" .'^ii'i*- i' "i i '
L,!Kj!.i^iv. H-i.l
I -rt . 4 .,irp J,'

iiLiiiMiii!, , ll ,.n, iL.!,„r ,ij.«t[JiiJL;AjiiwfflA,lBSiMliS!

|i'li 111, l||| 1 IH'imi'l'Siirt?^

/hA

ei

/?/r

AN mSTORICO-CEITICAL

IKTRODUCTION

CANONICAL BOOKS

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

WILHELM MAETIN LEBEEECHT DE WETTB,
DOOTOa OP TSEOLOBT AHD BEaClAK PEOKBSSOE Dt THE HNIVEESHT OF BASEI,.

TRANSLATED EROM THE PIETH, IMPROTED AND ENLARGED EDITION,
BY
FREDERICK FROTHINGHAM.

BOSTON:
CROSBY, NICHOLS, AND COMPANY,
117 WASHnJOTON SlBEET.
18 58.

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

The work now offered to the public is translated from the
fifth and last German edition, which was published in 1848,
about a year before its lamented author's death. Although
some of the questions discussed in it have since that time
so changed their aspect as to require a different treatment,
the work as a whole has not been superseded. It is still a
standard of high authority, and possesses a permanent in
terest and value. The translator at one time entertained the
idea of adding to the notes, and filling out the Ust of works
referred to, so as to show the changes and results of critical
thought and inquiry during the past ten years, and thus,
so far as possible, while leaving the original unaltered, to
bring the work into line with the most recent criticism.
The prospect of being able to do this within any reasonable
time was, however, rendered too uncertain, by the pressure
of other engagements, to warrant the attempt. The work is
therefore presented in the form which De Wette gave it, —
a monument in the history of New Testament literature.
The translator has sought to make his work as correct as
possible. His aim has not been elegance of style, but fidel
ity and accuracy in the rendering of the thought. The

iv translator's preface.
better to secure this, he subjected his manuscript to the ex
amination of Professor Noyes, of the Cambridge Theological
School, and the proof-sheets to the keen scrutiny of Ezra
Abbot, Jr., Esq., of Harvard University. To both of these
gentlemen he begs to express his thanks for the improve
ment which the work has received at their hands.
THE TKANSLATOE.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE

TO THE FIRST EDITION.

In giving at length to the public this long-announced
Introduction to the New Testament, with the joyful feel
ing which attends the completion of a long-delayed task, I
cannot conceal my fear of disappointing the expectations
which seem to have been entertained respecting the work.
The friends of critical inquiry may be dissatisfied because
the results arrived at are, to a large extent, indefinite ; while
they who regard our Holy Scriptures with devout reverence
only, may be disturbed by the freedom of the investigation.
I would gladly have arrived at results more definite and
more in harmony with the views generally received in the
Church ; but the Truth can alone decide. That is no gen
uine love of Truth which is not ready to sacrifice its in
ordinate curiosity where certainty is unattainable, as well
as its pious prejudices. The value of criticism I place
chiefly in the activity to which it excites the spirit of in
quiry ; but this spirit of inquiry can never harm a genuine
Christian piety.
There are two subjects of investigation in regard to
which I have especially failed to satisfy myself, — the His
tory of the Text, and the Origin of the first three Gospels.

Vl authors PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
My fears respecting these long discouraged me from under
taking the work. In the history of the text I have done
little besides giving the opinions of others. In the inquiry
concerning the Gospels, I regret being compelled to offer a
new hypothesis, or a new modification of an old one. The
genuineness of two books I have distinctly denied, that of
several others doubted, or stated the arguments for and
against ; but in general I cannot be charged with excessive
scepticism. I desire only that my work may be put to the
severest test, and give occasion to fresh investigation of
the truth in this department of study. THE AUTHOR.
Basel, August 18, 1826.

PREFACE
TO THE FIFTH EDITION.

In the edition of 1842 — the second edition appeaj-ed
in 1830, and the third in 1834 — this work was materially
altered and enlarged, especially in the sections devoted to
the Ancient Versions, the Gospels, and the Acts of the
Apostles. It has undergone, however, a more important
alteration in this, the fifth edition, in the sections on the
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Pastoral
Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, and the Eevelation of John,
but without essentially changing the conclusions arrived at.
In the section on the Uncanonical and ihe Canonical Gos
pels, I was obliged to defend my views against the criticism
of Baur and his school, to scare away the apparitions sum
moned back by them of the Gospel of the Hebrews as the
oldest of all the Gospels, and of the original Luke, and to op
pose the hypothesis belonging to their " tendency " theory of
criticism, that the third Gospel is merely an arbitrary crea
tion out of the materials of the first, as well as to resist the
destructive attacks directed by the same criticism against
the fourth Gospel. This necessitated an almost entire re
casting of the sections therewith concerned. It will be found
that I have placed myself decidedly more than heretofore

VIll PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION.
among the defenders of the Gospel of John, although I am
still far from being so decided as my friend Bleek. His val
uable "Beitrage zur Evangelien-Kritik" — whose dedication
to me gave me great pleasure — has done me most excellent
service in this as well as other departments of my labor. I
thank him for it with the cordiality of a true friend. My ex
perience in -New Testament criticism is singular. When I
first entered this field I stood in the foremost rank, and was
regarded by many as a dangerous assailant. Now I behold
myself thrust back into the middle rank of .conservative crit
ics, — ; who indeed are far in advance of the Apologists who
would retain the whole, — and yet my views and position
are in general unchanged. I hope that this new tempest
will pass over, as did that raised by Strauss. I admire
the learning, acuteness, and dialectic skill of Dr. Baur,
but in his investigations I miss freedom from bias, and
blame the excessive haste with which he always seeks
positive results, at the sacrifice of thoroughness ; as, for
instance, in respect of the Gospel of the Hebrews and
Marcion's Gospel. I can, notwithstanding, learn from
him, and wish thfit others likewise would do so, and
oppose him with candor and calmness. To oppose his
"tendency" theory by a style of criticism of the same char
acter, is not serving the truth. Nothing is gained by magis
terial decisions and bold assertions, arbitrary explanations
and forced combinations ; nor does a writer's assertion be
come true and valid, because another •writer pronounces it
excellent, " truly an acquisition." I cannot avoid declaring
myself openly against the efforts of our young Apolo
gists, and I take the liberty of warning especiaUy Mr. H.
W. J. Thiersch to use his gifts and acquirements more
modestly, and not to make too Ught of things. What

preface to the FIFTH EDITION. IX
expectations were excited by his " Versuch zur Herstellung
des historischen Standpunktes f iir die Kritik der neutesta-
mentlichen Schriften," and what has he therein achieved ?
Can a scientific man hope to solve the problem of the ori
gin of the Gospels by a mass of verbiage like that in pp. 75
-230? Mr. Thiersch has not even touched the real knots !
Does he imagine that his dictum can establish the genuine
ness of the Second Epistle of Peter, and reverse the relation
between it and the Epistle of Jude ? I invite Mr. Thiersch to
dismount from his high horse and enter with us on the work
of a modest and thorough investigation. But that will not
do ; he is Evangelical, and we belong in a measure to the
race of Antichrists. Mr. Thiersch and his associates hold
a belief in the present contents of the canon such as neither
the ancient Fathers nor the Eeformers held, — a belief
whoUy unworthy an EvangeUcal Christian, and which would
be ridiculous were it not in the highest degree pitiable.
This delusion, and not the truth, is furthered by their criti
cism. Into harmony with this everything must be brought,
whether it bend or break in the process. The critic, it is
true, should not be without a theory or a belief ; but his
belief must be genuine belief, that is, belief in the histori
cal truth of the Christian revelation, not in the views and
the dicta of men. Such a belief wiU not enslave him nor
bUnd him to the truth, nor prevent his freely using the rules
of grammar, the art of interpretation and criticism. Of
critical works in this sense there are not many in our
day, and therefore I joyfuUy greet Dr. Schwanbeck and his
"Versuch iiber die QueUen der Apostelgeschichte,"*a work
based on firm historical grounds. The mistake which, in
my judgment, he has frequently committed, of being too
hasty in reaching positive results, it is to be hoped he wiU
b

X preface to the FIFTH EDITION.
try to avoid in his Second Part. — In the sections devoted
to the Pauline Pastoral Epistles and the Catholic Epistles,
the influence of my labors on my Exegetical Handbook,
and the results of the same, are manifest. The investiga
tion respecting James the brother of the Lord has also, I
think, been improved by revision. — As regards the Apoca
lypse, I would gladly have used the new edition of Liicke's
" Einleitung" ; notwithstanding, I flatter myself that I have
made some not unimportant improvements. — If sometimes
I have forgotten works or essays by new writers in this de
partment of theology, I ask pardon in advance. Attention
and memory, alas ! often fail me. THE AUTHOR.
Basel, November, 1847.

CONTENTS

DIVISION I.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
SECTION L
OP THE OKIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Why was the New Testament written in Greek ? § 1. — Impureness of the
New Testament Language, ^§3-4. — Inquiry into the New Testament
Language, §§5-9. SECTION II.
THE ANCIENT VBESIONS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Their Classification and Literature, § 10. — I. Syriac Versions. 1. Peshito,
§§ llo-lle. Offspring of the Peshito, §§12 a, 12 i. 2. Philoxenian
Version, §§ 13 a -13 c. 3. Jerusalem-Syriac Version, § 14. — II. Ethi
opic Versions, §§ 15 a, 15J. — IIL Egyptian Versions, §§16a-]6<f.
Copto- Arabic Versions, §17.— IV. Armenian Version, §18. — V. Geor
gian Version, § 19. — VI. Persic Version of the Gospels, § 20. —
VII. Immediate Arabic Versions, §§ 21 a, 216. — VIII. Gothic Version,
§§ 22 a, 22 b. — IX. Slavic Version, § 23. —X. Latin Versions. 1. The
Ancient Version before Jerome (the Itala), § 24. Its Daughter, the
Anglo-Saxon, § 25. 2. The Improved Version by Jerome, § 26.

XU CONTENTS.
SECTION III.
OP THE CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
SUBDIVISION I.
HISTOKT OP THE TEXT.
CHAPTER L
HISTORY OF THE EXTEKHAL EOKM OF THE TEXT.
Original Manuscripts of the New Testament Books, § 27. — Writing-Ma-
terials, Writers, Style of Writing, §§ 28 a, 28 b. — Stichometry, Punctu
ation, Accentuation, §§29a-29c.' — Chapters and Verses, §§ 30 a -30 c.
— Lessons and Pericopes, §§ 31 a, 31 b. — Superscriptions and Subscripts,
§§ 32 a, 32 b. — Conclusions affecting the Criticism of the Text, § 33.
CHAPTER IL
. HISTORT OF THE TEXT ITSELF.
1. Of the Unprinted Text.
It has remained free from gross Corruptions, §§ 34 a, 34 b. — Early Rise of
Ealse Readings, § 35. — Modes of their Origin, §§ 36 a, 36 J. — Griesbach 's
System of Recensions, §§ 37, 38. — Hug's System, § 39. — Dissenting
Views, §§ 40 a, 405. — Conclusion, § 41.
2. Of the Printed Text.
First and Standard Editions, § 42. — Origin of the Received Text, §§ 43, 44.
— Critical Collections and Editions, §§ 45 a - 48 c.
SUBDIVISION IL
THEORY OP THE CRITICISM OP THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT.
CHAPTER I.
DOCUMENTARY AUTHOKITIES IN SEW TESTAMENT CEITICISM.
I. Manuscripts. General Observations, §§ 49 a, 49 5. — Some important
MSS. in particular. 1. In the Uncial Character, §§50a-51(f. 2. In
the Cursive Character, §§ 52a, 52 5. —II. Versions, § 53. —III. Cita
tions of the Fathers, § 54.
CHAPTER n.
PKINCIPLES OF CKITICISM.
Method and Object of Critical Inquiry, § 55 a. — Exegetico-critical Grounds
of Originality, § 55 5. — Grounds in Peculiarities of the Writer, § 56
-Historico-critical Grounds of Originality, § 57. — Consideration 'of the
Critical Authorities as a Whole, § 58. — Critical Conjecture, § 59

CONTENTS. xiii
DIVISION II.
INTRODUCTION TO THE SEPARATE BOOKS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS.
RISE OP A NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE.
1. Epistles, § 60. — 2. Gospels, § 61. — 3. The Revelation, § 62.
SECTION I.
GOSPELS.
CHAPTER L
OP The gospels genep.ally.
Ancient Uncanonical Gospels, § 63. — 1. Gospel of the Hebrews, §§ 64a-
655.— 2. Justin's Gospel, §§ 66 a -67c. — 3. Cerinthus's Gospel : Ta
tian's Diatessaron, § 68. — 4. Gospel of the Egyptians, §§ 69 a, 695. —
5. Marcion's Gospel, §§ 70 a - 72 c. —6. Other less important Uncanoni
cal Gospels, §§ 73 a -73c.— General Conclusions regarding the Unca
nonical Gospels, § 74. — Evangelic Tradition, % 75. — Very Ancient Ac
ceptance of the Canonical Gospels, §§ 76 a, IQb. — Mutual Relations and
Peculiarities of the Canonical Gospels, § 77. — Their Authors, § 78.
CHAPTER n.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
General Statement, §§ 79 a- 80. — Possible Modes of Explanation, §81.—
I. Suppositions that one Evangelist used the Others, §§82a-83. —
II. Theory of one or several Common Written Sources. 1. One Source,
§§84a-84(f. — Untenableness of these Theories, §85.-2. Hypothe
sis of several Common Sources, § 86. — HI. Hypothesis of one Oral
Source, §§ 87 a - 87 d. — IV. Union of the two Hypotheses of a Com
mon Oral Source and of the Influence, through Writing, of one Evangelist
on another, §§ 88 a, 88 5. — 1. Explanation of the Relation between Mat
thew and Luke. A. From a Common Oral Source, §§ 89 a- 90. — B. From
Written Sources, a. Peculiarities of both Evangelists in the Treatment
of the Gospel Matter and in the Composition of a Whole, §§ 91 a -92.
6. Dependence of Luke on Matthew, §§ 93 a - 93 c. — 2. Explanation of
the Relation between Mark and the other two Evangelists by the Suppo
sition that he used them, §§ 94 a- 96.
CHAPTER HL
OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS SEPARATELY.
I. Author, Original Language, and Date of the First Gospel, §§ 97 a -97 c.
— Doubts regarding its Apostolic Genuineness, §§ 98 a, 98 5. — II. Mark,

xiv CONTENTS.
Author of the Second Gospel, §§ 99 a- 100 5. — IIL Luke, Author of
the Third Gospel, §§ 101 a- 102.
CHAPTER IV.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Comparison of the Same with the First Three Gospels. 1. In respect of
its Style of Narrative and Writing, §§ 103- 105 c. —2. In respect of its
Contents and Stand-point, §106.-3. In respect of Arrangement, § 107 a.
— 4. In respect of the Object, §§ 107 5-107/. — 5. In respect of the Date
of Composition, § 107 g. — Is John the Author ? Accounts of him,
§§ 108 a, 108 5. Controversy concerning the Apostolic Genuineness.
1. On External Grounds, §§ 109 a -109 c. — 2. On Internal Grounds,
§§ 110a- 110^. — Time and Place of Composition, §111. — On the
last Chapter, §112. CHAPTER V.
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES.
Plan and Object of the Book, §§ 113 a- 113 c. — The Author, § 114. —
-Sources, and the Use made of them, §§ 115a- 115 <?. — Credibility,
^ 115 e. — Date of Composition, § 116. — Acceptance in the Church,
§§ 117a, 1175. CHAPTER VI.
OP PAUL AND HIS WRITINGS IN GENERAL.
Chronology of his Life, §118. — The History of his Life. His Descent
and Culture, §§ 119 a, 119 6. — Entrance into Christian History, § 120. —
Missionary Journeys, §§ 121 a, 121 5. — Arrest, § 121c. — Second Im
prisonment at Rome, and Execution, §§ 122 a, 122 5. — Epistles, §§ 123 a,
123 5. CHAPTER Vn.
PAUL'S EPISTLES WRITTEN BEFORE HIS IMPRISONMENT.
I. Epistles to the Thessalonians. Founding of the Church at Thessalonica,
§ 124. —First Epistle, §§ 125 a - 125 c — Second Epistle, § 126. — Genu
ineness of these Epistles, §§ 127 a - 127 c.
II. Epistle to the Galatians. Founding of Christian Churches in Galatia,
§§ 128 a, 128 6. — Occasion, Date, and Contents of the Epistle, §§ 129 a,
129 h. — Genuineness of the Epistle, § 130.
III. Epistles to the Corinthians. Founding and State of the Church at
Corinth, §§ 131 a- 131c.— First Epistle, §§ 132 a - 132 c. — Second Epis
tle, 133a, 133 5. — Style of this Epistle, § 134. —Genuineness of both
Epistles, § 135.
IV. "Epistle to the Romans. Origin of the Church at Rome, §§ 136 a, 1365.
— Date of the Epistle, §137. — Occasion, Design, and Contents, §§ 138 a,
1385. —On Chapters xv., xvi., §§ 139a, 1395. — Genuineness, § 140.

CONTENTS. XV
CHAPTER VIII.
PAUL'S EPISTLES DURING HIS IMPRISONMENT.
Which Imprisonment 1 § 141 a.
I. Epistle to Philemon, § 141 5.
II. Epistle to ihe Colossians. Occasion, §142. — Design and' Contents,
§ 143. — Genuineness, § 144.
III. Epistle to the Ephesians. Destination, §§ 145 a - 145 c  Doubts of its
Genuineness, §§ 146 a- 146 c. — Date, Occasion, and Design, § 147.
IV. Epistle to the Philippians. The Church at Philippi, § 148. — Occasion,
Contents, and Date, §§ 149 a, 149 5. — Unity and Genuineness, §§ 150 a,
1505. CHAPTER IX.
PAUL'S PASTORAL EPISTLES.
I. First Epistle to Timothy. Notices of Timothy in the Bible, § 151. —
Occasion, Design, and Contents of the Epistle, §§ 152 a- 152 d.
II. Second Epistle to Timothy. Occasion, Design, and Contents, §§ 153 a-
153 c. •
III. Epistle to Titus. Destination and Contents, §§ 154 a - 154 c. — Doubts
of the Genuineness of these Three Epistles, §§ 155 a - 157. — Church
Acceptance of the Three Epistles, § 158.
CHAPTER X.
EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Design and Contents, § 159. — Is Paul the Author ? External Grounds,
§§160a-160c. — InternalGrounds; §§161a-161(Z. — To whom is the
Epistle addressed ? §§ 162 a, 162 b. — Theories regarding the Author,
§§ 163 a - 163 e. — Time and Place of Composition, § 164 a. — The Origi
nal Language, § 164 5. CHAPTER XI.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
I. On the Catholic Epistles in general. Meaningof their Designation, § 165.
— Characteristics of these Epistles. Their later Use in the Church,
§166.
II. Epistle of James. The Author, §§ 167 a- 167/. — Destination, Object,
and Contents, §§ 168 a, 1685. — Date, § 168 c. — Genuineness and Church
Acceptance, §§ 169 a- 169c.
III. The Epistles of Peter. Accounts of Peter, §§ 170 a, 170 5. — First
Epistle. Historical and Personal Relations, §§ 171 a, 1715. — Design and
Contents, § 171 c. — Spirit and Literary Character, § 172. — Genuineness
and Church Acceptance, § 173. — Second Epistle. Historical and Personal
Relations, § 174 a. — Design and Contents, § 174 5. — Relation of this

XVI CONTENTS.
Epistle to the Epistle of Jude, §§ 175 a, 175 5. — Spuriousness and Uncer
tain Position in the Canon, §§ 176 a, 176 5.
IV. Epistles of John. The First Epistle a Work of John the Evangelist,
§§ 177 a - 177 c. — Form, Destination, and Date, §§ 178 a - 178 c— Occa
sion, Design, and Contents, §§ 179 a, 179 5. — Second and Third Epistles :
their Genuineness, §§ 180 a, 180 5. — Destination, Design, and Date,
§§ 181 a, 181 5.
V. Epistle of Jude. The Author, § 182. — Readers, Design, Contents, and
Date, § 183. — Genuineness and Church Acceptance, §§ 184 a, 184 5.
CHAPTER XII.
THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
Nature of the Book, §§ 185 a, 185 5. — Design and Contents, § 186. — Date,
§ 187. — Unity, § 188. — The Author, §§ 189 a - 190. — Church Tradition
in favor of John as the Author, §§ 191 a, 1915. — Against him, §§ 192 a,
192 5. — Estimate of this Tradition, §193. — Later Opinions of the
Church and of Scholars on the Apocalypse, §§ 194 a- 194 c.

DIVISION I.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEJCANONICAL BOOKS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT.

SECTION I.
OP THE ORIGINAL LANGUASE OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Wliy was the New Testainent written in Greek ?
§1.
The Greek language was at that time extended over the
whole civilized world. It prevailed even in several cities
of Palestine,* and was to the Jews of Egypt, and of all
other foreign lands, the language of the Bible and of
literature. As soon, therefore, as Christianity passed the
bounds of Palestine, it was necessarily propagated in this
language, although at the outset it was preached first to the
Jews (Acts xi. 19, xiii. 46). At an early period, however,
there were found among the Christians native Greeks or
Greek Jews, who preached the Gospel to the Greeks (Acts
xi. 20). At Antioch, the point whence proceeded the mis
sions to the Greeks and the Greek Jews (Acts xi. 20, if.,
xiii. 1, If.), the Greek language and culture prevailed. Bar
nabas and Paul, who led these missions, were Greek Jews ;
and the latter was probably the father of the New Testa
ment literature (cf. § 60). Ancient tradition claims for but
one of the New Testament books a non-Greek original
(§ 97). The supposition of other such originals is inad
missible.'' ' Joseph. Antt. XVII. 11. 4: Va^a yap kcu. TaBapa xal "hnros 'EXKrivlbes

2 ORIGINAL LANGtUASE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
fla-l TTo'Xeis. B. J. III. 9. 1 : Kata-apeiau, peylanjv rrjs re 'lovbaias noXtv /cat
TO irXtov u<^' 'EWrjvav iiroiKovfiivriu. II. 14. 4 : Ka\ ol Kaiaapicov "EWyves
viKrja-avTes vapa tiepaivi Trjs ttoXccos apx^iv. Cf. Hug, Einl. II. § 10.
Credner, Beitr. z. Einl. ins N. T. I. 374, ff. Greek Synagogues in Jeru
salem, Acts vi. 9.
' Theory of Latin originals in Harduin, Comm. in N. T. Hag. 1741.
fol., Prolegg. to the different books. Theory of Aramaic originals of
several N. T. writings ; of a Coptic original of Mark (§ 99).
Impureness of the New Testament Language.
§ 2.
The Greek of the New Testament writers is not pure,
but Judaistic. This arose from their Palestinian origin and
education, from their imitating the example and yielding to
the influence of the earlier Jewish- Greek Bible translators
and writers, [and from the nature of the spiritual matter
which they had to present, which, being foreign to the
Greeks, was in. part borrowed from Judaism and in part
new. The impureness, however, refers to the use of lan
guage rather than to the construction of sentences, and is
greater in some writers than in others. The Greek, more
over, which they thus transformed, belonged to the so-called
Common Dialect, especially to the popular language, and,
in respect of certain peculiarities, to the Macedonia- Alex
andrian popular language.
Hence we may discriminate in the language of the New
Testament three elements : 1. the Greek ; 2. the Jewish ;
3. the Christian.''
" Olear. De stilo N. T. p. 380 : In N. T. reperitur insuper sacrae quae-
dam dictionis forma, materiae evangelieae accommodata. LiXcJce, Hermeneut.
d. N. T. p. 90, ff. § 3ffl.
The superstitious reverence for the Bible prevailing among
Protestants opposed an obstacle to the unbiassed recogni
tion of this mixed character of the New Testament language.
Hence arose the controversy between the so-called Purists
and the Hebraists."

PITRISTS AND HEBRAISTS. § 3 ft. 3
' Purists: Seh. Pfochen. Diatribe de linguae Gr. N. T. puritate, ubi quam
plurimis qui vulgo finguntur Hebraismis larva detrahitur, et profanes quoque
auctores ita esse locutos ad oculum demonstratur. Amst. 1629 ; ed. 2,
1633. 12mo. Jac. Gross. Trias propositionum theolog. stilum N. T. a
barbaris criminationibus vindicantiura. Jen. 1640 (against Junge). Id.
Observatt. proTriade proposition, apolog. (against Wulfer). Id. Tertia de-
fens. Triados. Hamb. 1641 (against /. Musaeus). Id. Quarta def. Triados.
Hamb. 1642 (against /. Mus. Vindic). Balth. Stolberg, Tract, de soloecismis
et barbarismis Graecae N. T. dictioni falso tributis. Viteb. 1685 ; ed. 3,
1688. 4to. Chr. Sig. Georg. Vindiciae N. T. ab Hebraismis. Frcf.
1732. 4to. Id. Hierocriticus N. T. s. de stilo N. T. Viteb. 1733. Conr.
Schwarz, Commentar. crit. et phil. linguae Gr. N. T. Lips. 1736. 4to.
El. Palairet, Observatt. phil. crit. in N. T. Lug. Bat. 1752. 8vo.
Hebraists or Hellenists: Joach. Junge, Sententt. doctiss. quoiundam viro-
rum de Hellenistis et Hellenistica dialecto. Jen. 1639. Dan. Wulfer, In-
nocentia Hellenistarum vindicata. 1640. Joh. Musaeus, Disqu. de stilo
N.T. 1641. J(/. Vindiciae Disquisitionis de stilo N. T. 1642. Dan. Heins.
Exercitat. de lingua Hellenistica et Hellenistis. L. B. 1648. 8vo. Thorn.
Gataker, De stilo N. T. adv. Pfochen. diss. Lond. 1648. 4to, in his 0pp.
crit. Traj. ad. Rh. 1698. fol. Jo. Vorst. De Hebraismis N. T. comment.
Amst. 1665. 4to. Accessere Horat. Vitringae Animadv. ad Comment.
de Hebr. N. T. curante /. Fr. Fischero. Lips. 1778. Jo. Olear. De stilo
N. T. liber phil. theol. (Lips. 1668) auctus a Joh. Conr. Schwarz. Accedit
J. H. Boecleri De lingua N. T. orig. dissert. Cob. 1721. 8vo. Sam.
Werenfels, Diss, de stilo scriptorum N. T. Bat. 1698, in his Opusc. I. 311.
Jo. Leusden, Libellus de dialectis N. T., singulatim de ejus Hebraismis,
denuo editus a /. Fr. Fischer. Lips. 1792. 8vo.
A middle ground is taken by /. H. Michael. Diss, de textu N. T. Gr.
Hal. 1707. Ant. Blackwall, Auctores sac. classici defensi et illustr. s.
critica N. T. c. observatt. et hermeneut. N. T. dogmatica Christ. Wollii.
Lips. 1736. 4to. Theod. Beza, De done linguae et apostol. sermone ad
Act. X. 46, and Henr. Stephanus, Praef. ad ed. N. T. 1576, had already
formed a pretty unbiassed and moderate judgment.
Several of the above-mentioned controversial works and others (e. g.
Mos. Solanus, De stilo N. T. cent. Seb. Pfochen.) may be found in Jac.
Rhenferdii Syntagm. dissertt. phil. theol. de stilo N. T. Leov. 1702. 4to,
and Van der Honert, Syntagm. diss, de stilo N. T. Gr. Amst. 1703. 4to.
 Cf. Mori Acroas. acad. sup. hermeneut. N. T. ed. Eichstadi. 1. 216,
sqq. Planck, Einleit. in d. theol. Wissensch. II. 43, ff. Winer, Gramm.
d. neutest. Sprach-idioms, § 1.
§3&.
Although the latter have triumphed, the remarks of the
former are not all to be rejected. A too hasty assumption

4 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
of Hebraisms was, to quite a late period, one of the vices
of exegesis. Later biblical scholars and philologists, as
C. F. A. Fritzsche, Winer, and H. A. W. Meyer, have
gained themselves honor by their exact application of Greek
philology to the language of the New Testament. Even
here, however, there is danger of overdoing.

§4.
The language of the New Testament and the Septuagint
has been considered a dialect, and termed Hellenistic, from
the Greek Jews, who were termed Hellenists.'^ But it is
not a dialect, in the common sense of the word. Even the
term Hellenistic seems inappropriate, although EXXTjvia-Trj';,
Acts vi. 1, ix. 29, denotes a Greek Jew.*"
The term Alexandrian dialect is improper, both for the
New Testament language and that of the Septuagint, be
cause it indicates the peculiar character of the Alexandrian
Greek alone. The most correct term is the Jewish-Greek
language, and, in regard to the New Testament, the New
Testament language.
' First by Jos. Just. Scaliger, in his Animadverss. in Euseb. p. 134.
Then Drus. Annot. ad Act. vi. 6. Dan. Heins. Aristarch. sac. I. 795 ; II.
898, ed. L. B. 1639. fol. Exercitat. de lingua Hellen. et Hellenistis.
L. B. 1643. 8vo. Apolog. adv. Crojum. 1646. 12mo. Lightfoot, Ad
dend, ad Hor. Hebr. in 1 Cor. xiv. c. 1. 0pp. II. 929. On the other side,
Claud. Salmas. De lingua Hellenist, s. commentar. controversiam de lingua
Hellen. decidens. L. B. 1643. 8vo. Funus linguae Hellen. s. confutatio
Exercitationis de Hellenistica. lb. eod. an. Ossilegium linguae Hellen. s.
append, ad confut. Exercit. de Hellenistica. lb. eod. an. For other trea
tises, see Eichstadt's ed. of Moras, I. 233. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. IV. 893, ed.
Harl. ^ Salmasius's opinion (cf. Carpzov. Crit. sac. V. T. p. 507. Eichsi. ad
Mor. I. 227), that the word in the passage referred to denotes a Greek
proselyte, is without foundation ; at least the circumstance that Nicolas
(Acts vi. 5), a proselyte of Antioch, was one of those deacons who were
probably selected from the Hellenists, proves nothing. That Paul (2 Cor.
xi. 22, Phil. iii. 5) calls himself a Hebrew, and not a Hellenist, proves as
little. In Acts xi. 20 we should read "EWrjvas instead of 'EWrjviaras.
See Griesbach on the passage.

INQUIRY INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. § 6 a. 5
Inquiry into the New Testament Language.
§5.
To the right understanding of any historical phenomenon
a proper apprehension of its origin and development is
indispensable. Hence the New Testament philologist must
not only reduce the New Testament language to its ele
ments, but also from these reproduce it, as it were, in a
living form. Thus he will avoid the danger of treating it
as a spiritless and lifeless compound, — a mode of handling
which affects not only the language, but also, and too
sensibly, the ideas closely connected with it. To solve this
problem successfully, he must, at the outset, gain a clear
apprehension of its two component elements, namely, Hel
lenism and Judaism. (See Lucke, Hermeneut. p. 92.)
§ 6 a.
For the proper treatment of the Greek element, a knowl
edge of the Greek language in its pure, classical develop
ment among the Attics, and of its change into the so-called
StaXe/tTo? KOiVT], is necessary. This change, occasioned by
the Macedonian conquest, was produced by the infusion of
elements which in part were borrowed from other dialects,
in part followed the general usage pretty closely, but differed
from the especial peculiarity of the Attic, and in part came
into use in the course of time.^ For comparing the New
Testament language with both kinds of pure Greek we
have valuable preparatory works, although they need sift
ing." * For a knowledge of the difference between the earlier and the later
Greek, see Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et verb, atticor. i;. nott. Nunnesii,
Hoeschelii, Scaligeri et de Pauw, ed. expl. C. A. Lobeck. Lips. 1820. 8vo.
i" Georg. Raphelii Annotatt. philol. in N. T. ex Xenoph. collectae.
Hamb. 1709. 8vo ; ed. 2, ace. praef. Joa. Fechtii, qua disseritur de stilo
N. T. ejusdemque cum profanis scriptoribus conferendi studio. 1720. 8vo.
Id. Annotatt. philol. in N. T. ex Polybio et Arriano collectae. Hamb.
1715. 8vo. Id. Commentatt. in s. scr. hist, in Vet., philol. in N. T., ex
Herodoto coll. Luneb. 1731. 8vo. Casp. Frid. Munthe, Obss. philol. in
SS. N. T. libros ex Diodoro Sic. collectae. Hafn. et Lips. 1755. 8vo.

6 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Joa. Bapt. Ottii Spicil. s. excerpta ex Fl. Josepho ad N. T. illustr. cura
Sigeh. Havercamp. L. B. 1741. 8vo. Joa. Tob. Krebs, Obss. in N. T. ex
Fl. Josepho. Lips. 1755. 8vo. Chr. Fr. Losner, Obss. ad N. T. e Phi-
lone Alex. Lips. 1777. 8vo. Ad. Fr. Kiihnii Spicil. Losneri obss. in
N. T. e Philone. Lips. 1785. 8vo. Lamb. Bos, Exercitt. philol. ed. 2.
auct. Franequ. 1713. 8vo. Id. Obss. misc. ad loca quaedam N. T. lb.
1707. 8vo. Jac. Eisner, Ohss. ss. in N. T. libros. Traj. ad Rh. 1720-28.
2 tom. 8vo. Jo. Alberti, Obss. philol. in ss. N. T. libros. L. B. 1725.
8vo. El. Palairet, Obss. (see § 3). Id. Spec, exercitt. philol. critt. in ss.
N. T. libros. Lond. 1755. 8vo. Ge. Dav. Kypke, Obss. ss. in N. T.
libros. Vratisl. (Breslau), 1755. 2 tom. 8vo.
§ 6&.
The New Testament philologist has next to trace the
distinctive peculiarities of the later popular language which
appears in the New Testament, and into whose composition
the various dialects entered, although the Macedonian pre
dominated." ^ Olear. De stilo N. T. p. 282, sqq. Fr. Guil. Sturz, De dialecto Mace-
don, et Alexandrina. Lips. 1808. 8vo. Cf. Heidelb. Jahrbb. 1810. St.
6. p. 266, ff, H. Planck, De vera nalura atque indole orationis Gr. N. T.
Gott. 1810. 4to. Winer, Neutest. Gramm. § 2. Eichhorn, Einl. ins
N.T. IV. § 10, ff. (which contains many errors).
Examples of the later Greek. Those indicated by * are found in no
Greek author, but belong perhaps to the language of the people. Words :
*a.vTiXvTpov, i'KTpa>p.a, TravTore, Kadas for Ka6a, ^BianoveiaBai, indignari,
*eKp.vKTi]piCei.v, *6p6pl^ew, *8eiy/iaTiXeiJ', aTprjviav, BemTom, *i^ovdevovv ( Att.
i^ovBevfiv), o-Kopn-iffi!/, *eyKpaTeiea-dai. Word-formations: psTOLKea-la, ye-
via-ta, avTa7r6Bop.a, *^a.TrTio-jxa, aa-devrjp.a, KaraXu/ia (Att. KaraXva-is), and Other
words in p.a ; aporptav, Ka6r)p,epiv6s, Trpcoivos, i^awiua. Meanings of words :
avaarpocpfi, daily walk in life; yevvrjpa, fruit of field and orchard; iwiriixla,
punishment; d-^oivtov, pay; eva-x^f^cov, of quality; o-xoXrj, school; dvam-
¦KTeiv, avaKXlveaBai, *^]ra>p.l^€iv , xoprdCeiv, to feed (spoken of men) ; o-u/x^i-
0cife»/, to infer, to teach. Word-forms : 'hpera for -ov, o-araj-a, &c. ; vot
for va ; ro nXovTos for o ttX. ; Bio, indeclinable in the genitive. Want of
the dual: contractions, as 'ApTe/xSr from 'ApTep.iBa>pos, A);/.tasfrom Ajjfihptos
or Arjpapxos, &c. Exchange of the terminations of the 2d aorist for those of
the 1st aorist ; as, elBap, eipav (LXX.), ij\6are, eVco-a, avevpav, 7rape\6irco
(Codd. N. T.) ; ^yvcoKav for -aai ; iBoXiovcrav for e'aoXi'ov;/ ; Kavx^aai for
Kavxa ; Bi,n for Boir, ; ^peda for ^pev. Rarity of the optative : construction of
Iva with the pres. ; weakening of ha in such forms as ei\<o Iva ; prepositions
with adverbs. For other examples, see Klausen, Hermen d N T p 339
ff. Win. § 3. Eichh. Einl. IV. § 13.

INQUIRY INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. § 7. 7
Supposed Cilicisms of the Ap. Paul. Hieron, ad Algasiam, Quaest. 10 :
Malta sunt verba, quibus juxta morem urbis et provinciae suae familiarius
Apostolus utitur. E quibus ex. gr. pauca ponenda sunt. Mihi autem
parum estjudicari abhumano die, h. e. diro dvBpamivrjs rjpepas (1 Cor. iv. 3) ;
et, humanum dico, h. e. dvdpimivov Xeya> (Rom. vi. 19) : et, ou KaTevdpKrja-a
vpas, h. e. non gravavi vos (2 Cor. xii. 13) : et quod nunc dicitur, prjSels
vpds Kara^pa^evkra, i. e. nullus brabium accipiat adversum vos (Col. ii. 18).
Quibus et aliis multis verbis usque hodie utuntur Cilices. Cf. Stolberg de
Cilicismis a Paulo usurpatis, in his Exercitt. ling. Gr.
Latinisms, which were peculiar to the Greek of that time. Olear. p. 368,
sqq. Jo. Ekh. Kapp, De N. T. Latinismis merito ac falso suspectis. Lips.
1726. 4to. Georg. Hierocrit. P. II. Examples : adopted Latin words :
KevTvplav, KoXavia, KovcrratBia, KoBpdvTrjS, Krjvcros, Xeyemv, piXiov, paKeXXiov,
covBapiov, &c. ; Latin phrases : to Ikoiiov Xap^dveiv, Ikuvov TroLrjaai, avp-
^ouXioi' XajSeiv, Bovvai epyaclav, i'xc pe Trap-rjTrjpivov.
§7.
For the proper treatment of the Jewish element of the
New Testament language, an intimate acquaintance with
the old Hebrew tongue, and with the books of the Old
Testament, is needful, as well as a careful comparison of
the Alexandrian version with it; for the Hebrew has ex
erted, not only a direct influence on the New Testament
language, but also an indirect, through this version. An
acquaintance with the apocryphal books of the Old Testa
ment is also useful.'' As, moreover, at the time of Christ
an Aramaic dialect was the language of the country parts
of Palestine, its influence on the New Testament language
must also be traced. For this, a comparison of the Syriac
version, and of the Talmudic and Rabbinical writings, is
useful. Preparations for this investigation have been made
with more industry than judgment.''
« Geo. Joa. Henke, De usu librorum apocryph. V. T. in N. T. Hal. 1711.
Kuinoel, Obss. ad N. T. ex libris apocryphis. Lips. 1794. 8vo. Beckhaus,
Bemerk. ii. d. Gebrauch d. Apocryphen d. A. T. zur Erlaut. d. neutest.
Schreibart. 1808.
Examples of Hebrew words : dprjv, aardv, a-aravas, KopPdv, Paros, a-Uepa,
Sic. Hebraisms : Greek words with Hebrew meanings : al6>v, BiKaioaivri,
elprivt], dvadepM, Kotvov, Kplais, aap^, ^xh' Pni>-<^< ^^^"^ ' ^°^°' brilliancy,
&c., <^oj3os, (poPe'urBai of religious reverence, vip(j)ri, daughter-in-law,
^vXov, BiwKetv, i^opoXoyetcrdai, to praise, eK^dXXuv, send out, mpmareiv.

8 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
behave; Hebrew word-formations, phrases, and connections: poKpodvpta,
Trpoa-wTTov \apl3dveiv, npoa-aiTroXrinTelv, to irpoaantov (TTr^p'i^eiv, irjTuv ¦'^XO"'
IBelu Tov Bavarov, cpxeaBai oirlaa, TTopeieaBai iv, dpaprdveiv ivamiov, e/cXe-
yea-dai iv, elvat els, vlo\ ttjs ^aa-iXelas, viol dmiBeias, KpiTrjs Trjs dBiKias, a-Kevos
iKXoyrjs, ra prfpara ttjs (airjs Tairrjs, evKoyT)pevr] iv yvvai^l, ayia dyicov,
irpoaedero nep^ai, trds — oii, &c.
" Vorst, Olearius, Leusden (§ 3). J. Drus. Annot. in N. T. s. praeteri-
torum libri X. Franequ. 1612. 4to. Pars alt. 1616. 4to. Jo. Lightfoot,
Horae Hebr. et talm. 0pp. T. II. Christ. Schottgen, Hor. Hebr. et talm.
Dresd. 1733 - 42. 4to. Boysen, Erlaut. d. Grundtextes d. N. T. aus d.
Syr. Uebers. Quedlinb. 1761. 8vo. Wetstein's notes, in his ed. of the
N. T. Hartmann, Linguist. Einl. in d. Studium d. A. T. p. 382, ff. Cf.
Winer, above, § 3. — Boltens, Eichhorn, and others, retranslation into
Aramaic. Examples of Aramaic words : a(3/3a, pappmvds, paKa. Aramaisms : d(f)i.-
ivai TO, 6(j)eiXrjpaTa XDIH p3t!?, yeveadai davdrov Xfl'D 0^13, opoXoyelv iv
TLvl, pla o^ap^aTav. § 8.
nightly to treat of the usage of the New Testament
language, one should be able to plant himself in the very
spirit of primitive Christianity in general, and of each New
Testament writer in particular, and thus, as it were, to ob
serve the very process by which new expressions and new
conceptions were formed from the existing materials. Here,
too, the comparison of the apocryphal writings of the New
Testament, and of the ecclesiastical writers, in which the
New Testament language was still further developed, ren
ders good service.^
" Car. Imm. Nitzsch, De apocryph. Evang. in explicandis canonicis usu
et abusu. Vit. 1808. /. E. Chr. Schmidt, Observatt. z. Erkl. d. N. T.
aus d. Protoev. Jacob., in his Biblioth. f. Krit. u. Exeg. I. B. I. St. Si-
gism. Basch. De interpret. N. T. ex Patribus apost. 1726. Frommann
Interprett. N. T. ex Hippolyto collectae. 1765. Id. Interprett. ex Ire-
naeo. 1766. Id. Obss. ad interpr. N. T. ex Clemente. Rom. 1768.
Examples of N. T. idioms : BiKaioavvt], BiKaiova-dai, jriortr, avcaOev yev-
vda-dat, avveyeipeiv, iKKXTja-ia, exXeKTOs, Kaivorrjs TtveipaTos, yXaxra-ais XdXeXv.
h 9.
The Greek Church having for some time preserved, be
sides its ecclesiastical language, a generally correct under-

INQUIRY INTO THE NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. § 9. 9
standing of the New Testament, the explanations of the
old interpreters, scholiasts, and glossarists may profitably
be used.''
' Origen. Commentar. in Matth. Joann. ep. Rom., in Opp. ed. de la Rue.
Par. 1733-59. 4 vol. fol. — In ss. scripturas commentaria quaecumque
Graece reperiri potuerunt, ed. Huel. Rothom. 1668. 2 vol. fol. Chrysos
tom. Homill. in Evangel. Act. Apost. et Epp. Paul., in Opp. cur. Savilii.
Par. 1613. 8. vol. fol.; Francof. 1698. 12 Vol. fol.; eA. Bern, de Mont
faucon. Par. 1718-38. 13 vol. fol. — Comment, in N. T. Gr. et Lat.
Heidelb. 1591-1603. 4 vol. fol. — In omnes Pauli Epp. interpretat. Gr.
ex ed. Bern. Donati. Veron. 1529. 4 tom. fol. — Homil. variae Gr. ed.
Hoeschel. Aug. Vind. 1694. 8vo. — Homil. VII Gr. et Lat. Tub. 1701.
1709. 1755. 8vo. — Homil. IV ex omnibus ejus opp. selectae Gr. et Lat.
ed. Chr. Fr. Matthaei. Misn. 1792. 2 vol. 8vo. Theodoret. Commentar.
in XIV Epp. Paul., in Opp. ed. Jac. Sirmond. Par. 1642, fol. ; cur. /.
L. Schulzii et J. A. Nosselti. Hal. 1769-74. 5 tom. 8vo. Theophylact.
Comment, in Evang. Act. Ap. Epp. Paul, et cath., in Opp. stud. Bonif.
Finetii et Anton. Bongiovanni. Venet. 1754-63. 4 vol. fol, Euthym.
Zigdben. Comment, in IV Evang. Gr. et Lat. ed. Chr. Fr. Matthaei. Lips.
1792. 3 vol. 8vo. Expositiones antiqu. ex divers. Patrum Commentt. ab
Oecumen. et Aretha collectae. Veron. 1532. fol. Oecumen. Comment.
in Act. App. Paul. Epp. et Epp. cath. Gr. et Lat. interp. Joa. Hentenio,
emend. Morello. Par. 1630. 2 vol. fol. Symbolarum in Matthaeum T. I.
exhibens catenam Grace. PP. XXI, ed. Petr. Possinus. Tolos 1646. fol. ;
T. II. quo continetur catena PP. Graec. XXX, collect. Niceta, interpr.
Balth. Corderio. Tol. 1647. fol. Catena Graec. PP. in Ev. .sec. Marcum,
coll. atque interpr. P. Possino, Rom. 1673. fol. Catena LXV Gr. PP.
in Lucam, ed. Balth. Corderius. Antw. 1678, fol. Catena PP, Gr. in
Joann, ed. Corrfer. Antw, 1630, fol, Cf, /. .4. iVbesseft, De catenis PP.
Graec. in N. T. Hal. 1762. 4to. Suidae Lexicon notis perpetuis illustr.
a Lud. Eustero. Cantabr. 1705. 3 vol. fol. Hesych. Lexicon cum notis
dd. vv. suas animadvers. adj. Jo, Alberti. L, B, 1746-66. 2 vol. fol.
Nic. Schow, Hesych. lex. e cod. Ms. bibl. D. Marci restitutum — s. sup-
plem. ad ed. Hesych. Albertin. Lips. 1792. Phavorini Lexicon. Basil.
1538. Ven. 1712. fol. Glossae ss. Hesychii Graece excerpsit, emendavit et
not. illustr. J. CAr. Go«/. .&rees/i. Lips. 1781. 8vo. Suidae et Phavorini
Glossae ss. Gr. cum spicileg. gloss, ss. Hesychii et Etymologici Magni
congessit, emend, et not, illustr, /. C. G. Ernesti. Lips. 1786. 8vo. Cf.
Ernesti, Prolus. de glossariorum Graec. vera indole et recto usu. Lips,
1741. 4to (also prefixed to Vol. I. of Alberti's ed. of Hesych.).

10 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

SECTION II.
THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OE THE NEW TESTA5IENT.

Their Classification and Literature.
§ 10.
These must, like the versions of the Old Testament, be
classified according to their immediate or mediate character,
and to their age. We shall first adduce the Eastern, and
then the Western.
Rich. Simon, Hist. crit. des Versions du N. T, k Rotterd, 1690, 4to.
Translated into German by Cramer, with remarks by Semler. Hall. 1777-
80. 2 vol. i8vo. Le Long, Bibl. sacr. ed. Masch. P. II. Vol. I. III.
Walton, Prolegg, X, sqq. Fabricii Bibl. Gr. T. IV. p. 856, sqq. Rosen-
miiller, Handb. f d, Litt, d. bibl, Krit, u, Exeg. B, III, Michaelis, Einl.
I, 361, ff, Hiinlein, Einl, II, 139, ff. Schmidt, Einl, II, 98, ff, 167, ff.
JSio-, Einl. I. §61, ff. SertAoWiJ, II. § 191, ff, p, 632, ff, Eichhorn, 'EAxA.
IV ."v. Cap, 3. I. Syriac Versions. — 1. Peshito.
§ 11a.
The ancient version in general use in the churches of
Syria, called the Peshito (comp. Pt. I. § 64) contains in all
its manuscripts, with a single exception (the Bodleian), and
in the older printed editions of the New Testament, only
the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen
Pauline Epistles, together with the Epistle to the Hebrews,
1 Peter, 1 John, and the Epistle of James." The omission
of the remaining books, viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 8 John, the
Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, is a remarkable cir
cumstance in the history of the canon.''

PESHITO. § 11 a. 11
* Editions: 1. Liber S. s. Evang. de Jesu Christo, Domino et Deo nostra,
etc. Vien. Aust. 1555. 2 vol. 4to, by Moses of Merdin, Albr. Widmanstadt,
and With. Postellus. See the history and description in Rosenmilller, III.
91, ff. Hug, § 69. Hirt, Or. Bibl. II. 260, ff. IV. 317, ff. V. 25, ff Le
Long, Bibl. PP. II. — 2. A copy of this edition in Hebrew characters,
altered, in part arbitrarily, in part from a MS. : 'H Kaivfj BiadrjKri. Testam.
nov. Nmn KpTin Est autem interpretatio Syr. N, T, Hebr, typis de-
scripta, plerisque etiam locis emendata. Eadem Lat. sermone reddita, autore
Imm. Tremellio, cujus etiam grammatica Chald. et Syr. adjecta est. Ex-
cud. Henr. Stephan. a. 1569. fol. A useless copy of it in El. Hutter's Op.
duodecim linguar. 1599. Cf. Bruns, in Eichh. Rep. XV. 159. — 3. A copy,
also altered from a MS,, in Vol, V. of the Antwerp Polygl. printed by
Plantin, 1572, fol., in both Syriac and Hebrew characters, ed. by Guido
Fabr. Boderianus {Guy le Fevre de la Boderie). Cf. Herb. Marsh. I, 142,
Separate impressions, also with Hebrew letters : N, Dom. nostri J. C. Test.
Syriace. Antw. ex off. Plantin. 1575. 16mo. Appended, are Variae lectt.
e Cod. Ms. Colon, nuper a Franc. Rapheleng. collectae. Reprinted at
Sulzb, by Joh. Hoist. 1684. xmn Np'nn, Kaivrj BiaB^Kr). Nov. J. C. D.
N. Test. Par. op. Jo. Benenat. 1583. 4to. (Edited hy de la Boderie). Also
in the Paris Polyglot, Vols. IX., X. (1645), the Antwerp copy is repeated ;
and from it in Vol. V. of the London Polygl. (1655), with the addition of
John viii. 1-11, from the Philoxenian version, of the Antilegomena ace. to
Pococke, and of the Apocalypse aco. to de Dieu ; from this again in the
Polygl. of Reineccius. Leipz. 1713. fol. — 4. Nov. Dom, n, J. Chr. Test.
Syr., cum vers. Lat. ex diversis editt. dil. recensitum. Access, in fine
notatt. var. lect. ex V impressis editt, dil, coll, a Mart. Trosiio. Cothen,
Anhalt. 1621, 4to, — 5, Nov. D. N. J. Chr. Test, Syr,, u, punctis voca-
libus et vers, Lat, Matthaei — accurante Aegid. Gutbirio. Hamb, 1664.
8vo, according to the foregoing editions and a manuscript, with the addition
of John viii. 1-11 and 1 John v. 7, and of the missing books. (2d edition
in 1694, with the date not changed, but containing many errors of the press.
See the distinctive marks in Rosenmilller, p. 116.) Also a Syriac Lexicon,
published apart, Hamb. 1667. 8vo, and Notae crit. in N. T. Syr., con
taining various readings. Hamb. 1667. 8vo. — 6, Nov. D. N.J. Christ. ¦
Test. Syr. c. vers. Lat. cur. Joa. Leusden et Car. Schaaf ed. ad omnes
editt. dil. recensitum et var. lectt. adornatum. L, B. 1708, 4to. The
mode of pointing differs in different parts of the work. Improved edition,
1717. Also Lex. Syr. concord, elab. a C, Schaaf. L, B. 1709. — 7,
Syrio-Arabic edition of the Congregation for Propagating the Faith. Rom.
1703. fol. — 8. That of the English Bible Soc. Lond. 1816. 4to, from
manuscripts. In regard to the manuscripts of the Peshito, of which the oldest are
written in Estranghelo, while the Nestorian are suspected of containing
occasional alterations (e. g. 1 Cor, v. 8, fermento puritatis instead of
azymis puritatis) , see J. G. Christ. Adler, N. T. verss. Syr., simplex, Philox.

12 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.
etHierosol., denuo examinatae et ad fidem Codd. MSS. Biblioth. Vatic,
Angel. Asseman., Medic, Regiae al. novis obss, atque tabb. aeri incisis
illustratae. Hafn. 1789, 4to, pp, 1-41,
» Cosmas Indicopleustes de Mund. 1, VII. {Galland. Bibl. Patr, XI, 535) :
wapd '2vpoLS Be el prj al rpe'is povai al npoyeypappivai. ovx evpiaKOVTat ¦ Xey<o
Be'laKa>Pov,niTpov,Kal'la>avvov. Dionys. Barsalibi (fl. 1166 - 1171) says
in the preface to his Commentary on 2 Peter : This Epistle was not trans
lated into the Syriac in ancient times with the (Holy) Scriptures, and is,
therefore, found only in the translation of Thomas of Harkel, Hug (§ 65)
supposes that the Apocalypse (cf, Eichhorn, Einl. II. 433) and the missing
Catholic Epistles were not omitted until after the fourth century, because
Ephrsem Syrus knows and quotes these books ; and indeed, as he was not
acquainted with the Greek, must have read them in a Syrian translation.
But this omission is quite inconceivable, Cf, Bertholdt, p, 635. Guerike,
Beitr, ^. histor,-krit, Eiul, ins N, T, p, 2, ff, Michaelis's (I, 363, ff,)
doubts whether the version of the Epistle to the Hebrews belongs to the
Peshito are set at rest by Hug, § 66,

§ lib.
The above-mentioned Bodleian manuscript ¦* gives the
missing Catholic Epistles in a more modern and more
literal version, but far inferior to the Peshito. We may
assume, on the ground of a comparison which has been in
stituted, that this version contains the original text of the
Philoxenian version before its revision by Thomas of Har
kel (§ 13). That of the Apocalypse (in a Leyden and a
Florentine manuscript) is shown, both by its literal charac
ter and by an extant account, to be a part of the same, after
its revision by Thomas.''
' It contains the Acts and the three Catholic Epistles according to the
Peshito, and also the four above mentioned : 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and
Jude. '' Eichhorn, IV, § 61, 62, The subscript of a Florentine MS. of the
Apoc. says that it is a Codex anno 1582 Romae descriptus ab autographo
pervetusto, ab ipso, ut perhibetur, Thoma Heracl. exarato anno 622.
Editions of these additions to the Peshito : Epp. IV. Petri sec, Joh. sec.
et tert. et Judae una ex Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. MS. exempl. — depromtae et
charactere Hebr., vers. Lat. notisque quibusdam insignitae op, Edw. Po
cocke. L, B, 1630, 4to, Apocal, s, Joh, ex MS, exempl, Biblioth. Scali
geri deprompta, charactere Syr. et Hebr., cum vers, Lat. et notis op.
Lud. de Dieu. L. B, 1627, 4to ; reprinted at the end of Lud. de Dieu,

PESHITO. § 11 d. 13
Crit. sacr. Amst. 1683. fol. The translation of these books is found also
in Vol. X. of the Paris Polyglot, in Vol. V. of the London, and in the
Gutbirian and Leusden-Schaaf editions. § lie.
The later origin of the New Testament collection (Pt. I.
§ 21) does not aUow of our ascribing an apostolic origin to
the Peshito, or of dating its composition earlier than the
end of the second century." It is old, in part because the
so-called Antilegomena were not received into it; in part
because it was accepted by all the Syrian church parties ; in
part because the text on which it is based is very old. The
early Christian literature of the Syrians, beginning with
Bardesanes (after the middle of the second century), also
indicates that they early felt and met the want of a Syrian
translation.'' That the Peshito was in church use in
Edessa in the first half of the fourth century, is attested by
Ephrcem.'^ " Traditions of the Syrians that Achasus, a disciple of the Apostle Thad-
deus, was the author. Assemani Bibl. orient. II. 486. Michael. Einl. I.
388, places it in the first century. Hug, § 67, thought he observed a differ
ence in the style of translation, and therefore of authors ; against this, see
Eichhorn, p. 406.
^ Hug, § 68. But in the remark (Euseb. H. E. IV. 22) of Hegesippus :
eK Te Tov Ka6' 'Efipaiovs eiayyeXlov Kal tov tvpiaKov nal IBias ix rrjs 'E/3pa-
tbos BtaXeKTov rivd Tl6r}<n, — this scholar may be in error in finding a trace
of the Syriac version, although to 2vp. cannot be the Gospel of the Hebrews
written in Syriac ( OMaasere, Echth. d. Evangg. p. 41).
<= Storr, Obss. super N. T. verss. Syr. Stuttg. 1772. p. 10, sqq.
§ lid.
The Peshito is an immediate, faithful, free, but seldom
paraphrastic, translation. It even contains many Greek
words. Also some errors, which can be explained only
from the original text."
« Greek words: dvayKt), Matth.-.xviii, 7, and elsewh,; (rroixe'ta. Gal, iv.
9, and elsewh.; ripri, dypos, ^ivos, Matth. xxvii. 6, f., and elsewh. Mis
takes : substitution of iraXpos for ?Tepos, Luke xiv. 31, 1 Cor. iv. 6, and
elsewh. ; substitution of iKoXXrjdria-av for dKoXovBovaiv, Mark vi. 1 ; of
vjTovp. for imvp., Eph. vi. 12 ; — false construction : miralus est et credidit

14 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.
doctrinae Christi, Acts xiii. 12. Free translations : omission of synonymes,
Jas, i, 17, Trao-a Boats dyaOr, Kal ndv Ba>pr]pa TeXetov, omnis donatio bona et
completa; Matth. xxiv. 24, atipela peydXa Kal repara, signa magna; —
omission of repetitions, Matth. v. 17, ovk rjXBov KaraXvaai, nequaquam ut
destruam ; Matth, iv, 23, xxiv, 38, xxv, 20 ; — omission of adjectives, as
oXos, Matth xxvi, 56 ; of pronouns ; of the copula elpl ; of an unnecessary
verb, as apov, Matth. xvii. 27 ; of conjunctions, as ydp, Kal, on ; of adverbs,
as en, fjSri, Tore ; — insertion of the copula elpi, Eph. ii. 7, and elsewh. ;
of adjectives, as eh, Matth. viii. 2 ; of pronouns (often, not always, our
Lord for the Lord), conjunctions, and adverbs ; — change of substantives
into adjectives, Eph.vi, 12, and the reverse, Eph, iv, 17 ; of one preposition
into another, Matth, xxii, 37, and elsewh. ; of one conjunction into another ;
of one case into another ; of the active into the passive, and the reverse ; of
one tense into another ; — change in the order of the words. Acts xxiii. 27,
31, (TTpanaiTai, Romani ; Matth. xvii. 19, iK^aXelv aiiTO, sanare ilium;
Acts ii. 42, rrpoaKaprepovvTes . . . . Kk rfj Koivavia k. ttj KXdaei tov aprov k.
rals TTpoa-evxals, et communicdbant in precalione et in fractione eucharistiae,
cf. Acts XX, 7; Matth, xii, 4, apros ttjs Trpodea-eas, panis mensae Domini;
1 Cor, xi, 20, ovK ea-n KvpiaKov Belrrvov (payelv, non, sicut jusium est in die
Domini nostri, comeditis et bibitis.

§ lie.
The text which this version follows is one of the oldest,
and is closely related to that of Cod. D, Clement of Alexan
dria, Ireneeus, and the Itala, though often quite independent."
Its use in criticism, if more carefully collated than hereto
fore,'' is important. Through its happy apprehension of the
sense, it often renders the commentator good service."
* Matth. vi. 15, " — ra irapaitTapaTa avrSiv, with D 1. It. Arm. all. (not
Pers.) ; ver, 18, — iv ra (l)avepa, with BDGKLMS 1, all, Syr, p, bier.
Copt. Arm.: all, Pers, ; vii, 29, -\-Kal oi (jjapta-aloi, with C It. Syr. p. Arm.
Pers. all, ; viii, 8, Xoycp, with BCFKLMS It, Syr. p. Copt. Arm. all.
(not Pers.) ; ix, 8, i(j)oPridrja-av, with BD 1, It, Syr, p. Arm. Pers. Clem.
R. Or, all, ; ix, 15, vrjareieiv for rrevBelv, with D It, Sahid, Pers, all, ;
ix. 35, — iv Ta Xaa, with BC*DS 1. It. Syr. p. Pers. all.; xviii. 10,
— iv oipavols, with I. It. Pers. Clem. Or. all. ; xxvii. 35, -\-wa irXrjpaid^,
with rec It, Syr, Pers, Copt, Sahid, Aeth, Vlg. Chrys. all, ; xxviii. 9,
— i>s Be iiropevovTo, n. t,X,, with BD It, Pers. Arm. all.; Marc. i. 2, iv
'Ha-ata to 7rpo(prjTrj, with D 1. It. Arm. Pers. all, ; ver. 11, iv croi, with

— indicates the omission, -|- the addition.

PESHITO. § 11 e. 15
BDL It. Aeth. Copt. Arm. Pers. all. ; ver. 21, —a"ipei rh TrXripapa to
Kaivbv diro tov TraXaioC, with D It. Vulg. Pers. ; ver. 22, — S vios, with
BDL It. Copt. Arm. Vlg. ; x, 27, iraph. Be ra Bea Bwariv, with D It,
Clem. all. (not Pers.) ; Acts ii. 30, — to Kara <rdpKa, ^.,.X., with ACD**
Arm, Erp, Vlg. all. ; iii. 20, TrpoKexeipitrpivov, with ACDE Syr, p. Arm.
Erp. all. ; 2 Cor. i. 10, — km pierat, with AD* It. Vlg. MS. all. (not
Erp.) ; Gal. iii. 1, —rfj dXrje., k.t.X., with ABD*FG Erp, Copt, Sah, It.
Vulg. MS.; ver. 12, —SvOpaTros, with ABCDFG Vulg. Arm. Erp. all.
Differing from D It. ; Matth. iii. 6, -j- norapa, with BCM Or. Pers. all. ;
Luke xiv. 5, vlds for ovos, with ABE all. Pers. all,; Acts ii, 23, — Xa-
^ovres, with AC Arm, Erp, ; 2 Cor, xi. 3, ovrms, with Vulg. Erp. all. 1.
rec against BD*FG It. Clem. Arm, all, ; Gal, iii, 1, — iv ipiv, with ABC
Arm, Erp, Vlg. MS. all. ; iv. 15, ttoC for ris, with ABCFG Arm. Vulg.
Erp. all. Readings supported by few or no uncial Codices : Acts xviii, 9,
— ev wktI, with A Erp.; Joh. iv. 12, -\-tovto, with 69 all. It. Arm.
Pers.; ver. 41, -\-els avrdv, with 12 all. Arm, Pers. all.; Gal, v, 13,
-\-vpM>v, with 37 all, Syr, p. Arm, Erp, ; Acts xiii, 48, tov 6e6v for tov
Xoyov TOV Kvplav, with 68 Syr, p, Erp. Aeth. Readings not supported by
Codices : Matth. xv. 27, -\- koi ffi, with Syr. bier. Pers. ; xv. 32, IBov for
rjBr], with Copt. ; Joh. iv. 45, -|- to, a-rjpela, with Arm, (Persic drops iravra) ;
Acts ii, 1, Tos rjpipas for ttjv fjpepav, with It, Vulg, Arm. Erp. ; iii. 12,
rj i^ovaia for rj evcre^ela, with Arm. Vulg. reg. tol. Iren. Erp. Readings
peculiar to it alone : Luke viii. 22, — Kal dvrjxBrjo-av , with Pers. ; Rom. vii.
17, OVK for ovKen, with Erp.; 1 Thess. iii. 12, — 6 Kvpws, with Erp. ;
Hebr. ix. 20, — wpbs vpds, alone. An arbitrary alteration of the text:
Rom. V. 7, dSUov instead of BiKalov, with Erp. Additions : Matth. vi, 13,
the doxology, with Aeth, Arm, Pers, all, ; xx, 22, rj to pdirna-pa, k.t. X.,
with CFGHKM all. Arm. Slav. Pers. all. ; xxviii. 18, koSois aTreo-TaXKe pe,
K.T.X., from Joh, xx, 21, with Arm. Pers, ; Mark vi, 11, dpi/v Xeya>, k. t.X.,
with Pers, ; Acts xiv. 10, -(-troi Xeyo, k.t.X,, with CD 13. all. Erp, Copt,
Sahid. cant, and the like elsewh. The agreement with the It, Bengel
(App, crit,) explained by a use of the same on the part of the translator.
According to Griesb. (Hist. text. Gr. epp. Paulin. § 12, Prolegg. in N. T.
p. 35, Melet. II. de vet. text. N. T. recenss.), the Peshito has suffered vari
ous interpolations and alterations through the use of Greek MSS. Hug,
§ 67, Eichh. § 58, more correctly find in it an old, unrevised text,
^ The divergences from the Greek text are given by Reusch (Syr. interpr.
cum fonte N. T. Gr. collat. 1741), but without further critical collation.
Better principles for its critical use, in view of the translator's peculiar
method, are laid down by Winer, De vers. N. T. Syr. usu critico caute
instituendo. Erl. 1823. Observatt. in ep. Jac. ex. vers. Syr. maximam par
tem crit. Erl. 1827. Loehlein, Syrus ep. ad Ephes. interpr. Erl. 1835,
The various readings adduced from the Peshito (also in Ruckert, Erkl.d.
Br. an d. Eph.) are often only variations in translation, e. g. Matth. ix. 18,
xiii. 41, xxii. 40, xxv. 29, Eph, iv, 13.

16 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
' Mich. Weber, De usu vers. Syr. hermeneutico. Lips. 1778. /. D.
Michael. Curae in vers, Syr. Act, Apost, Gott. 1775. 4to,
Offspring of the Peshito.
§ 12 a.
1. The Arabic version (probably prepared for the Syrians
who spoke Arabic) of the Acts, the Epistles of Paul, James,
1 Peter, 1 John, called by the critics Arabs Ekpenii.^ That
the Peshito is its parent has been most fully proved by
Michaelis in the Book of Acts, although some sections of
this book seem drawn from the Coptic version, and variations
from the Syriac text also occur elsewhere.'' The original
text of the version of the disputed Catholic Epistles, in the
Arabic New Testament of Erpenius, is uncertain."
- N. D. N. J. Chr. Test. Arab, ex Bibl, Leid, ed. Th. Erpenio. Leid.
1616. 4to,
^ J. D. Mich. Cur, in vers, Syr. Act. App, Besides the examples of
variation adduced in § lie, note a, observe also, Acts ii. 26, fj yXaao-a,
Pesh. fj Bo^a, Erp. fj yX. ; 2 Cor. xi. 8, Peshito omits kcu va-reprjdels,
Erp. has it ; 1 Pet. ii. 5, Peshito omits irvevpanKds, Erp. has it. Cf. also
Hug, I. § 101. Eichh, V. § 74.
' Eichhorn, V. § 75. Sometimes it agrees vdth the text of the (spurious)
Peshito, sometimes not; e. g. 3 John 12, Jude 4, f., 23. Separate edd. of
Catholic Epistles : Joh. epp. cath. Arab, et Aeth. L. B. 1654. 4to. Ja-
cobi ep. Arab, et Aeth, Ib. eod. a. Judae ep. Arab, et Aeth. Ib. eod. a.
Other Arabic versions, see §§ 17, 31.
§ 12 b.
2. The Persian version of the Gospels, in Vol. V. of the
London Polyglot," shows its descent from the Peshito by
misunderstandings of the Syriac text, by retaining Syriac
words, and by peculiar readings of the Peshito.''
" Latin translation by Chr. A. Bode. Helmst, 1751. 4to. in 4 pts.
Against Mill's and Bengel' s critical use of this version, see the same
author's Pseudo-critica Millio-Bengeliana. Hal. 1767. 2 vol.
" Eichh. V. § 90. Cf. § 11 e, note a. Besides the instances of critical
variation there adduced, observe : Matth, x, 29, -[- r^s povXrjs ; Luke viii,
14, the Pesh, does not give rropevopevoi,, the Pers, has it ; Matth, i. 22,

PHILOXENIAN VERSION. § 13 a. 17
Pers. -[-'Ho-afou, with Syr. p. bier. It. Hieron. Cf. C. B. Michael. De var.
lectt. N. T. § 70, 72, 77. Eichh. V. 413, f
2. Philoxenian Version.
§ 13 a.
Another Syriac version contains all the books of the
New Testament, excepting the Apocalypse (unless the ver
sion of this book mentioned in § 11 6 belong to it), and
differs from the Peshito, on which it is based, by a literal
ness so extreme as to be ungrammatical." Its text is more
over furnished with the Hexaplar signs, and the majority of
the MSS. have critical and other remarks in the margin.
It bears the name of Philoxenus or Xenaias, the Monophy-
site Bishop of Hierapolis, in whose time, and at whose re
quest, it was prepared by the rural bishop Polycarp, A. D.
508, either to promote an exacter understanding of the
Scripture [Bertholdt), or for a Monophysite sectarian pur
pose {Hug, Eichhorn). In A. D. 616 it underwent a revision
by Thomas of Harkel (Harclea, usually Heraclea, whence
it is also called the Harclean version), who collated it, in
Alexandria, with two (or more) Greek MSS.'' It has been
printed' from this revision."
* It has more Greek words than the Peshito, and even in the Greek cases
(e, g. Mark i. 28) ; it imitates the Greek article by means of the pronouns
OCJlvJiCTl, &c,, the Greek etymology (e,g, of eva-egeia by timor pulcher),
the Greek construction (e.g. John iii. 4, erat ei vestem, Mark xiv. 58, Bta
Tpmv fipepZv, per [f^ T^] ires dies, instead of in tribus diebus, Pesh.).
Even the suffix pronoun, pleonastic in Syriac, is marked by an obelos,
Mark xiii. 26.
*> Subscription of the Gospels, in Adler's Verss. Syr. p. 45, sqq. : " Est
autem hie liber quatuor Evangelistarum a., qui conversus fuit ex lingua
Graeca in Syram cum accuratione multa et labore magno primum quidem
in Mabug urbe a. 819 Alexandr. Mac. (Chr. 508) in diebus s. dom. Phi-
loxeni confessoris, ejus urbi episcopi. (Polycarp is mentioned by Moses
Agelcms, in Asseman. Bibl. or. II. 83.) Collatus autem fuit postea multa
cum diligentia a me Thoma paupere cum duobus (al. tribus) exemplaribus
Graecis in Antonia Alexandriae urbis magnae, in monasterio Antoniano,
iterumque ( jOd) scriptus et collatus est in loco dicto a, 927 ejusd. Alex-
andri, indictione quarta," etc. On account of this iterum, Michaelis, Storr,
and Hug suppose a second revision or collation, but Eichhorn gives the word

18 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
only a repetitive meaning : namely, 'for ihe second time ' {Eichh. Rep. VII.
246, f ). Abulfarag. Chron. Syr. ad a. 927, in Asseman. II. 234, makes
Thomas of Harkel a reviser. G. H. Bernstein, De Charklensi N, T, vers,
Syr. (Vratisl, 1837) p. 10, regards the version not as a revision of the
Philoxenian, but as a new one, and indeed, on the ground of a passage in
Gregor. Bar-Hebr. [i. e. Abulfaragius] Praef. horrei mysteriorum (in Chres-
tom. Syr. Kirsch. ed. Bernst. p. 143. Nicol. Wiseman, Hor. Syr. I. 84) :
" redditum est tertio Alexandriae opera pii Thomae Charkl." But in the
passage before referred to he expresses himself otherwise, and the above
subscript is decisive. Thomas was contemporary with the author of the
Hexaplar Syriac Version of the 0. T., Paul of Telia (Pt. I. § 49), and
perhaps imitated him.
' Ss. Evangg. vers. Syr. Philoxeniana, nunc primum ed, cum interpret,
et annotat. Joseph. White, T. I. II. Oxon. 1778, 4to, Act, Apost, et
Epp. tam cathol. quam Paul. — T. I. Act. App. et Epp. cath. compl.
1799. T. II. Epp. Paul, compl. 1803. Respecting its MSS, : H. E. G.
Paulus, Accuratior MSS., quibus vers. N, T. Philox. continetur, catalogus.
Helmst. 1788. Adler, Bibl. krit. Reise, p. 105, ff. Id. Nov. Test, verss.
Syr. p. 52, ff. § 13 6.
What part of the Philoxenian version, in its present form,
belongs to Polycarp, and what to Thomas, has become a
subject of critical speculation. The critical signs and the
remarks are ascribed by Wetstein and White to Thomas ;
but as a Medicean MS. in Florence, examined by Adler,"
lacks the subscript in which Thomas is mentioned, and yet
contains these signs, these must, as Storr supposed, have
been already introduced, at least in part, by Polycarp. It
is, however, disputed whether they refer to the variations of
' the new translation from the Peshito ( Wetst., Storr, Eichh.,
Griesb.), or have come from a MS. of Origen's already
supplied with such signs {Hug, Bertholdt).^ The marginal
remarks Storr and Eichhorn ascribe in part to Polycarp, but
Hug and Bertholdt to Thomas only," for that Medicean MS.
has nothing in the margin.
> Verss. N. T. Syriacae, p. 52, sqq. He considers it as the apographum
antiquioris Philoxenianae vers, a Thoma Charklensi nondum revisae et
castigatae, " They seem really to refer to the Peshito in the passages : Matt, xvi,
28, Pesh. quod sunt quidam qui stant hie ; Philox, quod sunt quidam f |-^ ex

JERUSALEM-SYRIAC VERSION. § 14. 19
iis -^ qui hie stant ; — Mark ix. 19, where the hue (which is wanting in the
Peshito) is distinguished by an asterisk ; — Mark xi. 10, where after David
follows f]-f pax in coelo et gloria in excelsis -l , and in the margin stands:
pax etc. non in omnibus exemplaribus Graecis invenitur, neque in illo Mar
Xenajae, in nonnullis autem accuratis, ut putamus, invenimus. Other
instances in Storr, Von der philox. syr, Uebers, d, Evangg, in Eichh.
Rep, VII, 52, f. In Mark xiv. 65, however, the asterisk is not prefixed to
words which are wanting in the Peshito. Moreover, according to Adler
(Bibl. krit. R. p. 106, ff.), where passages are distinguished by asterisks,
the manuscripts often have marginal notes, stating that the words were not
found in Greek MSS.
" The above marginal note to Mark xi. 10 seems really to belong to
Polycarp, who probably used a MS. of Xenaias, whereas Thomas collated
Alexandrian MSS. § 13 e.
This version is valuable in the criticisin of the New Tes
tament, and especially on account of the ancient readings
contained in the marginal notes ; " although the confused
state of its text makes its use in criticism difficult.''
» The Codex compared by Thomas has affinity with the Cod. Cantabr.
and Clarom. The 180 readings of the marginal notes collated by Adler
(De verss. Syr. pp. 79-133) agree 130 times with BCDL 1. 33. 69, and
others. The Philoxenian itself follows chiefly the Peshito, but not seldom
has inferior readings, e.g. Matt, xxiii. 25, -|-toS nivaKos; xxviii. 1, aajB-
jiaTtov ; ver. 9, adoption of the words as Be itropevovro, k.t.X. ; Mark i. 2,
iv Tols TrpotpfiTais ; v. 12, jrdvres ol Balpoves.
* The critical signs have in part disappeared, the readings of the text
come into the margin, and those of the margin come into the text, &c
Storr (ut supra), pp. 23, 41, f,, 45, Eichh. p. 489, ff. The readings of
this version Wetstein has already noted, in part, however, incompletely, and
in part incorrectly ; after him Gloc. Ridley, De Syr. verss. indole et usu
diss. Philoxenianam cum simplici e duobus pervet. Codd. MSS. ab Amida
transmissis conferens. Oxon. 1761, (in /. /. Wetst. Libelli ad crit. et in
terpr. N. T. ed. Semler), Storr, Observ. super N. T. verss. Syr. 1772,
and especially, with the use of White's edition, in Eichh. Rep. X. 1, ff. (but
only on the Gospels : comp. also Mich. Or. Bibl. XVI. p. 146, ff.) ; they
may be found in the editions of Griesbach and others.
3. Jerusalem-Syriac Version.
§ 14.
A Vatican MS. of A. D. 1030, from a convent at Antioch,
contains an Evangeliarium in a Chaldaeo-Syriac dialect,

20 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
similar to that of the Jerusalem Talmud, and in a peculiar
character. In its readings it often differs from the Peshito
and the Philoxenian, and follows Codd. B and D."
• History, description, extracts, and Matt, xxvii. 3-32 as a specimen, in
Adler, N. T. verss. Syr. 1. III. p. 137, sqq. Eichhorn, AUg. Bibl. II.
498, ff. Einl. IV. § 65, f. Herb. Marsh, I, 181, It contains the section
John vii, 53 — viii, 1 - 11, wanting in the Peshito and the Philoxenian ; it
adds ovBe 6 vios. Matt, xxiv. 36, with BD, It omits koI irvpi, Mat, iii, 11,
with ES, &o,, Kal 7Tpo<xevxe<r6e, k.t. X. Matt, v, 44.
IL Ethiopic Versions.
§ 15 a.
1. The ancient Ethiopic version of the N. T., which may
have had the same origin as that of the O. T. (see Pt. I.
§ 50)," was made immediately from the Greek text, which
it often follows very literally, and with misunderstandings.
Its critical character is very variable ; yet it , often agrees
with the Itala and the Peshito.'' It has been very incor
rectly published."
' For a collection of all the notices and traditions, see Hug, § 97.
" Schmidt, Einl. II. 142, ff. Hug, § 98. Eichhorn, § 78. Misunder
standings: Matt. iv. 13, iv Spiois Za^ovXmv, in monte Z.; Acts ii, 37,
KaTeviyrja-av rfj KapBia, aperli sunt quoad animum {KarrjvolxOria-av) ; Acts
iii, 20, irpoKexetptapevov, quern praeunxit (but also Cod, 46 has irpoKexpta-
pevov) ; Luke viii, 29, TreBais <j>vXaa-a6pevos, a parvulis {waiBlois) custo-
ditus ; 1 Cor, xii, 28, koX ovs piv edero, k.t.X., aurem {ovs) posuit eccle-
siae. The Ethiopic often agrees with the Coptic, Hence Bengel thought
it a translation of the Coptic. Against this, however, are many examples
of variation {Chr. B. Michael. De var. N. T. lectt, § 26). Agreement with
the Itala against the Peshito: Matt, vi, 4, Trpoaevxea-de, ovk eoea-de ; xiv. 3
Kol edero omitted; xvi. 3, imoKpiTai omitted; — with Pesh. contrary to It.:
Matt, xi. 19, epyav instead of reKvav ; xiii. 52, els rfjv ^aaiXeiav or t^
Paa-iXeia (It. iv rfj ^aa-.) ; Mark i. 10, where the It. has the addition koI
pevov ; John i. 18, Beds instead of vios, with both ; Matt, ix, 8, i(f>oPr)dria-av ;
ver, 13, els perdvoiav omitted ; ver, 35, iv ra Xam omitted ; John i, 42,
TvpaTov ; Eph, v. 9, (paros, and often; — but frequent variation from both :
Matt, xii, 35, T-ijir KapBias. It is a peculiarity of this version that it often
combines two different readings: Mark xv. 8, ascendit et clamavit; Luke
vi, 48 ; John i, 28, vi, 69, xii, 28,
° Edited by three Ethiopic ecclesiastics, Rome, 1548-49, 2 vol, 4to,

EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. § 16 a. 21
" Acta App. maximara partem Romae translata sunt e lingua Lat, et Gr.
in Aethiopicam propter defectum protographi. " S. Joh. epp, cath. III.,
Arab, et Aeth. cur. /. G. Nisseli et Theod. Peiraei. L. B. 1654, 4to, S,
Judae ep, cath, Arab, et Aeth, L, B, 1654 (by the same editors). S. Jac
ep, cath, Arab, et Aeth, cur. Petraei. L, B. 1654, 4to, The copy in the
London Polygl, is almost useless, Latin translation by Chr. A. Bode,
1752 - 55, 2 vol, 4to, N, T. ex vers. Aeth. interpr, cum Graeco ipsius
fonte contulit Chr. A. Bode. Brunsv, 1753, 4to,

§ 15 b.
2. Of the version in the later Amharic dialect only a frag
ment of Luke is known."
» J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Beitr. z, Kenntniss der Amhar, Uebers, in his Bibl,
f. Kr, Ex, u, KG. L 307, ff

III. Egyptian Versions.
§ 16 a.
The New Testament, like the Greek Old Testament (Pt.
I. § 51), was translated into native Egyptian (Coptic), after
the Greek language had been supplanted by the Coptic
and become unknown even to the majority of the clergy.
The existence of Egyptian versions of the Bible in the fourth
century has been proved with tolerable certainty." Perhaps,
however, their origin dates in the second half of the third
century.'' » Even in the fourth century all the monks in the Tabennic convent and on
the shore of the Red Sea spoke Egyptian only {Renaudot, Liturg. Orient,
collect. 1.205). Bishops who knew not Greek attended the Councils of
Ephesus and Chalcedon. Hence, the Scriptures must soon have been read
in divine service, not only in Greek, but also in Coptic. That this was the
custom is shown, partly by a passage from an old Coptic glossary in Re
naudot, p. 207, and partly by the very old fragment of John published by
Georgi (see following §, note a). The Egyptian monastic regulations,
especially of Pachomius, require the reading of Scripture, psalm-prayers,
&c., which could scarcely take place except in the native language.
MiXnier, Ueb. d. kept. Ueberss. des N, T,, in Eichh. AUg. Bibl. IV. 26, ff.
' Hug, Einl. § 90, ff AUg. Encykl, II. 37.

22 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
§ 16 b.
1. The version in the Upper Egyptian or Sahidic dialect,
probably the older, of which only fragments and readings
are known," agrees in its readings oftener with Cod. D, but
also with the other most ancient Codd. and the Peshito, and
is a valuable document.''
" /. A. Mingarelli, Aegypt. Codd. reliquiae Venet. in Bibl. Nan. asser-
vatae (Matth. xviii, 21 — xxi, 15, John ix, 17 — xv, 1), Fasc I. Bon.
1785. Cf. Michad. N. or. Bibl. IV. 64, ff. Fr. MiXnter, Comm, de indole
vers, N, T, Sahid, Ace fragmm, Epp, Paul, ad Tim, ex membr, Sahid,
Hafn. 1789. Georgii Fragm. Evang. S. Joh. Graeco-Copto-Theb. saec.
IV. (John vi. 21-59, vi. 68 — viii. 23). Rom. 1789. 4to. Ci. Eichhorn,
A, Bibl, in, 253, ff. Woide's Examples of the agreement of the Sahid.
vers, with the Cod. Cantabr., in Michael. Or. Bibl. III. 202, ff. Varr.
lectt. Epp. Joh. et Jud. e vers, Aegypt, utriusque dialecti collectae,
ibid. X, 199, sqq. Appendix ad edit. N. T. ex eod. MS. Alex, a C.
G. Woide descripti, in qua continetur fragm. N. T. dialecti superioris
Aegypti, etc, Oxon. 1799, fol, Zoega, Catal, codd. Copt. MSS, Musei
Borg, p, 218, sqq,
'' Griesbach, Prolegg, p, Ixxi, ed. Schulz. Schmidt, II, 147, ff. Hug,
§ 95, Eichh. V, § 69. Examples : Acts i, 2, -j- Krjpia-a-eLv to evayy.
before oiis e^eXe^., D. ovs i^eX. -f- k. iKeXeva-ev Krjp. r. evayy. ; ver. 5,
-|- eas Trjs TrevTeKoa-Tjjs ; V. 4, noirjaat to Trovijpov for ro irpdypa tovto,
D Sahid, alone; ver, 35, tovs apxovras k. t. avveBplovs, D Sahid. alone,
cf Woide, Or. Bibl. Ill, 202, ff, Luke ix, 10, els Kaprjv Xeyopevr^v Bj/5-
o-diBd, D Sah, alone ; Acts ii, 41, — dapivas ACD Copt, Sah, Aeth, Vulg.
Clem, alone, and frequently. Differing from D : John x. 26, — Kadas elwov
ipiv with BKLM* 24* all, Copt Vulg, It, all, ; 1 Cor. x. 28, Upievrov with
AB Clem, all. Agreeing with Pesh. : Matt, ix, 8, 15, xxiii, 8,-6 XptoTos ;
1 Cor, ix, 16, 77 iKKXr]a-la with Vulg, Aeth. Tert. all.
§ 16 e.
2. The Lower Egyptian or Memphitic version, which has
been published entire," often agrees with the Sahidic, but
follows also its own course. Its readings, on the whole,
follow the oldest text (that of Codd. ABCDL, Syr. It.).''
" N. T. Aegyptium, vulgo Copticum, ex MSS, Bodlej, descr,, cum
Vatic, et Parisiensibus cent, et in Lat, serm. conv. Dav. Wilkins. Oxon.
1716. 4to. More correct, N. T. Coptice ed. M. G. Schwartze. P. I. Vol, I.
II. Quatuor Evangg. in dial, lingu, Copt, Memphit, perscripta ad Codd.

COPTO-ARABIC VERSIONS. § 17. 23
MSS. Copt, in reg. Bibl. Berol. adservat. nee non libri a Wilkinsio emissi
fidem. Lips. 1846-47. 4to.
'¦ According to Munter, in Eichh. Allg. Bibl. IV. 403, the text of this
version is Alexandrian in Acts and the Epp., but in the Gospels more
Western. Eichhorn holds that the comparison in 1 John by Woide,
Or. Bibl. X. 199, ff., also shows the former. But as the Cod. Clarom.
is here silent, it cannot be brought into the comparison. On the other
hand, I have found that, when the Coptic agrees with ABC, others
(such as the Syr. Vulg.) usually follow it, and that it frequently differs
from the former; e. g. 1 John i. 3-5, ii. 6, 8, 21, iii. 2, 13, 14, 17,
{-\- Tovrov) 18, iv, 3 (-{- iv aapK. iX.). In the Ep, to the Romans it often
agrees with Codd. AC, especially in omitting xvi. 24 ; but sometimes also
with DEFG, e. g. vii. 23, x. 5, 8, xiv. 16, xv. 10, 24, xvi. 26. In
the Gospels it follows none of the characteristic readings of Cod. D, as
Hug, § 23, ff., gives them, and in Mark i. ii. it coincides eleven times with
the Alexand. Codd. (cf, also the omission, Mark xi, 26), and, on the other
hand, not with D in the characteristic readings, ii, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27
(compare, however, the addition in Luke vi. 20, with Cod. 1. all. Arm. It,),
According to Hug, § 93, the Coptic version follows in the Gospels the
Codd. BCL, in Acts and the Epp. ABC, or (according to his system) the
revised text of Hesychius, which is manifestly incorrect. More correctly,
Eichh. § 95. According to our observation, it very frequently agrees with
the Codd. ABCDEFG, though it not seldom varies from them, and adheres
to the common text, e. g. Rom. ii. 8, 17, vi. 11, viii. 26, x. 15, xiii. 9,
XV. 8, xvi. 14. § 16 d.
3. Remains of an Egyptian version in the Basmuric
dialect are extant." It is disputed to what province this
belongs. Perhaps it is only a variety of the Sahidic, from
which the version seems to have come.''
* Fragments in Georgi, Praef. ad fragm. Joann. Graeco-Copto-Theb.
§ 12. Munter, De vers. N. T. Sahid. § 12, 13. Zoega, Catal. p. 145,
sqq. W. F. Engelbreth, Fragm. Basmurico-Copt. V. et N. T. Hafn.
1811. 4to.
' Hug, § 96. Tychsen, in Michaelis's N. or. Bibl. VIII. 211, ff,
Copto- Arabic Versions.
§ 17,
Translations of the Bible from the Coptic into the Arabic
became a necessity in Egypt, as, in consequence of advan-

24 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
cing Mohammedanism, the Coptic language became super
seded by the Arabic. The Arabic of the Apocalypse in
Erpeniush Arabic N. T." is a translation of this sort. Of
an Arabico- Coptic version of the Pauline Epistles, the letter
to Philemon has been published.''
* According to /. H. Michael. De var. lectionibus N. T. caute colligen-
dis, § 29. Comp. J. D. Michael Curae in Act. App. p. 53. It often varies,
however, from the Coptic, as J. D. Michael, H. Marsh. I, 201, Eichh. V, 63,
show, '' By Hug, § 103, [He gives, however, only the first eleven verses,]
IV. Armenian Version.
§ 18.
The Armenian version of the N. T. has the same origin
as that of the O. T. (cf. Pt. I. § 52). It was made from the
original Greek text ; for Joh. Ekelensis and Joseph Palnensis,
who assisted Miesrob in the work, had (A.D. 431) brought
with them a Greek Bible from Ephesus, and gone thence to
Alexandria to perfect their knowledge of Greek." According
to Gregory Bar-Hebrseus, this version has been interpolat
ed from the Peshito (I. § 52, note e), and indeed its text
has great affinity with the Syriac, though this may have its
ground in the MS. or MSS. which they used. As little
does its relationship to the Itala justify the assumption of
interpolation from the Vulgate, from which 1 John v. 7 has,
without doubt, been smuggled in.''
' Moses Chorenens. Hist. Arm. Ill, 61, Cf Rich. Simon, Hist, crit, des
Vers, d, N. T, Chap. 17.
' Examples of agreement with the Peshito, see § lie, note a. With
D, It. ; Matt, xv. 32, fjpepai rpels, Kal, k, t.X. ; xviii, 33, ovk i'Bei ovv, k.t.X.
with Vulg, Sahid. ; xix, 10, tov dvBpos with Ambr, ; Mark ii, 9, vnaye
els TOV oiKov oov ; ver, 26, ecj)ayev, a. eSaKe . . . . outrt, ovs ovk e^ean, k.t.X. "
iv: 39, TO dvepa k. ttj daXdaa-r] k. erne ; v, 33, Bi! o TreiroirjKei \d6pa.
Frequently this agreement is supported by other testimony, as B, Orig,, e, g,
John iv, 30, 46, Gal, iv, 21, 25. Hug, § 87, ascribes a mixed character to
the Armenian text, Eichh., § 81, calls it an approximation to the unrevised
text, Bredenkamp, in Mich. Or, B, VII, 139, ff,. Alter in Paul. Mem, VIII,
186, ff., have given collations.
Edition in the whole Armenian Bible (I. § 52) ; latest critical ed., Venice

IMMEDIATE ARABIC VERSIONS. § 21 a. 25
1805. 4to ; the N. T. separately, Amsterd. 1668. 8vo, 1698. 12mo ;
from which is printed: Quatuor prima capp. Evang, Matth, una cum Oral.
Domin. cap. vi. 9-13, ex vers. Armen. interpr. Amst, 1698, edita, ex
Armen. ling, in Lat. transtulit, etc C, A. Bode. Hal, 1756, 4to, (The
Armen, with Latin letters,) N. T. Armen. ed. a Joh. Zohrab, Doctore
Arm. Venet. 1789. 8vo. 1816,
V. Georgian Version.
§ 19.
The Georgian version of the N. T. is immediate (I. § 53),
but, lilce that of the O. T., interpolated from the Slavic.
Various readings have been collected from it by Alter, Ueber georgia-
nische Literatur. Wien. 1798. 8vo. p. 26, ff,
VI. Persic Version of the Gospels.
§ 20.
The edition of a Persic version of the Gospels," begun by
Wheelock and finished by Pierson, gives a mixed text, the
MS. of the above-mentioned Syro-Persic (§ 12 b) having
been more or less used.'' As an authority in criticism it is
worth little. It appears in the critical apparatus as Pers. W.
* Quatuor Evangg. D. N. J. Chr. vers. Persica, Syriacam, et Arab,
suavissime redolens, ad verba et mentem Graeci textus fideliter et venuste
concinnata Codd. tribus MSS  coUatis per Abr. Whelocum, etc. sub
auspiciis et imp  D. Thorn. Adams. Lond. 1657. fol. So Rosenm.,
III. 156, gives the title. According to others, the work has two titles with
different dates [viz. 1652 and 1657],
'' Piers. Praef, : " Cum Evangg. Persicis edendis Whelocus  operam
navasset, tres sibi MSS. impetraverat, Oxon., Cantabr,, et alteram Po-
cockianum, quorum uno descripto, ceteris collatis, fusiorem in omnes oom-
mentarium destinaverat." There is, however, but one Pocock manuscript
of the Pers. version. Cf Marsh. Anmerk. u. Zus. I. 210. Eichh. V.
§ 91. VII. Immediate Arabic Versions.
§ 21a.
1. An Arabic version of the Gospels is e.xtant in several
editions from two MSS. (a Roman and a Leyden) with
4

26 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.
variations." It was prepared immediately from the Greek,
but has suffered interpolation from the Syriac and the
Coptic." On account of its use by the Syrians and the Copts,
we must assign to it a tolerably ancient origin.''
^ 1. Evang. s. Dom. n. J. Chr. conscriptum a quatuor Evangelistis
ss. i. e. Matth., Marc, Luc, et Joh. Rom. in typogr. Medic. 1591. fol. ;
2d ed. Arab. Lat., with new title, 1619 and 1774. 2. In the Arab. New
Testament of Erpen. Leyd. 1616. 3. In the Paris Polygl-, from the 2d
Roman ed,, with some alterations by Sionita (cf, Hug,^ 106), 4, In the
London Polygl,, from the Parisian, Lately, 5. In the Syro-Arabic N. T.
Rome, Press of the Propaganda, 1703 (§ 11a, note a). The variations
are, in part, of small consequence, and consist of orthographical differ
ences, substitution of synonymous words, change in the position of words,
and the like, but in part also in readings ; e, g. Matt, ix, 30, Erp, et dixit
iis, Rom. et Polygl. dicens ; x. 18, Erp. vobis, Rom. et Polygl. illis; vi.
16, Rom, thesaurus tuus, ibi cor tuum ; Erp, Polygl, thesauri vestri, ibi
erunt corda vestra ; — and also in readings which lean towards the Syriac
and Coptic text; e, g. Matt. ix. 10, Erp. Copt. -{-^Ipavos; i. 22, Syr.
Polygl. — XeyovTos. Against the assertion of a difference of text in the
four editions, which Walton and Bode made in different ways, Storr {Tie
Evangg. Arab. Tub. 1775. 4to) has shown that the editions are essentially
alike. In No, 5, Hug, 1. 438, found likewise the text of the Erpenian.
' Etymological translations, e, g, Luke iii, 1, koI rerpapxavvTos, k.t.X-
dum Herodes esset princeps super quartam partem Galilaeae ; xv. 25, rav
TToXtTav, ex magnatibus (from ttoXvs); Luke xxii. 6, i^apoXoyrjoe, gratias
egit, is peculiar ; Matt. xxv. 21, ev BovXe dyaBe Kal iriaTe, irrl oXlya ^v TriaTos,
bene est, serve bone, fidelus inventus es in pauco, is mistaken. Cf. HEU.
Prolegg, § 1269, sq. Hug, I, 443, f,
° Occasioned by the use among the Copts'and Syrians of bilingual codices,
and of such manuscripts as the Vienna Cod, of the Arabic Gospels, No.
43, which has marginal and interlinear notes containing various readings
from the Peshito, the Coptic, and the Greek text. Cf. Storr, 1. c. § 20, sq.
¦> Hug, § 104, ff. Cf. Eichh. V. § 73,
§ 21b.
2. The likewise immediate translation of the Acts, the
Pauline and Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, in the
Paris and London Polyglots, is by another author, who
was probably a native of Cyrene. It follows the Constanti-
nopolitan text."
* Proofs of its immediate character : Acts xii. 13, 'PdSi;, rosa ; xix. 9,
Tvpdvvov TO/OS, cujusdam ex magnatibus ; xxviii, 11, iv jrXoi'm irapaKexei-

GOTHIC VERSION. § 22 a. 27
puKoTi ev Tjj vrja-a, AXe^avBpiva, TrapaaTjpa Aioo'Kovpois, in navi Alexandrina
quae hiemaverat ilia in insula, (pertinente) ad hominem quendam Alexan-
drinum Dioscoridem nuncupatum ; 2 Cor. vi. 14, pri ylveoBe erepo^vyovvTes
dmarois, ne sint librae vestrae (fuyos, scales) propendentes ad infideles ;
Jud. 12, oirol elcriv iv rats dydirats vpav a-mXdBes, hi sunt qui amicas suas
impudicas accumbere faciunt secum in conviviis. The difference between it
and the transl. of the Gospels appears from the different rendering of fre
quently occurring words, e.g. Btd^oXos, Gospels (JwA)!/ diabolus, Epp.
jLsvJf fraudulenius. The translator indicates his country in Acts ii. 9,
ra pepr] Trjs Ai^vqs r. Kara Kvprjvrjv, partibus Africae, quae est patria nostra.
Critical examples : Acts ii. 7, Xe'y. npos dXXfjXovs, against AC* Copt.
Aeth. ; ver. 23, exS. Xa^., against AC Syr. Arm. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. ;
ver. 30, to Kara a-dpKa, k. r.X., against ACD** Syr. Copt. Aeth. Vulg.;
1 Cor. vii. 3, Trjv d(peiX. €ifj/oiaj', against ABCDEFG Copt. Aeth. Arm. It.
etc. ; ver. 5, r^ vrjo-Tela k. irpoaevxji , against ABCDEFG. More in Hug,
§§109-111. VIII. Gothic Version.
§ 22 a.
Of a Gothic version only the Gospels were found at first,
in the Codex Argenteus, at Upsala," from which they have
been printed.'' Fragments of the Epistle to the Romans
were afterwards found in a Codex rescriptus in the Wolf-
enbiittel library." Important fragments of the Pauline
Epistles (but not of the Epistle to the Hebrews), and two
fragments of Matthew, have recently been discovered at
Milan."! " The history of this renowned manuscript see in Zahn, Histor. krit.
Einl. in Ulfilas Bibeliibers. p. 39, ff. Von Ihre, Diss. 1 de cod. argent.
§ 14, 15. Italy is probably the land of its birth. Zahn, Einl, p, 50.
Hug, § 136.
¦¦ Quatuor D. N. Jes. Chr. Evangg. verss. perantiquae duae, Goth. so.
et Anglo-Sax., quarum illam ex cod. argent, nunc primum deprompsit
Franc. Junius, hanc ex codd. MSS. coll. emendatius recudi curavit Thom.
Mareschallus, cujus etiam observatt. in utramque vers, subnectuntur.
Accessit et glossar. Goth., cui praemittitur alphabet. Goth., Runicum,
etc. op, ejusd, Fr. Junii. Dord. 1665. 4to; ed. 2, Amst. 1684. — D. N.
Jes. Christi SS. Evangg. ab Ulfila, Gothorum in Moesia episcopo, circa
ann. a n. Chr. CCCLX. ex Graeco Gothice translata, nunc cum parallelis
verss. Sueo-Goth., Norr. s. Island, et Vulg. Lat. edita. Ace. Franc. Junii
glossar. Goth., lingua Sueo-Goth. moderna et antiqua locupl. et illustrat..

28 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
cura et st. Geo. Stiernhielmii. Stockh. 1671. 4to.— SS. Evangg. vers.
Goth,, ex cod, argent, emend, atque suppl,, cum interpret, Lat, et annotatt.
Er. Benzelii edidit, obss. suas adj. et grammatic Gothic, praemisit Edw.
Lye. Ox. 1750. 4to,
" Ulphilae vers, Goth. nonnuUorum capp, ep, ad Rom. e littura MSS.
rescripti Biblioth. Guelpherb. cum var. monumentis ined. eruit, commen-
tatus est deditque foras Franc. .AnJ. iTnto^. Brunsv. 1762. 4to. — Frag-
menta vers. Ulphilanae, contin. particulas aliquot ep. Pauli ad Rom 
a Fr. A. Knittel edita, nunc cum aliquot annotatt, typis reddita a /. Ihre.
Upsal. 1763. 4to ; also in Joh. ab Ihre, Scripta vers. Ulphil. et linguam
Moeso-Goth. illustrantia . . . . ed. ab Ant. Fr. Bilsching. Berol. 1773.
4to. Everything is united in the work : Ulfilas Gothische Bibeliibers. nach
Ihrens Text ; mit e. grammat. wortl. Lat. Uebers. zwischen den Zeilen,
sammt, e, Sprachl, u, e. Glossar. ausgearb. von Fr. K. Fulda, umgearb,
von W. F. H.'Reinwald, und den text nach Ihren's genauer Abschr. d. silb.
Hdsohr. in Upsala sorgf. berichtigt .... herausg. von /. Chr. Zahn.
Weissenf, 1808, 4to,
^ Ulphilae partium ined. in Ambros, palimpsestis ab Ang. Majo repertarum
spec, conjunctis curis ejusd. Maii et Car. Oct. Castillionaei editura. Mediol,
1819. 4to. Ulphilae vers. Goth. 2 Paul, ad Corinth, ep, quam ex Ambros.
bibl. palimpsestis depromtam c, interpretat,, adnotatt,, glossario ed, Cas-
tillionaeus. Med, 1829, 4to, Goth, vers, epp. D, Paul, ad Rom,, ad Corinth.
primae, ad Ephes, quae supersunt, etc, ed, idem, ibid, 1834, Goth. vers.
epp, D, Paul, ad Gal,, ad Phil,, ad Col,, ad Thess, primae quae supersunt,
etc ed, id. ib, 1835. Everything united in Ulfilas. Vet. et N. T. vers.
Goth, fragmm. quae supersunt, ad fidem codd. castig. Latinit. donat, adnot,
crit, instr. e, glossar, et gramm, ling, Goth. ed. H. C. de Gabelentz et /.
Loebe. Vol, I, Altenb, 1836, 4to,

§ 22 &.
Several scholars have erroneously regarded this transla
tion as Frankish." But the nature of the language, in
which Greek and Latin words occur, and a comparison of
it with other remains of the Gothic language, place the
matter beyond doubf The author is the Gothic Bishop
Ulfilas (fl. A.D. 359), to whom history ascribes the inven
tion of a Gothic written character and a translation of the
Bible." It is made from the original Greek text,'! and its
critical character stands about midway between the oldest
unrevised text and the coiumon text." It has experienced
alterations in accord with the old Latin versions.^

GOTHIC VERSION. § 22 b. 29
" Thes. epistol. Lacroz. I. 49. II. 281, Wetst. Prolegg, in N, T, See
Michael. Einl. 498.
^ Ihre, Ulfil. illustr, p, 259, sqq. Zahn, p. 25, ff. Hug, § 134, f. Mi
chaelis, p. 500, ff.
' Socrat. H. E. IV. 27. al. 33. Sozomen, H. E. VI. 37. Jornand. De
rebus Goth. c. 51. — Ueb, d. Leben u, d. Lehre des Ulfila. Bruchstiicke eines
ungedruckten Werkes aus d. Ende d. 4. Jahrh., herausgeb. von G. Waitz,
1840. Hickes (Institutt. gramm. Anglo-Sax. et Moeso-Goth.) doubted its
origin by Ulfilas: 1. because the translation agrees with Latin MSS, (see
note/) ; 2, because no traces of Ulfilas's Arianism appear in it : one such,
however, does appear in PhU, ii, 6, ta-a 6ea, galeiko guiha, similiter Deo.
Gabl.-Loeb. Proll. p. xv. However, the extant translation of the Epistles
seems to be later, p. xxi.
^ Simeon Metaphrasl. in Act. Sanct. Sept. V. 41. ed. Antv. , Ovp(j)iXos
Tqv lepav Tjpav ypa<f)r]V . . . , dnb ttjs eXXdBos els ttjv yoTdiKrjV yXaaaav
perafidXav. Proofs of its immediate character : the approximation of the
Gothic language to the Greek in the use of attraction, of participial con
struction, and the like ; the closeness with which it follows it in the order of
words ; imitation of the Greek etymology, e, g, oXoKavTapaTa, allbrunstim,
o-Kj]voTn)yla, hleihrastakeins (tent-pitching), iyKaivia, inniujitha (innovatio) ;
many errors, e. g. substitution of plrrreL for prjuaei, Mark ix. 8 ; 1 Thes. v.
14, of dvex- for dvTcx-
" Ace to Hug, § 140, Eichh. § 87, its text is the Lucian or Constanti-
nopolitan (?). It often agrees with the oldest codd. and the other versions,
e. g. Matt. vi. 18, viii. 8, ix. 13, 35 (cf. § lie, note a) ; xi. 2, Std, with
BCDPZ Syr. utr. Arm. ; Mark i. 2, 11, ii. 1, 17, 18, 20, John vi. 22, 39 ;
Rom. vii. 6, dwoBavovTes ; x. 1, xiii. 9; Gal. ii. 14, jrSy; iv. 17, vpds; iv.
26, — Trdvrav ; 1 Thess. iii. 2, v. 3, — ydp. It wants the pericope John
viii, 1, ff. Observe too, Luke vi, 20, -\-Ta7rvevpan, with Arr, Syr, hieros.
Arm, It often follows the common text in opposition to the oldest
authorities, e, g. Matt, xxvii. 4, Mark i. 5, k. i^arrr. irdvres ; 16 (error in
Grsb. Sch.), 34, ii. 9, koI ; John vi. 40, 58, 69, Rom, vii. 18, 25, viii, 38,
(even against Eus, Damasc.) xi, 22, xii, 11, 1 Cor, vii, 5, Gal, iii, 1,
(against Chrys, Theodoret. Theoph. Oec.) iv. 6, 15, 1 Thess. ii. 15, iv. 13,
and has its additions, but with other versions. Matt. vi. 14, Mark vi. 11.
Sometimes it has the common reading only in part : Mark xi. 10, iv 6v6p.
without Kupi'ou ; Rom, viii, 1, pfj k. a-dpK. Tvepm. without aXXa k. nvevpa;
or unites two readings, as Matt, vii, 8. A middle position is taken by the
readings Matt. v. 47, <|)iXous, with EKLMS, many cursive MSS. Arm.
Syr. p. Slav. Theoph. ; Mark i, 5, i^onopevovTo with EFHLS It. Theoph.
f Latinizing readings : Matt, x, 29, +t^s jSovXijs, with Copt, Ar, Pers,
It, Tert, all, ; Mark xiv, 65, cum voluntate s, libenter, with Brix, Corb. ;
Luke i, 3, -f-et spiritui s,, with Ver, Germ.; ix, 43, -|-et dixit ei Petr,
etc, with Corb, Colb, Brix, ; ver. 50, -[-nemo fest, etc, with Ver, Verc
Colb. Red. ; Mark vii. 3, crebro ; Luke ix, 20, tu es Christus fil, Dei ;

30 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
2 Cor. V, 10, 'IBia instead of 8m. Wetstein (Proll. p. 306, ed. Semi.) erro
neously assumes that the translator used Latin codices ; Griesbach also
{Zahn, p. 34) that the codices used by him were related to those on which
the Latin version was based. Zahn, Hug, Eichh., Gabl.-Loeb., rightly
assume that the translation was altered in Italy after Latin versions. Col
lation with such produced the marginal note lustuns (voluptates) on Eph. ii.
3, to the word viljans (voluntates). The words annastodeith (incipit) and
ustauh (explicit), which stand at the beginning and the end, betray Latin
influence. The Euthalian subscripts are also later additions. Gabl.-Loeb.
Proll. p. xxiii. IX. Slavic Version.
§ 23.
The Slavic Bible translators, Cyrillus and Methodius
(I. § 54), in translating the N. T. used Greek MSS., proba
bly of Constantinopolitan origin. Hence many critics con
sider the text also Constantinopolitan." Whether this ver
sion was subsequently altered after the Latin is a disputed
question.'' » So Hug, § 143, after Alter's collation, in his edition of N. T. I. 1122, ff.
According to Dobrowsky {Michael. N, or, Bibl. VII. 158, ff,), on the other
hand, it follows chiefly Codd. D and L. Eichhorn, V. § 87, calls it Lucian
or Constantinopolitan, but much mixed with Hesychian. Its relation to the
oldest and to the common text as compared with the Gothic is characteristic
(§ 22 5, note e). With the last it follows the first in Matt. viii. 8, Mark i.
11, John vi, 22, 39, 69, Gal, ii, 14, iv, 17, without and contrary to it in
Mark i, 34, ii, 9, John v. 40, 58 ; without and contrary to the last it follows
the second in Matt. vi. 18, ix. 13, 35, xi. 2, Mark i. 2, 5, ii. 1, 17, 18, 20,
Rom. X. 1 (in opposition to Chrysos.), xiii. 9 (against Thdrt. Thphlct.) ;
with it in the remainder of the passages quoted in § 22 5, note e. The bias
of this translation towards the later text thus preponderates, as indeed its
later origin (ninth century) would lead us to expect.
>> Hug (2d ed. I. 492, 3d ed. I. 523) modifies his earlier charge (1st ed.
I, 436), yet rather out of respect for Dobrowsky — who, in his Slavanca
(Pt. 2. Prag. 1815), defended the Slavic version — than from conviction.
Eichhorn, § 89, explains the Latinizing of the Slavic text from the character
of the Asiatico-Byzantine text, on which it is based, which is interspersed
with Alexandrine-Oriental readings.
For editions of the whole Slavic Bible, see I. § 54. The N. T., Mosk.
1663. fol.; Acts and Epp. ib. 1653. fol.; the Gospels, 1512, in Wallachia,
and 1575, at Wilna.

LATIN VERSIONS. — THE ITAIA. § 24. 31
X. Latin Versions.
1. The Ancient Version before Jerome (the Itala).
§ 24.
The remarks made in Part I. § 48, respecting the Old
Testament, apply to the origin and character of the old
Latin version of the New Testament, excepting that the
latter is extant in a more complete and multiform shape,"
and comes directly from the Greek original.'' Its rendering
is not only word for word, but often literal even to solecism."
In its characteristic readings it follows the oldest docu
ments, especially Codd. Cantab, and Clarom. (D), and is re
markable for various excrescences and corruptions.''
» Matt. V. 16 : Luceat lumen vestrum coram hominibus, ut videant bona
facta vestra, et clarificent patrem vestrum, qui in coelis est. Iren. adv.
haer. IV. 37. — Luceat lumen vestrum coram hominibus, ut videant opera
vestra bona, et magnificent patrem vestrum, qui in coelis est. Hilar. Pict.
Tract, in Ps. Ixv. — Matt. vi. 31 : Nolite cogitare dicentes : quid edemus, aut
quid bibemus, aut quid vestiemur? haec enim nationes quaerunt. Cyprian.
De Orat. Dom. — Nolite solliciti esse dicentes : quid Tnanducabimus, et quid
bibemus, aut quo operiemur : haec enim omnia gentes inquirunt. Augustin.
De op. Manich, c, 1, — Matt. xi. 12: A diebus enim Joannis baptistae reg-
num coelorum cogitur et cogentes diripiunt illud. Ambros. (1. V.) in Luc. c.
7, et de Cain et Abel, c 4. — A diebus autem Joannis regnum coelorum
vim paiilur et vim facienies diripiunt illud. Hilar. Pict. in Ps. ii. n. 46.
[Opiat. De schism. Don. V. 5.] — A diebus Joannis regnum coelorum vio-
lentum est, et qui vim faciunt diripiunt illud. \Iren. Adv. haer. IV. 37.] —
Col. ii. 8 : Videte, ne quia depraedetur per philosophiam et inanem/aZ/aciam.
Cyprian. Ep. LII. — Cavete, ne quis vos depraedetur per philosophiam et
inanem seductionem secundum traditionem hominum et secundum elementa
hujus mundi. Ambros. De fide, I. 3, Comment in Ps, cxviii, serm, 22. c
1. — Videte, ne quis vos spoliet per philosophiam et inanem deceptionem sec.
trad. hom. Hilar, de Trin. I. 13, XII. 20, — Matt, x, 31 : Multorum pas-
serum superponite vos. Cant. — Multis vos meliores estis passeribus, Colb.
Sangerm. 1. Clar. — Matt. xv. 11: Communioat (koij/oI) hominem, Cari.t.
— Coinquinat hominem, Colb. — Tit. i. 4 : Christo Jesu salutari nostro,
Sangerm. Clar  salvatore nostro, Ambrstr. — Rom. i. 16 : Non me
pudet Evangelii, Tertull. — Non enim erubesco Evangelium, Augustin.
Laud. For other examples, see Hug, § 113. Eichhorn, IV. § 48. The
latter also maintains that there is but one old Latin version of the N, T,,

32 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OP THE NEW TESTAMENT.
though altered by various readings (so also Wiseman, Two letters on some
parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, etc Rom. 1835. Lachrn.
ed, N, T, maj. p. xi,), and supports this assertion by examples of similar
mistakes which run through the different quotations. Acts i, 6, si in hoc
tempore restituis, etc. Cod. Laud. Cant. ; si hoc in tempore representabis,
etc Aug. Mark x. 40, aXXois for dXX' oh, Cant, Veron, Verc, Corb,
(but also Cod, 225, Aeth,). John i. 13, ts . ¦ ¦ ¦ iyewriBr}, Iren. Tert
Aug. all. He recommends the conjecture Usitata instead of Itala, and
asserts the African origin of this translation, chiefly on the ground of its
agreement with the Sahidic, from which he concludes that the text came
thither from Alexandria.
¦¦ Mistakes : Matt. vi. 24, unum patietur, dve^erai instead of dvre^erai ;
Eph. iv, 9, desperantes, dirrjXmKOTes instead of dnrjXyrjKOTes ; Hebr. vi. 1,
fundamentum diruentes, BepeXiov Kara^aXXopevoi. More examples in Wet
stein (Prolegg. p, 226, ed. Semi.), among which, however, there are some
which rest on false readings.
= on, that, it translates, even when used merely as a mark of quotation,
by quia, quoniam. Matt. ix. 16, Mark ii. 21, TrX-qpapa, plenitude, multi
tude, fortitude ; John ix. 7, KoXvpPfjdpa, natatoria ; ix. 24, clamaverunt
eum; Luke iv. 39, d(j}tevat {to leave), dimittere ; Rom. i, 24, imBvplai, desi-
deria ; ver, 28, iBoKlpaaav, probaverunt ; Gal. iii. 15, iiriBtaTda-a-eTai, super-
ordinat ; John v, 18, quaerebant ilium occidere, cf, vii, 20, and often ; viii,
37, verbum meum non capit in vobis ; x, 31, bajulaverunt lapides; xii, 13,
exierunt in obviam ; iv, 33, adtulit illi manducare ; vi, 19, juxta navem fieri ;
viii, 7, cum immanerent interrogare; iv. 23, adoraverunt patri ; ix. 31, pec-
catorum audit ; Matt. ix. 21, si tetigero .... vestimenti ejus ; Luke ix. 19,
nihil vos nocebit ; Mark viii. 38, me confusus fuerit ; Rom. i. 16, non eru
besco evangelium ; John i. 50, v. 20, majora horum ; ix. 3, ut manifestetur
opera Dei; xvii. 26, caritas quam dilexisti me, Hebraism: John ii, 7,
implete hydriam aquam,
^ Comp, the examples in § H e, note a. It also agrees with the citations
of Clem. Alex, and of the oldest Latin fathers. It is free from many of the
additions found in the Syriac and the common text, but often has others in
stead ; longer ones, as Matt. xx. 28, Vos autem quaeritis de minimo (pusillo,
Ver. Verc. Corb. Germ. Colb.) crescere, et de magno minui (et de majore
minores fieri s, esse, Verc. Corb. Clar. all.) etc. Cant. Ver. all. with D;
xxiv. 31, D Cant. Ver, all, ; xxvii, 35 (§ 11 e, note a) ; Luke v. 14, D
Cant, ; vi, 11 ; John viii. 1, ff. of the adulteress. Shorter, as Matt, ix, 35,
Kw. TToXXoi, K.T.X. L 13, all, (against D cant,) ; xxiv, 36, ovBe o vios, with
BD Aeth, Arm. Vulg. MS, ; Mark v, 33, with Arm, ; x, 12, similiter et qui
dimissam ducit, moechatur, Ver. Verc. Corb. Germ, 2. without D ; Mark
xiv. 65, cum voluntate s, libenter, Brix. Corb. without D; xv. 27, nomine
Zoathan, etc, Colb. without D; Luke iii. 10, ut vivamus, D Cant, Ver,
all, ; iv, 38, Kal 'AvBpeov ; v, 33, -\-Kal ol padrjral tS>v ^ap. D Cant, Colb, ;
ver. 37, -|-™i's naXaiovs, D Copt, Arm, Cant, Iren. ; vi. 20, 21, qui nunc

LATIN VERSIONS. — JEROME'S IMPROVED. § 26. 33
esuriunt et sitiunt, Ver. Corb. all. without D; John iii. 6, -[-quia Deus
spiritus est, Corb. -f- et de s. ex Deo natus est, Verc. Harl.
Editions, besides Sabatier, Bibliorum SS. Latinae verss. antiquae Vol.
III. : Jos. Blanchini, Evangeliarium quadrupl. Lat. vers, antiquae. Rom.
1749. fol. 2 Partt. Joh. Martianay, Vulgata antiqua Lat. et Itala vers.
Evang. sec. Matth. et ep. S. Jac. etc. Paris. 1695. 12mo. In the editions
of the Graeco-Lat. Codd. § 51, in Semler's Paraphrases, in MatthaeCs
edition of the N. T. The Cod. Verc. SS. Evangg. cod. Euseb. M 
manu exaratus, ex autographo Basilicae Vercellensis .... op. et stud.
/. A. Irici. Med. 1749. 4to. Jos. Dobrowsky, Fragm. Prag. Evang. S.
Marci vulgo autographi. Prag. 1778. 4to. Alter, Descript. Cod. caes.
purp. aur. argent. Vind., quo contin. Fragmenta Lat. Luoae et Marci juxta
vers. Lat. antiqu. Antehieronym., in Paulus, N. Rep. III. 115, ff., and
Memorab. VII. 58, ff. Dav. Schulz, Diss, de Cod.' IV. Evang. Bibl.
Rhedigerianae, in quo vetus Lat. vers, continetur. Vratisl. 1814. 4to.
Fragmenta antiquiss. vers. It. Marci et Matth. in Fleck, Wissensch. Reise
B. II. Abth. 3. 1837. Its Daughter, the Angh- Saxon.
§ 25.
The Anglo-Saxon version of the N. T., of which the
Gospels are known, comes from the ancient Latin," and
is, therefore, probably older than that of the O. T. It had
probably several authors ; at least the Gospels were trans
lated by several.
* Thorn. Marshall, Observatt. ad vers. Angl.-Sax. p. 495, sqq.
Editions: Evang. IV. Saxon, et Anglice, ex edit. Matth. Parkeri. Lon
don, 1571. 4to. Edit, of Will. d'Isle. Ib. 1638. 4to, with fragments of
the O. T. and the N. T. ; with the Gothic version by Thom. MarshaU. See
§22. 2. The Improved Version by Jerome.
§ 26.
Jerome, in improving the old Latin version (Pt. I. § 48),
began with the N. T., and first with the Gospels." Pro
ceeding very cautiously, he consulted only old Greek MSS.
on whose text the old Latin version was based,'' and altered
only where the meaning had been essentially changed ;° on
5

34 THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
which account in his Commentaries he often varies from the
translation.'' He asserts that he translated the whole N. T.«
This improved version of the N. T. shared the fate of
Jerome's translation of the O. T. (Part L §§ 70-72), suf
fered the same corruption, was subjected to the same crit
ical attempts at improvement, and passed through the same
editions.^ '' Hieron. Praef. in IV. Evangg. ad Damas. : Novum opus facere me
cogis ex veteri, ut post exemplaria Scripturarum toto orbe dispersa quasi
quidam arbiter sedeam, et quia inter se variant, quae sint ilia, quae cum
Graeca consentiant veritate, decernam. Pius labor, sed periculosa prae-
sumtio  corrigere \ Adversus quam invidiam duplex caussa me
consolatur, quod et tu, qui summus sacerdos es, fieri jubes, et verum non
esse quod variat, etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur. Si enim
Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant, quibus : tot enim
sunt exemplaria paene, quot codices. Sin autem Veritas est quaerenda
de pluribus : cur non ad Graecam originem revertentes, ea quae vel a
vitiosis interpretibus male edita, vel a praesumtoribus imperitis emendata
perversius, vel a librariis dormitantibus addita sunt, aut mutata, corrigimus?
. . , , De Novo nunc loquor Testamento  Hoc certe quum in
nostro sermone discordat, et diversos rivulorum tramites ducit : uno de fonte
quaerendum est.
¦> Hieron. 1. c . Praetermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio
nuncupates paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio : quibus utique
nee in toto Veteri Instrumento post LXX interpretes emendare quid licuit,
nee in Novo profuit emendasse : quum multarum gentium Unguis Scrip
tura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt. Igitur haec praesens
praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor Evangelia — codicum Graecorum emendata
oollatione, sed veterum. But perhaps he sometimes consulted others also,
as he does in his Commentary. Comment, on Matt, xxiv, 36 : In quibusdam
Latinis codicibus additum est neque filius : quum in Graecis et maxime
Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum. Comm. ad
Gal, iii. 1 : Quod in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, etc.
» Hieron. Praef. in Evangg. : Quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae con-
suetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus, ut his tantum, quae sen-
sum videbantur mutare, correctis reliqua manere pateremur, ut fuerant.
He thus dropped the most of those excrescences (§ 24, note c), and placed,
e. g. Rom. xii. 11, Domino instead of iempori ; 1 Tim. i. 15, fidelis instead
of humanus; restored, v. 19, the words nisi sub duobus aut tribus tesiibus.
But he did too little in this direction, and let much remain, e. g. Gal. v, 7
-\-pr,Bevl Treldeaee. The text of the Vulgate agrees with that of the It,!
other old versions, and the oldest codd. in most of the passages adduced in
§ He, note a, as Matt, vi, 15, 18, viii. 8, ix. 13, 35, Mark I 2, 11, 21, f.,

LATIN VERSIONS. — JEROME'S IMPROVED. § 26. 35
Acts ii. 30, iii. 12, Gal. iii. 1, — tjj dXrjd. k.t.X., and is also, on other
grounds, one of the most valuable critical authorities. But it adheres to the
bad readings of the Itala, in opposition to better (Luke xiv. 5), or to all
codd.. Acts ii. 1, iii. 12, and leaves it where it has good readings, Luke iii.
2, Acts iii. 20, Gal. iv. 15, 2 Cor. xi. 3.
^ Ad Eph. iv. 19 : dmiXyrjKOTes multo aliud in Graeco significat quam
in Latino desperantes, quippe qui dinjXwiKOTes nominantur, etc. Other ex
amples in Wetst. Prolegg. p. 228, ed. Semi.
' Ep. ad Lucin. LXXI. (28), § 5 : N. Test. Graecae reddidi auctoritati.
Catal. scriptt. eccles. : N. T. Graecae fidei reddidi : Vetus juxta Hebraicum
transtuli. f Latest of the N. T. : F. F. Fleck, N. T. Vulg. Edit, juxta textum
Clement. VIII  cum variant, in margine lectionibus antiqu  cod.
olim mentis Amiatae in Etruria, nunc biblioth. Florent. Laurent. Mediceae
sec. VI. scripti. Praemissa est comm. de Cod. Amiat. et versione Lat,
vulg. 1840. Large 12mo. (This codex, containing the whole of the Old
and New Test., and written stichometrically in the uncial character, was
used in the Sixtine edition.) Lachmann, in his larger ed. of the N. T.
(§ 48) , gives the more ancient text, of the period before the tenth century,
from old MSS., especially the Fulda MS. Comp. Rettig. in Stud. u. Krit.
1833. p. 900.

36 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.

SECTION III.
OF THE CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.

SUBDIVISION L
HISTORY OE THE TEXT.

CHAPTER I.
HISTOEY 01? THE EXTERNAL FORM OF THE TEXT.

Original Manuscripts of the New Testament Books.
§ 27.
These greatly to be wished for documents were early lost.
No trace of them is discoverable, even in the remotest an
tiquity." As, however, it is important for criticism to gain
just views of the original external form of the text which
comes under its review, we must seek to supply their loss,
in some degree, by the teachings of ancient literature.''
" The passages, Ignat. ad Philadelph. § 8, 'Ejtei rJKovad tivcov Xeydvrav,
on ecu' pi] iv to'is dpxeiois (dpxaiois) evpa, iv ra evayyeXlco ov iriareva-
Kal XeyovTos pov avTo'is, oTi yeypairrai • dTreKpldrjirdv poi, on jrpoKeiTai.
'Epol Be dpxe^d ianv 'Irjaovs Xptaros • ra aBiKra dpxe'ia 6 crravpos avTov
KcLi 6 BdvaTos Kal fj dvaaraais airov Kal f] ttIotis ^ Bi avTov, and Tertull.
De praescript. haeret. c. 36. (I. § 22, note e), have been misunderstood to
mean Apostolic autographs. Michaelis, Einl. I. 270. Hug, I, § 14, Ber
tholdt, II. 416. Griesbach, Curae in hist, textus Epist. Paul. sect. II, § 4,
sqq. Opp. II. 66, sqq., with Gabler's remark in preface, p. xxvi. sq.
Legend of the discovery of the autograph of the Evang. John in Philo-
siorg. H. E. VII. 14. Nicephor. H. E. X. 33. Pretended discovery of

ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § 28. 37
the same in Ephesus, Chronicon Paschale, ed. Du Fresne, p, 5  air<>
re TO iBioxeipov rau EiayytXtoTou, orrep pixP'' 'rov vvv ne<j>vXaKTai, xaptn
6eov iv TTJ 'E(|)e(ri<Bj' dyiaTaTr] 'EKKXr/tTla, K. T. X.
¦¦ Montfaucon, Palaeogr. Graec. Par. 1708. fol. Lib. Ill, Hug, I.
§ 11, ff. § 41, ff. Eichhorn, IV. § 16, ff, A. F, Pfeiffer, Ueber Biicher-
handschriften, 1810,
Writing-Materials, Writers, Style of Writing.
§ 28 a.
The N. T. authors probably used Egyptian paper {Tra-rrv-
po<!, ¦)(apTr)<s, see 2 John 12), and the letter-writers the finer
Augustan, which was very perishable. Subsequently, how
ever, the N. T. was written on parchment" {Sicjidepai,), and
still later on cotton paper. The character generally in vogue
was the uncial character. The smaller so-called cursive
character first became general in the tenth century.'' The
writing usually had neither division of words nor punc
tuation, and was without accents, breathings, or the iota
subscriptum." Hence MSS. and old commentators some
times divide the words of the N. T. differently.* They also
disputed about the division of the sentences, and differed
from each other."
* Hieron. Ep. 141. (34 in Vallarsi), referring to the library of Pamphilus
at Caesarea : — quam ex parte corruptam Acacius dehinc et Euzoius ejusdem
Ecclesiae sacerdotes in membranis instaurare conati sunt, Euseb. Vit.
Const. IV. 36, from a letter of Constantine to E. : IIpeiTov ydp KaTe(j>dvri to
S7]XS>(rai rfj afj truveirei, ojrmr &.v nevrfiKOVTa aapdna ev Bi<f>depais iyKara-
aKeiois, evavdyvaard re kcu, irpos tj/v XP'I'"'^ evperaKopicrra, vjrA rexvirav
KaXXtypd<j>av Kal dxpi^as ttjv rexvrjv iiriuTapevav, ypa^rjvai KeXevaeias.
^ Montfaucon, Palaeogr. IV. 262, sq. But there are also later MSS. in
the uncial character, e. g. Cod. Evangg. Mat. V. sec. XII. vel XIII., Cod.
Evangg. X. Ingolst. sec XI. [Errors here. Cf. Scholz, N. T. I. p.
xiii., sqq.]
' The Greeks after the time of Aristophanes of Byz., under Ptolemy
Epiph., used punctuation for grammatical purposes (Montfaucon, p. 31).
The stichometric method of writing was also known. Joseph. Antt. Lib.
XX. fin.: 'Etti TOVTOis Be Karaivavaa ttjv dpxaioKoylav, ^ipXots pev elKoai
irepieiXr)pp.evriv, l| Be pvpidai irrixav. Comp. Martianay, Prolegg. ad
Hieron. Opp, I. IV. 3. Morini, Exercitatt. p. 444. The same Aristophanes
is said to have divided the old sign of aspiration H in halves, and to have used
the one I for the rough breathing, the other for the smooth ; but most likely

38 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
the use of these signs was long confined to the schools. At length they
found admission into the uncial writing of the N. T. and into the Codd.
Vat. Clarom, etc. See the examples of writing in Montfaucon and Blan
chini. — In the most ancient times an iota postcriptum (e. g, TQI instead of
ra) was sometimes used, sometimes not. After the fourth century it fell
into disuse, and is wanting in all the uncial MSS, of the N, T,
^ Phil, i, 1, received text, <tvv imiTKoTrots ; Codd, 39, 67, 71, al, Chrys,
Theoph, Cassiod,, avvema-KOTrois. Phil. ii. 4, received text, eKacrros
o-KOjreiTe ; All. eKaaroi. oKOTre'ire or aKOTtovvres ; Cod. Boern., eKdcrrois
KOTTovvres. Ep. Jud. 6, received text, dXXd drroXnrovras ; Cod. Diez. dXXa-
noXmovTas. Gal. i. 9, TrpoetprjKapev ; Syr. Aeth. all. ¦n-poeiprjKa piv.
' Epiph. Anc. c. 75. p. 80. ed Pet. complains that some divide John i. 3
thus : irdvra Bi avrov iyevero Kal xt^ph avTov iyevero ovBev ; and proposes to
divide it thus : irdvra Bi avrov iyevero Kal x*"?'* avrov iyevero ovBev, 6
yeyovev iv avra. Chrysost. Homil. V. in Joann. : Ov ydp Br) ttjv reXeiav
oTiyprjV Ta ovBe ev intOfjaopev Kara tovs alperiKois (the Macedonians).
'Exfiyoi yap ^ovXopevoiTo nvevpa Knarov eliretv, ipaalv o yeyovev iv avra, fo)^
^v .... Bib Tavrrjv d(f)evTes, ivrl r^v vevopiapivrjv eXBapev dvdyvaaiv re Kal
i^rjyrjaiv • Tis Be iarnv avrr] ; to pexpi tov o yeyovev dvanavaai tov Xdyov •
elra drro rrjs e^rjs Xe^ems ap^aaSai rrjs Xeyoiarjs • iv airra ^arj yv. Griesb.
Var. lect. ad h. I. Hieron. ad Eph. i. 5 : Dupliciter legendum, ut caritas
vel cum superioribus vel inferioribus copuletur. Ad ep. ad Philem. 4-6 :
Ambigue dictum, utrum gratias agat Deo suo semper, an memoriam ejus
facial in orationibus suis semper. Sometimes the commentators give the
correct punctuation in doubtful passages. Theodoret. ad 2 Cor. i. 3, iv. 4,
Rom. ix. 22. Ancient MSS. also have sometimes a point. Marsh, An-
merkk. und Zusatze, I. 456, ff. § 28 6.
As the ancient writers, when composing their works, often
made use of copyists, we may look for the same in the N. T.
writers. The Apostle Paul, we know, adopted this practice
(Eom. xvi. 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2 Thess. iii. 17 ;
the contrary in Gal. vi. 11). By this means, however, errors
might creep into the text, that would not always be dis
covered and removed on its revision by the author.
Stichometry, Punctuation, Accentuation.
§ 29 a.
About A. D. 462 Euthalius, deacon at Alexandria, divided
the text of the Pauline Epistles, and soon after that also of

STICHOMETRY, PUNCTUATION, ACCENTUATION. § 29 a. 39
the Acts and of the Cathohc Epistles, into lines (o-Tt%ous),
corresponding to the pauses which would naturally be made
in reading. This division was called ^^^(pneTpM, stichom
etry, from the lines being measured off and numbered." It
was much approved of, and passed into the MSS., of which
several so arranged are extant.'' Others have at least the
number of lines at the end. Many also give the nuiuber
of prjiiara, another designation of the same or a similar
division." " Euthalius explains himself on this point in his preface to the N. T. in
Zacagni's CoUectan. monum, vet. Eccles. Gr. (Rom. 1698. 4to), I. 403, sqq.
and Gallandi's Bibl. patr. et antiqu. script. X. 199, sqq. : anxrjBbv trvvBels
Tovrav TO vtpos Kara r^v eavrov avpperpeiav Trpos evarjpov dvdyvaaiv. Cf.
Wetst. Prolegg. ed. Semi. p. 196. /. G. Rosenmuller, De fatis interpretat.
litt. ss. IV. 4, sqq. Hug, § 44. The Gospels were also stichometrically
written (see the stichometries in Mill. Proll. § 1028), though it is uncertain
whether it was done by Euthalius himself.
*• E. g. Cod. Cantabrig., where it appears thus : Acts i. 1.
TONMENnPQTONAOrONEnOlHSAMHNIIEPniANTQNaeEO*L\E CNHPSATOIHSnOIElNTE KA1A1AASKEINAXP1H2HMEPASANEAHM*GHENTEIAAMEN02T012An02T0A0IS ALAHNSAriOYOYSESEAESATOKAIEKEAEYSEKHPYSSEINTOEYAITE AION .
Cod. Coislin, in Montfaucon, Biblioth. CoisUn. p. 259, Tit, ii, 2, 3,
nPE2BYTA2 NH*AAIOYS EINAI
2EMN0Y22Q*P0NA2
YTIAINONTAS TH ni2TEI
TH APAHH
TH YnOMONH
nPE2BYTlAA2 a2AYTQ2
EN KATA2THMATI lEPGnPEHEIS
MH AIAB0A0Y2
MH OINOnOAAQ AEA0YAQMENA2
KAA0AIAA2KAA0Y2
¦= Hug, § 44. Eichhorn, § 18. p. 162.
§ 29 b.
Subsequently, to save space, the lines were not sepa
rated, but their close marked by a point, or their beginning

40 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
by large letters.'^ This, according to Hug, Eichhorn, &c.,
led to the grammatical punctuation ; but punctuation had
found its way into N. T. MSS., e. g. Cod. Alex., before
stichometry appeared, and, like the latter, served to facilitate
the reading.*" The signs and principles of punctuation,
which, after the ninth century, came more and more into
vogue, were various," and first obtained a more fixed form
in the printed editions. In the ninth century the separation
of the words by spaces or points between them became
usual.* ¦•' The former in Cod. Cyprius (on its age, cf. § 52). Matt. ii. 21, f.
{Monifauc. Palaeogr. Gr. p. 232) : O Be eyepBeis. irapeXa^e to jraiBtov. koi
TT]V pijrepa avrov. koi rjXBev «e yr)v la-parjX. aKovaas Be. on ApxeXaos ^aai-
Xevei em ttjs lovBaias. avr 'ilpaSov,Tov irarpos avrov. e(f)o^rj6i] cKei aneXBeiv.
The latter is found e. g. in the Cod. Boern. Hupfeld, in Stud. u. Kr.
1837, p. 859, does not think that the points in the Cod. Cypr. are signs of
the lines, because they are akin to the punctuation of the Cod. Boern.
i" Hupfeld, as cited above. He denies the distinction between grammat
ical and other punctuation.
° Isidor. Hisp. Origg, I- 19 : Ubi in initio pronuntiationis necdum plena
pars sensus est, et tamen respirare oportet, fit comma, id est particula sen-
sus, punctumque ad unam literam ponitur et vocatur subdistinctio ab eo,
quod punctum subtus, id est ad unam literam accipit, Ubi autem in se-
quentibus jam sententia sensum praestat, sed adhuc aliquid superest de
sententiae plenitudine, fit colon mediamque literam puncto notamus et mediam
distinctionem vocamus, qui punctum ad mediam literam ponimus. Ubi vero
jam per gradus pronuntiando plenam sententiae clausulam facimus, fit peri-
odus, punctumque ad caput literae ponimus, et vocatur distinctio i. e. dis-
junctio, quia integram separat sententiam. So the punctuation of Cod.
Basil. E. Others, as Cod. L, use a cross instead of a period ; Cod. Vatic.
1067. Colb. 700. use it instead of almost all the signs of punctuation. The
punctuation of Cod. Boern. is very bad. Compare Ge. Fr. Rogall, De
auctor. et antiquit. interpunct. in N. T. Rcgiom, 1734,
^ In the Cod, Aug,, written in the ninth century, the words are sepa
rated by points. Marsh, Zus. I. 461. § 29 c.
Euthalius, by his stichometric edition of the N. T., gave
also wider currency to accentuation,'"' which had previously,
at least in the O. T.,*" come into use. There are, however,
later MSS. which have no accents ; and accentuation did

CHAPTERS AND VERSES. § 30 b. 41
not come into general use until the tenth century. The
iota subscript came first into use about the same time in
the cursive writing; though it is often found written in
a line with the other letters."
Euthalius : ttjv re twv npd^eav ^ipXov dpa Kal KoBoXiKav imoToXav
dvayvavai Kara npoa-aBlav .... irpoaeTo^as , dBeXcpe 'ABavdoie.
" Epiphan. De ponderibus et mens. c. 2 : 'EneiBfi 8e nves Kara irpotraBlav
eari^av Tas ypa(f)ds, Kal irepl tS>v irpoa-aBiav rdBe • 6^e7a ', Baaela ', fiape'ia ,
yjfiXri ', TTepioTrapevrj ", K. i . X.
' Montfaucon, Palaeogr. Gr. pp. 276, 278, 295.

Chapters and Verses.
§ 30 a.
The present division of the New Testament into chapters
is, like that of the O. T. (Pt. I. § 78), an invention of Car
dinal Hugo, who introduced it in his Biblia cum postilla,
whence it came also into the Greek N. T. The present
division of the New Testament into verses originated with
Robert Stephens, who introduced it in his edition of A. D.
1551. § 30 &.
Quite early in antiquity icecpaXata, capitula, chapters, oc
cur ; " but probably they are, like the Capitula of Jerome in
the O. T. (Pt. I. § 77, note c), undefined sections. There
are two kinds of real sections in the Gospels: 1. In the
middle of the third century Ammonius of Alexandria, to
further his Harmony of the Gospels, divided the text into
a multitude of small sections, Ke^aXata, which Eusebius, in
the fourth century, used'' in his Canones Evangelici (a re
vised edition of that Harmony). 2. Larger sections of the
Gospels came subsequently into use, perhaps in imitation
of the divisions of Justinian's Institutes." They were called,
to distinguish them from the former, rlrXoi, breves,^ but
were also called KecpaXaia."
' Tertull. Ad uxor. II. 2 ; De pudic. c. 16 ; De came Christi, c. 19.
6

42 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
Dionys. Alex, in Euseb. H, E, VII, 25 : . , , , jrepl rrjs drroKoKv^eas
ladmov . . . . rtves pev oSv rav rvpo fjpav rjBerrja-av Kal dveaKevaaav . . . . rb
^iPXlov KaB' eKaarov Ke<^dXaiov BievBvvovres ....
'' A description of these Canones Evangg, in Marsh, I, 469, They may
be found in Mill's N, T, published by KiXsler, in the editions of Erasmus,
and in that oiRob. Sieph. A. D. 1550,
" Oesarius, brother of Gregory of Nazianzum, knows only the Ammonio-
Eusebian sections. So also Epiphanius (note d). Chrysostom also seems un
acquainted with the titXoi, for he makes no reference to them. Fhithymius
and Theophylact knew them.
^ Suid. a, V, 7-iVXof : TiVXoy Bia^epei Ke(f>aXalov • Kal 6 pev MarBaios exei
tItXovs ^rj' (68), Ke<pdXaLa rve (355), 6 Be tddpKOS titXovs pr{ (48), Ke(f>d-
Xaia T/i/3' (352), 6 Be AovKas tItXovs Try (83), Ke(j>dXata rprf (348). d Se
'icodvvris tItXovs it]' (18), Ke<jf)dXaia ' o-X/3' (232), Cod, L, : to Kara MarB.
evayy. e'xet titXovs ^t) , Kal Ke(j)dXaia Tve' . to Kara MdpK. evayy. tItXovs prj ,
Ke(f)dXaia (tX8'. to Kara Aovk. evayy. exei tItXovs jry', Ke(f>dXata rp^ . to
Kara'ladw. evayy. exei tltXovs ir}', Ke(pd\aia a-Xa . Caesar. Dial. 1. resp.
39 : Teo-o-apa rjptv mdpxei evayyeXia, Ke(jiaXalav xtXlav eKarbv e^fjKOVTa Bvo.
Epiphan. Ancor, c 50. p. 54 : Tea-irapa elalv evayyeXia, Ke(j)aXa[av x^Xiav
eKarbv e^r^Kovra Bvo.
' Schott, Introd, § 147, follows Eichhorn, IV. 172 [1) in supposing a sort
of KerpdXaia between the Ammonio-Eusebian Ke(j)dXaia and the TiVXot ;
probably a misunderstanding, § 30 c.
The Acts and Epistles were likewise divided into /ce^a-
Tuua. Euthalius also introduced into his stichometric ed.
of the N. T. tables of their contents. Those of the Pauline
Epistles he found already existing ; those of the Acts and the
Catholic Epistles he drew up.^ The Apocalypse, Andreas of
Cappadocia divided into 24 Xojoi and 72 ice^aXata.
» Euthal. . KaB' eKda-TrjV imoToXfjv Trpord^opev ttjv tS>v Ke(f>aXalav eKBeaiv,
evl Tav crot^coTdrav nvl Kal (f>tXoxpia-rav rrarepav rjpav (Theodor. Mopsv. ?)
irerrovripevriv. Wetstein (Prolegg, p, 197) erroneously regards Euthalius as
the inventor of the division itself Hug, § 48, Eichhorn, § 20, Num
ber of the Chapters: Acts, 40 ; James, 6 ; 1 Pet. 8 ; 2 Pet, 4 ; 1 John, 7 ;
2 John, 1 ; 3 John, 1 ; Jude, 4 ; Ep, to the Rom, 19 ; 1 Cor, 9 ; 2 Cor',
11 ; Gal, 12 ; Eph, 10 ; Philipp, 7 ; Coloss. 10 ; 1 Thess, 7 ; 2 Thess. 6 ;
Hebr. 22 ; 1 Tim. 18 ; 2 Tim. 9 ; Tit, 6 ; Philem, 2,

LESSONS AND PERICOPES. § 31 a. 43
Lessons and Pericopes.
§ 31a.
The N. T. books, like those of the O. T., were very early
read in the assemblies for public worship (Pt. I. § 19, note
a), and for this purpose were probably soon divided, like
the Pentateuch, into sections.'' Euthalius introduced in his
stichometric ed. a division of the Acts and Epistles into
57 lessons.*" This also took place in the Gospels. But the
number of festival days increasing, this division became un
suitable, and passages were selected for church lessons to
the exclusion of many others (e. g. Luke ii. 22 - 29, x. 43 -
xi. 27, xxi. 10 - 24, 28 - 32, John xiv. 18 - 20, xviii. 6 - 35).
These sections were assigned to the Festivals and Sun
days of the whole year, according to a certain cycle. They
were then collected in a separate book called in general
Lectionarium, eKXoyaBiov, or in special Evangeliarium, when
it contained sections of the Gospels, Epistolare, Hpa^airo-
aroXoi, when sections of the Acts and Epistles. The sec
tions in these books often follow the order in which it was
customary to read them. These reading-books arose among
the Latin Christians in the fifth century, but among the
Greeks not before the eighth century."
» Whether irepiKonr) in Clem. Alex. Strom, IV, 503, VII, 750, is exactly
such a section {Scholz, Prolegg, p, xxxi,) is very doubtful. Probably the
same holds in regard to these as to the oldest chapters (§ 30), as Jerome
translates mpiKoni] in Origen by Capitulum.
^ Euthal. : Tfjv rav dvayvatreav dKpi^earaTrjv ropfiv . . . . ripets rexvoXo-
yrjaavres dvaKe(j>aXaLaa-dpeBa. Number of the Euthalian Sections : Acts
16 (and indeed No, 1, contained 1 Ch. [i, 1-13], No. 2. 1 Ch, [i, 14-26],
No, 3, 1 Ch, [iii, 1 -iv, 31], No. 5. 2 Chh. [iv. 32 -v. 42], No. 6, 2 Chh,
[vi,]. No. 7, 4 Chh, [vii, 1 -viii, 39], &c,, comp, Augusti, Denkwiird, VI,
124) ; Jas, 2 ; 1 Pet. 2 ; 2 Pet, 1 ; 1 John, 2 ; 2 John, 1 ; 3 John, 1 ; Jude,
1 ; Rom. 5 ; 1 Cor. 5 ; 2 Cor. 4 ; Gal. 2 ; Eph. 2 ; Phil. 2 ; Col. 2 ; 1
Thess. 1 ; 2 Thess. 1 ; Hebr. 3 ; 1 Tim. 1 ; 2 Tim. 1 ; Tit, 1 ; Philem, 2,
 According to Hug, I. 266, Ihchh. IV. 176, these 57 sections correspond
to the number of Sundays and festivals, so that the whole N. T, was read
through in order every year ; but according to various statements of Chry
sostom, Augustin, and others, certain books were read at certain times, e, g.
Genesis in times of fast. Job and Jonah in Passion-week, and Acts between

44 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
Easter and Pentecost. Bingham, Origg. eccl. XIV. 3, 3. p. 63, sqq.
Rheinwald, Kirchl, Archaol, § 98, note 7.
= Gennad. De script, c 79, of Musaeus (about 450) : Excerpsit de scrip-
turis lectiones totius anni festivis diebus aptas. According to Sidon. Apollin.
IV, ep, 11, Claudianus Mamercus introduced the use of leciionaria into
the church of Vienne {Bingham, 1, c p, 71). Cf Hug, I. 269, Capitu-
lare, also Lectionarium, among the Greeks avva^dpiov, was the name of a
catalogue of the lessons arranged according to the first and last words ;
Menologium, of such a catalogue for the holy days. See the Synaxarium
and Menologium of the Codd, KM, 262. 274. in Scholz's N. T. Vol. I.
In the MSS. these lessons are indicated by a {dpxr]), t (tcXos), by the
number of the Sunday SA, 2B, &c,, or by the word dvdyvaapa,
§ 31b.
Our modern Pericopes, or Lessons, of the Gospels and
Epistles are remains of these ancient lessons, which varied
according to time and place. They are found, with few
variations, in the Lectionarium called Comes,^ a work erro
neously ascribed to Jerome, and perhaps belonging to the
ninth century. On the other hand, the oldest extant cata
logue of lessons, the Lectionarium Gallicanum, as well as
the Lectionarium Romanum, differs from them more widely.''
The Pericopes of festivals are probably the oldest, although
the selection of numerous accounts of miracles seems to
indicate a time when the Divinity of Christ had to be
maintained against the Arians."
* Ed. J. Pamelius, 2 tom. Colon. 1675 ; best in Baluz. Capitul. reg.
Franc, T, II, p, 1309, also in Vallars. Opp, Hieron, XI, 526,
^ They are compared together in Rheinwald, Kirchl, Archaol. Beil.
XXII. Augusti, Denkw. VI, 212, ff.
= Augusti, ut supra, 203, ff. Lisco, Das Kirchenjahr, I, 84, f, Comp,
also Thamer, De orig, et dignitate pericopar, Jen, 1716, 4to, Guil.
Rothe, De pericoporum, quae hodie in eccl. Danorum usurpantur, origine.
Havn, 1839, E. Ranke, Das kirchliohe Perikopensystem aus den altesten
Urkunden der Rom, Liturgie dargelegt und erlautert, Berl, 1847,
Superscriptions and Subscripts.
§ 32 a.
The superscriptions of the N. T. books were not given
by their authors, but by readers after their time. This

SUPERSCRIPTIONS AND SUBSCRIPTS. § 32 b. 45
appears, — 1. from their character, which, at least in part, is
not in harmony with the authors, their objects, or their re
lation to their first readers ; * 2. from their being different in
different MSS.;'' 3. from the testimony of the Fathers."
The Evangelists perhaps prefixed to their work the title
evajyeXtov only.* The discriminating titles, Kara MaTdalov,
&c., were subsequently added.
* E. g. TTpd^eis rav dTTOtrrdXav — fj Trpbs T&iopivBlovs imtTToXrj irparrj —
laavvov iTnaroXrj Trparrj.
E. g. al irpd^eis rav dylav dirooTToXav — AouKa evayyeXiarov npd^eis
drroo'ToXav — al jrpd^eis rav dTToardXav tov dyiov AovKa toC evayyeXiarov —
npd^eis rav dylav aTTOo'TdXav, frvyypa^eXaai virb AovKa tov evayy eXiarov .
" Tertull. Adv, Marc. iv. 2 : Contra Marcion Evangelic, scilicet suo,
nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere,
cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere. Cf. c 5 : Dico itaque apud
illas (ecclesias) nee solas jam apostolicas, sed apud universas, quae illis de
societate sacramenti confoederantur, id Evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis
suae stare, iv. 11 : — epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habe-
mus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. c. 17 : ecclesiae quidem veritate epis-
tolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos ; sed Marcion
ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explo-
rator. Nihil autem de titulis interest. Chrysostom. Homil. I. in ep. ad
Rom. Mavaijs pev rnvre ^i^Xia crvyypd'\lras, ovBapov to ovopa to eavrov
TeSeiKev, ovBe ol jxeT iKelvov rd per iKelvov trvvBevres, aXX ovBe MarBaios,
ovBe 'ladwTjs, ov MapKOS, ov AovKas • 6 Be jiaKapios IlavXos Travraxov rav
eTTLOToXav avTov to ovojia avrov TvporiBrjai.
^ Chrysostom. Homil. I. in Matth. praef. : Bid tovto evayyeXiov ttjv
loTopiav iKoXeaev. § 32 &.
The subscripts were originally only repetitions of the
superscriptions ; afterwards, however, historic statements
drawn from tradition or conjecture were added.^ Eutha
lius introduced such (in part) incorrect subscripts into his
stichometric edition, using the statements of the Synopsis
Scripturce [erroneously ascribed to Athanasius]. They have
thus been propagated in the MSS.*"
' E. g. evayyeXiov Kara MarBaiov — rekos tov Kara MarB. evayyeXiov ....
i^eSSBrj im" avrov s. iypd<j>ri . . . . ev 'lepovaaXrjp s. UaXmcrrivrj h. dvaroXij
rfj 'E^patBi, BiaXcKTa s. 'E^pdiari .... /xera xpoVous rj' rrjs tov

eEe

46 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
Xpiarov dvaXfi-\JAeas .... fjpprjvevBrj Be virb 'laxajSou dBeXcfiov rov Kvpiov s,
VTrb 'jadvvov.
"¦ Erroneously: Trpos FaXaTay iypdipr) dwb 'Faprjs. rrpbs BeaaaXoviKels a .
jS". iypdtprj dm 'ABrjvav. Trpos KopivBiovs a', iypdfptj dirb ^iXiTfTrav. Cf,
Paley, Horae Paulin,, deutsche Uebers, p. 325, f.
Conclusions from the Foregoing, affecting the Criticism of the
Text.
§ 33.
Accordingly, the text of the N. T., whose investigation
and restoration are the problem of criticism, comprises
nothing but what is indicated by the mere letters, without
regard to their division into words, their punctuation, or
accentuation. The division into chapters and verses, and
the super- and sub-scriptions are, moreover, adventitious.

