An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament

International Theological Library — Second and Revised Edition

by James Moffatt, B.D., D.D., D.Litt.

Table of Contents

• Preface
• Historical Tables
• Abbreviations
• Addenda and Corrigenda
• Prolegomena
• I. Collection of NT Writings into a Canon
• II. Arrangement of NT Writings
• III. Literary Sources of NT
• IV. Structure and Composition of NT
• V. Some Literary Forms in NT
• VI. The Circulation of the NT Writings
• VII. Some Literary Characteristics of the NT Writings
• Chapter I. The Correspondence of Paul
• (A) Correspondence with Thessalonika
• (B) Galatians
• (C) Paul's Correspondence with Corinth
• (D) Romans
• (E) Colossians
• (F) Philemon
• (G) Philippians
• Chapter II. The Historical Literature
• (A) The Synoptic Problem
• (B) Mark
• (C) Matthew
• (D) Luke
• Acts
• Chapter III. Homilies and Pastorals
• (A) The (First) Epistle of Peter
• (B) The Epistle of Judas
• (C) 2 Peter
• (D) Ephesians
• (E) Paul: to Timotheus and Titus
• (F) Hebrews
• (G) The Epistle of James
• (H) Two Letters of John the Presbyter (2 and 3 John)
• Chapter IV. The Apocalypse of John
• (A) The Fourth Gospel
• (B) A Johannine Tract (1 John)
• (C) The Johannine Tradition

Preface

THE changes in this edition are mainly confined to the correction of misprints. I am grateful to friends who have kindly communicated notes of these, and especially to the Rev. J. H. Burn, Professor J. H. Moulton, and Professor E. J. Goodspeed. Some fresh material, principally of a bibliographical character, has been also incorporated in the text as well as in the addenda, for the purpose of bringing the volume up to date. I take this opportunity of acknowledging gratefully the generous approval with which the plan and general methods of the book have been received by competent critics at home and abroad.

J. M.

October 21st, 1911.

Historical Tables

This chronological chart originally ran across facing pages in the source scan; each block below reproduces one of those page-tables in order, including a fresh header row whenever the columns' headings changed (e.g. from “B.C.” to “A.D.”, or “Jewish Literature” to “Jewish and Christian Literature”).

X11

HISTORICAL TABLES—[con'inued).

HISTORICAL TABLES—{continued).

B.C. ROME AND THE EAST. JEWISH LITERATURE. GREEK AND LATIN LITERATURE.

Battle of Actium, 31.

Egypt, R. province (30).

Augustus (30-Aug. 19, 14 A.D.).

Rise of Herodians. Pantheon built in Rome, 27.

Hellenising of Judea. Galatia and Pamphylia, R. pro-

vinces, 25.

Social reforms, c. 21.

Hillel (70 B.C.-6 A.D.)

Shammai.

C. Asinius Pollio.

Timagenes (hist.). Tibullus.

Propertius.

Diodorus Siculus (hist.).

Horace.

Conon (mythogr.).

Building of Csarea, 22-10.

20 Augustus visits Syria.

Rebuilding of Temple at

. Jerusalem.

Secular games, 17.

Rhaetia and Noricum, R. province

15-

10 Drusus in Germany (12-9).

Philo born.

Commentaries of King Herod?

Juba.

Nicolaus Damascenus. Hypsik rates.

Dionysius Halicarn.,

Messalla ( —gA. D.).

Vitruvius Pollio, de archit. (14).

Livy (59-17 A.D.).

Trogus Pompeius.

Seneca born, c. 4. Jesus born, + 6.

‘ Roman 8 B.C.

Theodorus

Archol.,’

of Rhodes

M. Corvinus (hist.).

Germanicus.

Ovid, Ars Amor. (2-1).

(rhet.), 6 B.C.-2 A.D.

fl.

HISTORICAL TABLES—{continued).

HISTORICAL-TABLES

HISTORICAL TABLES—{continued}.

Goths invade Empire, 250. Decius (249-summer of 251).

Persecution of Christians.

Gallus Lsum. 251-May 253). J Volusianus J • • ••. |

Cornelius, bish. R. (251-253)-.

Lucius, bish. R. (253-

. 254).

Valerian 1(253-March 4, 268). Gallienus / • " '

Pestilence at Rome. Barbarian inroads. Edict of toleration.

Greece ravaged by bar-barians.

Dionysius, bish. R. (259-268).

Porphyry in Rome. Rabbah b. Abuha —

v I noza.

R. Nahman b. -at —d-JTacob J

Goths ravage Greece and Asia.

Maximus, bish. Alex-andria (264-282).

Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270 c.).

Cyprian, de lapsis 5 Esdras?

Co(m25m1o).dianus Carmen apolo, g. ett-

(poet). cum adv. Judceos et Gentes.

Death of Origen in Tyre.

Pistis Sophia (250-

' 300).

Paul of Samosata, 260 fl.

Herodian.

Minucianus (rhet.), c. 260. Longinus, 220-273.

Porphyry, 233-300.

Junius Cordus (hist.),

c. 250.

HISTORICAL TABLES—{continued).

HISTORICAL TABLES—{continued}.

360 Julian (361-363). The pagan re-action.

Jerome in Rome.

Jovian (363).,

Valentinian and Valens (364-374).

Apollinarius of Laodicea ( -393). Theon.

Council of Laodicea, 364... Cyril of Jerusalem ‘ Ambrosiaster’(366- Hesychius(lexicogr.).

( -386). 384, Rome).

Martin of Tours (316-397). \ Didymus of Alexandria ( -395).

Gregory of Nyssa ( —395)- ' Evagrius of Pontus ( -398).

KXXI

Ambrose of Milan ( -397). Theodore of Mopsuestia ( -429).

Eutropius.

Sextus Rufus.

Paulinus of Nola (Christ, poet).

Ausonius (Christian poet).

Abbreviations

A A..,. The Apostolic Age, History of:

Weizsacker’s das apostolische Zeitalter^ (1902, Eng. tr. of second edition, 1894).

A. C. McGiffert (Internat. Theol. Library, 1897).

J. V. Bartlet (in ‘ Eras of Christian Church,’ 1900).

J. H. Ropes, The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism (1906).

ACL. Harnack and Preuschen, Geschichte der altchristlichen

Litteratur bis Eusebius. i. Die Ueberlieferung und der Bestand (1893); ii. Die Chronologic (1 = 1897,

2 = 1904).

Ehrhard’s die altchristliche Litteratur u. Hire Erfor-schung seit 1880 (part i. 1894).

AJT.... The American Journal of Theology (Chicago).

ARW... Archivfiir Religionswissenschaft (Berlin, ed. Dieterich

and Achelis).

BFT.... Beitragezur F'drderungchristl. Theologie (ed. Schlatter).

BL.... Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon.

BLE.... Bulletin de Litt. eccUsiastique (Paris).

BNT.... Harnack’s Beitrage zur Einl. in das NT (i. Lukasder

Arzt, 1906, Eng. tr. 1907; ii.Spriicheu.Reden Jesu, 1907, Eng. tr. 1908; iii. die Apgeschichte, 1908, Eng, tr. 1909; iv. Neue Unters, zur Apgeschichte, 1911, Eng. tr. 1911).

BZ.... Biblische Zeitschrift.

CB.... The Century Bible (London, Eng. text and notes).

CGT.... The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. Chron... W. Bruckner, die chronolog. Reihenfolge in welcher die

Briefe des NT verfasst sind (1890).

CQR.... The Church Quarterly Review.

CRE.... Sir W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire3

(1904).

DB..., Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (1898-1904).

Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible.

Vigoroux’s Dictionnaire de la Bible (Paris).

P)CB.... Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography (1877-1887).

DCG..

Diat.

EB, •.

EBi...

EGE...

Einf... Einl. or INT.

. Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1906-1908).

. E. A. Abbott’s Diatessarica (London, A. and C. Black):

(i.) Clue, A Guide through Greek. to Hebrew Scripture (§§ 1-272); (ii.) The Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke (§§ 273-552); (iii.) From Letter to Spirit (§§ 553-1149); (iv.) Paradosis (§§ 1150-1435) 5 (v.) Johannine Vocabulary (§§ 1436-

1885); (vi.) Johannine Grammar (§§ 1886-2799); (vii.) Notes on NT Criticism (§§ 2800-2999); (viii.)

The Son of Man (§§ 3000-3635).

. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (small superior numbers denote the edition).

. The Encyclopaedia Biblica (London, 1899-1903; ed. J. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne).

, The Expositors Greek Testament (ed. Sir W. R. Nicoll,

1897-1910).

. Nestle’s Einfuhrung in das Griechische NT (1899, Eng. tr. under title, ‘An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament’).

. R. Simon’s Histoire critique du texte du NT (Rotter-dam, 1689 f.)*, Histoire critique des versions du NT (1690), and Nouvelles observations sur le texte et les versions du NT (Paris, 1695);1 J. W. Rum-pus, Commentatio critica in libros NT (1757);

J. D. Michaelis, Einleitung in die gottl. Schriften des neuen Bundes^ ; Eng. tr. by Marsh, 1793, Fr. tr. by Cheneviere, 1822); A. Hanlein, Handbuch

d. Einl. in die Schriften des NT (Erlangen, 1801-1809); J. G. Eichhorn, Einl. in das NT (1804-1827) *; J. E. C. Schmidt, Historisch-krit. Einl. i^s ND (Giessen, 1818); L. Bertholdt, Historisch-krit. Einleit. in sdmmtliche kanon. u. apokry. Schriften des A. u. N. T. (1813-1819); H. E. F. Guericke’s Beitrdge zur Einl. in das NT (Halle, 1828 f., against de Wette);2 A. B. Feilmoser, Einl. indie Bucher des neuen Bundes fur die bffentlichen Vorlesungen

1 The Protestant reply to Simon was J. H. Mai’s Examen Histories Critica N. T. a R. Simone Vulgata (1694) rather than the Lutheran Pritius’ Introductio in lectionem NT (1704, etc.); the Roman- Catholic, Kleuker's Untcrsuchungen der Grunde fur die Echtheit u. Glaubwiirdigkeit der schrifllichen Urkunden des Christenthums (1788). I have not seen the English version of Simon’s first two works (London, 1689 f.). For an estimate of Simon's contribution to NT criticism, see Margival in RHL., 1899, 139-216.

2 The fifth ed. (1848) of de Wette’s Lehrbuch der hist.-kritischen Einleitung (Berlin, 1826) was translated into English by Frothingham (U.S.A., 1858).

(Tubingen, 18302); H. A. Schott, Isagoge historico-critica in libros N. Foederis sacros (Jena, 1830); Schneckenburger, Beitrage zur Einl. in's Nd (1832); K. A. Credner’s Einl. in das NT (Halle, 1836, with his Das NT nach Zweck, Ursprung, u. Inhalt, 1843) *; C. G. Neudecker, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einl. in das NT mit Belegen aus den Quellenschriften u Citaten aus der alteren

u. neuen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1840); J. M. A. Scholz (1845 f.); Schleiermacher's posthumous Einl. in das NT* (Berlin, 1845, in vol. i. of his collected works, ed. G. Wolde); J. L. Hug’s Einl. in die Schriften des NT (1847, Fr. tr. by Cellerier, 1823, Eng. tr. of third ed. Andover, 1836) *; Daniel Haneberg (1850, fourth ed. 1876); Ad. Maier (1852); Joseph Dixon, A General Introd, to Sacred Scriptures (1852); F.

X. Reithmayr’s Einl. in die kanon. Biicher des NT (Regensburg, 1852); J. H. Scholten, Kritische Inleiding tot de Schriften des NT (1856); de Wette’s Einl.% (ed. Messner and Lunemann, i860) *;

H. de Valroger {Introd. hist, et critique, 1861); G.

A. Frey tag, die heilig. Schriften des NT (Berlin, 1861); Neander, Pfanzzingu Leitung d. christl. Kirche5 (1862, Eng. tr. 1842, 1865)*; Giinther

{Introductio, 1863); J. B. Glaire, Introd. Historique et Critique aux Livres de Pancien et du Nouveau Testament4, (1865, Italian tr. 1846); Bleek2 (1866, Eng. tr., Edin. 1883); Lamy {Introd, in sacras scripturas, 1866-1867, against Scholten); Guericke’s Isagogik^ (1868); Joseph Langen, Grundriss der Einl, in das NT (Freiburg im B. 1868; second ed. 1873); Grau’s Entzvickelungsgeschichte d. NTlichen Schriftthums (1871-1872); Immer's Hermeneutik (1873); Reuss, die Geschichte d. heilig. Schriften des NT^ (1874, Eng. tr. 1884)*; A. Hilgenfeld, Historisch-Kritische Einl. in das NT (Leipzig, 1875)*; M. Aberle (1877); Home’s Introd.^ (ed. Tregelles, 1875); von Hofmann {die heilige Schrift NT, ix., ed. Volck, 1881); Mangold (ed. of Bleek’s Einleitung, 1886) *; B. Weiss, Einl. in das NT (third ed. 1897, Eng. tr. of second ed. 1886); L. Schulze (in Zockler’s Handbuch der theol. Wiss. 1883-1889); M. A. N. Rovers, Nieuw-testamentliche letterkunde2 (1888); Leblois, Les livres de la nouvelle alliance (Paris, 1889); U. Ubaldi, Introd, in sacram Scripturam NT4 (Rome, 1891); H. J.

i Critical estimate in J. Conradi’s Schleiermacher's Arbeit auf dem Gebiete der NT Einleitungswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1907).

Holtzmann, Lehrbuch d. historisch-kritischen Einl. in das NT3 (1892) *; S. Davidson8 (1894); Godet, Introd, au NT(1893-1899, unfinished; Eng. tr. 1894, 1899); R. Comely, Introd, specialis in singulos NT libros^ (Paris, 1897); G. Salmon8 (1897); F. S. Trenkle (1897); Th. Zahn, Einl. in das NT (1897, Eng. tr. of third ed. 1909) *; Aloys Schafer (1898);

W. F. Adeney, A Biblical Introduction (1899), pp.

275 f.; B. W. Bacon (1900); J. M. S. Baljon,

Geschiedenis van de boeken des Nieuwen Verbonds (1901)*; J. E. Belser, Einleitung in das NT3 (1902); A. Jiilicher’s Einl. in das NT (1906)*;

E. Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du NT (1903-1908); von Soden’s Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte {die Schriften des NT), 1905 (Eng. tr, 1906); Wrede, die Entstehung d. Schriften des NT (1907, Eng. tr. 1909); Barth, Einl. in das NT (1908, sec. ed. 1911);

C. R. Gregory {Einleitung in das NT, 1909); A. S. Peake, Critical Introduction to the NT (1909)—besides the popular manuals by E. H. Plumptre

{Introd. to NT, 1883); M. Dods 2 {Introd. to NT. London, 1894); M'Clymont, The New Testament and its Writers (London, 1893), and Gutjahr

{Einleitung... Leitfaden zunachst fiir Studierende der Theologie, Graz, 1896), along with Weingarten’s ed. (Berlin, 1872) of Hertwig, Die Einleitung iris NT im tabellarischer Uebersicht*; P. Fargues, Introd, au Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1902), and L. Kunze’s Einfuhrung in das NT (Berlin, 1906). Hug, Feilmoser, GUnther, Haneberg, Scholz, Maier, Reithmayr, Langen, Aberle, Lamy, Comely, Ubaldi, and Schafer, represent the older, Trenkle and Belser and Jacquier the modem school of Roman Catholic criticism.

ERE. ESR..

ET..

Exp..

GGA.. GHD.

GK.

Hausrath

HBNT. HC..

. Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (1909 f.).

. Lichtenberger’s Encycloptdie des Sciences Religieuses

(1877 f-).

. The Expository Times (ed. J. Hastings, Edinburgh).

. The Expositor (ed. Sir W. R. Nicoll, London; small superior numbers denote the series).

. Gotting. Gelehrte Anzeigen.

. The Gospels as Historical Documents, by V. H. Stanton (Oxford); i. (1903); ii. (1909).

. (i.) Zahn’s Geschichte des NT Nanons (1888f.); (ii.) Leipoldt’s Gesch. des NT Kanons (1907-1908).

. A History of the NT Times {The Times of the Apostles);

Eng. tr. 1895.

. Handbuch turn NT (Tubingen, 1906 f., ed. Lietzmann).

. Hand-Commentar zum NT (Freiburg i. B.).

HD..

H. E.. HJ..

HJP..

HNA.

HNT) HS..

ICC..

JBL..

JC..

JPT- •

JQR- •

JTS..

Keim.

LC..

LXX.

MAC.

Meyer.

NKZ..

NTA.. NTTh.

. Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte (Eng, tr. in seven volumes, ‘ The History of Dogma,’ 1894!.).

. Eusebius, Eccles. Historia (ed. Schwartz and Mommsen).

. The Hibbert Journal (London).

. Schiirer’s Geschichte des jiid. Volkes (Eng. tr. of second ed. under the title, ‘ A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.’ The fourth German edition is occasionally quoted as GJV).

. Hennecke’s (i.) Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, and (ii.) Handbuch zu den neutest. Apokryphen (Tubingen, 1904).

. Moffatt, The Historical New Testament2 (Edinburgh,

1901).

. Sir John C. Hawkins’ Horce Synopticce (1899; second ed. 1909).

. The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh).

. The Journal of Biblical Literature.

. Hort’s Judaistic Christianity (1896); G. Hoennicke’s

Das Judenchristentum (1908).

. Jahrbucherfiir protestantische Theologie.

. The Jewish Quarterly Review (London).

. The Journal of Theological Studies.

. Eng. tr. in six volumes of Keim’s Geschichte Jesu von Nazara.

. Literarisches Centralblatt.

. The Septuagint, cited from Swete’s manual edition (Cambridge).

. Harnack’s die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christen-thums2 (1906; Eng. tr. 1908).

. Meyer’s Kommentar zum NT (latest editions).

. Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift.

. The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford,

1905).

. The Theology of the New Testament:

Reuss, Histoire de la thlologie chrltienne au silcle apostolique (Eng. tr. of third ed. 1872).

B. Weiss7 (Eng. tr. of third ed. 1888). Bovon’s Theologie du NT (1893). Beyschlag (Eng. tr. 1896).

H. J. Holtzmann (1897, sec. ed. 1911 f.).

G. B. Stevens (Internat. Theol. Library, 1899).

E. P. Gould (1900).

P. Feine 2 (1911).

1 Occasionally one or two sentences are reproduced from this earlier volume, on the principle defended by Isokrates in his fifth oration (93): Kai uels iroln ue ^oi\ea9ai XaQeiv Uri roiruv ^via reppaKa rov airin'

rpbirov Sorrep irphrepov. iirwras yap M rs aiirhs Siavolas elXip-pp un Trovetr rhxbuevos r SeSriXupIva KaXus er lpens elvew.

NZ. Schwegler, das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den

Hauptmomenten seiner Entwickelung (Tubingen, 1846). R. Knopf, das nachapost. Zeitalter (1905).

OCL.... W. C. van Manen, Handleiding voor de Oudchristelijke

Letterkunde (1900).

Philo... Cohn and Wendland’s edition (Berlin, 1896 f.).

PM.... Protestantische Monatshefte (ed. Websky).

PRE.... Real-Encyclopadie fiir protest. Theologie u. Kirchez

(ed. Hauck, 1896-1909).

RB.... Revue Biblique Internationale (Paris).

Renan. Renan’s Histoire des Origines du Christianisme (1863 f.):

(i.) Vie de Jesus; (ii.) Les Ap6tres; (iii.) S. Paul; (iv.) L’antechrist; (v.) Les evangiles; (vi.) L’eglise chretienne.

RHL.... Revue de Phistoire et de litterature religieuses (Paris). RHR... Revue de Phistoire des religions (Paris, ed. J. Reville). RS.... Revue Stmitique (Paris).

R'PQR... Revue de Thiologie et des Quest. Religieuses (ed. Bois,

Montauban).

SB.... Studia Biblica (Oxford).

SB A W... Sitzungsberichte der kais. Akademie der Wissenschaften

zu Wien.

SB BA... Sitzungsberichte der kbniglich Preuss. Akad. d. Wissen-

schaften zu Berlin.

SK.... Studien und Kritiken (Gotha).

SNT.... Die Schriften des NT(1905f., ed. j. Weiss).

SPT.... Ramsay’s St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen1.

Strauss.. Strauss’ Leben Jesu (George Eliot’s version, ed. of 1892).

Th A.... Theologische Abhandlungen C. von Weizsacker gewidmet

(Freiburg, 1892).

Th St.... Theologische Studien Herm Prof. B. Weiss dargebracht

, (1897).

TLZ.... Theologische Literaturzeitung.

TQ.... Theologische Quartalschrift (Tubingen). TR.... Theologische Rundschau (ed. Bousset). TS.... Texts and Studies (Cambridge).

TT.... Theolog. Tijdschrift (Haarlem).

TU.... Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchrist-

lichen Literatur (ed. von Gebhardt, Harnack, and C. Schmidt).

Urc.... Hilgenfeld’s das Urchristenthum in den Hauptwen-

depunkten seines Entwickelungsganges (1855).

Spitta’s Zur Geschichte u. Litter, des Urchristenthums (i. 1893; ii. 1896; iii. 1903).

Heinrici’s das Urchristenthum (Gottingen, 1902).

Wernle’s die Anfiinge des Christentum (Eng. tr. under title, ‘ The Beginnings of Christianity,’ 1903 f.).

Pfleiderer's das Urchristenthum* (1903, Eng; tr.

1906 f.).

von Dobschiitz’s die urchristlichen Gemeinden (1902; Eng. tr. ‘ Christian Life in the Primitive Churches,’ 1904).

Raffaele Mariano’s II Cristianesimo nei primi secoli (Firenze, 1902).

WC....The Westminster Commentaries (London: Eng. text

and notes).

WH.... Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek. ZK.... Kommentar mm NT (Erlangen, ed. Zahn).

ZKG.... Brieger’s Zeiischrift fur Kirchengeschichte.

ZNW... Preuschen’s Zeitschrift fiir die neutest. Wissenschaft

und die Kunde des Urchristenthums.

ZSchz... Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schweiz (ed. Meili).

Z TK.... Zeitschrift filr Theologie und Kirche.

Z WT... Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie.

N.B.—In the bibliographies an asterisk is appended to works which possess special importance, historical or intrinsic, in the criticism of the subject.

Addenda and Corrigenda

P. 25, 1. 19 from top. See Burkitt’s The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (1910), pp. 64 f.

P. 53, 1- 3 from top. Unless ’lovSalav (787: 778) is equivalent to Pales-tine (L. Kohler, ET. xxii. 231). Professor J. H. Moulton tells me that a writer in the Classical Review has ingeniously identified it with Ayodhya.

P. 56, 1. 9 from top. The quotation is from Instit. Orat. x, 1. 31 (est enim proxima poetis et. •.).

P. 62, 1. 6 from foot. According to E. C. Richards (JBL., 1887, 84-89), “authentic,” as applied to documents, connotes authority and refers to the document itself on the question of identity.

P. 65, 1. 6 from top. Harnack’s ingenious theory (see, further, BNT. iv. 59) is that 2 Thess. was addressed to the Jewish Christian (Ac 174) minority (zrapxv, 2 Th 213) of the local church, whereas 1 Thess. was meant for the Gentile Christian majority. This gives a good sense to I Th 527, and it fits in with Ac 173f. But airapxriv, which I agree is the preferable reading (cp. EGT. iv. 50), means the Thessalonians as compared with others to follow (cp. 31 and I4); in 2 Th I3'4 36f. there is as little hint of the readers forming a section of the church as in i Thess.—the whole church is presupposed; nor is it necessary to assume that an interest in Jewish apocalyptic could not be felt by Gentile Christians, particularly when many of them had been proselytes.

P. 83, 1. 17 from foot. Add, “ Howson (Speaker’s Commentary, 1881).”

P. 90, 1. 9 from top. See Einf. 251.

P. 93,1. 6 from foot. Professor Moulton writes, “ Sticking to my last as a grammarian, I venture to claim that Chase is as wrong as Ramsay. I would even refer KioXvfRvres to the aaOiveia. Ths oaprbs which forced Paul to stay in Phrygo-Galatia instead of going on. At least, that seems possible.”

P. 100, 1. 12 from foot. Peter’s attitude (see below, p. 305) is justified by

H. Grosch in Der im Galaterbrief Kap. 2. 11-14. berichtete Vorgang in Antiochien (191 1).

P. 108, 1. 3 from top. Add, “John Fell (1675).”

Pp. 113-114. In his brilliant edition, J. Weiss tentatively proposes to analyse the epistle as follows:—To A, the letter mentioned in 5°, he assigns not only 2 Co 614-71, but 1 Co 612-20 924-27 101-22 (23) 11234 i67»-9- 15-20. This

letter was written from Ephesus. B, containing 1161 7-8. 13. 1024-111

91-23 12. 14. 151-167a 1610-14. 21f, was sent from Macedonia later. Even within B, 11-611 were probably composed after the more didactic sections, and 7 f. may have been a special writing upon Paul’s bbol (417) which Timotheus was to take to the church. The fuller study of these conjectures is reserved for his forthcoming edition of 2 Cor.

P. 130, 1. 15 from top. Add, “John Fell (1675).”

d xli

P. 149, 1. 16 from foot. Add, “Alexander (Speaker’s Comm. 1881).”

P. 161,1. 19 from top. For another MS in Toledo, see JBL., 1901, 76-78. Forty-seven are now known to exist. See generally Jacquier’s Le NT dans

T fglise Chritienne, i. (1911) pp- 345-351.

P. 169, note*. Cp. B. W. Robinson (JBL., 1910, 181-189) on “An

Ephesian Imprisonment of Paul.”

P. 179, 1. 17 from top. Add, “ W. Larfeld, Synapse dervier neutestament-

lichen Evglien, nach literarhistorischen Gesichtspunkten und mit textkritischen Apparal (Tbingen: Mohr, 1911)..

P. 181, 1. 15 from top. This is carefully stated by W. C. Allen in the

recent and very important volume of Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem,

pp, 288 f. '

p. 192, note*. The contents of the Ur-Marcus are lucidly described in

C. Piepenbring’s Jisus Historique (1909), pp. 45-71; cp. also W. W. Holds-worth in ExpP i. 449-460.

P. 194, note*. A more conservative view of the synoptic tradition is

presented in Mangenot’s Les Evangihs Synoptiques (Paris, 1911).

P. 195, 1. 6 from top. Cp. Streeter in Oxford Studies, pp. 143 f., for a searching defence of this opinion, which is also shared by Schmiedel (HJ. ix. 918).

P. 197, 1. 7 from foot. Add, “ C. Piepenbring’s Jesus Historique, pp.

V-45 (on lines of Loisy).”

P. 199, footnote. Add, " Alien’s essay in Oxford Studies, pp. 242 f.”

P. 206, 1. 5 from top. The opposite conclusion is ably drawn by Streeter in Oxford Studies, pp. 2iof., where it is argued that “Mark was written to supplement, but not to supersede Q, or some deposit of material very like Q.”

P. 208, 1. 14 from top. The existence of the small apocalypse, with its origin c. 70 A.D. (which, by the way, precludes any theory of a pre-70 A.D. date for the synoptic gospels), is supported by Streeter in Oxford Studies, pp. 179-183-

P. 212, 1. 6 from foot. I leave this sentence unchanged, after reading

Harnack’s ingenious attempt, in ‘ ′ The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels” (BNT. iv. pp. 90-135), to prove the contrary. Even he can only propose such a view with the aid of the interpolation-theory. In its present form, he admits that Mt. can hardly be earlier than the years immediately following the catastrophe of A.D. 70.

P. 213. Harnack’s theory (ibid.) that Luke wrote his gospel and Acts during Paul’s lifetime does not move me one inch from the position outlined below on pp. 311-313. His interpretation of Lk 194lf. 2020. hardly amounts to more than a piece of special pleading; and the relation of Luke to Josephus is not weighed impartially. In fact, it is not weighed at all. Neither Harnack nor H. Koch, who has recently argued for the pre-70 A.D. date of the Lucan writings (Die Abfassungszeit Lukanischen Geschichtswerk, 1911), succeeds in making the theory as cogent as it is striking.

P. 216, 1. 4 from foot. Cp. Sanday in Oxford Studies, pp. 12 f.

P. 221, note *. See F. C. Burkitt in AJT. (1911) pp. 169-193, and W. Erbt s Das Markusevangelium, Uniersuch. uber d. Form d. Petruserrinerger* ungen und d. Geschichte d. Urgemeinde (1911), for a timely counterblast to Wellhausen and Wrede..

P. 233, 1. 5 from foot. Cp. Mrs. Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels (1910),

p. xx, on the occurrences in Mk i.. _ '

P. 251, top line. On the purely official character of the genealogy, see Mrs. Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels, pp. xiv f.

Pp. 252-253. 1618-19 are also taken by C. Guignebert {La Primauti de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome, Paris, 1909) as an interpolation made by some editor who, early in the second century, used some apocryphal logion in order to buttress the idea of Peter’s primacy.

P. 257,1. 6 from top. For a fresh study of these corporate interests, cp.

E. F. Morison’s paper on “The Enthusiasm of the Gospel according to St. Matthew” {Exp.&i. 408-416).

P. 265, 11. 14-15 from top. In Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem (pp. 61 f.) Sir J. C. Hawkins gives satisfactory reasons for holding that Luke may have deliberately omitted the contents of this Marcan section.

P. 266, 1. 16 from top. Colonel Mackinlay (St. Luke'sThreefold Narrative of Christ's Last Jotirney toJerusalem, 1911) conjectures that 431-1042 111143 and 1425-2018, are parallel accounts of the same last journey; but the triple accounts, e.g., of Paul’s conversion in Acts are not on the same plane, and the relation of Luke to his synoptic sources becomes confused on this ingenious hypothesis.

P. 272, note*. For a conjecture that 331-22 is a later interpolation, see

H. Usener’s Religionsgeschichtliche UnterstichungeiP (1911), pp. 153 f.

P. 275, top line. The idea that Paul was Luke’s authority for special touches in the Passion-story is suggested by Sir J. C. Hawkins (Oxford Studies, 90 f.) and Prof. Moulton (Exp.3, July 1911, pp. 23 f.).

P. 276, 1. 18 from foot. For a subtle but rather complicated effort along this line, see V. Bartlet’s essay in Oxford Studies (pp. 313-363).

P. 276, 1. 7 from foot. Lk 9511814, according to Bartlet (Oxford Studies, 351 f.) and Maurenbrecher ( Von Jerusalem nach Rom, 1911, pp. 262 f.), is a special source which originated with Philip. According to Streeter’s more plausible view (Oxford Studies, 189 f.), it is mainly excerpted from Q.

P. 276, 1. 4 from foot. Cp. B. S. Easton (JBL., 1910, 139-180) on “ Linguistic Evidence for the Lucan source L.”

P. 283,1. 17 from top. Add, “ Van Steenkiste6 (ed. Camerlynck: Bruges, 1910).”

P. 292, 1. 15 from foot. The use of a source is admitted even by R.

Schumacher in his recent study on Der Diakon Stephanus (1910), §2.

P. 308, 1. 21 from foot. See the criticisms of Harnack by Clemen (HJ.

viii. 793 f.) and Sanday (Theol. Studien Theodor Zahn dargebracht, 1909, pp.

317 f-)-.

P. 311, 1. 4 from top. The "Western” reading of Ac 1127 is supported,

not only by Augustine, but by Dionysius Bar Salibi the Syrian commentator (cp. Nestle in ET. xxii. 479).

P. 311, 1. 22 from foot. The canonical order of Ac 142-3 is defended by

J. E. Roberts in ET. xxii. 329-331.

P. 373, 1. 21. Add, “ Meyrick (Speaker’s Comm. 1881).”

P. 376. In Exp.3, Aug., I36f., Oct., 321 f., Professor Souter argues that ymnv in Eph. I18 is a later, harmonistic insertion, and that the original “love-less” text could not have been written by any one except Paul, the

author of Colossians. In Exp.s, Sept., 193 f., I have replied to this theory and also to Harnack’s hypothesis (see below, p. 390 note *).

P. 397, 1. 14 from top. Add, “ Maier (Hauptprobleme d. Pastoralbriefe,

1911).”

P. 421, 1. 11 from foot. Add, “ D. Schmitz {Die Opferanschauung d.

spateren judentums u. die Opferatissagen d. NTes., 1910, pp. 259 f.)."

Pp. 430, 437, 443 f. The conflicting data would be harmonised if one could accept the theory of Dibelius that Heb 1-12 was originally a sermon of Barnabas to Jewish Christians at Rome, which was afterwards written out (with the addition of 13) for the benefit of Gentile Christians at Antioch. But we have no evidence connecting Barnabas and the Roman Church.

P. 437, 1. 10 from top. Professor Bartlet now [EB.n xiii. 191) seems to favour Apollos, dating the epistle 61-62.

P. 446, 1. 18 from foot. But it is not quite certain whether the reference

in the Odes is not mystical (cp. e.g. Loisy in ZNW., 1911, 126 f., and Kleinert in SE, 1911, 576).

P. 493, 1. 12 from top. Cp. J. Lepsius’ paper on “The Symbolical

Language of the Apocalypse,” in ExpP i. 160 f. etc.

P. 519, 1. 4 from top. Add, “ F. Buchsel {BFT. xv. 3, ‘ Der Begriff d. Wahrheit in d. Evglm. u. d. Briefen des Johannes’).”

P. 530, note J. Baldensperger’s view is criticised by C. W. Rishell in

JBL. xx. 38-49.

P. 533. At the close of an elaborate article on “ Die Dauer der offentlichen Wirksamkeit Jesu nach den vier Evangelisten ” (ZNW., 1911, 141-175), Windisch concludes that the Fourth gospel shows no signs of acquaintance with the synoptic gospels, and must therefore be dated between 80 and 100

A.D. But his arguments are far from convincing.

P. 538. For a recent defence of the Fourth gospel’s attitude towards the cleansing of the temple, see C. E. Blakeway in ET. xxii. 279-282.

P. 558, 1. 2 from foot. Cp. also E. F. Scott’s The Religious and Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel (1910), pp. 74 k

P. 559, 1. 23 from top. The composition of the gospel by Apollos is now advocated afresh by H. Dechent (SK., 1911, 446-461).

P. 565, 1- 19 from top. SyrSin corroborates the Old Latin Codex Veronensis (mane) in pointing to irpwt as the original reading here (so Odyss. 24s8); cp. Mrs. Lewis, Old Syriac Gospels, pp. xxviii-xxix.

P. 568, 1. 20 from top. This is contradicted on medical authority by Sir

A. R. Simpson, M.D., in Exp?, Oct., pp. 314 f.

,P. 581, 1- 8 from top. In a crypt of the Catacomb of St. Priscilla, there is a fresco representing the Raising of Lazarus; but, in the present state of archeological knowledge, it would be precarious to infer (as, e.g., C. D. Lamberton, Themes from St. Johris Gospel in Early Catacomb Painting, Princeton, 1911) that this Capella Greca dates from + 100 A.D., and that therefore the Fourth gospel, from which alone (it is argued) such a theme

could be derived, must have been circulated in Rome before the close of the first century.

P. 601, 1. 8 from top. Add, " Bacon (ZNW., 1911, 176-187) on ‘The Date and Habitat of the Elders of Papias.’ ”

Prolegomena

I. Collection of NT Writings into a Canon: Method and Materials of NT Introduction

The early Christian writings which form the New Testament fall within a period which covers, roughly speaking, a single century. Jesus died about A.D. 30. He wrote none of the works treasured by the church. He wrote once, but it was on the dust; like Socrates, he remained an authority, not an author, for his adherents. The subsequent literature which gathered round his name and cause embraced accounts of his own life or of the movement which he inaugurated, as well as compositions occasioned by exigencies and emergencies in the life of the Christian societies throughout the Roman empire. The last of.these writings (2 Peter) dates not much later than about one hundred years after the crucifixion., By the end of the second century all our present canonical NT writings are known to have been in existence, while the majority existed as a sacred collection which was being used for ecclesiastical purposes. The problem set to the literary critic is to examine the rise and growth of these writings one by one, to estimate their historical object, to discuss their inter-relations, and to analyse their structure.

An introduction to any literature, ancient, mediaeval, or G / ] modern, is concerned primarily with literary problems, and with other questions only as these impinge upon the central issue, namely, the literary genesis and growth of the writings under review. The study of the documents as documents is its metier. The origin and the objects of these documents in their own age form its special business. Yet, as literature rises from life, and as any writing not only is shaped by, but itself helps to shape, events in history, literary criticism is repeatedly obliged to wade into the waters of historical investigation; the imperial policy of Rome, e.g., is as germane to the criticism of the Apocalypse of John as is the policy of Philip to the discussion of Demosthenes’ Olynthiac orations. Literary criticism and historical criticism are therefore auxiliary sciences. The historian, whether of life or thought, requires to be able to presuppose the results of investigation into the date, authenticity, and form of the relevant documents; while the literary critic, in order to place his documents, leans on the results of the historian’s survey. But neither science can be isolated. Literary judgments frequently depend upon some presupposition as to the course of history, and the very data for this presupposition are often in their turn drawn largely from the documents in question. This is not arguing or working in a circle. The moment theory is deserted for practice, the difficulties tend to solve themselves; they are really difficulties of method, and if the literary critic and the historian keep their respective flags flying, they need not scruple to cross their allotted borders when occasion demands.

* The Libri Introductorii referred to by the sixth-century aristocratic and scholarly monk, M. Aurelius Cassiodorus, in his Institutio diuinarum lectionum OAisne., patr. lat. Ixx. 1105 f.), appear to have been mainly occupied with biblical exegesis and hermeneutic, and the Elcaywyh eis Tas @elas ypa.pi.s of Hadrianus (fifth century, ed. Gbssling, Berlin, 1887) does not differ essentially from the sources used by the Abruzzi scholar. The lost Key to

Much of the historical significance which attaches to certain writings would remain hidden from us if we did not happen to know that certain events were fresh in the minds of writers and readers alike. Paradise Lost is not a political pamphlet, much less a religious treatise; but it is im-possible to miss in its dialogues and descriptions either the theology of current Puritanism, with its controversies and abstractions, or the republican tendencies by which the author’s conceptions of government were shaped, or, finally, his instinctive distrust for the intellectual passion awakened by the Renaissance. Similarly—to take one instance out of hundreds from ancient literature—the Prometheus Vindus and the Septem contra Thebas are unintelligible apart from the aspirations of the Athenian rbpavvoi and Themistokles. The literary and historical criticism of the NT has a corresponding duty of unravelling the various threads of influence the Interpretation of the Scriptures, by Meli to of Sardis (H KAels), probably belonged to the same class. which tie a writing to some period. It is essential here as elsewhere to ascertain the mental and moral latitudes in which an author worked, to use his work in conjunction with other aids for the discovery and illustration of these latitudes, and again to use these for the further elucidation of the book itself. The latter is moved more or less, according to its character, by recent and contemporary events, just as the period in its turn is set off and rendered more vivid by the contemporary literature— “ Like as the wind doth beautify a sail, And as a sail becomes the unseen wind.”

As the early Christian literature was not national, however, such synchronisms* yield less for the NT than for almost any other group of ancient writings. We should expect, e.g., that an event like the fall of Jerusalem would have dinted some of the literature of the primitive church, almost as the victory at Salamis has marked the Persa. It might be supposed that such an epoch-making crisis would even furnish criteria for determining the dates of some of the NT writings. As a matter of fact, the catastrophe is practically ignored in the extant Christian literature of the first century. Beyond slight traces in the synoptic, especially the Lucan, version of the eschatological predictions made by Jesus, and a possible echo in one of the sources underlying the Apocalypse, no vibrations of the crisis can be felt.

Literary criticism and textual criticism are also bound to overlap at many points; but each has a sphere of its own. The boundary question here is theoretically simpler than between the historian and the literary critic. The place of investigation into early Christian tradition is more difficult to determine. An ancient writing often lies in a matrix of later information upon its origin or its author, and it is necessary to examine such materials in order to ascertain whether or how far they are the result of later fancy weaving unreliable reports around an honoured literary product, or the outcome of genuine tradition which goes back in subterranean fashion to the very period at which and for which the author wrote.

From such difficulties, arising out of the content and the form of documents, it is not to be expected that a critical Introduction to the literature of the NT can be exempt. Volumes on this subject have often been planned and executed along lines which overlapped into the sphere of works upon early church history, New Testament theology, and textual criticism. In the hands of some older writers, like Horne and * A Contemporary History of the New Testament is to form a special volume of the International Theological Library.

Glaire, NT Introduction was equivalent to an encyclopaedia or biblical dictionary, in which all topics relative to the contents as well as to the form of the NT writings were elaborately discussed, whether historical, literary, textual, or archaeological. The escape from this ideal of a Juvenalian farrago was only a matter of time. With the development of historical criticism and the increasing specialisation which it demanded, such a con-ception of Introduction became more and more impracticable. It is now recognised that while a NT Introduction handles the materials of volumes on the language and text of the NT writings as well as on the apostolic age, it is differentiated from these by a controlling reference to the literary problem as such, which determines roughly the amount of space assigned to questions of chronology, theology, archology, and textual criticism.

Naturally it is impossible, e.g., to discuss Paul’s epistle to the Christians of Galatia without some reference to the narrative of Acts and the geographical data of the provinces in Asia Minor, or to pronounce on the authenticity of the second epistle to the Thessalonians without checking the results of recent inquiry into the eschatological currents flowing through Judaism and primitive Christianity. Textual criticism also bears directly upon several problems in the literary criticism of the documents, as, e.g., in the case of the Bezan text of Acts, or of the pericope in the Fourth gospel, or of the appendix to Mark’s gospel. The new attention paid to the Old Latin and Syriac versions, which promise to throw light on the Greek text prior to the rise of the great uncials, is destined to affect NT Introduction as well as exegesis in the near future. But it is the problem of tradition which is most crucial. It assumes a much more serious character in NT Introduction than is usual elsewhere in the literary criticism of classical or Oriental literature. The problem of tradition is, in one aspect, a phase of investigation in early church history; but, in another, it is bound up with the special question of the Canon *—a question which, by its unique significance, imposes specific difficulties upon the literary criti-cism of the NT. As the very term New Testament suggests, these writings are extant in a special collection. The idea and The right of historical criticism to examine the origin and authority of the NT Canon was first stated by Semler in his Abhandhing von freier Untersuchnngdes Kanons (1771-1775). the history of this collection belong to the province of church history and to the special department of the Canon; but it would be unscientific to treat NT Introduction as if it were entirely insulated from contact with all such problems. The (i.) very process of collecting and arranging the various documents has not been without its effect upon the shape, the order, and even the contents of the documents themselves; and (ii.) the various strata of ecclesiastical tradition during the second and the first half of the third century—after which time little or no valuable information need be looked for—preserve several items of interest and importance about the primitive documents, which, like lumps of quartz, need to be carefully treated if they are to yield any specks of golden, authentic tradition.

This view of the method and functions of NT Introduction may appear comparatively obvious, but it has only been held within fairly recent years. Indeed, with the possible and partial exception of a royal official of Constantinople during the first half of the sixth century, whose Instiltiiio regularia diuina legis (ed. Kihn, Freiburg, 1880) incorporated the substance of lectures given by Paul of Nisibis upon the authorship, authority, and contents of the Scriptures, nothing worthy of the name of a NT Intro-duction was written till the sixteenth century (unless we stretch the term far enough to include the Muratorian Canon, which gives a few words upon several of the NT writings, the Church History of Eusebius, which gathers up many current traditions, the books mentioned on p. 1, and subsequent treatises such as the twelfth century de eruditione didascalia and de scriptura et scriptoribus prcenotatiunculce by Hugo of St. Victor, and the fourteenth century Postilice perpetuce in uniuersa biblia of Nicolas the Franciscan of Lyra. Even in the sixteenth century, historical criticism of the Scriptures was hardly born within the church, as is plain from the so-called Introductions by the Dominican friars Santes Pagninus (Isagogce ad sacras litteras liber umis, Lyons, 1536) and Sixtus of Siena, whose important Bibliotheca sancta (Venice, 1566), in eight books, was dominated by the recent decision of the Council of Trent upon the Canon. The influence of Sixtus is visible in the Jesuit Salmeron’s Prolegomena in uniuersam scripturam (Madrid, 1597). No real advance was made by the various Roman Catholic writers of the seventeenth century in Spain or Germany. Dogmatic interests were equally strong within the Reformed churches, meanwhile, as almost every page of the Isagoge of Andreas Rivetus and the Enchiridion biblicum (1681) of J. H. Heidegger makes clear.

With the writings of Richard Simon, the French Oratorian priest, a new day dawned for the science of NT Introduction. Among the numerous good services which modern research owes to this great scholar are the separation for the first of the OT from the NT, the applica-tion of literary criticism to the writings, and the employment of textual criticism as a factor in the process of appreciating the various documents. The translation of Simon’s essays into German, and the publication of Michaelis’ Introduction (Gottingen, 1750 f.), started a prolonged series of really critical works in Germany, of which the most notable were de Wette’s, Credner’s, and Schleiermacher’s; the most popular, from the Roman Catholic side, was Hug’s. The rise of the Tubingen school marked the next epoch in the history of the science. Although Baur himself wrote no actual Introduc-tion, his interpretation of the apostolic age and its writings exercised a powerful influence, attractive as well as antagonistic, upon all who were seriously engaged in NT research.! The outstanding contribution of the Tubingen movement to NT Introduction + was its emphasis on the close relation between history and literature; it failed to make due allowance for the pre-dominantly religious interest of the apostolic age as distinguished from polemic, but it assigned each document to some phase or another of a historical evolution within the early church. The value of this principle was independent of the particular application made of it by Baur and his followers. A debt of gratitude is further due to “the sincerity and courage of the Tubingen school... Not only were the facts emphasised by them, however exceptional, important, and unduly neglected; not only did they do justice to the ideal which underlies the concrete; but truth, and therefore piety, can permanently only be the gainer by the results of free investigation, with ample consideration of the strength and weakness of every rational hypothesis ” (Dr. A. Robertson, Regnum Dei, p. 83). While Baur’s particular positions in NT criticism were frequently supported in detail, the publication of Ritschl’s Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (2nd ed. 1857) and of Hilgenfeld’s Einleitung showed that the general thesis could not be worked out over the field of the NT literature. This has been confirmed not so much by opponents of Baur like Guericke, Salmon, and von Hofmann, as by the independent treatises of Reuss, Mangold, and above all H. J. Holtzmann, whose standard work represents quite a modified form of Baur’s hypothesis. At present, workers in the science of NT Introduction may be divided into three groups. The radical wing is represented by Havet in France, and especially by van Manen and Rovers in Holland. The liberal wing numbers not only Holtzmann, but Jiilicher (his crisp, first rate manual is rather less radical than even Holtzmann’s), von Soden, Bacon, and Baljon. The A. Schlatter’s Einleitung in die Bibel (1889), Cornely’s Compendium (1889), F. W. Weber’s Kurzgefasste Einleitung in die heil. Schriften AT und NT 9 (ed. Deinzer, 1891), and Franz Kaulen’s Einleitung in die heilige Schrift Alten u. Neuen Testaments* (1905). t A sympathetic and critical sketch of Baur’s great services to NT Introduction is given by Holtzmann (New World, 1894, 207-218). $ So far as method was concerned, the effect was less salutary; it tended to resolve NT Introduction into the history of the Canon. conservative wing includes, besides all the Roman Catholic writers, B. Weiss, Godet, and Zahn; the latter’s volumes are conspicuous for their massive learning. Apart from S. Davidson, whose point of view approximated generally to that of Hilgenfeld, the few English writers on this subject are predominantly conservative (Adeney with some modifications), with the recent and brilliant exception of Peake.

* He was a friend of Primasius, the bishop of Hadrumetum, who com-mented on the Apocalypse; cf. Kihn's Theodor von Mopsuestia und fum 1, Africanus (1879), pp. 213 f.

* Not for the last time, unfortunately. The collocation of the two survives in popular or semi-critical volumes like J. K. Huber’s Einleitung in die sdmmtlichen Bucher d. heil. SchrifD (1840), Gilly’s Pricis (1867-1868),

Amid the varieties of critical opinion during last century, however, there was a prevailing adherence to the method first laid down in full by de Wette, who showed in practice how NT Introduction could be cleared from extraneous and heterogeneous elements. He and Reuss brought out the literary function of introduction. It was now seen pretty generally that the science must devote itself more than ever to the problems clustering round the origin and growth of the NT writings, taken individually and in groups, whilst the final phase of their historical setting lay in their gradual incorporation into the Canon. Thus, while the canonical environment of the writings lent a certain unity to the studies bearing upon their contents and career, the extension of interest to the domain of their literary and historical environment invested the science with an unwonted elasticity. Its •, _ task was “ to take that section of early Christian literature which has been allotted the rank of a classical literature for Christendom, thanks to the conception of the Canon, and apply thereto the laws of literary and historical criticism which cover the writings in question, when treated as literary products at any rate—and this apart altogether from the further question whether the outcome of such a subsumption of the NT under the general category of literary growth must end in the confirmation, or supersession, or modification of the dogma of the Canon” (Holtzmann, Einl. p. 13).

This modern conception, which is due to the rise of the historical method, was first stated definitely by Hupfeld in his essay, Uber Begriff u. Methode der sogen. biblischen Einleitung (Marburg, 1844). Many critics still clung to the idea that an Introduction to the NT literature corresponded more or less to a critical account of the and that the business of the science was to investigate a book’s title to the predicate of canonical; but, on the whole, the conception of NT Introduction as a history of the NT literature had now fairly won its footing. Literary problems, in the light of historical research, were recognised to be paramount. One result has been ’ that, instead of dwelling on the ecclesiastical function of the writings or on their reception into the Canon, critics have turned to devote more attention to the rise and shape of the individual writings, studying each either by itself or in the group to which its inner affinities, not necessarily its canonical position,. would assign it.

At the same time a NT Introduction is not equivalent to a collection of such brief introductions as might be prefixed to separate editions of the books in question. The science of NT Introduction deals with each writing not merely as it stands by itself, but as it is correlated to the other volumes of its special group or of the canonical collection in general, endeavouring to set each book in its relative literary position, marking its place in the de-velopment of the whole, and indicating the later processes of ecclesiastical rearrangement by which often it was shifted from its original position to a more or less alien place in the collection. It is only by the pursuit of this historical and genetic line that NT Introduction escapes from the reproach of being largely concerned with “isolated points which have no connection among themselves,” * or of leaving upon the mind the impression of a literature which lies unrelated and accidental, resembling either “A lonely mountain tarn, Unvisited by any stream,” or a series of deep scattered pools, one book or group of books coming i after another in a more or less haphazard fashion. It is indispensable to detect the running stream of life that winds steadily, for all its eddies and backwaters, between and through these varied writings; and this is impossible till the critic stands beside the life which they presuppose and out of which they rise. He can do this and at the same time keep in view the fact, of which the Canon serves as a reminder, that the NT writings not only sprang out of History but had a history of their own, and that apart from the second and third century literature they would often be misinter! preted, if not unintelligible in more ways than one.

* So even Baur (Theo l. Jahrb., 1850, pp. 474 f.), though his historical sense led him to define “Introduction” finally as “ the theological science which has to investigate the origin, primitive situation, and characteristics of the canonical writings.” Compare Hupfeld’s criticism in SE. (1861, pp. if.), and Baur’s further exposition in Theol. Jahrb., 1851, pp. 70 f., 222 f., 291 f.

In a note to the first chapter of The Fair Maid of Perth, discussing the magnificent view of the Tay valley which may be gained from the Wicks of Baiglie, Scott quotes what a local guide said, on reaching a bold projecting rock on Craig Vinean —“ Ah, sirs, this is the decisive point.” One of the first objects of the literary historian, in attempting the survey of any period, is to secure the decisive point from which he may command the lie of the country, and see it as fully as possible in its natural proportions. Such a vantage-ground lies usually at some distance from the particular literature. That is one reason why the decisive point of elevation from which to scan the primi-tive Christian literature is to be found in the traditions which _ begin to rise by the second half of the second century, when writings of the primitive age had begun to be gathered into a sacred collection. This starts a further question, however. The primitive canon does not correspond exactly to the contents of the modern NT, but the idea is the same, viz., that of a selection made for ecclesiastical purposes. This idea, as well as the very name of New Testament," is later than the writings which have Dr. M. W. Jacobus, A Problem in NT Criticism (1900), p. 49. gravitated into the Canon. The large majority of these writings .originated in a period.when there was no “New Testament,” and no thought of any such collection. None of them was written for a canonical position, and it is therefore an anachron-- A~:' ism for literary and historical criticism to attach the predicate of “ canonical" to them, or to treat them as if they had possessed from the first a privileged and unique character. The NT Canon represents a dogmatic selection from the literature of primitive Christianity. In accepting this selection for the purpose of literary criticism, is there not a danger, it may be asked, of isolating the writings unhistorically under the influence /o. a.. of what was the postulate of a later generation? [This contention does not necessarily cast any reflection upon the instinct which led the early church to draw up such a collection; it does not mean that the unity of the New Testament is a purely factitious characteristic which has been imposed upon its contents by the ecclesiastical interests of a subsequent “No one is called upon to deny that the ancient church in her New Testament brought together upon the whole what was of most value from the religious standpoint, and also upon the whole all that was oldest and therefore, from a documentary standpoint, most important, not only in the literature known to us, but in the current literature of the period” (Wrede, Ueber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen Theologie, 1897, p.

11)1 The pith and justice of the argument lie in its protest against introducing a priori conceptions of unity and uniqueness into the historical.criticism of the religious ideas and the literary form of the New Testament writings. It has less bearing, in any case, upon the literary criticism than upon the theological study of the NT.J Strictly speaking, the method of the former should ii. 576-577t The opening pages of Wrede’s essay (pp. 8-17, cp. GGA,, 1896, 525 f.), G. Kriger's pamphlet on Das Dogma vom Neuen Testament (1896), and his pages in ARW., 1902, 258 f., 267 f., represent this position most effectively. The credit of starting it originally belongs to the two Dutch scholars, van Manen (cf. EBi. 3471 f.) and Baljon. On the general principle, see Preuschen’s paragraphs in ZNW. (1900), pp. 10 f. + As early as Clement of Rome and Ignatius there is a retrospective recognition of an authority in religious tradition which belonged to the apostles; but this was not confined to extra-canonical writers, and it did not necessarily imply a literary record or expression of that authority. to PROLEGOMENA include the non-canonical compositions which are contemporary with the canonical, as is done, e.g., by Schwegler and Pfleiderer, by Reuss and van Manen, and in G. Kruger’s Geschichte d. altchrist. Litteratur. Practical considerations, however, determine other-wise. Since the present series is a “ theological" library,—imply-ing that the inclusion of the New Testament writings denotes their canonical character,—and since Dr. C. R. Gregory’s volume has outlined the process by which they attained this position in the church, the present volume is perforce confined to the earlier history of the Christian writings which have thus become canonical; only, it is written from the standpoint which views them not as canonical but as products of the primitive Christian movement, and it attempts primarily to read them in the light not of what they afterwards became or did, but of what they were to the age and circle of their origin. The question practically resolves itself into one of method. So long as inquiries into the literature of the NT are prosecuted apart from any dogmatic assumptions upon the priority or superiority of that literature to the other writings of the period, no breach of scientific principle is committed. The dependence of the Fourth gospel, e.g., upon Justin or even the Leucian Acts, may be denied, but not for the a priori reason that the one is canonical and the others are not. Criticism, again, may place certain NT writings in the same period as others which are “ Contemporaneous, No question, but how extraneous In the grace of soul, the power Of hand.”

* Cf. on this Denney’s Death of Christ (1902), pp. I-4, and Sanday in ERE.

This description, however, must be deduced from the internal evidence of the books in question, not from any consideration of the canonical prestige which attaches to one or other of them. Thus, even when the immediate scope of the inquiry is con-fined to a selection from the early Christian literature, the principles on which the investigation proceeds need not and must not be narrowed in such a way as to exclude from the purview of the critic any relevant data furnished by the form and contents of any contemporary literature which is extant. So far as literary morphology is concerned, e.g., no valid distinc-tion can be drawn between the so-called “NT” literature RELEVANCE OF CANON it and the early Christian writings of the first or the second The same forms appear; epistles continue to be written; apocalypses start up; acts are compiled; and even gospels continue to rise above the surface. Each genre has an earlier example within the NT collection, but the later produc-tions are by no means merely imitative in form or contents; the derivative element is frequently lost amid the vigorous and independent creations of apologist or romancer. Besides, some (e.g. Clemens Romanus, perhaps Barnabas) are prior to, and others at least (Ignatius) contemporaries of, one or two writings which are now included in the Canon. No line of demarcation can be drawn even in time any more than in form.

Unless the literary criticism of early Christian writings is to become merely a subordinate branch of dogmatic theology + or of church history, it must apparently forego its rights to use the title of “NT Introduction” except upon the grounds of practical convenience. From the logical and historical point of view there is no such thing as a science of NT Introduction, unless “NT” is regarded as equivalent to the NT Canon, and the origin of the various NT writings treated merely as a prelude to their subsequent history in the church. But while the scientific ideal would undoubtedly be an Introduction to the early Christian literature, which abstains on principle from crowning any members of the primitive company with a posthumous halo, just as conscientiously as a modern philologist would refuse to treat the language of the NT writers as an isolated island in the sea of the profaner KOIVT), the NT is with us, and it will be with us to the end. Partly owing to intrinsic, partly owing to extrinsic qualities, its contents have acquired a vogue shared by no other early Christian writings, t and there are practical considera-tions in favour of continuing to treat this selection of choice documents as a separate whole, in the light of its wider literary environment. Most writers on NT Introduction add to their discussion of the separate NT writings not only a section on the Canon, but also some account of the uncanonical literature. But this is to swell the size of a NT Introduction without adequately avoiding its unscientific bias. Even when a NT Introduction is confined to a discussion t Or of apologetic, as, e.g., A. G. Rudelbach (Zeitschrift fiir lutherische Theologie u. Kirche, 1848, pp. if.) and Aberle (Einl. pp. 3f.) held quite frankly.

See F. Overbeck’s essay, ‘ Uber die Anfange der patristischen Literatur ’ in Historische Zeitschrift (1882), pp. 417-472, especially pp. 428f.

J “The books did not come together by chance. They are not held together simply by the art of the bookbinder. It would be truer to say that they gravitated towards each other in the course of the first century of the church’s life, and imposed their unity on the Christian mind, than that the church imposed on them by statute... a unity to which they were inwardly strange ” (Denney, The Death of Christ, 1902, p. 3). of the NT books, the scientific demands of literary criticism may be met by following a method which actually, though not formally, treats the canonical writings not as canonical but as early Christian documents, eschewing any factitious or fortuitous grouping due to a later period, and steadily keeping in view their relations to the so-called uncanonical document of the first and second centuries. This, it must be confessed, is a makeshift. But it manages to conserve the rights of historical criticism.

The name is older than the subject. Exposition and inspiration (i.e. the problems of canonical authority) rather than literary criticism occupied the earlier works which may be grouped under the title of Introduction,* from Adrianus to Santes Pagninus and Rivetus. Such treatises grouped the OT and the NT together. Latterly, their interest in the canonical authority of the scriptures led to an increasing emphasis upon the question of the text, which the investigations of Simon and Mill soon forced into prominence. The former of these scholars, though none of his works is called an Introduc-tion, is the real founder of the modern science. In point of fact, even prior to Simon, the most relevant materials of Introduction were furnished by works which bore other names, from the Muratorian Canon and the writings of Jerome (especially the de uiris inlustribus, which had so powerful an influence on mediaeval thought §) down to the Dominican Sixtus and M. Walther (Officina Biblica, 1636). There have been three distinct stages in the development of NT Introduction. The first is marked by R. Simon’s works, which emphasised the duty of investigating the pre-canonical origin of the literature. The second synchronises with the discussions upon the relation of the science to the NT Canon, which are associated with the names of Hupfeld and Baur, especially the former. By this time NT Introduction had realised to some degree its vocation in literary and historical criticism alike. The third stage, inaugurated by Overbeck and worked out by the scholars above noted (p. 9), is still in progress. At first sight it appears to spell the death of the science, resolving it into the larger discipline of an Introduction to the early Christian literature; but there is less practical justifica-tion for this + than for the allied purpose to replace “ NT theology” by “ The history of religious ideas in primitive Christianity.”

The fullest study of the history of NT Introduction is Zahn’s article in PRE. v. 261-274; the English student will find materials in Bleek's I NT. i. pp. 7-38, and Weiss {INT. §§ 1-4), as well as in H. S. Nash’s History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament, and G. H. Gilbert’s Interpretation of the Bible (1908); although the latter, like R. Simon’s exhaustive Histoire critique des principaux commentateurs du NT depuis le commencement du Christianismejusques a notre temps (1693), deals with exegesis rather than Introduction proper.

“ On Jerome s influence upon the Canon of the Western Church, see Sir H. Howorth in JTS. x. 481 f. t Cf. J. Weiss, Die Aufgaben der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft (1908), pp. 32, 48 f.

II.

II. Arrangement of NT Writings

Do the traditions underlying the various early canonical ar-rangements of the NT throw any reliable light upon the origin and relative position of the latter? This question must be asked and answered before the canonical order is set aside by literary criticism. It involves an inquiry into the sequence and contents of the various sections in the NT Canon (cp. Zahn’s GK. ii. 343-383; S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate (1893), pp. 301 f., 331 f.; Moffatt, HNT. pp. 107-117; Julicher’s Einl. § 46; Nestle’s Einf. 127-128).

In the following lists, early Christian writings like the Apocalypse of Peter and Hermas, which are frequently ranged with the canonical, have been omitted for the sake of clearness. Heb. is ranked with the Pauline epp., except where otherwise noted. It is obvious that the relative order of the sections cannot be earlier than the third or fourth century, when the whole of the NT came to be written as a single codex, and that even the order of books in the separate sections seldom goes further back than the period when the collection of gospels or epistles was first made. {a) The order (cp. Credner's GK. pp. 390 f.; Barth’s Einl. pp. 387 f.; Gregory’s Canon and Text of NT, pp. 467-469) of the component sections of the Canon occupies the first place in this preliminary inquiry; but, although the results are fairly clear, their value for the historical appreciation of the writings is of subordinate importance. As the reader will notice from the appended tables (expanded from HNT. pp. 108 f.), the gospels almost invariably come first, though in the synopsis of Chrysostom, as in D, they follow Paul, owing to liturgical reasons. The Apoc, again, is as invariably last, though in the Decretum Gelasii (which otherwise tallies with B), as in the Fleury palimpsest and in the Catalogus Mommsenianus (which otherwise tallies with A), it precedes the catholic epistles, while in the oldest Armenian MS (Venet., c. 1220 A.D.), which otherwise tallies with B, Paul follows the Apoc.

The usual position of Acts, before or after the catholic epistles, and the explicit title of the former. Actus Apostolorum (Iren. adv. Har. iii. 13. 3, etc.) or Acta omnium Apostolorum (Murat.), though erroneous, denote the catholicizing tendency of the early church. Philastrius (4th cent., Har. Ixxxviii.) observes that the catholic epistles “actibus apostolorum conjunct sunt ”; this is the order in A, E, F, and G, their priority (in E and F) over Paul being due to the influence of Gal I17 (roils 7rp a7roar6\ovs). Acts was of special value not only as an introduction upon the one hand to Paul’s epistles, but as a witness, on the other hand, to the twelve apostles (as represented by the catholic epistles); in this way it seemed to prove the unity of the early church. Its position immediately after the gospels was due to the feeling that the historical books should go together.

More interest attaches to the order of the writings included in these sections. With regard to the gospels (cp. Nestle’s Einf pp. 127 f.; Zahn’s GK. ii. 364 f., 1014), the main data may be tabulated as follows:— o.S — — + So Apost. Canons, omitting Apoc, and Catalogus Claromontanus (4th cent.), placing Apoc before Acts. The original order of Codex Bezs (cp. Dom Chapman in Exp* July 1905, 46-53) seems to have been Evv, Apoc, Cath (1-3 Jn), Acts. $ Minuscule 19 has Jn, Mt, Lk, Mk; minuscule 90 has Jn, Lk, Mt, Mk. Here, as in D and F, Mk is put last on the score of its size. Corroboration of this order was probably found (as by Irenaeus and Victorinus) in Apoc 47, where John was identified with the lion, Luke with the calf, Matthew with the man, and Mark with the eagle. The more common arrangement ARRANGEMENT OF WRITINGS I $ A, which was adopted by the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 363), reflects an early tradition preserved by Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25. 3), who learnt iv Trapabbaei that Mt was written first of all, then Mk (on the basis of Peter’s preaching), thirdly Lk (referred to in Ro 218, 2 Ti 28), M Tc ri> Kurd ’ludvvyv (so In Jesum Nave horn. vii. 1). It is reproduced by the large majority of manuscripts and versions. B is another early arrangement, reported by Clement (Eus. H. E. vi. 14, 5-7) as a rrapocis ire pl Ths renews run ebayyeXLuv which he had received from TUP dviKadev -rrpeaflvrbpuv. The tradition thus goes back to the middle of the second century at least, if it is not earlier; there are even traces of it in Irenus. But the principle of arrangement is that priority belongs to the gospels which contain genealogies; Mark’s gospel reflects the subsequent preaching of Peter at Rome, while John’s is the spiritual gospel which crowns and supplements all three. Otherwise (except in D and F) Mk as the Petrine gospel precedes the Pauline Lk. Irenaeus, indeed, gives a chronological basis for A (cp. Eus. H. E. v. 8. 2), but the traditions which he preserves fall to be discussed in connexion with the gospels of Matthew and Mark (see below). The gradual (C-G) elevation of Jn from the fourth place to the first or second was due to the theory that the directly apostolic gospels (Mt, Jn) were in a position of priority as compared with those which were merely composed by apostolic subordinates (Mk, perhaps also to the idea t that Jn was written when the circle of the apostles was still unbroken (cp. Schwartz, Der Tod d. Sdhne Zebedaei, pp. 26 f.), and possibly to a desire for emphasis on the gospels which connected Jesus directly with the OT. G certainly reflects a pre-Origen order current in the Egyptian church. The monarchian prologues to the four gospels, which represent on the other hand a Roman tradition slightly later than the Muratorian Canon (cp. Corssen in TU. xv. 1), place Mt first, as written before the others in Judsea; then Jn (“qui etsi post omnes euangelium scripsisse dicitur, tamen dispositione canonis ordinati post Matthum ponitur”); then Lk and Mk, though the latter (written in Italy) chronologically preceded the former. $ The prologues of the symbols (cp. Swete’s Mark, pp. xxxvif.), which allied the figures respectively to Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, does not seem to have influenced the chronological order, but in the old Latin codex Bobiensis Mk precedes Mt. t This notion, which underlies the Muratorian Canon’s account of the Fourth gospel’s origin, probably explains the subsequent allusion in the same Canon to the priority of the Apocalypse over Paul (“cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus sequens prodecessoris sui johannis ordinem non nisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat).”

* So Greg. Naz., omitting Apoc. The order of B (“item ordo Scripturarum NT quem sancta catholica Romana suscipit et ueneratur ecclesia," Decret. Gelasii) was adopted finally by the Council of Trent.

* See Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 2 (“nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, iisdem regulis exorsi”).

J The remark that Mk “non laborauit natiuitatem carnis, quam in prioribus uiderat, dicere,” seems to contradict this, whether in prioribus (sc. euangeliis) refers to Mt and Lk (Corssen), or to Mt and Jn (see the words immediately above, “ initium carnis in domino et dei aduenientis habitaculum”). Zahn’s attempt to explain the phrase as a translation of iv rots TTph Totrav or iv rots ip.7rpoaOev, is quite improbable. thus witness to the order of A as that of the composition of the four, but for ecclesiastical reasons they reproduce D. The Western order of D also occurs in the newly discovered (Egyptian) Freer MS. Here as elsewhere Mk’s size was probably one reason for Lk’s priority. A is probably the oldest tradition extant upon the order; it is drawn from several early ecclesiastical traditions connected with the apostolic authorship or origin of the gospels. Mt, as composed by Matthew the taxgatherer for the Jewish Christians of Palestine, is supposed to precede Mk, which was associated with Peter’s subsequent preaching at Rome, just as Lk was connected with Paul’s preaching. C repre-sents an order of the Western church, and there is internal evidence to suggest that the archetype of Codex Bezae had the gospels in this order, its present order (D) being due to a later scribe (cp. Dom Chapman in ZNW., 1905, 339-346).

The division and arrangement of the gospels thus appear to have been determined partly on chronological grounds, partly from considerations of internal value or even of size, partly from ecclesiastical ideas of the author’s rank, and partly from arbitrary fancies—or, at any rate, from what seem arbitrary and unintelligible to a modern. All these features are further illustrated in the disposition of the Pauline and catholic epistles.

The Pauline epistles are arranged as follows:— I Athanasius and Council of Laodicea, like NA, insert Heb between Thess and Tim; in the Bohairic version it also follows 2 Th, though the Fayyumic and Sahidic (perhaps on account of its size) place it after 2 Co. Augustine, like Isidore of Spain (7th cent.), puts Col between Thess and Tim; and Cassiodorus, reversing the order of Eph and Phil, also places Heb between Thess and Tim.

* The order Gal, Co, Ro seems to have also prevailed, possibly after Marcion, in the early Syriac canon (as in Efraem)..

The position of Philem after Col in A and D is natural, but the distinction of ecclesiastical and private epistles, which dominates B, C, E, and F, tended to throw Philem not only near but after Tim and Tit on account of its brevity (as in C, E). Thus it is uncertain whether Marcion’s order put Philem after Phil (so Tert. adv. Marc, v.) or before it (Epiph. hair. xlii.). The priority of Rom in C, D, and E was due partly to its size, partly to the prestige of the Roman church.

The position of Hebrews within the Pauline corpus is usually f between the ecclesiastical and the private epistles (Eastern Church) or after the latter (Western Church). Luther threw Heb, Jas, Judas, and Apoc to the end of his bible with the curt remark: “bisher haben wir die rechten gewissen hauptbiicher des NT gehabt, diese vier nachfolgende aber haben vor zeytten ein ander ansehen gehabt. ” {d} The canonical arrangement of the catholic epistles throws even less light on their origin, or even upon the traditions which grew up round them in the early church. They were tabulated in order as follows:— — o t Occasionally, however, after 2 Co and before Gal (so, e.g., Sahidic version) or Eph (Theodore Mops.). t Pope Damasus I. (4th cent.), who follows this order, distinguished 2 and 3 Jn as “alterius Johannis presbyteri epistole." § Catalogus Mommsenianus (4th cent.), which follows F, omits Judas and Jas. The “una sola,” which is appended in one of its MSS to Jn and Pt, represents an early gloss which protests against the canonicity of 2-3 Jn and 2 P, not a comment upon Jas and Judas, which have been accidentally omitted (Belser, Einl. 727). See Gregory’s Canon and Text of NT, 271-272.

* It is explicitly stated in Murat. Canon and by Victorinus that Paul wrote to seven churches, as John did, the seven representing the one catholic church.

II / IS REJPNIEUA ending of Mark, Harnack’s on the titles of the catholic epistles, and the widespread theories on Ktomans and 2 Corinthians, are instances in point. It is also a fair question, whether the text of Paul’s epistles may not have been slightly “catholicised " for the purpose of the canon. These problems, however, fall to be noticed below, in connection with the respective writings. All that can be premised is that the canonical editing, which added titles to several of the writings, may quite well have gone further in the interests of liturgical edification.

As the plan of this volume departs from the canonical arrangement, it will be useful at this point to outline the course followed in grouping the various documents.

The literature dating from the early decades of the Christian movement may be called “ Epichristian ”—to borrow a con-venient term from de Quincey.* As it happens, the extant fragments of this literature consist almost entirely of letters written by the apostle Paul. The period includes, however, the rise of the primitive evangelic material, which afterwards was worked up into the synoptic gospels. Collections of logia may in some cases be traced even within Paul’s epistles; one of them, the Q-source of Matthew and Luke, certainly is contemporaneous with him. Though none has survived in its original form, it would be an unbalanced estimate of the epi-christian period and its literature which would identify the latter with the correspondence of the great apostle. In form, at any rate, the historical literature stands by itself. The use of the epistle for religious purposes did not originate with Paul, though he was the first to popularise it within Christianity. The special traits of a gospel, however, as we find them in the synoptic writers, are not anticipated in the earlier biographical memoirs or monographs or peraya of ancient literature. On this account alone the four books of the historical literature demand a chapter to themselves. From * in his essay on the Essenes he invents the adjective in order to describe primary elements and movements in Christianity which first matured in the generation immediately succeeding the lifetime of Jesus Christ. “That particular age or generation (of twenty or thirty years, suppose) which witnesses the first origin of any great idea, system, discovery, or revelation, rarely indeed witnesses the main struggle and opening rush of its evolution. Exactly as any birth promises vast results for man, it may be expected to slumber silently. Then suddenly kindling, and spreading by ratios continually accelerated, it rushes into the fulness of life with the hurry of a vernal resurrec-tion in Sweden.” the standpoint of literary criticism, they represent a new departure. As they followed Paul’s correspondence chronologic ally, they may be studied next to the apostle’s letters and epistles, the more so that the origin and the significance of the so-called Pauline elements which they contain constitute one of the problems which beset the task of estimating the extent to which the gospels reflect the common Christianity of the primitive church in reproducing the sayings and deeds of Jesus. So far as the NT is concerned, this period, i.e. the half century after A.D. 70,* has also thrown up a number of com-positions which the later church, in framing its Canon, grouped either as Pauline or as “catholic” epistles. It is customary in most manuals of Introduction to treat the former under the Pauline correspondence, even when they are recognised to be sub-Pauline, and to discuss the latter separately. This method may be defended on the score of practical convenience; but even when adopted in order to facilitate reference and to avoid confusion, it has grave drawbacks. It is better to regard all these sub-Pauline writings, from the standpoint of literary criticism, under the general title of pastorals and homilies. The introduction of a classification such as that of the “catholic epistles” is a much later and artificial arrangement.

Any disposition of these homilies and pastorals is more or less provisional. Their chronological succession, their literary relationships, and even the schools of thought or localities to which they might be referred, are too insecure to afford any basis for an arrangement which would correspond to the little that is known about their situation. I have put Judas and 2 Peter immediately after 1 Peter, since, although Judas differs from i Peter, 2 Peter depends on both, and Judas lies chrono-logically between the two. A second subdivision is headed by Ephesians, which is also allied to i Peter; in its wake we may range the three epistles to Timotheus and Titus, since they, too, bear Paul’s name. Hebrews again, like Ephesians, breathes an atmosphere in which the Pauline ideas are being transmuted * It is totally unhistorical to describe the age between the death of the apostles and the middle of the second century as an unproductive period, whose practical tasks resembled those of the post-Reformation era, when it was men’s chief business, as Martin Chemnitz put it, parta tueri. ' into a form approximating to the later transformation in the Fourth gospel. With it the homily or tract of James may be placed, for lack of any more appropriate position. Finally, the two little pastorals written by John the presbyter lead up naturally to the Apocalypse, In literary form, the Apocalypse is partly allied to the pastorals and homilies, but the uniqueness of its contents justifies the special position assigned to it as the only one of the early Christian apocalypses which eventu-ally managed to retain a 'foothold inside the Canon. The Fourth gospel has formal affinities both to the pastorals and to the historical literature; here again, however, the distinctive characteristics of the document merit isolated treatment. The anonymous homily or pastoral which bears the canonical title of “First John” will be discussed, for the sake of convenience, in the wake of the Fourth gospel, with which its affinities are closest, instead of in its proper class.

The chief complete commentaries on the NT are:—Beza’s Annotationes (1565); Aretius, Commentarii (Paris, 1607); Grotius, Annotationes (1644); Alberti’s Observationes philologies in sacros Noui Feederis libros (1725); Hardouin’s Commentarius (1741); de Beausobre’s Remarques historiques, critiques, et philologiques sur le NT (1742); Bengel’s Gnomon (1742); Rosenmuller’s Scholia (1777); H. E. G. Paulus (1800-1804), J- O. Thiess (1804-1806), Kuinoel (1807-1818), S. T. Blomfield’s Greek Testament (London, 1829); J. Gossner (Berlin, 1827-1830); E. Burton’s Greek Testa-ment (Oxford, 1831); Alford; C. Wordsworth; and A. Bisping’s Handbuch. (1867-1876).

III. Literary Sources of NT

A New Testament* implies an Old. The New Testament writings, even separately, presuppose the authority no less than the existence of the older ypac of the Jews, by means of which Paul justified the principles of the Gentile mission, and the evangelic tradition enriched as well as verified its outline of Jesus the messiah. It was the analogy of the OT which contributed, together with the growing prestige of early Christian apostolic * Tertullian, using instrumentum in its juristic sense of a written authority or proof, distinguishes the OT, as instrumentum Judaics liters, from the NT as the instrumentum pradicationis or Christians liters (Ronsch, Das NT Tertullians, 1871, 47-49). writings as apostolic* (cp. Koppel in SK., 1891, 123f.), to the formation of a NT.

Eusebius recognises a providential circumstance in the composition of the LXX. Had it not been for this version, he observes, “we should not have got from the Jews those oracles (ra -n-ap avTols Aoyta, cp. Ro 32), which they would have hidden away from us in jealousy” (Eus. Praep. Evang. 349 c). The argument is that since the OT prophecies were to prove essential to the preaching of Christ throughout the world, God had thus arranged for the accurate translation and wide diffusion of oracles which would witness incontrovertibly to his Son. This standpoint was that of the early church as a whole. To the OT they appealed for proofs of their doctrine of Jesus Christ. Their earliest theoretic interest was the demonstration from OT prophecies that Jesus was the true messiah. In the case of Paul, the author of Matthew, and the writer of Hebrews, the extent to which the original Hebrew text was employed in quotations becomes a problem for exegesis, but in the main the LXX was more convenient. More than once, e.g. in Hebrews and Paul, the argument turns upon some pivot in the LXX text. Several times, e.g. in Matthew, Barnabas, and Justin, the so-called proofs are simply illustrations, and not always very happy illustrations, of the doctrine in question, while the OT text could also furnish upon occasion material for the stories as well as for the sayings in the gospels. The main point is, however, that the early church steadily clung to the OT, despite the hostility of the Jews, the contempt of the Marcionites and certain gnostic sects who repudiated the OT, and the difficulties in which its interpretation often plunged the Christian teacher and apologist.

On the strong influence of the LXX upon the Greek world outside Judaism, and its value as an instrument of the Christian propaganda, see Harnack, SB BA., 1902, 508 f., MA C. i. 279 f., 284 f.; and Deissmann, Neue Jahrbiicher filr das klass. Alterthum (1903), 161 f. (on ‘die Helleniesierung des semit. Monotheismus’). * The impulse to keep up communication of some sort with the apostolic base was not confined to Catholic Christians. The Gnostics shared this instinct. It found expression in their repeated efforts (a) to attach them-selves to the traditions of some apostle or apostolic disciple, (b) to interpret allegorically (and edit) some apostolic writing, and to compose (c) gospels of their own (cp. Eus. H. E., iii. 25. 6-7). ■ Ignatius (ad Phil. 82) declares he once heard some people saying (87L ’Ear uh ktX.), “ If I do not find it <?>» rots pxelois, I do, not believe (it) v evayeXq." When he replied, “It is written,” they retorted, “That is just the question (7rp<5/ceiTai).” Ta apxela (a.pxaia} here means the OT, which Ignatius claims to be in line with the gospel. It is unnecessary and awkward to put ev ry elayyeXlq in apposition to rocs apxeiots, taking TtoTew in an absolute sense (so Zahn, Funk), or to follow the ingenious emendation of A. N. Jannaris (Class. Rev., 1903, 24-25), who prefers to read o,tl v for 6'ri ’Eav, and mpokera(=zpoor@eirai) for irpoKeirat, so that the passage would run: “ For I heard certain persons saying, Whatever I find not in the records, in the gospel, I believe not. And when I said to them, It is written, they answered, It is added.” The latter interpretation would refer to the corruption of the gospel text. But the comparison of the OT and the Christian propaganda is inherently more probable.

Three considerations have to be borne in mind in this connection: (i.) Even the LXX was not employed literally. The early church used the OT in many cases not as it lies before the modern reader, but in the light of the luxuriant midrashic inter-pretation which gathered round it during the later Judaism. Allowance has to be made repeatedly for this factor, in estimating the form and contents of early Christian traditions.* There is a partial analogy in the influence of Milton upon the later interpre-tation of Genesis; but even this gives no adequate idea of the extent f to which, not simply in the field of eschatology and apocalyptic, the letter of the OT was embellished and modified by midrashic speculations.

(ii.) The composite OT quotations in the NT as well as in the early Christian literature from Barnabas and Melito to Cyprian’s Testimonia especially, render it highly probable that florilegia and catenae of OT passages were in circulation. A pre-Christian origin for such excerpts is not impossible; the size of the OT would make it convenient for short manuals of this kind to be drawn up for the purpose of teaching and propaganda. But this need would be intensified when the * On the midrashic elements, e.g., in Stephen’s speech (Ac 7), see EBi. 4791; the traces in Josephus are collected by Bloch (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus, 1879, pp. 20-51), the Philonic by L. Treitel in Monatsschrift fiir Geschichte und Wiss. des Judentums (1909), 28 f., 159 f. + Thus the tradition of the Asiatic elders (Iren. v. 33. 3-4) about the fertility of the earth in the latter days transferred to Jesus a midrashic prophecy, perhaps from Apoc. Bar. (28s) 29s, or from a source common to that apocalypse and Papias (a Hebrew midrash on the Blessing of Isaac, J. R. Harris, AJT., 1900, 499; cp. Hennicke’s HNA. ii. 21). controversy between Jews and Christians turned largely on the OT proof that Jesus was the true messiah. Following the contemporary habit, the early Christian propaganda would produce, or adapt for its own purpose, short collections of extracts, messianic and otherwise, for the use of those who had to argue from the OT. The internal evidence of the early Christian composite quotations, with their sequence of texts (e.g. Is 814 and 2816 in Ro 9s2-33 and 1 P 26-8), their special textual forms (e.g. i Co 29), their editorial comments, and their occasional errors in the attribution of authorship (e.g. Mk 12-3, Mt 2 79-10), converge on the conclusion that such manuals were in use even during the first century. The evidence of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria throws light back upon their predecessors in this respect. It is possible that early Christian writers occasionally used not only Greek testimonia of this kind, but their Aramaic originals. Thus if, as is most likely, the combination of citations in Mk 12-3 is derived from a book of testimonia, that book was compiled upon rabbinic principles, and probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Rabbinic combinations of texts were made from a sense of similarity in words as well as in ideas, and it is only in the original of the Malachi and Isaiah passages that the clue to their association here is seen, viz. the unique phrase T1 Tp (cp. Abrahams in Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 179). In any case the deliberate and composite’ character of a number of early Christian quotations suggests that they are secondary, taken not from the originals, but from collections of proof-texts upon different subjects which were arranged in order, e.g., to illustrate topics like “ the forerunner,” “the sufferings of messiah,” “the call of the Gentiles,” etc. (cp. Harnack, HD. i. 175; Moffatt, HNT. 351, 617; and the author of The Logia of Papias, 1894, pp. v-vii).

The existence of such testimonia explains, e.g., the OT citations in Matthew (Allen, Stanton: GHD. ii, 344 f.) as well as in Paul. The hypothesis, stated by Credner {Beitrage zur Einl. ii. 318 f.) and Hatch (Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889, 203-214), has been raised to the level of strong probability by the repeated proofs led by Rendel Harris (cp. e.g. Exp I ii.

* Dr. Harris even finds in Ac 26s3 the headlines of such testimonia, awkwardly incorporated in the text. On the whole subject, cp. Elter’s essay, ‘ de gnomologiorum historia, ’ in Byzant. Zeitschrift, vii. 445 f. The later use of such excerpts in theological discussion is traced by Theodor Schermann in Die Geschichte der Florilegia vom V- VIII Jahrhundert (1904).

385-409, vii. 63 f.; Gospel of Peter, 86; Contenip. Review, Aug. 1895), and is widely accepted, e.g. by Westcott {Hebrews, 476 f.), Vollmer (Die Alttest. Citate bei Paulus, pp. 38 f. ), Clemen (Paulus, i. 96), Swete (Introd, to OT in Gk. 252), Jacquier (INT. iii. 253-254), Sanday and Headlam (Romans, pp. 264, 282), and Drummond (Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 365, “it is conceivable that there may have grown up, whether in writing or not, an anthology of passages useful in controversy, which differed more or less from the correct Greek translation ” of the OT).

(iii.) The religious life of a community is always enriched by the use of sources wider than the mere letter of their sacred codex. It is difficult to ascertain the precise limits of the Jewish OT Canon at this period, or to be sure how far they as well as the early Christians employed extra-canonical writings; but, apart from this, the primitive Christian literature, including the NT, shows ample traces of dependence on written sources which lay outside the OT. In some cases direct quotation can be proved, though in the majority of instances the evidence does not warrant so direct a filiation. " The influence of Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books taken together” (Charles, The Book of Enoch, pp. 41-49, where the evidence is summarised). It is only quoted directly in Judas 14-15 ( = En I9 54 272), as by name in Barn 43 (cp. 164 h pach=En 8956.66; cp. Veil in HNA. ii. 212, 228), but there are verbal echoes, e.g., in Hebrews (413= En 9s, cp. 115), Mt 1928 ( = En 625) and 2624 (=En 38s), Lk 169 ( = En 6310), Jn 522 ( = En 6927), Paul (1 Th 53 = En 624 etc.), 1 P 319-20 ( = En 104-5 12-13),t and the Apocalypse (passim). The powerful influence of Enoch upon the eschatological traditions of pre-Christian Judaism naturally affected the early Christian literature along this line to an extent which no collection of parallels can fully bring out. For the use and prestige of the book in the early church during the first two centuries, see Harnack, ACL, i. 852, ii. 1. 563 f. The slighter Book of the Secrets of Enoch, a later but pre-Christian apocalypse, also helped to popularise conceptions such as that of the seven heavens (cp. Charles and Morfill’s edition, pp. xxxi f.), but it is not quoted by name in the early Christian literature, (b) Flakes of Ecclesiasticus, read as an edifying religious treatise, t Dr. Rendel Harris (ExpP iv. 194-199) adds 1 P 112 ( = En I2 oiK els vvv yeveav bievoobprqv aPN ITTI icbppoi obaav lyw XaXw), conjecturing bievoovvro for Sii)Kt>vow in the former passage, as well as (ExpP iv. 346-349) ‘Evox after iv $ Kal (ENWKAI [ENWX] TOIC) in I P 319; cp. Clemen in ExpP vi. 316 f., on “ The first epistle of Peter and the Book of Enoch,” and Hhn's die alttest. Citate u. Reminiscenzen im NT, ii. pp. 125 f., 291. For a caveat on Paul and the Gospels, see Abbott’s Diat. 3353-3354.

* On the early Christian use and editing of uncanonical Jewish literature, cp. E. Grafe’s Das Urchristent hum u. das Alte Testament (1906), pp. 39 f., and Budde’s Der Kanon des AT. pp. 73 f.

INTERNATIANA1 DE COLLEGE 839965 lie far and wide over the surface of the church's literature during the first two centuries, from James and Hermas to Origen and Clement of Alexandria (cp. Bleek, SK., 1853, 344 f.; Werner, TQ., 1872, 265 f.). Not only does Clemens Romanus quote it (601= Sir 211), like the Didache (45= Sir 431) and Barnabas (199), but there are data in the gospels which prove “that both Wisdom and Sirach were known to Matthew, Luke, John, or to collectors of logia of Jesus earlier than those gospels; that Sirach especially was used by the author of the Magnificat [e.g. 117= Sir 4810, 152= Sir 1014], and that our Lord seems to have made use of both books, Sirach more probably than Wisdom ” (Adeney in DCG. i. 101a; see, further, J. H. A. Hart’s Ecclesi-asticus, The Gk. Text of Codex 248, 1909). One of the most interesting and significant cases is that of Mt 1 128-30, which contains more than one reminiscence not only of the OT, but of Sirach (e.g. 511.10-12.17. 23, 2419-22, 624-25, 5126-27, 629). see Brandt’s Evang. Geschichte und der Unsprung des Christenthunis, 576 b, with Loisy’s note in Les fivangiles Synoptiques, i. p.

913, and Harnack’s BNT. ii. 304 f. Further cases occur in 44= Mt 542, 410=Lk 635, 714= Mt 67, n19 = Lk 1219, 139-10 = Lk 147-10, 282=Mt 614, in John (635 = Sir 2421, 1423= Sir 215), and in Paul (e.g. 734= Ro 1215, 85= Gal 63, 1317. =2 Co 614, 142= Ro 1620 = Ro II33, 320-24 = Ro 123.16", 252= I Ti 214).

Ecclesiasticus was used not only by Jewish writers like Philo, the authors of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and The Psalms of Solomon, as well as in the rabbinic literature (see Schechter, JQR., 1891, but by Christian writers in the primitive and early church, alike in the East and in the West (cp. T. Andre’s Les apocryphes de Vancien Testament, 1903, pp. 290-297); Clement of Alexandria commented on it as an OT scripture, (c) Next to Enoch and Sirach, no writing of the later Judaism had such a vogue within the early church as the Wisdom of Solomon, which, even by those who, like Origen and Augustine, doubted its Solomonic authorship, was almost invariably regarded as a divine and prophetic scripture (cp. Schtirer, GJVf iii. pp. 381 f.). It is ranked with the catholic epistles in the Muratorian Canon, which also bears witness to the early (Jerome: “ nonnulli scriptorum ueterum hunc esse Judi Philonis affirmant”) belief that it was composed by Philo; the words (“ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta”) are probably a mistranslation of vtrd QiXwvos. Proofs of its use and authority drift right across the early Christian literature. The earliest are in Paul (cp. Bleek, SLC., 1833, pp. 340-344, and E. Grafe’s essay on “das Verhaltniss d. paulin. Schriften zur Sapientia Solomonis,” in ThA. pp. 251-286), whose ideas upon predestination, the nature of idolatry, and heathenism, in Ro 120f. and 919f. especially, reveal a study of this book J (cp. Resch, Paulinismus, pp. 608-609; Sanday and Headlam’s “Romans,” ICC. pp. 51 f., 266 f.). Echoes of it are audible in Hebrews 33 = Sap 133, 412= Sap 7231. etc.), I Peter (1‘= Sap 313 42 820, 17= Sap 36 etc.), and James, while Clemens Romanus twice alludes to passages from it (34=Sap 224, 275 = Sap n22 1212). Beyond a + For another literary derivation of Ro 129-31, see Rendel Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles (1887), pp. 82-87. phrase or two—e.g. 158 (rd Tfs yuxhs rairnbels xpos)=Lk 1250—there is no clear trace of Sap in the synoptic gospels. But 91 (6 irotfcas ri mvra iv Xyy cov) =Jn I3 may be a reminiscence, as also 819-21 = Jn 113. We may compare also the functions of the Spirit in 168 (XyFel rdf Kbap-ov re pl apaprlas Kal ire pl 8IKO.IOSVV^ Kal Trepl Kplaews) with Sap Is’8 (SoKipa^opiv-q re h bbvapis eX^yxec robs ilfpovas iLyiov yap mvelua eXeyx&r)<reTai lirlXdova-rjs aSiAas), the reiteration of EXeyxos as the doom of the wicked (Sap Is 420 185= Jn 320), the reproof of an uneasy conscience by goodness (Sap 214 eylvero TI/UV els Eeyxov ivvot&v hu@v. aps oriv tyD Kal ^Xeir6p.ei'os... Kal aXa^oueverai. Trarepa 0ebv=Jn 320 and 77 also 518 e^Tovv ol ’lovSaioi airoKTeivai ahriv, 3rt Tarpa IStov EXeyev rv 6ebv), the collocation of death and the devil (Sap 22= Jn 844), the inscrutability of heavenly things (Jn 312 = Sap 916 rd 36 ev obpavois rts Bpyylaaev the claim of the righteous to know God (Sap 213 /HrayyPXXerai yvwatv Exev 0eov=Jn 855 729), the safety of the righteous in God’s hand (Sap 31=Jn 1028-30), the knowledge of the truth (Sap 38=Jn 831), the authority of evil magistrates (63.=Jn 1910-11), love and obedience (Sap 618 of wisdom, ymn de Thpnois vbpoiv avrfjs= Jn 151014, 1415= I Jn 53 a0rn orv h ayiirt) TOV Oeov, lira ras ivrohas airov TTjpibfaei1^ knowledge of God equivalent to eternal life (153=Jo 173), and knowledge of divine things as an endowment of the Spirit (91-17= Jn 1612-14). Ewald, an excellent judge in matters of style, felt in the nervous energy of the author of Wisdom, as well as in the depth of some of his conceptions, a certain premonition of the Fourth gospel, “ like a warm rustle of the spring, ere its time is fully come.” (d) The use of Philo in Barnabas (cp. Heinisch, Der Einfluss Philos auf die diteste christliche Exegese, 1908, pp. 36f.) is not quite so clear as in Clemens Romanus and but the reminiscences in Hebrews (cp. especially Siegfried's Philo von Alex, als Ausleger des A T, 321 f.; Pfleiderer, Urc. ii. 198 f.; von Soden, HC. iii. 5-6; Mngoz, La Theologie de Pipttre aux H^breux (1895), 197 f.: Rendall, Theology of Hebrew Christians, pp. 58-62, and Bchel in S/C., 1906, 572 f.) are obvious; e.g. the same use of the allegorical method, the same belief in the verbal inspiration of the LXX, and the same phraseology about the Logos J (though the conception is naturally different). By a characteristically Philonic method (cp. Siegfried’s Philo, pp. 179 f.) the writer finds a religious significance in the very silence of the OT; thus the absence of any allusion to the parents of Melchizedek (73) is as pregnant to him as the similar lack of any reference to Sarah’s mother is to the Alexandrian thinker (quis rerum div. hcer. 12; de ebrietate, 14), and the titles of Melchizedek suggest religious truths to him no less than to Philo (leg. al leg. iii. 25) and to Josephus (Bell. Jud. vi. 10, Ant. i. 10. 2). The quotation in 135 occurs only, in this form, in de Conf. Ling. 32; and there are verbal echoes, e.g., in 31 ( — de Somniis, i. 38, 6 uv 8h fyas apxiepeis), 32 (= de plant. 16 ad finem}, 35 (=leg. alleg. iii. 81, Mwofs uaprvpobuevos Uri earl TTLoTs lo bXip rip olKip), 5s (=de Somniis, ii. 15, 3 rra@dv KpiOs euaev), 50 (=de agric. + On the transference of the Philonic Logos-predicates to Christ, see Aal’s Der Logos, ii. pp. 38 f.

* For Akiba, see Graetz’s Gnosticismus und Judenthum, pp. 1I9f, J The conjecture ut for et is improbable.

* Cp. Harnack, ACL. i. 1. 859 f.; Windisch, Die Frommigkeit Philos und ihre Bedeutungfiir das Christentum (1909), pp. 96-135.

22, MpoLs airio? <roiTT]ptas evbuevos), 71-2 * (=leg. alleg. iii. 25), and 10s dvuvnais apaprcaiv {=de plant. 15, de vit. Mos. iii. 10). The allegorical method of interpretation (cp. Holtzmann in ARW., 1900, 34th, and Leipoldt, GK. i. pp. 20 f.) which received a powerful impetus from the Alexandrian Judaism, presupposed a keen appreciation of the letter of the ancient Scriptures, which was not confined to Hebrews; cp. e.g. the haggadic and genuinely Philonic touches in the haggada of I Co 101-11, 2 Co 37-18, Gal 422-25, the pressing of the singular in Gal 316. 19 (cp. Ro 413- 1ef. 98) in the Philonic spirit of attaching significance to numbers, and a passage like I Co 99-10 (cp. Philo, de vict. offer. I, oh yap vxbp TWV dXbywv d vopos, XX virlp TOW vovv Kal Xbyov Room must be left, however, for the possibility that in Hebrews, as even in Paul, this allegorical method of treating the OT may have been due as much to the well-known predilections of contemporary Stoicism as to Philonism or rabbinism. (e) The possibility that Josephus has been used by some NT writers is raised in connection with 2 Peter, the Fourth gospel, and Luke, (i.) In the preface to the Antiquities (§ 4) he observes that Moses considered it of primary importance Oco <t>v<iLv KaTavofprai (2 P I4) in order to promote the virtue of his readers (els aper^s X6yov, cp. 2 P I3). While other legislators followed myths (ros pvOois iffKoXovOriaavres = 2 P I16 oil ubBois i^aKoXovO-rpravres), Moses held that God possessed perfect virtue (rry dperrpf ^xovra TOV debv = 2 P I3), so that the Pentateuch contains nothing irpbs rpv ueyaleryra rov 0eoij dvappoarov (= 2 P i16). Similarly in the last address of Moses (iv. 8. 2), besides isolated expressions and phrases like Toidbe (=2 P I17 roiaabe), uvnunv (=2 P 115), voulucv T&V irapbvrwv (=2 P I12), evae^eia (=2 P I6 311), Kara<j>poveiv (= 2 P 210), and kolvwvoI (= 2 P I4), Moses declares bei shv direXOeiv (= 2 P I14)...o uXXo (= 2 P I12) Bon@s vpiv taeaffai... SiKaiov hynodunv (=2 P I13 SlKaiov bi riyovpai), warns them against the abuse of iXevBepla (2 P 219), and uses i^obos and dvapvrpris and pe^aia close together (cp. 2 P 110 12 16). Compare further eGiXuroi with aXwaiv (2 P 212), Bell. Jud. vii. 8. 7 with 2 P I1’3, ii. 9. 1 with Ahenv Xa^dv (2 P I9), iii. 9. 3 (roXfiyral Kal davdrov Karaippovobvres = 2 P 210), Antiq. iv. 6. 7-8 with 2 P 23 220, and xi. 6. 12 (os KaXtbs roihoere fir] mpocxovres) with 2 P I14 (G KaXibs iroieire irpoalx^Tes} ; while 2 P 35f explicitly alludes to the Jewish legend (cp. Antiq. i. 2. 3; Bousset in ZNW., 1902, 45) that Adam predicted the twofold destruction of the world by the deluge and by fire. Further linguistic proofs are led by Krenkel (Josephus u. Lucas, pp. 348 f.) and Dr. E. A. Abbott (Exp.2 iii. 49-63, Diat. 1116 f.), and rejected by Warfield (Southern Presbyterian Review, 1882, pp. 45 k, 1883, pp. 390 f.), Salmon (INT. 497 f.), Chase (DB. iii. 814), Zahn (INT. ii. 291), and Mayor (Jude and 2 Peter, pp. cxxvii-cxxx). Farrar (Exp.2 iii. 401-423, Exp.z viii. 58-69), who recognises a literary connexion, inclines to place the dependence on the side of Josephus. The occurrence in Josephus of several unusual words and phrases which are characteristic of 2 Peter would not of itself be decisive, as some also occur in Philo and elsewhere. Even the common use of midrashic traditions does not involve literary filiation. But a number of the coincidences of language and style occur not only in the compass of two short paragraphs of Josephus, but in a sequence and connection which is not dissimilar; and, even after allowance is made for the widespread use of rhetorical commonplaces, these coincidences can hardly be dismissed as fortuitous. Their weight tells in favour of the hypothesis that the author of 2 Peter was familiar with Josephus,—an inference which is the more plausible as in any case the epistle belongs to the second century, (ii.) One indication of the connection between Josephus and the Fourth gospel occurs in Jn 4 (cf. Krenkel, op. cit. 347 f.). Josephus (Ant. ii. II. 1, developing Ex 215) describes Moses as arriving at a city, Kadeadels £tI tivos ppiaTos (k tov k6tov Kal Ths TaXaiTtaplas ppepei, pearipBplas otia-qs, oi Tbppw Ths TXews, uses in the immediate context the term OplppaTa (Jn 412), and (Ant. ii. 15. 3) employs the phrase vtS Ths bboiToptas KeKOTupe-vov (cp. Jn 46 kekomiaris iK Ths bSoiToptas). Cf., further, Jos. Ant. xii. 1-10 and xiii. 3. 4 with Jn 420. The curt tone of the discussion in 1 148f also answers to the tradition preserved by Josephus (B. J. ii. 8. 14), that “ the behaviour of the Sadducees to one another is rather rude, and their intercourse with their own party is as brusque as if they were talking to strangers”; and in Antiq. ix. 14. 3 (cf. Jn 417), Josephus not only explains that each of the five nations of 2 K 1730f. who settled in Samaria brought a god of its own (Kaorol kar’ tdvos ISlov 0ebv eisTiiv ^apapetav KoplaavTes, Trbvre S' ^aav ktX.), but that they denied the right of a Jew to expect any favour at their hands (= Jn 4°). The words of 420 also recall Ant. xii. 1. 1 (the Jerusalemites tS Tap’ airbis lepbv S.yiov elvat XeybvTwv tQ>v be l^apapeiT&v els to IPpiiplv Spos KeXevovTwv) and xiii. 3. 4 (the quarrel of the Alexandrian Jews with the Samaritans at to iv Vapjelv Spec TpoaeKhvovv lepbv olKoboppdev ktX. ). The coincidence between 1022-23 and Jos. B. J. i. 21. 10, where the street of Antioch in Syria is described as equipped 7rps to.s tuv ieTwv ropvyds laoprjKeL aToq, is of no importance, though Kreyenbhl (ii. 498 f.) makes use of it as a local touch to prove his theory that the gospel was composed by Menander of Antioch; the same may be said, e.g., of 1923= Ant. iii. 7. 4 (the high priest’s robe oSk Ik bvoiK TeptTpqpiiTwv... papaos S’ iv iTipipces ipaaplvov ktX.).

Of the brazen serpent’s effect on the beholders (rots Oeaaaplvois, cp. Jn 314).

(iii.) It is in relation to the Lucan writings, however, that the problem has been most keenly agitated (first by J. B. Ott, Spicilegium seu excerpta ex Flavio Josepho ad NT. illustrationem, 1741, and J. T. Krebbs, Observationes in NT. e Flavio Josepho, 1755). Apart from resemblances in vocabulary and style, which are not of primary significance, one or two of the statements common to both are worth noticing. Luke, e.g. dates the opening of John’s mission (31-2) in A.D. 28 or 29 by Avgavov Tgs 'AJX'qvfis TeTpaapxovvTos ; but as Lysanias had been executed in 36 B.C., the alternatives are to postulate the existence of some younger Lysanias (so, e.g., Schtirer, HJP. i. 2. 335 f., after Wieseler's Beitrage zur Wurdigung d. Evangelien, 1869, 194 f., and S. Davidson, INT. i. 214 b), or to assume a chronological inaccuracy on the part of Luke. In the latter case, the error may be explained from the fact that the territory of Lysanias retained his name even after his death (so, e.g., Wellhausen); or from Josephus, who in Ant. xx. 7. 138, relates that in A.D. 53, Agrippa II. acquired among other territories (including Trachonitis) Abila, Avaaviov S' arn eyeybvet TeTpapxia.. As in A.D. 37 it had been given to Agrippa 1. (Ant. xviii. 6. 10), the theory is that Luke (whose language resembles Ant. xviii. 4. 6) inferred from Josephus that it was the tetrarchy of Lysanias when John the Baptist came forward. Apart from some such hypothesis, it is difficult to account for the mention of Lysanias and Abilene at all in this connection. The passage in Josephus, on the other hand, explains its collocation with Trachonitis and also the anachronism about Lysanias. So Keim, ii. 384 f., Krenkel (Josephus u. Lucas, 1894, 95-98), Schmiedel (EBi. 2840-2844), Burkitt (Gospel History and its Transmission, pp. 109 f.), and Holtzmann (HC. i. p. 325: “der 3. Evgist sich einigermaassen im Josephus umgesehen habe, ohne aber im Stande gewesen zu sein, aus den zahllosen Notizen der weitlaufigen Schriften desselben ein klares Bild von der politischen Lage Palastinas zur Zeitjesu zu gewinnen ”). There may have been another Lysanias, but his existence is at best conjectural, and Josephus certainly knew nothing of him. In Ac 536f. again, Luke makes Gamaliel speak thus to the council: in days gone by (ypb robrwv run -r]/j.epuv) dvlaTr) QevSas Xlyuiv Aval Tiva eavrbv... fir dvr/ped-p Kal Travres Boot bireldovTO avTip SieXhSpcrav... u.cto. tovtov dvcarjlovbas b VaXiXa'ios ev rats fi/Jpais Ths diroypaifrrjs Kai dtrecrryiTev Xabv birlau airrov. The parallel passages in Josephus (Ant. xx. 5. 1: When Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a charlatan named 6ev32s irAffei tov ttXAttov byXov... Tpoghrns yap eXeyev Avai. Fadus, however, dispatched a squadron of cavalry hris ... iroXXobs... dveTXev; and Ant. xx. 5. 2, mps robrois 8b Kai ol TratSes ’lovSa TOV VaXiXaiov avTixOpaav TOV TOV Xaov airb ‘Pwualwv dTroarpaavTos Kvpivlov Ths ’lovSalas TiunTeovros) leave little reasonable doubt that both stories relate to the same Theudas, and, unless recourse is had to the des-perate expedient of conjecturing that the name in Josephus (Blass) or in Acts (B. Weiss) is a later interpolation, it is highly probable that Luke’s acquaintance with the passage in Josephus led him to mention Theudas and Judas loosely in an order which is not only inverted but out of keeping with the situation, since the revolt of Theudas did not take place till about at least ten years after Gamaliel is supposed to have spoken. The order in Josephus is natural; Luke’s is an inaccurate reflection of as even the phraseology suggests, for the coincidences are too remarkable to be accidental in this case. “Non facile adducimur ut casui tribuamus Theud Judseque apud utrumque scriptorem junctam commemorationem " (Blass). Why Luke remembered the order and some of the phrases and yet attributed to Judas the fate of his sons, we can no longer explain; but this difficulty does not invalidate the hypothesis. A third Lucan instance has been found in Ac 112 = Ant. xx. 5. 2. Josephus. er 1 tovtois 8e Kal tov unyav Xiybv Ka-to, tt)v’lovSalav ovvn yevbaffai, Kaff’ ov Kal n ^aaiXi<T<ra ‘EXvn ttoXXwv Luke.

"Aaos earptavev... Xiybv peydXpv p.bXXeiv baecrbai i<(> oXpv Thv OIKOV-Jv-qv, pTis iybvero m KXavbiov TWV Xp-qiiaTiov &vT)<sa/jpvT) aiTov dirb tov8’eA.ui-a@nrv KaOus einropATO tis ktX. yiiTTOv biiveifie rots aTropovylvois.

* So Krenkel (op. cit. pp. 162-174), Schmiedel (EBi. 5049-5056), and Burkitt (Gospel History and its Transmission, 109 f.), besides Wendt and

H. J. Holtzmann in their editions of Acts (cp. Sonntag, S/L, 1837, 622-652).

The verbal resemblances here, however, are not significant. Descriptions of famine relief, as of revolt, must employ similar language. But if the former case of dependence be granted, there is a likelihood that Luke also preserves in this story another reminiscence of his younger contemporary. Other parallels occur, e.g., in the account of the disappearance of Moses in a cloud {Ant. iv.

38)= Ac I61-, the prologue Lk i1'i=Apion. i. 10, Lk 246-47= Vita 2, Lk 194. = B. J. vii. 5 (Titus bemoaning the fate of Jerusalem), Ac 168-10 = Ant. xi. 8 (Alexander’s vision), Ac 2020 = B. J. ii. 16 (Agrippa’s speech to the Jews). The whole question is argued, in favour of Luke’s dependence, by Keim {Aus dem Urchristentum, 1878, i. 1-21), Krenkel, Holtzmann {ZWT., 1873, 85b, 1877, 535 f., 1880, 121b), Jiingst {Quellen d. Apgeschichte, 201b), Schmiedel (as above), Clemen {SK., 1895, 335 f., also Die Apostelgeschichte, 1905, pp. 15-21), and Burkitt; see, further, Cassel in Fortnightly Review (1877), 485-509, and SR. 605 f. The opposite position is held by Schtirer {ZWT., 1876, 574b), Gloel {Die jiingste Kritik d. Galaterbriefes, 64 f.), Belser(7Q., 1895,634!., 1896, 1-78), Blass {SF., 1896, 459f.), Ramsay ( Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 1898, pp. 252 b), J. A. Cross {FT. xi. 538-540), Zahn {INT. § 61), Jacquier {INT. iii. 101-108), and Stanton {GHD. ii.

263 b). The last-named inclines to admit the case for a knowledge of the Jewish War (273-274). {f) That a pre-Christian Apocalypse of Elijah (cp. Schiirer’s G/V.^ iii. 267b; Harnack, ACL. i. 853b; Ropes, SpriicheJesu pp. 19 b) was quoted in I Co 29 and Eph 514, has been known since Origen’s {in Matth. 279, “ In nullo regulari libro hoc positum inuenitur, nisi in Secretis Elise prophet") allusion to the former passage (cp. Jerome on Is 644 and Epp, 579) and the remark of Epiphanius {haer. 42, p. 478), irbiRv TO airooToXip TO' bib Kal Xyett dXXdi ard Ths rahais bijou &ta@nns; TOVTO 5b bpA>lperai rrapa rip ‘HXq) on the latter, for in I Co 29 Paul is not loosely citing Is 644 (6516) (cb Vollmer’s Alttest. Citate bei Paulus, 44-48, and NTA. 42-44), and it is impossible (cb ACL. ii. 1. 571-572) to suppose with Zahn {GK. ii. 801 f.) that the patristic references are to a second century writing which was fabricated in order to clear up the ambiguous Pauline quotations. It is this apocalypse, and not I Co 29, which is further quoted in Asc. Isa. 11s4, Clem. Rom. 348 and Clem. Alex. Protrept. x. 94. A fresh fragment has been discovered recently by de Bruyne {Revue BMdictine, 1908, pp. 149b) embedded in an apocryphal epistle of Titus (eighth cent. MS). The fragment begins as follows: “ Denique testatur propheta Helias uidisse. Ostendit, inquit, mihi angelus domini conuallem altam quae uocatur gehenna, ardensque sulphore et bitumine; et in illo loco sunt mult animae peccatorum et taliter ibi cruciantur diuersis tormentis” (whereupon follows a Dantesque description of the future punishments assigned to various classes of sinners, on the general lines of the Apocalypse of Peter). It is impossible to determine whether Paul (in I Co 29) regarded this apocalypse as ypa<t>?i, or simply quoted its language as that of a current religious writing, or cited it as canonical by an error of memory. The occurrence of a cognate citation in the Latin (and Slavonic) versions of Asc. Isa. 1134 explains Jerome’s statement that the “ testimonium” of I Co 29 was contained in the Ascensio Isaice as well as in the Apocalypsis Elice, {g} Eph 514 has been variously referred to an apocryphon of Jeremiah (Euthalius), to an apocryphal book cited inadvertently as ypoJ'Q (Meyer), to a paraphrase of Is 601: 19-20, or to a Christian hymn. The last hypothesis (suggested by Theodoret, and advocated, e.g., by Bleek and Storr) is plausible, on the score of the rhythmical struc-ture of the lines. But 6 Xpioros ( = the messiah) would not be improbable in a Jewish writing, and, even if it were, it might be conjectured that the writer of Ephesians substituted it for the b deos of the original (Harnack), (h) Hermas (Vis. ii. 3. 4) quotes the book of Eldad and Modad (eyis Kupios rots ^tri.(TTpe<pop.^voisi ds yeypo.Trrtu v TG ‘EX Kal Mwr, rots 7rpop7]rev-a-axriv iv rp eppp.p rip Aa@), and the irpofqriKbs Xiyos cited in 2 Clem. II23 (Clem. Rom. 23s) is probably from the same source (so, e.g., Lightfoot, Spitta, Holtzmann), perhaps also the ypacfrq reproduced in Jas 45-6. To these have been added, though on precarious grounds, the citations in Clem. Rom. 46s (ylypairrai yap' KoWaaffe rois ylots, on ol KoWtiifievoi avrots a.yiaa'0'rja'OVTai) and 176 (Kal irdXiv [Moses] Xlyei, ‘Eyd bb elpi arfs dird Kpas, cp. Jas 414), the latter of which Hilgenfeld prefers to assign to the lost conclusion of the Assumptio Mosis. It was a book of 400 arlyoi, which Nicephorus ranked with Enoch, etc., among the mkpua of the OT. According to rabbinic tradition (reproduced in the Palestinian Targums), Eldad and Modad (Nu 1 124-29) were humble men who received a greater measure of grace directly from God than the seventy elders; their prophetic gift was more lasting and far-reaching (it foresaw the attack of Gog and Magog), and, unlike the seventy, they reached the promised land. If this tradition repre-sents the spirit of the midrashic prophecy in question, the contents of the latter may be taken to tally with the above citations in the early Christian literature, as Spitta argues (Urc. ii. 121-123; see, further, Weinel, HNA. i. 208 f., 229, and M. R. James, TS. ii. 3. 174 f.). (?) The earliest quotation from Tobit is in 2 Clem. 164 where 12s'9 is reproduced, though even closer citations occur in Polykarp, ad Phil, io2 (=To410 129) and Did I2 =To 415). Origen and Clement of Alexandria quote it more than once by name as ypaffp Its presence in the Greek Bible helped to popularise it, together with other writings of this class, such as Judith (first referred to in early Christian literature by Clem. Rom. 55), among the early Christians, Catholic and Gnostic alike, though the Palestinian Jews appear to have excluded it from their Canon in the second century (Origen, ad Afric. 13: 'Eppaioi np Tol ou XpOvTAt oibb rrj ’lovSpd' ovoe yap b%ovaiv aura iv &iroKp0<f>ois ePpaiarl). (j) 2 Maccabees was evidently in the library of the author of Hebrews, as is plain from a passage like He n34f-; cp. e.g. 3=2 Mac 824, 35 (XXot 3e eTviiTravlrrOpirav KTX.)=619.28 (biri rd Tip-iravov) and 626 79. 14, 36= 71. 10, 88—527 61 1o6, also 103=2 Mac 127=2 Mac 612, 135=2 Mac io20 etc. It was also known to Hermas (Vis. i. 3. 4, Mand. xii. 4. 2). (k) The Assumptio Mosis has not only preserved the legend mentioned in Jude 9, but supplied some of the phrases in v.16 of that epistle (cp. 55 erunt illis temporibus mirantes personae, 77 qurulosi, 79 et manus eorum et mentes im-munda tractantes et os eorum loquetur ingentia); for other coincidences, cp. e.g. 17=2 Co it14. (Z) The uncertainty attaching to the date and origin of the Sta0pKp ’Up renders any inferences from its use in or of the NT problematical. The probabilities, however, favour a pre-Christian period for its composition (so, e.g., Kohler in Semitic Studies in honour of Kohut, 1897, 264-338, and Spitta, Urc. iii. 2. 141-206), with echoes in the epistle of James, e.g. 112= Test. Job 4, 19-12= Test. Job 32-33, 41, 117=Test. Job 33, n So^a airov iv T0 alovt iariv T00 &irapaWaKrov], 52= Test. Job 43, 5’= Test. Job 12 (epydrps el Avdpayros yrpoaSoKuv Kal dvapivuv gov rov purdhw AvdyK-qv Exets Xa^elv' Kal OAK edv purQbv uoboroD diropeivai), 511= Test, job 1 and 26 (also 4), and 513 = Test. Job 16, 14 (Kal aXXor airais KTX.). The evidence for the use of this midrash elsewhere in the NT is slight. The most striking coincidences perhaps are Lk 27= Test. Job 40, Apoc 210 (ylvov iriarbs &XP1 Oavdrov, Kal dow oc: rov arepavov rrjs wfs)=Test. Job 4-5 (where, to the angel’s promise of a arbepavos for his endurance, Job replies: xp Bavarov byroaetvw Kal 06 uh avayrobiau), Apoc 722= Test. Job 5 (Job sealed by the angel before the devil attacks him), the occurrence of dKwXbrus as final (Ac 2831= Test. Job 45), of rd ^dd-q rou Kvplov in Test. Job 37, and of rd, eyrovpdvta in Test.

Job 36, 38 (= Eph I3 etc.), Test. Job 27 (Satan says, yd 88 elul yrvevp.a} = Eph 612, Test. Job 48 (Kal dvkaev BSNqv Kapblav, p-pKeri rd rys hs ppovelv) = Col 32, Test. Job 37 (where Job confesses his hope is not in riches but eirlrip dew rip ipwvri) —! Ti 617; the analogy between the synoptic temptation-narratives (and the visit of the magi) and the older midrash is naturally close at several points, and there are occasional verbal identities which are more than fortuitous (e.g. Jn 312= Test. Job 38, Jn 1327= Test. Job 7, 6 roies irol-qaov, cp. context), (m) The post-exilic book from which the quotation in Lk 1 149-51 (Kal h Sopia rov 0eov elrev KTX.) is taken (cp. 7s5, Sap 727 etc.) has not survived. That the words are originally a citation, and not meant (so recently Grill, Untersuchungen ilber d. Entstehung d. vierten Evangeliums, 179 f.) to represent Jesus speaking of himself as the Wisdom of God, is fairly plain from v.61b where val, Xyo ijplv, bKipqrriOrprerai KTX. take up the foregoing (Kpqrqdrj. Luke, in putting the words into the mouth of Jesus, has altered the original aoipods Kal pauuareis (Mt 23s4) into dyroarbXovs, but the background of a Wisdom-cycle (Bacon, DCG. ii. 827 f.) is still visible, and the quotation probably came from some Jewish writing of the Wisdom-group which is no longer extant (so, e.g. Ewald, Bleek, Paulus, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Scholten, J. Weiss), (n) The padh quoted in Jn 738(3 iturretev els bpd, KadSs ebrev n ypa^, yrorapol iK Tfs KoiXias aiirov peoaovaLV ii Baros ^uvros) cannot be explained satisfactorily from any of the OT parallels or rabbinic traditions, and probably was derived from an apocryphal source no longer extant (so, e.g., Whiston, Semler, Weizsacker, Ewald). A. J. Edmunds (Buddhist Texts quoted as Scripture by the Gospel of John, 1906, pp. 9 f.) finds the original in the Buddhist Patisambhida, i. 53 (“What is the Tathagato’s knowledge of the twin miracle? In this case, the Tathagato works a twin miracle unrivalled by disciples; from his upper body proceeds a flame of fire, and from his lower body proceeds a torrent of water ”), but the citation is drawn in all likelihood from the same Wisdom-literature as that employed in Lk 1149f: (cp. Bacon, DCG. ii. 829). (o) The origin of the allusion in Mt 223 (STos 7Xnpo0f rd pr/div 81a r&v yrporjyqruv on. 'Sampaios KXpflJerai') has not yet been identified in any pre-Christian writing, canonical or uncanonical (Resch). The use of the plural (yrpopqrwv) might a loose summary of OT prophecies (so, recently, Clemen, Religionsgeschichiliche Erklarung des NT, 238-239), though the use of ore in 26s4 is hardly a parallel. In this case Naopalos is substituted for Naapnvs by a kind of pious paranomasia in order to suggest the messianic term (w, 125) of Is II1, and the paranomasia was probably mediated by the Aramaic equivalent for “branch’ or “shoot” (cp. Box, DCG. ii. 235-236, and Jeremias, Baby lonisches ini NT, 1905, pp. 46-47). The alternative is to refer the citation to the prophecy of Samson’s birth in Jg 13s (Nalip fy/Moplvov Nafipaiov, A] 9 coo ’iarat to iraiSApiov ktX., cp. Mt I21), (p) Halevy, arguing (in RS., 1902, pp. 13-60) that the correct place of the Temptation is after Mk 8s3 ( = Mt 1623), finds that many of the traits in the synoptic narrative are modelled upon the midrash of the Martyrdom of Isaiah ; but the proofs are not convincing. Even though Tyre and Sidon in that midrash are the refuge of prophets (pp. 44 f.), this would not prove that Mk 724f. was filiated to it. (y) The Ahikar-cycle of stories and however, has left traces in the NT, e.g. in the parable of the fruitless fig-tree (Lk 136-8), which contains echoes of the passage in Ahikar: “ My son, said Ahikar, be not like the tree which grew near the water and bore no fruits, and when its owner would have cut it down, said, Plant me in another spot, and then, if I bear no fruit, cut me down. But the owner said, Thou art close to the water and yet bearest no fruit; how then wilt thou bear if thou art set elsewhere? " Similarly the parable of the wicked servant (Mt 2445-51) is modelled in part on the legend of the wicked Nadan, who, after gathering his disreputable associates, begins to eat and drink with them, and to maltreat the men and maidservants, till suddenly his uncle Ahikar reappears—where-upon Nadan, detected and rebuked, “ swelled up immediately and became like a blown-out bladder. And his limbs swelled, and his legs and his feet and his side, and he was torn, and his belly burst asunder, and his entrails were scattered, and he perished and died. And his latter end was destruction, and he went to hell."$ The very punishment of flogging (Lk 1247) is the same, for Nadan is bound and then given a thousand lashes on the shoulder and a thousand more on the loins; but the parable (like some later versions of the tradition) modifies the legend by substituting bixorop.Av for the con-ventional, ghastly ending. “As the story was clearly popular, and is also pre-Christian, it would be no very strange thing if the Parable had borrowed a trait or two from it” (M. R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii., 1897, p. 158; J. Rendel Harris in The Story of Ahikar, pp. x f.). Such data tend to show that some of the sayings and stories in the evangelic tradition were not simply aetiological in origin or based on OT prophecy, but derived part of their matter as well as of their form occasionally from earlier folk-lore no less than from midrashic models, outside the letter of the OT. Behind the t Cp. Halevy in RS. (1900) pp. 61 f., (1901) pp. 255 f. His arguments in favour of parallel reasoning in the case of Jesus and his adversaries and Ahikar and his enemies are not cogent, but the Ahikar-tale may certainly be allowed to form “one of those interesting Jewish products of the Greek period which facilitated the transformation of the Hebrew Haggada in both of its main growths, rabbinic and Christian.”

* So Jerome (ostendit se non uerba de scripturis sumpsisse sed sensum) as at 2654.

* On their early origin, prior to Tobit, cp. R. Smend’s Alter u. Herkunft des Achikar-Romans (in Beihefte. zur Zeitschrift fiir die alt. Wiss. xiii. 1908).

I Or, as To 1410 (B) has it, “ went down to darkness” (cp. Mt 2213 2530). early Christian accounts of the death of who was, like Nadan, char-acterised by black ingratitude and treachery (cp. Jn 1318), the Ahikar-tradition may be also conjectured to stand, especially when the manner of Nadan’s death (see p. 34) is compared with Ac 118 and with the tale of Papias about Judas’s body swelling up. " We need not be surprised it Ahikar should furnish the key to the genesis of the Judas legends” (Harris, op. cit. p. 1xv), particularly if, as in the Armenian, Tpijadfls be substituted for the awkward mpnvhs yevoyevos in Ac I18. Folk-lore of this kind, however, is not the only clue to the Judas stories. Thus, after describing a scoffer at the Hebrew scriptures, Philo adds that he presently committed suicide (de mut. nomin. 8, er aygoviy n&ev, lv‘ o maps Kal SvaK&Oapros pySl raGapx avro TeXevrhon) by hanging, a death appropriate to a polluted person, (r) One or two minor and casual citations from ancient literature may be noted in conclusion.! The X670S quoted in Jn 437 (Aos iarlv 0 oTelpwv Kal dXXos 6 depl^uii) is a loose citation of the common proverb, which occurs also in Pseudo-Diogenes, ii. 62 (cp. Wendland in Neue Jahrb.f. d. klass. Alt., 1902, p. 6 n.). The Tapoipila cited in 2 P 222 is either from the Ahiar-cycle (cp. Halevy in RS., 1900, p. 66) or from Herakleitus (cp. Wendland, SBBA., 1898, 788-796); the sow-proverb is quoted also by Clem. Alex. Proirept. x. 92. 4, etc., who is closer to the original form (ves hovrae pop^bpip piaWov Kadapip vSan). The sarcastic description of the Cretans in Tit I12 (Kpfres del -^evarai, KaKa dqpla, aorpes pyal) is a hexameter apparently drawn from the irepl xpou@v of the local philosopher, Epimenides (cp. Diels in SBBA., 1891, 387-403, and J. R. Harris in Exp."1 ii. 305-317), who attacked the Cretan claim that Zeus lay buried in Crete. Callimachus quotes the first three words. The famous apologue of Men. Agrippa was probably in Paul’s mind when he wrote i Co 1212-27, and the iambic trimeter in I Co 1533 <f>0eipowiv xpho0‘ ouilat KaKal) originally lay either in Euripides or Menander; but the hexameter in Ja I17 (iraaa ooais yyabh Kal rv Schp-qua reXeiof, where ayadq and reXeiov are unconvincingly taken by Fischer (Philologus, 1891, 377-379) as predicates (sc. early), is of unknown origin. On the other hand, the line of poetry put into Paul’s mouth at Athens, in Ac 1728 (is Kal rives ruv KaO' b/aas TotnrOv eipqKaaiv' TOV yap Kal vos iap.lv), is probably from his fellow-countryman Aratus (cp. Hoole, The Classical Element in the NT, pp. 82-84, and Blass’ note), if not from the hymn of Cleanthes. ^iXa,pid>Ti]s (a native of the Samaritan Sichor) is highly precarious. + Cp., further, AJT., 1900, 490-513, for proof that Mt 27s'- and Ac ra-rest on the Ahikar-legend (EBi. 2627). The historicity of both stories is upheld by Schlatter in his Zur Topographic und Geschichte Paliistinas (1893), 217 f. ! Further materials for the influence of Jewish apocalypses on the NT and on early Christian literature in general are collected by Prof. R. H. Charles in his editions of The Apocalypse of Baruch (1896), The Assumption of Moses (1897), The Ascension of Isaiah (1900), The Book of Jubilees (1902), and the

* The connection of the Judas stories with the-Ahikar tradition is decidedly closer than the filiation which Halevy prefers (RS., 1902, 46 f.) to find between them and the machinations of Bechira, the Samaritan accuser of Isaiah in the midrash. His explanation of ’laKapiibrqs as a corruption of

IV.

IV. Structure and Composition of NT

“Time’s glory,” according to the Shakespearean line, “is to blot old books and alter their contents.” This is not a glory in which the literary critic can be expected to rejoice. It has imposed on him the task of reconstructing the original form of several ancient documents, and of allowing for processes of interpolation, displacement, and compilati (i.) Interpolation t means the addition of passages to an original composition, or the incorporation of later verses, sections, and even words, in a writing which has come down from some earlier period, either {a) at the hands of the author himself, or (b) by subsequent editors of the volume, after the writer’s death, or (c) by scribes (or editors) of the text. Like other fragments of ancient literature,! the early Christian records were liable to such handling, though the dimensions of this form of textual corruption were restricted by the ecclesiastical scrutiny which before long came to be exercised over documents of the apostolic faith within the archives of the church.

(a) Instances of editorial addition, by the author himself, are to be found, e.g., if tradition be reliable, in the Persa of /Eschylus, in Herodotus, and in the Georgies—Vergil having cut out the original ending of the fourth Georgie and inserted another, after the death of Gallus. Juvenal revised and rewrote some of his Satires, while Martial appears to have reissued the tenth book of his epigrams, altered and adapted to the requirements of the reign of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908); on the NT quotations from the last-named book, see his articles in HJ., 1905, 558-573, and Exp? vii. in f. t Hermann, the famous Homeric critic, used the term to denote not only the insertion of verses, but, in accordance with strict etymology, the refurbishing of an older writing (cp. the pref. to his edition of the Homeric hymns, p. viii).

* Cf. HNT. 608 f., for a fuller discussion of these points. The following paragraphs are simply meant to pave the way for later references under the successive NT books.

Jin his chapter on “Interpolation in Thucydides” {The Fourth Book of Thucydides, 1889, pp. xxxi f.), Dr. W. G. Rutherford, after discussing the question of these glosses and scholia, or interpolated adscripts, declares that “nothing could have prevented the importation into the text of any author of a great deal of what was properly comment.” The general theory and practice is well put by A. Gercke in Neue Jahrb. fiir das klass. Altertum (1901), pp. 3 f.

Trajan. Several passages in the De Rerum Nat lira (e.g. ii. 165-183) are also to be explained most naturally as additions made by Lucretius himself to the original draft, and in the case of the Third gospel or its sequel it is not unlikely that Luke may have re-edited (vackevac@v, SiaoxevacOv) his work. (b) Editorial additions are much more numerous, as, e.g., in the well-known instances of Jer 1719-27 (a later insertion), 3133-40 3317-26 (om. LXX), Is 6621-24 etc., and in the Catalogue of the ships (Hom. Iliad, 2484-877). The last-named fragment must be pronounced not simply an originally inde-pendent document from the Hesiodic school in Boeotia, but itself interpolated. The Homeric SiaaKevaa-ral are supposed to have worked thus on the Iliad and Odyssey with the view of smoothing out and harmonising it (cp. the list of passages in Jebb’s Homer, p. 163); the famous passage in the Antigone (904-920) is almost certainly to be regarded as an interpolation, perhaps by the son of Sophocles, in the original; and stage interpolations, as might be expected, were especially frequent in the text of the Athenian dramatists. Later works even in literature and philosophy were not exempt from the intrusion of such alien matter, which, it is hard, in some cases (e.g, in Lucretius, iii. 806-818 and i. 44-49), to attribute certainly to (6) or (r), though internal evidence suggests that passages like Iliad 2130-133, 2075-353 and Herod. 6121-124 were added by a later hand. The corresponding source of interpolation in early Christian literature was the liturgical use of the documents in the worship of the churches (cp. Apocalypse); the Fourth gospel, among the NT writings, offers the clearest case of a document which has been edited by some later reviser, but Romans and 2 Corinthians present substantially the same phenomenon, though their canonical form was due in all probability to the interests of the Pauline Canon itself. Mark’s gospel is supposed by some critics to have been written before A. D. 70, but to have received (from the author?) one or two touches after that date. A modern instance of this procedure is furnished by Northanger Abbey, which was first composed by Jane Austen in 1798. In the fifth chapter, however, we have an allusion to Miss Edgeworth’s Belinda—a novel which did not appear until 1801. This proves that Miss Austen’s work lies before us in a revised form; the first draft was gone over by the authoress before its final publication some years later. The third class of interpolations (c) cannot be strictly differentiated from (b), but it also is amply verified in ancient literature by the evident freedom exercised by copyists and editors of a text.* Glosses, such as Herod. I32 2117. 145 432, would creep in from the margin, or be incorporated (e.g. Jer 2 513b. 26b, Is 5010-11) in order to straighten out a passage or bring it up to date. The possibility of such treatment is familiar to all students of the ancient texts; and such phenomena as the LXX rearrangement of Proverbs, or the Noachian interpolations in the Book of Enoch, indicate the frequency of the practice in the circles among which primitive Christianity arose. The evidence for (a) and (b) is either drawn from tradition or from internal evidence, but (c) offers a class of instances which naturally are more obvious, where the discrepancies of MSS at once reveal sutures of the text. Even * Cp. S. Reinach’s Manuel de Philologie Classique2 (1904), i. pp. 43> 50 f. The extant letters of Epicurus have been swollen by the intrusion of marginal glosses, which are part of the text as given by Diogenes Laertius. where the extant text does not suggest any break, the possibility of inter-polations cannot be denied outright; the distance between the oldest MSS, or even the oldest versions, and the date of composition, leaves ample room for changes to have taken place in the interval between the autograph and the earliest known Thus sheer internal evidence comes into play as a valid factor in the critical analysis.

The extent of interpolations varied from a word or two to a paragraph, and the motives for it varied equally from sinister to naive. During the second century the less reputable reasons for interpolation sprang from the growing prestige of the Christian scriptures, which were being appealed to in con-troversies. Heretical remodelling was rife, and the practice of alteration and omission was not entirely confined to one side. Origen charged the Valentinians with it; Eusebius blamed Tatian; Celsus retorted upon the Christians the charge of having interpolated in their own interests the Sibylline oracles; while Dionysius of Corinth, c. 170 A.D., was disgusted to find that his own epistles were being tampered with. The early Christians themselves seem to have had no hesitation in treating the LXX text with a certain freedom, inserting here and there phrases to fill out the messianic predictions of Jesus.

So far as the gospels were concerned, the most natural motives for interpolation were the harmonising bias + and the disinclination of copyists—whose powers, it must be remembered, amounted occasionally to almost editorial functions—to allow useful material, floated within reach by the oral tradition, to pass away. Expansion was more natural than abbreviation, though omissions were not uncommon, in cases where utterances seemed either contradictory or unedifying in some special degree. J The liberties occasionally taken with the text of the gospels are shown, e.g., by the revision of Luke contained in Codex Bezse, the work of Marcion, the use made of Mk by Mt and Lk, and numerous scribal or editorial touches in the MSS (contrast D and the other uncials) and versions. “ There are abundant traces in the MSS and other authorities for the text of the gospels, that they were copied at first with great freedom. Possessors of copies did not hesitate to add little items of tradition, often oral, in some cases perhaps written, which reached them. Much of this may be due to the fact that these early copies were probably to a large extent the works, not of pro-fessional copyists but of private individuals, whose interest was strong in the subject-matter of what they wrote, and who were glad to record any stray sayings or act of Christ which came in their way, even though it was not found in the copy before them” (Sanday, Inspiration, 1894, 294, 297). + This was not confined to the gospels. One of the classical instances is the conformation of Verg. Eel. 537 in the majority of MSS to Georg. 1154. $ e.g. the omission of 2 K 1814-16 (Hezekiah’s submission) in Is 36-39, the omission by the LXX of the headings prefixed to various collections in Proverbs in order to bring the whole under the gis of Solomon, and the Homeric omissions of Aristarchus (Athen. v. 180-181 D).

* The pseudo-Adamantian Dialogue was interpolated within twenty or thirty years after it was composed. For Galen, see Rutherford’s A Chapter in the History of Annotation (1905), p. 57.

(ii.) It is also a fair question whether a document may not contain genuine but misplaced passages. Any application of the hypothesis of a displacement in the text requires to be checked by a hesitation about attributing too exact and systematic a character to a volume, especially when no MS evidence is available. But in itself the hypothesis is legitimate. Whether due to carelessness in copying, or to the misplacement of leaves of papyri (cp. Blau’s Studien zur alt-Hebrdischen Buchivesen, 1902, pp. 23 f.), or to some material mishandling of a inverted order is by no means an uncommon feature of ancient documents. One classical instance is furnished by the canonical order of the Nikomachean Ethics; Aristotle’s original order was undoubtedly bks. i.-iii., vii.-viii., vi.-v. In the OT Jer 36-18 923-26 and 101-16 are, even if genuine, mis-placed; Zee 46-10 comes too late; Isa 416-7 is conjectured, by an attractive argument of Marti, to have lain originally between 4019 and 4020, and Hab 15-11 may be supposed to have followed 24 in the autograph. Similarly, in the pseudo-Philonic treatise de incorruptibilitate mundi, according to Bernays, the present confusion of the traditional text is best accounted for by the conjecture that some leaves have been misplaced.

