YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 1936 THE FOREIGN BIBLICAL LIBRARY. EDITED BY THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., Editor of the " Expositor" WEISS' MANUAL OF INTROD.UCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. NEW YORK : FUNK & WAGNALLS, ASTOR PLACK. A MANUAL OF INTRODUCTION TO THE . NEW TESTAMENT. BY DR. BERNHARD WEISS, i„ Ober-Konsistorialrath and Professor of Theology. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY A. J. K. DAVIDSON. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. I. NEW YORK: FUNK & WAGNALLS, ASTOR PLACE. (All Rights Reserved.) PRESS OP FUNK & WAGNALLS, 18 and 20 Astor Place. HEW YORK PREFACE. It is almost necessary for me to apologize for putting forth an Introduction to the New Testament without being in a position to offer the results of recent, not to say the most recent, researches. Even the history of tbe Canon, which I hope I have advanced a step beyond the current combin ation and critical explanation of isolated facts, contains only the expansion of fundamental thoughts to which I have already given expression in a review of Credner's " History of the Canon " (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1863, 1). But the special Introduction touches on few problems, apart perhaps from the sections on the Corinthian and Johaunine Epistles and the Acts, on which I have not already had occasion to ex press my opinion, discussing them minutely in some cases, and in many cases more than once. And although I am con scious of having learnt on all points, even from opponents, and of having in many respects advanced my conceptions, yet their basis has been preserved throughout. Nor is it the design of this book to assail with a renewed appeal for their assent, those who have hitherto been unable to accept the same fundamental views, much less those who have rejected them with vehemence, though without close exami nation, although I believe there is much that finds more favourable elucidation and more convincing proof from the unbroken connection of a general historical and critical survey in which it is here seen. My main object in this instance was not to give a statement of my views, but to VI PREFACE. furnish a manual with the best methodical arrangement, the want of which I had long felt in my academical office. Repeated attempts have indeed been made to satisfy this want, more especially of late ; but these attempts fall too far short of the ideal I had hitherto formed of such a manual. In my view, the main thing in an Introduction to the New Testament is neither criticism nor apologetics, but the actual initiation into a living, historical knowledge of Scripture. In fact, all that I have hitherto published in the department of theology bas only had this one aim, since it appears to me that nothing less than the whole future of theology and the Church depends on the wider diffusion and deeper character of such an understanding of the Scriptures. But I find this knowledge of Scripture endangered not only on the side of dogma, and by the unfortunate virtuosoship that makes the word of Scripture the sport of individual combinations of ideas or of brilliant rhetoric, but also on the side of criticism, where in the attempts to point out the historical influences of the time or the strife of dogmatic tendencies in the New Testament Scriptures, their religious character has only too often been utterly misapprehended. For this reason I have entered more minutely than is usual into an analysis of the train of thought of each particular writing, into the question of its religious and literary pecu liarity, its composition as well as its historical premises and aims. In so doing it is obvious that I could only set out with tbe views I bad matured in tbe course of long, familiarity with tbe New Testament, even where these have hitherto met with more opposition than assent. I am incapable tbe self-denial necessarily involved in making myself a mouth-piece for different views, a self-denial which is in many cases only apparent, betraying by incidental hints the contempt with which it looks down on all that does not fit into its own pattern. Nor do I hold it advisable merely to set PEE FACE. Vll antagonistic opinions before him who desires to be instructed in such matters, without even attempting to show him a way in which to reconcile them. I believe that my opinions, the result of frequent aud thorough examination, have at least the same claim to acceptance as those of my predeces sors. I am conscious of having arrived at tbem, not in obe dience to a preconceived theological view, but by impartial enquiry, and I maintain that tbey are just as much based on a general historical survey of the relations of the apostolic period, as the criticism that is so prone to claim for itself exclusively, the name historical. On the other baud I have entire respect for all earnest scientific enquiry, even when it takes another direction than what appears to me correct ; and I am not satisfied with a peremptory rejection of its results. I have endeavoured throughout to follow the history of scientific research as closely as possible into each separate question, and to present it to tbe reader. I have also allowed a bearing to tbe opposite view, with its reasons, and have endeavoured from history itself to learn and to teach bow it may be refuted, though in every instance I look for the chief decision from the positive statement of the case agreeably to, the sources from which it is drawn. The dependence on traditional premises, which is as great on tbe critical as on tbe apolo getic side, I have now as ever fearlessly resisted, even where it is most confidently asserted. I do not profess to have enumerated all views, or mentioned all tbe names inciden tally in favour of this or that opinion, even where such names may be renowned. Of actual fellow-workers on the problems of tbe New Testament I hope I have forgotten none. But I have not been able to follow up foreign liter ature to any extent. Holtzmann. in bis Introduction says, Christianity has been "book-religion" from tbe beginning. In answer to this, I can only say, God be praised that it is not so. Tbe opposi- Vlll PREFACE. tion of my conception of the New Testament to that of many modern critical tendencies, is perhaps most sharply concen trated in this antithesis. Christianity bas from the begin ning been Life ; and because this life pulsates in its primitive documents, these cannot be explained or understood on the hypothesis of " literary dependences." I do not pretend to have entirely comprised within tbe limits of my Introduc tion this life, tbe fuller and deeper grasp of which is the aim of all theological science, or to have given it compre hensive expression, but I have honestly striven to do so, To tbe theologians who have been my bearers for more than thirty-four years, as well as those who in still greater numbers have received my former works on tbe New Testa ment with perfect trust, and to whom tbey have been a source of instruction, I offer this book also, as an intro duction to the rich treasury of our New Testament records. I am aware that no scientific labour can unlock its deepest secret or lay it open to the understanding. But I know too, that without such labour the theologian is not well equipped for the preaching of tbe word and tbe battle of the present that is imposed as a duty on us all. May this book, under God's blessing, contribute to that end. Berlin, August, 1886. B. WEISS. TABLE OF CONTENTS TO VOL. I. INTRODUCTION. PiOI § 1. Founding op the Science or Introduction .... 1 1. The Patristic time. 2. .The Middle Ages and the Reformation. 3. Richard Simon. 4. Joh. Dav. Michaelis. § 2. Criticism and Apologetics .... . . 7 1. Semler. Haenlein. Schmidt. 2. Eichhorn. Bertholdt. Hug. 3. Schleiermacher. De Wette. Credner. 4. Guericke. Olshausen. Neander. § 3. The Tubingen School and its Opponents .... 12 1. Ferdinand Christian v. Baur. 2. Zeller. Schwegler. Bruno Bauer. 3. Thiersch. Ebrard. Lechler. 4. Bleek. Ewald. Reuss. Ritschl. § 4. Present State of the Science 18 1. Hilgenfeld. Holsten. Volkmar. 2. The Modern Critical School. 3. Apologetic Tendencies. 4. Problem and Method of the Science of Introduction. FIRST PART. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TES "AMENT CANON. § 5. The Canon or the Lord's Woe s 28 1. Christ and the Apostles. 2. Origin of a New Testament Literature. X CONTENTS. PAOS 3. The Old Testament and the Lord's Words. 4. The Canon of the Lord's Words. 5. Oral Tradition as the Source of the Lord's Words. 6. Oldest Traces of the Written Gospels. 7. The Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of John in the Apostolic Fathers. § 6. The Oldest Traces of the New Testament Epistles . 43 1. Mention of the New Testament Epistles in the Apostolic Fathers. 2. Apostolic Authority in the Apostolic Fathers. 3. Traces of the New Testament Epistles in Clement. 4. Barnabas and Hermas. 5. Ignatius and Polycarp. C. The Clementine Homilies and the Didache. 7. Spri-ad of the New Testament Epistles. § 7. The Gospel Cakon . . .... 64 1. The Memorabilia of the Apostles in Justin. 2. The Use of the Synoptic Gospels in Justin. 3. The Fourth Gospel in Justin. 4. The Apostolic Writings in Justin. 5. The Fourth Gospel in the Apologists. 6. Tatian's Diatessaron. The Origin of the Gospel Canon. 7. The New Testament Epistles in the Apologists. § 8. The Canon of Apostolic Traditional Doctrine ... 73 1. The Oral Apostolic Traditional Doctrine. 2. The Secret Tradition of the Heretics. 3. Going back of the Heretics to the Apostolic Writings. 4. The Falsification of Scripture by Heretics. 5. The Scripture Criticism of Heretics. 6. The Canon of Marcion. 7. The Raising of the Apostolic Writings to the Rank of Sacred Writings. § 9. The New Testament at the Close of the Second Cen tury 87 1. The New Testament and its Parts. 2. The Gospels. 3. The Acts. 4, 5. The Apostolic Epistles. 6. The Apocalypse. 7. The New Testament at the End of the Second Century. CONTENTS. XI PAGE § 10. The Beginnings of the Formation of the New Testa ment Canon 102 1. The Bible of the Syrian Church. 2, 3 The Muratorian Fragmeut, 4. The West in the Third Century, 5. Fundamental Principles of Canon Formation in Origen. 6, 7. Their Application to the New Testament Writings. § 11. Tiie Close of the Canon in the East .... 119 1. The Time after Origen. 2. The Division of the New Testament Writings in Eusebius. 3. The Homologumena in Eusebius, 4. The Antilegomena in 1'usebius. 5. Lists of the Canon in the Fourth Century. 6. The Canouical Books of the New Testament. 7. Virtual Close of the Canon in the East. § 12. The Close of the Canon in the Wi-.st .... 1E5 1. Philastrius of Brescia. 2. Rufinus and Jerome. 3. Augustine. 4. The Canon and the Romish See. 5. The Middle Ages and the Council of Trent. 6. The Reformers and the Evangelical Church. 7. Criticism of the Canon. SECOND PART. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. FIRST DIVISION. THE PAULINE EPISTLES. § 13. The Apostle Paul 149 1. Saul's Descent and Youth. 2. His Conversion. 3. The Beginnings of his Missionary Activity. 4. His First Missionary Journey. 5. The Development of his Apostolic Consciousness. 6. The Development of his Gentile-Apostolic Consciousness. 7. The Name Paul. Xll CONTENTS. PAGE § 14. Paul and the Primitive Apostles lot> 1. The Standpoint of the Primitive Apostles. 2. The Missionary Activity of the Primitive Apostles. 3. The Occasion of the Apostolic Council. 4. The Liberation of the Gentile Christians from the Law, and the Apostolio Decree. 5. The Agreement Respecting the Missionary Field. 6. The Occurrence at Antioch. 7. The Primitive Apostles and Paul. § 15. Paul as a Founder of Churches 185 1. Paul in Lycaonia. Timothy. 2. The Founding of the Galatian Churches. 3. The Church at Philippi. 4. The Church at Thessalonica. 5. Paul in Beroea and Athens. 6. The Church at Corinth. 7 The Return of the Apostle. § IG Paul as an Author 201 1. The External Attestation of the Pauline Epistles. 2. Lost and Supposititious Pauline Epistles. 3. The Primitive Scriptures and their Preservation. 4. The Epistolary Form. 5. Literary Characteristics. 6. Doctrinal Characteristics. 7. The Language of the Apostles. § 17. The Thessalonian Epistles ...... 218 1. The Situation of the First Thessalonian Epistle. 2. Analysis of the Epistle. 3. Criticism of the Epistle. 4. The Second Thessalonian Epistle. 5. The Criticism of the Epistle. 6. The Misinterpretations of 2 Thess. ii. 7. The Apocalyptic Combination of Paul. § 18. The Epistle to the Galatians 234 1. The Second Visit of Paul to Galatia. 2. The Seduction of the Galatian Churches. 3. The Historical Situation of the Galatian Epistle 4-6. Analysis of the Galatian Epistle. 7. Paul in Ephesus. CONTENTS. Xll] PAGE § 19. The Corinthian Disorders 251 1. The Visit to CoriDth and the Lost Epistle to that place. 2. State of the Church at Corinth. 3. Church Meetings and Church Order. 4. The Corinthian Parties. 5. Hypothesis respecting the so-called Christ Party. 6. The Christ Disciples in Corinth. 7. The Sending of Timothy to Corinth. § 20. The First Epistle to the Corinthians .... 267 1. The Embassy from Corinth. 2-6. Analysis of the First Corinthian Epistle. 7. Paul in Troas and Macedonia (the Hypothesis of a Lost Intermediate Letter). § 21. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians .... 282 1. Accounts of Titus from Corinth. 2. Occasion of the Second Corinthian Epistle. 3-6. Analysis of the Second Corinthian Epistle. 7. Paul in Corinth. § 22. The Church at Rome . . . . . . .293 1. The Historical Situation of the Roman Epistle. 2. The Beginnings of the Roman Church. 3. The National Character of the Readers of the Roma Epistle. 4. The Polemic View of the Epistle. 5. The Conciliatory View. 6. The Prophylactic View. 7. Object of the Roman Epistle. § 23. The Epibtle to the Romans 308 1-5. Analysis of the Doctrinal Part of the Roman Epistle (Chaps, i.-xi.). 6. Analysis of the Hortatory Part (Relation of Chaps, xii. xiii. to the First Epistle of Peter. The Ascetic Direc tion of xiv. 1-xv. 13). 7. Analysis of the Close of the Epistle (Genuineness of Chaps, xv., xvi. The Letter of Commendation to Phcebe for Ephesus. Genuineness of the concluding Doxology). XIV CONTENTS. PAGE § 24. The Epistle to the Colossians "*" 1. The Apostle's Journey to Jerusalem and Imprisonment there. 2. The Captivity of the Apostle in Csesarea (Epistles written there). Accounts from Phrygia. 3. The Theosophic Ascetic Tendency in Phrygia. 4. The Development of Paulinism in the Epistles of the * Captivity. 5. Analysis of the Colossian Epistle. 6. Criticism of the Colossian Epistle. 7. The Epistle to Philemon. ' § 25. The Epistle to the Ephesians 339 1. The Original Destination of the Ephesian Epistle. 2. Analysis of the Epistle. 3. Its Relation to the Colossian Epistle. 4, 5. Criticism of the Ephesian Epistle. 6. Object of the Epistle (Relation to the First Epistle of Peter). 7. The Voyage to Rome. § 2G. The Epistle to the Philippians 358 1. The Roman Captivity of the Apostle and its Results. 2. Occasion and Object of the Philippian Epistle. 3. Analysis of the Philippian Epistle. 4, 5. The Criticism of the Philippian Epistle. 6. Historical Testimony respecting Paul's End. 7. His Liberation from the Roman Captivity. § 27. The Pastoral Epistles . . .... 374 1. Analysis of the First Epistle to Timothy. 2. Determination of the Date of the Epistle. 3. Analysis of the Second Epistle to Timothy. 4. Determination of the Date of the Epistle. 5. Situation and Contents of the Epistle to Titus. 6. Determination of the Date of the Epistle. 7. The Composition of the Three Epistles after the Apostle's Liberation. § 28. The Peculiarities of the Pastoral Epistles . . 330 1. The Doctrinal Errors Combated in the Pastoral Epistles. 2. Historical Determination of the Same. 3. The Dootrinal Method of the F.wtoral Epistles. CONTENTS. XV PAGE 4. The Mode in which they are Written. 5. Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles. 6. Beginnings of the Office of Teacher (Apostolic Helps. The Ordination of Timothy). 7. Worship in the Pastoral Epistles. 29. The Criticism of the Pastoral Epistles .... 409 1. Schleiermacher. Eichhorn. De Wette. 2. The Older Criticism Untenable. 3. The Modern Criticism of tbe Pastoral Epistles. 4. The Alleged Object of their Supposititious Character Untenable. 5. The Dividing Hypotheses. 6. The Apologists of the Epistles. 7. Result. INTRODUCTION. § 1. Founding of the Science of Introduction. 1. The history of the origin of the New Testament Canon gave spontaneous rise to a series of enquiries, in which the science of Introduction afterwards originated. When the historical memorials of the apostolic time began to acquire regulating importance in the Church, this period already lay moro than a century behind the Church Fathers, who made the origin of these memorials tbe basis of their recognition. In the writings of tbe intervening time only isolated refe rences to this origin occur ; for the most part the gap was bridged over by oral tradition alone. Even so early as tbe end of the second century, all desire for more exact knowledge as to the circumstances of their origin was virtually met by a reference to tbe utterances of these writings themselves and to conclusions derived from their contents. But when, in the third century, the need arose of limiting the circle of writings that should be valid for the Church, it immediately became apparent that tlieir transmission was neither uniform nor assured ; hence tbe necessity and warrant to test it by the character of the writings themselves. The utterances of Origen respecting tbe Epistle to the Hebrews, and of Diony sius of Alexandria respecting the writings transmitted as Jobannine, already involve a criticism on internal grounds. Eusebius of Cassarea, in his Church History (about 324), set himself the task of collecting all that be regarded as important in the opinions of earlier writers respecting the 2 INTRODUCTION. Holy Scriptures, and sought to classify them according to tbe degree of their ecclesiastical recognition in tradition. His work, notwithstanding its many deficiencies, is still tbe richest and most indispensable mine that we possess for the history of the Canon, as well as for that of tbe origin of its various writings. He was closely followed by Jerome, towards the end of the century, in bis compilation, De Viris Illustrious s. Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum (392), besides which, there is nothing of importance except a few particulars con tained in the introductions of Chrysostom's commentaries and homilies. Of the notices given by Bible manuscripts in their virodecreis or canon-lists, some are very scanty, others manifestly incorrect. Augustine indeed indulges in theore tical discussions as to tbe principles of canonicity in his work De Doctrina Christiana, but he does not get beyond the enumeration of our twenty-seven New Testament books, which were canonized by tbe African synods in his time and under his influence. 2. Throughout tbe Middle Ages tbe world was content with the " Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures " (Institutiones Divinarum et Scecularium Lectionum), written by Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus for tbe monks of bis cloister, which however, with respect to the Canon, goes back only to Jerome and Augustine.1 Nor did the Reforma tion period achieve a revision of the established ecclesiastical tradition respecting tbe Canon, on the basis of independent 1 The introductores sacra scriptura whom he enumerates, 1, 16, and among whom the work of Adrian expressly bears the title of an claayuyri ch -ras 0e£as ypaipds, are occupied almost exclusively with hermeneutic rules. The work of his contemporary, the African Junilius (Instimta Regularia Divina Legis), following the tradition of the Syrian school at Nisibis, alone enters into a classification of the Holy Scriptures according to their authority, which substantially goes back to that of Eusebius. Again, the Isagoge ad Sacras Literas of the Dominican Santes Pagninus (Lucca, 15361, which as regards the Canon simply copies Augustine is essentially hermeneutic, also the Glacis Saij/turce Sacra, of Matthias Flacius (Basle, 1567). FOUNDING OF THE SCIENCE OF INTRODUCTION. 3 historical research. Men like Erasmus and Cajetan, Luther and Carlstadt did indeed incidentally go back, in the Catholic and Protestant interest respectively, to the varying opinions of the Fathers before tbe time of tbe relative close of the Canon; Luther even venturing to assume an attitude hostile to tradition by an independent criticism of tbe Scrip tures. But after tbe Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546) had given ecclesiastical sanction to tbe estab lished Canon, Sixtus of Siena, tbe learned Dominican, in his Bibliotheca Sancta (Venice, 1566), could only make it his aim to defend this Canon against all heretical attacks, while Protestant theology, which asserted Holy Scripture to be the only source and standard of all truth, in opposition to the tradition of the Catholic Church, could not possibly be disposed to throw doubt on tbe established Canon by re searches of an historical and critical nature. It was ber interest rather to establish the theory of its inspiration, and to prove the authenticity of Holy Scripture throughout. After Andreas Rivetus, in bis Isagoge s. Introductio Generalis ad Scripturam Sacram V. T. et N. T. (Lugd. B., 1627), bad in this respect taken tbe lead in the Reformed interest, Lutheran theologians, such as Michael Waltber (Officina Biblica, Lips., 1636), and Reformed, such as Job. Heinr. Heidegger (Enchiridion Biblicon, Tigur., 1681), vied with each other in an uncritical accumulation of the necessary patristic material. It was only in Socinian and Arminian circles that a more independent judgment respecting tbe origin of individual New Testament writings was ventured upon (e.g. Hugo Grotius, in bis Annotationes in N. T., Paris, 1644). Such truly scientific work as was applied to tbe New Testament confined itself to an examination of lan guage and text, as for example tbe copious Prolegomena to tbe London Polyglot of Brian "Walton, Bishop of Chester, 1657. 3. Richard Simon, tbe learned Oratorian of Paris, is re- 4 INTRODUCTION. garded as the founder of tbe science of Introduction. His desire was to show Protestants tbe untrustworthy character of their Scripture principle, and therefore bis attention was mainly directed to tbe history of the New Testament text, which according to him bad already undergone many cor ruptions and alterations in the course of time, after the originals had been lost. He also enters minutely into the history of the translations and explanations of tbe New Testament, protests most emphatically against a mechanical conception of tbe inspiration of the word of Scripture as such, and asserts that tbe Holy Scriptures proceeded from authors who, though inspired, were still human. It is true he is far from giving an independent criticism of the New Testament Scriptures on internal grounds. He enters, however, very fully into the divergent opinions of tbe Church Fathers and heretics with regard to individual writings, which he was able to do with greater impartiality, since his Church had by its decision put an end to all vacil lation. From his standpoint it is possible for him to adhere to tbe Hebrew original of Matthew and to form a more unbiassed opinion respecting the relation between it and the Greek Gospel; he can incline towards the theory of a Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews which is only indirect, and where the language of the New Testament is concerned, can side entirely with tbe Hebraists in opposi tion to tbe Purists; and he can freely discuss tbe genuineness of tbe conclusion of Mark's gospel, the paragraph respecting tbe woman taken in adultery, and tbe passage 1 John v. 7 ; but bis judgment is still for the most part reserved.1 It was not so much tbe individual results at which he arrived as the » The principal work of Simon bearing upon the New Testament is his Histoire critique du texte du N. T. (Rotterd., 1689), with which com pare the addenda in his Nouvelles observations sur le texte, etc. (Paris 1695). The first nineteen chapters in particular treat of the authenticity of the New Testament writings and their succession. His Histoire FOUNDING OF THE SCIENCE OF INTRODUCTION. 5 new spirit of genuine historical inquiry that pervaded bis works, bringing the Holy Scriptures into suspicious analogy to other literary testimony, that drew upon him decided opposition even on tbe Catholic side (e.g. J. B. Bossuet). In any case, estimable Catholic scholars, such as Ellies du Pin (Dissertation preliminaire ou prolegcmienes sur la bible ; Paris, 1699) and Augustin Calmet (Dissertations qui peuvent servir de prolegomenes de I'ecriture sainte, Avignon, 1715, much enlarged edition) did not continue tbe work in his spirit. On tbe Protestant side, J. Heinr. Mai wrote a con tinuous criticism of his work, which was very favourably received (Examen Historical Critical N. T. a B. S. vulgatce, Gissa?, 1694) ; while others, on the Lutheran side (Job. Georg Pritius, Introductio in Lecticmem N. T., Lips., 1704), as well as the Reformed (Salomo van Til, Opus Analyticum, Traj. ad Rb., 1730) kept to tbe old course of accumulating learned material without independent scientific elabora tion. 4. Tbe department of the history of tbe text was the first in which a freer scientific movement and tbe begin nings of true criticism were reached. In tbe prolegomena which John Mill prefixed to his critical edition of the New Testament (Oxford, 1707) the ideas current in tbe Church as to tbe origin of tbe N. T. writings are adhered to absolutely and defended against all objections; but bis very history of tbe text shows that at the hands of tbe copyists it met with a fate exactly analogous to that of other works of antiquity, and his rich collection of various readings made inevitable the need of a critical examination and amendment of tbe text accepted by tbe Church. This work was in fact vigorously commenced by the Wiirtemberg prelate, Joh. critique des versions (Rotterd., 1690), and Des principaux commentateurs du N. T. (Rotterd., 1693), is of still greater importance. Respecting it, comp. Graf, in Die Beitrcige zu d. theol. Wiss., Heft 1 (Jena, 1847) ; and Baur in Die Theol. Jahrb., 1850, 4. 6 INTRODUCTION. Albr. Bengel, in bis critical edition of tbe New Testament (Tubingen, 1734), and by Job. Jac. Wetstein of Basle, in his Prolegomena to tbe New Testament (Amstelod., 1730), which appeared in an altered and enlarged form in bis edi tion of tbe New Testament (1750-51). Joh. Dav. Michaelis also, in bis " Introduction to the New Testament " (Got tingen, 1750), which at first followed R. Simon closely, but in tbe fourth edition (1788) swelled out from a moderate octavo into two large quarto volumes, occupies himself in the first part mainly with tbe history of tbe text, but in tbe second part with the origin of all the New Testament books ; from which tbe object of such a work may be seen, and the true starting-point supplied in order to a right understanding of it. But this great increase in size not only yielded new results in the department of textual criticism; tbe conception of tbe New Testament as a whole, as well as the treatment of its separate books, is unmistakably pene trated by tbe spirit of a new period which had meanwhile dawned. Tbe first edition starts with an assumption that these books were inspired, and proceeds to prove it by an appeal to miracles and prophecy as well as the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church ; while, on the other hand, the fourth edition gives prominence to the argument for their authenticity and credibility.1 The work, translated into various languages, into English by Herbert Marsh (Cam- 1 A distinction is drawn between the writings of the apostles and those of their disciples, whose inspiration he regards, as doubtful in proportion to distance of time. With admirable candour the tradition respecting each single work is examined, while mention is also made of later doubts. Cautious as his judgment is, he is not unaffected by the spirit of a freer criticism. It is a doubtful point with him whether Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. Although we cannot come to full certainty as to who was the author of the Epistle of James, he finds it more and more probable that he was the half-brother of Jesus, not the apostle. He cannot accept the Epistle of Jude as canonical ; and it appears to him almost supposititious. As to his uncertainty with respect to the Reve lation of John, he thinks it necessary to excuse himself at length. CRITICISM AND APOLOGETICS. 7 bridge, 1793), who furnished it with notes and additions (comp. tbe German translation of tbem by Rosenmiiller, Gott., 1795, 1803) is the first comprehensive attempt to extend the science of Introduction to the New Testament, and accomplishes all that the means and tbe method of bis time rendered possible. § 2. Criticism and Apologetics. 1. Tbe revolution that made way for a freer examination of tbe Canon and tbe individual books of the New Testament was mainly the work of Joh. Salomo Semler. In bis Ab- handlung von freier Uniersuchung des Kanon (Halle, 1771- 75, comp. Apparatus ad liberalem Ni Ti Inter pretationem, Halse, 1767) be originated and defended with indefatiga ble zeal his distinction between that which in the New Testament Scriptures was to be regarded as the Word of God or canonical and which according to him was to be found only in what conduced to moral improvement, and that which was local, temporal and Judaizing in tbem, mak ing the Apocalypse in particular so distasteful to him, and tbe theory of its apostolic origin so hard to accept. Tbe current conception of inspiration was thus abandoned, and the canonical authority of each separate book made inde pendent of tbe view taken of its origin. The questions of their genuineness and integrity could now be discussed with perfect impartiality, and just in proportion to tbe closeness of connection between tbe former dogmatic idea of the Canon and tbe views of its origin that had been banded down, was the polemic against it characterized by a tendency to bring everything to light and to lay stress on what appeared to contradict it. J The epoch-making influence of Semler is 1 Semler produced little of importance in the department of New Testament criticism, although he gave currency to many doubts with 8 INTRODUCTION. already visible in Alex. Haenlein (Randbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des N. T., Erlangen, 1794-1800, 2. Aufl. 1801-9). Here already, proof of tbe genuineness, integrity and credi bility of tbe New Testament writings takes tbe place of discussions on inspiration. Tbe traditional views of their origin are indeed almost universally adhered to, but in many cases only a preponderance of probability is claimed for tbem. Joh. Ernst Christ. Schmidt makes a still more de termined attempt to relegate all examination respecting the Divine origin of these writings entirely to the sphere of dog matics, expressly and designedly entitling his " Historico- critical Introduction to tbe New Testament," A Critical History of the New Testament Writings (Giessen, 1804, 1805, under new titles, 1809, 1818). In pleasing style he examines the origin of the separate books and their reception into the Canon, letting the history of tbe text follow, but extends bis inquiry also to several ancient writings outside the Canon. In many cases the examination arrives at no cer tain conclusion ; already doubts crop up respecting 2 Thess. and the first Epistle to Timothy, while tbe second Epistle of Peter is still more decidedly said to be supposititious. J. F. Kleuker, however, put forth his Ausfuhrliche Untersuchungen der Griinde fur die Aechtheit und Claubwiirdigheit der schrift- respect to individual books of the New Testament, emphasised anew the difference between the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John, doubted the direct apostolic origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the first Epistle of Peter, and brought 2 Peter, with Jude, low down into the second century, when the Canon was first settled as a work of the Catholic uniting process. He was all the more diligent in spreading and recommending foreign works adapted to further the treatment of the New Testament favourable to his own view. Hence appeared, in a German translation by H. M. Aug. Cramer, Richard Simon's critical writings on the New Testament, with a preface and remarks by Semler, 1776-80. Semler published Wetstein's Prolegomena, with remarks, Halle, 1764, as well as Oder's Work on the Apocalypse, Halle, 1769. Comp.' Corrodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte d. gild, und christi. Bibclkanon, 1792. Weber, Beitrage zur Geschichte des neutestamcntlichen Eanon, 1798. Criticism and apologetics. 9 lichen Urkunden des Christenthums (Hamb., 1788-1800) in opposition to tbe criticisms of Rationalism. 2. With full knowledge of tbe new principle, in pursuance of which " the attempt was made to read and examine tbe writings of the New Testament from a human point of view," Joh. Gottfried Eichhorn (Einl.in das NT., 5 Bde., Gott. 1804- 27), was tbe first who tried to raise tbe science of Introduc tion to a criticism of tbe Canon. Tbe reaction against tbe former fetters of tradition naturally led to a one-sided dis regard of it, as well as to its rejection on insufficient grounds. It was now replaced by independent examination of the Scriptures, ingenious combination, by which new links were sought for discovered data, and a mania for hypothesis. The famous hypothesis of a primitive written gospel, by which Eichhorn endeavoured to solve the synoptical problem, is characteristic of this stage of criticism. He also solves the problem of the first Epistle of Peter by a mediating hypo thesis. Still tbe criticism seldom ventures decidedly to dis pute authenticity ; the genuineness of tbe Johannine writings was not yet doubted, and it was only the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Peter and Jude, that were rejected. Tbe history of the collecting of tbe books and of their text does not occur till tbe fourth and fifth volumes. Eichhorn is closely followed by Bertholdt and Schott, who wished to adjust the results of criticism to the current views, by means of ever new hypotheses.1 This arbitrary indulgence in hypothesis was opposed by tbe Catholic professor, Joh. Leonhard Hug, at Freiburg (Einl. in die Schriften des N.T., Tubingen, 1808, 3 Ausg., 1820). With comprehensive learning and inde- 1 The heavy compilation of Leonhard Bertholdt (Historisch-lcritische Einl. in sammtliche kanonische und apokryphische Schriften des A. und N.T., 6 Thie., Erlang. 1812-19), by the very arrangement of the Old and New Testament writings under the categories of historical, prophetic, and poetical books, shows want of historical perception. The lsagoge Historico-Critica in Libros Novi Foederis Sacros, of Heinr. Aug. Schott„ rich in literary information, gives a better survey. 10 INTRODUCTION. pendent investigation of the whole material, he advanced, chiefly in his General Introduction, tbe history of tbe Canon and of tbe Text, while the special part aims at a scientific apology for tbe traditional views respecting tbe origin of tbe individual books of the New Testament. But it is just here that we see how even Apologetics is unable to withstand the current of the time. The acute reasoning with which Hug defends traditional views is often as rich in subjective judg ments and artificial combinations as is that of tbe criticism. His clever mode of presentation gained much acceptance and currency for tbe work, even among Protestant theologians ; it was translated into English and French, and even after the author's death a fourth edition appeared, in 1847. The Catholic theologian, Andr. Benedict Feilmoser (Einl. in die Biicher des Neuen Bundes, Innsbruck, 1810), enters far more deeply and with some impartiality into Protestant researches, especially in the second edition which is thoroughly revised and greatly enlarged (Tubingen, 1830). 3. As Schleiermacher promised to bring out dogmatically tbe opposition between supernaturalism and rationalism, so too he sought in tbe department of tbe science of Introduc tion to strike out new plans, by his, to some extent, classical research of details respecting tbe testimony of Papias with regard to Matthew and Mark, as also respecting the Gospel of Luke and tbe first Epistle to Timothy. His lectures on the Introduction to the New Testament, after havino- lon^ exercised a powerful influence on Protestant theology, were first edited in 1845, by E. Wolde. His standpoint was most distinctly occupied by Wilh. Martin Leberecht de Wette, in his LehrbucJi der historisch-hritisclim Einl. in die Eanonischen Biicher des N. T. (Berlin, 1826), which, remarkable for the precision of its style and its perspicuously grouped wealth of material, was widely circulated, passing through many editions. Tbe independent examination of tbe separate books is much more minute and thorough, but tbe doubts CRITICISM AND APOLOGETICS. 11 arising out of it are often much more subjective in their character. On tbe other hand its criticism is equally directed against the new hypothesis, and a stricter scientific investigation of detail leads to a truer appreciation of the tradition that had so hastily been rejected. Hence a certain vacillation, the criticism becomes sceptical, it remains in doubt, suspending its judgment, or ends with a purely ne gative conclusion.1 Karl Aug. Credner's Einleitung in das N. T. (Halle, 1836), takes up essentially the same standpoint as de Wette's. Only the first part of bis projected com prehensive Introduction appeared, which, in addition to a history of tbe science of Introduction, treats of the origin of tbe separate N. T. writings. His Geschichte des N. T. Kanon was edited from bis papers, after bis death, by E. Volkmar, who made additions to it (Berlin, 1860, comp. Zur Geschichte des Kanon, Halle, 1847). A very heavy compendium and survey of all recent research was put forth by Gh. Gotthold Neudecker (Lehrbuch der Histor. -hrit. Einl. in das N. T., Leipzig, 1840), but has no independent scientific value.2 4. Against tbe criticism of de Wette, Heinr. Ernst. Fred. Guericke directed bis Beitrcige zur historisch-kritischen Einl. ins N. T. (Halle, 1828-31), which was afterwards followed by his Histor. krit. Einl. in das N. T. (Leipz., 1843), a defence of collective tradition respecting tbe Canon, on the 1 Many of his earlier expressed doubts (e.g. as to the second Epistle to the Thessalonians) have been retracted by de Wette in later editions ; he has come forward more and more decidedly in favour of John's Gospel the favourite of the school of Schleiermacher, who sacrificed the Apocalypse to it ; but he never got over his doubts respecting the Ephesian Epistle, 1 Peter and James. As to the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Peter, he declared them to be unapostolic. The history of the N. T. Canon is found along with the history of the science of Introduction in the first part of his manual, which specially contains an Introduction to the Old Testament (Berlin, 1817). 2 From some such critical standpoint was produced the excellent Biblical Dictionary of Benedict Winer (Leipzig, 1820, 3 Aufl., 1847-8). 12 INTRODUCTION. old dogmatic lines. Next to him special mention is due to Hermann Olshausen who had already entered upon this de partment by his book on tbe genuineness of the four canonical gospels (Konigsberg, 1823) and a contemporaneous work on tbe second Epistle of Peter; and after 1830 had turned aside the criticism of de Wette in tbe introductions to his Biblischer Commentar with remarks that, to speak the truth, have little weight. A far more important work was Aug. Neander's History of the Planting and Training of the Chris tian Church by the Apostles (Hamburg, 1832), in which also tbe origin and genuineness of all the N. T. writings are discussed, with most important concessions to criticism in respect to 1 Timothy and 2 Peter. Tbe fourth and last edition, revised by himself (1847, comp. 5 Aufl., 1862), was in tbe notes directed against tbe new critical school then emerging. The Theologische Studien und Kritiken in parti cular have worked in his spirit since the year 1828. § 3. The Tubingen School and its Opponents. 1. The merit of having placed the criticism of the N. T. Canon in fruitful connection with tbe historical investiga tion of primitive Christianity belongs to the Tubingen pro fessor, Ferdinand Christian v. Baur. He it was who first made it tbe problem of criticism, (instead of being satisfied to dispute, with more or less confidence, tbe genuineness of this or that N. T. writing,) to assign to each work its place in the history of tbe development of primitive Christianity, to determine the relations to which it owes its origin, the object at which it aims, and tbe views it represents. Thus criticism which bad been till then of a prevailing lite rary character, became truly historic. Now began a much more incisive, more objective analysis of tbe individual books as to their composition and peculiar theological character, THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL AND ITS OPPONENTS. 13 a more exhaustive examination of ecclesiastical tradition, which was itself considered in its connection with tbe history of tbe development of tbe Church, in which tbe N. T. writings form essential factors. Baur began his critical labours with separate enquiries, in tbe Tubingen Zeitschrift respecting tbe Christ-party in Corinth (1831), with his work on tbe Pastoral Epistles (1835), as well as with treatises on the design and the occasion of tbe Epistle to the Romans (1836), and Origin of tbe Episcopacy (1838) in tbe Tubingen Zeitschrift. It became clearer and clearer to bis mind that tbe apostolic era was powerfully affected by tbe con flict between early apostolic Jewish Christianity, which was essentially Ebionite, and tbe anti-Jewish nniversalism of Paul. While regarding tbe former as represented in the Apocalypse of tbe Apostle John, tbe sole remaining monu ments of tbe latter are, in bis view, tbe great doctrinal and controversial epistles of Paul to tbe Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans. In bis great work on Paul (1845) be sought to prove tbe supposititious character of all other Pauline writings, endeavouring at the same time to show that the Acts of the Apostles, which was strongly at variance with bis conception of primitive Christianity, was unbistorical. Hence tbe smaller Pauline epistles, as well as those N. T. writings professedly belonging to tbe original apostolic circle, could only be monuments of that reconciliation of opposites which was on many sides being gradually effected in the second century, and which after gnosis bad been overcome and.orthodox doctrine assured by tbe building up of hierarchical forms (comp. tbe Pastoral Epistles), found its doctrinal solution in bringing together Peter and Paul as tbe authorized teachers of tbe Catholic Church (comp. 2 Peter) and in tbe Jobannine literature (about 170). His collected critical researches respecting tbe Gospels (1847) pointed out tbe way in which the literature of our Gospels also fits in with the course of this development. In bis 14 INTRODUCTION. work Das Ghristenthum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte (Tubingen, 1853, 3te Aufl., 1863), Baur condensed tbe result of all bis researches in this department. Compare also Baur: An Herrn Dr. K. Hase, Tubingen, 1855 ; Die Tubingen Schule und ihre Stellung zur Gegenwart, Tubingen, 1859, 2te Aufl., 1860 ; and in addition, Uhlhorn in the Jahrb.f. deutsche Theol., 1858. 2. What made this appearance of Baur so important was the fact that a number of gifted disciples stood at his side from tbe commencement, who were actively employed in carrying out his views with acuteness and learning, by means of the most exhaustive examination of details, so that mention is commonly made of a Tubingen school. The most important of tbem, Eduard Zeller, published after 1842, and subsequently in connection with Baur, the Theologische Jahrbiicher, in which most of these works first appeared. Before tbe master himself bad reached tbe result of bis conclusions, Albert Schwegler brought out a history of the historical development of tbe apostolic and post-apostolic age, brilliant in style, in which carrying out Baur's tendency-criticism and from Baur's point of view, be assigned their part to the N.T. writings and tbe litera ture of the second century (das Nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten seiner Entwickelung, Tubing., 1846-47). But it soon became evident that this development and the position assigned to tbe separate books in it, admitted views very divergent in character though starting from essentially tbe same standpoint, such as were developed by two other pupils of Baur, C. Plank (Judenthum und Urchristenthum), and C. R. Koestlin (Zur Geschichte des Urchriste?ithums) in the Theol. Jahrb. of 1847 and 1850, and presented by Albrecbt Ritscbl in his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (Bonn, 1850). Bruno Bauer took up with respect to the criticism of tbe Tubingen school a position that was quite isolated, for after bis condensed critical researches respect- THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL AND ITS OPPONENTS. 15 ing tbe Gospels bad deprived tbem of tbe last remnant of historical foundation (Kritik der Evangelien, Berlin, 1850- 52), he turned to tbe criticism of the Acts (1850) and tbe Pauline Epistles (1850-52), all of which be declared to be supposititious. He afterwards made a second attempt to set forth his entire conception of Christianity (Christus und die Ccesaren, 1877 ; mit einem Nachwort von 1880), in which these writings figure as a product of tbe years 1830-70. His works had no appreciable influence on scientific pro gress. 3. Orthodox theology naturally felt called upon to defend itself with energy against a criticism which in its results led to a dissolution of the Canon as such, and allowed tbe greater number of its constituent parts to be lost in tbe stream of the history of doctrine along with other works of a very different character. After Heinr. Bottger's half- ironical disposal of Baur (Baur's historische Kritik in ihrer Consequenz, Braunschweig, 1840-41), W. 0. Dietlein (das Urchristenthum, Halle, 1845) undertook to represent tbe history of the first two centuries rather as tbe struggle of a united apostolic Christianity with Jewish- Gentile Gnosis. Heinrich W. J. Thiersch, in his Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpunkts fiir die Kritik der NTlichen Schriften (Erlangen, 1845), defended tbe genuineness of the entire Canon against all tbe attacks of modern criticism. In a somewhat milder form and not without traces of tbe influ ence of modern enquiry, be afterwards published bis views in the first part of a history of Christian antiquity (Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter und die Entstehung der NTlichen Schriften, Frankfurt a. M., 1852, 3 Aufl., 1879). Tbe learned investigations of C. Wieseler show that it was also possible from this standpoint to be entirely unaffected by modern criticism, as appears in his chronology of the apostolic period (Gott., 1848), in which a number of im portant questions belonging to Introduction are discussed 16 INTRODUCTION. (comp. his Comm. z. Galaterbrief, Gott., 1859; and Zur Geschichte der NTlichen Schriften, Leipzig, 1880). On tbe other band, /. H. A. Ebrard, in bis Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, 2 Aufl. (Erlangen, 185.0), directed his half-spiteful, half-scoffing polemic against the Tubingen school, and undertook, after 1850 (Epistle to tbe Hebrews), to carry out and elaborate anew Olshausen's Biblical Commentary, in connection with J. T. A. Wiesinger, who worked upon tbe Epistles to tbe Philippians, the Pastoral Epistles, and those of James, Peter, and Jude, in a more thoughtful way, in declared opposition to tbe Tubingen school (1850-62). G. V. Lechler endeavoured to refute tbe Tubingen view of the development of primitive Christianity in an historical way, weaving bis conservative views as to the origin of tbe N.T. books into the work (Das apostolische und nach- apostolische Zeitalter, Stuttgart, 1851, 3 Aufl., 1855). Comp. also John Peter Lange, Apostolisches Zeitalter, 1853-54. 4. Tbe criticism of tbe school of Schleiermacher also assumed an attitude of preponderating hostility to tbe Tubingen criticism. For example, Friedr. Bleek, who- took an advanced part in the discussion so tfarly as 1846, in his Beitrcige zur Evangelienkritik, and de Wette in tbe fifth edition of bis Introduction (1848). 1 It was Heinrich Ewald who in bis Jahrbucher der bibl. Wissenschaft (Gottingen, 1849-65) was foremost in carrying on, with roughest polemic, tbe struggle against tbe Tubingen school ; while, in essential adherence to tbe standpoint of tbe criticism of Schleiermacher, though sometimes recalling the old times of tbe hypothesis- criticism, be lays down in numerous 1 A sixth edition was edited after his death, by Messner and Liinemann. Bleek's Einl. in das N. T. was published after the author's death, by his son Berlin, 1862. Comp. also the Bibelurhunden , published in Bunsen's Bibelwerk (vol. viii. 2), by Holtzmann (Theil 4, Die Biicher des neuen Bundes, Leipzig, 1866). THE TUBINGEN SCHOOL AND ITS OPPONENTS. 17 historical and exegetical works bis own views respecting the origin of the N. T. books and tbe Canon.2 Closely following him in every respect, but with his accustomed sobriety and scientific objectivity cutting away all excres cences of Ewald's subjective criticism, maintaining even the genuineness of tbe Epistle to tbe Ephesians, H. A. W. Meyer, in tbe Introductions to the separate parts of his Kritisch-exegetischen Kommentar ilber das NT., disputes on every occasion the views of tbe Tubingen school, along with his fellow-workers, Liinemann, Diisterdieck, and Huther, tbe last of whom even defended tbe Pastoral Epistles that had been given up by Meyer. Ed. Beuss took up a thoroughly independent position, a scholar who though allied to the Tiibingen school in many respects in his fundamental views, yet decidedly rejected tbe proper tendency-criticism, especially in the Gospels, and arrived at much more positive results than tbe Tubingen school, in relation to the origin of the separate books.3 In many 2 The sixth vol. of his History of Israel contains the history of the apostolic period (Gott., 1858, 3 Aufl., 1868), the seventh vol. contains that of the post-apostolic period (1859, 2 Aufl., 1869) in the appendix to which is a history of the Old and New Testament Canons. His works upon the Synoptical Gospels (1850) extended in a second edition to the Acts of the Apostles (Die drei Ersten Evangelien und die Apostelgeschichte, Gottingen, 1871-72). The Johannine writings, translated and explained (Gottingen, 1861-62), contain in the first part the Gospel and Epistles, in the second the Apocalypse, which he does not assign to the Apostle. In his Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus (Gottingen, 1857), the only letters of the captivity explained are Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. Das Sendschreiben an die Hebraer und der Jakobus Rundschreiben and Sieben Sendschreiben des neuen Bundes (die Brief e Petri und Juda, Epheser und Pastoralbriefe) did not follow till the year 1870. 3 His Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T.'s (Braunschweig, 1842) which more than doubled in extent after the 2nd edition (1853), and appeared in a 5th edition in 1874, is a first attempt, following the idea of Credner's plan, to present the collected material of the science of Introduction in an organic form as a history of the N. T. books, their collection for ecclesiastical use (history of the Canon), their preservation (history of the text), their dissemination (history of translations), and their use in theology down to the latest t'me (history of exegesis). Here . C 18 INTRODUCTION. of his positions, Reuss, who even adheres to the genuineness of tbe Pastoral Epistles, has become more sceptical in the course of time. Tbe contradiction which K. Hase (Die Tiibinger Schule, Sendschreiben an D. von Baur, Leipzig, 1855) opposed to tbe Baurian conception of tbe apostolic period, was much more decided. But the most important event in tbe history of tbe contest with tbe Tubingen school was Alb. Bitschl's definite breaking away from the views of tbe Tubingen school in tbe second edition of his Ent stehung der alt. katholischen Kirche (Bonn, 1857), in which he presented in opposition to it an independent conception of tbe development of primitive Christianity, allowing room for a much more impartial estimate of tbe traditional memorials of tbe apostolic age. § 4. Present State of the Science. With the close of tbe year 1850 tbe elder representatives of the Tubingen school came virtually to . an end. Adolf Eilgenfeld, Baur's most assiduous disciple, now came to the front, and in 1858, in his Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, took up tbe inheritance of tbe Theologische Jahr- bucher, where with indefatigable zeal be followed out all the phenomena in tbe department of the science of Intro duction to tbe New Testament. After a series of works, be expounded bis fundamental principles in a volume entitled Das Urchristenthum in den Hauptwendepunkten seines Ent- wickelungsganges (Jena, 1855). He aimed at moderating the contrast between Paulinism and primitive apostolic Jewish Christianity which formed tbe starting-point of Baur, vindi- in the first part, as in Schwegler, the origin of the Canonical writings of the New Testament, and of those which for a time laid claim to eccle siastical validity with and beside them, appears interwoven with the history of primitive Chri.-tiauity, whose literature Reuss purposes to give. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 19 cated the literary and historical character of bis own criti cism of tbe Gospels as opposed to tbe determining tendency- criticism, and went much farther back in tbe time of tbe separate books. By bis defence of the genuineness of Phile mon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Romans xv. 16, as well as of the tradition respecting the end of Peter, he sought to cut away the most prominent excrescences of tbe Tubingen criticism, and thus visibly strengthened bis posi tion (comp. also in particular Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T., Halle, 1863; Histor. krit. Einleitung in das N. T., Leipz., 1875). In these respects Carl Holsten, tbe ablest and most acute disciple of Baur, has remained more faithful to his teacher. After collecting, enlarging and publishing bis works belonging to tbe years 1855, 59, 61 (Zum Evang. des Petrus u. Paulus, Rostock, 1868) be applied himself to a comprehensive exegetical exposition of his conception of Paul and bis relation to the primitive apostles (Das Evan- gelium des Paulus, Berlin, 1880; comp. also Die drei Ur- spriinglichen noch ungeschriebenen Evang., Leipzig, 1883). In his earlier works, however, we find growing evidence of a modification of Baur's principles still more incisive than that of Hilgenfeld. According to him tbe original standpoint of Peter is essentially allied to that of Paul, and only after tbe conflict at Antioch did tbe Judaistic gospel gain supremacy in the primitive apostolic circle, giving rise to tbe bitter opposition of the former apostle to the latter. On tbe other hand, Gustav. Volkmar, who, after several other works, took part in carrying out tbe fundamental views of Baur by his Beligion Jesu (Leipz., 1857 ; comp. also Die geschichts- treue Theologie, Zurich, 1858), devoting himself especially to a careful examination of the apocryphal and apocalyptic literature (comp. Die Apokalypse, Zurich, 1860), went be yond the criticism of Baur in daring, and placed many of tho N. T. writings lower down in tbe second century (Jesus Nazarenus, Zurich, 1882; oomp. also Die Bomerbrief ; 20 INTRODUCTION. Zurich, 1875), although by putting Mark first be completely shattered tbe Tubingen theory of the Gospels, already aban doned by Hilg. and Hoist. (Marcus und die Synopsis, Leipz., 1870) } 2. But many results of the Tubingen criticism, as well as tbe whole method of its investigation and many of its pre mises, are by no means limited at present to the circle of those who call themselves the disciples of Baur in a stricter sense, but are widely spread among tbe modern critical school. It is true that tbe historical picture of tbe apostolic and post-apostolic times up to tbe development of tbe Catholic Church as it appears at the end of tbe second cen tury, having already undergone many modifications in the Tubingen school itself, although a new one adopted in wider circles bad not yet taken its place, may be regarded as essentially abandoned. Tbe following positions may be taken for granted as results of tbe modern school of criti cism : that above and beyond the difference between Paul and tbe primitive apostles, however it may be formulated, there existed at first a wide basis of common Christianity, that bad not been shaken in tbe apostolic era even by tbe conflict of extreme tendencies ; that the development of tbe post-apostolic period is not conditioned by compromise between victorious Judaistic Christianity, and Paulinism that could only with difficulty and by concession bold its own against it, but by a reformation taking place within Paulin ism itself or by a new independent development in Gentile- Christian circles, resulting from tbe operation of factors 1 The results of the Tubingen school have been adopted abroad chiefly by the Dutchman Scholten (Hist.-krit. Einl. in die Schr. d. N. T., 1853, 2te Aufl., Leyden, 1856), soon after surpassed by Pierson and Lomann in a radicalism reminding us of Bruno Bauer ; as also with modifications by the Englishman Dr. Samuel Davidson (An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 1868, 2nd ed. 1882) ; and by the Frenchman E. Renan (Histoire des origines du christianisme, Paris, 1863-82), the last indeed going far beyond them. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 21 other than Jewish Christianity. But predilection may still find tbe influence of Alexandrianism in many of tbe N. T. books, though fixing them at an earlier date and no longer seeking in them tendencies to union but solely evidences of tbe later phases of the development of Christianity. Tbe circle of writings accepted as genuinely Pauline is not essen tially extended beyond that already conceded by Hilgenfeld, even if we admit that tbe Epistle to the Colossians bas in some parts a genuine foundation. Tbe distrust of tbe Catholic Epistles, which was already confirmed in tbe view taken by de Wette, bas been strengthened more and more into their definite expulsion from tbe apostolic age (comp. even Harnack: Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Freiburg, 1885), and recently the Epistle to tbe Hebrews bas for tbe most part shared their fate. Tbe criticism of tbe Gospels bas essentially gained by having the ban of tbe Tendenz taken from it ; but tbe modern critical school, in its decided rejec tion of tbe apostolicity of tbe fourth Gospel, recognises an indispensable monument of what it still regards as historical criticism. In its interest Theodor Keim, who, however, adopted a thoroughly mediating position in tbe question of che apostolic council (Aus dem Urchristenthum, Zurich, 1878), and Daniel Scbenkel, who, in bis Christusbild der Apostel (Leipzig, 1879), departed very considerably from many of tbe views current in the Tubingen school, gave up tbe entire tradition respecting tbe Apostle John's activity in Asia Minor. Tbe standpoint of tbe modern critical school is especially represented by Otto Pfleiderer, who bas however in his Paulinismus (Leipzig, 1883), as well as in later works upon tbe apostolic council and tbe Epistle to the Romans, essentially modified the sentence of condemnation pronounced by tbe Tubingen school on the historical character of tbe Acts ; by Adolf Hausrath, in bis NTlichen Zeitgeschichte (Heidelberg, 1868-73, 2te Aufl., 73-77) ; by Immer (Theo- logie des N. T., Bern, 1877) ; and, above all, by H. Julius 22 INTRODUCTION. Holtzmann, who has given a most instructive picture of the far-reaching scepticism to which this school leads, in his Lehrbuch der histor. krit. Einl. in das N T. (Freiburg, 1885), after publishing numerous separate works on tbe Synoptical Gospels, on tbe Epistles to tbe Ephesians and Colossians, tbe Pastoral Epistles, tbe Epistle to tbe Hebrews, and the Johannine letters. But Wittichen, Lipsius, Overbeck, Paul Schmidt, W. Bruckner, Seuffert, and others also belong to this school. Besides Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, we have the Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie, begun in 1875, in which tbe labours of this school are collected. Among tbem tbe labours of von Soden are pre eminent in acuteness, in dependence, and comprehensive mastery of material. Comp. also Scbenkel's Bibellexicon, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1869-75. 