CHAPTER II.
HISTORY ov THB TEXT ITSELF.

I. — Of the Unpeinted Text,

It has remained free from gross Corruptions.
§ 34 a.
The Catholics, out of respect for the history, have re
frained from extensive corruptions of the text. Under the
early established unity of the Catholic Church, such were,
indeed, scarcely possible. In this respect they were ex
tremely watchful of the heretics, whom they charge, some
times falsely, with corrupting the Scriptures."
" Iren, Adv. haer. IV. 6, 1 : Nemo cognoscit filium nisi pater, neque
patrem quis cognoscit nisi filius et cui voluerit filius revelare. Sic et Mat-

HISTORY OP THE UNPRINTED TEXT. § 34 b. 47
thaeus (xi. 27) posuit et Lucas (X. 22) similiter, et Marcus idem ipsum.
Joannes enim praeterit locum hunc. Hi autem, qui peritiores Apostolis
volunt esse, sic describunt : Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius, nee filium nisi
pater et cui voluerit filius revelare : et interpretantur, quasi a nullo cognitus
sit verus Deus ante Domini nostri adventum, et eum Deum, qui a Prophetis
sit annuntiatus, dicunt non esse patrem Christi. Comp,, however, Justin.
M. Apol. II. 95. — Tertullian, De carne Christi, c. 19 ; Quid est ergo :
non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt? Hoc
quidem capitulo ego potius utar, quum adulteratores ejus obduxero. Sic
enim scriptum esse contendunt, non : non ex sanguine, nee ex carnis volun
tate, nee ex viri, sed ex Deo natus est: quasi supra dictos credentes in
nomine ejus designet. (The non must be read twice.) But the heretical
reading is the correct one. — • Ambros. De fide V. 8 : Scriptum est, inquiunt
{Ariani) : De die autem illo et hora nemo scit, neque angeli coelorum, nee filius,
nisi solus pater. Primum veteres non habent codices Graeci, quod nee filius
scit. Sed non mirum, si et hoc falsarunt, qui scripturas interpolavere. But
comp. the various readings of Matt. xxiv. 36 and Mark xiii. 32. — Ambros.
De spir. sancto. III, 11 : Ipse Dominus dixit in Evangelic (John iii, 6) :
quoniam Deus spiritus est. Quem locum ita expresse Ariani testificamini
esse de spiritu, ut eum de vestris codicibus auferatis ; atque utinam de
vestris et non etiam de ecclesiae codicibus toUeretis, But see the various
readings of John iii, 6.
§ Mb.
Marcion especially is charged with corrupting the Gospel
of Luke and the Pauline Epistles."' His course in regard
to Luke we shall see further on (§ 70, ff.). As respects the
Pauline Epistles, the charges of the Fathers are in a meas
ure unfounded, for either he had correct readings or such as
elsewhere occur, or his readings are innocent errors.'' Others
of his readings, however, and especially certain omissions,
are, not without reason, ascribed to heretical designs," and
several are such and so important that they can be regarded
only as designed corruptions.'^ In other statements Ter
tullian and Epiphanius contradict each other. The former
adduces from the Epistles to the Thessalonians only small
corruptions; the latter declares them wholly corrupted (p.
371, ed. Petav.). The former complains of trifling corrup
tions of the Epistle to the Philippians (c. 20), and declares
the Epistle to Philemon quite uninjured (c. 21) ; the latter
declares both to be wholly corrupted (p. 373, sqq.)."

48 CRITICISM OP THB TEXT.
» Iren. Adv, haer. I, 27, 2: — Apostoli Pauli literas abscidit, auferens
quaecunque manifeste dicta sunt ab Apostolo de eo Deo, qui mundum fecit,
quoniam hie pater Domini nostri J, C, et quaecunque ex Propheticis
memorans Apostolus docuit, praenuntiantibus adventum Domini, Tertull.
Adv. Marc 1. V. Epiphan, Adv. haeres. XLII. § 9 : nva irepirepvav, nva
Be dXXoimo-as KecfydXaia. The following writers have tried to defend him :
Lqffler, Marcionem Pauli epp. et Lucae evang. adulterasse dubitatur. 1788.
in Velthusen, Kuinol, et Ruperli, Commentt. theol. I, 180, sqq, Schelling,
De Marcione epp, Paulinarum emendatore, 1795. Eichhorn, Einl. III. 1.
35, Ritschl, Das Evang, Marc. p. 151, ff. Baur, Krit. Unterss. lib. d.
kan. Evangg, p, 413, ff,
' Gal. ii. 5, Marc, correctly: oh ovBe. Tertull. (1. V. 3), with other
Latin authorities, omitted it, 2 Cor. iv. 4 : Tertull. (I. V. c, 11) charges
him with connecting the words 6 Bebs tov alavos tovtov, which alone is
correct. 1 Thess. ii. 15 : Marc, tovs IBlovs 7rpo(j)fiTas, with text. rec. ;
Tertull c. 15, tovs 7rpo(pfjTas. Gal. v. 9 : Marc, with DE Vulg, etc. BoXoi,
Epiph. ^vpol. 1 Cor. x. 19 : Marc, on lepoBvrov n ianv j) elBaXoBvrov ti
ianv ; Epiph. oTt elBaXoBvrov Tt ianv ; text. rec. ort e'lBaXov rl ianv ; fj
oTt elBaXoBvrov Ti ianv ; Cf, var, lect, in Griesb. 1 Cor, xiv. 19 : Marc.
with Ambrstr. Bid tov vbpov instead of Bid rov voos pov. 1 Cor. ix, 8 : Marc.
el Kal 6 vdpos Maaias ravra oi Xeyei, where the el probably sprang from rj' ;
for Marc, read v. 10. Eph. v. 31: Marc, omitted rrj yvvaiKi (comp. note
d), a senseless error in transcription.
" The reading 1 Cor, xv. 45, 6 eaxaros Kvpios instejad of 6 eoxaros 'ABdp,
had, according to Tertull. c, 10, this ground: Ne si etDominum novissimum
haberet Adam, et ejusdem Christum defenderemus in Adam novissimo,
cujus et primum, 2 Thess, i, 8 : Marc, omitted iv nvpl ipXoyos, ne scilicet
nostratem Deum faceret [Tertull. c. 16). Eph. ii. 15 : Marc, ttjv exBpav iv
rfj aapKL (without avrov), ut inimicitiae daret carnem quasi carnali vitio, non
Christo aemulae  cujus supra sangui.nem confessus es, hie negas
carnem ( Tertull. c 17), Eph, ii, 20 : Marc, omitted Kal rvpoc^Tjrav : timuit
scilicet, ne et super veterum prophetarum fundamenta aedifioatio nostra con-
staret in Christo ( Tertull. c 17). Col, i, 15 : M. omitted TrpcoTOTOKos lida-rjs
KTia-eas and the whole 16 ver. : " haec enim Marcioni displicere oportebat "
[Tertull. c 19), which Ritschl and Baur erroneously deny.
¦• According to Jerome (Comment, in ep. ad Gal.) , Gal. iii, 6-9 was omit
ted ; and Hahn (Das Evang, Marc, p, 52) finds this also in Tertull V, 3 :
Quum adjicit: omnes enim filii estis fidei, ostenditur, quid supra haeretica
industria eraserit, mentionem sc Abrahae, R. and 5., however assert that
only ver, 7 can have been omitted, and probably through a mistake in copy
ing. As Tertull. says: Accepimus igitur benedictionem spiritalem per fidem
(Gal, iii, 14, second half) inquit  sed cum adjicit, omraex enim estis filii
fidei (ver.26), H concludes that Marcion read only the second half of ver. 14
and proceeded at once to ver. 26, which R. contradicts. According to H.
iv, 3 followed iii. 26, and ran thus : Adhuc secundum hominem dico (from

EARLY RISE OP FALSE READINGS. § 35. 49
ver. 15), dum essemus parvuli, etc. according to Tertull. c. 4: Adhuc
secundum hominem dico, dum essemus parvuli, etc. Atquin non est hoc
humanitus dictum, non enim exemplum est, sed Veritas  Illud autem
fuit (humanitus dictum) quod cum secundum hominem dixisset (ver, 15):
tamen testamentum nemo spernit, etc  Erubescat spongia Marcionis.
According to R. the last words refer only to the supplying of the formula
Kara avSparrov Xeya ; according to B. to the omission of ver, 7 (!). Of Gal.
iv, 4, Marc, dropped yevbpevov ix yvvaiKos, yevopevov vnb vbpov (against this
Ritschl, p, 160). He left the most of chap. iv. 21-31 standing, and helped
himself by supposing an allegory after ver. 24 ; but he struck out ver. 27 -
30, which passage Tertull. does not quote. In 2 Cor, iv. 13, Marc, accord
ing to Epiph. omitted the words, Kara to yeypappevov • iniarevaa, Bib
eXdXrja-a. Tertull. also omits to mention it. — After citing Rom. ii. 2,
Tertull. says (c 13) : Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime epistola
Marcion fecerit, de nostri instrumenti integritate parebit, Mihi sufficit,
quae proinde eradenda non vidit, quasi negligentias et caecitates ejus acci-
pere ; and then goes on with chap, ii, 16, so that what lay between seems to
have been wanting. But Epiphanius quotes chap. ii. 12. After Rom. viii.
11, Tertullian says (c. 14): Salio et hie amplissimum abruptum intercisae
scripturae, sed apprehendo testimonium perhibentem Apostol um Israeli, quod
quidem zelum Dei habeant (Rom. x. 1-4). — Atquin exclamat: O profun-
dum divitiarum, etc. (Rom. xi. 33). Unde ilia eruptio? Ex recordatione
scilicet scripturarum, quas retro revolverat, ex contemplatione sacramento-
rum, quae supra dissetuerat in fidem Christi ex lege venientem. Haec si Mar
cion de industria erasit, quid Apostolus ejus exclamat? Cap. x. 5 — xi, 32
was wholly wanting, and xi, 33 followed x. 4, Epiphanius cites only x. 4,
between viii, 4 and xiii, 8. What R. and B. answer to this has no weight.
— Eph. iii. 9 : Marc, tw Bea, ra rd ndvra Kriaavn, without iv and Bid 'irjaov
Xpto-Tov {Tertull c. 18). In chap, v. 31, Marcion omitted koi Trpoa-KoXXrj-
Bfjo-erai irpbs ttjv yvvaiKa avroij { Tertull. c. 18 ; according to Epiph. Schol.
III. p, 318, only yvvaiKi [com, text Trpos t, y. avr.] was dropped). In chap,
vi, 2, he omitted ^ns iarlv ivroXrj rrparrj iv inayyeXla {Tertull. 1, c).
" Probably the Marcionites constantly allowed themselves to make altera
tions, Origen complains, Comm, in ep. ad Rom. ad xvi. 25, of a great
corruption: Caput hoc (xvi. 25-27) Marcion, a quo scripturae evangeli
eae atque apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac epistola penitus abstulit.
Et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo, ubi scriptum est : omne autem, quod non
ex fide est, peccatum est (xiv. 23), usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit.
Early Rise of False Readings.
§ 35.
Besides the natural occasions of false readings, the cor
ruption of the text was promoted by the slight regard in

50 CRITICISM OP THB TEXT.
which the Christians of the first centuries held the letter,
and the arbitrariness with which many allowed themselves
to make alterations. False readings crept in at an early
period, as was then expressly asserted, and is evident from
the citations of the Church writers.* But when, in later
times, controversies about dogmas, and exegetical labor,
brought about a greater regard for the text, this laxness
passed away.''
' Dionys. of Corinth, in Euseb. H, E, IV, 23 : imoToXas ydp ....
eypaiffa • Kal ravras ol rov Bia^oXov dTToaroXoi ^i^avlav yeyepiKav, d pev
i^aipovvres, d Be irpoa-nBeVTes , • . . ov Bavpaarbv apa el Kal rav KvpiOKav
paBiovpyfjaal nves iiriPejiXrjVTai. ypa(j>av. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. IV. c. 6.
p, 490, ed, Sylb, : MaKaptoi, (^rpriv, ol BeBiaypevoi eveKev BiKaioavvrjS, on
avTol viol Beov KXiqBrjaovTai' fj, as Ttves rav perariBevTav rd evay
yeXia, MaKapiOi, (prjo-iv, ot BeBiaypevoi utto rrjs BiKaioavvrjs , on avTol eaovrai
teXeioi, Origen, Comm. in Matth. xv. 671, ed, Ruaei: Nuvl Be BrjXovon
TToXXfj ¦ycyoi'ej' fj rav dvnypd(j>av Bia(j}opd, e'ire dnb paBvpias nvav ypacfieav,
e'lre dm roXprjs tij'cSj' poxBrjpds Trjs BiopBaaeas rav ypa(popevav, e'ire Kai dm
TCBI/ Tct eavTols BoKOVvra iv rfj BtopBaaei TTpoanBevrav rj dcl)aipovvTav. Ori
gen's own rashness in emendation, in John i, 28, Comm, in Joann, vi, 140,
Epiphan. Ancor, c 31, ed, Petav, IL 36 : 'AXXa koI eKXavae (6 'I;;o-o0s),
KeXrai iv ra Kara AovKav evayyeXia, iv tois dBiopBarots dvnypdcfiois. 'Opdo-
Bo^oi Be d^eiXovTO rb prjrov, (jlo^rjBevres Kal pfj vofjaavres avrov rb
Te'Xos Kal rb la-xvpoTarov. Scholz (Prolegg,), to support his assertion that
the text of the N, T, was preserved incorrupt during the first centuries, has
laid down several untenable positions ; among them (§ 4) this, that the oldest
citations of N, T, passages often give the unadulterated text. Against this
observe Polycarp. ad Philipp, c 1 . bv eyeipev 6 Bebs Xva-as rds aBlvas tov
abov (Acts ii. 24). D. Syr. and others have this last instead of Bavdrov.
In c, 5 he omits in the passage 1 Cor, vi, 10, ov with ABDE and others.
Further see Tischendorf, Proll. ad ed. N. T, [Lips, 1841,] p, xxv. sqq.
•¦ Griesb. Hist, text, Gr, Epp, Paul., Opusc. II. 129. Rinck, Lucubr.
crit. p. 10. Modes of their Origin.
§ 36 a.
The same here took place as in the O. T. text (cf. Pt. I.
§ 83, ff.). I. False readings arose through error : 1. Of
sight : exchange of letters, misplacement of words, omission
of words and sentences per 6p,oLOTe\evTov, or even repetition.*

ORIGIN OP FALSE READINGS. § 36 b. 51
2. Of hearing; especially through itacism in pronuncia
tion.^ 3. Of memory: misplacement of words, exchange
of synonymes." 4. Of the understanding : false division of
words, false reading of abbreviations, adoption of glosses
and parallelisms into the text.*
* Mark v. 14: dvfjyyeiXav for aTnjyyetXaj'. Acts xxvii. 6 : dve^i^aaev for
ive^l^aaev. Rom, xii. 13 : pvelais for ;)(p6iais. Rom. i. 13 : Kapmv nva
(common text) for nva Kapmv. Rom. ix. 11 : toO Beov repoBeais for Trp, t, B.
Matt, v. 19 : D and other Codd. omit all that follows the first iv rfj ^axn-
Xeia Tmy ovpavav. Matt. x. 23 : (jievyere els rfjV aXXrjv (received text) for
<f>evyeTe els ttjv erepav, Kav tK Taiirrjs BiaKao'iv i/ias, (jjevyere els rfjV oKXrjv
(cf, on the other hand, our remarks on the passage). Rom, xiv, 6: ABC
DEFG and other authorities drop the words kou 6 pfj <f)povav — ^povel,
&c. In Matt, xxvii. 35, this supposition is untenable on other grounds.
Luke vii. 21 : ixapicraro to pXeireiv for ix. j3X. Luke ix. 49 : ex/SaXXoi/Ta
TO Baipovia for ek^, Baip. 1 Thess, ii, 7 : iyevtjBrjpev vfjirioi for iyev. rjmoi.
^ Rom. ii. 17 : IBe for el Be. 1 John iv, 2 : yivaaKerai for yivaoKere.
Matt, xxvii, 6 : Keva for Kaiva. 1 Cor-, x, 13: fjXei(f>ev (Cod, Alex,) for
e'iXri<}>ev. 1 Pet. ii, 3: xptaros (Cod, Diez,) for xpvo'ros. Acts xvii, 31 :
eiKovpevrjV for olKovpevrjv. Acts v, 19 : rjvv^e (Cod, Diez,) for rjvoi^e. Acts
V. 36, received text irpoa-eKoXXfjBrj ; probably more correctly irpoaeKXlBrj
(AB), in its stead npoa-eKXfjBij (CD*E). — Luke iii, 35 : paya/3 for payov,
<f)aXey for (paXeK. Rom. i. 30 : KOKoXaXovs (Cod. D) for (coTaXa'Xous.
' Matt. XX, 10 : dvd Brjvdpiov Kal avroi for p.. av. dv. Brjv. John xvi, 22 :
vvv pev XvTTTjv for Xvtttjv pev vvv. xviii, 7 ; inTjpaTrjaev avrovs for avr. iir.
1 Cor, xii, 20: wvl for vvv. Revelation xvii, 17: tol pfjpara (com, text)
for 01 Xoyoi. 1 Pet, iii, 13 : ptprjTai (com. text) for ^rjXaTal. Rom. ii, 16 :
3 for oTE. Acts ix. 26 : els for iv. Acts xvi. 40 : els (com. text) for Trpo's.
Acts xviii. 2 : otto' for c'k, and many others.
^ Phil. i. 1 : avvema-KOTTois for o'vv eVio-Korrois. 2 Cor. xii. 19: rd Be for
TaSe. 1 Tim. iii. 16: for 62 was read 02, O, or vice versa. Acts i. 12:
after aa^^drov exov oBov, Cod. 40 reads toitovtov tv rb Bidarrjpa, oo-ov Bv-
varbv ' lovBaiov irepmarfjaai iv aa^^dra. Rom. viii. 28 : after avvepye'i,
Codd, AB, ^eos. 2 Cor, viii, 4 : after dyiovs, coca, text, Be^aoBai fjpds. In
Cod, Cant, in Matt, xxvi, 60, the grammatical sign to e^fjs is adopted. Cf
Credner, Beitr. I. 461. Matt, xxvii, 35, supplied from John xix. 24. Acts
ix. 5, i. from xxvi. 14. § 36 &.
II. The text was altered also with more or less distinct
design : 1. To correct, beautify, or make perspicuous the
language." 2. To remove historical, geographical, archse-

52 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
ological, and dogmatic difliculties, and to introduce dogmas
into the texf 3. To follow the explanations of distin
guished commentators." 4. The liturgical use of the N. T.
occasioned additions and omissions.'^
» Removal of the Alexand. conjugation-forms elrrav, fjXBav, eirea-av. Sua.
Grammatical emendations : Revel, ii. 20 : rtjv yvvaiKa . . . . rfjv Xeyovaav
(com. text) for rfjv y  fj Xiyovaa. Rev. iv. 1 , Xeyovaa (reed, text)
for Xeyav. John i, 14: TrXi^p?; (Cod, D) for jrXfjprjs. Matt, vii. 25, avrfjs
omitted, Luke viii. 31 : TrapeKoXei for rrapeKaXovv. 1 Cor, iv, G : iva . . . .
<j)va-iaa-8e for Iva .... (pvoiova-Be. Acts XX, 16 : e'lT] for ^v. Luke vi, 38 :
a ydp perpa perpelre for ra ydp avra jierpa a perpelre. Matt. XV. 32 :
fjpepas rpels for fjpepai rpels. Mark viii, 31: iitto for aTTo', Removal of a
zeugma : Luke i, 64 , instead of dveaxBrj rb crropa avToS jrapaxpfjpa Kal fj
yXao-aa avrov, Codd. : dv r. or. avr. Trap. koL iXvBr] 6 Beapbs rijs yXaaarjs
avrov. Removal of Hebraisms : Matt. ix. 8 : iBavpaaav for icjjoPfjBrjorav.
Mark xiv. 25 : ovk en ov pfj ma for ov pfj rrpoa-Ba meiv. Doing away a
tautology: Mark xii. 23, instead of ei/ rfj dvaa-rda-et, orav dvaaraaiv, several
Codd. simply iv rfj dvaarda-ei. Removal of a pleonasm : 2 Cor. xii. 6,
omission of n in D*EFG 37, all. Exchange of a less usual expression for
a more usual: 1 Pet. ii, 20, for KoXa(pi.Cdpevoi, Codd, KoXa^opevoi.
¦¦ Mark ii. 26 : iirl 'AfiidBap tou dpxiepeas was, on account of 1 Sam. xxi.
1, either wholly or in part omitted, or the name changed to Abimelech.
Matt, xxvii. 9: some Codd. leave out 'lepepiov, others read Zaxapiov. Mark
XV, 25 : eKTTj for Tpirrj after John xix. 14, and there TpiTi; for ekttj. John i.
28, for BrjBavia, com. text according to Orig. BrjBa^apa. Mark x. 12: i^
eXBrj dm TpC dj'Spo's for dtroXvoTj rbv dvBpa avrrjs. John vii. 39 : otVto ydp
rjv TTvevpa dyiov \ addition, ctt' auTois, or BeBopevov, or BoBev, and the like.
Matt, V. 22, eiK^ was on moral grounds either added, or omitted by others.
Luke ii. 33 : 'laa-fi(p for 6 narfip avrov. Mark xiii. 32 : omitted, ovBe 6
vios. Acts XX, 28 : Beov (reed, text) for Kvpiov. 1 John v, 7, the addition
of the three heavenly witnesses,
" 2 Cor, i, 20, the reading Bid for Kal rests probably on Theodoret's ex
planation, ^ Matt. iv. 12, and often, 6 'irjo-ovs introduced ; vi. 13, addition of the
doxology ; xiii. 23, addition, 6 exav dsra, k.t.X. ; dpfjv, at the end of books.
The readings of the received text. Acts iii. 11, toC laBevros x<"^oi), and
XX, 16, eKpive, came from Lectionaries,
Griesbach's System of Recensions.
§ 37.
Griesbach noticed in the MSS. and versions of the N. T.,
and in the citations of the Fathers, certain peculiarities of

GRIESBACH'S system of RECENSIONS. § 37. 53
the text as a whole. Guided by these, he arranged the
whole mass of critical authorities in three divisions, and
thereby simplified the examination of their testimony. He
called the different divisions of the text Recensions, and laid
down the three following : —
1. The Occidental Recension, whose authorities and docu
ments are Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenceus (Lat. trans.), Ambrose,
Augustine, &c. ; the Latin versions before Jerome, the &-
hidico- Coptic and Jerusalem Syriac; the MSS. of the Gos
pels D 1. 13. 69. 118. 124. 131. 157., of the Pauline Epistles
DEFG. Its character is exegetical, it contains glosses and
circumlocutions, and is the most strongly Hebraistic.
2. The Alexandrine Recension, whose authorities and
documents are Clement of Alex., Origen, Eusebius, Athana
sius, Cyril of Alex., Isidore of Pelusium, &c. ; the Mem-
phitico- Coptic, Philoxenian Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian
versions ; the manuscripts BCL 33. 102. 106. of the Gos
pels, of the Epistles, ABC 17. 46. 47. Its peculiarity is
greater grammatical purity and correctness of language.
3. The Constantinopolitan Recension, which consists of
the writings of the Fathers of Greece, Asia Minor, and the
neighboring provinces, from the fourth to the sixth centuries ;
the Gothic and Slavic versions; the MSS. of the Gospels
AEFGHS, and the Moscow MSS. of the Pauline Epistles.
Its peculiarity lies in the mixture of the other two recen
sions. It follows more closely the Greek idiom, but con
tains also glosses, and approaches the Received Text.
Griesbach assigns the Syriac Peshito to neither of these
recensions, and thinks it has been repeatedly altered after
different Greek MSS. Chrysostom's text of the Gospels,
also, he regards as a mixture of various recensions. The text
in manuscripts PQT is likewise mixed, and indeed several
documents of the Occidental and Alexand. recensions have
suffered adulteration. MSS. also, which, on the whole,
belong to the Constantinop. recension, e. g. Codd. KM 10.
11. 17. 22. 28. 36. 40. 57. 61. 63. 64. 72. 91. 108. 127. 142.
209. 229. 335,, contain mixtures from other recensions.*

54 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
^ Griesbach, Prolegg. in ed, 3, N, T, p, Ixx. sqq. Curae in hist, text.
Gr, Epp, Paulin, spec. I, sect, II, § 14, 15, Hiinlein, Einl, ins N, T. II.
120, ff, — Earlier hints by Bengel and Semler (§ 46),
§ 38.
Griesbach considered only the Alexandrine form of the
text the result of a genuine recension, which was under
taken on placing together the EvayyeXiov and the Attoctto-
Xo? (Pt. I. § 21) ; the Occidental, on the other hand, and
the Constantinopolitan, as not, in strictness, entitled to the
name." These two he regarded as accidental results of
the negligence and arbitrariness of copyists and pseudo-
critics. The Occidental he derives from the ancient MSS.
current before the ' Airoa-ToXof was collected ; the Constan
tinopolitan he regards as a mixture of the two old recen
sions. The birthplace of the recensions he deduced partly
from their origin and circulation, and partly from their
versions and from the Fathers who adopted them.
But in this system all is uncertain ; for we know nothing
of the rise of the oldest collections of N. T. books, and no
critical document contains a recension in its pure state, or
maintains throughout the character ascribed to it.''
' Curae in hist. text. § 13. Meletema II, de vetustis textus N, T, re-
cens,, prefixed to his Comment, crit. Part. II. p, xxxiv,
' Schulz, Praef. ad ed. 3, N. T. Griesb. p, xxxiii. J. G. Reiche, Codi
cum MSS, N, T, Graec, aliquot insign. in Bibliotheca reg. Paris, asserva-
torum nova descriptio et cum textu vulgo recepto collatio (Gott. 1847, a,)
p, 2, sqq. Hug's System.
§ 39.
Hug agrees with Griesbach in finding in MSS. D 1. 13.
69. 124. of the Gospels, and DEFG of the Epp., and in the
old Latin and Sahidico- Coptic versions, a text in general
similar to the Occidental, but unrevised and debased, which
he designates by the name (borrowed from the critical
history of the LXX.) of koovt] e/cBoeri'; ; but differs from him
in numbering the Peshito, and the Alexandrians Clement

hug's system. § 39. 55
and Origen, among its authorities." — As regards this ver
sion, Griesbach yielded in a measure, and acknowledged
in it a peculiar form of the text akin to the Koivrj ; but in
regard to Clement and Origen he greatly limits Hug's
assertion.'' Later, according to Hug, an end was put to this debased
condition of the text by three different recensions in the East.
1. Hesychius, the critical reviser of the LXX. (Pt. I. § 46),
he supposes brought the text into the form in which it
exists in some authorities of Griesbach's Alexand. recension,
in Codd. BCL of the Gospels, Codd. ABC 17. 46. of the
Epp., in the Memphitic version, Athanasius, Cyril of Alex
andria, and others. — But the historic evidence in support
of this recension is very unsatisfactory, for the MSS. as
cribed to Hesychius seem to have had little circulation."
The form of the text which Hug ascribes to Hesychius be
longs, moreover, to the time of Origen, and even of Clement
of Alexandria.
2. The so-called Constantinopolitan recension (in MSS.
EFGH of the Gospels, SVbh Matth., and in most cursive
MSS., in Cod. G of the Pauline Epp., and in the Moscow
MSS.) Hug ascribes to Lucian, who is said to have revised
the Koivrj, on which the Peshito was based. Against this
Griesbach has adduced nothing, although the historical proof
seems also unsatisfactory.'*
3. Hug finds a distinct recension, not laid down by Gries
bach, in the MSS. AKM 42. 106. 114. 116. of the Gospels,
in the Philoxenian Syriac version, and in the writings of
Chrysostom and Theodoret, and ascribes it to Origen. But
this form of the text is not sufficiently independent, and the
fact that Origen undertook a recension of the N. T. cannot
be proved, and is intrinsically unlikely."
• Einl. ins N. T. I. § 22, ff.
'' Melet. II. p. xlvii. sqq. and Melet. I. In the latter he shows that
Origen used an Occidental MS. only in the Commentary on Matt. Hug
himself confesses that Clement often follows ABC. § 32, p. 183,
' After subtracting the passages which Hug, § 36, cites (cf Pt. I. § 46),
and which refer to the LXX., only the following proofs remain. Hieron.
Praef in 4 Evangg. ad Damasum : Praetermitto eos codices, quos a Lu-

56 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
ciano et Hesychio nuncupates paucorum hominum asserit perversa conten
tio, etc (§ 26, note b). Decret. Pars I, distinct, XV, § 27: Evangelia
quae falsavit Lucianus et Hesychius apocrypha. Already Semler (ad
Wetstenii libell. ad crisin N. T, pertinentes, pp, 83, 177) considered both
of these men authors of widely circulated recensions. Comp,, on the other
side, Scholz (Prolegg, § 29) ; Rink, Lucubr, crit, pp, 7, 59.
^ Besides the passages adduced in note c, the following rather opposes
than supports it. Hieron. Be vir. illustr. c. 77 : Lucianus .... tantum in
scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque nunc quaedam exemplaria scriptura
rum Luoianea nuncupentur.
' Griesbach, 1. c, p, Iviii, sqq, Scholz, Prolegg, § 28, The traces in
Hieronym. (ad Matt, xxiv, 36) prove little: In quibusdam Latinis Codicibus
additum est : neque filius : quum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii
exemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum. Ad Gal, iii, 1 : , , . . hoc
quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus. Opposed to it is
Origen's own testimony (Tom, xv, in Matt. III. 671), where the Latin
translator adds : In exemplaribus autem N. T, hoc ipsum me posse facere
sine periculo non putavi. Against Hug'syievi in general, see Rink, 1, c
Similar view of Eichhorn, IV, § 34, ff., save that he does not adopt
a recension by Origen, He discriminates an unrevised text in Asia and
Africa, a recension of the former by Lucian, of the latter by Hesychius, and
a mixture of both texts. Dissenting Views.
§ 40 a.
Chr. Fr. Matihdi, who regarded the old Occidental and
Alexandrian MSS., the quotations of the Fathers, and
the old versions, as unreliable, rejects the whole recension
system, and finds the genuine text in his Moscow MSS.
alone." Also J. Mart. Augustin Scholz declares the Constanti
nopolitan to be the genuine, uncorrupted text. The text
of what Griesbach called the Occidental and Alexandrian
authorities he puts together, and regards it as the result of
the prevailing carelessness of the Egyptian grammarians in
the first three centuries. The Constantinopolitan, on the
other hand, he deduces from the original text current in
Greece, Asia Minor, and Syria, and which, through the
conscientious regard that prevailed in the fourth century
towards the sacred writings, had been carefully preserved.''

DISSENTING VIEWS. § 40 b. 57
> Ueber die sogen, Recensionen, welche der Abt Bengel, der D, Semler
und der geh. K. R. Griesbach in d. griech. Texte des N. T, wollen ent-
deckt haben, Leipz, 1804,
^ Grundlinien e, Gesch, d, Textes d. N. T., in his Bibl, krit, Reise.
Leipzig, 1823. p. 163, ff. Prolegg. ad edit, N. T. § 20, sqq. 51, sqq.
Other views in his Curae crit. in hist. text. Evangg. Heidelb. 1820. 4to.
Rink agrees with him (Lucubr. crit. p. 2, sqq.). He accepts only two
classes of MSS,, the Occidental (in the Epp, ABCDEFG), and the Ori
ented (the cursive MSS,), The former he divides into two families, —
the African (ABC) and the Latin (DEFG) MSS. He also regards the first
class as in part the result of grammatical arbitrariness, in part of ignorance
and carelessness. Tischendorf (Prolegg. ad edit. N. T. p. xiv.) closely
follows Rink. He arranges the uncial MSS. thus : the African, BCLXN
PQTWZYF of the Gospels, ABC of Acts, ABC of the Pauline Epistles,
ABC of the Cath. Epistles, AC of the Apocalypse ; the Latin, D. 1. 13. 69.
124, of the Gospels, DE of the Acts, DEFG of the Pauline Epistles ; the
Constantinopolitan, FGHSUV of the Gospels, H of the Acts, I of the
Pauline Epp,, H of the Cath, Epp, He places the Cod, B between the
Alexandrine and the Constantinopolitan, §40 6.
Although it may be objected to this view that it gives
too little prominence to the distinctive character of the
Occidental and of the Alexandrian text, and assumes with
out proof that the Constantinopolitan is the true trans
mission of the text originally current in Asia Minor and
Syria ;" the other views are also liable to the objection, that
it is a manifest assumption, that the text of the older man
uscripts is of course older and more authentic. The later
manuscripts also may have preserved the original text, and
in not a few passages really give it.''
» /. S. Voter, in Kirchenhist. Archiv, 1824. I. 14, ff. Gdbler, Praef ad
Griesbachii Opusc. Vol. II. p. xvii. Schott, Isag. § 142. Tischendorf, 1, c
p, XXX. sqq. — That the Constantinopolitan text has been affected by the
Alexandrian, Scholz himself (Prolegg. § 52) cannot wholly deny. The
MSS., which Eusebius procured (§ 28 a, note a) at Constantino's command,
were probably prepared from such as Origen had used and approved of.
^ Decidedly wrong are the readings : Matt, xxvii. 49, -j-oXXos Be Xa^av,
K. r.X., BCL 5. all. ; 1 Cor. iv. 2, Cv^elre for Cnrelrai, ADEFG 23, all. ;
1 Cor, XV, 49, (fiopeirapev, ABCDEFGI, against (popeaopev, B text rec.
The following are very doubtful : Matt, xxvi. 60, koI ovx ^^P"" toXX, ^ev-
Bopapr. irpotreXB. ; 1 Cor. viii. 7, ttj crvvrjBeia, AB, tjj avvetBtjoei eas apn toi)
8

58 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
elBi>Xov, BDEFG ; xv. 44, el 'ianv aapa yjfvx- k. t. X., ABCD*rG ; 2 Cor.
i. 20, Bib Kal Bi avrov, k.t.X., ABC*FG ; xii, 1, the received reading has
much in its favor ; ver. 7, likewise the received iva pfj virepaipapai, against
ADEFG; Gal. iv. 31, the readings of the uncials is not satisfactory;
1 Thess. ii, 18, Bion with ABD*FG is hardly correct. Cf my Exeget,
Handb, on the passage. Rink, in St, u, Kr, 1846, p, 402, ff.
Conclusion. § 41.
If, in these attempts after a so-called history of the New
Testament text, we separate theory from actual observation,
the fact remains, that certain manuscripts and other critical
authorities agree among themselves and differ from others,
according to a certain analogy. This is chiefly the case
with the Eastern (Alexandrian) and the "Western, although
even in these many transitions and admixtures occur.
This fact, however, we must not seek to explain histori
cally, because of the almost entire absence of information ;
but to complete it critically by first of all collating the
critical documents more accurately, and more extensively,
than has hitherto been done. In connection with this dip
lomatic or external criticism, the internal must be pursued,
which estimates readings according to internal grounds, i. e.
grounds drawn from the peculiar style of individual au
thors." We shall then find that the oldest MSS. by no
means deserve unqualified preference.
» Cf. Schulz, Praef ad N. T. p. li. sq.

II, HlSTOST OP THE PRINTED TeXT.
First and Standard Editions.

§ 42.
Long after the invention of printing, and the consequent
circulation of the Latin Bible and the Hebrew Old Testa-

ORIGIN OF THE RECEIVED TEXT. § 43. 59
ment, the whole Greek New Testament was, in 1514, first
printed at Complutum (Alcaic), in Spain, in Cardinal
Ximenes's Polyglot, and a few years later published. It is
uncertain from what MSS. this text of the New Testament
was taken. The passage 1 John v. 7 seems to have been
taken from the Vulgate."
The edition of Erasmus, with a Latin version and anno
tations (Basel, 1516, fol.), appeared earlier ; a second A. D.
1519, a third A. D. 1522, a fourth in 1527, and a fifth in
1535. In the Gospels he used Cod. 2 (Basil. B. VI. 25) as
the basis of his text, in the Acts and the Epp. Cod. 2 (Bas.
B. IX. ult), and in the Apoc. Cod. Reuchlin. ; and he some
times collated Cod. 1 (Bas. B. VI. 27) and Cod. 4 (Bas.
B. X. 20). Not until the third edition did he adopt 1 John
V. 7, from the Cod. Montfort., and in the fourth he used the
Complutensian edition. The critics are not wholly satisfied
with his carefulness and accuracy.''
"^ Wetstein, Prolegg. in N. T, ed. Semler, p. 311, sqq. Semler, Hist. u.
krit. Samml. vib. den sogen. Beweisst. d. Dogmatik, 1 Th, 1764. For his
controversial writings against /. M. Gotz, on the critical worth of the Com-
plut. text, see Rosenmuller, Handbuch f. d, Litt, HI, 291, ff, Chr. W. Fr.
Walch, Neuste Rel, Gesch. IV. 425, ff. That the Greek text has been
altered from the Vulgate {Wtst.), is true only under great limitations,
Eichhorn (V, § 112) judges very favorably of the text of this ed. Cod.
Havn. 1. Laud. 2. Vindob. Lambee. 35. agree with him closely.
'' Wetstein, 1. c. p. 318, sqq. Michaelis, Einl. I. 778, ff. Herb. Mar^,
Anmerk. I. 422, ff. Origin of the Received Text.
§ 43.
Several subsequent editions give little else than the text
of the two mentioned above, with, at the most, a few altera
tions from MSS. The Complutensian edition is followed
by ed. 1. Rob. Steph. 1546. 16mo. (called the O mirificam
edition) ; ed. 2. 1549. 16mo ; edd. Plantin. et Rapheleng.
(Antw. 1564-1612. 8vo, and miniature form) ; edd. Genev.
1609, 19, 20, 28, 32 ; the Paris Polyglot, T. IX. X. 1645 ;
ed. Goldhagen (Mog. 1753), with var. readings. The ed. of

60 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
Erasmus is followed by ed. Andr- Asulani, " multis vetustiss.
exempl. collatis" (Ven. 1518. fol.); Thom. Anshelm (Bad.
Hagen. 1521. 4to) ; Jo. Bebelii (Bas. 1523, 31, 35. 8vo) ;
Wolf Cephalaei (Arg. 1524, 34. 8vo) ; Thom. Plateri (Bas.
1538, 40, 43, 44. 8vo) ; Nic. Brylingeri (1533, 43, 48, 49, 53,
56, 58, 86. 8vo) ; Froben. et Episcop. (Bas. 1545. 4to) ;
Heerwagen (Bas. 1545. fol.) ; Vogelin (Lips. 1570) ; Leonh.
Osten (Bas. 1588. 8vo) ; ed. Viteb. 1622. 4to. Remarkable
editions : ed. Sim. Colinaei (Par. 1534. 8vo) ; ed. Jac.
Bogard (Par. 1543) ; ed. 3. Rob. Stephan. (1550. fol., called
ed. Regia) " c. vetust. XVI. scriptis exempl." ; ed. 4. 1551.
8vo, with Erasmus's version and the Vulgate, with the
division into verses (cf § 30 a) ; ed. Rob. Steph. fil. (1569.
16mo). These last edd. are followed by ed. Oporin. (Bas.
1552. 16mo) ; ed. Wechel (Frcf. a. M. 1597. f. 1600, 16, 61.
fol.) ; Bryling. (Bas. 1563. 8vo) ; Crispin (Gen. 1553. large
16mo. 1563. 12mo. 1604. 16mo) ; Froschower (Turic.
1559,66. 8vo). The Erasmian and Complut. together are
followed by Bibl. Antwerp. 1571, 72 ; ed. Plant. 1572, 84.
fol. c. vers, interlin. Ar. Montani ; ed. Rapheleng. 1591.
16mo; CbrnmeZm. 1599. fol."
> Cf. Hug, Einl. I. § 57, Eichhorn, § 112, p, 260, ff. § 113, p, 265, ff.
Rosenmuller, I. 278, ff. § 44.
Theod. Beza advanced the N. T. criticism a step, by
improving the text of the third edition of Stephens, with
the help of H. Stephens's collation and some other aids."
This text being frequently reprinted, especially in Holland,
gained currency as the Textus Receptus.'' It owes its
reputation, however, only to Beza's renown, and to the
fortunate activity of the Dutch printers, not to its internal
excellence ; for it is by no means the result of thorough and
comprehensive examination." It has, however, with reason,
been made the basis in almost all critical labors (§ 55 a).
'¦ First edition, 1565 (Geneva), printed by H. Steph. the son, with the
Vulgate, Beza's own translation, and critical remarks. In the dedication he
says : " Ad haec omnia accessit exemplar ex Stephani nostri bibliotheca cum

CRITICAL COLLECTIONS AND EDITIONS. § 45 b. 61
viginti quinque plusminus manuscriptis codd. et omnibus paene impressis ab
Henr. Stephano ejus filio quam diligentissime collatum." Second edition.
1582. fol. In the preface it is said : " Hos novi foederis libros non modo
cum variis septemdedm Graecorum codd. a Rob, Stephano citatorum lec
tionibus rursum contulimus, sed etiam cum Syra interpretatione," On this
contradiction compare Herb. Marsh, I, 428, and Hug, Einleit. I. § 58.
Third edition, 1589. Fourth edition, 1598, Six smaller editions, with his
own Latin translation, 1565-67, 80, 90, 1604, 11, 8vo,
'' Ed. Elzevir, L. B. 1624. 16mo. 1633. 12mo. Preface to second :
" Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum." Unaltered copies of
the second: 1641, 56,62,70,78, Ed. Curcellaei ap. Dan. Elzevir. 1658,
75, with var, readings, Ed, Morini. Par, 1628, Ed, Westen. Amst. 1698.
8vo, with the transl. of Arias Mont. The edd, of Henr. Stephens, 1576,
12mo, 1581, 16mo ; ed, Bockleri. Arg, 1645, 60, 4to, differ somewhat.
' Griesbach, Prolegg. p. xxxii, Bertholdt, I, 356,
Critical Collections and Editions.
§ 45 a.
To English industry we owe the first important efforts
for the development of N. T. criticism. Br&n Walton
added to the text of the London Polyglot (1657, Pt. V.)
the readings of the Cod. Alex., and gave, in Part VL, a rich
collection of variations from MSS. in part not before col
lated." John Fell enlarged this collection in his edition,''
but has the higher merit of occasioning and stimulating
John Mill to issue a new and better edition.
» Among them also the Velesian readings, a work of fraud. Herb.
Marsh, 1. 477,
¦• N, T, libri omnes, Accesserunt parall. script, loca nee non varr.
lectt. ex plus 100 MSS, codd, et antiqu, verss, coll. Oxon. 1675. Fell col
lated 12 MSS. of the Bodleian Library, aqd obtained collations from else
where, to which he added, besides those which he found in Curcellaeus and
the London Polyglot, the genuine readings of Caryophilus from Possini
Catena in Evang. Marci. 1673, fol. Copies of this ed. op. et stud. Jo.
Gregorii. Oxon. 1703. fol.. Lips. sumt. Koenig. 1697. 8vo, c. praef.
Frank. Lips. 1702. 8vo. § 45 6.
John MiWs edition surpassed all its predecessors, not only
in richness of critical material, but also in critical exact-

62 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
ness, for he first described and investigated the claims of the
documents. He thus gave criticism a fixed course."
» Nov. Test, cum lectionibus var, MSS. exemplarium, verss,, editt,, SS,
Patrum et scriptorum eccles. et in easdem notis. Accedunt loca script,
parall, aliaque exegetica, et appendix ad var. lectiones. Praemittitur diss.,
in qua de libris' N, T, et canonis constitutione agitur : et historia s, textus
N, Foederis ad nostra usque tempera deducitur, et quid in hac editione
praestitum sit, explicatur. Stud, et lab, Joa. Millii S, T, P. Oxon. 1707, fol.
Mill used, not only the then existing collections of variations and Fell's appa
ratus, but made more accurate extracts from the best older printed editions,
and from some important codd, existing in England. He got extracts from
others not previously used, and more exact ones from some which had been
used. To these he added the various readings of the old versions and the
Fathers, But his extracts from MSS,, from the Eastern verss,, and the
Fathers, are in part defective, and in part incorrect, Comp, Rosenm. Hand
buch, I, 325, Enlarged and corrected edition : — CoUectionem Mill, rec,
meliori ordine disp, novisque accessionibus locupl, Lud. Kusterus. Amst,
1710. Lips, 1723, fol. The Prolegomena published by Dan. Sallhenius.
Konigsb, 1734, 4to, Gej-Aarrf of Mastricht used Mill's collection of various
readings in his ed, Amst, ex, off, Wetst. 1711, 35. 8vo, with 43 can. crit.
§ 46 a.
Joh. Alb. Bengel issued a new recension of the text, with
new collations. He laid down in his Introductio ad Crisin
N. T. principles which simplified the work of criticism, and
gave the first start to the classification of MSS. in families."
* N. T. Graecum, ita adornatum, ut textus probatarum editt. medullam,
margo var, lectionum in suas classes distributarum locorumque parall, delec-
tum, apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae, Millianae praesertim, compen
dium, limam ac fructum exhibeat, inserviente Joa. Alb. Bengelio. Tub,
1-734, 4to, Introd, in oris, N, T. § 26 : .... ipsis varietatibus, ut sunt.
excussis, videndum, quinam codices potissimum inter se bini, terni, quaterni
etamplius, per minores majoresque syzygias in utramque partem congruant
Nam sic via patefiet ad decidendum, id est, ad varietates quae supercreverant
resecandas, quo facto genuina lectio non poterit non superare. § 31. , , ,
Nam si quis omnem codicum varietatem probe secum reputaverit, per-
spiciet libraries Graecos in quasdam quasi nationes sive familias discessionem
ante etiam fecisse, quam versiones extitissent. As a basis for his assump
tion of two families, viz, an Alexand, and a Latin, he used Cod, Alex, and
the old Latin version. Cf § 22 and the subsequent observations. — The
Apparatus criticus was published separately, cur. Phil. Dav. Burkio. Tub.
1763, 4to, Manual edition, Stuttg, 1734, 8vo ; reprinted 1739, 53, 62,
76, with additions by E. Bengel, the son, 1790. 8vo,

CRITICAL COLLECTIONS AND EDITIONS. § 47 a. 63

§ 46 &.
Joh. Jac. Wetstein's edition, accompanied by learned Pro
legomena, and elaborated with marvellous industry, added
a multitude of new collations to the stock of critical ma
terial, and brought more light and order into it. He did
not, however, adopt Bengel's views of criticism. He was
obliged to refrain from editing the text according to his
own judgment, and designated the changes which seemed
to him necessary by signs and marginal notes." The text,
as it would have been amended by Wetstein, was printed
by Wm. Bowyer^
* N, T, Graecum edit, receptae, cum lectionibus var, codd, MSS,, editt,
aliarum, verss. et Patrum nee non commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus vet.
Hebr., Grace, et Lat. historiam et vim verborum illustrante, op. et stud.
Joa. Jac. Wetstenii. T. I. cent, quatuor Evangelia. Amst. 1751. T, IL
cent. Epp. Pauli, Acta Apost., Epp. Cath,, et Apoc 1752, fol, Ed, 2,
auct, et em, cur, /, A. Lotze. Rotterd. 1832. large 4to. The Prolegomena
ad N. T. Graeci editionem, etc. appeared earlier. Amst. 1730. 4to. —
Notas adjecit atque appendicem de vetustioribus Latinis recens., quae in
variis codd. supersunt, /. S, Semler. Hal, 1674, 8vo, W. collated, on
his critical journeys, several codd, anew, or for the first time, as Cod, C.
He also first brought the readings of the Philox. vers, into the critical appa
ratus. His accuracy has been defended against Michaelis's attacks (Einl.
L 813, ff.) by Marsh, Anmerk. I. 435, ff.
'' N. T. Graec. ad fidem Graec. solum Codd. MSS, nunc primum ex-
pressum, adstipulante Jo, Jac, Wetstenio. Accessere in altero vol, emen-
dationes conject, virorum doct. undique collectae. Lond, 1763, 2 vol,
12mo ; the 2d Pt. also, under an English title : Conjectural emendations
on the N. T. Lond. 1763, 2d ed. 1772. 3d ed. 1782. small 8vo ; transl.
with additions by /. Chr. F. Schulz. Lpz. 1774, 75. 8vo.
§ 47 a.
Joh. Jac. Griesbach's name marks a new chapter in the
history of N. T. criticism. He enlarged the critical mate
rial by collations and excerpts of his own, and, following
Bengel's and Semler's example, laid down a system of
principles of criticism (comp. § 37), by which he tested the
authorities, and improved the Received Text, which he took
for the basis of his, both on external and internal grounds."

64 CRITICISM OP THB TEXT.
Almost at the same time an edition appeared in England,
containing the text improved from Codd. Cantabr. and Cla-
romont.'' " Libri hist. N, T, Graece, Pars prior, sistens synopsin Evangg, Matth.,
Marc, et Luc, Textum ad fidem codd., verss. et Patrum emendavit et
lect. var. adjecit/. Jac. Griesbach. Hal. 1774. Pars post., sistens Evang.
Joh. et Acta App. Ib. 1775. 8va Subsequently without the synoptical ar
rangement : N. T. Graece, etc. Vol. I. Evangg. et Acta Apost, compl, Hal,
1777. Vol. II. Epist. et Apoc. complectens. 1775. large 8vo, Griesbach
collated several codd. (DGL 10, 12, 13. &c.) on his journeys, and gave the
most important readings in this edition. The complete extracts, however,
and the collation of Clem. Alex, and Origen in his Symbolae crilicae (Hal,
1785, 93), His critical apparatus contains, besides, the readings from both
the Wolfenbiittel MSS. and the Giessen codd. Finally, the readings from
the old versions are in part corrected, and in part increased.
" The New Testament, collated with the most approved manuscripts,
etc by E. Harwood. Lond, 1776, 84, 2 vols, small 8vo, Cf. Marsh,
Anmerk. I. 451. § 47 6.
The stock of critical materials increased still further
after this time. Chr. Fr. Matthdi, in his edition, collated
more than one hundred Moscow and other MSS., and gave
a recension" nearly approximating to the Received Text,
based on these, and on principles of his own (§ 40). —
N. T. criticism owes still further enrichment to the edition
of Franz Carl Alter, in which he gives (greatly to the
critic's inconvenience) the text according to the Vienna
Cod. Lambeccii I., with various readings from many other
Vienna MSS. and some versions.'' — Andr. Birch contrib
uted his own and Moldenhauer's collation of many unex
amined MSS. (Cod. Vat. C and others), and Adler's ex
tracts from the Jerusalem Syriac version."
» Nov. Test. XII Tomis distinctum Graece et Latine, Textum denuo
recensuit, var. lectiones nunquam antea vulgatas ex centum Codd. MSS.
variarum Biblioth., Mosqu., olim Patriarch, nunc SS. Synodi, Typographei
synod, et Tabularii Imperialis, Pultav., Nicephori Archiep., Dresd. Elector.,
Lips. Paulinae, Getting, Univ. et suae, summa dilig. et fide collegit et
vulgavit, lectionaria Eccles. Graec. prime accurate evolvit singulasque lectt.
sedulo indagavit, plerorumque Codd. specimina acre expressa exhibuit,
priorum editorum, clariss. virorum, nominatim Millii, Bengelii, Wetstenii,

CRITICAL COLLECTIONS AND EDITIONS. § 48 a. 65
etiam Knittelii, diligentiss. critici, apparatus retractavit, eorumque sententias
examinavit, editt. etiam alias ut Complut,, Erasmi, Bezae, Steph., Mastr.
atque adeo Griesb. Hal., recensionis, ut vocat, Alexandrino-Occidentalis,
inspexit, scholia Gr. max, part, inedit, addidit, commentaries Gr, cum ed.
tum ined, consuluit et notavit, Patrum Gr. et Lat. lectiones notabiliores
memoravit, animadverss. crit. adj. et ed. Chr. Friedr. Matthaei, etc. cum
tabulis aeneis XXIX. Rigae 1788, 8vo. The volumes had before been
published singly, from 1782-1788, Cf, Eichhorn, Allg, Bibl, IL 305, f
Manual edition, Wittenb, 1803-6, 3 vols, 8vo, The edition of the Cod.
Boern. (§ 51 b) was also a valuable addition to the store of critical materials.
'' N, T. ad Cod, Vindob, Graece expressum, Variet, lectionis addidit
Franc. Car. Alter. Vien. Vol. I. 1787. Vol, II, 1786, 8vo, Cf. Marsh,
Anm. I. 447. To it belongs Treschow, Tentamen descriptionis Codd. ve
terum aliquot Graec. N. T. MSS., qui in Biblioth. Caes, Vindob, asservan-
tur, Hafn, 1773, 8vo,
" Quatuor Evangg, Graece cum variantibus a textu lectionibus Cod,
MSS. Biblioth. Vatic, Barber., Laurent., Vindob,, Escurial,, Hav. reg,,
quibus accedunt lectiones verss, Syr,, Vet,, Philox. , et Hierosol. jussu et
sumt. reg, ed. Andr. Birch. Havn. 1788, fol. and 4to. Cheap ed. 1801.
large 8vo. Cf. Marsh, Anm. I, 448, f Eichhorn, Allg. Bibl, II, 116, ff.
To this belong, Var, lectt, ad text. Act, Apost, Epp, Cath, et Pauli, Havn,
1798, 8vo, and Var. lectiones ad text. Apoc. 1800. 8vo.
§ 48 a.
This whole accession of critical materials, increased by
new extracts from several versions and Church Fathers, was
brought together and worked up by Griesbach in his second
edition," which, enriched with learned prolegomena, has
become an indispensable hand-book to the critic. It is,
however, no longer quite suflicient, for soon after the stock
of critical materials was enlarged. Joh. Mart. Augustin
Scholz described and collated several MSS.,'' and issued a
new ed. of the N. T., with a critical apparatus and a recen
sion of the text, principally after Griesbach."
'¦ N. T. Graece. Textum ad fidem codd,, verss, et Patr, recens, et lect.
variet. adjecit D. Jo. Jac. Griesbach. Vol I. Quatuor Evangg. compl. Edit.
sec. emend, multoque locupletior. Hal. et Lond. 1796. large 8vo. ed. 3.
emend, et auct. cur. D. Schulz. Berol. 1827. (The editor enlarged the
critical apparatus a little.) Vol. II. Acta et Epp. Apostol. cum Apoc.
compl. 1806. 8vo. Cf Comment, crit. in text, N, T, Partic I, 1802, Part,
II, 1811, 8vo, Elegant edition, Leipz. 1803-7. 4 parts, small fol. Manual
edition, c. sel. lect. var. Leipz. 1805. 2 parts. 8vo. It is a great defect in
9

66 CRITICISM OF THB TEXT.
Griesbach's edition, that it generally gives only the authorities for the varia
tions from the common text, and not for the text itself.
" Bibl. krit, Reise, cf § 40, not, b. Prolegg, §§ 41, 43, 64, 67, 70, 72,
for the list of the MSS. first collated and used by him. Against his criti
cal accuracy see Tischendorf, Prolegg, ad ed, N, T, p, liv,
" N, T, Graece, Textum ad fidem testium criticorum recensuit, lectio
num familias subjecit, e Graecis codd, MSS,, qui in Europae et Asiae
bibliothecis reperiuntur, fere omnibus, e verss. antiquis, conciliis, ss. Patri
bus et scriptoribus eccles. quibuscunque vel prime vel iterum collatis copias
criticas addidit atque conditionem horum testium critioorum historiamque
textus N. T. in prolegg. fusius exposuit, etc Vol, I. IV, Evangg. compl.
Lips, 1830, Vol, II, Act, App,, Epp., Apoc, compl, 1836, 4to,
§ 48 b.
W. Fr. Rink published a collation of seven new Vene
tian," and J. G. Reiche of several Paris MSS.'' Lobegott
Fried. Const. Tischendorf, by his edition of the Cod.
Ephraemi (§ 50 b), and H. Chr. Mich. Rettig, by publish
ing the Cod. Sangall. (§ 51 b), contributed to the correction
and enlargement of the stock of critical material.
' Lueubratio crit. in Acta Apost., epp, cath. et Paulin,, in qua de classi-
bus librorum MSS. quaestio instituitur, descriptio et varia lectio septem
codd. Marcianorum exhibetur atque observv. ad plurima loca cum Apostoli
tum Evangeliorum dijudic et emend, proponuntur, Bas. 1830. 8vo.
" See the works cited in § 38, note b. The MSS. collated are : Cod.
reg. 47 (in Scholz, Evv. 18, Act. 113, Epp. 132, Apoc. 51) ; Cod. reg. 61
(Evv, 263, Act, 117, Epp, 137, Ap, 54) ; Cod, reg, 103 (Epp. UQ) ;
Cod. reg. 57 (Epp. 134) ; Cod. reg. 216 (Epp. 153),
§ 48 c.
Carl Lachmann undertook the peculiar task of presenting
" the text most generally received in the third and fourth
centuries," from the ancient Eastern MSS., with the help
of the Western authorities where the Eastern do not agree."
This method rendered a certain degree of arbitrariness un
avoidable ; moreover, as he did not give his authorities, the
reader was left in the dark as to the ground of his decisions.
That this text is unserviceable without authorities, the editor
himself seems to have perceived ; for he has issued a new
edition, with the critical authorities appended, and the Latin

CRITICAL COLLECTIONS AND EDITIONS. § 48 C. 67
Vulgate (§ 26, note/).'' Tischendorf's edition is more use
ful. He here gives the text, likewise according to the
ancient MSS. alone, in, it must be confessed, a somewhat
hasty manner, and indicates its sources, although not in a
quite clear and satisfactory way." Sam. Prideaux Tregelles
has published a new text of the Apocalypse, not merely ac
cording to the external authorities, but with the exercise of
critical judgment after the manner of the older critics.*
' N, T. Graece, Ex recensione Car. Lachmanni. Edit, stereotypa,
Berol. 1831, small 8vo, Comp. the account of the editor in Stud, und
Krit. 1830. IV, 817, ff., and oi Rettig, Ib, 1832, IV, 861, ff. Hall, Lit,
Zeit. 1833, Nos, 52 - 54, C, F. A. Fritzsche, De conformatione N. T. crit,
quam C. Lachmann, ed, Comm, I. 1841.
'' N. T, Graece et Latine. Car. Lachmannus recensuit, Phil. Butt-
mannus Graecae lectionis auctoritates apposuit. T, I, Berol. 1842, large 8vo,
° N, T, Graece. Textum ad fidem antiquorum testium recensuit, brevem
apparatum criticum una cum var lectt. Elzevir. Knapp. Scholz. Lachm.
subjunxit, etc Lips. 1841, 12mo, Cf, the reviews by Dav. Schulz, in the
Jen, L. Z. 1842, No, 145, ff., and Rink, in Stud, u, Krit. 1842, p. 537, ff.
The Paris ed, 1842, small 8vo, approximates more closely to the Vulgate,
^ ' AttokoXv^is 'I, Xp, i^ dpxaiav dvnypd(j>av iKBoBela-a. The book of
Revel, in Greek, edited from ancient authorities, with a new English ver
sion and var, readings, Lond, 1844, large 8vo,
Manual editions : N, T, Graece, recognovit atque insign, lect, varietat, et
argument, notatt, subjecit C, Ch. Knapp. Hal, 1797 ; ed. 2, 1813. 8vo,
N, T, Graece e rec. Griesbach., nova vers, Lat. illustratum, indice brevi
praecipuae lectt. et interpretatt. diversitatis instructum, auct. Henr. Aug.
Schott. ed, 1, Lips, 1805 ; ed, 2, 1811 ; ed 3, 1825, large 8vo, N, T, Gr,
ad fidem optimor, librorum rec, /. A. H. Tittmann. Ed, ster. Lips, 1820,
12mo. Recogn. A. Hahn. 1840. N. T, Textum Gr. Griesb. et Knapp.
denuo recogn. delectu variet, lect, testimon. confirmat., adnot, cum crit, tum
exegetica et indicibus histor, et geogr, vocum Graec. infrequ. et subsidior.
crit. exeget. instruxit /. S. Voter. Hal, 1824, large 8vo, N, T, Gr, nova
versione Lat, donatum ad optim, recenss, expressum, selectis variis lectioni
bus instructum ed. F. A. A. Nabe. Lips, 1831, 8vo. N, T, Gr, et Lat,
Ex rec, Knapp. adjectis variis Griesbachii et Lachmanni lectionibus ed. Ad.
Goeschen. Praef. est Dr. Fr. LiXcke. Lips. 1832. 8vo. N. T. Gr. ex
recogn. Knapp. emendatius ed. argumentorum notatt, locc parall, annott,
critt, et indices adj, C, G. Gu. Theile. Ed, stereot. Lips. 1844, 12mo,
The Complutensian text in the ed, of Gratz. 2 vols, Tiib. 1821, The
Complut, and Erasmian in the ed, of L. van Ess. Tiib. 1827, The Text,
Rec with Griesbach's readings in the ed, of Hess. Bas. 1825.

68 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
SUBDIVISION II.
THEOEY OF THE CKITICISM OF THE N. T, TEXT.

CHAPTER L
DOCUMENTARY AUTHOKITT IN N. T. CKITICISM.

I. MANnSOKIPTS.

General Observations.

§ 49 a.
I. Contents. While a few manuscripts contain, like the
Alexandrian, the whole N. T., the majority give only de
tached portions, usually the Gospels and the Pauline Epis
tles, and many only extracts for reading (Lectionaria, Evan-
geliaria, Praxapostoli). Many contain the Greek text with
a translation (Codd. mixti, Graeco-Latini," Graeco- Coptici),
several with Scholia. In these, and the subscriptions, the
lists of sections, lines, and lessons, and the menologies,'' we
find indications of their age and origin.
II. Form and Material. They are not scrolls, as in the
case of the O. T., but consist of a number of leaves (Qua-
terniones, Quinterniones, Sexterniones), in small folio,
quarto, and even smaller, of parchment, and of silk, cotton,
and linen paper, according to the age of the MSS.
" Against the charge of Latinizing {R. Simon, Hist, du texte dn N. T.
chap, 30 - 32, diss, sur les MS, d, N, T. Chr. B. Michailis, De var, lectt,
N, T, caute colligendis, § 80, sqq, Bengel, Introd. p. 399, 415) they are
defended by Wetstein, Prolegg., Mill, Prolegg. § 1220, Semler, Anmerk,
zu Wetsten. Prolegg, u, libell, ad crisin N, T., Griesbach, Symb, crit. I,
110, sqq,, /, D. Michaelis, Einl, I, 524, f,, Marsh, Anmerk. I. 231, ff.,
Eichhorn, V. § 110. But Rink (Lucubr. crit. p. 5) explains many readings

MANUSCRIPTS. § 50 a. 69
which occur in purely Greek Codd, by the influence of the Latin language.
For example. Col. ii. 10, o (for or) ianv fj KecfiaXfj ; iii, 14, 5 (for fjns) ion
(TvvBea'pos. ^ Scholz, De menologiis duorum codd, Graecorum Bibliothecae reg.
Par, 1823, Prolegg. §22. § 49 i.
III. Character. The oldest manuscripts are written in the
uncial character. This, however, is not always a sure sign
of the age. The later MSS. (from the tenth century down)
are in the cursive character. It is easy to distinguish the
ancient upright square character from the later compressed.
The practised eye can detect still minuter differences." The
absence of the division into words is a surer sign of an
tiquity than the want of accents and punctuation ; for while
accents are wanting even in later MSS., punctuation is
found in earlier. The presence or absence of stichometry
and division into chapters is an uncertain sign. The or
thography indicates their place of origin. Corrections in
later ink are to be noted in estimating the readings.
» Samples of writing in Montfaucon, Palaeogr. Gr., Blanchini, Evang,
quadrupl,, Matthaei, Ed, N. T., Scholz, Bibl, krit, R,, &c.
Descriptions and valuations of the MSS. are given (not only by these and
similar works, but) by the edd. of Mill, Wetstein, . Griesbach, Matthaei,
Birch, Scholz, in their Prolegg., Excursus, and Notes; also in the introduc
tions to the N. T. by Michaelis (cf. Marsh, Anmerkk. u. Zus,), Hug, and
others. Rich. Simon, Hist. crit. du texte du N. T. chap. 29, ff. Dissert.
sur les principaux actes manuscr. du N. T., in his Hist. crit. des princ.
Commentateurs du N. T, Descriptions of single MSS, are given by Hdn-
lein, Einl, II, 59, ff., Rosenmiiller , Handb, II, 194, ff., to which have been
added those of the Cod, Vat, by Hug (1810), of Cod. Uffenbach. by Henke
(1800), of Cod. Diez. by Pappelbaum (1815), of Cod. Berol. reg. IV.
evangg. by the same (1824), of Cod. Ephr. by Tischendorf, of Cod. San
gall. by Rettig. See the following sections.
Some important MSS. in particular.
1. In the Uncial Character.
§ 50 a.
1. Cod. Alexandr. (A in Wetst., Griesb., and others), so
called from its supposed birthplace, and, as appears from

70 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
certain grammatic and orthographic peculiarities, undoubt
edly written in Egypt (if not by St. Thecla), is in the Brit
ish Museum. It contains the whole O. and N. T., (except
ing Matt. i. 1— xxv. 6; John vi. 50 — viii. 52; 2 Cor. iv.
13— xii. 7,) written in beautiful, square uncial character, on
parchment, in two columns, without separation of words
(except that it gives sometimes the sign of a section), with
initial letters to the sentences, and with punctuation, but
without accents or breathings. It contains the Ammonian
sections and the r/rXot in the Gospels, but no division in
the Epistles, with simple superscriptions and subscriptions
to the books. On this account Hug considers this MS.
older than Euthalius, and places it in the fifth century.
According to Montfaucon and Eichhorn, on the other hand, it
belongs to the sixth century."
2. Cod. Vatic. 1209 (B), containing the O. and N. T. (ex
cepting Hebrews ix. 15 to the end, the Epp. to Tim., Titus,
and Philemon, and the Apocalypse), is written in a most
beautiful, regular, square, but throughout retouched charac
ter, in three columns, without division of words or punctu
ation (sometimes, though seldom, the latter, as well as
accents, has been added by a later hand), without the
Ammonian sections in the Gospels, and yet with sections
peculiar to it, both there and in the Epistles. Its peculiari
ties of language indicate Egypt as its birthplace. Mont
faucon assigns it to the fifth or sixth century, Blanchini to
the fifth. Hug and Tischendorf to the fourth.'' It has been
collated by Birch (§ 47 b, note c), and before him by Bar-
tolocci and another Italian for Bentley."
» Fac-simile : N. T, Graece e Cod, Alex, qui Londini in Bibl, Mus, Brit.
asservatur, descr, a G, C. Woide. Lond, 1786, fol, Cf. Woide, Notit.
Cod. Alex, c, var. ej. lectt, cur, G. L. Spohn. Lips, 1788. Semler, Diss,
de aetate Cod. Alex, 1760, 4to.
^ Hug, De antiquitate Cod, Vat, 1810, 4to, with a sample of the writing,
Tischendorf, Bibl. krit. Sendschreiben an D. Schulz, in the A, L, Z. 1843,
No, 116. Nachricht vom vatic. Bibelcod,, in St. u. Kr. 1847. p. 129, ff,,
where is also a fac-simile,
" The latter is found in Append, ad ed. N. T. e cod. Alex. Oxon. 1799,
fol. The second, first used by Scholz, is in the Paris library. Tischendorf
(in the place last referred to) compares the three collations.

MANUSCRIPTS. § 51 a. 71
§ 50 6.
3. Cod. Ephrcemi, Cod. Reg. 1905, now 9 (C), a Codex
rescriptus or palimpsestus (it contained writings of Ephrcem,
which were subsequently obliterated), containing portions
of the O. T. and the whole N. T., although incomplete. Its
exterior is similar to that of the two foregoing manuscripts,
the text in one column, the letters somewhat larger than in
the Cod. Al., like it with initial letters to mark the sentences,
and a simple punctuation (a point commonly at the middle
of the letter, but sometimes lower ; a third hand has added
more frequent points and a cross). Originally it had no
accents or breathings (these have been frequently added by
a third hand). It contains the Ammonian sections and the
titXoi at the end, but not in the text; and very simple
superscriptions and subscriptions. It also was written in
Egypt, about the same time with the Cod. Alex. Hug and
Tischendorf place it earlier, Wetstein before A. D. 542."
4. Cod. S. Matth. Dublin, rescr. (Z in Schulz, Scholz, and
others) contains the greater part of the Gospel of Matthew,
in its exterior resembles the Cod. Ephr., and is likewise
very old.''
» Hug, Einl. I. 282, ff. Wetst. Prolegg, p, 75, ed. Semi. Samples of
the writing in Montf. Palaeogr. p. 213. Scholz, Bibl. kr. R, Taf, No, IV,
Fleck, Aneed, (Lips, 1837) I, Taf, (Cf. the same writer in Theol. St. u.
Kr. 1841. p. 126, ff. The most accurate description is given by Tischen
dorf in the Prolegg. to his edit, : Cod, Ephraemi Syr, rescriptus s, frag
menta N, T. e cod. Gr. Paris, celeberr, quinti ut videtur p. Chr. sec. eruit
atque edidit. Lips. 1843. large 4to.
'¦ Fac-simile : Evang. sec. Matth. ex cod. rescr. in Bibl. CoUeg. SS.
Trin. juxta Dublin, descr. op. et stud. Jo. Barrett, cui adj. append, collat.
Cod. Montfort. compl. Dubl. 1801. Cf. Eichh. Allg. Bibl. II. 584, ff. Paul.
N. Rep. L 192, ff. § 51a.
5. Cod. Cantabrig. or Bezae (who owned it, and gave it
to Cambridge), D in the critical editions, contains the
Gospels in the Latin order (Matt., John, Luke, Mark), the
Acts (with gaps), and a translation earlier than that of

72 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
Jerome, in a beautiful round character. It has neither sep
aration of the words nor accents, but is written stichomet
rically, with many corrections by various hands, and is one
of the oldest manuscripts ; written, according to Hug, in the
time immediately after Euthalius.'^
6. Cod. Laudian. or Bodleian. 1. (E), containing Acts (ex
cepting xxvi. 29 —xxviii. 6), in Latin and Greek (the Latin
column standing first), is written in short lines, containing
one or two words, but without accents, and in a coarse,
heavy character. It has the Euthalian sections. On ac
count of its Alexandrianisms, Woide and Hug regard it as
having been written at Alexandria. Marsh and Eichhorn
assign it to Western Europe, perhaps Sardinia. Hearne
dates it in the eighth, Hug in the sixth, or beginning of the
seventh century .''
7. Cod. Claromont., Bibl. reg. Paris, formerly 2245, now
107 (D in the Pauline Epp.), containing the 13 Pauline
Epp. (excepting Rom. i. 1-7 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22 by another
hand), is written in Greek and Latin, without separation of
words, but stichometrically, and with accents and breath
ings. The elegant Latin and less elegant Greek characters
indicate a Latin copyist; according to Montfaucon of the
seventh, according to Hug of the eighth century. Cod.
Sangerman. (E) is a copy of this (according to Griesb. of
the tenth century)."
" Fac-simile : Codex Theod. Bezae Cantabrig., Evangg. et Apost. Acta
compl., quadratis Uteris Graeco-Lat  edidit, cod, histor, praefixit,
notasque adj, Thom. Kipling. Cantabr, 1793, 2 vol. fol. Cf Dav. Schulz,
Disp. de Cod. D Cantabrig. Vratisl, 1827. Kipling, Hug, and Schulz
think, chiefiy on account of the Alexandrian idioms, that it originated in
Egypt; Scholz, Prolegg. p. xxxix. (cf. WcJsto'n, Prolegg. p. 31), on ac
count of Latinisms in the word-forms and the orthography, and of Gallicisms
in the translation, and Eichhorn (V. 189) because it was first found at Lyons,
suppose that it was written in Southern Gaul. Credner (Beitr. I.) concedes
the latter in regard to the MS. ; but he regards Palestine as the birthplace
of the original from which it was copied, and its text as of Jewish-Christian
origin. It is disputed whether this Cod. is the same as Cod, Steph, ^,
See Marsh, p. 588, f.
'¦ Acta App. Graeco-Latina litteris majusculis, e cod. Laud, charact.
unc exarato et in Biblioth. Bodlej. asservato, descr. ediditque Thom. Hear-

MANUSCRIPTS. § 51 b. 73
nius. Oxon. 1715. 8vo. Woide (Prolegg. ad Cod. Alex. p. 77, sqq.) de
fends this MS. against the charge that the Greek is altered from the Latin.
" Specimens of the writing in Montfaucon, Palaeogr, p. 217, sq,
§ 516.
8. Cod. Boerner. (G), now in Dresden, contains the
Pauline Epp., with the following gaps : Rom. i. 1-5, ii. 16
-25; 1 Cor. iii. 8-16, vi. 7-14, Col. ii. 2-8, Philem. 21-
25; and a Latin interlinear translation. It separates the
words, partly by points, and uses stichometry, which is
indicated by initial letters and points. It is in a degenerate
uncial character, without accents, the translation in Anglo-
Saxon cursive character. Hug regards it, on account of its
Alexandrianisms, as a copy of an Alexand. MS. ; Matthaei,
of a good ancient MS., and, from the marginal remarks,
"contra yoBSca-KoXicov, contra Graecos," as made in the tenth
century." 9. Cod. Augiensis, formerly on the island of Reichenau,
now in Cambridge (F), containing the Pauline Epp. (that
to the Hebrews in Latin only) in Greek and Latin, in
columns, with separation of words by points, is related to
the foregoing, but, on account of its different arrangement,
is not, as Wetstein supposed, a copy of it, or of its original.
10. Cod. Sangallensis {A in Scholz, Tischend.) contains
the four Gospels, with a Latin interlinear translation. It
separates the words more frequently than the Cod. Boern.
by points, and uses stichometry, which is indicated by ini
tial letters and points. It has no accents. The editor''
places it in the ninth century, and thinks that it was writ
ten at St. Gall, under the Abbot Hartmot (f 834), and by
several hands.
» XIII Epp, Pauli Cod, c. vers. Lat. vet. vulgo Antehieronym,, olim
Boernerianus, nunc Bibl. Elect. Dresd, ed, a Chr. Fr. Matthaei. Misen.
1791. 4to, with a fac-simile of the writing. The transl. in many places
follows the Greek more literally than elsewhere, and the Greek is sometimes
Latinized. ¦¦ Antiquissimus IV Evangg. Cod, Sangall. Graeco-Lat. interlin. nun
quam adhuc collatus. Ad similitudinem ipsius libri Mspti accurat. de-
lineand  curavit H. Chr. Mich. Rettig. Tur. 1836. 4to. According
10

74 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
to Scholz, this Cod. belongs to the Alex, recension ; but it oftener (e. g.
Matt, i, 19, 25, ii. 3, 8, f, 7 - 19) differs from BCD 1, &c, than agrees with
them (e, g, i, 18,22, ii, 11, 15), § 51c.
11. Cod. Cypr., formerly Colbert. 5149, now Reg. 63.
(K), contains the Gospels without gaps, has no separation
of words, but a point is inserted after each stichos. On
account of its compressed characters R. Simon and D.
Schulz date it in the tenth century, Montfaucon and Hug in
the eighth."
12. Cod. Basil. B. VI. 21. (E), contains the Gospels with
gaps, in a sometimes round and again compressed uncial
character, with no separation of words, but with accents
and regular systematic punctuation. The notices of the
lessons and festivals are by the same hand. This MS.,
which was for a long time at Constantinople, is of the
eighth century.''
13. Cod. Stephani v, Reg. 62. (L), contains the Gospels
in a longish uncial character, without division of words, with
imperfect accentuation, and punctuation by two signs. An
Egyptian MS. of the ninth century."
" Specimen of the writing in Montfaucon, Palaeogr, HI, 6, p. 232.
Scholz, Comment, de Cod. Cyprio, appended to his Curae Crit. p, 37, sq,,
hesitates between the eighth and the ninth century ; in his Prolegg. he de
cides in favor of the ninth century, Schulz and Griesb., Prolegg. p. xcix.,
appeal to the similarity of the characters to those of Cod. S, which was
written A. D, 949,
' A description and fac-simile in Hug, § 52. Tischendorf corrects him
in Stud, a. Krit, 1844, p, 479, ff,, and opposes Rink, who gives the same
date to this as to Cod, Vat, Comp, Chr. Beck, Dissert, de codd, MSS, Gr,
N. T, Basil, 1774, 4to,
= A fac-simile in Hug. Comp. Griesbach, Symb. crit. I. lxvi,-Ixxix.
§ 51 d.
14. Cod. Synod., V in Matthaei, contains the Gospels
(what follows John vii. 39 being continued by a later hand)
in a small and elegant uncial character, with accents and

MANUSCRIPTS. § 52 a. 75
continuous punctuation, in sections similar to verses, of the
ninth century."
15. God. Synod. 98 (g Matth.) contains the Pauline and
Cath. Epp. with accentuation and punctuation. Date,
tenth century, according to the scholia, written in current
hand.'' 16. Cod. Reg., formerly 2243^, now 48 (M), contains the
Gospels with accents and punctuation, with various read
ings in current character in the margin, of the tenth
century." » Described by Matthaei, Append, ad epp. ad Thessalon. p. 265. A fac
simile in the Apocal. p. 66.
'' Described by Matthaei after Ep. ad Rom. p, 265, sqq, A specimen of
the writing in the Cath. Epp.
' A specimen of the writing in Montfaucon, Palaeogr. III. 8. p. 260.
II. Manuscripts in the Cursive Character.
§ 52 a.
The following MSS. of this class are remarkable for their
agreement with the oldest critical authorities : —
1. Cod. Basil. B. VI. 27, also Reuchlin., in Bengel Bas.
y, in Wetstein and Griesb. 1, on parchment, in 8vo, con
tains the whole N. T. except the Apocalypse, adorned with
pictures, and of the tenth century. The text of the Gospels
is the ancient, but that of the remaining books the common
text. 2. Cod. Reg. 50, Kusteri Paris. 6, in Wetstein and Griesb.
13, on parchment, in 4to, contains the four Gospels, with
gaps. It is closely allied to Codd. 1 and 69, but has many
peculiarities. Date, thirteenth century.
3. Cod. Colbert. 2844, now Reg. 14, in the Gospels 33
in Wetstein and Griesb., in Acts and Cath. Epp. 13, in the
Pauline Epp. 17, contains extracts from the Prophets, and
the whole N. T. excepting the Apoc, singularly arranged,
on parchment, in folio. According to Griesbach, it is of the
eleventh or twelfth -century. Eichhorn calls it " the queen
of the cursive MSS."

76 CRITICISM OP THE TEXT.
4. Cod. Leicestr., in Wetstein and Griesbach 69 in the
Gospels, 31 in Acts, 37 in the Pauline Epp., 14 in the Apoc,
written partly on parchment, partly on paper; according to
Wetstein, of the fourteenth century.
5. Cod. Winchelsean., in Wetst. and Griesb. 106 in the
Gospels. Date, according to Jackson, who collated it for
Wetstein, tenth century. § 52 b.
The remaining MSS. in the cursive character present
chiefly the so-called Byzantine text. Remarkable both in
its origin and its exterior is
6. Cod. 10 in Matth. and Griesb., containing the Gospels,
on parchment, in folio, with golden initial letters, and red-
colored superscriptions and other additions to the text, was
copied in Jerusalem, probably before the Crusades, from
a MS. (according to Hug) of the Palestinian recension."
7. Cod. Mosqu. Bibl. S. Synod. CCCXXVIIL, in Matth.
and Griesb. m, contains the Acts and Cath. and Pauline
Epp., on parchment, in 4to. Matth. dates it in the eleventh
century.'' 8. Cod. Mosqu. S. Synod. IV., in Matth. and Griesb. b,
contains the Acts and Epp., on parchment, in folio ; ac
cording to Matth. of the ninth or tenth century. Both MSS.
are very carefully written, and were formerly found at
Mount Athos."
9. Cod. Mosqu., in Matth. and Griesb. in the Epp. a, in
Acts a 1, very accurately written and collated, with schofia.
Matth., who values it highly, dates it in the tenth or eleventh
century.*^ 10. Cod. Mosqu. S. Synod. CCCXXXIIL, in Matth. and
Griesb. f, contains the Acts and Epp. on cotton paper;
the Acts and Cath, Epp. carefully copied from a good origi
nal, the Pauline Epp. carelessly written by another hand.
Date, thirteenth century."
^ Described by Matth. after Epp. ad Thessal. p. 234, sqq. A specimen
of the writing in Luke.

CITATIONS OF THE FATHERS. § 54. 77
" Cf. Matth. Epp. ad Thess. p. 181 ; Epp. cath. p. xxiv.
"= Cf Matth. Act. App. p. xiii. ; Ep, ad, Rom, p, 277,
'' Cf Matth. Praef ad epp, cath, p, xxviii, (preceded by a fac-simile) ;
Ep, ad Rom, p, 264, sq,
' Cf Matth. Epp, ad Thess, p, 185,
Cod, Ravianus at Berlin is celebrated as a spurious work, Pappelbaum,
Untersuch. der Rauischen griech, Handschrift des N, T, Berlin, 1785,
Bvo, Id. Codicis MSS. N. T. Gr. Raviani in Biblioth. Reg. Berol.
publ. asservati examen, quo ostenditur, alteram ejus partem majorem ex
editione Complut., alteram minorem ex ed. Rob. Steph. tertia esse descrip-
tam. Berol. 1796. 8vo. II. Versions. §53.
The immediate ancient versions of the N. T. are more
reliable records of the text than those of the O. T., where
misapprehensions of the language often occur. They are
older than almost all the MSS., and are of special value in
determining the local peculiarities of the text. Their state
ments must, however, be confirmed by the readings of Greek
MSS. to command full acceptance.
III. Citations of the Fathers.
§ 54.
The citations from the N. T. in the old Church writers
may be regarded as fragments of ancient MSS., provided
they are made, not carelessly from memory, but from MSS.
The latter is the case when the citators comment on, or
otherwise direct their attention to, the text, and repeat
their citations in the same form."
» Rules for knowing accurate citations are given by Griesbach, Diss, de
codd. quatuor Evang. Origenianis. Hal, 1771. § 12, sqq. Opusc. I. 278, sqq.
Cf. Melet. L in Comment, crit. P. II, p, xxvi. Scholz, Prolegg. § 48.
Ao^ainst Matthaei, Ed. N. T. I, 680, and on the recensions, &c., see Voter,
Spicil. observatt. ad usum patrum Graec. in Critica N. T. pertinentium.
Regiom. 1810.

78 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
CHAPTER n,
PKINCIPLES OJ CKITICISM.
(Comp. Pt. I. § 117, ff)

Method and Object of Critical Inquiry.
§ 55 a.
The natural course in criticism is to start from the ex
isting common text, and proceed backwards towards the
original, whose restoration is the problem of criticism. By
taking the common text as a basis the work gains a unity,
without which hopeless confusion must ensue. To assert
that we must abandon the common text, and seek a new
basis, viz. the text which can be historically proved the
most ancient; that we must abandon the idea of restoring
the original text, and hence refrain from using internal
grounds, and confine ourselves to historic or diplomatic
criticism," is, to say the least, very hasty, and demands a
thorough testing. We might obtain a useful view by
giving the text according to certain authorities alone (though
great difficulties beset this undertaking) ; but such a text,
which would always contain much questionable matter,
cannot be made the basis of all critical labor, without de
priving the latter of all unity and certainty. With as little
reason can we set aside the common text and the whole tes
timony of later authorities ; for ofttimes the later and com
mon reading is preferable to the older.'' Finally, although
our estimate of readings from internal grounds may be, and
often has been, arbitrary ; yet to set this altogether aside in
favor of diplomatic criticism is wholly inadmissible. For
the problem of diplomatic criticism will be solved only at a
distant period, if ever; and, consequently, the application
of critical acuteness, though so natural, and constantly
forcing itself upon us, would have to be long, or even for

PRINCIPLES OP CRITICISM. § 55 b. 79
ever, suspended. We maintain, therefore, the common
stand-point which we have indicated, and from it lay down
a theory of the function of criticism.
' So Lachmann and his enthusiastic reviewer, Rettig. See § 48 c, note a.
^ What shall the interpreter do with Lachmann's text alone in places
where it is meaningless, as Matt, xxi. 28-31 ?
Exegetico-critical Grounds of Originality.
§ 55 6.
On gi'ounds which lie in the connection of the passage,
many readings must be rejected, for they convey either no
sense, or a bad one."
Extreme caution is needful in applying the standard of
verbal correctness to N. T. readings, because the N. T. writers
sometimes violate the laws of Greek grammar, and oftener
those of a pure style ; so that, frequently, a verbally incor
rect reading is to be preferred (comp. § 36. II. 1). The
same applies to the rhetorical grounds. While in cultivated
writers we are justified in preferring those readings which
lend just sequence, proportion, completeness, and roundness
to the style, we must in the N. T. often reject the more
elegant readings as additions.''
* E. g. 1 John V, 7 : iv ra ovpava, 6 Trar-qp, 6 Xdyoff Kal rb- ayiov nvevpa,
K. T. X. Rom, V, 14 : eVi tous dpaprrjO'avTas for i. r. pfj dp. Rom, vii, 6 :
dnoBavovros for diroBavovres. 1 Cor, iii. 2 : ollre. xv. 51 : ndvres pev koi-
prjBrjiTopeBa, oil irdvres Be for ir. p. ov KOip., irdvres Be. Gal. ii, 5 : the
omission of ols ovBe. Acts xi, 20: ''EXXrjviards tot "'EXXrjvas. But the ap
parently meaningless reading is often the correct one, Fritzsche and
Tschdf., Mark x. 12, are wrong in preferring another to the common read
ing, because the latter does not accord with the Jewish custom. Cf. above,
36 b. II. 2.
'' E. g. Matth. V. 27 : toTj dpxalois. vi. 18 : iv ra (pavepa. xx. 6 : dp-
yovs. Rom. vi. 12 : avr^ iv rais iiriBvplais avrov. xi, 6: el Be i^ epyav,
K. T.X. Perhaps also Mark ix, 43, 47, cf Fritzsche; Acts xv. 35. Fr. is
too hasty in reading Matt. xi. 24 with 5 cursive MSS. Syr, utr, Xeya a-oi,
Tischend. with D It, rj ipiv. The common text, to be sure, wants concin-
nity.

80 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.

Grounds in Peculiarities of the Writer.
§ 56.
The style of the N. T. writers has, like that of the writers
of the O. T., much variableness and uncertainty ; and yet it
can be distinctly apprehended (§§ 91, 96, 105, 161, 189), and
used as a standard of the correctness of readings."
= Matt, xii, 14 : the reading i^eXBovres Be ol ^apiaaioi a-vpfiovXiov eXa^ov
KOT avrov is preferable to the common reading, according to Matt, i, 24,
ii. 3 ; iv, 12 ; viii, 10, 14, 18 ; ix, 4, 8, 9, 11, 19, 22 ; xii, 25 ; xv, 21, 29;
xvi. 5, 8, 13 ; xvii, 6 ; xviii, 27, 28, 31, 34 (against this Fritzsche, ad Matt.
p, 849, sqq.), — Matt, v. 22: eiK^ is suspicious on account of its position,
comp. Matt, iv, 24 ; viii. 16 : iravras rovs KOKas exovras ; iii, 11 : 6 Be oTriaa
pov ipxdpevos ; iv, 22 : ol Be evBeas d(pevTes. It would be hasty to blot out
(with Gersdorf, Credner) the ovra that follows in v, 19, As Matt, regu
larly uses the part. Xeyav without the dat, of the person addressed, the
omission of avra, xix, 3, xxvi, 17, in some Codd. is sustained ; notwith
standing, in xxi, 2, airo'is must remain, — Luke vi, 3: Kal dnoKptBels wpbs
avrovs elnev 6 'iT/o-oiis is not in accordance with i, 13 ; ix, 62 ; xix, 9 • Acts
ix, 10, 15; xxii. 25. — In favor of the common text in Acts iv. 14; v. 32'
vi. 15 ; xvi. 7 ; xxvii. 3 ; and, on the other hand, of Lachmann's reading,
xxvi, 23, grounds are found in Luke's style of writing; cf Execet. Hdb. 
As John does not use the optative, the reading of Codd. BCL, and others
xiii. 24, gains weight. In 1 Cor. ii. 7, Beoi aotplav is analogous to Rom,
iii, 5 ; xiii. 4 ; 1 Cor. iii, 9 ; 2 Cor, vi. 4, &c — In 1 Cor, vi, 2, the ^ adopted
by Griesb. is entirely in harmony with the Apostle's style,
Historico-critical Grounds of Originality.
§ 57.
From the general principle, that that reading to which the
origin of the others may be traced is the original, we may
deduce the following special rules, having reference to the
modes in which false readings arise: — 1. The more obscure
and difficult reading is to be preferred to the clearer and
easier ; 2. The harder, elliptical, Hebraizing, and ungram
matical, to the more pleasing and grammatical; 3. The
rarer to the more common ; 4. That which is less favorable
to piety (especially of the monkish sort) and to Orthodoxy

PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. § 58. 81
is to be preferred to that which is more favorable to them ;
5. That which conveys an apparently false meaning to one
which seems to give a fitter meaning ; 6. The shorter to
that which betrays itself as an explanatory interpolation,
or is in general more wordy ; 7. The less expressive to the
emphatic; 8. Finally, that reading which stands midway
between others, and contains their germ, is to be considered
the more original."
" Cf, Bengel, Introd, § xxi, sq, Griesbach, Prolegg, p, xlix. sq.
Consideration of the Critical Authorities as a Wliole.
§58.
It is generally conceded that authorities are not to be
counted, but weighed ; their families or related classes dis
criminated ; and the evidence of whole classes, rather than
of individual manuscripts, consulted and estimated. In
accordance with his system, Griesbach has laid down the
rules :" — 1. All the authorities which belong to one recen
sion, and agree with it, are to be regarded as but one testi
mony. 2. That reading in which all the ancient recensions
agree isto be considered genuine. 3. When the Alexandrian
agrees with the Occidental, in opposition to the Constanti
nopolitan, the oldest reading is authenticated.'' 4. When
the Alexandrian agrees with the Constantinopolitan, in op
position to the Occidental, we must inquire whether the
reading of the Occidental belongs to errors which are pe
culiar to it. The same holds when the Occidental agrees
with the Constantinopolitan, in opposition to the Alex
andrian. 5. If all three recensions give different readings,
the preponderance of internal evidence, and not the number
of authorities, must decide.
=¦ Prolegg. p, Ixxvii, Cf. Bengel, Introd. § xii.
' The system of Griesbach thus includes the fundamental idea of Lach
mann's system of criticism, but only as one element in the whole. In most
cases Griesbach went back only to the oldest text. It must be admitted,
however, that the oldest text is not necessarily the correct one,
' Hug (Einl, I, § 146, ff.) gives somewhat different rules, as he makes
11

82 CRITICISM OF THE TEXT.
the old unrevised text {kolvyj eKBoais) the basis of examination, see § 39.
Tregelles (§ 48 c, note (f) , p, xxx. , lays down the following rules : — 1, The
reading that rests upon unanimous testimony is genuine. 2. When authori
ties differ, that reading is preferable, ceteris paribus, which has the prepon
derance of testimony. 3. The testimony of the old uncial codd. has
precedence of the whole mass of later codd. 4. But there are cases where
the former codd. agree in a certainly false reading (see § 40 b, note h), as
is proved by its wrong sense, by its want of support from the versions, and
by its probable origin in error (or perhaps in design). 5. In doubtful cases
the testimony of the versions is of weight, 6. A reading which rests on a
few later codd. alone is to be rejected (?), and so on.
Critical Conjecture.
§ 59.
As the N. T. text has suffered much less corruption than
that of the O. T., and the materials for its restoration are
very numerous, a resort to conjecture is very seldom neces
sary (as e.g. Hebr. xi. 37) ;" and as the N. T. stands in
more intimate connection than the O. T. with the faith of
Cln-Jstians, critical conjecture can never lay claim to general
acceptance.'' ' In Heb, xii. 15 the original error may be discovered, but the author
copied it from the LXX.
>> A somewhat different view is given by Eichhorn, V. § 128, A theory
of N. T, conjectural criticism is given by Vogel, De conjecturae usu in crisi
N, T. Alt, 1795, 4to, Cf Eichh. Allg, Bibl. VIII. 260, Contributions
have been made by W. Bowyer, cf § 46, to which belongs Spicileg, con-
jectt. crit. in N. T, ad Bowyerii et Schulzii coUectionem, in Sloschii Mus,
crit. Vol. II, fasc 1, 2, L. C. Valkenarii, Spec adnotatt. crit, in loca
quaedam hbr. sacr, N, T,, in his Oratt, L, B, 1784, 8vo ; cf Emendatio-
num a Valkenario propos, examen instit. E. G. Klose. Hal, 1790, 8vo,
E. Wasenberg, De transpositione crit., saluberr, in sanandis voter, scriptis
remedio. Franequ, 1786, 4to, G. Wakefield, Silva critica s. in auct.
sacros profanosque comment, philol. Cantabr, 1789-95. 5 Pts, Cf. Han-
lein, Examinis ourarum crit, atq, exegetic G. Wakefield in Libros N T
Part. I- V. Erl. 1798- 1803. 4to.

DIYISION II.
INTRODUCTION TO THE SEPARATE BOOKS OF THE NEW-
TESTAMENT.

GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS.

EISE OP A NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE.
1. Epistles. § 60.
With the formation of a Christian life, occasions arose for
a Christian literature. The first who seized the pen in the
service of the Christian Church was probably the Apostle
Paul, who has certainly also had the greatest influence on
the development of a special Christian language. His
writings were letters, addressed to the communities which
he founded, and therefore called forth by circumstances, and
devoted to specific objects. In this kind of writing he is
the master and prototype. Following in his wake, other
Apostles also wrote letters, which, however, all (2 and 3
John excepted) lack a distinctly epistolary character, and
approach that of treatises. Even the author of the Apoca
lypse seems to have imitated Paul. In respect of their con
tents, the Apostolic Epistles may be termed doctrinal and
hortatory writings. 2. Gospels.
§ 61.
The knowledge of the revealed salvation, the " glad ti
dings " {evayyeXiov), was at first propagated orally by the

84 RISE OP A NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE.
Apostles and their assistants ; and their addresses recounted
also the history of the life, doctrine, works, death, and resur
rection of Jesus (comp. Acts xiii. 16, ff.). Subsequently the
need of more exact instruction in the Gospel-history arose ; "
and this seems to have been the province of the Evangelists,
while Prophets and Teachers attended to the other branches
of Christian instruction (Eph. iv. 11). To aid the memory,
the Gospel narratives were written down. Luke (i. 1) * was
acquainted with several such literary essays. The various
needs of different classses of Christians demanded also a
varied treatment of the Gospel. Especially was it necessary
that the difference between the Jewish-Christian and the
Pauline tendency should therein manifest itself. In view of
their contents, the Gospels may certainly be called historic
writings ; but the history always has more or less the object
of establishing the faith, and to this the selection and treat
ment of the historic matter correspond. The Acts of the
Apostles contains a continuation of the Gospel history.
' According to Luke i. 4, we may certainly suppose a Karfjxrjo-is which
included the Evangelic history ; that it was neither accurate nor compre
hensive appears from the preface of Luke. Thiersch (Herstell. d, histor.
Standpunkts fiir die Kritik, etc., 1845, p, 91, ff,) asserts more in respect to
this matter than can be proved,
' Cf. Schott, Progr, de prooemio evangelii Lucae ejusque usu in quaesti-
one de fontibus evangeliorum tractanda, Jen. 1828, 4to. Crome, in Stud,
u, Krit. 1824. p, 754, ff, Thiersch, ut supra, p, 163, ff,
3. The Revelation,
§ 62.
In the Gospels, a certain affinity with the books of Moses
and the historic books of the Old Testament may be traced ;
in the Epistles, the doctrinal and hortatory element of
prophecy," in connection with a renovated moral aphoristic
wisdom ; and thus, as the primitive Christian Church had
her prophets (Eph. iv. 11), there sprang up on Christian
soil a shoot of Old Testament prophecy, in the Revelation
of John.
"¦ Jerem. xxix, 1-23, the prototype of the N, T. Epistles, Compare
Baruch i, 10, ff.

LIST OP EXEGETICAL WORKS. 85
List of the Best and most Remarkable General Exegetical Works on the
Books of the New Testament.
Fathers, Greek, see § 9. Latin : Hieronymi Comment, in Matth,, ep, ad
Gal, Ephes. Tit, Philem. Auguslini Quaestt. evang. libb, II, ; Quaestt. in
Matth. lib, I,; in Joann, Evang, tractatus 124 ; Expositio quarundam propo
sitionum ex ep. ad Rom.; Ep, ad Rom. inchoata expositio ; Expositio ep. ad
Gal, Hilarii Pictaviensis Comment, in Matthaeum, in Opp. ed. Coutant.
Paris. 1693 ; ed, Oberthitr. Wirceb. 1785, 3 vols. 8vo. Ambrosiaslri {Hi-
lorii Diaconi) Comment, in epp, Paul,, in Ambrosii Opp, ed, Bened, 1686-90,
2 vol. fol, Pelagii Comment, in epp, Pauli, in Hieronym. Opp. ed, Erasra.
Tom, IX., ed. Mart, Tom. V., ed. Vallars, Tom, XI,
Later Commentators : Laurentii Vallae Annotatt, in N, T, Paris. 1505,
Opp. 1543. fol.; also c notis Joe. Revii, in the Critt, sacr, — Erasmi Rotte-
rod. Annotatt, in N. T, Basil, 1516, fol, and often. Id. Paraphr, in N, T,
Basil, 1517, and often; latest, Berl. 1777-80, 3 vols, Swo. — Luther's,
Melancthon' s , Zioingli's, Calvin's Exegetical Writings in their Works,
Comm, of the last mentioned on the Epp, first Strassb, 1589. Halle 1831 -
32, 3 vols, 2d ed. 1834. All his Comm. 6 vols. Berl. 1833 - 34, — Jooch.
Camerarii Comment, in N, T, illustrat, et locupletat, Cantab, 1642. —
Victorin. Strigelii Hypomnemata in o. librr. N. T, Lips, 1565, — Theod.
Bezae N, T. ex off, H. Steph. 1594. 1598. fol. — Aug. Marlorali N. T. Ca-
tholica expositio eccles. Genev. 1561. fol, and often, — Bened. Aretii Com
mentt. in D. N. J. Chr, nov. testamentum. Par, 1617; earlier separately,
in quatuor evangg, 1596, in act, app. 1596, in epp, etc, 1583, — Joa. Pisca-
tor. Comm. in omnes libros V. et N. T., that on the N, T. Herb. 1613-21.
2 vols, 4to, — Joa. Coccej. Explan, of the N, T, in his Works. Amst. 1675,
Frcf 1689, — Joa. Drusii Annotatt. in tot, J, C, Test, s, Praeteritorum libb,
X, 1612, Annotatt, in N. T, pars altera, 1616, — Lud. de Dieu Animad
verss, in libb. N, T, L, B, 1634-46. also in Critica s, Amst, 1693, fol,—
Jo. Crellii Coram, in plerosq. N. T. librr. Amst. 1656. 3 tom. fol. — Jo.
Schlichting Commentt, posth. in pi. N. T, librr, ib, 2 tom, fol, — Hug. Grotii
Annotatt, in N, T, (Amst. et Paris. 1641-50. 3 vols.). Opp. theolog.
Tom. II. Vol, I. II, Amstel, 1679, fol, ed, Windheim. Erl, 1755-57. 4to,
— Jo. Pricoei Comment, in varies N, T, libros, Lond. 1660, fol. Also with
Drus. Grot, and others in the Critt, sacr, — N, T, ex vers, vulg. c. paraphr.
et annotatt, Henr. Hammondi,ex Angl, ling, in Lat, transt, suisq, animadvv,
illustr, Jo. Clericus. Ed , 2, Frcf 1714. 2 vol, fol. — Wetstein's N, T, see § 46.
— J. Cp. Wolf, Curae philol. et crit, in IV evangg, et act, Apost, ed, 3,
Hamb. 1739. — in IV priores Pauli epp, ed, 2. Ib, 1737, —in X post.
Pauli epp. ed. 2. Ib. 1738. — in Jac. Petr, Jud, et Joa. epp, hujusque apoc,
ed, 2, Ib, 1741, 4to, J. Ch. Kocher, Analecta philol, et exeget, in IV evangg,,
quibus Wolfii Curae suppl, etaugentur. Altenb, 1766, 4to, — Bengelii Gno
mon N, T. ed, 3, per fil, Ern. B. Tub, 1773, ito. — Heumonn, Erkl, d.
N. T. Hannov. 1750-63, 12 vols. 8vo. — G. Benson, Paraphrast. Erkl, u.
Anmerkk. ii. ein. Bb. d. N. T. 1761. 4 vols. 4to, — /, G. Rosenmiiller,

86 RISE OF A NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE.
Schol. inN.T.ed. 5. 1805-7. 5 tom, large 8vo, ; ed. 6, 1815-32. — /, Bj.
Koppe, N. T. Graece perpetua annotat. illustratum, A^ol, III, P, 1, 2, Act,
Apost. cur, Heinrichs. 1809. and 1812, Vol, IV, ep. Paul, ad Rom. 1783, ed,
3, cur. Amman. 1824. Vol, V, Part. 1, ep, 1, ad Cor. cap. i, -x, cent, D.
J. Pott. 1826, Vol, VI. ep. ad Gal, Thess. Ephes. 1778. ed. 3. cur, Tychsen.
1823. Vol, VII, P, 1, epp. P, ad Tim, Tit, et Philem. contin. Heinrichs.
1798. ed. 2, 1838, P, 2, epp. P. ad Phil, et Coloss. cent, idem 1803, ed, 2,
1826. Vol. VIII. ep, ad Hebr, contin. id, 1792. ed, 2. 1823, Vol. IX, epp,
cathol. fasc, 1. ep, Jac cur. Poll. 1786. ed, 2, 1799, ed, 3, 1816, fasc, 2,
1. et 2, ep, Petri 1790, 1810, Vol. X. Apoc, cur, Heinrichs. P. 1, 1818,
P. 2. 1821. — Herm. 0/shausen, Bibl. Comment, iib, sammtl, Schr, d, N. T.
1. B. 3, Aufl, 1837, 2. B. 1838. (the Gospels and Acts) 3, 4, B, 1835-40,
(Paul's Epp, from Rom. to Thess. inclusive), — H. A. W. Meyer, Krit,
exeg, Komm. iib, d, N. T., to this time 9 sections, to the Ep, to the Philipp.
1832-47 ; new editions of sections 1,2, — W. M. L. de V/ette, Kuizgef
exeg. Hdb. z. N. T, I, II. Ill, Bd. 1. Thl. 1835-1847, several parts often
reprinted, to the cath. Epp. inclusive, — Baumgarten-Crusius, Exeget,
Schriften z. N, T, I, Bd, 1, 2, Th. Comm, iiber die Evang, Matth, Marc,
Luc. IL Bd, 1, 2, Th, d, Brr, an d, Rom, Gal, Eph, Col, Jen, 1844-45,
Theol. Ausleg, d. Joh, Schr, 1, 2, Bd, Jen. 1843-45. — /, S, Semler's
Paraphrases: Ev, Joann, 1771. 2 pts, ep, ad Rom, 1769, 1 Cor, 1770,
2 Cor. 1776. Gal, 1779. Jac, 1781, 1 Petr, 1783, 2 Petr, et Jud, 1784, 1
Joa. 1792, with remarks and extracts from the ancient versions. — /. D. Mi
chaelis, Uebers, d, N, T. 1790, 2 Bde, 4to, His Anmm, f Ungelehrte, to
his Uebers. d, N, T. 1790-92, 4 Thie. 4to, Cf /, Cp. F. Schulz, Erin-
nerungen u, Zweifel iib, Michael. Anmm. 1790 - 94, 6 St, 4to, — Stolz,
Uebers, d, N, T, 1, Aufl, 1781, 4, Aufl, 1804, New work, 1821, Id.
Erlaut, z,. N. T. 1-6. Hannnov, 1796- 1802, in part a new edition. — /
C. W. Augusti and W. M. L. de Welte, Die Schriften d, N, T. neu iiber-
setzt, 1814. 8vo. New work by the latter, 1832, 3d ed. 1839. — Latin
Translations by G. S. Jaspis (1793-97), H. G. Reichardt (1799), Schott,
Ndhe, Goschen (§ 48 c, at the end).

GOSPEL OF THE HEBREAVS, § 64 a. 87

SECTION I.
GOSPELS.

CHAPTER I.
OF THE GOSPELS GENERALLY.

Ancient Uncanonical Gospels.
§ 63.
In addition to our canonical Gospels, Christian antiquity
was acquainted with several others ; ^ and it is in the last
degree needful to obtain as accurate a knowledge of these
as possible, for the opinion is pretty wide-spread that some
of them are older and more original than our canonical
Gospels. " Origen. Hom, I, in Luc, : . , . . multi conati sunt scribere Evangelia, sed
non omnes recepti . . . . ut sciatis non solum quatuor Evangelia, sed plurima
esse conscripta, e quibus haec quae habemus electa sunt et tradita ecclesiis.
, , , , Ecclesia quatuor habet Evangelia, haereses plurima, e quibus quoddam
scribitur secundum Aegyptios, sivxA juxta duodecim aposlolos. Ausus fuit et
Basilides scribere Evangelium et suo illud nomine titulare  Scio quod
dam evangelium, quod appellator secundum Thomam, et juxta Matlhiom: et
alia plura legimus. — Hieron. Praef in Matth, , Plures fuisse, qui Evange
lia scripserunt, .... perseverantia usque ad praesens tempus monimenta de
clarant, quae a diversis auctoribus edita diversarum haereseon fuere princi-
pia, ut est illud juxta Aegyptios et Thomam et Matthiam et Bartholomaeum,
duodecim quoque oposiolorum et Basilidis atque Apellis ac reliquorum, quos
enumerare longissimum est. Cf. Iren. 1. 17. — Ambros. Prooem. comment,
in Luc, only repeats Jerome, ] . Gospel of the Hebreivs.
§ 64o.
Of this Gospel, we find in antiquity the most numerous
and certain traces. Several of the old Church teachers and

88 GOSPELS.
heretics, and especially the Ebionites, used it. But the old
est accounts contradict the idea of its being an original and
independent work, by representing it as apocryphal, and as
wavering between Matthew and Luke."'
» Hieron. De vir, illustr, c, 16 : Ignatius — in qua (ep, ad Smyrn, c, 3)
et de Evangelic, quod nuper a me translatum est, super persona Christi ponit
testimonium, dicens : Ego vero ct post resurrectionem in carne eum vidi [?iovi),
et credo quia sit. Et quondo venit ad Petrum, ct ad eos qui cum Pelro erant,
dixit eis : Ecce palpate me et videte, quia non sum daemonium incorporale
(cf, Luke xxiv. 39), Et slatim tcligerunt eum et crediderunt. Cf Prooem.
ad lib, XVIII, Jes, (see Pt, I, § 18, note e). On the other hand, Euseb.
Ill, 36 : OVK olBa, oiroBev prjrols avyKexprjrai. — Euseb. H, E, 1\ . 22 of
Hegesippus : 'Ek Be rov KaB' 'Efipaiovs evayyeXiov, Kal roO avpioKov Kal ISias
iK rrjs e^patBos BiaXeKTov nvd riBrjo-iv. The same in the same work, H. E,
III, 20 : , . , . icfio^eiTO ydp (6 Aopenavbs) rfjv napovo'Lav toC XpioroC, as koi
'HpaBrjs. Cf. Matt. ii. 3, Pholii Bibl, cod. 232, p. 894, ed, Hoschel : 'Uyfjaar-
TTOS pevToi, dpxdlos re dvfjp Kal diroaToXcKos, ev tw iTepiTTa rav vnopvrjparav
.... Xeyei . . . . paKapioi oi o^BaXpol i/iSj' ol pXerrovres Kal ra Sira vpav ra
aKovovra Kal e^rjs. Cf, Matt. xiii. 16 : 'Ypav Be paKopioi ol o<^6., on /3\e-
TTOvai, (t, rb ara vpav, on duovei. Luke X, 23, f. : MaKopiot ol 6(pBaXpol ol
^Xetrovres d /SXeVfre, Aeyco y. vplv, k.t.X. — Euseb. H, E. Ill, 39, of Papios :
''EKTeBe'iTai Be Kal ciXXrjv loropiav (John viii, 1, ff. 1) wepl yvvaiKos inl iroX-
Xals dpapriais BiajiX-qBela-Tjs iirl rov Kuptov, rjv rb KaB' ''Ej3paiovs evayyeXiov
rrepiex^i. But it seems that E. was not acquainted with this Gospel, cf. III.
36. — Clemens Alex, lib, II, Strom, p, 380: Kav ra KaB' 'E^paiovs ev
ayyeXia, 6 Bavpda-as ^aaiXevoei, yeypaivrai, Kal 6 fiaa- iXevoas dva-
TTavBfja-erai. Cf, lib. V. p. 578 : ev nvi evayyeXia. — Iren. Adv, haeres, I.
25, 4 : Dicunt (viz, the Carpocratians, cf however § 68, note a) Jesum
hanc dixisse parabolam : " Cum es cum adversario tuo in via, da operam, ut
libereris ab eo, ne forte te det judici, et judex ministro, et raittat te minister
in caroerem. Amen dico tibi,non exies inde, donee reddas novissimum qua-
drantem," Cf Matt, v. 25, f Luke xii, 58, f. From the former is eas
oTov el iv rfi oBa . . . . pfjirore (re napada k. t. X. dpfjv, from the latter fios ipya-
alav, K.T.X  a-e jiaXj] els (pvXaKrjv, — Origen. in Joan. Vol, IV. p,63, ed,
De la Rue : 'Edv Be irpooleTal ns rb KaB' ''Efipatovs evayyeXiov, evBa avrbs 6
aarfip (prjaiv dpri eXajSe pe fj pfjrrjp pov rb ayiov nvevpa iv pid
rav rpix^v /iov, Kat dwfjveyKe pe els to opos to peya Oajiap.
Cf Homil, XV, in Jerem, Vol. III. p. 224. In Matth. Tom. XV. ad xix. 19,
Vol, III, p. 671 : Scriptum est in Evangelic quodam, quod dicitur secundum
Hebraeos, si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud non ad autoritatem, sed ad
manifestationem propositae quaestionis. Dixit, inquit, ad eum alter divitum :
magister, quid bonum faciens vivam ? dixit ei : homo, leges et prophetas fac.
Respondit ad eum : feci. Dixit ei : vade, vende omnia, quae possides, et di
vide pauperibus , et veni, sequere me. Coepit autem dives scalpere caput suum,

GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. § 64 b. 89
et non placuit ei. Et dixit ad eum Dominus : Quomodo dicis, legem feci et
prophetas, quoniom scriptum est in lege : Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ip
sum, et ecce multi fratres tui filii Abrahae amicti sunt stercore, morientes proe
fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex
ea od eos. Et conversus dixit Simoni discipulo suo sedenti opud se : Simon,
fill Joannoe,focilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus, quam divitem in
regnum coelorum (cf Matt, xix, 16, ff,) — Euseb. H, E, III, 25: 'Ev tois
voBois .... nves Kal to KaB' 'E^palovs evayyeXiov KareXe^av, a paXiara 'EjSpai-
av 01 rbv Xpiarrbv irapaBe^dpevoi xalpovai. C, 27, of the Ebionites : evayye
Xia Be pdva Ta KaB' ^E^palovs Xeyopeva xp<^''pevoi.
§ 64 &.
The statements of Epiphanius,'^ which are very confused,
being drawn, probably, not from his own observation, but
from some Ebionite work, show that the Ebionites read this
Gospel — which they supposed to be by Matthew — with
out the first two chap"ters, and beginning we are still uncer
tain where ; and that it was known to him only through
Greek fragments,'' and contained a mixture of Matthew and
Luke with in part apocryphal matter.
" Haeres. XXIX. § 9, of the Nazarenes : "Exova-i Be to Kard MarBaiov
evayyeXiov TrXrjpea-rarov [iutegram, cf, Iren. Adv. haeres. III. 11) 'E^pa'iorTi.
map avTols ydp a'a(pas tovto, KaBas i^ apxfjs iypd(f)T] 'EjBpalKols ypdppaaiv,
en (Ta^erai ' ovk olBa Be, el Kal rds yeveaXoylas Tcts dm tov 'A^padp axpi
Xpia-Tov TTepieTXov- — Haeres. XXX. § 3, of the Ebionites : * Kal Sexovrai
pev Kal avrol rb Kara MarBaiov evayyeXiov * rovra ydp Kal avroi, as Kal ol
Kara KjjpivBov, xp^vrat. KaXoiJo't Be avrb Kard ^EfSpalovs, as rd dXrjBfj
ianv elwelv, on MarBaios povos 'E^pdicrrl Kal 'Ejipa'tKols ypdppaa-iv iv rfj Kaivfi
BiaBfjKTj irTOifjaaro rfjV rov EvayyeXiov eKBeulv re Kal Krjpvypa. § 13 : 'Ev
T(5 yovv Trap* avrols evayyeXia, Kara MarBaiov dvopa^opeva, ovx ^'^^ ^^ ttXtj-
pea-rdra, dXXd vevoBevpiva Kal fjKporrjpiaapeva, 'E^paiKbv Be tovto ko-
Xoijat, ipcjieperai, dn^ iyevero tis dvfjp ov o par i 'Irjoovs, Kal av
rbs as irav t pidKovra (cf Luke iii, 23), bs i ^eXe ^aro fjpds.
Kal iXBav els Ka(j)apvaov p , ela-^XBev els rfjV oiKiav 2ipavos
TOV iiriKXrjBevTOS Uerpov, Kal dvol^as rb ardpa avTov elrre'
Tvapepxdpevos irapd rfjv Xipvrjv T i^epidBos i^eXe^dprjV 'ladv-
VTjV Kal 'laKa^ov, viovs Ze^eBaiov, Kal Sipava, Kal 'AvBpe-

* Others, as Gieseler, erroneously refer this passage to the Elcesaites,
f Eichhorn, 1, 28, considers what follows a subsequently added beginning,
to justify the title. Gospel of the Twelve Apostles ; but, according to Epipha
nius, it is not the beginning. See what follows, esp. in § 14.
12

90 GOSPELS.
av, Kal OaBBa'iov, Kal sipava rbv Cv^^arfjV, Kal 'lovBav rbv
'iffKopiarrjV, Kal ae rbv MarBaiov KoBe^dpevov irrl rod reXa-
vlov iKdXeaa, Kal fjKoXoiBrjo-ds poi. 'r pds oiv ^fioiXopai e?-
vai BeKoBvo d-n-oardXavs , els paprvpiov rod 'la-pafjX. Kal
iyivero 'ladvvrjs ^arrrlCav, Kal i^fjXBov irpbs airbv dapiaal.-
0 1, Kal ijiaTrria-BrjO-av, Kal irdcra 'lepoaoXvpa (cf Matt. m. 1,5;
Mark i, 4,5), Kai cix^^ ° 'ladvvrjs evBvpa dvrb rpixaiv Kapfj-
Xov, Kal ^avTjV BepparlvrjV wepl rfjV 6a-(fivv avrod. ^ Kal to
Ppapa avTof), (prjo-i, peXi aypiov, oi fj yedais rjv TOV pdvva,
iis iyKpls ev iXaia- (cf Matt, iii. 4; Mark i, 6,) ha BijBev peracrrpe-
yjraoi rbv ttjs dXrjBeias Xoyov els ^evBos, Kal dvrl aKplBav iroifjoainv iyKpl-
Bas iv peXm. 'H Se dpxh ¦rov trap' avrols evayyeXiov exei- on
iyevero iv rals fjpepais 'UpaBov tov PaatXeas rrjs 'lovBalas
{cf. Luke iii, 1, f), fjXBev 'ladwrjs ^arrrlCav ^dirTKrpa peravol-
as iv ra 'lopBdvrj irorapa, 6s iXeyero elvai eK ye'vous 'Aapwy
ToS lepeas, rra'is Zaxapiov Kal 'EXiad^er, Kal i^fjpxovro irpbs
avrbv rravres. Kal perd rb elweiv iroXXd, inKpepei, on ToO Xaov
PaiTTiaBevTos ^XBe Kal 'irjaovs, Kal i^arrrla-Brj virb rov 'la-
dvvov. Kal (of Hier. ad Isa, xi,) as dvfjXBev drrb rov vBaros,
fjvoiyjjo-av ol ovpavoi, Kal elBe rb irvevpa toS Beov ro ayiov
iv elBei Tr.epia-repds KareXBova-ij s Kpl ela-eXBovtrrjS els avrov.
Kat ipavfj iyevero eK tov ovpavov Xeyovaa' av pov ei 6 vios
o ayaTDjTos, iv o'ol evBoKTjO'a. Kai TraXti', iya trrjpepov ye-
yevvTjKa a-e. Kal evBvs rre pieXap-^e rbv tottov <pas peya. Ov
IBav, (prjiriv, 6 'ladvvrjS Xeyei avra' av ris et, Kvpie; Kal wa-
Xiv <j)avfj i^ ovpavov Trpbs avrov ovros io-riv 6 vlds pov o
dyaTTTjTos , i<j)' dv evBoKJjO-a. Kal tot e , (prjaiv, 6 ladvvrjs TTa-
paneaav avra eXeye- Beopai oov, Kvpie, O'v pe jSairriaov.
*0 Be i KaXvev avra , Xeyav dcf)es, on ovr as ia-rl tt peTTOV ttXt;-
paBijvai Ttdvra (cf Matt, iii, 13-17; Mark i, 9-11). §14: .... ttq-
paKo-^avres rds irapd red MarBala yevedXoyias dpxovraL rfjv dpxfjv iroielaBai,
as TTpoemov (§ 13), Xe'yoj'Tes, OTI iyevero , <^rjfjiv, iv rals fjpepais
'HpcoSov l3aa-iXe as rijs 'lovBalas eTrt dpxiepeas Ka'idfjia , fjXBe
ns 'ladvvTjs dvdpan fiairri^av ^dirncrpa peravoias iv ra iro
rapa 'lopBdvrj Kal rd e^fjs. § 16: To Trap' avTOis evayyeXiov KoXovpevov
Trepiexei, on fjXBov KaraXva-ai rds Bvcrias, Kal idv pfj iravarj-
a-Be rov Bveiv, ov rravoerai d(j)' vpav fj opyfj. §22: Avtoi Se
dcj^avlaavres d0 eavrav rfjv rrjs dXrjBetas dKoXovBiav, ^XXa^av to prjTov ... .
Kol iTvolrja-av TOVS paBrjrds pev Xeyovras • ttov BeXeis eroipdaapev o'Oi
TO irda-xa (payelv (cf. Matt, xxvi, 17,) Kai avrbv BfjBev Xeyovra- pfj
iTTiBvplq, iireBvprjaa Kpeas tovto irdaxa (payelv peB' vpav;
(cf. Luke xxii. 15.) § 26 : Sairt .. . , dpKerbv ra paBrjrfj eivai as b
BiBda-KoXos. Cf Matt. x. 25.
' This is manifest from the use of e'yKpiSes for oKpiSes, which, moreover,
rested on ascetic grounds. Credner, Beitr. I. 34.

GOS L OP THE HEBREWS. § 65 a. 91
§ 65 a.
Jerome is the first authority who had himself seen the
Gospel of the Hebrews, and in the Hebrew (Chaldee) lan
guage. At first he held the opinion, then current also in
the Church, that it was one and the same with the Gospel
of Matthew. He seems, however, to have subsequently re
tracted this opinion ; " and, indeed, some of his quotations
have little or no affinity with the latter Gospel.^
* De vir. ill. (about A. D. 392), c. 3 : Matthaeus  primus in Judaea
propter eos, qui ex circumcisione crediderant, Evangelium Christi Hebraicis
litteris verbisque composuit : quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non
satis certum est, Porro ipsum Hebraicum* habetur usque hodie in Caesorien-
si bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus Martyr studiosissime confecit. Mihi quoque
a Nazaraeis, qui in Beroea urbe Syrioe hoc volumine utuntur, describendi fo-
cultasfuit. In quo f animadvertendum, quod ubicunque Evangelista, sive
ex persona sua, sive ex persona Domini Salvatoris, veteris scripturae testi-
moniis abutitur, non sequatur LXX translatorum auotoritatem, sed Hebrai-
cam ; e quibus ilia duo sunt : Ex Aegypto vocavi filium meum ; et : Quo
niam Nozaraeus vocabitur. — Ib, c,2: Evangelium quoque, quod appellator
secundum Hebraeos, et a me nuper in Graecum Latinumque 'sermonem
translatum est, quo et Origenes saepe utitur . , , . — Comm, ad Mich, vii, 6
(about A. D. 392) : Qui crediderit Evangeliq, quod secundum Hebraeos
editum nuper transtulimus , , . , — About A, D. 398, in his Comm, ad Matt,
vi, 11: In Evangelic, quod appellator secundum Hebraeos, xii, 13:
Evangelium, quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae, quod nuper in Graecum de
Hebraeo sermone transtulimus, et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authen-
ticum, xxiii, 31 : In Evangelic, quo utuntur Nazareni, xxvii, 16 : In
Evangelic, quod scribitur juxta Hebraeos. — After A.D. 406, in his Comm.
ad Isa.xi. 1 : Juxta Evangelium, quod Hebraeo sermone conscriptum legunt
Nazaraei. xl. 9 : In Evangelic, quod juxta Hebraeos scriptum Nazaraei
lectitant. Praef. ad libr, comm, in Isa. xviii, : Evangelium, quod Hebrae-
* This does not mean, as Eichhorn, 1.22, note y, thinks, that there is also
a Gospel in the Syro-Chaldaic ; but that this Hebrew Gospel of M, is (accord-
ding to the assumption) extant in the Gospel of the Hebrews preserved at
Caesarea. ¦f This refers certainly to the Greek Gospel of Matthew, whose identity
with the Gospel of the Hebrews is, however, presupposed. Credner (Beitr.
z. Einl. ins N. T. I. 394) considers the passage, Porro . . . .facultasfuit, a
marginal note written by Jerome himself; and that he had not, at that time,
examined the Hebrew Gospel, and therefore followed the prevailing opinion.
Were that the case, the passage above must have been written earlier than
that which follows.

92 GOSPELS.
orum lectitant Nazaraei. Comm. in Ezech. xviii. : In Evangelic, quod juxta
Hebraeos Nazaraei legere consueverunt. — A, D, 415 c Pelagianos III. 2 :
In Evangelic juxta Hebraeos, quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone, sed
Hebraicis litteris scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hodie Nazareni, secundum
apostolos, sive, ut plerique autumant, juxta. Ms-lths^eum, quod et in Caesari-
ensi habetur bibliotheca 
¦^ Contra Pelagian. III. 2 : In Evangelic juxta Hebraeos  narrat histo
ria : Ecce, mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei : Joannes baptista bapti-
zat in remissionem peccaiorum : eamus et bopiizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis :
Quid peccavi,utvodam etboptizer ab eo? Nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod dixi,
ignorantia est. — Isa, xi. 1 : . , , , juxta Evangelium, quod , , , . legunt Naza
raei : Descendet super eum omnis fons spiritus soncti. Porro .... haec
scripta reperimus : Factum est autem, quum oscendissel Dominus de aqua,
descendit fons omnis'.spiritus s., et requievit super eum, et dixit illi: Fill mi,
in omnibus prophetis exspectobam le, ut venires, et requiescerem in te. Tu es
enim requies mea, tu es filius meus prima genitus, qui regnas in sempiternum.
— Comm, in Mich, vii, 6 :  in quo (Evang, sec, Hebr,) ex persona Salva
toris dicitur : Modo tulit me mater mea, s. spiritus, in uno copillorum meorum
{cf, as previously quoted, Origen, IV. 63), — Comm, in ep, ad Ephes, v, 3 :
In Hebraico quoque Evangelic legimus Dominum ad discipulos loquentem :
Et nunquam, inquit, loeti sitis, nisi quum fratrem vestrum videritis in cari-
iate. — Comm, in Ezech. xviii. . In Evangelic  inter maxima ponitur cri-
mina, qui fratris sui spiritum contristaverit, — De viris ill, c 2 : Evangelium
, . , , sec, Hebr  post resurrectionem Salvatoris refert : Dominus autem,
quum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum, et apparuit ei. Ju-
raverat enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem ab ilia horo, qua biberat coli-
cem Domini, donee videret eum resurgentem a dormientibus. Rursusque post
paululum : Afferte, ait Dominus, mensom et panem. Statimque additur :
Tulit panem et benedixit, ac f regit, et dedit Jacobo justo, et dixit ei : Froter
mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a dormientibus (cf
1 Cor. XV, 7).
§ Q5b.
Other passages have their parallels in Matthew, but are
changed by additions and alterations.^' One of these altera
tions indicates a Greek original.'' Hence, the opinion that
the Gospel of the Hebrews is the most ancient Gospel writ
ing falls to the ground." Jerome makes no distinction be
tween the Gospel of the Nazarenes and that of the Ebion
ites, and seems to have known only the latter. That the
first two chapters were in his copy cannot be satisfactorily
proved ;i but it is probable, as Hegesippus (§ 64 a, note a)

GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS. § 65 b. 93
found them there. The Gospel of Peter must have been
closely related to the Gospel of the Hebrews."
" Contr. Pelagian. 1, c ; , , , . Et in eodem volumine : Si peccaverit, inquit,
froter tuus in verba, et satis tibifecerit, septies in die suscipe eum. Dixit illi
Simon, discipulus ejus : Septies in die? Respondit Dominus et dixit ei: Eti
am ego dico Ubi, usque septuagies septies. Etenim in prophetis quoque, post-
quam uncli sunt spiritus., inventus est sermo peccati [cf. Matt, xviii, 21, f), —
Comm, in Matt, vi, 11: In Evangelic, quod appellator secundum Hebraeos,
pro supersubstontiali pone reperi: Mohor, quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit sen
sus: Panem nostrum crastinum, i, e, futurum, da nobis. — In Matt, xii, 13:
In Evangelic . , , , homo iste, qui aridam habet manum, coementarius scri
bitur, 'istius modi auxilium precans : Coementarius eram, manibus vicium
quaeritons : precor te, Jesu, ut mihi restituas sanitatem, ne turpiler mendicem
cibos. — In -Matt, xxiii, 35 : In Evangelic , , , , pro filio Barachiae filium
Jojadae reperimus scriptum, — Ep, 120 ad Hedibiam: In Evangelic . , , .
legimus non velum templi scssium, sed superliminore templi mirae magni-
tudinis corruisse. Cf in Matt, xxvii. 51.
'' Hieron. in Matt, xxvii. 16 : Iste (Barabbas) in Evangelic .... juxta
Hebr  filius magistri eorum interpretatur. Exchange of N3N 13
for jn31 13, Credner, as above, p, 345, f, 405, On the other hand, Sief-
fert, Ueb, d, Urspr, d. ersten kan. Ev, p, 33, and Schneckenb. Ueb, d, Urspr,
d, erst, kan, Ev, p. 139, think it is only a witty interpretation of the name.
This, however, presupposes the writing p13, which came from the Greek,
° Against Schwegler, Nachap, Zeitalt. I. 199. Baur, Krit. Unterss, p.
573, Credner, p. 410, rightly remarks that the Hebrew Christians did not,
till a later period, feel the need of a Gospel in their own tongue, and there
fore translated the Gospel of Matthew, which was most widely circulated
among the Greek-Jewish Christians.
^ From Comm, ad Matt. ii. 6 : Bethlehem Judaeae : librariorum hie error
est, Putamus enim ab evangelista primum editum, sicut in Hebraico legi
mus Judae, non Judaeae, — -we may not conclude that he had compared the
Gospel of the Hebrews here, Cf. ad Matt, vi, 11 : Quod nos supersubstan
tlalem expressimus, in Graeco habetur imoiaiov : quod verbum LXX inter
pretes TTepiovaiov frequentissime transferunt, Consideravimus ergo in
Hebraeo, et ubicunque illi ireptovotov expresserunt, nos invenimus Sgolla
(which is followed by the already quoted note a). Very little more is proved
by the passage. Ad Isa, xi. 1 : Illud quod in Evang, Matth, omnes quaerunt
ecclesiastici et non inveniunt, ubi scriptum sit, quoniam Nozaraeus vocabitur,
eruditi Hebraei (probably Nazarenes, whom J, was interrogating), de hoc
loco assumtum putant, — Ad Abac, iii. 3 : Audivi ego Hebraeum istum lo
cum ita disserere : quod Bethlehem sita sit ad austrum, in qua natus est
Dominus, etc Cf Matt, ii, 1,
" Euseb. VI. 12, states that Serapion found it in the community at Rhos-
sus, in Cilicia, and in the hands especially of the adherents to the Doce-

94 GOSPELS.
tic heresy. He speaks of it as follows : to pev irXelova rov opBov Xoyov
Toi; aarripos ¦ nvd Be irpoa-Biea-raXpeva. — Theodoret. Haeret, fabb. II. 2 :
Oi Se Na^apaloi . . . . ra KaXovpeva Kara Uerpov evayyeXia Kexprjpevoi.
Cf Origen. ad Matt, xiii, 54-56: Existimabant igitur ilium esse Joseph
et Mariae filium, Fratres autem Jesu putabant nonnulli esse, ex traditione
Hebraeorum sumta occasione, ex Evangelio quod titulum habet juxta Petrum,
aut ex libro Jacobi, De principils I, prooem, § 8 : Si quis velit nobis pro-
ferre ex illo libello, qui Petri doctrina appellatur , , . . non sum daemonium
incorporeum (cf Hieron. De vir, ill, Ignat.), Euseb. Ill, 25, numbers^ this
Gospel among the heretical writings, — According to Credner, as above, p,
412, it formed the basis of the Gospel of the Hebrews.
Cf , besides, on the Gospel of the Hebrews, Grabe, Spicil, patr, I, p. 25,
sqq. Fabric. Cod. apocr, N, T. p. 346, sqq,, where the fragments have been
collected. Rich. Simon, Hist, crit, du texte du N, T, ch, 7, 8, Maii Exa
men hist. crit. c 7, 8. Mill, Prolegg. n. 45, ff, MichaSlis, 'Einl. in d,
N, T, II, 1004, ff, Paulus, Exeget. krit, Abh, 1784. Ch. Fr. Weber,
Beitr, z, Gesch. d. neutest, Kanons, 1791. 8vo. Id. Ueber das Ev. d.
Hebr, 1806, 8vo, 2. Justin's Gospel.
§ 66 a.
Justin Martyr (born A. D. 89, died 163), in his writings,
often adduces from the Gospel history both deeds and say
ings of Jesus and others. The latter bear distinct resem
blance to corresponding passages in our Gospels, especially
in Matthew and Luke, seldom in John, and are related to
them as follows: — 1. Several, but not many, agree word
for word ; '^ 2. Others agree in the matter, but differ in using
similar words and combinations, in misplacing and omit
ting;^ 3. Others give the thought only in general, or ap
proximately ; " 4. Others, in fine, give the contents of several
passages and various sayings brought together.*
»¦ a. Dial, c Tryph, p,301, ed. Col, Cf Matt, viii, 11, 12: Aiya Be
"H^ovai divb dvaroXav Kal Bva-pav, vplv, on ttoXXoi dirb dvaroXav ....
Kal dvaKXiBfjaovrai perd 'Afipadp ^^ovai, k. t. X.
Kal 'Itradx Kal 'laK0)/3 iv rfj ^aai-
Xeia Twv ovpavav * ol Be viol rrjs
Paa-iXelas eK^XriBfjO-ovrai els rb
OKOTos TO i^arepov. Cf. pp. 349,
370,
|3. Ib, p, 333 : 'Eav pfj ivepia-o-evo-rj vpav fj BiKaioaivrj rrXelov rav ypappareav

JUSTIN'S GOSPEL. § 66 a. 95
Kai ^apioraiav, ov pfj ela-eXBrjre els rfjV ^acriXelav rav ovpavav. Cf, Matt,
V, 20.
y, Apol, II, p, 64 : Udv Be BevBpov pfj rrowvv Kapirbv KoXbv iKKoirrerai Kal
els irvp ^dXXerai. Cf Matt, vii. 19.
Cf also Dial, c Tr, p. 327, and Luke i, 38, Other verbal agreements
occur in the midst of variations, as Apol, II, p. 75, cf. Matt, i, 21, with
which Luke i, 35 is combined ; Dial, c Tryph, p, 271, cf Matt, xi, 12, 14,
where the expression is partly changed. It is noteworthy, that Justin, in
quoting Old Testament passages that occur in the Gospels, agrees with Mat
thew, in opposition to the LXX, p. 74, cf. Matt. i. 23 ; p. 75, cf Matt. ii.
6 ; p, 76, cf. Matt, xxi, 5 ; p. 235, cf. Matt. xxi. 23 ; and so on.
ll The following quotations vary in only one word : —
u, Apol, II, p, 64 : Ov^i irds d Xe- Matt. vii. 21 : Ov irds d Xeyav poi,
yav poi, Kvpie, K. r. X. Kvpie, K. r. X.
/3, Dial, c Tr, p, 384 : Teved irovrj- Matt. xvi. 4 : Teved novrjpd . . . .
pd . . . . Kal arjpelov ov BoBrjO-erai Kal arjp. ov BoBfjoerai avrfj, k. r.X.
avTols, K, T. X.
y. Ib, p,269: 'HXi'as pev iXevae- Matt, xvii, 12 : 'HX, p. epxerai
rai Kal diroKarao-rfjO-eiiTdvra. Ae- irparov K. dir. ir. Aeyw Se ,,,.
yto Se vplv, on 'HXlas ^Brj fjXBe, dXX' iirolrjaav iv avra, k. t. X.
Kal OVK eireyvaaav avrdv, dXX inol-
Tjaav avra otra rjBeXijirav.
The following quotations vary more : —
8. Dial, c, Tr, p. 268 : 'Eya pev vpds Matt, iii, 11, f, : 'Eyca pev /San-Tifto
^airrl^a iv vBan els perdvoiav, v/xas iv vBan els perdvoiav • d Be
fj^ei Be b l(TXvpdrepds pov, diriaa pov ipxdpevos lirxvpd-
ov OVK elpl iKavbs rd viroBfjpara repos pov iirriv, ov ovk elpl iKa-
^aardaai • avrbs vpds ^airricrei iv vos rd VTroBrjpara j3a(TTda'ai • avrbs
TTvevpan dyl(U Kal nvpl. Ov rb vpds ^aTTTiueL iv wvevpan dyla Kal
irrvov avrov iv rfj xeipl av- irupl. Oij rb tttvov iv rfj xeipl
rov, Kal BiaKaBapiel rfjV dXava av- avrov, Kixi BiaKaBapiel rfjv aXava av
rov, Kal rbv alrov crvvd^ei tov, Kal trvvd^ei rbv (titov av-
els rfjV diToBfjKrjv • to Be axvpov Ka- rov els ttjv diroBfjKrjv • rb Be cixvpov
raKavaei irvpl daPitrra. KaraKaixrei irvpl dcr^eortf.
e, Apol. II. p. 61, sq., where several expressions of Jesus are quoted suc
cessively : —
Os 8' &v ipPXe'^rj yvvaiKl Matt. V, 28 : . — ttSs o /SXen-cov
irpbs TO iiriBvpfjirai avrfjs, fjBrj epol- yvvaiKa irpbs rb iiriBvprjaai avrrjs, fjBrj
Xevae rrj KapBia irapd ra Bea. ipoixevaev avrfjv iv rfj Kaphla av
rov .
(. Ib, Kai el 6 d(p6aXpds aov 6 Se- Matt, v, 29 : Ei Se 6 dcpBdXpds a-ov
^ibs a-KavBaXi^ei ae, eKKOiJAov av- 6 Bellas a-KavBaXl^et ae, e^eXe avTov
TOV- avpcpepei ydp croi povd- Kal /3aXe airb irov' a-up(pepei ydp
(pBaXpov elireXBelv els rfjV croi iva dirdXrjrai ev rav peXav
^aa- iXelav rav ovpavav, rj (rov, Kal pfj 8Xov rb trapd (rov

96

GOSPELS.

fiera rav Bvo irep<pBfjvat eis
TO aiaviov irvp .

Tj. Ib. 'Os yapel diroXeXvpevrjv d(p
erepov dvBpos, poixdrai.

6. Ib. Eio'i Tives, oinves evvovxitrBrj-
cav vivb rav dvBpanav • eto"i Be oi
iyevvfjBrjtrav evvovxoi ' eitxl Be oi
evvovxi<rav eavrovs Bid rfjV fSaa-iXei-
av rav ovpavav. UXrjv ov irav-
res TOVTO x^povo-iv .