Carelessness on the part of copyists (cp. Gercke, pp. 81 f.) was a common source of disorder, e.g. Hor. Epp. i. 1538 (cp. H. A. J. Munro’s Lucretius, i. 28 f.). Verses were often misplaced, or even whole paragraphs. In several of the biblical instances (James, Fourth Gospel, Acts, Apocalypse, etc.), such displacements are due to the common practice of scribes or copyists who wrote in " narrow columns, after the fashion of what was on the papyrus strips; two, three, or even four columns being on each page. If a scribe, through inadvertence or interruption, happened to omit a phrase, he would write it either on the margin or in the space between two of the columns, with a suitable mark in the text to indicate where it ought to be " (A. S. Lewis, ET. xii. 519). The next copyist, who incorporated his pre-decessor’s marginal note in the text, might easily misunderstand the reference marks, and thus insert the passage in the wrong column. iii. 413 b; Ueberweg, Hist. Phil. i. 147. For other dislocations, see the Politics, i. II. 7, iii. 4. 1 if.; Dr. FI. Jackson’s edition of the Nikomachean Ethics, bk. v., where (pp. xiv f.) the dislocated canonical text is rearranged, and Susemihl and Hicks’ ed. of the Politics (1894, pp. 78 f.), where the possibility is admitted that the textual phenomena may be due to two parallel versions. The minor phenomenon of words displaced by a copyist (cp. W. Headlam, Class. Rev. 1902, 243-256) falls under textual criticism.

* As in the case of Aristotle; cp. Tredelenburg, Hist. Beitrdge zur Philos.

(iii.) Compilation, or the incorporation of earlier sources without acknow-ledgment, is too obvious, especially in the historical literature, to require any detailed notice (cp. HNT. 615-619). The literary historian usually worked over his sources. Hebrew chronographers were often content to transcribe, leaving the strata of their sources fairly obvious. Greek or Roman authors, however, felt too strongly the claims of form and literary finish to allow any mere transliteration of some earlier document to So far from being inconsistent with historical accuracy, this practice obtained among the most scrupulous writers. It was a canon and convention of the time, and the credit of Tacitus has not been impaired even for moderns by the discovery that the original speech of Claudius, de litre honorum Gallis dando, differs materially from the words put by the historian into the emperor’s lips. Thucydides, so far as we can check his methods, rewrote his sources in his own style. His authorities were moulded by his own diction and conceptions, and writers of his school and spirit would have curtly dismissed as mere rouvhuara any collection of earlier sources or work in which previous materials had not been artistically recast, f The apocalypse of John, like most other apocalypses, is also an example of how older fragments were brought up to date and reset by a later writer; the small apocalypse of the synoptic gospels is one of such fragments.

(iv.) It is in the criticism of apocalyptic literature that the question of pseudonymity is also started (cp. HNT. 619b; G. H. Putnam, Authors and their Public in Ancient Times'1, 1894, pp. 67 f., 202 f.). The apocalypses of the later Judaism were pseudepigrapha almost invariably. Such writings, by a recognised literary custom, were issued under the name of some older prophet or hero, whose name lent sanction and authority to the contents of the prophecy.

Throughout the Judaism of Alexandria,! subsequent to the Ptolemies, the practice developed in several directions. The older Jewish literature reveals the tendency to group literature round great names of the past, from Moses to David and Solomon; and, long before Daniel had started the line of pseudonymous apocalypses, the book of Deuteronomy showed that this literary device was quite compatible with religious and moral motives of the highest order. One development of the practice in Alexandrian Judaism, that of circulating works under the gis of some pagan authority, historical or mythological, was naturally foreign to the early Christian literature. The Sibyl, Hekatajus, and Aristeas play a r61e in pre-Christian Judaism to which there is nothing exactly corresponding in the primitive church. But when t Cp. Lucian, de hist, conscrib. 16; Cic. ad Att. ii. 1. if.; Dio Cassius spent twelve years in rewriting materials which it had taken him ten years to collect. $ Susemihl, Geschtchte d. Griech. Literalur in d. Alexandrinerzeit, ii.

* Cp. Nipperdey’s Opuscula (1877), pp. 418 f.

597 f., 601 f. pseudonymity expanded to include epistles, as it did in Greek literature long before it did in Judaism, the way was prepared along which some early essayed to serve their age (Susemihl, ii. pp. 589 f.). Like boulders on a mountain-slope, most of the great personalities came to be covered with the moss of a more or less extensive correspondence, and the rise of a literature which included the Solomonic correspondence, written by Eupolemus, or the so-called " epistle of Jeremiah” (preserved at the close of the book of Baruch), indicates how congenial and innocent the practice was in pre-Christian Judaism. {a) The range of pseudonymous literature was wider, however, in Greece and Rome, and although “ the entire classical period of Greek literature furnishes us with no authentic instance of a literary fraud,” J the centuries preceding and following the rise of Christianity were marked by a fairly extensive use of the pseudepigraphic method in philosophy, religion, and literature. The inducements to employ the names and characters of illustrious men varied in quality. One was the desire for pecuniary gain, which undoubtedly operated during the period in which Ptolemy Philadelphus was forming his library (cf. Bentley’s Dissert. on Phalaris, pp. 80 f.); this cannot be traced within the early Christian literature. The higher motives for such compositions sprang from the innocent admiration and naive sympathy which prompted a disciple to reproduce in his own language the ideas, or what he conceived to be the ideas, of his master, and yet forbade him, out of modesty, to present these under his own name. Conscious of the master’s influence, disciples viewed their own writings as an extension of his spirit. In them, through their pages, he spoke, not they. Alrs eda. What they wrote was not so much a private venture or in-dependent outburst of their own, as the propagation of his mind and spirit. Hence it became a point of unselfish piety to give up all claims to personal glory, and attribute their writings to the master himself. Such was the practice of the later Pythagoreans (Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, i. pp. 311 f.). This throws light upon the ethos of NT writings like Ephesians and the Pastorals. While 2 Peter represents in the NT Canon a pseudonymous epistle, pure and simple, the pastoral epistles, on the other hand, were composed by a Paulinist who must have had access to certain notes or papers of the great apostle, which he incorporated in his own writings. A similar instance, in Greek literature, is furnished by the Fourth Philippic and the speech repl avvra^em, which, though appearing under the name of Demosthenes, were in all likelihood composed, not long after the orator’s death, by a writer who possessed some genuine notes of his predecessor t Gudemann, in Classical Studies in honour of H. Drisler (New York, 1894), pp. 52-74. One rare instance of a malicious motive is pointed out in the case of Anaximenes of Lampsacus (Paus. vi. 18. 2f.), who imitated the style of Theopompus to the latter’s discredit. For the later Augustan epistolography, see Peter, op. at. (below), pp. 171 f. Epicurus also suffered, according to Diog. Laertius (x. 3), from pseudonymous epistles. and used these as the basis or nucleus of these orations (cp. Blass, die Attische Beredsamkeit, iii. pp. 382 f.).

*Cp. K. R. Kostlin {Theol, Jahrb. 1851, 149-221, “ der pseud. Literatur der altesten Kirche, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bildung des Kanons ”).

(6) Another tendency which fostered pseudonymous epistles was the recognised device, employed by ancient historians, of composing epistles in order to lend vividness and point to their narratives. Though some of these epistles may be genuine,* as in the case of one or two of Sallust’s in the Catiline, the large majority, however true to the general spirit of the situation and the supposed writer, were undoubtedly due to the creative imagination of the author himself (cp. Westermann, de Epistol. Script. Graecis, i. pp. 4 f.). Of the two examples in Luke’s second volume (Ac 1523f: 2326-30), the former suggests some historical nucleus, the latter is more independent. To this feature may be added that of composing the dedication or preface in the form of an epistle, as is often the case in modern books, although the extension of the practice to historical works is confined to writers like Aulus Hirtius and Velleius for the most part, among Roman authors of the classical period, and to Josephus among Jewish.

(c) It is further obvious that from the historian composing not only a letter but a speech in the name of some historical figure, it was only a short step to the composition of a pseudonymous epistle, in all good faith, which was designed to edify and instruct. The practice of composing speeches, which was perfectly consonant with the ancient historian’s canons of veracity, varied from a free invention of such addresses to the conservation of salient points in an oral or written piece of tradition. The latter is not infrequent in Tacitus; he feels at perfect liberty to construct speeches like that of Germanicus on his death-bed, but he appears to exercise less freedom in his condensation, rearrangement, and rewriting of the emperor’s addresses and letters to the senate (cp. Furneaux’s Annals of Tacitus, i. pp. 23 f.). Con-sequently, the fact that ancient historians assumed and were allowed this licence does not ipso facto bar out the hypothesis that in certain cases the writer may have wrought upon the outline or substance of an authentic speech transmitted by tradition. This would be more credible when speeches were composed in oratio obliqua, as is generally the case with Caesar, whose historical credibility in this matter is to be ranked high, in spite of obvious temptations to literary effect and political tendency, t The rhetorical element in ancient historiography naturally adopted the method of (h@oypacnoat) bringing out the character of a person or the salient features of a situation by means of speeches. The author composed such a speech as appeared to him suitable for the occasion, drawing perhaps upon any materials of oral or written tradition that lay to his hand, but casting the speech into such forms as were apt to the setting chosen. The rival methods of indirect speech or of psychological analysis were open, but they were at once less dramatic and less easy. Tacitus commonly preferred the t Cp. Fabia’s essay, de orationibus quee sunt in Comm. Cees, de Bello Gallico (1889), pp. 91 f. latter process, and there are cases of conscientious preference for the former; but the public life of the ancients, where so much of importance was transacted in and by speeches, led the majority of historians to adopt the method of composing speeches for their dramatis persona as the most in-telligible and popular method of giving plastic expression to historical The speech served as an analysis of character. It revealed the speaker, and rayed light on the situation more effectively than paragraphs of comment or analysis. Thucydides is the master of this school of historians;! Theopompus and Sallust are his leading successors. The speeches in the NT literature consist of (a) compositions made up from previous materials, usually genuine in the main; and (b) more or less free compositions, which, without being purely rhetorical exercises,! represent what the writer’s histori-cal sense judged appropriate to the situation. This judgment may have been guided by tradition in some cases. But the general type of the second class of speeches, which includes the majority of those in Acts,§ corresponds to the speeches of Thucydides or Csar, Polybius or Josephus. Occasionally, as, e.g., in Livy, vii. 30, x. 6f., and xxxiv. 54, or in Aulus Gellius even, a speech may possess historic value as the reflection or reproduction of some older source, || instead of being, like the work of Dionysius Halicarnassus in this department, purely imaginative. Historians of the Gracchi period, like Fannius, proved invaluable to subsequent writers in this respect. Their annals incorporated genuine speeches of contemporary statesmen, now and then almost verbally, upon which both Cicero and Plutarch drew. Con-sequently later speeches which rest on such authentic fragments acquire a historical weight out of all proportion to their extant shape and setting.!! The longer speeches in the gospels are partly based upon such earlier sources {e.g. Matthew), but they are partly (as in the Fourth gospel) due to prophetic and homiletical expansions of authentic logia. The inspired prophet, speaking in the Lord’s name, is not far from the preacher who develops a homily {e.g. Mt 25311); preaching, in its higher phases, is almost lyric, and this creative process, in which a mind brooding on some gospel + « I have put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said ” (i. 22, tr. Jowett). Cp. Ivo Bruns, das lit. Idealportrat (1896), pp. 24 f. + Or compositions written with a deliberate purpose, like most if not all of the speeches in Csar, which, while apposite and vivid, are intended to colour the whole situation. § E. Curtius (cp. Exp.1 iv. 436-455) puts in a vigorous plea for the speech at Athens. “ Whoever disputes the historical value of the account of St. Paul in Athens, tears one of the most important pages from the history of the human race.” || Cp. Soltau, neue Jahrbilcher f. d. klass. Alterthwn (1902,) pp. 23 f.

* Or elaboration of a genuine nucleus (cp. W. Vischer’s Kleine Schriften, i. pp. 429 f.). See further on this point, Hermann Peter’s die Scriptores Historic Augustce (sechs litteratur-geschichtliche Untersuchungen, 1892), PP- 153 f.

*See C. Nipperdey’s Opuscula (1877), pp. 415f.

4 i.e. if the source be trustworthy. But when Appian (v. 39-45) draws on the commentaries of Augustus, the unreliable nature of the latter deprives the later historian of any right to credibility on this score. word brings out an edifying monologue or dialogue, accounts for some passages in the synoptists as well as in the Fourth gospel more naturally than the hypothesis of deliberate literary inventiveness.

(v.) The question of translation (HNT. 605 f.), with regard to any early Christian writing, covers a wider tract of interest than the problem of its date. Undoubtedly, translation implies, as in the case of Ecclesiasticus, a gap of years between the composition of the original and the issue of the version; but it also implies problems relating to the authorship and contents. Thus, in the case of the Matthan logia, it is too common to assume that the various Greek translations were practically verbatim. They partook of the nature of recensions. The particular recension which was fused with Mk in order to form the canonical Matthew may have been almost as far as the Greek recension of Josephus’ Wars from the Aramaic original. “ For Greek and Roman readers it would need to be materially recast.... Very probably the resume of Jewish history from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Herod (bk. 1.) was first prefixed in the Greek; the greater part of the seventh book was doubtless added at the same time” (G. F. Moore, EBi. 2091). Matthew is not a translation, but it is a fair conjecture—so far as literary canons go—that in Mt 1-2 glosses might have been added by an editor,* whether from a special source or sources or from personal access to Palestinian traditions, when the Aramaic draft (beginning with 31?) was translated.

V. Some Literary Forms in NT

The gospel was the new t form of literature developed by Christianity. The embryonic stages of this literary product were not wholly novel, however; the Adyta, or collections of sayings of the Master, resembled the collections of apophthegms current among the disciples of philosophic teachers; and even among the Christians themselves aTrop.v7]/jLovev/jMTa,$ not evayyeAta, was a primitive term in use for their gospels. * Jacoby (NT Ethik, 1899, pp. 410 f.) puts down 518-19 233 and 2420 to this exposition which blended with the text. + The ancient conception of depicting a character, subjective and objective, as illustrated by Polybius, Livy, and Tacitus, are discussed by Ivo Bruns in die Persiinlichkeit in der Geschichtschreibung der Alten (1898). + The rouvnuoveuara of Moiragenes, which were subsequently combined with the irouvnuara of Damis (i.e. extracts from diaries) to form the bioAristotle draws a distinction between his orepikol or Xoyoi (published works) and his xpooes. The latter were private summaries or abstracts, resembling a precis for his audience of students. We thus get a distinction between ra veyvoouva and T vkora which throws light on writings like the Ur-Marcus * and Q, both of which would resemble the former. But even in these, and still more clearly in the canonical gospels, the material assumes forms which have partial analogies in ancient literature.

The chief of these is the dialogue. At first sight the philosophical development of literature among the disciples of Socrates is unlike the primitive Christian literature in one im-portant respect: the faith and reverence of the disciples of Jesus prevented them from composing literary dialogues in which their Master was made to answer problems of thought and conduct. But it is not accurate to suggest (so R. Hirzel, Der Dialogs ein literar-historischer Versuch, Leipzig, 1895, ii. 367) that the first efforts in this line made by the early Christians are to be found in writings like the Pistis Sophia and the fabricated correspondence of Jesus. Examples of the dialogue-method lie earlier in the literature of the church. For one thing, the com-position of several sections in the synoptic gospels was prompted by the rise of questions about conduct. How were Chris-tians to bear themselves in preaching the gospel? or when attacked? or towards the Jewish authorities? How did Jesus behave towards the priests? What was his attitude to the law? These and similar questions were the nuclei round which several reminiscences of the evangelic tradition gathered. The out-come, as it lies in the gospels, was in many cases made up of genuine recollections and authentic logia; but there was also an element of composition. Even oral tradition could not hand down logia invariably as they were spoken. A plus of preaching inevitably attached to them. Furthermore, the setting was ultimately the work of an author, who, as is plain, e.g., from Matthew’s gospel, worked often on principles of schematism graphy of Apollonius of Tyana, resembled r payees. Reitzenstein {Hellen-istische Wundererziihlungen, 1906, 40 f.) thinks the former must have been a sort of prototype of the gospels (especially the Fourth), the latter a parallel to the we-sections in Acts. * Abbott {Diat. 996) speaks of Mk’s “note-book gospel.” The phrase suits the Ur-Marcus even better than the canonical Mark. and with certain ideas and tendencies in his mind which were not without influence upon his materials. Each evangelist had his conception of Jesus; he had also his own idiosyncrasies, and he was face to face with the special needs of his audience or age. The conjoint influence of these led to such literary dia-logues as the synoptic tradition includes in its narrative of Jesus. But the earliest and closest approach furnished by Christianity to the classical dialogue-form of literature is to be found in the middle sections of the Fourth gospel, where Jesus and the Jews are made to debate in a thoroughly controversial fashion. This marks the passage of early Christianity into its dogmatic stage, when it was confronted with rival systems, Jewish, Gnostic, and pagan (cp. P. Gardner, Exploratio Evangelica, pp. 164-165; Moffatt, HNT. 34 f.); it is the first phase of the dialogue in Christian hands as an instrument of anti-Jewish propaganda.

Later instances of this dialogue-form in anti-Jewish and anti-pagan propaganda multiply from the Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus and Justin onwards; it naturally became, as in the old philosophic style, a literary weapon in the controversies between one school of Christian and another (e.g. Bardesanes, Jerome, pseudo-Adamantius, etc.).

A cognate form of the dialogue, the diatribe, has also passed into the early Christian literature, although the NT writ-ings contain merely a few rudimentary traces of its vogue and influence. The Siarpn was a dialogue transformed into a monologue, in which the imaginary opponent appears by way of $yov {inquit). He is cited, only to be refuted; his words are quoted in order to form the text of a fresh outburst on the part of the speaker. When the method is skilfully managed, as, e.g., in Arrian’s descriptions of Epictetus, the effect is vivacious and telling. The interest of the diatribe was primarily ethical; hence its popularity among the later Stoics and even among Jewish Christian (Philo) and early Christian (Clem. Alex.) writers on religion.* One trace of the &iarpn-style is to be detected in * Cp. Wendland, Philo und die Kynisch-Stoische Diatribi (1895), P- 7, "Wenn neutestamentlichen Schriften manche Begriffe und Ideen, Stil-formen und Vergleiche mit der philosophischen Litteratur gemeinsam sind, so ist es nicht ausgeschlossen, dass die Diatribe schon auf Stiicke der urchristlichen Litteratur einen gewissen Einfluss ausgebt, den man sich nicht einmal litterarisch vermittelt zu denken braucht.” The last clause is important, A number of the diatribe-forms spring naturally from the moral tension and spiritual conflict set up by the new faith. Cp. Heinrici’s Die litter, Charakter der NT Schriften (1908), 11 f., 47, 66.

Paul’s habit of quoting some phrase of his opponents in order to refute their arguments. Introduced by $yov, just as in Epictetus, these citations lend vivacity to the style; they also suggest the genetic relations between the dialogue and the epistle, between the spoken language of discussion and the epistolary idiom.

The address, based usually on the older scriptures, and therefore to a large extent exegetical as well as hortatory, was described in philosophic language* (Lucian, Tim. 1O; lian, v. hist. 319) as 6/wXia (cp. Ac 2011 2416; Ignat. ad. Polyk. 5), and afterwards as Ses or disputatio. It differs from the 8tarpi/3y in being less conscious of an opponent; what it presupposes is an audience to be convinced, rather than a single adversary to be refuted. This literary form underlies the homilies of the gospels and most of the later epistles.

The epistle and the oral address were of kindred origin. Long before the rise of Christianity the rhetorical schools had been in the habit of throwing their ideas into the form of epistles, and the obvious similarity between the audience who heard an address and the readers of an epistle, the frequent use of the second person in exhortation, and the presence of a flowing, flexible element in the argument, helped to develop the use of the epistolary form for ends which were wider than those of private correspondence.! It is often a real problem to determine whether a given writing is a yos or an morol. In many cases the epistolary form is little more than a literary device. One speech of Demosthenes actually came to be published under the title of IrrurroXri Anuoobvovs, and it was natural that later writers, addressing a wide public, should adopt, for the sake of dramatic effect and point, the epistolary form of composition as the nearest to that of the oration. Furthermore, a speech did not require to have been spoken in order to be published; and, as a matter of fact, it was the custom even of historians $ to write for hearers—the form in this case being all the more natural as the readers would read the volume aloud.§ fCp. Aristides, xii. p. 148 D, Hirep ye Kal tv apxv 7hs Ttorohfs etrov n ore PouXeade KaXelv rd Si^Xlov. JCp. Rohde, Griech. Roman, pp. 304 f. § Lucian, adv. indoct. 2 (avayivdoaKeis tvia ir&vv trirp^xeov tpd&vovros rov dtpffaXpov rd ar6p.a). The epistle had been bound up in its earlier stags in Greek literature with the The philosophical discussions which were native to the genius of the latter had acquired fresh literary form in epistolography; t the epistle, said Artemon (the editor of Alexander the Great’s correspondence in the second century), is a sort of semi-dialogue. Consequently a personal note pervaded it. A treatise might be, and often had to be, abstract and impersonal, but the affinity of the epistle to the oral address on the one hand and the dialogue upon the other, naturally tended to present in it the question and answer, the play of sentiment, and the dialectic movement inevitable to any reproduction of personal intercourse. The treatise dealt in a more or less systematic way with some philosophic subject; J it conveyed instruction directly and didactically. But the epistle rose alongside of it to reach circles or groups of people in a less formal fashion; and when philosophic scholars multi-plied and the world of culture grew less restricted than before, the epistle acquired a special vogue as a channel for conveying instruction to people whose common interests united them in some pursuit or science. The correspondence of Epicurus marks a distinct stage in this literary evolution. His letters to philosophers and private individuals had in some cases only a semi-private object (cp. Hirzel, der Dialog, i. pp. 355 f.); they discussed such topics as natural philosophy and astronomy, besides ethical themes, and his scholars continued the practice. Epistles became not merely the ties knitting like-minded scholars i. pp. 353 f., ii. pp. 8 f. t The changes made by Paul and other early Christians in the formulae, e.g., of the introductory address, are noticeable. It is only in Ac 1523 (2326) and Ja I1 that the ethnic 0 Seim TO 8dvi xalpeiv is employed; the former is not a Christian letter, while in the latter, by a literary device like that in the third and eighth of the Platonic epistles, the opening is linked to what follows. The origin of the xa^P£LV formula was connected with the news (elayov) of victory, according to tradition (Lucian, de lapsu in salutando, 3; cp. G. A. Gerhard’s “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des griechischen Briefes,” i., in Philologus, 1905, 27-65).

*See Hilgenfeld’s Ketzergesch. d. Urc. II.

* The various materials and phases are collected in Hercher’s Epistolo-graphi greed. See, further, Peter, op. cit. (below) pp. 213 f., on “ der Brief als Einkleidung fr Flugschriften, wissenschaftliche und litterarische Erorter-ungen, Mahnungen, Widmungen,” and especially Rudolf Hirzel’s der Dialog,

J For what follows, see especially Hermann Peter’s der Brief in dei romischen Litteratur (1901), pp. 16 f., and Wehofer, “Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen Epistolographie" {SB A W, 1901, pp. 102 f.).

EPISTOLARY FORMS < 49 together, but means of instruction, defence, and debate. In the treatment of scientific questions the epistle thus acquired a new role of its own. It accompanied and promoted the popularising of knowledge. Letters, or rather epistles, for example, were written on the Copais sea by Crates of Chalkis (cp. Wester-mann, de epist. grac. iv. pp. 9 f.), on mathematics (cp. Susemihl, i. pp. 419 f.), and antiquities (by Polemon of Ilion); and an equally didactic character attached to the letters of Augustus.

The soil was thus prepared for the growth of epistles and epistolary homilies within the sphere of early Christianity. The philosophic epistle had long been acclimatised among the Greeks and Romans. Hortationes ad philosophiam were composed by Augustus as well as by less princely authors (Suet. Aug. Ixxxv.), and epistles of consolation are frequent in the correspondence of the age (e.g. that of Sulpicius Severus, Cic. ad Fam. iv. 5). The letters of Seneca to Lucilius, as has been often noted (cp. e.g. Peters, pp. 228 f.), are in reality designed for the young world of Rome, and merely dedicated to Lucilius; the personal address and air are retained, but the object is to furnish all and sundry with exhortations and admonitions which may take the place of some philosophic friend at hand.f Several even of Seneca’s so-called dialogues might be described as epistles. The epistolary literature of the early Christians, in fact, almost exemplifies the threefold division J made by Cicero into (a) epistles or letters which convey instruction or information, (b) playful and familiar notes to one’s friends, and (c) letters of consolation. The nearest approach to the personal letter, un-studied and spontaneous, is Paul’s note to Philemon or 3 John. Personal or semi-personal letters, however (like Galatians and 1 Thessalonians), might contain matter of some permanent interest. They might be contributions to some controversy, t Cp. Martha, les moralistes sous P empire Rom. pp. 3 f., 23 f. The Seneca-letters to.Lucilius, as Lord Bacon saw, were simply “dispersed meditations, though conveyed in the form of epistles.” + e.g. in his letter of September, 46 B.C., to Trebianus in exile {ad Fam. vi. 10. 4), or more explicitly in ad Fam. iv. 13. 1 and ii. 4 (“ letters, as you are well aware, are of many kinds. One is undeniable, the original cause of letter-writing indeed, viz., to acquaint the absent with anything which it is to their interest or to the writer’s interest that they should know.... Two other kinds of letters there are, which mightily please me: the one familiar and sportive, the other grave and serious like the letters of Antony to which Tacitus {Ann. iv. 34) and Suetonius {Aug. 63) allude; or discussions of various questions, like the epistles of Varro,* Capito, and M. Valerius Messalla. The epistolary form, in short, was employed more and more to give a vivid and semi-literary dress to dissertations upon criticism, jurisprudence, and even science, among the Greeks and Romans. Thus partly by the circulation of really personal letters, and partly by the adoption of the epistolary form for public or semi-public ends, the transition was made from the private letter to the epistle or epistolary homily. The NT epistles vary between both; t the former was transmuted into the shape of a letter addressed to some church for which the writer (Paul) felt a strong personal affection; $ the latter passed, in the sub-Pauline period, into writings which were for the most part epistolary in form only (1 John, James, 2 Peter).

* Luke’s two books, dedicated to Theophilus, are a NT analogy.

VI. The Circulation of the NT Writings

Paul and some other early Christian writers || dictated, not because, like Charles the Great, they could not write, but for purposes of speed and convenience. A letter might be either written with one’s own hand or dictated to a scribe or secretary {ragyypd^ot, librarii, notarii). In one case, the amanuensis of Paul “T inserts a greeting from himself in the midst of the apostle’s * Cp. Ritschl's Opuscula, iii. pp. 476 f. t Deissmann's valuable but too narrow antithesis {Bible Studies, pp. I-60) is reproduced by W. Soltau {neue Jahrbiicher filr d. klass. Alterthum, 1906, 17-29). $ Similarly 3 John and the letters of Ignatius prove that a real letter could be written to a church. This fact of Christian intercourse prevents the category of “ letter or epistle ” from applying, without qualification, to early Christian correspondence. § Cp. HNT. 123 f.; Gregory, Canon and Text of NT, 299 f.; and Sir W. M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches (1904), pp. 23b, “The Christian Letters and their Transmission.”

Ignatius (see Lightfoot on Ro io1), Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 23. 2), and others; cp. Pliny’s epp. ix. 36. 2, and Jerome’s epp. 21. 42. On the later use of dictare=to compose, see Norden, ii. 957 f.

IT Tertius was a scriba literarius of Paul, for the time being, who took down, as a private secretary, what the apostle had to say (cp. Marquardt’s Das Privatleben der Romer, i.2 pp. 151 f.), and made copies of it if necessary. Such notarii were frequently stenographers. salutations (Ro 1622); but as a rule the author speaks throughout. It was apparently Paul’s ordinary custom to dictate his corre-spondence, though, to authenticate a letter, he might add a salutation in his own handwriting (2 Th 317, i Co 1621, Col 418). Such letters and epistles were written either on wax-covered tablets with a stilus, or with a reed-pen and ink on papyrus (cp. 2 Co 33, 2 Jn12, 3 Jn13). If Paul’s remark in Gal 611 means that he himself wrote part of the epistle it is likely that the latter method was employed. His handwriting, like that of Cicero, “on charta with a pen would have been much more easily recognised than his initials carved with a stilus on wax. Moreover, the use of pen and paper would be so obviously more suitable for long letters.” t The shape and the size of some of the recently discovered papyri at Oxyrhynchus indicate that even for religious, as well as for literary purposes, the papyrus codex was in use throughout Egypt before the third century A.D. Instead of the papyrus in roll form, the papyrus in book form was more widely and more early used than has hitherto been suspected, t For various reasons, partly owing to the uncertainties of communication, letters of special moment were copied § before being dispatched; and more than one copy was sometimes sent, lest one of them should go astray (cp. e.g. Cic. ad Fam. ix. 16. 1). The carelessness and dishonesty of letter-carriers were thus checkmated to some extent {ad Fam. iv. 4. 1). This con-sideration has some bearing on the literary characteristics of 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians. Furthermore, the same letter might be sent to different persons, as was the practice of Epicurus.H “ I have wanted,” writes Cicero to Cornificius, " a + Tyrrell’s Correspondence of Cicero, vol. i. p. Iv. Quintilian’s advice, in favour of wax tablets {Instit. Orat. x. 31 f.) for jottings or notes (Lk I63), is due to the fact that erasures were more easily made on wax than on parch-ment. Illustrations of wax tablets are given by W. Schubart {Das Buch bei den Griechen u. Rdmern, 1907, 16 f.). + Cp. Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ii. (1899) pp. 1-3, and W. Schubart, Das Buch bei den Griechen und Rdmern, 1907, pp. 107 f. § Not by the author, however. “ Quis solet eodem exemplo pluris dare, qui sua manu scribit? ” (ad Fam. xviii. 2). || So, too, Seneca {ad Lucil. xvi. 99. 1: “epistulam, quam scripsi Marullo, cum filium paruulum amisisset et diceretur molliter ferre, misi tibi ”). letter from you addressed to my very own self” {ad Fam. xii.

* The sender occasionally wrote part himself, if he wished to be particu-larly confidential (Cic. ad. Att. xi. 24).

30. 3). Even without the alteration of the address, a letter could be copied and scattered broadcast for a wider audience (so Cic. ad Att. yiii. 9. 1), in which case the epistle became almost a tract or pamphlet. Such must have been the method with epistolary homilies like Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and i Peter, as well as with the Apocalypse.

In the case of the NT, the autographs themselves perished at an early date. That they were no longer in existence in the second quarter of the second century is evident from the fact that Marcion could be charged with falsifying their text. Had the autographs been available, the accusations of Tertullian and others would have been superfluous; the editors and correctors of the text would have been refuted simply by the production of the autograph itself. Within less than a century the autograph of the apocalypse, e.g., had disappeared; a number of copies existed which were no longer This is hardly to be wondered at; for, once a document was copied, there would not be the same interest in preserving the i8ypacov. Tertullian seems in one passage to appeal to the originals: “percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ips adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis president, apud quas ips authentic^ litem eorum recitantur, sonantes uocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscuiusque ” {pmscr. haret. 36). But the phrase italicised probably means no more than “originals,” in the sense of uncorrupted, genuine copies, as opposed either to translations or to interpolated (or mutilated) editions, such as those issued by Marcion. If he really meant autographs, the passage would require to be set down to his rhetorical temperament.!

Naturally the wear and tear was felt primarily at the opening and at the end of a manuscript. Well-known instances of opening sentences having been lost are to be found in Plutarch’s Vita Themistoclis and three of the books of the elder Seneca’s Controuersiae. This is what underlies the theories about Hebrews having lost its original address, and Mark its original ending, by accident. The errors of copyists in the body of the work explain the variations in Apoc 1318 (Iren. v. 30. 1, iv Trani rots crrovalois Kal dpxalois dmypdpois KTX.), etc., as well as the primitive corruptions which must have + Cp. Cobet and Kuenen's NT ad fidem Codicis Vaticani (i860), pp.

* Origen (in Mt 1919) similarly attests the widespread diversities in the copies of the gospels.

26 f. arisen very early, since there is no ripple of variation in the MSS or versions. A clear case of the latter occurs in Ac 28, where ’lovSalav, between Meco-Trorap.lav and re Kal KairiraSoKiav, is certainly wrong. The alternatives are to omit it altogether (so, e.g., Harnack, BNT. iii. 65 f.), or to regard it as a corruption of Ivpiav (Jerome on Is 1110, Blass), AvSlav (Bentley), ‘A&aalav (Nestle, ZNW., 1908, 253-254), ’kpp.evlav (Tert. adv. Jud. 7; Aug. Contra Fund. 9), ’Apapalap (W. H. P. Hatch, ZNW., 1908, 255-256), 'loviav (as in I Mac 88; Cheyne, EBi. 2169), ‘Ivav (Erasmus, Schmid, Zahn), ’ISvpalav (Bentley, Barth, Spitta), or ^tOwlav (cp. below, ‘ First Peter,’ § 3, note).

When an epistle of Paul was received by a local church, it would be laid up in the archives of the community (scrinia, kl/3wtiov, kuttJ), just as private letters were collected in a family,* or public epistles in the pre-Christian Jewish synogogues. Copies t would be taken and issued to the various churches embraced in the address. In a town of any size, where there were several house-churches (Col 415), an epistle would be probably copied, even though it was not a circular letter; but from Col 416 we may infer that the exchange of letters between churches was not yet a matter of course. A church would retain its own letter, normally. Was it taken out from time to time for purposes J of discussion or reference? or did the church read the epistle regularly at worship? The incidental reference of Pliny (ep. x. 98) is silent on any avayvwcri?, and the evidence of Justin shows that it was the gospels and books of the OT prophets which were read weekly. But the growing prestige of the apostles must have led during the early part of the second century to the reading of their epistles as a part of public worship, though the process of their elevation to the rank of scriptures remains obscure. Eventually, the church authorities became responsible for what was thus read, as we see from the well-known case of Serapion.§ The distinguishing characteristic of canonical writings was that they were read aloud in the worship of the churches. Subsequently a distinction was drawn between writings which were read on Sundays and writings * Cp. Peter, Der Brief, pp. 33 f.

J Cp. Dzjatzko in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyclopadie der class. Altertums-wissenschaft, iii. 966 f. + Perhaps also to let individual members copy out parts of it for their own purposes. § The growing unity of the church, and the need of safeguarding Christians from heretical scriptures, led to the rapid diffusion of the NT writings; but this was by no means uniform, as the evidence of the Canon in various churches is enough to prove, except in the case of the gospels. which, though used for edification, did not attain to this rank. But the primitive age of Christianity knew nothing of this classification.

The allusions to reading in the early Christian literature almost invariably (Mk 1314, Apoc i3, r Ti 413) denote the public reading of the scriptures in the How far the early Christians, and even the apostles, were able to read, is uncertain. The accomplishment was not universal, and although the education of the average Christian in the primitive church need not be ranked so low as, e.g., by Paul Glaue in his monograph on Die Vorlesung heiliger Schriften in Gottesdienste (Teil i., 1907), pp. 13-30, still, the fact that many members were comparatively uneducated, and that even when they were not the spoken word was preferred in worship—this, together with the expense of copies, corroborates the view that the large majority of early Christians knew their scriptures mainly by the hearing of the ear.

The practice of reading aloud one’s own compositions was a corollary to the earlier habit of reciting the works of dead authors. In the former case the object was sometimes to benefit the audience; reading thus resembled the modern lecture (cp. Epict. Diss. iii. 23. 7f.). But more often an author recited his work to a chosen audience in order to get their critical opinion. “The audience at recitations maybe compared with the modern literary reviews, discharging the functions of a preventive and emendatory, not merely of a correctional tribunal. Before publication a work might thus become known to more hearers than it would now find readers: in the same way specimens of a forthcoming work are now made known through popular magazines. After publication t it might still be recited, not only by the author, but by others, with or without his leave, in the country or the provinces as well as in the city, before public or private assemblies” (Mayor on Juv. 39). It is the latter practice which throws light on the propagation and circulation of the early Christian scriptures, which were not written for any literary ends. This applies even to literary epistles like James and Ephesians, which were pastorals, written for no definite audience. The homily, cast in the form of an epistle, was a recognised literary feature among Jewish and Greek, as well as Roman,! circles, before the early t On the meaning of ‘ publication,’ see G. H. Putnam’s Authors and their Public in Ancient Times^ (1894), pp. 78f. + Cicero s letter to Lentulus Spinther {ad Earn. i. 9), e.g., approximates to a philosophical discourse or a speech, and the famous Commentariolum petitions is as much an essay on political methods as anything else. For further examples of the epistolary elsayoyh in Roman literature, see Norden in Hermes (1905), pp. 524 f.

* The recitation of the gospel-stories in the Antioch church was probably a source of information, e.g., for Luke (cp. Salmon’s Human Element in Gospels, pp. 26 f.).

Christians began to write. Even though it was marked, for the sake of vividness, by appeals to hearers and the like, it was designed originally and directly for readers. The early Christian homily shared these characteristics of form, but it was ultimately designed to reach audiences not individuals, and the channel was public reading in gatherings for worship.

VII. Some Literary Characteristics of the NT Writings

This practice of reading aloud the scriptures, even before they were scriptures in the canonical sense of the term, helped to determine insensibly their literary form. It was a pre-natal influence. The profound effect which Plato ascribes to Homer in Hellenic education and politics was due to hearing rather than to reading. It was the solemn and didactic recitation of the poems by pavo8o, who sought to bring home not only the words but the spirit of Homer, which enabled the audience to sustain its feeling of kinship with the original. The influence of the early Christian writings, particularly the gospels, operated under similar conditions. The large majority of Christians only listened to them in worship or learnt their contents in the catechetical instruction of the church. Both letters and gospels, as well as the tracts which we know as homilies and pastorals, were written for the most part with this end in view; their close connection with the address and the dialogue (see above, pp. 48 f.) determined their adherence to the forms and spirit of a rhetoric which corresponded to the needs of actual life.

The so-called metrical prose, or prose which recognised the use of a certain clausula, passed from the Asiatic school of rhetoric with some of the Roman authors, such as Seneca, Pliny, and Cicero, who managed to preserve ease and freedom under a more or less conscious recognition of certain general but unwritten laws of rhythm and diction. The existence of this rhythmic element need not be supposed to impair necessarily the spontaneity of a writing. Ancient standards of composition admitted, even in writings of fresh and apparently unstudied grace, such as Cicero’s letters of consolation,* a scrupulous * Zielinski’s Das Clauselgesetz in Cicero's Reden (1904) is discussed by A. C. Clarke (Class. Rev., 1905, 164 f.), and Bornecque's La Prose Metrique dans la Correspondance de Ciciron, by Prof. Tyrrell (Hermath., 1905, 289 f.). attention to the niceties of rhythm, cadence, and accent, and a care for laws of sound in style which may seem strained and hyper-ingenious to modern tastes. Modern theorists often state it in extravagant forms. But, fanciful methods apart, if the ancients really read with their ears as well as with their eyes,* it is quite intelligible how even prose style, as Cicero and Quintilian maintain, could observe certain poetical canons; without being metrical, as Aristotle put it,t prose style must not be wholly unrhythmical. History, said Quintilian, is next to poetry; it is quodammodo carmen solutum, and Luke’s writings show how effective cadences and easy rhythms could be present to the mind of an ancient writer whose aim was to convince and impress, not to display the finish and mastery of his own style, nor to observe hard and fast canons of rhythm. Thus it is with early Christian writings like Hebrews just as with some of the most effective prose-orations of antiquity; they were composed by men trained in this spirit of artistic symmetry. In the minds of those who composed or read the early Christian books there was no primary thought of intellectual entertainment. None, with the partial exceptions of the two Lucan writings and Hebrews, can be described as a literary product. Faith was their germ and their design. They were composed and employed to edify the Christian communities for which they were originally written, and among which they came to circulate. But some at least of them, like many earlier works in classical literature, are instances of how style and fervour were not incompatible, and how they were meant to catch the hearer’s heart, as the Christian message fell effectively upon his ears.

The presence of this rhetorical element in the early Christian writers is felt in reminiscences of figures common to the Greek prose of the day, J and in the construction of sentences and even larger sections, as, e.g., in an epistle like Hebrews. The former is illustrated by plays on words like Xiuo-Xotuo, * Some of Paul’s epistles, like those of Ignatius, gain incredibly in emphasis when read aloud. Public reading must’ have brought out their point and charm, in many passages. t In ch. viii. of his Rhetoric (bk. 3) he handles the need and structure of rhythm in literary prose. Cp. G. L. Hendrickson in Amer. Journ. of Philology (1904), 126 f., and the general discussion in Norden, i. 92f., 134!. + Cp. the collection of Pauline instances in J. F. Bottcher’s essay, de paro-nomasia finitimisque eifiguris Paulo apostolo frequentatis (Leipzig, 1824), and R. Bultmann’s Stil der Paul. Predigt u. die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (1910).

Zuabev-erabev, cf)0wov-cl>6vov (Ro 129),* daweTov^-dawffeTovs (131), TroXXot? TTOXKts (2 Co 822), etc. The parallelism of the Greek prose (zraplowots) and of later Latin writers like Apuleius, however, is one of form rather than of thought f (so Norden, of. cit. h. 816 f.); the Semitic parallelism, like that of the Finnish Kalevala, develops an idea in two or more strophes, and this is specially characteristic of the strophes and anti-strophes in the gospels. It is in Paul, particularly, that the style, for all its rabbinic dialectic, shows traces of the Hellenic element, due to the widespread influence of rhetoric on pre-Christian prose, especially in Asia Minor; it is denoted by the presence of balanced periods $ and a clearly marked evolution of strophic formations, with themes, refrains, etc. Special attention was paid to the sequence of accents in a sentence. As the writing was often written to be read aloud, it was composed by one whose ear was sensitive to the harmony of the style, the fall of the antithesis, and the music of the period. More than once in Paul it becomes an open question whether he is quoting from an early Christian hymn, or developing half-unconsciously the antitheses of his glowing thought. A good case in point is furnished by 1 Co I 542-43. oTelperat iv $0op@, iyelperai iv afidapalq,' airelperai iv anplq., iyelperai iv 86^' asrelperai iv air be vela, eyelperai iv bw&pei.

Elsewhere, however, the genuine rhetoric § of the speaker is * Further exx. in Ro 21 516 123 1423. t Cp. E. du Mehl’s Essai philosophique sur le principe et les formes de la versification (1841), pp. 47 f.

I Cp. J. Schmidt on ‘ das rhythmische Element in Cicero’s Reden ’ {Wiener Studien, 1893, pp. 209 f.), with Blass on rhythm in the Attic orators {Neue Jahrb. f ilr das klass. Altertum, 1900, 416-431), and H. Peter {ibid., 1898, pp. 637-654, 'rhetorik u. Poesie im klass. Alterthum'; Der Brief, pp. 25 f., on rhythmic element in epistolography). § Cp. J. Weiss, Beitrage zur paulinischen Rhetorik (reprint from ThSt.}, die Aufgaben d. neutest. Wissenschaft (1908), pp. 11 f., Heinrici (— Meyer, 2 Cor.6 436 f.), and U. von Wilamowitz in Der Kultur der Gegenwart, i. 8, pp. 156 f. Blass {Die Rhythmen der asian. und rbm. Kunstprosa, 1905, SK., 1906, 304 f.) has pushed this theory to extremes, which involve an arbitrary treatment of the Pauline text and an unreal estimate of the apostle’s literary ambitions (cp. Deissmann, TLZ., 1905, 231 f.; W. G. Jordan, Theol. Litteratur-Blatt, 1905, 481 f., and Norden, GGA., 1901, felt through the written words; they show unpremeditated art of the highest quality, as, e.g., in passages like the hymn to love (i Co 13), or the great apostrophe and exulting pan of Ro 831f.. “ How such language of the heart must have penetrated the souls of people who were accustomed to listen to the silly rigmaroles of the Sophists! In such passages the diction of the apostle rises to the heights of Plato in the Pha dr us" (Norden, ii. 506). In short, with Christianity “ the language of the heart was born again. Since the hymn of Cleanthes nothing at once so heart-felt and magnificent had been written in Greek as Paul’s hymn to love” {ibid. ii. 459).

Elsewhere in the NT fragments of hymns can be definitely found, e.g. in 1 Ti 316: 3s itbavepwOp iv aapKl, iSiKathidt] iv irvebpaTi, dyyiXois, iK-ppix^V v (dveaiv, iTriareudp iv Kbap<p, dvi\rip.(pdr) iv 86^r).

This is a piece of early Christian hymnody (cp. Col 316, Eph 514; Pliny’s Ep. x. 98), written in short cola with onotorXevra (cp. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, ii. 852 f.), which probably served as a semi-liturgical confession of faith (Klopper, ZWT., 1902, 336 f.). The early church, for all its defects, had not yet lost sight of the truth that any creed worthy of acceptance should be fit for use in the praise and worship of believing men. A similar five-lined stanza, on the birth of Jesus, is inserted in the nineteenth ode of Solomon (cp. TU. xxxv. 4, p. 51). 2 Ti 211-12 is another fragment of an early hymn: el yap crvvaire96vopev, Kai avv^propev' el iiTrop.6vop.ev, Kal aw^cLtjcXevaopeV el dpvpabpeOa, KaKeivos dpvpaeTat ppas" el airiaroopev, iKelvoa TruTTbs pdvet.

The hymns in the Apocalypse and possibly the songs in Lk 1-2 are further instances of early Christian song. It was not until later that verse included polemic (cp. Iren. i. 15. 6).

593 f)- For other literary forms, e.g. the TrapapdXri, the Trapoipla, the diropla, and the allegory, see pp. 77 f., 313 f. of Konig’s Stylistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die biblische Litteratur (1900), PRE. vi. 688 f. and xvii. 733 f., and ERE. i. 328 f.

Chapter I. The Correspondence of Paul

LITERATURE.—The patristic commentaries (cp. C. H. Turner, DB. v. 484-530, and JTS. iv. 134 f.) on Paul’s epistles are more valuable for exegesis than for historical criticism; their outstanding contributions are the early homilies of Chrysostom and ‘ Ambrosiaster ’ (fourth century), the editions of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ed. Swete, Cambridge, 1880-2), Theodoret of Cyrus, Pelagius, and Euthalius, from the fifth century, followed by John of Damascus (eighth century), Maurus of Mayence (ninth century), Oecumenius (tenth century), Theophylact, Peter the Lombard, and Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century), with the thirteenth century expositio of Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Lyra’s perpetua pastilla (fourteenth century), and the fifteenth century Annotationes of Laurentius Valla. The sixteenth century witnessed a slight increase of attention to the historical environment of the epistles, although dogmatic prepossessions still controlled the large majority of commentators, Roman catholic (e.g. Erasmus, Annotationes, 1510, Paraphrases in omnes epistolas Pauli, 1521; Catharinus, 1551; Gregorius, 1564; Maldonatus; Estius; Cornelius a Lapide, 1635 [best ed. by Padovani, Rome, 1908 f. ], and Leander, Commentaria in epist. omnes S. Pauli, Paris, 1663) and Protestant {e.g. Bugenhagen’s Annotationes, 1524; N. Hemminge, 1571; Zwingli’s Adnotationes [Zurich, 1539, pp. 518-39]; Calvin; H. Bullinger’s Commentarii [Zurich, 1544, 498-551]; Zanchi’s Commentarius 1594, and Beza). The most notable contributions from the seventeenth century, in the shape of complete editions, are the works of J. Piscator {Analysis logica epp. Paul. 1638), Conrad Vorstius, Grotius (1641), Balduin (1655), Cappellus (1658), Chemnitz (1667), Locke (1684), M. Pole, Synopsis (vol. iv., 1694), and Hammond (1699). The eighteenth century produced the R. C. expositions of Bernardinus a Piconio (1703), Alexandre Noel (Rouen, 1710), Hardouin the Jesuit, and Ant. Remy (1739), together with Bengel’s great Gnomon (1742), besides the Cura philologies: et critics in x posteriores S. Pauli epistolas of J. C. Wolf (1734), Kypke’s Observationes sacra in Novi Testamenti libros (1755), J. D. Michaelis, Paraphrasis und Anmerkungen liber die Briefe Pauli'2- (1769), Rosenmuller’s Scholia (1777), and J. B. Koppe’s edition of the NT (second ed. 1791).

The nineteenth century has produced several more or less complete editions of the Pauline epistles, notably those of J. F. Weingart {Comment-arius perpetuus in decern apostoli Pauli quas uolgo dicunt epistolas minores, Gotha, 1816), T. Belsham (London, 1823), Alford {Greek Testament, ii.-iii.), Hofmann (i862f.), and Wordsworth6 (1871), with Scholz (1830), Winser (1834), de Wette (1835 f.), Olshausen (1840 f.), Turnbull (1854), Blomfield's Greek Testament (1855), Ewald {Sendschreiben des Paulus, 1857), Bisping’s Exegetische Handbtich zu den Briefen Pauli (1855 f), Reuss {Les Ipttres Paulin., 1878, in the third volume of his NT Section of La Bible}, Heydt {Exeget. Ccmmentar zu 9 Briefen, Elberfeld, 1882), Manoury (Paris, 1878-82), P. Rambaud (Paris, 1888), L. Bonnet (Lausanne, 1892), J. van Steenkiste {Commentarius in omnes S. Fault episiolas, Bruges, 1899), B. Weiss (vol. ii. of his Das NT Handausgabe, 1902), A. Lemonnyer {Epttres de S\ Paul2, Paris, 1905), and C. Toussaint’s Epttres de S. Paul (Paris, 191of.).

Separate introductions to the Pauline epistles have been issued by H. Bottger (Beilrage zur Einleitung in die paulin. Briefe, Gottingen, 1837 f.), P. J. Gloag (Edinburgh, 1874), and Dr. R. D. Shaw3 (Edinburgh, 1909). The epistles are also commented on in several of the special monographs on Paul, e.g. those in English by Lewin, Conybeare and Howson, and Farrar, in French by Renan, and in German by Clemen and Schrader.

When the Scillitan martyrs were asked what they had in their satchel or chest, their leader Speratus replied: ‘ libri [al Kaff nus BXot, i.e. the gospels] et epistul Pauli uiri iusti.’ This was in A.D. 180. But the unique position assigned by the church to Paul’s epistles can be traced back to the age preceding Marcion. Marcion drew up an edited collection of the apostle’s letters. The church’s collection may have been due to self-de-fence, but the probability is (cp. Batiffol in RB., 1903, p. 26, C. H. Turner in JTS. x. 357 f.) that as Marcion’s edition of Luke was constructed out of the church’s third gospel, so his Pauline canon was ‘ a similar rechauffe of an existing Pauline collection in the church.’ Whether this corpus Paulinum can be dated as early as the age of Ignatius, or even earlier (as Zahn argues), is a question which can only be asked, in the paucity of the available evidence. It is hardly likely that the idea of such a collection occurred to Paul or to any one during his lifetime,* but if the church at Philippi was anxious to possess any extant letters of Ignatius (Polyk. ad Phil. 13), it is reasonable to infer that a similar desire must have already prompted local collections of Paul’s letters, long before there was any thought of ranking them with the scriptures (2 P 316). This would be rendered possible by the close communications t between churches, not only in one district but abroad. What is certain is that the early Christian literature begins for us with Paul’s correspondence.

Genesis, says Tertullian in the fifth book of his treatise against Marcion, Genesis promised me Paul long ago. For, he adds (playing on a Latin rendering of Gn 4927), when Jacob was pronouncing typical and prophetic blessings upon his sons, he * He had not the literary self-consciousness of Cicero {Alt. xvi. 5. 5). t Cp. Harnack, MA C. i. 369 f. turned to Benjamin and said, ‘ Benjamin is a ravening wolf; in the morning he shall devour his prey, but towards evening he shall provide food? He foresaw that Paul would spring from Benjamin, ‘ a ravening wolf, devouring his prey in the morning': that is, in early life he would lay waste the flocks of God as a persecutor of the churches; then towards evening he would provide food: that is, in his declining years he would train the sheep of Christ as a teacher of the nations. This fanciful exegesis of the African Father brings out the fact that Paul did not begin to write the letters by which he is best known until he had been a Christian for about twenty years. So far as it can be recon-structed from the extant sources, the activity of Paul as a Christian evangelist and apostle falls into two main periods or The first of these, (a) covering about seventeen years, includes his work in T KXC^ara ^vplas Kal Kikas, with Tarsus and Antioch as his headquarters (Gal 121f, Ac 930 1125f), and Barnabas as his main coadjutor. The second (b) dates from the crisis at Jerusalem, which impelled him to go further afield (Ac 1536f. 166f); after hesitating about his route and sphere, he started upon the great mission to Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia, which occupied him for six or seven years (Ac 1921, cp. Ro 1523). His coadjutors now were principally Silas and Timotheus. Thereafter he was evi-dently planning a mission to Spain. The Southern Mediter-ranean he probably passed by, as Egypt was being already evangelised,! but in the Western Mediterranean he hoped to break fresh ground, and en route to Spain he arranged to pay a long-deferred visit to the church at Rome. Meantime, he had to discharge his duty to the church at Jerusalem, by handing over the proceeds of the collection made by the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia on behalf of the poor saints in the Jewish capital. The untoward result of his visit is well known. He left Jerusalem a prisoner, was confined for two years at Caesarea, and finally reached Rome in custody. So far as we can see, he did not regain his freedom. The projected tour to Spain had to be abandoned, and he never revisited Asia Minor. + See Harnack, MAC. i. 73 f.; Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben d. alien Kirche- (1898), 143 f.; Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism (1910), pp. 24-26.

* The older scheme of three mission-tours is to be abandoned in favour of this division of his activity into two mission-spheres (cp. von Dobschiltz, Problems des apostolichen Zeitalters, 1904, pp. 58 f.).

The extant letters of the apostle fall within or after the second period, that is, in the late afternoon of his career. If he wrote any letters previous to the crisis at Jerusalem, they have perished. The letters to the churches of Thessalonika, Galatia, Corinth, and Rome date from (b); the rest of the epistles, so far as they are genuine, are the correspondence of a prisoner, and were composed either at Caesarea or more probably at Rome. Their relative order can be determined with approximate accuracy, but their exact dates are bound up with chronological calculations based on Tacitus and Josephus, as well as on early Christian tradition, which are still matters of dispute. The following table (cp. HNT. 121 f.), reflecting usually the old schematism of the three journeys, will give some idea of the variety of critical opinion upon the chronology of the apostle’s life: Conversion of Paul...

Second visit to Jerusalem Crucifixion of Jesus... First visit to Jerusalem..

First mission tour...

(Ac 1127. 1225)...

Council at Jerusalem.. Second mission tour... Third mission tour... Arrest in Jerusalem ■.

Death of Paul....

Arrival in Rome....

Death of Peter....

1DB. i. 415-425; JTS. iii. 120-128.

2 Untersuckuvgm neut, Zeitverhaltnisse (1894). 3 Neatest. Zeitgeschichte (1895), §§ 15-17; differently in second ed. 1906. 4A A. pp. xiii-xiv, etc.

6 Similarly Laurent (NT Studien, 67-91), placing the second visit in 47, however, the first tour in 47-50, and the second in 52-55. 6 ACL. ii. 1. 233-239. 7 AA. 164, 172, etc. 8 PRE. xv. 61-88, and INT. iii. 450 f.

9SPT. 363^, as revised in Pauline and other Studies (1906), 345 f.

A word may be added on the problem of the authenticity * of the Pauline letters. Their criticism has passed through a * ‘ Authentic,’ in this connection as elsewhere in the criticism of the NT, “has reference to the origin only, not to the contents; to say that a document is authentic is merely to say that its origin is certain, not that its contents are free from error” (C. V. Langlois and C. Seignobos, Intro-duction aux itudes historiques, Eng, tr. 1898, p. 159). phase corresponding, for example, to that which has occurred in the artistic estimate of Giorgione’s pictures: after successive verdicts which unreasonably reduced the number of the genuine to a minimum, the application of a less rigid and more accurate standard has at last revealed the existence of a larger number of authentic canvases in the one case and of epistles in the other. This shift of critical opinion has been brought about, for the most part, by a gradual recognition of the fact that writers and painters do not always work at the same pitch of excellence. The progress of historical criticism on Acts and, to a less degree, on the sources of the gospels, together with the recent researches into the KOIVT], gnosticism, and contemporary Judaism, has also helped to determine the authenticity of several Pauline letters which were suspected half a century ago. “It has been the 10 Biblical Essays (pp. 215-233). Similarly Aberle, BZ. (1903) 256 f., 372 f, (1905) 371-400. 11 ^-cts (Meyer), pp. 53-60.

12 Thessalonians (Meyer), pp. 17-18. Similarly von Dobschiitz.

13 Paulus, i. 411. 14 Students Life of Paul, pp. 242-259.

15 I NT. i. pp. 154 f. 16 Paul, pp. 13 f.

17 Einl. 31 f. 28 DS- iii. 696-731.

19 Paul (appendix, vol. ii. pp. 623 f.). 20 TQ. (1896) 353 f., Einl. 130.

21 Abfassungszeit des Galaterbriefes (1906), p. 189.

22 Die Chronologie des Paulus (1903), cp. NKZ. (1902) 569-620. mission of the nineteenth century to prove that everybody’s work was written by somebody else, and it will not be the most useless task of the twentieth to betake itself to more profitable inquiries” (Saintsbury, History of Criticism, p. 152). The epistles to Timotheus and Titus, together with Ephesians, are probably Pauline rather than Paul’s; they belong to the class of literary &8ororot in early Christianity. Otherwise it may be assumed that the letters which are grouped under Paul’s name in the canon were written by him, whatever processes of editing they may have passed through before their incorporation into the sacred collection of the church.

(A) Correspondence with Thessalonika

Editions—Georgius Major (Enarratio duarum epp. ad Thess. pralecta, 1561); Musculus Wommmt- in Phil. Col. Thess, Tim., 1565 f.); R. Rollock (Edinburgh, 1598); J. A. Gleiche’s Erklarung (1729); J. A. Turretin’s posthumous Comment. theoretico-practicus in epp. ad Thess. (1739); P. J- Miiller (1784); F. A. W. Krause (1790); Schleiermacher (1823); T. C. Tychsen3 (1823); J. F. Flatt, Vorlesungen iiber die briefen an die Phil. Col. Thess. (Tubingen, 1829); Ludwig Pelt (Epistolae P. apostoli ad Thess. perpetuo illust. commentario, Greifswald, 1830) *; H. A. Schott, Epistolae P. ad Thess. et Galatas (Leipzig, 1834); Baumgarten-Crusius {Commentar iiber Phil, zind Thcssal. 1848); Olshausen (1840, Eng. tr. 1851); J. Lillie (New York, 1856); Ewald, Sendschreiben des Paulus (1857); de Wette3 (1864); Meyer3 (1867); Hofmann2 (1869); Eadie (1877); A. J. Mason (in Ellicott’s NT, 1879); Reuss (1878-9); Ellicott4 (1880)*; H. Reinecke (Leipzig, 1881); Alexander {Speakers Com. 1881); Marcus Dods (in Schafp's Comment. 1882); Hutchison (Edin, 1883); Liinemann4 (—Meyer, Eng. tr. 1884}; Gloag (1887); Zockler (in Strack mid ZIs Comm. 1888-95); A. Schafer (1890); Schmiedel2 {HC. 1892)*; Zimmer (in Denkschrift des theol. Seminars Herborn, 1891, and Theol. Comment, z. d. Thess. 1894)*; Padovani (1894); Jowett, St. Pauls Epp. to Thess. Gal. and Romans3 (1894); Bornemann (—Meyer, 1894); Light-foot (Roles on Epp. of St. Paul, 1895, pp. 1-92); J. Drummond {Internal. Hdbks to NT, 1899); Gutjahr, Briefe des Paulus. 1. Thess. Gal. (1900); Adeney (CB., n. d.); G. G. Findlay (CGT. 1904)*; W. Lueken {SNT.2 1907); J. M. S. Baljon (1907); G. Milligan (1908)*; Wohlenberg2 {ZK., 1908); von Dobschtitz (— Meyer, 1909)*; Moffatt {EGT. 1910); R. Mackintosh (Westminster NT, 1910); M. Dibelius \HBNT. 1911).

Studies—(i.) general: P. Schmidt, der erste Th. brief neu erklart, nebst einen Exhurs iiber d. 2 gleichn. Brief (1885); L. Monnet, Les ipttres aux Thess. Itude biblique (WiRf-, Sabatier (ESR. xii. 123 f.); Hausrath, iii. 209E; Lightfoot (Smith’s DB. iii. 1477-84)*; E. de Faye, de vera indole Pauli ap. ad Thessal. dissertatio critica (Paris, 1892); Denney (Expositors Bible, 1892); McGiffert, AA. 250b; Bartlet, AA. nof.; Pfleiderer, Urc. i. 125-143; are supposed to have been written by Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi; the problem of their authenticity divides scholars like Nipperdey, Mommsen, Hubei, and M. Schlelein from those who, like Mercklin and E. Meyer, deny their genuineness. von Dobschiitz, Urc. 81 f.; E. Trautzsch, Die miindhche Verkiindigung des Ap. Paulus (1903); E. Ullern, S. Paul, ivangeliste et pasteur des Thess-aloniciens. Etude (Nimes, 1903); C. Bruston {RTQR., 1905, 160 f., 369 f.); Senstius, die Abfassungszeit der Thess. Briefe (1908); R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles (1909), 215-233; LUtgert, BFT. xiii. 6 (1909), pp. 55102 (on errorists); Harnack, Das Problem des Ziveiten Thessalonicherbriefs (1910, SBBA. 560-578); Frame {EBP- xxvi. 841!.).

1 Most doubt attaches to 2 Thessalonians, less to Colossians. A similar dubiety prevails, e.g., with regard to the two fragments of the epistles which

(ii.) on the text:—John Phillips, The Greek of the First Ep. to the Thess. (London, 1751); Zimmer, Der Text der Thessal, Briefe (1893); Baljon, {Theol. Studien, 1888, 347-352); Blass, Rhythmen der asian. u. rbm. Kunstprosa (1905), pp. 196!.

(iii.) against Pauline authorship:—Baur in Theol. Jahrb. (1855), pp. 141-168, and in Paul (ii. 341 f., Eng. tr. ii. 314-340); van der Vies, de beide brieven aan de Th. (1865); Steck {fPT, 1883, 509-524); Pierson and Naber {Verisimilia, laceram conditionem NTexhibentia, 1886, 3-25).

(iv.) for Pauline authorship:—Grimm {SK., 1850, 78of.); Hilgenfeld {ZWT., 1862, 225 k, 1866, 295 f.); Lightfoot {Biblical Essays, 251-269, and in Smith’s DB.); Sabatier, Paul, pp. 106 f.; Askwith, Introd. to Thess. epp. (1902) *; Lock {DB. iv. 743-749); A. C. McGiffert {EBi. 5036-5046); Zahn, Einl. §§ 14-16; Clemen, Paulus, i. ill f.

THESSALONIANS.

In addition to the general literature already cited, the (a) editions by Calixtus (1654); W. Sclater {Exposition -with notes, London, 1619); A. S. Paterson (Edin. 1857); A. Koch2 (1855)*; Rohm (Passau, 1885); Johannes, Kommentar zum ersten Th. Brief (Dillingen, 1898) *: {b) studies by J. Martinus {Analysis epistolae prioris ad Thess., Groningen, 1663); Lipsius {SK, 1854, 905 f., “liber Zweck u. Veranlassung des I Th.,” a reply to Baur); J. J. Prins, “ de eerste brief van Paulus aan de Thessalonikers ” {TT., 1885, 231k); von Soden (SAS, 1885, 263-310)*; Bruckner’s Chron.

193-199.

THESSALONIANS.

In addition to the above general literature: (a) against the Pauline authorship—Kern {Tiibing. Zeits.fiir Theol., 1839, 145 f.); J. E. C. Schmidt, {Einl. 256 f.); Hilgenfeld {ZWT., 1862, 242-264); vanManen, onderzoek naar de echtheid van Paulus' iweeden brief aan de Thess. (Utrecht, 1865); Michelsen {TT., 1876, 70-82); Bahnsen {JPT., 1880, 681-705); Spitta, Urc. i. 109154; Weizsacker {AA. i. 295 k); C. Rauch {ZWT., 1895, 457-465); H.

J. Holtzmann {ZNW., 1901, 97-108); Pfleiderer {Urc. i. 95-101); Wrede {TU., Neue Folge, ix. 2, 1903)*; Hollmann {ZNW., 1904, 28-38); von Soden {INT. 324-333).

(b) for the Pauline authorship—Reiche, authent. posterioris ad Thess. epistolce (1829; against Schmidt); Schneckenburger {Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol., 1859, 405-467); Renan (iii. 248-255); Westrik, de echtheid van II. Thess. (1879); Klopper in part 8 (pp. 73-140) of Theol. Stud. u. Skizzen aus Ostpreussen (1889)*; Titius, der Paulinismus (1900), 49 f.; G. G.

Finlay Oct. 1900, 251-261); G. W. Garrod (London, 1900); Kolmodin, Pauli andra tess.-bref (Stockholm, 1901); Moffatt, HNT. 142-149; Briining, der Echtheit d. 2 Thess. Briefer (1903); E. Vischer, Paulus-briefe (1904) 70 f.; Wernle [GGA., 1905, 347 f., review of Wrede); Julicher {EM. § 5); R. J. Knowling, The Testimony of St. Patil to Christ (1905), 24f.; Jacquier (INT. i. 94 f.); Barth {Einl. §6); A. S. Peake {INT, 1909, I2f.); Griiner, ‘ Besteht zwischen d. 2 und i Briefe an die Gemeinde von Thess. eine literar. Abhangigkeit?’ {Weidenauer Sttidten, ii. 419f., against Wrede). § 1. Contents and character of I Thess.—The Christians of Thessalonika were mainly Greeks by birth and training (19 214), who had been won over from paganism by the efforts of Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus. The mission had only lasted for a month or two. After preaching for three weeks in the local synagogue, the evangelists continued their work till they were prematurely driven from the city by the intrigues of the local Jews. They left a vigorous church behind them, however, and the central position of Thessalonika upon the Via Egnatia at the head of the Thermaic gulf presented excellent opportunities for the diffusion of the new faith (i7‘8 410 The narrative of Acts 171-9, though admitting that the large majority of the converts were proselytes (174), ignores any work outside the synagogue, and restricts the term of the mission apparently to three weeks. This account is inadequate. As Baronius once said, epistolaris historia est optima historia. The membership and influence of the church, its reputation throughout Macedonia and even Achaia, to say nothing of Paul’s allusions to a period of training (1 Th 26L), imply the lapse of a considerable interval between the apostle’s arrival and departure. Besides, his stay must have been prolonged, if he had occasion not only to support himself (1 Th 28-11 17-20 35-10) by his trade, but to receive gifts of money (Ph 416) from his friends at Philippi, a hundred miles away. It was the last-named fact which, among other things, gave rise to the imputation of mercenary motives (25- 9). The primary charge against Paul and his friends before the local authorities had been treason and sedition (Ac 176-8 Bacia irepov); in his enforced absence through the success of this manoeuvre, charges against his personal character were circulated. Naturally he refers to the former subject quite incidentally (1 Th 212 God’s own kingdom}; the latter dominates his mind. + This, together with the religious training of the synagogue, helps to explain—what is otherwise rather remarkable—the unusually rapid growth of the local church (Wynne, Exp."1 iv. 364-377).

* These passages cover not only Philippi and Berea (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pp. 237 f.), but a somewhat extensive work by Paul, as well as by the Thessalonians, which may have reached as far west as Illyricum (Ro 1519).

His primary reason for writing to the Christians of Thessa-lonika was anxiety on their behalf. It was the first community of any importance which he had been able to found in Europe; and the exemplary character, the exceptional opportunities, and the influence of its members had already produced a wide im-pression on the surrounding district. To this Paul alludes (17-8) with a pardonable touch of hyperbole (cp. Ro 18, Ph i13). From no church was he torn with such evident reluct-ance. But the urgent claim of the church on his solicitude was the suffering to which it had been exposed even during his stay, and especially since he had left. Concerned for his friends’ stability, and unable to return in person, f he had dispatched Timotheus, as the younger of his companions, from Athens in order to rally and confirm their faith. Meanwhile events had driven him from Athens across to Corinth (17-8), where Timotheus brought him the glad tidings (a real gospel—note the rare use of eiayyeXLaa/j^vov in 36) of the Thessalonians’ affection and constancy. He at once proceeds to send this informal letter, written (i.) out of warm personal affection, which he rejoices to find returned, and (ii.) in order to convey instruc-tions upon some points of Christian belief and conduct.

For an ingenious attempt to prove that i Thess. answers a letter brought by Timotheus from the Thessalonians themselves, see Rendel Harris in ExpP viii. 161 f., 401 f., and Bacon’s INT. 73 f. {Story of St. Paul, 235 f.). The hypothesis is tenable, but the evidence is elusive: KO.1 in 213 and 35 cannot be pressed into a proof of this, nor can olSare (= ‘ you have admitted in your letter ’); and aTrayyiWere, though attractive, is not a necessary reading in I9. fWhy? Because, in Oriental phrase, Satan hindered us (218)—an enig-matic remark which probably means either sickness (2 Co 127) or pressure of local circumstances at Corinth. To refer it to a guarantee exacted by the Imperial authorities from Jason and his associates that peace would be kept, and Paul kept away (Ramsay, SPT. 228 f.; Woodhouse, EBi. 5047; and Findlay), conflicts with the idea of the Empire in 2 Th 22.. Besides, the Thess. would have easily known in that case why Paul could not come back. That Paul had any intention of returning to Thessalonika by sea, after he was driven out of Berea, is a precarious inference from 218, though the idea occurred at an early stage of the Christian tradition, as is plain from the insertion of the Lezan editor in The former (i.) consideration emerges in a series of allusions to malignant suspicions of his conduct, especially of the purity of his motives and methods, circulated by local outsiders (23f. 18 etc.). This does not mean that he had reproached himself with having appeared to leave his friends in the lurch; such cannot be the entire explanation (so Spitta, pp. 115-116) of the phrases. A self-defence of this kind would be sadly post factum. The language undoubtedly implies that insinuations to his dis-credit were current in Thessalonika; they struck at the church through the apostle; and because the peace and faith of the Thessalonian Christians were so intimately bound up with con-fidence in his integrity, he vindicates their trust by showing how, in an age in which impostors, religious, medical, and philo-sophical, flourished by crooked methods, he had not worked for mercenary ends, nor set up high pretensions, nor made exacting demands on his followers, nor left them meanly in the lurch. He appeals to his record in Thessalonika, and shows that his absence was neither voluntary nor equivalent to a slackening of his interest or affection. Such malicious calumnies, circulated mainly or at least primarily by the Jews,* Paul further meets by unbaring his very heart. He reveals his throbbing interest in the church (a8 36 10), tells them of the joy and pride their loyalty afforded him (see the praise of other Macedonians in Ph 41), and expands previous oral admonitions (212 41’2- 6. 10-12) in a series of written counsels.

* The rhetorical phrase iv travrl rtnrq is not to be pressed (as by Zahn, EM. i. 146 f.) into a proof that the news of the Thessalonian mission had time to reach the Asiatic Christians, whose congratulations came back to Paul before he wrote.

(ii.) The second and supplementary part of the letter, pass-ing from this personal and apologetic aspect, warns them against such perils as (mep yaouov, 43-8) sensuality, (rep </>tXa8eX<£ias, Ac 1715 (iraprjKdev 8 Thy Oeccallav" eKiiXvlfy yap els alrovs Kppi'^ai rov X6yov), which, like the equally inferior reading in 174 (ce. Kal ‘EXX.), is due to the harmonising tendencies of the second century. * So Hilgenfeld {Einl. 241), Lipsius, Sabatier (pp. 107, 110), Schmidt (25 f., 96), Renan, G. G. Findlay, Weiss, etc. In the nature of things, as already (e.g. Ac 1419 etc.), Paul’s principal detractors would be Jews, angry at this renegade’s success; besides, the transition from 29-13 to 213-16 and back to 217f. rather points to Semitic agitation. Others (e.g. Hofmann, von Soden, SK., 1885, pp. 302, 306 f., Schmiedel, and Zahn) think of pagans (cp. Clemen, NKZ., 1896, 151 f.). In any case the references are too keen and detailed to be merely prophylactic. Probably the charges were started by Jews and caught up by pagans; they were not directed (as in Galatia) against his apostolic authority, but more subtly against his personal character. Passages like'2x 13 411-12 (cp. 2 Th 22f. 38f-) do not justify the theory (Lipsius) that a Judaistic party was at work within the church.

4%f.) selfishness, and noisy indolence, due as much to a misap-prehension of their faith as to pagan surroundings. The occur-rence of some deaths had raised uncertainties about the Lord’s Second coming, and Paul briefly handles this with reference to (a) the dead (413-18 wept Tv koiuouvov), who are declared not to have forfeited their place in the messianic realm of the age to come; and (b) to the living (51-11 wept rv xpvov Kai raw xaipv), who are exhorted to moral alertness in view of this great event, which may be expected at any moment (53), as well as to an ethical steadiness * unaffected by unsettling expectations of the end. This need of mutual exhortation (511) naturally leads to a word on subordination and obedience to the local church authorities (512f), and with some general counsels the letter ends. While it would be actually put into the hands of the local leaders (512), it was addressed, and was to be read, to all the members of the church, not to any exclusive section of them (527).t Apparently it did its work, so far as Paul’s character was concerned.

The perils indicated in this writing belong to an inexperienced and un-consolidated Christianity; they have no connection with any Judaising propa-ganda on the part of Paul’s opponents, as was the case in Corinth. The saving quality of the Thessalonians’ religion was its generous and widespread (13 30. 12 58. is. 15) charity (traces of this later in 2 Co 7-9), combined with an enthusiasm which survived depressing trials and isolation alike. Their faith required completion rather than correction (310). They were on the right path; what they chiefly needed was stimulus and direction (312 41 10). Conse-quently there was no occasion for Paul to introduce what are elsewhere enunciated as cardinal principles of his theology. For the same reason the letter is not marked by passion and agitation. There is an outpouring of relief, but no fierce outburst of indignation or alarm or wounded dignity; what reproof Paul has to give is delicately conveyed, as usual, in the wake of praise. § 2. Authenticity of 1 Thess.—As the letter is included not only in the Muratorian Canon but in Marcion’s strictly Pauline collection (Tert. adv. Marc. v. 15; Epiph. haer. xlii. 9; cp. Zahn’s GK. ii. 520 f.), it was known and circulated by the first quarter of the second century. Definite quotations, however, chiefly of * After his own example (20f-). “La modele qu’il concevait tait un artisan range, paisible, applique a son travail ” (Renan, iii. 246). +As some previous letter had been? cp. 3 Jn 8 To delete 527 as a marginal gloss, added by some second-century reader when the apostolic letters were coming into prominent use (Hitzig, Schmiedel, J. Weiss: SK., 1892, 261 f.), is gratuitous, in view of this natural explanation, the eschatological passages, emerge for the first time in Irenaeus {adv. h(er. v. 6. 1 = 523, v. 30. 2 = 53) and Tertullian {de resurr. carnis, xxiv. = 51 and 19-10), while both Clement of Alexandria and Origen employ the epistle (for Dionysius of Corinth, see Eus. H. E. iv. 23). The so-called allusions in the apostolic fathers are scanty and vague, for the most part; but it is probable that there is a reminiscence of 513 in Hermas {Vis. hi. 9. 10, dprjvevcre ev avro?s), and—if the reading were certain—of 517 in Ignat. Eph. x. 1 (aSiaXelros mpogexeobe), of 16 in Eph. x. 3 (uyral Se rov Kvplov orovonev elvat, different context), and 24 in Rom. ii. 1 (ov 6Xo vus vbporapeornoat, dAAa OeQ); cp., too, 49 = Barn. 216 ylveobe 8e @coaxrol (different context). The general similarity of outline between 414-16 and Did. xvi. 6 (revela-tion of the Lord, trumpet, resurrection) is too vague to denote any literary filiation.

These traces are not early enough to preclude the possibility that the epistle is pseudonymous, and a post-Pauline origin has occasionally been claimed for it on various grounds, (i.) The resemblances between it and the Corinthian epistles (Baur) are no argument against its originality; whatever i Thess. may be, it is a decided error of literary criticism to pronounce it a mere copy and echo of 1 and 2 Corinthians. (ii.) The discrepancies between its account of the Thessalonian mission and that of Acts are not serious enough to invalidate the epistle (Schrader, Baur, etc.; see p. 66). A few months were enough to raise the problem of Christians dying before the rapovoa. The favour-able soil for the gospel at Thessalonika, partly among proselytes, must have led to a rapid development of the church, and Paul was too careful a missioner to leave his converts without a rudi-mentary but effective local organisation. Unless, therefore, Acts is taken as a rigid standard, 1 Thess. can be naturally set in the situation presupposed by the former, although a comparison of Ac 1715 and 1 Th 1-2 shows that the former narrative requires to be supplemented and corrected by the details of Paul. Luke was not a member of the party at Thessalonika, and in any case it was not his purpose to describe the inner development of the Pauline churches. As a rule, he is content to narrate how Paul and his companions got a foothold in any city, and how they had to leave it. From Luke we fail to under-stand that the local church was recruited mainly from the pagan population, that the mission lasted for some time, and that the evangelists kept in touch with the local church after their enforced departure. But all this tells strongly in favour of the epistle, whose incidental allusions are not only coherent but natural. It is capricious to pronounce the epistle a colourless imitation, if it agrees with Acts, and unauthentic if it disagrees. “Die Art wie Paulus in i Thess. die unmittelbar vorherge-gangenen Begebenheiten in Philippi und die Riickkehr des Timotheus (vgl. 1 Th 31-6 und Ac 1714 185) erwahnt, beweist theils, dass dies nicht knstlich aus der Apgeschichte gemacht ist, weil dort eine Aussendung des Timotheus nach Thessalonika nicht erwahnt ist, theils dass der Brief nicht lange nachdem Timotheus wieder zu Paulus gestossen ist, kann geschrieben sein, weil die kleinen Umstande sonst nicht vorkommen wiirden. Diese Uebereinstimmung ist nun von der Art, dass sie die Aechtheit des Briefes beweist, so dass wir nach innern Merkmalen weiter nicht zu fragen haben " (Schleiermacher, Einl. 150). (iii.) The vocabulary of i Thess. presents no features which can fairly be described as necessarily unPauline, except when an arbitrary standard of Pauline thought and style is constructed from Gal., Cor., and Romans. A few words occur, as in any letter of Paul, which do not happen to be used elsewhere by him (e.g. &6s Xnbivs I9, avap-evecv 110, 6 melpov 35, crMvea-Oai 33, dyev in sense of 414, avtardvcu 414-16 of the resurrection of Jesus and men, Xoyos Kvplov 415, prev 417, veat and zvrnots 417, Xoyoi of apostolic injunctions 418, kpis 52, Srepekeptooo (cp. Eph 320) 513 and 310, hyeobat &v 513; but the general language of the letter is thoroughly Pauline, and the style bears no trace of a later hand. When set side by side with the rest of the Pauline letters, i Thess. invites the judgment passed by von Soden on 1 Th 54-11 as compared with Ro 131f: “the similarities of the passages show their kinship; the differences exclude any question of imitation.” It is almost superfluous to add that the letter was dictated in Greek. The idea (cp. Bertholdt’s Einl. 3488 f.) that it represents a translation by Silvanus and Timotheus from the original Aramaic is a sheer jeu diesprit, (iv.) It is more difficult to explain the lack of any allusion, even where such might be expected, to the characteristic Pauline ideas of the law, forgiveness in relation to the death of Christ, and the union of the Christian with Christ and the Spirit. One line of explanation may be set aside decisively. Paul had been a Christian, and a Christian preacher, for nearly twenty years when he wrote this letter, and the ordinary catechetical instruction, such as he was now giving at Corinth (i Co i23 22 153), certainly included a much fuller account of the death of Jesus in relation to forgiveness than happens to be mentioned in i Thessalonians. Behind him lay the struggle with Jewish Christian traditionalism at Antioch and Jerusalem,* which had already compelled him to define his principles and think out the deeper aspects of his gospel. It is therefore historically and psychologically impossible to read the Thessalonian epistles as if they represented a primitive stage in the apostle’s thought, when he had not yet developed dogmatic Paulinism. If his gospel centres here round the Coming J rather than the Cross of Jesus Christ, and if he seems to argue that men were to be sanctified by hope rather than justified by faith, the explanation must be sought in the special circumstances which determined the composition of the letter. There was apparently nothing to call out any discussion of the Law or any theorising on forgive-ness (cp. Feine’s Gesetzesfreie Evglm d. Paulus, 169-181). The clue to the comparative absence of technical terms and theories is probably to be found in Paul’s desire to educate the Thessa-lonian Christians in the rudiments of their faith. He fed them, as he was feeding the Corinthians, with elementary principles (1 Co 32 ya vp.as iiroriaa). Paruulos nutrix fouet: proficientes uero pater instituit (Pelagius). And Paul was both nurse and father to them, as he himself affectionately reminded them (27- 11). In any case, a later Paulinist writing in his master’s name would probably have introduced some reference to the distinctive dogmas of Paulinism. Their absence from i Thess. is a difficulty, but it is not a proof of unPauline origin. “ Das dogmatische System des Apostels wird in diesem Briefe selbstver-standlicherweise nicht entfaltet, sondern nur gestreift, dies aber in durchaus original-paulinischer Art und Weise ” (P. Schmidt, op. at. p. 78). (v.) Another real difficulty may be removed by recourse to the hypothesis of an interpolation. “When it is * Unless, of course, Acts is held to have ante-dated (so Spitta and Weizsacker) the Jerusalem Council, which ought to be subsequent to Paul’s dispute with Peter at Antioch. In this way (cp. Mngoz, Ie PMii, 4) room might be found for the Thess. epistles as an expression of unformu-lated, primitive Paulinism; but even so, we should have to imagine that Paul’s mind did not begin to work upon his religion till the exigencies of controversy forced him to construct a theology. t Every paragraph runs out into the future (i9 212. 16. 19-20 313 46m. 510. 23). said that after the Jews have continually filled up the measure of their sins, baoe 8 err’ arovs n pyn els reXos, what does this suggest to us more naturally than the punishment that came upon them in the destruction of Jerusalem?” (Baur. Paul. ii. 88). The words (216b) are a reminiscence of Test. Levi vi. ir. It is unnecessary to suspect 214-16 as a later interpolation (cp. HNT. pp. 625-626), but 216b must be admitted to have all the appearance of a marginal gloss, written after the tragedy of A.D. 70 (so, e.g., Spitta, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Teichmann: die paul. Vorstellungen von Auferstehung u. Gericht, 83; Drummond, etc.). The recent massacres, revolutions, and famines in Pales-tine, to say nothing of the edict of Claudius, de pellendis Judais (P. Schmidt, 86 f.), might be considered to afford a suitable back-ground for the verse, but the definite sense assigned to py, which is more than mere judicial hardening (cp. Dante’s Paradiso, vi. 88-93), tells in favour of the reference to the horrors of A.D.

70. Instead of relegating the entire epistle to this period, it is better to regard the words as a Christian reader’s gloss upon 216a. (vi.) The attempt of Steck (JPT, 1883, 509-524) to prove that 415f. is a quotation from 4 Es 541-42 is hopelessly forced (cp. Schmidt, 107-110; Bornemann, 310 f.). Paul’s reference is, probably, not to some dypadov, but to a prophetic revelation vouchsafed to himself or possibly to Silvanus (cp. Ac 1532) in a vision (see EGT. iv. 37). Even if the passage were a quotation, it would be from oral tradition or from some early collection of evangelic logia. The point of the saying is opposed to that of 4 Esdras, and the parallel, such as it is, is too far-fetched to denote the post-Pauline origin of the epistle.

The huels KrX. of 415f. (cp. I Co 1551) must not be evaporated into a general and hypothetical sense, as, e.g., by those who hesitate to attribute a miscalculation to Paul, or by those who at the opposite extreme (like Steck, PM., 1905, 449-453) deny that such expressions form any barrier to the theory that the epistles of Paul were composed as late as the second century. § 3. Place and period of composition.—The letter was written from Corinth (Ac 1811), as the reference to Achaia (17-8) is enough to prove.* The words &v ‘Abvais (31) do not necessarily mean that Paul was not there when he wrote (cp. i Co 1532 168), but they are insufficient to prove that Athens was the place of the letter’s composition,—a theory advocated from Theodoret and * Bottger (Beitrage, 1837, 28) thinks of some town in Achaia.

Pelagius (cp. the subscription of ABKL, mps GecoaXovireis irpdyrr) eypd<[>p r A@nvv) to Schrader (Apostel Paulus, pp. 90 f.), the latter placing it during the period of Ac 202f, mainly on the ground that 7rpea/3vTepoL (cp. i Ti 36) could not exist in a church of neophytes which had only been founded for a few months, and that deaths (413-18) could not have already occurred. J. F. Kohler {Abfassungszeit der epistolischen Schriften ini NT, 1830, p. 112) dated it even later (after A.D. 66), on the ground that 214-16 implied the death of James, the Lord’s brother, and the outbreak of the Jewish rebellion.

The narrative of Acts requires further correction at this point. Accord-ing to Luke (Ac 185), Silas and Timotheus, who had remained at Berea with orders to rejoin Paul as soon as possible, did not reach him till he had arrived at Corinth. Since Timotheus had meanwhile visited Thessalonika (1 Th 217-36), we must assume (a) either that he hurried to Athens himself, was sent back by Paul to Thessalonika, and on his return picked up Silas at Berea, or (b) that both men joined Paul at Athens and were dispatched on different missions, Silas perhaps to Philippi, and Timotheus certainly to Thessalonika. Otherwise Paul left Silas behind at Athens (cp. Ac 1 85), if the plural in i Th 31 is not the pluralis auctoris. In any case the natural sense of i Th 31-2 is that Paul sent Timotheus from Athens, not (so, e.g., von Soden) that he merely sent directions from Athens that his colleague should leave Berea and betake himself to Thessalonika {EBi. 5076-5077). § 4. Contents and setting of 2 Thess.—After congratulating the Thessalonian Christians on their brotherly love and faith and patience (11-4), Paul addresses himself to the situation which had specially called into exercise the last-named virtue, (a) The trials and troubles under which they are now suffering (14-12) are simply a prelude to the relief and vindication which will be theirs at the coming of Jesus, (b) As the anticipation of this, however, had already produced a morbid fanatical excitement in certain quarters, owing to the fact of some people, apparently from a misunderstanding of his instructions, having failed to recollect that the rrapovoa, while near, could not happen till after the appearance and overthrow of a hostile power, Paul proceeds (21-12) to reiterate his oral teaching on this point. He then concludes (213-17) with an expression of confidence in them, an appeal for loyalty to his teaching, and a brief prayer for their constancy and comfort. Asking their prayers, in turn, for himself, he renews his expression of confidence and interest (31'5), where-upon, after a word on the maintenance of discipline and industry, the epistle closes (36-18).

Assuming both letters to have come from we need not hesitate to place I Thessalonians prior to 2 Thessalonians, in opposition to the reverse hypothesis of Grotius (based mainly on an antiquated chronology), Bunsen, Renan (iii. 235 f.), Ewald {Sendschreiben, pp. 15 f.), and Laurent (SK., 1864, pp. 497 f.; N TStudien, pp. 49 f.). There is no reason why such a criterion of genuineness as 2 Th 317 should have appeared in the earliest of Paul’s letters; in view of 22 its appearance, after the composition of I Thess. and even other letters, is psychologically accurate. It is unnatural to find a reference to 2 Th 36-16 in 1 Th 410-11; besides, as Bornemann points out (p. 495), if 2 Thess. is held to betray all the tone of a first letter (Ewald), what about 2 Th 215? The comparative absence of allusions in 2 Thess. to I Thess. (cp., however, 2 Th 21 = I Th 417 etc.) is explained by the fact that in the second epistle Paul goes back to elaborate part of his original oral teaching in view of fresh needs which had appeared since he wrote I Thess. Finally, while I Th 217-36 does not exclude the possibility of a previous letter, it cannot be made to presuppose one of the character of 2 Thess., least of all when written from Berea (Ac 1710, Laurent and Ewald).

Paul is still with Silvanus and Timotheus (i1) at Corinth (32 = Ac 18, 1 Th 215f); he is writing presumably not long f after the dispatch of the former epistle (215), having heard (311) J of the mischief caused by local misunderstandings of what he had taught on the course of the Last Things. To repudiate misconceptions and thereby to calm the mind of the church amid its anabaptist perils, is the apostle’s aim. What he has to communicate by way of instruction is practically a re-statement, firmer and more detailed, of teaching already orally imparted (25.15), not a discussion of novel doubts and difficulties. If any change {op. cit. pp. 128-164) argue for the priority of 2 Thessalonians, the latter separating the two by the fall of Jerusalem. The arguments against them are stated by van Manen (Onderzoek, 11-25), and the evidence in favour of the canonical order is best arrayed by Hofmann (pp. 365 f.), Llinemann (160 f.), Bornemann (pp. 492 f.), and Johannes (124 f.), in their respective editions. The problem is not so gratuitous as it may appear. A similar difficulty vexes critics of the Olynthiac orations; some {e.g. Whiston, Flathe, Grote, and Thirlwall) hold, on internal evidence, that Demosthenes must have delivered the second speech first, and the question has excited keen debate, especially since Petrenz’s defence of the edited order. + The terminus adquem is his next visit to Thessalonika (Ac 201-6). Corinth is the only place that we know of, where the three men were together at this period. t The channel of information is not specified, but possibly Paul had been appealed to by the leading men to lend his authority against the spurious ‘spiritual’ developments at Thessalonika (314). The situation demanded explicit written counsels; evidently no visit of Silvanus or Timotheus would have sufficed, even had they been able to leave Corinth, in the situation has taken place, it has been to shift the centre of gravity from fears about the dead to extravagant hopes cherished by the living, and to aggravate the restlessness of some pietistic members. Hence, for one thing, the general similarity of structure and atmosphere in both epistles, and, on the other hand, the sharper emphasis in the second upon Paul’s authority.

* On the hypothesis that both are sub-Pauline, Baur and van der Vies

Both of these features, together with the singular eschatology and the style, have roused suspicion as marks of a sub-Pauline period. § 5. Authorship and aim of 2 Thess.—Is the literary relation between 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. more intelligible if they are taken as written successively by Paul, or if the second is com-posed by a later Paulinist working on the basis of the first? The latter theory draws its strength from the remarkably close and continuous similarities between the two epistles in style and content and arrangement (apart from 21-12, the fresh material of 2 Thess. occurs mainly in 15-12 215 32.13-14.17). These simi-larities can hardly be explained by the mere fact that Paul was once more (in 2 Thess.) writing to the same people; for while any writer’s correspondence shows an almost unconscious reproduction of the same ideas and terms in letters written, even to different people, during a given period when his mind was full of similar conceptions, the literary phenomena in the present case are rather too numerous and detailed to permit of any explana-tion save one which presupposes either (cp. Zahn’s INT. § 16, note 6) that Paul read over a copy (see above, p. 51) of 1 Thess. before writing 2 Thess., or that the author of the latter had the former before him.

The latter theory, which regards the Epistle as a pseudonym-ous writing composed by some Paulinist, on the basis chiefly of 1 Thess. and the Corinthian* Epistles, in order to win Pauline sanction for its eschatological conceptions, has been worked out along two lines t in the main, one (i.) dating it in the latter part of A little salt of common sense would evaporate some of the arguments used by van Manen and Volter, who find even 1 Th 31-8 suspicious because it resembles 2 Co f'1. This implies that similar circumstances must not recur in a man’s lifetime, and that, if he wishes to describe the mission of one friend to a church, he must eschew language, however natural, which he had employed on a previous occasion. I Th I3 and 2 Th I3’4 are, of course, mere imitations of I Co 1313! + An intermediate date, in various forms, was advocated by Kern (who the seventh decade (e.g. Baur and Schmiedel), the other (ii.) going further down towards the end of the first (Wrede, von Soden) or the beginning of the second century (Hilgenfeld, Einl. 642 f.; Hase, Kirchengeschichte™, p. 69; Bahnsen, Pfleiderer, Rauch, Holtzmann, Hollmann, Briickner: Chron. 253-256; N. Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, p. 196 — c. 110 A.D.) during Trajan’s reign. The latter group of theories, in so far as it traces an anti-Gnostic polemic in the epistle (self-deification being a Gnostic trait, cp. Jude 8:10, 2 P 210-12; Justin’s Apol. i. 26, etc.), has been under-mined by modern investigations into the cycle of eschatological traditions upon antichrist, which put it beyond doubt that the language of 23-12 need not, and indeed cannot, be taken in a symbolic sense as the delineation of doctrinal errors. The references to internal apostasy in Mt 2410f. (Pfleiderer) are by no means so realistic or detailed as here, and no hypothesis of this kind has yet succeeded in giving a coherent account of the restraining force. The allusion to the temple (24) is a particular difficulty in the way of all theories which date the writing after A.D. 70; upon the other hand, as Wrede candidly allows, the case for a date c. 70 A.D. (as put, e.g., by Schmiedel) is largely hypothetical, not only on account of the impossible Neronic interpretation which it involves, but because it is extremely difficult to understand how a pseudonymous letter could get into circulation at so early a period, unless it were addressed to the church at large. 2 Thess. is addressed to a specific church, and though this may be held to have been merely a piece of drapery, the hypothesis lacks any basis in reality.

The nearest analogy to the apocalyptic speculations of 28-12 lies in the later Apocalypse of J ohn. Both writings reflect the traditional conceptions of self-deification and blasphemy (2 Th 24=Apoc 132 etc.); both, as was natural, view the sufferings of the saints under the category of a future retribution (2 Th 16= Apoc 610f- etc.); both distinguish the antichrist-figure from Satan, though Paul, unlike the later prophet, says nothing of the doom of Satan, confining himself to the fate of the devil’s agents and victims (2 Th 28f-, cp. Apoc 2O10f-); both anticipate a climax of evil ere the end, though 2 Thess. lacks any reference to the Nero redivivus myth. But this neither involves a contook the restrainer to be Vespasian or Titus, the antichrist to be Nero redivivus, and the author to be a Paulinist of the eighth decade) and Havet (Origines, iv. 373), who regarded Vespasian as 0 karxov (27), and Domitian as the &vo)j.os. temporary origin, nor the dependence of the one writing upon the other. To Paul the empire is the restraining power, which for a while is able to hold in check the antichrist or pseudo-messiah. His view of it is religious. To John the empire itself, with its worship of the emperor, is the antichristian force in politics. The latter outlook lay far beyond the horizon of Paul, and the similarities of conception which underlie this difference run back to the common eschatological tradition which had been flowing since Daniel. Since the outbreak of Antiochus Epiphanes, self-deification and the seduction of men had been notes of the final enemy; any vivid expectation of the end, such as that cherished by ardent Jewish Christians like Paul, instinctively seized on these traits in order to depict the false messiah; it required no historical figure like Nero, or even Caligula, to suggest them (cp. EGT. iv.

* These do not justify any theory of literary dependence on the part of 2 Thess. (R. Scott; cp. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things, 55 f., 96 f.).

14 f., and M. Dibelius, die Geisterwelt im Glatiben des Paulus, 1909, Paul, in 2 Th 23f, is simply operating with a familiar Beliar-saga, which is too realistic to be a second-century description of Gnosticism, and too early to require a date in the seventh decade of the first century.

In both epistles, but especially in the second, we can see the torch of apocalyptic enthusiasm, streaming out with smoke as well as with red flame, which Paul and many Jewish Christians in the early church employed in order to light up their path through the dark providences of the age. Paul is prophesying —none the less vividly and effectively that he does so Ik pepovs. The chief element of novelty which he introduces in 2 Thess. from Jewish tradition (cp. Dn 1136) into the primitive Christian eschatology, is the conception of a supernatural antagonist, a final pseudo-messiah or antichrist, who shall embody all that is profane and blasphemous, and who shall be welcomed, instead of repudiated, by Jews as well as pagans.

When the Pauline authorship is doubted, upon other grounds, the eschatological stratum of 2 Thess. is differently viewed. According, e.g., to Wrede,t the ablest representative of this view, 2 Thess. was written by one who desired to counteract the eschatological views encouraged throughout the church by Paul’s epistles, and who took 1 Thess. for his starting-point, since that t Two of the weak points in Wrede’s clever reconstruction are (a) the unsatisfactory reason given why such a writer should have fixed on I Thess, and if so, why he should have elaborated his arguments into the peculiar shape of 2 Thess.; (b) why he made his eschatological correction in such ambiguous terms. The very obscurity of 2 Th 21-12 tells in favour of, rather than against, the Pauline authorship (cp. Mackintosh in Exp? ii. 427-433). letter contained the most notable outline of this eschatology. The sole foothold for such theories is the acceptance of r Thess. as genuine, in which case 2 Thess. would be an attempt to conserve the substance of the earlier epistle, bringing it up to date with warnings against contemporary fanaticism and pietistic enthusiasm, and restating the Pauline eschatology, for the benefit of a later generation, in terms of a wider historical prospect. For this general view of the document an excellent case may be stated, when the features of style and spirit, the special eschatological motives, the absence of special traits in the situation of the Thessalonians, and even allusions like 22 and 317, are put together. The argument, however, is at best cumulative, and, for all the difficulties of the epistle, it is fair to say that almost every one of the features which seem to portray another physiognomy from that of Paul can be explained, without straining the evidence, upon the hypothesis that he wrote the epistle himself (so most recent editors). It is upon the resemblances to, and the discrepancies with, i Thess. that most recent critics of the Pauline authorship (Weizsacker, Holtz-mann, Hollmann, Wrede) are content to rest their case, arguing that 2 Thess. is connected with i Thess. as Ephesians with Colossians. The following are the main points in debate:— (a) Of the ten ras elipqpLva., one or two, e.g. (i9) lK= punishment (Sap 1811 etc., cp. Judas7), ykavxouat (14, Pss), rivu (19, cp. Pr 2712), &TToaraala (2s), oacua (24, Sap 1420), may be fairly ascribed to the pre-dominant influence of the LXX upon the writer’s mind; others, like Kplcris (l6) and Opoovp.a.1 (22), though absent from the other genuine epistles of Paul, are too common in the primitive Christian vocabulary to admit of much importance being attached to their solitary appearance here. The appear-ance of midveia, which only recurs in the Pauline pastorals (see on this term E. Abbot in JBL., 1881, 16-18, Milligan’s ed. 148 f.), is surprising, and the absence of v, together with the use of alvios as an adj. of three termina-tions, is almost suspicious. Still, as Nageli (Wortschaiz des Apostels Paulus, 1905, 80) concludes, “ im ganzen ergeben die lexikographischen Verhaltnisse dieses Briefes weder fr die Bejahung noch fur die Verneinung der Echtheitsfrage etwas Wesentliches." (b) But if the vocabulary by itself would not be sufficient to excite comment, the style of the letter is remarkable. In addition to a certain formality or official tinge, there is a curious poverty of expression and even a lack of point. In the treatment of a subject like this, it was inevitable that one or two phrases and terms should recur fairly often, e.g. the OX?is-group (14-6), the irlots-group (14- 10-11 211-13 32-3), ^pyii^aeai and allied terms (l11 217 38.10-12), irapayylXXu (34.6 10.12), and elphvn (i3 316). Still, it may be confessed that elsewhere, e.g. in the de-scription of God and Christ (11-2 216 I12), the giving of thanks (I8 213), So THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL and the repetition of TrapaKXpcri^, etc. (216-17 312), there is a stereotyped adherence to certain forms of expression or terms which admittedly is unusual in Paul. In parts the style resembles nothing to be met elsewhere in the letters of Paul. This is particularly the case in passages like 16-11, where, it must be allowed, “ the language is broad and inflated, and also digressive to an extent foreign to Paul’s manner'’ (Weizsacker). But, after some allowance is made for the influence of the subject on the vocabulary and spirit of the author, as well as for the possible co-operation in parts of Silvanus, himself a prophet and in all likelihood the amanuensis of Paul (cp. I P 513), this feature assumes proportions which are not incompatible with the hypothesis that Paul dictated the letter as a whole, t J. Weiss (SK., 1892, 253 f.) attributes both letters to the Silvanus who wrote I P. R. Scott similarly dates them between A.D. 7° and 80, the apocalyptic parts by Silvanus (i.e. 1 Th 4-5, 2 Th 1-2), the rest composed and the whole edited by Timotheus.

So R. H. Charles {Ascension of Isaiah, pp. Ixii f.: ‘in no case could 2 Th 21-12 have been written after A.D. 70. This section, whether of Pauline authorship or not, is in its main features a Christian transformation of a current Judaistic myth ’).

As for the discrepancies t which have been alleged—the larger emphasis on the apostle’s teaching (2:5) and example (37, cp. 1 Th I6) does not imply that some suspicion of his authority must have sprung up at Thessalonika. The severe tone (36-15) is now as necessary for the Thessalonians’ benefit as it was to be soon for the welfare of the Corinthians (I Co 421 53’0); the time had come for plain-speaking and warning addressed to them as it was to come for the Galatians (Gal 417 53-12). The different reasons alleged for working at his trade in order to support himself are by no means psychologically incompatible. The motive of independence given in 1 Th 29f. may quite well have been Paul’s primary thought; but this does not exclude the secondary motive of wishing to set an example, which might be adduced when necessary. Greater difficulty attaches to the apparent change of front towards the second advent, which in 1 Th 52 is sudden while in 2 Th 23f. it is the climax of a development. But this is mainly a difference of emphasis. Such a discrepancy (cp. Clemen, TL7,., 1902, 523 f.) is native to almost all the primitive Christian conceptions of the end; to be instantaneous and also to be heralded by a historical prelude were eschatological traits of the second advent which were constantly left side by side. On this point the variations of the two Thessalonian letters are explicable as proceeding from one man’s mind under the stress of different practical religious needs; + " Dass II Th in keinem Sinn ein grosses Buch ist, wird man zugestehen .., aber Paulus kann auch einmal aus einer gewissen Verlegenheit heraus einen Brief geschrieben haben, welcher den Eindruck macht, den seine Gegner sonst seinem personlichen Auftreten nachsagten (2 Co io10)... Wenn wir i Th nicht besassen, wilrden wir 11 Th nicht beanstanden ” (Julicher, 56).

* “ The difficulties of structure and expression marking 2 Th I6’10 in-dicate the introduction by the original writer of some non-Pauline, and probably liturgical, sentences” (Findlay, p. Ivii; cp. McGiffert, EBi. 5054). The rhythmical swing of 27b-10 suggests a reminiscence or quotation of some early Christian hymn, perhaps one of the ^aXpol which he heard at Corinth (1 Co 1415. 26).

J The alleged inconsistency of I3 with 1 Th 310, as Jowett shows, is not “ so great as the difference in tone of I Co 15-9 and the rest of the epistle.” they do not oblige us to posit any revision or correction of Paul’s ideas by a later writer who felt moved to reconcile the apparent postponement of the advent with the eager primitivehope. Baur, who makes both letters post-Pauline, frankly admits that the same writer could have viewed the mapovota from different points of view, and expressed himself in such different ways as these epistles indicate. If this is so, there is less reason to hesitate about ascribing both to Paul, particularly when the evidence of style and vocabulary is found to present no insuperable difficulty. § 6. Integrity of 2 Thess.—Attempts have been made to solve the problem by finding in the epistle (a) a Pauline nucleus which has been worked over, or (b) a Pauline letter which has either suffered interpolation, or (c) incorporated some earlier fragment perhaps of Jewish origin, (a) Starting from the alleged incom-patibility of 21-2 with the eschatology of i Thess., P. Schmidt postulated a genuine Pauline epistle in 114 21-2 218-318, which was edited and expanded by a Paulinist in A.D. 69. Apart, how-ever, from the absence of any adequate literary criterion for this distinction, the passages assigned to Paul are not free from the very feature which Schmidt considers fatal to the others, viz. similarity to 1 Thess. Besides, little is really gained by postulat-ing such a restricted activity on the part of the editor. For his purpose it would have been as simple and more effective to compose an entire epistle, and the section 21-12 is so cardinal a feature of the canonical writing that the latter may be said to stand or fall with it. As a matter of fact, Hausrath’s conjecture that the whole epistle is a later scaffolding built round the original Pauline passage in 21-12, is even preferable to any theory like that of Schmidt, (b) The strongly retributive cast, and the emphatic OT colouring, of 16-10 might suggest the possibility of this passage having been interpolated (McGiffert, EBi. 5044), the els 0 of v.5 connecting with v.11. This is, at any rate, more plausible than the older idea that 21-12 represented a Montanist interpolation (J. E. C. Schmidt, Bibliothek fur Kritik u. Exegese des NT, 1801, 385 f.), or 21-9 a Jewish Christian piece of apocalyptic (Michelsen, TT, 1876, 213 f.). (c) Finally, in 22-12 Spitta (of. cit. pp. 139 f.) detects a Caligula-apocalypse,* though it is not quite clear how far Timotheus, the supposed author of the epistle, has simply reproduced its leading features or transcribed part of it. More elaborately but less convincingly The figure of Caligula, with his impious self-deification, is seen by other critics behind this passage; cp. e.g. Grotius, Renan, ii. 193 f., iii. 254 f., and Hausrath. a pre-Christian Jewish apocalypse is found by Pierson and Naber (op. cit. pp. 2i f.) in i5'10 21-12 31-6.14-15, which was worked over by the unknown second-century Paul whom the Holland critics find so prolific and indispensable. The literary criteria, however, are as unreliable here as in the cognate attempts to apportion various sections of John’s apocalypse to Jewish and to Christian belief; such theories ignore the large amount of common ground between primitive Christians and their Jewish compatriots, espe-cially in the sphere of eschatology. In 21-12 the Jewish basis is no more plain than the Christian superstructure.

The enigmatic ppre SC iTrtaroXris cis Si huv, which has frequently been used to prove the sub-Pauline date, may refer to something Paul had written (either in I Thess. or in a lost letter), or it may denote some misrepresentation of his ideas in a pseudonymous letter, purporting to emanate from himself or one of his companions. In any case, the expression does not conclusively point to a post-Pauline origin; neither does 317, which, while conceivably t due to the premeditated endeavour of a Paulinist to win authority for his work by an appeal to Paul’s signature, may just as reasonably indicate a natural precaution of the apostle in view of suspected pseudonymous epistles. + Furthermore, in view of passages like I Co II23 155, it is needless to read a second-century emphasis on oral apostolic tradition (Hilgenfeld) into the language of 215 3®. § 7. Earliest traces of 2 Thess.—The acquaintance of Polykarp with the epistle (i4 in Pol. xi. 3, and 315 in xi. 4=et non sicut inimicos tales existimetis), and the echoes of the eschatological section in Justin Martyr, dial. xxxii., ex., cxvi., together with its inclusion in Marcion’s Canon, prove the exist-ence of the writing early in the second century, and therefore tell against any theory of its composition between A.D. 100 and 120. Later, like the first epistle, it occurs in the Muratorian Canon; it is explicitly quoted by Ter-tullian (Scorp. xiii., reszirr. carnis, xxiv.), Irenaeus (adv. har. iii. 7. 2, v. 25. 1), and Clem. Alex. (Strom. v. 3), whilst Origen appears to have com-mented on it as well as on I Thess. (cp. DB. v. 4968). The echoes in Barnabas (2® = xviii. 2, 28 = iv. 9, 28- 12 = xv. 5, Srav X@dv 6 vISs avrov Karapyiiirei tSv KaipSv roS avipiov Kal Kpivei rotis aire 13eis) seem to indicate rather more than a common basis of popular tradition (so Rauch in ZWT., 1895, 458 f.), and, like the Apocalypse of John, 2 Thess. appears to have been circulated in Gaul (cp. the epistle of Lyons and Vienne, Eus. H. E. v. 1). t Hitzig (Monatsschrift d. wissenschaftl. Vereins in Zurich, 1856, 57-68) considered that 317b in this epistle, and 510- 27 in the first, were all the un-authentic elements to be found. Wrede saw behind it, as behind Polykarp, a corpus Paulinum. + Some (e.g. Weisse, Beitrage zur Kritik d. Paul. Briefe, p. 9; Spitta, and J. Weiss) hold it is a marginal note.

* According to Pfleiderer, it indicates a desire on the part of the writer to discredit I Thess. in favour of his own composition.

(B) Galatians

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—(for the numerous patristic and mediaeval commentaries, see Lightfoot’s ed. pp. 227!.). Luther’s epoch-making In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas commentarius (Latin, 1519, etc.; German, 1525 f.; English, 1575 f.); J. Bugenhagen, Adnott. in Galatas, etc. (1527); Cajetan, Literalis expositio (Rome, 1529); J. Gagnus, Brevissima Scholia (Paris, 1543) 5 W. Musculus, Comm, in epistolas P. ad Galat. et Ephes. (1561); John Prine (Oxford, 1567); Pierre Barahona’s Expositio (Salamanca, 1590); Salmeron (Cologne, 1602); R. Rollock, Analysis Logica (London, 1602); B. Battus, Commentarii (Greifswald, 1613); D. Pareus (Heidelberg, 1621); Crellius (1628); Ferguson (1659); Cocceius (1665); S. Schmid (1690); T. Akersloof, De sendbrief van Paullus an de Galaten (Leiden, 1695, Germ. tr. 1699); Struensee (Flensburg, 1764); S. J. Baumgarten, Auslegung der Briefe P. an die Galat. Eph. Phil. Coloss. Phlm. und Thessal. (Halle, 1767); Chandler (1777); Mayer (Vienna, 1788); Carpzov (1794); S. F. N. Morus, Acroases in epistolas P. ad Galat. et Ephesios (1795); Hensler (1805); Borger’s Interpretatio (Leyden, 1807); von Flatt, Vorlesungen iiber d. Brief an die Galat. (1828); H. E. G. Paulus, Des Apostel Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater u. Rbmerchristen, etc. (1831); Matthies (Greifswald, 1833); Riickert (Leipzig, 1833); L. Usteri (Zurich, 1833); H. A. Schott (1834)*; Sardinoux ^Commentaire, Valence, 1837); Olshausen (1840); F. Windischmann (Mayence, 1843); de Wette3 (1845); Hilgenfeld {der G.-brief iibersetzt, in seinem gesch. Beziehungen untersucht u. erklart, Leipzig, 1852); John Brown (Edin. 1853); S. H. Turner (New York, 1856); G. J. Jatho (1856); H. J. T. Bagge (London, 1857); K.

Wieseler (Gottingen, 1859)*; G. B. Winer4 (1859); C. Holsten, Inhalt u. Gedankengang d. Briefes an die G. (1859); Messmer’s Erklarung (Brixen, 1862); Meyer4 (1862); Bisping2 (1863); G. J. Gwynne (Dublin, 1863); Vomel (1865); G. W. Matthias (1865); F. X. Reithmayr (1865); Sir Stafford Carey (London, 1867); Ellicott4 (1867)*; Eadie (1869); Drach (Paris, 1871); F. Brandes (1871); Hofmann2 (1872); Reuss (1878); G.

W. Flgge (1878); Sanday (in Ellicott’s Comm. 1879); Schaff (1881); Philippi (1884); Huxtable {Pulpit Comm. 1885); Beet5 (1885); D. Palmieri (1886); G. G. Findlay {Exp. Bible, 1888); A. Schafer (1890); Schlatter (1890); E. H. Perowne (Camb. Bible, 1890); Lipsius2 {HC. 1892); Comely (1892); Seidenpfenning (Munich, 1892); Lightfoot11 (1892)*; J. Drummond, The Ep. of St. Paul to the - Gal., explained and illustrated (London, 1893); Kahler2 (1893); Jowett3 (1894); Zockler2 (1894); J. Dalmer (1897, Gutersloh); Sieffert (Meyer,9 1899)*; J. Drummond {Intern. Hdbk. NT, 1899); Gutjahr (1900); Ceulemans, Pauli ad Rom., 1 et 2 Co., ad Galatas (1901); O. Schmoller (in Lange’s Bibel-Werk, 1901); F. Rendall {EGT 1903); Adeney {CB. n. d.); Bousset2 {SNT. 1907); Niglutsch2 {Brevis Commentarius, 1907); Zahn2 {ZK. 1907)*; R. Wulff (1908); B. W. Bacon (New York, 1909); Lietzmann {HBNT, 1910); A. L. Williams {CGT. 1910). {b) Studies—(i.) historicalG. Hermann’s De P. epist. ad Gal. tribzis primis capitibus dissertatio (1834); Baur’s Paulus (Eng. tr. i. 109f., 260f.)*; Hilgenfeld, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte des Gal.' {ZWT., i860, 206 f., 1866, pp.

301 f., 1884, pp. 303 f.); Volkmar, Paulus von Damaskus bis zum Galater-brief (1887); Holtzmann, BL. ii. 316-318; Sabatier (ESB. v. 359-364); Kappeler (Prot. Kirchenzeitung, 1892, pp. 714!., 746 f., 763E); Schmiedel {EBi. 1617-1626); Jacquier (in Vigouroux, DB. iii. 61-77). (ii.) on the text: Klostermann’s Problems ini Aposteltext (1883); Baljon, de tekst der brieven van Paulus aan de Romeinen, de Corinthiers, en de Galatiers (1884), and Exegetisch-kritische verhandeling over den brief v. P. a. d. Gal. (1889); Cramer, de brief van Paulus aan de Galatiers in zijn oorspronkelijken vorm hersteld en verklaard, 1890; and Volter (die Composition der paulin. Haupt-brief e 1. Der Romer- und Galaterbrief, 1890); Sulze {Protest.-Kirchenzeitung, 1888, 981 f.), with Zimmer, Zur Textkritik d. Galaterbriefes {ZWT., 18S1, pp. 481 f., 1882, pp. 129f.). (iii.) on Gal 2 and Ac 15, C. Bertheau, Einige Bemerkungen uber die Stelle Gal. 2 und ihr Verhdltniss zur Apgeschichte, (Hamburg, 1854, a reply to Baur); Zimmer’s Galat. und Apostelgeschichte (1887); M. Thomas, Melanges Khistoire et de litterature religieuse (Paris, 1899), pp. 1-195; R. Mariano, Urc. (1902) i. pp. Ulf.; Volter, Paulus und Seine Briefe, 1905, pp. 253-273; Bacon, Story of St. Paul, pp. 116E, and in AJT. (1907) 454 f.; J. Kreyenbiihl {ZNW., 1907, 89 b). (iv.) general: Chemnitz, Collegium iheologicum super Ep. P. ad Gal. (Jena, 1656); Semler, Paraphrasis (inf); F. J. A. Schiitze, Scholia in Epist. ad Galatas (1784); Mynster, Einl. in d. Brief an die Gal. (1825); W. S. Wood, Studies in St. Paul’s Ep. to the G. (1887); Belser, die Selbstver-theidigung des hl. Paulus ini Galat. 111-221 (1896); A. B. Bruce, St. Paul s Conception of Christianity* (1894), 37 f.; W. M. Ramsay, Historical Commentary (1899); M. Dods in DB. ii. 93-98; Haupt’s introductory studies in Deutsche Evang. Blatter (1904), 1-16, 89-108, 161-183, 238-259; R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles'1’ (pp. 6of.); von Dobschiitz {Urc. 99 f.); R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles (1909), 103-116; Moffatt, EBD xi. 394-396. § 1. Occasion.—Although the Galatian epistle was written after Paul had visited Thessalonika, the Galatian churches were founded during a mission which he had undertaken some time before he crossed from Asia to Europe. From the more or less direct re-miniscences of which the letter happens to be full, it is possible to reconstruct a preliminary outline of his relation to these churches, without calling in evidence from Acts which is disputable and which falls to be considered separately in the first instance.

Paul had visited the Galatian churches twice.* On the former of these visits (413 TO mprepov), though broken down by illness (? 2 Co 127-9), he had been enthusiastically and hospitably welcomed (413-15); many had been won over from polytheism and idolatry (48-9) to the knowledge of God, i.e. (as at Thessalonika) to faith in Christ the crucified (31), whose death t meant their * This must be maintained resolutely against all attempts, especially in the interests of a theory, to make rb mprepov = mhat or iampridem. t The emphasis in Galatians upon the death of Jesus was due to the deliverance from slavish ignorance and the present evil world (i4 313). The immediate result of the mission was an outburst of religious fervour (315 44f). The local Christians, who were predominantly Gentile by birth, made a promising start (57). On his second visit (413 i 7 521), Paul found in many of them a disheartening slackness, due to discord and incipient legalism. His plain speaking gave offence (416) in some quarters, though it was not wholly ineffective. Otherwise, the second visit (r9 53) is left in the shadow.* So far as it was accompanied by warn-ings, these were rather general than elicited by the presence of any definite and imminent peril to the churches.

Not long after this visit, some Judaising opponents f of the apostle, headed by one prominent, and evidently powerful individual (510), made their appearance among the Galatians, with disturbing and unsettling effects (31). Their ‘ gospel ‘ was not freedom from, but fidelity to, the Law (16-10), which Paul’s ‘gospel’ was alleged to contradict and invalidate. Arguing from the OT, they represented Paul’s gospel as an imperfect message which required to be supplemented by legal exactitude,! including ritual observances (410) and even circum-cision.§ As a corollary of this, Paul’s apostolic position was exigencies of the local controversy; the Judaising propaganda had naturally forced this point into prominence. Yet it must have been so from the opening of the mission; Paul had begun there as at Corinth by ‘ depicting ’ the cruci-fied (31). The sole explicit allusion to the resurrection of Jesus is due to the fact that Paul desires to indicate his commission as the direct and divine gift of the reigning Christ (11 15), not of an earthly Jesus known in the flesh. * It is not quite clear whether the traces of the Judaistic agitation were found by Paul on this visit (so especially Hemsen, Schott, Reuss, Credner, Sieffert, Lipsius, Holsten, Weiss, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, and Zckler), or whether they sprang up only after he had left (so, e.g., Bleek, Philippi, Renan, Hofmann, Zahn). The tone of surprise which marks the opening of the epistle tells on the whole in favour of the latter theory. f The contemptuous anonymity of Tives (i7) resembles that of Col 24. They were emissaries of the Jerusalem-church, like the high churchmen of Ac 151, Gal 212, reactionaries of James’ party. + Apparently, however, they withheld from the deluded Galatians the inference that the entire law had to be obeyed (53). § This rite, they alleged (511), Paul had himself employed (in the case of Timotheus?). As some of the Galatians (613) had been carried away by the propaganda, which appealed at once to higher and to lower motives, promising a complete possession thereby of the privileges of God’s Israel (616) and also exemption from persecution at the hands of Jews (51 612), My brands or wounds, says Paul, are those of Jesus, not of legal circumcision (617). depreciated. His authority, the Galatians were told, was derived from the apostles at Jerusalem, and consequently his teaching must be checked and tested by the orthodox standard which these emissaries claimed to embody. In short, the admission of pagans to the true church and promises (36-9. 16) of God required the observance of the Mosaic law, which formed the sole valid charter of divine privilege and messianic in-heritance. This, and the consequent disparagement of the apostle as an unauthorised agent, formed probably an easy relapse for people who, like other Christians, may have felt the depth and inwardness of Paul’s spiritual gospel too much for their average powers, particularly when the dominating influence of his personality was removed.

The mischief done by this propaganda alarmed Paul.

Matters evidently had not yet gone too far to be remedied; only a few had been circumcised. Consequently as he was unable (or unwilling) for some reason to revisit them, he wrote this trenchant letter in order to shame them out of their levity and retrograde superstitions, by reiterating and expanding the spiritual principles of his gospel as divinely authoritative t and morally adequate. How the information of the Galatian lapse reached him, it is not possible to say. J There is no trace of any letter sent by the Galatians (Hofmann, Ramsay). But the gravity of the situation renders it unlikely that he delayed for any length of time in writing to counteract his opponents, and to judge from allusions like those in i6 (raxos and p.e.Ta.rl6t.cr6t.—the lapse still in process), the interval between the reception of the news and the composition of the letter must have been comparatively brief. § 2. Outline.—The epistle is one of the books militant in ancient literature. After a brief introduction (11-5), Paul, instead + 0^ yd (i12), any more than the original apostles. Paul, too, believed by revelation, not by relation. + Lightfoot’s suggestion that a messenger brought news of the disaffection and also of the lack of heartiness in responding to the financial appeal (i Co 161 = Gal 67f-), is as plausible as any. It need not imply, however, that Galatians was not composed till after i (and 2) Corinthians (see below). of opening with his usual word of commendation, dashes into a personal and historical vindication of his independence as a Christian apostle; this, developed negatively and positively, forms the first of three great sections in the epistle (16-221).

* Implied in their catchword, those of repute (ol SoKovyres, 26). Other echoes of their terminology can be overheard in such phrases as we are Abraham's seed (316), and Jerusalem which is our mother (cp. 426), as well as in their charges against Paul of seeking to please men (i10), and preaching circumcision (511). For the phrase sinners of Gentiles (215), cp. Jub 2323-24.

These opening pages, especially, justify the comparison of Galatians to a torrent (“one continuous rush, a veritable torrent—of genuine and inimitable Paulinism, like a mountain stream in full flow, such as may often have been seen by his Galatians,” J. Macgregor. “ Unfinished phrases, daring omissions, parentheses which leave us out of sight and out of breath, rabbinical subtleties, audacious paradoxes, vehement apostrophes pour on like surging billows,” Sabatier); cp. P. Farel, ‘Exegese du Gal 11-10’ {RTQR., 1910, 332-338).

The address (i2 rolls iKK\r)<rius rhs TaXarlas) is singularly curt, and Paul associates no one by name with himself. The unique ol ov euol mvres aSeXpol (i2), to which Ph 421 is only a partial parallel, implies no more than a group of Christians who sympathised with his gospel. There is nothing in the words to suggest either that he was on a journey, away from any settled church, or, on the other hand, that he backs up his admonition by the authority of a church like Antioch.

In 215-21 he passes from a hasty* account of his interview with Peter into a sort of monologue f upon the incompatibility of the Mosaic law with the Christian gospel, which starts a fresh rush of expostulation and appeal (3-512) upon the alternatives of Law and Spirit. Faith dominates this section, faith in its historical career and as the vantage-ground of Christianity. The genuine sons of Abraham are not legalistic Jewish Christians, but those who simply possess faith; the much-vaunted Law is a mere provisional episode culminating in Christianity (37-28) as the religion of filial confidence and freedom (329-411).1 A passionate appeal to the Galatians follows (412f.); then, harping still on Abraham, the apostle * “He is far too quick a thinker to be a master of mere narrative; the question of Christian freedom was too hot in his heart to leave him free for reminiscence, and the matter is not very clear” (Glover, Conflict of Religions in Early Roman Empire, 1909, p. 168). This applies to the Antioch story as well as to the preceding narrative. f 215-17 is an indirect summary of what he actually said; in 218-21 the passion wakened by the memory of the situation carries him straight forward into the situation of his readers. Years had passed since the crisis, but he lived it over again as he recollected how he had fought for people like the G., who were exposed to a similar danger of religious compromise (cp. Gercke, GG/4., 1894, 576 f.). On the thought of the whole passage, see T. H. Green’s Works, iii. 186 f. t On 31547 cp. Max Conrat in ZNW. (1904) 204-227 (‘Das Erbrecht im Galaterbrief’). essays, with fresh rabbinic dialectic (on 420-31 see Linder’s essay inZWT., 1900, 223-226), to establish spiritual Christianity over legalism as the religion that is both free and final, applying this to the moral situation of the Galatians (51-12). The mention of freedom * leads him to define the moral responsibilities of the faith (513-610), in order to prevent misconceptions and to re-inforce the claims of the gospel upon the individual and social life of the Galatians. The epilogue (611-21) reiterates, in a series of abrupt, emphatic sentences, the main points of the epistle.

Another scheme of the epistle (so, e.g., Holsten, Sabatier, Sieffert, and Lipsius) is to find in 16-221 31-411 412-610 three successive arguments upon (a) the divine origin of Paul’s gospel, (b) the complete right of Gentile Christians to the messianic inheritance, and (c) the vital connection between the Christian Spirit and the moral life.

611-18 is an emphatic postscript or summary, written by Paul himself. For similar instances of ancient letters containing autographic conclusions, after the main body of the letter had been dictated,! see Cic. ad Attic. viii.

1. 1, and Aug. Epist. 146, with the remark of Julius Africanus [Rhet. Latin, min., ed. Halmel, 44827): “obseruabant veteres, carissimis sua manu scribere vel plurimum subscribere." This leaves it an open question whether ypaya (cp. Abbott, Diat. 2691) does not refer to the entire epistle (so, e.g., Mill, Ewald, Hofmann, Eadie, Zockler, Clemen, and Zahn, quoting from a letter of Ambrose [i. 3] to the Emperor Gratian: ‘‘scripsisti tua totam epistolam manu, ut ipsi apices fidem tuam pietatemque loquerentur ’); probably, how-ever, it is the epistolary aorist (cp. Philem 19),1 and 611-18 is to be classified with 2 Th 317, 1 Co 1621-24, and Col 418. In any case, pyuara means not ‘epistle’ but the characters of the handwriting. On placards (cp. 31 mpoeypdn) and public inscriptions (cp. Sieffert, p. 349; Ramsay, 466), large letters were employed at the end or at the beginning in order to catch the eye (Lucian, Dermot, 11, Gymn. 22). Plutarch (cp. Field’s Otium Norvicense, iii. 191) narrates that Cato wrote histories for his son i kal fJ-eyaXots ypap.p.aisiv. § 3. The text.—Galatians, for all its unpremeditated vigour, is composed § not only with some care for language, but even with * In spite of coincidences like i16 = Mt 1615-17, 414. = Mt 1040, 510.15= Mk 1280 (Lk 2047), 514=Mk 123, 613 = Mt 234 (Lk n46), and the apparent similarity of 54 11.22 to Lk 136-9 (cp. 610=Lk 138), it is hazardous to admit more than the bare possibility that Paul had in mind some sayings of Jesus against legalism (Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, 70 f.). t " Exact analogies to this may be found in many Egyptian papyri, where the body of a document is written by a friend or clerk, and the principal appends his ratification in a large hand at the close” (Kenyon, Hdbk to Textual Criticism of NT, 1901, p. 26). See above, p. 51.

I For Zypoja in this sense, cp. Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25; Thue. i. 129. 3; Ezra 414 (LXX), and Lucian, Dial. Meretr. 10. § Cp. the minute analysis of the whole epistle in Blass’s die Rhythmen der a rhythmical flow which recalls in several places the methods of contemporary rhetorical prose. In this respect it agrees with i Thessalonians (Blass, op. cit. pp. 61 f., 196-204), 1 Corinthians {op. cit. pp. 53 f., 76 f.), Ro 319f. 1128-83 etc. {op. cit. pp. 68 f.), and Philippians {op. cit. 66 f., 73 all of which are more or less marked by rhythmical features; whereas in 2 Corinthians, for example, the indications of rhetorical structure are much less prominent. How far Paul was conscious of such traits of composition and style, it is impossible to say. Their presence is due doubtless to his early training in the schools; probably they had become a second nature to him (see above, p. 57). But they are sufficient to prove that he wrote with some care and rhetorical finish,} even in epistles which appear, on a superficial examination, to have been written under an overmastering freshet of emotion.

The extant text, however, is not free from serious difficulties. Its frequent roughnesses have suggested the hypothesis that marginal glosses and inter-polations have become incorporated here and there in the original; but in most cases J the evidence is far from cogent, as, e.g., for the conjecture reaaapbiv for Serareospov (21, e.g. Grotius, Semler, Keil, Bottger, Reiche, Michelsen, Baljon: pp. 168-9),§ the omission of 210 (Michelsen, Weisse, van Manen, Baljon: pp. 172-174) or of 319-20 (Weiss, Cramer: 319b-20, Baljon: pp. 175-178),|| and the hypothesis of a marginal gloss in 61 (Laurent). On the other hand, if 4250 (rd yap Ziva Spos tarlv iv rij ’ Apapa) is correctly read, it probably represents the explanatory and prosaic marginal note of a later editor (Mill, Holsten, Schott, Cramer, Prins, Baljon, p. 185), as many scholars have seen, since the days of Bentley (opuscula philologica, 1781, 533E). The transposition of 28-5 to a place after 21 (so J. Weiss, SIC., 1893, pp. 504 f.) clears up the movement of the whole passage, but it must not be defended on the ground that the incident of 23-6 could not have taken place in asianischen u. rdmischen Kunstprosa (1905), pp. 43-53, 204-216, where the text is perversely handled in the interests of the theory. t D. H. Muller’s strophic theory of prophetic prose has been applied by Wehofer to the epistolography of the early Christian fathers (SBA IK cxliii., 1901), but unsuccessfully upon the whole.

* In 31 (ipot p^v oiK 6KVT)P&V, ipiv 3’ aacpaXts) the comic trimeter may well be, like that in 1 Co 1533, a reminiscence of Menander.

4 See the essay by Prins (TB., 1887, 7of.). Jowett’s apt remark that “in a writer at once so subtle and so abrupt as St. Paul, obscurity is not a strong ground of objection,” is often forgotten in criticism of this kind. § The considerable support once given to this supposed change of 8‘ into 48’ (from Capellus to Bertholdt, Guericke, Schott, and Wurm, in last century) was due to chronological prepossessions. || Michaelis (Einl. p. 745) and Licke (SIC., 1828, pp. lOif.) are among those who take 320 as a marginal gloss.

Jerusalem, though TrapelaaKroc would fit Syrian Antioch in some respects better than the capital. The reading and rendering of 25 (ols ov8b irpbs ibpav ei^afiev Tf brorayn) was debated as early as the second century (cp. Zahn s excursus in his edition, pp. 287-296, and K. Lake in Exp}, March 1906, 236-245); the omission not only of ols (so Marcion, Syrpesh, and some Gk. MSS) but also of ouSe (Gk. MSS, D, old Latin, archetype of G, etc.) has early and strong support (so, e.g., Semler, Michaelis, Klostermann: op. cit. 55-58, Volter, J. Weiss: SK., 1893, 504b, and Lake). The dubiety about a negative is not unexampled in ancient literature; a similar problem arises over the insertion of non by most modern editors in Cicero’s criticism of Lucretius (Q. Fr. ii. 9. 4, cp. also ad Att. xiv. 1-2). In Gal. the matter is complicated by the exegesis of 2s. Was Titus circumcised, and was this brought up against Paul (cp. 511, so Spitta), who defends himself by replying that he was not compelled to be circumcised? Is 25, therefore, the confession of a momentary lapse of judgment, which the later church sought to smooth over by the insertion of the negative? The internal probabilities seem to point the other way, but the problem can scarcely be said to be settled satisfactorily one way or another, owing to our ignorance of the facts at issue. § 4. The destination.—The problems of Galatians belong to historical and theological rather than to literary criticism. It is impossible, however, to discuss its destination or date without some reference to the questions raised by the Lucan narrative in Acts (especially of Ac 11-16), which describes, from a different point of view, most of the incidents presupposed or mentioned in the epistle.

The geographical situation of the Galatian Christians has led to a debate as warm and intricate as that waged over the problem of Hannibal’s route across the Alps. Two rival hypotheses hold the field. The matter in dispute is the meaning of TaXara in i2 (cp. 1 Co 161). Is it (a) the large Roman province of that name, including the southern townships of Derbe, Lystra, Ikonium, and Pisidian Antioch, besides part of Phrygia; or (b) the smaller region of Galatia proper, in the ethnographical sense of the term, lying north-east in Asia Minor?

The latter view belongs to the North Galatian or traditional theory, which is advocated by editors of Acts like H. J. Holtzmann, Wendt, Blass, Hilgenfeld, and Knopf; by editors of Galatians like Windischmann, Holsten, Wieseler, Reithmayr, Holsten, Lightfoot (cp. Colossians, 24!.), Howson {Speaker''s Comm. 1881), Rtickert, Jowett, J. Dalmer, Lipsius, Sieffert, Zockler (also SK., 1895, PP- 51-102) *, G. G. Findlay, Lietzmann, Bousset, and Williams; and by general critics like Godet, Trenkle {Einl. 21), Salmon, S. Davidson, Schafer {Einl. 88 f.), Julicher, Haupt {SK., 1906, 144-146), Hoennicke {Chronologic des Paulus, 32 f.), von Dobschtitz, Vischer {Die Paulusbriefe, 1904, 30 k), Mommsen (ZNW., 1901, 86), Schiirer {/PT., 1892, 460!.), Gheorghiu, G. H. Gilbert {Student's Life of St. Paul, 1902, pp. 260272), Chase viii. 401!., ix. 331!.) and Barth {Einl. § 7). -Two thoroughgoing presentations of this theory are now accessible in Schmiedel’s article (EBi. 1596-1616), and A. Steinmann’s essays on Die Abfassungszeit des Galaterbriefes (1906) and Der Leserkreis der Galaterbriefes (1908), which discuss with minute scholarship every relevant point, exegetical or historical. Schmiedel's attitude towards Acts is much less conservative than Steinmann’s, and the latter’s sweep of argument is wider (embracing Weber especially, in addition to Ramsay); but the two statements supplement each other admirably, and together they constitute by far the most adequate plea for the North Galatian hypothesis.

The South Galatian hypothesis was first popularised by Perrot (De Galatia provincia Romana, 1867, pp. 43 f.), and then restated, with a wealth of geographical learning, by Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay in a masterly series of articles and volumes (e.g. Historical Geography of Asia Minor, 1890; ExpP ii. 1-22, ix. 43f., 137 f., 288 f., etc.; SB. iv. 15-57; CRE. 8f., 74 b, 97 f. 5 DB. ii- 81 f.; The Cities of St. Paul, 1907; as well as in his commentary). The theory is accepted, though with many modifications and for varying reasons, by editors of Acts like Bartlet (cp. also his AA. 7 if., 84f.), Jacobsen, Rackham, and Forbes; by editors of Galatians like Steck, Zahn, Adeney, Gutjahr, Bacon (cp. also ExpP vii. 123 f., x. 351 f.), and Rendall (cp. also ExpP ix. 254-264); and by general critics like Niemeyer {de tempore quo epistola ad Gal. conscripta sit accuratius definiendo, Gottingen, 1827), Renan (iii. 311 f.), Hausrath (iii. 146-199), Weizsacker (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1876, 606 £, and AA. i. 252 b), Pfleiderer (Ure. i. 191-210), E. H. Gifford {ExpP x. 1-20), McGiffert {AA. 178£, 221 f.), O. Holtzmann {ZKG., 1894, 336-346; ZNW., 1905, 102-104), von Soden {1NT. 56b), Woodhouse {EBi. 1592 f.), J. Weiss (PRE. x., 1901, pp. 554-560, ‘ Kleinasien ’), D. Walker (ET. xiii. 511-514), Belser, Clemen, and Askwith (Date and Destination of Ep. to Galatians, 1899); it is worked out most compactly and thoroughly in exegesis by Zahn (see also his Introduction, § 11), and from a special standpoint by Prof. Valentin Weber in a long series of ingenious articles (cp. especially Katholik, 1898, pp. 193 f., 301 f., 412b, 1899, pp. 45f., 1900, pp. 339b, 481 f.) and first visit to Jerusalem (Gal 118-20 = Ac 926-28) followed by missionary activity from Tarsus (Ac 930) and Antioch (Ac 1125-20, Gal I21'24); his second visit (Ac 1130 1225= Gal 21-10), with the double object of conveying the money (only hinted at in Gal 210) and securing the rights of his gospel (in private conference, Gal 236.); then the first tour (Ac 1421-7= Gal 423), with a double visit to S.