3. Carl Weizsacker, who succeeded Baur in Tubingen, assumed a position of more marked antagonism to tbe Tubingen school (Untersuchungen uher d. evang. Gesch., Gotha, 1864; comp. Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol, 1876); while Wilh. Mangold (in his Bearbeitung des 3te Aufl. v. Bleek's Einl., 1875, 4te Aufl., 1886) attached himself more closely to Ritscbl's construction of history. Tet the limits that sepa rate tbe theology which, though occupied with tbe same scientific materials as the critical school, is more apologetic in character, are very fluctuating ; for while tbe former did at least accept an indirect Johannine origin of tbe fourth Gos pel, tbe latter bas assumed an attitude of complete scepticism with regard to it, and in its latest development has come nearer tbe critical school with respect also to the Acts of tbe Apostles. Willibald Beyschlag, who was attached in many ways to tbe criticism of Schleiermacher and de Wette, has very strongly opposed the Tubingen school in different works on Paul and bis opponents, as well as on tbe Gospels. The works of Willib. Grimm and Klopfer, as well as others whose rallying-point is tbe Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie (Stutt gart, 1857-79), occupy a position almost similar to his. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 28 Comp. also A. Biehm, Handwrirterbtich des bibl. Alterthumx, Bielefeld and Leipzig, 1873-84. Bernhard Weiss, who first appeared in print with his Petrin. Lehrbegriff (Berlin, 1855), and then directed his attention chiefly to tbe criticism of the Gospels, in the course of bis minute, exegetical, critical and biblico-tbeological works respecting modern criticism as a whole, arrived mainly at conservative results, as was also tbe case with others who revised Meyer's Commentary, and finally with the authors of articles on tbe N. T. in the Beal- encyklopadie fiir protest. Theologie und Kirche, published by Herzog and Plitt (2te Aufl., Leipzig, 1877-86). On the other hand certain positions or arguments of the modern critical school might be refuted from the old dogmatic stand point from which tbe Canon as such was looked upon as inspired ; but this would be unprofitable, since they had no scientific basis in common. Comp. the new editions of Guericke's Einleitung (Leipzig, 1853, 1868), which appeared with tbe somewhat pretentious title, Gesammi 'geschichte des N. T., oder NTliche Isagogik, tbe Commentaries of Keil, and the sketch of N. T. Introduction by L. Schultze in Zoeckler's Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften, Bd. 1, Nord lingen, 1883, 2te Aufl. 1885. /. Chr. R. von Hofmann has indeed attempted to set forth in a new form the traditional Canon as tbe organic substance of Scripture, which being a complete memorial of the beginning of Christianity and an all-sufficient index to the period between tbe beginning and tbe end of its history, in the indispensableness of its individual parts is a guarantee for their genuineness.1 1 Hofmann began his labours on Introduction in 18 j4 with treatises upon the history of the origin of Holy Scripture, in the Erlangen Zeit schrift fiir Protestantismus und Kirche (nene Folgf, Bd. 28— Bd. 40), and then endeavoured to create an exegetical substructure for them in his great Bibelwerk, Die Heilige Schrift N. T.'s, Nordlingen, which appeared from 1862 onward, and which he was able to complete up to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Acts and the Johannine writings. A condens ation of his results respecting the separate books of the New Testament 24 INTRODUCTION. , But as that fundamental view set out with tbe traditional ideas respecting tbe origin of the Canon (even to the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to tbe Hebrews), and in defending them against all criticism never got beyond an unprofitable polemic, nothing but a very subjective mode of reasoning could be employed in carrying them out. This put a self- constructed history of salvation in place of actual historical treatment. Hofmann left behind him a numerous school out of which the works of Tb. Schott, Luthardt, Klostermann, and others, as well as the first publications of Spitta have proceeded. In particular, bis successor in office, Theod. Zahn, in Erlangen has begun a series of learned Forschungen zur Geschichte des NTlichen Kanon und der altkirchlichen Liter- atur (Erlangen, 1881, 83, 84). From tbe same school also proceeds tbe Entwickelungsgeschich. des NTlichen Schrift- thums, Giitersloh, 1871, by Bud. Friedr. Grau, in which the organism of New Testament literature is set forth in its development according to the stages of the childhood, youth, and manhood of all literature, stages which are characterized as Epos, Lyric, and Drama, corresponding to the declara tory, epistolary, and prophetic gradation of N. T. Scripture (Apocalypse, Hebrews, Gospel of John). Here we have no longer to do with scientific research, but only with a play of fancy applied to the N. T. writings.2 4. Recently there has also been much contention as to tbe true problem and method of so-called Introduction. Tbe was published after his death by W. Volck as Part IX. from manuscripts and lectures (Nordlingen, 1881). 2 Compare also Hertrng,- Tabellen zur Einl. ins N. T., Berlin, 1849, 4. Aufl., by Weingarten, 1872. The numerous and in many respects learned works of Catholics upon Introduction have not been drawn into the current of the scientific movement, because their result is determined once for all by ecclesiastical authority. Compare Adalbert Maier, Einl. in die Schriften des N. T., Freiburg, 1852 ; F. X. Reithmayer, Einl. in die kanonischen Biicher des N. T., Regensburg, 1882 ; Jos. Langen, Grundriss dir Einl. ins N. T., Bonn, 1868, 2. Aufl., 1873 ; M. von Aberle, Einl. in d. N. T., edited by P. Schanz, Freiburg, 1877. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 25 older science of Introduction was not an independent subject born of one fundamental idea and carried out in a connected method, but a science auxiliary to exegesis, to which it furnishes tbe means for a right understanding of tbe New Testament and also indirectly for dogmatic also, so far as its aim was to prove that it bad its basis in tbe established Canon. Hence it was interwoven in its origins with berme- neutics, and afterwards with the history and criticism of tbe text in particular, always with doctrinal investigations of inspiration, canonicity, etc. Schleiermacher still regarded it as a motley collection of prolegomena intended to carry tbe present reader back to the standpoint of tbe first readers; while in de Wette's view it was a mass of rudimentary know ledge, devoid of scientific principle or coherence. Tbe treat ment of this subject from a purely historical point of view, undertaken by Reuss in accordance with the principles of Hupfeld and Credner (§ 3, 4; note 3), bas tbe great advan tage of separating it from all that is not open to examina tion and presentment by means of tbe bistorico-critical method.1 But tbe attempt to turn it into a kind of literary history of primitive Christianity, from which tbe history of tbe Canon constructs an independent whole, whose fate is then followed up in tbe history of tbe text, translation and inter pretation of the New Testament, could only be justified if we bad to do, to a much greater extent than is tbe case, with facts that could be ascertained from sources extraneous to those Scriptures whose origin is the very point on which tbe ques tion turns. Baur is perfectly right in maintaining that in this branch of the subject we have to do, in the first place, with a series of writings as to whose origin and collection definite ideas, which should be critically tested, are assumed 1 For this reason I deem it unsuitable to characterize an Introduction to the New Testament as historico-critical. That it ought to be so is a matter of course ; whether or not it actually is so depends on its method of treatment. 26 INTRODUCTION. a priori. It cannot be laid down in advance bow far this testing leads to a perfectly certain conclusion, or bow far the current idea, in case it be proved untenable, can be replaced by a new one with sufficient safety. We must be satisfied in many cases with an indication of tbe point up to which critical research can advance with security, whilst a history following anticipated results will always be characterized by some amount of uncertainty, and must forfeit its claim to a critical investigation of details.3 Tbe origin of tbe Canon can only in reality be represented in tbe form of a history imperfectly searched out as to its sources, and must necessarily be first investigated, because tbe tradition as to the origin of tbe separate books, which forms the starting- point of all criticism respecting them, can only be rightly estimated in its continuity. It is a mere fiction to assume that the origin of tbe individual books must be examined before we can proceed to tbe history of their collection, since in the latter tbey are looked at not in the light in which tbey appear as tbe result of criticism, but as tbey were viewed at the time of tbe formation of the Canon. But even the history of tbe origin of tbe separate books may be treated from an essentially historical point of view, without giving up our adhesion to the groups of writings handed down in tbe Canon. Tbe very circumstance that the Pauline epistles are interwoven with tbe life-history of the great Gentile apostle leads, as a matter of course, to the discussion of. all those facts in tbe history of the apostolic period that may still be determined with historical accuracy, and which form a basis for tbe criticism of tbe other N. T. books. Hence 2 Compare recent discussion of this subject by Hupfeld, Ueber Begriff und Methode der sogen. bibl. Einl, Marburg, 1844; Rudelbach, in d. Zeitschr. fiir luth. Theologie und Kirche, 1848 ; Baur, in d. Theol. Jahrb., 1850, 51 ; Ewald, in the Jahrb. der bibl. Wiss., 3. 1851, 4 1852 ; Delitzsch, in d. Zeitsch. fiir Protestantismus und Kirche, 1854 ; Holtz- mann, Hupfeld and Riehm, in d. Theol. Stud. u. Krit, 1860, 61, 62 ; Zahn, Realencyklop. IV, 1879. PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENCE. 27 their treatment must be the starting-point in what goes by the name of special Introduction.3 3 The fact that the history of the Text is usually attached to the his tory of the Canon has a good reason in the needs of academic instruction ; but all that is commonly imparted respecting the language of the N. T., the preservation of the Text, the manuscripts, versions, recensions, and editions of the Text, has no internal and necessary connection with the origin of the Canon and its constituent parts, and must be definitely excluded from a scientific presentation of them (comp. Zahn, as before). The history of translation and interpretation in its widest sense can be profitably treated only in connection with general Church history. FIRST PART. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. § 5. The Canon of the Lord's Words. 1. Christ bas left no written record. He found His nation already in possession of a collection of sacred writings, from which it drew religious knowledge and edification ; and He did not come to destroy tbe law or tbe prophets (Matt. v. 17). It was not to improve or supplement their doctrines or precepts that He came, but to bring tbe joyful message of tbe fulfilment of tbe promise that bad been given to tbem, and of tbe final realization of their religious and moral ideal by the consummation of tbe Divine revelation in Him; a fact which did really open up a newer, fuller understanding of Old Testament revelation. By the revelation of Himself in word and deed, by His self-surrender in suffering and death, by His exaltation and tbe sending of His spirit, He founded tbe kingdom of God, and gave security for the infallibly certain development of its aim. For this object a written record would have been as insufficient as it was superfluous.1 In order to continue His work upon earth, He only needed witnesses to testify what tbey had seen and beard, preachers of the message of salvation manifested in Him, who could bear witness from inmost experience that He was tbe promised 1 The letter of Christ to King Abgarus of Edessa, given by Eusebius, H. E., 1, 13, is of course fictitious. Jesus was certainly far from making any reflections on the superiority of the oral to the written word, or the dangers of bondage to the letter, and such like. 28 THE CANON OF THE LORD'S WORDS. 29 One in whom tbey bad found tbe fulfilment of all their longing and hope. Tbe apostles whom Jesus had chosen and trained for that purpose were simple men, who could have felt neither inclination nor capacity for literary work (comp. Acts iv. 13), and whom He had certainly chosen without regard to later written productions. Even the culture of Paul, who was called afterwards, was on a Scripture basis. It did not consist in literary skill, but in tbe capability of understanding and using O. T, Scripture. The commission was one of oral announcement. Tbe activity of tbe Twelve, which for a long period was limited to Jerusalem, and when further extended could easily be carried on in person, made all written instruction unneces sary. Authorship in tbe interest of later generations could not occur to a time living in expectation of the immediate return of the Lord. Tbe primitive documents of the apostolic time are concerned throughout only with the speaking and preaching of the word, with its bearing and acceptance.2 Comp. Rom. x. 14, 17. 2. Tbe necessity for recourse to written intervention only made itself felt when Christianity extended to wider circles and tbe apostles were unable to be always present when tbe need arose for instruction in matters of doctrine, practice, or the Church ; for comfort, strengthening, and exhortation. Hence tbe origin of epistolary literature.1 But even these ! Only to a later time, that had become fonder of writing, could it occur to explain this on the assumption that they were so taken up with the work of teaching and of preparation for it, that they had no time to spare for writing (comp. Eclog. ex script, prophet., c. 27), or to give then- want of literary culture as a reason why they occupied themselves so little with the writing of books (comp. Euseb., H. E., 3, 24). 1 Whether Paul was the founder of this and the pattern for it, as is generally supposed, can only be determined from the history of the origin of the separate N. T. writings. Paul does not recognise a peculiar gift for writing among the charisms of the apostolic period ; and neither he nor the New Testament knows of any other spiritual gift than that which all Christians have. 30 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. letters, all of which seem to have been prompted by special occasions, were for the most part entrusted to particular men whose mission it was to supplement and enforce the written word by oral speech. The sole prophetic book of tbe New Testament is also intentionally clothed in an epistolary form, in order that the prophecy might give consolation and admo nition to the Churches for which it was designed. What we know of the origin of tbe oldest Gospels points to the substi tution of written records for oral preaching which had become necessary by the death or removal of tbe apostles ; while tbe later Gospels give direct expression to the didactic and practical object for which tbey were designed (Luke i. 4; John xx. 31). In any case the gospel literature came later than tbe epistolary. Paul knows nothing as yet of written Gospels, but appeals to oral tradition (1 Cor. xv. 3, etc.). The former, like the letters, were certainly intended at first for a smaller circle of readers. The writings of Luke are even addressed to a single man (Luke i. 3; Acts i. 1). The charge given by Paul in his first epistle, that it should be read to all tbe brethren (1 Thess. v. 27), could only be carried out at a meeting of tbe Church; but this of course was something quite different from tbe regular reading of Old Testament Scripture, adopted from tbe synagogue by the Gentile Christian Churches in their meetings for worship. Tbe sole object in this case was that tbe letter should be made known to the whole community for whom it was intended (comp. 2 Cor. i. 13). For tbe same reason Paul gives directions on another occasion that two neighbouring Churches should exchange letters after they had first been publicly read (Col. iv. 16) ; from which it follows that he had no thought of his letters habitually going beyond the circle of those to whom they were addressed. Doubtless many of tbe epistles, in particular the so-called Catholic ones, were from the first intended for a wider circle of Churches, and were therefore copied and pretty widely circu- THE CANON OF THE LORD'S WORDS 31 lated. But so long as the Churches bad still tbe personal presence of tbe apostles, more or less frequently, there was no intention to spread their writings, much less to make a collection of them.2 3. Tbe writers of the apostolic time, like Jesus Himself, refer to tbe Old Testament simply as tbe Scripture. That which is written (yiyparrrai, yeypap.f/.evov icrriv), or what tbe Scripture says (r) ypa.r] Aeyei), is absolute authority as such (comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. des N T.'s, 4. Aufl., 1884, § 74). Tbe ground of this is, that God Himself speaks, who by His Spirit put His word into tbe mouth of prophets; but it is the Epistle to tbe Hebrews that first cites the words of Scripture as the words of God, even where the Old Testament does not so characterize tbem (comp. as before, § 116, a). What Christ said naturally takes its place beside the word of God in Scripture, since He came in order to complete Old Testament revelation. The writings of the primitive apostolic circle are interwoven with allusions to tbe words of tbe Old Testament as tbe words of tbe Lord, without, however, tbe latter being expressly quoted as such, which is indeed seldom tbe case with the former. There is an express admonition in 2 Pet. iii. 2, fjtvr/o-Orjvai. tw rrpoeiprjfj.tvo)v pr)fj.a.T(ov wo rmv dyiiav Trpo(f>r]Tmv, Kai ri)s rwv airocrToKwv v/xuiv en-oAiys tov Kvpiov. Paul appeals repeatedly to tbe words of the Lord for bis statements and direc tions; but it is in the Acts of tbe Apostles that be is 2 The fact that a later time, which traced back to the apostolic age everything that had become sacred to it, fixed the New Testament Canon by John, making it end with him (Phot. Bibl. cod. 251), is just as con ceivable as it is wanting in all historical foundation. So Augusti thought, Versuch einer hist. dogm. Einl. in d. heil. Schrift, 1832. But Tisohendorf's notion that the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, 1 Pet. and 1 John were collected into the Canon as early as the end of the first century (Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst? Leipz., 1865), and Ewald's hypothesis of a collection of the Paulice Epistles about 100, are fictions entirely unhistorical. 32 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. first made to quote tbe word of tbe Lord directly.1 Old Testament Scripture seems also to be tbe chief authority quoted in very various forms throughout tbe only extra- canonical writing which certainly belongs to tbe first cen tury, tbe Epistle of the Roman to tbe Corinthian Church, the so-called first Epistle of Clement, where however refer ence is made in two passages to the words of the Lord, after tbe manner of tbe Acts ; while the so-called Epistle of Barnabas seems to introduce a similar quotation with tbe simple word . This word of the Lord has not been preserved in our written Gospels, nor can I find any reminiscence of it in the passage 1 Clem, ad Corinth. 2, 1 (ijSioi' Siddvres ti \aiipavovTes), where the similarity of wording is conditioned by the context. 3 In the passage 1 Clem, ad Cor. 13, 1, etc., we read: iroir\p.ev to yey pap,p.ivov, after which an 0. T. passage is introduced with the words \iyet ydp to irveupa followed by p.d\io-ra piep.v-ijp.ivoi tuv \6ytov tov Kvplov 'I-naou, oOs iXdXnaev diSdo-Kuv— oStus ydp elirev, and Chap. 46, 7, etc : liv^trdrjTe tuv \6yuv 'Iijo-ou tou Kvplou -hpwv elirev ydp. Whether the Epistle of Barnabas belongs to the first century, is indeed very doubtful ; but it must at least be the oldest monument of the second century that has come down to us. THE CANON OF THE LORD'S WORDS. 33 Word of God, i.e. no other normal authority that could take its place beside the Word of God in tbe Old Testament. Though not expressly put forward in* the Shepherd of Hermas and tbe Ignatian Epistles, yet in Polycarp, ad Phil. 2, 3, we find words of the Lord introduced with tbe same formula as in 1 Clem. 13.1 But such allusion is particularly prominent in tbe Homily commonly called tbe Second Epistle of Cle ment to tbe Corinthians. Here again we find continual ex hortation to consider and fulfil the IvroXal tov Kvpiov which are introduced by Xiyu 6 K.vpios.% In like manner tbe re cently discovered AiSa^ tu>v SajSexa d7rocn-oAs 6 vo^os KTjpvo-o-ei koI ol irpo^rrrai ko.1 6 /cvpios (Euseb., H. E., 4, 22), in accordance with tbe word of the Old Testament and of Christ (comp. Stepb Gobar. in Phot. Bibl, 232, p. 288 :— tw t« 0eiW ypaepuiv koX tov Kvpiov Xiyovroi). Just in proportion as tbe Church of tbe second century was accustomed to regard Christianity as a new law on tbe observance of which salvation depended, was it natural for it to look on tbe words of tbe Lord especially tbe commands regulating tbe life of tbe Christian, as its guiding principle. In any case tbe want of a proper guide was by no means felt so long as men were satisfied with tbe simplest elements of evangelical preaching, and assumed their common possession to be a thing intelligible of itself. 5. Our written Gospels were by no means tbe exclusive, or even the principal source from which these regulating words of tbe Lord were drawn. It is certain that they are not the source from which Paul's references are drawn ; and Papias in looking after Tas rrapa tov Kvpiov Tfj vicrTei SeSo/xeVas ivToXai p.vr)p.ovtvovTK, is of opinion ov to. Ik tuiv /3iBXis ytyparrrai in Barn. 4, 14 cannot possibly prove tbe canonical validity of tbe Gospel of Matthew; and it is highly improbable that even in 2 Clem. 2, 4 tbe Gospels are considered as ypacprj.1 Nor do tbe Ig- 31, 33. And 4, 5 is only a very free transformation of the utterance con tained in Luke xiii. 26 f. which from the individual case here put (iipdyopiev ivuiribv aov Kal eirtopev), rises to the universal proposition, that even the closest union with Christ (p.er' ipov avv-nypAvoi iv rtf koXttu p,ov) is no protection against being cast away. 1 If Barnabas does actually cojitain a reference to Matt. xxii. 14, the ds yiypairrai can only prove a canonical validity of this word of the Lord equivalent to that of Old Testament Scripture, but not to that of the work from which it is borrowed, especially since the saying is not quoted at all but only interwoven in the context : irpoo-ixup-ev p-rprore, P»7°"£' in Ignatius ad Eph. 16, 2, has a reminiscence of Mark ix. 43. 7. When tbe Gospei of John appeared, in tbe last decade of the first century, about the same time as tbe first Epistle of Clement, tbe oral tradition of the Lord's words had already for more than twenty years borne tbe impress given to it by the older evangelical writings scattered throughout the Churches, especially our Gospel of Matthew. Tbe cur rent idea of the Lord's words could neither be changed nor modified by that of John's Gospel which was in many re- Barnabas we find, besides reminiscences of Matt. xxii. 14 (4, 14), only a few allusions to the narrative of the gospel history (5, 9 ; 7, 9 ; 12, 10), which are sufficiently explained by Matt., and the iirorl^ero (l£ei Kal XoX-fi (7, 3) certainly shows an acquaintance with our first Gospel. The el iv rip dipddpru koivuvoI iare, irbau pdXXov iv rots (pBaprols (19, 8) is originally a transformation or imitation of Luke xvi. 11 f., but was not necessarily made by Barnabas. 4 Comp. Barn. 19, 8 : Koivuv-qo-eis iv irdai rip irXijo-lov sou, Kal ovk ipeis ISia elvai with Acts iv. 32 (comp. also No. 6, note 1) ; Ignat. ad Smyrn. 3, 3: p*rd bi rty dvdo-raaiv avviipayev airrols Kal awiiriev with Acts x. 41 ; Pol. ad Phil. 1, 2 : bv ijyeipev b Beds Xicas Tas Cibivas tou q.bov with Acts ii. 24. An allusion to Acts iv. 12 in Herm. Vis. iv. 2, 4 : Si' oibevbs Sivy o-uBijvai el pi] Sid rod p-ey. Kal ivSJtjov dvop-aros is not so certain (comp. also Sim. ix. 28, 5, with Acts v. 41). On the other hand, for the appear ance of Christ mentioned in Ign. ad Smyrn. 3, 2, we must go back, by reason of what we know of the Lord's word from other sources, to oral tradition and not to Luke xxiv. 36 ff . 40 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. spects so singular, nor did the words of tbe Lord peculiar to it offer such concrete ivroXai as were at that time looked for in tbem. Nevertheless we find that from tbe beginning this very Gospel produced a more powerful and universal effect on tbe authors of the second century than any other N. T. writing, not indeed by means of isolated words of the Lord, but by its whole theological and literary peculiarity, and therefore more or less in connection with tbe con temporaneous Johannine Epistles. Already in the Epistle of Barnabas tbe iX6eiv iv crapKi (5, 10, etc., comp. 1 John iv. 2) and tbe epavepovo-Oai of Christ (6, 7 ; 9, comp. 1 John i. ; ii. 3; v. 8), bis KaroiKiiv ev r)puv (6, 14, comp. Gosp. i. 14) and his KoraKevTao-Oai (7, 9, comp. Gosp. xix. 34, 37), the com parison with the brazen serpent (12, 5 ff., comp. Gosp. iii. 14) and bis dvaBaivuv after tbe epavepwcris on tbe day of resurrection (15, 9, comp. Gosp. xx. 17 ; xxi. 1) point to the Johannine writings. Even in tbe Shepherd of Hermas Christ is tbe rrvXrj and tbe only access to the Father (Sim. ix. 12, 5 f.), He gives the law that He bas received from Hi's Father (Sim. v. 6, 3), and His commands are not diffi cult (Mand. xii. 3, 5). The necessary connection between tbe knowledge of God and the dyaOorroieiv is developed in Sim. ix. 18, 1 f. in true Johannine fashion.1 In the Ignatian 1 Already in Sim. ix. 12, 1 the Son of God is called the iriXri (comp. Gosp. x. 9, iyu elp.i -h Bipa- Si' ipov idv rls elaiXB-g o-uB-qaerai), and in 12, 5 we read els r-hv /3av (ad Magn. 7, 1, comp. Gosp. v. 19 ; x. 30 ; xvii. 22). Here too He is called iv crap/ct yevd/ievos #eds and iv Oavdria £ they certainly show a knowledge of John's Gospel, as even Holtzmann admits. While no reminiscences of tbe Gospel are to be found in Polycarp, 7, 1 begins with a sen tence almost every word of which is to be found in 1 John iv. 2, etc. (comp. 2 John 7), and bears a stamp so character istically Johannine that the pretext of a locus communis or a borrowing from Polycarp is a priori excluded. Papias too, according to Eusebius (H. E., 3, 39), bas made use of passages from tbe first Epistle of John ; in tbe fragment of bis preface there preserved, be calls Christ airy r) aX-ijdeia (comp. Gosp. xiv. 6) ; among tbe Apostles enumerated be names first tbe three that are named in tbe beginning of John's Gospel (i. 41, 44), together with Thomas, who plays a part only in it ; and when be names John and Matthew last among the Apostles whose utterances be sought out, be must have been acquainted with tbe former's written record of tbe Lord's give the priority to Hermas here also, as he does decidedly in the case of Barnabas (Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1871, 3), while even Wittichen and Keim admit that both were acquainted with John. 42 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. words, as it can be proved be was with those of the latter, and must therefore have bad least need to investigate tbeir oral statements on this point.1 In tbe second Epistle of Clement we find the crap£ iykvero taken from John i. 14 (9, 5), and tbe dpvucr6ai Si' ov lyv^ev avrov (rbv rraripa t^s dAi^ctas) 3, 1 reminds us tbe more of 1 John ii. 23, since tbe ytvco- o-kovtcs tov 6iov are there in true Johannine phraseology called ot £6Wes (comp. also 17, 1, and with it Gosp. xvii. 3). But we are also frequently reminded of John by tbe use of far) and cpws, 0aVaTos and 6 /cdcrp,os ootos, vikov and [iicriiv, while tbe rrapa.KX-qTO's, 6, 9, recalls 1 John ii. I.2 Finally, while tbe words of tbe Lord in the Didacbe are in no case borrowed from John's Gospel, the eucharistic prayers in chap. 9, 10 are replete with Johannine ideas and expressions, such as £oj?; /cat yvSo-ts (9, 3), yWocrts kv T. arrocrT., Pol. ad Phil. 6, 3 : KaOws avros evCTetXaTO /cat ot euayyeXicrdynevot ijjoias drrocrToXoi /cat ot 7rpoTJTai) • their authority is even indirectly put on a par with that of tbe Old Testament, as the words of Christ only are elsewhere put (2 Clem. 14, 2 : ra BlBXia /cat oi dirdoToXoi).1 This does not of course imply an independent authority in addition to that of the Lord, but one that bas its warrant from Him and is by Him enabled to exercise its functions ; but neither does it imply an authority limited to the further inculcation irveiparos ayiov t-KXV&is iirl irdvras iyivero (2, 2, comp. 46, 6); hence the Epistle of Clement freely characterizes his words as rd vir airov (t. Beov) Si i)puv elp-npiva (comp. 59, 1, tois vrj> -npuv yeypappivois Sid tov dyiov irveiparos 63, 2). The Epistle of Barnabas likewise speaks of an in dwelling of the Divine Logos or Spirit in all believers (16, 8 f. ; 19, 7), and similarly Hermas (Mand. iii. 1 f.). 1 It is in harmony with this that the persons of the Apostles tower above all inspired teachers of the present. Ignatius, as bishop, does indeed speak (puvrj Beov (ad Phil. 7, 1 ; comp. ad Trail. 7, 1) ; but already, ad Rom. 4, 3, we read oix <&s Tiirpos Kal naCXos Siardo-o-opai ipXv, comp. ad Trail. 3, 3 ; Pol. ad Phil. 3, 2 : oilre iyu oiSre fiXXos Spoios ipol Sivarai KaraKoXovBijo-ai ry aoiplq. t. pax. n. ivb. HaiXov, and the Ephesians are said to be happy in having the apostles always in their midst, especially Paul the Martyr (Ign. ad Eph.) 11. 2 ; 12, 2. 46 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. of that which had been commanded by the Lord Him self during His life on earth. When a writing professes to be a SiSaxi/ toC Kvpiov, and enters so minutely into the details of later ecclesiastical relations and arrangements of worship, it cannot pretend that all its appointments are direct injunctions of the Lord, but only aims at showing bow the Apostles arranged these things in the name and spirit of Christ. But this apostolic authority is, notwith standing, a purely ideal force, so to speak. The views and ordinances already adopted by the Church are in fact simply assumed to have tbeir origin in tbe apostles, and through them in Christ as tbe 6 ii apxfjs rrapaBoOeh rjfuv Xo'yos (Pol. ad Phil. 7, 2). But the need of establishing by documentary evidence that which had been transmitted by tbe apostles, was not yet felt. Hence tbe peculiar phenomenon that reference is only incidentally made (comp. No. 1) to tbe apostolic epistles, while there is no thought of tbeir use as authoritative works. Even 2 Clem. 14, 2 contains no refer ence to tbe apostolic writings, as Holtzmann still maintains. It is obvious that where known tbey were much read, while increasing weight was attached to their thoughts and modes of expression, as we have already seen to be the case with tbe Johannine writings (§ 5, 7), and as happens frequently with extra-canonical books ; but tbey are not quoted.3 3. It is always of much interest to follow up tbe literary relations between tbe so-called apostolic Fathers and the New Testament writings. But even where such can be shown to exist, tbey naturally prove nothing for the genuineness or 2 It is a matter of great difficulty to determine where amid the many points of contact between the post-apostolic literature and that of the New Testament, a literary relation may with certainty be accepted. The collectanea of editors and the compilations specially occupied with this question are very much in want of critical sifting. Comp. Lardner, " The Credibility of the Gospel History," translated from the English, 1750, 71. Kirohhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des N. Testa- mentlichen Kanon, Zurich, 1844, OLDEST TRACES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISTLES. 47 canonicity of these works ; yet they testify to tbeir existence and open up a view into tbe range of tbeir circulation and usefulness. It only follows from this that we cannot prove the use of such a writing, but by no means that it was not in existence and unknown. Tbe First Fpistle of Clement points directly to the Epistle of Paul to tbe Corinthians in its detailed description of the state of parties (chap. 47), and contains in chap. 49 a plain imitation of the Pauline psalm of love (1 Cor. xiii.).1 It is tbe more striking that 1 Clem. 47, 1 speaks of tbe Epistle to tbe Corinthians, as if there were no second, and that in fact no certain reminiscence of it can be shown. The copying of the catalogue of vice (i. 29-32) in 35, 5 sufficiently proves a knowledge of tbe Epistle to the Romans, although only isolated phrases recall the rest of its contents.2 Of the Captivity Epistles, Clement is acquainted with those to tbe Ephesians and Philippians, although we have only one certain echo of each ; of the Pas toral Epistles, First Timothy and Titus.8 But the strongest 1 Comp. algo the phrase ftTeiv Tb eavrou from 1 Cor. a. 24 in 48, 6. We are reminded of the enumeration of gifts in 1 Cor. xii. 8 ff., by 48, 5, and still more clearly of the allegory of the body and its members in xii. 21 ff., by 37, 4 f. However freely the figure of the seed-corn as a type of the resurrection is carried out, 24, 4 f., yet the desig nation of Christ as the dirapxy' of the resurrection (24, 1), and the repeated though quite independent application of the frcacrros iv rip ISlu rdypari (37, 3 ; 41, 1) shows a reminiscence of 1 Cor. xv., especially as the phrase in Clement 63, 1 applies rbv tottov dvairXypovv (1 Cor. xiv. 16) in a peculiar way. 2 Comp. 51, 3, uv rb Kpipa irpbS-qXov iyevr/By with Rom. iii. 8 ; 3, 4. Qdvaros elGrjXBev els rbv Koapov with V. 12 ; 32, 2, il; airov 6 Kipus 'lyaovs to Kard adpxa with ix. 5 ; 40, 1, to fldB-n rrjs Betas yviiaeus with xi. 33 ; 46. 7, piXy itrpiv dXXrp\uv with xii. 5 ; and the phrase iiroBeivai tov rpd- xyXov 63, 1, which indeed is again applied differently, with xvi. 4. 3 In Clement 46, 6 pia KXrjais is named together with "one God, one Christ, and one Spirit " (Eph. iv. 4-6) as constituting the unity of the Church ; and in 47, 2 occurs iv dpxv rod eiayyeXlov out of Phil. iv. 15. Yet the thought in 16, 2 always recalls Phil. ii. 6, and the els iirio-Koirovs xal SiaKbvovs which contradicts the mode of expression elsewhere used in the Epistle, recalls Phil. 1, 1. The 071*05 Kal dpidvrovs xeipas atpovres irpos airbv, 29, 1, is plainly an imitation of 1 Tim. ii. 8 (comp. also 48 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. leaning is upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, from which i. 3-13 is copied in 36, 2-4, chap. xi. in chaps. 9-12, 17, etc. (comp. also chap. 45), xii. 1 in 19, 1, etc. It is therefore unnecessary to refer to such resemblances as that of 27, 2 to Heb. vi. 18, or to tbe conception of Christ as a high priest (comp. especially 36, 1 with Heb. iv. 15, etc.), or that of tbe spirit as irvevpa tt}s x^P'tos (46, 6, comp. Heb. x. 29). Finally, an acquaintance with the First Epistle of Peter may be in ferred with certainty from the passage e/caXeo-ev ^p,as e/c tov o-kotous eis ' vpuv (iv. 7) in Mand. xii. 2, 4 ; 4, 7 ; 5, 2) ; the prohibition of /caraXaXia (iv. 11) in Mand. ii. 2 1, and frequently elsewhere ; the 6 Suvipevos auaai Kal diroXicrai (iv. 12) in Mand. xii. 6, 3; Sim. ix. 23, 4; the sighs against the rich of those who have been defrauded (v. 4 ; comp. v. 9) iu Vis. iii. 9, 6 ; the irputp-qaaTe /col eo-TroraXijiroTe in Sim. vi. 1, 6 ; 2, . < 50 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. by Holtzmann also, of tbe Second particularly by Dietlein in bis Commentary) are very uncertain, although tbe phrase TTopeu'ovTat a-jrdVais Kal Tpi^aTs, Sim. vi. 2, 2 (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 13), is certainly very striking. Neither do we find any palpable echo of tbe Apocalypse, notwithstanding much similarity of figure and symbol. 5. Tbe epistle most freely used in tbe Ignatian letters is 1 Corinthians, viz. i. 18, 23 ; comp. ver. 20 with ad Eph. 18, 1 ; iv. 4 with ad Rom. 5, 1 ; vi. 9 with ad Eph. 16, 1, ad Philad. 3, 3 ; ix. 1 with ad Rom. 4, 3 ; ix. 27 with ad Trail. 12, 3 ; xv. 8 with ad Rom. 9, 2, to which may be added expressions such as rrepipvjrjpa, oiKoSopi) Beov, eSpaios, a-rreXev- Oepos 'I110-. and others. On tbe other band only one reference to the Roman epistle (i. 3 f.) occurs (ad Smyrn. 1, 1; comp. ad Eph. 18, 2), besides one to the Galatian Epistle (ad Smyrn. 9, 1 : v tu>v r)pepS>v, 14, 2, recalls 1 Pet. i. 20; and tbe use of KaTaXaXetv dXXijXiov as Christ's prohibition, 4, 3, is a reminiscence of James iv. 11 (comp. also the e/cSexeo-0ai Kap-irov taken from James v. 7, and figuratively applied in 20, 3. Tbe use of a single passage does not fully appear in 52 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. the Didacbe, unless tbe sign and wonder-working Anti christ bas its origin in 2 Thess. ii. 9, or tbe dp7raf, 2, 6, is added to tbe irXeove'/cT^s, in imitation of 1 Cor. v. 10. Wo only see bow even isolated expressions in tbe New Testa ment ran more and more into ecclesiastical usage, as for example tbe p.apdv dBd from 1 Cor. xvi. 22 (10, 6, cOmp. tbe i-mBvprrrricra (ptuvrj of Papias), that was gradually dying out or becoming uncertain, but which had always been a part of Divine worship.3 Even tbe Jew Trypbon diropv-qpoveipaTa ripv diroo-rbXuv airou that Christ is the Son of God. To these Apomnemoneumata Justin appeals twelve times before chap. 107, in different ways, for facts in the life of Christ, and four times for sayings of Christ (Dial. 103, 105, 107). 2 So little are these writings placed on a par with those of the pro phets, that Justin expressly says, he believes their authors, because the prophetic Spirit says the same things as they did (Apol. i. 33, comp. Dial. 53). For this very reason the yiypairrai with which in Dial. 49 an historical notice from Matt. xvii. 13 is introduced, cannot possibly bo used in a technical sense, but only as the yeyp. iv rip eiayy., Dial. 100, 3 It now appears why in the Clementine Homily (2 Clem. 8, 5) a say ing of the Lord is for the first time introduced with X^yei 6 Kipios ev rip eiayyeXlu, and consequently a writing in which words of the Lord occur is designated as the Gospel ; so also in the Didacbe (8, 2 : lis eKiXevaev 6 Kipios ev tcj> eiayyeXlu airou). Moreover, the fact that it calls upon its readers to do koto to 867,110 tov euayyeXlou (11, 3), or us ixeTe in rip eiayyeXlu tov Kvpiov r)puv (15, 4, comp. 15, 3), without citing par ticular passages, shows that the readers were acquainted and familiar with the contents of such a work (from the reading at worship). In the genitive of object we see plainly how the name first passed over from the oral preaching of Christ (de Christo) to vmtings where such preach ing was formulated (comp. § 5, 6, note 2) 56 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. was perplexed about tbe TrapayyiXpa/r'a of tbe Christians ev t<5 Xeyopivia eiayyeXtw, in reading the commands of the Lord contained therein (Dial. 10, 18). It was only as a consequence of tbe reading of evangelical writings at Divine service, that it first became usual to appeal expressly to them. While it had formerly been taken for granted as a matter of course that the apostolic memorials to which Justin refers were our four Gospels, Stroth first thought he discovered in Justin's citations nothing more than fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, while Eichhorn looked upon them as an elaboration of the primitive document, and Paulus as a harmony of the Gospels of Mark and Luke ; but these hypotheses may be regarded as set aside by the exhaustive researches of Winer and Olshausen.4 The question was again raised by Credner, who in his Bertrdge zur Einleitung (i., Halle, 1832) though admitting that Justin was acquainted with our four Gospels, yet represents him as having mainly used a Jewish Christian Gospel, that of Peter, which he thinks he has discovered in Dial. 106. But although he found favour with Mayerhoff and others, yet the refutations of Bindemann (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1842, 2) and Semisch (die apostolischen Denkwiirdigkeiten des Hdrtyrer Justin, Hamb. und Gotha, 1848) may be regarded as having re-established the current view on a firmer footing. In any case de Wette, Reuss and Bleek only admit the use of the Hebrew or Petrine Gospel in conjunction with our four. The question was taken up for the third time by the Tubingen school, which, consistently with its fundamental view brought our four canonical Gospels as low down as possible, regarding them as the last deposit of an older Gospel literature, whose usage in the Churches had only been displaced by the Catholic Church in its development. Hence Schwegler, in his nachapostol. Zeitalter (1846), went beyond Cred ner, denying to Justin all knowledge of the canonical Gospels, and main- 4 Stroth's hypothesis in Eichhorn's Eepertorium, Bd. i., 1777, found great approbation among tbe leaders of rationalism, such as Semler, Weber, Rosenmuller, Wegscheider, because it harmonized with their tendency to point out the late formation of the Canon and the priority of heretical Gospels ; while Eichhorn's view commended itself in connection with his hypothesis of a primitive document. The third has the greatest follow ing. Comp. H. E. G. Paulus, " Ob das Evang. Just.'s das Evang. nach denHebraern sei?" in his exeget. krit. Abh., Tubingen, 1784.- Gratz, krit. Untersuchungen iiber Just.'s apostol. Denkw., Stuttgart, 1814. Against all three, comp. Winer, Just. Mart. Evang. Canon, usum fuisse ostenditur, Lips., 1819. Olshausen, Echtheit der vier kanonischen Evan gelien, Konigsb., 1823. THE GOSPEL CANON. 57 taining that he used only the Petrine Gospel which is identical with the Hebrew one. But Hilgenfeld, who at first advocated a prevailing use of the Petrine Gospel which he regarded as transitional between Matthew and Luke and as the work on which our Mark is based (krit. Umer- suchungen uher die Evang. Justin's, etc., Halle 1850, comp. on the other hand Ritschl in the Theol. Jahrb., 1851), though slow to admit the use of our four Gospels, was all the more decided in favour of this view ; while Volkmar (Ueber Justin und sein Verhdltniss zu unseren Evang., Zurich, 1853, comp. Theol. Jahrb., 1855) could only fall back on the theory that the author of the fourth Gospel made use of Justin, and Scholten (die altesten Zeugnisse betr. die Schriften des N.T., Bremen, 1867) held fast to the older position of the school. Finally Credner, in his Gesch. des Kanon, represents the Petrine Gospel employed by Justin as a growth out of an older attempt to harmonize evangelical history according to the mind and spirit of Peter. Engelhardt (das Christen- thum Justins des Mdrtyrers, Erlangen, 1878) makes Justin employ a harmony of our first three Gospels compiled for ecclesiastical use. 2. However natural it may be to assume that Justin made use of an extra-canonical, heretical, or apocryphal Gospel, we find no adequate reason for such assumption if we take into account tbe growing insignificance of tbe features which cannot be traced back to our Gospels, in proportion to tbe rich material which leads to their present form ; l it is very doubtful whether he made use even of tbe Acts of Pilate which he mentions in Apol i. 35, 48, or was only acquainted with tbem, or perhaps bad only beard of tbem. Tbe idea that Justin made use of a single Gospel is abso- 1 Features such as the birth of Jesus in the cave, the enumeration of His works as a carpenter and the fiery appearance at His baptism in the . Jordan (Dial. 78, 88), are traditional explanations of the Gospel narrative which have passed over into various later Gospels, to some extent in a different form. But the assumption that the irdvra, Apol. i. 33 (No. 1, note 1), excludes the use of oral tradition along with what had been written, rests on a straining of the letter that is quite at variance with the context. The tying of the ass to the vine (Apol. i. 32) is certainly a free Justinian colouring, just as the imputation of magic arts (Dial. 69) is his explanation of Matt. ix. 34. To supplement the voice of God at the baptism according to Ps. ii. 7 (Dial. 88, 103), was so natural that it required no Scriptural precedent, and the only unknown word of Christ (Dial. 48), if it does not proceed from oral tradition, is perhaps nothing but a condensation of Luke xvii. 34-37 (comp. the contraction of Matt. v. 22 in Apol. i. 16). 58 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. lutely excluded by tbe fact that he says of the d-rropvr,- povevpara, a /caXetTat eiayyeXta (Apol. i. 66) and d cprjpi vrrb tSv a-rroo-ToXiav airov Kal tusv e/cetvots rrapaKoXovBrjO-avrtay owte- Ta^^ai (Dial. 103), in spite of an occasional reference to the Gospel (Dial. 100; comp. 10). The freedom with which tbe words of the Lord are variously reproduced corresponds entirely to what we have observed in tbe older documents of tbe second century (§ 5, 5), with this exception only, that along with Justin's intentional going back to written Gospels, more comprehensive, verbal- citations also occur. But tbe circumstance that what is taken from tbe Gospel narrative is reproduced quite freely and without dependence on tbe letter, only shows bow far Justin is from holding tbe Gospel writings, as such, to be sacred. And for this very reason tbe natural mixing of traits or sayings of tbe Lord taken from different Gospels cannot point to tbe use of a harmony of tbe Gospels.3 It is entirely consistent with tbe facts of tbe pre- 2 It is not impossible to conceive that attempts should have been made even before Tatian, such as Hnrnack thought was exemplified in the words of the Lord quoted in the Didacbe (1, 3, 4, 5 ; 16, 1), which are put together or intermixed out of Matt, and Luke, constituting the use of Mark's Gospel enlarged out of Luke's (comp. No. 1, note 3, § 5,6), since the ecclesiastical reading of written Gospels might in its beginning very easily lead to such procedure. But even where these mixed citations reappear in Justin himself or in other authors, they neither show the use of a Gospel harmony nor that of an uncanonical Gospel, since such mixings were already incorporated in oral tradition or were familiar to a writer, and might pass over from him to others. But this supposition is ex cluded by the fact that many of these apparent text-mixings, even where they recur, are more or less different, and that others are too unim portant or too much connected with extraneous matter to admit of being traced back to desigued harmonizing. Comp. e. gr. the citation of Matt. iii. 16 (Dial. 49), which shows an alteration of the parallels that is quite unimportant, or a citation of Luke xii, 4 (Apol. i. 19) evincing a borrowing from Matthew alone, and the commingling of Luke xiii. 26 in Matt. vii. 22 (Apol. i. 16; Dial. 76). It is certain that an intermixing like that of Matt. xxiv. 5 with vii. 15 (Dial. 35) is the result of quotation from memory, as well as combinations such as that of Matt. iv. 10 with Mark xii. 30 (Luke x. 27) or of Luke xiii. 28 with Matt. xiii. 42 (Apol. i. 16). THE GOSPEL CANON. 59 Justinian time (§ 5, 6) that tbe great mass of Justin's cita tions always proceeds from tbe Gospel of Matthew. But it is our Greek Gospel with which Justin is acquainted and which he uses respecting the history of tbe wise men (Dial. 78), down to tbe invention of tbe stealing of tbe dead body (Dial. 108), since he makes Jesus Himself send tbe disciples for tbe ass with tbe colt (Dial. 53; comp. Matt. xxi. 2).3 But besides these allusions we find also a series of the Lord's words occurring only in Luke (Dial 76, comp. Luke x. 19 ; Apol. i. 17, comp. Luke xii. 48 ; Dial. 105, comp. Luke xxiii. 46), or such words reproduced in a form specially character istic of Luke (Apol. i. 15, 16, comp. Luke v. 32, vi. 27 f., xxix. 34; i. 19, comp. Luke xii. 4, xviii. 27; i. 66, comp, Luke xxii. 19; Dial. 81, comp. Luke xx. 36). Justin is familiar with the narrative parts of Luke's Gospel, from the history of tbe childhood, which be always interweaves with Matthew's account, down to tbe history of tbe passion, from which be quotes tbe sending of Jesus to Herod (Dial. 103, comp. Luke xxiii. 7 f.), and tbe history of the resurrec tion, from which he repeatedly quotes what the disciples had learnt from Scripture (Apol. i. 50, Dial. 106, comp. Luke xxiv. 25 ff., 44 ff.). He is even acquainted with tbe passage of the bloody sweat (Luke xxii. 44), from tbe Apomnemoneumata, of which be here (Dial. 103) takes occasion to say that they proceed not from the Apostles alone, but also vtto tu>v e/cetvots rrapaKoXovdrja-dvTtav (Luke i. 3). It is plain that beside these two Gospels, that of Mark, which has so little that is peculiar, can scarcely come into consi deration ; but all doubt of acquaintance with it is excluded by tbe account of the naming of Zebedee's sons (Mark iii. 16 f.), which is expressly traced back to the Apomnemo- 8 Comp. also the citations from this Gospel deviating from the funda mental text as well as from the LXX., which are occasionally introduced with the same formula as in Matthew ; the many sayings of the Lord known only to the first Gospel, or forms of such sayings peculiar to it alone, even to the fiao-iXela tuv oipavav and the rraryp 6 oipdvios. 60 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. neumata of Peter (Dial. 106), i.e. to tbe Gospel of Mark.* It is therefore beyond all doubt that Justin knew and em ployed our three Gospels. 3. Since the researches of Tboma respecting Justin's literary relation to John's Gospel (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol, 1875, 3, 4), tbe opinion that Justin was not yet acquainted with tbe fourth Gospel, once so obstinately adhered to by tbe Tiibingen school, must be regarded as definitely set aside. Unquestionably his whole doctrine of tbe Logos has its origin in John's Gospel ; 1 from this narrative be takes tbe words of the Baptist whom be too calls simply John (Dial 88, comp. John i. 20, 23), the account that Jesus healed the man who was afflicted e/c yeveTiJs (Apol. i. 22 ; Dial. 69 ; comp. John ix. 1), and that He was reviled as a XaoVXavos (Dial. 69, comp. Gosp. vii. 12) .2 It is true be quotes only one saying 4 This Gospel too certainly belongs to those that were composed by the irapaKoXou6i)aavTes of the Apostles (Dial. 103 : awrerdxBai) ; but Justin plainly knows that it stands in close relation to a single Apostle, and that it does in fact contain the diropvnpoveipara of Peter, even though set down in writing by an apostolic disciple. All critical twistings of the text of this passage are therefore useless, while it is impossible and at variance with the whole usage of Justin that auroD should refer to Christ; but all attempts to find here a particular heretical Petrine Gospel (No. 1) are frustrated by the fact that here and here alone reference is made to a notice occurring only in Mark. Moreover the assertion that Jesus was a riKruv vopi^bpevos (Dial. 88) rests on Mark vi. 3, and the repeated state ment as to the place where the disciples found the foal tied (Apol. i. 32 ; Dial. 53) are based on Mark xi. 4. 1 Justin treats of the povoyevt)s (Dial. 105), who was with the Father before all created beings, and by whom everything was created (Apol. ii. 6), the o-apKo-rroiijBels (Apol i. 32, 66) who gives living water to the heart (Dial. 114, comp. 69), of the yeyevvnpivos oik i% dvBpuirelov oirippaTos dXX' iK BeXrjparos Beou (Dial. 63 ; comp. John i. 13). He says, that through Him rd tou irarpos iiriyvuvai -irdvra is given to us (Dial. 121), that through Him we vr) tov Beov, which speaks through tbem as formerly through the prophets, and leads to the renunciation of everything worldly (Dial. 119). But the Church still knows itself to be in full possession of this living, oral preaching of the Apostles (comp. § 6,2). There is the less occasion to go back to the early written record of it, since an appeal to tbe Old Testament and to the complete agreement between it and the Apomnemoneumata now largely plundered for tbeir historical contents (comp. No. 1), really suffices for the refutation of the errors that had cropped up in tbe Church itself. Tbe only apostolic writing besides these, mentioned in Justin, is tbe Apocalypse of tbe Apostle John, but it does not come into consideration on account of tbe apostolic teaching contained in it, but on account of its prophecy of the thousand years' reign (Dial. 81).3 There cannot therefore be any question as yet of a collection of apostolic Epistles or of tbeir canonicity or equality with tbe O. T. Scriptures, or even with the Gospels. It is certain, notwithstanding, that Justin is also acquainted with Pauline Epistles and is influenced by them. It is characteristic through out that what he has chiefly adopted from the Epistle to the Romans is the application of the Old Testament in the Christian sense, as appears from the many citations common to both in their form, connection and application (comp. Rom. iii. 11-17 and Dial. 27 ; ix. 27 ff., and Dial. 2 Only because the chief of the demons is here termed 68apo-lav ivSiaaaBai (Apol. i. 19, comp. 1 Cor. xv.), the dvdpv-qo-is rod rrdBous, Christ -irapiSuKev (Dial. 41, 70, comp. 1 Cor. xi.), and the axlapara Kal alpiaeis (Dial. 35, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 18 1). Comp. also the antithesis of the aoipla dvBpuireia and the Sivapis Beov, 1 Cor. ii. 5 and Apol. i. 60. On the other hand we find no trace even here of the second Corinthian Epistle, since the ipevSairbo-ToXoi, Dial. 35, cannot in itself be regarded as such. Again, the citations in Dial 95, 96 of the curse of the law and of him who hangeth upon a tree specially reminds us, by their form and application to the work of redemption, of the Galatian Epistle (iii. 10, 13). The same thing applies to the citation of the Ephesian Epistle (iv. 8, comp. Dial. 39 ; 87), and to the application of the type of circumcision in the Colossian Epistle (ii. 11, f., comp. Dial. 41 ; 43), of which we are also reminded by TrparbroKOS irdinjs Krlaeus and his irpb irdvruv elvai (i. 16 f., comp. Dial. 85 ; 138 ; 96). The second Epistle to the Thessalonians is recalled by the dvBpuiros rrjs dvoplas and rijs dTotrrao-ias (Dial 32 ; 110, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 7) and the SUas rlveiv Sid irvpbs aluvtov (Apol. i. 17, comp. 2 Thess. i. 8 f.), while the only reminiscence of the Epistle to the Philippians (ii. 7, etc., comp. Dial. 134 : iSoiXevo-e Kal ryv pixpt trraupou SouXelav 6 Xpiaros) is very uncertain. We are reminded of the Pastoral Epistles by the frequent expression imipdveia tou Xpiarov, as well as to t^s TrXdvys -irvevpara Kal Saipovia (Dial. 7, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 1) and V Xfi7l(rT''T7ls Ktt' V ipiXavBpuirla tov Beou (Dial. 34, comp. Tit. iii. 4). In imitation of the Epistle to the Hebrews Christ is frequently called dn-ooroXos (iii. 1), perhaps also irpuroTOKos and ayyeXos (i. 6, 9), most probably 6 Kara tt\v rd^iv MeXxia. fiaaiXeis ZaX-np. Kal aluvios lepeis i\fil(TTOv (vii. 1 ff., comp. Dial. 113) and the dpxiepeis (comp. also Dial. 13 with Heb. ix. 13 f.). The parallel between the ij/euSo-irpoipryrat and \pev5oSi5do-KaXoi in Dial. 82 is a notable reminiscence of 2 Pet. ii. 1, and the destruction of the world by fire in contrast with the deluge in Apol ii. 7, of 2 Pet. iii. 6 ff., without our being able to draw from them a certain conclusion as to a knowledge of the Epistles. This use of apostolic Epistles fully corresponds to that of the Johannine writings (No. 3). THE GOSPEL CANON. 65 5. Justin has therefore no knowledge of a Canon of apostolic writings, nor even of a Canon of the Gospels ; for if it were actually probable that he employed only our four Gospels, be uses them as historical documents and not as sacred writings. Nevertheless, tbe reading of tbe evan gelical books at public worship, first attested by him, would very soon lead as a matter of course to their being looked upon as equal to the sacred books of tbe Old Testament. Thus already in Tatian, Justin's pupil, a phrase of tbe Johannine prologue (Gospel i. 5) is introduced quite like a citation from the Old Testament (Orat. ad Gr., 13: toIto eoriv to ciptjpevov) . At first indeed it is always the Lord speaking in them which properly constitutes their canonical authority, as we have already seen in Hegesippus (§ 5, 4). The words of tbe Lord are the Xdyot ols ivrpetftoptBa (Athenag. leg. 11), while the Epistle to the Churches at Lyons and Vienne (ap. Euseb., H. E., 5, 2) quotes a saying of the Lord quite in tbe old manner (irrX-qpovTo to wo tov Kvpiov r)pS>v elprjpivov ; John xvi. 2)._ But as a matter of fact it is exclusively the Gospels from which these are taken, and which, because tbey contain such sayings of tbe Lord, are placed on a par with the 0. T. writings, as /cvpia/cai ypac^at ; which appears from the words of Dionysius of Corinth (circ. 170) preserved in Euseb., H. E., 4, 23. After Justin's time the fourth Gospel was more and more definitely placed on an equality with tbe three older ones.1 Even Tatian, in whose discourse to the Greeks no distinct reference to a synoptic passage 1 Of Hegesippus, who in the legend respecting James makes use of the saying of Luke xxiii. 