I. Ib, p, 62: El dyoTraTe tovs
dyaTTavras vpds, ri Kaivov ttoi-
eire; Kal ydp ol iropvoi tov
to TTOiovaiv.
K. Ib. Uavrl ra alrovvri BiBore,
Kal rbv fiovXdpevov Baveio'a-
trBai pfj dTfoorpacpfiTe- el ydp
Bavei^ere Trap' &v iXirl^ere Xafieiv,
T I Kaivbv IT 0 lelre ; rovro Kai oi
reXavai TTOiovaiv.
X. Ib, 'Ypeis Be pfj BrjO-avpi^ere
e avrols inl rrjs yrjs, ottov otjs Kai
^pacFis d(pavi^ei Kal XrjirTal Bio-
pvaa-ovm' Brjaavpi^ere Be eavrols
iv TOis ovpavols , OTTOV ovre arjS
ovVe PpacFis d<pavi^ei.

p. Ib, Ti yap ixpeXelrai dvBpaiTos, av
rbv Koa'pov oXov KepBfjO^, rfjV Be
^j/vxfjv dnoXeirr] ; rj ri Baaei av
rfjs dvrdiXXaypa ;
V. Ib, TiveaBe Be xpr^o-r oi Kal ol-
KTippoves, as koi 6 rrarrjp vpav
XprjO'rds ion Kai o'lKTippav * Kat

PXrjBfj els yeevvav. Cf, how
ever, Matt, xviii, 9 : , , . , koXoV aoi
povd<p6aXpov els rfjV ^oifjv elaeXBe'iv, fj
Bvo 6(p6aXpovs exovra ^XrjBrjvat eis rfjV
yeevvav tov irvpos.
Matt. V, 32: ,,,, 6s av dnoXvarj
rfjV yvvaiKa avrov  Troiei avrrjv
poixdaBai- Kal OS idv diroXeXvpevrjv
yapfjcrrj, poixdrai.
Matt, xix, 12: e'i(Tl ydp evvovxoi,
oinves iK KoiXias prjrpbs iyevvfjBrjcrav
ovra ¦ Kai elcriv evvovxoi, oinves ev-
vovxio'Brjirav virb rav dvBpairav • Kal
elcriv evvovxoi, o'lnves evvovxiaav eav
rovs Bid rfjV jSacriXeiac tcoj' ovpavav.
'O Bvvdpevos x^P^'"' x'"?^'-'
Ta. Matt. V, 46: 'Eav ydp dyairfj-
crrjTe rovs dyairavras vpds, nva pi-
(rBbv exere; ovxl Kat ot reXa-
vai TO avrb iroiovai ;
Matt, V . 42 : Tm alrovvri o-e Si'Sov '
KOI TOV BeXovra dirb a-ov* Ba-
veiaatrBai pfj dTTocrr pacpfj s. Luke
vi. 34 : Kai idv Bavei^ere irap' &v iX-
ifi^ere diToXa^e'iv, ito la vplv xop'f
itrri; Matt, iv, 19 : M^ Brjo-avpi^ere vplv
Brjiravpovs iirl rrjs yrjS, ottov (rfjs
Kal ppSxris d(pavi^ei, Kal ottov KXe-
iTrai Biopvairovcn Kal KXeirrovcri-
Brjcravpi^ere Be vplv Brjaavpovs ev
ovpava , OTTOV oiire ofjs oiire jSpacris
dcpavi^ei, Kal ottov KXeirrai ov Si-
opvaaovaiv ovBe KXe irrovaiv ¦
Matt, xvi, 26 : Ti yap a<p. dvBp.,
idv T. Koap. oX. KepB., rfjv Be -^X-
avrov ^rjpiaBfj ; ^ ri Biro: dv-
opaiTos dvr.rfjs "^vxfjs avrov;
Luke vi, 36 : TiveaBe ovv o'lKrippo-
ves, KaBas Kai o irarfjp vpav oiKri'p-
pav iarl. Matt. v. 45 : , , . , on tov

aTTo a-ov is wanting in D, cant. Clem, Cypr,

JUSTIN'S GOSPEL. § 66 a. 97
TOV TjXtov avrov dvareXXei eVl fJXiov avrov dvareXXei iirl irovrfpovs
apapraXoiis Kal BiKalovs Kal Kal dyaBovs, Kal jSpexei iirl
iTovrjpovs. (Dial, c Tr. p.324: Sixat'ovs Kai qSikovs.
riwo-^e xPlo-rol Kal o'lKrlppo-
ves, ws Kat 6 iTarfjp vpav d ovpdvws. Kai iravTOKpdropa Bebv xpWrbv Kal
oiKTippova opapev, rbv ijXtov ovtoO avoTeXXoira eVi dxapiarovs Kal BiKalovs,
Kai ^pexovra iirl oa-iovs Kal iTovrjpovs.)
§. Apol. II, p. 63 : Tw tvittovti aov Luke vi. 29 : Too tvtttovti o-e iirl
rfjv a-iaydva iTapexe Kai rfjV aXXrjV rffv aiaydva irdpex^ Kat rfjv SXXrjV'
Kai TOV aipovra crov rbv xirava fj to Kal otto tov a'lpovrds (TOV rb ipdnov
ipanov prj KaXva-rjs. Kat rbv xirava pfj KaXva-rjs.
o. Ib, navTi Se dyyapevovri Matt. V, 41 : Kal oans oe dy-
(Toi piXtov, dKoXovBrjcrov Bvo. yape-ufrei piXiov ev, vTTOye per'
avrov Bvo.
TT. Ib, Aap^lfdra Be vpav rd KaXd Matt, v, 16 : OvTca Xapyfrdra rb
epya epTTpoa-Bev rav dvBpaTTav, ^as vp,(5v e pTT pocrBev rav dvBpa-
iva pXeTTOvres Bavpd^aeri rbv irav, diras 'iBamv vpav rd KaXd
irarepa vpav tov iv ro'is ovpavols. epya, Kal Bo^da-aai rbv waripa
vpav rbv iv rols- ovpavols.
p. Ib, p. 95 : OvSets eyvo) tov ira- Matt. xi. 27 : llavTa poi napeBoBrj
repa ei prj 6 vtos, ovSe rbv vlbv el vito tov irarpos jiov ' Kal ovSeis iiriyi-
prj 6 iTarrjp, Kal ois &v diTOKdXv^-rj vaa-Kei rbv vlbv el pfj b irarfjp ¦ ovBe
d vlds. (So p. 96, only at last: tov irarepa tis iiTiyivaaKei el pfj d
6 vtos diToKaX. So also Clem. Horn., vtos, koI a idv /SovXtjtoi 6 vlbs otto-
also Orig,) Dial, c. Tr. p, 326 : KaXvi|^ai,*
Tldvra poi irapaBiBorai vtto tov ira
rpos, Kal ovS, ytvoxTKet ., ttot, et pfj vlds, ovSe ¦*, viov et ju^ 6 irarfjp,
Kal ols dv 6 vlbs diTOKCtXv-^-rj.
a-. Dial. c. Tr. p. 235 : Teypairrai ¦ b Matt, xxi, 13 : F^yp  KXrjBfj-
oiKos pov oiKos npoa-evxfjs ianv aerai- vpels Be avrbv iiroifjira-
vpels Be iTeiTOirj Kare avrbv (Tirfj- Tef (rnrjXaiov Xrjarav.
Xaiov XrjfTrav '
r.lb. Td(poi KeKoviapevoi, e^a- Matt, xxiii, 17: Tlapopoid^ere rd-
6ev (patvdjievoi apaloi , eaaBev Be (pois KeKoviapevois, oinves e^. pev
yepovres dtrreav veKpav. (palvovrai apaioi, ea-. Be yipovaiv
OOT. veKp. Kal iTaa-TjS dKoBapaias.
V. Ib. p, 301: 'YTrayeTc cts rb Matt. xxv. 41 : HopeveaBe dir'
(TKoros rb i^ifarepov , 6 fjTOi- epov ol Karqpapevoi els rb irvp rb
paa-ev o irarrjp ra aaravii Kai aiaviovf ro rjTotpaa-pevov\\ rw
Tols dyyeXois avrov. Bia^dXa Kal rols dyyeXois avrov.
* 6 vtos diTOKaXv-^rj Clem, sexies, Orig. quater, Iren. semel, Tertull.
f TTeiToifjKare 1. Orig. bis.
J TO i^arepov Cod. 40, eis r. o-kot. •/. i^. Clem. Hom. XIX, 2,
II o fjToipaa-ev 6 irarfjp D. 1. al. I . Clem. Al. Iren. al. Clem. Hom. XIX. 2.
13

98 GOSPELS.
<p. Ib, p,326: ndTep, ei SvvaT<5v eo-Ti, Matt, xxvii. 39: IIoTep po-u , el
TTapeXBira rb iTorfipiov rovro Bvvarov ion, iTOpeXBera dir' ipov
dir' i poi, {-p. 331: TTapeXBira, el rb irorfjpiov rovro- 7rXr/v ovx'
Svvardv, TO iTorfjpiov tovto.) (Kai as iya BeXa, dXX as av.
perd tovto evxdpevos Xeyei') pfj as
lyo) ^ovXo/xai, dXX* as O'V BeXeis.
See also Dial, c Tryph. p. 253, cf Matt. vii. 15 ; p. 213, cf Matt. xxiv.
11 ; Apol. II, p, 62, cf Matt, ix, 13, Luke vi, 34 ; p, 63, cf Matt, vi, 1 ;
Dial, c Tr. p. 302 and 327, cf. Luke ix. 22 ; ib. p. 301, cf Luke x. 19 ;
ib. p. 235, cf Luke xi. 52,
The following quotations differ still more widely : —
X. Apol, II, p, 63 : Ml) opdirrjre oXas. Matt, v. 34 : 'Eyu Se Xeya vplv,
"Ea-ra Be vpav ro vol vai, Kal rb oi pfj dpda-ai oXas .... 35 
0V-* TO Se Trepicro'ov TovTtBV eV TOV 36  37. 'Ecttib Se o Xoyos
TTOvrjpoii. vpav • veil vat,f ov ov • to Be irepia-
crbv TOvrav iK tov iTOvrjpov eanv.
•>//•. Ib. IIpoo-eX^dvTOs avra nvbs Kal Matt, xix. 16 : Kai tSov els irpoo-
eliTOVTOs ¦ SiSdo-KaXe dyaBe, direKpi- eXBav elnev avra • SiSdo'KaXe ayaBe,
vara Xeycov ovSeis dyaBos el pfj ti dyaflov jrotTjcriB, tva ex<B fMJJv aimvi-
pdvos b Beds, d iroifjcras rd irdvra. ov; 'O Se eivrev avra- Ti pe eparas
(Dial, u, Tr, p. 328 : AeyovTos avTm Trepi rov dyaBov ; (Luke xviii, 19:
Ttvo's- StSdo-KaXe dyaBe, diTeKpivaro- ri pe Xeyeis dyaBdv;) eis ianv b aya-
Ti pe Xeyeis dyaBdv; eis i(rnv dya- Bos. El Be BeXeis, k.t.X. (Luke ov-
Bds, 6 iTarfip fiou iv rols ovpavols.) Bels dyaBos el pfj eis, 6 Beds.)
" a. Apol, II, p. 63: 'Os S' dv Matt, v, 22: nds 6 dpytfd/ie-
dpyia-Bfj , evoxds ianv els rb vos ra dBeX(pa avroij eiKrj,
TTvp . evoxos e(TTai rfj Kplaei. Os S av
e'liTTj Ta dBeX<pa avTov paKa, evoxos
earai tm ovveBpim • os S' dv e'lTTij pape, evoxos eorai els rfjV yeevvav
TOV TTvpds.
^. Ib, p. 64: 'Os ydp dKovei pov, Kal Luke x, 16 : 'O dKo-uav vpav ipov
iToiel d Xeya, CKOvet rov dirocrrei- oKovet * Kai 6 d^eToiv vpds ipe dBe-
Xavrds pe. rei • J d Se ipe dBerav dBerel rbv diro-
a-reiXavrd pe.
y. Ib, 'Qt TrXeov eBaKev 6 Beds, TrXeov Luke xii, 48 : IlavTi Se a iBoBrj
KCLi dTTairrjBfjoerai irap' avrov . itoXv, ttoXv ^rjrrjBfjO-erai irap' avrov •
Kal a TTapeBevro iroX-v, iTepiua-drepov
alTfjO-mJo-iv avrdv.
S, Ib, p, 66 : Td dSuvaTa TTopd dv^pd)- Matt, xix. 26 : Ilapd dv6pd)7rots Toii-
TTois, SvvaTa Trapd Bea. ro dBvvardv icrnv, irapd Be Bea irdvra
Bvvard.
* So Clem, Al, Clem, Hom. Ill, 55, XIX, 2 ; also James v. 12.
•j- KOI L. 225, Mt. d. Syr. all.
;jl 6 Se ipov aKovav aKovei tov dTToa-reiXavrds pe D cant. vind.

Justin's gospel. § 66 a. 99
.. Dial, c Tr. p. 235 : Ovai vplv. Matt, xxiii. 23 : Ovot vplv, yp. k.
ypapparels Kal ^apiaaloi, VTTOKpi- *., vwoKp., dn diToB. t. fjB. K. r.
rai, on airoBeKaTOvre rb fjBvoapov avrjBov Kal rb Kvpivov, Kal d(pfj-
Kai TO iTTjyavov, rfjV Be dyd- Kare rd ^apvrepa rofj vdpov,
1TTJV Toij Beov Kal rfjV KptO"iv rfjV Kpicriv Kal rbv eXeov Kal rfjV
ov Karavoeire . iria-nv.
Q. Ib, p, 308: OvVe yapfj(rov(riv, oiire Matt, xxii, 30 : 'Ev ydp rfj dvaard-
yaprjBfjiTovrai, dXXd lo'dyyeXoi ecrov- aei oiire yap. oiire iKyapi^ovrai, dXX'
Tai, TeKva tov Beov rfjs dvaarrdireas as dyyeXot TOV Beov iv ovpava ela-i.
ovres. (Luke XX. 36 : 'lo'dyyeXoi ydp eio't,
,. Kcii vloi e'la-i TOV Beov, rfjs dvatrrdcreas
viol dvres.^
rj. Ib. Koi oTt ^evBoTTpo<pfJTai Matt, xxiv, 24 : 'Eyepfl^o-ovrat ydp
Kat y'evSdxptO'Tot ttoXXoi eTrt i//"evSdxp tCTOt Kat -^evBoTTpo-
ra ovdpari avrov TrapeXev- (pfjrai, Kal Baa-ovoi aTjpela peydXa
(rovrai, Kal iToXXoiis irXavfj- Kal repara, aare TrXav^crai, el Bvvarov,
a-ova-iv{p. 253, dvaiTrfja-ovraiTToX- Kal rovs iKXeKrovs .
Xol ¦'jfevSdxp ¦ It, i/fevSaTrd<rToXot,
K, TT, TCOV TTKTTaV TtX.)
6. Apol, II, p. 94: Kat ydp d Xpi- John iii. 3: 'Edv pfj Tts yevvrjBfj
(Trbs etVev • dv pfj dvayevvrjBrjre, avaBev, ov Bvvarai iSeiv rfjv fiaaiXeiav
ov pfj elcreXBrjTe els rfjv ^aa-iXelav tov Beov. V, 4 : . ... pfj Bvvarai els
Tav ovpavav • * dVt Se Kai dSvvaTOV rfjV KOiXiav rfjs prjrpbs avrov Be-vrepov
ets rds prjrpas r£v reKovaav drra^ elaeXBelv, Kat yevvrjBfjvai ;
yevvapevovs ipfifjvai, (pavepdv ion
irdai.
t, Ib, p, 68: 'O Xoyos os riva rpd- John i, 14: 'O Xoyos o"dp^ iyevero.
770V a-apKoiToirjBels avBpaiTOs ye- i. 1, ff, : ev dpxfj rjv b Xoyos , , , , Trdv-
yovev, e'v toTs e^rjs ipovpev . . . . d Ta St avTOv iyevero, k.t.X.
Be vlbs {Beov) d fwvos Xeydpevos
Kvpias vlds, d Xoyos iTpb T(BV iToirjpdrav, Kal avvav K. yevvapevos, OTe rfjV
dpxfjv Bi avrov irdvra eKTKre k. iKoapyjae, X-piirrbs pev Kara rd Kexpi(rBai k.
Koajjifjoai rd iravra Bi avrov rbv Beov, Xeyerai.
d u. Apol. II. p. 63 : Mt) pepipvdre Matt, vi, 25 : M^ peptpvdre rrj ¦\Jav-
Be n (pdyjjTe, ^ Ti ivBvcrrjuBe . ovx XV vp^v, Tt (pdyrjre Kal n irlrjre, prjBe
vpels Tav iTereivav Kal TtSv Brjplav tw aapari vpav, ri ivBiorjo-Be. ovxi
Biacpepere ; Kal d Bebs rpefpei avra. fj ^vxfj irXeidv ia-ri rfjS rpocjifjs, Kal rd
pfj ovv pepipvfprrjTe ri Kpdyrjre,,^ ri aaparov evBvparos; 26: ip^Xe-yfrare
ivBvarjcrBe • oiBe ydp b irarfjp vpav d els Ta irereivd Tofi ovpavov, on ov
ovpdvws, on Tovrav xP^'iav exere. aiTeipova-iv, ovBe Bepi^ovtriv, ovBe avv-
^riTelre Be rfjV ^aaiXeiav rav ovpa- dyovaiv els diToBrjKas • Kal d TTarfjp
vavt Kol ravra irdvra irpoa-TeBfjo-erai vpav d ovpdvtos Tpe(pet avra ' ovx
* So also Clem. Hom. XI. 26.

100

GOSPELS.

Kvpie, Kvpie, ov no a-co ovopan e(pa-
yopev Kal iirlopev, kcu Bvvapeis
iiTOifjO-apev ; Kal rdre epa avrois •
diToxapelre dir' ipov ipydrai rfjs
dvopias. (Dial, c, Tr. p, 301 : tt.

vplv. OTTOV ydp d Brjaavpos ianv, vpels paXXov Biacpepere avrav ; 31 :
exei Kal d voCs ToO dvBpaTTOV. pfj ovv pepipvfjtrrjre Xiyovres ¦ ti <pd-
yapev, fj ri iriapev, fj ri irepi^aXape-
6a ; 32 : TrdvTa ydp raira Td e^v?; iTTi^rjre'i. otSe ydp d TTOT^p vpav b
ovpdvws, on XPriC^"^^ rovrav OTTavrav. 33 : f))TeiTe Se Trpmrov rfjV fiaa-iXeiav
TOV Beov Kal rfjv BiKawarvvrjV avrov, Kal ravra Trdvra TrporrreBrjcrerai vplv.
21 : OTTOV ydp ia-riv d Brjcravpbs vpav, iKel 'itrrai Kal fj KapSia vpav.
|8, Ib. p, 64 : noXXol Se ipoval poi. Matt, vii, 22 : n, ep. p. iv eK, r,
" ¦ ¦ ' ' ' fjp. It., li. ov r. (T. dv. TTpoe(prjTeva-apev
K. I , (T. dv. Baip. e^e/3dX, k. t. a-, dv.
Bvv. iToXXds iiTOifjo-apev ; 23 : koi
Tore dpoXoyfjda avrols ' dn ovBeiTore
eyvcov vp-ds • diToxapelre air epov ol
ip. p. rfj fjpepa iKeivrj, ov r, a. dv. ipya^dpevoi rfjV avopiav.
i<f>. 1^. iTT. Kal TTpoecprjTeva-apev, Kal Luke xiii. 26 : .... i<pdyopev iva-
Baipovia i^e^dXopev ; K.ipa avrols- iridv aov Kal iTT  27 : , . , .
dvaxwpeiTe dir' ipov ¦ ) rdre kXov- ovk ot'Sa vpds, TToBev ia-re ¦ aiTOcrTrjre
Bpbs eoTai Kal ^pvypbs rav oBdvrav, dir' ipov irdvres ol epydrai r. aB.
orav ol pev BiKawi Xdp-\jfaa-iv ms d Matt, xiii, 42 : . , , , e'xei etrTai d
fjXws, ol Be dBiKoi TTepTTavrai els rb KXavBpbs K, d 0p. r- dS, 43 : TOTe oi
aiQjvtov TTvp. TToXXol ydp fj^ovai iirl BiK. iKXdp^ovaiv as b fjXws iv rfj ^a-
Tco dvdparl pov, e^aBev pev ivBeBv- o"iXeta rod narpos avrav. vii. 15 :
pevoi Bsppara irpo^drav, 'icraBev Be TTpoa-exere Be otto rav ^evBoTTpoCprjTav,
ovres XvKoi apirayes. iK rav epyav oinves epxovrai Trpbs vpds iv ivBvpairt
avrav iTTiyvacreaBe avrovs ¦ (Dial.c Trpo^drav, eaaBev Be eicrt XvK, dpir,
Tr, p, 253 : ttoXXoi iXeva-ovrai inl 16: djrd twv KapTTav avrav iiriyv. av-
T. dv. p. e|. evS, Sep, Tip., ea. Be rovs . . . 19: ttuv B. p. it. k. k.
elai X. apTT,) Trdv Se BevBpov pfj iKK. K, eis tt, pdXX.
TTOiovv Kapirbv KaXbv eKKOTTrerai Kai
els TTvp (BdXXerai.
y. Ib. p. 66: Ml) (po^eia-Be tovs Matt, x, 28 : Kat pfj (po^ela-Be
dvaipovvras vpds, Kal perd rav- dnb rav anoKrevdvrav ro a-apa, rfjV
ra pfj Bvvapevovs Ti TToifjfxai' Be -^vxf]V pfj Bvvapevav aTTOKrelvai.
(po^fjBrjre Be rbv perd to dnoBa- (Luke xii. 4 ; Kat perd ravra pfj
velv Bvvdpevov Kal i^rvxriv Kal a-<opa ixdvrav TTepia-a-drepdv n TTOifja-ai)
els yeevvav e pfiaXelv . (pofi. Be pdXXov rbv Bvv. k, ¦^. k.
a-. dTToXeaai iv yeevvrj * (Luke (po^.
rov perd rb dTTOKrelvai e^ovaiav exovra i pjSaXelv els rfjV y.).
See Dial, c Tryph, p, 354, cf Matt, xiii, 3, Luke viii, 5.
S, Ib. p, 316: OvK ei/it d Xpio-Tos, dX- John i, 23: 'Eya (pavfj ^oavros 
Xd (pavfj ^oavros. fj^eiydp 6 lo-xv- Matt, iii, 11 : d Se OTriVia pov epxdpe-
porepds pov, ov ovK elpl iKavos to vos Icrxvpdrepds pov iirriv, ov, k. t. X.
VTToBfjpara ^airrdcrai.

* els yeevvav D It. Vulg. Patr. Lat.

JUSTIN'S GOSPEL. § 67 a. 101
§ 66 b.
His historical citations are much freer, and combine, in
part, the statements of Matthew and Luke.'' Some, how
ever, are not to be found in our Gospels.^
» Dial, c Tr, p, 303, sq,, cf Matt, i, 18-ii, 23, Luke ii, 2-5, 7 ; ib, p,
100, cf Luke i, 35, 38 (of Elizabeth) ; p, 88, cf Luke iii, 23 ; ib, p. 3)6,
cf. Matt, iii, 4; ib, p, 315, cf Matt, iii, 13, 16, 17; p, 268, cf Matt, xiv,
3, 6, f ; p, 328, cf Matt, xxvii, 39, 40, 43 ; p. 333, cf Mark iii. 17 ; p.
327, Apol. II. p. 75, cf Luke i. 31, 32, 35, 38 ; Dial. c. Tr. p. 331, cf Luke
xxii. 44 ; Apol. I, p, 50, cf Luke xxiv, 25 ; De resurr, 9, cf Luke xxiv.
37. See the passages copied in Eichhorn, Einl. I. 89, ff., 515, ff. Credn.
Beitrage z, Einl, I, 151, ff.
'' Dial, c Tryph, p. 303, sq. . TevvrjBevros Be rdre tov naiBiov iv BrjBXeep,
erreiBfj laafjCp opK eixev ev rfj Kap-rj iKeivrj ttov KaraXva-ai, ev (rirrjXala Tivt
(rvveyyvs rfjs Kaprjs KareXvae ' Kal rdre avrav dvrav eKel, ereroKei fj Mapla
rov XptoTdv, Kal ev (pdrvrj avrov ereBeiKei - ottov eXBovres ol dirb 'Apa^ias pd-
yoi efjpov avrdv. Apol. II. p. 75: .... toov diroypacpav twv yevopevav enl
Kvprjvwv T. vperepov ev'lovBaia irparov yevopivov eiTirpdirov. —
p. 315 : ToTe eXBdvros tov 'Ij/o-ov eTri tov 'lopBdvrjV irorapov evBa b 'ladvvrjs
e^dwri^e, KareXBdvros rov 'irjaov enl rd vBap, Kal nvp dvfjCpBrj ev tc3
lopBdvrj- Kal avaBvvros avrov ano tov vBaros, as nepitrrepdv rb dyiov nvevpa
ininrrjvai en avrov eypayj/av ol dndirroXoi a-vrov.
p. 316: Kat (pavfj eK rav ovpavav Matt. iii. 17: OStos eoriv * d vtos
dpa eXrjXvBei, vlds pov el av ' eya afj- pov d dyanrjrds, ev a e-vBoKrjo-a.
pepov yeyivvrjKd ere. Cf, p, 331, Luke iii, 22: 2v ei d vlds povf b
ayairrjTos, ev ooi evBdKrjcra.
p, 316 : Td reKTOviKa epya eipydfeTO ev dvBpanois av, dporpa Kal fvyd ¦ Sid
rovrav K(ii rd rfjs BiKaioavvrjs avp^oXa BiBda-Kav Kal evepyfj ^idv. — p. 296 :
Ol Be Kal ravra dpavres yevdpeva (pavracriav payiKrjV yiveaBai eXeyov ' Kal ydp
pdyov eivai avrbv erdXpav Xeyeiv Kal XaonXdvov. — p. 267 : Xpiirrbs elnev -
iv OIS dv vpds KaraXdPa, iv tovtois Kal Kpiva. The passages, p. 333, 271,
which Eichhorn, I. 93, 94, cites, are perhaps not peculiar accounts, but arbi
trary amplifications. § 67 a.
Justin mentions, as the source of these sayings and ac
counts, writings left behind by the Apostles and their assist
ants, which he calls Memoirs of the Apostles, also Gospels.''
* o-v et D cant. verc.
f 'Eya a-fjpepov yeyevvrjKa ae D cant. all. Clem. all.

102 GOSPELS.
It is a question what we are to understand by these. The
old opinion, that they mean our canonical Gospels, is by
no means contradicted by the inexactness of the citations
(§ 66 a, notes b — d) ; for it is probable, nay, is established
by the repetitions that occur,^=' that Justin cited the Gos
pels, as sometimes the Old Testament writers,'' freely, from
memory." The title. Memoirs of the Apostles, probably an
allusion to Xenophon's " Memorabilia," and the non-mention
of the Evangelists' names,"^ cannot be of much importance;
and Gospels which were read in the assemblies of the Chris
tians cannot well be other than our canonical Gospels, all
of which (Mark and John more seldom'') he made use of.
" Apol. II. p. 98 : Oi ydp aTrda-ToXot ev tois yevopevois in avrav ano-
pvrjpovevpairiv, d KaXeirai evayyeXia, ovras napeBaKav. Ib. : Kai Ta
dnopv. T. dn., fj Td (rvyypdppara rav npo(prjrav dvayivaerKerai. p, 75 : as
ol dnopvrjpovevtravres ndvra Td Trept rov a-arfjpos fjpav 'I, Xp. eStSafav,
Dial, C. Tr, p, 328 : d Kal ev rols dnopv. rav dnocrr. afjroii yeypanrai.
p. 328: as iv rols anopv. rav dn. a-vrov BeBfjXarai. p, 331: ev tois
dn-opvrj povevpacri -t . d. yeypanrai. Ib, ; ev ydp Tots dnopv. d (fyrjpi
inb rav dnoirr. avrov Kal rav eKeivois napaKoXovBrjO-dvrav
(XvvrerdxBai. p. 332: oTrep Kat ev TOts dnopv. r. dn. a-vrov yeypanrai.
p. 333 : (MS e'v tois dnopv. r. dn. BrjXovrai. Ib. : . , , , Kat rb e'lneXv peravo-
paKevai avTov ('I, X.) Uerpov 'iva rav dnocrrdXav, Kal yeypd(p6ai iv rols
dnopv. avrov yeyevrj pevov Kal tovto, perd tov koi aXXovs Bvo dBeXcpovs
vlovs ZejSeBalov bvras peravopaKevai dvdpan rov Boavepyes, d eoTtv vioi ^povrfjs,
(TTjpavTiKbv rjv, K.-t , X. p, 334 : as yeypanrai ev rols dnopv. rav dn. av
rov. Ib. : yeypanrai ev rols avrols dnopvrjpovevpairiv. A single gos
pel is but seldom spoken of. Dial, p, 326 : ev ra evayyeXia yeypanrai.
p, 227 : TO e'v ra Xeyopeva evayyeXi'ia napayyeXpara. It is, however, usual
to comprise under this name the collection of Gospels,
" Cf § 66 a, note b, v, Apol, IL p, 62, Dial. p. 324 ; — note b, p, Apol,
IL 95, Dial. p. 326 ; — note b, (p, Dial, p, 326, 331 ; —note b, r//-, Apol, II,
p, 63, Dial, p, 328; — note c, rj. Dial, p, 308, 253 ; — note d, p, Apol, IL
p. 64, Dial, p, 301,
>¦ Apol, II, p. 73, cf Gen. xlix. II ; p. 74, cf Isa. xi. 1, 10, with mix
ture from Num. xxiv. 17; pp, 79, 80, cf Ps.xcvi, ; p, 86, cf, Ps, xxiv, 7 ;
Dial, p, 228, cf Jerem, xxxi, 31, sq, Cf Bindemann, in Stud, u, Kr, 1842,
p, 415, ff.
' Credner, last-mentioned work, pp. 211, 223, 246, f , 252, labors to show,
in the passages 2. b. v. x- 1- k, (where he lays stress on the expression ti' koi-
vdv), 4, d.y. 3, c, B. I. traces of another text found in heretical writings,
(See against him Bindemann, as above, p. 441, ff.) Baur refers the passages

Justin's gospel. § 67 b. 103
3. c. 6. to a Jewish Christian Gospel {Zeller's Jbb. 1844, p. 665). Accord
ing to Credner, p. 251, f , 354, f , Baur, and Zeller (ib. 1846, p. 607),
Justin must have borrowed his doctrine of the Logos, not from the Gospel of
John, but from Philo and the then prevailing Church doctrine. " But if the
Fathers who came only a little later, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and
Origen, expressly refer this doctrine to the Prologue of John's Gospel, shall
we believe that Justin drew it from another source? " LiXcke, Comm. lib.
d. Joh. 3d ed. I. 49. See also Bleek, Beitr. I. 220, f. Ritschl, Evang.
Marc p. 139, ff., endeavors to show, from the discrepancies in the history
of Jesus's youth, that probably Justin used the incomplete Gospel of Mar
cion. But this theory is opposed by the references to passages like Luke
iii. 23, xxiv, 25, 37, which unmistakably belong to the author of our third
Gospel, '' Justin cites other sacred authors, also, without giving their names :
Apol, II. p, 86, Ps, xxiv, 7; Dial, p, 295, Ps, xix, 5, Isa, xxxv, 2 ; p, 315,
Joel iii. 28, and elsewhere frequently.
' Dial. p. 333, cf. Mark iii, 17, above, note a-, p, 316, cf John i, 23,
§ 66 a, note d, B. Apol, II, p, 94, cf, John iii, 3, ^ 66 a, note c, B ; p, 68,
cf John i, 1, ff, § 66 a, note c, t. Other allusions to Johannic passages are
more or less uncertain, § 67 6.
The historical citations not found in our Gospels (§ 66 b,
note b) require only this supposition, — that Justin, in addi
tion to our Gospels, used an uncanonical gospel, as the Gos
pel of the Hebrews, or of Peter," or read additions taken from
them in his manuscript from Matthew. The theories, that
he used only the Gospel of the Hebrews ;'' or a harmony of
the same with Luke;° or a harmony of the Gospels;* or an
edition of his own of Matthew;^ or an original gospel akin
to Matthew's, and enriched from Luke's,* — are by no means
sustained by these quotations,
' Credner maintains the latter, but generally on weak grounds. Thus he
finds (p. 132) it in the passage. Dial, c, Tr, p. 333 (§ 67 a, note a), by re
ferring the pronoun in the expression ev rots dnopvrjpovevpairi avrov to
Peter, This reference is certainly supported by analogy, for elsewhere the
genitive dependent on dnopvrjp. is always the genitive of the subject ; and
yet it would be strange, had he known the dnopv. Uerpov, that he should
have named them here only, and in this incidental way, Cf, Bindem. p,
407, f,
^ Stroth, Fragm, des Evang, nach d. Hebr., in Eichhorn's Rep. 1. Bd.
C. F. Weber, Beitr. z, Gesch, d, neutest. Canons. 1791, p. 105, ff. Mayer-
hoff, Einl. in d. petrin. Schr. p, 242, ff

104 GOSPELS.
° Storr, Ueb. d. Zweck d, evang, Gesch, u. d, Br, Joh, p. 363, ff,
¦• H. E. G. Poulus, Ob das Ev, Justins das Evang, nach den Hebraern
sey? In his Exeg, krit, Abhandl, Tiib, 1784, and in the Theol, exeg. Con
servator. I, 70, ff, Gratz, Krit. Unters. iib. Justins apost. Denkw. Stuttg.
1814. « Schmidt, Einl, ins N, T, I, 117,
f Eichhorn, Einl, ins N, T, I, 78, ff,, who puts together a text of the
Gospels from Justin's citations, passing over those from Mark and John, —
In this inquiry, we have followed Winer, Justin, M, evangg, can, usum
fuisse ostenditur. Lips, 1819. 4to. Olshausen, p. 331, ff. In favor of the
old view, the following writers have also recently declared themselves : Hug,
Einleit, IL § 23, p. 99. 2. Aufl, cf 3, Aufl, ^ 24, p, 105, Don. Fr. Schiiiz, De
evangeliis, quae ante evangg, canon, in usu eccles. christ. fuisse dicuntur,
Regiom, 1812, P, II. p. 1, /, P. Mynster, Kl, theol, Schriften, Kopenh,
1825, No, L Bindemann {^^1 a, notes b,c). Bfeei, Beitr. I, 220.
§ 67 c.
The citations from evangelic works and histories in the
pseudo-Clementine writings, being in their nature free and
inexact, indicate very uncertainly the writing from which
they were made. Some distinctly rest upon Matthew; '*
others on Luke ;^ others come from passages of both, woven
together," or differ from both;'^'' a few others presuppose
Mark'^ and John;" while others proceed from a different
source.* Some remarkably agree with quotations of Justin
Martyr;** and yet it seems hasty to conclude that such
have coirie from a properly Jewish-Christian source.s
* Homil. III. 18 : 'Etti t^s Ka^e'SpasMmvoe'ias, k.t, X., cf. Matt, xxiii. 2, —
III, 51 : 'Ovk tjXBov KaraXvcrai, k. r. X., cf Matt. v. 17. — III. 56 : Mi) dpo-
arjre rbv ovpavbv, k. t.X., cf. Matt, V, 35, — XVIII, 15: Kai tov 'Hcratdv
eiTreiv • 'Avoi^a rb irrdpa pov, k.t.X., cf Matt, xiii. 35, where the readin"
'Ho-ai'bv likewise occurs, and elsewhere.
'' Homil. VIII. 7: Ti pe Xc'yeis Kvpte Kvpie, k.t.X., cf. Luke vi. 46. —
XIX. 2: "On lapaKev rbv novrjpbv as darpanfjv, k. t. X., cf, Luke x. 18. —
Ia, 22 : . . , , Kav navres Balpoves . . . . vpds (pevyaaiv, o-vk eirnv iv tovtw
pdv(o xaipeiv, aXX ev ra St' evapeirriav rd dvdpara vpav ev ovpava as del
fcovroiv dvaypacpfjvai, cf. Luke X. 20, etc.
° Homil, XV, 5 : Atxaiov, e(paaKev, eivai Kal tm tvtttovti ovtov tijv eriaydva
napariBevai Kal rfjV erepav . . . . dyyapevovri Be piXiov (rvvanepxecrBat Bvo, cf.
Malt, V, 39-41, Luke vi, 29. — III, 53 : ttoXXoi npocpfjrai Kal /SaotXeis e'TTe-
Bvptjo-av iSetv, k, t.X., cf. Matt, xiii. 17 : ttoXXoi npopfjrai Kal BUaioi ineBv-
prjcrav iSeiv, k. t. X. Luke X. 24 : ttoXXoi npocpfjrai Kal ^aa-iXels fjBeXijorav
IBelv, K. r. X., etc.

cerinthus's and tatian's gospels. § 68. 105
" Homil. VIII. 6 : 'E^opoXoyovpai (rot, TruTep rov ovpavov Kat ttJs yfjs, oti
eKpOTl^as ravra dnb (ro(pav npea-^vrepav, Kal dneKaXvijfas avrd vrjniois BrjXd-
fovo-tv. Cf. Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke x. 21.
Homil. II. 19: 'lovo-Ta ns iv fjplv ia-nv ^vpocpoiviKKTo-a, k. r.X,, cf. Mark
vii. 26. — III. 57 : "Akovc, 'lapafjX, k. t. X,, cf Mark xii. 29,
" Homil, III. 52 : Td ipd npd^ara axovei t^s e'p.i5s (pavfjs, cf John X, 27, —
XI, 26 : 'Edv pfj dvayevvrjBrjre vBan ^avn els ovopa narpbs vlov dyiov nvev-
paros, ov pfj ela-eXBrjre els r. Paa-iXeiav tSv ovpavav, cf John iii, 5,
Homil, III, 50 : Aid ri ov voeiTC to eifXoyov rav ypa(pav. § 55 : 'O tto-
VTjpds ia-nv d neipd^av. — II. 51, III, 50, XVIII, 20: Tlvea-Be rpane^lrai
BdKipoi. This expression is found also in CZe?n, AZ, Strom, I,p. 354, Orig.
in Joa, Tom, XIX, Vol, IV, 289. fliicron. Ep. 119 (al. 152), sub fin., and
in other writers ; cf § 73 c, note a.
** The Johannic passage Homil, XI, 26, note e, cf, § 66 a, note c, B. —
Homil, III. 55, XIX. 2, the passage Matt. v. 37, cf. § 66 a, note b, x- —
Homil, XVIII, 4, the passage Matt, xi, 27, cf § 66 a, note b, p. — Homil,
XIX, 2, the passage Matt, xxv, 41, cf, § 66 a, note b, v.
s Against Credn. Beitr. I. 330, Schwegler, Nachapost, Zeitalt, I, 207.
Baur, and others. The first passage here is manifestly combined with
Matt, xxviii. 19. Those which follow are found also in the Fathers, with
their variations from our common text. Moreover, the Pseudo-Clement
may have read Justin. See Bleek, Beitr. I, 221.
3. Cerinthus's Gospel : Tatian's Diatessaron.
§ 68.
Cerinthus and Carpocrates made use of a Gospel similar
to that of Matthew, which contained the genealogy, though
in other respects incomplete, and was akin to the Ebionite
Gospel.* But the Harmony of the four Gospels which
Tatian prepared,*" and which was called by some the Gos
pel of the Hebrews," has been, by moderns, with the too
hasty rejection of ancient testimony, regarded as a com
pilation from this and other uncanonical Gospels, or as an
independent Gospel.'* For the omission of the history of
Jesus's birth and of the genealogies is explained from his
system. However, it is probable that he, like his teacher,
Justin, used also the Gospel of the Hebrews."
^ .Epiphan. Haeres. XXVIII, § 5 : Xpavrai ydp ra Kara MarBaiov evay
yeXia aTTO pepovs, Kal ov;^i SX(o • dXXd Sid rrjV yeveaXoyiav rfjV evaapKov, Kal
ravTTjV pM.pTVpiav (pepoSicridTTO Tofi evayyeXiov, naXiv Xeyovres • oti dpKerbv
14

106 GOSPELS.
Tia paBrjTrj, Iva yevrjrai as d BiBdirKoXos. Cf. Haer, XXX, 26,
of the Ebionites, XXX, ^ 14 : 'O pev ydp KfjpivBos Kal KapnoKpds ra
avra xpi^pevoi BfjBev nap" avrols (the Ebionites) evayyeXia) aTrd T^s dpxfjs rov
Kara MarBaiov evayyeXiov Sid T^s yeveaXoyi'as ^ovXovrai ¦napia-rdv eK aneppa-
Tos 'laa-fjcf) Kal Mapias elvai rbv Xpiardv. As regards Iren. III. 41, cf
Schmidt, Bibl, f Krit. I, 224, Eichhorn, I. 109, note,
' Euseb. H, E, IV, 29 : . , , , d TaTtavds (Tvvd<peidv nva koi crvvayayfjv
OTJK olB' dnas rwv e-vayyeXiav (rvvBeis, rb Bid rea-adpav rovro npoiravopairev, o
Kal napd na-iv elcren vvv (peperai. Theodoret. Haeret, fabb, I. 20 : OJtos d
ToTiavds Kat rb Bid reaa-dpav KaXovpevov crvvreBeiKev evayyeXiov, rds re yeve
aXoylas nepiKo^as Kal to aXXa otra iK anepparos Aa/3iS Kara irdpKa yeyevvrj-
pivov rbv Kvpiov BeiKWcriv. 'Expfjaavro Be tovtw ov pdvoi ot t^s eKeivrjs
(Tvppopias, dXXd Kal ot Tots dnotrroXiKols endpevoi Boypacn, rfjV rfjs a-vvBfjKrjs
KOKovpyiav ovk iyvaKores, dXX' dnXova-repov as (rvvrdpa ra jStjQXift) xP^o-d-
pevoi. Evpov Be Khya nXeiovs fj BiaKoirias jSi'^Xovs roiavras iv rals nap' fjplv
iKKXrjcrlais renprjpevas, KCii ndaas avvayayav dneBeprjv, Kal Td rav rerrdpav
e-vayyeXia-rav dvreiafjyayov evayyeXia.
' Epiphan. Haeres. XL VI. 1 : Aeyerai Be rb Bid recradpav evayyeXiov in
a-vrov yeyevfjtrBai, dnep Kara 'Ejipawvs nves KaXov(n.
^ Eichhorn, I. 112, Schmidt, I, 125, Gratz, Krit, Unters, iiber Justins
Denkwiirdigkeiten, 1814, Credner, Beitr. I. 437, ff.
" The proof from Barsalibi, Praef in Marc. c. 9, in Assemani Bibl. or. II.
159, that Tatian's Diatessaron began with John i. 1, falls to the ground, in
Credner's opinion, because that late author means the spurious Harmony of
Tatian. Notwithstanding, TaZJare cites John i, 5 (c, Graec, p. 152), John i,
3 (p. 158), and Severus, head of one branch of the Encratites, accepted the
Gospels, Eusebius, 1, c
4. Gospel of the Egyptians.
§ 69 a.
Of the Gospel of the Egyptians (icaT Alyvn-riov}, cf.
§ 63), only a few traces remain.*^
» Clemens Rom. Ep, II. § 12 : 'EneparrjBels a-vrbs b Kvpws vtto tivos, TToVe
fj^ei avrov fj fiaariXela, einev - ""OTav eo-rat rd Svo ev, Kai to e'^o) ojs
TO eoa Kal\Tb dpoev /xeTd rfjs BrjXeias, ovTe apaev, oiire Bfj-
Xv." Cf Clemens Alex. Strom, III, p, 465 : Aid tovto toi d Kaa-(riavds (prj<n,
nvvBavopevTjs rfjS ^aXcoprjS, ndre yvaaBfjO-erai rd TTept Sv ^'pero, e^?; d Kvpios-
""OTav rb rfjs alaxvvijs evBvpa narfjo-ere, Kal orav yevrjrai
TO Svo ev, Kat to dppev perd ttjs BrjXeias, oflre appev, oiire
BfjXv ." Uparov pev ovv ev rols napaBeBopevois fjpiv rerrapo-iv evayyeXiois
ovk exopev rb prjrov, dXX' iv ra Kar AiyVTTTi'ovs, — Perhaps the following
passage, found in the same letter, is also quoted from the same Gospel, § 5:

GOSPEL OF THE EGYPTIANS. § 69 b. 107
Aeyet d Kvpios • ea-ea-Be as dpvia iv peircp XvKav. 'AnoKpiBels Be
d Tlerpos avra Xeyei- e'dv odv Biaa-napd^acriv oi XvKot to
bpvia; elnev d 'Itjo-ovs tm Uerpif- pfj (pofie la-Bacrav rd dp
via rovs X-VKOVS pera rb dnoBavelv avrd. Kal vpels pfj
(pomelo-Be rovs dnoKreivovras v/ids, Kal prjBev vplv Bvvape-
vovs TTOtetv, dXXd (po^elcrB e rbv perd rb dnoBavelv vpds
exovra i^ovir lav ^vx^js Kal era par os rov jSaXelv ets yeev
vav nvpds. Cf Matt. x. 16 ; Luke x. 3 ; Matt. x. 28 ; Luke xii. 4, 5.
On the other hand, the passages, §2, oti ovk fjXBov, k.t.X., cf. Matt. ix. 13 ;
§ 3, rbv dpoXoyfjtravra, K. r. X., cf. Matt, X, 32 ; ^ 4, ov nds b Xeyav, k. r. X.,
cf. Matt, vii, 21 ; ib, vTrdyere, k, r.X., cf. Matt, vii, 23 ; § 6, ovSeis oiKerrjS,
K. T.X, cf. Matt. vi. 24, xvi. 26, Luke xvi. 13, ix, 25 ; § 8, el rb piKpbv,
K. r.X., cf Luke xvi, 10, 11 (see Part I, § 18, note d) ; § 9, dBeX(jioi pov
ovTot ela-iv, k. t. X. , cf Matt, xii, 50, Luke viii, 34, — may be free citations.
It is, however, worth noting, that these citations stand midway between
Matthew and Luke, and that in ^ 9 agrees pretty closely with a citation from
the Gospel of the Hebrews in Epiphan. XXX. 14. See, on the other side,
Eichhorn, I. 126, f. Schmidt, I. 105, — Clemens Alex. Ill, p, 445 : T^ 2a-
Xaprj d Kvpws TTVvBavopivrj , pexpi ndre Bdvaros l(rxvcrei . . . . Mexpis dv,
elnev, vpels al yvvaixes TiKrere . p. 452 : .... Td npbs SaXaprjv
elprjpeva .... (peperai Be oipai ev Ta Kar' Alyvnriovs evayyeXlco. (paol ydp,
on avrbs eiTTev 'S.arfjp, ^HXBov KaraXvcrai rd epya rfjs BrjXeias. p. 453 : $a-
pevrjs ydp avrfjS, KaXas ovv enoirj(ra pfj reKovira - hpei^erai Xeyav d Kvpws •
ndcrav (pdye ^ordvrjv- rfjV Be niKpiav exov <t av pfj (pdy-rjs.
— Epiphan. Haeres. LXII. 2, of the Sabellians : T^v Se TrScrav avrav nXdvrjv
Kal rfjV rfjs nXdvrjs avrav Bvvapiv exova-iv i^ &noKpv(f>av TtvSv, pdXia-ra dnb
rov KaXovpevov Alyvnriov evayyeXiov, <o nves to dvopa eneBevro
rovro ' ev avra ydp TToXXd roiavra d)S ev napa^V(Tr(0 pvarrjpiaBas eK npoaa-
nov TOV (rarfjpos dva(pepeTai, as avrov BrjXovvros rols paBrjrdls, rbv a-vrbv elvai
narepa, tov a-vrbv eivai vldv, rov avrov elvai dyiov nvevpa.
§ 69 &.
The first quotation given above from this Gospel, and the
use made of it by Sabellius, show that it had a theosophic
character. The same in connection with the second, in
Clement of Alexandria, proves that it supported Encratism.
Indeed, the Encratite Cassian used it. As, now, Cerinthus
and Carpocrates used a Gospel related to the Ebionite Gos
pel, and the Harmony of Tatian had, likewise, affinity with
the Gospel of the Hebrews (§ 68) ; as, further, theosophic
and Encratistic elements are found in Ebionitism, especially
if the Pseudo- Clementines belong to it; as, finally, the

108 GOSPELS.
second epistle of Clement makes reference to Ebionite
opinions (§ 69 a, note a) ; — it is very probable that the Gos
pel of the Egyptians sprang from the same stock as the
Gospel of the Hebrews.^
' Schneckenburger, Ueb. d. Evang. d, Aegypt. 1834.
5. Marcion's Gospel.
§ 70 a.
Marcion, an anti-Judaizing Gnostic, and his school, made
use of a Gospel which the catholic church teachers regarded
as the Gospel of Luke mutilated and corrupted by him from
dogmatical views.=' Yet it did not bear this name in his
writings.^ » Tertull. c. Marc. IV. 2 : Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse, quem caederet.
Iren. Adv. haeres, lib, I, c xxvii, 2 : Et super haec id, quod est secundum
Lucam, evangelium circumcidens et omnia quae sunt de generatione Domini
conscripta auferens, et de doctrina sermonum Domini multa auferens, in
quibus manifestissime conditorem hujus universitatis suum patrem confitens
Dominus conscriptus est  Tertull. IV. 6 : Contraria quaeque sententiae
suae erasit, conspirantia cum creatore, quasi ab assertoribus ejus intexta ;
competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit, — jBpipAan, Haeres, XLII.
§ 11 : *0 pev ydp xapaKrfjp rov Kara AovKav crrjpaivei ro evayyeXiov, as Be
fjKparrjpiacrTai pfjre dpxfjV e'xov, pfjre peaa, pfjre reXos, Ipariov ^e^papevov
inb noXXav (rrjrav inexei rov rpdnov- EvBvs pev ydp iv rrj dpxfj ndvra rd
dn dpxfjS ra AovKa nenpayparevpeva, rovretrnv as Xeyei - 'EneiBfjnep ttoXXoi,
K. T. X. Kat rd nepl rfjS EXto'd/3eT, , , . . Kat r^s Toxi ^anricrparos inoBecreas -
raira ndvra nepiKd-iffas dnenfjBrjde , Kal dpxfjV tov evayy. era^e ravrrjv - 'Ev ra
nevreKaiBeKdno erei Tt^eptov Kaiirapos K. r. e^ijs .... Kai ov KaB' elppov ndXiv
inipevei, dXXd ra pev o)S npoelnov napoKonrei, rd Be npotrriBrjiriv dva Kara,
OVK dpBas /SaSiffflV, dXXd ippqBwvpyrjpevas ndvra nepivoarevav. Cf, Origen.
c Cels, II. 27, Theodoret. Haeret, fabb, I, 24,
^ Tertull. IV, 2 : Marcion Evangelio suo nullum adscribit autorem, quasi
non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere, cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus
evertere, — Dial, de recta in Deum fide, sect, I. Opp. Origen. Vol, I, 808,
ed, De la Rue : Ti's e'oTtv d ypd^as rb evayyeXiov rovro, 6 ecprjs elvai ev ; M. d
Hpiirrds. A. Avtos d Kvpios eypa-^ev, on icrravpaBrjv Kat dvecrrrjv rfj rpirrj
fjpipit ; ovra ypd(pei ; M. d dndirroXos IlavXos npocreBrjKev.

§ 71 a. 109

§ 70 b.
Several modern scholars have followed this view of the
Fathers.^ Others, on the other hand, acquit Marcion of the
charge of corruption, some of them regarding his Gospel as
an extract from,'' and some as a source or basis of, the same."
» R. Simon, Hist, crit. du N, T, ch. 12. Mill, Prolegg, in N. T. ^ 306.
Storr, Ueber d, evang, Gesch, u, Br, Joh. p, 259, f Kleuker, Ausf, Unters.
d. Aechtheit der neutest, Schr, Hug, Einl, I, 65, ff. Arneth, Ueb. d.
Bekanntsch. Marcions mit unserm Kanon. 1809. 4to. Schiiiz, Diss, de
evangg. I. 26, sqq. Gratz, Krit. Unters. iiber Marc. Evang. 1818. Ols
hausen, Aechtheit der Evangg, p, 107, ff, Hohn, Das Evang, Marcions in
s. urspr, Gestalt. 1823. Guerike, Einl, p, 204, f,
'' Griesbach, Hist, text, Gr, epp, Paul, sect. III, § 8, Opusc, II, 125,
Paulus, Theol. exeg. Conservator. I. 116, goes yet further,
° Semler, Prolegg, in ep, ad Gal, p, 168 : " Sermones Christi non uno
commentariorum genere coUecti fuerunt: Marcion nondum viderat alios
hujus generis libros praeter unum corpusculum quod inde a Christi publico-
munere narrabat, atque non complectebatur tales parabolas sententias et hi-
storias, quae praecipue Judaeis alliciendis utiles essent," p, 170, Remarks
on Rich. Simon, Krit, Gesch, des Textes d, N, T, iibers, v, Cromer, Pref
ace to Toiunson, Abhandll, iib. d, vier Evangg,, N, Versuch d, gemein-
niitzige Ausleg, d, N, T, zu befordern, p, 162, f, Corrodi, Beleucht, der
Gesch, d, Bibelkan, II, 172, Ldffler, Marcionem Paul, ep, et Lucae evang,
adulterasse dubitatur (Frcf a, V, 1788) ; in commentt, theol, a Velthusen,
Kuinoel et Ruperti collect, I, Schmidt, Einl, I, 126 ; cf, his treatise in
Henke's Magaz, V, 3, and in his Biblioth, f, Krit, II, 3, Eichhorn, Einl, I,
40, (Opposed to him, especially, Hahn.) Bertholdt, Einl. III. 1294.
Gieseler, Ueb. d. Entsteh. d. Evangg. p, 24, Schwegler, Nachapostol, Zeit-
alter, I, 260, ff. Ritschl, D. Ev. Marc, u, d. kan. Ev, d, Luc, Tiib, 1846.
Bour, in Zeller's Theol. Jbb. 1846, p. 459, ff. Krit. Unterss, iiber d, kanon,
Evangg. Tiib. 1847, p, 397, ff., who follows Ritschl chiefly,
§ 71a.
The general assertions of Tertullian, and especially of
Epiphanius, against Marcion, are passionate, and in part
exaggerated. The special proofs adduced by them are not
wholly satisfactory, because in quoting from Marcion's Gos
pel they have a dogmatic object, or at least but a secondary
regard to critical considerations. Hence they quote rather
what he had retained, than what he had expunged or al
tered.*

110 GOSPELS.
^ Tertull. IV, 6 : , . , , Competentia suae sententiae reservavit, Haec
conveniemus, haec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint, si Marcioms prae-
sumtionem percusserint, Eichhorn is mistaken in saying that this Father
did not have Marcion's text before him, IV, 1: ,,.. ad ipsum jam evan
gelium provocamus, quod interpolando suum fecit. Sed et istas (antitheses)
proprio congressu cominus . , , , cecidissem, si non multo opportunius in
ipso et cum ipso evangelio, cui procurant, retunderentur, c, 2:
Transeo nunc ad Evangelii sane non Judaici, sed Pontici, interim adulterati
demonstrationem, c, 6 : Sed alium jam bine inimus gradum, ipsum, ut
professi sumus, evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi
adulteratum, c 43, fin, Cf Hahn, p, 91, ff. Olshausen, p. 188. Rilschl,
p, 38, Epiphan. 1, c, § 10 : .... dvaXe^dpevos KaB' elppbv , ,. , to eXey^ai
a-vrbv Bvvdpeva . . . . Kal ovras eas reXovs Bie^fjXBov, iv ois cpaiverai rjXiBias
KaB' eavrov errl ravras Tas napapeivdcras rov re aarfjpos Kal Tov aTTOOToXov
Xeyeis (fyvXdrrav. Al pev ydp avrav naprjXXaypevas vtt' ovtov ippaBiovpyfj-
Brjo-av . . .. aXXa Be pfj dXXayevra in avrov, Bvvdpeva Be avrbv BieXeyxeiv.
§ 11 : 'Ek rov nap' avrov evayyeXiov rd npbs dvrlpprjaiv rfjS navovpyov avrov
paStovpyt'as (rnovBda-avres napeBepeBa - Iv ol ra TTovijpaTt ivrvxelv iBeXovres
exam roiro yvpvdo-wv d^vrrjros, npos eXeyxov rav in avrov enivevorjpevav
$evdXe^iav. Cf p. 374, at the end of the comparison there made.
§ nb.
They therefore are quite in error who suppose, with Eich
horn, that all which Epiphanius quotes from Marcion's Gos
pel is quoted as varying from the genuine text of Luke,
and on account of its variation. Where he does not
expressly mark the variation, none existed, and the quota
tions are then made solely for the sake of refutation. They
are often only extracts from the uncorrupted text," and hence
obscure from their brevity.'' On the other hand, they also
err who assume, with Arneth, that Epiphanius gave all the
variations; for he seems to have adduced only such as
seemed to him weighty in a dogmatic point of view."
' Epiphan. 1. c. schol. LL: 'Eyevero Se e'v ra iyyi^eiv avrdv rfj 'lepixa,
rvcffXbs ejSda ¦ 'Irjoov vie Aa/3iS, iXerjcrdv pe. Kal ore IdBrj, (prjaiv ' fj iTi(ms a-ov
o-ea-aKe a-e. Cf Luke xviii, 35- 42, Refut. LI, : 'Ev TTt'crTei ovk evt ilfeiiSos •
el ydp -^IrevBerai, ov nions. Aeyei yovv, vie Aa/3iS, Kal enaivelrai, Kal Kopi^e-
rai TO airrjpa d to bvopa dpdXoyfjo-as , Kal ovk enenpfjBrj is ^evirrrjs, dXX' as
niOTos epaKapia-Br] - ovK dpa dcrapKOS d Bia rfjV eniKXrjo-iv tov dvdpoTOs xapwd-
pevos ra rvcpXa to pXeneiv - dXrjBivas ydp rjv, Kal ov BoKrjirei, eK tov crnepparos
Aa/3iS KOTa (rdpKa, dnb Mapias rfjs dyias napBevov, Kal Bid nvevparos dyiov
yeyewrjpevos. This remark quite overthrows Eichhorn's hypothesis, that

marcion's gospel. § 71 b.

Ill

Marcion's text is often shorter than that of our Luke. See Olshausen, p.
144, and often.
'' Epiphan. I, c, Schol, XLIIL : 'O vdpos koi oi npo(j>fjTai ems 'Imdvvov (otto
Tore fj ^aa-iXeia rov Beov evayyeXi^erai is wanting) ¦ koi ttos ets avrfjv ^id-
^erai. Refut, Et vdpov rdircrei, Kal npocprjras dnoKciXel, Kal ovk avopiav BrjXol
rbv vdpov, ovBe ijrevBonpo(pfjTas (pda-Kei rovs npocjjfjras, iracfias dpoXoyelrai pe-
papTvprjKevai rbv a-arrjpa rois npocpfjrais, Kal BeBeiKrai, ms Trept avTov npoecpfj-
revaav. Cf. Schol. XIII. with Luke viii. 22 - 25 ; Schol, XLIV, with Luke
xvi, 19-31 (this last Eichhorn says nothing about) ; Schol, XL VI. with
Luke xvi. 29-31,
° The variations given and noteworthy are as follow : —
Marcion. Luke.
Chh, i, ii. omitted. Teria//. de Carne Chh. i. ii. Introduction.. Annun-
Chr. c 1, 2. Epiphan, Haeres. elation and birth of John, Annunci-
XLIL 11. Iren. I. 27. 1. ation and birth of Jesus, His cir
cumcision. Presentation in the Tem
ple, Journey with his parents to the
feast at Jerusalem,
iii. 1 : 'Ev eret Se nevre KaiBeKara
rfjS fjyepovias TijSepiov Kawapos ....
Appearance of John the Baptist.
Deum) descendisse in civitatem Baptism of Jesus, Genealogy, Temp-
Galilaeae Capharnaum, Tertull. tation, iv, 31 : koI KarfjXBev els Ka-
c Marc, IV. 7, comp. Epiph. § 11, nepvaovp ndXiv rrjs TaXiXalas , . • .
Dialog, de recta fide, p. 869 : as
(paa-iv, Itti Ti^epi'ov KareXBav 'e(pdvrj 'ev Ka(papvaovp. According to Isidor.
Pelus. (Ep. 371, ad Philastr,) Marcion had not the genealogy,
f iv, 34, va^apijve was omitted, Tertull. u. 7, 8, cf v, 6,
iv. 38, f. Tertullian passes over, c. 8 ; iv. 38 : Healing of Peter's mother-
according to Hahn it was not omit- in-law.
ted, according to Ritschl, p. 76, f.,
it was.
iv. 39, or 37, was followed by iv. 16
- 30, with omission of vv. 24-27.
Tert. c, 8. Hohn, Ritschl.
* V, 14 : tva t; paprvpiov rovro ipiv.
Tert. c, 9. Epiph. Schol, I,
vi, 3, 4 ; Epiphanius, Schol. XXL, quotes after ix. 44, but only by mistake ;
Tertull. c. 12, quotes it in its proper order.
vi. 12 was, according to Tertull. c, 13, somewhat enlarged, Hahn, p, 185,
On the other side, Ritschl, p, 64,

f iii, 1, immediately connected with
iv, 31. Anno quintodecimo prin-
cipatus Tiberiani proponit eum (al.

iv. 16
areth.

- 30 : Jesus teaches in Naz-

V. 14 : ets paprvpiov avrols.

* vi. 17 : Kare^rj ev avrols . Epiph.
Schol. IV.
* vi. 23 : patres eorum, Tertull. c
15 ; narepes fjpav, Epiphan. Schol,
VI,

vi, 17: Kara^as per avrav.
vi, 23 : narepes avrav.

112

GOSPELS.

Marcion.
vii. 23. Epiph. Sch, VIII, : naprjXXa-
ype'vov TO • paKapios, ds ov pfj (tk.
ev epoi. elxe ydp as npbs'ladvvrjv -
But Marcion read the same, Cf
Hahn on the passage.
f vii. 29 - 35 are passed over by Ter
tullian, and were probably want
ing.

Luke.
vii, 23 : os idv pfj o-KavBaXicrB

epoi.

vii, 29 : kcu nds b Xaos dKovaas,
K.T. X. Note particularly v, 34 : e'X;^-
XvBev d vlbs tov dvBp, iaBiav Kal ni-
vav, K. T. X.
viii, 19 : napey. S, Trpos avrdv ^
prjrrjp K. ol dB eXcp ol avrov.

De carne Chr, c, 7, who also

viii, 21 : d Se dnoKpiBels eme npbs
avrovs - prjrrjp pov Kai dBeXcpoi pov
ovr 01 elm, K. r.X.
ix, 31 : ot dcpBevres iv Bd^rj eXeyov
rfjV e^oBov, k. t. X.

f viii, 19 : napeyevovro Be npbs a-vrdv
(rive's?), Epiph. Sch. XII, : ovK
elxev - fj pfjrrjp a-vrov Kal ol dBeX-
(f>oi avrov. Cf, Tertull. c. Marc. iv. 19
points out this omission.
t viii. 21 was interpolated from Matt.
xii. 48 : ris juov pfjrrjp Kal ol dBeX-
(poi ; Tertull. c. Marc, iv, 19,
ix, 31 was missing, according to Hahn
and Ritschl, but Tertull. c 22,
Epiph. Sch, XVII., are not clear
on this point,
ix, 40: Epiph. Sch, XIX, obscurely
refers to some omission, probably
of the words koI ovk eSvvfjBrj-
(rav.
X. 12 - 15 : Passed over by Tertull. c.
24, omitted according to H. and R.
t X, 21 : erjxapia-ra troi, Kvpie rov
ovpavoi. -Epj^jA, Sch, XXII, Ter
tull. 1, c. c. 25 : gratias ago et con-
fiteor, domine coeli,
X, 22 : ovSeis yivacTKei, ris 'eanv d
narr'jp, el pfj d vlbs, k. t. X. Tertull.
ib. But M. read probably cyvtu, Trar^p, el pfj d vlds, k. r. X.
according to Dial, de recta fid, I,
817, d, Iren. IV, 6, 1 : qui peritiores Apostolis volunt esse, sic descri
bunt : Nemo cognovit patrem nisi filius, etc. So too Just, M, Clem,
Homil. Cf Credn, Beitr, I, 249,

IX. 40 : Kal iBefjBrjV rav paBrjrav
aov, iva eK^aXacriv avrb Kal ovk eSv-
vfjBrjcrav. X. 12-15: Cry of woe over the
cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida.
x,21: € ^0 poXoy ov pal croi,nd-
rep, Kvpie rov ovpavov Kal rfj s yfjs.

X. 22 ; ovSeis yivaa-K. ris eanv d
vtos, et prj b narfjp • Kal ris ianv d

f X, 25 : ri noifjo-as ^afjv liXrjpovopfj-
a-a ; Tertull. ib. But in Cap,
XVIII, 8, Marcion had alavwv,
according to Tertull. and Epiph,
* XI, 1 : npooevxdpevov ra narpi.
Tertull. ib. c. 26.

X. 25 : TI noifjo-as ^afjv alaviov ,
K. T, X, Also Germ, 2, omits al(i>-
viov.

xi. 1:

npoirevxopevov.

marcion's gospel. § 71 b.

113

Marcion.
xi. 2, perhaps : eX^eVin rd ayiov TTVev-
pd a-ov e(p' ^pds. Tertull. ib.
\ xi. 29 : fj yevea avrrj drjpelov airei,
Kai (rrjpelov ov BoBfjirerai avrfj.
Epiph. Sch. XXV. cf with the
Refut., where the text is filled out.
Tertull. ib, does not quote tiie miss
ing words.
fxi. 30-32 wanting, according to
Epiph. Sch, XXV. Tertull. ib.
takes no notice of it, and passes
over from xi. 29 to xi. 33.
f xi. 42 : Kat napepxeaBe rfjV kXtj-
a-iv. Epiph. Sch.XXVl. Tertull.
c 27 ; in this writer without com
plaint of corruption. The words
ravra eSei noifjerai, k. r- X. were
wanting.
fxi. 49-51 omitted, according to
Epiph. Sch. XXVIII. ; Tertull. ib.
passes it over.

t xii. 6 omitted, according to Epiph.
Sch. XXIX., and is also not men
tioned by Tertull, c 28. So also
verse 7, connected with it.
xii. 8 : Trds ds av djioXoyfjcrei iv ijiol
epnpocrBev rmv bvBpanav, Kal d vlbs
rov dvBpanov dpoXoyfjcrei iv avra
epnpocrBev rov Beov. Epiph. Sch.
XXX. Tertull. ib.
xii. 28 was omitted, according to
Epiph. Sch. XXX.; according to
Tertull. c 29, however, not.
xii. 32 : pfj (po8ov, ro piKpbv noipvi-
ov, dn evBoKTjcrev d narfjp Bovvai

ipiv rfjV ^acriXeiav.
XXXIV.

Epiph. Sch.

Luke.
XI, 2 : dyiatrBfjra rb ovopd crov.
Cf the various readings in Griesb.
xi, 29 : fj yeved avrrj novrjpd
etrrt'J (rrjpelov ini^rjrel, Kal crrjp.
ov BoB. avrrj el pfj ro crrj pelo v
'lavd.

xi, 30 : KaBas yap eyevero 'lavas
crrjpelov rols Ntvevtrais, k, t. X,
— 31 : jBacriXia-cra vdrov eyepBfjcre-
rai, K. r. X,
— 32 ; d'vSpes Nivevt, k, t, X,
xi, 42 : K.nap. rfjv Kpicriv. The
words ravra eSei noifjaai are wanting
in D cant, veron.

xi, 49 : Std rovro Kai fj (ropia rod
Beov emev, K. -t . X.
— 50 : iva iK^rjrrjBfj rd aipa ndvrav
t£v npocprjrav, K. r, X,
— 51 : aTTO rov alparos ' AjSeX,
K. T. X,
xii. 6 : ov-xi Trevre crrpovBia naXel-
rai, K.r. X.

xii, o : TT, OS av op. ev epoi epn. r.
dvBp., K. d vt, r, a. bp. iv avr. epnp.
Tojv dyyeXojv rov Beov. Also
Mt. a, omits T. dyy. Cf. Matt, x,
32, 33,
xii, 28 : el Be rbv ^oprov . . . . d
^eds ovras dpcjiievvvcri, k. t. X.

xii, 32 : pfj (pop. ,.
ipav, It. T. X.

o narrjp

X It is not certain that these words were omitted ; Epiphanius, perhaps,
quotes more freely. But they are wanting in Cod. 235.
15

114

GOSPELS.

Morcion. Luke.
xii. 33, f., not alluded to by Tertull., xii. 33, f. : naXfjcrare ra indpxovra
omitted according to Hahn, 92. vpav, k. t.X.
* xii, 38: koi e'dv eXBrj rfj eane- xii, 38: , , . . ev r^ Bevrepix
pivfj (pvXaKTj. Epiphan. Sch. (pvX. kcu ev rfj r pirrj cpvX.eXBrj.
XXXV. With Afarc, Veron, OtherMSS. unite
his reading with the common one.
* xii. 51. Here Tertull. ib. charges on Morcion the genuine reading Sia-
pepia-pdv as a corruption.
f xiii. 1-9 wanting, according to xviii, 1-9. Of the Galileans who
Epiph. Sch. XXVIII. Tertull. c^. were killed, and of the fig-tree.
30, also passes it over.
f xiii. 28 : eKel earai d KXavBpbs Koi xiii. 28 : eKet eVrai d kX. k. d /3p, r.
d /3pvypos rav oBovrav, orav oip-rj- 6,, or. o-iff. 'AjBpadp k. laaaK k. la-
a-Be ndvras rovs BiKalovs iv Ka^Kalndvras rovsnpocp^-
rfj Paa-iXelii rov Beov, ipds Be eK- ras iv r. ^aa. r. 6., ipds Be e K^aX-
j3aXXopevovs Kal K par ov pevov s Xopevovse^a. With More, Ambr,
e^a. Epiph. Sch, XL, Tertull. ib. has once k. t. BiKalovs.
I xiii. 29-35 wanting, according to xiii. 29, f. : koi fj^ovcriv dnb dvaro-
Epiph. Sch. XLI. Tertull. passes XSv Kal Bvcrpav .... koi dvoKXiBfjcrov-
it over. rai, k.t.X. Ver. 31-35, Jesus
foretells the destruction of Jerusa
lem, xiv, 26 : pto-ei t, irarepa. But the
other reading is also in Orig.
XV, 11-32, The parable of the

'^ xiv, 26 : KaraXeinei tov narepa,
K. r. X. Epiph. Ref, LXX,
f XV. 11-32 wanting, according to

Epiph. Sch, XLII, Tertull. c. 32, prodigal son
passes it over.
* xvi. 12 : epov. Tertull. u, 33,

With Marc.

xvi, 12 : iperepov.
Cod. 157. Vind.
xvi. 17 : evKOTT  napeXBelv, fj
rov vdpov plav Kepaiav ne-
(Teiv.

t xvi, 17 ; evKonarepov Be ecrnv rbv
ovpavbv K. rfjv yfjv napeXBelv \_a s
Kal d vdpos K. ol n po^fjr ai\
fj rav Xdyav pov — Hahn erro
neously, after Tertull,, TOV Kvpiov — plav Kepaiav necrelv. Tertull. I. c.
The words in brackets are, according to Ritschl, p. 43, an addition by this
Father.
* xvii, 2: XvoireXei avra, el ovk xvii, 2: Xvo-tr, avr., et pvXos dvi-
iyevvfjBrj, fj XiBos pvXoviKos, Kos nepiKcirai, k. t. X.
K. T. X. Utilius autem fuerat (s. est) illi, ne
nasceretur, aut lapis, etc. Veron.
verc. and other MSS, in Griesb.
f xvii, 10 wanting, according to xvii. 10 : ovra .... Xeyere • on
Epiph, Sch. XLVII, Tertull. c, SovXot dxpeioi e'o-pev, »., i , X,

marcion's GOSPEL. § 71 b.

115

Marcion. Luke.
35, does not mention xvii. 5- 10, and it seems very likely, according to
Ritschl, p. 117, that only ver. 7-10 were omitted.
xvii. 12-19. Here, according to xvii. 12-19. Of the ten lepers.
Epiph. Sch. XLVIII., Marcion
cut much away. The following
alteration is expressly given.
* — 14: Kat aTrecretXev avrovs
Xeytav* Set^are eavrovs Tois
tepevo't.

— 14 : Kcd 1 1
nopevBevres Up.

av emev avro is •
eniBei^are eavr.

The following was then interpolated from Luke iv, 27 : ort ttoXXoi XeTTpot
7;a'av ev fjpepais 'EXicrciaiov rov TTpocpfjrov, Kat ovk iKaBapwBrj el pfj Neepdv d

But Ritschl, p. 119, ff, , denies it.
xviii, 19: rt pe Xeyeis dyaBdv
ovBels dyaBos, el pfj els d Beds.
xviii, 20: rds ivroXds olBas.

Svpos. Also Tertull. c. 35, read this.
xviii, 19: pfj pe Xe'yere dyaBdv'
els icrnv dyaBos, d narfjp.
* xviii, 20: rds ivroXds olBa. Epiph.
Sch. L. objects only to the addition
d narfjp and oiSa. But Tertull. c
36, read oiSas.
f xviii. 31-34 wanting, according to xviii. 31-34, Jesus foretells his
Epiph. Sch, LII. Tertull. 1. c. sufferings according to prophecies of
passes it over. the O. T.
t xviii. 37 : d va^apdlos was omitted, for Epiph. and Tertull. do not men
tion it.
t xix. 9 had not the words KaBdn Kal avrbs vlbs 'A^padp ianv, for Tertull. c
37, cites them not as opposed to Marcion's system.
¦j- xix. 29-46 wanting, according to xix. 29-46. Jesus's entrance into
Epiph. Sch. LIII. Tertull. ib. Jerusalem, purification of the Tem-
passes it over. pie.
f XX. 9-18 missing, according to xx. 9-18. Parable of the labor-
Epiph. Sch. LV. ; in Tertull. c. 38, ers in the vineyard.
it is not cited.
XX. 19 : Kai i^fjrrjcrav ini^aXeiv in
avrbv rds xelpas, Kal icpo^fjBrjcrav .
Epiph. Sch. LIV. without com
plaint of alteration. In Morcion
this verse was connected with xx.
8, and the last words, eyvacrav ydp,
K.T.X., must have been omitted,
for they refer to ver. 9 - 18.
f XX. 37, 38, missing, according to

XX. 19 : K. ef. ol dpxiepeis k.
oi ypapparels eni^. in. avr. r.
Xelp- ev avrfj rfj &p(i, k. ecp. rbv
Xadv' eyvacrav ydp, oti npbs
avrovs ttjv napafioXfjv Tavrrjv
elnev.

XX. 37, 38 : drt Se eyelpovrai ol

Epiph. Sch. LVL, who read it veKpoi, kcu Macrfjs ipfjwarev, k. t. X.
twice, for he says : SevrepSo-ai rdv
(rarfjpa rfjv napa^oXfjv. In Tertull.
c. 38, it does not occur.

116

GOSPELS.

Marcion.
4 Tertull, does not men-

f xxi, 1
tion,
f xxi, 18 omitted, according to Epiph.
Sch, LVIIL
¦j- xxi. 21, f , omitted, according to

xxi. 1-4.

Luke.
Of the widow's mite.

xxi. 18 : Kat Bpl^ eK rfjs KepaXfjs
ipav ov pfj andXrjrai.
xxi. 21, f, : rdre ol ev rfj 'lovSaia
Epiph. Sch, LIX, on account of cpevyeraa-av . . . . rov nXrjpaBfjvai
the last words. Tertull. c. 39, ad- ndvra rd yeypappeva.
duces neither verse,
t xxi, 27, Kat Bd^rjs omitted, which xxi. 27 : Kal rdre 'dip-ovrai rbv vlbv
Tertull, c. 39, does not quote, ac- rov dvBp. ipxdpevov ev vecpeX-rj, perd
cording to /id/m, p. 201, but not Svvdpeais Kai 8d|;)s ttoXX^s,
according to Rilschl, p. 43,
f xxi. 32 : dpfjv Xeya ipiv, on ov pfj xxi, 32: dpfjv . . . . napeXB-rj fj ye-
napeXBr] b ovpavbs Kal fj yrj, vea avrrj, k.t.X.
eas dv ndvra yevrjrai. Tertull. 1,
c, : Adhuc ingerit, non transiturum coelum ac terram, nisi omnia peragan-
tur. But according to Rilschl, p, 44, Tertull. here made a mistake.

I xxi. 36 not mentioned by Tertull.

xxi, 36 : dypvTTveire .... Kat o'ra-
Bfjvai epnpocrBev rov viov r, avBp.
xxii, 3 ; k, elcrfjXBe craravas els

xxii, 16 : Xe'ym ydp vpiv, on ovKt'rt
ov pfj cpdya e^ avrov, eas drov nXrj-

xxii. 24
disciples.

-30, Dispute among the

j- xxii, 3 probably omitted, according
to TerlulL V. 6. Epiph. Ref LX,
Hahn, 203, Ritschl, 126,
f xxii. 16 omitted, according to
Epiph. Sch, LXIII, Tertull. IV,
40, does not quote it, nor ver, 17, paBfj ev rfj jSamXeU rov Beov
18, which according to R. p, 50,
were really omitted,
•f xxii. 30 omitted, according to Epiph.
Ref LXIII. ; also Tertull. u, 41,
passes over ver, 23 - 30. Accord-
to Ritschl, p. 32, ver, 24-30 were
wanting,
•j- xxii, 35 - 46 Tertull. c, 40, does
not quote ; according to Epiphan.
Sch, LXIV. ver, 35 was cut away;
butver.41, according to LXV, was
in existence, and probably also ver,
39-42, 45, f Ritschl, -p. in.

XXll. 35, sq, : Kai elnev a-vrols ' ore
aneareiXa ipds, it, r, X  k, dyo-
pacrdra pdxaipav.
37 : Xeyta ydp vpTv, drt ert rovro
rd yeypappevov Set reXea-Bfjvai ev epoi,
ro Kai pera dvdpav eXoyicrBrj.

42-44, Of Christ's agony and
bloody sweat in Gethsemane. The passage is wanting also in AB and
other authorities. See Griesb.
xxii. 49-51 omitted, according to xxii, 49-51. Peter cuts off the
Epiph. Sch. IfXYll. Tertull. also ear of the high-priest's servant.
fails to mention it ; it could hardly
remain after the removal of ver. 35 - 38.

marcion's' GospiJL. §72 a. 117
Morcion. Luke.
\ xxiii. 2 : tovtov evpopev Biacrrpe- xxiii. 2 : tovt. evp, Biacrrp. r.
(povra TO eBvos Kal KaraXvovra eBvos KaXvovra Kaicrapi (pdpovs
rov vdpov Kal rovs npocprj- BiBdvai k. Xeyovra eavrov Xpi-
ras, Kai KeXevovra pdpovs pfj crrbv jSacriXea elvai.
Bovvai Kal dvacrrpecpovra rds
yvvaiKas Kai rd reKva. Epiph. Sch. LXIX. LXX, From TerlulL
nothing can be gathered,
xxiii, 34 wanted the words Biapepi^dpevoi, k. -i. X., according to Tertull. c,
42: Vestitum plene ejus a mililibus divisum, partim sorte concessum,
Marcion abstulit, respiciens Psalmi prophetiam. But Luke does not cite
this passage, and Epiph. Sch, LXXI, quotes the objectionable words,
f xxiii. 43 omitted, according to xxiii. 43 : afjpepov per epoi earj ev
Epiph. Sch, LXXII, ; so also prob- rw napaBelaca.
ably ver, 39, ff. , according to Rilschl.
t xxiii. 47-49 Tertull. does not ad- xxiii, 47 : , , , , d-vras d dvBpa-
duce. The passage was omitted, ttos ovros Sikuios fjv. ver, 49:
according to' /TaAn, 214, not accord- elcrrfjKeicrav Be ndvres oi yvmo-roi
ing to Ritschl, 63. avrov.
xxiv. 25-27 was, according to Epiph. Sch.LXXVIL, altered ; but his com
plaint is self contradictory. He says, first, that Marcion cut away ver.
25 , 26 {napeKO-^e to elprjpevov npbs KXednav Kal rbv aXXov . . . . rd - &
dvdrjToi), and then that, in ver. 25, instead of ois eXdXTjoav oi npocpfjrai,
he read ois iXdXrjoa ipiv. So also in Dial, u. Marc, sect. IV, p, 857.
Tertull. c 43, adduces, quae locutus est ad vos; and so must also M.'s
reading have been. Accordingly, ver. 27 certainly was omitted.
xxiv. 26-35 Tertull. does not distinctly adduce; probably ver. 27 was
omitted, as also the last words of ver. 32 : Kai dis Bifjvoiyev fjplv rds
ypacpds.
f xxiv. 37 Marc, read (pdvraa-pa for nvevpa, according to Tertull., and in
ver, 39 perhaps omitted yprjXacpfjcrare pe koI i'Sere,
f xxiv. 44 - 46 passed over by Tertull. c. 43, and probably the words on
Set nXrjpaBfjvai, «., r, X. were omitted.
xxiv. 47 Tertull. c, 43, adduces again. Whether the rest was wanting is not
clear ; but Epiph. § 11, p, 311, says that M. cut off much from the end.
According to Rilschl, 129, he read ver. 50, 51, — A view of Marcion's
Gospel has been given by Hahn and Thilo, Cod, Apocr, N. T. I. 401, sqq.
§ 72 a.
The variations with an asterisk ( * ) prefixed are simply
different, and in part correct readings. Some of those indi
cated by an obelisk ( f ) are manifestly such as support the
Anti-Judaistic system of the heretic, others are proved to be
such by the refuters,* and others naturally follow from these.

118 GOSPELS.
Consistency, however,' does not appear in the work; and,
as he did not hesitate to use forced explanations,^ he
might easily have allowed much to remain that now is
wanting. " On the reasons not at once manifest for inany omissions, see Olshausen,
p,208, f, 3.nAHahn on many passages; yet Ritschl now and then raises
well-founded objections.
¦^ Tertull. c 43 : Marcion quaedam contraria sibi ilia credo industria era-
dere de Evangelio suo noluit, ut ex his, quae eradere potuit nee erasit, ilia,
quae erasit, aut negetur erasisse aut merito erasisse dicatur. Nee parcit
nisi eis, quae non minus aliter interpretando quam delendo subvertit. Ter-
tullion adduces such explanations, b. g. cap, 9, on Luke v, 12 - 16 ; c. 15, on
vi. 23 ; c 22, on ix. 28- 36 ; c 43, on xxiv, 39, Cf Olsh. p. 195, ff, Hohn
on all these passages, § ^2b.
On the other hand, it is asserted that a part of the pas
sages which M. omitted or read differently must, on exeget
ical grounds, be considered interpolations ; and, indeed,
many of them must appear more or less objectionable to
the commentator, and in a degree even to the critic (vii. 29-
35, X. 12-15, xi. 42, xii. 6, xiii. 29-35, xxi. 18, xxii. 24-38,
43, f.). In regard to most of them, however, this assertion,
and the hypothesis that Marcion had before him the " origi
nal Luke," are without foundation.^
* The following larger passages, which M. did not read, must, according
to Ritschl, p. 73, ff., have been wanting in the original Luke: — iv. 24-27.
But this passage cannot be omitted without making ver. 28 incomprehensi
ble. — iv. 38, f The avrois referring to the disciples, whom Jesus, accord
ing to Luke, had not as yet, betrays the interpolation. But was not Simon —
were not probably other guests there ? — xi. 29 - 32. By afiixing the words
fj yeved .... avr^ to ver, 33, a better connection would be formed. But
this even J?aMr, p, (462) 399, f, denies, — xi, 49-51, See against it 5aMr,
ib. — xii, 33, f The fitness of the connection between ver, 34 and 35 is
erroneously denied. — xviii. 31-34. The allusion to prophecies is found
only in interpolated — we may with equal justness say in expunged — pas
sages. Ver. 34 is by the same author as ix. 45. — xix, 29-46, The en
trance of Jesus into Jerusalem has been designedly left out by the author of
the original Luke, and he has given us to understand in the parable, ver.
11, ff., that Jesus did not wish to appear as king of the Jews. But this is
not the object and meaning of that entrance, and without it the reader would

§72 ft. 119
never have learned how Jesus reached Jerusalem, Between ver. 30 and 47
there would be a gap. Besides, ver. 30 is in Luke's style, cf. xxiii. 53,
and ver. 43 agrees well with xxi. 20, f. Finally, Mark found this pas
sage in Luke, and, as usual, combined the two texts. — xx. 9-18 must
be an addition, as appears from eyvacav ydp, k. t.X,, ver, 19, the causal
clause not referring to the immediately preceding clause k, icpo^rjBrjirav,
K, r. X. But examples of a like carelessness are found in Acts xviii. 3,
xxviii. 20, Mark ix. 34, and Mark, who borrowed the passage and had the
whole work before his eyes, found no difiiculty in this. Besides, the expres
sion npocriBero, ver. 11, 12, is from Luke's pen, cf. xix. 11, Acts xii. 3. —
XX. 37, f. This second part of Jesus's reply is not wanted, because in
ver. 34 Jesus does not, as in Matt. xxii. 29, enter on the resurrection ques
tion, but confines himself to the diificulty urged by the Sadducees. But
by oi dvnXeyovres, k.t.X., ver, 27, the Evangelist makes reference to this
question, — xxi, 21, f, is said to be at variance with the context. But the
word eKBUrjcTis is from Luke's pen, cf xviii, 3, 5, Acts vii. 24 ; the thought
in xix, 27 also corresponds, — xxiii, 39-43, The promise does not agree
with the New Testament eschatology, — an uncertain ground. Passages
like xxii, 16-18,49-51, xiii. 1-9, xv. 11-32, xvii. 7-10, R. himself
regards as uncertain, or as proving little.
In the following passages, Marcion is supposed to have the original read
ings: — xiii. 28. But the antithesis of the heathen is, according to ver, 26,
very appropriate ; and as the expression eKei eVrai d KXavBpbs, k. t. X., is
peculiar to Matthew, it is most natural to suppose that Luke borrowed the
passage from him without change. — xvi, 17, rov vdpov is inappropriate.
But plav Kepaiav does not correspond to rSv Xdytav pov. — viii, 21, The
interpolator has struck out the words ris ea-nv fj pfjrrjp, k. t. X., because
they might be misused in favor of Gnosticism (!), In x, 21, the interpolator
has added Kai r, y^s. Improbable, for Matthew has it, — Ver, 22, The
transposition of the clauses in Marcion is original. But only to Kai ris
icrnv d narfjp, k. t, X, does the clause Kai a eav d vlds, k. i . X,, which follows
it in our canonical Luke, correspond, — xx, 35, The interpolator has
erased the words vtto t, ^eov. But the verb Kara^iovv is used absolutely
also in xxi. 36, Acts v, 41, — xxii. 3, The interpolator must have in
terpolated Satan (?), — xxiv. 25. Marcion's reading is genuine, enl tto-
mv ols iXdXrja-ev ipiv, as in ver. 6, 7. But why the ndcrivl Also tti-
o-reijetv is inappropriate. — Ver. 44-46 the interpolator must have added.
With as much correctness, it is asserted that M. cut it off (see above at xviii.
31, ff,), — Ver, 48, 49, 52, 53 are inserted by the interpolator for the sake
of agreement with Acts, Marcion read ver, 50, 51, which differ from Acts,
Why did not the interpolator expunge these f

120 GOSPELS.

§ 72 c.
The supposition that the third Evangelist did nothing
but fill out and add to the older Gospel used by Marcion,
does not correspond to the design which he states in his
procemium, ch. i. 3.^ Moreover, it cannot be conceded
that that original writing existed down to Marcion's time,"
and that our third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles
first arose after the time of this heretic. How late, on this
supposition, would Mark become, who used our Luke !
Marcion, besides, does not pretend that his Gospel was such
an original, but professes to be merely the emendator of the
(supposed) corrupt canonical Luke, with which he was ac
quainted." He was also acquainted with the other Gospels,
or some of them. These he at first accepted ; but after
wards rejected, as coming from Jewish Apostles -and con
taining Jewish opinions.'^
* According to Bour, the procemium of Luke first appears in its right
light on this supposition, p. (599, ff.) 516, ff,
¦> According to Rilschl (§ 67 c) , Justin Martyr was acquainted with it.
But TerlulL had no knowledge of this : Cent, Marc, iv. 5: Marcionis (Evan
gelium) plerisque nee notum, nullis autem notura, ut non eo damnatum.
Habet plane et illud ecclesias, sed suas, tam posteras, quam adulteras. The
testimony of an anonymous writer in Append, ad TerlulL de Praescr. adv,
haeret, c, 51, — (Cordon) solum Evangelium Lucae, nee tamen totum reci-
pit, — rests on an error. According to Theodoret. Haeret, fab, I. 24, Cerdon
had several Gospels,
' Tertull. IV, 4 : Ego meum (Evang,) dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego
Marcionis aflSrmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determina-
bit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auotoritatem, quod antiquius reperie-
tur, et ei praejudicans vitialionem, quod posterius revincetur . , , , adeo
antiquius Marcione est, quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse ille Marcion ali
quando crediderit  Si enim id Evangelium, quod Lucae refertur penes
nos , , , . ipsum est, quod Morcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolotum
a protectoribus Judoismi ad concorporoiionem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam
Christum inde configerent, utique non potuisset arguere, nisi quod invenerot.
From what follows, Marcion seems to have claimed to be the emendator of
his Gospel. Emendator sane Evangelii, a Tiberianis usque ad Antoniana
tempora eversi, Marcion solus et primus obvenit, exspectatus tam din a
Christo , , , , nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctoritatis nego-
tium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat Evangelia, dum vitiat .... Itaque

marcion's gospel, § 72 c. 121
dum emendat, utrumque confirmat et nostrum anterius id emendans, quod
invenit: et id posterius, quod de nostri emendatione constituens suum et
novum fecit. On the other hand, Schwegler, Nachap, Zeitalt. I. 278, Ritschl,
p. 25, ff,, d.-RSVier,th?LiEvongelium here means the Gospel message, C, 25,
referring to Luke x, 25 : In haeretico vita solummodo posita est sine
oeternae mentione , , . , viderit nunc, si aeternam nostri addiderunt (as he
pretended) ,
'' Iren. Adv, haeres. I, 27, 2, of Marcion: Semetipsum veraciorem, quam
sunt hi, qui Evangelium tradiderunt, apostoli, suasit discipulis suis, non
Evangelium (the whole collection?), sed particulom Evangelii (the Gospel
of Luke) tradens eis. III, 2, of Marcion and other heretics : , , , , Aposto-
los admiscuisse ea, quae sunt legolia, Salvatoris verbis, 12, 12 : Et Aposto-
los quidem adhuc quae sunt Judaeorum sentientes annuntiasse Evangelium,
se autem sinceriores et prudentiores Apostolis esse, Unde et Marcion et
qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas scripturas conversi sunt, quasdom quidem in
totum non cognoscentes, secundum Lucam autem Evangelium et epistolas
Pauli decurtantes, haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt.
Tertull. c Marc, IV, 3 : , , . , Marcion nactus Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas,
etiam ipsos Apostolos sugillantis, ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem
Evangelii, simul et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam, pervertentes Evan
gelium Christi, connititur ad destruendum statum eorum Evangeliorum, quae
proprio et s-ub Apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam Apostolicorum, ut scili
cet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat  Si Apostolos praevarica-
tionis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur, usque ad Evangelii
depravationem Christum jam accusat. Si vero Apostoli integrum Evange
lium contulerunt, , , , . pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt,
et inde sunt nostra digesta : quod erit germanum illud Apostolorum instru-
mentum, quod adulteros passum est ? II. 17: , . . . hoc quoque testimonium
Christi in creatorem (Matt, v, 45) Marcion de Evangelio eradere ausus est,
IV, 7: Hoc (Matt, v. 17) Marcion, ut additum, erasit. IV. 9 :  con
stat . . , , te potius vocem Domini de Evangelio erasisse, quam nostros inje-
cisse. This refers to the rejection of the Gospel of Matthew, Tertull. De
carne Christi, c 2 : Aufer bine, inquit, molestos semper Caesaris census et
diversoria angusta et sordidos pannos et dura praesepia, Viderit angelica
multitude Dominum suum noctibus honorans, Servent potius pecora pa-
stores, et magi ne fatigentur de longinquo, dono illis aurum suum  (Cf
Matt, i, ii,, Luke i, ii.) His, opinor, consiliis tot originalia instrumento
Christi, Marcion, delere ausus es, ne caro ejus probaretur. Ex qua, ore te,
auctoritate? Si propheta es, praenuntia aliquid  Si tantum Christi-
anus es, crede quod traditum est. Si nihil istorum es, merito dixerim, mo-
rere .... qui non es Christianus, non credendo, quod creditum Christianos
facit .... qui cum fuisses, excidisti rescindendo, quod retro credidisti, sicut
et ipse confiteris in quadom epistola  (Cont. Marc. IV. 4 : Quid nunc,
si negaverint Marcionitae piimam apud nos fidem ejus adversus epistolam
quoque ipsius?) Atque in rescindendo, quod credidisti, probas, antequam
16

122 GOSPELS.
rescinderes, aliter fuisse, quod credidisti aliter. Illud ita erat traditum ;
porro quod traditum erat, id erat verum, ut ab iis traditum, quorum fuit
tradere. Ergo quod erat traditum rescindens, quod erat verum rescidisti.
Cont, Marc. IV, 5 :  dum constet haec quoque (caetera Evangelia) apud
Ecclesias fuisse, cur non haec quoque Marcion attigit, aut emendanda, si
adulterata, aut agnoscenda, si Integra? Nam et competit, ut si qui Evan
gelium pervertebant, eorum magis curarent perversionem, quorum sciebant
auctoritotem receptiorem. De carne Christi, c 3 : Si scripturas opinioni tuae
resistentes non de industria olios rejecisses, alias corrupisses, confudisset
te  Evangelium Joannis, He rejected this Gospel because it did not
agree with his anti- Jewish system, and because ch. i, 1 opposed him ; Olsh.
p. 371, Hahn, p. 269, ff.
6. Other less important Uncanonical Gospels.
§ 73 a.
The Gospel of Bartholomew, so called by Jerome" (§ 63),
did not differ, according to other authorities,'' from that of
Matthew, unless we are to regard it as a later pseudonymous
production. ' It is mentioned by Gelas, in Decreto de libris apocryphis in Jure Canon.
distinct. XV, can, 3, in Fabric. Cod. apocr, I, p, 137, Beda ad Luc, i. 1.
'' Euseb. H. E, V, 10 : , . , . eis 'ivSoiis eXBeXv Xeyerai (d lldvratvos), "EvBa
Xoyos eipelv avrbv npocpBdcrav rfjv avrov napovcriav rd Kara MarBaiov evayye
Xiov, napd ncnv avrdBi rov "^picFTOv ineyvaKdcnv " ois BapBoXopdlov rcov aTTO-
(rrdXav eva Krjpv^ai, avrols re *E/3pai(»v ypapjicuri rfjv rov MarBaiov KaraXel-
'\jrai ypacpfjv, as Kal cra^ecrBai els rbv BrjXovpevov xpbvov. Hieron. De vir.
illustr. c, 36, Pantaen, : , , . . ubi (in India) reperit Bartholomaeum de duo
decim Apostolis adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi juxta Matthaei Evange
lium praedicasse, quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum revertens Alexandriam se
cum detulit. According to Grabe (Spicil, Patr, 1, 128) the Gospel of Matthew
was ascribed to Bartholomew because he recommended and interpolated it,
or wrote an introduction to it. An expression of Bartholomew in Pseud.
Dionys. Areop. De myst. theol. c. 1 {Fabric. 1. c, p, 341, sq,) : koI noXXfjv
rfjv BeoXoytav elvai Kal iXaxicrrrjv, Kal ro evayyeXiov nXarv Kal peya Kal avBis
(rvvrerprjpevov. §73&.
Of the Gospel of Matthias (§ 63) we have no other dis
tinct trace." That of Thomas, on the contrary (§ 63, and in
Gelasius), which is counted among the Manichfean writ
ings,'' is probably extant in the Evang. Infantiae, which has
been ascribed to Thomas."

OTHER UNCANONICAL GOSPELS. § 74. 123
" Euseb. III. 25, counts it and that of Thomas among the heretical Gos
pels. In some codd. Gelasius also names it.
' Cyrill. Hieros. Catech. IV. 38, VL 61 : pTjSeis dvayivaa-Kera to Kara
Qapdv evayyeXiov • ov ydp icrnv evos rSv BaBeKa dnoordXav, dXX' evos rwv
KaKav rpiav rov Mdvrj paBrjrav. The same is expressed by Leont. Byzont.,
Petrus Sic, Phot., Anathematismi Manichaeor. in Fabric, p. 354.
= In Coteler. Patr, apost, in notis ad Constitutt, apost, VI, 16. Fabric.
Cod. apocr. N. T, p, 159, sqq, Thilo, Cod, apocr, I, 274, sqq,
§ 73 c.
The Gospels of Apelles * and Basilides,^ mentioned above
(§ 63), were, as it seems, arbitrary extracts and elabora
tions. » Origen. Ep. ad Alexandr., in Rufin. De adulteratione libr, Orig., ad
calc, Opp, Orig. Vol, IV, p, 52, ed, De la Rue : Videte, quali purgatione dis-
putationem nostram purgavit, tali nempe, qauli purgatione Marcion Evangelia
purgavit vel Apostolum ; vel quali successor ejus post ipsum Apelles ... .
subverterunt Scripturarum veritatem. Epiphan. Haeres. XLIV. § 4, to
Apelles : Et Se Kat d ^ovXei XapPdveis dnb r^s Beias ypacpfjs, Kal a ^ovXei
KaraXipndveis, apa yovv Kpirfjs npooKaBicras, ovx eppevevrfjs rav vdpav 
§ 2 : OvroJS ydp, (prjariv, ecprj (d Xptords) ev ra evayyeXia) • '^ yivecrBe Bd
Kipoi rpane^lrai -" XP^ '}"'P; (jirja-iv, dnb ndcrrjs ypacpds dvaXeyav rd
Xpfjmpa. Cf § 67 c, note/.
'' Euseb. H. E. IV. 7 : KarfjXBev els fjpds ev rols rdre yvapipardrov crvy-
ypacf>eas ' Ay pinna Kdaropos iKavararos Kara BaaiXeiBov eXeyxos .... iKCpai-
vav avroi) rd dndpprjra, cprjcrlv avrbv els pev rd evayyeXtov recrcrapa npbs rols
e'lKocri a-vvrd^ai fii^Xia. Hieron. De vir. illustr. c. 31. The passages which
Clem. Alex. Strom. III. p. 426, Epiphan. Haeres, XXIV, ^ 5, represent B,
as quoting, are found somewhat altered in Matt, xix, 11, f , vii, 6, Accord
ing to Neand. Gnost, Syst. p, 84, B.'s Gospel was that of the Hebrews, in
the shape in which the Jewish sects in Syria used it.
The following were heretical works : the Gospel of Perfection, of Eve
{Epiphan. XXVI. 2), of Philip (ib. § 13), of Truth {Iren. III. I'l, cf, Ter
tull. De praescr, c, 49), of Judos Iscoriot {Epiphan. XXXVIII, 1, Theo
doret. Haeret. fabb. I. 15). The Protevangel of James (cf Origen. ad
Matt. xiii. 54-56. Epiphan. XXX. 23) is found in Fabric. 1. c, p, 66, sqq.
General Conclusions regarding the Uncanonical Gospels.
§ 74.
Of all the above-mentioned uncanonical Gospels, the
Gospel of the Hebrews is that of which we have the most

124 GOSPELS.
complete and certain knowledge. It is the oldest ; but its
use is traceable no farther back than Hegesippus (about
A. D. 160), nor beyond the circle of the Jewish Christians;
for the orthodox Fathers, far from placing it on a par with
the canonical Gospels, reckon it among the ungenuine
{Origen, § 64 a, note a; Euseb. Pt. I, § 24, note a).^ Its
character was fluctuating and uncertain, and it seems to
have undergone various elaborations. Its well-known con-
tents show that it was closely allied to, though by no means
the original of, Matthew's Gospel. All the other uncanoni
cal Gospels are either varieties of the Gospel of the Hebrews
or heretical corruptions. Accordingly, none of the Gospel
essays mentioned by Luke (i. 1), unless some of the canon
ical Gospels are included among them, have been preserved
or remained in use.
• It is remarkable that Origen does not reckon it among the ttoXXoi of
Luke (§ 63, note o), from which it would seem that he did not give it any
great antiquity. Evangelic Tradition.
§ 75.
In addition to what was recorded in the canonical and
uncanonical Gospels, various contributions to the evangelic
history, and especially expressions of Jesus, were given by
oral tradition.*^ When church writers quote such as are not
found in our Gospels, they may have drawn them in part
from uncanonical Gospels, and in part from tradition.''
• To these belonged Acts xx. 35 : poKapidv ia-ri SiBdvai pdXXov fj Xap/3d-
veiv, ^ Origen. Comment, in Matt. xvii. 12. Vol. IIL p, 513 : Kai 'Irja-ovs yoi}v
(prjai. Bid rovs do^evovvras fjcrBevovv, Kal Bid rovs TTetvmvras inelvav. Clem.
Alex. Strom, I. p. 346 : Aireio-^e ydp, (l>rjm, rd peydXa, Kai rd ptKpd ipiv
npoa-reBfja-erai. Origen. De orat, ^ 2. 43 : Kai alrelre rd inovpdvia, Kal rd
iniyeia ipiv npoareBfjcrerai. Clem. Alex. Strom, VI. p, 636, sq, : $j7criv d
Ile'rpos elprjKevai rbv Kvpiov rols dnoaroXois ¦ 'Edv pev ovv ns BeXfjcrrj roi)
la-parjX peravofjo-ai, Kal Bid rov dvdpards pov niareveiv enl rbv Beov, dcpeBfj-
a-ovrai avrw ai dpapriai. Merd BaBeKa errj e^eXBere els rbv Kocrpov, pfj ns
eiTT?;, OVK fjKovaapev. Cf Euseb. H, E, V, 18, — Still more in Grobe,
Spicil, patr, I, 12 (cf Fabric, p, 333). Kdrner, De sermonibus Christi aypd-
^ois. Lips, 1776, 4to.

ANCIENT ACCEPTANCE OE CANONICAL GOSPELS. § 76 b. 125

Very Ancient Acceptance of the Canonical Gospels.
§ 76 a.
Irenceus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian testify to
the general acceptance of our canonical Gospels at the end
of the second century, and even farther back."
* Iren. Adv. haer. III, 11, 7 : Tanta est autem circa Evangelia haec fir-
mitas, ut et ipsi haeretici testimonium reddant eis, et ex ipsis egrediens
unusquisque eorum conetur suam firmare doctrinam  Cum ergo hi,
qui contradicunt, nobis testimonium perhibeant, et utantur his, firma et vera
est nostra de iis persuasio, ^ 8 : 'ETreiS^ recrcrapa KXipara rov Kocrpov, iv a
ia-pev, elcrl, Kal recrcrapa KaBoXiKa nvevpara, Karecrnaprai Be fj iKRXrjarla enl
ndcrrjs rfjs yfjs, crrvXos Be Kal crrfjpiypa iKKXrjcrias rb evayyeXiov Kal nvevpa
^afjs - elKoras recrcrapas ep^etv avrfjv crrvXovs, navraxoBev nveovras rfjv dcpBap-
CTiav Kal dva^anvpovvras rovs dvBpanovs. 'E^ hv (pavepdv, on d rcov dndvrav
rexvirrjs Adyos, b KaBfjpevos eTTi rmv Xepovj3i/i . , , . eBaKev fjplv rerpdpopcjiov
TO evayyeXiov. Personal relations of Irenasus, by which his testimony is
strengthened. Cf. Suskind, in f/a^'s Magaz. f. Dogm, u, Mor, VI, 95, ff.,
with reference to Eckermann's Theol, Beitriige, V, B, 2, St, Wegscheider,
Einl. ins Evang. Joh, p, 93, Olshausen, p, 273, LiXcke, Comm. iib. d.
Ev. Joh, 3, A. I. 73, ff, Eckermann's objections have been revived by
Bretschneider , Probabilia de Evang, Joann, p, 214, Liiizelberger, Ueb, d,
Ap, Joh, &c, p, 146, ff, — Tertull. Cont, Marc. IV. 2. 5 (Pt. I. § 22, notes
d, e) : Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque Evange
liis patrocinabitur, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Joannis
dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri afiirmetur, cujus inter-
pres Marcus, nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere sclent, Cf, Clemens
Alex. Euseb. VI, 13 : , , , , iK^iaa-Bfjvai dpoXoyel npbs rav eralpav, ds ervxe
napd rav dpxalav npecr^vre pav dKrjKoas napaBdcre is , ypacpfj rols
perd ravra napaBovvai. Mepvrjrai Be MeXtravos Kal Elprjvaiov Kal nvav ere
pav, ZiV KOi rds Birjyfjcreis reBeirai. Cap, 14 : .... ev rois avrois d KXfjprjs
/3t/3Xiois (in the Hypotyposes) Trepi r^s rd^eas rav evayyeXiov napdBocriv
rmv dveKoBev npecr^vrepav reBeirai. § 16 b.
Various countries and parties in the Church also furnish
testimonies which run back nearly to the Apostolic age." —
This acceptance cannot be ascribed to a formal agreement,
or to a decision by a council. It seems to have grown up
in the intercourse of churches and teachers with each other.''

126 GOSPELS.
' The testimonies of Theophilus {&. 180), Tation (f 176), Justin. M.
(fl, 140), see Pt. L § 19, II. \^ 66-68. Even the opponent of Christiani
ty, Celsus, and the heretics Marcion, Valentinus and his school, and Basilides
(fl. 140 - 150) , were acquainted with our collection of Gospels, and do not
contest their genuineness, but merely their credibility or freedom from corrup
tion. Origen. Cont, Cels, lib, II, c, 16 : ndvv evfjBas cprjol (d KiXa-os) rovs
paBrjrds npbs napairrjaiv rav Kara rbv 'Irjcrovv dvayeypacpevai nepl
avrov roiavra. C, 74 : " Tadra pev ovv vplv iK rav iperepav (rvyy pap-
par av, icp' ols ovBevbs aXXov pdprvpos xprjCop-^" ' avrol yap eavrols nepi-
nlnrere." V, 56 : , . . , inicpepei . . . . on Kal npbs rbv avrov rov 'irjaov
rdcpov Icrrdprjvrai iXrjXvBevai vnd nvav pev dyyeXoi Bvo, ind nvav Be eis, ovk,
oipai, rrjpfjcras MarBaiov pev Kal MdpKOv eva la-roprjKevai, AovKOV Se Kai 'ladv-
vrjv Svo, II. 27 : Tivds rdiv niarrevdvrav cprjcrlv . . . . peraxapdrreiv iK rfjs npa-
rrjs ypacpfjs rd evayyeXiov rpixfj Kal rerpaxfj Kal noXXaxfj-i tcai peranXdr-
reiv, Iv 'ixoiev npbs rovs iXeyxovs dpvelcxBai. — Iren. III. 11, 7 : Hi autem,
qui a Valentino sunt, eo quod est secundum Joannem plenissime utentes . . , ,
plura habere gloriantur, quam sint ipsa Evangelia. C, 12, 12 : Marcion et
qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas scripturas conversi sunt  Reliqui vero
omnes, falso scientiae nomine inflati, scripturas quidem confiteniur, interpre-
tationes vero convertunt, C, 14, 4: .... hi vero, qui a Valentino sunt , , . ,
ex hoc (Evangelio Lucae) multas occasiones subtililoquii sui acceperunt, in-
terpretori audentes male, quae ab hoc bene sunt dicta. Si autem et reliqua
suscipere cogentur, intendentes perfecto Evangelio et Apostolorum doctrinae,
oportet eos poenitentiam agere, Tertull. De praescr, haeret, c, 38 : Si
Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur, non callidiore ingenio, quam
Marcion, manus intulit veritati, Marcion enim exerte et palam machaera,
non stylo usus est, quoniam ad materiam suam caedem scripturarum confecit,
Valentinus autem pepercit : quoniam non ad materiam scripturas, sed mate
riam ad scripturas excogitavit, Iren. I, 3. 6, of the Valentinians : Kai ov
pdvov iK To5v evayyeXiKtSv Kai rSv dnocrroXiKav neipavrai rds dnoBel^eis noiel-
crBai naparpenovres rds epprjveias Kal paStovpyovvres rds e^rjyfjaeis, dXXd Kal
iK vdpov Kal npocprjrav, K. r. X. C, 8, 5 : "Ert re 'ladvvrjv rdv paBrjrfjv rov
Kvpiov BiBdo-KOVcri rfjv nparrjv dySodSa peprjvvKevai avrals Xe^ecri, Xeyovres
ovras ' 'ladvvrjs d paBrjrfjs rov Kvpiov /SovXdpevos einelv rfjv rSv dXa)v yevecnv,
1^. i.X. — Ptolemaei ad Floram epist,, in Epiphan. Haeres, XXXIII, 3:
. , , . o'lKia rj ndXis pepicrBelcra icp' eavrfjv on pfj Bvvarai crrfjvai, d crarfjp fjpav
dnecp-rjvaro (cf. Matt, xii, 25), "En ye r^v rod Kocrpov Brjpiovpylav IBiav Xeyei
elvai - are ndvra St' avrov yeyovevat, Kai X^P'^ avrov ye'yovev ovSe'v (cf. John
I, 3), C, 4 : AiaXeydpevds ttov d crarfjp .... ecprj avrols " "Ort MaiJa-fjs npbs
rfjV CTKXrjpoKapBiav ipav inerpe-^e rb dnoXveiv rfjv yvvaiKa avrov - dn dpYTJs
ydp ov ye'yovev ovrms. Further in Hug, Einl. I, 83. Fragments from He-
racleon's Comm, on John in Origen. Comm, in Joan., collected by Grobe,
Spicil, patr, II, 85, sqq. An exegetical fragment on Luke xii. 8, in Clem.
Alex. Strom. IV. 502. Citations from the Gospels, in e'K rav Oeobdrov ini-

THEIR AUTHORS. § 78. 127
Topal, ad calc. Opp. Clem. Alex., in Hug, I. 53, ff. Olshausen, -p. 380. Con
cerning Basilides, see § 73 c, note b.
" Schmidt, Einl, L 23, ff, Olshausen, p, 434, ff.
Mutual Relations and Peculiarities of the Canonical Gospels.
§77.
The first three Gospels of our canon are so mutually re
lated, that they can be regarded only as different branches of
the same stem. They restrict Jesus's history before his
Passion to his ministry in Galilee. The fourth Gospel, on
the other hand, is quite different and independent, as it re
cords also Jesus's ministry in Jerusalem. As regards the
treatment of the Evangelical materials proceeding from
doctrinal views (§ 61), all three have a Jewish tendency,
which is most prominent in the first, while in the third traces
of Paulinism appear. In the fourth Gospel, on the other
hand, the most free and spiritual form of Christianity is pre
sented. Thus, in these four works, all the various leading
tendencies of primitive Christianity appear."'
» Baur, Krit. Untersuchgg. iiber die kanonisohen Evangg. (Tiib, 1847),
and the anonymous author of the work called, Die Evangg, ihr Geist ihre
Verff, u, ihr Verhaltniss zu einander (Leipzig, 1845), ascribe a sectarian ten
dency and character to the Gospels, — the last-mentioned writer in the
roundest way. Their Authors.
§ 78.
The titles evayyeXiov Kara MaTdalov, Kara MapKov, Kara
Aovicav, KUTa Icoavvrjv, do not definitely indicate these men
as their authors ; "¦ but the opinion of all antiquity attests
the commonly accepted sense. They also imply that the
same subject has been treated by others.''
' 2 Mace. II. 13 : ev rois vnopvrjpana-pols rols Kara rbv Neepi'av. Epiph.
Adv. haeres. VIII. 4 : fj Kara Maija-ea nevrdrevxos. In Church writers :
Kard rovs e^BopfjKovra, Kara 'AkvXov, k. Svppaxov. Euseb. H. E. III. 24 :
MarBaios  ypacpfj napaBovs rb KaB' eavrov evayyeXiov. On the other hand,
Ploto, Cratyl, p, 386 : Kar EvBvBrjpov, auctore Euthydemo, according to,
with, E, Ib. p. 401 : koB' 'HpoKXeirov, according to the doctrine of H.
Epiph. I. 230 : Kard MapKiava iBoypdncre.

128 GOSPELS.
" Misconstruction of this formula by the Manichsan Faustus (in Augus
tin. Cont, Faust, XXXII. 2, XXXIII, 2), an anonymous writer in Beitr. i,
Beford, d, verniinft, Denkens in der Rel. XA^I. 1, ff. Eckermann, Theol.
Beitr. V. 2. 106, ff. Credner, Einl. ^§ 80-90, -
Special Helps in the Exegesis of the Four Gospels.
Cf above, p, 85, f M. Buceri Enarratt, Arg, 1527, and often, — IT,
Bullinger, Comm, Tig, 1561. — P. Keuchenii Adnott. in IV Evv. et Act.
ap, Amst, 1689, — Jo.Moldonati Comm, Mussip, 1596, and often. — /, G.
Dorschei Comm, Hamb, 1706. — H. E. G. Paulus, Philol, krit. u. hist.
Comment, iiber das N, T, 1-3, Th, Die drei ersten Evangg. 1800, 2d ed.
1804-1805, 4 Th. I, Abth, Joh, Cap, I, -XL 1804, Exeget, Handbuch
iib, d, drei ersten Evangg, 3 Thle, 1830-33.— Ch. G. Kuinoel, Com
ment, in libb. histor. N, T, Vol, I, Ev. Matth, 1807. ed. 4. 1837. Vol. IL
Ev, Marc, et Luc. 1809, ed. 4. 1843, Vol, IIL Ev, Joann, 1812, ed, 3.
1825, — C. F. A. Fritzsche, Quatuor Evangg, recens, et cum commentariis
perpet, edidit, T, I, Ev, Matth, Lips, 1826. T, II. Ev. Marc 1830.—
Wolfg. Musculi Coram, in Matth, 1548, in Joh, 1585, — Aeg. Hunnii Comm,
in Ev. Joan. 1585. — Jo. Gerhardi Adnott, posth, in Ev, Matth, Jen, 1663,
— Gottfr. Olear. Obss, ad Ev, Matth. 1713. — Jac. Eisner, Comment, crit,
Philol, in Ev, Matthaei, 2 tom, 1767, In Evang. Marc, 1773, 4to, — S, N.
Mori Praelect, in Evang, Lucae, ed, Donat. 1795, — K. W. Stein, Com
ment, i, d, Ev. d, Luc, Halle. 1830, — F. A. Lompe, Comment, anal, exe
get, Ev, Johan, Amst. 1724-26. Basil. 1725-27. 3 vol. 4to, — Die
Schriften Joh. iibers. u. erkl. v. S. G. Longe. 1795-97. 3 Thle. — Mori
Recitatt, in Evang, Joh. ed. Dindorf. 1796. — C. Ch. Tittmann, Melete-
mata s. in Evang, Joh, 1816, — Fr. Diicke, Comment, iiber die Schriften d,
Evang, Joh, 1, 2, Th, 1820-24. 3d ed, 1840-43, —.4, Tholuck, Com
ment, z. d, Ev. Joh. 1827. 6th ed. 1844. —JT. Klee, Comment, ub. d,
Evang. nach Joh. Mainz. 1829. — M. Wirth, Das Ev. d. Joh. erlaut. 2
Thle, Ulm. 1829. — Adalb. Moier, Comm. iib. d. Ev. Joh. 2 vols. Carlsr.
1843-45,

RELATIONSHIP OE THE FIRST THREE. § 79 a. 129
CHAPTER II.
EELATIONSHIP OF THE FIEST THREE GOSPELS.

General Statement.

§ 79 a.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke stand unde
niably in a certain kindred relation to each other. For,
1. They have the same general order and scope;'' which, as
a comparison with the Gospel of John shows, are not al
ways determined by the actual history.''
^ Table of Comparison : — I.
Preliminary History.
Matt. chh. i. ii. Mark. Luke, chh. i. ii.
(Peculiar.) (Wanting,) (Peculiar,)
n.
History of the Baptism.
Matt. iii. - iv. 12. Mark i. 1 - 13. Luke iii. - iv. 14.
(All three closely related.)
HI.
Jesus's Ministry in Galilee.
Matt. iv. 12 -xiii. 58. Mark i. 14 -vi. 13. Luke iv. 14 -ix. 6.
(Related, although differently arranged, and with passages intervening.)
Matt. xiv. 1-21. Mark vi. 14-44, Luke ix, 7- 17,
xiv, 22 -xvi, 12, vi, 45 -viii, 26. (Omitted,)
xvi, 13 -xviii, 35, viii, 27- ix, 50, ix, 18-50,
(Related even in the arrangement, though with intervening passages ; in
particular. Matt, and Mark contain a whole series more than Luke,)
IV.
Jesus's Journey to Jerusalem.
Matt, Mark, Luke ix, 51 -xviii. 14.
(Omitted in this arrange- (Omitted in this arrange- (Collocation peculiar
ment.) ment.) to Luke.)
Matt, xix. 1 - XX. 34. Mark x. 1-52. Luke xviii. 15 - xix. 28.
(Related, even in the arrangement, though with intervening passages.)
17

130

GOSPELS.

Luke xxiv. 1-12.
Ver. 13-53.
(Peculiar.)

V.
Jesus's Entry into Jerusalem, and Stay there.
Matt, xxi, - xxv, Mark xi. - xiii, Luke xix, 29 - xxi.
(Related, even in arrangement, but with intervening passages.)
VI.
Jesus's Arrest, Crucifixion, and Burial.
Matt. xxvi. xxvii. Mark xiv. xv. Luke xxii. xxiii.
(Related in their general order, but with passages intervening, and variations.)
VII,
Jesus's Resurrection.
Matt, xxviii. 1-8. Mark xvi, 1-8.
(All three related.)
A^er. 9-20. Ver. 9-20.
(Peculiar.) (In part related to Matt,, in part
to Luke,)
^ Note the arrangement : — Jesus's Baptism, Temptation, Return to Gali
lee ; the connection of the sections of the Paralytic and the Calling of Mat
thew ; of the Plucking of Ears of Grain and the Withered Hand ; how Herod's
Attention was fixed on Jesus, and of the Feeding of the 5,000 ; of the Dis
ciples' Confession that Jesus is the Messiah, and the following sections ; of the
Blind Men at Jericho, and Jesus's Entrance into Jerusalem (cf, here especial
ly John) ; Jesus's Discourses there, which close with the Prophecy concern
ing Jerusalem. § 79 &.
2. That all three, or certainly two, often strikingly agree,
not alone in their facts (although, on the other hand, they
often differ), but also in their words. The ground of this,
likewise, does not lie in the history itself.''
" Examples of verbal agreement between all three, in single expressions : —
Matt. iii. 3. Mark i. 3. Luke iii. 4.
EvBeias noielre rds Tpi/3ovs avrov, differing from the LXX. : evB. n. r. rp.
TOV Beov fjpav, and from the Hebrew.
Matt. ix. 6. Mark ii. 10. Luke v. 24. A singular construction.
Matt. ix. 15. Mark ii, 20. Luke v. 35.
'EXevtrovrat Se fjpepai. Like Matt. 'EX. Se fjpepai, Kal orav
 , • anapBfj dn avrav b
¦ ¦ . ev iKeivrj r^ vvpcplos, rdre vrjarev-
VP-^P9- crovaiv iv iKeivais rals
fjpepais.
Markix. 1. Luke ix. 27.
 elcri nves rav &Be .... eiot nves rSv &Be
ea-rarav, oinves ov pfj ea-rrjKorav, oinves ov pfj ea-rarav, ot ov pfj yev-
yeva-avrai Bavdrov, yevcravrai Bavdrov, aavrai Bavdrov, eas
eas dv IBam, k. r. X. ews dv 'iBam, k. t. X. dv 'iBam, k. t. X,

orav anaporj an av
rav b vvpcplos, Kal rdre
vrja-revcrovmv. Matt, xvi, 28,
.... elcri nves rav oJSe

RELATIONSHIP OP THE FIRST THREE. § 79 b. 131
Matt. xix. 23. Mark x. 23. Luke xviii, 24.
.... Svo-KoXtas ttXov- ....Svo'KdXtos ot rd . . . . Bv(r KdXas ol rd
crios elcreXeva-erai els rfjv xPVpa'ra ep^ovres els rfjv xPVI^ara 'ixovres eioeXev-
jSaotXetav twv ovpavav. j3acr. r. B. elcreXevaovrai. crovrai els r. ^acr. t. B.
Examples of verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke : —
Matt, iv. 5. Luke iv. 9.
Kai iCTTT/o'tv avrdv e'Trl TO nrepvyiov Kal ecrrrjcrev avrbv inl rd nrepi-
Tofj lepov. yiov rov lepov.
Matt. iv. 10. Luke iv. 8.
Kvpiov rdv Bebv npocrKvvfjcreis, K. r. X. TlpoarKvvfjcreis Kvpiov rbv Beov crew,
K. r. X.
The LXX, have : Kvpiov rbv Beov aov (po^rjBfjorj , k, t. X.
Matt, vii. 5. Luke vi, 42,
'YnoKptrd, eKjSaXe nparov rfjv Bokov Like Matthew,
eK TOV dcpBaXpov crov, Kal Tore Bia-
^Xe-\freis eK^aXeiv rd Kapcpos 
Matt. xi. 10. Luke vii. 27.
'iSov, aTTOoreXXta tov dyyeXdv pov 'iSov, iya dnoareXXa, like Mat-
TTpd npoaranov a-ov, ds KaracrKevdo-ei thew.
rfjV oBdv crov epnpocrBev (rov.
The LXX. have : iSov, e'^OTToo'TeXXiB rdv dyyeXdv pov, Kal inifiXe-\jfeTai
oBbv npb npoaanov pov- Mark i. 2, quotes the passage in the same way as
Matthew and Luke.
Matt. xi. 11. Luke vii. 28.
.... e'v yevvrjrols yvvaiKav. The same.
Matt. xi. 26. Luke x. 21,
Nat, d narfjp, cf. ver, 25, ndrep. The same, first ndrep, then d narfjp.
Matt, xxi, 44. Luke xx. 18.
Kat d ne(rav inl rbv XiBov tovtov, Has d neirav in iKelvov rbv XlBov,
(TvvBXacrBfjcrerai' icp' ov B' dv crvvBXacrBfjcreTai- icp' dv 8' dv
necrrj, XiKprjcret avrdv. rrecrrj, XiKprjcrei avrdv.
Matt. xxiv. 50. Luke xii. 46.
"H^et d Kvpios rod BovXov iKelvov iv Same as Matthew, save at the close :
fjpepci 3 ov npocrBoKa, Kal ev apii
rj ofl yivacTKei, Kal Bixoropfjcrei
avTQV, Kal rb pepos avrov perd
rav vnoKpirav Bfjcrei. .... perd rav dnicrrav.
Examples of verbal agreement between Matthew and Mark :
Matt. XV. 8, f. Mark vii. 6, f.
'O Xaos oUtos rols x^l^fo-i pe npd, OSros d Xaos rois x^'^^""' P-^ npd,
fj Be KapBia avrav ndppa dnexei dn fj Be KapBia avrav ndppa dnexei an
ipov. Mdrrjv Be cre^ovrai pe, BiBd- ipov. Ma'njv Se cre^ovrai pe, BiBd-
(TKovres BiBaa-KaXias, evrdXpuiTa dv- (TKOvres BiBaa-KaXias, ivrdXpara dv-
Bpaneov. Bpanav.

132 GOSPELS.
LXX. : 'Eyyi'fet pot d Xaos ovros ev ra ordpart avrov, Kat ev rois x^'Xeo-iv
aiirSv npaai pe, fj Be KapBia avrav ndppa dnexei an ipov. Mdrrjv Be cre^ov-
rai pe, BiBda-Kovres ivrdXpara dvBpanaiv Kal BiSaa-KoXias.
Matt. xxiv. 22. Mark xiii. 20.
Kat ei pi) iKoXo^aBrja-av al fjpepai Kal el pfj Kvpws iKoXd^aa-e rds
iKeivai, OVK dv icraBrj ndcra adp^. fjpepas, ovk dv ia-i>Brj ndara crdp^.
Matt. xxvi. 55, Mark xiv. 48,
¦Qs inl Xrja-rfjv i^fjXBere perd pa^at- Exactly the same as Matthew,
p£v Kai ^vXav, a-vXXa^elv pe , . , ,
Examples of verbal agreement between Mark and Luke : —
Markvi. 41, Luke ix. 16.
.... evXdyrjore Kal KareKXaa-e rovs . . . . eiXdyrjaev avrovs Kal Kare-
dprovs . . . . KXacre . . . .
Mark xv. 15, Luke xxii, 12,
Kai avrds vplv Bei^ei dvdyaiov pe- KoKetvos vplv Bei^ei dvdyaiov peya
ya icrrpapevov , , . . eorpajievov ....
§80.
The relation of Mark to Matthew, and then to Luke, is
equally, if not more, striking. Mark has only four passages
peculiar to him : the two parables, iv. 26 - 29, xiii. 33 - 37,
and the two healings, vii. 32-37, viii. 22-26, and some
trifling additions and insertions : iii. 20, f , xiv. 51, f , xv.
44, f. ; all the rest corresponds more or less nearly to the
other narratives. Seldom holding an independent position
between the other two, he follows the one or the other, and
forms the middle member of the threefold accord.* He has
often, also, a text which seems woven out of the other two.*
» According to Marsh, p, 242, in those parts which all three Evangelists
have in common, Luke never agrees with Matthew, excepting where Mark
also does. But Luke, in such passages, often approximates nearer to Mat
thew, Luke iii, 16, cf Matt, iii, 11 ; v. 36, cf Matt. ix. 16 ; viii. 43, cf Matt.
ix. 20 ; ix. 3, f , cf. Matt. x. 10, f, ; ix. 9, cf Matt. x. 14 ; ix. 22, 24, cf.
Matt, xvi, 12, 26 ; ix, 42, cf Matt, xvii. 18 ; ix. 44, cf. Matt, xvii. 22 ;
xix, 31, cf Matt, xxi, 3 ; xx, 32, 44, cf. Matt, xxii, 27, 45 ; xxii, 6, cf
Matt, xxvi. 16 ; xxiii. 53, cf Matt, xxvii. 59 ; xxiv. 6, cf Matt, xxviii. 6.
'¦ Examples : —
Matt. viii. 3, Mark i, 42. Luke v. 13.
Kai evBeas iKaBapia-Brj Kai .... evBeas dnfjXBev Kat evBeas fj Xinpa
avrov fj Xenpa. an avrod fj Xenpa, Kal dnfjXBev an avroi.
iKaBapicrBrj.

RELATIONSHIP OP THE EIRST THREE. § 80. 133
Matt. viii. 4. Mark i, 44, Luke v, 14.
Kat Xeyet avra d 'Irj- Kcu Xeyet avra • Opa Kal avrbs napfjyyeiXev
crovs' "^Opa prjBevl e'lnrjs- prjBevl prjBev e'mrjs- dXX* avrw pTjSevi eiTreiv • dXXd
dXXd VTraye, oeavrdv Set- VTraye, O'eavrov Sei^ov OTTeX^cbv Sei^ov oeavrdv
^ov T(3 tepei, Kat npocre- ra lepel, Kal npocreveyKe ra iepet, Kai npocr'eveyKe
veyKe rd Bapov o npocre- nepl rov KaBapicrpov crov, nepl rov KaBapicrpov crov,
ra^e Mmo-^s, ets paprv- a npoaera^e Mmo^s, eis KaBas npoaera^e Mo)-
piov avrols. paprvpiov avrols. (rfjs, els paprvpiov av
rols.
ix. 9. ii. 3, f, V, 27, f,
Kat napdyav b 'irjcrovs Kal i^fjXBe .... Kal na- Kal perd ravra e^^X^e,
iKeiBev, eiBev dvBpanov pdyav elBe Aeviv, rov Kal iBedaaro reXiivrjv
KaBfjpevov inl rb reXm- rov 'AXcpaiov, KaBfjpevov dvdpan Aeviv, KaBfjpe-
viov, MarBaiov Xeydpe- inl rb reXdjvtov • Kai Xe- vov enl rb reXavwv - Kal
vov • Kal Xeyet avrm • yet avrm • 'AKoXovBei poi. elnev avra • ' AKoXovBei
'AxoXovBei poi. Kal dva- Kal dvacrrds fjKoXovBrj- poi. Kat KaraXtTTOJV d-
O'rds rjKoXovBrj(rev avra. (rev avra. navra dvacrrds fjKoXov-
Brjcrev avra.
ix. 17. ii. 22. v. 37.
OvSe (SdXXovo'iv otvov Kal ovSets ^dXXet oivov Kai ovSels jSdXXet oTvov
veov ets doKovs TraXai- veov eis da-Kovs naXai- veov els doKovs TraXai-
ovs- el Be pfj ye, pfjywv- ovs- el Be pfj, pfjacrei d ovs- el Be pfj ye, pfj^ei
rai ol dcTKoi, Kal b oivos olvos d veos rovs dcTKovs, d veos oivos rovs dcrKovs,
iKxelrai, Kal ol dcTKol Kal d otvos eKxelrai, Kal Kal avrbs eKxvBfjcrerai,
anoXovvrai. ol acrKoi dnoXovvrai. Kal ot dcKoi dnoXovvrai.
viii. 27. iv. 41. viii. 25.
IIoraTrds c'trrtv oStos, on Tis apa ovros ecrnv, on Tis apa oSrds ea-nv, drt
Kai ot dvepoi Kai fj Bd- Kal d dvepos koi fj Bd- Kcii rols dvepois enirdcx-
Xacxcra vnaKovovcriv av- Xacrcra vnaKovovcriv av- crei kcu ra vBari, Kal
TcS ; Tffl ; vnaKovovcriv avra ;
viii. 28. V. 1, f. viii. 26, f.
Kat iXBdvrc avra els rb Kcu rjXBov els rb nepav Kal KarenXevcrav els rfjv
nepav els rfjv x^^pav rav rfjs BdXdacrrjs els rfjv x^' X'^P"" '''™'' TaBaprjvav
Tepyecrrjvav, vnfjvrrjo-av pav rav TaBaprjvav. Kal 
avTiS Svo Baipovi^dpevoi, e^eXBdvn avra eK roC 'E^eX^dvn Se avra IttI
eK rSv pvrjpeiav e^epxd- nXolcyv, evBeas anrjvrrj- rfjv yrjv, vmjvrrjcrev avra
pevoi, K.T.X, crev avnS ex rav pvrjpei- dvfjp ns, k, t, X,
av dvBpconos, k.. t. X.
Similar are i. 11, 32, 42, 44 ; ii. 11, 19, 21, f, 23, f. ; iii. 2 ; iv. 15, 21 ;
V. 22, f, 25-28; vi. 7, 14,f, 36; viii. 27, 30, 33, 37, f ; ix. 5,f, 18,22,
42; X. 29-31, 33, f, 46; xi. 1-3, 15; xii. 1, 8, 11, 14, 26 ; xiii., 3, f ;
xiv. 1, f,, 12 - 16, 70, Refer to : Synopsis Evangg. Matth. Marc, et Lucae
cum parallelis Joann. pericopis ex rec. Griesbachii cum selecta lectt. varie-
tate concinnaverunt De Wette et LiXcke. 1818. 4to. 2d ed. 1842. 8vo,

134 GOSPELS.

Possible Modes of Explanation.
§ 81.
The phenomenon of so singular a relationship, itself well
fitted to provoke attempts at explanation, can be explained
only by two kinds of suppositions, or by a combination of
these : either by supposing that one Evangelist used the
others ; or that all three used a common source ; or that, in
addition to this, one Evangelist made use of the others.
i. Suppositions that one Evangelist used the Others.
§ 82 a.
In a quite off-hand way, several writers have thought to
untie the knot by a supposition of this sort. In this attempt
many allowed themselves to be guided by the wholly acci
dental order in which the Gospels stand in our Canon, and
supposed that Mark used, revised, and corrected Matthew,
while Luke did the same by them both.* Besides this, all
sorts of combinations were attempted.
Storr regarded the Gospel of Mark as the oldest ; from it
sprang the Gospel of Matthew, written in Syro-Chaldaic;
from it Luke also drew, and the translator of Matthew used
both Mark and Luke.^ Bilsching, on the other hand, con
sidered Luke the foundation of Matthew, and both that of
Mark." Vogel regarded Luke as the source of Mark, and
both as that of Matthew.*
Griesbach investigated more thoroughly, and showed, by
an accurate comparison, that Mark made extracts from Mat
thew and Luke, The complementary supposition, however,
that Luke had reference to Matthew, he left somewhat un
determined.^ » Grot, ad Matth. i. Luc. i. Mill, Prolegg. § 109. Wetst. Praef. ad
Marc, ad Luc. Hug, Einl. II. § 25, ff. His singular theory of omission,
§41. i' Ueber d. Zweck d. evang. Gesch. u. d. Brr. Joh. §§ 58-62. De fonte

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE FIRST THREE. § 82 b. 135
Evangg. Matth. et Luc. 1794. in Velthusen, Kuinoel, et Ruperti Commen
tatt. theol. Vol. III. The same view in Herder, see § 84 c.
' Vorr. z. Harm. d. 4 Evangg. (1766.) p. 109. So also Edw. Evanson
(The dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, 1792). Cf
Eichh. Allg. Bibl. V. 489.
^ Ueber d. Entsteh. der 3 ersten Evangg. in Gobler's Journ. f. auserl.
theol, Litt, I, 1.
° Comment,, qua Marci Evang, latum e Matthaei et Lucae commentariis
decerptum esse monstratur, Jen, 1789-90, (Commentt, theol. I, 360, sqq.
Opuscc. II. 358, sqq.) Progr. de fontibus, unde Evangelistae suas de
resurreetione Dom. narrationes hauserint. Jen. 1784. (Opuscc. II. 241, sqq.)
Before this time, Owen (Observations on the Four Gospels, Lond. 1764) sup
posed that Luke drew from Matthew, and Mark from both. Augustinus,
De consens. Evangelist. I. 4, is one-sided : Marcus Matthaeum subsequutus
tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. Clem. Al. in Euseb. H. E.
VI. 14, considers Mark the latest of the Synoptists,
§ 82 6.
While, on the one hand, Griesbach's view met with much
opposition, on the other, it obtained considerable acceptance,
and has, in the main, held its ground till the present day."
We also shall return to it (§ 94). In the most recent
times, however, after the criticism of the Gospels had passed
through many other phases, several writers have thought
they found in Mark the original, simple form of the evangelic
record."" Some have even gone so far as to complete the
unfinished combination of Storr, and to assert that the
Gospel of Mark is the original or Protevangel, which Luke,
with a pragmatism that invented freely, and in part arbi
trarily, enlarged ; and that Matthew, with almost greater
arbitrariness, interpolated both." ,
* As regards Mark, it is supported by Stroth. in Eichh. Rep. IX. 144.
Paulus, Theol, exeg, Conserv. I. 37, ff,, 73, ff,, 95, ff, Gfrorer, Gesch, d.
Urchristenth. IL 2, p, 212, ff, ; as regards Luke, with modifications, h-y Am
man, De Luca emendatore Matthaei. 1805. An exact exegetical justifica
tion of Griesbach's hypothesis is given by Saunier, Ueb. d. Quellen d.
Evang. d. Marc. 1825. This supposition is sustained also by Theile, De
trium prior. Evangg. necessitudine, 1825, in Win. and Engelh. N. krit.
Journ. V. 4. Zur Biographic Jesu, 1836. Sieffert, Ueb. d. Urspr. d. ersten
kan. Evang. 1833. Neudecker, Einleit. p. 145, ff. H. A. W. Meyer, Com
ment, zu Matth, Einl, § 6, F. J. Schwarz, Neue Unterss, iib, d, Ver-
wandtschafts- Verhaltniss d, synopt, Evangg. (Tiib. 1844), p. 277, ff. Schweg-

136 GOSPELS.
ler, in Zeller's Theol. Jbb. 1843. p. 203, ff. Nachapost. Zeitalter, 1. 457, ff.
Bour, Krit. Unterss. iib. d, kan. Evv. p, 548, ff,
¦¦ Lachmann, De ordine narrationum in evv. synopt, in Stud, u, Kr, 1835.
p. 577, sqq., with reference to the different arrangement of the beginning ;
Weisse, Evangel, Gesch, I, 55 ; both in connection with quite different the
ories of the origin of the Gospels, cf ^§ 86, 97, 99, Hitzig, Ueber Joh,
Marcus, Ziir, 1843. p. 37, ff. Cf the views of Credner and Reuss, § 88 a,b.
" Wilke (Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung iib.
das Verwandtschaftsverhaltniss der drei ersten Evangg. 1838) has attempt
ed, with great industry and acuteness, to show by an exact analysis of the
first three Gospels the priority of Mark. Bruno Bauer, in his Kritik d.
Evang. Gesch. d. Synoptiker, 1. 2. Bd. 1841, has worked over with his pecu
liar dialectic the results of Wilke's inquiries. Wilke seeks to show, that what
Matthew and Luke have, in common and with more or less close agreement,
in addition to Mark, and what they have differing from him, is not original,
but in part made by themselves, in part arbitrarily altered ; and that both had
the Gospel of Mark before them, although they differed from it. Matthew's
changed arrangement of the history and work of Jesus in Galilee is caused by
his inserting the Sermon on the Mount in the early part of his work (so also
Lachm.). On the other hand, Matthew has imitated Luke, and formed (par
ticularly) the Sermon on the Mount from the materials offered by him,
Bauer sees even in Matthew's preliminary history nothing but an imita
tion of that of Luke, So too Schneckenburger (Ueber d, Urspr. d. erst, kan,
Evang, in the Stud, d, wiirtemb, Geistl., and printed separately, 1834, p,
69, ff,), only he supposes also the assistance of tradition, whereas B. refers
the whole to the arbitrary wilfof the author. An examination of the hy
potheses of Storr, Weisse, Wilke, Br. Bauer, in F. J. Schwarz, p. 26, ff.
§ 82 c.
The bold hypothesis that our second Gospel is the Prot
evangel condemns itself by its auxiliary assumption that, in
its present form, the Gospel is not free from interpolations.^'
As certainly as the objectionable passages are genuine, are
they generally (especially the narrative of the second feeding
of the multitude, which most probably rests on an error of
Matthew) indicative of the character of Mark as a writer.
We trust, moreover, that our justification of Griesbach's
hypothesis farther on (§ 94, ff.) will not fail.
» Besides the conclusion (§ 94, f.), the following passages are reckoned
as such: — viii. 1-9, the second feeding (note the characteristic feature,
ver. 7, in comparison with vi. 41), with the reference to it in viii. 20 ; ix. 38
- 40 ; xi. 24 - 26 ; i. 2, 13 (Kai ^v  o-aravd) ; iii. 6 (perd r. 'HptaS.) ;

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE FIRST THREE. § 84 a. 137
iv. 10 (o-iiv T. SmScKa) ; vi. 37 {Brjvap. Biok.) ; ix. 6 (^o-av y. eKCpo^oi) ;
X. 16 (evayKoXio-. avrd) ; vii. 3, f., 13 {koI napdp., k. t. X.) ; the names,
X. 46, XV. 10, ii. 13, iii. 17. The reason : " How shall it be proved that
what belongs not to the original type is from the hand of Mark? " (!)
Comp. Br. Bauer, II. 68, 356, 365. §83.
In attempting thus to sustain the theory of the derivation
of one Gospel from another, by resort to the supposition of
arbitrariness or party feeling in the Evangelists, the most
recent criticism necessarily runs counter to the historic sense,
and endangers the credibility of the Gospel history. Each
of the hypotheses given above labors under the difficulty of
being unable satisfactorily to explain why a later author
omitted one part of what his predecessor gave, and altered
another part of it in substance or in form. Objections of
this sort have been urged especially against Griesbach's
hypothesis."' It is true that the history of the Old Testament and
Apocryphal literature presents similar phenomena in the
books of Chronicles, Judith, and Tobit, where changes and
corruptions, additions and omissions, have likewise been
made by later revising hands. But in the case of these
books, at least of Chronicles, certain intermediate steps, or
a gradualness of interpolation, are probable (Part I. § 192 c,
d) ; and it would be a great gain, if a similar process of
growth could be proved in respect of the first three Gospels.
» Cf. Russwurm, Ueb, d, Ursprung der 3 ersten Evangg, 1797, p, 28, ff,
Eichhorn, Einl. I. 373, ff. Allg. Bibl. V. 767, ff. Bertholdt, Einl. III.
1127, ff.
II. Theory of one or several Common Written Sources.
1. One Source.
§84 a.
The differing treatment of their matter by the Evange
lists would appear much less loose, and more excusable, had
they drawn from a common written source, which each used
18

138 GOSPELS.
after a different fashion. Many have regarded the Gospel
of the Hebreivs as such, but in part without being accu
rately acquainted with it or having closely considered its
relation to our Gospel of Matthew, in part without clearly
showing the process by which the Gospels were derived
from it.'' Others considered the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
the common source.^
» Lessing, Neue Hypothese iib. d. Evangg, (1784), in his Theol, Nachlass,
Werke (Berlin, 1793), XVII, Thl. Niemeyer, Conjecturae ad illustrandum
plurimorum N. T, scriptorum silentium de primordiis vitae Jesu Christi,
1790, Weber, Beitr. z. Gesch, des neutest, Kanons (1791), p, 21, f Cf
Id. Unters, iiber d, Evang, d, Hebr, 1806. The hypothesis of Schneck
enburger (Ueb, d, Urspr, d, ersten kanon, Evang, p, 105, ff,), that our Gos
pel of Matthew is an elaboration of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which Luke
and Mark likewise used (p, 152), has not much more precision. According
to Fr. Fischer {'Einl. in d. Dogm. 1828, p. 122, ff.), the Gospels of Luke
and of the Hebrews sprang from the works mentioned by Luke in his proem ;
Matthew's Gospel is a Greek elaboration of that of the Hebrews ; Mark
previously wrought over the same materials, and perhaps referred to Luke,
while both Mark and Luke may have been used by the redactor of Mat
thew's Gospel,
'' Corrodi, Beleucht, d, Gesch, des jiid, u, christi, Bibelkanons, II, 150, ff.
Yet he assumed the Greek version of the same as the immediate source,
T/iiess, Comment, iiber d. N. T, I, Einl, § 13, ff, /, E. Chr. Schmidt, Ent-
wurf e, bestimmten Untersoheid, verschiedener verloren gegangener Evangg.,
in Henke's Mag, B, IV, St. 3. Einl. ins N. T. I. 68, ff., who, besides, as
sumes that the text of the three Gospels was made more uniform by later in
terpolations. Feilmoser, Einl, in d, Biicher d, N, B, p, 59, ff. Bolien (Vorr.
z, deutschen Uebers, d. Matth,, Marc, u, Luc) thinks Mark and Luke used,
extracted from, and worked over, not only the Hebrew Matthew, but also the
Greek translation, § 84 &.
Eichhorn attempted a more precise explanation by the
supposition of a so-called Original Gospel, which, while it
contained the sections common to all three Evangelists, was
used by them in different editions ; so that what was com
mon to all three came from the original work, what was
common to but two from an edition used by them in com
mon, and what was found in but one from an edition used
by him only, or from another source.^' This original work
he thought was written in Aramaean, and thus he explained

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE EIRST THREE. § 84 C. 139
naturally how the three Gospels, as independent versions,
agreed in similar expressions and turns of expression ; but
he left their striking coincidence in (to some degree) rare
and peculiar Greek expressions unexplained.*
" Eichhorn, Allg. Biblioth, V, (1794), 759, ff. Earlier, from Eichhorn's
lectures, Russwurm, in a prize essay, which, written in German, he pub
lished in the work referred to in § 83, note a. Genealogy of the Gospels,
according to Eichhorn : —
1, Original Gospel.
2. Edition A of the same, foundation of Matthew.
3. Edition B of the same, foundation of Luke.
4. Edition C, compiled from A and B, foundation of Mark.
5. Edition D, used by Matthew and Luke at the same time,
^ The agreement in Greek words, as nrepvyiov rov tepou. Matt, iv, 5,
Luke iv. 9, inwvmos. Matt. vi. 11, Luke xi, 3, and the citation of 0, T,
passages after the LXX. point to a Greek source. On the other hand, the
supposed errors in translating, which are said to prove an Aramaean original
{Bolien, Bearbeitung der drei Evangg. Eichhorn, Einl, I, §^ 49, 58, Ber
tholdt, 111. 1177), are all moonshine. E. g. : Luke iii, 21, npoo-evxope-
vov (Matt, iii, 16, dvefirj), confounding of rh]! with Th)i. Ib, crapariKa
e'iSet (Matt, iii, 16, mo-ei Trepio-repdv) , Aram, NiV f]UD, Luke xxii, 25, evepye-
rat KaXovvrat (Matt, Kat oi peydXot Kare^ovo'tdfovo-tv avrSv), confounding of
rj^On with pTDn, Matt, xxvi, 17, rfj nparrj rav d^vpav, Mark xiv, 12,
rrj nparrj fjjxepci rav d^vjiav, Luke Xxii. 7, ^X^e fj fjpepa rSv d^vpav, iv -fj
eSet Bvea-Bai rb nda~xa, Aram. Nn'OBT nXDtp Nnr3, i. e. on the day be
fore the feast of unleavened bread, and, on the first day of the feast of un
leavened bread. § 84 c.
To supply this want in Eichhorn's hypothesis. Marsh
so remodelled it that he supposed a Greek translation of
the unrevised Aramaean Original Gospel ; and that Mark
and Luke used this translation in composing their Gospels.
He also supposed that the Greek translator of the Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew used the Greek text of Mark, and partly
also that of Luke.'^ — Herder also adopted the hypothesis
of the Original Gospel, and modified it. It was written in
Aramaean for the use of the Evangelists, but not published.
Mark, who published it in Greek with very little alteration,
gives us the most exact notion of it. At an earlier period
it was revised by Matthew and published in Aramaean, in a
more detailed form, — the Gospel of the Hebrews. Luke

140 GOSPELS.
then wrote a Hellenistic Gospel, based on the Protevangel,
but also used the more complete Gospel of Matthew and
the Greek of Mark, to which he added much. Finally, the
Gospel of Matthew was translated freely into Greek, and,
while much was omitted, much other matter was added.''
This view is simple, and corresponds well with the course
which the development of Christianity took, but fails to ex
plain how, on the one hand, Matthew, and, on the other,
Luke, omit or vary so much from the supposed original
Gospel of Mark.
» Abhandl, iib, d, Entsteh, u, Abfass. unsrer ersten drei kanon, Evangg,,
in Anmerkk. u. Zusalzen zu J. D. Michaelis Einl. iibers. v. Rosenmiiller.
Gott. 1795-1803, 4to,
Marsh's Genealogy of the Gospels : —
1, Original document N,
2, Greek version of the same "^,
3. Copy, with smaller or greater additions N -|- a -[- A,
4, Copy, with other such additions N -)- /3 -|- B.
5. Copy, with both kinds of additions — basis of Mark — K -\- a -{- ^
+ A-I-B,
6. Copy, with increase of additions a + A — basis of Matthew — • X -f-
a-f-y-t- A-fr 1,
7, Copy, with increase of additions /3 -|- B — basis of Luke — j{ -j- ^
-1-y + B+rl,
8, Matthew and Luke used, besides, an auxiliary work 3, from which
they inserted the elements r 2, which are common to both, though
in different order,
"¦ Regel der Zusammenstimmung unsrer Evangg, ausihrerEntstehungund
Ordnung, appended to the work : Von Gottes Sohn der Welt Heiland, nach
Joh. Evang. Rig, 1797, Part XII, of his Sammtl, Werke z, Relig, u, Theol,
It is pretty difficult to grasp Herder's meaning. According to Neudecker's
account, he must have also held that the translator of Matthew used the
Gospels of Mark and Luke ; which would supply a more exact explanation
of the verbal agreement, a point on which Herder seems not to have laid
any special stress, § 84: d.
Hereupon, Eichhorn published a revision of his former
hypothesis, in which he expressly aimed at explaining the
verbal agreement. In order to do this, he likewise sup
posed the use of Greek versions.^

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE EIRST THREE. § 85. 141
• Einl, ins N, T, 1 Thl. 1804. Accordingly, his Genealogy of the Gos
pels is as follows : —
1. AramEean Original Gospel.
2. Greek version of the same.
3, Revised edition of the Original, used by Matthew, A.
4, Greek version of the same on the basis of the Greek version of the
Original Gospel,
5, Revised edition of the Original, used by Luke, not tr.anslated into
Greek, B.
6. Combination of both editions, used by Mark, also not translated into
Greek, C,
7, A fourth revision of the Original, used by Matthew and Luke, D.
8, Greek version of the same, with help of the Greek version of the Origi
nal Gospel,
9, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, from A and D combined, E.
10, Greek version Of Matthew, with help of the Greek version of A and D.
11, Mark's Gospel is based on A -\- B = C, and in translating this he
used the version of A ; what, on the other hand, belonged to B, he
must himself, have translated.
12. Luke's Gospel is written from B and D together = F, with the inser
tion of the history of a journey. .In translating, he used the Greek
text of D ; but what belonged to B he, must himself have translated.
The following writers have declared in favor of the Original Gospel : —
Ziegler, Ideen iib. d, Urspr, d, drei ersten Evangg., in Gobler's Neuest,
theol, Journ. B. IV, St. 5, Hdnlein, Einleit, III, 30, Kuinoel, Comment.
in libr. N. T. hist. I. xvi. Bertholdt, Einl. IIL 1205, ff. Gratz, N. Vers.
d. Entsteh. d. drei ersten Evangg. zu erklaren (Tiib. 1812), — this writer,
however, with this modification, that he regards the AramEean Original as
the basis of Matthew only, who wrote in AramEean, but a Greek version of
the same as the source of Mark and Luke, and supposes enlargements of the
original document by the individual Evangelists, with subsequent additions
derived by one from the other.
Untenableness of these Theories.
§ 85.
While, in its simpler forms, the hypothesis of an Original
Gospel does not explain all the phenomena that demand
explanation, in its minuter development it excites distrust,
from the artificial nature of the attempts to sustain it by a
multitude of auxiliary hypotheses. Moreover, the supposi
tion, not so much of several written editions of the evangelic
history, as of such laborious and mechanical work as the

142 GOSPELS.
collecting and using of translations, is unlikely. The supposi
tion of a written original Gospel is also improbable, especially
in the meagre form supposed by Eichhorn, in which it could
hardly have gained so much regard as he attributes to it; to
say nothing of the fact that Christian antiquity is wholly
silent in regard to its existence." These and other reasons
have recently become so clear to most writers, that now we
can scarcely refrain from wonder that this hypothesis could
have found so much acceptance.''
' Supposed traces of it, according to Bertholdt, III, 1208, especially in
the Epistles of Paul : 1 Cor. xi, 23, ff,, xv, 3, ff, ; Rom. ii, 16 ; 1 Thess. iv,
15 ; and several other places,
¦> Cf, Theile, Krit, d, versch, Ansichten iib, d, Wechselverhiiltniss d,
synopt, Evv. in Win. and Engelh. Krit, Journ, V,4, Credner, Einl, § 179,
ff, Neudeck. p, 19.
2. Hypothesis of Several Common Sources.
§ 86.
Several writers" have tried to solve the difficulty by this
hypothesis ; but they have either thrown it out hastily, or
in stating it have not entered on the explanation of the
problem in all its relations. For such an explanation it is
not sufficient. It fails, especially, to explain the mutual
relationship of the Gospels in their whole structure.
> Cleric. Hist, eccles, (Amstel. 1716), p. 429 (cf. Marsh, as above, p. 152),
quite indefinitely says : Tria haec Evangg. partim petita esse ex similibus
aut iisdem fontibus, h, e, e commentariis eorum, qui varies Christi sermones
audiverant, etc, Koppe, Progr. Marcus non epitomator Matthaei. 1782.
Michaelis, Einl. 4th ed. §§ 129, 144. Semler, Anmerk. zu Townson's Ab
handl, liber die vier Evang. 1783. Paulus, in his Comm,, in reference to
Maithew and Luke, Halfeld, in his Prize Essay occasioned by Eichhorn :
Comment, de orig, quatuor Evangg. 1794, supposes several Aramaic original
documents. So Schleiermocher, Ueb, d, Schriften d, Lucas, 1, Thl. 1818,
In a similar way Lachmann, in St, u, Kr. 1835, p. 584, but with resort also
to the aid of oral tradition (§ 87). Certain groups of narratives (which may
especially be distinguished in Luke), among them the narrative of the
journey, Luke ix. 51 -xviii, 14, are hastily assumed to be such original com
positions.