* Especially Der heilige Paulus vom Apostelubereinkommen bis mm Apostelkonzil (1901), and Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil (1900); the third section of the latter is reprinted in Der Galaterbrief aus sich selbst geschichtlich erkldrt (1902). His main con-tentions are supported by Belser (TQ., 1901, 285 £), Rohr {Allgem. Lit. Blatt., 1901, 226b), and Gutjahr (in his ed. of Thess, and Gal., 1904), and rejected not only by Julicher (TLZ., 1901, 469-472) and Holtzmann (GGA., 1902, if.) but by Steinmann. Weber is right in demurring to the undue sharpening of the differences between Acts and Galatians, but he goes to the other extreme in minimising them. His general scheme is as follows:—Paul’s

According to Weber, the visit of Gal 21-10 is not that of Ac 15 but that of Ac II30, after which, but before the Council of Jerusalem, Paul composed Galatians (Antioch, A.D. 49; cp. Ac 1428). This implies that the opposition of Peter and the Judaisers could not have taken place after the Council, and that the church of Jerusalem did not interfere with Paul’s method of ignoring the law in his Syrian and Cilician churches, though his practice was well known to them. But such a hypothesis is quite improbable. Gal I23 simply states that they knew the bare fact of his activity in preaching, not that they tacitly approved of his methods till their hand was forced by the Judaistic party in the church. Furthermore, the theory is open to the same objections as similar forms of the S. Galatian hypothesis, that it arbitrarily makes the burning question of circumcision for Gentile Christians emerge in an acute shape some time before the period of Ac 15—a view for which there is no evidence in Acts (cp. Steinmann’s Abfasstingzeit, 170 f. ), and against which the probabilities of the general situation tell heavily. Finally, it involves the incredible idea that Paul circumcised Timotheus (Ac 163) after he had written Gal 52.

Weber’s reconstruction is rejected by Zahn, who also differs in his view of Ac 166 and on some other details from Ramsay; the latter scholar’s inter-pretation of the Lucan passages, of the date, and of several passages in the epistle, is challenged by many of the South Galatian theorists themselves, so that, beyond the general contention that Galatians was written to the church of Derbe, Lystra, Ikonium, etc., there is seldom much unity in their ranks.

An intermediate hypothesis, advocated by Mynster, Comely {Einl. iii.

415 f.), Jacquier {1NT. i. 17I f.), and (temporarily) Zahn, which has been described as Pan-Galatian, views the churches of Galatia addressed by Paul as at least including some to the N. of Southern Galatia. This modification attempts to do justice to the plain sense of Ac 166, but it fails to bring out the evident homogeneity of the churches addressed in Galatians, and involves more difficulties than it solves (cp. Gilbert, op. cit. 266 f., and Steinmann’s A bfassungzeit, 166 f.).

Twice in Acts, Luke alludes to a mission which appears to coincide with the Galatian enterprise presupposed in this epistle. The first of these passages is Ac 166f.

Al uev ouv eKKXi]<r[ai. etrrepeovvro Th marct Kat esreptatrevov TO pbuG Kaff rip-^pav. But they (i.e. Paul, Silas, and Timotheus) traversed (8in@ov 8e, in contrast to the South Galatian mission just concluded:* not recapitulating 1-4, but marking a fresh departure) Thv ^pvytav Kat VaXartK^v xpav, since they had been forbidden f by the holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia (explaining Galatia, after which the Antioch-outburst (Gal 21lf.) so affected the Galatian converts that the epistle had to be written. * The purpose of 1536 {let us visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of God) had been accomplished (161. 4=5= 1421); Cp.

N. J. D. White in Hermathena, 1903, 128 f. t The S. Galatian hypothesis, as advocated by Ramsay, implies that KwXvOivres is a ptc. of subsequent action; the natural and grammatical sense, why, instead of turning they pushed north). And when they came opposite Mysia (Kara, up as far as: striking it well to the north of Phrygia, in the neighbourhood of Dorylum or Cotyum) they tried to enter Bithynia (north of Phrygia), but the Spirit of Jesus would not permit them. So, ignoring Mysia (as part of the prohibited Asia), they went down to Troas (i.e. due west). Then Luke comes upon the scene himself, and Paul plunges into the European mission.

Every phrase of this summary paragraph has had pages of discussion poured over it. To the present writer it seems that the disputed words Thv pvylav Kai TaXaTknv yfpav can only mean, in the light of passages like 1921 (8ie@dv Thv MaxeSovav xal ‘Axalav) and 275 («ara Thv KAixfaiz kal laudvav), Phrygia and the region of Galatia, ^pvylav, here at any rate (as in 210 1823), is not an adjective, and Kal does not mean or. The phrase therefore is not an equivalent for Phrygia-Galatica, or for the borderland between Eastern Phrygia and Western Galatia: it denotes not one district but two. As Luke uses Paraphilia (1313), Pisidia (1314), and Lykaonia (146) in their geographical sense, it is fair to infer that he does so in 166 unless there is good reason to the contrary.

The South Galatian theorists ask why he did not write TaXarav outright. Probably because it would have been misleading; the great province of h Talara or h TaXarkh etrapxE included the Lykaonian and Phrygian townships already mentioned. In order to emphasise the new departure, Luke uses the region of Galatia, i.e. the district inhabited by the Galatians proper, lying beyond Phrygia. The terminology therefore really supports the North Galatian interpretation. It is a periphrasis, like xpa Ths ‘Iovalas (Ac io39 2620, cp. EBi. 1602). Per contra, if Luke had viewed Derbe, Lystra, and the rest of Paul’s earlier mission-field as belonging to Talara proper, it is inexplicable why the name should not occur in Ac 13-14. Furthermore, Derbe and Lystra belonged to Lykaonia (Ac 146- 11), not to Phrygia, so that the South Galatian view, that Ac 166 is recapitulatory, breaks down at the outset, Harnack (BNT. iii. 58) suggests that Luke spoke of h VaXariK^ x^Pa “ because Galatia was poor in cities, and because in official terminology the word ‘regiones’ was also used of this province. It follows, therefore, that in the much debated question where the Galatia of Paul is on the contrary, implies that it refers either to an antecedent or at best to a synchronous experience (cp. Schmiedel, EBi. 1599; Moulton’s Grammar of NT Greek, i. 132 f.). It was apropos of this forced construction of SGj\8ov * ’Atria here = the coast-land round Ephesus, as in 29 (where Phrygia is also distinguished from it, by a popular use of the geographical term) and 272. to be found, we may not claim Luke as a witness in favour of the South-Galatian theory; rather we must regard him as a witness to the contrary.”

... KwXvdlvres that Chase wrote, " the South Galatian theory is shipwrecked on the rock of Greek grammar.”

Luke’s usage, it may be retorted, is not decisive for Paul. This is perfectly true, but Paul’s use of VaXarta corresponds to the inferences from Acts. It is a rather precarious conclusion that because he was a Roman citizen, he must have confined himself to the Roman provincial titles, and that therefore TaXarta in Gal I2 means the province, not the country, of the Galatae. No fixed rule of this kind can be attributed to him; not even Asiatics like Strabo and Dio Cassius adhered to such a practice. In Gal I21 Paul himself does not speak in this way about Syria and Cilicia, and even in Gal I22 (cp. 1 Th 214) it is not necessary to suppose that he alluded to Judaea in anything except the popular or geographical sense (cp. Steinmann’s Leserkreis, 76 f., 103, and Schmiedel, op. cit. 1604 f.). Furthermore, in Ac 29, Asia and Pontus denote districts, not provinces, and the same is probably true of Cappadocia, as of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia in I P I1. “ Of the vast province of Galatia the part to be visited [by the bearer of I P] between Pontus and Cappadocia could be only Galatia proper, the Galatia of St. Paul’s epistles” (Hort, i Peter, pp. 183 f.).

Paul and his companions had no definite sphere in view when they left Lykaonia; certainly neither Troas nor Bithynia was their objective. Luke’s narrative, or rather summary, at this point becomes singularly curt and rapid. Apparently he was not interested in the Northern Galatian mission. His engrossing aim is to get Paul across to Europe; and the approach of the Macedonian mission, in which he himself first joined the apostle, leads him to hurry over the movements of the apostles in the interior of Asia Minor. It does not follow, however, that these movements were a series of purposeless journeys in which the evangelists were casting about in vain for a sphere and were finally shut up to make for Troas. On the contrary, what the N. Galatian view involves is that during this journey Paul took advantage of his enforced detention, owing to sickness, in order to evangelise in the western * part of Galatia. “ It is sufficient to suppose that during his illness, or during his convalescence, Paul founded a few churches, none of them very far apart, and all situated in the W. of North Galatia” (EBi. 1606-1607). The possibility of this is admitted not only by Zahn {INT. i. 189 f.) but by J. Weiss, one of the most cautious and careful of the South Galatian theorists (“ Natrlich kann man sich denken, dass die Missionare etwa von Amorium (oder von Nakoleia * The alternative form of the N. Galatian theory (so, e.g., Lightfoot) is to regard Ancyra, Tavium, and Juliopolis, as also and chiefly evangelised by Paul. Zockler’s modification (as above) seems preferable. fiber Orkistos, Ramsay, Geogr. p. 230) aus den Versuch gemacht hatten, in Pessinus und Germa zu predigen, und als sie die Verhaltnisse dort ungunstig oder den Erfolg gering fanden, sich nach Dorylum wandten,” op. cit. pp. 558 f.). The evidence of Galatians shows, however, that this mission was more than a possibility and by no means an unsuccessful venture. There is little doubt that 8ipxeobat in 166, taken along with 1823, implies preaching-activity, not simply travelling (cp. Ramsay’s article in Exp? 1896, May) Two or three years later, Paul paid a second visit to Galatia (Ac i823).f After spending some time there (i.e. at Antioch), he went off on a tour through the region of Galatia and Phrygia (Siepxnevos Kadeiff Thv Taarknv yfpav Kai Hpvyav), establishing all the disciples. This time he moved from east to west, reversing the route of 166, and reaching Ephesus via Asian Phrygia. In contrast to the settled churches of S. Galatia (165), the North Galatian Christians were as yet scattered and unorganised; they were naturally more liable, on this account, to be unsettled by Judaistic agitators from the far south than communities like those of Ikonium, Lystra, and Antioch, which were closer to the centre, and also in possession of the decrees (164). Furthermore, Paul tells the Galatians about the controversy as if it were a novelty. There is no olare 8 (Holtzmann). This suits the N. Galatians rather better than the S. Galatians (Ac 164), who must have learned of the matter for themselves at an early date.

Such is, on the North Galatian hypothesis, the Lucan narrative of the Galatian mission. It remains to notice one or two objections on exegetical or geographical grounds.

The title Galatians (Gal 31) is alleged to be more suitable to the inhabit-ants of Southern Galatia than to those of N. Galatia. Sir W. M. Ramsay {Hist. Comm. 137 f.) finds that the N. Galatian theorists, who deny this, show “no sign” of having “specially studied the use and implication of + Here again the historian’s allusion is brief and bare. Galatia lay off the line of his European interests; even the great mission at Ephesus (1910) is dismissed in a sentence, so that the treatment of the Galatian mission is not singular. “Can it be that the historian gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a church which swerved so soon and so widely from the purity of the gospel? ” (Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 21; so Schmiedel, EBi. 1607). political titles amid the contending forces that were then causing the develop-ment of society in Central Asia Minor.” Such a study, he reiterates (cp., especially, op. cit. 318 f.), would prove to these amateurs that the people of Antioch, Ikonium, Lystra, etc., could be addressed very aptly as Galatians. Unluckily, this confident assertion is flatly denied by one whose authority upon the subject is based upon years of special study. " In my opinion,” says Mommsen (ZNW., 1901, p. 86), “it is inadmissible to take the Galatians ’ of Paul in anything except the distinct and narrower sense of the term. The provinces which were combined with Galatia under a legatus, as, e.g., Lykaonia certainly had been under Claudius, were by no means in-corporated into that province. Still less could the inhabitants of Ikonium and Lystra be named Galatians in the common speech of the day.” Thus it remains open to argue that PaXarat, instead of being specially appropriate to the Lykaonians and Phrygians, would have ignored their national character-istics (cp. Gheorghiu, op. cit. pp. 49 f.). There is no reason, in the term itself, to suppose that it denoted any save the inhabitants of Galatia proper, and there is not enough historical evidence (cp. Steinmann’s Leserkreis, 53-60) to show that the S. Galatians were reckoned in the kolvov tGiv YaXardv. Whi*le S. Galatia is represented by Gaius and Timotheus, North Galatia, it is contended, is not represented by any delegates in the company who met at Troas (Ac 204) to accompany Paul and hand over the collection at Jerusalem. But it is more than doubtful if this was the sole object of the gathering. Even if it were, there is no representative from Corinth, or Philippi, or Achaia. Besides, the Galatian contribution may have been sent inde-pendently (so Weber, Addressaten, p. 52).

* The admission that Paul did preach in N. Galatia (in Ac 1823) makes it extremely unlikely that, on the S. Galatian hypothesis, the epistle was written after this, since Takara would then include N. Galatia, and the close unity of the readers’ situation forbids this (see above).

Paul’s references to Barnabas do not necessarily imply that he was personally known to the readers (who were therefore, it is alleged, in South Galatia; cp. Ac 13-14); the apostle speaks of B. also to the Corinthians, though he had never visited Corinth; and the allusions to B. in Galatians imply no more than the references to Peter (who had not been in N. Galatia).

The phrase, Yva h aXr)deia rov elayyeXov diauevn srpos vp.as (2s), does not necessarily imply that the Galatian churches were in existence when the controversy at Jerusalem broke out. Paul merely says he was fighting the battle on behalf of all Gentile Christians who should believe. He tells the Galatians that they belonged to the converts in whose interests he had been contending (cp. John 1720).

It is further argued that Luke devotes far more attention to the South Galatian churches, and that Galatians is more likely to have been addressed to them than to Christians in an out-of-the-way, unimportant district like North Galatia. This is one of the most plausible pleas which are advanced by the South Galatian theorists, but it is inconclusive, (i.) Luke, according to the North Galatian theory, does mention these churches twice (166 1823); so do Peter (i Pi1) and Paul himself (I Co 161). They are more prominent than even the Roman church, to which Paul wrote a letter, but of whose founding Luke says nothing. Luke is indifferent to Paul’s early and long and important mission to Syria and Cilicia; he ignores the work in Dalmatia and Illyria; and there is not a word of the church at Colossae, to which the apostle afterwards wrote a letter.t These, together with the silence upon the stormy relations between Paul and the Corinthian church, are sufficient to disprove any argument against the North Galatian theory which is drawn from the silence of Acts. Luke’s predilections, which led him to ignore several Pauline spheres, explain themselves. (ii.) North Galatia was by no means inaccessible by road; on the contrary, it was touched by several open routes (cp. Ramsay, Hist. Geography of Asia Minor, 237 ff.). Ancyra, h ^rpirwoXi.'s Tfs Taharlas (south as well as north), was connected by roads with the surrounding districts; t while Tavium, as a military station and road-centre, was probably (cp. J. Weiss, PRE. x. 559 f.) linked even with Pisidian Antioch. There is no real difficulty, from a geographical standpoint, in understanding how Paul could reach N. Galatia; it would not take him over any more difficult country than his route from Perga to Antioch over the Taurus (Ac 1314; cp. Ramsay, CRE. 24f., EB.w 391). (iii.) It is time that some critics stopped depreciating the condition of N. Galatia. On this point it is sufficient to refer to Sir W. M. Ramsay’s own brilliant pages {Gal. 128-164) upon the civilisation of the province of Northern Galatia.

* This assertion is precarious, however. Timotheus was Paul’s companion primarily, and Gaius may be mentioned for the same reason. Besides, as Schmiedel acutely points out, “ it would have been quite irrational to convey monies from S. Galatia to Jerusalem by way of Macedonia, and run all the risks (2 Co 1126) of such a journey ” (EBi. 1612).

Ancyra was “ one of the greatest and most splendid cities of Asia Minor ” (Ramsay, Exp., 1898, viii. 233; cp. Steinmann’s Leserkreis, 50f.), and the Roman sway had long since permeated the country with civilising influences. § t If it is argued that surely Paul would have written an epistle to such important churches as those of Derbe, Lystra, Ikonium, etc., the obvious reply is that (i.) extant letters do not represent all that the apostle wrote; (ii.) that no letter was written by him, as far as we know, even to so central a church as that of Ephesus.

* Sir W. M. Ramsay {Cities of St. Paul, 81) concludes from the slight and vague allusions to Syria and Cilicia that Luke had no personal know-ledge of these regions. Exactly the same inference follows from his scanty reference to N. Galatia. On the same page he confesses that “ even about the Galatian cities he [i.e. Luke] has not very much to relate that is detailed or picturesque.”

“There were regular roads from either Ikonium or Antioch to Pessinus. Moreover, the apostle, who was accustomed to ‘ perils of robbers, perils of rivers, perils in the wilderness’ (2 Co 1126), and who preferred walking from Troas to Assos (Ac 2013) while his companions sailed, would not be deterred by any rough or unfrequented paths” (Lightfoot, Colossians, 26-27). § Cp. Professor Anwyl in Mansfield College Essays (1909), pp. 158 (“ Galatia was rapidly penetrated by the civilisation of the Mediterranean area”) and 160 (“whether the epistle to the Galatians was addressed to them or not, there is no evidence that in the apostolic age they were conspicuously more backward than the inhabitants of other parts of Asia Minor”).

In any case the Galatians were capable of being converted, and Paul was an evangelist, not a lecturer. The proportion and influence of the local Jews exactly correspond to the insignificant position they seem to have occupied in the churches, judged by the epistle. Finally, it may be pointed out that “the Galatian cities were in far closer relations with the cities of Bithynia-Pontus than of Asia ” (Ramsay, Gal. p. 143); which supports the contention that Paul, after his work in N. Galatia, naturally thought of Bithynia. Any historical evidence which is available does not imply that the civilisation of N. Galatia, during the first century A.D., was Romano-Gallic rather than Hellenic; as the inscriptions and coins indicate, the Anatolian culture which predominated throughout the province did not exclude either the impression of Greek religious ideas or of the Greek language. It is therefore beside the mark to dismiss the North Galatian theory on the ground that it implies a degree of Greek culture which was foreign to the Galatians. Besides, when the evidence of the epistle itself is examined, the amount of acquaintance which it presupposes with Greek usages and conceptions (e.g. in 42) does not appear to preclude the possibility of the Northern Galatians having been familiar with such elementary Graeco-Asiatic culture. The Hellenic ideas used in Galatians might have been perfectly intelligible to the Galatians of the northern province, so far as any reliable evidence is at our command (cp. Burton in AJT, 1901, 152-153). At any rate, Greek was not only the official but the trading language. Unless we exaggerate the so-called Hellenism of Paul and the barbarism of Galatia, there is no cogent reason why any argument employed in Galatians would have been inappropriate to inhabitants of Northern Galatia. It did not require any special contact with the Grco-Roman culture of the age, such as is claimed for S. Galatia, in order to understand what Paul wrote about slavery, adoption, or wills. This is frankly admitted by Dr. Dawson Walker in his essay on “The Legal Terminology in the Epistle to the Galatians” (Gift of Tongties, etc., pp. 127 f.). “Whether the Christian communities to which the epistle was sent were situated in North or in South Galatia, there would be a sufficiently strong Roman environment to make such general allusions as St. Paul makes to Roman civil law quite intelligible. We therefore conclude that the legal allusions in the epistle are indecisive. There is nothing in them that bears so directly on the question of the locality of the Galatian Churches as to enable us to say decisively whether the epistle was sent to North or to South Galatia” (of. cit. 174 f.).

Once more, the South Galatian argument that Paul always sought out important centres in which to carry on his propaganda is sadly shattered by the fact that Derbe and Lystra were quite second-rate cities, with very little in common between them and the Roman world. The former “was one of the rudest of the Pauline cities, education had made no progress in it.” Sir W. M. Ramsay even wonders how so rustic and sequestered a spot as Lystra came to be visited by Paul. “ How did the cosmopolitan Paul drift like a piece of timber borne by the current into this quiet backwater?” (The Citics of St, Paul, 408). Since he did evangelise such places, we may perhaps be spared the argument that North Galatia would have been beneath his notice. Even apart from the case of Derbe and Lystra, the common assertion that Paul invariably sought out important imperial centres is not justified by the evidence. Paul, like Wesley, was an evangelist who had a passion for the regions beyond (2 Co 1015-16 els r brepxeva bpOv eiayyeXhraadai ■, cp. Ro 1519); North Galatia lay on the line of his circle from Jerusalem, and his procedure elsewhere makes the enterprise in that country not simply credible but probable.

* Another phase of this argument is that the N. Galatian churches remain un-important in early church history, and that not till the end of the second century is there much light upon their existence. But even so, what of the South Galatian churches? " All the more strange,” on account of the marked success of the preaching at Antioch (Ac 1344. 48f-), “is the subsequent unimportance of the South Galatian churches” (EBi. 184). This is candidly written by Mr. Woodhouse, who adheres to the South Galatian hypothesis. The Syriac martyrology even points to martyrdoms at Ancyra before the reign of Trajan (cp. ET. xxi. 64 f.).

Many internal arguments used on both sides to prove the character of the people addressed in the epistle are of little independent value. No stress can be laid, e.g., on the so-called Celtic fickleness, in the interests of the N. Galatian hypothesis. On the other hand, it is as irrelevant to discover anything characteristically S. Galatian in 61-5 (so Ramsay, Hist. Comm. Gal. 154 f.), as if the pitiless temper were specially Phrygian! If any local colour is to be sought, the allusion in 617 suggests the custom of marking slaves by scars and cuts, which was notoriously a practice of the North Galatians (cp. Ramsay, Hist. Comm. Gal. 82 f.). The alleged coincidences between Galatians (cp. 44) and Paul’s address in the South Galatian Pisidian Antioch (Ac 1316-24) are interesting (cp. op. cit. 399 f.), but they are not confined to this address, and represent the primitive Christian outlook rather than Paul’s specific views.

The South Galatian theory has several attractive features, but it lies open to objections of more or less cogency. E.g., (i.) if the opening of the South Galatian mission is so fully described in Ac 13-14, why is there no mention of the illness which Paul specially mentions in Gal 413? Again, (ii.) the Galatians received Paul ws &yyCwv deov, ws Spiarov ’T-qcrovv (Gal 414), in spite of his illness—a very different thing from hailing him in full health as the pagan Hermes (Ac 1412)! There is not (iii.) a hint in the epistle of any persecution or suffering endured by him in his evangelisation of Galatia, whereas his South Galatian mission was stormy in the extreme (Ac 13-14, 2 Ti 311). Once more (iv.), if Paul had evangelised S. Galatia prior to the Council, it is not easy to understand why he did not say so in Gal I21. None of these objections is satisfactorily met by the S. Galatian theory, in any of its forms.

On both sides, but especially on the S. Galatian, there is too great a tendency to tamper with the text of Acts in order to bring it into line with the requirements of a theory. Thus Weber and Ramsay, as well as Lightfoot {Biblical Essays, 237 f.), prefer the inferior v.l. 8ieX6 fores in Ac 166; Blass in 168 substitutes the equally inferior SieXOfores for vapeXOfores, and reads, on the sole authority of a thirteenth cent. Latin MS, ras T aXariKas x&P™ in 166; even Belser is driven {Einl. 423), like Weber and J. Weiss, to regard the reference to P. X. in the latter verse as corrupt, possibly a harmonising gloss from 1823.

TOO THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL This opens up the complex problem of the relationship between Galatians and the narrative of Acts, (a) As to the various journeys of Paul to Jerusalem, neither theory entirely escapes the familiar difficulties; the S. Galatian hypothesis, in one or two forms, succeeds in evading them, but only by conjectural alterations of the order of the narratives (see below). A more important question (b) relates to the Council of Jerusalem. Here the identity of Gal 21-10 with Ac 15 must be maintained. In the former passage Paul is certainly giving his own version of what Luke subsequently described from a later and a different standpoint. The narrative of Acts, whatever be the historical value or site of the decree, is the counterpart of Gal 21-10. Since the object of the two visits in Ac 1127-30 and Gal 21-10 is different, and since II27-30 can hardly be regarded as a variant account of 15, the only alternative is to regard Ac 15 and Gal 21-10 as referring to the same incident. This hypothesis is not wrecked by the patent difference of motive noticed in the two narratives, as there is nothing inconsistent in Paul emphasising the inward impulse, under the circumstances, and Luke recalling the joint-action of the church. The omission of any reference to Titus or the private conference is strange but not unparalleled in Acts, and, on the other hand, both narratives agree (and this is fundamental) is making the object of the journey a desire to settle the relation of Gentile Christians to the law; both imply two conferences, resulting in the recognition of Gentile Christians, and the refusal, on the part of the apostles, to sanction the orthodox demand for universal circumcision. Ac 15 certainly presents a modified, and even in some respects an unhistorical, account of what had been a very serious crisis in the early church. With characteristic tact, Luke passes over the friction between Paul and the three pillar-apostles, as well as the difference of opinion which yielded but slowly to Paul’s remonstrances; he also represents both James and Peter as in essential harmony with the apostle of the Gentiles from the first. This irenical purpose helps to explain Luke’s subsequent silence upon the bitter anti-Pauline movement of the Judaisers+ pp. 456-476. Another curiosity of ancient interpretation was the view popularised by Chrysostom, Jerome, and alleged to go back to Origen, that the dispute was a got-up scene. The patristic attitude towards the dispute is sketched by Overbeck in his Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit dem Apostel Petrus bei den Kirchenvdtcrii (Basel, 1877), and Lightfoot (Gal. pp. 128-132). t Upon the North Galatian theory, the Judaistic agitation in Galatia was a recrudescence of the movement against Gentile Christianity which the Council had temporarily checked. The counter-mission was cleverly carried into far-off districts where people were less well acquainted with the proceed-ings at Jerusalem and Antioch, and as adroitly the reactionary party took advantage of Paul’s absence to undermine his authority. The burning question was circumcision as it had been at Jerusalem. On the S. Galatian hypothesis, this question had arisen prior to the Council, and Paul simply took advantage GALATIANS IOI and the Corinthian dissensions, as well as upon (c) the dispute between Paul and Peter at Antioch. The natural impression made by 211-16 is that Peter’s visit to Antioch followed the events narrated in 21-10, and there is no reason, historical or grammatical, to reverse this opinion.* That Peter’s inconsistency was only possible before the Council (Weber, Belser, van Bebber) is an arbitrary hypothesis, which depends on the erroneous idea that the Council’s decree regulated the social intercourse of Jewish and Gentile Christians. The reconstruction certainly tends to modify the un-favourable impression made by Peter’s vacillating conduct; but in 211f. Paul is not harking back, in defence of his apostolic authority, to an episode which preceded that of 21-10. The point of 211f. lies in its historical sequence (cp. Steinmann’s Abfassungszeit, pp. 132 f.; Clemen’s Paulus, i. 41 f.). The principle successfully upheld at the negotiations in Jerusalem had to be vindicated practically at Antioch soon afterwards. " When we follow Paul’s account, the growing excitement with which he unmistakably records the event at Antioch is sufficient to prove that, in his view, it was there that the crisis was reached” (Weizsacker, AA. i. 176). Ina word, Gal 211-16 forms the climax, from Paul’s point of view, in his triumphant assertion of the free Christian rights belonging to Gentile converts.

* For the odd attempt of some Roman Catholic scholars to prove that Cephas and Peter are different persons (as Clement of Alexandria was the first to suggest), cp. Pesch in the Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (1883) pp. 456-490, with Vigoroux, Les Livres Saints et la critique rationaliste, vol. v.

That the Antioch collision took place before Paul left (Ac 1536), and not during the visit of Ac 1823 (Renan, Neander, Sabatier, Godet), is also the natural inference from the narrative; it is corroborated by the fact that after 1536f. Barnabas was never alongside of Paul, as is implied in Gal 213. § 5. The date.—The division of opinion upon the destina-tion has led to an even greater variety of conjectures as to the date of the epistle’s composition. On the North Galatian hypo-thesis the letter cannot have been written before the period of Ac 1823; but it may have been composed either (i.) on the way from Galatia to Ephesus (Hug, Ruckert); or (ii.) during Paul’s stay at Ephesus (Ac 19110), perhaps during one of his journeys in the vicinity; or (iii.) on his way from Ephesus to Corinth of the collection for the Jewish poor to enlist the sympathies and win the confidence of the Jewish Christians in the capital. But both implications are improbable, especially the second; neither Luke nor Paul says anything about this motive, and the use supposed to have been made of the collection is the outcome of imagination rather than the reflection of history. * As is done by C. H. Turner {DB. i. 423 f.), R. A. Falconer (ET. xi. 487-490), Williams, and Zahn {NKZ., 1894, 435 f.; Gal. nof.), after Calvin, Schneckenburger (Zweck der Afgeschichte, 109 f.), etc., all of whom place the Antioch-episode prior to Ac 151, either between Ac 1225 and 131 or between 1426 and 154. Ramsay, who formerly held the latter view [SPT. 158 f.), now inclines to think that Peter’s visit to Antioch (Gal 211f.) “ preceded the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas, and that he was sent from Jerusalem as far as Syrian Antioch to inspect and report on this new extension of the church, just as he had been sent previously to Samaria along with John on a similar errand ” (Cities of St. Paul, 302-303).

(cp. Moffatt, HNT. 127 f.). There is not much to choose between (ii.) and (iii.), but upon the whole the more probable hypothesis is that the epistle was written from Ephesus (Ac 191), soon after Paul had left Galatia (Ac 1823) for the second time; so, e.g., Wieseler, Credner, Hofmann, Godet, Alford, Reuss, Meyer, H. J. Holtzmann, Lipsius, Sieffert, Schmiedel, Steinmann, etc. This was the traditional view as early as Victorinus (‘ epistula ad G. missa dicitur ab apostolo ab Epheso ’) and earlier; the only real alternative is Paul’s stay in Macedonia or Corinth, during the period covered by Ac 201f. (so especially Lightfoot, after Conybeare and Howson, with Bleek, Salmon, von Dobschutz, etc.).

One of the charges made against Paul at Thesssalonika was that he had left his converts in the lurch. He had to meet this insinuation by showing that he had been unable, not unwilling, to return. No such calumny is mentioned in Galatians. The tone of 420 implies that the Galatians recognised he could not visit them in person. Why, we do not know. Galatia was accessible from Ephesus, but there may have been reasons why he could not leave the latter place at the moment. Otherwise, we may suppose he was either on.the point of starting for Corinth or on his way there, when the news of the Galatian relapse reached him. Luke unfortunately has no more to tell us about Paul’s relations with the backward Galat than about Paul’s contemporary troubles with the recalcitrant Corinthians.

The South Galatian hypothesis, upon the other hand, permits of a much earlier date. The majority tend to put it first of all the extant epistles (cp. Miss E. G. Briggs, New World, 1900, 115 f.; C. W. Emmet, Exp? ix. 242 f.). Some even place it prior to the Council of Jerusalem; so, e.g., Calvin (on 21 “ ac ne satis quidem constat, quo tempore scripta fuerit epistola: nisi quod Grci missam Roma diuinant, Latini Epheso. Ego autem non tantum scriptam ante fuisse arbitror, quam Paulus Romam uidisset, uerum antequam habita fuisset ilia consultatio et de ceremoniarum usu pronuntiassent apostoli ”) and Beza, followed by Ulrich and Bottger. This involved the identification of the journey in Ac n30 with that of Gal 21f,—a view which has subsequently found favour with several of the South Galatian advocates in their manipulation of the Lucan narratives.

Galatians occupied the first place in Marcion’s list of the Pauline letters; but, as Thessalonians is put after Romans, it is obvious that Marcion either arranged the epistles unchronologically, or had no sure tradition upon their relative position. The former is probably the true solution (cp. Tert. adv. Marc. v. 2). Galatians was put in the forefront as Paul’s battle-cry against the Judaism which Marcion detested (see above, p. 16).

Bartlet (op. citi) holds that Galatians was written by Paul on his way to Jerusalem (Ac 153; Gal 21-10 being identified with a visit unknown to Luke, and a second visit being denied in Gal 413). A less complex view is represented by W. A. Shedd {ET. xii. 568) and Douglass Round {Date of St. Paul's Ep. to the Galatians, 1906), who identify Gal 21-10 with Ac n30, and date the epistle from Antioch before Paul went to Jerusalem for the Council of Ac 15. This theory, however, does not avoid the difficulties encountered by the similar attempt of Weber (see above) to place the epistle prior to the Council. These difficulties are most ingeniously met by McGiffert, who, identifying Gal 21-10 with Ac 11 = 15 (all referring to the same incident), places the composition of Gal. in Antioch prior to the second tour of Ac 166. This involves the interpretation of Ac 168 as unhistorical (against this cp. the present writer’s article in EBi. 5076 and Bacon’s Story of St. Paul, 148 f.). But it is the very circumcision of Timotheus which lends point to the charges underlying Gal 110 and 511. Again, the failure to mention Barnabas as the co-founder of the churches is not intelligible except after the rupture, and to identify the second visit with the mere return journey from Derbe is hardly adequate to the impression made by the epistle, which suggests that the visit in question was paid to the province as a whole, instead of to one or two particular cities and their churches.

Even when the epistle is admitted to be subsequent to the Council of Ac 15, there is no agreement on its period. Thus Hausrath dates the epistle from Macedonia during the second tour, in the autumn of A.D. 53, mainly upon the erroneous ground that 48-11 alludes to the sabbatical year. Albrecht {Paulus, 1903, pp. 114 f.) and Clemen {Paulus, i. 396 f.) choose Athens, identifying the oi ovv luo mvres edol of i2 with Christians who had accompanied Paul from Berea! This is supposed to explain the absence of Timotheus and Silas from the greeting. For similar reasons, many adherents of the S. Galatian hypo-thesis come down to the opening period of Paul’s residence at Corinth (so, e.g., Mynster, Zahn, Bacon, and Rendall). But the hyperbole of i Th 18-9 does not imply that the news of the Thessalonians’ conversion had reached Galatia; and there is not enough time to allow for the exchange of news between Paul and that country. Besides, it is rather fanciful to regard Galatians as having temporarily checked the Judaising move-ment which, after a lull (reflected in Thessalonians), burst out again in Corinthians and Romans. Volkmar (op. cit. 37 f.) dates Gal. from Antioch at the close of the second tour (Ac 1823), while Renan and (SPT 189-192) prefer to date the epistle from Syrian Antioch during the period of Ac 1823, prior to the third tour,—a theory which has naturally proved a stumbling-block to most of those who share the S. Galatian view. It offers no satisfactory explanation, e.g., of why Paul omitted any reference to his third visit to Jerusalem (Ac 15), still less of Luke’s failure to note any interruption (on the second visit to Galatia) of the harmony between Paul and the local churches. Further-more, the obvious meaning of Gal 420 (@eov rapelvat irpbs vus apri) is that Paul cannot visit them. There is not the slightest indication in the epistle that he was planning a visit very soon, and that the messenger who carried the letter took news of this to the churches. The same arguments (cp. Round, op. cit. 48 f.) tell as heavily against the hypothesis (e.g. Askwith and Pfleiderer and D. Walker) that the epistle was written (so Jacquier hesitatingly) by Paul from Macedonia or Achaia during the third tour.

These latter variations of the S. Galatian theory really tally, so far as the date is concerned, with the N. Galatian hypothesis; and occasionally the same arguments are employed to defend them, viz. from the affinities of thought and style between Galatians and the other Hauptbriefe. Galatians may be (i.) prior to Corinthians; so, especially, Baur (Pauly i. 260 b), Havet, les Originesdu Christ, iv. 101 f.; Hilgenfeld (Einl. 249 f.; ZWT, 1883, 303-343), Sabatier (Paul, 137-155), B. Weiss, Godet, Renan, H. J. Holtzmann, Julicher, Sieffert, Holsten (in Short Protest. Comm?, Eng. tr. 1883, ii. 254-320), Lipsius, Ramsay (SPT 189 b), Bovon (NTTh. ii. 73 b), Sanday and Headlam (“Romans,” ICC. pp. xxxvi-xxxvii), Warfield (JBL., 1884, 50-64), Schafer (Einl. 87 b), etc. The case for this relative order rests rather on a detailed examination of each writing by itself than upon any attempt to trace a dogmatic or controversial evolution in Paul’s mind. The dXXois of i Co 92 may be an allusion to Galatians (cp. i Co 9lf. with Gal 50-8), and Gal 24-5 may give us the clue to Am I not free7 in i Co 91; but such threads are too slight to bear any weight of conclusions about the relative order. As a matter of fact, this process of reasoning has led some to exactly the opposite result, viz., that (ii.) Galatians is subsequent to 2 Corinthians and next to Romans in order. So Hartmann {ZWT, 1899, 187-194), arguing from 2 Co 122 and Gal 21, but especially Bleek, Howson, Credner, Salmon (Smith’s DB? i. 1108 f.), and Lightfoot (pp. 36-56), followed by Farrar, S. Davidson {INT. i. 73-83), W. Briickner (Chron. 174 k), Hort, Findlay, M. W. Jacobus (A Problem in Criticism, 1900, pp. 113 f.), Resch (Paulinismus, 475 f., very emphatically), Askwith (chs. vii.-viii.), Adeney, and Williams. The argument is that the net resemblances of thought and language imply a grouping of Galatians and Romans close together; that the Judaism combated in 2 Cor. is less matured than in Galatians; and so forth. But there is no reason to suppose that the Judaistic agitation developed uniformly. Such reasoning assumes erroneously “that the Judaising heresy had reached at the same point of time the same stage of de-velopment everywhere. So soon as we remember that some of these epistles were written to enlightened Corinth and others to barbarous Galatia, all these nice arrangements are seen to be the growth of misunderstanding” (Warfield, JBL., 1884, p. 52). The similarity of attitude in Gal. and Rom. yields no safe inference as to their period of composition. The latter epistle carries forward the conceptions outlined in the former, after a brief lapse of time, during which other and more pressing questions (e.g. 1 and 2 Cor.) had engrossed the writer’s mind. The comparative absence of doctrinal controversy (in 2 Cor.) with the Judaistic emissaries proves, not that the conflict with them was still in some inchoate stage which is reflected in Gal., but simply that the particular conditions at Corinth demanded special treatment. The exposure of these agitators in 2 Cor. is not inconsistent with a previous refutation of their principles such as is flung out in Galatians. See further on this point, Rendall (Exp.^ ix. 260), C. H. Turner (DB. i. 423), Zahn (INT. i. pp. 200-201), Peake (JNT. pp. 27 f.), and especially Sieffert's essay in ThSt. (332-357). W. S. Wood 106 ’ THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL {Studies in Gal. pp. 2 f.) specially controverts Lightfoot, in the interests of a date at least synchronous with Thessalonians.

* in his review of Weber (ET. xii. 157-160), however, he says he has never felt clear on the point, “ and have often doubted in the last few years whether the early date should not after all be preferred.”

It is important to avoid this ultra-logical and literary method* of treating Paul’s correspondence,—as if he could not return to any given topic from a later standpoint,—since it is often used not only (a) to support a priori views of their dates, but also (b) to discredit their authenticity. (a) One instance of the former error is presented by the patristic tradition (Eusebius of Emesa, Jerome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, etc.), reflected in the subscription of one or two later uncials (^yp6.<pri dm 'Pdfirjs), and prevalent in some circles of the Eastern church, which has occasionally been revived by critics (e.g. Schrader, der Apostel Paulus, 1830, i. 216 f.; Kohler, Versuchuber die Abfassungszeit der epistolischen Schriften im NT, 1830, pp. 125 f.; Halmel, Rom. Recht im Galaterbrief, 1895, pp. 30 f., and R. Scott), who actually place Galatians in the Roman imprisonment. The reasons alleged for this curious date are quite unconvincing. The argument led from its affinities with Romans has been already met (cp. pp. 104 f.). The notion (Halmel) that it implies a knowledge of Roman law which involves a residence in Italy is out of the question: Paul was a Roman citizen himself, and any such acquaintance with Roman legal procedure as the epistle may be held to presuppose was quite possible throughout a province like Galatia (see above, pp. 97-98). Finally, the fancied allusions to imprisonment evaporate under examination. Had Paul been in prison, he would have referred plainly to it, e.g., at 4s0 (cp. Ph i7 410f. etc.).

It is no improvement on this theory to place the epistle during Paul’s last voyage to Palestine (perhaps at Troas, Ac 206; so Mill, NT Prolegomena, 4), on the ground that 210 refers to the collection (Ro 15), or (so Kiihn, NKZ., 1895, 156 f., 981 f.) in the Caesarean imprisonment, when Paul could not get away (421) to revisit his friends, and when he had been maltreated by the Jews (617= Ac 2132).. § 6. Authenticity.—It is this relationship to Romans which also (b) started the theories of Galatians as a second-century pro-duct (see below, under " Romans ”), composed upon the basis of Romans and Corinthians, in order either to oppose the milder conception of Paul in Acts, or to promulgate a broader form of Christianity, or to emphasise the rupture between Judaism and Christianity. The ablest statement of the theory was R. Steck’s der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, nebst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Berlin, 1888), written in a phase of reaction against the Tiibingen identification of the four Hauptbriefe with the genuine Paul. J. Friedrich’s * Thus, in his essay on Die Ursprunglichkeit des Galaterbriefes (Leipzig, 1903), Hermann Schulze tries to prove the filiation of the later NT literature to Galatians, in a way which lands him in repeated exaggerations.

GALATIANS to; die Unaechtheit des Galaterbriefs (Halle, 1891) is less original. The hypothesis is no longer anything but a curiosity of criticism, like Pere Jean Hardouin’s relegation of most of the classics to the fourteenth century, and Edwin Johnson’s discovery that the primitive Christian literature was forged in the Renaissance and Reformation periods {Antiqua Mater, London, 1887). All that requires to be said against such vagaries has been put by Schmiedel {LC., 1888, 1697 f.; EBi. 1617-1623), Kappeler (Z. Schw., 1889, 11-19), Sieffert {op. cit. pp. 26 b), Lindemann {die Aechtheit der paulinischen Hauptbriefe, 1889), Gloel {die jiingste Kritik des Galaterbriefs auf ihre Berechtigung geprilft, 1890), C. H. van Rhijn {TheoL Studi'en, 1890, 363 f.). Wohlenberg {NKZ., 1893, 741 f.), Zahn {Einl. § 9), R. J. Knowling ( Witness of the Epistles, 133 f., and Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 1905, 34 b), and Clemen {Paulus, i. 18 f.).

No weight or worth attaches to the attempts made to disentangle a Pauline nucleus from later editorial accretions, as, e.g., by Cramer, who detects unauthentic interpolations all through (e.g. i7a 22-4 etc.), but notably in 316-20. 26-29 424-27 55-6 61-6. 9-10. Even Vblter, who applies this method to the other Pauline epistles, recognises that Galatians is practically a literary unity, although that does not prevent him from relegating it to a post-Pauline date'(Paulus u. seine Briefe, pp. 229-285). Van Manen's attempt (TT., 1887, 400 f., 456 f.) to prove that Marcion’s text was more original than the canonical, is answered at length by Baljon (op. cit. pp. 1-101) and Clemen (Einheitlichkeit d. Paul. Briefe, 1894, roof.). (b} The earliest reference to Galatians by name, is the notice of its inclusion in Marcion’s Apostolicon ; but almost verbal echoes of 310-13 occur in Justin’s Dial, xciv.-xcv. (as of 4% in Athenag. Leg. 16, and of 410 in Diogn. 10) and Orat. 5 (of Gal 412), and the epistle was almost certainly known to Polykarp, as the quotations in 51 (from Gal 67) el8bres olv on Oes ou pvKrq-pferai and 3s (from Gal 426) irlariv, hris earlv ^T-qp ir&vruv huv, and the allusions in 33 (Gal 514), 53 (Gal 517), 92 (Gal 22) prove. Apart from Phil. I1 (O6K af eavrov ov8e 81 v@prov=Gal I1), the traces of the epistle in Ignatius (221= Trail. io1, 5l= Eph. 181, ^f—Eph. 161, 614= Ro 72) are faint, as is also the case with Clem. Rom. (21= Gal 31, 52=29). As the second century advances, the evidence of the epistle’s popularity multiplies on all sides, from Ptolemseus and the Ophites to Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon (cp. Gregory, Text and Canon of NT, 201-203).

The inferiority of its early attestation, as compared, e.g., with that of Cor. or of Rom., may be due to the remote situation of the churches in which it was originally circulated (i.e. on the North Galatian hypothesis), or to its polemical tone. Celsus observed that Christians, despite their shameful quarrels and divisions, could all be heard saying, ‘The world is crucified to me, and I to the world.’ Origen (c. Cels. v. 64) declares this is the only sentence which Celsus ever quoted from Paul (Gal 614).

(C) Paul's Correspondence with Corinth

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions:—Cajetan (Venice, 1531); Morton (1596); Cornelius a Lapide (1614); Crellius (1635); Lightfoot (1664); Grotius (1644); Semler’s Paraphrasis (1770-6); Morus (1794); J. G. F. Billroth (1833, Eng. tr. by W. L. Alexander, 1837-8); Riickert (Leipzig, 1836-7); de Wette (1841); Peile (London, 1848); Olshausen2 (1840, Eng. tr. 1851); J. H. Thom (1851); Hodge (1857-60); A. Maier (1857); Neander (Ausleg. d. beiden Briefe, ed. Beyschlag, 1859); Burger (1859-60); Kling (1861, Eng. tr. 1866); C. Wordsworth4 (1866); Hofmann2 (1874-7); Braune3 (1876); Meyer5 (1870, Eng. tr. 1877); Stanley5 (1882); Bisping (1883); J. A. Beet3 (1885); Schnedermann (in Sirack und Zockler, 1887); W. Kay (1887); Gobel (1887); Schmiedel2 (HC. 1892)*; Comely (Paris, 1892); J. Drummond Nniern- Hdbks. NT, 1899); Ceulemans (1901); Couard2 (1901); B. Weiss2 (1902); A. Schafer (1903); Massie \CB. n. d.); Bousset2 {SNT. 1907); Gutjahr (1907); A. Schlatter (1907); J. Niglutsch2 {Brevis Commentarius, ; Lietzmann {HBNT. 1907).

Of I Cor. alone:—D. Pareus (Heidelberg, 1621); Krause (1792); Heydenreich (Marburg, 1825-7); Osiander (1849); A. Maier (1857); Evans {Speakers Comm. 1881)*; Heinrici* (1880); T. C. Edwards (London, 1885)*; Ellicott (1887); Godet* (1887, Eng. tr.); Farrar4 {Pzilpit Comm. 1888); Siedenpfennig (1893); Lias (CGT. 1895); Lightfoot {Notes on Epp. of St. Paid, 1895; on 11740); Heinrici (—Meyer8, 1896); G. G. Findlay, {EGT. 1901)*; Goudge {WC. 1903); Bachmann {ZK. 1905)*; J. Weiss (—Meyer8, 1910)*; Plummer and Robertson {ICC. 1911).

Of 2 Cor. alone:—Mosheim {Erkliirung des zweiten Briefe des heiligen apostels Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Cor. 1762); J. G. F. Leun (1804); Emmerling (1823); Scharling (1840); Osiander (1858); Klpper* (1874); Waite {Speaker's Comm. 1881); Farrar {Pulpit Comm. 18S3); Heinrici* (1887); Heinrici (—Meyer8, 1900); Plummer {CGT. 1903); J. H. Bernard {EGT. 1903)*; Langheinrich 2 (1905); Comely {Comm, in S. Pauli epp. ap Cor. alteram et Gal., Paris, 1907); Bachmann {ZK. 1909) *; Belser (1910). {b) Studies:—(i.) of 1 Cor. alone—Petrus Martyr. {Commentarii, ed. 1551); Gibaud’s Introd, cl la premiere ipitre aux Cor. (These de Strasb. 1835); Straatman’s Kritische studien over den i Kor. (1863); Holsten, Evangelizim des Pauhis, i. (1880); M. Dods {Expos. Bible, 1889); G. Wahle {NKZ., 1898, 540 f., 605 f.); C. H. van Rhijn, “het opschrift van der eersten Brief aan de K.” {Theol. Stud., 1900, 357 f.); E. Khl, Erlcizit. Umschreibung, etc., 1905). (ii.) of 2 Cor. alone.—T. Heshusius {Explicatio, ISI2}; H. Royaards, Disputatio inauguralis de altera P. ad C. epistola (1818); K. F. A. Fritzsche, de nonnullis posterioris Pauli ad Corinthios Epistolce locis dissertationes duct (1824); M. Wirth, Aites und neues Uber d. zweiten Brief an die Korinth, (1825); Roux, Analyse de la deux, cpUre aux Cor. (1836); Klpper, Exegetische-kritische Unters. Uber den zweiten Brief des Paulus an die Gemeinde zu Korinth (1869)*; Denney {Expos. Bible, 1894)*; G. Barde, Paul Papbtre, etudes sur la 2 ipttre aux C, (1906). (iii.) of 2 Cor. favourable to intermediate Letter hypothesis (see further below, p. 121); Hausrath, der Vier-Capitel Brief des Paulus an die Corinthier (1870); Hagge (JPT., 1876, pp. 481-531); Volter {TP., 1889, pp. 294-325); Brckner {Chron. 177-180); Konig {ZWT., 1897, pp. 482-554); J. H. Kennedy (Exp.5, 1897, pp. 231 f., 285!., 1899, pp. 182 f.; The Second and Third Letters of St. Paul to the Corinthians*, 1900; and Hermathena, 1903, 340-367); R. Mackintosh {Exp.1 vi. 77 f., 226 f., 336 f.); G. H. Rendall, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians (1909). Unfavourable: Gabler, De capp, ult. id.-xiii. posterioris epist. P. ad Cor. ab eadem haud separandis (Gottingen, 1782; reply to Semler); Hilgenfeld {ZWT., 1899, pp. 1-19); N. J. D. White {ExpP vii. 113E; reply to Kennedy; so Hermathena, 1903, pp. 79-89). (iv.) ofbothepp.— G. T. Zachariae’s Erkllirzing (1769); J. F. Flatt’s Vorleszingen (1827); Le Fort, Rapports de S. Paul avec P^glise de Corinth (1836); Schenkel, dissertatio de eccles. Corinthi primava factionibits turbata (Basel, 1838); J. G. Muller, de tribus P. itineribus Corinthum susceptis de epistolisque ad eosdem non deperditis (Basel, 1831); Eylau, zur Chronologie der Kor.-Briefe, (1873); Rabiger, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber d. Inhalt d. beiden Briefe d. Apostels P. an die Kor. Gemeinde2 (1886) *; A. Sabatier’s Patil (Eng. tr.) 156-184; Krenkel's Beitriige zur Atifhellung der Geschichte ti. der Briefe des Paulus (1890); van Manen, De brieven aan de Korinthiers (1896); Sanday {EBi. 899-907); A. Robertson {DB. i. 483-498); W. Schmidt, {PRE. xi. 369 f.); Jacquier (Vigoroux’ DB. ii. 983-1005); Rohr, Paultis u. die Gemeinde von Korinth auf Grund d. beiden Korintherbriefe (Freiburg, 1899); Ermoni {RB., 1899, 283-289); Holsten {ZWT.,.1901, pp. 324369); W. M. Ramsay {Expf i.-iii., ‘historical commentary’)*; G. Hollmann, Urchristenthum im Corinth (1903); Clemen’s Paulus (1904), i. pp. 49-85; von Dobschtitz, Urc. pp. II f.; C. Munzinger, Paulus in Korinth. neue Wege sum Verstandniss d. Urchristenthum (1907) *; W. Ltitgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schvoarmgeister in Korinth {BFT. xii. 3, 1908); R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles (1909), 61-95; J. H. Roper {EBP vii. 150-154). § 1. Outline of the correspondence.—Paul’s correspondence with the Christians of Corinth, so far as traces of it are extant, included four letters from him. (a) The earliest (1 Co 59 ypaya vp.lv tv rp ITTLO-TOXT) un irvvavapLyvvaOo.i tropvovi KTX.) has not been preserved, unless, as is very probable, 2 Co 614-71 is one fragment of it. This letter must have been written after Ac 1818 and prior to (b) i Cor., which was sent (possibly by Titus among others; cp. Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, 281 f.) from Ephesus (165-9.19), during the period of Ac 191-201, in reply to a com-munication, conveyed perhaps1 by Stepbanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Co 1617-18), from the Corinthian Christians them-selves (1 Co 71 mep 8e &v typa^art). The subsequent visit referred to in 419-21 (tXtwropM 8e raxs irpos vpas tv pdfliiw 1 No t necessarily, however. These men may have come independently (cp. Lemme in Neue fahrb. far deutsche Theologie, 1895, 113 f.).

1 For the ancient and medival literature, from Chrysostom to Calvin, see T. C. Edwards’ edition, pp. xxvi-xxxii.

IIO THE CORRESPONDENCE OF PAUL 26o; cp. II34 167) was probably paid; at least this is a fair inference from the language of 2 Co 21 1 214 (I8ov rplrov TOVTO eroip.^ Zxo 2XGev, cp. 131). After this brief, disciplinary visit he returned to Ephesus, saddened and baffled (2 Co 25f). But what he had been unable (2 Co io10 1221) to effect personally, he tried to carry out by means of (c) a letter (24 78) written CK zoXXhs 6Xeos Kai ovvoxhs KapSias 81a 7roOv 8aKpv<ov, and preserved in part in 2 Co 101-1310. It was evidently carried by Titus (2 Co 213 76. 13-14). Finally, in a fourth letter (d), written from Macedonia shortly after he had left Ephesus to meet Titus on his return journey from Corinth, Paul (2 Co 1-9) rejoices over the good news which his envoy had brought, and seeks to bury the whole controversy. Titus and two other brothers (2 Co 816-23) carry this irenicon to Corinth, and Paul promises to follow before long (2 Co 94, cp. Ac 202).

The scantiness of the data upon the visits, not only of Paul but of Titus and Timotheus to Corinth, renders it almost impossible to reconstruct any scheme of events which is not more or less hypothetical at various points. For the movements of Titus and Timotheus, see Lightfoot’s Biblical Essays, 273 f.; Schmiedel, 82 f., 267-269; A. Robertson {DB. i. 492-497), Rendall (41-42), the articles on both men in Hastings’ DB. (Lock) and EBi. (the present writer), and Kennedy {op. cit. pp. 69-77, 115 f.). That Titus had at least two missions to Corinth is more than probable. Much depends on whether he is made the bearer of I Co and 2 Co 10-13, and whether the mission of 2 Co 1218 is identified with the former visit.

The precise dates of the various letters vary with the chronological schemes (see above, pp. 62-63) > all that can be fixed, with any approximate accuracy, is their relative order. Sabatier’s scheme (which is substantially that of Clemen) is—the letter of 1 Co 5°=end of 55; 1 Co = spring of 56; intermediate visit = autumn of 56; intermediate letter = spring of 57; 2 Co = autumn of 57. Zahn’s arrangement is—the letter of I Co 59 = end of 56 (or begin, of 57); i Co = spring of 57; 2 Co = (Nov. Dec.) 57. Most (e.g. Baur, Renan, Weiss, Lightfoot, Plummer, Barth, Farrar) still put both forward into A.D. 57-58 (Alford = 57). Others, however, throw them back into 54-55 (Rendall) or even 54 (Bacon), Harnack into 53 (52), and McGiffert into 51-52. As for I Co, T. C. Edwards chooses the spring of 57; Bachmann (cp. his discussion of the date, pp. 480 f.), like Findlay, among recent editors, the spring of 56 (so Julicher, Belser, Ramsay); Goudge = the spring of 55 (so C. H. Turner, DB. i. 424); Ramsay =autumn (October) of 55. The allusions to Apollos (1 Co 16) show that I Co was not written till after the period of Ac 191f, and the remark of I Co 168 serves as a further terminus ad quem for the composition of the letter within whatever year is selected. § 2. The unrecorded letter.—Our canonical First Corinthians was not the first written communication which passed between Paul and the church of Corinth. In it he alludes (59) to a previous letter in which, among other things * perhaps, he had charged them to withdraw from social intercourse with openly immoral members of the church—a counsel which they had misinterpreted. When and why this letter was written, remains a matter for conjecture. Evidently it soon perished, for Clement of Rome (xlvii. 1) knows nothing of it.

In 5% Eypaya, as the context shows, cannot be the epistolary aorist (as in 915). To delete & T0 iTriaToXf as Blass proposes (BFT. x. 1. 6of.), in order to avoid the necessity of assuming that a Pauline letter was lost, is justified neither by considerations of rhythm nor by the apparent absence of the words from the text of Chrysostom. Had an editor wished to emphasise the fact that Paul was alluding to the present letter, he would have written iv rairri ry ^ma-ToX^. The use of the plural in 2 Co 1010-11 at least corroborates the inference from i Co 59 that the canonical First Corinthians was not the only letter which had been sent from Paul to the local church, and the context of the latter passage indicates that the unrecorded letter would fairly be reckoned among the Bapelat Kal Irgypal inaroXal. § 3. The first (canonical) epistle.—The construction of 1 Co is simple and its course is straightforward. The Corinthian or rather the Achaian Christians were confronted with a series of problems, arising mainly from their social and civic relationships, which were forced upon them as they realised that Christianity meant not a mere ethical reform, but an absolutely new principle and standard of morality. These problems Paul discusses seriatim. The question of the cliques is first taken up (110-421), because it formed the most recent news received by the writer. After handling this ecclesiastical abuse, he passes to a question of incest (51-18), and thence t to the problem of litiga-tion between Christians in pagan courts (61-0a.), finally J turning back to the topic of fornication (610-20). He then (71 rep 8 eypdipare) takes up the various points on which the Corinthians had consulted him in their letter, one after another: marriage and its problems (prepl 82 Tv rapbvov, 725), including celibacy (72-40), the wisdom or legitimacy of using foods offered to idols (mep 8 Tv elButXoOvTwv, 81-111), and public worship and its problems—including rules for women (112-16), the administration * An announcement of his next visit? A word on the collection (161)? + The transition is mediated partly by the double sense ofjudge in 53- 12-13, partly by the fact that the remarks about the outside world (510f.) would naturally suggest another and a cognate aspect of the subject.

J The plea of the Corinthians quoted in 612 (all things are lawful for me} carries forward Paul’s warning against ethical sophistry in 68 (Be not deceived}. of the Lord’s Supper (1117-34), and the spiritual gifts (prepi Tv mvevparK@v, 1211440). Finally, in reply to some Christians whose Hellenic prejudices cast doubt upon the possibility of a bodily resurrection for the dead saints, Paul argues that such a rejection of the resurrection of the dead implied the rejection of that historical resurrection of Christ (151-19), which not only is the source and staple of the apostolic preaching, but also (1520-28) (he pivot of the Christian eschatological hope, and the only explanation of contemporary Christian conduct (1529-34). He then gives a positive account of the resurrection body (1535-57). A brief paragraph follows on the collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem {srepi 8e Tfs oylas, 1 6144), after which the letter closes (165-24), as it had opened (11-9), with personal details (mep 8c ‘Aro, 1612) and injunctions.

The contents of the epistle present several problems of historical and theological importance, viz., the parties in the local church, the man and his ward or daughter (736-38), the narrative of the Lord’s Supper, the glossolalia, and the argument upon the resurrection. But comparatively few problems of literary criticism are started. Occasionally the reader can detect echoes of what the Corinthians had written in their letter. Thus Paul takes up now and then phrases of theirs as a text or pivot for what he has to say; e.g. mvra uot ^eariv (69), rd. ppSiMTa. ry KOiXlq. Kal n KOiXla rots Ppibp.ao’tv (613), mvres yvucriv Exouev (81), ov8ev elwov iv Koapup, ovbels 0es erepos el uh els (84), mvra ^eariv (1023), avaaTams vtKpwv otiK ioTLv (1512, cp. 1535). Further attempts to reconstruct this letter are made by Lewin {St. Paul, i. 386), Lock {Exp.6 N\.. 127 b), Findlay {Exp.6 i. 401 f.), and P. Ewald (Neue Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1894, 194-205). {b) The language of 413 (ws TrepiKaSippara T00 Koapov ^yevriS-ppev, inivTWv Trepiptipa) is drawn from the rites of the Thargelia (cp. Usener in SEA IP. cxxxvii. 139 f.), in which only the off-scourings of humanity played the role of victims, and 511 {rip roiovrcp crvveaQleiv) recalls the well-known saying of the Ahiar-cycle, Aly son, do not even eat bread with a shameless man (cp. Ep.

Aristeas, 142). If 910b is a citation, it may be from the same source as 29 (see above, p. 31). The use of written evangelic sources has been con-jectured in 1123f {e.g. by Resch, Agrapha, 105 f., 178 f.; TU. x. 3. 627-638), and in 15357 {e.g. by Brandt, Evang. Geschichte, 414 f.); and one or two {TLZ., 1900, 661) Philonic echoes are heard, e.g., in 3s (cp. Philo, + The Christians at Corinth and in Achaia, unlike those at Thessalonika, were free from persecution at this period; their troubles were internal. de agricult. 9, etc.), 310 (cp. also Epict. ii. 15. 8-9),* 84 1550 1412 decalogo, 105), and the exegetical principle in 995. (cp. Philo, de spec. leg. irepl Ovbvruv 1, o p iiirip Xywv d vbpos X ru>v dvivrav). § 4. Its structure.—The evenness of style and the genuine epistolary stamp of the letter are so well marked that, in spite of Kabisch’s hesitation (die Eschatologie des Paulus, pp. 31 f.), its unity hardly requires detailed proof. The most drastic hypo-theses to the contrary have been furnished by Hagge and Volter (Paulus u. seine Briefe, pp. 1-73, 100-134, superseding his earlier essays). The former distinguishes three epistles: A, in i1’ 112-84 71813 919-IIX 12-14 161-9 416-20 1610-21. 24. B, in 19-415. 21, 2 Co io1-! i i Co 15, 2 Co 115b 1 Co 91-18, 2 Co 1171221 1 Co 5-6, 2 Co 131-10 1 Co 1622f; and C, in 2 Co 1-7.

* Cp. van Veen, Exegetisch-kritisch onderzoek naar i Co 151-50 (1870). It is possible, though there is no trace of it in the context, that ch. 15 was occasioned by news of some local difficulties and doubts at Corinth. The connection of i6n- with 1434f. is logically close, but letters are not written by logic, and there is no reason to suspect that 15 was subsequently inserted.

1 311-13, while 2 Co 8 is taken as a separate note written by some non-Macedonian church along with Paul.

Volter’s analysis distinguishes an original epistle in 1-2® 31-9. 16-23 41-16.

18-21 51-2. 6-13 71-6. 8-24 81-58. 6a. 7-13 9l-12. 19-20a 1023-33 I 11. 17-22. 29-34 121-12. 14-31 142-3% 37-40 151-6. 8-22. 29-31. 32b-44. 40-80. 53-55. 57-58 16, to which a later editor + has added sections containing more developed ideas of the person of Christ, the sacraments, justification, and so forth. Pierson and Naber, as usual, discover numerous fragments of Jewish and of second-century Christian origin (Veri-similia, pp. 50 f.), for which the curious may consult their pages and those of Lisco {Paulus Antipaulinus. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung d. ersten vier Kap. d. 1 Korintherbriefes, 1894).

Such wholesale theories hardly merit even a bare chronicle, but it is a legitimate t hypothesis that small passages here and there may have been interpolated, creeping in from their position as marginal glosses, or being inserted by editors to smooth out or supplement the text. Such, e.g., are: €701 8Xporo0(113, so Bruins and Heinrici; Markland andRhijn, Kplairov!), 924-27 (Schmiedel, pp, 145-146), 14330-35 (36) (Straatman, pp. 134-138; Holsten, das Evang. Paul. i. 495 f.; Schmiedel, Hilgenfeld, Michelsen, 4 Or editors; for 101-22 and 1123-28 seem to Volter to represent divergent views of the Lord’s Supper, as do 310-15 and 1 523-28 etc. of eschatology (pp.

* Among other striking parallels with Epictetus, cp. 612=iv. 1 (one of the frequent Stoical touches in Paul), 735=iii. 22, 1424=iii. 23 (oTo irpb opdaKijEv irtdei ra eKbarov KUK&), 1538=iii. 24. 93.

131 f.).

4 Findlay {EGT. ii. p. 754) admits this as an ‘abstract possibility,’ though he finds none of the instances proven. For the latter, see Bruins {TT., 1892, pp. 381 f., 471 f.). R. Scott detects in 110 + 1613-18 316-17 and 1 520-34 interpolations probably by Silas, the general editor of the whole corre-spondence.

8

Pfleiderer: Urc. i. 119 n., Baljon, Moffatt: HNT. pp. 170, 627-628; Heinrici and Bousset: pp. 123-124 = vv.34-35),* and the exegetical gloss in 1556 (Straatman, Volter, Schmiedel, von Soden: TLZ., 1895, 129; Heinrici, Drummond, Moffatt, J. Weiss, Beit rage zur -paul. Rhetorik, 170; M. Dibelius, die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909, 116-117).

Much less probable is the excision of 122 (see above, p. 19) as an editorial addition, of I7 as a gloss (Michelsen: refuted by Baljon, op. cit. pp. 40 f.), or I16 (Holsten, das Evang. Paul. i. 461; Volter, 2), or 310-15 (Bruins, TT., 1892, 407 f.; Volter), or 316 (Michelsen; but see Baljon, pp. 48-49), or 717-22 (Straatman, Baljon), or 1110 (Straatman, Holsten, Baljon), or 1123-28 (Straatman, pp. 38 f.; Bruins, p. 399; Volter, pp. 41 f.), or 1213-14 (Straatman, pp. 87 f.; Volter, p. 55), or 1523-28 (Michelsen, TT., 1877, pp. 215 f.; Bruins, pp. 391 f.; Volter, pp. 64 f.; but cp. Baljon, pp. 109 f., and Schmiedel, pp. 195 f.), or 15322 (Volter), or 1545 (Straatm., Volter), or 1622 (a Jewish Christian gloss: Bruins; Rovers, JNT. p. 37; Baljon, pp. 134 f.; Holsten)—to name only some of the suspected texts. For the various conjectures of a marginal gloss in 46, see Clemen’s Einheit. p. 30; Baljon, pp. 49-51; van Manen’s Paul. iii. 188-189, and Heinrici’s note; the fairest verdict is Clemen’s " es bleibt also nur tibrig, hier hnlich wie 29 ein Apokryphon angeftihrt zu sehen, wodurch sich vielleicht auch die Unebenheit in der Konstruction erklart.”t The transposition of 14s4'35 to a place after 1440 (so D E F G, 93, d e f g, etc.) is plausible, that of 717-24 to between 740 and 81 (Beza) is unconvincing. In the latter case,J while 716 and 725 connect well, the el uh of 717 does not follow 740 with anything like smoothness; its present position is on the whole as likely to have been original as any other,—a verdict which applies also to 1622 (transferred by Hagge to a position after 2 Co 131°). § 5. Its attestation.—First Corinthians has strong and early attestation (cp. Knowling’s Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 51 f.) in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polykarp, to all of whom it appears to have been familiar. The figure of the body and its members (1212. 14. 21) emerges in Clem. Rom. xxxvii. 5, while the language and ideas of 134-7 reappear in xlvi. 5 (ymn mvra ave\erai, Trdvra p.aKpoOvp.ec KTX.')but as the epistle is actually referred to (111-13) in xlvii. 1 (dvaXd/3ere Thv emaroXrp' TOV p.aKapiov HavAov TOV dvoerToXov. ri 7porov vpdv ev dp^ij TOV evayyeXov ypayev; em dXrfeias wevparLKuis roreev v/uv Tepi avrov Te Kai Kno re * Zscharnack, der Dienst der Frau in d. ersten Jahrh. der Christi. Kirche, 1902, 70 f. t Lietzmann’s reason for rejecting any hypothesis of interpolation here (“ Voll verstehen kbnnen wir die Stelle nicht, eben weil wir einen Privatbrief intimster Art vor uns haben ”) is untrue to the character of I Co. + While this passage cannot (as, e.g., by Straatman and Baljon) be assigned to the second century, it may, like 1435f, belong to the pre-canonical epistle to the Corinthians. § On the freedom with which Clement really paraphrases Paul, cp. West-cott’s Canon of the NT. pp. 49-50. xai ‘AzoX, 3ia TO Kai TOTS irpoaKXiaeis vus merotncbai), it is needless to do more than note the repeated echoes in xxiv. 1 (1520-23), xxiv. 4-5 (1580-37), xxxvii. 3 (1523), xxxviii. 2 (1617), xlvi. 7 (615), and xlviii. 5 (128-9).* The use of the epistle by Ignatius is even more distinct and copious; e.g. 210 = Phil. vii. 1 (TO mveOpa ... TO. KpviTTa 2yxe), 69-10 (un ravobe ovre Tpvot Ovre MoiXol... Baoielav ©cov KXijpovop.'qiroviri) with 317 = Eph. xvi. I (un avobe, d8eX^>oi p.ov‘ ot oiKOc^Oopot Bacelav ®eov oi KX?]povop,yaovai) and Phil. hi. 3, <pb = Rom. vi. 1 (koXov Mot atroOaveiv 81a lycrow Xpurrov y ktX.), 1016-17 = Phil. iv. 1 (pda yap gaps tov Xvpiov nuov ’Irjcrov Xpiarov, Kai ev iroTijpiov cis cvoktiv tov aluaros avrov). Numerous other reminiscences occur: 310-17= Eph. ix. 1 (XtOoi vaov), $ = Magn. x. 3 (the old and evil leaven), = Rom. iv. 3 (reebepos’I. Xpuorov), 927= Trail, xii. 3 (lva un dSd/ct/zos evpebG), 1212= Trail, xi. 2, 1568 = Eph. x. 2, xx. 1, i618 = Eph. ii. 2, etc. (cp. NTA. pp. 64-67: “ Ignatius must have known this epistle almost by heart”). Polykarp, like Clement, actually quotes the epistle (xi. 2, aut nescimus quia sancti mundum iudicabunt? Sicut Paulus docet = 62); alone, among the apostolic fathers, he uses otKo8op.eiv, a favourite term of 1 Cor., and more than once his language reflects the earlier writing —e.g. hi. 2—3= 1313, iv. 3 (ovre TI TW Kpvirrwv Ths KapSias) = 1425, v. 3==69, and xi. 4=i226—though his employment of it is less explicit than that of Ignatius. No stress can be laid on the occasional coincidences between 1 Cor. and Hermas (Sim. v. vii. = 316-17), Mand. (iv. iv. 1-2 = 7 39-40), 2 Clem. (vii. r =924-25, ix. 3 = 316 619), Barnabas (iv. 11, vi. i r = 31 16. 18f), or the Didache (x. 6, papavb=1622). With 2 Cor., it appears in Marcion’s Canon and in the Muratorian, besides being used by the Ophites and Basilides, quoted almost verbally in Justin (dial. xxxv. = 1118f, cohort, xxxii. = 1 27-10 etc.) and Diognet. v. ( = 412) and xii. ( = 81), and cited by Irenaeus t (adv. haer. iv. 27. 3 = io1'12, v. 36 = I 525-26), Athenagoras (de resurr. mortis, 61= 1554), Tertullian (praescr. haer. xxxiii.), and Clement of Alexandria (Paed. i. 33, etc.). Tertullian once (de monog. 3) asserts that it was written about one hundred and sixty years ago; although his language is loose, it proves, as Harnack points out, that by the * Cp. NTA. 40-44, where the occurrence of the same quotation in I Co 2s and Clem. Rom. xxxiv. 8 {Mart. Polyk. ii.), is explained by the independent use of a pre-Christian source (see above, p. 31). t Quoting the earlier testimony of an elder. beginning of the third century an interest was taken by some Carthaginian Christians in the chronology of Paul’s letters. § 6. The unrecorded visit.—Previous to the composition of i Cor., Paul does not seem to have visited Corinth after his first mission, when the local churches were founded (Ac 184-11). The silence, not only of Acts but of i Cor. itself,* tells against the hypothesis (e.g. of Billroth, Reuss, B. Weiss, Schmiedel: 51 f., Holsten, Denney, G. G. Findlay, and Zahn) that this diffident and successful visit (1 Co 22) was followed by another, prior to the letter of 1 Co 59, which has remained unrecorded (Alford, Lightfoot, Sanday, Waite, and Bernard, after Klopper and Rabiger; cp. Hilgenfeld in ZWT, 1888, 171 f.). His recent knowledge of the church, at the time when 1 Cor. was composed, rested on information given him by ol XX6^ (111, cp. 51 n18). and on the letter forwarded to him by the church itself (71); the communications between himself and the Christians of Corinth, since he left, had been entirely epistolary (59). The sole visit im-plied in 1 Co (cp. 21 32 1 r2) is that which led to the establishment of the church; and, although Paul may have mentioned it in the letter of i Co 59, while the new developments drove it into the back-ground afterwards, it is not easy to suppose that if he had revisited the church during the interval he would have spoken, as he does in 1 Cor., about his personal relations with the local Christians.

While i Cor. does not presuppose a second visit, however, it foreshadows one. The tone of 2 Co 21 (xpva ep.avr<2 TOVTO, TO un TrdXtv ev Xum irpbs vuas eXOeiv), where 7raA.1i' most naturally goes closely with ev Xv-n-rj, implies that, since writing 1 Cor. he had paid a visit which left painful memories.! The Xxnrq was not the depression of 1 Co 23; it was a later sorrow, probably occasioned by unworthy members of the church itself, but we can only conjecture (from references like 2 Co 1221) its origin.

Why did Paul hurry over to Corinth? To vindicate in person his authority against the machinations of Judaistic agitators who had been discrediting his gospel and his character? To enforce the discipline of the incestuous person (1 Co 53), which the local Christians were perhaps unwilling to carry through? Or to maintain discipline more generally (cp. 2 Co 1221)? The choice probably lies among the two latter; the occasion of * I Co 167 cannot be pressed into the support of this view, for &pri points forward, not backward. t So formerly Belser (TQ., 1894, 17-47). the visit was moral laxity rather than the emergence of cliques in the local church. This view is almost necessary when the intermediate visit is placed prior to the letter of i Co 59, but it fits in with the theory which inserts that visit between i Cor. and the intermediate letter, although our lack of informa-tion about the origin of the cliques at Corinth prevents any reconstruction from being more than hypothetical.

Grammatically, the language of 2 Co 1214 and 131 might be taken to denote not his actual visit, but simply his inten-tions (so e.g. Paley, Baur, de Wette, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Renan, Farrar, Ramsay, G. H. Gilbert: Student's Life of Paul, pp. 160 f., Robertson). The context and aim of the epistle must decide, and the evidence seems strongly in favour of the former view. Against people who suspected his consistency and goodwill, it would have been of little use to plead that he had honestly intended to come, that he had been quite ready to visit them. His actions, not his wishes, were the final proof desiderated by the Corinthians, and the passages in question (cp. 132 where zapov TO Serepov kal rv vw answers to els TO Thv) gain immensely in aptness when they are taken to imply that Paul was on the point of paying a third visit in person.

In any case the key to 2 Cor. is not so much its affinity of style and language to 1 Cor. as the change which has come over the situation. New elements of strain have entered into the relations between Paul and the church, and one of these, which lies on the face of 2 Cor., is a suspicion of his character. This was occasioned, among other things, by an alteration which he had felt himself obliged to make in his plans for revisiting the church. The details of this new situation, so far as they can be made out, are one of the main proofs for the thesis that 2 Cor. cannot be explained simply out of 1 Cor.

In i Co i6sf Paul promises to pay them what he hopes will be a long visit, on his way south from Macedonia. At present (Apn), he would only have time for a flying visit {iv : besides, the pressure of work at Ephesus will keep him there till Pentecost. The critical state of matters at Corinth forced him, however, to pay a rapid visit. When he writes the intermediate letter, he anticipates a third visit, but says nothing about its details, except to protest that he would take no money for his support ( 1214f.), and that he would be as strict, if necessary, as on his second disciplinary visit (132). But either in the lost part of this or more probably orally (on the occasion of his rapid visit; Konig, ZWT., 1897, pp. 523 f.), he must have led the Corinthians to believe that on this occasion he would pass through Corinth on his way to Macedonia, and then return to Corinth on his way to Judaa (2 Co i",f-; his destination is now more definite than when he wrote I Co 166 00 v mopelouai). It was his desire thus to give them the benefit of a double visit (evrpav Circumstances, however, led him to alter his plans. Instead of crossing to Corinth, in the wake of Titus, he hurried anxiously to meet the latter on his return journey (2 Co 212f.) via Macedonia, and 2 Co 115-213 is his explanation of the reasons which led to this change of plan. He defends himself against any suspicion of insincerity, explaining that he could not trust himself to come at once to them under the circumstances; he could not have spared them (2 Co I23, an allusion to 132), and it was kinder to keep away. This implies that the Corinthians had heard not only of the promised double visit but of its abandonment, and that therefore they suspected him of eAacpa. If he was not coming at all, they argued, he had grown indifferent to them; and even if he was taking the round-about route via Macedonia, he had broken his promise to take them first.

* The of I13 is often used to support this view; but it may quite well refer simply to the present letter. •.

The competing view that the plan authorised in 2 Co 1l5f was his original idea, and that 1 Co 165 represents the change which the suspicious Corinthians misinterpreted to his discredit, reads into the latter passage a motive which is not there, and fails to account for the fear of Xmn which (according to 2 Co 123-23) was his real motive for altering the programme (cp. Schmiedel, p. 69). The change of plan therefore falls later than the dispatch of I Cor.

K. Hoss (ZNIV., 1903, 268-270) argues it was by his second visit that Paul practically altered the programme of I Co 165-7. He meant then to go on to Macedonia and return to Corinth, but the local troubles in the latter church drove him either straight back to Ephesus, or, more probably, on first of all to Macedonia, where the receipt of bad news (2 Co I23) made him abandon any thought of return in the meantime, and forced him back to Ephesus. In 2 Co 113f. he justifies this course of action. The theory is plausible, and would be strengthened by Krenkel’s view that pxecbau is generally used in the sense of ‘ return ’ by Paul, as by other Greek writers (pp. 202 f.).

Luke was as indifferent to the subsequent relations of Paul with the Corinthian as with the Thessalonian Christians, but the lacunae of his outline in Ac 18-19 are not seriously felt until we pass from i Cor. to 2 Cor. The latter writing presupposes a t Halmel ID er Ziveite Kor. Brief, 48 f.), Dr. Kennedy (op. cit. pp. 34 k), and Plummer all deny this; but the passage (2 Co 115-16) seems deprived of its force if it is reduced to a defence against the charge of iXafpla, on the ground that he really wanted to visit them “ if only he could do so without having to exercise severity, ” or that he had simply delayed to pay his promised visit as he had intended. ' ’ ‘ " stormy interlude, upon which Acts throws no light and r Cor. very little; the painful situation has to be reconstructed from allusions in 2 Cor. itself. Either Luke was ignorant of the details or, as is more likely, he chose to pass over so unedifying and discreditable a local episode. In any case it did not come within the scope of his work to sketch the development of the Gentile Christian churches founded by the apostle Paul, or to chronicle every later visit paid by the missioners to a church. §7. The intermediate letter (= 2 Co 1011 310).—From this visit Paul returned to Ephesus, saddened and baffled (2 Co 123f.). His mission had been fruitless and unpleasant. I decided, he tells the Corinthians, that I would not visit you again in sorrow; instead of a visit, which would have only led to pain, I wrote to you out of much distress and misery of heart with many tears (24 7 8). This distress and passion made Paul’s letter so sarcastic and severe that the recollection of the language he had used afterwards caused him some qualms of conscience (24f.), although its threats and appeals were intended to lance a tumour.

* On this view Sevrtpav refers to the return visit on this tour, not to the second of his three visits (1214 131), the Kal clauses being epexegetic of xapiv. The variant xaP^v corresponds excellently to 124 (awepyol iap.ev Ths xaP^ uv), but may have been introduced from that very passage.

Unless this letter has been like the first one sent by Paul to Corinth, it must be identified either (a) with I Corinthians or (b) with 2 Co 10-13. The former (a) hypothesist surely breaks down when 1 Cor. is compared with the object of the intermediate letter as defined in 2 Co 1l5f 23f. 78f. Even such passages in i Cor. as vibrate with irony and passion (e.g. 48f. 14r) are not only inadequate to account for Paul’s anxiety about the pain he had caused his friends, but also too few and too little characteristic of the epistle as a whole to be regarded as likely to stamp themselves specially either on the mind of the Corinthians or on the memory of the apostle. I Cor. is permeated by a spirit of calm, practical discussion, whose occasional outbursts of emotional tension (e.g. in 5-6) could not have caused Paul even a momentary twinge of compunction. His language in 2 Co 24 and 78 is too definite to be explained as the mere recollection of one or two isolated sentences in an epistle of the size and general character of I Cor., and a solitary postscript like I Co 1624 cannot be adduced as proof of the ymn recalled in 2 Co 24. The alternative is to suppose (b} that this letter of disturbed feeling has been preserved, in whole or part, in the closing section (1011310) of our canonical 2 Corinthians, an hypothesis which is favoured by the spirit, contents, and style of these chapters. They are written out of the tension felt by one who was not yet sure of his ultimate success in dealing with a difficult + Advocated by Meyer, Ellicott, B. Weiss, Sanday, Denney, Zahn, and Bernard, amongst others. situation. They vibrate with anger and anxiety. Paul’s authority and actions had been called in question by a Jewish Christian party of intruders whose teaching also constituted a real peril for his converts. To meet these dangers, due to the same overbearing party who had gained a footing in the church (1120), possibly headed by some ringleader (6 rocouros, ns, 25 712), Paul retorts upon his detractors. It is possible, and even evident, that they had been able to inflict some severe and public humiliation upon him by means of charges of unscrupulous dealing, overbearing conduct, unfounded pretensions to the apostolic ministry, and so forth. At any rate their success roused his anger. Not on personal grounds merely, but because, as at Thessalonika (see above), an attack on his character and authority involved his very gospel, Paul eagerly rushes to defend himself against slander and censure on the part of his opponents and suspicion on the part of his converts. He proceeds to exhibit his own titles to credit and honour as an apostle of Christ. Self-exaltation is the keynote: Kavxaadai. Sei. Paul’s aim is to defend his character, with which his gospel was bound up, against slander and deprecia-tion. He exhibits, with a mixture of pride and reluctance, his indefeasible titles to credit as an apostle of Jesus Christ. In chs. 1-9 the sense of Kavxvals; kaxnua, and Kavxcurdat (a group of words especially characteristic of 2 Cor.) is, except once (112), entirely complimentary to the Corinthians, and indeed confined to them, whereas the nineteen instances in 10-13 are permeated by a hot sense of personal resentment against disloyal suggestions and criticisms at Corinth. Psychologically this tone is entirely suitable to the occasion. “In great religious movements the leaders are often compelled to assert themselves pretty peremptorily, in order that their work may not be wrecked by conceited and incapable upstarts " (Drummond, pp. 171-172). Paul follows here much the same method as in his first letter to the Thessalonians, although the latter had not been carried away like the Corinthians by the insinuations of outsiders against their apostle. He endeavours to expose the shamelessness and futility of such attacks upon him, in order to discredit the influence of such opponents upon his converts. It is painful, he protests, to be obliged to assert his apostolic authority (101-6, cp. an excellent paper by V. Weber in BZ., 1903, 64-78), but authority he has (io7"18) as well as his rivals, these superlative apostles of the Judaising party. If he must parade his apostolic claims (111-6) to the Corinthians, let him remind them that he had merely foregone his claim to maintenance out of disinterested consideration (117-15), not—as his opponents malignantly in-sinuated—because he felt he dared not ask the support which every legitimate apostle was entitled to demand. After a fresh, half-ironical apology ( 1116-21), he goes on proudly to match his merits against those of his rivals (1121-23), and to claim superiority in actual services and sufferings for the cause of Christ Finally, he gives an autobiographical outline of his claim to have visions and revelations (121-10). After a summary of these arguments (1211-13), he reiterates his honesty and authority in view of a third visit (12141310).

* So especially Bleek (SK., 1830, 625-632), Credner (Einl. i. 371), Olshausen, Ewald (Sendschreiben d. Paulus, az"] f.), Godet, Neander (293 f.), Sabatier, Klopper (Untersuchzingen, 24 f.), Robertson, Drummond, Findlay inDB. iii. 71 if.; Jacquier, Lietzmann, and Barth (INT 49-50).

It is to this intermediate letter, as much as to Romans or Galatians, that Jerome’s famous description of Paul’s style applies: ‘ quam artifex, quam prudens, quam dissimulator sit eius quod agit, uidentur quidem uerba simplicia, et quasi innocentis hominis ac rusticani... sed quocunque respexeris, fulmina sunt, hret in causa, capit omne quod tetigerit, tergum uertit ut superet, fugam simulat ut occidat.’ This tallies not merely with his employment of OT citations, but with his argument and invectives. The abruptness of the opening words {airbs 5e eyd; IlauXos) shows that 1011310 represents in all likelihood only a fragment of the original. It is more probable that the entire letter was written by Paul (the earlier part, no longer extant, perhaps in his own name and in that of Timotheus) than that the extant portion was appended originally to a circular letter from other Christian leaders at Ephesus. 1310 does echo io10, but this does not prove that the latter passage represents the original opening of the epistle. From iolf- we might conjecture that the lost context included a reference to the apostle’s detractors at Corinth, but in any case there is no logical or psychological antithesis between 915 and iolf-.

* On the insecurity and danger of travelling, see Miss A. J. Skeel’s Travel in the First Century after Christ, with special reference to Asia Minor (1901), pp. 70 f.

The incongruity of 10-13 as a sequel to 1-9 was seen as far back as the eighteenth century by Semler, who tentatively suggested that 10-13 repre-sented a later and separate epistle, or that portions of them (e.g. 1214-21, 131-10) were misplaced from I Co 23 59-13; and by M. Weber {de numm epist. ad Corinth, rectius constituendo, 1798), who separated 1-9, 1 310-13 from 10-1 310, a construction still advocated on varying grounds by critics like Krenkel {Beitrdge, pp. 308 f.) and Drescher {SK., 1897, pp. 43-111). The latter portion, on this theory, was written after Titus and his party had come back from Corinth. The further step of relegating 10-13 to an earlier period than that of 1-9 was first taken by Hausrath in his momentous essay, whose general conclusions have been ratified and restated by an increasing cohort of scholars, including (besides those named above on p. 109) Paulus, Weisse {Philos. Dogmatik, i. 145), Wagenmann {fahrb. deut. Theol., 1870, p. 541), Michelsen {TT., 1873, 424), Lipsius {JPT., 1876, pp. 530f.), Steck, Seufert {ZIVT, 1885, p. 369), Schmiedel, Cramer, Cone {Paul, The Man, The Teacher, and the Missionary, pp. 47, 125), McGiffert {AA. 313-315), Adeney {INT. 368 f.), Moffatt {HNT. pp. 174 f.). Bacon {INT. 93 b, Story of St. Paul, pp. 284 b), Clemen {Paulus, i. 79 b), Plummer, Pfleiderer {Urc., Eng. tr., i. 144b), von Soden {INT. 46-56), Volter, R. Scott, G. H. Rendall, and A. S. Peake {INT. 35 b). Schmiedel’s treatment has given a new rank and impressiveness to the theory, but Kennedy and Rendall are its ablest advocates in English. The internal evidence for 1011310 as prior to 1-9 has been already outlined, and it remains only to point out how often in the latter letter the former is echoed {e.g. 132 in i23, 1310 in 23, io0 in 29, the self-assertion of n5‘ 18. 23 in 31= 512), how incidental phrases like els ra vTrepbKeiva vp.G>v (106= Rome and Spain, cp. Ro 1524 28) and ol abeXipol IXObvres airb Makeovias (ll9) suit Ephesus better than Macedonia as the place of composition, and finally how the two letters came to be united in an order which was the reverse of the chronological one.

When the Pauline letters came to be edited for the purposes of the Canon, the earlier of the two extant letters to Corinth was stripped of its opening and added to the later and larger one. Both made up a single writing similar in size to 1 Cor. Instances of this inverted order, in the editing of letters, are known in the case, e.g., of Cicero’s correspondence. The finale, 1311-13, which does not come naturally* after 1310, was probably shifted to that position from its original site at the end of 9 (note the characteristic play on words in x^Pls and Xa'LPeTe> 915 311, and the aptness of 1311-12 as a finale to 9, where the collection on behalf of the Palestinian relief fund is treated as a bond of union and an opportunity of brotherly kindness). Here, as else-where in ancient literature, the reasons for such editorial handling elude the modern critic. Possibly, as Kennedy suggests, the copyist or editor of the two letters welded them together in this order, since ch. 9 promised a visit and ch. 10 apparently referred to it. “ It is indeed a visit of a very different kind. There is an apparent resemblance concealing a deep-seated difference, but this is precisely the complexion of things which would be likely to mislead a copyist.”

Objections have been tabled to the identification of 101-1310 with the intermediate and painful letter, (a) such as the lack of any reference to the case of the local offender (2 Co 25 712), which was not yet settled, t But 1011310 is not necessarily the whole of the original letter, and in any case the apostle probably leaves the offender alone because his mind was con-centrated on the broader issue of which this man’s case formed only part. The case had now fallen to the Corinthians to deal with. Possibly, too, the matter was left out of the final recension, as it had ended satisfactorily. (b) 1010 need not refer to the painful intermediate letter; the allusion fits the letter of 1 Co 5% and 1 Co itself quite admirably. (c) I23 does not imply that the painful letter was in lieu of a visit. As 2 shows, the painful visit had been made.

The alternative to this rearrangement of 10-13, I-9, is to account for the abrupt alteration of tone in 101f by conjecturing, e.g., (a) that since writing 1-9, Paul had unexpectedly received unfavourable news from Corinth, which led him to break out upon his disloyal church with fresh reproaches. This is possible, but it is pure guesswork. There is no word of it in 10-13, as there surely would have been in order to account for the rapid change of tone. The supposition (b) that in the last four chapters he suddenly turns to a special and recalcitrant faction in the church is equally forced. They are addressed to the church as a whole (cp. 132), not to any turbulent * The sequence of 1310 and 1311 is plainly editorial (cp. especially Krenkel, pp. 358 f.). “So does no man write. The tragedy of King Lear, passing into an idyllic dance of peasants—such is the impression of the paragraph as it stands. It is an absolute non sequitur” (Mackintosh, p. 338). umbrage, or rather voiced the feelings of those who took umbrage, at Paul’s domineering methods of discipline. Had the misconduct been due to a private quarrel between two members of the local church (Krenkel, 304f.), it could hardly have become so significant as to involve the apostle. minority. It is in the opening of the later epistle that Paul distinguishes the majority (25.) from a section of disaffected members, and the iTaxo of 29=715-16 is much more intelligible after than before io6. The sharp warning of 1221 upsets the (c) view that in 1-9 Paul is praising the church for its repentance, while in 10-13 he is blaming it for still siding with his opponents. Finally (d), the view of Drescher and Klopper, that Paul wrote 1-9 under a sanguine misapprehension of the real state of affairs at Corinth, as reported by Titus incorrectly, and that 10-13 represents his rebound to the opposite extreme of denunciation, lies open to the same objection as (a). In short, all theories which place 10-13 after 1-9, either as part of the same epistle or as a later letter, involve the hypothesis that the Corinthian trouble, after all that had happened, broke out again in the same acute form as before. This difficulty besets even the presentment of the case for the canonical structure of the epistle (recently urged, with ability, by Weiss, AJT. i. 355-363; Klopper, Rohr, A. Robertson, Zahn, INI, §§19-20; Bachmann, 414 f., and Bernard), which defends its integrity mainly on the general ground that the closing four chapters represent not a fresh situation, but an emotional and argumentative climax, the last charge, as it were, of Paul’s dialectic, which was carefully kept in reserve until it could sweep out to complete the victory already gained in part (114). Some critics further argue that 2 Cor. is emphatically a letter of moods,* which was not composed at a single sitting, and that strong cross-currents of feeling are to be expected under the circumstances. But the variations in 1-9 and 10-13 are too decisive to be explained upon the mere supposition that Paul was a busy man who stopped now and then, as he dictated, or hurried from one subject to another. On any hypothesis there is a residuum of obscurity owing to the extremely intricate and subtle character of the relations between Paul and the Corinthian church; but this residuum is decidedly less upon the theory just advocated than upon the view that after writing 2 Co 1-9 the apostle relapsed, for no obvious reason,! into the temper of scathing animosity and indignation from which he had just emerged, resuscitating an old quarrel after it had been almost buried. There is a psychological inconsequence on the latter theory which it is difficult to credit, even in a man of Paul’s passionate temperament. § 8. 2 Co 1-9.—The effect of this sharp letter was favourable. Titus returned from Corinth to greet Paul in Macedonia with the glad news that the church had regained her loyalty and vindicated him at the expense of his opponents (213 713).

t It should no longer require to be proved that this offender is not the incestuous person of 1 Co 51, but some one who had wronged Paul himself (6 irnbels). The indulgent consideration of 2 Co 76 11 refers to a situation which did not exist when 1 Cor. was written (cp. Weizsacker, A A. pp. 341-353)5 and Timotheus could not be 6 ikn@els, except as Paul’s representa-tive. The person who insulted Paul might conceivably be the offender of I Co 51, but the likelihood is that he was another Corinthian who took

This happy intelligence found Paul (at Philippi?) tossing on a sea! of troubles (1-2), partly raised by recent experiences in *This invalidates the parallel (brought forward by Comely, after Hug and Ruckert) with the De Corona, the first part of which is calm and moderate, while in the later sections Demosthenes breaks out deliberately into a violent polemic against his opponent. t The reductio ad absurdum of this hypothesis is surely reached in Lietzmann’s naive remark (p. 204): ‘ mir genugt z. B. die Annahme einei schlaflos durchwachten Nacht zwischen c. 9 und c. 10 zur Erklarung.’ $ Cp. the description of 2 Cor. by L. Davies {Exp^ iv. 299-300): " The Asia Minor, partly by anticipations of the future. Driven from his old anchorage at Ephesus, he was still uncertain whether Corinth, his former harbour, would admit him. The informa-tion brought by Titus banished this anxiety, and out of the glad sense of he wrote a fresh epistle (1-9), breathing delight and affectionate gratitude, irenical in tone, designed to re-establish mutual confidence and to obliterate all memories of the past bitter controversy. To forgive and to forget is its keynote. The sky is once more clear, so far as the apostle is concerned. Indeed, after pouring out his heart to the Corinthians, he even ventures at the close to renew his appeal on behalf of the collection (8-9). These two chapters are not an anticlimax (see below), and “there is no good reason for treating them as a separate epistle. As such the semi-apolo-getic tone would make it poor and unconvincing; while, as an appendage to 1-7, the tone adopted is appropriate, natural, and in perfect good taste. It is a happy parallel to the epistle to Philemon, and the same note of Christian chivalry, courtesy, and delicacy pervades both” (Rendall, p. 73).

The epistle opens with an invocation of God as the comforter, which leads Paul to speak about his own recent experiences of deliverance (13-11) in Asia Minor. He then passes on to explain his change of plans, t his reasons for writing instead of travelling to them (123-211), and his journey to Macedonia (212-17). This suggests a general vindication of his ministry and preaching (31-46), with all its sufferings (47-510) and methods of appeal (511 610). Then, after a quick outburst of appeal to the Corinthians themselves for frank confidence in him (611-13 72-4), the apostle harks back to the contrast between their past trouble and this present happiness (75f.), thanking them for their kind reception of Titus his envoy (713f:), and using the example of the Macedonian churches’ liberality to incite them to proceed with the business of the Palestinian relief fund or collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem (8-9) —a task which Titus himself $ would superintend in person. With a hearty farewell ( 1311-13) the letter then closes. letter exhibits a tumult of contending emotions. Wounded affection, joy, self-respect, hatred of self-assertion, consciousness of the authority and importance of his ministry, scorn of his opponents, toss themselves like waves, sometimes against each other, on the troubled sea of his mind. Strong language, not seldom stronger than the occasion seems to warrant, figurative expressions, abrupt turns, phrases seized and flung at his assailants, words made up, iterated, played upon, mark this epistle far more than any other of the apostle’s letters.” t On I6, 8-10. 1s-17. 23 21, cp. Warfield in JBL. (1886) 27 f.

* Note the repetition of zapknots (eleven times).

I The old identification of the anonymous brother (rv delv) of 818 and 1218 with Luke is carried a step further by Souter (ET. xviii. 285, 335-336), who takes the words in their literal sense..

SECOND CORINTHIANS 12$ The course of the letter is determined by the unpremeditated movements of the writer’s mind, working on the practical situation of the Corinthians. It is too artificial to find, with Heinrici, any rhetorical scheme in the disposition of its contents, as if it presented a Trpooipaov (31-6), mpbeois and rciis (37-18), Aois (41-15), egressus in causa (416-521) erriXo-yos (6174), and varpomn ue®' iwep^oX^ (1o-13). For one thing this covers at once too much (10-13) and too little (1-2) of the epistle, and, while such artistic schematism may be applicable to Hebrews (see below), it seems irrelevant in the case of this genuine letter.

The paragraph 614-71 probably is a fragment interpolated from some other epistle, in all likelihood from the lost letter written first of all to the Corinthian church (see above, p. 109). In its present situation* it looks like an erratic boulder, and although no MSS evidence can be adduced for the hypothesis, the internal evidence is fairly conclusive (so Emmerling, Schrader: der Apostel Paulus, 1835, 300 f.; Straatman, pp. 138 f.; Ewald; Hilgenfeld; A. H. Franke, S/C., 1884, pp. 544-583; S. Davidson, INT. i. 63; Holsten, ztm Ev. des Paulus u. Petrus, p. 386; Sabatier’s Paul, pp. 177-178; Hausrath, iv. 55 f.; Renan, iii. Ixii-lxiii; Rovers, Baljon, Cremer, Clemen, Pfleiderer: Urc. i. 134; McGiffert, p. 332; Moffatt, HNT. pp. 628-629; von Soden, Bacon, Halmel, etc.). The connection of 611-13 and 72 is good: f we keep nothing back from you, O Corinthians; our heart is wide open. Your constraint lies not in us, it lies in your own hearts. Now one good him deserves another (to speak as to my children), be you wide open too. Take us into your hearts. On the other hand 613 fits on as roughly to 614 as 71 to 72, and the ordinary explanations of the canonical order are singularly strained. Thus Godet (INT. i. 321-323) makes Paul’s demand for strict abstinence the reason why the Corinthians were holding back from him; but the constraint of which he is conscious lies surely in the personal feelings left by the recent strain between them and himself. “Much of the coldness towards Paul” was, no doubt, “the result of an unworthy deference to heathen sentiment and practice” (Drummond); but of this particular cause there is no hint in the context or even in the letter (for 132 belongs to an earlier epistle). J + Lisco’s intercalation of 1211-19 between 613 and 72 is hopelessly wrong. t Weizsacker’s theory (A A. i. 363) is that the outburst of 614-71 is semi - apologetic, but the language does not suggest a desire on the part of the apostle to assert his opposition to pagan vices by way of meeting Judaistic reflections on his character and gospel. For Ltitgert’s ingenious but equally unconvincing view, see ET. xx. 428-429. Recent explanations of its present position as part of the original epistle are offered by Bachmann (289 f.) and Windisch (Taufeu. Siinde im Urchristenthum, 149 f.).

* So Hilgenfeld, Franke, Sabatier, Lisco, von Dobschtitz (Urc. pp. 29, 45), and von Soden; cp. Whitelaw, Class. Review (1890), pp. 12, 248, 317. Other conjectures suppose it has drifted from a later apostolic epistle (Ewald), or that it originally lay after I Co io22 (Hausrath, Blass: BFT. x. 1, 51-60), if not I Co 6 (Pfleiderer). The letter mentioned in 1 Co 58 contained the very advice given in 2 Co 614-71 (cp. efeX0ef^, I Co 510= are, 2 Co 617).

Neither the language nor the ideas justify a suspicion of the genuineness of the passage,* as though it emanated from Jewish Christians, with a narrow repulsion to ‘ unclean things ’ (617), or from a Puritan Christian of the second century (Straatman, i. pp. 138-146; Baljon, pp. 147-150, and others, including Schrader; Bakhuyzen; Holsten; Michelsen, TT., 1873, 423; Rovers, INT. pp. 37-38; Halmel, 115f.; Krenkel, Beitrage, 332; and R. Scott, The F'auline Epistles, 236-237). The sole feature which is at first sight out of keeping with Paul’s normal thought is, as Schmiedel admits (pp. 253 f.) after an exhaustive discussion, the allusion to the defilement of flesh and spirit (71); but t flesh here is used in a popular sense (cp. I Co 734 holy in body and spirit) almost as an equivalent to body, while spirit is to be read untechnically in the light of a passage like I Th 523.

A second instance of extraneous matter in the canonical letter is furnished by the brief paragraph 1132-33, describing Paul’s escape from Damascus; this interrupts the sequence of thought in 1130-31 121-5 (exulting and weakness) so violently as to rouse suspicions of its right to stand here (so Holsten, ZWT., 1874, 388 f., and van Leeuwen, de joodsche achtergrond van der Brief aan de Romeinen, 1894, p. iii., adding 121a.; Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, and Baljon, adding 121; Michelsen, TT,, 1873, pp. 424 f., adding 121. 7a.; and Rovers, INT. 38, adding 121. 11b-12). ‘The historicity of the paragraph need not be doubted’ (Schmiedel), the two real difficulties being the precise date of the incident and the manner in which the paragraph drifted into its present position. On the latter point, the alternatives are to suppose (with Rovers, ZWT., 1881, 404, and others) that it was inserted by a scribe who failed to find any illustration J of o@veia (1130) in the context, or that it is a marginal addition by Paul himself, properly belonging to the parenthesis 1124f. (so Wendt, Acts, p. 35), or that it originally belonged to some other letter (Bacon, Story of St. Paul, pp. 87-88). The last-named scholar dates the occurrence after A.D. 38, in the period of Gal. 122-24 (cp. 2 Co 122). § 9. The structure of 2 Cor.—Beyond the relegation of 614-71 to an earlier epistle, and of 10-1310 to the intermediate letter, it is hardly possible to push the analysis. 2 Co 1-8 and even 1-9 hang together too closely to be resolved into more than one letter (cp. Clemen in TLZ., 1897, 560 f.; Rohr, pp. 102 f.), but it is the supposed difference of situation between 8 and 9 which started not only Semler’s theory (9 = a separate letter to the Christians of Achaia), but more recently A. Halmel’sg drastic * Cp. Clemen’s discussion, Einheitlichkeit, pp. 586, and Paulus, i. 77-78. t So Sokolowski emphatically (Die Begriffe Geist u. Leben bei Paulus, 1903, PP- 126 f., 1446), and M. Dibelius (Die Geisterivelt ini Glauben des Paulus, 1900, 62 f.). + Those who defend the passage in its present position take this line of interpretation, as if Paul were frankly confessing an experience which savoured to some of cowardice (so especially Heinrici). § Cp. Holtzmann’s review in GGA. (1905) 667 f., of his Der mveite Korintherbrief des Apostels Paulus. Geschichtliche und Literaturkritische reconstruction of three letters: A = 11-2 18-213 75-824 1313, B=1ol-1310, and C=13-7 214—74 9. 1311-12, A and C being put together about A.D. TOO, when 614-71 312-18 and 43-4. 6 were editorially added, whilst B was not incorporated until afterwards. The deletion of the two latter passages as non-Pauline (allied to the ep. of Barnabas) is fatal to this theory. The discovery of a flaw in the juxtaposition of 213 and 214f. is due to prosaic exegesis, and the failure to see that 1l5f implies a second visit obliges the author to posit this visit between the composition of A and B, in fulfilment of the promise made in 1l5f. C was written immediately prior to the apostle’s last visit. Some of the obvious difficulties in this complicated scheme (B = the appendix* to a letter from the Macedonian churches which the Corinthians took as an 2moroln avo-TarcK-q, cp. 31f.!) are avoided by. Volter {Paulus und seine Briefe, pp. 74 f.), who advocates the identification of 10-1 310 with the Intermediate Letter, but acutius quam verius eliminates 121-22 216b-46 416-511 516 614-71, and 89 from 1-9, 1311-18 as matter due to a later editor or editors (see above, p. 113). The criticism of Halmel would apply even more stringently to Lisco’s keen attempt on similar lines {Die Enstehung des zweiten Korintherbriefes, Berlin, 1896) to find three separate epistles in A= 10-1310 with 614-71 between 1210 and 1220, B = i1-613 with 1211-19 and 72-3 9, 1311-13, and C = 74-824, an attempt which, in his Judaismus Triumphatus: Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der vier letzten Kapitel des zweiten Corintherbriefes (1896), rightly identifies A with the sharp letter presupposed in B, but makes C the letter entrusted to Titus, while, more elaborately still, in his Vincula Sanctorum, Ein Beitrag zur Erklarung der Gefangenschaftsbriefe des Apost. Paulus (1900), for reasons as precarious in exegesis as they are Untersuchungen (1904), which presents a revised form of his earlier monograph on Der Vierkapitelbrief im zweiten Korintherbrief (1894), reviewed by J. Weiss in TLZ., 1894, 5136 Halmel appeals (pp. 8f.)toa Dutch critic, E. J. Greve, who in the third volume (1804) of his De brieven van den Apostel Paulus, uit het Grieksch vertaald, met Aanmerkingen, argued that Titus left for Corinth without Paul’s letter, which was written as far as 2 Co 816, and that the rest was added by the apostle on receipt of fresh news from Corinth. J. Weiss’ attempt to detect the intermediate letter in 1. 214-74 101—1310 fails to prove the connection between the two latter sections, or to justify the separation of 214f. from its context. * Hausrath had made it the appendix to a letter from the Ephesian church (Aquila?). ill-supported in tradition, he places the prison epistles in some Ephesian captivity of the apostle; after A (as above) come Titus, Colossians, and Ephesians, previous to the trial, followed by 2 Timothy and Philippians, and then B C (as above) with i Co 15 written after his release. Some basis for such a reconstruction may be found in history, but none exists for Pierson and Naber’s {Verisimilia, pp. 108 f.) deletion of 11-10e.

15-18.23f. 21. 4 47-12 512 724 1 11132. 10-13. The significance of Halm and Volter in the criticism of the Corinthian correspondence mainly consists in their recoil from the results of the aberration which some years ago led a Dutch school of writers to regard even 2 Cor. as a romance of the second century (cp. e.g. van Manen, OCL. 38-41).

Several more or less plausible cases of transposition or interpolation may be seen in the traditional text. 212-13 probably has been displaced from its original setting after 122 (Van de Sande Bakhuyzen) or better after I16, where chronologically its contents belong; so Laurent (NT Studien, pp. 24-28), Michelsen, and Baljon (pp. 142-143). This leaves an admirable and characteristic juxtaposition between 211 (Satan’s machinations) and 214 (God’s overruling Upon the other hand, the attempts to isolate 8 as a separate note (Hagge, p. 482 f.), written later than 9 (Baljon, pp. 150-152), or as part of the Intermediate Letter (Michelsen, TT., 1873, 424; Hagge), break down for much the same reasons as the cognate hypothesis that 9 itself was a subsequent letter sent to the Achaian churches (93, so Semler). The unity of the situation presupposed in 8 and 9 is too well-marked to justify any separation of the chapters either from one another or from the letter 1-9, whose natural conclusion they furnish (cp. Volter, pp. 92-94; Schmiedel, pp. 267-269, as against Halmel's arguments in der zweit. Kor. pp. 11-22). In 91 Paul is really explaining why he needs to say no more than he has said in 824. Instead of being inconsistent with what precedes, 91 clinches it, and 95-7 simply shows that he felt a difficulty, not unnatural under the circum-stances, about saying either too much or too little on the delicate topic of collecting money.! On the other hand, 1182-121 has all the appearance of a marginal addition (cp. Wendt on Ac 924-25), which has been misplaced from 1124f, or of a gloss interrupting the sequence (so Holsten, Hilg. ZWT., 1888, 200; Schmiedel, Baljon, cp. HNT. 629-630), although the order u30- 32. 33. 31 would partially ease the somewhat jolting transition (see above, p. 126). t With 820 compare Byron’s remark to Moore (in 1822): “I doubt the accuracy of all almoners, or remitters of benevolent cash.” The precautions taken with regard to the conveyance of the temple-tribute are noted by Philo in De Spec. Legibus, i. (irepl lepov, § 3), Kal xpbvois wpcapivois lepoiroftirol TWV Xpriparuv dpiarlvSyiv briKpiOtvTes, ip ol SoKipaiTaroi, XeiPorol'oSi'Tai, truous ras Dirloas eKdaruv irapaTrippovTes. § 10. Attestation of 2 Cor.—2 Cor. is quoted by the same authors as is i Cor. (see above, p. 114), after Marcion (cp. Diognet. v. 12 f. = 69-10), but its earlier attestation is not equally strong. In two passages of Polykarp (iv. 1, vi. 2) the language recalls Romans rather than 2 Cor. (see below, p. 148), and vi. 1, like 821 and Ro 1217, probably goes back to Pr 34 (LXX) rather than to either of these Pauline passages; on the other hand, ii. 2 (6 82 tyapas avrov eK verpatv Kai hus yepel) may echo 414 (6 ycpas Tv Kvptov ’Irjaovv Kai nus <rvv ’l^frov eyepef In Ignatius there are apparent, though far from distinct, reminiscences of 616 (= Eph. XV. 3, avrov ev nulv KaroiKowTO1;, iva Guev vaoi Kai avros ev ypxv 0e6p) and 414 (= Trail, ix. 2), possibly, too, of i12 119-10 1216 ^ = Philad. vi. 3). The contents of Clem. Rom. v. 5-6 are inadequate to prove the use of 1 123-27, and xxxvi. 2 can be explained apart from 318, as can Barn. iv. 11-13 (510) and vi. nf. (517). The indifference of Clem. Rom. to 2 Cor., taken together with his appeal to 1 Cor., is all the more striking as the former epistle would have served his own purposes of exhortation with telling effect. It is perhaps a fair inference that, in its canonical form, 2 Cor. was not as yet circulated throughout the churches (cp. Kennedy, pp. 142 f.; Rendall, 88 f.); possibly it had not as yet been thrown into its present form. § 11. The apocryphal correspondence.—1The Syrian, Armenian, and even some of the Latin churches, admitted for some time to their NT Canon (in Efraim’s commentary between 2 Cor. and Gal., elsewhere after Hebrews) an apocryphal letter of Paul to the Corinthians which originally belonged to the Acta Paulif and was translated into Latin and Syriac during the third century. Stephanas and others ask Paul’s advice upon the teaching of two Gnostics, Simon and Cleobius, who have arrived at Corinth. Paul, who is imprisoned at Philippi, replies from the standpoint of the genuine apostolic tradition. This so-called third epistle to the Corinthians (translated by Byron, cp. Moore’s Life of Byron, vi. 269-275) was once defended as authentic by Whiston and W. F. Rinck {Das Sendschreiben d. Kor. an der Apostel Paulus u. dritte Sendsch. P. an die Korinther, 1823), but the correspondence is obviously composed! on the basis of I Co 5% and 71 by + Vetter (TQ., 1895, 622 f.) conjectures in addition a rabbinic midrash on the resurrection. The original site of the correspondence in the Acta Pauli was first proved definitely by C. Schmidt {Neue Heidelb. Jahrb., 1897, 117 f., Acta Pauli aus der Heidelberger koptischen Papyrushandschrift Nr. 1 herausgegeben, 1904, 125 f.). + Just as 2 Co 124 was made the text and occasion of an ivaPariKhv Hlaov, according to Epiphanius {Haer. xviii. 12). an author who stood no nearer to Paul than did the composer of the Thekla-legends, and who wrote with reference to the doctrine of Bardesanes (cp. Berendts’ essay on the Christology of the correspondence, in Abhandlungen A. von Dettingen zum 70 Geburtstag gewidmet, 1898).

* This helps to meet Halmel’s vehement objection (pp. 58 f.) to the position of 214-74 in the canonical epistle.

* Cp. NT A. 11—12, where Bartlet suggests a common source.

For text and literature, see P. Vetter’s Tubingen programme, Der Apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief (1894); Lietzmann’s Kleine Texte (12, 1905); Zahn’s GK. ii. 592-611; Harnack in SBBA., 1905, 3-35, and ACL. 37-39, ii. 1. 506-508; and Rolffs in HNA. i. 362f., 378E, ii. 360, 388 f.

The Latin version, discovered in 1890, was published by S. Berger and Carriere {La correspondance apocryphe de S. Paul et des Corinthiens. Ancienne version latine et traduction du texte Arminien, 1891); cp. Harnack and Bratke in TLZ., 1892, 7-9, 585-588, Deeleman in Theol. Studien (1909) 37-56.

(D) Romans

LITERATURE.—{a} Editions—Locke, Paraphrase and Notes {1}^); G. T. Zacharia’s Erklarimg (1788); Semler’s Paraphrasis (1769); C. F. Boehme’s Comment, perpetzius (1806); Belsham (London, 1822); R. Cox {Horae Romanae, London, 1824); Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1825); Klee (1830); H. E. G. Paulus (1831); Benecke (1831); Reiche (Versuch einer ausfiihrl. Erkl. etc. 1833-4)*; Hodge (1835); Olshausen (1835); Fritzsche (1836-43) *; Riickert2 (1839); R. Haldane (1842); Maier (1843); Rasmus Nielsen (Leipzig, 1843); Baumgarten-Crusius (1844); Reithmayr (1845); Kreyhl (1845); de Wette4 (1847); R. Knight (1854); A. A. Livermore (Boston, 1854); van Hengel (1854-9); Beelen (1854); Purdue (Dublin, 1855); Tholuck5 (1856, Eng. tr. 1842); Nielsen (Denmark, 1856); F. W. K. Umbreit {der Brief an die Romer, atif dem Grunde des AT ausgelegt, 1856); Ewald (1857); Dr. John Brown (Edinburgh, 1857); G. F. Jatho (1858-9); S. H. Turner (New York, 1859); Dr. David Brown (Glasgow, i860); Colenso {St. Paulis ep. to Rom. Ed. from a mission, point of view, 1863); S. L. A. Ortloph (Erlangen, 1865-6); Hofmann (1868); J. Forbes (Edinburgh, 1868); F. Delitzsch, Brief a. d. Romer aus dem griech. Urtext in das Hebraische uebersetzt u. aus Talmud u. Midrasch erldutert (1870)*; Bisping (1870); H. A. W. Meyer5 (1872); Volkmar (1875); Moses Stuart3 (1876); Reuss (1878); Moule {Cambridge Bible, 1879); Klofutar (1880); Godet (1879-80, Eng. tr. 1888)*; Oltramare (1881 f.); E. H. Gifford (in Speaker's Comm. 1881)*; H. Reinecke (1884); F. Zimmer (1887); Kleinschmidt (1888); C. J. Vaughan7 (1890); Barmby {Pulpit Comm. 1890); C. W. Otto2 (1891); A. Schafer (1891); Lipsius2 {HC. 1892); Jowett3 (1894); Lightfoot {Notes on Epp. St. Paul, 1895, on 11-725) 5 Philippi4 (Frankfurt, 1896); Comely {Commentarius, Paris, 1897); J. M. Stiffer (New York, 1897); Th. Heusser (1898); J. Drummond (1899); Weiss9 (— Meyer, 1899) *; W. G. Rutherford (tr. and analysis, 1900); Ceulemans (1901); J. Agar Beet9 (1901); Denney {EGT. 1901)*; Garvie {CB. 1901); Schlatter4 (1901); Schat-Petersen pp. xcviii-cii; on the pre-Lutheran, Denifle's Luther u. Luthertum, i. 11. (1905), besides the conspectus in Meyer’s ed. (Eng. tr., W. P. Dickson, Edin. 1873-1874) and in Grafe’s monograph.

1 On the patristic and medieval commentaries, see Sanday and Headlam,

(Paulus Brier til Romerne, 1902); J. van Andel (Briev aan de Romeinen, Kampen, 1904); Sanday and Headlam 5 (ICC. 1905)*; Lietzmann (HBNT. 1906); Jiilicher (SNT.2 1907); G. Richter (1907); J. Niglutzsch2 (Com-mentarius, 1907); Zahn (ZK. 1910).

( b) Studies.—H. E. G. Paulus, de originibus Pauli epistola ad Roni. (Jena, 1801); Baur (Tubing. Zeitschr. f. Theol., 1836, 59f.)*; R. Rothe, Brief P. an die R. erkliirt (1852); Th. Schott, der Romerbrief, seinem Endzweck und Gedankengang nach ausgelegt (1858); W. Mangold, der Romerbrief u. die Anfdnge der rom. Gemeinde (1866); Beyschlag (SR., 1867, pp. 627 f.); Schenkel (BL. v. 106-116); Baur’s Paulus (Eng. tr. i. 321 f.); Weizsacker in Jahrb. deutsche Theol. (1876) 248 f.; M. Arnold, St. Paul and Protestantism (1876, ch. i.); Keble, Studia Sacra (1877, 45-147 on 11-614) • Holsten (JPT., 1879, 95 f., 314k, 68of.)*; Grafe, uber Veranlassung u. Zweck d. Romerbriefs (1881)*; A. Klostermann's Korrekturen z. bisher. Erklarung d. Romerbriefes (Gotha, 1881); W. Mangold, der Romerbrief u. seine gesch. Voraussetzungen (1884); Lorenz, das Lehrsystem im Romerbrief (1884); Schrer (EBP); van Manen, de brief aan de Romeinen (1890); Hilgenfeld (ZWT., 1892, 296-347); Liddon, Explanatory Analysis (1893); Hort, Romans and Ephesians (1895) *; A. C. Headlam (ET. 1894-5); M. W. Jacobus, A Problem in NT Criticism (1900), 237 f.; Denney (ExpP iii.-v., ‘The Theology of the Epistle to the Romans’)*; A. Robertson (DB. iv. 295-306); Feine, der Romerbrief (1903); G. Semeria, il pensiero die S. Paolo nella littera ai Romani (Roma, 1903); Pfleiderer, Urc. i. 149 f. (Eng. tr. i. 2iif.); Bahnsen (PM., 1904, 26-31); von Dobschiitz, Urc. pp.

121 f.; D. Vlter, Paulus u. seine Briefe (1905), pp. 135-228; Hupfeld, der Romerbrief2 (1905); R. J. Knowling, Testimony of St. Paul to Christ (1905, pp. 6of., 311 f., 465 f.); Zahn (Einl. §§ 21-24); G. Richter’s Kritische-polem. Untersuchungen (BFT., 1908, xii. 6); Moffatt (EBN xxiii. 581-583). § 1. Contents and outline.—Special literature: C. F. Schmid {De epist. ad R. consilio, Tiibingen, 1830); Kiene, Das Romerbrief u. das Joh. Evgim (1868), pp. 1-42; E. Walther, Inhalt und Gedankengang d. Romerbriefs (1897).

After a brief introduction (11-7), Paul explains why he had never been able as yet to visit the Roman church, although he had hoped and still hoped to do so, in the course of preaching the gospel. Meanwhile, he proceeds to state that gospel as the exhibition of God’s Skaioovn « ToTeos eis TioTv (18-17) for all men. This forms the theme of what follows.1 in 118-320 the need of such a StKaioo-w^ is proved by the fact that Gentiles (118-32)2 and Jews (21-320) alike had missed it. But, just as the apostle’s religious philosophy of history has dipped into almost 1 On 3, cp. Dr. Jas. Morison’s monograph (1866), and G. W. Matthias’ Exegetische Versuch (Cassel, 1857); on 1-3, E. Weber’s essay (BFT., 1905, ix. 4) on ‘die Beziehungen von Rom 1-3 z. Missionspraxis des Paulus.’

2 For the Alexandrian traits of 118-20 cp. Schjott in ZNW., 1903, 75-78. unrelieved gloom, it is brightened by the positive fact * that in Jesus Christ (321-31) God had revealed his Sikaocvn to the faith of man, whether Gentile or Jew. Faith, however, had been in the world before Christ, and so had revelation, particularly within the sphere of the Jewish Law; Paul therefore turns for a moment to show how the Christian gospel of StKaioavvi] by faith, instead of being at variance with the spiritual order of the OT, was identical in principle with the very faith of Abraham upon which the Jew prided himself (41-25). Returning to the positive and blissful consequences of the universal SKciogvn revealed in Jesus Christ (51-11), he throws these into relief against the sombre results of the fall of Adam; life had now superseded death, grace had triumphed over sin. But the supersession of the Law, so far from relaxing the moral bonds of life, only laid higher obligations on the soul of the believing man (6lf-). This leads the apostle to describe the struggle of the soul between the Law’s demands and the thwarting power of sin, a conflict between the spirit and the flesh (71f.) which can only be resolved by the interposition of Jesus Christ, f The faith which identifies man with him invests life with the divine Spirit (8lf-), which is the sole guarantee of a sound life in the present and of security in the future.

At this point there is a certain break in the argument. Hitherto he has been mainly engaged in a positive statement of his gospel, prompted by the charges, which were liable to be brought against it, of being ethically mischievous or ineffective. The following section reverts to the thought underlying passages like 217f 41. The gracious fellowship enjoyed by Christians with their God through Jesus Christ (835f-) sadly reminds him, as a warm-hearted Jew, of the fact that the very people who should have been in the direct line of this Sikaoovn were standing as a nation outside it (91-5). How was this unbelief of Israel, the ancient people of God, to be reconciled with the justice and promises of God? Paul addresses himself J to this problem in * For an argument that 3226-26 originally lay, instead of I17, after I16, and was followed by 5-6, see D. Volter in ZNW. (1909) 180-183. + Cp. Engel’s exhaustive monograph, Der Kampf am Rom vU (1902). + The antinomy of this patriotic outburst (partly due to the feeling that the motives of a renegade might be suspected), or divergence into a nationalistic outlook, is one of the most characteristic features in Paul. His religious philosophy of history is suddenly shot across by a strong personal emotion. Hausrath has somewhere remarked that if Paul had not spent 9-11. He begins by pointing out, as he had already done in Gal 47. (cp. Ro 228-29), that even in the OT there were traces of God discriminating between the bodily children of the patriarchs (96f.), and that mere physical descent had never entitled a Jew to the promises. Besides, he adds (914-29), nettled at the idea of Jewish pride and presumption daring to charge God with unfaithfulness or injustice, cannot God do as He pleases? Is not His freedom sovereign? “Here, to speak plainly, Paul’s argument has got into an impasse. He is not able to carry it through, and to maintain the sovereign freedom of God as the whole and sole explanation of human destiny, whether in men or nations” (Denney, EGT. ii. 664). He breaks away by quoting from the LXX in order to prove that God’s apparently harsh methods with the Jews had a larger end in view, viz., the election of a people, Jewish and Gentile, on the score of faith, so that the doom of the Jews was their own fault, consisting in a stubborn refusal to enter into God’s greater plan (922-29). They are to blame, not God (980-1021). He had made righteousness by faith open and accessible to all; Israel could not plead lack of opportunity and warning. Finally, Paul tries to sees a ray of light in the dark tragedy thus enacted. Israel’s unbelief, he contends, is only partial (111-10) and (n11^) temporary; it may have a providential purpose (so that the Gentiles need not boast over their less favoured neighbours, 1 113-24; cp. Ramsay’s Pauline and other Studies, 1907, 219 f.) in stirring them up ultimately (1125f) to claim their heritage in the messianic kingdom. For God has shut up all under dis-obedience, that upon all He may have mercy. The vision of this glorious consummation stirs the apostle to an outburst of solemn adoration (1 133-36), with which the whole section fitly closes.* himself in the service of Jesus, he would have shed his blood with some other natives of Tarsus on the walls of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; and this passage shows how his religious patriotism flickered up inside his Christian outlook, even in spite of the treatment he received from Jews and Judaists alike. Cp. the present writer’s Paul and Paulinism (1910), pp. 66 f. * 1132-36 rounds off I-II, as well as 9-11 (cp. Bhl in SK., 1887, 295320). What Paul has in mind is not a Judaising tendency among the Jewish Christians at Rome in particular, but the general and perplexing question of Judaism in relation to the new faith of the gospel. On the dialectic of the whole passage, see Gore’s paper in SB. iii. (‘ The argument of Rom ix.-xi.’). The literature, up to 1897, is summarised in H. J. Holtzmann’s NTTh. ii. 171 f.

Applying (ov) the thought of God’s mercy and its obligations (121-2), Paul now sketches the ethic of Christians as members of the church (123-21) * and of society, and as members of the State (131-7); love is to be the supreme law (138-10), and the nearness of the end the supreme motive to morality (1311-14).

These thoughts of mutual charity and of the impending judgment are still before the apostle (143-10) as he leaves the plane of general ethical counsels for that of a special practical problem which was vexing the Roman church, viz., the question of abstinence or non-abstinence from food offered to idols. Sheer anxiety about personal purity (1313-14) was leading some t to be over-scrupulous at Rome, while the stronger Christians were prone to judge such sensitive brothers hastily and harshly, and to live without due consideration for weaker members of the church who might be offended by their serene indifference to such scruples. After laying down the general principle of in-dividual responsibility (141-12), in order to rebuke censoriousness, he appeals nobly to the majority, who were strong-minded, for consideration and charity towards the weaker minority (1413-156). Towards the close, the plea broadens into a general J appeal for Christian forbearance and patience (is1'6), which finally streams out into an exhortation (1 58-13) to all, Gentile and Jewish Chris-tians alike, to unite in praise of God’s mercy to them in Christ.

In a brief epilogue (1514f), Paul justifies himself for having written thus to the Roman Christians, by alleging his apostolic vocation; he tells them (1522f.) of his future plans, which include a visit to Rome on his way from Jerusalem to Spain; then with an appeal for their prayers and a brief benediction the letter closes (1580-33). § 2. The sixteenth chapter. — Special literature: — Kegger-mann {de duplici epistolae ad Rom. appendice, 1767); Semler’s Paraphrasis, pp. 277-3I1; D. Schulz {SK., 1829, 609 f.); Spitta’s Urc. iii. 1, pp. 6 f.; Moffatt, HNT. 209 f. * For iravrl T0 6VTL tv vp.1v (123) read tr. rf 6vn TI tv vpiv (cp. Ac 536 Xtyuv elval riva eavrtv), with Baljon and Vollgraff {Mnemosyne, 1901, 150). t They were vegetarians and total abstainers. The former practice (cp. von Dobschiitz, Urc. pp. 396 f.) was not confined to Jews; the neoPythagoreans and the Orphic societies favoured it. But the high estimate of the sabbath (145) suggests that these weaker brethren were Jewish Christians.

I There is no hint that in 151. Paul is turning (so Paulus and Bertholdt) to address the leaders of the church. Paul does not address the iKK\-r\<r[a, of Rome, and 1514 implies the general body of the local Christians.

Since the questions of the nature and needs of the church to which the epistle was written depend upon, rather than determine, the problem of its literary structure, it will be con-venient to discuss the latter first. In order to clear the way, it is necessary to recognise the evidence for the hypothesis that ch. 16 did not belong to the original epistle; (a) 1625-27 re-presents a later conclusion, added by some Paulinist editor (so Reiche, Kreyhl, Mangold: pp. 44 f., Schrer, Hilgenfeld, de Wette, Volkmar, Lucht, Lipsius, von Soden, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, W. Briickner: Chron. pp. 184-185, Weizsacker: AA. i. 382, Baljon: pp. 37-40, Volter, Jlicher, R. Scott, Corssen, etc.); and (b) 161-23 is a special note addressed to the church of Ephesus.

1625-27 is not simply an irrelevant (Bacon, JBL. 1899, 167-176) but an un-Pauline finale, evidently (cp. Jud 24f) modelled on some stereotyped Jewish form of benediction (cp. Mangold, pp. 44-81), and breathing the atmosphere of the later epistles to Timotheus and Titus (and of Ephesians). The addition of such a doxology is as unexampled in Paul’s correspondence as the definition of God as the only wise or eternal and of the scripture as prophetic; while the silence upon the p.v<TTripiov during times eternal outdoes expressions like Col I26 and is hardly consonant with Ro I2 321. Corssen JNW., 1909, 32 f.) probably goes beyond the mark in assigning its origin to Marcionitism, but at any rate it does not betray Paul’s mind.

That Ro 161-23 contains a note which did not originally belong to Paul’s Roman*epistle is a widely, though not universally, accepted hypothesis which has been under discussion for nearly a century and a half. Most probably the note begins, not with v.3 (Schulz, Ritschl, Ewald, pp. 428-430; Schrer, Reuss, Laurent, van Rhijn, Pfleiderer, Mangold: der Romerbrief, pp. 136 f.), but with v.1 (Eichhorn, Weiss, Renan, Lucht, Lipsius, Volter, von Soden, etc.); it ends, not with v.20 (Eichhorn, Ewald, Schulz, Reuss, Renan, Mangold, Lucht, Weiss, Lipsius, Volter, von Soden, Richter) nor even earlier (some critics, e.g. Laurent and Hitzig, breaking off at v.15 or at v.16, as Hausrath, Pfleiderer, Krenkel, Schmiedel), but with v.23 (so Weizsacker, McGiffert and Jiilicher, Holsten and R. Scott needlessly omitting vv.17-20).+ While vv.21-23 might well go with Ro 1533, it is not Paul’s way to + “It is generally assumed that the men referred to [in vv.17'20] were Jewish Christians, simply because Paul’s antagonists generally belonged to that class; but there is nothing in the passage itself to suggest this. The plausible and eloquent talk, the love of good feeding, and the implied assumption of wisdom, point rather to Greek adventurers, who, when they had failed elsewhere, sought to impose on the simplicity of the Christians ” (Dr. J. Drummond, p. 352). add salutations after a final Amen, and the passage connects even better with 161-20, though it may have originally lain (Koennecke, Jiilicher) between v.16 and v.17. It is needless to regard v.19 as a marginal note of Paul to v.16 (Laurent), or to put 19a (omitting h p) after 1(5 (Baljon, pp. 35-36), though v.22 is more likely to have crept in from the margin (Grotius, Laurent) than to have been displaced from after v.23 (Blass and Baljon, p. 37).

* For all that can be said on the other side, consult Schlatter’s article (SK., 1886, pp. 587 f.), the discussions of Jacquier (i. pp. 277 f.), and Zahn (E.inl. i. 272 f.), the remarks of Sanday and Headlam (op. cit. pp. xciii f., 416 f.), and Mair in ExpJ vii. 75 f.

Whilst the letter is not expressly directed to Ephesus, there is much in its contents which points to that city and church as its original destination. When all is said, it is inconceivable that Paul could have intimately known so many individuals, and been acquainted with their local circumstances and histories, in a church like that of Rome to which he was as yet personally a stranger. The tone of Romans militates against such an idea. In Ro 1-15 the apostle has been writing as a stranger to strangers, without betraying —even at points where such a reference would have been telling and suitable—any trace of personal friendship with the members of the church or first-hand knowledge of their local environment and situation. Occasionally, it is true, he does evince some knowledge of the general course of events (e.g. in 14-15) within the Roman community, but never more than what would percolate to him through the ordinary channels of hearsay and report. Such incidental familiarity with the Roman situation by no means implies the presence of friends upon the spot who hadsupplied him with information. Upon the other hand, the wealth of individual colour and detail in 161-20 presupposes a sphere in which Paul had resided and worked for a consider-able time. He knows the people. Heican appeal to them, and even speak authoritatively to them. Now, as he wrote probably from Corinth, the only other city which answers aptly to this description is Ephesus. where Paul had had a prolonged and varied experience; indeed, several of the names in this note are connected more or less directly with that city or with Asia Minor: e.g. Epaenetus (v.s rapxh ‘Asias), and Aquila and Prisca (v.3) who were at Ephesus immediately before Romans was written (Ac 1818, 26, cp. 1 Co 1619), and apparently were there (2 Ti 419) not long afterwards.

These are the first mentioned in the note, and the reference in I Cor. and here to the house-church of Aquila and Prisca tells against the likelihood of a sudden migration on the part of this devoted pair.

Furthermore, the sharp warning against heretics and suits Rome at this period less well than Ephesus, w schismaticsx.17-20) ere, then as afterwards (1 (Jo 1687, Ac 2051, Apoc 2"), trouble of this kind was in the air. There is no evidence, even from Romans itself, to indicate the existence of Sixoa-Tacrlai and <?K<iv8aXa among the Roman Christians of that day. Con-troversy against false teachers is conspicuously absent from Romans, and it is extremely difficult to reconcile this outburst of Paul with the traits ol Ro I-15, even when we identify the errorists with Greek adventurers rather than Jewish Christian antagonists. Least convincing of all is the suggestion (Zahn) that Paul’s language here resembles that of Gal 18 53, Ph 31f; these warnings are not genuine prophylactic counsels, inasmuch as the trouble’ had already begun in Galatia—which, as even Zahn admits, was not the case in Rome when the apostle wrote —while the intimate relations between Philippi and Paul differentiate Philippians materially from an epistle like Romans. Nor, again, is it likely that the apostle was vaguely warning the Roman Christians against errorists who were already troubling other churches and might at some future date make mischief in the capital. The whole point of the counsel is lost if the readers did not know the facts and persons in question. How else could they mark and turn away from them? In short, the tenor of these words marks not an occasion which might possibly arise, but a peril already present, just such a situation as was in force in Ephesus, where intrigues and divisions (Ac 2019- 29r.) were so rife that the apostle was determined to follow his usual method, in such cases, of avoiding any personal intercourse with the local church. Hence he writes this note of warning, incorporating his counsel in Phoebe’s letter, whose lack of address probably indicates that she might visit other communities in the district. Set in this light, the letter assumes a truly historical place. For while the distant tone of even a passage like 1520f. shows that the apostle was not on such terms of close intimacy with the Roman church as would prompt the pointed language of 1619, these words, when addressed to Ephesus, are entirely apposite. This is borne out by the consideration, accepted by many critics (so, in addition to those already mentioned, Farrar, St. Paul, ch. xxxvii; Laurent, NT Studien, pp. 32-38; Holtzmann, Einl. 242-246; Adeney, INT. pp. 379-380; O. Holtzmann, NT Zeitgeschichte, p. 132; Cone, St. Paul, pp. 12 f.; Purchas, Johannine Problems and Modern Needs, 47 f.; and Haupt, SIT, 1900, pp. 147-148), that the note is a note of recommendation for Phoebe (ziorok avoTaTLK-f)); for Paul would naturally introduce a person to a circle or circles in which he exercised some influence. The value of such a recommendation would mainly consist in the writer’s title to respect and obedience from those whom he addressed, and it is obvious that this footing of intimacy obtained at Ephesus rather than at Rome.

It may be urged, on the opposite side, that these Christians might have migrated to Rome, as there was constant communication between that city and the provinces of the empire. In the abstract, this is quite possible. But the point is that when Paul wrote Romans, no such migration had occurred. All evidence for it is awanting, and the probabilities tell against such a wholesale influx of Paul’s friends to the capital. At a later date, in the course of time, it is conceivable that they gradually migrated to Rome in his footsteps, as Aquila and Prisca did perhaps. Asiatics constantly betook themselves thither, and it is therefore far from remarkable—and by no means a final argument against the above theory of Ro 161-20—that almost all of the names mentioned in this note have been found by archaeologists (cp. Lightfoot, Philippians, pp. 171 f.) within the Roman Corpus Inscrip-tionum. Most of the names are fairly common throughout the Roman world (cp. Lietzmann, p. 73), whilst half are found in the Greek Corpus Inscriptionum for Asia Minor (so, e.g., Epaenetus, Hermes, and Hermas). So far as any weight can be attached to the significance of names like Prisca, Ampliatus, Nereus, and Apelles, in the subsequent history of primitive Christianity at Rome, it is practically irrelevant to the present question; even though the bearers of these names could be safely identified in every case with those mentioned by Paul in this note, it would be a far from valid inference that because they are found to have sojourned afterwards in Rome they must have been there when Paul wrote Romans, or that such a combination of names, Greek, Roman, and Jewish, was impossible outside the mixed lower population of the capital.

