and of Schott (Leipz., 1805, 4th
ed. after his death, 1839) to which a Latin translation was appended,
followed Griesbach's text. The Griesbach-Enapp text was stiU more
adapted to the recepta by Vater (HaUe, 1824) furnished with a Latin
version by Goschen (Leipz., 1832) and has obtained great currency in
the stereotyped editions supervised by K. G. W. TheUe (Leipz., 1844),
which have been prepared since the 11th ed. (1875) by O. v. Gebhardt
with improvements furnished by the latest critical editions (14th ed.,
1885). Greek-German (1852) and Greek-Latin editions (1854, 62, 80)
have also appeared. Tischendorf issued many manual copies of his
critical editions, some based upon his ed. iv. of 1849, which first ap
peared in a stereotyped form in 1850 (Leipz. ap. Tauchnitz, 1850,
revised in later editions by O. v. Gebhardt tiU the 9th, 1884) ; some
based upon his triglott (ed. vi., 1854) as an editio academica (Lips., 1855.

* Here especiaUy the Syriac readings are separated which are said to
be based upon two recensions made in 250-350 ; the text greatly emended
by them and mixed was then brought by Chrysostom to Constantinople
whence it was widely spread in the majority of our authorities (comp. A
Gospels and C in part)T Going back to the Western readings, that is
those current in the West (comp. the two D D's. G Paul, the old Latin
and old Syriac versions, Justin, Irena?us, Eusebius), corresponding to
the Western recension of Griesbach and to the Alexandrian which is
similar to the Oriental in his classification (comp. A epistles, L gospels,
Origen to Cyr. Cop.) ; the former are older but still show great freedom
in explanations and additions ; the latter betraying an effort to attain
linguistio correctness, are younger. These editors also distinguish a
neutral text, which the Vatican has preserved and in part the Sinaitic
(having however Western and Alexandrian readings) ; so that in this
excellent edition which still leaves much in doubt through brackets
and marginal readings and even states the need of conjecture to rectify
the text because of aUeged exegetical difficulties, our chiefest codex gets
its proper rights, mainly in opposition to Tischendorf.
* In the appendix to Knapp's edition there is also found a coUection
of conjectures, such as was formerly made by Bowyer (1763), afterwards
translated and enlarged by Fr. Schulz (1774, 75). After conjectural
criticism had been rejected for a long time because of the fuU apparatus
of authorities, it is now once more zealously oarried on in Holland
(comp. also Westcott and Hort, note 6).

APPENDIX. 423
15th ed., 1886) ; others based upon the ed. viu. (1873, 80), with whioh
may also be compared his synopsis of 1851 (5th ed., 1815). His final
text was edited by 0. v. Gebhardt with the variations of Treg. and Westo.
and Hort; some with the Greek alone (Leipz., 1881, 2nd ed. 84); others
with Luther's text revised (1881, 84).
V. The Philological Elaboration of the Text.
Oomp. in particular Mangold in BleeWt Einleit. 4 ed. § 21-36.
1 The oldest attempt to examine the Greek of the N. Testament set
ont with the Hebrew language, so that the grammar of the one appears
as an addition to the other (Glass, Philologia Sacra, Jena, 1623, ex
tended to five volumes after 1636). But this kind of Greek was soon
treated independently (C. Wyss, Dialectologia Sacra, Tigur, 1650; Q.
Pasor, Grammatica Sacra N. T., Groningen, 1655). At that very time a
violent dispute had broken out between the Purists, who were zealous,
in favour of the classical character of N. T. Greek, to do honour to the
Holy Spirit (Seb. Pfochen, Diatribe de Ling. Grac. N. T. Puritate,
Amsterdam, 1629, 33) ; their leader after 1640 was Jac Grosse, and the
Hebraists (Joachim Junge, Sent, de Hellenistis et Hellen. Dial, Jena,
1639) who like Th. Gataker and Joh. Vorst, endeavoured to show the
influence of Hebrew upon it. The dispute agitated the Reformed Church
at first; but it passed over into the Lutheran Church also. The
writings on both sides were coUected, on the part of the Hebraists by
Rhenferd (1702) ; on the part of the Purists by Hajo v. d. Honert (1703).
Intermediates, however, who stood over against the excesses of both
were not wanting (Joh. Leusden, De Dial. N. T., Leyden, 1670 ; Olearius,
De Stilo N. T., Coburg, 1672). Towards the end of the century victory
inclined to the side of the Hebraists ; and about the middle of the
eighteenth the Purists were entirely silenced, after having found a
zealous and able defender in the Lutheran Sigm. Georgi (1732, 33).
2. The victory of the Hebraists contributed nothing to the investiga
tion of New Testament Greek. Throughout a whole century scholars
were satisfied with coUecting paraUels to N. T. passages bearing a
grammatical or lexical character, and with heaping up in uncritical
fashion a mass of materials caUed Observations.1 Hence exegesis was