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE FIRST THREE. § 87 b. 143
III. Hypothesis of one Oral Source.
§ 87 a.
They have correctly apprehended the spirit of Christian
antiquity who regard the oral tradition of the Gospel (the
oral Original Gospel) as the basis and source of all the
Christian Gospels, and who endeavor to apprehend the his
tory of the origin of the latter in a definite relation to the
former.''' ^ Eclcermann, Theol. Beitr, V, 2. Erklar, aller dunlden Stellen, Th, I,
Pref, Herder, as above, p. 306,ff, Kaiser, Bibl, Theol, I, 224. Paulus, in
the Allg. Litt. Z. 1813, Nro, 105, 106, and in his Conservator, I, 123, ff.
Gieseler, Ueb. d. Entsteh. d, Schriftl, Evang, 1818, (He especially has
the merit of drawing attention to this matter.) Sartorius, Drei Abhandl.
iib. wichtige Gegenstande d. exeg. u. system, Theol. 1820. Rettig, Ephe-
merid, exeg, theol. Fasc, I, Giess. 1824, Crerfncr, Einl. p, 187, ff, Neu
deck. p. 167, ff. Ebrard, Kritik d. Evangg, § 139, Guerike, Einl. ins N.
T. § 37. Schleiermocher, Einl. ins N. T. (Sammtl. Werke, VIII, 228, ff,) .
§ 87 b.
The tidings concerning Christ (to evajjeXiov, to KrjpvjfiaJ
were, as is well known, promulgated orally as a living word
(§ 61). They were delivered partly in Aramaean for Palestin
ians and Syrians, partly and especially (for the reasons given
in § 1) in Greek. In the latter language they obtained the
most decided development, so that not only a peculiar Jew
ish-Greek Christian language grew up, but also a certain
uniformity in the delivery of the subject-matter itself A
proof of this uniformity is found in the account of the
Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. xi. 23, ff. ; for Paul can hardly
have been acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew.
At the same time, however, the oral tradition must have
been to a certain extent fluctuating, because, — 1. Inquiry
into many, and especially less important facts, led to differ
ing results (comp. Matt, xxvii. 5 with Acts i. 18, ff. ; Luke
xxiv. 44, ff. with Acts i.) ; 2. The interest of narrators and
hearers in the history, though lively, was by no means criti-

144 GOSPELS.
cal, for they regarded the environing circumstances of cer
tain incidents, and particularly of the words and teachings
of Jesus, as unimportant externals ; 3. Quite frequently
additions proceeding from the narrators' own inspiration
and reflection mingled with what was historically given and
handed down. § 87 c.
That tradition performed not merely the office of trans
mitting, but also, at the same time, of changing, and even
of creating, is a truth which, despite its misuse through
Strauss's exaggeration, must be maintained. For, apart
from the fact that it has a sure foundation in the spirit of
primitive Christianity, in the want of exact critical interest,
and in the independent way in which the revelation through
Christ or the Holy Spirit (in which Christ, as it were, a
second time became flesh) was received and reproduced,
only in this way can we comprehend the great diversity
which sometimes occurs in the narration of the same events.
For instance, Luke xix. 12, ff., comp. Matt. xxv. 14, ff. ;
Luke xiv. 16, cf. Matt. xxii. 1, ff. ; Mark xii. 28, ff., cf Matt.
xxii. 34, ff. The independent spirit of tradition had a strong
influence especially on its didactic element, and altered with
freedom the discourses, especially the parables, of Jesus. It
may indeed not be too bold to suppose, that in this way
parables and other discourses of Jesus may have been in
vented ; to this class probably belong several of the former
in Luke (especially the strongly Paulinizing Luke xviii.
19, ff.), and the prophecy of the future coming of Christ
(Matt. xxiv. and parallel passages), which was probably the
work of some prophet who freely altered a declaration of
Christ's. — This view is at least more historical than those of
Weisse, Wilke, Br. Bauer, and Baur, which ascribe the whole
to the arbitrary will of an individual ; and can in no wise
disturb the believer, unless with pietistic one-sidedness he
attach himself to Jesus's person only, and despise his spirit.

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE FIRST THREE. § 87 d. 145
§ 87 C^.
But if we must explain, by means of oral tradition, not
alone those parts of the synoptical Gospels which differ, but
also those which agree, the question arises, — 1. Whether
the agreement of the parallel accounts, both in the general
representation and diction, and in single (oftentimes rare)
words (see § 97/), and, 2. Whether the whole scope and
structure of our synoptical Gospels, may thus be explained.
Neither of these can be asserted as likely. The uniformity
of oral defivery cannot reach so high a degree ; and as re
gards the second point, the Apostles must, according to
Herder, have fixed in a written Gospel, which was commit
ted to the Evangelists, the bounds of their subject. Accord
ing to Gieseler, the uniformity grew up of itself, without any
agreement, in consequence of the similar mode of appre
hending and representing the subject which frequent repeti
tion of it among the Apostles produced. According to
Paulus, the Evangelists merely united on one common train
of thought. But opposed to all this stands the fact, in itself
probable, and also pretty nearly demonstrable, that the
Apostles and Evangelists in their preaching gave nothing
more than a hasty outline of the whole evangelic history
(comp. Acts xiiL 24, ff.), or single parts of the same (comp.
1 Cor. XV. 1, ff.), but not an evangelic whole, like our written
Gospels.'' * Cf Credner, Einl. p. 192, The tradition of the rise of the second Gos
pel, that Mark wrote without arrangement what he heard from Peter's ad
dresses (§ 99 b), serves as proof, D. Schulz, in Stud, u, Kr, 1829, thinks
the twofold source, oral tradition and the free individuality of the Evange
lists, a quite suiEcient explanation. So (following him ?) in regard to
Mark : Knobel, De Evang, Marci origine, 1831 ; in respect of the relation
of Matthew to Luke, Neudecker, p, 171, ff, ; in general, Ebrard, Krit, d.
Evang. Gesch. § 139, p. 985, ff, (Against him, Bleek, Beitr, z,, Evangg,
Kritik, I, 68, ff.) Also Schleiermocher (Einleit.) is content with this source,
except that he brings in also the Hebrew writing of Matthew (^ 97 a) as
a basis for the first Gospel ; and Thiersch (Standp, d, Krit, 137, ff,), for he
thinks he can explain the affinity between Matthew and Luke by supposing
the oral common source, and their divergence by the use of different writ
ten works. 19

146

GOSPELS.

IV. Union of the Two Hypotheses of a Common Oral Source,
and of the Influence, through Writing, of one Evangelist
on another. § 88 a.
It is therefore necessary, if we will not take refuge in
generalities, to return to the hypothesis that one Evange
list used another, at least in so far as to suppose that this
mutual use took place on the basis of oral tradition, and ac
cordingly less under the influence of the arbitrary will of in
dividuals. The way is also open for supposing one or several
media of affinity between each two or all three Evangelists.
From this stand-point, Credner,^ with help of the Church
accounts, gives the origin of the synoptical Gospels as fol
lows : — 1. The Apostle Matthew, at quite an early period,
collected in the Hebrew language the discourses of the Lord.
This collection formed the basis of the first edition of the
evangelic history, which at a later period was undertaken by a
Palestinian, who used Mark's notes, and, to lighten the labor
of translation, sought the aid of oral tradition. This work
was our first canonical Gospel, rightly called kuto, Mardalov.
2. Another made these notes of Mark the basis of his writ
ten presentation of the Gospel history, while he arranged
and completed their contents. 3. Luke was acquainted with
and used, together with oral tradition, both our canonical
Matthew and Mark, and also the ancient Hebrew work of
Matthew and that of Mark. — But in this way the structure
of our second Gospel, and its manifest dependence on the
first, cannot be at all explained ; for the pretended notes of
Mark, on which it was based, are represented as being with
out arrangement, — whereas our canonical Mark has in
general the same arrangement as Matthew.
- Einl. ins N. T. I. 203, ff. § 88 6.
So too Reuss.^ The oldest Gospel was that written by
the Apostle Matthew in the Hebrew tongue (§ 97, note b).

HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE FIRST THREE. § 88 b. 147
Likewise Mark very early wrote down what he remembered
of Peter's statements (§ 99 b, note a). This Gospel is ex
tant in our second Gospel, the spurious beginning, i. 1 - 13,
and end, xvi. 9 - 20, excepted. That first Gospel of Mat
thew, however, served only as the basis or chief source of
that which now bears his name ; and perhaps the author has
drawn from Mark. Akin to our Matthew were the Gospels of
the Jewish Christians, — the Gospel of the Hebrews, and that
of Peter. As in even the earliest copies of all these Gospels
discrepancies might arise, we can comprehend how, towards
the end of the first century, the number of Gospels in exist
ence might seem very great (Luke i. 1). Luke sought, by
his critical work, to prevent the further corruption of the
Gospel history, for he followed oral tradition to its source,
and probably consulted both of the existing works, especially
that of Mark. The first biographers of Jesus had drawn
from oral tradition alone ; the later writers drew from writ
ten sources, which have however been lost. None of our
Evangelists had the work of the other before him in its
present form. Hence, to explain their affinity is -impossible.
This hypothesis shares in the mistakes of Wilke's and
Credner's. Like Wilke, Reuss, in aid of his theory, supposes
interpolations of the second Gospel (cf. § 94, f ). Like Cred
ner, Reuss considers our Mark independent of Matthew, and
even makes the latter draw from him. But Matthew bears
the stamp of originality, and Mark is a compiler (§ 94 a,ff.).
That no one of our Evangelists used the other, is an asser
tion which is contradicted by mere ocular inspection, and
we must not too hastily abandon the attempt to explain
their affinity.
» Gesch. d. heU. Schriften N. T. (Halle, 1842), § 91, ff.

148

GOSPELS.

1. Explanation of the Relation between Mat
thew and Luke.
A. From, a Common Oral Source.
§ 89 a.
The writings which Luke had before him, and probably
used (Luke i. 1-4), were drawn from oral tradition (ver. 2) ;
and probably he also drew from the same source. If Mat
thew followed the same course, his affinity with Luke may
be to a large extent explained ; and, 1. In respect of the
single corresponding narratives, a. as regards their general
contents or their ground-form, and partly their expression.
Here both Evangelists commonly agree in the main points
and discourses, — in precisely that which usually makes im
pression on the memory; they differ partly in their mode of
connecting a narrative with what precedes, partly in minor
circumstances, and in a greater or less minuteness, all of
which are attributable either to themselves or to the written
works used by them."
i' Examples : —
Matthew.
iii, 7- 10, Discourse of John the
Baptist, — 1 1 , f. 'Eya pev ^anri^a vpds
iv vBan els perdvoiav - d Be dnicra
pov ipxdpevos icrxvpdrepds pov earlv, ov ovK elpl iKavds Xvo-at rbv Ipdvra
ov OVK eipi IKavos rd vnoBfjpara rSv vnoBrjpdrav avrov
l^acrrdcrai- avrbs vpds IBanricrei ev " ' '
nvevpan dyico Kal nvpl. Ov rb nrvov,
K. r. X.
viii. 2, ff, Kat tSov Xenpbs iXBav
npocreKvvei avra Xeyav • Kvpie, edv
BeXrjs, Bvvacral pe KaBapicrai. Kal
iKTeivas rfjv xelpa fjyj/aro avrov d
'irjcrovs Xe'ycav ee'Xm, KaBapio-Brjn,
Kal evBeas iKaBapicrBrj avrov fj Xenpa,
K. r. X.

Luke.

iii, 7-9.

— 16, f. 'Eya pev vBan ^anri^a
vpds- epxerai Be d Icrxvpdrepds pov,
I rbv Ipdvra
avrbs vpds
^anricrei iv nvevpan dyia Kal nvpl.
Ov rb nrvov, k. r. X.

-<iii. 5 -
ferent.

7, The introduction dif-

V, 12, ff, , , . . Kal IBov dvfjp nXfj-
prjs Xenpas, kcii IBav rbv 'irjcrovv,
necrav em npdcranov iBefjBrj avrov
Xeyav ¦ Kvpie, idv BeXrjs, Bvvacral pe
KaBapicrai • Kcil eKreivas rfjV x^'P"
fjilraro avrov eiTTiiv • &eXa, KaBapi-
crBrjn. Kal evBeas fj Xenpa dnfjXBev
dn avrov.
vii. 1-6, Middle.

MATTHEW AND LUKE. § 89 a.

149

Matthew. • Luke.
viii. 8. .... Kvpie, OVK elpl Ikovos, vii. 6  Kvpie, . . . . ov ydp
iva pov vnb rfjv crreyrjv elcriXB-rjS - elpi Ikovos, Iva inb rfjV crreyrjv pov
dXXd pdvov elne Xdyco, Kal laBfja-erai elcreXBrjs .... dXXd eiTTe Xdyco, Kal
d ndls pov. laBrjcrerai b nals pov.
— 9. — 8.
— 14, ff. . , , , rfjv nevBepdv avrov — 38, ff. .... nevBepd Be tov
^ePXrjpevrjv Kal nvpecrcrova-av. Kal 'Sipavos fjv avvexopevrj nvpera peyd-
fj-\paT0 rfjs x^'-P^^ avrfjs, Kal Xa .... Kai inicrrds indva avrfjs

dcpfjKev avrfjv b nvperds - Kat fjyepBrj,
Kal BirjKovei avrols, k. r. X.

. iKeXevaev dneXBelv

ineriprjae ra nvpera, Kcd dcpfjKev
avrfjv. Tlapaxpfjpa Be dvao'rdtra Birj-
Kovei avrols, K. r. X,
viii, 22  etVe Trpos avrovs-
BieXBapev els rb nepav rrjs Xipvrjs.
ix, 57-60, ' AKoXovBfjcra croi, ottov

viii. 18,
eis rb nepav.
— 19-22  AtSdo-KoXe, oko-
XovBfjaa croi, Snov idv dnepxij  dv dnepxjj, Kvpie  Ai dXdiTTeKer,
At dXtBTTeKes cpaXeovs exovcri Kal rd it, i, X.
TTeretvd rov ovpavov KaracrKrjvacreis.
.... Kvpte, inirpeyjrdv poi TrpSrov Kvpte, inirpey\r6v poi dneXBdvn npa-
dneXBelv Kai Bd^ai rbv narepa pov. tov Bdyfrai, K.r.X.
, . . . 'AKoXovBei poi, Kal dcpes tovs . , , , ' Acpes . . . . veKpovs * crv Be aTTeX-
veKpovs Bd\lfai Toiis eavrav veKpovs. Bav BidyyeXe rfjv ^acriXeiav rov Beov.
— 23, ff, , . , , Kat tSov, creicrpbs viii. 23, ff, , . . , dcpvnvaae. Kal
peyas iyevero iv rfj BdXda-arj, acrre Kareprj XalXa-\JA dvepov els rfjv Xipvrjv,
rb nXolov KaXvnrecrBai vnb rSv Kvpd- Kai avveTTXr/povvro 
rav - avrbs Be iKaBevBe  Kvpte, ETTtO'Tara, e'TTiordra, cTToXXvpe^a.
o'cliirov ^pds, aTToXXvpe^a  Tt det- O Be iyepBels inerlprjcre rw dvipco,
Xoi iare, dXiydnicrroi; Tore iyepBels K.T.X. Eme Be avrols- ttov e'o'rtv fj
ineriprjcre rols dvepois, K.r. X. nicms vpav;
¦ — 29  Ti ^ptv Kai croi, vie — 28  Tt e'poi Kai aoi, 'Irj-
Tov Beov ; rjXBes &Be npb Kaipov jSa- o'oO vie rov Beov rov fj-^la-rov ; Beopai
a-avia-ai fjpds; aov, pfj pe ^aa-avia-rjs.
— 32, f. — 33, f.
SoalsoMatt.ix.2,5, 9, 12,f, 15,ff,,22, 24; xi. 3, ff,, 16,ff, ; xii,2,f.,
8, 13,47,49,f ; xiv, 15,f,, 19,f ; xvi, 13-16,21,24-26, 28; xvii, 1,
3, ff,, 17, 22 ; xviii. 5 ; and the parallel passages in Luke. Only ix. 5, f ; xi,
10 , f ; xvi, 28, as well as iii, 3, iv, 5 , 10 (see § 79 J) , and the whole history of
the Temptation, whose form is throughout too artistic for oral tradition, may
indicate a written source, A similar (more or less free) parallelism or a cer
tain similarity of type appears in the narratives of Jesus's journey to Jeru
salem and of his stay there, Comp, Matt, xix, 14, 20, f , 24, 26, ff, ; xx.
18,f, 30,ff. ; xxi. 1-3,8, f, 13, 23, ff.; xxii, 18-21, 27, f, 32 ; and the
parallel passages in Luke, On the other hand, far fewer points of agree
ment occur in the history of the Passion, and hardly any in that of the

150 GOSPELS.
Resurrection. In the former, the separate parts are not in general accu
rately defined, which appears manifest in the history of Jesus's work in Gal
ilee, and clearly shows that it was the custom to narrate miracles and other
important events by themselves. In the history of the Passion, a thread
appears which runs through the whole ; and passages occur which serve
only for transition, as Matt, xxvi, 1-5, 14 - 16. Hence, in this section the
relation between Matthew and Luke may have a written basis, on which
Luke acted the more freely, as he regarded it only as a literary work, which
he might alter, partly according to his own judgment, partly according to
accounts received from other quarters. The accounts of the Resurrection,
Matt, xxviii. 1-8, Luke xxiv. 1-9, have manifestly a common basis and
accord. Matt, ver, 6, ovk eVrtv S>Be • Luke ver. 6, ovk eVriv 2>8e, dXX'
fjyipBrj ydp, KaBas elne. rjyepBrj. MvrjcrBrjre, ojs iXdXrjcrev vplv,
K. T. X.
Whether the basis was oral or written is difiicult to decide.
§ 89 6.
b. In the connection of the single narratives, also, the mu
tual affinity of both Evangelists may be in part explained
by a common oral source. In the history of Jesus's work
in Galilee, the sequence at the beginning is, to be sure, dif
ferent ; but some passages, as those of the paralytic and the
calling of Matthew, of the plucking of the corn and the heal
ing of the withered hand, of the storm on the lake and the
demoniac (demoniacs), of Herod's ivatching Jesus and the
feeding of the five thousand, are always connected in pairs, and
from Matt. xvi. 13 forth, the arrangement is the same, even
in the story of ihe journey to Jerusalem, and the stay there.
It is quite conceivable that in oral delivery many passages
gained a fixed connection, on account of the affinity between
their contents or of the historical sequence of the events.
§ 90.
2. As regards the didactic portion, or the longer consecutive
discourses of Jesus, the parables, &c., and in general such
expressions as have a more independent doctrinal meaning,
we find in them likewise much verbal agreement, which,
considering the earnestness with which tradition must have

MATTHEW AND LUKE. § 90. 151
striven to retain them, can appear surprising, and point to a
written source, only in the case of some very rare words and
turns of expression, as Matt. vii. 5, xi. 26, xxi. 44, xxiv. 50
(§ 79 b). But in regard to the connection and the position
of parallel discourses, various cases occur, a. Some are
presented by both Evangelists in the same definite connec
tion (at least as regards their chief points), and in the same
historical relation." b. Others, grouped by Matthew into one
mass or in one relation, are placed by Luke in various posi
tions and relations.* c. Luke has given a shorter, and, in its
main points, quite a different view of the Sermon on the
Mount from Matt. v. 3 -vii. 27, although most of its sub
stance is found in Matthew ; other parts he gives elsewhere,
and sometimes with an historic occasion." d. Discourses
which have a distinct application appear in the two Evange
lists in different places ; ¦* and, e. Expressions of a more gen
eral character, proverbs, and sentences are interwoven by both
in a different manner." /. Some parables appear in different
forms.* Thus, in respect of this Gospel material, not only
oral tradition, but also the written composition, whether of
one or another of our two Evangelists, or of one or several
earlier, had large and free scope, and we must inquire into
their mutual relation, in respect of their composition in
general. ' Matt, xii, 22, ff, = Luke xi, 14, ff,, Discourses against the alleged
covenant with Satan, and against the demanding a sign, — Matt. xiii. 1, ff.
= Luke viii. 4, ff.. Parable of the sower. — Matt. xxi. 33, ff. = Luke xx.
9,ff., Parable of the vineyard. — Matt. xxiv. = Luke xxi. 5, ff. Yetin these
discourses we find more in one Evangelist than in the other, and the place
of some passages is changed. Matt. xiii. 31 - 33 is put by Luke in another
place, xiii. 18 - 21 ; on the contrary, Luke viii. 16, f is found in Matt, v. 15,
again in Luke xi. 33, in Matt. x. 26, and again in Luke xii. 2. Matt. xxi.
28-32 is wanting in Luke. Of Matt. xxiv. several parts are found in
Luke xvii. 22, ff., xii. 35, ff.
'' Matt. X. = Luke ix. 1-5, x. 1- 16, and elsewhere. Matt, xxiii. =
Luke XX. 45-47, xi. 37-52. The reverse is the case with the large col
lection of discourses in Luke xii. ; comp. ver. 1 with Matt. xvi. 6, ver. 54-
56 with Matt. xvi. 2, f. Several others occur in Matthew, in the Sermon on
the Mount, and in chapters x. and xxiv.

152

GC

ISPELS.

Luke.

Matthew.

vi, 20-26

=

V. 3-12.

- 27, f.

=

— 44.

— 29, f

=

— 39, 42.

— 31

—

vii. 12,

— 32-36

=

V, 46-48.

- 37, f.

;=

vii. 1,

— 39

=

XV, 14.

— 40

=

X, 24,

— 41-42

=

vii, 3-5.

— 43, f, 46

=

— 16-21.

— 45

=

xii. 35.

— 47-49

=

vii. 24-27.

Matthew.

Luke.

V. 18

=

xvi. 17.

— 25, f

=

xii. 58, f.

— 32 (xix, 9)

==

xvi. 18,

vi, 9 - 13 (Our Father)

=

xi. 1-4,

— 19-21

=

xii, 33, f

— 22, f.

=

xi, 34-36.

— 24

=

xvi. 13,

— 25-33

=

xii. 22-31,

vii, 7-11

=

xi, 9-13.

— 13

=

xiii, 24.

— 22, f

=

— 25-27,

^ Matt, xi. 12 = Luke xvi. 16 ; Matt. xi. 20-27 (addition ver. 28 - 30)
= Luke X. 13-22 ; Matt, xiii, 16, f, = Luke x, 23, f, ; Matt, xxiii. 37-
39 = Luke xiii, 34, f.
= See the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Sower in Mat
thew ; further, Matt, xxiii. 12 = Luke xiv, 11 and xviii, 4 ; Matt, x, 39 =
Luke xvii, 33 ; Matt, xviii, 6, f, = Luke xvii. 1, f. ; Matt, xviii. 15, 21, f
= Luke xvii. 3, f ; Matt, xvii, 20 == Luke xvii, 5, f. Both give the same
proverbial saying twice (Luke xiv, 11, xviii. 14, see note a).
f Matt, xviii. 12, f , enlarged and connected with a similar parable, Luke
XV, 4, ff. Different forms of the same parable: Matt, xxii. 1, ff., Luke xiv,
16, ff, ; Matt, xxv, 14, ff,, Luke xix, 15, ff.
It is worth noting, that the declarations in Matt, xiii, 17 and xviii, 8, f
(cf, V, 29), Luke x. 13, cf Matt, xi, 21, are connected with what precedes
by a merely verbal relation, without any logical connection of thought.

MATTHEW AND LUKE. § 91 a. 153

B. Explanation of the Relation betiveen Matthew and Luke
from Written Sources.
a. Peculiarities of both Evangelists in the Treatment of the Gospel Matter and
in the Composition of a Whole.
§ 91a.
Both Evangelists have handled the materials which they
received through tradition or from Gospel writers with free
dom, and in a manner peculiar to themselves. This appears,
1. In the style of the writing, which in each has considera
ble uniformity, although Luke, judging from his proem,
would, had he been independent, have written in purer
Greek.'' » Matthew writes with tolerable uniformity, Luke with greater freedom,
and often forms periods : i.1-4; ii.42,f.; iii. 1, f, 15, f,, 19, f, ; vi.l3,f.;
vii. 37, f. ; xiv. 28, f ; xv. 4 ; xxiii. 11 ; xxiv. 19, f. Does he Hebraize
less than Matthew? Schott, Isag. p. 108. Favorite words and turns of
expression in Matthew : crcpdBpa, IBov after the genitive absolute, rdre, usual
transition-particle. Peculiar: dnd for e'K, e, g, oTrd KapBias, xviii, 35 ; e'yei-
peo-Bai, Biey. dnd, i. 24, xiv. 2, xxvii, 64, xxviii. 7 ; Xe'ywv, excepting in xxi.
2, xxvi. 17 (?), without dative of the person addressed ; ^amXela rtSv ovpa-
v£v for ;8aO-. roi! BeoH, iii. 2, and some twenty times besides ; avvreXela r.
alavos five times, elsewhere only in Heb. ix. 26 ; iBviKos, vi. 7, viii. 17 ;
d Xeydpevos of names and surnames, i, 16, ii, 23, ix. 9, xxvi. 3, 14, 36,
xxvii. 16, 17, 22, 33 ; d prjBeis, rb prjBev, ippeBrj, sixteen times, in Mark,
xiii. 14 (?) ; dvaxapelv, ten times, in Mark, iii. 7 (Luke,vTToaTpe^etv) ; Bi-
ard^eiv, xiv. 31, xxviii. 17 ; KaTanovrl^e(rBai, xiv. 30, xviii. 6 ; paXaKia, iv.
23, ix. 35, X. 1 ; peraipeiv, xiii. 53, xix. 1 ; pani^eiv, v. 39, xxvi. 67 ; irvp-
^ovXiov Xapffdveiv, xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii, 7 ; avvalpeiv Xoyov, xviii. 23, 24,
xxv. 19 ; cppd^eiv, xiii. 36, xv. 15. Favorite expressions of Luke : Words
connected with dStKi'a, xiii. 27, xvi. 8, 9; xviii. 6, Acts i. 18, viii, 23 ; oIkos,
family, i. 27, and five times besides, Acts eight times, in Matt, twice ; vopiKds,
six times, in Matt, once; Xtpvj;, of Lake Gennesaret ; iKavdE,nMmeroMS, vii. 11,
f., and often (Mark x. 46) ; dvdyetv, ii. 22, iv. 5, viii. 22, xxii. 66, in Acts
seventeen times; the participles dvacrrds, KaBia-as, with a finite verb ; drevt-
fetv, excepting in Luke, only in Paul ; ?v, fja-av, with the participle, i. 7, 10,
and often ; more rarely the future, v. 10, xvii. 35, f, xxi. 17, 24 ; icpioTrjpi,
elsewhere only in Paul ; Koi iyevero, iyevero Be iv rw ieparevetv, i. 8, and
the like, k. iyev. as, i. 23, 41, ii. 15, xi. 1, xix. 29, k. eyevero  fjXBov,
i. 59, cf. ii, 1, vi, 12, vii, 11, xx, 1 ; iyevero Be ... . BianopeveaBai avrov, vi.
1, cf ver. 6, xvi. 22, Acts ix. 37, and often; BiepxeirBai, ten times in Luke,
20

154 GOSPELS.
twenty-one times in Acts, twice in Matt., Mark, and John; nXfjBeiv, nXfj-
Bea-Bai, twelve times in Luke, nine times in Acts, twice in Matt. ; napaxpfjpa,
only twice in Matt. ; Trapd and vTTe'p, with accusative, for comparison ; oTjyKa-
Xeiv, only once in Mark ; vnoarpecpeiv, once in Mark, Paul, Heb, ; the
article before interrogative sentences, i, 62, ix, 46, and often (Mark ix. 23) ;
rod before the infinitive, i, 9, and often, as in Paul ( Win. Gramm, § 45, 4. b) ;
frequent participial constructions {Win. § 46, 2, b) ; frequent use of Be Kai,
ii, 4, and often. Wholly peculiar : SioTTopeJv, ix. 7, xxiv, 4, Acts ii. 12, v,
24, X. 17 ; imxeipelv, i, 1, Acts ix, 29, xix, 13 ; inicTrdrrjs, v, 5, viii, 24,
45, ix. 33, 49, xvii. 13 ; inXfja-Brja-av al fjpepai, enXfja-Brj d -xpdvos, i, 23, 57,
ii. 6, 21, 22 ; KaBe^fjs, i. 3, viii. 1, Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, xviii, 23 ; KaBdn, i,
7, xix, 9, Acts ii, 24, 45, iv, 35 ; ddvvdo-^at, ii, 48, xvi. 24, f.. Acts xx, 38 ;
dptXetv, xxiv, 14, f., Acts XX, 11, xxiv, 26; a-vp^dXXeiv, ii. 19, xiv. 31,
Acts iv. 15, xvii. 18, xviii. 27, xx. 14 ; avpnXrjpova-Bai, viii. 23, ix, 15, Acts
ii, 1 ; riBea-Bai els rd 5ra, or ev KapBici, i, 66, ix. 44, xxi, 14, Acts v, 4, xix,
21 ; vTToXapjSdvetv, vii, 43, x, 30, Acts i. 9, ii, 15, Cf Schott, I, c, p, 83,
108, Gersdorf, Beitr, z, Sprachcharakt, p. 38, ff., 160, ff. Dav. Schulz
on the Parable of the Steward, in different parts, Credn. §§ 37, 59. The au
thor of "Die Evangg." p. 264, ff., attempts to show that the style of the third
Gospel is Pauline, and that Paul had therefore a share in it ; but he mixes
up mistakes with what is correct. Besides what has already been adduced,
note especially : vnepeKxwdpevov, vi. 38, cf. fjnepnepicrcreveiv , Rom. v. 20,
and more of the same sort; crvvavnXap^dvea-Bai, x. 40, Rom. viii. 26 ; dvri-
Keia-Bai, xiii. 17, xxi. 5, and elsewhere in Paul only ; dvranoKpivecrBai, xiv.
6, Rom. ix. 20 ; Biepprjveveiv, xxiv. 27, Acts ix, 36, elsewhere in P, only ;
e^ovotdfetv, xxii, 25, three times in P, ; i^ovBevelv, xviii, 9, xxiii, 11, Acts
iv. 14, eight times in P, ; eKKOKelv, xviii. 1, elsewhere in P. only; Karapyelv,
xiii, 7, very often in P,, Heb, ii. 14 ; dvdyKrj, distress, xxi. 23, 1 Cor. vii. 26,
and often; vcrreprjpa, xxi, 4, eight times in P. ; ei koi, xi. 8, 18, xviii. 4,
1 Cor. vii. 8, and often, 1 Pet. iii. 4, but also Matt, xxvi. 33 ; pevovvye, xi.
28, Rom. ix. 20, x. 18 ; ye, xi. 8, xxiv. 21, and often, elsewhere chiefly in
P. ; ei p^rt, ix. 13, 1 Cor. vii. 5, 2 Cor. xiii. 5.
§916.
2. The peculiarity of each of the two Evangelists shows
itself in certain pragmatic explanatory additions, which serve
for review, for resting-points, or to carry on the narrative.*
Indeed, if we may follow analogy, each carries into the
history something of his own.*"
» Fulfilment of prophecy pointed out : Matt. i. 22, ii. 15, 17, 23, iv.
14, ff,, viii, 17, xii, 17, ff,, xiii, 34, f , xxi. 4, xxvii. 9, Geographical ex
planations: Luke i, 26, iv. 31, xxiii. 51, xxiv. 13. Remarks on Jesus's
work as a whole, and on its results: Matt. iv. 23, ff,, ix, 26, 35, xii, 15, f ,

MATTHEW AND LUKE. § 91 C. 155
xiv. 35, f., XV. 30, f. ; Luke iv. 15, 37,44, v, 16, L, viii, l,ff,, xiii. 22, xix.
47, f., xxi. 37, {. Resting-points and transitions: Matt. vii. 28, f., xi. 1,
xiii, 53, xix, 1, f,, xxvi, 1 ; Luke i, 80, ii, 40, 52, vii. 1, xiii. 22, xvii. 11,
and many others.
^ Matt. xxi. 7, xxvi. 15, xxvii. 3, ff. The exact agreement of history
with prophecy. Not only the remarks, that Mary kept the words in her
heart, Luke ii, 19, 51 ; that the disciples did not understand Jesus, ix, 45,
xviii, 34 ; the characterizing remarks on persons, ii. 25, xxiii. 51, — but also
the correspondence of different parts in respect to certain actions, that Jesus
is so often introduced praying, iii. 21, vi. 12, ix. 18, 29, xi. 1 ; that he de
livered those restored to life to their parents, vii. 15, ix. 42 ; the graphic
touch in the description, xxiii. 48 (cf. xviii. 13) ; the hosanna, xix. 38 (cf.
ii, 14) ; the remark, ix. 9, Kai i^fjreilBelv avrdv (cf xxiii. 8), — seem to have
come from Luke's pen. § 91c.
From the Evangelists' own hand come also the indica
tions of time and place, and, in general, the connecting links
between the separate occurrences. These must needs be
different, because Matthew strung all his materials on a
chronological thread,* and arranged many parts in a quite
different order from that of Luke. The latter seems, on the
contrary, to prefer abruptness and absence of connection.*
* This is shown (in opposition to Olshausen, Comm. p. 22, who ascribes
to Matthew only an arrangement according to subjects) by Schneckenburger,
Beitr. p. 25, ff., and yet earlier, Kaiser, Ueb. d. synopt. Zusammenstell. der 4
kan. Evangg. p. 38. It seems clear from the beginnings of the sections : — iii.
1 - 12 : 'Ev Se rots ^pepats e'Keivats. iii. 13-17 : Tdre. iv. 1 - 1 1 : Tdre. iv.
12 - 17 : 'Akovo-os Se . . . , cf. ver. 17 : 'Atto rdre. iv. 18 - 22 : IleptTTariBv
Se . . . iv. 23 - vii. 29 : Kai nepifjyev . . , , cf v. 1 : 'iSmv Se , , , viii, 1 - 4 :
Kara^dvn Be avra dnb rov opcws. viii, 5 — 15: Eio'eX^dvrt Se avrw els Kanep-
vaovp. viii. 14-17: Kat e'Xflmv d 'lijo-ovs eis rijv oiKi'av rteVpov. viii. 18-27:
'iBav Be ... . ndXXovs oxXovs nepl avrdv. viii. 28 — 34 : Kai eX^dvrt avra
els rd nepav. ix. 1 — 18 : Kai .... Bienepacre Kal ^XBev els rfjv IBiav ndXiv.
ix. 9 — 11: Kai napdyav .... iKelBev. ix, 18 — 26: Tavra avrov XdXovvros.
ix. 27 - 34 : Kai napdyovn eKelBev. X, 1 -42 : Kai npocrKaXea-dpevos (cf, ix,
37 : Tore) , xi, 1 - 30 ; Kai iyevero, ore ireXea-ev b 'irjcrovs Biarda-crav rols
BdiBeKa paBrjrais, pere^rj eKelBev. 2 : 'O Se 'ladvvrjs dKovcras. xii. 1 - 8 : 'Ev
eKeivco ra Kaipa. xii. 9- 14 : Kai pera^ds iKelBev. xii. 15 — 21 : . ... dve-
Xaprja-ev iKelBev. xii. 22 - 45 : Tore. 38 : Tdre. xii. 46 - 50 : "Ert Se avrov
XaXovvros. xiii. 1 - 52 : 'Ev rj ijpepa eKeivrj. xiii. 53 - 58 : Kai .... per^-
pev iKelBev. xiv. 1-12: 'Ev iKelva r^ Kaipa. xiv. 13 — 21 : Kai dKova-as d
'Irja-ovs dvexaprja-ev iKelBev { evidently false, even nonsensical) . xiv. 22 - 36 :
Kai evBeas. xv. 1 - 20 : Tore. XV. 21 - 28 : Kai i^eXBav iKelBev. XV. 29

156 GOSPELS.
- 39 : Kai pera^ds eKelBev. xvi. 1 - 12 : Kai npocreXBdvres ol <iapicrcuoi . . .. ,
cf XV, 39 : , . , , Koi fjXBev els rd dpta MaySaXd, xvi, 13-28 : 'EXBav Be d
'1j;o-ovs eis rd peprj Kaicrapeias. xvii, 1 - 13 : Kai peB' fjpepas e|, xvii, 14
-21: Kai iXBdvrav avrav npbs rbv o^Xov, xvii, 22: ' Avaarpecpopevav Be
avrav iv rfj VaXiXaia. xvii, 24-27: 'EXBdvrav Be avrav els Kanepvanip.
xviii, 1 - 35 : 'Ev iKeivrj rfj apex.
"> Luke V, 1 , 'Eye'vero Se'. v. 12 (= Matt. viii. 1) : Kai iyevero iv rm
eivai avrbv iv pid rmv TrdXetov. v. 17 (= Matt, ix, 1) : Kai e'yevero e'v pid
rmv fjpepav. vi. 1 (= Matt. xii. 1) : 'Eyevero Se e'v a-a^^drco Sevreponparco.
vi. 6 (= Matt. xii. 9) : 'Eyevero Se Kai e'v eVepfi) (ra^^dT(f. vii, 36 - 50 :
'Hpara Be rts avrdv rcov ^ap. viii, 4 - 18 : Svvtdvros Se d;^Xov ttoXXov, Vi'ithout
connection with what precedes, viii, 22 -25 (=Matt, viii. 18) : Kai eyevero
ev ptd rav fjpepav. ix. 1- 6 : (= Matt. X. 1) : 2vyKaXeo"dpevos.Se rovs Sd>-
SeKa, ix. 7- 9 (= Matt, X, 1) : "HKovoe Se 'UpaBrjs. ix, 18-27 (= Matt.
xvi, 13) : Kai eyevero ev ra elvai avrbv npoaevxapevov Karapdvas. ix, 43 -45
(== Matt. xvii. 22, f) : Udvrav Be Bavpa^dvrav inl nd(riv ois inoiei d Itjoovs,
ix, 46-50 {= Matt, xviii, 1): Eio^XSe Se BidXoyia-pbs iv avrols. X. 25-
37 : Kai iSov, vopiKos ns dvea-rrj. xi, 1 - 13 : Kai eyevero ev rm eivai avrbv iv
rdna rtvi irpocrevxbpevov. xi. 14 — 28 : Kai fjv iK^dXXav Baipdviov. xi, 29 —
36 ; Tmv Se oxXav inaBpoi^opevav. xiii, 10 — 17 ' *Hv Se StSdo-KOJV ev pta
rav crvvayayav. xiii, 18 — 21: "EXeye Se. xiv, 1—24: Kai eyevero iv ra
eXBelv avrbv eis otKov rtvos rcov dpxdvrav, k.t.X. xiv, 25 — 35 : SweiTopevovTO
Se avrcS dp^Xot ttoXXoi, XV, 1 - 32 : 'Haav Se eyyifovres avra ndvres ol reXS-
vai Kal ol dpapraXoi. xvi. 1 - 31 : 'EXeye Se Kai TTpds rovs juiBrjrds avrov.
xvii. 1 — 10 : EiTTe Be npbs rovs paBrjrds. xvii. 20 — 37 : 'ETTeptarij^ets Se vtto
rav 0apicraiav. xviii. 1 — 14 : "EXeye Se Kai napa^oXfjv avrols. xx. 1 : Kai
eye'vero ev ptd rmv fjpepav iKelvav. Even the definite statements, — ix.
57 : 'Eyevero Se, nopevopevav avrav iv rfj oBa. X. 1 : Merd Se ravra.
X. 38 : 'Eyevero Se e'v tm nopevecjBai avrovs. xiii. 22 : Kai Bienopevero Kara
ndXeis KCLi Kapas BiBdcTKav kcu. nopeiav nowvpevos els 'lepova-aXfjp, — leave us
uncertain. See Exeg. Hdb. z. Luc, xii, 41, Ritschl, Evang. Marc. p. 227.
§ 91 d.
Matthew prefers also to connect the discourses of Jesus,
and therefore gives them in large groups (v. 2 -vii. 27, x.,
xiii., xxiii., xxiv., xxv.) ; Luke, on the other hand, prefers to
isolate them, and even in grouping together several dis
courses he seeks as much as possible for occasions, resting-
points, and new connecting links.* But either his selection
or his literary agency seems to have had an influence on even
the import and the spirit of these sayings ; for it is remark
able how much in his Gospel refers to the recommending of

MATTHEW AND LUKE. § 91 g. 157
poverty and beneficence, the rejection of riches, and to the
later oppressed condition of the Christians.* The passages,
xvii. 7, ff., xviii. 9, ff., which have a Pauline coloring, and
ix. 2, ff., X. 25, ff., xvii. 11, ff., which manifest mildness
towards the Samaritans, are also to be noted.
• See § 90, note b, and cf Luke xi. 1, 5, 27, 29, 37, f, 45; xii. 1, 13-
16, 22, 40, 54 ; xiii, 1, 18, 23, f,, 31 ; xiv. 7, 12, 15, f., 25 ; xv. 1 - 3, 11 ;
xvi. 1, 14 ; xvii. 1, 5, 20, 22, 37 ; xviii. 1, 9.
'' vi. 20, f , 24 (cf Matt. v. 3, ff.) ; xi. 41 ; xii. 33; xvi. 1, ff,, 19, ff, ;
xix, 8. — The Sermon on the Mount is intended, in the main, to infuse into
the oppressed Christians submission, courage, and comfort, ver. 20-22, 27
- 29 ; further, xii. 32, xviii, 8, xxi, 28, — Thci similar expressions in Mat
thew (v, 11, X. 16, ff,) show also a later stand-point, but refer to the Apos
tles, not to the community. § 91 e.
3. In respect of the composition, as a whole, Matthew
carried out his plan, from a Jewish- Christian stand-point,
with conscious design and regular sequence. According to
him, Jesus began and completed his course ; proved him
self, during his ministry, which was limited to Galilee, the
Messiah of Old Testament prophecy (§ 91 b, note a) ; suf
fered his, fikewise prophetically-determined, fate as fulfiller
of the law and founder of the kingdom of heaven, which is
to come in Messianic glory, in conflict with the false lead
ers of the people, the Pharisaic literalists and hypocrites ;
but rose again in the victorious fulness of his power.^'
" Matt, i. ii. : preliminary history, which gives both the Davidic descent
and higher nature, the destiny and future acknowledgment (cf. ii. 1-12
with viii. 11, f, xv. 21, ff,, xxi, 41, xxviii, 19)of Christ, and also foreshad
ows his sufferings, Ch, iii, 1-iv, 11: the forerunner, consecration, temp
tation. Ch. iv. 12 - X, 42 : appearance in Galilee (cf, iv. 13 - 16 with xxviii.
16-20), statement of the Messianic plan, ministry, sending forth of the
Twelve. Ch. xi. -xviii. , opposition and rejection, with acknowledgment ;
prospect of the death of Jesus; his transfiguration, the prelude to his heav
enly glorification. By his journey to Jerusalem, his entrance and stay there
(ch. xix. - XXV.), the breach between him and the ecclesiastical rulers is com
pleted. In his discourse in ch. xxiii. (note especially ver. 37- 39), he cuts
wholly loose from them. The knot thus tied is loosed, prophetically by
the predictions in ch. xxiv. and xxv., tragically by the sufferings and death
of Jesus (ch. xxvi. and xxvii.), and finally by his victorious resurrection, his
meeting with his disciples, and sending them forth (ch. xxviii.).

158 GOSPELS. § 91/.
Luke followed this plan in part, but in part also deviated
from it in various ways,'' especially by inserting ix. 51 -xviii.
14, which extends the range of Jesus's labors beyond the
bounds of Galilee (x. 1, 38). This accords with the non-
Judaizing Pauline tendency of his Gospel, which shows
itself in the prefiminary history,^ but elsewhere partly in
omissions and alterations,'' partly in additions." The key
stone of Matthew's Gospel (ch. xxviii.) he has broken, by
setting aside the last scene in Galilee, to prepare the way
for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem, Acts ii.,
and thus to lay an historic basis for the rich development of
this spirit in the bosom of Pauline Christianity.*
» The original plan is traceable from beginning to end, especially in xx.
46, f,, xxi, 5, ff, ; but it has been disturbed by the too early position of the
polemic passages, vi, 1, ff. (Matt, xii. 1, ff,), and of the major part of the
discourse in Matt, xxiii, (Luke xi, 39, ff,, xiii, 34, f,), whereby its force in
its proper position has been lost, and by the insertion of xxi. 1-4.
»» His universalism appears in ii. 31, Paulinism in i. 20, 45 (cf, Rom.
iv. 18, ff,), i, 51, ff,, ii, 1 - 7, in opposition to Matt, ii, 1, ff,, and in compar
ison with 1 Cor, i. 26, ff., 2 Cor, viii, 9, The author of " Die Evangg," has
very much exaggerated this, after his fashion, p, 216, ff,
i" Luke does not give those passages which support the Jewish particular
ism (Matt, X, 5, XV, 21, ff,) and the pre-eminence of Peter (Matt, xvi, 17-
19, X. 2, — the word TrpcSros), Perhaps his Pauline tendency was opposed
also by the passages concerning the law. Matt, v, 17, ff. ; by the references
to prophecies fulfilled. Matt, viii, 17, xii. 15-21, xiii, 14, ff,, 35, xxi. 4, f ,
xxvi. 56 (to which xxi. 14-16, xxvii. 3,ff., also belong, — the account here
of Judas Iscariot does not agree in other respects with Luke xxii. 3, Acts i.
18); the eschatological passages. Matt. xiii. 24-30, 36-43,47-50, xxv.
1 - 12, 31 - 46 (also Matt. x. 23 he omits, Matt, xvi, 28 he softens [ix, 27],
Matt, xxiv. 29 he cuts down [xxi, 25], and Matt. xxiv. 23-28, by his
change of its position and relation, xvii. 22- 37, loses in definiteness) ; the
narratives. Matt. xvii. 24 - 27, xxvii. 50, ff.
' His universalism appears above all in the choosing of the seventy disciples,
X. 1, which, like the twelve for the twelve tribes of Israel, correspond to
the seventy peoples of the earth ; and also in the passages favorable to the
Samaritans, ix. 52, f , x. 33. We may hardly place under this head the
parables, xv. 11, ff,, xvi, 19, ff., the narratives, xxiii, 39, ff., x, 38, ff. (con
trary to Schwegler, Nachap, Zeitalt. I. 47, ff,, Zeller, in Jahrbb, 1843, p.
81, ff,). It is also false to conclude from passages like ix. 32, f , 40, 45,

MATTHEW AND LUKE. § 92. 159
(" Die Evangelien," etc., p. 24, f., 82, f. Ritschl, Evang. Marc, p, 188, ff.
Bour, in Zeller's Jahrbb. 1846, p. 500, ff,, Krit, Unterss. 435, ff.,) that Luke
meant to throw the Twelve into the shade. Similar passages are also found
in Matt, xvi, 8-11, xvii, 16, xxvi, 40, On the other hand, it is a striking
fact, that the part of the instructions in Matt, x., directed according to Luke
to the Seventy, contains the more important passages, x. 12, 16, and that
Jesus on their return says such weighty words, ver, 18, ff. The passages,
XV, 11, ff., xvii, 7, ff,, xviii. 9, ff., are manifestly Pauline.
^ Excepting iii. 11, xxviii. 19, Matthew says nothing of the Holy Spirit
in relation to the disciples, § 92.
As the peculiarities of each of our Evangelists are ap
parent from beginning to end, the work of each, although
perhaps not wholly independent, is yet the result of his own
labor. The opening history is not a later addition.* As
little has Luke inserted without change certain memoranda,
especially in the section ch. ix. 51 - xviii. 14, a collection of
sayings (Marsh, Eichhorn, and others), or an account of a
journey.*" Still less has he adopted Marcion's Gospel as his
basis (§ 72 c).
* Against the genuineness of Matt. i. ii. : Williams, A Free Inquiry into
the Authenticity of the First and Second Chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel.
Lond. 1771, 2d ed, 1790, cfMichiielis, Or, Bibl, 1,53, ff, Eichhorn, Allg,
Bibl, II, 918, ff, Stroth, Von Interpolatt, im Evang, Matthai, in Eichhorn's
Rep, IX, 99, ff,, Hess, Biblioth, d. h, Gesch. I, 208, ff. Amman, De Luca
emendatore Matthaei, p. 5, sqq. Joh. Jones, Sequel to Ecclesiastical Re
searches, in which the Origin of the Introductory Chapters in Matthew and
Luke, etc. Lond. 1813. {Schmidt, Einl. I. 84, thinks that Matthew found
and prefixed these chapters as a distinct Gospel of the childhood of Jesus.)
On the other side : Fleming, Free Thoughts upon a Free Inquiry, etc.
Lond. 1771. Svo. Velthusen, The Authenticity of the First and Second
Chapters of St, Matthew's Gospel Vindicated, Lond, 1771, Svo, German :
Gerettete Authent, d, ersten beiden Kapp, d. Ev. Matth. Lemgo, 1771. Svo.
Thiess, De Evang. Matthaei integritate, etc. Helmst. 1782. 4to. Rau, Sym-
bola ad quaest. de authent. cap. I. et II. Evang. Matthaei discutiendam.
Erl. 1793. 4to. J. F. Schmidt, Examen integritatis duorum primorum capp.
Evang, Matthaei, Lips, 1791, 4to. in the Commentatt, theol, I. 340, sqq.
Paulus, Comment. I. 105, ff. Fritzsche, Exc. III. ad Comm. in Matth. /. G.
Mailer, Ueb, d, Aechth, der zwei ersten Capp, d, Ev, n, Matth, Trier, 1830,
&c., which Bertholdt, IIL 1274, Eichhorn, I. 426, adduce.
Against the genuineness of Luke i. ii. : Edw. Evanson, The Dissonance
of the Four generally received Evangelists and the Evidence of their re-

160 GOSPELS.
spective Authenticity examined. Ipswich. 1792. Svo. Horst, Ueb. d. bei
den ersten Kapp, im Evang, Luc, in Henke's Mus, I, Bd, 3. St,
i' Schleiermocher, Ueb. d. Schr, d, Luk, I, 158. Lochmann, in Stud. u.
Erit. 1835. p. 588. On the other side, Weisse, Evang, Gesch. I, 88, ff.
b. Dependence of Luke on Maithew.
§ 93 a.
Everything thus far opposes the theory, maintained by
many, of the dependence of Matthew on Luke (§ 92 a) ;
particularly the fluctuating composition, resting on a foreign
basis, and the Pauline bias imparted to preponderatingly
Jewish- Christian matter, in connection with the later origin
of the third Gospel, attested by tradition and rendered
probable by internal evidence (§ 101 c). Many particulars,
moreover, stamp the first Gospel with the character of origi
nality : the account of the Temptation and of the Sermon
on the Mount, whose more complete form shows them to
be the first outpouring rather than a later emendation and a
disjointed copy, — the narrative of the Resurrection, which
not only harmonizes with the Galilean scope of the Gospel,
but by its simplicity and uniqueness proves itself the old
est, — and many others. § 93 6.
From the point which we have reached, it seems natural
to conclude that the third Gospel is an elaboration of the
first. If the omissions adduced are intentional, and aim to
give it a certain bias, others also may be regarded in the
same fight* In the passages which Luke has in common
with Matthew, arbitrary changes and transpositions may be
proved ; '' at least, completeness and originality are on the
side of Matthew (cf. xvii. 1-4 with Matt, xviii. 1, £, 6, f,
15, ff.).° In several passages Luke has endeavored, and
sometimes with success, to improve upon Matthew ; * in
others, his pragmatism (generally incorrect) is manifest."
- Matt. xvii. 10 - 12 (christological question) ; xiv. 3-12 (an addition of
particulars, which perhaps Luke thought inappropriate); xxvii. 62-66,
xxviii. 11-15 (which he perhaps considered unworthy of credit).

MATTHEW AND LUKE. § 93 C. 161
'' The assignment of the great address of instruction in Matt, x, to the
Twelve, ix, 3-5, and to the Seventy, x, 4-12, is plainly arbitrary. Be
sides, X, 13 (Matt, xi, 21) is introduced improperly by a mistake of memory.
The Sermon on the Mount, vi, 20, ff,, is a disfigured extract from that in
Matthew, which has the appropriate object of showing to Jesus's disciples
his plan and doctrine, whereas Luke makes it refer to the oppressed Chris
tians of a later time. Thus the peroration, which, in Matt. vii. 24, ff., calls
attention to the doctrine laid down, loses its force in Luke, In vi. 37 the
connection is lost, and we see clearly how the passage Matt, vii. 1-5,
which floated before Luke's mind, is interrupted by inappropriate reminis
cences of Matt. XV. 14, X. 24. (Also in xi. 33, ff., xii, 1, ff,, 49, ff,, 58, ff,,
xvi. 16, ff,, sayings that in Matthew stand in good connection, or occur as
special doctrinal statements, are forced in, as it were, by violence,)
" See, on the contrary, Ritschl, pp, 260, 274, and his remarks, p, 289, on
passages like vii, 39 (Matt, xxi, 32), xi. 48, ff. (Matt, xxiii. 30, ff,), which
look like unsuccessful attempts at revision,
^ iii, 2, 7, 19, f. (Matt, iii, 1, 7, iv, 12) ; iv, 5, ff, (Matt, iv, 5, ff,, a se
quence incorrectly altered) ; v, 17, 29, 33 (Matt. ix. 3, 10, 14) ; ix. 10
(Matt. xiv. 13) ; xix. 30, ff, (Matt, xxi, 2, ff,) ; xxi, 12, 25 (Matt. xxiv.
8, f, 29), See Exeg. Handb, on the passages,
° The later position of the Sermon on the Mount, deemed by some a
ground of preference for the third Gospel, stands in the same category as
the account of the choosing of the Twelve, vi, 12, ff, Luke was led to both
by the considerations that Matthew addresses the discourse to disciples of
whom but four were called (iv. 18, ff,), and that he introduces, in x, 1, ff,,
twelve without due preparation (Matthew alone having been called in the
mean time, ix. 9). The introduction, ver. 12, f., to the new account framed
by Luke, is out of keeping, and the name aTrdirroXos betrays its later
stand-point. § 93 c.
But the Gospel of Luke cannot be regarded throughout
as only a free revision of Matthew, without the use of other
sources.* The proem, i. 1 - 4, shows the contrary (§ 89 a).
There is a degree of probability in favor of the theory that
Luke arbitrarily undertook to assign the discourses of Jesus
— which Matthew placed together — , to certain incidents
as occasions (§ 91 d, note a). When he gives a correspond
ing equivalent for what he has not in common with Mat
thew,'' it proves that he had reference to Matthew. Cautious
criticism, however, will not regard all these passages as man
ufactured by Luke, but will also suppose the use of oral
21

162 GOSPELS.
tradition or of written sources. The same appfies also to
several smaller additions "= and alterations.'^ Many of these
seem to have sprung up under the influence of the Pauhne
tradition," others under that of John the Evangelist." No
probable ground for the absence of many passages can be
found in the design and tendency of Luke,*' and the gap
between ix. 17 and 18 (cf. Matt. xiv. 22- xvi. 12), especially,
makes it probable that he here foflowed an older and shorter
edition of the first Gospel.s In this way might be explained,
also, the absence of several passages which we have re
garded as designedly omitted (§ 91 e, note b). In the same
way Luke must have derived the larger passages, which he
has in addition to Matthew, from a written source.'^
" As Baur does, p. (574) 501, ff.
^ Matt. i. ii. = Luke i. ii, ; Matt, xiii, 53, ff, = Luke iv, 16, ff. ; Matt.
iv, 18, ff, = Luke v, 1, ff. ; Matt. xxvi. 6, ff. = Luke vii. 36,,ff. ; Matt.
xxii. 35, ff. = Luke x. 25, ff, ; Matt, xxi, 17, ff, = Luke xiii. 6, ff., xvii.
5, ff. ; Matt, xxii, 1, ff, = Luke xiv, 16, ff, ; Matt, xxv, 14, ff, = Luke
xix, 12, ff. ; Matt, xx. 20, ff, = Luke xxii. 24, ff. ; Matt. xxvi. 31, ff. =
Luke xxii, 31, ff,
° These sometimes bring into the narrative more of the picturesque and
stirring (v, 19, vii, 3, ff., viii, 45, ff,, 49, ff., xxiii, 27, ff,, 39, ff,); some
times more of the marvellous (xxii, 8, ff,, 43, 51, — the hand of Luke is,
however, clearly discernible in the narrative in ver, 40, ff,, which omits
much) ; and sometimes the miracle gains thereby an important application
(ix, 31), Others are introduced in other ways (iv, 42, ff,, ix, 49, f.),
¦• vi. 6 (Matt, xii, 9), viii, 27 (Matt, viii, 28), xi, 29 (Matt, xii, 39), xviii.
35 (Matt, XX. 29), xxii, 54, ff.(Matt, xxvi, 57, ff,), xxiii, 2, ff,(Matt. xxvii.
11, ff,), xxiv, 2, ff, (Matt, xxviii, 2, ff,),
" Cf xxii, 19, f, with 1 Cor, xi, 24, f , xxiv, 34 with 1 Cor, xv, 5, and
the passages referred to in § 91_/', note c,
= Cf, xix. 29 with John xii. 1 ; xix. 37, cf John xii, 17 ; xxii, 27, cf
John xiii, 4, ff, ; xxii, 50, cf John xviii, 10 ; xxii, 55, cf John xviii, 18,
25 ; xxiii, 16, cf John xix, 1 ; xxiii, 46, cf. John xix. 30 ; xxiii. 53 (xix.
30), cf. John xix, 41 ; xxiv, 4, 12, cf John xx, 6.
f E. g. Matt, xviii. 6 - 9, 15 - 35, xxi. 28 - 32 (Luke, however, knew this
passage, cf vii. 30), ix, 27 - 34, ix, 1 - 12, xx. 1-16.
5 The omission of Matt. xv. 21-31 may have had its ground in ver.
24 (§ 91/, note b), and that of xv. 32 - 39, xvi, 1 - 4, in the fact of their be
ing repetitions (cf Matt, xiv, 13, ff,, xii, 38, f ), Matt, xiv, 28, ff., refers
to Peter, but does not tend to his advantage ; on this account, also, it was
unnecessary to omit the whole passage. The sayings in Luke vi, 39, xii, 1,

MARK. § 94 a. 163
give us reason to presuppose an acquaintance with Matt. xv. 1-20, xvi, 5 -
12, but why does Luke wholly omit these passages? (Cf, Baur, p. [540]
471), Probably our Matthew added from another source the whole passage
xiv, 22 -xvi. 12 to what precedes, and so committed the same error as
before (ix, 32, f., cf. xii, 22, ff.), of narrating as a different event what a
different tradition had reported in a somewhat changed form. Luke, how
ever, followed the older and simpler work, on which our Matthew is based.
Cf Bleek, Beitr, I. 76. Ritschl, p. 291.
' We may, with Marsh and others, regard a collection of discourses as
this source. This collection, however, seems to have been enriched by
scattered and unarranged excerpts from Matthew before it fell into Luke's
hands ; and, despite his acquaintance with Matthew, he preferred to follow
it, and to give some of the discourses in less fitting connection.
2. Explanation of the Relation between Mark
and the other two Evangelists by the Sup
position that he used them.
§ 94 a.
From the manner in which Mark stands between Mat
thew and Luke, combines their text into a third, and has
little of his own (§ 80), we may conclude that he is de
pendent on both of them; this, may also be satisfactorily
proved. 1. According to Church tradition, Mark wrote later
than the other two (§ 100 b). His later stand-point is also
manifest in his mediating tendency, and in his selections
from the Gospel matter, which show comparatively little in
terest in the teachings of Jesus.* On this account, his
notion of the ^^ Gospel," placed at the very beginning (i. 1),
and elsewhere introduced (i. 45, viii. 35, x. 29), as denot
ing the compend of the historic facts concerning the mani
festation of the Son of God (i. 1), seems the less apostolic.
The absence of the account of the supernatural birth of
Jesus in no wise proves the originality of the second Evan
gelist; for he has the idea of the miraculous generation
(vi. 3, cf Matt. xni. 55), and of the divinity of Christ (i. 1,
in. 11, V. 7, XV. 39).*
» Cf Bleeh, Beitr. I. 33.
i" And, indeed, apparently with some leaning towards Docetism. In xv.
39, 44, the view is involved that Jesus's death was not a natural one, and
if not a merely seeming one, yet voluntary (John x. 18).

164 GOSPELS. § 94 &.
2. If the parallel passages, especially those in Matthew,
be compared with it, the Gospel of Mark shows unmistaka
ble signs of non-originality, both in the representation of the
teachings of Jesus, which are given sometimes in wrong
connections,* sometimes more or less disfigured,'' and in the
historic accounts, which are sometimes arbitrarily altered,"
sometimes amplified by more or less suspicious additions.*
* The indispensable occasion is wanting in iii. 28, f. (cf Matt, xii, 31, f ),
the necessary middle member in ix, 37 (cf Matt, xviii, 3, f,), the right po
sition in ix, 41 (cf Matt, x, 42), 49, f. (cf. Matt, v, 13), xi, 24, ff, (cf. Matt,
vii. 7, ff., vi, 14, f):
'' The correct sequence is wanting in vii, 6, f, (cf. Matt. xv. 3. ff,). The
omission of Kara nda-av a'lriav robs the question in X, 2 of its historic force,
because among the Jews the right to dismiss a wife was not disputed. To
give, in xii, 35, ff,, as Jesus's teaching to the people, what had significance,
as a disputed question, only for the Pharisees, is manifestly an error, Luke
here occupies the middle ground, for he abandons the interrogative turn of
the passage, yet preserves the address to the Pharisees, The prayer, xiv,
36, compared with Matt, xxvi. 39, 42, is manifestly distorted. Foreign ele
ments are intermingled in ii, 9 (dpdv crov r. Kpd/3/3,), x, 21 (dpas r, oraup.),
iv, 10 (rols e^a). — Wilke, who exposes the first of these passages, seeks to
justify the expression in the last one, which is manifestly connected with
1 Cor. V, 12, by referring it to the ship in which Jesus was with his disci
ples (!), — X, 12 is, like ver, 2, inconsistent with the Jewish system of di
vorce, " In vii. 24, a mistaken reason is given for Jesus's mode of proceeding,
the true one, in Matt. xv. 24, being omitted ; xiv. 58, the words rov yeipo-
nolrjrov, k. r, X,, look like a gloss ; xi, 10, the expression is weakened ; xv,
8, a manifest mistake,
^ i, 13, fjv perd rav Brjpiav ; iii, 6, perd rav 'HpaBiavav ; iv, 39, form of
adjuration ; vi, 13, oil as a medicine ; xi, 16, Jesus allowed no furniture to
be carried through the temple ; xiv, 30, 68, 72, two crowings of the cock ;
XV, 39, the alleged ground for the centurion's exclamation ; ver-, 44, Pilate
wonders at Jesus's speedy death (cf § 94 a, note b). Other examples in
§ 94 c, note e. § 94 c.
3. The dependence of Mark on Matthew and Luke ap
pears in the abridgments in i. 12, f, xvi. 12, ff. (cf § 94/) ;
in the breaking of the connection by borrowing from foreign

MARK. § 94 c. 165
sources, iv. 10-34,* ix. 38-48;* from passages which in
one way or the other presuppose the auxiliary accounts.
' Ver. 21-25 are improperly placed by Mark and Luke {Bauer, 11,321),
although more properly by the latter, who makes them the concluding admo
nition, whereas Mark, ver. 26, ff., continues (like Matthew) to make Jesus
speak parables, and to the people (ver. 33) ; excepting that by the absurd ore
Se iyevero Karapdvas, ver. 10, he suggests the mistaken notion that Jesus
delivered the last two to the disciples alone. Mark here manifestly vibrates
between the two accounts.
^ The apothegm parallel with Luke ix. 49, f. is in the latter connected
with ix. 51, ff., while Mark, on the other hand, in ver. 42, proceeds on in
the connection of Matthew.
'- i. 2, Mark cites Mai. iii. 1, in conformity with Matt. xi. 10, Luke vii.
27. — ix. 43, ff., he follows Matthew in a merely verbal connection of
the thought, the preceding a-KavBaXi^eiv being different from that of which
the succeeding expressions treat. — viii. 34, k. npocrKaXea-dpevos rbv oxXov
(Tvv rols paBrjrals aJroC is a mistaken amplification of Luke ix. 25, TXeye Be
npbs ndvras {sc. TOVS paBrjrds) , for there is no d'^^Xos, — ix, 6, the absurd
motive assigned to Peter's expression of pleasure, ^aav ydp eK(popoi, is
drawn from what follows in Matthew and Luke, — xii. 34, Kal ovBels ovKen
irdXpa avrov eneparfja-ai, appropriate enough in Luke xx, 40, whence it is
taken, is inappropriate here, for the scribe has asked in a friendly way and
received a friendly answer. — xiv. 65 is clear only by the aid of Luke xxii.
64. — xiv. 12, ff., Mark follows first Matthew in making the disciples put the
question, but afterwards Luke in speaking of the sending of the two disci
ples, so that we look in vain for an answer to the question. — vi. 14, 16 (if
the common text, which is supported by preponderating authority, be cor
rect), Mark, by using both of his authorities, has been misled into an un
thinking repetition. — xiii. 4, the ndvra is best explained by a side glance at
Matthew, who makes the disciples inquire the time, not only of the destruc
tion of the temple, but also of the future coming of Christ. — xiii. 10, Mark
has been misled by the word paprvpiov, occurring in both Luke xxi. 13 and
Matt. xxiv. 14, into adopting this verse, which has its proper position in
Matthew only. — iv. 12, like Luke viii. 10, can he explained only from Matt.
xiii. 13, ff., and presupposes the connection there given. Moreover, the
blame in Mark iv. 13 is wholly out of place. — iii. 16, ff. seems from the
interrupted construction to be an elaboration of Luke vi. 14, ff. and in ver.
15 a false connection of the thought occurs, which may be explained by
Matt. X. 1. — V. 15, Ipana-pevov can he explained only by the omitted point
in Luke viii. 27: k. Ipanov ovk iveBiBva-Kero. — vi. 6, Sid rfjv dnia-riav in
correctly combined, cf Matt. xiii. 68. — vi. 8, vii. 27, Mark introduces un
suitable softenings, in the latter case from a later stand-point.

166 GOSPELS. § 94 d
If the theory seem very natural, that a Gospel, which is
almost wholly composed of fragments of the other two
Gospels, and in other respects bears marks of dependence
on these, is a compilation from them (§ 82 a), we can with
internal probability trace, step by step, the author's method,
and especially the way in which, in arranging Jesus's work
in Galilee, he takes a middle course between the accounts
in Matthew and Luke,, on the supposition that he subordi
nated the doctrinal element of the Gospel to the miraculous,
and avoided the long discourses, and perhaps, at the same
time, used a certain degree of critical judgment on the
ground of general tradition.*
s Statement of the Course pursued by Mark in ihe Arrangement of Jesus's
Work in Galilee.
Matt. Mark. Luke.
iv. = i, 14, 15.
12 - 17. Jesus's Appearance in Galilee.
Follows Matthew.
iv. = i, 16-20,
18 - 22. Calling of the Four Apostles.
Likewise foUows Matthew.
Now, however, he forsakes M,, because M, gives
the long Sermon on the Mount, and passes over to
Luke, omitting the section Lukeiv. 16-30, which
was opposed to the prevailing tradition.
(vii, i. 21-28 = iv.
28, 29,) The Demoniac at Capernaum. 31-37.
(Ver. 22, an echo of Matt. vii. 28, f,)
viii. i, 29 - 39 = iv.
14-17, Peter's Wife's Mother. 38-44,
In his arrangement he follows Luke, although in
Matthew also the section is placed near the omitted
Sermon on the Mount, His text follows both, ex
cepting that he takes ver, 35 - 39 from Luke,
viii, =,1.40-45= v,
1-4, The Leper. 12 _ 16,
He passes over Luke v, 1 - 11, because this section
excludes the earlier i, 16-20, and repeats Matt. viii.
1-4, the first section after the Sermon on the Mount,
which yet is not very unlike Luke v. 12 - 16. In
the text he follows both, and ver, 45 Luke alone.

MARK. § 94 d. 167
Mott. Mark. Luke.
ix. ii, 1 - 12 ^ V,
1-8, The Porolytic. 17-26,
The arrangement follows Luke, the text follows
both, though Luke more closely,
ix. =ii, 13-22= v,
9 - 17, Calling of Levi. 27 - 39.
This section in Mafthew also is connected with the
foregoing. The text follows both.
xii. ii. 23-28= vi.
1-8. Plucking of the Corn. 1-5.
The arrangement follows Luke, the text both.
xii. = iii. 1 - 6 = vi,
9-14. , Tlie Withered Hand, 6-11.
This section is also connected in Matthew with
the preceding. The text follows Luke principally,
(xii, iii, 7 - 12, (vi.
15,16.) Thronging of the People. 17-19,)
Compiled from passages in Matthew and Luke,
lying near the preceding,
(x, iii. 13-19= vi,
2-4,) Choosing of the Twelve. 12-16,
The arrangement and narrative follow Luke ; ver,
18, however, is an echo of Matt, x. 3.
xii. = iii, 20-35, xi.
24-32, Of the Covenant with Beelzebub. Jesus's Mother 14-23.
46-50. and Brethren. viii.
He passes over the Sermon on the Mount in Luke, 19-21.
and proposes to follow Matthew ; but instead of turn
ing back to Matt. viii. 5, or viii. 18, he takes up xii.
24, because he had previously touched Matt. xii. 14.
He works up this passage with Matt. xii. 46, ff,,
for, according to his wont, he passes over the longer
discourses in Matt, xii, 33 -45,
xiii, = iv. 1 - 34. viii.
1-34. The Sower. 4-18,
He follows Matthew in the section of the Sower,
but incorporates also the inappropriate addition in
Luke viii. 16 - 18, as well as Matt. xiii. 31, f The
last words in ver. 34 point to the omitted Matt, xiii,
36, ff,
viii. iv, 35-41^ viii.
23-27. The Storm on the Lake. 22-25.
Having been led to Luke viii. 16, ff., and as in
Luke sections which have an earlier place in Mat-

168 GOSPELS.
Matt. Mark. Luke.
thi-w, and which he wishes to give, follow (Luke
viii. 19-21 he may omit, having already given it
above), he now passes over to this Evangelist, whom
in his text he most closely follows.
viii. = V. 1 - 20 = viii.
28 - 34. The Demoniac among the Gadarenes. 26 - 29.
The sequence is the same in M. and L. ; but Mark
follows the latter more closely in the text.
ix. V, 21 -43 = viii.
18-26. Joirus's Daughter. 40-56.
He follows Luke ; but as Matt, ix, 1 is manifest
ly echoed in v, 21, and Matt, ix, 2- 17 is given above
in ii, 1-22, the course of the combination leads to
Matt, ix, 18-26, The text follows chiefly Luke,
xiii, = vi, 1-6.
54-58. Jesus teaches in Nazareth.
Matthew, after the parable of the Sower, — the
point where Mark left him, — introduces a para
graph which seemed to Mark important. Mark,
therefore, adopts it, and the more because he had
omitted the similar one in Luke iv. 16-30.
(x,) vi, 7-13= ix.
Sending forth of the Twelve. 1-6.
He returns to Luke's arrangement, which places
this after the above section, Mark v, 21-43. His
text also follows Luke the more closely.
xiv. vi. 14-29 = ix.
1-12. Herod Antipas. 7-9.
The sequence is that of Luke ; but M. also places
this section after that in Markvi. 1-6, and thus
from this side also the course of the combination
leads to this point. His text follows both, but in the
narrative of John's beheading he follows Matthew.
xiv. ^vi. 30-44^ ix.
13 - 21. Feeding of the Five Thousand. 10 - 17.
Sequence the same in M. and L, The text fol
lows both, though chiefly M,
xiv, = vi, 45-56,
22-36, Jesus walks on the Water.
Follows M,, also in the text, but with omission
of the circumstance in ver, 28-31,
XV, = vii, 1-23.
1 - 20, Of the Washing of Hands.
Follows M., though with divergences in the text.

MARK. § 94 e.

169

Matt. Mark. Luke.
XV. = vii. 24-31.
21-31. The Canoonitish Woman.
As above. vii, 32 - 37,
The Deof and Dumb Man.
XV. = viii. 1 - 10.
32 - 39. Feeding of the Four Thousand.
Follows Matthew.
xvi. = viii. 11-21.
1-12. Sign from Heaven. Leovenof the Pharisees.
Follows Matthew. viii. 22-26,
The Blind Man.
xvi, ^ viii, 27-ix, 1 = ix,
13-28. Peter's Confession. 18-27.
The sequence is M.'s, but L,'s also falls in with
it, and his influence is perceptible in the text.
xvii. =ix. 2-13=^ ix.
1-13, TAe Tronsfigurotion. 28-36,
The sequence is now in general the same in all
three,
xvii. =ix, 14-29= ix.
14-21, The Demoniac. 37-43,
xvii, =ix, 30-32= ix,
22, 23, Announcement of Jesus's Death. 43-45,
xviii, = ix, 33 - 50 ^ ix.
1-9. The Dispute about Rank. 46 - 50.
In ver. 33 there is an echo of Matt. xvi. 24, The
peculiar passage. Matt. xvii. 24 - 27, Mark dropped,
because not found in the current Gospel tradition.
Besides this table, compare also Griesbach's and Saunier's essays, referred
to in § 82 a, note e, § 82 b, note a. Schwarz, N. Unterss., p. 284, ff, Baur,
Krit, Unterss. p. 541, ff.

§ 94 e.
The Evangelist's course ceases to excite surprise or objec
tion (§ 83), when we consider, — 1. that he had no con
ception of our historical criticism and art, and that both the
written and the oral Gospel tradition were at that time
regarded as common property, which any one might deal
with at pleasure, especially as its import was religious rather
than historical ; 2. that oral tradition, from which his au-
22

170 GOSPELS.
thorities and their predecessors had drawn, being not yet
closed, stood as much at his command as at theirs, whether
as a source of information or as a standard of judgment and
selection (§ 87 a) ; and, 3. — a consideration that especially
bears upon what seems to us the petty and tedious course
of combining the text of the two Evangelists, — that he did
this undesignedly, his exact acquaintance with his prototypes
leading him to imitate their very expressions.^
' Formerly I regarded Mark's whole use of the two Evangelists, as well
as Luke's use of Matthew, as mnemonic. This, however, seems needless.
§ 94/.
If this be the true account of the origin of Mark's Gos
pel, the integrity of the same admits of defence. As regards
the account of the resurrection, xvi. 9, ff., which has been
questioned,'' the difficulty, that ver. 7 has no sequence, and
that the narrative is again taken up in ver. 9 and con
nected with ver. 1, is explained partly by the alteration
made by Luke in Matthew's narrative in omitting the prom
ised meeting in Galilee (§ 91/), and partly by the influence
of the Evangelist John, to which Mark here yielded.^ The
grounds which have been thought to lie in the style are in
no case sufficiently decisive." Besides, an interpolator would
have avoided such inequalities, as well as the singular repre
sentation (i. 13) in the preliminary history, which has also
(§ 88 b) been called in question, though we find in it an
unmistakable peculiarity of Mark (i. 7).
' Against the genuineness are : Griesbach, Gratz, Bertholdt, Schulthess,
Poulus (Exeg, Hdb.), Dav. Schulz, Fritzsche, Schott (Isag.), Credner,
Reuss. For it: R. Simon, Mill, Wolf, Storr, Matthdi, Poulus (Comment,),
Kuinoel, Eichhorn, Hug, Feilmoser, Schott (Opusc), Voter, Saunier, Gue
rike (Einl, § 34), Schworz (p, 327, ff.), Bour (as it seems), p, 574,
^ Cf ver, 9 with John xx, 14, f. Also elsewhere are found references
to John : ii. 9, 12, cf John v, 8, f, ; vi, 37, 39, cf John vi, 7, 10 ; xi. 9,
cf John xii. 13 ; xiv. 3, 5, 6, cf. John xii. 3, 5, 7 ; xiv. 54, 65, cf John
xviii. 18, 22 ; xv. 8, f, cf John xviii. 39. Against Baur, who, pp. 244,
253, 258, 261, 279, regards these and the like passages in Luke (§ 93 b,
note e) as original and used by John, we appeal to the character of original
ity which our fourth Gospel bears, and to that of compilations which marks
our second and third. Cf Bleek, Beitr. I. 83, 200.

MARK. § 95 a. 171
"= What Schulthess, in the Analekten, Bd. III. St. 3, and Schott, Isagog.
§ 30, note 2, have stated, Fritzsche, ad Marc. xvi. 9, has found for the most
part inconclusive. Even his suspicion is excited by ver, 9 : dvao-rds Be npai
nparrj cra^fidrav, instead of which Mark would have written draords fie
ecpdvrj ; the words dcp' fjs iK^e^XfjKei inrd Baipdvia, as inappropriate here (?) ;
the frequent exeii/os, instead of d 8e; ver, 10, nopevBelcra, instead of ottcX-
Bofjaa (Mark xi, 4), cf, ver, 12, 15 ; rois per adrod yevopevois, which does
not elsewhere occur in the Gospels ; ver. 13, ovBe eKeivois enlcrreva-av, in
which there is a confounding of Luke xxiv. 34, f. with ver. 41 (which, how
ever, might be the mistake of M. himself) ; the same holds of ver. 14, Kal
avelBia-e, it, r. X,, cf, Luke xxiv, 25 - 27, 41 - 46, John xx. 24 - 29. Fritzsche
thinks suspicious, in ver. 17, f, the too great hankering after the miraculous,
the extension of the gift of miracles to all Christians, the ¦yXiocro-ais XaXelv
Kaivals, borrowed from Acts, and the not elsewhere attested miracle, Kav Ba-
vdaipdv n niam, k. t. X. ; ver. 19, the sitting at God's right hand ; ver. 20,
trace of the post-apostolic age in the navraxov (?). Cf. my Exeg. Hdb. on
these passages. — The external grounds against the genuineness of the pas
sage ( GriesJacA, Not. crit.. Comment, crit. Fritzsche, Comment. Schott,
Isag. I. c.) amount to little. § 95 a.
The connecting links and transitions between sections
chosen in this way cannot fail to be at times very arbitrary.*
Mark inserts, also, many minute particulars, which come
in part from the connection (xi. 27), but are generally his
own additions.''
" I. Transitions, which have suffered little or no change in themselves,
but whose meaning is altered by their change of position.
Mark i. 21. Luke iv. 31.
Kai elcmopevovrai els Kanepvaovp. Kal KarfjXBev eis Kanepvaovp, ndXiv
Kal evBeas rols a-d^^amv ela-eXBav rfjs TaXiXaias - Kal fjv BiBdcrKav ai-
els rfjv crvvayayfjv eBiBacrKe. rovs iv rois crd^^acrt.
Cf what precedes, i. 16-20. Cf. iv. 16 - 30.
Matt. xiii. 54. Mark vi. 1.
Kai eXBav els rfjv narpiBa avrov. Kal i^fjXBev eKelBev, Kal rjXBev els rfjv
narpiBa avrov.
Cf xiii. 1-53. Cfv. 21-43.
II. Transitions which have arisen from arbitrarily connecting both Evange
lists.
Matt. ix. 1. Mark ii, 1. Luke v. 17.
Kai ipPds els rb ttXoioi' Kai TTaXiy elcrfjXBev els Kal iyevero iv pid rav
Bienepaa-e, koI rjXBev els Kanepvaovp Bi fjpepav, fjpepav, n. r. X.
rfjV IBiav irdXiv. koi fjKova-Brj, on els oi-
Kov i(m.
Mark here follows Luke's arrangement.

172

GOSPELS.

iii, 7 - 12 is compounded of Matt, xii, 15, 16, and Luke vi, 17, But Mark
here follows Luke, and what he draws from Matthew belongs in the latter
to a different connection, III, Transitions of his own.
Matt, ix, 9, Markii, 33,f Luke v. 27.
Kai napdyav b Kal e^fjXBe ndXiv napd rfjv BdXacrcrav • Kai pera raCro
'irjcrovs eKelBev, Kal nds b dxXos fjpxero npbs a-vrdv, Kal i^fjXBe, k. t. X.
K. -I . X. eBlBaa-Kev avrovs. Kal napdyav, K.r.X.
Matt. xii. 22. Mark iii. 20. Luke ix. 14.
Totally unlike. Kai epxovrai els oikov. Kal crvvepxerai Totally unlike.
ndXiv oxXos, aa-re pfj BvvaaBai a-vrovs
pfjre aprov (payelv.
Mark iv. 35. Luke viii. 22.
Kai Xe'yei avrols iv ikeivrj r^ Vpepa Kal iyevero iv pid rav fjpepav, Kal
dyp-ias yevopevrjs ' -AieXBapev eis rb avrbs eve^rj els nXolov Kal ol paBrjral
nepav. arjrov, Kal elne npbs avrovs • AieXBa-
Mark here has given greater pre- pev els rb nepav rfjs Xipvrjs.
cision to Luke's account.
Matt, xvii, 24, xviii. 1. Mark ix, 33, Luke ix, 46,
'EXBdvrav Be avrav els Kal fjXBev els Kanepva- Nothing similar.
Kanepvaovp, .... 'Ek oup, Kai ev rfj o'lKia ye-
iKelvrj rfj apci npoofjXBov vdpevos, K. r. X.
ot paBrjral ra Irjcrov,
K. T. X.
'¦ Besides the favorite word ttoXij' (ii, 1, 13, iii, 1, iv, 1, v, 21, vii, 31 [cf
iii, 20, viii. 13, x, 1, 24, 32], xi, 27 [cf xiv, 61, 69, f , xv, 4, 12, 13] ), he
adds evBeas (i, 29, vi, 45), an exact (iv, 35, xi, 19) or inexact specification
of time (ii, 1, viii. 1), or a specification of place (iii. 20, ix. 30, x. 17).
His misplacement of the scene on the sea-shore is peculiar to him : ii. 13,
iii. 7, iv, 1 (this according to Matthew), v. 21 ; he likes the expressions koI
i^XBev iKeiBev, vi, 1, Kai i^fjXBev, viii, 27, xi, 1, Kai iKelBev i^eXBdvres, ix, 30,

§ 95 &.
His numerous additions or divergences in the discourses
of persons concerned, and in the narrative, are to be attrib
uted to the same arbitrariness.''
» In discourses: ii. 27, iv. 39, vi. 36, vii. 18, 13, viii. 3, 15, 17-21, ix.
9, 39, 43-50, x. 19, 38, xi. 10, 25, f , xiv. 30, 58, xvi. 3. In facts and cir
cumstances: i. 20, iii. 6, iv. 36, vi. 41, 48, vii. 17, 24, viii. 7, 14, f , ix.
14,f,, 21-26, 30,33, xi. 16, xiii. l,f, xiv. 50, ff, 65, 72, xv. 44, f , xvi.
8, Graphic and lively particularization : i. 13, 19,41, 45, ii,2,f , iii, 20, 34,
iv, 32, 38, V. 5, vi. 27, 31, f., 38, ff, 56, f., vii, 25, 28, 30, viii, 12, ix, 3,
24, 36, X, 16, f., 21, 23, 32, 50, xi. 4, 27, xii. 37, xvi. 2. Various exact

MARK. § 96. 173
specifications in numbers and the like: i. 21, v. 13, vi. 30, 37, vii. 1, 30,
viii. 14, xii. 41, xiii. 3, xiv. 5. More exact statements concerning per
sons: ii. 14, 17, vii. 26, x. 46, xv, 21, xvi, 1, Pragmatical explanations:
vi. 52, ix. 6, xi. 13, xv. 39, xvi. 4. Clearer statements: v. 18, 23, x. 1,
xiv. 58. Remarks to soften and moderate: vi. 8, f, vii, 27. — Much
is plainly false, as the mingling in of the Herodians and of Herod (iii. 6,
viii, 15) ; others are liable to suspicion through their uniformity, as that
Jesus wished to remain unknown (vii, 24 [in connection with the dropping
of Matt. XV. 24], ix. 30), the pictorial additions of emyKoXio-dpei/os (ix. 36,
X. 16), and the like. The pragmatical remarks, ix. 6, xi. 13, are absurd ;
so also dvareiXavTos rov fjXlov with Xiaj» npat, xvi. 2. Cf. § 82 c,
§ 96.
Even where Mark gives a representation apparently inde
pendent of the parallel accounts, iii. 20, f, 31, ff., vi. 17, ff.,
xi. 11, ff., xii. 28, ff., he probably had them before him and
made use of them.* He is by no means a mere abbreviator,
for he does not spare words, and indeed is sometimes diffuse
(ii. 15, V. 3-5, vi. 55, f, vii. 3, f., 13, 21, f, x. 29, f., xiii. 35).
His style of writing is peculiar.'' He likes to introduce
Hebrew words (v. 41, vii. 11, 34, xiv. 36), which, like other
things, he explains (vii. 3, ff., xv. 16, 42). By setting aside
what is characteristic in Matthew (v. 17, x. 5, xv. 24, xvi.
17-19, xix. 28)," and in Luke (the choice of the seventy
disciples, the parables, xv. 11, ff., xvii. 7, ff., xviii. 9, ff., &c.
cf. § 91/), Mark has secured a neutral stand-point.* i
' The peculiar turn given to the story of the visit of Jesus's mother and
brethren, by stating its moving cause (iii, 21), seems to rest on Matt, xii.
24, cf Mark iii. 22. The peculiar treatment of the cursing of the fig-tree,
xi. 11, ff,, has a certain analogy with the accounts of miracles that are pecu
liar to this Gospel, cf my Exeg. Hdb. on this passage and on vi. 13. Baur,
p. 558, ff. Only in xii. 28, ff. are we unable to trace the hand of a reviser.
^ In this he comes nearer Matthew than Luke. He has forty-five words in
common with the former, only eighteen with the latter. He is fond of the
present tense (iv. 37, v. 15, 22, vi. 7, 30, 48, vii. 32, viii. 1, 22, x. 1, 35,
46, xi. 1, f., 15, 21, f,, 27, f, 33, xii, 13, 18, xiii, 1, xiv. 12, 17, 66, xv.
21, f., xvi. 2,4, 6) ; the finite verb (iii. 24, f , vi. 17, 29, viii. 11, 36, xi.
4, xii. 20) ; questions (iv. 21, v. 35, 39, viii. 12, xi. 17, xii. 24) ; direct
addresses (iv. 39, v. 8, f., 12, vi. 23, 31, ix. 25, 33, xii, 6, cf on the con
trary V. 30, vi, 49, vii, 25, and other passages) ; repetition of the substan
tive (i. 34, ii, 18, iii. 17, 24, f., v. 9, 41, vi, 17, x. 46, xiii. 15, xiv. 4, f.,
67) ; introduction of the antithesis (i. 22, 45, ii. 27, iii. 29, v. 26, vii. 19,

174 GOSPELS.
ix. 37, xi. 23, xii. 32, xiv. 61) ; multiplying of negations (i. 44, vi. 8,
vii. 12, ix, 8, &c,, also xiv, 15) ; of the diminutive (v. 23, 41, vi. 28,
vii. 25, 27, f , viii. 7, xiv. 47) ; pleonasms (vii. 13, xii. 23, xiii. 19, f., xiv.
68) ; the relative ri (vi. 36, xiv. 36) ; the elliptical 'iva (v. 23, xiv. 50) ; the
verb dpxea-Bai, more almost than Luke ; epxeaBai, and other similar verbs
in the participle with other verbs, oftener than in the other Evange
lists (vi. 21, 25, xii. 28, 42, xiv. 12, xvi. 1, &c.) ; more frequent use of Latin
words : Kevrvplav xv, 39, 44, f, ^ea-rfjs vii, 4, 8, aneKovXarap vi, 27; the
favorite word ineparav twenty-five limes (in Matthew eight, in Luke eigh
teen times). He alone has the words dXaXos, eKBap^elv, ini^dXXeiv (in-
trans,), ttoXXo (adverb,), avp^ovXiov noielv. Cf, Don. Schulz, in the Ana
lekten, B. II. St. 3, 4. Schott, Isag. § 29. Credn. § 49.
' He avoids also prophetic parallels, excepting in the probably ungenuine
passage xv, 28, and softens down the eschatological passages ix, 1 (Matt.
xvi, 28), xiii, 4 (Matt, xxiv, 3), Baur, p. 565, explains the omission of
the Sermon on the Mount by its character as a statement of principles, and
by the Evangelist's caution in avoiding the dispute concerning the validity
of the Mosaic law.
^ He has omitted even the anti-Jewish parts of Matthew (viii. 10-12,
xxi. 43). On the other hand, universalism shows itself in xi. 17 (Trdo-i rois
c^veo-i) , and xvi. 20 {navraxov). For his omission of the preliminary his
tory we may, with Bour, p. 564, give the reason, that Mark meant to set
forth neither the natural nor the supernatural origin of Jesus. Schwegler
gives this omission a Docetic meaning.

CHAPTER IIL
OP THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS SEPARATELY.

I. Author, Original Language, and Date of the First Gospel.
§ 97 a.
The author of our first Gospel has given neither his name
nor any other indication of himself; but antiquity describes
him as the Apostle Mattheiv, who is one and the same with
Levi, son of Alphseus (Matt. ix. 9, Mark ii. 14, Luke v. 27)."
According to an old and often repeated authority, Matthew
wrote a work of this sort in Hebrew (i. e. in the current Ian-

MATTHEW. § 97 a. 175
guage of Palestine) for the Hebrew Christians.'' Several
writers, who acknowledge the Greek origin of the Gospel,
follow the lead of Erasmus in questioning this Church tradi
tion,'' while others have built on it untenable theories con
cerning the connection of our Greek Gospel of Matthew
with that original (§§ 84, 97 b).
'- They were regarded as different persons by Heracleon, in Clem. Al. IV.
502. Sylb. : oi yap ndvres ol cra^dpevoi apoXd-yrjcrav rfjv Bid (pavfjs dpoXoylav,
Kal e^fjXBov • e| S>v MarBaios, $iXiiTiros, Gdipas, Aeuis K. dXXoi ttoXXoi. —
Origen, Cont. Cels. I. 62. Grot, ad Matth. ix. 9. Michael. Einl. IL 934,
According to Theod. Has. Disquis, de Levi, etc. in Bibl, Brem. Class. V. p. 475,
Biel, Ib. CI. VI. p. 1038. Heumonn, Nov. syll, diss. 1. 1, on Matth. ix. 9. /.
F.Frisch, De Levi cum Matthaeo nonconfundendo(1764),iewis one and the
same as Lebbaeus. Following Marsh, II. 60, several writers {Fritzsche, Win.)
supposed Levi to be the earlier name of the Apostle. According to Sieffert,
Ueb. d. Urspr. d. ersten kan. Evang. p. 58, the Evangelist may have con
founded the similar history of the conversion of Levi with that of Maithew.
— Obscurity of the later history of Matthew: Euseb. H. E. III." 24 (see
next note), Hieron. De vir, illustr, c, IIL, has no account of him. Ac
cording to Heracleon (see above) he died a natural death, according to
Socrates, H. E. I. 19, in Ethiopia, on the other hand, according to Isidor.
Hisp. de vita et morte sanct. c. 67, in Macedonia ; according to Niceph. H.
E, II, 41, a martyr,
'' Papias, in Euseb. H, E, III, 39 : MarBaios pev ovv e^patBi BidXeKrca rd
Xdyia (rvverd^aro ' fjpprjvevcre B avrd as rjv Bvvarbs eKacrros. (Ingenious but
not probable view of the passage by Schleiermocher, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit,
1832. IV. 735, ff., that Matthew wrote in Hebrew a collection of Christ's
discourses, which others illustrated by supplying the circumstances of time
and place. But to Xdyia comprehends, undeniably, in Papias's meaning,
also historic matter, and fjpprjvevcre refers to the language. Cf. Liicke, in
Stud, u, Kr, 1833, p, 501, f. Frommann, ib, 1840, p, 912,, ff, Kern,Veh. d
Urspr. d. ersten Evang. p. 8. Thiersch, Standp. d. Krit. p. 186, ff. On
the other hand, Schleiermacher's view is followed by Credn. Einl. p. 91,
203. Weisse, Evang. Gesch. I. 29, ff, and others.) Iren. Adv, haer. III,
1, b, Euseb. H, E, V. 8 : 'O pev Bfj M. iv rols 'E(3paiois rfj iBia avrav Bia-
XeKr(^ Kal ypa(pfjv i^fjveyKev evayyeXiov. Origen. in Euseb. VI. 25 : "Ori
nparov pev yeypanrai rb Kara rbv ttote reXavrjv, virrepov Be dnda-roXov 'I. X.,
Mar^aioj', ixBeBaKora avrb rois hnb 'louSaiVpoO niareva-aa-i, ypdppamv efipa'i-
KOis (rvvreray pevov. Euseb': III . 24 : Marflaios npdrepov 'E/3paiots Krjpv^as,
as epeXXe Kal i(p' irepovs levai, narpiea yXarrrj napaBovs rb Kar avrbv evay
yeXiov, rb Xeinovrfj avrov napovcria, rovrois d(p' &v iareXXero, Bid rfjs ypacpfjs
dnenXfjpov. Hieron. Comment, in Matth. praef. . Matthaeus in Judaea
Evangelium Hebraeo sermone edidit ob eorum vel maxime causam, qui in

176 GOSPELS.
Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis. De vir. ill. c, 3 : M  primus in Judaea
propter eos, qui ex circumcisione crediderant, Evangelium Christi Hebraicis
Uteris verbisque composuit : quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non
satis certum est,
' Erasm. ad Matth. viii, Matth. Flac. (N, T, ex vers, D, Erasm, c,
gloss, comp, Bas, 1570, p. 1, in Credn. p. 80), Calvin. Bez. Colov., and
many others, Schrodter, De ling, Matth, auth, Viteb, 1699, Wetstein,
N, T. I. 224. Masch, Von d. Grundsprache d, Matth, 1755, The dog
matic interest of the older Protestants in this assertion opposed to that of the
Catholics {Baron., R. Simon, and others). Hug (Einl. II. 16, ff.) doubts the
credibility of Papias, from the judgment of Euseb. (Ill, 39) upon him in re
gard to his Chiliasm : crcpdBpa crpiKpbs av rbv vofjv. He is supposed to have
derived his account from the Ebionites, whose Gospel he used, though this
does not clearly appear from Eusebius's words : iKreBeirai Be koI SXXrjv iVro-
plav nepl yvvaiKos inl TToXXais dpapriais BiaPXrjBeicrrjs inl rov Kvpiov, fjv rb KaB'
'E^paiovs evayyeXiov nepiexei (§ 64 a, note a) . It is asserted that all the sub
sequent testimonies rest on that of Papias, That of Pantcenus, however, is
independent (see above, § 73 a, noted). According to 5&e/i:, Beitr, 1. 62, the
Hebrew Gospel with which Papias was acquainted was not an original apos
tolic work, but a recast, in Aramaic, prepared for the use of the Hebrew
Christians, of a Greek writing, viz. our first canonical Gospel, which quite
early acquired canonical acceptance in the Church, Probably the Aramaic
editor of the work had already given it the form which it subsequently had
(see Epiphan. Ill, 13, and Hieron. Cont, Pelag, III. 2, above, § 64), and it
thereupon claimed to be an apostolic writing, and by Matthew ; and here
first arose this opinion in the Church in regard to the Greek original hke-
wise. In opposition to this view, H. A. W. Meyer, Comm. iib. d, Evang,
Matth, Ein], ^ 2, lays great stress on the Church tradition.
§ 97 b.
The agreement of our canonical Matthew with the other
Synoptists, in quoting Old Testament passages from the
Septuagint version,^ is opposed to the theory of its being a
translation of that Hebrew original,'' and favors that of
its being originally written in Greek. The theory that
Matthew wrote the Gospel twice, in the Hebrew and in the
Greek, is a pure invention."
» " The Old Testamegt citations in Matthew are of two kinds: in part
those in which the Evangelist gives pragmatical proofs of the fulfilment of
Old Testament predictions, as, i. 23, ii. 6, 15, 18, iv, 15, ff,, viii, 17, xii,
18-21, xiii, 35, xxi, 5 (xxvii, 9) ; in part such as in the course of the nar
rative appropriately occur or are used in the discourse of the speaker, as,
iii. 3, iv, 4, 6, 7, 10, v, 5, 21, 27, (31, 33,) 38, 43, ix. 13, xi. 10, xii. 7,

MATTHEW. § 97 b. Ill
xiii. 14, f., XV. 4, 8, f., xix. 4, f., 18, f , xxi. 13, 16, 42, xxii. (24,) 32, 37,
39, 44, xxiii. 39, xxiv. 15, xxvi. 31. There is, however, this difference,
that the latter class of passages are adduced according to the Septuagint ver
sion, sometimes literally, and even in cases where this version differs from
the Hebrew text (as iii. 3, xiii. 14, f, &c.), sometimes more freely, but not
so as to countenance the supposition that the variation is caused by a
reference to the Hebrew text (except perhaps xi. 10, xxvi. 31) ; the pas
sages of the former class, on the other hand, are given according to his
own translation of the Hebrew text, and differ in part, not only from the
words, but also from the meaning of the Septuagint, so that its expressions
are rarely visible. This relation is such as, leaving out of view a compari
son with the other Synoptists, cannot in our opinion be naturally explained
by the twofold theory that the Gospel is an entirely independent work,
and that this work, originally written in Aramaic, lies before us in a trans
lation. For, as regards the passages of the second class, those contained
in the discourses of Christ and others, of which by far the largest part were
certainly delivered in Aramaic, it is altogether unlikely that, if these narra
tives were originally conceived in Aramaic, the passages would be given in
a form corresponding to the Septuagint text, and at variance with the He
brew. This form must have been the work of a Greek translator, who
handled his subject freely, and was accustomed to the Septuagint. Its ori
gin would, even then, be with difl5culty apprehended ; yet more difiicult is
it to apprehend how the translator refrained from using the same freedom
with passages of the first class. From this we deduce the following
conclusions regarding the origin of our first Gospel : — 1. That its author, to
whom these pragmatical illustrations belong, was a learned believing Jew,
probably a Palestinian, who was better acquainted with the Old Testament
in the original than in the Septuagint version ; 2. That he wrote the Gos
pel in Greek ; and, 3. That he made use of one or more earlier evangelic
writings, which, being likewise written in Greek, contained those accounts of
events and discourses that comprehend the citations of the second class." —
Bleek, Beitr. I. 57, f. It is to be noted, in passing, that the citations of
the second class belong to the substance of the Gospel, those of the first
class to only the pragmatical accessory work peculiar to the first Evangelist.
Baur, p. 578, to be sure, concludes from the citations of the first class that
another Hebrew Gospel was the basis of our canonical Gospel. (!)
The following writers also hold that the Gospel was originally written in
Greek (see § 97 a, note c) : Hug, Fritzsche, Theile in Win. u. Engelh.
Journ, II, Schott, Isag, § 22. Credn. Einl. § 46. Neudecker, Einl. §24.
Reuss, Gesch. d. N. T. § 97. Baumgart. Crus. Comm. p. 23. Harless,
Lucubratt. Thiersch, and others.
'' So, recently, following Bolien, Eichhorn, and others, Ebrard, Krit. d.
evang. Gesch. p. 946, ff., who conjectures, moreover, that this translation
was made in the lifetime of the Apostle, and perhaps under his own super
vision ; he also supposes that the language of Papias or John the presbyter
23

178 GOSPELS .-
implies that it was already well known and in general use. To make this
out, he (as also Thiersch, Standp. d. Krit. p, 193) perverts the meaning of
the words, takes avverd^aro as used in the sense of the pluperfect, and refers
the fjppfjvevo-e, k, t, X, to the interval between the publication of the Hebrew
original and the Greek translation, Cf Bleek, Beitr, I. 59.
' Bengel, Gnom, N. T, p, 3, Schott, Isag, p. 69. Guerike, Beitr, p, 36,
cf Einl, 237. Olshausen, Comm, I, 12. Thiersch, as above, — According
to Orelli, Select, patr, eccles, capp. p, 10, two of Matthew's disciples
wrote, the one in Aramaic, the other in Greek,
§97c.
The opinion that, Matthew wrote first of all the Evange
lists prevailed in the ancient Church;* and, in fact, he is the
oldest of the Evangelists known to us (for the greater
age of the Gospel of the Hebrews is more than doubtful,
§ 65 b), save that he probably based his Gospel on an older,
though also Greek Gospel (§ 93 c, noteg-). In regard to the
date of the composition of his Gospel, we have but one
precise testimony, which brings it down to a tolerably late
period.'' Indeed, the Evangelist's stand-point is one pretty
remote from the history he narrates (xxvii. 8, xxviii. 15). It
must, however, have been written before the destruction of
Jerusalem, for he hopes for the return of Christ shortly after
that event (xxiv. 29)." Cf. § 101 c.
" Euseb. VI, 14, of Clemens Alex. : UpoyeypdcpBai 'iXeyev rSy evayyeXici>v
rd nepiexovra rds yeveaXoylas. And VI, 25, of Origen (cf, note b) : ....
Bevrepov Be rd Kard MdpKov. Euseb. III. 24 (note b): .... ^'Sj; Be MdpKov
Kal AovKd rSi' Kar' airods eJayyeXimj' rfjv eKBocriv nenoirjpevav , 'ladvvrjv cpacrl
rbv ndvra xpb^ov dypdcpco Kexprjpevov Krjpvypan, reXos Kal enl rfjv ypapfjv
eXBeiv, K, r, X. How much here may depend on tradition and on the es
tablished arrangement of the canon 1 Arrangement of the Gospels in the
MSS,
'¦ Iren. Ill, 1 (§ 97 o, note b): , , . . rod Uerpov Kal toi) IlavXou ev 'Paprj
evayyeXi^opevav Kal BepeXiovvrav rfjv eKicXrjcriav. The opinions of the later
writers [Nicephorus, Cosmos Indicopl., Theophyl., Euthym. Zio-ab.) adduced
by Eichhorn, I. 505, Bertholdt, III. 1265, cannot be taken into account.
¦^ Quite contrary to exegetical probability, Credner (Einl. p, 207) says
that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in all three Evangelists pre
supposes that event. In the passage xxiii, 35, cf Luke xi. 50, f,. Hug, II.
10, Eichhorn, I, 510, Bertholdt, II, 1269, Credner, as above, discover a refer
ence to the murder of Zacharias, Baruch's son, in Josephus, B, J. IV. 6. 4,
and consequently a trace of the date; but even granting that the participle

MATTHEW. § 98 a. 179
iKxwdpevov seems to sustain this, yet the aorist icpoveva-are is opposed to it,
and the correct conclusion remains, that the Zacharias of 2 Chron. xxiv. 19
-24 is meant, and the name Jehoiada exchanged for Barachias. (The read
ing of the Evang. sec. Hebr, [in Hieron. Quaest, in Matth, ad h, 1.], Jojada
for Berechjo, is probably an emendation,) The passage in xxvii, 15, also,
does not prove that the Jewish state had already come to an end. Accord
ing to Bour, Krit, Unterss, p. 605, ff,, note, the Gospel of Matthew must
have been written during the Jewish insurrection, because ^BeXvypa r, iprj-
paa-eas. Matt. xxiv. 15, cannot be anything but the statue of Jupiter erected
by Hadrian. (!)
Doubts regarding its Apostolic Genuineness.
§ 98 a.
The doubts urged by several critics against the apostolic
origin of our first Gospel* are in many respects of uncertain
weight, because based on more or less disputed assump
tions ; as, for instance, on the genuineness and credibility
of the fourth Gospel, which have since been called in ques
tion, on the supposed superior credibility of the third, and
on subjective notions as to what an eyewitness and Apostle
would be likely to narrate.
» After the hints of Schleiermocher (Ueb. d. Schr, d. Lucas), Liicke (Com
ment, iiber d. Ev. Job.), and Usteri (Comment, crit., in qua Ev. Joh. genu-
inum esse ex comparatis IV Evangg, narrationibus de coena ultima et pas-
sione J, C, ostenditur. 1823), this was done distinctly by Dav. Schulz, Beil.
z. Lehre v. beil. Abendm. (1824), p. 300, ff., Fr. Fischer, Einl, in d. Dogm,
(1828), p, 116, Schneckenburger, Beitr, p, 24, Schleiermocher, Einl. p. 248 ;
most comprehensively by Sieffert, Ueb. d. Urspr. d. ersten kanon. Ev.,
Schneckenb. Ueb. d. Urspr. d. ersten Ev, p, 6, ff, Kern, Ueb, d, Urspr. d.
Ev. Matth. (Tiib. Ztschr. 1834). Klener, Rec. de authent. evang. Matth,
quaestiones (1832). Schott's posthumous work, Ueb, d. Authent. des kan.
Ev. Matth. (1837). Cf. also Roediger, Symbolae quaedam ad N. T. evangg.
potissimum pertinentes. 1827. Orelli, Sel. capp. II. 1821, p. 10, Schul
thess, in Rosenmiiller' s Repert, II, 172, Credn. Einl, p, 95, Neudecker,
p, 209, ff, Ueuss, Gesch, § 96, f, (ScAAorre, according to his theory of an
original Gospel, regarded our Gospel as a later edition,) In favor of the
genuineness, see Tlieile, in Winer's Neu, krit, Journ, II, 181, ff., 346, ff,
Heydenreich, ib. III, 129, ff,, 385, ff, Guerike, Beitr, p, 27, ff, Einl, § 38,
5, Fritzsche, Prolegg, ad Matth, Schott, Isag. § 23. Ebrard, Krit. p.
961. Meyer, Einl, z, Matth, § 3, Olshous. Apostoiica ev. Matth. origo def.
3 Progrr, Erl, 1835-37. Rordam, De fide patrum .... in iis, quae de
orig. evangg  tradid. Hafn. 1839. Cf Rudelbach, in his Ztschr,
1840, IV,

180 GOSPELS.

§ 98 b.
The following grounds of doubt may be regarded as
tolerably independent of all assumptions, and certain.
They obtain pretty general assent. 1. The Gospel itself
gives no occasion, especially in the account in ix. 9, ff., for
referring its composition to the Apostle Matthew. 2. An
eyewitness and Apostle would not have passed over in si
lence Jesus's ministry in Judaea, which, in itself probable, is
recorded in John, and presupposed by Matthew (§ 110 b,
note/). 3. The chronologic arrangement seems arbitrary
(in xiv. 13 it is plainly absurd), and to have in part grown
out of an original arrangement according to subjects (xii. 9,
cf. Luke vi. 6). The crucifixion of Jesus is erroneously placed
on the first Passover-day (§ 110 b, note/). 4. Well-founded
doubts may be urged against the historical character of whole
narratives and of particular facts.* 5. The narrative every
where, and especially ix. 9, ff., and in the account of the cru
cifixion, lacks vividness. 6. Jesus's discourses are in part out
of their true historic connection,'' in part incorrectly given."
° The appointment and bribery of the watch is an improbable legend ; see
the commentators on xxvii. 62, ff,, xxviii. 11, ff. The resurrection of sev
eral dead persons is apocryphal, xxvii. 52, f. The account of the baptism
in iii. 13 ff. is mythical, when compared with John i. 32, f. The tempta
tion, iv. 1, ff,, is a symbolic representation, hut given as historical. The
miracle, xvii. 24, ff., tries one's faith in miracles too severely. Two narra
tives have been doubled by an oversight of the author in the use of his ma
terials (§ 93 c, note ^). Ch. xxvii, 3-10 has been affected by regard to
prophecy ; so also, perhaps, xxi, 7, 39, ff,
^ The discourses in x. 19, ff,, go beyond the historical horizon of that
time, (Perhaps they belong to an eschatologic source, which presupposes a
stand-point different from that of ch, xxiv,) Here, as in chh, v. - vii. (where
the assumption that Jesus is the Messiah appears too early), xiii., xviii.,
xxiii,, xxiv,, XXV,, the Evangelist has followed an arrangement according to
subjects rather than to chronology.
' xii., 39, f , xiii. 11, ff., xxviii. 19, f. (see the remarks in my Exeget.
Hdb.). This is especially applicable to the eschatological discourses, x. 23,
xvi. 27, f , xxiv., which cannot be harmonized with other expressions of
Jesus, especially in John (Bibl. Dogm. §§ 216-218).

MAKK. § 99 b. 181
II. Mark, Author of the Second Gospel.
§ 99 a.
By Mark, to whom Church tradition ascribes our second
Gospel, is unquestionably va.ea.nt John (Acts xiii. 5, 13), or
John Mark (Acts xu. 12, 25, xv. 37), or Mark (Acts xv. 39,
Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11, 1 Pet. v. 13 ?), son of
Mary (Acts xii. 12), cousin of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10), who
accompanied him and Paul on their journeys (Acts xii. 25,
xiii. 5, XV. 36 — 39), aided the latter during his imprisonment
in Rome (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, cf. 2 Tim. iv. 11), and ap
pears also as Peter's assistant (1 Pet. v. 13 ?), whose inter
preter he was, according to the statements of Church writers.
Little is known of his later history.*
* Euseb. H. E. II. 16 : .... MdpKov nparov cpacrlv inl rfjs Alyvnrov crrei-
Xdpevov, TO evayyeXiov, o hfj Kcd crvveypd^^aro, Krjpv^ai, eKKXrjcrias re nparov
in avrfjs ' AXe^avBpeias o-verrfjcracrBai. Hieron. De vir, ill, c, 8 : Mortuus est
octavo Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriae, succedente sibi Aniano. Other
accounts in Niceph. H, E. II, 44, Simeon Meiaphrasi. In martyr, S, Marci,
Baron. Annal, ad ann, 64, n, 1, have little weight.
§ 99 b.
All the Church writers, Papias here also at the head,
agree in stating that he wrote his Gospel at the dictation of
the Apostle Peter. They differ, however, in details.*
* Papias in Euseb. H. E. III. 39 : Kai rovB' d npea^vrepos (Johannes)
eXeyc • MdpKos pev epprjvevrfjs Uerpov yevdpevos. Sera ipvrjpdvevaev, UKpi^as
eypa-^ev ov pev roi rd^ei rd vnb rov Xpiarrov ^ XexBevra ^ npaxBevra - oiire
ydp fjKovcre rod KVpiov, ovre naprjKoXovBrjcrev avra, varepov Be, as ecprjv, Ue-
Tp(0, OS npbs rds xP^^as inoieiro rds BiBaa-KaXias, dXX ovx ^o-nep crivra^iv
TMJ' KvpiOKav nowvpevos Xpyiav. "Slcrre ovBev fjpapre MdpKos oiVms evla ypd-
ypas as dnepvrjpdvevcrev. 'Evbs ydp inoifjcraro npdvoiav, rod prjBev &v fJKovae
napaXmelv, ^ yjreva-aa-Bai n iv avrols. {Fritzsche, Prolegg. ad Marc. p. xxvi.,
explains wrongly the words epprjvevrrjs Uerpov yevdpevos, and Thiersch with
him, Standp. d. Kr. 181: " making himself the interpreter of Peter [by
accurately writing down, etc.].") Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV. 5: Marcus
quod edidit Evangelium, Petri adfirmatur, cujus interpres Marcus, Ori
genes in Euseb. H. E. VI. 25 : .... Bevrepov Be rb Kara MdpKov, as Ue-
rpos iKprjyfjcraro avr^, noifja-avra. Iren. III. 1 (in Euseb. H. E. V. 8) : Merd

182 GOSPELS.
rfjv rovrav {Uerpov Kal UavXdv) e^oBov MdpKos d paBrjrfjs Kai epprjvevrrjs Ue
rpov Kal avrbs rd vtto Ile'rpou Krjpv(r(rdpeva iyypdcpas fjplv napaSeBaKe. Hieron.
Ep, 150 ad Hedib, c, 11 : , , . . beatus Petrus Marcum (interpretem hahuit),
cujus Evangelium, Petro narrante et illo scribente, compositum est. — Ire
naeus is contradicted by Clement of Alexandria (Euseb, VI, 14), for he places
the writing of the Gospel in the Apostle's lifetime : Tod Uerpov Brjpocria ev
'Vaprj Krjpv^avTos rbv Xdyov, Kal nvevpan rd evayyeXiov i^emdvros, rovs na-
pdvras noXXovs bvras nap/XKaXecrai rdi' MdpKov, as dv dKoXovBrjcravra avra
ndppaBev, Kal pepi/ijpecoj' rav XexBevrav, dvaypdilrai rd elprjpeva. Uoirjcravra
Be rb evayyeXiov, peraBofjvai rols Beopevois avrov. Onep entyvdvra rbv Ue
rpov nporpenriKas [npocpavas conject. Vales,] p^re KaXva-ai pfjre npoTpe-\jra-
crBai. And indeed Euseb. II, 15 assigns this to the time of Claudius, con
tradicting the statement of Clement, although appealing to him (according
to Credner, p, 113, Thiersch, p, 212, f , through mistake [?]) in respect of
the share which Peter had in the composing of the Gospel : Tvd-vra Be npa-
xBev (pacri rbv dndcrroXov, dnoKaXv-^avros avra rod nvevparos, fjcrBfjvai rfj tSi/
dvBpav npoBvplci, kv pacrai re rfjv ypa(pfjv eis evreo^ii' rais iKKXrj-
criais. — On this tradition probably rests the statement in the Peshito, that
Mark wrote in the Roman language, which Boronius, Annal, ad ann, Chr,
45, Nr, 41, has repeated, A spurious Latin autograph in Venice and
Prague, a part of the Cod, Forojuliensis, Dobrowsky, Fragm, Prag, Evang.
S. Marci, vulgo autographi, Prag, 1778, 4to. Michaelis, Or, Bibl. XIII.
108. — Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 8, repeats the second statement of Clement,
and adds : Assumpto itaque Evangelic quod ipse confecerat, perrexit Aegy-
ptum, et primus Alexandriae Christum annuntians, constituit ecclesiam . . . .,
for he combines with it the above account of Euseb. II. 16. In a similar
strain, Epiphan. Haeres, LI, p, 428 : EvBvs Be perd rbv MarBaiov, aKoXovBos
yevdpevos b MdpKos ra dylco Uerpa iv Faprj inirpenrai rd evayyeXiov iKBe-
crBai, Kal ¦ypd\(/'as dTTOo'TeXXerai vnb rov dyiov Uerpov els rfjv rdv AlyvTrriav
Xapav. From this combination probably arose the account in Chrysosi.YLomA.
I. in Matth. : {eypa-^e) .... MdpKos . . . . iv Alyvnrco, rav paBrjrav napaKoXe-
a-dvrav avrdv, upon which, however, Chr. himself seems to place little reli
ance, Ib. p. 8 : evBa pev ovv eKa(rros Biarpi^av eypa-\frev, ov ir^dBpa fjplv Bel
la-xvpiaaa-Bai. — Wahl (Magaz. f. alte bes. morgenl. u. bibl. Litt. III. Lief)
supposes that Mark wrote in the Coptic language.
§ 100 a.
Papias's statement, which alone has weight, has been
variously understood. ~ Most writers, and of late those who
regard Mark's Gospel as the first, fofiow the ancient author
ities, and refer it directly to this in its present form ; * others,
on the other hand, have discovered that Papias's language
does not apply to our present Gospel of Mark,'' and have

MARK. § 100 b. 188
supposed that he refers to a Gospel no longer extant," which
however, according to Credner, must have been the basis of
our second canonical Gospel. The negative conclusion is
the most certain, that, in view of the structure of our so-
called Gospel of Mark, it being dependent on Matthew and
Luke, Papias's statement has neither application nor mean
ing in regard to it.
" Weisse, Evang. Gesch. I. 41, ff. iJetiss (§ 88, d). From a quite dif
ferent stand-point, Schott, § 27, note 3, finds in our Mark traces of Peter's
influence, especially in the frequent mention of this Apostle, i. 36, xi, 21,
xiii, 3, xvi. 7. According to Bertholdt, III. 1280, Peter left Mark his copy
of the Aramaic original Gospel, to be re-edited in Greek.
I" Especially ov pev roi rd^ei, for Mark is not inferior to the others in ar
rangement. — Thiersch, as before cited, p. 182, supposes that what was at
first written down without any order, Mark subsequently arranged after Luke,
and thinks he finds this even in Papias's account, by acutely referring the
last words of the Presbyter, ware oiSeV fjpapre, «.. r. X,, to the finished work
of Mark ; so that the want of arrangement is not mentioned, but the fact that
Mark wrote only "some things," i, e, a Gospel which, compared with his
predecessors, was incomplete,
' Schleiermocher, in Stud, u. Krit, 1832, 758, ff, Credner, Einleit, p,
122, f, Baur, Krit. Unterss. p. 536.
§ 100 fe.
As regards the date of its composition, Irenceus (§ 99 b,
note a) places it after the death of Peter and Paul;* Clem
ent of Alexandria, on the other hand (ib.), during the lifetime
of the latter, although he considers the first and third Gos
pels earlier in date,** which agrees with the character of this
Gospel. From its numerous Latinisms, and the passage
X. 12, Rome seems to have been the place where it was
written." * perd rfjv e^oBov does not mean cfter the departure (contrary to Ebrard,
Krit. p. 967).
'' In Euseb. VI. 14 : npoyeypd(pBai eXeyev rav evayyeXiav rd nepiexovra
rds ¦yeveaXoylas.
" X. 12, Mark presupposes the Roman divorce. Cf. "Schwegler, in Zeller's
Jbb. 1843. p. 233. According to the author of " Die Evangelien," etc., p.
367, there is also in xv. 21, cf Rom. xvi. 3, a proof of its being composed
at Rome.

184 GOSPELS.
III. Luke, Author of the Third Gospel.
§ 101a.
Luke, the accredited author of the third Gospel and of
the Acts of the Apostles, is the assistant and friend of the
Apostle Paul mentioned in 2 Tim. iv. 11, Col. iv. 14, Philem.
24 ; but not the same person as Lucius of Cyrene, Acts xiii.
1, and Lucius, Rom. xvi. 21, because Luke is equivalent to
Lucan or Lucilius.^ — Whether the Church authors are cor
rect in calling him an inhabitant of Antioch must remain
undecided ; '' that he was born a heathen we may conclude
from comparing Col. iv. 14 with ver. 11, and from his Greek
style of writing." — From Acts xvi. 10 - 17, xx. 5 - 15, xxi.
1-17, xxvii. 1- xxviii. 16, it is usually thought (see, how
ever, § 114) that the author of the Gospel and of the Acts
accompanied Paul on his journeys and to Rome. Col. iv.
14 accords with this view. The New Testament is silent
and tradition fluctuating in regard to the closing events of
his life.*
' Origen. ad Rom, XVI, 21: Lucium quidam ipsum perhibent esse Lu
cam, qui Evangelium scripsit, pro eo quod soleant nomina interdum secun
dum patriam declinationem, interdum etiam secundum Graecam Romanam-
que proferri, Cf on the other side Grotius, Ad Luc, Evang,
>¦ Euseb. H, E, III. 4. Hieron. Praef in Matth., De vir. ill. c. 7. Does
this account rest on Acts xiii. 1 ?
" He was a disciple of Paul, according to Jerome, Praef. in Matth. ; one
of the seventy disciples, according to Origen, Dial, de rect, fid, I, 806.
Epiphan. Haeres. LI, p, 433 ; the companion of Cleopas mentioned Luke
xxiv, 13, according to Theophylact in loc. His calling, according to Col, iv.
14. Traces of his medical knowledge, Luke iv. 38, Acts xiii. 11, according
to Michaelis, Einl.. II. 1078 (?). According to Nicephorus, H. E. II. 43,
he was at the same time a painter.
'' Prilius, Introd. in N. T. ed. Hofmann, p. 180.
§ 1016.
He also is said to have written under the direction of an
Apostle, namely, Paul* But in his preface (i. 2, f ) the
author himself gives no hint of such a relation, but refers
rather to the tradition of the eyewitnesses of and participa-

LUKE. § 101 c. 185
tors in the history which he narrates, and to its documents
written by others. His dependence on evangelic tradition
and on Matthew (§ 93), as well as the character of the narra
tives in the Acts (§ 114), supports this view rather than that
of the Church. Thus much, however, is correct, that the
author was of Paul's school (cf. §§ 91, f., 93 c\.
^ Iren. III. 1 (cf. Euseb. H, E, V, 8) : Kai Aovkos Be d dKoXovBos UavXov
TO vn iKelvov Krjpvcrcrdpevov evayyeXiov iv jSijSXio) KariBero. Tertull. Adv.
Marc. IV. 5 : Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere sclent. Origen, in Euseb.
H. E. VL 25, goes yet further : Kai rplrov rb Kara AovKdv, rb vnb UavXov
inaivovpevov evayyeXiov (Rom. ii. 16). So also Euseb. Ill, 4: #ao-i B' as
apa rov Kar avrbv eva-yyeXlov pvrjpoveveiv b lladXos elaBev, bnrjviKa, acrnep
IBiov nvbs eva-yyeXiov ypdcpav eXeye " Kard rd evayyeXiov pov " (2
Tim, ii, 8). And Hieron. De vir, ill, c, 7: Quidam suspicantur, quoties-
cunque in epistolis suis Paulus dicit, juxta Evangelium meum, de Lucae
significare volumine, et Lucam non solum ab Apostolo Paulo didicisse Evan
gelium, qui cum Domino in carne non fuerat, sed et a caeteris Apostolis,
§ 101 c.
An ancient statement exists regarding the place of the
composition of this Gospel,* but has no weight. Tradition
is silent in regard to its date.*" On internal grounds, it ap
pears to have been earlier than the second Gospel, although
tolerably late, for it presupposes many evangelic works al
ready in existence (i. 1, f ), a somewhat confused Gospel
tradition, persecution of the Christians as already begun
(xxi. 12, cf. Matt. xxiv. 8 ; Luke xii. 32, xviii. 1, ff.), the de
struction of Jerusalem (xxi. 20-24, cf Matt. xxiv. 15, ff.),
and the hope of the coming of Christ disconnected from the
last event (xxi. 25, cf Matt. xxiv. 29)."
' Hieronym. Praef. in Matth. : Lucas .... in Achajae Boeotiaeque par
tibus volumen condidit. The Syriac version hears the title : Evangelium
Lucae Evangelistae, quod protulit et evangelizavit Graece in Alexandria
magna, cf. Grabe, Spicil. patr. I. 32, sq.
i" Iren. III. 1, by speaking of Mark before he mentions Luke, seems to
indicate Luke as the later. On the contrary, Clem. Al. § 101 b, note b.
= Cf. Koiser, Bibl. Theol, I, 247, Credn. p. 159. Bleek, Beitr. I. 53.
Against this, Neudeck. p. 273. The majority place the date with that of
the Acts, about the time of Paul's imprisonment. Cf § 116.
24

186

GOSPELS.

§102.
The author of the third Gospel wrote his evangelic nar
rative for one Theophilus (Luke i. 3, Acts i. 1), who was a
Christian or a friend of Christianity, perhaps a man of dis
tinction,* and- ^probably a Roman or an Italian.''
' The adjective Kpdrierros seems, according to Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3,
xxvi, 25, to indicate this,
' This supposition rests on the acquaintance with the geography of Italy
assumed in Acts xxviii, 12, 13, 15, Cf Luke i, 26, iv. 31, xxiv. 13, Acts
i. 12, xvi. 12, xxvii. 8, 12, 16, Hug, Einl, II, § 35, Eichhorn, I, 593,
With this agrees the account of Eutychi us, Orig, eccles, ed. Selden. (Lond.
1642), p. 36. —Opinion of Heumonn, De Theophilo. Bibl. Brem. CI. IV.
fasc. III. p. 483. See other opinions in Winer, Bibl. Real-WB., in the
Art. Theophilus. According to the author of " Die Evangelien," etc.,
p. 249, Theophilus is a feigned name for any Pauline Christian.

CHAPTER IV.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

Comparison of the Same with the First Three Gospels.
1. In rasped of its Style of Narrative and Writing.
§103.
Some of the narratives in this Gospel are parallel with
the synoptical accounts, or closely resemble the synoptical
style of narration.* Parallel expressions also occur.'' In
other respects the Evangefist seems to presuppose in his
readers acquaintance with the evangelic tradition (i. 32, f , 45,
n. 1, iii. 24, xi. 2).
» ii. 13 -22, cf Matt. xxi. 12, f ; iv. 46 - 53, cf Matt. viii. 5- 13 ; v.
1-9; vi. 1-15, cf Matt. xiv. 13-21; vi. 16-21, cf. Matt. xiv. 22- 36 ;
vii. 53 -viii. 11 (to be sure, questioned by critics as ungenuine) ; xii. 1-8,
cf. Matt. xxvi. 6 - 13 ; xii. 9 - 19, cf Matt, xxi, 1 - 11 ; xiii. 36 - 38, cf

JOHN. §104. 187
Matt. xxvi. 33 - 35. The healing of the blind man, ix. 6, similar to Mark
viii. 23.
'' In part in literal agreement: xii, 25, cf Matt, x, 39 ; xiii, 20, cf Matt,
X. 40 ; iv. 44, cf Matt. xiii. 57 ; xiii. 16, cf Matt. x. 24.
§ 104.
As, on the one hand, much important matter belonging to
the very substance of the evangelic history (e. g. the establish
ment of the Lord's Supper) has been omitted, and, on the
other, much narrated which is not found in the Synoptics ;
as, too, in the narratives or series of narratives which give
the same events discrepances occur, and once, iii. 24, an er
roneous statement seems to be expressly corrected ; — it has
been supposed that our Evangelist meant to fill out and
correct the other three Gospels.*
But granting it to be not incredible that the Evangefist was
acquainted with earlier Gospels, and perhaps even with our
Matthew,'' he has neither in xx. 30, f , nor elsewhere, men
tioned this design ; nor can it be presupposed, in the face of
narratives which repeat, without completing or correcting, the
parallel narratives, e. g. vi. 1, ff., xii. 1, ff. In more or less
important divergences, as ii. 13-22, cf Matt. xxi. 12, ff. ;
i. 35-52, cf. Matt. iv. 18, ff. ; vii. -xii., cf Matt. xix. -xxi. ;
xviii. 28, xix. 31, cf. Matt. xxvi. 17, ff., which do not present
any so express contradiction as ni. 24, the design of correct
ing must have been very dimly present to his mind.
" Euseb. H. E. III. 24 : "USrj Be MdpKov Kal AovKd rSv kot' adrods evayye
Xiav rfjv eKBocriv nenoirjpevav, 'ladvvrjv cpacrl rbv ndvra xpdvov dypdcpca Kexprj
pevov Krjpvypan, reXos Kal eTri rfjv ypa(pfiv iXBeiv roidCTfie X"/"" a'lrlas. Tav
npoavaypacpevrav rpiav els ndvras fjBrj Kal els avrbv BiaBeBopivav, dnoBi^aa-Bai
pev ^acriv, dXfjBeiav avrols inipaprvpfjcravra- pdvrjv Be apa XeinecrBai r^
ypacpfj rfjv nepl rav iv nparois koi Kar dpxfjV rod Krjpvyparos vnb rod Xpicrrov
nenpaypevav Bifjyrjmv. Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 9 :  quod quum legisset
Matthaei, Marci, et Lucae volumina, probaverit quidem textum historiae, et
vera eos dixisse firmaverit, sed unius tantum anni, in quo et passus est, post
carcerem Joannis historiam texuisse, Praetermisso itaque anno, cujus acta
a tribus exposita fuerant, superioris temporis, antequam Joannes clauderetur
in carcerem, gesta narravit. Cf Storr, Zweck d. evang, Gesch, u, Br,
Joh, p, 246, Michaelis, Einl, II, 1158, Eichhorn, Einl. II. § 159, p. 137,
who makes him refer to and correct the Original Gospel. Schmidt, Einl. I.
146 suggests the Gospel of Marcion.

188 OOSPELS.
^ Bleek, Beitr, I. 268. According to Liicke, I. 198, f,, he was acquainted
with only the oral Gospel tradition. § 105 a.
The manner of narration differs from that of the Synoptists
(who give the tradition whofiy free from admixture of their
own personality, excepting that Luke introduces himself as
compiler): — 1. In the circumstance that here an eyewitness
appears (i. 14, xix. 35, cf. 1 John i. 1, f, iv. 14), and proves
himself such by historical vividness and originality (i. 35, ff.,
xiii. 22, ff., xviii. 15, ff., xix. 4, ff., 26, f, 34), or at least one
who has obtained accurate information (i. 31, ff., v. 10, ff.,
vii. 1, ff., ix., xi., xii., xviu. 28, ff., and other passages).* It
must be admitted, on the other hand, that traces occur of a
view of facts and relations formed at a distance both of time
and place.'' This, and the conjoining of circumstances
chronologically separate (vii. 21, cf v. 1 - 16 ; x. 26, cf x. 1
-18 ; xii. 34, cf. iii. 14), seem to betray an author in whose
non-original view of the history intervals of time became
confounded, rather than an eyewitness."
" Even obscurities in the representation, as ii. 3-5, xi. 4,6, xii. 23, seem
deducible from his own apprehension and recollection. On the contrary,
the more correct apprehension, we must own, is found in Matt. xiv. 15,
as compared with John vi. 5, Cf Exeg. Hdb. on the passages. Strauss,
Leben Jesu, II, 212, f,, 1st ed. As here and in the following verse the
narrative of the miracle has the appearance of being developed and worked
over, it seems natural to ascribe iv, 43-53 also to a later tradition, because
of ver, 50, ff,, and likewise the manner of healing in ix, 6,
"J In the numerous vague statements that " the Jews" persecuted Jesus
and sought to destroy him (v, 16, 18, vii, 1, 19, 25, viii, 37, 40, xi, 8, cf
vii, 30, viii. 20) ; in the position of the Evangelist in relation to the Jews,
their ritual system, and their customs (ii, 6, 13, v, 1, vi, 4, vii. 2, xi. 49,
xix. 40), and which he even ascribes to Jesus (viii. 17, x, 34, xv, 25, cf
Fischer, Ueb. d, Ausdruck oi 'looSaioi im Ev, Joh,, in the Tiib. Ztschr. 1840,
IL) ; in the relation of Jesus to Judas Iscariot and his treachery, betraying
rather a view of his fate adopted subsequently than a genuine historical
pragmatism (vi, 64, 70, f,, xiii, 11, 18, 26, f) ; in the evident reference of
iv, 36 - 38 to Acts viii, 4, ff, ; in geographico-topographic and archsological
difficulties (iii, 23, iv, 7[?], 52, ». 2, xviii. 1 [?], xi, 49, xviii, 13).
¦= On the other hand, in vi. 36, x. 25, f , are found false back-references
concerning sayings of Jesus. The remarks in x. 1, ff,, xv. 1, ff., seem with-

JOHN. §105 6. 189
out connection. The sayings in xiii. 20, xiv. 31, may be regarded as remi
niscences inappropriately worked into the narrative.
§ 105 b.
2. This Gospel is distinguished by conversations given in
a sort of dialectic form, whereas the first three Gospels give
Jesus's utterances usually in fragments, as proverbs, or ar
ranged consecutively as doctrinal discourses (iii., iv., vi. 26,
ff., vii., and other passages ; cf. Matt. viii. 19, ff., ix. 12, ff.,
xi. 4, ff., v.- vii., X., xiii., xxiv., Luke xii., xv. -xviii.)." This
dialectic form of discourse is not, like the proverbial form,
capable of being easily remembered and reproduced in its
original shape ; its retention and reproduction can therefore,
if it is authenticated as true and reliable, be expected only
from an eyewitness. But in this case grave doubts arise
against its correctness and reliableness,'' and the candid critic
must admit that the Evangelist has given a free representa
tion of Christ's discourses.
° As they sometimes record dialogues (Matt, xii, 22, ff,, xix, 16, ff,,
Luke X, 25, ff,), so in John we find also proverbial maxims and parables
(xii. 24-26, xiii. 16,20, x. 1, ff,, xv, 1, ff.). The latter, however, are
broadly distinguished from those of the Synoptists by their want of histori
cal foundation, and by a certain dialectic flow. Comp. E. A. Borger, De
constanti et aequabili J, C. indole, doctrina et docendi ratione, sive comment.
de Ev. Joan. c. Matth. Marci et Lucae Evangg. comparato. P, I, 1816,
° The discourses of Jesus, as well as of John the Baptist, iii, 27, ff,, are
closely allied to the prologue, and to the First Epist, of John, In iii, 16, ff.,
31, ff., the previous free reproduction passes over into the language of
the Evangelist himself. The discourse xii. 44, ff. is manifestly a free
composition. Much in Jesus's discourses may be called in question as not
to the purpose (iii. 14, iv.21,ff., vi. 51, ff., xi. 42), and harsh (viii. 44, x. 8) ;
his habit of causing misunderstanding and objection, hy his strong and striking
expressions, rather than of removing them (iii. 3,5,ff., 14, vi.51), as not be
coming his wisdom as a teacher ; their mystico-allegorical (iii. 14) and enig
matical (viii. 33, f.) character, as unworthy of his simple mode of teaching.
The notion of the Logos is, to be sure, not stated in Jesus's discourses, but
it substantially appears in viii. 58, x. 30, xvii. 5. The replies and objections
of spectators, which serve to carry out and prolong Jesus's discourses, are too
uniform, and often so intrinsically improbable as to tempt one to regard them
as added by the Evangelist (iii. 4, 9, iv. 11, f , 15, 33, vi. 34, 42, 52, viii,
19, 22, 33, 39, 41,52, f, [cf. iv. 12,] 57, x. 33, xi. 12, xiv. 5, 8,22, xvi,
17, f). Cf. Bretschneider, Probabilia, pp. 31, sq., 45,48, 52,54,55, 57, 59.

190 GOSPELS.

§ 105 c.
The unquestionably original Greek' style of the writing
has also a certain Hebrew cast, although more smoothness
and flow than in the Synoptics. It has also a remarkable
peculiarity, less in its phraseology and grammatic turns,
than in the artless simplicity of the structure and connection
of the sentences, in the quiet and even, though sometimes
unconnected and merely sketchy, character of the discourse,
in its easy statement of the weightiest and most comprehen
sive truths in figurative abstract language, in a profound
clearness and pregnant brevity, and in an inexpressible charm
of discourse, by which the mind of the reader, gently drawn
and firmly held, is at once deeply moved and soothed.*"
' Against Grotius (Prolegg. in Ev. Job,), Solmasius (De lingua Helle
nist, p, 257), Bolien (Der Bericht des Joh, von Jesu, Vorber, § 9), who
suppose a Syriac original, see Schmidt, Biblioth, Bd, II. St, 2, Wegschei
der, Einl. ins Ev. Joh. p, 253, ff, Eichhorn, Einl, II, 258, ff, Mcke,
Comment, I. 169, ff,
"" Seyffarth, Beitr, z, Specialcharakteristik d, johann, Schriften, 1823,
Dan. Schulze, Der schriftst. Char, u, Werth des Joh. 1803. Tholuck, Einl,
z. Comment, § 4, Eichhorn, as above, p. 262, ff, Schott, § 41, Credner,
p. 223, ff. Particular peculiarities of the style of writing: — Expressions
wholly peculiar : dXfjBeiav, iniBvpiav noielv ', dvdcrracris ^arjs, Kpicreas : dpap-
riav exeiv ; dnepxecrBai els rd dnicra ; dpxav rod Kocrpov rovrov ; Kara^aiveiv
iK rov ovpavov ; yevvrjBfjvai avaBev, eK ^eod, eK nvevparos ', elvai c'k ri^v Kara,
e'K rod Kdcrpov, eK rmz/ dva ; i^epxecrBai eK rod ^eod ; icrxdrrj fjpepa ', Kpd^eiv
(of the teaching) ; paprvpiav, Bd^av Xap^dveiv ; pera^aiveiv (trop.) ; o-<^is',
napaKXrjros ', rrjpelv rbv Xdyov ; -yfnixfjv riBevai, &c. Favorite and technical
expressions : Kocrpos, dpapria, crKorla, (pas, dXfjBeia, Bd^a, Bo^d^eiv, Cofj, peveiv
iv nvl, paprvpia (not paprvpiov), epxeaBai els rbv Koo-pov, dpfjv, dpfjv, &c.
Continuing the narrative by ovv, and also by unconnected clauses, as e, g,
i. 26, 40-42, 46-51 ; peculiar use of the conj, Iva, iv, 34, vi, 50; very
frequent use of the pronouns iKelvos, ovros, &c., of the present in the narra
tive; repetition by negation or aflirmation (i, 3, 20, [cf, 1 John ii. 27,] vi.
53, f) ; antitheses (i. 13, iii. 6, i, 17, iii, 18, 20, f,, 36, v, 19,31) ; propo
sitions apparently general, but referring to particular individuals (iii, 27, 29,
31, 34, vii, 18) ; extended development of the thought by taking up again
the same idea or sentence (i. 1, 4, f,, 10, f, 33, iii, 5, 7, 17, ff., vi, 48, ff.,
,53, ff,).

JOHN. § 106. 191
2.- In respect of its Gontenis and Stand-point.
§106.
In respect of its contents, this Gospel differs from the
others, — 1. by enriching the stock of Gospel matter with
many new narratives, especially of miracles, which leave
those of the Synoptists far behind them, and by its extend
ing the sphere of Jesus's ministry to Judaea, and lengthening
it beyond one year ; 2. by a more spiritual, comprehensive,
and profound statement of his doctrine and his work,
since the theocratico-messianic and other doctrinal con
ceptions of the Jews, which in the Synoptics have almost
entire validity, serve here merely as the foundation of a new
and fiving development of thought (see iii. 17, v. 21, ff., xi.
25, xiv. 2) ; sinoe the popular restriction of the messianic
work is wholly broken down (x. 16), and the new life of
" grace and truth " (i. 17) and " love " (xiii. 34) entirely severed
from the ancient Jewish legalism ; and since the idea of this
new life, apprehended morally, as in the Synoptics, only far
deeper (cf iii. 3 with Matt. iv. 7, v. 20), is at the same time
connected with the ideas peculiar to the Christian faith, it
being represented especially as mediated by the person of
Jesus alone, which, one with God, manifested God in a liv
ing form, and by his sacrificial death, — and as maintained
by the community of brotherly love founded by him and by
the independent Spirit of Truth which should come in place
of his personal presence. The consciousness of Jesus con
cerning himself and his relation to God and the world which
he is to save and to rule, is expressed in this Gospel (as is but
seldom the case in the Synoptists, cf Matt. xi. 27, ff.', x.xvi.
64) purposely (most of his discourses refer to it), decidedly,
and in so comprehensive a manner, that the bounds of indi
vidual human consciousness are passed (viii. 58, xvii. 5).
At the same time, the Gospel reflects the consciousness of a
perfect disciple, assured of communion with him, and of the
possession of his spirit, who, by dogmatic speculation, after
the manner of the Alexandrine-Jewish theosophy, had raised

192 GOSPELS.
his faith in him into knowledge (i. 1, ff.), and who in a similar
mystico-allegoric fashion handles the Old Testament (iii. 14,
vui. 56, 58, xii. 41)." While the person and the work of
Christ are thus set forth in clear light, in so much the
stronger contrast therewith stands the dark mass of the un
believing " world," especially of Judaism. Thus the stand
point of the Evangelist is distinctly polemic, for he, even
more than the Synoptists, places Jesus in a polemic atti
tude, and frequently mentions the hostility of the " Jews."
" When Clem. Alex, in Euseb. PL E. VI, 14, says: Tbv pevroi 'ladvvrjv
ecrxarov cTvviBovra, on rd a-apariKa ev rols evayyeXiois BeBrjXarai, nporpa-
nevra vnb roij' yvapipav, nvevpan BeocpoprjBevra, nvevpariKbv noifjcrai ev
ayyeXiov, — his meaning probably is that the first three Evangelists por
tray the external glory of Jesus, his miraculous birth, miracle-working,
transfiguration on the mount, resurrection, and ascension, while John shows
his internal glory, oneness with the Father, and eternal glory, — Jesus de
clares himself to be the Messiah more clearly than in the first three Gospels,
iv, 26, V, 17, ff,, viii, 28, 36, 56, ix, 35, ff., x. 7, 9, 25, 35, f —For a more
exact comparison of this Gospel with the others, designed to show both the
differences and affinities, see Schott, § 38, note 4. Cf. /. W. Rettburg, An
Joannes in exhibenda Jesu natura reliquis canonicis scriptis vere repugnet,
Gott. 1826. Svo. 3. In respect of Arrangement.
§ 107 a.
The arrangement is somewhat like that of the first Gos
pel, and it is probable that this formed its basis."
"¦ Table of Comparison : —
Chap, i. Introductory, in a meas
ure parallel to .... Matt. i. -iv. 22.
i. 1 - 18. Prologue, general view
and sum of the whole,
Ver, 1-5, Ante-mundane and ante-
messianic existence and influence
of the " Word," in a measure = — i. Genealogy and divine origin
of Jesus.
Ver, 14, Incarnation of the" Word." — i, 25; ii, Jesus's birth,
Ver. 19-34, Testimony of John the
Baptist, — iii.
Ver. 35-52, Some attach themselves
as disciples to Jesus. — iv. 18-22.