* In the Ephesian Gnostic Acta Johannis (c. A.D. 160) the house of Andronicus (Ro 167’) is one centre of activity.

Gifford (pp. 27-30) regards 1 63-20 as part of a second letter written by Paul after his release from the first Roman imprisonment. This theory (partially anticipating Spitta’s) gets over the difficulty which arises on the canonical view, that Paul could hardly have had so many personal friends in Rome before he had reached the capital, but it is not more probable than the view which has been just outlined. Similarly Erbes (writing in ZKG., 1901, pp. 224-231) finds in 161-16a a note written by Paul to Rome during his last voyage as a prisoner, and forwarded by some Ephesian Christians who were free (yet cp. 167), in order to let the Roman Christians know of his arrival (Ac 2815). These envoys hurried on, undelayed by the exigencies of the apostle’s voyage, and were themselves among the persons to be greeted in the note. Of all this, however, there is no hint in the note itself, and the theory t is really no improvement on that of Semler, who regarded 1638-16 as designed for Paul’s friends outside Rome, to introduce the bearers of the epistle. One point of such hypotheses is to explain how the note came to be attached to Romans, but this can be done otherwise. Eichhorn (Einl. hi. 243 f.) took 161-20 as addressed to Corinth, while Schenkel less probably regarded it as intended for all the churches which Phcebe was to visit. Still more drastic but equally unsatisfying is Ryder’s conjecture {JBL., 1898, 184-198) that, since Eypaya vp.lv (1515) and 0 pyas Thv iiriaToXriv (1622) have the same subject, and since the latter phrase indicates a weightier function than that of an amanuensis, chs. 151-1624 are a fragment written by Tertius himself not later than A.D. 64 before the Neronic persecution. If any theory of the epistle’s composition is sought along these lines, Spitta’s is more ingenious (see below).

Once this note is detached from Romans, its date is no longer dependent upon that of the larger epistle, except when it is regarded as part of some larger Ephesian letter which has been incorporated in the canonical Romans (see below). Taken by itself, it offers no secure evidence of its date or place of writing, beyond the fact that, when vv.21-23 are included in it, the mention of Gaius (cp. I Co I14) probably points to Corinth as the church from which Paul wrote (cp. Cenchre, 161). If, as is otherwise likely, the immediate destination of the note was Ephesus, with its local circuit of churches, the fact of Paul sending greetings and warnings is entirely conson-ant with the situation presupposed in Ac 20 (see above). The description of Andronicus and Junias as fellow-prisoners (167) does not imply that Paul + In a further study {ZNW., 1909, 128-147, 195-218, • Zeit und Ziel d. Grsse Rom 163-25 und der Mittheilungen 2 Ti 49-21'), Erbes developes this theory by arguing that 2 Ti 416 (iv ry Tpwrr) fiov a.Tro\oyla ouSets irapeylvero, 6.XXa Tr&vres ue iyKarlXiirov), which contradicts the hypothesis that Paul had such loyal supporters in the Roman church as Ro 161-20 (on the ordinary theory) assumes, really refers to his earlier trial in Palestine. was in captivity when he wrote the but merely that these Christians like himself, perhaps with himself on some occasion (at Ephesus or elsewhere; cp. 2 Co 1128; Clem. Rom. v.), had been incarcerated.

* Yet, in the letters subsequently written by Paul from Rome, not one of these Christians is ever mentioned.

The obscurity which besets the editing of the Pauline epistles for canonical purposes prevents us from doing more than conjecture how this letter came to be appended to Romans. Perhaps, when the first collection was drawn up at Ephesus, this local note was preserved by being put in the wake of the larger epistle, especially if the latter was last in the list. Also, it contained the names of several who afterwards became prominent in the church of Rome (e.g. Ampliatus). § 3. Structure and integrity.—Special literature:—Riggen-bach (yieue Jahrb. f deutsche Theol., 1892, 498-525); Lightfoot and Hort’s essays in the former’s Biblical Essays (287-374); Wabnitz {RTQR., 1900, 461-469); Moffatt {HNT. 630 f.); Harnack, (ZNW., 1902, 83 f., on i7); Godet, INT. i. 395-407; Zahn’s Einl. § 22; R. Steinmetz (ZNW., 1908, 177-189, ‘Text-kritische Untersuchung zu Rom i7’); P. Corssen {ZNIV., 1909, 1-45, 97-102); R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles (igog), 96 f.; K. Lake {ExpS x. 504-525); Bruins (TT., 1911, 258-269, on 118-32).

The textual phenomena of 1 625-27 (apart from any question of their authorship) are sufficient by themselves to start the further problem, whether the canonical form of Romans does not represent a process of more or less extensive editing. The insertion of Ro 1 61-23 proves that the epistle as it stands did not come from Paul and his amanuensis at Corinth, but we cannot even be sure that 1-1533 is equivalent to the original letter. It is plain that when the Romans came to be incorporated in the Pauline canon, editorial changes were made either then or (perhaps also) at a subsequent period. The question is, whether such internal phenomena as can be noted (partly from the textual condition of the epistle) were due to Paul himself or to a later hand.

The doxology (1625-27) is found (see Lucht, op. cit. pp. 43 f., 49 f.) not only (i.) in its present canonical position (so most MSS and vss), but (ii.) either after 1423 alone (so L, many cursives, Chrysostom and Theodoret, etc., with the Gk. lectionaries), or (iii.) there in addition to its position after 1624 (so AP, arm.), whilst (iv.) FSF (with vacant space after 1624) and G (with vacant space after 1423) omit it entirely. According to Origen (vii. 453, Lommatzsch), t + “ Caput hoc (i.e. 1625-27) Marcion, a quo scriptur euangelic atque apostolic interpolatae sunt, de hac epistula penitus abstulit: et non solum (hlc?) (i.) was its normal place in his day; but even in some codices which did not reflect Marcion’s edition (ii.) was to be found—apparently in consequence of an edition having been drawn up for reading in the churches, for which purpose the details of 15-16 would be irrelevant. This probably explains the fact that the capitulations of Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus, the major (sixth century) MSS of the Vulgate, reflect a similar edition (see de Bruyne in Revue Binidictine, 1908, 423b, 1911, 133b). But it does not carry us very far back; for while an ecclesiastical edition might contain I-1423+ 1625-27, it is extremely unlikely (in spite of all arguments to the contrary) that Paul would stop at 1423, even if 1625-27 were genuine. The latter is not a doxology like 1133f, and it does not lead to 151f as Eph 320-21 does by closing a section. It is one thing that 15-1624 should be omitted for church-purposes, and quite another for the author himself, with the natural sequel 151713 before him, to break off at 1423 and append the doxology, unless we are to assume that there was room for no more on the sheet of papyrus. There is a strong inherent improbability, therefore, against all theories which attribute to Paul, at any rate, any issue of Romans ceasing with 1423. Even were 1625-27 admitted to have been written by the apostle, its position after 1423 affords no secure basis for any theories of an edition of Romans from his own hand which ended there. It may be questioned, indeed, whether the reasons usually given for an ecclesiastical transference of the doxology to the close of ch. 14 are adequate. Modern ideas of what an early Christian church would or would not have found edifying, are apt to be too narrow. On the same principle we should expect to find traces of I Co 1621f having been put after 1557-58, and no textual evidence for such a transference is forthcoming. But, in the case of Ro 1625-27, such textual evidence is clear and early. The only question is, Does Origen’s charge imply that Marcion actually mutilated the epistle, or that he found an exemplar in use which did end with 14+1625-27? The former theory depends on the probability that the contents of Ro 15-16 would prove obnoxious to Marcion; but this hardly appears likely, for the OT quotations would not discredit the passage to Marcion, any more than they did the gospel of Luke. The latter view assumes that an ecclesiastical recension of the epistle existed by the beginning of the second century, which omitted 15-16 as less suitable for public reading (so, e.g., Hort and Godet) and appended 1625-27 to 14. Still, it may be accidental that Clement of Alexandria and Origen are the only Ante-Nicene fathers who quote from Ro 15-16. The personal contents of 16, like those of I Co 16, may have prevented any widespread allusions to it. hoc, sed et ab (? in) eo loco ubi scriptum est omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est \i.e. 1423] usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. In aliis uero exem-plaribus, id est in his quae non sunt a Marcione temerata, hoc ipsum caput diuerse positum inuenimus: in nonnullis etenim codicibus post eum locum quem supra diximus, hoc est, omne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, statim cohaerens habetur ei autem quipotens est uos confirmare", alii uero codices in fine id, ut nunc est positum, continent.” It is disputed (cp. Zahn’s GK. ii. 519 f.) whether ‘ dissecuit,’in this version of Rufinus, means ‘removed’ (= ' abstulit ’) or ' cut up.’ Against Zahn, see Corssen in ZNW., 1909, 13 f., who argues for the former (= ireuev).

* As, e.g., Lisco assumes, on his peculiar hypothesis of an imprisonment at Ephesus, during which Paul wrote several epistles, including this one ( Vincula Sanctorum, 1900).

ROMANS UI The omission of in 17. 16 by G (Gk. and Lat. text), and in 17 further by g Ambrosiaster (Tracriv rois obatv iv dya.Trrj Oco0, kXqtois -ylots), appears to indicate that these words were absent, if not from an early recension of the epistle, at least from a number of early copies (including the text used by Origen). As the variation is too significant and widespread to have been due to a transcriptional error, it must be explained as due either (a) to the same motive as is alleged for the excision of lv’Ecq in Eph I1, i.e. an ecclesiastical or liturgical desire (cp. Tert. adv. Marc. v. 17; Ambrosiaster on Col 41S; Apollonius in Eus. H. E. v. 18. 5) to mark the epistle’s catho-licity of reference; or (A) to Marcion’s revision (cp. Corssen, de Bruyne, Sanday and Headlam, pp. xcvii-xcviii), the latter motive covering the excision of 15-16 as well. (a) seems on the whole preferable (so, e.g., Steinmetz and Schmiedel). Zahn’s contention, that the original text of 17 did not contain v'Pun (so W. B. Smith, JBL., 1901, pp. 1-21; cp. Harnack, ZNW., 1902, 83 f.), but that x15 did, is based on inadequate textual evidence, as R. Stein-metz and Corssen have shown. The former critic agrees with those who regard the position of the doxology after 14 as the result of liturgical reading. “Man las den Romerbrief bis Kap. 14 und setzte dorthin die Doxologie. Man wagte dabei aber nicht, einen so grossen Abschnitt wie Kap. 15 und 16 einfach ganz zu beseitigen, wie man das mit den Worten in I7 und in i15ohne Bedenken tat” {ZNW., 1908, 188). Corssen’s intricate arguments lead him to refer all the phenomena of the shorter recension of Romans to Marcion. A further conjecture (c) is that the words were omitted (together with 15-16) in a special edition of the epistle issued by Paul himself (so variously from Ruckert to Lightfoot). This edition-hypothesis (Renan, iii. pp. Ixiii f., 461 f.; Sabatier, Denney, etc.) assumes usually that 1-14 + 161-20 represented the edition sent to Ephesus, whilst 1-14+ 1621-24 and 1-11 +15 were copies of the circular forwarded to the churches of Thessalonika and Rome respectively. Spitta carries forward this conjecture in Urc. iii. 1 (1901), holding acutius quam uerius (cp. Bahnsen in PM., 1902, 331-336) that 1211 57+161-20 represent a short letter written after Ac 2830 (A.D. 63-64) during a tour among the Gentile Christian churches, while 118-1 110+ 1514-33 were written earlier (at the crisis over the Council of Jerusalem) for believing Jews, to justify the Gentile mission, and re-adapted by the apostle for Gentile-Christian readers with the addition, e.g., of 111l-30 and 158-13. Lightfoot’s simpler view posited a double recension, the original draft (1-1623) being addressed to the Roman church, the second (omitting iv ‘Pun in 17: 15 and 15-16, but adding 1625'27) being designed for a wider circle; subsequently the doxology was transferred to its present position in the original and earlier recension, represented by the canonical epistle. Attempts have been made on broader lines to disentangle in whole or part a larger letter to Ephesus, e.g. in 12-14+16 (Straatman, TT., 1868, 25 f.), 12-156+ 163-20 (Schultz, Jahrb. fiir deutsche 7heol., 1876, 104 f.), and 9-11 + 16 (Weisse’s Beitrage, 46 f.); cp. J. Weiss in TLZ., 1893, 395, and ThSt. 182-184. None of these, however, works out at all well in detail.

Apart from the doxology (1625-27), when a note to Ephesus is found in 161-23 it becomes superfluous to discuss the theory, once held by Baur, Schwegler (NZ. ii. pp. 123 f.), and some others (recently, W. B. Smith, JBL., 1901, 129-157) that 15-16 are totally, or even partially (Lucht), spurious, as well as There is little or nothing in 15 to justify the supposition that it was not composed by Paul (see on this especially Mangold, pp. 81 f.); the bold expressions of 158:16 are as likely to have come from the apostle as from any one else, and none of the other points alleged, e.g. by Lipsius, is decisive against the Pauline authorship (cp. HNT. 630). The close connection of 15 with 14 tells against the view (Schenkel) that 15 represents a postscript to the original letter. The balance of probability is upon the whole in favour of the hypothesis that 11-1533 represents substantially the original epistle; that 161-23 was added to it, when the Pauline canon was drawn up at Ephesus; that 16s5’27 represents an editorial climax to this composite production; and that the omission of v’Pun in I7 and the relegation of 1625-27 to a place after 14 were due to subsequent liturgical procedure.

Evanson’s arguments against the Pauline authorship {Dissonance of the Four Generally Received Evangelists'2-, 1805, 306-312) were as unable to attract the attention of scholars as those independently advanced by Bruno Bauer half a century later {Kritik der paulin. Briefe, 1852, iii. 47-76; Christus und die Caesaren, 1877, 371-380). The denial of Paul’s existence, which is bound up with such theories, was developed by Loman in his 4 Quaestiones Paulin' {TT., 1882-1883, 1886), and the fool’s cap was placed unconsciously on them by Steck’s attempt (see above, p. 73) to show that Romans depended on Seneca, as well as upon Philo, the Assumptio Mosis, and Fourth Esdras. Van Manen's arguments answer themselves; if the methods he employs (cp. EBi. 4127-4145) are valid, then not merely biblical but literary critics must allow that their occupation is gone. The reproduction of similar views by W. B. Smith (cp. HJ. i. 309-334) led to a patient and careful refutation by P. W. Schmiedel {HJ. i. 532-552), after or against which there is little to be said. For other criticisms in detail, see R. J. Knowling's TheWitness of the Epistles, pp. 133 f., and Clemen’s Paulus, i. pp. 85 f. The futility of these wholesale theories was soon felt by Volter, who attempted to posit an authentic epistle underneath extensive interpolations, separating the original genuinely Pauline letter (11. 5b-7. 8-17 51-12. 15-19. 21 61-13. 16-23 12-13. 141156 1514-16. 23b-33 1621-24) to the Gentile Christian church of Rome, from interpolations by an editor who sought to Hellenise Paul’s teaching with the help of Stoic and Platonic ideas derived in part from the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, and Seneca, and to controvert not Jewish Christians, but Jews of his own day. In addition to this editor’s contributions, further glosses are visible in 214-15 322-26 725b 111-36 157-13. 17-23a 167-206. 25-27 from the pen of one who also omitted v'Pun in i7, 16 in order to generalise the epistle for the use, primarily, of the church at Ephesus.

While the criteria for such hypotheses are too subjective to deserve attention, the canonical text of the epistle here and there has been more justly suspected of incorporating glosses. Thus {a) the awkward construction of 213-16, where v.16 seems to follow w.12-13 rather than 14-15 or the whole paragraph, has suggested (cp. Lietzmann’s note, pp. 14-15) either that 14-15 represent a marginal gloss (so Wilke, die Neulest. Rhetor ik, pp. 216-228; Laurent, NT Studien, 17-19, 32 f.; Blass; Volter, 141-142; J. Beitrage zur paul. Rhetorik, 56-57), or less probably that v.16 should be taken as an interpolation (Weisse, Baljon, pp. 4-6), if not put after v.12 (Michaelis, Wilke, Wassenbergh) or v.29 (Hitzig). Otherwise v.13 might be a marginal insertion of Paul (Eichhorn), though not the later addition of an editor (from Ja 122; so Weisse, Michaelis adding 11, and van Manen adding 14-15). (b) 57 is a natural parenthesis rather than a break in the argument, and need not be taken as a gloss (as by Semler, Weisse, Michelsen, Lipsius, Koennicke, and Julicher = 7b), or as two (Naber, Mnemosyne, 1881, 287 f.). Nor is 512b KOX Bed, Ths dfiaprlas 6 davaros to be suspected as a scribal gloss (van Manen, Straatman, Baljon), though 513-14 (Weisse, Beitrdge, p. 35; Volter, of. cit. pp. 147 f., for exegetical reasons) has an illogical appearance. (d) 7250 (&pa obv airbs ^yw T@ fv vol SovXeiai v6p.cp 6eov, ry 86 vapid v6p.(p iwapTiaf may readily have been misplaced by a scribe from its true place before v.24 (Venema, Wassenbergh, Keil, van Hengel, Lachmann, Koennicke, BFT. xii. r. 24-25; Blass, Lietzmann, etc.); to delete it entirely (Michelsen, Reiche, Weisse, Baljon, pp. 17-18; Volter, pp. 157-8) is to leave no room for an explanation of how it ever came to be inserted.! (e) As the 6 cd rravrs of 119-10 is, strictly speaking, inconsistent with the thought of what follows, it has been conjectured (e.g. by Holsten, ZWT., 1872, 455; Michelsen, Rovers, van Manen, and Lipsius) that this passage is a marginal gloss written, like I Th 216, after the fall of Jerusalem, to emphasise the final exclusion of the Jews from the messianic kingdom. Against this it is rightly urged that the metaphor of v.11 would follow awkwardly after that of v.8. But surely not more so than that of v.8 in its present site. (f) Apart from those who reject the entire chapter as un-Pauline, various critics have felt obliged to regard one or two passages in 1514f: as later glosses; Straatman, e.g., deletes vv.l4 17-24; van Manen, vv.16. 19-24. 27. 30-32. Volter, vv.17-236 (altering Exov to Exw in 23b) and Lipsius, vv.19b. 20b. 23-24. The reasons for such a hypothesis do not seem justified by literary or historical criticism (cp. Feine’s Romerbrief, 138 f.). Thus a mission to Illyria is quite within the bounds of probability, during one of Paul’s residences in Macedonia; and reaches back to 25, while the obv of 26 does not connect well with the context. t The same critics, with Michelsen, find 614-15 an interpolated gloss, with as little reason as leads them (with Volkmar and Baljon, pp. 14-15) to delete 719-20, $ To suppose (with Volter, p. 226) that some scribe, failing to grasp the connection between 723a. and 81, added this recapitulatory comment as a bridge, is surely a tour de force. See Jlicher's note (SN7\ ii. p. 48), and Clemen’s Einheitlichkeit, pp. 84 f. (cp. his Paulus, i. 99-100). On the other hand, rots aroixovvtv (413) is plainly an instance of textual primitive corruption, while ovre 8vvdp.eis (838) must precede logically (as in K L, etc.) ovre iveorura KTX., unless it is to be deleted (as by van Hengel, Baljon, Tholuck, Koennicke, and others). the silence of Galatians does not necessarily preclude some preaching at Jerusalem, even granting that Jerusalem here should not be taken in a colloquial and geographical sense. At all events it is hardly fair to object to the one statement because it conflicts with the silence, to the other be-cause it seems to disagree with the statements, of Acts (cp. Clemen, TLZ., 1902, 230 f.). The expression (fully preached the gospel, v.19) is rhetorical; Paul, as often, is using a natural hyperbole (Curtius, SBBA., 1893, 929, quotes an apt verbal parallel from Aristoph. Knights, 642 f.), and 200 is not inconsistent with 231., for the apostle’s visit to Rome (cp. I11'13) is as much for his own sake as for theirs; in any case Rome is to him but the point of departure for a further tour, not the object of independent mission-work. Finally, as even Volter (p. 178) admits, there is nothing suspicious about the reference to this Spanish mission; after his death it would have hardly been attributed to him.

* R. Scott {op. cit. 237-246) makes 12-15 practically all non-Pauline, while the original epistle (1-11 + 1525-28) is regarded as the slow elaboration of two or three distinct essays {e.g. 1-5, 6-8, 9-11).

* Adding 226-27 as another gloss from the same hand, since the yap of 28

Such detailed difficulties in the contexture of the epistle do not amount to any proof that it is a patchwork of different writings. Its composition must have taken some time. “We must try to comprehend the position ot such a man when, perhaps in the midst of his handicraft, he dictated on difficult matters in which his thoughts pressed one upon another, in order to judge truly to what degree he would be likely to fail in good connexion and orderly progress of thought” (P. W. Schmiedel, HJ., 1903, 549). This considera-tion, taken along with the internal evidence, is enough to disprove any rigid theory of heterogeneous composition. Paul was many-sided, and more than one side of his nature came out in this epistle, a fact which is missed when attempts are made to trace a rectilinear dialectic throughout the successive chapters. § 4. Date and aim.—When 1514f. is accepted as genuine, the date of the epistle is fixed towards the close of Paul’s mission in Achaia (Ac 202f); it was written from Corinth,* on the eve of his departure for Jerusalem. The collection, which forms so prominent a feature of the Corinthian correspondence, is now finished, and Paul is on the point of conveying the money to the Palestinian Christians on whose behalf it has been raised. The precise year depends on the view taken of the apostolic chronology (see above, p. 62); most editors fix on± A.D. 58; but the general period of the epistle’s composition is at any rate plain, as well as its relative position after the Corinthian correspondence.

The purpose of the letter is less plain, and any character-isation of it depends on the relative importance assigned to its general and its specific elements. Those who emphasise the former, view the epistle as a compendium of the Pauline gospel (so from Luther, Melanchthon, Reiche, and de Wette to Weiss * Paulus inferred from 1519 that it was composed in some town of Illyricum. The facilities of communication point to Corinth, however (cp. Paley’s Horae Paulinas, ed. Birks, 1852, pp. 8 f.).

ROMANS US and Godet), but the absence of definite teaching upon such questions as the Lord’s Supper, the church, eschatology, and the resurrection, is sufficient to disprove the theory. Others find a much more specific and personal object in the epistle. But its aim is not simply to secure in the church of Rome a vantage-ground for further propaganda in the West (so, e.g., Schott, Beyschlag, and Riggenbach, exaggerating the weight of passages like i10 and 1 524), much less to justify Paul against a supposed charge of neglecting so important a church (Hofmann); it is rather to state, for the primary benefit of the Roman Christians, the xpioua TTvev/xariKw which Paul was conscious of possessing in his knowledge of the gospel, and which he imparts in writing, 0.770 upovs, os ravautuvokov vuas 81a Thv X^P^ Thv SoPecadv uol r TOV @cov (1515, cp. inf‘). The feature of the gospel which is chiefly before his mind is its universal range, as the divine Svvauts eis au>Tr)ptav ravr TO TLOTEOVTt. It is a gospel for ra Ovn (cp. i5 1516 etc.), and as such it involves a supersession of Jewish praxis and principle. This outlook explains the course of 118-1186; 9-11 falls into its proper place, not as the centre and pith (Baur) of the letter, but as a specific, historical application of the principles already laid down in 1-8.

Baur argues that Paul would not have devoted so important a part of his letter as 9-11 to the problem of Judaism in relation to Hellenism, “had he not had close at hand some special material reason for doing so, and this was afforded him by the circumstances of the local church” {Paul, i. 329), but the problem had been raised by his past experience in the long mission throughout Asia and Greece. It is not even enough to argue that the object of Romans was to counteract the Jewish Christian propaganda in the Roman church (so Weizsacker); one would expect in this event to find the christological problem more prominent. It is more plausible to detect the conciliatory motive (Pfleiderer) of reconciling the Gentile Christian majority with the Jewish Christian minority, by expounding more fully Paul’s gospel as a deeper and broader exposition of the faith than either party had yet reached. This aspect is enforced by those who (like Bleek, Hodge, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and Holsten) variously lay stress upon the irenical tone of Paul’s dialectic. A more polemical view is taken by scholars like Aberle {Einl. 205 f.) and Feine, who find that Paul is opposing unbelieving Jews, though it is not easy to see why he should do so in an epistle to Rome especially, and in an epistle primarily addressed to Gentile Christians. Judaism as the enemy is the view also underlying both Ewald’s and Grafe’s theories; the former regards the epistle (culminating in 131-6) as an attempt to disentangle Christianity from any compromising association with the Judaism whose fate he saw impending at the hands of the Roman power; Grafe (pp. cit. pp. 54f.), on the other hand, hears in the epistle a desire to establish Paul’s free gospel against the influences of local Jews who were corrupting the Roman Christians with legalistic sympathies.

These conflicting or complementary views open up the intricate problem of the readers to whom the epistle was addressed. Here we face apparently diverging statements, some of which imply Gentile Christians, while others point to Jewish Christians. The former passages include i5f- 13 IT13 and 1515f. which are perfectly explicit; they reckon the Roman Christians as among the Gentiles, and none of the counter-references is strong enough to overbear the force of such allusions. The use of the first person plural in 39 41 and 910, which seems to rank Paul with a Jewish Christian audience, means no more than the similar allusion in 1 Co io1; and the connection of his readers with the Law in 71-6 etc. is on all-fours with the tone of the argument in Gal 41-9 (to Gentile Christians). The obscurity which wraps the origin of the Roman church, or churches, prevents us from checking the internal evidence of the epistle by any external traditions of historical value, but the probabilities are that a Jewish Christian nucleus was surrounded by a Gentile Christian majority, perhaps drawn in part from the local Thus the view that the Roman church was predominantly Gentile Christian (so, e.g., Schott, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer, Schrer, von Soden, Feine, Jlicher, Denney, Belser, Peake, and especially Hoennicke, JC. 161 f.) is, so far as the evidence of the epistle goes, preferable to the hypothesis that it was predominantly Jewish Christian (so, e.g., Baur, Lipsius, Reuss, and Zahn). There is no topic in the letter which can be said to be foreign to the interests of the former, and no method of argument which can be pronounced off the line of legitimate appeal to them. Paul may have had in mind a Gentile Christian community in which there was a minority (=the weak of 141-1513) of Jewish Christians (cp. E. Riggenbach’s essay in SK., 1893, 649-678), probably including a number of but the primary aim of the writer is not to adjust the relations of these parties (so especially Holsten and Hilgenfeld). This would be to make 141-1513 the climax of the foregoing pages, instead of a supplement to them. The purpose of the apostle is rather to re-state, in the light of his experience during the long mission now closing, and in view of the fresh propaganda which he contemplated in the West, the principles of his gospel for the Gentiles in its relation to Judaism. All he knew of the internal condition of the Roman church was from hearsay. He did not write on account of any special trouble there, and it is artificial to suppose, with Pfleiderer and others, that he keeps one eye on the Jewish Christian and another upon the Gentile Christian portion of his audience. Romans is more of a treatise than any other of Paul’s epistles. Its structure is not determined by any local questions suggested to him, and, unlike all the preceding letters which are extant, this is not addressed to a church which he had founded. It is not written in the air. Paul is not composing in order to clear up or to express his own mind. But neither is he writing with a direct reference to the Roman Christians at every turn. “The letter does not attack Jewish Christianity, but Judaism —the Israelitish religion—standing over against Christianity as a distinct, independent entity which casts its shadow over the path of the new religion. Though he formulates objections in order to refute them, we must not imagine that persons pressing such objections really existed in the Roman church; St. Paul simply adopts the customary style for such discussions,—a style which was especially in accord with the lively genius of one so disposed to dialectic development of his thought ” (von Soden, INT. 80-81). “ If Paul was going to write to the Romans at all, no matter from what immediate impulse,—though it should only have been to announce his approaching visit,—it would be natural that his communication, in proportion as he realised the place and coming importance of the church at Rome, should assume a catholic and comprehensive character” (Denney, EGT. ii. 569). Psychologically, the breadth and general scope of the epistle are thus intelligible. A partial analogy in literature is furnished by Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, which were begun as a private letter to a gentleman in Paris. As Burke went on, however, the matter so grew and gained upon him that its importance and bulk demanded wider consideration than could be given in a mere letter. He therefore widened his scope, but adhered to the semi-private form of address. “ I wish,” he says at one point to his correspondent, “to com-municate more largely what was at first intended only for your private satisfaction. I shall still keep your affairs in my eye, and continue to address myself to you. Indulging in the freedom of epistolary intercourse, I beg leave to throw out my thoughts, and express my feelings, just as they arise in my mind, with very little attention to formal method.” § 5. Traces in early Christian literature. — Echoes of Romans occur in i Peter, and probably in Hebrews and James as well. Like I Cor., it was undoubtedly used by Clement of Rome, as is plain from the following passages, amongst others:—121=xxxvi. 2, n acruveros Kal iaKOTtapLvq SAvoca (cp. li. 5, TAS aavvirovs KapStas), 129-32= xxxv. 5-6, 22=xlvii. 7, 47-9=1. 6-7 (perhaps), 61=xxxiii. 1 (cp. context), 9*=5=xxxii. 2, and 131=lxi. 1. It is thus a component part of the Pauline group which Clem. Rom. proves to have been in circulation by the last quarter of the first century. The echoes in Ignatius are indubitable, also, if less distinct. Kairns Hofs (64) recurs in Eph. xix. 3, 13-4 underlies Smyrn. i. 1 {iK yevoas LavelS Kar adpKa, vlbv Geov Kara dlXyaa Kal Sivapiv, cp. Eph. xviii. 2), and striking coincidences occur in Magn. vi. 2 (=617), ix. I ( = 76), Trail. ix. 2 (=811), Eph. ix. (=993) etc. Polykarp’s knowledge of the epistle is fairly certain (cp. iii. 3= 138, x. = I210), though twice the allusion might be to 2 Cor. instead (vi. 2= 1410:13 cp. 2 Co 510, and iv. 1=1312 613 cp. 2 Co 67). The familiarity of Justin with Romans is patent; cp. e.g. Dial, xxiii. =43f., xxvii. =311-17, xliv. =97, xlvii. =24 etc. (with Apol. i. 4o = io18), as is that of Athenagoras {Leg. pro Christ. xiii. =!21, xxxiv. = i27). On the other hand, KoXXdpevoi ay add (v. 2) is too slender a basis to establish a use of the epistle 129) in the Didache, and the solitary glimpse in Hermas {Mand. x. ii. 5 = 826-27) proves next to nothing. The epistle appears, however, in the Canon of Marcion and in the Muratorian Canon; while it is expressly cited by Irenaeus (quoting an elder, adv. h<zr. iii. 16. 3 = I1 9s etc.), Clem. Alex. {Paedag. 70=1122 etc.), and Tertullian (e.g. adv. Praxeam, xiii.=17 95). According to Hippolytus, it was employed also by several Gnostic or semi-Gnostic sects, including the Ophites or Naasseni, and by the Valentinians (cp. Iren. adv. haer. i. 8. 3, i. 3. 4).

* “ The labours of St. Paul himself and his associates, first in Asia Minor and then in Macedonia and Greece, must have started many little waves, as it were, of Christian movement, some of which could hardly fail to reach as far as Rome. The Christianity they carried would as a matter of course be the Christianity of St. Paul himself... and if it found at Rome a pre-existing Christianity of a more Jewish type, the old might either pass into the new or remain unchanged. There was no necessity or likelihood that any violent antagonism should arise between them, unless a fresh element should be introduced in the shape of Jewish emissaries deliberately sent from the East to counterwork Paul” (Hort, Romans and Ephesians, p. 16). Of such a counter-movement there is no clear evidence in the epistle.

* Beyschlag’s arguments in favour of a proselyte-element have been independently worked out by Vblter in his Die diteste Predigt aus Rom (1908). Kattenbusch {das Apost. Symbol, ii. 450) rightly observes that Romans is inexplicable apart from the fact that the majority of its readers were originally proselytes.

(E) Colossians

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions — Bugenhagen (1527); Melanchthon’s Enarratio epist. Pauli ad Coloss. (1559); W. Musculus {Comm, in epp. ad Phil. Col. etc., 1865); J. Grynaeus (Explication 1585); R. Rollock (Edinburgh, 1600); Thomas Cartwright (London, 1612); Bishop Davenant (Cambridge, 1627); P. Bayne (London, 1634); N. Byfield (London, 1649); G. Calixtus {Expositio litt. in Eph. Col. etc. 1664-6); J. H. Suicer {in epist. S. Pauli ad Col. comment, crit. exeget. theol. 1669)*; J. Alting, Analysis exegetica in Ep. ad Coloss. (Amsterdam, 1687); P. J. Spener’s Erkidrung (1706); Hazevoet’s Verklaering (Leyden, 1720); S. van Til (Amsterdam, 1726); Roell, Epistola Pauli ad Coloss, exegesis (1731); Baumgarten’s Auslegung (Halle, 1767); J. D. Michaelis2 (1769); G. C. Storr’s Dissertatio exegetica (Tubingen, 1783-7, Eng. tr. Edin. 1842)*; F. Junker, Historisch-krit. und philolog. Comm. (Munchen, 1828)*; J. F. von Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1829); C. F. Bahr, Comment. liber d. Brief P. an die Kol. mit Berilcksichtigung d. dltern u. neuern Ausleger (Basel, 1833); Mannheim (1833); Steiger, der Brief Pauli an die Colosser; Uebersetximg, Erkidrung, einleitende u. epi-kritische Abhandlungen (Erlangen, 1835); Bbhmer (Theol. Auslegung, Breslau, 1835); Huther (1841); Dan. Wilson (1845); Baumgarten-Crusius (1847); de Wette2 (1847); Wiesinger (in Olshausen’s Comm. 1850); Bisping’s Erkidrung (1855); Ewald (1857); Ellicott (1857, etc.); Dalmer (Gotha, 1858); Messner’s Erkidrung (1863); Meyer3 (1865); Bleek's Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe an die Col., den Philemon, u. die Epheser (ed. Nitzsch, 1865); Schenkel (in Lange’s Bibel-Werk^, 1867; Braune {ibid., Eng. tr. 1870); Hofmann (1870 f.); A. Klopper (1882)*; J. Eadie2 (Edin. 1884)*; J. Ll. Davies2 {Eph. Col. and Philemon, 1884); J. A. Beet (1890); Light-foot9 (1890 and later) *; Oltramare, Commentaire sur les f. de S. Paul aux Col. Eph. et d Philimon (1891 f.)*; H. C. G. Moule {Cambridge Bible, 1893); von Soden2 {HC. 1893); Wohlenberg (in Strack-Zockler’s Comm. 1895); Findlay {Pulpit Commentary, 1895)*; T. K. Abbott {ICC. 1897); G. W. Garrod (1898); Maurer2 (1900); Haupt (— Meyer8, 1902)*; G. C. Martin {CB., n. d.); Peake * {EGT. 1903); Lueken2 {SNT. 1907); J. M. S.

Baljon (1907); A. L. Williams {CGT. 1907); P. Bijsterveld, debriev van P. aan de Col. (1908); P. Ewald2 {ZK. 1910); G. Alexander (New York, 1910); S. R. Macphail (Edinburgh, 1911).

Studies—against the standard treatise of H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe (1872*), see J. Koster, de echtheid van de brieven aan de Kolossers en aan de Ephesiers (1877) and von Soden {/PT, 1885, pp. 320 f., 407 f., 672 f.). Partly on Holtzmann’s lines, J. Weiss (TLZ., 1900, 553-556) 5 Soltau {SK., 1905, 521-562, ‘ die urspriingliche Gestalt des Kolosserbriefs ), and Michelsen (TT., 1906, 159 f., 317 f.); (i.) against the Pauline authorship:—Baur’s Paulus, 417 f. (Eng. tr. ii. 1-44); Schwegler, NZ. ii. 325 f.; Planck {Theol. Jahrb., 1847, 461 f.); Mayerhoff, der Brief an die Kolosser mit vornehenlicher Berilcksichtigung der Pastoralbriefe (1838); Hoekstra {PT., 1868, 559 f.); Hilgenfeld fPT. 1870, pp- 245 f.); Weizsacker (AA. ii. 240 f.); Briickner {Chron. 41 f., 257 k); Cone, The Gospel and its Interpretations (pp. 249-255). (ii.) for:—Schenkel ^Christus-bild d. Apostel, pp. 83-86); Renan (iii., ix.-xii.); Hort, Judaistic Chris-tianity (pp. 116 f.); Sanday in Smith’s DB. i. 624-631 (1893); Weiss {AJT. i. 371-377); Sabatier’s Paul (pp. 229 f.) and in ESR. iii. 272-275, McGiffert (AA. 366-374); E. H. Hall (Papias, 1899, 283 f.); Jiilicher (EBi. i. 860 f.); Pfleiderer, UrcI1 i. 258 f.; Clemen, Paulus, i. pp. 122 f.; Moffatt, HNT. 214 f.; Bacon, Story of St. Paul (1905), 303 f., 330 f.; Jacquier in Vigoroux’ DB. ii. 866-876. (iii.) general:—C. G. Hofmann (Introductio in lect. epistolae P. ad Coloss. 1739); Storr (dissertatio in epist. P. ad Coloss. 1786); Boehmer’s Isagoge (Berlin, 1829); L. Montet, Intro-ductio in epistolam ad Coloss. (Montauban, 1841); J. Wiggers, ‘ das Verhalt-niss des Ap. Paulus zu der christlichen Gemeinde in Koi.’ (SK., 1838, pp. 165 f.); Schenkel (BL. iii. 566-571); J. O. F. Murray (DB. i. 454-456); K. J. Miiller, Ueber d. Gedankengang d. Apostels Paulus in Kol. (1905); M. Rohr, Les Ipitres de Papbtre Paul aux Col. et aux Eph. (1905). (iv.) on the errorists:—Schneckenburger’s Ueber das Alter d. jild. Proselyten-Taufe, nebst einer Beilage uber die Irrlehrer zu Colossae (Berlin, 1828); Rheinwald (de pseudo-doctoribus Colossensibus, 1834); Osiander in Tub. Zeitschrift (1834), pp. 96 f.; J. Barry (les faux docteurs de Colosses, Montauban, 1846); Hilgenfeld (ZWT. xiii. 233 f.); Neander’s Planting of Christian Church i. 319 f., M. Dibelius, Die Geisteruielt ini Glauben des Paulus (1909), 151-155. § 1. Analysis.—Like Romans, this epistle was written to a church which the author only knew by hearsay. Paul had neither founded nor even visited (14 7-9. 23 21) the Christian community at Coloss, a Phrygian township on the left bank of the Lycus; but, as their founder, Epaphras (i7 412f.), was probably a disciple of his, and certainly a Gentile Christian like themselves (i21- 27 213 411f), the apostle evidently regarded the Colossian Christians as belonging to his mission-sphere. His authority to address them was plainly unquestioned, and the letter shows traces of a warm, mutual interest (42-18).

After a brief greeting, in which he associates Timotheus with himself (i1'2), he assures them of his constant thankfulness for their fine Christian character (i3'8), and of his equally constant prayers for their steady growth in the knowledge and service (1%f) of God who had redeemed them by Jesus Christ, the head alike of the creation (115-17) and of the church (118-23), according to Paul’s gospel, at any rate (123-29). To prevent them and others like them in Asia Minor from being misled on this cardinal matter (21f.), he reiterates the need of adherence to the simple and sufficient faith of Christ (2"f),* as opposed to any extraneous theosophy and ritual system (216f.) with ascetic obligations. The risen life with Christ is above either such severities (220f.) or the lax conduct which they vainly oppose. This leads Paul to sketch the true Christian ethic in general (35f.), negatively t and positively; also specifically for wives and husbands (318-19), children and parents (320-21), slaves and masters (322-41). With some brief words of general counsel (42-6) and personal details (47-17), the letter then closes.* Colossians is a significant deliverance addressed to a rather insignificant audience. Coloss was a second-rate township, inferior to its (413) powerful neighbours Laodicea and Hierapolis; and the local church was of little import-ance in early Christianity. The occasion of the epistle was the arrival of Epaphras (18) with news of the church, which was in some perplexity over a specious theosophy recently promulgated, and which perhaps—if we are to read between the lines—had expected or did expect a visit from Paul (211). At the moment he is imprisoned § and cannot come to them, nor does he ap-pear to anticipate any opportunity for a visit; ]| the reasons of this they are to learn orally from Tychicus and Onesimus (47-9), who bring the epistle. All he can do personally is to write. The letter reciprocates their prayers (19 Kal ’fleets'), assures them of his keen interest and pride in them (21f), and invites their interest in his own mission-work (4s); but its dominant aim is to restate the absolute adequacy of Jesus in relation to the world and to the church, to show how faith in him requires no outside philosophy or esoteric cult in order to perfect itself, and to expose the absurdity [Kevi/ a-rrarri) of any mystical supplement to the Christian experience of Jesus as redeemer. Apparently Epaphras and his fellow-teachers were unable to cope with the ramifications of the local theosophy, and Paul interposes with this letter on their behalf. The predominance of abstract teaching over personal reference in it * The point of the apparently irrelevant clause irepuraevovres v eixapiarlg. (27) is very fine; to be thankful to God for all he has done and is to us in his Son, involves a thoughtful and hearty realisation of these benefits which is the best antidote to any hesitation about his power of meeting the needs of the soul. Gratitude to God, as Paul implies, means a firmer grasp of God (cp. 42).

J With Col 311 contrast the tone of the thanksgivings in Plutarch’s Marius, 46, § I; Diog. Laert. i. 33, and the Talmudic-Berachoth (“ Rabbi Judah taught that a man should say every day, Blessed be God for not creating me a pagan, nor foolish, nor a woman ”). + Does the phrase, irepl of iXa^ere ivroX<is (410), refer to a letter previously sent to the Colossians by Paul, or simply to oral instruction? §This would not necessarily follow from 410 (0 cvvaxudAcrs pou), which might mean no more than Ro 167, but 4s (88euai) puts it beyond doubt. || Epaphras, too, is unable to return, but the Colossians and the other local Christians are not to fear he has lost his interest in them (412-13). is natural when one recollects that the readers were not directly converts of the apostle, and that the letter was intended to be supplemented by Tychicus’ oral information (47) upon the writer’s situation and prospects. § 2. Object.—The dangers felt by Paul in the situation of the Colossian Christians were due to something at once more serious and definite than mere shortcomings of the practical religious life. The presence of errorists with semi-Gnostic tendencies is revealed by the warnings against a spurious doooqa, arbi-trary vrXuara, and an erroneous Sackala. It is improbable that any definite system was being propagated. The likelihood is rather that the local Christians were being affected by a syncretistic, eclectic movement of thought, fostered by esoteric tendencies in the local Judaism (cp. Hoennicke’s JC. 122 f.). Paul’s references to the movement naturally are confined to the special points at which it threatened to impinge upon the true faith of Jesus Christ, and we do not possess any outside inde-pendent evidence upon the subject; but the tenets indicate a local phase of some syncretistic theosophy (so recently Jacquier, Haupt, and Dibelius), a blend of disparate elements rife within the popular religion of Phrygia, together with notions and practices current among Jewish circles which were sensitive to semi-Alexandrian influences.

That a Jewish element entered into the theosophy is evident from the allusions to circumcision and the sabbath (2111. 16), but it was a subtler form of legalism than had crept into the Galatian churches. The Law was no longer opposed to grace; no attempt was made to enforce the ceremonial practices of Judaism upon the Gentile Christians, and the errorists do not seem to have attacked Paul personally. Their claim was to lead men from a mere faith in Christ to an esoteric vOcis which admitted the initiated into the mysteries of an angelic hierarchy and thereby into a higher and a fuller religious experience. These intermediate beings contain the divine fulness, and therefore are to be worshipped (cp. Lueken’s Michael, 4f., 62-91) by all who would attain to the power and insight of the perfected life (128). Such personal spirits play a cosmic role also, as ra oroxela T00 Kcuov (28); their functions are not only creative but also providential, in a sense, resembling those of the saints in Roman Catholicism. Finally, this type of theosophy tended to foster asceticism (221f-) and exclusiveness (311). The latter was then, as afterwards, the inevitable accompaniment of movements which emphasised speculative attainments, mystical or otherwise; pretensions and prerogatives were the badge of all their tribe. As for asceticism, or the abstinential side of practical ethics, it was the natural result of any iocoqla, as Philo and Josephus chose to describe their Judaism, which sharply con-trasted the material and the spiritual, making attainments in the knowledge of the divine being depend upon the eschewing, as far as possible, of contact with gross matter. The universe was composed of angelic aroixtia. Man was part of them (cp. Philo, de vict. offerentibus, 2), and therefore owed them the same sort of reverence as the Mithraic initiate owed to the spirits or angels (cp. Dieterich’s Mithras-Liturgie\ pp. 52 f.),—a reverence which partly con-sisted in keeping one’s higher self pure from all earthly corruptions. In this way, as Dibelius points out, angel-worship * and asceticism form the foci of the ellipse.

The compass has been pretty well boxed in the endeavour to ascertain the direction of Paul’s refutation in Colossians. The errorists have been identified as Jews with theosophic or Alexandrian tendencies (Eichhorn, Junker, Schneckenburger), as pagans with Pythagorean (Grotius) or Oriental (Hug) affinities, or as Christians tinged with Essene ideas (Mangold, Klopper, Weiss); the (jjcXoao^ta has been assigned to a definite source such as Mithraism (A. Steinmann in Strassburg. Didzesanblatt, 1906, 105-118) or Cerinthus (Mayerhoff, R. Scott, after Nitzsch). The affinities with Essenism, emphasised by Thiersch, Ewald, Lightfoot, and Godet amongst others, do not amount to very much; the parallel on angel-worship breaks down, the practice of asceticism differs, and other traits of the Colossian errorists do not correspond exactly to those of the Essenes (cp. Hort’s JC. n6f., and Junker’s ed. pp. 24 f.). Michaelis thought of disciples of John the Baptist; the Tiibingen critics, followed by Sabatier, S. Davidson, and Pfleiderer, detected the physiognomy of gnostic Ebionites. § 3. Authenticity.—1The reasons which led the Tiibingen school to regard Colossians as sub-Pauline (see above, especially W’eizsacker, AA. ii. 240-245; and Bruckner, Chron. pp. 41-56, 138 f.) were in the main (a) too rigid a view of Paul’s mind, based on the Corinthian, Galatian, and Roman epistles; and (b) a belief that the epistle presupposed the full-blown gnostic systems of the second century. Subsequent researches into the presuppositions of gnosticism in Orientalism and in the later phases of Jewish speculation have, however, disclosed the existence, in more or less developed forms, of widely scattered conceptions and practices of a semi-speculative tendency, which render it quite possible that such a religious temper as that controverted in Colossians could have prevailed during the first century. The contact of Orientalism with Judaism on its specu-lative and popular sides, in the Diaspora, is independent of and * «Im brigen ist die Engellehre dasjenige Gebiet des Paulinismus, welches von der Logia Jesu am wenigsten beeinflusst ist” (Resch, Der Paulinismus, 161). prior to the rise of Christianity, and the germs of what was afterwards gnosticism can be detected in various quarters during the earlier half of the first century. At any time after A.D. 40, early Christianity was upon the edge of such speculative tendencies; and while a discussion such as that of Colossians is unprecedented, so far as Paul’s epistles are concerned, it is a long way from being historically a prolepsis.

The traces of Colossians in the earlier half of the second century literature are both dim and dubious. In Barn. xii. 7 (ex airy, sc. Jesus, mvra Kal els avriv) 1l6f (r Travra 81 airov Kal els avrov iKTiarac... Kal Th ravra iv avT^ avv&TTiKe) may be echoed (cp. Kar’ elKova, 39=vi. 12 f.), and the occurrence of aywv virlp (21) in Clem. Rom. ii. 4 is noticeable; but neither here nor in Polykarp (i. 2=15-6, x. 1, firmi in fide et immutabiles= I23, cp. I Co 1558) can stress be laid on the coincidences, though Pol. xi. 2 =35, were it not for Eph 55, would be a certain reminiscence. The practice of Ignatius in confining avvSovXos to deacons {Eph. ii., Magn. ii., Phil, iv., Smyrn. xii.), may, however, as Lightfoot suggests, be a reflection of Col 17 47 (where alone Paul employs the term, and both times with 8I6.KOVOS) and the other parallels {iD^Smyrn. i. 2, kaOnuvovs iv rip crravptp, 1l6= Trail. v. 2, bparh Kal abpara) serve to corroborate upon the whole the likelihood that the epistle was known to Ignatius. In Hermas, the description of Christ as n {Vis. II. ii. 8), if it be accurate, might reflect Jn 146 as much as Col 34, the more so as the reference to ‘ denying the law' in the context points to passages like Mt io”3; and Sim. IX. xii., with its definition of God’s Son as Tons rijs Krlaews avrov mpoyevorepos (2) and its allusion to Christ’s salvation of angels (15), indicates the spread of the ideas of Colossians rather than a definite acquaintance with its text. The inclusion of the epistle in Marcion’s Canon proves, however, that it was well known at Rome as elsewhere during this period, and the inference to be drawn from the scanty use of it as compared with the richer traces of Ephesians is that the latter writing, by its superior size and value, must have tended to attract more notice from those who were in sympathy with the ideas voiced by both. Like the other Pauline letters, it is definitely cited by Irenaeus {adv. haer. iii. 14. 1 = 414), Tertullian (e.g. de praescr. haer. vii. =2S), and Clem. Alex. {Strom. i. 1, etc. = I28), besides being included in the Muratorian Canon and employed by Origen {c. Cels. v. 8 =218-19). The allusions in Justin to Christ as the irpwrbroKos Tons KT trews {Dial. ixxxv., cp. Ixxxiv., and Cohort. ad Graecos, xv.), and to the rrepLrop.'fi {Dial, xii., xliii.), probably flow from Col i16f- and 211f, while gnostic sects like the Peratici used it, as well as Basilides and Ptolemus (according to Hippolytus).

The vocabulary presents no features which necessarily involve a sub-Pauline author. When account is taken of the fact that Paul is writing upon a new subject to a strange church, in which no objection had been taken to his apostolic authority or gospel, the proportion of hapax heuremena is not unnatural. Several characteristic Pauline terms are lacking, e.g. &7roKa\v\pis, SbvacrOai, el p.-q, ei res, el Kal, etirep, Kocvwvla, Xours, fdiWov, oukItl, -n-elOeiv; but, on the other hand, SiKacoavvi] is also absent from I Thess., a large number (including oiKalutris, 86KL/J.OS, KOLVAS, ocrmpla, lraxo) are also absent from Gal., SiKaiouv never occurs even in 1 Thess., 2 Cor., and Phil. vuos is absent from 2 Cor., owrpla from 1 Cor., and oravps from Romans. Genitival constructions and composite forms are unusually frequent, but they do not constitute any primary argument against the Pauline authorship.

The style is perhaps slower and loftier than that of the earlier epistles; clauses are linked to one another by participles and relatives, often in a loose connection (e.g. 1236), which contrasts with Paul’s ordinary use of particles like &pa, 816, and 8I6TI. There are anacoloutha, but the dialectic is less rapid and pointed, especially in the opening sections of the epistle. “ Die Aiisdriicke sindweicher, voller, feierlicher, die Gedanken sind breiter ausgesponnen, vgl. 26t. Man konnte den Stil einen liturgischen nennen, wie wir ihn etwa auf Ehrendekreten fr Augustus finden ” (Nageli, Wortschatz des Paulus, 84). This, however, may be due to the absence of any personal opponent. The circumstances were not such as to provoke the agitation and the sharp argu-mentative method which characterise, e.g., Galatians and Corinthians.

The speculative advance constitutes a more serious difficulty. Christ is (i151-) the principle of creation, but this is implied in I Co 86 and due to the elaboration of his pre-existence as a heavenly Man. His cosmical significance (l17 ra Tvra iv avry ovvornkev) is a corollary of this, and the doctrine of his person as the object of creation (I16 ret mvra els aMv ^KTiarai) is no more opposed to 1 Co 1528, Ro 11s6 than is 1 Co 86 to Ro 1136. The triumph of the redeemer over hostile spirits (28f, cp. I20) is also pre-supposed in I Co 26f- and Phil 25f; the former passage, in fact, indicates that there were elements in Paul’s theosophy which were more central than the exigencies of the extant letters suggest. Often, as at Thessalonika and Corinth, they had to be ignored in his ordinary preaching; but all along Paul had his cosmic speculations, and Colossians is an example of how he developed them when an occasion offered for expressing them in certain applica-tions. In meeting the Colossian heresy, he naturally drew largely upon the vocabulary and ideas of the aopla which he was in the habit of imparting to the reXeioi. Furthermore, he probably used several technical terms em-ployed by the errorists themselves. These considerations may help to show how the advanced christology of this epistle, especially when it is taken along with Philippians, does not—even in its cosmic extension of the redemptive death and in its organic relation of Christ to the church—represent a position which would have been necessarily impossible for Paul to occupy.

Recent proofs of the Pauline character of this christology may be found in Denney’s Jesus and the Gospel (1909), pp. 34 k, and in M. Dibelius, die Geisterwelt im Glaziben des Paulus (1909), pp. 125-151. The latter critic, after an exhaustive discussion of Pfleiderer’s arguments, concludes that “neither the language nor the contents of Col 1-2 render the Pauline author-ship impossible.” § 4. Integrity.—Mediating hypotheses have more than once been suggested in order to explain here, as in the case of the pastorals, the apparent mixture of Pauline and sub-Pauline elements. Thus Ewald (Sendschreiben, pp. 466 f.) attributed the form of the epistle to Timotheus (i1), as Spitta did afterwards with 2 Thessalonians, whilst Hitzig (Zur Kritik paulin. Briepe, 1870, pp. 22 f.) regarded the epistle as a genuine Pauline note worked up for later and dogmatic purposes, and R. Scott (The Pauline Epistles, 300 f.) attributes its composition entirely to Timotheus. When the stylistic data are fairly weighed, however, the necessity for such hypotheses largely disappears. More might be said, perhaps, for the supposition that the epistle contains some interpolations in its canonical text (cp. Weisse, Beitriige zur Kritik paul. Briefe, pp. 22 f., 59 f.). The possibility of such changes being made during the second century is to be admitted, especially as scribes had always the temptation of con-forming Colossians to Ephesians. When the latter is taken as sub-Pauline, any glosses in Col. may be referred (i.) either to the author of Eph., or (ii.) to subsequent editors. For the former hypothesis (Holtzmann, cp. TLZ., 1877, 109 f., 1892, 37 f.; Hausrath, iv. 122 f., and Soltau) see further below. The latter is more convincing because less rigorous, although the working out of the hypothesis carries us often behind any textual evidence.

Editorial handling has been suspected, e.g., in (a) 115-20 (the christo-logical section) in whole or part (om. 16 Marcion, 16b-17 von Soden, 18ab+20 Weisse, 18-20 Holtzmann and Clemen) * owing to its faulty connection and the difficulty of harmonising the reconciling of ri... olpavos with the view of 213f, or even with the Pauline doctrine elsewhere (cp. Baljon, Theol. Studien, 1885, 316-329); in (b) I23 (o hkocare... ovpav6v, J. Weiss); in (c) 2 (xal 8aoi ... <rapKl), which might be a catholicising gloss (so Weisse, J. Weiss). The corrupt state of the text in 217-23 has also led to attempts at emendation t and hypotheses of interpolation (16-17 diXwv... eptSarevav, 18. 23, Weisse; 18ab. 19, mvra and kar KTX. &reva,... nvl 23, Hitzig; 17-18b. 19. 220 Tia... nvl 23, Holtzmann). " This epistle, and more especially its second chapter, appears to have been ill-preserved in ancient times” (WH. ii. 127), but such interpolations or glosses as may reasonably be conjectured do not point to any far-reaching process of editing, least of all upon the part of the author (or under the influence) of Ephesians.

In i15f- under the speculative christology there vibrates a doctrine similar to that of the Alexandrian Judaism which reappears in Philo, J according to * Einheitlichkeit, pp. 127 f.; Paulus, i. pp. 127 f. + ©ov (218) seems to be either a gloss (Bakhuysen, Baljon) or a corruption of some primitive reading like 1X8 up (Junius, Toup, Linwood), @Xycv (Clericus). Inv.148hv virevavrlov hulv is probably a marginal gloss on Ka6’ i)p.Qv. which the Logos as God’s shadow (crKia.) was employed as the organ of God at creation (leg. alleg. iii. 31), the Logos also being prior to all creation (leg. alleg. iii. 61). But there is not the slightest reason for conjecturing (as Norden does, Antike Kunstprosa, ii. 475) a lost source, treating of the Logos from the OT standpoint, behind Philo, the author of Colossians, and Theophilus of Antioch, simply because a similar term, mporrokos, is applied in Col i15 to the Son of God as is used by Philo (quis rer. 24 with mporoyevs) and Theophilus (ad Autol. ii. 22) for the Logos,—Theophilus never elsewhere using the Pauline epistles.

“ Christ was not a lay figure that Paul could drape as he chose in the finery of Palestinian apocalyptic or of Alexandrian philosophy. He is not exhibiting Christ as divine or quasi-divine, by investing him in the wavering

Holtzmann’s ingenious and complicated theory postulates an original Pauline epistle, directed against the legal and ascetic tendencies of the Colossians; this was worked up by the autor ad Ephesios, first of all, into the canonical Ephesians, as a protest against a Jewish-Christian theosophy, and afterwards remodelled separately into the canonical Colossians. Such filagree-criticism has failed to win acceptance; the literary criteria are too subjective, and the evidence for bisecting the error attacked in Colossians is not convincing. Soltau postulates an original Colossian epistle, its framework visible in Col 11-5. 7-8. 10-13 and 410-18, with its main contents in a threefold division: (a) a section independent of Eph., viz. 21-34 (with interpolations in 22. 7.9.11b. 13.15.19.22a), a christological section 121-29, and (c) the table of household duties, 35-44 7-9. This was worked over by a later editor using the epistle to the Laodiceans, whose original form may be reconstructed perhaps from Col 121-29 35-44. 7-10 (with an address modelled on Col i1'2, Eph 11-2). Then came the composition of Eph., based in part also on the epistle to Laodicea, after which Col. suffered further accretions, largely due to an interpolator who used Eph. But this hypothesis is not preferable to Holtzmann’s. It assumes that the original Colossians was not circulated at all widely; that it suffered a twofold process of homiletical and dogmatic expansion to a degree unparalleled in the history of early Christian literature; and, finally, that the ministry which Archippus is to fulfil (417) is to look after the interests of Onesimus! On general grounds this explanation of the relationship between Col. and Eph. has nothing more in its favour than most of its rivals; and, above all, the criteria employed to detect later glosses in the original text, and uncertain glories of the Alexandrian Logos; he is casting upon all creation and redemption the steadfast and unwavering light of that divine presence of which he was assured in Christ, and for which the Alexandrians had groped in vain ” (Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 36-37). and to separate the two forms of the epistle, are often arbitrary. That glosses may have crept in from the margin into this, as into other epistles of Paul, is perfectly possible; but the reasons adduced in the present instance for such interpolations are not convincing. Soltau seems to assume that wherever parallel passages occur, one or other must be secondary; which rests on an entirely a priori conception of style, especially in an epistle, and on an erroneous estimate of Paul’s style in particular. Thus no adequate grounds can be alleged why one writer should not refer three times to Christ as h kea, or why the repeti-tion of almost synonymous terms, like (27) eppdjopNot and rebeueliopvot, should be held un-Pauline. Furthermore, the supposed aim of the original Colossian epistle, viz., to oppose the of Philo, involves too restricted a meaning of Qioooda.

Michelsen’s theory is even more elaborate. Pfleiderer, who also postulates a Pauline original, more prudently declines to reconstruct it out of the canonical epistle, which he regards as a subsequent adaptation or resetting of the genuine letter; but this is little improvement on the Holtz-mann-Soltau view. § 5. Place and Period.—To the period of imprisonment under Felix at Caesarea, some, if not all, of the captivity-epistles have been assigned: Col., Eph., and Philemon by D. Schultz {SK, 1829, pp. 616-617), after Beza and Thiersch, with Schott (§ 66), Bottger {Beitrdge, ii. 47 f.), Wiggers (SN., 1841, pp. 436-450), Meyer, Laurent, Schenkel, Hausrath (iv. 118-119, Col. and Philemon), Sabatier (pp. 225-249), Reuss, Weiss, and Haupt; and even Philippians by O. Holtzmann l^PLZ., 1890, p. 177; NT Zeitgeschichte, pp. 133-134), Spitta {Apgeschichte, 281; Ure. i. 34), and Macpherson ^Ephesians, pp. 86-94). Philemon * and Philippians (see below) must certainly be dated in the Roman imprisonment, however, and there is not evidence * “Paul’s expectations of release were more natural at Rome than at Csarea. During the latter part of his imprisonment at Caesarea he knew that he was going to Rome. It would be necessary then to place the letter in the earlier part. But it does not well suit this, for Paul had been for a long time anxious to see Rome, and it is most unlikely that he should think of going to Coloss first ” (Peake, EGT. iii. 491-492). The arguments against the Caesarean period are succinctly put by Bleek {Einl. §§ 161, 165) and Hort {Romans and Ephesians, 101-110). For the other side, see E. L. Hicks {The Interpreter, April 1910: “Did St. Paul write from Csarea? ”). enough to prove the contrary for Colossians. Had it been written from Caesarea (so von Dobschiitz, Ure. 102), some greeting from Philip (Ac 218-14) would have been included, or, at any rate, some mention of him among the apostle’s friends and companions (411). The two years in Caesarea are certainly a blank, and as certainly Paul must have been active during this interval, but we are not entitled, without adequate evidence, to fill up this blank by placing Colossians or any other epistle within its limits. There is no reason to break away from the ordinary view that Colossians was composed during Paul’s imprisonment at Rome. As Philippians was certainly the last letter he wrote, Colossians falls earlier; it is earlier than Ephesians, even when the latter is ascribed to Paul (so especially Honig, ZWT.y 1872, 63 f., followed by Weiss, AJT. i. 377 f.; Sabatier, ESR. iv.

439 f.; and Godet, INT. 475-490), though Coleridge {Table-Talk, May 25, 1830) thought otherwise. “The Epistle to the Ephesians is evidently a catholic epistle addressed to the whole of what might be called St. Paul’s diocese. It is one of the divinest compositions of man.... The epistle to the Colossians is the overflowing, as it were, of St. Paul’s mind upon the same subject.” This priority of Ephesians is upheld by Eichhorn, Bohmer, Hug, Credner, Anger, Schneckenburger, Matthies, Reuss, Guericke, T. K. Abbott, and P. Ewald amongst others, who advocate its Pauline authorship, mainly on the ground that it is the epistle referred to in Col 416 (and therefore written previously). Mayerhoff, among critics of the opposite school, is almost alone in putting it prior to Colossians. § 6. The Laodicean epistle.—The enigmatic reference to an epistle Ik AaoSkas (416) has given rise to a swarm of hypotheses, identifying the writing in question either with one or another of the extant Pauline letters, e.g. Ephesians (so, further, Grotius, Huth, Mill, Wetstein, Paley, Hofmann, Mangold, Holzhausen), or i Tim. (John of Damascus, Theophylact), or Philemon (Wieseler, Comment. de epistola Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant, 1844), or else with Hebrews (Schulthess, Schneckenburger, t Especially by Laurent {Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol., 1866, 129 b) and Klostermann {ibid., 1870, 160 f.). etc.).* The Ephesian hypothesis has won some favour in the form of a conjecture that A AaoSiKia was in one of the copies of the circular letter now known as Ephesians (so, e.g., Usher, Matthies, Conybeare and Howson, Credner, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Schrader, Olshausen, Wiggers, Neander, Anger, Harless, Bleek, Lightfoot, Salmon, Abbott); under the title mrpos Aaoieas, it is argued, Marcion placed Ephesians in his Canon (see below, under Ephesians). The hypothesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Calvin, Beza, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, and others, that the epistle was one from the Laodicean church to Paul (or Epaphras, or Colosss), not from Paul to them, is needless grammatically, as « has the pregnant force of from and out of, and intrinsically improbable, as Paul was much more likely to give directions about a letter which he had written to the neighbouring church of Laodicea than about one which that church had written or was to write to him. The context plainly implies (kal vuels) that the Colossians and the Laodiceans stood in the same relation to the two letters in question.

* Special monographs by K. Rudrauf {de episiola Laodicensium, Giessen, 1680), C. J. Huth {Epist. ad Laod. in encyclic, ad Eph. adservata, Erlangen, 1751), R. Anger {Ueber den Laod.-Brief, Leipzig, 1843)*, A. Sartori {Ueber den L.-Brief, 1853); see, further, Zahn {GK. i. 277 b, ii. 83b, 566b, 583b).

No trace of this epistle is to be found, and it must be regarded as having perished at an early date after its composition. It was in order to avoid this conclusion that an epistle of Paul could have been lost, attempts were made to identify it with i Tim., at the close of which the words eypadn azo Aaoikeas (i.e. L. = place of composition) are added in several MSS (Zahn, GK. ii. 567 f.), just as occasionally at the close of one or other of the Thessalonian epistles. But Paul had never been at Laodicea. Probably it was the same motive which prompted the cognate explanation of « A. as “sent from Laodicea to Paul” (see above). But the letter could have been neither written by Paul at Laodicea (a place he had never evangelised) nor composed by the Laodiceans themselves.

It is plain from Col 21 that Paul’s letter to the church of Laodicea was, like Colossians, addressed to Christians who were strangers to him. The apostle orders the two churches, being on the same footing towards himself, to exchange copies of their respective epistles. The latter point bears incidentally on the circulation of apostolic epistles. The first injunction (cp. 1 Th 527) was to get an epistle read to all the members of the church addressed, instead of to any coterie or circle; the next * Philastrius (Haer. lxxxix.) mentions this opinion as held by some who attributed its composition to Luke. was to promote in certain cases the circulation of a given epistle among neighbouring churches. The Colossian Christians were not only to salute the Christians at Laodicea (Col 415), but to communicate Colossians to them and secure “ Laodiceans ” from them, or rather to read it when they received it in due course. The most natural meaning of Thv ex Aaoilas (= the letter you are to receive from Laodicea) implies that Paul had either given oral instructions (to Tychicus?) to have a copy of Laodiceans sent to the neighbouring church of Colossae, or inserted in that letter an injunction corresponding to Col 415-16. He gives no reason for this procedure, and it does not follow that Laodiceans, any more than Colossians, was a circular pastoral intended for several churches. The probability is that, like Colossians, it had individual traits, whereas the canonical Ephesians contains none of these.

The pseudo-Pauline Epistola ad Laodicenses is a much later forgery, dating from the second (Zahn) or more probably the fourth century; cp. Harnack, ACL. i. pp. 36-37, and Lightfoot’s Colossians (pp. 272 f.). Four fresh Spanish MSS are noticed in JBL. (xxiii. pp. 73 f.), and a transcription of one in Madrid is given by Prof. E. J. Goodspeed in AJT. (1904) pp. 536538. The epistle was not only read in some circles of the early church (“legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur," Jerome, de uir. inlustr. J), but widely circulated in the mediaeval period. For over nine centuries “this forged epistle hovered about the door of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death-blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions ” (Lightfoot, p. 297).

(F) Philemon

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—Besides most edd. of Colossians, see the special edd. by R. Rollock (Geneva, 1602); W. Jones (London, 1635); L.

C. G. Schmidt (1766); G. C. Storr (1781); Hagenbach (Basel, 1829); J.

K. I. Demme, Erkldrung d. Phil. Briefes (1844); H. A. Petermann, ad fidem versionum... cum earum textu orig. grace (Berlin, 1844); Rothe, Pauli ad Phil, epistolae interpretatio historico-exegetica (Bremen, 1844)*; Koch (Zurich, 1846); Wiesinger (in Olshausen’s Comm. 1850); F. R. Khne (1856); Bleek (Berlin, 1865); van Oosterzee (Eng. tr.. New York, 1868); It is edited by some others {e.g. Wiesinger and M. R. Vincent) along with Philippians, by a few {e.g. G. T. Zacharia and M. F. Sadler) along with the Pastoral epistles.

1 The Latin text of the epistle is printed by Lightfoot (with a Gk. rendering), Westcott {Canon of the NT, appendix E), and Wohlenberg in his edition of the Pastoral epistles (pp. 339 f.).

2 Especially those by Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Oltramare, and Haupt.

M. R. Vincent {ICC. 1897, ‘ Philippians and Philemon ’); Lueken {SN7I 1906); A. H. Drysdale (1906); A. Schumann (1908); Oesterley {EGT. 1910); P. Ewald 2 {ZK. 1910).

Studies—J. G. C. Klotzsch, de occasione et indole epistolae ad Philem. (1792); D. H. Wildschut, de ui dictionis et sermonis elegantia in epistola ad Philem. (1809); Schenkel {BL. iv. 531-532); Holtzmann (ZIVT., 1873, pp. 428 f., ‘der Brief an Philemon kritisch untersucht’); J. P. Esser, de Brief aan Philemon (1875)*; S. Davidson, INT. i. 153-160; Steck {JPT., 1891, 570-584); Z. Weber’s Der Brief an d. Philemon, Ein Vorbild fiir die christl. Behandhing socialer Fragen (1896); C. Roth {ZSchw., 1897, 1-13); von -Dobschtitz, Urc. 115 f.; J. H. Bernard {DB. iv. 832-834); van Manen {OCL. 59 f.; EBi. 3693-3697); C. A. Scott {Exp.6, Oct. 1911, 338 f.).

The occasion of this note is as follows: Onesimus, a slave, had run away from his master, a prosperous and influential citizen of Colossae (cp. Col 49), either owing to some harshness on the latter’s part (Col 41), or because he took advantage of his master’s Christian forbearance (Col 322f.). Paul never hints at the former reason in his note. On the other hand, vv.11- 18-19 suggest that Onesimus had robbed as well as deserted Philemon, and for either offence he was liable to be crucified. We have no information as to how or why he came across Paul, voluntarily (Bengel, Haupt, cp. Lightfoot, 310-311) or acci-dentally. This little note simply shows the erstwhile Sparrns in the apostle’s company as a Christian, and on the point of being sent back to his master, for whose forbearance the apostle pleads in a few charming, tactful lines. After greeting Philemon, Apphia his wife, and Archippus (possibly his son), with the Christians who met for worship at Philemon’s house (v.2), Paul begins with a captatio benevolentia of praise for Philemon’s kindly Christian character (4-7), which encourages him to make a winning appeal on behalf of the unworthy Onesimus (8-21), now returning (Col 49) along with Tychicus to Colosse, as a penitent and sincere Christian, in order to resume his place in the household of Philemon and Apphia. With a line or two of personal detail (22-25) the note then closes. Possibly (cp. v.19 eyw Ilavos ypaa rp 2un xepi) it was an autograph; if it was dictated, v.19 was probably written by Paul himself on the margin of the note when finished, and the parenthesis of v.5 may have a similar origin.

As Paul evidently had some hope of a speedy release from his imprisonment (L 22-23), and as Aristarchus and Luke (24, cp. Col 410. 14) were with him, Caesarea might conceivably be the place from which this note was sent (so, e.g., Hilgenfeld and Hausrath); but Paul's eyes were towards Rome during his captivity under Felix, and at Caesarea the conditions were less favourable than at Rome (Ac 28s0’31 aTreZ^To mvras Tovs elo-Topevouvovs 7ps avTw) for an outsider like Onesimus getting access to the apostle. Rome, too, was the natural refuge of runaway slaves (fugitivartt), who could the more easily escape detection by plunging into its seething population. Both Aristarchus and Luke were also with Paul at Rome (Ac 2816). In all likelihood, therefore, the note was written during Paul’s confinement in the capital (cp. Phil 224). This is corroborated by the similarity of style and contents between it on the one hand and Colossians and Philippians on the other, both written at this period: cp. e.g. crwepyds and ovorparrns (1-2, Phil 225), CTUyvwrei. (6, Phil I9, Col 19-10), avr)K.ov (8, Col 318), ovvaxuXoros (23, Col 410), rxo (15, Phil 418), and yamyrs (16, Col 47), besides the fact that all three are written by Paul as a prisoner and as associated with Timotheus, whilst Col. and Philem. in addition contain greetings to Archippus and associate Luke, Mark, Aristarchus, and Demas in the closing The inclusion of rat Tiub@eos d eds in v.1 seems at first sight a semi-official tinge, but Timotheus may have been a friend of Philemon and his family; there is no obvious reason for suspecting that the words are an editorial addition during the period of the letter’s reception into the Canon, although the v.l. oxouev (or Exouev) in v.7 represents an early effort to bring out the fact of Timotheus as Paul’s associate. It is extremely unlikely that Paul added his name in order to adduce a second witness (cp. 2 Co 131) to the slave’s reformed character (Zahn, Belser).

Philemon’s residence has been variously assigned to Laodicea (so, e.g., Wieselerf), Ephesus (Holtzmann), and Coloss (Hilgenfeld, Bleek, etc.). Even if Archippus belonged to Laodicea (so Lightfoot on Col 413-17), it would not follow that Philemon’s residence must also have been there; the two towns lay not far from one another. Paul cannot (Col 21) have con-verted Philemon at Colossae; they may have met at Ephesus, but even if the Ephesian Onesimus of Ignatius (ad Eph. ii.) were supposed to be the Onesimus of this note, it would not prove that Philemon stayed there. The probabilities, such as they are, point on the whole to Colossce. No credence, however, can be given to the statement of Apost. Constit. vii. 46, which turns all three into bishops, Archippus of Laodicea, Philemon of Colosse, and Onesimus of Berea. t On the ground that this note is that referred to in Col 416 (Chron. 450f.).

* To complete the parallelism of names in Col 410-14= Philemon 23-24, Amling (ZNW., 1909, 261-262) proposes to read ’lyo-ovs (=’lovaTos) for ‘Incof in the latter passage, or ‘Inco0, ‘Incos.

The note is not strictly private. It is addressed not only to Philemon (primarily), but to Apphia his wife (a8eX<pfi, as often in this sense). Unless 2 Jn is addressed to an individual, this note is the only extant letter in the NT literature which is even partially addressed to a woman, although Phoebe (see above, pp. 137 f.) had one written on her behalf. For letters of ancient philosophers to women (e.g. Epicurus and Seneca to their mothers, Ptolemaeus to Flora, and Porphyry to Marcella), see J. Geffcken in Preuss. Jahrbiicher (1905), 427-447.

The seven Pauline ra evpqpdva. in this note (ivair^ireiv, airorlveiv, &Xpqo'TOs, iircT&aaeiv, ^evla, ovivaadai, and TrpoaoipAXeiv) are all current in the Kocv-q (as the papyri prove), and most occur elsewhere in the LXX or in the NT itself. “ Wenn uns eine Schrift des NT von der zwanglosen hellenistischen Unterhaltungsprache eine Vorstellung zu geben mag, so ist es der anmutige Philemonbrief" (Nageli, der Wortschatz des Apostel Paulus, 82). The play on the name of Onesimus (20 ly cov 6vatp.qv iv Kvpltp) happens to recur in Ignat, ad Ephes, ii.; but it is too common and obvious (even when supported in Ignat, ibid., by varao in sense of Philemon 7- 20) to indicate that Ignatius had this note in mind. Philemon, however, which is twice quoted as Pauline by Origen (its first commentator), was included in Marcion’s Canon (cp. Tert. adv. Marc. v. 21 = soli huic epistol breuitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis euaderet) as well as in the Muratorian; but its private character, its brevity, and its lack of dogmatic teaching threw it into positive disfavour with many Christians, especially throughout the Syrian church, where the first tardy recognition of it occurs in the Catalogus Sinaiticus. Jerome, in his preface (A.D. 388), had to defend it against widespread depreciation (‘a plerisque ueteribus repudiatam’). A good account of this is given in Zahn’s GK. i. 268 f., ii. 997 f., and in Leipoldt’s GK. i. 208-213. In modern times the note has had to run the gauntlet of a doctrinaire criticism which regarded it as a pseudonymous little pamphlet, com-posed as a pendant to the un-Pauline Colossians and modelled on Pliny’s well-known letter to Sabinianus (so from Baur to Steck and van More moderately, but unconvincingly (cp. Schenkel’s BL. iv. 531-532, and Clemen’s Paulus, i. 128 f.), interpolations have been suspected (e.g. by Holtzmann, Hausrath, iv. 122-123, and Brtickner, Chron. 2oof.) in vv.1 (kal Tiueos d deds uov, with nuOv), 5-6 (the chiasmus), and 12. A Frenchman is usually worth attention upon questions of literary style, and two French critics have summed up on the letter to Philemon with admir-able insight. “Peu de pages,” says Renan, (iv. 96) “ont un accent de sincerite aussi prononce. Paul seul a pu ecrire ce petit chef-d’oeuvre.” “ Ce ne sont que quelque lignes familieres,” Sabatier (Papbtre Paul, 234, Eng. tr. p. 226) adds, " mais si pleines de grace, de sel, d’affection serieuse et confiante que cette courte epitre brille comme une perle de la plus exquise finesse, dans le riche tresor du Nouveau Testament. Jamais n’a mieux ete realise le precepte que Paul lui-mme donnait la fin de sa lettre aux Colossiens (46)." '

* As Hausrath observes (iv. 122 f.), " the thought that Christianity unites in a higher sphere things severed in this world, and teaches them mutual love, cannot be maintained against the plain realism of the document This is a reunion in which Onesimus obviously fears a too speedy acquaintance with the lash, and the object of the epistle is simply to save him from this fate.” “Simply ” is not quite accurate, but otherwise Hausrath’s judgment is correct.

(G) Philippians

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—besides the older commentaries of Calvin (1539), Estius (1614), and Henry Airay (1618), Michaelis, Paraphrasis2, etc. (1769); G. C. Storr (1783); Rheinwald (1827, 1834); Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1829); M. Eastburn (New York, 1833); T. Passavant (1834); H. S. Baynes (London, 1834); Matthies (1835); van Hengel {Comment, perpet., Leyden, 1838); Holemann (Leipzig, 1839); A. Rilliet (Geneva, 1841)*; de Wette2 (1847); Baumgarten-Crusius (1848); Wiesinger in Olshausen’s Commentar (1850, Eng. tr. 1851); Neander (Eng. tr. 1851, Edinburgh); Beelen (Louvain, 1852); G. F. Jatho (1857); Weiss, der Philipperbrief ausgelegt u. die Geschichte seiner Auslegung kritisch dargestellt (1859)*; Meyer3 (1865); Bisping2 (1866); Schenkel (1867); Hofmann (1871); Braune2 (Lange’s Bibel-werk, 1875); Reuss (1878); H. Maurer (1880); Reinecke (1881); J. Gwynn {Speaker's Comm. 1881); Eadie 2 (1884); C. J. Vaughan (1885); Franke (—-Meyer5, 1886); Ellicott 5 (1888)*; M. F. Sadler (1889); J. Agar Beet (1890); Lightfoot6 (1891, etc.)*; Padovani (1892); Lipsius2 (A'C. 1892)*; A. Klpper (1893)*; Wohlenberg {Kurzgefasst. Comm. 1895); Weiss (1896); Moule {CGT. 1897); M. R. Vincent (ICC. 1897); K. J.

Mller (Freiburg, 1899); J. Drummond {Intern. Hdbks. to NT, 1899); Haupt (— Meyer8, 1902)*; G. C. Martin {CB. n. d.); H. A. A. Kennedy* (EGT. 1903); Baljon (1904); von Soden2 (1906); von Huene (1907); W. Lueken (SNT.2 1907); P. Ewald (ZK. 1908); M. Dibelius (HINT, 1911).

Studies—(i.) against Pauline authorship—Baur’s Paulus (Eng. tr.), ii. pp. 45f., and in Theol. Jahrb., 1849, 501 f., 1852, 133b; Hinsch {ZWT., 1873, pp. 59 f.); Hoekstra (TT., 1875, pp. 416E); Holsten * (IPT., 1875, pp. 425b, 1876, pp. 58 f., 282 f.); Schwegler {NZ. ii. 133 f.); Straatman, de Gemeente te Rome (1878), pp. 201 f., after Hitzig (Zur Kritik d. paulin. Briefe, 1870) and B. Bauer (Christus u. die Caesaren, 373 h); van Manen OCL.-, 49-51, 82-84. EBi. 3703-3713. (ii.) For Pauline authorship—Liinemann {Pauli ad Philipp, ep. contra Bawrium defensa, 1847); Ernesti (SK., 1848, 858-924, 1851, pp. 591-632); B. Briickner (Ep. ad Philipp. Paulo auctori uindicata contra Baurium, 1848); Resch, de Pauthent. de Pepitre aux. Ph. (1850); Grimm (ZIVT., 1873, PP- 33 f.); Sabatier (ESR. x- 569-573); Weizsacker (AA. i. 218 f, 279f.); P. W. Schmidt, NTliche Hyperkritik (1870, 54f., against Holsten); Hilgenfeld (ZWT., 1884, pp. 498 f.); Mangold (der Romerbrief, pp. 256 f.); Pfleiderer {Urc., Eng. tr. i. 248-257); W. Briickner (Chron. 218-222); Clemen, Paulus, i. 130-138.

(iii.) General—A. F. Busching’s introductio in epistolam ad Philipp. (Halle, 17-46); Hoog, de coetus christ. Phil. conditione primaeva (1825); Schinz, die christl. Gemeinde Ph. (1833); C. Muller, Commentatio de locis quibusdam Ep. ad Philipp. (1844); Hasselmann, Analyse pragmatique de Pip. aux Phil. (1862); Schenkel, BL. iv. 534-538; Hatch (EBP); R. R. Smith, The Epistle of St. PauPs First Trial (1899); J. Gibb, DB. iii. 840-844; F. Kbitzsch (Der Phil. Brief wie er zum ersten Male verlesen und gchort ward, 1906); Liitgert, ‘ Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief u. die Enthusiasten in Thessalon.’ {BFT. xiii. 6, 1906); Moffatt (EB.1).

(iv.) On 2s'11—-Tholuck's Disputatio Christologica de loco Pauli Phil. 260 (1847); H. J. Holtzmann {ZWT., 1881, 101-107); Weiffenbach, Zur Auslegung d. Slelle Phil. 25-I (Karlsruhe, 1884)*; A. B. Bruce, Humilia-tion of Christ^ (1889), 15 f., 357 f.; E. H. Gifford, The Incarnation (reprint from Exp. 1896); J. Kogel (BFT. xii. 2). § 1. Contents.—Paul’s last epistle is written to the first church which he founded in Europe. After a brief address (11-2), Paul assures the Philippians of his thankfulness for their KOIVWVM in the gospel OTTO Ths mporns nupas rov vw (13-8), and of his prayers for the maturing (19-11) of their ymn. He then relieves their anxiety about himself; the recent turn in his affairs had really helped, instead of hindering (as they had feared), the prospects of the gospel (112-18); furthermore, he had even the prospect of being set free and of revisiting1 Philippi (119-26). Meantime, however, they are to show a united front2 to their adversaries (127-30), ud vvxn <rvvaOXovvTe<s ry ToTet TOV evayyeXto Suffering must not daunt them, nor disintegrate them. Against the latter danger Paul urges (21-11) the duties of harmony and fellow-feeling (ryv avTyv ymnv ExovTes, ovvUvxot) which flow from a humility like that of Jesus Christ, and he reiterates3 (212b = 1270) his appeal for brotherly love (212-18). As his own movements are uncertain, he promises to send Timotheus before long (219-24, cp. i1), and also bespeaks a hearty welcome for their delegate, Epaphroditus, after his illness (225-30).

The letter swerves at this point into a philippic against Jews or Jewish Christian agitators4 (32-21). Paul tries to safeguard the Philippian church in advance against their intrigues by re-calling his own character and gospel as the true norm of Christianity, but the danger of internal friction is still present to his mind (315f), and he proceeds to warn gently some 1 Jatho (pp. 7-8) finds this already in’v.9, where he takes TOVTO as referring to an 1X6 Av implied in imro62>. This backward aspect of TOVTO is possible (e.g. Demosth. de Corona, § 26, and Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 4, cp. Thue. vi. 39), but hardly so natural here as the prospective sense.

2 The occurrence of iroXlrevp.a in 320 suggests that Tohirebecbe here retai some of its communal associations.

3 in 21 fXpphxro.Te p.ov Thv xap&v, positive motive), in 216 (Sri OVK els Kev I8pap.ov, negative motive); the former is resumed in 217-18.

4 They have nothing to do with the evangelists mentioned in i15f-; the latter preach Christ truly; it is their motives, not the content of their gospel, to which Paul takes exception. prominent individuals in the church against it (41-7) in a passage which is partly recapitulatory (cp. xatp<-Te in 41. 4 as already in 218 31; ovvhbnoav, 43= 127; and 41, as in i27), but which flows over into the closing appeal of 48-9 (4° = 317) for harmony. In a parenthesis, he then thanks them (410-20) for a fresh present of money which Epaphroditus had brought, and with some brief salutations (421-23) the letter ends.

Timotheus is associated with Paul in the address (i1), owing to his local associations (222 = Ac i63-12t); but the apostle writes in the first person throughout (even in 421), and indeed speaks of his companion as distinguished from himself (219-24). The only exception is in 317 (^as)The text presents few apart from the interpolations which have been conjectured (see below) in I1 and 26-7. The transposition in 116-17 (for the chiasmus, see Ro 26-12) is one of the few which have left traces in the textual material. Other conjectures of glosses (cp. Weisse’s Beitrage zur Kritik d. Paul. Briefe, 56 f.), e.g. in 116-17 122 (el 8e , Kapms Ipyov), 230 318-19 (marginal gloss, Laurent), 321 (Briickner), 43-5 and 418-19 are due to inadequate exegesis for the most part. The style and vocabulary, viewed in the light of research into the Kov, present no real obstacles to the accept-ance of the epistle as Pauline. The most noticeable feature, according to Nageli ( Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, 80 f.), is a tendency to employ several expressions, e.g. 8yelpeiv, i^opoXoye'iaSai, ra eumpoobev, in a sense closer to that of literary Greek than to that of the LXX as heretofore. ‘ ‘ Paulus scheint sich also im Verkehr mit den Griechen nach und nach zu gunsten des in der hbhern Kood) bevorzugten Gebrauches von der einen und andern bei den LXX beliebten Wortbedeutung emanzipiert zu haben.” The use of aperli is a case in point; t so is the absence of any OT citation.

The iambic trimeter in 31 (tpol uv oK bKv-qpbv, vpiv 8’ dapaXls) is not the only instance of rhythmical structure in the epistle. 25-10 is specially impor-tant in this connection, as the balance of clauses bears on the exegesis of this carefully modulated section (J. Weiss, Beitrage zur paul. Rhetorik, 28 f.):— (a) 8s iv poppy Oeov vndpxvv ovx apiraypbv ^y-qaaro TO elvat taa Sep aWa eavrbv iKlvwirev popp'qv boffkov Xa^ibv iv bpoidipaTi dv 9 p&iruv yevbpevos Kal axvaari ebpebels ws &v 6 pianos brairelviaaev eavrbv, evbuevos virynoos pexpi Savarov, Savarov 8e aravpov.

(a) 818 Kal b Sebs airbv inrepipourev Kal exaplaaTO auria voua rb virbp irdv Svopa lva bv TQ ovbpari ’lyaou rv ybw Kdppy KTX. Kal rca yX&craa ^opdXoy^a'qrai 8TI Kbpios 'Tri nobs Xpiarbs. + In this passage, 481, “ it is as if one heard the ripple of the waves at the meeting of the two streams which have their source in Zion and the Parthenon " (von Soden, p. 114).

* In 314 rys &vio KMprews apparently was read by Tertullian as Tqs dveynX-fiireios and by Origen as Tfs dveyXqirlas.

The balancing of the clauses against one another, and the reiteration of the same word in the same or in successive clauses, are noticeable. § 2. Occasion and date.—Communications had already passed between the Christians of Philippi and Paul, not only during his residence at Thessalonika (415-16), but at some subsequent period (418), when Epaphroditus had brought him a present of money. It is possible that the gift was accompanied by a letter. At any rate, the extant epistle is the reply to one received subsequently from the Philippians, who had evidently desired information about his prospects and health (112), assured him of their prayers (i19), wondered whether he, their kaxnua, would return to them (i25f-), expressed their anxiety about the health of Epaphroditus (226), and possibly apologised for not sending money to him sooner (410f). The latter point emerges in passages like 2171 251 30, as well as in 410f, where Paul is ap-parently trying to remove some fear which had been expressed by the Philippian Christians lest he should have been dissatisfied with “ the smallness and the tardiness of their last remittance ” (cp. Zahn, INT. § 30).

The epistle was written toward the close of the Siena oX-q of Ac 2830, not in the earlier part of the imprisonment. Paul is on the eve and edge of the final decision, with (112-18) a period behind him during which considerable progress has been made in the local preaching and extension of the gospel, and his language does not imply that this new departure in the pro-paganda was stimulated by the mere novelty of his arrival. This argument is not affected by the fact that when Paul reached Rome, he already found a considerable body of Christians. He traces the flourishing character of the local church in no small measure to the stimulating effect produced by his own imprison-ment. Furthermore, the relations between Philippi and Paul presuppose an interval of time which cannot be fairly com-pressed within a few months. News of his arrival must have had time to reach the church; money was collected (225 418) and then sent by Epaphroditus, who fell sick after he reached the capital; news of this again floated back to Philippi, and Paul subsequently heard of the Philippians’ concern (226). Not till then did he compose the present letter. Luke and Aris-tarchus were apparently (220) no longer with him.

This setting of the epistle (so, e.g.. Godet, INT. 427 f.; Sabatier’s Paul, 250 f.; Reuss, Lipsius, Klpper, Gwynn, Ramsay, SPT. 357 f.; McGiffert, A A. 364-393; Bovon, NT Thiol, ii. 73-120; Bartlet, A A. 178 f.; Schafer, Einl. 133-146; H. A. A. Kennedy, ET, x. 22 f.; Gibb, Clemen, Bacon, Jacquier, Barth, Peake), which ranks it later than the other epistles of the Roman imprisonment has been challenged by three rival hypotheses.

The attempt of several scholars (from Paulus, D. Schulz, Bbttger’s Beitrage, ii. 46 f., Rilliet, and Thiersch, to Spitta and Macpherson, Ephesians, 86 f.) to place its composition at Csarea (Ac 2323-2632) is to be set aside,! not only on account of the positive evidence t pointing to Rome (113 422), but because the uncertain critical outlook of the apostle does not correspond to the situation at Csarea when he was in no immediate danger of death. Not until he reached Rome did his life come into real peril at the hands of the Roman authorities. Besides, the large number of local preachers of the gospel (i17) accords much better with the capital than with the provincial town of Caesarea; the latter cannot be said to have been a centre of vigorous Christian propaganda. Delays in a trial were perfectly natural in Rome, for the wheels of procedure did not always run the swifter as they neared the headquarters of the law. It required no such recent experience of Jewish agitators as that of Ac 2127 to make Paul flash out into the language of Ph 32. Timotheus is not known to have visited Rome, but this is an argument from silence which, in the scantiness of our available data for the period, is of little or no weight. Finally, the plea (Spitta, Apgeschichte, 281) that the cupidity of Felix (Ac 2426) was aroused by the arrival of the money from Philippi (Ph 410), belongs to imaginative fiction rather than to historical reconstruction. Of the two other views which have been taken of the epistle’s date, apart from the Csarean hypothesis, one (b) is that the terms of 113f. (compared with Col 411) imply that the comparatively free Scerla was over, and had been replaced by a stricter durance (so, e.g., Alford,§ Hofmann, Wohlenberg, Zahn, and Belser). This throws Phil, still later, but the lack of other evidence upon the course of the trial renders it impossible to be certain whether the apostle had exchanged his custodia libera for one of closer restraint. || Others again place the epistle earlier, in the opening period of the Sierla t Even Schenkel, Meyer, and Reuss, who put Col. Eph. and Philemon into the Caesarean period, emphatically relegate Philippians to Rome.

*Four, if the epistle (cp. M. Albertz, SK., 1910, 551-594, ‘ueber die Abfassung des Philipperbriefes des Paulus zu Ephesus) could be placed in an Ephesian imprisonment, to which a few (e.g. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten 2, pp. 171 f.) would give the other prison-epistles.

J Upambpiov might mean the T. TOV 'HpwSov of Ac 23s5, but the proba-bilities lie between the praetorian guard and the praefecti praetorio or judicial authorities of the imperial court. § Summer 01'63; early in 63 (W. T. Bullock, Smith’s DBd ii. 839-843). || If a genuine fragment or tradition lies below 2 Ti 46f, it might corroborate the setting of Phil. towards the end of Paul’s confinement: cp. 2 Ti 45 = Col 417, 2 Ti 46= Ph 217 and I23, 4%=Ph 220f.; only, by the time Timotheus reached him (on this theory), Luke had gone. Both Krenkel (Beitrage, 424f., 442 f.) and Kreyenbtihl (Evang. d. Wahrheit, i. 213 f.), like Erbes, refer 2 Ti 416 to Paul’s defence before Felix. These hypotheses fall, however, with the case for the Csarean site of the epistle.

(so Bleek, Ewald, Lightfoot, pp. 30-46; Farrar, Si. Paul, ch. xlvi.; Moule; Beyschlag; Sanday; Smith’s DB."2, i. 627; Hort,yC. 115-129; Trenkle, Einl. 49-50; Lock, DB. i. 718-719), partly for reasons already met by anticipation (see above, p. 168), partly because Philippians represents a less advanced stage in the development of the church than Colossians (and Ephesians). The latter fact may be granted, but the inference must be disputed. Neither to place Philippians among the later, nor Galatians among the earlier, epistles, is it sufficient to lay stress upon resemblances of style and a systematic evolution of thought. “The tone of Col. and Ephes. is determined by the circumstances of the churches addressed. The great cities of Asia were on the highway of the world, which traversed the Lycos valley, and in them development took place with great rapidity. But the Macedonians were a simple-minded people in comparison with Ephesus and Laodicea and Colossai, living further away from the great movements of thought. It was not in Paul’s way to send to Philippi an elaborate treatise against a subtle speculative heresy, which had never affected that church” (Ramsay, SPT. 359). The predominance of dogmatic teaching in Col. (and Eph.)andthe resemblances between Rom. and Phil. do not necessarily imply that Phil, lay between Rom. and Col. (Eph.) in a chronological and logical sequence. Such characteristics are due to the variety of objects and interests which confronted the apostle as he turned to the Asiatic and the Macedonian churches. To arrange the epistles in the order and for the reasons suggested, e.g., by Lightfoot, is to confuse the parade-ground with the battle-field, where quick phases and unexpected transitions often drive the general to fight twice on the same ground and to develop sudden movements in order to checkmate crises which were unforeseen. It is much more true to life to take each of the prison-epistles upon its own merits, as an outcome of Paul’s mood and duty at the time being, than to classify them, for reasons of style and matter, in plausible but unnatural groups. The priority of Col. to Phil, is therefore unaffected by the fuller theology of the former. When Eph. is reckoned post-Pauline, this becomes all the more clear, but even when it is attributed to Paul himself, the place of Phil, as the climax of the Pauline correspondence remains upon the whole more true than any other re-arrangement of the epistles to the data of the period. The time is too short for such a develop-ment as Lightfoot’s theory would postulate. § 3. Authenticity.—Doubts upon the Pauline authorship were voiced during last century, on four accounts: (a) alleged traces of imitation in the epistle, (b) ecclesiastical anachronisms, (c) gnostic controversies, and (d) doctrinal discrepancies between the epistle and the other Pauline letters, especially Gal., Cor., and Romans.

(a) The literary argument is barely worth refuting. The style and vocabulary (see above) offer no real difficulty, and the epistle is marked by the genuinely Pauline traits of courtesy and affection, by the blending of humility and authority, the digres-sions, the warm, swift touches of feeling, and the devout passion for Christ, which are the water-marks of Paul’s mind. It is true PHILIPPIANS 17I that a passage like 118 breathes “a certain resignation to which we are not accustomed in the author of Galatians and 2 Corin-thians. But resignation is the general characteristic of these last writings, wherein his moods are strangely mingled ” (Hausrath, iv. 167). Neither in this respect nor in any other is the epistle unnatural under the circumstances, much less unworthy of the Paul we know. Baur, indeed, found the epistle “ characterised by a monotonous repetition of what has been already said, by a want of any profound and masterly connection of ideas, and by a certain poverty of thought,” whilst van Manen dubbed it nebulous, unintelligible, and high-flown. So did Johnson judge of Gray.

The perverse interpretation of 4s"3 as a series of references to parties in the early church is now abandoned upon almost all hands, though the vhste cvvye of 43 baffles explanation. If Zvvye is a proper name, as is most likely, it is needless to interpret cvvye of Lydia or Paul’s wife (which would require yvnola),or even of Epaphroditus, Timotheus, etc.

The words ovv mtokmos Kal Stanovoi? in i1 are admittedly strange. No other epistle of Paul mentions any officials in its address, while Ittlo-koitol and Stkovot are not only collectively but singly absent from his writings. The former may here be used in the sense of Ac 2028, the latter in that of Ro 127, and their specific mention may be due to the gifts received by Paul, which would come through the hands of the officials in charge of the local finance; but there is at least a case for regard-ing the words as a gloss inserted by some second-century editor, when the epistle came into use as part of the Canon in the services of the church (so Schmiedel, EBi. 3147-3148, after Briickner and Volter). This is, at any rate, better than to keep them and throw suspicion on the entire epistle, or to emend them into lmiokro /cat 8axvots (Linwood). If such catholicising glosses are to be admitted anywhere in the NT, this is as obvious a place as any.

Recent research has found the background of the categories in 25f, not in the Valentinian gnosis, as Baur and Hoekstra * imagined, but in the earlier religious speculations f * Pfleiderer (see below) still adheres to this notion of “a reference to the myth in the Ophite and Valentinian gnosis of the Sophia which desired to unite itself on equal terms with the primal Deity of the Father, or of the sub-ordinate demiurge Jaldabaoth, who attempted to misuse his god-like power of lordship in order to put himself in the place of the highest God.” + Cp. Clemen’s Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des NT, 122 f.; M. Dibelius, die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (1909), 10 f.; and Bousset's Haupiprobleme der Gnosis, i6of. upon a pre-existent original Being or Urmensch in heaven which are preserved, e.g., in Poimandres (cp. 12 f., where the divine popoy is also attributed to this Man, who dOdvaros dv Kai Tvrov Thv e^ovaiav rd Ovyrov moxe vTokeuevos ry eipapuvn’ virepdvw yap v rys app-ovcas h/ap pavios yeyove ovAos) and the Ascensio Isaice (1o29f.), where the Lord “descended into the firmament where dwelleth the ruler of this world,” but where, although his form was like that of the spirits, the latter refused to do homage to him, since “ they were envying one another and fighting” (cp. Charles’ ed. p. 74: contrast ov\ dpvayp.6v Some analogous phrases in Test. XII Patr., e.g. Zab 78 Ocv fv crgypaTi. dvOpdiTrov) and Benj. 107 (v uopon avOpanrov he ramevoe) are probably Christian interpolations.

The weakness of the attempt to find gnosticism in 25f. and typical or second-century allusions in 423 (yvyace avv^vye = Peter, etc.), was promptly acknowledged by Holsten, whose difficulties centred on the supposed inconsistencies of the epistle with Paul in regard to the conceptions of Christ and salvation. He still shared the tendency to see in 42-3 a subtle effort to reconcile by way of allegory the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, but he felt most some apparent discrepancies between Phil, and the Hauptbriefe. Holsten’s general theory of the epistle’s origin, however, is even more improbable than Baur’s, since it is extremely difficult to imagine how such an epistle could have been accepted by the church shortly after Paul’s death, had it been composed by a Paulinist who desired to write and encourage the local Christians after their great founder had passed away. His particular objections to the christology of 25f. as un-Pauline (cp. 2 Co 89 where the so-called christological reference is also adduced for practical purposes), on the score of its inconsistency with the pre-existent heavenly Man of Ro 83 etc., depend on too narrow an exegesis (cp. Schmidt, op. cit. 54 f.; Weiffenbach, op. cit. 64 f.; and Holtzmann, NT Theologie, ii. 88 f., “somit habenwirkein Grund, die christologische Darstellung Ph 26-11 als incompatibel mit derjenigen der Hauptbriefe aus dem paulin. Lehrbegrif auszuscheiden").* Bruckner pv p.op<f>rj 0eov.. . ws v@poos), Weisse (rd etvai Yoa 0eG and fioppriv 8oi\ov... erarelvwcev eavriv), Schmiedel (om. dXXci in 27, all of 26 except os, and iirovpavlwv... KaTaxdovluv in 210), and Pfleiderer (i. 321-323) all omit more or less of 26-7 as interpolated, but for no cogent reasons. Their procedure, however, suggests a fresh set of hypotheses with regard to the unity of the epistle. § 4. Integrity.—These hypotheses either distinguish between a Pauline nucleus and editorial matter, or between two Pauline * This is all the more obvious when Colossians is accepted as Pauline. notes. Both, but especially the latter, start from the abrupt turn in 31 (ra avr yQev vptv KTX.). It is a fair inference from these words that Paul had written * already to the Christians of Philippi (so, e.g., Haenlein, Bertholdt, Liinemann, Flatt, Bleek, Wiesinger, Ewald, Jatho, Schenkel, Meyer, Mangold, Bisping, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Meyer, etc.); the various attempts to explain rd aird from the context and contents of the canonical epistle are more or less strained. Paul had not spoken so often or so amply of rejoicing (14 228), that his hearers would feel it irksome to have xalpere ev Kvpo repeated to them. Some more serious and vital topic is required. ALKtuoativr] is not sufficiently emphatic in the following paragraph to make it probable that Paul was half apologising for speaking of it (Holsten), and the least unlikely solution is that either the danger of dissensions (Lightfoot) or the errorists are in his mind. Against the latter he may have had occasion previously to warn them,! out of his mournful experiences in Asia and Achaia (31= 318 ofs TroXXdKus eXeyov ipcv). The readiest explanation of 31f. is to suppose (with Ewald, Schenkel, Reuss, etc.) that Paul started to complete or supplement what he had already written, possibly because some fresh tidings from Philippi had reached him in the interval. There is nothing specifically un-Pauline even in 3lf- to justify the hypothesis t that the extant epistle consists of a genuine and a later letter, which some editor of the second century has patched together.

The use of the plural in Polykarp’s letter to the Philippians (iii.), where he speaks of Paul having written morols els as idv lyKVTTTTjTe, olKo^opeca & at els Thv Sobeloav vpcv ~carLv, is indecisive; iirurroXai like litterae, might be used of a single * Without pressing yp&(f>eLv unduly, one may say that the scope of the expression would cover more than merely oral communications from Paul himself or through his delegates. Ewald found traces of such written com-munications somewhat precariously in 212 and 318. + Volter (Paulus u. Seine Briefe, 319 f.) thinks that the editor must have had in his mind the warning of 2 Co 1113f. + Schrader (der Apostel Paulus, v. 233 f.) took 31-49 as an unauthentic interpolation; Volter (TT., 1892, 10-44, 117-146) separated a genuine Pauline note (11-2 exc. a. K. 8MK. 12-14. 180-26 217-20. 22-30 410-20.

21. 23) from material (18-11. 27-30 21-16 31. 21 41-9. 22) dating from the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, the redactor being responsible for 11. 15-188 221 31a; but he now (Paulus tend Seine Briefe, 286 f.) detects the Pauline original in 11-2 (except avv iv. K. SMK6VOIS), 13-7. 12-20 (except Kal iirtxop- rov vvevp. T. X. and etre 8. g. etre 8. 0.), 125-26 217-18. 25-30 410-21. dispatch. Yet elsewhere in Polykarp (cp. ch. xiii.), as in the NT itself (i Co 163 etc.), the distinction between singular and plural in the use of the term is carefully observed; nor would the use of epistolae in the Lat. version of ch. xi. of Polykarp’s epistle (in quibus laborauit beatus Paulus, qui estis in principio epistolae eius) invalidate this argument, since epistolae there is not genit. but nom. plur. (cp. 2 Co 32). The probabilities therefore are that Polykarp knew of more than one Pauline letter to Philippi, and the alternatives are to suppose (i.) that some other previous letter (or letters) to that church did not survive, or (ii.) that Polykarp was referring loosely to 2 Thessalonians, which was also written to a neighbouring Macedonian church. In favour of (i.) it may be pointed out that if its contents were similar, as ex hypothesi they must have been, to those of the canonical epistle, there would be less chance of it surviving. If it be argued that such a fate would be unlikely, when it had survived to the age of Polykarp, the answer is that Polykarp’s language does not necessarily imply more than that the church had in the earlier period of its history (416) received more than one letter from the apostle, (ii.) More probably, however, the reference covers the Thessalonian epistles (or 2 Thessalonians), of which the Philippian church would possess a copy; for in addressing the Philippians themselves (xi. 3) he actually uses language (de uobis etenim gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis) which is palpably a reminiscence of 2 Thessalonians (cp. i4), as if the latter epistle were somehow associated in his mind with Philippi. Tertullian (ad Scorp. 13) similarly quotes Phil, as if it were addressed to Thessalonika, and the three Macedonian epistles seem to have been often grouped together in the archives of the early church (Zahn). The zoroa of Polykarp are most readily to be understood in this sense, i.e., as a collection of Pauline epistles, including not only Philippians but those addressed to the neighbouring church of Thessalonika (cp. Harnack in TU., 1900, v. 3. 86 f., and Wrede in TU, 1903, 94 f.).

Unlike I Co 59 and Col 416, the allusion in Ph 31 did not prompt any writer in the early church to produce an apocryphal letter to the Philippians. The existence of such a letter may be inferred from the Syriac Catalogus Sinaiticus (cp. Mrs. Lewis in Studio. Sinaitica, i. 11 f,, and W. Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer, 1903, pp. 34 b, 37 f.), which mentions two Philippian epistles; but, as it omits i Tim., its evidence is not trustworthy, and no clear trace of any such apocryphon has been preserved. The language of Polykarp does not yield any proof, while the casual remark of Georgius Syncellus {Chron., ed. Dindorf, i. 651: TOMTOM \i.e. Clement of Rome] Kal 6 morohos iv ry irphs $ihmmnolovs p.T.vyTai irpibry iTriaroXy) may be an oversight.

* Nestle’s conjecture, rooronfs for lmiorohfs in the original (cp. Zahn, INT. i. 536), is ingenious but unnecessary.

The internal evidence fails upon the whole to add any valid proof for a partition-theory, even as advocated by Hausrath (iv. 162 f.) and especially by Bacon {The Story of St. Paul, pp. 367 f.), both of whom put 3-4 earlier than 1-2, as a separate Pauline letter; but 221 is not necessarily incompatible with i14 and 421; in 221 Paul vents, with some exaggeration, his annoy-ance at finding it impossible to persuade any of his local coadjutors to undertake the mission to Philippi, and accuses them of selfishness and worldliness (so in 2 Ti 410). The errorists of 32f, as has been already noted, are not mentioned in i18. And, although this hypothesis relieves the epistle of the unwieldly postscript (31f.), it does not work out with anything like the same plausibility* as the similar view of 2 Co 10-13. Still more unconvincing is the earlier theory of Heinrichs {Comment. uber Philipp., 1810) and Paulus {de tempore scriptae prioris ad Tim. atqzie ad Philipp. epist. Pauli, 1799), elaborated from a hint of S. Le Mayne’s Varia Sacra, ii. 332 f. (1685), which discovered in 31-420 a special letter addressed either to an esoteric circle of the apostle’s friends or the authorities of the local church (in spite of 410!), the rest of the canonical epistle {i.e. 11-31 421-23) being intended for the local church in general (so Paulus, Heidelberg. Jahrbilcher, 1812, 702 f., confining the special letter to 31-49). Psychologically, the change of tone from 219f. with its farewell note, to 32f. with its sudden outburst, is quite credible in a writer like Paul, who is composing not a treatise but an informal letter, probably amid many interrup-tions. The hiatus is striking, but it need not denote the place at which two notes have been joined. The least violent explanation would be to conjecture (with Ewald) that 3141 and * Cp. Reiser’s Einl. 555 f., and Clemen’s Paulus, i. 130 f. (where he retracts the earlier view of his Einheitlichkeit d. paul. Briefe, 133 f.). Each of the letters postulated by the partition-theories must have been mutilated; furthermore, as Pfleiderer points out, “the first lacks any expression of thanks for the gift of the Philippians, which (225) must have already been made. ” + Thus the phrase rd \oi.irbv approximates to ov (cp. Mt 2645, Ac 2720, I Th 41, 2 Ti 4s etc.); it need not have a final sense.

42f- represent a couple of postscripts which were appended to the original letter. 410f, however, is hardly an after-thought; it rather rounds off the topics interrupted by the disgression of 31f. 410 (xdpnv ev Kvplo MeydXos) and 31a (ya/pere ev Kvpo) is a good sequence, but in a letter it is not affected by the intervening passage. It is doubtful, therefore, if the attempts to analyse the epistle have proved much more satisfactory than the similar movements of literary inquiry into the first Philippic of Demosthenes, where criticism has swung back in the main to a conservative position (see A. Baran’s article in Wiener Studien, 1884, 173-205). §5. History in early church (cp. NT A. 53 f., 71 f., 94 f.; R. J. Knowling’s Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 111 f., and Gregory’s Canon and Text of NT. 205 f.).

The first indubitable echoes of the epistle occur in Polykarp; cp. i. I avvex&pyv vp1v ueyXs tv Kvp®= 217 xalpvi Kal avyx^P^ raaiv vp1v, 410 tx<^pvv tv Kvpo peyaXois; ii. 1 0 [i.e. Christ] virerdyr) rd iravra tirovpavia Kai eTrlyeia=2w 321; ix. 2, oHtoi iravTes oiK els Kevov tSpapov =216 (rather than Gal 22, where the context is different); xii. 3, et pro inimicis crucis = 318 rods tx^pods rov aravpov rov Xpiarov, and the allusion in iii. 2 to Paul, 8s Kal dirwv vp1v typa^ev tirurroXds. The earlier allusions in Ignatius are less distinct, yet probably reliable: Smyrn. iv. 2, Tvra viroptvw avrov pe ivSvvapovvros — 413, the occurrence of Kar tptOeiav and Kara KevoSo^iav (23. 5) in Philad. i. 1, viii. 2, and Smyrn. xi. 3, rtXeioi 8vres rtXeia Kal <ppove1re — 8aoi ov rtXeioi, tovto <t>povwpev. In Clem. Rom. xxi. 1 (tdv pp a^ius avrov irdXirevopevoi ktX., cp. iii. 4), till we have better evidence for the phrase being common, it is fair to admit a trace of I27 (pivov d^lws rov edayyeXlov rov Xpiarov TroXcrevtaPe), and the same may be said of xlvii. 2, where Clement speaks of the Corinthians receiving Paul’s epistle tv apxv rov evayyeXlov, his own phrase in Phil 416. In the Martyrdom of Polykarp (i. 2), 24 is quoted, and in Diognet. v. 9 (tirl hs 8iarpij3ov<riv, aXX tv ovpavip iroXirehovrai') there may be an allusion to 320. The epistle was used also by Theodotus the Valentinian and the Sethites; it is quoted in the epistle from Lyons and Vienne (Eus. H. E. v. 2. 2=26). Earlier it appeared in Marcion’s dsriaroXos as at a later period in the Muratorian Canon, whilst Irenaeus (iv. 18. 4= 418), Clem. Alex, (repeatedly), and Tertullian cite its contents.

Chapter II. The Historical Literature

(A) The Synoptic Problem

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions of synoptic gospels:—J. Brent (Cominentarii in Matthaum, Marcum et Lucam, Tubingen, 1590); H. E. G. Paulus, Exegetisch.es Handbuch iiber die drei ersten Evglien (Heidelberg, 1830-3); Baumgarten-Crusius (Jena, 1844-5); G. H. A. Ewald, Die drei Evglieft (Gottingen, 1850); F. Bleek, Synoptische Erkliirung d. drei ersten Evglien (1862); H. Sevin, Die drei ersten Evglien synoptisch zusammengestellt (Wiesbaden, 1866); L. Bonnet2 (Lausanne, 1896); G. L. Cary (New York, 1900); A. B. Bruce {EGT.2 1901); H. J. Holtzmann {HCP 1901)*; Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels. A Commentary upon the Synoptic narrative (posthumous, London, 1907); A. Loisy, Les Evangiles Synoptiques* (1907-8); J. Weiss {SNTP 1907); C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, edited with an Introduction and a Commentary (1909).

Studies—Lessing, neue Hypothese iiber die Evglisten als bloss menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet (1778); Koppe, Marcus non epitomator Matthaei (1782); Griesbach, Commentatio qu3. Marci evangelium totum e Matthaei et Luca commentariis decerptum esse monstratur (1790 f.) p G. C. Storr, De Fonte evangeliorum Mt. el Luccz2 Gieseler, Historisch-krit. Versuch iiber die Entstehung u. die.friihesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evglien (1818, oral tradition); Principal Campbell, On the Gospels (Edin. 1821); Hug {EinIP ii. 1-243, 1826); Knobel, De origine Marci (1831); Schleiermacher {SK., 1832, 735-768) *; Lachmann {SK., 1835, 570 f.)*; C.

G. Wilke, der Urevangelist, oder exeg.-kritische Untersuchung iiber das Verwandlschaftsverhdltniss der drei ersten Evglien (1838); E. F. Gelpke, Ueber die Anordnung der Erzdhlungen in den synoptischen Evglien (1839); F. J. Schwartz, Neue Untersuchungen iiber d. Verwandtschaftsverhaltniss der syn. Evglien (1844); Bruno Bauer, Kritik d. evangelische Geschichte d. Sy nopt.2 (1846); F. C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die kanonischen Evglien (1847); A. Norton, Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels (1847); Ritschl, Theol. Jahrb. (1851), 481-538 (“On the present position of Synoptic Criticism ”); Smith, Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels (1853); K. R. Kostlin, Der Ursprung und die 1The first vigorous appearance of this unlucky and prolific dandelion, which it has taken nearly a century of opposition (led by Storr, Knobel, Lachmann, Wilke, Weisse, B. Weiss, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, and Wendt) to eradicate.

Komposilion d. synoptischen Evglien (Stuttgart, 1853); A. Hilgenfeld, Die Evglien nach ihrer Entstehung und geschichthchen Bedeutung (1854); C. H. Weisse, der Evglienfrage in ihremgegenwartigem Stadium (1856); Plitt, de com-positione evang, synopt. (i860); G. d’Eichthal, Les Evangiles (Paris, 1863); H. J. Holtzmann, die Synoptische Evglien (1863)*; Weizsacker, Unter-suchungen uber die evangelische Geschichte (1864, second ed. 1901)*; Jahn, Beitrdge zur Kritik d. syn. Evglien (1866); Sabatier, Sources de la Vie de J Bus (Paris, 1866); Scholten, das ditest. Evgim (1869, Eng, tr. of Het oudste Evgim, 1868); G. Volkmar, die Evglien, oder Marcus und die synapse. 2 (1876); Bruno Bauer, Christies und die Caesaren (1877, pp- 356f., orig. gospel imbedded in Mark and Marcion’s Luke); G. Wetzel, Die synoptischen Evglien.. . (1883, oral tradition); A. Jacobsen, Untersuchungen uber die evang. Geschichte (1883); Holsten, die synoptischen Evglien nach der Form ihrer Inhalts (1885); Wendt ^Lehre Jesu, 1886; second ed. 1901); Schulze, Evangelientafel (1886); W. Brtickner, die vier Evglien (1887); Fillion, Introd, ginlrale aux dvangiles (1889); F. H. Woods (SB. ii. 59 f.)*; Westcott, Introduction to Study of Four Gospels (1889); A. Wright, The Composition of the Gospels (1890); W. Sanday (Exp.4 iii. 81 f., 177 f., 3O2^> 345 f., 411L); F. P. Badham, The Formation of the Gospels'2, (1892); Alexander, Leading Ideas of Gospels (new ed. 1892); Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte (i. 1893, ii. 1894, iii. 1895, in TU.}*-, H. von Soden ‘das Interesse d. apost. Zeitalters an d. evang. Geschichte ’ (ThA. 1892); Gloag, Introduction to Syn. Gospels (Edin. 1895); A. J. Jolley, The Synoptic Problem for English Readers (1893); Roehrich, La Composition des ivangiles (1897); Harnack, ACL. ii. 1. 651-700; Resch, Die Logia fesu (Leipzig, 1898); McGiffert (A A. 479 f.); Wernle, die Synoptische Frage (1899)*; P. Calmes, Comment se sont formB les Evangiles (Paris, 1899); W. Soltau, Eine Liicke d. synoptischen Forschung (1899), Unsere Evglien (1901); V. H. Stanton (Hastings’ DB. ii. 234-249); Abbott and Schmiedel (EBi. 1761-1839, 1840-96)*; U. Fracassini, ‘La critica del vangeli nel secolo xix ’ (Studi Religiosi, 1901, 30-52, 309-331); Moffatt(HNT., 1901, nf., 258!., 635f.); Loisy, Etudes evanglliques (Paris, 1902); J. A. Robinson, The Study of the Gospels^ (1903); J. Halevy, Etudes evangiliques (Paris, 1903); Bonaccorssi, I tre primi Vangeli el la critica letteraria (1904); H. von Soden, Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu (1904); E. D. Burton, (Introduction to Gospels, Chicago, 1904); E. D. Burton, Some Principles op Literary Criticism and their Application to the Synoptic Problem (Decennial Publications of Chicago University, vol. v., 1904) *; E. Mangenot (Vigoroux’ DB. ii. 2058-2097); J. Wellhausen, Einl. in die dreiersten Evglien * (1905, sec. ed. 1911); N. J. D. White (DCG. i. 663-671); Bosanquet and Wenham (Outlines of the Synoptic Record, 1905); Jacquier (INT. ii., 1905); Loisy, Morceaux dexigese (1906); Jiilicher, Neue Linien in die Kritik d. Evang. Uberlieferung (1906); J. E. Carpenter, The First Three Gospels (London, 1906); C. E. Scott Moncrieff, St. Mark and the Triple Tradition (1907); P. Feine (PRE. xix. 277-381); Blass, ET xviii. (‘Origin and Character of our Gospels’); G. H. Muller, Zur Synapse (Untersuchung iiber die Arbeitsweise des Lk. u. Mt. und ihre Quellen), 1908; F. Nicolardot, Les procidLs de Redaction des trois premiers Evangdlistes (Paris, 1908) *; T. Nicol, Gospels in Earliest Church History (1908); J. R. Cohu, Gospels in Light of Modern Research (1909); E.Wendling, ‘Syn. Studien ’(ZN147., 1907,256 f., 1908,96 f., 1909, 461., 219 f.); W. F. Petrie, Growth of Gospels as shown by Structural Criticism (1910); Oxford Studies in Syn. Problem * (ed. Sanday, 1911).

1 See the discussions in Contemp. Review (vol. xiii.) between Jannaris (PP- 37-40, 532-539) and Abbott (249-254).

Surveys of recent criticism:—A. Menzies {Review of Theology and Philosophy, iv. 757 f., v. 1-17, vii. 129 f., 197 f.; J. Weiss {TR,, 1908, 92 f., 122 f.); Wendling {ZWT., 1908, 135 f.); B. W. Bacon {Harvard Theol. Review, 1908, 48-69); H. L. Jackson {Cambridge Biblical Essays, 423 f.). {d) The best synopsis of the textual data is Rushbrooke’s Synopticon (1880), but smaller and convenient manuals are published in English by W. A. Stevens and E. D. Burton (Boston, 1894); A. Wright {Synopsis of the Gospels'21, 1903); Colin Campbell {First Three Gospels in Greek^, 1899). and J. M. Thompson {The Synoptic Gospels, 1910); in German by Veit {Die Synoptische Parallelen, 1897); Heineke {Synopse der drei ersten Evglien, 1898), and Huck {Synopse der drei ersten Evglien^, 1910). The older literature of synopses (usually = harmonies), includes Tatian’s ‘ Diatessaron ’ [cp. The Earliest Life of Christ ever compiled, by Dr. J. H. Hill, Edin. 1894] *; Ammonius (third century); Augustine {de consensu evangelistarum, cp. H. J. Vogels in Bardenhewer’s Biblische Studien, xiii. 5); A. Bruich {Monotessaron breve ex quat. evang., Cologne, 1539); Salmeron {Comment, in evang, historiam, Madrid, 1598); Calvin; Osiander; Chemnitz {Harmonia, 1704); Bengel’s Harmonic (1736); M'Knight, Harmony of the Gospels (1763); Planck, Entwurf einen neuen synopt. Zusammen. (1809); Roediger's Synopsis (1829); H. N. Clausen, Quatt. evang, tabula synopticae (Copen-hagen, 1829); J. S. Thompson, A Monotessaron (Baltimore, 1828-9); Gresswell, Harmonia evangelica (Oxford, 1830); R. Chapman, Gk. Harmony of Gospels (1836); Lant Carpenter2 {A harmony or syn. arrangement of the gospels, 1838); De Wette and Lucke’s Synopsis'2, (1842); Gehringer (1842); Wieseler, Chron. Synopsisder vierEvglien (1843, Eng. tr., Cambridge, 1864); Robinson (Boston, 1845, ed. Riddle, 1892); R. Anger, Synopsis Evang. Mt. Mk. Lucae (1852); Patrizi, De Evangeliis (1852); W. Stroud, A new Gk. Harmony of the fottr Gospels (London, 1853); Sevin (1866); Gardiner (Andover, 1871); E. Salmon, Analysis of the Four Parallel Gospels (1876), also The Parallel Gospels (London, 1876); Fillion, Synopsis evangelica (Paris, 1882); Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelical (1891); C. C. James, A Harmony of the Gospels (1892); J. A. Broadus, A Harmony of the Gospels in the Revised Version5 (New York, 1898); J. C. Rambaud, Harmonia et synopsis2 (Paris, 1898), and Th. Fleusser, Evangelienharmonie (Gutersloh, 1910). § 1. The documentary hypothesis. — Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. This felicity has not yet been the portion of investigators into the literary origin of the synoptic gospels, but the subtle and exhaustive processes of criticism, which have been applied to the synoptic problem since Schleiermacher, have at last resulted in (a) the conclusion that the problem is primarily one of literary criticism. The gospels are books made out of books; none of them is a document which simply transcribes the oral teaching of an apostle or of apostles. Their agreements and differences cannot be explained except on the hypothesis of a more or less close literary relationship, and while oral tradition is a uera causa, it is only a subordinate factor in the evolution of our canonical Greek gospels, (b) Secondly, the priority of Mark to Matthew and Luke no longer requires to be proved. Whatever modifications and qualifications it may be necessary to introduce into this general thesis, the starting-point of research is the working hypothesis that the order and outline of the second canonical gospel lay before the writers of Matthew and Luke, who employed it more or less freely as a framework into which they introduced materials from other sources.

1 Historical sketches of research in Gloag, op. cit. pp. 44 f.; Meignan, Les lvangil.es et la critique au XIXe silclc (Paris, 1864); Feine {op. cit.) Jacquier {PNT. ii 284-355), and Zahn {LH7'. §50).

The oral hypothesis (Westcott, Godet, Wetzel, Veit, Wright) assumes that the gospel was officially drawn up by the primitive apostles or by one of them (Peter, Matthew), and that, by dint of repetition, the various cycles of narrative and discourse became stereotyped before passing into written form. “The common element of our three synoptic gospels was not a mere cento of sayings of Jesus, or of anecdotes of His actions, but an oral Gospel which gave a continuous history of His life, from His baptism by John to His crucifixion” (Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, pp. 27 f.). It further requires a definite order of teachers or catechists who made it their business to teach this oral gospel. The necessity of a recourse to such assumptions is even less favourable than the impossibility, upon this theory, of giving any rational account of how the large sections in Mt. and Lk., which Mk. omits, ever ca*me into existence and into the special places which they occupy. No appeals to the Oriental memory, with its extraordinary power of retentiveness (cp. Margoliouth in Christian Apologetics, 1903, 48 f.)t will suffice to explain the intricate variations and coincidences in the synoptic gospels, without involving artificial reconstructions of the early church’s attitude to the sayings of Jesus. The detailed proof of this, with a thoroughgoing refutation of the oral hypothesis, is led by Zahn {INT. ii. 408 f.), Chavannes {Revue de Thiologie et Philosophic, 1904, 138-160), and Stanton {GHD. ii. 17 f.), more briefly by Schmiedel {EBi. 1845-6) and Peake {ENT. 104!.). t See also G. H. Putnam’s Authors and their Public in Ancient Times-(1894), pp. 106 f. - THE ORAL HYPOTHESIS 181 One objection to the oral hypothesis — viz. the gospel’s preservation in Greek instead of Aramaic—is removed by the cognate hypothesis of a primi-tive Semitic gospel upon which the synoptists have all drawn (Resch, Abbott, Briggs); but, although the theory helps to account for one or two Greek variants by pointing out the possibility that they may go back to the omission, confusion, or transposition of consonants in the Hebrew original, as a complete explanation of the textual phenomena it fails. There is perhaps no ante-cedent improbability in Hebrew being still written between A.D. 40 and 50 in Palestine; the newly discovered fragments of Ecclesiasticus show that a Jew could write in fair Biblical Hebrew long after it had ceased to be spoken generally. But why should an evangelist of Jesus? If any Semitic gospel is to be postulated, Aramaic (so, e.g., Lessing, Eichhorn) is much more likely than Hebrew to have been its language, and all the relevant facts of the case can be met by allowing for Aramaic sources behind the gospels and for the Aramaic background of their oral tradition. Misconception by Greek trans-lators of a Semitic phrase is indeed a uera causa in the interpretation, e.g., of some passages from Q, the common source of Mt. and Lk., which probably existed in different recensions. To quote a modern example, when we find in some translations of Don Quixote (part ii. ch. xxxiv.) the Greek Com-mentator, and in others the Greek Commander, it is obvious that these represent the wrong and the correct renderings of El Commendador Griego. The synoptic variant renderings of a common Semitic original, it must be allowed, usually give a good sense; it may not be the exact sense of the original, but it is intelligible, and generally it is consonant with the character-istic aims and traits of the gospel in which it occurs. The latter phenomenon, indeed, prevents us from supposing that the particular rendering was invariably accidental. On the other hand, this theory, when pushed to its full limits, reduces the inventive and independent element in the synoptic writers, by lay-ing stress on the possibilities of error and alteration which were involved in the transition from a Hebrew original to various Greek translations. The synoptic variations are referred to different conceptions of Hebrew words and phrases rather than to the editorial freedom of writers, who omitted, added, and altered details in a source before them, for the sake of producing a special impression of Jesus as the Son of God or the fulfiller of ancient prophecy. “We do not often find very early apocryphal evangelists, and never the canonical ones, deliberately inventing new traditions. It is generally possible to detect, even now, some basis of fact or ancient tradition for what appears at first sight to be a mere fiction; and it is a reasonable inference that if we had before us all the ‘ narratives ’ of the ' many ’ authors mentioned by Luke, and all the written interpretations of Matthew’s Logia handed down by those who, as Papias says, ' interpreted them each to the best of his ability,’ we should find the paucity of invention almost equal to the magnitude of accretion ” (Diat. 552). This is much too strongly put. It is to press matters too far if we undervalue the inventiveness of the primitive tradition, and miss the varied motives which led to the production of edifying apologues within the evangelic tradition. We have no business to assume that a writer, who had (say) Mark or some other primitive written source before him, would not feel comparatively free to diverge from its exact terminology, to tell a story in his own way, or to reproduce a saying in the light of his own religious prepossessions. Furthermore, the ‘ telegram ’ theory—that the primitive gospel was written in an elliptic, condensed style, whose ambiguities and brevity explain the later gospels—fails often to render the primitive source intelligible. “The result of eliminating all words which are not common to all the evangelists is often to make the narrative unintelligible without the help of one of the existing Gospels to throw light on it" (Salmon, The Human Element in the Gospels, P- 15).

* Even a resolute adherent of the theory, like Dr. Wright (ET. xxi. 211 f.), now admits that documents were in use from the first, for catechetical purposes. To call the documents ‘ temporary ’ does not conceal the collapse of the oral hypothesis.

The latter theory is not incompatible with the recognition of Mark as prior to the other two synoptists; as a matter of fact, one of the most searching and minute statements of the evidence for Mark’s priority is in Dr. Abbott’s Diat. 314-330 (with table, 542-544, of corrections made by Mt. and Lk. on Greek text of Mk.—the latter being regarded as a Greek version, ‘with a good many errors, conflations, and additions,’ of the Hebrew Ur-Evangelium). Even Pfleiderer (Ure. ii. 284 f. 392 f.), who adheres to a primitive Aramaic gospel-source, admits that it was first used by Mark among many others (Lk I1), then by Luke who also used Mk.; as Mk. and Lk. represented the Gentile Christian church, while the original gospel continued to be used independently (with legendary expansions) by the Palestinian and Syrian churches,! Mt. was written to fuse together both the Gentile and Jewish Christian traditions. One of the weakest points in this theory is the necessity of supposing that all the discourse and narrative material common to Lk. and Mt. lay originally in Mark’s basis, the Aramaic gospel, from which it was derived by these' writers through the medium of a Greek translation. A recent modification of this view,! by Scott-Moncrieff, similarly postulates a Foundation-document used by all three evangelists, but assumes it must have been written by Mark; Mt. and Lk. used not Mk. but this earlier draft (practically = an Ur-Marcus); Mk. ′ in the more literary atmosphere ’ of Rome revised his original MS (based on Petrine reminiscences) and published it for the benefit of the Roman church.

It is the extravagant claims occasionally made on behalf of Mk. as a Petrine gospel and as free from secondary elements, which have led to a double reaction not only against the Petrine tradition (see below under ′ Mark ’) but against Mark’s priority to Matthew (so especially Hilgenfeld, Badham, Belser, and Merx, after Hug, Keim, and many others). The latter theory is inadequate, even with the ingenious modifications proposed by Zahn (INT. §§ 54-56), who, following the lead of Grotius and Michaelis, places the original (Hebrew) Matthew prior to Mark, and the canonical Greek Matthew + Hence the origin of the apocryphal gospels, especially the gospel Kab’ 'Eppalovs, which was a collateral branch from the parent stem of the original Aramaic gospel. $ B. Bonkamp (Zur Evangelien-Frage, 1909, 53 f.), on the other hand, agrees with those who make Mk. a compilation, and Mt. and Lk. dependent on the Aramaic Ur-evangelium, THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS I S3 (as a translation of the Ur-Matthus) subsequent to Mark; Mark, in short used the Hebrew Matthew and was in turn used by the Greek Matthew.

* Cp. Abbott and Rushbrooke, The Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels (1884), p. xi: “ It is possible that for some time the Evangelistic records were handed down not in writing, but by means of oral tradition, like the Mishna of the Jews.”

The documentary hypothesis (cp. HNT. 615 f.) goes back not only to the habits of Oriental historiography, which permitted a writer to incorporate a source literatim or to alter it for his special purpose, instead of rewriting it, but to ancient praxis in general. “ Critical investigation into the sources of the ancient historians has shown beyond a question that, when they were dealing with times not within their own memory, they handled their authorities according to methods very different from those pursued in modern times. Not only materials, but the form in which these materials were worked up, were taken from predecessors usually without acknowledgment, and clearly without fear of any charge of plagiarism" (Hardy, Plutarch's Galba and Otho, 1890, p. xliv). This was all the more feasible in the case of a book like Mark, which was not written with any literary object. It was the common property of Christians, and neither Matthew nor Luke had any scruple in adapting it at a later period.* In the abstruse problem of the synoptic embry-ology, the Ur-Marcus and Q represent the work of artisans, who compiled and wrote the raw materials, which the artists, i.e. the authors of the canonical gospels, afterwards worked up into shape, t The documentary hypothesis is further corroborated by the methods of Tatian in compiling his Diatessaron during the last quarter of the second century. An examination J of the structure of this harmony, which was based on the four * The fusion of Mk. with Q and other sources is shown by the presence of the doublets (cp. HS.2 80-107). These do not invariably denote different sources (cp. Badham’s Formation of Gospels2, 12 f.); still in the main they point, not to different occasions on which Jesus uttered the same kind of word, but to variant traditions of the same saying or deed. + A very suggestive analogy to the processes of idealisation, treatment of the miraculous, and influence of later church tendencies upon the tradition, has been outlined by Gardner {Explor. Evangelica, 174 f.) and R. B. Drummond papers of Society of Historical Theology, Oxford, 1907, 37 f.) in the Franciscan literature. See further Oxford Studies, pp. 215 f., 225 f.

J See A. A. Hobson's scholarly essay, The Diatessaron of Tatian and the Synoptic Problem (Chicago, 1904), which carefully investigates the evidence afforded by Tatian’s methods for the documentary theory of the synoptic gospels and their origin. The relation of such methods to the documentary analysis of the Pentateuch is discussed by G. F. Moore in JBL. ix. 201-215, Lofthouse JT. xiii. 565 f), and W. E. Addis {Oxford Studies, 367 f.). canonical gospels, reveals the practice not only of freely altering, for purposes of edification and greater clearness as well as for the sake of literary effect, the order of words, sentences, and entire paragraphs, but also of arranging and fusing materials drawn from different sections in order to present a continuous and full account. All this is consonant with a certain scrupulous fidelity on the part of Tatian. His work shows, e.g., a comparative absence of rewritten or omitted paragraphs. The bearing of his methods of composition on those of the synoptic evangelists lies in the twofold direction of showing (a) how earlier Christian sources could be dealt with in a fairly free fashion by later writers, without any lack of reverence; and (b) how alterations by a later author do not require in all cases a special tendency, but merely literary habits, in order to account for their origin and extent. The former consideration is important. If Tatian, writing after the idea of the canon had taken shape, could compose a Diatessaron with some freedom from the four gospels, it is highly probable that the writers of these gospels, prior to the formation of the canon, would exercise not less liberty in their treatment of available sources, “which they nevertheless regarded as historically trustworthy, and whose historical testimony they endeavoured substantially to preserve ” (Hobson, p. 80). The second (b) inference supports what has been already said upon the need of eschewing an ultra-docu-mentary bias in the study of the synoptic problem. One of the obstacles raised by the documentary hypothesis has been the inadequate place assigned by many of its upholders to the place and function of oral tradition as an element in the process; and it will help to render that hypothesis more tenable and attractive, if it is shown to include such a reason for variation as literary habit or individual idiosyncrasy. In a semi-literary work like one of the early Christian gospels, it is artificial to imagine that the author had some conscious ulterior purpose in every change he made. Although tendencies may be visible over the broad surface of his work, and although the general purpose of his composition may be plain, this does not exclude a certain freedom of literary choice, an artlessness, and the play of individual fancy and taste. No theory which fails to allow for such an element is true to the facts of the case. On the principles alike of literary criticism and of common sense, this consideration vindicates itself as a reasonable criterion in the examination and explanation of the synoptic variations, and it is amply borne out by a consideration of the phenomena presented by the Diatessaron. The latter shows a series of changes which are not due to any rigid or specific purpose. It reflects, as the synoptic variations in Matthew and Luke must in all fairness be held to reflect, a much wider variety of motives underneath such alterations than is yielded by any theory which would determine a writer’s movements simply by some earlier sources and some controlling tendency of his own mind or circle. Consequently, we may argue, the failure to account for every single variation in the synoptic gospels does not discredit the documentary hypothesis, except when the latter is stated in some ultra-academic form.