34 (Euseb., H. E., 2, 23), Eusebius tells also that he iK tou KaB'"Eiflpalovs eiayyeXlov (Kal tov 2vpiaKov Kal ISlas iK rijs "EplpatSos StaXiKTov) rivd TlBr\aiv Kal &XXa Si us ii 'lovSai'Kijs dypdipov -irapaSdaeus pv-qpoveiei (H. E., 4, 23). But it does not by any means follow that he looked on the Gospel to the Hebrews as the specific or even as an essen tial source of the authoritative word of the Lord ; nor do we know that any Gospels besides our own were read anywhere throughout the Church, r 66 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. occurs, has many echoes of it besides tbe citation already mentioned (Orat. 4, comp. Gosp. i. 1 ; 13, comp. i. 5 ; 19, comp. Gosp. i. 3); and Athenagoras obviously draws his doctrine of the Logos from John.3 The historical part of it also is already regarded as having equal weight with the presentation of tbe history of Jesus contained in tbe older Gospels. Melito of Sardis in a Fragment (comp. Otto, Corp. Apol, ix. p. 416) estimates tbe public ministry of Christ as lasting a rpieria, which is only possible on the basis of John's Gospel, while according to Luke iii. 23, He was thirty years of age before His baptism. Polycrates of Ephesus (apud Euseb., 5, 24), following tbe Gospel xiii. 25, describes John as 6 eirt to o-rrjBos tov Kvpiov avarrecrdyii, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis in a fragment in tbe Paschal Chronicle (ed. Dindorf, p. 14) not only makes an undoubted allusion to tbe Gospel xix. 34, but rejects tbe right conception of tbe day of Christ's death in the Synoptics, on account of the divergent representation in John, and in so far orao-idfeiv So/cei Ta eiayyiXia. Hence the Gospels already form in his estimation a united sacred whole in which there can be no question of a contradiction. 6. From the fact that Christian authors or other promi nent Churchmen know and use our four Gospels, it does not 2 Comp. the allusion to John i. 3 (Leg. 4, 10), and in the latter passage the abiding of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son (comp. also the Koivuvla tov rrarpbs irpas rbv vlbv, Leg. 12, with 1 John i. 3). In Athenagoras besides the tpntri rb rppipifTiKov irvevpa. (Leg. 18) we. find also a saying of the Lord quoted from Matthew v. 28, Mark x. 11, Luke xviii. 27, and introduced simply with tprjcrl (Leg. 32, 33 ; de Resurr. 9), as well as a free application of sayings which are given in a mixed lorm from Matthew and Luke (Leg. i. 11, 12). Whether the saying in Leg. 32, re ferring to a late Church-custom, and introduced in a way that is quite peculiar, as a speech of the Logos, is an historical word of the Lord, may fairly be doubted. In the Church letter in Euseb., H. E., 5, 2, besides the express citation from John xvi. 2, with the exception of a remi niscence of Luke i. 5, we find only echoes of John's Gospel (comp. the JT7J7T) USaros fuWos, the -rrapdKX-irros and vlbs rrjs dirwXelas, the rf-vxrlv Beiva. inrip r. dbeXipuv). THE GOSPEL CANON. 67 of course follow that all four existed and were read in all tbe Churches. It is more" likely that, in many cases, tbe Churches were in possession only of one Gospel, as appears from formula? such as ws «xeTe iv t<5 evayyeXtoi (Did. 15, 3, 4, comp. No. 1, note 3) ; and it is certain that many of the text- mixings that have become stereotyped originated in the circumstance that those who knew tbe words of tbe Lord as recorded in other Gospels, altered and supplemented tbe Gospel in use among themselves to make it accord with these. It was only when it became more and more univer sally known that there were four Gospels, and only four, which were read here and there among the Churches and thus accredited, that tbe thought of forming tbem into a Gospel-harmony for ecclesiastical use could arise, since Mark has too little that is peculiar to him alone, and John presents too many difficulties in the way of such an attempt to make it probable that these very four had been selected for the purpose from a multitude of others., That Tatian bad compiled a Gospel-harmony of this kind (o-uvdcpeidv Tiva /cat o"uvayiuy>jv ovk 018' oVids Taiv euayyeXiuiv cruv#eis) and had called it to Sid Teo-crdpiov, is narrated by Eusebius (H. E.,4>, 29), at whose time it was in occasional use, although he himself seems not to have been acquainted with it, any more than Epiphanius, who mentions it in Heer., 46, 1. Again (about 450) Theodoret of Cyrus found more than 200 copies of it in his diocese, and because he thought many of its omissions were mutilations in tbe interest of heresy, be removed it in order to replace it by tbe four Gospels in their entirety (Heer. fab., 1, 20). The views elaborated in connection with the hypotheses concerning Justin's Gospel (No. 1), viz. that the so-called Diatessaron was the Gospel of Peter or a form of the Gospel to the Hebrews, had always a strong argument against them in the testimony of Dionysius Bar Salibi in the 12th century, who states that the Diatessaron of Tatian, com mented upon by Ephraem the Syrian, began with the introductory words of John's Gospel (comp. Daniel, Tatian, der Apologet., Halle, 1837 ; 68 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. Semisch, Tat. Diatessaron., Vratisl., 1856), but have been definitely set aside by an Armenian translation of that Commentary, which was turned into Latin by A. Aucher and improved by G. Moesinger, furnished with annotations, and published at Venice, 1876. Comp. respecting it, A. Harnack, in the Zeitschrift f. Kirchengesch., 1881, 4 Th.; Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, Erlangen, 1881. Accordingly no doubt remains that Tatian elaborated our four Gospels into one whole, and Zahn has pointed out from Aphraates and the doctrine of Addai how his Gospel-harmony was an authority as the Gospel in the Syrian Church for a long time. In it the text of the Gospels is very freely handled and much abridged, which could only have been done before the evangelical books as such had the reputation in the Churches of being sacred. Even omissions, of the genealogies for example, were perhaps originally quite accidental, and were due simply to the fact that they did not seem to be adapted for public reading in the Churches. The fact that it even adopts such incidents as the appearance of the light at the Jordan (comp. Zahn, p. 241), is only another proof how little reason we have to assume that Justin took it entirely from one Gospel (comp. No. 2, note 1). Zahn has tried to explain the strange account of Epiphanius (ibid.), according to which some call the Diatessaron Kad "Eflpatovs, by supposing that the Diatessaron was composed in Syriac ; but it is just as easy to explain it on the assumption that the error arose from what was known as a Syrian translation of it. The oldest Syrian and Latin translations of the four Gospels (comp. Cureton, Bemains of a very Ancient Becension of the Four Gospels in Syriac, London, 1858 ; Fr. Baetbgen, der Griech. Text des Cureton. Syrers, Leipzig, 1885 ; L. Ziegler, die lat. Bibeliibers. vor Hieronymus, Miincben, 1879), which made tbem accessible to the Syriac and Latin-speak ing Churches, must have proceeded from the time when these Gospels were generally used for public reading in tbe Churches. Such translations show that tbe separate Churches had gradually adopted the same usage, and each one was anxious to possess all four Gospels. That these were employed even in Jewish-Christian circles, is estab lished by the pseudo-Clementine Homilies since tbe dis covery of tbeir conclusion in 1853 (comp. 19, 22 with John ix. 2, etc.). Even by the heathen the written Gospels alone were regarded as the o-vyypdppo.ra of the Christians. From THE GOSPEL CANON. 69 Origen's work against Celsus, we see that he tries to refute tbe Christians from these as tbe documents recognised by themselves (2, 74), and that by them he understands in reality our four Gospels.1 Thus a fixed Canon of tbe Gospels based on tbe exclusive ecclesiastical validity of our four Gospels gradually arose. Tbe time when it became universally established can of course no longer be definitely ascertained ; but so early as the end of tbe second century, Bishop Serapion would no longer permit the use of Peter's Gospel (comp. § 8, 4) in the Churches of Bbossus in Cilicia (Euseb., H.E., 6, 12) . It is certain that Irenams, when near bis eightieth year be wrote bis great work against the heretics, already regarded it as an established fact that the Logos had given ns TtTpdpopcpov to evayyeXiov, evi 8e rrvivpaTt crwe)(opevov, and already seeks to prove an arrangement of Providence, from tbe significance of tbe number four (Adv. Heer., iii. 11, 8). It is equally certain that with Tertullian, the autoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum stands side by side with our four Gospels (Adv. Marc, 4, 5), and Clement of Alexandria speaks of tbe four Gospels as rd rrapaSeSopiva r)piv (Strom. 3, 13). 2 But when in bis Hypotyposen he gives a n-apdSocrcs 1 When he upbraids them with having altered to evayyfxiov three and four times and even oftener (2, 27), this was plainly the impression he derived from the mixing of like and unlike in the Gospels ; but besides our Gospels he seems to have been acquainted also with heretical re- modellings. From his polemic it appears that he chiefly used Matthew, though alsb Luke and John, and from his pointing to the fact that some speak of two angels in the history of the resurrection (Luke, John) and some only one (Matt., Mark), we see that he was acquainted with our four Gospels as the avyypdppara of the Christians (5, 52, 56). 2 When Clement sometimes quotes words of Christ whioh are not found in the Gospels, they proceed probably from oral tradition, e. gr. the free alteration of Matt. vi. 33 (Strom. 1, 24), even where they are quoted as ypa$T) (1, 28) or refer back to a Gospel (5, 10), which simply rests on a misconception, as is undoubtedly the case with respect to the saying ascribed to Christ in 3, 15 (comp. § 5, 6, note 1). It cannot be proved that Clement acknowledged the Gospel according to the Hebrews from the citation out of it along with Plato's Theatetus and the 7ra/>a8oo-eis of Matthew (2, 9). 70 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. twv dve'/coj(9ev irpefrfivT^piav respecting the order in which tbe Gospels were written (apud Euseb., H.E., 6, 14), it is clear that, among those rrpscrBvTepoi tbe four Gospels alone were re garded as,, ecclesiastically valid.3 The first foundation of a New Testament Canon was thus laid. It will be seen, especially in Tertullian, how at tbe end of tbe second century the Cburcb already felt itself bound by ecclesiastical usage respecting tbe Gospels. Hence we may the more readily assume that two decades at least bad already passed away since this usage bad arisen and been more or less firmly settled. 7. Tbe more clearly we perceive tbe relations under which in tbe third quarter of the second century tbe collection of the four Gospels attained to ecclesiastical authority, tbe less can we suppose that a collection of New Testament Epistles, of equal value in tbe eyes of the Church, was already in existence at that time. Melito of Sardis procures and imparts accurate information regarding tbe number and order of tbe books of tbe Old Covenant (Euseb., H.E., 4, 26), but we bear nothing of a similar undertaking with respect to the New Testament writings, although he must have already been acquainted with books that come under this category (comp. § 9, 1). Ewald's hypothesis of a collection of Pauline Epistles and a hundred other works, which were read on Sundays, is pure imagination. Though Eusebius concludes from a letter of Dionysius of Corinth, that the so-called first Epistle of Clement e£ dp\aiov e#ovs was read in 3 It ie certain that Theophilus of Antioch, to judge from his work ad Autol, is also acquainted with the Gospels of Matthew (3, 13), of Luke (2, 13) and of John (2, 22). Jerome, according to the Viris III, 25, read a commentary on the Gospel, having his name, the genuineness of which he appears indeed to doubt in that work, but which he mentions after wards without any such suspicion (comp. pref. in Matt.). This com mentary, according to the epist. 121 ad Algus. worked up the words of the four evangelists in some harmonistic way (comp. Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des NTlichen Kanon, 2, Erlangen, 1883. THE GOSPEL CANON. 71 bis church (H. E., 4, 23), yet the passage be quotes in support of bis view only states that an epistle which they bad received from tbe Puomans was read by tbem on tbe Sunday, i.e. at the regular meeting of tbe Church, and would always continue to be read for tbeir admonition, as would also be the case with the epistle written by Clement. Tbe question therefore turns upon an occasional reading of such Church-letters, which can by no means be put in com parison with a public reading of the holy Scriptures at worship. The case was somewhat different with tbe Apocalypse, which as a work of tbe prophetic spirit was brought forward as a means of proof even before Justin (No. 4).1 But when we read in Athenagoras Set KaTa tov a7rdo"ToXov to epdaprbv tovto — evSuo"ao-c9ai depBapcriav (De Besurr., 18), we must consider that we have here to do, not with the instruction or admonition of an apostle as such, but with a passage where Paul, speaking in tbe prophetic spirit, says i8ov pvo-Trjpwv vpZv Xeyio (1 Cor. xv. 51, 53). Besides, no citations of New Testament epistles are to be found in writings certainly belonging to this time,3 but only more or less distinct echoes of such as attest tbe literary value of detached words or expressions taken from them, as in Justin (No. 4). 1 According to Eusebius (H. E., 4, 26), Melito of Sardis also wrote upon it. Athenagoras (Leg. 36) has it in his mind in the words diroSiio-eiv Tipi yr\v rois ISlovs veKpois (Apoc. xx. 13) and in tbe Epistle of the Church at Lyons and Vienne, which in any case showed an acquaintance with the Apocalypse, since it has an undoubted reference to xiv. 4 (comp. also the Tiarbs Kal dX-nBivbs pdprvs and the irpurbroKos tuv veKpuv, Apoc. iii. 14 ; i. 5, apud Euseb., H. E., 5, 3), a passage is cited out of it (xxii. 11) With iva i) ypaiph TrXr)puBrj (Euseb., H.E., 5, 2), if there be not here an interchange with Daniel xii. 10. 2 Assuredly the Ep. ad. Diogn. does not belong to these in its con cluding part, where (chap. 11) we read etro 0^3os vbpov aSerai Kal irpo(pi)Tuv Xapis yivuHTKerai, Kal eiayyeXluv irlaris ISpvrai Kal diroarbXuv Trapdbotris (puXdao-erai, Kal iKKX-qalas xQs dirpbo-crov, chap. 16), and in the Church- letter in Euseb. 5, 2, occurs the orCXos koI iSpatapia from 1 Tim. iii. 15. Of Tatian we hear incidentally (§ 8, 5, note 2) that he acknowledged the Epistle to Titus, although it cannot be shown that it was used. On the other hand we find no certain trace of the Epistle to the Hebrews, even in the diraiyaapa of Tatian (Orat. 16) or the dVyeXoi Xeirovpyot (Athen., Leg. 10); nor of the Petrine Epistles in the expressions dtrwrla (Orat. 17), or a-KTjvupa (Orat. 15). Bat certainly there is a clear reference to 1 Pet. v. 6, in the Church-letter (Euseb. 5, 3, comp. also the ripi/v dirovipetv Athenag., Leg. 32) which also shows familiarity with the Acts of the Apostles (comp. the dpxnybs ri)s fw^s, and the mention of Stephen's prayer, ap. Euseb., 5, 3) from which we have in Tatian only some singular ex pressions (cireppoXbyos, Beopdxoi, Orat. 6, 13). Tbe fact that there is no reference to the apostles as an authority for doctrine, may have its origin in tbe circum stance that tbe documents here considered treat nowhere of an antithesis within Christianity, as is perhaps tbe case in Polycarp (§ 6, 2) ; but tbe circumstance that apart from casual prophetic words, tbe necessity of direct reference to THE CANON OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 73 the writings of tbe apostles never arises, shows clearly that until after tbe third quarter of the second century, tbe conditions for the formation of an epistolary Canon are utterly wanting. So much the more striking must it appear when tbe Tubingen school declares it to be a literary form adapted to tbe spirit of tbe time and without ulterior motive, that in tbe first half of tbe second century numerous works should have been put into circulation under apostolic names (comp. Koestlin, Die pseudonyme Literatur der altesten Kirche ; Theol. Jahrb. 1851, 2), while it is not evident what object this form could have bad at a time when no need of a written authentication of apostolic doctrine was felt, and tbe name of an apostle at tbe head of a writing by no means gave it unique authority. On tbe other band, these pretended primitive documents of the second century show no trace of the very thing which is characteristic of tbe real primitive documents belonging to it, viz. an appeal to tbe words of tbe Lord and tbe written Gospels. Yet it is strange enough that the most important productions of this time, at least in a spiritual sense, and most profound in tbeir theology, should all have decked themselves out in borrowed apostolic names, while only tbe comparatively weaker and less important ventured to appear under their own name or that of a contemporary. It is plain that only the same relations of time can have given rise to tbe need of going back to tbe apostolic writings on tbe one band and to a pseudonymous apostolic literature on tbe other. § 8. The Canon op Apostolic Traditional Doctrine. 1. In tbe course of tbe second century Gnosticism was developing into a sect, while Ebionism had already become such. Against these heretical tendencies, neither tbe sacred scripture of tbe Old Testament, whose authority was even disputed on many occasions, and which by means of alle- 74 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT- CANON. gorical interpretation was explained in the most diverse ways in tbe Church itself, nor tbe simple words of tbe Lord could suffice. Even tbe Gospel-Canon that was gradually taking shape, proved of doubtful value, since as a new sacred scripture it gave unlimited scope for allegorical inter pretation. Hence there naturally followed a return to the teaching of the apostles, who with the simple announcement of tbe saving facts of tbe gospel had always associated tbe certainty of present and future salvation, making this the motive for obedience to tbe new Christian law of life (§ 6, 2 ; 7, 4) . They bad taught nothing but what tbe Lord had taught them, nor professed anything but what He Himself bad attested (Iren., adv. Heer., III. 9, 1 ; 17, 4, comp. Tertull., dePrcescr. Heer., 6 ; " acceptam a Christo disciplinam fideliter assignaverunt," comp. chap. 21). Their doctrine, as trans mitted to tbe Churches, now took its place beside tbe nor mative authority of tbe Old Testament and the Lord's words, or directly supplanted the latter.1 Tbe conscious ness that tbeir announcement was at first oral and only afterwards committed by them to writings, is still present (Iren., adv. Heer., III. 1, 1, comp. Tert., de Prcescr. Heer., 21). Even if they bad left no writing, tbe tradition of tbeir teachings would certainly be found in tbe Churches, since as a matter of fact they have been faithfully preserved in many Churches among foreigners (III. 4, 1 f.). This transmitted 1 This threefold norm is continually repeated by Irenasus : -rrpoiprjrai iK-f/pv^av, b Kipios iSlSa^ev, diroaroXoi irapiSuKav (adv. Hcer.,1. 8, 1), or more fully: "lex annuntiat, prophetse prieconant, Christus revelat, apostoli tradunt, ecclesia credit" (II. 30, 9). But Serapion already says (apud Euseb., 6, 12), toDs oitoo-toXoiis dirobexbpeBa lis Xpicrbv; therefore it may simply mean, that the teaching of the Church has its witness, " a pro- phetis et ab apostolis et ab omnibus discipulis" (III. 24, 1, comp. Tert., adv. Hermog., 45 : "prophets et apostoli non ita tradunt"). The vas tov ottoo-toXov pteracppacrai, (is irrwiopBovpevov airuiv Tr)v tj}s c^pderecos crvvra^iv 80 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. (Euseb., H. E., 4, 29), and Tertullian makes a general com plaint of tbe adjectiones and detractiones of the heretics (de Prcesc. Heer., 17, 38). Thus arose the heretical remodel- lings of, the Canonical Gospels, such as tbe so-called Gospel to the Hebrews which in its later forms already approaches a barmonistic elaboration of our Gospels, the euayyeXiov Kar Atyirarious, which Clement expressly excludes from tbe transmitted Gospels (Strom. 3, 9, 13), and tbe Gospel of Peter (comp. § 7, 6). How far the euayyeXtov Kara BacriXeicfyv and tbe Evang. Veritatis of tbe later Valentinians were re- modellings of this character or original fabrications like tbe so-called apocryphal Gospels, we do not know. That such were not wanting is shown by Irenaeus, who speaks of a apvBrjTov rrXrjBos c\rroKpvrpuiv /cat vd0a>v ypacpcov as airol eVXacrav (adv. Heer., I. 20, 1, comp. Epiphanius, fiber., 30, 23). The so-called pseudo-Clementine literature unquestionably belongs to this category, not only in the forms of it which are still extant, but also in its foundations which can only be determined conjecturally. We have here a bold attempt to falsify the kovcuv -rijs e/c/cXi;o-ias or ttjs dXi^eids, which is always spoken of in this connection, by communicating sayings of Peter with a precise attestation of tbe origin of this tradition, and putting into bis mouth tbe doctrinal views peculiar to the author or to tbe tendency to which be belongs, connecting tbem moreover with words of tbe Lord in our four Gospels. To this literature, which is itself a kind of imitation of tbe Acts of the Apostles, apocryphal Acts are attached, such as tbe gnostic Acts of John and Andrew, which have to some extent rather tbe character of tbe so-called apocryphal Gospels, but which are mainly characterized by a tendency to fable. Of a .fabrication of doctrinal works under apostolic names, we shall bear more in tbe Muratorian Canon (§ 10, 2; comp. also Serapion, apud Euseb., 6, 12). But all this literary activity could have little influence on tbe Church, which was conscious THE CANON OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 81 of possessing tbe Veritas scripturarum, tbe authenticee litterce, from which it rejected this adulteratio scripturarum (Tert., de Prcesc. Heer., 19 ; 36 ; 38) -1 Tbe fact that heretical views were prominent in alleged early written memorials, could not blind ber to what was foreign and contradictory in them, for tbe very reason that the Church bad by no means derived her own views in tbe first instance from written monuments, but from a living oral tradition which was to her tbe criterion of all professedly genuine documents. How earnestly she guarded against the admixture of any thing spurious may be seen from tbe example of that Asiatic presbyter who composed tbe Acta Pauli et Theclce, and thongh maintaining that love to Paul bad been his motive, was yet deposed (Tert., de Bapt., 17). 5. After this only one step remained for heresy to take viz. to break with apostolic authority altogether. Even tbe Church itself always recognised prophetic authority side by side with apostolic ; but the gift of prophecy was not limited to tbe divine men of tbe old covenant, whose prophecies were recorded in 0. T. Scripture ; it lived in the Church. Tbe Apocalypse was indeed the first writing of the kind to which Justin appealed (§ 7, 4), prophetic utterances of Paul were tbe first that had been quoted (§ 7, 7) ; even tbe Shepherd of Hermas bad appeared clothed with prophetic 1 At tbe most, slighter remodellings of the Gospels, which were more difficult of detection, might hold their ground in the Church for a long time, as the history of Peter's Gospel shows (apud Euseb., H. E., 6, 12 ; comp. § 7, 6), the more readily because they proceeded from a time when even the Church did not consider itself bound to a particular form of the Lord's words, when oral tradition with its free and living capacity for form advanced side by side with written tradition and itself unsus pectingly added many a trait to the life-picture of the Lord, which was in keeping only with later representation. But as soon as this heretical remodelling advanced so far as to introduce its peculiar views that stood in opposition to the living image of the Lord in the Church and to His doctrine handed down by the apostles, or as soon as this foreign stamp was impressed on the new fabrications a, priori, the Church was obliged to reject them. G 82 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. authority. Hence Basilides feigned to have received bis wisdom from two prophets, with whose barbaric names be imposed on bis bearers (Euseb., H. E., 4, 7), hence Mark tbe Valentinian professed to have received a special revelation respecting the Tetras (Iren., adv. Heer., I. 14, 1) ; and thus we can understand bow they were able to lay claim to a wisdom with which neither a Peter nor a Paul could com pare (13, 6). But there was yet another way of setting up a peculiar authority not only side by side with that of tbe apostles but even in opposition to it. Already in apostolic times there was a party which refused to recognise Paul as an apostle, and this party found its consistent development only in heretical Jewish Christianity. They continued to repudiate Paul as an apostate, and therefore as a matter of course rejected his writings also, as well as those of Luke, adhering solely to tbe Gospel of Matthew (adv. Heer., I. 26, 2 ; III. 15, 1 ; comp. Euseb., H. E., 3, 27).1 Tbe ultra- Pauline Marcion could appeal on tbe other hand to tbe Epistle to tbe Galatians in order to prove that tbe primitive apostles were unworthy of trust (Tert., adv. Marc, 4, 3), be cause they mixed up legalia with tbe words of tbe Redeemer (Iren., adv. Heer., III. 2, 2). Hence the way was paved for subjecting apostolic authority itself to criticism and thus for rejecting it as such.2 1 Epiphanius says that they possessed an Acts of their own, in which James played the principal part, while it contained much that was hostile to Paul (Har., 30, 16) ; but the Pseudo-Clementines was a work of this kind, in which James appeared as the highest authority of the Church, and Paul was attacked by Peter, under the mask of Simon Magus (comp. No. 4). According to Euseb., H.E., 4, 29, the Severians also rejected the Epistles of Paul and the Acts, as the Cerinthians had already rejected the apostle Paul entirely (Epiph., Heer., 28, 5). 2 They want to be emendatores of the apostles, they turn to the criti cism of the " scripturarum ipsarum quasi nonrecte habeant neque sint ex autoritate " (III. 1, 1 ; 2, 1), they stipulate " quasdam scripturas recipere, alias " (soil, opinioni resistentes) rejicere " ( Tert., de Prascr. Har., 17 ; de Carne Chr., 3) under all kinds of lying pretexts (Clem., Strom. 7, 16). Thus Jerome, in the Prcef. ad Tit., relates that Tatian rejected some of THE CANON OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 83 6. Granting that tbe Ebionites drew tbeir origin from a time when tbe Gospel of Matthew alone held a paramount place even in the Church, its tradition being decisive (§ 5, 6), and supposing it to be certain that Valentine himself made impar tial use of the ecclesiastical Gospels (No. 3, note 2), yet Mar cion deliberately rejected those Gospels which proceeded from tbe primitive apostolic circle, for tbe very reason that tbey went back to tbe authority of tbe primitive apostles which be refnsed to recognise (Tert., adv. Marc, 34, comp. 4, 5 ; de Game Chr., 2). He was therefore acquainted with tbem be yond a doubt, and knew that they were valid in tbe Church by virtue of their direct or indirect descent from tbe primi tive apostles ; but for this very reason be was obliged to reject tbem. By appealing to the fact that Paul speaks only of one Gospel and not of several, he tries to prove that one only was valid, which be does not seem to have definitely named (adv. Marc, 4, 2), but which tbe Church Fathers rightly recognised as a mangled Gospel of Luke (Iren., I. 27, 2 ; III. 12, 12).1 In accordance with his fundamental principle, moreover, he could accept no apostolic epistle proceeding from tbe primi tive apostolic circle, but only Pauline epistles. And that be mutilated these also by removing all that was not in har- the Pauline epistles (probably the Epistles to Timothy in particular, comp. Clem., Strom. 2, 11), but acknowledged the Epistle to Titus, while Basilides rejected all the Pastoral Epistles. In the Philnsophumena (7, 37) we read that Apelles tuv eiayyeXtuv r) tov diroo-rbXav to dpiaxovra iavru alpeirai ; and Irenaeus, who speaks incidentally of such as seem to have rejected the Gospel as well as the Apocalypse of John (adv. Har.,111. 11, 9 ; comp. Epiph., Har., 51, 3), finds the ftrmitas of the Gospels con firmed by the very fact that each of the heretics selected one of them — the Ebionites Matthew, Marcion Luke, the Cerinthians Mark, the Valen- tinians John (adv. Heer., III. 11, 7). But Marcion still remains the chief representative of this standpoint. 1 Tertullian intimates that his pupils were always altering this Gospel afresh (adv. Marc, 4, 5), for which reason the Gospel that Origen and Epiphanius found with Apelles could not have been a peculiar one, ns Jerome in his Procem. in Matthaum supposes, but a still further muti lated Gospel of Luke, and therefore the Gospel that his pupils afterwardo designated as the Gospel of Christ absolutely. 84 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. mony with bis own views, Irenams expressly states (adv. Heer., I. 27, 2 ; III. 12, 12), while Tertullian remarks (adv. Marc, 5, 21) that tbe Epistle to Philemon alone escaped Marcion's falsifying bands, on account of its brevity (more correctly, its simplicity). But we learn from tbe same pas sage that be rejected tbe Pastoral Epistles also, which were obviously least in sympathy with him, since tbeir polemic was in early times referred to tbe Gnostic errors themselves. In this way he arrived at a fixed number of ten Pauline epistles, which be recognised solely and exclusively as nor mative writings, in tbe following order : Gal., 1st and 2nd Cor., Rom., 1st and 2nd Thess., Eph. (to which however, following Col. iv. 16, be prefixed tbe title ad Laodicenses, comp. Tert., adv. Marc, 5, 11, 17), Col., Phil., and Philemon. In him therefore we first find a closed Canon of tbe New Testament Scriptures. This phenomenon is adequately ex plained by the circumstance that the heretics, in contend ing for their peculiar doctrines, first found it necessary to go back to the written memorials of apostolic time (No. 3), and that it soon became apparent that tbey could not vindicate tbeir standpoint by tbem without mutilating them (No. 4), selecting and definitely curtailing such as harmonized with tbeir own views.2 7. It was by the criticism to which apostolic authority was thus subjected at tbe bands of the heretics, through their fal sification and rejection of apostolic writings, that tbe Church 3 The view still adhered to by Ewald and Bleek, viz. that Marcion found a collection of Pauline epistles of this kind already in the Church, and either adopted it in its entirety, if it originally consisted only of these ten letters, or made selections from it, is utterly wanting in historical foun dation. As the heretics were the first to appeal to the apostolic writings at all, so they proceeded to make a collection and limitation of those which they wished to recognise as exclusively valid. We see clearly the way in which this came about, but do not of course imply that all indivi dual heretical tendencies made every step of this way in the same man ner, either in the same order or even within certain proveable spaces of time. THE CANON OF APOSTOLIC TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE. 85 first attained to a full consciousness of what she possessed in tbe written memorials of apostolic time, by which means these came to be ranked as equal to the Scriptures of tbe Old Testament. When Credner and Reuss represent that in accordance with the characteristic tendency of human nature to look at the past in an ideal light, the office -and calling of tbe apostles gained lustre in proportion to their remoteness, this is altogether unbistorical. There was never a doubt in tbe Church as to tbe unique calling of tbe apostles and tbeir special equipment for it by the Holy Ghost (§ 6, 1, 2 ; § 7, 4). Tbe only new thing was that in opposition to a criticism which attacked tbe doctrine laid down in tbe apostolic writings, this spiritual equipment was made a guarantee for tbeir perfect knowledge of truth and tbe infallibility of tbe doctrine set forth in tbeir works. Thus these works naturally took tbeir place beside tbe prophetic books of tbe Old Testament (Theopb., ad Aut., 3, 12 : Sta rb tous 7rdvTas rrvcvpaToepopovs eVi rrvevpari Beov XeXaXr/xevai, comp.- ii. 22 : otoacr/covcriv r)pas al dytat ypacpai /cai TrdvTes ol rrvevpaTotpopoi, by which, as appears from what follows, tbe apostles are meant) ; in tbem tbe Spirit bad spoken through the apostles, as formerly through tbe prophets (Iren., adv. Heer., III. 21, 4 : "unus et idem spiritus dei qui in propbetis quidem pronun- tiavit — ipse et in apostolis annuntiavit ; " Tert., de Pat., 7 : "spiritus domini per apostolum pronuntiavit ; " comp. Clem., Pcedag. 1, 6 : to iv t<5 d-jroardXoj rrvevpa Xeyet,1 and tbey began 1 For this very reason they are " scriptui-se perfects, quippe a verbo dei et spiritu ejus dictse " (Iren., adv. Har., II. 28, 2 ; comp. 28, 3 : SXuv tuv ypaipuv wveupariKuv oiauv) ypaipal Bebirvevaroi (Clem., Strom. 7, 16). "Pro- phetarum et domini et apostolorum voces " now stand quite on a par (adv. Har., II. 2, 6), what " scriptura aliqua retulit, apostolus dixit, dominus docuit" (28, 7). The apostolic writings, like those of the Old Testament, now come under the conception of ypaipal absolutely, or ypaipal Beiai (Iren., adv. Heer., I. 1, 3 ; 6, 3 ; II. 27, 1 ; Clem., Strom. 2, 2 ; comp. Ter tullian, de Prcescr. Har., 39 : " divina Htteratara," Apolog., 39 : " litterte diviuiE," adv. Hermog., 31 : " scriptura divina "), of xvpiaxal ypaipal (Iren., ado. Har., II. 30, 6 ; V. 20, 2 : " dominicse scripture "), of pifiXoi dyiai 86 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. to be quoted exactly like tbe writings of tbe Old Testament. Tbe first in whom this is seen with tbe clearness of a principle is Theophilus of Antioch. Although be mainly interweaves free reminiscences of apostolic writings with bis own composition, yet be already introduces citations from the Pauline epistles with tbe words /ceXeu'ei r)pas 6 0eios Xdyos (ad Autol , 3, 14). So too in tbe Gospels, it is no longer as before tbe Lord speaking in tbem that appears as tbe authority,2 but tbe apostle who writes tbem. A sentence of John's prologue is cited as tbe doctrine of tbe irvev/xaTo- cpdpoi ef cov 'Iiodvvijs Xe'yet (ad Autol., 2, 22 ; comp. Iren., adv. Heer., II. 2, 5 : " quemadmodum Joannes domini discipulus ait : " Gospel i. 3 ; in Irenasus we read " spiritus sanctus per Mattbaum ait: " Matt. i. 18 (adv. Heer., III. 16, 2) ; and in Tertullian : " ipse imprimis Mattbaus, fidelissimus evangelii commentator ita exorsus est : " Matt. i. 1 (de Came Christi, 22 ; comp. Clem., Pcedag. 2, 1 : rjcrl 6 Aou/cas).3 But this putting of the apostolic writings on an equality with those of tbe Old Testament must have found immediate expression (Clem., Pad., 3, 12 ; comp. Tert., Apol., 39 : " sanctaa voce? "). They are called to Xo7io tou Beov (Iren., adv. Har., I. 8, 1 ; comp. Tert., Apol, 32 : " dei voces," de Anim., 28 : " sermo divinus "). 2 Only detached sayings of the Lord, as formerly (§ 5), are adduced. Comp. Iren., adv. Har., I. 4, 3 : irepl 5>v b xipios ypuv etpyxev ; Clem., Pad. I. 5, 8 : iv r$ eiayyeXlu cpyal or paprvpei b xipios. And even where such sayings are adduced they are already authoritative as words of Scripture (Theoph., ad Autol, 3, 13, 14 : y eiayyiXios epuvy SiSdaKei, rb eiayyiXiov tpyo-l; comp. Clem., Pad. 1, 5 : y ypacpi) \iyei iv eiayyeXlu), as naturally followed from the Gospel writings having been accepted as such (§ 7). 3 It is true that in Clement alone passages from apostolic epistles are directly cited as ypaipr) (comp. Coh. ad Gent., 1 : tpyal yd-noaroXixy ypaipy : Tit. iii. 3, etc.). Among the Church Fathers at the close of the second century they are almost universally cited with the words 6 dirbaToXos Xiyei, his name being inmost cases mentioned, while a more particular account of the epistle in which they occur is frequently given. From this it is clearly seen that it was the personal authority of the apostles which gave their writings their importance as sacred writings in the Church, and not the fact of their belonging to a collection of writings to which such im portance inherently belonged. NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY 87 in the fact that tbe former, like tbe latter, were read at public service, although this is only casually mentioned in Tertullian (de Prcescr. Heer., 36 : "apud quas ipsaa autben- ticse litters apostolorum recitantur," comp. adv. Marc, 4, 5 : " quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Epbesii "). While tbe Gospels became sacred writings in consequence of being read in tbe Church (§ 7, 5), tbe ecclesiastical reading of tbe Epistles first began after tbey bad been raised to tbe rank of sacred writings. § 9. The New Testament at the Close of the Second Centdey. 1. When the apostolic writings were promoted to the rank of sacred books equal in importance to those of the Old Testament, there were already nonce Scriptures, which, on account of tbeir attestation of the words and history of the Lord, bad taken tbeir place beside tbe veteres (comp. Tert., adv. Praxeam, 24; "novas filium dei prEefiniunt ") ; these were the Gospels (§ 7). Hence tbe former received tbe double appellation of Ta evayyeXt/ca. Kal Ta d7rooToXi/ca, just as the latter were generally termed 6 vdp.os xai Trpod,rJTai (Iren., adv. Heer., I. 3, 6). Of tbe Church it is said that she "legem et propbetas cum evangelicis et apostolicis litteris miscet " (Tert., de Prcescr., 36) ; "ber very certainty of possessing in apostolic tradition the Kaviov t^s aX»j5eias (§ 7, 1) consists in tbe o-vp- (pwvla vopov Kal rrpocprjTiov opov /cat ci7rocrTdXa>v civ /cat tu evay- yeXi'u (Clem., Strom. 7, 16 ; comp. 3, 11 : t6v airov Beov Sta vopov Kal irpocpT^Toiv /cat euayyeXtou 6 a.7rdcrToXos K-ripvcrcreC) ; for which reason to euayyeXiov and ot aTrdo-ToXoi stand over against tbe prophets (Strom. 7, 16) .* But since tbe law and 1 In spite of this co-ordination, the consciousness that the Gospels formed the actual foundation of the new sacred Scriptures is not yet obliterated, for which reason when the Old Testament Scriptures collec tively are termed the Prophets or the Law, these are frequently character ized as the Gospel (Iren., ado. Far., II. 27, 2 : " universte scriptura divinae, 88 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. the prophets formed a fixed whole, tbe Gospels and the apos tolic writings could not fail soon to be regarded in tbe same light. Irenisus already speaks of utraque Scriptura divina (adv. Heer., III. 19, 2), and Tertullian of utrumque testa mentum (adv. Marc, 1, 19) ; and the latter expressly says that tbe name testamentum (already occurring in Melito of Sardis, comp. § 7, 7) was applied to tbe collection of evan gelical-apostolic writings, as well as to tbe prophetic.3 Hence there is now a Novum in addition to tbe Vetus Testamentum (de Prcescr. Heer., 30), nor can it be doubted that Clement already employs r) rraXaia. and r) via SiaBriKy) in this sense (Strom. 5, 13; comp. 3, 6, 11, 18; 4, 21). But the New Testament collection was still, so to speak, an indefinite quan tity.3 It is true there was no doubt that the only Gospels prophetia et evangelia ; " Clem., Padag. 1, 5 : to eiayyiXiov in opposition to irpotpiyrela ; comp. Strom. 3, 9; 4, 1; Tert., adv. Marc, 1, 19, where Old and New Testament stand over against one another as lex and evan- gelium). In like manner, the recollection is preserved that the words of the Lord originally procured for those Gospels attesting them, the rank of sacred writings, in the antithesis of apostolica littera and dominicce pronunciationes (Tert., de Prascr. Har., 4 ; comp. cap. 44 : " dominicse et apostolicse scriptures et denunciationes ; " de Bapt., 15 : " tarn ex domini evang. quam ex apost. litteris "). Comp. Iren., adv. Har., II. 2, 6 : " ex ipsis apostolis et ex domini sermonibus." 2 Comp. adv. Marc. ,4, 1 : " alteram alterius instrumenti vel quod magis usui est dicere testamenti." The expression instrumentum, which occurs only in Tertullian, denotes means of proof in a juridical sense. The apostolic writings are the instrumenta doctrina (de Prase. Har., 38), i.e. the documents from which right doctrine may be proved. Every apostolic writing is an instrument of this kind (comp. de Resun. Cam., 33 ; Instr. Joannis, cap. 40 ; Instr. Pauli, adv Marc, 5, 2 ; Instr. Actorum) ; but just as the prophets collectively form such an instrument (de Res. Cam., 33) as also the Gospels (adv. Marc, 4, 2), so likewise do the various instrumenta apostolica (de Res. Cam., 39) form such a one. Finally all Holy Scripture is " totum instrumentum utriusque testamenti " (adv. Prax., 20). 3 That there were two closed collections called to eiayyiXiov and b dwdaroXos respectively, as Eichhorn and Bertholdt, Schott and de Wette, and to some extent even Reuss, assume, is an obvious error, since the former denotes not merely the four Gospels, but the contents of the New Testament Scriptures in general, as opposed to the Old (comp. NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 89 were the four traditional ones (§ 7, 6) ; but we shall see from what motive tbe Acts, which was neither an evangelical nor apostolic writing, was added to these. Moreover, tbe num ber of apostolic epistles was not definitely settled ; and just as tbe Apocalypse was almost universally joined with tbe Gospels, so too other writings that were neither apostolic nor yet epistles, were cited and reckoned as belonging to tbe New Testament. A closer examination of tbe sacred writ ings acknowledged by Irenams, Clement and Tertullian will show that at this time there was not yet an exclusive collec tion of apostolic writings, viz. a closed Canon in our sense, and will explain tbe reason of this.* It was only as a sub stitute for tbe oral teaching of tbe apostles that tbe evange lical and apostolic writings collectively assumed tbe form of a Canon by which to determine what pertained to truth and faith and what was at variance with tliem. But we find no definite statement as to tbe individual writings belonging to it : there is a closed evangelicum instrumentum, it is true, but not an apostolicum (comp. Note 2). Comp. Ronsch, Das Neue Testament Tertullians, Leipz. 1871. 2. It must not be overlooked that tbe two portions of which the New Testament consisted at tbe close of tbe second Note 1). That citations are so often made with the words b drbaroXos \iyei, especially in Clement (§ 8, 7 ; Note 3), is accounted for simply on the ground that it was the apostle Paul whose numerous writings were chiefly used, and who is therefore spoken of as the Apostle absolutely (comp. Strom. 7, 3), while reference is incidentally made to John i. 17 in the words Kara rbv d-irltrroXov (Quis Dives Salvus, 8). 4 When Clement speaks of an ei5a77eXi/c6s Kavuv (Strom. 3, 9), it is the Kavuv rijs dXyBeias (§ 7, 1), inasmuch as it is taken from the New Testa ment writings (Note 1 ; comp. Tert., de Prascr. Har., 36 : "legem et pro- phetas cum evang. et apostol. litteris miscet, inde potat fidem "). In the same sense Irenseus says that John, in the prologue to his Gospel, tried " regula'm veritatis constituere in ecclesia " (adv. Heer., III. 11,1), and calls the writings of the apostles "fundamentum et columnam fidei nostras " (III. 1,1). When he says that we have the sermones dei as regula veritatis (IV. 35, 4), we know that the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament are meant as well as the Gospels and the apostolic writings (§ 8, 7). 90 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. century, bad been formed from totally different points of view. Where tbe apostolic writings were concerned, the question turned on tbe written memorials of tbe men who by virtue of tbeir calling and equipment bad the sole right of decision as to what alone was tbe true doctrine of Christ. On tbe other band, where tbe evangelical writings were concerned, tbe point in question was, what Gospels bad been current in tbe Church from early times as trustworthy docu ments, in which tbe words and life of tbe Lord would be authentically transmitted ; by which it was not intended originally to cast any reflection on tbe person of their authors. But as soon as these two parts were made into a whole, it became necessary to consider this whole from tbe same point of view from which a New Testament collection of sacred books had taken its place side by side with those of tbe Old Testament, i.e. it was necessary to examine bow far tbe Gospels belonging to it contained genuine apostolic tradition. This is the point of view taken up by Irenaaus in bis disquisitions respecting tbe origin of the four Gospels (adv. Heer., III. 1, 1), according to which Mark, 6 paBriTr)1; /cat epprjvevrr)<; Tlerpov (comp. also 10, 6) to. virb Herpov KTjpvcro-opeva eyypdcpuis ^p,tv TrapeSoixev, and Luke, 6 d/cdXov#os IlavXov, to irr exeivov Krjpva-cropevov eiayyiXiov iv BiBXiio xare- Bero. Moreover, following Luke i. 2, be emphasizes tbe fact that tbe latter " qua? ab apostolis didicerat, tradidit nobis " (14, 2, comp. 10, 1). It is Tertullian who more than any other with far-reaching acuteness, makes tbe authoritative statement, "evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso domino sit impositum " (adv. Marc, 4, 2). But tbe four tra ditional Gospels were not in harmony with this standpoint (comp. Clem., Strom. 3, 13), since two of them unquestion ably proceeded only from apostolic disciples ; 1 and yet tbe 1 It is most interesting to see how Tert. is for ever seeking to vindicate the recognition of these two, in opposition to his former principle. He NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 91 Church already felt herself bound by this tradition (§ 7, 6) It is of moment for tbe history of tbe formation of tbe Canon, that the impossibility of carrying out the principle of apostolicity, which properly speaking was of necessity involved in tbe idea of a Canon, was thus demonstrated a priori. 3. But Luke's Acts of tbe Apostles also belonged to those writings which were highly prized by tbe Church on account of their value as early documents, and the recognition of which she must see to be absolutely assured. For tbe out pouring of tbe Spirit on the apostles, which was the foun dation of all the importance now attached to tbeir writings, for the apostolic authority of Paul, whose works always formed the chief mass of tbe a7roo-ToXi/ca, for the founding of the Church in general, and that of the apostolic Churches in particular, whose position was now one of such decided importance (§ 8, 2), this book was in the eyes of tbe Church of that time the sole means of proof.1 Yet it neither pro- first appeals to the fact that the " priedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri possit de glories studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magis- trorum, immo Christi qui magistros apostolos fecit." Then he urges that, " nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes et Matthseus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, iisdem regulis exorsi " (adv. Marc, 4, 2). Finally, he comes to the conclusion that " apud universas (ecole- sias) evangelium Lues ab initio editionis suse stare. Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Joannis dico et Matthsei, licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Nam et Lucse digestum Paulo adscribere solent. Capit magistrorum videri quse discipuli promulgarint " (4, 5). 1 Hence Irenaeus regards it as providential that much of Luke's Gos pel has been communicated by him alone, since the heretics neither can nor will give this up, because they are thus compeUed to recognise the " testificatio des Lucas de actibus et doctrina apostolorum," in particular the calling of Paul to be an apostle (adv. Har., Ill, 15, 1). Tertullian points out to them that they can know nothing whatever of the Holy Ghost and of the Church which they wish to defend, without the Actus Apostolorum (as Irenseus also incidentally calls the book, adv. Har., Ill, 13, 3) ; and that they cannot even appeal to Paul against the primitive apostles, since they knew nothing of him whatever without 92 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. ceeded from an apostle whose authority would have justi fied its reception among tbe sacred books, nor could it be supported on the plea of early usage, like tbe primitive documents respecting tbe acts and teaching of the Lord, much less on the el priori assumption of a special inspiration. It is from the fact of Luke's presence as an eye-witness of the most important parts of the life of Paul, from tbe way in which be is accredited by Paul and in which tbe com position of the Gospel is entrusted to him, that Irenaaus proves bis credibility (adv. Heer., III. 14, 1), as Tertullian proves it from his agreement with Paul (adv. Marc, 5, 2 ; comp. Iren., adv. Heer., III. 13, 3). Clement of Alexandria, also employs ¦ the -n-pa£eis t6jv drroo-ToXiov chiefly as an historical source (Pcedag. 2, 1 ; comp. Strom. 1, 18, 19, 23), but even as such it was absolutely indispensable to tbe Church ; and when tbe writings recognised by the Church as authoritative were put together in tbe New Testament, it was necessarily included among tbem, although not fully coinciding with tbe standpoint to which either part owed its recognition. Thus a second point was raised on which every attempt to form a Canon from one initial standpoint must have foundered, even if tbe matter bad been made a subject of reflection.3 4. Tbe Pauline epistles naturally form tbe larger portion this book, his own testimony not being sufficient (de Prascr. Har., 22, 23). 2 But Clement was also acquainted with a Kr/pvypa Jlirpov, which, like the Acts, must have given an account of the sayings and doings of Peter; and since he holds the tradition therein contained to be authentic, he might just as well have quoted it as the other (Strom. 1, 29 ; 2, 15 ; 5, 5 ; 6, 15) and have received it into his New Testament, although the West seems to know nothing of it. On the other hand it does not follow from Strom. 2, 9 that he acknowledged the irapaSbaeis of Matthias in the same way (comp. § 7, 6, note 2). It does not at all appear that his saying which he mentions in 3, 4 is taken from this writing, or that the heretics who appealed to him (7, 17), made use of it, for which reason, moreover, it cannot be concluded from this passage that he re jected it. NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 93 of those apostolic writings which go to make up tbe New Testament.1 In Irenasus, Tertullian and Clement, twelve Pauline epistles are expressly cited, i.e. are banded down collectively under bis name, with tbe exception of tbe Epistle to Philemon, which, on account of its brevity and tbe doctrinal unimportance of its contents, offered no induce ment for such classification. Por we leam quite incidentally from Tertullian that he was nevertheless well acquainted with it (comp. adv. Marc, 5', 21 and with it § 8, 6). But it does not by any means appear that they bad these epistles before tbem in tbe form of a concluded collection and in fixed succession.3 On tbe contrary we see bow in tbe case of tbe Epistle to tbe Hebrews views differed even as to tbe works that proceeded from Paul. By Clement who regarded it as Pauline at least in its alleged Hebraic basis (Euseb., H.E., 6, 14), it is frequently cited in closest connec tion with passages in other Pauline epistles (comp. Strom. 2, 2; 6, 8; 7, 1). Theophilus bas merely an allusion to tbe contrast of milk and strong meat (2, 25, comp. Heb. v. 12), while Irenams shows no trace of it.3 There is in 1 In Theophilus of Antioch, only one express citation occurs, in which Tit. iii. 1 ; 1 Tim. ii. 1 f. are connected with Rom. xiii. 7 f. (ad Autol, 3, 14) ; but references, more or less plain, are found to almost all the others ; and the fact that we find no trace of the Galatian or 2nd Thessalonian Epistle as well as Philemon, has no significance what ever. 2 Attempts like those made by Credner and Volkmar, to prove from Tertullian where he goes over the Holy Scriptures, that a collection of this kind did exist, are all in vain, since in his account of the books he never adheres to the same number, much less the same order. That the unknown saying of Paul quoted by Clement (Strom. 6, 5) proceeds from an apocryphal or lost writing, is scarcely probable. Like the say ing of Matthias (No. 3, note 2) it may have had its origin in oral tradition. 3 True, he is said to have mentioned it and quoted some passages from it in a work that has been lost to us (Euseb., H.E., 5, 26 : pvypoveiei byrd Tiva i£ airuv irapaBipevos), but from the fact that in his attack on the heretics he nowhere makes use of an epistle so valuable on account of its doctrine, it only follows the more certainly how far he was from regarding it as Pauline or even apostolic. 94 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. fact no reason to doubt the statement of Stephen Gobar in tbe sixth century (ap. Phot. Bibl, cod. 232) that be declares it to be nnpauline. Moreover it is evident that Tertullian is quite unaware that anybody holds it to be Pauline ; he knows it only as an Epistle of Barnabas, of a " vir satis auc- toratus, qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit," and hints that it is received by many of tbe Churches. But however highly be values tbe epistle, and however well it suits bis purpose, yet be will only " nur ex redun- dantia alicujus etiam comitis apostolorum testimonium su- perducere, idoneum confirmandi de proximo jure discipli- nam magistrorum " (de Pudic, 20). In bis view, therefore, the Epistle to tbe Hebrews is not a sacred book of tbe New Testament, because it does not belong to tbe apostolic writings ; and tbe fact that it was already received by many in bis circle, only proves that when tbe works of apostolic disciples bad once been admitted into tbe New Testament (No. 2, 3), tbe principle of recognising only apostolic works as authoritative, was no longer firmly adhered to, even in contrast to epistolary literature. 5. Still less can we suppose that there was a concluded collection of writings proceeding from tbe circle of tbe primitive apostles, such as, in Ewald's opinion, was joined to tbe collection of Pauline letters in the beginning of tbe century. True, it is admitted as a matter of course that the first Epistle of Peter, which was already known to tbe Roman Clement and was used by Polycarp and Papias (§ 6, 7), was already reckoned with tbe apostolic epistles. It is expressly cited, sometimes repeatedly, by Irenseus (adv. Heer., IV. 16, 5, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 16), Tertullian (Scarp. 12, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 20, etc.) and Clement (Pcedag., I. 6, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 1-3). On tbe other band they show no trace of tbe second Epistle of Peter.1 So also it may be taken for 1 The fact that IrenEeus quotes the first : " Petrus ait in epistola sua (adv. Har., IV. 9, 2), and Clement : 6 IHrpos iv ry imo-roXy (Strom. 3, NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 95 granted that tbe first Epistle of John, which together with tbe Gospel, was obviously known from tbe beginning (§ 5, 7), was reckoned as part of the New Testament by the Fathers at tbe end of tbe second century ; and tbe fact that no reminiscence of it is found in Theophilus can only be accidental. But Irengeus repeatedly cites it as Johannine (adv. Heer., III. 16, 8, comp. 1 John iv. 1 ff. ; v. 1), likewise Tertullian (adv. Prax., 15, comp. 1 John i. 1), and Clement (Pcedag. III. 11, comp. 1 John iv. 7 ; v. 3 ; ii. 3-6) ; and in Irenaeus and Clement a second is joined with it.2 Tbe fact that tbe third Epistle is never quoted does not prove that it was still unknown to these Church Fathers, if we take into account its brevity and tbe doctrinal unimportance of its contents ; but neither can tbe contrary be proved. It is more remarkable that the Epistle of James, already so much used by Hermas (§ 6, 4), and from which Theophilus (ad. Autol, I, 2) seems to copy, should never be quoted. In the case of Irenaaus and Tertullian it may indeed be accounted for simply by assuming that tbey did not look upon tbe author of tbe epistle as an apostle, and correctly so ; but in 18), if we take into account the way in which the Church Fathers ex pressed themselves, does not indeed prove that they were not acquainted with a second one by him (vid. infra) ; but a citation from so impor tant an epistle could not be wanting had they known it, while even the remarkable echo of the whole context of 2 Pet. ii. 4-7 in Iren., ado. Har., IV. 36, 4, cannot be proved, for want of the Greek text. Yet the dBipi- tos elSaXoXarpela (1, 14 ; 2, 34) and the irXdvy waTpoirapdSoTos (2, 24) in Theophilus form a scarcely mistakeable reference to 1 Pet. iv. 3 ; i. 18, while the alleged echoes of 2 Pet. i. 19, ff. (2, 9. 13) prove nothing. 3 It is quite clear in this case that the citation-formula, " in epistola sua testificatus est " (Iren., adv. Har., III. 16, 5), does not exclude the knowledge of a second Epistle : for in I. 16, 3 , Irenieus expressly cites 2 John 11 ; though in III. 16, 8 (in pradicta epistola) he erroneously attributes the passage 2 John 7, etc. to the first Epistle, where some thing similar is at least to be found. So too Clement (Strom. 3, 4) cites the passage 1 John i. 6 t. with the woids eiios eprja-iv (1, 29 ; comp. 2. 1). Nor is there any reason why we should not accept tbe /caXSs eurev r\ ypadrt\ r) Xiyovcra, with which Irenseus (adv. Heer., IV. 20, 2) introduces a passage of Hermas, as an actual quotation from Scripture. Although according to Tertullian tbe " scriptura Pastoris, qua? sola moecbos amat," does not deserve " divino instrumento in- incidi" (de Pud., 10), yet it is only because of bis prejudice against its contents and not on fundamental grounds that he determines to reject it.1 7. It is thus sufficiently established that tbe New Testa ment was by no means a concluded collection at tbe end of tbe second century (No. 1) ; but it has also been shown why this could not have been the case. Even if from tbe point of view that led to tbe origin of a New Testament, we try to come to a well-founded decision respecting what ought to belong to it, we have no premisses.1 But it was no longer 1 But when he says that the work " ab omni consilio ecclesiarum inter apocrypha et falsa judicatur," this is merely a passionate exaggeration, as in truth he himself shows when soon after he says that Barnabas's Epistle to the Hebrews (No. 4) is " utique receptior apud ecclesias illo apocrypho pastore moechorum" (cap. 20). For this at any rate implies that the Shepherd also was received by some, as, for example, Irenseus ; nor is it at all certain that Tertullian himself (de Oratione, 16) only refers to it ironically, and does not rather, in his pre-Montantist time when he was still unprejudiced against it, make impartial use of it. 1 In the first place the circle of apostolic writings was by no means uniform. Irenaus and Clement are acquainted with a second Johannine epistle, Tertullian not ; Clement and Tertullian know the Epistle of Jude, which Irenseus does not know ; while the latter again seems to know the Epistle of James, which the former do not know. Clement is acquainted with an Apocalypse of Peter, of which the others know nothing. Even of that which has been uniformly handed down, it is not always certain whether it is apostolic. In Alexandria the Epistle to the Hebrews is looked upon as Pauline, in North Africa as a work of Barnabas ; the Epistle of Jude is in the latter place regarded as apostolic, in the former probably not. There is not even unanimity as to who are apostles. Clement reckons James the brother of the Lord, and even the Roman 100 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. possible in deciding the question as to what books should belong to tbe New Testament, to adhere to tbe exclusive validity of tbe apostolic writings, as sacred books. For the Gospels bad long been sacred in tbe usage of tbe Church; and two of tbem were non-apostolic. It was equally impossible, for practical reasons, to give up tbe Acts of tbe Apostles, which were also non-apostolic ; and yet other writings, such as the Krjpvypa Herpov, where tbey were known, made similar pretensions. Moreover the point of view under which these primitive records of tbe history of Christianity bad been re ceived among the Holy Scriptures differed entirely from that under which tbe apostolic records bad become sacred writ ings ; while the Apocalypses with their revelations came under a third standpoint.2 Hence it was impossible to agree, even if the attempt had been made, as to tbe point of view in accordance with which tbe choice of New Testament books Clement and Barnabas among them ; while Tertullian very decidedly distinguishes the latter from the apostles. But these differences are not yet felt ; as yet there is no dispute on the subject; each one uses as apostolic what he knows, or thinks he knows to have proceeded from the apostles in his sense of the word, without reflecting that a different opinion prevails elsewhere. 