JOHN. §107 6. 193
Chap, ii.-xii. First Division. Je
sus's ministry, rejection, and ac
knowledgment. Matt. iv. 23 - xxiii. 39.
ii.-vi. First Subdivision. Jesus's
work in Galilee and Judaea. — iv. 23 -xviii. 35. Jesus's work
in Galilee.
vii. -xii. Second Subdivision. Jesus's
last journey to Jerusalem and stay
there, in a measure parallel with — xix. -xxiii.
xiii. - XX. Second Division. Jesus
glorified in his death. — xxiv. - xxviii.
xiii. - xvii. First Subdivision. Je
sus glorified in the circle of his
disciples. — xxiv. 1 - xxvi, 35,
xviii. -XX. Second Subdivision. Je
sus's sufferings, death, and resur
rection. — xxvi, 36 -xxviii. 20,
xxi. Supplement.
Comp. on the division by other writers Liicke, Comm. I. 177, ff.
4. In respect of the Object.
§ 107 &.
The object of the Gospel is solely to prove the Messianic
and divine dignity of Jesus, and the necessity of faith in him
to produce true fife (cf. xx. 31). It is accordingly in part
apologetic, in part, as opposed to a hostile unbelief, confuta-
tory, in part confirmatory to the faithful. The historic aim
is, as in the other Gospels (§ 61), comparatively secondary,
though not to such a degree that the Evangelist could
transform the historic reality of Jesus's person into an ideal
istic phantom, and, knowingly leaving evangelic tradition,
give himself up to inventive fancy, as Baur asserts.* The
author draws his proofs partly, as do the Synoptics, from the
testimony of John the Baptist, from Jesus's miracles and
manifestations of higher knowledge (i. 49, ii. 24, f , iv. 17. f.,
vi. 64, xiii. 11, 18, f.), and from Old Testament prophecies
(i. 46, ii. 17, V. 39, 46, xn. 14, 38, xiii. 18, xvu. 12, xix. 24, 36) ;
in part, and chiefly, from Jesus's discourses and declarations
regarding himself ; partly, in fine, from the speculative prin
ciples of the Evangelist. These are so adduced as to place
25

194 GOSPELS.
Jesus's work and person in a very high and pure light, as
the founder of a kingdom of Truth (xviii. 36), as the Light
of the World (viii. 12), as the Bearer of Truth and Grace
(i. 17), as one with God (x. 30), as he who alone can lead
to the Father (xiv. 6). Such a defineation could in general
be apprehended only by readers of very high capacity for
receiving truth, power of thought, and of extended compre
hensiveness of vision. Hence we must suppose that the Evan
gelist wrote especially for Greek and Grseco-Jewish readers.''
" Houff, in St, u, Kr, 1846, pp, 550, ff,, makes good objections to Baur's
view, the foundation of which is destroyed in the very beginning by his false
apprehension of i, 9, ff,, p. 574, ff, — While no precise dogmatic aim can be
ascribed to narratives like vi, 16-21, xii. 1 -8, chap, ix, shows how care
fully the Evangelist respects reality, and in i, 14, xix, 35, he appeals to
his own experience (not, as Bour thinks, to his idealistic apprehension),
¦¦ Hence the explanations in i, 38, 41, f,, iv. 25, 9, ii, 6, v, 2, xi, 18,
which for Palestinian Jews would be superfluous, and the manner in which
the Jews are spoken of (§ 105 a). § 107 c.
The supposed special polemical designs are either foreign
to the Evangelist, or at most find in isolated passages only
a feeble confirmation. This applies to the theory that the
Evangelist wrote against the Gnostics.''' At the utmost, it
is probable that he designed to give a better direction to the
already awakening speculation concerning the connection
between the Old and the New Testament revelations, and
the relation of the hidden God to the revelation of Him in
Christ. It is, however, more correct to regard all that bears
upon Gnosticism as the untrammelled statement of his
own view.
» Iren. Cont. haeres. I. III. c. 11, § 1 : Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes
Domini discipulus, volens per Evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a
Cerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem, et multo prius ab his, qui
dicuntur Nicolaitae, qui sunt vulsio ejus, quae falso cognominatur scientia,
ut confunderet eos et suaderet, quoniam unus Deus, qui omnia fecit per ver
bum suum, et non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem,
alium autem patrem Domini ; et alium quidem fabricatoris filium, alterum
vero de superioribus, Christum, quem et impassibilem perseverasse, de-
scendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse in suum

JOHN. § 107 d. 195
pleroma ; et initium quidem esse Monogenem, Logon autem verum filium
Unigeniti ; et eam conditionem, quae est secundum nos, non a primo Deo
factam, sed a virtute aliqua valde deorsum subjecta et abscissa ab eorum
communicatione, quae sunt invisibilia et innominabilia : omnia igitur talia
circumscribere volens discipulus Domini et regulam veritatis constituere in
Ecclesia, quia est unus Deus omnipotens, qui per verbum suum omnia fecit
et visibilia et invisibilia ; significans quoque, quoniam per Verbum, per quod
Deus perfecit conditionem, in hoc et salutem his, qui in conditione sunt,
praestitit hominibus, sic inchoavit, etc. (That Irenteus here refers also to
the Valentinians, who came much later, is shown by Storr, Ueber Iren. III.
11, in Eichhorn's Rep. XIV. p. 127, ff.) Hieron. De vir, ill, c, 9: , . . .
adversus -Cerinthum aliosque haereticos et maxime tunc Ebionitarum dogma
consurgens, qui asserunt Christum ante Mariam non fuisse : unde et com-
pulsus est divinam ejus nativitatem edicere. But the doctrine of Cerinthus, —
. . . . Et post baptismum descendisse in eum (Jesum) ab ea principalitate,
quae est super omnia, Christum figura columbae, et tunc annuntiasse incog-
nitum Patrem, et virtntes perfecisse : in fine autem revolasse iterum Christum
de Jesu et Jesum passum esse, etc. {Iren. I. 26), — is, if not favored by John
i. 32, f., not distinctly contradicted. Epiphan. Haeres. LI. § 3, of the
Alogi : Xe'youo'i pfj elvai aird (the Johannic writings) 'laavvov, dXXd Krjpiv-
Bov. — In favor of this theory, see Michaelis, Einl. II. 1135, ff. Storr,
Zweck d. ev. Gesch., &c., p. 180, ff. Hug, Einl. II. § 51, Schott, § 40,
not, 7. Schneckenburger, Beitrage, p. 60, ff., who by means of this po
lemic design explains certain omissions, e. g. that of the agony. On the
contrary, Eichhorn, Einl. II. 192, ff. Schmidt, Einl. I. 148, and against
Schneckenb. in special Liicke, Comm, I, 219, ff,, who however supposes the
above conciliatory design. Kleuker, Joh. Petr. Paul, als Christologen, p. 36,
ff., stands by the Gnostics (Theosophic) simply.
§ 107 rf.
There appears also no distinct opposition to Docetism, al
though some passages might be used in refuting it (i. 14, xix.
34, XX. 20, 27), while the First Epistle of John seems directed
against such an error (§ 179).*
• In favor of this theory, see Semler, Paraphr. ad Joh. i. 14, Bertholdt,
Einl, III. 1318. Eckermann, Erkl. aller dunkein Stellen d. N. T. II. 5.
Schmidt, Bibl. I. 73. Ag. Niemeyer, De Docetis. Hal. 1823. 4to, Schneck
enburger, as above, who on this ground explains the omission of the trans
figuration. Opposed to this, Kuinoel, Prolegg, in Ev, Joh, p, 53, sqq.
Hug, Einl. IL 188, f.

196 GOSPELS. § 107 e.
The theory* that the Evangelist wrote against Ebion
itism and against the Nomism which Paul also attacked, is
certainly countenanced by the tenor and spirit of the Gospel
(i. 13, 17, iii. 3, iv. 21, v. 9, ff., vi. 32, x. 16) ; but designed
and express opposition of this sort is wanting, and even that
against the Jewish law is far behind the stand-point of the
Evangefist (i. 17).
» Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 9 (§ 107 c, note a). Schott, § 40, note 5. Cf
Longe, Die Judenchristen, Ebioniten u. Nicolaiten d. apost. Zeit (Lpz.
1828), p. 147, ff, § 107/.
Finally, the theory that he is opposing the disciples of
John must first be freed from its false reference to the Zabi-
ans or Mendceans^ who stand in no historic connection with
John's disciples, and to other later disciples of John.'' The
Evangelist could refer to only such disciples of John as are
mentioned in Acts xviii. 24, xix. 1, ff. These, however, did
not acknowledge John as the Messiah, but were merely ig
norant concerning Jesus. He therefore could not so much
oppose them as seek to win them."
^ Resting on the accounts and suppositions regarding this sect in Igna
tius o Jesu, Narratio originis, rituum et errorum Christianorum S. Joh. etc.
Rom. 1652. Svo. Engelb. Kaempfer, Amoenitatt. exot. Fasc. V. Lemg. 1712.
4to. Matth. Norberg, De relig. et lingua Sabaeorum, in comment. Ggt-
ting. p. a, 1780, Vol, III, Biornstahl's Briefe, VI, 265, ff, C, G, J. Walch,
Observatt, de Sabaeis in commentt, Gott, 1781, the theory of this polemical
design was adopted by Ooerbeck, Neue Vers, iib, d, Ev, Joh, 1784. Storr,
Zweck d, ev, Gesch, u, d, Br, Joh. Michaelis, Einl, II. 1440. Hug, II,
§ 52, and others, (Before this, the same was indicated by Grotius, Schlich
ting, Wolzogen, Herder, cf Wegscheider, Einl. p. 229.) It was opposed by
Lindemann, in Eichhorn's Allg. Bibl. X. 379. H. E. G. Poulus, Intro-
duct, in N. T. capp. selectt. p. 194. Schmidt, Einl. I. 150, f. Eichhorn,
II. 199, ff. Gesenius gives more exact information concerning the Zabians
in the specimen number of the Hall. AUg. Encyclop. Art. Zobier. Cf
Liicke, I, 225, ff.
i" Recognilt. Clement. I. 54, in Coteler. Patr. apost. I, 500 : Et ex disci
pulis Johannis, qui videbantur esse magni, segregarunt se a populo et ma-
gistrum suum veluti Christum praedicarunt, c, 60: Et ecce unus ex

JOHN. § 108 a. 197
discipulis Johannis aflBrmabat, Christum Johannem fuisse et non Jesum : in
tantum, inquit, ut et ipse Jesus (Matth. xi. 11) omnibus hominibus et pro
phetis majorem pronuntiaverit Johannem. Si ergo, inquit, major est
omnibus, sine dubio et Moyse, et ipso Jesu major habendus est. Quodsi
omnium major est, ipse est Christus.
' With Herder (Von Gottes Sohne, &c., p, 24), a peaceful, conciliatory
reference to the disciples of John seems to me admissible, /.iicAe rejects
every reference, 5. In respect of the Date of Composition.
§ 107 g-.
If we put all these circumstances together, viz. that the
fourth Gospel presupposes an evangelic tradition and prob
ably also our first Gospel (§§ 104, 107 a), that it is written
from a higher stand-point, which has in view a further de
velopment of Christianity (§ 106), and for Greek and Grseco-
Jewish readers (§ 107 b) ; * the opinion of the ancient
Church, that it was written after the other three Gospels
(§ 104, note a, § 106, note a, § 111, note a), is confirmed, at
least in so far that we must date it later than the first Gospel
and other lost Gospels.''
• Perhaps also with polemic designs (§ 107 c, d), which refer to a later
time and to Greek environments.
'' According to Semler, Paraphr. in Ev. Joh. i. 11. Tittmann, Meletem.
p. 13, and even according to Schleiermocher, Einl. p. 331, it is the oldest
Gospel, Is John the Author ? Accounts of him.
§ 108 a.
The current opinion in the Church is, that the author of
the fourth Gospel is the Apostle John, son of Zebedee,
brother of James the Elder, son of Salome (cf Matt, xxvii.
56 with Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1), the most intimate disciple of
Jesus, formerly a fisherman on the Lake of Gennesaret (Matt.
iv. 21, Mark i. 19, Luke v. 10) , but also previously, as it seems,
a follower of John the Baptist (John i. 35). After Jesus's
ascension, he remained some time in Jerusalem (Acts iii. 1,
viii. 1, 14, 25, Gal. ii. 9), and, according to Church tradition.

198 GOSPELS.
went thence to Asia Minor, settled at Ephesus, and there
died.^' And yet in Paul's time he could hardly have made
that city his abode, else had Paul not sought a sphere of
labor there (cf. Rom. xv. 20, 2 Cor. x. 16, Gal. ii. 7, 8) ; more
over, neither the speech in Acts xx. 18, nor any of the letters
written to that region (those to the Ephes., Coloss., Tim.),
presupposes John's presence there. He probably did not
leave Jerusalem before the breaking out of the Jewish war.*"
' Nicephor. H. E, II, 42 : 'lo-ropeirai, ws d Beidraros ovros evayyeXurrfjs
perd rfjV ets ovpavovs dvoBov 'irjcrov crvvfjv rfj prjrpl rod ^eod e'l' ra Kara rd
"Siiav o'lKa avrov dxpi rfjs npbs Kvpiov iKBrjpias aitrfjs - eneira Be ev Acria ye
vbpevov evayyeXiaraa-Bai rbv Xpiardv. Euseb. Ill, 1, according to Origen:
'ladvvrjs rfjv ' Act lav {e'iXrjXev) - npbs ovs Kal Biarpi-'p-as iv E(pecrco reXevra.
III. 23, according to Clem. Alex. : 'EneiBfj rod rvpdvvov reXevrfjcravros, dnb
rfjS Udrpov rrjs vfjo-ov perfjXBev els rfjv "Ecpea-ov, n, i, X, Ib. according to
7?"ere. II, 22, 6 : Kai ndvres ol npea-pirepoi paprvpovcnv, ol Kara rfjv 'Aolav
'ladvvrj Ti5 rod Kopi'ov paBrjrfj avp^ePXrjKores, napaBeBaKevai ravra rbv 'la
dvvrjv. Uapepeive ydp avrols pexpi rav Tpa'lavov xpdvav. V. 8, according
to 7re7i. III. 1 : "ETTeira 'ladvvrjs d paBrjrfjs rod Kvpiov, d Kal inl arfjBos
avrov dvanecrav, Kai airds e^eBaKe rb EvayyeXiov, iv 'Ecpecrco r^s 'Aalas Bia-
rpi^av, Hieron, De vir, ill, c. 9 : Quarto decimo igitur anno, secundam
post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam rele-
gatus, scripsit Apocalypsin  Interfecto autem Domitiano et actis ejus
ob nimiam crudelitatem a Senatu rescissis, sub Nerva principe rediit Ephe-
sum, ibique usque ad Trajanum principem perseverans, totas Asiae fundavit
rexitque ecclesias et confectus senio sexagesimo octavo post passionem Do
mini anno mortuus, juxta eandem urbem sepultus est, Polycrates, Bishop
of Ephesus, in Euseb. Ill, 31, V, 24 : "En Be Kai 'ladvvrjs b en-i rd orfjBos
rod Kvpiov dvanea-av .... iv 'Ecpecrco KeKoiprjrai. Against these authorities,
especially the latter, the silence of the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, urged
by Lutzelberger, weighs little, Bleek, Beitr, I, 88, f,
'' It has been erroneously concluded {Lucke, Credner), from the silence
regarding him of Acts xxi. 17, ff., that he at that time was no longer in
Jerusalem ; for Acts xv, also is silent concerning him ; cf, on the other hand
Gal, ii. 9, Bleek, Beitr, I. 194, § 108 b.
The saying, that John was banished to the Isle of Patmos,"
refers to the doubtful passage Rev. i. 9 (§ 190, note b), and,
being contradicted by the earlier date of the Apocalypse
(§ 190), appears very questionable. On the other hand, the

JOHN. § 108 b. 199
tradition seems reliable that the Apostle reached a great
age, and lived to the beginning of the second century.'' For
Polycarp, who, in his eighty-sixth year (about A. D. 170"=),
and Papias, who (A. D. 164) suffered martyrdom,'' saw and
heard him ; he was also a contemporary of Cerinthus.'^ The
external history of the Apostle makes the composition of
the fourth Gospel possible, from his stand-point and char
acter (§ 107 g).
» Euseb. H. E. III. 18 : 'Ek tovts) (in the persecution under Domitian)
Kare;^ei Xoyos rbv dndcrroXov dpa Kal evayyeXicrrfjv 'ladvvrjv en ra j3iai ivBia-
rpi'/Soira, r^s els rbv delov Xdyov eveKev paprvpias Udrpov o'lKelv KaraBiKacrBfj-
vai TTJV vfjcrov  d Eiprjvdlos .... cprjcrlv  OvSe ydp TTpd ttoXXov
Xpdvov eapdBrj {fj dnoKdXvijns), dXXd crxeBbv inl rfjs fjperepas yeveds npbs ra
reXei rfjs Aopiriavov dpxfjs (cf. Iren. V. 30, 3), Ib, c, 20 : Tdre (after Do
mitian 's death) Bfj ovv Kal rbv dndcrroXov 'ladvvrjv hnb rfjs Kara rfjv vfjcrov
cpvyfjs, rfjv inl rfjs 'Ecpea-ov Biarpififjv dneiXrjcpevai, d rav nap' fjplv dpxalav
napaBiSam Xoyos. Euseb. in Chron, ad an. 14 Domitiani : Secundus post
Neronem Domitianus Christianos persequitur ; et sub eo Apostolus Joannes
ad Patmum insulam relegatus Apocalypsin vidit. Cf. Hieron. De vir. ill.
c. 9 (see § 108 a, note a). Origen. Comm. in Matth. T. XVI. (III. 719,
sq.) : *0 Be 'Papiaiav ^amXevs, ojs fj napdBocris BiBdcTKei, KareBiKacre rbv-
'ladvvrjv paprvpovvra Bid rbv rfjs dXrjBeias Xdyov els Udrjiov rfjv vfjcrov. Ai-
Bda-Kei Be rd nepl rod paprvpiov eavrov 'ladvvrjs, pfj Xeywj/ ris avrbv KareBi-
Koxre, (pdoKav iv rfj dnoKaXv\lrei ravra (Rev. i. 9). The story is enlarged in
Tertullian, De praescript. haeret. c. 36 : Si non potes in Asiam tendere,
habes Ephesum : si autem Italiae adjaces, Romam , , . , ubi Apostolus Jo
annes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam
relegatur. Cf. Hieron. Adv. Jovinian. I. 26, p. 280, ed. Vallars., in Matth.
XX. 23. Epiphan. Haeres. LI. § 33, differs : .... avrov ('Imdj'i'ov) n-po-
(prjre-vcravros iv xpbvois KXavBiov Kaicrapos avarara, ore els rfjv
Udrpov vfjcrov vnfjp^ev.
>• Iren. II. 22. 5, cf Euseb. H. E. HI. 23 (see § 108 o, note o), vpho also
quotes from Iren. III. 3. 4 : 'AXXd Kai % iv 'Ecpecrca iKicXrjo-ia vnb UavXov pev
TeBepeXiapevTj, 'ladwov Be napapeivavros avrols pexpi rav Tpdiavov xpdvav,
paprvs dXrjBfjS ian rfjs 'AnoardXav napaBda-eas. Hieron. De vir, ill, c, 9
(see § 108 a, note a) ; Adv, Jovinian, I. 26. p. 279 : Ut autem sciamus Jo
annem tunc fuisse puerum, manifestissime decent ecclesiasticae historiae,
quod usque ad Trajani vixerit imperium, id est, post passionem Domini
sexagesimo octavo anno dormierit.
' Iren. Ep. ad Florin, in Euseb. V, 20 ; also in the same, V, 24.
^ 'laavvov dKovcrrfjs, according to Iren. V. 33. 4, Euseb. Ill, 39, denies
that he was a disciple of the Apostles. Cf Rettig, in St, u, Kr, 1831. IV.
p. 770, ff. On the contrary, Olsh. Aechth. d. Evangg. p. 224, f.

200 GOSPELS.
' Iren. III. 3. 4, cf Euseb. III. 28. Olshausen, p, 217, ff, A thorough
statement and examination of the Church tradition concerning John is given
by Grimm, Allgem. Encycl. 2. Sec. XXII. 5, ff.
Controversy concerning the Apostolic Genuineness.
1. On External Grounds.
§ 109 a.
The attacks on the Apostolic genuineness of the fourth
Gospel* have been aimed first at its external attestation,
the existing testimonies having been viewed with doubting
eyes and unfavorably judged, and older and more precise
proof demanded than can rightly be expected.'' In this re
spect our Gospel stands, not in a worse, but in a better
position than either the first three Gospels or the writings
of Paul.
" The opponents are : — Evanson, in the work quoted in § 92, note a.
Eckermann, Theol. Beitr. V. 2. (Vogel) Des Evang. Johannes und seine
Ausleger vor d. jiingsten Gericht, Parti. 1801, Part II. 1804. Horst, Lasst
sich d. Aechtheit des Johann. Evang. aus hinlangl. Griinden bezweifeln,u.
welches ist der wahrsch. Ursprung dieser Schrift ? in Henke's Mus. 1. B. 1 H.
p. 47, The same, Ueb. einige anscheinende Widerspr. im Evang, Joh, in
Absicht auf d. Logos od, d, Hohere in Christo, Ib, p, 20, Cludius, Uran-
sichten d. Christenth, Alt, 1808, p, 40, ff. Bollenstadt, Philo u. Job., od,
fortges. Anwendung d, Philo zur Interpret, d, Johann, Schriften m. be-
sond, Hins, auf d, Frage : Ob Joh, d, Verf, der ihm zugeschrieb, Schriften
sein kdnne ? Gott, 1812. Bretschneider, Probabilia de Evang. et epp. Jo
annis Ap. indole et origine. Lips, 1820. (Cf. the author's later conces
sions in Tzschirner, Mag. f. chr. Pred, II, 2, p, 154. Handb, d, Dogm. 3d
ed. I. 268.) Rettig, Ephemerid, I, 62, sqq. Strauss, Leben Jesu, in vari
ous parts. Weisse, Evang. Gesch, I, 96, ff, Liiizelberger, Die kirchliohe
Tradition iib, den Ap, Joh. u. s, Schriften in ihrer Grundlosigkeit nachge-
wiesen, 1840, £rti7io 5aMer, Kritik. d, evang, Gesch. d. Joh. 1840, Ferd,
Christn. Baur, Ueb, d. Composition u, d. Charakt. d. joh. Evang, in Zel
ler's Jbb, 1844, 1, 3. 4, Hft, Krit, Untersuch ungen iiber d. kanon. Evangg.
Tiib. 1847. p, 79, ff, Zeller, Die aussern Zeugnisse iiber das Dasein u,
den Ursprung des vierten Evang, Ib, 1845, p, 579, ff. Defenders : — F. W.
Schleker, Vers. e. Widerleg. der hauptsachl. Einwiirfe, die in d. neuest, Zeit
geg, d, Aechth, d, Evang, Joh, gemacht sind, Rost, 1802, Svo, Siisskind,
Beitr, z. Vertheid, d, Aechth. d. Evang, Joh, in Bezieh. auf d, Schrift : Der
Evang, Job,, &c, in Flatt's Magaz, f. christi. Dogm. u. Mor. 9. Heft.

JOHN. § 109 b. 201
Noldeke, Vers, einige Widerspriiche, welche im Ev. Joh. zu liegen scheinen,
exeget. u. psychol. zu heben, in Henke's Mus. B. II, H, 1. p, 97, Siisskind,
Noch etwas z, Vertheid. d. Aechth. d. Ev. Job,, and Ueber ein, anschein,
Widerspr, im Evang, Joh,, in Flott's Magaz, XI, 57, UO, Von Griethuysen,
Pro, Ev. Joan. avBevrlci. Harderv. 1807, C. W. Stein, Authentia Evang.
Joa, cont, Bretschneideri dubia vind. 1822, J. T. Hemsen, Die Authentic d,
Schriften des Evang, Joh, 1823. A. G. Calmberg, De antiquiss. patrum
pro Evang. Joh, avBevria testimoniis, 1822, 4to, L. Usteri Comment, crit.
(§ 98 a, note a). Fr. Gottl. Crome, Probabilia baud probabilia od. Wider-
leg, d. V. Bretschneider gegen d. Aechth. d. Ev. u. d, Br. Joh, erhob,
Zweifel, 1824, C. V. Houff, Die Authent, u, d, hohe Werth. d, Ev, Joh,
m, Riicksicht auf neuere Einwendungen, etc, 1831, Frommann, Ueb, d.
Aechtheit u. Integritat des Evang, Joh, mit bes, Riicks, auf Weisse's Evang,
Gesch,, in Theol, Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p, 853, ff, /, H Ebrard, Das Ev.
Joh, u, die neueste Hypothese {Baur's) iib, s, Entstehung. 1845. Bleek,
Beitr, .i.. Evang, Krit, (1846.) p. 92, ff, Pf, Houff, Bemerkk. fiber d. Ab
handl, von D, Baur, etc, in St, u. Kr, 1846, p, 550, ff. Besides these, on
this side are Eichhorn, Hug, Bertholdt, Schott, Credner, Liicke, and others.
•¦ If the non-apostolic origin of the Gospel followed from the paucity of
testimony, we might with equal justness conclude that its author was not a
disciple of any apostle, and that it first saw the light in the second century.
This Baur and his school maintain, but it is wholly improbable (§ 110 c).
§ 109 &.
The oldest, although indirect, witnesses in favor of the great
age of our Gospel, are Luke and Mark, who have referred
to it (§§ 93 c, 94/)." No distinct trace of it is found in the
Apostolic Fathers,'' — the testimony of Polycarp and Papias
especially being wanting, — but both were acquainted with
1 John," and the absence of their testimony is in part sup
plied by Irenceus, Polycarp's friend and disciple, who re
garded the genuineness of the fourth Gospel as unquestion
able (III. 1, § 108 a, note a), although it must be confessed
that he does not appeal directly to Polycarp, and that he has
erred in regard to the Apocalypse (§ 191). Before his time
our Gospel was known and used by Justin Martyr (§ 66 a,
notes c, d), Tatian (§ 68), and probably Celsus.'^ Theophilus
of Antioch distinctly quotes it.^
' Ct. Bleek, Beitr, I, 83, According to his and the common opinion, 2
Pet, i. 14 also contains a reference to John xxi, 18 ; see however Exeg.
Hdb. on the passage. 26

202 GOSPELS.
*" Ignoi. Ad Philadelph. c, 7 : Ei ydp koI Kara crdpKa pe nves rjBeXrjcrav
nXavfjcrai, dXXd rd nvevpa ov nXavdrai dnd Beov dv. OlBev ydp ndBev epxerai,
Kal 7T0V vndyei, kcu rd Kpvnrd eXeyxei {cf. John iii, 8, 1 Cor, ii, 10?), Still
more uncertain is c, 9 : Avrds dv Bvpa rov narpds, Bi fjs e'laepxovrai 'A^padp
Kal IcraaK Kal 'laKal3 Kal ol npopfjrai Kal ol dndcrroXoi Kai rj eKKXrjcria (cf,
John X, 7, 9 ?), Only the Ep, ad Rom, c, 7 : "Aprov Beov BeXa, aprov ovpd-
viov, aprov ^afjs, os ianv crdp^ 'irjaov Xp  Kai ndpa Beov BeXa rb aipa
avrov . . . . seems to refer to John vi. 32, f, 45, 51, ff, {Bour is silent on
it, probably because he thinks the Ignatian letters spurious, cf, Pastoralbr,
p, 87, Tiib, Ztschr, 1836, III, 199. 1838. III. 149, ff, Zeller, in his Jbb,
1845, p, 585, f ; on the other hand, Rothe, Anf, d, christi, Kirche, p, 715, ff,
Hefele, Patrr, ap, p. xv, sqq, Huther, in Ilgen's Ztschr, 1841, IV,) Bar-
nob. Ep, i;, 12, on the brazen serpent of Moses,
' Euseb. Ill, 39 : Kexprjrai B' b avrbs (d Uanias) paprvplais dnb rfjs npo-
repas 'laavvov eniaroXfjs. This testimony is without reason rejected by
Zeller, p, 584, Credner, Einl, p, 266, considers the silence of P. ominous,
if he wrote about A. D. 140. He therefore assumes A. D. UO. Zeller,
p. 653, denies totally that Papias was acquainted with it. Polycarp, Ep. ad
Philipp. u, 7 : nds ydp, ds dv pfj dpoXoyfj 'irjo-ovv Xpiorbv iv aapKi iXrjXvde-
vai, dvrixpiards ion (cf, 1 John iv. 3). This letter^ also, Zeller considers
spurious. ^ Orig. Cont, Cels, I. 67, in relation to John ii, 19.
' Ad Autolyc, lib, II, p, 100 : "OBev BiBda-Kovmv fjpds al dylai ypacpal Kal
ndvres ol nvevparocpdpoi, e^ S>v 'ladvvrjs Xeyei " ev dpxfj ^v d Xoyos, K. r. X.
§ 109 c.
"We may infer a fixed and long-established acceptance of
our Gospel by the Church from the fact, that, in the contro
versies which took place about the middle of the second
century, it was acknowledged by both the opposing parties.
Johannic formulas are found in the Gnostic system of Val
entinus (about A. D. 140), and his followers made use of the
Gospel of John. One of them, Heracleon, wrote a commen
tary upon it, and another, Ptolemy, quotes John i. 3 (§ 76 b,
note a) .* Montanus (about A. D. 150) and his party borrowed
from it the idea of the Paraclete.'' That, on the other hand,
the Alogi rejected the Johannic writings, is accounted for by
their opposition to the Montanists, and shows that the latter
from the first had used this Gospel. Moreover, they ad
duced against its genuineness no historical grounds, and
their critical objections were in part dogmatic, in part drawn

JOHN. § 109 c. 203
from a comparison of it with the first three Gospels." The
Easter controversy, and the manner in which reference
was made during it to the Gospels, have been iiuproperly
used by the opponents of John's Gospel. The testimony of
Claud. Apollinaris in favor of its acceptance at that time
(about A. D. 170) is certain.'^
' Against Bretschneider' s (Probah, p, 212) objections, see Olshausen, p.
386 ; against those of Baur's school, see Bleek, Beitr. I. 214, ff,
¦¦ Cf. Bretschneider, p. 205, sqq. Olshausen, p. 283, ff. Liicke, Comm.
I. 60, The first tries, erroneously, to prove that the Montanists had re
jected the Gospel of John, especially from the passage in Iren. Ill, U, 9,
which has been improperly applied to them : — Alii vero ut donum spiritus
frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effu-
sum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quae est secundum
Joannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit ;
sed simul et Evangelium et propheticum repellunt spiritum, Zeller, p, 637,
asserts that Tertullian first introduced the Paraclete into the Montanistic
system. ' Epiphon. Haeres. LI. de Alogis, c. 3 : .... Eixov ydp rfjv alpecnv Ka-
Xovpivrjv, dnoPdXXovcrav 'laavvov rds ;8ij3Xovs. 'Enel ovv rdv Xdyov ov
Bexovrai rbv napd 'laavvov KeKrjpvypevov, aXoyoi KXrjBfja-ovnu . . . . Aeyovcn
ydp pfj eivai avrd 'laavvov, dXXd KrjpivBov, Kal ovK a^ia avrd (pacriv elvai iv
eKKXrja-iii. c. 4 : $doKouoi ydp KaB' eavrav, ov ydp e'inoipi Kard rfjs dXrj
Beias, dn ov crvpcpavei rd avrov /SijSXta rois XoittoTs 'ATTOtrroXois (cf. John i..
Matt. iii. iv,), c, 18 : Td 8e evayyeXioi' to eis ovopa 'laavvov, (paa-i, ifre-v-
Berai. Merd ydp rd einelv, dn b Xoyos crdp^ eyeVcro Kai eo'K^i'coo'ej' iv fjplv,
Kal dXiya aXXa, evBvs Xeyei, on ydpos eyevero ev Kavd rfjs TaXiXaias.
c, 22 : Karrjyopovcri Be ndXiv ol avroi rod dyiov evayy eXicrrov, pdXXov Be rod
avrod evayyeXiov, on, cpacrlv, d 'ladvvrjs eCprj nepl Bvo naaxav rbv Rarfjpa ne-
noiTjKora, ol Be dXXot evayyeXia-ral nepl ndcrxa evds. The above passage of
Irenaeus also belongs here, Cf Olshausen, p. 254, ff.
^ The Christians of Asia Minor (Quartodecimani) celebrated the Passover
according to the Jewish custom, on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, on which ,
according to the Synoptics, Jesus celebrated it. The Western Christians,
on the other hand, who were joined by Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Clement
of Alexandria, and others, and whose view subsequently triumphed in the
Council of Nice, always celebrated it on a Friday, in memory of the death
of Jesus as the Christian paschal Lamb. They interpreted the Synoptics
according to John, and assumed that Jesus held, not a Jewish, hut a typical
paschal feast, and was himself sacrificed on the 14th of Nisan. Apollinar. in
the Chron, pasch, p, 6, ed, Du Cang, , . . . . Xeyovo-i (the opponents), on rfj
iB' rb npdParov perd rmi' paBrjrav ecpayev d Kvpios, rfj Be peydXrj fjpepil rdij'
d^vpav avrbs enaBev, Kal Birjyofjvrai MarBaiov ovra Xeyeiv, as vevofjKamv -
oBev d(rvp(pavos ra vdpco fj vdrjcris avrav, koi crraa-id^eiv SoKei kot avrovs rd

204 GOSPELS.
evayyeXia. According to Schioegler .(Dei: Montanismus, etc., p. 191, ff.)
and Baur (p. 353), the Johannic Gospel is not the subject here mentioned ;
but they explain o-rao-idfeii/ wrongly by oppose the law, whereas Wiese-
ler, Chronol. Synopsis, p. 370, and Ebrard, p. 124, ff., understand it rightly
in the absolute sense to be at variance, so that its sense is, that the Gospel
of John does not agree with the Synoptics, because it (as Apollinaris cor
rectly viewed it) placed the day of Jesus's death on the 14th of Nisan. Cf
Reitberg, Der Paschastreit, in Illgen's Ztschr. II. 2. 117, f. Zeller, in his
Jahrbb. 1846. p. 622, f Houff, in St. u. Kr. 1846. p,647, f, Apollinaris' s
opinion becomes clear from the fragment of Clement of Alexandria, Ib, p, 7 :
Tois pev ovv napeXrjXvBdcnv erecriv (in the earlier years of his life) rd Bvdpevov
npbs 'lovBaiav fjcrBiev eoprd^av d Kvpios ndcrxa - eirei Be eKKrjpv^ev aiirbs av
rb ndcrxa d dpvos rov Beov, ft)s npd^arov inl crcpayfjv dydpevos, avriKa iBiBa^e
pev TOVS paBrjrds rod tvttov rd pvcrrfjpiov rfj ly , iv -fj Kal nvvBdvovrai avrov •
nod BeXeis eroipdcrapev croi rb ndcrxa payelv; Farther on he appeals to
John xviii. 28, and adds as follows: ra-urrj rav fjpepav rfj dKpi^eU Kal al
ypacpal ndaai avpcpavova-i, Kal rd evayyeXia crvvaBd. Also in the Other frag
ment of Apollinaris, Ib. p. 6, is a reference to the Gospel of John : . . . . d
iKxeas iK rfjs nXevpds avrov rd Svo ndXiv KaBdpa-ia vBap Kal aipa ; and it is
a miserable evasion to go back to a tradition which is older than the Gospel
of John {Baur,T^. 356). On the other hand, it is remarkable that, both
earlier (about A. D. 162) and later (about A. D. 190), the Christians of
Lesser Asia appeal to the apostolic tradition and to the example of the
Apostle John. Iren. in Euseb. H, E, V, 24 : ov're ydp d 'AviKrjros rbv Ilo-
XvKapnov neloai iBvvaro pfj rrjpelv, are perd 'ladwov rod paBrjrov rov Kvpiov
fjpav Kal rajv Xoinav anocrrdXav ols crvverpi-^ev, del rerrjprjKora, n.. r. X.
Polycrotes, Ib, : 'Hpeis ovv dpaBiovpyrjrov dyopev rfjv fjpepav pfjre npocrriBev-
res pijre dpaipovpevoi. Kal ydp Kara rfjv 'Acridv peydXa crroixela KeKOiprjrai
. . . . en Be Kai ladvvrjs d enl rd crrfjBos rov KVplov dvanecrav .... ovros iv
'Ecpecrco KeKoiprjrai .... ovroi ndvres irfjprja-av rfjv fjpepav rfjs reacrapea-KaiBe-
Karrjs rov nda-xa Kara rb evayyeXiov. How could John observe with them a
custom which was in contradiction with his Gospel ? This has been asked,
from, however, a quite false stand-point, so that the answers given by Ebrard,
Wieseler, Thiersch, must also be erroneous. According to the correct
view of the case, which Bleek, Beitrage, 157, ff,, has luminously staled, the
Passover controversy did not concern itself at first about the day of the month
on which Jesus died, but about the co-celebration of the Jewish Passover,
which probably originated with the first Jewish Christians, and which the
Apostle John, as well as Paul (Acts xviii, 21), could well take part in, al
though he knew that Jesus did not hold the Jewish Passover with his disci
ples, but was crucified on the 14th of Nisan, The conclusion stated by Zeller,
p, 646, is, that the fourth Gospel was in use from about A, D. 170 ; and as
they who quote it and defend it, e, g, Irenaeus, do not appeal to tradition or
to authorities, it may have first come to light a few decades earlier. — On
the historic grounds for the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, see Grimm,
Allg, Encycl., quoted above, p. 18, ff.

JOHN. § 110 c. 205
2. On Internal Grounds.
§ 110 a.
1. The Evangelist designates himself indirectly as the
" beloved disciple " of Jesus, i. 35, ff., xiii. 23, xix. 26, 35, xx.
2,* and expressly as an eyewitness, i. 14, xix. 35 (§ 105 a).
The postscript (xxi. 24, f ), whose unknown author appears
to have been a younger contemporary, also testifies to the
same disciple as the author. We must either allow this
testimony its due weight, or declare the author a forger, who
artfully aimed to pass for the Apostle John.
' He is generally regarded as John ; iiito^derg-er thinks he is Andrew. It
is remarkable, in this connection, that he never gives John the Baptist the
surname of d ^annarfjs, as the Synoptics do. Credner, 1. 209, f, Bleek,
Beitr, p, 178, § 110 6.
2. The style of the writing and the whole spirit of the
work show incontrovertibly that the Gospel is the work of
the same author as the First Epistle of John. Though the
genuineness of the latter is a matter of dispute, it claims by
the spiritual character and depth of its contents, and by the
statement in i. 1, to be at least the work of an eyewitness,
and an apostolic man thoroughly permeated with the spirit
of Jesus Christ. § 110 c.
3. The historic matter offers to opponents many conven
ient points of attack : a. in the indications of a view formed
at a distance from the historic facts and relations (§ 105 a) ;
which, however, is to be explained by the fact that John
wrote in the later part of his life, and in whofiy different
environments, when his original view had died out, and he
had cut completely loose from Judaism, and that the bias of
his mind led him to set little store by historic pragmatism ;"¦
b. in his variations from the Synoptics (§ 104), both in re
spect of additions and omissions,'' and of contradictions.

206 GOSPELS.
According as writers set out from the unfounded assump
tion of the unqualified or preponderating credibility of the
first three Gospels," or from the view that they present the
older series of Gospel myths, they beheld in the fourth
Gospel only a web spun arbitrarily out of few actual mate
rials by an author far removed from the history ( Weisse,
Br. Bauer, Baur),^ or the creations of a later myth-develop
ment (Strauss). Decisive however against this are the viv
idness and originalness of many of the narrations (§ 105 a),
(although a one-sided critical dialectic has sought to reason
these away,") and the demonstrable correctness of its devia
tion in essential points.*^
" Reuss, Ideen z, Einl, in d, Evang, Job,, in Denkschr. d, theol.
Gesellsch. z. Strassb, (1840,) p, 51, ff, Lucke, I, 138, ff. That the anti-
Jewish position of the Evangelist shows him to be neither a Jew nor a Pal
estinian, is refuted by Bleek, Beitr, I, 244, ff. He was acquainted with the
Old Testament in the original text, as appears from the quotations which
differ from the LXX,, e, g. xiii, 18, xix, 37, He believed in the divine
revelation in the Old Testament, and in its prophecies,
¦¦ The miracle of the raising of Lazarus, especially, has been called in
question, on the ground that the Synoptics, if they had known of it, would
not have passed it by in silence. Grotius, Herder, Schulthess, and Olshausen
explain this silence by the desire to spare Lazarus or his family ; Meyer,
from their Galilean stand-point, Liicke, II, 475, supposes that the Synop
tics were unacquainted with it, partly because the Galilean tradition which
they followed came from those who were not eyewitnesses, partly because
from a want of pragmatism they failed to see the vast importance of the
miracle. That they must have regarded it as the greatest of all the mira
cles {Strauss, Weisse, Baur) is denied by Ebrard (Kritik d, Evang, Gesch,
565, das Evang, Joh, 39), because to them one raising of the dead was as
good as another.
' So Bretschneider, Weisse (from his preference for Mark), Br. Bouer (in
his work on John, although in his subsequent work on the Synoptics he
subjects them to the same dissolving process), Baur (who regards Matthew
as the basis of all the other Gospels).
^ According to the last-mentioned writer, the fourth Gospel has no his
toric aim (§ 107 b) or significance : the author, who knew nothing of evan
gelic tradition save what the Synoptics gave him, invented everything new
or discrepant in his account, with the dogmatical design of representing
Jesus as the incarnate Logos.
" Al. Schweizer, Das Evang. Joh. nach s. innern Werthe kritisch unter-
sucht (1841), strikingly remarks, p. 239, ff., that, where this vividness and

JOHN. § 110 d. 207
originalness appear, the dXXos paBrjrfjs (cf § 105 a) usually has a hand in
it. That rationalizing method, awaking suspicion by its very narrowness,
for the most part refutes itself, as when Bour, p. (431) 268, finds in the
statement (xviii, 13), that Jesus was first led to Annas and tried by him, a
pure fiction, which aimed to strengthen, by a double condemnation, the
proof given by the Jews of their own unbelief, — because Annas did not
condemn Jesus ; or when, p, (438) 279, he deduces all that John says of
Pilate's desire to acquit Jesus, from his desire to lay the whole burden of
Jesus's death on the Jews, — this is done by Matthew ! or when the differ
ence between John and the Synoptics in regard to the day of Jesus's death
is explained by John's desire to remove the improbability which is found in
the Synoptics' account, — elsewhere he argues against John from the very
ground of improbability ; or when his extension of Jesus's ministry to Judasa
is ascribed to the design of setting in stronger light the unbelief of the
Jews (see note/) ; or when, p, (415) 252, he argues thus : It is clear that,
if the Synoptics represent Jesus as making a long address before the supper,
such cannot also have taken place after the supper, as in John, What must
we think of a critic who, p, (438) 279, asserts that Jesus alludes to his
public teaching in the temple in Luke xxii, 53 only (cf. Matt, xxvi, 55,
Mark xiv, 49) ; who, pp, (164, ff,) 215, ff,, understands allegorically the
"water" in John xix. 34 ; and, pp, (445, ff,) 285, ff., tries to persuade us
that John, in vii, 10, 15, viii, 59, speaks of a magical transformation and
disappearance of Jesus? Farther, comp, Bleek, I. 272, f,
f That Jesus had previously been in Judaea and Jerusalem the Synoptics
themselves imply (Matt, xxiii, 37, Luke xiii, 34 ; Matt, xxvii, 57 ; Luke x,
38, ff,, cf Matt, xxvi, 6 ; Matt, iv, 25), and it is also in itself probable, cf.
Ebrard, p, 22, f. Bleek, Beitr, p, 94, ff. The discrepance between John
and the Synoptics, in regard to the day of the month on which Jesus was
crucified, — a discrepance which must exegetically be acknowledged, and
cannot be explained away, as by Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Ebrard (Das
Evang, Joh, ; differently in his Krit, d, Evang, Gesch.), Wieseler, Chronol,
Synops,, — must be decided in favor of the former, as the 15th of Nisan, the
first day of the Passover festival, and which the Synoptics assert, is opposed
by the strongest probabilities. See Bleek's exhaustive remarks, in the above
work, p, 107, ff, § 110 C?.
4. The discourses and doctrinal contents of the Gospel
offer, in their obviously subjective presentation, the most
tempting point of attack. It is an unsettled question, how
far this subjectiveness extends. The impression is different
which our Evangelist's narrative makes on different minds.*
But, setting aside particulars, it must be regarded as con-

208 GOSPELS.
ceivable that an Apostle, to whom the strictly historic was
of comparatively small moment, should allow himself a
certain freedom of representation, and that John had so deep
an insight into the consciousness of Jesus as to be able to
express, if not exactly in the Master's own words, yet in
regular development, the truth which was, and still is, of mo
ment to every believer ; and also as possible, that this distin
guished disciple had not only reached that stand-point, which,
independent of Judaism, was the peculiarly Christian stand
point,'' but also that, amid Hellenistic influences, he had made
the Hellenistic style of writing and philosophy his own. If
this Apostle be not regarded as the author, we should be com
pelled, by the profoundly spiritual apprehension and develop
ment of Christian truth, to select a man of no less rank than
the Apostle Paul or the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews."
The certainly genuine substratum of the freely-narrated
discourses,'' and the originality stamped on many isolated
declarations, which, like similar utterances in the Synoptics,
come from genuine tradition (i. 52, ii. 16, 19, iv. 21, ff., 48,
ix. 3-5, vii. 37, viii. 12, xviii. 36, f., xx. 23, 29, and many
others"), require an author not too far removed from the
original source.
=¦ While Baur and others ascribe everything, without discrimination, to
the author of the Gospel, Schweizer, above work, p. 30, ff,, estimates quite
differently what is ascribed to the "Johannic manner," and endeavors,
p, 188, ff., to show in the testimony of John the Baptist genuine historical
foundations, '' As he appears in Gal, ii, 9 as the Apostle of the circumcision, Baur,
p, (633, ff.) 329, ff,, thinks that at that time John could not have had the
conviction that the heathen were also entitled to share the Messianic salva
tion. But as he with Peter and James approved of the ministry of Paul, he
must also have approved of his principles. Cf Ebrord, p, 99, f Bleek,
Beitr, I, 249, ff. According to Baur, p, (619, ff,) 314, ff., John's stand
point presupposes that of Paul, even when we apply" to it the common
standard. But could he not learn from Paul, and yet surpass him ? Might
we not expect something extraordinary from the disciple who was especially
dear to Jesus'! To be sure, with such a character (Luke ix, 54) and such
a disposition (Matt, xx, 20, ff,), he would have needed most of all to expe
rience the " birth from above," But is this so impossible ?
" Nothing, in truth, can be more unreasonable than, with Bour and oth-

JOHN. § 110 e. 209
ers, to ascribe this wonderful production to the second century, and to
place it, accordingly, in the same category with the writings of the Apos
tolic Fathers and of the Christian Pseudepigraphists.
* Though Strauss, Leben Jesu, I. 675, f , 1st ed., asserted that the dis
courses in our Gospel are arbitrary creations out of little actual material, and
give rather a few fundamental ideas, developed in the spirit of the Alexan
drian school, than precise utterances of Jesus, he subsequently doubted
the correctness of this assertion. Weisse here is on our side.
° The Evangelist so entirely regards certain expressions of Jesus as fixed
historic data, that he sometimes assigns them a double sense (xviii. 9, 32),
sometimes illustrates their meaning (ii. 19, ff.). The manner, too, in which
he gives the utterances in xiii. 20, xiv. 31, secures him from the suspicion of
having invented Jesus's discourses. Cf. Bleek, p. 226, ff. The predictions
of Jesus's death in vii. 33, f., viii. 21, x. 12, 17, f., xii. 23, f , xiv. 1, ff.,
xvi. 16, are more original than those in the Synoptics. Grimm, Allg. En
cycl., as above, p. 50. § 110 e.
To explain the (apparent or real) diversity in the character
and contents of our Gospel, several writers have supposed
that it contains Johannic elements, which have been worked
over by a disciple of the Apostle.* On this supposition, the
passages which refer to the Apostle John retain a certain
amount of force (§ 110 a). In a similar way, Weisse discrimi
nated between a Johannic nucleus and a later envelopment,
and found the former in the didactic portion of the dis
courses of Jesus and of the Baptist, which the Apostle wrote
down as studies (so to speak), without any historical design,
but for the purpose of presenting his Master's doctrine in a
connected form. After John's death, it occurred to John's fol
lowers and disciples to combine these studies, together with
his oral teachings and the materials afforded by tradition, into
a Gospel history.'' But to separate this nucleus from its en
velopments, — which Weisse did not attempt, — involves
the gravest difiiculties, both from the closely woven connec
tion and especially from the similarity of the style. Schenkel,
who carried out this idea farther, attempted merely to show
the more or less probable incongruity of several passages
(the most probable is vi. 27).°
27

210 GOSPELS.
• Eckermann and Vogel had previously made a similar assertion. Es
pecially Amman, Progr. quo docetur, Joannem Evang. auctorem ab editore
hujus libri fuisse diversum. 1811. Poulus, in his review of Bretschneider's
Probabil,, Heidelb, Jahrbb, 1821, No, VII, -IX,, and of Liicke's Comment,
No, XV. Rettig, Ephemerid. exeg, theol. I, 83, sqq, : , .. . de hoc Evan
gelio statuerim : compositum esse et digestum a seriori Christiano, Joannis
auditore, forsitan Gnosticae dedito philosophiae. Qui quum in ecclesiae
Ephesinae scriniis ecclesiasticis vel alio loco private plura Jesu vitae capita
per Joannem descripta reperisset, vel a Joanne ipso accepisset, iis compositis
et ordinatis suam de Xdya philosophiam praefixit. Reuss, as above, p. 57,
lays down this alternative : " Either John himself is the author, or he de
livered to the author ample and sufficiently attested materials."
' Evang. Gesch, I. 106, ff, Comp, on the contrary Frommann, in Stud,
u. Krit, 1840, p, 909, ff, ifefe, Comm, I, 141,ff, Schweizer, Ds.sE\ang.
Job,, &c, p. 9, ff,, who calls especial attention to the certainly not inten
tional chronological thread of the visits to the festivals,
« Stud. u. Krit. 1840. p. 765, ff. Cf, Schweizer, p, 12, ff.
§ 110/.
Alex. Schweizer likewise finds in our Gospel incongruous
and discordant matter, but not in the didactic portions
(§ 110 d, note a), nor even in all the historical sections, but
only in some "which stand quite apart and alone, woven
into no discourses, containing no important expression of
Jesus, presenting an essentially different estimate and
idea of miracle, without vividness of narrative, and indeed
different from each other in style, although they agree in
narrating Galilffian occurrences." He thinks, by separating
these, to restore the simple unity of the plan, which was
restricted to the ministry of Jesus in Judsea, and admitted
miracles only with important additions in shape of discourses
and other results. Besides the small interpolations xix. 35 -
37, xviii. 9, xvi. 30, ii. 21, f , he indicates the following as to
be struck out : the miracle at Cana, ii. 1 - 12, the healing of
the nobleman's son at Capernaum, iv. 46 - 54, and the story of
the feeding, vi. 1 - 26, in which he recognizes the hand which
wrote the legendary supplement (chap, xxi.), itself refer
ring likewise to Gafilee. In fact, two of these sections
relieve us from the striking synoptical paraUelisms, and from
several of the critic's crosses (fi. 1, iv. 44, 48, 54, vi. 30) ; and

JOHN. § 110/. 211
he points out with uncommon acuteness several apparent
incongruities in the connection of these sections with what
precedes, and several singularities in the style. But of these
special local grounds of proof several are incorrect or not
quite convincing;" the orig;inal connection as restored,
especially in vi. 27, ff., is unsatisfactory;'' and the main
argument is untenable, that these Galilaean miracles are dis
tinguished by their magical character from the others in the
Gospel, and that greater value is meant to be ascribed to
them than is elsewhere ascribed to miracles." Finally, the
preservation of the rest from all attack could hardly suc
ceed. Consequently this hypothesis would be for many
unsatisfactory. ' Certainly non-Johannic is diXrjBivds, xix, 35, and the address to the
reader is unusual ; difficult, rJ ^pepa rfj rplrrj, ii, 1, and singular, fj &pa pov,
ii, 4; both however (with ii, 4, cf. xvi. 21) are not exactly to be rejected ;
the believing expectation of Jesus's mother (cf, vii. 3- 10, Mark iii. 21?) is
obscure and difficult ; the un-Johannic arjpela koi repara, iv. 48, is however
in this (certainly obscure) relation not inapt ; the narrative of the miracle,
iv. 54, in comparison with ii, 23, iii, 2, and even with ver, 48, is out of
keeping. The greatest inconcinnity is found in vi. 1, ff,, dnfjXBev . . . . ne
pav, K. r. X., without any account of the return ; rd d'pos (?) (the words on
eapav, k. t. X. are misinterpreted by Schw., because he overlooks the im
perfect); the known difficulties in ver. 26, 30, f. ; the 'lovSaiot, ver. 41, 52,
which does not apply to Galilaeans; in the style of writing, ver. 1, ff,, cer
tainly similar to that of the Synoptics, yet the Johannic ovv is not wanting,
and the strange ev, ver. 9, is omitted by various codd.
^ To render the junction of vi, 27, ff. to chap. v. possible, something must
previously be cut away. Moreover, the pragmatic reason assigned, in ac
cordance with the proposed connection, for the words on i^fjrow avrbv ol
'lovBaloi dnoKTelvai (vii. 1), viz. the supposed exasperating (?) tendency of the
discourse in vi. 27-71, is not evident; it is also needless, for v. 16 (es
pecially in the common reading) is enough. — The striking out of ii. 1-11
seems to make a sensible gap, and ii. 12, although purified from additions,
will not fitly join i. 52.
' The healing of him that was born blind (cf ver, 6 with Mark viii, 23)
is magical, and chap, xi, taxes in the highest degree our belief in miracles.
In ix. 16, 31, ff., xi. 15, 41, f,, a high value is set on the proof from mira
cles, and the xai iniarevcrav, n, T, X., ii. U, which has been called in ques
tion, is completely justified by xi, 15, xiv, 29. Cf Schwegler, in Zeller's
Theol. Jahrh. I. 1. 156, f , all of whose objections I cannot approve, least
of all that against ii. 1,

212 GOSPELS. § 110 g-.
A critical conclusion which denies to the Apostle John all
share in this Gospel, and declares the same to be of later
origin, not only involves the odious but inevitable confession
that the author was a forger, but is opposed by the improb
ability that Christian antiquity accepted a Gospel which
differed in important points from the evangelic tradition,
without having found a sure and satisfactory ground in its
apostolic authority."
=> Grimm, Allg. Encycl., as before referred to, p. 51.
Time and Place of Composition.
§ 111.
According to the Church tradition," which is confirmed by
the character of the Gospel itself (§ 107 g), it was composed
later than the first three Gospels, and therefore about the
close of the apostolic age. The circumstances of John's life
point in the same direction (§ 108 a). For, if he be the au
thor, he must have written it on Greek ground, whither he
came probably at a very late period.'' There are no precise
internal grounds for determining the date of the composi
tion. The passages xi. 18, xviii. 18, xix. 41, by no means
presuppose the desolating of the country around Jerusalem;"
none presuppose the destruction of the city.
In regard to the place of composition, the opinions of the
ancients vary, some naming Ephesus [Irenceus, III. 1, § 108 a,
note a), others Patmos.'^
» Euseb. H. E. VI. 14, see § 106, note a. III. 24, § 104, note a. Hieron.
De vir. ill. c. 9 : novissimus omnium scripsit Evangelium. Epiphan. Haeres.
LI, § 19 : TTpoiros pev av, varepos Be rols erecriv evayyeXiadpevos. The as
sertion of the latter, 1, c, § 12, that John wrote eiri rfj yrjpaXeii avrov fjXiKia,
perd errj ivevfjKovra rfjs eavrov ^afjs, perd rfjv avrov dnb Udrpov endvoBov, rfjv
e7ri KXavSiov ¦yej^opeV?)!' KaiVapos . . , , , appears certainly in a suspicious con
nection (see § 108 b, note a).
i" The determination of the date given by Eichhorn, Einl, II, 156, rests
on the genuineness of the Apocalypse, which we cannot acknowledge,
" Against Bleek, p. 267 ; but we cannot, either, with Lompe and others,
fix it, from v, 2, in the time while Jerusalem was still standing.

JOHN. §112. 213
'' Hippolytus, De XII. Apostolis : 'ladvvrjs Be iv 'Ao-icf vnb Aopenavov rod
jSao'iXecas i^opicrBels iv Udrp(o rg vfjcrca, ev -rj Kai rd Evayye'Xioi' crvveyp&^aro.
Synops. script, in Athonos. Opp, III. 202. ed, Bened.: Td 6e Kara 'ladvvrjv
evayyeXiov vnrjyopevBrj re vn avrov rov dyiov laavvov rod aTTOo'ToXov Kai ^ya-
TTTjpevov, ovros i^opicrrov ev Udrpca rfj vrjcrco, kcu vnb rov avrov i^eBoBrj ev
'Ecpiaa Bid Taiov rod dyaTTijrov Kai ^evoBdxov rav dnocrrdXav, nepl oi Kal
navXos 'Fapaiois ypdcpav (prjcri - dcrnd^erai vpds, k. j . X.
Of the last Chapter.
§ 112.
As chapter xx. manifestly ends the work," chapter xxi.
must undeniably be regarded as a supplement. It is a
question, however, whether it comes from John or from an
other. Important objections may be urged against the former
view, which is held by several critics." The close, xxi. 24,
25, is acknowledged, even by several defenders of the whole
chapter,'' to be un-Johannic, because of its allusion to the
author of the Gospel, the expression oiBafiev (ver. 24), and
the hyperbole (ver. 25). But these verses are so closely con
nected with what precede, that with their genuineness that
also of the whole chapter falls. The mention of John in
ver. 20 does not tend to show him as the author. Although
the style is in many respects Johannic," in others it excites
more or less suspicion.'^ The whole style of narration is less
clear and vivid than in the rest of the Gospel (see especially
ver. 20, ff.). Verse 23 seems to have been written after John's
death, and verse 19 after Peter's, and the whole to belong
to an uncertain, obscure tradition.
¦ According to Baur, p. (188, ff.) 236, ff., this conclusion is by the author
of the supplement. See, against him, Bleek, p. 179, f.
" Gerh. Joh. Vossius, Harm, evang. I. III. c. 4. § 8, Richard Simon,
Michaelis, Hug, Eichhorn, Tholuck, H. A. W. Meyer, &c. Older writers,
as Wolf, Cur, phil. ad h, 1,, regard even this supposition as untenable, on
account of its inconsistency with the doctrine of inspiration.
i" Hammond, Paraphras. ad h. 1. Beck, Observatt. crit. exeg. P. I. (Lips,
1795, Svo), Hug, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Guerike (Beitr, p, 68), Meyer. Mich.
Weber (Progr. de authentia c. ult, Evang, Joan. Halle, 1823) resorts to the
arbitrary expedient of striking out the words rd ypa^dpeva ^i^Xla.

214

GOSPELS.

° Conjunctionless sentences : ver. 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 (?), 15, 16, 17, 22 ;
frequent use of ovv, ver. 5, 6, 7, 9, 13 (?), 15, 23 ; perd ravra, ver. 1, cf iii.
22, V. 1, 14, vi. 1, &c. ; ovBev, placed after the verb, ver. 3, cf iii. 27, v.
19, 30, viii. 28, ix. 33, &c, ; ov pevroi, ver. 4, cf iv, 27, vii. 13, xx. 5 ;
d^dpwv, ver. 9, 10, 13, cf vi. 9, 11 ; Bia^drvwpi, ver. 7, cf xiii. 4, 5 ; (pave-
povv eavrov, ver. 1 ; cf vii. 4 (?), cf. Mark xvi. 14.
'' inl rfjs BaXda-arjs, ver. 1, for inl rfj B., cf iv. 6, v. 2 ; the turn i(pave-
pacre Be ovras, ver, 1 ; i^erd^eiv, ver, 12, for iparav ; (pepeiv, ver. 18 ; Itti-
arpacpeis, ver. 20, for crrpacpeis, i. 38, xx. 16 ; epxopai, ver. 23 ; the d, X.
inevBvrrjs, ver. 7.
The genuineness of the chapter has been doubted by Grot, ad Joa, xx,
30, xxi. 24, who regarded it as an addition by the Ephesian elders ; Cleric.
ad Hammond, paraphr. ad. h. 1. Pfoff, De variis lection. N. T. u. 11,
§ 5. Semler, Einl. v.. Baumgartens Polemik. I. 62. Paulus, N. Repert.
II, 337, Memorab, V, 176. Gurlitt, Lectionum in N, T. spec. III,
(Hamb. 1805, 4to), Bertholdt, Einl, III. 1326. Liicke, in his Comment.
on the passage. Seyffarth, Special-Charakt, d, joh, Schr. 271. Schott,
De indole c, ult, ev. Joh. Jen. 1825. Isag. § 43, note 5. Credner,
Einleit. p. 232. Neudecker, p. 334, ff. Bleek, Beitr. I. 78, Grimm, Allg,
Encycl, Besides the writers mentioned in notes a, b, the following maintain its
genuineness : Mill, Prolegg. § 249, Lompe, Comment, ad h, 1, Osian
der, Exercit, qua authent, cap, xxi, Ev. Joa. pertractatur. Tiib. 1756.
Papst, Diss, de authent. c, xxi, Joan, Erl. 1779, Krause, Vindiciae cap,
ult. Ev, J, Viteb, 1793, Wegscheider, Einleit. in das Ev. Joh, p, 173.
Bretschneider, Probabil. p. 182. Handschke, De authent. c, 21, Ev, Joh. e
sola orationis indole judicanda. Lips, 1818. Er,dmann, Einige Bemerkk.
iiber c. 21 des Ev. Joh. Rost. 1819.

ACTS OP THE APOSTLES. § 113 a. 215

CHAPTER V.

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

H.Bullinger, Comm. 1533, and often. — Jo. Bugenhogen, Comm. 15S4. —
Jo. Gerhard, Adnott. posth. 1669. — Cosp. Sanctii Comment. L. B. 1616.
ed. 2. 1617. 4to. — Phil, a Limborch, Commentar. in Acta Apost. et in
epp. ad Rom. et ad Ebr. Roterod. 1711. Bas. 1740. fol. — N. Test. ed.
Koppianae, Vol. III. auct. Heinrichs. — Kuinoel, Comment, in libr. N. T.
Tom. IV. 1818. ed. 2. 1827. — OMausere, Bibl. Comment. TheillL —
H. A. W. Meyer, Abth, 3, — Exeg. Handb, I, 4, — S, F. N. Mori Vers, et
explic, ed, Dindorf. Lips. 1794. 2 vols. Svo. — T. W. Hildebrand, Die
Gesch. d. Ap, Jesu exeget, hermeneut, bearbeitet, 1824, Svo, — Schroder,
Det Ap, Paulus, &c, Theil V. Uebers. d. AG. mit Anmm. — /. E. Im.
Walch, Dissertt. in Acta Apost. Jen. 1756 - 61. 3 vols. 4to.
Plan and Object of the Book.
§ 113 a.
This is the second part of the evangelic history written
for Theophilus (i. 1, cf. Luke i. 1-3), and really contains
the continuation. It is not, as the title, Trpa^et? rav onrocTTo-
Xav, added by a later hand, leads us to expect, the history
of all or even of the two chief Apostles, but of the rise,
growth, and extension of the Christian community, for which,
as chiefly instrumental thereto, the careers of these two
Apostles offer the most materials (Peter, chap. ii. - xii. ; Paul,
chap, xfii.— xxviii.). That the author meant to give such a
history of the Church appears as well from the passages and
narratives " referring to the progress of the Gospel and the
development of the Church, as from the whole structure of
the work.''
" i. 8, 15-26, ii. 1, ff., 41, ff,, iv. 32, ff., v. 12, ff., vi. 1-7, viii. 4,f., 25,
ix. 15, 31, 35, 42, xi. 19, ff,, 26, xii, 24, xiii. 48, f , xiv. 21, ff., xv. 1 - 35,
xvi. 5, xviii. 11, xix. 10, 20, xxii. 21, xxiii. 11, xxviii. 17-31.

216 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
'' The words of the Lord : Xfj-\jrea-Be Bvvapiv ineXBdvros roH dy. nve-vparos
i(p' vpds Kal ecrecrBe poi pdprvpes ev rfj 'lepovaaXfjp Kal ev nacrrj rfj 'lovBaiii
Kal Sapapei'a Kai eas ia-xdrov rijs y^s, i, 8, contain both the life-problem of the
Apostles, and the subject of the work. After the completion of the number of
the Apostles, i. 15-26, the fulfilment of that promise takes place in the out
pouring of the Holy Spirit, and the beginning of the Apostles' ministry in
the first preaching and conversion by Peter, through which the little knot of
believers in Christ grew to a " community," chap, ii. How the Apostles,
in the power of the Spirit, bear farther testimony in Jerusalem despite the
commencing persecution, and what form the community took, iii, 1 - vi, 7,
The mortyr-testimony of Stephen brings honor to Christ's cause, vi. 8-viii, 3,
and becomes the occasion of ihe spread of ihe Gospel to Samoria and else
where, viii. 4-40. The conversion of Soul, the "chosen instrument" for
the proclamation of Christ's name, ix. 1-31, paves the way for the chief
part of the apostolic work, the conversion of the heathen, which Peter, after
having worked in various ports of Judceo, ix. 32-43, begins by converting
the centurion Cornelius and his family. He justifies this step before the
Apostles in Jerusalem, x. 1 - xi. 18, Exiles preach the Gospel to ihe heathen
ot Antioch also, and Barnabas brings Paul upon the stage of his ministry,
xi, 19 - 30, After a narrative of miracles, which, so far as this book is con
cerned, closes the ministry of Peter, and throws a glory on the cause of the
Gospel, xii. 1-23 (vs, 24, f serve as a connection), Paul is introduced, at
first in connection with Barnabas, as missionary to the heathen, xiii., xiv.
The admission of the heathen is again justified by the Apostles in Jerusalem,
XV, 1 - 35. Paul now, without Barnabas, pushes his ministry among the
heathen yet farther, to Macedonia and Greece, and founds several communi
ties. He designs, and is promised permission, to preach at Rome (xix, 21,
xxiii, 11), but is arrested in Jerusalem, and after a protracted trial 'carried a
prisoner to Rome ; and thus his design and promise are fulfilled, though not
as he expected, and he is permitted to preach in Rome (xvi. - xxviii.). The
word of the Lord (i. 8) being thus fulfilled, the history closes. Were Paul
but the second of the chief subjects of the history, it must necessarily have
told his farther fate, Cf. the similar views of Ziegler, Ueber den Zweck,
die Quellen u, Interpolationen d, AG, in Gobler's Journ, 1801. I. 2. Hein
richs, Prolegg. in Acta App. p. 10, sqq, Kuinoel, Prolegg. in Acta App.
p. xvii. Eichhorn, Einl. II. 19, ff. Schott, Isag. § 45. Credner, p. 268, ff,
Neudecker, p, 344, The error of finding too little plan in the work is com
mitted chiefly by Hug, § 80, Bertholdt, III, 1334, ff. It is also a mistake
to limit the scope of the work by the measure of the materials at command
of the author, § 113 b.
The work falls very naturally, though without any obvious
design of the author, into two parts, chap, i.-xii. and xiii.-

PLAN AND OBJECT. § 113 C. 217
xxviii. Resting-points and transitions, dividing these into
sections, also occur, especially in the first part : ii. 42 - 47 ;
iv. 32-37 ; v. 12- 16 ; v. 42 ; vL 7 ; vifi. 1 - 3 ; ix. 31 ; xn.
24, f. ; xiv. 27 ; xv. 35. In the second part, the narrative is
generaUy continuous, because its subject is the Apostle
Paul. As regards the chronology of this part, whose his
torical matter was more at hand, the author has done no
more than arrange it nearly in the order of time, giving here
and there days and years (xviii. 11, xix. 10, xx. 6, xxiv. 27,
xxvii. 9, xxviii. 11). Points from which to reckon the time
are accidentally and undesignedly given in facts whose
chronology is otherwise determinable (xii. 23, xviii. 1, xxiv.
27, xxv. 1). Cf. § 118. § 113 c.
One, although a secondary, pragmatic point from which
the historic narrative may be regarded, is that of an apology
for the Paufine Christianity ; i. e. to justify, in opposition to
the narrow views of the Jewish Christians, on the one hand,
the proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and their
reception, without being bound by the Mosaic law as com
manded by God and approved by the collective Apostles ;
and, on the other, the caUing, ministry, doctrine, and course
of conduct pursued by Paul, the Apostle to the heathen.
To regard the whole work as an apology for the Apostle
Paul, so that even the first part shall have the same design,
and, by placing all Peter's work here in parallelism with
Paul's in the second part, aim to justify the latter by the
former, is a one-sided view."
" So, after the example of Micha'el. Einl. II. 1176, Paul. De consilio,
quo scriptor in Act. App. concinnandis ductus fuerit (Jen. 1798, and in Se
lect, capp. introd. in N. T.). Schmidt, Einl.J. 172. Eckermann, Erkl. aller
dunkein St. d. N. T. IL Thl. Einl. z. AG,, especially following the hint
of Baur (Urspr, d. Episkopats, 1838. p. 142), from the latter's (Ueb. Zweck
u. Veranlass. d. Romerhr. in Tiib. Zeitschr. 1836. III.) stand-point, that Juda
ism predominated in the Romish Church. Schneckenburger, Ueb. d. Zweck
d. AG. 1841. Baur, Pauhd.Ap. J. Chr. 1845. p.6,ff. Schwegler, Nzchap.
Zeitalt. 1846. IL p. 73, ff. See, against this, Exeg. Hdb. I. 4, p, 9,
28

218 ACTS OF THB APOSTLES.

The Author.

§ 114.
The work was written by the author of the third Gospel,
according to tradition, Luke, the assistant of the Apostle
Paul (§ 101 a), whom he is said to have accompanied after
Paul left Troas, and, on this account, to speak in xvi. 10-17,
XX. 5 - 15, xxi. 1 - 18, xxvii. 1 - xxviii. 16, also as an eye
witness." But such an origin is disproved in part by the
statements which contradict Paul's Epistles (ix. 19, 23, 25-
28, cf. Gal. i. 17 -19 ; xvii. 16, f , xviu. 5, cf. 1 Thess. in. 1, f.),
and those which are unsatisfactory (xvi. 6, cf the Epistle to
the Galatians, Acts xviii. 22, f. ; especially xxviii. 30, f.), as
well as by the omission of several facts and circumstances
(cf 1 Cor. XV. 32, 2 Cor. i. 8, xi. 25, f , Rom. xv. 19, xvi. 3, f ) ; ''
partly by the accounts in the first part, which (especially ii. 5
- 11, cf X. 46, xix. 6, 1 Cor. xiv. 2, ff.), by their unhistoric char
acter, betray an author distant from the history," and seem,
from the analogy of the Gospel and from certain indications
(§ 115 c), to have been drawn from written sources. But
even the accounts given by an eyewitness are, on various
grounds, inconsistent with Luke's being author of the whole
work.'' '' At xvi. 10, where "we" begins to be used, Luke is supposed to have
joined company with the Apostle ; at xvi. 18, where the "we " ceases, to
have left him, and remained in Philippi ; and in xx. 5, with the " we," to
make his appearance again.
•^ The silence in regard to the Jewish-Christian and other opponents of
the Apostle in Galatia and Corinth, is explained by the apologetic aim of
the author, and by his slight attention to the internal development of Chris
tianity. " According to Credner, Luke incorporated oral statements of John Mark,
according to Feilmoser and Schneckenburger, of the Evangelist Philip.
^ 1. The companions of the Apostle are named elsewhere (xiii. 2, 5, xv.
2, 40, xvi, 3, xviii, 18, xx, 4), but Luke neither in chap, xvi. nor later.
2. The close connection between xvi. 10 and the preceding, and the circum
stance that the unknown person included in the "we" is represented as
acting with Paul, are inconsistent with the supposition that he makes his
first appearance in xvi. 10. 3. The hypothesis that Luke was at that time

SOURCES. § 115 a. 219
assistant to the Apostle, and remained behind in Philippi, is without proof
from the Epistles to the Thessalonians and Philippians ; and, as he is first
mentioned in the Roman Epistles, he probably joined the Apostle first
at Rome. 4, Not only does the narrator included in the " we," but also
Timothy, disappear in xvi. 17, and we must suppose a double negligence on
the part of the author. Cf Schwanbeck, Ueber die Quellen der Schriften des
Luc. (1847.) p. 125,ff.
Sources, and the Use made of them.
§ 115 a.
We must, therefore, suppose that those sections in which
an eyewitness speaks came from a memoir by another
writer, one of those written documents which the author,
according to a pretty general opinion," used in this work as
in the Gospel. It is indeed a matter of question who the au
thor of this memoir is, where it begins, and whether and how
it is used where the eyewitness does not speak as such. A
great difficulty is, that the style of the writing throughout
the whole work is very uniform and closely related to that of
the Gospel;'' the Old Testament is used in the same way;"
and, with few exceptions, the parts of the work are connected
and mutually dependent,'' and consequently the sources have
been freely worked over." ' ,
» Bolten, Vorber. z, AG, Ziegler, Ueb, d. Zweck, etc. Heinrichs, Pro
legg. in Act. App, p, 19. Kuinoel, Prolegg. p. xiii. Bertholdt, III. 1351.
Schott, § 46. Konigsmonn, De fontibus commentt. qui Lucae nomen prae-
ferunt, in Pott, Sylloge IIL Riehm, De fontibus A. App. Traj. 1821. .
Bleek, Stud, u, Kr, 1836, p, 1039, ff. Schneckenburger, p. 155, ff. Schleier
mocher, Einl. p. 351, ff. Schwanbeck (previous §). Against this, Credner,
p. 282.
'' 1. In the grammatic arrangement and formation of the sentences : the
optative, rare in the New Testament, nine times, cf. Luke i, 29, iii. 15, &c, ;
the connection of sentences hy re, more than twenty times before xvi, 12,
almost unknown in the other Evangelists ; pev odv twenty-fOur times ; Sid
ten times ; Kai rd vvv, iv, 29, v. 38, xvii, 30, xx, 32, xxvii, 22 ; KdKelBev,
vii, 4, xiii, 21, xiv, 26, xvi. 12, xx. 15, xxi. 1, xxvii. 4, 12, xxviii. 15.; Kal
iyevero, iyevero Be, with accusative and infinitive, iv. 5, ix. 32, 37, x, 25,
xi. 26, xiv. 1, xvi. 16, xix. 1, xxi, 1, 5, (xxii, 6, 17 with dative, accusative,
and infinitive,) xxviii, 8, 17, 2, In characteristic words : vndpxeiv in the
Gospel seven, ill Acts twenty-six times ; dTevi^eiv,i.lO, xxiii, 1, and eight
times more, in the Gospel twice, elsewhere only in Paul ; imXapffdvea-Bat

220 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
seven times, in the Gospel five times ; BiapaprvpecrBai nine times, in the
Gospel once ; BiepxeaBai twenty-one times, in the Gospel eleven times ;
dnoBexea-Bai five times, in the Gospel twice, nowhere else in the New Tes
tament ; KaraXap^dvea-Bai, iv. 13, X. 34, xxv. 25 ; iniKoXelcrBai r. ovopa, ix.
14, 21, xxii. 16, and elsewhere as to call on, seven times ; inininreiv, viii. 16,
xix. 17, and four times more, as in Luke i. 12 ; Siarpi^eiv, xii. 19, xxv, 6,
14, and five times more ; paprvpelcrBai, to have a good repute, vi. 3, x. 22,
xvi. 2, xxii, 12 ; dnocpBeyyea-Bai, ii. 4, 14, xxvi. 25 (nowhere else) ; peya-
Xvveiv, V. 13, X. 46, xix. 17, Luke i, 46 ; dvoKpiveiv, iv, 9, xii, 19, xvii, 11,
xxiv, 8, xxviii, 18, Luke xxiii, 14 ; Karaa-eleiv rfj xeipir ^i'- 17, xiii, 16, xix.
33, xxi, 40 ; npoa-exeiv, viii, 6, 10, 11, xvi, 14 ; arvyxelv, avyxvveiv, ii, 6, xix,
32, xxi, 27, 31 ; o-vy^vo-is, xix, 29 ; BianovelcrBai, iv. 2, xvi. 18 ; ^ovXfj t.
Beov, ii, 23, iv. 28, xiii. 36, xx. 27, Luke viii. 27; a-rjpela k. repara eight
times, elsewhere rarely ; d^iov Bavdrov, xxiii. 29, and three times more,
Luke xxiii, 15 ; Ikovos, numerous, very often ; opaBvpaBdv eleven times be
fore xix, 29 ; KaBe^fjs, iii, 24, xi. 4, xviii. 23, Luke i. 3, viii. 1.
" Habitual quotation after the Alexandrian version sometimes literal, ii.
34, f, iv. 25, f,, viii, 32, f,, xiii, 33, 35 ; sometimes free, from memory, i,
20, ii, 17, ff., 25, ff,, iii. 22, f., 25, vii. 3, 6, f , 32, 42, f, 49, f. ; xiii. 34,
41, 47, XV. 16, f , xxviii., 26, f. ; even when it does not correctly represent
the Hebrew text, ii. 25, 28, vii. 42, f., xiii. 41, xv. 16, f.
^ xi. 16 refers back to i. 5; ix. 1, ff., xi. 19, connects with viii. 1, and
prepares the latter for xiii, ; ix, 15 for xxvi. ; xi, 25 presupposes ix, 30 ;
xii, 25 refers back to xi, 30 ; xv, 8 to xi, 47; xv, 38 to xiii, 13 ; xvi, 4 to
XV, 23, ff, ; xviii, 5 to xvii, 15 ; xix, 1 to xviii, 23 ; xxi, 8 to viii, 40, vi, 5 ;
xxi, 25 to XV. 20 ; xxi. 29 to xx. 4 ; xxii. 20 to vii. 58, viii. 1 ; xxiv. 15 to
xxiii. 6. Similar reviews and resting-points: ii, 42, iv. 32, v. 12, ff,, vi. 7,
ix, 31, xi, 19, ff,, xii, 24, xiv, 21, ff,, xviii. 11, xix. 10, 20, xxviii. 30, f.
' All the more striking is the ^peis, which is here and there retained.
But Schwanbeck, as above, p. 188, ff,, adduces examples from medieval
chronicles and old Saxon annalists, pp, 991, 995, where a " we " from the
original source has remained standing, § 115 b.
Some writers have with great probabfiity regarded Tim
othy as one of the eyewitnesses included in the "we," in
xvi. 10." The Silas hypothesis has less probability.'' This
source begins, at least, in the extract xvi. 1," is also traceable
where the " we " does not occur, in the minuteness of the
narrative,'' and probably is continued (even though not un
changed) to the end of the work.
» Mayerhoff, Einl. in d. petrin, Schr, p, 6, f, (he makes Timothy alone
author of the whole work), Bleek, St. u. Kr. 1836, p. 1026, ff. Ulrich,

SOURCES. § 115 c. 221
St. u. Kr. 1837. p. 369, ff., 1840. p. 1003, ff. Reasons: 1. Timothy,from
his introduction in xvi. 3, is demonstrably in Paul's company ; so also from
XX. 5 forth. That he accompanied Paul to Rome is indeed not presupposed
by the spurious Second Epistle to Timothy, but agrees with Col, i. 1, Phil,
i. 1. 2. In chap. xvi. 18 the " we " is silent, but Timothy also had no
share in these transactions, which is not contradicted by the "we" in
1 Thess. ii. 2. On the supposition that the editor omitted what concerned
him, Timothy may have written xvi. 18-40 ; so also xvii. 1- 13. Perhaps
he came to Thessalonica and also to Bercea at a later period. In xvii. 14
a "we" or an "I" was probably altered. The Apostle's speech, xvii.
21, ff,, we owe to his recording. His arrival at Athens, and his mission
thence (1 Thess. iii. 2), the editor omitted. After his and Silas's arrival at
Corinth ^xviii. 5), the narrative becomes more vivid. He followed the
Apostle to Ephesus also, xviii. 18 (subsequently, at least), whence he was
sent, xix, 22 ; and hence a good deal of vividness and definiteness comes
into the narrative, xviii. 18 -xix. 40. (After ver, 22 Timothy may have
soon returned,) 3. Into the hst of names in xx. 4 the editor introduced
Timothy's, who in ver, 5 (where ovroi applies to only the last-mentioned
two) again speaks in the first person, and, with Trophimus (xxi, 29), ac
companies the Apostle to Jerusalem (for a^pi r, da-ias, xx, 4, is only the
first terminus of the journey, xx, 15),
'' Schwanbeck, as above, p. 168, ff. Silas is supposed to continue the nar
rative from chap. xv. on. This, however, makes the introduction of the
" we," xvi. 10, more singular. In xvi. 19, the editor, forgetting Timothy,
is supposed to have changed the "us" into Silas. This improbable as
sumption is required, not by the participation of the former in the imprison
ment, — this cannot be shown from 1 Thess. ii. 2, — but by the difficulty of
understanding the silence in regard to him. After xvii. 16, Silas simply
forgot to mention Timothy's arrival at Athens and his mission thence. He
did not give the address in xvii, 21, ff, as an ear-witness. In xviii, 18 he
tarried in Corinth, and narrated what follows, ver. 24, ff,, from hearsay, out
of a special interest in the Corinthian community. In xx, 4, ff, this hy
pothesis has freer play, and admits of setting ovroi, in ver, 5, in contrast
with all those mentioned in ver, 4, Thenceforward Silas is included in the
" we," and regarded as a companion of the Apostle, not only to Jerusalem
but even to Rome. The abruptness of the conclusion, xxviii. 30, f, may be
explained on the theory that he had himself departed immediately, and there
fore is not mentioned even in the Epistles from Rome. However, the men
tion of Timothy in these allows us to suppose that his departure was only a
little lateir. § 115 c.
Besides the narrative of an eyewitness in the second part,
from xvi. 10 forth, other traces of the use of various sources

222 ACTS OP THE APOSTLES.
appear ; " just as, on the other hand, the first part has pecu
liarities '' indicating certain sources peculiar to it. The
prominent account of Peter, and the twelfth chapter, which
does not clearly fall into the pragmatical connection, seem
to have come from a work on this Apostle." Chapters xiii.
and xiv. are perhaps from a special missionary narrative,
and chap. vii. from a memoir of Stephen."
" After xii, 25 : Bapvafias Be Kal SaiiXos vnea-rpeifrav, k.t.X., one and the
same hand could not have written xiii, 1 : ''Ucrav Be nves iv 'Avnoxeia —
npocpfjrai Kal BiBdo-KaXoi o, re Bapv. k. Svpeav . . . . k. SavXos, The same
applies to 'HpiiSov r. rerpdpxov and chap, xxv,, xxvi, 'Aypinnasb jSao-iXe'vs,
after 'Up. b ^aa-iXevs, xii, 1, ff, — xix. 16, Lachm.'s reading refers to something
that is omitted. — xxi, 10 does not presuppose xi, 28, Peculiarities in the
language of the second part : SiaXeyeo-^ai ten times ; inicrraaBai nine times,
elsewhere only x, 28, not in the Gospel ; iyKaXeiv six times ; 'iyKXrjpa twice ;
Karavrdv, from xvi, 1 forth, nine times ; inl, expressing continuance of time,
twelve times, elsewhere only in x. 16, xi, 10 ; bBds, of the Christian religion,
xix, 9, 23, xxiv, 22, elsewhere only ix, 2. In general, fewer Hebraisms, al
though phrases with x^^Pt ^''- 23, xxi. 27, and often ; with crropa, xv. 7, xviii.
14 ; with aipa, xviii. 6, xx. 26, and often ; with pea-ov, xvii. 33, xxiii, 10,
xxvii, 21 ; with npdcranov, xvii, 26 ; with cpd^os, xix. 17, Precise, although
only comparative, chronology. Little miracle, no angels except in dreaming,
^ More Hebraism (although this is in itself the appropriate mode of
speech for miracle histories and apostolic discourses) : vioi 'lapafjX, v, 21 ;
vioi rav npocprjrav Kal rfjs BiaBfjKrjs, iii. 25 ; vios BiafidXov, xiii. 10 ; ivaniov,
in the metaphoric sense, iv. 19, vi. 5, and often ; ^aard^eiv iviinwv, ix. 15 ;
find r. ovpavov, ii. 5, iv. 12 ; rd nereivd r. ovp., x. 12, si. 6. Other kinds of
peculiarities : n-ais Beov, iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30 ; o lepevs, v. 24 ; fj yepovaia,
V. 21 ; ewi TO avrd, i. 15, and four more times ; npoa-Kaprepelv six times;
i^iordvai, i^ia-racrBai, six times ; ocros, in the first ten chapters, thirteen
times, less often in chap, xiii. -xv,, afterwards not at all; Mistakes in
translation, ii, 24, 33, v. 31, miracles, appearances of angels ; chap. ix. 39 -
42, like Mark V. 38-43.
' We may not, with many, assume the Krjp-vypa Uerpov { Clem. Alex.
Strom, VI, 636), for this was an apocryphal work, Euseb. H, E, III, 3.
^ Schwanbeck, p. 211, ff., observes, in addition to the Petrine source: —
1, Fragments of a biography of Barnabas, iv, 36, f, ix. 1-30 (or rather
ver. 8-30, for the first verses must be formed upon Paul's two speeches in
chap, xxii. and xxvi,), xi. 19 -30, xii. 25, xiii, 1-xiv, 27 (originally a mis
sionary narrative) , xv, 1-4 (where Silas's memoirs have probably been
introduced). But the main reason for supposing such a biography of Bar
nabas that Paul, ix, 27, xi, 25, appears in a measure dependent on him, is
not apparent. The chief interest still centres in Paul, who, according to

SOURCES. § 115 <?. 223
the history and plan of the Acts, only by degrees arrives at apostolic in
dependence. 2. Schw. draws chap, vi, 8 -vii. 59, viii. 2, from a work on Ste
phen. But the phrase imcrrdvres a-vvfjpnaa-av avrdi;, vi, 12, recalls iv, 1,
xix, 29, xxiii, 27 ; verse 10, Luke xxi, 10 ; vii, 1 recalls xvii, 11 ; the verb
navecrBai, vi, 13, is found in Luke alone, of all the New Testament histo
rians ; drevl^eiv, ver, 15, is one of his favorite words ; the verbs Bianplea-Qai
in vii, 54 (cf, v, 33), vndpxeiv in ver, 55, and opoBvpaBdv in ver. 57, are
characteristic of him. § 115 d.
If Luke used written sources, it is probable that the letters
and discourses of the Apostles and others are not a free com
position of his own;" although it must be acknowledged
that the use of the Old Testament,'' and the style of the
writing," are throughout the same, and that similar thoughts
and turns occur in the discourses of different persons.'' It
is likely, too, that while not only detached thoughts (xx. 33,
ff.), but in a measure also the drift and structure (vii. 2, ff.,
xvii. 22, ff.), are peculiar and appropriate to the persons and
circumstances," infelicities also occur (i. 18, £, v. 36, x. 28,
37, xiii. 39, xxvi. 20).
^ Eichhorn, Einl. II. 28, f Frisch, Diss, utrumque Luc. comment 
non tam hist, simplicitatis quam artificiosae tractationis indolem habere,
(Frib, 1817,) p, 20, sqq,
¦¦ The citation of Am, ix, 12, in the speech of James, xv, 16, f , accord
ing to the incorrect translation of the LXX,, befits neither the speaker nor
the hearers,
"= Besides the passages mentioned in § 115, o, note b, observe npoxeipi^e-
crBai, iii, 20, xxii, 14, xxvi. 16 ; pvfjpa, ii. 29, vii. 16, like Luke viii. 27,
xxiii. 35, xxiv. 1 ; e'TT* dXrjBeias, iv. 27, x. 34, like Luke iv. 25, xx. 21, 59.
¦¦ Cf ii. 25, ff. with xiii. 34, ff. ; ii. 39, iii. 25, with xiii. 26 ; iii. 18 with
xiii. 27 ; iii. 22 with vii. 37 ; iii. 17, ff. with xvii, 30 ; x, 40, ff, with xiii,
30, ff. The solemn addresses : i, 10, 16, ii, 14, 22, iii. 12, v. 35, vii. 2,
xiii. 16, 26, xv. 13, xvii. 22, xix, 35, xxii, 1,
° According to Ebrard, Krit. d, ev, Gesch, p, 889, both the Petrine and the
Pauline discourses have many resemblances both to each other and to the
Epistles of these Apostles ; but his proofs require a close sifting. Supposed
peculiarities of the Petrine addresses ; iXdXrjaev 6 Beds, ii, 31, iii. 21 (not
24, not xi. 14), cf however Hebr. i. 1, iv. 8, v. 5 ; peravofja-are Kal inicrrpe-
il^are, iii, 19, viii. 22 (only peravdrjcrov) ', Bid a-rdparos Beoi (erroneously
for Aa/3i8), rav npocprjrav, i. 16, iii. 18 (also 21), iv. 25 ; dacpaXas yiva-
oTKera, ii. 36 {an. Xey.) ; Kai vvv oiBa dXrjBas, iii. 17 (only Kai viv oiBa), x.

224 ACTS OF THB APOSTLES.
34 {in dXrjBeias KaraXapPdvojiai) ; xii. 11, r^ bpia-pevrj ^ovXfj is peculiar to
Luke, see § 115 a, note b, Luke xxii. 22 ; npdyvams, ii. 23 (also 1 Pet. i, 2 ;
npoyivaa-Keiv, 1 Pet. i, 20), cannot be regarded as peculiar to Peter, cf Rom,
viii. 29, xi. 2, The antithesis of Jesus's execution and resurrection, ii, 23,
ff,, iii, 13, ff,, iv, 10, v, 30, (not vi, 10,) x, 39, is essentially the same as
xiii, 27, ff. Ebrard finds it also in 1 Pet, i, 19, ff,, again (?), nals Beov,
iii, 13, 26, iv, 27, 30, Bebs e'xpia-ev 'Irja-oOv, iv, 27, x. 38, The turn in ii,
38, f , iii, 19, V, 31, is similar to that in xvii, 30, f. The passage. Psalms
cxviii, 22, is cited in Acts iv, 11 and 1 Pet. ii, 7, and by. Christ himself
Faith through Jesus Christ, iii, 16, (not v. 31,) 1 Pet. i, 21, unto repent
ance, blessedness from repentance, iii, 19, v. 31, iPet. ii, 21 (?), iv, l,ff, (?),
nia-ris r, OToparoy 'Itjoov, iii, 16, iv, 12 (only ovopa), 30 (the same), X, 43 (the
same), cf, ix, 15, f ,21,27, xxii, 16, xxvi, 9, aTroKarao-rao-is, iii, 21, is, when
compared with i, 6, BidpBaa-is, Heb, ix. 11, nothing peculiar. Cf. besides,
Seyler, Ueber die Reden u. Briefe des Ap, Petr, in Stud, u, Krit, 1832, p, 53,
ff. , "Paul's discourses are given more in Luke's than in Paul's language "
{Tholuck, Reden des Ap, Paul, in d, AG, ib, 1839, p, 306, ff,) ; and
therefore the lingual peculiarities adduced by Ebrard are for the most part
not sustained : as, dvBpes la-parjXlrai k. ol cpo^oiipevoi r. Bedv, xiii, 16, 26,
cf X, 2, 22 ; yeved, an oge, xiii, 36, xiv, 16, cf. xv. 21 ; 6 Bebs os inoirjcre
r. ovpavov, k, t, X,, xiv, 15, xvii. 24 (?) ; ndvras, xviii, 21, xxviii, 4, cf, xxi,
22, Luke iv, 23 ; iya ydp oiBa, xx, 25 (iSov eyo> oiSa), 29 (ACD, 15, all,
Vulg, all. iya olBa) ; perd BaKpvav, xx, 19 (pera ndarjs raneivocppoavvrjs
k. BaKpvav K. neipaa-pav) , 31, cf. Mark ix, 24 ; nenoXirevpai ra Bea, xxiii.
1, cf. Phil. i. 27 ; 68os, religion, xiv. 16 (rais oSois avrav is different), xxii,
4, xxiv. 14, cf ix. 2, xix, 9, 23, xxiv, 22. Introduction of short, pregnant,
established expressions of Paul by ori, xiv, 22, xvii. 3 (orat. var,, as i. 4),
The frequent Kai vvv, kcli rai'vi', xiii, 11, xvii. 30 (merely ravvv), xx. 22, 25,
32, (also xxii. 16, xxvi, 6,) xxvii. 22. The simple ravvv without Kai in
Peter only, iv. 29 {koItovvv). But Kai vvv also iii. 17, x. 5, xvi. 37, xxiii.
21 ; Kai ravvv also V. 38. KaBapbs iya — post-position of iya without cop
ula (?) . — XX, 26 (on KaBapds — BCDE elpi). That some accordance with
Paul is to be expected from the Paulinian Luke is manifest. Much, however,
that is adduced is erroneous, or proves nothing, e, g, xapi^ea-Bai, to compos-
sionole, in God's relation to man, xxv. (not xxvi,) 16 (also 11), xxvii, 24
(not 23), cf, Rom, viii, 32, 2 Cor, ii. 7, 10 (not 12), xii, 13, Gab iii, 18, &c, ;
for there it is used exactly like iii, 14 (in xv, 16 it does not occur), dno-
fioXfj ipvxfjs, xxvii. 22, and Rom, xi. 15 (only ottoiSoXij) . dnpda-Konos, xxiv,
16, and 1 Cor, x, 32 (different), Phil, i, 10, The use of ttos in xiii. 10,
XX. 19, xxiii, 1, but also in xvii, 11, xxiv, 3, xxviii, 31, Jas, i, 2, 1 Pet, ii,
18, TO crneppa Kar enayyeXiav (these do not belong together) xiii, 23, also
32 {rfjv inayyeXiav), is a purely Pauline thought (Rom, ix,). The time be
fore Christ a time of ayyoia, xiii. 27 (is parallel with iii. 17), xvii. 30, Rom,
ii, 4(?), X. 3 (?), and many others.

BATB OF COMPOSITION. § 116. 225

Credibility. § 115 e.
If it be correct to derive the chief part of the historic mat
ter of the book from written sources, its credibility is secured
from the suspicion of one-sided arbitrariness.'' However, the
demonstrable mistakes (§ 114) show that examination is not
superfluous ; and, as regards the narratives of miracles, sus
picion cannot fail of being excited by the circumstance that
some contain what is inconceivable (ii. 5, ff.), some what
shocks our moral sense (v. 1, ff.), and some vary on being
repeated (cf ix. 7 with xxii. 9 ; ver. 29, f. with xxii. 17, {.).
Ignorance of Jewish history and customs appears in v. 36, f.,
x. 28.
^ Baur's suspicions, expressed in his Abh. lib. Zweck u. Veranlassung des
Rom. Br. (cf. Kling, in Stud. u. Kr. 1837. p. 290, ff.), detailed more fully
in his work, Paulus der Ap. J. Chr. 1845, have little critical worth, for he
pays no regard to the sources used, even where the eyewitness speaks. Acts
xvi. 16, ff., and leaves his readers in the dark on this point. " .... By
this, however, the possibility (?) must not be excluded of its being based on
previous works, collections, narratives, journals, as for instance that from
Luke's hand of Paul's last journey. That it (the Acts) bears on its front
the name of Luke (?) presupposes, first, merely the opinion that .... (it)
can have originated only in the Apostle's vicinity. But it must also be con
sidered that the author himself, to whom we ascribe the Acts in its present
form, must have shared this opinion, for only thus can we explain why, in
passages in whose connection Luke is mentioned by name, (where are these
passages?) he used the communicative form of address." Paulus, etc., p, 12,
The assertion, that the Paul of the Acts is another than that of the Pauline
Epistles (p, 10, cf, Schiieckenb. p. 150), is an exaggeration, and it is too bold
to doubt the truth of facts attested by an eyewitness, xxi. 20, ff. Paul him
self attests his high regard for the Jewish nation and law, Rom. ix. 3, ff, ;
that he would not do away the essence of the law, Rom , iii, 3 1 ; the priority
of the Jews in respect of the Gospel, Rom, i, 16, iii. 1, ff. ; his spirit
of accommodation, 1 Cor. ix. 20.
Date of Composition.
§ 116.
As the narrative closes in the second year of Paul's im
prisonment (xxviii. 30), and makes no mention of his death,
29

226 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the composition is usually supposed to have taken place in
that year, and the work to be incomplete. Both are incor
rect. The Gospel was probably written after the destruction
of Jerusalem (§ 101 c) ; the Acts stiU later;" and therefore
the farther history of the Apostle cannot have been unknown
to the author. The ground of his silence lay in the work
from which he drew, which, while it extended only so far,
yet led him to the end that he had in view (§ 113 a). That
the author designed adding yet a third part is an arbitrary
assumption (^Heinrichs, Credner).
'- The passage viii. 26, even if it refer to the destruction of Gaza shortly
before the Jewish war, mentioned by Josephus, B, J, II. 18, 1 {Hug, Einl,
I, 23), does not serve to fix the date of the composition. The silence re
garding the destruction of Jerusalem can also prove nothing.
Acceptance in the Church.
§ 117 a.
Before Irenceus we find, at the utmost, allusions to Acts,
but no distinct quotation from it." But in this Father
(after 177) the proofs of its acceptance are numerous and
certain enough.'' The book seems to have been less read
than the Gospels, and therefore less known."
' Ignat. Ad Smyrn. c, 3 : Mera 6e rfjv dvacrracriv crvvecpayev avrols Kal
(Tvveniev. Cf, Acts x, 41 . Oinves (TVve(pdyopev kcu crvveniopev avra perd rb
dvaor^vai avrbv e'K veKpav. Polycorp, Ad, Philipp. c, 1: °0c eyeipev b Beds,
Xva-as ras aBlvas rov aSov, Cf, Acts ii, 24 : Ov b Bebs dvea-Trja-e, Xvaras rds
aBlvas TOV Bavdrov. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. p. 302 : UaBrjrbs yevrjcrdpevos
b Xpio-rds. Cf Acts xxvi. 23 : Ei naBrjrbs b Xpioro's. Apol. II, p. 85 : 'lov-
Saioi .... fjyvdrja-av {rbv Xpiardv). Cf Acts xiii. 27 : Oi ydp KaroiKovvres
ev 'lepovaaXfjp Kal ol dpxovres avrav rovroi' ayvo^o-aj/res .... Tatian, Or.
c. Graec. p. 144 : 'AXX' ov6e rbv dvavdpaxrrov Bebv BapoBoKrjreov • 6 yap ndv
rav dvevBefjs ov BiapXrjreos icp' vpav as ivBefjs. Cf. Acts xvii. 25 : OvSe
VTTO ^(eipfflj' dvBpanav Bepaneverai npocrBedpevos nvds. Other allusions in
Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel History, IL 1, pp. 13, 45, f , 86, are
less likely.
i" Iren. Adv. Hseres, III, 14, 1 : Quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabUis
fuit a Paullo, et cooperarius ejus in Evangelio, ipse fecit manifestum, non
glorians, sed ab ipsa productus veritate. Separatis enim, inquit, a Paullo
et Barnaba et Joanne, qui vocabatur Marcus, et quum navigassent Cyprum,
nos venimus in Troadem (Act. xv. 39) : et quum vidisset PauUus per som-

ACCEPTANCE IN THE CHUKCH. § 117 b. 227
nium virum Macedonem, dicentem : Veniens in Macedoniam opitulare nobis,
Paulle, siotim, ait, quaesivimus proficisci in Macedoniam, intelligenles, quo
niom provocavit nos Dominus evangelizare eis. Novigontes igitur a Troode,
direximus novigium in Somothrocen (Act, xvi, 8, sqq,) : et deinceps reliquum
omnem ipsorum usque ad Philippos adventum diligentur significat, et quem
admodum primum sermonem loquuti sunt : Sedentes enim, inquit, loquuti
sumus mulieribus quae conveneront (ver, 13) ; et quinam crediderunt, et quam
multi, Et iterum ait : Nos autem navigovimus post dies azymorum a Phi-
lippis, et venimus Troadem, ubi et commoroti sumus diebus septem (Act, xx, 6),
Et reliqua omnia ex ordine cum Paullo refert, etc. Ibid. § 2  In Mileto
convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso .... multa testifi-
cans eis et dicens quae oportet ei Hierosolymis evenire, adjecit (Paulus) :
scio quoniam jam non videbitis faciem meam, etc. (Act. xx. 17, sqq.). —
Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons to those in Asia and Phry-
gia, in Euseb. H. E. V. 2 : .... Kai vnep rc5y ra Beivd BiariBevrav rjiSxovro,
KaBdnep '2recpavos d rcXeios pdprvs • Kvpie, pfj crrfjcrrjs avrols rfjv dpapriav
ravrrjv (Acts vii. 60). Clem. Alex. Strom. V. 588 : KaBas kcu. d AovKds iv
rals npd^ecn rSi/ aTTOO'rdXtoi' dnopvrjpovevei rbv IlavXoj' Xeyovra • dvBpes
'ABrjvaloi, k. t. X. (Acts xvii, 22), Tertull. De baptismo, c, 10 : Adeo post
ea in Actis Apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Joannis baptismum
habebant, non accepissent Spiritum sanctum, quem ne auditu quidem nove-
rant. Dejejun. c. 10: Porro cum in eodem commentario Lucae et tertia
hora orationis demonstretur, sub qua Spiritu s. initiati pro ebriis habebantur,
et sexta, qua Petrus ascendit in superiora, etc.
¦= Chrysost. Hom. I. in Acta Apost. : IIoXXois rovro rb ^i^Xiov ovB' on
icrri, yvapipdv icrnv, ovre 6 ypdifras avrb Kal crvvBeis.
§ 117 b.
Some heretics rejected the Acts, but on arbitrary and dog
matic 'grounds." By the Catholic Church it has never been
doubted, and it therefore belongs to the universaUy accepted
books.'' There appears, however, a slight difference of opin
ion regarding the author."
'- Augustin. De util. cred. c. 2. u. 7 : Nosti autem, quod auctoris sui
Manichaei personam in apostolorum numerum inducere molientes, dicunt
Spiritum s., quem Dominus discipulis suis se missurum esse promisit, per
ipsum ad nos venisse. Itaque si illos Actus Apostolorum acciperent, in
quibus adventus s. Spiritus pr^dicatur, non invenirent, quomodo id immis-
sum esse dicerent. Augustin. Ep. 237. (al.253.) n, 2 : Nam quidam Moni-
chaei canonicum librum, cujus titulus est Actus Apostolorum, repudiant.
Timent enim evidentissimam veritatem, ubi apparet s, Spiritus missus, qui
est a Domino Jesu Christo in evangelica veritate promissus. Sub ejus
quippe Spiritus nomine, a quo penitus alieni sunt, indocta hominum corda

228 PAUL.
decipiunt, mira caecitate asserentes, eandem Domini promissionem in suo
haeresiarcha Manichaeo esse completam. Quodet illi haeretici faciunt, qui
vocantur Cataphryges, dicentes per nescio quos insanos, Montanura scihcet
et Priscillam, quos et proprios suos prophetas habent, venisse Spiritum s.,
quem Dominus missurum se esse promisit. — Euseb, H. E. IV. 29, on the
Severians : Xpmvrai pev ovv ovroi vdpco Kal npocpfjrais Kal evayyeXiois, IBias
epprjvevovres t£j' lepav rd vofjpara ypacpav • ^Xa(X(prjpovvres Be UavXov rbv
dndcrrciXov, dBerovcriv avrov rds inicrroXds, prjBe rds npd^eis roiv dnocrrdXav
KaraBexdpevoi. >> Euseb. H. E. Ill, 25, see Part I. § 24.
' Photius, Amphiloch. quaest. 145, in Gotland, Bibl. patr. XIII. 722 :
Tbv Be crvyypacpea rav npd^eav ol pev KXfjpevra Xeyovcri rbv 'Paprjs, aXXoi Be
Bapvdpav, Kal SXXoi AovKav rbv evayyeXicrrfjv. J. E. Chr. Schmidt, in the
Kirchenhist. Archiv, I. 15.
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles among the Ebionites. Epiphon. Haeres.
XXX. § 16. Fabric, Cod. apocr. N. T. II. 762.

CHAPTER VI.

OP PAUL AND HIS WETTINGS IN GENEEAL.

Chronology of his Life.
§118.
Only towards the end of his life do we find pretty well-
established points for determining the chronology. From
these we must go backwards, but without always expecting
entire accuracy.
Ohronological Table.
A.D. 64. In the middle of this year the persecution of the Christians broke out
under Nero. Paul must therefore have gone to Rome not later than
A, D. 62 ; otherwise he could not have lived and preached there two
years. Therefore,
61 or 62, in the Spring, he arrived at Rome (Acts xxviii, 11- 16), and
60-61, in the Autumn, began his journey towards Rome (Acts xxvii, 1, 9),
Porcius Festus entered on the government of Judsea, Joseph. An-

CHRONOLOGY OS HIS LIFE. § 118. 229
A.D. tiqq. XX. 8. 9 ; UopKwv Be ^fjcrrov BiaBoxov ^fjXiKi Trep^flecros vtto
Nepa>i/os, oi nparevovres rav rfjv Kaicrdpeiav KaroiKovvrav 'lovBalav
els rfjv 'Pdiprjv dva^alvovm, ifjXiKos Karrjyopovvres - Kal ndvras dv
iBeBaKei npapiav rav els 'lovBaiovs dBiKrjpdrav, el pfj ttoXXo avrbv b
Nepaj; tm dBeXcpa UdXXavn napaKoXea-avn a-vvexaprjcre, pdXiara Be
rdre Bid rip^s exav iKelvov. Tacit. Ann. XIV. 65 : Eodem anno
(p. C, 62,* P, Mario, L, Asino Coss,) libertorum potissimos veneno
interfecisse creditus est , . . . Pallantem, quod immensam pecuniam
longa senectute detineret. Felix must, therefore, before this year
have been recalled and tried, and Festus put in his place. Pallas,
indeed, had long before lost Nero's favor and been removed from
affairs. Tacit. Ann, XIII, 2, 14, On this account Siiskind, in Ben
gel's Arch. I. 2. p. 317, and Rettig, Quaest. Philipp. (Giss. 1831)
p. 43, sqq,, date Festus's succession some years earlier. Probably
P, had become reinstated in N,'s favor, J. F. Wurm, in the Tiib.
Zeitschr. 1833. 1. 12, ff. Rud. Anger, De tempp. in Act. App. ratione
(L. 1833) p. 96 sqq. — Josephus's journey to Rome in his twenty-
sixth year, about A. D. 62 or 63, points to about the same time.
De vita, § 3.
58 or 59. Two years before P. Festus's induction Paul was imprisoned at
Jerusalem (Acts xxiv. 27). At that time Felix had already been
procurator many years (Acts xxiv. 10) ; he entered upon his office,
however, A. D. 53 (Joseph. Antiqq. XX. 7. 1. B. Jud. II. 12. 8, in
opposition to which Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54, .... jam pridem Judaeae
impositus . . . ., is in error) , about the same time with Agrippa's trans
ference from Chalcis to the tetrarchate of Philip, after the twelfth
year of Claudius.
— — . After Easter of this year Paul departs from Philippi and arrives
at Jerusalem, at Pentecost (Acts xx. 6, 16, xxi. 17).
He had previously tarried three months in Achaia (Acts xx. 3).
57 or 58. Journey from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts xx. 1), probably at
the close of the year.
He had previously dwelt about three years at Ephesus (Acts xix.
8, 10, XX. 31) ; therefore,
54 - 55. Arrived at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1).
Before this, a journey through Galatia and Phrygia (Acts xviii.
23), and
Stay in Antioch (Acts xviii. 22), which must have consumed about
a year.
53-54. Fourth journey to Jerusalem from Corinth, byway of Ephesus
(Acts xviii. 18, 22). This journey, according to Kuinoel, Ad Act.
App., and Schott, Erorterungg. ein. wicht. chronol. Punkte in d.
* Cf , against the year 63, borrowed from the current editions of Tacitus,
GSschen, Bemerkk. z. Chronolog. d. N. T. in Stud. u. Krit. 1831. IV. 728. f

230 PAUL.
A.D. Lebensgesch. d. Ap. P. (Jena, 1832), p. 35, ff., was not made, but
Paul went to Csesarea merely. Opposed to this, see Riickert, Comm.
iib, d, Br, a, d. Gal, p, 334,
Before this, a stay of a year and a half at Corinth (Acts xviii. 11) ;
hence,
52-53. Arrival at Corinth about contemporaneously with the expulsion of
the Jews from Rome {Sueton. In Claud, c. 25, Acts xviii. 1), which
took place in the period from A. D. 48 to 54. Wurm, as above,
p. 49. Anger, 1. c. 116, sqq.
Before this,
51 - 52. The second missionary journey (Acts xv. 36 - xviii. 1).
50-51. The third journey to Jerusalem, to the assembly of the Apostles
(Acts XV. 2, ff.)
Previously : —
(?) The first missionary journey (Acts xiii, and xiv,).
Before this, at the time
44. Of Agrippa's death (Acts xii. 23, cf. Joseph., Antiqq, XIX, 8, 2).
44-45, The second journey to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30), after
43 or 44. A stay of one year at Antioch (Acts xi. 25, ff.), and,
41-42 (or 42-43). An undetermined, perhaps two years', stay at Tarsus
(Acts ix, 30).
40 or 41 (41 or 42). First journey to Jerusalem, three years after his con
version (Gal. i. 18, Acts ix. 26).
37 or 38 (38 or 39). His conversion, fourteen years (Gal. ii. 1) before his
journey to Jerusalem, A. D. 50 or 51 (Acts xv,).
But the interval between the last two events is too great. That especially
between A. D. 44 or 45 and 51 or 52 is not sufficiently filled up. Hence,
the change in the reading of Gal. ii. 1 from Sia BeKarecrcrdpav to fiia reo-o-a-
pav, proposed by Grotius, Capell-us, &c., and lately adopted by Guerike
(Beitr, p, 85), Kiichler (De anno quo P, conversus est L, 1828), Wurm (as
above, p, 59, ff.), may appear probable. We must then, however, set the
data in Acts xv. 2, xv. 36 -xviii. 1, farther back, and reckon the four
years from the first journey to Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), so that the conversion
would fall about A. D. 40, and the journey in Acts xv. 2 about A. D. 47.
But this calculation is again disturbed by the journey in Acts xi. 30 A. D,
44 or 45, because the time between the first journey to Jerusalem (which
took place A, D, 43) and the second (A, D, 44 or 45) is too short to include
Paul's stay at Tarsus and Antioch {Kiichler considers the stay in Tarsus as
of several years' duration ; while Schroder [Der Ap, Paulus, 1 Th, L. 1830,
p, 60] considers it quite short). According to Keil (De defin. temp, itineris
P. Hierosolym. Gal. ii. 1. commemorati in Pott, Syllog. III. 68), Hanlein,
Bertholdt, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Fritzsche {Fritzsch. Opuscc. p, 224, sqq,),
Bdttger (Beitr, III, 12, ff,), and others, the journey in Acts xi, 30 is one .
and the same with that mentioned in Gal, ii. 1. They reckon it, however.

HISTORY OF HIS LIFE. § 119 a. 231
differently: flareZeira fourteen years after the con-version, Bertholdt a.ni Kui
noel four years after the same (manifestly too early), Heinriclis four years
after the first journey. /. E. Chr. Schmidt (Chronol. d. AG, in Keil's and
Tzschirner's Anal, III, 137) sets this journey wholly aside, regarding it as
identical with that in Gal, i. 18, Schroder, I, 72, ff,, 120, II, 299, ff,, places
the journey in Gal, ii, 1 before Acts xx, 2,
If we retain the reading 8ia fieKareo-irdpo)!/, we must assume a pretty early
date for the conversion ; that above given. A, D, 37 or 38 (or, if the year of
the journey be included in the fourteen years. A, D, 38 or 39), the fourth or
fifth after Jesus's death, would be the earliest possible. The circumstance,
that when Paul escaped from Damascus (2 Cor. xi. 32, Acts ix. 25) the
ethnarch of Aretas, king of Arabia, was in command at Damascus, contrib
utes very little to the determination of the year of Paul's conversion, as it is
not yet proved that this resulted from an invasion {Wurm, p. 27, Anger, p.
180 ; on the other side. Win. Art. Aret., Guerike, Einl. 336, who considers
this invasion as a fact, about the time of the Roman expedition against A.
in A, D. 37, and finds in it a settled point for the calculation of the Apostle's
chronology). The passage 2 Cor, xii, 2 can also contribute nothing to the
determination of the year of Paul's conversion, for it is not likely that Paul
meant here the vision narrated in Acts ix.
The different determinations of the year of Paul's conversion given by
chronologists are : Eusebius, A. D, 33, the year of Christ's death ; Boronius,
A, D, 34, two years after Jesus's death ; Usserius, Pearson, Hug, A, D, 35,
two years after; Colvisius, A, D. 34, one year after; Sponheim, A.D. 39
or 40 ; Bengel, A. D. 31, one year after; Vogel (Vers, iiber chronol. Stand-
punkte, &c,, in Gobler's Journ, f. auserl, theol, Litt, I, 2), A, D, 33, two
years after ; Siiskind, as above, A.D, 32, that of Jesus's death ; Eichhorn,
A. D. 37 or 38, five years after ; Schmidt, A, D, 41 ; Hanlein, between 36 and
38 (Jesus's death A, D, 33) ; Bertholdt, A, D. 40 ; Heinrichs, A, D, 37, four
years after ; Kuinoel, A, D. 40, seven years after ; Schroder, A, D, 39, four
years after ; Hemsen (D, Ap. Paulus, Gott. 1830), A. D, 35 ; Schott (Isag,),
A, D, 40 or 41 ; (Erorterungg,), A. D. 37-39 (year of Jesus's death, 33),
Mejjer (Comm, iib, d, AG,), A. D, 35 (Jesus's death, A. D. 31). Cf the ta
bles drawn up by Goschen, Anger, as above, Olshausen, Comm. II. 550, ff.
Several dissenting and paradoxical views presented by Kohler (Vers. iib.
d. Abfassungsz. d. epistol. Schriften im N. T. u. d. Apokal. L. 1830) and
Schroder, are examined by ScAoW (Erorterungg., &c,), Wurm, Anger, as
above. History of Paul's Life. — His Descent and Culture.
§ 119 a.
Paul — so caUed as missionary of the faith to the heathen
(Acts xiii. 9 - xxviii., 1 Thess. i. 1, and often), his original

232 PAUL.
name being Saul (Acts vii. 58 -xiii. 9") — was born'' at
Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3), of Jewish par
ents of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. iii. 5), and with the
rights of a Roman citizen (Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 27, f.)."
' Jerome, Catal. c. 5 : Quumque primum ad praedicationem ejus Sergius
Paulus proconsul Cypri credidisset, ab eo, quod eum Christi fidei subegerat,
sortitus est nomen Paulus (?). This double nomenclature is best explained
by the custom of the Jews, especially of such as were Roman citizens, to bear
double (Roman) names (cf Acts xii. 12, 25, xiii. 1, Col. iv. 11). That in
the Acts he is at first called Saul, and afterwards Paul, comes from his being
known by the latter name as Apostle among the heathen Christians ; and the
introducing it in xiii. 9 is occasioned by the first act of apostolic power on
the part of him who had hitherto been but a missionary. Win. RWB. II.
350. Neand. Gesch. d. Pflanzung, etc., I. 135. For other opinions, see
Wits. Meletem. Leid. p, 47, Kuinoel, Ad Acta, xiii, 9,
^ The statement in Jerome, 1, c, ; , , , . de tribu Benjamin et oppido Ju
daeae Giscalis fuit, quo a Romanis capto, cum parentibus suis Tarsum Cili-
ciae commigravit, — contradicts the Apostle's own statement. Acts xxii, 3,
"= On the origin of this right of citizenship, see Cellar. De Pauli Ap, Rom,
civit, (Dissertatt, P, IL, Ugolini, Thesaur, T, XXII.), and other writings,
adduced by Wolf, Cur. philol. Ad Acta xxii, 28. Kuinoel, Ad Acta xvi, 37,
That all inhabitants of Tarsus were Roman citizens cannot be proved from
Dio Chrysost. in Tarsica poster, II, 36, ed. Reiske (cf Eichhorn, III. 3),
and is improbable from Acts xxi. 39, xxii. 24.
§ 119 b.
Paul in his youth did not profit by the Greek culture
which flourished at Tarsus. He went early to Jerusalem
(Acts xxii. 3)," where he received, under Gamaliel, a phari-
saico-rabbinic training, the stainp of which his writings bear.
He seems, however, to have subsequently, perhaps during
his stay at Tarsus (Acts ix. 30), become acquainted with
Grseco-Jewish learning.'' Although destined, as it seems,
for a scholar, he acquired, according to the Jewish custom,
a trade, that of tent-maker (cricrjvoTrom.y He was never
married (1 Cor. vii. 7).''
» Against Eichhorn, II. 9, Hemsen, p, 6, see Tholuck, Einl, Bemerkk,
in d. Stud, d, paul, Br,, Stud, u, Krit, 1835, p, 365, f,
" Thalemann, De eruditione Pauli jud,, non Graeca, Lips, 1769, 4to,,
against the exaggerated opinions of the older writers, e. g, Strobach, De
eruditione Pauli Apostoli, Lips. 1708. Svo. Schramm, De stupenda eruditione

HIS ENTRANCE INTO CHRISTIAN HISTORY. § 120. 233
Pauli Apostoli. Herb. 1710. 4to, and many others. But compare Henke,
on Poley, Horae Paulin. p. 449, ff. Schroder, Der Ap. Paulus, IL 15, ff.,
50, ff. Traces of Greek reading: 1 Cor. xv. 33 (?), Tit. i, 12 (?), Acts
xvii. 28.
° Cf. Hug, Einl. II. 328, Eichhorn, III. 8, who, however, erroneously
limit his trade to Cilician haircloth.
* On the other hand, the opinion that he was married, based on Phil. iv.
3, 1 Cor. ix. 5. Clem. Alex. Strom. IIL 448. Euseb. H. E, IIL 20,
PauVs Entrance into Christian History.
§120.
In consequence of his pharisaic culture, he appeared on
the stage as a zealot for the law of his fathers and as a per
secutor of the young Christian Church (Acts vii. 58 -viii. 3,
ix. 2). But a mysterious occurrence on the road to Da
mascus (Acts ix. 3, ff., xxii. 6, ff., xxvi. 13, ff., 1 Cor. xv. 8,
ix. 1),' in conjunction with an internal revelation (Gal. i.
15, f.), converted him into a confessor and proclaimer of
Christ ; so that when, after spending some time in Arabia,
he returned to Damascus (Gal. i. 17), he drew persecution
on himself (Acts ix. 23-25, 2 Cor. xi. 32, f). After a brief
interview with two Apostles in Jerusalem he withdrew to
Cilicia (Acts ix. 26-30, Gal. L 18-21),'' where Barnabas
sought him out and took him to Antioch, there to work in
company with himself (Acts xi. 25).
The sudden revolution in his mode of thinking is at first view
the more remarkable, as the formerly strict Pharisee appre
hended Christianity with a freer spirit than almost any other
disciple, and loosed it from all the bands of Judaism except
ing the rabbinic mode of using Scripture, and the eschatol
ogy. However, many psychologic reasons may be shown ; "
and the passionate aberration to which his zeal for the Law
drove him explains how, when he once acknowledged the
truth, he acknowledged the whole truth, and placed himself
in the distinctest opposition to Judaism.
^ Natural explanations given by Amman, De repentina Sauli ad doctrinam
Christi conversione (Opusc. theol. p. 1), cf. Eichhorn, Ueb. d. Bekehrung
d. Ap. Paul., AUg. Bibl. VI. 1, ff. ; Greiling, Hist, psychol. Versuch, &c.
30

234 PAUL.
{Henke's Theol. Arch. III. 2) ; Heinrichs, Exc. V. ad Act. Apost. ; Schro
der, II. 93, ff. Others are adduced by Kuinoel, Ad Act. ix. Opposed to
these, Bengel, Die Bekehr. d. Ap, Paul, Tiib, 1827, Neand. Gesch. d.
Pflanz,, &c,, I. 147, ff. The objective representation of the conversion
given in Acts has, no doubt, its truth in a subjective occurrence, as Acts
xxii, 17, 2 Cor, xii, 1, ff.
^ Schroder, II. 161, f , and others, suppose that he preached in Cilicia.
Cf. Acts XV. 23, 41.
' Cf. Neand. I. 103, f., and Tholuck' s (as above, p. 377) reference to
Gamaliel's liberal style of thought.
Paul's Missionary Journeys.
§ 121 a.
The church at Antioch, where he labored with other
Hellenistic teachers, became the mother-church of that
Christianity which was to embrace the world and compre
hend aU men. She sent him and Barnabas forth on a mis
sionary journey to Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycao-
nia. At first they addressed the Jews, but on being re
jected by them, turned to the heathen. They established
mixed churches of Jews and Gentiles (Acts xiu., xiv.). As
a counter action subsequently arose on the part of the Ju
daistic Christians in Judasa, some of whom excited opposi
tion to Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, they went to
Jerusalem to obtain the countenance of the church there.
Their mission was successful (Acts xv., Gal. ii. 1-10)."
Hereupon Paul, without Barnabas, took his second mis
sionary journey, through Syria, Cilicia, Lycaonia, Phrygia,
Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia. In Achaia he made a
lengthened stay, thence journeyed to Jerusalem, to a festival,
and returned to Antioch (Acts xv. 36 - xviii. 22). During
this journey he established churches in Galatia (Acts xvi.
6),'' Thessalonica, Philippi, and Corinth ; and in the last-
mentioned city wrote his Epistles to the Thessalonians.
' Keil (p. 214) and others regard this journey as the one mentioned in
Acts xi. 30. The majority, however, accept the above theory (see Winer,
Exc. II. ad ep. ad Gal., Meyer, on Gal. ii. 1, my Exeg. Hdb. ib.), and
either suppose the Apostle to pass over that journey in silence, or regard it
as not having taken place.

HIS ARREST. § 121 C. 235
' Luke is silent on this point ; however, the words, KaXvBevres vnb tov
dyiov nvevparos XaX^irai roi' Xoyov iv rfj 'Aa-icf (Asia proconsulaii) do not
contradict it. § 121 &.
After a stay in Antioch, Paul took a third journey, to
Galatia and Phrygia, to strengthen the churches which he
had founded there (Acts xviii. 23), and then took up his
abode at Ephesus, where he remained more than two years
(Acts xix.).* Here probably he wrote his Epistle to the Ga
latians, and, towards the close of his residence, the First
Epistle to the Corinthians. Hereupon he went to Mace
donia and Achaia, and remained three months at Cor
inth (Acts XX. 1, 2). Before his arrival there he wrote
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and at Corinth the
Epistle to the Romans. During this period he exerted him
self greatly to raise a contribution in aid of the Christians
at Jerusalem (Acts xxiv. 17, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, ff., 2 Cor. viii. f.,
Rom. XV. 25, ff.).
¦ In regard to the journey to Corinth, which the Acts has not mentioned,
and some writers have supplied, see § 132 a, note a.
Paul's Arrest.
§ 121c.
In the spring of this year he went from Philippi by way of
Troas to Miletus, and thence through Tyre, Ptolemais, and
CsBsarea to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 3 -xxi. 16), where, in spite
of a precautionary measure and of his defence before his
countrymen, he incurred the hatred of the Jews, and was
imprisoned (Acts xxi. 17 -xxii. 29). In vain he defended
himself before the Sanhedrim and the procurator Felix, who
kept him in prison two years at Csesarea (Acts xxii. 30 -xxiv.
27). Receiving no justice even from Festus, the successor of
Felix, he found himself compelled to appeal to the Emperor,
and was accordingly carried a prisoner to Rome, where he
remained two years before his case was decided (Acts xxv. -
xxvui.). Here he wrote his Epistles to Philemon, the Colos
sians, and the Philippians, and it is commonly supposed also
the Epistle to the Ephesians.

236 PAUL.

Paul's Second Imprisonment at Rome, and Execution.
§ 122 a.
Several Church Fathers, and even Eusebius, represent the
Apostle as suffering martyrdom in Nero's persecution of the
Christians.'' Eusebius asserts, on the authority of a Church
tradition, that before this time he was liberated from the
imprisonment at Rome, mentioned in Acts,'' under Nero.
" Euseb. H. E. II, 25 : Kparaiovpevrjs B' fjBrj t« T^epavi rfjs dpxfjs 
Kar avrfjs anXi^ero r^s ets roj' rSv oXajj/ Bebv evcre^eias  Tovrov Be
ndXiv 6 'Pcopaios TeprvXXiavbs .... pvrjpovevei  Tavrrj yovv ovros Beo-
pdxos iv rols pAXicrra nparos dvoKrjpvxBeis, inl rds Kara rSj/ dnoaroXav
iTTTjpBrj crcpayds. IlavXos Bfj ovv in avrfjs ^Paprjs rfjv KeepaXfjv dnorprjBfjvai,
Kal Uerpos acravras dvacTKoXonicrBfjvai Kar avrbv Icrropovvrai. Kal nicrrovrai
ye rfjv icrropiav fj Uerpov kcu IlavXov eis Bevpo Kparfjcracra inl rav avrdBi koi-
prjrrjpiav npdcrprjcris. OvBev B' fjrrov Kal iKKXrjcriao-riKbs dvfjp Vd'los ovopa,
Kara Zepvplvov 'Papaiav yeyoj/obs inicrKonov (about A, D, 196), 6s 8^ npo-
kXco rfjs Kara 0pvyas npo'lorapevca yvaprjs iyypdcpas BiaXexBeis, avrd Bfj ravra
nepl rav rdnav evBa rSv elprjpevav dnoa-rdXav ra lepd a-Krjvinpara KarareBeirai,
(prjcriv • " 'Eya Be rd rpdnaia rav dnocrrdXav e'xa Bei^ai. 'Edv ydp BeXfjcrrjs
aneXBelv inl rbv BariKavdv, fj inl rfjv oBbv rfjv 'Qcrrlav, evpfjcrets ra rpdnaia
Tav ravrrjv IBpvcrapevav rfjv iKKXrja-iav." ("Strictly speaking, this is only
a proof that the Apostle suffered here during this persecution ; the place of
martyrdom is the Christian's token of victory, even although it was not his
burial-place," Description of Rome by Plainer, Bunsen, etc, II, 1, 52.
" This is the more probable, as, according to other accounts, the bones of
the Apostle, pretended to have been found in the Catacombs, werefirst trans
ferred to his grave between A, D, 260 and 330, when the Constantinian Ba
silica enclosed it. Eusebius, however, manifestly understood the words of
Caius to refer to the graves of the Apostles." Bour, Paul, etc., p, 237,)
'Qs Be KCU Kara rbv avrbv apcpa Kaipbv ipaprvprja-av, KopivBiav inicTKonos
Aiovva-ios (about A, D, 170) iyypdcpas 'Papawis dpiXav, &Be nas naplcrrrj-
mv. " Tavra (ravrij) Kai vpeis, Sia r^s roa-avrrjs vovBeoias, rfjv dnb Uerpov
Kal UavXov cpvreiav yevrjBelaav 'Papaiav re Kal KopivBiav crvveKepda-are.
Kcu ydp apcpa Kal els rfjv fjperepav KdpivBov (pvreva-avres fjpds, bpoias iBlBa-
^av - dpoias Be koi eis rfjv 'IrdXiav bpdcre BiBd^avres, ipaprvprja-av Kard rbv
avrbv Kaipov." Tertull. Scorpiace, c, 15 : Orientem fidem Romae primus
Nero cruentavit. Tunc Petrus ab altero cingitur, quum cruci adstringitur, ,
Tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, quum illic martyrii
renascitur generositate, De praescript, c, 36 : Habes Romam  ubi Pe
trus passioni dominicae adaequatur, Paulus Johannis exitu coronatur,
Euseb. Chron, ed, Maj, et Zohrab, p, 375 : Nero ad cetera scelera persecu-

HIS SECOND IMPRISONMENT. § 122 b. 237
tionem quoque Christianorum primus adjunxit, sub quo videlicet Petrus et
Paulus Apostoli martyrium Romae consummaverunt. Lactant. De mort.
persecut. c, 2 : Cumque jam Nero imperaret, Petrus Romam advenit ....
convertit multos ad justitiam, Deoque templum fidele ac stabile collocavit.
Qua re ad Neronem delata cum animadverteret .... magnam multitudinem
deficere a cultu idolorum . . . . ut erat exsecrabilis ac nocens tyrannus, pro-
silivit ad excidendum coeleste templum . . . . et primus omnium persecutus
Dei servos Petrum cruci afiixit et Paulum interfecit. Sulpit. Sever. Hist, s,
II, 29 : Hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum. Post etiam datis legibus
religio vetabatur, palamque edictis propositis Christianum esse non licebat.
Turn Paulus ac Petrus capitis damnati, quorum uni cervix gladio desecta,
Petrus crucem sublatus est (Tum refers back to initio, as Wurm, in the
Tiib. Ztschr. 1833. 1, 83, correctly remarks, contrary to Schott, Erort, p, 120),
Euthalius, in Millii N. T. ed. Kiister, p, 252 : MereVeira Se KaBoXiKbv iKi-
vrjcre Biaypbv Kara rwi/ xP'.anavav, Kal ovras Kara rav dnocrrdXav infjpBrj
a-cpayds. Syncell. Chron, p, 339 : Nepmv wpSros Kara xP'.o"riavav Kivfjcras
Biaypdv . . . . — KaB ' ov Uerpos Kal IlavXos ipaprvprja-av ol Beloi dndcrroXoi,
noXXovs Kal aXXovs xP'-onavav dveIXe, nXewvas iKBia^as. Also Ps. Abdias
(Hist, Apost, in Fabric. Cod, apocr, N, T, II. 454) represents the Apostle
as dying in the first and only imprisonment.
'' H, E, II. 22 : Tdre pev ovv dndXoyrjcrdpevov avBis em r^i/rov Krjpvyparos
BiaKOViav Xoyos exei a^reiXaa-Bai rbv dndoroXov • Bevrepov B ' ini^dvra rfj avrfj
ndXei, ra Kar avrbv (Nepmya) reXeimfl^j'ai paprvpico - iv a Becrpols exdpevos
rfjV npbs TipdBeov Bevrepav inicrroXrjv crvvrdrrei, bp/rv crrjpalvav rfjv re npore-
pav avra yevopevrjv dnoXoyiav Kal rfjv napanoBas reXeiaaiv. Aexov Bfj Kal
rovrav rds avrov paprvpias. " 'Ev r^ nparrj pov," cprja-lv, "' dnoXoyia ovBels
poi (Tvpnapeyevero, dXXd ndvres pe iyKareXmov- pfj avrols XoyierBeirj - b Be
Kvpids poi napecrrrj Kal iveBvvdpacre pe, iva Bi ipov rb Kfjpvypa nXrjpocpoprjBfj
Kal dKovcracri ndvra ra 'iBvrj - Kal epp-io-Brjv iK crrdparos Xeovros." ^acpas Be
naplcrrrjcri Bid rovrav, on Be rb npdrepov, as dv rb Krjpvypa rb Bi avrov nXrj-
paBeirj, ippvcrBrj eK crrdparos Xeovros, rbv Nepava ravrrj . as eoiKe Bid rb apd-
Bvpov npocreindtv - ovkovv e^fjs npocreBeiKe napanXfjoidv ri, ro pvcrerai pe iK
(rrdparos Xeovros. Eapa ydp tm nvevpan rfjv dcrov ovttcb peXXovcrav avrov
reXevrfjv. Aid cprjcriv iniXeyav ra "koi ippvcxBrjv iK crrdparos Xeovros," rb
' ' p-vcrerai pe d Kvpios dnb navrbs epyov novrjpov Kal cracrei els rfjv ^acriXeiav
avrov rfjV inovpdvwv," crrjpaivav rb napavrUa paprvpiov  Tavra Se
^plv e'lprjrai, napicrrapevois on prj KaB rjv b AovkSs dveypa-^ev inl rfjs 'Paprjs
iniBrjpiav rov IlavXov, ro paprvpwv avra crvvenepdvBrj. So also Hieron. De
script, eccles, c, 5, and Euthali-us, 1. c.

§ 122 &.
But if the Apostle perished in the persecution under
Nero, the chronology (§ 118) allows no interval for his re-

238 PAUL.
lease from the first imprisonment and for a second. As we
find, before the time of Eusebius, but one, and that a very
uncertain, support, in Clement of Rome, for this supposed
tradition ; * as Origen is totally ignorant of it ; '' as, more
over, Eusebius, in support of his statement, appeals quite
too emphatically to 2 Timothy, — we seem constrained to
regard it as a supposition of his own, made after the example
of some other Father."
^ Ep. 1. ad Corinth, c. 5 : Uerpos Bid ^fjXov dBiKov ovx ^'"' "^^^ ^^"i oXXa
TrXeiovas vnepeivev novovs, Kal ovra paprvpfjcras inopevBrj els rbv dcpeiXdpevov
rdnov rfjs Bd^rjs. Aid QXov 6 IlaiJXos vnopovfjs j3pa/3eioi» dne(rxev, enroKis
Bea-pd (popea-as, pa^Bio-Beis, XiBaa-Beis • Kfjpv^ yevdpevos ev re rfj dvardXfj koi
iv rfj Bv(rei, rb yevvaiov rfjs nioreas avrov kXcos eXa^ev • BiKaioovvrjv BiBd^as
oXov rbv Kocrpov, Kal inl ro reppa rfjs Bvcreas iXBav, Kal paprvpfjcras
inl rai' fjyovpevav, ovras dnrjXXd-yrj rov Koa-pov, Kal els rbv dyiov rdnov ino
pevBrj, vnopovfjs yevdpevos peyicrros vnoypappds. By reppa r. B. Spain is
understood, and by fjycrvpevois the administrators of the empire, Helios and
Polycletos, appointed during Nero's absence ; and thus Paul's death is fixed
in the latest part of Nero's reign {Heidenreich, Pastoral. Br. II. 15). The
latter expression is understood more correctly by Neander, AG. I. 390,
Schott, Erbrterung. p. 129, as a general expression for the mighty of the
earth (Matt. x. 18) ; and that rb reppa t. B. cannot refer to Spain is shown
by the connection ; for the three clauses, vnopovfjs .... dnecrxev, rb yev.
.... eXa^ev, dnrjXXdyrj, n. t. X., are co-ordinated, and the participles he-
longing to them all refer to the same factum. Consequently, iv rfj Bva-ei
and e'jTi 'rb reppa rfjs Bvcreas iXBav indicate the same thing, while the rela
tive reppa may without difiiculty be regarded as a strong rhetorical expres
sion for the far-east terminus of the Apostle's course (cf. Rom. xv. 19). See
Schenkel, Ueb. d. zweite Gefangensch. d. Ap. Paul, in Stud. u. Krit. 1841.
p. 77 (with whom I cannot quite agree in taking the expression in its sub
jective sense), cf Schroder, I. 235. Bour, Tiib. Zeitschr. 1831. IV. 148,
ff. Clement wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem {Schenkel, p. 65),
and cannot, therefore, mention Paul's martyrdom as later than in Nero's
persecution ; but for that very reason it is not probable that he, like later
writers [Athanos. ad Dracont. ep. T. I. p. 956. Cyrill. Hieros. catech.
XVII. 3), refers to and rests on Rom. xv. 24, because of the Apostle's jour
ney to Spain. On the other hand, .Dionysius's assertion, that Peter
preached in Corinth, may well have originated in 1 Cor. i. 12. — In Mura-
tori's Fragm. on the Canon (Part I, § 21), another trace of the journey
to Spain is found : " Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta
sunt Lucas uptime Theophile comprehendit, qui sub praesentia ejus singula
gerebantur, sicut et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed profec-
tionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis, Cf. Hug, I. 124.

HIS EPISTLES. § 123 a. 239
'' In Eitseb. III. 1 : Ti Sei jrepi IlavXov Xeyeiv dnb 'lepova-aXfjp pexpi rod'
iXXvpiKoC TTeTTXijptoKOTOs t6 evayycXiov rov Xpia-rov, Kal varepov ev rfj 'Papij
em Nepmi/ps pepaprvprjKoros ;
" And indeed, perhaps, as Goschen, Schluss zu Hemsen, p. 741, and
Schroder, I. 252, suppose, for the purpose of harmonizing his false chronol
ogy — according to which he places the carrying away of the Apostle from
Caesarea in the fourteenth year of Claudius, and his arrival at Rome in the
first of Nero — with Acts and with the fact that Paul suffered martyrdom
under Nero. Something, however, yet remains unexplained. Cf. Wurm,
as above, p. 94. It is worthy of note that the apocryphal Acta App. know
nothing of a second imprisonment. See Fabric Cod. apocr. II. 452, sqq.
Acta Petr. et Paul. ed. Thilo, Hal. 1837, 1838. Agamst the theory of a
second imprisonment there are, besides Baur, Goschen, Schenkel, Schroder :
Schmidt and Eiclihorn in their Einl. E.F.R. Wolf, De altera Pauli captivi-
tate. Lips. 1819-21. Hemsen, -p. 101, ff. Wmer, RWB, IL 260, f, Reuss,
Gesch. d. Schr. d. N. T. § 64. Motthia, Pastoralbr. p. 185, ff,, 593, f. ; of
the older writers, Petavius, Lardner. In favor of it : Bertholdt, Einl. V.
2746, f Mynster, Kl. theol. Schr. p. 291, f Heidenreich, Pastoralbr, II.
6, ff. Gaerife, Beitr. p. 121. £oA/, Abfass. d. Br.an Tim.u. Tit. p.91, ff.
Kohler, Abfassungsz. d. epist. Schr. p. 109, ff, Wurm, as above, Kling,
Anh, z, Flatt's Vorless, iib. d, Br, P, an Tim, u. Tit, p, 545, f,, 590, ff.,
cf. however p. 615. Neander, as above, p, 528, ff, Schott, Isag. p. 198, f,,
Erort. p. 116, ff. Credner, p. 317. Neudecker, p. 397, ff.
Paul's Epistles.
§ 123 a.
The letters of the Apostle are the most important mon
uments of the early Christian times, although almost all
refer to subjects of special, and in part ephemeral, interest.
They are the true expression of a great mind, and both in their
contents and style of writing bear a distinct literary stamp ; "
hence the theory of Rotten and Rertholdt, that they were
composed in Aramaic, has not the sfightest likelihood. The
genuineness of the most important of them is beyond all
dispute, and they form the solid kernel of the collected writ
ings of the New Testament. Antiquity, with one consent,
accepted thirteen Epistles of Paul as genuine ; only the
fourteenth, that to the Hebrews, was disputed.'' Modern
criticism has started doubts against but a few of them, the
strongest against the so-called pastoral letters and that to

240 PAUL.
the Ephesians. Their arrangement in the manuscripts and
editions of the New Testament rests on an arbitrary dispo
sition of the rank of the communities and persons to whom
they are addressed. We prefer to arrange them according
to the chronology of their composition.
' Wholly, or in the main, peculiar ideas, words, and idioms : dyiacrvvtj,
dyaBacrvvq, BiKalacris, BiKaiapa, BiKaiocrvvrj, BiKaiovcrBcu, KaraXXda-creiv, ko-
raXXayij, pecrirqs, vloBea-la, avBpanos naXaids, dvBp. Kcuvds, Kricris Kaivfj, xd-
pia-pa, contrast of TTiVris and vdpos, of adp^ and nvevpa, ivBieaBai, eKBvecrBai
in the tropical sense, KecpaXfj of Christ, KXfja-is, o'lKoBopfj, pvcrrfjpiov, ov BeXa
vpds dyvoelv, BeXa vpds eiBevai, yivacTKeiv vpds ^ovXopai, yvapi^opev vplv,
rovro Be cprjpi, oiBa ydp, ri ipovpev; dXX' ipel ns, rj dyvoeire ; pfj yej/oiro, ri
ovv; rl ydp; Cf. § 161a, note b. The style of the Apostle is distin
guished by parentheses, anacolutha, and rapid turns,
I" See the testimony of Irenceus, Tertullion, Clement of Alex,, and Euse
bius, in Part I, §§ 21, 23, 24, § 123 &.
Probably one of Paul's Epistles is lost, that which pre
ceded our First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. v. 9).^
We have in Armenian a pretended Third Epistle following
the other two to the Corinthians, and an earlier letter from
the Corinthians to Paul. Both, however, are spurious.''
Col. iv. 16" refers to a lost letter to the Laodiceans. On
the other hand, we have a spurious interchange of letters
between Seneca and Paul.'^
^ But Chrysost. and others understand iv rfj iniaroXfj to mean the First Ep.
to the Corinthians itself They do not admit that letters have been lost. So
also J. G. Mailer, De tribus Pauli itineribus Corinthum susceptis de episto-
lisque ad eosdem non deperditis, Bas, 1831, p. 23, sqq, Stosch, De epistolis
App, non deperditis, Gron, 1753, Bleek's theory of a letter to the Corinthi
ans written between our two canonical epistles, see § 133, note a.
'' Epistolae S, Pauli ad Corinth, et Corinthiorum ad S, Paul, Armenice
ex Museo Viri Clar, Philipp, Massonii, versionem Lat, accurante Dov. Wil
kins, Amst, 1715, 4to, copied by Fabric. Cod, apocr, N, T, III, 666, sqq.
Published in more complete form by Wm. and George Whiston as an appen
dix to their edition of Moses Chorenensis : Appendix literaturae Armeniacae,
quae continet epistolas duas, primam, Corinthiorum ad Paulum, alteram,
Pauli Apostoli ad Corinth., nunc primum ex cod. ms. Armen. integre ple-
neque editus et Graece Latineque versus. — Epistolae duae apocryphae, .
altera, Corinthiorum ad Paulum Apostolum, altera, Pauli Ap. ad Corin-

HIS EPISTLES. §123 ft. 241
thios, quae dicitur periisse, ex cod. ms. Armen. nunc primum editae separa-
tim, Graeceque et Latine versae, et additis Guil. atque Geo. Whistoniorum
notis, praefat. et animadverss. auctae a Joh. Bened. Carpzov. Lips, 1776,
Svo, Complete according to several Armenian MSS. in Pasqual Aucher,
Grammar Armenian and English. Venice, 1819. p. 117. W. F.Rink, Das
Sendschreiben der Corinther an den Ap. Paulus und das dritte Sendschr.
Pauli an die Corinth, in armen. Uebers. erhalten, und verdeutscht u. mit
einer Einl. iib. d. Aechth. begleitet. Heidelb. 1823. Against the genuine
ness maintained by him, see TJUmann, in the Heidelb. Jahrbb. 1823. No. 34.
" Erroneous explanation of Tlieodoret and others, that a letter from the
Laodiceans to Paul is meant. Many vainly try to prove the Epistle to the
Ephesians to be this (§ 145). Stein (Anh. z, s, Comm, z, Ev, Luc), rest
ing on an ambiguous passage hx Philastr. Haeres, LXXXVIIL, considers
it the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cf, Schneckenburger, Beitr. z,. Einl. ins N,
T, p. 153, ff. Following several older writers {Eglin, Affelmonn, Zeltner),
Wieseler (Progr, de ep, Laodicena, Gott, 1844) seeks it in the Epistle to
Philemon (cf, § 141 b). Traces of a spurious letter to the Laodiceans in
Jerome, De vir, ill, c, 5 : Legunt quidam et (epistolam) ad Laodicenses, sed
ab omnibus exploditur. Theodoret, Comm, ad Coloss. iv. 16 : Tiyes vneXa-
j3oi/ KCLi npbs AaoBiKeas avrbv yeypacpevai, avriKa roiwv Kal npo(r(pepov(ri ne-
nXacrpevrjv enicTroXfjv. *0 Be Belos ottootoXos ovk ecprj Kal rfjv npbs AaoBiKeas
dXXd Kal rfjv ck AaoBiKeias ' iKelvoi ydp npbs avrbv nepl nvav eypa-^av. Ei-
Kbs ydp avrovs rj ra ev KoXocrcrals yevdpeva alndcracrBai, fj ra avrd rovrois
vevocrrjKevai, Aid Kal ravrrjv elne rfjV inicrroXfjv KOKeivois dvayvacrBfjvai. Cf.
Fabric. Cod. apocr. N. T. H. 860, sqq,, where, and in p, 873, sqq,, the let
ter itself is translated into Latin and Greek (according to Hutter, in his N. T.
XII. Lingg, Norimb, 1699), and printed. It is found also in Reinecc. Po
lygl, Lips. 1747, f p. 957. Micliaelis, Einl. IL 1281. Henke on Paley,
Hor. Paul. p. 371, ff.
^ Hieron. De vir. ill. c. 12 : Lucius Annaeus Seneca Cordubensis ....
quem non ponerem in catalogo Sanctorum, nisi me illae epistolae provoca-
rent, quae leguntur a plurimis, Pauli ad Senecam et Senecae ad Paulqm.
Augustin. Ep. 153 (al. 54) ad Macedonium, § 14 : Merito ait Seneca, qui
temporibus Apostolorum fuit, cujus etiam quaedam ad Paulum Apost. le
guntur epistolae : omnes edit, qui males odit. The letters are found in
Latin in Fabric. 1. c. p. 892, sqq.
Aids to the Exegesis of the Epistles of Paul.
Cf. §§ 9, 62, Primasii in omnes P. epp. comm. Col. 1538. — Thom.
Aquin. Comm. in epp. Paul. Bas. 1475. fol., &c. — Guil. Estii in omnes Paul.
et al. App. epp. comm. Duae. 1614. Mogunt. 1841. — Calvin, Comm. see p,
85, — Jo. Bugenhageri, Adnotatt, in epp, ad Gal, Eph. etc. Argent. 1524,
Svo. — Henr. Bullinger, Comm. in omnes epp, apost. Tig. 1537. fol. —
Wolfg. Musculi Comm. in epp. ad Rom. (Bas. 1555. fol.), ad Corinth. (1559),
31

242 Paul's epistles.
ad Gal. Eph. (1561), ad Philipp. etc. (1565). — Andr. Hyperii Comm. in
Paul, epp. Tig. 1583. fol. — F. Bolduini Comm. in omnes epp. Pauli. Frcf
1644. 4to ; 7th ed. 1710. fol. — /. Quistorpii Comment, in epp. Pauli. Rost.
1652. 4to. — Jo. Crocii Comm. in epp, P, minores (ad Gal, Eph. Philipp.
Thess. Tim. Tit. Philem.). Marp. 1663, Cass, 1680, 2 tom. fol. —Seb,
Schmidii Comment, in epp. Paul, ad Rom. Gal. et Col. una cum paraphrasi
ep. 1. ad Cor., utriusque ad Thess., 1. ad Tim., ep. ad Philem. et Cantici
Mariae. Hamb, 1704. 4to. ^ — -See /. Baumgorien's Ausleg. d, Br. a. d.
Rom. Halle, 1747. Ausleg, d, Br, Pauli an die Eph. Gal, Phil. Col. Phi
lem. und Thess,, mit einigen Beitragen von J. S. Semler. Halle, 1767, 4to.
— /. D. MichaSlis, Paraphr. u. Anmerkk, iib, d, Brr, P, an d. Gal. Eph.
Phil. Col. Thess. Tim. Tit. u, Phil, (Gott, 1750,) Brem. 1769. 4to. — /.
Locke's Paraphr. Erkl. und Anmerkk. iib, P. Br. an d. Gal, Kor. Rom, u.
Eph, Aus d, Engl, von J. G. Hofmann. Frcf. 1768, 1769. 2 vols. 4to.