The earliest traditions extant upon the origin of the gospels, i.e. the fragmentary remarks of John the presbyter quoted from Papias by Eusebius, show that no stereotyped official gospel was known to the memory of the sub-apostolic age. The first shapes which loom out in the mist are two documents roughly corre-sponding to the gospels of Mark and Matthew. What is their nature, and what is their relation to the documentary hypothesis? § 2. The Papias-traditions.—The earliest clue furnished by tradition is the evidence of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia during the first half of the second century. The two quotations from his “ Expositions of the Lord’s Aya," in five (rvyypdp.fiara (Eus. EL E. iii. 39. 15-17), are very brief, and we have no clue to their context. Even the date of this Exposition is uncertain. As Papias was an pxalos vp to Irenaeus, and as, on the other hand, he looked back to his connection with the oral tradition of the presbyters as an old episode when he composed his book, the date of that volume cannot be put much earlier than c. A.D. 120. If the De Boor fragment (TU. v. 2. p. 170), which makes him mention people who, after being raised from the dead by Jesus, lived till the age of Hadrian, is really a quotation, the date would have to be carried down at least another dec*ade; but it is not a quotation, and the terminus ad quern for this writing’s composition is not later than c. A.D. 160. It may be dated in 140(5)-160 (Harnack), 140-150 (Westcott), 130-140 (Lightfoot), or c. 125 (Zahn). As he got his information from John the presbyter, when he was gathering materials for the book, the date of the latter authority is carried back to the opening of the second century.

* Philip Sidetes, who preserves the quotation, was excerpting from Euse-bius at this point, and the likelihood is that he made a mistake in attributing to Papias a similar remark of Quadratus which the historian happens to narrate (H. E. iv. 3. 2).

For discussions of Papias, his date, authorities, and writings, cp. especially Zahn {SIC., 1866, 649-696, 1867, 539-542, Acta Joannis, pp. cliv-clxxii, GK. i. 2. 849f., ii. 2. 780f.); Weiffenbach, Die Papiasfragmente (1878); Li psi us {JP T, 1885, 174 f.); Holtzmann {ZIVT., 1880, 64-77); Hilgenfeld {ZWT., 1875, 231-270, 1886, 257-291); with SP. (pp. 277 f.) and Lightfoot’s invaluable articles {Coni. Review, 1867, 1875); Salmon {DCB. iv. 185-190); Westcott {Canon of NTP pp. 69 f.); Link {SIC., 1896, 435 k); Harnack {ACL. ii. 1. pp. 335 f., 356!.); Abbott {EBi. ii. 1809 f.); Goetz on “Papias u. seine Quellen," in Sitzungsberichte d. philos.-histor. IClasse d. Konigl. bayr. Akademie d. IViss. (1903) 267-320; Schwartz {Ueber den Tod der Sdhne Zebedaei, Berlin, 1904, pp. 18f.), and Ehrhard {ACL. H2f.).

To the bearing of Papias upon the problem of the apostle John’s residence in Asia Minor and the origin of the Fourth gospel, it will be necessary to return later on. Meantime, we must look at his evidence upon the synoptic gospels of Mark and Matthew, or, at any rate, upon what Papias believed to be the origin of these canonical scriptures. xai rovd' 6 TTpeafivrepo^ eXeyev: MpKos epunvevrhs Ulrpov ev-ipcvos, Baa ipu-qp-bvevaev, aKpi^Gis Eypayev, ou pivroi rb inrb TOO Xpiarov n Xeydevra h Trpaxdivra. oBre p ijKovaev rov Kvplou, oSre This also the presbyter said: ‘ Mark, who was Peter’s inter-preter,! wrote down accurately, though not in order,! all that he recollected of what Christ had said or done.§ For he was not a hearer of TcapriKoXovdriirev atrip, Barepov 81, osthe Lord, nor a follower of his; he ipry, Ubrptp’ 81 mps ras xpelas iiroieiro rbs 8i8aaKaXlas, XX' oix Giairep avvra^iv rUv KvpiaK&v trocoi-uevos Xoytuv, Glare ovoiv uaprev XtdpKOS, oilrus ivca pyas ilS reuvn-pLvevaev. evs p iirofaaro srpivotav, followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date,|| and Peter adapted his instructions to practical needs, without any attempt to give the Lord’s words systematically. So that Mark was not wrong in writing down some + =1anp (cp. Schlatter in BFT., 1899, iii. pp. 51 f.)? 1 On this phrase, see below. § The quotation from the presbyter may end here, the rest {as I have said) being Papias’ reproduction of the primitive tradition.

* “ had been " would give the sense more accurately.

Not, after having followed Paul, but after the lifetime of Jesus. rov firiS^v Sv ^Kovaev rapaAzev 7 yecacOal ri iv airois. Taura pev oBv IcTopprac Tip IIam things in this way from memory, for his one concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything he had heard.’ irepi TOO MdpKOV. 7repl 8b rov Marffalov Such is Papias’ account of Mark; ravr’ elpnrae" Marbalos pbv oBv 'E^pa-t8i 8iaX^KT<p TO. Xya cvveypyaro,* ■pp/jpvevtrev 8’ abrci ws hv Svvarbs exaoros. this is what he says about Matthew: ‘So then Matthew composed the Logia in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.’

As these traditions are preserved by Papias from the presbyter John, and as they go back not only to a period previous to the final composition of the Exposition, but apparently to the time when Papias was merely collecting oral testimony, the problem of the date of the book from which they are now cited becomes comparatively insignificant. These explanations of Mark and Matthew must have been in circulation by the end of the first century. The beginning of the second century is the latest period at which we can assume they came to Papias. Furthermore, they are not inventions of his own. Their authority is the presbyter John, who was in close contact with the cycles of primitive apostolic tradition, and there is no reason to suppose that these two particular traditions suffered accretion or corruption in passing through the channel of Papias’ memory. Doubtless they were exposed to the atmosphere of sub-apostolic desire to connect all canonical writings, directly or indirectly, with some apostolic authority, but the atmosphere did not create them. Their motive is unambiguous. By the time that Papias wrote, if not much earlier, difficulties were evidently felt about the differences in the four gospels, which implies that they had begun to be read together or, at any rate, laid side by side. The divergence, e.g., between Mark’s ris and that of the Fourth gospel seems to have occasioned surprise. Papias writes in an explanatory tone. He quotes the presbyter in order to defend Mark against a certain depreciation, and his defence pre-supposes that the authority of the Fourth gospel was so strong in certain local circles that it served as a standard for estimating the style and shape of earlier.

A further point urged by Papias in these quotations from the presbyter is the difference of language. Both the Petrine oral * cvveraro, the variant reading (preferred by Schwartz), does not alter the sense materially, though avveypa^aro brings out more clearly the fact that it was a writing. t There is also an implicit side-reference to the gnostic circle of Basilides, teaching and the Matthan book of the Logia were in Aramaic; but while Mark’s gospel fixed the former in Greek shape, the latter was for some time circulated without any such definitive editing. It is implied that this phase of things was past by the time not only of Papias but of his informant, and that the need of such independent off-hand translations no longer existed. Why, we can only conjecture, for no further information from Papias is extant. But the obvious answer is that some definitive recension of the Matthsean Logia had superseded the numerous earlier translations.

The translating or interpreting to which Papias alludes cannot be ex-plained (so Schlatter and Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 27 f.) as part of the worship of the churches. In the Jewish synagogues the lesson from the Hebrew scriptures, read by the rabbi, was followed by the interpretation or rendering of it into the popular tongue; but the latter task fell to a ‘ meturgeman,’ or interpreter. Even though the rabbi knew both languages, he confined himself to one, i.e. to the older and more sacred speech. But the use of the Matthsean Logia to which Papias alludes was not restricted to Christian worship (cp. GHD. i. 55 f.). He is thinking, as the context shows, about writings, and the presbyter’s words denote also independent, probably paraphrastic versions of the Logia made for catechetical and missionary purposes. It is improbable, therefore, although plausible, to hold that epuyvevrns as applied to Mark and Tipupvevaev as applied to the early Christian teachers or missionaries who used the Matthan writing, denote the same sort of work, except that in the one case the translating or in-terpreting followed the oral Aramaic teaching of Peter, with its reminiscences of the Lord’s words and deeds, while in the other the basis of the interpre-tation lay in Matthew’s written Aramaic record. When the informant of Papias reports that “ every one translated (or interpreted) the Logia as best he could,” the reference must include various Greek versions (Resch, Agrapha, pp. 54 f.); it cannot mean simply the worship and work of the early Christian mission, where at first any one who used the Matthsean collection had to give a Greek equivalent upon his own responsibility and from his own resources.

Two minor points of some importance remain, (a) One is the meaning of ou uHtoi ra^ec. In the light of the well-known passage from Lucian (de hist, conscrib. 16 f.), seems here to imply not order or consecutiveness in the modern sense of the term, so much as the artistic arrangement and effective presentation of the materials. The latter, in their unadorned and artless sequence, are rouvuara. Set iv rd^ec they are orderly, harmonious. The criticism passed by Papias on Mark refers to the style, then, rather who claimed that the iorahos of the latter was Glaukias, the interpreter of Peter (Clem. Strom. 7. 106). Papias points out that the true Petrine tradition was conveyed by Mark, and that, instead of being a secret kabbala, it was published in a gospel (cp. Schwartz, 11, 20 f.). than to the chronological sequence.* What Mark wrote down was the rouvnuovebuara or recollections of Peter, which were simply delivered irpbs TOS xpelas, and the literary result was not a la-ropla. It had not ris enough for that. A simple record, as exact and complete as possible, was what came from Mark’s pen, just such notes as might be described under Justin’s title of apostolic rouvnuoveuara. When riis is translated ‘ order,’ therefore, the reference is to ‘ orderliness’ rather than to historical sequence. “ Ce que l’on entend par ‘ ordre ’ n’est pas la chronologic c’est la bonne distribution des matieres ” (Loisy, i. 26). (b) Does the phrase r Xya mean the works and words of Jesus, a practical equivalent for TO elayyhov? Or does it mean primarily utterances? The former view has been strongly supported,t particularly by those who desired to identify these Aramaic logia as closely as possible with the contents of the canonical Greek Matthew, but the context, together with the historical probabilities, indicates that the phrase here means effata, utterances or discourses or commands of the Lord. These sayings, of course, must have included often a piece of narrative. Many of the Lord’s most striking words were associated with some event or incident. When they were plucked from the soil of the dypados uvhun in the primitive tradition, they would come up with some historical details of time and place clinging to them, like earth to the roots of a plant. The frequent exchange of question and answer in the extant conversations of Jesus necessitates some context of circumstances,! and Matthew’s gospel more than once appears to record an incident for the purpose of a saying which it sustained. Further-more, in his own book, the 'Ehynots Xoylcv KvpiaKwv, we know that Papias included some stories and narratives of the life of Jesus, for the purposes of his exposition. On the other hand, the differentiation of T X6yia T00 Kvplov and rb ixapripLov rov aravpov in Polyk. Phil. 7, tells against the identification of Matthew’s to Xya in Papias with any work similar to Mark or even Matthew. Papias is certainly lax in his use of the term, for, in the Marcan notice, he seems to describe indifferently the substance of Mark as to r rov XpicroO n \ex6evra. h mpax@vra and as KvpiaKol \6yoi or KVpiak X6yia. But the analogy of the OT prophets, where the words of Jeremiah, Hosea, etc., include narrative as well as sayings and speeches, bears out the view that while the Matthaean Logia of Papias were not a gospel-narrative, they were not a mere collection of sayings.

A fair exegesis of the Papias-traditions forbids us then to infer that any sharp distinction was drawn between the contents of the Marcan gospel and the writing of Matthew. The latter could not have been confined to sayings, any more than could the former, or any similar narrative of Jesus, to incidents and deeds. The distinction intended by Papias (if not by his informant) was drawn elsewhere. Mark’s gospel was evidently * So, after Norden, Corssen (GGA., 1899, pp. 317 f.). t From Lticke, Baur, and Keim, to Hilgenfeld, Zahn, and Belser. + Thus Eusebius (H. E. iii. 245) observes that Matthew and John alone have left us rv rov Kvplov biarpt^uv vrouvhuara. felt by many to be incomplete, as compared with Matthew, besides being disorderly, as compared with John. The presbyter explains the reason of the former defect. The exigencies of its composition prevented Mark’s gospel from giving a ovvrs of the Lord’s utterances; Mark was not able to provide this. But it was furnished by Matthew, a hearer and follower of the Lord. He composed or compiled T ya, and his account, it is implied, was adequate, so far as contents went. This distinc-tion, together with that of the language, may be regarded as uppermost in the Papias-traditions.

While the harvest from Papias is thus scanty, it is not unimportant. We learn that there had been an Aramaic gospel-writing by Matthew, which Papias at any rate connected some-how with the canonical Matthew. How far he believed the latter to represent a version of it, we have no information. On Mark, again, the testimony is ampler. It is uncertain what was, or what Papias believed to be, the relation between the canonical gospel of Mark and this Petrine record of Mark, but the latter was not composed, apparently, until Mark had ceased to be Peter’s epunvevrs, whether owing to some change of circumstances or to Peter’s death. The latter view is that of Irenaeus (ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 8. 3), who puts the composi-tion of Mark’s gospel subsequent to the decease of Peter, but the mist which shrouds the later history of the apostle prevents us from checking the truth of this remark, and another tradition, vouched for in two different ways by Clement of Alexandria {H. E. ii. 15. 2, and vi. 14. 6), asserts that Mark wrote when Peter was still alive.* The unanimous tradition of the second and third centuries upon the connection of Mark, as the author of the gospel, with Peter (cp. Swete, pp. xviii f.), probably is little more than a prolonged echo of the Papias-tradition, com-bined with inferences, more or less fictitious, from 1 P 513. These later testimonies add little or nothing of independent historical value to the tradition which has just been discussed, and the latter must now be set side by side with the canonical gospel. It is only after an examination of Mark as we have it, that it is possible to ascertain how far the notice preserved by Papias is an adequate and trustworthy piece of criticism. And * This is evidently the product of later reflection in the church, stimu-lated by a desire to claim spiritual authority and a Petrine guarantee for Mark’s narrative (cp. Schwartz, pp. 18 f.). the same holds true of Matthew. The results upon which the following sections converge may be outlined at this point, for the sake of convenience. The two writings mentioned by John the presbyter lie at the back of Mk. and Mt. respectively; they correspond to the Ur-Marcus and the Q source,* which the internal criticism of these gospels has succeeded in feeling if not in laying bare underneath the strata of the canonical texts. There are insuperable difficulties in the way either of rejecting t the Papias-tradition or of identifying the two writings of this frag-ment with the canonical Mark and Matthew, and the solution is to suppose that the former represents a later edition J of the original Mark (which resembled a kpvyna Uerpov), while the latter represents the work of a Jewish Christian writer, with catholic interests, who employed in his work not only Mk. but the Matthan Logia. Luke’s gospel, like Matthew’s, draws upon (possibly a different text of) the Ur-Marcus and upon Q or the logia-source (probably in a different translation); but, unlike Matthew’s, it embodies subsidiary sources, one of which at least ranked of such importance that the author more than once preferred it even to Mk. and Q. § 3. Mark and the UrMarcus.—The relation of Mark to Peter is described in the opening words of the Muratorian frag-ment on the Canon, quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit. If quibus is taken to have been originally aliquibus (i.e. certain incidents or episodes in the life of Jesus), the author would mean that although Mark was not an eye-witness of the life of Jesus, still he was present at one or two occasions in it (e.g. Mk 1451?). But quibus probably referred to a preceding colloquiis Petri, and the sense * The common discourse-material is best explained as due to the use of some such source. A similar literary problem arises in connection with Plutarch’s and Tacitus’ accounts of Galba. Here, too, the hypothesis of absolute independence is precluded by the close agreements, and the alterna-tives are to suppose that Plutarch used Tacitus, or to conjecture that both had access to some common authority such as the elder Pliny’s Histories or Cluvius Rufus. + On the ground that it might be no more than an inference from 1 P 51 13, an ill-informed guess which Papias or his informant made (cp. e.g. Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte, pp. 22 f.). t'Eine vermehrte Ausgabe, in welcher der berlieferte Text moglichst respektiert werden sollte ” (Wendling, Entstehung des Marcus-Evgliums, p. 2). “ Il y a eu un Pr6to-Marc dont en resume notre second vangile est comme une reedition quelque peu retouchee ” (Reville, Jesus de Nazareth, i. 477)of the incomplete conclusion to the sentence is that Mark set down what he had heard from Peter. This tallies with the earlier evidence of John the presbyter, as reported by Papias, whether it is a mere echo or an independent corroboration. Now the canonical Mark, after an analysis of its literary structure, shows distinct traces of editorial work upon a source (see below under ‘ Mark ’); it is not the naive transcript or precipitate of oral tradition, but arranged upon a definite, chronological plan, with a definite aim. Upon the other hand, the materials which form its basis show a distinctly Palestinian and even Petrine colour. " Dass der alteste Evangelist nicht der erste Aufzeichner ist, sondern bereits Sammler und Redaktor; dass er nicht mehr bloss aus der freifiessenden mindlichen Ueberlieferung schbpft, sondern bereits festgeformte Massen gruppiert und mit seinem Missionarsgeist durchdringt, das ist ein Ergebnis, das nicht mehr verloren gehen kann ” (J. Weiss, TR., 1908, 133). It is a fair hypothesis, therefore, to identify not the canonical Mk. but the rougher notes of the Ur-Marcus with the source to which the Papias-tradition refers (so, e.g., Schleiermacher, Renan, Scholten, S. Davidson, Wendt, von Soden).* The fact that the canonical gospel was based on this Marcan work was responsible for Mark’s name being attached to it.

Several critics (so, e.g. Weisse, Schenkel, Reville) have argued that the Ur-Marcus must have been (a) larger than the present Mk., since Mt. and Lk. repeatedly agree in matter which Mk., telling the same story, omits. Unless, as is improbable, Lk. used Mt. or vice versa, or unless the coincidences be due to the harmonising tendencies of copyists, these common additions of Mt. and Lk., so far as they are not trivial, would seem to show that both had access to a form of Mk. fuller than the canonical. But other explanations of this phenomenon are not only possible but more probable, and the theory involves the great difficulty of supposing that Mk. deliberately omitted a good deal of available material. It is much more likely that the Ur-Marcus was (b) smaller than the present Mk. (so, e.g., P. Ewald, Reuss, J. Weiss, von Soden, Wendling), especially when the Papias-tradition of * The Ur-Marcus theory, with or without a reference to the Papias-tradition, has been held by Credner, Reuss, Kstlin, A. Reville, Schmiedel, J. Weiss, and Loisy. It is ably controverted in Burkitt’s Gospel History and Its Transmission (1906), 40 f., and Earliest Sources for Life of Jesus (1910), 77 f. the former is accepted. As for the further question, whether Mt. and Lk. used the shorter Ur-Marcus or the canonical Mk. (in substantially its present form), the evidence tells strongly in favour of the latter view (so, e.g. Wernle, Wellhausen, Julicher, Burkitt, Loisy). Their omissions can be partly accounted for by tendency, and in part they do not need to be accounted for at all. In several instances it can be shown that they knew parts of Mk. which they omitted (cp. Badham’s proof for Luke in ET. vii. 457-459).

This fact, that both Matthew and Luke t omit a certain amount of material in Mk. which, ex hypothesi, lay before them, opens up the two alternatives, viz. (a) that the omissions were deliberate, or (b) that such sections, though extant in our canonical Mk., were not added to Mk. until after its use by the later synoptists. On the latter hypothesis, the amount of matter in Mk. which is absent from Mt. and Lk. must have been added to Mk. after Mt. and Lk. had used it; or, at any rate, they must have em-ployed a copy of the Marcan source different from that which formed the nucleus of the canonical Mk. In other words, where Mt. and Lk. agree in omitting a Marcan passage or, more generally, as against Mk., the latter is presumed not to have lain before them, unless adequate reason can be given for such omissions. But is a literary criterion of this kind absolutely valid? Surely, some obvious caveats at once occur to the mind. For one thing, it is an extremely delicate and hazardous task for a modern, Western mind to determine the precise motives which may have induced a later synoptic writer to omit or abbreviate a source which lay before him. Even although the omission of passages like Mk 426-29 732-37 822-26 111. 25 1232-34 1333-37 and 1451f may be difficult to explain, it would be hasty to conclude that such passages did not lie before Mt. and Luke. The desire to be as full as possible may be granted; it is natural to suppose that neither would wish to leave out anything of vital importance. But, after all, a writer must be allowed some freedom. It is not to be taken for granted that a later writer of the gospel story would incorporate whatever lay before him in an earlier source, even if these materials were consonant with his special purpose; such a canon of criticism, which is tacitly assumed in many quarters, requires to be seriously revised and qualified. Completeness would as a rule be an end and object with the writer of any gospel. His work was to circulate by itself; he could rarely if ever presuppose, in his audience, acquaintance with other evangelic writings which might supplement gaps in his own; indeed, t Furthermore, John occasionally sides in such circumstances with Mk., as he sides again {Diat. 1806 f.) with Mk. and Mt. against Luke’s deviations or omissions {Diat. 1282 f., 1309 f., 1344, 1373, 173° f.). in the case of Luke, we have a historian whose aim was to supersede many inferior and defective records in circulation throughout the churches. But completeness of this kind is always relative to the writer’s special aim, and even apart from the range of that aim his individual taste would be sure to operate—to say nothing of considerations of space and symmetry. Such im-plications tell against the view that Mt. and Lk. must have used a shorter form of Mark. They may also be held to disprove the view that Mark did not use Q, but this conclusion rests upon independent grounds (cp. § 5). § 4. Matthew's gospel and Q (= Matthaean Logia).—The style and contents of Matthew show that it is neither the translation of an Aramaic source nor composed by an apostle. For these and other reasons it is impossible to identify it with a translation of the Logia-source mentioned by Papias. But the large amount of discourse-material which Mt. has incorporated with Mk. permits the identification of this special source with the Matthan Logia of Papias (so from Schleier-macher to McGiffert, Burton, Allen, Peake, and Stanton).* This explains, more satisfactorily than any other theory, the traditional authorship of the gospel. Matthew’s gospel (eayyov Kara Maralov) was so called, not because it was the first to make use of the Matthaean source, but because it embodied this gvrais rv oylov with special thoroughness. The most notable feature in its composition was the use made of this source. Matthew was too obscure an apostle to be associated by later tradition with a gospel, unless there was good ground for it; and, as he cannot have written the canonical gospel, the natural inference is that he was responsible for the primary logia-source which characterised it.

* One of the.clearest is in Luke’s change (176) of the logion preserved in Mt 1720b. Luke has nothing corresponding to Mk 1112-15u 19-27a; but, as this reminiscence proves, he knew the incident of the cursing of the fig-tree.

This is more satisfactory than to identify the Logia of Matthew, to which Papias alludes, with a florilegium of messianic proof-texts made in Hebrew by Matthew the tax-gatherer (Hart, Expd, July 1906, 78 f.; Burkitt, Trans-mission, 126 f.; K. Lake, Review of Theol. and Phil. iii. 483!.). A collection of such testimonia would not be important enough either to justify the tradition or to lend Matthew’s name to a gospel which employed them, apart altogether from the fact that a midrashic anecdote like Mt 2 13-15 could hardly have formed part of a source emanating from an apostolic eye-witness, and that TO. Xya could not denote OT extracts per se (cp. Stanton, GHD. ii. 48).

On the other side, a comparison of Mt. and Lk. shows the common use of a discourse-source, Q. The problem is to * Harnack (BNT. ii. 248 f.) only admits “a strong balance of probability that Q is the work of Matthew.” “ From the so-called charge to the apostles we can only conclude that behind the written record there stands the memory of an apostolic listener.” connect Q with the Matthan Logia, and this may be solved by identifying the latter with the substantial nucleus of the former. For all practical purposes, they may be considered one and the same source. If so, this has an important bearing upon the determination of Q as reproduced in Mt. and in Lk. (a) The general opinion is that the latter’s setting of the Logia is in many, perhaps in most, cases superior to Mt.’s. This may well be, from the historical point of view, but Lk.’s arrangement of them (e.g. of the Lord’s Prayer) need not represent a close reproduction of them as they lay in Q. It is argued that Mt. is more likely to have massed the sayings together than Lk. to have broken them up, but, in view of Lk.’s dramatic (as distinguished from historic) framework, this argument is not convincing. It is a good working hypothesis that the grouping of the Logia in Q, as distinguished from their spirit (which Lk., for all his greater stylistic changes, has kept upon the whole more closely), is preserved substantially in Mt. Where Lk. differs from the latter in his arrangement of the Logia, and where that arrange-ment is historically valid (which is not the case, e.g., with 13s4’35), is due to the fact that he found the basis for his re-setting in some other or possibly now and then in oral tradition. Elsewhere, the Lucan mise en seine is due to the writer’s imagination, (b) The Q source must also have been more Jewish Christian in character than Lk.’s gospel would suggest. Mt. retained, e.g., the ‘particularistic’ logia for archaic reasons; he was more conservative in the use of his source than Luke. Where the latter either omitted or modified, Mt. was content to preserve, adding broader logia of his own.

The verbal coincidences of Mt. and Lk. do not necessarily imply that they used the same Greek version of the Matthan Logia. Translations of such sayings would inevitably have a great deal in common; the scope for variations is necessarily restricted; and the literary identities of Mt. and Lk. in their common parts are explicable without either the hypothesis that the latter used the former, or even that both had the same Greek recension of Q before them. Occasional variations of rendering (cp. Wellhausen, Einl. 36 f.) t corroborate the view that they used different versions of the original Aramaic; e.g. Mt 511-12= Lk 622-23 (where, in the latter verse, the Matthan TO1s 7p uOv t It does not meet the full data of these passages to argue (Harnack, Loisy: EHR., 1907, 441 f.) that the changes are due to the free development of the writer’s thought as exhibited in the context. and the Lucan ol zrartpes avr&v go back to the Aramaic variants daq' damaikon and dap damaikon}, Mt 543= Lk 636 (where rPaaot and olKTcpuoiies are variants of n2v), Mt 2323= Lk it42 (cp. Nestle, ET. xv. 528; ZNIV., 1906, 260-261), and Mt 2336= Lk n41 (where Matthew’s KaBaptaov and Luke’s Sore Xenuoob-vyv go back to the Aramaic dakkau and zakkau}. Sometimes both versions reproduce the same error (e.g. iroWwv for ToX in Mt io81 = Lk 127, cp. Wellhausen’s note); but this is the exception (cp. above, p. 181).

* This implies that some of Q’s logia were in circulation in other forms—a view which is decidedly to be upheld (cp. pp. 205 f.).

At the same time, this recognition of a specifically Matthaean character in Q does not involve the abandonment (Bartlet, Burton, Allen) of the latter as a common source for Mt. and Lk. Lk. possibly knew it in a special recension; but even this hypothesis is not necessary in order to explain the differences of setting and spirit in the corresponding Lucan Logia. The first clue for the reconstruction of Q lies in the common materials of Mt. and Lk. But this implies that the latter, e.g., could only have access to the Q-sayings in their Q-form, that both writers reproduced Q almost entirely, and that practically t nothing which is only preserved in one or the other originally belonged to Q. None of these assumptions can be granted. Furthermore, the analogy of Mk. is a warning against over-precise reconstructions of this common source (cp. Robinson’s Study of Gospels, 91 f., and Burkitt in JTS., 1907, 454 f.). If Mk. had to be picked out of Mt. and Lk., on the same principles as Q, many of its most striking characteristics would be awanting, e.g. 1 241-44. “In comparison with the real Mk. it would be a headless, armless torso.” These considerations do not invalidate the attempt to fix approximately the outlines and general characteristics of Q,—especially when we accept the additional clue to its origin furnished by the Papias-tradition,—but they are a check upon detailed analyses which profess to regain the exact stylistic and religious characteristics of a source which neither writer may have preserved in its entirety and which both have worked over.

If the formula (xal eyGero ore creXcaev o ‘Ingos KTX.), which recurs five times in Mt. (728 11 1353 191 261), was taken over t Thus Harnack (BNT. ii. 26 f., 185) only admits the parable of the mustard-seed, which occurs in Mk. (430-32) from Q, as is inherently likely (cp. HS.2 165), this is a fresh proof that the latter source—so far as form goes—approximated to the successive masses of logia preserved in Mt., and also that they were connected by fragments of narrative. The fivefold division was not uncommon in Jewish and early Christian literature, and Q may have been compiled, like the exposition of Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39), in five parts. The following list of passages may be taken to represent approximately the Q-source, as it can be felt vibrating in Matthew: 37-12 (baptism of John, etc.; strictly speaking, introductory sayings about 43-11 (temptation), 53-12. 13-27. 20-24. 25-80.

* As distinct from a special translation. It is not probable that Mt.’s Jewish Christian idiosyncrasies were due to a similar recension of Q, which lay before him, though there is every likelihood that a work like Q would pass through stages of accretion (cp. Pfleiderer, PM., 1907, 117-139, and Schott’s, analysis of Mt 10, in ZNW., 1906, 140-150).

31-48 gif. yi-xa. 15-23. 24-27 (sermon), 8s-13 (centurion of Kaphamaum), 819-22 913a 1o5f. 17-38(42) 112-19. 20-3° 125-8. 11-13.

25-45 1314-15. 16-17. 24-29. 33-35. 36-43. 44-52 (group of parables), 1 512-14.

23-24 1617-19 (’) 1719-20. (24-27 9 183-5. 10. 12-14. 15-20. 23-35 196-12. 28 20 2 114-17. 31b.-32. 28-31a 221-10, 11-14 231-39 (seven woes), 24(9). 10-12 26-27.

37-41. 42-44. 45-51 2 51-30. (31-46?) 2652-54.

The passages in black type represent for the most part the material which is also used by Luke more or less closely (22 and 25 containing scattered parallels); passages like 413-16 and 1 216-21 came from a messianic florilegium. We have hardly any criteria for determining how far any pieces of Luke’s Sondergut should be added to this list, owing to the greater variety of sources upon which he drew. But, even as it stands, this outline of the Matthan Logia is both coherent and distinctive. It is not a heterogeneous mass of logia, but a collection moulded by catechetical and homiletical processes, with sayings on the Kingdom grouped together for the purposes of edification and apologetic, strongly marked by eschatological traits, and shaped, more than once, by polemical interests. The outstanding features are the grouping of the sayings (which is not simply the work of Mt.’s editor) and the emphatically Jewish Christian cast of some sections.

The variety and the consensus of opinion upon the contents of Q will be evident from a glance, first of all, at eight reconstructions t which aim at reproducing the outline as well as the contents of the source.

Albert Reville de Nazareth, i. pp. 299, 469-470) groups the + In the following analyses, the verbal minuti have been generally omitted, for the sake of space and clearness. material in a sevenfold arrangement (i.) the new law Mt 53-727= Lk 6202 1133, 816 1434 1617, 1258-59 1618, 629-36 j 12-4, 1233-34 j 134-36, 1222-31 1613, 631 1324-27, 647-49. (ii.) apostolic instructions, Mt 937-38 105-16. 23-42= Lk 102. 4 640 817 12s’9, 1251-53 1426-27, 1733 io18; (iii.) in defence of the kingdom, Mt 117b19. 21-24. 25b-30 1224-25. 28-30. 37. 39. 41-45 = Lk 724-28, 1616 731-35, 643-45, 1129-32. 24-28; (iv.) parables of the kingdom, Mt 1324-52= Lk 1319. 21; (v.) members of the kingdom, Mt 182b-35 201-16, 2123-27 221-6. 8-14= Lk 171-2 154-7, 173-4 1416-24; (vi.) woes, Mt 232-39= Lk 1146. 92. 42. 39. 44. 49-51, 1334-35; (vii.) coming of the kingdom, Mt241l-12. 26-28. 37-51, 25=Lk 1723.37. 26-30, 12s8-40, 1912 Barnes (see below under ‘ Matthew ’) further proposes to find in this source the actual document mentioned by Papias, " a complete treatise on the teaching of Christ concerning the new kingdom... a manual of the new law for the use of the church at large,” but confines his investigations to the non-Marcan materials of Mt., and discovers the substance of the Lord’s teaching in five books: viz. (i.) the new law (Mt 5-7), (ii.) the rulers of the new kingdom (Mt 10), (iii.) parables of the new kingdom (Mt 13. 22), (iv.) relations between members of the kingdom (Mt 18), and (v.) the coming of the king (Mt 24-25). (c) Similarly Burton + finds the Matthaean Logia-source (not used by Lk.) in Mt 314-15 54. 7-10. 13a. 14. 16-17. 19-24. 27-28. 31. 33-392. 41-43 10b. 13b. 15-18. 34 76. 12b. 15-22 913a 105. 6. 8b. 23. 25b. 36. 41 II 28-30 125-7. 1115. 24-30. 35-53 I 512-14. 23-24 1617-19 1724-27 184. 10. 14. 16-20. 23-34 1910-12. 28 2 j 14-16. 28-32. 43 221-14 232. 3. 5. 7b-10. 15-22. 24. 28. 32 2410-12. 30a 251-lla. 13 (d) Wernle {Synopt. Frage, pp. 224 f.) submits a detailed outline: (a) historical introduction Mt 37-12=Lk 37-9. 16f-, Mt 43-10= Lk 43-12; (3) rules for Christians and missionaries, Mt 53-48 71-6 1212-27= Lk 620-49 1133 1258-59 1617, Mt 85-13=Lk 72-10 1328-30, Mt 819-22 937-38 105-16. 23-25. 40-42 II 20-27 1316-17= Lk 957-62 101-16. 21-24. (c) sayings of a more polemical nature, Mt 112-19= Lk 718-35 1616, Mt 1222-37= Lk n14-23 i210, Mt 1238-45= Lk 1129-32. 24-26, Mt 231-39 = Lk II39-52 1334-35; and (d) instructions for the Christian life, especially in view of the second advent, Mt 69-13 77-l=Lk 112-4 9-13, Mt 619-34 = Lk 1222-34 II34-38 i613, Mt 1331-33. 44-6 = Lk 1318-21, Mt 102-39= Lk 122-12.

* Their presence in Q is due either to the connection of the baptism with the temptation, or to the need of explaining subsequent references to John.

51-53 1426-27, Mt 187. 12-22= Lk 153-10 171-4, Mt 221-14= Lk 1416-24, Mt 2426-2 37-51=Lk 1723-37 1239-46, Mt 2514-30=Lk 1912-27. (e) Von Soden, considering the Lucan tradition the more original J of the two, postulates a systematic collection of sayings grouped as follows:—(a) the appearance and reception of Jesus, including (i.) words on right mutual conduct (Lk 620-71, cp. Mt 5-7), (ii.) the Gentile centurion (72-10 = Mt 86-13), and (iii.) the Jewish baptist (71835= Mt 112-19). (b) sayings on (i.) offers of discipleship (957-62= Mt 819-22), (ii.) the vocation of d. (io1-24=Mt io1-15 II20-27), (iii.) and the prayers of d. (11113=Mt 68-13 77-11); (c) sayings on adversaries, including (i.) the calumnies of the Pharisees (II13=Mt 1222-30. 43-45. 38-43 5221.^ (ii.) the condemnation of the Pharisees (1137:54= Mt 23), and (iii.) behaviour towards such opponents (12112= Mt io26-33 1232 1019); (d) sayings on the world, including (i.) the 811-12 1312. 16 1513b-14 and 162-3. t His document is printed in full and discussed in detail (pp. 23 f., 361 f.) by H. B. Sharman in The Teaching of Jesus about the Future (Chicago, 1909). + So, e.g., Wright and Robinson (Study of Gospels, 77 f.). attitude of disciples towards worldly possessions (1222-34 introduced by 1213-21 = Mt 620-83), (ii.) the experiences of disciples in the world (1235-39 = Mt 2442-51 251-13 io34-36 1626 5256.), and (iii.) signs of the coming storm and finale (131-5. 6-9. 18-21 = Mt 2119 1331-33); with (e) omens of the end in (i.) denunciation (1322-35= Mt 7136 2511f. 722. girt. 1930 2337-39), (ii.) warnings for disciples (1413-27-33) (-35) 154-7 171-4= Mt 222-10 1037f. 1812-14. 6f. 211.), and (iii.) words on the end of the world (1720-37= Mt 24). (/) Stanton {GHD. ii. 70 f.) outlines the contents of the source thus: ushering in of ministry of Christ = preaching of Baptist (Lk 33. 7-96. 16b. 17= Mt 35. 7-12), baptism of Jesus (Lk 321-22= Mt 313- 16-17), temptation of Jesus (Lk 41-13= Mt 41-11a) 5 first stage in preaching of gospel=discourse on heirs of the kingdom (Lk 617-49), centurion (Lk 71-0= Mt 85-10. 13), John and Jesus (Lk 718-28.31-85 = Mt 112-11. 10-19); extension of gospel = tour of Jesus (Lk 81=Mt 9s5), warnings to aspirants (Lk 957-60= Mt 819-22), saying on harvest (Lk 102= Mt 937-38), directions for preachers (Lk 103-12= Mt 1054. 7-16- 40); rejection and reception of divine truth = Woe of Lk io13'16 (Mt II21'23), thanksgiving of Lk 102l-22 (Mt 1125-27), beatitude of Lk 1023-2 (Mt 1316-17); instruction on prayer = Lord’s prayer (Lk 112= Mt 69-13), on earnestness (Lk 119-13 = Mt 77-11); Jesus and his opponents = lawyer (Lk 1025-28= Mt 2234-40), accusation of Lk 1114-15.17-23 (Mt 1222-30), saying of Lk 1124-26 (Mt 1243-45), demand for sign (Lk 1116. 29-32= Mt 1230-2), on lamp of body (Lk. 1134-36 = Mt 622-23), denunciation of Lk 1138-52; exhorta-tions to disciples = confessing Christ (Lk 122-10 = Mt 1026-33 1282), trust in Providence (Lk 1222-34= Mt 625-34. 19-21), watching (Lk 1239-40= Mt 2443-44), prudence (Lk 1242-46 = Mt 2445-51), thoroughness (Lk 1251-53 1426-27= Mt 2034-38), two parables of Lk 1318-21 (Mt 1331-33), offences (Lk I71-4 = Mt 185-7.;5- 21-22), power of faith (Lk 175-6= Mt 1719-20). doom of Jerusalem, etc. = Lk 1334-35 (Mt 2337-39) and Lk 1722-37 (Mt 2426-28. 37-41). (g) Barth (Einl. 225 f.) divides his sayings-source into five sections: introduction=]o\in the Baptist and his preaching (Mt 31-12 etc.), baptism and temptation of Jesus (Mt 41-11 etc.), appearance of Jesus in Galilee (Mt 412-17 etc.); Jesus' preaching on the kingdom — righteousness (Mt 51-12. 17-22. 27-48 61-6. 16-18 71'6' 12. 15-20. 3-7= Lk 620-49), reconciliation (Mt 523-26= Lk 1258-59), prayer (Mt 67-15 77l=Lk II1-13), riches (Mt 619-M=Lk 1222-34 1613), childlikeness (Mt 181-5. 10. 14 etc.); against the vuorld—-ca&s>,s,^.'g& of Baptist (Mt 11219= Lk 718-35), Beelzebub sayings (Mt 1222-32. 43-45), on signs (Mt 1238-*2=Lk 1129-32), against the Pharisees (Mt 232-36 etc.), parable of lost sheep (Mt 181-13= Lk 154-7), revelation (Mt 1125-27 = Lk 1o2l-22), parable of sower (Mt 133-15. 18-23 etc.), woe (Mt 112l-A=Lk io13-15), wail over Jerusalem (Mt 2337-39= Lk 1334-35), parable of feast (Mt 221-14= Lk 1416-24); calling of disciples = centurion(Mt 85-10= Lk 71-10), felicitation of disciples (Mt 1310T7=Lk 1023-24), three aspirants (Mt 819-22= Lk 957-62), counsels to disciples (Mt 1087-80= Lk 1425-27), disciples as light (Mt 515-16 622-23 etc.), disciples on salt (Mt 518 etc.), mission of disciples (Mt io5-15 etc.), promise of divine help (Mt 101-33= Lk 122-12), discord (Mt 1034-86= Lk 1240-53), offences (Mt 186-0. 15-22 etc.), faith (Mt 1720 etc.), seed and leaven (Mt 1331-33 etc.); the future-rejection of unworthy disciples (Mt 713-14.21-23 etc.), on loyalty (Mt 2442-51 etc.), sudden coming of Son of man (Mt 2437"= Lk 1720-37), use of talents (Mt 2514-30 = Lk 1912-27), speech on Parousia (Mt 248-36 etc.). Finally (h), Allen’s (Matthew, pp. Iviif.) analysis of the Matthsean Logia (“a collection of Christ’s sayings containing isolated sayings, sayings grouped into discourses and parables "), based on Mt like that of Barnes, includes:—53-12. 13-16. 17-46 61-33 71-27 811-12 9l3a. 37-38 105b-8. 23 1024-41 (not in this connection) I 12-30 (not necessarily in this order) 125-12 1225-45 (not necessarily in this order) 1316-17. 24-30. 33 (?). 31-52 I 512-14. 24 1617-19 r720 183-4. 10. 12-35 1910-12. 23 201-16 211 28-32. 43 221-14. 35-40 23 (not necessari in this order) 2410-12. 23-27. 30a. 37-41. 43-51 251-13. 14-30. 31-46 (7) 2652-54 ().

* He adds a few logia scattered throughout the Marcan framework, e.g.

With these eight outlines eight others, which enter into rather closer parallel details, may be compared.

O. HOLTZMANN (Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. pp. 25!.).

Mt 37-12 41-11 53-727 85-13 II2'19 819-22 io5'42 1120-24 1125-27 69-13 Lky-9.!6L 41-13 620-49 72-10 718-35 957-60 IO2-16 IO21-24 II1"4 Mt 77-11 1243-45.38-42 622f. 231-39 1026f. 625-33.19-21 2443. IO24-36 162 525.

Lk I 19-13. 24-32. 34-36 I j 39-52 122-9. 22-31. 33f. 1239-46.51-56 1258f. Mt. I 331-33 713f. 221. 2387-38 121 2312 221-14 1037 1812-14 Lk 1318-21. 24-30 1334f 1315 145 1411 1814 1415-2 14266 154-7 Mt 624 1112, 518 187 1815.21f 1720 2426-28 2514-30 1928 Lk 1613 1616 1617 i7lf> 173 1756 1722-37 1912-26 2229. {b} HARNACK (BLLT. 127f., 2531., Gk. text and Mt 35. 7-13 41-11 - 51-4.6.11-12 539-40.42.44-48 712 71-5 1514 Lk 37-9. 16-17 41-13 617. 20-23 629.30. 27-28. 35b. 32-33. 36 631 637-38.

Mt IO24"25 716-181. + 1233 721. 24-27 728 + §5-10.13 I 12-11 1116-19 107 Lk 640 643-44 646-49 71-10 ' 718-28 731-35 92 109. 11 Mt 819-22 937-38 10l6a io12'13 1010b 1015 II21"23 io40 1125-27 r 316-17 Lk 967-60 io2 io3 105-6 io7b 10 1 1013-15 io16 1021-22 1023D-2 Mt 69-13 77-11 1222-23. 25. 27-28. 30. 43-45 1238-39. 41-42 515 622-23 Lk II2'4 II9’13 1 114. 17. 19- 20. 23-26 J £16. 29-32 1[33 ££34-35 1146. 52. 42.

Mt 2325. 27. 29. 30-32. 34-36 1026-33 1232 625-33 619-21 LkI 138. 44, 47-52 122-9 1210 1222-31 1283-34 1239-40. 42-46 1251.53 Mt 525-26 1331-33 713-14 gn-12 2337-39 2312 1037 1038 513 1812-13 Lk 1258-591318-21 I324 1328-291334-35141 1426 1427 1434-35154-7 Mt 624 1 112-13 518 J32 £8’ £815. 21-22 1720b 2426-28. 37-41 1039 Lk 1613 1616 1617 1618 171 173-4 1 17b 1723-24. 37. 26-27. 34-35 1733 Mt 2529 1928.

Lk 1926 2228.80 WELLHAUSEN.

Mt 31-12 41-11 51-12. 38-48 619-34 71-6. 7-11. 15-27 §5-13 105-15 11-19 Lk 31-7 41-16 520-23.27-36 £ 272-34 637-42 118-13 643-49 71-10 101-12718-35 W. C. Allen (E T. xx. 445-449).

* Special criticism of this reconstruction by Burkitt (JTS., 1907, 454-459); Windisch (ZWT., 1908, 135 f.); Emmet (EL. xix. 297 f., 358 f.), and

Mt 1 120-30 1222-42 (221-14 2313-39 241-51 2514-30) Lk io13-24 11l4-83 (1416-24 11387-52 1384 35 1720-33 1235-46 19l-27) Mt 31-12 04-152) Lk 31-20 ROEHRICH.

41-11 5-7 85-13. 18-22 932-34. 37-88 105-15. 26-41 41-13 620-49 71-10 957-60 1114-15 109-16 122-9.49-33 1426-27 Mt 111-1 Lk 1733 io'6 718-28.

II16-30 731-35 1013-15. 21-22 1 222-23. 27-28. 30. 33-45 T 119. 23 643-45 r 1*4. 29-32 Mt 1 316-17. 24-30. 33. 44-50 I 61-4. 17-20 I 724-27 187. 10-11. 13-15 201-16 2 114-16. 28-32 Lk io23'24 1320 1254 176 171 151-7 (174) Mt 221-14 231-12. 13-39 2426-28. 37-41. 43-51 ' 251-13 2514-30. 31-40 Lk (i416t) 2045 1723-24.87. 26-27. 85 1239-40.42-46 ’ (1912-27) WENDT.

Mt 37-12 5-7 (Pt) 85-13 112-19 2128-35 glS-22 937-39 Lk 37-9. 16-17 620-49 1617-18 72-10 718-35 1616 736-50 81-3 987-621 ■1ol-16 Mt 101-16.40-42 1120-24 1125-30 j 316-17 67-15 77-11 932-34 1222-45 164 622f. 231-6 Lk ‘ 1017-42 ’ 111-13 1114-32 645 1133-54 Mt io24’33 1 2s2 619-342443-51 251-12 1084-30 513 i62f- S26'Mt 927-30 125-7 [J 24-30. 47-50 1344-46. 52 I 617-18 1724-27 1819-20 1910-12 201-16 Lk “ ’ ’ ' ' Mt 231-12 2531-46 (/) HAWKINS (HS.2 107 f., Oxford Studies, 95-138).

Mt 37-10 313 48-11 51-4. 6. 11-12. 18. 25-26. 39-40. 42. 44-48 69-13. 20-24 Lk 37-9 317 43-13 620-23 1617 1258-59 627-30. 32-36 I 12-4 12330-34 1134-35 1613 Mt 625-33 y1-2. 3-5. 7-14. 21-27 ' 85-10 Lk 1222-31 ’ 637. 38. 41-42 T19-13 631 1323-24 () 646 1325-27(?) 647-49 71-3. 6-9 Mt 811-12. 19-22 937-33 107. 88. 10. 11-13. 15-16a. 24-25a. 26-38. 40 Lk 1328-29 957-60 103 109b. 9a. 4. 7b. 8. 5-6. 12. 3 640 122-9. 51-53 14(26-27) 1016 Mt 1 12-3. 4-13. 16-19. 21-27 1222-23. 27-28 I 230. 33-35. 38-39 Lk 718-19. 22-28 1616 731-35 1012-15 IO21'22 " 1114.19-20 1123.16.20-32.24-26 Mt I 241-42. 43-45 r316-17. 33 1514 1720 j 87. 12-14. 15. 21-22 1928 Lk 643-45 1023-74 1320-21 639 176() 171 1545.7 I78'4 2228.30 0) 202 The historical literature Mt 234. 12-14. 23. 25-27. 29-31. 34-39 -. 2427-28. 37-41 43-51a LK1146 I411 1152.42.30. 41. 44 (2). 47-51 1331-35 1721.37 1726-27. 34-35 1238-40. 42-46 J. WEISS {SNT.2 1906).

Mt 37-10 312 4I-II qlb-6. 10. 13. 16. 18. 20-48 (61-91) 610-13 Mt 937-38 107-8a. 10 1. 1la. 12-13. 14 ’• 15-16a- 17-22 2. 24-25a. 268-40 Lk 1328-30 IO2t 1211-12 1426-27 IO16 127-825EE Mt 113-9. 11. 16-19. 21-27 1211. 23-24. 27-28. 33. 35. 38-39. 41-45b I 316-17. 31-33 2 Lk 718-26. 28-35 Io13f. 21-22 j j lof. 1210 jj 29-31 1124-26 1023-24 1 318-21 Mt 187. 12t 15. 22 2132. D 221-10 234. 6-7 1 13-15. 23a. b. 25. 27. 29-31.

Lk 171f. 153-7 175-6 1813. 156, 14I6-23 1139-52 141 ' IO25'27 Mt 2426-28. 37-41.42-44? 2445-51 251-131 Lk 1334-35 1723-24.26-27.31.33b. f. 1239-40 1241-46 1325 2222-23?. 24f.?

B. WEISS {Quellen d. Syn. Ueberlieferung, pp. 1-96, Greek text and discussion).

Mt 33-10 311-12 313-17 41-11 83-4 918 123-8 73f. 13-20 85-13 Lk 31-9 315t. 321.

Mt 115-19. 21. 31f. 131-9 41-13 512-16 517-26 (?) 68-5 1246-50 107. 9-14 ( 1413-21 (7) 639-45 71-10 (?) 1613-19 ( Yo3zt. (?) Lk 722b-35 84-8 (16t?) 8191. 104-11 (?) glOb-17 (!) Mt I 71-20 () 818-22 937. 1O5 ' 1O7 10l5 1120-24 1125-30 r316f.

9231. (?) 2235-40 Lk 928-42 (7) 957-60 io2 Mt 67. 76-11 932.

IO3-8 10% 1012-16. 17-^0 1-02214 1025528 j j 25-37 1238f. 1026-33 1231f. 625f. 2443-51 525L Lk II1'13 11l4f. j x 16-26. 29-36 (37-52?) 1 22-9. 10'32 (33-34?). 39-48. 54-59 Mt 1331f 713f. 22f. 2016. 37 513 18126 r1l2 518.32 186f Lk 1318735 1434 154-10 161-13 1616-18 17 1-2 20-end Mt 24266:37f 2133-44() 2448(9) 2415. (") 2432-35 1928 Lk 181-5 (28%. 1) 209-18 (7). 45-47 () 218-11 () 2120-28 (2) 2129-33 22 24 If Q was a gospel, i.e. an attempt to present notable sayings of Jesus in a biographical outline of his life, the inclusion of John the Baptist’s preaching is as intelligible at the beginning as the omission of the passion-story at the end is unintelligible. Furthermore, when it is identified with the Matthan Logia (or with some form of these), it is not easy to understand how it could have been a narrative of the life of Jesus, since Luke implies that no such narrative was drawn up by an eye-witness. Finally, if Q is assumed to have ended without any account of the death or resurrection, it can hardly have been composed soon afterwards (Feine, Harnack in BNT. iv. 125, Lake, ExpB vii. It is difficult to suppose that between 30 and 50 A.D. the death and resurrection of Jesus were so un-important to Christians, in view of the speedy return of Messiah, that a gospel could be written which ignored them. These difficulties do not compel the introduction of a passion-narrative into Q, much less its relegation to the lifetime of Jesus, but they reinforce the hypothesis that it was not a gospel at all.

When the Matthan Logia are identified with Q, the date of the latter (at any rate in its original form) is not later than the seventh decade of the first century; so far as the internal evidence goes, it may even fall within the sixth. It is thus an apostolic Aramaic treatise which has every likelihood of having been composed prior not only to Mark, but to the Ur-Marcus; it reflects the faith and mission and sufferings of the primitive Jewish Christian church of Palestine, long before the crisis of 70 A.D. began to loom on the horizon.

Wellhausen’s (Einl. 65 f., 73 f.) attempt to prove that Q is not only later than, but for the most part inferior to, Mark, rests on an undue depreciation of the former (see the careful proofs of Bousset in TR., 1906, 5-14, 43 k; Harnack, BNT. ii. 193 f. j with Jiilicher’s less certain protests in Neue Linien, 43 k, and Denney’s Jesus and the Gospel, 194 k), an assumption that the projection of early Christian christology was larger in the case of the sayings than of the narratives, and an idea that Mark harvested the best of the available sayings which were authentic (“if, unintentionally, this or that saying escaped his notice, nevertheless the gleaning of old and genuine material which he left for others cannot have been incomparably richer than his own harvest,” Einl. 86). But Q is not a humble Ruth in the field of the logia; Mark did not aim, as Luke did, at completeness; and it is to reverse the probabilities of the case, to discredit the tradition of the sayings of Jesus in favour of the narratives. $ Both grew under the spirit of the church, but + Cp. Bousset, TR., 1906, 46 (“ Jedenfalls lehnt die Gemeinde, die diese Worte iiberlieferte \i.e. 176 io5f- io23], es ab, ihrerseits Heidenmission zu treiben, wie die Urapostel nach Gal 29”). + Contrast Wundt’s recent remark (cited by Montefiore) in his Vdlkers- psychologie, ii. 3, 1909, p. 528: 1 No unprejudiced person, even tolerably familiar with the formation of myths, and fairly well acquainted with the the former are not inferior in historicity to the latter. It is doubtful if the words viov Bapax^ov stood originally in Q (Mt 2335); but, even if they did, they are not a historical anachronism which proves that Q (or this part of it) was written after 68 (70) A. D. (Wellhausen, Mt. 119-121). The reference is to the Zechariah of 2 Ch 2420, not to the wealthy and pious Zechariah who (Josephus, BJ. iv. 5. 4) was assassinated by the Zealots in the temple. Wellhausen has made a sad and rare slip in describing the former as “quite an obscure man.” He was, on the contrary, a hero of Jewish tradition (cp. B. Sanhcdr. 96b; Gittin, 57b; J. Taanith, 69a), whose midrashic elaborations of 2 Ch 2419-25 go back to an early date (cp. Nestle, ET. xiii. 562, ZNW., 1905, 198-200; G. F. Moore, Journal of the American Oriental Society, xxvi. 317 f.; Allen, DCG. i. pp. 171-172). It is the legendary fame of Zechariah ben Jehoiada, and of the bloody expiation exacted by God for his death, which underlies the logion; from Abel to Zechariah means from the first to the last book of the canonical OT (i.e. 2 Chronicles, where Z. is the last martyr mentioned); and this collocation of the two martyrs is much more natural for an early Christian than the other. The logion (cp. Lk 1149'51) may be a quotation from a Wisdom source, or it may directly reflect, like many other passages of the NT, the midrashic atmosphere which surrounded the OT for early Christians, but it has not any bearing on the date of Q.

* “ No date after the Passion seems impossibly early” (p. 503). “ Every year after 50 A.D. is increasingly improbable for the production of Q” (p. 507). Resch (Der Paulinismus u. die Logia Jesu; TU. xiii. 1904), who thinks, like J. Weiss, that Paul knew Jesus on earth, explains the Pauline references by conjecturing that the apostle got a copy of the Logia from Ananias; but the proofs are much too speculative.

The subsequent fortunes of Q are unknown, unless traces of it can be found in some of the apocryphal gospels (e.g. the gospel Kaff ‘Epalovs). It suffered a sea-change, when it was employed by Matthew; but this incorporation did not destroy its in-dependent circulation. John the presbyter seems still to have known it at the beginning of the second century, and, if Luke wrote then, he is another witness to its existence as a separate document during the last decades of the first century. § 5. <2 and Mark.—Any reconstruction of Q exhibits a certain amount of parallelisms (cp. list in Burkitt’s Transmission, 147-166) between it and Mk., which may be held to imply a literary dependence of Mk. on Q. So, e.g., B. Weiss,* van Rhijn (Theol. Studi'en, 1897, 432 b), Titius (Th St. 284-331), Resch (Paulinismus, pp. 544b), Badham, Jolley (op. cit. pp. 113 b), Bousset, Barth, J. Weiss, O. Holtzmann, Loisy, von growing light thrown on the sources of ancient Oriental myths, can doubt any longer that, except for a few incidents in the narratives of the Passion which probably possess adequate historical attestation, the outward life of Jesus is a tissue of legends. But what these legends leave untouched, and what is never found in their mythological counterparts and predecessors, is the series of sayingsand speeches of Jesus handed down to us in the synoptic gospels.” * The rejection of the Ur-Marcus theories usually leads to the conclusion that Mark employed Q (cp. B. Weiss, Quellen d^s Lukas-Evglims, 134 f., 190, and Spracke in Oxford Studies, pp. 166 f.).

Soden, Bacon, Nicolardot, and Montefiore (i. pp. xxxvi f.).* This hypothesis, however, even with the qualifications which Loisy and others have introduced into Weiss’ statement, is upon the whole to be rejected, (a) The theory assumes that Q had a monopoly of such sayings. But the tradition of the churches was far too widespread to permit any such restriction of logia. Sayings of Jesus, such as come into question here, must have been circulating in many directions; it is contrary to all probabili-ties that they were drawn into the single channel or canal of Q, so that any other writer had to derive them from this source. In the nature of the case there must have been a considerable amount of material common to the Petrine tradition and the Matthan Logia; it is to adopt an ultra-literary method if we explain any parallels (e.g. 421-22 67-18 987.426. 1042 1122-25) between the reproduction of the former in Mark and the latter by the hypothesis of borrowing, especially as Q itself must have gone back partially to the Petrine tradition of the sayings (cp. Loisy, i. 114). (b) No satisfactory explanation is offered why Mark made such scanty use of Q. Several of its sayings would have been perfectly relevant to his purpose; we can hardly imagine a Christian evangelist ignoring words like those of Mt n27, or assuming that because his readers already possessed Q, it was superfluous to repeat its contents, and even the hypothesis that he only knew a shorter form of Q fails to meet this objection, (c) In no instance is it absolutely necessary, either on the score of substance or of style, to assume that Mk. borrowed from Q. Thus passages like 17-8.10-11.12-13 may quite as well be summary echoes of oral tradition as of Q (cp. Wernle, Syn. Frage, 208-212; Scott-Moncrieff, Mark, 78-83; Stanton, GHD. ii. 109 f.). It is very doubtful if stories like 140-45 21-12 914f. and sayings like 71f. really go back to Q at all; certainly the small apocalypse of 135f. does not. In some passages (e.g. 322f.) it is even possible that the canonical Mk. has been affected by Mt. or Lk.,t * Julicher {Einl. 229-323) admits that the common element of Mk. and Q is extremely scanty, and hesitates to dogmatise, on the ground that the compositeness and accretion of Q—at once older and younger than Mk.—render any judgment on the latter’s indebtedness extremely precarious. Harnack, who used to be sound on this matter (cp. BNT. ii. 225 b), has recently made slight concessions to B. Weiss (cp. TLZ., 1908, 463 b, “at least Mark knew the circle in which Q, or large portions of it, existed orally, before it was committed to writing, and existed substantially in the same form "). t So Wellhausen for 811-12. 10. while in others (e.g. the parables 41-20. 26f- with 521f. 948f. 1010-12) Mt. and Lk. may have borrowed directly from Mk. instead of from Q. When allowance is made for these factors or possibilities, as well as for accidental coincidences, the data for any literary relation between Mk. and Q practically dis-appear. The abstract possibility must indeed be left open, that the author of Mk. (though not the Ur-Marcus) was acquainted with some form of Q; he could hardly fail to Perhaps even he intended, by his re-editing of the ur-Marcus, to supple-ment Q, just as the author of Mt. afterwards fused Mk. and Q into a more rounded unity. Otherwise, it would not be easy to understand why he casually quoted it, perhaps from memory —which is the very utmost that can be inferred from the relevant data.

When the Matthan Logia are regarded as composed solely of sayings couched in the form of the Semitic Wisdom lore, to the exclusion not only of historical narrative but also of the parables and larger discourses or Halacha of Jesus (Briggs, JBL., 1904, 191-210), it is naturally easier to find traces of their use in Mark, i.e. in passages, e.g., 221-22. 23-29 421-25 91 941-50, which have been added to the original Mk. by the later editor. But this limitation of Q’s scope is untenable. § 6. Matthew and Luke.—There is no reason a priori why Mt. should not have been one of Lk.’s sources as well as Mk. Chronologically,! this is possible. Still, the coincident variations of Lk. and Mt., as against Mk., and especially their agreements, are not to be explained by their use of the Ur-Marcus (see above, pp. 192 f.), nor by Lk.’s use of Mt., but for the most part by the operation of the same desire to smooth out the Marcan text. In some cases they are accidental coincidences; in others, they are due to oral tradition; a large number came from Q (especially the parts more or less parallel to Mk.) or from common sources; and finally, allowance has to be made for later conformations i t On the theory that Mt. is later, Lk. has even been held to form one of its sources (Hitzig, Volkmar, Pfleiderer).

* The later Mark is dated, especially as the edition of an ur-Marcus, the more difficult it is to deny the possibility, and even the probability, that the writer knew Q, and to explain how it could be merely a subsidiary source.

I Assimilation took place between the texts of Mt. and Lk., during the period preceding the evayyiXiov TeTp&p.op<f>ov, more readily than in the case of Mk., which did not circulate with equal popularity (cp. Lake in TS. vii. 3, p. Ivii, and—for a discussion of later harmonistic corruptions—Burgon and Miller’s Causes of Corrtiption of Tradit. Text of Gospels, 1896, pp. 89 f.). of the text {e.g. Lk 2262). The infancy-narratives are inde-pendent (see below), and the passion-story in Luke does not exhibit any traces of adherence to the specifically Matthan narrative. The data in the intervening sections are upon the whole fairly covered by the common use of Q and by the presence of Luke’s special source (sources). The hypothesis is not to be dismissed hastily, but a scrutiny of the evidence leads to a verdict of “non proven.” At most, the claim is* that Mt. was merely a subsidiary and secondary source; but even this is less probable than the similar relationship urged between Mk. and Q.

Fullest recent statement of the case for Lk.’s use of Mt., by E. Simons, Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthaus benutzt? (Bonn, 1880). Similarly Stockmeyer (ZSchw., 1884, 144 f.), E. Y. Hincks (JBL., 1891, 92-156), Holtzmann, Wendt, Halevy, Soltau (PM., 1907, 185 f.), etc. The opposite case is put best by Wernle (Syn. Frage, 40-61), Roehrich (op. cit. 179-184), B. Weiss (Die Quellen des Lukas-Evglms, pp. 30f., 39, 56, 61 f., 73, 222, etc.), Burton (pp. 3of.), Stanton (GHD. ii. 140 f.), and Zahn (INT. iii. 107 f.), followed by Schmiedel (EBi. 1860-1862), Harnack, Jiilicher, etc. § 7. Other sources of the Synoptic Gospels.—(a) A written (6 dva-yivdaKMv voeGut, Mk 1314 = Mt 2415) fly-leaf of early Christian apocalyptic prophecy, or ‘ small apocalypse,’ consisting of material set in the ordinary triple division common to apocalyptic literature (cp. Apoc 912 1114): pxh d8vov: Mk 137-8 = Mt 246-8 = Lk 2 x9'11. eXcis: Mk 1314-20 = Mt 2415-22 = (Lk 2120'24). irapovalax Mk 1334-27 = Mt 2429-31 = (Lk 2125-87. 28). The details of the re-constructed apocalypse are not quite certain,! but its general contour is unmistakable: it parts, as a whole, readily from the context and forms an intelligible unity, whatever were its original size and aim. If the introductory passage Mk 13s'6 (= Mt 244-5) is added (with Weiffenbach, Keim, and others), probably Mk 1321-23 (= Mt 2423-25) should also be incorporated (as, e.g., by Keim, Weizsacker, and Spitta), * “ Seine Bercksichtigung des Mt. ist also keine systematische, plan voile, durch bestimmte Gesichtspunkte geregelte; vielmehr milssen wir unsere Auffassung dahin formuliren, dass der kanonische Mt. fur Lc. ein Neben-quelle” (Simons, op. cit. p. 108). + Wendt (Mk 1 37-92. 14-20. 24-27. 80 f), Weiffenbach and Pfleiderer (Mk 137-92. 14-20. 21-27), Loisy (Mk 136-8. 14.17-20.24-31), Schmiedel (Mk 137-98 24-27. 30), Wellhausen (Mk 137-8. 12. 14-22. 24-27), Holtzmann (Mk 135-0. 14since Mk 1321 takes up Mk 130. In Mk. it stands apart from even the parabolic collection in 4 as the only long speech put into the mouth of Jesus; Mt seems to preserve it in a more primitive or archaic form,* though he uses part of it (1017-22) in an earlier connection; while Luke has coloured it by the light of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, and the delay in the Parousia.f Luke, however, seems only to have known it as a component part of Mk. Whatever may be the historic value of the sayings in the apocalypse, it is a literary product, not the record of what Jesus said on this or any other occasion, but a tract of the apocalyptic propaganda. “In a private conversation with two or three disciples, Jesus would not speak in a sustained style of eschatological commonplace.” + The period of the apocalypse is the seventh decade, when the approaching fall of Jerusalem seemed to herald the end. The fly-leaf is not a uaticinium ex euentu, for the Christians of the capital did not fly to the mountains, but across the Jordan to Pella (kar TIa xpyopv, Eusebius declares, H. E. iii. 5. 3); no appearance of false messiahs or prophets is known to have taken place then, and the Danielic prediction of the SAvyua Ths epnudoeos is coloured not by contemporary incidents, but by eschatological tradition. The apocalypse was probably written by a Palestinian Jewish Christian (so, e.g., Colani, Renan, * The Matthan (243) definition of r ouelov (r^s ohs rapovolas Kal ovvreXelas rov aiwvos) is quite in keeping with the eschatological programme of this gospel. t Spitta (SK., 1909, 384-401), with his usual predilection for Luke, reconstructs the eschatological speech of Jesus entirely from the Lucan version, where, he holds (like Goguel, L? Ivangile de Marc, 228 f.), it is most accurately preserved (in Lk 215-9.12-15.18-24.10-11. 230-27. 29-31). Those who, like B. Weiss and Bacon, reject the “small apocalypse ” theory outright, make the whole speech an agglutination of sayings from Q and editorial insertions,—a theory which does not work out naturally, even in its less analytic forms (Stevens, NTTh. 152 f.; Briggs, Messiah of Gospels, 132-165; Fiebig, PM., 1904, 24 f.; Zimmermann, Hist. Wert der altesten Ueberlieferung von der Gesch. Jesu im Marcusevgim, 1905, 138 f.). The alternative view, that the whole speech is a later composition, is re-stated by Clemen in his review (TLZ., 1902, 523-525) of Weiffenbach’s recent essay on Die Frage der Wiederkunft Jesu nochmals kurz erortert (1901). The fullest account of the retrospective element in Luke’s treatment of the tradition, after A.D. 70, is given in Sharman’s Teaching ofJesus about the Future (1909), pp. 150 f. + Muirhead, The Terms Life and Death in the Old and New Testament (1908), 123 f. Dr. Muirhead’s adhesion to this theory is notable, as in his earlier work on The Eschatology of Jesus (1904) he had refused to accept it.

Hausrath, Holtzmann, Keim, Wernle, Wendt, Stanton); its incorporation in the evangelic tradition was due to the existence of genuine eschatological sayings which received a fresh accent and emphasis at the period, and to the vivid zest for apocalyptic ideas in the Palestinian church of that age.

Started by Colani {Jisus Christ et les Croyances messianiques de son Temps,2 1864, pp. 201 f.) and Weiffenbach (in Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1873, pp. 69 f., 135 f.), this hypothesis of the small apocalypse has been adopted by writers on the messianic consciousness of Jesus, like Baldensperger and Schwartzkopff, as well as by numerous editors and critics of the synoptic gospels, including Vischer {TU. ii. 3, p. 9 n.), Jacobsen,* Pfleiderer {Jahrbuck fur deutsche Theol., 1868, 134-149, Ure? i. 379 f.), Simons (p. 74), Mangold, Weizsacker {Untersuch. I2if., AA. ii. 22 f.), Renan (iv. chs. iii. andxii., v. pp. 123-125), Carpenter {First Three Gospels, pp. 222, 322), Cone {Gospel Criticism, pp. 282 f.), O. Schmiedel, and N. Schmidt {Prophet of Nazareth, pp. 132 k). It is now a sententia recepta of synoptic criticism, as may be seen from the expositions by Wendt {Lehre Jesu, i. 10 k), Spitta {Urc. ii.

178 f:), Hausrath (iv. 246k), Keim (v. 235 f.), Holtzmann {HC. i. 96 f., 167 f., NTTh. i. 327-328), Menzies {Earliest Gospel, 232 f.), O Holtzmann {Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. 456 f.), Charles {Crit. History of Eschatology, 324 f.), Wernle {Syn. Frage, pp. 212-214), Klostermann, Loisy (ii. 393 f.), and Montefiore. Among recent adherents are to be named Steudel {Der religiose Jugendunterricht, 1896), Cheyne {EBi. i. 21-23), Schweitzer {Das Abendmahl, ii. 95), Wellhausen, Muirhead {Life and Death in the Old and New Test. 124 k), Schmiedel {EBi. ii. 1857), and Stanton {GHD. ii. 116 f.). Further details in G. L. Cary {op. cit. pp. 274 k), Julicher {Einl. 282 k), Burkitt {Gospel History and its Transmission, 62 f.), and Moffatt {HNT. 637-640).

The hypothesis of a special source for the birth-narratives in Mt. and Lk. has no basis in the internal evidence. Three hypotheses of literary criticism are open: the two narratives are either (i.) derived from a common pre-canonical source; or (ii.) dependent on each other, the one correcting and amplifying the other; or (iii.) of independent origin. The superiority of (iii.) to (ii.) is discussed below. As for (i.), the serious objections to any form of it which has been hitherto adduced, whether by Resch {Kindheitsevglm nach Lucas u. Matthaeus in TU. x. 5, Leipzig, 1897; Gk. version of a Hebrew original) or by L. Conrady {die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu, 1900: source = Gk. * Jacobsen {Protest. Kirchenzeitung, 1886, 536 f.) and N. Schmidt contend that this apocalypse was the medium through which the term Son of Man, as a messianic title, passed into Mark. The latter critic {op. cit. 85 k, 132 k, 231 f.) ascribes the small apocalypse and the ground-work of Mt 23s4’38 2531. to a Wisdom of God (Lk I 140) or Aramaic apocalypse. version * of Heb. Protevangelium Jacobi), are the sharp divergence of the genealogical tables, and the fact that, apart from the tradition of the virgin-birth, the agreement of the narratives (e.g. the birthplace, names of parents, Nazareth residence, and Davidic descent) require only the data of the synoptic tradition to account for their origin. Where Mt. and Lk. agree elsewhere, the contour of the agreements is much closer than can be made out in their birth-narratives. Furthermore, the prolix and fanciful Protevangelium Jacobi betrays, to any trained literary sense, the later elaborations of the Christian imagination, with its somewhat crude and even coarse expansion of details in the canonical descriptions. As for Resch’s theory of a Hebrew book oj the generations oj Jesus the messiah (cp. Mt i1 JJhos yevoeos ’I. X.), furnished with a genealogy like the book of Ruth, which, when translated into Greek, formed the source of both Matthew and Luke (the latter omitting, owing to haste and lack of space, what Mt. had already included), the differences between the two canonical narratives are enough to upset any such arguments, and the whole hypothesis is beset by fanciful and arbitrary presuppositions, such as the use of the source in the Prologue to the Fourth gospel (op. tit. pp. 243 f.) and its employment, in a different Gk. recension, by Justin. The earliest traces of extra-canonical sources are to be found in the fancy of the star in Ignatius, and in Justin’s allusion to the birth of Jesus in a cave near Bethlehem (Dial. 78), the latter trait occurring in the Gospel of James. Justin’s access t to extra-canonical sources of information is evident from Apol. 133 (os ot &TTop.vr]p.ovev<ravTf.s Tvra TOL TTepi TOV (TlOTijpOS T)fJL<OV ‘Inoov Xpuorov 2laav), but is more probable that the bizarre conception of the cave was a trait added from contemporary mythology to the canonical tradition, than that the latter was modified from an ampler and more circumstantial account. The simple precedes the elaborate in the evolution of tradition, and the Gospel of James has the * Based on the Egyptian myth of Isis, cast in a Hebraised form (cp. SK., 1889, 728-784). He (SIC., 1904, 176-226) also regards Mt 213f. as an excerpt from some independent account (moulded on pagan lines) of the flight to Egypt, which the apocryphal gospels have preserved more fully. t Justin admits that those who rejected the virgin-birth were still Christians (r TOV rj^erepov vovs. Dial. 48); but this does not necessarily imply that the idea was as yet a comparative novelty (Hillmann in J PT., 1891, pp. 255 f.). stamp neither of originality nor of unity, despite Conrady’s pleadings to the contrary (pp. 207 f.).* While most of the apostolic fathers ignore the virgin-birth, even when it naturally lay in their way to use it in treating the incarnation, Ignatius and Aristides (in the Syriac version) allude to it as an accepted article of the Christian belief, the former in a series of passages (Eph. 182 191, Magn.11 etc.) which plainly presuppose a gospel-source corresponding to our present Matthew (cp. Smyrn. i1 with Mt 317),t the latter also in a sentence which implies the use of the canonical birth-stories (Apol. 2: “God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them " [i.e. Christians]). Both Ignatius and Aristides, like Melito afterwards, seem to fuse the Johannine idea of the incarnation with the synoptic birth-stories. J The employment of a Wisdom-source has been already noticed (p. 33); but, apart from this and the small apocalypse, the other sources of Mt. and Lk. are simply the special documents which, in the latter particularly, may be detected by the processes of literary analysis. §8. Date of Gospels (EBi. 1826-1840; A. Wright, Composi-tion of Gospels, 128 f.).—The earliest tradition upon the date of the gospels is that of Irenaeus (iii. 1. 1; Eus. H. E. v. 8. 2-3), who means to give chronological information on the point.§ In this passage (cp. pp. 15b) oov, unless it is due to a misinter-pretation of 2 P i15 (Blass, Acta Apost. p. 5), refers to the death of Peter and Paul, not (Grabe, Harvey, Comely) to their departure from Rome. The allusion is significant; for, as tradition tended to throw back the origin of apostolic writings as far as possible, the words of Irenaeus give a terminus a quo for the composition of * Cp. Hilgenfeld’s exhaustive refutation (Z WT., 1901, 186 f.), with the criticisms of Holtzmann (TLZ., 1901, 135 f.) and T. A. Hoben (The Virgin Birth, Chicago, 1905, pp. 12 f., also his articles on the ante-Nicene con-ception, etc., in AJT., 1902, 473 f., 709 f.). + The attempts of Hillmann to explain away the language of Ignatius as inconsistent with Lk 134-35 323, or to regard eev. CK Trapdevov (Smyrn. I1) as interpolated, are unavailing. The virgin-birth undoubtedly belonged to the Kerugma reproduced by Ignatius, though it is impossible to infer the details of the historical tradition which he presupposed. + Hence the difficulty of agreeing with Usener (Relig. Untersuchungen, i. 92 f.) that Carpokrates and the Ebionites denied the virgin-birth because it was absent from the gospels in their possession. § This is denied by Dom Chapman (fTS., 1905, 563-569) and Harnack (BNT. iv. 130 f.), that the clause, rov Ulrpov Kal rov Ilaov tv ‘Pun v’>ayye\i^op.tvwv KTX., is a simultaneous reference.

Mk. and Mt. It is corroborated by the fact that both writers incorporate ‘ the small apocalypse,’ which cannot well be dated earlier than the seventh decade of the first century. Apart from this, the evidence is purely internal.

As the logion of Mk 91 is substantially reproduced in Mt 1628 and Lk 927, it does not necessarily imply that Mk. was written during the first generation of disciples. On the other hand, the editing of the small apocalypse shows that the crisis of the siege was recent, and that the writer wishes to distinguish between this seeming end and the real end. The gospel must first be preached to all nations (1310); then, and then only, would the Parousia arrive. Meantime, the original husbandmen of the vineyard had been destroyed, and the vineyard given to others. The internal evidence of Mk. thus corroborates upon the whole the view that it represents a final version of the Ur-Marcus com-posed shortly after the events of A.D. 60-70.

Since Mt. used not the Ur-Marcus but Mk. in substantially its present form, the terminus a quo of its composition is A.D. 70. The phrase in 278 and 2815 (cos Ths aypcepov, p.exPL Ths arip-epov) tallies with the general impression that a considerable interval has elapsed since the days of Jesus, during which the church has become organised and belief developed. The archaic character of the main source and the strongly marked eschatology of the gospel are of less moment for the question of its date than the final editor’s anticipation of a prolonged period (cp. 2820) during which the Gentile mission was to proceed apace. Mt. falls then between A.D. 70 and no, since it was certainly known to Ignatius (passages and proofs in GHD. i. 27 f.; NTA. 76 f.), although the fact that Ignatius employs and quotes another evangelic source with equal belief, shows how far our canonical gospels yet were from a position of undisputed authority within the churches. The dubious nature of the supposed allusions in Hermas is generally recognised (cp. GHD. i. 72 f.; NT A. 117 f.), but in any case the terminus ad quern, as fixed by the traces of the gospel in the second century, is c. A.D. 110.

Efforts are still made to date Mt. earlier than A.D. 70, but without success. It is a mistake, for example, to suppose that there would be no point in preserving eschatological predictions like those of the small apocalypse after A.D. 70. Many Christians in the second century and later looked forward to a literal fulfilment, e.g., of a prophecy like that of Mt 2415 (cp. Iren. adv. Haer. v. 25. 2). Belser, again, uses the anti-Pharisaic element to prove that the gospel was composed under the stress of the hard times which befell Palestinian Christianity, when Herod Agrippa l. made common cause with the Pharisees (Ac 121). But even if the historical influence were proved, it would not determine the date of the gospel as contemporary; the sharp e.g. {a) by Patrizi, Bisping, Schegg, and Reithmayr; (b) by Hug, Maier, Schanz, and Jacquier. t J. H. Wilkinson {Four Lectures on Early History of Gospels, 1898) places Mt. in A.D. 70-75 (Mk. =65-70, Lk. =78-93), with an editing of all three in Asia Minor (A.D. 106-115). + In Hora Evangelica (ed. 1892, pp. 49-179, 252 k), T. R. Birks dates Luke in A.D. 51 and Matthew (pp. 292 k) in A.D. 42. memories of it might have lingered and reappeared decades later. Belser s corroborative arguments do not amount to much, e.g. the reliance on the tradition that Matthew left Jerusalem in A.D. 42 and published his gospel before his departure, when the misconceptions of Christians in the church who were more Pharisees and Jews than anything else (Ac II1 1516) Still formed the primary object of the gospel. Allen {ET. xxi. 439-444, xxii. 349 f.) similarly argues that the alleged 1 catholic ’ and ecclesiastical allusions are not incompatible with its composition at Antioch c. A.D. 50; but the literary dependence on Mk. invalidates all such hypotheses.

* The patristic hypotheses of {a) A.D. 43 (Jerome), and (6) A.D. 64-67 (Iren., Clem. Alex.), are still maintained by some Roman Catholic writers,

Luke’s date depends not only on his use of Mk., which is certain, and his use of Mt., which is extremely uncertain, but on the relations between his work and Josephus, on which see pp. 29-31. The above table will give some idea of the various periods which are assigned to it and to the other two gospels.

While the gospels of Mark and Matthew, together with the two volumes by Luke, which make up the historical literature within the NT Canon, were not composed till the last quarter of the first century, and while all of them, particularly the synoptic gospels, are composite, their sources reach back to the period prior to A.D. 70. This covers not simply their traditions but their written materials. Q, or the common source of Mt. and Lk., was certainly composed by the seventh decade of the century, probably even earlier; Mk., in its original shape and source, dates from the former period. Thus the roots of the historical literature lie in the same period as the correspondence of Paul, though the flowers bloom side by side with the later pastorals and homilies. It is of still more importance that the two main roots of the subsequent evangelic tradition are deep in the primitive Palestinian circle, and that neither shows any distinct influence of Pauline tendencies.

The primitive epistolary literature of the early church was, like the primitive ceramic art of Hellas, comparatively private. Upon vases intended for the household’s use, painting first lavished its grace and skill; and in letters for the quieter purposes of intercourse, the literary spirit was employed by Christians before the aim and scope of it became enlarged. In the nature of things, the use of epistles, taken over from Judaism, especially Alexandrian Judaism (e.g. Jer 291. 25. 31, epp. of Jerem. and Baruch, also 2 Mac 11 10),* preceded evangelic * The famous epistle of Aristeas to Philokrates has been called “a predecessor, in form, of the larger NT epistles.”

The former were occasional and immediate in character, the latter—Adyta, Sinynoes, aTroixvrujLovev/xaTa—imply a rather more advanced epoch, when the early advent of Jesus was no longer a momentary expectation, and when his life had assumed greater importance and prominence. Nevertheless, by A.D. 50 at least, such notes and collections may have begun to exist in rough form. The current was, at any rate, setting un-mistakably in that direction. By the time of Paul’s later literary activity, written evangelic narratives were in existence here and there, especially within the primitive Palestinian churches. The primary need for these is to be found in the fact that a new generation was rising, who were dependent for their acquaintance with the history of Jesus upon a fast-diminishing company of eye-witnesses, in the rapid extension and consolidation of the Christian communities, and even in the mission activities of the Palestinian disciples.t To these impulses there must also be added another which sprang from them before long, namely, the need of translating the tradition from the original Aramaic vernacular into Greek. That attempts must have been soon made to meet such requirements is inherently probable, and it is corroborated by the surviving gospels. Even the earliest of them leaves no impression of tentativeness on the mind; there is very little of that comparative lack of precision and definite outline which is often felt in the pioneers of any department in literature. They represent the midsummer, not the spring, of their literary cycle. The subject had been already—perhaps often—handled, even before Mark’s gospel took its present shape, although these earlier narratives, like the sources and authorities of Tacitus in the Annates, have disappeared. Luke’s preface proves that our first three gospels are ‘first’ for us, not absolutely ‘first.’ They were the best, but they were + Cp. Heinrici, Der litterarische Charakier der neutesi. Schriften (1908), pp. 23 f., and Sanday in ERE ii. 573 f. neither the only nor the earliest narratives. It is probable that the literature, of which they are the survivors, and which they seem to have speedily antiquated, began to rise as far back as the sixth decade; and, upon any reasonable criticism of the synoptists, their sources must have partially existed in written form by the opening of the seventh decade. " Mox etiam libros de Jesu composites esse puto, vel in eosdem usus vel Theophilis (qui profecto multi fuerunt) destinatos, ut intra viginti fere annos a Christi excessu jam copia quaedam talium librorum exstaret. Erat enim aetas ilia litterarum plena, novaque religio minime intra illiteratam plebem manebat” (Blass, Acta Ap. p. 5). There is evidence sufficient, at any rate, to prove that during the Pauline period, prior to the homilies and pastorals, the early church contained the embryonic phases of what eventually was shaped into the canonical gospels.

* The collections of parables, stories, and sayings in the gospels find their nearest analogy, upon the other hand, in the Midrashic literature of Palestinian Judaism. “ Die Evangelien, die wir besitzen, sind in griechischer Sprache bearbeitete Midrashini” (G. Klein, ZNW., 1904, 144 f., ‘Zur Erluterung der Evglien aus Talmud und Midrasch’). Parts of them certainly are closer in form and spirit to midrashic pieces than to Epictetus or Plutarch. This is the burden of P. Fiebig’s pamphlet on ‘Die Aufgaben der neutestamentlichen Forschung in der Gegenwart’ (1909, especially pp. 10 f.). '

The subsequent composition of the gospels, which were contemporary with the later homilies, had the same ends of edification in view, and this helps to explain their structure and general characteristics. Euclides in the Theatetus (143) describes the way in which he recorded the conversations between Socrates and Theatetus. On returning from Athens, he jotted down at once some notes of what Socrates had told him (P/papd/j.-qv vrouvuara), and subsequently wrote on from memory. Finally, whenever he re-visited Athens, he would ask Socrates about anything he had forgotten, and then make corrections in his manuscript. None of the synoptic gospels can claim any such direct relation to Jesus. The earliest of the sources upon which they draw were not composed till about twenty years after he died, and no one took down the words of Jesus during his life-time. Retentiveness of memory, however, and the needs of the Christian halacha in the churches, helped to carry many of these words through the preliminary period of oral tradition. But even when the earliest literary products rose, e.g. Q and the Ur-Marcus, they were not biographical. Still less were the subsequent gospels.* None of them is the direct transcript of an apostle’s memories, even by another hand. Their genre is not that of biographies so much as of memoirs which were written ex TloTews eis ToTv, in order to convey and apply certain Christian beliefs about the person of the Lord Jesus, the * Cp. Harnack, ‘die Evangelien ’ {Preuss.Jahrb., 1904, cxv. pp. 209 f.). main literary difference being that the gospels, unlike, e.g., the Memorabilia of Xenophon, preserve an impersonal tone. The writer does not come forward in the course of the narrative. Even in the case of the Third gospel, where tradition has done most, not only for the question of the authorship, but also for the personal traits and character of the author, the standpoint is hardly less objective than in its predecessors. This apparent absence of personal colouring points back to one cause. It is not due to the overmastering impression of the contents, nor even to the literary self-suppression which Aristotle praises in Homer. The authors’ names are not concealed as were those of the Gottes Freunde in the fourteenth century, lest pride of authorship should form a spiritual peril. These anonymous gospels represent to a large extent the final shape given to collections of evangelic matter which had been previously composed by and for members belonging to the general body of the Christian societies. They are communal in spirit and shape—even Luke’s is; they resemble the pastorals and epistles in this, that they are a direct outcome of living inter-course and mutual service within the Christian communities. HapdSoats and pMprvptov are the two words that characterise their contents, for all the free handling of their materials and the creative pressure, naive and deliberate, of their tendencies.

(B) Mark

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions (for the patristic and mediaeval, cp. Swete, pp. cxivf.)—P. Poussin’s Catena (Rome, 1673); Elsner (Commentarius, 1773); Matthaei’s Catena (Moscow, 1775); K. Fritzsche (Leipzig, 1830); Olshausen (1853, Eng. tr. 1863); J. A. Alexander3 (New York, 1863); Lange (1861, Eng. tr. 1866); Petter (London, 1861); A. Klostermann (1867); F. C. Cook (Speaker’s Comm. 1878); E. H. Plumptre (Ellicott’s Com. 1879); P. Schanz (1881)*; Fillion (Paris, 1883); T. M. Lindsay (Edin. n. d.); J. Morison, A Practical Commentary (Edin. 1889); Maclear (CGT, 1893); Knabenbauer (Paris, 1894); Tiefenthal (Munster, 1894); E. P. Gould (ICC. 1896); 95 f.; Hirzel’s Der Dialog, i. 141 f., and above (p. 44 b). raised by this feature of the gospels, see the interesting correspondence of Augustine and Faustus (especially epp. xxxii., xxxiii.).

1 Justin’s phrase (drrouvnuoveuara) for the gospels is the term used by Moiragenes for his work on Apollonius (Origen, c. Cels. vi. 41); on its applicability to the Christian gospels, e.g., see Usener’s Relig. Untersuchungen,

2 For some early difficulties (quod nec ab ipso scriptum constat nec ab eius apostolis, sed longo post tempore a quibusdam incerti nominis uiris)

Weiss (—Meyer9, 1901); A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (1901)*; S. D. F. Salmond (CB. n. d.); Wellhausen (1903)*; V. Rose (Paris, 1904); A. Merx, Die Evglien Markus u. Lukas (1905); W. P. Drew (Boston, 1905); Du Buisson (London, 1906); Baljon (1906)*; E. Klostermann {HBNT. 1907); W. Kelly (ed. 1907); H. B. Swete2 (1908) *; B. W. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story (1909)*; Wohlenberg {ZK. 1910); Lagrange (Paris, 1911).

(3 ) Studies (i.) general:—Saunier, Ueber die Quellen d. Evghums des Marcus (1825); Michelsen, Het Evangelic van Markus (1867); P. Rohr-bach, Der Schluss der Markusevglins, der Vier-Evglien Kanon und die kleinasiatischen Presbyter (Berlin, 1894)*; Du Buisson, The Origin and Peculiar Characteristics of the Gospel of St. Mark (1896); Hadorn, ‘die Entstehung des Mk-Evglms auf Grund der syn. Vergleichung aufs neue untersucht’ {BFT. ii., 1898); S. D. F. A. Salmond {DB. iii. 248-262); J. Weiss, das dlteste Evglm, ein Beitrag zum Verstandniss des Markus-Evglms und der dltesten evang. Ueberlief erung*; (1903); Jiilicher {PRE xii. 295!.); K. F. A. Lincke, ‘Jesus in Kapernaum’ {Ein Versuch zur Erklarung des Markus-Evglms, 1904; dual account, historical and legendary, in 121-28); Loisy {RHL., 1904, 513-527); E. D. Burton, Studies in Gospel of Mark (1904); A. S. Barnes {Monthly Review, Sept. Oct. 1904, JTS., 1905, 187!., 356 f.); R. A. Hoffmann, Das Marcus-Evgim und seine Quellen (Konigsberg, 1904); B. Weiss, die Geschichtlichkeit des Markus-Evglms (1905); E. Wendling, Ur-Markus, Versuch einer Wieder-herstellung der ditest. Mitteilungen des Lebens Jesu (1905); A. Mller, Geschichtskerne in den Evglien nach moderner Forschungen, 1905 [Con-servative reply to Wernle, Wrede, and J. Weiss]; H. Zimmermann, Der Historischer Wert d. dlteste Ueberlieferung von der Geschichte Jesu im Marcus-Evglim (1905); A. J. Maclean {DCG, ii. 120-138)*; E. Wendling, Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evglms: Philologische Untersuchungen (1908); M. Goguel, D Ivangile de Marc et ses rapports avec aux de Mathieu et de Luc (Paris, 1909); (ii.) on special points:—C. L. Reboul {Paulula, oder Einiges Wenige zur genauenen Erforschung d. Marcus-Evgim, Gotha, 1876); Bakhuyzen, van Manen, and Callenfels, Beoordeling van de conjecturen Mk. en Lk. (1885); Blass, ‘Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Markus’ {BFT., 1899, 3); W. Wrede, Des Messiasgeheimnis in der Evglien, Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verstdndnis des Marcus-Evglms (1901)*; Spitta, ' Lucken im Markus-evangelium' {Urc. iii. 2. 109-138); Burkitt, Gospel History and its Trans-mission (1906), pp. 33-104; H. J. Holtzmann, ARW. x. 18-40, 161-200 (‘Die Marcus-Controverse in ihrer heutigen Gestalt’)*, and B. W. Bacon {JBL., 1910, 41-60). § 1. Outline.—The gospel1 opens with a brief summary (11-13) of John the Baptist’s mission, introducing the baptism and tempta-tion of Jesus. Then begins the first of the two large sections of narrative, describing the Galilean (114-950) and the Judan (10-13) ministry. The former is divided into an account of the 1 On the score of the opening words, Blass {BFT. iii. 3, p. 52) denies that Mk. is a literary work at all. “The book is not aoyypauua, but a bTrbp.vrip.a, i.e. a Commentarius, like Caesar’s CommentariiP work in Eastern Galilee (114-723), of which Kapharnaum usually forms the headquarters, and a briefer description of work in Northern Galilee (724-950). Returning from the latter district to Kapharnaum (933f.), Jesus then passes southward into Judaea (10-13); and this section closes with his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (111-27), his controversies with the local authorities (1127—1244), and his final message of doom and judgment on the city and nation (is1’37).

Mark’s gospel plunges at once in medias res. No account of the birth either of John or of Jesus is furnished at the outset; all we get is a brief and even meagre notice (i1’13) of John’s ministry lv T ^pv^ and his baptism of Jesus, followed by a mention of the subsequent temptation of our Lord. The writer hurries on to depict the Galilean ministry.

No new section of the gospel is to be found at 8271, which is merely the prelude to 831f- 926. 930f, i.e. to the close of the Galilean ministry; and the confession of Peter at Csarea Philippi does not occupy in Mark the large and pivotal place which Mt. and Lk. both assign to it. (6) It is un-necessary to suppose that the writer has blurred (in 614f.) a vital crisis in the fortunes of Jesus, as though Herod’s hostility to Jesus, as to John (in Josephus), really drove him into a safe retirement (so Rauch, ZNW., 1902, 303-308; Wellhausen, Einl. 48 and on Mark 683, and Loisy, i. 90). In this event, the evangelist would have obliterated the flight of Jesus before Herod. Rauch corroborates his view by adducing the Syriac text of Mk 630 which connects the ‘messengers’ with the disciples of John, the course of things being that Jesus and John’s adherents retired together (629-31a. 45f). But Mt.’s treatment of Mk. at this point (1412) is too artificial to be claimed as a witness to some more primitive tradition, and the general reconstruction is too hypothetical to be trustworthy.

The second part of the gospel (101-1387) describes the Judsean ministry, undertaken with the shadow of his death at Jerusalem resting upon his soul (931). The route taken lies on the eastern side of the Jordan, and Jesus passes through Jericho to Bethany (1111). Hitherto he has only met the Jewish authori-ties defensively in controversy, but now he takes the initia-tive, following up his triumphal entry into the capital by driving the money-changers and traders out of the temple (1115f). Further controversy with the authorities follows (1127-1212 1 213-17 1218-27 1228-37); then a prophetic prediction of the future (1 31-37) marks the close and climax of his public teaching. The remaining part of the book narrates mainly the circumstances of his arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial (141-1 547), breaking off abruptly with an account of how three women, coming to anoint his corpse, found the tomb empty and saw an angel who bade them and the rest of the disciples return to Galilee: there shall you see him, as he told you (161-8).

The closing words are explained by Abbott (Diat. 527 f.) from the misrendering of the Hebrew original, as though Mk.’s said nothing and Mt. and Lk.’s carried word to rest on a confusion between *7 and 1? such as is found in LXX of Jer 1819, while they feared (= Mt. and Lk. ’s beheld) implies a similar and equally natural (cp. LXX Job 37s4, Is 1612 etc.) confusion between a and nan. This is plausible, but it is not the only possible explanation, and the other evidence for a Hebrew original is not cogent.

The chronological sequence of the gospel is better marked in its large sections than in details. The mission of John the Baptist is described without any note of its period but it closed (i14) before the mission of Jesus began. Even in what follows, apart from the reiterated ebes and Kal (sometimes both together), Mk.’s arrangement is neither consecutive nor coherent (cp. 616f.); occasionally he dates a saying or incident on the Sabbath (121 223 62), and twenty-four hours! cover 121-39, but the healing of the leper (i40f-) is undated, the return to Kapharnaum takes place 81 huepv (21), and the succeeding incidents are narrated one after another without any attempt at chronological order, the rare notes of sequence being quite vague (e.g. iv iKelvais rats 7]/itpats ir<£\iv KTX., 81). How long the Galilean mission lasted, or the sudden visit to the territory of Tyre (724L), we are not told. The two exceptions are the transfiguration (six days after the previous con-versation, 92) and the passion-week (1Ilf). The various days of the latter are noted (141 12 161-2). Here the tradition evidently was fairly exact and precise (even to hours, 1533), and the same primitive quality attaches to the yero. hupas E of 92 (reproduced by Mt. but altered by Lk. into the vague doel h fitpa i iKrdi),^ which is probably equivalent to ‘ one week,’ reckoned from Sabbath to Sabbath (cp. Keim, iv. 308). The tradition is too early and naive to render it likely that this chronology is artificial, due to the exigencies of public worship (O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. p. 344). § 2. Analysis.—The abbreviated and cursory character of the prologue (1118; cp. Bacon, JBL., 1908, 84-106) as compared with the detailed fulness of the following passages in the gospel, has suggested three solutions. It has been held to point, (a) in common with other structural phenomena of the book, to the editing of an Ur-Marcus; or (b) to Mark’s use of Q, the common source of Matthew and Luke, which he generally abridges; or to Mark’s dependence upon either or both of these gospels * The ‘forty’ days of the temptation (112-13) is symbolic, as in Ac I3 (cp.

DCG. ii. 250). + Other little groups of a day’s doings, in (22-17?) 41-351. 52t. 6311. 921.

111-1 1112-19 1120. 1412. 151 161.

JThe similar phrase in Job 20"6 (ue®' yfiepas 8 KT to) is more definite; but in neither case is it necessary to think of the eight-day week of the Roman calendar (Mommsen, Rom. Chronologie 3, p. 228).

(so especially Hilgenfeld and Badham). The first-named is decidedly superior to the other two theories, and is borne out by the subsequent traces of editorial revision throughout the gospel. No attempt (e.g. von Soden, J. Weiss) to disentangle the precise Petrine traditions or source is but the work of the editor in combining Mark’s record with logia (e.g. in 930f. n25 and 13), in inserting summary links, and in re-arranging the materials, can be seen from 11-13 (15) onwards. “It is as though the type of Petrine narrative gospel had been already too firmly fixed to admit of radical re-casting, and the new material had been added in adaptation only, and for the most part in the form of memoriter interpolations and supplements ” (Bacon, p. xxi).

The unrealities into which an ultra-literary criticism of the gospels slips are illustrated by the conflicting views taken of a passage like Mk 11-13. It is as arbitrary to make Mt. and Lk. expansions of Mk. as to see in Mk. little more than an abbreviation of the large narrative in Q upon which Mt. and Lk. subsequently drew. Q's use of Mk. and Mk.’s use of Q (even in a primitive form) are equally superfluous here. Throughout the whole section one has the impression of a writer who is outlining rapidly a familiar story, in order to reach the point at which either his characteristic contribution or more probably the source before him first begins. There is no reason why the facts of 11-13 (15) should have been only accessible in Q or in any other document. In that primitive Christian world even Q had no monopoly of such traditions; and although Q were prior to Mk., there would not be the slightest necessity to postulate any documentary source from which the latter must have drawn the contents or even the form + of the summary in 11-13. Spitta, who regards pxn T00 elayyeXlov ‘Inoo Xptarov (vlov 0eov) as a title, further conjectures that about a page of the original autograph has been lost before I2, since xabds y^ypairrai KTX. cannot be supposed to introduce a sentence, much less a paragraph. This introductory page must have described the advent of the Baptist, together with the genealogy and birth of Jesus; but the reasons for this ‘must’ are as slender as those for similar omissions between I6 and I7, in I13, and at 321 (ZNW., 1904, 305!.; Urc. iii. 2, pp. 122-138).

In the following section, which belonged to the Ur-Marcus, 128 is plainly proleptic. Mark J dwells on the widespread impression made throughout Galilee by the expulsion of the unclean spirit; but even an immediate impression (evdvs) of this kind is not made in a few minutes, whereas he goes on in v.29 to describe what Jesus did after leaving the t In I13 it goes back to Test. Napht. 8: 6 6«£/3oXos debkerat ' ip&v, Kal Tct 6t]pla <pop-r)d'/i<rovTai upas, Kal ol &yyf\ot avd^ovTac buas. + i.e. for convenience the composer of the gospel, as distinguished from the Mark of the Ur-Marcus. synagogue on that very day. 121-38 certainly hangs together; the picture of a single day’s activity is a historical and literary unity. But 140-45, though evidently meant to follow I89 (as a specimen of the exorcisms there mentioned) in order to explain Christ’s avoidance of the cities (145), scarcely introduces 21f, which probably existed in the Ur-Marcus in a detached 213. seems to echo 1l6f, but the call of Levi is remembered principally for the sake of the famous reply of Jesus to the scribes of the Pharisees (216-17). The following set of sayings upon fasting (218-22) are merely topically connected with the preceding context; it is impossible to be sure that the order is consecutive, or even that both debates (or either) occurred at so early a period, for though both Mt. and Lk. emphasise the chronological order, this only proves that they had no other outline to fall back upon. The cycle of conflict-stories is then rounded off by two (223-28 31-6) which are set in very vague connections of time, while 228 seems hardly to have Iain originally next 227. The encounter with the Pharisaic authorities, which naturally arose from the free observance of the Sabbath and the synagogue-ministry of Jesus (31-6), closes with an allusion to the Pharisees and Herodians (36) which again is proleptic (cp. 1213). But the fact that Jesus had already raised the suspicions of the authorities explains the inquisitorial visits of the Jerusalem-scribes in 322 and 71. Meantime Mark adds a short general paragraph to sum up the increasing popularity of Jesus not merely in Galilee, but far beyond its confines (37-12).

* On the other hand, it is hypercritical to reject not only the Petrine tradition preserved in Papias, but the possibility of finding any definite Petrine basis for the stories in Mk., as M. Bruckner does (ZNW., 1907, 48!.).

This paragraph forms a transition between the opening section of the gospel (where it throws the popular enthusiasm into relief against the malevolent criticism of the authorities) and the following section (313-613) which begins by describing how Jesus began to provide for the future, in view of the demands and the dangers of the work, by organising his disciples. Twelve are chosen (312-19) to preach and to cast out demons, not to heal sicknesses—a function which Mark, unlike Matthew (108) and Luke (92), reserves for Jesus himself, t But no mission is assigned them till the close of the section (666-11), and Mark again fills up his record with materials which are both vaguely located (cp. 320) and loosely connected. The first of these is the defence of Jesus against a charge of insanity brought against him by the scribes from Jerusalem, whose interference is topically set in an account of a similar interference by his own family (321-35). The lake-side teaching is then resumed (41, cp. 213 37); but instead of describing as usual the effect, Mark now gives a specimen of its eontents (not necessarily borrowed from Q). What Jesus taught in the synagogues is not explicitly reported (but cp. Lk 421-27). On the other hand, a selection from the parables spoken to the open-air audiences is presented, containing three parables (43-9. 26-29. 30-32), with a discussion of the parabolic method in general (410-12) and an explana-tion of the first parable (413-20). Interpolated between this and the second parable is a saying upon the Lamp, apropos of the duty of openness for a disciple (421-25). As his hearers, after v.10, are the disciples, it almost follows that vv.26-32 (cp. the alros of v.33), which presuppose the crowd, t As a matter of fact, however, they do heal, when the time comes (612-13), originally followed vv.1-9. This cycle of sayings is now closely linked chronologically to a cycle of miraculous deeds (435-543; cp. 41=436, the second busy day’s proceedings narrated by Mark), depicting the power of Jesus over the forces of nature (435-41), unclean spirits (51-20), sickness (525-34), and death (521-24- 35-43). These incidents are closely and chronologically set. But his sceptical reception at Nazareth (61-6a) is an erratic like the subsequent account of the commission of the twelve, which took place during some preaching tour (66b-13).

* The scribes and Pharisees do not pursue Jesus over the country; they wait till he finishes a tour or journey (cp. 323t. 71f. 810L).

The fame of Jesus on this tour reaches the ears of Herod Antipas, whose conscience is troubled by the appearance of one whom he takes to be John the Baptist redivivus (614-29); but Mark has nothing to say of any precautions taken by Herod, or even of what Jesus said or did during the absence of the disciples. He simply proceeds to narrate a couple of miracles (630-44- 45-52) which happened immediately after their return, and to note the unabated popularity of Jesus as a healer of diseases (653-56). Then follows a cluster of sayings on true purity as opposed to ceremonial, occasioned by a visit of the Bharisees and scribes from Jerusalem (71-23). No motive is assigned for the next move north into the Tyrian country (724-30), and only one incident is recorded—the cure of a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter.! On the way back,! or possibly after his return, a deaf and dumb man is cured (731-87). but the incident is not fixed to any time or place. The next section (81-26) not only opens vaguely (81), but contains material which is parallel to, or a duplicate of, 632f-, viz. a miracle of feeding (81-10 = 632f) in an out-of-the-way spot, followed by an encounter with the Pharisees (811f, cp. 71), and a cure (822f, cp. 7311). The characteristic traits of the separate stories are probably due to oral tradition; their agreements, which outweigh their differ-ences, seem to denote a common, single type; their juxtaposition is literary rather than the result of oral tradition.

The following fragment of teaching delivered on the way north to Caesarea Philippi marks a more private and tragic phase in the gospel (827t); the fate of Jesus as the Christ implies a resolute renunciation and confession on the part of his disciples, to whom he now imparts special instruction. But as the term rbv in 834 shows, 884f. does not belong to this particular cycle of teaching; it is one of the intercalations of the editor who elsewhere (714) introduces a crowd (though not necessarily from Lk 1425). A certain roughness of arrangement or dislocation of the natural order is evident indeed in the whole of 827-913, where 827f, seems to be resumed § in 91l-13 after the break of 92-10; but source and editor are not easily disentangled. t Here only, by a foreigner, is Jesus called Ktjpios in Mk., and here only does the writer represent him as healing at a distance from the patient. ! Unless we are to suppose that Jesus took a long and apparently purposeless circular tour north and east and south, it is better, with Wellhausen, to regard Sidon as an erroneous rendering of p’s (Saidan = Bethsaida); cp. 822 and Mt 1121. § The suggestion that 91l-13 should read 911. 12b. 124. 13 certainly clears up the passage, and is preferable to deleting 912P. 130 (Wernle) as a gloss.

* Its position next to 663f. is meant to bring out the contrast between Christ’s rejection by his own people and the success of his disciples abroad.

Bacon (AJT., 1898, pp. 541 f., 1902, pp. 236 f.) regards 9210 as practically a duplicate of 827-91, 9ll-13, which it interrupts with its vision-incident much as Ac 930—1118 precedes 13-15; Loisy (RHR., 1904, pp- 386 f., 1907, P- 446) assigns 827-30 91. 11-13 to a primitive separate source; and Schweitzer (Das Abendmahl, ii. 58 f.) puts 834-920 back into the Bethsaida-period (681-56). On Wellhausen’s arbitrary characterisation of 827-1045 (Einl. 81 f.) as a reflection of the later Christian consciousness, cp. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 181 f.

The twofold apologetic motive of the transfiguration-story is fairly obvious: viz. to meet the objection raised by the Elijah-tradition (cp. Justin, Dial. 49), and to explain how the crucified Jesus could be the Christ of God. The former is emphasised by Mark; the latter is specially brought out by Mt. and Luke. It has been conjectured that the transfiguration originally represented an appearance of Jesus six days after death (Wellhausen on Mk 913 ‘vielleicht der alteste in den Evangelien,’ cp. Loisy, Evang. Syu. ii. 39-40) to the disciples in Galilee (Mt 2816); but though Peter is prominent here (9s cp. 829), this is hardly enough by itself to prove that the vision tallies with that of I Co 155. On the other hand, in 2 P 114-18 the prophetic announcement by Jesus of Peter’s death (cp. Jn 2118f) is followed by an allusion to the vision and voice on the holy mountain which (Hofmann, cp. Spitta's monograph, pp. 89 f.) might refer to a post-resurrection vision like this, as is plainly the case in The Apocalypse of Peter (§§ 2 f.), where the twelve on a mountain with the risen Lord see two departed saints in radiant form t-piirpoadev TOO Kvplov. - ' The account of the transfiguration (92-13) is followed by the expulsion of an evil spirit from a boy (914-29), the last miracle in Galilee thus belonging to the same class as the first (i23f-). The closing paragraph on the Galilean mission consists of some fragments from the private conversation of Jesus and his disciples (930-50), which the editor has inserted without any close links. Jesus is no longer preaching or healing; his whole attention is concentrated on the inner circle of his adherents. 936-37 seems rather isolated, especially if the curious v.35 (calling the twelve, when he was already with them!), which is partly omitted by D, is taken as an editorial link between 33-34 and 36-37 (Wellhausen). 938-40 certainly belonged originally to another site; its present position is due to the topical mention of the Name (937. 39), and 942 is the most natural sequel, at any rate, to 937. In 949-50 the discourse ap-parently becomes still more disconnected and obscure, but the closing note (950) is on the same key as the opening (J61-). The final departure of Jesus from Galilee (io1-2) marks the beginning of the Judaan ministry (10-13). The details of this are scanty and vague until he reaches Jerusalem, when the record becomes suddenly richer. Thus the discussion with the Pharisees on divorce (io2-12) apparently occurs in the open-air (cp. v.10), but the setting of the incident is ambiguous. Two incidents of travel follow (1013-16. 17-31), after which the narrative becomes vivid (io32£'), though the request of James and John (1035f.) comes abruptly after what precedes.* The cure of the blind beggar outside Jericho (1046-52) was evidently a fixed point in the primitive tradition; it is the only cure wrought by Jesus outside Galilee, and it marks, by the beggar’s acclamation of Jesus as the Son of David, the opening stage of his messianic entry into the capital (111-11). The site of the subsequent dialogues and discourses is the temple (cp. 1111), where he spends the day but not the night; his headquarters are at Bethany (1111:20). The cleansing of the temple (1115-18) is inserted in the symbolic story of the blighted fig-tree (1112-14. 20f.), to which Mark has, as usual, attached several disparate sayings (1123.). In a series of encounters, Jesus silences and outwits the official parties one after another. The climax of these is the admission of a scribe t that Jesus is a true teacher (1232f), whereupon Jesus takes the initiative (1235f.) by attacking the teaching and conduct (1238f.) of the scribes, to the delight of the people. Since 1046 Jesus has been teaching not his disciples but the public; in 131-37, however, which forms the close of the Judaean ministry and the climax of his relations with the temple, the editor, by using the small apocalypse, represents him as instructing the inner circle of his disciples privately upon the future destruction of the temple and the prospects of his own cause. ft) The story of the Passion now begins (141), the account of the treachery of Judas being interrupted by that of the anointing at Bethany (143-9), and followed by that of the celebration of the passover (1412-25). While 1412-16 is rejected as unhistorical by critics like Brandt and Wellhausen, it is deleted by Spitta {Ure. i. 266 f.) on grounds that are hardly more solid than those on which Rauch {ZNW., 1902, 308-314) bases his theory that 1412-17 forms a later gloss, intended to make the meal a passover-supper. Only when vv.12-16 are omitted, does the absence of els 'Iepoa6Xvp.a in v.17 seem suspicious (cp. v.16), as though the supper had been perhaps eaten at Bethany (so, e.g., Wendling). 1413.16 is not an unhistorical duplicate of 111-4, and there is nothing in the style of the passage to warrant any suspicion of later editorial handling. O. Holtzmann {Leben Jesu, ch. xiii.), who places Jn 753-811 before Mk 1235, regards Christ’s verdict on this woman as an incident at the beginning of the Monday when he ate the passover evening meal with his disciples, and argues that as neither Jesus nor his disciples can have been busy with preparations for that meal, the elimination of Mk 1412-16 would involve the loss of any tradition relating to the earlier part of that day,—a loss which would be incredible, since the disciples were far from likely to forget the last day they spent in the company of their Master. This is subtle, but not untrue to the history or psychology of the situation. For the theory that the time-references in Mark’s story of the passion-week were not in the Ur-Marcus, cp. J. Weiss (DCG. ii. 323-324); for detailed criticism of the trial-stories-,- see Moffatt, DCG. ii. 749-759. § 3. Structure.—This survey (i.) shows that, while the general scheme is clear, Mark’s arrangement of materials is often topical * Here 1042-45 is secondary, as compared with the Lucan version (22s5-27). t Neither 1228-34 nor even 1218-27 is closely related to this period, and probably Lk. (1025-28) is right in placing the former at an earlier phase of the ministry. rather than historical. Sayings and incidents are grouped in a way which suggests not so much chronological sequence as similarity of subject-matter. Hence the criticism of Papias is justified, if it referred to order. Compared with the Fourth gospel, whose carefully marked sequences were familiar and popular in Asia Minor in the opening of the second century, the narrative of Mark would appear irregular. In the second place (ii.), Mark’s gospel is plainly a composition, not in the sense in which Mt. and Lk. are, but still in a noticeable degree of its own. It is not an artless transcript of oral reminiscences. The author has had before him various materials, not only oral but also written sources, which he has occasionally re-arranged.* The narratives betray unevenness at certain points; gaps and breaks occur, and more than one current of opinion or tradition may be detected. The problem of literary criticism which results from these data is, whether there is adequate evidence to prove that more than one hand need be traced in the composition of the gospel, or whether such editorial manipulation as can be unbared may not have been the work of John Mark himself, to whom the first draft of the Petrine reminiscences was due. There are two a priori reasons for hesitation in attempting an analysis of Mark into an original edition which has been revised or amplified by a later writer. (a) We cannot assume that what appear to be secondary elements were not already present to some extent in the Petrine tradition which formed the basis of the original gospel; by the time that Mark took down the reminiscences of Peter there was ample time for the oral tradition of the primitive churches to have filled out some of the sayings of our Lord, and for elements of reflection and distortion to have crept in. (b) The uniformity of language, both in style and vocabulary con-stitutes a second reason; but, although Wendling has driven the linguistic and stylistic argument to the verge of unreality, there are nevertheless traces of strata, and such uniformity as may be found is as likely to be the work of the final editor. These * " Dans une oeuvre aussi peu litteraire, le defaut de cohesion n’est pas une preuve de redaction multiple. Mais Fincoherence qu’on pourrait appeler positive, le desaccord entre les morceaux juxtaposes qui precedent de courants d’idees tres diffrents, l’accumulation de donnees disparates qui se laissent reconstituer en groupes homogenes, caracterises chacun par une inspiration distincte, les doubles emplois peuvent attester, ici comme ailleurs, la combinaison des traditions ou des sources crites et la complexity du travail redactionnel" (Loisy, i. 85-86). reasons, therefore, suggest hesitation not in the acceptance but in the working out of the hypothesis that the canonical Mark, written shortly after A.D. 70, is based for the most part on Mark’s draft of the Petrine reminiscences.

* O. Schmiedel (Hauptprobleme d. Leben Jesu-Forschung2, 81 f.) postulates a similar origin for the synoptic stories of the feeding of the 5000 and the walking on the sea (Mk 6311. etc.).

The hypothesis that our canonical Mark represents the later edition of an earlier document, or that it can be analysed into two or more different sources, may be based either upon considerations drawn from the internal structure of the gospel itself (so, e.g., P. Ewald, Wendling, Wellhausen), or from a comparison of its contents with those of Mt. and Luke (so, e.g., J. Weiss, Reville, von Soden). It has undergone various vicissitudes. Advocated formerly by Holtzmann, it was worked out by Schenkel, Weiffenbach, Wittichen and others, especially by Sevin, Jacobsen, and Mangold. Weizsacker then pushed the analysis of Mk. still further, and more recent attempts at a pre-canonical source or sources are to be seen in the essays of Beyschlag (5W., 1881, pp. 565 f.), Feine (JPT., 1886-1888), and J. Weiss (SK., 1890, pp. 555 f., 1891, pp. 289 f.). One motive which actuated some of these critics was the desire to reconstruct the original Mark of Papias; but, independently of this, others have worked out a series of secondary features, Pauline or apostolic, which have overlaid the primitive materials of the Petrine story (cp. recently Schmiedel in EBi. 1844 f.). Thus Wendling actually traces two different sources, in addition to an editor, throughout the gospel. M1, an Aramaic source, represents the primitive, realistic impres-sion of Jesus the teacher, conveyed by Peter. This was translated into Greek by M2 with poetical and artistic additions of his own to bring out the supernatural powers of Jesus the divine messiah, the Son of Man who makes a mystery of his person. Finally, a redactor (= Ev), whose dogmatic interests overrode his historical sense, inserted some passages (e.g. 11-3 36f. 22f. etc.) and edited others (e.g. 831f. 1112. isr. and 1238-44). But this, apart from the lack of sufficient criteria in style, implies too rigid and a priori a conception of the developments of primitive Christology. Even an incidental allusion like that of 124 shows that Jesus was more than a teacher in the earliest source, and many of Wendling’s special results are too subjective and dogmatic to command assent (cp. Menzies, Review of Theology and Philosophy, ii. pp. 3-6). The over-elaboration of the theory will be seen from the following outline:— M1 M2 14-148 Ev r 1-3 14b-15 116-34a 35-39a 34b 40-44 89b 45 2l-15a 16b-17.

215b. 16a. 18a M1 218b. 19a M2 31-38 20-21 31440 26-29 33 Ev 219b-20 M1 38-19 22-80 410-25 632-34 80-82 g27-30a M2 435—542 Ev 543 48b 61-13 16-16 17-29 30-31 35-44 45_826 M1 833b 36-37 M2 Ev g30b-33a S3c-35 . 92-8 14-27 88 9l 9-18 28-50 10*-12 34 M1 M2 Ev io28'30 I 031-32a 32b-34 35-37 38-40 41-44 15-17 1046-1110 45 nii-u 18-25. 27a Mi 1127b-1214a M2 Ev 1214b M1 1410-11 M3 1412-20 Ev 1421 26-35a 85b 36-37 89-4la 41b 42 47 51-56i 60-62a 57-59 M2 1463-64 66-72 1-15 21-22 .16-20 23 24a 24b-25 26-27 29-30 31-32 34a 13 84b-36 Ev 1462b --89 40-43 I 546167a 167b R. A. Hoffmann’s scheme postulates two Aramaic editions of Mk., one written by Mark for Jewish Christians and used by Mt., the other (a larger and longer work) employed by the canonical Mk. and Lk. In this way the occasional superiority of Mt. to the others is explained, but the agreements oi all three are left in the dark (cp. Schmiedel, LC., 1904, 154 f.), and the theory of an Aramaic original for Mk. is not convincing.

Wendling’s analysis is rivalled, in point of elaboration, by Bacon’s recent theory that R, the final editor, who was an anti-Jewish Paulinist, used not only Q (chiefly in the Lucan recension) and P (the primitive Petrine tradition, as outlined in Ac 1037-38) but X (an unknown source). R’s hand appears in 11 3-6.

24-28. 34b 219b-20. 27-28 36. 20-21 433-84. 39f. 51-21. 37 61'3. 5-6. 16-29. 45. 52b.

13.16-21 96. 12b. 30-32. 41. 50b 101. 12. 32-34. 4M. I I 16. 17 (?). 18 1212 I 33f. lOf.

41. 55f. 152-5, but he also edited O in I2, 7. 12-13. 14-15 25b-10. 15-16. 18-19a 31-5. 842-8. 11-12. 21-25 630-31. 53-55 71. 5. 14-17. 20-23. 31-37 811-12, 14-15 (?). 22f. 83 50 1010-11. 28f. I j9-10. 12-14. 20-21 121-11. 38-40 139. 14. 28f. 1417f. (?) 1540-41, 614-15 91l-12a. 13-17. 19f. 24f. 33-35 1046f. (?) I jlf. 11. 19. 27. 1427. 32f. 53 151. 6f as X in I40-48 37 836-37 ® 938- 3s-39 1013-16. 1233-37 1516f. 2r. 34r. 42.. Th more or less complete fragments of P in 116-23. 29-342. 35-39 21-5. 11-14 (41?) 522-36. 38-43 724f. (?) gl-9 (?). 27-29 9l IIlf. 1212 14lf. 10-11. 22f. 291. 43f. 65f. 157 9-11 217. 21-26 49-10. 13-20 64 (?). 32-45 (?). 46-52a 76-7 949 102-9 (?). 17-23.

I 31-2 143-7 1521. 33. 38, and of Q in 426-32 m) 64 «• 7-13 79-13 833-38 92-5 7-10.

It is obvious that this analysis reduces P to a minimum and raises R to a maximum; the criteria for distinguishing Q and X are rarely cogent, and a large amount of matter assigned to either, as well as to R, might well be grouped under P. See N. P. Williams in Oxford Studies, 387-421.

Solger’s (Urc. 64!.) “Ur-Marcus” consists of 14-45 21-20. 23-28 31-26. 31-35 41-10. 13-27. 36-41 -1-7. 9-43 61-13. 30 71-2. 5-14. 16-36 81-17. 21-30. 32-35. 38 91 46-52 j j 1-24. 27-33 121-9. 12-44 131-9. 11-22. 24-30. 32-37 1412-13. 16-22. 26. 32.

60-64 151-15. 22. 25-28. 30-32. 34. 37. 39. 42-46, composed c. A.D. 38 by John Mark Ac 1212). Both Scholten and Jacobsen had already advocated this view of the authorship of the source, which is also held by A. Muller (the source being Aramaic), and which is much nearer to the data of the gospel and of the primitive tradition than any of the analyses just noticed,* or than that of a critic like J. Weiss, who holds rigidly that the Ur-Marcus contained little or nothing which cannot be found in Mt. and Lk., and in whose hands this primitive source loses its graphic colouring and circumstantial detail, since most of the salient features of the canonical Mark are ascribed to the redactor.

The difficulty of determining what is primary and what is secondary is illustrated, e.g., by such a minor linguistic point as the use of the semi-proverbial formula, he who has ears (to hear) let him hear (cp. US.2 106-107). This denotes a pregnant reminder to the reader or hearer; but it may quite well have been used by Jesus (e.g. in Mk 49. 23) in some of the connections preserved in the gospels. The Joh. apocalypse’s use of it (27 etc. 139) is hardly normative, and the call to note a deeper sense in the adjoining context is not to be referred exclusively to the age of the Epigoni, when the sayings of Jesus were becoming the subject of devout allegorising (so M. Dibelius in SU, 1910, 461-471).

The opening paragraph (11-4) starts two special problems: one upon the meaning of i1 (dp^^ ro0 evayyekiov ‘Inoov Xpiarov, viov @cov), and one upon the relation of the OT citation in 12-3 to the rest of the context. The former passage is the title of the prologue. In v.4 the writer begins his narrative proper of the life of Jesus with the remark that Jesus came into Galilee preaching TO cvayyeXiov rov OCOV. The different sense of elayylov in v.1 — where the words ‘Inoov Xpiarov are not subjective (so Zahn), as if it were the gospel which Jesus preached, but objective—indicates a conscious play upon the term. The px of the Christian dispensation lay in the prophetic mission of John, who summed up the previous order of things (cp. Mt 1113) and prepared the way for the new. Hence the twofold citation in 12-3. The editor in v.2 explains how the apxy was not Jesus himself but some one else, the divinely predicted forerunner (= eyevero ‘Ioavvns KTX.), while in v.3 he explains how the very sphere of the forerunner’s mission had also been prophesied ( = &v T v.4).

Although i.pxv here is not equivalent tosumma rei (so Herklotz in BZ., 1904, pp. 77 f., 1905, pp. 408 f.), it might be a misrendering of the incipit * P. Ewald (Das Hauptproblem der Evglienfrage tmd der Weg zu seiner Losung, 1890, pp. 178E) gives the redactor little more than 118 124-826 169-20; du Buisson assigns him a few linguistic changes (e.g. in 13), one or two details, and some context supplements (e.g. in 216' 16. 18 635 719 81 934 1027 1215 21. 23 1416). prefixed to Mark when the gospels were written in one manuscript (so Nestle in ExpP x. 458-460; Einl. pp. 130 f., Eng. tr. 163; Philol. Sacra, pp. 45-46); the heading of the book would thus become the opening of the text. But if apxh is an unparalleled opening for an early Christian writing, xa0ds (especially introducing a quotation) is equally abnormal. None of the cases quoted in ACL. i. 996 is really analogous at all points to Mk I1'2, and, as it seems clumsy and contrary to Mark’s style to connect v.1 with v.4 grammatically, the alternative is to regard the OT citation as due to an editorial hand, whereas, in the original, v.1 was the heading or descrip-tion either of the opening section or of the whole book. In the latter case, the object of the gospel would be to portray the start and origin (cp. Ac I1, He 23, Jn 1527) of the gospel of Jesus in his lifetime on earth (so Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alien Kirche, p. 240). This would gain in likelihood if one accepted the hypothesis (see below) that Mark wrote another treatise (which underlies the opening chapter of Acts) to describe the progress and advance of the gospel whose opening his first book had depicted. But in view of the precariousness of this theory, it is safer to confine the scope of v.1 to the opening section of the gospel itself. Otherwise, pxh KTX. might be taken with iyevero in v.4, the intervening verses being a lengthy parenthesis (so, e.g., Hilgenfeld, ZWT., 1906, 196-199, and Goguel, op. cit. 36)—a hypothesis which Chajes utilises in favour of his Semitic original for the gospel by conjecturing that px is really a misinterpretation of D]R=bpp (zrplv), though Halvy prefers to think of nann (cp. Hos I2 LXX). But such Semitic hypotheses are generally precarious, and, in this instance, they are superfluous.

The awkwardness of the whole passage, whether 2-3 is taken as a parenthesis or 1-3 as an anacolouthon, suggests irresistibly that the OT references at least are inserted by an editorial hand from some book of florilegia (p. 24). Some primitive disturbance or corruption of the original text is almost certain, and, as no evidence is to be found in MSS, it occurred probably in the process of editing the Ur-Marcus. Deleting 2b {I80O yd... co), Weiffenbach opens what he considers to be a “beautiful and grand portal to the gospel ” {/PT., 1882, 668-680; similarly Soltau, Eine Lucke, pp. f That Mark is the translation of an Aramaic original is held, e.g., by H. P. Chajes {Markus Studien, 1889), Halevy (RS., 1900, 115-149), W. C. Allen {ET., 1902, 328-332; Expp i. 436-443), Blass {Philology of Gospels, 190-218), R. A. Hoffmann, Zimmermann {SK., 1903, 287 f.), and Wellhausen {Einl. 14!., 43 b). Zimmermann’s {SK., 1901, 415-458) analysis makes all three synoptists (Mark before A.D. 66) translate AQ, the primitive Aramaic gospel; while neither Mt. nor Lk. used Mk., Lk. had access to a special source (LQ); but his birth-story is drawn from AQ in order to counteract Mt.’s legendary narrative (see below), and his resurrec-tion cycle of stories is based on another special source (Semitic) extending into Acts.

* Hebrew. W. C. Allen similarly falls back on an Aramaic original, regarding the prophetic references, together with the mistranslation, as the work of the Greek translator. Wellhausen {Einl. 53-57) even pushes his revised edition of the Ur-Marcus earlier than its translation into Greek.

1-7, and Holtzmann in HC.) ; but it is better, with Lachmann (SK., 1830, p. 844), P. Ewald, Weizsacker, Scholten, Wellhausen, and others, to take 2-3 as an editorial gloss. Spitta (ZNW., 1904, 305-308), who rightly takes v.1 as the title (cp. J. Weiss, das diteste Evgim, pp. 24 f.), regards 2a+3 as the original of the opening passage; but he complicates this by declaring that some previous introductory narrative must have lain in the original text (see above, p. 221).

If the fusion of the citations is not due to Mark himself, it is probable that he was indebted for it to a florilegium of messianic proof-texts which was circulated among the churches, for the benefit of those who were exposed to controversy with the Jews. The Malachi-citation, grouped under Isaiah in Mk i2, occurred in a subsequent passage of Q (Mt n10 = Lk 727) which is absent from Mark’s narrative. If Mt. and Lk. had Mk. i2’3 before them, they probably preferred the more correct situation of Mk i2. But even if they had not, it would be un-necessary to fall back on either of the three hypotheses just mentioned, as though Mk. or the editor of the Ur-Marcus deliberately fused together the separate citations which he found in Q or in Mt. and Lk.

The other OT reminiscences are scanty and unimportant; for the most part they are conformed to the LXX (cp. W. C. Allen, ET. xii. 187-189).

The position of the conflict-section in Mk 21-36 suggests doubts of its chronological setting. The uniform colour of the five incidents (21-12, 13-17, 18-22, 23-28, 31-6), the notice of a plot of the Herodians and Pharisees against his life at this early stage (36), the proleptic occurrence of the messianic * Son of Man (cp. 829. 38f-), and the general unlikelihood of such an immediate and rapid succession of encounters—these considerations point to the antedating of the incidents in question, or at least to the fact that some of them (excluding the call of Levi, 214), like 31-6, have been drawn into this early group through the influence of associations. The probability is that they belonged to a special source incorporated either by Mark or by the final editor at this point t (so Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 23 f.; Baldensperger, Dalman, * It cannot well be equivalent to the generic bar nasha in 210, any more than in 223f., Lk 2248, Mt io23 2645. That Jesus used it as a non-messianic self-designation is over-subtle; neither here nor elsewhere is it possible to explain the title as an equivalent for man {the Man}, the first person singular, or some one (cp. Mt II9). Even the alternative, that Jesus used it as an incognito, to provoke thought, is unsatisfactory (cp. Abbott’s Diat. 3152f.). j The source is resumed at 1216 (cp. Wendt, pp. 25f.), etc.). Similarly 322-30 is misplaced from after 723 (the Jerusalemite scribes do not appear on the scene till after and the editorial hand appears in 30-19 (Wellhausen, Wendling).

In passages like 41-84 (cp. EBi. 1866-1867) 933 • and 13, the impression of editorial work upon a source, not simply on oral tradition, deepens; e.g. 410f. is secondary to its context (cp. J. Weiss and Wendling), which lies more level to 21-36. Without carrying the analysis further, we may therefore outline the process by which Mk.’s gospel reached its present form, thus: notes of Peter’s reminiscences written down by Mark f (hence the Aramaic colouring and vivid detail of certain sections) were afterwards edited by a (Roman?) Christian who used not only the small apocalypse but some other logia of Jesus (not necessarily Q). The gospel is not a gospel of Peter, but it contains a cycle of traditions for which Peter is the authority and in which he plays a prominent role. The first person mentioned in the narrative of Christ’s mission (114f) is Simon; his call (116f.) is followed ere long (129f.) by the cure of his mother-in-law. Simon kal oi p.er airov (i36) form the inner circle (cp. 92f. 33 1433) of the first disciples (215); he is named first in the list of the twelve (316f.); he first hails Jesus openly as the Christ (829f-), and is evidently the leader and spokesman of the twelve (833 IO28 II21 Kat vauvnobeis 0 Herpos Xcyci avrw,J 147 167), though now and then speaking (1429) and acting (1447) impetuously for himself (cp. 1454.66f). One slight feature, which emphasises not only the prominence of Peter but the leading position next him of the sons of Zebedee, is the way in which the latter, after 116. 29, are mentioned between Simon and his less famous brother Andrew (cp. 316f. 133 with 92f. 1035f. 1433f.). The connection of the Ur-Marcus with Peter accounts for the + Cp. above, pp. 190 f. Salmon’s verdict (Human Element in Gospels, 21) sums up the case moderately, " I do not believe that St. Peter had any share in the composition of St. Mark’s gospel, or that he was in any way responsible for its contents. But I consider that critical study would lead us to believe that some of the evangelist’s statements were derived directly or indirectly from that apostle, and therefore I would not hastily reject the tradition that there had been personal intercourse between the two.” $ Mt. (2120) generalises this into ol pabyral. historical nucleus at the bottom of the Marcan stories. Several of the latter are more than circumstantial; they reveal the man who was there. The secondary features of the gospel are adequately accounted for by the process of editing, which has left the gospel something very different from the naive tran-script of an eye-witness’s reminiscences, even when the latter had passed into the form of preaching material mps ras xpelas. Scattered throughout the book are editorial touches due partly to catechetical influences, such as the addition of ‘Inco0 Xpiarov ( + wov 0eo?) to evayyeXiov (I1), of* ral TioTebere tv Tip evayyeXip to fUTavoelre (115), of Kal tov elayyeXlov in 835 (as in IO29), of Sti XpiaTov taTi (941) and uer StwyyuOv in io30, the incidental description of the twelve as apostles (630), the observa-tions in 652 (cp. irwpwaiv in Eph 418) and 1337, reflections of the apostolic age, as, e.g., in the description of John’s baptism (14, cp. Ac 238), editorial glosses like Kalaplpwv mvra T Bpouara (719, showing how the author viewed the Antioch controversy in the apostolic church), and other additions which are either marginal glosses, or insertions of an early copist, Kal &pov tov KpapaTTov cov (29), T Kaivbv tov sraXaiov (221), tIv laxvK^ra T^v Xeyytva (515), o yp Kaipbs oIk hv al kwh (1113, so Bakhuyzen, Baljon, Wernle, and others), uh KaTaXnrwv aTeppa. (1221), tov 'lyaov (1467), Kal aXlKTwp ipwvqafv (1468), etc. Even the repeated ev96s does not necessarily belong to the Ur-Marcus; in several places textual criticism indicates that it was inserted subsequent to the use of the Ur-Marcus by Mt. and Luke.t § 3. Religious Characteristics.—The primary aim of Jesus, according to Mk., was to proclaim the good news of the kingdom (114 kpooov), at first by teaching in the synogogues (i21f-). What aroused wonder and admiration was the powerful and authoritative character of his words. This at once involved him in encounters with unclean spirits; the new teacher became inevitably the exorcist (r28f.), while another side of his mission was that of healing the sick. Mark brings out, in his first chapter, how what Jesus conceived to be his proper mission, viz. preaching (i38 els TOVTO yap e^XOov, referring to his divine commission, not to the house of v.85, which he had left not to preach but to pray), was handicapped t by his very popularity as an exerciser * On the secondary character of Mk. here, as compared with Mt. and Lk., cp. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu 2, p. 69. The gospel of God was an expression first popularised, if not coined, by Paul, so far as we know (cp. Resch, Paulinismus, p. 380). t Cp. Weiss’ exhaustive study in ZNW. (1910, 124-133); he finds eidts certainly original in 118. 42 212 417 592 1052 1472 probably original in 45 650 529. I Hence the more difficult reading opycadds (i41) of D a f2 as a complement to the epfpip/qadpievos of I43, not an echo of it, is preferable to the smoother cmayxvobels, which was probably introduced for motives of and healer (cp. i45). To Mark, Jesus is above all things the preacher and teacher, in Galilee (22.13 41-2.83f. 62.6 with 101), where his true work is interrupted by appeals for cures which his compassion could not refuse.

* The inaccuracies of Mk 71. upon Jewish purifications also show that the source here has been edited by some Gentile Christian, who, unlike Peter and John Mark, was unfamiliar with local religious customs (cp. Bchler in ET. xxi. 34-40).

The emphasis laid by Mark (cp. Diat. 3624-3625) on the power exerted by Jesus over evil spirits, denotes an early Christian tendency or tradition which found evidence for his messianic claims in this sphere of authority. What the eschatological messiah had been expected by some circles to accomplish, that Jesus had done—and more. The first experience of Jesus, after his endowment with the messianic spirit, is a prolonged conflict with Satan, in which he is supported or surrounded by an angelic retinue (110-13). The results of this encounter are at once visible, Jesus exorcises the evil spirits (123-27. 34). They repeatedly own his authority (cp. 311), but he refuses to accept their wild witness. His popularity (37) and unpopularity (320f) alike are attributed to this power; the most heinous sin is that of attributing it to a trafficking with the evil spirits themselves (3s2- 30). Satan or Beelzebub with his realm of demons is set over against the divine realm in-augurated by Jesus. It is not, however, correct to argue * that the exorcising of demons by Jesus forms an important feature in the synoptic use of the term “ Son of Man.” So far as Mk. is concerned, this term is never connected with the expulsion of evil spirits (cp. 210. 28). It is as God’s Son (cp. I11), the holy one of God (i24, cp. 329), the Son of the most high God (57), that Jesus of Nazara casts demons out of men. Consequently, while the Marcan (and indeed the synoptic) accounts of demon-expulsion must be read in the light of contemporary superstitions (cp. W. O. E. Oesterley in DCG. i. 440-443), they cannot be regarded as imaginative illustrations of an element in messianic prophecy. Whatever be their historical nucleus, these naive popular traditions derive from a definite set of apostolic reminiscences, t Thus, even though the words vlov 0eov in I1 are a gloss, they are a correct gloss. The unclean spirits hail their exerciser as the Son of God (311, cp. 57); Jesus is God’s Son (i11, cp. 1332) from first to last, and the last testimony paid him is this unconscious homage from a pagan’s lips (1539). . But, while the valuation of Jesus as the Christ is the deter-mining factor of any gospel, critics like Kostlin, Keim, M. Schulze (ZWT., 1894, pp. 332 f.) and Wrede (pp. 71 f.) go to uncritical extremes in exaggerating the superhuman, mysterious, and even metaphysical traits of the Marcan Jesus at the expense of the human element. Mark does note the spirit of Jesus more reverence (cp. Nestle’s Philolog. Sacra, 26, and Einf. 219-220, Eng. tr. p. 262). Rauch (ZNW., 1902, 300-303) is one-sided in regarding 1418 42 and i44 (Spa... elmns) as editorial glosses introduced to glorify Jesus. * As Volz does (Jildische Eschatologie, p. 215). f To this position Wrede was driven back (cp. ZNW., 1904, 169-177) by critics of his brilliant but one-sided Messiasgeheimnis; he admitted that the Marcan interpretation was rooted ultimately in actual occurrences of exorcism (e.g. in 123. 51) as the soil of the later schematism. than once (18 110 where Lk.’s TO mveua TO yov is probably more correct, 28 812), but there is no tendency to represent this in any dogmatic form as a sheer supernatural force, any more than to ignore or depreciate the limitations of his super-natural power and knowledge (cp. 1332). Upon the contrary, it was the frank recognition of these human limitations which led both Mt. and Lk. to modify several of the Marcan sayings (cp. e.g. i34 with Mt 816 and Lk 440, 321 with Mt 1247 and Lk 820). If the Jesus of Mk. is not a humanitarian rabbi or sympathetic prophet, he is still less the pictorial representation of a divine energy in history.