3 It is incomprehensible how Ewald could still say that the only test- question on receiving a book into the New Testament was whether it contained the true word of Christ and the Spirit emanating from Him; and the earlier the time the less were the feeling and judgment of the best Christians likely to go astray. For the word and spirit of Christ formed the very point on which the controversy with heresy turned, and it was only for the purpose of settling this definitely that reference had been made back to the primitive documents of apostolic time. Where such a principle would lead, is shown by the untenable opinion of Tertul lian respecting the Shepherd of Hermas. Though Credner says that direct or indirect apostolic descent was accepted as the New Testament principle, usage being- made the essential principle in each individual case, yet there was no usage where the writings regarded as apostolic were concerned ; and the notion of an indirect apostolic descent was simply an expedient for getting over the discrepancy of the use of the Gospels with the standpoint from which the New Testament started. It is Tertullian himself who in an incidental reflection on usage as applied to the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserts the principle of apostolicity as such, in opposition to it. NEW TESTAMENT AT CLOSE OF SECOND CENTURY. 101 should be made, since this differed even with respect to those portions of tbe New Testament which were universally ac cepted. But there was no reason whatever to discuss tbe question, since tbe differences that bad necessarily arisen within the range of the New Testament were not yet per ceived and therefore formed no stumbling-block. Tbe Church on her side required no collection of writings whence to extract what was pure doctrine, in which case it would have been necessary first of all to come to an agreement as to tbe sources of pure doctrine. She did not reject heretical compositions on account of their not belonging to such a collection, but because tbey were opposed to tbe apos tolic doctrine that bad been handed down, and which she now tried to set forth as divinely accredited only by ber own sacred writings. Whatever from any standpoint could lay claim to belong to these, and answered such end, was welcome; and tbe consciousness of tbe possession would not have been disturbed even if it bad been known that tbe possession of others was less rich. Hence it was impossible to form a Canon, i.e. to come to a decision as to what writings should exclusively belong to tbe New Testament. And when tbe need of such a settlement did arise, tbe Church was already bound by ber own past, and so hindered from forming a decision on any fixed principle. This very time, when tbe Canon was in process of formation, bequeathed to the time that followed, an inheritance that gave rise to constant doubts, and ultimately made a determination on any fixed principle impossible.3 8 According to this, the view that the New Testament Canon originated simultaneously with the Catholic Church, which has recently become pre valent (comp. e.gr. Holtzmann, Einleitung), must be distinctly contested. Nor is Harnack's view (comp. his Lehrb. d. Dogmengesch., Freiburg, 1886), that although not yet closed in the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria it was closed in the Romish Church of Asia Minor in the course of the second century, and therefore already appears as a made up quantity in Irenaeus and Tertullian, capable of proof. All that he brings forward in favour of this view applies only to the Canon of the Gospels. The pre sumption with which he sets out, viz. that in selecting for it the tradi- 102 origin of the new testament canon. § 10. The Beginnings op the Formation of the New Testament Canon. 1. Tbe constant reading of the New Testament writings at divine service (§ 8, 7), combined with tbe consciousness that tbey formed an integral whole as contrasted with tbe Old Testament (§ 9, 1), naturally gave rise to tbe need of putting these writings together in manuscripts. Hence ori ginated, and that spontaneously, tbe necessity of coming to a decision as to which of tbe current writings should be read in the Church, and thus receive the rank of sacred books on a par with those of tbe Old Testament. It is certain that we now possess no such manuscripts proceeding from tbe beginning of tbe third century ; but from tbe old Syriac translation of tbe Bible, tbe so-called Peshito, which was unquestionably arranged for ecclesiastical use, we see what N. T. writings were read in the Syrian Church at that time.1 These were the four Gospels, tbe Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Pauline epistles along with tbe Epistle to the Hebrews, tbe Epistles of 1 Peter, 1 John, and James. Owing to tbe fluctuation of tbeir sequence in tbe manuscripts, we can unfortunately no longer ascertain the original order ; it is only certain that tbe Epistle to tbe Hebrews was joined to those of Paul (being in tbe first instance placed at tbe end, after the tional reading-books were adhered to, is incorrect, since it can be proved that the ecclesiastical reading of the epistles was a consequence of their elevation to the rank of sacred writings (§ 8, 7). But the view common to both, that some of the transmitted writings, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, or perhaps even the Apocalypse, were only arranged for the Canon in accordance with tbe point of view by which it was regulated, is entirely groundless. 1 The opinion of J. D. Michaelis, that the translation did not originally contain the Epistle to the Hebrews, has been thoroughly refuted by Hug ; but the view of the latter, that it originally contained all our present New Testament writings and that those wanting in the manuscripts were first left out in the fourth century, although adopted again by Hilgenfeld, is entirely unfounded, and needs no contradiction. Comp. Wichelhaus. de Novi Testamenti antiqua quam Peschilho vocant, libri iv., Hal., 1850. BEGINNINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 103 epistles to single persons) even where these were preceded by the three epistles emanating from tbe primitive apostolic circle, or where tbe Acts come between them and tbe latter. It cannot surprise us that of the primitive apostolic epistles only 1 Peter and John should appear in the translation, since we found no trace of 2 Peter even among tbe Church teachers at tbe end of tbe second century ; and of the two smaller Johannine epistles, a partial knowledge and use of tbe second only. But it is a noteworthy fact that tbe Epistle of Jude, which was known to Tertullian as an apos tolic writing and was repeatedly used by Clement, is here wanting, while on tbe contrary tbe Epistle of James, which was used by none of tbe Church Fathers, is included. But the absence of tbe Apocalypse, after all that bas already been said of the use and repute of this work, cannot possibly be accounted for on the assumption that it was not regarded as apostolic by the Syrian Church, or was rejected as a book that did not contain genuine revelation. It seems rather to lead to tbe conclusion that this book was not read at divine service in the Syrian Church ; a circumstance which might easily be explained by tbe difficulty of understanding its visions and prophecies, as well as by the fact that the reading of the apostolic writings along with the Gospels was intended to keep the Church in mind of tbe doctrine of tbe apostles. 2. Without doubt a Latin translation was also prepared at that time for the Latin-speaking Churches ; but although it appears that tbe old translator of Irenaaus and Tertullian used such a one in common with others, yet it is obviously impossible to determine its extent or even its order. Instead of it we have a most remarkable document emanating from tbe Latin Church, presenting the first attempt with which we are acquainted towards a definite determination of the books that should have public recognition in the Church, and in so far the first actual attempt to form a Canon in tbe Church. 104 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. It is tbe so-called Muratorian Fragment. Its origin and date are indeed very uncertain ; but tbe examination of itself proves clearly enough that it belongs to tbe time when tbe Canon was in process of formation, and proceeds from tbe Latin Church. The Fragment was first published by Lud. Ant. Muratori (Antiquitates Italica med. avi, 1740, iii., pp. 851 ff.), from a parchment MS. of the Ambrosian Library in Milan, found in the Bobbio Monastery, and belong ing at the latest to the ninth century, afterwards repeatedly collated and edited (comp. S. P. Tregelles, Canon. Mural, ed. Oxford, 1867, and Harnack in Brieger's Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengesch., iii., 1879, pp. 595 ff.), The beginning is missing, and the Latin is in many places so very obsoure that it gives rise to the most varied interpretations. Whether it is an awkward translation from the Greek, as Hug, Tregelles, Mangold and especially Hilgenfeld maintain, although the play on words in fel cum, melle makes this very improbable, or whether it is only the lingua vulgata distorted by Scottish-English pronunciation and the orthography of the ninth century, as it was spoken in Africa, as Credner seeks to prove, or whether the obscurities are mainly due to corruptions of the Text and may be cleared up by conjecture, is still matter of dispute. The view of the first editor, that the document proceeded from the Roman presbyter Caius, has been supported only by Volkmar. The date is generally drawn from the statement contained in the fragment, that the Shepherd of Hermas was written "nuperrime nostris temporibus sedente cathedra urbis Roma ecclesiaa Pio episcopo fratre ejus," and is mostly put at the last quarter of the second century, since Pius was bishop down to the second half of the fiftieth year (Wieseler, 170 ; Cred ner, Harnack, 170-90 ; Volkmar, after 190 ; immediately before or con temporaneous with Irenaeus : Hesse, Hilgenfeld). But we must not over look the fact that this determination of time, taking the context into consideration, was only meant to show the wide interval between the Shepherd and the apostolic time ; and since Irenseus could say that the Apocalypse, which according to him was composed under Domitian, was seen oi irpb iroXXov xPovm o-xeSbv iirl rijs -nperipas 7eve£s (adv. Har. , V. 30, 3), there is no reason why we should not with Hug come down to the beginning of the third century. It is also matter of dispute as to whether the Fragment proceeded from the Romish Church, or from North Africa as seems to be indicated by the language, as well as by many points of contact with the views of Tertullian ; so too, in what connec tion the author was led to discuss the New Testament books, and what was his object. Compare on the Fragment, R. Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit., 1847, 4; v. Gilse, disputatio de antiquissimo libr. sacr. nov.fced. catalogo, Amst. 1852 ; Laurent, Neutestamentl. Studien, Gotha, 1886 ; Hesse, das BEGINNINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 105 Muratorische Fragment, Giessen, 1873 ; Harnack, ibid., 1879, pp. 358 ff. ; Overbeck, zur Gesch. des Kavons, Chemnitz, 1880. It is beyond doubt that the author acknowledges tbe four Gospels and supplies further information respecting tbeir origin, although tbe section on Luke and John alone is fully preserved. He expressly points out that in spite of their differences, especially at the beginning, tbey attest all tbe facts in tbe life of Jesus in tbe same spirit, as well as His second coming in glory.1 He joins tbe Acta Apostolorum written by Luke directly with tbe Gospels, and then passes on to tbe Epistles of Paul. He looks on tbe Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans as the most important, giving a short description of tbeir contents, because they are tbe most copious. He then sets forth bow Paul, after tbe example of John who in tbe Apocalypse, in the seven specially named Churches, addressed himself to the whole Church, makes the seven Churches to which he wrote (in tbe following order, Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., Thess., Rom., and repeatedly to two of them) representative of tbe whole Church. Hence be feels it necessary to explain with what right tbe letters written to individual Churches may now be regarded as tbe common possession of the Church. The necessity is even stronger where tbe four epistles written by Paul pro affectu et dilectione to single individuals, are concerned, and which are nevertheless in honore ecclesice catholicce, because tbey are normative for ecclesiastica disciplina, and are thus sancti- ficatce.2 Throughout tbe whole of this larger division, tbe 1 It is an obvious error to suppose that he seeks to establish or even to defend the genuineness of the fourth Gospel from the Johannine epistle, as is frequently asserted (comp. Mangold), since on the contrary at the beginning of the epistle he explains the many reminiscences of the Gospel on the supposition of a reference to it. But the notices respecting its origin have as little tendency in this direction as those on Luke's Gospel. s The words certainly do not imply that their reception was opposed or their Pauline origin doubted ; nor can I agree with Harnack in his 106 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON, question of recognition does not come in at all, beiug taken for granted where the Gospels, tbe Acts, and tbe Pauline Epistles are concerned. Only at the end are some spurious Pauline Epistles excluded, as to whose exclusion, however, there can be no question in tbe Church, because they are heretical compositions.8 3. The Epistle to the Hebrews is entirely wanting among the writings proceeding from tbe primitive apostolic circle, because, as with Irenaeus and Tertullian, it does not come under consideration as apostolic, which is the case also with the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas. From this it appears that tbe principle of apostolicity holds good, at least where the epistles are concerned. Therefore the Epistle to Jude which, along with tbe two Johannine Epistles already men tioned with tbe Gospel, unquestionably appears as valid in tbe Church, was certainly regarded as apostolic, as it is by Tertullian. In any case these epistles (epistola sane Judce et superscripts Johannis duas in catholica habentur) seem to have been considered rather as an appendix to tbe apostolic collection of epistles, because tbe proper task of tbe primi tive apostles appeared to be to band down tbe acts and words of Jesus in tbe Gospels ; for which reason tbe fourth Gospel is expressly prefaced by tbe remark that it is not strange si Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis prof erat (No assumption that a new principle of eeclesiastical validity was here laid down. It is generally overlooked that the Epistle to Philemon is placed in the same category with the so-called Pastoral Epistles. Hence the only thing to be explained is how letters manifestly private could attain to the rank of sacred books in the Church. 3 There is an Ep. ad Laodicenses and one ad Alexandrinos, Pauli nomine fictce ad haresem Marcionis et alia plura, qua in catholicam ecclesiasm recipi non potest, because fel cum melle non congruit. The Laodicean Epistle was plainly a fiction on the basis of Col. iv. 16 f., perhaps only the Ephesian Epistle, mutilated by Marcion and called the Laodicean Epistle, is meant ; that the Alexandrian Epistle should refer to the Epistle to the Hebrews is quite impossible, since the latter neither bears the name of Paul, nor could any one regard it as Mar- cionitic, nor can it have been addressed to Alexandria. Comp. § 31, 5. BEGINNINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 107 2, note 1) ; and here in the certainly mis- written superscripts we have at all events some kind of reference to it.1 Pro bably this also explains tbe enigmatical silence with regard to the first Epistle of Peter. For it is quite possible that it was mentioned in tbe section on Mark's Gospel, which is unfortunately wanting, and which like tbe rest must be traced back to communications made by Peter. If so, it cannot fail to have been observed that so many of Christ's sayings are repeated in this epistle as passages from the history of His passion.2 And it is only on the assumption of a fuller treatment of it and its relation to the Gospel in this missing section that we can account for its being passed over here ; while tbe indefinite epistulce suce, to which refer ence was made in John's Gospel, is here expressly termed a 1 Perhaps the still unexplained et (probably ut) sapientia ab amicis Salomon's in honorem ipsius scripta, which, if taken as a recognition of an Old Testament Scripture, or even as analogous to the circumstance that the Epistles of John, though bearing no name, were written by friends in his honour, still remains unintelligible in this connection, may be most easily explained on the -supposition that the primitive apostles' are spoken of as the friends of Christ the second Solomon, and that besides their record of his sayings, they also wrote these epistles in honour of Him. But it cannot therefore be said that these epistles were of doubtful genuineness, or that they formed only a second class with respect to canonicity. That which habetur in ecclesia, is receptum and sanctificatum without question. 2 Perhaps the remaining portion that has been preserved of this section : quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit, does not refer to Mark as is generally supposed, though his Gospel is never in tradition represented as the testimony of an eye-witness, and its appendix, even if already known to the author of the Fragment, is too unimportant to be separately described, but as Laurent already guessed, though without perceiving the right application, to Peter, who in 1 Peter v. 1 calls himself pdprus ruv tou XpiaTov iraBypdruv, and in fact in i. 18 f. ; ii. 21-24, describes His death-sufferings with vivid clearness, and speaks of His resurrection, i. 3, as one who had himself lived to see it (comp. i. 21). That the way in which a mention of it and even a mention of both Petrine Epistles, is by conjecture put into the Fragment, is mere arbitrary interpretation, may now be regarded as admitted ; and that it was excluded on account of its being addressed to individual Churches, a.s Harnack maintains, I hold to be quite impossible. 108 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. cluas Johannis? It is certain that in addition to tbe Apo calypse of John, that of Peter, already mentioned in the Pauline epistles, and known likewise to Clement as we have seen, was also received. If it be objected that some did not approve of its being read in the Church, we may account for this on tbe same ground on which tbe Syriac Church-bible refused to accept tbe Apocalypse of John (No. I).4 The tantum in tbe statement respecting tbe apocalypses is ex pressly directed against tbe Apocalypse of Hermas, which as we have seen, was used by Irenseus and Clement, and re jected even by Tertullian on merely subjective grounds, when its contents did not suit bis purpose.5 Tbe author distinctly asserts tbe principle that even apocalyptic writ ings can only lay claim to the character of official ecclesi astical writings when tbey proceed from apostles, quite apart from tbe value of tbeir contents, that is to say, the 3 From this it is clear that we cannot here assume a reference to the second and third Epistle, and make the plural Epistula refer only to the first, as Credner, Hesse and Hilgenfeld do. The third Epistle, of which as yet we have found no notice, was in any case little adapted for recep tion into the Church-bible, since it had nothing to recommend it, as the Pauline private letters had. 4 There is something so striking in the fact that in the words " apo calypse etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt," doubtless to some extent corrupted, the quam is made to refer only to the latter, that it is possible this legi nolunt originally referred to both apocalypses. But it is quite an error to suppose that one or both were by this means made valid only in a secondary degree. 6 This rejection is certainly not shared by our author, since he ex pressly says, " legi eum (pastorem) quidem oportet," which of course did not refer to the reading at public service, whence it would have re. ceived unquestioned official ecclesiastical validity, but to private reading- But the book is not only permitted to be read ; the author manifestly belongs to those of whom Eusebius says, ucp' iripuv Si dvayKaiirarov ols pdXiaTa Sei aroixeiuo-eus elaayuyiKys Kixpirai (H. E., iii. 3). On the con trary the reference is to those among whom, as Eusebius adds, it was iv iKKXyalais SeSypoo-ievp.ivov, when he expressly states that it dare not " se publicare in ecclesia in finem temporum," because it neither belongs to the concluded number of the (Old Testament) prophets, nor inter apostolos, since it is quite a modern book (comp. No. 2). BEGINNINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 109 principle expressly applied to the epistolary books by Ter tullian, and virtually adhered to by the Fragment in ques tion, is also extended to tbe ecclesiastical validity of the apocalyptic books ; while this principle could no longer be carried out where tbe historical books were concerned. It was probably the Montanistic movement which led to tbe exercise of caution in this respect. At least we find it ex pressly stated in tbe conclusion that nothing whatever is accepted by tbe Gnostics and Montanists.6 4. It cannot be proved that there was any essential change in tbe West during the third century with respect to the recognition of the New Testament writings. It is indeed tbe prevailing view that the Roman Presbyter Caius re jected tbe Apocalypse of John and declared it to be tbe work of Cerinthus ; but tbe passage cited by Eusebius (HE., 13, 28) does not by any means say so. It only says that Cerinthus Si' a.TroKaXvd'eitiv o>s v-irb chrocrToXov peydXov yeypappevatv TepaToXoytas 17p.1v povovpevov (de Princ, 4, 11), Hence he frequently quotes it with tbe familiar clause : '' si cui tamen scriptura ilia recipienda videtur (in Num., hom. 8), si cui placet etiam illam legere " (ser. 53 in Matt.). Whenever we attempt to carry out the principles (No. 5) laid down by Origen, we are led to the conclusion that his standpoint is essentially based on an illusion. Because a material principle can no longer be applied to the determination of the writings belonging to the New Testament, he adheres to usage alone, and makes this, as the unanimous tradition of the Church, the regulating principle. But there was no unanimous usage of the Church, nor could there be such, for the same reason which led him to give up the idea of the establishment of a Canon on a fixed principle. The double limitation with which he carried out the principle of tradition, was in truth an admission that it was impossible to carry it out. Nevertheless owing to the powerful influence which he exercised as a Church teacher, he, more than any other, contributed to the actual formation of a usage more or less fixed, his presumption of such usage being more and more generally adopted. This was due in great measure to the way in which he considered him self entitled to accept that which was apostolic even where he was not supported by unanimity of usage. Where he hesitated to accept, as in the case of the Gospel according to the Hebrews or of the Apocalypse of Hermas, it was taken as a sign that these writings had not usage on their side ; where, as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, his non- acceptance was due to the fact that all did not regard it as apostolic, his authority sufficed to establish its reputation as Pauline. So too his authority covered 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, while it became customary to put even the Epistles of Jude and James in the New Testament, because he manifestly did so, although in their case he now and then accommodated himself to his principle. But so far as his authority reached, the Krjpvypa Jlirpov and the Acta Pauli, the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter forfeited their claim to belong to the New Testament for ever, by the position which he took up with regard to them. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 119 § 11. The Close of the Canon in the East. 1. The influence of Origen is nowhere more powerfully shown than in tbe fact that it must have become usual soon after bis time not only to receive the Epistles of Peter and John, Jude and James in their entirety, but also to regard tbem as a closed collection as contrasted with that of the Pauline epistles. This is proved beyond a doubt from tbe way in which Eusebius already speaks of l-m-d Xeyopevai KaBoXixal (eVioroXai), and calls the Epistle of James r) rrpcorn tuiv . bvopatflpevoiv xaOoXixuiv erncrToXSiv (H. E., 2, 23, comp. 6, 14). In bis day, therefore, the number, name, and even the order of these seven epistles had already become fixed ; the Epistle of James, which had first been introduced to wider circles by Origen, being put first, from which it follows that its authorship was at that time ascribed to the brother of the Lord who stood at the head of tbe Church in Jerusalem, and bad in this way acquired a sort of primacy over tbe apostles themselves. Whether he and Jude were already identified as belonging to the Twelve, or only counted apostles in the wider sense, we do not know. But tbe designation of these epistles as Catholic can mean nothing less than that they were from the beginning addressed more or less to tbe whole Church, in contrast with tbe Pauline epistles, which were intended for separate Churches. It is evident that the addresses of James, Jude, 1 John and Peter may be taken in this sense ; but that of 1 Peter too was of so com prehensive a character that it contrasted similarly with Paul's epistles addressed to individual Churches. The iKXeKry Kvpla of 2 John 1 was doubtless formerly interpreted of the Church, and the sole exception of 3 John was of no account, after it had once become customary to put together the non-Pauline epistles as such. It is easy to understand why they were classed together under this distinctive appellation, if we remember how a special authorization was required in order to give the Pauline epistles a meaning for the whole Church (§ 10, 2), such as these 120 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. epistles already possessed by virtue (at least apparently) of their address.1 That the expression xaBoXixbs does indicate this more comprehensive design of the epistles appears from Clement, who characterizes the letter of Acts xv. 23 as iwio-ToXr) KaBoXiKy tui' ~diroirTbXuv dirdvruv (Strom. 4, 15) ; from Origen, who repeatedly refers to 1 Peter and 1 John, and even to the Epistle of Jude (Comm. in Ep. ad Rom., 5, 1) and Barnabas (Contr. Cels., 1, 63) as iirio-r: KaBoXixy; as also from Dionysius of Alex andria, who frequently applies this term to 1 John (ap. Euseb., 7, 25).a The Greek Church, moreover, still adheres to this meaning of the expression, for GUcumenius of Tricca explains it by iyxiKXioi ; only in the West has the original meaning been lost, and the term been made to apply to what is valid in the Catholic Church, so that Cassio dorus unhesitatingly substitutes the expression Epistola Canonica. That later Introductions still contend whether it denotes canonical validity, assured apostolic origin, emanation from various authors (a! XoMral xaBoXov besides the Pauline), or point to the fact that it was designed for Jews and Gentile Christians or for the promotion of orthodox doctrine, is a manifest error. Comp. Liicke, Stud. u. Krit., 1836, 3. This growing usage seems to have speedily passed over even to tbe West, at least tbe Latin Sticbometrie, which is 1 It is mere prejudice that has led de Wette, ReuBS and others to ascribe to them a certain similarity in a theological, literary, and historical aspect, since in all these respects they present as much variety as is conceivable, taking into account their common descent from the primi tive apostolic circle. Such a view has only resulted in the unreason able mistrust with which they are regarded in modern criticism (comp. Holtzmann, Harnack, etc.). 2 When Apollonius (Eus., 5, 18) says that the Montanist Themison wrote an iirio-r. xaBoXixy, the expression can hardly be explained in any other way. But the language of Eusebius himself would prove nothing since he did not invent the term but found it ready to his hand ; he too seems to apply the expression iirio-roXal KaBoXiKal to the seven Church- letters of Dionysius of Corinth, several of which were indeed addressed to whole circles of Churches, because they belong to the entire sphere of his ecclesiastical activity, in distinction from the last-named private letter to the Chrysophora (ff. E., 4, 23) ; and the passage 3, 3, where, speaking of the pseudonymous writings of Peter (the Acta, the Gospel, the x-f/puypa and the diroKdXv\pis Hirpov) he says they are ovb" 8Xus iv xaBoXixols irapaSeSopiva, is certainly no rule for the designation of the Catholic epistles, whether we understand the expression as referring to those writings received by the Church (comp. the KaBoXiKal rpd£eis in Chrys., hom. 10 in 2 Tim.), or, as is more probable from the derivation, as referring to the men belonging to it. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 121 found at tbe end of tbe Codex Claromontanus of Paul's epistles, and is supposed to belong to tbe third century, already contains all tbe seven epistles in question after tbe Gospels and Pauline epistles ; tbe Petrine epistles moreover being placed before that of James, while only 1 Peter and 1 John are to be found in it until after tbe middle of tbe century. Tbe Epistola Barnabas, placed between tbem and tbe Apocalypse of John, is unquestionably tbe Epistle to tbe Hebrews, which here, as in Tertullian, is only known as tbe Epistle of Barnabas, but was nevertheless received into tbe Scriptures, contrary to tbe former usage of tbe West. Tbe author of tbe list is indeed still more liberal, since tbe Acta Apostolorum, which come after tbe Apocalypse, are again followed by tbe Pastor, tbe Acta Pauli and tbe Revelatio Petri. In tbe East the authority of Origen was manifestly decisive for tbe reception of tbe Epistle to tbe Hebrews among those of Paul, since from bis time onwards it was used as Pauline without any reservation (comp. Bleek, der Brief an die Hebrder, Berlin, 1828 ; 1, § 32 ff.). While tbe way was thus paved for uniformity of ecclesiastical usage in all other respects, an unexpected difficulty arose. Tbe Apocalypse of John was from tbe beginning an undoubted part of the New Testament; and that its omission from the Syrian Church-bible (§ 10, 1) proves nothing to tbe contrary, is seen from tbe fact of its recognition by tbe Syrian bishop Theophilus (§ 9, 6). But tbe Church bad gradually lost tbe power to understand its meaning; moreover in combating a grossly material inter pretation, she inevitably became more and more out of sympathy with tbe Alexandrians. Hence Dionysius of Alexandria now came forward with a criticism, which by a comparison of it with tbe Gospel and tbe Epistle, in tbe course of which be incidentally speaks of tbe two smaller ones as ascribed to tbe Apostle, attempted to prove by in ternal evidence that it could not proceed from bim, although 122 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT OANON. its author, probably tbe other John who was buried in Ephesus, was nevertheless dytds Tts xal Beorrvevo-Tos who bad seen these visions (ap. Euseb., H. E., 7, 25). But Origen bad asserted tbe same thing of Hermas, and yet bis Apoca lypse was already given up. Therefore whoever assented to tbe criticism of Dionysius, which men like Methodius of Tyre and Pampbilus of Caesarea were certainly not yet prepared to do, must proceed to exclude it also from tbe New Testament. 2. If we were to take Origen's principle in earnest, it would be necessary to inquire accurately into the usage of tbe different Churches, in order to find out what writings were employed in tbem (what was ev TaTs e/c/cXijo-iais SeSrjpo- anevpevov), and then to examine tbe old Cburcb-historians as to what was their usage, and what tbey may have said with respect to the origin and recognition of such writings. This is what Eusebius, according to 3, 3, bas done in his Church- history (about 324), in order to make tbe e/c/cXi/o-iacrri/cij n-apaSoo-ts into an e/c/cX^cnacrriKos /caviov (comp. 6, 25), by which to determine what writings belong to tbe xaivr) SiaBrjKrj and should be evSidBr/xa. By this means it became at once apparent that between tbe 6p.oXoyovp.eva (dviopoXoy-npeva) or dvavripprjTa (dvapepiXexTa), which bad tbe first claim to be lepa ypdppara, and tbe writings absolutely to be rejected and ex cluded by tbe Church (tbe 7ravTeXGs voBa /cat t?)s d7roo-ToXi/o}s SpBoSoijias dXXoTpta, those ibs dYoTra rrdvTr] /cat Svo-areBrj TrapaiTn- re'ov) there was also a middle class, which Eusebius sometimes terms dvTiXeydpteva and sometimes v60a. It must be main tained, at all hazards, that Eusebius made no fundamental distinction between tbe writings belonging to this middle class, and that with bim both appellations are entirely synonymous, and therefore do not point to a difference of view respecting tbe origin or self-asserted origin, of certain writings, or to tbeir genuineness in our sense of the word, but to an opposition against their reception into tbe writings THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 123 of the New Testament, denying tbeir claim to equality with these and tbeir full right to belong to tbem.1 This is already shown by tbe designation of tbe third class as iravTeXais voBa, whose true characteristic, however, does not consist in tbeir being aipeTi/cwv dvSpGv dva7rXdcrp;aTa, which ovopan tojv dirocrrdXcflv irpocpepovrai, but in tbe fact that tbey ovSap,Gs ev crvyypdppari runt /caTa Tas StaSo^ds e/c/cXijcriacrTi/ciov tis di'Tjp eis pvi\prjv dyayeiv r)£iwcrev (3, 25, 31). It is only by way of example that Eusebius thus characterizes Gospels like those of Peter, Thomas and Matthias, as also tbe Acta of Andrew, John and other apostles. 3. In tbe passage where Eusebius promises to give a resume of his researches into the New Testament writings (3, 25) be enumerates as Homologumena ttjv dyt'av tuiv evayyeXioJv TeTpa/CTvv, ois eVeTai r) tojv rrpd£eu)v tuv diroo-ToXuiv ypadrr], Tas ITavXov eVicrroXds, als ef>}s TV'' aveirj, rjv Ttves d#£TOvcnv, epopevrjv Iwdwov aTroKaXvij/iv eiopa- 1 De Wette is wrong in still maintaining that Origen wavers in his judg ment with regard to it. In 3, 3 he says : toD naiiXou irpdSyXoi xal aacpeis ai Sexario-o-apes iiritrToXal. It certainly was his opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, and probably translated by the Roman Clement (3, 38), which, however, he must have forgotten in Psalm. 2, 7, or not have adopted ; yet in spite of this, in that very passage, he says : How old it is, may be seen from the use made of it in the Epistle of Clement, tvBev cIkotus IBo^ev airb tois Xowois iyKara- XexByvai ypdppaai tov diroarbXov. In any case he counts it in 3, 3, with the Pauline epistles, but adds that some -nBer-^Kao-i it, irpbs Tijs 'Vupjiluv iKKXytrlas us pri TiaiXov oUiroi' airijv dvriXiyeo-Bai cp-yaavres, an assertion more appropriate than his limiting expression : els Sevpo irapd 'Pupalav rialv oi vopi^erai tov dToo-rSXov rvyxdveiv (6, 20). Hence he also classes it, quite as a matter of course, along with the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement and Jude, in the Antilegomena (6, 13). THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 125 Kevai), but tbey furnished him with a pretext for setting aside the question whether tbe book should be classed with Homologumena or not. Only bis personal wish to reject tbe apostolic origin and full ecclesiastical validity of the Apoca lypse could have influenced bim to take this course ; for be failed to see that it was in direct opposition to tbe principle of bis division of the New Testament books, which ought to follow e/c/cX-qo-iacrTi/o) irapdSocrts or tbe use of the Scriptures in tbe Churches and tbe old Church-historians. These modern critical doubts and tbe rejection of tbe Scriptures to which some were thus led, bad nothing whatever to do with tbe question as to whether it bad a right to belong to the Homologumena. 4. Among tbe Antilegomena, Eusebius, in tbe leadmg passage (3, 25) first enumerates : rj Xeyopevrj 'Ia/coSySov /cat r) 'IovSa r) re IleVpov Sevrepa imo-ToXr), Kal rj ovopa^opevrj Sevrepa Kal rpiTTj Itoawov, eiTe tou euayyeXiorov Tvy^dvovcrat eire /cat erepov opiavvpov e/cetva). He has therefore adopted tbe doubts of Origen where both these are concerned, and gives a bint of them in tbe 6vopat,opevrj, although in Dem. Evang., 3, 5, be speaks quite impartially of several Johannine epistles ; but tbe question of tbeir belonging to tbe Antilegomena is quite independent of this, as is shown by tbe eire — eiTe, since in no case was so old and unanimous a recognition accorded to these two as to tbe first, as N. T. Scripture.1 When 1 Comp. also 3, 24 : tuv 'ludvvov avyypappAruv irpbs rTr] tuiv 6vopat,opivmv xaBoXiKuv eirioroXuiv elvai XeyeTai.2 If the statements of Eusebius with respect to tbe first five Antilegomena, which had already taken tbeir position as ivSid&rjKa show bow inaccurately and inconsistently be expresses himself, this is tbe case to a still greater degree where tbe others are concerned, which had already disappeared more or less from tbe official usage of tbe Church. From tbe fact of his putting tbe 7rpd£eis IlavXov, tbe rroiprjv and tbe d-n-o/cdXvi/'is ITeVpov first among tbem, Credner suspects, probably not without reason, that be bas in bis mind a list of New Tes tament writings such as the versus scripturarum in tbe Cod. Clar., which also enumerates these very three (No. I).3 on the ground of tradition by the Homologumena, is due solely to the fnct that it was not yet made use of by the ancients,- just as the pseu donymous Petrine writings (oi iiriKexXypivai ifpd^eis, rb xar airbv uvopa- apivov eiayyiXiov, rb Xeybpevov airov Kypvypa, -h KaXovpivy diroxdXv^/is) were afterwards scrupulously separated from it. 2 When he goes on to say : loriov, us voBeierai piv (oi TroXXol 70O1' tuv iraXaiuv airys ipvypbvevcav, us oiSe rijs Xeyopivys 'loiSa, pids xal airys oio-ys ™>< iirrd Xeyopivuv KaBoXiKuv), opus 6" tapev xal rairas uerd tuv Xoittuv iv irXetarais Sebypoo- lev piv as ixxXyalais, it is clear that the voBeierai only refers to the opposition to its having an equal right to belong to the SiaByxy (on account of its not having been used by the ancients), which made it necessary to class both among the Antilegomena (comp. also 6, 14). But this does not exclude the possible view that these, along with 2nd Peter and 2nd and 3rd John, had by their classification with the seven iirio-roXai KaBoXiKal (No. 1) already acquired a rightful place in the SiaByKy. This is the sole reason why in the leading passage (3, 25) the other Antilegomena are attached to these with the words iv rois vbBots KararerdxBu Kal, and thus separated from them, without being put by him in any other class, as Credner, Bleek, Hilgenfeld and others never theless maintain. 3 Of the Acta Pauli likewise he only says (3, 3) : oi;/c iv dvapjpiXimois THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 127 These are followed by the Epistle of Barnabas (xal wpos tov- tois r) (pepopivrj BapvdBa eTricrToXrj) , which in 6, 14 is classed with the Antilegomena, along with the Epistle of Jude and tho other Catholic epistles, and therefore certainly does not belong to another class (comp. also 6, 13). Finally, as the fifth book be names twv drroaToXuiv al Xeyopevai Si8a\ai, to which we have found no reference as yet, while he makes no mention whatever in this connection of the xrjpvypa Herpov, in spite of its use by Clement and Origen, manifestly because he puts it in the category of heretical pseudonymous writings (3, 3). But he seems to have passed over tbe Epistle of Clement with design, for though in 6, 13 be puts it in the list of Antilegomena between Barnabas and Jude, in 3, 38 be expressly characterises it as avuypoXoyrjpevrj rrapa. rrdcriv, and in 3, 16 as bpoXoyovpev-q (comp. No. 2, note 1), adding Taxmjv Se /cat iv irXeicrTais ixxXijcriais irrl tov xoivov SeSrjpo- crievpevTjv wdXat re Kal xa&' ijp-as avrovs eyvuipev. We have seen bow be was led to this conclusion (4, 23) by a misunderstood passage of Dionysius of Corinth (§ 7, 7) ; but having so decided, be could only reckon the epistle among tbe Homo logumena, although as a matter of fact it bad already disap- irapeiXyipapev , thus numbering them with the Antilegomena, while on the other hand, of the Shepherd of Hermas, he says : lariov, us xal touto irpbs piv tivuv avriXiXexrai, 6Y ous oix dv iv bpdXoyovpivois re&eiy, i(p' iripuv Se dvayxaibrarov dis pdXiara Set aroixeiuaeus elaayuyixys xiKpirai' SBev r)Sy xal iv eKKXytrlais to-pev airb SeSypoaievpiivov (comp. the Muratorian Canon), xal tuv iraXaiordruv Si avyypaipiuv (comp. e.gr. Clement, Iren., Orig.) xexpypivovs nvds airip xareiXyipa. This is more than he bas said or could say of any of the fiibt five Antilegomena, which clearly shows that it would be impossible to put them in one of these different classes. On the other hand it is an exaggerated statement when, in face of what we know of the Muratorian Canon (§ 10, 3), he asserts (3, 3) that the Apocalypse of Peter belongs to those which oiS' oXus iv xaBoXixo's tapev irapabeSopiva, oti pr)re dpxaluv pr)re pi)v tuv KaB' ypds tis iKKXyaiaaTiKbs avyypaipeis tois 0; airuv avvexpycaro paprvplais, especially if we consider that he puts the Gospel of Peter, which in 3, 25 he names among the forgeries of the heretics, in the same category. In 6, 14, he himself expressly includes this Apocalypse in the Antilegomena, on which Clement commented in his Hypotyposes. 128 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. peared from tbe usage of tbe Church. For this reason he is here silent respecting it, as also with regard to tbe Epistle to tbe Hebrews on similar grounds.* The importance of Eusebius for the history of the formation of the Canon is commonly very much overrated. We are indebted to him for an abundance of material for this history, however incomplete in many respects, and however obscure and untrustworthy may be his statements founded upon it ; while nearly all that later Church-teachers pretend to know of this history is taken entirely from him. But it is a manifest error to suppose that his ' learned compilations and discussions had an epoch-making influence on the formation of the Canon. On the contrary he himself depends invariably on the ecclesiastical usage of his own time, as is shown by his wavering and to some extent unfair and unequal judgments of individual Antilegomena, while his whole aim is to make them accord with the ixxXyo-iao-riKy irapdSoo-is? That tho object of the Emperor Constantine when, in the beginning of the thirtieth year, he directed Eusebius to have fifty copies of the holy Scriptures drawn up on parchment, for certain newly-built churches in Constantinople (Vita, ' When, in conclusion, he mentions that some have even put the Gospel according to the Hebrews among the vbBa (dvTiXeybpeva), his object manifestly is to account for the fact of Hegesippus, Clement and Origen having used it. At his time it was already with justice included in the category of heretical writings (No. 2), evidently in consequence of the use made of it by the Ebionites (3, 27). 6 The factB established by him furnish no grounds for separating the five Catholic epistles from the other Antilegomena, as he himself virtually admits ; from the standpoint of ixxXyo-iaarixy irapdSoais, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter, most unfairly judged by him, had at least the same right as these ; nevertheless the position in the New Testament acquired by the former even before the time of Eusebius, remained unshaken, while the position of the latter was lost and remained so. His prudent silence respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of Clement had just as little power to shake the usage accorded to the former from the time of Origen, as to give back to the latter the position it had lost for so long. The assignment of the Acta Pauli, the xrfpvypa Tlirpov or even of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to the Antilegomena, however just in principle, had no influence on ecclesiastical usage so far as we know. It was not even his position with regard to the Apoca'ypse that first gave rise to the lasting dispute respecting it in the East ; the fact that where it is concerned he breaks with his clear principles, only shows what influence the recently awakened critical doubts which were never quite silenced in the East, had on him as a scholar. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 129 Const., IV. 36, 9), was to set up a universally valid collection of saored writings as a legally binding rule, as Credner supposes, and that we can still prove the extent and order of this imperial Bible which became nor mative for the Greek Church, as Volkmar maintained, are pure fancies. It is only certain that the Council of Nice came to a decision respect ing important dogmas, without a determination of the sources on which their verdict was based, and that Constantine's mandate, which applied to those Divine writings whose restoration and use Eusebius recognised as necessary out of regard for the Church, undoubtedly presupposes that as yet there was no official determination respecting the books which belonged to the sacred Scriptures. In any case it is natural to suppose that these fifty copies of the Bible decked out with imperial munificence, all of which as a matter of course had the same extent and arrange ment, had a greater influence in establishing a fixed usage than all the learned discussions of Eusebius ; but unfortunately we have no know ledge of this imperial Bible, and cannot tell how far Eusebius in draw ing it up followed his own theory, or the usage that was in many respects at variance with it. 5. It is certain that from the middle of the fourth century the want of a fixed limitation of the number of the holy Scriptures, was more and more keenly felt. Cyril of Jeru salem, in his Catechetics (4, 20), lays stress on tbe importance of zeal in learning from the Church what are tbe writings of the Old and New Testament, Ta irapd irao-iv bpoXoyovpeva • and in reading prjSev riov dVo/cpvavcdp.eva only the SiSa^ ruiv airoo-ToXajv and tbe Shepherd of Hermas come into consideration for tbe New Testament. 6. Tbe lists of tbe second half of tbe fourth century sub stantially agree in putting tbe four Gospels and tbe Acts, fourteen Pauline and seven Catholic epistles into tbe Canon. On tbe other band tbe Apocalypse is wanting in Cyril, Greg ory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, in tbe Canon of tbe Synod of Laodicea and tbe Apostolic Canons. Tbe Iambi ad Seleu- cum, say : Tives piv iyxpivovcriv, ol rrXeiovs Se ye voBov Xeyovcriv. Possibly tbe extent to which tbe Apocalypse was rejected, is here somewhat overestimated.1 Moreover in tbe fifth 1 The Alexandrian Church certainly retained it, after the precedent set by Athanasius, as Didymus, Makarius and Cyril of Alexandria show, the two great Cappadocians, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa use it, and 132 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. century, when it was commented upon by Andreas and Aretbas, tbe opposition to it appears to have become more and more silent, our oldest Greek Codd. (Sin., Alex., Ephr. Syr.) contain it : and though the Alexandrian deacon Eu- thalius did not set it apart with the epistles for public read ing in tbe Church, this only proves that its recognition as a sacred, canonical book, equal to those of tbe Bible, did not necessarily include .its being publicly read in tbe Church, as we have already seen in the Syrian Church (§ 10, 1). Leontins of Byzantium at tbe end of tbe sixth century, and John Damascenus in the eighth, have it in tbeir lists ; at tbe (Ecumenical Council of 692, all remembrance of tbe con troversy on this point was so completely lost, that its second Canon reckons up the ancient authorities for tbe Canon in tbe most naive way, even those that contradict each other on this point. How certain the East was that tbe Epistle to the Hebrews belonged to those of Paul, is shown by tbe fact that from tbe time of Athanasius, it bas generally been ranked with the Pauline Church-letters, so that it came to be placed after 2 Thess. and before tbe Pastoral Epistles. It occupies this place not only in the above-named Greek Codd., but also in tbe Cod. Vatic.2 Nor has there been since any doubt in tbe great imperial Church as to the ecclesiastical recognition of the seven Catholic Epistles.3 through Ephrem it seems to have penetrated even into the Syrian Church, where the great Antiochian expositors Theodore of Mops, and Theodoret certainly do not use it. On the other hand Epiphanius not only has it in his Canon, but even characterizes it (Har., 77) as irapd rXeurrois ireiruTTevpivij. 2 The reason why the Iambi ad Seleucum mention the Epistle to the Hebrews last, is that they still remember, though possibly with dis approval, the opposition to it, which can hardly be more than a scholarly reminiscence from Eusebius. The Arians naturally rejected it on doc trinal grounds : hence it is also wanting in the Gothic Bible. 3 The statement of the Iambi ad Sel, that some count seven, others only three, refers not to the distinction made by Eusebius between the Homologumena among them and the Antilegomena, but to the fact that THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE EAST. 133 Even with Cyril and Athanasius, as well as in tbe Vatic, Alex., and Eph. Syr., tbey are put before the Pauline epistles, while Gregory, Ampbilocbius, Epiphanius and the Sinaitic MS. still retain tbe historical remembrance that tbey were first ranked with tbe Pauline epistles. Tbe re spective order which they almost universally occupy is tbe following ; tbe Epistle of James stands first, then tbe Epistles of Peter and John, while the Epistle of Jude comes last. Tbe Acts, which in every other case follow the Gospels, are in Epiphanius put with the Catholic epistles, the Apo calypse is invariably at tbe end. How it happens that in the Constit. Apost. 2, 57, the Catholic Epistles are wanting besides the Apocalypse, can no longer be ascertained, but the fact has no such importance for the history of the Canon as is attri buted to it by Credner, since according to all historical evidence, it was never entirely wanting. They, as well as the Apocalypse, are indeed omitted from the Topographia Christiana of Kosmas Indicopleustes (in the sixth century) ; but how little significance this had, is shown by a passage in the seventh book, which controverts the views contained in 2 Pet. iii. 12, and on this occasion asserts ori rds xaBoXixds y ixxXyo-la dptpifiaXXopivas lx(l- He appeals in support of this to Irenaeus, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Amphilochius ; of whom, however, we have authentic information to the contrary. So, too, when the Egyptian monk Didymus (towards the end of the fourth century), who himself wrote a short explanation of the seven Catholic epistles, and used the second Epistle of Peter without scruple, calls it falsata, quce licet publicetur, non tamen est in canone, which by no means applies to a forgery in our sense, but is plainly a translation of voBeierai in the Eusebian sense ; or when Theodor. of Mopsuustia, Epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum catho- licas abrogat et antiquat, a reproach made against him by his opponents, we must regard such statements as scholarly reminiscences. Even Chry sostom, in his Homily on the Epistle to Philemon, mentions that some assert irepirrbv elvai rb xal ra&ryv irpoaxelaBai ttjv iiritrrdXyv etye inrip irpdyparos piapou y(tuaev, virip evbs dvSpbs. These things have no sig nificance whatever for ecclesiastical usage as such. 7. Although in tbe East tbe Canon thus appears from the the Syrian Bible had only three of them (§ 10, 1), just as the Synopsis in the works of Chrysostom enumerates only three. But even in Ephrem's time there was a complete Syrian translation of the Bible, and the old Syrian Canon was retained only by the Nestorians. 134 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. second half of tbe fourth century as virtually closed, except for tbe uncertainty with respect to tbe Apocalypse, which lasted for some time longer, yet there was no actual official determination regarding it, since even tbe Trullan Synod does not enumerate tbe Canonical books. This naturally does not exclude tbe possibility of an older usage being retained in individual Churches or circles of Churches. Thus we saw how tbe ancient Church-bible continued to influence tbe Syrian Church for a long time (No. 6, note 3), and how long the use of Tatian's Diatessaron, in place of, or together with tbe four Gospels was there retained (§ 7, 6). Gregory of Nazianzen, notwithstanding his express enumeration of tbe contents of the Canon, yet quotes passages from the K-qpvypa Hirpov quite freely (Orat. 16, Epist. 16, in Hilgenfeld, Einl, p. 120, note 2), while Sozomen, in his Church History, men tions that in some churches of Palestine tbe Apocalypse of Peter was still read on Good Friday (7, 19), and Jerome, that tbe Shepherd of Hermas was in bis day still read in some Greek churches (de Vir. Ill, 10). In tbe Apostolic Canons, tbe two Epistles of Clement and the StaTayat tuv arroo-ToXwv are ranked with the New Testament writings; and Epiphanius alludes to tbe former as e'v Tats dyiais e'zc/cXijo-tais dvayivioo-/cdp;evai (Heer., 30, 15), while Jerome says of tbe first epistle at least that it "in nonnullis locis etiam publice legitur " (de Vir. Ill, 15), as he states of tbe Epistle of Polycarp (ibid., 17 : " quae usque bodie in Asia? conventu legitur ").x Tbe fact that tbe Clementine epistles and those 1 Whether actual reading at public service is here meant, and whether the statements respecting this or the Epistles of Clement may not be traced entirely to the erroneous account of Eusebius (H. E., 4, 23, comp. § 7, 5) is at least very doubtful. The list appended to the writing of the Antiochian Patriarch Anastasius Sinaita (end of the fifth century), from which the Apocalypse is omitted, while on the other hand the Apocalypse of Peter, the ireploSoi xal SiSaxal twj/ diroaroXuv, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul and an Apocalypse of Paul, the " SiBtur- xaXla" of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, and finally the Gospels zcotA hapvdBav and Kara MarBlav, are enumerated as eVros or l£u tuv £' (the THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 135 of Barnabas and Hermas are classed with tbe New Testa ment, tbe former in tbe Cod. Alex., the latter in the Cod. Sin., authorizes no conclusion as to their recognition in tbe Church, since it is by no means clear that these MSS. were designed for ecclesiastical use. But it is certain that no ecclesiastical importance can be attached to learned compo sitions such as tbe Synopsis in tbe works of Athanasius, tbe Sticbometry of Nicepborus, or the classification of tbe Scriptures which Junilins (§ 1, 2, note 1) professes to have received from a Persian of tbe name of Paul of tbe school of Nisibis, since these may all be traced back more or less to Eusebius.2 § 12. The Close of the Canon in the West. 1. The doubts regarding the Apocalypse, which swayed tbe East so long, never penetrated to tbe West. When Pbilastrius of Brescia, in tbe second half of tbe fourth cen- biblical books) together with a number of Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphs in motley combination, seems to me equally uncertain in origin and importance. 2 The Stichometry added by Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantin ople, at the beginning of the ninth century, to his Chronography, is at all events considerably older. Like Eusebius, it divides the Scriptures that have been handed down into three classes : iKKXycriatfpeva Kal xexa- voviapiva, dvriXeyipeva, and dirbxpvipa. The Apocalypse of John and Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, here belong to the second class. On the other hand, the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Hernias, are put in the third class, along with the Gospel of Thomas, with entirely apocryphal treploBoi of Peter, John, and Thomas, and with the Didache, which enumerates the pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis with the Clementines among the di'TiXe7o- peva or dvayivuo-xbpeva. Here we still see indeed the influence of the Eusebian classification, but all understanding of its meaning, as well as that of the writings treated of in the last two classes, has disappeared. The list in Junilius on the contrary, instead of adopting the Eusebian terminology, calls the three classes perfecta, media, and nullius auctori- tatis, but puts the Apocalypse, " de qua apud orientales admodum dubitatur," and the five Catholio epistles from the Eusebian Antilego mena, into the second. 136 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. tury, speaks of " hseretici qui evangelium secundum Joban- nem et apocalypsin ipsius non accipiunt" (de Heer., 60), it is plain that he refers to the Alogi of Epiphanius ; be evi dently has no knowledge of tbe existence, even in ecclesi astical circles, of such as do not recognise tbe Apocalypse. Hence tbe five epistles which in tbe second half of tbe third century were ranked with 1 Peter and 1 John, made their way over to tbe West with greater ease, as we have al ready seen from tbe Sticbometry of tbe Cod. Clarom. (§ 11, 1) ; no Church could fail to be pleased by an addition to tbe costly treasure of apostolic writings.1 We now find the col lection of tbe septem alice epistolee, besides those of Paul, current in the Church. Tbe Epistle to the Hebrews was not so readily admitted into the Pauline series, since the West preserved the fixed tradition that it was not Pauline, until after the third century; and in accordance with its stricter- usage, excluded it from the New Testament. But in tbe fonrth century, owing to the study of Origen and fre quent contact with tbe Eastern Church, it was gradually adopted even by the West. Hilarius of Pictavium, Victorin, Lucifer of Calaris, and Ambrosius of Milan, use it as Pauline. But Pbilastrins nevertheless shows that " alii quoque sunt, qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt ant Barnabas esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi, alii autem Lucae evangelistas " (chap. 89). The Hypotheses of tbe Alexandrians stand there beside the old African tradition (§ 9, 4) without in any way disturbing bim in bis faith in the Epistola Pauli.2 Tbe West bad no- ' When Philastrius says that these " septem Actibus apostolorum con- junctsB sunt " (chap. 88), he obviously knows that although he only puts them after the Pauline epistles, yet they are in general joined directly with the Acts, or else these are on their account put after the Pauline epistles (§ 11, 6). Moreover, it is plain that with him the Epistles of Peter come first on account of the cathedra Petri, as already in the above-named Stichometry, and the Epistle of James at the end. 3 It has been erroneously supposed that Philastrius himself was still THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 137 thing to give up in order to make its Canon accord with that of the East, since it had never bad any desire to go beyond the number of tbe apostolic writings. As a matter of fact, therefore, the Canon of Athanasius here prevailed, and with it tbe idea that tbe statutum of tbe apostles and tbeir successors had already decided that only these Scripturce canonicce should be read in the Church. Contrasted with these, we have in chap. 88 the Scripturce absconditee, i.e. Apocrypha, a term which here implies no condemnation of them, but only points out that tbey were excluded from tbe Canon ; for it is expressly said of tbem : " etsi legi debent morum causa a perfectis, non ab omnibus legi debent." 