i Many observations of this kind were coUected by Lamb. Bos (Obs.
misc., Franecker, 1707; Exercitationes phil, 2 Aufl., ibid., 1713),
Wetstein in his N. T. (1751, 2); Palairet, Obs. phil. crit., Leyden, 1752,
Svecimenexerc. phil. crit., London, 1755) and Kypke (06s. sacr., Breslau,
1755). But these were also confined to single writers. Observations out of
Xenophon, Polybius, Arrian, Herodotus, were coUected by G. Raphel
(Annot., Leyden, 1747), out of Lucian and Dion, of Halicarn. by Lange
Lub., 1732), out of Diodorus by Munthe (Leipzig, 1755), out of Thucy-
dides by Bauer (Comp. Philol. Thucyd.-PauL, Halle, 1773), from Josephus
by Otte (Spicil, Leyd., 1741), and Krebs (Observ., Leipz., 1755), from
PhUo by B. Carpzov. (HelmBt., 1750), by Losner (Leipz., 1777) to whioh

424 APPENDIX.
dominated by a senseless empiricism. Every expression which wa*
thought to present some sort of example was looked upon as possible
Under the name enallage it was considered justifiable to take every tense,
case, particle for every other respectively ; and even the comparative for
the positive, the definite for the indefinite article. By assuming ellipses,
parentheses, etc. every connection of words was destroyed. By the
adoption of Hebraisms, it was even thought possible to explain or excuse
the impossible (oomp. Storr, Observ. ad Anal, et Synt. Hebr., 1799). This
monstrous maltreatment of N. T. Greek which Haab (Hebraisch-Griech-
ische Grammatik, Tiib., 1815) made into a sort of system was first
aboUshed from the standpoint of a rational philology by Georg. Bened.
Winer in his Grammatik des NTlichen Sprachidioms (Leipz., 1822, 7
Aufl. besorgt von Liinemann, Gott., 1867) ; foUowing H. Planck (De Vera
Nat. Atque Ind. Orat. Grac. N. T., Gott., 1810). The Grammar of the N.
T. Language by Alexander Buttmann, Berlin, 1859, containing remarks
on the Greek grammar of Philipp Buttmann, a knowledge of whioh is
presupposed (19, 20 ed.) is simUar in character.2
3. New Testament lexicography is essentially based upon the old
glossaries of Hesychius in the fifth century (comp. Alberti, Glossarium
Gracum in N. T., Leyden, 1735), Suidas of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, and Phavorinus of the sixteenth century. G. Ernesti collected
out of these the explanations relating to the N. T. (Glossal Sacra, Leipz.,
1785, 86). Compare besides the Ecloga of Phrynichus (ed. Lobeck.
Leipz., 1820), CyrU of Alexandria, from whose glossary Matthaei col
lected glosses on the PauUne and Catholic Epistles (Glossaria Graca,
Moscow, 1775, leot. Mosq., 1779), and Zonaras of the twelfth century,
from whom Sturz gathered and explained Glossal Sacra (Grimma, 1818,
20). The older lexicons of the N. T. by G. Pasor (Herborn, 1626,57 Aufl.,
Leipz., 1774), Stock (Jena, 1725, 5 Aufl., by Fischer, Leipz., 1752), and
Chr. Schottgen (Leipz., 1746, published also by Spohn, 1790) were super
seded by Schleusner, Nova Lex. Gracolat. in N. T., Leipz., 1792 (4
Ausg., 1819) which with its incomplete lexical standpoint has stiU much
valuable scientific material. These were foUowed by Wahi (Clavis N. T.,
Leipz., 1822, 3 Ausg., 1843) which reverts more to classical usage; and

Kuhn (Pfort., 1785) made a supplement, and from the Apocrypha by
Kuinol (Leipz., 1794). Comp. also the collections made from later
Jewish writings in the Hora Hebr. et Talm. by Lightfoot (ed. Carpzov,
1675) and Schottgen (Leipz., 1733, 42), a labour which has been resumed
by.F. Delitzsch (Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. und K., 1876 ff.), and A.
Wunsche (Neue Beitr. zur Erlduterung d. Evv. aus Talm u. Midr., G6tt.,
1878). 2 Comp. Gersdorf, Beitrage zur Sprachcharakteristik d. N. T.'s.
Leipz., 1816; Wilke, NTliche Rhetorik, Dresden, 1843, and R. H. A.
LipsiuB, Gramm. Untersuchungen ueber die biblische Gr'dciidt (Leipz.,
1863), whioh unfortunately treat of nothing more than marks of punctua
tion. For manual use comp. Sohirlitz, Grundziige der NTliclun Gracitat,
Giessen, 1861.