CHAPTER VIL
Paul's epistles vteitten bepoee his impeisonment.

I. Epistles to the Thessalonians.
Zonchii Comm. in epp. ad Eph. Phil. Col. Thess. Neost. 1591, ff. (Opp.
T. VI.). — N. T. ed. Koppe, Vol. VI. Olshausen, Vol. IV, Exeg, Hdb,
II, 3. — /. A. Turretin, Comment, in epp, P, ad Thess, Basil, 1739, Svo,
— /, Fr. V. Flatt, Vorless, iib. d, Br, P, an d, Phil, Kol, Thess, u, Philem,,
herausgeg, V, .K"fi?2^, Tiib, 1829, Svo, — Lud. Pelt, Epp, Pauli Ap, ad
Thessal, perp, illustr, comm, Gryph, 1830, — HA. Schott, Epp, P, ad
Thess, et Gal, comm. perp. illustr. Lips. 1834.
Founding of the Church at Thessalonica.
§124.
Thessalonica {OeacaXoviicr]), formerly Thermse, situated
on the Bay of Thermae, newly built by Cassander and
named in honor of his wife Thessalonica, daughter of Phifip
the Elder, in the time of the Romans capital of the
second district of Macedonia, and a very populous commer-

FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. § 125 a. 243
cial city, was visited by Paul in company with Silas,* on
his second missionary journey. He soon gained adherents
there, especiaUy among the Proselytes, but was compelled
in a short time to leave the city on account of a tumult
raised by the Jews (Acts xvii. 1-9). His preaching of the
Gospel, which, on account of the shortness of the time, was
incomplete (1 Thess. in. 10, iv. 13), seems to have had a
prevailingly apocalyptic tendency (hence the political charges
of the Jews, Acts xvii. 7), and to have made a profound
impression on the susceptible minds of the Thessalonians.
— Thence he went to Bercea, whence also he was driven,
and compeUed to go to Athens ; but he left his companions
behind with instructions soon to fofiow him (Acts xvii. 10-
15). Meanwhile he went to Corinth, where they rejoined
him (Acts xviii. 5).
» According to Acts xvii. 1, Timothy seems to have remained at Philippi,
and subsequently to have followed him. Acts xvii. 14 shows him at Bercea.
According to 1 Thess. i. 1, ii. 1, Timothy also stood in close connection
with the church at Thessalonica, although this may rest on his journey
thither, iii. 1, f. It is, however, possible that he went from Philippi to
Thessalonica. First Epistle.
§ 125 a.
According to the indications contained in the Epistle,
Paul wrote it in the company of Silvanus (Silas) and Tim
othy (i. 1), while yet full of the recollection of his visit to
Thessalonica (i. 9, ii. 1, ff.) ; he longed to see the Christians
there once more (iii. 10), and was filled with anxiety about
them (iii. 5). On this account he had twice purposed to
revisit them (ii. 17, f.), and had sent Timothy to them (iii.
1, ff.). In their depressed condition they needed strength
ening (iii. 2, f., 13, cf ii. 14) and further improvement (iii.
10). The accounts brought by Timothy were quieting ; the
community was firm in faith and active in its love (iii. 6 -
9, iv. 10). It suffered, however, from some immoralities,
which the Apostle had already orally rebuked (iv.3-6, ll,f.,
v. 14), and needed, in general, moral admonition. Instruc-

244 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
tion regarding the fate of the dead at Christ's coming was
also necessary (iv. 13 -v. 11). — The whole burden of the
Epistle thus indicates that it was composed soon after the
founding of the Church, in the first part of Paul's jesidence
at Corinth, after the return of Silas and Timothy from Ma
cedonia, about A. D. 52 or 53.^
> So Baron. Corn, a Lap. Est. Bez. Grot. Mill, and most modern critics.
§ 125 ft.
The supposition of a later origin is in no wise required
by the fact that overseers are presupposed (v. 12, f ), that
disorders had crept in (iv. 11, f., cf 2 Thess. iii. 10), that
deaths had occurred (iv. 13), in Thessalonica, nor by the
warning in 2 Thess. ii. 2, and the precautionary statement in
2 Thess. iii. 17.* Nor does i. 8 constrain us to suppose that
the Apostle in the mean time went beyond Macedonia and
Achaia.'' The greatest difficulty lies in the impossibility of
harmonizing the mission of Timothy "from Athens to Thes
salonica and his return thence (iii. 1, f.) with Acts xvii. 15,
xviii. 5.° This can be removed only by an hypothesis which
shall fill out and correct the account in Acts, namely, that
Timothy had returned to Athens alone,'* or with Silas,* and,
sent thence to Thessalonica, met Paul in Corinth.*
' On these and other grounds, Schroder, 1. 90, f., 164, places the Epistles
to the Thessalonians during Paul's stay in Greece, and especially in Athens,
Acts XX, 2 ; at the same time he supposes a visit of the Apostle to Thessa
lonica before Acts xx. 2, which is not mentioned in Acts, during a journey
to Macedonia, that must be inserted before Acts xix. 21. See Schnecken
burger, 'Beitr. z. Einl, ins N, T, p. 165, ff., -who, among other objections to
this theory, forcibly adduces 1 Thess, iv, 10, cf. 2 Cor. viii. 1. Anger,De
tempp. in Actis App, ratione, p, 67, sqq, Schott, Prolegg , p. 6, sq., 14, sqq.
^ As Calov. and Bottger, Beitr. IL 22, suppose, he took a journey from Cor
inth to Athens. MichaSlis, Einl. p. 1206, dated the composition later on this
account, and Kohler, Vers. lib. d. Abfass. Zeit,,,&c., p. 68, f., 112, ff. j places
it, on this account and because of ii. 14- 16, in the time of the Jewish war.
' For this reason Wurm, Tiib. Zeitschr. 1833. I. 78, dates the composi
tion during the Apostle's residence at Athens, after a supposed journey from
Antioch (Acts xviii. 22) to Macedonia and Greece.
* So Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Schneckenburger, and others.
' So Michaelis and Schott, who sends Silas to Berosa. Hug and Hemsen

SECOND EPISTLE TO THB THESSALONIANS. § 126. 245
suppose that neither Silas nor Timothy went to Athens, but that the latter
went from Bercea to Thessalonica, contrary to iii. 1, f
' This supposition is far easier than that of a journey of the Apostle
not mentioned in Acts  Cf. Burgerhoudt, De coetus Christianorum Thes
salon. ortu fatisque et prioris Pauli iis scriptae ep. consilio atque argum.
L. B. 1825. § 125 c.
The contents of the Epistle are in two parts. I. Out
pourings of the Apostle's heart to the church at Thessalo
nica ; its condition, its circumstances, his reception there,
his anxieties on its behalf, and the consolation he had re
ceived (chap. i.-iii.). II. Moral warnings (iv. 1-12) ; con
solation in regard to the fate of the dead at the expected
speedy return of Christ (iv. 13 - 17) ; admonition to be con
stantly prepared for that event (v. 1 - 11) ; other admonitions
and conclusion (v. 12 - 28).
Second Epistle.
§ 126.
After sending his First Epistle, the Apostle must have
again received intelligence from Thessalonica. He learned
that the community had remained steadfast under fresh per
secutions (i. 4), but, at the same time, that it was disturbed
by its impatient expectation of Christ's coming (ii. 1, ff.),
and that the immoralities gently rebuked in 1 Thess. iv. 11
continued (iii. 6-15), To remove these errors is the aim
of the Second Epistle, which, in other respects, presup
poses the same circumstances as the First (i. 1), save that
iii. 2 perhaps contain^ a reference to the complaints urged
by the Jews against the Apostle (Acts xviii. 12, ff.). Ac
cordingly, the date of the Epistle falls in perhaps the latest
period of Paul's stay at Corinth (about A. D. 53 or 54)."
Contents : — Commendation, promises, and benedictions
in view of the sufferings of the community (i. 3 - 12). In
struction with reference to the coming of the Lord, not ex
tremely near, since it must be preceded by the appearance of
Antichrist (ii. 1 - 12) ; to this a warning is appended (ii, 13

246 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
- 17). Repeated exhortations, especially to an orderly, in
dustrious life, and conclusion (iii.).
' So Eichhorn; Grotius supposes that this is the First Epistle.
Genuineness of these Epistles.
§ 127 a.
Before Irenceus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian,
the references to these Epistles are in the highest degree un
certain." By these Fathers, however, they are distinctly
quoted,'' and both belong to the universally accepted writ
ings. " Clem. Rom. Ep. 1. ad Corinth, c. 38: 'OcpeiXopev Kara ndvra evp^api-
creii' avra. Cf. 1 Thess. v, 18: 'Ev navrl evxapierrelre (?), Ignoi. Ad
Polycarp, c, 1 : Upoa-evxals axoXa^e dBiaXeinrois, Polycorp, Ad Philipp. c,
4 : 'Ei'Tvypdai'ovo-as aSiaXeiVrois jTepi ndvrav. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 17 : 'ASiaXei-
nras npoae-vxea-Be {f). Polycorp, c. 2 : 'Anexdpevoi ndarjs dBiKias. Cf. 1
Thess. V. 22: 'Atto navrbs e'lBovs novrjpov dnexecrBe (?). Polycarp, c. 11:
Et non sicut inimicos tales existimetis, sed sicut passibilia et ignorantia
membra revocate. Cf. 2 Thess. iii, 15 : Kai pfj as ixBpbv fjyela-Be, a)Mi
vovBerelre ms dBeXcpdv (?), Justin. Mort. Dial, c, Tryph, p, 836 : "Orav koX
6 rfjs dnocrracrias dvBpconos, 6 KciX els rbv v-^icrrov e^dXXa XaXav, inl rfjs yfjs
dvopa ToXpfjcrrj els fjpds rovs xP^o-navovs, K.r.X. Cf, 2 Thess, ii, 3 : ....
'Eav pfj eXBrj fj dnocrracria jTpmroj', Kal dnoKoXvcpBfj 6 dvBpanos rfjs dpaprias,
K.r. X.
^ Irenceus, Cont, haeres, V. 6. 1 : Et propter hoc Apostolus se ipsum expo-
nens .... in prima epist. ad Thess. dicens sic : Deus autem pacis sanctiiicet
vos perfectos, et integer vester spiritus et anima et corpus sine querela in ad
ventum Domini Jesu Christi servetur. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 23. Ib. iii. 7, 2 : Et
iterum in secunda ad Thess. de Antichristo dicens, ait : Et tunc revelabitur
iniquus, quem Dominus Jesus Christus interficiet spiritu oris sui. Cf 2
Thess. ii, 8. — Clemens Alex. Paedag, I, p, 88, sq, ed, Sylb. : Tovrd roi
cracpea-rara 6 puiKapios IlavXos vnecrrjp-rjvaro einav, " Svvapeyoi ev jSdpei eivai
d)S Xpiarov dndoroXoi iyevfjBrjpev fjnioi iv pea-& vpav, as dv rpocpbs BdXnjj
ra eavrijs reKva." Cf, 1 Thess. ii. 7. Strom. V. 554 : Ovk ev nam, cprjcrlv
6 aTTOo-roXos, fj yvacris - npoa-evxea-Be Be iva pvaBapev hnb rav drdnav Kal
novrjpav dvBpanav - ov ydp ndvrav fj nicrris. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 2. — Tertul
lion, De resurrect, cam. c. 24 : Et ideo majestas Spiritus sancti perspicax
ejusmodi sensuum et in ipsa ad Thess. epistola suggerit : " De temporibus
autem et temporum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi vobis," etc.
(cf 1 Thess, V, 1), et in secunda, pleniore sollicitudine ad eosdem : "Obse-
cro autem vos, fratres, per adventum D, N, Jes, Christi et congregationem
nostram ad ilium, ne cite commoveamini animo," etc, (cf 2 Thess. ii. 1, ff.).

EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS. § 127 ft. 247
§ 127 ft.
The genuineness of both Epistles, especially of the Sec
ond, has however, in modern times, been disputed, chiefly on
account of ii. 1-12, where the coming of Jesus is postponed
yet farther by the doctrine of Antichrist, — a doctrine nowhere
shown to be Pauline, — in opposition to the expectation of
his speedy return expressed in 1 Thess. iv. 15, 1 Cor. xv. 52,
This is said to contradict the First Epistle, and to betray a
time of composition when this coming had been long expected
in vain. Moreover, by the caution against false epistles (ii. 2),
and the token of genuineness at the end (iii. 17), suspicion
is thrown on the genuineness of the First Epistle. Further,
in the Second Epistle various special allusions are copied
from the First, while the Second itself is not in har
mony with historically ascertained relations." But it is no
contradiction of the First Epistle, that Paul, after exhorting
them (1 Thess. iv. 15) to steadfastly await the second com
ing of Christ, felt himself bound to moderate their too ex
cited expectation ; and 2 Thess. ii. 1, ff. is written completely
in, the spirit of primitive Christianity (cf. v. 1). The meas
ure of precaution, iii. 17, could raise no suspicion against
the First Epistle, if the latter, as is probable, was sufiiciently
authenticated by the manner of its sending. Against the
last objection, see § 126.'' — The doubt of the genuineness
of the Second Epistle raised by Kern, on his explanation,
from a later historical stand-point," of the prophecy in in.
3, ff., faUs with this to the ground.
^ /. E. Chr. Schmidt, Vermuth, iib, d, beiden Briefe an. d. Thessal. in
his Bibl. f. Krit. Exeg, u. KG. II. 380, ff. Einl. ins N. T. II. 256, ff.
(In the earlier editions of this work, these doubts were strengthened.)
Baur, Paul. etc. p. 485, ff.
'' Cf Guerike, Beitr. p. 93, ff. /. G. Reiche, Authent. poster, ad Thess.
ep. vindiciae. Gott. 1829. 4to. Exeg. Hdb. II. 3. 124, 132, ff.
" Tiibing. Ztschr. 1839. II. Heft. Other grounds : the Second Epistle
imitates the First Epistle in many passages, and its style of writing is not
Pauline. See, against this, Exeg; Hdb. II. 3, Einl, z, 2 Thess. No. 3.

248 Paul's epistles.
§ 127 c.
Against the genuineness of the First Epistle, it has
been urged," — 1. that it contains in the main merely a de
tailed account of the historic course of the conversion of
the Thessalonians, given in Acts, with allusions to other
Epistles, especially those to the Corinthians ; 2. that ii. 14 -
16 is not by Paul, because of its sweeping attack on the Jews
and of the Apostle's mode of connecting his sufferings with
those of Christ and the Prophets, but, as appears from the
conclusion, was written after the destruction of Jerusalem ;
3. that the language of i. 7, f., 17, ii. 10, iv. 9, 11, f , does
not consist with the alleged early date of the composition ;
4. that such a thorough apocalypticism as appears in iv. 13,
ff., 2 Thess. ii. 1, ff., is not Pauline. But the first objection
is invalidated by the contradiction in iii. 1, f. to the Acts ;
and the rest, although in part based on actual exegetical difii
culties, spring from subjective opinions, which may be coun
terbalanced by others.
' Bour, as above, p. 481, ff.

II. Epistle to the Galatians.
Hieron. Comm. in ep. ad Gal, Opp, VII, ed, Vallars, — Luther, In ep. ad
Gal. Comm. de anno 1519. a. 1523. ab auctore recogn. Opp. Jen. Tom. I. III.
Hall. IX. Comm. ex praelectt. D. Mart. Luth. Viteb. 1532, Jen. IV.
Hall. VIII, — Balth. Stolberg, Lectiones publ, in ep, ad Gal, Vitemb, 1667.
4to, — N, T, ed, Koppe, Vol, VI. — Olshausen, Comm. Vol. IV. — Meyer,
Comm. VII. -r Exeg. Handb. II, 3, — Boumgarten-Q-us. II, 2. — Schott,
Comm., see above. — Mori, Acroases in epp. Paul, ad Gal. et Eph. (ed.
Eichstaedt). Lips. 1795. Morus, Erkl. d. Br. a. d. Gal. Gorl. 1798.—
E. A. Borger, Interpret. L. Bat. 1808. — G. B. Winer, Pauli ad Gal. ep.
Latine vertit et perp. annotat. illustravit. Lips. 1821. Svo. 3d ed. 1829. —
/, CAr, V. Flatt, Vorless, lib, d. Br. P. a. d. Gal. u. Eph., herausgeg. v.
Kling. Tiib, 1828.— K E. G. Poulus, Des Ap. Paulus Lehrbr. an d. Gal.-
, a, Romer-Christen. Heidelb. 1831. — L. J. Ruckert, Comm, Leipz, 1833.
— Leonh. Usteri, Comm. Ziir. 1833. — C. Steph. Matthies, Erkl. Greifsw.
1833, — CF. A. Fritzsche, De nonn. P, ad Gal. ep. locis comment. I. -III.
in Fritzschiorum Opp. p. 158, sqq. — Sordinoux, Commentaire. Valence,
1837. — Windischmann, Erkl. Mainz, 1843.

epistle to the galatians. § 128 ft. 249
Founding of Christian Churches in Galatia.
§ 128 a.
Galatia, or Gallogrsecia, a region of Lesser Asia, bounded
on the north by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, east by Pontus
and Cappadocia (the boundary stream was the Halys),
south by Cappadocia (Lycaonia) and Phrygia, west by
Phrygia and Bithynia, was seized about 250 B. C. by Celtic
and Germanic immigrants (among whom were also Tecto-
sages) and called after them, but 189 B. C. was conquered
by the Romans, and 26 B. C. changed into a Roman prov
ince." In the cities, especially the flourishing commercial
city of Pessinus, many Jews dwelt, whom Augustus had
taken under his protection.''
» Gottl. Wernsdorf, De republica Galatarum, Norimb, 1742, 4to,
Schulze, De Galatis, Frcf, 1754-57, 4to, Hofmonn, De Galatia antiqua.
Lips, 1726, 4to, Mynster, Einl, in d, Br, an d. Gal,, kl. theol. Schriften.
No, II, p, 49, ff. Win. RWB, art. Gal. Rosenm. Alt, K, I, 2. p, 210, ff,
Hieron. Prol. ad comment, in ep, ad Gal, ; Unum est quod inferimus . , . .
Galatas excepto sermone Ghraeco, quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam lin
guam eandem paene habere, quam Treviros, nee referre, si aliqua inde cor-
ruperint, etc. Cf , on the contrary, A. W.v. Schlegel, Ind, Bibl, II, 182, ff,
'' Monument, Ancyran., in Edm. Chishull, Antiq, Asiat, p, 165. Joseph.
Antiqq, XVI, 6, 2, Contrary to "this passage, to 1 Peter i, 1, and to our
Epistle itself, Schneckenb. AG, p, 104, asserts that there were no Jews in
Galatia, § 128 ft.
Paul was unquestionably founder of the churches there
(Gal. i. 8, iv. 13, 19). He came thither for the first time on
his second.missionary journey. Acts xvi. 6 ; the second time.
Acts xviii. 23, when he only strengthened the Christians
there. He had, therefore, preached the Gospel there on his
first journey." The churches there, as elsewhere, consisted
in part of Jewish (Gal, iii. 2, 13, iv. 3, 21), in part, and
perhaps chiefly, of heathen Christians (Gal. iv. 8, v. 2,
vi. 12)."
^ Acts xvi. 6 does not say that Paul had not preached in Galatia, cf
Schmidt, Einl. II. 244. From Gal. ii, 13, where Paul mentions 'Barnabas,
32

250 Paul's epistles.
it does not follow that Barnabas was personally known to the Galatians ;
nor can eis rfjv nepixapov. Acts xiv. 6, mean a journey to Galatia ; hence
the conversion of the Galatians cannot be placed in this period. (This is op
posed to Koppe, Prolegg. in ep, ad Gal,, and Keil, Ueb, d, Zeit, d, Abfass, d.
Brief an d. Gal,, in Keil and Tzschirn. Anal, III, 66. Ulrich, in Theol. St.
u, Kr, 1836, p, 456.) Mynster, p. 60, tries to show that, according to a
broader idiom, Galatia includes Lycaonia and Pisidia. He supposes that
the Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the Christians in these prov
inces also, and consequently places the conversion of the Galatians in the
time of Acts xiii. 14-xiv. 23. (See, on the contrary, Winer, Prolegg. in ep.
ad Galat. p. 6. RWB.) According to C, W. Niemeyer (De temp, quo
ep, ad Galat, conscripta sit, Gott, 1827), Paulus (Heidelb, Jahrbb, 1827,
and in appendix to his translation), Bottger (Beitr, z. Einl, in d. paul, Br,
III, 1, ff,), the Galatians whom Paul addressed are the inhabitants of the
region around Derbe and Lystra, But Luke, Acts xiv. 6, xvi. 1, 6, ex
pressly distinguishes these cities from Galatia, and places them in Lycaonia;
indeed, all the writers of that time separate the latter region from Galatia,
e. g. Plin. V. 25. See Riickert, p, 297. Magaz. f. Exeg., &c., I. No. III.
Usteri, p. 219, f. According to Schneckenburger (previous §, note b), cf.
Bour, p. 252, f,, merely heathen Christians,
Occasion, Date, and Contents of the Epistle.
§ 129 «.
After Paul's departure, Judaizing teachers (cf. Acts xv. 1,
5, Gal. ii. 12) " came to Galatia, who sought to diminish his
authority (i. 1, 11, ff.), condemned his doctrine, and asserted
the necessity of circumcision (v. 2, f., 11, f ), so that a por
tion of the Galatians went astray, and inclined to abandon
Paul (i. 6, iu. 1, 3, iv. 9, ff, 21, v. 2, ff, 7), while others re
mained true to him (v. 13, vi. 1). Our Epistle is intended
to counteract these hostile agencies. It is, however, a ques
tion when these hostile agencies made their appearance, and
whether the Epistle was written after Paul's first or his
second journey."" On the first supposition, it was written
either at Troas (Acts xvi. 8)," or at Corinth (Acts xviii. 11).°
In neither of these cases, however, would the false teachers
have had time enough to effect anything against the Apostle,
or the Galatian church to develop so far as is assumed in iii.
2-5, V. 7, vi. 6. The date of the composition, therefore, is
necessarily subsequent to the second journey, to which also

epistle to the galatians, § 129 6. 251
iv. 16, V. 21, vi. 13 (?), seem to refer. The appearance of the
false teachers must be placed in this period, and not, with
Ruckert, Hemsen, Schott, Credner, Neudecker, heiore the second
journey.'' After this journey the Apostle resided at Ephe
sus for a long time, during which the above-mentioned events
might take place in Galatia, and the tidings of them reach
Paul. Here also he wrote this letter with his own hand,°
probably not very long after his return thence (cf i. 6), about
A. D. 55 or 56.
• But they seem not to have been born Jews, vi. 13, cf v. 12,
"- Quite outside of this circle-is Keil's theory, which places the conver
sion of the Galatians (Acts xiv, 6) , and the composition of the Epistle,
which took place soon after, before Acts xv,, on the ground that he regards
the journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal, ii, as the same with that in
Acts xi. 30,
^ This Schmidt supposes, Einl, I, 245, Michaelis, II, 1195, has a sim
ilar view,
"= This is Mynster's theory, p. 72, Koppe's also, pretty nearly. Both,
however, assume an earlier journey to Galatia.
^ That Paul had nothing to do with these opponents on the occasion of a
second stay appears from the surprise attested by i. 6, iii, 1 (hence also
Credner and Neudecker suppose they had found new acceptance after the
second journey), from the indefinite way in which Paul apprehends them
(see remarks on v, 7), and, finally, from iv, 19, f. rightly understood (see
remarks on the passage) . Cf Neander, AG. I. 356, f,
• So Hanlein, Hug, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Schott, Credner, Winer, Riick
ert, Neander, and others ; of the older writers, Claud. Aniissiod. : iypdcprj
dn 'E(pea-ov. The prevailing opinion among the ancients {Hieron., Ps.
Athon., Cecum., and others) since Theodoret, and accepted even by Boron.,
Colov., Hamm., Schrad., Kohler, is expressed in the subscription: iypdcprj
dnb 'Paprjs. § 129 6.
The Epistle falls naturally into two parts, of which the
first (chap, i., ii.) aims to defend the Apostle's authority.
The second refutes the doctrine that the Mosaic Law is
necessary, by the ¦ great truth of the saving power of faith,
and that of the spiritual freedom of Christians (chap. iii. -
V. 12) , and contains a warning not to abuse this freedom
(v. 13-25), with other moral admonitions and precepts (v.
26 - vi. 10). Finally, the conclusion (vi. 11 - 18).

252 PAUL'S epistles.

Genuineness of the Epistle.
§ 130.
This Epistle agrees so closely with the Apostle's history
(certain variations from the Acts excepted), and bears so
distinctly the impress of his spirit, that not the least doubt
can be raised against the church tradition which ascribes it
to him, although this tradition is first attested by those
Fathers who flourished at the end of the second and begin
ning of the third century." The allusions found by Lardner
in the Apostolic and other very early Fathers, are too un
certain.'' ^ Irenceus, Cont. haeres. Ill, 7, 2 : Sed et in ea, quae est ad Galatas, sic
ait (Apostolus): Quid ergo lex factorum? Posita est, usque quo veniat
semen, cui promissum est, etc, Cf, Gal, III. 19, Clemens Alex. Strom.
Ill, 468 : Aio Kal IlavXos TaXarais eTTio-reXXmj', prjcri • reKvia pov, ovs ndXiv
aBlva, K. T. X. Cf, Gal, iv. 19. Tertullian, De praescript, c, 6 : Nee diu-
tius de isto, si idem est Paulus, qui et alibi haereses inter carnalia crimina
numeral, scribens ad Galatas,
'¦ Clemens Rom. in Ep. I, ad Corinth, c. 49 : To aipa avrov eBaKev vnep
fjpav d XpiOTOS 6 Kvpios fjpav, iv BeXfjpan Beov, Kal rfjv crdpKa vnep rfjs
crapKos fjpav, Kal rfjv ¦\jfvxfjv vnep Tfii/ ¦\//'v;(<3v fjpav. Cf, Gal, i, 4 : . . , , Tov
SoVros eavrov nepl rav dpapnav fjpav . . . . Kara ro BeXrjpa rov Beod Kal
narpbs fjpav. Ignat. in Ep. ad Philadelph, § 1 : .... 'iyvav on ovk dcp' eav
rov, ovSe Si' dvBpanav rj^iaBrj rfjv BiaKoviav . . . . dXX' iv dydnrj 'irjaov Xpi-
OTov Kai Beoij narpbs roi) iyeipavros avrbv eK veKpav (of the bishop there).
Cf Gal. i. 1 :  aTToo-roXos ovk dn dvBpanav, ovBe Bi dvBpanov, dXXd Bid
'Irjcrov Xpiarov Kai Beov narpbs rov iyeipavros avrbv e'K veKpav. Ad Magne-
sianos, § 8 : Ei yap pe;j^pi viv Kara vdpov 'lovBaiKbv Kal nepiropfjv crapKbs ia-
pev, dpvovpeBa rfjV X'^P"' elXrjcpevai. Cf. Gal. V. 4 : KarrjpyfjBrjre dnb rov
XpioTov, oinves iv vdpco BiKaiova-Be - rfjs xdpiros i^enecrare. Justin. Martyr.
Orat. ad Graecos, p, 40 : Tivea-Be cos iya • on Kdyd> fjprjv as vpels. Cf, Gal,
iv, 12 : TiveaBe as iya, on Kayo) ms vpels.

epistles to the CORINTHIANS, § 131 a. 253

III. Epistles to the Corinthians.
N. T, ed, Kopp, Vol, V. Part. I. compl. 1 Cor. c. i. -x. cont. Pott. —
Olshausen, III, 1, — Meyer, V. VI. — Baumg. Crus. II, 2, — Exeg, Handb,
II, 2. — Phil. Melonchthonis Adnotatt. in epp. P, ad Romanes et Corinth.
1522. 4to. &.c.—J.L.v.Mosheim,'E,i'&\.d. 1, Br, 1741, 4to, Neue Ausg,
mit d, Erkl. d. 2. Br. aus d, mosheim. Nachlass von Windheim, ib. 1762.
4to. — /. Chr. Fr. Schulz, Erkl. des 1, u, 2, Br, Halle, 1784, 2 Theile.—
Morus, Erkl, der beiden Brr, Leipz, 1794, — F. A. W. Krause, Perp. an
not. Vol, I. 1, ep. compl. Frcf ad M. 1790. — Chr. A. Godofr. Emmer-
ling, Ep, post, perp, comm. ill. Lips. 1823. — C. F. A. Fritzsche, De non
nullis post. ep. locis diss. duae. Lips. 1824. — A. L. Chr. Heydenreich,
Comment, in priorem ep. 3 vols. Marb. 1825-28. — /, F. v. Flatt, Vor
less. iib. d. beiden Brr. herausgeg. von Hoffmann. Tiib, 1827, Svo, —
Gust. Billroth, Comm, Leipz. 1833. — Die Brr, P. an d. Cor. bearb. v.
L. J. Ruckert. 1836 - 37, — C. A. Scharling, Ep. P, ad Cor, post, illustr.
Havn. 1840. — J. E. Osiander, Comm. iib. d, 1, Br, Stuttg, 1847.
Founding and State of the Church at Corinth.
§ 131 a.
Corinth, the capital of the province of Achaia, a wealthy
commercial city, seat of the worship of Venus and of lux
ury, but also of learning and eloquence," was visited by
Paul on his second missionary journey (about A. D. 52 or
53). He dwelt there a year and a half, and subsequently,
under the mild rule of the Proconsul Gallio, perhaps longer
(Acts xviii. 12-17), actively propagating the Gospel, while
working at his trade with Aquila and PrisciUa (ib. ver. 3,
11). Although he soon met with opposition from the Jews
(Acts xviii. 6), while the Gentiles, corrupted by the sophists
and orators, took offence at the artless simplicity of the Gos
pel (1 Cor. i. 22), he gained many adherents to the faith
(Acts xviii. 8), — among the Gentiles, however, chiefly of the
humbler and uneducated sort (ver. 26, ff.), — and, at his de
parture with Aquila and Priscilla, left behind him a large
church. » J. E. J. Walch, Antiquitt. Corinthiacae. Jen. 1761. 4to. Wilkens,
Spec, antiquitatt, Corinth, select, ad illustrationem utriusque ep, Paulinae,
Brem. 1747. Wagner, Spec, rer, Corinth, Darmst. 1824.

254 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
§ 131 ft.
As he subsequently took a missionary journey through
Phrygia and Galatia (about A. D. 54 or 55), ApoUos (Apol-
lonius), an Alexandrian scholar whom Aquila and PrisciUa
had instructed more fully in Christianity at Ephesus, came
to Corinth, and labored for the Gospel with much accept
ance (Acts xviii. 24-28). As he probably shared Paul's
views, he simply carried on Paul's work (1 Cor. iii. 6). Cer
tain teachers of Jewish origin, on the other hand (2 Cor. xi.
22), came to Corinth furnished with letters of introduction
(2 Cor. iii. 1), who, boastfully claiming apostolic authority
(2 Cor. V. 12, xi. 18, 22, xii. 11), forced themselves into
Paul's sphere of labor (2 Cor. x. 13, ff.), detracted from his
authority (1 Cor. ix. 2), placed themselves above him (2 Cor.
xi. 5), and led to disobedience towards him (2 Cor. x. 5, f.).
Their doctrine was different from that of the Apostle (2 Cor.
xi. 4), and indeed they seem, in the presumption of an arro
gant pride (1 Cor. iv. 6-8), to have perverted the essence
of historic Christianity in the service of a false philosophy
(1 Cor. i. 17-ii, 5). § 131c.
These "false apostles" (2 Cor. xi. 13), who sought to under
mine Paul's authority, probably occasioned the formation of
four" different parties in Corinth (1 Cor. i. 12), which named
themselves respectively after Paul, ApoUos, Peter, and Christ.
The first was undoubtedly composed of those who owed
their conversion to Paul, and acknowledged his authority.
ApoUos's adherents are commonly supposed to be they who
preferred him to Paul, on account of his greater knowledge
and eloquence ; but the attack on worldly wisdom in 1 Cor,
i. 17, ff., on which this opinion rests, cannot be aimed at the
method of a teacher who certainly used no such wisdom.
The most natural theory is, that they who had been con
verted and instructed by ApoUos took his name. Equally
common and equally erroneous is it to regard the Petrinians
as Christians who held Judaizing, anti-Pauline doctrines.

EPISTLES TO THB CORINTHIANS. § 131 C. 255
In no part of the Epistles is a trace of this opposition per
ceptible, not even in 2 Cor. v. 16. We have no option, there
fore, save to regard those Christians as members of the Pe
trine party, who, in the vexed question concerning the partak
ing of meat offered to idols (cf 1 Cor. viii. -x.), accepted the
authority and the decision of the first of the twelve Apos
tles (Acts XV. 29). Some have attempted to show that the
fourth, the Christine, party, as well as the above opponents
of Paul, was composed of Jewish Christians;'' but the
most probable hypothesis is, that they professed (like the
Apostle Paul himself) to stand in immediate connection
with Christ (through visions and inspiration), and therefore
rejected the authority of all Apostles." This view alone makes
certain polemical and apologetic passages in the Epistles
(1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. x. 5, ff., xii. 1, ff.) clear. The separation
of the parties was by no means so complete, as Eichhorn
supposed, as to prevent their assembling in the same place
(cf. 1 Cor. xi. 18, xiv. 23). — Besides these divisions, the
church suffered also from the licentiousness prevailing at
Corinth (1 Cor. v. 1, 9, vi. 12. ff, x. 8 ; 2 Cor. xu. 21)."
" Not three, as Chrysost. and others, Rabiger, Krit. Unterss. iib. den
Inhalt. d. beiden Brr. an d. Cor. (1847) p. 37, ff,, erroneously explain
1 Cor, i. 12.
'¦ According to Storr (Notitiae histor. epistolarum P. ad Cor. interpretationi
servientes, § 4, Opusc. II, 552, sqq,), the latter were disciples of James, the
brother of the Lord, and therefore boasted of being in nearer connection
with him ; according to Baur (Tiib. Ztschr. 1831. IV. 61, ff., Paul. etc. p.
261, ff,), they named themselves after Christ, as disciples of Peter, one of
the genuine disciples of Christ, But no trace appears of an appeal to the
authority of either James or Peter. According to Fr. Becker (Die Parteien
in d. Gemeinde zu Corinth. Alt. 1842. p. 45, f), the Petrinians were for
eign Christians, who had emigrated to Corinth (?). The Jewish Christians
there adopted their doctrine and tendency, but were unwilling to oppose with
them the disciples of Paul and Apollos, having been themselves converted
by these Apostles, They therefore adopted a higher and middle position,
and called themselves after Christ,
" Thus Schenkel, Diss, de eccles. Corinth, primaeva factionibus turbata.
Bas, 1838. Before Schenkel, H. Jdger (Erkl. d. beiden Brr. d. Ap. Paul.
nach Corinth aus dem Gesichtspunkte der vier Parteien das. Tiib. 1838)
regarded them, in a similar way, as those who opposed the other three
parties, which over-estimated the apostolic authority, and rejected both

256 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
the apostolic authority and the Krjpvypa. Schenkel's hypothesis was adopted,
in the main, also by D. H. Goldhorn in Ilgen's Ztschr, 1840, II. 121, ff,,
although he contradicts both in some points, and differs in his apprehension
of various passages ; by Dahne (Die Christus-Partei in der apostol, Kirche
z, Korinth. Halle, 1841); also hj Kniewel (Efccles. Corinth, vetust. dissen-
siones et turbae. Danz, 1841, 4to), according to whom the Christinians re
jected the authority of all the Apostles, and professed to know and be united
to Christ through their own insight (p, 46), Neander, AG, I. 388, ff,,
adopts the negative part of the hypothesis, namely, that the Christinians
professed to be independent of the Apostles, but thinks that some among
them were philosophizing Christians, — Our former theory, that the Chris
tine party asserted a neutral position (with Eichhorn, Pott, Schott, Riickert,
Meyer), is unsatisfactory,
^ Hesych. KopivBid^eiv, pacrrpone-veiv, eraipeveiv. Dio Chrys. Orat, Co
rinth, II, 119, ed, Reisk. : , . . . koi toi ndXiv o'lKelre rav ovcrav re Kal yeye-
vrjpevav enacppoBiTOTarrjv. First Epistle.
§ 132 a.
Such may have been the position of Corinthian affairs "
when Paul came from Galatia to Ephesus (about A. D. 55
or 56). Here probably he heard, for the first time, of the
irregularities there prevailing, and warned them against
these in a letter now lost (1 Cor. v. 9).
Subsequently receiving through Chloe's servants (1 Cor.
i. 11) still more disquieting accounts, especially of the di
visions in Corinth, he sent Timothy thither (1 Cor. iv. 17),
whoj however, first went through Macedonia with Erastus
(Acts xix. 22, cf 1 Cor. xvi. 10). About this time, also,
messengers came from Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 17, f.) with a
letter containing certain questions (1 Cor. vii. 1, cf. viii. 1,
xii. 1, xvi. 1), perhaps in answer to his letter. Besides these
divisions, and the tendency to licentiousness which had
come to light in one melancholy instance, the church at
Corinth suffered from several other disorders and improper
practices, and was on some points undecided or divided in
opinion.'' * On account of certain passages in the Second Epistle, especially xii. 14,
xiii, 1, xii, 21, ii, 1, Bleek (Theol, St, u, Kr. 1830. IIL 614, ff.), follow-

FIRST EPISTLE TO THB CORINTHIANS. § 132 6. 257
ing Chrysost. on 2 Cor. xii. 14, Michaelis, J. E. Chr. Schmidt, and others,
and in accord with Schroder (I. 95, ff.), Kohler (p. 74, ff.), — who reached
the same point independently of him, — Miiller, in his Diss. p. 6, sqq,, ad
duced in § 123 A, note a, Neander {p. 413), Schott (Erort, p, 51,ff,), Wurm
(Tiib, Zeitschr, 1833, I, 67), Anger, De tempp, in Act. App. rat, p, 71, ff,,
Billroth, Credner, and others, assumes an intervening journey of the Apostle
to Corinth. But although the passages cited may be more naturally ex
plained in this way, this theory is open to great objection. If the position
of the Corinthian church at the time of this journey caused anxiety to the
Apostle (as we conclude from 2 Cor. xii. 21, ii. 1), it is incomprehensible
how he can so speak of it in the First Epistle as to pass over in silence
his visit there, and what without doubt he had said and done against the
abuses that had crept in (cf. Neander, p, 416), If the condition of the
church was not yet disordered, the explanation of these passages fails,
and we cannot comprehend how, as the journey of the Apostle cannot be
supposed to have taken place long before the First Epistle, the church could
in so short a time have fallen into so bad a condition. We have left unno
ticed the difficulty of establishing the period of this journey. If we assuijie,
with Michaelis, Schott, Anger, and others, that this journey was only a re
turn from an excursion during his first residence at Corinth, the theory loses
all historic meaning.
i" It is not probable that all these disorders and doubts are to be referred
to one source, namely, party feeling, as is done by Storr and others, and
recently also by Rabiger. Under this theory, it was the ApoUonians who
excused licentiousness (vi. 12), the Paulinians who despised marriage (chap.
vii.), the Petrinians who overestimated speaking with tongues, the ApoUo
nians who denied the resurrection. § 132 ft.
To remove these evils and restore his authority, to in
struct on disputed points, and also to promote the collection
of a contribution for the Christians at Jerusalem, the Apostle
wrote our First Epistle. Its contents, according to their va
rious occasions, fall into several larger and smaller sections.
I. Against party spirit and to restore the personal author
ity of the Apostle (i. -iv.), especiaUy also to defend his un
studied preaching (i. 17 - iii. 2). II. Against the scandal
of forbidden intercourse with one's step-mother (v. 1-8),
and in correction of a previous warning against intercourse
with the unchaste (v. 9-13). Ill, Against the abuse of
seeking justice in the Roman courts (vi. 1 - 11), and renewed
warning against licentiousness (vi, 12-20), IV. Reply to
33

258 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
the question, whether it is better to remain unmarried (vii.).
V. Instruction as to the proper course in regard to eating
meat offered to idols (vui.-xi. 1), with a digression on his
own disinterested, self-denying conduct (ix.). VI. Rebuke
of an impropriety, prevalent among the Corinthian female
Christians, in regard to the covering of the head (xi. 2-16).
VII. Rebuke of the far more important disorders of the cel
ebration of the Lord's Supper (xi. 17-34). VIII. Instruc
tion regarding spiritual gifts, to which love alone lends worth
(xii., xiii.), and that prophesying is preferable to speaking
with tongues (xiv.). IX. Instruction concerning the resur
rection of the dead, a doctrine which some denied (xv.)."
X. Finally, directions regarding the contribution of alms
to be made, together with matters of personal interest and
greetings (xvi.).
' On the character of those who denied the resurrection, see Exeget.
Hdb. chap. XV. They cguld hardly have been Sadducees {Storr and others),
or heathen Christians of philosophic culture {Neander), or ApoUonians
{Mey., Rcibig.), hnt -were tainted with Greek prejudices against this doc
trine (cf. Acts xvii, 32), § 132 c.
This Epistle was written in the last part of Paul's resi
dence at Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 8, 19), after he had sent
away Timothy and Erastus (Acts xix. 22, cf 1 Cor. iv. 17),
and decided on going to Achaia (Acts xix. 21, cf. 1 Cor. xvi.
3, ff.), some time before Pentecost (xvi. 8) of A. D. 57 or 58,
about one year before his journey from Philippi to Jerusalem
(Acts XX. 6), begun after Easter A.D. 58 or 59. Probably
Paul dictated (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 21) it to Sosthenes (1 Cor. i. 1,
cf Acts xviii. 17 ?), and sent it by the above three messen
gers. It is, according to its greeting and contents, addressed
to the whole church, and not (as Eichhorn asserts) exclu
sively to one party.

SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. § 133 ft, 259
Second Epistle.
§ 133 a.
When Paul wrote this letter, he was with Timothy (i. 1)
in Macedonia (ii. 13, vii. 5, ix. 2, cf. Acts xx. 1), after hav
ing narrowly escaped death in Asia Minor (i. 8, not Acts
xix. 23, ff.). Here he met Titus (vii. 6), who was returning
from Corinth, and whom he had in vain looked for at Troas
(ii. 12). The Apostle had probably sent this assistant
thither, on account of his anxiety to know the impression
made on the Corinthians by his First Epistle (ii. 4, vii. 5,
ff.)." The accounts brought by Titus, and his solicitude
about the alms to be collected, occasioned this letter, to
carry which and collect the contribution he commissioned
Titus and two other brethren (viii. 6-23, ix. 3, 5). The
Apostle intended soon to follow (ix. 4, x. 11, xiii. 1), as he
also did (Acts xx. 2). The place of its composition was in
Macedonia (according to the subscription Philippi), and the
time probably the autumn after the composition of the First
Epistle. ' On the contrary, no result appears from the sending of Timothy to Cor
inth, and therefore Schmidt, Einl. I. 240, Bertholdt, VI. 3358, and Neander,
AG. I. 332, each in his own way, suppose he did not go at all. Bleek, oh
the other hand (Theol. Stud. u. Kr, 1830, III, 625, ff,), supposes that, before
Paul's departure, he had returned to Ephesus, and Paul, on account of the
tidings brought by him, had sent Titus to Corinth with a letter now lost.
He understands 2 Cor, ii, 3,f, vii, 12, cf, ii. 5 ; i, 15, f , ii, 1, ff., x, 9,ff, ;
iii. 14, V. 15, xi. 16, to refer to this Epistle. See, in opposition to him,
J. G. Miiller, De tribus Pauli itineribus, etc., p. 34, sqq. Neander, as
above, p. 333. Wmj-wi, Tiib. Ztschr. 1833. 1. 66, ff, 5aMr, Paulus, p, 328.
— Schroder, I, 135, f, supposes, 3.ni Miiller and Billroth support him, that
Titus had already gone to Corinth, on account of the collection, some time
previous, before the sending of the First Epistle, cf 2 Cor, viii, 6,10. This
has but one difficulty, that in 1 Cor. xvi. 1, ff. he is not spoken of.
§ 133 ft.
In the first part of the Epistle (chap, i.-vii.), Paul pours
out his heart in regard to what he had experienced and felt

260 Paul's epistles.
during the interval between the sending of his First Epistle
and the return of Titus, and especially on receiving the in-
teUigence brought by the latter. The effect of his First
Epistle had been in part what he had desired (ii. 6, f , vii.
8, ff.). Paul, however, still found cause for warnings and
threatenings (vi. 14, ff., xii. 20, f , xiii. 2, 7), even for self-
defence against objections and misapprehensions (i. 15, ff.,
iii. 1, V. 12), and for apologetic or polemic references to op
ponents (ii. 17, iiL 1, v. 12). Even the expressions of the
apostolic consciousness (iii. 4- v. 12) take an apologetic turn
(v. 11 -vi. 10), and elsewhere, also, misgivings are indicated
(vi. 11-vii. 1, f.). In the second part, chap, viii., ix., con
cerning the contribution in aid of the Jerusalem Christians,
the Apostle rests, as it were, from the excitement of his
mind. But in the third part, chap. x. -xiii., where he asserts
his apostolic power in threats against rebellion and disobe
dience, speaks against arrogant intermeddlers, false apostles,
and deceitful laborers, and is constrained to set forth his
merits and superiority as an Apostle, he faUs into a some
what irritated tone. . We must, hence, conclude that a
portion of the community, and especially the Christine
party (according to others, that of Peter), stimulated by
their embittered leaders, still opposed the Apostle.
Style of this Epistle.
§ 134.
The unusual roughness, embarrassment, and irregularity
of style in this Epistle are explained by the Apostle's ap
parent excitement and want of composure during its com
position." The same explains the very different tone of the
section chap, x.- xiii., and forbids our dividing the Epistle
into several.''
" H. J. Royoards, De altera Pauli ad Corinth, ep, et observanda in ilia
Apostoli indole et oratione. Traj, 1818, Svo,
'¦ As Semler has done. Diss, de duplici appendice ep, ad Rom, Hal, 1764,
4to : also in his Paraphr, ep, ad Rom, p, 277, cf his Paraphr. ep, post, ad
Corinth., preface, and on chap. ix. and xii. Refuted by Gobler, Diss. crit.

EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. § 135. 261
de oapitibus ultimis ix.-xiii. posterioris ep. ad Corinth, ab eadem hand sepa-
randis. Gott, 1782, Svo. On Weber's hypothesis, De numero epistolarum
ad Corinth, rectius con.stituendo (Wittemb. 1798, 4to), see Bertholdt, -p.
3386, ff, — Emmerling supposes that chap, x, ff, were written by Paul's
own hand, because of the avros iya, x. 1.
Genuineness of hoth Epistles.
§135.
Their tenor and spirit attest their genuineness beyond
dispute. This is also sustained by early external evidence,"
although tradition first begins to be quite certain in Ire
naeus.'' ^ Clemens Rom. In 1 , ep. ad Corinth, c, 47, f. Part I, § 18, note b. Ignoi.
Ad Ephes, c, 2, Polycarp. Ad Phil, c, 5, see ib. note c ; c. 11 : An nesci-
mus, quia sancti mundum judicabunt, sicut Paulus docet? cf. 1 Cor. vi, 2,
The allusions in Justin Martyr are uncertain. Dial, p, 253 : Kai {elne d
"Kpicrrds) ecrovrai crxicrjiara Kal alpecreis,.cf, 1 Cor. xi. 19 ; p, 338 : 'Hv yap ro
nda-xa d Xpio-ros, 6 rvBels varepov, cf, 1 Cor, v, 7 ; p. 258, cf, 1 Cor, xii.
8-10. '' Irenceus, Cont. haeres. IV. 27. 3 : Et hoc autem Apostolum in epistola,
quae est ad Corinthios, manifestissime ostendisse, dicentem: "Nolo enim
vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt," etc.,
cf. 1 Cor. X. l,ff. Id. III. 7. 1: Quod autem dicunt, aperte Paulum in se
cunda ad Corinthios dixisse : "In quibus Deus saeculi hujus excoecavit
mentes infidelium," cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Athenogoros (about A, D, 177), De
resurrect, p, 61 : EvBrjXov navri, on Bel, Kara rbv dndcrroXov, rb (pBaprbv
rovro Kal BiaaKeBaarbv evBvcracrBai dcpBapcrlav (cf, 1 Cor, xv, 54), tva . , . ,
eKacrros Kopiarjrai BiKaias d Bid rov craparos enpa^ev e'ire dyaBd, e'ire koku
(cf, 2 Cor. V, 10). Ep. ad Diognetum in opp, Justin, p, 502 : '0 dndo-roXos
. . . . Xeyei - 'H yvacris cpvaioi, fj Be dydnrj oiKoSopei (cf, 1 Cor, viii. 1 ) .
Clemens Alex. Paedag. I, 96 : Sacpea-rara yovv o paxapios IlavXos dnfjXXa^ev
fjpds rfjs irjrfjaeas iv rfj nporepci npbs KopivBiovs enicrroXfj, Z>Be ttos ypdcpav -
"'ABeXcpoi, pfj naiBia ylvecrBe rals cppeaiv," n, r, X. (cf 1 Cor. xvi. 20).
Id . Strom, IV. 5 14 : Tailra pev nepl rfjs yvaaeas 6 ajToaroXos rfjv Be Koivfjv
BiBacTKaXiav r^s niareas dcrprjv yvaaeas e'lprjKev iv rfj Bevrepix npbs KopivBiovs
(2 Cor. ii. 14) • "Axpi yap rfjs crfjpepov fjpepas rb avrb KoXvppa, k.t.X. (2
Cor, iii, 14), Ib, III. p. 456, cf. 2 Cor. vii. 1. Tertullion, De praescript.
c. 33 : Paulus in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores et dubitatores resur-
rectionis, De pudicitia, c. 13 : Revera enim suspicantur, Paulum in secunda
ad Corinthios eidem fornicatori veniam dedisse, quem in prima dedendum
Satanae in interitum carnis pronuntiarit.

262 PAUL'S EPISTLES.

IV. Epistle to the Romans.
Koppe, N. T. Vol. IV. Olshausen, III. 1. Meyer, IV. Baumg. Cms.
II, 1, Exeg, Hdb, II, 1, — Melanchihon, Annott, see p, 253. Comm. in
ep. ad Rom. Argent. 1540. Ep. ad Rom. enarratio. Viteb. 1556. Svo.
(Opp. Tom. III. IV,). — Bugenhogen, Interpr. 1523. — Petr. Martyr.
Comm. 1558. — Jo. Brent. Comm. 1571. — Aegid. Hunn. Exposit. 1587. —
Jo. Gerhard. Adnott. posth, 1666, — Phil, a Limborch, see p. 215, —
Boumgarten, Ausleg. 1747, — J. B. Carpzov, Stricturae in ep, S. Pauli ad
Rom., adspersi subinde sunt Acres ex Philone Alex, ed. 2. 1758. — Chr.
Fr. Schmidt, Annotatt. Lips. 1777. — Mori Praelectt. ed. Holzapfel. Lips.
1794. — Erklar. d, Br, P, an d, Rom. u. des Br. Juda, nach den Vorless.
von Morus. Leipz. 1794. — Epist. Pauli ad Rom, Graece c, comment, per
pet. a Ch. F. Boehme. Lips. 1806. — F. A. G. Tholuck, Ausleg, nebst
fortlauf. Ausziigen a. d, exeg. Schr. d. Kirchenv. u. Reformatoren. Berl.
1824 ; 4th revised ed. 1842. — /. Fr. v. Flatt, Vorless. herausgeg. v.
Hoffmann. Tiib. 1825. — H. E. G. Paulus, see p. 248. — L. J. Riickert,
Comm. Lpz. 1831. 2d revised ed. 1839. 2 vols. — W. Beneke, Der Br.
an d, R, erlaut, 1831, — X G. Reiche, Ausfiihrl. Erkl, 1833-34.— Conr.
Glockler, Der Br. d. Ap. P. an d. R. erkl, 1834. — Ed. Kollner, Comment,
1834, — C. F. A. Fritzsche, P. comm, perp, Tom. I. 1836. Tom. IL 1839.
— Rasm. Nielsen, Der Br. P. an d. Rom. entwickelt, deutsch von Michel-
sen. 1843. — Krehl, Der Br. an d. Rom. ausgel. 1845. — Catholic Commen
tators : Klee, 1830. Stengel, 1836. Reithmayr, 1845. A. Moier, 1847.
Origin of the Church at Rome.
§ 136 d.
The church at Rome had no proper founder. Christian
ity was probably carried thither by the intercourse that
necessarily arose between the numerous Jewish population
there" and the churches in Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor,
and Palestine. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome''
must especiaUy have served to make them acquainted with
Christianity. This was the case with Aquila and PrisciUa
(Acts xviii. 2, f., 18, £, 26), who returned to Rome, and a
church assembled in their house (Rom. xvi. 3, f.). To them,
therefore, is chiefly due the merit of having carried Chris
tianity to Rome. The persons mentioned in xvi. 7, 9, 12,
may also have shared in the work."

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. § 136 ft. 263
' Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, p. 785, ed. Col. , Uas o?v dneBixero (Augus
tus) rfjv nepav rov Tifiepeas TTorapov peydXrjv r^s 'Pi>prjs dnoropfjv, fjV ovk
rjyvdei Karexopevrjv Kal olKovpevrjv npbs lovBalav ; 'Papaloi Be ^crav ol nXeiovs
dneXevBepaBevres. AlxpdXaroi ydp dxBevres els 'iraXlav vnb rav Krrjcrape-
vav fjXevBepaBrjcrav, ovBev rfii/ narpiav napaxapd^ai ^lacrBevres. 'Unicrraro
odv Kal npocrevxds exovras Kal crvviovras els avrds, Kal paXicrra reus lepals
ipBdpais, ore Brjpoaia r^v ndrpwv naiBevovrai cpiXo(ro(piav ' fjnicrraro Kal
Xpfjpara avvayayovras dnb rav dnapx&v iepd, Kai nepnovras els 'lepocrdXvpa
Bid rSj/ ras Bvcrias dva^dvrav. 'AXX' dpas oiire i^coKiae rfjs 'Paprjs iKeivovs
ovre T^v 'PajialK^v avrav a^eiXaro noXtreiav, on Kal rfjs 'lovSaiK^s ecppdvn^ev,
oiire ivearepicrev els ras TTpoo-evp^as, ovre iKoXvcre (rvvdye(TBai npbs rds rav
vdpav vcprjyfjcreis, ovre fjvavnaBrj rols dnapxopevois, aXX' ovrms aaiaro nepl
rd fjperepa, acrre povovov navoiKws dvaBrjpdrav noXvreXeiais rb iepbv fjpav
eKocrprjcre, npocrrd^as kcu Bi alavos dvdyecrBai Bvcrias ivreXexels bXoKavrovs
KaB eKdcrrrjv fjpepav eK rav IBiav npocroBav, dnapxfjv ra fy^jricrra Bea, it. r. X.
'¦ Judaei impulsore Chresto (Christo?) adsidue tumultuantes Roma ex-
pulit. Sueton. in Claudio, c. 25. Cf. Hug, Einl. II. 391. Amman, Super
loc. Sueton. de vita Claudii, c. 25. Gott. 1803. 4to.
" Others {Michaelis, Bertholdt) place the beginning of Christianity in
Rome much earlier. If Peter ever preached there, he certainly did not
before this Epistle was composed, as Paul was not in the habit of intruding
on a sphere of labor belonging to another (Rom. xv. 20, 2 Cor. x. 16, Gal.
ii. 7, 8). Cf § 170. § 136 ft.
When once Christianity became known to Roman Jews,
it attracted also, without doubt, the attention of their nu
merous countrymen and friends in Rome." Hence the
church there was, like others, mixed, being composed of
Jews and Gentiles (xv. 7, ff.). The majority (cf. i. 6, 13,
vi. 14) was probably not composed of Jews, who are ad
dressed but once (vii. 1-6), and in common with the former
proselytes, but of Gentiles, who are more freqiiently ad
dressed (vi. 17, ff., xi. 13, 25, 28, 30), and in xiv. 1, ff are
enjoined forbearance towards Jewish- Christian prejudices.
As Paul feels drawn towards the Roman Christians, seeks
a sphere of labor among them, is in general content with
their Christian life (i. 8, xv. 14), regards his gospel as theirs
(u. 16, vi. 17, xvi. 17, 25), has among them many friends,
and does not oppose Jewish-Christian false teachers, it is
not probable that Judaism had the upper hand among

264 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
them.'' The majority seem rather to have shared the
Apostle's tendencies, as was certainly the case with Aquila
and Priscilla. Whether the church was formally organized
is exceedingly uncertain, as Luke scarcely mentions its ex
istence." * Juvenal, Sat. XIV. ver. 96, sqq. : —
Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbatha patrem,
Nil praeter nubes et coeli nuraen adorant.
Nee distare putant humana carne suillam.
Qua pater abstinuit, mox et praeputia ponunt.
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges,
Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt jus,
Tradidit arcane quodcunque volumine Moses.
Tacit. Hist, V, 5 : Pessimus quisque, spretis religionibus patriis, tributa
et stipes illuc gerebant, unde auctae Judaeorum res,
*¦ As Baur, Ueb. Zweck u, Veranlass. des Rom. Br., Tiib. Ztschr. 1836.
III. 114, ff,, Paulus, etc., p, 337, ff,, asserts, opposed h-j Riickert, II, 361, ff,
Olshausen, in St, u, Kr, 1838, p. 926, ff, Neand. AG. I. 452, ff.
" Acts xxviii. 15. How ver. 17, ff. are to be understood, which record
the ignorance manifested by the Roman Jews regarding Paul, and their
but distant acquaintance with the Christian sect, is a disputed exegetical
question. See my Exeg. Hdb. on the passage. Tholuck, Einl. z. Rom. Br.
p. 12, ff. Date of the Epistle.
§ 137,
When Paul wrote this Epistle, he was about going to Jeru
salem with a contribution that he had gathered in Macedonia
and Achaia (xv, 25, f.). He feared danger from the Jews
there (xv. 30, £). This indicates his last residence at Corinth
(cf. Acts xxiv. 17, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, ff., 2 Cor. viii., ix., Acts xx.
22, f.). He desired at that time to visit Rome (i. 13, xv. 23,
cf. Acts xix. 21). The persons whose greetings he sends
(xvi. 21) are, at least in part, mentioned as his then com
panions (Acts XX. 4). His host at that time (xvi. 23) was
a Corinthian (1 Cor. i. 14), and Erastus (xvi. 23) also seems
to belong to Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20). Finally, the recom
mendation of a Christian woman of CenchrcEe (xvi. 1) in
dicates his stay in that city. That Aquila and PriscUla
(xvi. 3) were at that time fiving in Rome again is possible.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, § 138 a. 265
from Acts xviii. 19 - 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Accordingly, the
date of the composition faUs about A. D. 58 or 59."
' /. F. Flott, De tempore, quo Pauli ad Rom, ep, scripta sit, in Pott
Sylloge, Vol, IL, chiefly against Tobler's (Theol, Aufsatze, p. 41, f.) opin^
ion, who dates the Epistle later, H. E. G. Paulus, De originibus ep, Paul
ad Rom. Jen. 1801. 4to, places it somewhat earlier. Cf, Bertholdt, p
3285, f, — Teriius wrote the Epistle from the Apostle's dictation (xvi, 22)
Occasion, Design, Contents.
§ 138 a.
The Apostle might easily be induced to write to the
church in the chief city in the Roman world, whose estab
lishment was mediately at least and in part his work, and
to preach to which was part of his great missionary plan, by
the tidings he received, perhaps in Corinth or Ephesus, of
their circumstances (perhaps from letters of Aquila and
PrisciUa), especiaUy as an opportunity presented itself in
Phoebe's journey to Rome (xvL 1).
He aimed to contribute by a letter, before he could in
person, to the triumph of Christianity in Rome over Juda
ism and heathenism." A secondary object was to counteract
the influence which the turbulent spirit of the Roman Jews
might or did exert on the Christians, and to prevent dissen
sion between the scrupulous and the free-minded Christians
in regard to abstinence from meat and the observing of days.''
» Eichhorn (Einl. III. 217) is correct in not finding in this Epistle, as in
that to the Galatians, the dogmatical antagonism to Jewish Christians, A
certain regard to their dogmatic prejudices is supposed, on the other hand,
by Schmid{T\ih. Progr, 1830) and Tholuck (Rom, Br, y. 19, 4th ed.), on
account of chap. xiv. -xvi. In consequence of his supposition of a pre
vailing Judaizing tendency in the Roman church, Baur misapprehends the
whole bearing of the Epistle, and sees in chap. ix. -xi, its proper nucleus.
Cf. Exeg. Hdb. II. 1. p. 3. .£?m^ agrees, to a certain extent, with him
(St. u. Kr. 1837. p. 287, ff.,314), Olshausen strongly opposes him (ib,
1838, p, 922, ff,),
'' Neither the theory of merely ascetic abstinence {Koppe, Eichhorn,
Meyer), nor that of abstinence merely from meat offered to idols {Neander),
meet the exegetical requirements of chap, xiv. ; but we must combine the
latter kind of abstinence with the observance of the Levitical prohibitions
in regard to food. Exeg. Hdb. on chap. xiv.
34

266 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
§ 138 ft.
The contents of the Epistle faU into two main divisions,
a didactic and a hortatory. I. A representation of the
Gospel as the revelation which brings to all believers bless
edness and righteousness. These the Jews need, as well as
the Gentiles, because all — and the Jews according to their
very Law — are liable to punishment before God (i. 16-
iii. 30). Faith in Christ alone brings righteousness before
God, as even Abraham and David were justified through
faith (iii. 21 - iv. 25). The result of this justification is
peace and joy ; through Christ, the reconciler, a new life
is begun for mankind (v.). But sanctification, also, must be
connected with reconciliation, a living morality independent
of the Law, because the Law could not inspire to goodness,
but rather excited to sin (vi., vii.). In the spirit of Christ
we overcome sin and the flesh, and thus, also, all earthly
sufferings through a blessed hope. The reconciled man is
blessed even here (viii.). Complaint and comfort regarding
the obstinacy of a large part of the Jews, and their exclu
sion from salvation (ix. -xi.). II. Moral exhortations of
various kinds, among others even to civil obedience (xii.,
xiii.), to patience with those weak in the faith (xiv., xv. 1-
13), together with an epilogue (xv. 14-33), and an appen
dix (xvi.). On Chapters XV., XVI
§ 139 o.
The opinion, that chap. xvi. is not addressed to the Ro
man Christians," is supported by the improbability that aU
the persons whom the Apostle greets, some of them near
acquaintances and friends, were living at Rome. We
should rather expect to find them at Ephesus (xvi. 3, 4,
cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 19; ver. 5). It is, however, easier to suppose
that the intercourse of the Eastern provinces with Rome
had, for the time being, drawn all these Christians thither,''
than that this chapter does not belong to our Epistle.

EPISTLE TO THD ROMANS. § 140. 267
^ Semler, Diss, de duplici appendice ep. P. ad Rom. Hal. 1767, in his
Paraphr. epist, ad Rom, Hal, 1769. (On the contrary, J. Fr. Schulz, in his
translation of Wm. Bowyer, Conjecturen iiber das N. T. I, 385, Koppe,
Excurs, II, ad comm, in ep. ad Rom. Flatt, Comm. p. 455, f.) Dav.
Schulz, in Theol, Stud, u, Krit. 1829. p. 609, ff., cf Eichhorn, IIL 243, ff.
Schott, Isag. § 59.
'' Narcissus, ver. 11, seems to belong to Rome. Sueton. in Claud. 28.
Tadt. Ann. XIL 57. § 139 6.
Semler would detach chap. xv. also from our Epistle, and
Paulus regards it as an appendix," for xv. 1-13 belongs to
chap, xiv., and xv. 14-33 forms the conclusion. It is un
necessary, on account of the various benedictions and of the
different position of the doxology, xvi. 25, ff., in the MSS.,
to suppose that chap, xv., xvi. were written on supplement
ary sheets.'' The genuineness of both chapters has recently
been questioned," but on grounds which rest in part on a
mistaken view of the Epistle, in part on an erroneous inter
pretation of various passages.
'' Semler, as above. Paul. Uebers. u. Erkl. des Rom. u. Gal. Br. Ein
leit. ' Griesbach, Cur. in hist, text, Gr,, Opusc, IL 63, sqq, (cf. Gobi. Praef. II.
p. xxiv.). Eichhorn, III. p. 232, ff. Flott, Comm.
« Baur, in Tiib. Zeitschr. 1836. III. p. 144, ff.,97, ff.; Paul. p. 399, ff, ;
in the main satisfactorily refuted by Kling, in Stud. u. Krit. 1837. p. 308,
ff. Cf. Exeg. Hdb. II. 1. p. 205.
Genuineness of the Epistle.
§ 140.
The genuineness of the Epistle is beyond all doubt. The
testimonies of the ancient Fathers also support it."
' Clemens Rom. I. ep. ad Corinth, c. 35, cf Part I. § 18, note c. Poly
carp, Ad Philipp, c, 6 : Kai ndvras Bel napaarrfjvai ra pfjpan rov XpioTov,
Kai eKacTTov vnep eavrov Xdyov Bovvai. Cf, Rom. xiv. 10 : Hdi^res ydp napa-
crrrjcrdpeBa rw (S^pari rov Xpiarov. Ver. 12 : "Apa odv eKacrros fjpav nepl
eavrov Xdyov Sdio-ei Bea. Theophilus (cir. 168), Ad Autolyc. 1. II, p, 79 :
, , , . roTs Ka^' -vnopovfjv Bid epyav dyaBav {^rjrovcri rfjv dcpBapcriav, Bapfjcrerai
^afjv alavwv, X"/?"" • • ¦ ¦ rois Be dniarois Kal Karacppovrjrals Kal dneiBovm rfj
dkrjBeia, neiBopevois Be rfj dBiKia .... earai opyfj Kal Bvpds, BXlylfis Kal are-

268 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
voxapiai (cf, Rom. ii, 6 - 9), L, III, J), 126 : . . . . ra rfjv ripfjv, rfjv npfjv ra
rbv (pajBov, rbv cpd^ov - ra rbv (pdpov, roy (pdpov - prjBevl prjBev d(peiXeiv rj pdvov
rb dyandv ndvras (cf Rom, xiii, 7, 8), Epist, eccl, Vienn, et Lugd. in Euseb.
H, E, V. 1 : .... on OVK d^ia ra naBfjpara rot) vvv Kaipov npbs rfjv peXXov-
a-av Bd^av dnoKoXvcpBfjvai els fjpds (cf. Rom, viii. 18), Iren. 1, IIL c. 16,
§ 3 : Hoc ipsum interpretatus est Paulus scribens ad Romanos : " Paulus
Apostolus Jesu Christi, praedestinatus ad Evangelium Dei, quod promisit
per prophetas suos," etc. (cf Rom. i. 1, ff,). Et iterum ad Romanos scri
bens de Israel dicit: " quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum car
nem," etc. (cf Rom, ix, 5). Clemens Alex. Paedag. I. p. 117: "iSe ovv,
(prj(rlv 6 IlavXos, xPVO'rdrrjra Kal dnoropiav Beov, K. r. X. (cf. Rom. xi. 22).
Strom. III. p, 457 : 'Opoias Be koI 6 IlavXos ev rfj npbs 'Papaiovs iniaroXfj
ypdcpei - " oinves dneBdvopev rg dpapria, nas en ^fjaopev iv avrfj ;" k. r. X.
(cf'Rom, vi. 2). Tertull. Adv. Prax, c. 13: Solum autem Christum po-
tero Deum dicere, sicut idem Apostolus: "Ex quibus Christus, qui est,
inquit, Deus super omnia benedictus in aevum omne " (cf Rom, ix. 5), De
corona, c, 6 : . , , , ut cum ad Romanos natura facere dicens nationes ea,
quae sunt legis.
Regarding the omission of iv 'Papjj, chap. i. 7, 15, see § 145 c, note c.

CHAPTER VIIL
Paul's epistles during his imprisonment.

Which Imprisonment ?
§ 141a.
The three Epistles to Philemon, the Colossians, and the
Ephesians, were written by the Apostle during his impris
onment (Philem. 9 ; Col. iv. 3, 10, 19 ; Eph. iii. 1', iv. 1, vi.
20). This is commonly understood as the imprisonment at
Rome. No distinct trace of this, however, appears. The
friends mentioned — Timothy, Aristarchus, Luke, Mark,
Demas, Epaphras, Tychicus, Onesimus, Jesus Justus —
may certainly have been with Paul at Rome (on the first
three, see Acts xxvu. 2, PhU. i. 1), but also at Caesarea (Acts

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. § 141 a. 269
XX. 4), where several writers suppose these letters to have
been written." It is more probable that the others were
with him there than at Rome, especially, that Onesimus fled
thither to him. It seems, also, more natural that the Apostle
should manifest his anxiety from this place for the near
communities at Colossce and in Asia Minor by written ex
hortation.'' Paul's writing about his labors in behalf of the
Gospel (Col. iv. 3, 11, Eph. vi. 19, f ) is in favor of Rome,
where he had opportunity for such labors (Acts xxviii. 31),
which in Csesarea does not seem to have been the case
(Acts xxiv. 23).
» D. Schulz, Stud. u. Kr. 1829. p. 612, ff, Schott, Isag, § 66, (Cf. Groul,
De Schulzii et Schotti sententia scripsisse Paulum ep. ad Eph. etc, in Caesa-
riensi captivitate. Lips. 1838.) Wiggers, St. u. Kr. 1841. p. 448, ff.
Bottger, Beitr. II. 47, ff.
' The ground adduced by Schulz, that, on the common supposition,
Philem. 22 does not accord with Rom. xv. 24, is not valid, as we may sup
pose that in Caesarea the Apostle adhered to his plan of the Spanish journey
more firmly than at Rome, where he perhaps found reasons for giving it up.
According to Schroder (as above). Acts xxiii. 11 does not accord with
Philem. 22, " While in Csesarea he was looking towards Rome," The
reason found by Wiggers, in the non-mention of Onesimus in the Epis
tle to the Ephesians and in Eph, vi. 22, that Tychicus, the bearer of
the three Epistles, did not come from Rome, and hence of course through
Ephesus, but from Caesarea, by the land-route, to Colossae, rests on his mis
taken view of the Epistle to the Ephesians (§ 145).
I. Epistle to Philemon.
Older commentaries of Lamb. Danaeus {Geaeya, 1579), Andr. Hyperius
(with, at the same time, the pastoral Epistles. Geneva, 1582), Scipio Gentilis
(Niirnb. 1618), Jo. Himmel {Jen. 1641), Jo. Quistorp {Rost. 1644), Seb.
Scfimid (see above, p, 242), Jo. Fecht {Rost. 1696), L. Chr. G. Schmid
(Leipz, 1786). — Storr, In ep. ad Coloss, partem alt, et epistolium ad
Philem. Opusc, acad. II. 176, sqq. — A. H. Niemeyer, Progr. Hal. 1802.
— D. H. Wildschut, De vi dictionis et sermonis elegantia in ep. P. ad Phi
lem. conspicuis. Traj. 1809. — C. R. Hagenbach, P. ep. ad Philem. inter
pretatus est. Basil. 1829. 4to. — Mourii. Rothe, P. ad Philem. epae.
interpret, hist. exeg. Brem, 1844, — /, Fr. Ign. Demme, Erkl, d, Br, a,
Phil. 1844, — /, H. Petermonn, P, ep, ad Ph, ad fid, verss, orient, vet, una
cum earum textu originali Graec, ed, 1844, — Aug. Koch, Comm, lib, d, Br,
P, an Philem. Ziir. 1846.

270 PAUL'S EPISTLES.

§ 141ft.
Philemon, a convert of Paul (ver. 19), — perhaps while
at Ephesus, — was a respected and worthy man among the
Christians at Colossse, in Phrygia (Philem. 1, 2, 4-7, cf
Col. iv. 9)." Paul, at that time a prisoner (ver. 9), sends to
him, by the hands of his assistant Tychicus (Col. iv. 7-9),
his escaped or disobedient slave, converted by Paul in his
captivity, with this letter written by his own hand (PhUem.
19), in which he begs Philemon to pardon and give a fra
ternal Christian reception to Onesimus, and announces at
the same time his visit (ver. 22). The letter is whoUy a
letter of friendship, not at all doctrinal, written with a genial
delicacy, and even with a spice of pleasantry (ver. 11, 19).
Its spirit, however, is thoroughly religious. Its genuineness
is not to be doubted.'' Though Tertullian first mentions it,
he testifies that Marcionis collection contained it."
" According to Wieseler and others (§ 132 b, note c), he was a Laodicean,
because Archippus belonged to Laodicea, for Col. iv. 17 speaks of him in
connection with the community there, and is supported by the church tradi
tion (Constitutt, App. VII, 46). From the fact that his slave Onesimus
was of Colossffi (Col. iv. 9), Wieseler thinks we are not authorized to deduce
the dwelling-place of the master. But Onesimus must certainly be sent to
the dwelling-place of his master.
'' Baur (Paulus, p. 476), however, has done so ; but only to show the
possibility of the letter being the embryo of a Christian romance, after the
fashion of the pseudo-Clementine Homilies.
¦= Tertull. Cont, Marc. V. 21 : Soli huic epistolae brevitas sua profuit, ut
falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet.

II. Epistle to the Colossians.
Melanchihon, Enarratio, 1559. — Zonchius, see p. 242. — Davenant, Exp,
ep, ad Col. Genev. 1655. 4to. — /, H. Suicer, In ep, ad Col, comm, crit,
exeg. Tig. 1699, 4to, — N. T, ed, Kopp. Vol. VII, P. 2. contin, Heinrichs.
— Olshausen, Vol, IV, — Baumg.-Crus. Ill, 1, — Storr, Diss, in ep, Pauli ad
Col, Tiib, 1786-87, 4to, in his Opusc. acad, II. 120, sqq. — fr. Junker,
Hist, krit, u, phil. Comment, Mannh. 1828, — Vorless, iib. d. Br. P, an
d. Phil. Col. Thess. u. an Philem. v, /, F. v. Flatt. Tiib, 1829. —if, Chr.

EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. § 143. 271
W. F. Bohr, Comment. Bas. 1833, — Bohmer, Theol. Ausleg. Bresl. 1835.
— Steiger, Kleine paul. Briefe, Theil I. (Br. an d. Col.) 1835. — Huther,
Comm, Hamb. 1841. Occasion. §142.
Paul sent by Tychicus (Col. iv. 7-9), together with the
foregoing Epistle, a letter to the community of Christians at
ColosssB, in Phrygia Pacatiana." He had never been there
(ii. 1), although he had twice travelled through Phrygia
(Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23).'' He was, however, acquainted with
members of the church there (Epistle to Philemon), which
was devoted to him (i. 7, f.) ; and Epaphras, their teacher,
was at just that time with the Apostle (i. 7, f , iv. 12 ; Philem.
23)." His presence, and the tidings which he gave the
Apostle concerning the' church (i. 3, 8), were, beyond dis
pute, the occasion of the Epistle.
" On the situation and history of the city, see Bohmer, Isagoge in ep. ad
Coloss. 1829. p. 21, sqq. Different mode of writing KoXooo-ai and KoXao--
a-al ; the most numerous and the best critical authorities favor the latter ;
the former, on the other hand, is supported by the old historians and geog
raphers and the coins of the city. Eckhel, Doctr. nuram. vet. P, I. Vol, III.
p. 147, cf BerthoUt, Einl. VI, p, 3441.
'' On the contrary, Dov. Schulz, in Stud. u. Kr. 1829. p. 535, ff. Schott,
Isagog. p, 268, Bottger, Beitr, III, 62, Neudecker, p, 515, ff, Wiggers,
Stud. u. Kr. 1838. p. 165. Earlier, Lardner, Theodoret. The Apostle's
having passed twice through Phrygia (Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23) leads one, at
first sight, to suppose that he had been at Colossae, although, if he vis
ited Galatia proper, his way lay through northern Proconsular Asia by
Ephesus (cf. Steiger, p. 42, ff.), rather than through southern Phrygia and
Colossss. The passage ii. 1, f., cf. i, 3, 7, 23, f,, (if unperverted,) is de
cisive against it. Also in ver. 6, 7, it is not indicated that Paul himself
instructed the Colossians, but, i. 7, that Epaphras was their teacher. Cf.
Bohmer, Exc. I. p. 274, sqq.
' In what sense is he called, Philem. 23, fellow-prisoner ? Cf Col. iv, 10.
Design and Contents.
§ 143.
On receipt of the glad inteUigence of the Christian faith
and love pervading the church at Colossae, Paul desires

272 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
to strengthen them, and especially to warn them against
certain false teachers, who combined narrowness in the hold
ing of Jewish principles and strict asceticism with a mystical
philosophy (ii. 16-23)."
With this view, after an introduction expressive of his
gratitude and his prayers (i. 3-12), he represents to the Co
lossians the high dignity of the Redeemer, and the bless
ings of the reconciliation effected by him (i. 13-23), and
testifies to the gladness with which he suffers for their salva
tion (i. 24-29), in order thereby more impressively to warn
them against being deceived by the human wisdom that
leads away from Christ (ii.). He closes with moral admo
nitions and salutations (iii. iv.).
^ The different opinions of interpreters (who so often pretend to
know more than lies in the text) on these false teachers are set forth
and weighed by Bertholdt, VL 3448, ff. Neudecker, p. 518, f. Bohmer,
Isag, p, 56, sqq. Huther, Einl., p, 27, ff. The opinion that they were Jews
— {Eichhorn, Einl, III, 1, p, 287, ff. Junker, Comment, p, 43, ff, Schneck
enburger, Anh, to his work on the Proselytentaufe, p, 213, cf. Beitr, p, 146,
ff,. Stud. u. Kr, 1832, p, 840, ff., according to the last-mentioned writer, the
osophic Jews, who, without directly opposing the Christian faith, placed it in
a subordinate position [Col.ii, 19], brought in a higher wisdom [ver, 18], and
insisted on the ascetic practices of Judaism [ver. 8, 20-23]) — is rightly re
jected by Bohmer, p, 56, sqq., Rheinwald, De Pseudodoctor, Coloss, (Bonn,
1834), and others. There were theosophic Jewish Christians {Neonder, AG.
I, 507, ff.), but whether their theosophy was Essenic {Storr, Rheinw., Cred
ner, &c,), or Cabalistic {Osiander, Tiib, Ztschr, 1834. IIL), or of some
other sort, it is difficult precisely to ascertain ; but there is no positive ground
for regarding it as Cerinthian {Neand., Mayerhoff).
Genuineness. §144.
The Epistle has always belonged to those universaUy
accepted." Only in the most modern times has it been
doubted, but on insuflicient grounds.''
* Justin. Mart. Dial, u, Tryph. p. 310 : .... npardroKov rav ndvrav noi-
rjpdrav. p. 311: . . . , TTpfflroroKOV jrao'ijs KTiVecDS. p,326: . . . . npardroKov
rov Bead Kal npb ndvrav rSv Knarpdrav. Cf, Col, i. 15, Theophil. Ad Au
tolyc, II. p, 100 : Tovrov rbv Xoyov iyevvrjcre npocpopiKov, npardroKov ndcrrjs
Kricreas, k.t.X. Iren. Ill, 14, 1 : Et iterum in epistola, quae est ad Coles-

EPISTLE TO THB COLOSSIANS. § 144. 273
senses, ait : solutot vos Lucas,'- medicus, dilectus. Clemens Alex. Strom, I,
p. 277: .... Koi rfj npbs KoXoa-a-aels eniOToXfj. Cf, IV, 499, V. 576,
VI, 645,
'' Mayerhoff {Der Brief an die Col. mit vornehml, BerOcksichtigung d. Pas-
toralbriefe krit, gepriift. Berl, 1838) and Schwegler (Nachap, Zeitalt, II, 326,
f.) find something un-Pauline, (1,) in the use of language and the style,
Tffl Kvple^ Xpta-Ta is certainly singular. But the absence of favorite expressions
of Paul, such as BiKcuocrvvrj, BiKaida, and kindred expressions, aarrjp, a-arrj-
pia, and others, is a ground which may be urged against other unquestionably
genuine Epistles. AiKawcrvvrj occurs only once in the long First Epistle to
the Corinthians, and not at all in those to the Thessalonians ; BiKaida not
once in the whole Second Epistle to the Cotinthians, and those to the Thes
salonians and the Philippians ; nor a-arrjpia in the First Epistle to the Co
rinthians. As little can the positive peculiarity in the selection of words
prove, e. g. (pavepovv, iii. 4 (according to the connection), applied to the re
turn of Christ ; the repeated use of dna^ Xeyopeva, as niBavoXoyla, iBeXo-
Bprj(rKeia, and others. On the other hand, "EXXrjv k. 'lovSaios, iii. 11, for
'lovS, K, "EXX,, is remarkable. The omission or rare use of illative and
causal particles (apo, Sid, yap), and the prevailing connection by the rel
ative pronoun and the participle, constitute a prominent peculiarity of our
Epistle, But dpa is wanting also in Phil,, Sid in Gal. and 2 Thess,, Bidn in
Eph, and 2 Thess,, which Mayerhoff considers genuine ; and the generally
slighter dialectic movement, as well as the want of anacolutha, is accounted
for by the special object of the Epistle, and by the mood of the Apostle.
(2.) The mode of treating subjects is un-Pauline ; in contrast with the other
Pauline Epistles, the logical arrangement is wanting in the first, dogmatic por
tion, while in the second part, on the contrary, the admonitions are given in
groups (cf. Rom. xii. 3-8, xiii.). It is not (with Huther) to be denied, that
there the flow of the thought is rendered somewhat heavy and difficult by
various repetitions {Mayerhoff, p. 45, ff.) ; but how different is the manner
of the Second Epistleto the Corinthians from that of the First ! " Poverty
of thought," at least, is not the reason,. (3,) i\fayer7io_^,finds no essential
difference in the dogmatic statements, but merely variations in subordinate
points, although' incorrectly ih i, 13, 20, f ,'ii, 13,*f, (cf 2 Cor, v, 18), ii, 22,
and elsewhere; only the extension of the redeeming work of Christ, i, 20,
is singular. This it is, moreover, which Bour, Paulus, p. 417, ff,, espe
cially urges against the Epistle, Schwegler (as above, p, 327) remarks that
love is placed in the foreground, while justification through fahh; and the
contrast between faith and the Law, retire to the background, and the false
teachers are not opposed in the well-known Pauline fashion. Much weight
is laid, also, as in the pastoral Epistles, upon the iniyvams. The Epistle
indicates a first step towards Johannic Christianity. (4.) In its compo
sition, the Epistle to the Ephesians served as a basis. — But the Epistle to
the Ephesians much rather presupposes that to the Colossians (§ 146 a).
(5.) The erroneous doctrine must, according to Mayerhoff, have been Corin-
35

274 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
thian, and therefore post-apostolic ; according to Baur, on the other hand,
Gnostic-Ebionite. The latter also makes the Christology of the Epistle
Gnostic, But there is a great difference between this and Gnosticism proper.
Moreover, even Mayerhoff acknowledges so much that is Pauline in the lan
guage, and the style of the writing and of thought, that even striking pecu
liarities in their presence vanish like thin shadows. Cf Huther, p. 418, ff.

III. Epistle to the Ephesians.
Mori. Bucer, Praelectt. 1562, — N, T. ed, Koppe, Vol. VI,— Olshausen,
Vol, IV, — Meyer, Abth, 8. — Baumg. Crus. IIL 1. — Exeg. Hdb. IL 4,
— Th. J. Schiiiz, Comment, Lips, 1778, Auctarium comment, 1785. —
J. A. Cromer, Uebers. nebst Ausl. 1782. 4to. — F.A. W. Krause, Vehers.
u, Anmm. 1789. — /. A. Holzhausen, Uebers. u. Erl. 1833. — L. J. Riick
ert, Erl. u. Vertheid. 1834. — C, St. Motthies, Erkl, 1834, -- Fr. C. Meier,
Comment. 1834. — G. Chr. Ad. Horless, Comment. 1834. — A. van Bem-
melcn, Diss, de epp. ad Ephes. et Coloss. inter se collatis. L. B. 1803.
Destination. § 145 fl.
The Epistle is addressed to the Ephesians, not only in
the (spurious) super- and sub-scriptions, but also in the text
(i. 1)." Judging from its contents, however, it is addressed
to Gentile Christians (fi. 11, ff., 19, ff., in. 1, ff., iv. 17, 22), who
stood in no near relation to Paul, but of whom he and those
with him had merely "heard" (i. 15, iii. 2),'' and contains
no reference to any such near relation (cf. vi. 21, f ). And
yet the church at Ephesus was composed of Jews and Gen
tiles (Acts xix. 8-10, 17), and the Apostle stood in most
intimate connection with it (Acts xx. 17, f ). The Epistle
contains, moreover, no greeting from Timothy, from whom
it might reasonably be expected, on account of his acquaint
ance with the church at Ephesus, and of the great probabil
ity that the Epistle was written at the same time as that to
the Colossians (cf. Col. i. 1)."
^ i, 1 : Tois dyi'ois rois ova-iv iv 'Ecpecreo Kal nicrrols iv Xpiorm 'irjaov.
^ Rink, Sendschr, d, Korinth,, &c,, p. 56, ff. Wiggers, in Stud. u.
Krit. 1841, p, 432, try to explain the passage so that it may apply to the
Ephesians, but in vain. On the contrary, Lunemann, De ep. ad Eph. au-

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. § 145 b. 275
thent. (Gott. 1842.) p. 22. —Neudecker (p. 503) finds in i. 15-23, iii, 2,
13-21, on unbiassed, unprejudiced (1) examination, references to the former
ly intimate relation between the Apostle and the church which he had
founded there. Wurm, Tiib. Ztschr, 1833, I, 98, supposes that the Apostle
wished to avoid all allusion to their earlier relations, on account of his painful
experiences at Ephesus (1).
' The somewhat different object of the sending of Tychicus, mentioned
in both Epistles (Eph. vi. 21, f , Col. iv. 7, f,), affords no satisfactory ob
jection against this contemporaneousness, Schneckenburger, Beitr, p. 132,
lays too much stress on it. Cf. § 147, note b.
§ 145 &.
Hence, some historical indications of a different destina
tion of the Epistle have been welcomed by many. It has
been thought, especially from an expression of Tertullian,
that neither Marcion, who superscribes the Epistle To the
Laodiceans, nor himself, who seems to ascribe to the former
merely the falsification of its title, read in the text i. 1 the
place of destination.' Moreover, manuscripts existed in
ancient times, in which the address ran : tok djioi'^ to2<;
overt Kal irtaroh ev Xp. I. ; and such still exist.'' On these
data, and the passage Col. iv. 16, many" suppose that the
Epistle was addressed to the Laodiceans ; others,'^ that it
was a circular letter to several communities.
» Tertuffi'an, Adv. Marc. V. 11: Praetereo hie de alia epistola, quam
nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos.
c. 17 : Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emis
sam, non ad Laodicenos : sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare ge
stiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator, . Nihil autem de titulis
interest, cum ad omnes apostolus seripserit, dum ad quosdam, Epiphan.
Haeres, XLII. c. 9. p. 310, erroneously : "Exei Be Kal (besides the Epistle
to the Ephesians) rijs npbs AaoBiKeas Xeyopevrjs peprj. Cf, Schol, I, et XL, :
eh Kvpios, pia ttiVtis, iv ^anna-pa, k. r. X. (Eph, iv, 5, 6), Refut, : 2vva-
Bdvras pev rfj npbs 'E^ea-iovs, & MapKiav, Kal ravras rds Kard aov paprvpias
dnb r^s Xeyopevrjs npbs AaoBiKeas crvvfjyayes Kard crov paprvpias.
^ Basilius M., c. Eunom. Opp. I, 224. ed. Gam. : .... dXXd kou rols
'Ecpeerwis inicrreXXav as yvrjaias fjvapevois ra Svri Si' iniyvacreas ovras av
rovs IBia^dvras avdpaa-ev, elnav' " Tois dyiois rots ova-t Kal nicrrols iv Xpi-
crra 'Irjcroij- " ovra ydp Kal ol npb fjpav napaBeBaKacri, Kal fjpels iv rols
naXawls rav dvnypdcpav evpfjKapev. Jerome speaks less decidedly in its
favor. Comment, ad h. 1. : Quidam curiosius, quam necesse est, putant ex
eo, quod Mosi dictum sit: Haec dices filiis Israel, fui es/, misit me, etiam

276 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
eos qui Ephesi sunt, sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupates, ut . . . .
ob eo qui est, hi qui sunt appellentur. Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos
qui sunt, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sunt, scriptum arbitrantur. The
Cod, Vat, has iv 'Ecpeaco on the margin only, and indeed, according to
Tischend., by a second hand ; Cod, 47, ex emend, omits it,
' Jo. Mill, Pierce, Wall, Comp. Vitringa the younger, Herm. Venema,
J. J. Wetstein, Paley, &c., Holzhousen, p. xiii,
^ Usher, Annal, mund, ad, ann, 64, Gornier, ad Basil, 1, c, G. Ben
son, Alb. Bengel, J. D. Michaelis, Einl, II, 1292. Koppe, Prolegg, in ep,
ad Eph, Ziegler, Einl, in d. Br. an d. Ephes,, in Henke's Mag, Vol, IV.
St, 2, Justi, Verm, Abhandl, II, 81, ff, Hanlein, Schmidt, Hug, Eich
horn, Bertholdt, Guerike, Credner, Reuss, Hemsen, Neonder, Schneckenb.
Beitr, 132, f, Bdtig- Beitr, III, 35, ff,, Ruckert, Meier, &c, Ephesus
and Laodicea (Col, iv, 16) are usually counted among the churches to
which this circular letter was addressed, Kpp., Hani., Eichh., Berth.,
on the contrary, excluded Ephesus, According to Ush.,Hanl., Hg., Olsh.,
&c,, a blank was left in the subscription, to be filled out with the name of
the church ; on the contrary, Beng., Schneckenb., Bottg., Credn., &c,, insist
on the original reading, rois ay, r, ovcriv k. niarols iv Xp. 'I.
§ 145 c.
But Terttdlian probably charges Marcion, and justly, with
arbitrary alteration, not only of the title, but also of the
address, i. 1, itself (cf §34)." Thus the historical basis of
the former hypothesis vanishes. It is also at variance with
Col. iv. 15, for, as the Epistles to the Colossians and the
Ephesians are contemporaneous, Paul would not in the
former send greetings to Laodicea. The second hypothesis
has likewise an untenable ground in that reading, i. 1 ; for
this, on the whole impossible,'' owes its origin to arbitrary
choice," and cannot be admitted in the face of all the crit
ical authorities and of church tradition. This hypothesis
is, however, in itself invalid, as the Epistle presupposes a
certain circle of readers, and vi. 21, f. is opposed to the cir
cular character of the Epistle. They who, on the ground of
the common reading i. 1, recognized as genuine, accept
Ephesus as the destination of the Epistle, but combine with
this the encyclical character,'* load themselves with double
difficulties, and quite pervert the bearing of the work. Nor

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. § 146 fl. 277
can we, without great arbitrariness, substitute for the church
at Ephesus another in its neighborhood {Lunemann).
" The expression titulus is urged ; also that Tertullion does not speak
expressly of falsification of the text, and refers, not to manuscripts, but to
the " Veritas Ecclesiae." See, on- the contrary, Horless, Einl. p. xxi, ff.
Liinemann, p. ^7.
^ The supposed filling out of blanks would be an untruth, in relation to
i. 15, f., ii. 11 ; yet, without the blank, these words have no sense.
' According to Rink, p. 33, and others, on the dogmatic ground alleged
by Basil, and Hieron,, on which Cod. Boern. omits iv 'Pap-rj (Rom. i. 7),
cf Schol. cod. 47; more probably on a critical ground, namely, the percep
tion that this address does not correspond with the contents of the Epistle,
cf in Synopsis script, in Athanas. Opp. III. 194. Bened, : lavrrjv {npbs
'Epecriovs) iniareXXei anb 'Pd>prjs, oifTTO) pev avrovs eapaKas, dKovcras Be
pdvov nepl avrav ; According to Mill, Prolog. § 73, Anger, p. 122, because
the encyclical destination was guessed at,
^ Hammond, Flatt, Schott, Harless, Wiggers, Anger. " The Epistle is
addressed to one particular church, the Ephesian (especially to those
Gentile Christians there who were unacquainted with Paul personally,
but without excluding the other Ephesian Christians, An^, ) , But while
Paul addressed his words to them, he enlarges the sphere of his vision, this
community becomes to him the type of many similar communities, and thus
he addresses under one community all Asiatic Christendom, of vphich Ephe
sus was the starting-point and the centre," {Wigg.) " If vpe suppose that
his readers were daughter churches of that at Ephesus, or single Christians
scattered over the country, who had first become acquainted with the Gospel
from Ephesus, and intelligence of whom the Apostle had received through
the Ephesians, it is natural that he should send the Epistle to them by
means of those who had introduced them to him " (also that he should ad
dress the Epistle to the latter ?), Harless.

Doubts of its Genuineness.
§ 146 fl.
To what does not agree with Ephesus as its destination
may be added, that the Epistle has no peculiarity either
of aim or relations, and stands in such dependence on
the Epistle to the Colossians as to be scarcely more than a
verbose amplification of the same ; for the reference to false
teachers alone is omitted, and thereby the keeping of the
whole lost."

278

Paul's epistles.

" Table of
Epistle to the Ephesians.
Greeting, i, 1, f, without Timothy.
First, dogmatic Part, i, -iii,
1,) General thanksgiving for the
blessings of Christianity, i, 3-14,

Ver, 4 : KaBas i^eXe^aro fjpds . . . .
elvai fjpds dyiovs k. dpapovs Kare-
vaniov avrov.
Ver. 7 : 'Ev a exopev rfjv dnoXvrpa-
criv Bid TOV alparos avrov, rfjv dcpe-
a-iv rmy napanrapdrav .
Ver 10 : .... dvaKecpcfXaiacracrBai ra
ndvra iv ra Hpicrra, rd iv rols ov
pavols Kal rd inl rfjs yfjs, ev aitra.
2.) Thanksgiving in regard to his
readers, and prayers that they may
apprehend what God has done for
their salvation, and for the glory of
Christ, the highly-exalted one, how
he has awakened them from the
death of sin, &c., i. 15 -ii. 10.
Ver. 15 — 17: Aia rovro Kayco dKo-ii-
cras rfjv KaB' vjids nlcrriv ev rw kv-
plco 'irjcrov kcu rfjv dydnrjv rfjv els
ndvras rovs dyiovs ov navopat evxa-
picrrav vnep vpav, pveiav vpav noi-
ovpevos inl rSv npocrevxav pov • iva
6 ^eos rov KVpiov fjpav 'irjcrov "Kpi-
crrov, d narfjp r^s Bo^rjs, Bcorj vplv
nvevpa cropias Kal dnoKciXv^eas iv
iniyvacrei avrov.

Ver, 18 : .... Kai n's 6 srXovros r^s
Bd^rjs rfjs KXrjpovopias avrov iv rols
dyiois ....

Comparison. Epistle to ihe Colossians.
Greeting, i, 1, f, from Timothy also.
First, dogmatic Port, i,, ii,
1.) First section. Thanksgiving for
the satisfactory condition of the
Colossians, of which he has heard,
i. 3-8.
Ver, 22 : , , , , napacrrfjcrai fjpds dyi
ovs K, dpapovs K. dveyicXfjrovs Kare-
vanwv avrov.
Ver, 14 : 'Ey co exopev rfjv dnoXvrpa-
criv {Bid rov alparos avrov), rfjv
dcpecnv rSj/ dpapnav.
Ver, 20 : .... Kai Si' airov dnoKa-
raXXd^ai rd ndvra els avrbv . . . .
e'ire ra inl rfjs yfjs, eire ra iv rols
ovpavols.
2,) Prayers for the Colossians, i, 9
-12,
3,) Of the high dignity of Christ and
the blessing of the reconciliation,
i, 13-23,

Ver, 3, 4 : Evp^apitrrovpej/ ra Bea Kal
narpl rov Kvpiov fjpav 'irjcrox} Xpi-
crrod ndvrore, nepl vpav npocrevxd-
pevoi, aKovcravres rfjv nlcrriv vpav
iv Xpiara 'irjcrofi, Kal rfjv dydnrjv
rfjv els ndvras rovs dyiovs . . . .
Ver. 9 : Aia rovro Kai fjpels, dcp' §s
fjpepas fjKovcrapev, ov navdpeBa vnep
vpav npocrevxdpevoi kcu airovpevoi,
iva nXrjpaBrjre rfjv iniyvacriv rov
BeXfjjiaros avrov * iv ndcrrj cropla
Kai crvvecrei nvevpariK^.
Ver. 27 : . . . . ti 6 ttXovtos t^s Bd^rjs
rov pva-rrjpiov rovrov ev rols eBve-
(riv 

* This avrov, according to Mayerhoff, betrays the author of the Epistle
to the Colossians as copying from the Epistle to the Ephesians. It refers,
however, to rov Beov, ver. 6,

EPISTLE TO THB EPHESIANS. § 146 fl.

279

Ephes.
Ver, 21 : .... vnepdva ndcrrjs dpxfjs
KCU i^ovcrias KalBvvdpeas Kal Kvpid-
TJjros, Kai Travros dvdparos, k. t. X.

Ver. 22, f , : .... Kai avrov eSioKe Ke-
(paXfjv vnep ndvra rfj eKKXrja-la,
fjris icrrl rb crapu avrov, rb nXrjpa-
pa TOV ra ndvra iv ndcri nXrjpov-
pevov.
ii. 1 : Kai vpas, oVras veKpovs rols
naparrrapacri Kcii rals dpapriais
Ver. 5 : .... Kai ovras vpds veKpovs
rols napanrapacn crvve^aonoirjcre ra
Xpwra.
3.) Reminds the Gentile Christians
of what they owe to Christ, ii. 11
-22.
Ver. 11 : .... r^s .... nepiropfjs iv
crapKi xeiponoifjTov .
Ver. 12 : ... .'ore ^re .... ottijXXo-
rpiapevoi rfjs noXireias roll 'la-pa-
V^----
Ver, 15 : . . . . iv rfj crapKi avroi) rbv
vdpov rtoy ivrdXav iv Bdyjiaa-i Ka-
rapyfjcras ....
V er. 16 : .... Kat dnoKaraXXd^ rovs
dpcporepovs iv evl (rapan ra Bea
Bid roO crravpov.
4.) Of Paul's apostolic office, and
suffering for the proclamation of
the redemption ; prayer for his
readers, chap. iii.
Ver. 1 : Tovrov x^P''^ ^T"" HavXos, 6
Bea-pios rov Xpicrrov 'irjaov vnep
vp,av rav iBvav •
Ver. 2 : Eiye fjKova-are rfjv oiKovopiav
rfjs xapiros roi) Beov, r^s BoBelcrrjs
p,oi els vpds '
Ver. 3 : "Ori Kara dnoKdXv\fnv iyva-
picrBrj poi TO pva-rrjpiov ....

Coloss.
Ver, 16 : On ev avra eKrlcrBrj ret
ndvra, ra iv rols ovpavols Kal ra
enl rfjs yfjs, ra bpard Kal ra ddpara,
e'ire Bpovoi, eire Kvpwrrjres, e'ire dp-
Xal, e'ire i^ovcriai.
Ver. 18, f. : .... Kai avrds c'o'rij' fj
KecpciXfj rov craparos rfjs iKKXrjcrias
.... ort ev avra evBoKrjcre jtov rb
nXfjpapa KaroiKfjcrai.
Ver. 21 : Kai vpas, TTore ovras dnrjX-
Xorpiapevovs Kal exBpovs rfj Bia-
voi(} iv rols epryois ToTs novrjpols ....
ii. 13 ; Kai vpds, veKpovs ovras iv
TOIS napanrajiacTi .... crvve^aonoi-
rjcrev vpds criiv avr^.

ii. 11 : .... nepiropfj dxeiponoifjra.
i. 21. See above.

ii. 14 : 'E^aXei-yjfas rb KaB' fjpav x^'-
poypacpov rols Bdypacriv ....
i. 20 : .... Kai Si' avrov aTTOKaraX-
Xa^at ra ndvra els avrdv, elprjvonoi-
fjcras Bid roi) a"iparos rov crravpov
avrov ....
4.) Paul attests his joy in suffering
for the salvation of his fellow-
Christians, i. 24 - 39.
Ver. 24 : Nvv x«'P<<> iv rols naBfjpa-
criv vnep vpav ....
Ver, 25 : ''Us iyevdprjv iya BiaKovos
Kard rfjv olKovopiav rov BeoiJ, rfjv
BoBeladv poi els vpds, nXrjpacrai rbv
Xdyov roi) ^eov,
Ver. 26 : To pvarfjpiov rb dnoKeKpvp,-
pevov dnb rav alavav Kal dnb rav

280

PAUL'S EPISTLES.

Ephes.
Ver, 5 : "O ere pais yeveais ovk eyva-
plcrBrj rols viols rav dvBpanav, as
vvv dncKaXvcpBrj rols dyiois dnoard-
Xois avrov Kai npocpfjrais iv nve-u-
(xart • , , , ,
Ver. 7 : 05 iyevdprjv BiaKovos Kara
rfjv Bapedv rfjs xapiros rov Beov,
rfjv BoBela-dv poi ....
Ver, 8, f : . . . . ev rols e'Bvecnv evay-
yeXlcracrBai rbv dve^ixviacrrov nXov-
Tov rov Xpicrrov Kal cparicrai ndv
ras, ris fj o'lKOVopiq. rov pvcrrrjpiov
rofj dnoKeKpvppevov dnb rav alavav
iv ra Bea.
Ver, 16 reminds of
Ver, 18, f, reminds of
Omitted. Second, moral Part, iv. - vi.
1 ) Exhortation to union, iv. i, - 16,
Ver. 1 : .... d^ias nepmarfjcrai rfjs
icXfjareas, fjs iKXfjBrjre,
Ver, 2 : Mera ndcrrjs raneivocppocrv-
vrjs Kal irpadrr/ros, pera paKpoBvpi-
as ' dvexopevoi dXXrjXav iv dydnrj.

Coloss.
•yeyeSy, yvi'i Be icpavepaBrj rols dyi

ois avrov.

Ver, 3 : STTOvSa'foj/res rrjpelv rfjv evd-
rrjra rov TTi'evparos iv ra crvvBecrpco
rfjs elpfjvrjs.
Ver, 4 : . . . . ev a-apa Kal ev nvevpa,
KaBas Kal iicXfjBrjre iv pta iXniBi rfjs
KXfjaeas vpiSj/,
Ver. 15, f , : . . . . os e'o'rtj' fj KecpaXfj,
b Xpia-rds - i^ ov jrac ro a-apa, crvv-
appoXoyovpevov Kal o-vp/3i/3afdpe-
vov Bid ndcrrjs dcpfjs rfjs imxoprj-
yias Kar ivepyeiav, ev pe-rpco evbs
eKaorov pepovs rfjv aii^rja-iv rov
O'ciparos TTOteirat, eis o'lKoBopfjv eav
rov iv dydnrj.
2.) Exhortation to a renewed Chris
tian life, iv, 17-v, 21,

Ver, 23 : . . . . ov eyevoprjv iya Hav
Xos BidKovos. Cf, ver, 25,
Ver, 27 : , . , , ois fjBeXrjcrev d Bebs
yvapicrai, ris d nXovros rfjs Bd^rjs
rov pvcrrrjpiov rovrov iv rols eBve-
cTiv, OS icrri Xpicrrbs ev fjplv. Cf.
ver. 26,
i, 11,
ii, 2, f.
Second section. Warning against er
roneous teachings, chap, ii.
Second, moral Part, iii,, iv,
1.) Exhortation to a renewed Chris
tian life, iii, 1 - 17,
i, 10 : , . . . nepmarfjcrai d^ias rov Kv
piov . . . .
iii, 12, f, : 'Ei'Svo'ao-^e ovv, as eKXe-
KToi rov Beov dyioi Kal fjyanrjpevoi,
crnXdyxva oiKrippov, xprjo'rdrrjra,
raneivocppoa-vvrjv, npcidrrjra, paKpo-
Bvplav • dvexopevoi dXXfjXav ....
Ver, 14, f. : 'EttI ndcri Be rovrois rfjv
ayanrjv, rjns icrrl crvvBecrpos rfjs re-
XeidrrjTOs • Kal fj elj^fjvrj rov Xpicrrov
Ppafievera iv rals KapBiais vpav,
els fjv Kal iKXfjBrjre iv evl crapari.
ii, 19 : , . . . Kai ov Kparav rfjv Ke(pa-
Xrjv, i^ ofi ndv rb (rapa, Bid rwi^
d<^c5!' Kai crvvBecrpav imxoprjyovpe-
vov Kai a-vpPi^a^dpevov, ail^rj rfjv
av^rjcTiv rofj Beoij.

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. § 146 fl.

281

I^hes.
iv. 19 : .... aKoBapcrias ndarjs ev
nXeove^iii.
Ver. 22, ff, : . , . . dnoBea-Bai vpds, Ka
ra rfjv nporepav dvacrrpocpfjv, rbv
naXaibv dvBpanov, rbv cpBeipdpevov
Kara rds iniBvpias rijs dndrrjs •
dvaveovcrBai Be ra nvevpun rov vobs
vpav, Kal ivbvcracrBai rbv Kaivbv dv
Bpanov, TOV Kara Bebv Krio-Bevra iv
BiKaioaivTj Kal da-idrrjn rfjs dXrj
Beias.
Ver. 25 : Aid dnoBepevoi rb ip-evBos,
XaXeire aXij^eiav eKacrros pera rov
nXrjcrwv avrov.
Ver, 26 : 'Opyi^ecrBe, Kal pfj dpaprd-
vere.
Ver. 29 : Has Xoyos aanpbs iK rov
crrdparos vpav pfj iKnopevecrBa,
dXX' et Tts dyaBbs npbs o'lKoBopfjv
rfjs xpe'ias, Iva 8(3 X'^P'" '""'^ okov-
OVO't,
Ver, 31 : nSo'a niKpia Kal Bvjws Kal
opyfj Kal Kpavyfj Kal ^Xacrcprjpia ....
Ver, 32 : TiVeo-^e Se els aXkfjXovs
Xprjcrroi, evcmXayxvoi, xop'fdpevot
eavrots, KaBas Kal d Bebs iv Xpiara
ixapicraro vplv.
Ver, 3 : Uopveia Be koI nda-a dKoBap-
cria fj nXeove^ia.
Ver, 4 : Kai ala-xpdrrjs, Kal papdXo-
yia ^ evrpaneXia ....
Ver. 5 : . . . , i) dKoBapros i) nXeove-
KTrjs, OS icrnv elBaXoXaTprjS ....
Ver. 6 : .... Bid ravra ydp epxerai
fj dpyfj rov Beov effi rovs viovs r^s
aTrei^eias.
Ver. 15, f. : BXejreTe o?v, nas oKpi/SSs
nepmarelre, pfj ms airocpoi, dXX' as
crocpoi' i^ayopa^dpevoi rbv Kaipov,
on at fjpepai novrjpai eia-i.
Ver. 19, f. : .... XaXoiJj/res eavrols
^ffoKpols Kal vpvois Kal coBals nvev-
36 .

Coloss.
iii. 5 : .... aKaBapa-iav . . . . Kal rfjv
nXeove^iav ....
iii. 8, ff. : Nvvi Se dnoBeo-Be Kal vpels
rd ndvra, dpyfjv .... dneKBvadpe-
yot rbv ndXaibv avBpanov cjvv rals
npd^ecriv avrov, Kal ivBvcrdpevoi rbv
dvaKOivovpevov els iniyvacriv Kar
e'lKova rod KTicravros avrdv.

Ver. 8, f. : Nwi Se dnoBea-Be Kal vpels
. ... pfj ¦sJAevBeo'Be els oXXtjXovs,
Ver. 8 : .... dpyfjv . . . .
Ver, 8 : . , , , alaxpoXoyiav iK rov
crrdparos vpav ....
iv. 6 : *0 Xoyos vpav ndvrore iv xa~
pin ....
iii. 8 : . , . . dpyfjv, Bvjjidv, kokiov, /3Xa-
acprjpiav ....
Ver. 12, f. : 'EvBvcracrBe .... o-n-Xay-
Xi'a .... xPW'brrjra .... x"-
pi^dpevoi eavrols .... Kada>s Kai
d Xpio'rds ixapia-aro vplv, ovra Kai
vpels.
iii. 5 : .... nopvelav, aKaBapcriav ....
Kai Tij!' nXeove^iav, fjris icrrlv elBct-
XoXarpeia.
Ver, 8 : .... alcrxpoXoyiav . . , .
Ver, 5, (See above,)
Ver. 6 : .... St' & 'epxerai fj dpyfj
TOV Beov inl rovs viovs rfjs dnei-
Beias -
iv. 5 : 'Ev irocpia nepmarelre npbs
rovs e|(D, rbv Kaipbv i^ayopa^d-
pevoi.
iii. 16, f . : . . . . iv ndcrrj crocpia BiBd-
CTKovres Kai j/ovfleroCj/res eavrovs

282

PAUL S EPISTLES.

ISplies.
pariKols, aBovres Kal -^dXXovres iv
rfj KapBia vpav ra Kvpico - evxapi-
crrovvres ndvrore vnep ndvrav, iv
dvdpan rov KVpi'ov fjpav 'irjcrov Xpi
crrov Tw Bea Kal narpi.
3.) Exhortation to the performance
of family duties, v. 22 - vi. 9.
V. 21 : Ai ywaiKes rois iSi'ois di'Spa-
0"ti' vnordcTO-ecrBe , as ra Kvplco.
Ver, 25 : oi dvBpes, dyandre rds yv-
valKas eavrav . . . .
vi, 1 : Td rcKva, vnaKovere rols yo-
vevcTiv vpav iv KVpico - rovro ydp
icrn BiKaiov.
Ver, 4 : Kai ol narepes, pfj napopyi-
^ere rd reKva vpav, dXX' iKrpecpere
avrd iv naiBeia Kal vovBecrici Kvpiov.
Ver. 5, ff. : Oi SovXoi, vnaKovere rols
Kvpt'ots Kara adpKa, perd (pd^ov Kal
rpdpov, iv dnXdrrjn rfjs KapBias
vpav, o)s ra Xpiara - pfj Kar
dcpBdXpoBovXeiav as dvBpcondpe-
(TKOi, dXX' as SovXot rov Xpicrrov,
noiovvres rb BeXrjpa rov Beov iK
-^vxfjs, per evvoias BovXevovres, as
ra Kvpla Kal ovk dvBpanois - eiBd-
res, on o idv n eKacrros noirjcrjj
dyaBdv, rovro Kopielrai napd kv-
piov, etre BovXos, eire iXevBepos.
Ver. 9 : Kai ol Kvpioi, rd avrd ttoi-
eire Trpds avrovs, dvievres rfjv dnei-
Xfjv - eiSdres, on Kal vpav avrav b
Kvpids ia-nv iv ovpavols, Kal npocr-
anoXrj-^ia ovk ecrri nap' avra (cf.
Col, iii, 25),
4,) Exhortation to the spiritual war
fare and to prayer, vi, 10 - 20,
Ver. 18, ff. : .... Sid ndcrrjs npocrev-
Xfjs Kal Befjcreas npocrevxdpevoi iv
navrl Kaipa iv nvevpan • Kal els
avrb rovro dypvnvovvres iv ndcrrj
npoa-Kaprepfjaei kcu Befjcrei nepl ndv
rav rav dylav, Kal vnep ipov, tva

Coloss.
¦^aXpois Kal vpyots Kai coBdls nvev-
pariKals, iv xdpirt aSoiTes ev rals
KapBiais vpav ra Bea - . . . . evxa-
picrroijvres rw Bea Kai narpl Bi
avrov.
2.) Exhortation to the performance
of family duties, iii. 18 -iv. 1.
Ver. 18 : Al yvyaiKes, vnorda-creaBe
rols dvBpd(riv, as dvfJKev iv Kvpico.
Ver. 19 : Oi dvBpes, dyaTrare rds yv-
vciiKas ....
Ver. 20 : Td reKva, vnaKovere rols
yovevcri Kara ndvra - rovro ydp
ianv evdpecrrov iv Kvpicf.
Ver. 21 ¦ oi narepes, pfj ipeBi^ere rd
reKva vpav, iva pfj dBvpacriv.
Ver. 22 : Oi SovXot, vnaKofjere Kara
ndvra rols Kara crdpKa Kvpiois, pfj
ev dcpBaXpoBovXeiais, as dvBpcond-
pecTKOi, dXX' iv dnXdrrjn rfjs Kap
Bias, cpo^ovpevoi rbv Kvpwv - Ver.
23 : Kai Tray 6',ri idv noifjre, iK
•^vxfjs ipyd^ecrBe, as ra Kvpico, Kai
OVK dvBpanois - Ver. 24 : EiSdres,
on dnb Kvptov a7roX]7\^eo-^e rfjv
dvranoBocriav rfjs KXrjpovopias - ra
ydp Kvpico Xpi(rra BovXevere. Ver,
25 : 'O Se dBiKav Kopielrai 6 ^Si-
Krjcre - Kal ovk eVrt npocranoXrj^ia.
iv, 1 : Oi Kvptot, rd BiKaiov Kal rfjv
ladrrjra rols BovXois napexecrBe, ei
Sdres, on Kai vpeis e'xere Kvpiov ev
ovpavols.

3.) Exhortation to prayer and to
Christian prudence, iv, 2-6,
Ver, 2, ff, : T^ npocrevxfj npoa-Kapre-
pelre, yprjyopofjvres iv avrfj, ev
evxaptoTia ¦ npocrevxdpevoi dpa Kal
nepl fjpav, Iva d Bebs dvoi^rj fjplv
Bvpav TOV Xdyov, XaX^o'at rd pv
crrfjpiov rov Xpio-rov, 8i' d Kai Sc-

EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. § 146 b. 283
Ephes. Coloss.
fiot B067J Xoyos iv avoi^ei rov OTO- Befxai • tva ^avepaxro) avTo, ws Sft
pLaTOS fiov, iv rrapprja-La yvapicrai to jie \a\rj(raL.
fj.v<jTr]piov TOV evayyeXiov • vnep ov
TTpecrjSeuo) iv dXvcret, iva ev avra
7rapp7}(rida-cctp.ai, cas Set /ac \aXrj(rai.
5.) Personal, vi. 21-24. 4.) Personal, iv. 7-17.
Ver. 21, f . : "iva 8e elbrjre Ka\ vfiels Ver. 7, f. : Ta /car efie Trdvra yvcopi-
ra Kar e/xe, rl irpdacrayj Trdvra vfuv eet vfuv Tu;^tK6s 6 dyaTnjros aSeX-
yvcapia-ei Tv^ikqs, 6 dyaTrrjros dbeX- <pbs koI TTiaros btdKOVOS Kal a-vvdov-
<p6s Kai TTtoToy BiaKovos iv KVpia • Xos iv KVpica ' ov eTrefiyj/a Trpos vpds
ov eTTepjy^a Trpbs vpSs els avro rov- els aiiro roOro, ivayva ra Trepi vpav
ro, iva yvoare ra Trepi rjpav, Kai Tra- [yvcuTe ra Trepi fjpcov) Kai rrapaKa-
paKaXeofj rds KapBias vpav. Xecrj rds KapBias vp^civ.
§ 146 b.
This relation excites surprise. Such a transcription of
himself is unworthy of an Apostle,'' and must therefore be
the work of an imitator. The style, also, compared with that
of the Epistle to the Colossians and other Pauline letters, is
un-Pauline, being diffuse, loaded with parenthetic and sec
ondary clauses, somewhat disconnected (ii. 1, 5, iii. 1, 13),
verbose, and wanting in new thoughts. It differs from these
Epistles in single particulars,'' and frequently in the thoughts,
doctrines, and mode of teaching."
' The passage iv. 32- v. 1 is parallel with Col. iii. 12, f., but raneivo(pp.
npadr. paKpoB. dvex- dXX. is omitted, as already used in ver. 2. Only an
imitator is wont to be so economical.
¦i Frequent ajra^ Xey. : iv rols inovpaviois, i. 3, 20, ii. 6, iii. 10, vi. 12 ;
rd nvevpariKa, vi. 12 ; BidfioXos, iv. 27, vi. 11 (elsewhere only in First and
Second Timothy) ; Koa-poKpdrap, vi, 12 ; crarfjpiov, vi, 16, Words otherwise
used : olKovopia, i. 10, iii, 2, 9 (oiKovopoi pva-rrjplav Beoi is differently used
in 1 Cor, iv, 1) ; p,va-rfjpwv, v, 32 (as Rev. i. 20, xvii. 5, 7) ; nXfjpapa, i. 23
(cf. Col. i. 19, ii. 9) ; evXoyia, i. 3 ; aiiav, ii. 2 ; nepmolrja-is, i. 14 ; dcpBap-
o-ia, vi. 24 ; pavBdveiv, iv. 20 ; (pari^eiv, iii. 9 ; nXrjpova-Bai iv, v. 18 ; jtX.
ets, iii. 19. The collocations ^aa-iXeia r. Beov n. Xpiarov, v. 5 ; t. BeXrjpa
T. Kvpiov, V. 17. Interruption and resumption of the construction, iii. 2- 14 ;
the constructions tore yivacrKovres, v. 5 ; iva (po^fjrai, v. 33 ; iva with Opt.,
i. 17, iii. 16. The frequent omission of the article before qualifying clauses,
i. 3, 15, ii. 7, 11, 15, 21,f., and often. Expansion and pleonasm, i. 19, vi.
10, iii. 18 ; ii. 6, f., 21 (e'v Xpiora 'Irjcr.), and many other passages.
' Inappropriate appeal of the Apostle to his knowledge, iii. 4 ; collocation

iV

284 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
of the apostles and prophets, ii.20, iii. 5 ; arbitrary use of the passage from
Psalms, iv. 8 ; citation of a non-biblical passage, v. 14 ; demonological repre
sentations, ii, 2, vi, 12 ; the characteristics of God, i, 17, iii, 9, 15 ; the
insisting on the Old Testament promise, vi. 2, f. ; the warning against theft,
iv. 28 ; un-Pauline greeting, vi. 23, f.
§ 146 c.
Against these grounds of doubt the recognition of the
Epistle by the Church has great weight,'' together yrith the
opposite judgment of most investigators.'' The Epistle, if
not by the Apostle himself, was at least written by a gifted
disciple of his, belongs to the Apostolic age, and, unlike the
spurious pastoral epistles, has no reference to later times.
^ Ignat. Ep. ad Ephes, u, 12 (see Part I, § 8, note b) : . . . . UavXov crvp-
pvcrrai . . . . bs ev ndcrrj imcrroXfj pvrjpovevei vpav, k.t.X. Ep. Interpol, c, 6 :
tbs n, vpTi" 'eypa-^ev ¦ ev a-apa K. ev nv., K.T. X. (Eph. iv. 4, 6), Polycarp,
c, 12 : ut his scripturis dictum est : Irascimini et nolite peccare, et sol non
occidat super iracundiam vestram, cf, Eph, iv, 26. Cap. 1 : .... eiSdres, on
xdpiri icrre trecracrpevoi, ovk i^ 'epyav, cf. Eph. ii. 8. Irenceus, V. 2. 3 : Ka-
Bas d paKapws IlavXds cprja-iv iv rfj npbs 'Ecpecriovs enicrroXfj, on peXij ecrpev
roC craparos ck t^s aapKbs avrov, K. r. X., cf. Eph. v. 30. Clemens Alex. Adm.
ad gent. p. 54 : Aid rovro d paKdpws dnocrroXos pap-rvpofiai iv Kvplco cprjcrlv,
cf, Eph, iv. 17 . Strom. IV. 499 : Aid Kai iv rfj npos 'Ecpeaiovs ypdcpei, k. t. X. ,
cf. Eph. V. 21, 22. Tertull. Cont. Marc. V. 11, 17, cf. § 145 b, note a.
" Guerike, Beitr, p, 108, ff. Einl. p. 380. Hemsen, p. 629, ff. Schneck
enb. p, 135, ff, Ruckert, p,297, ff, Harless, p. Ixxi. ff. Neander, AG. I. 521,
ff. Meyer, p. 20, ff. Anger, p. 138, ff. Against the genuineness, Schweg
ler, Krit. Miscellen, in Zeller's Jbb. 1844. p. 378, ff. Nachapost. Zeitalt,
II. 330, ff. Bour, Paulus, etc, p, 418, ff. According to their view, the
Epistle contains Gnostic and Montanistic ideas and expressions, e. g. i. 23,
ii. 2, 20, iv. 3-6, 9, vi. 12, cf the remarks in my Exeg. Hdb.
Date, Occasion, and Design.
§ 147.
If the Epistle be genuine, the Apostle wrote ^ it during
his captivity (iii. 1, iv. 1), contemporaneously with the Epistle
to the Colossians, but a little later, and with that in mind
(whence the similarity between the two), and sent it like
wise by Tychicus (vi. 21, f.)."" Tychicus's journey might
occasion the Apostle to write a similar letter to one or sev-

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. § 148. 285
eral neighboring churches." The peculiar design of the
letter may lie in the irenic section, iv. 1 - 16.
* The earlier composition of the Epistle to the Colossians is advocated by
Schott, Neander, Schneckenburger (who, p. 141, even supposes that the
Apostle, in composing the Ephesian Epistle, used a copy of the earlier
Epistle to the Colossians. Against this, Wurm, p. 97), Harless, Wiggers,
Meyer _ (the last mentioned on account of the koi, vi. 21, referring to the Co
lossians). The opposite view is maintained by Corn, a Lopide, Bohmer
(Isag. p. 169), Credner (§ 66), Neudecker (p. 522), Anger (p. 135, sq,), and
others (next note). According to Mayerhoff, the Epistle to the Colossians
is modelled after ours. It seems to me, with Schleierm. in Stud, u, Krit.
1832. p. 501, that the more definite character and object, and the closer con
nection, of the Epistle to the Colossians, prove its originality.
'' The absence of a greeting from Timothy alone opposes this. On this
account. Hug, II, 402, 410, thinks it was the earlier, both in composition
and in sending; Hemsen, p. 622, in composition only. Eichhorn, III. 1. 279,
explains this circumstance by the supposition that Timothy wrote the Epistle
to the Colossians, but not that to the Ephesians. At any rate, we cannot
assume that Tychicus was sent twice.
•= Schneckenburger supposes (p, 135, ff,) that the Epistle refers to the
theosophic system of Asia Minor, by which he aims to justify much of what
was adduced as singular in § 146 b, notes b, c.

IV. Epistle to the Philippians.
N. T. ed. Koppe, contin. Heinrichs, Vol. VII. Part II. — Meyer, 9. Abth.
1. Hlfte. — Exeg, Handb, II, 4, — S^orr, Diss, in ep, Pauli ad Phihpp,
(Tiib, 1783.) Opusc. acad. I. 301, sqq.  T. G. om Ende, Nova vers, et
annot. perpetua (1789, 1792) 1798. — J. F. Krause, Observatt. crit.-exeg.
(in cc. 1, 2.) Regiom, 1810., Opusc. p. 23, sqq. — F. H. Rheinwald, Comm.
Berl. 1827. — /, F. v. Flott, see p, 270. — C. St. Matthies, Erkl. Grfsw.
1835. — A. G. Holemann, Comm. Lips. 1839. — Van Hengel, Comm. perp.
L. B. 1838. — A. Rilliet, Commentaire, Gen. 1841.
The Church at Philippi.
§ 148.
In Philippi, a city of Macedonia,'' Paul fixst preached the
gospel in Europe (Acts xvi. 12, fi".). On his second journey
he revisited it (Acts xx. 2, 6). He seems to have stood in
relations of perfect harmony and friendship with this old
and well-regulated church (i. 1), composed probably alto-

286 PAUL'S EPISTLES.
gether, at least chiefly, of Gentile Christians, as he praises
it so highly, shows so much love for it (i. 3-8, iv. 1), and
received support from it (iv. 10-18, cf. 2 Cor. xi. 9). Not
withstanding, some have felt compelled to suppose that
Judaizing teachers had gained a foothold there, or that
Jewish Christians of their own body had led them astray
(Phil. iii. 2 f.).'' But it seems to have been free from faults
of that kind (iv. 1) ; it suffered from spiritual pride and
dissension (i. 27 -ii. 16, iv. 2).
' The designation nparrj ndXis is understood by some as a title of honor,
because it was juris Itolici {Hug, Einl. II. 459. Mynster, Einl, in d, Br,
an d, Phil,, kl, theol, Schr, p, 170. Kuin.'), by others in a relative geograph
ical sense (i?eto'^, Quaestt. Philipp. p, 3, sqq. VanHeng., p. 4. Win. RWB.),
'' According to Eichhorn and Rheinwald, there were iwo parties at Phi
lippi, a Jewish-Christian and a Gentile-Christian. Bertholdt, VI, 3403,
opposes this, but thinks that Saddu9aic teachers had made their appearance.
This does not appear from Phil, iii, 18, ff. Against this whole view, W.
H. Schinz, Die christi, Gemeinde z, Phil, 1833, p, 48, ff.
Occasion, Contents, and Date of the JEpistle.
§ 149 fl.
The mission of Epaphroditus to Rome, w^ith pecuniary
aid to the Apostle during his imprisonment (iv. 10, 18, ii. 25),
afforded the occasion of this letter. Paul learned from him
the circumstances of the church, and on his return felt
moved to send with him this Epistle, which is more like
a letter and more genial than any other of his letters to
churches. After an affectionate introduction (i. 3 - 11), and
details regarding his situation at Rome (i. 12 - 26), he ex
horts to union and humility (i. 27 - ii. 16), and gives further
details (ii. 17 - 30). Then follow a reference to his enemies
among the Jewish Christians, an exhortation to heavenly-
mindedness (iii. 1 - iv. 1), and various other appeals (iv. 2
- 9). Finally, thanks for the gifts which he has received
(iv. 10-20), and greetings (iv. 21-23).
§ 149 b.
All the references (as well as the subscription) point to
the imprisonment at Rome (i. 7, 12-14, 20, ii. 17, iv. 22),

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. § 150 a. 287
where we can portray to ourselves the situation of the
Apostle, in Acts xxviii. 16, ff., exactly as it is here assumed."
But the date of the composition belongs incontestably to
the later period of his imprisonment,'' when Timothy (i. 1),
but no longer Luke, was with the Apostle (Phil. iv. 21, cf.
Col. iv. 14).
" Through the mention of the Prtetorium, i. 13, and the imperial house,
iv. 22, and on other grounds, the theories that the Epistle was written at
Corinth {Oeder, Progr. de temp, et loco scriptae ep. ad Philipp. Onoldi,
1731. 4to, cf Wolf, Cur. Philol. IV. 168, sqq.), or at Csesarea {Poulus,
Progr, de temp, scriptae prioris ad Timoth, atque ad Philipp. ep. Paul. Jen.
1799, 4to), are rendered wholly improbable. ,
'' Phil. i. 12, ff,, ii, 26, ff,, presuppose a considerable length of time.
Unity and Genuineness of the Same.
§ 150 a.
Two writings have been supposed to be combined in our
Epistle, — one addressed to the whole church, i. 1-iii. 1,
'^aipBTe ev Kvpia, with the greetings in iv. 21-23, and an
other to the Apostle's more intimate friends at Philippi, iii. 1,
from the words to, avTo, rypacpeiv to iv. 20 ; because iii. 1
begins anew, and the contents of ch. iii., iv., especially the
exhortation iv. 2, ff"., would not apply to the whole church.''
But this supposed difference between the exoteric and the
esoteric parts of the Epistle is unworthy of the Apostle,
and we find nothing which might not be written to the
church.* The abruptness of iii. 1 is easily explained by
supposing that the Apostle hastened to his conclusion, but
afterwards added a warning (iii. 2-iv. 1), and an appeal to
certain persons (iv. 2, f.).'=
' Heinrichs, Prolegg. in ep, Pauli ad Phil. p. 33, sqq. Similar view in
Paulus, Heidelb. Jahrbb. d. Litt. Jahrg. 5. H. 7, p, 702, ff,
>¦ A detailed confutation in Krause, Opusc, p, 1, sqq. Bertholdt, VI. 3424,
ff, Rheinwald, p, 47, ff.
' The words rd Xoittoi', dBeXcpoi, xaipere ev Kvpico, indicate, according to
iv. 4, 8, 2 Cor. xiii, 11, Eph. vi. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 1, a near approach to the
conclusion {Grotius). On the contrary, Schinz, as above, p. 79, ff. Van
Heng. p. 12.

288

§ 150 &.
The genuineness of the Epistle, which is supported by
very early testimonies," and seemed to be beyond all doubt,
certain parts only being questioned,'' has in recent times
been seriously assailed, but on untenable grounds."
» Polycarp, Ep, ad Philipp, c, 3, see Part I, § 18, note b. (According to
this, Paul had written several Epistles to the Philippians, an idea which
some (even Mey.) think is sustained by Phil. iii. 1, 18. But ima-roXal may,
like liiteroe, refer to a single letter, see Coteler. on the passage.) Cap. 11 :
Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis vel audivi, in quibus laboravit beatus
Paulus, qui estis (laudati) in principle epistolae ejus, Epist. eccles. Vienn.
et Lugd. apud Euseb. V. 2 : oi Kai e'TTi roo-ovroi' ^rjXaral Kai piprjral Xpi-
a-rov eyevovro, bs ev popcpfj Beov vndpxav ovk dpnaypbv fjyfjcraro rb ehai laa
Bea, cf, Phil, ii, 6. Iren. IV, 18, 4 : Quemadmodum et Paulus Philippen-
sibus ait: repletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito, etc, cf Phil. iv. 18.
Clemens Alex. Paedag, I, 107 : . , , . avroi) djwXoyovvros rov IlavXov Trepi
eavrov ' ov;;^ on fjBrj eXajSoK, ij ^'St; rereXelapai, K. r. X., cf, Phil, iii, 12, ff,
Tertullian, De resurrect, carnis, c, 23 : , , . . quum Philippensibus scribit, si
qua, inquit, concurram in resurrectionem, quae est a mortuis : non quia jam
accepi, etc, cf, Phil. iii. 11, f.
'' Schroder, Der Ap. Paul. V. 231, ff., doubted the passage iii. 1-iv. 9,
cf. Holemann, Comm. p, Iix, sqq.
' According to Bour, Paulus, etc, p, 458, ff. and Schwegler, Nachap,
Zeitalter, II, 133, ff,, the (wrongly explained and misapplied) passage ii, 6, ff,
contains Gnostic ideas and even Docetism, the Epistle suffers from poverty
of thought and bears marks of imitation (iii, 1, ff,, cf 2 Cor, xi, 13, 18,
21, f,). Its polemics are indefinite and forced. Even the historic occasion,
iv, 15, f , is doubted. What is said of the beneficial effects of the Apostle's
imprisonment, i. 12, ff,, is coupled with the mention of Clement, iv. 3, well
known as Clement of Rome, and is regarded as legendary. See, on the
contrary, Meyer, on iii. 11. Liinemann, P. ad Phil. ep. defendit. Gott. 1847,

FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. § 151. 289
CHAPTER IX.
PAUL'S PASTORAL EPISTLES.

' N. T. ed. Kopp. Vol. VII. contin, Heinrichs. — Exeg. Handb. II. 5. —
Mart. Luther, Schol, et serm, in 1 Joh. ep. atque annott. in ep. P. ad Tim.
et Tit. ed. Bruns. 1797, Svo, — J. L. v. Mosheim, Erklar. d. beiden Briefe.
Hamb. 1765. 4to. — /. A. Wegscheider, Der erste Brief an d. Timoth. Neu
iibers. u, erklart, 1810. — Chr. T. Kuinoel, Explicatio ep. Pauli ad Titum,
in Commentatt, theol, ed, a Velthusen, Ruperti et Kuinoel, I, 292, sqq, —
C. A. Chr. Heydenreich, Die Pastoralbriefe Pauli erlautert, 2 vols, 1826 -
28, — /, Fr. V. Flatt, Vorless. iib. d. Br, P, an d. Tim, u. Tit, herausgeg.
V. Kling, 1831. — M. J. Mack, Comm. iib, d, Pastoralbr, d, Ap, P, Tiib,
1836. — G. E. Leo, Ep. 1. ad Tim, Graec, c, comm. perp.- Lips. 1837. —
C. St. Motthies, Erkl. d. Past. Br, 1840,
I. First Epistle to Timothy.
Notices of Timothy in the Bihle.
§151.
Timothy, a Lycaonian, and probably from Lystra (Acts
xvi. 1), son of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother (cf.
2 Tim. i. 5), probably converted by Paul (Acts xiv. 6, xvi. 1),
became his assistant (Acts xvi. 3), and rendered him from
that time forth important service ; first, on the journey
through Macedonia and Achaia, as his agent at Thessa
lonica and his assistant at Corinth (Acts xvii. 14, 1 Thess.
iii. 2-5 ; Acts xviii. 5, 1 Thess. i. 1) ; then, before his second
journey from Ephesus to Macedonia and Achaia, as his mes
senger thither (Acts xix. 22, cf. 1 Cor. iv.l7, xvi. 10, 2 Cor. i.
1), whence he accompanied Paul to Asia (Acts xx. 4, f.),
and probably to Jerusalem and Rome (§ 115 b). In Paul's
letters during his imprisonment Timothy appears at his side
(Col. i. 1, Philem. 1, Phil. i. 1, ii. 19)."
» The datum given in Hebr. xiii, 23 is difiicult to place in the chronologi
cal order. Later Church tradition makes Timothy the first Bishop of Eph
esus, 37

290 Paul's pastoral epistles.
Occasion, Design, and Contents of the First Epistle to Timothy.
§ 152 a.
Paul writes to Timothy, whom, on his departure for
Macedonia, with the design of soon returning, he had left
in charge at Ephesus (i. 3, iii. 14, f.). But this in no way
agrees with the historic conditions of Paul's journey from
Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts xx. 1), — which, according to
the common supposition [Baron., Petav., Grot., Lightfoot,
Michael., Hani, and others), here first comes in question, —
whither Timothy preceded him (Acts xix. 22), and where
they met again after a few months (2 Cor. i. 1). Though
it be possible that Timothy, who probably did not go to
Corinth (§ 133 a), returned before Paul's departure, it is
quite improbable that he would have so soon left the posts
to which the Apostle had appointed him, and, immediately
after, met him again in Macedonia. Besides, it can in no
case have been the Apostle's purpose to return soon to
Ephesus (1 Tim. iii, 14, iv. 13; cf. Acts xix. 21, xx.lG)."
» Schmidt, Einl, I, 257, Schleiermocher, Ueb, d, sogen, ersten Br, d. Pan
ics an d. Timotheos, Ein krit, Sendschreiben an J. C. Gass (1807), p. 115,
ff. Eichhorn, Einl, III, 337, ff, A non liquet is expressed by Wits. Melet,
p, 100, and Wolf, Cur, p,408. The attempts of Ptad (see § 155, note a).
Hug (Einl. II, § 109, 110), Curtius (De tempore, quo prior Pauli ad Timoth,
ep, exarata sit, Berol, 1728), Hemsen (Der Ap, Paul, p, 340, ff,), to show
the appropriateness of this historical relation, necessarily failed, Bertholdt,
VI, 3571, finds 1 Tim, iii, 14, iv. 13, especially out of place. His own
theory (p, 3574), however, that Paul wrote the Epistle somewhat later, on
the journey from Corinth by Macedonia to Jerusalem, to Timothy, who had
gone before him to Ephesus (Acts xx, 6, ff,), contradicts the statements in
Acts (xx. 4, 5, 17, ff,), as well as all probability, and is at variance with
1 Tim, i, 3, Motthies tries to prop up this hypothesis by a monstrous-ex
planation of 1 Tim, i, 3, He connects TTopevo'pevos with npoa-pelvat iv 'Ecp-,
making the sense as follows : Timothy must remain in Ephesus, first jour
neying to Macedonia, or as he was about going to Macedonia, which, accord
ing to p, 452, means that he must wait at Ephesus as the terminus of his
journey to Macedonia, Mosheim's theory (Erklar, p, 45, ff,), that Paul,
during the first part of his stay at Ephesus, took a journey to Macedonia, is
too contradictory to Acts (cf especially, xx, 31), The same applies to the
journey supposed by Schroder (I, 86, II. 287, ff,), from Ephesus to Mace-

eikst epistle to timothy. § 152 c. 291,
donia, Corinth, Crete, Nicopolis, Jerusalem, Antioch, and back to Ephesus.
According to Schneckenburger' s (Beitr. p, 183) and Bottger's (Beitr, IV.
15, ff.) conjecture in regard to 1 Tim, i, 3, KaBas napeKaXeod ae npoapei-
vas iv 'E(pe(ra, nopevopevos els MaKeBoviav Iva napayyeiXrjs, ic. r. X., or
nopevopevav, the whole journey and the difficulty growing out of it would
vanish, Cf. Credner, § 165. Neudecker, p, 551.
§ 152 &.
The church at Ephesus is presupposed as an organization
of long standing. The offices of elders and other church
servants, even of female elders and servants, were in exist
ence and were sought after (iii. 11, 15, v. 9, 17, 19). False
teachers also had made their appearance (i. 3). The last-
mentioned fact contradicts the assumption in Acts xx. 29, f. ;
the first-mentioned, the supposition of a church of but a few
years' growth. § 152 c.
The design of the Epistle is to give Timothy directions,
not for the organizing of the church at Ephesus, but for
counteracting the false teachers (i. 3), and in general for the
superintendence of the church until the Apostle's return
(iii. 15)." But the contents of the, Epistle, excepting chap.
v., ill agree with the aini' proposed. ' The author does not
adhere closely to his theme, but wanders away into irrele-:
vant matters.'' Besides, reference to the Apostle's relations
to the Ephesian church is wholly wanting.
' Schleiermocher, p. 117, f. Hence Mosheim's theory of the earlier com
position of the Epistle, at the beginning of the Apostle's stay at Ephesus,
is also untenable, both on internal and external grounds, Cf, Bertholdt,
VI, 3558, f.
'' Chap, i, indeed commences with false teachers, but as early as ver. 12
wanders away from them. Subsequently, it is true, false teachers are re
peatedly mentioned, but also in a cursory way. The direction for public
prayer and intercession, ii. 1-7, and in regard to the relation of women to
the church, ver. 8 - 15, as well as the trivial directions concerning the in
duction of bishops and deacons, chap, iii., are of little consequence to the
administration of the church. The prediction of future false teachers, iv,
1-5, and the admonitions to Timothy, partly in reference to such (already
existing?) false teachers, and partly of a general nature, ver, 6-16, have

292 Paul's pastoral epistles.
no point. The directions for the government of the church, especially for
the support of widows and their appointment as female elders, chap, v,,
have most distinctness and applicability. Chap, vi, treats of various matters :
ver, 1, ff,, moral rules for slaves ; ver, 3-5, warning against false teachers,
especially on account of their covetousness; ver, 6-10, warning against
avarice; ver. 11-16, admonitions to Timothy ; ver. 17-19, good instruc
tion for the rich; ver, 20, f, against false teachers. The inappropriate
character of the contents appears also in the admonitions to Timothy, some
of which demean this assistant of the Apostle (i, 18, f , iv, 7, ff,, 12, ff,, vi,
ll,ff,), while others are too general and trivial for even ordinary Christians
(iv,7,ffi, 12, ff,, V, 23, vi, 11). § 152 d.
To avoid the historic difficulties, others place the Epistle
in the time after the first imprisonment of the Apostle,'*
' when, they think, he took a journey to Asia Minor (cf. Phi
lem. 22) and Macedonia (cf. Phil. ii. 24). Against this we
must not object that the Epistle assumes a yet unregulated
condition of the Ephesian church, for it does not ; but we
may urge that Paul at Rome designed sending Timothy
to Macedonia (Phil. ii. 19), (which indeed he may have given
up,'') that Timothy was at that time no longer a youth
(1 Tim. iv. 12), and that the Epistle contains no reference
to the imprisonment, as to other earlier experiences of the
Apostle." This whole theory, moreover, is uncertain, and
the offspring of critical embarrassment ; nor does it remove
the difficulties that lie in the inappropriateness of the con
tents and their total want of distinct allusion. The hypoth
esis that the Epistle was written during the imprisonment
at Csesarea, and contains commissions for Timothy to
Macedonia, is too forced to deserve particular refutation.**
The Epistle is, consequently, neither historically nor exe
getically comprehensible.
* TJshei , Mill, Pearson, Clericus, Paley, Wegscheider, Mynster (Kl. theol.
Schr. p, 230), Heydenreich (I, 13), Mack, Leo, Guerike, Beitr. p. 134, Ein
leit. p, 400), Bohl (Ueber die Zeit der Abfass, und d, paul, Charakt, d. Br,
an Tim, u. Tit. (Berl. 1829), p. 204 (cf Kling in Flott, p. 566, ff,), Nean
der, Wurm, &c. This is indicated also by the subscription, an-d AaoStKei'as.
'' Acts XX. 25 may be so broadly interpreted as to include an expression
of the narrator's opinion that Paul never returned to Ephesus.

SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. § 153 fl. 293
¦= Cf Curtius, as above, p. 91, sqq, Matth. p, 448,
'' Paulus, De temp, scriptae prioris ad Timoth. atque ad Philipp, ep. Paul.
Jen. 1799. 4to. Cf. Heidelb. Jahrbb. 1825. p. 425, ff. Bertholdt, VI.
3608,

II. Second Epistle to Timothy.
Occasion, Design, and Contents.
§ 153 fl.
Paul writes from Rome, where he is a prisoner (i. 8, 12,
16, f., ii. 9, iv. 6, 16), to Timothy, who, according to the
common view, is supposed to be at Ephesus (i. 15, 18, iv.
19, cf. to the contrary iv. 12)," and invites him to come to
Rome and bring Mark with him (iv. 9, 11, 21). If now,
with Baronius, Petavius, Estius, Lightfoot, Hammond, Wit-
sius. Cave, Lardner, Heinrichs, J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Hug,
Schrader, Hemsen, Matthies, and others, we assume the im
prisonment recorded in Acts, the letter must have been
written before the other letters from Rome; for, when they
were written, Timothy and Mark were already with the
Apostle (Col. i. 1, Philem. 1, Phil. i. 1, Col. iv. 10). But this
does not accord well with the mission of Tychicus (iv. 12, cf.
Col. iv. 7, ff.), the departure of Demas (iv. 10, cf. Col. iv.l4),
the already far-advanced trial of the Apostle (iv. 16, f.), and
his expectation of a speedy execution (iv. 6, cf. Phil. ii. 24),
although these difficulties may be removed.'' But it is more
difficult, nay, almost impossible, to harmonize iv. 13, 20, with
Acts. For although we assume the Apostle's journey pre-
.supposed in these passages to be that recorded in Acts xx.
4, ff., yet the statement in iv. 20, that the Apostle left Tro
phimus behind sick at Miletus, contradicts Acts xxi. 29,
where he appears in the company of the Apostle." More
over, iv. 19, compared with Rom. xvi. 3, is a difficulty, as
also that, in iv. 11, the presence of Aristarchus (cf. Acts xxvii.
2, Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24) is not presupposed.'*
^ The uncertainty of this supposition is shown by Heydenreich, II. 65, ff,
Schrader, I. 199, f., on the contrary, insists on it strongly.

294 PAUL'S PASTORAL EPISTLES.
" As Schmidt, Einl, I, 199, f , and Schrader, I, 193, ff,, set them aside,
each in his own way, Hemsen, on the contrary, (p, 713, ff.,) dates the
composition later than the other Epistles, but must, on that account, assume
an earlier visit of Timothy and Mark to Rome.
" The reading of the Arabic version, e'l- MeXlr-rj for ev MiXfjrco, which Rink,
Sendschreiben d, Korinth, p, 51, following Baronius, Beza, and Grotius,
recommends, probably arose from critical embarrassment, like Hug's (Einl,
II. 419), approved by Hemsen, and Schroder's (I, 191, f), and Motthies's
still more artificial explanations of the passage,
¦1 Eichhorn, Einl, IIL 354, ff, Schmidt, Einl, I, 199, Guerike, p, 117, ff,
Bdhl, p, 59, ff, Heydenreich, IL 23, ff, Credner, § 170, All these difii
culties Matthies, Past, Br. p. 583, ff,, thinks he can remove, (that regarding
Trophimus, by making the sense of the words Tpocp. dneXmov iv MiXfjra
doBevovvra, " I was compelled [on my departure from Jerusalem] to let
Trophimus [who had previously left Jerusalem for Miletus] stay behind
sick,") excepting that in regard to Aristarchus,
§ 153 6.
The contents of this (in general better-written) letter cor
respond more closely to its design than those of the First
Epistle. It is intended to invite Timothy to Rome. That
the writer does not reach this point before iv. 9, 21, but pre
pares Timothy by admonitions and information concerning
his own situation in Rome, cannot be considered inappro
priate. However, much that is manifestly irrelevant is intro
duced." '^ The admonition to fearlessness and to taking part in suffering for the
Gospel, with mention of his situation in Rome, and of the various relations of
Christian brethren towards him, i, 6 - 18 ; and the admonitions, ii, 1,3- 13,
iii, 10- 12, iv, 5, together with the allusion to the Apostle's near end, iv, 6
- 8, may be regarded as appropriate. Not so, however, the remaining ex
hortations, ii, 2, 14-26, iii. 14-iv. 2; still less the prophetic glances into
the future, iii, 1-5, iv, 3, and the polemical outbursts, ii. 16-21, 23, iii. 6
-9, 13. To this may be added that the admonitions are, for the most part,
inappropriate to an assistant who had stood the test of ten years (i. 5, ff,,
13, ii, 1, ff., 7, 22, iii, 14, f., iv, 5). The reference in iii. 11 to Acts xiii,
50, xiv, 2, 7, 19, is out of place, and betrays the interpolator,
§ 153 c.
On account of these historic difficulties, several writers
have returned to the old theory (Euseb., Chrysost., Theodoret,

EPISTLE TO TITUS. § 154 fl. 295
Jerome, Anselm, Corn, a Lap., L. Cappell, Grot, Usher, &c.),
expressed in the subscription, that the Epistle was written
during Paul's second imprisonment.'' But at that time
(twelve to fifteen years after his conversion) Timothy could
still less be treated as a young man (cf. ii. 22), and the
Apostle would surely have reminded him that he had already
aided him once in captivity. It is, moreover, improbable
that in a second imprisonment so much should be repeated,
— that Paul should a second time have undergone an exam
ination and received mild treatment (ii. 9, cf. Acts xxviii.
31).'' The theory that the Epistle was written during the
imprisonment at Caesarea stands in open contradiction to
the Epistle (i. 17).°
This Epistle also, therefore, is neither historically nor ex
egetically comprehensible."^
» Mosheim, Michaelis, Bertholdt, Mynster (Kl. theol, Schr, p, 208, ff,),
Heydenreich (who lays stress on the silence regarding the persons mentioned
in Rom, xvi, 5, 15), Flatt, Mock, Guerike, Bohl, Neander, and others.
Some, following Euseb. H, E, II, 22 (^ 122 a, note b), lay stress on iv, 16.
But oTToXoyia means simply a response before the court, not the whole judi
cial process and the whole imprisonment.
' Hug, II, 415, ff. Rink, p. 43, ff, Matthies, p. 576, ff. The supposi
tion that Paul, on his second imprisonment, would receive a wholly different
treatment from his first, and a speedy death, is certainly a very probable one.
' Oeder, Conjecturarum de difficilior, S. S, locis centuria, 1733 (cf, Hdn
lein, Einl, III, 522, ff,), BBttger, Beitr, IV. 42, ff,, who declares iv 'Pdiprj
a gloss. ^ Credn. § 170. Neudeck. p, 559,

III. Epistle to Titus.
Destination and Contents.
§ 154 a.
Titus (not mentioned in Acts), an assistant of Paul, was
born a Greek (Gal. ii. 3). We meet with him as Paul's
companion on the journey to Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1, 3), as his
agent at Corinth (2 Cor. vii. 6, 13, 14, viii. 6, 16, f., 23, xii.

296 PAUL'S PASTORAL EPISTLES.
18), and finally, apparently, on his way from Rome to Dal
matia (2 Tim. iv. 10). Paul, having left him at Crete, in
the discharge of certain commissions connected with the
church (Tit. i. 5, f.),* writes to him and gives directions for
his guidance. Especially in regard to the appointment of
elders (i. 5-9), with a side glance at certain false teachers
(i. 10 - 16) ; then in regard to the moral guidance of the
church as respects the various ranks in society (chap, ii.), to
gether with general moral precepts and motives (iii. 1-8),
and a warning against dissensions (iii. 9-11). He closes
with personal remarks (iii. 12-15).
» According to Euseb. H, E, III, 4, he was first Bishop of Crete, Hieron.
Cat, vir, ill. Tit, Theodoret. ad 1 Tim, iii. Theophylact. Prooem, ad Tit,,
and others, Heydenreich, II, 230, calls this an established and generally
acknowledged fact, § 154 &.
But there is no period in the known history of his life to
which we can with any probability assign the Apostle's
journey to Crete, and Titus's stay there (i. 5), as well as
Paul's residence at Nicopolis (iii. 12), and, consequent
ly, the composition of this letter." Many refer all this to
the short time of his stay in Greece and return through
Macedonia (Acts xx. 2, 3);'' others to the Apostle's first res
idence at Corinth, where certainly there is more space for
it;" others connect the journey to Crete with that from
Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18), and suppose the Epistle
to have been written there ; ^ others place the whole in Paul's
three years' stay there (Acts xix.) ;" others, finally, suppose
that the Apostle took the journey to Crete at the same time
as the supposed intermediate journey to Corinth between
Acts xviii. 23 and xix. 1, and wrote our Epistle from Greece.'
But as all these theories are improbable, and the designed
stay at Nicopolis, especially, raises difficulty,^ others resort
here also to the time between the first and the second im
prisonment.'^ This opinion seems to have the advantage of
being able to explain the affinity between all three Epistles
by their composition in the same period. This advantage.

EPISTLE TO TITUS. § 154 b. 297
however, vanishes on examination, because the different cir
cumstances assumed demand a considerable space, and the
individual Epistles thus become separated. Moreover, to
this hypothesis the broad region of possible theories seems
to stand open ; but it is greatly limited by the fact that
2 Tim. must have been written during an imprisonment.
And that it, according to ii. 17, f., cf. 1 Tim. i. 20, was written
earlier than this Epistle, utterly overthrows the hypothesis.
' Acts certainly has gaps, cf. Gal, i, 17, f,, Rom, xv, 19, 2 Cor, xi, 23,
¦¦ Baronius, Lightfoot, Schmid, Hist. ant. Can. p, 635 ; Heinrichs, Pro
legg, in ep, ad Tit, p, 196 ; Matthies, p, 192, ff, ; Blau, De genuina eorum
verborum indole, quibus Paulus ep, ad Tit, scriptam praefatur (1846), p, 33,
sq. ; but they differ in the nearer determination of the point of time when
Paul went to Crete, as well as in the situation of Nicopolis (in Epirus or
Thrace). At that time Titus (2 Cor. viii. 17, xiii, 18, preceding §) and
Tychicus (Acts xx. 4) were in the Apostle's' company. The stay at Ni
copolis would thus fall into the return journey through Macedonia ; but this,
being occasioned by an ambuscade, was doubtless hasty. Moreover, the
three months' stay in Greece probably took place in late autumn and winter
(see note on 2 Cor. viii. 10). But little time remains, therefore, for the stay
in Epirus.
"= Michaelis, Einl. II. 1315. Paul at that time was not acquainted with
Apollos (Tit. iii. 13). .According to Bottger (Beitr. IV. 1, ff.), Paul
founded the church in Crete at that time, revisited it at the time mentioned
in Acts xix. 22, 23, and on his flight, recorded in Acts xx. 3, left Titus in
Crete, or rather sent him back thither.
^ Hug, Einl. p. 345, f. Hemsen, p. 193. Schott, § 75.
' Schmidt, Einl. I. 265. Schrader, J. 103, II. 283. Anger, p. 76, — for
by Nicopolis they understand the Cilician Nicopolis. Anger, however, does
not make the Apostle actually come thither. This hypothesis is contra
dicted distinctly by the Apostle's declaration in Acts xx, 31.
^ Credner, p. 310. Neudecker, p, 567.
s See Bdhl, p, 426, ff, ; — moreover, the defender of the one hypothesis
always overthrows the other, Credner's hypothesis is opposed particularly
by this circumstance, that at the time supposed Paul was not yet acquainted
with Apollos (Tit, iii, 13) ; and, with every other, by the fact that the time
between the conversion of the Cretans and the composition of the letter is
too short to admit of occasion for the Apostle's warning against false
teachers, '' Mill, Clericus, Bertholdt, Mynster, Guerike, Heydenreich, Bohl, Neander,
Wurm. Schott also inclines that way.
38.

298 PAUL'S PASTORAL EPISTLES.
§ 154 C.
Moreover, the Epistle does not accord with the presup
posed condition of affairs, or with its object. 1. Many false
teachers (i. 10, f.) are represented as present and working in
churches not yet Organized, and destitute of elders (i. 5).
2. Information concerning these is given, not by Titus, re
maining on the island, to Paul absent, but by Paul absent
to Titus present. 3. The expression i. 12, f. would be un
just towards a church in which Paul found so much readi
ness to receive the Gospel, and the absence of all grateful
acknowledgments is singular (cf. 1 Thess. i. 2, ff".). 4. The
existence of Christianity in the island for a considerable
time is presupposed (i. 6). 5. The directions in i. 6-9 are
trivial, and the argumentation against the false teachers, as
well as their characterization, i. 10 - 16, iii. 9, wholly vague.
The moral rules, ii. 1 - 10, iii. i. f., are superficial and trivial.
The character of its contents would render the Epistle su
perfluous for Titus, and from i. 12, f. unfit for communica
tion to the church. Here also, therefore, we have the same
historical and exegetical incomprehensibility as before.
Doubts of the Genuineness of these Three Epistles.
§ 155 fl.
Since Schleiermacher^s attacks on 1 Tim.," the other
so-called Pastoral Epistles have been wholly or in part
doubted and their genuineness denied.'' Consistent criticism
must certainly group all three together in the investigation ;
for sometimes all three, sometimes two, have many pecu
liarities in common, which distinguish them from the other
Epistles, — 1. In language and ideas."
* See the works referred to above, § 152 a, note a. He was followed by
Ldffler, Kl. Schr. II. 216, ff,, Usteri, Paul, LBgr, p. 2, Liicke, in Theol.
St. u. Kr. 1834. p. 764, ff. ; even by Neander, AG. I. 538, in a measure,
Schleiermocher was opposed by H. Planck, Bemerkk, iib, d, 1, paul. Br. an d.
Tim. in Bezieh, auf d. krit, Sendschr,, &c, Gott 1808, Beckhaus, Spec,
observatt, crit, exeg, de vocabb. an. Xey. et rarioribus dicendi formulis in 1.

DOUBTS OE THEIR GENUINENESS. § 155 fl. 299
ad Tim. ep. obviis, authentiae nihil detrahentibus. 1810, Wegscheider, 1 Br.
an Tim., Bengel, Arch. f. d. Theol. I. 2, 345, ff,
" All three were doubted by Eichhorn, Einl, (1812), De Wette, LB. (1826),
Schott (Isag. [1830] p, 315, sqq,), by the latter, hovi'ever, on the theory that
a disciple of the Apostle, perhaps Luke, wrote them in his name and by his
direction, Bour (Die sogen. Pastoralbr. d. Ap. Paul, aufs neue krit. unters.
Stuttg. 1835, Paulus, etc. p. 492, ff.), Mayerhoff (Br, an d. Col. p. 5, 11,
ff,, 16, ff,, 32, f , 37, f , 122, ff,), Reuterdohl, provost in Lund (Stud, u, Kr,
1834, p, 1023, f ), Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalt. II. 138, ff. Schrader also,
in his notes (Vol. IV.), doubts all three Epistles. Both Epistles to Tim
othy were declared un-Pauline, and chap, i, 1-4 of the Epistle to Titus
spurious, by Credner and Neudecker (Einleit,), The former started the hy-
.Vi^ppthesis, that 2 Tim. is based on two genuine short writings of the Apostle
'(§ 157). But in his later work. Das N, T, nach Zweck, Ursprung, Inhalt
(1841-43), II, 96, f, he maintains distinctly the spuriousness of the three
Epistles, C. E. Scharling (Die neuesten Unterss, iib, d. sogen, Pastoral
briefe d. N, T, dargestellt in ihrer Bedeutung u, ibrem Verhaltnisse z, Bi-
belkritik u. z, Kanon, Aus d, Dan, 1846) is rather undecided. The follojv-
ing defend them : Bertholdt, Hug {Einleit.), Guerike (Beitr, u, Einl,),
Heydenreich (Pastoralbr.), Bohl (§ 152 d, note a), Kling (Anh. z, Flott's
Vorless,), Mich. Boumgarten (Die Aechtheit d, Pastoralbr. mit bes. Riick
sicht auf d. neuesten Angriff von Baur, Berl, 1837), MaZ^Aies (Pastoralbr,) ,
Bottger (Beitr.), and others.
" Xdpis, 'eXeos, elpfjvrj, 1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim, i. 2, Tit, i, 4 (elsewhere xap'y
Kat elpfjvrj) ', nia-rbs 6 Xoyos, 1 Tim. i, 15, iii, 1, iv, 9, 2 Tim, ii, 11, Tit.
iii. 8 ; *SiSao-/caXia vyiaivovcra, 1 Tim, i, 10, 2 Tim, iv, 3, Tit, i. 9, ii, 1 ;
*Xdyoi vyialvovres, 1 Tim, vi, 3, 2 Tim, i, 13; * Xoyos vyifjs. Tit, ii, 8 ;
*vyiaiveiv iv rfj nicrrei. Tit, i. 13, ii, 2 ; on the other hand, vocrelv nepl ^rjrfj-
a-eis, 1 Tim, vi. 4, ydyypaiva, 2 Tim. ii. 17 ; * eva-e^eia, 1 Tim. ii, 2, in, 16,
iv, 7, 8, vi, 3, 6, 11, 2 Tim, iii. 5, Tit. i. 1, evcre^as (fjv, 2 Tim. iii. 12,
Tit. ii. 12 ; * pfiBoi, 1 Tim. i, 4, iv. 7, 2 Tim, iv, 4, Tit, i, 14 ; * f^rijo-ets,
1 Tim. i, 4, vi. 4, 2 Tim. ii. 23, Tit, iii, 9 ; 'yej/eaXoyi'ai, 1 Tim, i, 4, Tit.
iii. 9 ; *paraioXoyia, 1 Tim. i. 6, paratoXdyos, Tit. i. 10 ; Xoyopaxiai, 1
Tim, vi, 4, Xoyopaxelv, 2 Tim. ii. 14 ; * Kevocpaviai, 1 Tim. vi. 20, 2 Tim.
ii, 16 ; inicpdveia, 1 Tim, vi, 14, 2 Tim, iv, 1, 8, Tit, ii. 13 (instead of
Paul's usual word, napovcria', but cf. 2 Thess. ii, 8) ; * crarfjp, of God, 1
Tim,i, 1, ii, 13, iv, 10, Tit. i. 3, ii.lO; *7Tapai9^Ki), ITim. vi,20, 2 Tim,i, 12,
14; '' cracppovia-pds, 2 Tim, i, 7; *a-a(ppdvas. Tit, ii. 12, * a-acppav, 1 Tim.
iii. 2, Tit. i. 8, ii. 2, 5, *a'a(ppoveiv. Tit. ii, 6 (cf Rom, xii, 3, 2 Cor, v.
13) ; napairelaBat, 1 Tim, iv. 7, v. 11, 2 Tim. ii. 23, Tit. iii. 10 ; nepiiarra-
crBai, 2 Tim. ii. 16, Tit. iii. 9 : dcrroxelv, 1 Tim. i. 6, vi. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 18 ;
the use of Kara, 2 Tim, i. 1, Tit. i. 1 ; vnopipvfja-Keiv, 2 Tim. ii. 14, Tit, iii,
1 ; npocrexeiv, 1 Tim. i. 4, iii, 8, iv, 1, 13, Tit, i. 14. Cf Eichhorn, Einl.
* The words marked with an asterisk indicate peculiar ideas.

300 PAUL'S PASTORAL EPISTLES.
III. 319, ff. Schott, p, 320, sqq., who adds much, among the rest the fol
lowing, worthy of note : dpvela-Bai, 1 Tim. v. 8, 2 Tim. ii, 12, f., iii. 5, Tit,
i. 16, ii, 12 Becrndrrjs (for Kvpios), 1 Tim. vi, 1, f , 2 Tim, ii, 21, Tit, ii, 9.
Mayerhoff, p, 18, f, who calls attention to KoXd 'epya, 1 Tim, v. 10, 25, vi,
18, Tit, ii. 14, iii, 8, 14, § 155 &.
2. All three Epistles have this common peculiarity,
namely, that the writer readily digresses from the subject of
his letter to general truths or common sayings (1 Tim. i. 15,
ii. 4-6, iii. 16, iv. 8-10; 2 Tim. i. 9, f., ii. 11-13, 19-21,
iii. 12, 16; Tit. ii. 11-14, iii. 3-7), and that even what he
urges in refutation or encouragement appears in this form
(1 Tim. i. 8 - 10, iv. 4, f., vi. 6-10; 2 Tim. ii. 4-6; Tit.
i, 15). After such digressions or general instructions, he
commonly seeks a return or a conclusion and resting-point
in a special admonition or direction (1 Tim. iii. 14, f., iv. 6,
11, vi. 2, 5, 11 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7, 14, iii. 5 ; Tit. ii. 15, iii. 8).
3. In all three Epistles the moral view of life preponderates
(1 Tim. ii. 10, v. 10, 25, vi. 18 ; 2 Tim. ii. 21, f., iii. 17 ;
Tit. i. 16, ii. 7, 14, iii. 1, 8, 14)," combined with the asser
tion of moral desert (1 Tim. ii. 15, iii. 13, iv. 8, vi. 19 ; 2
Tim. iv. 8), and an abstract or doctrinal apprehension of
Christianity (as BiSaaicaXla,, Tit. ii. 10, and elsewhere, cf. 2
Tim. iii. 15, f.).
° The BiBaa-KaXia vyiaivovaa is the doctrine of morality (cf. Tit. ii. 1,
1 Tim. i. 10), and evcre^eia, practical piety (2 Tim. iii. 12, Tit, ii, 12), The
author of these letters stands at the mediating point between Paulinism and
Nomism, cf, 1 Tim, i, 8, f. His universalism, unlike Paul's, is not polemic
(1 Tim, ii, 4, iv, 10, Tit, ii, 11), § 155 c.
The special characteristic of the three Epistles is their po
lemics against certain false teachers, who, although not always
the same, are yet alike, namely, sometimes Judaizing Gnos
tics (Tit. i. 10, 14 ; 2 Tim. ii.23, iv. 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 4, 7), some
times anti-Judaizing (2 Tim. ii. 18 ; 1 Tim. iv. 3). Now it is
not impossible that the Apostle had discovered and opposed
the beginnings of the Gnostic tendency, as in the Epistle to

DOUBTS OP THEIR GENUINENESS. § 156. 301
the Colossians he actually combated similar opponents ; and it
is probable that Gnosticism had run through a first stadium
before that of the second century." The passages 1 Tim. vi.
20, Tit. iii. 10, however, point to a time when Gnosticism
had attained a certain development, and the notion of heresy
was familiar. Other passages and sections also indicate
circumstances belonging to a late period (1 Tim. iii. 1, v. 9,
vi. 17)."
' Bottger, Beitr. V, Die Gnosis der Pastoralbriefe ist nicht die der
Gnostiker des 2, Jahrh, Gott, 1838, Thiersch, Standp, d, Krit. p, 249,
Zeller, Jbb, 1842, p, 714,
¦¦ According to Baur, these polemics refer to Marcion and other Gnostics
well known in the history of the second century, after whose appearance,
therefore, the Epistles were written. This hypothesis we cannot accept,
cf § 158, note b. § 155 d.
One acquainted with Paul's style of writing will find
much, aside from the difference in vocabulary, &c., already
remarked upon, that betrays an imitator, who writes not
from the living fulness of the Apostle's mind, and scarcely
knows how to exhaust a single topic.''
^ We frequently miss (1 Tim, ii, 1, iii, 15, iv, 8 ; 2 Tim, i, 3- 5, iv. 6,
cf, ver, 5, 7, iv, 18 ; iii, 9, cf, ver, 1, ff., 13, ii, 17) the good logical con
nection. Matter borrowed from Pauline Epistles, and commonly ill placed,
appears in 1 Tim, ii, 5 (cf Heb, viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24), 7, 2 Tim, i. 3, 7,
ii, 20, iv, 6, f. Even church formulas seem to be used, 1 Tim, iii, 16, vi.
13, 15, f,, 2 Tim, ii, 8, Probably in 1 Tim, v, 18 the Gospel of Luke is
cited as ypacpfj. {Baur and Schwegler err in Ending it mentioned in 2 Tim,
ii. 8) , Especially foreign to the Apostle's style of thought and teaching
are (apart from what is adduced in § 155 b, no. 3) the remarks on mar
riage, 1 Tim, ii, 15, iv, 3, v, 14, cf iii, 4, 12, v. 10 (see, on the contrary,
1 Cor, vii, 8, f, 25, ff,) ; the designation of Christ as the Mediator, 1 Tim,
ii, 5 ; the self-exculpation, 1 Tim, i, 13 (an inappropriate passage, at any
rate, cf. Schleiermocher, p. 165, ff.), and the self-exaltation, 2 Tim. iv. 8.
§ 156.
The emphasis laid on the " sound, authentic " doctrine
received from the Apostle (Tit. i. 9, 14, ii. 1, 7, 15, iii. 8, f.,
2 Tim. i. 13, ii. 2,11,14, ff:, iii. 10, 14, ff!, iv.l, K, 1 Tim. i.

302 PAUL'S PASTORAL EPISTLES.
3, ff-., iii. 15, f., iv. 6, ff-., 12, ff"., vi. 3, ff"., 12, 20), and the in
junctions (Tit. i. 5, ff"., 1 Tim. iii. 1, ff., v. 17-19)," which
tend to strengthen and develop the hierarchy, serve to fur
ther the design especially of the First Epistle to Timothy,
namely, to oppose the false teaching of Gnosticism ; and
are in harmony with the action of the Catholic Church
against these movements, which threatened danger to her
unity. ' 2 Tim. ii. 2, the advice to educate teachers of the Gospel.
§ 157.
Schleiermacher regarded only the First Epistle to Timothy
as spurious. It seemed to him a copy and compilation of
the other two, from its sometimes literal resemblance to
them, from the singular relation of 1 Tim. i. 20 to 2 Tim. ii.
17, iv. 14, and from the (by him overestimated) abruptness
of the style of writing and the composition. Credner also
thought that these Epistles, which he regards as in part
genuine (§ 155 a, note b), served as a model to the author of
1 Tim. But all three have the same author and the same
object, although the latter appears most distinctly in 1 Tim.
The Epistle to Titus and the Second Epistle to Timothy
were written first, and in writing 1 Tim. the author repeated
himself somewhat." He committed also the error of assum
ing in this letter, written later but treating of an earlier period
(that of the Apostle's journey in Acts xx. 1), the expulsion
of Hymenseus and Alexander, who appear in a different con
nection in 2 Tim., — which, though written earlier, is laid in
a later period (that of the Roman imprisonment).
» Eichhorn also regards 1 Tim, as later than the Epistle to Titus, and as
assuming a later constitution of the Church ; also as worse written, p, 339,
ff. The last circumstance he explains in a most singular way, p, 404,
Baur acknowledges the dependence of 1 Tim. on the other two Epistles.

CHURCH ACCEPTANCE OF THEM. § 158. 303
Church Acceptance of the Three Epistles.
§ 158.
It was probably on dogmatic grounds that Marcion ex
cluded these Epistles from his collection, and that other
heretics also rejected them either wholly or in part." In
other respects they are as strongly supported by external
testimonies '' as other Pauline Epistles. Hence, we must not
assign them too late a date. Although not written by Paul
himself, nor pure fountains of the Pauline doctrine, they
are yet important documents for the later development of
Paulinism, especially in its fusion with Nomism.
» Tertull. Adv, Marc, V, 21 : Miror tamen, quum ad unum hominem
[namely, Philemon] factas litteras receperit, qui ad Timotheum duas et
unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit, Affectavit,
opinor, etiam numerum epistolarum interpolare, Clem. Alex. Strom, II.
383 : VTTO ravrrjs iXeyxdpevoi rfjs cpavfjs (1 Tim. vi, 20, f,) ot dnb rav alpe-
creav ras TTpos Tip, d^erovKTes c'jTio'roXas, Origen, Comm, in Matth, Tract.
XXXV. Vol. HI. 916 : Item quod ait : Sicut Jamnes et Mambres restite-
runt Moysi, non invenitur in publicis scripturis, sed in libro secreto, qui su-
prascribitur Jamnes et Mambres liber. Unde ausi sunt quidam ep. ad Tim.
repellere quasi habentem in se textum alicujus secreti, sed non potuerunt.
Hieron. Prooem. ad Comm. in ep. ad Tit. : Licet non sint digni fide, qui
fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marcionem loquor et Basilidem et omnes
haereticos . . . . Ut enim de ceteris epistolis taceam, de" quibus quicquid con-
trarium suo dogmati viderunt, eraserunt, nonnuUas integras repudiandas
crediderunt, od Timotheum .... videlicet utramque, ad Hebraeos et od Titum
 Sed Tationus, Encratitarum Patriarches, qui et ipse nonnuUas Pauli
epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, Apostoli pronun-
tiandam credidit, parvi pendens Marcionis et aliorum, qui cum eo in hac parte
consentiunt, assertionem.
' The allusions to Tit. iii. 11, 1 Tim. ii. 8, found by Lardner in Clemens
Rom. Ep. 1. c. 2. 29, are very doubtful. The same is true of that in Ignat.
Ad Ephes. c. 2, to 2 Tim. i. 16. More certain is that in Polycorp, c. 4 :
'Apxfj Be ndvrav xaXenav fj cpiXapyvpia. ElBdres ofiv on ovBev eiarrjveyKapev
els rbv Koapov, dXX ovBe e^eveyKelv n exopev, cf. 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10. See
however, in opposition, Schleiermocher, as above, p. 16, ff. Bour, Past. Br.
p. 137, f., who regards Polycarp's letter as older than 1 Tim. Theophil.
Ad Autolyc. III. 14, appeals to 1 Tim. ii. 2 (Part I. § 18). Hegesipp. in
Euseb. H. E. III. 32 : . ... as Be d iepbs rav dnocrrdXav xopos Bidcpopov
elXfjcpei rov /Si'ou re'Xos, napeXrjXvBei re fj ycveo eKeivrj .... rrjviKavTa rfjs

304 EPISTLE TO THB HEBREWS.
dBeov nXdvrjs rfjv dpxfjv iXdp^avev fj (rvcrracns Bid rfjS rav erepoBiBacj-Ka-
Xav dndrrjs, oi koX . . . . r<3 r^s aXrjBeias Krjpvypan rfjv -^evBavvpov
yvacriv dvriKrjpvrreiv enexeipovv. {Bour, Paulus, &c., p. 494, finds here
an opposing testimony ; but Scharling, p. 40, shows that also later Fathers
held the view that heresies arose first after the Apostles,) Iren. Cont,
haeres, lib, I, prooem, ; 'ETret rfjv dXfjBeiav napanepndpevoi nves ineicrdyovai
Xdyovs ¦'^revBels Kal yeveaXoylas paraias, atnves ^rjrfjcreis pdXXov nape-
Xova-i, KaBas 6 iIttoo-toXos cprjcriv, fj olKoBopfjv Beofj rfjv ev nlcrrei,
cf, 1 Tim, i, 4, Lib, III, c, 3, § 3 : , , , , rovrov rov Aivov EEavXos iv rals npbs
TipdBeov inia-roXals pepvrjrai, cf, 2 Tim, iv, 21, Ib, § 4 : , . . , Kal IlavXos
ecprja-ev' aiperiKov dvBpanov . . . . napairov, cf. Tit, iii, 10. Clemens
Alex. Strom, II, 383 : . , . . Trepi rjs 6 ottoVtoXos ypdcpav, & TipdBee, prjaiv,
rfjv napaBfjKrjv cpvXa^ov, e Krpendpevos rds ^ejSijXovs Kevocpa-
vias, K.T.X., cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20. Ib. p. 448 : . . . . iv rfj ere'pa Trpos Tipo'-
Beov enicrroXfj b yevvalos Biardcrcrerai IlavXos. Tertull. De praescript. hae
ret. c, 25 : , , , . hoc verbo usus est Paulus ad Timotheum : O Timothee,
depositum custodi. Et rursum : Bonum depositum serva. Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20,
2 Tim. i. 14.

CHAPTER X.

EPISTLE TO THE HEBEEWS.

N, T, ed, Kopp. contin, Heinrichs, Vol, VIII, — Exeg, Handb. II, 5, —
Dav. Parens, Comm, in his Commentt, in var, s, scr. librr. Frcf. 1628, —
/. Gerhard, 1641,— Jo, Owen, Engl, 1668, Lat, 1700, — iSeJ, Schmid,
1680.— Chr. Wittich, 1692.— Theod. Ackersloot, Dutch, 1695, German,
1714, — J. Broun. 1705, — Phil, a Limborch, see above, p, 215, — /, G,
Dorscheus, 1717, — J. Jac. Ramboch, 1742, — /, B. Carpzov, Exercitatt, in
Pauli ep, ad Ebr, ex Philone Alex. 1750, His Uebers, mit Anmm,
1795, — J. A. Cromer, Erkl, Kop. 1757, — S. J. Boumgarten, Ausleg, mit
Anmm, von Masch und Beitr, von Semler. 1763, — /, D. Michaelis, Erkl,
(1762.) 1780. 2 Thle, 4to, — Chr. Fr. Schmidii Observatt. 1766, — S. F. N.
Morus, Uebers. 3d ed, 1786, — G. CAr, Sforr, Erl, (1789,) 1809. — P.
Ahresch, Paraphr, et annott, L,B, 1789. — J. A. Ernesti, Lectiones acad. ed,
G.J. Dindorf. 1795. — Dav. Schulz, Einleit, Uebers, u, Anmerkk. 1818.
— CAr. Fr. Boehme, Comment, perp. 1825. — Fr. Bleek, Einl, Uebers. u.
fortlauf Comm. 2. Abthl. Berl. 1828-40. — iWbx. Stuart, Comment, on
the Ep. to the Hebrews, 1828, — Kuinoel, Comment, 1831, — Klee, Aus-

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. § 159. 305
leg. 1833. — H.E. G. Poulus, Des Ap. P. Ermahnungsschr, an d, Hebr,
Christen wortgetreu iibers. mit .... einer krit, Einleit, &c, 1833, — A.
Tholuck, Comm. z, Br, an d, Hebr, 1836, 2d ed, 1840, — K. Stein, Theor.-
prakt. erkl. 1838, — C. Lomb, Comm. 1843.

Design and Contents.
§ 159.
The design of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to show
apologetically, not polemically, the superiority of the Chris
tian revelation, as complete and archetypal, over that of the
Old Testament, as merely preparatory and typical ; and to
confirm in the faith those Christians who yet adhered to the
Old Testament views and usages. The style advances from
that of discussion to that of exhortation, and the latter is
interwoven with the former. The relation between the old
and the new revelation is like that between the prophets
and the Son of God (i. 1-3) ; the superiority of the latter
to the former, like that of Christ to the angels (the proclaim-
ers of the Mosaic Law), although for the redemption of men
he was for a time humbled below them (i. 4-ii. 18), and to
Moses, who was but a servant, whereas Christ is a Son
(iii. 1-6). So much the more must they beware of apos
tasy (iii. 7- iv. 13). Christ is also a better High-Priest
than that of the Old Testament (iv. 14 -v. 10). Exhorta
tion to lay hold on these higher truths (v. 11 -vi. 20). Christ
is Priest after the order of Melchisedec, superior to the
Aaronite priests (vii.). He is Priest of a higher, a heavenly
sanctuary, Mediator of a better covenant, of a better recon
ciliation, of which the Old Testament contains only indi
cations and types (viii. 1-x. 18). Exhortation to the be
lieving use of these benefits, warning against falling away,
encouragement to faith by the exhibition of Old Testament
examples, and to steadfastness in suffering (x. 19 -xii. 11).
Supplement containing moral exhortations, with personal
references and greetings (xii. 12 -xiii. 25).
The author has set forth with great acuteness and depth
both the difference between the old and the new revelation,
39

306 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
and the germs and indications of the latter contained in the
former ; and thus raised his readers from the old to the new,
without declaring the latter contradictory to the former.
He has completely solved the problem of a genuine adapta
tion, so, as to spare the weak without affording any assist
ance to error. Is Paul the Author ? External Grounds.
§ 160 a.
The opinion that Paul is the author is very ancient, but
at the same time accompanied with doubts. The oldest
Alexandrian Fathers advocate its acceptance by the Church,
but are sensible of the difficulty of ascribing it to the Apos
tle, and do not seem to appeal to any precise tradition.*
Origen, although quoting the Epistle as Pauline,^ is yet
aware of doubts against it." He admits that Paul did not
write it, but ascribes the contents to hirn.'^ Only the later
Dionysius (A. D. 247) accepts the Epistle without remark as
Pauline ; " and is followed by the later Alexandrians.'
' Euseb. H, E, VI. 14, from the lost Hypotyposes of Clemens Alex. : Kai
rrjv npbs E^palovs Be inicrrdXfjv UavXov pev elvai (prjcri, yeypdcpBai Be 'E^pat-
ois 'EjBpa'iKfj cpavfj, AoVKav Be cpiXoripas avrfjv peBepprjvevcravra iKBovvai rols
EXXrjcnv ¦ oBev rbv avrbv X9^ra evpicxKecrBai Kara rrjv epprjvelav ravrrjs re rfjs
iniirroXfjs Kal rcoi/ npd^eav ' pfj npoyeypdcpBcu Be ro IlavXos oTToo'roXos eiKO-
ras - 'E/3paiois ydp (prjoiv inicrreXXav npdXrj-^iv elXrjcpdcri Kar' avrov Kal vtto-
nrevovcnv avrov, crvveras ndvv ovk iv dpxfj dneorpe-^ev avrovs, rb 'dvopa Bels-
... . "UBrj Be as d paKapios 'eXeye npecr^vrepos (his teacher, Pantcenus, about
A, D, 150), eTTei 6 Kvpios, dndcrrciXos av rofj navroKpdropos dnecrraXrj npbs
'EjBpaiovs, Bid perpidrrjra d IlavXos, as dv els ra eBvrj dnecrraXpevos, ovk e'yypd-
cpei eavrov 'E^paiav dndcrroXov, Bid re rfjv npbs rbv Kvpiov npfjv. Bid re rb iK
nepiova-ias Kal rols 'E/3paiois e'TTiore'XXcDV, 'eBvav KfjpvKa ovra Kal dndaroXov.
Cf the quotation from Heb. xi. 1, ff, in Strom. II. 362, 364, and other pas
sages. » Princip, III, 1, 10 ; IV, 22, Praef. ad princ. I. 47. ed. R,, and other
passages in Bleek, p, 101, Lardner, II, 2, p, 229,
" Ep, ad Afric, I. 20 : 'AXX' elKos nva BXifidpevov dnb rfjs els ravra dno-
Bei^eas crvyxprjcracrBai ra fSovXfjpari rav dBerovvrav rfjv inicrroXfjv, as ov
UavXco yeypappevrjv, npbs bv dXXav Xdyav Kar iBiav xpfjCopev els dnoBei^iv rov
eivai UavXov rfjv ima-rdXfjv. Cf, in Matt, xxiii, 27, Opp, III, 848, sq,
¦f In Euseb. H, E, VI, 25, see Part I, § 23, note b. If he speaks of a
church tradition, he means probably only the Alexandrian,

IS PAUL THE AUTHOR ? § 160 b. 307
« In his letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, in Euseb. H, E, VI, 41 : Kai
rrjv dpnayrjv Tav vnapxdvrav, dpoias iKeivois ols Kal IlavXos ipaprvprjcre (Heb,
x. 34), pera xapds npoaeBe^avro.
' Alexander, in Theodoret. H. E. I, 3. p. 736. ed. Hal,, Socrot. H, E.
L 6 ; Athonos. Ep.fest., see Part I, § 26 a. Others, see in Bleek, p, 136, ff.

§ 160 b.
In the Western Church, the Pauline origin of the Epistle
was at first denied." In the Eastern Church, it obtained
apostolic authority after the middle of the third century,''
in which position Eusebius found it well established, al
though the doubts regarding its genuineness were known."
In the second half of the fourth century, however, its ac
ceptance among the Greeks was universal (Part I. § 26,
note a).
* Euseb. H. E. VI. 20 : ^ItXBe Be els fjpds Kal Faiov , XoyimTarov dvBpds,
BidXoyos, inl 'Paprjs Kara Zecpvplvov npbs UpoicXov rfjs Kara *pvyas aipecreas
vneppaxovvra KeKivrjpevos • ev co rav Bi evavTias rfjv nepl rb crvvrdrreiv Kaivds
ypacpds nponereidv re Kcii rdXpav enicrropi^av, rcoi/ rov lepov dnoaroXov BeKa-
rpiav pdvav enicrroXav pvrjpovevei, rfjv npbs 'E/3pat'ovs pfj a-vvapiBpfjcras rals
Xomais. Irenceus was certainly acquainted with the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Euseb. V. 26 : Kat ^i^Xiov n BiaXe^eav Biacpdpav, iv a rfjs npbs 'E/3paiovs
enicrroXfjs Kal rfjs Xeyopevrjs crocpias ^oXopavros pvrjpovevei, prjrd nva i^ av
rav napaBepevos. But he does not seem to have regarded it as a work of
Paul, for he does not use it in his work against the Gnostics. Phot. Bibli
oth, cod, 232, p, 477, from Steph. Goborus : 'IttttoXvtos Kai Eiprjvdlos rfjv
npbs 'E^paiovs inicrroXfjv IlavXov ovk cKeivov eivai cpaai. Cod, 121, p, 161,
from Hippolytus : Xeyet, on fj npbs 'Efipaiovs eniaroX^ ovk iarl tov dnoirroXov
UavXov.— Tertull. De pudicitia, c, 20: Volo tamen ex redundantia alicujus
etiam comitis Apostolorum superducere. Exstat enim et Bornabae titulus ad
Hebraeos  Et utique receptior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabae illo
apocrypho Pastore moechorum. Monens itaque discipulus, omissis omnibus
initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, nee rursus fundamenta poenitentiae
jacere ab operibus mortuorum : impossibile est enim, inquit, eos, qui semel
illuminati sunt, etc. Cf. Heb. vi. 4-8. Cyprian. De exhort, mart. c.
11: Et Apostolus Paulus, qui hujus numeri legitjmi et certi meminit, ad
septem ecclesias scribit (namely, to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians,
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians). Cf Hieron. ad Pau
lin, de studio scriptur. T.I. P. I, p, 280, ed, Vallars.: Paulus Apostolus
ad septem Ecclesias scribit (octavo enim ad Ebraeos a plerisque extra nu
merum ponitur). The testimonies of Novotianus and Victorinus Petovio-
nens. in Bleek, p. 174, ff. Cf also the Fragment of Muratori, Part I.
§21 r.

308 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
'' Writing of the Synod at Antioch, A.D, 264, in Mansi, Collect, concil.
I. 1038 : 'O Se Kvpios ro TTi/evpa, Kard rbv dnooroXov (2 Cor. iii, 17) • Kara 8e
TOI' avrov - 'enivov ydp eK nvevpariKfjs nerpas, K.r. X. (1 Cor. X. 4) : .... Kai
TTepi Mwvo-ecDs- pei^ova nXovrov fjyrjadpevos, k.t.X. (Heb, xi, 26,) Wheth
er Methodius (A, D, 290) cites the Epistle as a writing of Paul, Conviv,
p, 96 : el.d vdpos, Kara rbv dndcrroXov, nvevpariKos icrn, ras e'lKovas epnepie-
Xav Tttii' peXXovrav, is doubtful, for the Kard rbv dnda-ToXov can refer to the
first only (cf, Rom, vii, 14), In the writings of Jacob of Nisibis (about A, D.
325) in Galland. Bibl, Patr, V, p. xvi., Ixii., Ixxxviii., Ixxxix., there are
several citations of the Epistle as a work by the Apostle.
' Euseb. H, E. Ill, 3 : Tov Se IlavXov ttpoSt^Xoi Kat cracpels al BeKarecr-
crapes. "On ye pfjv nves rjBerrjKacri rfjv npbs EjSpalovs, npbs rfjs 'Papaiav
eKKXrjcrias as pfj IlavXov o-vaav avrfjv dvriXeyecrBai (prjcravres, ov BiKaiov dyvo
elv. VI, 13 : Kexprjrai B' ev avrols [Clemens Alex.] Kal rals dnb rav dvri-
Xeyopevav ypaepav paprvplais .... Kal rfjs npbs 'E/3paiovs inio-roXfjs. Cf
III, 38, cited in § 164 b, note a. § 160 c.
Subsequently, in the fourth century, the Epistle obtained
canonical acceptance also in the West." To this, the study
of the Greek commentators, especially of Origen, the Arian
controversy, in which use was made of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the repute of Jerome and Augustine contrib
uted. These Fathers accepted the Epistle, after the exam
ple of the Eastern Church, without being exactly convinced
of its genuineness.'' Many, not only in the second half of
the fourth century, but even later, doubted the genuine
ness of the Epistle, and refrained from using it."
According to all these authorities, the tradition that Paul
is author of this Epistle, if it be in general a tradition, is
very far from reliable.'^
= The Epistle is used as Paul's by Hilarius Pictov. (f 368), Lucifer
(t 371), Ambrosius (f 397), Goudentius (c. 387), Rufinus, and A. Philas-
trius, Haeres, 89, p, 196, sq, : Haeresis quorundam de epistola Pauli ad
Hebraeos, Sunt alii quoque, qui ep, Pauli ad Hebr, non adserunt esse ip
sius, sed dicunt aut Barnabae esse apostpli : alii autem Lucae evangelistae
ajnnt epistolam, etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam, Concil. Hipponens, an,,
393, can, 36 (see Part I, § 27, note a) : Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim,
ejusdem ad Hebraeos una, Concil, Carthag, an. 397. can, 47. Innocentii
Ep. ad Exsuper.
>> Ep. ad Dardan., see Part I, § 27, note a. In Jerem. xxxi, : Hoc

IS PAUL THE AUTHOR ? § 160 C. 309
testimonio Apostolus Paulus, sive quis alius scripsit epistolam, usus est ad
Hebraeos. In Tit. i. : Si quis vult recipere eam epistolam, quae sub nomine
Pauli, sive cujuscunque alterius eam esse putas, quia jam inter ecclesiasti-
cas est recepta. De vir, ill, u, 5 : Epistola autem, quae fertur ad Hebraeos,
non ejus creditur propter stili sermonisque dissonantiam, sed vel Barnabae
juxta TertuUianum, vel Lucae Evangelistae juxta quosdam, vel Clementis,
Romanae postea Ecclesiae episcopi, quem ajunt ipsi adjunctum sententias
Pauli proprio ordinasse et ornasse sermone. Vel certe Paulus, quia scribe-
bat ad Hebraeos et propter invidiam sui apud eos nominis, titulum in princi-
pio salutationis amputaverit; Scripserat ut Hebraeus Hebraice, id est, suo
eloquio disertissime, ut ea quae eloquentius scripta fuerant in Hebraeo, elo-
quentius verterentur in Graecum, et hanc causam esse, quod a caeteris
Pauli epistolis discrepare videatur. Augustine, De peccator, merit, et re
miss, I, 27: Ad Hebraeos quoque epistola, quamquam nonnullis incerta sit,
tamen quoniam legi, quosdam huic nostrae de baptismo puerulorum senten
tiae contraria sentientes, eam quibusdam opinionibus suis testem adhibere
voluisse, magisque me movet auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, quae hanc
quoqne in canonicis habent, quanta pro nobis testimonia contineat, adverten-
dum est. Inchoat. exposit. ep. ad Rom, § 11 : , , , , nonnulli eam in cano-
nem scripturae recipere timuerunt. Sed quoquo modo se habeat ista
quaestio  He cites the Epistle usually as Epistola ad Hebr., Epistola,
quae inscribitur ad Hebr., and the like. Bleek, p. 224, ff.
' Phdbodius (f after 392), Zeno (c. 360), Ambrosiaster (366-384),
Optoius Milevit. (364-375), Leo the Great (440-461), Orosius, and oth
ers, do not quote the Epistle. Hieron. In Esaiam viii. : Eam (epistolam
ad Hebraeos) Latina consuetudo inter canonicas scripturas non recipit.
Comment, in Matth. xxvi, : . , , . Paulus in epistola sua, quae scribitur ad
Hebraeos, licet de ea multi Latini dubitent, etc, Augustine, De civ, Dei,
XVI, 22 : Plures Apostoli dicunt (ep. ad Hebr.), quidam vero negant. Primo-
sius (middle of the sixth century). Comment, in ep, Paul, praef : Epistolam
sane quae ad Hebraeos scribitur, quidam Pauli non esse afiirmant, eo quod
non sit ejus nomine titulata et propter sermonis stilique distantiam, etc,
Isidor. Hispol. (in the first half of the seventh century), De oific, eccles, I,
11 : Ad Hebraeos autem epistola plerisque Latine ejus (Pauli) fuisse incerta
est propter dissonantiam sermonis, eandemque alii Barnabam conscripsisse,
alii a Clemente scriptam fuisse suspicantur, — Testimony of the oldest
Grseco-Latin codd,, cod, Claromont,, Boern,, Aug,, in which the Epistle is
either not found, or only by a later hand, or in Latin. Bleek, p. 240, ff.
^ Poulus, Einl. VI. ff., decides from the authorities in favor of the Pau
line composition, for he supposes that a real tradition existed in Alexandria,
and lays stress on the use of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the letters of
Clement of Rome and others.

310 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

Internal Grounds.

§ 161 a.
The theory that Paul wrote this Epistle is opposed also
by many very strong internal grounds. 1. The Epistle, con
trary to the Apostle's practice, neither opens with greetings
nor has his name," contains but few personal references, and
in its form approximates so closely to the character of a
treatise that some, although erroneously, deny that it is an
Epistle.'' The references in xiii. 19, 23, f. may certainly
apply to the Apostle's situation during his imprisonment at
Rome ; they do not, however, necessarily, nor even with
probability." On the contrary, the author betrays himself as
only mediately a disciple of Jesus (ii. 3, cf. Luke i. 2), who
wrote after the Apostle's death (xiii. 7).'* Paul, moreover,
would hardly have written to Hebrew Christians, it not being
his custom to force himself into spheres of labor occupied
by others (1 Cor. x. 13, ff., Eom. xv. 20).
" The manner in which Pantcenus, Clement of Alex, (see § 160 o, note a).
Hug, II, 489, and others, seek to remove this diificulty, is unsatisfactory. So
also Steudel's [Bengel's Archiv, IV, 87),
'' /, Berger, Der Brief an d, Hebr, eine Homilie, in the Getting, Theol,
Biblioth, III, 3, p, 449, ff.
° Bleek, p. 275, ff. The reading tois Beo-pols pov, Heb, x. 34, would be
the most decided reference to Paul,
^ Cf Calvin, ad Hebr, ii, 3. Luther's Vorrede zu d. Br. an die Hebr.
Ziegler, Vollst, Einl, in d. Br, an die Hebr, (1791), p, 237, ff, Bleek, p,
286, ff. False explanation of ii. 3, by the figure dvoKoivaa-is {Hug, p. 466).
§ 161 b.
2. The language is very different from the Apostle's, be
ing purer Greek, more periodic, and more oratorical."
» Origen, in Euseb. H. E, VI, 25, held this opinion (cf Part I, § 23,
note b). It is shown most completely by Schulz, p, 136, ff. Seyffarth, De
epistolae quae dicitur ad Hebraeos indole maxime peculiari (Lips, 1821),
p. 29, sqq. They, however, lay too great stress on single words and ex
pressions. Better in Bleek, p, 327, ff. Credner, § 200. Schott, § 85. Tho
luck, p. 29, ff.

IS PAUL THE AUTHOR ? § 161 b. 311
Different formulas of citation : Xeyet, paprvpel to TTvevpa rb dyiov, or o Beds,
or simply Xeyei, e'iprjKe, paprvpel, cprja-i, i. 5, 6, ff,, 13, iii, 7, 15, iv, 3, 4, ff,,
7, v, 5, f , vi, 14, vii, 14, 17, 21, viii, 5, 8, 13, x, 5, 8, 9, 15, f , 30, xi. 18,
xii, 5, 20, 26, (Paul, on the contrary : yeypanrai, KaBcbs yeypanrai, fj
ypacpfj Xeyei, iypdprj, Kara rb yeypaj^pevov, b Xoyos 6 yeypappevos, Rom. i.
17, ii. 24, iii. 4, 10, iv, 3, 17, 23, viii. 36, ix, 13, 17, 33, x, 11, 15, xi, 2,
8, 19, 26, xiv. 11, XV. ^, 9, 21, 24 ; 1 Cor. i. 19, 31, ii. 9, ix. 9, x, 7,
xiv, 21, XV. 45 ; 2 Cor. iv. 13, viii. 15, ix. 9 ; Gal. iii. 8, 10, 13, iv, 22,
27, 30, or Miovo-^s ypdcpei, AajSiS Xeyei, 6 ydpos Xeyet, and the like, in Rom,
iv, 6, vii. 7, ix. 25, 27, 29, x. 5, 19, 20, f , xi. 9, xv. 12 ; 1 Cor. ix. 9,
xiv. 21, 34. Only Eph. iv. 8, v, 14, agree with the Ep, to the Heb, ; Rom.
XV. 10, 2 Cor. vi. 2, Gal, iii. 16, are similar,) Instead of the formulas 6 kv-
pios ^ptSv 'Irjaovs Xpiords, 'irjcrovs Xp. d Kvptos fjpav, Xp. '1. o Kvpios fjpav, 6
Kvpios 'I, Xp,, we have here only d Kvpios, ii, 3, vii, 14 ; d 'irjaovs, ii, 9, iii.
1, iv. 14, vi, 20, vii. 22, x, 19, xii, 2, 24, xiii, 12, or Xpiards, iii. 6, 14,
V, 5, vi, 1, ix, 11, 14, 24, 28, xi. 26 ; only x, 10, xiii, 8, 21, 'ItjooOs Xp.,
and xiii, 20, d Kvp. fjpav 'irja-ovs. — 'AndcrroXos of Christ, iii, 1 ; picrBanoBo-
a-la, ii. 2, X. 35, xi. 26 (in Paul, pio^ds) ; dpKapoa-ia, vii, 20, 21 ; alpareK-
Xvaia, ix. 22, — Words compounded with ev and dvd, as evapearelv, evnoiia,
evnepicrraros, dvaXoyi^eaBai, dvaBixecrBai. — O'lKovpevrj peXXova-a, ii, 5 ; rd
peXXovra dyaBd, ix, 11, x, 1 ; peroxov elvai, yivea-Bai, iii, 1, 14, vi, 4, xii, 8
(in Paul, Koivavbv, crvyKoivavbv eivai, Koivavelv, crvyKoivavelv) -, iKoBicrev iv
Be^id r^s peydXacrvvrjs iv v-^rjXols, i, 3, e'x, iv Be^ia rov Bpdvov rfjs peyaXao-vvrjs
iv TOIS ovpavols, viii, 1, iv Be^id rov Bpdvov rov Beoxj, xii, 2, iv Se^iS rov Beov,
x, 12 (Ephes, i, 20 : iKaBicrev [avrdv ^eds] iv Be^id avrov ev rols inovpaviois,
Col, iii, 1 : ev Be^id rov Beov KaBfjpevos) ; fjyovpevoi, xiii, 7, 17, 24 ; kokov-
XelcrBai, xi, 37, xiii. 2 ; o'vyKaKovp^etaflai, xi, 25 ; Bpdvos rfjs peydXacrivrjs,
viii, 1 ; Bp. rijs ^dptros, iv, 16 ; rd nvevpa rfjs xdpiros ivvfipi^eiv, rbv vlbv rov
Beov Karanarelv, x. 29. — Several feminine substantives derived from verbs :
dBerrja-is, vii. 18, ix. 26 ; perdBeais, vii. 12, xi, 5, xii, 27 ; Kardnavcns, iii.
11, 18, iv. 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, and several others ; reXewvv, ii, 10, v, 9, vii, 19,
28, ix, 9, X. I, 14, xi, 40, xii, 23 ; reXeiao-is, vii, 11 ; npoa-cpepetv, npocr-
cpopd, very often ; Xap^dveiv, often, sometimes singularly used, as, nelpav,
dpxfjv XapPdveiv ; npoa-epxeo-Bai ra Bea, iv, 16, vii, 25, x, 1, 22, xi. 6;
Kpeirrav, sometimes quite peculiar, i, 4, vi. 9, vii. 7, 19, 23, viu. 6, ix, 23,
X, 34, xi, 16, 35, 40 ; alirvios, v. 9, vi, 2, ix, 12, 14, 15, xiii. 20 ; et's rd St-
rjveKes, vii, 3, X, 1, 12, 14, ets rd navreXes, vii, 25, StaTrai^ds, ix, 6, xiii.
15 ; ^av, in the sense of eternal, spiritually powerful ; Bebs Cav, iii, 12, ix.
14, X, 31, xii. 22 ; Xoyos C^v, iv. 12 ; dSds (aa-a, X. 20; edvnep, iii. 6, 14,
vi. 3 ; the frequent oBev, ocrov, rocrovro, dBvvarov ; napd, after the compara
tive, i, 4, ix, 23, xi, 4, xii, 24 ; the frequent use of the singular of ttos. —
On the other hand, the Pauline turns are wanting: ov BeXopev vpds dyvoelv,
and several others (§ 123 a, note a). There are, undoubtedly, resemblances
to the Pauline style of writing [Bleek, p. 316), Particularly striking is the
similar quotation of Deut. xxxii, 35, chap, x, 30 and Rom. xii. 19. But

312 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the author may have known and used Paul's writings. In xiii. 5 he also
cites a passage in accordance with Philo, De confus. ling, p, 344.
§ 161 c.
3. There is an entire absence of polemics in this Epistle,
as well as of Paul's peculiar ideas and views ; instead of
which it has others peculiar to itself."' The prevailing com
parison and figurative use of Old Testament passages and
ordinances is foreign to Paul, and reminds us of Philo's
mode of using the Old Testament.'' Paul would hardly
represent Christianity in general as so nearly parallel to Ju
daism, nor Christ as High-Priest, which could have force for
Jews only, and not for Gentiles. Nor would he have omit
ted to mention his calling as Apostle to the Gentiles, nor
to dwell upon the fact that Christianity was a new revela
tion for Jews and Gentiles."
' Schulz, p. 102, ff. The proper contrast between nians and vdpos, and
'ipya- vbpov, is wanting; nlaris in Hebrews is different from that in Paul,
There is no mention of justifying faith (only an allusion, xi. 7) ; none of
PaaiXeia rov Beov or rav ovpavav ; none of Satan's kingdom ; none of the
Gospel of Christ ; no emphasis on the fact of the resurrection. The ideas
regarding the perfecting of Christ are peculiar, as also those of the Chris
tian reXetmo-is in general, of continued atonement (vii, 24, ff.),
¦¦ Schulz, p, 118, ff,, 264, ff. Here, however, the author betrays a certain
ignorance of the internal arrangement of the sanctuary, Bleek, p, 381, ff,
Cf , on the contrary, Mynster, in Stud, u, Krit, 1829, p, 341, ff. Tholuck,
on the passage.
= Schulz, pp. 74, ff,, 102 ; cf, the remarks to the contrary in my article in
the Theol. Zeitschr, III, 5, ff. The general views given in the Epistle to
the Hebrews are not essentially different from Paul's. To the latter, how
ever, belongs, according to the external position of the Apostle, the admis
sion that the Law has no force beyond the limits of the Jewish people, and
has lost its power as a means of salvation. This admission is wanting in the
Epistle. § 161 d.
4. In citing the Old Testament, Paul nowhere appears so
dependent on the Septuagint version as the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, who betrays total ignorance of the
Hebrew original ; nor does he, as in Heb. i. 6, ii. 7, x. 5,

ITS READERS. § 162 O. 313
xii. 27, found his argument upon the words of the Septua
gint, or attach it only to them."
» Bleek, p. 338, ff. Although Paul, in Rom. ii, 24, iii, 4, xv. 10, and other
passages, follows the LXX. in its departures from the Hebrew, the varia
tions are of little moment. Bleek observes (p. 369, ff.) that Paul cites the
LXX, according to Cod, Vatic, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ac
cording to Cod. Alex. ; but the passage Deut. xxxii. 35 is cited in Heb. x.
30 as in Rom, xii. 19.
Notwithstanding, the following modern writers afiirm the Pauline origin
of the Epistle : Wolf, Cur. phil. ; /. B. Michaelis, Erkl. d. Br. an die
Hebr. p. 11, ff. (Einl. II. 1386, ff., he doubts) ; Chr. Fr. Schmid, Obser
vatt, s, ep, ad Hebr., Histor. antiqua et vindicatio canonis ; Nosselt, De tem
pore, quo scripta fuerit ep, Pauli ad Hebr. ; Storr, Uebers. d. Br. an die
Hebr. Einl. p. v. ff. ; Kleuker, Ueber den Urspr. u.' Zweck der apostol.
Briefe ; Hug, Einl. ; G. W. Meyer, Ueber einige innere Griinde fiir die
Abfassung d, Br, an d, Hebr. v. Paulus, in Amman and Bertholdt's Krit.
Journal, II. 3 ; Steudel, in Bengel's Archiv, IV. 1. p. 63, ff. ; Hofslede de
Groot, Disputatio, qua ep, ad Hebr, cum Paulin, epp. comparator. Traj.
1826 ; Paulus, as above ; F. Chr. Gelpke, Vindiciae orig. Paul, ad Hebr,
ep. L. B. 1833 ; Klee {h.ns\eg.) -, Sluort {Comm.) -, Store (Erkl,); Lomb
(Comm,), In favor of Origen's intermediate view are the following : Gue
rike, Einl, p, 441, and others. The Pauline composition is doubted by Vives,
Cajeian, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchihon, Calvin, Mart. Chemniz (who in his
Exam. Cone, Trid, reckons the Epistle among the Antilegomena or " Apoc
ryphal" works), Beza, J. Cameron, Grotius, Clericus, Schlichting; then
Heumonn, Semler, Ziegler, J. Chr. Schmidt, Eichhorn, Berger, Dav. Schulz,
Seyffarth, Bohme, Bleek, Olshausen (Nachvveis. d. Aechth. sammtl. Schr.
d, N, T. p. 89, ff., cf on the other side, Opusc. p. 121), Tholuck, Schott,
Credner, Neudecker. To whom is the Epistle addressed ?
§ 162 a.
The Epistle presupposes as its readers unmixed Jewish
Christians, who still adhered to their ancestral temple and
sacrificial worship (xiii. 9), and in part, at least, inclined to
apostasy [from Christ] (x. 25, vi. 6, xii. 15, f.). There is no
material objection* against our following the superscrip
tion,'' — understood in the sense of the Church idiom (Acts
vi. 1), — and the most ancient opinion (cf. § 160 a, note a),
in regarding these as Jewish Christians of Palestine ; " ex
cepting the improbability that a Paulinian, like the author
40

314 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
and his friend Timothy, stood in very near relations to them,
and that this Epistle, with its Hellenistic knowledge of
Scripture based on the use of the Septuagint version of the
Old Testament, was addressed to such Christians.
' According to x. 32, xii. 4, they to whom the Epistle was addressed had
suffered persecution, though not unto blood ; this does not contradict Acts viii.
1-3, xii. 1, for the writer had the then existing generation in view. That
they had learned the Gospel from ear-witnesses, according to ii. 3, is in this
connection likewise appropriate. That they had practised beneficence and
should do so yet farther (vi, 10, x, 23, f , xiii, 16) is not absolutely irrecon
cilable with Rom, xv. 25, ff., 1 Cor. xvi. 1-3, Gal. ii. 10; for even in
Paul's time there were not wanting wealthy and beneficent persons among
the Christians of Jerusalem. But it is nevertheless true, that precise refer
ences to the Jewish Christians of Palestine are wanting. Cf. Mynster, in
Theol, Stud, u, Krit, 1829. p, 338, who brings forward additional opposing
arguments, among others v, 12, that the readers, as regards the time, might
be teachers, which is at variance with the idea of Jewish Christians in Jeru
salem (although not of those in the country). For the rest, see the remarks
on the passage. The objection, that the Epistle must have been written in
Aramaic, amounts to little, as the Greek language was widely diffused in
Palestine. '' Which Credner, § 208, considers original,
' Phil, iii, 5, 2 Cor, xi, 22, doubtless contain a broader meaning of
'EjSpalos ; but the Church expression evayyeXiov KaB' 'E/3paiovs is decisive.
In Euseb. H. E, III, 4, the Jewish Christians of Asia Minor are called e'|
'E^paiav d'^res. According to Credner, p, 564, the choice of this name
points to an earlier time, when the difference between Judaizing and non-
Judaizing Christians had not grown so great (?), — According to iSflie, in
Winer and Engelhardt's Journ, der theol. Lilt, II, 3. p. 265, ff,, the Epis
tle was addressed to such Jewish Christians as were afterwards Ebionites,
because in the Epistle allusions appear to the Ebionite doctrine, Cf
Epiph. Haeres. XXX, c. 3 : ''AXXot Se ev avrols Xeyovcriv avaBev pev ovra, npb
ndvrav Be KricrBevra, nvevpa ovra, Kal vnep dyyeXovs ovra, ndvrav re Kvpiev-
ovra KCLI Xpicrrbv XeyecrBai, rbv iKelcre Be alava KeKXrjpacrBai. Cap, 16 : Ov
cpdcTKovcriv iK Beov narpos avrbv yeyevrjcrBai, dXXd iKricrBai, as eva rav dpxay-
ye'Xcof , pei^ova Be avrav ovra, avrbv Be Kvpieveiv kcu dyyeXav kcu ndvrav vnb
TOV navTOKpdropos nenoirjpevav,- — with Heb, i, 3, 4, viii, 1, lb,: "On
rjXBov KaraXvcrai rds Bvcrias, Kal idv pfj navcrrjcrBe tov Bveiv, ov navcrerai dcp'
vpav fj dpyfj, — with Heb. ix. 9, 23. Ib. : koB' fjpepav panri^ovrat, — with
Heb. xi, 10,

THEORIES REGARDING THE AUTHOR. § 163 a. 315
§ 162 b.
No other theory has any probability. The Epistle cannot
be addressed to Jewish Christians in general," because it
presupposes personal relations (xiii. 18, f., 23), nor to Jewish
Christians at Thessalonica,*" Galatia," Alexandria,'* or else
where," because it does not touch the subject of Gentile
Christians, and — not to mention other reasons — presup
poses churches of unmixed Jewish Christians attached to
the Jewish temple-service.
^ According to Broun and Boumgarten, Heinrichs, Prolegg, in epist. ad
Hebr. p. 12, Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalt. II, 304,
'' Semler, Einl, zu Baumgorien's Erkl. d. Br. an die Hebr, Nosselt, De
tempore quo scripta fuerit ep, Pauli ad Hebr,, in his Opusc, Fasc, I,
<= Storr, p, Ixi, ff, Mynster, Kl, theol, Schr, p, 94, ff. Rink, in Theol,
St, u, Kr, 1839, p, 1003, f, especially on account of 2 Pet, iii. 15, which he
thinks refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Bengel (Gnom,), Chr. F.
Schmid, Observatt, s, ep, ad Hebr, p, 16, Cramer, with broader extension
of it : Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia.
¦" /. E. Chr. Schmidt, Einl. I, 284, 293, He uses this passage from Mu-
ratori's fragment : Fertur etiam ad Laodicenses, alia ad Alexandrines Pauli
nomine fictae ad haeresem Marcionis,
" Perhaps in Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece (because of 2 Pet, iii, 15),
according to W. Wall, Not, crit. p. 318, Wolf, Cur, p, 593 ; or in Rome,
according to Wetstein, N, T, II, 386 ; or in Antioch, according to Bohme,
Praef, p, xxxii, ; or in Laodicea, according to Store (see § 123 d, note c),
compare also Schneckenburger, as above, who aims to show a certain affinity
between the Epistle to the Hebrews and that to the Colossians ; in similar
strain, Baumgarten-Crusius, De orig. ep. ad Hebr. conjectt. Jen. 1829,
who maintains that the Epistle to the Hebrews is an edition of the Epistles
to the Ephesians and Colossians, revised for the use of the Jewish Christians
of those regions (cf. Liicke, in Stud. a. Kr. 1830. p. 450, f ) ; or in Lycao
nia, according to Credner, p. 564.
Theories regarding the Author.
§ 163 a.
Although an individual fact can never be established with
certainty in the absence of testimony, and the office of crit
icism is from its nature chiefly negative, yet attempts have
been constantly made to find out the author. Various hy-

316 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
potheses have been started. In forming a correct estimate
of the same, the three following certain characteristics of
the author are of service : he must have been, 1. a Jew by
birth ; 2. well versed in the Alexandrian Scripture learning ;
3. possessed of unusual eloquence. § 163 6.
Some have fixed on Luke.^ The ancient writers did this,
however, that they might ascribe at least to the Apostle's
assistant what they were compelled to deny to Paul. There
is a degree of resemblance between Luke's writings and this
Epistle in the language ;'' none, however, in their contents
or their mode of representation." Luke was not an Alex
andrian Jew.
° Origen, in Euseb. VI, 25 (Part, I. § 23, note b). Hieron. De viris
ill. c. 5. § 160, note b. L. M. Artemonius, in Initio St, Evang,«Joh. re
stitute, p. 98. Grotius, Prolegg. in ep, ad Hebr. Kohler, Abfass,, &c,,
p, 205, Hug, § 149, p, 492, supposes that Luke had a hand in the compo
sition, ^ Grotius cites : evXapela-Bai, evXdfieia, Acts xxiii, 10, Hebr, v, 7, xi, 7 ; '
els rd TTavreXc's, Luke xiii, 11, Hebr, vii, 25 ; paprvpovpevos, paprvpelcrBai,
Acts vi. 3, xvi. 2, Hebr. vii. 8, xv. 2, 5, 39 ; ;;(p7)parifeo-5at, Luke ii, 26,
Acts x, 22, Hebr. viii. 5 ; fjyovpevos, Luke xxii. 26, Hebr. xiii. 7, 17 ;
dpxrjyds. Acts iii. 15, v. 31, Hebr. ii. 10, xii. 2 ; Trpds for Trepi, Luke xviii.
1, xix, 42, XX, 19, Acts xxviii, 25, Hebr, i. 7, 8.
« Eichhorn, iii. 464, ff. Bertholdt, p. 2955, ff. Bleeh, p. 406, f.
§ 163 c.
Others have supposed Clement of Rome to be the author."
But the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of
Clement cannot be by the same author, because the latter
lacks the Alexandrian character and the author's originality
of mind. The similar passages found in Clement show
merely his acquaintance with our Epistle.''
» Origen, Hieronym., as above. Erasm. Annott. in N. T. Patric. Ju
nius, in Ed. ep. 1. Clem.
t Clement's First Epistle. Epistle to the Hebrews.
Ch. 17 : Miprjral yevapeBa KoKeivav xi. 37 : .... Trept^X^ov iv prjXarals,
oinves iv Beppaaiv alyeiois Kal prj- iv alyeiois Seppairi.
Xfflrais nepiendrjjcrav.

THEORIES REGARDING THE AUTHOR. § 163 d. 317

Clement's First Epistle.
Ch. 36 : .... OS av dnavyacrpa rfjs
jjieyaXao'iivrjS aiirov, too-ovtco pei^av
icrrlv ayyeXav, ocrco Biacpoparepov
ovopa KeKXrjpovdprjKev. Feypanrai
ydp ovras ' d noiav rods ayyeXovs
avrov nvevpara, Kal tovs XeiTovp-
yovs avrov nvpbs (pXdya ' enl Be
ra via avrov ovras elnev b Betrnd-
rrjs • vios pov el crv, iya crfjpepov
yeyevvrjKa ere • cfirrjcrai nap' e'pov,
KOI Smo'ib oot 'eBvrj, k. r. X., Kai Trd-
Xiv Xeyei Trpds avrdv • KaBov eK 8e-
^lav pov, K.r.X.

Epistle to the Hebrews.
i , 3 : , . .. hs av dnavyacrpa rfjs Bd^rjs
Kal xapaKrfjp r^s vTToo'rdo'ecos avrov,
(pepav re rd TTayra rw pfjpan rfjs
Bvvdpeas avroij  4 : rocrovra
Kpeirrav yevdpevos rSj/ ayye'Xcov,
oo"6> Biacpoparepov nap' avrovs Ke
KXrjpovdprjKev 'ovopa.
7 : Kai TTpds pev rovs ayyeXovs Xeyet ¦
d noiav rovs dyyeXovs avrofj nvev
para KCU rovs Xeirovpyovs avroij
nvpbs (pXdya.
5 : TtVi ydp eirre Trore riov dyyeXav -
vlds pov ei av, iya afjpepov yeyev
vrjKa a-e;
Ver, 13 : Ilpds riva Be rav dyyeXav
e'lprjKe nore - KaBov iK Be^iav pov,
K. T.X.
Ch, 9 : Adfiapev 'Ecm^, 6s iv vnaKofj xi, 5 : Uicrrei 'Evax perereBrj, rov pfj
BiKaios evpeBels perereBrj, Kal ovx IBelv Bdvarov, Kal ovx evpiaKero (cf,
evpeBrj avrov Bdvaros. Sap, IV. 10 : evdpecrros ra Bea
yevdpevos fjyanfjBrj, Kcil ^av pera^v
dpapraiXav perereBrj).
Ib. : Nme Trio-rds evpeBels Bid rfjs Xet- 7 : Iliirret xP^panaBels Ncoe Trepi rSj/
Tovpyias avrov ndXiyyevea-iav Kd(rp(^ prjBena ^Xenopevav, evXa^rjBels Ka-
e'KJjpv^e, Kai SteVcuo'e 8i' avrov d Se- rea-Kevaae Ki^arbv els crayrrjpiav rov
andrrjs rd eto'eXfldyra iv bpovoia fSa oikov avroi) • 8i' fjs KareKpive rbv
els rrjv Ki^ardv. Koa-pov, k. r. X,
Ch, 12: Aid nicrnv Kal (piXo^eviav xi, 31 : llio-rei 'Pad^ fj ndpvrj ov avv-
io-aBrj 'Pad^, fj ndpvrj. anaXero rols dneiBfja-acri, Be^apevrj
rovs KaracTKonovs per elpfjvrjs,
Cf. Eichhorn, III. 471, ff. Bertholdt, VI. 2952, ff. Bleek, p. 411, f.
§ 163 d.
The theory that Barnabas wrote the Epistle to the He
brews is also ancient.^' But the allegorical use of the Old
Testament, in which the Epistle of Barnabas somewhat
resembles ours, is far less large and spirited. The former
rests, too, on a different view of the Mosaic law. Barnabas,
moreover, was not an eloquent speaker (Acts xiv. 12).''
> Tertull. § 160 b, note a. J. Camera, Myrothecium evang, Schmidt,
Einl. I. 289. Twesten, Vorless. iib. d. Dogm. I. 105. TJUmann, Stud. u.
Krit. I. 2. 377.

318 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
•¦ Eichhorn, p. 466, ff. Bertholdt, p. 2946. Bleek, p. 413, ff. Even if
the Epistle of Barnabas be spurious {Neander, KG. I. 3. p. 1100. Twesten,
TJUmann, as above; on the contrary, E. Henke, De ep. Barnab. authentia.
Jen. 1827), there are yet objections enough against Barnabas. Bleek,
p. 417, ff. § 163 e.
Others regard Silas as the author ;* but he seems to have
dwelt at Jerusalem (Acts xv. 22), and must therefore have
been better acquainted with the temple there than was the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.*" He probably was
not versed in Alexandrian learning. All these three charac
teristics are found in Apollos, the eloquent Alexandrian
scholar (Acts xviii. 24, 28). He is, in fact, regarded by sev
eral writers as the author of the Epistle." But the personal
references, in themselves obscure (xiii. 19, 23, f.), find no
support in the existing accounts of him. Hence the most
reliable conclusion is that the author is unknown to us.
* Mynster, p, 133, ff, Bohme, Praef p, xl, sqq. Both connect this the
ory with that concerning those to whom the Epistle was addressed (§ 162 4),
Bohme rests it especially on the supposed similarity between its style and
that of 1 Pet,
' Bleek, p. 409, f, cf, on the contrary Mynster, in Stud, u, Kr. 1829.
p. 341, ff,
' Luther, Werke, Ausg, v. Walch, XII, 1996, Clericus, Heumonn, Sem
ler, Ziegler, Bleek (p, 423, ff,), Schott, Credner, &c.
Time and Place of Composition.
§ 164 a.
As the temple worship is throughout presupposed (viii. 4,
ix. 6, 7, xiii. 11 - 13), the Epistle must have been written be
fore its downfall and that of the Jewish state,* but at a time
when the " Hebrews," their apostolic teachers having died
(xiii. 7), were in a neglected condition, after the death of
James the brother of the Lord, and shortly before the break
ing out of the Jewish war (between A. D. 65 and 67).''
That it was written from Rome or Italy, as the subscription
in several MSS. indicates, far from being implied in xiii. 24,
is, rather, irreconcilable with that passage."

ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. § 164 b. 319
• Orelli, Selecta patrum capp. III. 4, asserts that the Epistle was not
written till after the destruction of Jerusalem.
» Cf. Bleeh, I. p. 433, ff. He, with Bertholdt, makes x, 32, xii, 4, refer
to the persecution under Nero, and connects xiii, 24 with them. There is
this difficulty, that if James's death (about A. D. 63) had taken place earlier,
and was yet in such fresh remembrance, xii. 4, xiii. 17, must have had a
different turn. If xii. 22, f. was written with a reference to Rev. xiv. 1, ff,,
the date of the composition is brought much farther down,
' This is opposed by ot aTrd r^s 'iraXi'as. Bleek, p. 281.
Tlie Original Language.
§ 164 6.
The theory that the Epistle was originally written in He
brew or Aramaic is as old as, at first glance, it is plausible.*
But a closer examination brings to light the strongest proof
of the Greek origin of the Epistle, viz. : 1. the pure, flow
ing language ; 2. the quotation and use of the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament, even in its mistakes (x. 5,
cf. Ps. xl. 7 ; i. 6, cf. Ps. xcvii. 7 ; ii. 7, cf. Ps. viii. 7 ; x. 38,
cf. Hab. ii. 4) ; 3. plays on words which are possible only
in Greek (ix. 16, f., v. 8, ix. 10, xi. 35)."
" Clemens Alex, in Euseb. VI. 14. § 160 o, note a. Euseb. III. 38 :
'EjSpai'ots ydp Std r^s narpiov yXd>Trrjs iyypdcpas apiXrjKoros rov ItavXov, ot
pev rbv evayyeXiarrfjv AovKav, ot Se rbv ISXfjpevra epprjvevaai Xeyovcn rfjv ypa
cpfjv • b Kal pdXXov e'lrj dv dXrjBes ra rbv opowv rfjs (ppdaeas xapaKrfjpa rfjv re
rot/ HXfjpevros inicrroXfjv kcu rfjv npbs 'E^paiovs dnoaa^etv, Kal ra pfj ndppa
rd iv eKarepois rols crvyypdppaai vofjpara KaBeardvai. Hieron. Ep. ad Dar
dan. I. § 27, note o. Cod. 31, in the subscription iypdcprj e^pa'icrri. Hallet,
De auctore et lingua originali ep. ad Hebr., in Wolf, Cur. philol. Tom. IV.
and Jac. Peircii Paraphr. et notae in ep. ad Hebr, latine vertit /. D. Mi
cliaelis, Hal. 1747. 4to. J. D. Michoilis, Einl. II. 1359, ff. Erkl. d. Br.
an d. Hebr. 2d ed. I. 29, ff
" Eichhorn, Einl. IIL 498, ff, Bertholdt, VI, 2971, ff, Bleek, p, 13, ff.
Neidel {Semler), Diss, quod graece ep. ad Hebraeos Paulus exaraverit. Hal.
1761. 4to.

320 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

CHAPTER XI.

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

Clem. Alex. Adumbratt. in ep, 1. Petr, ep, Jud. 1.2. Joh. Opp, ed, Pott,p,
1006, sqq, — Didymi Alex. Enarratio in ep, Jac. 1 Pet, 1 Joh, ih Bibl, max, Patr,
IV, 320, sqq, Cf, in Liicke, Quaestt, ac vindiciae Didymianae s. Did, Alex,
enarr, in epp, cath, magnam part, e Graecis scholis restituta, Gott, 1829-30,
4to, — Bedoe Ven. Expositio in septem can, epp, Opp, ed. Col, Tom. V, —
Colvin, Comm. in epp, cath, Opp, V, 3, with his Comm. in omn. epp. Paul,
Genev. 1551, fol, Halle, 1832, — /, /, Grynoeus, Explic, epp, cathol, Bas.
1543. — B. Aretii Comm. in epp, cath, Morg, 1589. — J. H. Alsted, Ple-
jas apostoiica, i, e, septem epp. can, notatt, illustr, c, pentateucho. Herb,
1640, — Conr. Horneji, In septem, epp, cath, expositio litt, Brunsv, 1652-
54. 2 vols. 4to, — Epistolarum cath, septenarius graece c, nova vers, ac
scholiis. Op, J.B. Carpzovii. Hal, 1790, — Epistolae cath, graece perpet,
annotat, illustratae a J. Pott. Vol. I, (1786, 1799) 1816. compl, ep,
Jac, Vol, II, (1790) 1810. compl. epp. Petri. — Die kath. Briefe neu
libers, u. mit Excursen u. einl, Abhandl, herausgeg, v. J. Chr. W. Augusti,
Lemg, 1801-1808, ^ Thle. — Groshof, Uebers, u. Erkl, 1838, — iT, iJ,
Jachmann, Comm. 1838, — Exeg, Handb, III, 1,
I. On the Catholic Epistles in general.
Meaning of their Designation.
§ 165.
Since the fourth century, the Epistles in the canon which
are not Pauline nor ascribed to Paul, and some of which
(1 John, 1 Peter) previously belonged to the Aposlolos, have
been classed together under the special name of Catholic
Epistles [einiTToXai KadoXniai).^ The meaning of this des
ignation is doubtful. The explanation given by the later
ecclesiastical writers, that it is equivalent to eiricnoXcLi eyKii-
kXcoi,^ does not apply to them all, because two of them
are private Epistles. It had, however, originally this or a
similar sense" {general letters of instruction, in contradis-

MEANING OF THEIR DESIGNATION. § 165. 321
tinction from the Pauline, which were addressed to special
churches). Following this idiom, Origen seems to call
1 John, 1 Peter, and the Epistle of Jude catholic.'' This
designation was subsequently extended to all the non- Pau
line Epistles, and was understood to mean, on the one hand.
Epistles generally current in the Church, and, on the other,
those universally acknowledged as canonical.^
^ Euseb. H. E, II. 23 : Totavra Kai rd Kara rbv 'idKa^ov, ov fj nparrj rav
dvopa^opevav KaBoXiKav iniirroXav eivai Xeyerai. 'Icrreov Be as
voBeverai pev- ov noXXol yovv rav nciXaiav avrfjs ipvrjpdvevcrav, as ovBe rfjs
Xeyopevrjs 'lovBa, pids Kai avr^s r£j' eTTrd Xeyopevav KaBoXiKav.
"Opas Be 'icrpev Kal ravras perd rmv XotTTmj' ev nXeicrrais BeBrjjwa-ievpivas eK-
KXrja-iais. Cyril. Hierosol. catech. IV. 36. p. 69. Iambi ad Seleuc. p, 195.
See Part I. § 26, note a. Jerome, Ad Paulin. de studio script. Tom. I. 2,
p, 280, ed. Vallars. : Jacobus, Petrus, Joannes, Judas Apostoli septem epi
stolas ediderunt, etc.
' Oecumen. Prolegg. in ep. Jac. . KadoXiKoi Xeyowrai aSrai, oioyei c'yxv-
kXioi. Ov ydp dcpopia-pevas 'eBvei evl fj TToXetj as d Belos IlavXos rots Papai-
ois fj KopivBwis npocTcpavel ravras rds inia-roXds b rmv roiovrioi' rov Kvpi'ov
paBrjrav Blacros, aXXd KaBoXov rols nicrrols, fjroi 'lovBaiois rols ev rfj Biacmopa,
as Kal d Uerpos, fj Kal ndcri rols vnb rfjv avrfjv nlcrriv xpKrnavols reXovaiv.
Leontius, De sectis, c. 2 : Ka^oXiKoi Se iKkfjBrjcrav, ineiBdv ov npbs ev 'eBvos
iypdcprja-av, as al rov HaiJXov, dXXd KoBdXov npbs ndvra. Cf. Suicer, Thes.
eccl. s. V. KoBoXiKos.
' Clemens Alex. Strom. IV. 512 : Kard rfjv inicrroXfjv rfjv KaBoXiKrjv rtoi'
dTTOo-rdXcoj' aTrdj/ro)!' (Act. xv.). (Eichhorn, Einl. Ill, p, 557, needlessly
assumes here the meaning, composed by ihe Apostles as a body.) Origen,
Cont, Cels. I. 63 : yeypaTTrai S^ iv rg Bapvdfia KaBdXiKfj inia-roXfj. Apollon. in
Euseb. H. E. V. 18, of Themison, a Montanist: — irdXprjae pipovpevos rbv
'AndoToXov, KaBoXiKrjv nva a-vvra^dpevos eniaroXfjv, Karrjxelv pev rovs dpeivov
avrov nenia-revKdras. {Eichhorn here erroneously adopts the meaning, to
advance the catholic faith.) In this meaning the designation does not once
occur with certainty in Euseb. IV. 23 : Kai npardv ye nepl Aiowcrlov cpa-
reov - on re r^s iv KopivBco napoiKias rbv rfjs inicrKonfjs iyKexeipicrro Bpdvov,
Kal d)S rfjS ivBeov cpiXonovias ov pdvov roils vn avrdv, dXX' rjBrj Kal tois e'Tri
T^s dXXoSoTT^s dcpBdvas iKoivavei, xprja-ipioTarov dnaaiv eav
rov KaBia-rds, iv als vnervnovro KaBoXiKals npbs rds iKKXrj
crias inia-roXals. These Epistles were only in part circular letters, but
having a general aim outside of the Corinthian community, they came into
more general Church use.
¦i Comment, in Matth. Tom. XVII. III. 797 :  npda-xes el Bvvacrai
TO dnb r^s 'ladwov koBoXikIjs enicrroXfjs ovras 'exov, dyanrjroi, vvv riKva Beov
ia-pev, K. r. X. (1 John iii. 2), rov rpdnov rofirov iKXa^elv. Comment, in
41

322 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Joh. Tom. II. Vol. IV. p. 76 : . . . . iv Be rfj KaBoXiKfj avrov 'ladwov im
crroXfj Xeyerai. Ib. VI. 135 : . . . . TTopd ra Uerpco iv rfj KoBoXiKfj inicrroXfj.
Comment, in ep. ad Rom. ib. p, 549: Judas Apostolus in epistola catholica
dicit. There is here no ground for assuming, with Bertholdt, I. 224, that
1 John and 1 Peter were called catholic in contrast with the other Epistles
of these Apostles, which had a special aim (this, however, is not the case
with 2 Peter). The First Epistle of Peter is indeed addressed to special
churches, but to several, and is thus a circular Epistle. Eichhorn understands
the meaning here as generally acknowledged os apostolic, and thinks Origen
designated these Epistles thus because he considered them genuine. This
derives a seeming support from Origen. in Euseb. H. E. VI. 25 : . . . .ov
(MdpKov) Kal vlbv iv rfj KaBoXiKfj inicrroXfj Bid rovrav apoXdyrjcre cpd-
CTKav  Uerpos Be ... . piav inicrroXfjv djioXoyovpevrjv KaraXeXoi-
nev. But the first time Origen is not thinking of the genuineness of the
Epistle, and he has by no means regarded the Epistle of Jude as generally
accepted (see § 184 J, note b). Dionysius'aho, in Euseb. VII. 25, can hardly
be said to contrast inia-roXfj KaBoXiKfj with in. (pepopevrj, as Eichhorn thinks :
Ov pfjv paBias dv (rvvBeiprjv rovrov elvai rbv dndcrroXov, rbv vlbv ZejSt-
Saiov, rbv dBeXcpbv laKa^ov ' ov rb evayyeXiov rb Kard 'ladvvrjv iniyeypappe-
vov, Kai Tj enicrroXrj rj KaBoXiKrj  *0 pev ydp evayyeXicrrfjs ovBapov rb
ovopa avrov napeyypdcpei, ovBe Krjpvcxcrei eavrdv, ovre Std rov evayyeXiov,
ovre Std r^s eTTio'roXijs  'AXX' ovSe iv rfj Sevrepa cpepopevrj 'ladwov Kal
rpirrj, Kairoi Ppaxeiais ovcrais enicrroXals, b 'ladvvrjs dvopacrrl npoKeirai' dXXd
dvavvpas b npea-pirepos yeypanrai. Euseb. III. 22, also calls 1 John rrjv
(pepopevrjv 'laavvov nporepav. In Euseb. III. 3, koBoXikos occurs in -the
meaning of universally used in the Church : Uerpov pev ovv inicrroXfj pla fj
Xeyopevrj dvapufXdyrjrai  Tfjv Be (pepopevrjv avrov Bevrepav ovk evBidBrjKov
pev eivai napeiXfjcpapev - Spas Be ttoXXois xpvo-ipos (pavelcra, perd t£i/ aXXav
icrnovBdcrBrj ypacpav .... rd re Xeydjj.evov avrofj Krjpvypa Kal rfjv KoXovpevrjv
dnoKdXvifriv ovS' oXas ev KaBoXiKols 'icrjiev napaBeBopeva. It cannot mean
recognized as genuine, for he has just mentioned the doubts against 2 Peter.
Cf also II. 23, note a.
' So Cassiodorus calls them, Institut. divin. litt. c. 8, epistolas canonicas.
According to Liicke, in Stud. u. Krit. 1836. p. 650, canonical here, as else
where, refers to the Church as a whole. — The opinion of Nosselt (Conjectt. ad
hist. cath. Jac. ep., Opusc. II. 308, ff.) and Ziegler (Progr, Rost. 1807. 4to),
that catholic is equivalent to canonical, and that of Salmeron, Tirinus, Corn.
a Lopide, Schmidt (Einl. II. 297), according to which it must mean /or the
preservation and advancement of ihe orthodox catholic doctrine, ate accord
ingly to a certain degree justified for subsequent times; Hug's opinion
(Einl. II. 500) , on the contrary, that the Catholic Epistles are in contrast with
the Pauline, and Pott's explanation (given in the second edition of his Epp.
cathol, fasc, 1, but abandoned in the third edition) by ai XoiTrai eTTioroXai Ka
BoXov, reliquarum epistolarum (sc. non Paulinarum) summa sive universitas,
are not sustained by the Church idiom. The right view is given by Credner,

EPISTLE OF JAMES. §166. 323
§209. Neudecker, p.647, ff. Koster, in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1831. p.
586, ff.

Characteristics of these Epistles. Their Later Use in the Church.
§ 166.
They all belong to a different school from the Pauline.
The Epistle of James stands in opposition to it ; the Epis
tles of Peter take a middle ground ; those of John assume a
similar free stand-point, but not the polemic one of the
Apostle Paul. We may, therefore, call them catholic in the
sense of their having the catholic tendency of the post-
Apostolic Church.'' It is a pecuHarity that they all, except
ing the Second and Third Epistles of John, want the
genuine epistolary character, and originate in no special
relation of the writers to their readers. Perhaps they are
imitations of the Epistles of Paul. Hence it comes that
their historical relations are so obscure and uncertain.
Some of them came late into Church use, and were there
fore less often copied. In the MSS. they are placed after
the Book of Acts.
» Kem, Der Br. Jac. etc. p. 3.

II. Epistle of Tames.
AUhamer, Comm. Argent. 1527. — Brochmand, Comm. Havn. 1641.
4to. — G. Benson, Paraphr. et notae philol. lat. vertit et suas ubique ob
servatt. addidit /. D. Michoilis. Hal. 1747. 4to. — Boumgarten, Ausl.
Halle, 1750. 4to. — Herder, Briefe zweener Briider Jesu (Jac. u. Judas)
in unserm Kanon. Lemg. 1775. — S. F. N. Mori Praelectt. in Jac. et
Petri epp, Ed, Doriat. Lips. 1793. — Uebers. u. Erl. v. Chr. G. Hensler,
Hamb. 1801, — S^orr, In ep, Jacobi diss, exeget. Opusc. Vol. II. — Ep.
S. Jacobi et Petri 1. cum vers. germ, et coram, lat, Ed, /. J. Hottinger.
Lips. 1815. — /. Schulthess, Coram, copiosiss. Turic. 1823. — Uebers. u.
Erkl. V. A. R. Gebser. Berl. 1828. — Matth. Schneckenburger, Annotatt.
Stuttg. 1832. — C. G. Guil. Theile, Comm. Lips. 1833. — Kern, Unters.
u. Erkl. Tub. 1838.

324 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

The Author.
§ 167 a.
The author of this first of the Catholic Epistles {Euseb.
H. E. II. 23) calls himself James, servant of God and of
Jesus Christ (i. 1). But what James is meant, is a difficult
question to answer.
He cannot be James the elder, son of Zebedee, brother of
John the Evangelist, for he was early put to death (Acts
xii. 1, 2), and the chronological indications in the Epistle
(§ 168 b) require a later composition.''' On the other hand,
the question arises, what relation James the younger, so
called (Mark xv. 40), son of Alphceus, one of the Apostles
(Matt. X. 3, Mark iii. 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13), and James
the ^'¦brother of the Lord" (Gal. i. 19, Joseph. Antt. XX,
9. 1), who enjoyed high consideration in the church at Jeru
salem (Gal. ii. 9, cf. Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18, fi".) till he
suffered martyrdom, after the death of the Procurator Fes
tus,'' bear to each other and to the author of our Epistle.
The following theories are possible, and have found their
supporters in ancient and in modern times.
' Notwithstanding, the subscription of an old Latin version in Martianay,
and of the Peshito in the edition of Widmanstadt and Trost, ascribe the
Epistle to him. Bertholdt, VI, 2996, f.
'° Joseph. 1, c, : .... d "Avavos vopicras e'xeiv Kaipbv inirfjBeiov Std rd
reBvdvai pev pfjcrrov, AX^vov Be en Kara rfjv oBbv vndpxeiv, KaBl^ei crvve-
Bpiov Kpirav - Kcli napayayav els avrb rbv dBeXcpbv 'irjcrov rov Xeyopevov
Xpicrrov, 'IdKa^os 'dvopa avra , Kal nvds irepovs, cos napavoprjardvrav Karrjyo-
piav noirjcxdpevos, napeBaKe XevaBrjcropevovs. (Doubts regarding the genu
ineness of this account in Cleric. Ars, crit, p, 223. Lardner, Suppl. III. c,
16, Credner, p. 581 ; on the contrary, Neudeck. p, 655,) Hegesipp. in
Euseb. H, E. II, 23: AiaBexerai rfjv iKKXrjcrlav perd rav dnocrrdXav b
dBeXcpbs roi) Kvpiov 'laKa^os, d dropao-^eis vtto TTavrcoi' BiKaios  Ov
ros Se e'K KoiXtas prjrpbs avrov dyios fjv. Olvov Kal (riKepa ovk 'emev 
Aid ye roi rfjv vnep^oXrjv rfjs BiKawcrvvrjs avrofj eKoXetro AiKoios Kai
'a/3Xias  'Ea-njo'av ovv ol . . . . ypapparels Kal ^apicraloi rbv 'laKa-
^ov inl rb nrepvyiov rov j/aov  'Ava^dvres ovv KaripdXov rbv BUaiov
.... Kai ^p^avro XiBd^eiv avrdv, K. r. X,

EPISTLE OE JAMBS. § 167 6. 325

§ 167 b.
1. The theory that presents itself first and most naturally
is, that these two Jameses are different persons, of whom the
so-called " brother of the Lord " was an own brother, or at
least half-brother, of Jesus. For aSeX^os is (especially in
Josephus, § 167 a, note b) most naturally taken in its proper
sense,* and Jesus's brothers are mentioned in connection
with his mother (Matt xiii. 55 [cf. ttjOwtotoko?, i. 25], Mark
vi. 3, John ii. 12),'' as unbelieving (John vii. 3, ff.), and are
also subsequently distinguished from the Apostles (Acts i.
14 ; on the other hand, such a distinction is not necessary
in 1 Cor. ix. 5)."
' Stress has erroneously been laid {Kern, Comm. Einl. p. 18, ff.) on the ad
dition d Xeydpevos, d XexBeis, in Euseb. H. E, II, 4, IV, 5, Clem. Homil. XI.
35, as favoring the improper meaning. Another passage, adduced in support
of the improper meaning, proves the contrary. Hegesipp. in Euseb. IV. 22 :
Kai perd rd paprvp^crai 'ldKaj3ov r. BiKaiov, as Kal b Kvpios enl ra avra Xd
yco, ndXiv b iK rov ^et'ov avrov Svpemv d rov KXmTTa KaBicrrarai inla-Konos ¦
bv npoeBevro ndvres ovra dve^iov tov Kvpiov Bevrepov. It is correct to refer
r. Beiov avroij to d Kvpios (cf Hegesipp. in Euseb. III. 32 : d Ik rov ^et'ov -i .
Kvplov 6 npoeiprjpevos Svpeav vlbs KXand, — incorrect, with Credner, to
James), and to explain the last clause also thus: whom they all preferred, os
the second cousin of the Lord {Bevrepov cannot refer to the verb) ; but that
the reference of this Bevrepov to James the brother of the Lord is correct,
so as to make him the first cousin of the Lord, I doubt. It probably refers
to Jaraes, Alphseus's son. {Neand.) It is certain that, according to Hege
sippus, James the brother of the Lord could not be the son of Cleopas ( Al-
phffius) ; for otherwise this Simeon would be his brother, and this consan
guinity should have been assigned as the ground of his being chosen, or at
least should have been mentioned,
¦i There is no doubt that these, if not own brothers, were at least step
brothers of Jesus. Fritzsche, Exeg. Hdb. z, Matth, on the passage, Tho
luck, on Joh, ii, 12, C. F. W. Clemen, Die Briider Jesu, in Winer's Zeitschr,
f, wissensch. Theol. HI. 329, ff.
' Several Church Fathers regard the above-mentioned James as a half-
brother of Jesus, Euseb. II. 1 : Tore S^ra Kai 'laKa^ov rbv rofj Kvpi'ov Xeyd-
pevov dBeXcpdv, dri S^ Kai ovros rov 'laafjcp avdjMcrro nals' rov Be Xpicrrov
narfjp d 'lacrfjcp, a pvrjcrrevBelcra fj napBevos, nplv fj avveXBelv avrovs, evpeBrj
iv yacrrpl exovcra iK nvevparos dyiov, as fj lepd rvov EvayyeXiav BiBdciKei
ypacpfj • rofirov Bfj oSv avrbv 'laKa^ov, bv Kal AUawv iniKXrjv oi naXai St' ope
ras iKoXovv nporepfjpara, nparov icrropdvcn rfjs iv 'lepoaoXvpois eKKXrjo'ias rbv

326 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
rfjs inia-Konfjs iKxeipicrBfjvai Bpdvov- Origen, in Matth. Tom. X. III. 462 :
, , , , rovs dBeXcpovs 'Irjaov (pacri riyes eK TrapaSdo'eiBS oppiipevoi rov iniye-
ypappevov Kara Uerpov evayyeXiov fj rfjs /3i/3Xov 'IokibjSou (Protev, Jacobi in
Fabric. Apocr. N. T, I. 66, sqq, 1) , viovs 'laafjcp iK nporepas yvvaiKos, avvay-
KrjKvias avra npb rfjs Mapias  'Iokib/Sos Se eoTtw ovros bv Xeyei IlaiiXos
iSeiv iv rfj npbs TaXdras inicrroXfj. Cf Epiphan. Haeres. XXIX. 3. p. 119,
LXXVlil. 7. p. 1039. Gregor. Nyss. Orat. II, de Christi resurrect. The
expression dBeXcpbs Kard crdpKa roi) Xpicrrov (Constitutt. apost. VIII. 35.
Hegesipp. in Euseb. H.E, III, 20) does not mean own brother (against Neu
deck. and others) : the Kard a-dpKa forms only the contrast to the heavenly
origin of Jesus, Theophylact, ad Gal, i, 19, differs somewhat: KXottSs Kai
'lacrfjcp dBeXcpol - rov KXoTrd dnaiBos reXevrfjcravros, d 'lacrfjcp i^avecrrrjcrev
avra crneppa, Kal 'ereKe rovroy ('laKcojSoi') Kai rovs SXXovs dBeXcpovs, K. r. X,
Cf, Jerome, De vir, ill, c, 2. § 167 c, note o. James, brother of the Lord, is
regarded as an own brother, and different from James, son of Alphseus, by
Grot., Hammond, ad ep. Jac, Rich. Sim. Hist, crit, du texte du N, T, ch.
XVII., Herder, Briefe zweener Briider J. p. 12, Fritzsche, ad Matth. xiii,
55, Kern, Br, Jac, p, 28: Jachmann, Kathol. Brr. ; Neand. AG. II. 555.
Clemen, as above, Mayerhoff, Einl. in d. petr. Schr. p, 43, ff,, Credner;
Schaf, Das Verhaltn, d. Jac. Br, d, H, zu Jac, Alph, 1842. A. H Blom,
De roZs dS, ^. rals dB. r. Kvp. L, B, 1839 (cf St, u. Kr, 1842, p, 71,f,) ; also,
by Schott, Neudecker, excepting that they inconsistently confound the brother
of the Lord in Paul with the son of Alphseus,
§ 167 c.
2. The second theory, that the brother of the Lord is one
and the same with the son of Alphseus,* and is called
brother of the Lord because he was his cousin, according
to the common view, based on John xix, 25, Mark xv. 40,
son of Mary,'"' the sister of Jesus's mother and wife of Al
phseus, or, more correctly, son of Jesus's uncle Alphseus,'' is
favored by the law of historic frugality, and by the fact that
in Acts only two of the name of James are found, and that
he who was influential in Jerusalem after the death of the
son of Zebedee is never distinguished from the son of Al
phseus, nor reckoned among the brothers of the Lord men
tioned in i. 14, while, on the contrary, in Gal. i. 19 (accord
ing to the simplest, though, it must be admitted, not the
only possible explanation) he is reckoned among the Apos
tles. The objections, however, preponderate ; namely, that
in Hegesippus and other cHurch writers James, brother of

EPISTLE OP JAMES. § 167 C. 327
the Lord, is rather distinguished from than reckoned among
the Apostles," and that James the son of Alphseus appears
in no list of the Apostles as brother of the Lord.
" Clem. Alex, in Euseb. II. 1 : Avo^Se yeydvaaiv 'Iokib/Soi • eh b BUaios b
Kara roi) TTrepvyiov ^XrjBels Kal vnb Kvacpeas nXrjyels els Bdvarov - erepos Be
6 KaparoprjBeis. " Hieron. ad Matth. xii. : Quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore Josephi
filios suspicantur, sequentes deliramenta apocryphorum et a quodam Escha
muliercula confingentes. Nos autem, sicut in libro, quem contra Helvidiura
scripsimus, continetur, fratres Domini non filios Josephi, sed consobrinos sal
vatoris, Mariae liberos, intelligimus, materterae Domini, quae etiam dicitur
mater Jacobi minoris et Josephi et Judae. De viris ill. c. 2 : Jacobus, qui
appellatur frater Domini cognomento Justus, ut nonnulli existimant, Joseph
ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini, cujus
Joannes in libro suo meminit, filius, etc. Theodoret, ad Gal. i. 19 : 'ASeX-
^ds rofj Kvpiov iKoXelro piv, ovk fjv Be (pv(rei - ovre pfjv, ms riyes vneiXfjepaa-i,
rov lacrfjcp vlbs irvyxavev av, iK nporepav ydpav yevdpevos, dXXd rov KXo)TTd
pev rjv Vlds, roO Se Kvpiov dve-\jnds ' pijrepa ydp etp^e r^j* dBeXcpfjv r^s rov Kv
piov prjripos. Chrysost. ad h. 1. Natal. Alex. Hist. eccl. sec. I. c. 8.
Boron. Annal. p. 21, 322. Calov. Bibl. illustr, IV. 1390. Budd. Isag.
hist, theol., Lardner, Credibil., Pritius, Introd., Carpzov, Baumgorten,
Semler, Rosenmiiller, Pott, Augusti, Schneckenb., Theile, in their Coram.,
Storr, Opusc. acad. II. 1, sqq. Gobler, De Jacobo epistolae eidem adscriptae
autore. Alt. 1787. Hanlein, Hug, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Guerike, in their
Einleitt. ¦" In the passage in John, the commonly assumed apposition between fj
dBeXcp. T. prjrpbs ovrov and Mapla fj rov KXaiTrd is incorrect, and the latter
to be regarded as a third person. See Wieseler, in Stud. u. Kr, 1840.
p. 648, ff. According to Hegesipp. in Euseb. Ill, 11, the above-given rela
tion of consanguinity existed,
" Hegesipp. in Euseb. II, 23 (see § 167 a, note b). Note : perd (more cor
rectly Trapd) rav dno(rTdXav (one expects r, Xoinav dnocrr.), d ovojiacrBels
vnb ndvrav BiKaios dnb rav roi) Kvpiov xP°vov pexpi i^al fjpav • inel TToXXoi
'loKio/Sot eKaXovvro. Euseb. ad Jes. xvii, 5, sq, {Montfauc. Coll. n. patr.
II, 422) : . . . . BeKa Kal Te(r(rapas noifjaei rovs ndvras {dnocrroXavs) , &v Bd>-
BeKa pev rovs nparovs dnocrrdXovs e'lnois &v eivai, ovk iXdrra Be avrav rfjv
dperfjv UavXov .... Kai rbv 'idKa^ov yeyovevai, rbv dBeXcpbv rov Kv
piov, OS nparos inicrKonos rfjs 'lepocroXvpav eKKXrjcrias vn avrov Karacrrfjvai
TOV (rarfjpos pvrjpoveverai. H. E. VII. 19 : .... laKa^ov .... rov TTpcorov
r^s 'lepoa-oXipav iKKXrjaias rfjv inicTKonfjv npbs a-vrov roi) crarrjpos k. roij'
dnoaroXav vnoBe^apevov, bv Kal dBeXcpbv rov Xpiarov oi Bewi Xdyoi nepie-
Xova-iv. In the pseudo-Clementine writings he is always mentioned simply
as brother of the Lord, not as an Apostle ; and in the Apost. Constitutions
he is expressly discriminated from the Apostles. II. 55 : 'Hpeis .... pdp-

328 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
rvpes r^s napovcrias avrofj ovv 'loKa^co rw rov Kvpiov aBeXcpa. VI. 12 :
.... ^pets ot SiiSeKa avveXBdvres els 'lepova-aXrjp .... enecrKenrdpeBa dpa
'laKffl/Sm ra rov Kvpiov dSeX^M, In VI, 14 he is placed, together with Paul,
after the twelve, among whom James the son of Alphasus is expressly men
tioned. Cf VII, 46, VIII. 35, 46, Clem. Alex., on the contrary, reckons
him among the Apostles, Euseb. II, 1 : 'laKafico ra BiKaico k, 'ladvvrj k. Ue
rpa perd rfjv dvdcrracnv napeBaKe rfjv yvacriv d Kvpios. Ovros rois Xoittois
aTTooroXois napeBaKev, k, t, X. In the narrative of the Gospel to the He
brews, in Hieron. De viris ill, c, 2 (§ 65 o, note b), it is assumed that this
James was present at the establishment of the Lord's Supper,
§ 167 d.
A third and intermediate theory,^ that James the brother
of the Lord was another than James the son of Alphseus,
but the latter only head of the church at Jerusalem, has
the advantage of being in entire harmony with the Book of
Acts. It is, however, contradicted by tradition, does not
agree well with Gal. i. 19, ii. 9, 12, and receives but a weak
support from the argument that only an Apostle could have
held that position.
' Wieseler, in Stud, u, Kr, 1842, p, 79, ff, Stier, Andeutungen, I, 412,
ff, Cf Win. RWB, Art. Jacobus, § 167 e.
We prefer the first theory, and think it not improbable
that, of the brothers of the Lord, who had from the first
been unbelievers, but were convinced by his resurrection, one
should attain high distinction among the Jewish Christians,
partly on account of his personal character, partly through
his relationship to Jesus ; while James the son of Alphseus,
like so many others of the twelve, remained in obscurity.
That the author of Acts has confounded the former with
the latter, or omitted expressly to discriminate him from the
other, is one of the many objections which may be urged
against his trustworthiness (§ 115 e)."
' Winer attaches too great importance to the difficulty of bringing Acts
into harmony with the above theory, and can therefore arrive at no decided
result.

EPISTLE OF JAMES. § 168 a. 329
§ 167/.
Our Epistle has been ascribed, although not with universal
consent, to James the brother of the Lord."' An Epistle ad
dressed to Jewish Christians, and proceeding from their own
circle, could hardly be looked for from another than this
head of the mother church at Jerusalem. The predicate
6eov Kai, Kvpiov Irjaov Xpiarov BovXo<s, which he applies to
himself, is also applicable to an Apostle (cf. Kom. i. 1, Phil.
i. 1), though much more to one who did not belong to the
twelve. ^ Euseb. H. E. II. 23, see § 165, note a. For, according to the context,
the James there mentioned is the brother of the Lord. Hieron, De vir. ill.
c. 2 : Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, . , , . unam
tantum scripsit epistolam, quae de septem catholicis est, quae et ipsa ab alio
quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente
obtinuerit auctoritatem. Cf. § 169.
Destination, Object, and Contents.
§ 168 a.
According to the easily misunderstood ascription i. 1,^
the Epistle is addressed to all Jewish Christians out of Pal
estine. But it speaks to them as if they had formed them
selves into separate churches, were in a peculiar position,
and were suffering from certain errors (ii. 1-7, iii. 1, 13, f„
iv. 1, ff., 13, ff., V. 14). Hence some have thought it neces
sary to limit the circle of readers.'' But out of Palestine
there were few or no purely Jewish Christian churches. A
correct interpretation of the ascription," and a proper appre
hension of the whole Epistle, show it to be addressed to all
the Christians outside of Palestine, and intended to rebuke
the faults of their condition as Christians, as these were
manifested to the author in silent contrast with the simple,
uncorrupted state of the mother church. These faults con
sisted especially in a growing worldliness through riches and
luxury (ii. 1-7, iv. 1-v. 6), in a quarrelsome disposition (i.
19, ff., iii. 1-18), and in over-estimating faith in comparison
with works (ii. 14-25).-i 42

330 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
' Literally, " to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," without
mention of their Christian faith. Lardner, Supplements, XVII. § 3, under
stands it to mean unconverted Jews, Theile, Prolegg, p, 49, Credner,
p, 595, following Heisen (Novae hypotheses interpretandae felicius ep. Jac,
Brem, 1739, 4to), Wolf, Hug, &c,, Jews generally, whether converted or
unconverted, especially the former, — truly an absurdity !
"¦ Nosselt, Conject. ad histor, catholicae Jac, epist, (Opusc, II, 314)| sup
posed that the Epistle was destined for the Christian church at Antioch (cf
Acts xi. 19 : . . . , ot pei' ovv Biacrnapivres dnb rrjs BXi-yp-eas, k, t, X.) ;
Eichhorn, III, 585, for the Jewish Christians in pagan lands whom Paul
and Barnabas had converted (Acts xiii,, xiv,), Schneckenburger, Beitr,
p, 211, thinks the churches whom James addressed, and which, according
to p, 204, consisted solely of Jewish Christians, and still adhered entirely to
the Jewish synagogue system, were in Syria and Asia Minor, Who
founded them? Only Paul and Barnabas had taught there. But accord
ing to Acts xiii, 46, xiv, 1, 27, §§ 128, 148, Paul founded only mixed or
wholly Gentile-Christian churches. A similar view in Neander, Pflanz.
II, 575, f
° ai SmSeKa cpvXai = rb BaBeKdcpvXov (Acts xxvi, 7) is the 'lapa^X r, Beov
(Gal. vi. 16), i. e, Christendom, So Moudert in Wolf, Kern, Koster, in
Stud, u, Krit. 1831. p, 581, ff,
^ The proper mode of understanding the Epistle was, in general, first
shown by Kern, Charakter u, Ursprung des Br, Jac, in Tiib, Ztschr, 1835,
II, , whom Schwegler (Nachap, Zeitalt, I, 413, ff.) follows, Schwegler aban
dons this in his Comm, — The opposition to Paul's doctrine of justification
is not admitted by Knapp, Scripta var, arg, II, 413, sqq., Neander, Kl.
Geleg. Schr. p, 103, ff,, Pflanz, II, 564, ff,, Gebser, Schneckenburger, Theile,
J'rommcwm, in Stud, u, Krit, 1833. p,84, ff. According to iVean&r, James
opposes the tendency of the Jewish mind to mistake in regard to the
life of religion which has its root in the heart, and to insist always upon
the mere dead form, the appearance instead of the essence, that tendency
which set a dead proud Scripture knowledge in the place of a genuine wis
dom inseparable from a holy life, and, moreover, neglected that reverence
towards God which shows itself in works of love, &c. According to
Schneckenburger (Annotatt. p. 128), James writes against the merely theo
retical nicrris, which was a Jewish error ; but he forgets that this could not
so directly pass over into Christianity, but must first gain a certain relation
to Christ. So Thiersch, Standp. d. Krit. p, 257, f All who deny the op
position overlook the peculiarly Pauline notion of justification. Luther saw
more correctly on this subject. Cf my remarks in Theol. Stud. u. Krit.
1830. p. 348, ff, Kern, in Tiib, Ztschr, 1835, II, 39, ff.

EPISTLE OE JAMES. § 168 C. 331
§ 168 6.
The contents are without plan or arrangement." The
discourse passes from one theme (sometimes only briefly
handled) to another,'' and, as it were, accidentally arrives at
what seems its chief object (i. 19, ii. 1, iv. 1, v. 1).
" Rouch, in Winer's Krit, Journ, VI, 281, ff,, tries to show a strict con
nection, but rejects, on this account, as spurious, v. 12-20. Against this,
Hagenbach, ib, VI, 395, ff, Schneckenburger, Tiib. Ztschr. Ill, 47, ff,
^ By the greeting xaipeiv is occasioned the exhortation to accept tempta
tions joyfully, to endure them steadfastly and strive after Christian perfection,
to implore for this end wisdom from above, to find through a higher con
sciousness joy in suffering, and so gain therefrom the prize of steadfastness,
but in case of temptation not to blame God, but their own evil passions ; for
God is the giver of all good gifts, even of the new birth through the word
of truth, i. 2-18. This last thought suggests the injunction to make the
word of God ever more and more their own, and not merely to hear it ; also
not to be in haste to become teachers, but to practise it, i. 19 - 27, (One
neglect, nay, violation of God's law, among others, is the partiality towards
the rich and against the poor,) Rebuke of this as a violation of the law
of love, exhortation to a proper observance of the same, ii, 1-13. (As
faith cannot exist without love, neither can it without works.) Confuta
tion of those (Paulinians) who profess to have faith without being beneficent,
and think to be justified through their faith, ii, 14 - 26, Resumption and
continuation of the warning touched in i, 19-26, against pressing forward
to the position of teacher and against the accompanying misuse of the
tongue : they must show their wisdom by mildness, not by contentious
ness, iii, 1 - 18, Rebuke of evil desires, as the source of other kinds of
disturbances also, iv. 1-3. Warning and exhortation to repentance to the
v^forldly-minded and sinners, iv. 4- 10. Against the spirit of calumny and
detraction, iv, 11, f. Against impious confidence in worldly undertakings,
iv, 13-17. In continuation of iv, 4, 13, ff,, a threat against the rich
(among the Christians), v. 1 - 6, Comforting exhortation to suffering Chris
tians to patience until the return of the Lord, v, 7- 11. Out of all connec
tion, a warning against oaths, v. 12. Recommendation to prayer in the
various circumstances of life, v, 13 - 18, How important and blessed it is
to lead back a brother from the error of his ways, v. 19, f
Date of Composition.
§ 168 c.
With its prevailing indefiniteness, the Epistle lacks reli
able marks for determining its date. The reference to the

332 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
name of Christians points to a period after Acts xi. 26.
All the Christian churches had overseers (v. 14) ; but the
pastoral arrangement here assumed may belong to a later
period." The Christians likewise held church-meetings from
the very beginning ; but here (ii. 2, ff.) their external accom
modations seem to betray a later date.'' It is not unlikely
that the author had read the Epistles to the Galatians, Ro
mans, and Hebrews," and borrowed from Paul ideas and
formulas;"^ but it is certain that the opposition to Paul's
doctrine of justification — which no longer, as in Acts xv.,
Gal. iii. ff., turned on the observance of the Mosaic law (to
which the author pays no regard, he knows only the
i-o/xos eXevdeplai;, ii. 12) — presupposes a later development
of Jewish- Christian views.^ Notwithstanding, the Epistle
was written at a time when the hope of Christ's return was
still fresh (v. 7, f.), and before the First Epistle of Clement
was written (§ 169 b, note b).^
" Kern, Tiib. Ztschr. p, 105, and Comm, on the passage, shows that the
author is speaking of such an arrangement of ofiices, and not of the exer
cise of the xapicrpa lapdrav.
'' Schneckenburger (Beitr, p, 204) and Kern (Comm, p, 63) are in error
in finding in ii, 2 a still existing agreement between Jews and Christians in
visiting the synagogue. The rich and the poor are in ii, 2, f,, as in i, 9, f ,
Christians, But that they had so fat fallen away from the first Christian
brotherly love, that the rich sought to distinguish themselves, and to he dis
tinguished by the servants or overseers of the church, by having better
seats assigned them, supposes a somewhat later time, Cf 1 Cor. xi. 21.
¦= Cf ii, 21 with Gal, iii, 6, Rom, iv. 3 ; i, 3 with Rom, v, 3 ; iv, 1 with
Rom, vi. 13, vii, 23 ; iv. 4 with Rom. viii. 7 ; iv. 12 with Rom. xiv. 4.
Mynster, Kl. theol. Schr. p. 103, f. Storr, Opuscc. II, 376. Hug, II, 515, ff.
On the other side, Rauch, as above, p, 257, ff. It is most probable that ii,
25 refers to Heb, xi. 31 ; for that the example of Rahab was used by Paul
and his disciples in their spoken discourses {Bleek, Einl, in d, Br, an d.
Hebr, p, 89) is hard to believe.
¦* SiKaiovo-^at TTiVret, eK tt., c'k vdpov — iXevBepla — aKpoarfjs, noirjrfjs, na-
pa^drrjs rov vdpov — reXeic rbv vdpov — KopTrds rijs BiKawcrvvrjs — peXrj —
napdXoyi^ecrBai — dXdiiXrjpos — p^ nXavdcrBe — dXX' ipel tis. Schott, Isag.
§ 91, note 20.
= Schneckenburger, on the contrary, makes it the earliest work in the New
Testament, on the following grounds: 1. "All the Jewish ideas appear as
preparatory to the Christian, not, as was the case soon after, as corruptions
of the same," p. 203 (see § 168 a, note d). 2, "As regards the position

EPISTLE OF JAMES. § 169 b. 333
of the Church, no complete separation from the Jews appears (see note b) ;
the Jewish synagogue systera still exists, even lo the name, which was sub
sequently abandoned " (i, e, is not found in Luke and Paul, though it might
subsequently become common, cf Heb, x, 25), "No order of teachers,
bat each could make himself a teacher " (as everywhere, cf 1 Cor, xiv, 26,
1 Tim,ii, 12), " No bishop, an ofiicial who in the Ignatian Epistles " (far
later) " makes so conspicuous a figure," 3, The (uncertain, however) use
of the Epistle in 1 Peter, whose genuineness is itself doubtful, and in the
First Epistle of Clement of Rorae. 4, Since no trace of division between
the Jewish and the Gentile Christians appears (which is also entirely incor
rect), the Epistle was written before Acts xv. p, 210.
'' There is also no trace of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Genuineness and Church Acceptance.
§ 169 a.
It is very doubtful whether the dogmatico-polemic stand
point accords with the authorship of James the brother of the
Lord. The ornate Greek style of the writing seems also to
indicate an author under the influence of Greek culture."
It must, however, be acknowledged, that the Epistle con
trasts advantageously with the productions of post-apostolic
literature, and must not be (with Schwegler) unduly depre
ciated. " Kern, in the above-mentioned treatise, considers the Epistle a post-
apostolic work, and states in favor of his view (p. 86, ff,) the following
additional grounds: 1, That the essential fundamental doctrines of Chris
tianity, such as the death of Jesus, the redemption and reconciliation, and
the Holy Spirit, retire into the background, as in the Clementine Homilies,
2, Its familiarity with the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, espe
cially the Book of Wisdom and of the son of Sirach (the proofs in Theile,
Prolegg, p, 46, sqq.), which first appeared in Christian writings after
the time of the Apostolic Fathers. 3, Ch, v, 12 agrees with the text of the
Gospel of the Hebrews, which the Cleraentine Homilies also use. In his
Commentaries, on the other hand, he asserts its composition by James the
brother of the Lord. This change in his opinion rests mainly on his erro
neous apprehension of ii, 2, f This Epistle does not correspond with the
picture of Jaraes painted by Hegesippus ; but this delineation is beyond
doubt legendary, § 169 b.
The critical investigation of this Epistle may be pursued
the more freely, as it belongs to the Antilegomena (Part I.

334 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
§ 24), for Eusebius expressly mentions that doubts existed
in regard to it (§ 165, note a), and Jerome, that some thought
another had written it under James's name (§ 167/, note a)."
Clement of Rome had probably read it.'' Irenceus also be
trays acquaintance with it," although without mentioning
it as a canonical work. Tertullian is silent respecting it.
Origen is the first of the Alexandrian Fathers who mentions
it (although with some doubt)."* Theodore of Mopsuesiia
rejected it." If it found acceptance in the Greek Church in
the fourth century, with the other Antilegomena, and was
then received into the canon by the Western Church, this
took place because criticism had meanwhile fallen alseep
{Jerome, § 167, f., note a). Whether its adoption into the
old Syriac version, and its acceptance by Ephrasm,^ are
better grounded, we cannot say.
" Credner, p. 590, erroneously asserts that the uncertainty refers simply
to the question whether the Epistle is the work of the Apostle James, See,
against him, Kern, Comm, p, 13.
'' Ep. 1. ad Corinth, c, 10 : 'A/3padp d cpiXos npoaayopevBeis, niorbs ev
peBrj, iv ra avrbv vnfjKoov yevea-Bai rols pfjpacri roC Beov . . . . Bid nlcrriv Kal
cpiKo^eviav iBoBrj avra vlbs iv yfjpcx kcu Bi vnaKofjs npocrfjveyKev avrbv Bvcriav
ra Bea, K.T.X. Cf, James ii, 21,23, Cap,ll: Aid nianv Kal cpiXo^eviav iaa-
6rj 'Pad/3 fj ndpvrj, cf Heb. xi, 31, James ii, 25, — Also Herm. Mandat, XII.
§5: Si enim resistitis illi (diabolo), fugiet a vobis confusus, is similar to
James iv. 7.
" Cont. haer, IV, 16, 2 : Abraham , . , . credidit Deo, et reputatum est
illi ad justitiam, et amicus Dei vocatus est,
¦" Coraraent, in Joa, Tom, XIX, Opp, IV, 306 : 'Edi' ydp Xeyrjrai pev nicrris,
Xc^pis Be epyav Tvyxdvrj, veKpd icrnv fj roiavrrj, ws iv rfj cpepopevrj 'laKa^ov
intoroXfj dveyvapev. Mill, Prolegg. 203 : Imo vero ut in ipsius Origenis
operibus, a Rufino Latinis factis, allegetur haec epistola tanquam Jacobi apo
stoli, fratris Domini, et scriptura divina (hom. 13. in Gen, 3, et 8, in Exod,
et hom, 2, in Levit. et comment, in cap, 5, Ep, ad Rom,), in commentariis
tamen in Joannem Graecis, ab orani interpolatione liberis, dubiae apud quos
dam auctoritatis citatur. Of Clemens Alex. Eusebius (H, E, VI, 14) says that
he gave short explanations of all the Catholic Epistles, Cossiodor. Institut,
divin, litter, c, 8 : In epistolis autem canonicis Clemens Alex, presbyter, qui
et Stroraateus vocatur, i, e, in ep. St. Petri prima, St. Joannis prima et se
cunda, et Jacobi, attico sermone declaravit. Lardner, Mayerhoff, and others
would read Judae, instead of Jacobi. Moreover, Clement never mentions the
Epistle. » Leont. Byz. c. Nestor, et Eutych, III, 14,

EPISTLES OF PETER. § 169 C. 335
f Ephram. Opp, Graec, III, 51 : 'laKta/Sos Se d rov Kvpi'ov aSeXc^ds Xeyet •
nevBfjcrare kcu KXavaare. Cf, Hossenkamp, Anmerkk. z, d, letzten Paragr. d,
Einl, v, Michaelis, p, 27, ff, § 169 c.
With the Reformation, criticism revived, and also the
doubts concerning this Epistle, although, it must be con
fessed, on dogmatic grounds.* Since, however, a way has
been found of removing or softening its contradiction to
Paul, its genuineness has been almost universally acknowl
edged. ^ Erasm. Annotatt. in Ep. Jac. expresses himself sceptically. Luther,
Vorrede auf die Ep. St. Jacobi und St. Judas, Walch, XIV. 148, remarks :
" Although this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I yet
praise it and esteem it good, because it lays down no doctrine of men, and
sternly insists on the law of God. But to express ray opinion upon it, with
out prejudice to any one, I regard it as the work of no Apostle, and for the
following reasons : First, that, in direct opposition to Paul and all the rest
of Scripture, it ascribes justification to works, and says, Abrahara was justi
fied by his works, because he sacrificed his son, while St. Paul, Rora. iv. 2, 3,
teaches the very contrary, that Abrahara was justified without works 
But this Jaraes does no more than insist on the Law and its works, and
mixes one thing with another so confusedly, that, it seems to me, he must
have been some good, pious man who had caught up some sayings of the
disciples of the Apostles, and put them on paper. Or perhaps it was writ
ten down by another after hearing the discourse of such a one," &c, Vor
rede auf d, N, T. col, 105: " Therefore, the Epistle of St. James is a mere
Epistle of straw compared with them [i. e. the writings of Jdhn, Paul, and
Peter], for it contains nothing of the nature of the Gospel." Andreas Al-
thomer, Erklarung des Briefs Jacobi, 1553. The Magdeburg Centuriators.
Cf. Wetstein, N. T. II. 658,

III. The Epistles of Peter.
The Commentaries of Pott, Augusti, Morus, Hottinger, Jachmann, re
ferred to above, pp. 320 and 323. — iuMer, Ausl. d. 1. Br. v, J. 1523,
Werke, Hall, IX. 1625, ff.- Semler, Paraphr, —Der l,Br, Petr, iibers, u,
m. e. Coram, versehen v. Ch. G. Hensler. 1813. — Wilh. Steiger, Der 1.
Br. Petri rait Beriicksicht. d, ganzen bibl, Lehrbegriffs ausgelegt, Berl,
1832.

336 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Accounts of Peter.
§ 170 a.
Peter, properly called Simon, son of Jona (John i. 43),
brother of the Apostle Andrew (Matt. x. 2), born in Beth
saida (John i. 45), by profession a fisherman (Matt. iv. 18),
and married (Matt. viii. 14, 1 Cor. ix. 5), was one of the
most intimate of Jesus's disciples, upon whom Jesus set
great hope (Matt. xvi. 18). After having labored in Pales
tine for the Gospel, presided over the church at Jerusalem
(Acts i. -xi.), and been miraculously released from prison
(Acts xii. 3, ff.), he left Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17), and is said
to have travelled as missionary through Asia Minor.'' But
wheresoever he may have preached, he addressed himself
especially to the Jews (Gal. ii. 8). Subsequently, he was
present at the meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts
XV.), when he cordially agreed with the Apostle Paul in
regard to the conversion of the Gentiles ; afterwards, how
ever, at Antioch, he proved untrue to Paul and to himself
( Gal. ii. 12) . According to the First Epistle (v. 13) he found,
at a later period, a sphere of labor in the Parthian empire,
of which the ancients were so ignorant that they understood
Babylon to mean Rome (§ 170 6, note b).
° Origen, in Euseb. III. 1 : Uerpos Be iv Uovrco koI TaXarici Kal BiBvviii,
KannaBoKLix re Kal 'Acrici KeKrjpvxevai rols iv Biacrnopa 'lovBaiois eoiKev. Hi
eron. De scrr, eccles, s, v, Petr, But this is only a deduction from 1 Pet.
i, 1. Euseb. Ill, 4: Kai eK Tav Uerpov Be Xe^eav, iv bndcrais Kal ovros
enapxiais rovs e'K nepiropfjs rbv Xpicrrbv evayyeXi^dpevos rfjv rfjs KOivfjs BiaBfj
Krjs napeBiBov Xdyov, cracpes dv e'lrj dcp' ^s eipfjKapev bpoXoyovpevrjs avrov ini-
crroXfjs, fjv rols i^ 'E^paiav ovaiv iv Biacrnopa Udvrov kcu VdXarias, Kotttto-
BoKias Te Kal 'Aaias Kal SiBvvlas ypdcpei. The following is certainly but an
arbitrary addition by Epiphanius, Haeres, XXVII, p, 107 : Uerpos Be ttoX-
XaKis Udvrov re Kal 'BiBvviav ineo-Keyp-aro. E. K. Rauch, Rettung d, Origi-
nalitat d, 1, Br, Petri, in Winer and Engelhardt's Kr, Journ, VIII. 396,
defends this account, and thinks that Peter founded the churches in Pontus
and Bithynia, whither Paul never went. Tradition, in opposition to Acts
xi, 19, ff., makes him founder and bishop of the church at Antioch. Euseb.
Chron. ad ann, II, (Chron, armen, ad a. III.) Claudii: Uerpos d Kopvcpalos
rfjv iv Avnoxeiii npmrrjv BepeXiacras eKicXqcriav  Hieron. De scrr. eccl.
s, V. Petr.

EPISTLES OF PETER. § 170 b. 337
§ 170 &.
There is, especially, a general Church tradition that Peter
preached at Rome, in company with Paul founded the
church, and suffered martyrdom there (§ 122 a, note a) ;
it will not, however, bear critical examination. One story,
that Peter came in contact with Simon Magus at Rome,''
is acknowledgeid to be false. Another, referring to the com
position of Mark's Gospel (§ 99 b, note a), and in support
of which Papias's testimony is adduced, rests on the alle
gorical interpretation of Babylon, 1 Pet. v. 13.'' Irenceus's
account probably rests on Papias (§ 97 c, note b). The tes
timony of Dionysius of Corinth (§ 122 a, note a), which at
tracts attention on account of its antiquity, is bound up with
the erroneous assertion that Peter and Paul were founders
of the church at Corinth, and is probably based, in part, on a
misinterpretation of a passage in the First Epistle of Clem
ent of Rome to the Corinthians, c. 5 (§ 122 b, note a), which
mentions together the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, but
without naming the place. Caius, in Euseb. II. 25 (§ 122 a,
note a), shares this error with Dionysius, and his appeal to
documents weighs little (see the note referred to)." The fact
asserted is in itself improbable. Peter cannot have been at
Rome, either before the composition of Paul's Epistle to the
Romans (§ 136 a, note c), or during Paul's imprisonment in
Rome, because the Epistles written there show no trace of
it, or even later, because our Epistle presupposes his resi
dence in Babylon. The legend seems to have originated in
the endeavor on the part of the Jewish Christians to make
the Apostle Peter founder of the influential church at RomC^
' Clemens Alex, in Euseb. H, E, II, 14 : 'Eni^ds Be rfjs 'Pajiaiav ndXeas
(Simon Magus), avvaipopivrjs avra rd peydXa r^s icpeBpevo-vcrrjs ivravBa Bv
vdpeas, iv oXiya rocrovrov rd r^s imxeipfjo'eas fjvvaro, as Kal dvBpidvros
dvaBea-ei npbs rav rfjBe oTa Bebv nprjBfjvai. Ov pfjv els paKpbv avra ravra
npovvapei - napanoBas yovi/ e'Trl r^s avr^s KXavSiov ^aaiXeias fj navdyaBos
Kal cpiXavBpanorarrj rSy 6'XiBy npdvoia rbv Kaprepov Kal peyav rav dnoardXav,
rbv dper^s eveKa rav Xoinav dTrdcTMi' npofjyopov, Uerpov, e'lri rfjv 'Paprjv, as
inl TTjXiKovTov Xvpeava filov xetpayiay"- This, however, rests on an error
of Justin Martyr's, Apol. II, p, 69 : tipava pev nva tapapea rfjv dnb Kaprjs
43

338 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Xeyopevrjs Tirrav, bs inl KXavSiov Kaicrapos Std t^s rfflv ivepyovvrav Baipdvav
rexvrjs Bvvapeis noifjaas payiKas ev rfj irdXet vpav fBaa-iXiBi 'Paprj Bebs ivopi-
crBrj, Kai dvBpidvri nap iipav as Bebs xeriprjrai' bs dvBpids dveyrjyeprai iv ra
Ti/3epi norapa, pera^v rav Bvo yecpvpav, 'exav iniypacpfjv 'PapaiKrjv ravrrjv -
Sipavi Beco o-dyKTco (Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio). Fr. Spanheim, De temere
credita Petri in urbera Romam profectione, p. 151,^ Hug, Einl, II, 69, f
On the contrary, Bertholdt, V, 2685.
*¦ Euseb. II. 15 : rov Se MdpKou pvrjpoveveiv rbv Uerpov iv rfj nporepci ini
crroXfj, fjv Kal crvvrd^ai cpacrlv in avrfjs 'Paprjs ' crrjpaiveiv re rovr' avrdy rfjv
ndXiv rponiKarepov Ba^vXava npoa-emdvra Bid rovrav • 'Acrnd^erai vpds fj iv
BajivXavi crvveKXeKrfj Kcii MdpKos b vlds fiov.
" Origen's statement in Euseb. Ill, 1 (according to the passage in § 170 o,
note o) : ds Kai e'Tri reXei iv 'Pc^prj yevdpevos dvecrKoXonia-Brj Kara KepdX^s,
oiiras avrbs d^iacras nadelv, — is too late to serve as testimony,
¦^ Fr. Sponheim, De ficta profectione P, ap, in urbem Rom, L, B, 1679,
Opp. II. 331, sqq. Eichhorn, Einl, III, 2, p. 603, Baur, Tiib, Zeitschr,
1831, IV. 158, ff, 1836. Ill, 166, Paulus, etc, p. 216, ff, Mayerhoff,
Einl, in d, petrin, Schrift, p', 77, ff, Neand. AG, II, 456, ff. Win. RWB,
I, 280, ff. Ellendorf, Ist P, in Rom , , , . gewesen? 1841. Adalb. Moier,
Einl, i, Br, a, d, Rom, p, 6, ff. Among modern critics, the following de
fend the truth of the tradition : Mynster, Kl. theol. Schr. p, 141, ff. Bleek,
in Theol, St, u. Kr, 1836, p, 1061, ff, Schott, p, 401, Olshausen, St, u,
Kr. 1838, p, 940, ff, Credner, p, 628, ff, Neudecker, p. 689, ff, Gieseler,
Neand. KG,, v. Coin, Hall, allg, Encycl. XVIII, 43, Tiib, kath. Quart.
Schr, 1824, IV. F. Windischmann, Vindiciae Petrinae. 1836,
First Epistle. — Historical and Personal Relations.
§ 171 a.
The Epistle is not addressed, as the ascription (i. 1) seems
to indicate, to the Jewish Christians in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,^ but, as much of its con
tents refers to Gentile Christians (i. 14, 18, ii. 9, f., iii. 6,
iv. 3), to the mixed or Gentile- Christian churches in thoSe
places. In regard to their condition, we know nothing fur
ther than that they had to suffer or to fear persecutions and
slanders (i. 6, ii. 12, iii. 13, ff., 16, iv. 12-19, v. 10), which
(especially iv. 16) suggests the persecution under Nero.''
There is no indication that these churches, which were
probably founded and taught by Paul and his disciples, (not
by Peter, according to i. 12,) stood in any special relation to
Peter, save that Silvanus is represented as a mutual friend

FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. § 171 b. 339
(v. 12).° The Apostle, to be sure, describes himself as such
(i. 1, V. 1) ; but concerning him we learn nothing precise, ex
cepting that he was in Babylon or its vicinity,'^ and in
Mark's company (v. 13).
* The letter is addressed to Jewish Christians, according to Origen, Hie
ron. (§ 170 a, note a), Athonos. Synops, scr,, Didym. In ep, canon., Epi
phon. Haeres, XXVII, 6, Oecumen., Theophyl., Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius,
Bengel, Semler, Augusti, Bertholdt, Hug ; to Gentile Christians, according
to Augustine, Cont, Faust, XXII, 89, Cossiodor. Institutt, div,, Luther,
Wetstein, Bohme (Ep. ad Hebr, Prolegg, XLVL) ; to Jewish and Gentile
Christians, according to Est., Colov., Wolf, Pott, Hanlein, Eichhorn,
Sclioii, Guerike (Beitr,), Steiger , Mayerhoff ; to former proselytes, according
to Benson, MichoSlis, Credner.
'' IV, 15, f, , M^ ydp Tts vpav naa-xira d)s cpovevs fj KXenrrjs fj kokottoios
fj as dXXorpwenicrKonos ' el Be as xpicrnavos, pfj alcrxwecrBa. Tacit. An
nal, XV, 44 : .... abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, et quaesitissimis
poenis adfecit, quos, perfagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos adpellabat, Cf,
Hug, Einl, II, 548. Neander, AG. II. 593, f. Mayerhoff, p. 132, f —
Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalt. II. 10, ff,, makes the reference to judicial ex
aminations apply to the Christians in the time of Trajan,
" E. K. Rauch, as above, p, 398, ff,, finds in the expressions re'Kva VTra-
Ko^s, i. 14 (cf 1 Cor, iv, 14, f , 2 Cor, vi, 13), and a-vpnpea-^vrepos, traces
of a peculiar relationship, Credner, p. 641, supposes that his readers were
Petrine Christians in those parts to which the Epistle to the Ephesians was
addressed, and that the latter had exerted a disturbing influence upon them
which Peter wished to check ; a groundless hypothesis, which Neudecker,
p, 690, f , has rightly refuted,
¦" There is no ground for understanding, with the ancients (and Schweg
ler) , Rome thereby, excepting the doubtful legend that Peter was put to
death there ; none whatever for supposing, with the Copts, the Egyptian
Babylon, Bertholdi,Y.Z0QO,S. The ancient Babylon may well be meant.
Steiger, Einl. p. 22. Mayerhoff, p. 128, f.
§ 1716.
For determining the date of the composition, a point is
found in the reference to the persecution under Nero, at
which time the Apostle must have been residing in Baby
lon. Silvanus (Silas) appears (Acts xx. 4, f.) no longer
among Paul's companions, and may have attached himself
from that time forward to Peter. The presence of Mark, if
he were Paul's assistant,'^ is quite reconcilable with the above

340 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
chronological reference, for, according to Col. iv. 10, he pro
posed going from Rome to Asia Minor. At this time, also,
the name xpto-riaw? (iv. 16, cf. Acts xi. 26) may have long
been in general use.
" Rouch considers him Peter's son, and the crvveKXeKrfj Peter's wife, cf
Neand. Pflanz, II, 606, f. Design and Contents.
§ 171 c.
The design and contents of the Epistle refer principally to
the relation of the Christians to the heathen, which was
embarrassing and difficult, because the latter entertained a
hostile suspicion towards the former, and had even pro
ceeded to oppression and persecution. This reference is
manifested in the general part of the Epistle, i. 3-ii. 10*
(i. 6, 14) ; but the special part refers particularly to it (ii. 11
- V. 11) ; '' scarcely alluding to the interior side of the Chris
tian life (iii. 1-7 [even ver. 1 has an external reference], 8,
iv. 7-11, V. 1-5), but, for the most part, treating of their
walk among the heathen (ii. 11 - 21, iv. 1 - 3) and of the
conduct to be maintained by the Christians in view of their
suspicion and hostility (iii. 9-17, iv. 12-19, v. 6-9, even
ii. 19, f.)."
" After the introduction of an expression of thanks for the blessings of
salvation, which his readers also share, who are supposed to bear themselves
worthily in their v^arfare, in order to gain salvation, — that salvation concern
ing which the prophets searched with longing, and into whose mysteries an
gels desire to look, i. 3-12, — general exhortations, i, 13 -ii, 10: exhorta
tion to strong and full hope, i, 13, to obedience and holiness in remembrance
of their call through him who is holy, of the fear due to him as the judge, and
of the redemption through the blood of Jesus Christ, i, 14-21 ; exhortation
to holiness, and, in special, to pure brotherly love through remembrance of
their being born again, i, 22-25; exhortation to growth in the new life,
ii, 1 - 3, to living participation in the spiritual communion with Jesus Christ,
ii, 4-10,
¦^ Particular exhortations, with special reference to their external and
internal relations : I, Exhortation, 1, in general to a good conversation
among the heathen, ii. 11, f, ; 2, to obedience to authority, ii. 13-17;
3. to slaves, to be obedient to their masters, ii. 18-25 ; 4. to wives, to be

FIEST EPISTLE OF PETER. § 172. 341
obedient to their husbands, and to husbands to honor their wives, iii. 1 -
7 ; concluding general exhortation, iii. 8-12, IL Exhortation to-fearless,
mild, morally pure, and forbearing conduct towards the heathen, iii, 13- iv.
19, and, 1. to a fearless and mild composure, founded on a good conscience,
in view of possible suffering, ver. 13-17, with a reference to Christ's
sufferings and resurrection, ver. 18-22 (in ver. 19, t. is mentioned the
preaching of Christ, the risen one, in hell) ; thereupon is based, 2, an ex
hortation and encouragement, iv, 1-11: a. since Christ suffered accord
ing to the flesh. Christians ought no longer, like the heathen, to live in
fleshly lusts, iv. 1-3 ; b. the latter may be astonished at this, and may
slander ; they must give an account at the judgment, iv. 4-6 ; c, exhorta
tion in view of the nearness of the judgment, iv, 7-11, 3, Encourage
ment to joyful acceptance of the trial, which, as the beginning of the judg
ment, is unavoidable, iv. 12 - 19. III. Exhortation, 1. to the elders of the
churches to a ptoper discharge of their ofiice, v, 1-4 ; 2, to the younger
merabers and to all to subjection and humility, v, 5 ; 3. closing exhortation
to all, V, 6-9 ; 4, benediction, v, 10, f
' The words, v. 12, 'eypaip-a .... inipaprvpav, ravrrjv elvai dXrjBfj x^P'"
r. Beofj els fjv earfjKare have been by many ( Credner, as above, Neander, II.
559, Guerike, Beitr. 170, Einl. 453, Schwegler, as above, p, 22) so misin
terpreted as to represent Peter as defending Paul's doctrine against false
teachers ; they are rather designed to warn the readers not to allow them
selves to be led astray by their sufferings.
Spirit and Literary Character of the JEpistle.
§172.
We seek in vain, in this ostensible work of Peter, that
leader of the Jewish Christians with whose consideration
they clothed themselves long after the Apostolic age, any
definite peculiarity, such as appears in the works of John
and Paul. Not only do we find reminiscences of passages
in Paul's Epistles, whose perusal by our author we may
without hesitation assume ; * but the doctrine and the lan
guage are essentially Pauline.'' To this we may add, that
the writer does not treat with freedom and readiness the
thoughts which he sets forth, as if they were his own, but
handles them with a degree of uncertainty."
» Semler, Paraphr. in ep, 1, Petr, praef p, 8. Cludius, Uransichten d.
Christenth, (Alt. 1808.) p. 298, f. Hug, II. 541, f. Bleek, Einl. in d. Br. an
d, Hebr, p. 321. A special afiinity with the Epistle to the Ephesians is

342 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
traced by Credner, p. 634, ff. Mayerhoff, p, 106, denies all this, against
whom Bleek, in Stud, u, Kr. 1836, p. 1065,
The address and the greeting, i, 1, f , are formed in general on the Pau
line type (cf , on the other hand, James i, 1 ; the greetings in 2 John 1, ff,
and Jude 1 are, however, similar). The Epistle shows the following paral
lelism : — ¦
1 Pet. i, 1, f,: , , , . iKXeKTols Eph. i. 4-7- Ka^cbs i^eXe^aro
. . . . Kara npoyvacriv Beoii narpbs ev fjpds ev avra npb Kara^oXfjs Kocrpov,
dyiacrpa nvevparos els ¦ . . pav- elvai fjpds dyiovs n., dpapovs ....
Ticrpbv a'lparos 'I, Xp. ev co 'exopev rfjv dnoXvrpacriv Bid
rov alparos avrofj.
i, 3 : EvXoyTjrds d Bebs Kal Eph. i, 3 : EvXoyjjrds d Bebs
narfjp rov Kvpiov fjpav 'Irja-ov Xpi- Kal narfjp r. k. fjp. 'I. Xp., d evXo-
orov, d , , , , dvayevvfjcras fjpds, k.t.X. yrjcras fjp., k. r. X,
i, 14 . pfj a-va-xrjpari^dpevoi Rom. liii. % : Kai pfj ovo-xrjpa-
rats npdrepov iv rfj dyvoia vpav ini- Ti^ecrBe ra alavi rovrco. Eph. 11, 3 :
Bvplais. ev ois Kal fjpels ndvres avecrrpdcprj-
pev nore iv rais iniBvpiais r^s
crapKbs fjpav.
ii, 1 : 'AnoBepevoi ovv ndcrav Ka- CoZ, iii, 8: Nwi dnoBecrBe Kal
Kiav Kal ndvra BdXov kcu vnoKplaeis vpels rd ndvra, dpyfjv, Bvpdv, KaKiav,
Kal cpBdvovs Kal nda-as KaraXaXids, ^Xacrcprjpiav. Cf, James i, 21 : Aid
2. OJS dpnyevvrjra jSpecprj, rb Xoyi- dnoBepevoi ndcrav pvnapiav Kai
Kbv dBoXov ydXa ininoBfjcrare , Iva nepicrcreiav KOKias, iv npaiJrrjn Be^a-
iv avra av^rjBrjre els crarrjpiav  crBe rbv epcpvrov Xdyov, rbv Bvvdpevov
5. dveveyKai nvevpariKas Bvcrias ev- craaai rds i/'vp^ds fjpav. Rom. xii.
npocrBeKTovs ra Bea, k.t.X. 1: . . . . TTapao'r^o'ai rd otapara vprof
Bvcriav ^acrav, dylav, efjdpecrrov
r(S Bea, rfjv XoyiKfjv Xarpeiav
vpav.
ii. 6 (from Isa. xxviii. 16) : iSov, Rom. ix. 33 : iSov, riBrjpi iv 2t-
rlBrjpi iv 2iobj» XiBov dKpoyavialov , av (LXX. iya e'p/SdXXca els rd Bepe-
iKXcKrbv, 'evripov- K. d nurrevav in Xia Sttov) XiBov npocrKopparos
avra, ov pfj Karaia-xvvBfj - Ver, 7 : Kai nerpav a-KavBdXov- Kal ttos
vplv ovv fj ripfj rots nicrrevova-iv - d mcrrevav in a-vra (this ctt' avra
oTrei^ovo'i Se, XiBov bv dneBoKipaa-av interpolated according to Cod. Al,)
ot oiKoSopovi'Tes, ovros iyevfjBrj els ov KaraicrxwBfjcreTai.
KecpaXfjv yavlas Kal (from Isa. viii. 14)
XiBos npocTKopparos Kal nerpa
cTKavBdXov 
Ver. 10 (from Hos. ii. 25, al, 23) ; Ver. 25 : as Kal iv riS 'Qarje Xeyei -
01 nore ov Xabs, vvv Be Xabs Beov ' ol KoXecra rbv ov Xadv pov Xadv pov ¦ Kai
OVK rjXerjpevoi, vvv Be iXerjBevres. rfjv ovk fjyanrjpevrjv fjyanrjpevrjv. Ver.
26 : Kai 'ecrrai ev rca rdna, o5 eppeBrj

FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. § 172.