2. The reconciliation of tbe West with tbe East, the way to which was hitherto being prepared of itself, was designedly completed at tbe end of tbe fourth century by Rufinus and Jerome, scholars who were equally at home in both sections of the Church. Tbe West appropriated the works of Origen through tbe translations of tbe former, and tbe learned com pilations of Eusebius through tbe diligent labours of tbe latter. Only what was favourable to a firmer form of ecclesiastical usage, was taken from them. Rufinus, in bis Expositio Symb. Apost., repeatedly gives expression to the opinion that it is tbe part of tbe traditio majorum, raised ex patrum monumentis, to determine the extent of tbe inspired Scriptures. He bas no longer a doubt that tbe patres con- cluserunt a definite number of these intra canonem, ex quibus fidei nostrce assertiones constare voluerunt. Tbe term Canon in doubt respecting it, or that its ecclesiastical recognition was still a matter of dispute, whereas he expressly adduces (ibid.) as the reason why it is not in " ecclesia legitur populo," or only at intervals, " quia addiderunt in ea quaedam non bene sentientes." For the same reason, in chap. 88 also, where those books which alone may be read in the Church are enumerated, only tredecim epistola Pauli are named. The reason that the Apocalypse is wanting here too, must simply be that this book was not regarded as adapted for ecclesiastical reading, as was the case in the Syrian Church. But it unquestionably belongs to the Scriptura canonica. 138 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. evidently seems here to be applied without hesitation to the whole body of normative Scriptures (§ 11, 5), tbe number of these having previously been closed. Jerome expressly states that in tbe determination of tbe Canon be follows " nequa quam hujus temporis consuetndinem sed veternm scriptorum auctoritatem." From this standpoint be could neither take it amiss that the Greek Church of his time in many cases did not accept tbe Apocalypse, nor that tbe consuetudo Latinorum non recipit the Epistle to tbe Hebrews inter Scrip- turas canonicas,1 though be himself accepted both. Thus Rufinus and Jerome are led to adopt tbe twenty-seven New Testament books of Athanasius, which are so arranged by the latter that tbe Actus Apost. form tbe transition from the Pauline Epistles to tbe Septem Epistolce, first among which stands James, after tbe Grecian manner (Ep. 103 ad Paul). Both likewise follow Athanasius in adopting besides tbe libri canonici, a second class of writings, " qua? legi qui dem in ecclesiis voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctori tatem ex bis fidei confirmandam " (Ruf., Expos., 38), "ad ffidificationem plebis, non ad auctoritatem dogmatum confir mandam " (Hieron., prcef. ad Salom.), only that tbey are termed " ecclesiastici libri a majoribus appellati" by the 1 He has frequently given expression to this (Comm. in Jes., cap. vi. 8) ; and he expressly states, that the same " usque hodie apud Romanos quasi Pauli apostoli non habetur " (de Vir. Ill, 59), that omnes Grceci recipiunt it, but nonnulli Latinorum (Ep. 125 ad Evagr.), while multi Latinorum de ea dubitant (In Matt., cap. xxvi.). He himself quotes it pretty often without scruple as Pauline, and again with the words, si quis vult recipere earn epistolam (Comm. in Tit. i., in Ezech. xxviii., in Ephes. ii.), or with qui ad Hebrceos scripsit epistolam, (Comm. in Amos viii., in Jes. lvii.), sive Paulus sive quis alius (in Jer. xxxi., in Tit. ii). Again, he specifies the seven Churches to which Paul wrote, after the manner of the Latins, and sums up the different views respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews (de Vir. Ill, 5), of which he says : " octava enim ad Hebr. a plerisque extra numerum ponitur" (Ep. 103 ad Paul). Finally, in the chief passage quoted in the text it is said : " nihil interest, cujus sit, cum ecclesiastici viri sit et quotidie eoclesiarum lectione celebretur" (Ep. 129 ad Dardanum). THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 139 fonner, and " apocryphi " by tbe latter, who here only goes back, however, to tbe oldest phraseology, while Rufinus and Philastrius regard Apocryphal as the absolute antithesis to Canonical. The only other work regarded by both as belong ing to tbe New Testament is tbe Shepherd of Hermas. Tho scholarly reminiscences of former doubts respecting indi vidual New Testament writings, brought forward by Jerome, particularly from Eusebius, were neither regarded by himself as important, nor had they any influence on the Church.2 3. Final sanction was first given to the views of these two scholars by the all-predominating ecclesiastical authority of Augustine. He looks on the " canonica auctoritas veteris et novi testamenti apostolorum " as " per successiones episco porum et propagationes ecclesiarum constitua et custodita " (Gontr. Faust. 11, 5; 33, 6). In his work de Doctrina Chris tiana (2, 8) he develops a detailed theory as to bow, in de termining the scripturce canonicce, the "auctoritas ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium " must be followed, "inter quas illas sint, quaa apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt." He makes a distinction between such as are accepted by all, and such as "plures gravioresque accipiunt" or " pauciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiae." He even mentions the improbable case where one class might have tbe plures, tbe other tbe graviores, in its favour, and thus both be equal in authority. But this is simply an academical discussion respecting tbe various degrees of canonicity, by 2 Thus in the Praf. in Ep. ad Philem. he also speaks of those who refuse to accept this epistle on account of its private character (comp. § II, 6), and mentions that the " secunda Petri a plerisque ejus negatur propter stili dissonantiam" (de Vir. Ill, 1), that the Epistle of James " ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem" (ibid., cap. ii.), that the Epistle of Jude a plerisque rejicitur on account of the citation from Enoch (ibid., 4). that 2nd and 3rd John Johannis presbuteri aster untur (ibid., 9, comp. 18; a plerisque). The exaggerated way in which he retails these doubts con trasts strangely enough indeed with the utter insignificance they have in influencing his ecclesiastical recognition of the writings. 140 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. which he accommodates himself to the sometimes wavering judgment of tbe past and even of the present, but which be does not carry to any practical issue. For he concludes : " Totus autem canon scriptuarum, in quo istam considera- tionem versandam dicimus, bis libris continetur," and then proceeds to enumerate our twenty-seven N. Test, books, tbe four Gospels, fourteen Pauline epistles, those of Peter first among tbe rest, and tbe Acts and Apocalypse at tbe end. Only with respect to tbe Epistle to the Hebrews could a question actually arise in bis mind, and of it he simply says : " quamquam nonnullis incerta sit . . . magisque me movet auctoritas ecclesiarum orientalium, quae banc quoque in canonicis habent" (de Pecc. Merit, et Bern., 1, 27).1 Under Augustine's influence the Council of Carthage (397) re newed tbe decrees of that of Hippo (393), in whose 36th Canon it is ordained, as thirty years before in Laodicea : "Ut praater scripturas canonicas nihil legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum," only that tbe reading of tbe Pas- siones Martyrum is reserved for tbeir festivals, and the twenty-seven N. T. writings then enumerated. But that tbe reception of the Epistle to tbe Hebrews still gave rise to some disputes is shown by the way in which it is ranked with tbe Pauli apostoli epistolce tredecim as ejusdem ad He brews una. It was first by a later council at Carthage (419) that these decrees were repeated, under his influence also, only that tbe Pauline epistles are now simply counted as fourteen. In enumerating these, merely to class it with the Church- epistles, as was mostly done by tbe Greeks, did not become 1 This is the more significant, since he, for his part, cites it as Pauline or apostolic much less frequently than Jerome, but, on the contrary, in general as "Epistola ad Hebraeos or quae scribitur ad Hebrasos." He also expressly says that indeed " plures earn apostoli Pauli esse dicunt, quidam vero negant" (de Civit. Dei, 6, 22), or that "nonnulli earn in canonem scripturarum recipere timuerunt" (Inch. Expos. Ep. ad Rom., 11). But this does not prevent his counting fourteen Pauline epistles in his canon, though he puts the Epistle to the Hebrews at the end THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 141 usual in tbe West, since tbe only passage in Jerome where this happens is conditioned by tbe enumeration of tbe seven Churches. Tbe position of tbe seven other epistles, no where else termed catholic, after those of Paul, was likewise adhered to ; but in tbeir order the Epistles of Peter come first, while sometimes John, sometimes James and Jude, come last; except with Jerome, who follows the Greek method. Tbe Acts sometimes retain tbeir old place after the Gospels, sometimes tbey form tbe transition to the Catholic epistles as in Jerome, while occasionally tbey are even put after these, as in Augustine. Tbe Apocalypse in variably forms tbe conclusion. 4. A decision respecting tbe Canon of binding efficacy for tbe whole Church, was not arrived at, even in tbe West. The Carthaginian Synods applied in vain to tbe Romish chair for confirmation of their decrees ; we have no know ledge of its having been granted. Pelagius and tbe later Pelagians, in tbeir confessions of faith, repeatedly declared : " Novum et vetus testamentum recipimus in eo librorum numero, quem ecclesiae catholicas tradit auctoritas." But the Church did not speak. Only on behalf of tbe Church of Spain, in which, notwithstanding tbe prohibition of tbe Council of Toledo (400), a number of apocryphal writings were constantly circulated, did Innocent I., at tbe urgent entreaty of tbe Archbishop Exsuperius of Tolosa, address a letter to bim in which be condemned the heretical works, and laid down a list of tbe books qui recipiuntur in canone (405). This list entirely corresponds to the Canon of Au gustine, except that among the Catholic epistles those of John stand first. Leo the Great, in consequence of tbe complaints of Turribius, Bishop of Astnria, with regard to tbe spread of heretical works, was also obliged to take stringent re pressive measures (447) . Hence it was mainly tbe authority of Jerome and Augustine which determined tbe ecclesiastical usage of tbe West. To this, Cassiodorus, in whom we find 142 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. tbe seven epistles under tbe name of the Epistolae Canonicae (§ 11, 1), appeals in bis Institutiones (§ 1, 2), about the middle of tbe sixth century ; be evidently knows nothing of a decision on tbe part of tbe Romish chair.1 When tbe Arian Goths of tbe West, who bad neither tbe Epistle to tbe Hebrews in their Canon, nor probably the Apocalypse, went over to Catholicism (589), tbe question regarding the latter writing at least was stirred up afresh, and the fourth Council of Toledo (632) found it necessary to threaten with excommunication those who rejected it. Archbishop Isidore of Seville, who was present at this council, bas in bis works repeatedly enumerated tbe N. Test, books, and following tbe example of Jerome, has imparted various information regarding the older doubts with respect to some of tbem. We have also lists from bis friends and pupils, tbe Bishops Eugenius and Ildefons of Toledo (f 667), who attached themselves mainly to Augustine, a sign showing bow necessary in Spain it still was to strengthen tbe religious consciousness as to what writings belonged to tbe New Testament. 1 For this very reason the decretum Gclasii de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis, said to have been composed in 494 at a synod in Rome, and which Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann trace back even in its basis to Dama sus (366-84), cun hardly be genuine. It exists in various forms, which are traced back partly to Damasus, partly to Gelasius, partly to Hor- misdas. The various recensions differ very much in their order ; in that which is traced back to Gelasius himself, only thirteen Epist. Pauli are adduced, the Epistle to the Hebrews is entirely wanting, and the seven follow under the name of apostolical ; in the Damasus-recension of the Epistolas Canonicaa, 2nd and 3rd John are attributed to the Presbyter, the Epistle of Jude to Judas Zelotes. Among the books expressly pro hibited we find along with others the Shepherd and the Acta Pauli et Theclse. But it mast be clear that the Epistle to the Hebrews could not have been excluded by the Roman bishop at the end of the fifth century, when his predecessors Damasus and Innocent I. had counted it directly among the Pauline epistles. In any case, a Canon like that of Gelasius must be much older, and might rather be assigned to the middle of the fourth century, at which time it is conceivable that the smaller Johannine epistles might be traced back to the Presbyter, as in the Damasus-rucensLn. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 143 5. The middle ages bad neither the power to take up an independent position as opposed to tradition, nor yet tbe means of testing it.1 Tbey did not even prove themselves strong enough to preserve in purity what bad been banded down.2 In consequence of tbe Council of Florence, Eugenius IV., in his bull of 1441, once more repeated tbe Canon of Augustine, and this was tbe first time that tbe Romish chair ventured to give a decision of universal validity in tbe matter of the Canon. But after tbe middle of the fifteenth century, tbe newly-awakened study of antiquity brought up again tbe old scruples with regard to individual N. T. writings. What the Cardinal Thomas de Vio (Cajetan) incidentally asserts respecting the Epistle of James is, it is true, only a reminiscence of Jerome's ; but with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, be went so far as to main tain that if, according to Jerome, its author was doubtful, 1 Reminiscences of Jerome's communications respecting the older views and doubts with regard to individual canonical books, become more and more rare, as in Honorius of Autun and John of Salisbury in the twelfth century. Thomas Aquinas has the idea that these only existed until the Nicene Council ; and Nicolaus of Lyra, who discusses the ques tion of the Epistle to the Hebrews at greater length, is content to believe that the Church at Nicasa accepted it as apostolic. Where, as in Hugo a S. Victore, a threefold division of the writings handed down again crops up, all apprehension of the original meaning of such a division is wanting, since the Gospels alone are referred to the first ordo, and the Decretals and the Scripta Sanctorum Patrum to the third. 2 Philastrius perhaps mentions (comp. § 31, 4) an Epistola Pauli ad Laodicenses (de Har., 89), of which also Jerome says : " Ab omnibus exploditur " (de Vir. Ill, 5). Gregory L, however, is persuaded that Paul wrote fifteen epistles, though the Church non amplius quam XIV. tenet (Moralium Libr., 35, 25). But the Laodicean Epistle is afterwards in many cases received among the Pauline Epistles, so that the second Nicene Council (787) found it necessary to prohibit it, notwithstanding which in the English Church of the ninth centuiy we frequently find fifteen Pauline Epistles enumerated ; in the Codd. Augiensis and Boer- nerianus of the ninth century, as well as in MSS. of the Vulgate especially English ones, it is received among the Pauline Epistles. The Shepherd of Hermas also crops up again in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, being frequently counted among the O.T. apocrypha received by the Church. 144 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. the epistle itself was doubtful : " quoniam nisi sit Pauli, non perspicuum est canonicam esse." Erasmus went still farther, for be put the Epistle to tbe Hebrews on a par with the N.T. apocrypha, and stirred up again tbe old doubts respecting tbe Epistles of James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and even tbe Apocalypse, on which account be in curred a severe censure from tbe Parisian Sorbonne. Hence it was only in accordance with tbe spirit of tbe time that tbe Council of Trent, in its fourth sitting, on the 8th April 1546, finally issued a decretum de Canonicis Scripturis, pro tected by its anathema, which enumerates tbe N. T. writ ings in tbe customary Latin manner : tbe four Gospels with tbe Acts of Luke, tbe fourteen Paulines with the Epistle to tbe Hebrews at tbe end, tbe seven epistles, in which those of Peter and John come first, while James and Jude are expressly termed Apostoli, and finally the Apocalypse. A proposal to distinguish between Homologumena and Anti legomena was decidedly rejected. How a New Testament science of Introduction on tbe basis of this decree could be developed in the Catholic Church we have already seen (§ 1, 2, 3).3 Tbe necessity of making fixed regulations re specting tbe Canon was likewise felt in tbe Greek Church of tbe 17th century. Cyril Lucar in bis Confessio Chris tians Fidei, of 1645, referred indeed to tbe Laodicean Synods for tbe number of tbe xavovixb. BiBXia, but expressly named tovs Tecrcrapas eiayyeXicrras, Tas irpafeis, Tas eVioroXas paxapiov IlavXov, Kai Tas KaBoXiKas, ais o-vvaTrropiev /cat Trji> arroKaXvil/iv 3 A certain Antonius a Matre Dei still found it worth while, in his Praludia Isagogica (Mogunt., 1670) to count up the libri protocanonici and deuterocanonici separately, although with the introductory remark that by virtue of the decree of Trent, their fides had become aqua Among the former he reckons the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Paulines 1 Peter and 1 John ; among the latter the Epistle to the Hebrews, James and Jude, 2 Peter, 2nd and 3rd John and the Apocalypse, with the addi tion of some doubtful passages in the Text, such as the close of Mark's Gospel, the paragraph respecting the adulteress, and the words about tho bloody sweat in Luke xxii. THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 145 tov rjyarrrjpevov ; and in tbe year 1672 a council at Jeru salem, without enumerating tbe N.T. books, expressly de creed that those which by tbe synods and tbe oldest recog nised Church Fathers were reckoned as such, even if not always accepted, or by all, must be included in tbe list. 6. It was Luther who first ventured on an entirely free criticism of tbe traditional Canon. This, however, was not historical but only dogmatic and in accordance with its whole aim directed to tbe kernel of evangelical doctrine. In the Epistle to tbe Hebrews be took offence at tbe rejection of a second repentance, in tbe Epistle of James at righteous ness by works, in tbe Apocalypse at tbe incomprehensible visions, which did not apply to Christ and yet made such lofty pretensions, in the Epistle of Jude to the reference to sayings and narratives not contained in the Scriptures. That which be urges against them on other ground serves only to support his chief scruples. In saying that what does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though taught by St. Paul and St. Peter, he distinctly lays down an entirely new dogmatic principle for the Canon, probably without being conscious of its range, or following ont the question to its legitimate conclusion.1 So too Zwingli at the re ligious conference in Berne (1528) rejected tbe Apocalypse as nnbiblical, and, like CBcolampadius, asserted tbe right to make a distinction among the books of tbe Bible. On tbe other band, Calvin insists on tbe apostolic, authority of the Epistle to tbe Hebrews, although ascribing it only to an 1 He has nevertheless so far vindicated his dogmatic criticism as to separate those four books from the " true and certain chief books " of the Scriptures and put them at the end of his translation, under the pretext, that they formerly enjoyed a different reputation ; which holds good of 2 Peter as well as of 2nd and 3rd John, but of the Apocalypse only in a certain sense. This arrangement has been retained in our editions of the Bible, in many of which only the first twenty-three are enumerated, just as in the first edition of Luther, while the four last are separated by a gap. In some editions printed in Low German they are directly designated as apocryphal. L 146 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. apostolic disciple, and holds that the doubts with respect tc the second Petrine Epistle do not suffice for its rejection. A true historical sense inspired tbe attempt of Andreas Bodenstein (Carlstadt), who, in bis Libellus de Canonicis Scripturis (1520), divided tbe N. T. writings into three orders : summ.ee dignitatis (Gospels, probably including tbe Acts), secundce dign. (thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John), tertice et infimce auctoritatis (the seven Antilegomena). We have only to compare it with tbe threefold division of Hugo a S. Victor (No. 5, note 1), of which it reminds ns, in order to perceive the immense progress that was made. Even the Magdeburg Centuriators accept seven Antilego mena, from which they exclude Hebrews, James and Jude. Martin Chemnitz, in bis Examination Cone. Trid., expressly states that tbe later Church cannot make certa out of dubiis, unless she have the assured, positive and unanimous witness of tbe ancient Church, and calls the seven Antilegomena apocrypha in the sense of Jerome, because tbeir origin is not certain and cannot be sufficiently established, so that, although useful for reading and for edification, tbey cannot be employed for tbe establishment of doctrine. This view prevailed among the Lutheran teachers of theology at tbe close of tbe 16th and beginning of tbe 17th century. But Johann Gerard no longer speaks of apocryphal books, but of libri canonici secundi ordinis; this, or libri deutero- canonici, being tbe name also given to tbem by Calovius, Quenstedt and Baier, as such, " de quorum auctoritate a qui busdam aliquando fuit dubitatum." But in proportion as it became usual to look upon these doubts as formerly existing but now settled, did all motive for such distinction dis appear. It never passed over to tbe symbolical books ; though the Lutherans never, like tbe Reformed (Gall., art. 3 ; Angl., art. 1 ; Belg., art. 4) expressly enumerate the canonical books. Tbey felt that in this respect tbey were at one with tbe ancient Church, and required no definite THE CLOSE OF THE CANON IN THE WEST. 147 attestation of tbe fact. But the Form. Gone clothes tbe conception of tbe Canon in a clear and definite formula : "Unam regulam et normam, secundum quam omnia dogmata omnesque doctores aestimari et judicari oporteat, nullam omnino aliam esse quam propbetica et apostolica scripta V. et N.Ti." 7. The proper criticism of tbe Canon began in the Evangelical Church with Semler (§ 2, 1). No doubt tbe criterion which be set up for the canonical as such, viz. universal utility, was just as dogmatic as that of Luther, though in quite a different sense. But inasmuch as the object of bis researches was to prove that the traditional Canon was by no means what it was supposed to be, viz. a collection of holy, inspired, apostolic writings that had always been regarded as normative in tbe Church, it was an easy thing for this criticism to destroy tbe traditional idea of tbe Canon. Even our researches have abundantly con firmed tbe fact that tbe collection of N. T. writings which in tbe course of the second half of the 4th century became more and more fixed as canonical, was by no means, as already at that time believed, a collection of those writings regarded as sacred by the ancient Church, and that tbe re ception of individual books into this Canon was in itself no guarantee of their apostolic origin, since very diverse motives contributed to its origin. Nor is it of any use to go back to the Eusebian distinction between Homologumena and Anti legomena, for we have seen bow fluctuating this is, and how even in tbe sense of its author, it is by no means limited to our present N. T. Scriptures, for which reason we can only be thankful that this new human position did not restrain free inquiry in the Lutheran Church, as for a time it threatened to do. Historical research should rather seek with perfect freedom to settle the origin of each individual writing on the basis of external and internal evidence. Tbe result of this examination will then first suffice to form 148 ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON. the foundation of a judgment with respect to tbe traditional Canon. But this judgment is equally dependent on the doctrinal construction of tbe conception of tbe Canon, that is to say, on the question whether such construction makes the criterion of Canon to consist in that which is genuinely apostolic, or in a wider sense memorials of apostolic times, attesting each individual writing before tbe tribunal of the religions consciousness of tbe ancient Church or of the present. Only so much is clear, that tbe criticism which makes Christianity as such emerge from the strife and gradual reconciliation of incompatible opposites, and finds in our New Testament nothing but memorials of a doctrinal, historical process continuing till beyond the middle of the second century, does away with the idea of a Canon in tbe proper sense of the word. Whatever claim this criticism may make to be tbe only historical one, there is no doubt that it too is dominated by a doctrinal view of the nature of primitive Christianity and the laws of its development, which in many cases it adapts to standards drawn from a later time, thus making an historical know ledge of them impossible. Historical research respecting the origin of individual writings must liberate itself from tbeir assumptions, as well as from the traditional view of the Canon, and in particular ascertain by a more minute exegetical analysis tbe actual historical relations which these writings presuppose. SECOND PART. HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. FIRST DIVISION. THE PAULINE EPISTLES. § 13. The Apostle Paul. [Hemsen, der Apostel Paulus, Gottingen, 1830. Schrader, der Apostel Paulus, Leipzig, 1830. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, 1845 (2 Aufl. ed. Zeller), Tubingen, 1866. Hausrath, der Apostel Paulus, Heidelberg, 1865 (2 Aufl. 1872). Renan, Paulus, Autorisirte deutsche Ausgabe, Leipzig, 1869. Krenkel, Paulus, der Apostel der Heiden, Leipzig, 1869. Luthardt, der Apostel Paulus, Leipzig, 1869. Sabatier, VApotre Paul, Strasbourg, 1870.] 1. Tarsus, situated at the outlet of the Taurus pass which leads down from Central Asia to the shores of tbe Medi terranean, was a populous town on tbe river Cydnus, which drove a flourishing trade, and received from Augustus the rank of a metropolis of Cilicia. It possessed autonomy though of a limited kind, and various privileges. The essentially Hellenic character of its citizens had created an interest in philosophical pursuits, and given rise to impor tant seminaries which vied with Athens and Alexandria. The ancestors of the Apostle, who traced back their descent to tbe tribe of Benjamin (Rom. xi. 1), belonged to the Jewish community settled in this place from the time of the Seleucidae. Tbe Apostle at his legal circumcision on the eighth day received the name of Saul, "tbe prayed for" 119 150 PAUL'S YOUTH. (2aSXos), perhaps as a late-born, long-desired son. His father, who, like bis ancestors, possessed the rights of a Roman citizen (Acts xxii. 28), belonged to tbe Pharisees (Acts xxiii. 6) ; hence tbe son was undoubtedly brought up in tbe strict principles of this party (Phil. iii. 5), remaining true to bis mother-tongue, which according to Acts xxi. 40 he spoke with fluency.1 For this reason, all contact with the Hellenic culture of bis native town is out of tbe question. Moreover it is probable that be went early to Jerusalem (Acts xxvi. 4), where be bad a married sister (Acts xxiii. 16), since it was intended that he should be educated there as a rabbi ; but not without first learning the trade that was to maintain bim during bis course of teaching. Tbe pro fession of a tent- maker (Acts xviii. 3, o-Krjvorroios) , i.e. of a manufacturer of the goat's hair cloth that served as a cover ing for tents, points to Cilicia, where this was a special industry. He was never married (1 Cor. vii. 7). He does not appear to have been of particularly strong bodily con stitution,2 in keeping with which, we have tbe fact that bis 1 The statement of Jerome (de Vir. Ill, 5), recently treated by Krenkel as historical, that Paul was born at Gischala in Galilee, and only emigrated with his parents to Tarsus after the conquest of the town by the Romans, is an obvious error, since Gischala was first conquered by the Romans in the Jewish war under Titus (Joseph., Bell. Jud., iv. 2, 1, etc.), and according to Jerome on Philemon 23, probably rests on a false interpretation of Phil. iii. 5, where the 'ESpaios ej 'Efipaluv applies only to his true Jewish descent (comp. also 2 Cor. xi. 22), so that not even his mother was a proselyte. Acts xxii. 3 (comp. ix. 11, xxi. 39) is decisive against it. The Roman citizenship of the Apostle has been questioned by Renan, Hausrath, etc., without any ground. 2 In Gal. iv. 13 we find him hampered by infirmity ; again we hear of a severe bodily affliction that tormented him (2 Cor. xii. 7) ; and although he was able to endure the fatigues of his wandering life, the exertions of his trade which frequently compelled him to take the night for his handicraft, besides many severe hardships (comp. 2 Cor. xi.), yet he felt keenly the weakness and feebleness of his body (2 Cor. iv. 7, 16), and at all events had the consciousness of being an old man at a comparatively early age (Philem, 9). The suffering in 2 Cor. xii. 7 has indeed been supposed to refer to fits of epilepsy, which have been made the explana- THE APOSTLE PAUL. 151 presence was characterized by a certain timidity, which might easily be construed as weakness (1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. x. 10). 2. Saul owed his knowledge of tbe Scriptures as well as his method of interpretation, bis dialectic as well as his Pharisaic orthodoxy, to tbe Rabbinical school at Jerusalem. According to Acts xxii. 3, Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel, so highly lauded in tho Mishna, was bis special teacher. But whatever may be the case with regard to the much-vaunted mildness and liberality of this scholar, which however does not exactly appear in bis counsel (Acts v. 34-39), in any case tbey bad no influence on his pupiljkwho by his own confession excelled all bis contemporaries in Pharisaic zeal (Gal. i. 14). He thus belonged to those to whom the fulfilment of the law, as required by tbe party, was a sacred obligation, and be was able to boast that, according to a Pharisaic standard, he was in this respect blameless (Phil. iii. 6). Nevertheless, all his efforts to gain favour with God by this means did not satisfy bim. In constant strife with his own opposing nature, be only became more and more deeply entangled in tbe unhappy struggle between tbe desire to do better and tbe impotence of tbe natural man, which led bim utterly to despair of bis own salvation (Rom. vii. 11-24). The disturbance at Jerusalem due to the appearance of Stephen must have originated at tbe time of this mental struggle, when tbe Pharisaic party and tbe leaders of the people became apprehensive lest tbe Nazarene sect, hitherto tolerated on account of its fidelity to the law and even esteemed, should as a final result threaten tbe sanctuaries of Israel and tbe existence of tbe theocracy.1 tion of his visions and states of ecstasy (2 Cor. xii. 1, etc.) ; but the connection in which Paul speaks of this suffering, which is to keep him from self- exaltation on account of his exalted revelations, absolutely excludes this interpretation. 1 Whether Paul was present in Jerusalem during the time of the public ministry of Jesus, we do not know ; in any case, it does not fol- 152 PAUL'S CONVERSION. The unappeased desire to win tbe Divine favour and by this means internal peace, by increased zeal for tbe law of bis fathers, made him a fanatical persecutor of tbe Christians (Acts viii. 3; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6). But on a journey to Damascus, which had for its object tbe perse cution of tbe Christians, undertaken with tbe full authority of tbe Sanhedrim, he was convinced of tbe ungodliness of his former conduct by a vision of tbe exalted Christ, was converted to faith in Him, and was baptized by Ananias at Damascus (Acts ix. 1-19; comp. Gal. i. 13-16).2 All attempts to show the probability of a gradual psychological pre paration for this suduen change, due to the freer tendency of his teacher Gamaliel, the Scriptural arguments of the Nazarenes, or the impression low from 2 Cor. v. 16 that he saw Him, and he certainly received no impression of Him worth naming. On the other hand, he may have belonged to the members of the Cilician synagogue, who disputed much with Stephen (Acts vi. 9), and, according to Acts vii. 58, viii. 1, he looked on with approval at the stoning of Stephen. The expression veavlas applied to him at that time, can only refer to a young man in the bloom of his youth, since he is represented by the Acts themselves as immediately afterwards vigorously at work (viii. 3), and even as a con fidential messenger of the Sanhedrim (ix. 1 ; but comp. § 50, 3). 2 When in Gal. i. 16 Paul says that after his conversion he sought no human counsel, it does not follow that he was not baptized by Ananias. On the contrary, when he traces back the revelation he received to the xaXiaas (pe) SiA rys x&pcros airov, the calling, in accordance with the constant diction of the Apostle, is nothing but the calling to the Church by means of awakening faith ; but reception into the Church can only be accomplished through baptism. Luke repeatedly heard the Apostle describe the vision that was imparted to him (Acts xxii. 26), and has himself given a representation of it in accordance with this (ix. 3-8) ; but even apart from these free representations that are not entirely reconcilable, they prove nothing certain as to the form in which the heavenly glory of the exalted Christ made itself perceptible to his senses. Comp. Bengel, die Bekehrung des Apostel Paulus, Tubing., 1827- Greve, die Bekehrung Pauli, Giitersloh, 1848 ; Paret, in der Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol, 1859, 2 ; Holsten and Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschr.f. wiss. Theol, 1861, 3 ; 1864, 2 (comp. Holsten, zum Evangelium des Petrus und Paulus, Rostock, 1868) ; Beyschlag, Stud. u. Krit., 1864, 2 ; 1870, 1, 2 ; Diestelmann, das Jugendleben des Saulus, seine Bekehrung u. apostolische Berufung, Hannover, 1866. THE APOSTLE PAUL. 153 of the joyful death of Stephen and other martyrs, are destroyed by the Apostle's account in GaL i., the obvious tendency of which is to support his assertion that he did not learn his gospel from man, but received it by revelation (i. 12), by proving in the first place that in his fanatical zeal for the law and persecution he was quite inaccessible to human influences of this kind, when God of His own free pleasure chose him for Himself in order to reveal His Son to him (i. 13-16) ; just as in Phil. iii. 12 he represents his conversion as a being apprehended by Christ. Such attempts moreover set out with the assumption that for a long time Paul resisted a better conviction that was forcing itself upon him, and drowned the voice of conscience by an ever-increasing rage of fanaticism, whereas notwithstanding his self-accusations (1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 13), he knows nothing of this, and, if 1 Tim. i. 13 be genuine, states the contrary. In particular, the idea is put forward, especially by the Tubingen school, that Paul, by reflection on the saving signifi cance of the death on the cross, gradually came to acknowledge the Messiahship of Christ, just as the Christians endeavoured to prove the same thing from the fact that he too acknowledged the Scriptures, supporting their allegation by his admission of the possibility of the resurrection, and maintaining that full conviction came to him in a vision that had arisen psychologically. But the question of the Messiah- ship of Christ was not in his view one of theological doctrine, but one of religious life ; by the recognition of which his whole former life, and the means by which he had most certainly hoped to win God's favour were condemned as foolishness and sin. Hence it is impossible that the unalterable certainty which reversed all his former preconceptions could have been based on intellectual reflection ; in the case of others he never attributed it to this but solely to Divine efficacy (1 Cor. ii. 4 f.). In any case, the vision which established this certainty in him must be attributed to direct Divine agency ; to him it meant an actual convic tion of the Divine glory, and hence of the Messiahship of the Crucified One, whose resurrection had been announced by His disciples ; for which reason all his former preconceptions were destroyed. But Paul does not put the vision of Christ that had been imparted to him, and to which he appeals as the ground of his apostleship, on a level with the visions and revelations of which he unwillingly boasts (2 Cor. xii.) ; he looks on it as the last in the series of appearances vouchsafed by the Risen One to His former disciples (1 Cor. xv. 8), while visions were of constant recurrence in the Church as long as the gracious gifts of the primitive time retained their efficacy. The fact that Gal. i. 16 speaks of a revelation of the Son of God in him, proves so little against a sensuous appearance, that without it, on the contrary, this could never have been recognised for what it was in its full meaning, nor assured against all suspicion of having been an illusion of the senses. 154 PAUL IN ARABIA AND DAMASCUS. So powerful was tbe inner change which Saul passed through that he retired for nearly three years to Arabia, i.e. probably to tbe northern part of it, to Hauran (Anranitis) bordering on Syria, in order in tbe loneliness of tbe desert, in contemplation and prayer, to learn tbe meaning of what be bad experienced. That he exercised a missionary activity there, is neither indicated by tbe context of Gal. i. 17, which only excludes all thought of bis having discussed bis experiences with men or received from them any explanation of saving truth, nor do we elsewhere find any trace of it (not even in Rom. xv. 19). It is certain that be afterwards associated bis wonderful conversion with tbe Divine intention to make bim an apostle to tbe Gentiles (Gal. i. 15 f.), and therefore when referring to tbe grace that had been specially bestowed on bim, bad always both in his mind ; but it by no means follows that this was clear to bim from tbe begin ning.3 It was, moreover, easy to understand that being of so energetic a nature, be felt constrained to work as actively in promoting tbe new faith as formerly in opposing it. But for this very reason it was incumbent on bim to carry out the entire change of bis religious views in solitude and intercourse with bis God, whose ulterior revelations be there sought and found, a change which was tbe necessary consequence of bis conversion to Christ, though it must not be assumed that be bad already evolved bis whole doctrinal system in this place. 3. It is altogether credible that Saul when he returned from tbe Arabian desert to Damascus (Gal. i. 17), and was driven thence by snares on the part of the Etbnarch of King Aretas, who governed there (2 .Cor. xi. 32 f.), bad brought 8 Even the Acts make the Apostle speak later as if a revelation re specting his destination as an apostle to the Gentiles had been already imparted to him at the time of his conversion (xxvi. 16) ; but in xxii. 21 they transfer it to Jerusalem ; and in ix. 15 represent it as having been imparted only to Ananias. THE APOSTLE PAUL. 155 this upon himself by the announcement of Jesus' Messiahship among tbe Jews of that place (Acts ix. 20-25). It would remain completely inconceivable bow the Ethnarcb should have advanced to this hostility against him, if be bad not been denounced to bim as a disturber of the peace by tbe Jews who wished to set aside tbe preacher of heretical doctrine (ix. 23). Tbe opinion that be there adduced Scrip tural proof of tbe Messiahship of Jesus other than what be had often beard from believers, is altogether unbistorical, and is refuted by Gal. i. 23, which does not however exclude tbe possibility of bis having from tbe beginning, on tbe basis of bis experience, preached tbe sending of tbe Messiah as an act of Divine grace for the deliverance of sinners, and the sending of the Spirit as tbe means which made tbe appro priation of salvation possible to the individual. It is certain that the acquaintance of the Acts with these beginnings of Saul is inaccurate, since they know nothing of his three years' sojourn in Arabia, and therefore make his short ministry in Damascus, to which the enmity of the Jews soon put an end, follow immediately on his con version. We must not therefore make this activity begin before the journey to Arabia on account of the eiBius in Acts ix. 20, for the eiBius in Gal. i. 16 is decisive against it ; nor must we reckon as belonging to this activity, contrary to Acts ix. 19, 23, the greater part of the three years mentioned in Gal. i. 18. It is usual to make the computation of the year of his conversion dependent on a consideration of the time when Damascus might have been under Arabian supremacy. It is as sumed that Aretas during the war with Herod Antipas, when Vitellius had led his troops into winter quarters after hearing of the death of Tiberius (f 37), took possession of the rich commercial city and held it till the new arrangement of Arabian affairs by Caligula (circ. 38) so that the driving away of Paul took place about 38 (three years after his con version). Others, however, are of opinion that Aretas only held the city for a short time while this new arrangement was taking place, since we have no Roman coins from Damascus of the time of Caligula and Claudius, such as we possess of the time of Augustus and Tiberius, so that no certain data for a computation remain, and we only know that the conversion cannot have taken place before the year 35. Others again doubt whether the time when Damascus was held by Arab princes, even though under Roman supremacy, can be fixed with any certainty ; and according Mommsen, Damascus remained always dependent on the 156 PAUL IN JERUSALEM. Roman empire. Comp. Kuchler, de anno quo Paulus ad sacra Christiana conversus est, Leip., 1828. Anger, de temp, in Actis Apost. ratione, Leip., 1833. Wieseler, Chronologic des apost. Zeitalters, Getting., 1848. Keim in Schenkel's Bibellex., i., 1869. Though Paul's object in repairing from Damascus to Jeru salem was to make the acquaintance of Peter, yet tbe fact that he remained there for a period of fifteen days (Gal. i. 18) shows that intercourse with Peter could not possibly have been bis sole occupation ; therefore it is very likely that be availed himself of tbe opportunity to dispute with tbe Hellenists, till their deadly enmity compelled him to take bis departure (Acts ix. 29). But tbe account in tbe Galatian Epistle does not by any means exclude the suppo sition that after be bad carried ont tbe design of visiting Peter at Jerusalem he might gladly have continued there for a longer time if other circumstances bad not hindered bim.1 1 All that the Apostle has in view is to show the length of time that elapsed before he went to Jerusalem, and that his object in going was not to ask counsel of Peter ; also that the time he passed there was in no way connected with the three years during which his Christianity had already matured. Therefore though it is certain that at that time he had not yet learnt his peculiar gospel of salvation (Gal. i. 12), since the actual meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ was made known to him by direct revelation, it is equally certain that he then first asked and was told by Peter many things respecting the Lord's life on earth (comp. Paret, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol, 1858, 1). The only respect in which the account of the Acts is inaccurate is in not knowing that among the authorities in Jerusalem, Paul only at that time made acquaintance with James the brother of the Lord ; whereas it takes for granted that he had intercourse there with all the primitive apostles (ix. 28). The account here given, that when the Church drew back timidly from the former persecutor, he was introduced to the apostles by Bar nabas (ix. 26 f.), is not contained in the Galatian Epistle, which had of course no motive for mentioning this very natural circumstance that had nothing whatever to do with his apostolic independence. That he preached in Jerusalem and Damascus is moreover confirmed by Gal. i. 22 1, apart from Rom. xv. 29. For these verses taken in connection can only prove that because on leaving Jerusalem he went directly to Syria and Cilicia, he remained unknown to tbe (other) Churches of Judea even by sight, to say nothing of the impossibility of his having been taught by one of the other apostles presumably working among these THE APOSTLE PAUL. 157 At all events, in the experiences be made at Jerusalem, be perceived an indication that a field of activity was not as signed to bim in tbe place where bis former persecuting zeal had been exercised (comp. Acts xxii. 17, 21) ; and therefore be went back through Syria to bis Cilician home (Gal. i. 21 ; Acts ix. 30). There, probably in bis native town of Tarsus, Paul remained for a long term of years, during which we bear nothing of bim. But from tbe ardour with which be embraced tbe new faith, it may be supposed that be would not be inactive even here. From tbe fervent love be bore his fellow-countrymen and his concern for tbeir salvation (Rom. ix. 2 f., x. 1), as well as bis conviction that salvation was destined first for tbem (Rom. i. 16, xi. 17) be would natur ally labour above all for tbeir conversion, especially as no direct sign from God pointed bim to tbe heathen. It is true that even here, according to Acts xi. 25, it must have ap peared that he possessed a peculiar aptitude for bringing the Gospel to the heathen also. But tbe assumption often made, that he employed this time in preparing himself for a ministry among them by means of tbe educational institu tions of his ancestral city, is excluded by his own express declaration in 1 Cor. ii. 1-5. He was and remained an t8iw-n;s t<3 Xoyui (2 Cor. xi. 6) and bad acquired bis relative facility in tbe use of Greek and bis acquaintance with the Greek spirit and life only in intercourse with Greeks, not from books.3 Certainly the Churches in Syria and Cilicia men- Churches. On the contrary they heard with gratitude to God that he now preached the gospel he had formerly persecuted and therefore required no instruction in it. It is in accordance neither with context nor wording to make this apply to his ministry in Cilicia and Syria. There was as little reason for mentioning his preaching in Damascus and Jerusalem as for mentioning in i. 21 his residence in Syria and Cilicia. 3 All that was written in earlier times de stupenda eruditione Pauli (Schramm ; Herborn, 1710) and later respecting his acquaintance with Demosthenes, Koster, Stud, und Krit., 1854), is pure fancy. The saying of his countryman Aratus of Cilicia (Acts xvii. 28), appears also in other writers, and is expressly quoted as a poetical saying in frequent use ; the 158 PAUL IN ANTIOCH. tioned in Acts xv. 24, 41 are partly tbe fruit of these years ; but it is clear even from tbe former passage that they were mixed Churches which stood in close connection with Jeru salem, and cannot be looked upon as tbe creations of Paul peculiarly and exclusively. 4. Antioch, tbe chief city of the province of Syria and the residence of imperial legates, picturesquely situated in tbe fruitful plain of tbe Orontes, bad expanded under the Romans into a world-renowned city, in which oriental luxury coalesced with Greek art and culture, and Greek mythology with the cults of tbe East. Tbe numerous Jews settled there, who already under tbe Seleucidae enjoyed great free dom and had tbeir own Ethnarcbs, possessed a synagogue richly furnished with treasure, and gained numerous prose lytes from among tbe heathen (comp. Acts vi. 5, Nicolaus). Members of tbe Church in Jerusalem, scattered by persecu tion, bad preached the gospel there among tbe Jews, until some Hellenists among tbem from Cyprus and Cyrene also attached themselves to the Hellenic population, to whom tbey gained access with surprising facility. Barnabas of Cyprus brought about a union between the Church of this place, which thus acquired a powerful heathen- Christian element, and the mother Church at Jerusalem, and be it was who brought Saul, with whom be had already been on friendly terms at Jerusalem, from Tarsus, in order to share in tbe promising harvest among tbe Gentiles (Acts xi. 19-26). Specially fitted, as a Hellenist, for tbe work, the experience of bis own life taught bim to proclaim tbe exalted Divine Lord as the mediator of salvation to all lost sinners ; but Barnabas must also have been led to tbe conclusion that declaration of Epimenides of Crete respecting his countrymen (Tit. i. 12) was in the island naturally in every mouth ; and in 1 Cor. xv. 33, a verse from the Thais of Menander is given in a form in which the metre is destroyed, so that it is only regarded as a locus communis. Paul refused on principle to weaken the Divine power of the Gospel by mixing it with human wisdom and rhetoric (1 Cor. ii. 1 f., 4 f.). THE APOSTLE PAUL. 159 this was tbe right place for bim, from what he beard of bis former efficiency. As a matter of fact tbe first year that he passed here working together with Barnabas, at once became very fruitful for tbe spread of Christianity, since tbe name of Christian was here first applied by tbe heathen to be lievers who could no longer be regarded as a Jewish sect, because tbey consisted for the most part of former heathen whose faith in the Messiah of Israel was by no means associated with tbe acceptance of circumcision and tbe legal customs of that nation (xi. 26). 1 Evidence of tbe close communion that continued to exist between this and tbe mother Church at Jerusalem is afforded by tbe collection which tbe former sent to the latter when Agabus foretold a dearth by which Palestine was visited under Claudius (xi. 27, 30). Acoording to Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, Saul in company with Barnabas was the bearer of this collection. This might have been simply an erroneous conception on the part of the Acts ; and Saul might not have made the journey at all, or at least not have gone as far as Jerusalem. But the current opinion that here the Acts are at variance with the Galatian Epistle, overlooks the fact that only in Gal. i. where Paul asserts that he did not receive his gospel from man, was it important to show how late he came to Jerusalem, and how after a short sojourn in that place where he became acquainted with Peter and James, he withdrew entirely from the sphere of the Jewish Churches where he might have come into contact with the primitive apostles. On the other hand, as soon as it is mentioned in i. 23 that he himself appeared as a preacher of the gospel, thus excluding the idea of his having received instruction in it, all interest in counting up his later visits to Jerusalem falls away. The time of the journey, as stated in ii. 1 f., merely suggests the consider- 1 Lipsius (iiber den Ursprung und iiltesten Gebrauch des Christenna- mens, Jena, 1873) has convincingly proved that the name was given to Christians by the heathen, and that it originated among Greek-speaking people, so that the -scruples of Baur and others with respect to the his torical character of this account, are set aside. In Nero's time it was already current in Rome (Tacitus, Ann., 15, 44) " quos vulgus christianos appellat," comp. Suetonius, Nero, 15) ; and if it does not appear in the writings of Paul, it only follows from this that the Christians had not appropriated it to themselves (comp. also 1 Pet. iv. 16). 160 PAUL'S FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. ation that it was not until fourteen years after the beginning of his independent activity that he had felt it necessary to lay his gospel before the authorities in Jerusalem. That during the course of these years he once visited Jerusalem with another object is not excluded thereby. If then his first visit to Jerusalem was somewhere in the year 38 (comp. No. 3), some six years would have elapsed, in which he had not repaired to the city, but had worked independently in Cilicia, with the exception of a year in Antioch (Acts xi. 26), when the famine which the prophet Agabus had predicted lay heavy on Judea, in the year 44 as is generally assumed.2 Tbe idea of a formal missionary journey first arose in tbe Church at Antioch. Barnabas and Saul were expressly selected for that purpose, from among the many prophets who were active in tbe Church, and were sent forth with prayer and tbe imposition of bands (xiii. 1-3). John Mark, whom bis cousin Barnabas bad brought from Jerusalem to Antioch, was taken with them as an assistant, but appears soon to have lost heart and returned to Perga, whence it was intended to penetrate deeper into Asia (xii. 25, xiii. 5, 13). Tbe missionaries went first to tbe bouse of Barnabas, to Cyprus, where tbey already hoped according to xi. 19, to find openings ; tbey travelled through tbe whole island from Salamis to Papbos, and gained over to tbe faith tbe Roman proconsul Sergius Paulus (xiii. 4-12). Thence they sailed to tbe opposite coast of Pampbylia and up tbe mouth of tbe Oestrus to tbe town of Perga, whence tbey travelled to Antioch in Pisidia where they appear to have had a longer 3 The Acts also appear to assume this, since they obviously presup pose that the deputies only departed from Jerusalem after the death of Herod Agrippa, who died in the year 44, soon after the passover, having previously put James the son of Zebedee to death and imprisoned Peter (Acts xii. 25). It must not, however, be left out of account, that the arrangement of events according to which the resolution to undertake the missionary journey immediately follows the collection journey, in which the messengers had experienced the acme of Jewish enmity against Christianity, is conditioned by the pragmatism of the Acts (§ 50, 3), and that the Palestinian famine under Claudius probably hap pened several years later (comp. Keim, Aus dem Vrchristenthum, Zurich 1878), so that Saul's ministry in Cilicia extends over several years. THE APOSTLE PAUL. 161 term of work, till tbe persecution of the Jews drove tbem away to Lycaonia (xiii. 13-52) .8 Here they laboured in Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, but at tbe farthest accessible point eastward they were already near tbe borders of Cilicia, where they turned aside in order to strengthen and organize tbe newly-founded Churches, going back to Perga where they appear to have remained longer on this occasion, and finally down to tbe sea-coast, where tbey took ship from Attalia to Antioch (Acts xiv.).4 3 When Galatia became a Roman province after the death of Amyntas, who by the favour of Augustus united important parts of the neigh bouring provinces under his dominion (25 b.c), Pisidia and large por tions of Lycaonia, particularly the cities of Lystra, Derbe, and probably Iconium, were attached to this province. Upon this is founded the hypothesis of Mynster (Einl. in d. Brief an die Galuter, in his Kleine Theologischen Schriften, Copenhagen, 1825, comp. Niemeyer, de temp. — ep. ad Gal, Gottingen, 1827), that the Galatian Churches to which Paul afterwards wrote, were those founded on this journey. This hypothesis found at that time much assent and was again renewed by Renan, Haus rath, Weizsacker (Jahrb. f. d. Theol, 1876), Wendt, Schenkel and others. But the name of Galatia, as applied to a portion of land legally joined to a province, was never generally adopted ; the Acts undoubtedly make a distinction between the VaXarixr) xaPa (xvi- 6, xviii. 23) and the pro vinces here named. There were in fact already Churches in Galatia proper (xviii. 23), at the time when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Gala tians, and it is absolutely inconceivable that he should notwithstanding have addressed inhabitants of these provinces as TaXdrai (Gal. iii. 1), simply because they too legally belonged to the province of Galatia. Compare Sieffert (in Meyer's Comm. z. Galaterbrief, 1880) and Holsten (Das Evangelium des Paulus, Berlin, 1880). 4 The length of this journey cannot be accurately determined, since the Acts in reality only hint at a longer residence in Antioch, and give a bare sketch of everything else that occurred down to the conflict with Elymas in Papbos (xii. 6-12) and the events in Lystra (xiv. 8-20), for which moreover they fix no time. How many of the troubles, suffer ings and dangers recorded in 2 Cor. xi., may have happened on the journey, although the Aots do not notice them ! And whether this journey immediately followed the return from Jerusalem remains en tirely doubtful, since the close connection in which the missionary journey appears to stand with Israel's hardening, which had manifestly reached its climax in chap, xii,, belongs perhaps to the pragmatism of the narrator (comp. note 2). M 162 THE APOSTLE PAUL. 5. For Saul of Tarsus, this journey was in many ways a decisive turning-point. Having been taken to Jerusalem by Barnabas, called by him to Antioch, and with bim been appointed a deputy of tbe Church in tbe matter of the col lection, be undoubtedly undertook the journey only in con junction with Barnabas, who in accordance with his whole position in tbe Church at Antioch was tbe actual leader of tbe missionary enterprise, which was also directed in tbe first instance towards bis home. It is obviously the intention of tbe Acts to indicate this by always naming Barnabas before Saul in tbe beginning of tbe journey (xiii. 2, 7). Only after tbe great success of Saul in Papbos is there a change in this respect (xiii. 13, ot rrepl IlaCXov), Paul being now just as consistently put forward (xiii. 43, 46, 50) -1 It is Paul who preaches in Antioch, whose healing of tbe lame man at Lystra calls forth tbe complications in that place ; doubtless it became apparent on this journey that Paul was tbe man specially adapted for proper missionary preaching and effi cient work among unbelievers, while Barnabas was better fitted for the consolation of new converts (iv. 36). The plan of the mission, in accordance with which a series of Churches was founded throughout tbe whole south-east of Asia Minor, reaching out a hand across the Taurus to the Churches of Cilicia, as tbey did to tbe Syrian Churches, which again were the connecting medium with those of Judea, was manifestly bis work. In these successful results of bis activity and in tbe special gift for founding Churches, Paul saw afterwards tbe peculiar distinguishing mark and tbe Divine attestation of his apostlesbip (1 Cor. iii. 10, ix. If.; 2 Cor. iii. 2 ; Rom. xv. 20). Tbe peculiar position which Jesus Himself 1 The only exception (xiv. 14) is manifestly conditioned by the circum stance that the people of Lystra take Barnabas for Zeus, Paul only for Hermes; and yet this too shows that the former was indeed the imposing presence, but the latter the proper spokesman of the mission (but comp. § 50, 3, note 1). HIS MISSIONARY LABOURS. 