APPENDIX. 425
Bretschneider (Lex. Manuale, Leipz., 1824, 3 Ausg., 1840) who inclines
to the HeUenistic usage. Unfortunately Winer did not attain to the
carrying out of his plan of elaborating a lexicon (Beitrage zur Ver.
besserung der NTlichen Lexikographie. Eri., 1823). On the other hand
WUke's Clavis N. T. (Leipz., 1841, 52) was excellently and completely
worked over by WUib. Grimm (Leipz., 1862, 65, 1879). Schirlitz's
Griechisch-deutsches Worterbuch zum N. T. (Giessen, 1851, 3 Aufl., 1868)
serves for a manual.3
4. None of the N. T. writers owing to his position in life and the
development of his mental condition had any knowledge of the master-
productions of Greek literature ; and therefore their language cannot be
measured by the Atticism of the classics. Besides, the Attic dialect
itself after becoming the common tongue of the HeUenes in the Mace
donian period and even that of the cultivated universally, had undergone
a great change by losing many elegancies, and adopting a number of
foreign dialectio peculiarities particularly taken from the Macedonian
dialect, which was cognate to the Doric. This xoivi] or iXXnviKri SidXeKros
had formed itself into a written and learned language in a rich and
splendid literature and attained to great elegance especiaUy in Alex
andria (comp. Sturz, De Dialecto Maced. et Alexund., Leipzig, 1808),
stiU used by Philo and imitated by Josephus; but yet the N. T. writers
remained whoUy uninfluenced even by this written speech. They em
ployed nothing but the popular current language developed out of the
xoiv-fi, in which the dialects once separated had become mixed, the
original elegancies had been obliterated, foreign elements had intruded,
the senses of words being enlarged, new terms and forms created or
borrowed from the language of poetry, and syntactical connexions whose
original ground and meaning was forgotten, misused or exaggerated.
The Latinisms of the N. T. belong in a great degree to the linguistio
character of individual works and rest upon special conditions.
5. It was in this language of the people as it was developed in Alex
andria with a provincial oolouring that the Seventy had translated the
Old Testament ; and the original must have had an intrinsic influence
over it in constructions, phrases, modifications of the meanings of forms
of words (Hebraisms). As the old Hebrew was intelligible only to proper
scholars, this version became the exclusive medium at least to the Jews
of the diaspora through whioh they acquired a knowledge of the 0. T.,
and therefore it had a decided influence upon their language, especially
upon the mode in which the entire religious world expressed its ideas.
In Palestine there was also an Aramsean element in the language, since

• For settling the vocabulary and usage of the individual writers the
N. T. Concordance of Erasm. Schmid (Wittenberg, 1638), edited afresh
by K. H. Bruder (Leipz., 1842, 5 ed. 1880) is indispensable. A supple-
ment to it was made by F. Zimmer in his Concord, suppl, Gotha, 1887,
in which he arranged the New Testament words aocording to their end
ings and derivation.

426 APPENDIX.
it was usual to hear the O. T. in the synagogues interpreted in the
speech of the country; a fact which is unaffected by the question
whether there were Aramsean versions at that time (oomp. Bohl, Forsch-
ungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu, Wien, 1873). This
Hebraising (Aramaising) Greek has been called the Hellenistic since the
time of Jos. Scaliger and Joh. Drusius, because the Greek-speaking Jews
were termed Hellenists (Acts vi. 1) ; and though Salmasius opposed the
appeUation, preferring " stUus idiotieus " instead, and de Wette, Thiersch,
etc. proposed others, yet it has properly continued in use. The Hebrai
sing character is stamped upon the New Testament writings in very
different degrees and ways. Besides, the Christian spirit and the new
world of Christian ideas must also have had a moulding influence especi
aUy over the expression of conceptions specially religious ; and this again
appeared in different degrees just as the individual N. T. authors had
attained to the cultivation of a special doctrinal style (comp. Zeschwitz,
Profangrdcitat und biblischer Sprachgeist, Leipz., 1869 ; Cremer, Bib-
lisch-theologisches Worterbueh, Gotha, 4 Aufl., 1886). This element in
the linguistio character of the N. T. can only be discerned from itself.
On the other hand, the Unguistic usage of the Church Fathers (Suicer,
Thesaurus Eccl., Amsterdam, 1682) or the explanations of ancient inter
preters and scholiasts are misleading because they belong to the ecclesi
astical phraseology of their time. Here the philological treatment of
N. T. Greek passes over directly into the hermeneutieal employment of
the text, which Ues completely beyond the Umits of an Introduction.
Everything of importance to such Introduction which can be derived
brom commentaries has been duly considered in its proper place.

3 9002 08844 1630