343

II. 13, 1. : YTTordyjjre oSv ndcrrj
dvBpanivrj Kriarei Std rbv Kvpiov - e'lre
^aa-iXel, as vnepixovri- eire ^ye-
pda-iv, as Bi avrofj nepnopevois els
iKBiKrja-iv KOKonoiav, enaivov Be
dyaBonoiav. 11.16: .... as iXevBepoi, Kal
prj as eniKaXvppa exovres rfjs KOKias
rfjV eXevBepiav.
11. 18 : Ot o'lKerai, vnoracrcrdpevoi
ev navrl (pdP(o rots Seo-Trdrats, k, r, X.
iii,l: Ai yvvalKes, vnoraa-ad-
pevai Tols iSi'ois dvBpdcriv.
Ill, 9: . ... pfj dnoBiBdvres Ka-
Kov dvrl KOKofj (?).
iv. 9 : ^iXd^evoi els dXX^Xovs, dvev
yoyyvarpav (?).
iv. 10, f : "EKao-ros, KaBas 'eXajSe
Xapta-pa, els eavrovs avrb BiaKO-
vovvres, as koXoI olKovdpoi noiKiXrjs
xapiros Beofj. E'lnsXaXel, ms Xd
yia Beov- e'l ns BiaKovei , as i^
laxvos fjs xoprjyel d Beds.
V. 1 : .... d Kai r^s peXXov-
crrjs dnoKaXvnrecrBai Bd^rjs koi-
vavds. V. 5 : .... ndvres dXXrjXois
vnoracrcrdpevoi. V. 8: Nfj-^are, yprjyopfjcra-
re(). V. 14 : ' AcrndcraaBe dXX^Xovs iv
(piXfjpari dydnrjs (?)•

avrois ¦ ov Xaos pov vpels, iKel KXrjBfj-
crovrai viol Beofj ^avros.
Rom. xiii. 1 - 4 : nSo-a ¦yjrvxfj e'|ov-
criais vnepexovcrais vnoracrcre-
crBa . Ov ydp icrnv i^ovcria el pfj dnb
Beov . . . . rd dyaBbv noiet, Kal e^ets
enaivov i^ avr^s, Beov ydp Sid-
Koyos icrn, 'eKBiKos els dpyfjv ra rb
KOKbv npdcrcrovn.
Gal. V, 13 : 'Ypels ydp in eXev-
Bepia iKXfjBrjre, dBeXcpoi- pdvov pfj
rfjv eXevBepiav els dcpoppfjv rfj
crapKi. Eph. vi. 5 : Oi SoOXoi, vnaKovere
rols Kvpiois, K.r.X.
Eph. V, 22 : Ai yvyaiKes, rots
IBiois dvBpdcriv fjnordcrcrecrBe.
Rom. xii, 17 ¦ , , , , prjBevl KOKbv
dvrl KaKov dnoBiBovres.
Phil, ii, 14 : , , . . ndvra TTotetre
;^ajpis yoyyvcrpav.
Rom. xii. 6, f. . "Exoyres Se x"-'
plcrpara Kara rfjv xopi-^ 'rfjv So-
Belcrav fjplv Bidcpopa - e'ire npocprjreiav,
Kard rfjv dvaXoyiav rfjs nia-reas • e'ire
BiaKoviav, iv -rfj BiaKovia, k.t. X.
Boot. viii. 18 :  npbs rfjv peX
Xovcrav Bd^av dnoKaXvcpB^vai
els vpds.
Eph. V, 21 : .... vnoracrcrdpe
voi dXX^Xots iv (pd^co Xpicrrov.
1 Thess. V. 6 : Tprjyopapev Kal
vfjCpapev .
1 Cor. xvi. 20: ' Ao-nda-aa-Be aXXfj-
Xovs iv cpiXfjpari dyla. Cf. Rom,
xvi. 16 ; 1 Thess. v, 26,

A certain aifinity to the Epistle of James also (on which side the de
pendence lies is doubtful) appears in the following passages : —
i. 6, 7 : 'Ev a dyaXXidaBe, oXiyov Jomes i, 2, f, : Udcrav xo-po-'" VyT
dpn .... XvnrjBevres iv noiKiXois cracrBe . . . . orav neipaa-pols ne-
neipaa-p,ols, 'iva rb BoKlpiov pinearjTe noiKiXois, yivacrKovres
vpav rfjs nicrreas .¦•¦ evpeBfj els on rb BoKipiov vpav rijs tti-
eTrati/oK, K.T.X. crreas Korepydferat vnopovfjv.

344 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
i, 24 : Atdrt ndcra crdp^ as p^dpros, James i, 10, f,  ms dvBos
Kal ndcra Bd^a avrfjs ms dvBos xdprov • xop'rov napeXevcrerai .... Kat rd dv-
i^rjpdvBrj b xdpros Kal rb dvBos avrov Bos avrov i^inecre.
i^enea-e (Isa. xl. 6),
iv, 8 : . . . . on fj dydnrj KaX-vijfei James V, 20 : .... Kai KaX-vijfei
nXfjBos dpapriav (Prov. x, 12), ttX^^os dpapriav.
V, 5, f. : "On d Bebs vneprjcpdvois Jomes iv. &'. 'O Bebs vneprjcpd-
dvrirdcrcreTai, raneivols Be BiBacn xo' vois cLVTirdcrcrerai, raneivols
piv (Prov. iii. 34). TaneivaBrjre ovv Be BiBacri xapiv. 7: vnordyrj-
vnb rfjv Kparaidv xelpa rov Beov, 'iva re ovv ra Bea- avricrrrjTe rm
vjids vyjracrrj iv Kaipa. 9 : m {Bia- Bial^dXco  10 : TaneivaBrjre
^dXm) dvTicTTijTe  evaniov rov Kvpiov, Kal fr^aa-ei vpds.
E. K. Rauch, as above, p. 414, ff., has only showed that the author did
not directly copy other's Epistles, but has not disproved the fact that a cer
tain affinity in language and ideas exists. He explains this, in a not very
probable way, from the intercourse of the two Apostles. Schneckenburger,
Stud. d. wiirtemb, Geistlichk. V, 1, p, 195, Beitr, p, 206, assumes that
Peter had before him James's letter,
¦¦ The view of Jesus's death is Pauline, ii. 24, cf Rom. vi. 8-14 (oTToyiVe-
a-Bai rfj dpapria, Peter = dnoBvfjaKeiv r, dp,, Paul), the ideas of calling (i.
15, cf. Gal. i. 6, 15, v. 8), election (i. 2), hope (i. 3, iii. 15 ; only once in the
First Epistle of John, iii. 3, in the concrete sense), of obedience (i. 2, cf
Rom. vi. 16, xvi. 19), of freedom and its abuse (ii, 16, cf. Gal. v. 13), of
the gifts of grace (iv, 10), of recompense {enaivos, ripfj, Bd^a, i. 7, cf, Rom,
ii, 7, 1 Cor, iv, 5), of inheritance (i. 4, cf Gal, iii, 18, as in John). Note
also the ideas and formulas: dTTOKdXvT|/'ts (i. 7, 13, cf 1 Cor. i. 7 and often),
Koivavia rm!/ rov Xpicrrov naBrjpdrav (iv. 13, cf. 2 Cor. i. 5, Phil. iii. 10),
cjvvelBrja-is (ii, 19, iii, 16, 21, elsewhere only in Paul, Paulinians, and John
viii, 9, a Hellenistic idea), Kpvnrds (iii, 4, cf Rom, ii, 29, 1 Cor, xiv, 10),
iv Xpiara (iii. 16, v. 10, 14, cf, Rom. vi. 11, and often), Karapri^eiv (v, 10,
cf, 2 Cor, xiii, 11, Heb, xiii, 21). — The greatest peculiarities are the ideas
of the regeneration through the word (i, 23), of the Christian priesthood
(ii, 5, 9), of Christ's descent into hell (iii, 19, f ), Schott, Isag, §96, note
6, enumerates also the following as peculiarities of its thought and teach
ing : i. 8, love to Jesus and faith in him without knowing him; Christ's
patience, i. 19, ff. (?), ii. 22, f., iii. 18 ; of the prophets of the Old Testa
ment, i. 10, ff, ; the Noachic flood as type of baptism, iii. 20, ff. ; recom
mendation of patience, i. 6 - 11 (?), ii. 21, ff., iii. 9, 14, iv. 7 (?), 12-19,
V, 7, ff, ; exhortation to give no offence, ii, 12, ff,, iii. 1, ff., iv. 14, ff., v. 7
-9 {1). Steiger, p, 5, f : " The fire of his spirit shows itself throughout,
but moderated by experience. His temperament is as distinctly expressed
in it as in general is possible in such works without impairing the thought.
It also shows itself in the fact that after the middle of the Epistle the natu
ral fire of his spirit diminishes somewhat, and hence repetitions creep in,"
etc. Mayerhoff, p. 102: "The peculiarity of the Epistles is a pervading

FIRST EPISTLE OF PBTEE, § 173. 345
warmth  It is rooted here with vital power in the depths of Christian
perception, and thus every particular is controlled in a peculiar way by the
hope, firmly grounded in Christ, of future salvation," Peculiarity in the
language, according to Dan. Schulze and Schott : more frequent repetitions
than in Paul : iii. 16 = iii, 1, ii. 12 ; iv. 3 = i, 14, ii. 11 ; iv. 12 == i, 6 -
9 ; iv. 14 == iii. 14, 17, ii. 20 ; v. 8 = iv. 7, i. 13 ; the Pauline words, Si-
Kaiocrvvrj, BiKaiovcrBai, &c. are wanting ; contrast of nvevpa and -^vxfj , for
nv. and crdp^ ; dvacrrpocpfj, frequently ; dya^oTToteii', dyaBonoids, dyaBonoita,
KOKonoids ; the use of ets, i. 4, 10, 11, 25 ; the use of the article, iii. 2, 3,
16 (?) ; theiiTTa^ Xeyopeva: dBeXcpdrrjs, dvayevvdv, dpdpavros, dpiapdvnvos,
dnpoa-anoXrjnras, narponapdBoros, dpnyevvrjra, aXXorpioenia-Konos, crvveKXe-
Kxfj, dvriXoiBopelv, and several others; Sd^at, i. 11 ; dperai, ii. 9; ktIctis, ii.
13 ; rd avrd rav naBrjpdrav, v. 9 ; the formula of citation nepiexei iv rfj
ypa(pfj, ii. 6.
' Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 406, also observes this, while Steiger (as above)
finds in the whole Epistle great facility of expression and in the connection
of the thoughts. Schleiermacher regards it as a proof of the genuineness of
the Epistle. Genuineness and Church Acceptance.
§ 173.
The improbability of Peter's allowing himself to be so
dependent on Paul, and especially of his being acquainted
even with Paul's later letters, and with the spurious Epistle
to the Ephesians, awakens a strong suspicion of the genu
ineness of this Epistle. It is, however, supported by the
whole mass of ancient Church authorities. Even the Second
Epistle of Peter, although spurious, testifies to it (iii. 1).
Some of the Apostolic Fathers knew and used it." The
testimonies of the most important Fathers down to Euse
bius, who reckons it among the generally accepted writings,"
support it ; and if we set aside its omission in the ancient
Bible Catalogue of Muratori (Parti. § 21), and its rejection
by the Paulicians," there is no opposition to it. The the
ory of forgery,* in itself odious, lacks the positive ground
of a demonstrable design to be accomplished by it, for the
supposed design of mediating between Paulinism and Pe-
trinism is not clearly manifest.^ The theory of its composi
tion by an assistant, in Peter's name and with his knowl
edge,' we leave in abeyance. The Epistle belongs to the
44

346 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Apostolic age, because of its expectation of the near end of
all things, iv. 7.
^ Euseb. H. E. III. 39 : Kexprjrai 8' d a-vrbs (d Uanias) paprvplais dnb .
r^s 'Iffldwov nporipas iniaroXfjs Kal rfjs Uerpov dpoias. IV, 14 : 'O pevroi
UoXvKapnos iv rfj BrjXaBeiarj npbs ^iXmnrja-iovs avrov ypapfj cpepopevrj els
Bevpo, Kexprjrai ncri paprvplais dnb rfjs Uerpov nparrjs enia-ToXfjs. Cf,
Polycarp, c, 1, with 1 Peter i, 8,
¦' Euseb. H, E, V. 8, of Irenaeus : Mepvrjrai Be Kal rrjs 'ladwov nparrjs
e'TTio-roX^s .... bpoias Be Kal rfjs Uerpov nporepas. Iren. Cont. haeres, IV.
9. 2 : Et Petrus ait in epistola sua, etc, cf, 1 Pet, i, 8, Iren. IV, 16. 5 :
Et propter hoc Petrus ait, etc., cf. 1 Pet, ii. 16. Clemens Alex, Strom. Jib.
III. p. 473 ; Kai d Uerpos iv rfj inicrroXfj rd dpoia Xeyei. Lib, IV, p, 493,
and. several other passages. Tertull. Soorpiac, c, 12: Petrus quidem ad
Ponticos, etc, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 20, f. Orig. in Euseb. VI. 25 : Ilerpos Se
.... piav inicrroXfjv dpdXoyovpevrjv KaraXeXomev. Euseb. Ill, 3. 25 (see
Part I. § 24, notes a, b).
' According to Petrus Siculus, cf Wetstein, N. T. II. 681. That Theodore
of Mopsuesiia rejected the Epistle is not clearly stated in the passage in
Leont. Byz. Contr. Nestor, et Eutychen, III. 14 : .... epistolam Jacobi et
alias deinceps aliorum catholicas abrogat et antiquat.
^ Cludius, Uransichten d. Christenth. p. 596, ff. (against this, Augusti,
Nova, quae 1. Petri epistolae avBevriav impugnat, hypothesis sub examen
vocatur, Jen, 1808), Schwegler, as above,
= A mediating, Paulino-apologetic character is ascribed to the Epistle by
Mayerhoff, p, 103, Schwegler, p, 22, The amount of it is only that a,
Peter taught and wrote in a Pauline way,
' Eichhorn, III. 616, ff., guesses Mark ; Bohme (Praef in ep, ad Hebr,
p, xlviii,), Silvanus, whom he considers author of the Epistle of James also,
p. Hi, Reuss, Gesch. d. h. Schr. p. 45, who rests on v. 12.
Second Epistle. Historical and Personal Relations.
§ 174 fl.
The author has indicated himself here more clearly than
in the First Epistle, not only in his salutation and with his
whole name (i. 1), but also in the Epistle itself, as one of
the Apostles (iii. 2)," as one of the companions of Jesus
during his life (i. 14, cf. John xxi. 18, f. [?] ; i. 16-18, cf.
Matt. xvii. 1, ff.), as the apostolic brother of Paul (iii. 15),
and as the author of the First Epistle (iii. 1).
The Epistle is ostensibly addressed to all Christians (i.l).

SECOND EPISTLE OP PETER. § 174 b. 347
but its readers must be they to whom the First Epistle was
addressed (iii. 1). It even seems to be assumed that the
Apostle had instructed them (i. 16). And yet they must
be the same as the Apostle Paul had written to (iii. 15, cf.
Rom. ii. 4).
Indications of its date are these : the Apostle Peter looks
forward to his speedy death (i. 14), and the expectation of
Christ's speedy return had been disappointed (iii. 4). The
latter points to a very late period.
' It must be admitted that the grammar is opposed to the meaning " of
us the Apostles" (see Exeg. Hdb. on the passage), and the author, by using
Jude 17, has removed himself from the accepted list.
Design and Contents.
§ 174 &.
The main design of the Epistle is to defend the belief in
the second coming of the Lord against certain doubts, and
to exhort to a proper preparation in view of it." The author
supports his exhortation to strengthen themselves in their
Christian calling, that they may gain admission into the
kingdom of God, i. 3 - 11, by appealing, in confirmation of
the doctrine of Christ's second coming, to his apostolic tes
timony and the Old Testament prophecies, ver. 12 - 21.
As it were accidentally, he speaks in chap. ii. of false teach
ers who are to be expected, but from ver. 9 forward are re
garded as present. These are not, probably, such as denied
the second coming of Christ ; '' their confutation, therefore,
has no connection with the main object of the Epistle. The
certainty of Christ's return is first maintained against cer
tain scoffers in chap, iii., and to the confutation of the
doubts urged against it an exhortation is joined.
» According to Schwegler, Nachap. Zeitalt. I. 503, the design is to bring
about a final and lasting reconciliation between the Petrinians and the Pau
linians. In support of this view, however, only iii. 15 can be adduced.
'' It is a raistake to refer, with Credner, p. 654 (cf Mayerhoff, p. 156),
their aberrations to their denial of Christ's return. The false teachers
of chap. ii. are styled servants of pleasure, founders of sects, such as
by their seductive eloquence seek for gain, false prophets like Balaam,

348

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.

preachers of a false freedom. According to Grotius, they are Carpo
cratians ; according to Vilring. (Obss. s. IV. 9) and Michael., Gnostics;
according to Hag, II. § 182, they belong to a branch school of the magico-
theurgic philosophy; according to Bertholdt, VI. 3112, they are Sadducees;
according to Schwegler, I. 501, Gnostics, but of no special sect.
Relation of this Epistle to ihe Epistle of Jude.
§ 175 a.
The Second Epistle of Peter has, especially in chap, ii.,
great afiinity to the Epistle of Jude."
* Table of Comparison.
2 Peter. Jude.
i. 1,2: Tvpeav Uerpos BovXos Kal 1,2: 'lovSas 'irja-ofj Xpto'Tov Bofj-

dndcrroXos Irjcrov Xpicrrov ....
i. 5 : .... o-TTovS^v ndcrav na
pe icreviyKavres .
i. 15: '2novBdcra Be eKdcrroTe,exeiv
vpds perd rfjv ipfjv 'e^oBov rfjv Tov
rav pvfjprjv noielcrBai.

Xos, dBeXcpbs Be 'loKti/Sov ....
3 : ' Ayanrjroi, ndcrav crnovBfjv noi-
ovpevos ypdcpeiv vplv, nepl t^s
Kotv^s crarrjpias, dvdyKrjv 'eirxov
ypd^jrai vplv, napaKaXav inayavi^e-
crBai rfj dna^ napaBoBeicrrj rois dyi
ois nicrrei.
ii. 1 : 'Eyevovro Be Kal ¦^frevBonpocpfJTai 4: UapeicreBvcrav ydp nves av-
iv ra Xaa, as kcu iv vplv ea-ovrai Bpanoi ol ndXai npoyeypappevoi

eis TOVTO TO Kpipa, acrepeis,TrjV
TOV Beofj fjpav x^P"' perariBevres
els dcreXyeiav, Kal rbv pdvov
BecrnoTTjv Kal Kvpiov fjpav
'irjcrovv Xp, dpvovpevoi.

•^evBoBiBdcTKaXoi, oinves napeia--
d^ovcriv a'lpecreis dnaXeias, Kal
rbv dyopdcravra avrovs Se-
(rndrrjv dpvovpevoi, indyovres
eavrols raxivfjv anaXeiav. 2 : Kai
TToXXol i^aKoXovBfja-oviriv avrav rals
dcreXyeiais , Bi otis fj dSds r^s dXrjBeias ^XaorcprjprjBfjcrerai. 3 : Kai iv
nXeove^lc} nXaarols Xdyois vpds ipnopevaovrai' ols to Kpipa eKnaXai
OVK dpyei Kai fj dnafXeia avrav ov vvard^ei.
4: El ydp d Bebs dyyeXav dpaprrj- 6: 'AyyeXovs re rovs pfj rrjpfjaav-
crdvrav ovk icpeia-aro, dXXd crei- ras rfjv eavr civ dpxfjv, dXXd dnoXi-
pals ^d(pov raprapaaas napeSa- vdvras rd t'Sioi/ otKTjr^pioi/ ets Kpi-
Kev els Kpia-iv rrj povpevovs..-. (Tiv peydXrjs fjpepas, Becrpols
d'lBiois vnb ^d^ov rerfjprjKev.
6: Kai TToXets SoSopmi/ Kai To- 7: 'Qs SdSopa Kai Tdpoppa kcu
poppas recppaaas Karaarpocpfj Ka- ai nepl avrds nSXeis rdv opoiov
reKpivev, vndBeiypa peXXdvrav rovrois rpdnov iKnopvevcracrai Kal
dcrejBelv refleiKms  aTTeX^ovo-at oTTto'm crapKbs
10 : . . . . rovs dnicra aapKos iv erepas, npoKetvrai Betypa, nv-
iniBvpiix piacrpov nopevopevovs, pbs alaviov biKrjv vnexovcrcu.

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. § 175 fl.

349

2 Peter.
Kai KvpidrrjTos Karacppovofjvras
.... 6d|as ov Tpepovai ^Xa-
(r(prjpovvTes-
11 : Ottou ayyeXoi, io-;^vi Kai
Bvvdpei jiei^oves ovres, ov
(pi pov cr I Kar avrav napd Kvpla
PXdcrcprjpov Kpicriv.

12: Ovroi Se, ms aXoya ^ma, (pv-
criKa, yeyevvrjpeva els aXaa-iv koi
(pBopdv, iv ols dyvoofja-t /3Xa-
crcprjpofjvres, iv rfj cpBopd av
rav KaracpBapfjcrovrai.
15 : .... i^aKoXovBrjoravres rfj dS<3
rov BaXadji rofj Bocrdp, os pi
er Bbv dBiKias fjydirrjcrev.

13 : .... fjBovrjv fjycnjpevoi rfjv iv fjpe
pci rpv^fjv, crnlXoi Kai papoi, ev-
rpvcpavres iv rals dndrais av
rav, (Tvvevaxovp.evoi vplv....
17: OvTot elcriv Tnyyat dvvBpot Kai
dpixXai vnb XaiXanos iXav-
vdpevai, ols d ^depos rov
(TKorovs els alava rerrjprj-
rai.
18 : 'YnepoyKa ydp paraidrrj-fos
(pBeyydpevoi ....
iii. 1: Tavriji' ^'877, ayaTTTjroi, Seu-
Tepav vplv ypd(pa ini(rroXfjV, ev ais
Bieyeipa vpav iv vnopvfjirei rfjv ei-
XiKpij'^ Sidi/oiai/- 2: pvrjirBfjvat
rmi' npoeiprjpevav prjjjidTav
vnb Tav dylav npo(prjTav Kal
T^s rmi' dnocrToXav fjpav iv-
ToXfjs TOV KVpiov Kal (Tarfjpos - tov
to nparov yivdxrKovres, on eXe-v-
(rovTai in io-xarov rmv fjpe
pav iv i pinaiypovfi ipnal-
KTai, Kara rds IBias eniBv-
aias avTav nopevdpevoi.

Jude.
8 : Opoias pevroi Kal oSroi ivvnvia-
(dpevoi crdpKa pev piaivovcri, Kv-
pidrrjra Be dBerovcri, 8d|as Se
^Xao'<5f)77povo"tv.
9 : 'O Se Mtp^aijX d dpp^dyyeXos,
ore rm Sia/3dXa> BiaKpivdpevos, Bie-
Xeyero TTepi rov Macrias craparos,
OVK irdXprjcre Kpicriv inevey-
Kelv ^Xaarcprjplas , dXX' elnev-
ininpfjcrai croi Kvpios.
10: OSroi Se Saa pev ovk o'lBacri,
PXacrcprjpofJcriv Sera Be (pvcri-
Kas, as Ta dXoya ^aa, inicrrav-
rai, iv rovrois cpBeipovrai.
11: Ovai aijrois • on rfj oBa rov
KdtV inopevBrjcrav , Kal rfj nXdvrj
rofj BaXadp picrBov i^exvBrj-
(rav, Kal rfj dvnXoyici rofj Kope
aTTOlXoi/TO.
12: Ovroi eio'tj' iv rals dydnais
vpmi' oTTiXdSes, a-vvevaxo-v-
pevoi d(pdl3as, iavrovs noipaivov-
Tes - veepeXai dvvBpoi, vnb dve-
pav napaepepdpevai 
13 : .... dcrrepes nXavfjrai, ols d
^6(pos rov cTKOTovs els alava
TeTrjprjrai.

16 : .... Kai rb crropa avrav XciXel
vnepoyKa 
17: 'Xpels Be, dyanrjroi, pvfjo-Brj-
re rav prjpdrav rmj' npoei
prjpevav vnb rmv a7roo"rdXa)i/
rov Kvpiov fjpSiv 'irja-ov Xpi-
(TTOV .
(14 : Upoe(pfjrev(re koi rovrois ....
'Evi>x, K.T.X.)
18 : "On eXeyoj' vpii', d'ri ev iirxdra
Xpbv(0 ea-ovrai e pnalKrai,
Kara rds eavrav iniBvpias
nopevdpevoi rav dcre^eiav .

350 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES,
§ 175 &.
There being this undeniable relationship, the originality
belongs to the Epistle of Jude. For, — 1. The expression in
Jude is simpler, while in 2 Peter we find rhetorical, artificial
circumlocution, with additions.* 2. Some of the expres
sions in Jude are distorted in 2 Peter, and singularly ex
changed.'' 3. The passages 2 Peter ii. 4, 11 become clear
only from Jude 6, 9, and are manifestly taken from that
passage. The indefiniteness of the second passage results
from fear of using an apocryphal narrative. 4. The course
of the thought in Jude is firm and distinct, in 2 Peter wa
vering, like that of an imitator." 5. The opponents whom
Jude combats are strongly and distinctly indicated, whereas
in 2 Peter the picture is quite indefinite, the vicious being
arbitrarily converted into false teachers, of whom we know
not whether they are present or future.
• Cf Jude 4 : oi TrdXat npoyeypappevoi els rovro rb Kplpa, with 2 Pet. ii.
1 : indyovres eavrols raxivfjv dndfXeiav — 3 : ois rd Kplpa cKnaXai ovk dpyel
Kal fj dnaXeia avrav ov vv(rTd^ei. Jude 6 : Becrpols d'iBiois inb ^d^ov rerfj
prjKev, with 2 Pet, ii, 4 : a-eipals Rdcpov raprapacras, k, t. X, Jude 7 : TTpo'-
Keivrai Belypa, nvpbs alaviov BiKrjv fmexovcrai, with 2 Pet. ii. 6 : recppaa-as
Karacrrpocpfj KareKpivev, vndBeiypa peXXdvrav dcre^elv re^eiKtos. Jude 8 :
crdpKa pev pialvovai, with 2 Pet. ii. 10 : rovs onicra crapKos iv iniBvplq pi-
aa-pofj nopevopevovs. Jude 8 : Kvpidrijra Se dBerovcri, with 2 Pet. ii. 10 :
Kvpidrrjros Karacppovofjvras. Jude 8 : Sd^as ^Xaa^cprjpovcriv, with 2 Pet. ii.
10 : Sd^as ov rpepova-i ^Xaacprjpovvres. Jude 9 : Kpiaiv ^Xaa-cprjpias, with
2 Pet, ii, 11 : ^Xda-rprjpov Kpicriv. Jude' 10 : dcra pev ovk o'lBacri pXaaprj-
povcriv, with 2 Pet, ii, 12 : iv ois dyvoovai ^Xacrcprjpofjvres. Ib, : ev rovrois
CpBeipovrai — iv rfj cpBopa avrav KaracpBapfjcrovrai, and several other ex
amples, ' Jude 12 : orriXaSes — 2 Pet, ii. 13 : o-ttiXoi Kai papot. Jude 12: dyd-
TTois — 2 Pet, ii, 13 : aTrdrats, Jude 12 : vecpiXai dvvBpoi — 2 Pet, ii, 17 :
nrjyal dwBpoi. Jude 13 : ois d Cb<pos, b., r, X, — 2 Pet. ii. 17 has erroneously
applied the same to the clouds,
¦= Cf, Jude 4 with 2 Pet, ii. 1, and i, 19-21. Jude 5-8 with 2 Pet. ii.
4-11 (where note the interruption, ver. 7-9, and the exchange of cases,
ver, 10), Jude 11 with 2 Pet, ii, 15, f, Jude 17 with 2 Pet. iii. 1, ff.
The following writers favor this view : Hug, Einl. II. § 176. Eichhorn,
III. 642, ff, Bertholdt, VI, 3156. Neander, AG. II, 598, Richter, De
origine posterioris Petrinae ex ep. Judae repetenda. Viteb. 1810. 4to. .Jes-

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. § 176 fl. 351
sien, De oiBevrla ep. Judae (Lips. 1821), p, 82, sqq. Vllmann, Der 2. Br.
Petr. krit. untersucht, 1821. p. 61, ff, ; Mayerhoff, Credner, Neudecker,
Guerike; also, to a certain extent. Herder, Briefe zweener Briider Jesu, &c.
Others, on the other hand, reverse the matter, as Luther, in Walch, XIV.
150. Mill, Prolegg. in 2. Ep, Petr, J. D. Mich. Einl, IL 1478. Storr,
De cath. epp. occas. et consilio. Opusc, II. 411, sqq. Don. Schulze, Der
schriftst. Charakter u. V^'erlh d. Petrus, &c. p. 38, ff. Haenlein, Prolegg.
in ep. Judae, p. 70, sqq. Einl. ins N. T. III. 286, f. Dohl, De aiBevrici
epp, Petrinae poster, et Judae (Rost, 1807), p, 25, sqq, Thiersch, Standp',
d, Krit, p, 275. A common source was supposed by Th. Slierlock, Dis
sert, concerning the authority of the 2d Ep. of St. Peter, cf Lordner,
Supplements, III. 347, Hasse, Uebers. d, Br. Juda, .Koiser, Comment, qua
linguae Aram, usus .... defenditur (1831), p, 78, Augusti, Kathol. Br.
II. 105, explains the agreement by a concerted arrangement between the
two Apostles. Spuriousness and Uncertain Position in the Canon.
§ 176 a.
This use of another's (and a pretty late) work does not
accord with the supposition that an Apostle was its author.
It discloses, moreover, the unhistorical contents of the
Epistle, for the false teachers there combated are a non
entity, a false copy of the seducers in Jude.* Besides this
decisive reason there are several others : the assumption of
a different relation to his readers from that in the First
Epistle, and the fluctuations in this very assumption ; the
design of the writer to pass for the Apostle Peter ; the ap
peal to the Apostolic " command " (iii. 2) ; the citation of
Paul's Epistles as ypacpal (iii. 15, f.) ; the reference to prob
ably later doubts regarding the return of Christ ; the doc
trine of the origin and the destruction of the world (iii. 5
-7), which does not correspond with apostolic simplicity';
the diff'erent style of the writing.*
» This ground falls away, if we suppose, with Bertholdt, VI. 3157, ff,,
only 2 Pet, ii,, or, with TJUmann (above work), only chap, ii, and iii.
to be spurious, but the others genuine. But Bertholdt's view rests on a
complete misconception of the relation of 2 Pet. iii. 1, ff, to Jude 17, f , and
Hug, II, § 178, has correctly urged against Vllmann, that chap, i. 16 con
tains a reference to chap. iii. It is characteristic that in ii, 11 reference to
a passage in the apocryphal book of Enoch is avoided ; probably because, at

352 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
the time of the author, a sharp distinction was made between canonical and
apocryphal writings,
'' Hieron. Epp, CXX, ad Hedib, ell: Habebat ergo (Paulus) Titum in
terpretem, sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cujus Evangelium, Petro nar
rante et illo scribente, compositum est. Denique et duae epistolae, quae
feruntur Petri, stilo inter se et charactere discrepant structuraque verborum.
Ex quo intelligimus, pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usiim interpretibus,
Cf. De vir. ill. c. 1, see next note. Nietzsche, Ep. Petri posterior auctori
suo imprimis c, Grotium vindicata (Lips, 1785), p, 26, sqq., Bertholdt,
VI. 3120, Schott, § 101, note 1, adduce something to prove the relation
ship in the style ; as, the use of the article, i. 4, ii. 7, iii. 2 (?) ; the
form of greeting, i, 2 ; dvacrrpocpfj, dvacrrpecpecrBai, dperfj (i, 2), d'oTriXos Kai
dpaprjros, indnrrjs, i, 16, cf inonreveiv, 1 Pet. ii. 12, iii. 2 ; nopeieoBai iv
iniBvplais or kot iniBvpias, ii, 10, iii, 3, cf, 1 Pet, iv, 3 ; Kopi^eaBai, ko-
Xelv, &c. Paulinisms also are found : alpecris, yvaa-is, iKninreiv, iii. 17, cf.
Gal. V. 4 ; imxoprjyelv ; napeicrdyeiv, ii, 1, cf, napelaraKTOi, Gal, ii, 4 ; nXe-
ovd^ei ; crvvandyea-Bai nvl ', the passages Si' ovs fj oBbs rfjs dXrjBeias pXacrcprj-
prjBfja-erai, ij, 2, cf, Rom, ii, 24, xiv, 16 (?) ; eXevBepiav avrols inayyeXXd-
pevoi, avrol SovXoi vndpxovres r^s (pBopds, ii. 19, cf. Gal. v. 13, Rom. viii.
21 (?). — The style of this Epistle is [distinguished by its heavy repe
titions (i. 3, f, where Std, BeBaprjpevrjs, and BeBaprjrai occur four times ;
ii. 1-3, dTTwXeia, three times; ver. 7, f., BUaws, three times; iii. 12-14,
npoa-BoKov, three times) ; by uniformity ia connection, as with ravra,
i. 4, 8, ff., 12, 15, iii. 11, 14, 16 ; by its want of the peculiar use of ms in the
First Epistle (i. 14, 19, ii. 1, and often) ; by its peculiar mode of forming
qualifications by iv, as rijs iv eniBvpta (pBopds, i. 4, cf, ii, 3, 7, 10, 13,
18, iii, 1,3; by its different idiom : crarfjp often of Jesus ; napovaia, fjpepa
Kvpiov, fj. Kpicreas, for dnoKdXv\jns ', Kvpios of God ; yvacris, iniyvacris of
God and Christ ; dSds r^s dXrjB., BiKawcrvvrjs ; by a surprising number, con
sidering its narrow limits, of dna^ Xeyopeva. Moreover, there are few or
no quotations from the Old Testament, § 176 b.
In the ancient Church this Epistle was late in becoming
known, and its genuineness remained doubtful."
' Clem. Rom. Ep. ch. 7 : Ntoe eKrjpv^e perdvoiav Kal vnaKovcravres ecraBrj-
o-av, is hardly a reference to 2 Pet. ii. 5 : .... SyBoov Nme BiKaioavvrjs
KrjpvKa ecpvXa^e, KaraicXvcrpbv Koapco dcre^av ind^as. As little is ch. 11 :
Std (piXo^eviav Kal evire^eiav Amr icrdiBfj eK 'S.oBdpav, rfjs nepixapov ndcrrjs
KpiQelcrrjs Bid nvpbs Kai Beiov. UpoBrjXov noifjcras b Becrndrrjs, on tovs Se e're-
poKXivels vndpxovras els KoXacriv Kal a'lKicrpbv rlBrjcri — to 2 Pet, ii. 6 - 9 ;
Herm. Vis, III, 7 : ii sunt, qui crediderunt quidem, dubitatione autem sua
reliquerunt viam suam veram — to 2 Pet. ii. 15 : KaraXiTrdi/res evBelav oBov ;

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. § 176 b. 353
Vis. IV. 3 : vos estis, qui effugistis seculum hoc — to 2 Pet. ii. 20 : dno^v-
ydvres rd pida-para rov Kocrpov. The citations of Justin. Mort. Dial. c.
Tryph. p. 308 : crvvfjKapev Kal rb elprjpevov, on fjpepa Kvpi'ov as xi^ia errj els
TOVTO crvvdyei — Iren. Cont. haeres. V. 23 : quoniam enim dies Doraini,
sicut mille anni — do not literally agree with 2 Pet, iii, 8 : on pla fjpepa
napd KVpico as xiXia errj Kal ^t'Xia errj as fjpepa pla, and may refer to Psalm
xc, 4, Cf. Iren. IV. 9, 2, § 173, note b. In Clem. Alex. Cohort, ad gentes,
p, 66, Lardner himself finds no reference to 2 Pet ii, 2, From Euseb. H.
E. VI. 14 : Ev Be rals vnorvnacrecri ^vveXdvra einelv, ndcrrjs rfjs ivBiaBfjKov
ypa^fjs imrerprjpevas nenoirjrai Birjyfjaeis (d EXfjprjs}, pfj Be rds dvnXeyope-
vas napeXBav - rfjv 'lovBa Xeym Kai rds Xomds KaBoXiKas iniardXas - rfjv re
BapydjSa Kai rfjv Uerpov Xeyopevrjv dnoKoiXv^iv — Cossiodor. De institut.
divin. litter, c. 8 (see § 169, note d), — the conclusion is not certain that
Clement was acquainted with our Epistle, which Mayerhoff, p. 201, denies,
and Credner, p. 667, asserts.
Origen, only in the Latin version, Homil. VII. in Josuam, Opp, II.
412 : Petrus enim duobus epistolarum suarum personal tubis. Homil. IV.
in Levit. ii. 200 : Et iterum Petrus dicit : Consories, inquit,/acrt' estis di-
vinoe naturae (2 Pet, i. 4). Cf. Coraraent. in Joan, Opp, IV. 135: Kai
nepl rfjs iv (pvXaKfj nopeias perd nvevparos napd ra Uerpa ev rfj KaBoXi
Kfj inicrroX^ . In Euseb. VI, 25 : Uerpos . . . . piav inia-roXfjv bpoXoyov-
pivrjv KardXeXomev - ecrra Be Kal Bevrepav ' dppiPdXXerai ydp. Firmilion
(c. 230), in ep, ad Cyprian, : Adhuc etiara infaraans Petrum et Paulum
beatos apostolos, quasi hoc ipsi tradiderint, qui in epistolis suis haereticos exe-
crati sunt (this can apply only to 2 Peter), et ut eos evitemus, monuerunt.
The Syrian church did not acknowledge this Epistle. Hence Euseb. III. 25, '
reckons it among the Antilegomena, cf III. 3 (Part I. § 24, note b). In
the fourth century it was received into the canon without the doubts being
set at rest. Didymus : .... praesentem epistolam esse falsatam (Part I.
§ 26, note b). Mayerhoff, p. 213, and others, regard these words as an ad
dition from another source, because Didymus elsewhere (De trin, I, 15. 21,
II. 6. 151, and often) cites the Epistle as Petrine and catholic. Hieron. De
vir. ill. c, 1 : Scripsit (Petrus) duas epistolas, quae catholicae nominantur,
quarum secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur propter stili cum priore disso
nantiam, (Cf Part I, § 27, note b.)
The following modern writers contest the genuineness: Ctefa'n (Com
ment, in epp. cath. Opp. Vol. V. P. 3. p. 103), Grotius (ad cap. i. 1. His
hypothesis is that the Epistle was written by the Bishop Simeon, that it
presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and refutes the Carpocratians),
Erasmus (Nott. ad h. ep,), Semler (Praef in h, ep.), /, E. Chr. Schmidt
(Einl, I. 331, ff,), Welker (Clavis iib. d. kath. Br,, &c,, p, 181, ff,), Guerike
(Beitr, p, 175, f ), Neander (AG, II. 598) ; to a certain extent, Eichhorn
(III. 636, ff.), Schott (Isag, § 102), Credner {Einl.) , Mayerhoff {Einl. in d.
petr, Schr,), Neudecker {Einl.) ; in part, Ullmonn (as above), Magnus
(Examen de I'authenticite de la 2. ep. de Pierre. Strassb. 1835), Reuss
45

354 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
(Gesch d, N, T,), Schwegler (Nachap. Zeitalt. I. 490, ff.). It is defended
by /. D. Michaelis (Einl. II. 1475, ff.). Pott (Prolegg. ad h. ep,), Augusti
(Einl, z, d, Br,), Nietzsche[\n the Dissert, quoted in note b), Dohl [in the
Dissert, quoted in § 175 b), E. Chr. Flatt (Progr, genuina sec. Pet, ep.
origo denuo defenditur. 1806), Feilmoser [Ein] . p, 527), hesitatingly, Hug[ll,
§ 177), Bertholdt (VI, 3119, who, however, gives up chap, ii.), Guerike
(Einl.), Olshausen [De integritate et authentia post, Petri ep, Regiom, 1822
-23, cf Nachweis, d, Echth. p. 118) hesitates. Kern retracted his defence
(Progr, 1829) in Tiib, Ztschr. 1835. II. 65.

IV. Epistles of John.
Augustin. Tractat. X. in ep. Joan. ad. Parthos. Opp.ed, Benedict, III, 2.
— Luther's Zwiefache Ausleg., in Walch, IX. 906, ff., 1082, ff. Annotatt. ed.
Bruns, see above, p, 289. — H. Bullinger, In ep, Joan, can,breviset catholica
expositio. Tig, 1532. — Episcop. Lectt. sacr, in 1, ep, cath, Ap, J, Opp, P,
II, — Whiston, Commentary on the Three Cath, Epistles of St. John.
Lond, 1719, — Mori Praelectt. exeget. in tres Joann, epp. Lips, 1796, —
Longe, Die Schriften des Joh, 3, Th, 1797, — Lucke, Commentar lib, d,
Schriften d, Joh, 3, Th, 1825, 2d ed, 1836, — J, -S, Semler, Paraphr. in 1.
Joa, ep, cum prolegg, et animadverss, 1792, — Heumonn, Diss, exhihens
comment, in Joh. ep, tertiam. Nova sylloge dissertatt, I. 216, sqq, — H.E.
G. Paulus, Die drei Lehrbriefe von Joh, wortgetreu m, erl, Zwischensatzen
libers, u, nach philolog, notiolog, Meth, erkl, 1829, — K. Rickli, Joh, 1, Br,
erkl, u, angew, in Predigten, mit histor. Vorber. u. exeg, Anh, Luz, 1828,
— Exeg. Handb. I. 3.
The First Epistle a Work of John the Evangelist.
§ 177 a.
The author of this composition does not call himself the
Apostle John, nor author of the fourth Gospel, but merely
an eyewitness of the history of Jesus (i. 1, f., iv. 14), and in
the Second and Third Epistles an elder {Trpeap-uTepo<s).
Thus much, however, is certain, that both writings, this
Epistle and the fourth Gospel, proceeded from the same
author ; for both bear the distinctest stamp of relationship,
as well in the style of the writing" as in the development
of the thought.'' Both throw the same spell of genial hu
man feeling over the reader.

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. § 177 O. 355
' TToieiw TTji; aXfjBeiav, 1 John i. 6, John iii. 21 ; ovk ecrnv fj aXfjBeia 'ev tii/i,
1 John i. 8, ii. 4, John viii. 44 ; Ik t^s dXrjBeias eivai, 1 John ii. 21, John
xviii. 37 ; e'K roi) Sia/3dXov eii-ai, 1 John iii. 8, John viii. 44; e'K rov Beov
eivai, 1 John iii. 10, iv. 1, John vii. 17, viii. 47 ; e'K rov Koa-pov elvai, 1 John
iv. 5, John viii. 23 ; e'K rov Koa-pov XaXeiv, 1 John iv. 5, cf. John iii. 31 ;
c'k TrjS yrjs XaXeTv, iv avra pevopev, Kal avrbs iv fjplv, 1 John iv. 13, 14, f.,
cf. John vi. 56, xv. 4, f, ; iv rfj o-Koria, iv ra cparl nepmarelv, 1 John ii. 11,
i. 6, John viii. 12, xii. 35 ; ywaa-Keiv rbv Bedv, or Xpio-rdv, 1 John ii. 3, 4,
13, 14, iv. 6, 7, 8, V. 20, John xv. 3, xvii. 25 ; dpSv rbv Bedv, 1 John iv.
20, John i. 18, vi. 46, xix. 9 ; -rfjv ^XV" eavrov riBe'vai, 1 John iii, 16, John
X, 11, 17, 18, XV, 13 ; dpapriav exeiv, 1 John i, 8, John ix, 41, xv. 22, 24,
xix. 11 ; exeiv Cofjv alaviov or rfjv C^fjv, 1 John iii. 15, v. 12, f, John iii.
15, f , 36, V. 24, 39, 40, vi. 40, 47, 54, x. 10 ; odK o?Se TToi) VTrdyet, 1 John
ii. 11, John xii. 35; peraPalveiv ck tov Bavdrov els rfjv ^afjv, 1 John iii. 14,
John V. 24; vikov rbv Koa-pov, 1 John v, 4, f, cf ii. 13, 14, iv. 4, John
xvi. 33 ; paprvpiav Xap^dveiv, 1 John v. 9, John iii. 11, 32, v. 34 ; atpetv
riji' dpapriav, 1 John iii. 5, John i. 29, 36 ; Bvvaa-Bai of moral possibility,
1 John ^ii, 9, iv, 20, John v, 44, viii. 43, xiv, 17 ; TrapaKXTjros, 1 John ii, 1,
John xiv, 16, and often ; dvBpanoKrdvos, 1 John iii, 15, John viii, 44 ; pei-
^av, 1 John iii, 20, iv. 4, v. 5, John xiv. 28 ; d povoyevfjs vios, 1 John iv.
9, John i, 14, 18, iii. 16, 18 ; ivroXfj, 1 John ii. 3, 4, 7, 8, iii. 22, 23, 24, iv.
21, v. 2, 3, John x. 18, xii. 49, 50, xiii. 34, xiv. 15, 21, xv. 10, 12. — Af
firmation and negation placed together : ^frevBdpeBa Kal ov TTotovpej/ rfjv dXfj
Beiav, 1 John i. 6, as apoXdyrja-e Kal ovk fjpvfjcraro, John i. 20, cf. 1 John i.
5, 8, ii. 4, 10, 27, 28, with John i, 3, iii, 20, v, 24, vii, 18, xvi, 29, 30 ;
explanation by antitheses placed side by side : 1 John ii, 9, 10, 11, 23, iii.
6, 7, 8, iv, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, v, 10, 12, John iii, 18, 20, 35, f , vii, 18, viii, 23,
X, 10, ff, ; progress, or more exact definition by antitheses : ov — dXXd, 1
John ii, 2, 7, 21, iii, 18, iv, 1, 10, 18, v, 6, 18, John i, 8, iii, 17, 28, iv, 14,
V. 22, 30, 34, vi, 32, 38, &c, ; explanations of notions or things : ai!T77 e'o-rij»
fj dyyeXia, 1 John i, 5, iii, 11, and similar, ii, 25, iii, 10, 23, iv, 2, 9, f ,
17, 21, V, 3, 11, 14, John i, 19, iii, 19, vi, 29, 39, 40, xv, 12, xvii, 3, Cf
Eichhorn, ll. 281, ff. Dan. Schulze, Der schriftstell. Charakter und Werth
des Joh. 1803. Svo.
I' iafj of Christ, 1 John i. 1, 2, i. 11, 20, John i, 4, vi, 26, 35, 48, xi,
25, &c, ; cpas of God and Christ, 1 John i, 5, 7, ii, 8, John i, 4, 5, 7, ff,,
iii, 19, and frequently ; paprvpia and paprvpelv, 1 John v, 6, 9, 10, 11, John
V. 36, viii, 17, f, ; God's love in the mission of Christ, 1 John iv, 9, John
iii. 16 ; Christians the children of God, 1 John v. 1, John i. 12, f. ; love the
command of Christ, 1 John iii. 11, 16, 18, 23, John xiii. 34, f., xv. 12, 14.
The view of the expiatory sacrifice, i. 7, ii. 2, iv. 10, does not find suflicient
confirmation in the Gospel (i. 29, vi. 51) ; as also the expectation of Christ's
return (1 John ii. 18, 28).

356 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
§ 177 b.
The apostolic origin of the Epistle is attested by the al
most unanimous voice of antiquity. Papias and Polycarp
knew and used it.* They are followed by Irenceus, Polycarp's
disciple.'' In like manner, subsequent authorities confirm
the acknowledgment of this work, which was classed among
the Homologumena without opposition, that of the Alogi
alone excepted."
" Papios, in Euseb. Ill, 39, see § 109 b, note c. Polycarp, Ep, ad Philipp,
c, 7 : nds ydp ds dv pfj dpoXoyfj 'irjcrovv Xpicrrbv iv crapKi iXrjXvBivai, dvri-
Xpiards icrnv, cf, 1 John iv. 3,
'' Euseb. H, E. V, 8 : Mepvrjrai Be kcu rijs 'Imdwov nparrjs inia-roXfjs,
paprvpia i^ avrfjs. nXelcrra e'lcrcpepav. Iren. Cont, haeres. III, 15, 5,8, cf,
1 Johnii, 18, iv, 1-3, v. 1.
° Clemens Alex. Strom. II. 389 : ^aiverai Be Kal 'ladvvrjs iv riy pei(ovi
inicrroXfj rds Biacpopds rmj/ dpapnav iKBiBdccKav iv rovrois ' idv ns 'iSt; rbv
dBeXcpbv avrov dpaprdvovra, k. t. X. 1 John v, 16, Tertull. Adv, Prax, c,
15 : Denique inspiciamus, quem Apostoli viderint. Quod vidimus, inquit
Johannes, quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, etc, 1 John i, 1, Scor-
piac. c, 12. Orig. in Euseb, H, E, VI, 25 : KaraXe'XoiTTe Be koI inicrroXfjv
ndvv oXiyav crrlxav - ecrra Be kcu Bevrepav kcu rpirrjv - inel oii ndvres cpacrl
yvrjcriovs elvai ravras - nXfjv ovk elcrl crrlxav dpcpdrepai eKardv. Euseb. Ill, 25.
§ 177 c.
The doubts urged in modern times against the genuine
ness of this Epistle"' rest on the following weak grounds:
the Logology and the Antidocetic tendency of the Epistle
betray an author of the second century, who was not the
Apostle, but, as he describes himself in the Second and
Third Epistles, the Presbyter John ; from its eschatological
representations, ii. 18, 22, 28, iii. 2, iv. 3, its different notion
of ¦TTvevfia, ii. 1, 20, 27 (?), and the difference between v.
6, f. and John xix. 34 (?), it belongs to an earlier form of
doctrinal development.
» Longe, Schriften des John iii. 4, ff. Cludius, Uransichten des Chri
stenth, p, 52, ff, Bretschneider, Probabilia, p, 166, sqq, (On the contrary,
Bertholdt, VI, 3210, ff, Liicke, Comment, p, 10, ff, Hemsen, Authent, d,
Schr, d, Evang, Joh, p. 356, ff,) Zeller, in his Jbb, 1845, p, 588, f
(aptly refuted by Grimm, in Stud. u. Krit. 1847. p. 175, ff,).

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. § 178 b. 357
Form, Destination, and Date.
§ 178 a.
As the work lacks the external form of an Epistle, some
have been disposed to deny it the epistolary character."
But this want is supplied by its internal character, by its
address to the readers, the dedication of the writing to them,
and the references to their situation (i. 3, f., ii. 1, 7, f., 12-
15, 18, 20, f., 24, 28, f.), by the somewhat loose connection
of the ideas, and the way in which they are presented, the
thought being in some passages rather suggested than ex
pressed, while in others we find repetitions.''
The theory that attaches our Epistle to the Go.spel as its
practical" or polemic section,'^ incorrectly apprehends its
essential character. For it is manifestly written differently
from the Gospel, and presupposes a more precisely defined
circle of readers ; and besides, it is difficult to explain, on
this view, why all antiquity regarded the work as an Epistle
and separated it from the Gospel. It is also not a work
written to recommend or dedicate the Gospel,^ for it con
tains no clear references thereto, although it gains in point,
if we presuppose not only the oral preaching of the author
(this must be presupposed, i. 3, ii. 7, iv. 14), but also his
written teaching by the Gospel.^
» Michaelis, Einl. II. 1230. Cf Eichhorn, II. 307, f
'' Ziecrler, Der 1. Br. Joh. ein Sendschr. an eine bestimmte Gemeinde,
&c., in Henke's Mag. VI. 2. 796. iMcke, as above, p, 34,
» Berger, Versuch e. moral. Einl. ins N. T. II. 118.
^ Storr, Zweck d. evang. Gesch. u. Br. Joh. p, 313, ff.
• Augusti, Kathol. Briefe, II. 182, ff Hug, Einleit. II. § 68. The fact
that in Cod. Cantabrig. the Epistles follow the Gospel proves nothing.
f Lv.cke, p. 38. On the contrary, Credner, p. 680.
§ 178 &.
The Latin superscription of the Epistle, ad Parthos,''
orio-inated in some error.'' According to the Epistle itself,
the readers were (at least in part) Gentile Christians (v. 21).
Hence the absence of Old Testament quotations, and the

358 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
warning against Docetism (iv. 2, f.). They were disci
ples of the Apostle (ii. 7), for he knows their spiritual con
dition (ii. 12, ff., 20, f., 27) ; and his epistolary communication
seems but a continuation of his oral preaching (i. 3). As
John's later sphere of labor was in Asia Minor (§ 108), the
Epistle seems to be addressed to several churches there as a
circular letter."
* Augustine, Tractatt, in 1, ep. Job,, according to the superscription,
Quaest, evang, II, 39, in the text, Cossiodor. Institut, divin. litter, c. 14.
Cod. 62, in Griesbach.
¦¦ According to Whiston, Comment, p, 6, Hug, II, § 70, note, from irpds
napBevovs, cf, Clemens Alex. Adumbratt. Opp. ed. Potter, p, 1011: Secun
da Joannis epistola, quae ad virgines scripta est, simplicissima est. Grot.
(Prolegg.), Poulus (Die drei Lehrbr, p, 81, ff,), Schulthess (Theol, Ann,
1828. p, 814, ff,), approve this superscription.
° Hug's supposition, that it was addressed to the community at Ephesus,
is refuted by Liicke, p, 32. § 178 c.
There are no certain marks of the date of this Epistle.
If .it be true that the references and allusions presuppose
the Gospel, it was written after that work. That its tone
betrays the great age of its author, is an uncertain judgment
of taste. There is no reference to the destruction of Jeru
salem in ii. IS."'
" Arbitrary theories have been built on this passage by Hammond, Gro
tius, Calov, Lange, Michaelis, Hdnlein, and others, by Boronius, Mill, Cleri
cus, and others. — In regard, also, to the place from which the Epistle was
vpritten, there are only uncertain conjectures.
Occasion, Design, and Contents.
§ 179 a.
Various polemic tendencies have been ascribed to our
Epistle : " against Jews and Jewish teachers ; '' against
Judaizing Christians, Ebionites, or apostate Jewish Chris
tians;" against Gnostics in general;* against the Docetas,"
and against Cerinthus^ in special; against the disciples
of John; s finally, against the Persico-Median philosophy."^
It must be admitted that the Epistle contains remarks

FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. § 179 fl. 359
against false Christians and false teachers (Antichrists);
first in general, ii. 18 - 26, then more specifically, iv. 1-6.
Here the Docetse are hardly to be mistaken ; they may also
be assumed before and in i. 1 - 3.' The allusion supposed
by some, in iii. 4, to moral indifference in regard to the Law,
which was, perhaps, also a peculiarity of the Docetse,'^ is
uncertain. All the other supposed tendencies are improb
able, especially those against apostate Jewish Christians
and the disciples of John.^
* Cor. Ch. Flott, Diss, qua variae de antichristis et pseudoprophetis in
1 Joh, ep, notatis sententiae modesto examini subjiciuntur. Tiib, 1809, 4to.
'' Loffler, Diss, Joan. ep. 1, Gnosticos imprimis impugnari negatur, in
the Comment, theol. Vol. I. Cf Wunder, Utrum 1. Joan, ep, coetui e Ju
daeis et Judaeo-Christianis mixto scripta sit, 1799,
= Semler, Paraphr. ep, Joan, p, 28, and on ii. 22, Tittmann, Devestigiis
Gnost, p, 179, Knapp, Script, var. arg, p, 157, — Lange, Schr, d, Joh,
III. 19, ff. Eichhorn, ll. 291, ff,
^ Kleuker, Joh, Petrus u, Paulus als Christologen, p, 63, ff,, 90, ff, Cf
his work, Ueb, d, Urspr, u. Zweck d. apostol. Briefe.
" Schol. ap. Matthaei epp, cathol, ad iv. 3. p. 130, ad iv. 2, p. 224, cf
Tertull. De carne Christi, c, 24, An unknown writer in Schmidt's Bibli
oth, f, Kr, u, Exeget, I, 69, ff. Schmidt, Einl. I, 317, Bertholdt, Liicke,
Credner, &c.
f Michaelis, Einl. II. 1520, ff., who also accepts the reference to the Do
cetse. Storr, Ueb. d. Zweck der ev. Gesch,, &c, p, 223, ff,
6 Storr, as above.
^ Paulus, as above, p. 45, ff.
' Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrn. c, 2: Kai dXrjBas 'enaBev, as Kal dXrjBas dvea-rrj-
crev eavrov • ovx ""'"'^P anicrroi nves Xeyovcriv rd BoKelv avrbv nenovBevai.
C. 3 : 'Eya ydp Kal perd rfjv dvairracriv iv crapKi avrbv oiBa Kal nicrreva
'ovra. Kai ore Trpds rovs Trepi Uerpov rjXBev, ecprj avrols • Adhere, yffrjXacpfj-
cxare pe Kal 'ISere, d'rt ovk eipi Baipdviov daaparov - Kal evBvs avrofj fj^avro,
Kal iniareva-av, KparrjBevres rfj a-apKl avrofj Kal ra nvevpan  avve-
(payev avrols Kal crvveniev as crapKiKos. c. 4. 5 : .... ndvra vnopeva, avrov
pe ivBvvapofJvros, tov reXeiov dvBpanov yevopivov, ov nves dyvoovvres dp vov v-
rai . ¦ ¦ ¦ Ti ydp pe acpeXei ns, ei ipe inaivel, rbv Be Kvpidv pov jSXaaprjpel,
pfj dpoXoyav avrbv crapKocpdpov. Ad Ephes. o. 7 : Eis larpds icrnv a-apKiKos re
Kal nvevpariKos, yevvrjrbs Kal dyevvrjros, iv a-apKl yevdpevos Beds- Ad
Trallian. c. 9 : . . . . bs dXrjBas eyevvfjBrj .... aXrjBUs eBiaxBrj .... dXrjBas
ecrravpaBrj Kal dniBavev, k.t.X, Polycarp, ad Phil., see § 177 J, note a.
Cf 1 John iv. 2 : nav nvevpa b bpdXoyel 'irja-ovv Xpiarbv iv a-apKl iXrj-
XvBora, eK tov BeofJ eanv. i. 1 : "O rjv dn dpxfjs, b dKrjKdapev, b iapaKa-
pevTols ocpBaXpols fjpav, o eBeaa-dpeBa, Kal at X^'P^r fjpav i^rjXdcprj-

360 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
(rav. ii, 22 : Tis eo'Tii' d -^evcrrrjs, el pfj d dpvovpevos dri Itjo'ovs ovk
ecrnv b Xpio'rds ;
¦^ Ignat. Ep, Interpol, ad Trallian, c, 6 : Kai ov vdpov ava-rfjcrova-iv, dXX'
7va dvopiav KarayyeiXacn. John iii. 4 : lias d noiav rfjv dpapriav, Kcd rrjv
avopiav TTOtei • Kai 17 dpapria icrrlv fj dvopla.
' Liicke, p, 72, ff. — Ch. ii. 19 is not to be understood of the external sep
aration of these Antichrists. § 179 6.
The polemic design, which must be admitted, is not the
main design of the Epistle. This is rather to exhort its
readers to obedience to the Christian fundamental law of
holiness and love, and, in necessary connection with this, to
faith in the Son of God (who was really manifested), and
hence, also, to steadfastness in faith. In this last connec
tion, though in a subordinate position, the above references
occur. After the introduction, in which the verity of the facts of
the Christian salvation is confirmed (i. 1-4), the writer, —
1. reminds his readers of God's holiness and of the funda
mental law of love, and that communion with God can
consist only in freedom from sins and fulfilment of His
commands (i. 5-ii. 11) ; then, after an appeal intended to
awaken the Christian feeling of moral superiority to sin
and the world (ii. 12-14), he warns them against love of
the world (ii. 15-17) and against Antichrists, and exhorts
them to steadfastness (ii. 18-28). 2. He reminds them
once more of the moral condition indispensable to God's
communion or sonship, whose consummation is a good
conscience and peace with God (ii. 29 -iii. 24), and again
warns them more distinctly against false teachers (iv. 1 - 6).
Finally, 3. he again exhorts, especially to brotherly love, by
which alone communion with God is attainable (iv. 7 - 21),
and for which a firm faith is necessary in the incarnation
and mission of Christ. This faith conquers the world, gives
life (v. 1 -13), and results in confidence towards God as the
hearer of prayer and intercession. The Apostle speaks of
the last topic, which leads him to other thoughts (v. 14-21).

SECOND ANB THIBD EPISTLES OF JOHN. § 180 ffl. 361
Second and Third Epistles. Their Genuineness.
§ 180 a.
These Epistles belong to the Antilegomena, although sup
ported by a very respectable tradition. Clement of Alexan
dria was acquainted with several Epistles of John, certainly
with the Second, at least. In Muralori's fragment on the
canon, two Epistles of John are mentioned. Origen states
doubts against the two smaller Epistles, but does not decide
against them. Dionysius of Alexandria, on the other hand,
draws from them, as genuine Johannic writings, proofs
against the Apocalypse. Irenceus acknowledged at least
the Second Epistle as Johannic.^
Eusebius, probably on account of Origen's doubts, per
haps also of their exclusion from the Syrian canon,'' reckons
them among the Antilegomena." Although the general
opinion became afterwards more favorable, and Jerome
himself considered them genuine, he yet mentions the doubts
urged against them.*
» Clem. Alex. Strom, lib. II. p. 389, see § 1775, note c. Adumbratt.
Opp. ed. Potter, p. 1011, see § 178 b, note b. Cf Euseb. H. E. VL 14,
see § 176 b, note a. Origen, in Euseb. VI. 25, see § 177 b, note c. Dionys.
Alex, in Euseb. VII. 25 : 'AXX' ovSe iv rfj Sevrepa cpepopevrj 'ladwov Kal rpi
rrj, Kairoi ppaxeiais ovcrais inicrroXals, d 'ladvvrjs dvopaarl npoKeirat, dXX'
dvavvpas 6 npecr^vrepos yeypanrai. Cf. Euseb. III. 25 : rfjv pepopevrjv
'ladwov nporepav. Iren. Adv. Haeres. I. 163 : 'ladwrjs Be, d rov Kvpiov pa
Brjrfjs, inereive rfjV KaraBiKrjv avrav, prjBe ;(atpet!' aijrois vcp' fjpav XeyecrBai
^ovXrjBeis- d ydp Xeyav avrols, (prjcri, xaipeiv, Koivavel, k. t. X., cf 2 John 11.
Ib. III. 6. 8: Et discipulus ejus Joannes in praedicta (1. Joa.) epistola fu-
gere eos praecepit, etc., cf 2 John 7, 8.
¦> Cosmas Indicopl. De mund. lib. VIL, in Galland. Bibl. Patr. XI. 535 :
napd 'S.-vpois Be el pfj ai rpels pdvai ai npoyeypappevoi ovx evpiaKovrai • Xiya
Be 'laK(B/3ov, Herpou Kai 'ladwov. Cf Hug, Einl. I. § 64.
' H. E. III. 25 : Tav B' dvnXeyopevav . . . . ^ dvopa^opevrj Bevrepa Kal
Tpirrj 'ladwov, e'l re tov evayyeXicrrov Tvyxavovcrai, e'l re Kal erepov opavvpov
iKeivo). ^ De vir. ill. c. 9: Scripsit autem Joannes et unam epistolara .... quae
ab universis ecclesiasticis et eruditis viris probatur. Reliquae autem duae,
quarum principium Senior .... Joanni Presbyteri asseruntur, cujus et hodie

362 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesios ostenditur. Cf., on the contrary, Ep. ad
PauUin. (7) 107, ad Evagr. 80. § 180 &.
Supported by these doubts, modern ^ writers have also on
internal grounds denied the Apostolic authorship of these
Epistles, and attributed them to John the Presbyter, viz. : —
1. Because, contrary to the Apostle's practice, the author
gives himself a name, — o irpea^VTepo';. But in a private let
ter of this kind it is natural that he should name himself; and
this appellation, if taken in a distinguishing sense, applies
better to the Apostle John than in its commonly accepted
sense to the other John; to which maybe added, that the lat
ter cannot have held the high position of which the author of
the Third Epistle is conscious. 2. It is true that the char
acter of the language, though in general Johannic, shows
some variations ; '' but if the Apostle be not the author, 2
John 5 - 7, 3 John 12, must have been written from remi
niscences or imitation, which indicate a dependence not to
be supposed in regard to the Presbyter John, whom Papias
places almost in a line with the Apostles."
^ Erasmus, Grotius, Fritzsche (Bemerkk. rib. d. Brr. Job., in Henke's
Mus. III. 1), Paulus (as above, p, 262, ff,), Credner (Einl, p, 689, ff,),
Jachmann (Comment, iib, d, kath, Brr, theol, Mitarbb. II. 4). Lucke also
seems to incline in that direction, see Comm. vi. d. Evang. Joh. 3d ed.
I, 29, f,
' The following are Johannic: peveiv e'v nvi, 2 John 9, 1 Joh, ii, 27, iii,
9 ; 'exeiv Bedv, 2 John 9, 1 John ii, 23 ; dpdv Bedv, 3 John 11, 1 John iv. 20 ;
e'K rov Beov eivai, 3 John 11, 1 John iii. 10 ; tj'a fj x^P^ fjjiav rj nenXrjpapevrj,
2 John 12, 1 John i, 4 ; avrrj . . . . Iva, 2 John 6 ; aiErmation and negation
side by side, 2 John 9 ; explanation by antitheses, 2 John 9 ; progression or
more exact definition by antitheses, ov , , . . dXXd, 2 John 5 : explanation of
notions and things, 2 John 6. The following, on the other hand, are
striking : Kvpios (wanting in AB and other authorities) '1. Xp., 2 John 3 ;
et rts, ver, 10, for idv ns, 1 John ii. 1, 15, iv. 20, v, 16 ; SiSa^^K pepeiv, ib, ;
Koivavelv, ver. 11 ; nepmarelv Kard, ver. 6; peifdrepos, 3 John 4; nicrrbv
noielv, ver. 5, and others.
' Grimm, in the Allg. Encycl, 2, Sect. XXII. 76. Cf Exeg. Handb.
I. 3, 275, f
On other objections, see Bertholdt, VI, 3645, ff. Liicke, as above, p.
344, ff. Exeg. Handb. I. 3. 273.

SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. § 181 6. 363
Destination, Design, and Date.
§ 181 a.
The Second Epistle is addressed to a Christian (e'/fXeKx?;)
lady ^Kvpla), or, better, to a Christian woman named Kyria,*
not to any single Christian community or to the whole
Christian Church.*
We know nothing of Caius, to whom the Third Epistle
is addressed. Of the Christians bearing this name in the
New Testament, Rom. xvi. 23, 1 Cor. i. 14, Acts xix. 29,
XX. 4, the claims of each as recipient of this Epistle have
been supported on various grounds." But it is better to
suppose an otherwise unknown man in the neighborhood
of Ephesus, and belonging to some other place than the
dwelling-place of Kyria.
" We cannot, with Grotius, Wetstein, and others, regard eKXeKrfj as a
proper name, because of the position of the words, and ver, 13, Knauer,
in Stud, u. Krit. 1833. II. 452, ff., conjectures that Kyria is the mother of
Jesus. '' Clemens Alex. Adumbratt. : . . . . scripta est (sec. ep.) ad quandam
Babyloniam, Electam noraine, significat autem electionem Ecclesiae sanc-
tae. Cf. 1 Pet. v. 13. Hieron. Ep. (91) 123, ad Ageruchiara, § 12 : Le
gimus in carminum libro : . . . . una est columba mea, perfecta mea : una
est matri suae, electa genetrici suae. Ad quam scribit idem Joannes epi
stolam. Senior Electae Dominae et filiis ejus. Cf. Wolf, Curae ad 2 Joh.
1. Michaelis, Einl. ll.lbU. AM^asii, Kath. Br.II. 205. Exeg. Handb.
p. 274.
» Wolf, Cur. ad 3 John 1. Augusti, Kath. Br. II. 210. Bertholdt, VI.
3650. According to Mill, Prolegg. § 152, the Bishop Caius was at Perga-
mus (Constitutt. Ap. VII. 46). § 181 b.
The design of the Second Epistle is to confirm Kyria in
Christian truth and love, and to warn her of false teachers.
The Third Epistle asks the well-known, praiseworthy hos-
pitality of Caius in behalf of travelling Christians (ver. 5
-8), and, on the other hand, expresses disapprobation of the
refractoriness of a certain Diotrephes (ver. 9-11). Both

364 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
were ¦written shortly before a journey (perhaps of inspection)
of the Apostle, probably after the First Epistle, from the
similarity of 2 John 7 to 1 John ii. 18, ff.

V. Epistle of Jude.
Chr. Fr. Schmid, Observatt. hist. crit. theol. Lips. 1768. — Herder,
Briefe zweener Briider, &c,, see above, p, 323. — Der Br, Juda iibers. u.
erlaut, aus e, neu eroffn, raorgenland. Quelle v, /, G. Hasse. Jen, 1788, —
Morus, Erkl, d, Br, an d. Rom, u, d, Br, J,, see above, p, 262, — Ep, Judae
Giaece, perp, comment, illustr, ab H. E. Al. Hanlein. 2d ed, Erl, 1799. —
M. T. Lourmonn, Collectanea s, nott, crit, et commentar. Groning. 1818.
— Schneckenburger, Scholien, in his Beitrr, p, 214, ff.
The Author.
§ 182.
The author calls himself Jude, servant of Jesus Christ,
brother of James (ver. 1). As this James, through his relation
ship to whom he makes himself known, must have been a
man of distinction, and can scarcely be supposed another
than the head of the Jewish Christians and brother of the
Lord (§ 167) ; and as Eusebius, III. 19, f., mentions a Jude,
brother of the Lord, and among the brethren of Jesus a
Judas is mentioned (Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3) ; the decision
as to his person depends on that concerning this James.
They who regard the son of Alphsus and the brother of
the Lord as one and the same person, are quite consistent
in regarding our Jude likewise as an Apostle, and as that
^lovhac; laKw^ov, sc. oBeXcpo?, Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13, whom
they identify with Lebbasus or Thaddaeus."' But we who
discriminate between James the brother of the Lord and
James the son of Alphasus, and do not regard the former as
one of the Twelve, regard also this Jude, his brother, as not
an Apostle, especially as he seems (ver. 17) to make a dis
tinction between the Apostles and himself.''
" Bertholdt, VI. 696, ff. Win. RWB. I. 632, ff. Schneckenburger,
Beitr. 218. Among the ancients, Tertullian and Origen (1) consider our

EPISTLE OF JUDE. § 183. 365
Jude as an Apostle, cf. § 184. Eichhorn (Einl. HI. 2), who thinks that
the author is not the brother of James the son of Alphseus, but an unknown
Jude, and Jessien, De authentia Ep. Jud. p. 47, who thinks James the
brother of the Lord is the same person as James the son of Alphseus, and
our Jude his brother, but not the Apostle Judas, brother of James, are in
consistent. So Wieseler, in Stud. u. Krit. 1842. p. 120, f.
' So Herder, Hug (wavering), /. E. Chr. Schmidt, Credner, Neudecker,
Reuss. Also Clem. Alex. Adumbratt. Opp. ed. Potter, II. 1007 : Judas,
qui catholicara scripsit epistolara, frater filiorum Joseph, exlans valde reli-
giosus, cum sciret propinquitatem Domini, non tamen dixit, se ipsum fra
trem ejus esse, sed quid dixit? Judas, servus Jesu .Christi, utpote Domini,
frater autem Jacobi, Cf, however, § 167 c, notes a, c. — Schott's opinion is
groundless, that our Jude is the brother of an Apostle James, and at the
same time one with Judas Barsabas, Welker, Clavis, p, 157, f,, al«o con
siders him one with the latter, DaW (Dissert,, quoted above) supposed a
certain presbyter. Grotius regarded the fifteenth Bishop of Jerusalem
{Euseb. IV. 5) as author, and in consequence struck out the words dSeXcp.
Be 'lax. Readers, Design, Contents, and Date.
§183.
The Epistle is addressed to Christians in general (ver. 1) ;
but the author had in mind a specific circle, in which certain
corrupt men sought a living.* The current notion that they
were false teachers has been erroneously transferred from
2 Peter to this Epistle.'' To warn against these, and to de
clare their punishment, is the design of the composition.
The author, after a short introduction (ver. 3), proceeds im
mediately to this subject: that into the circle of his readers
certain godless, lascivious, slanderous men have crept, who
through their feastings desecrated the Lord's Supper, were
discontented, factious, and breeders of dissension; whose
punishment was long ago foretold in the Old Testament
and prophesied by Enoch, and their appearance predicted by
the Apostles (ver. 4 -19). He then closes with the exhorta
tion and the wish that his readers may remain steadfast in
goodness (ver. 20-23). The determination of the date is
not facilitated by the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem
is not mentioned in ver. 5-7, nor by the use of the Book of
Enoch, ver. 14, as the date of this book is itself uncertain."

366 THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Jude must,'however, have written at a pretty late period, for
some time must have elapsed ere the Book of Enoch could
have gained currency and estimation.
°- Schneckenburger, Beitr. p, 225, thinks that the depreciation of the an
gels, ver, 8, is the contrast to the religious system combated in the Epistle
to the Colossians, and the readers are therefore to be sought in those re
gions, Credner, p, 616, on the other hand, seeks them in Palestine, and
finds delineated the then condition of the church there in the passages from
Hegesippus in Euseb. III. 32 : .... pexpi rav rdre xpbvav napBevos KaBapa
Kai dBidcpBopos epeivev fj iKtcXrjcrla, iv dBrjXco nov (TKorei (paXevdvrav elcren
Tore rmi/ et Kat rti/es vnrjpxov napacpBeipeiv imxeipovvrav rbv vyirj Kavdva rov
crarqplov Krjpvyparos. 'Qs Be b lepbs rmi' dnocrrdXav xopbs Bidcpopov elXfjCpei
rov ^iori reXos .... rrjviKavra rfjs dBeov nXdvrjs rfjv apxfjv eXdp(3avev fj crvcrra-
cris Bid rfjs erepoBiBacTKoXav dndrrjs - oi Kai are prjBevbs 'en rmi' dTToa-rdXioc
Xemopevov ..-. rfjv -yp-evBavvpov yvacriv dvriKrjpvrreiv inexeipovv. But
as the last words, and the passage IV. 22, still more clearly show, Hegesip
pus referred to Gnostic sects, of which no trace exists here.
'' Cf , on the contrary, Schneckenburger, as above, p. 222.
" Laurence and Hoffmann place it under Herod ihe Great {Hoffm. Das B.
Hen. I, 23, ff,), Liicke (Einl. in d. Offenb. Joh. p. 58) after the destruction
of Jerusalem. Genuineness and Church Acceptance.
§ 184 a.
No important objection to the genuineness of this Epistle
can be made good ; neither the use of the apocryphal Book
of Enoch,'' nor the resemblance of ver. 24, f. to Rom. xvi.
25, nor a style of writing which betrays a certain familiarity
with the Greek tongue.'' The Epistle is the less open to
suspicion, as the author does not distinctly claim to be an
Apostle, nor can a pretext for forgery be discovered.
» The citation of an apocryphal book is not strictly unworthy of a writer
of the apostolic age. The late origin of the Book of Enoch can alone ex
cite question.
¦• Schmidt, Einl. I. 314, Bertholdt, VI. 3194, suppose an Aramaic origi
nal. Cf. Schott, Isag. § 104. § 184 b.
Several of the ancient Church writers strongly favor the
Epistle, and speak of it with high respect." The ancient

EPISTLE OF JUDE. § 184 b. 367
catalogue of the Canon of the Bible in Muratori (Part I.
§ 21) also mentions it. Others, on the contrary, had doubts
of its genuineness: it was not in the Syriac canon, even
Origen refers to such doubts,'' and Eusebius classes it
among the Antilegomena." Perhaps, however, these doubts
arose from the objectionable character of ver. 14.'* In the
fourth century it was, with the other Antilegomena, adopted
into the canon of the Church (Part I. §§ 26, 27).
» Clemens Alex. Strom. HI. 431 : 'ETri Tovrmv (of the Carpocratians)
otpai Kai rmi' dpo'iav a'lpicreav npocprjTiKas 'lovBav iv r^ inicrroXfj elprjKevai.
Paedag. III. 239 : ElBevai ydp vpds, cprja-iv d 'lovBas, j3ovXopai, on d Bebs
dnaf, K.r. X., cf. Jude 5, 6, 11 ; cf. Euseb. VI. 14; see § 176 d, note o.
Orig. Comment, in Matth. HI. 463 : 'lovSas eypa-^jrev inicrroXfjv oXiydcrrixov
pev, nenXrjpajievrjv Be rSv r^s ovpaviov xapiros ippapevav Xdyav. Comment.
in ep. ad Rom. IV. 549 : Judas apostolus in epistola catholica dicit (Jud. 6,).
Homil. VII. in Jos. II. 412 : Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum suarum per-
sonat tubis. Jacobus quoque et Judas. De princip. III. 2. I. 138 : Et
primo quidem in Genesi serpens Evara seduxisse describitur : de quo in
Ascensione Moysi, cujus libelli meminit in epistola sua Apostolus Judas,
Michael Archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Moysi ait a diabolo
inspiratum serpentera causam exstitisse praevaricationis Adae et Evae. (It
may be doubted, with Credner, whether this predicate Apostolus comes
from Origen.) Tertull. De habitu fem. c. 3: Eo accedit, quod Enoch apud
Judam Apostolum testiraoniura possidet.
'¦ Comment, in Matth. Ill, 814 : Ei Se Kai rfjv 'lovBa npdaoird ns inicrro
Xfjv (which, from the context, means merely. If any one will yet adduce the
Epistle of Jude, cf Schott, Isag. § 103, note 1). On this account, Euseb.
H. E. VI. 25, also does not give it as in the canon of Origen.
' H, E. Ill, 25. II. 23. fin. : Ov TToXXoi yovv rmw TTaXaimK avr^s (of the
Epistle of James) ipvrjpdvevcrav, ms ovSe r^s Xeyope-vrjs 'lovBa, pids Kal avrfjs
ovcrrjs rav inrd Xeyopevav KaBoXiKav. "Opms Se 'lapev Kal ravras perd rmy
Xoinav iv nXeicrrais BeBrjpoaievpevas iKiCXrjcriais.
^ Hieronym. Catal. Scrr. eccl. s, v, Judas : Judas frater Jacobi, parvam
quidem, quae de septem catholicis est, epistolam reliquit, Et quia de libro
Enoch, qui apocryphus est, in ea assumit testimonium, a plerisque rejicitur :
tamen auctoritatem vetustate jam et usu meruit, ut inter sacras scripturas
computetur. The following modern writers deny apostolic origin to the Epistle : Im-
ther (in Walch, XIV. 150), Grotius, Bolten, Dahl, Berger (Moral. Einl. in
d. N. T. II. 395), Schwegler; the majority, however, accept it as genuine.
Cf. the Diss, by Jessien, referred to above.

368 THE EEVELATION OF JOHN.

CHAPTER XIL

THE EEVELATION OF JOHN.

Andreae, Episc, Caesar, in Cappad,, Commentarii in Apoc, Gr, c. Theodor.
Peltani vers, ed, Frid. Sylburg. Basil, 1596, fol, — Arelhoe, Episc, Caesar,
in Cappad., Explanatt, in Apoc, in Oecumenii Opp, ed, Paris, Tom, II, —
Dav. Parei Comm., in his Opp, theol. Heidelb. 1628, II, 1067, sqq, —
Camp. Vitringa, 'AvdKpia-is Apoc, Fran, 1705, — /, A. Bengel, Erkl,
Offenb, Joh, 1740, and often,- — Firmin Abauzit , Discours hist, sur I'Apoca-
lypse. 1770 (previously, 1730, in English), — Christoph Horenberg, Erkl, etc,
1759, — ffar/m>, Apologie d. Offenb, 1780, 1783, 4 Parts, — Apocalyp-
sis a c, IV, ad finem illustrandae tentamen, Auct, /. Sim. Herrenschnei-
der. Argent, 1786, 4to, — Mapaya^a, das Buch der Zukunft des Herm, des
N, T, Siegel (by Herder). Rig, 1779. — {Johannsen) Die Offenb, Joh, od.
d, Sieg d. Christenth, Ober Judenth. u, Heidenth, Flensb. 1788, — /. G.
ScMorn, Comment, in Apoc, Joh, Tom, I, H, Gott, 1791, — S.G. Lange,
Die Schriften Johannis, 1, Thl, d, Apok. enth, Neustr, 1795,- — Der Sieg
d, Christenth, iiber Juden- und Heidenth, od, d, Offenb, Joh, neu iibers, u,
m, Anmerkk. u. Exc. erl. von F. W. Hagen. Erl. 1796. — N. T. ed,
Kopp,| Tom, X, contin, Heinrichs. — G. H. Ewald, Comment, in Apoc.
Joh. exeg, et crit. Lips. 1828, — F.A.L. Moithai, Die Offenb, Joh, aus d,
Gr, iibers, u, mit vollst, Erkl, begleitet, Gott. 1828. 2 Parts, — /, M. A.
Scholz, Die Apok. d. h. Joh, erkJart u. in e, hist, krit, Einl, erlautert, Frkf.
1828, — Die Offenbarung Johannis metrisch iibersetzt von Munter.. 2d ed,
Kop, 1806, — Johannes des Gottbesprachten eschatologische Gesichte, ge-
nannt: die Apokalypse; iibersetzt, auf ihre Kunstform zuriickgefiihrt, und
zum Erstenmal erklart, auch fiir Nicht-Gelehrte von Friedr. Jac. Ziillig.
(Also with the title : Die Offenbarung Johannis vollstandig erklart.) Stuttg.
1834, 1840. 2 Parts, — Prideoux Tregelles, see above, §48c, note d. —
Fr. Liicke, Versuch e, vollst, Einleit, in d. Offenb. Joh. und in d. ges. apo-
kalypt. Litteratur. Bonn. 1832.
Nature of the Book.
§ 185 a.
The Revelation (disclosing of the future, cf. 1 Pet. i. 12)
of John belongs, according to its nature, to the class of pro-

NATURE OF THB BOOK. § 185 6. 369
phetic writings (§ 62). Christian antiquity shows several
of these, among them the Revelation of Peter.'' Its basis is
Jesus's prediction of his return. Matt. xvi. 27, f., xxiv. 29
(although not in harmony with the details in Matt, xxiv.,
especially ver. 2, 15), xxvi. 64, and it attaches itself to the
Old Testament prophecies, more, however, to the later than
the earlier, especially to Daniel, being almost wholly sym
bolical.'' The Old Testament prophetical style is somewhat
modified by the address to the seven churches, i. 4 - iii. 22,°
which follows the usual announcement of the work as a
prophecy, i. 1-3.
» Clemens Alex, commented on it, see Euseb. H. E. VI, 14, § 176 b, note a.
In the Canon of Muratori (Part I. § 21) it is placed next to the Revelation
of John. On the contrary, Euseb. III. 24 : 'Ej' rois vdBois KarareraxBa
Kal Tav navXov npd^eav fj ypacpfj, o re Xeydpevos noipfjv Kal fj dnoKdXv-^is
Uerpov. Sozomen, VII. 19 : Ovrm •yovv rfjv KaXovpevrjv 'AnoKdXvyjnv Uerpov
as vdBov navreXas npbs rtSi' dpxalav BoKipacrBelcrav 'ev ncnv iKKXrjcriais rfjs
UaXaicrrivrjs elcren vijv dna^ eKacrrov erovs dvayivaaKopevrjv 'eyvapev iv rfj
fjpepci napacTKevfjs fjv evXajSms dyav d Xabs vrjcrrevei eTri dvapvfjcrei rov crarrj
piov ndBovs. Cf Fabric. Cod, apocr, N.T.II. 940. —The Shepherd of Her
mas, according to its first part, also belongs to this class of writings. The
Book of Enoch (translated from Ethiopic into English by Rich. Laurence,
Oxf. 1821, into German with continuous commentary, detailed introduction,
and illustrative dissertations by A. G. Hoffmann, 1 Abth. Jen. 1833) and the
Fourth Book of Ezra are Jewish productions of the same kind. The Sib
ylline Books are in part of Christian origin. Cf Liicke, Einl. in d. Offenb.
Joh. p. 43, ff,
'¦ Nothing can be more unfortunate than the thought that it is a dramatic
work {Dav. Poreus, Prooem. ad Comm, in Apoc. [Heidelb. 1618], c. 3,
Hartwig, Eichhorn, Matthaei, Feilmoser, and others).
"= Cf. Fkoald, p. 14. Liicke, p. 156, ff. And yet it is incorrect to say
that the whole has the form of a letter. Though this is true of the
greeting, xxii. 21, it is not of xxii. 16 (the words of Christ, not of the
author). § 185 6.
The symbolical garb in which the prophecies are clothed
presents to the interprfeter a great difficulty, one on which
even modern interpreters have, in part, been wrecked." An
other difficulty lies, on the one hand, in the determination of
the historic point of view from which the revelation of the
47

370 THE EEVELATION OF JOHN.
future is to be apprehended. This was long neglected, until
the time of Lud. ab Alcassar^ among the Catholics, and of
Grotius among the Protestants, and even longer by the
latter, especially through Bengel's mistake ; many, even at
the present day, pay it no attention." On the other hand, it
has cost much pains to define precisely ,the historic hori
zon of the seer, and the actual amount of what he foresaw
(see § 186, note ft). However strongly the historic stand
point is to be asserted, we must yet insist also that the work
contains an ideally prophetic element, which has force even
for us.''
» See Bleek, Beitrag z. Kritik u. Deutung d. Offenbar. Joh. Berlin.
Theol, Zeitschr, II, 253, ff,
¦' Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi. Antw. 1614. fol, Cf, Liicke,
as above, p, 532, ff. Also Bossuet, L'Apocalypse avec une explic, Par,
1690, proceeded from the historic stand-point,
" Steudel, Ueb, d. richtige Auffassungsweise d, Apokalypse, in Bengel's
Archiv, IV, 2,
^ Liicke, Apokalypt, Studien, Stud, u. Krit, II, 2, p. 304.
Design and Contents.
§ 186.
As one object of all prophecy, even that of Daniel, is
comfort and warning, so also here its first and chief aim is
to stimulate the Christians to steadfastness and fidelity
under persecution (xiii. 7, 10, xiv. 12, f., cf. i. 9, ii. 10, iii.lO),
and then to exhort the Jews (xi. 13) and Gentiles (xiv. 6, f.)
to conversion, by ihe prophecy of the speedy coming of the
judgment and of the triumph of God's kingdom.. The horta
tory portion is found chiefly in the address to the seven
churches, which forms the introduction to the prophecy (i. 4
-iii. 22). The prophecy, in its form a vision and visual rep
resentation of the hidden future (iv.l -xxii. 5), contains the
following leading particulars : — 1. Calamities which pre
cede the advent of the kingdom of .God (vi. 1-8, 12-17,
viii. 6-13, ix., xvi. 1-11); 2. The judgment on Jerusalem
and the conversion of the remaining inhabitants (xi. 13) ;
3. The judgment on Babylon (Rome) and heathendom, the

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. §186. 371
chaining of Satan (xix. 1-xx. 3), — the main catastrophe
and a chief point in the Apocalypse ; 4. The first resur
rection and the thousand years' kingdom (xx. 4-6); 5. New
outbreak of Satan, the final decisive victory over him, de
scent of the New Jerusalem, eternal blessedness (xx. 7-
xxii. 5). As these topics admitted of but little develop
ment, or the prophet-poet was unequal to the task,* he
made use of an artificial mode of development, in which
it was his purpose, by slowness and delay, partly to set forth
a succession of scenes, and partly to excite expectation.
There are two series of development, the one preparatory,
iv. -xi., which leads to the judgment on Judaism,'' the other
(xiv. 6 to the end) leading to the final decision. The latter
is preceded by an explanation (xii. 1-xiv. 5) intended to
point out the enemies of Christ and his kingdom, and par
ticularly to introduce the heathenism and antichristianity
which are to be overcome.''
" Since Eichhorn, critics have usually found the victory of Christianity over
Judaism, and the destruction of Jerusalera, in the first of these series of de-
velopraent, and in the second the overthrow of heathenism ; but the plagues,
vi. -ix., strike equally all the peoples of the earth, and Jerusalem shall,
after being subject to the heathen for a space of time (xi. 2, cf Dan, ix.
26, 27), be but partially destroyed by an earthquake (xi. 13). What re
mains to the end of chap, xviii. is plainly directed against heathenism, and
forms the proper kernel of the revelation (i, 1 refers to xvii. 1). Cf Bleek,
as above, p. 260, ff. The older historical interpreters, Abauzit, Wetstein,
Herder, and Hartwig, erred also in finding, in the second part, only the vic
tory over Judaism. Ziillig repeated this,
'' I, First Series of Development. The book of fate with the seven seals
is given to the Lamb to be opened (iv,, v,). But the opening of the first
six seals (vi,, vii,) is only introductory. After the opening of the seventh,
the decision is delayed by the consequences being dependent on the sound
ing of seven trumpets, with the last three of which three woes wee connected.
Six of these trumpets bring great plagues and the approach of the judg
ment (viii., ix.). Before the seventh trumpet sounds, solemn announcement
of the complete revelation of the divine mystery is made, which is con
tained in a book given to the prophet to swallow (x.). Announcement of
the possession of the Holy City by the heathen for a period of time (xi. 1, f ).

* He had no presentiment of the actual historical process which Chr
tianity must pass through.

372 THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
Appearance and martyrdom of two prophets (xi. 3-12). Judgment on
Jerusalem and conversion of the remaining inhabitants (xi, 13), The third
woe and the seventh trumpet (xi, 14, f). Proclamation and preparatory
celebration of the victory of God and Christ in heaven (xi, 14 - 19).
II, 1, Explanation. Introduction of the enemies of Christ and his king
dom. Satan, being hurled out of heaven after a vain attempt to destroy
Christ, fiercely persecutes the Christians (xii.). Antichrist (Nero) and
heathen priestdom come on the stage in the form of beasts (xiii.). The
victory of Christ and his followers foreseen (xiv. 1-5). 2. Second Series
of Development. Announcement of the downfall of Rorae and of judgment
on the heathen (xiv. 6 - 20) . Seven angels receive seven bowls, from which
the anger of God shall be poured out upon the earth (xv.). The first /ottr
bring four general plagues (xvi, 1 - 9) , the last three destruction to Rome
(xvi. 10-21). Announcement and celebration of the destruction of this
godless city by the instrumentality of that beast himself (xvii,, xviii., xix.
1- 10). Christ's victory over both beasts, and the chaining of Satan (xix.
11-xx. 3), First resurrection and thousand years' kingdom (xx, 4-6),
Last conflict and victory, destruction of Satan (xx. 7- 10), Judgment of the
world (xx, 11 - 15), New Jerusalem, eternal blessedness (xxi. 1-xxii, 5).
Epilogue (xxii, 6-21), Cf. Reuss, Allg. Encyklop. 2. Sect. XXH. 84, ff.
Dale of Composition.
§ 187.
In determining the date, a point which materially affects
his whole view of the book, the critic must pay no heed to
the doubtful accounts of the Fathers regarding John's al
leged banishment to Patmos (§ 108 b, note a), or to their opin
ions as to the date of the composition," but must rely on the
internal grounds alone. Chap. xi. 1, f. assumes that Jeru
salem was yet standing, and proves, accordingly, that the
work was composed before the destruction of that city.''
Chap. xvii. 10, also, according to which the book was writ
ten during the reign of the sixth Emperor, may refer to the
same period, if Galba, and not Vespasian, be reckoned the
sixth." That the book was written after Nero's death is
clear from the expectation of his return (xvii. 11), and from
the allusions to the persecutions of the Christians under
him (vi. 9, xvii. 6).
» Irenceus, Eusebius, Hieronymus, and others, place it under Domitian.
Epiphanius, on the other hand, under Claudius ; the Syriac version, Tlieo-
phyl., and others, under Nero. Cf. Liicke, p. 405, ff.

UNITY OF THE BOOK. § 188. 373
^ Against Eichhorn and others, who assume the destruction, see Bleek, as
above, p, 267, f. Liicke, p, 247, ff, Zeller, in his Jbb. 1842. p, 660, ff.
In favor of chap. xi. 1, f corresponding to the condition of the chy under
Galba, Hofmann (Weissag. u, Erfiill, II, 301) and others adduce the cir
cumstance, that, at that tirae, the Zelotas were in possession of the temple.
On other points his language is confused.
' In favor of the first, Ewald, p. 47, sqq., Liicke, Einl. p. 252, ff,, Cred
ner, Neudecker, Reuss, Zeller, Jbb, 1842, p, 694 ; of the second, in it
self more probable, Eichhorn, Comment, ad xvii, 10, Bleek, as above,
p. 290, ff,, cf Beitr. I. 81. When Bertholdt, IV. 1893, in reckoning the
Emperors, begins with Julius Csesar, and accordingly places the composition
earlier, under Nero, he misses wholly the explanation of xvii, 11 by the
then current expectation, which, historically, is amply attested [Bleek, as
above, p, 286, note, and the first No. of the above Zeitschr. p. 244, note).
The same occurs when Hug, II, 613, holds merely to the ten kings men
tioned in xvii. 12 (the Parthian allies of Nero), supposes thera ten eraperors,
and consequently, with Irenseus, places the composition of the Apocalypse
under Domitian. Against ZuUig's supposition, that the beast means pseudo-
Judaism, see Zeller, as above, p. 665, ff. Among the critics of a certain
school, Ebrard, Hofmann, E(nd Thiersch, this traditional date is an axiom.
They reject the interpretation of xvii. 11, without being able to give a better.
Schleiermacher, Einl. p. 451, ff., also, with a strange exegetical scepticism,
declares himself in favor of this date. Guerike, Fortges. Beitr. I. 70, ff.,
denying the historic interpretation of xi. 1, f , xvii, 10, placed the composi
tion under Nerva, A. D. 96 (against him, Liicke, p. 258, ff.). In his Einl.
p. 532, he finds in the former passage Jerusalera still standing, but does not
go into the interpretation of the second, and adopts A. D. 68 as the date.
Unity of the Book.
§188.
According to the correct apprehension of the relation of
the second series of development (chap. xii. ff.) to the first, the
whole book was written at the time indicated in the preced
ing section, viz. before the destruction of Jerusalem, and
every supposition of heterogeneousness in its contents is
to be rejected.*
* Grotius (ad Apoc. i. 9, xv. 1) and Hammond (Prolegg, ad Apoc, p, 435)
suppose that chap, i.-xiv. were written before the destruction of Jerusalem,
and the remaining chapters after that event, but divide these main divisions
again into several sections. Fo^eZ(Comraent, de Apoc. Joh. P, L - VII, Erl,
1811 - 16. 4to) regards i, 9 - iii, 22 as a composition which must have been
written later than iv.-xi., and bears no relation to the Apocalypse ; and

374 THE EEVELATION OF JOHN.
xii. -xxii, as the work of the Presbyter John, who united the three parts
into one whole, Bleek, p, 296, ff,, thought that the second part, beginning
with chap, xii,, was written later ; but he has retracted this, Beitr, I, 81, —
Schleiermacher, p, 462, considers the Apocalypse a collection of single vis-

The Author.
§ 189 a.
We must first put the question regarding the author in
this form : Can the Revelation, and the fourth Gospel, with
the three Epistles, have the same author ? The following
considerations may be urged in the negative : —
1. The author of the Apocalypse gives his own name
(i.l, 4, 9, xxii. 8), but the Evangelist never.* This circum
stance is at least worthy of attention.''
" Dionysius Alex, in Euseb. VII, 25 : 'O pev ydp evayyeXicrrfjs ovBapofJ rb
dvopa avrofj napeyypdcpei • ovBe Krjpvcrcrei eavrdv, oiire Bid rov evayyeXiov,
ovre Bid rfjs inicrroXfjs , , , . Imdi'i'T^s 6e ovBapofJ ovBe as nepl eavroij, ovBe
as nepl erepov - d Be rfjv dnoKdXv-^iv ypdcpas, evBvs re eavrdv iv dpxfj npo-
Tacraei, k. t, X,
'' Eichhorn, II, 438, finds a reason in the custom of the prophets to name
themselves. But the epistolary form also demands the mention of the name,
and yet John does not follow it, Lucke, Einl, p, 360,
§ 189 b.
2. The language of the Revelation is very different from
that of the fourth Gospel and the Johannic Epistles. This
appears in its Hebraizing roughness and carelessness,* its .
want of pure Greek and genuine Johannic words and turns
of expression,'' and in peculiar favorite expressions." These
can be satisfactorily explained neither by the supposed dif
ference in the Evangelist's age, nor by the prophetic charac
ter of the book and its Old Testament coloring.'* The
traces of resemblance in style adduced by the defenders of
its Johannic origin, moreover, are of small importance.*
^ Mistakes in respect to the connecting of nouns and adjectives by the
cases, i. 5, f , ii, 20, iii. 12, iv. 4, 8, vi, 1, vii, 9, viii. 9, ix. 14, xiii. 3, xiv. 7,
12, XV, 2, xvii, 4, 8, xix, 6, xxi, 12 ; in the connection of genders, iv, 1, 3,
xi, 15, xiv, 19 ; a thoroughly Hebraistic use of tenses, iv, 9, 10, x, 7, viii, 11,

THB AUTHOR. § 189 b. 375
xii. 2-4, xvi. 21, ii, 22, iii, 9 ; of the participle, i, 16, iv. 1, 5, vi. 2, 5,
vii. 9, X, 2, 8, xiv, 1, 14, xix, 12, 13, xxi, 14 ; of the infinitive, xii, 7 (John
i, 14, 2 John 1, do not come into the account to the contrary). See, on the
contrary, Winer, De soloecismis, qui in Apoc, Joan, inesse dicuntur, Exe
get, Studien, I, 144, ff,, who seems to excuse too much,
^ The genitive absolute is wanting, and the attraction of the relative pro
noun (i, 20, text, rec), Xva after the demonstrative pronoun ; e'l ns is used more
frequently than idv ns, which alone occurs in John (cf , however, 2 John 10) ;
the particles d)s(adv, temp.),Kaflms, pev, pevroi, ndvrore, TrmTTore, John's favor
ite words and ideas, Kocrpos, (pas, a-Koria, ^afj alavios, dndXXva-Bai, Beda-Bai,
the perfect eapoKa, Bo^d^eiv (in the usual sense, xv, 4, xviii, 7), pei'eii' ev
nvi, d dpxav rov Koapov, b novrjpds (in its stead, fiid^oXos, craravas), the
comparative pei^av, are omitted ; ovv occurs only as an illative conjunct,,
Trepi simply locally, dpfjv always single ; always iSov, never I'Se ; always
'lepova-dXfjp, for 'lepoaoXvpa, and several others, Cf Ewold, p, 67, sqq.
Liicke, Einleit. p. 361, ff. Credner, § 266, Cf, on the contrary Kollhoff,
p. 86, sqq, Donnemonn, p. 8, ff, Dionysius, I, c: "Ert Be Kal rfjs cppd-
creas rfjv Biacpopdv icrn TeKpfjpacrBai roi) evayyeXiov Kai r^s eTTiaroX^s Trpds
T^i' dTTOKdXv\|rti/, Td pei^ ydp ov povov anraicrras Kara rfjv 'li,XXf]vav cpavfjv,
dXXd Kai Xoyidirara rals Xi^ecri, rols crvXKoyicrpols, rals crvvrd^eari rfjs epprj
veias yeypanrai - noXXov ye Set ^dpISapbv nva cpBd-yyov, fj aoXoiKicrpdv, fj
oXas iStmrio-pdj' iv avrols evpeBfjvai. 'EKarepov ydp eixev ids eoiKe, rdv Xdyov -
dpcporepovs avra xf^pio-apevov rov KVpiov, rdv re rfjs yvacreas rdv re rfjs cppd-
creas. Tovrov Be dnoKoX-v^iv pev eapaKevai Kal yvaaiv elXrjcpevat Kal npocprjrei
av OVK dvrepS) - BidXeKrov pev roi Kal yXacrcrav ovk aKpi^as eXXrjvi^ova-av avrov
jSXeVm ¦ dXX' IBiapacn pev ^ap^apiKols xpi'p^'^ov, koi ttov Kai o-oXoiKifovra.
" o'lKovpevrj, iii. 10, xii, 9, xvi, 14 ; vnopovfj, i. 9, ii, 2, 3, 19, iii, 10, xiii,
10, xiv, 12 ; Kparelv rd 'ovopa, ii. 13 ; r, BiBaxfjv, ii. 14, f, ; navroKpdrap, nine
times ; Beds koI narfjp, i, 6, as in Paul ; d dXTji^ii'ds of Christ, iii, 7, 14, xix,
11 ; paprvpia 'Irja: Xp., i. 2, 9, xii. 17, xix. 10, xx. 4 ; dpviov of Christ, v.
6, 8, 12, f., and thirteen times besides.
^ As Bertholdt, IV. 1838, Eichhorn, ll. 379, and recently Kolthoff, p, 69,
sqq,, Dannemann, p, 5, f,, do. The Evangelist was over sixty years of
age at the time the Apocalypse was composed. At so great an age a man
develops no further,
» Twells, in Wolf, V, 399, ff, Hartwig, Apolog, IV, 124, ff, H. H.
Banker Curtius, De apocalypsi ab indole, doctrina, et scribendi genere Jo
hannis ap. non abhorrente, (Traj. 1799.) p. 44, sqq. /. D. Schulze, Schrift
stell. Charakt. d. Joh. p, 94, ff. Eichhorn, p. 380. Kolthoff, pp. ill, sqq.
Donnem. p. 31 , ff. Zeller, Jbb. , as above, p, 700 , f That which is akin is again
in part different, as, dXrjBivds, vi, 10, of God in the sense of veracious, not as
in John xvii, 3, true, genuine; paprvpia, different from that in the Gospel ;
a-cppayiCeiv, to close up, to mark,— in the Gospel, to confirm; viKav, ii. 7,
and often, absolute, on the contrary, viKav r. Kda-pov, 1 John v, 14, f ; in
part not characteristic, as, crKrjvovv, a-cpdrreiv, o-^is, nepmarelv perd tivos ;

376 THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
fjXBev fj apa (xiv. 7, 19), cf Mark xiv. 41 ; in part critically doubtful, as,
epxov K, i'fie, vi, l,ff,, cf. £u,'aW,p.73, sq. iacfe, p.369, ff. Zeller, p.701,f.
§ 189 C.
3. The whole style of representation is different : in the
Gospel and Epistles quiet, deep feeling, here lively creative
power of imagination." This difference, also, is not to be
explained by the difference in the age of the Evangelist and
in the literary character of the work. We may compare it
to the difference between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In the let
ters to the seven churches, at least, a Johannic tone must
have manifested itself. To this we may add, that the style
of composition in the Apocalypse is marked by Jewish learn
ing and art, whereas John, an unlearned man in the Jewish
sense (Acts iv. 13), makes little or no use of Old Testament
and Jewish learning.''
" Dionys. 1, c, : reKpaipopai ydp 'eK re rov fjBovs eKarepav Kal roi) rmw Xd
yav ei'Sovs Kai rijs rov /3i/3Xtov Ste^aymy^s Xeyopevrjs, pfj rbv avrbv eivai.
'• Liicke, p, 374, ff, Hartmann, Nachlese z, Liicke's Einl,, &c,, in Stud,
u. Krit. 1834. I. 119, ff. § 189 d.
4. Their views and mode of representation are different.*
The Evangelist has wholly shaken off the trammels of Ju
daism ; the writer of the Apocalypse is strongly attached to
it.'' Although in the Gospel and Epistles we find points of
connection with, or statements which presuppose, the com
mon eschatology, the spiritual view preponderates ; here, on
the other hand, we meet with vivid sensuous representations
and expectations of the Messiah (i. 7, ii. 27, iii. 12, v. 5,
[xxii. 16,] xix. 11, ff., XX. 1, ff., 7, ff., xxi. 1, ff.). There we
have an interior development of the cause of Christ, an in
ternal glorification of the same in his disciples ; here, the
victory of Christ through external events, through exertions
of God's power." The relation of the Apocalypse to the
Gospel is like that of Matt. xxiv. to John xiv. 18, ff."* It
glows, moreover, with a spirit of Messianic revenge (vi. 10,
16, viii. 6, ff., xiv. 20, xvi. 4, ff., xix. 13, 15, 17, ff.), which is

THE AUTHOR. § 189 d. 377
irreconcilable with John iii. 16, ff., xii. 47. In the genuine
Johannic writings we find no such pneumatological, demon
ological, and angelological representations as here, i. 4, iii.
1, V. 6, xvi. 13, xii. 7, 9. The apparently kindred elements
in many, especially the Christological representations, prove
on nearer examination to be different." "Whoever is capable
of apprehending, without bias, the spirit of a work as a
whole, will not allow himself to be misled by this and
like arguments advanced by its defenders.'
" Dionysius, 1. c. : Kai dnb rav vorjpdrav Be Kal rav prjpdrav Kal r^s
crvvrd^eas avrav eiKorms erepos ovros nap' iKelvov vnovorjBfjrrerai. SwiiBovcri
pev ydp dXX7jXois rd eva-yyeXiov Kal fj inicrroXfj , bpoias re apxovrai . .
Ej^erai avrov Kai rt5i< npoBecreav ovk dcpicrrarai ' Bid Be rmi' avrav KecpaXalav
Kal dvopdrav ndvra Bie^epxerai Srv rivd pev fjpels crvvrdpas vnopvfjcropev. ',0
Be npocrexas ivrvyxdvav evpfjcrei ev eKaripco noXXfjv rfjv ^afjv, noXv rb cpas,
dnorponfjv rofj ctkotovs, avvexfj rfjv dXfjBeiav, rfjv x^P'^j rfjv xapdv, rfjv crdpKa
Kal TO aifia roi) Kvpiov, rfjv Kpicriv, rfjv dcpecriv rav dpapriav, rfjv npbs fjpds
aydrrrjv rov Beov, rfjv npbs dXXfjXovs fjpds dydrrrjs ivroXrjv, as ndcras Bel cpv-
Xdrreiv rds ivroXds • d 'eXeyxos rov Kdcrpov, rov StajSdXov, roi) dvnxpicrrov, fj
inayyeXia roi) dyiov nvevparos, fj vioBecrla rov Beov, fj StdXov nicrns fjpcov
dnaiTOvpevrj, d narfjp Kal d vlbs navraxov - Kal oXas Bid ndvrav xapaKrrjpi-
(ovras eva Kal rbv avrbv crvvopdv rov re evayyeXiov Kal t^s inicrroXfjs xP^'ra
npoKeirai. ' AXXoiordrrj Be Kal ^evrj napd ravra fj dnoKdXv\jns, pfjre icpanro-
pevrj, pfjre yeirviacra rovrav prjBevl crxeBdv, <is eiTTeTy, prjBe arvXXajifjV npbs
avrd Koivfjv 'exovcra.
" Against Bour, in Zeller's Jbb. IV. 663, f,, Krit, Unterss. p, 347, f , who
says too much of the Judaism of the writer of the Apocalypse, see Bleek,
Beitr, I, 184, ff. It is certain that to him "Jew" is not the same as
" unbeliever" (ii, 9, iii. 9), that Jerusalem is the holy city (xi, 2), the
beloved city (xx, 9), that he hopes for the preservation of the temple and
of the Jews worshipping there, and for the conversion of the majority of the
inhabitants (xi, 1, f , 13), and that Jerusalem shall be the central point of
the millennial kingdom (xiv, 1, xx, 9),
" It is true that the conception of an internal return of Christ also appears
in Revelation iii, 20.
^ This comparison is admirably carried out by LiXcke, p. 377, ff.
» John could not have written KoXelrai rb 'dvopa avrov d Xdyos rov Beov,
xix. 13 ; dpxfj r^s KTio-ems, iii. 14, cf. John i. 2, f. The divine name of
Christ, iii. 12, xix. 12, is in the spirit of the Old Testament rather than of
John ; and although that, as well as the divine attributes, i. 17, ii. 8, xxii.
13 indicates Christ's oneness with God, this approximates no nearer to John
than to Paul. The description of Christ as a Lamb is made different from
John's, i, 29, 36, by the word dpviov ; ii. 11 from John viii. 50 by the notion
48

378 THE EEVELATION OF JOHN.
of the second death ; xxi. 6 from John vii. 38 by the allusion to the fountain
in Paradise, xxii. 1 ; xiv, 15 from John iv, 35 by its reminiscence of Joel
iv, 13 ; xix, 7 is more closely allied to Matt, xxii, 2, ff,, xxv, l,ff,, than
to John iii, 29; the spiritual manna, ii, 17, reminds us of John vi, 31, ff,,
but KeKpvppevov is not Johannic, Hence we cannot, with Liicke, as above,
p, 372, Zeller, as above, p. 703, suppose imitation on the one side or the
other. I know not even whether the work presupposes a Johannic type
{Neand. Pflanz., etc, II, 628), Only the agreement in using Zech. xii. 10
according to a translation different from the Alexandrian, Rev. i. 7, John
xix, 37, is remarkable, IfEwald's theory be correct (note on Rev. i, 7), that
the Septuagint also formerly, like Aqu. Symm. Theod,, read i^eKevrrjaav,
only one point of the agreement would be explained, while the other (the
use of the verb onrea-Bai) would remain. Probably the author of the Apoc
alypse and the Evangelist used a common source, and that an eschatologi
cal one. For the verb 'dnrea-Bai, as in Rev, i, 7 and Matt, xxiv, 30, must
refer to the appearance of the returning Messiah, a subject which John xix,
37 does not, of itself, suggest. Hence, in this citation the Evangelist
seems dependent. But the author of the Apocalypse seems also to be so
(see Exeg, Handb. on the passage).
f Eichhorn, II, § 196, f Bertholdt, IV, 1825, ff. Kolthoff, p, 123, sqq,
Dannemann,'^. 58, ff. Hofmann, as above, p, 315, ff. The last-mentioned
writers ascribe too much to the symbolico-prophetic style of the description,
§ 189 e.
From all this it follows, (and no conclusion of modern
criticism stands more firmly than this,) that if the Apostle
John wrote the fourth Gospel and the Johannic Epistles, he
did not write the Apocalypse ; or, if the Apocalypse be his
work, he is not the author of the other writings.^ If, leav
ing out of view this conditional relation, we ask whether
the Apocalypse can be the work of the Apostle John, as he
is delineated in the New Testament and Church tradition,
we cannot, after due deliberation, with Baur and others, an
swer decidedly in the affirmative. For, — 1. The spirit of the
work, though it is that of a son of Zebedee and a " son of
thunder," is not that of the disciple who lay on Jesus's
breast ; '' 2. The expectation of Christ's speedy return is in
deed apostolic, but whether chiliasm also is, is doubtful ;
3. The Apocalypse differs, to its disadvantage, from the an
cient Christian eschatologies with which we are acquainted,
especially in its throwing too much into the shade (cf. Rev.

THE AUTHOR. § 190. 379
xiv, 6) " the universal spread of the Gospel (Matt. xxiv. 14),
and a general conversion to Christ (Rom. xi. 25, f.).
* In this conclusion, Bour and his school agree with us.
¦• Bour, p. (660) 345, and others are manifestly wrong in referring the tra
dition concerning John current in Asia Minor, even with the " d e'Trl rd a-rfj-
Bos -I ¦ Kvpiov dvanea-av " [Polycrat. in Euseb. V. 24, see § 109 c, note d), to
John, the author of the Apocalypse. Bleek, I. 195, f.
" This against Schnitzer, in Zeller's Jbb. 1842. p. 468, ff, — It is very
doubtful, as is also maintained by Luther (§ 194 b) and Schleiermocher, Einl,
pp, 466,470, whether the book in general is after the manner of an Apostle,
Two principles are certain, — 1, that the kingdom of God has an internal de
velopment (cf Matt, xiii, 31-33); 2, that it is given to none, not even to
Apostles, to know the day and the hour of this development (Acts i, 6, ff.).
With neither of these is the Revelation in harmony. It is, moreover, ques
tionable whether one who was intimately acquainted with Jesus, and re
tained a vivid remerabrance of hira, could have written syrabolic descrip
tions like i. 13, ff,, v, 6, based on abstract conceptions,
§ 190.
The author, it is true, calls himself John, i. 4, 9, xxi. 2
(common text), xxii. 8, but does not describe himself as one
of the Apostles,* in whose number, according to xviii. 20,
xxi. 14, he seems not to reckon himself; the passages i. 2, 9
also do not indicate the life and circumstances of the Apostle
John.'' The address to the churches of Asia Minor, which
is to be understood in the strictly historical sense,"" pre
supposes an author held in honor by them, but not necessa
rily this Apostle. Hence the theory, that a disciple of the
Apostle John edited, in his own way," a revelation made to
and perhaps in part written down by him, is destitute of
critical basis, and irreconcilable with the early date of the
work (before the Apostle John's death). There is no objec
tion to the ancient theory,* that another John, the Presbyter,
so called, is the author, if we but date the work, and the
consideration which, according to chap, i., ii., its author held
among the churches of Asia Minor, earlier than the Apostle
John's residence in Asia Minor (cf. § 108 a). The hypothe
sis, that John Mark, the author of the second Gospel, wrote
the Apocalypse,* has too slight a foundation in the simi-

380 THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
larity (still stronger in the readings of the Cod. Sangall.) of
the Hebraizing style of this Gospel to that of the Apoca
lypse.* There are also dissimilarities. It is also bound
up with the false theory of the originality of the second
Gospel. ' Dionysius, 1. c. : "On pev ovv 'ladvvrjs eirrlv d ravra ypdcpav, avra Xe-
yovri niarevreov - nolos Be ovros, dBrjXov. Ov ydp eiTTev eavrdv elvai, as iv
ra evayyeXlco noXXaxov, rbv fjyamjpevov vnb rov Kvpiov paBrjrfjv- ovBe rbv
dvanecrdvra inl rb crrfjBos avrov ¦ ov8e rdv dBeXcpbv 'loKm/Sov, ovBe rbv avrd-
nrrjv Kal avrfjKoov rov Kvpiov yevdpevov. Guerike, I owever. En 1. p. 524, ff.,
and Schnitzer, as above, p, 458, ff,, assert, that, according to all, he wishes to
pass for the Apostle ; and the last raentioned, that only an Apostle can be sup
posed the recipient of such a revelation, Liicke, also, Einl, in d. Offen
barung, p, 240, admitted that the exegetical probability seemed to favor
John ; but see note b.
^ The banishment to Patmos is not certainly implied in the second pas
sage, and in both paprvpia is to be referred to the Apocalypse itself UXcke,
in Stud, u. Kr, 1836, p, 654, ff, Bleek, I, 192,
'''' Against the mystical view, see Liicke, Einl, p, 198,ff. An actual ad
dress was supposed by Tertull. Cont. Marc, IV, 5. But, with Vilring.
'AvaKp. p. 51, the historic and the symbolic senses are to be combined, but in
a simpler way. These seven churches represent all the others,
" Liicke, Einl, p, 390, Schott, Isag. § 116, Neonder, Pflanzung, etc., in
the earlier editions, less distinctly in the fourth edition, II, 631, The pre
vious edition of this work,
^ Dionysius, 1, c. : "AXXov Se nva oipai rmj/ ev 'Acria yevopevav - inel Kal
Bvo cpacrlv iv 'Ecpea-co yevearBai pvfjpara, Kal eKdrepov 'ladwov XeyecrBai.
Papias, in Euseb. III. 39 : Ei Se ttov koI naprjKoXovBrjKas ns rols npea-^vre-
pois eXBoi, rovs rcov npecr^vrepav dviKpivov Xdyovs ' Tt 'AvBpeas, ^ ri Uerpos
elnev * rj n ^iXmnos - rj rt Gmpds, fj 'laKmjSos • fj rt 'ladvvrjs, fj MarBaios - ^
ris erepos rav Kvptov paBrjrav ' are 'Apicrriav Kal d npecr^vrepos 'ladv
vrjs, ol ToiJ Kvpiov paBrjral, Xeyovaiv. Whereupon Eusebius adds: 'Qs Kai
Std rovrav anoBeiKWcrBai rfjv icrropiav dXrjBfj rmi' Bvo Kara rfjv ' Acrlav dpaw-
pia Kexpfja-Bai eiprjKdrav, Bvo re iv 'Ecpecrca yeveaBai pvfjpara, Kai eKarepov
'ladwov en vvv XeyecrBai - ois Kai dvayKolov npocrexeiv rbv vovv. EiKos ydp
rdf Bevrepov, el prj ns iBeXoi rbv nparov, rfjv in dvoparos (pepopevrjv 'ladwov
dnoKdXv-\lnv eapaKevai. So Bleek, Berlin, theol, Ztschr, II, 248, Beitr, I,
193, Rettig, in the work adduced in § 191 a, note b, p, 64, Credner, § 267,
(.'f. , on the contrary, and against Guerike (Die Hypothese v, d. Presbyter
Joti. als Veif d. Offenb., Einl. p. 262, f.), who casts doubt on the existence
of this man, Liicke, Einl, p, 397, ff,
' Bez. Prolegg. in Apoc, Joh, : Quod si. quid aliud liceret ex stylo conji-
cere, nemini certe potius quam Marco tribuerim, qui et ipse Johannes dictus
est: adeo non in verbis tantum, sed etiam in formulis dicendi plerisque

CHURCH TRADITION IN FAVOR OF JOHN. § 191 a. 381

'to >

similis ac pene idem est Evangelii Marci et hujus libri character. Hitzig
Ueb. Joh, Marc, und seine Schriften (Ziir, 1843), p. 65, ff.
Dionys. 1. o. : "Eon pev ovv Kal erepos 'ladvvrjs iv rols npd^eai rmv otto-
OTo'Xmv d e'TTiKXTjfleis MdpKos . ... el Be ovros d ypd-^jras ianv, ovk dv cpalrjv •
ovBe ydp dcpixBai crvv avrois els rfjv 'Acriav yeypanrai. Ebrard, Das Evang.
Joh. p. 138, ff.
Church Tradition in Favor of John as the Author.
§ 191a.
The earliest testimony would be that of Papias. All our
knowledge of him, however, comes through later historians,
and we are left in doubt whether he really knew the Apoca
lypse, and as the work of the Apostle John." Justin Martyr
(f 165) is the first to speak of the Apocalypse as a work
of the Apostle John." The statements are unsatisfactory
that MeUto, a contemporary of Justin, Bishop of Sardes,
wrote a book on the Apocalypse {Euseb. H. E. IV* 26,
Hieron. De vir. ill. cap. 24), and that Theophilus, Bishop of
Antioch, towards the end of the second century, in his work
against Hermogenes, drew proofs from the Apocalypse of
John [Euseb. IV. 24). Tha.t' Apo llonius (end of second and
beginning of third century), in his work against the Monta
nists (who rejected the Apocalypse), drew proofs from it
{Euseb. V. 18), is a matter of more consequence.
» Andreas (c. 475), Praef ad corament, in Apocalyps, : Ilepi pev rov Beo-
nvevoTov rfjs ^i/3Xov nepirrbv prjKvveiv rbv Xdyov fjyovpeBa, rmv juiKapiav
Vprjyopiov tov BeoXdyov Kal KvpiXXov, npocren re Kal rmv dpxaiorepav
Uanniov , Elprjvaiov, MeBoBiov Kal 'IttttoXvtov ravrrj n poo- paprv povvrav
rb d^idnicrrov. Areihas (a little later), Praef ad comment, : Ilepi Se rov
Beonvevcrrov rfjs ^ifiXov d ev dyiois BacriXeios Kal Tprjydpios d Belos rov Xd
yov Kal KvpiXXos Kai Uanias Kal Eiprjvalos Kal 'IttttoXvtos oi iKKXrjcriacrriKol
narepes ixeyyvot nicrraaatrBai. Euseb. H, E, III. 39, is silent on the sub
ject: Kai aXXa Be b avrbs avyypacpevs (d Uanias) as iK napaBoaeas
dypd(pov ets avrdv jjkovto napareBeirai, ^ivas re rtvos TTapa/SoXds tov o-mr^pos
Kai BiBaa-KoXias avrov, Kai nva aXXa pvBiKarepa. 'Ev ols Kal x'XtdSa nvd
(prjiriv irav eareaBai pera rfjv iK veKpav dvdcrraaiv, arapariKas rfjs rov Xpia-rofj
paa-iXeias enl Tavrrja-l rfjs yfjs vnoarrja-opevrjs. '' A Kal fjyovpai rds aTToo-ro-
XiKds napeKBe^dpevov Birjyfja-eis vnoXafielv, rd iv vnoBeiypam npbs avrav
pvcrriKas elprjpeva pfj cruveapaKora. We gain, sjlso, nothing certain from
the citation in Andreas, on Rev. xii. 7 : Kat Uannias Be ovras inl Xe^eas ¦

382

THE REVELATION OF JOHN.

" 'Evt'ots Se avrav [StjXoS^ rmv TrdXat Beiav dyye'Xmv] Kai r^s TTepi r^v y^v 8i-
aKocrpfjcreas eBaKev dpxeiv ' Kal KaXas dpxeiv naprjyyvrjcre." Kat e^^s cprjaiv'
" El's ovSev a-vve^rj reXevrfja-ai rfjv rd^iv avrav." Cf Rettig, Die Zeugnisse
d. Andreas u, Arethas, etc, in Stud, u, Krit, 1831, p, 734, ff, Liicke, as
above, p, 264, 'ff, Guerike, Einl, p, 543, f, and Havernik (whom he ad
duces), Papiae testimonia de apoc, auct,, in Lucubratt, N. I, p, 4,
'' Dial, u, Tryph, p. 179 : Kai ineiBfj Kal nap' fjplv dvfjp ns, a ovopa
ladvvrjs, els rav dnocrrdXav rov Xpicrrov, iv dnoKaXvyjfei yevopevrj avra xiXia
errj noifjcreiv iv 'lepovcraXfjp rovs ra fjperepco Xpiara nicrrevcravras npoecpfj-
reva-e  Rettig (Das erweisl, alteste Zeugniss f, d, Aechtheit d 
Apok. 1829) doubts the genuineness of the words eis r. dn. r. Xp. Cf.
against him, Liicke, Einl. p, 280, ff. Misapprehension in the passage of
Hieron. De vir, ill, c, 9 : , , , , scripsit (Joannes) apocalypsin, quam inter
pretatur Justinus Martyr et Irenaeus (^v perecppacrav 'lovcrrlvos pdprvp Kal
Eiprjvalos) , A similar one in the Chronicon, ad Domitian, : Apostolus Joan
nes in Patmos insulam relegatus Apocalypsin vidit, quam Irenaeus interpre
tatur (in the Greek of Eusebius : ms BrjXol Eiprjvalos).
§ 191 b.
*
Irenceus (cir. 178) accepts the genuineness of the Apoca
lypse as undoubted, and appeals in support of it to tradition.
As, however, he has erred in regard to its date, the sources
of his information cannot have been the most reliable.*
Several allusions in the letter of the churches of Vienne and
Lyons" testify to the wide use of the Apocalypse in the
churches of Asia Minor and Gaul. Tertullian, Clement of
Alex., and Origen also accept the Apocalypse as the work
of the Apostle John." The testimony of the last two has
the more weight, as they, unlike most of the others, were not
chiliasts. " Contr, haeres, IV, 20. 11 : Sed et Joannes, Domini discipulus, in Apo
calypsi, etc. V, 26, 1 : significavit Joannes, Domini discipulus, in Apoca
lypsi  V, 30, 1 : His autem sic se habentibus et in omnibus antiquis
et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoc posito, et testimonium
perhibentibus his, qui facie ad faciem Joannem viderunt (according to Zeller,
Jbb, 1842, p, 696, he means Papias), et ratione docente nos, quoniam nume-
rus nominis bestiae, secundum Graecorum computationem per litteras quae
in eo sunt, sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex, hoc est decadas aequales
hecatontasin et hecatontadas aequales monasin , , , . ignore, quomodo erra-
verunt quidam sequentes idiotismum et raediura frustrantes numerum nomi
nis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis unara decadem
volentes esse, (A remarkable instance of the unreliableness of the tradition

CHURCH TRADITION AOAINST HIM. § 192 a. 383
coming through Papias in Iren. is the passage V. 33. 3, sq,, where Jesus is
said to have foretold gigantic vines in the Messianic kingdom, Cf. Zeller,
Jbb, 1842, p, 202, ff,) In regard to the date, see V. 30. 3, § 108 b, note o.
Lucke, p, 296, ff,
'' Euseb. H, E, V, 1 : 'Hv ydp Kal ecrri yvfjcnos Xpicrrov paBrjrfjs, okoXov-
Bav rm dpvla, Snov dv vndyr] (Rev. xiv. 4), Ib, : iva fj ypacpfj nXrjpaBfj -
d dvopos dvoprjcrdra en, Kai d BiKaios BiKaiaBfjra 'in (Rev, xxii, 1),
' Tertull. Adv, Marc, III, 14 : Nam et Apostolus Joannes in Apocalypsi
ensera describit ex ore Dei prodeuntera, bis acutum, etc, IV, 5 : Habemus
et Joannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit,
ordo tamen episcoporura ad originera recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem,
Clemens Alex. Strom, VI, 667 : .... e'v rois e'Uoa-i Kal reacrapcri KaBeBpelrai
Bpdvois, rbv Xadv Kpivav, as (prjcriv iv rfj dnoKaXv-^j/ei 'ladvvrjs (Rev. iv. 4,
xi. 16). Paedag. II. 207 : . . , . Kai rds SmSeKa r^s ovpavoTrdXems ttvXos,
npiois dneiKaa-pevas XlBois, rb nepionrov rfjs dno o-toXik fjs (pavfjs alvir-
rea-Bai xdpiros eKSe^dpefla (cf Rev. xxi. 21). Orig. in Euseb. H, E, VI.
25 : Ti Sei Trepi roii dvoTTeo-ovTos Xe'yeiv inl rb a-rfjBos rov 'irja-ov, 'Imdvvov, , . .
"Eypa-^e Be Kal rfjv dnoKoXv^jriv, KeXevaBels aianfjaai Kal pfj ypd\pai rds rmv
eTTrd jSpovrmv (pavds (cf Rev. x, 3, 4). Coraraent, in Joan, i, 16 : ^rj(rlv
ovv iv rfj dnoKaXfnjfei 6 rov Ze^eBaiov 'ladvvrjs - Kal eiBov dyyeXov nerdpevov
iv pecrovpavfjpan (Rev, xiv, 6, 7), p, 23. II. 55, and many other pas
sages. Hippolytus, a disciple of Irenaeus, wrote on the Apocalypse, probably
against the Montanists. Gruter, Corp. inscript, fol, 140. Hippolyti Opp,
ed. Fabric, p, 38. Lucke, p. 316, f. Other testimonies adduced by Lordner,
Eichhorn, and others, have, especially when they are later, no further force
as proofs. Church Tradition against him.
§ 192 a.
The so-called Alogi or Antimontanists rejected the Apoca
lypse, as well as the other Johannic writings, and ascribed
it to Cerinthus ; but their assertion was based neither on
tradition nor on critical grounds."' The similar assertion of
Caius of Rome (197 - 217) was likewise occasioned by the
opposition to Montanism." In the controversy against the
chiliasm of Nepos, hence not without some dogmatic de
sign, Dionysius of Alexandria (cir. 255) denied that the
Apocalypse was written by John ; but he went to work in a
more critical way (§§ 189, 190).
« It is true they did adduce one such ground. Epiph. Haeres. LI. c. 33 :
Etrd nves i^ avrav naXiv iniXapPdvovrai rovrov rov prjrov iv rfj dnoKdXv-\jfei

384 THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
TJ avrfj ¦ Kat cpdcrKoviriv dvnXeyovres, on eirre ttoXiv • ypd-^f/ov ra ayyeXco rfjs
eKKXrjcrias ra iv Ovarelpois, Kal ovK evi eKel iKKXrja-ia Xpicrnavav ev Qvareiprj.
nas ovv eypacpe rfj pfj ovcrrj ; But this argument proves too much (viz.
against any author in the fiirst century) , and consequently proves nothing.
'' From his work against the Montanist Proclus, Euseb. H. E. Ill, 28
quotes : 'AXXd Kai KfjpivBos d Bi dnoKaXv-ipeav cos dnb dnocrrdXav peydXov
yeypappevav, reparoXoyias fjplv as Bi' dyyeXav a-vra BeBeiypevas -^evBdpevos
ineia-dyei, k. t. X. Cf. Hug, ll. 594, who (with Twells, Hartwig, and
Paulus, Hist, Cerinth,) does not refer this to the Apocalypse of John, and
on the other side, Liicke, p, 309, ff, Dionys. Alex, says of such opponents,
in Euseb. VII, 25 : Ttves pev ovv rav npb fjpav fjBerrjcjav Kal dveaKevacrav
ndvrrj rb (3i/3Xiov, KaB' eKacrrov KecpdXaiov BievBvvovres, dyvacrrdv re Kal dcrvX-
Xdyicrrov dnocpaivovres - -^j/evBecrBai re rfjv iniypacprjv. laavvov ydp ovk eivai
Xiyova-iv  KfjpivBov Be rbv Kal rfjV dn iKelvov tcXrjBelaav TLrjpivBiavfjv av-
crrrjcrapevov aipecriv d^idnicrrov inicprjpicrai BeXfjcravra rm eavrov TrXacrpan
dvopa. Theodoret also, Fabb. haeret. II. 3, assented to this opinion.
§ 192 b.
That Eusebius was so wavering in regard to this book,*
probably arose likewise from a dogmatical bias, which led
him, as well as others, to judge respecting it either with
favor or with aversion." And yet his doubts were not
caused solely by the above-adduced opponents of the book ;
for the Syrian Church also had it not in her canon (§ 11 a)."
It is excluded from the canon, also, by Cyril of Jerusalem
(Catech. IV), Gregory of Nazianzus (Carm. XXXIII.), and
the sixtieth canon of Laodicea (see Part I. § 26).'*
" H. E. Ill, 25 : 'EttI rovrois (rots dpoXoyovpevots) raKreov, eiye cpaveirj,
Trjv dnoKoXv-^iv 'imdvvov, TTepi ^s rd Bd^avra Kard Kaipbv iRBrjcrdpeBa . . . . Kai
TTpds roiirots (rois dvrtXeyope'vois) .... en re, as 'ecprjv, fj 'ladwov dnoKoXv-
-ypis, el (paveirj, fjv nves, as 'ecprjv, dBerovaiv, erepoi Be iyKpivovcn rols dpoXo-
yovpevois. Previously, III, 24: T^s S' aTroKaXvi/'ems icp' eKarepov en vvv ,
TTapd rois ttoXXois nepieXKerai fj Sofa • dpms ye pfjv e'K r^s rmv dpxalav paprv
pias iv oheico Kaipa rfjv iniKpiaiv Several Kai avrfj. This promise he has,
however, nowhere fulfilled. III. 39, on the Presbyter John, see § 190,
note d.
'' Liicke, p, 333, finds the cause in the want of sure historic grounds,
¦= Kolthoff, p, 25, sqq,, tries to make it probable (cf § 11 a, note i)that the
Apocalypse, at an earlier period, was in the Peshito, because Ephram Syrus
quotes it.
' Hieron. Ep. 129. ad Dardan. § 3. p. 973. ed. Vallars. : Quod si eam

LATER OPINIONS. § 194 a. 385
(ep. ad Hebr.) Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas,
nee Graecorum quidem ecclesiae Apocalypsin Johannis eadem libertate sus-
cipiunt. Estimate of this Tradition.
§ 193.
If chiliasts and antichiliasts alone disputed about ac
cepting the Apocalypse, their reciprocal assertions would
neutralize each other : but the impartial intervention of
Clement and Origen proves the opinion that the Apostle
and Evangelist John is the author to be independent of
dogmatic bias. Notwithstanding, the deliberate criticism
of Dionysius shows that this opinion had no fixed historic
foundation ; and, as the character of the work contradicts
it, we perceive here again the uncertainty of such ecclesias
tical opinions or nominal traditions.*
'^ Zeller, Jbb,, as above, p, 695, ff,, as also Bour, lays great stress on the
tradition in favor of John, and adds two further presumptions in its support : —
1, The firmly established opinion, among the Christian chiliasts, of the
thousand years' continuance of Christ's earthly kingdom', (in the Fourth
Book of.Ezra it amounts to four hundred years, as is well known,) leads us
naturally to assume the influence of an authority like John's ; 2, The saying
that John should not die until the Lord returned (Jolin xxi, 23) can apply
only to the John of the Apocalypse, — Its most probable origin, however,
might be in John's having really attained a great age.
Later Opinions of the Church and of Scholars on the
Apocalypse. § 194 a.
While in the Greek Church the work continued the object
of doubt,* in the West it was formally adopted into the
number of the canonical books," and has since then main
tained its canonical authority.
« Even at the beginning of the ninth century, it was rejected by the Pa
triarch Nicephorus. Lardner, Credibility, P. II. Vol. XI. pp. 249, 252,
Michaelis, Einl, II. 1062.
" Concil. Hipponens. can. XXXVI, Concil, Carthag. Ill, c, 47, Inno
cent, I, Ep, ad lExuper,, Concil, Rom, I., see Part I, § 27, note a. Concil.
49

386 THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
Toled. (A.D. 633), c, 17, in Harduin, Act, cone. III. 584 : Apocalypsis li
brum multorum Conciliorum auctoritas et synodica sanctorum Praesulura
Roraanorum decreta Joannis evangelistae esse perscribunt, et inter divines
libros recipiendum constituerunt. Et quia plurimi sunt, qui ejus auctorita
tem non recipiunt eumque in ecclesia Dei praedicare contemnunt : si quis eum
deinceps aut non receperit, aut a Pascha ad Pentecosten missarura tempore
in ecclesia non praedicaverit, excommunicationis sententiam habebit.
§ 194 b.
With the revival of criticism in the age of the Reforma
tion, the doubts regarding the apostolic origin of the Apoc
alypse also revived. It was opposed, sometimes by impli
cation, sometimes directly, by Erasmus, Carlstadt, Luther,
and Zwingli.^
° Erasm. Annott. in N. T,, ed, 1527, at the close of the notes on the
Apoc, Corlst. (Welche Biicher biblisch seind, 1520) alludes to the early
doubts, and to the characteristic dissimilarity of the work to the other Jo
hannic writings, Luther, Vorrede auf die Offenbarung St, Job,, 1522 :
" To me, this book lacks not a, single proof of its being neither apostolic
nor prophetic. First, and chiefly, the Apostles do not deal in visions, but
prophesy in clear and plain words, as Peter, Paul, yea, Christ in the Gospel,
also do ; for it belongs to the ofiice of an Apostle to speak clearly, and with
out figure or vision, of Christ and his work. Even in the Old Testament,
letting alone the New, there is no prophet who deals throughout in visions ;
so that 1 put it almost in the same rank with the Fourth Book of Esdras,
and cannot in any way find it to have been' dictated by the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, it seems to me too much for him to commend his own book, —
a thing done by no other sacred writer, even when it would seem more fitting,
— and to threaten that, if any man shall take away from the words of it,
God shall take away his part out of the book of life ; and, moreover, to de
clare that they shall be blessed who hold to what it contains, although no
one is able to understand v^bat that is, much less to keep it ; which is equiv
alent to our not having it. There are also far nobler books in existence,
the words of which are to be kept. Many of the Fathers, also, in olden
time rejected this book, and although St, Jerome uses grand words, and says
it IS above all praise, and contains as many mysteries as words, he cannot
prove this, and indeed is in many places too liberal in his praise. Finally,
let every one think of it what his mind suggests. My mind cannot reconcile
Itself to the book ; and to me a suflicient reason for not esteeming it highly
is, that Christ is neither taught nor recognized therein, — to do which is cer
tainly the highest duty incumbent on an Apostle ; for he says. Acts i,, ' Ye
shall be my vsfitnesses,' I therefore hold fast to those books which give
me Christ clearly and purely." Preface of 1534: " On account of such

LATER OPINIONS. § 194 c. 387
uncertain interpretations and hidden senses, we have hitherto left it to itself,
especially because it was considered by some of the ancient Fathers not the
work of the Apostle John, as is stated in libr, 3. Hist. Eccles. In this un
certainty, we, for our part, shall also leave it, so that no one may be hindered
from regarding it as the work of St, John the Apostle, or as whatever he
pleases. Zwingli (Werke von Schulth. II. 1. 169) : " We take no notice
of the Apocalypse, for it is not a Biblical book,"
§ 194 c.
The Catholic Church confirmed, in the Synod of Trent,
the whole established canon, and hence this book, in its ca
nonical authority. The Reformed Church paid no atten
tion to Zwingli's doubts.* The Lutheran Church, on the
contrary, excluded the Apocalypse and the Antilegomena
from the number of accepted canonical books until the sev
enteenth century," when Church opinion became more favor
able to them." Since the beginning of the eighteenth century
critical doubts have again been raised, and the reasons for
and against it brought forward.'^
* Confess. Helv. poster, c. 1. Anglic, art, 6. Gall. art. 3. Belg. art, 3.
jBezr. Prolegg, in Apoc, H. Bullinger, Cent serm, sur I'Apocal, (Gen. 1565)
I. 30, sqq. Cf , however. Hyper. Method, theol. (Bas. 1574) p. 48, sq.
The Socinians also accept it.
" Mart. Chemnit. Exam. Cone. Trident, p. 48, sq. ed. Frcf. 1596. fol.
Enchirid. (Lips. 1600. 12rao) p. 59. Conr. Dieterich, Institutt. catech.
(1613) p. 14. Cf. Bleek, Einl. in d. Br. an d. Hebr. p. 449, ff. On the
contrary, the Apocalypse is accepted by Fronc. Lambert, D. Chyirceus, &c.
" J. Gerhard, Exegesis s. uber. exposit. articuli de s. scriptura, §241, sqq.
Cf. Liicke, Einleit. in d. Offenb. p. 464, ff,, and in general, § 51,
^ First in England by the unknown author of The New Test, in Greek
and English, etc, Lond. 1729, in the remarks on the Apocalypse; by
{Firmin Abauzit) Discourse Hist, and Crit. on the Revelation ascribed to
St. John. Lond. 1730. (Cf. CEuvres div. d'Abauzit. Tom. I.) —In Ger
many, by ( Oeder) Freie Untersuchungen iib. d. sogenannte Offenb. Joh. m.
Anmerkk. von J. S. Semler. 1769. Svo. /. S. Semler, Abhandl. v. freier
Untersuch. d. Kan. 1. Th. 1771. Svo, in the Appendix. Neue Untersuch.
lib. Apokalypsin. 1776. Svo. Stroth, Freimiith. Untersuch. d. Offenb. Joh.
betr. m. e, Vorr. v. Semler, 1771. Mich. Merkel, Histor. krit, Aufklar, d,
Streitigk. d. Aloger und anderer alten Lehrer iib. d. Apokal. im 2. Jahrh.
n. Chr. Geh,, als e, Beitr, z. zuverlass.'Beweise, dass d. Apok, e, unterge-
schob. Buch sei. 1782. The same, Umstandl. Beweis, dass d. Apok. e.
untergeschob. Buch sei. 1785. Corrodi, Vers. e. Beleucht. d. Gesch. d.

388 THE REVELATION OE JOHN.
jiid, und christi. Bibelkanons. 1792. p. 303, ff. Cludius, Uransichten d,
Christenth, 1808, p. 312, ff. Heinrichs, Prolegg. Bretschneider, Probabb.
Bleek, Berlin. Zeitschr. II. Ewold, Coraraent. Introd. Schott, Isag, § 114,
ff. Liicke, Einl. Credner, Neudecker, Reuss, Gesch. d, h, Schr,, Hall,
Encycl. 2. Sect. XXII. Bd. Schleiermocher, Einl,
The genuineness of the Apocalypse is defended by Twells, Crit, Exami
nation of the late new Text and Vers, of the N, T, in Greek and English,
1732 (cf Wolf, Cur. V. 387, sqq,), Chr. Fr. Schmidt, Krit, Untersuch,
ob d, Offenb, Joh, ein achtes gottliches Buch sei, 1771, Svo, The some,
Historia antiqua et vindicatio Canonis sacri, 1775. Svo. p. 468, sqq, J.Fr.
Reuss, Diss, de auctore apocalypseos, 1767, 4to. The some, Vertheid. d.
Offenb. Joh, gegen Hrn, Dr, Semler. 1772. Svo. Fr. A, Knittel, Beitrage
z. Kritik iib. Joh. Offenb. 1773. 4to. Lilderwold, Bemiihungen zur griindl.
Beurtheil. u. Erkenntniss d. Offenb. Johannis. 1788. 2 Thle, Svo. {Hart
wig) A-pologie d. A-pok. -wider falschen Tadel u. falsches Lob. 1781-83.
4 Thle, Svo. Storr, Neue Apologie der Offenb. Job. 1783, Svo, The
same, Ueb, den Zweck der evang, Gesch, u. der Brr. Johannis. 1786. Svo.
pp, 70, ff,, S3, 103, Kleuker, Ueb. d, Urspr, u, Zweck d, Offenb, Joh, 1799.
Lange, Schr. d, Joh, I. § V, Hanlein, Schmidt, Eichhorn, Hug, Feilmoser,
Bertholdt, in their Einl,, Guerike, Beitr, (the hypothesis of the Presb, John)
Einl,, Olshausen, Nachweis d, Echtheit, &c, E. Guil. Kolthoff, A'poca.l.
Joanni Ap, vindicata, Hafn, 1834. Conr. Dannemann, Wer ist d. Verf
d, Offenb. Joh, Hannov, 1841, Cf. also Meyer, in Stud, und Kr. 1832.
p, 600, f.

THB END.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 8718
]   C'

'I '^1 il-'.i I, 'i|„'ii."!,

liJiHilMift''!