163 gave to the Twelve in tbe Church, Paul could only trace back ex eventu to the circumstance that He bad chosen and trained them to be its first founders (comp. Matt. xvi. 18) ; and if they had bad tbe privilege of intercourse with Jesus, be too, like tbem, bad been counted worthy of a manifestation of the Risen and Exalted One (1 Cor. xv. 8, ix. 1). Tbe fact that be felt himself equally privileged with them notwith standing tbe consciousness of his unworthiness (1 Cor. xv. 9), and claimed to be tbe same as tbey, tbe Divine mira culous aid which attested itself in bis o-npela, could only be a sign that he was no false apostle (2 Cor. xii. 12). Thus it was this journey from which be returned with the ripe con sciousness of his apostolic calling and destination.2 6. Tbe Acts do not by any means say that Barnabas and Saul were sent out on a mission to tbe heathen ; it appears rather that tbeir immediate object bad reference to tbe Jewish Diaspora, whereby an incidental preaching of tbe Gospel to tbe heathen, resulting in their conversion, is as little excluded as it bad been in Antioch itself. At Cyprus we hear only of preaching in tbe synagogues (xiii. 5) ; even tbe Roman proconsul, over whom the Jewish sorcerer pos sessed so great an influence, and who seems to have been predisposed in favour of the gospel (xiii. 7), must already have approached Judaism. Tbe experiences in Pisidian An tioch are obviously given with such minuteness, in order to show how Paul's preaching in tbe synagogue attracted even tbe heathen, and how jealousy of tbeir crowding in entirely ' The Acts indeed speak of Paul and Barnabas as airbo-roXoi (xiv. 4, 14), but apart from the fact that they were both delegates of the Church at Antioch (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 23) and that the name therefore is not yet necessarily employed in a technical sense, Paul too on one occasion included his companions and assistants in the name Apostle, and also counted other prominent authorities of the Church, as in a certain sense apostles (Gal. i. 19 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7). But on this journey he became con scious of his specific gift in direct contrast with Barnabas, by virtue of which he felt himself to be an apostle. 164 THE APOSTLE PAUL. closed tbe hearts of tbe Jews against him. On this occasion Paul for tbe first time told tbem that their rejection of tbe gospel compelled him to turn to the Gentiles who received bis word joyfully, and for tbe first time tbe fanatical enmity of tbe Jews put an end to tbe ministry of the missionaries in that place (xiii. 44-50). Yet tbe activity in Iconium again begins with preaching in tbe synagogue, which was accepted with faith by Jews and Hellenes ; but again tbe Jews stirred up tbe population against tbe preachers and compelled tbem to give way (xiv. 1-6). The healing of a lame man in Lystra inspired tbe Gentiles with enthusiasm for tbem, and it was only tbe agitation of the Jews who bad crept in from Antioch and Iconium that led to a change (xiv. 11-19).1 It must have been experiences of this nature that gave rise to the view in tbe Apostle's mind, that tbe Jewish want of faith in tbe gospel led to their rejection and the calling of tbe Gentiles in tbeir place, as well a,s to tbe salvation of tbe latter through Divine mercy (Rom. xi. 11, 17 ff., 30 f.). By virtue of bis religious perception be could see nothing but tbe verification of a Divine plan of salvation in what be actually experienced. If tbe increasing enmity of tbe Jews to the gospel compelled bim more and more to turn his ministry to the Gentile world, which met bim with surprising susceptibility, be only regarded this as a manifestation of the-Divine purpose to take tbe gospel from tbe Jews for whom it was first intended, and to give it to tbe Gentiles. 1 It is certainly consistent with the whole plan of the Acts that these relations are so copiously presented in the communications respecting the journey which are elsewhere so scanty, but it is an entirely unjustifi able assertion of the Tubingen school that this representation is un- historical. Notwithstanding the motives that predisposed the Apostle to take the gospel first of all to his fellow-countrymen (No. 3), yet the synagogue offered the natural and only starting-point for all activity in heathen lands. It even appears that all the Churches founded in Asia Minor still contained a strong Jewish element, having been organized on the model of the synagogue (xiv. 23) ; but the heathen element must everywhere have preponderated. HIS MISSIONARY LABOURS. 165 And if it were be who was appointed to carry ont this Divine intention, it was natural, after the experiences be had al ready made during his ministry in Cilicia and Syrian An tioch, that he should become more and more convinced that be was specially called, in distinction from the other apostles, to be tbe apostle of tbe Gentiles (Rom. xi. 13, comp. i. 5, xv. 16) , and that tbe miracle of his conversion was from tbe beginning directed to this object (Gal. i. 16). 7. Tbe fact that Saul now received tbe name of Paul, by which be invariably calls himself in his epistles, is ob viously in keeping with tbe epoch-making importance of this journey. We have an intimation of this also in tbe Acts, where from tbe beginning as far as xiii. 7 be is always called Saul, and then, after tbe designation SavXos 6 xal IlavXos has been given to bim in xiii. 9, and from xiv. 13 is as constantly called by tbe name of Paul. But this change of name bas obviously nothing whatever to do with tbe events there narrated, even in tbe opinion of tbe narrator.1 Since Barnabas and Saul, who according to xiii. 1 f. were set apart for tbe missionary journey, were named in the former way among tbe prophets in tbe Church, these names must also have been used where tbe messengers are mentioned by name for the first time (xiii. 7). But when a transition is made to tbe new names in what follows, where Paul first appears as tbe proper leader of the mission (No. 5, xiii. 9, 13), it is as clear as possible that he began to bear tbe name on this journey in proportion as his peculiar ministry opened out. It evidently seemed to bim to be better adapted to 1 The opinion that he adopted this name from the proconsul Sergius Paulus who had been converted by him (Hieron., de Vir. Ill, 5), al though still held by Meyer, Ewald and others, is quite untenable, and must not be ascribed, with Baur, to the author of the Acts, since they do not give him this name just after the event (xiii. 12). And it is entirely opposed to the mind of the Apostle to make the new name com memorative of his first manifestation of apostohc power on the person of Elymas, on which occasion he is first called by it. 166 THE APOSTLE PAUL. his ministry in heathen lands, and tbe more conscious he became of his apostolic calling, so much tbe more did he employ this as his proper apostolic name. It does not follow that) he first adopted it on this occasion, or that be Latinized bis Hebrew name, a thing which the Acts would certainly have expressly indicated. Tbe assumption also that be adopted it at bis conversion, is entirely arbitrary, pre supposing that be attached to it some meaning with refer ence to that event, which however cannot be proved. All inquiry into an explanation of tbe name is entirely fruit less. It is most probable that Saul bore tbe well-known Roman name Paul in addition to bis Jewish one, as was very usual among Hellenistic Jews, especially as be pos sessed Roman citizenship (No. 1). Hitherto be had had no reason for laying aside bis Jewish name, by which be was naturally still called in Jewish circles, whilst the use of the Roman one was more appropriate to bis present ministry. § 14. Paul and the Primitive Apostles. 1. Jesus had appeared in Israel, and on principle laboured for Israel exclusively. He wished to realize the kingdom of God, according to promise, among the chosen race, who were to participate in its salvation to tbe greatest extent. It is true that when the people became more and more hopelessly hardened, He had spoken of tbe passing over of salvation to other peoples, and of the destruction of Jeru salem and the temple ; but this prophetic threat might remain for ever unfulfilled, if the nation as such were to turn and be converted. Long since bad Jesus referred to tbe great Jonab-sign of His resurrection, which once again would bring tbe nation and its leaders to a final decision. His apostles, whose destination was already indicated by tbe fact of tbeir being twelve in number, were called to be witnesses of His resurrection, by tbe preaching of which PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 167 they were to bring the people to repentance, and to lead tbem to believe in the exalted Messiah.1 Tbey could have bad no thought of a heathen mission for the very reason that, according to the prediction of tbe prophets, salvation was first of all to be accomplished in Israel, and only then were the nations, called by Jehovah, to come of their own accord to participate in it. To make tbe fulfilment of this promise possible, tbe primitive apostles laboured for the conversion of tbeir own people (Acts ii. 38 f., iii. 19 ff., 25 f.). Nor did tbe mission to Israel appear by any means hopeless in tbe beginning. The fact that they ad hered faithfully to tbe law of tbeir fathers with tbe whole primitive Church, and even, as truly pious Israelites, sought to fulfil it with tbe most rigorous strictness, contributed essentially to this end. No word of Jesus had released tbem from the obligation to it under which tbey bad been placed by circumcision, only that its fulfilment in tbe sense of the Master naturally differed in many respects from that inculcated by tbe scribes and Pharisees (Matt. v. 17, 20) ? But even if by this means they acquired a freer moral atti tude in certain points towards the letter of tbe law, yet there could be no question of a renunciation of tbe law where they were concerned, since they would thus have made a breach between themselves and tbeir still unbelieving countrymen, 1 Neither the oldest apostolic tradition of the Lord's words nor John's Gospel contains any command to the Twelve with respect to a Gentile mission ; it is Mark who, in presence of the great extension of the Pauline Gentile mission, first introduced a prediction of it into a say ing whose original acceptation shows nothing of it (xiii. 9f. ; comp. also xiv. 9). It is only the first Evangelist who makes the exalted Christ send the Twelve to all nations (Matt, xxviii. 18 f.), while the third makes the mission proceed from the risen Saviour (Luke xxiv. 17) at a time when by God's judgment on Israel their definite hardening was already decided. 2 It is quite arbitrary to assume that, though expecting from their Messiah salvation and deliverance, they endeavoured to win it by this fulfilment of the law, whose insufficiency must have been just as clear to them, as true Israelites, as to the apostle Paul. 168 THE APOSTLE PAUL. which would have rendered it impossible to influence tbem, and have destroyed all prospect of tbe ardently desired and still expected conversion of the whole nation. 2. It is a thoroughly erroneous idea that Stephen at least appeared in tbe primitive Church as tbe forerunner of Paul. The thing that excited tbe fanaticism of tbe unbelieving Jews against bim, was simply bis reiteration of Christ's threatening prophecy, according to which tbe continued hard ening of tbe mass of the nation must lead to tbe destruction of the temple, and with it to the dissolution of tbe theocratic institutions of national life. Neither bis appearing, nor tbe persecution to which it gave rise, which moreover soon ex hausted itself in the impossible attempt to bring forward anything tenable against the believers in Christ, in any way altered tbe position of tbe primitive Church towards the law or tbe question of the mission. Their dispersion after the death of Stephen naturally contributed to tbe more rapid spread of tbe gospel in wider circles (Acts viii. 4) ; but even where preachers went abroad to Phoenicia, Cyprus, Syria or elsewhere among the Jewish Diaspora, tbeir message was addressed to tbe Jews exclusively (xi. 19). There were already believing Jews in Damascus (ix. 2), and tbe con version of Samaria (viii. 5-14), that lay still nearer to Jerusalem, had already been effected in connection with tbe founding of tbe Church in Galilee (ix. 31).1 It is un- 1 If the pragmatism of the Acts regards the martyrdom of Stephen and the persecution which followed, as well as the subsequent execution of James and imprisonment of Peter by Herod Agrippa, as the visible stages of an increasing hardening of the nation against the gospel, which in the Pauline sense was to pave the way according to God's decree for its passing over to the heathen, it obviously does not follow that this was the view of the primitive Church from the beginning. Such prag matism has also determined the order of the different narratives (comp. § 13, 4, note 2, 4 ; § 50, 3, note 2), which therefore affords no guarantee that the conversion of Samaria only occurred after the death of Stephen, especially as the introduction of the source manifestly here reproduced (viii. 5) does not at all look as if Philip had come as a fugitive to PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 169 questionably an error to suppose that tbe activity of tbe primitive apostles was completely limited to Jerusalem, or at most to Judea. The fact that Paul on bis first visit found Peter there alone (Gal. i. 19), can only be explained by assuming that many of them were already travelling about, as implied in 1 Cor. ix. 5. How easy it must have been for Jews of tbe Diaspora, who had been converted when visiting Jerusalem at their festivals, to induce some of them to carry the gospel to tbeir countrymen outside; or other members of tbe primitive Church might in tbeir com mercial travels bear the seed of the gospel to tbe syna gogues of tbe Diaspora. But this spread of tbe gospel was entirely incidental, and the Acts are right in representing the organized missionary journey of Barnabas and Saul as an epoch-making event. As Jesus Himself bad already come in contact with individual Gentiles, it would have been very surprising if a like thing had not early happened to the primitive apostles ; and that such was tbe fact is shown by tbe narratives respecting tbe Ethiopian eunuch and tbe cen turion Cornelius.2 As tbe primitive Church in the latter Samaria from Jerusalem. Though the conversion of the half-heathen Samaria forms in the Acts the first step to a Gentile mission, the primi tive Church did not certainly look upon it in that light, since Jesus Himself had already worked successfully there (John iv. 40 ff.), and had by His judgment respecting the Samaritans prevented the primitive Church from regarding these children of Jacob (John iv. 12) as shut out from the salvation of Israel. 2 Since the two narratives of Philip contained in Acts viii. are only connected together in the interest of pragmatism, and viii. 26 proves plainly that Philip was not at that time a fugitive, it is by no means certain that the baptism of the treasurer is subsequent to the Stephen- catastrophe ; and the story of Cornelius in Acts x., according to xv. 7 undoubtedly belongs to an earlier date (comp. § 50, 3, note 2). But it is impossible that the author of the Acts could intend by this story to make Peter the apostle of the Gentiles ; since in ix. 15 he expressly represents Paul as having been called for this purpose, describes Cor nelius himself as a proselyte of the gate (x. 2), and only in xi. 20 gives such prominence to the beginning of the preaching of the gospel to the Greeks at Antioch. But in truth the narrative furnishes no presumption 170 THE APOSTLE PAUL. case was convinced that God called individual Gentiles to salvation by nnmistakeable indications, before the conver sion of all Israel, giving tbem repentance unto life (xi. 18), so in like manner it was doubtless taken as a matter of course when tbe knowledge of tbe Gentile conversion in Antiocb came to Jerusalem (xi. 22), tbe epoch-making sig nificance of which is made so prominent by the Acts, for the reason that nothing is related of a Gentile-apostolic ministry of Paul in Syria and Cilicia (and justly so, comp. § 13, 3). As a matter of fact the first baptisms of Gentiles took place 'without tbe question having even been mooted as to whether tbey should be made to pass over to Judaism by means of circumcision and tbe law. There were now, even in tbe believing Cburcb of the Messiah, uncircumcised persons who did not live according to tbe legal manner of the Jews, but these always remained exceptions, to whom an exceptional position may have been willingly granted.8 3. Tbe question took quite another form in consequence of tbe great missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. In it a series of predominantly Gentile Christian Churches was founded ; but even here tbe experiences, on the ground of whatever to justify the Gentile mission or to make it obligatory, since Peter was compelled by Divine directions quite exceptional, to preaoh the gospel to Cornelius, nor even in favour of the baptism of believing Gentiles, since the pouring out of the Spirit preceded it in the case of Cornelius (comp. x. 47). Nor was it either of these that aroused sus picion in the primitive Church, but solely that Peter went in to the uncircumcised and ate with them, a thing which he dared not do as a Jew faithful to the law (xi. 3). We see from this why the primitive apostles could have had no idea of a heathen mission (comp. No. 1). 3 Yet the hope was always entertained of the entire conversion of Israel in the immediate future, in consequence of whioh the Messiah would return to complete the kingdom of God. If then all peoples were to come to the salvation realized in Israel according to the prediction of the prophets, it was reserved for the Messiah to regulate the principle of life-association between them and the Jews, either by the heathen attaching themselves in a body to the theocracy of Israel and its ordin ances ; or by laying down under Divine direction rules of life entirely new, in the completed kingdom of God. PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 171 which this had been effected, excluded all idea of demanding from tbe Gentiles who received tbe gospel a previous accept ance of Judaism.1 These things were naturally regarded under a different aspect in the primitive Church. But the reception of an uncircumcised person into tbe Church was no longer an isolated and exceptional case ; a large Church of Gentile Christians began to be formed, surpassing the primitive Church in numbers and extent, and therefore necessarily of greater importance for the development of the Church of tbe Messiah, whose members moreover lived under different arrangements. The time in fact seemed now to have arrived when the former exceptional position of the Gentile Christians was to cease, and tbeir relation to tbe believing Jews to be regulated in accordance with new principles. But since there could be no thought of a change of legal ordinances where the latter were concerned, so long as no Divine intimation released tbem from the obligation imposed on tbem by circumcision, and so long as tbe con version of Israel, to which such intimation would have been an insuperable obstacle, was not yet completed, there seemed to be no other alternative than that the Gentile Christians should, by accepting circumcision and tbe law, incorporate themselves with the chosen people, in order to participate in tbe salvation brought and still to be brought 1 Paul recognised in the circumstances that led him to turn his activity more and more to the Gentile world the Divine judgment on the increasing hardness of Judaism, and the Divine intention to bestow salvation on tbe heathen in their stead ; and if he felt himself more and more called to be an apostle to the Gentiles, yet he could not persuade the heathen who had become believers to accept circumcision and the law, i.e. to become Jews. If the labour among the heathen thus enjoined on him obliged bim somewhat to relax the rigour of his Pharisaio fulfil ment of the law, like Peter in the house of Cornelius, he looked upon it as a command on the part of the Lord to become an dvopos to the dv<5/«HS,in order to win them to the faith (1 Cor. ix. 21), even if he had not fully developed his later doctrine of the essential freedom of all believers from the law. 172 THE APOSTLE PAUL. to tbem by their Messiah, just as tbe proselytes who desired to share tbe advantages of tbe Israelitish theocracy bad always done. This demand was in fact, made by members of tbe primitive Cburcb at Antioch, but was decidedly rejected by Paul and Barnabas, because it would have brought into question all tbe results of tbeir missionary labour, so that a violent dispute arose on tbe subject (Acts xv. 1). In this dispute it was made evident for tbe first time that notwithstanding tbe identity of the faith which Paul preached with that which he bad formerly opposed (Gal. i. 23), the form of bis evangelical preaching among the heathen differed not immaterially from that of tbe primitive apostles.2 If the heathen whom be bad won to tbe faith and received into tbe Church were to be persuaded to adopt circumcision and tbe law before tbey could attain to full * There can be no question that we have here to do with an antithesis between justification by faith and by works, between the doctrine of a sect within Judaism and a universal religion of the world. Even accord ing to the primitive apostolic preaching all salvation was exclusively given in the name of the Messiah (Acts iv. 12), who died for the sins of the people and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. xv. 3 f.). Nor had they any. doubt that this salvation, already present in the forgiveness of sins and the communication of the Spirit, was received through repentance and the recognition of Jesus' Messiah- ship (Acts ii. 38) ; but the main thing for them was still the completion of the Israelitish theocracy, which the returning Messiah was to bring about, and in which all true (i.e. believing) Israelites who, in the strength of this faith had served Jehovah truly in accordance with His law, should participate. According to the prophecy of Scripture it was self- evident that all nations should finally attach themselves to the completed theocracy and be partakers of salvation in it. On the other hand Paul certainly preached the sending of the Messiah, His death on the cross, and His resurrection as a new act of God's favour, by which He purposed to save the lost world of sinners and bring them to temporal as well as eternal salvation Those only who believed and trusted in His grace could partake of this salvation, as soon as they resolved to walk in a way well-pleasing to God, through the Spirit imparted to them. In this gospel as he preached it among the Gentiles, the law of Israel and the hope of the completion of their national theocracy had certainly no place. PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 173 participation in the Christian salvation, bis preaching bad fallen short of its aim, it bad been in vain, since it was very doubtful whether tbe Gentiles gained over to believe in the Messiah would submit to this condition. Paul could only look on those who made such a demand as false brethren, who having no claim to Christian brotherhood bad forced them selves into the Cburcb at Antioch in an unauthorized way (Gal. ii. 4 : rrapeio-aKToi \j/evSdSeXcpoi — 7rapEto-?}X0ov), and was persuaded that neither tbe primitive Church as such, nor its rulers shared this view. In order therefore to prevent the Gentile Christians from being disturbed on this point, be determined to go to Jerusalem and there to challenge a decision in the matter that should put an end to tbe strife (ii. 2). Tbe Cburcb at Antioch also recognised this neces sity ; hence followed tbe proceedings in Jerusalem, whither Paul and Barnabas repaired with other associates (Gal. ii. 1 ; Acts xv. 2 ff.). After the example of Tertullian (contra Marcion, 1, 20) and Eusebius, earlier writers, as Calvin, Bertholdt, Niemeyer (de Temp, quo Ep. ad Gal. conscr. sit, Gott., 1827), Guericke in his Beitrage, Bottger, and last of all Stolting (Beitrage z. Exeg. der Paul. Brief e, Gott., 1869), Caspari (Geogr. chronol Einl in das Leben Jesu, Hamb , 1869) looked upon the journey mentioned in Gal. ii. 1 as the second recorded in the Acts (xi. 30, xii. 15, comp. § 13, 4), although according to the trans actions in Gal. ii. the question of circumcision could not have come up at all, since Acts xv. and the chronological statement of Paul make this entirely impossible. The fourteen years can neither be reckoned from his conversion, nor properly from the first Jerusalem journey, but in accordance with the context only from the beginning of his inde pendent preaching of the gospel (i. 23 f.), which likewise coincides with his first appearance in Damascus and Jerusalem, and therefore, according to the usual reckoning (§ 13, 3) with the year 38 ; so that these occurrences took place about 52. On the other hand, Wieseler (comp. his Comm. zum Galaterbrief, Gott., 1859), after the example of certain predecessors such as Till, Credner and Kohler (Versuch iiber die Abfassungszeit der apostol. Schriften, Leipz , 1830), has identified Gal. ii. 1 with the journey in Acts xviii. 22, in which Paul discussed with the primitive apostles the meaning of the apostolic decree of Acts xv. ; which is completely at variance with Paul's utterances respecting 174 THE APOSTLE PAUL. the negotiations at Jerusalem. Most expositors, however, rightly maintain that Acts xv. is intended to give an account of the negotiations mentioned in Gal. ii., and if it be true that irreconcilable differences exist between the two accounts, as the Tubingen school professes to have discovered, it would not follow that the Acts had given an unhistorical account of these in the interest of a tendenoy, but that the source evidently used by them (§ 50, 3) recorded other negotiations at Jerusalem in which it does not appear that Paul and Barnabas were concerned, and that it was only by an error that they identified them with those in Gal. ii. But the former alleged differences are sufficiently explained if we consider that Paul's sole object was to prove that the gospel he had already preached for fourteen years was fully recognised by the primitive Church and its authorities, while the account of the Acts is concerned only with the recognition of the freedom of the Gentile Christians from the law, and consequently of the Pauline Gentile mission as such.3 4. It is certain that when Paul laid his (free) gospel before the authorities in Jerusalem, tbey added nothing to it (Gal. ii. 2-6), i.e. tbey did not require that tbe gospel be preached to tbe Gentiles should, besides the sole con dition of faith which he laid down, impose Judaism on 3 Hence Paul gives prominence to the fact that he resolved to submit his gospel preached among the Gentiles to examination at Jerusalem, not because there was any necessity to do so, but because of a Divine revelation ; while the Acts lay stress on the circumstance that the Church at Antioch sent him and Barnabas to Jerusalem in order to settle the dispute about the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. But nothing is more natural than that Paul should have challenged or accepted the resolution of the Church, in consequence of that very revelation, which convinced him of the necessity of such a step under the circumstances. In any case he went up, according to his own representation, with Barnabas and at least one other companion ; he, too, certainly dis tinguishes from the separate transactions with the authorities of the Church, which essentially concerned their common activity (ii. 2, 6-10), the proceeding with the whole Church in which, without doubt, accord ing to ii. 3-5, the freedom of Gentile Christians from the law, which formed the chief peculiarity of his gospel, came up for discussion, as the dispute relative to the circumcision of Titus shows. But while it was the Apostle's exclusive aim to show by this example how fully his gospel, which set the Gentiles free from the law, was recognised in Jerusalem, the Acts ohiefly treat of the transactions by which the deliverance of the Gentile Christians from the law was arrived at. PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 175 them as a condition of participation in salvation. To tbe position tbey thus took up in favour of tbe freedom of tbe Gentile Christians from tbe law, Paul must have been in debted for the fact that Titus too was not compelled to be circumcised (ii. 3). But since be brings this forward as utterly refuting the idea that either tbe primitive Cburcb or its authorities were of opinion that be had not by bis preach ing effectually attained his object of mediating salvation to tbe Gentiles, it follows that even tbe primitive Cburcb con ceded tbe principle of the freedom of the Gentile Christians, though disposed in tbe particular case of Titus to insist on circumcision.1 But the fact that tbey did not enforce it against tbe refusal of tbe Apostle, can only have been due to the influence of their rulers. Moreover tbe Pauline account does not preclude tbe possible existence, even in Jerusalem, of a Pharisaic- minded party who required that the Gentile Christians should adopt tbe law and circumcision; nor the supposition that it was only after lengthened negotiations 1 Paul indicates as clearly as possible that where Titus was concerned, the strangeness lay in the circumstance that he, an uncircumcised Greek, should nevertheless be the companion of Paul who, as a circumcised Jew, must necessarily by daily intercourse with such a one be contamin ated (Gal. ii. 3). This was a case in which Paul could unquestionably have yielded to the demand for his circumcision, in order to avoid giving offence to his brethren in Jerusalem, whose legality was so scrupulous. He also expressly states that he did not withstand this demand from principle but on the ground of expediency, for the sake of false brethren who had already come to Antioch in order, by spying out some doubtful consequences of the freedom of the Gentile Christians, to bring about their bondage to the law (ii. 14), and who manifestly only make use of the contamination of Paul by his uncircumcised companion in order by this case to create a prejudice in favour of the necessary circumcision of the Gentile Christians, to which they might afterwards make universal appeal. Paul expressly says that he did not give way to the demand made by them, lest he should prejudice the truth of his free gospel (ii. 5). But it is equally at variance with the sense and the wording of the Pauline account to assume that with regard to this special question, or even the question of circumcision generally, matters had come to an irreconcilable difference between Paul and the primitive Church ; whereas Paul had only repelled the constraint put upon him. 176 THE APOSTLE PAUL. on tbe subject, and after Peter and James bad fully explained tbeir opposite wish, that this requisition was definitely re jected by tbe collective Cburcb (Acts xv. 5-2 1).1 On tbe other band tbe determination, in accordance with tbe wish of James, to impose on the Gentiles abstinence from flesh offered to idols, fornication, blood and things strangled, bad nothing whatever to do with tbe principle of tbe question as to the freedom of tbe Gentile Christians from tbe law, since this injunction had direct reference to tbe synagogue (Acts xv. 20 f.); inasmuch as it would have been an in superable obstacle to tbe conversion of tbe Jews of the Diaspora, if they saw the formation of Churches of believers, who defiled themselves with abominations that were pecu liarly heathen, and with whom, from very horror of these abominations, tbey could have bad no community of faith. Hence it follows that tbe reiterated assertion that such a decree was directly at variance with Paul's statement that tbe primitive apostles added nothing to his gospel (Gal. 1 The judgment with respect to the historical character of the pro ceedings set forth in the Acts depends essentially on the question as to whether they are taken from an earlier source, which is undoubtedly shown to be highly probable on literary and critical grounds (comp. § 50, 3). The difference which is obviously prominent in the apprehension of the question between Peter and James in spite of the agreement in result, creates a favourable presumption in its favour. The former, it is clear, draws the conclusion from the communication of the Spirit to Cornelius that the Gentiles are by faith put on an equality with the Jews before God, so far as they might attain true purity, to which circumcision was with the Jews only the first step, and therefore that this had become as unnecessary for them as the imposition of the law, by the ever imperfect fulfilment of which even those of the Jews who trusted in the grace of their Messiah did not hope to be delivered (xv. 7-10) . On the other hand James is satisfied with asserting that God had called to Himself, according to prophecy, a new people from among the Gentiles, that should likewise be called by His name and should serve Him, but who were not to be burdened with the ordinances given to God's ancient people (Acts xv. 14-19). Prejudice alone can deny that both alike are far removed from Paul's position that the Gentiles as such were to be received into the Church (No. 3) , or even from his later principle of the freedom of believers from the law. PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 177 ii. 6), i.e. nothing that be himself had not declared necessary for salvation, is quite untenable. The idea that a part of the law, instead of the whole, was imposed on the Gentile Christians, is Si priori quite inconceivable, since the law is always apprehended as an inseparable whole (Matt. v. 18 ; Jas. ii. 10 ; Gal. iii. 10), so that the fulfilment of isolated injunctions cannot absolve from obedience to all the rest, particularly as no special importance is anywhere in the law attached to these three points. Equally untenable is the assumption that by this means it was intended to place the Gen tile Christians in relation to Jewish Christians in the position of prose lytes of the gate (comp. Ritschl, Mangold, and others), viz. by imposing on them the Noachic commands or those given in Lev. xvii. 18, since even if the iropvela be referred to incest or the forbidden degrees of mar riage, which is quite an arbitrary explanation, some of these are always more strictly forbidden than others. The obvious explanation of the actual resemblance between these and the former commands is that these too were were designed to remove the most prominent differences, such as arise in every community. Finally it is by no means at variance with the reasons assigned by James, if we regard this as the beginning of the formation of a Gentile-Christian code of morals. Just as the eat- ing of flesh offered to idols was regarded by the Jews as defilement by u heathen abomination, a view shared by the primitive apostles (comp. Apoc. ii. 14, 20), so the eating of blood and of things strangled (in which blood still remains) was a heathen offence against the Holy One, since Jehovah appointed the blood of animals to be a sacrifice and thus conse crated it. But fornication, i.e. sexual intercourse without marriage, was an abomination specifically heathen, inasmuch as it was not among the Gentiles looked at from a moral standpoint as with the Jews, but was regarded as a complete matter of indifference. The assumption that the Acts only intended by this representation to give apostolic sanction to a Christian custom that originated much later, appeals in vain to the silence of the Apostle with respect to the so-called apostolic decree in the Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians ; for the opponents whom he here withstands did not even on their side recognise its leading design, since they required the Gentile Christians to be circumcised and to receive the law, so that the controversy had quite left its former ground. Equally incorrect is the view that Paul published the decree in his Churches, or even laboured in the spirit of it. He, too, naturally had forbidden fornication, not because it was at variance with the Mosaic law or with Jewish customs, but on the ground of its being inconsistent with the true Christian life which is the work of the Spirit. With respect to the flesh offered to idols, he only asked consideration for the weak Christian brethren, and only forbade absolutely all participation in sacri ficial meals. He makes no mention whatever of the eating of blood. N 178 THE APOSTLE PAUL. From this it only follows that he did not regard this requirement from the Gentile Christians as the condition of their being set free from the law ; he could not have done so, since he looked upon the latter as established Si priori ; nor did he by any means go to Jerusalem in order first to convince himself of its truth or to have it settled by a decree of the primitive apostles, but in order to protect his Gentile Christians against disturbance on the part of those Jews who were zealous for the law, by means of a decision of the primitive apostles and the primitive Church addressed to those Church circles over whom they had authority. The historical motive of the Jerusalem decree is ex pressly recognised in Acts xv. 24, and this itself precludes all obligation on the part of Paul with respect to Churches that he might found inde pendently ; but since he no longer expected the immediate conversion of all Israel, he did not regard the consideration for the synagogue de manded by. the primitive apostles as necessary in his case (§ 13, 6).3 5. Paul's stipulations with tbe authorities in Jerusalem respecting their future work were just as important for bim as the recognition of bis free gospel (Gal. ii. 7-10). Tbey had for tbeir basis a recognition on tbe part of tbe primitive apostles that be was entrusted with tbe gospel of tbe uncir- cumcision, to which they could add nothing (ii. 6), just as Peter (as admittedly the most prominent among the primitive apostles) was entrusted with that of the circumcision. More over, as appears from the result, Paul was authorised to preach as an apostle, viz. with a view, as be supposed, to tbe 3 How far the Acts are sufficiently clear with respect to these historical relations may be doubtful, since the form at least of the so-called apos tolic decree naturally belongs to them alone (comp. § 50, 3) ; but it is by no means improbable that the primitive Church desired and ventured to expect their decree to be followed in the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, which had been mainly derived from that Church (xv. 23). It is even pos sible that the original apostles expected Paul also to work in accordance with tbeir resolutions, but the Acts do not assert that they could have im posed it upon him as obligatory; rather does the only express mention of such conformity (xvi. 4 ; comp. § 15, 1, note 3), and the passage xxi. 25, where these demands upon the Gentile Christians (no longer indeed in the original sense of xv. 20 f.) appear as a concession on tbeir part to Jewish zeal for the law, prove the contrary. The less able are we to conclude with Weizsftcker and Grimm from this passage, that a decree of the primitive Church which was not composed till afterwards, is transferred by the author of the Acts to the apostolic convention. PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 179 founding of Churches (ii. 7 f.).1 But when on this basis tbe authorities of tbe primitive Cburcb gave tbeir bands to bim and Barnabas, according to Paul's express statement as a symbol of fellowship in preaching tbe gospel, a work which they were to carry on among the Gentiles as the primitive apostles among tbe circumcision (ii. 9), both wording and context absolutely exclude the idea that the question here relates to a separation of fields of labour in order to prevent dispute respecting insoluble points of differ ence, or even to tbe concession of an activity in quite distinct circles, probably accompanied by certain reserva tions, which moreover could not have been hindered ; the question relates rather to tbe dividing of common work in accordance with clear intimations of God. But if already existing facts bad made it clear to the primitive apostles that God had now caHed tbe heathen to be partakers of tbe Messianic salvation, these very facts must have led them to perceive that in tbe apostle Paul, God had chosen a peculiar instrument for tbe Gentile mission, so that tbey might carry on tbe mission in Israel themselves ; for until tbe hope of tbe conversion of all Israel was abandoned, this was their first and most urgent duty. From the importance of this com pact, it is self-evident that the division of labour was not understood in a geographical but in an ethnographical sense, and that it only applied to the assumption of an obligation, but not to the marking out of exclusive rights.2 Hence it ' The fact that it is not said iv-ypyyaev xal ipol els diroo-ToXr)v tuv iBvuv, but els tA iBvy, naturally does not prove that full apostolic calling was not granted to Paul, since the latter phrase undoubtedly, if we take the context into contact, is more fully explained in the sense of the former, especially as what the primitive apostles perceived was grounded in the facts of his consciousness. Moreover the fact that he is named only with Barnabas in ii. 9 proves nothing at all ; Bince the question there turns only on that activity among the Gentiles which the latter shared, and from which the specific apostolic preaching that put Paul on a par with Peter, was by this very circumstance separated. 2 Hereby the assumption of Mangold that the primitive apostles may 180 THE APOSTLE PAUL. is perfectly clear that tbe sole exception introduced is tbe duty to remember tbe poor in tbe Trepiroprj (ii. 10). While released from tbe duty of co-operating in the conversion of Israel as such, be was not to consider himself absolved from care for tbe bodily necessities of bis brethren according to tbe flesh, to which however he had fully attended. 6. The Jerusalem decrees presuppose as a matter of course that tbe Jewish Christians were to remain bound to tbe law afterwards as before, and Paul, according to Gal. v. 3 ; 1 Cor. vii. 17 f., did not at all think of opposing this idea; since tbe freedom which he claimed for himself rested solely upon the necessities of his official ministry (1 Cor. ix. 21). But there arose in mixed Churches the great difficulty, that have understood the arrangement in an ethnographical sense, Paul in a geographical, falls away. A division in the geographical sense could only have had one meaning, if the question had to do with a peaceful separation ; and it would have shut out the whole Jewish Diaspora from the primitive apostles, which, however, they looked upon in fact as their field of operation (1 Cor. ix. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 1, v. 13 ; Jas. i. 1), and which, since they strove after the conversion of Israel as a nation, they could by no means exclude from their activity. Still less could Paul, when he per ceived the Gentile mission to be his peculiar calling, renounce occasional activity among his countrymen, which moreover was called forth by ardent love for his own people (§ 13, 3) ; since it gave him among the Diaspora without, a natural link of connection with his Gentile apostolic ministry (§ 13, 6, note 1). If also his vocation to a mission among the Gentiles rested upon the circumstance that according to the counsel of God, the people of Israel were now hardened by their perversity, and the gospel taken from them was to be brought to the Gentiles, this did not pre clude the necessity of testifying to the first-called nation how salvation was prepared for them, and how they were inexcusable if they rejected it ; but in any case the object was to save what could still be saved. With this view Paul spoke of his endeavour to gain some among the Jews by the greatest possible condescension towards them (1 Cor. ix. 20 f.), even before mentioning his similar conduct towards the Gentiles; and in Rom. xi. 13 he gave prominence to the idea that his most zealous efforts in the Gentile mission had always in view the gaining of some of his own countrymen. His fundamental principle not to build on a foundation already laid (Rom. xv. 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 15 f.) does not rest on the Jerusalem proposal, but upon his view of the specific task of an apostle (§ 13, 5). PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 181 the orthodox Jew dared not maintain intercourse, especially at table, with the uncircumcised believer, as was required by Church life at tbe lovefeasts.1 There could indeed be no doubt that in Paul's case duty to Christian brotherly fellow ship, no less than to bis official calling, stood higher than duty to rules of life that bad formerly been sacred ; even if bis theory of the essential freedom of tbe Christian from tbe law bad still been far from complete. Nor had Peter any scruple in allowing the Gentile Christian brethren fellow ship at table, since he looked upon uncircumcised believers as purified from all heathen profanity and made equal by God Himself to tbe members of the chosen race (Acts xv. 9) ; and be carried his principles into practice on tbe occasion of a visit to Antioch, which he seems to have made soon after the transactions at Jerusalem.2 But a step was thus taken towards emancipation from orthodox social life, which might easily lead farther. Peter's conduct, however, gave offence at Jerusalem, because it seemed to invalidate the premisses on which the decrees there made were based. It now appeared bow difficult it would be to put into practice the principle on which James bad conceded tbe freedom of tbe Gentile Christians from tbe law (No. 4, note 2). If the free Gentiles, as a newly-called people of God, stood side by side with the former people of God, there was no reason for the latter to give up any legal duty for tbe sake of fellowship with the former. This standpoint was taken up by tivcs airb 'laxwBov, who bad come to Antioch, ' This case had not come under consideration at Jerusalem, because there was no regular council held there to decide all doubtful questions, but an answer was simply sought to a concrete question. The abstinence required from the Gentile Christians was by no means imposed on them for the sake of fellowship with the Jewish Christian brethren, but out of consideration for the synagogue, i.e. unbelieving Judaism ; such absti nence was far from sufficient to enable them to have intercourse at table. 2 Moreover, this corresponded entirely with the fulfilment of the law as taught by Christ, for He too placed love higher than all ceremonial obligations. 182 THE APOSTLE PAUL. and who, whether expressly sent by James or not, certainly represented bis view in this matter ; and Peter was weak enough to withdraw from the Gentile Christians, contrary to bis own better conviction, rather than incur tbe odium of a want of fidelity to tbe law. He must have done this so demonstratively as to lead Barnabas and the whole Jewish Christian part of the Church into similar hypocrisy, i.e. to deny their former approved better conviction. Tbe offence justly excited in the Gentile Christian majority of tbe Church was so great that Paul felt compelled to accuse bim before tbe whole Church of direct apostasy from evangelical truth, and to censure his conduct opeuly (Gal. ii. 11-14). The statement of Paul presuppo.es most definitely that Peter, in holding communion at table with the Gentiles, followed his true con viction, which he denied before the adherents of James, from fear of man. Nothing but sheer caprice can assert that it was the very reverse, and that Peter only went back to his own and the primitive apostles' view after having followed an inconsistent practice for so long under the imposing influence of Paul in the Church at Antioch. Naturally, the details in Gal. ii. 14-21 cannot be intended as a verbal repetition of what Paul said to Peter at that time ; rather do they throw light on the question from a doctrinal point of view, the aspect under which he treats of the bondage of the Gentile Christians to the law throughout the Galatian Epistle. But nevertheless the concrete reproaches he made against Peter at that time stand out with sufficient clearness. Unquestionably the decisive point here was that by this means he indi rectly compelled the Gentiles to accept the law, thus depriving them of the freedom that had been conceded to them at Jerusalem (ii. 14) ; for if the Jewish Christians refused Christian brotherhood to the Gentiles on account of their heathen mode of life, there was no alternative for those who could not or would not do without such fellowship but on their side to remove the hindrance by adopting the Jewish mode of life. Thus he denied the conviction he had himself expressed in Jerusalem, viz. that the Jewish Christians could not fulfil the law, and therefore hoped to be saved by the grace of the Messiah alone (Acts xv. 10 f . ; comp. Gal. ii. 15 f.). It is making Christ the minister of sin, to be led by this faith in Him to regard the observance of the law as no longer necessary to salvation, and yet, by returning to a strict observance of it, to condemn the former free position with respect to the law, adopted on the ground of such faith, as a sinful transgression of it (Gal. ii. PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE APOSTLES. 183 17 f.). As to the rest, the way in which Paul argues exclusively from his own personal experience, shows that he only gives expression here to the fundamental view at which in the struggle with Judaism he had himself arrived as the definite solution of the ever-recurring question of the law. It was this occurrence in Antioch, which, as the pseudo- Clementines show, heretical Jewish Christianity never for gave the apostle Paul, and which made it bis most implac able enemy ; on the other band, it gave occasion to heretical Gnosis to reject tbe authority of the primitive apostles and to accuse them of falsifying the gospel (§ 8, 5). On it the Tubingen school based tbeir view of the fundamental oppo sition between Paul and the primitive apostles, which led to a struggle between the two parties that filled the entire apostolic period and was never settled (§ 3, 1). Neverthe less, it only completes tbe proof of tbe exact opposite, which is clearly involved in the Pauline account of the transactions in Jerusalem.3 Nor can it by any means be shown, as Hol sten recently assumes, that a reaction, which under tbe leadership of James changed the mild Petrine Jewish Chris tianity which originally characterized the primitive Church into a Jndaistic contrast, dates from the dispute at Antioch, in which tbe consequences of Paulinism were first fully and consciously recognised. 7. Doubtless the primitive apostles on their part adhered 8 Not only the manifest assumption here made that Peter was at one with Paul in principle on the question respecting the freedom of the Gentile Christians from the law, as well as with regard to the priority of brotherly duty over obligation to the ceremonial law, but the whole narrative of the conflict has in the context of Gal. ii. only one meaning, if it is Paul's object to show that his free gospel was not only recognised by the primitive apostles (ii. 1-10), but was in case of necessity upheld by him in opposition to them (ii. 11-21). If indeed he meant that they separated entirely and for ever on the occasion of this proceeding on his part, this would have deprived the argument contained in ii. 1-10 of all meaning and value ; his meaning therefore can only be that he con victed Peter of his mistake and at the same time obtained his renewed assent to the gospel of freedom from the law. 184 . THE APOSTLE PAUL. to the law, till the destruction of the Temple made its observance impossible, for they saw in this event a Divine intimation that the time of tbe Old Testament law was past. On the other hand, Paul by degrees attained to a conviction founded on theoretical amd doctrinal principles, of tbe essen tial freedom of the believer from tbe law ; and the Epistle to the Hebrews shows that the perception of the fact that tbe law found its end in Christ, could be theoretically de veloped even in primitive apostolic circles, But it cannot be proved that this differing conception of the question of law ever led to a conflict between Paul and tbe primitive apostles, nor that tbe latter in particular ever retracted their recognition of the freedom of the Gentile Christians from the law, which bad been pronounced in the Jerusalem transactions. Just as Peter and James differed, so too was there a difference within the primitive Church, as to how far communion with Gentile Christians permitted some relaxa tion of legal strictness ; but this question had little practical influence on the primitive Church, since those only who had freer views in the matter would have consented to labour in such fields of tbe Diaspora as would have brought tbem into contact with heathen already converted. On the other band, it is easily conceivable that the Pharisaic party, who were subordinate at tbe transactions in Jerusalem, came forward again very soon with their pretensions, and endeavoured to effect a transition to Judaism in the case of tbe newly-gained Gentile Christians. But that any of tbe primitive apostles, or even James, favoured their agitations cannot be shown. If this party carried on tbe struggle against Paul in his defence of tbe freedom of his Gentile Christians, so far as to contest his apostolic authority, of which there is no docu mentary evidence at least to the extent generally assumed, yet we have not tbe slightest indication that the primitive apostles ever drew back from the compact made with Paul at Jerusalem, or that they ever took offence at the Gentile PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 185 mission of the Apostle and its great results, not to speak of disputing bis apostolic authority. For their part they de voted themselves, afterwards as before, to tbe mission among Israel exclusively, whether in Palestine or the Diaspora, till tbe increasing obstinacy of the nation, which was confirmed by tbe judgment of God in tbe year 70, annihilated every hope of the conversion of all Israel, and until the death of the Gentile Apostle, whose vocation was from God, com pelled tbem to enter into the predestined work of tbe Gentile mission. On the contrary, Paul himself, in tbe very heat of controversy with tbe Judaists, recognised tbe primitive apostles as such (Gal. i. 17-19) ; and it is entirely incorrect to suppose that there is some irony in bis designation of tbem as oi Soxovvres (ii. 2, 6, 9). He classes himself with them quite freely (1 Cor. iv. 9, ix. 5, xii. 28 f.), em phasizing the identity of bis gospel with theirs (xv. 3 f., 11), and calling himself tbe least among tbem (xv. 8) ; that tbe vrrepXCav dirocrToXoi (2 Cor. xi. 5, 13, xii. 11) were the primitive apostles, can only be maintained in opposition to the clear sense and connection of these passages. With the whole section, and in particular the so-called apostolic Council, compare the latest treatises by Lipsius, art. Apostelconvent in Schenkel's Bibellex., i., 1869 ; Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, Leipzig, 1873 ; Weizsacker, das Apostelconcil (Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol, 1873, 1). Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthum, iv., Zurich, 1878 ; Holsten, das Evang. des Paulus, Berlin, 1880 ; Grimm, der Apostelconvent (Stud. u. Krit., 1880, 3) -, F. Zimmer, Galaterbrief und Aposlelgeschichte, Hildburghausen, 1882 ; Pfleiderer, der Apostelconvent (Jahrb. f. protest. Theol, 1883, 1) ; Holtzmann, der Apostelconvent (ibid., 1882, 4 ; 1883, 2). § 15. Paul as a Founder of Churches. 