Although it is no longer possible to argue, with the Tubingen theorists (e.g. Holsten, Die Synopt. Evglien, 1885, pp. 179 f.), that Mk.’s gospel was composed by a Paulinist in order to justify the preaching of the Pauline gospel in opposition to the Petrine manifesto of Mt., much less that it was designed to be a counterblast to the Apocalypse of John (Volkmar), there are traits (cp. e.g. 114-15 = Gal 44, 410-12= 1 Co 1421. Ro 918f.

1016-21, 838 = Ro i16, 92-8 = 2 Co 37-46) which serve as water-marks of an age when elements of the Pauline gospel had had time to affect the writer’s environment. The specifically Pauline elements in Mk. are discussed especially by von Soden (ThA. 143 f., 150 f.), Titius (ThSt. 325 f.), W. Briickner (PM., 1900, 426 f.), Menzies (The Earliest Gospel, 1901, 38 f.), J. Weiss (Das alteste Evgim, 42 f.), and Bacon (Beginnings of Gospel Story, pp. xxvii f., xxxiv f.). The last-named scholar attributes the radical Paulinism of the book to its redactor, but there is no conscious or radical ‘ Paulinism ’ in Mk. The gospel has traces of the apostolic age; both in language and spirit it reflects naturally its environment, and the Pauline gospel had entered into that environment. But Mark was not a His emphasis on the proof from miracles and his theory of the resurrection-appearances diverge from Paul; Paul never uses the favourite Marcan title of the Son of Man; and Mark’s christology has interests to which Paul was indifferent. The theory of the parables in 410-12 betrays the influence of views such as Paul urged in i Co 1421-22 and Ro 918-20 1010-21 118-10; in spite of the considerations which may be urged to the con-trary (cp. e.g. P. Fiebig’s Altjildische Gleichnisse und die Gleich-nisse Jesu, 1904, 146 f.; Knoke, NKZ, 1905, 137-164; P.

* « Auf alle Fiille gehort es in den paulinischen Kreis hinein, womit doch keineswegs gesagt ist, dass sein Verfasser als ein paulinischer Christ, sei es auch nur in dem sehr bedingten Sinne, wie solches ja von vielen neutesta-mentlichen Schriftstellern gilt, zu betrachten sei” (Holtzmann, AR W. x. 40; cp. Bousset, TLZ., 1904, 682).

Lagrange in RB., 1910, pp. 5-25; and Feine, Jesu Christus und Paulus, 135-149), it is not easy to deny that these words, in their present form, bear the impress of the Pauline theory of Israel’s rejection (cp. Jlicher's Gleichnisreden Jesu, i. 120-148), and 1045 is generally reckoned as another instance. But the challenging logia of 227-28 7l5f. and 1282-34, the avoidance of vo/zos, and the universalism of n17 and 1310 (cp. 149) are primitive Christian, not specifically Pauline, and it is to make a tether out of a hair when the story of 9s8-39 and the refusal of the request of the sons of Zebedee are supposed to be inserted in Paul’s interests, or when references to the cross and suffering are attributed to Paulinism (as if the latter monopolised these in the primitive church), or when a saying like that of 1488 is run back to the Pauline category of the flesh and the spirit. On the other hand, some of the allegorical or symbolical touches, e.g., in the story of the fig-tree and in 15s8, are significantly Pauline. § 4. Origin.—That the gospel, in its present form, was intended for an audience outside Palestine is plain not only from Mk.’s omission of much Jewish detail that is preserved in the ordinary synoptic tradition, but from his careful explanations of customs (e.g. 73-4: 11 1542), phrases (541 784), and names (e.g. 317 io46) which would be unfamiliar to Christians of Gentile birth throughout the empire. The fact that the gospel was written in Greek does not, of course, invalidate the hypothesis that it was written in or for the Roman church, since Greek was widely known at this period (cp. Caspari’s Quellen zur Gesch. d. Taufsymbols, iii. 267 f.), but the occasional Latinisms merely prove at most that the writer was in touch with the Latin language.* The wide range of the Empire made this possible in many countries of the East, and no linguistic feature of this kind can be assumed to have any local significance. The presence of such Romanised forms might even be held to corroborate the ancient tradition that Mark was connected with Alexandria; in the Kowfi of Egypt, where the civilisation and culture of Rome spread so widely * On the NT ‘Latinisms,’ see Hahn’s Rom and Romanismus imgriech.-rom. Osten (1906), 257 f. during the first century B.C., many Latin terms may still be traced, including military terms f like Xeyv and KevTvpov (cp. P. Meyer’s Heerwesen, pp. 131 f.). But the Latinisms belong to Mk.’s colloquial style, and, beyond the vague inferences which may be drawn from his connection with Peter and the latter’s connection with Rome, there is no evidence, internal or ex-ternal, to suggest the church for which, or the place at which, the gospel was composed. Even if the Rufus of 1521 were the Rufus of Ro 1613, this would not necessarily point to a Roman circle (see above, p. 137), and the bearing of 71-23 (things clean and unclean) is too general to be confined to the Roman church (Ro 14, He 139). § 5. Style.—Mark has no special style; his book has not the Biblical tinge of Mt. nor the literary art of Luke; it is written usually (cp. J. B. Pease, JBL., 1897, 1-16) in terse, vivid Greek, of a popular and even a colloquial order (cp. the use of terms like Kpdpparos and a^vpli); the occasional looseness of construc-tion and roughness of phrasing is due to a vigorous emphasis ^e.g. in 222 72 82 1 131-32 1 333-34). This accounts in part for some of his idiosyncrasies, such as his fondness for double negatives (e.g. 144 22 327 53 1114 etc.), and diminutives like 6vyd.Tpt.ov, Ig0v8i.a, Kopdatov, Kvvdpiov, zralov (zraida), Trai8L<rKTj, irXotdptov, tpr^la, and wraptov; his predilection for cv6v^, -n-dXiv, and iroXXd (adverbial); his addiction to the historic present—a mark of the anecdotist—and Kal in narrative connections. The so-called Aramaisms are sometimes not real Aramaisms (e.g. the double 8o); when sifted, they prove an Aramaic background for the tradition, not an Aramaic document which has been translated, nor even a cast of style which can be described as particularly Hebraistic.

But, while Mark as a whole is shorter than Mt. or Luke, in his descriptions he is frequently elaborate and ample. Many of what may be termed his “ extra-touches ” are, no doubt, due to his vivid and circumstantial imagination, possibly working upon the oral reminiscences of Peter and others; but more than once his narrative has a redundant and even heavy form which t Mk.’s explanation of Greek terms by Latin (1292 1516) is perhaps the one exception which turns the scale in favour of a church whose members knew Latin.

* The papyri show the later spread of the Latin element (cp. Wessely’s paper on ‘die latein. Elemente in der Grazitat der agypt. Papyrusur-kunden,’ Wiener Studien, 1902, pp. 99-151).

Mt. and Luke, with larger books to write, have carefully avoided. Salient instances of this may be seen, e.g., in i32 (o<//ias 8e yevouvns ore Z8voev 6 Mios), where Mt. omits ore KTX. (816) and Lk. vas 8e yevouvns (440); in 1430 (onuepov ravry ry VVKTL\ where Mt. omits (2634) and Lk. retains alone (2234) tryp-epov; in passages like 225 (= Mt 123, Lk 63) and 1443 (= Mt 2647, Lk 2247), where Mt. and Lk. agree in omitting the same clause or phrase in a Marcan duplicate expression, and elsewhere (cp. the collection of material in HSd 139-142). This pleonastic method of composition is frequent enough in Mk. to be regarded as a predominant feature. He loves to linger over details, and to-bring out clearly and profusely the mise en scene, or the feelings of Jesus and his circle. More than once, indeed, his account of some incident is actually longer than the corresponding narrative or narratives in Mt. and Lk. (cp. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, pp. 34 f.); after nlf- the tendency generally is to be less compressed. § 6. The Conclusion (169-20).—The gospel breaks off abruptly at i68, in the middle of a sentence, like the first edition of Sidney’s Arcadia. The words e^opowro yap might indeed be taken, like nv yapuyaso$8pa(164), as merely a stylistic negligence; but even so it is not possible, in spite of all that can be urged to the contrary (e.g. by P. W. Schmidt, Gesch. Jesu, 1904, p. 49; Wellhausen, and B. Weiss),* to imagine that the author intended his book to end thus, (i.) That he was prevented by some emergency from finishing it, is possible, (ii.) That he did finish it, although the conclusion was lost or suppressed, is not less probable, (i.) The former hypothesis in one form (Zahn, GK. ii. 928 f.) accounts for the circulation of copies lacking 169-20 by assuming that Peter’s death prevented Mark from completing the volume at once, and that, before he could do so, copies of it were made by some of his friends. There is a partial parallel in the literary fortunes of the notes written by Arrian of the lectures of Epictetus, which, like the first edition of the Religio Medici, were at first published surreptitiously, or at least without the connivance of the author. Otherwise, accident or death may be held to have prevented the author from ever finishing his treatise, (ii.) The original conclusion may also have perished, how* Jacoby (NTEthik, 1899, 413) argues that though the close is accidental, it “admirably reflects the feeling which fills the evangelist as he stands before Jesus. Jesus is to him the sacred mystery of humanity,” with his power over daemons, etc. ever, not by the accidental mutilation of the autograph, but because it was suppressed soon after the gospel was written. The possibility of this is not to be denied on a priori grounds. The gospel was short; it lacked the special features of Mt. and Lk., in which the bulk of it had been incorporated, and its slow circulation in the sub-apostolic age, reflecting its initial literary fortunes (cp. Burkitt, Two Lectures on the Gospels, pp. 32 f.), serves to explain how all trace of the original conclusion perished. At one time there must have been practically only a single copy in existence, and that minus the closing leaf. A plausible reason for its removal (Rohrbach) was that it gave, like the lost (suppressed?) part of the Gospel of Peter, a Galilean account of the Resurrection-appearances which did not tally with the Asiatic traditions of the Elders, who favoured Luke (cp. Lk 24s with Mk 168) and John, or else (Rville) that it was too brief and unconventional to suit the needs of the later church. The compilation of the canon (especially and primarily of the four gospels) then led to the addition of 169-20 with its generalised and conventional statement of the resurrection-appearances.

In a region where nearly every step is a surmise, this is as plausible as any hypothesis yet offered, but it leaves two questions open: (a) What of the original conclusion? Can any trace of it be discovered? (p) And what of the later second-century supplement or appendix (169=20)?

Obviously the Marcan epilogue included an appearance of Jesus to Peter (so Paul and Luke), probably in Galilee (cp. Melzer, PM., 1902, 147-156)—which suggests a connection between it and the Gospel of Peter. More detailed reconstructions (cp. T. S. Rordam, HJ., 1905, 769-790) are pre-carious, though we may fall back provisionally, with Blair ^Apostolic Gospel, * 372-385), on Lk 24s- 11-12, and, with E. J. Goodspeed (AJT., 1905, 484-490; cp. W. C. Allen, ICC. 302f.),+ on Mt 289-20 (or rather on Mt 287-10. 16-20), than which, as Mt. usually enlarges his sources, the Marcan appendix can hardly have been longer. Goodspeed’s version of the supposed original is as follows: And behold Jesus met them, saying, Hail. And they came and took hold of his feet and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus to them, Be not afraid, go, tell my brethren to depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me. And the eleven disciples went into Galilee unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesits came to them, and when they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted. And he spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and upon earth. Go ye there-fore and make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you alway, even unto t Cp. Wright, NT Problems, 122 f. the end of the world. In this case, the loss of the ending would more probably be accidental than deliberate.

* The objections are noticed by K. Lake, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (1907), 81 f., and Rordam (pp. 770 f.).

It is no longer necessary to spend time in leading the cumulative and * overwhelming proof from textual criticism (Tischendorf’s NT^ i. 403-407; WH. ii. 28-51; Zahn, GK. ii. 910-938), stylistic considerations (cp. Swete, xcvif.), and internal contents, that this condensed and secondary fragment was not the Marcan conclusion of the gospel. But this negative certainty does not lead to many positive results upon its character, date, or authorship. It is just possible that it originally existed in independent form before it was incorporated in its present place, like the Homeric catalogue of the troops in Iliad, 2484-877, or that it represents the close of some narrative of the resurrec-tion, based upon inferior tradition, the opening of which has been irretrievably lost. Attempts have also been made, but unsuccessfully, to connect it with the Teaching or Preaching of Peter (Zahn, GK. i. 9220.; von Dobschiitz, TU. xi. I. 75-79). Probably the clue to its origin is to be sought in the opening decades of the second century, when, according to Rohrbach’s theory, the gospel was furnished with its unauthentic conclusion by those who edited the first canon of the gospels, and when the appendix was added to the Fourth gospel. There is no adequate evidence for Rohrbach’s idea (so H. Schmidt, SK., 1907, 489-513) that Mk 169-20 is used in Jn 21, but otherwise his reconstruction fits in with the main data of the problem.

This process is assumed by Rohrbach to have taken place in Asia Minor.!

Now, the volume of expositions or illustrations of Christ’s words which Papias compiled (Eus. H. E. iii. 39. 8f.) during the first part of the second century, contained many traditions and Sinyhcets of the Lord’s sayings handed down by Aristion, among them apparently a story of Justus surnamed Barsabas (Ac 123-24) having drunk some deadly poison with impunity. This would tally with Mk 1618b excellently. Furthermore, an Aristo(n) of Pella is known (Eus. H. E. iv. 6. 3) to have lived and written after A.D. 135, whom Resch (TU. x. 2. 449-456; ThSt. 109-110; Paulinismus, 395-398) takes to have edited (c. A.D. 140) the first canon of the gospels,—the archetype of Codex Bez,—and whom Hilgenfeld (ZWT., 1883, 13, 1894, 627) openly identifies with the Aristion of Papias. ’ AptaTwv is certainly the more common form of ’Aptarluv, and both are apt to be confused; but Eusebius t Even if Mk 1615 were held to be reflected in Hermas (Sim. ix. 25. 1-2), this would not imply necessarily that Mk 169-20 emanated also from the Roman church (so Stanton, GHD. i. 45-46), for it could easily have reached Rome from Asia Minor, and would naturally do so, under the circumstances. plainly regarded the disciple and the Jewish Christian historian as different persons, so that we are thrown back upon conjectures. Conybeare’s dis-covery of a tenth-century Armenian codex with ('ApiaTwt>os Trpetrpvr^pov) “from the presbyter Aristo” opposite Mk 169-20 between vv.8.9(Exp.4viii. 241 f.; Exp? ii. 401 f.), seemed at first to clear up matters, by revealing a tradition (trustworthy though late) which viewed the passage as a Siyhcis (Lk I1) of Aristion the Lord’s disciple. Aristion’s contributions to Papias were oral, it is true; no written memoranda are mentioned by Eusebius. But he may have been an author as well as John the presbyter, and he may have written a brief narrative of Jesus and the apostles (1620 seems to open out into a record like that of Ac 1), for Sihynois in Lk I1 covers a written source as well as an oral. “ It may be further remarked.that if Aristion was a disciple of the Lord, or even a fellow and companion of the apostles, he was probably an inhabitant of Palestine; and this agrees well with the patristic statement already noticed [Victor of Antioch] that the ancient Palestinian copy of Mark included these twelve verses.” Conybeare’s conjecture * has been widely accepted, e.g. by Harnack, Nestle, Swete, Lisco (in Vincula Sanc-torum), Eck {Preuss. Jahrb., 1898, pp. 42-43, as by Theologus in the same journal for 1897, p. 227), Mader {BZ., 1905, 269 f.), Rohrbach, Sanday {DB. ii. 638-639), and Chapman {Revue B^nid., 1905, 50 f.). But it is not certain whether Aristo of Pella, who wrote an account of Judaa's revolt against Hadrian, is the same as the Christian elder Aristion who formed one of Papias’ sources of information {EL E. iii. 39), or even whether the former wrote The Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus. His period is almost too late to permit of him being called a disciple of the Lord. Furthermore, Aristion is not definitely called ‘ the presbyter ’ by Papias or Eusebius, though this objection is perhaps not serious. The possibility of the Armenian gloss being an error must, of course, be admitted; but some valid account of how the error arose is necessary, and to suppose it was due to the Armenian scribe confusing Aristion or Ariston with Moses of Chorene’s Ariston, the secretary of Bishop Mark (?) in Jerusalem after A.D. 135, seems hazardous, despite Prof. Bacon’s ingenious arguments {ExpA xii. 401 f.; DCG. i. 114-118). The Armenian historian’s evidence is not enough to prove that he knew about Ariston independently of Eusebius. Upon the whole, then, while Conybeare’s theory cannot be said to have furnished the final solution of the problem, it offers a not unimportant hint upon the composition of this passage. J If Aristion was not its author, he may have been its source or one of its sources (for 1614-18 perhaps). At any rate, the passage appears to have existed * Cp. Ehrhard, ACL. i. pp. 115 f., and Zahn’s Forschungen, vi. 219 f. The criticisms of Resch and Zahn, which substantially favour Conybeare’s main contention, are reproduced in Exp A x. 219-232. t The secondary as well as legendary character of the passage is obvious (vv.9-11 reflecting Lk 82 + John 201-10, vv.12-13 being an echo of Lk 2413f, vv.17-18 of Ac 21-13 28s'6, and vv.19-20 of Lk 2450-51, Ac 19-11). Besides the reference (v.17) to the glossolalia, cp. vv.12-19 = 1 Ti 31B, v.16 = Col I23, v.16b = 2 Th 212, v.17 = Ac 1618, and v.20 = Heb 24—evidence which is, of course, far from justifying the thesis of H. H. Evans’ monograph, St. Paul the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of the Second Gospel (1886). originally in a longer and larger form, to judge from Jerome’s (c. Felag. ii. 153 cp. Harnack, TU. xii. I, and Zahn’s Forschungen, vi. 219) quotation of a passage which lay between v.14 and v.15. This quotation has been recently corroborated by the discovery of a new parchment. Jerome’s words are: In quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in Gracis codicibus iuxta Marcum in fine eius euangelii scribitur: ‘ posted quum accubuissent undecim, apparuit eis lesus et exprobauit incredulitatem et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his, qui uiderant eum resurgentem, non crediderunt, et illi satisfaciebant dicentes: saculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis sub satana est, qui non sinit per immundos spiritus ueram dei apprehendi uirtutem; idcirco iam nunc reuela iustitiam tuaml Rohrbach (pp. 20 f.) attempted to reconstruct the Greek original of this passage, but it has now been discovered in the so-called Freer-logion (cp. Sanders, Bibi. World, 1908, 138-142; E. J. Goodspeed, ibid. 218-226, with the critique of C. R. Gregory, das Freer-Logion, 1908) of an uncial (fifth century) manuscript of the gospels which, between Mk 1614 and l61B, runs thus:—KaKelvoi dreXoyovvro Xeyovres' bri b allv oBros rys dvofias Kal rrjs dsriarlas otto rbv Haravav iariv b per) Iwv rd vT tu? srvevpidTiov aKadapra r^v dXr)6eiav T00 Oeov KaraXa^tadai bbvapuv' bid roCro drroKaXfiov aou Thv biKaioabv-pv ^br/. Ikcivoi HXeyov rip Xpurrip. Kal d 'Lpiaros bKeivois irpootXeyeV ore TreTrXppasrai b bpos ruv truv Ths l^ovalas rov Varava, dXXd iyyl^ei &X\a beivd' Kal inrbp ruv dp-apr-qadvrurv iyib TrapebiOr/v eis 0 uvarov, Iva inroarplpoKriv els Thv dX^deiav Kal p.i)Ken dp-apT-paioiTiv, 'Iva r^v ev rip ovpavip Trvevp.ariKT)v Kal dpBaprov rps biKacoauvijs bb^av KXripovopfiuwaiv. dXXd vopevOlvres KT\. in the light of this, it becomes probable that the source from which Mk 1 69-20 was taken was some early apocryphal gospel; that the passage was not written (cp. Warfield, Textual Crit. op NT, 199b) for its present position, and that when it was borrowed, it was not borrowed in complete form. At an early date, however, some sentences which had originally lain between 1614 and 1615 were transcribed on the margin of at least one Greek codex of the gospel, and eventually found their way into the text. Jerome quotes a part of them; the Freer-logion preserves the whole of the excerpt. It is still an open question whether the passage is or is not allied to the Palestinian presbyter-traditions, which are preserved by Papias (so Harnack, TLZ., 1908, 168-170). The terminus ad quem for its date is about the second quarter of the second century; for, while echoes of the passage can hardly be heard in Clem. Rom. and Barnabas (so Dr. C. Taylor, however, in Exp.^ viii. 71-80), much less in Hebrews (van Kasteren), it was known to Tatian and the Acta Pilati, if not to Justin Martyr {Apol. i. 45), and a Syriac version may be postulated by c. A.D. 150 (Chase, Syriac Element in Codex Bezce, 150-157).

* All that can, together with a good deal that cannot, be said on its behalf may be seen by the curious in Burgon’s well-known and incisive treatise (The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, 1871) and in The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (1896), pp. 298 f. Belser still (Einl. 100 f.) holds that it was added by Mark (c. A.D. 63-64) to the original gospel which he wrote about twenty years earlier, while J. P. van Kasteren (KB., 1902, 240f.) makes Mark add it after the appearance of Lk.’s gospel, and Hilgenfeld singularly maintains the authenticity of the passage. Further discussions in DB. iii. 252-3, and HNT. 550-555.

(C) Matthew

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—Luther (1538); W. Musculus {In Evangel-ittam Matthaeum Commentarii... digesti, etc. (1548); Ferus {Annota-tiones, 1577); Danus (1583); Jansenius (Leyden, 1589); Alphonse Avendano {Commentaria in Ev. D. Matt., Madrid, 1592-3); Maldonatus (1596); Kirstenius {Notce in M. Evangeliwn, 1610); Parus (1641); J. B. Lightfoot {Horce Hebraicce, 1658); J. Gerhard {Annotationes, 1663); Elsner (Commentarius, ed. Stosch, 1767); De Beausobre et Lenfant {A new version of the gospel acc. to St. Matthew, with Comm, on all the difficult passages, Eng. tr. 1779, Cambridge, U.S.A.); Wakefield (1781); Aloys Gratz, Kritisch-histor. Commentar (1821-1823); Fritzsche (1826); J. E. K. Kauffer (1827); Glockler (Frankfort, 1835); de Wette2 (1838); Baumgarten-Crusius (ed. Otto, 1844); Peter Schegg (1856-8); M. Arnoldi (Trier, 1856); T. J. Conant (New York, i860); J. A. Alexander (New York, 1861); Lange3 (1868, Eng. tr., Schaff, 1864); R. F. Grau (1876); Wickelhaus (ed. Zahn, 1876); Meyer6 (1876, Eng. tr., Edin. 1877); J. L. Sommer (1877); Keil (Leipzig, 1877); Fillion (1878); Mansel {Speaker’s Comm. 1878); Schanz (1879); J. A. Broadus (New York, 1887); Kbel (1889); J. Morison8 (London, 1890); Knabenbauer’s Commentarius (Paris, 1892); Carr {CGT. 1894); J. Niglutsch {Brevis Comment, in usum clericorum, 1896); Nosgen2 (1897); The gospel of Jesus according to S. Matthew as interpreted to R. L. Harrison by the light of the godly experience of Sri Par ananda (London, 1898); B. Weiss (— Meyer9, 1898); Baljon, Commentaar op het Evglie van Mt. (1900)*; Slater {CB. 1901); Blass, Evglium sec. Matthaum cum varia lectionis delectu (1901); Zockler (Lange’s Bibel-WerP, 1902); A. Merx, Die vier kan. Evglien nach ihr. alt. bekannte Texte. Matthaus (1902, Syriac version, tr. and annotated)*; V. Rose (Paris, 1904); Wellhausen (1904)*; C. A. Witz-Oberlin (ed. 1905, Stuttgart); J. Weiss2 {SNT. 1906); W. C. Allen {ICC. 1907)*; E. E. Anderson (Edinburgh, 1909); E. Klostermann and Gressmann {HBNT. 1909); Plummer2 (1910); Zahn3 {ZK. 1910)*.

Studies—Besides such patristic studies as the commentaries of Origen, Hilary, and Jerome, Augustine’s Queestiones, Chrysostom’s Homilies (ed. Field, Cambridge, 1839), Theophylact’s Commentary (ed. W. G. Humphrey, Cambridge), Peter of Laodicea’s (cp. Heinrici’s Beitriige, v., 1908), Poussin’s Catena (Toulouse, 1646), and the Venerable Bede’s edition (ed. 1647), reference maybe made to F. G. Mayer {Beitriige zur Erkliirung des Ev. Mt., 1818); Kiener, Recentiores queestiones de authentia evang. M. (1832); Schneckenburger, Unsprung des ersten kanon. Evglms (1834); G. C. A. Harless, decompositione evang. quodM. tribuitur (Erlangen, 1842); Delitzsch, Untemichungen uber die Entstehung u. Anlage des Mt. Evglms (1853); J. S. Knowles, The gospel attributed to S. Matthew the record of the whole original apostlehood (1855); C. Luthardt, de compositione Ev. M. (1861); A. Reville, etudes critiques sur PEv. selon S. Matthieu (Leyden, 1862); Ibbeken, Das Leben Jesu nach der Darstelhing des Matthaus (1866); Lutteroth, Essai d‘interpretation de quelques parties de Plvang. selon S. Mt. (1876); Barhebrus {Scholia, ed. Spanuth, 1879); B. Weiss, das Matthdus-Evglm und seine Lucas-parallelen erkliirt (Halle, 1876)*; Renan, v. chs. x. xi.; Massebieau, Examen des citations de lancien Testament dans Pivangile selon Matthieu (Paris, 1885); Gla, Die OriginalSprachedes Mt. Evglms {t^J, Aramaic); F. Gardiner {JBL., 1890, 1-16, Mt. wrote discourses in Aramaic, had them tr. into Gk., and added Gk. narrative); Kiibel {Bibi. World, 1893, 194 f., 263 f., ‘Fundamental Thought and Purpose of Matthew’); T. Naville, Essai sur Plvangile selon S. Matthieu (Lausanne, 1893); Harmon {/BL., 1895, 114-124; ‘The Judaism of the First Gospel’); A. B. Bruce, With Open Face (1896), pp. 1-24; Jiilicher {PRE. xii. 428439); Haussleiter, ‘Probleme des Matthaus-Evglms ’ {BFT., 1900, vi., on virgin-birth and Lord’s prayer specially); V. Bartlet {DB. ii. 296-305); Blass, ‘ Text-kritische Bemerkungen zu Matthaus ’ {BFT. iv. 4); Pfleiderer, Urc. ii. 301-395; A. S. Barnes {JTS., 1905, 187-203); A. Carr {Exp.1, 1907, 339-349> ‘Authenticity and Originality of First gospel’); Burkitt, Gospel History and its Transmission, pp. 184 f.; W. C. Allen {DCG. ii. 143-150); Hawkins {HS.2 154-178); D. H. lAvSlet, die Bergpredigt im Lickte d. Strophentheorie (1908). § 1. Plan and outline.—It is essential, at the outset, to feel the massive unity of this book, if any justice is to be done to it either from the literary or from the religious standpoint. Jesus the true messiah, born and trained under the Jewish law, and yet Lord of a church whose inward faith, organisation, procedure, and world-wide scope transcended the legal limitations of Judaism—this is the dominant conception of Matthew’s gospel from beginning to end. The book is compiled from at least two sources, and their different nuances are more than once unmistakable; but these discrepancies and variations do not blur the final impression made by the writer’s clear-cut purpose (cp. Renan, v. pp. 209 f.). He wishes to show that, in spite of the contemporary rupture between Judaism and Christianity, there has been a divine continuity realised in the origin and issues of faith in Jesus as the Christ, (a) Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his People from their sins. That People is no longer Israel (cp. 2143), but a wider community. (b) A greater than the temple is here, one who is also (c) the promulgator of a new Law which transcends the old (cp. 517f. 2820). The three sacred possessions of Judaism have thus passed into higher uses, as a result of the life of Jesus the Christian messiah. It is Mt.'s aim to justify this transition by showing from the life of Jesus how it was not the claim of a heretical sect who misread the Bible by the light of their own presumptu-ousness, but the realisation of a divine purpose and the verification of divine prophecies in the sphere of history.

The opening section (11-411) describes the preparation of Jesus for his work, his birth-roll (11-17), birth (118-223), baptism at the hands of John (31-17), and temptation (41-11). The arrest of John marks his retiral and return to Galilee, where Kapharnaum became the headquarters of his Galilean mission (412-1835). A summary or introduction (423f. rrepifyev... SibdaKuv Kal K-qpvaabsv ... Kal @eparecv) lays stress upon his preaching or teaching, then upon his healing powers. Hence we get first of all a cycle of teaching (5-7, the so-called Sermon on the Mount), followed by a cycle of incidents in his healing work (81-934, mainly miracles). t The summary or introduction is then re-peated (935f), in order to pave the way for the wider mission of the twelve (101-42) and a general survey of the relation of his own work to that of John, as well as of its Galilean results (111-30).+ Hitherto the deeds and disciples of Jesus have occupied the foreground of the gospel. Now the evangelist describes in more detail (cp. 9llf.) the nature of the opposition which he had to encounter from the Pharisees (121-9. 10-21. 22-37. 38-45), while a series of excerpts from his parables (131-52) is set within a brief account of his strained relations with his family (1246-50) and townsfolk (1353-58). These conflicts develop into a crisis. The murder of John the Baptist (141-12) drives Jesus to safer quarters (1413f), where his mission is interrupted twice by encounters with the Pharisees and scribes (151f) and the Pharisees and Sadducees (161-12). This foreshadows only too clearly the end, and Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi (1613-20) is therefore followed by a revelation of the coming tragedy at Jerusalem, in word and deed (1621f 171f). Before closing his narrative of the Galilean mission, however, the evangelist adds a number of sayings (1724-1835).

The Judeean ministry really falls into two parts, one a brief record of some incidents and sayings on the way to Jerusalem (191-2034), the other an account of the triumphal entry (2 11-17) and the subsequent teaching given by Jesus partly to his disciples in private, partly to the crowd in public (in the temple), and partly in controversy with the religious authorities (2118f).§ The period is summed up characteristically with a long, passionate invective against the scribes and Pharisees (23) and an apocalyptic forecast of the future (24), followed by a cycle of parables (25). The final story of the Passion (261-2766) describes the circumstances of the arrest (261-56), the trial (2657-2731), the crucifixion (27s2"56), and the burial (2757-66). Two appear-ances of Jesus after death are then chronicled, one in Jerusalem to the women, one in Galilee to the eleven disciples, and the ministry of Jesus ends as it began with a commission spoken from a Galilean hill (281-10. 11-15. 16-20). + Cp. Sir J. C. Hawkins on 8-9, in ET. xii. 471 t., xiii. 20 f.

* Cp. 417 with 423 and 51.

J Note how II5 summarises the preceding section, the blind regain their sight (927-31), the lame walk (85-13 91-8), the lepers are cleansed (81-4), the deaf hear (932-34), the dead are raised up (918-19- 23-26), ang []le p00r }lave the gospel preached to them (9s5 107 111). § Halevy {RS., 1902, 305 f.) is right in preferring Mt.’s version of the parable in 22lt to Luke’s as being more pointed (cp. Hilgenfeld, ZWT., 1893, 126-143); he is less happy in arguing that 221-7 and 221: 8-13 are different redactions of the same story, and that the latter is modelled on a parable of R. ben Zakkai, a Sadducean teacher at Jamnia in the first century A.D. (quoted in Shabbath, 1536 and based on Ecclus 78, Isa 6513-14), From the point of view of effect, the work is clearly and coherently arranged; the successive paragraphs have a comprehensive sweep which unfolds the leading ideas in the author’s mind, even when it ignores the histori-cal perspective of the subject. It is this constructive literary power which characterises Mt. among the synoptics. “ S’il ignorait l’art de peindre, comme Luc, ou de buriner, comme Marc, il avait pourtant, lui aussi, son talent de bon ouvrier. Il possedait 1’imagination ordonnatrice de l'architecte " (Nicolardot, p. 113). § 2. Matthew's treatment of Mk.—(Cp. F. H. Woods, SB. ii. 63f.; Wernle, Syn. Frage, 124-178; Schmiedel, EBi. 1847-1849; Wellhausen, Einl. § 6; Allen, pp. xiii-xxxv; Nicolardot, pp. 1-114, and B. H. Alford, HJ., 1909, 649-661.) Besides Q (see above, pp. 194 f.), Mk. is the main source of the editor. He has treated it with a mixture of deference and freedom. Thus (a) in style, Mt. as a rule improves the rougher or Aramaic language of Mk.; he is fond of inserting 8« instead of Kal, omitting on often after verbs of saying, diminishing the number of imperfects and historic presents, and reducing the use of yp^aro {fp^avro) with the infinitive and of compound verbs (cp. 413 91 129). In the matter of chronological arrangement (b) Mt.’s procedure exhibits more variations. Up to 422 (from 31), for all its additional material, the narrative of Mt. follows the exact order of Mk 11-20, but after this it diverges sharply. Mk. brings out the synagogue-ministry of Jesus in Galilee, but Mt. only mentions it vaguely * in his summaries (423 935); it is not until i29f- (cp. 13s4) that he gives any incident that occurred in a synagogue. The impression created by Jesus on the first occasion of his teaching in the synagogue of Kapharnaum (Mk i22) is made by Mt. (728-29) to follow the long Sermon on the Mount t (51727). After transferring Mk 140-44 (cp. Mt 81-4), he then, for the healing of the demoniac in the same synagogue (Mk 123-28), substitutes the healing of a centurion’s servant in the town (85'13)4 For a line or two he now reverts to the Marcan order (814-16 = Mk 129-34), rounding off this triplet § of cures (leprosy, paralysis, and fever) with a prophetic citation (817). In Mk 135-39 the embarrassing popularity of Jesus as a healer leads * 423-25 is substituted for Mk I21 and based loosely on Mk l39 + 66a. t Cp. Moffatt {EBi. 4375-4391), Votaw {DB. v. 1-45), Adeney {DCG. 607-612), and Salmon {Human Element in Gospels, 109 f.). + Probably because it was so placed in Q. The setting of the Sermon is artificially taken from Mk 313, which Lk. (612.) retains in its original position. § One sufferer asks help; another has it asked for him; the third receives aid without asking (note Mt.’s omission of Mk 130b). him to leave Kapharnaum to prosecute his proper work of preaching throughout the synagogues of Galilee; but Mt. merely makes it an occasion for crossing the lake (818f.), and inserts the stories of Mk 488-520 (= Mt 818-34), Mk 21-22 (= Mt 9l-17), Mk 521-43 (= Mt 918-26).* The short account of the choice and commission of the twelve (Mk 313-19 66-13) is then expanded characteristically into a long discourse (Mt 10);t but 1017-25 is irrelevant (cp. Mk 1 39-13), and Mt. omits Mk 612-13. His com-mission is not followed by a mission; the disciples do not go forth, and consequently do not return with any report of their work (as in Mk 630). Hence the connection of 1412f. differs entirely from that of Mk 629-31. The eleventh chapter has no Marcan material, but for the conflicts of ch. 12 Mt. harks back to the substance of Mk 228-312 (= Mt 121-16), closing with a characteristic OT citation (1 217-21). Mk 320-21 he omits, adds a fresh miracle (1222-23), and then (1224-45) expands Mk 322-30, following it up with Mk 331-35 (= 1 246-50), and an enlarged version of Mk 4 (= Mt 13). The adherence to Mark’s order from this point becomes closer than ever; having already used up Mk 485—543, Mt. passes at once to Mk 61-6 (= 13s3'58), and hence-forth never drops the Marcan thread, though he embroiders it often with OT reminiscences, especially in the passion (e.g. 2734: 43). A comparison of Mk. and Mt. thus proves that the latter is upon the whole secondary, and that he had no independent chronological tradition or information to guide him in placing either sayings or incidents. His choice and disposition of materials becomes less and less reliable, from a historical stand-point, when he leaves the Marcan record; the Palestinian anecdotes which belong to his Sondergut rarely rise above the level of edifying stories to that of historicity. Mt.’s corrections of Mk. are not those of an eye-witness, or of one who had access * Note how the president of the synagogue (Mk.) becomes simply the president in Mt. For the latter the synagogues had won an evil reputation (10t1O7n). reachi.ng io1 he in.serts a passage (10258 = Mk 316-19) which he had previously missed, and then expands (109-102 11-14) Mk 68-11. The whole section throws valuable light upon the Palestinian missions of the early church; for its literary structure, see B. Weiss (Quellen d, Lukas-Evglms, 128f.), and Schott in ZNW. (1906) 140E; for its reflection of the apostolic efforts between A.D. 30 and 60, Weizsacker, A A. i. 29-32, ii. 48 f. On the special difficulty of 109-10 (with Mk 68-9, Lk io4 2235-38), see P. Mechineau in Etudes Relig. (1896) 303-315, and A. Wright (ET. iv. 153-157)to special, first-hand sources of information. Their origin is almost entirely topical.

The chronological data and the synchronisms are characteristically vague. The mission of John the Baptist is dated roughly ‘in the days of Archelaus’ (222 32); the writer’s favourite and loose Tore (313 1222.38 151-29 Ip13 2020) links several paragraphs together, and even the more exact references are as a rule due to the context (3s? 41.23 914.37 1120 1422 1512 1821 1923.27 etc.). The first saying of the Sabbath is introduced v iKelvqi TO Kaipf (I21), without any clue to the period. No hint is given of the return of the disciples from their mission, yet this is assumed to have occurred, and the place (1210, cp. 1123) is evidently Kapharnaum. The remark of Herod (14’) is similarly vague, and the iv iKelvi] rp upp. of 181 is at once vaguer and more precise than the setting of Mk 933-34. The retiral to Galilee (412) is simply dated after the arrest of John the Baptist, but neither here nor later (423f‘ 818 935. 111 1216 161) is any duration of time indicated. Some of the time notices (e.g. 816) are borrowed directly from Mk.; other chronological notes are more character-istic, e.g. 918 (while he was speaking), 111 (after instructing the twelve for their mission, Jesus departs on one of his own), 1246 (as at 918), 131 iv 70 hupa iKelv^), 1532 (three days apart with the crowd).

The writer’s engrossing interest in the sayings of Jesus leads him not only to break up the Marcan narrative with masses of logia, arranged in systematic blocks, but to abbreviate Mark’s introductory matter (cp. the omission of Mk 921-24 in 1 714-21). Where Luke generally omits, Mt. prefers to condense or compress (statistics in HS.2 158-160).

It is a further note of Mt. to insert names * where the Marcan source had none (e.g. Matthew, 98; Caiaphas, 263.57; Jesus,+ 2716’17). This circum-stantial trait is counterbalanced by a tendency to allegorise Marcan sayings (cp. Nicolardot, Les proctitis de Redaction des Trois Premiers Evangilistes, pp. 37-46). Matthew concludes with a saying of Jesus, and this tallies with his greater emphasis on the Lord’s doctrine. Unlike Mk. (122-27) and even Luke (432-36), he confines the authority of Jesus to teaching, instead of embracing under it the power of exorcising demons, etc. It is the sayings rather than the narratives of his book which reflect historical traditions; the contents of the latter are sometimes as ambiguous as their connections.

The later and more ecclesiastical standpoint of Mt. comes out definitely in his recasting of the Marcan traditions relating to the disciples and Jesus. The former play a more important role than in Mk.; thus the saying about the spiritual family of Jesus is confined to them (Mt 1249) instead of being * On the names in Mk., see Wright (Some NT Problems, Sl~To)-> and D. Burns (Contemporary Review, 1907, 417-424). + That this reading is preferable to the ordinary text, is shown by Burkitt (Evang. Da-Meph. ii. 277-278). addressed generally to the bystanders (Mk 334). Mt. minimises * the faults of the disciples (r 316-18 with Mk 413, cp. 1351; 1433 with Mk 652; 169'12 with Mk 817-22; cp. the significant omission of Mk 96. 10. 32, the smoothing down of Mk 933f. in i8lf-, the change of Mk io32 in 2017 etc.), and endeavours to eliminate or to soften any trait derogatory to the credit of the twelve. A similar! reverence for the character of Jesus appears in his omission of words or passages like Mk 143 35 321 (charge of madness) 1014 and n3, and in changes like those of 1916f. (Mk 1017f) and 2659 (cp. Mk 1458); the miraculous power of Jesus is heightened (contrast 816 with Mk 182-33, 1717-18 with Mk 920-26 etc.), and the author shrinks as far as possible from allowing demons to recognise him as the messiah; J the prophetic power of Jesus is also expanded and made more definite (cp. 715 1245 2143 2410 262 etc.). § 3. Structure.—The composite nature of Matthew may be explained not only on the hypothesis of the use of earlier sources, but also on the theory that the canonical text represents later glosses, interpolations, and expansions, like that in Sir 4914-16. The three places at which this theory (which depends largely on the use of textual criticism) comes into special prominence are, (a) 1-2, (3) 1617, and (c) 2816-20, The Xos yevocos of 1-2 represents the author’s version of a Palestinian tradition which already contained the virgin-birth. None of its three sections (11-17 the genealogy, 118-25 the birth, 21-23 the childhood), not even the first, need be anything else than a free composition; whatever was the basis for the Jewish-Christian belief upon which the writer drew (cp. W. C. Allen, Interpreter, 1905, pp. 51 f.; Box, ibid., 1906, 195 f.), the narrative, judged from the standpoint of literary criticism, offers no adequate criteria for distinguishing between a source and an editor, or between an original gospel and an addition. It is a * But not invariably (cp. 1 517 and 26s). ! Both the desire to spare the twelve and the reluctance to dwell on the human affectionateness of Jesus appears in his version (1912-15) of Mk 1013-16; the former, together with a characteristic hesitation to record a reproach addressed to Jesus, in 825 (cp. Mk 43S). + This is one of his clearest attempts to improve upon Mark (cp. Bacon, ZNW., 1905, 155 f.); it “is to be viewed in the light of the known accusations of collusion with Beelzebub brought against Jesus and his followers, with the marked silence of the Fourth gospel on this type of mighty works. ” piece of early Christian midrashic narrative, drawn up in order to show how the various incidents and features of the nativity were a fulfilment of OT prophecy (virgin-birth 1226, in Bethlehem 25f., flight to Egypt 215, weeping in Ramah 217-18, and the name Nazarene 223 Neither the style nor the contents of 1-2 afford valid evidence for sus-pecting that they are a later insertion in the gospel. + The hypothesis that this section did not originally form part of the gospel was advocated in the eighteenth century by Dr. John Williams (A Free Enquiry into the Authenticity of the First and Second Chapters of St. Matthew's GospeP, London, 1 789), then by Ammon {Dissertatio de Luca emendatore Matthcei, 1805), and afterwards by Norton (i. 16-17); it is still urged on the plea that 118-223 was an after-thought or later interpolation (so, e.g., Keim and Merx), since the connection between I17 and 31 is quite natural. The hypothesis that the editor or final author of the gospel has incorporated an earlier source + in 1-2, working it over for his own purposes, becomes especially plausible (i.) with reference to the genealogy (12-16), which has often been taken {e.g. by de Wette, Olshausen, Sabatier: ESR. v. 464, Delitzsch, Meyer, Bacon: DB. ii. 137 f., and Loisy) as originally a Jewish Christian document, or even as a later insertion {c. A.D. 170; Charles in Academy, 1894, 447f.). The latter theory is improbable; the interest in the Davidic sonship was not paramount at that period. As for the former conjecture, the genealogy is probably the composition of the author himself arranged for mnemonic purposes in three sets of fourteen generations (the double 7 reflecting the author’s penchant for that sacred number). In structure and contents it is quite artificial, § inferior to Luke’s, and intended + On 1-2 as an integral part of the gospel, cp. Box {ZNW., 1905, 83 f.). $ Or sources; Meyer, e.g., finds three in 11-16 118-25 and 2. § “It is artificial from beginning to end, and meant to be so, as artificial as the lists of the twelve thousand sealed out of every tribe of Israel except Dan in the book of Revelation ” (Burkitt, Evang. Da-Meph. ii. 260). Halevy (AW., 1902, 221 f.) ingeniously suggests that the forty-two generations of Mt., with the twenty from Adam to Abraham, are designed to make up the 62 ‘ weeks ’ of years in Dn 925-26, which were to follow the 7 weeks of Zerubbabel, and to be followed by messiah’s tragic death (cp. 2415). But, apart from the exegetical obstacles, there is no adequate proof that the Daniel-tradition was a norm to which any messianic aspirant had to conform, or that Mt. dated the death of Jesus from such a messianic prophecy. If any source of the schematism has to be postulated, the cabbalistic interpretation of, whose three letters are equivalent by gematria to the number 14, is the most probable. to show that Jesus, as the Christ, was legally descended from David—the primary essential, from a Jewish standpoint, for any messianic claimant. A further apologetic motive is evident in the introduction of the women’s names, especially of Rahab, Tamar, and Bathsheba. They reflect the Jewish slanders which the author desired to rebut, not only by stating what he believed to be the truth about Mary, but by arguing that, even on the Jewish level, women of irregular life played an honoured role in the history of the Davidic lineage. Mary’s character, he proceeds to argue, was not irregular. How much less therefore (the inference is) are Jewish objections to her and to Jesus justified! These data of the genealogy show that the story of i18f- was its natural sequel (cp. Allen, ET. xi. 135 f.), and consequently that the case for a source is much weaker here than in Luke. There is no obvious reason why a Jewish Christian who, like the author, was interested in the lore of Judaism, should not have compiled the genealogy for his own special purposes.

* The further problem (cp. Feigel, Der Einfluss des Weissagungsbeweises u. anderer Motive auf d. Leidens geschichte, 1910) for the historical critic is to determine to what extent the prophetic citations created or moulded the narratives, here as elsewhere in Mt. “The narratives have a basis in fact, or in what is assumed to be or regarded as fact. But in form they have often been assimilated to earlier models, and display unmistakable midrashic features” (Box, ZNW., 1905, 88).

The birth-narratives in Matthew and Luke stand thus on a different footing. In the latter, the omission of a word or two (in 1s4-35) leaves the narrative fairly consecutive and intelligible. In the former, no hypothesis of literary criticism or textual emendation can disentangle the conception of a virgin-birth from a story which is wrought together and woven on one loom.f (ii.) The textual problem of I16 is not yet settled, but the earliest variants (of which that in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila—Conybeare, HJ. i. 96-102—is not one) show traces, variously phrased, of belief in the virgin-birth (cp. J. R. Wilkinson, HJ. i. 354-359). Such modifications as may be due to doctrinal prepossessions are designed to re-set or to sharpen the reference of the original text to the virgin-birth, not to insert the dogma in a passage which was originally free from it. The Syriac variants (cp. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 262 f.) may be regarded as derived from SS {Jacob begat Joseph, Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus who is called the Messiah),X which is connected with the Greek text of the Ferrar group, underlying the old Latin, and the Armenian versions {i.e. ‘Iax 8k iyEvpoev rov 'loijip, 0 fivycrrevOeura, irapdlvos yLaptap. yvvnoev ’Irjaovv rbv \eybp.evov Xpiar6v). In any case bylvvqae refers throughout to legal kinship, not to physical parentage (cp. A. S. Lewis, Old Syriac Gospels, 1910, pp. xiv-xvii).

(iii.) The story § of 21-11 in whole or part has been assigned to a period ii. 261) rightly follows SS in omitting oK tyivwrKev Hais oS (I25) as a later Christian comment introduced to safeguard the physical miracle. t This tells against the primitive origin of the euangelium injantiae, and against all theories of its place in Q or in any pre-canonical source which can be detected in the gospels. Resch’s attempt {KindheitsevangelMm, 264-276) to prove that Paul was acquainted with it is a complete failure. +Cp. van Manen {TT., 1895, pp. 258-263), who defends this as the original reading in Matt. The textual phenomena are displayed in EBi. 2962, as amended in PM., 1902, 85-95. § Cp. Beyschlag, NTTh. ii. 478: “In the story of the travelling star which pointed the way to the magi, in that of Peter walking on the waves, later than that of the gospel; but on insufficient grounds. In a Syriac tract, attributed to Eusebius, and extant in a sixth century MS (cp. transl. by Wright in Journal of Sacred Lit., April, October, 1866; Nestle, ZWT., 1893, 435-438), an account of the magi and the star is given, whose date purports to be A. D. 118-119. If could be established (so Conybeare in Guardian, April 29, 1903, cp. D. Vlter, TT., 1910, 170-213), that the author “had in his hands a pre-canonical Greek source of 119 or 120,” this might denote the terminus a quo for the incorporation of 21-15 into the canonical text of Mt.; but the inference is hazardous. The text runs thus: “This question \i.e. about the Balaam-prophecy of the star and the coming of the magi to Bethlehem in the reign of Pir Shabour] arose in the minds of men who were acquainted with the holy books, and through the efforts of great men in various places this history was sought for, and found, and written in the tongue of those who attended to the matter.” The ‘holy books’ probably include the NT, the ' history ’ is not the story of Mt 21-11 but the Balaam-legend, and the question related to the verification of the date in Mt. or to the harmonising of the Lucan and Matthan stories of the infancy (cp. Hilgenfeld,ZWT., 1895, 447 f., and Zahn, INT. ii. 527). It is curious that according to astronomical observations an important and rare conjunction of the planets (Jupiter and Saturn) did take place between April 15th and December 27th of 6 B.C., which may have led to acute speculation amongst Babylonian astrologers, who were accustomed to forecast the effects of such phenomena upon Syria.* This may suggest a historical nucleus for the early Christian haggada of Mt 21-11.

* The deletion of in wel>p.a.Tos aytov (i18) by Venema, Markland, Bakhuyzen, and Vollgraff is quite arbitrary, though Burkitt {Ev. Da-Meph.

Qf 1 617-20 is also more likely to be organic to a gospel which reflected the later catholic consciousness of Christianity (cp. HNT. 646 f.), and particularly Matthew’s high estimate of the apostles, than a later interpolation in a very early gospel, much less an integral part of such a gospel (Keim, iv. 266 f.; Stevens, NTTh. 136 f.). The original saying t goes back to the Jewish conception of petra (NDD, cp. the rabbinic quotation in Taylor’s Sayings of Jewish Fathers2, 160) as applied by God to Abraham, ' when He saw Abraham who was going to arise, He said, Lo, I have found apetra to build and to found the world upon.’ Even in the Greek expansion of the evangelist the saying does not presuppose a period of christological development later than that assigned to the gospel as a whole, and the similar passage in Jn 2022-23 seems a correction of the specifically Petrine privilege or of the OT saints rising in the hour of Jesus’ death, Mt. has manifestly translated poetic traditions into history. Even Lk. has taken for genuine history the legendary traditions of his introductory chapters.” * The suggestions of Kepler have been recently elaborated, on the basis of a Babylonian demotic papyrus, by Oefele in his essay {Mittheilungen der Vorderasiat. Gesellschajt, 1903) on ‘das Horoskop der Empfangnis Christi.’ t Cp. Bruston in RTQR. (1902) 326-341. of the Matthsean logion. For this, as well as for other reasons (cp. Zahn’s Forschungen, i. 163 b, 290 f.), it is unlikely that 1617-19 (cp. Schmiedel, EBi., 1876, 1892, 3104-3105) is an interpolation, or that 1618-19 represents an insertion made by the church of Rome (Victor), c. A.D. 190, in the interests of its catholic authority (so Grill, Der Primat des Petrus, 1904, pp. 61-79).

(c) While the epilogue (2816-20) naturally does not give the ipsissima uerba of Christ (cp. HNT. 647-649), it is an organic part of the gospel, which rounds off the there is nothing in its phraseology which is inconsistent with the catholic consciousness of the early church during the last quarter of the first century. The only point of dubiety lies in 2819. The theory that the textus receptus of this verse arose between A.D. 130 and 140 in the African old Latin texts, owing to baptismal and liturgical considerations, and that the original text was the shorter Eusebian form (rropev nabnrecare mvra ra edvi) B TW ovopart nov), was proposed by F. C. Conybeare (ZNW., 1901, 275-280; HJ. i. 102-108) and has been accepted by Usener {Rhein. Museum, 1902, 39 b), Kirsopp Lake: Influence of Text. Criticism on NT Exegesis (1904), pp. 7 f., Wellhausen, Allen, and Montefiore, amongst others. The opposite side is represented by Riggenbach {BFT., 1903, vii. 1, ‘Der trinitarische Taufbefehl Mt 2819 nach seiner ursprngliche Textgestalt und seiner Authentic untersucht’) and Chase {JTS., 1905, 483 f.). The phrase v TG ovoparl uov may be a Western harmonising interpo-lation (so Riggenbach, from Lk 2447; Chase, from Mk 1617), or an insertion of Eusebius himself, independent of any codices in the Caesarean library. Also, the fact that Eusebius in a number of his works refrains from quoting the verse in its canonical form, and omits all reference to baptism, does not necessarily involve that the canonical form was not in existence, if it can be proved that it was natural for him to omit the baptismal clause as irrelevant to his immediate purpose, quoting only the words which follow and precede it in the canonical text. The occurrence of the latter in the Syriac version of the Theophania (iv. 8) shows that some old Syriac MSS must have had the baptism in the name of the Trinity, and Ephraim’s comment on the Diatessaron indicates that the latter represented the ordinary text of Mt. at this point (cp. Burkitt’s Evang. Da-Meph. i. 172 f., ii. 171, 279). Didache 7, again, shows that the trinitarian formula was possible by the first quarter of the second century, but this does not prove that it was derived from Mt 2819. The question has an obvious bearing not only on the date, but on the ethos of Matthew’s gospel. On the whole, the probabilities seem to converge on the likelihood that the trinitarian form was introduced by the author of the gospel himself, as a liturgical expansion of the primitive formula of baptism into the name of Jesus (cp. J. R. Wilkinson, HJ. i. 571-575; Stanton, GHD. i. 355 f).

* Cp. Norden Kunstprosa, ii. 456): ‘Xp rots uv "EXAngi &s "EXXnct, rots SS /3appdpois 4s ^ap^dpois, ist die Weisung, die der Griechische Philosoph einer Tradition zufolge seinem die Welt erobernden Schiller Alexander auf den Weg mitgab; iropevdtvres ov pad-prevaare Tvra rd Bvn sagte der Stifter der christlichen Religion zu seiner Schuler als er sie in die Welt aussandte.’

Most of the other structural difficulties can be explained as the result either of the author’s work as a compiler and editor, or of later harmonising. The main exception is 518-19, but even this does not justify the hypothesis of a later revision.

The disruption of the context by Mt 289-10, whose contents do no more than repeat those of vv.5-7, suggests that it is an editorial interpolation or later gloss (so, e.g., Keim, vi. 308 f.; Soltau, Schmiedel). Nothing new is communicated by Jesus; he simply repeats what the angel has already said. Whether it is a reminiscence of the tradition underlying Jn 2014-17 (cp. the common use of brethren}, or borrowed from the lost Marcan ending (see above, pp. 238 f.), it is a plausible conjecture (Rohrbach, Harnack) that its insertion may have taken place early in the second century, when the formation of the gospel-canon led to a certain amount of alteration especially in the resurrection-narrative, in order to level up the synoptic traditions (with their Galilean appearances) to the Johannine (Jerusalem).

This dual character of the resurrection-stories (Galilee, Jerusalem), which becomes a special problem in the historical criticism of Mt. and Lk., has started an ingenious attempt to locate the Galilee-appearances at Jerusalem by means of a harmonising hypothesis which assumes that Galilee here is not the province but a place in the vicinity of Jerusalem (so especially R. Hofmann, “Galilaa auf dem Oelberg,” 1896; Zimmermann in SK., 1901, 446 f., and Lepsius, “Die Auferstehungsberichte," in Reden, u. Abhandlungen, iv., 1902), and which summons to its aid the conjecture (Resch, TU x. 2. 381 f., x. 3- 765 f., xii. 332f-> 362!, 586) that repixopos (in Mk I28 etc.; cp. Abbott’s Diat. 4381, is the Gk. equvalent of n22 (cp. Ezek 47s), a district east of the temple, surrounding the mount of Olives and including Bethany. There would thus be two Galilees in the NT: one that of northern Palestine, the sphere of the early ministry of Jesus, the other that of Jerusalem, the location of Christ’s appearances after death. But the evidence for this theory breaks down upon examination. The mediaeval pilgrims found a site here and there for Galilee on Olivet or Mount Sion, simply because they already (cp. Zahn, GK. ii. 937) felt the difficulty of harmonising the resurrection-narratives. Tertullian’s language in Apol. 21 does not bear out Resch’s contention (cp. Schrer, TLZ., 1897, 187 f.), while the theory is further handicapped by the need of assuming not only that Luke at one place (24s) misread Mk 167, although elsewhere he (2450, Ac I12) preserved the real meaning of Galilee, but that, without any warning, the term changes its geographical meaning in the synoptic tradition. The hypothesis therefore falls to the ground (so, e.g., Keim, vi. 380; W. C. Allen, EBi. 2987; Gautier, EBi. 3498; Schmiedel, EBi. 4044; Lake, Reszirrection Narratives, 208-209; Masterman, DCG. ii. 207; A. Meyer, Auferstehungs-berichte, 95 f.). § 4. Characteristics.—The main problem of the gospel remains, however, viz. the juxtaposition of Jewish or particularistic {e.g. Io5f. 23 1524 1928 232) and catholic {e.g. 127. 2414 and 28191.) sayings (cp. 1612 and 23s). Are the former due to a Judaistic recension of the Logia (Schmiedel, EBi. 1842-3, 1870), and were the latter, together with some of the less historical traits, the work of a later editor or editors more friendly to the Gentiles (Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Schwegler: NZ. i. 199 f., 241 f.)? The answer to these questions depends upon the critical analysis of the gospel. Keim (i. 86 f.) ascribes, e.g., 117-223 314-15 811-12 221-14 2 51-12 2 719. 62-66 28^ to a zealous Jewish-Christian, of liberal sympathies, who wrote after the fall of Jerusalem. Soltau’s better theory {ZNW., 1900, 219-248) is that a series of editorial additions to the original Matthew may be found, e.g., in 1-2, 314-15 414-16 518-19 817 1217-21 1 314-15.35 212-5 2615.53 (56) 2 7(3)9-10.34. 43. 57 2762—2820; the original Matthew was compiled from Mk. and the Logia by an opponent of Judaism, but the editor was a strict Jewish Christian of catholic sympathies and dogmatic preposses-sions. This is decidedly simpler than the older theory of Scholten {Het Oudste Evangelic, 93 f.), which postulated three different editions of Matthew. But the solution lies in the idiosyncrasies of the author rather than in the strata of the gospel. The author of Matthew is unconsciously self-portrayed in 1352; he is ypauua- revs /j.a0r]Tev6ei<s rrj Baoela TOv ovpavaw uotos dvOpdrzr^ olKoBecr- ITOTT) oo-rts eK^aXXet ex TOV Or/aavpov avrov Kawa Kac raAaid. He is a Jewish Christian, acquainted with rabbinic learning;* the midrashic element is more pronounced in his work than in either * “ Les formules bien frappees, breves, sentencieuses y abondent; on y sent vraiment le docteur qui parle avec autorit" (Jacquier, INT. ii. 383).

* The double sense of 77 is used both by Chajes {Markus-Studien, 13) and Abbott to explain Lk 487= Mk 128.

Mark or Luke, and it is most conspicuous in the passages which come directly from his own pen. The Jewish Christian traits of his gospel are, however, largely due to the Palestinian traditions which he employed, as well as to the thesis of his own work, viz. that Christianity as the new law and righteousness of God had superseded the old as a revelation of God to He voices the catholic and apostolic consciousness of the early church, which saw in its universal mission to the world a com-mission of Jesus to his disciples, and in its faith a new and final law of God’s messiah. Mt. thus approximates to the standpoint of Luke and of James. He does not show any anti-Pauline tendency; it is forced exegesis to detect a polemic against Paul,t e.g. in the description of the enemy in 1328 or in 519 (cp. 1 Co 159). If Mt. has any affinities with the great apostle, it is with the Paul of Ro 9lf, not of Ro nlf-, much less of Gal 26f-. His Jewish Christian proclivities are strongly marked even in details (e.g. 2420, his fondness for n Baoiela nw ovpavwv, the addition of km Thv Slkmoctvvtiv in 633 [cp. 315 = 517, Gal 44], etc.), but he sees the real Judaism not in the Israel J which had deliberately (cp. 2725, note the emphatic s o Xao^) rejected Jesus, but in the church. It is not accidental that eKKXrja-ca only occurs in Mt., among the evangelists. He reflects an age when the church + He alone of the evangelists uses voula, and he is specially opposed to hypocrisy; but the former need not, any more than the latter, be an anti-Pauline touch.

* Wellhausen [Einl. 70 f.) minimises unduly the catholic and universal traits of the final editor. " Mt. has in view the primitive church of Jerusalem, which sought to hold fast by Judaism in spite of everything. Hostility to the official representatives of the Law is never expressed more bitterly than by him.... But this enmity is a rival race for the same goal, viz. for the fulfilment of the Law and for righteousness. This goal is naturally higher for Christians than for Jews; nevertheless, on that very account the former claim to be the true representatives of Judaism and refuse to yield place to the false. They still take part in the cultus at Jerusalem (523-25), pay the temple-tax,... confine their propaganda outside Jerusalem to Jews, exclude pagans and Samaritans, and will not cast their holy pearls before swine (io5 76)." But this is retained, partly for archaic reasons, from the sources; it is not so fundamental for Mt. as the larger atmosphere of catholic feeling. Wellhausen himself {Einl. 88 f.) admits the probability of this later on.

I Cp. Wellhausen’s remark on 23s7-39 “ Er \i.e. Jesus] hat durch seine Apostel immer wieder Versuche gemacht, die Juden in seiner Gemeinde (Enischta) zu sammeln (Enasch} und vor dem drohenden Zorn zuflucht zu gewahren, aber vergebens." and the kingdom were becoming more closely identified, when the Gentile mission was in full swing, when the initial flush and rush of the faith in Palestine had been succeeded by experiences of false prophets, unworthy and the obstacles which a new organisation creates as well as removes.

Writing for the practical needs of the church, he betrays the vocation of a teacher incidentally in the mnemonic and mathe-matical arrangements of his material, among other things. Thus there are three divisions in the genealogy (12-17), three angel-messages to Joseph in dreams (i20 213. 19), three temptations (41-11), a triple description of the mission (423 see above), a triple illustration in 522 (cp. 584-85. 39-41), the threefold definition of 61-4. 5-15.16-18 (cp. also 69-10 77-8. 22. 25. 27), three miracles of healing (81-15), three further miracles (823-99), three other miracles of healing (918-34), the triple rhythm of 117-9 (cp. 1250), the threefold attack of the Pharisees (1226.10f.24f.), three parables of sowing (131-32), three instances of Verily I say to you (183. 13. 18),f three classes of eunuchs (1912), the threefold rhythm of 2019 (cis TO KTX.) and 219, three parables (2 118-2 214), three questions put to Jesus (2 215-40), three warnings (2 38-10, cp. 2 320-22 23s3 mint and dill and cummin, justice and mercy and faithfulness, 2334 prophets and wise men and scribes}, the three men of the parable (2514f.), three prayers in Gethsemane (2686-45), three denials of Peter (2669f.), three questions of Pilate (2717-22), three mockeries of the crucified (27s9'44), three women specially mentioned at the cross (2756), and the threefold rhythm of 2819-20. With this numerical trait we may rank the fivefold occurrence of the formula Kal yvero ore reoev KTX. (728 111 1353 191 261), the fivefold antithesis of 521-48, and the fivefold rhythm of 107-8 (cp. io910); the seven evil spirits of 1245, the sevenfold forgiveness of 1 821-22 (cp. 2225), the seven loaves and baskets (1 534.37), and the sevenfold woe of 23. It may be only accidental that there are ten OT citations (1-411) previous to the beginning of the Galilean mission, and there happen to be ten miracles in 81-934. The irregular number of the beatitudes (51f), where schematism would have been easy, shows that the writer did not work out t The uhv in 1819 is to be omitted. numerical quite regardless of the materials at his disposal, though homiletic influences undoubtedly were respons-ible for the form as occasionally for the content of the latter.

* “He seems to move amid a race of backsliders” (Abbott, EBi. 1788); but the references are too general to be connected with the retrogression of Jewish converts when the breach between Gentile and Jewish Christians widened c. A.D. 70.

The character of the OT citations throws a particular ray of light on the heterogeneous strata of the gospel as well as on the specific interests of the compiler or editor. In 26 415f. 817 1335 and 2791. we have paraphrastic renderings of the Hebrew. + Here, as elsewhere, citations which differ alike from the Hebrew and the LXX may occasionally be the result of the natural looseness with which early Christian writers occasionally cited the OT from memory, or freely adapted texts for purposes of edification. In such cases the differences are immaterial. In others, e.g. in 27%f (cp. H. R. Hatch, Biblical World, 1893, 345-354, and J. R. Harris, Exp.1, 1905, 161-171), the use of a fiorilegium is the clue to the textual phenomena. The dual nature of the citations remains, however, upon any hypothesis, and it is a watermark of compilation. As a rule Matthew assimilates quotations already found in Mk. more closely to the LXX, or else leaves them as he finds them in that state. The main exceptions to this—in 2113, where, like Lk. (1946), he omits the mci rots Zdveaiv of the LXX (Mk II17), and in 2746, where the closer approximation of Ivarl to the LXX is balanced by the substitution of the vocative Bel /^ov for 6 6e6s uov (Mk 1534 LXX)—are not of any special moment. The same holds true of the non-Marcan allusions to, or citations of, the OT, with the striking exception of twelve passages (i23 215 218 223 4® 1218 216 besides the five noted above),! which indicate a recourse to the original with a more or less subordinate use of the LXX. These passages are all connected with the fulfilment of prophecy. Two of them (223 and 278-10) may have been taken originally from the apocryphal book of Jeremiah (Jerome, cp. Resch’s Parallel-Texte, ii. 334 f., 369 f.), three come from Micah (2®), Hosea (215),§ and Jeremiah (218) respectively, while a couple (4® 1335) are from the Psalter. The rest are drawn from Isaiah (21s being a composite citation of Isaiah and Zechariah).

With regard to the motives underlying Mt.’s account, an apologetic element emerges at the outset in the ascription of the birth to prophecy, as well as in the inclusion of the women in the + Cp. E. Haupt’s Zur Wiirdigung der alt. Citationen im Ev. Mt. (Treptow, 1870) on 817 (pp. 1-7) 1335 (pp. 7-10) and 27s (pp. 10-16); Allen in ET. xii. 281 f., and Nestle in ET. xix. on 223 (pp. 527 k), and {ET. xx. 92-93) on 1219.

* On this cp. Luthardt's paragraphs in his essay, De Compositione Evangelii Matthai (Leipzig, 1861), Plummer (pp. xixf.), and Abbott (Diat. 3352 4

I The midrashic development in 215 is carried a step further by Justin {Apol, i. 32), who binds the foal to a vine. § The difference between this forced application (due to the identification of Jesus here, as in the temptation story, with Israel) and the apt citation in 913 (1217), illustrates the composite character of Matthew’s gospel (cp. Burkitt’s Transmission, 202-203). genealogy. The author aimed at contemporary Jewish insinua-tions against the honour of Mary. The birth of Jesus was the fulfilment of prophecy; Joseph openly recognised Mary as his wife before the birth; and even in the Davidic genealogy women like Tamar and Rahab, besides Ruth the foreigner, had played a part by Divine commission. It is true that the earliest possible record of the well-known Jewish slander dates from about A.D. 130, while it does not become prominent till the age of Celsus, half a century later (Hilgenfeld in ZWT, 1900, pp. 271 f.); but it must be earlier than its literary records, and some such slander was inevitable in Jewish circles as soon as the dogma of the virgin-birth was marked, particularly when argument was rife over the messianic claims of Jesus. Else-where in Mt. a sensitiveness to contemporary Jewish slander is visible, as in the story of 2811-15, and the humble, grateful recogni-tion of Jesus the messiah* at his birth by the foreign magi is thrown into relief against his subsequent reception by the Jews.

Mt. has also his eye upon difficulties felt inside the church, e.g. about the relation of Jesus to the Law and the Gentile mission. A certain perplexity had further been felt, by the time he wrote, about the baptism of Jesus, and his account in 313f. attempts to explain how the holy messiah submitted to baptism at the hands of John. The purpose of John’s baptism, cis a^eaiv dpapriv (Mk 14), is omitted, and there is a tacit contrast between the people (Mt 36) and the religious authorities (311 ips... els uervotav) on the one hand, and Jesus (314f.) on the other. The curious story of the Gospel according to the Hebrews (cp. Jerome, contra Pelag. iii. 2, and Cyprian, de rebapt. xvii.), that Jesus only went J after refusing at first to accompany his father and mother (cp. the motive of John 73f), is accepted by some scholars, e.g. by O. Holtzmann {Leben Jesu, Eng. tr.

127 f.), as authentic. Both this and the account in Mt. are probably more or less independent attempts to explain the same * The significant change in 317 (cp. Jub 2226.28; Halevy, RS., 1903, 32 f., 123 f., 210f.) substitutes a public proclamation for an inward assurance. t The passage thus tallies with the ratification of Christian baptism in 2819; the validity of the institution is proved apologetically by the fact that Jesus himself not only enjoined it but submitted to it. + “Dixit autem eis, quid peccaui, ut uadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum, quod dixi, ignorantia est.” The fragment breaks off here; but, as the next fragment proves, Jesus did go eventually. incident. But this opens up the larger question of the relation between the two works. § 5. Mt. and the Euangelium iuxta Hebrceos.—When the Matthaan document is identified with Q (see above, pp. 194 f.), the speculations of early tradition and recent investigation upon the relation of the canonical Mt. to the TO TOV&XCKW lose their basis and interest, although the latter document remains one of the problems and enigmas of early Christian literature. Even yet there is no sort of agreement upon the relation of the canonical Matthew, or of Q (= the Matthaean Logia), to what came to be called ‘ the Gospel according to the Hebrews ’ (eayyov ka@‘ ‘Epalovs). The latter, to judge from the Stichometry of Nikephorus, was larger than Mk. and smaller than Mt.; it was the Greek translation of an Aramaic original, used by the Nazarenes and the Ebionites especially, and eventually circulated among the Jewish Christians of Egypt. So much is clear. But its origin is a mystery. Was it (so from Bleek and Frank: SK., 1846, 369b, to Wernle, Syn. Frage, 248 f.; Julicher, Einl. 261; A. F. Findlay, etc.) a second-hand and second-century compilation mainly based on the canonical gospels (especially Mt. and Lk.),* or a source co-ordinate with the canonical Gospels (O. Holtzmann’s Leben Jesu, Eng. tr. 46-52) and even used by Mt. and Lk. (Handmann, TU. v. 3. 127 f.)? These are the two extremes of critical opinion. The latter is modified by those who hold that both Mt. and Heb. gospel were written by the same hand (Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 1879), or that both were versions of the Ur-Matthaus (so, e.g., Schneckenburger, Zahn), while there is still support for the traditional view that the Heb. gospel were really the work of Matthew to which the tradition of Papias refers (so, e.g., Hilgenfeld, Die Evglien, 43 f.; ZWT, 1863, 345 f., 1889, 280 f., and Barns, cp. A. Meyer, HNA. i. 18-19).! Setting aside the latter theory, we may upon the whole feel * Specifically a second-century Jewish - Christian adaptation of Mt. (Weizsacker, Untersuchungen, 223 f.; Resch, TU. v. 4. 322 f.; Hoennicke, JC. 98, etc.) or of Lk. (B. Weiss, Einl. 494 k). t To the literature cited by Ehrhard {ACL. 139 f.) and A. Meyer {HNA, ii. 21 f.), add Menzies {DB. v. 338-342), A. F. Findlay {DCG. i. 675 f.), Stanton {GHD. i. 250 f.), Adeney {HJ. iii. 139-159), and Barnes {JTS., April 1905, 356 f.). The extant fragments are collected in Preuschen’s Antilegomena (3-8) and Harnack {ACL. i. 1. 6f.), and translated by Nicholson {op. cit. pp. 28 f.) and B. Pick {Paralipomena, Chicago, 1908). justified in refusing also to regard the gospel Kaf’ ^paiovi as a derivative compilation. Its use by Hegesippus (cp. SR. 270 f.), possibly also by Ignatius and throws the date of its composition into the early part of the second century, and the internal evidence suggests an even earlier period (A.D. 70-100, Harnack, ACL. ii. 1. 625 f.). The gospel, in its original form,} was probably one of the narratives which preceded Luke (i1); it was a Jewish-Christian Snyhois which assigned special promi-nence to James as Mt. did to Peter, and which derived part of its material from primitive and fairly authentic sources. The tradition which connected it with Matthew is pure guesswork, started by misinterpretations of the earlier tradition about Matthew’s Logia. The gospel Kaff ‘Epalovs was originally anonymous (Handmann, pp. 114 f.); it was a gospel of the twelve, not a gospel of Matthew. Unlike the canonical Mt. it had no Euangelium infanticethough it may have had a genealogy, since its purpose was to prove the messianic legitimacy of Jesus. It is related, in point of religious aim and literary quality, to the canonical Mt. pretty much as the epistle of Barnabas is to Hebrews.

(D) Luke

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions!—Origen’s Homilice in Lucam (mainly on chs. 1-4); Ambrose, Expositio Evangelica (fourth century); Beda (eighth century); Theophylact (eleventh century); Cajetan (1543); Cornelius a Lapide (1638, Eng. tr. of Luke, London, 1887); H. Pape (Leipzig, 1778); S- F. N. Morus (Leipzig, 1795); Stein (Halle, 1830); F. A. Bornemann’s Scholia (1830); Glockler (Frankfort, 1835); Olshausen (1837, Eng. tr. 1863); Baumgarten-Crusius (Jena, 1845); Meyer (1846, Eng. tr. of fifth ed., Edin. 1880); de Wette3 (1846); Trollope (London, 1847); Diedrich t The legendary features are cruder than the naive stories, e.g., of Mt 1724-27 2i181, and 27s1"53; on the other hand, it has preserved a more accurate form of 23s5. The latter is more likely to be primitive than the correction of the canonical text of Mt. by a well-informed editor, and it is not the only instance of good primitive tradition in the rd ’lovSaiKbv. I The Greek comments of Eusebius (Cs.) and Cyril (Alex.) are extant only in fragments; the latter is translated into English (ed. R. P. Smith, Oxford, 1859).

* Schwegler {NZ. i. 197 f.) also heard echoes in Jas 512 and 2 P I17, since the gospel, like the apocalypse of John, voiced the primitive Jewish Christianity of the early church. Pfleiderer (Urc. ii. 160 f.), though regarding it as an independent form of the original Aramaic gospel, admits the presence of later legends.

(1864); J. J. Owen (New York, 1867); Bisping (1868); Burger (1868); A. Carr (1875); Jones and Cook {Speaker's Comm. 1878); E. H. Plumptre (Ellicott’s Comm. 1878); Hofmann (1878); Oosterzee (Lange’s Bibel- Werk^, 1880); van Doren (New York, 1881); Fillion (Paris, 1882); Schanz (1883)*; Farrar {CGT. 1884); M. F. Sadler (1886); Godet3 (1888, Eng. tr. of second ed. 1881); T. M. Lindsay (Edin., n. d.); J. Bond (1890); Hahn (Breslau, 1892-4)*; J. Weiss* (—Meyer8, 1892); Knabenbauer (Paris, 1895); Plummer {ICC. 1896 and folk ed.); Blass, Evangelium secundum Lucam (1897); Nosgen2 (Strack-Zbckler, 1897); Riezler (Brixen, 1900); A. Wright (1900); B. Weiss (—Meyer9, 1901); Adeney {CB. 1901); Girodon {Commentaire critique et moral, Paris, 1903); Wellhausen * (1904); V. Rose, L’^vangile selon S. Luc (Paris, 1904); Merx, Die Evglien Marcus u. Lukas nach der Syrischen im Sinaikloster gefund. Palimpsest-handschrift erldutert. (1905)*; J. M. S. Baljon (1908)*; A. S. Walpole (1910); A. E. Garvie (Westminster NT, 1911). Studies—B. L. Konigsmann, De fontibus commentariorum Luce? (1798); Schleiermacher, Uber die Schriften des Lucas (1 Theil, 1817, Eng. tr. 1828, with preface by Thirlwall);1 Mill, The Hist. Char. of St. Luke's Gospel (1841); J. Grimm, Die Einheit des Lucas-Evglms (1863); G. Meyer, Les Sources de Tlv. de L. (Toulouse, 1868); Renan, v. (ch. xiii.); Keim, i. 98 f.; Scholten, das Paulinische Evgim, Kritische Unters. d. Ev. nach Lucas, etc. (Germ, ed., Redepenning, 1881); Stockmeyer, ‘ Quellen des Lk-Evglms ’ {ZSchw., 1884, 117-149); C. Campbell, Critical Studies in St. Lsike's Gospel{i^o, on Ebionitism, demonology, etc.); Feine, Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas (1891)*; Bebb {DB. hi. 162-173); Pfleiderer, Urc. ii. 98-190, 28of.); P. C. Sense, Origin of Third Gospel (1901); E. C. Selwyn, Luke the Prophet (1901); A. B. Bruce, Kingdom of God6 (1904)*; J. Haussleiter, Die Missionsgedanke im Evgim des Lukas (1905); B. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevglms (1908) *; A. Wright {DCG. ii. 84-91). § 1. The Preface.—Blass {Philology of Gospels, 1898, 1-20); Abbott {EBi. 1789-90).

Luke’s gospel and its sequel are addressed to a certain Theophilus. This is a genuine proper name, not an imaginary nom de guerre for the typical catechumen, nor a conventional title for the average Christian reader. Nothing is known of Theophilus, except what may be inferred from Luke’s language, viz. that he was not simply an outsider interested in the faith, but (karnxhens, cp. Ac 1825 2121) a Christian who desired or required fuller acquaintance with the historic basis of the Christian gospel; also that, as Kpriore implies (cp. Ac 2 326 243 2625), he was a man of rank. Luke’s emphasis on the relation between Christianity and the Roman empire, and his stress upon the hindrances and 1 Criticised by Planck in an essay, De Luca evang, analysi critica quam Schleiermacher proposuit (Gottingen, 1819). temptations of would tally with the hypothesis that his friend belonged to the upper and official classes; but beyond these inferences lies the land of fancy.

Luke’s method is historical, but his object, like that of John (2031), is religious. He makes no claim, however, to be an eye-witness. All he professes is to write a correct, complete, and chronological (in the sense of well-arranged, or logical) account of the primitive TrapdSocris as received from the first generation of disciples. This attempt was neither new nor superfluous. Luke had numerous predecessors in the enterprise, but their work did not satisfy his purpose, and he resolved to make a fresh essay. He makes no claim to be inspired (contrast the eSoge Kuo with the Zoogev TVepaT TO aylo kal yjiv of Ac i 528); his qualifications are simply the pains he had taken to acquaint himself (xpis) with the contents of the rapSoois. Whatever his success was, his historical aim and method contrast favour-ably with the easy-going practice of his pagan contemporary, Q. Curtius Rufus (vii. 8. n, utcunque sunt tradita incorrupta perferemus; ix. i. 34, equidem plura transcribe quam credo). Luke did not rest his narrative on unsifted traditions.

The dedication proves that the compilers of early Christian gospels, among whom Luke ranks himself, drew upon the irapadbaeis of eye-witnesses and primitive evangelists, but that the latter did not write down their informa-tion. The drawing up of narratives, it is implied, followed the oral stage. As Luke’s writings show, he availed himself not simply of the written composition of his predecessors (e.g. Mk. and Q), but of oral tradition.

The preface or dedication not only is modelled on the conventional lines of ancient literature, but shows if not an acquaintance with similar passages in medical treatises, e.g. that of Dioskorides Trepr Ans larpLKf (cp. Lagarde’s Mittheihmgen, iii. 355 f.; Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke, 86f.; J. Weiss, etc.), at any rate a medical flavour.! Thus, aKpipus t Beck (Der Prolog des Lukas Evgim, 1901) e.g. argues from Iv tiJiv that Luke was one of the Emmaus-disciples, and Theophilus a rich tax-collector of Antioch who met Luke, Philip, and Paul at Caesarea, whither he had accompanied Herod and Bernice. + Thumb (Die Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, 1901, 225-226) contends that the linguistic parallels with Dioskorides and Hippokrates (pref, to llepl dpxafys iarpiKf, 6K6<SOI. rexelpnav irepl fTpief rapaxolov@ev is a phrase of Gaien [Prognat. ii. 13, Theriac. ad Pisonem, 2), and in his preface to the latter work he writes, Kal toOtov a 01 rov trepl rfjs @npiaxfs X6yov, aKpipws l^eraaas ti.ira.vTa, &piare niauf crrrovBalcos erolnoa. Luke’s preface therefore hints that the writer is not only composing a literary work, but familiar with medical phraseology. It is the first piece of evidence for the correctness of the tradition (see below) that he was Luke, the Greek physician who was in touch with Paul during his later life.

* The so-called ‘ Ebionitism ‘ of Luke arises partly from his sources, several of which apparently reflected the suffering, poor churches of Palestine (A.D. 40-70), and partly from the familiar diatribe-themes of con-temporary Stoicism. The tone of the relevant passages (cp. O. Holtzmann’s War Jesus Ekstatiker, pp. 16 f.) is that of James’ epistle, curiously ascetic and more than suspicious of wealth.

Polybius similarly (iv. 1-2) explains that he begins his main history at 220-216 B.C., since he was thus able “to speak as an eye-witness of several of the events” of the periods, “as well as from the information of those who were eye-witnesses of other events. To go further back and write the report of a report (ds O.KOT]V aKorjs yp&peiv) seemed to me an insecure basis for conclusions or for assertions.” Luke would have also agreed with the further reason of Polybius, “Above all, I started at this point, inasmuch as the whole world’s history entered upon a new phase at this period.” § 2. Outline and contents.—After the preface (114), the gospel falls into four sections: {a) The first (15-413) describes the birth of John and of Jesus (15-220), the boyhood of Jesus (221-52), the preliminary mission of John (31-20) and his baptism of Jesus (321f.), the genealogy of the latter (3s3'38) and his temptation (4143).* The second part (414-950) is devoted to the Galilean mission.! The third section (951-1 927) brings Jesus to Jerusalem after a series of journeys through Samaria and elsewhere. The closing part (1928-24) covers the same ground as the corre-sponding sections in Mk. and Mt., though with characteristic omissions and additions.} Luke’s relation to the Marcan order is of primary significance in an estimate of his work. Between Mk 11-6 and Mk 17-8 he inserts an even fuller account of John’s preaching (37-14) than Mt. (37-10); § Xyet f pdet) are too general, and that they only prove a knowledge of medical phraseology. On the coincidences with the prefaces and dedications of Josephus, see Krenkel's Josephus u. Lukas, 50 f. * On the Lucan handling of this tradition, cp. EBi. 4960-4961, and B. Weiss, Quellen d. Lukas Evgluts, I oof. f The second and the third sections both open with a rejection of Jesus (416-30 95l-56).

I In the passion-narrative the resemblances with Ac 22-24 are very marked: both Jesus and Paul, according to Luke, were struck on the mouth before the Sanhedrim; both were given up by the Jews to the Roman authorities; both were accused of treason by the Sadducean priesthood, and both were three times pronounced innocent. § This is one case in which Mt. keeps much closer' to Q than Luke (cp. Salmon’s Human Element in Gospels, 49 f.); the latter, by changing the Pharisees and Sadducees into a vague crowd (cp. 730), fails to explain the point and sharpness of John’s rebuke. he then follows Mk. down to 415 ( = Mk i15), but proceeds to insert a programmatic and proleptic account of the rejection of Jesus at Nazara Returning, in 481-44, to the Marcan scheme (121-39), he stops at this point to insert a special version of Peter’s call (51-11), in place of the tradition (Mk 116-20) which he had just omitted. The Marcan thread is followed again till 611 ( = Mk 36), where he reverses the position of the call of the twelve (612-10 = Mk 318-19, 617-19 = Mk 37-12). After this, Luke goes his own way for a while. Mk 41-25 is reproduced in 84-18; 819-21 picks up Mk 331-35 (another instance of reversed order), and 822-56 follows Mk 485-543; the parabolic teaching of 420-29. 33-34 is entirely omitted, and 430-32 is not used till 1 318-19.

In 91-9 Luke returns to Mk. (66b-16), and the thread is on the whole followed in 910-17 ( = Mk 630-44). Then, omitting Mk 645-826, with the exception of 811-13 and 814-21, which are caught up in reverse order later (1254-56 1153-1 21), he follows Mk. (827-98) in 918-36 (omitting Mk 99-18), and on the whole in 937-50 ( = Mk 914-41).

Mk 942-48 reappears afterwards in 171-2, the salt-saying of 949-50 (like io1’12) never appears at all, and it is not till 1815-34 that the Marcan scheme (1013-34) is resumed (1835-43 = Mk 1046-52).4 The narrative of the last days in Jerusalem then follows Mk. pretty closely, though it omits J Mk 1 112-14. 20-26 (fig-tree incident), 1321-23. 33-37 and 1516-20, reverses the order of Mk 1418-21 ( = 2221-23) and 1422-25 (= 2215'20), and makes a number of significant additions.

Luke’s detailed chronology varies between vague notices of time and definite synchronisms which are generally more graphic than historical. Thus the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus alike fell ‘ in the days of Herod ‘ (I5, cp. 21 iv reus huepats eKelvais); § he is now and then precise upon days (i69 221.44.46 etc.), months]! (124 26.56), years (212, cp. 3s3), if or even hours (a28, cp. io21 2259), and he attempts at one place an elaborate sixfold synchronism (in 31'2, with which the sixfold date of the Thebans’ entry into Plata, in Thue. ii. 2, has been compared). He knows that the J On the neglect of the Marcan source in 951-1814, cp. Sir J. C. Hawkins in ET. xiv. 18 f., 90 f., 137 f. {Oxford Studies, 29-59). + The anointing in Bethany (Mk 143-9) had been already used in 736-50. § Cp. I39 612 {iv r. nu. rairais'). || Apart from the ritual (Gal 410), the OT (Ja 517), and the apocalyptic references (in Apoc. Joh.), /fi', in its literal sense, is used only by Lk. of all the NT writers.

* Which Mk. reserves till 61-6a. Hence the anachronism of Lk 423.

“T This wcret is not uncommon in Luke’s chronological notices (CD. 842 914- 28 2259 2344, Ac 241 and elsewhere). call of twelve disciples took place * in the morning (612-13) after a night of prayer. On the other hand, his connections are often vague; e.g. iv rQ e^s (711), TV rade^'rjs (81), iv ry ghs ypipa. (937). As a rule, he follows Mark, e.g. in 41 431-44 S27'- 61 (adding the enigmatic Sevrepoirp^Tip) and 66 ( = Mk 31), though now and then he loosely uses iv p-M tS>v r/pepiov (517 822—where, like Mt 823, he departs from Mark 435—201), or phrases like iv aircp rip Kaipip (131) and iv airy ry &pq. (1331 2019).

All through, whenever he leaves Mk., and even sometimes when he follows him, we have therefore to distinguish between a sequence which is apt enough in an edifying homily or in a catechetical manual, but unlikely to be historical. Thus Lk. arranges the temptation in 41-13 so as to avoid the abrupt change from the desert to the temple, and at the same time in order to produce a climax; he also inserts 711-17 in order to prepare the way for 722 (yeKpot Zye'povrai). His work is full of these deliberate transitions and re-arrangements which were already a feature of the primitive synoptic tradition even in Mk. § 3. Sources and structure.—Besides Mk. and Q, the sources used by Luke (114) in composing his gospel, so far as they were written, may have provided him with material for 15-252, 9511814, and some passages elsewhere, especially in the passion-narrative; but he has worked over them so thoroughly that it is rarely possible to distinguish their number or even their nature.

15-252, cp. Hillmann {JPT., 1891, 192-261), Badham {ET. viii. 116-119, defence of integrity), Zimmermann (SK., 1901, 415-458, ibid. 1903, 247-290), Hilgenfeld {ZWT., 1900, 177-235, 1901, 313-318), Schmiedel ^EBi. 2954!.), Usener ^EBi. 3441 f.), Spitta (ZNW., 1906, 281-317, ‘Die Chronologischen Notizen und die Hymnen in Lc i und 2 ’), R. J. Knowling {DCG. i. 202 f.), Clemen {Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des NT, 1909, pp. 223 b), and D. Volter (TT., 1910, 289-334, ‘Die Geburt des Tafers Johannes und Jesu nach Lukas ’).

The stylistic data of 15-252 permit of three hypotheses: (i.) the use of a Palestinian Jewish-Christian Greek or Aramaic * Other morning incidents, peculiar to Luke, are 51-11 (cp. 5s) 2137 2266 and 2354. + J. F. Blair in The Apostolic Gospel (pp. 7 f.) rightly notes Luke’s arrangement of sayings and stories as an illustration of this; e.g. Lk 736-50 is an example of 7s4, Lk io25f- (the captious vouoiokaNos) and io38f- (Mary the receptive) of io21. For other cases of editorial motive, see Westcott’s Introd. to Study of Gospels, pp. 393 f.

(Bruce, Zimmermann, Plummer, Wright) source, which Luke has revised and incorporated; * (ii.) the free composition of the section, in archaic style, by Luke himself; or (iii.) its later insertion. The marked change of style and diction, as the gospel passes from 14 to i5 and, though less markedly, from 252 to 31, and the Hebraistic phenomena of 15-252, together with the Lucan characteristics which emerge in 215-20. 41-52 (Harnack, SB BA., 1900, pp. 538-566) and elsewhere (Zimmermann, pp. 250 f.), are best met by the first of the three hypotheses, in its translation-form.

It requires too arbitrary handling of the text to disentangle from 15-252 and 323f, under a double Christian redaction (e.g. in 126-56 and 178.), a Jewish apocalypse of Zechariah (Volter, TT., 1896, 244-269; N. Schmidt, EBi. i. 936), which is mentioned in the stichometry of Nikephorus and elsewhere, or to detect a Jewish-Christian interpolation (so Usener, Das Weihnachtspest, 1889, 122 f.; Gercke, Neue Jahrb. fur d. klass. AUerth., 1901, 187) in 323-88 as well as in Mt 11-17 (for Lk 1-2, cp. Corssen in GGA., 1899, 326 f.).

The main drawback to (ii.), i.e. to the theory that the author himself produced the archaic Semitic style by means of a conscious art (so, e.g., Pfleiderer and Harnack, BNT i. 199 f.), apart from the fact that the so-called Lucan characteristics are almost wholly derived from the LXX, is the difficulty of imagining how a Gentile Christian like Luke could throw himself back, by a supreme effort of the historical imagination, to the standpoint of these chapters (cp. Sanday, ET. xiv. 296 f.; Zahn, INT. iii. 112 f, and Stanton in GHD. ii. 223 f.). When the section is viewed as Luke’s translation-Greek, and as embodying some primitive document, not as a piece of free composition, 15-252 with 323-28 represent an early Palestinian source which Luke has worked over, perhaps inserting, e.g., the references to the decree (21) f and the virgin-birth (134-85), with the s evo/Atfro of 323. He probably translated the source himself from Aramaic. In spite of Dalman’s scepticism ( Worte Jesu, Eng. tr. pp. 38 f.) there is no reason why Luke should not have known Aramaic; and here as elsewhere there are fairly evident traces of a Semitic original (Briggs, Messiah of Gospels, 41 f.; Wellhausen, Einl. 35 f.; Nestle, ZNW. vii. 260 f.; Spitta, ZNW. vi. 293 f.; Wright, Zimmermann, Jlicher, etc.). *So J. G. Machen, Princeton Review (1906), 48-49, and Volter. t The chronological notices cannot claim to be more than vague, popular synchronisms (cp. Spitta, op. cit. p. 300).

It is no objection to argue (Hilgenfeld, etc.) that references to the Davidic throne and reign (132-33), the righteousness of works (16 225 etc.), and the obligations of the law (282-23), could not have come from the pen of Luke the Paulinist, but must have been added by a redactor who was responsible for the songs, etc. To be a friend or companion of Paul was not equivalent to sharing all his particular theological opinions (see below under Acts); Luke s historic sense was sufficient to prevent him from suppressing such features in the interests of doctrine; and, even upon Hilgenfeld’s peculiar thesis, the redactor was himself a Paulinist!

One object of the source was to represent John the Baptist as emphatically the forerunner and inferior of Jesus—the same motive which re-appears in Ac 18-19 as well as in the Fourth gospel. This tradition, with its juxta-position of the two births, met the tendency in some circles to aggrandise the prestige of John (cp. J. R. Wilkinson, A Johannine Document in the First Chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, 1902). This leads to the first of the three problems of textual and literary criticism in the section, (a) Was the virgin-birth originally part of the source, or even of Luke’s version? The that 184-35 represents an interpolation in the text (so, e.g., Hillmann, Volter, Holtzmann, Conybeare, Usener, Harnack: ZNW., 1901, 53-57, Schmiedel, Pfleiderer, Grill, N. Schmidt, J. Weiss, Loisy, Montefiore) rests entirely! on internal evidence. When these verses are omitted, it is claimed, the context (i.e. to v.33, and from v.36) runs smoothly. Jesus is announced as destined to be born to Joseph, a descendant of David (so s OLKOV LaveiS must be taken in I27 in the light of 127: 32 and 24) and Mary. The application of oveis to Joseph and Mary, and of Trarrip to Joseph, does not give the slightest hint of any merely adoptive relationship between Joseph and Jesus, and such a connection is not suggested by the episode of the Baptist’s birth. Mary is a virgin when the angel announces the birth of a son and (a messianic scion) to her (i27); i.e. as a betrothed maiden, presently to be married (in less than a year), she is promised this gift of God in her married life. The marriage is taken for granted, as in Is 714. After this, the sequence of I34 (How shall this be, since I know not a man?) is held to be abrupt. Hitherto the angelic promise referred simply to her future as a married woman, and the difficulty of this question, unmotived by what precedes, is not to be explained by her maidenly consciousness or confusion at the announcement. Furthermore, the words are as real an expression of incredulity as those of Zachariah (i18); yet the latter is punished for unbelief, while Mary is praised for her faith (145). This eulogium is hard to understand $ t The substitution of 38 for 34, and the omission of 38 after 37, in b is too slender a basis, and may have been accidental, whilst the alleged omission of 34-35 from the Protevangelium Jacobi breaks down upon examination (cp. Headlam’s discussion with Conybeare in the Guardian for March-April 1903).

* Hacker’s (ZWT., 1906, 18-60) inclusion (so Spitta and Montefiore) of 36-37 in the interpolation has this in its favour, that it gets rid of the supposed miraculous inference in 37. B. Weiss confines the interpolation to 34-85a.

J On the other hand, it is precarious to argue that Mary’s subsequent sur-prise (219. 331 50) would be inconsistent with the revelation given her in 134-35, and that therefore either the latter passage, or the whole of ch. 2, is an interpolation. in view of Is4, for the question there is surely more than an involuntary cry of surprise, unless we are to resort to conjecture (so W. C. Allen, Interpreter, 1905, pp. 121 f.) and assume an unrecorded indication of some-thing unique in the conception. An alternative modification of the inter-polation-hypothesis would be simply to omit lirel tiro pa oil toKo from 134 (so Kattenbusch, Apost. Symbol, ii. 623; Merx; Weinel, ZNW., 1901, 37 f.; L. Kohler, ZSchw, 1902, 220 f.) on the ground that the conception by the Holy Spirit does not necessarily exclude human paternity (Joseph’s agency being taken as a matter of course, like that of Zachariah), and also because Mary’s cry of surprise then relates to the career of her son, and not to the method of his conception. But it is the latter which is the point of 135f., whereas in the source (i.e. up to TOs crat TOVTO) the surprise and hesitation are motived by the fact that Mary and Joseph were of humble origin.

The argument therefore is that Is4"85 can be removed, not only without impairing, but actually with the result of improving, the context. If the allusion to virginity (127) and the absence of any subsequent mention of marriage are taken as implying 134-35, it is open to the critic either to regard jrapdevos as interpolated by the author of 134-35 (so Harnack), or to suppose that the redactor omitted the mention of the marriage and subsequent con-ception (Usener). The double mention of T., however, and its vital con-nection with the sentence, render the former hypothesis less probable, while the latter seems unnecessary in view of 25 (with Mary his wife). Here rp atrip otay yKb is correctly interpreted by the early glossarial addition ofyvak after atrip (ACT A A, 1, Syrp, vulg., goth., th.) J even if one is indisposed to admit yvvaiKi as the original reading 'e.g. Hacker, 53-54), on the ground that its alteration into euv. is more likely than the Ebionitic change of ip.v. into yvvaiKl. The sole reason for Mary’s presence with Joseph was the fact of her marriage to him.

The style of 84-85 is fairly Lucan, though 816 occurs only once in the third gospel and eirel never. If it be an interpolation, it is due either to Luke or to a redactor who wrote 85 on the basis of 131-32 and Mt 118-25, with 84 as its prelude. The main difficulty in the way of the Lucan authorship is not so much the silence of Acts on the virgin-birth as the discrepancy between I84-85 and a passage like 37, where the Lucan reading undoubtedly was vis pov el at" iyh aypepov yeylvvyKa o€ (so, e.g., Corssen; Usener, Weihnachts-fest, 40-50; Harnack, BNT. ii. 310-314; cp. Resch, Agrapha, 346 f., 365 f., and Paralleltexte, iii. 20-24). At all events, the insertion must have been made, for harmonistic purposes, prior to the formation of the gospel-canon. § t Cp. Bardenhewer, BZ (1905), p. 158. t SyrSin substitutes y. for Ipvyar. (so a, b, c,fP=uxore sua). § Zimmermann (SK., 1903, 273 f.) attributes the interpolation to Luke himself, who, in translating his Aramaic Jewish-Christian source of the nativity (which described only a natural birth), added I34-35 (hence the Spirit as masculine, not—as in Semitic—feminine), altered I27 and 25in order to make Mary merely the betrothed of Joseph, not his wife, inserted the erroneous chronology of 31-2, the parenthesis of 2358, the mistranslation in 222 (avrwv). Against it is argued that the deletion of vv.34-35 does not leave the answer of v.38 with the same wealth and depth of meaning; such a resigned acceptance of God’s will would be much less likely than a glad rejoinder in the case of any Jewish maiden who, after her betrothal, was told that her eldest child would be the messiah. The tremor, in the other case, is natural. It is scarcely fair to find an absolute discrepancy between Elizabeth’s praise of Mary’s faith (v.45) and the very natural and momentary hesitation of v.34. It is the almost immediate repression of her doubt and the resigned words of 38 which justify her cousin’s eulogy (cp. Halevy in RS., 1902, 328 f.). On the other hand, the further argument that the omission of the virgin-birth throws the narrative out of balance, by leaving no contrast between Zachariah and Joseph, is partly met by the relegation of the mag-nificat to Elizabeth, and by the consideration that the story, unlike that of Matthew, is written from Mary’s point of view.

* Note how the omission, e.g., lessens the gap between the I8w avWripfp of31 and the Kal iSoS ’E. h avyy. a. K. airy cvvelknpev of3®.

If i35 is retained, the term vids deov there, as in 3s7, suggests the idea of Jesus as the second Adam, whose birth or creation renders him Son of God. Justin {Dial. 100), who employs the Lucan tradition, expands this analogy by contrasting Eve and Mary, pointing out that by Jesus “ God destroys the Serpent, and those angels and men who resemble him, whereas he works deliverance from death for those who repent of their evils and believe on him.” But, in view of Paul’s conception of the second Adam, the inde-pendence of human parentage is not necessary.

An Egyptian ostrakon preserves a hymn to Mary, the second part of which, reproducing the matter of Lk 128b-38 presents some variations from the Lucan text, e.g., the absence of 136-37 and the conception of Mary at the moment of the theophany. The text is too corrupt, however, to be relied on, and in any case it has no claim to be regarded as superior (so Reitzenstein, Zmei religionsgeschichtlichen Fragen, 1901, 112-131) to the Lucan account. Even in the latter this idea of Mary’s conception as due to a divine utterance t has occasionally been found by some critics; this is not Luke’s view, but, apart from this altogether, chronologically and intrinsically the Lucan story takes precedence of the Egyptian fragment.

(3) A second equally complex problem is started by the criticism of the songs. Here, also, a number of the characteristic terms of these songs in Lk 1-2 may be shown to come from the LXX, while, on the other hand, and, in fact, the whole of 222b-23. Zimmermann consequently identifies Luke with Hilgenfeld’s ‘ Pauline interpolator ’ whose hand is seen in 155b. 76-79. He precariously identifies this Aramaic source with the ^l^\os yev^aews of Mt I1. + The idea of I35 is Hellenic rather than Jewish. “Quant au fond meme de Tidee, il ne s’accorde pas mieux avec la theologie juive en ce qui fait 1’originalite propre de celle-ci, a savoir la notion de la transcendance divine, qui ne permet guere de concevoir Dieu comme le principe generateur, physique et immediat, d’une vie humaine individuelle. En grec et pour 1’esprit hellenique, ces embarras n’existent pas ” (Loisy, i. 292). quite a number of them are specifically Lucan. On linguistic grounds alone it is impossible to determine whether the songs were adopted by Luke from some earlier source (so, e.g., Spitta) or whether he composed them himself in the archaic manner (Harnack), but it is best to regard them as part of the Aramaic They are variously taken to echo the psalter and 1 S 21-10 (Hillmann, 201 f.; P. Haupt, Zeitschrift der d. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1904, 617-632), or Judith (Hilgenfeld), or the psalter of Solomon (cp. Ryle and James, The Psalms of Solomon, pp. xci f.). Any one of these derivations is pre-ferable to the intricate hypotheses of Spitta, who holds that the four hymns were originally independent of their present setting; the gloria (214) and the couplet in 1938 are quotations from the same hymn; the magnificat J (cp. Holtzmann’s Festgabe, 1902, 63 f.) was an Israelitish war-song of triumph; the psalm of Zachariah was composed of two separate pieces, one (68-75) on the appear-ance of Messiah, one (76L) a prophetic outburst of Zachariah over his child; while Luke took the songs of Mary, Zachariah, and Simeon from an early Christian collection. But this theory fails to account for the gloria, and the structure, e.g., of Zachariah’s song is, as Spitta himself (p. 309) admits, unexampled.

* The case against the interpolation is stated by Halevy {FS., 1902, 318-330, who holds, however, that Luke’s narrative was written to supplant Matthew’s), by Hilgenfeld, and by G. H. Box (Z.NW., 1905, 91 f., and DCG. ii. 804 f.).

It is the magnificat which presents the greatest difficulty. As the original text of i46 was Kal elirev (cp. Burkitt, Evang. Da-Meph. ii. 286), the problem is whether Xlapi.au. or ‘EXer was the correct addition. The latter is read by three old Latin MSS (a, b, rhe), and represents an early tradition vouched for by Niceta of Remesiana (who assumes in his De Psalmodia Bono that Elizabeth spoke the magnificat), which is apparently pre-Origenic (cp. Lommatzsch, v. 108 f., ‘nonenim ignoramus quod secundum alios codices et hc uerba Elisabet uaticinetur ’) and even prior to Irenus (cp. iv. 7. 1, ' sed et Elisabet ait, Magnificat anima mea dominum,’ ZNW., 1906, 191-192). The internal evidence, it is argued, corroborates this early tradition. It is Elizabeth, not Mary, who is filled with the ecstatic spirit (i41), and Luke was ' fond of inserting Gvev 33 or Kal elrev between the speeches of his characters without a change of speaker’ (Burkitt). Furthermore, the avv abrp of I56 suits Elizabeth as the previous speaker better than Mary, otherwise the reference would be to the mention of her in v.4. Then a phrase like - JXepev eirl T^V ramelvwot r-f bouXps airov is more congruous with Elizabeth’s release from long barrenness than with Mary’s situation. The whole question has been fully discussed, in favour of Elizabeth, by F. Jacobe (Loisy?) in RHLR. (1897) 424-432; Harnack (SBBA., 1900, 538-556), Volter, Conrady (Quelle der kan. Kindheitsgeschichte, 48-51), H. A. Kostlin (ZNW., 1902, 142-145), Loisy (i. 303 f.), Schmiedel (EBi. 2956-2957), F. C. Burkitt (in A. E. Burn’s Niceta of Remesiana, 1905, pp. cliii-cliv; JTS. vii. 220 f.), + According to Hilgenfeld, the magnificat was inserted like Lk 168-73 by the second Paulinist, who prefixed the birth-stories to the gospel. and Montefiore; in favour of Mary, by A. Durand (RB., 1898, 74-77), O. Bardenhewer {Biblische Studien, vi. 1-2, 1901), Nilles {Zetts. f. kirchl. Theol. 1903, 375 f.), Ladeuze {Revtie d^historie eccUs., 1903, 623 f.), F. Jubaru, Li Magnificat expression rielle de P &me de Marie (Rome, 1905); F. P. Parisi, Il Magnificat2 (1905); Wordsworth (in Burn’s Niceta, pp. clv-clviii), A. E. Burn {DCG. ii. 101-103), and C. W. Emmet {Exp.1 viii. 521-529), in addition to Spitta and Wernle {GGA., 1904, 516 f.).

* Cp. e.g. F. Zorell’s study of the Hebrew or Aramaic rhythmical structure of the magnificat, in Zeitschrift filr kath. Theologie (1905), 754-758. For the connection of the Lucan canticles with the prayers of the Jewish synagogue, see Chase, TS. i. 3. 147-151. See, further, W. Steinftihrer: Das Magnificat Luc. 1 identisch mit Ps. 103 (1908), and J. F. Wood (JBL., 1902, 48-50).

The genealogy of Jesus in Lk 323-28, unlike the theocratic and Jewish-Christian list of Mt ilf-, ascends from Jesus to Adam, quite in the universalist spirit of Ac 1726, though, like that list, it is a genealogy of Joseph artificially drawn up. The concluding editorial touch {Son of God) refers back to 222, especially when I34"35 are regarded as subsequent interpolations. Whether Luke translated it or not, a touch like the Kainan of 3s6 is taken from the LXX of Gn io24.

(iii.) The third hypothesis (Hilgenfeld, Usener), that 15-252 are a subsequent addition to the gospel, is based on the argu-ment that the avwOev of the prologue excludes the birth-stories. The primitive apostolic tradition upon Jesus certainly started with an account of his baptism by John (Ac 121-22); and, if the prologue were interpreted in this light, it would usher in, not 15-252 but 31f, at which point the eye-witnesses of i2 could first vouch for the facts. On the other hand, rv Temnpodopnuvov v mpayurov need not be restricted to facts; matters of conviction among us would be as fair a rendering. No great stress can be put on the introduction of John as the son of Zachariah in 32 as if for the first time (see 510); this may be naturally explained as a sententious impressive allusion.f Nothing hangs on the addition to the two twelfth-century MSS of the Armenian version of Efraim’s commentary on the Diatessaron {Lucas autem initium fecit a baptismo Joannis, cp. Conybeare in ZNW., 1902, 192-197); for, apart from the lateness and obscurity of the fragment in question, Efraim must have read Lk 1-2 in his copy of the Diatessaron. The elaborate chronological data of 31-2 indeed seem more in keeping with the beginning (rs) of a story than as the introduction even to an important epoch, and the presumption in favour of the baptism as the starting-point of the gospel is corroborated by t Similarly the repetition of Joseph, Mary, and Nazareth in 24f. simply resumes 126-27 ; it does not imply that two sources lie side by side.

* This explains why Luke has placed the genealogy so late; he reserved this part of his source till he could prepare for it by the baptism at which Jesus, according to the primitive view, became Son of God. But pxuevo does not refer to the beginning of this divine sonship (Spitta).

Ac i1, which defines it as an account of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach. It suggests, especially in view of i22, that the original tradition opened (as in Mk.) with the baptism, but it does not necessarily exclude such introductory matter as the poetical birth-narratives of 1-2; the latter were cognate to the subject and scope of 31f, they were preliminary notices leading up to (cp. i80 with 32) the historical traditions.* 951-1834 is not a travel-narrative; although it contains some incidents of travel (951-66. 67-62 io38f- 1322f. 1425f. 1711f.), these do not dominate the general situation. It is not a Perean source; there is a certain thread in the stories of the Samaritan village (951-56), the good Samaritan (1030-37), and the Samaritan leper (1 711-19), but no geographical connection is visible. Although it may be inferred from Mk io1 and Mt 191 that Luke meant to locate some of this material in Perea, the setting and the juxta-position of the contents are topical and literary, not chrono-logical. He begins with a mirror for Christian missionaries (951-1042 centring round the mission of the 70): how they are to behave towards incivil people (951f.), how they must be whole-hearted (957f.), how they are to carry out their mission (iolf-), and how they are to be received (1o38f).f Then follows a little group of sayings on prayer (111-13). The next groups, with any unity, occur in 121-53 (duties of fearlessness, disinterestedness and unworldliness, and watchfulness in the Christian mission) and in 1 254-1335 (addressed to 0^X01, on repentance). Another (1137f.) group of dinner-sayings follows (1412);1 1425f recalls 957f.; 15 (cp. Hilgenfeld, ZWT., 1902, 449-464) defends the graciousness of the gospel against Jewish cavilling (cp. 152. 28); 161—1 710 area loose § collection of sayings upon various social * If Xyos in Is were not=the Christian preaching, and if doel in 323 were not = about, instead of as if, there might be some reason for adopting Corssen’s theory (GGA., 1899, pp. 310 f.) that the personal logos appeared at first on earth in the baptism (322), and that alrrrat and inrriplrai should be taken together, with rov \6yov in the Johannine sense adumbrated in Ac io36 1328f. (37). | io25’37 has no connection with what precedes and very little with what follows. On the whole arrangement of this section, see Wernle, Syn. Frage, 99 f.; Pfleiderer, Urc. ii. 138 f. + The transference of 1416-24 to a place between 1324 and 1325 (cp. Blair’s Apostolic Gospel, pp. 212 f.) has several points in its favour. The table-talk, which is a feature of Luke, reflects the Greek symposium-dialogues. § E. Rodenbusch {ZNW., 1903, 243 f., ‘Die Komposition von Lucas 16’) deletes 1617 as a gloss; Soltau (ZNW., 1909, 230-238) restores the original relationships; 1720-188 is on the general theme of the parousia; * and 189-14 would follow 15 better than 188. Thus the section is neither (so Schaarschmidt, SK., 1909, 12-28) a fragment of some independent gospel, which covers (though with more definiteness in its setting) the same ground as Mt 1215-2451= Mk 37—1337, nor an independent source (P. Ewald, Renan, Burton), nor (Wendt) a block of material from Q which Luke has inserted here (as in 620-83), but (cp. Wright, NT Problems, 23-29) a collection of sayings and stories, partly drawn from special traditions of the Judean ministry of Jesus, partly from Q, and partly even from Mark. Luke, who elsewhere shows a knowledge of the Judean traditions, was too dependent on the Marcan outline to be able to find any chronological place for them; since he had no independent knowledge, e.g., of the Judean ministry, beyond what came from his Palestinian (Jerusalemite or Bethlehemite) sources here as in 1-2, he inserted them and the rest of his material in the only available gap offered by the Marcan outline.

In the passion-narrative, especially at and after the last supper, Luke sits more loose than ever to Mark; t but even when a source may be postulated, it does not follow that it was Q. Luke makes much less of the cleansing of the temple (1945-46) than Mark or even Matthew; it does not excite the authorities to immediate action, and their interference (2olf-) is not only separated from it by a vague interval, but motived by his teaching rather than his actions. This is another of the approximations to the standpoint of the Fourth gospel, J where the cleansing is removed entirely from the last days at Jerusalem. The same softening of the revolutionary traits in Jesus re-appears in the remarkable addition of 2251 to the synoptic account of Peter’s attack on the servant of the high priest. No source need order thus: IS1'32 170-2). 3-4. (5-6). 7-10. 11-19. 20-37 161-8 181-8 1619-31. 9-15 1891616-18 and 171-2: 5-6 as insertions from Matthew. But even 1619f. is composite; 16026) 27f. does not flow from the preceding story (cp. Colle in SK., 1902, 652 f.) * Conceived here, as in n49f- and 1927, ‘ als Tag der Rache an den christusfeindlichen Juden’ (Wellhausen). t Cp. Burkitt’s Transmission, 134 f., and DCG. ii. pp. 750f. $ See also the Satanic suggestion of Judas (223 = jn I32f-). These and other ‘Johannine’ phenomena of Luke are either due to the use of the latter in the Fourth gospel (see below), or the result of a common use by both authors of an independent source (so Zimmermann, SK., 1903, 586-605). be postulated for these Lucan touches any more than for the additions in 2228. (talk at supper), 2327-31 (on way to Calvary), 2339-43 (dying robber), 2413f (Emmaus story, for these Luke only required some oral tradition to start him; the Herod-scene (236-12), like 1331f, probably came from a source or sources connected with Joanna and Chuza (cp. i5 31.19 83 97-9, Ac 131), but it is hazardous to connect this with the tradition of the virgin-birth.

Accretions are specially numerous in the closing chapters. The most notable are the ‘ Pauline ’ interpolations of 2219b-20 into the original text + as preserved in D (cp. HNT. 653 f.; Burkitt, Evang. Da-Meph. ii. 300 f.), and the legendary insertion § of 2243-44 (which in some MSS of the Ferrar-group is placed, by conformation, after Mt 2639); 23s40- (cp. Harnack, SBBA., 1901, 255 f.; HNT. 654; Resch, TU. x. 3. 721 f.) is, like Jn 753-811, probably a non-Lucan fragment of genuine tradition which has floated in to this section of the gospel, although there are almost as strong arguments for its omission from the original, apart from the difficulty of seeing why neither Mt. nor Mk. received the honour of its addition. 2412, besides being textually suspect, contains two words peculiar to Lk. and Jn. (205) among the gospel-writers {bdbvtov and irapaKhirrw); breaks awkwardly into the flow of the story; and, like Jn 206-8, implies that Peter did not believe although he saw the empty tomb. Furthermore, the emphasis on Peter alone (cp. 2411 2412) contradicts 2424. The insertion of the passage (condensed from Jn 203-10) is probably to be attributed to some harmonistic editor, or to the Asiatic presbyters, as a reply to the natural objection—why did not some of the apostles go to the + Cp. Verrall {JTS., 1909, 321-353) and Abbott {Diat. 3183). t Blass {SK., 1896, 773 f.) and Wellhausen further omit 2219a, which Zahn {INT. iii. pp. 39 f.) transfers to a place after v.1G and before v.17. The case for the larger reading is best put by Julicher {Th A. 235 f.) and Salmon {Human Element in Gospels, 492 f.). According to H. E. D. Blakiston {JTS., 1903, 548-555), 2214-28 is a conflation of two distinct stories (L=2214-18. 21, S=2219-20), the latter existing in two forms (Paul, Luke: Mk. Mt.). “Paul’s account is the oldest in its present form and also the simplest. It appears to be a slightly condensed form of S, as quoted from memory; and S may have been in Paul’s time not a document at all but an oral narrative in-corporated in an inchoate liturgy.” Luke conflates L and S, using Mk. who had already absorbed a part of L. This theory simplifies the problem in one direction, but only complicates it in others; it fails, e.g., to explain why Luke omitted the second mention of the bread. § Defended as original by Harnack {SBBA., 1901, 251 f.). tomb and see for themselves? or to a sense that v.24 required some such episode. The reasons for its subsequent insertion are upon the whole stronger than those urged (e.g. by Blair, Apostolic Gospel, 385 f.; E. A. Abbott, Diat. 1798-1804, and Merx) for the likelihood that it would be omitted. Similar harmonistic insertions occur in 2436* 40. 62 (Kal ivetpipero els r. ovp.) and 53 (irpou-Kvv. avriv). The two latter, at any rate, may have belonged to the original text, however, being omitted by a later scribe or editor who wished to bring the gospels more into line (cp. Grafe, SPG., 1888, 524-534), perhaps by the author of D, who also changed the Ayovras of 34s4 into Xeyovres, in order to harmonise it with Mk 1614.

* The Emmaus-tale, which does not fit in well with 241-11 and 24s61-, might be taken from a special source; as it stands, 24s4 (which Merx deletes) does not tally with the agitation of 24s7. The materialising of the resurrection-stories in 2439 (cp. Denney, Jesus and the Gospel, 143 f.) is quite Lucan, however (cp. the realism of 3s2), though the realism is no mark of veracity (Hoffmann, ZWT., 1909, 332 f.).

Luke is thus a compiler and redactor of previous sources or traditions, though his functions are larger than those of the editors who finally put together the Hexateuch. Allowance must be made for his freedom of composition, as in Acts, but the primary feature of his work is its power of selection and collocation. “ If the evangelist can be appropriately described as a painter, according to ancient tradition, on account of the pictorial art displayed in some of his narratives, he may be compared with equal propriety to a gardener on account of his arrangement of the logia. His two digressions [i.e. 612-83, 951-1 814] are beds of transplanted flowers, arranged with some degree of skill, and fragrant in their beauty; but as no observer can argue from the appearance of a flower to the soil in which at first it grew, so also the desire of the critic to find for the logia their original context appears to be utterly hopeless” (Blair, The Apostolic Gospel, 157). For this reason, the attempts to reconstruct a special source, running all through the gospel, whether Ebionitic (so, e.g., Keim, i. 101 f., and Schmiedel, EBi. 1855-1856)* or not, are less success-ful than the hypothesis that Luke, in addition to Q and Mark, drew upon a number of more or less fragmentary sources, written and oral.

Typical theories of a special source are— Feme’s (pp. 13-33): his source, Jewish Christian in character (c. A.D. 67), emanates from the church of Jerusalem, and contains the narratives of 15-252 (birth-stories), 323-38 (genealogy), 414-30 (rejection at Nazareth), 51-11 71-10. 11-17. 36-50 81-3 951-56 1038-43 1310-17. 31-33 141-6 I 711-19 191-10. 39-44 2137 2214-23. 31-34. 35-38. 39-46. 47-53. 54-62. 63-71 231-56 241-58. (6) Similarly, both G. H.

Mller and B. Weiss find a third large source behind Luke’s gospel; the former’s S, like the latter’s L, begins with the birth-stories (1-2) and concludes with the passion, death, and resurrection. B. Weiss’ reconstruction (printed in Greek in his Quellen der Synopt. Uberlieferung, pp. 97 f.) is as follows:—L = 1-2 310-14. 23-38 416-30 51-11. 33. 86. 39 613. 15-13. 20-38. 46-4 9 71-22.. 36-50 81-3 So recently A. Meyer (Die Auferstehung Christi, 1905, pp. 34, 341).

933-45. 51-56. 61-62 101 29-42 1127-28. 37-54 121a. 33-38. 40-53 131-17 141-33 j 51 I 614-15. 19-31 173-19 189-14. 31-34. 43b t. 191-28. 37-44. 47-48 2020-26. 34-38 2112-19. 20-28.

34-38 221-6. 14-23. 31-34. 391. In this case, as in that of the cognate analyses, Luke must have assigned high importance to his source, for which he repeatedly leaves even Mark. But the precision with which L is picked out, and materials assigned to it or to Q, carries very little conviction. ‘ They see not clearliest who see all things clear.’ The linguistic and inward criteria for determining what belongs specially to L are too subjective in the large majority of cases. A similar criticism applies as forcibly to (c) J. Weiss’ analysis of the gospel into three sources: Q, M (Mark), and S (Luke’s special source).

Q 3 M 34 16(?). 17 19-20 (?) 21b-22 41-13 414-15 31-44 51-2(%). 3f.(7) S 15-33 5-6 10-15 18 21a 23-28 416-30 51-110 M 510-11.12-33 620-23 61-19 27f. 71f 18-35 84-950 957-60 s < 539 624-26 73. 11-17 36-5081-3 951-56 61-02 Q 102. 13-16 21-24. 25f. (!) 112-3.

15t 191.

1116-18 (7) 21m 29f, S rolt 17-20 28f.(?) 38f. jl 1-2 5-8 14 27-28 1139. 121-12 (?) 22-31 33-34 37f. 421. 51-53 S! 137-38 53-54 1213-21 32 85-36 47-59 54f. 13 Q 1613 1 322-23 311.

16-17 j 41-10 12-14 24-25 28-33 17 23 26-27 31 331.

8L 161-12 S 1614-15 1618 (?) 19-31 1815-43 ,7-22 25 28-30 32 181-13 191-12 Q 1913 15-26 Q 2221-23 () 2239-71 231-5 10 13-26 32-33 35-38 441.

241-12 S 22241.0) 236-9 11-12 27-31 34-35 39-43 2413-52 (d) Wright, recognising more truly the composite and heterogeneous character of Luke’s Sondergut, assigns it to (a) a Pauline collection of parables, etc. (cp. his Synopsis, pp. 241 f.), (b) anonymous fragments, and (c) a private source, including 15-252 323-28 416f. 711f. The travel-section (951f) he regards as an editorial collection of undated material, partly derived from Q and partly from (a). This answers better to the facts of the case than with Burton to deny any use of Q or the Matthan logia, finding the Lucan sources in (a) 15-252, (b) a so-called Perean document (951-1814 191-28), (c) a Galilean document (37-15. 171 18 42b-13. (14-15). 16-30 51-11 620-49 71-83), (d) Mark, and (e) some minor sources or traditions. There are several places in Luke which resemble a passage like Herod, v. 1-27, where two or three various traditions are blended into one narrative, which have come to the writer, " perhaps at dif-ferent times, and from different sources, and he has combined them, as usual, with such skill as almost to defy detection” (R. W. Macan, Herodotus, ii. 57 f. )• § 4. Style.—Special literature: Krenkel {Josephus und Lukas, pp. 44 f.), W. H. Simcox {Writers of NT, 1890, 16-24), Norden {Antike Kunstprosa, ii. 485*-492), Vogel {Zur Charak-teristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil2, 1899), J. H. Ropes {Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1901, xii. 299 f.), Jacquier {LNT. ii. 450 f.).

* Briggs (.Netv Light on Gospels, 64 f.) bases a Perean ministry of Jesus on reliable oral sources possessed by Luke.

The literary finish of the third gospel is evident at the outset in the careful rhythm of the prologue— iireiBriirep iroWol lzexelpncav dvard^aadai 8ir)yr)aiv Trepl tZv treirX'ripo^oprip.ivuv iv nuiv mpayurwv, kabds iraptdoaav pp.lv ol dP pxhs airdirrai Kal vrriplrai yevofievoi rod X6yov, 88o^ev rdpol TrappKoXovdr/Kori &vw9ev Ttdaiv arpiBws ka@efs aoi ypdpai, Kpariare GeotpiXe, Iva iirayvlps Trepl &v KaT’rjX’fidijs Xoyuv Thy darpaXetav.

The succeeding words, eyevero ev rais r]p.ep<us cHp(p8ov KTN, show, like the passage which they introduce, the writer’s versatility, whether he is composing in archaic semi-Biblical style or leav-ing the rough translation of an Aramaic source practically un-changed for the sake of effect. Luke’s Hellenistic style and the popular Hebraistic phraseology which characterises many dialogues of the gospel resemble Arrian’s preservation of the colloquialisms in the sayings of Epictetus side by side with his own more polished style (cp. Heinrici, Litterarische Charakter d. neutest. Schriften, 46 f.).1 Luke, true to the Atticist-tradition, prefers d~b rod vuv (2218. 69) to air’ dpri (Mt 2629. 64) and BeXvn (1825) to paipis (Mk io25, Mt 1924), avoids verbs like CKepSrjaa (1916. 18 cp. Mt 2520. 22), dyyapeietv (2 326 cp. Mt 2732), and t On the Lucan uses of yvero, cp. J. H. Moulton, Grammar of NT Greek, i. 16 f.

* The differences of treatment in Luke’s two volumes, and the greater freedom used in the first as compared with the less uniform handling of the sources in the second, do not justify Norden’s (p. 482) plea for confining a survey of Luke’s style to the third gospel.

J Senarius-rhythm is noted in the gospel, 521 (rs iarcv oSros 5s XaXe Xaopnulas), 531 (XX‘... i\r/X»9a), 533 (KaXlaat... apapruXods), 539 (ovels Tidv rahav eudews 0tXei vtov). SieaKopTTLtrat (1921. 22 cp. Mt 2524: 26), phrases like yla used substantively (e.g. 912=Mk 6s5, Mt 1415, 2350=Mk i542, Mt 2757), uos OVIKOS (172 cp.

Mk 992, Mt 186) and Kopaacov (851- 64 cp. Mk 541-42, Mt 924-25), and adopts phrases like the distributive dv6. (914 cp. Mk 9s9) and the alliterative * Xip.ol KO.1 Aoruol (2111). As Jerome pointed out to Damasus (ep. 19), he omitted (1933) the wc-avva of Mk 119, Mt 212, and Jn 1214, owing to his Greek sense of style {inter omnes euangelistas greed sermonis erudilissinvus), the term being one of the foreign phrases AGoca) which it behoved a good writer to omit (cp. Norden, i. 60-61, ii. 482). There is real significance in the omission of terms like KoSpAvrijs (1259 cp. Mt 526, 212 cp. Mk 1242), waawd (see above), pa^el (2247 cp. Mk 1445, Mt 2649), ToXyob (2333 cp. Mk 1522, Mt 2733), and ct/vSovXos (l245cp. Mt 2449), the substitution t of rpipos (2022) for KTjviros (Mk I214, Mt 2217), of eeparela (1242) for oiKerela (Mt 2445), of eye (1917) f°r ev (Mt 2521), and of miaXev ras xelpas (2019 2253) for Kpared, the insertion of good stylistic phrases like virdpxwv (2350 cp. Mk i 543), KaOrifievot (io13 cp. Mt II21), and participial clauses in general {e.g. 1935 with Mk II7, 2213 and 53 with Mk 1416, Mt 26s5). On the other hand, the Hellenistic features are not always in due proportion. " He sometimes gets out of his depth when the effort is long continued, and in trying to be elegant ceases to be correct” (Simcox, p. 22).§ The unity of style is varied, however, by a characteristic freedom of expression and range of vocabulary which prevents any stereotyped uniformity. Luke does not hesitate to vary his language in describing the same incident twice (cp. e.g. the two accounts in 10 and 11), and he shows sound literary feeling in variations like erri rrpdewrrov irda-qs Ths yhs (Lk 2135) and m ravrs mpoorov Ths yhs (Ac 1726), TOV errLKO-X. XldpKov (Ac I212), rov lmiklybvra M. (1225), and Tv kaX. M. (1537). It is obvious that in the analysis of the text into source and editorial revision, due weight must be allowed to this element of freedom in Luke’s method of composition, to “ his fondness for repetition, and his tendency to vary even facts of some importance when rehearsing a story for the second time" (Ropes, op. cit. 304). But this con-sideration only serves as a caution against the abuse, not as a veto against the exercise, of source-criticism in the gospel or in Acts.|| §5. Characteristics. — (Bruce, Kingdom of God, pp. 1-37; * For the good Greek of this alliteration, see Lobeck’s Paralip. gramm. grate. i. 53 f. + Cp. the omission of Acet Xot Aau aa^axSavel in 2346, and of the double negative (1930) in Mk n2. t So M with dative (216 cp. Mk 133, Mt 242), and ns (957 io28 etc.) for els. § e.g. in Ac 172 2323-24 and 2419. || It is an open question, e.g., how far the two forms {’lepowaXpp. and ’lepo-aAXvaa represent a difference of sources or literary tact upon Luke’s part (cp. V. Bartlet in ET. xiii. 157-158), and how far Luke used them indifferently.

Plummer, pp. xli f.; Abbott, EBi. 1789 f.; Nicolardot, Les Procedes de Redaction des troispremiers Evangelistes, pp. 123 f.).

Luke belongs to the class of historians who are " drawn towards the dramatic and personal elements in history, primarily as they appear in the lives of famous individual The biographical note, so prominent in Acts, is more marked in his gospel than in any of the others; he dramatises situations, likes to put a soliloquy into a parable, throws a number of the logia into table-talk, and tries often to create a suitable mise en seine in public for others {e.g. 151f).t He is fond of using questions in order to provide good connections or to vivify the situation (e.g. 310-15 639 2 248. 49. 51), and this feature emerges in the more historical sections as well as in the graceful stories which come from his own pen. This literary device is accompanied by a considerable amount of idealisation, | due to the author’s religious prepossessions. The omissions, insertions, and altera-tions in the gospel are sufficiently well marked to bring out several of his predilections, e.g. his sense that Gentile readers would not be specially interested in the criticism of the Jewish law, his irenic tendency (as in Ac 15, etc.) to ‘spare the twelve,’ his emphasis on the Gentile mission as essentially part of the gospel, his heightening of the authority and also of the tenderness of Jesus, the place he assigns to women (cp. Harnack, BNT i. 153 f.), his love of antitheses between different types of char-acter, the prominence given to prayer, to the holy Spirit,§ and to thanksgiving. f Instances are cited by Nicolardot, op. cit. pp. 130 f. (' Luc donne, aux introductions qui lui sont propres, un realisme precis, mais factice, qui sym-bolise dans un cadre pseudo-historique la verite plus large d’une situation ou d’un etat de choses posterieurs ’). The tendency is carried on in the Fourth gospel, where the circumstantial details are generally a proof of tradition in its later stages rather than of any eye-witness’s testimony.

* Bryce, Studies in Contemporary Biography (1903), p. 149.

I Cp. Bruce, With Open Face (1896), pp. 52 f., ' The Idealised Picture of Luke.’ § On the case for iXdtrw TO Tvevp-a. oov ip' nus as the original reading in 112, see Resch, TU. v. 4. 398 f., x. 2. 228 f.; Blass, Ev. sec. Lucam, pp. xlii f., and Harnack, SBBA., 1904, 195 f. || He might have taken as the motto for his gospel, says Nicolardot (p. 123), the phrase, nalasev TO 7veOua fj.ov err! TO Sep Tp owrfpl uov (cp. Harnack, BNT. i. 63 f.). But Paul’s words, iravTore xalpere, d8ia-XeliTTW irpo<Teitrxe<T0e, ev ravr evxapurTeire, are an even better summary of Luke’s message for his age.

It is a literary rather than a religious characteristic which emerges in what has been termed Luke’s " law of parsimony ” (Storr, Uber den Zweck der evang. Geschichle und der Briefe Johannis, 1786, pp. 274 f.) i.e., his method of abbreviating, as far as possible, material which already lay before him in another form, or of omitting what had been narrated by earlier writers, when such omissions did not seriously interfere with his own plan. This tendency summa uestigia sequi is more marked in the gospel than in Acts, however. A conspicuous instance is the shortening of the Gethsemane-scene by the omission of Mk 1439f, even although this abbreviation lessens (cp. 442) his favourite emphasis on prayer; but an examination of his comparative avoid-ance of duplicates and his selections from the logia (cp. Resch’s Paulinismus, 575 f., and Ausserkan. Paralleltexte, iii. 838 f.), affords full proof of the law.* According to Hilgenfeld {ZWT, 1901, 1-11), Theophilus needed to be confirmed in the basis of the Pauline gospel, and the author of the third gospel wrote with that aim in view. This motive cannot be attributed to Luke. One of the most assured results of recent research f is that he was not a Paulinist masquerading as a historian. He substitutes xdpis, eg., in 632 (cp. Mt 546), but neither here nor elsewhere in the Pauline sense of the term. There are numerous echoes of Pauline phraseology like 4S2= 1 Co 24, 636 = 2 Co i3, 812= 1 Co i21, 813 = i Th i6, IO8=I Co io27, IO16=I Th 48, 117= Gal 617, 1242= 1 Co 42, 2038 = Ro 148, and 2124 = Ro 1125; but in some of these and other cases Paul has genuine logia in mind, and there is no distinct ‘ Paulinism ’ audible in the gospel any more than in its sequel. ' Luke made no attempt to introduce a propa-ganda of Paulinism into the sacred history’ (Julicher). The graciousness and universalism of the gospel are due to Jesus ultimately, not to the apostle. Luke reflects, partly through his sources, several tendencies of the apostolic age, but these do not include Paulinism in the technical sense of the term. § 6. In Tradition. — The patristic tradition that Marcion abbreviated and altered our canonical third gospel, may be ac-cepted as correct. A critical investigation of the data shows that Luke’s gospel, as we have it, must have represented substantially * Ruegg (S/G, 1896, 94-101, ‘Die Lukasschriften und der Raumzwang des antiken Buchwesens ’) uses the restricted size of papyrus-rolls to account for Luke’s narrative, e.g., in 24. t “ L’auteur... ne s'intresse pas i la theologie particuliere de saint Paul, et l’on disait presque qu’il 1’ignore en certain passages tres caracteristiques, il neglige les additions pauliniennes de Marc pour s’en tenir aux donnees primitives ” (Loisy, i. p. 173); so Wellhausen (on 748-50), Schmiedel {EBi. 1840-1841), and B. Weiss [Quellen d. synogt, Ueberlieferung, 251). the document which was in his hands (cp. Sanday, Gospels in Second Century^ 204 f., 362 f.; Zahn, GK. i. 585 f., ii. 409 Within less or little more than half a century after the book was written, it was used by Marcion not only as Lucan, but as a collection of evangelic materials which could be re-shaped for his own purposes. The references in Justin Martyr probably imply not only the existence of Matthew and Luke, but of some fusion of them in a gospel harmony upon which, rather than upon these gospels directly, Justin seems to have drawn. The third chief witness to the existence and estimate of the third gospel in the second century is the Muratorian Canon, whose text, though corrupt to the verge of obscurity, echoes the tradition of the Lucan authorship.

Tertium euangelii librum secundum Lucam Lucas iste medicus, post ascensum Christi cum eum Paulus quasi itineris (sui) socium secum adsump-sisset, nomine suo ex opinione (sc. Pauli) conscripsit. The text is badly preserved. Ut iuris must be emended either as above (so, e.g., Bunsen, Hort, Schwartz) f or into litteris (Buecheler, Lietzmann). The following words studiosum secundum are probably a corruption of the original (sui) socium secum (so, e.g., Bunsen, Hort); secundum, at any rate, unless it be due to dittography, was originally secum (Routh, Schmid, Westcott, Lietzmann, etc.). The difficult words ex opinione represent not dxo^s (Ronsch, Westcott, Lietzmann, etc.), but either ex ordine (Routh, Leipoldt, etc.) or as above (so, Schwartz = llaAov vun, a counterpart to nomine suo, just as recognoscentibus cunctis lower down is to Johannes suo nomine) rather than ex (omnium) opinione (Corssen).