1. It seems to have been soon after the transactions in Jerusalem that Paul planned a visit to the Churches that had been founded on the first missionary journey (Acts xv. 36) -1 It was only natural that he should ask Barnabas, 1 How far he entertained ulterior plans of an entirely independent 186 THE APOSTLE PAUL. with whom he bad made this journey, to accompany him. But because Barnabas wished to take bis cousin Mark with bim again, who had proved himself on the former journey to be untrustworthy, Paul fell ont with bim, and allowed the two to go to Cyprus alone, while he chose Silas (Silvanus), also a native of Jerusalem, as bis companion, and after having visited tbe places of bis former activity in Syria and Cilicia, repaired with bim to tbe Churches in Lycaonia (Acts xv. 37-40). It is quite an error on the part of the Tubingen school to suppose that in putting forward the purely personal dispute respecting Mark, the Acts conceal the much more serious motive that led to the separation from Barnabas, consisting in differences which arose at Antioch regarding fellowship at table with the Gentile Christians. For Barnabas, like Peter himself (§ 14, 6, note 2), must at that time have been convinced by Paul ; and the mention of him in 1 Cor. ix. 6 implies anything but an estrangement in principle. According to Acts xv. 22-32, Silas was a prominent member of the primitive Church, and with Judas Barsabas accompanied Paul and Barnabas when they carried the so-called apostolic decree to Antioch; But since the writing was addressed not merely to Antioch but also to Syria and Cilicia generally, it can only be due to an incorrect inference that Luke, in ver. 33, makes the two delegates return to Jerusalem, which does not at all agree with ver. 40 ; for which reason the copyists thought it necessary to interpolate ver. 34. It is much more probable that Paxil himself travelled with them through Syria and Cilicia for the purpose of delivering the apostolic missive, and only asked Silas to accompany him after he had passed over the Taurus into Lycaonia, while Judas returned home. Moreover, since it is im possible to understand why these two reliable men were dispatched with the apostolic letters, as if Paul and Barnabas were mistrusted in Antioch, the conjecture forces itself on the mind that the sending of these two, so expressly made prominent and yet on this occasion so meaningless, is an erroneous reminiscence of the sending of the rivis dirb 'laKupov, Gal. ii. 12, which did not take place until later, and in connection with activity, as might easily be conceived after the recognition just obtained for his free gospel and the express assignment to him of the Gentile mission, must remain uncertain. Paul seems to have waited in expec tation of a more definite Divine intimation, and in the meantime, by visiting the Churches he had formerly founded, to put himself in the way of receiving such intimation. PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 187 the apostolic decree. It then first becomes clear that Paul had come to a perfect understanding, not only with Peter and Barnabas, but also with the messengers of the primitive Church, and as a sign of his agree ment with them, accompanied them through Syria and Cilicia, where it was their wish and intention to arrange matters according to the apostolic decree.2 His abode in tbe Lycaonian cities was of decisive import ance to Paul, from the fact, that be found in Lystra a young man who must have been already converted at tbe Apostle's first coming, since in 1 Cor. iv. 17 Paul calls him bis spiritual child, and he was now of repute in all places even as far as Iconium on account of his Christian life. This Timothy was tbe son of a mixed marriage, and had been piously brought up and instructed in tbe Scriptures from bis childhood, by bis Jewish mother Eunice and his grandmother Lois (2 Tim. i. 5, iii. 15), and was perhaps brought to tbe preacher of the gospel by those who were already converted before bim (iii. 14). By the voices of tbe prophets in the Church be was now pointed out to Paul as one peculiarly adapted to be an apostolic assistant (1 Tim. i, 18). One circumstance only appeared to stand in tbe way. As naturally bis heathen father bad not caused him to be circumcised, it was to be feared that wherever Paul came, the Jews would take offence at bis living in such close fellowship with one who was un circumcised, just as offence bad been taken in Jerusalem at his intercourse with Titus (Gal. ii. 3). Thus at the very commencement tbe Jews would bold back from his own ministry and that of bis assistant. Therefore he bad him circumcised (Acts xvi. 1 ff.).3 How important to the 2 This Silas is moreover called by Paul, and in 1 Pet. v. 12, by his full Latin name Silvauus, of which Silas is only the abbreviated Greek form. Many, quite without reason, have tried to identify him with Titus (comp. Marker in the Meininger Gymnasialproyramm, 1864 ; Graf, in Heidenheim's Deutscher Vierteljahrsschrift, 1865 ; and again recently Zimmer, in Luthardt's Zeitschr. f. kirchl. Wissemchaft, 1881, 4 ; Seuf- fert, in the Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol, 1885, 3. Against Zimmer, comp. Jiilicher, Jahrb. fur protest. Theol, 1882, 3). The Tubingen school indeed asserts that this must be unhistorical, 188 THE APOSTLE PAUL. Apostle was tbe finding of this assistant, may be seen from the solemn act in which Timothy was formally dedicated to the office of evangelist by tbe laying on of tbe bands of the Apostle and tbe presbytery of his Cburcb (1 Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i. 6). In the fact that be was brought to bim, Paul manifestly saw an intimation that tbe time to unfold a new independent missionary activity had now come, since Timo thy was not to accompany him on a single journey, like Silas, of whose connection with tbe Apostle there is no further mention, but was to be bis constant assistant in mis sion work. This explains the reason why be gave up the visitation of tbe Pisidian and Pamphylian Churches, and repaired forthwith to a new mission field.4 since it is directly at variance with his conduct in the case of Titus ; it overlooks the fact, however, that Paul there expressly declares that he refused to circumcise Titus only on account of the false brethren (§ 14, 4, note 1), while in this case he did it solely on behalf of his ministry among the Jews, which is quite in accord with the principles he enun ciates in 1 Cor. ix. 20. Moreover it must not be overlooked that he made his impending journey with the Jerusaiemite Silas, who perhaps himself had some scruple as to such constant and close intercourse with one who was uncircumcised. Paul, who invariably demanded consideration for the weak, could accommodate himself to such scruples as unhesitatingly as he refused the requirement of the false brethren, who wished by this means to create a precedent for their unauthorized claims on the heathen. Keim, Mangold, and even Pfleiderer have declared this trait to be his torical. 4 Criticism has taken peculiar offence at the circumstance that Paul, who nowhere else mentions the apostolic decree (comp. § 14, 4) is said to have formally published it in the Lycaonian Churches (Acts xvi. 4). But it is overlooked that these Churches were not his independent mission field, but were founded in a journey undertaken with Barnabas by order of the Church at Antioch ; and that when Antioch had accepted the resolutions of the apostles at Jerusalem, it was only natural to introduce them into the daughter Churches of Antioch. At all events, nothing is opposed to the view that no certain historical knowledge, but a presumption on the part of the Acts, is here brought forward. The con jecture is even probable in connection with the preceding discussions that this notice in the source of Luke, which is partly lost here, referred to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia (xv. 40), and was falsely transferred to the Churches of Lycaonia. PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 189 2. From tbe account of tbe Acts as to the ways by which the Apostle was led to Troas, where tbe true object of bis independent activity was to be pointed out to him (Acts xvi. 6 f.), it appears in tbe first place that he wished to begin his work again as an apostle m Asia Minor, but was pre vented by the Spirit. This is expressly stated with respect to Asia and Bithynia, districts in which, according to 1 Pet. i. 1, there must have been Jewish- Christian Churches at that time ; hence the intimation of the Spirit was intended to show that be was not to begin bis work here, but to seek out a place where he might lay tbe first foundation ; for be afterwards expressly puts this forward as his apostolic prin ciple (comp. § 14, 5, note 2). For that very reason be was compelled without further delay to travel through Phrygia that belonged to Asia, and to pass by Mysia also a part of tbe same country, but was on no account to set foot in Bithy nia.1 It is remarkable, however, that tbe term SirjXBov, used of tbe mere passing through, is also applied to tbe VaXaTixr) Xupa, where according to 1 Pet. i. 1 there must have been Jewish Churches already, and yet tbe founding refers only to tbe province of Asia to which Galatia did not belong. This can only be explained on the assumption that Galatia was taken on tbe journey, though without any intention of be ginning a ministry in that place; and yet there could have been no word of any hindrance, since Paul did actually work there. Moreover we learn from Gal. iv. 13 that it was sick ness which obliged tbe Apostle to make a longer stay, of 1 Asia is here the Roman province to which Mysia, Lydia, Caria and Phrygia belonged. That Phrygia is here distinguished from it, as is generally assumed, is decidedly incorrect, since the very fact that they went through Phrygia without beginning any operations there, is owing to the circumstance that they were hindered from preaching in Asia. In like manner their passing by Mysia is also mentioned ; and this too arose from the same hindrance. The alleged narrower use of the term Asia may be chiefly founded on ii. 9, and this perhaps comes from the source of Luke, where a single part of the province of Asia, to which many of those present belonged, may be specially named. 190 THE APOSTLE PAUL. which he availed himself to preach tbe gospel. Galatia was indeed large enough to afford abundant opportunity for preaching in places where tbe Diaspora mission of the primitive Church bad not yet laid a foundation (comp. § 14, 2) ; and tbe surprisingly favourable reception he met with, which years after be still recalled with deep emotion (Gal. iv. 14 f.), must have influenced bim not to stop short at tbe town in which be bad first been detained, but to carry the blessing of tbe gospel to others also. But tbe Acts in xviii. 23 unquestionably imply that the Galatian Churches were already founded on this journey, though in pursuance of tbeir whole plan tbey find no motive for recording the fruit of bis activity in that place, since tbey do not recognise it as tbe divinely appointed object of this journey, and in fact it was only incidental. The Galatians, although understanding Greek and in many ways in fluenced by Greek culture, were by no means Asiatics. Whether Jerome's statement that they still spoke their native tongue which was allied to that of the Treviri, ought not to be modified, has been recently ques tioned. They were descended from Celtic tribes who coming from Gaul in their predatory expeditions had visited the Tbracian-Greek peninsula. Some had thrown themselves into Asia Minor, and, after varying fortunes, had there founded a kingdom, whose last king favoured by the Romans, extended his dominion far beyond Galatia proper (Gallo-Grsecia). Even when his land had become a Roman province (26 a.d.), they still retained their division into the three tribes of the Tectosagi, Tolistoboii, and Trocmi, their old Celtic constitution, their popular representation, and a far-reaching self-government. The old Celtic Nature religion amalga mated more or less with Greek myth and Roman Csesar-worship. The assumption formerly prevailing that the Galatians (or, according to Meyer, at least the tribe of the Tectosagi), were of German origin, is still obstinately defended by Wieseler (Die deutsche Nationality der Kleinas. Gal., Giitersloh, 1877 ; Zur Geschichte der hi. via, from which, as a centre, mining operations in tbe gold and silver pits of tbe neighbouring Pangteus were successfully carried on. There was no Jewish population here worth mentioning ; tbey had not even a synagogue, but only a place of prayer outside the city, by tbe river, where there was facility for tbe sacred ablutions, and whither women almost exclusively seem to have resorted, partly Jewesses married to Gentiles, partly Gentile women who bad embraced tbe faith of Israel. But Paul did not neglect to seek out this place on tbe Sabbath ; and tbe fruit of his going was tbe conversion of a dealer in purple from Thyatira, called Lydia, who opened ber house to tbe missionaries, and thus established a firm centre for tbe mission in tbe city (xvi. 13 ff). Tbe very meagre account in the Acts, which hasten forward to tbe cata strophe, does not allow us to guess bow long Paul worked here ; and yet, to judge by the result, it cannot have been a very short time, for he succeeded in gaining a Church mainly Gentile-Christian, which must have been of some importance. This Cburcb remained bound to him by ties of love and obedience, so that he calls it bis joy and crown (Phil. i. 8, ii. 12, iv. 1). It must also have been a wealthy Cburcb ; and we see tbe confidential relation towards it in which the Apostle stood, from the circumstance that be not only allowed it to maintain him, but afterwards even accepted frequent help from it ; for from the first this Church mani fested great zeal for tbe mission (i. 4, iv. 10, 15 f. ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 8 f.). Tbe incidental mention of two women, as well as of Epaphroditus, Clement, and others, who were there bis associates amid toil and struggle (ii. 25, iv. 2 f.), also points to a longer period of activity on bis part in tbe place. It was only by an incident that brought bim into conflict with tbe rulers that an unforeseen end was put to PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 193 his work. Comp. Scbinz, Die christliche Gemeinde zu Philippi, Zurich, 1833. The Acts speak only of a few days that preceded Paul's first Sabbath visit to the place of prayer, and of many days in which the damsel with a spirit of divination, who, as appears, first met him on a later visit, repeatedly molested the Apostle (xvi. 12, 18). At the first meeting with her, Luke must have been present (xvi. 16), but no trace of his presence is observable any more; a circumstance which obviously explains the complete obscurity respecting the extent of his operations there, as well as the scanty account of their true purport. The expulsion of the spirit of divination is immediately followed by proceedings against Paul and Silas on the part of those in whose service the divining damsel was, who accused them before the Roman decemvirs administering justice in the colonial city, with introducing foreign religious customs. According to the narrative of the Acts, these latter, urged on by the people, had them beaten with rods and thrown into prison, where they were thrust into the stocks ; but the decemvirs were obliged on the following day, when Paul made good his Roman citizenship, themselves to fetch them out of the prison, and they desired them to depart out of the city (xvi. 19-40).3 4. Thessalonica, the chief town of the second Macedonian district, as tbe seat of the Roman prefect and a favourite place of commerce owing to its position on the Thermaic Gulf and the great Roman military road (via Egnatiana), was tbe most important city of tbe whole province. Here too there was a large Jewish population, who had their own synagogue, and to whom therefore Paul first turned when be came hither from Philippi. The Acts speak only of two to three weeks' work among tbem, during wliich be 3 The catastrophe, which is also hinted at in 1 Thess. ii. 2, is thus copiously narrated on account of the wonderful conversion of the jailer (xvi. 25-34), which however has no influence upon the course of events ; and the entire representation, involved in so much obscurity, shows that Luke was certainly no longer present in Philippi during this catastrophe. On the other hand, there is no reason for the assumption that Timothy was absent because he was not affected by it ; since we do not find him co-operating in the expulsion of demons, or otherwise acting indepen dently. On the contrary, it is incorrectly supposed that he remained behind in Philippi, because he is not mentioned at the departure from it; whereas he is mentioned again in xvii. 14, where he was obliged to separate for the first time from Paul, whom he had accompanied un interruptedly since leaving Lystra. 0 194 PAUL IN THESSALONICA, preached every sabbath in the synagogue ; and in addition to some Jews, converted a multitude of Greek proselytes and women of distinction (xvii. 1-4). Nevertheless Paul must have worked here for a much longer time ; and after sufficiently proving tbe unsusceptibility of bis countrymen, probably turned entirely to bis Gentile mission. He bad undertaken work, and by means of night-labour supported himself, though scantily, by bis handicraft (1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8), so that be bad repeatedly to receive supplies from Philippi (Phil. iv. 16) ; a circumstance which led to a continued abode in bis present quarters. Whilst bis preach ing in the synagogue, as related in tbe Acts, set forth the usual Scripture proof of tbe Messiahship of Him who died and rose again, bis first epistle gives us a clear picture of bis specifically apostolic preaching as addressed to the Gentiles there (comp. especially 1 Thess. i. 9 f.).1 As they joyfully received bis word as a Divine message (i. 6, ii. 13), be suc ceeded in gathering an important Cburcb, not mixed (comp. Holsten, Jahrb. fiir Protest. Theolog., 1876, 1), but Gentile Christian (i- 9, ii. 14), consisting mainly of small traders and mechanics (iv. 6, ll), and which bad already its special overseers for tbe administration of external affairs, as well as for tbe discipline and direction of Cburcb- life (v. 12). But 1 The often repeated conjecture that his preaching has here a prevail ing apocalyptic character, is quite chimerical. It was natural that the Messianic preaching among the Gentiles should occupy itself not with the promised future of salvation, but with the judgment that was ex pected to accompany it. In order to escape this the heathen were ad monished to turn from idols to the worship of the living and true God (i. 9), to serve Him according to the precepts of the Apostle with blame less holiness, to which end God hath given them the Holy Spirit at their calling (iv. 7 f.), and await the second coming of Jesus who had been raised from the dead, who as His Son would deliver believers from the wrath to come (i. 10). Though we certainly have here all the main characteristics of the Pauline preaching, since even the effect of his teaching is traced back to the Divine election and the co-operation of the Holy Spirit (i. 4 f.), yet it is a very significant fact that all the richer theological elements of his developed system are entirely wanting. PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 195 even after tbe founding of the Church he still worked among tbem for a long time (ii. 11 f.) and that amid much op position to which he was exposed from tbe beginning (ii. 2), just as tbey too bad to suffer constant persecution from their countrymen (ii. 6, 14, iii. 4). Of all this tbe Acts tell nothing ; tbeir only object is to show bow tbe fanaticism of tbe Jews, who persisted in tbeir unbelief in spite of all tbe labour bestowed on tbem by the Apostle, led to tbe prema- turo ending of tbe missionary work. Since, happily, they were not able to find the missionaries themselves, they dragged tbeir host, a certain Jason, and some members of the Christian Church before tbe rulers of tbe city, and accused tbem of harbouring strangers who turned the whole world upside down with their treasonable preacbing of the kingdom of Jesus. Tbe officials, however, wisely contented themselves with taking bail from tbe accused that no revo lutionary project was on foot, and allowed tbem to go un harmed. But Paul and bis companions deemed it advisable to depart by night (Acts xvii. 5-10). Comp. Burgerboudt, de coitus Christ. Thess. ortu fatisque, Lugd. Bat., 1825. 5. Tbe last Macedonian city in which Paul worked was Bercea, one of the oldest cities of the country, situated on the river Astrseus, in a fruitful region of tbe third district. It was not without anxiety for the young and still unconsolidated Church, that Paul left Thessalonica, and after coming hither, be frequently thought of returning to it ; but tbe attitude of bis enemies there, which was still menacing, made it impossible (1 Thess. ii. 17 f.). He was destined to learn tbe persistent character of fanaticism soon enough. In Bercea bis success was unexpectedly great, in the synagogue, as well as among Greek men and women even of tbe higher ranks. But scarcely had news of this reached Thessalonica when Jews of that place made tbeir appearance here too, with tbe object of stirring up the populace ; and Paul, against whom tbeir hatred was chiefly directed, was compelled to make for 196 PAUL IN BERCEA. the sea-coast (on tbe Thermaic Gulf) with all possible speed, in order by taking ship to escape tbeir snares. From thence be was conducted by some of tbe new converts, whose zeal for bis safety is vividly portrayed in the Acts, to Athens, availing themselves of tbe first opportunity by ship, because they would not leave bim till tbey had made sure that be was safe (Acts xvii. 10-15). In Athens Paul first set foot on the soil of Greece proper. It appears that be had not in view a proper mission work here,. but only desired to wait for bis companions who bad been left behind in Bercea, since it was only by tbe opportunity that presented itself that he bad been brought to this place.1 But he could not look on at tbe abominable idolatry that met bis sight in numberless temples and altars; and without neglecting to speak to Jews and proselytes in tbe synagogue according to bis custom, he daily availed himself of tbe opportunity to offer tbe gospel 1 The reason why Silas and Timothy remained behind in Beroea is not quite clear (xvii. 14). It almost appears as if their stay was merely intended to mask the flight of Paul and ensure its success. The Acts at least know nothing of any intimation that they were to carry on the work so hopefully begun by Paul ; for Paul sends them a summons by his returning companions, to come to him as speedily as possible, viz. to Athens, where he awaits them (xvii. 15 f.). It is customary to infer from 1 Thess. iii. 1 f., that Timothy at least did actually follow him thither, but was immediately sent back by him to Thessalonica, in order to strengthen the Church, respecting which he still suffered great anxiety, and to bring him news of it (iii. 5). But the words do not necessarily imply this, since Paul, who could no longer bear this anxiety, preferred to be left alone in Athens, even though, renouncing the hope of his companion's arrival, he sent him counter orders to Bercea, as has been recently acknowledged by v. Soden (Stud. u. Krit., 1885, 2). More over, since 1 Thess. iii. 1 contains no intimation of the presence of Silas, he must have commanded him also to remain in Bercea, in contra vention of his first summons (xvii. 15) ; for as a matter of fact he was first joined by both again in Corinth (xviii. 5) and no reason is assigned why Silas did not follow that first command. But the Acts are always imperfectly acquainted with such matters, since they make the Apostle expei t both in Athens, and therefore are equally ignorant of a counter mand of the order given in xvii. 15, and of Timothy's being sent to Thessalonica. PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 197 to the Gentiles in conversation at tbe market-place. Very soon, even adherents of tbe two most popular and numerous philosophical schools attached themselves to tbe new philo sopher, whose preaching, which insisted upon a new manner of life, touched their interests most closely ; and the novelty- seeking, controversy-loving multitude were desirous to hear bim deliver a public discourse on the Areopagus. For some time be gained tbeir ear, since he adapted himself adroitly to tbeir views ; but when be began to speak of the resur rection of Christ tbey derided him ; and his success in Athens appears to have been very small (Acts xvii. 16-34) ? 6. The ancient splendour of Corinth bad fallen into wreck and ruin when the last Grecian power had been overthrown by tbe Romans under Mummius (146 B.C.) ; but it was now almost a century since Julius Csesar bad begun tbe re- colonization of the place ; and new Corinth, which bad been 2 That the Athenian discourse neither is nor is meant to be a verbal report follows from the fact that Paul was alone in Athens, according to Acts xvii. 16 as well as 1 Thess. iii. 1, and none of his companions who could have written it from recollection, was with bim. If, notwithstand ing the admitted relative want of success of the discourse, the Acts still make it representative of his Gentile preaching, just as they make his discourse at Antioch representative of his preaching there (Acts xiii.), it follows that what the author had heard of it and endeavours to repro duce iu a free way, must have been regarded by him as characteristic of the way in which he had often heard it repeated. In fact here too, after preaching the one true God, and seeking to unite their historical and human, with their religious consciousness, he calls them to repent ance in prospect of the impending judgment, as well as to faith in Jesus made possible to all by His resurrection (comp. No. 4, note 1). Among the few who became believers in Athens there were a member of the Areopagus, Dionysius by name, and a woman named Damaris. Whether the isolation in which he found himself, or anxiety respecting the Thessalonian Church paralysed his efficiency, or whether he regarded Athens from the first as a sphere not adapted for great activity and only desired to wait here for his friends before going farther, we do not kuow. In the latter case he would have departed as soon as it was decided that Timothy should go to Thessalonica and Silas remain in Bercea (comp. note 1), and would now for the first time have set out for the place which he had evidently destined from the beginning to be tbe centre of his mission in Hellas proper. 198 PAUL IN CORINTH. the seat of tbe proconsul of tbe Roman province Achaia since B.C. 27, rapidly sprang up again. The situation of tbe town on tbe isthmus, with its harbours to east and west, made it the centre of tbe world's commerce, while tbe fame of tbe Isthmian games and tbe mildness of tbe climate attracted a stream of strangers to tbe place, thus leading to tbe accumulation of great wealth. The arts and sciences flourished there, tbe fame of tbe Corinthian pillars was worldwide, but so too was that of tbe luxury and corrupt morals of tbe city, whose unchastity bad become a proverb (KopivBid^eo-Bai, xopivBia Kopri). In the temple of Aphrodite a thousand priestly maidens prostituted themselves in honour of tbe goddess ; it was with reference to the life and practices be here saw that Paul wrote bis description of heathenism culminating in unnatural lust and complete moral indifferentism (Rom. i. 21-32). When Paul came hither be at once made arrangements for a long stay ; he sought and found work with a countryman of bis own and a fellow-tradesman, a Pontine Jew called Aquila, who with Priscilla bis wife had lately come hither from Italy, after the Jews bad been expelled from Rome by an edict of tbe Emperor Claudius (Suet., Claud., 25), and who with bis whole household was unquestionably first converted by the Apostle. Here, too, be began bis ministry in the synagogue, though by no means confining himself to this ; his relation to Judaism appears, however, to have been strained from tbe commencement (1 Thess. iii. 7), his activity only becoming more intense when Silas and Timothy arrived and tbe latter relieved bim in a great measure of the anxiety he felt for the Church at Thessalonica by tbe accounts he brought from it. This however seems to have at once raised the enmity of the Jews against bim to its highest pitch, so that matters came to an entire breach with the synagogne. As Paul bad formerly declared in Pisidian Andiocb, so too here he is said to have expressly stated that he must hold tbem responsible for PAUL AS A FOUNDER OF CHURCHES. 199 their own perdition, since be was now compelled to turn ex clusively to tbe Gentiles. He left the synagogue in a de monstrative way, and for his headquarters chose tbe neigh bouring house of a proselyte, Titius Justus by name. But just as isolated instances of success bad formerly not failed him, so too this catastrophe seems to have resulted in a split in the synagogue itself ; Crispus the chief ruler of tbe syna gogue went over to Christianity with bis whole house, and was baptized by Paul himself. Tbe conversion of Ste phanas, whom Paul calls the firstfruits of Achaia, must also belong to this time, since tbe earlier converted Jews were strangers there. This convert afterwards, with his house, took a zealous interest in the affairs of tbe Church (1 Cor. xvi. 15). From tbe same period also dates tbe conversion of Caius, with whom Paul afterwards was accustomed to lodge when be visited Corinth (Rom. xvi. 23) ; for Paul names both among those whom he personally baptized (1 Cor. i. 14, 16). The Acts trace back to an express Divine revelation tbe fact that Paul after the former catastrophe turned with new joy entirely to tbe Gentile mission, so that his stay in Corinth extended to upwards of a year and a half (Acts xviii. 1-11). Tbe consequence of this was that an important Church was collected here, which Paul could afterwards address as entirely composed of Gentile Christians (1 Cor. xii. 2), although a not inconsiderable minority of Jews always be longed to it. It consisted, however, almost exclusively of tbe lower orders (1 Cor. i. 26 ff.),1 though individuals of higher 1 This has been often attributed to the fact that Paul, discouraged by the small success of his Athenian attempt to consort with Greek philo sophy, strove after a particularly simple announcement of the gospel, which had no power to attract the more highly cultivated orders. But the leading maxims respecting his manner of preaching, which he develops in 1 Cor. ii. 1-5 and according to which he refuses on principle to deck it out with rhetoric and philosophy, were so deeply founded in his conception of the nature and operation of the message of salvation, that they were assuredly not the fruit of isolated experiences. That the gospel remained fooUshness to the cultivated classes at Corintli, who 200 PAUL IN CORINTH. rank were certainly not wanting, for we afterwards bear of tbe chamberlain Erastus as a member of it (Rom. xvi. 23). For this reason Paul never allowed tbe Cburcb to support bim, but lived tbe whole time on tbe proceeds of bis handi craft and on assistance sent by bis beloved Philippians (1 Cor. ix. 18 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7, 9 ; Phil. iv. 15). The chronological determination of the one and,a half years that Paul laboured in Corinth is very uncertain. Suetonius does not specify the year of the Jewish edict, and whether the edict of the year 52, mentioned by Tacitus (Ann., 12, 52), is the same, is very questionable. But even if the year 52 were certain, the statement that Aquila had recently (ir poaipdrus) come to Coriath (Acts xviii. 2) still leaves considerable scope. How long after the so-called Apostolic Council, generally put in 52 (§ 14, 3), Paul departed from Antioch, how long his visitation journey to Syria, Cicilia, and Lycaonia occupied, or the duration of his stay in Galatia, Philippi, and Thessalonica, we have no data to deter mine. The usual computation, at the date 53-54, is therefore quite uncertain, although, since Claudius died in 54, Paul's arrival in Corinth cannot be brought down beyond that year. 7. Tbe ministry of Paul in Corinth seems also to have come to an end, indirectly at least, by the agitations against him of hostile Jews. It was probably Sostbenes, tbe new chief of tbe synagogue, who bad him dragged before tbe tribunal and accused of spreading a religion that was unlaw ful. The proconsul at that time was Jun. Amueus Gallio, brother of tbe philosopher Seneca, who extols him for bis benevolence. He dismissed tbe accusation as relating solely to disputed questions within Judaism ; and tbe disappointed , (probably Jewish) multitude made the chief ruler of the synagogue suffer for not bringing tbe case against tbe bated heretic to a more successful issue. Tbe incident, however, appears to have led the Apostle to leave tbe city a few days after (Acts xviii. 12-17). In tbe harbour Cencbrea be took ship for Syria, after having first shorn bis bead in payment were spoiled by their rhetoricians and philosophers (1 Cor. i. 22 f.), was neither due to his manner of preaching, nor could his preaching alter it. PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 201 of a vow which he bad probably made in case God gave bim a blessing in his Corinthian mission and a safe return.1 A landing was made at Ephesus, where Aquila and Priscilla were left behind, and where Paul too remained for a short time and began to preach in tbe synagogue. When pressed to remain be refused, promising only to come again with God's help. He took ship to Cesarea, went thence on a short visit to Jerusalem, and came back to Antioch, which be always regarded as bis proper bead-quarters (Acts xviii. 18-22) .3 Tbe beginning of his literary activity in tbe two Thessalonian Epistles belongs, so far as we know, to bis stay at Corinth. § 16. Paul as an Author. 1. Subsequently to the end of tbe second century, thirteen Pauline Epistles have been banded down to us. Respecting 1 There is certainly much in the language to favour the reference of Keipdpevos in Acts xviii. 18 to Aquila; but in reality that is quite im possible, since no object whatever can be seen for mentioning the head- shaving of Aquila. It was Paul therefore who made the vow to let his hair grow till the fulfilment of his prayer had been accomplished, and now on taking ship without hindrance redeemed his vow. It is an empty assertion that this truly Jewish act of piety stands in contradic tion to his doctrine of the law, since private vows of this kind were neither prescribed, nor could they be undertaken as a thing necessary to salvation. That it was fabricated in order to put the legal piety of Paul in prominent light, is excluded by the way in which it is presented, which does not even make it adequately clear that Paul is referred to. 2 It is impossible that the journey to Jerusalem, referred to in xviii. 22 simply with dvadds, can have been invented in order to show Paul's zeal for the law and the good relation in which he stood to the primitive Church, for in that case it would have been more clearly set forth and more fully narrated. That it was a journey to a feast for which he thus shortened his stay at Ephesus is inferred solely from the clause added in xviii. 21, which is a palpable interpolation, according to xx. 16. On the other hand, it is obvious that he accompanied Silvanus to Jerusalem, whither the latter naturally returned after his journey had been accom plished ; for although neither Silvanus nor Timotheus is mentioned after Acts xviii. 5, yet it is certainly taken for granted that both accom panied him on his departure from Corinth. 202 SUCCESSION OF PAUL'S LETTERS. the Epistle to tbe Hebrews opinion bas always been divided, hence it requires particular examination. Tbe Epistle to Philemon is only mentioned incidentally by Tertullian, but we see from tbe Pesbito and tbe Muratorian Canon that tbe reason of its not being quoted like tbe others is simply on account of tbe unimportant character of its theological con tents (§ 9, 4). In any case, tbe three Pastoral Epistles are wanting in tbe earliest concluded collection of the Pauline Epistles by Marcion (§ 8, 6) ; but this fact bas no impor tance whatever where ecclesiastical tradition is concerned, on account of tbe critical and eclectic manner of tbe Gnostic in question. It is a manifest error to suppose that tbe utterances of tbe Muratorian Canon with respect to these epistles (more correctly, to tbe four epistles all of which were addressed to separate individuals) contain an intima tion that tbeir genuineness was doubtful, or that their acceptance required special justification (§ 10, 2, note 2). It is in keeping with tbe history of tbe formation of tbe Canon, that before Theophilus and Irenasus, only one express citation is to be found in Athenagoras (§ 7, 7) ; and if tbe latter be an escbatological prediction of tbe Apostle taken from 1 Cor., tbe only express citation in Theophilus comes from tbe Pastoral Epistles themselves (§ 9, 4, note 1). Only Clement of Rome's first Epistle to tbe Corinthians and Polycarp's Epistle to tbe Philippians (§ 6, 1) are specially mentioned from a definite motive. Our thirteen epistles are therefore uniformly attested by ecclesiastical tradition. "We arrive at tbe same result if we take into consideration the literary allusions before the time of Irenaeus which attest the existence and use of these epistles. Though the Epistle to the Romans was so generally known, yet tbe use of it is not so striking as we should expect from tbe extent and importance of its contents. On tbe other band, tbe first Epistle to tbe Corinthians seems decidedly to have been most freely used, at least till Justin, while of tbe second we PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 203 find only tbe weakest, scantiest and latest traces. Even the Galatian Epistle is by no means so freely used as to take precedence of the other smaller Paulines, which we should natnrally not expect to be used like tbe three larger ones ; but it is certain, at least in tbe time before Justin, that tbe Ephesian Epistle held quite a subordinate place as compared with tbe Colossian Epistle so nearly allied to it. Even tbe use of tbe Philippian Epistle, although it begins with Clement, does not at all correspond to tbe fact that it is expressly mentioned by Polycarp. With respect to tbe Thessalonian Epistles, we find far more numerous, more important and more certain allusions to tbe second. Above all, tbe use of tbe Pastoral Epistles is not by any means in keeping with the assumption that tbey are less certainly attested by tradition. We find tbem exercising an early and widely extended influence on ecclesiastical literature ; nor is there any perceptible difference in the case of any one in frequency of usage, which is about proportioned to tbeir length, on which account 1 Timothy bas a certain promi nence. For evidence of this compare § 6, 7 ; vii. 4, 7. It must be stated in tbe most definite way that we have no data in tradition for tbe criticism of tbe Pauline Epistles. The Pauline Epistles first appear in Marcion as a closed collection, of whose succession we may now treat (§ 8, 6). In his list, Gal., Cor. (2), and Romans come first, then follow Thess. (2), Eph., Col., Phil., and finally, since the Pastoral Epistles are wanting, Philemon as the only private letter. Although the first four and the second five stand respectively in chronological order, it may be doubted whether this arrangement is intentional ; for, since the Thessalonian Epistles are unquestionably the earliest, the first four and the second five would then be consciously separated as two distinct categories of Pauline Epistles, for which we have no foundation whatever in tradition. The Muratorian Canon (§ 10, 2) also, it is true, gives only the contents of the first four (in this order: Cor., Gal., Rom.), thus separating them from the rest and seeming to regard them as the most important, but it then proceeds to enumerate the Churches to which Paul wrote, in quite a different order (Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., Thess., Rom.). Since all 204 LOST AND SUPPOSITITIOUS LETTERS. attempts to prove a definite succession in Tertullian are vain (§ 9, 4, note 2), we must look for this first in the Bible-manuscripts that were put together for the purpose of public reading in the Churches. But the earliest of these, from which the Peshito was translated, must have had the same order, with trifling exceptions (comp. the Cod. Clarom., which still puts Col. before Phil.), as our Greek Codd., which the lists of Athanasius, Amphilochius and others follow, and which we still retain (Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess., Tim., Tit., Philem.). It is conceivable enough that the Roman Epistle should stand first among them, but that the rest are arranged- according to their length, as Reuss, Ewald and especially Laurent (Neutest. Stud., Gotha, 1866) assert, is very doubtful, because neither the position of Gal. before Eph., nor the separation of the contemporaneous Eph. and Col. by Philippians is explained in this way. We cannot give any certain explanation of this order. 2. It is not a priori very probable that all which Paul wrote bas been preserved, considering tbe great dissimilarity in the spread and use of his writings perceptible in the time preceding Irenoeus. It is just as little probable that a greater number of more important epistles bas been lost. That the oldest among such as have been preserved were also in reality his first is more than probable, from some intimations wbicb tbey contain (1 Thess. v. 27 ; 2 Thess ii. 15, 17 f.) ; and it is only certain that Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9, and tbe Epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Col. iv. 16 have been lost. Doctrinal bias alone can dispute the fact that the epistle mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 9 was written by Paul before our first to Corinth (comp. J. G. Miiller, de. tribus Pauli itineribus Cor. susc, Basel, 1831, and also L. Schulze) ; and it is an entirely untenable hypothesis that it has been in any way incorporated with our Corinthian Epistles, even fragnien- tarily. On the contrary, the conjecture that an epistle was written by Paul between our first and second to the Corinthians does not commend itself to us, much loss the opinion that it is still preserved in 2 Cor. x.-xiii. The Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians extant in Armenian, together with one from the Corinthians preceding it (ed. Wilkins, Amsterd,, 1715; comp. Fabricius, Cod. apocr. novi test., ii., pp. 666 ff.), has indeed been defended by Rinck as genuine (das Sendschrei ben der Kor., etc., Heidelberg, 1823), but is unquestionably a fabrica tion made up of Pauline phrases (comp. Ullmann in the Heidelberg. PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 205 Jahrb., 1823, 6). Nor does the conjecture that the epistle mentioned in Col. iv. 16 is contained in our so-called Ephesian Epistle, commend itself to us. The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Fabr., God. apocr. novi testamenti, ii., p. 873 ; comp. Anger, Veber den Laodicenerbrief, Leipzig, 1873), which was widely spread in the middle ages (§ 12, 5, note 2), is a flimsy compilation from the Colossian and Philippian Epistles. On the other hand it has been inferred, but without the least foundation, from Phil. iii. 1, that Epistles of Paul to the Philippians have been lost, and that the remains of a more copious letter to the Ephesians are found in Romans xvi. Jerome (de Vir. Ill, 12) and Augustine (Ep. 153, ad Maced.) also mention a correspondence between Paul and Seneca which has been probably fabricated on the basis of Acts xviii. 12 (Fabr., Cod. apocr. novi test., ii., pp. 892, ff. Comp. Gelpke, de familiaritate quce Paulo cum. Seneca phil interf. traditur, 1813 ; and against modern French defenders of it, comp, Baur, Seneca und Paulus, in the Zeitschr. f. iciss. Th., 1858, 2). On tbe other band the question suggests itself, whether tbe thirteen epistles, most of which were only attributed to Paul more than a century after bis death, do actually pro ceed from him. We have already seen how improbable it is that in tbe second century, at a time when the authority of the apostles was not yet traced back to their written memorials, a great number of epistles should have been fathered on him (§ 7, 7). It is not impossible, however, that in tbe earlier time after Paul's death, when tbe need of apostolic direction or encouragement was still felt in his Churches, some of bis pupils may have addressed tbe Churches in bis name, as, according to 2 Tbess. ii. 2, seems to have happened. Criticism was first directed against tbe Pastoral Epistles by Eichhorn and de Wette ; and soon afterwards against tbe Epistle to the Ephesians and the second Epistle to tbe Thessalonians in particular. Tbe Tubingen school, following Baur's example, rejected all tbe smaller epistles, excepting the four great doctrinal and polemic ones, viz. Romans (with tbe exception of chaps. xv. xvi.), Corinthians, and Galatians. But a reaction arose within tbe school itself, and 1 Thess., Phil., and Philem. were again assigned to the Apostle, even tbe Colossian 206 PAULINE EPISTLES DICTATED. Epistle being wholly or partially defended by those who were still under the influence of tbe school. The subversive criticism of Bruno Bauer, who pronounced all the Pauline Epistles to be fabrications, bas recently found new followers among tbe Dutch critics, especially Loman (Kritik der paulinischen Brief e, Berlin, 1850). 3. Paul did not write bis letters with bis own band, but dictated tbem. In Romans xvi. 22, one Tertius, his aman uensis, sends greeting ; and tbe way in which be expressly emphasizes tbe fact (Pbilem. 19) that he is writing with his own band, undoubtedly shows that be did not usually do so. Tbe most natural explanation of this is that he was unpractised in writing ; for his band, which was more accustomed to manage a tool than a pen, could onlyform large (and probably misshapen) letters (Gal. vi. 11). Much that is abrupt and incorrect in bis manner of writing is most naturally explained on tbe assumption that be dictated. Bat tbe Apostle early felt the need of adding something in bis own band to the dictated epistle (2 Thess. iii. 17 f.), if only a closing benediction. It seems to have been tbe occurrence (No. 2) mentioned in ii. 2 that led him to put a sign of attestation to the epistle written by a strange hand, and be then made tbe resolve to do this in future with all bis epistles. In tbe Epistle to tbe Galatians this post script in his own hand became a most striking concluding warning and exhortation (vi. 11-18). In tbe first Epistle to tbe Corinthians Paul expressly characterizes tbe conclud ing words as written with bis own band (xvi. 21-24), and similarly in the Colossian Epistle (iv. 18). But it can hardly be doubted that be did the same in other Church- letters, even where be does not expressly notify it.1 1 But in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians we must not look for Buch a postscript in his own hand ; in the Epistle to the Romans he could only have written the great concluding doxology (xvi. 25-27), and in the Ephesian Epistle the entire final benediction (vi. 23 f .). In PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 207 Our manuscripts agree on the whole in the form in which they have preserved the Pauline Epistles. It is only Weisse (Beitrage zur Kritik der paul. Briefe, ed. Sulze, Leipzig, 1867) and Hitzig (Beitr-age zur Kritik der paul. Briefe, Leipzig, 1870) who have endeavoured to point out in several of them a series of interpolations, and Holsten seems inclined to follow them (Das Evang. des Paulus, Berlin, 1880) ; Ewald, after the example of earlier critics, has pronounced the paragraph 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 spurious ; and such as have been unwilling entirely to reject the smaller epistles, have at least held that they were inter polated. Laurent (NTl. Stud.) has endeavoured to separate a series of passages as later marginal remarks. 4. All thirteen epistles begin with an inscription, in which the current Greek epistolary introduction (xaipeiv or ^aipetv Xeyei ; comp. Jas. i. 1 ; Acts xxiii. 26) is expanded into a copious benediction which, departing from the proper address, takes tbe form of an independent sentence.1 Paul here speaks of himself by name, but in the Thessalonian Epistles alone without some addition ; in his only private letter be calls himself Secrpios Xp. 'Iijcr. (Philem. 1), else where generally an apostle, and with unmistakeable refer- the Epistle to the Philippians the greetings seem to have been written with his own hand (iv. 21-23) before the final benediction, on account of the dpr)v which precedes the latter, though this is not absolute proof (comp. Rom. xv. 33) ; so too, perhaps, in 2 Cor. xiii. 12 f. Of the letters to separate individuals, that to Philemon is most plainly stated to have been written with his own hand (19) ; it was certainly not the case with the rather copious Pastoral Epistles. In the first Epistle to Timothy the final exhortation (vi. 20 f.) might be from tbe hand of the Apostle as in Galatians, and the same thing may be said of the greetings with the benediction in the second (iv. 19-22), as well as in Philippians. The Epistle to Titus affords no such certain ground for the assumption of a postscript in his own hand, but it does not follow that he did not write it. 1 This is done by the X"P'S •'/*"' K0^ elp^vn in the benediction, and the only exception to it is in the Pastoral Epistles, where such repetition of the dative is wanting, because they are addressed to individuals, whereas in the Epistle to Philemon other persons besides the one addressed are named, and therefore the usual x^P's ipiiv (1-3) foUows. It is arbi trarily assumed that Paul was the creator of this epistolary form. It is certainly not found in James (comp. also 3 John 1), but appears in Peter's Epistles, Jude 1 f., 2 John 1-3, and above all in the Apocalypse i. 4. 208 BEGINNINGS OF THE LETTERS. ence to the origin of bis apostlesbip, even gives himself this name in bis official pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus ; in bis Epistles to tbe Romans and to Titus where this designation is followed by an exposition of tbe nature of bis apostlesbip, referring to tbe contents of tbe epistle, he begins by speaking of himself in a more general way as SovXos Xp. 'l-ner. or ®eov (Rom. i. 1-5; Tit. i. 1-3). The reason why in tbe Philippian Epistle be styles himself simply SovAog Xp. 'I170-., is that be there associates himself with Timothy. By making tbe benediction a separate thing, be does not, however, degrade the letter to a mere address, nor characterize himself as merely tbe writer of tbe letter and its readers as tbe recipients, but be is tbe sender of tbe benediction while the readers are its recipients. Hence it is that in this benediction be frequently joins tbe names of friends happening to be with him, especially Timothy, and extends it to others besides tbe immediate recipients.2 The 2 The person named along with him in the inscription cannot be the writer of the epistle, since in the only case in which we know the writer (No. 3), he is not named in the inscription ; nor can he have been associated with him in writing it, as is generally assumed ; this is quite conceivable with respect to the Thessalonian Epistles, where Silvanus and Timotheus, whom Paul named along with himself, were associated with him in founding the Church, and much that he addresses to it in the plural, may have been said in their joint names (comp. Laurent, Stud. u. Krit., 1861, 1); but even here he often speaks of himself in tlie first person, and of Timothy in the third. This view is impossible in the case of the Galatian Epistle where he emphasizes his apostolic authority so strongly, and says so much that is purely personal, though naming besides himself all the brethren who are with him (i. 2). It is equally inconceivable of the Corinthian Epistles, in the first of which he touches upon so many arrangements, with apostolic authority, and yet along with himself names the otherwise unknown Sostheues ; while in the second he names Timothy ; but he treats of personal relations with such personal feeling, that to associate Timothy with himself in speak ing of these things, or to discuss them in his name, is without meaning. In the Philippian Epistle he not only speaks of Timothy in the third person and says flattering things of him, but says so much of his own sub jective frame of mind in captivity and towards the Church, that it is im possible to regard Timothy as a fellow-writer. In the only private letter, PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 209 benediction itself appears again in tbe first Epistle to the Thessalonians in tbe simplest form (xdpfs vpiv /cat elprjvr]) ; but the second already assumes the nature of a reflection on the source of tbe wished-for-thing in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (comp. Gal., Philem.), r)pS>v being usually added after diro Beov Trarpos (Cor., Rom., Eph., Phil., comp. Col.).3 Paul's favourite way of beginning his epistle is with thanksgiving, in which be gratefully acknowledges all tbe good that God's grace bas bestowed on bis readers, frequently adding a petition for what still remains to be desired. Only in tbe Galatian Epistle does severe censure take its place, while in tbe second Epistle to the Corinthians a thanksgiving for the grace that has been manifested to him, in the form of an expression of gratitude for what God has enabled him to do for the Church, is substituted (ii. 14, ff.). In the Ephesian Epistle alone it is preceded b*y solemn praise of God for tbe Divine acts of salvation. to Philemon, he also names Timothy together with himself and the person addressed, with whom the whole letter is concerned, besides a number of others, just as in the Corinthian letters the salutation extends beyond the circle of the recipients, the Philippian letter expressly in cluding the officers of the Church. Moreover he designates the saluted sometimes as definite Churches (Thess., Gal., Cor.), sometimes as the Christians in a definite place (Rom., Col., Phil.), in both cases character izing them as such more minutely. 3 It thus appears that even this benediction has by no means a stereotyped form throughout. In the Colossian Epistle, according to the corrected text, the Kal xvplov 'I-naou Xpicrov is altogether wanting, while in the Galatian Epistle the diro Beov irarpbs Kal xvplov rjpuv 'J-rjir Xp. is followed by a reference to the saving work of Christ in relation to the contents of the epistle, which closes with a doxology, (i. 3-5). In the Epistles to Timothy it runs thus: x°-P^, IXeos, elpr)vr) dirb Beou irarpbs Kal Xpio-rov 'Xvo-ov tov Kvplov -hpuv ; in Titus : x^P'5 Ka' elpi)vn diro B. irarp. Kal Xp. '1-qa. tou o-urijpos ijpuv. Moreover this form of the Christian benediction, in which the purely Jewish Shalom is joined with the Christian wish for x^/"s> *s scarcely specifically Pauline, since the x" tov Kvplov 'I-qaou p.eB' vpuv is followed by an assurance of love to all; in the second, the full threefold apostolic blessing is substituted for the simple benediction, just as in the Roman Epistle, the great concluding doxology ; in the Ephesian Epistle we find a double benediction, more copious in expression (vi. 23, f.) ; and in 2 Tim. it runs : 6 Kipios perd tou irveiparbs aov. r) xaV's P&' bpuv. Only in the Apocalypse xxii. 21 do we find also the final benediction : i) xapt T°v xvplov 'Irio-ov pxrd rrdvruv with its Pauline ring, and in Heb. xiii. 25 r) xaP" fKT^ rravruv ipuv ; while, on the other hand, 1 Pet. v. 14 and 3 John 15 have the familar Jewish farewell. PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 211 themselves to him in the wide circle of bis Churches and in his comprehensive activity, more frequently than to others. He had obviously inclination and capacity for literary acti vity ; and the fact that it found expression only in letters must be attributed solely to circumstances. It was necessary for bim to unfold his ideas, and in presenting tbem to be come conscious of their close connection as well as all tbeir grounds and consequences.1 His Rabbinical schooling bad taught bim to establish a thesis dialectically on all sides, to prove it by refuting objections raised against it or antici pated by himself, to guard it against misunderstandings, and to explain it by copious argument. His logic is often some what artificial, so that it is difficult to follow tbe train of his reasoning. He makes use of Scriptural arguments for which bis knowledge of Scripture supplied him with tbe richest material. Sometimes be employs Old Testament Scripture with great freedom of citation and combination, of explanation and application ; again he plays on words in true Rabbinical fashion, or puts forward allegorical interpre tations. But bis literary skill is by no means shown merely in doctrinal details in tbe stricter sense, least of all in polemic or apologetic alone, but is equally manifest in his psychological analyses, bis richly coloured pictures of pre- Christian or Christian conditions and forms of life and tbe religious and historical disquisitions connected therewith, as also in his deep grasp and copious development of the fulness of salvation contained in tbe great fundamental facts of the gospel. His exhortation, by which the doctrinal ar gument is frequently interrupted in tbe most lively way, is inexhaustible in its revelation of the deepest and richest motives, and in tracing tbem up to tbe facts of salvation. 1 Whatever opinion may be held as to the aim of the Epistle to the Romans, it must be admitted that it goes far beyond its proximate pur pose ; moreover, its doctrinal discussions have frequently no relation whatever to the simple motive that called them forth. 212 EPISTOLARY PECULIARITIES OF PAUL. He knows also how to appropriate tbe form of Jewish wis dom ; maxim follows maxim, short, disconnected, with the greatest diversity of form, and wanting in strict arrangement. Tbe last characteristic is most strikingly seen wherever he falls into descriptions and enumerations of virtues and faults, of tbe conditions of life and work. But it is certain that we never find the cold objectivity of tbe author, because the living warmth of the letter-writer throbs in all his epistles. Hence tbe frequent addresses, the ever-recurring questions with which be draws out bis details. Paul is able power fully to move, but also to lift up and comfort ; high moral earnestness is always associated in bim with depth of religious feeling, which often finds vent in inspired utter ance. He is not without passion, be lashes the weaknesses and errors of bis readers without pity, he is able mortally to wound bis opponents, and does not even despise the weapons of irony and satire. But tbe softest tones of the mind are likewise at his disposal, tbe ebullition of righteous anger softens down to the most touching expression of heart felt love, be can speak tbe language of deeply wounded love as well as of tbe most ardent longing, of exulting gratitude as well as suppressed pain. He knows how to win with delicate tact and patient tenderness; and in intercourse with a friend does not even despise the clever jest.3 A Vatican MS. contains the notice that the rhetorician Longinus con cluded an enumeration of the great orators with Paul of Tarsus, who might even be pronounced the first (comp. Nagel, de judicio Longini, Altdorf, 1772). The genuineness of this citation is very doubtful ; at all events, the judgment rests on a complete mistake. Paul himself defi nitely repudiated all striving after rhetorical art as well as philosophic culture (§ 13, 3, note 2). What was formerly written de Pauli eloquen- tia (Kirohmaier, 1695 ; Baden, 1786) or of a Logica and Rhetorica 3 It is clear how impossible it is in the case of one so richly endowed with intellect, whose every epistle and group of epistles show the greatest diversity of form and substance, to prove the spuriousness of a writing from the relatively new form of its composition. PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 213 Paulina (Bauer, Halle, 1774, 82), is a mistake. The thing that is so taking in Paul's epistles is their substance and living warmth, not their form. His antitheses and paradoxes, his play on words and ideas, show the riches and fineness of his intellect, but are not artificial means; his images, often indicated but cursorily, and applied almost without the consciousness of tlieir imagery, frequently drawn out even into copious allegories, and in many cases strangely intermixed, want rhetorical purity and moderation in their carrying out. 6. The fact that the Apostle bas rounded off his view of salvation in Christ almost to tbe completeness of a system, is closely connected with bis literary giftedness. But to suppose that his views took this mature form all at once on his conversion, is quite unhistorical. It is true that the life be bad been leading, which terminated in his conversion, and the individual experience of salvation he made on this occa sion, must have had a certain influence on the development of bis views ; but since in the nature of things he could only be gradually awakened to the need of becoming conscious on all sides of the close continuity of the new saving truth that had been opened up to bim, as well as of the premises it implied and tbe conclusions to which it led, it follows that the means which led bim more and more exclusively to tbe Gentile mission, and tbe necessity of establishing and secur ing freedom from the law to bis Gentile Christian Churches in opposition to the pretensions of Jewish-Christian zealots, first drove him to perfect on all sides and to establish on a firm basis, tbe peculiar character of bis saving announcement, his profound conception of Christianity as a new dispensation of grace and its relation to the Old Testament revelation of salvation and of tbe law.1 Hence it is d priori a great mis- 1 A comparison of the Corinthian Epistles with Galatians and Romans shows unanswerably that the doctrine of justification, with all its presup positions and consequences, developed in the great struggle-period of his life, by no means exhausted the entire range of his Christian views or determined it exclusively ; and yet it is only where personal certainty of salvation is concerned that we can speak of a systematic perfection. The doctrine of the person of Christ and of the saving significance of His death, 214 LANGUAGE OF PAUL. take on- the part of the Tubingen school to make the doctri nal system of tbe great doctrinal and polemic Epistles the criterion whereby to prove which of all the Panline epistles that have been handed down to us is genuine. And the mis take is only aggravated if, by recognising tbe first Thessa lonian Epistle, or that to tbe Philippians, the principle be conceded that a view so much less fully developed as appears in the former, or one so peculiarly unfolded in many ways as is to be found in the latter, may be Pauline, and yet where other epistles are in question a want of accuracy in the form of that system of doctrine be regarded as a sign that they are not of Pauline origin. In the case of an intellect so largely capable of development as that of tbe Apostle, no new departure or relative change of theological views can surprise, or lead to a hasty condemnation of the writings which contain tbem as spurious. This could only happen if the traces of the religious experiences he made should any where be found to be extinct ; or ideas directly at variance with those arising out of such experiences be found to have been adopted. For so certainly as Paul is tbe theologian proper among tbe apostles, so certainly is it an utter mis conception to regard him as the author and advocate of a doctrinal system which owed its origin to speculative and not specifically religious motives. 