Acts

LITERATURE.—(a) editions (modern) J—S. J. Lorinus (1605); Gaspard Sanchez (1616); Grotius (1644); L. Fromond (Louvain, 1654); G. Benson (1756) 5 Pearce (London, 1777); J. M. Lobstein (unfinished, Strassburg, 1792); S. F. N. Morus (Versio et explicatio A. A., ed. G. J. Dindorf, 1794); Thiess, Lukas' Apgeschichte neue iibersetzt mit Anmerkungen (1800); Kistenmaker (Gesch. d. Ap. mit Anmerkungen, 1822); Kuinoel (Commentarius in libros NT historicos, iv.2, 1827); Biscoe (Oxford, 1829); Hastings Robinson (London, 1830); Olshausen (1832); Meyer (1835); W. Trollope (Cambridge, 1847); W. G. Humphry (1847); de Wette 3 (1848); Bornemann (1848); F. C. Cook (1850); Beelen (1851, second ed. i860); Du Veil (ed. F. A. Cox, London, 1851); Hackett2 (1858); Ebrard + Cp. Ac 92 198 2422. But cp. Jacquier’s NT dans TSglise Chret. i. 194 f.

* On the Lucan version and Marcion’s account of 416-30, cp. Hilgenfeld (ZWT., 1902, 127-144).

I The main sixteenth - century contributions were made by Calvin, Erasmus (1516, Basle), Vatable (Paris, 1545), and Gagnus (Scholia, Paris, 1552).

(1862); J. A. Alexander3 (1867); F. X. Patrizi (1867); 2Vford6 (1868); Meyer4 (1870, Eng. tr. 1883); P. J. Gloag (1870); Overbeck (—de Wette 4, 1870); Beelen (1870); Bisping2 (1871); Ewald (1871); Abbe Crampon (Paris, 1872); W. Denton (1874); Reuss (1876); Cook (1880); H. Conrad (Potsdam, 1882); Nsgen (Leipzig, 1882); Crelier (Paris, 1883); T. E. Page (London, 1886); Wordsworth4 (1887); Felten (Freiburg, 1892); G. T. Stokes (Expositor's Bible, 1893); Zckler2 (1894); Lumby (CGT. 1894); Blass, Acta Apost. sive Luca ad Theophilum liber alter (editio philologica, 1895); F. Rendall (1897); Couard (1897); A. Wright (London, 1897); Barde (1898); Wendt (—Meyer8, 1899)*; Schroeder2 (Lausanne, 1899); Hilgenfeld (Berlin, 1899)*; Knabenbauer (Paris, 1899); Knowling (EGT. 1901); H. J. Holtzmann3 (HC. 1901) *; J. F. HUckesheim (Paderborn, 1902); Schlatter (1902); F. C. Ceulemans (Commentarius, 1903); J- M. S- Baljon (1903); V. Bartlet (CB. n. d.); V. Rose (Paris, 1905); J- E. Belser (1905); B. Weiss2 (1907); H. P. Forbes (New York, 1907); R. Knopf (SWT'2, 1907); H. T. Andrews (Westminster NT, 1908); G. H. Gilbert (New York, 1908); R. B. Rackham7 (IVC, 1909)*; Van Steenkiste 6 (ed. Camerlynck, Bruges, 1910).

Studies—(i.) general:—J. Lightfoot’s Hebrew and Talmudical Exercita-tions on the Acts of the Apostles (1678); Griesbach, De Concilia quo scriptor in Actis concinnandis ductus fuerit (Jena, 1798); H. Robinson, Acta Apost. Variorum Notis (Cambridge, 1824); Gfrbrer, Die heilige Sage (18-$), i. 383 f. ii. 244 f.; Schneckenburger, Uber den Zweck d. Apgeschichte^^i); B. Bauer, die Apgeschichte (1850); Pearson, Lecttires on Acts (1851); M. Baumgarten, die Apgeschichte, oder d. Entwickelungsgang der Kirche von Jerus. bis Rom 2 (1859, Eng. tr. 1854 of first ed.); Zeller, die Apgeschichte nach ihrem inhalt u. Unsprung kritisch untersucht (1854)*; Trip, Paulus nach d. Apgeschichte (1866); Oertel, Paulus in d. Apgeschichte (Halle, 1868; Paley’s Hora Paulina (ed. Birks, 1870); Zimmer, Galaterbrief u. die Apgeschichte (1882); H. J. Holtzmann (Schenkel’s BL. i. 208 f.); Jager’s Gedanken u. Bemerkungen (1891 f.); J. B. Lightfoot (Smith’s DB. i. 25 f.); Reuss, NTTh. ii. 296-310; Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest Interpreta-tions (1893), pp. 138-150; Pfleiderer, Urc. i. 469 k (Eng. tr. ii. 191 f.); McGiffert (A A. 345 f., 433 f.)*; Belser’s Beitriige zur Erklarung d. Apgeschichte (1897); A. C. Headlam (DB. i. 25-35); J. Weiss, Uber die Absicht und den litter. Charakter d. Apgeschichte (1897); Vernon Bartlet (EBH i. pp. 161-166); P. W. Schmiedel (EBi. 37-57) *; G. Semeria, Venticinque anni di storia del Cristianismo nascente (flome., 1900); Bum-stead (Biblical World, 1901, 355 f.); Moffatt (HNT. 412 f., 655 f.); F. H. Chase (The Credibility of Acts, 1902); Cassel, SR. 565-752; Corluy (Vigoroux’ DB. i. 151-159); R. J. Knowling, Testimony of St. Paul to Christ (1905), 148f., 431 f.; C. Clemen, die Apgeschichte im Lichte der neueren textquellen und histor.-krit. Forschungen (1905); W. Hadorn, die Apgeschichte und ihr geschichtl. Wert (1906); A. Hilgenfeld (ZWT., 1906, 461-483, 1907, 176-215), and J. E. Belser, die Apgeschichte (1908). (ii.) On special points -.—Burton, Chron. of Acts and S. Paul's Epp. (Oxford, 1830); R. Anger, de temporum in Actis Ap. rations (1833); Klostermann’s Problems im Aposieltexte (1883); M. W. Jacobus, A Problem in Criticism (1900), 105 f.; W. Soltau, ‘ Inwieweit kann d. Apgeschichte als historische Quelle gelten ’ {Beitrdge z. alien Geschichte, v. 117-123); S. Grandjean, ‘ etude sur la valeur historique du Livre des Actes ’ {Liberte Chrttienne, 1906, 247-260). (iii.) On religious ideas:—-J. Weiss, DCG. i. 25-28; Shailer Mathews, Messianic Hope in NT (1906), 137 f.; Mangenot, ‘Jesus, Messie et Fils de Dieu, d’apres les Actes des Ap6tres ’ {Revue de PInstitut catholique de Paris, 1907, 385-423), and V. Ermoni, ‘La Cristologia degli Atti degli Apostol i ’ {Rivista delle Scienze teolog., 1908, 369-383). (iv.) On the sources:—Konigsmann, Prolusio de fontibus commentariorum sacrorum qui Lucre nomen proeferunt, deque eorum consilio et estate (1798); J. K. Riehm, dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus Act. Ap. (1821); Schwanbeck, Ueber die Quellen d. Apgeschichte (1847); Horst, Essai sur les sources de la deuxiimepartie des Actes des apotres (1849); Lekebusch, die Composition u. Entstehung der Apgeschichte von neuem untersucht (1854); Jacobsen, die Quellen d. Apgeschichte (Berlin, 1885); van Manen, Paulus 1 = de handelingen der Apostelen (Leiden, 1890); Sorof, die Entstehung d. Apgeschichte (1890); Feine, Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas im Evgim und Apgeschichte (1891) *; Spitta, die Apgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren Geschichtlicher Wert (1891)*; J. Weiss {SK., 1893, 480-540); Jiingst, die Quellen der Apgeschichte (1895); Zimmermann (SK., 1901, 438k); Mallinckrodt, ‘ Het wij-bericht in de Handelingen, in verband met die Handelingen, en het evangelic van Lucas beschouwd’ {Geloof en Vrijheid, xxxv. 5); Soltau {PM., 1903, 265 f., 296 f.); Harnack {BNT. iii. 162 f.)*; J. Wellhausen’s Noten zur Apgeschichte (in ‘ Nachrichten von der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen. Philologisch - Historische Klasse, 1907, Heft i. pp. 1-21), and E. Schwartz, Zur Chronologic des Paulus {ibid. pp. 263-299); B. W. Bacon {AJT. xiii. 59-76, review of Harnack, etc.), P. W. Schmidt {Die Apgeschichte bei de Wette-Overbeck und bei Adolf Harnack, 1910). (v.) the speeches:—Kahler (Petrine Speeches, SK., 1873, 492 f.); Bethge {Die Paulinische Reden der Apgeschichte, 1887); Cassel {SR. 618-637); E. Curtius, ‘ Paulus in Athen’ {SBBA., 1893, 925 k, cp. ExpZ iv. 436-455)*; Schulze {SK, 1900, 119-124 on 2018-31); Baljon {Theol. Studien, 1900, 179 f.); W. Soltau, ‘Die Herkunft der Reden in der Apgeschichte’ {ZNW., 1903, 128-154); P. Gardner {Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, 378-419) *; M. Jones (St. Paul the Orator, 1910). § 1. Outline and contents.—This sequel to the third gospel is an account of some deeds of the holy Spirit (12. 5. 8) of Jesus Christ, performed through some of the apostles, notably Peter and Paul. The scope and aim of the book is the triumphant extension of the Christian faith from Jerusalem to Rome, through Judaea and Samaria (18). The first part (1166) describes the origin of the church at Jerusalem, the second (68-930) its diffusion throughout Palestine, including Samaria, the third (g32-i223) its expansion from Judaea to Antioch, the fourth its spread throughout Asia Minor (1225—164), the fifth its extension to Europe or Macedonia and Achaia (166—1919), culminating in the arrival of Paul as the representative of the Gentile Christian gospel at Rome (= the uttermost parts of the earth, x8, cp. Ps. Sol 816). Each section is summarised (67 931 1224 165 1920 and 2831) by a rubric of progress.

1 Overbeck’s introduction to Acts and this essay of Zeller occupy pp. 1-84 and pp. 85 f. of the Eng. tr. (London, 1875), entitled, Contents and Origin of the Acts of the Apostles (cited as Zeller-Overbeck).

The increased prominence of the Spirit in the third gospel is evident in the Screpos Aoyos, where the holy Spirit is treated as the inspiring force of the early church’s energies (cp. especi-ally characteristic passages like 24f. 59. 32 755 8151.39 1044f. 1112.28 132 1528 166-7 192f. 2028 2111). This serves to explain how Luke could follow up a gospel, narrating the sayings and doings of Jesus, with an account of apostolic activity in the early church, whether the preface of Luke 1144 is meant to cover the sequel or not. Neither Acts nor the third gospel, at any rate, was written for non-Christian readers (as, e.g., Overbeck, J. Weiss, Nestle, Zahn, and von Soden argue). Theophilus was some distinguished convert, perhaps a Roman official like Sergius Paulus, who needed fuller instruction in the historic basis of the faith (cp. DCG. ii. 726-727). Behind him Luke probably saw many like-minded inquirers, and he wrote this 8erepos yos in order to follow up the impression made by the mpros yos. The geographical plan adopted in the latter (Galilee, Samaria, etc., Jerusalem) is retained in the former (Jerusalem, Samaria, etc., Rome); but more important is the conception that the work of the church is a continuation of Christ’s energy. The Lucan writings in this, as in several other respects (see below), reflect the Christian consciousness of the Fourth gospel, in which the utterances and actions of the church are regarded as the direct outcome of the living Lord (cp. ExpP iv. 237 f.).

IIpels (T&V) a-rroirroXwp, though not the author’s title, must have been prefixed to the book during the second century. For purposes of convenience it is usually quoted by early writers simply as mrpets {acta, actus). The variant rpis (Nestle, Einf. 240) is generally no more than a familiar abbreviation of the scriptio plena, but Hilary of Poitiers seems to have taken it as a genuine singular (cp. J. Denk in ZNW., 1906, 92-95).

It has been thought that Luke wrote, or intended to write, a third volume, describing Paul’s release, subsequent travels, and death, or the fortunes of Peter and the rest of the apostles. So, e.g., Bleek, Spitta, E. Bertrand fur P authenticity des Epitres Pastorales, 1858, 50 f., who feels that “les Actes se terminent avec une brusquerie presque brutale ”), Ramsay, Zahn, Balmer, and Burkitt. The arguments for this theory, however, are not sufficient to bear its weight. (a) Uporepov would have been, strictly speaking, more accurate than vpoirov in i1, if Luke had meant the first of two volumes; but -n-pifros can quite well denote ‘ one of two,’ and, as Luke never uses mprepos, the likelihood is that irp^Tos is its equivalent here as in 712. (b) The argument from internal evidence, viz., that the contents and climax point to Luke’s purpose of carrying forward the lines of Christian progress which he had dropped in his second volume, depends on a priori theories of the historian’s aim (cp. McGiffert, AA. 418 f). § 2. Source-criticism.—Special literature: in addition to works cited above (p. 284), see surveys by B. Weiss (Einl. § 50), Zeller-Overbeck (i. 31 f, ii. 291 f.), Heitmller 1899, 47-59, 8395, 127-140), Zockler {Greifsw alder Studien, 1895, pp. 129 f.). Rose {RB. vii. 325-342), Moffatt [HNT. 655 f.), Bludau (BZ., 1907, 166-189, 258-281), and Clemen (^Paulus, i. pp. 162 f.).

The presumption that in his erepos Ayos, as in its predecessor (Lk 11-4), Luke employed not only oral traditions but written sources, is borne out by an examination of the gaps, discrepancies, roughnesses, and repetitions which stud the pages of Acts (cp. the list in Harnack’s BNT. iii. 203 f., and EBi. 396). These render it as likely as in the case of John’s apocalypse that the earlier sections of the book at least contain strata of different periods and aims. The hypothesis of (i.) a single written source is presented in various forms. Briggs {New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 135 f.) and Blass {Acta Apost. iv f., Philology of Gospels, pp. 141 f.), e.g., finds a Jerusalem-source due to John who wrote in continuation of his gospel (which originally ended at 168), a sequel describing (a) the appearances of Jesus after his death, and (b) the acts of the local disciples. Luke, who had incorporated Mk. in his gospel, is supposed to have made a similar use of this sequel in his second volume. Feine prefers to trace his pre-canonical source of the third gospel through Ac 1-12, i.e. a Jewish Christian document of considerable historic value, written c. A.D. 67, describing the growth of the Jerusalem-church (14-5.

B. 9-12. 13-17. 20-38 21-4a. 12-13. 14-42 (43-47) 31-8. 11-26 44. 7b-14. 18. (21). 22. (23). 24-31. 33.

36-37 51-11. 12-16, 24-35. 37-42 6<8)- 9-11- 16 722-28. 35-43. 51-56. 59-60 glb-2. 4-9. 11-13 931-43 101-27- 29b-33. 36-428 44-48 11217 19-33 121-24). B. Weiss detects editorial additions in 11-11. 18-19 a43-47 34-5. 8-10 42-3. 51 7. 15-17. 19-20. I25- 27). s1. 34-35 5(3. 9). 14.

16-20. (21). 22-24. 33. 36. 42 611-12. (16) 758-59. 60 gib. 3 1037. 40 jjl-18 1218-22 151-4.

23-25; similarly Clemen, abandoning his former very complicated analysis, now finds a single source in I-II, with editorial additions. (ii.) The dualsource hypothesis is represented by Sorof, Spitta, and Jiingst. Van Manen and Hilgenfeld combine it with a form of what is substantially (iii.) the triple-source theory advocated by Schwanbeck. Harnack {BNT. iii. 162 f.) simply detects a Jerusalem-Antioch source in 61-8 1119-30 I 225 1535 (based on the authority of Silas), which probably, but only probably, was written; also a Jerusalem-Csarean source (or group of traditions) in 31-516 85-40 9311 118 121-28; 91-30 comes from a separate plot of tradition. (B) 2 + 517-42 and (A) 31-516 are double recensions of the same story which follows up the incidents of i; (A) is mainly derived from men like Philip and Mark, and is much superior to the confused and unreliable (B), which “combines things that and 136. have no real connection with one another, omits what is important, and is devoid of all sense of historical development” (p. 194). Harnack lays great stress, however,—though not so much as Ramsay {Exp.1 vii. 172 f., 262 f., 358 f., 450 f.),—on the authority or traditions of men like Philip, Mnason, etc. Both Harnack and Ramsay thus hark back to a position approximating to that of Overbeck who denied any written sources except the We-journal. The data cannot, however, be explained apart from some source or sources, especially in the opening chapters, although most of the hypotheses proposed run to the opposite extreme of over-precision, as the following analyses will show. The main constructive feature of Spitta’s analysis—and at the same time its weak point—consists in the comparatively limited and unimportant function which he assigns to the redactor (see p. 287).

* Cp. Weiss, Marcus-Evgim. p. 511. Scharfe {die petrinische Stromung in der NT Lit., 1893, pp. 53 f., 1136) is also an exponent of this view. Ewald’s theory of a Petrine and a Pauline source overlapping in 1-12 is restated by Badham {ET. xi. 287 f.).

* The redactor’s presence is marked by an asterisk (*), and he is respons-ible for the passages omitted in the above list. For the sake of clearness the references have been arranged in the order of the chapters, but more than once, especially in (B), Spitta transposes whole paragraphs, e.g. 93-31 is trans-ferred to a place between 83 and 85, and 151 4. 13-33 occurs between 1224

Spitta’s hypothesis involves two primary sources. (A), a well-informed source which underlies the third gospel also, is probably from the pen of Luke, contains the most trustworthy passages of the book, and is superior in historical insight to (B). The latter, like (A), contains “supernatural” elements, but these are drawn from popular traditions, and appear to be more highly coloured and less coherent; the stress falls on “wonders” throughout, whereas in (A) the preaching of the apostles is emphasised. Both sources, independent in origin and individually featured, have been combined, arranged, and edited by a redactor (R) before the end of the first century, though (B) was composed by a Jewish-Christian admirer of Peter much earlier—after 70 A.D.

Jiingst also confines himself, like several of the more sober critics, to a bisection of the book. (A), including the we-journal, extends through the whole book, the latter part of which has been interpolated by the final editor (R), who is not Luke but a companion of Paul, writing in the early part of the second century (under Trajan). He has used in the first half of the work an Ebionitic source (B) already employed in the gospel of Luke, but here rearranged to suit (A). The final redaction is supposed to have taken place A.D. 110-125 (cp. 1349 1910, which are taken to imply a wide diffusion of Christianity). (R) is differentiated chiefly by his style and his conception of Paul’s work and teaching, (B) is anti-Jewish, and (A) possibly Lucan. Upon the other hand, Hilgenfeld finds three sources used by the final editor (R): like van Manen, he assigns the chief importance to (C)=mpets IlaXov, an account of Paul’s work and person by Luke, to which the final redactor, a Pauline unionist, subordinated his other source (B)=mpets Tv rr, and especially (A) = (Jewish Christian) mpeis IHrpov, adding passages of his own: (A) = 115-542 931-43 121-23 [R mainly in 11-14 239b, 41b. 43. 45 313b. 21b. 25b 42b 4. 12a. 27-28. 33b-35 514-16. 36] (B)=6-840.

(C) =91-30 1117-29. and (B). Cp. the notices by von Soden {TLZ., 1892, 639f.) and Wrede {GGA, 1895, p. 497 f.), of Spitta’s volume.

* Partially modified by J. Weiss {SK., 1893, P- 480 f. 5 Die Absicht, especially p. 38 f.), who finds only (B) in chs. 1-5, only (A) in the second half of the book, and in the middle chapters a blending of material from

J UNGST.

Analysis of his main source (A) in three parts: (a) 1-12 (15), 13—21, (c) 21-28. (Besides 12. 3. 6-8. 12a. 13a. 14b 24. 12-23. 32 33. , inferior to (A) in point of historicity, an edifying Jewish-Christian narrative of the development of the Palestine -39. 41a. 43c. 46-47a 31-3a. 5-8a. 11-1c3h.urches. (Besides 115-21.22b-26 146-17. 19. 20. 25a. 26 41. 6-14.18 21b. 21-2a. 3. 5-11 325b. 21-24.18.14a 22-27a. 30. 32.33.) 9-10, 12°-14 1-21, 29-34, 44-50, 58b-60 rbc x-5, 22b-25, 30b 19-23, 25, 26 [27-288—30, after 1428] [25ab » » 221-31. 34. 35. 45. 43a. 41b-42 436.37 512a. 14-16.17-25. 3+-38a. 39b. 40a.) 1-6, 7bc, 8, 11, 15 22-28, 35-43, 51-58a 18, 2, 3, 5-gac, II-13, I9-24*J 26-40a 6-15, 17-202, 26-28 [32-43 [1-35, 44-48: after 1217] 1-15, i7ac, 242 ia 5-138, 21-29 3bc-5, 236-34 8-2 R (among other passages) 44ACTS 1-3. 4-6*. 7-14, 15*. 16, 17, 18 1-8*, 13-23, 26-278, 28, 30-33, 38, 43, 50, 51 1, 2*, 6, 7, 21b-27b, 28 40, 41 [1-4, 30%, 32-35] 36~4i 1, 3a, 6a, 7-238, 35*, 37-40.

1-6, 8-164, 18ab, 34 i-5b, 7, 8, 11, 18b-rgb, 2ic, 22, 22-24, 26, 27% 28* 1ab, 8-108, 21, 22 1*-19 22, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38c 1-104-204, 27-378, 39, 40 1-4% 5-rca, 21-29 11-27, 30 I-146, 17-19, 22-27 (l-24a), 26 i-5, 9-32 1-20, 27-44 1-16, 30, 31.

Jungst dates the Council pre1360-18, 20 [931] I8c—-33 12-17 lObC-2O, 2320b-26 [41 1—10 17-28 ferior to the other two. vious to Ac 13, 14 (like Weiz-sacker), and regards the first of his three parts in (A) as in § 3. Structure.—(a) In 1-5 (cp. Clemen, SK., 1895, 297-357) it is sometimes difficult to be sure that any written source underlies the narrative; oral tradition of a heterogeneous and even of a legendary character may be held to explain most, if not all, of the data. There is fair ground for conjecturing, however, that Luke used and translated an Aramaic source (or sources; cp. Harnack,BNT. i. 118 f.). Once or twice the brush-work of the final artist becomes plain. Thus 1219-22b is an editorial insertion (Spitta, Weiss, J. Weiss, Jiingst, Moffatt, Wellhausen) to emphasise sharply the conditions of the aposto-late; 243-47 again, with its proleptic anticipation of the first miracle (243, cp. 31f. 416) and its interruption of the connection between 242 and 31, is probably one of the general summaries which Luke was fond of inserting in order to mark progress.

The first suggestion of double sources occurs in 41-22= 517-42, unless the latter is a free composition based on the former or on some parallel tradition, like the doublets in the synoptic gospels. 44 is an editorial insertion, like 67, on the lines of 243-47, but otherwise it is impossible to distinguish the source under the revision, though 427-28 sound like an editor’s insertion in the prayer (Hilgenfeld, Weiss). 514 is another editorial parenthesis or insertion, to mark what Luke believed to have been the rapid growth of the church. Here as elsewhere the miraculous powers of Peter are enhanced like those of Jesus (cp. Lk 440 with Mk i34, Lk 911 with Mk 634, Lk 721 with Mt n3f-).

Peter, all through, is the prominent figure, and if the source goes back to any authority, it is to him; the allusions to John may even be editorial (cp. Harnack).

(i.) There is no reason to deny any connection between 16f. and I1’6, as if the former represented a fresh Jewish-Christian source, and thus to omit Is (Spitta) or i6 (J. Weiss). The mistake of the disciples (i6) is tacitly corrected by the words of I8 which point to the true extra-national vocation of the Christian apostles; besides, the idea of receiving the Holy Spirit would not unnaturally suggest to minds trained in Jewish expectations the near advent of the Israelitish messianic reign.

(ii.) Source-phenomena of a special nature lie not only in the midrashic story of the death of Judas (118-21), but in the preparation of the disciples during forty days’ communion for their task (like Moses on Sinai, Ex. 2419), and the naive expression of the catholicity of the new gospel (21.), which goes to the midrash (cp. Philo, De Decal. 11, Seften. 22), that at Sinai al the nations of the world heard God's voice in their owil languages Spitta’s Offenbarung dec Johannez, 346, Apgezchichte, 275.;... -685; Hausrath, ii. 16 f.; Bartlet; Schmiedel, EBi. 4785 f., etc.; wis the a\iva\C^l>ij.evo3 cA i4 cp. Ex 2411). Even the list of countries and peoples in 2101 is based on rabbinic schemes (cp. von Dobschutz, ZWT., 1902, 40--410). Luke, in short, “views the Pentecostal gift from tine standpoint o the Hellenistic litterateur, as a parallel to the giving of the Law, which tradition reported to have taken place at Pentecost" (Bacon, ZE'T. 216. The next stratum, which corresponds to this, lies in the speech of Stephen.

* Two sources are postulated for the first part of 2 by several critics (notably Theologus in Preuss. Jahrb., 1897, 223!.), and for the latter part by Batiffol Etudes dthistoire et de thtologie positive3, ii. 39 f.) amongst others.

(iii.) The mention of the so-called ‘communism’ (cp. Hicks, Ex.i 21 f.), which in 243-47 leads to nothing, opens up in 43285 into (a a st ry: Barnabas (43-37), and (6) the anecdotes of Ananias and Sapphira (57). The latter are introduced as a foil to the conduct of Barnabas, and as ar. ilstrancor of the apostolic power and the popular dread noted in the context fer the composite nature of 432-511, cp. Schmiedel in EBi. 878-880. Luke is aly careful to bring out the growth (247 44 514 61 7) and the popularity (297 3" 4" 513.26) of the local church. The mixture of general and even vague olnes with specific details (which are not always circumstantial; points clearly: the editorial use of some early tradition or sources in this section, and the presence of dual sources is even suggested by the parallelism of 41 and 577-8.— Annas Kal ttAvtcs oi aev alr arrest the apostles: their miraculous release: arraigned before Sanhedrin: Speech of Peter and apostles (ireidapxeiv Sei. Seif fiaXXov 1 &v6pd>Troit KTX.). 1 47 । (a) arrest and arraignment of Peter and John before Annas, etc.: Answer... el binai'jv ecru evwiriov rov Seov, iulv drobs—p.aKXov n TOV Qeov, Kpda.Te. j (c) release.

Hitherto (cp. 582- 42 ev TO cepw Kal Kar OIKOV) the Christian propaganda has been confined to Jerusalem. Now the forward movement begins, but not by any of the apostles. The appoint ment of the Seven (61-6) led to three unexpected results: (i., One of their number became the first Christian martyr, after making a vigorous attack upon the unbelief of Judaism (68-7". and the subsequent persecution led to the first Samaritan mission (81-40) under the leadership of Philip, another of the Seven. (ii) The conversion of Paul is also linked to the episode of Stephen’s martyrdom (7s8 81-3 9lf-); he is arrested by Jesus on his way to counteract the results of Philip’s mission, and from the outset he is set apart for the Gentile mission (91), though pp. 27 f.), which only describes hearing the word, not speaking with tongues.

* The Jewish legend is much closer than the Buddhistic story citec b Seydel {Die Buddha-Legends und das Leben Jesu nach den Ezg.icn. 1554-

2Q2 THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE his first efforts are devoted to his own countrymen (920f.). Peter is now suddenly introduced again (932—1 118) in a cycle of stories, culminating in his conversion of Cornelius a proselyte, and some other Gentiles at Caesarea. This carries on the propaganda a stage further than Philip’s incidental conversion of a proselyte (8266), but Peter is able to persuade the suspicious Jewish Christians of Palestine that this unexpected conversion of the Gentiles is the work of God. The third (iii.) effect of the Jewish outburst after Stephen’s death is the evangelisation of Gentile Antioch, in which Paul is eventually summoned to take part (1119-26).

The source dropped at 84 is resumed in n19 (so, e.g., Wendt, ZTK, 1891, 250 f.; Feine, 207 f.; Kriiger, TLZ., 1885, 298; Harnack), in order to explain the existence and character of the Gentile Christian community at Antioch from which the mission of 131f started. Barnabas and Paul are introduced in 131, as if no previous allusion had just been made to either. Hence I 1226.30 1225 are plainly editorial insertions, either from oral tradition or from some other source, in order to emphasise Luke’s dominant conception of the Jerusalem-church as the patron and promoter of missionary effort (cp. EBi. 908-913). The fifteenth chapter is the watershed of the history, in his view. “Practically all that lies between the sixth and the fifteenth chapters, i.e. more than a third part of the book, is devoted to the demonstration of the historical problem, how it came to pass that there was a mission to the Gentiles at all” (Harnack, BNT. iii. p. xxvi). After the council, Paul comes to the front as the apostle to the Gentiles, and the rest of the book is occupied with his fortunes (cp. J. Weiss, Absicht, pp. 25 f.).

(i.) In 61-840 Luke has used a source or sources describing the Acts of Stephen and Philip, the two leading members of the Seven (65). Whether 61-6 comes from a special document (Feine, pp. 184-186) or not, 67 is inserted irrelevantly by the editor, to mark progress as usual, and the following account of Stephen (68-83, cp. EBi. 4787-4797) represents a source edited by Luke in 68 11-12 I13)- 15, so that what originally recorded an irregular entente, during which Stephen defended himself at some length before an exasperated audience containing some members of the Sanhedrin, has become the story of a trial (as in 4-5). This bisection of the narrative reappears at the close; 758b. gib. 3 are all editorial touches which not merely attribute Stephen’s death to the testimony of judicial witnesses, instead of to the outburst of the mob, but link on the source to the subsequent story of Paul by proleptic touches which no doubt reflect a genuine tradition (so, e.g., Bleek, INT. i.

366 b; B. Weiss, Sorof, Clemen, Kriiger, TLZ., 1895, 299; Wendt, Hilgenfeld, Schmiedel, Moffatt, Bacon). The significance of the Stephenepisode is twofold; it marked one of the crises at which Jewish fanaticism only served to accelerate the extension of the new faith to the Gentile world, and it also denoted the first awakening of the Christian church to the consciousness of what the universal gospel of Jesus really involved.

(ii.) It is almost arbitrary not only to find, with II. Waitz (ZNW., 1906, 340-355), editorial additions, e.g., in 810- 14-18a. 19b, but to regard the entire story of 8 as originally Petrine. In this section, i.e. the Acts of Philip (84-40), the account of his mission to the Samaritans (85-25) is interwoven with the episode of Simon Magus, which may have come from the same source, written or oral, as 3-5. The second part (826-40), describing how he converted an Ethiopian eunuch, is much more of a unity; probably it was derived from the Csarean cycle of traditions upon the primitive church.

(iii.) The first of the narratives of Paul’s conversion (91-30) is written on the basis of the second (22) or the third (26) or both (cp. Zimmer,ZWT., 1882, 465 f., and on the other side M. Goguel, E Apotre Paul et J Bus-Christ, 1904, pp. 40-68).

(iv.) For the isolated narrative of 121-23 describing (1-2) the martyrdom of James, Peter’s arrest and escape (3-19), and Herod’s subsequent death (20-23), it is natural to suppose that John Mark* (1212 25) was the ultimate source. Legendary and historical traits blend inextricably; but there are partial parallels in the two Lucan tales of 518-23 and 1625-34, and the presence of many Lucan touches (e.g. maev ras xeipas and KaKOoa, 1; the Hebraism Trpoaldero a-yWa^elv, 3; eKreyHs, 5 (cp. 127= Lk 29); yevo/j.evos fv avr and irpoaSoKta, 11; ^cav with ptc.12; dtrd Ths xaps, 14; Soxvpiero, 15; karaoecas and triyciv and rayyelhare, 17; the litotes OUK 6Xlyos, 18 ; avaKplvia, 19; 6 22, and &vd’ &v, 23) shows that in any case Luke must have rewritten his source, adding 121 and 24-25 as editorial links. The inconsequent opening and the abrupt allusion in v.17 indicate that it was not originally composed for its present position. Like the previous stories of Philip (84-40) and Peter (932-1048), it begins at Jerusalem and closes in Caesarea.

The remainder of the story (131f) becomes practically a biographical sketch of some phases in Paul’s life and work. The unity (especially after 168) grows more marked. But one or two passages even in the later sections of the book are generally taken to be additions; e.g. in 1625-84 (so Weiss, Zeller, Weizsacker, Clemen, Forbes, etc.), in 1 81-6. 18-22. 25f. (the two latter passages J being confused and loosely written; cp. HNT. 672 f.), in 1911"20 (“the writer is here rather a picker-up of current gossip, like Herodotus, than a real historian,” Ramsay, * As it happens, two of the words peculiar to Acts and Mark occur in this passage (trarSclXiCi, 128= Mk 69, and avrop.6.ry, i210 = Mk 428). Ramsay romantically makes Rhoda the fans et origo of the story. t Lisco, in his Jerusalem Liberanda (1905, pp. 13 f.), actually discovers a second journey of Paul from Antioch to Corinth underneath Lk 414-649 (=Mt 81-935, Mk 116-319 =Jn 11212).

J On Apollos, see Schmiedel in EBi. 262-264.

SPT. in 2020-27. 33-35, in 20201)-26, and in 2 230-2310 (11), The widely accepted excision of 2721-26 as a later interpolation (cp. HNT. 676f.) in the original We-source, has led Wellhausen (pp. 17-19) to conjecture boldly that 279-11. 31. 33-38 are also secondary insertions made for the purpose of turning an anonymous piece of seafaring into a Pauline episode, just as he had already taken 1923-41 to be an independent account of some riot which Luke assimilated for his biographical sketch of Paul at Ephesus. On the vividness and accuracy of the details in 27, see the studies by James Smith (Voyage and Shipwreck of St. PauP, 1880), Breusing’s Nautik der Alten (1886, pp. 142-205), Goerne in NKZ. (1898) 352-375, and Hans Balmer (Die Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus und die Seefahrtskunde im romischen Kaiser alter, 1905, pp. 269 f.). The phenomena of 2817f. have suggested dual sources or the loss of the original conclusion (so, e.g., Gercke in neue fahrb. fur die klass. Alterth., 1901, 17), but, although the conclusion is hurried, it is dramatic. 2828 is the watchword of the writer’s age, and the ringing dkoros of 2831 echoes the confident and exulting strain which pervades the Lucan writings as a whole. § 4. The fournal.—The main structural feature of the latter half of the book is the presence of four extracts apparently from a diary kept by one of Paul’s companions (1610-17 2004). 5-15 211-18 2712816). “It was customary for distinguished travellers, princes, and generals of the ancient Hellenic world to have short diaries kept by some companion as an aid to memory, in which the stations of the route and perhaps, here and there, notable experiences were cursorily set down. For instance, according to Hermann Diels, the Anabasis of Xenophon is founded on a diary of this description, which Xenophon himself developed into an historical work, inserting all kinds of narratives and speeches” (von Soden, INT. p. 243). No features of style or diction can be discovered in these passages sufficiently salient to differentiate them from the rest of the Lucan compositions. They contain over fifty words peculiar to, and over seventy specially characteristic of, Luke, and it may be due either to accident or to subject-matter that they omit such Lucan favourites or peculiarities as v with the optative, m TOO VVV, dvacrras (-vres), Toroos, elpnvn, Iv Tais nupais ravTats, epwrauj, eros, Kaff ypdpav, Kpirys, as, uer ravra, os in attraction, murnut, irpdcra-^, pppa, Ts with the optative, TOVTOV (=him), v^itTTos, xapi^, and doe, while ry Gepa ( = next day), Trapaiveia (279.22), and mepiaipo (2720. 40) are found here alone, so far as Luke is concerned. These idiosyncrasies of vocabulary only throw into relief the linguistic, stylistic, and mental affinities between the We-journal and the rest of Acts. Such data, it may be held, do not foreclose the question of the authorship. While they bring the We-sections into line with the rest of Acts, they leave it an open question (i.) whether the author may not have dealt here as freely with some source from another hand as he did in the gospel, or (ii.) whether the journal is of his own com-position. On the latter hypothesis, the use of ypdls, not unlike the p^XP^ lul edv or eri es epe edv of Herodotus, is designed to mark indirectly but unmistakably the periods at which the author was a companion of Paul and an eye-witness of what he records, so that the We-sections would represent his own written notes or memoranda of a time when he happened to be associated closely with the apostle. This conclusion, formerly pressed, e.g., by A. Klostermann, Vindicia Lucana seu de itinerarii in libro Actoruni asservato auctore pp. 46 f.; V. H. Stanton {ExpP vii. 336 f., GHD. ii. 254 f., 312 f.), and Vogel {Zur Charakteristik des Lukas 2, 1899), has now been put practically beyond doubt by the exhaus-tive researches of Hawkins {HS.2 182 f.) and Harnack {BNT. i. 20-87, iv. 1-29), which support the hypothesis that the diarist was the author of the third Gospel and Acts (cp. Ramsay, Pauline and other Studies, 301 f., and Burkitt, Gospel History audits Transmis-sion, 115 f.), and that the nucis-passages are either bona-fide extracts from his journal or (as is less likely) bona-fide reminiscences.

* “The history of Greek literature presents few other instances of the destruction of books, whether for the sake of conscience or for the good of the community, or under the authority of the State " (G. H. Putnam, Azithors and their Public in Ancient Times'1, 1894, pp, 118 f.; later and Latin instances on pp. 264!.).

When the hypothesis of a delicate personal reference is set aside, the use of the first person in these sections is held to denote, as in the case of the memoirs incorporated in Ezra (727-834 91-15) and Nehemiah (11-75 1227-13), the existence of an earlier document written by some companion of Paul. While the editor must have worked over his source to some extant, as usual, he evidently chose to leave the first person plural intact for the sake, not only of vividness, but of assuring his readers that it denoted a diary, or intercal-ated passages from the diary, of some early Christian who had been in Paul’s company at the time. Instances of this literary practice occur among the mediaeval chroniclers (cp. Schwanbeck, 188 f.). Most of those who are sceptical on the Lucan authorship hold, however, that the author left the hues ‘in order to designate himself as the companion of Paul’ (Zeller, ii. 258 f.; Schmiedel, etc.), while some admit that the journal in question came from Luke—which would explain the Lucan tradition in the early church in the same way as the use of Matthew’s Logia connects his name with Matthew’s When the Lucan authorship of Acts is given up, this is the most reasonable theory of the We-passages. Unless some dis-location of the text in 204-5 be assumed (Weizsacker), Timotheus (Schleier-macher, Bleek, Sorof, etc.) is ruled out, along with the other six companions who accompanied Paul by the inland route from Greece to Troas.t The introduction of Timotheus (161-3), not long before the beginning of the journal, does not tell in favour of his authorship; and although after 1618 Silas alone is mentioned, Timotheus is soon referred to in 1714f. The entire silence of Acts upon Titus does not preclude the hypothesis that Luke might have employed a diary by that companion of Paul (Horst, Krenkel's Paulus, 214 f.; Jacobsen, O. Holtzmann, Seufert inZWT, 1885, 367 f.), in which case the genuine notice of 2 Ti 410 cannot refer to the imprisonment of Csarea; for, if Titus had left for Dalmatia, he could not have written Ac 27-28.

The passages marked by nuels need not, however, represent the entire original diary. Luke must have omitted certain parts of it; J 1617 has no connection with 205 beyond the fact that Philippi is the scene, nor has 2118 with 271; and even if the writer had left Philippi before the final scene between Paul and the slave-girl, it is almost impossible to suppose that, some years later, he resumed his memoranda without a break in the terms of 205-6. That the We-sections originally belonged to a larger work is fairly certain. Why Luke selected these and only these passages, is another and a very delicate question, which is only partly solved by the hypothesis that traces of this source may be found elsewhere in Acts, in places where Luke has re-written parts of it freely in the third person. Probably the substance of 1618-24 2016-38 and 26, at least, belonged to the source, though the diarist may not have been an actual eye-witness of the scenes, and though Luke, perhaps on that account, has worked them over pretty carefully. Spitta, Jiingst, Hilgenfeld, van Manen, and Wendt make the We-passages part of larger, more or less complete sources, which run all through Acts; Soltau finds a We-record of Luke in 166-24 (3540) 202-16 211-20a.

27-30 2223-29 2311:24. 32-35 2424-2513 2523-27 2712816; but none of these reconstructions, even (cp. e.g. 1128) with the aid of the ‘ Western ’ text, is much more than problematical (cp. Weizsacker, AA. i. 242 f.; McGiffert, A A. 238 f.). tMayerhof (Historisch-critische Einl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, pp. I-30) argued that Timotheus was the real author of the ‘Lucan’ writings, and that Luke’s share in them was quite subordinate. This fails to explain how the latter’s name ever became associated with the books.

* The stylistic data (see below) tell against the hypothesis (Sorof, Gercke, and Soltau) that Acts represents the later edition of a Lucan work which already included the We-sections. Bacon’s theory (Story of St. Paul, 152 f., 193 f.) that they were a report to the churches of Paul’s collecting mission, written by the ' brother ’ of 2 Co 818-21, is needlessly subtle.

I The second and third extracts both close with on the next day, though the Greek phrase is different (ry i^oulv-r), 2015; 75 8k tTriofc-Q, 2118). § 5. Authorship.—The strong case for identifying the diarist with the historian simplifies the problem of the authorship con-siderably.

To begin with, (a) the third gospel and Acts are by the same author. Each has a special vocabulary of its own (Gospel over 250, Acts over 400 words), due partly to the difference of subject-matter, partly to the versatility and compass of Luke’s literary power. On the other hand, while Acts has only about a dozen words peculiar to itself and Matthew (excluding papers, Kappvw, Traxbvo/Mi, and tiripaivw as occurring in LXX citations), and 14 peculiar to itself and Mk., no fewer than 57 occur in the NT only in the third gospel and in Acts (56, if 806X17, which occurs in a LXX citation, be omitted). Even the words and phrases absent from one and present in the other of the two Lucan books are neither numerous nor weighty. Of about 20, used fairly often in Acts and absent from the gospel, 8 are not used by the other synoptists (vaAauvo only in Mk 1619); 7 others occur in Mt. and Mk. (vos, (Travpio^, bpapa, irpotrKapTepeiv, mpolau-pdvopai, ripas, and xlapxos) where Lk. has no parallel passage, while xcoplov only occurs in Mt 2636 (Mk 1432) apropos of Gethsemane, which Lk. does not mention. Lk., again, often uses about 30 words and phrases (like dyadoirodw, yarw, &papTioX6s, pios, 8iaXoyiap.6s, eos, vopiKbs, uolos, ovx^ • • • a-XXd, TrXobaios, and ar panels), which are absent from Acts, just as 10 or 11, like xeXevw and avvtpxopMi, are much more common in Acts than in its pre-decessor. But such variations in diction are of as little cumulative weight as the corresponding differences in style, such as the gospel’s entire avoidance of the habit, so common in Acts (e.g. 238 59 95. 11 io15 192 2522 2625. 28-29), of omitting he said or its equivalents, or of using efiras (Ac 737 2224 2422 2735), or of beginning a sentence with kal vvv (Ac 317 105 1311 1637 2092: 25 2216 2321 266). The Lucan iytvero... Kal occurs but once in Acts (57); iytvero with a finite verb, and dvOpuire (Lk 520 etc.) never, whilst the latter book is comparatively sparing in its employment of terms and phrases like m too vvv (186), tv r<p with infin., t^tpxopai airb, Kal oSros (nomin.), 6 airbs, 6vopa (=by name), and itM/v, which are specially characteristic of the gospel. Again, while the greater frequency of irvevpa yov, ivaKpivw, and diroXoybopat in Acts may be due in part to the exigencies of the subject, it is noticeable that pev obv and re occur far more frequently in the second volume. Yet the resemblances far outnumber such variations. The specially Lucan use of &v or ris with the optative, of iLpxovres (Jewish), of iyivero 86, of eln (optat.), of elrev(av) be, of tv Tais 7)ptpais rabrais, of Kad’ ppepav. of KaXovpevos with names or titles, of ivbpari (=by name), of rs (ras) 6 Xabs, of mps with verbs of speaking, of of aijvA of TIS with nouns, of rov with the infinitive, of ds ( = when), etc., runs through both volumes. They corret Again attributed (Hobart, 253 f.), though fancifully, to Luke’s medical training, on the ground that the works of Galen show how remarkably often this preposition was in a physician’s mouth. spond so closely in size, in style, and in general spirit (cp. e.g. parallels like I1—Ac 1524-25, 130= Ac i15, 100= Ac it21, 213= Ac 742, 310 etc. = Ac 2 (ri mothccouev), 4”= Ac 711 (1128), 44’= Ac 1830 (542), 951=Ac213, I214 = AC7'' 1520= Ac 2037, 182= Ac 242 5, 2o’=Ac 41, 2I15=AC 610, 231=Ac 517, 241= Ac 2631) that, although the hypothesis that both works did not come from the same pen still crops up occasionally, e.g. in the pages of Sorof, Hilgen-feld, Soltau, Gercke (‘ Der Serepos Aos des Lukas und die Apgeschichte,’ Hermes, 1894, 373 f.), and even Norden (Das antike Kunstprosa, ii. 483 f.), it should nowadays be decently interred under the epitaph, 1 non fui, fui, non sum.’ Adequate statements of the case for a single author are given by Zeller (in Zeller-Overbeck, ii. 213 f.), Friedrich (Das Lukas-Ezgim und die Apgeschichte, Werke desselben Verfassers, 1890), Jacquier (INT. iii. 7 f.), and Sir J. C. Hawkins (HS.2 174-193).

* ‘ ‘ His use of it probably arose from his medical pursuits, as it was a very frequent and necessary word in medical language ” (Hobart, p. 104, adding numerous medical citations).

The author was a physician.

The ‘ medical ’ element in the language of the third gospel and Acts, though several times noted (cp. e.g. J. D. Winckler, De Luca Evangelista medico, Leipzig, 1736), was first fully worked out by Dr. W. K. Hobart (The Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882), whose materials have recently been sifted with results which converge on the thesis that the author of both works was a Greek physician, and therefore, inferentially, the Luke of the NT. Since the following abstract was written, Harnack’s study (BNT. i. 175-198; cp. Zahn’s Einl. § 62; Chase, Credibility of Acts, 13 f., and Plummer’s Luke, pp. xliii f.) has proved this pretty conclusively.

Too much stress* need not be laid on the fact that in his gospel Luke alone quotes the medical proverb, Physician, heal thyself (423), and omits (813) the disparaging comment of Mk. on the profession, or employs words like ros (644; the bramble ′ was extensively used by the ancient physicians,’ Hobart), piavia (Ac 2624), sr pry f (Ac I18), Ppvxecv (Ac 754), and acnTla(-os); but evidence of his early studies and professional training may be discovered in his methods of (a) describing the cures of Jesus and others, the choice of the technical terms for convulsions (piirTeiv) and damage to the system (f\6.irreiv 435, only elsewhere in NT in Mk 1618) as well as for a doctor’s examination (iTTtpXlTrcLv, 938), of Thpns Xlirpas (512) after the medical use of mpns, of the correct medical term irapaXe\v ij.lv os (518, Ac 9s3) for the popular rapaXv-TLKis, as well as the use of the technical classification of fevers into great and small (4s8, so Galen), of ivogfeiv (618) and byXdiv (Ac 516), repeatedly used by Hippokrates and Galen for diseased persons, of avaKadliyiv (714, Ac 940, the medical expression for a patient sitting up in bed), of lK<xraais in the sense of a trance (it5 2217, Ac 1010), of avaKvirTeiv for the straightening of the spine (1311), of a remarkable number of professional terms in 1080f: 1619f (Hobart, pp. 26 f.) and Ac 31-8 (pp. 35 f.), of romrrev and Xems (Ac 917-19), niinetv and xs (Ac 1311), and the technical airaXXcicraeiv (Ac 1912); (b) in his choice of medical termst to express ordinary ideas or * It may be due partly to the exigencies of subject-matter that ′ the number of words referring to pregnancy, barrenness, etc., used by St. Luke, is almost as large as that used by Hippokrates’ (Hobart, p. 91).

J Thrice at least in the We-journal (208-9= karadpezbat and Zirvos padis, 28s’8 Trip.Trpaeda.L and Karamnrew, irvperol plur. of an individual, 279 22 e.g. the substitution, for other terms, of the medical Tuupa, Ttponippp^v, awe-zeae, and ppyu.a (Lk 648-49), of XutrireXeir (17, so Hippo-krates), of Trapar-pp-paLS (1720) and TrapaTppelv, of lKus (med. =juices) and <jvp.<f>de<rdai (Dioskorides) in 86-7, of irriaaeiv (med. = roll up a bandage) in 420 (never elsewhere in this sense), of eXvn (= surgical needle) in 1825, of TrapaSo^a (med. = unexpected recovery, etc.) in 5s6, of the common medical terms Siavefj-eiv (Ac 417), Sldornua (Ac 57), etideros (962 1435, cp. Ac 2712), Sia.vvKrepedeii’ (612), Siampayuarebecbat (1915), eiTropla (Ac I925, common med. term, so vb.), zieiv (688), xXeirev (med. = failure of pulse, etc.) in 169 and 2232, of vmnpos and feOyos in I413- 19, of Spaxp-'p and pva in 158 and 19'3 (‘the common weights employed in dispensing medicines and in writing prescriptions’), of ^o^-prpa (2111, a rare word which Hippokrates uses of the terrifying objects in delirium), of TrpoaSoKla (2126, Ac 1211, med. = expectation of fatal result, so irpoaSoKav), of oos (2125, med. = tossings of sick), of KpaiiraK-p (2134, med. = drunken nausea), of Oeupta (2348), of Xppos (2411, med. = raving in delirium), aaKeZv (2416, med. = practise), mepiuveiv (Ac I4), droxarorazs (321), acrirta (in medical sense, cp. J. R. Madan, JTS, vi. 116), alyn (2011, med. = light), 8i.a.irp(.eiv (5s3 754), ^KSipyclaOai (158, cp. Hobart, p. 229), ^KirySav (1414), eTraKpoaoSai. (1625, med. = auscultation), ^iriKovpla (2622), $hrnua(152 etc., med. =a disputed point), karaorXXeiv (1935), rtpoipetv (225 2611), viro^vvvpi,i (2717), VTrocr^XXetv (2020 27, in sense of ′ withhold’), xp&s (1912; ‘the use of X-, to mean the body, not the skin, continued in medical language from Hippokrates to Galen,’ Hobart), and Hiav@pemos (27s); + in his practice of avoiding Mt.’s use of words like ualarla or pacravl^eiv for sickness (the former = effeminacy or delicacy, the latter = examine, in med. * The eleven compounds or derivatives of paXXetv, the five of vebet, the four of ^vxeiv, the three of rpxe, and the two of iXadveiv, peculiar to Luke, are all characteristic medical expressions (Hobart, pp. 137-146, 166 f., 191 f., 206 f.); while Luke’s preference for terms like vvepipov instead of repon, for uirepopq.v, avyxieiv and oXvots, avvapird^eiv, pearovadai, irpoairriyvvpi, Biaaireipeiv, Sidyvwcr^ and Siayiv&(TKei.v, ^v^8pa, iveSpeveiv, Karopdoipa, Kurd Xyov, ^tripeXwdai, liueXOs, elevuev(-cs), and the three main medical terms for “stimulating” (ereyelpei, iraporpijveiv, and irpo-rp^Treiv), lies parallel. Hippokrates also, in his epistles (pla TXecv OVK ouos), uses Aaypos of a city (Ac 2139), and avaScSivai of a letter being delivered (Ep. 1275, cp. Acts 23s3). t This rare term for undergirding a ship was common in medical parlance, being applied to the membrane or pleura which undergirt and supported the thorax; so that, as Hobart suggests (273), its application in this case may have been natural to Luke, particularly as a ship’s sides were called mXevpat. Similarly Ge ppp (283), for @epubrns, is the usual medical term for heat. + Both Hippokrates and Galen (Hobart, 296-297) were strong upon tpiXavdpwirta as an essential note of the true physician. terminology), and the confusion* between avKop.opea and <rvK<ip.ivos (176 194). “Nearly 11 the alterations and additions which the third evangelist has made in the Marcan text are most simply and surely explained from the professional interest of a physician” (Harnack, BNT. iii. 187). As this ‘medical’ element is spread over both the third gospel and Acts, instead of being confined to the ‘ We-sections, ’ it corroborates the argument, which is also the tradition of the second century (as early as Marcion, for the third gospel) that the author of the third gospel and Acts was the Luke of Col 414, Philem 23, and 2 Ti 410.

irapaLveiv, med. = opinion of doctor) a medical flavour is to be detected; even the collocation of &<xiros and SiareXeiv (Ac 27s3) is found in Galen. Terms like tpelBeiv, Siadebyeiv, and KoXvp^q.v (in sense of swimming) were also in medical use.

The linguistic data, however, do not support the common inference that Luke was strongly affected by Paul’s style and language, and that therefore he was either a Paulinist or acquainted with the Pauline epistles. Out of about 98 words peculiar to Lk. and Paul in the NT, 17 occur only in the Pastoral epistles, and 8 in Ephesians, which reduces the number at once to 73. Of these, Mt. and Mk. had no occasion to use one or two like apoTpidw, while SiayyXXw, pr/Tpa, areipos, and awrppLov (in Paul, only in Eph 617 and Tit 211) occur in one or the other writer merely as LXX quotations. This leaves about 68 at most, of which we must exclude in all fairness the following 27, viz. nos, alxuakoro, vaw, avaXva, avraTriSopa, avTa.TTOKph'op.ai, aatpiiXeia, roros,t 8iepp.7)ve6cii, yua, ixypaipopai, ^v8o^os (Lk. of things, Paul of persons), ^iravairavopai, lxw, novx, Kvpie’uw (Paul, metaph.), olKovopla (Paul, metaph.), ayls, TrXppocpopew, cTrovSaius, crvyKXela (Paul, metaph.), a-vvavriXap^dvopai (Paul, relig. sense), crwevSoKew, awoxy, vmwmio, and ^aXpis (Lk. only of Psalter), of which some (to which &pa, Karatpoupai, ped lari]pi, irpoKoirria, aKOir^w, and avyxaipu must be added) are used in different constructions, and all in senses which are very different in the two writers. Even of the remaining 35, quite half are neither favourite nor characteristic terms in either writer, while the numerical preponderance, as compared with Mt. and Paul (about 22) or Mk. and Paul (about 20), is not specially significant. So far as the internal evidence suggests, Luke did not use any of Paul’s epistles; his acquaintance with Paul’s movements and ideas is drawn from oral tradition or personal reminiscence, not from the reading of his correspondence. Some critics still (e.g. Soltau) consider that the Pauline speeches as well as the narratives are drawn from materials provided by the Epistles (so formerly Jacobsen, op. cit. pp. 8 f.), but there is no real evidence to render this a necessary hypothesis (cp. Sabatier’s essay in Bibliothdque de Picole des hautes Budes, i. 1889, 202 f.; Moffatt, HNT. 416 b; Jacquier, INT. iii. 96 b, and Zahn, INT. iii. 118 b). The juxtaposition of Acts and the Pauline epistles in the Canon is apt to produce an optical illusion, until it is remembered that Acts was not written to be read alongside of the apostle’s correspondence, and that it really contains nothing which Luke could not have obtained elsewhere. * Noted by Dioskorides. The distinction was familiar to physicians, who had occasion to use both in their prescriptions. t Add perhaps 3CKT6S, in Lk. of persons only, in Paul (Phil 418) of things, ACTS 3°1 § 6. Characteristics and aim.—(a) It is no longer necessary to controvert the theory that, when Luke wrote, Jewish and Gentile Christianity required to be reconciled, or that the parallelism between Peter and Paul is wholly due to the historian’s pragmatism. Luke’s position is that of the later church, as reflected, e.g., in Mt 2818-20; the Gentile mission was carried out by the twelve in obedience to a revelation of Jesus (cp. HD. i. 158 f., 213 f.). According to Acts, Peter, as the leader of the apostles, not only took the first step in this direction (1o1f), but claimed that this was his commission (Ac 157); also, between the twelve and Paul there was no vital difference on the burning question of Gentile Christianity. Luke smoothes over the crucial antagonism which Gal 1-2 reveals. He prefers to emphasise the common loyalty of both sides to the gospel of Jesus; " trop loyal pour condamner son maitre Paul, trop orthodoxe pour ne pas se ranger a l'opinion officielle qui prevalait, il effaga les differences de doctrines pour laisser voir seulement le but commun que tous ces grands fondateurs poursuivirent ” (Renan, ii. p. xxiii). His whole treat-ment of the question breathes the air of an age when the rights of Gentile Christianity had long ago been won, and when even an admirer of Paul, especially in writing for the particular object defined in Lk 11-4, was more concerned to emphasise the pro-vidential development upon which the church looked back than to revive the bitter memories of a bygone phase of controversy.

2 Co 62 and Lk 414 being LXX citations. It is uncertain whether £<j>vl8ios (WHI) should be read, instead of al</>vl8ios, in Lk 2134.

This irenical attitude, with its idealising spirit, is not inconsistent with the Lucan authorship, even though we assumed that Luke was familiar with the exact course of events as, e.g., Paul describes them in Gal 21f. A man may surely be the friend and physician of a great church-leader, without necessarily sharing or even understanding all his religious opinions and without assenting to his ecclesiastical policy in every respect. Luke had more in his mind than to be a protagonist of Paul, and we have no right to demand that consciously or unconsciously he must come into line with the apostle. In spite of the arguments or rather the assumptions to the 121 f., TLZ., 1906, 466-468); Windisch {ZWT., 1908, 152 f.) hesitates more over the indebtedness to Josephus. The Lucan case, is fairly put by Stanton {GHD. ii. 241-255) in view of the former scruples. By their extravagant claims on behalf of Luke as a historian and their harmonising expedients, conservative critics have often played into the hands of their sceptical opponents (cp, W. Bruckner, PM,, 1911, 179-191). on the part of conservative and radical critics alike, it does not follow that Acts, if written by Luke, must tally, historically and theologically, with Paul, or that Luke’s statements must invariably exhibit striking agreement with the apostle’s epistles. Luke’s object was neither to correct nor to elucidate these epistles. He was not a Paulinist (cp. Harnack, BNT. i. 139 f., iv. 30-89), and even had he been an eye-witness of certain events, that would not necessarily prevent him from describing them years afterwards in semi-historic fashion. To a modern reader it does appear difficult to understand how any one who had shared in the Pauline mission could describe the relation of baptism and the Spirit, the glossolalia, and above all the relation between Paul and the pillar-apostles, as Luke has done; but once allowance is made for the time at which and the purpose for which Luke wrote, once the idea that he was a Paulinist is abandoned, and once we recognise the freedom with which he treated the sources and traditions at his disposal for Acts as for his gospel, the admitted difficulties can no longer break through the strong thicket of linguistic evidence in favour of the Lucan authorship.

* This idea underlies the criticisms passed by Schiirer {TLZ., .1906, 405-408), Bousset (Tit., 1908, 185-205), and Clemen {TR., 1907,97-113, and HJ., 1910, 780f.) on the Lucan hypothesis as argued by Harnack {BNT. i.

Luke’s idealisation of the primitive council at Jerusalem does not prevent him from mentioning the fate of Ananias and Sapphira. Nor, although he ignores the scene at Antioch, does he hesitate to tell how Paul lost his temper twice. There were physicians and physicians among the historians of the ancient world. One of them, Kallimorphos, is pilloried by Lucian {de hist, conscrib. 16) for having written a srpootpiov vrbp/vxpov to his history of the Parthians, in which he vaunted: olneiov eivat larpai icrropiav avyypafpeiv, el e 6 ‘Aoknzis p.bv ‘AzXwvos vibs, ‘AmXXov Si Movonyrns Kal Tons iraibelas &pX<ov. In Acts there is no empty rhetoric. There are no eulogies of the early Christians, not even of Paul. Luke knew, better even than the author of the Vita Agricola, what Lucian meant when he spoke of the broad gulf between history and panegyric {de hist, conscrib. 7, ob arevep rip l<sdp.p Siwpiarai Kal ScaTelxl<TTai h laropla mps TO lyKoutov); his literary taste, as well as his religious feeling, prevented him from painting the great apostle of the Gentiles with a halo.

A similar consideration bears upon Luke’s treatment of the supernatural. On the one hand, the presence of miraculous anecdotes (cp. Harnack, BNT. iii. 133-161) is no proof that they are unprimitive. A comparison, e.g., of the historical traditions gathering round figures like St. Patrick or even Thomas a Becket will show that it is the most natural thing in the world for such stories to spring up within a man’s lifetime, and the mushroom of legend appeared under certain conditions as rapidly in the East as in the West. This applies in some degree to the miracles in Acts as well as to those in the gospels. On the other hand, their presence in Acts is no disproof of Luke’s authorship.* He took most of them from his available sources * Luke’s three defects as a historian, according to Harnack {BNT, iii. p. xxxix), are credulity, a tendency to be careless and inaccurate, and a tendency to work up important situations. Still, he adds, “ ich hake ihn and inserted them for the sake of bringing out a point vividly. It is psychologically accurate to hold that even the special class of tales about demoniac possession, which as an educated physician he might be supposed to have disbelieved, were accepted by him on the score of his Christian beliefs (cp. J. Naylor in HJ., 1909, 28-46: “it is certain that the phenomena he witnessed in Christian circles made it easy for him to believe in demoniac causes of diseases”; “he was led to believe in the power of faith in the sick, and of personality in Paul and Christ, to work marvellous cures and do mighty works "). The super-naturalism of stories like 2lf- 51-11 121f i625f- 1911f. and 200f, which are near the level of popular Oriental tales, does not tell against either the likelihood that in some cases a nucleus of historic fact underlies the moral apologue, or the probability that the writer (or editor) was an educated man who, like Luke, must have been familiar with, e.g., the real glossolalia of the Pauline churches. We know so little about Luke that it is impossible to determine how far he worked in the spirit of the advice given by Lucian {de hist, conscrib. 60) to his friend Philo: Kal uhv xal p.vOos el TIS Taparoot, Xexreos uev, ov unv TOTOTOS TvTOs, X’ ev p.ea<a Gereo? TOis omos av eGeXwrw etKaaovai mep avTov' ov 8’ kvvvos Kal mps ov8erepov eTrtppeTreo-repos. Probably, his attitude to the miraculous stories of Acts was more naive.

There is no hint of any Blougram-like reserve in his method of narrating these episodes; on the contrary, we can feel the same realistic and materialising tendency which appears in his recasting of the resurrection stories. There is little force, there-fore, in the argument that his version of the glossolalia in 21f. could not have come from an eye-witness of the phenomena, e.g., at Corinth. Even if Luke knew the latter, this would not have prevented him from repeating the embellished and circumstantial miracle which he found in his source. “That it involved a miracle attracted rather than repelled him.... He loves a good miracle” (P. Gardner in Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 390).

A subordinate aim is to exhibit the political inoffensive-ness of Christianity. Paul is never formally condemned by the Roman authorities (cp. the conduct of the proconsuls in 1312 1812 etc., and of the Asiarchs in 19s1); Luke skilfully omits any innerhalb der griechischen Historik trotz seiner offenkundigen Gebrechen und Leichtglaubigkeiten ftir einen respektablen Berichterstatter, Schriftsteller und Zeugen” (TLZ., 1906, 467). allusion to the three occasions when he had been flogged by lictors (2 Co 1125), and emphasises his Roman citizenship. As in the third gospel (cp. e.g. 2020-26), so in its sequel, the historian points out that Christians were admittedly loyal (cp. 1814f. 1987 2329 2518f. 25 26s1), though it is hardly fanciful to detect in his references to lovoa or the authority of civil powers (in his gospel 46-7 || Mt 4°, 124-5 || Mt io28, 2225 || Mk io42 and Mt 2025) a less favourable view than that of Acts (cp. E. A. Abbott, Diat. 1565-1571), where the allusions to Roman officials are upon the whole respectful and intended to be irenical. He is careful to expose the hollowness of the charge of sedition brought against Christians especially by malevolent Jews, and such passages further contain an implicit plea for the toleration by Rome of Christianity as a religio licita no less than of the Judaism from which it sprang and of which, as Luke is careful to point out, it forms the true consummation.

This tendency is obvious. Abrech (TQ., 1863, 84-134) even held that Acts was the defence entered by Luke at Paul’s trial before Nero on the charges of 24s; J. Weiss {Absicht, 54 f.) more moderately brings out the author’s unaffected desire to portray the innocent character of Christianity in view of the suspicions aroused in part by the charges levelled at it by Jews (cp. e.g. p. 31, a propos of 1620. 37 “Die hochmiitiggeringschatzige Anschauung, die in der Denunciation zum Ausdruck kommt, wird nachtraglich glanzend zuriickgewiesen. Die Apostel sind nicht hergelaufene Agenten einer oriental ischen Nation, in deren Dienste sie eine staatlich nicht unbedenkliche Propaganda treiben, sie sind Romer so gut wie die Richter auch und wollen nach romischen Recht beurteilt werden. Was aber bier von den Aposteln gesagt ist, das gilt im Sinne des Verf. vom Christenthum iiberhaupt”). So far as this bears on the problem of the date, it leaves any period open after Nero. The motive would be as relevant shortly after Domitian’s persecution as before it, since the vehement anti-Roman tone of the Apocalypse was by no means normal among contemporary Christians.

For Luke’s remarkable degree of accuracy in geographical, political, and social data, it is sufficient to refer to the essays of Lightfoot (Essays on 'Supernatural Religion’ 1889, 291-302) and Vigoroux (Le Nouveau Testament et les decouvertes archeologiques modernes, Paris, 1896, pp. 183-332), and to the epoch-making researches of Sir W. M. Ramsay {CRE., chs. ii.-viii. etc.). Still, he must be judged by the canons of his age, and in the light of his opportunities. Not only as regards the origins of the Palestinian church and mission, but even on the earlier part of Paul’s career, he is plainly writing at second-hand. As the book proceeds, the level of historicity rises on the whole. The . ACTS 305 nearer Luke comes to his own period, the less liable he is to dis-crepancies and errors, although even here the ordinary conditions of the period must be taken into account in an evaluation of his testimony as an eye-witness. For the first part of the story, however, he had to rely upon such information of primitive Christians as may have been available, or upon certain written sources, e.g., for Stephen and Philip. Thus in the circles to which he had access it is altogether likely that the crisis at Antioch and Jerusalem would sometimes be viewed very differently from what Paul considered to be its real and the lapse of nearly half a century was certain to alter not only the stand-point of his own judgment, but also the memories upon which he drew. Owing to distance from the time and place, he was imperfectly acquainted with much that transpired in Palestine during the early decades of the Christian movement. But here as elsewhere he knew more than he chose to put down. His omissions are not invariably due to lack of available knowledge; they are sometimes intentional. The choice of episodes, the relative scope assigned to them, the passing over of years either silently or in a sentence, the ignoring of a figure like Titus, the indifference towards such movements of Christianity in the East as Peter’s evangelisation of Asia Minor and Paul’s mission in North Galatia,—all these phenomena show that Luke had no intention of writing the history of early Christianity, and that even his reconstruction of that history requires to be reset at more points than one.

The speeches in the earlier part may represent not untrust-worthily the primitive Jewish-Christian preaching of the period (Peter, 115-22 214-36 312-26 48-12 529-32; Gamaliel,! 535-89). “To the doctrinal discourses of Peter we may in a certain sense grant that they faithfully represent the primitive preaching of the messiah by the apostles, and that so far they possess a certain originality” (Overbeck). J This is due, not to any verba-tim reports or Hellenistic versions being available, but to the + Chase, Credibility, pp. 122-159 (pp. 167f, on Paul’s speeches).

* Cp. Franke’s candid paragraphs in SK. (1890) 668 f., and J. Warschauer in New World (1898), pp. 722-749.

J So especially Riehm, op. cit. pp. 126 f.; Chase, op, cit. 105 f., and W. Lock [Exp* vii. 178-190, ‘ The Christology ofthe Earlier Chapters of Acts’). Mayerhoff {Einl. in diepetrin. Schriften, 218-233) makes them, as well as Stephen’s and Paul’s, free compositions of the author. excellent historical sense of the author, who, while following the ordinary methods of ancient historiography in the composition of such speeches, was careful to avoid moulding and shaping his materials with a freedom which should obliterate the special cast of their aim and temper. These materials were probably furnished in the main by oral tradition. Preaching so con-tinuous as we know that of Peter to have been, would leave definite reminiscences of its general type and tenor. A skil-ful writer, having access to circles where such Jewish Christian ideas had been cherished and still lingered (e.g. John Mark), would find little difficulty in composing discourses such as these, which would harmonise satisfactorily with the period he was engaged in depicting. Of the later speeches, that at Miletus is probably nearest to a summary of the original words of Paul; the others, for the most part, reflect in the main Luke’s historic sense of what was appropriate to the speaker and situation. Stephen’s speech is the most notable exception; it obviously was derived from a special source.

The letter of Claudius Lysias to Felix (Ac 2325-30) might have been verbally copied from the original, if Luke had had access to the archives or private papers of Felix. Instances of this are not unknown (e.g. Sallust, Catil. 34, 3; 44, 5), but they are extremely rare, and the more probable hypothesis is that the letter, like the speeches of the history, must be ascribed to Luke himself, in common with the universal practice of his age. The same holds true of the letter in 1523-29 (cp. Harnack, BNT. i. 219-223), though this document probably embodies a source as its nucleus (see above, pp. 42-43).

The last-named passage opens up a cluster of textual, literary, and historical problems which have a profound bearing upon the authorship and authority of Acts. The problem was, what are the conditions upon which Gentile Christians can be saved, i.e. participate in the messianic reign of Jesus the Christ? The strict Jewish Christians of the capital (rives Tv atro aipiaew Tv ^apttraMv TemioTevkres) insisted on circumcision and the complete observance of the Mosaic law. A keen controversy took place among the apostles and elders. Finally, Peter repudiated this claim on the score of practice. Facts had already proved that Gentiles could believe in Jesus Christ and receive the Spirit which guaranteed membership in his kingdom, without submitting to the law. Barnabas and Paul corroborate this from their own expeiience in the mission-field, while James clinches it by an appeal to messianic prophecy, and proposes that, though the claim for legal submission should be repudiated, the Gentile Christians should be enjoined to abstain from el8<oX60vTa, alua, TViKTd, and A formal decree (eSogev TG TvenaTt TO dylq Kal to this effect, in the shape of a pastoral epistle, is dispatched to the Gentile Christians of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. The course of events is not so clear, however, as at first sight appears. No proper motive is given for the sudden interference of the narrower Palestinian Christians with the church at Antioch (151). Psychologically, the reaction would come better after 1121-22; it is difficult to see how such a recrudescence of legalism could take place after Peter had settled, as he is said to have done, the question of the rights of uncircumcised Gentiles to membership in the church (111-18). Furthermore, the decrees of 1523f: are sent not to the Pauline churches in Lystra, Iconium, etc., but to the Gentile Christians of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia; and if they were merely meant to meet a local emergency, this is hardly Luke’s concep-tion of their place and purpose.

The silence of Paul in Gal 2 upon the decree of Ac 15 tells against the historicity of the latter, if the fourfold prohibition was its main message, and if it was promulgated at the Jerusalem council. It is conceivable that Paul might have agreed to a number of concessions for the sake of peace and harmony, but “ that he consented to, or was party to, a demand that his converts should observe these four legal conditions is not only disproven by his own clear words, but by the absence of any such precept in his letters to Gentile churches on this matter” (Forbes, p. 54). If he had distributed the decrees as Luke says he did (164), it may be questioned if he could or would have treated them in his epistles as a quantity ntgligeable (cp. EBi. 916f.; Bacon, Story of St. Paul, 138!., 151 f.). Unless, therefore, the authenticity of the decree or the Lucan authorship is to be abandoned, the alternatives apparently are (i.) to adopt the Western reading of Ac 15, as has been done recently by Hilgenfeld (ZWT, 1899, 138 f.), G. Resch in a careful monograph (‘Das Aposteldecret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Textgestalt,5 TU. xiii. 3, 1905; cp. Exp.1 iii. 564E), and Harnack (BNT. iii. 248 b); or (ii.) adhering to the ordinary text, to conjecture that Luke has antedated a decreet which only came into existence at a later period in the history of the Jerusalem church, viz. some time between Paul’s composition of Galatians t This was Harnack’s former view (cp. SBBA., 1899, 168b). The Western form is rejected after careful scrutiny by Diehl, Coppieters (RB., 1907, 34-54), and A. Seeberg {Die beiden Wege und das Aposteldekret, 1906). and Corinthians on the one hand and his arrival (2125) at Jerusalem on the other (so, especially, Weizscker, A A. i. 313 f.; Grimm, SK,, I88o, 622 f.; McGiffert, AA. 215 f.; von Dobschtitz, Urc. 152 f.; R. Knopf, SNT. i. 2. 65; Bousset; Diehl, ZNW., 1909, 277-296), in any case prior to the composition of the Apocalypse (214). The decree would thus be the work of James and his party, whether brought down to Antioch by the emissaries of the former (McGiffert, Bacon) or, more probably, promulgated at some later period. It is noticeable that in 2125 James tells Paul about it, as if the latter had not heard of it before. This tells in favour of the second hypothesis, as against either the former or the bolder conjecture that Gal 21-10 did not refer to the scene of Ac 15 at all (see above, pp. 100 f.).

* Halevy {RS., 1902, 228 b), like Bentley, proposes to read itopkAm or xopelas, on the ground that the change of this into Topvelas would be more intelligible than vice versa, and that this reading is in line with the other allusions to food.

The Western form of 15°9, which omits (so Wellhausen) Kal TVIKTOv and inserts, between rropvelas and v, the words Kai oca uh deXere eavrols ylveadat. orb pop uh Tolev, ap', with rpepbpevoi iv rip ylq TTveb/iaTi between TTpa^ere and fypwrOe, cannot have arisen later than the middle of the second century, as it is guaranteed not only in D but in Irenus (iii. 12. 14), Tertullian {de pudic. 12), and Cyprian {Testim. iii. 119). On the other hand, it resembles a moral catechism rather than the decree in its historical setting, and its secondary character, as compared with the canonical text, is fairly obvious. Its protest against the exaggeration of the ceremonial law, at the expense of its ethical elements, was both timely (cp. 4 Mac 519-20; Schrer, GJV. ii. 464 f.) and in accord with the principles of Jesus; but, instead of the ambiguous eiSwXbdvrov, dSaXoXarpela would have been more apposite. The ‘Western’ reading avoids the difficulty of the superfluous TTVIKTUV after alua (in sense of ‘tasting blood’), and also of understanding how Paul could be silent on the decree in Gal 2. Such injunctions would only be the obvious ethical maxims of the Christian catechism (alua = murder). But, on the other hand, this neutral interpretation blunts the point of the council, and makes it hard to see how the controversy could have attained the proportions of Gal 2lf-.

This difficulty is bound up with another, relating to the visit of Paul to Jerusalem in 1 1301225. The omission of this visit in Gal 117-210 has caused keen perplexity to editors of Acts and of that epistle. Why did Paul pass it over? Not because it was too hurried and short (Usteri), nor because was prevented from going, perhaps at the last moment (so, e.g., Neander, Meyer), nor because the envoys prudently stopped in Judaea (so, e.g., Credner, Bleek, in contradiction to 1255). Such harmonistic expedients are not satisfactory. It would be fairer to argue that Paul, in writing Galatians, aimed not at giving any complete chronicle of his visits to Jerusalem, but only at mentioning those which affected his claim to a divine commission independent of the twelve. The two visits at which this was called, or might be supposed to have been called, in question, were his first (Gal i18) and his third (Gal 21f). The second visit, recorded in Ac 1 130 1225, afforded no chance of misconception; his character and doctrine were not in dispute then, and the Galatians needed no explicit description of that journey. Hence he could pass it over, in his rapid survey, as having no bearing on the authority and independence of his gospel (so, e.g., Godet, Hort, Lightfoot, Blass, G. H. Gilbert, Steinmann’s Abfassungszeit d. Galaterbriefes, 127 f.). This is a legitimate hypothesis. Paul is not writing a protocol or diary in Gal 1-2, which would be falsified were he to omit any visit to the Jewish capital; all that his argument requires is a note of the occasions when he was brought into contact with the apostles at Jerusalem, and of this there is no mention in Ac II30, which seems even to exclude (by the reference to the elders} any communication between them and the Cilician evangelist.

* Renan thinks that Barnabas alone conveyed the chaluka, and Zimmer-mann deletes Kal Zabov (SK., 1901, 454).

Those who are dissatisfied with this have the choice of three alternatives, (a) They may delete the visit of Ac 1130 1225 as unhistorical (so, e.g., Zeller, Overbeck, Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Sabatier, B. Weiss, Jlicher, Clemen’s Paulus, i. 215 f.; Forbes), whether the historian confused (H. J. Holtzmann) the visit of Gal 21 with the collection visit of I Co 164 (which is therefore passed over at Ac 1921), or whether he inserted 1130 and 1225 (with 1122-26a) erroneously in the source which lay before him (Wendt, SK., 1892, 270 f.). Others, e.g. Spitta (179 f.), Pfleiderer {Urc. i. 496 f.), Schwartz, and McGiffert {A A. 170 f.) improve upon this by supposing (b} that the visit of 1130 1225 was really the same as that of 151, and that Luke, finding these two different narratives of what was the same event, supposed them to refer to different incidents. This is not impossible, but the two narratives are hardly parallel enough. The object of the one visit is the conveyance of funds; the object of the other is to have a question of religious principle decided. This consideration rules out with equal certainty (c) the bolder and even less probable hypothesis which identifies 1130 1223 (not 151f) with Gal 21-10 (so, e.g., Belser, Einl. 168f.; Ramsay, Weber, Gutjahr, after Fritzsche’s Opuscula, 233 £,). Luke never alludes to the circumcision-problem or to any trouble over the Gentile Christians; there is not a syllable about the presence of John, Peter, and James (as in Gal 24f-); the relative prominence of Paul in the two passages is too different to admit of both referring to the same event, even when due allowance is made for the natural emphasis on his own personality in the epistle; and it is unlikely that the circumcision-question could again emerge and be decided (as in Ac 15), after it had been once settled (as in Gal 21-10; see above, pp. 100 f.). (d) It is enough to mention the identification of Paul’s visit (in Gal 2lf-) with the fourth recorded by Luke (viz. in Ac 1822). The visit of Ac I5lf- would then be passed over by Paul—an omission which may be described as incredible. § 7. The text.—The remarkable phenomena of the ‘ Western ’ text had been already noted by earlier NT critics like Simon, Hug, and Credner {Einl. i. 452-519 f.), as well as by Lagarde in his monograph de NT ad versionum orientalium fidem edendo (1857), and the problem of their origin and value has been investigated by A. Resch {Agrapha, pp. 30 f.), J. R. Harris {A Study of Codex Beza, 1891; Four Lectures on the Western Text, 3io THE HISTORICAL LITERATURE 1894), F. H. Chase {The old Syriac Element in the text of Codex Beza), and Ramsay {CRE., ch. viii.), amongst others (cp.HNT. 611 f.). The bearing of the question upon the third gospel and Acts was brought to the front specially by F. Blass, who in a series of monographs {SK, 1894, 86-119; NKZ., 1895, 712 f; Hermathena, ix. 121 f., 291 f.; SK., 1896, 436 f., 1898, 539 b, 1900, 5f.) argued that Luke, like several ancient authors, re-edited his works, and that the Western text represents the church-edition of the gospel and the first draft of Acts. The theory won the support, more or less, of Hilgenfeld {ZWT, 1896, 625 b, 1899, 138 f., and in his edition of Acts), Belser {TQ., 1897, 303 f. etc.), Haussleiter {Theol. Lit. Blatt., 1896, pp. 105 f.), Draseke {ZWT., 1894, 192 f.), Zockler (in Greifiwalder Studien, 1895, pp. 129 f.), and Nestle {Christliche Welt, 1895, pp. 304 f.; SK., 1896, pp. 103 f.; Einf. pp. 56 f., 186 f.); it is rejected by Ramsay {Exp? i. pp. 129 f., 212 f., vi. pp. 460 f.), Chase {Critical Review, 1894, 303-305), Page {Class. Rev., 1897, 217), Bebb {DB. hi. 164-165), Schmiedel {EBi. i. 50-56), Jlicher {Einl. § 32), and Jacquier {LNT. hi. 178-184), amongst others, mainly on the ground that (i.) the phenomena of the ‘Western’ text are not confined to the Lucan writings; that (ii.) they are not homogeneous, but represent different strata; that (hi.) the ' original ’ text of Acts and the ' revised ’ text of the third gospel cannot be reconstructed with certainty (compare the differences between Hilgenfeld's text and that of Blass’ Acta Apostolorum secundum formam qua videtur romanani); and that (iv.) the later origin of the ‘Western’ text appears in several places {e.g. 5s9 addition of kings and tyrants). These and other reasons for maintaining the secondary character of the Western text are put especially by Harnack {SBBA., 1899, pp. 150 f., 1900, pp. 2 f.), Bousset {TR., 1898, 410-414), Corssen {GGA., 1896, pp. 425 b, 1901, pp. if., in reviewing Hilg.’s edition of Acts), B. Weiss, ‘der Codex D in der Apgeschichte ’ {TU. xvh. 1, pp. 52-107), von Dobschiitz {LC., 1895, 601 f., 1897, 385 f.), H. Coppieters {De Historia Textus Actorum Apostolorum dis-sertatio, 1902), and Schmiedel {EBi. 59-56), from the standpoint of textual criticism. D may have occasionally (cp. Zahn’s Einl. § 59) preserved the original reading,* but as a whole it cannot * According to A. Pott {Der abendldndische Text der Apgeschichte und ihr Wir-quelle, 1900), because the editor had access to the We-source or Acta Pauli which underlies the canonical Acts.

* So, e.g., Kohler, Versuch uber die Abfassungszeit der epist. Schriften im NT u. der Apocalypse (1830), pp. 7 f.; Wieseler’s Chronologie (pp. 184 f.), and Bertheau, Einige Bemerkungen uber die Stelle Gal 2 u. ihr Verhaltniss zur Apgeschichte (1854), pp. 3f. Cp. Baur’s critique of Wieseler in Theol. Jahrb. (1849) 457-480, and M. Meinertz on Ac 1534 and Gal 211 {BZ., 1907, 392-402).

ACTS 31I be ascribed to the author of Acts (see Harnack’s final reply in TLZ. (1907) 396-401, based on a fresh examination of the D text in Ac 1-7).

If the Western text of 1 127-28 be the original draft (hv 8 ToXX) dyaXX-acs. ovveorpauuvcv r]/j.G>v edn els e alrv "Ayaos ar)/j.alvbiv KT\.; so Blass, Pfleiderer, Hilgenfeld, Zahn, etc.), a strong light is thrown upon the personality of the writer. Here the we is not, as in the later half of Acts, Paul’s companions, but the Christian community of Antioch. Consequently, if this isolated occurrence of hueis is to be taken along with the others, as is most natural, the writer plainly conveys the impression that he himself was a Christian of Antioch, which is not improbable (cp. Harnack, BNT. i. 21 f.) for other reasons (cp. the tradition in Eus. H. E. iii. 4, and Jerome, uir. inlust. 7, ‘Lucas, medicus antiochensis’). But the latter fact is not bound up with this reading, which may be due to a reviser who wished to emphasise the tradition in question.

One or two cases of displacement, due to copyists, may be noted. Thus 4s3, which is an erratic block as it lies, originally came after 431; 512a has been displaced (cp. Laurent, NT Studien, 138-139) from between 514 and 515; there is quite a case for Cramer’s (Exegetica et Critica, v., 1896, 34-40) suggestion that 1921-22 originally followed 1818-23; 143, unless it is an early gloss, lay before 142 (Wendt, cp. HNT. 671); and 26s has been dis-placed from its site between 2622 and 2623 (Nestle, Philologica Sacra, 54; Wendt; Moffatt, HNT. 676). Such phenomena, taken together with the fact that by the middle of the second century (i.e. within fifty years of its composition) divergent recensions of the text were current, might suggest that Luke did not publish the book himself, while the roughnesses of the extant text, which have set correctors early at work, prompt the con-jecture that the author did not manage to revise his Serepos Aoyos for purposes of publication. § 8. Date.—(Harnack, BNT. iv. 90-116; J. A. Cross, ET. xii. 334-336, 423-425, xiii. 43-46). As Acts is a sequel to the third gospel, and as the latter was written after A.D. 70, the terminus a quo for the composition of the Serepos Aoyos is determined without further ado. The time which elapsed between the two has been variously calculated (nine or ten years, Renan), but it is impossible to draw any safe inferences on this point from the more developed phase, e.g., of the resurrection-stories. If Luke used Josephus (see above, pp. 29-31), the terminus a quo of both his works could not be earlier than A.D. 94. On other grounds the older Tubingen school relegated Acts to the reign of Trajan or Hadrian (so Zeller-Overbeck: ii. 267-284; Schwegler, Hausrath, followed by Krenkel, Rovers: INT. 205 b, Schmiedel in EBi. 49-50, and Baljon); Pfeiderer, S. Davidson {INT. ii. 76-176), and Martineau {Seat of Authority, 267) condescend on A.D. I IO-I 20; but others fix on the beginning of the second (so, e.g., Volkmar, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Jacobsen, Renan: iv. ch. xix.; Julicher, Wrede, Burkitt), or the close of the first century (so, e.g., Wendt, J. Weiss, Peake). It is impossible to go earlier than c. A.D. 100, if it is allowed that Luke knew Josephus {Jewish Wars before A.D. 80; Antiq., A.D. 93-94). In this event he must have been about seventy when he wrote Acts, which is by no means impossible or even improbable. When the dependence on Josephus is given up, Acts falls to be dated within the Domitianic period (so, e.g., Schleiermacher, Mangold, Keim i. 63; Hilgenfeld, Reuss, McGiffert, Lning’s Gemeinde-verfassung, 62; J. Reville, Les origines de P episcopat, 43-44; Bacon, Ramsay’s SPT. 386 f.; Spitta), perhaps even as early as c. A.D. 80 (Ewald, Bleek, Adeney, San day’s inspiration p1 1894, 318-330; G. H. Gilbert) or the eighth decade of the century (Bartlet, A.D. 72-74; Headlam, Zahn). We may re-construct Luke’s literary activity roughly as follows: Between A.D. (50) 55 and 65 he wrote his memoranda of Paul’s travels; later, between A.D. 80 and 90, the third gospel; finally, c. A.D. 100, he worked up his memoranda into the book of Acts. Unless the Josephus-references, however, in the gospel are subsequent additions, the first of his works may also need to be placed towards the end of the first century.

The notion that Acts must have been written immediately after the events recorded at its close, i.e. prior to A.D. 70, naturally sprang up early in the church (cp. Eus. H. E. ii. 22. 6), through Jerome {uir. inlustr. 7: edidit uolumen egregium, quod titulo apostolicarum irpagetov prnotatur. Cuius historia usque ad biennium Rom commorantis Pauli peruenit, id est usque ad quartum Neronis annum. Ex quo intelligimus in eadem urbe librum esse compositum). It still finds supporters, e.g., in Godet, Salmon, Alford (A.D. 63), Rendall, Barde {Comm. 508-583), Gloag (A.D. 62-64), Belser (A.D. 63), Bisping, Cornely, R. B. Rackham {JTS., 1899, 76-87), Dawson Walker {Gift of Tongues, etc., AD. 68-70), Corluy (A.D. 64), Blass, and Jacquier, while Harnack {BNT. iv. 90 f, 114 f.) has recently concluded that Acts must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem, even be-fore Paul’s death. The most plausible argument in its favour is drawn from the last verse of the book. Luke, it is held, wrote no more because he knew no more; when he wrote, Paul was still in his two years’ detention, or at least still alive. This becomes more arguable, if he is supposed to have planned a third volume; but, as such a hypothesis is untenable (see above), we must fall back on the position that he brought Acts up to date and issued it as it was. This plea, that if he had known of Paul’s martyrdom or release, he must have mentioned it, does not flow from the structure of the book, however. As a matter of fact, Paul was not released. Both Luke and his readers probably knew that the apostle had perished at the end of the two years’ residence in Rome; the historian had as little interest in mentioning it as in suppressing it; he closes on the ringing chord of &KW\6T(S>S, because he had now depicted the establishment of Gentile Christianity in Rome under the auspices of his hero. Paul’s martyrdom was as irrelevant to him as Peter’s. Acts is not a biography of Paul, but a sketch of the early church written from a special standpoint and for a special object; the omission of any reference to Paul’s subsequent fortunes only becomes perplexing to those who persist in reading into Acts an aim which the author never contemplated. From the standpoint of modern realism it would no doubt be more satisfactory to have the book rounded off by an account of Paul’s death; but to expect such a finale is to misread the currents of the preceding narrative. Thus, even if the evidence for the post A.D. 70 date of the third gospel and for Luke’s use of Josephus could be set aside, there would not be sufficient internal evidence to establish a seventh-decade date for Acts.

The other argument, that if Luke had written later he would have been sure to know and use Paul’s epistles, and in this way would have avoided some of the discrepancies between these and his own work, is equally insecure. The Pauline epistles were not widely circulated even by the opening of the second century, and in any event Luke seems to have had no interest in Paul as a letter-writer. So far as Acts is concerned, the apostle might never have written an epistle at all: it was the churches who were to Luke Paul’s epistles (2 Co 32). Nor was Luke careful even in his own works (cp. Lk 24 and Ac 1) to avoid apparent (cp. Bacon, Exp.1 vii. 254-261) discrepancies. “There are stranger things in the Acts than the appearance of contradicting St. Paul’s epistles. There are the contradictions (apparent or real) of the OT, of the writer’s own gospel, and of the book of Acts itself” (Cross). §9. Traces in early Christian literature.—(SR. 567-584; Zeller, i. 93-164; Leipoldt, GK. i. 197 f.) As Luke’s two volumes were dedicated to Theophilus, evidently a man of posi-tion and means, it is more than probable that the latter would arrange for their circulation. This was the recognised practice of the time. The patronus libri often undertook to have copies of the book made by librarii at his own expense, and thus its intro-duction to wider circles was facilitated (cp. e.g. Mart. iii. 2. 16, vii. 97. 13; Cic. ad Att. xii. 40. 1). No traces of Acts are visible, however, until at least the second decade of the second century.

Clem. Rom. 21 (hiov lvres h is merely an allusion to an agraphon circulating through primitive Christianity, which chances to be cited in Ac 2085; Clem. 181= Ac 1322 reflects the use of a common source, and slight coincidences like Clem. 54. 7= Ac I23, Clem. 592=Ac 2618 are quite In view of the rabbinical use of the phrase to go to his own place, the echo of Ac I25 in Ign. Magn. 51 becomes more apparent than real. Upon the other hand, Ac 224 does appear to have been in the mind of the writer of Polyk. I2 (bv ijyeipev b Q^bs Xcas TCLS dibivas TOO q.bou); it is not easy to suppose that the striking mistranslation of 'Sin was made independently. If so, lesser references or reminiscences may be seen in Polyk. 21 fudge of living and dead) —Sc 1042 perhaps, and in Polyk. 63= Ac 752, as well as (probably) in Polyk. 122= Ac 25 821 2618. Similarly Ac 172 is echoedin Diogn. 3, Tatian {Orat. ad Gr. 4), and Athenagoras (^Leg. 13); while Ac 760 seems reproduced, like Lk I6, in the epistle of the Vienne and Lyons churches —which throws back the composition of the book into the first half or even the first quarter of the second century. Irenaeus and the Muratorian Canon attest its repute as scripture in the Western church, like Tertullian in the church of Africa, and Clement in Alexandria. Its history in the Alexandrian church, together with the fact that its text could be so freely altered as in the D revision, shows that in some quarters, however, Acts was not considered yparjrq by the middle of the second century. What helped eventually to popularise it t and to win canonical prestige was its ecclesiastical emphasis on the apostles and Paul as leaders of the catholic church—a trait which became particularly grateful in the controversy with Marcion. " The book was canonised first of all as a supplement to the catholic epistles,—to make up for the fact that many of the apostles had left no writings behind them,—and, in the second place, as a link between the Pauline and the catholic epistles, by way of documentary proof that Paul and the twelve were at one " (Leipoldt, GK. i. 205). Hence probably the third and fourth words in the description of the Muratorian Canon: ‘ ‘ Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optimo Theophilo comprehendit, quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et semota passione Petri euidenter declarat, sed et profectione Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.” This ambiguous reference is connected by Dr. M. R. James (cp. TS. V. ii., 1897, pp. lof.) with the Leucian Actus Petri Vercellenses, which begin with the profectio Pauli ab urbe in Spaniam, and close with the passio Petri—a coin-cidence which seems to imply that these Acts were known to the compiler of the Murat. Canon, who either confused Luke with Leucius or took the Leucian Acts (where the first person is also used anonymously as in the canonical Acts) to be written, as Leucius may have intended his readers to suppose, by Luke. t The apocryphal Acta draw upon it and embellish its hints by fantastic embroideries of their own (cp. HNA. i. 347 f.). In his opening homily, Chrysostom observes that (woXXots TOTo TO ^i^Xlov ofir Sri Gm yv&pinbv Gmv oSre b pyas avrb Kal avvdels) many Christians were ignorant alike of its existence and of its authorship: some said Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, others again Luke. The authenticity of the homily has been questioned, but, even so, it throws light on the indifference towards Acts which was felt in some quarters of the early church.

* So Did. 12= Ac 1520. 29, and the use, attributed by Hegesippus to James the Just, of the logion preserved in our canonical Lk 2334 (Ac 760).

* As are Herm. Sim. 928= Ac 541 and Vis. 42= Ac 412; Ign. Smyrn. 33= Ac io41, and Barn. 72= Ac io42, with perhaps just. Dial. 36, 76= Ac 26s2"23.

Chapter III. Homilies and Pastorals

It is with a sense of baffled curiosity, which almost deepens into despair at some points, that one leaves the literary criticism of the following fragments of the primitive Christian literature which have been gathered into the NT. In Greek and Roman literature there are also several writings which present unsolved, if not insoluble, problems of authorship and date, but, between the death of Paul and the journey of Ignatius to Rome, a mist lies over the early church, which is hardly dissipated by the recognition of Luke as the author of the third gospel and Acts, or of a John in Asia Minor towards the close of the first century, with whom some of the ‘ Johannine ’ writings may be connected. The former approximates more closely than any other early Christian writer to the literary figures of the contemporary ancient world; the latter remains a more or less shadowy figure, round whom later traditions throw conflicting rays of light. The result is that in these pastorals and homilies we are left face to face with a number of writings which are obviously sub-Pauline, which must have been composed during the last thirty years of the first century and the opening decades of the second, which can be approxi-mately grouped and in some cases dated, but which elude any attempt to fix them down to a definite author. No contemporary tradition enables us to place them. Even the traditions of the next century, such as they are, yield little or no data upon the problems raised by literary criticism; it is seldom certain whether such traditions are much more than imaginative deductions from the writings themselves.

This is one of the perplexing differences between the Christian literature of the first and that of the second century. The latter reveals a series of striking personalities, while the NT literature, which is practically synonymous with the literature of 3’5 the church during the first century, has only one writer whose personality is well marked, i.e. the apostle Paul. Luke, the historian, is known to us mainly from his writings, and these, from their very nature, are objective rather than subjective. The John of Asia Minor whom we can detect behind the Johannine literature, must have been a commanding figure, but we cannot feel him breathe and move, as we can feel Paul. On the other hand, the second century and its literature reveal strong and varied personalities, from Ignatius to Irenaeus, from Polykarp to Tertullian, from Marcion and even Papias and Hegesippus to Justin, Tatian, and Clement of Alexandria. One result of this contrast is that, while these writers and others reflect the existence of the earlier NT literature, it is more difficult to fix down the latter. When the NT canon begins to emerge, in the second and third centuries, we find it composed of writings which may, on independent grounds, in a large majority of cases, be assigned to A.D. 70-120; but it is a task beyond the resources of criticism—at least beyond such resources as are at present available—to locate a number of these writings with any sort of precision. They come to us out of that misty half-century; they are found to be in use throughout the later church in certain quarters; echoes of them in later writers help to prove their period within certain limits, and internal evidence determines their relative order now and then. But beyond this we can seldom go with very much security. The questions of their authorship, object, and structure may be discussed with the aid of hypotheses, but these hypotheses are almost wholly derived from internal evidence, and this evidence in its turn is vitiated by our comparative ignorance of the literary conditions in which these compositions originated.

One reason for this is to be found in the fact that such problems were irrelevant to the interests of the later church. Nihil de titulis interest, said Tertullian; and this abjuring of interest in the questions which pertain to literary criticism fairly represents the general temper of the age immediately following the origin of the NT documents. Their religious validity was the only thing that mattered. Since that seemed to involve a claim for apostolic authorship or authority, evidence was led, in the shape of tradition usually, on behalf of the claim; but otherwise the morphology of the docu-ments usually excited no interest in the devout or the ecclesiastical mind.

This feeling went back further. These documents were not composed as pieces of literature. Luke is the only writer who reminds us, in style and treatment, of an ancient Greek or Roman author: the dedication of his works to an individual, their prefaces, and their general ethos, offer a certain parallel to contemporary pagan literature. Otherwise, the NT literature, and especially that of the pastorals and homilies, may be described as communal in origin; it approximates to the Hebrew rather than to the Greek or Roman literature. The pastorals and homilies, like the gospels, were not written with any literary object; their authors voice various sides of a movement, even when their idiosyncrasies are most evident; and, on the whole, in passing from Paul’s correspondence through the contemporary gospels to this group of pastorals and homilies, we touch more and more the catholic spirit of the early church, rather than any great personality. Tradition in the case of I Peter and of 2-3 John brings figures within reach which may be more or less securely connected with these homilies, but otherwise most of the later traditions upon their origin are derivative and secondary. The writings are all post-Pauline. In several, e.g., Hebrews, I Peter, and James, vibrations of the Pauline theology are audible; Ephesians, Timotheus, and Titus are associated explicitly with the apostle’s name, and this drew them, together with Hebrews (usually), into the Pauline canon. But it is not possible to classify them chronologically, or even according to types of thought, and while they are grouped in the following pages it is principally for the sake of convenience (cp. above, p. 20).

None of these epistolary writings contains any narrative. The epistolary form of literature was devoted mainly to the interests of edification. Several writings have been preserved which, while epistolary in form, are practically narratives, and narratives of martyrdom, of which the most significant are the so-called ‘ Martyrdom of the holy Polykarp,’ an epistle written by the church of Smyrna to that of Philomelium, and the epistle of the church at Vienne and Lyons, about twenty years later, describing the persecution which had broken out in Gaul under Antoninus Verus. These, however, are both later. 2 Peter may not be earlier than the Smyrniote epistle, but with this partial exception the homilies and pastorals which have been grouped in the NT canon are not only prior to this epistolary narrative, but closer to exposition and exhortation. Even in they vary. Hebrews has no address, and i John has no definite address; while neither James nor i John has any epistolary conclusion. The more important of them show how Paul had popularised the epistolary form in primitive Christianity, but it is as homilies rather than as epistles that they are to be ranked (pp. 48-50).

The so-called ‘ catholic ’ epistles, which fall under this group, are best connected with the work of the anonymous apostles and prophets who d. neutest. Schriften, 73 f. belonged to Christendom as a whole, not to any particular community (cp. Harnack, MAC. i. 341 f.). But Harnack’s further hypothesis (cp. TU. ii. 2. pp. 106 f., ACL. ii. 1. 455 f.), that I Peter, Judas, and James were originally the work of such unknown teachers and prophets, and that the later tendency of the church to run back its doctrine and institutions to apostles led to the insertion of apostolic names in these homilies, does not work out well in detail.

* Cp. Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 50 f.; Heinrici, Der Litter. Character

The chief special editions of these ‘catholic’ epistles are by the French scholar Jacques Le Fevre d’Etaples (Basle, 1527), J. Ferus the branciscan (Paris, 1536 f.), N. Serarius (Mayence, 1612), G. Schlegel (1783)1 J- B. Carpzov (1790), J. C. W. Augusti (1801), J. W. Grashof (1830), K. R. Jachmann (1838), de Wette (1847), Briickner (—de Wette3, 1865), H. Ewald (1870), A. Bisping (1871), Hofmann (1875-6), E. Reuss (1878), J. M. S. Baljon (1903), B. Weiss (vol. hi. of his NT. Handatisgabe), T. Calmes (Paris, 1905), F. Weidner’s Annotations (New York, 1906), van Steenkiste {Epi>. Cath. Explicated, 1907), and Windisch {HBNT. 1911). Special studies by G. C. Storr, de catholicarum epistolartun occasions et consilio (Tubingen, 1789), C. F. Staudlin, de fontibus epistolarwn catholicamm (Gottingen, 1790), P. J. Gloag {Introd. to Cath. Epp., Edin. 1877), S. D. F. Salmond {DB. i. 359-362), and W. Bauer {Die Katholischen Briefs des NT, Tubingen, 1910); they are also translated and annotated by F. W. Farrar in his Early Days of Christianity. On their canonical place, see Leipoldt {GK. i. 232 k), and Lietzmann's Wie zvwden die Bucher des NT. heiliye Schrifti (1907) pp. 99-110.

(A) The (First) Epistle of Peter

LITERATURE.—{a} Editions—Erasmus (1516); Luther (1523); H.

Bullinger (1534); Calvin (1551); Hemming (1555); N. Byfield (London, 1637); Gerhard, Commentarius super priorem et posteriorem D. Petri epist. (Jena, 1641); John Rogers (London, 1650); Grotius {Annotat. 1650); A. Nisbet (London, 1658); David Dickson (1659); Benson, Paraphrase and Notes (1756); J. S. Semler's Paraphrasis (Halle, 1781); Morus (Leipzig, 1794); Roos, Brief explanation of the L'wo Epp. of P. (1798); Pott (1810); C. G. Hensler (Sulzbach, 1813); Hottinger (Leipzig, 1815); Eisenschmidt (1824); W. Steiger (Berlin, 1832, Eng. tr. 1836); J. D. Schlichthorst (1836); Windischmann {Vindicics Petrince, 1836)*; de Wette (1847); J. E. Riddle (1849); J. F. Demarest (New York, 1851); A. Wiesinger, Briefs d. fakobus, Petrus, tend fitdas (Konigsberg, 1854); Olshausen (1856); T. Schott (Erlangen, 1861); B. Briickner* (1865 3); J. Brown3 (Edin. 1868); Alford4 (1871); Wordsworth (1872); Hundhausen (Mainz, 1873, 1878); Hofmann, der Erste Brief Petri (Nordlingen, 1875); Reuss (1878); E. H. Plumptre {Camb. Bible, 1879); F. C. Cook {Speaker's Comm. 1881); Huther (—Meyer, Eng. tr. 1881); C. A. Witz (Vienna, 1881); Keil, Briefe d. Petrus und fudas (Leipzig, 1883); S. D. F. Salmond (Schaff's Comm. 1883)*; A. J. Mason (Ellicott’s Comm. 1883); J. M. Usteri * (Zurich, 1887); R. Johnstone (Edin. 1888); B. C. Caffin {Pulpit Comm. 1889); Fronmiiller (Lange’s Bibel-Werk^, 1890, Eng. tr. 1872); J. R. Lumby {Expositor's Bible, 1893); Goebel (1893); J. T. Beck, Erklarung d. Briefe Petri (1895); K. Burger2 (1895); H. Couard (1895); E. Khl (— Meyer6, 1897); F. J. A. Hort* (posthumous and incomplete [11-217], 1898); H. von Soden 3 {HC. 1896); Monnier (1900) *; J. H. B. Masterman (1900); W. H. Bennett {CB. 1901); Cone {Internal. Hdbks to NT, 1901); C. Bigg2 (ICC. 1902)*; Bugge, Apostlerne Peters og Judas's Breve (1902); Gunkel {SNTT 1907); J. H. A. Hart {EGT. 1910).

1 In addition to the patristic notes of Didymus, Oecumenius, and Theophylact.

(b} Studies—Cludius, Uransichten des Christenthums (Altona, 1808), 296-311; Augusti, Nova hypothesis, quee primce Petri epistolce avd evrtav im-pugnat, sub examen voc. (Jena, 1808); J. D. Schulze, Der schrijtstellerische Charakter u. Werth des Petrus, Judas, u. Jakobus (Leipzig, 1811); Seyler (SK., 1832, 44 f.); Mayerhoff, Einleit. in die Petrin. Schrijten (Hamburg, 1835)*; Lecoultre’s Thlses (Geneva, 1839); A. L. Pblmann, Theologia Petrina (Groningen, 1850); J. C. Zaalberg’s Disquisitio (1851); B. Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegriff (1855), and in SN. (1865, pp. 619-657, 1873, PP- 539 f.); Baur (Theol. Jahrb., 1856, 193-240, in reply to Weiss; also Church History, Eng. tr. i. pp. 150 f.); Schmid, Biblical Theology oj the NT (ii. pp. 374 b); Sabatier {ESR. x. 619 f.); Davaine, Jitude dogmatique sur 1 P. (1867); Grimm {SH., 1872, pp. 657-694); Holtzmann {BL. iv. 494-502); C. H. van Rhijn, de jougste bezivaren tegen de echtheid vaan d. eersten briej van Petrus getoest (1875); Gloag, Introd, to Catholic Epistles (Edin. 1887), pp. 109-203; E. Scharfe, die petrinische Stromung in d. NT Literatur (1893)*; R. H. Drijber {Gelooj en Vrijheid, 1895, 28-60); Ramsay, CRE. (ch. xiii.) and Exp.^ viii. 282-296; Seeberg, der Tod Christi (1895), 288 f.; McGiffert, AA. pp. 482 b, 593b; Dalmer, ‘ Zu i P 118-19' (BFT., 1898, 6); Harmon, ‘ Peter—The man and the epistle ’ (JBL., 1898, 31-39); F. H. Chase (DB. iii. 779-796)*; van Manen, Handleiding voor de ondchristelijke Letterkunde (1900), pp. 64-67; Pfleiderer, Urc. ii. 503-509; Sieffert (PRE. xv. 186-212)*; Moffatt, HNT. pp. 242-257; Kgel, ‘die Gedankeneinheit des ersten Briefes Petri’ (BFT., 1902, 5-6); L. Goutard, ' Essai critique et historique sur la prem. epitre de S. Pierre’ (Lyons, 1905); Orello Cone (EBi. iii. 3677-3685); B. Weiss, ‘Der erste Petrusbrief u. die neuere Kritik ’ (1906); P. Schmidt, ‘Zwei Fragen zum ersten Petrusbrief’ (ZWT., 1907, 28-52); R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles (1909), 208-211; J. C. Granbery, ‘ Christological Peculiarities in I Pt.’ (AJT., 1910, 62-81); K. Lake (EBN xxi. 295 b). § 1. Characteristics oj the pastoral.—After a brief address1 (i1'2), Peter thanks God for the living hope of salvation possessed by his readers—a salvation which their present trials only serve to guarantee to them (13-9), as the long-promised messianic heritage (110-12). This hopeful2 prospect is a source of joy. It involves, however, a reverent and godly conduct in the present 1 Cp. W. Alexander (Exp.8 iv. r-13).

The temper inculcated by Peter, in view of suffering, is not a grey, close-lipped stoicism, but a glow of exultation such as Jesus (Mt 511-12) and Paul (Ro 53f-) had already counselled. Christians can only be patient under their trials by being more than patient. life (113-21), particularly brotherly love (122.) as the vital expres-sion towards one another of the mercy which all, as the true and new Israel, had received in Christ from The appeal then, as in He 131, widens (211f.) into a variety of social duties incumbent on Christians as citizens (212), subjects (213f.), slaves! (218f.), wives (31-6), and husbands (37), and the closing general exhortation (38f.) to mutual duties passes back into the cardinal question of a Christian’s right behaviour under trial and unjust punishment. Christ’s example of patience and innocence, and the imminence of the final deluge (318f.), are adduced as the main motives for Christians keeping themselves free from pagan vice and (48f.) from lovelessness within the church. J A final paragraph (412-19), warning them against repining, gathers up these admonitions, after which Peter (514) appeals § to the elders for considerate and faithful supervision of the churches, and to the younger members (55f.) for a humility towards men and God which is the normal Christian safeguard. The blessing (510-11), asll in He 1320f, is followed by some brief personal notices, with which the epistle closes. Its keynote is steady t The association of advice to these oiK^rai with an exposition of Christ’s death is partly due to the fact that crucifixion was a punishment for slaves in the Roman world. The large place given to the duties of slaves and wives, as contrasted with the lack of any regulations for masters and the slight counsel for husbands, is remarkable. 33 is one of the rare sumptuary directions in primitive Christian literature. t Two points may be noted to show how the strange legendary reference of 3196 would possess a certain aptness as a local allusion, (a) Marcion, the Pontic Christian, is known at a later stage to have caught up a similar idea {Iren. i. 27. 3); and (b) Apamea was one of the places where the Noah-legend, like the Enoch-legend, had been localised (cp. Babeion in RHR., 1891, pp. 174-183), though Parthia and Phrygia competed for the honour of having been the ark’s resting-place. See Schiirer, GJV. iii. 18-20. § Cp. W. Alexander {Exp? iv. 184-193). || Both 1 P. and Heb. are brief exhortations (512= He 1322) to exiles of heaven (i1 2u=He 1113, Mk 1327), written in view of penultimate persecution (47 17-is — He io37). See, further, 12= He 1224, 22= He 512., 25= He 36, 3°= He 1217, 321 (dvttvmov)=He 924, with the use of avepoc@at (120= He 926) and the emphasis on ras (318= He 727 97- 266.) and the common exaltation of hope. But Heb. implies a longer period of Christian experience in its audience than I P. In view of Col 415-17 and 2 Co I1 it cannot be argued that (von Soden) the circulation of an encyclical like this implied that the churches had been organised for some time. encouragement (511= Lk 2232) to endurance in conduct and innocence in character.

* Cp. the striking parallel, I P 26=Mk 1210-11; also the similarity of argument in I P 47=Mk 1329-33.

The dominant note of the epistle is hope (113 etc., cp. Seyler, SK., 1832, pp. 44f.; Weiss, NTTh. ii. 243 f.), but it would be unsafe to argue freely from the tone of a practical letter, written under special circumstances, to the character of the writer, any more than to his theological temper, as if the letter represented a divergence from orthodox Paulinism (Holtzmann, NTTh. ii. 308-311), or as if the virtue of hope was specially prominent in his personality. Probably the author wrote about hope, because hope was what his readers needed. The line of argument and application pursued must have been congenial to him, for it is worked out with sagacity and insight; but its employment at this particular crisis does not permit us to infer that it was normal to the writer, except in the general sense in which the messianic outlook of the early Christians tended to develop it. The emphasis put upon it here is due to the emergency of the moment rather than to any idiosyncrasy or dogmatic preposses-sion on the part of the author (so, rightly, Reuss, pp. 156-157, and Wrede, Ueber Aufgabe d. sogen. NT Theologie, 18-19). Many other Christians might have written similarly, and as a matter of fact hope is also prominent in Titus (cp. 37 etc.), an epistle with which i P. has some traits in common (e.g. Xvrpova&at., i18 = Tit 214, 29 = Tit 214, 2u = Tit 212; regeneration in baptism, 18 321= Tit 35 etc.).

At the same time, a writing like this reveals a man’s personality in several aspects, and one of these aspects is a hopeful spirit which is allied to a certain grace of style. The plastic language and love of metaphor t (cp. the frequent use of <I>s, i14, 19 22. 5. 16 410-11115. 16 53) shows an easy and natural temperament, with a vivid outlook upon the concrete surround-ings of human life. The sequence of ideas is not marked by any rhetorical devices, though there is a deftness in the linking of clause to clause (e.g. 16. 18 210), and although a clause like 6 Zobev ep.TrXo/Aj'; rpigpiv Kat mrepibocos gpvaLW n evSva-ews IpaAwv Kw-pos has been pronounced ‘ quite Thucydidean ’ (Bigg). On (Mayerhoff, p. 102). t Cp. Scharfe, ‘ die schriftstellerische Originalitat des ersten Petrus-briefs’ (SK, 1889, pp. 633-670); also Chase (pp. 781-782), and Bigg (PP- 2-5). the other hand, the writer never uses v, and he rarely employs connecting particles. The correlation of the paragraphs denotes the preacher, with his eye on an audience, rather than the composer of a literary epistle. He is fond, it should be noted, of developing a thought first negatively, then positively (not ... but 114-15. 18-19. 23a-23b 368-6b. 2ia-2ib 52a-2b. 20-3), and of presen ing an idea by means of sharp contrasts (16.8.11.15-16 24: 7.10.16.

* « Das Eigenthumliche des Briefes ist eine durchgehende Warme ”

23-25 31. 3.9.11-12.17-18 42. 6. 14-15.17-18 51. 3), often with the aid of th idiomatic p.ev.. . 86, whose use in i P. of all the NT writings “ is freest and contributes most to the sense ” (Simcox, Language of NT, p. 167). The writer has also a special fondness for verbs compounded of ava- (13. 13.15.17.23 25.24 44.14). His favourite formula for introducing OT quotations is 8r (124), with yyparra (116) or mepixet tv T0 ypaO (26), but just as often an OT phrase is woven into the texture of the epistle without any comment.

The beautiful spirit of the pastoral shines through any translation of the Greek text. “Affectionate, loving, lowly, humble,” are Izaak Walton’s quaternion of adjectives for the epistles of James, John, and Peter, but it is I P. which deserves them pre-eminently. To this writer Christians in the present age seem exiles (i1 2U, cp. also I17 or pilgrims (contrast Eph 219), whose inheritance is in heaven (14), but who possess here a sure footing in the true grace of God (513 a reminiscence of Col I6?). This grace, which is the core and heart of the epistle, is described in historical retrospect as the subject f of OT prophecy (l10), and in prospect as the final boon to be fully bestowed at the second coming of Jesus Christ (i13). By a remarkable turn of expression, the suffering of innocent Christians is described as a X“Pts in God’s sight (219-20). The grace of life is Peter’s equivalent for Christianity (37); God is to him the God of all grace (510), and Christians are to be stewards of God’s TotKlAn X^P^ (410), or bounty bestowed on them for various ends of service. The epistle is a blend of Trap&KXtiais and iirip.apTvpla (512), the latter testifying Todn-rpi elvat X^PLV T00 9eov, els riv oTfre (cp. 414). Here Peter uses x^Pls where Paul had used eiayyiXiov (i Co 151), and the unsettling tendencies are due to suffering, not to wrong views (as at Corinth). t This is in keeping with its associations in Paul and in Acts (cp. J. A. Robinson, Ephes. pp. 221 f.), where xpis is generally tinged with colours drawn from the admission of the Gentiles into the prerogatives and privileges of Israel. § 2. The situation.—It is this hostile pressure, with the perplexities and pains which ensue, that differentiates 1 P. from the preceding correspondence of Paul. The relations between Christians and the authorities have entered on a phase of strain, which marks a new epoch in the story of the primitive church, and the date, as well as inferentially the authorship, of the epistle may be said to depend largely upon the view adopted of the disturbance under which the readers were suffering. They are not to be taken aback at the burning trial (412) which has befallen them; for (i.) it is not purposeless, but a furnace where the genuine elements of their Christian character are being tested and tempered (16f); (ii.) it is not abnormal, but the natural order of experience exemplified as well as ordained by Jesus himself (418f); (iii.) it is not permanent, but merely the short, sharp prelude to eternal glory; and (iv.) it is not un-common (59), but the contemporary lot of their fellow-Christians throughout the world. The detailed allusions to this untoward environment are often held to indicate an organised persecution, when Christians were hunted out and hunted down as Christians; and it is argued strongly that this extension of persecution from the capital to the provinces, together with the fact of suffering for the Name, must point to the reign of Trajan, or at least to that of Domitian. It would be no valid objection to the latter date, that a contemporary Asiatic writing, the apocalypse of John, reflects quite a different attitude towards the State; for John represents a special phase of Asiatic Christianity in hot protest against the local Imperial cultus (see below, ch. iv.), whereas Clem. Rom., like i Peter, would voice the more patriotic temper consonant with the Christianity of the capital. But the internal evidence does not appear to carry us beyond the seventh decade of the first century, as reflected, e.g., in a contemporary passage like Mk 1 39-11. Here, as there, Christians are liable to official interference as well as to social annoyance on the score of their religion; they are dragged before nyeuves and Bagels (cp. 1 P 213), Evekev Ijxov (= os Xporiavs, 416), and have to answer for themselves. Mk. does not specify the charges; he merely makes Jesus describe the trials as incurred (1313) 81a TO moga Mov. This tallies fairly with the evidence of 1 P. and the Roman historians alike in pointing to a period as early as the seventh decade when, not only at Rome but throughout the provinces, the popular belief that Christianity was bound up with such flagitia as @veorelo. Semva and Oloretot ulgeus (Arnold, op. cit. below, pp. 22 f.), to say nothing of anti-imperial tendencies, exposed any adherent of that religion, against whom information was laid, to arrest and even execution.

* This disposes of one of Harnack's arguments (see below). He pleads that the address does not lie on the same plane as the rest of the epistle, whereas this conception of Christians as exiled colonists of heaven is intim-ately bound up with the conception of their sufferings. But it is simpler to suppose that the address came from the same source as the bulk of the letter, than to conjecture that a later scribe studied the letter and wrote the address so as to be in line with what followed. Cp. also the use of inraKo-r) (12. 14. 22).

When Nero cleverly shifted the suspicion of arson from himself to "quos per flagitia inuisos uulgus Chrestianos appellabat," the pestilential super-stition of Christianity, Tacitus (Annal. xv. 44) continues, had spread already in Rome, “quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque." Originally the Romans may have scarcely taken the trouble to distinguish between Christianity and its parent-stock Judaism, but before the seventh decade it must have been the interest of the Jews, especially at Rome, where they enjoyed the favour of Poppa, to differentiate themselves from the Nazarenes; and it was inevitable that the occurrence of legal proceedings such as happened in Paul’s career (e.g. Ac 1815) should make the distinction fairly plain to most of the authorities. It was in all likelihood the Jews who, out of ghhos or spiteful malice (cp. Clem. Rom. 6), instigated Nero’s (meute, or at least suggested his victims and scapegoats (cp. Harnack in TU., 1905, 2, pp. 1-9). In any case this outburst presupposes that the general public had become accustomed, by the seventh decade of the first century, to single out Christians from Jews, even when levelling against the former some of the charges (e.g. hatred of the human race) which were current against the latter. The accounts of Tacitus and Suetonius (Ner. 16) further show that while Nero’s attack was short if sharp, it must have rendered the general situation more perilous for Christians throughout the empire. The former writes: ‘ in the first place some were denounced (or put on trial) and made to confess.+ Thereupon, thanks to their information, a vast multitude was associated with them (reading conjuncti, with Boissier, Ramsay, Henderson) on the charge not so much of arson as of enmity to the human race.’ In line with this, “ Suetonius’ sober statement shows that Nero’s government did not confine itself in its measures of repression against the Christians to those accused of arson. We may safely assume that they began under Nero partly in defence of the public gods, partly against the excesses said (and probably not in all cases unjustly) to reign among them” (Mommsen, ExpP viii. 6). This second stage of imperial procedure against Christians as hostile to the t To confess what? probably not the fact that they were Christians, but their guilt as incendiaries (so Schiller, F. C. Arnold, Duruy, Henderson, Klette), in spite of the innocence of Christians on this count. Either they turned traitors, who for sectarian ends gave incriminating testimony falsely, or they were tortured into bearing false witness, or else they were fanatical enthusiasts. human race, inaugurated under Nero,* prevailed during the Flavian dynasty, and invested the mere name of Christian with perilous and compromising associations. No adequate evidence of any change under Vespasian has been adduced. Christians, as Mommsen put it, were persecuted just as robbers were exterminated; it was a standing order, one of the permanent police measures, so Suetonius implies.! When the correspondence of Trajan and Pliny unveils the proceedings of the latter as governor of Bithynia, he is found to be acting instinctively on the principle that he has a perfect right to execute those who persist in calling themselves Christians. No question of crime is raised. The profession of this religio illicita is assumed to be a capital offence. Trajan’s answer to his lieutenant neither disputes nor authorises this mode of action; the emperor simply sanctions it as an admitted feature of the State policy towards such dissenters.!

* It is therefore arbitrary, as I have elsewhere shown (DCG. i. 316-318, HJ. vi. 704-707), to find a hysteron proteron either in Luke’s or in the classical historians’ use of the name ‘ Christian.’ So F. C. Arnold, die Neronische Christerverfolgzmg (1888), pp. 52 f., and E. Klette, die Christen-katastrophe unier Nero (1907), pp. 16 f., 40 f. Klette's monograph summarises the wide results of recent research upon the problem, especially the novel views of Profumo and Pascal.

In the light of these historical data, the language of 1 P. becomes more intelligible. Not only does it contain no definite or necessary allusion to the second-century persecution for the Name, but the very terms employed are satisfactorily explained by the position of Christians under the Empire during the third quarter of the first century, especially subsequent to A.D. 64. Thus, while kakorots has its general meaning of ‘ wrong-doer ’ in 212.14, its position between murderer and thief and XXorploerokoros in 415, shows that here it is specially (cp. malus in Hor. Sat. 1. i. 77, iii. 59, etc.) equivalent to maleficus in the contemporary usage of Suetonius, i.e. wizard or magician, —magic, in the sense of possessing supernatural powers and of wielding undue influence over others,§ being a common charge against Christians, and one which, like arson, rendered the people liable to the penalties of the Lex Cornelia de sicariis (cp. Arnold, op. cit. pp. 64 f.). Hence AorpioemoKoros would mean not so much seditious or inconsistent as either a busybody—one * Cp. Sanday {ExpS vii. 407 f.); E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Empire (1894), pp. 70 f., 80 f,, 125 f., and Klette, op. cit. 54!. “ Die Moglichkeit, dass die Verhaltnisse, welche der Brief voraussetzt, schon unter Vespasian, ja selbst unter Nero, begonnen haben und je nach Einsicht und Temperament christlicherseits mit mehr oder weniger Sorge und Beftirchtung beurtheilt werden, lasst sich nicht abweisen " (Harnack, ACL. ii. 1. 454). ! “Only,” as Mommsen adds {Provinces, ii. p. 199 n.), “such regula-tions were put into practice at times more gently or even negligently, at other times more strictly, and were doubtless on occasion specially enforced from high quarters.” • The further questions arising out of this important correspondence, including that of Trajan’s rescript, do not bear on the NT literature. Cp. Neumann’s der rom. Staat u. die allgemetne Ktrche, i. [1890] pp. 9f., and Knopf {NZ. 96 f.). § For Christians who were actually mathematici, cp. Tert, de Idol. ix. who, like the Cynics, interfered (cp. Zeller in SB BA., 1893, pp. 129 f.) rudely and indiscreetly with ordinary practices and the social order, by a propaganda of divisive principles—or actually a ‘ delator,’ * like some of the Christians who informed against their fellows under Nero.t This kind of perse-cution would be spasmodic and sporadic (5®). Evidently it had but recently broken upon these Asiatic Christians; and while there was always a danger of the capital punishment being inflicted, it is clear that suffering of a less arduous character (calumny, annoyance, social ostracism, etc.) is con-templated in the main (cp. 41-2 Tv rourov Iv aapKt Bigat Xpwov, the expression p.^ al<rxyvea0(D, 416, and 01 ToXovres KToTy raparbobocav ras Uvxas avrwv iv ayaOoTroua). Further-more, while the epistle has judicial proceedings in view now and again, it does not exclude the hardships due to exasperated popular feeling; indeed, the two cannot be kept apart, as the action of governors was usually stimulated by private informa-tion laid by angry citizens, and the language of the epistle cannot fairly be held to imply that the authorities were taking the initiative regularly against Christians simply and solely because the latter confessed the name and faith of Christ. “ L’ennemi, ce n’est pas encore le pouvoir, ce sont les gens ignorants, debauches, c’est la foule aveugle, qui n’admet pas un culte et une morale par lesquels elle se sent condamnee" (Monnier, p. 325). After the Neronic wave had passed over the capital, the wash of it was felt on the far shores of the provinces (cp. 412); J the dramatic publicity of the punishment must have spread the name of Christian urbi et orbi, far and wide over the empire; the provincials would soon hear of it, * It tells against this explanation, however, that Tertullian deliberately renders the word, not by delator, but by speculator alieni (Scarp. 12). P. Schmidt (ZWT., 1907, 28 f.) compares the oath taken by the Christians of Pliny’s provinces to abstain from misappropriation of trust funds (ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent); but the ds before dXX. separates it from the preceding adjectives. • t A. Bischoff (ZNW., 1906, 271-274) prefers to think of Christians exposing themselves to the lex maiestatis by imprudent, if generous, resent-ment against the authorities on behalf of some ill-used fellow-citizen; but this interpretation, suggested long ago by Bengel, hardly seems broad enough by itself to explain the warning of the text. For the danger caused by delatores within Judaism after A.D. 70, cp. Joseph. B. J. vii. 3. 3, etc. + Barth (Einl. p. 127) compares the effects produced throughout the French provinces by the massacre of St. Bartholomew. and, when they desired a similar outburst at the expense of local Christians, all that was needed was a proconsul to gratify their wishes, and some outstanding disciple like Antipas or Polykarp to serve as a victim. § 3. Destination and origin.—The epistle is addressed to the Christian churches (cp. 513) in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The order, from NE. to S. and W., probably reflects the road followed by the bearer of the letter, who was to take the trade-route by sea to Amisus or Heraclea or Sinope, and thence make a circuit through the four provinces in question, returning finally to Bithynia (so Ewald and Hort, cp. EBi. iii. 3806-3807). Why these particular districts are mentioned, to the exclusion of Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia, it is as difficult to explain as to account satisfactorily for the selection of the seven Asiatic cities in Apoc 2-3; in any case their order is natural, upon the presupposition that the bearer sailed from Rome to Pontus. As a glance at the map is enough to show, “the order Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia is an exact inversion of the order which would present itself to a writer looking mentally towards Asia Minor from Babylon.” t The facilities of travel throughout the empire, and the habit of exchanging copies of such letters between the churches, would render the dissemination of the epistle quite possible, even if we supposed that the bearer had only a single copy to begin with. The explicit mention of neighbouring provinces in the title puts the pastoral on a different footing from, e.g., James, Judas, and 2 Peter.

This assumes that Ba^vX^p in 513 is a symbolic term for Rome—an interpretation which accords with the figurative language upon Israel (i1 24-10), + So Hort (p. 168), who explains the absence of Cilicia from the fact that it belonged to Syria till about A.D. 74, whilst Pamphylia and Lycia might roughly be regarded as “outside the Taurus.” the early patristic tradition (Eus. H. E. ii. 15, quoting Papias and Clem. Alex. as his authorities, so Jerome), which knew of no Christian church at Babylon nor of any visit of Peter to that region, the association of Mark (see above) with the apostle, and the allusion in 214 (elre Baciel... fire hyeuboi). Erbes {ZEG., 1901, pp. 16 f.), in his attempt to disprove Peter’s death at Rome (so van Manen), denies the mystical sense of Babylon,* and, like Solger (following Grimm and Hase), supposes that Peter went to the Assyrian t Babylon itself (in 58, Solger). The presence of Jews in the latter district may be granted, but persecution and.plague had reduced them sadly in the fifth and sixth decades of the century; the Syriac tradition is strangely silent upon any such mission; and Thomas, not Peter, is associated with the evangelisation of Parthia. Besides, the figurative description of Mark in 513b as my son, tells in favour of the spiritual interpretation of Ba^v\iiv in the immediately preceding words, no less than against the theory which would see in h BavXOvt avveKyeKrci an allusion to Peter’s wife (so Bengel, Mayerhoff, Jachmann, Alford, Stanley, and Bigg), who accompanied her husband on his mission-tours (I Co 95) and was not unknown to later tradition. Apart from the fact that the phrase is an extremely singular description of an individual, it would be very awkward to follow it up with a reference, which was not literal (though some, e.g. Bengel and Stanley, would take it literally), to my son Marcus. The combination of ‘the church in Babylon’ (especially in greeting a series of churches) ‘and my spiritual son’ is much more likely than ' my wife and my spiritual son,’ particularly as Peter is said to have been a father (Eus. H. E. iii. 30. 1; Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 6. 52).

* i.e. (i.) Bithynia and Pontus, (ii.) Galatia, (iii.) Cappadocia, and (iv.) Asia. Bithynia (Ac 167) and Cappadocia, so far as we know, were never evangelised by Paul, but the origin of their Christianity may be explained by Ac 29 (where Hemsterhuis and Valckenaer conj. Bibvvlav for ‘Iovalav), which would also throw light on the Pontus and Cappadocia of 1 Pi1. Galatia was a Pauline sphere (2 Ti 410), as was Asia in part, but the tone of Galatians suggests that there must have been some local interest in Peter. Whether Peter ever travelled in these districts, it is impossible to say. At all events the Gentile Christians must have largely outnumbered the Jewish Christians by the time that i Peter was written.

There is no hint in the epistle of any trouble between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and no allusion to the vexed question of the Law. The audience present to the writer’s mind is composed of Christians regarded as the true Israel (xexros aperiuots Siaorops), who were aliens in a world of suffering and persecution. Their pre-Christian condition was one of religious ignorance (114 yvowa, cp. Eph 418, Ac 1730), in which they were no people of God (29. 20), but the long destined purpose of God’s salvation had been achieved in them (13-12), * So after Calvin, Alford, Dean Stanley {Sermons and Essays on Apost. Age, p. 68), Johnstone {op. cit. pp. 23-28), and Kuhl (pp. 264 f.) among modern critics. The arguments for Rome, as against the Mesopotamian Babylon, are best put by Windischmann (pp. 130-133), Seufert (ZWT., 1885, 146-156), Salmon {INT. pp. 440 f.), Lightfoot {Clement, ii. pp. 491 f.), Zahn {Einl. ii. 19 f.), and Burger (pp. 154 f.). +The tradition connecting Mark with Alexandria, and the possibility of the Preaching of Peter having an Egyptian origin, might tell in favour of the Egyptian Babylon, a Roman fortress in Old Cairo (cp. Cone, EBi. 3681), whose claims were advocated by Le Clerc, Mill, Pearson, Pott, and Greswell. Michaelis thought of Seleucia, Semler (following Pearson, Harduin, and some others) of Jerusalem. and they were now the true and the new People (210). All this points to Gentile Christians as the preponderating and characteristic element in the churches addressed. Since there were Jewish settlements throughout these provinces, the local churches in all likelihood included members of Jewish birth, probably also some who had been This would account in part for the familiarity with the LXX which the writer presupposes; besides, it adds point to several of his appeals. But of the Gentile Christian character of the main body there can be no doubt (cp. Grimm, pp. 657 f., and Hoennicke, JC. pp. 113-117). Even a phrase like rarporapSoros in connexion with avaarpo^r] (118), which might seem to imply Jewish converts, would well apply to the strong yoke of hereditary pagan custom “built up and sanctioned by the accumulated instincts and habits of past centuries of ancestors.” f Finally, the tone of 43-4 puts it beyond doubt that the readers had been pagans prior to their conversion; such a description would not apply to Jewish Christians. § 4. Relation to Paul and Paulinism.—i P. is therefore a pastoral addressed to the Gentile Christians north of the Taurus in Asia Minor. The writer evidently did not belong to the evangelists who had founded the local churches (112), for the tradition reported by Origen {apud Eus. H. E. iii. 1), that Peter evangelised the Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, is little more than an inference from 1 P i1. The writer neither refers to any previous visit, nor promises a visit. His knowledge of the conditions of his readers does not imply any close personal relationship such as that presupposed in Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia, and there is no hint § 246), that the epistle was meant for proselytes of the gate, had never any basis in facts. The other view, which limited the epistle to Jewish Christians (so, e.g., Augusti, Pott, de Wette, and Bertholdt), is mainly advocated to-day by Weiss and Kuhl, partly on their peculiar and untenable theory of the date of the epistle, partly on erroneous exegetical grounds. Thus, even had Paul not written Ro 925, it would be daring to argue that because Hosea’s words, cited in 1 P. 210, originally referred to the Jews, they must bear the same reference in this connexion. t So Hort (p. 76), who refers to Gataker's note on M. Aurel, iv. 6; cp.

* The idea, at one time advocated by some critics {e.g. Michaelis, Einl.

Denney, The Death of Christ, pp. 93 f. The Jewish Christian character of the readers of 1 P. is assumed by Shailer Mathews, Messianic Hope in NT(1906), pp. 150 f.; but this hypothesis is almost entirely abandoned.

336 Homilies and pastorals of what title he had to address these Asiatic believers.* He simply writes as an apostle of Jesus Christ. This impression of indefiniteness, however, is due to the scanty records of the evan-gelisation of Asia Minor during the first century, even within Paul’s lifetime. The difficulty is really not removed by the pseudonymous hypothesis, for even it assumes that readers of the epistle were meant to understand that Peter had had some connection with these provinces.

The internal evidence of the epistle reveals an interesting affinity (which Semler was one of the first to bring out) which is almost equally difficult, viz., with the writings as well as with the religious ideas of Paul. The echoes of Romans, if not of Galatians, are unmistakable. The language of Is C/’povpovptvovs Sid. TloTews els awTT]plav eTolpr)v &TroKa\v<t>9'qvai tv Katpip tax^rv) echoes Gal 323 {ttppovpoijpeQa. els Thv ttIcttiv asroKaXvpd-qvai), though the ideas differ; and 216 closely parallels Gal 513. More clearly, however, I22 answers to Ro 129f, and 211 (r&v aapKLKuiv tiriOvpiGiv, airives arpareiovTai Kara Ths yvx“s ip&v) recalls Ro 723 {erepov vopov tv Tos ptXeal pov dvri-aTparevopevov T. v.); while 213-14 is an obvious reminiscence of the thought in Ro 131-4, just as 25 is of Ro 121, or 114 of Ro 122, or 39 of Ro 1217. The quotation in 26-8 need not necessarily t have been moulded by Paul’s language in Ro 932-33; but a comparison of both epistles, in the order and expression of thought, reveals a relationship which is not explicable except on the hypothesis that the one was written by a man who knew the other (cp. e.g. 210 = Ro 925, 47-11= Ro 123: 6). The dependence is naturally on the side of i Peter.$ Apart altogether from the other evidence which places I Peter not earlier than the seventh decade, Paul’s originality of thought and style is too well marked to admit of the hypothesis that he was the borrower.

But while an acquaintance not only with the general con-ceptions, but also with one or two of the epistles of Paul {e.g. i Co 3lf- 10f. = i P 2lf- = Col 38, i Co 620 = i P 514) is indubitable, the writer is by no means a Paulinist. His attitude is rather that of the common practical consciousness pervading the * If Paul wrote to the Roman and the Colossian churches, which he had not founded, and which contained a proportion at least of Jewish Christians, there is no great reason to hesitate about the probability of Peter having sent a pastoral to the Gentile Christians of Northern Asia Minor. t The common use of a non-Septuagintal version of Is 2816 might be due to a florilegium (see above, p. 24); but the context suggests that the writer of I P. was not independent of Paul at this point, and this is corrobor-ated by other data of the epistle.

J This is now admitted on almost all hands; for the evidence in detail, see especially Briickner’s Chron. pp. 13-31; S. Davidson, INT. i. 538 f.; Sanday and Headlam, Romans {ICC.), pp. Ixxiv-lxxvi; Usteri {op. cit. pp.

279 f.), and Vlter (see below), pp. 28-31, with Seufert’s elaborate article in ZWT. (1874) pp. 360-388.

THE (first) epistLe of PETER 33 i churches,—a consciousness which was prior to Paul, and in which Paulinism, for the most part, operated merely as a ferment. The proper appreciation of this central popular Christianity in the apostolic age is vital to the proper focus for viewing the early Christian literature. Instead of i Peter representing a diluted and faded Paulinism, it denotes an attitude influenced, but essentially uncontrolled, by the special ideas of Paul’s theology. The latter’s faith-mysticism, his conception of justi-fication, and his eschatology, are absent from this writer’s pages, which reflect the outlook of a primitive Christian who had breathed the messianic atmosphere of the better Judaism, not the definite soteriological standpoint of one trained in rabbinic and Hellenistic modes of thought. " His antecedents, properly speaking, are not Pauline, but prophetic and evangelic ” (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 86).

On the hypothesis that Peter wrote the epistle, this ‘ Pauline ’ feature might be accounted for by the fact that when Peter reached Rome, he must have found Romans a treasured possession in the archives of the local church. Already he must have been fairly familiar with the central ideas of Paul’s preaching; the difference between them, which emerged at Antioch, was practical in the main, and their general conception of the gospel and its obligations was fairly alike, so far as we have any evidence on the point. Like Paul, he was not averse to consorting with Gentile Christians (Gal 212-16), and he, too, believed in justification, not by the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This would explain in part the “marriage of true minds ” which is involved in the relation of I P. to the earlier Pauline gospel. On the other hand, Peter’s nature was not speculative.* He was much more receptive and much less original than Paul. Hence his un-theological temperament would naturally lead him to use phrases like tv XpiarQ (316 510. 14), and conceptions such as that of regeneration, for his own purposes of practical exhortation; cp. Maerrenbrecher's Von Jerusalem nach Rom (1910), 247 f. § 5. The authorship.—The Pauline cast of the epistle need not, however, be wholly attributed to Peter himself. Silvanus, his amanuensis,! had been associated with Paul in the Macedonian mission (1 Th i1, 2 Th x1) and at Corinth (2 Co i19), after which (Ac 185) he disappears from view. It cannot be too often and too emphatically denied that because an early Christian formed one of Paul’s coterie, he must therefore have * This consideration is brought out by Renan (ii. ch. v.) and Wernle {Synop-tische Frage, pp. 199 f.); see also Rapp’s essay in PM. (1898) pp. 323-337. + Mark (513) and Glaukias (Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 17) were the other interpreters or secretaries whose names have been preserved. assimilated the apostle’s entire theological system. At the same time, the probability is that Silvanus, during this early association with Paul, naturally acquired a sympathy or familiarity with his characteristic modes of thought and expression, and that as naturally these emerged when he wrote out what Peter had in substance dictated.

It does not follow that because Peter apparently did not write down his reminiscences of Jesus, he could not have written an epistle in Greek. And the Greek of this epistle, which is fairly correct and even idiomatic in style, is mainly drawn from the vocabulary of the LXX; in from certain sections of the LXX (e.g. Ist- with Dt 10-12, 22=Dt 119, 39=1126f. 1215"-, 58=116 etc.). But the numerous reminiscences of the LXX, together with traces of an acquaintance with Philo (cp. Salmon, 1NT. 506), the book of Wisdom,! and 2 Maccabees, a large proportion of classical words, and a general style which ‘ shows that the writer within certain limits had a very considerable appreciation of, and power over, the characteristic usages of Greek ’ (Chase, p. 782), suggest the likelihood that the conceptions of the apostle owe something of their characteristic setting to his amanuensis. According to Papias, Peter needed Mark as his punvevThs even in the work of preaching. As a native of Galilee, he cannot have been wholly unfamiliar with colloquial Greek, but even the power of speaking in a language does not imply skill in composition, and without denying Peter’s ability to address audiences in Greek-—which was essential to his mission-work—or his ac-quaintance not simply with the LXX but with the religious traditions circulated by books like Enoch, we are entitled to conclude that he required the services of a man like Silvanus J: to compose such an epistle as the present, just as he needed Mark, if his reminiscences of Jesus were to be committed to writing. “Tradition tells us that St. Peter employed more than one interpreter; it is indeed hard not to think that we have the work of one in the First Ep. Is it credible that a Galilean fisherman who left out his H’s (that, we are told, is what Mt 2673 implies) § should after middle life, and in the midst of absorbing occupations, have learnt to write {e.g. 124*= Is 406, 26.= Is 814 2816, 29f- = Is 4320t, 222t = Is 53s- 9. 12.; also 1d=Is 537-8, 118= Is 5330, 2250 = Is 4011, 315= Is 813 29s3, 414= Is 112, 417= Is 2529) may have been one reason why he followed the symbolic method of alluding to Rome as Babylon (cp. Is 471 etc.). But that reference is earlier than the first literary evidence for it, e.g., in Sib. Or. 51596. (cp. DB. i. 214-215). ! Cp. 285= Sap. i6 313, 320= Sap i45(- etc. + Eichhorn thought of John Mark as the writer who worked up Peter’s ideas, or (according to Baronins) translated them from Hebrew into Greek. But the translation-hypothesis (so Jerome: from Aramaic) is untenable in view of the style. § Not necessarily a mark of illiteracy, however (cp. C. F. Hogg, ET. iii.

* Cp. Scharfe (SIC., 1889, pp. 650 f.). The writer’s fondness for Isaiah

426-427). scholarly Greek like this?”* The query cannot but be answered in the negative.

The recognition of the share of Silvanus in writing the epistle (Ewald, Grimm) has spread in recent years; it is advocated in different forms by Zahn, Usteri, Bacon, Bigg, Monnier, and Hart. In this event Peter either dictated the letter, the phrase 81a Ziovavov ypaya (512) being equivalent practically t to expressions like Ac 1 522-23, Ro 1622; Polyk. ad Phil. 14; Ign. Rom. 10, etc. (cp. Link, SK., 1896, pp. 405-436), or else he actually entrusted its composition (Zahn) to Silvanus, revising and sanctioning his work. As the latter was in all likelihood the bearer, there was no need of him inserting a special salutation from himself (as from Tertius in Ro 1622); 512 not only accredits him as an apostolic delegate, but possibly implies that he will supplement by means of oral teaching and information what the apostle has briefly incorporated in the epistle. J This may stamp the epistle, if one choose to say so, as semi-pseudonymous. At any rate it serves to account fairly for the data of the letter, the primitive and even Petrine cast of the ideas on the one hand, and the power of handling Greek upon the other. § That the general tone and standpoint are Peter’s, need not be doubted, in view of the coincidences between the epistle and the speeches of Peter in Acts.

The responsibility of Silvanus for the epistle’s form and contents is pushed a step further by those who, like Seufert, Baljon, von Soden, Spitta, and R. Scott {The Pauline Epistles, 208 f.), make him its author after Peter’s death. But, while Silvanus was undoubtedly an apostle (1 Th 26) and prophet (Ac 1532) himself, and while this or almost any form of the pseudonym-hypothesis is legitimate and indeed deserving of * Simcox, The Writers of the NT. (p. 68). " En tout cas, la langue de 1’epitre ne peut guere etre la sienne.... On ne voit guere l'ardent Galileen equilibrant ses phrases, s’appliquant a enchainer exactement ses propositions” (Monnier, pp. 315 f.). t Dionysius of Corinth (apud Eus. H. E. iv. 23. 11), writing to the Roman church, refers to the epistle of Clem. Rom. as a previous communica-tion from Rome, rhv srporlpav ipEv i KXnuevros padelcav, i.e. the author is regarded as the mouthpiece of the Roman church, J Erasmus misread the verse as a reference to some previous epistle composed by Silvanus. § When Josephus wrote his history of the Jewish war, " after all my materials were prepared for the work, I employed some collaborateurs to be quite au fait in the Greek idioms " (Apion, i. 9, tr. Shilleto). serious consideration in view of the enigmatic data of the writing, the self-praise of 512 becomes offensive on such a view. Besides, the age and authority of Silvanus would not have required any extraneous aid, in order to address the Asiatic Christians then, and the theory fails to explain why he chose Peter instead of Paul as his mouthpiece.

The lack of detailed personal reference to the life and words of Jesus has also been felt to tell heavily against the conception that the epistle could have been written by an apostle, and especially by so intimate an apostle and disciple as Simon Peter. This objection, however, is less serious than it seems. For one thing, the criterion presupposed is unhistorical; the supreme interests of the first generation of disciples were not biographical. For another thing, we have no evidence to establish a standard of what or how a disciple of Jesus would have written of him in a letter of exhortation addressed to a Christian church or group of churches. The so-called first epistle of John, on the supposition that it was composed by the son of Zebedee, has less biographical detail than First Peter; and even those who hold that the epistle of James* was written by the son of Alphaeus, will admit that, for all its wealth of apparent allusions to the sayings of Jesus, it is practically devoid of any explicit allusion to his earthly career. Peter was accustomed to give re-miniscences of the Lord’s acts and words in his preaching. A transcript of these forms the basis of Mark’s gospel; and although the latter was not yet published, any early Christian churches would be in possession of a certain catechetical summary of the Lord’s chief sayings and of the main events of his career. The existence and circulation of such evangelic manuals in the primitive churches is highly probable, from the historical standpoint; the Christian confession, Jesus is the Christ, would have lacked meaning, had not catechumens learnt authoritatively to put some content into the term Jesus. Con-sequently any apostle like Peter might presuppose an elementary acquaintance with the historical outline of the Lord’s life, so far as that was essential to the purposes of vital Christianity. First Peter not only does presuppose it, especially in connection * James has more of the letter but less of the spirit of the gospels, i Peter contains much fewer reminiscences (cp. Scharfe, 138 f.) of the sayings of Jesus, in their synoptic form, but it is superior to Jas. in its intuitions of the genuinely Christian spirit. with the messianic hopes of the OT, but also conveys unob-trusively certain allusions to Christ’s life which harmonise with Peter’s discipleship (i8 whom, having not seen, ye love; 222f. 5). If the epistle lacked the opening word (Peter), says Julicher (EM. p. 178), no one would have conjectured that Peter wrote it. But this is as valid an argument—so far as it is valid—in favour of its Petrine origin. A writer who desired to write under Peter’s name would probably have emphasised his figure. As a matter of fact, we have in 2 P (i etc.) an illustration of how a later writer would go to work who desired to lend vraisemblance to an epistle purporting to come from Peter; the apostle is made to speak prophetically of a future age, stress is laid in his qualifications as an eye-witness of Jesus, and an irenical allusion to Paul occurs. The absence of such traits in i P. is really a point in its favour.

A supplementary point is the consonance between the religious ideas of the epistle and those of the Petrine speeches in Acts: e.g. God no respecter of persons (i17=Ac 1034), the cleansing of the soul through faith (12= Ac 159), the rejoicing in shame (413: 16 = Ac 541), etc. These data are not decisive. They might (i.) point to the use of the earlier traditions by a later writer, who had access to them either in Acts or in their original shape. Or, (ii.)they might in some cases be no more than illustrations of the common fund of ideas and expressions within the primitive church. But when one makes allowance for the difference of circumstances (as, e.g., Mayerhoff, pp. 218 f., fails to do), there is enough to indicate that the tradition underlying the speeches reflects the same mind as the epistle.* § 6. Traces in early Christian literature.—The evidence for the exist-ence and authority of the epistle in the church is both ample and early. As Eusebius pointed out (IL E. iv. 14. 9, byt TOL IIoXvKapros iv ry StjKuOdari rpds &i\iTrirriatovs airov padn tpepoplvr) els Sevpo, KtxpVra^ TLa' papcvplais arb Ths Herpov irporepas ercaToXys), the epistle was familiar to Polykarp); t this is * For this primitive type of early Christian thought, especially in connection with the Petrine tradition preserved by Luke in Acts 1-5, cp. Ritschl’s Entstehung^, pp. Ii6f., 285; Reuss, NT Th. ii. pp. 262 f.; P. Ewald, das Hauptproblem d. Evglnfrage, pp. 68-75; Mangold {INT. pp. 659f.), Jacoby (NT Ethik, pp. 220 f.), Stevens (NTTh. pp. 258 f.), and Beyschlag, NTTh. f While the allusions to I Peter in Polykarp, though introduced by no explicit formula of quotation, render it beyond question that the bishop knew the epistle, he never mentions Peter as the author, although he frequently cites Paul by name. This feature is employed by Harnack (TLZ., 1887, p. 218) to show that the epistle or homily was as yet destitute of its Petrine address and conclusion (see below, § 8). But the inference is not con-clusive. Paul had been at Philippi, to which Polykarp was writing; Peter, so far as we know, had not (contrast the case of Corinth in Clem. Rom.). evident from echoes so distinct as, e.g., i. 3 (eis v oiK IBopres TlOTebeTe X^PP dpeKXaX-qTip Kal SeSo^aapilpT) els hv iroXXol eTridvgovaip elseelv)=I8 12, ii. I (810 vawsuevo Tas opas SouXeGraTe too GeG... mlorecavres eis top eyelpavra top Kupiop hu@v ’lysovp XptiTTOp Ik peKpap Kal Sopva avTy 8o^ap) = I13- 21, ii. 2 (uh iiro8i86pTes KaKop &PTI KaKov h Xoi8optap"&PTl XotSopias) = 3s, v. 3=2ll (cp. Gal 527), vi. 3 (^Xural irepl rd KaXop) = ^13, vii. 2(vhovres irpos rs elxs)=47, viii. 1-2=221, amongst others (GK. i. 957 f., NTA. pp. 86-89). The use of the epistle in Clem. Rom. is less copious and clear, but on the whole visible in passages like vii. 2f., where, after exhorting the Corinthians to abandon idle and vain thoughts (i18), Clement bids them fix their eyes on ‘ the blood of Christ and know os or ripuop T0 Oey TV Turpi airov ‘ (= I13"19), following this up with an allusion to its redeeming power and to Noah’s preaching of repentance (320); or in lix. 2 (eK&Xeaep huds &TT8 cKOTOVS els dos, diro yvoolas els eirlypaiaip ns ipogaTos aro0)=2915. The parallel of xxxvi. 2, dpaf)<iXXei els TO 9avp.aaT8p avTov pies (=29), is dubious, owing to the textual uncertainty about davpaaTOP ( = om. Syr. Clem. Alex.). But the hypothesis of an agraphon (Resch, Agrapha, p. 248) must not be allowed to affect the force of the argument from xlix. 5, where Pr io13 is quoted in a form which, differing from the Hebrew text and the LXX alike, occurs in 1 P 4s. Here, as elsewhere, it is possible (p. 24) that both passages independently derive from some common source, either a manual of citations or a Greek version of Proverbs; but this supposition is needless in view of the other evidence,! e.g. the occurrence in Clem. as in I P. alone of dZeXplnqs (ii. 4, 217 59) in the sense of brotherhood, dyadoiroua (ii. 2, 419), and inroypapgbs (221, cp. xvi. where it is also used, with a citation from Is 53, of Christ’s lowly patience). In Eph. v. 2-3, Ignatius uses Trouhv and eirlaKoiros together (1 P 52f.) in a context where he also quotes Pr 334 (1 P 55) to enforce the duty of submission on the part of members towards their superiors in the church; but neither this nor any other resemblances (e.g. Magn. xiii. 2 =55, ad Polyk. iv. 3=26) can be said to prove that the epistle was known to Ignatius, or at least used by him. In Barn. iv. 11 f. (ueerGuev TOP po3op TOO Geou... 6 'K.vpeos aTrpoawTroX-qgTrTMs Kpipel TOP K&<rpop’ ^Kaaros Kad&s ^irolpcep KopaetTai') the Besides, Polykarp more than once adopts silently the words of Paul (e.g. iii. 3= Gal 426, iv. 1 = 1 Ti 610, vi. 2 = RO I410- 12) as he does those of I Peter; and even the quotations from the former, introduced by el86res 8TI, are epi-grammatic and axiomatic statements, ‘ while the phrases quoted from I Peter are rather of a hortatory type’ (Chase, p. 781a). t The form of greeting goes back in part to the LXX (elp^pr) ipip TrX-qOvpOelq, Dn 398 625), though its Christian expansion and stamp were probably due to 1 P I2. A contemporary Jewish phrase is the MO' nomp in the address of the official letters sent by R. Gamaliel of Jerusalem to the Jews of the Dispersion (cp. Derenbourg’s L'Histoire et la Giographie de la Palestine, i. pp. 242 f.). These letters were dictated to John, his secretary (cp. I P 512). ideas and language of I P I17 recur, just as the conception of the OT prophets having been inspired to anticipate Christ’s suffering (i P 110) is reproduced in v. 5-6; but no stress can be laid on this, while the only other parallels (mons xptros, of God: xxi. 9 =510; a spiritual temple built up unto the Lord, xyi. 10 cp. 25) of moment are indecisive.

i. pp. 377 f., with B. Riggenbach (ZSchw., 1890, 185-1895).

* The quotation in Ja 520 is slightly different. As Pr 3s4 is quoted not only in 1 P 5° but in Ja 46, its occurrence in Clem. xxx. 2 cannot safely be drawn upon in this connexion.

The lonely echoes in the Didach (L 4, hirlyw r&v aapKiK&v xal <rw/j.ariK&v zi@vuiOv=211 rxeo@at T&V vapKiKMv erriOvpiMv) and Diognetus (ix. 2=318) contrast with the more numerous between Hermas and I Peter. But none of these seems quite decisive, and their cumulative force does not involve any literary relation between the two writings. The same holds true of 2 Clement (xiv. 2=120, xvi. 4=4), and even of Justin Martyr. On the other hand, Papias knew and used the epistle (Eus. I. E. iii. 39. 17), as did ol TraXcu irpeapbrepoi (iii. 3. 1), and the echoes of it in the epistle from Lyons and Vienne show (Eus. H. E. v. 1-2) that it was one of the scriptures current in Gaul by the middle of the second century. By the time of Tertullian (Rdnsch, das NT Tert. pp. 556 f.), Irenaeus, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria (Zahn’s Forschungen, iii. 79 f.), it was freely quoted as Petrine; but ‘ the actual traces of the early use of I Peter in the Latin churches are very scanty. There is not the least evidence to show that its authority was ever disputed, but, on the other hand, it does not seem to have been much read’ (Westcott, Canon, p. 263). Thus, while included in the Peshitta, it is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, though the Apocalypse of Peter is canonized. The omission may have been accidental, as in the case of Hebrews, and, as the document in question is mutilated, it may have been really mentioned, although none of the attempts to find a place for it in the extant text possesses any critical significance. Nevertheless by this time the epistle was elsewhere known, and known as letrine. From Clem. Alex. {Strom, iv. 12. 81) it is possible to infer that Basilides, and, from a fragment of Theodotus (12), that the Valentinian school of the East, may also have read the epistle (for the Hypotyposeis, see Zahn’s Forschungen, iii. 133 f.), but its character was not likely to commend it to the Gnostics in general.

On the other hand, the simpler and more direct character of the epistle appears to indicate its priority to Ephesians, f The fact that both encyclicals to the Asiatic churches open with the same formula {Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, etc.) is not robbed of its significance by the occurrence of Blessed be God, who created heaven and earth, at the opening of the king of Tyre’s letter quoted by Eusebius {Prep. Euang. ix. 34) from Eupolemus; for, although Paul (2 Co I3) partially adapted the Jewish formula, its Petrine form is unique. The following paragraph (15-13) is carried + So Schwegler, Ewald {Sieben Sendschreiben, pp. 156 f.), Davidson, Honig, but especially Hilgenfeld {ZWT., 1873, 465-498, Einl. 624 f.), Clemen {Paulus, i. 139 f.), and W. Briickner (Chron. pp. 41 f.), with B. Weiss {Petr. Lehrbegriff, 426 f.) and Khl, of course, as against Koster (pp. 207 f.), P. Ewald {op. cit. 28 f.), Klopper (pp. 33 f.), and particularly Holtz-mann {Kritik. der Eph. u. Col. Briefe, pp. 260 f.). on with tv 3 and participles, as in Eph 15-15, whilst in Eph 118-20 &mls and K^povopla are correlated, on the basis of human faith supported by the divine 8vva.fj.is, as in i P I3'5. Further parallels of thought and language occur in I P 110-12 = Eph 35. 10, I P I13 = Eph 614, I P 113-15 = Eph 23, I P I18 = Eph 417, I P 120 = Eph I4-9, I P 123= Eph i13, I P 21-2= Eph 422-25, I P 24-6 = Eph 215-20. 21-22, I P 213 = Eph 521, I P 218 = Eph 65, I P 322 = Eph I20’22 (a specially striking coincidence), I P 31. 5= Eph 521-23, I P 3’= Eph 316, I P 37= Eph 525, I P 42-3= Eph 23t, I P 410 = Eph 32. Both use Siolos, not aaravas, both reproduce the ‘descensus ad inferos’ (i P 31= Eph 48-9); the predominance of hope in I P. corresponds to its prominence in Eph. (cp. I18 212 44), and common to both are terms like an pay uv calos and elomhayxvos. The affinities between the two, not only in phraseology but in structure and conception, involve a literary relationship which implies that the one drew upon the other, unless we admit, with Seufert and R. Scott, that both were written by Silvanus. Either Peter knew Ephesians, or, if the latter is post-Pauline, the author of Ephesians more probably was acquainted with the Petrine pastoral.

*Cp. Zahn’s Hirten des Hermas (pp. 423 f.), Charteris, Canonicity (pp. 303-304), NTA. 115-117, and Spitta, Urc. ii. 391-399 (where the dependence is assigned to I Peter).

The connection with James is practically of the same nature. Both I P. and Jas. use acrop in a derived sense in their addresses, both emphasise TO Boxipiov Ths irlcrTeios (l7=Ja I3) under the fire of trial and temptation (l6 = Ja I2), both employ a special rendering of Pr io12 (48=Ja 520; cp. Field’s Notes on Tr. of NT. 239), and both follow up the citation from Pr 3s4 by an admonition to submit to God and to resist the devil (5“=Ja 4“f); common to both, among the NT writers, are avvirtoKpcros, ozios, TrapaKTTo, and trrripl^, and there are further parallelisms in I3 = Ja I18, l23=Ja I18, 21f =Ja 120., 2n=Ja 41, 225=Ja 519, 315-16=Ja 313, 54=Jas I12, 5®=Ja 410 (see Spitta’s Urc. ii. 184 f.). The dependence of Jas. on 1 P. is argued by Briickner (ZIVT., 1874, pp. 533 f.; Chron. pp. 60-65), Holtzmann {ZWT, 1882, pp. 292-310), Wrede {LC., 1896, 450-451), Grimm, Usteri (pp. 292 f.), von Soden, and Bigg, as against Sabatier (ESR. x. 620 f.), Mayor, and Zahn. Both handle, from different sides, the same theme, i.e. the Christian under suffering. It is possible that in some cases, at any rate, the coincidences may be fortuitous, either because the same or a similar topic suggested similar language to writers familiar, e.g., with the LXX, or because a certain community of style and conception prevailed among early Christian writers of this class (so Mayerhoff, pp. 115 f.). But the probabilities converge on the conclusion that the one writing echoes the other, and, if I P. is on other grounds put early, the dependence of Jas. naturally follows. § 7. The date.—Within these limits, the theories of the date fall into two main classes, pre-Neronic or post-Neronic. The former includes the impossible hypothesis of Weiss and Khl (SK., 1865, 619-657), that the epistle was written (c. A.D. 54) prior to Romans; but * its leading statement is that which assigns the composition of the latter to the period immediately or almost immediately preceding A.D. 64 (so, e.g., Hofmann, * B. Briickner dates it previous to Paul’s imprisonment at Jerusalem, while Gloag chooses A.D. 59-60.

Bleek ± 62; Burger 63; Bartlet c. 63; Renan, F. C. Cook, and Belser, 63-64; Zahn, spring of 64; Lightfoot, Monnier, and Chase). But not until the Neronic outburst took place, can we say that the mere name of Christian was enough to expose be-lievers to interference and suffering (cp. Workman’s Persecution in the Early Church, 1906, pp. 52 f.); and, on the supposition that the epistle is connected directly with Peter, the balance of proba-bility is strongly in favour of a date subsequent to the massacre of 64. Such post-Neronic hypotheses may be conveniently subdivided into (i.) those which assign the epistle to a date not long after that crisis, i.e. between 64 and 67 (so Eichhorn, Grimm, Hug, de Wette, Thiersch, Huther, Ewaid, Neander, Mayerhoff, L. Schultze’s Hdbuch der theol. Wissensch. i. 2. pp. 106-109; Reithmayr, Beyschlag’s NTTh. i. 377-382; Allard’s Histoire des perse cut. i. pp. 61 f.; Farrar, Early Days of Christi-anity, pp. 67-85; Plumptre, Salmon, Bovon’s NTTh. ii. 440 f.; Schafer, Einl. 319-329; Hatch, Hort, Adeney, Bacon, Sieffert, and Barth), and (ii.) those which, abandoning the traditional date of Peter’s martyrdom, feel that the references to persecution demand the eighth decade (Swete \Mark, pp. xvii f.] = 70-75; F. J. Briggs [Critical Review, 1897, pp. 449-454]; and particu-larly Ramsay [ExpP viii. pp. 8 f., no f., 282 f.] = 75-80). The former position seems to fit most if not all of the internal evidence of the epistle. The latter involves the abandonment of A.D. 67 as the traditional terminus ad qtiem of Peter’s life; were the countervailing arguments decisive, this might con-ceivably be yielded, but, as has been already urged, their weight is not heavy enough to tell in favour of so drastic a measure. The lack of any reference to Paul,t alive or dead, is at first sight surprising, upon the post-Neronic hypothesis. But the + F. W. Lewis {ExpP x. 319-320) argues that the epistle must have been written after Paul’s death, since the absence of any allusion to him in 512-13 indicates that Mark and Silvanus had been deprived by death of their former leader. critic of ancient as well as of modern literature is well ac-customed to instances in which a person or event is ignored by a contemporary, although some allusion might more or less reasonably be expected.

* This date, during Paul’s imprisonment in the capital, is advocated generally by Keil, Steiger, Guericke, Wieseler (Chronologic, pp. 564 f.), and Jacquier. Alford thinks of some date ‘between 63 and 67’; Bigg fixes on 58-64; and B. W. Henderson {Life and Principate of Nero, 438-439) decides for 64. Neither Mr. Henderson nor Dr. Klette (see above), both of whom came to the study of this document from the side of classical investigation, find any serious objection to the setting of 1 P. in connection with the Roman situation of the seventh decade. '

The epistle is assigned to Domitian’s reign by A. H. Blom (de Brief van Jac. pp. 241 f.), Scholten (Bijdragen, 1882, pp. 79 f.), von Soden (JPT., 1883, 461 f.), Wrede (ZNW., 1900, pp. 75-85), J- Rville (Les Origines de l‘episcopat, i. pp. 358 f.), and McGiffert (AA. pp. 482 f., 593 f.), as well as by Harnack (in its original form, A.D. 83-93 or even earlier), Soltau (see below), Volter (in its original form, before A.D. 96), and Knopf (NZ. 90 f.). The objections to this date are (i.) that the allusions to any so-called persecution do not necessarily (see above) point to the Domitianic period; (ii.) that on such a hypothesis it is not any easier to understand the geographical address of i1 than on the hypothesis that the epistle was written by Silvanus for Peter; and (iii.) that the pseudonymous theory fails (see above) to account adequately for the lack of emphasis on Peter’s prestige and apostolic qualifications. It is true that an author who wrote under an apostolic name would feel less inclination to emphasise his nom-de-plume if he wrote merely for hortorary purposes than if he had any polemical or theological aim (so Wrede). Still, this consideration hardly meets the data of 1 P. It is the apparent absence of definite motive which tells against the pseudonymous hypothesis most heavily. Once the ‘ mediating ’ tendency of the epistle is abandoned, it becomes more difficult than ever to find any satisfactory place for it after Peter’s death, and the further down we go, the object of the writing becomes less and less obvious. Any writer, producing a work under Peter’s name, towards the end of the first century, would almost certainly have coloured the personality of the apostle to suit not only the tradition (cp. Mt 1618f; Clem. Rom. 40-41), but the contemporary status of his office. Volkmar’s hypothesis, that it was composed under Antoninus, c. A.D. 140 (ZWT., 1861, pp. 427 f.), drops with his idea that Enoch (quoted in 319) was not written till A.D. 132, and in any case the use of the epistle by Polykarp rules such a view out of court, as well as that of Zeller (ZWT., 1876, pp. 35 f.), Steck (JPT., 1891, pp. 561 f.), and van Manen, who adhere to Hadrian’s reign. The choice really lies between the age of Trajan and that of Domitian. The former view was at one time almost dominant (Cludius, Schwegler’s NZ. ii. 14 f.; Hilgen-feld, Einl. 624 f.; Baur, Mangold, Lipsius, Keim, Weiz-sacker’s AA. ii. 160; W. Bruckner, Hausrath, and S. David-son, INT. i. 529-563), and is still maintained by Holtzmann (GGA, 1894, pp. 27 f.), Schmiedel (EBi. 761-762), Baljon, Kreyenbiihl (Evglm der Wahrheit, i. 97 f.), Pfleiderer (Ure. ii. 508-509), and P. Schmidt (ZWT., 1907, pp. 24 k). Recently there has been a disposition, however, to retreat towards the beginning of the second in the direction of a date c. A.D. 100 rather than A.D. II2-117, as in the case of Cone (Gospel and its interpretations, pp. 260 f.), Jlicher (GGA., 1884, pp. 549 f.), and Gunkel, partly to allow time for the epistle’s use by Papias and Polykarp, partly because the alleged traces of the Trajanic persecution under Pliny no longer seem decisive (indeed, when the imperial cultus was in force, an unqualified phrase like that of 217 becomes almost incredible), and partly owing to a general retreat from the Tubingen t idea (e.g. Schwegler, NZ. ii. 22) that the epistle represents a second-century attempt, from the Jewish Christian side, to come to some understanding with the Pauline opposition. The last-named conception is no longer defensible or defended, though two romantic attempts have been made recently to combine part of it with a defence of the Petrine authorship, Zahn (Einl. ii. pp. 7-8) suggesting that Gentile Christians would feel int Even Mayerhoff (pp. 103 f.) and Reuss {NTTh. ii. pp. 262 f.) at one time detected a mediating tendency in the epistle, while some (e.g. Alford) detect in 512 a ratification of the Pauline type of doctrine originally taught in these churches. Schmiedel still takes 512f: as an expression of ecclesiastical tendency, although in the same breath he avers that “ the remaining contents of the epistle show little of that tendency to bring about a reconciliation between Paulinism and Jewish Christianity which the Tubingen school attributed to it” (EBi. 4521). For “little,” “nothing” ought to be substituted. But, even apart from that, the interpretation is inconsistent and inadequate. The coherence and point of the writing are lost, if a special and subtle motive is introduced at the very close. Whichever way the epistle moves, it must move all together, like Wordsworth’s cloud, if it moves at all. Cp. Pfleiderer's Paulinismus (Eng. tr.), ii. pp. 149 f., and Hilgenfield (ZWT., pp. 465 f.). The arguments against the Trajanic date are best put by Usteri (pp. 239 f.). spirited and consoled by receiving such counsels of faith from one who had been the leader of the circumcision (Gal 27), whilst Chase conjectures (p. 790) that Paul actually summoned Peter to Rome in order that their co-operation might be an object-lesson of unity, and that Silvanus, though the bearer of Peter’s letter, was primarily Paul’s messenger to the Asiatic Christians. § 8. Literary structure.—Three endeavours have been made, from dif-ferent sides, to show that the writing is of more or less composite origin, Harnack’s view (TU. ii. 2. 106-109, ACL. ii. 1. 451-465), partly antici-pated by Cludius, that 11-2 and 512-14 represent second-century additions (A.D. 150-175) to an earlier, anonymous homily, in order to guarantee its apostolic rights to a place in the rising canon of Christian scriptures, is due to his perception of the insuperable difficulties that beset any form of the pseudonymous hypothesis; but it is liable to the crucial objections that (i.) it fails to explain why a homily which is ex hyfothesi so devoid of Petrine and so full of Pauline Christianity should be attributed to Peter; (ii.) that it implies the tract or homily began with Blessed be the God and Father, etc. (13f)-—an opening which is otherwise known to us (cp. 2 Co I3, Eph I3) only as the sequel to the address of an epistle; + (iii.) that the difficulties in 11-2 512-14 are at least as explicable on the hypothesis of these verses being original as on that of their addition by a later scribe; (iv.) that Harnack frankly abandons all attempts to explain why in a so-called ‘catholic’ epistle a definite selection of provinces, and, indeed, of such provinces as those of 11, should be introduced; (v.) that the true grace of God (512) bears directly, though not exclusively, on the main thought of the epistle (cp. 510 after you have suffered a little the God of all grace shall, etc.), namely, that the reality of God’s grace and the genuineness of his calling are not to be doubted on account of the suffering to which they expose the Christian; (vi.) that this view involves the unlikelihood of one corrected copy having supplanted the numerous uninterpolated copies which must have been in circulation throughout the churches before the particular scribe began his work; and (vii.) that the self-designation in 51 (a witness of the sufferings of Christ} points naturally to Peter, 1 whether the epistle is pseudonymous or not, rather than to some unknown Roman confessor, just as the following allusion t Similarly, on the analogy of the other early Christian epistles, 510-11 suggests the close of a letter or epistle, not of a homily, and an allusion like that of 51 confirms this idea.

* One unresolved difficulty in the path of this hypothesis lies in the relaxa-tion of the imperial regime after Domitian’s assassination in 96. There is nothing to account for the sense of pressure about A.D. 100, when there was rather a lull in the storm.

* Possibly made by the author of 2 Peter (31). This is as precarious as the alternative idea that the writing had originally another address, but it is more plausible than the hypothesis that Peter’s name was added by some irresponsible scribe, “who had no idea of giving the epistle canonical authority, but thought he saw good reason for regarding it as the work of Peter” (McGiffert, AA. p. 596). If the data of the writing afford no suffi-cient motive for pseudonymity, they are still less likely to have suggested Peter to any scribe or copyist.

J The similar phrase in 1 Co 1515 is not quite parallel, and does not fix the sense of the term here. to shepherding the flock of God (52-3) echoes the tradition afterwards voiced in Jn 2115-17. For these reasons, drawn from internal and external evidence alike, this ingenious theory cannot be held to have hit the ford exactly. {b} Soltau’s essay (SK, 1905, 302 f.; 1906, 456-460), + starting from the erroneous literary criterion that an original writer will eschew verbal repeti-tions, disentangles an early Christian tract or homily, written during Domi-tian’s reign, from a series of interpolations (11-2 314-22 45-6 51-5a. 12-14, with smaller insertions, e.g., in 122b 25 312b) which transformed it into a Petrine epistle. The proofs of literary dependence (52 on Tit 27, 54 on He 132°, 55b on Ja 40, and 319-22 on Col 211-15 31), however, are most hazardous; the evidence for a difference of tone and style between the original and the later additions is not convincing {e.g. 28 explains 513 quite as well as I1, while the conceptions of I1'2 are not different from those of the body of the writing); and if 51-5 does appear slightly disconnected in its present setting, instead of regarding it as an interpolation (for which the contents afford no justification), I should prefer to regard 51-8 as a misplaced section which originally lay between 37 and 38.

(c) Vblter’s independent attempt {Der Erste Petrusbrief, seine Entste-hung und Stellung in der Geschichte des Urchristentums, 1906) distinguishes a pseudonymous Petrine epistle, written at Rome previous to the Domitianic persecution, from a series of later interpolations (‘Inoo0 Xpicrrov, ILovrov... Bidwias, I1; Kal p.... 7rn@vvbeln, I2; TOV Kvplov ’X.pia'Tou, bi avaaraa-eus T. X. iK veKpibv, I3; iv oK. T. X., I7; bv TrusrebovTes bb, I8; I11; ev Trpe6p.ari aylip asro^r. av obpavov, I12; iv ToK. T. X., I13; 118-21 240; bid. T.

X., 25; iTs air ip, 26; 221-23; rbv ~S.piarbv, 315; iv Xpir@, 316; 318-46; bib T. X., 411; 412-19; Kal p.&prvs... koividvAs, 51; elbbres iirireXeiadai, 59; oXlyop iradovras, iv Xpiarip, 510; iv B., 513; TOIS iv Xpiarip, 514) added J c. 115 A.D. durt Cp. Clemen’s adverse discussion (SK., 1905, 619-628).

* McGiffert (A A. 598 f.) ingeniously suggests Barnabas as the author of the anonymous original. Certainly, so far as we can judge, Paul, Barnabas, and Peter were the only three men who stood in the relationship indicated by 511-14 to Mark and Silvanus. Barnabas had been in touch with Paul and Asia Minor; he was a Hellenist, also, who would know the LXX. But 25-9 need not have come from a Levite, and Barnabas had no special call to remain anonymous as an author.

J 319-21 and 46, the passages on the descent and mission to the underworld, are no doubt parenthetical; but this does not involve their interpolation at a later date, as Cramer {Nieuwe bijdragen, vii. 4. 73 f., 126 f.) and A. Meyer {die moderne Forschung iiber die Gesch. d. Urc., 1898, p. 43) propose (cp. Baljon, Theol. Stud., 1891, 429-431), followed recently by P. Schmidt {ZWT., 1907, 42 f.), who assigns 319f. and 46 to various hands, the latter interpolation being made by one who either did not know of 319f or wished to emphasise a simpler and more orthodox idea of the descensus. In any case, the interpolation must have been inserted during the earlier part of the second century, as Origen found it in his text. Hart {EGT. v. 2 f.) suggests that 412-511 is a postscript intended for some of the community who were exposed to special trial; but the allusions to persecution in 2-3 are sufficient to show that the situation of the churches addressed was probably homogeneous in this respect ing the Asiatic persecution under Trajan. This hypothesis is beset, however, with insuperable difficulties, literary and historical. It is most improbable that any writing towards the close of the first century would be circulated as Petrine which explicitly avoided all mention of Jesus Christ (p. 27; by way of protest against Paul’s Christology!) and contented itself with religious conceptions which added nothing specifically Christian to the OT. piety. Volter, indeed (pp. 42 f.), postulates a blanched Christianity of this kind at Rome, but it is a house of his own building, based on the odd remains of I Peter, Clem. Rom., Hermas, and James, all of which have to be more or less arbitrarily broken up in order to secure a foundation for the historical reconstruction of a ‘ Christianity {sic) which is no new, independent religion, resting on special and saving facts, but one which founds on the OT revelation—a revelation which Christianity alone com-prehends in its true moral and religious kernel and in its universal tendency.’

Any theory of the writing thus turns out to involve a fairly specu-lative reconstruction of the historical data requisite for its setting. If, as Harnack insists, the alternative lies between some form of his own theory and a Petrine origin, the latter probably will carry the day. An early date is favoured by the absence of any heretical tendencies among the readers, the naive outlook on the imminent end (417f), and the exercise of charismatic gifts (410); airoK&Xwpis and avauTpoipii are favourite words of the epistle, and by common consent it has the stamp of primitive Christianity more clearly than any other, not only of the writings in the Petrine New Testament (Gospel, Acts, Epp., Apoc.), but of the post-Pauline writings. The hypothesis of Silvanus’ share in its composition is not illegitimate, and since it meets the difficulty of the style as well as—in part—that of the religious outlook, while the problem of the “ persecution’’-allusions is not insuperable, there is some reason to accept the pastoral as the earliest literary memento of the primitive apostolic mission, a writing which voices not so much a personality as a great cause. The fact that it is practically the sole witness of its class, is intelligible in the light of the mission itself. If tradition is to be credited, attention to literary composition was precluded, as a rule, not simply by natural inaptitude, but by the more pressing concerns of practical organisation and propaganda (cp. Eus. H. E. iii. 24. 3: Ths Tv ovpavaiv Bacielas rhv vOoL eni 7rdoav KaThyyeXov Thv 0’iKOvp.ivpv, aTrovSfis Ths irepl TO Xoyyoypadeiv piKpav Troioipevot jipovTiSa' Kal TOUT’ eTTpaTTov are pd^ovi Kal irp &vdpa>irov e^vTT'ppeToijp.evoi OiaKOvlq).

(B) The Epistle of Judas

LITERATURE.—{a) Editions — Luther (1523); Calvin (1551); R. Turnbull (London, 1606); Grotius, Annotationes (1650); Manton (1658); J. C. Wolf (1735); Witsius (Basel, 1739); C. F. Schmid (Leipzig, 1768); Semler (Halle, 1784); Hasse (Jena, 1786); Hartmann (1793); L. Morus (1794) 5 H. C. A. Haenlein (Erlangen, 1799); M. T. Laurman (Groningen, 1818); Schneckenburger (Stuttgart, 1832); K. R. Jachmann (1838); C. A. Scharling (1841); de Wette (1847); R. Stier (Berlin, 1850); E. Arnauld {Recherches critiques sur lipitrede Jzide, avec commentaire, 1851; Eng. tr.

THE EPISTLE OF JUDAS _ 345 in ‘British and Foreign Evang. Review,’ July 1859)*; M. F. Rampf (Salzburg, 1854)*; John Lillie (New York, 1854); F. Gardiner (Boston, 1856); Fronmiiller (Lange’s Bibel-WerkJ Eng. tr., New York, 1867); Wiesinger (Olshausen’s Comm. 1862); Th. Schott (Erlangen, 1863); M. F. Roos (1864); B. Briickner3 (Leipzig, 1865); Ewald (1870); Bisping (1871); Alford 4 (1871); Hofmann (1875); Huther (—Meyer4, 1877, Eng. tr. 1881); Reuss (1878; Plumptre {Cambridge Bible, 1880); Lumby {Speakers Comm. 1881); Angus.(Schaf's Comm. 1883); Keil (Leipzig, 1883); Salmond {Pulpit Comm. 1889); F. Spitta, Der 2 Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (1885)*; Plummer {Expos. Bible, 1891); Burger2 {Kurzgefasster Comm. 1895); Khl (— Meyer6, 1897) *; G. Wandel, Der Brief Judas, exegetisch-praktisch behandelt (Leipzig, 1898); von Soden3 {HC. 1899); Basil Gheorghiu, Der Brief d. J. Einleitung tend Kommentar (Czernowitz, 1901)*; Cone (New York, 1901); C. Bigg2 {ICC. 1902)*; Calmes (Paris, 1905); F. Weidner (New York, 1906); J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (1907) *; G. Hollmann {SNT2, 1907); J. de Zwaan {Tweede Petrus en Judas, 1909)*; J. B. Mayor {EGT. 1910). {b} Studies—Adam Sasbouth, In Epist. Judce (1500); C. Sibelius, in divinam J. apostoli epistolam condones sacra (Amsterdam, 1631); Antoine-Nicolas du Bois, Catholica Judce epistola explicata (Paris, 1644); Dahl, De Authent. Epp. Petri post. et Juda (Rostock, 1807); J. D. Schulze, Der schriftstellerische Charakter u. Werth des Petrus, Judas, tend Jakobus (Leipzig, 1811); A. Jessieu, De authentia ep. Juda (1821); L. A. Arnauld’s Essai Critique sur Pauthent. de Jude (1835); Mayerhoff's Petrinische Schriften, pp. 171-182 (1835)*; F. Brun’s Essai dime introd. critique a P epitre de Jude (1842); E. Arnauld, Examen de P objection faite a Idpttre de J. au sujet de ses citat. apocryphes (1849); Ritschl {SU, 1861, pp. 103 f., on the errorists); Schenkel {BL. iii. 433 f.); Schwegler’s NZ. i. 518-522; Straatman {TT., 1879, pp. ioof.); Venables (Smith’s DB. i. 1164-1167); Sabatier {ESR. vii. 476-478); Farrar, Early Days of Christianity (ch. xi.); A. Vieljeux, Introd, b iPpitre ae Jude (Montauban, 1894); Moffatt {HNT. 589!.); Cone {EBi. 2630-2632); Sieffert {PRE. ix. 589-592); Chase {DB. ii. 799-806)*; V. Ermoni (Vigoroux' DB. iii. 1807!.); Zahn (Einl. §43); F. Maier {Biblische Studien, xi. 1906, 1-2)*; T. Barns, ‘The Epistle of Jude, A Study in the Marcosian heresy’ {JTS., 1905, 391-411, answered by Mayor, ibid. pp. 569-577); Holtzmann {Deutsche Litteratur-zeitung, 1906, 1040-43, review of Maier); Maier {Zeitschrift fiir hath. Theologie, 1906, 693-729); Bacon {EBP1 xv. 537-538). § i. Contents.—After the address (vv.1’2) the writer explains that his reason for communicating with his friends (vv.3f-) is to warn them against a body of errorists within the church, a set of loud, arrogant, and poisonous characters,1 whose doom (TOVTO TO Kpepa, proleptic) is violently and vividly described as that of their older angelic and human prototypes (vv.541) in vice. The writer especially recalls a prediction of their fate in the book of 1 The phrase Ties here (v.4), as, e.g., in Gal 212, has 'quelque chose de meprisant ’ (Arnauld).

Enoch and urges his readers to adhere (vv.17-18. 20f.) steadfastly to the primitive, apostolic tradition of the faith against plausible innovations (cp. v.3 T avaf rapaobelon). With a brief doxology (vv.24-25) the letter closes. Religious conservatism t is its keynote. The pretensions of the oeeis are contrasted with the fixed and final Christian tradition (cp. i jn 220f. 416. 56f). Their very methods and fate are no new thing; long ago (zAct) this had been foreseen by prophets and apostles alike. The writer disclaims originality even for his own warnings; all he requires to do is to remind orthodox Christians (vv.5- 17) of the principles and prophecies of that faith which they already know (cp. i Jn 220-21),—a plea for orthodoxy which is curiously bound up with belief in several superstitions drawn from what the author of Titus (114) would have sharply denounced as ‘Jewish myths.’

Conservatism involves retrospect, and the epistle looks back upon the apostolic age as (vv.3. 17) J distant and authoritative. These allusions are not to be explained away as if they meant no more than that the apostles were scattered (and therefore out of reach), or that the primitive Palestinian apostles alone are conceived of as dead. Neither does the IXeyov vp.lv necessarily imply that the readers had at one time been hearers of the apostles. On the other hand, it is a forced interpretation of v.5 which finds in it an allusion to the Lord’s punishment of unbelieving Israel at the fall of Jerusalem (so, e.g., Hofmann, Zahn); for, apart from other reasons (cp. F. Maier’s essay in BZ., 1904, 377-397), T Sevrepov refers not to two separate events, but to a stage later than the ocas (cp. 1 Co 101f, He 3121.), and it would be irregular to introduce a symbolic modern (contrast zXai, v.4) example in the midst of historical ones. The order of5-7 is no doubt unchronological, but the anticlimax is not bettered by shifting v.5 into the NT period. The reverse attempt {e.g. Credner, Rampf, Bleek, Gutjahr) to argue from J.’s silence that he must have written prior to the disaster of A.D. 70, is as unconvincing here as in the case of Hebrews. It is doubtful if the destruction of Jerusalem would have seemed to him an instance of divine t “Jude’s language about the Faith is highly dogmatic, highly orthodox, highly zealous. His tone is that of a bishop of the fourth century " (Bigg, P- 325).

* On the Enochic background of the epistle, cp. Lods, Le livre d'Hinoch (pp. 98-100), and Chase {DB. ii. 801-802, where the parallels are quoted).

I While itIotis by itself was used objectively by Paul now and then (cp.

Gal I23, Phil I27, cp. Ac 67), the context and the form of v.3 {the faith once for all delivered, not to you, but to the saints), taken with v.17 {your most holy faith), show unmistakably the sub-apostolic atmosphere (cp. e.g. Polykarp, who speaks of being ‘built up els rf o@ecav v/uv ttIo-tiv’ [iii. 2, iv. 2]). But there is no allusion to any formula of faith transmitted to the disciples, as A. Seeberg contends {Der Katechismus d. Urchristenheit, 1903, pp. 195-196); rlors is simply the body of Christian belief. judgment on sceptical antinomianism, and in any case his choice of instances is dictated by special motives, e.g. the desire to adduce the prototypes of error in ancient prophecy, particularly from apocalyptic sources. § 2. Characteristics. —The writer and his circle are at home within the (pp. 32 f.) literature and* legends of Judaism, as the allusions to the book of Enoch and (v.9) the Assumption of Moses (cp. R. H. Charles, Assumption of Moses, pp. 105 f, show; but this is no clue to the epistle’s date or milieu, since both were written by the time of Jesus, and since the former was widely read and honoured in early Christianity, if we may judge from the allusions and citations of the first and second centuries (cp. F. Martin, Le livre d‘ Henoch, 1906, pp. cxii f.; Lawlor in Journal of Philology, 1897, 164-225). The latter “represents that tendency in Jewish thought which was most nearly allied to primitive Christianity” (Burkitt, DB. iii. 449), and its opposition to the antinomian tendencies of the Sadducees may have recommended it to J. in view of his contemporary errorists. His familiarity with apocalyptic literature is probably responsible for the Ait A elaw rubric, cp. vv.(8) 10. 12. 16. 19, a favourite expression with such writers (cp. e.g. Zee 19f, Apoc 714 etc., En 46s, Slav. En 73 etc.), as well as for the Hebraistic colouring of his periods.

“ Die ganze Redeweise ist fiber aus lebhaft und gedrangt, plastisch und konkret, mit einem Wort: echt orientalisch ” (F. Maier, p. 168). The fondness for triple grouping (vv.2- 4. 5-7. 8. 1f. 23. 25c) is more outstanding than the three instances where a fivefold arrangement (vv.12-13. 16. 25) can be observed, and there is a certain balance and even rhythm of structure (cp. Cladder in JTS., 1904, 598-603) visible in the antithetical poise of various sentences and paragraphs, which smacks of the older Jewish writings. These features, however, do not stamp the work as late or early. The epistle shares with Luke’s writings in the NT collection, words like yaXaots (He r9 LXX), aXoyos, the Hellenistic x<xpLTa for yilpiv (v.4 = Ac 2427 259), evvTrviatJp.a'oi (Ac 217 LXX), and the dative in v.14= Lk 1831: with Hebrews,J Lueken's Erzengel Michael (1898), with Cheyne’s Bible Problems (226 f.). t That he was a Jewish Christian does not necessarily follow, much less that his audience were Jewish Christians (Hoennicke, JC. 92-93), though the former inference is plausible on broader grounds. + Cp. the collocation of three participles with a finite vb. (v.21"= He 121-3). vroya, ^6</)0';) ueyalogvn; and with Paul one or two terms, such as atSios, Kvpidry^, olK7]T7]pioy, and Trpoypd.<f>ei.v, besides ayiot and KX^TOL. But these are either too casual or too diverse in meaning to prove any literary relationship. Apart from the allusion in v.19 to language which the later Gnostics had adopted from Paul (cp. i Co 214), and the resemblances of the address (cp. i Th i4, 2 Th 213) and the doxology (v.24f- = Ro 1625-27, see above, p. 135), there is little or nothing to indicate any use or even reminiscences of the genuine Pauline correspondence. The impression of a similarity of atmosphere between the epistle and the Pauline pastorals is heightened, however, by a series of coincidences in thought and expression (5-11= 2 Ti 38, the use of maru; and of 6es a<»Trip), particularly in v.17 which implies the circulation of a prophecy such as has been pre-served in these pastorals. It is therefore highly probable that the latter were known to this writer, though there is no clear evidence that he used them. § 3. Relation to 2 Peter.—Special literature: E. A. Richter, De origine epist. P. posterioris ex epist. Juda repetenda (1810); E. Moutier, La seconde epitre de Pierre et celle de Jude (Strassburg, 1829), Mayerhoff’s Einleitung in die petrinischen Schrijten (1835), pp. 171-182; B. Weiss {SK., 1866, 256 f); O. Michael in Festschrijt fur Ficke (Leipzig, 1897); H. Schwienhorst, Das Verhaltniss des Judasbriefes zum zweiten Petrusbrief untersucht (Miinster, 1904); A. Maier {TQ., 1905, 547-580); J. B. Mayor in EGT. v. 303-317.

* On the Michael-myth, see J. T. Marshall (ET. xi. 390-391) and

The similarities between Judas and 2 P. are not altogether confined to 4f. of the former and the second chapter of the latter (cp. e.g. Jud 3= 2 P 221, Jud6-7 = 2 P 37, Jud 17-18 = 2 P 31, Jud 2L 23 = 2 P 314, Jud 24 = 2 P 317, Jud 25 = 2 P 318), but in that chapter they mount up to an exceptional height, as may be seen from the following summary: Judas (4) For certain men have slipped in (1) False teachers, men who shall by stealth (xapecvcav), those who were long ago (rkar) predestined (els toOto rb Kplpa) to this doom —impious men, perverting our God’s grace into dgyelav, and denying stealthily introduce (irapeia-<i^ov<ri) destructive heresies... denying the Master who bought them (rov AyopAaavra avrovs Scorrnv apvot-p.evoi). the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ (Kal r8v pibvov Seorrnv Kal KipLOV nuv T. X. apvwpevai). And many still follow their doekyelas otsr8 K p lp.aH KiraXai O8K &pyet. And angels which kept not their (4) God spared not angels when office but abandoned their own habit-ation, he has kept under the nether blackness in fetters everlasting (8e<rp.ols &i8lois VTTO £b<pov rerrippKev) for the judgment (els Kplaiv) of the great day. they sinned, but thrusting them down to Tartarus, to pits of nether black-ness (creipois ^6<f>ov), delivered them to be kept for judgment (iraptSaKev els Kplaiv Ti)povpevovs). Even as Sodom and Gomorrha,(6) Reducing the cities of Sodom with the surrounding cities... are exhibited as a warning (Selypa), undergoing the penalty of fire eternal. and Gomorrha to ashes... making an example of them (iiriSeiypa re-OeiKdis). These men f with their sensual dreams pollute the flesh (adpKa piial-vovaiv), contemn the Lordship (Kvpib- Those who walk after the flesh in the lust of pollution (bsrla^ crapKtis [=Jud 7 Maw capks] iv iiridvp.1^ r-pTa &0erovaiv), and abuse Majesties (as pXaa<pr]/J.ovaiv).

* The contrast of AyopAaavra is with the extortionate demands of the errorists for remuneration (23, cp. Tit I11; Iren. i. 13. 3; Eus. H. E. v. 18. 2).

Now when Michael the arch-angel was disputing with the devil in controversy over the body of Moses, he dared not (oiK iroXptfiaev) bring an abusive accusation against him (Kplaiv iireveyKelv Xaodnulas). But these men heap abuse on whatever they are ignorant of (oT0t 8b, 8cra pev OVK ol8aaiv fiXaurpruj-ovaiv), ptaapov), and despise the Lordship (KvpibTijros), Daring (roNunral, cp. Jud 9),... they tremble not when they abuse Majesties (86^as BXaoon-povvres).

Whereas angels...t do not bring an abusive accusation against them (<j>£povatv pXaa<t>-r)pov Kplaiv). But these men, like irrational brutes (ofrot 8b, os 8,Xoya $Ga) by nature born (tpvaiKa) for capture and Napth. iii. + Peter’s generalising version is less clear than J.’s, but it is plainly written with reference to the position of the latter in the argument. and whatever they do understand by nature ((pvaiKuis), like the irrational brutes (cis ri &Xoya $Ga), through that are they corrupted (pOelpovTap. They went the road of (rf bb$) Kain, rushed headlong for wages (piaBov) in the error of Balaam.

* The region of the Dead Sea, with its volcanic features, is associated in En 176 with the subterranean burning of the fallen angels. In 2 P. the deluge is inserted between the fall of the angels and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha (cp. 36), whereas Kain and Korah fall out. By the omission of the apostasy of the Israelites, 2 P. straightens out the chronology of Jud. On the other hand, 2 P.’s insertion of God’s rescuing mercy (25-7. 9), when contrasted with Jud 21-23, shows that the situation has become more serious. 2 P. ’s start with the fallen angels is motived by the fact that they were the instructors of mankind in malpractices, according to Jewish tradition (cp. En. ix. 5-6, x. 7, etc.), and consequently the natural prototype of false teachers (2lf-); his insertion anticipates the milder thought of 39, and is suggested by the allusion of I P 320 to Noah. J.’s reference to the sin of the angels in connection with Sodom is an echo of the tradition preserved in Test.

These men are the sunken rocks (czries) in your love-feasts (bv rats yrats vu@v), feasting with you (cvvevwxobuevot). (12-13) Rainless clouds ' (vedekat &vv5poi), swept along by winds... for whom the nether blackness of darkness has been for ever reserved (ols b dos TOV <TK6TOVS els aluva reT’/)p7)rai). Their mouth speaks extrava-gantly (rpora). corruption (tf>6opdv), uttering abuse about things they are ignorant of (ev ols d yvooCcrcv ^XatKpippovvTes), shall also perish in their corruption (iv rg pOopa avraiv pdapgaovrai). (15) They followed the road (Tf bbw) of Bal*aam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages (plaBov) of mal-practice.

Spots and blots (CTTCI'AM Kal pupot)... iv Tais drrdTacst (v.l. dydirais) airrSv... feasting with you (crwevuixoipevoi vpiv).

These men are- waterless fountains (mmyal vvpot) and mists driven by a squall... for whom the nether blackness of darkness has been reserved (ols b ^b<j>os TOV aKbrovs els aluva TeT-pppTac).

(18) Uttering futile extravagances (virlpoyKa).

Remember the words (pvpaQ-pTe (32) Remember the words spoken ruv pypdTwv) spoken-beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus (TWV mrpocpnuvov bird TOv diroaTbXw). how they told you: at the end of the time (m‘ tov xp6vov) there shall be (iaovTai, v.l. eXebaovrai) scoffers (bpsraiKTai), walking after their own impious lusts (xar ras lav r dv liridvplas Topevipevoc tCv oeev). beforehand (pvrpsfiTivai TUV srpoeipr)-plvwv) by the holy prophets and the commandment of the apostles sent you from the Lord and Saviour; $ 33 knowing this first of all, that in the last days (err’ iaxdrwv TUV ypepwv) scoffers (bpiraiKTai) shall come (dXev-covrat) scoffing, walking after their own lusts (Kari. Ths llas iiriOvpias avTwv sropevopevoi).

These phenomena imply either (a) the common use of some earlier docu-ment, or (b) a literary relationship between the two epistles. The former theory fails to explain anything except the legendary elements, which can satisfactorily be accounted for, especially since the discovery of the book of Enoch, without conjecturing (with older critics like Herder and Hasse) some Persian original, or§ some Aramaic document containing Noachic and 1904, 188 f.), it is to be taken geographically. t For this use of dTarp, see Nageli’s Der Wortschatz d. Paulus, p. 15. $ Spitta and Baljon omit Kal Tfs... auTppos as a gloss; Blass inserts bid between Ths and Tv (as in the title of the Didache). § Cp. Sherlock’s Dissertation concerning the Authority of the Second Epistle of Peter; Kaiser’s Commentarius, quo lingua aramaica usus ad judicanda et interpretanda plure N.T. loca... defenditur (1831), pp. 77 f., and Lumby in Exp,x iv. 461.

* Bosor is a blunder for Beor (cp. 8 B), unless, with A. Sanda (BZ.,

Enochic prophecies upon the deluge, or, finally, a Jewish or Jewish Christian ‘ Strafpredigt.’ * The alternative hypothesis (b) is rather to be accepted in the form of a dependence of 2 P. upon Judas (so the large majority of critics, especially Credner, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Abbott, Weiss, Baljon, Bovon, Chase, F. Maier, Julicher, Salmon, Mayor, and Belser, as against Luther’s opinion, which was supported by Dietlein, Lumby, Mansel, Hofmann, Plummer, Spitta, Zahn, and Bigg), (i.) It is inherently more likely that a later writer should incorporate practically the bulk of a brief note like that of Judas, than that the author of the latter should select only the middle portion of 2 Pet. To this it is not enough to reply that he chose only the section which suited his purpose, for if his purpose (as Spitta urges) was to emphasise the apostolic warnings against libertines, be would have made it more clear that he was using Peter’s ipsissima uerba, and in any case a section like that of 32t. would have been as apt to his aim. Furthermore (ii.) Judas has the notes of an original writer. The style is sententious, forcible, and terse, as compared with the cloudy and rhetorical language of 2 P. (cp. Jud 4 with 2 P 2s, Jud 6 with 2 P 24, Jud 7 with 2 P 26, Jud 8 with 2 P 210, Jud 9 with 2 P 21, Jud 10 with 2 P 212); thus—to quote one instance—the more popular airav&pv Tapeioppelv of the later writer (i5) is a relapse from the correct oTovhv TTOieiadat of Jud 3. Again, (iii.) 2 P. has exaggerated the habit of iteration which crops up now and again in Jud. (cp. Tpelv and in 6. 13 Kplats in 6. 9. 15, and BXaodnu. in 8-10, also 16 and 18) despite the latter’s skill in devising synonyms. In the later writer, partly owing to an imitation of I P., where this literary trait occasionally recurs (cp. aerrppla. in 19-10; KOKO-iroibs, 212. 14; ayaBoir., 214-15. 20), the iteration of insignificant terms becomes almost wearisome (cp. iirixopriyeiv, I5,11; vex®., 117-18. rodeyeiv, 14. 11. is. 20. irpoip'rjTeia, I20, 21; 216. 18; SeXedev, 214. 18; p,i.a8bs diklas, 213. 15; oroxela Ka.va-o-6p.eva,, 310. 12 etc. etc.). Finally, (iv.) at several points the language of 2 P. is only intelligible from that of Judas; e.g. the general-ised allusion to angels in 2 P 210-11 becomes clear from Jud 9 with its specific reference to Michael. The haste and vehemence of Judas the zealot lead him now and then into a certain confused tone of denunciation, which is at once softened and straightened out in the later epistle. 2 P. has not the urgency which dictated the composition of Judas; it is more derivative than the latter. " The impression which they leave on my mind is that in J. we have the first thought, in P. the second thought; that we can generally see a reason why P. ahould have altered J., but very rarely a reason why what we read in P. should have been altered to what we find in J. P. is more reflective, J. more spontaneous ” (Mayor, p. xxv). “ Es ist eine absurde Vorstellung, dass der kleine, an Vorstellungenviel reichere Jud aus einzelnen, da und dort herausgerissenen, ber eine grossere Flache zerstreuten, an sich meist ganz nebensachlichen, fast armseligen Wortern und Satzen des grossen 2 Petr zusammengestoppelt ist ” (Maier, Der Judasbrief, 107-108). “ Begrei-flich ist, dass ein Mann, der seinen Lesern noch mehr zu sagen hatte, den Inhalt des Judasbriefes in seinem grosseren Briefe verarbeitete; dass aber Judas, wenn er vor den von Petrus geschilderten Irrlehrern warnen will, statt sich ausdrcklich auf diese grosse Autoritat zu berufen, einfach ein Stuck Cp. Heinrici, Ure. 112, and Lit. Charakter d. NT Schriften, 78-79. des Petrusbriefes neu herausgibt unter seinem Namen, ist undenkbar" (Haupt in SK\, 1904, 149). § 4. Literary connections.—While the earliest trace of the epistle is in 2 Pet., its brevity, limited circulation, and lack of significant ideas prevented it from being used by other writers in the second century; almost the only document which presents any resemblance to it is the Didache, where 27 (ov p.uryaw; iravra avOpanrov, dXXa os pfv 2Xyets, mep ov Trpoaev^y, ovs Se ayaTrytreis trip ryv vvxv oov) recalls the similar triple sentence of Jud 22-23 (xal ovs piv eXey^ere StaKpivopxvovs, ovs Si aiX^ere ... ovs 8 eXed*re), whilst J. ’s assertion that the errorists’ KvpioTyra aOerovaiv (v.8) is explained by the counsel of Did. 41 (riuoas avrov—i.e. him who speaks the word of God—ds Kvptov' oOev yap n Kvptrns XaXeirai, kel Kpis 2oriv). The connection between murmuring and blasphemy is not striking enough to justify stress being laid (as, e.g., by Spitta, 534-535, and F. Maier, p. 65) on 3s-8 as a possible instance of the use of Jud 8-10, and even were the text of Jud 22-23 (cp. WH. ii. 106 f.) and of Did 27 more certain than it is, it would be imprudent to base any conclusions of literary filiation upon so lonely and precarious a piece of evidence. “ On other grounds it seems likely that the two documents had their origin within the same circle of Christian thought, and it is conceivable that parts of the Didache are ultimately the work of the author of the epistle” (Chase, 795). Be this as it may, the Didache on the whole fails to furnish any terminus ad quem for Judas, and still less do Barnabas (210 4°, against Jud 3-4), 2 Clem. (204= Jud 6, cp. NTA. 129), and Hermas {Sim. v. 7. 2= Jud 8, Sim. ix. 9. 13 against Jud 21), though the coincidence between Mart. Polyk. (address eXcos Ka\. tapyvy koX ay airy... TrXyQvvOAy) = Jud 2 (EAcos vuiv Kai elpyvy Kal ymn TrXy&wOdy) is remarkable enough (see above, p. 336).

By the end of the second century the homily was accepted as canonical and apostolic in Alexandria (Clement, Origen), Africa (Tertullian), and Rome (Murat. Canon); but the very terms and context in which it is mentioned in the Mur. Canon and even in Origen (in Matt. vol. xvii. 30) indicate that its reception was far from being unanimous; J and this is corroborated by its t Besides, Tertullian not only mistakes J. for an apostle, but is chiefly interested in his epistle because it guarantees the authority of the book of Enoch (de mltu. fem. i. 3); while Clem. Alex.’s opinion is weakened by the fact that he attributes Hebrews to Paul. absence subsequently from the writings of the Antioch school and the Syriac vulgate. The suspicions (Eus. H. E. ii. 23. 25) which thus hindered its entrance into certain circles of the church, as one of the a.vri\eybneva, were due not to critical scruples so much as to the hesitation aroused by the source and character of its apocryphal citations (so Jerome, de uir. illustr. cx.). Its unpopularity in the African churches, to judge from Cyprian’s lack of reference to it and from other data, and its failure to win acceptance in the school of Antioch, rendered its ecclesiastical career as precarious and chequered as that of several of the other ‘catholic epistles.’ Its disrepute in many quarters, particularly throughout the West, was only partially counter-balanced by the fact that Clement of Alexandria (in his Hypotoposeis, cp. Westcott’s Canon, pp. 355 f.) and Didymus of the same city (in the fourth century) wrote comments on it, the latter with especial regard to its compromising employment of apocryphal writings. § 5. Object.—The writer is not interested in the oceis, as the apologists of the second century are in the principles of the errorists whom they controvert. He attempts no refutation of their theories, nor does he go into any detail in exposing their aberrations. He is a plain, honest leader of the church, who knows when round indignation is more telling than argument. His interest is purely practical. Alarmed at the possibility of his friends being contaminated by these intruders, he writes this brief, forcible warning, full of what Origen called eppupevot. Xd-yoi. It denounces * rather than describes the objects of its attack, and there is a note of exaggerated severity in it, ‘a certain hasti-ness and tendency to take things at the worst ’ (Bigg). When the news of the movement’s spread reached him (v.3), he was in the act of composing an epistle or treatise for his friends Trepl Ths mips corpas: this he laid aside at once in order to lose no time in putting them on their guard. His practical object, together with the fact that the readers were well acquainted with the errorists, naturally gave no occasion for a minute transcript of the latter’s aims; one or two hints emerge which indicate their general physiognomy, but these glimpses are neither un-ambiguous nor coherent, i.e. they do not point to any one of the regular gnostic circles of which we have any knowledge. The note of dualism (v.4 Tv povov 8eozrnv apvot>pevoct v.25 uvo 6eo) f was common to most Gnostics, including, of course, the Carpokratians (so for Judas, Grotius and Mangold, Einl. 723 f., with * “To a modern reader it is curious rather than edifying, with the exception of the beginning and end” (Mayor, p. clii). t The phrase is not so much liturgical as a polemical reference to gnostic theosophies (cp. Jn 544 173, and E. A. Abbott’s Diat., 1895, 2664).

* A good case for the omission (with Ca Syr. hl.) of os Xere is presented by R. A. Falconer (ExpS iv. 200-207).

Schenkel, Christusbild, 161f.; Cone, Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations, 338—341, and Pfleiderer, Urc. ii. 509 f.) and the Cainites (v.11), who (according to Irenaeus, i. 31. 1) claimed kinship with the Sodomites (v.7) and Korah (v.11); though the allusion to Kain, in the light of 13r, seems to voice the Jewish tradition, as old as Philo (cp. Siegfried’s Philo, pp. 150 f.), that Kain was the first sceptic, who denied any future rewards for the good or punishment for the wicked (Targ. Jerus. on Gn 4'). Again, the abuse of love-feasts (v.12), flattery of the rich (v.16), and antinomian tendencies, are common to these errorists and to the followers of Marcus in Asia Minor, c. A.D. 160 (Iren. i. 13-21); but Judas never alludes to the women over whom Marcus exercised extraordinary power, and the above traits are not peculiar to the Marcosians. The combination of denying Christ (v.4) with immorality would harmonise either with Tit i16 or with the Nikolaitans (Apoc 26,15 cp. 213 oK novnoc Thv vIo-tiv pov). There is no evidence to connect it with any theoretical error, such as that of Cerinthus (cp. 1 jn 222f.), on the person of Christ, but the libertine conduct of J.’s errorists was plainly justified in their own opinion by their views (cp. v.8); just as the Carpokratians (c. A.D. 140), whose heresy Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 2. 6-10) found prophetically described in this epistle, advocated promiscuous sexual indulgence on the ground that the sexual impulse was a God-given instinct. Kain and Korah (v.11) were honoured by the Ophites, of whom the Cainites were an offshoot, and the adherents of Simon Magus and of Carpokrates are said by Irenus (i. 25. 1) to have scoffed at the angels who were responsible for the creation.

Whoever they were, they were charged by Judas with sodomy (v.7) and sexual abuses (v.10b),t as well as with covetousness— t For which the yrat (v.12) would give opportunity to the unscrupulous, as in the case, e.g., of the Carpokratians. This lust, combined with insubTHE EPISTLE OF JUDAS • 355 the latter (v.11, v.12 avrovs roualvovres, v.16 ddeXelas xpiv) pointing to a familiar type of the prophet or mystagogue, who traded on the generosity and credulity of his dupes. On being checked by the authorities of the churches, they became re-bellious and discontented (8b- 11c. 16a) like Korah; while, like Balaam (v.11), they were pseudo-prophets (this is the force of vvmviauevot, v.8) as well as selfish. Furthermore, they made loud pretensions (v.13a, v.16 TO aropa avrv Xale wepo-yxa), evidently on the score of superiority to the rank and file of ordinary Christians. Like most of the Gnostics, they appear to have called themselves mvevuarkol, in contrast to the inferior xf/v^KoL of the church (this is the point of J.’s retort in v.19); the exclusiveness (vv.19. 22) and lack of brotherly love (v.12 veXat avvBpoi, BevBpa aKapira), which this ostentation developed, are a constant source of reproach in the writings of this period (cp. i John, Ignatius). Such traits belong to the incipient phases of some local, possibly syncretistic, development of libertinism upon gnostic lines,* rather than to any definite school; they cannot be fairly explained (Spitta, 503 f., after Neander) as natural to some ultra-Paulinists, or to errorists of a purely practical bent, resembling those attacked by Paul at Corinth or Colosss, or to Jewish Christian heretics (so, e.g., Credner and Salmon). § 6. Period and authorship.—In view of Eph 220 35 and Apoc 1820 2114, the allusion to the apostles in v.17 would not necessarily fix the terminus a quo for the epistle beyond the last quarter of the first century; but the further allusion (v.17) to 2 Ti 31f, 1 Ti 41f, together with the evidence just adduced from the incipient gnostic tendencies which it controverts, seems to converge upon a date for its composition in the early decades of the second century. This renders it impossible (cp. Jacoby, NTEthik, 455 f.) to attribute the authorship either (a) to Judas, ordination, is the point made by J. (v.6) in comparing the errorists to the fallen angels (cp. Justin, Apol. ii. 5; Jab iv. 15 f.), who in Jewish legend (cp. Volz, Jud. Eschatologie, pp. 273 f., and Bousset, die Religion des Judentums, 326 f., for the evidence from Enoch, etc.) were guilty of both these sins. * So Harnack (early representatives of the Archontikoi, Kainites, Nikolaitans, etc.) and Belser: “man wird sonach in diesen ‘Gottlosen' Anhanger des Simon Magus, eines Menander und Nikolaus (Iren. adv. haer. i. 23; Tert. de anima, 50; Apoc 2s- 15) erblicken diirfen; Gesinnungsgenossen des Thebutis und Dositheus, von welchen ersterer zunachst ein Schisma veranlasste und dasselbe bald zur Haresie weiterbildete (Eus. H. E. iv. 22) ” (Einl. 661-662). the brother of James (Mk 63, Mt 1355), who is supposed (Clem. Alex.) to have described himself as the servant, not the brother, of the Lord, owing to reverent humility (so the large majority of edd.); or (5) to the Judas of Lk 616, Ac i13 (so, e.g., Bertholdt, Schneckenburger, Hofmann, Lange, Keil, Belser, Wordsworth); or (c) even to Judas Barsabbas (Ac 1522-23), the prominent prophet of the Jerusalem-church (so Schott, Weicker, Dr. John Lightfoot, Works, viii. 38-39; Selwyn, and Plumptre).

* So Thiersch, Ewald, Schott, Huther, Wiesinger, Mansel, Sieffert, Bartlet, and recently Knopf (NZ. 320-322), who argues that J.’s errorists not only were libertines and spiritualists like the N., but shared the same attitude towards the devil, holding that the true Christian could scoff at his power and safely practise immorality. This involves the identification of the angelic powers in v.8 with evil spirits (so, e.g., Weiss and Schott). A cognate view (E. P. Gould, NTTh. pp. 157-158) makes J. point to the summary fate of the wicked angels as a proof that angels in general need not be reviled, and that the errorists had better not justify their sensual indulgence by appealing ‘ more or less cynically to ’ the ‘ roving propensities ’ of these aerial beings.

(b) is weakened by the dubiety clinging to TovSas ‘Iaxov, which may and probably does mean ‘ son of James ’ rather than ' brother.’ But even were it otherwise, (b) like (a) is handicapped by the fact that neither Judas could have lived long enough to write the epistle. The well-known story about the grandchildren of Judas, the brother of James of Jerusalem, being brought before Domitian, suggests that the grandfather could hardly have sur-vived till c. A.D. 85. Apart from this, it must be admitted, a fair case can be made out for his authorship, and many scholars find themselves able to read the allusions to the errorists in such a way as to place them in the third quarter of the first century, thus interpreting the title literally.! Renan (iii. ch. x.) is alone in relegating it to c. A.D. 54 as a covert and rancorous pamphlet against Paul, but a date within the seventh decade of the first century (Arnauld, Weiss) is upheld by many scholars, e.g. 60-64 (Bigg), 63 b (Bisping, F. Maier, Gheorghiu), 64-66 (Rampf, Henkel, Schafer, pp. 314 b; Gutjahr, Belser, Kaulen, Trenkle), or predominantly 66 f. (Reithmayr, Valroger, Fronmiiller, Eichhorn, Bleek, Schulze, Weiss, Wandel, Burger, Arnauld, Guericke, Stier, Langen, Salmond in Pulpit Commentary; Selwyn, The Christian Prophets, pp. 146 b etc.). Others, like Kuhl (65-80), fix its composition somewhat later; e.g. in the eighth decade, so Zahn (70-75), Barth (after 70), Mayor, Sieffert + If'Incos (AB etc., cp. WH. ii. 106; EBi. 2632) is read (so, e.g., Alford and Zwaan) in v.5 instead of Kpios, the difficulty of supposing that a brother of Jesus could have written thus (or, for the matter of that, have meant Jesus by 6 kpios), is well-nigh insuperable. Even Paul used 6 Xpirs (1 Co io4). Nor would it ease matters to take 'Incos as equivalent to Joshua (E. E. Kellett, ET. xv. 381).

* Tertullian and Origen (Lat.) both make the author an apostle; but this was probably due to the impulse which led the early church to connect the authors or supposed authors of its scriptures with the apostolic circle. The writer himself does not claim to be one of the apostles, and indeed he dis-sociates himself from them.

(70-80), and Bartlet, AA. 344-351; whilst a date c. A.D. 80 is favoured by Credner, Reuss, Lumby, Schott (80-90), Ewald, Hofmann, Spitta, Keil, and von The latter period has most in its favour, if the manifesto could be connected with the Judas of the early church. Otherwise, criticism is pushed into the first quarter of the second century (so, e.g., Harnack, McGiffert, Jlicher, Hollmann), slightly later by Schenkel (A.D. 130-140) and Straatman (pp. 102 f.), and later still by Volkmar, Mangold, Davidson, N. Schmidt in The Prophet of Nazareth, p. 192 (after A.D. 150), and Barns {c. A.D. 160), as formerly by Semler (A.D. 150-200).

On any form of the latter hypothesis, some explanation of the title (‘Iobas T. X. Soos, deds 66 ’laK^ov) becomes imperative. (a) The main objection to the pseudonym-hypothesis (Schwegler, Pfleiderer, Reuss, etc.), which makes the writer take the brother of Jesus as his mouthpiece, is that J. was far from important enough, that he would probably have been made an apostle (as by Tertullian afterwards), and that no attempt is made to develop his personality, as would have been natural under the circumstances. (b) More plausibly Harnack (ACL. i. I, pp. 465 f.) would modify this by conjecturing that some unknown Judas J of the second century (A.D. 100-130) wrote the homily against a contemporary phase of Syro-Palestinian gnosticism, and that the words ekds bi ’TaKih^ov were added later (A.D. 150-180) when it became desirable, in the light of the rampant gnosticism of the age, to guarantee the writing’s authority. Such a theory (so McGiffert, AA. 585-588; Bacon, Barns) in one form or another at once does some justice to the contents of the writing, which does not appear to come from one who either belonged to or survived the first generation, and to the title itself; it would not be difficult for a second-century scribe or editor, finding the words ‘Iobas T. X. oXos at the head of an earlier (‘not far from A.D. 90,’ Bacon, p. 170) manifesto against antinomian errorists, to amplify them with deds 36 'Iakov, supposing or wishing it to be supposed that the writer was the brother of the notable James of Jerusalem, whose rigid attitude towards pagan t Julicher (Einl. p. 200) now thinks that the author belonged to a circle where James was held in honour, but that he chose Judas as his pseudonym because he perhaps outlived the other Palestinian apostles, and therefore was a suitable mouthpiece for warnings against the rising peril.

* i.e. in his commentary. The hurried and superficial paragraph at the close of his Introduction (pp. 470-472) seems to abandon both the authorship of Judas and the first century date.

I Grotius thought of Judas, a Jewish Christian bishop of Jerusalem in the second century, as the actual author; but deXds 66 ’laKio^ov could hardly be taken as an episcopal Jerusalemite title, and the very personality of this Judas is in dispute (cp. Zahn’s Forschungen, vi. 293 b, and Turner, JTS. i. 529f., against Schlatter, TU. xii. 25!., BFT. xii. 3, 1898, ‘die Kirche Jerusalems vom Jahre 70-130,’ pp. 29 f.). Otherwise one might think of some presbyter called Judas (Dahl). antinomian tendencies was so notorious. This, at any rate, seems upon the whole a more feasible line of conjecture than to suppose that the writing was originally an anonymous epistle or a manifesto.

The destination of the pastoral, whether Syro-Palestine (de Wette, Bartlet), Antioch and its neighbourhood (Chase), Corinth or, as some have more plausibly argued, Egypt (Mayerhoff, Schenkel, Mangold, etc.), cannot be precisely ascertained from the contents, and tradition is silent. If a Judas of the first century wrote it, Palestine or Antioch is a natural suggestion. The resemblances between the gnostic phenomena of J.’s opponents and those of John’s apocalypse, the Pauline pastorals, and Ignatius, might suggest Asia Minor (so von Soden and Bacon, the latter conjecturing that the local destination of the epistle has disappeared from the title), but more or less analogous phenomena can be shown to have emerged in several quarters. As a matter of fact, we are absolutely in the dark as to the relation between the writer and his audience. The pastoral resembles i John in its general outlook and adaptation to some definite situation or circle of churches whose oversight belonged to the writer. How Judas learnt of the peril, whether by observation or by information, why he wrote instead of visiting the churches in person, and what was the outcome of his manifesto—on these topics the epistle itself and the subsequent tradition of the church yield no information whatsoever. Possibly he meant his tract to be a sort of fiery cross, to rouse the churches. Instead of showing its readers how to contend for the apostolic faith (v.3), it is so engrossed with the invaders that not until the very close is any instruction given as to the behaviour of true Christians in the crisis. To be forewarned was evidently, in J.’s view, to be forearmed. Were any tradition extant, connecting Judas with some lost treatise or epistle, it would be tempting to read v.3 in the light of Tit I5, I Ti 314f. as a piece of literary vraisemblance on the part of the pseudonymous author, in order to justify the object and size of the writing, and its lack of positive religious teaching. The obscurity of the whole situation unfortunately prevents us from discovering, except in a general sense, what that religious teaching could have been.

(C) 2 Peter

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—Besides most editions of i Peter and Judas (q.v.), the following special commentaries: C. Ullmann {Der zweite Brief P. kritisch untersucht, 1821); W. O. Dietlein (1851); F. Steinfass (1863); Harms (1873); J. F. Demarest (New York, 1865); L. J. Hundhausen, Das zweite Pontifikalschreiben des Apostelfiirsten Petrus (1878); Lumby + “ Many of the phrases packed together in Jude’s epistle might each be the head of a discourse; so that I could easily believe that we had in this epistle heads of topics enlarged on, either in a larger document, or by the apostle himself in viva voce addresses” (Salmon, INT. p. 477).

* On the slender ground that the evils denounced by J. resemble those attacked by Paul in Corinth.

1 On the latest book in the NT canon, English scholarship is easily first; Chase’s article and Mayor’s edition throw all previous work into the shade.

(Speaker’s Comm. 1881); Plummer (Ellicott’s Comm. 1883); Weidner’s Annotations (New York, 1897); R. H. Strachan (EGT. 1910).

Studies—F. A. S. Nietzsche’s Epistola Petri posterior uindicata (1785); J- F. Flatt, Genuina sec. P. Epistola origo defenditur (Tubingen, 1806); P. E. Picot, Recherches sur la deux epttre de Pierre (Geneva, 1829); F. H. Kern, de secunda Petri epistola (Tubingen, 1829); C. N. de Graaff, Analecta in ep. P. alteram (1833); A. Delille, V authenticity de la seconde ypttre de Pierre (Strassburg, 1835); J. H. Magnus, Examen de Pauthent. de la sec. ep. de S. Pierre (1835); L. Heydenreich, Ein Wort zur Vertheidigung, etc. (1837); L. Audemars, Seconde ypitre de Pierre (Geneva, 1838); A. L. Daumas, Introd, critique b la deux, ipitre de Pierre (Strassburg, 1845); F. Ollier, Essai d‘ introduction critique a la sec. epitre de S. Pierre (Toulouse, 1852); E. G. King, Did S. Peter write in Gk. I Thoughts and criticisms intended to prove the Aramaic origin of Second Peter (Cambridge, 1871); Grosch, die Echtheit des 2. Briefes Petrus (1889, sec. ed. 1911); F. H. Chase (DB. iii. 796-818)*; Schenkel (BL. iv. 502-506); Sanday, Inspiration (1893); 346 f., 382 f.; McGiffert, AA. 600 f.; O. Cone (EBi. 3682 f.); Moffatt (HNT. 2 596 f., 707 f.); Abbott (Diat. 1116 f.); K. Henkel, Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus gepriift auf seine Echtheit (1904) *; A. Camerlynck (Collectiones Brugenses, 1907, 6-13, ‘quritur utrum demonstrari possit, sec. epist. S. Petri a principe Apostolorum fuisse conscriptam ’); Dillenseger (Melanges de la Faculty Orientate, Beyrout, ii. 173-212, 1907, ‘ l’authenticite de la deux. ep. P.’). § 1. Contents and characteristics.—The salutation (11-2) passes over into an exhortation (12-11) to attain, by means of a pure and diligent life, that emyvoois of the divine nature which is at once the privilege and goal of Christianity. Such a reminder (112f) comes with special aptness from one whose apostolic relation to Jesus guarantees his witness to the historic voice of God. Furthermore, Christians (119f.) have OT prophecy to be their light in this darkling world until the second advent of Jesus. The mention of the OT prophets, however, reminds the writer that there were false prophets as well, and this leads him (21f) to denounce in round terms the false teachers of his own day as vicious, greedy, and insubordinate characters who will share the doom of their prototypes, viz. the fallen angels, the contempor-aries of Noah, and the men of Sodom and Gomorrha. The prediction of the doom awaiting these apostates is followed (21of.) by a pungent description of their malpractices. In writing thus, the author is only reminding his readers once more of the OT prophecies and the apostolic injunctions (31-2). They must remember that the appearance of those who idly scoff at the second advent is one mark of the latter days (3s'7),1 whereas the 1 The allusion in 3® is to the Jewish tradition voiced in En 83s’5. coming of the Lord’s day is sure (38f.). This great hope of a new world implies that Christians must keep themselves pure and steadfast, to be worthy of it (311f). With an appeal to Paul’s authority for the view of a gracious purpose in the delay of the end (315f.), and a final exhortation to growth in the grace and yvOois t of Christ, the pastoral ends in a brief doxology (318).

The Hellenistic colouring of the tract is noticeable. Terms like dela Suvapis (13) and 9ela <f>6ais (14) were, indeed, current during the first century, but their application to Jesus Christ is strange, and their point is missed unless the writing is placed in the second century, when a diffused Stoicism was predominant throughout the empire, whose keynotes were participation in the divine nature and advance (mpokor, cp. I5’7) in the scale of ethical virtue (iTixopriyeiv, see below), and when a type of Oots was popular which was compatible with an inadequate conception of the xpis in Christ’s person and with a defective morality. Beside these lie late Greek terms like iKirdXai, iiriSeiypa, yeyvpvao-p^vriv (214),+ (? inroifytov^&ss), 6Xly^, epw (=vomit), the use of active for middle in 318, splinters of Hellenistic Greek like An@nv Xofwv (Josephus) and uvorov (19),§ the dramatic background of mixopnyn-6r)aerat (i11), the technical term rmrys (116= initiate), unique semi-philosophical formations like cMvios BaaiXela (ln) and elXcKpivr/s biavoia (properly = pure reason, Plato’s Phad. 66 A), grandiloquent periphrases like h ueyaXomperhs 86%a (i17), eyes full of an adulteress (214), and 6 ftpos TOV a KOTOVS TerppriTaL (217 as the doom of wells and mists!), the awkward abstract plurals in 311 etc. etc. Similarly, an examination of the linguistic data shows that the writer’s characteristic vocabulary is often allied to the Greek versions of the OT or of extra-canonical volumes {e.g. dirraurros, 3 Mac 669; yovorhs, Theod. Pr 2620, Symm. Pr 2622, Is 29s4; iKiropveveiv, epiraiKrljs, Theod. Is 34; without ivijirvcov, and ttos, tiXoya, $oa, cnriXovv from the Book of Wisdom). These indications of provenance need not be pressed, however. Thus the occasional resemblances to iambic rhythm which have been noted (Bigg refers to 21: 3. 4) are no more than the accidental cadences that recur in many of the imaginative reaches of prose literature, from Livy and Tacitus to Dickens. Even the Trapocpla of 222 need not be referred to the influence of such writers as Ezekiel of Alexandria; the second part, at any rate, echoes (p. 35) the traditional reproach upon Nadan preserved in the Syriac and Armenian texts of Ahikar (cp. J. Rendel Harris in The Story of Ahikar, pp. lxvf.), “ My son, thou hast behaved like the swine which went to the bath (\ovaa-pdvp, 2 P.) with people of quality, and when he came out saw a stinking drain and went and rolled himself in it.” At the same time, there is signifi... ^ypa>f/ev iirurToXAs). f Possibly an echo of the liturgical formula used by Marcus the Valentinian (Iren. i. 13. 2).

* Echoing perhaps Polyk. iii. 8 rov paKapiov Kal lvb6^ov UatiXov,

J The genitive with this, like the description of the mists in 217, is one trace of the Homerisms frequent in second-century rhetoric. § “ There can be little doubt that the writer of 2 P. is here guilty of a rhetorical bathos” (Chase, 808). cance in the pagan and Philonic * conception of inspiration as a state in which men were simply mouthpieces of the divine spirit (121, so dbeyuevov in 216); in classical borrowings like the second proverb of 222 and oTpiyus (317), and especially in the exploitation of the idea, familiar to Jews (cp. Joseph. Ant. i.

2. 3: “Adam’s prediction that the world would be destroyed one day by the force of fire, and at another time by the force of water”) J and to Christians of the second century, but promulgated especially by contemporary Stoicism (cp. Zeller’s Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, Eng. tr. pp. 155 f.), that the universe was to be destroyed by fire; no less than in solecisms like Xuua, which the author uses as=seeing, instead of ocular expression (28), irapaippovia (216), KliXurp-a. (222, properly = a cylinder), euraiyuovn (33), the genitive after ^paSvyei (cp. Blass, Gramm. § 36. 9), the use of airetjSeiv (312), the present for the future in 312 (rhxerai), and KavtrowOai (310. 12).

This Hellenistic colouring is mediated by Alexandrian influences, however, and is associated with a strong predilection for the midrashic tendencies of the later Judaism (see above, p. 23). There (cp. Kalisch, Bible Studies, i. 24 f.), while some characters like Lot acquired an unwonted halo of respect (cp. 27 after legends in Bereschith Rabba), others, like Kain, Korah, Balaam, and Jezebel, became blackened with the growth of evil associations. Even Philo turns Balaam into a juggling, disloyal impostor; while in Targ. Jon. on Ex 711 he is the teacher of Jannes and Jambres (2 Ti 38), those masters of witch-craft and divination who rivalled Moses in his feats of magic. Thus the allusion to his covetousness in Jud 11 is probably to be seconded by a reference in v.8, where the sensual dreams reflect Balaam’s Targumic reputation as an exponent of corrupt dreams. Similarly Noah (25) became in Jewish tradition (Jos. Ant. i. 3. 1; Sib. Ori. 128; Jub vii. 20 f.) a preacher of righteousness in his corrupt age.

There is a strange parallel (cp. Franke, Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, 1901, 2760 f., and van den Bergh van Eysinga's Indische Einjliisse auf Evang. Erziihlungen 53 f.) between 38, 1M- and the early Buddhist Nidnakath (cp. Rhys Davids, Buddhist Birth-Stories, i. 58): “ Friends, one hundred thousand years from now there will be a new dispensation; this system of worlds will be destroyed; even the mighty ocean will dry up; this great earth will be burned up and destroyed; and the whole world, up to the realms of the immaterial angels, will pass away. Therefore, O friends, do mercy, live in kindness, and sympathy, and peace.” § 2. Object.—It is as difficult as in the case of Judas, to make out the physiognomy of the errorists from any comparison of the homily with the traits of the second-century errorists pre-served for us in Irenseus and his fellow-apologists. But whether their gnosticism was that of Carpokrates (so Grotius, Schenkel, Mangold, Volter, Holtzmann, etc.) or the earlier Nikolaitans * Josephus {Ant. iv. 6. 5) applies it to Balaam. t On this curious saga, see Bousset in ZNW, (1902) 45-46- The final burning of the star-spirits or arocxeta (310, cp. Spitta, 265 f.) is another relic of later Jewish tradition (cp. En 6012 6 992 etc.).

(Mansel),* its traits are too distinctive to be explained simply from the practical libertinism or the incipient scepticism which Paul or even the prophet John had encountered within the first century, much less from Sadducean Christians (Bertholdt, Einl. § 672f.).

The Gnostics objected to any proof from the Scriptures, on the ground that truth was delivered viva-voce, not by means of written documents. This at first sight appears to harmonise with the catholic position, that tradition is the supreme standard; but the Gnostics rejected the catholic apostolic tradition, prefer-ring their own construction, as Irenaeus bitterly complains (iii. 2 f.), and claiming to be wiser “ not only than the presbyters, but even than the apostles.” This claim in turn led them to twist the scriptures into consonance with their own views (raparprovres ras epunveas xai pdiovpyovres ras 2nyhoets, Iren. i. 3. 6), and both features of their teaching are antagonised by the author of 2 Peter. The false yvois promulgated successfully (218f) in several circles of contemporary Christianity by these teachers (21) appears to have developed much the same results in conduct as those denounced by Judas—so much so that all the author thinks he requires to do is to reproduce the incisive exposure of their greed, sensuality, and arrogance, given in the earlier letter. The colours are heightened, the terms become more extravagant and excited, but the errorists here represent a full-blown development of the tendencies opposed by Judas in his pamphlet. The special burden of this homily is, however, the rehabilitation of belief in the second advent (111. 16. 19 33f.), as against the scoffers (-urarrat). To controvert these teachers the writer brings forward four pleas: (i.) the primitive apostolic witness of the second advent (i16f-), (ii.) the messianic prophecies of the (i19f-) OT which that witness corroborates, (iii.) an explanation of the delay (based on a current Jewish piece of exegesis), as really due (38f) to the long-suffering and consideration of God,t and (iv.) an assertion that belief and disbelief in the second advent were * “There may have been shades of difference between them; some, perhaps, had a philosophy, and some had not; but in the eyes of the Christian preacher, judging the party as a whole by its practical results, they would all seem to wear the same livery” (Bigg, ICC. p. 239). + To infer from the absence of any allusion to chiliasm that the epistle must be very old, is doubly erroneous; for (i.) chiliasm was not universal in the second century, (ii.) nor was the quotation from Ps 904 its starting-point, as Apoc 204f is enough to show. bound up with pure and vicious lines of conduct respectively (33. 11f). Incidentally, he asserts towards the close the complete harmony of Paul’s teaching on this point with his own, with a view to discredit the appeal made by the errorists to certain sayings of the great apostle.

The errorists who are thus denounced in 2 P. belonged probably to circles where spiritualistic views of the universe were as if it were immutable; but while Philo defends this line of speculation against the Stoic theory of a final conflagration {de incorrupt. mundi, 18 f.), our author uses the latter, which was popular among ordinary Christians of the time (cp. Origen, adv. Cels. iv. 11. 79), to rebut the former. If one could be sure that their sophistical myths (i16) represented an allegorising interpretation of the life of Jesus, it might be possible to see in them an exaggerated expression of the spiritualising movement which, as the Fourth gospel indicates, had already begun in Asia Minor to resolve difficulties in the literal statement of such ideas as that of the second advent. In denouncing them, the writer, like the author of the Pauline pastorals (2 Ti 31-6), passes from the future to the present; in the heat of his denunciation he forgets that he has begun by putting his counsels into the form of a prediction, couched against appre-hensions of a danger in the days to come (cp. Henkel, op. cit. 37 f.), and speaks of the errorists naturally as they lived and moved before his eyes. § 3. Period and origin.—Even apart from the use of a pas-toral (Judas) which was not composed till long after Peter had died, the late origin of the epistle, involving its pseudonymous character, would be revealed by the character of (a) its allusion to Paul’s epistles (31S, where at ypacal cannot be non-technical). These are apparently viewed as the subject of varied interpreta-tions and even of serious misunderstandings. Furthermore, they are ranked on a level with the other scriptures, i.e. the OT primarily; and evidently a collection of them is presupposed (cp. Gutjahr, pp. 49 f.), for the reference of 315 can hardly be confined to Romans (24 922, so Grotius, Huther, and Dietlein) t or Ephesians (with its conception of ao^ia, so Hofmann, Belser, von Soden), or Thessalonians (Alford), or Galatians (Augusti), much less Hebrews (Cramer, Bengel, Horne, Forster, Apost. Authority of Hebrews, pp. 625 f. etc.), or some Pauline letter no longer extant (so, e.g., Pott, Khl, Spitta, Zahn, Bigg). This allusion (cp. Spitta, 286 f.) to a collection of Pauline + This is used by those who, like Mayor recently, argue for the Roman destination of the writing. epistles is therefore an anachronism which forms an indubit-able water-mark of the second century, and which is corro-borated by the allusion to your apostles in 32, where the context, with its collocation of prophets and apostles, reflects the second-century division of scripture into these two classes. The general period is further indicated by (b) the dependence of the homily upon i Peter. Early in the church the differences of style between 2 Peter and i Peter led many to suspect that the former was not written by the author of the latter. “ Simon Petrus... scripsit duas epistolas, quae catholicae nominantur; quarum secunda a plerisque eius negatur propter stili cum priore dissonantiam ” (Jerome, uir. illust. 1). The differences of style and diction are exactly those which denote an individual writer, who is composing his work with i Peter, if not with the Petrine speeches in Acts, before his mind (cp. Simcox, Writers of NT, 63-69, with the older works of Olshausen and Mayerhoff, Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, 158-170). 2 Peter is more periodic and ambitious* than 1 Peter, but its linguistic and stylistic efforts only reveal by their cumbrous obscurity a decided inferiority of conception, which marks it off from i Peter. Thus—to mention only one or two characteristics in the vocabulary—IttLgop-qytiv is used, not as xopnyelv in 1 P 411 (and Paul) in a religious application, but in its ethical sense current among philosophic moralists (15); the groups of words compounded with yas and KOLKOS, which recur in i Peter, are entirely absent from the later writing; the predilection for compounds with aw disappears in 2 Peter, while in the latter rmmns replaces pdprvs, yytopat displaces Xoyiifpat, the gospel becomes an tv-roXf and the expectation of the near end (1 P 47) is prolonged indefinitely (2 P 34. 8). 1 Peter never uses words like or oaos, evoea or evoens, rpiats or uobs, virdp^us or liropovri, whereas, on the contrary, 2 Peter uses 8 Kai but never pev ...86, or d.XXrf<w, mebeo, 2zs, Wvo<s, K.X'qpovopia., c, plv<p the sing, of dXiyos, and the ideas of joy and sojourning; unlike i Peter, the writer also is fond of using awr/p (and that of Christ), roevyo, nyvoos, 68ds, and Trapovala (for okvs), though the end is not the appearance * “Neither style nor matter can be called simple. It is not altogether without eloquence, but the eloquence is elaborate and often artificial, as in the octave of virtues (i5'8). In many passages the thought is too subtle to be easily followed ” (Mayor, cxiii). of Christ but the day of terrible judgment. Even after all allowance is made for difference of subject, e.g., such con-siderations fail to account for the discrepancies of thought and expression, except upon the hypothesis of a dual authorship. “ No change of circumstances can account for the change of tone of which we are conscious on passing from the one epistle to the other” (Mayor, p. Ixxx).

* Cp. Irenus, adv. haer. v. 19. 2: substantiam [mundi] a semetipsa floruisse et esse ex se natam... alii aduentum Domini contemnunt, incarnationem eius non recipientes.

This difference of tone and style involves the pseudonymous character of 2 Peter. The writer is at pains to invest his writing with verisimilitude. Symeon Peter is made to refer to his own mission and death, foretold by Jesus (113f), to (i15, cp. above, pp. 15, 191 f.) the Petrine tradition under Mark’s gospel, to the transfiguration of which he was a witness (r16f-), and to the First epistle (31), evidently widely circulated by this time.

The recent attempt of Spitta and Zahn to explain 31 as referring to some lost epistle and not to I Peter, is based on the erroneous idea that 2 Peter is addressed to Jewish Christians (and therefore that the audience of 2 P 31 could not be that of I Peter), and on the assertion that 31 is not an accurate description of I Peter. But the latter contains teaching on the prophetic witness to Christ and on the second coming, besides at least one (51) allusion to the apostolic witness. Other features corroborate the late date. Thus, the mount of transfiguration is referred to as the holy mount (i18) quite in the sub-apostolic fashion of investing sacred scenes with a halo of pious associa-tions. Jesus is explicitly called 0es (i1, cp. 318), as in the later strata of the early Christian literature (Jn I1 2028, cp. Ign. pref, ad Eph.}. Christianity is viewed as the (holy, 221) commandment (32) transmitted through the apostles to the churches. The fathers, too, have died (34), i.e. the founders of the church, the first generation, have passed In short, even more definitely than in Judas, we are in the atmosphere which reappears not long afterwards in Tertullian’s familiar sentence (de prascr. hceret, vi.): apostolos domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent elegerunt, sed acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter nationibus assignauerunt. One outcome of this feeling is shown in the fact that the author, finding an allusion in Jud 17-18 to what he conceived a written apostolic prophecy of licentious mockers in the last days, puts into the lips of Peter (2 P 33) words which might serve as a basis for that Similarly, it is another method of adding vraisemblance to the writing when the author alludes to Peter’s part in the tradition preserved by Jn 211..

* It is sometimes argued that the pseudonymous writer would not have given himself away by thus introducing an anachronism. But, as his use of the present tense (2, 10, 12, 17, 18) already shows, he had to introduce some contemporary allusions in order to lend point to his words; whether he was conscious of the slip or not, cannot be determined. At all events, the reference is a water-mark of the date, since it is not possible to read ol irartpes in this connection as a term for the OT saints.

The author thus reveals himself as the composer of a pseudepigraphon under the honoured name of Peter (see above, pp. 40 f.). What authority he had for writing thus we do not know. “ Capit autem magistrorum uideri quae discipuli promulgarint," says Tertullian (adv. Marc. iv. 5); and if the writer felt himself a true disciple of the apostles he probably chose this literary artifice, with its self-effacing spirit, for the purpose of conveying a message which he believed to be timely and inspired. The prestige of Peter, owing to the circulation of the first epistle and the tradition of the churches, would naturally suggest the use of his name for this encyclical.

The hypothesis that the phenomena of style and expression may be accounted for by a difference of amanuensis, is as old as Jerome (ep. Hedib. 120, Quast. xi., 4 duae epistolae quae feruntur Petri stilo inter se et charactere discrepant structuraque uerborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diuersis eum usum interpretibus ’); after being revived by Calvin, who thought a follower of Peter might have written at his command, it has been more recently defended by Farrar, Cook, W. H. Simcox, and Selwyn (St. Luke the Prophet, 157 f., Luke as amanuensis). But there is no allusion to an amanuensis in the epistle, and the theory that I Peter and 2 Peter were dictated to different secretaries is a mere makeshift. The linguistic data of the epistle do not bear out the view that Aramaic oral teaching has been translated into Greek, and the ideas of the two Petrine letters are too different to permit a common authorship for both epistles. The idiosyncrasies of the writer of 2 Peter are not less striking than his dependence upon earlier authors; it is hardly too much to say that not another sentence in the extant early Christian literature can be shown to have come from his pen. I Peter has its own charm and beauty, but of the pages of 2 Peter we might almost say, as Quintilian said of the verses of Ennius, that they are more impressive than beautiful (non tantam habent speciem quantum religionem)—with this reservation, that their impressiveness is due not to the weighty Christian truths they convey (of the incarnation, the sufferings of Jesus, the resur-rection, the Spirit in the Christian, and prayer, they contain not a single syllable) but to the moral vigour and earnest feeling of the writer’s protest against the lax tendencies of contemporary gnosticising innovations.

Besides the use of Judas (pp. 348 f.), i Peter, and Josephus (pp. 28-29), the occasional and remarkable coincidences between 2 P. and the Apocalypse op Peter (cp. Chase, DB. iii. 814-816; Spitta, op. cit. 534) have been held to involve a literary relationship. Those who feel that (a) the origin of the two within the same school of religious thought is inadequate to explain the data satisfactorily, argue for (3) a use of the apocalypse in 2 P. (so, e.g,, Harnack, ACL. ii. 1. 470 f., and Weinel in HNA. i. 211 f. ii. 285f.; (c) a use of 2 P. in the apocalypse (so, e.g., Bigg; Zahn’s GK. ii. 810 f.; Belser, INT. 870-871; Mayor, cxxx-cxxxiv), or even (d) the possibility of a common authorship for both (so, e.g., hesitatingly Kuhl and Sanday’s Inspiration, 347). The popularity of the Petrine apocalypse in many churches during the second century, together with the fact that it is attested earlier than 2 P., may be held to favour J}, especially as the occurrence and sequence of the phrases in question * are more natural in the apocalypse than in the epistle; but a decision on the relationship of the two is handicapped by (i.) our ignorance of the conditions in which the Petrine literature of the second century originated, (ii.) the possibility that both + drew on common sources of a syncretistic nature, and (iii.) the fragmentary state of the extant apocalypse. The alternative lies between (a) and (b) ; in the present state of our know-ledge, the probabilities upon the whole incline to (b). It is more likely, at any rate, that the existence of the apocalypse was one of the motives which inspired the composition of 2 P. (in its apocalyptic outlook) than that 2 P 2-3 led to the fabrication of the apocalypse. The origin of the Petrine canon (gospel, acts, and epistles) during the first two centuries is one of the most enigmatic problems in the early Christian literature; but, while I P. was certainly the earliest and the Acts are certainly the latest of the group, 2 P. is linked somehow to the and the a.iroKa.\v^is not later than the middle of the second century.

* This is inherently more probable than Khl's idea that Jud 17-18 is a quotation from 2 P 33. The author of 2 Peter draws on Judas, as Eusebius in the ninth chapter of his Praparatio Euangelica (bk. ix.) lifts material, without acknowledgment, from Joseph. Apion, i. 22.

The determination of the epistle’s relation to the Petrine apocalypse is practically the only clue to the period of its com-position in the second century. Most critics suggest c. A.D. 150 {e.g. Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Mangold, Renan, S. Davidson: ii. 523 f., Holtzmann, von Soden, Chase, Jacoby in NT Ethik, 459 f., and Briickner), though some go earlier (before A.D. 130, Ramsay, Simcox, Strachan) and others later {e.g. Semler [in Paraphrasis: ‘ alteram uero epistolam seculo demum secundo tribuere audeo et quidem fere labenti’], Keim, Sabatier, Pfleiderer, Schenkel, Schwegler, van Manen, and Harnack). The terminus ad quem is furnished by the fact of the epistle being known to Origen (Eus. H. E. vi. 25), and possibly to Clement of Alexandria. This renders it impossible to descend later than c. A.D. 170. How * The two writings would be brought closer together, if 2 P 116f. ( = Apoc. Pet. § 2) were taken, as by Hofmann, to denote a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the twelve; but this interpretation is improbable (cp. Spitta, 89 f., ZNW., 1911, 237-242). t The parallel between the apocalypse (1) and 2 P 21f is hardly closer than that between Justin’s Dial, lxxxii. For the Jewish traits of the apocalypse, see M. Gaster in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1893, 571 f., and A. Marmorstein in ZNW. (1909) 297-300. much earlier one can mount, depends upon the view taken of its relations to the apocalypse of Peter and Justin Martyr (see below). When the epistle is considered to have been written by Peter, the terminus ad quem of its composition is naturally the latter’s death, i.e. within the seventh decade of the first century. But the historical reconstructions involved in such theories are more or less hypothetical. The Petrine authorship still finds one or two defenders (e.g. Henkel, Camerlynck, and Dillenseger, in the Roman church); R. A. Falconer {Exp. 1902, June, July, August) regards it as a genuine circular epistle addressed by Peter to the churches of Samaria, while others conjecture that it was prompted by the disorder at Corinth and written, previous to i P., either from Antioch to the Jewish Christians of Palestine before the seventh decade (Zahn) of the first century, or to Asiatic churches troubled by stragglers from the main body of the Corinthian errorists (Bigg). But, apart from the insuperable internal difficulties and the absence of all primitive tradition, even the ingenious attempt of Zahn and Spitta to regard it as more Petrine than i P. is shipwrecked on the linguistic data, and the defence of B. Weiss falls with his impossible date for i P. In short, (a) it is incredible that a manifesto issued by Peter during the seventh decade of the first century should only appear in tradition at a very late period, and even then be received with considerable suspicion; and (b) it is worse than paradoxical to sacrifice the priority and even the authenticity of i P. in order to avoid the conclusion that a pseudepigraphon like 2 P. could be admitted into the canon.

To sum up: in the strictest sense of the term, 2 Peter is a catholic epistle, addressed to Christendom in general (i1 316); it may be defined as a homily thrown into epistolary guise, or a pastoral letter of warning and appeal. Unlike i P. (11-2), it is directed to no church or group of churches; the references in 112f. and 3lf- belong to the literary drapery of the writing, and there is an entire absence of any personal relation between the writer and the church or churches. No evidence points to Gentile much less to Jewish Christians as the audience specially in the writer’s mind. The problem of the Jewish Law does not exist for him and his readers.

The origin of the pastoral has been usually given as Egyptian (Mayerhoff, op. cit. pp. 193f.; Harnack, Chase); but the Apocalypse of Peter was circulated far beyond Egypt, even if it was written there; Philonic traits do not prove any local origin for an early Christian writing; and the evidence is too insecure to point decisively to Egypt rather than to Syro-Palestine or even Asia Minor (cp. Deissmann’s Bible Studies, 360 f., for parallels from an early decree of Stratonicea). Indications of its date and soil are not to be expected in the case of this or of any pseudepigraphon. “ The real author of any such work had to keep himself altogether out of sight, and its entry upon circula-tion had to be surrounded with a certain mystery, in order that the strangeness of its appearance at a more or less considerable interval after the putative author’s death might be concealed" (Stanton, JTS. ii. 19). § 4. Integrity.—Some critics who feel the sub-apostolic atmosphere, but who are reluctant to admit that the epistle is pseudonymous, have attempted to clear up the literary problems by recourse to the hypotheses of (a) interpolation, and {I) trans-position. The most plausible statement of the former (a) is Khl's theory that 21-32 is an interpolation from the epistle of Judas, dovetailed into 2 Peter. On this view, the original form of the letter is to be found in 11-21 32-18, the allusion to prophecy in i20'21 being immediately followed by the exhortation (32f-) to remember the words of the prophets. But (i.) the debt to Judas is not confined to 21-32. Echoes of the earlier writing are audible in 11-21, so that the connection between Jud. and 2 P 2132 is not of itself sufficient to justify the excision (Bertholdt, Einl. 3157 f.; Khl, and Weiffenbach in TLZ., 1898, 364 f.) of the latter passage f as a later interpolation, much less of 120b-33a (Gess, j)as Apost. Zeugniss von Christi Person, ii. 2. pp.

414 f.), or even of 2137 (13) (Bartlet, AA. pp. 518-521); such attempts are usually dictated by a desire to conserve the rest of the epistle as an original Petrine writing, the canonical epistle being a later edition of the original brought up to date by the incorporation of the bulk of the epistle of Judas, (ii.) There are no differences of style in 2131 and in the rest of the epistle sufficiently decisive to warrant their separation on the score of t Ullmann’s suggestion, that ch. I is the fragment of a lost original epistle of Peter, is not more convincing than Lange’s deletion of 120-33 {Das apost. Zeitalter, i. pp. 152 f.) or Bunsen’s theory that 11-12+318 represents the original writing {Ignatius u. seine Zeit, DD. 175 flinternal evidence; cp. the use of rea (21:3 37 16), rhpev (24.9.17 37), evroAy (221 32), 7)fj.epa KpLcrew^ (29 37), *8(0? (13.20 21 22 33. 16-17), and the occurrence of lmyvoois (12 220), etc. The mockers of 33f. are not different from the libertines of 21f. (iii.) This argument is corroborated by the fact that in chs. 1-2 alike there are uniform traces of Apoc. Pet, which militates against the theory of two separate authors, though not against the cognate view of Grotius,* who held that 1-2 and 3 were different epistles (31 alluding to 1-2) by Symeon, the Jewish Christian successor of James in the bishopric of Jerusalem (IIrpos and 6 roroos in i1 being interpolated, as well as 6 yamnrs huv 8eds in 315, by those {qui spectabiliorem et uendibiliorem uoluerunt facere hanc epistolam’). Finally, (iv.) the transition between 120-21 and 21 is not artificial. The allusion to true prophecy leads the writer to digress into a warning against the false prophets of his own age, and to find parallels between the propaganda of the future and the past.

*The anticipatory references in 116f to the errorists mentioned in the later section of the epistle are connected with 310f.

The last-named argument tells equally against (b) P.

Ladeuze’s ingenious conjecture that 31-16 has been displaced, by a scribe’s error, from its original position after 23a (RB., 1905, 543-552). Such a rearrangement, it is claimed, smoothes out the roughness of connection between the prophetic future of 21-3a and the present of 23b, since this change of outlook is mediated by 31'8- 4f.; it also acquits the author of the awkward digression of ch. 2, where he seems to forget the question of the advent with which he had started, for on this rearrangement the warnings against errors on the advent precede the negative section (316 23b-22), which warns the faithful against the seductive arguments of the errorists. The material basis for such a hypothesis cannot be pronounced quite impossible, although it seems too elaborate to suppose that some copyist of the arche-type, who was interrupted at 280, began again by mistake at 23b and only added the omitted passage at the close, perhaps marking the error by a note on the margin which has disappeared. This implies that the archetype was in roll form; but even were it otherwise, the transposition of a leaf would be a possible accident; and in a palimpsest of the eighth or ninth century it is pointed out that 23b-22 (75 lines) is almost equal in length to 31-16 (72 lines). On the other hand, the object of the * So Weber, De numero epistolarum ad Corinthios rectius constituendo, pp. 153 f., laying undue stress on the tense of pdc (31). transposition is unnecessary, as the interchange of futures and presents is explicable otherwise; the collocation of 316 and 23b is unduly harsh; and 317 (vueis ov) falls abruptly after 220-22. §5. Setting and history in early church.—No clear trace of the epistle’s existence can be found till comparatively late in the second century. The allusions to Noah’s preaching of repentance in Clem. Rom. (vii. 6, ix. 4, xi. 1, cp. 2 P 25) imply no more than an acquaintance with the Jewish haggada already current in earlier Jewish literature (see above, p. 25). Meyalompemns, besides being associated (in substantival form) with the divine 06 f in the Psalter (LXX), is one of Clem.’s favourite adjective*s, so that the phrase Th ueyaXomperel 80^ avrov (ix. 2) is as likely a proof that 2 P. (i17) used Clem, as that Clem, used 2 P. No literary relation need be postulated, however, for the phrase may be liturgical (cp. Chase, p. 799), and any other coincidences (e.g. the way of truth, t xxxv. 5 = 2 P 22, xxxiv. 4 and 2 Clem, v. 5 = 2 P I4) are slight. The description of those who were sceptical of the second advent (xxiii. 2, miserable are the double-minded which doubt in their soul and say, We heard that even in the time of our fathers, but, lo! we have grown old, and nothing of it has befallen us} recalls 2 P 34; but Clem, expressly quotes it t from some ypattf, perhaps Eldad and Modad (see above, p. 32); he would probably have cited the phrase more definitely had he had 2 P. before his mind. The scanty verbal coincidences (noted especi-ally by Mayerhoff and Spitta) in 2 Clem, are due ultimately to a common acquaintance with the LXX, while the description of the final conflagration (xvi. 3) draws on the same myth as that employed in 2 P 37, just as Barn, xv. 4, with 2 P 38, Justin (Dial. Ixxxi.), and Irenaeus (v. 23. 2), independently reflect the Jewish tradition, preserved, e.g., in Jub iv. 30 and Slav. En xxxiii. 1. Either or both of these causes, i.e. use of older Jewish Greek scriptures and indebtedness to Jewish traditions, may reasonably be held to explain any parallels between the epistle and Test. XII. Patr., or Hermas,§ or Melito (cp. Westcott’s Canon, pp. 222-223). There is nothing to show that it was known to Irenaeus, who quotes (iv. 9. 2, Petrus ait in epistola sua) i Peter, while the apparent reminiscences in Clem. Alex., who must have known it if he commented on all the catholic epistles (Eus. H. E. vi. 14), are neither clear nor definite. The apparent echoes in the Latin version of Actus Petri cum Simone may be interpolated. (e.g. xix. 2, xxxv. 1, cp. 2 P Is). t Cp. Herm. Vis. iii. 7. I, and Clem. Alex. Protrept. § 106.

* Similarly he loves to speak of God’s glorious and marvellous gifts

J In 2 Clem. xi. 2 it is again loosely cited as 6 TTpo^prcKos \6yos, which throws light on the atmosphere in which 2 P. (cp. I19) was composed. See, further, 2 Clem. xi. = 2 P 33-4. § Spitta’s (Drc. ii. 399-409) discussion is convincing as against the use (Warfield, Zahn) of 2 P. by Hermas; but his argument that 2 P. depends on the Jewish original of Hermas, partakes too much of special pleading.

On the other hand, there are some threads of evidence which suggest that, like the apocalypse of Peter, with which it was associated in some circles of the early church, the epistle must have been composed by c. A.D. 150. The use of ^oSos = martyrdom (cp. I15) in the epistle of Lyons and Vienne would not itself be decisive (cp. DB. iii. 770), but another phrase (0 53 otauoov Katpos OVK pys avTois ouSe Shapiros iylvero, Eus. H. E. v. 145) is too unique to be almost anything than a reminiscence of 2 P 18 (olK pyos o63b aKoy-rovs); cp. also the description of the apostates as ‘ sons of perdition BXaodnuovres Thv o66v ’ (2 P 22 81 ot)? h 688s Ths dXrfeias flXaap'ppCTai), and of Alexander the physician as OVK dpotpos diroa-roXiKov xaplaparos (2 P I1, where hulv=the apostles). Secondly, although ^/ev6o8i8a.<TKa\os could easily be formed on the analogy of terms like ^ev6o7rpo</>Tjrai and ^evSoairbaToXoi, still its use in Justin’s Dial, Ixxxii. (‘as there were also false prophets in the time of the holy prophets who arose among you \i.e. Jews], so, too, are there in the present day many false teachers, of whom our Lord forewarned us’), especially in view of 2 P 21 (‘ false prophets also appeared among the People [i.e. the Jews], as among you also there shall be false teachers.. al peaces airaiXelas), seems more than an accidental coincidence. As the context shows, Justin is referring loosely to Mt 24%. when he speaks of the Lord’s warning; but this does not exclude the Petrine reference in the preceding words, particularly as alpea-eis and false prophets are conjoined in Dial. li.; cp., too, Apol. i, 28 (KO.1 yap n lircpovT} TOV unmo TOVTO rrpa^ae TOP Oebv 6id rb v@priov yevos yeyiv-pTac irpoyinbaKei yap rivas CK peravolas <TU07i<rea0a.e) f with 39. Thirdly, Theophilus of Antioch some years later appears to have 2 P I21 in mind when he writes of ol 53 rov Qeov dvOpusroe TTvevparb^opoi TVCVparos dylov Kal irpoppTai yevopevot (ad Autol. ii. 9), though irvevpaToepbpos does occur in the LXX (Hos 97, Zeph 34); and he is as likely to have derived the idea of ad Aut. ii. 13 (0 Xyos avrov, dalvov wairep Xvxvo^ v olxhuar <rvvex°plv^, lepatTeejcv Try vir’ oipavov) from 2 P I19 as from 4 Es 1242, whence the author of 2 P. drew it (cp. Schott, pp. 278 f.). Here as else-where such verbal echoes do not necessarily imply literary filiation. All they denote may be the existence of the book which first gave currency to the particular phrase or phrases; the latter would often pass into the Christian parlance and be used by those who knew little or nothing of their origin. Thus with regard to 2 Peter, “ the church of Vienne, for example, may have quoted one of its phrases, and yet never have read the epistle itself. Indeed, there is reason for thinking that the epistle did not enjoy a wide circulation. Otherwise it would be difficult to account for the extremely bad state of the text” (Bigg, p. 211; cp. Vansittart in Journal of Philology, iii. 537). Even in the fourth century it was not only rejected by the Syrian canon but regarded with suspicion, and more than suspicion, in most circles of the Western church.

* Were it alone, this might be referred to the Apoc. Petri, 22, 28

(fXaaf'ppouvres r'qv o8bv Ths biKaioaivrf). t His failure to cite 2 P 3 when (Apol. i. 20) proving belief in the world-conflagration is significant, but it should not be pressed too far. Origen’s similar silence (c. Cels. iv. 11. 79) is probably due to his suspicion of the epistle, whose conception of the fire differed from his own.

(D) Ephesians

LITERATURE.—(a) Editions—Launcelot Ridley, Comm. on Ephesians (London, 1540); J. Nacchiante, Enarrationes in Eph. (Venice, 1554); Musculus, Comment. in epp. ad Galatas et Ephesios (1561); M. Bucer, Pralectiones in Ephes. (1562); Binemann’s Expositio (London, 1581); Robert Rollock’s Commentarius (Edinburgh, 1590); B. Battus (1619); P. Bayne (London, 1643); D. Dickson’s Expositio Analytica (Glasgow, 1645); Principal R. Boyd (London, 1652); Fergusson of Kilwinning (Edinburgh, 1659); G. Calixtus {Expositio litt. in epistolas ad Eph. Col., etc., 1664-1666); Locke (London, 1707); P. J. Spener (1707); P. Dinant, de Brief aan die Efese (1711); M. Harmeken (1731); A. Royaards, Paulus1 brief aan de Ephesen schriftm. verklaart (Amsterdam, 1735-8); J. D. Michaelis (1750); Schulz (Leipzig, 1778); J. A. Cramer, neue Uebersetzung des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst eine Auslegung (Hamburg, 1782); F. A. W. Krause (1789); Miiller (Heidelberg, 1793); S. F. N. Morus (Leipzig, 1795); G. C. Popp, Uebersetzung u. Erkidrung der drei ersten Kapital des Briefs an die Eph. (Rostock, 1799); J. F. von Flatt’s Vorlesungen (1828); K. R. Hagenbach (1829); F. Holzhausen (Hanover, 1833); L. J. Ruckert (Leipzig, 1834); G. C. A. Harless (1834); F. K. Meier (Berlin, 1834); C. S. Matthies (1834); T. Passavant, Versuch einer prakt. Auslegung, etc. (Basel, 1836); Baumgarten-Crusius (Jena, 1847); De Wette2 (1847); Stier (Berlin, 1848); C. Kahler (Kiel, 1854); C. Hodge (New York, 1856); S. H. Turner (New York, 1856); Harless2 (Stuttgart, 1858); R. E. Pattison (Boston, 1859); Newland (Oxford and London, i860); Olshausen (i860); Bleek’s Vorle-sungen (Berlin, 1865); Schenkel 2 (1867, Lange’s Bibel-Werk} •, Braune2 {ibid. 1875, Eng. tr. of first ed. New York, 1870); Ewald {Sendschreiben, 1870); Hofmann (Nordlingen, 1870); Koster (1877); Hahn4 (1878); Reuss (1878); W. Schmidt (—Meyer5, 1878); Eadie 3 (Comm, on Gk. Text of Epistle of Paul to Eph., Edinburgh, 1883); J. Ll. Davies 2 (London, 1884); Ellicott5 (1884)*; Schnedermann {Kurzgef. Comm. 1888); M. F. Sadler (London, 1889); J. Agar Beet (1890 f.); J. T. Beck’s Erkidrung d. Briefes P. an die Eph. (Giitersloh, 1891); A. Kibpper (Gottingen, 1891)*; H. Oltramare (Paris, 1891); J. Macpherson (Edinburgh, 1892); von Soden2 (HC., 1893)*; J. S. Candlish (Edinburgh, 1895), G. Wolilenberg (Strack-Zockler, 1895); B. Weiss (1896); T. K. Abbott (ICC. 1897, ‘primarily philological’); Haupt8 (— Meyer, 1902)*; G. C. Martin (CB. n. d.); J. A. Robinson* (1903); S. D. F. Salmond (EGT. 1903); Krukenberg {Des Brief P. an die Epheser, Gutersloh, 1903); W. Lueken 2 (SNT. 1907); Baljon (1907); Westcott2 (1907); F. A. Henle2 (1908); J. E. Belser (1908); Gross Alexander (New York, 1910); P. Ewald2 (ZK. 1910) *. {b} Studies—(i.) general:—J. F. Burg, Analysis logica, etc. (1708); F. Coulin, Recherches critiques sur lip. aux Ephisiens (1851); E. Coquerel, Etudes dogmatiques sur PPpttre aux EphPsiens (1852); Chottin, Rude sur PPpitre aux Eph. (1858); R. Stier, Die Gemeinde in Christo Jesu. Auslegung des Briefes an die Epheser (Berlin, 1848-9); R. W. Dale (The Epistle to the Ephesians^, 1892); G. G. Findlay (Expos, Bible, 1892); Gore (a Practical Exposition, 1898); Jlicher (EBi. i. 866 f.). (ii.) specially against Paul’s authorship:—Baur’s Paul (Eng. tr. ii. pp. 1-44); Hoekstra 374 'HOMILIES AND PASTORALS (TT., 1868, pp. 599 f.); Schwegler, NZ. ii. 330 f., 375 f.; Planck {Theol. Jahrb., 1847, 461 f. ); Hitzig, zur Pazil. Briefe (1870), 22 f.; Weizscker (AA. ii. 240 f.); Renan, iii., xii. f.; Honig (ZIZT., 1872, 63 f.); Briickner {Chron. 257 f.); S. Davidson {INT. ii. 261-300); von Soden {/PT., 1887, 103 f., 432 f., and I NT. 284-305); Cone, The Gospel and its earliest Inter-pretations (255-260); von Dobschiitz {Urc. 175 f.); Pfleiderer’s Urcf ii. 210 f.; Clemen, Paulus, i. pp. 138 f.; R. Scott, The Pauline Epistles (1909), 180-208. (iii.) for Paul’s authorship:—Liinemann, de epist. ad Eph. authentia, lectoribus, consilio (Gottingen, 1842); W. F. Rinck, disputatio ad authent. ep. P. ad Ephes, probandam (1848); Rabiger, de Christologia Pauli contra Baurium Commentatio (18^2); Schenkel {BL. ii. 120-127); Sabatier (ESR. iv. 439-442, and in his Patil, p. 225 f.); McGiffert (AA. 378-385); Hort (Romans and Ephesians, 1895, 65-184); A. Robertson (Smith’s DBr947 f.; Lock (DB. i. 714 f.); Brunet, I?authenticity de Pypttre atix Eph^siens (1897; Bartlet (AA. 189 f.); Shaw, Patiline Epistles^ (331 f.); B. W. Bacon, Story of St. Paul (1905, 299 k); R. J. Knowling, Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, 94 f. (iv.) on special points:—Haenlein, de lectoribus Epist. ad Ephesios (Erlangen, 1797); van Bemmelen, Epistolce ad Eph. et Coloss, collates (1803); W. C. Perry (de rebus Ephesiorum, Gottingen, 1837); Meritan (RB., 1898, 343-369, ‘ L’ecclesiologie de I’epitre aux Ephesiens ’ ); J. Albani, ‘die Metaphern des Epheserbriefes’ (ZWT., 1902, 420-446); Griffith Thomas (ExpA ii. 318-339, doctrine of church); M. Dibelius, die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (1909), 155-169; Harnack, Die Adresse des Epheserbriefes des Paulus (from SBBA., 1910, 696-709). § 1. Outline and contents.—After an extremely brief address (11-2), the pastoral opens into the first of its two large sections (13-319); this is divided by a brief doxology (320-21) from the second (41-620), which concludes with a few lines of personal detail (621-24). jS-n is a glowing paragraph of praise, in rhythmical strophes (Innitzer, ZTK., 1904, 612-621, and Coppieters in RB., 1908, 74-88), to God for his complete and gracious revelation to men in Christ, followed by a prayer that the readers may have a perfect knowledge of this open secret in Christ as the head of the church (115-23). Their personal experience of such a salvation is due to grace alone (21-10), and as Gentile Christians they should especially realise the gracious union effected by Christ between themselves and the Jewish Christians (211-22). Of this gospel for Gentile Christians, Paul is the chosen herald (31-13), and the section closes with an impressive prayer for their attain-ments in the Christian experience (314-21, resuming the ideas of 115-19). The second section (41= 210) expounds the ethical obligations of this privilege, unity (41-16) being set in the fore-front.1 Then follows (417 resuming the thought of 41) a series of 1 On 48f. cp. Dalmer in SIC. (1890) pp. 579 f. counsels on purity of conduct (417-24, 424=210), and the general morals of the new life (425-52 53’5- 6-21), concluding with a house-hold table of maxims for wives and husbands (522-24. 25-33), parents and children (61-4), and slaves and masters (65-9). A final word of exhortation on the spiritual conflict (610-18) drifts into a brief request for prayer on Paul’s behalf (619-20). § 2. Relation to Colossians.—The most obvious feature of Eph. consists of its resemblances to and differences from Colossians. The relationship between the two writings forms an intricate problem of literary criticism, which is almost decisive upon the larger question of the period and author-ship of Ephesians. In striking a balance between the competing proba-bilities, the weight of the arguments (such as they are) inclines upon the whole to favour the authenticity of Colossians and the sub-Pauline origin of Ephesians (so, e.g., Ewald, Mangold, von Soden, Klopper, Heinrici, von Dobschiitz, Clemen, Lueken, and Wrede), and the basis for this hypothesis—at best it is only a working hypothesis—lies in a comparative analysis of the two writings. That there is a connection between them is admitted on all hands. Those who hold that both were written by the same author either place them together in the second century or attribute them both to Paul. On the latter hypothesis, he read over Colossians (or a copy of it) before writing Ephesians, or else composed the letter when his mind was still full of what he had just addressed to the church of Colosse. The relationship in this event would resemble that of the Thessalonian letters, when 2 Thess. is accepted as genuine. As against the hypothesis that a Paulinist wrote Eph. on the basis of Colossians, it is argued that so original a genius as this writer would not need to reproduce so much of Colossians, and that the relationship is psychologically more credib*le if Paul wrote both. But—leaving out of account the relationship of 2 P. to 1 P., since Eph. is far superior in massiveness and height to the former—the synoptic problem is enough to show that the deliberate employment of a source was not incompatible with original work on the part of an early Christian writer, and Eph. may be fairly regarded as a set of variations played by a master hand upon one or two themes suggested by Colossians.

The literary phenomena, in outline, are as follows:— (11-2) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timotheus our brother, to the saints and faithful brothers in Christ which are at Coloss: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.

(11-2) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints which are [at Ephesus,] also the faithful brothers in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(i3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.) (i3) We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, (14) having (i15) FOR THIS CAUSE I ALSO, having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which you have toward all the saints *... (19) FOR THIS CAUSE WE ALSO, since the day we heard it, DO NOT CEASE to pray and make request for you, that you heard of the faith'in the Lord Jesus which is among you and of your love toward all the saints, (i16) CEASE NOT to give thanks for you, making mention oj may be filled with the knowledge of you in my prayers, (117) that the God his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding.

* “ Imitators do not pour out their thoughts in the free and fervid style of this epistle” (Davies, of. cit. p. 9).

(110) to walk worthily of the Lord . • -t (113. ) The son of his love, in whom we have our redemption, the forgive-ness of our sins...

(i16) in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, efre dpivot etre KvpdrT-yres etre dpxal etre igowlac. (118-19) and he is the head§ ot THE BODY, THE CHURCH... that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, Sri iv avrip euSoKrprev irav rb vX-fipiop-a || KaroiKyjaai. (120) Kal l’ ahrov airoKaTaWd^at rd rvra els avrov, elprjvoirofaas 8ia TOV a'ip.aros TOY oraupo aurov, whether THINGS UPON THE of our Lord Jesus Christ... may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

(41) I beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called.

(i8t ) in the Beloved, in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our tres-passes... $ (i21) far above all dpxss Kal i^ovalas Kal uvuews Kal KvpihrijTos. (l10 all things in him, things in the heavens and things upon the earth.) (122-23) And he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to THE CHURCH, WHICH IS HIS BODY, rd tdlfpwpja TOV rd Tvra iv irdmv irX-qpw ji.lv ov.

(110) avaKerpaXaiwaaadai rd v&VTa iv Tip XpiaTip, THINGS IN (mi) THE HEAVENS AND THINGS UPON THE EARTH... (2156) that he + Also Col in = Eph i19 316, Col 112= Eph 529 (elxapicrovres Tip Harpl). J Except 216 (cross = means of amalgamating Jewish and Gentile Christians), this is the only allusion to Christ’s death in Eph.—an advance upon the Pauline view in the direction of the Johannine. The sacrifice of Jesus (52) is simply adduced as an example of love for Christians (cp. i P 221f. in another aspect of imitation). § In Col. = headship over supernatural spirits and the church alike, in Eph. — (primarily) headship over the church. || Cp. Eph 319 (lva irXijpuOfjre els trap rd irXfipio/M TOV 6eov). Note different use of KaToiKijaat in Col 119 and Eph 317.

* Also minor parallels in Col i5 = Eph 112-13, Col 13= Eph 423 (love and the Spirit).

EARTH OR THINGS IN (ex) THE HEAVENS.

(i21) And you iroTi Svras ryXXoTpiupevovs Kal x@povs ry Siavolq., (i22) y*et now has he reconciled (aTToKar-fiWa^ev) t in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unre-provable before him: if so be§ that you continue in the faith Te0epeXiupivoi and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister. might create in himself of the twain one new man, ttolSiv elpyvyv, Kal aTToKaTaWd^Tj both jin one body unto God Sia. TOU graupov.

(21) And you... (2s) irotovvTes rd 0eXypaTa Tfs trapes Kai TUV Biavoiwv ... (212) aic>]XXoTpiojp.^voi.. . (213) having slain r^v Ex@pav in him...

(418) i<rKvru>iUvoi ry biavolq. 6vres, aT7)W0Tpi0)/J^V0l... (215-16) having abolished in his flesh the enmity... might reconcile (d.TroKaTaXXd^y) them both in one body... (14) to be holy and with-out blemish before him... $ (527) that he might present the church to himself... holy and without blemish...

(317) rooted and TedeixeXMp^voi. in love...

(37) by the gospel, whereof I was made a minister.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings (31) For this cause I Paul, the for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of TOv OXl^ewv TOV Xpiorov in my flesh iirip TOV ouaros airov, which is the church; prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles. ». (313) I ask that you faint not at iv rats OXtyecrlv pov inrep vpuv. (122-23, the church which is TO aupa abrov.) 39 h otKovopla TOV pvarijplov rov dsr OKeKpv ppiv ov (i25) whereof I was made a minister (32) dirb TO>v alvov. t , Kari Tyv olKOVoplav TOV 0eov T^V So-Oeladv poi els ius, to fulfil the word of God, (32) T^V olKovoptav Ths x&piTos TOV 0eov Ths SoOeloys poi els upas, (33) how that by revelation yvopion to me rb + In Col. = reconciliation of supernatural powers and of sinners to God, in Eph = reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles together (211f.) to God; hence the change in the conceptions of the Body, making peace, and the enmity. The function of reconciliation, which in 2 Co 518f. and even in Col. is attributed to God, is transferred in the higher Christology of Eph. to Christ; a similar instance occurs in I Co 1228= Eph 411 (authorship of gifts)..

* So Eph 213 (yet now).

J The addition of tv dymn (a frequent phrase), as the form in which the spotless character manifests itself, is an un-Pauline touch. § el ye as in Eph 421. even TA uvorhptov Tb * pvaT^piov.. . (35) 8 e ri pais ereas iiroKeKpvppivov i.irb TUV aldivuv Kal zr TUV EveOv—but has now t been manifested TOIS ay io is avrov, ots yOlXyaev b 0es yvupltrai, TI TA TTXOVTOS rys 36^?;s $ TOV pvaryplov TOIITOV iv TOLS idveaiv, which is Christ in you, h iXirls rys kns. ... that we may present? every man TiXeiov iv XpiaTip, (22) <Tvp.pi3aa-9evTes iv ayiiry... els isrlyvoiaiv rou pvaTiiplov TOV 9eov, XpLarov.