7. Tbe view formerly maintained by Bolten (in bis trans lation of tbe New Testament Epistles) and Bertholdt, that Paul originally wrote bis epistles in Aramaic, refutes itself. As a Hellenist be spoke Greek from bis childhood, read the Old Testament in tbe translation of tbe LXX. (comp. of the Church and its development towards the consummation at hand, is in these epistles only touched upon in incidental utterances capable of much richer and fuller development ; and his views of the reorganization of the life-relations of the natural man, by the Spirit of Christ, are visibly checked in their development by the preponderance of the purely religious interest and by the conception of the close proximity of the second coming. PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 215 Kautsch, de V. T. locis a P. ap. allegatis, Lips., 1869), and during bis Gentile Christian ministry remained in constant intercourse with Greek-speaking people.1 It was not indeed classical Greek that be wrote, since be was a stranger to Greek literature (§ 13, 3), but the language of tbe people and of common life (certainly allied to tbe Koivrj), which was essentially influenced by the LXX. in its expression of reli gious ideas and conceptions. His language is therefore wanting in classical correctness, in tbe rich usage of par ticles and in fineness in tbe application of moods, as well as in artistic structure of periods. His sentences flow on irre gularly by means of constantly recurring participles or subjoined relatives ; or tbey become overladen with new ex planatory prepositions and inserted relative clauses ; where be aims at a more fully developed periodic structure, he readily founders, tbe thread being lost in lengthened parentheses and tbe discourse broken off irregularly. A constant strug gling of idea with form, tbe influx of new thoughts and fresh relations that he desires to put forward, deprive tbe language of proportion and finish. Again, tbe discourse advances in short clauses connected by tbe slightest particles, then breaks off; the language, abrupt and elliptical even to obscurity, changing capriciously and having no uniformity whatever. From this we see plainly that it is hazardous to speak of a Pauline style (comp. J. Hoffmann, de stilo Pauli, Tub., 1757). The subjects on which be writes are too varied, tbe moods that influence bim too changing, while tbe freedom of tbe epistolary form binders all approach to a fixed and charac teristic style. On the other hand, Paul certainly created for 1 His epistles too are collectively addressed partly to Greek-speaking persons, even tbe Epistle to the Romans, for Rome had long been an urbs Grceca, as the whole Christian literature emanating from Rome and addressed to Rome, shows. Hence the view of Harduin, Bellarmin, Corn. a Lapide, and others, that this epistle, or perhaps all the rest, were originally written in Latin, is a tendency-fiction on behalf of the Vulgate, which even Catholic theologians have long since abandoned. 216 HIS DOCTRINAL LANGUAGE AND WORD-TREASURE. himself a distinctly marked doctrinal phraseology ; his strict dialectic, as well as bis leaning to sharp formula, and tbe need to establish bis position firmly in tbe struggle of oppo- sites determined its form. But even this was by no means peculiar to bim from the first ; and in many points we can still follow its gradual development. Above all, tbe great doctrinal and polemic epistles show that be was never fettered by it and never made it a mechanical habit ; and there are parts where be uses great freedom of expression, scarcely showing a trace of bis peculiar style; occasionally we find even a change to a more specifically Christian and a more general religious-moral mode of expression. This shows what a mistake it was to make tbe proportion in which bis technical doctrinal language appears, a criterion for the criticism of the epistles banded down as Pauline.3 To make tbe four principal epistles the categorical standard of bis lexical phraseology in so far as it was not directly influenced by his doctrine, and to measure all that claims to be of Pauline origin by them, is a manifest blunder. Each one of the epistles shows a fulness of bapaxlegomena, many different expressions for the same thing, and manifold points of contact with other New Testament writings ; for the lin guistic treasure from which they all drew was essentially tbe same. Tbe four epistles certainly show a number of peculiar and favourite expressions, but tbey are closely allied in time and move in a kindred circle of thought correspond ing to tbe circumstances of their origin. But even here we see how readily this or that favourite expression may be entirely absent from a comprehensive epistle, and how little such absence justifies a conclusion as to spuriousness ! 2 Having been formed in the struggle-period and for its needs, it recedes of itself so soon as the oppositions that called it forth recede or disappear. It is quite at variance with the wealth of Paul's intellect to suppose that he could not have developed new forms of expression if the appearance of new oppositions had led to new advances of his doctrinal views. PAUL AS AN AUTHOR. 217 The proofs for the distribution of the lexical vocabulary among the various epistles which defies all computation, are furnished by the con cordance in the case of each given letter. Under a. the Epistle to the Romans shows 20 hapaxlegomena ; 1 Cor. 24, 2 Cor. 14, the Epistle to the Galatians only 1. But to these must be added 8, 4, 3 and 1 words respectively that each of the epistles has in common with certain later ones ; 21, 23, 7 and 8 that each respectively has in common with other N. T. writings ; and 16, 5, 4, 0, which each has in common with both ; so that Romans has 65, 1 Cor. 56, 2 Cor. 28, and Gal. 10 words which are not in the other epistles ; while Romans and 1 Cor. have almost an equal number of substantives and verbs, 2 Cor. has more substantives, Gal. almost exclusively verbs, and 1 Cor. more adjectives than substan tives. Among these are to be found words such as avaxpiveiv, which occurs ten times in Corinthians, aireiBetv appearing 5 times in Romans, and several that are to be found 3 times in one epistle (comp. espe cially aveais in 2 Cor.). On the other hand we cannot be surprised that the Thessalonian Epistles show 4 + 2 ; Eph. 8 ; Col. 11 ; Phil. 8 ; I Tim. and 2 Tim. 17 each ; Tit. 5 ; and Philem. 2 hapaxlegomena. To these may be added respectively 6 + 3, 7, 3, 8, 8 + 2, 2, and 1, which each of the epistles has exclusively in common with other N. T. writings ; and 4 + 4, 7, 1, and 1 which they respectively share with later epistles, so that, as compared with the older epistles, 1 Thess -has 14, 2 Thess. 9, Eph. 22, Col. 15, Phil. 17, 1 Tim. 25, 2 Tim. 19, Tit. 7, and Philem. 4 character istic words ; while Eph. and Col. have almost as many substantives as verbs, I Tim. most substantives, Thess. and Phil, most verbs, 2 Tim. and Tit. a great preponderance of adjectives. Frequently a word appears only in two of the four great epistles ; Rom. shares 31 with 1st and 2nd Cor., 10 with Gal., 1st and 2nd Cor. 13 with each other, while Corinth ians and Gal. have 8 in common. Among these 62, 2 (avripiaBia, apera- peX-nros) are nowhere else to be found in the New Testament, 5 (ayaBu- awn, ayiuavv-q, airXorns, aipBapaia, aireivai) only in Paul, 14 only in other writings, and 21 in both. In like manner, Eph. and Col. have 8 words in common (5 Hir. Xey.), and tbe Pastoral Epistles 10 (7 Hit. Xey.). On the other hand, of the words that occur in the other epistles, 2 are want ing in Rom., 5 in 1 Cor , 11 in 2 Cor., and 14 in Gal. Of these, 2 are only to be found in the Pastoral Epistles (acpoppn, anpia), 7 are current with Paul (axaBapaia, axpoBuaria, avaBepa, airoaroX-q, aSoxipos, aXarreiv, aireKSexeaBai), while 23 frequently appear everywhere else. Thus Romans is deficient in such words as aXXos, aSiKeiv ; 1 Cor. cryaflos, aiuvios, 2 Cor. aipa, airoxaXuirTeiv, ayeiv, apeffKelv, Gal, aSixia, avayxv, ayairqros, a-yios, aippuv, aaira^eaBai, airoXXvvai, aaBeveiv. Among the words that occur in all four epistles, only apa ovv is found exclusively in- Paul, while ayvoeiv is frequent with him, and both appear in the later Paulines. From this we may judge how little significance can be attributed to the fact that in tbe Philippian Epistle apapnais, wanting, in 1 Thess. (Philem.) aXnBeia, 218 THE THESSALONIAN EPISTLES. in 2 Thess. (Philem ) awoarc-Xos, in Tit. aSeXipos, in Philem. avBpuros, in both Thessalonian Epistles (Philem.) aiuv, in both Epistles to Timothy (Philem.) aXXijXwv, in 1 Thess. and 1 Tim. axoueiv ; in Phil., 1 Tim., Tit., and Philem. ayairav, and in Eph., Pbilem., and the Pastoral Epistles the av so frequent in Paul. § 17. The Thessalonian Epistles. 1. The first Epistle to tbe Thessalonians puts us back into tbe time when Paul bad worked a few weeks in Corinth, and Timothy had just come to bim with Silas (Acts xviii. 5 ; comp. 1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 6). Tbe time of his ministry in" Thessalonica is still vividly present to his mind, tbe found ing of a Gentile Christian Cburcb there is still new, and is much' talked of in Christian circles everywhere (i. 8 f .) ; the Apostle still feels as if robbed of bis children, and has repeatedly purposed to return to them (ii. 17 f.). At last he sends Timothy from Athens, to strengthen tbem, and it is this journey from which the latter had just re turned (iii. 1-6). l The accounts which he had brought of the faith and life of the Cburcb were in tbe main joyful (i. 3). The Cburcb had held their teacher in good remem brance and longed in tbeir heart to see bim again (iii. 6), in the much frequented commercial city tbey had had many opportunities of showing by hospitality their love to the Macedonian brethren (iv. 10). But the pressure of affliction under which tbey suffered from tbe beginning (i. 6, ii. 14), had visibly increased rather than diminished ; tbey bad to suffer severe persecutions from tbeir heathen countrymen, 1 The error, founded on a misunderstanding of iii. 1, that this epistle was written in Athens, as old subscriptions put it, has been revived by Bottger ( Beitrage zur histor. krit. Einl. in die paulin. Schriften, Gottingen, 1837) and Wurm (Tubinger Zeitschrift fiir Theol, 1883, 1). Schrader and Kohlcr (Versuch uher die Abfassungszeit der apostol. Schriften, etc., Leipzig, 1830) have put the Epistle much later; the former, because Paul had already visited the Church repeatedly at the time of Acts xx. 2 f. The latter, by a false interpretation of ii. 16, puts it even after the break ing out of the Jewish war. THE FIRST THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 219 and this bad made many feeble-minded and dispirited (v. 14, 16 f.). Moreover, the unbelieving Jews tried to per suade them that tbey were led astray by cunning, ambitious and self-seeking deceivers, who, after having set those whom they bad deceived entirely at enmity with their countrymen, for their own part had fled at tbe right moment to escape from righteous punishment.2 Whether much or little re gard was paid to such insinuations, yet by this means the Church was roused to keener susceptibility to the enmity in which it was involved on account of its new faith. But so much tbe more did it cling under present oppression to the Christian hope of the future which held out a prospect of release from all trouble, at tbe second coming of tbe Lord. Paul bad indeed announced the speedy approach of it, and hoped to live to see it himself ; nor were prophets wanting in the Church, who, in a superabundance of Christian in- , spiration, described tbe glory of tbe kingdom of God that was at band (v. 19 f.). But tbe more tbey occupied them selves with these questions respecting the last things, which always attract the curiosity of immature believers, so much the more did the excitement of tbe Church increase. It reached such a pitch that many, waiting for the near event and professedly preparing only for it, gave up their civic employments, and so became a burden on the beneficence of 2 That the apologetic details of the second and third chapters, in terpreted by de Wette, Bleek, and Liinemann simply as naive outpour ings of the heart, pre-suppose calumnies of this nature, is at the present day more and more universally acknowledged. They can neither have proceeded from Jewish Christians, a conclusion to which, however, Lipsius comes in tbe main (Stud. u.JCrit., 1854, 4), since there could scarcely have been a considerable or influential number of such in Thessalonica (§ 15, 4), nor from Gentiles, as Hofmann and v. Soden (Stud. «. Krit., 1885, 2) suppose, but solely from unbelieving Jews, who claimed to know their countrymen only too well, as plainly appears from the polemic joined with his apology and directed against the Jews as enemies of the gospel (ii. 14-16). Comp. Hilgeiifeld, Hausrath, Sabatier, and especially P. Schmidt, der erste Thessalonicherbrirf, Berlin, 1885. 220 STATE OF THE CHURCH. tbe Church, or even on tbeir heathen countrymen (iv. 11 f., v. 14). Tbeir fanatical conduct naturally called forth on the other side cold criticism by which prophetic inspiration was despised; subtle disputes arose respecting the time and hour of Christ's second coming (v. 1 f., 19 f.), instead of earnest preparation for it. Tbe rulers of tbe Cburcb, who endeavoured to repress the disorder on both sides, could not maintain tbeir authority (v. 12 f.). Lastly, tbe first deaths bad taken place in tbe young Church, and had deeply stirred tbeir minds, because those who died so prematurely appeared to lose tbe glory coming in with the second advent of tbe Lord (iv. 13 f.). From all this we understand why the Apostle speaks of tbe imperfect faith of those whom he would so willingly have helped by a new visit (iii. 10) ; moreover tbeir moral life presented tbe image of a Cburcb that was still young and unconsolidated. The Christian brotherly love for which he so highly commends tbem, was to increase and abound (iii. 12, iv. 10) ; and although be acknowledges that they knew his instructions as to the Christian walk and made them tbeir guiding principle (iv. 1 f.), yet bis earnest warnings against tbe cardinal heathen vices of unchastity and avarice (iv. 3-8), show that tbeir practice still left much to be desired. It was these con ditions of the Church, as known to Paul through tbe com munications of Timothy, that moved bim to write his first epistle. 2. With gratitude to God Paul speaks of tbeir present state of faith ; but in expressly emphasizing his certainty of their election owing to tbe Divine working of his preach ing in tbem, and tbe exemplary way in which, after bis example and that of the Lord, they had received the word in much affliction (i. 3-7), bis object is, by this reference to tbe Divine origin of their Christian state, to strengthen them to persevere in it, just as his allusion to the world-wide fame of their conversion from heathenism to Christianity is THE FIRST THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 221 meant to encourage tbem to maintain their good reputation (i. 8-10). He then turns to tbe calumnies by which some had sought to discredit tbe work of God's messengers among them. The apostle calls to mind bow tbe bitter experiences be bad just made at Philippi, and the severe struggles amid which he began his work among tbem, were not adapted to give him joy in bis ministry if be bad not been divinely com missioned to bring tbem a message from God (ii. 1 f.). To prove that it was not a delusion, and that be did not preach to them from impure motives or in unrighteous ways, he ap peals to tbe fact that he did not deceive them with flattering words, nor sought gain or honour from men, but proclaimed the gospel with tbe tenderest self-sacrificing love, while earn ing his bread laboriously by tbe work of his hands (ii. 3-9). He calls tbem and God to witness how be had worked among them even after their conversion, with fatherly love, and reminds them once more bow tbey bad received bis word as tbe word of God, and bad experienced its efficacy, since it bad made tbem strong to endure tbe enmity of their country men as steadfastly as tbe primitive Church bad suffered that of the Jews (ii. 10-16). l When he goes on to describe how he bad longed from tbe beginning to return to those who were bis joy and crown of glory, and had only been hindered by the continued enmity of the adversary (ii. 17-20), how be could have no rest until be bad parted with 1 But when in this connection he points to the Jews as the special enemies of Christ and His gospel (ii. 15 f.), he undoubtedly refers to the fact that such calumnies proceeded from them, and that by means of these they sought to disturb his work among the Gentiles. The iipBa- aev in' airois r) bpyr) els riXos, from which false conclusions were formerly drawn respecting the date of the epistle, neither points to the destruction of Jerusalem, from which Baur inferred the spuriousness of the epistle, nor to all the excesses of the procuratorship in Judea contemporary with our epistle (W. Grimm, Stud. a. Krit., 1850, 4), much less to the edict of Claudius de pellendis Judais, to which P. Schmidt has lately referred it, but to the increasing obduracy of the people in which the wrath of God against Israel was consummated, as v. Soden has rightly perceived. 222 ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. his companion, preferring to remain alone that they might be comforted under the afflictions be bad foretold (iii. 1-5), it is clear that this is directed against tbe calumny that represented bim as having by cowardly flight escaped tbe persecutions he had not expected, leaving tbem to tbeir misery without concern. He himself in bis present abode is in like affliction and distress ; but the good news brought by Timothy have given bim new life and roused bim to fervent gratitude towards God, joined with tbe constant prayer that God would lead him to them again, and would in the mean time strengthen and perfect tbem for tbe coming of tbe Lord (iii. 6-13). 3 It is only by way of supplement that be goes on to remind them of tbe instructions he bad given tbem respecting tbe Christian life, especially with regard to keeping themselves pure from tbe specifically heathen vices of unchastity and covetousness (iv. 1-8). Of brotherly love be does not find it necessary to speak, and would not speak of it except to admonish tbem to procure the means for exemplifying it by diligent labour, instead of making Christianity a disgrace before tbe heathen by idleness and begging (iv. 9-12). The way in which he proceeds to in struct them respecting tbe last things shows beyond a doubt that it was the restless occupation with questions of eschat- ology, and the morbid excitement thus induced, that bad led many to give up regular work. It is evident that Paul, who himself thought tbe advent of tbe Lord to be so close at band, did not enter more minutely into tbe question as to what should become of those who might die in tbe interval ; and what be may possibly have said of the resurrection at tbe second coming found no proper sympathy, owing to tbe antipathy of the Greek mind against this very idea (comp. 8 The solemn prayer with which this first part of the epistle con cludes, as well as the junction of what follows with Xourov oBv (iv. 1), show without doubt that far from being an introduction, it contains the chief thing which the Apostle has to say to the Thessalonians. THE FIRST THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 223 Acts xvii. 32). For this reason he first explains that it is founded in faith in the resurrection of Christ and in His word, 3 that at the second coming of Christ the dead mem bers of the Church shall first be raised, and thus be put quite on a par with those who survive, in order to be taken by tbe Lord into His glory (iv. 13-18). With respect to tbe ques tion as to the time of the second advent, which would cer tainly come suddenly and unawares, be contents himself with an exhortation to earnest preparation for it (v. 1-11). So too in the general concluding admonitions (v. 12-22), there are frequent echoes of the special relations to which the epistle refers, although tbey undoubtedly go beyond tbe latter. * After a full-toned benediction, the fulfilment of which he seals with an Amen, Paul commends himself to tbe intercession of his readers (v. 23-25). It is apparent that tbe epistle was handed over to the rulers of the Church; for it is to them that the Apostle turns with tbe direction to greet all tbe brethren with a holy kiss, charging them to have bis epistle read before a full meeting of tbe Church, 3 This word of the Lord is certainly not on the whole what was said by Him respecting His coming, as v. Soden still maintains, but that which is preserved in Matt. iv. 21 ; for if at the return of the Lord all His elect should be gathered together about Him, those already dead cannot be excluded, but must rather have been first raised up. Whilst Steck (Jahrb. fiir prot. Theol, 1883, 4), thinks he discovers in it the words of 4th Ezra v. 41 etc., he infers from the use of this book the spuriousness of our epistle. But a reminiscence of Matt. xxiv. 43 is manifestly contained in v. 2 also. * Compare particularly v. 15-22. But in v. 12 f. the peace of the Church is evidently made to depend on due respect for the rulers of the Church ; the dWaKroi whom Paul exhorts the Church to warn, are un questionably those fanatical idlers ; but the feeble-minded and weak to whom the exhortation to constant joy, prayer, and thankfulness is particularly addressed, are those who are bowed down by the suffering state of the Church, and made to waver (v. 14 f.). The admonition not to quench or despise prophetic inspiration but to prove it (v. 19 f.), carries us directly into the Church-gatherings excited by eschatological prophesyings. 224 CRITICISM OF THE EPISTLE. upon which tbe final blessing follows (v. 26 f.). This arrangement seems to point to the fact that Paul began his epistolary intercourse with tbe Churches by this letter, and bad therefore to give directions as to what use should be made of it. 3. When Baur in his Paulus (1845) pronounced the epistle to be spurious, after tbe solitary precedent of Schrader, he bad some support in tbe prevailing exegetical view regarding it. If tbe first three chapters were actually to be looked upon as mere outpourings of the heart and retrospective, tbey seem to have just as little motive as the Jewish polemic (ii. 14-16) by which they were inter rupted, and the short exhortations and occasional eschato- logical teachings in chaps, iv., v., such as are elsewhere subordinate in the Pauline Epistles, must form tbe chief object of this epistle, which therefore does certainly seem to be without sufficient motive or independent meaning. But if the historical occasion of tbe epistle be rightly estimated, it is a highly characteristic monument of the time when the Apostle encounters no other opposition than that of a slandering and persecuting Judaism, frustrating and under mining his activity among the heathen by every means in its power, as we learn from tbe account of bis Macedonian mission given in tbe Acts (§ 15). The picture of a Christian Church that is still young, and much admired for tbe enthusiasm with which it had received tbe gospel, though depressed by sorrowful experiences, deeply agitated by escbatological questions, and still lacking in tbe attainment of the Christian spirit in practical life, that meets us in tbe epistle, is true to nature, and bears in itself the stamp of its genuineness ; while Baur's attempt to prove that it contains opposing elements and points to a longer duration of tbe Cburcb, is vain. His view, that tbe epistle is manifestly dependent on the Acts throughout, is refuted by tbe fact that tbe narrative of tbe latter is frequently supplemented THE THESSALONIAN EPISTLES. 225 and corrected from tbe epistle in question (§ 15, 4). Sub sequently (Theol. Jahrb., 1885, 2) Baur laid special stress on the fact that the epistle was copied from those to tbe Corin thians, which however do not exhibit a single parallel pass age, such as we find in tbe Roman and Galatian Epistles,and have moreover many points of contact with tbe Corinthians from the nature of tbe subject.1 Besides peculiar idioms, such as appear in every epistle and contain nothing anti- Pauline, we find tbe most striking resemblances in thought and expression to the other Pauline Epistles, and especially to the Corinthian Epistles, as P. Schmidt and v. Soden in particular have exhaustively shown. But above all there is no definite tangible motive for the view that tbe epistle is a fabrication, since it does not give prominence to tbe apostolic authority of Paul even in the address, but names bim along with Silvanus and Timotheus.2 Finally tbe exhortation to 1 Both are addressed to Christian Churches essentially Gentile, that had to be warned against the cardinal vices of the heathen, and had no knowledge of the doctrine of the resurrection ; both congregations were successively taken from the lower classes, for which reason Paul refused the support of the Church in both cases ; in both epistles Paul naturally expresses himself in the same way of the manner of his activity and its results, of his love and longing for them; in both the personal suspicions to which he was subjected, in the one case from the Jews, in the other from the Jewish Christians, revert to the same point. Other things, such as the repeated wish to return to them, and again his altered plans of journey, the sending of Timothy here and of Titus there, his solicitude about the condition of the Church in the one place, and the impression made by his epistle in the other place, are brought into tendency-parallelism only in an artiBcial way. 2 This could only consist in the eschatological discussions, or since v. 1-11 contains but practical admonitions with a view to the second coming the time of which was uncertain, in iv. 13-18; although even here the common Christian eschatological expectations are reproduced. But this very section does not presuppose that an entire Chribtian generation was already deceased, in which case believers must have been long familiar with the idea that many would not live to seethe second coming, but that the Church was disturbed by the first cases of death that occurred in it. Nor could a later writer have possibly attributed to the Apostle the expectation that he would still survive the second advent (iv. 15), Q 226 CRITICISM OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. read tbe letter to tbe assembled Cburcb (v. 27) is quite in telligible in tbe case of a first epistle of the Apostle ; but if made to refer to its ofiicial ecclesiastical reading, would put tbe epistle at tbe end of tbe second century, a time when nobody supposes that it was written. Since Grimm and Lipsius (Stud. u. Krit., 1850, 4 ; 1854, 4), defended the epistle against Baur whom Volkmar followed, and Hilgenfeld also persistently upheld its genuineness in opposition to him, the question is looked upon by the later critical school as settled (comp. Weisse, Haus rath, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann in Schenkel's Bibellex., v., 1875, Immer), Holsten alone (Jahrb. f. protest. Theol, 1877, 4), still finding united Paulinism in the Trilogy i. 3 (comp. also Steck, No. 2, note 3). Its genuineness has again recently (1885) been defended at length by P. Schmidt and v. Soden. But they labour in vain to refute the idea that it contains an undeveloped form of Pauline doctrine. Just as certainly as Christianity already appears here as the Divine dispensation of grace in which, by means of the gospel, faith is awakened in the elect, who through the sanctification effected by the Spirit of God are prepared for salvation at the second advent, so certainly are all doctrinal mediations of these saving facts lacking. As certainly as Christ is represented as the Divine Lord from whom, just as from God Himself, all salvation proceeds, so certainly is there a lack of all more definite utterances respecting the person of Christ, the saving meaning of His death for us (v. 10), and the form of the final completed salvation that He brings with Him at His second advent. Of the inability of the natural man to work out his own salvation, of the seat of sin in the flesh, of justification by grace or of community of life with Christ mediated by His Spirit, of the position of the Christian as regards the law, or of the Apostle's profound reflections on the relation of Christianity to Judaism and heathenism, we have not a word, although the way in which the Jews thrust themselves in between him and his Gentile Christians gave ample occasion for such mention. If therefore this epistle be regarded as genuine, the view that Paul had his whole system of doctrine substan tially complete from the beginning, is absolutely excluded. Whoever finds a lack of all that proves itself Pauline in the great doctrinal and polemic epistles, cannot consistently hold this epistle to be genuine. 4. We do not know bow long a time bad elapsed since the first letter of tbe Apostle, when Paul again received news from Thessalonica that led bim to write a second. But since after the fact that he belonged to those who died before it, had long been certainly known. THE SECOND THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 227 Silvanus and Timotheus were still with him (2 Thess. i. 1), he must have been in Corinth ; and iii. 2 points so defi nitely to a hostile threat of decisive importance, that we are most naturally led to think of tbe complaint made by tbe Jews before tbe proconsul (Acts xviii. 12 ff.). Tbe Church bad made gratifying progress in faith and love, and had been most commendably patient in persecution (2 Thess. i. 3 ff.) ; but tbe weight of affliction under which it suffered, gave rise to ever new depression. Hence the Apostle bad to remind tbem that tbe very severity of tbe conflict with tbeir enemies was a guarantee of the approach ing righteous judgment of God which was to bring them release from all their trouble (i. 5 ff.), when tbeir heavenly Lord should come again to judge the heathen and all the enemies of the gospel (i. 7 ff.), and to be glorified in His saints ; in which glory be prays that they may participate (i. 10-12). On tbe other band, the very pressure of persecu tion had given a morbid stimulus to tbe hope of tbe near approach of tbe second advent. Prophets bad arisen in tbe Church who proclaimed tbe immediate coming of tbe great day of tbe Lord, appealing for confirmation of tbeir announce ment to words spoken by Paul, or even to epistles said to have been written by bim (ii. 1 f.), so that it was necessary for the Apostle to remind tbem bow be had told tbem before, that tbe second coming of Christ would be preceded by tbe climax of godlessness concentrated in a person, kept back, as tbey were aware, by a restraining power (ii. 3-7). But in order to prevent new disquietude to which this prospect might possibly give rise, be lays stress on tbe fact that tbe appearance of Christ would put an immediate end to his adversary ; tbe only object of whose coming was by bis seductive arts to make tbe unbelieving ripe for judgment (ii. 8-12). Tbey on tbe other hand were appointed to sal vation and to glory, if tbey only held fast to what he bad taught tbem by word and epistle ; to which end be invokes 228 CRITICISM OF THE EPISTLE. comfort and strength from the Lord on tbeir behalf (ii. 13-17). He then commends himself to tbeir intercession in tbe dangers by which be is threatened, and once more gives expression to bis full confidence that tbey would remain true to bis exhortations, desiring that tbey might have tbe assist ance of tbe Lord (iii. 1-5). But be could not cherish this confidence in respect of every individual. Tbe morbid excite ment of those who left tbeir civil employment was raised to a still higher pitch by tbe enhanced expectation of tbe second advent ; and in spite of tbe exhortations of tbe first epistle, tbey bad not returned to tbeir work" (iii. 6-12) . Tbe Apostle had therefore no alternative but to admonish the Cburcb to withdraw from all intercourse with these disobedient mem bers, in order by shunning them to bring tbem back, not however intending by this to prohibit brotherly admonition afterwards as well as before (iii. 13-16). But in order to prevent all improper use, such as had been made of epistles alleged to have been written by bim (ii. 2), be here found it necessary for tbe first time to authenticate bis letter- by a postscript in bis own band (iii. 17 f., comp. § 16, 3).1 5. Doubts as to the genuineness of this epistle, to which Chr. Schmidt in bis Introduction (1804) first gave currency, were entertained by de Wette in tbe earlier editions of bis Introduction; but after tbe exhaustive refutations by Guericke (in bis Beitrage) and Reiche (Authentia Poster, ad Thess. Epist., Gott., 1829) be withdrew them. Kern was tbe 1 After the example of Grotius, Ewald endeavoured to prove in his Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft (3, 1851), that the so-called second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written first probably in Berea,1 and was followed by Laurent (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1864, 3). But in the first epistle Paul addresses a newly founded Church ; he here boasts of its further development ; in the former he speaks quite freely of the nearness- of the second coming, in the latter he already considers it necessary to obviate a misunderstanding of this expectation ; the direction to punish those who remained disobedient here follows the warning against a disorderly life. ii. 15 obviously presupposes that the Church had already received written instructions, and ii. 1 refers back to 1 Thess. iv. 17. THE SECOND THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 229 first to make another and a more incisive attack on tbe epistle (Tubinger Zeitschrift fiir Theol, 1835, 2) ; but while formerly ii. 2, iii. 17 bad been regarded as a ground for throwing suspicion on tbe first epistle, be looked upon tbe second rather in tbe light of an attempted imitation of the first. He already brought together in substance all that is even now adduced against it — alleged un-Panline words and forms of expression (such as ei^apio-reiv ocpeiXopev and tbe frequent use of Kuptos instead of Beos), tbe unskilful exaggerations of tbe first epistle and other grounds of sus picion that vanish of themselves before impartial exegesis (comp. against bim Pelt in tbe Theolog. Mitarbeiten, 1874, 2). Baur in bis Paulus (1845) attached himself mainly to bim, while asserting still more emphatically that tbe escha tological passage in chap. ii. bad admitted Jewish ideas of tbe time to a greater extent than was tbe case with Paul, and contravened the natural expectation of tbe nearness of tbe second coming implied in 1 Cor. xv. (comp. on tbe other band Grimm, Stud. u. Krit., 1850, 4). Subsequently (Theol. Jahrb., 1855, 2) be regarded this second epistle rather as an imitation of tbe Corinthian letters ; and adopting tbe view of Grotius and Ewald (No. 4, note 1), looked upon our first epistle as an imitation of it from a later standpoint. On tbe other band, Hilgenfeld, because be regards tbe first epistle as genuine, naturally takes tbe second to be partly an imitation of tbe first and partly its antithesis, interpreting ii. 15, iii. 6 as an emphasizing of tbe oral and written apostolic tradition, such as could only belong to the second century. Notwithstanding tbe manifest weakness of these doubts already apparent in tbe uncertainty as to tbe relation to tbe first epistle, tbe rejection of tbe second epistle bas become almost as universal in tbe modern critical school as the recognition of the first. P. Schmidt alone (Excursus to his Thessalonicherbrief, 1885) bas distinctly admitted that, apart from tbe eschatological passage of chap. ii. and 230 THE NERO-SAGA. isolated interpolations, there is nothing to prevent our regarding this epistle as a shorter Pauline written on tbe basis of later accounts.1 Hence tbe whole question turns upon tbe idea whether tbe apocalyptic combination of chap. ii., which like all such, is attached to existing relations of time, brings us into tbe post-Pauline period, or may be explained from tbe circumstances of tbe time in which our epistle, if genuine, must have been written. 6. Tbe proper leading motive even of Kern's attack lay in tbe presupposition that tbe apocalyptic view of our epistle was tbe same as that of tbe Apocalypse of John. Con sistently with tbe current idea of tbe latter, Antichrist was identified with the Emperor Nero, of whom there was a tradition that be was not dead but should return from tbe East. Tbe hindering one is then tbe Emperor Vespasian, with bis son Titus ; tbe apostasy, tbe horrible infamy that broke forth in tbe Jewish war. Hence this apocalyptic picture must have been drawn by a Pauline disciple living in tbe years 68-70 and struck with tbe image presented by his time. Upon this basis Baur thought it possible to fix tbe place of tbe epistle still more definitely. According to Tacit., Hist., 2, 8, after tbe murder of Galba a report was actually spread in Achaia and Asia that tbe returning Nero was at band. But this soon proved to be false, and tbe author, as a warning against similar delusions, pointed out 1 The alleged unreconciled discrepancies with the eschatological dis cussions of the first epistle, which he still finds in chap, ii., disappear readily enough. For the fact that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night (1 Thess. v. 2) by no means excludes the appearance of Antichrist immediately before, whose exaltation out of the great apostasy is just as incalculable as the former event ; and just as little does the fact that the Apostle still hopes to live to see the second coming (1 Thess. iv. 17) exclude the putting aside of the idea that it was already at hand. The misleading of unbelievers by Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 10, f.) certainly does not shut out the possibility of their living in rest and security until that time (1 Thess. v. 3), suspecting nothing of the destruction that the approaching judgment is to bring upon them. THE SECOND THESSALONIAN EPISTLE. 231 that Vespasian must first be overthrown and the great apostasy come in, while the whole world idolized tbe return ing Nero.1 Hilgenfeld sought to give quite a different interpretation of tbe apocalyptic combination, making tbe diroo-raora refer to tbe falling away in a time of severe persecution, and was thus led to tbe time of Trajan. But in face of all his attempts to prove traces of that time in the persecutions mentioned in our epistle, nothing except the word Suaypoi (comp. Rom. viii. 35 ; 2 Cor. xii. 10) points beyond tbe expression of the first epistle ; and how the appearance of tbe Elxaibook should first have given rise to tbe enhanced expectation of the second coming is beyond conception. Above all be makes tbe pvarT-rjpiov -rijs avopia (elpi) XpioTov (1 Cor. i. 12) i1 Eichhorn regarded this as tbe neutral party which, according to Schott and Bleek, was expressly approved by tbe Apostle himself. And in order to justify the equality with tbe others that is manifestly attri buted to it, it was generally held that this party too as serted its adherence to Christ in some exclusive way. But this view that bas become prevalent, particularly with more recent commentators, as Ruckert, Meyer, Hofmann, and Heinrici, and is also represented by Hausrath and Neander 1 An attempt was already made by Chrysostom, and recently again by Mayerhoff (Hist. krit. Einl. in die petrin. Schriften, Hamb., 1835), to make these words refer only to what Paul said in opposition to the three parties, and by Rabiger to regard them as the watchword equally claimed by all three ; but this cannot be carried out in opposition to the simple wording, which puts it quite on a par with the other three. 260 THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. (in bis later years) gives no vivid picture of the party and has no support whatever in the epistle. The same thing may be said of all attempts to form an a, priori conception of the peculiar character of the party in question. Hug and Bertholdt following Storr, regarded them as disciples of James, calling themselves by the name of Christ because James was a brother of the Lord ; Osiander in his Commentary (Stuttg., 1847, 58), as Ebionites, who looked on Christ only as a teacher ; while Ewald makes them adherents of an Essene-minded teacher, who, taking a particular evangelical writing as his authority, disapproved of marriage after the example of Christ. Neander, on the other hand, regarded them (at least at first) as Gentile-Christians, who looked upon Christ as a new So crates, and rejected Apostolic tradition as alloyed with Judaism ; while Guericke and Olshausen adopt tbe same opinion. Jager too supposed them to be at least a combination of Jewish Christianity and Greek learning (Erkliirung d. Briefe Pauli an die Kor. aus dem Gesichtspunkt der vier Part., Tubing., 1838) ; Goldhorn (in Illgen's Zeit'schr. f. hist. Theol, 1840, 2) and Diihne (die Ghristuspartei, Halle, 1842) sought to prove that they were characterized by a Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy of religion, while Kniewel (Eccl. Cor. vetust. dissensiones et turbce, Gedan., 1841) looked on them as precursors of the Gnostics, a conclusion to which Neander had already come. Since the New Testament begin nings of Gnosticism are certainly connected with theosophic Jewish Christianity, this view has some affinity with that of Schenkel (De Eccl. Cor. primava., Basel, 1838, comp. das Ghristusbild der Apostel, Leipz., 1879), which tried to find an actual hold in our epistles, making the polemic of the second refer to them, although it never attacks a party in the Church but only individual intruders. He supposed them to he theosophically educated Jewish Christians, who looked on their relation to Christ as mediated by visions and revelations, as contrasted with the apostolic mediation; and de Wette, Lutterbeck, Grimm and Niedner (comp. also Wieseler, zur Gesch. d. NTlichen Schrift., Leipz., 1880) assented. It is tbe great merit of Baur that here too be bas been tbe first to put the inquiry on a firm historical basis (comp. Tiibinger Zeitschr. f. Theol, 1831, 1 ; 1836, 4), since he suc ceeded in definitely combining the catchword of 1 Cor. i. 12 with that to which Paul alludes in 2 Cor. x. 7, thus finding in tbe former passage tbe Jewish-Christian opponents of the THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. 261 apostles, who are combated in tbe second Epistle. In this way be was led to unite tbe disciples of Cephas with those of Christ, as Cbr. Schmidt after bis own method bad already done, since both parties put tbe authority of tbe primitive apostles, as of those who by personal intercourse with Christ were alone qualified, in opposition to Paul, and are said to have rejected bis apostlesbip ; at least tbe oi Xpioroi! mustahve been tbe beads of tbe party. Billroth (in his Komm., Leipz., 1833), Credner and Reuss tried to separate tbem as tbe violent party, more definitely from tbe Petrines ; while Becker (die Parteiung in der Gem. zu Cor., Alton., 1842) on tbe contrary regarded tbem as the milder party, whose members, because converted by Paul, could not have joined the Petrines. It was Beyschlag (De Eccl. Cor. Factione Christ., Halle, 1861, comp. Stud. u. Krit., 1865, 2 ; 1871, 4) who first emphatically maintained that tbe very existence in Corinth of a Cephas party, directly distinguished from tbe Jewish-Christian opponents of tbe Apostle, and evidently regarded by Paul (iii. 22) as being in no material opposition to himself, shows most clearly that tbe primitive apostles themselves did not stand in hostile relation to Paul (comp. also Klopper, Exeg. krit. Untersuchungen iiber den 2. Brief des Paulus an die Gem. zu Corinth., Gott., 1869 ; Comm. zu 2. Cor., Berlin, 1874, and Holtzmann). Even Holsten, recently followed by Mangold, admits an essential distinction between tbe disciples of Cephas and the oi tov Xpta-Tov with tbeir violent hostility to Paul, while Hilgenfeld, after tbe precedent of Grotius and Thiersch, distinguishes them from tbe latter only as being direct disciples of Christ, which was also the opinion of Beyschlag and Holsten. But the latter alone bas clearly recognised that in this case the current idea of the oi XptoroC as a party consisting of mem bers of the Corinthian Cburcb, must be definitely abandoned, since tbe special relation to Christ which tbe term, however understood, indicates, could only be predicated of themselves 262 THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. by individual teachers who bad come to Corinth, but never by tbeir followers.3 6. The critical point was that tbe state of tbe Corinthian Church offered tbe most favourable ground for tbe agita tion of tbe Apostle's Jewisb-Cbristian adversaries. In a Cburcb in which the excesses of tbe free Gentile-Christians and tbe prevailing differences of opinion on important questions showed undoubted necessity for a legal regulation of tbe Christian life, tbey had apparently a just title to come forward as Siokovoi SiKatoo-wijs (2 Cor. xi. 15) ; and in a Church where tbe name of tbe Apostle was still used only in tbe sense of a party leader, tbey might look for tbe readiest success if they could attack tbe gospel that rested on his authority, with effect. They were native Jews, who came from abroad with letters of recommendation to Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 22, iii. 1), and there represented themselves as Siokovoi Xpio-ToC, and even as apostles of Christ (xi. 13, 23), while Paul sometimes designates tbem ironically as vrrepXiav diroo-ToXoi (xi. 5, xii. 11), and again openly calls them xj/evSarroo-ToXoi (xi. 13). If they founded tbeir claim to this character on tbeir special relation to Christ (x. 7 : el tis rrerroiOev eavrio XptoroS £ivai), it can only have been they who said of themselves, eyib XptoroS (1 Cor. i. 12),1 and after the 3 This has indeed already been remarked by others ; but it has been customary to rest satisfied with the fact that the other parties also cannot have been composed of purely personal disciples of Paul and Apollos, particularly the Cephas-party, which can only be asserted of the latter if we shut our eyes to the view put forward in No. 4, note 2. But it is not possible to understand the ol HaiXov, ol 'AirbXXia, ol Ki;#3 as applying either in word or substance to such as shared the views of these men ; and even if possible, it would not prove that ol Xpurrov referred to such as gave the preference to Christ before all other teachers, on account of the direct relation borne by the primitive apostles or their teachers to him. 1 It is vain to put forward the Ixdo-ros ipuv Xiyei against the reference of the lyu XpurroC to the Judaistic errorists. The question turns on the interpretation of the Apostle's meaning when he says he has heard, bri IpiSes iv ip.lv elalv (vers. 11). And since these very disciples of Christ THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. 263 analogy of parallel expressions in this passage, tbe term can only mean that tbey were immediate disciples of Christ, since tbey made this disciplesbip tbe basis of tbeir title to preach another Jesus and another gospel than Paul's (2 Cor. xi. 4). The supposition put forward by the Tubingen school, that these Jewish Christians could only have come from the primitive apostles and from Jerusalem with letters of commendation, since the latter alone could give them authority as servants and apostles of Christ in the eyes of the Corinthians, contradicts 2 Cor. iii., since Paul there puts these letters of commendation quite on a par with those that he had received from the Corinthians. It does not even follow from the fact of their being Hebrews (xi. 22) that they came from Palestine ; since Paul, a Jew of the dispersion, makes the same claim. The only probability in favour of this view is the fact that they professed to be direct disciples of Christ, in which case it would certainly be natural that their letters of recommendation should have come from Jerusalem. But even then it would by no means follow that they had been drawn up by the primitive apostles, since Holsten himself concedes that there were very diverse currents of opinion in Jerusalem. If this were the case, however, still it would not follow that the praise lavished on them by the primitive apostles gave them authority for their anti-Pauline agitation (in par ticular comp. § 21, 5, note 2). The importance formerly attributed by Baur to the appearance of these Judaists for his adopted view of the hostile relation between Paul and the primitive apostles has its basis in the fact that he looked on those whom they professed to represent in opposition to Paul, and whom the latter so ironically characterizes as virepXlav dirbo-roXoi, as the primitive apostles (comp. also Hilgenfeld) ; but even Holsten most distinctly admits that the passages in question, judged by the context, refer only to themselves. This does away with all possibility of proving from the Corinthian Epistle, as Holsten still endeavours to do, that a Judaistic reaction took place in the Church subsequent to the dispute at Antioch, though solely under the guidance of James, not to speak of the assumption of a hostile position towards Paul on the part of the primitive apostles. had undoubtedly contributed most towards sharpening and embittering party disturbances, and since they were only too readily received by the Church in which they now laboured as teachers highly esteemed by many, he was at liberty to put their watchword beside that of the other parties. But the fact that he has so done, shows plainly that the section (iv. 18 ff.) in which these disturbances are discussed has reference to those rivis. 264 THE CORINTHIAN PARTIES. It is certainly from tbe second Epistle that we first learn more of these anti- Pauline Jndaists ; but it is clear beyond doubt that Paul already knew of tbeir appearance when writ ing the first Epistle, from the fact that in concluding the exhortation against party divisions, be speaks of such as are puffed up with tbe idea that be can no longer go to Corinth, and promises, if be comes, to prove, not rbv Xoyov but ttjv Svvapiv of these rredrvo-iwpevoi (1 Cor. iv. 18 ff.). These can only have been teachers who thought themselves of more consequence than Paul, and who supposed that after tbeir appearing, be would not dare to meet them face to face.3 But ix. 1-3 equally implies that there were those who doubted bis apostleship and rejected bis apostolic authority where they themselves were concerned ; it is also plain from ix. 12 that those who, in return for tbeir ministry, claimed to be supported by tbe Cburcb, were preachers of tbe gospel. It is manifest that hitherto tbey bad not come forward directly with tbeir legal doctrine, for tbe experiences of the Jndaists in Galatia might have taught them that tbey could effect nothing in this direction unless the authority of the Apostle were first undermined. But it was obviously im possible to attempt this by means of rough polemic, until tbey themselves bad gained a firm footing in tbe Church. 3 Hilgenfeld has indeed made an elaborate attempt to show, in oppo sition to the express statement of the Apostle (iv. 6), that the greatest part of the1 section against party strife has reference to the Judaists, as well as much else in the epistle that has nothing whatever to do with them. Even the passage iii. 16 f., cannot, in accordance with the context, be referred to the Judaists, but only to the destruction of the Church by party discord. Whether iii. 23 alludes to the shibboleth of the disciples of Christ, is very doubtful, since the ipie'is Xpiarov is certainly taken in another sense ; and only if such were the allusion, would it rightly follow, that those who claimed this Xpif tbe year in the spring of which tbe first was written. That it fully, answered its purpose like tbe Galatian Epistle we may regard as certain, since we have no knowledge of any further correspondence with tbe Corinthians on tbe part of Paul; and he would hardly have gone to Corinth without having received tidings of the success of this epistle. There was still sufficient time for bim to extend his ministry as far as Illyria, which he already had in view (2 Cor. x. 15 f.), and of which he makes express mention in Rom. xv. 19. It is certain that be finally came to Corinth with Timothy (Rom. xvi. 21), and there spent tbe three winter months, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 6 he proposed to do. There is no indication in tbe Epistle to tbe Romans of his having first brought the contest with his 1 Though Paul repeatedly speaks of the time when the Achaian Churches declared their readiness to make a collection themselves for Jerusalem as the previous year (d7ri iripvai: viii. 10; ix. 2), yet we do not know what time this itself was. We only know that when Paul in 1 Cor. xvi. 1 f., touched on more definite arrangements as to the mode of gathering the money, the Church must already have declared itself agreed as to the principle of making the collection. But whether expression was first given to this in the Church-letter brought by Stephanas, or at an earlier date (perhaps at his second visit), we do not know. Nor is the point where Paul begins the year up to which the former year extended, any more certain ; whether he begins it with the month Nisan, in accordance with the religious observances of the Jews, as Hofmann supposes ; or in accordance with the later civil custom, with the month Tisri, as Meyer, Klopper and others hold ; or after the Macedonian custom, from the autumnal equinox, as Wieseler maintains (as though Paul in ix. 2 intended to repeat the letter of the words he had spoken to the Macedonians) ; or, as appears the only natural thing in a letter to the Corinthians, from the summer solstice, in accordance with Attic-Olympic usage, as Credner believed. THE CHURCH AT ROME. 293 Judaistic adversaries to an end in that place ; no doubt tbe latter bad abandoned tbe field after tbe discomfiture our second Corinthian Epistle bad inflicted on tbem. He dwelt with Gains, whose house seems to have formed tbe centre of Corinthian Church- life ; and was on tbe best terms with Erastus tbe chamberlain of tbe city, and Quartus, who doubt less belonged to the beads of tbe Church (Rom. xvi. 23). In tbe coming spring he would take ship for the East, in order with tbe deputies to carry to tbe Cburcb at Jerusalem the liberal collection be had in view (1 Cor. xvi. 3 f.), before taking final leave of his Oriental sphere of work (Rom. xv. 25-28). § 22. The Church at Rome. 1. Towards the end of bis stay at Ephesus Paul bad conceived tbe plan of visiting Rome on bis return from tbe collection-journey to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21) ; it even seems as if he bad previously entertained this wish, and had only been prevented from carrying it out by tbe more pressing problems of bis ministry in the East (Rom. i. 13). There can be no question that tbe importance tbe Church of the world's metropolis must eventually have for tbe develop ment of Christianity, and which everywhere forced itself on Christian consciousness (i. 8), was clear to bim from the beginning ; for which reason it was natural be should wish to enter into personal relation with it and acquire an influence over it (i. 11 ; xv. 29). At length nothing seemed to stand in the way of tbe fulfilment of such wish. Paul might regard bis ministry in bis former missionary sphere as closed. From Jerusalem to Illyria be bad preached the gospel (xv. 19), and Churches bad been founded by him at every focus of spiritual life, whence Christianity might easily spread of itself. Esteeming it bis special task to lay the first foundation in all places, he might naturally 294 HISTORICAL position of THE EPISTLE. think there was no further scope for his peculiar work in tbe East ; and so direct his glance to tbe far West, where, in Spain, be would again begin bis missionary labour on new soil (xv. 20-24) . In addition to this, be might hope that by bis victories in Galatia and Corinth be had given his Judaistic adversaries a permanent distaste for attempting to trouble his Gentile-Cbristian Churches ; and might there fore leave tbe work of his former mission in perfect security. Moreover be was on tbe point of forming a bond of love between the free Gentile Churches and the primitive Church that still adhered to tbe law, by tbe large collection be was bringing to Jerusalem, which, if favourably received (xv. 31), might prevent a breach, in case Jewish- Christian fanatics should perchance try to stir up tbe latter against tbe former (xv. 25 ff.). On his journey to Spain however, it would be quite natural that he should pass through Rome, and there endeavour to satisfy his long-cherished wish (xv. 24, 28, 32). It is this visit that Paul now announces to tbe Church at Rome in bis epistle ; hence it was written im mediately before be set out on tbe journey to Jerusalem (xv. 25). In accordance with the above the historical position of the Epistle to the Romans is so perfectly clear that Dr. Paulus, who concludes from xv. 19 that it was written in a town of Illyria, alone mistakes it (de Orig. Ep. Pauli ad Rom, Jena, 1801). The only doubtful point is whether it was written in Corinth, as is generally supposed, or in the port of Cenchrea, in which case the deaconess of the latter place was probably its bearer (xvi. 1), while Paul waited there for an opportunity of taking ship to the East, and had therefore actuaUy begun his journey (xv. 25). The fears to which he gives expression in xv. 30 f., are a strong argument, however, in favour of the assumption that he already had intelligence of the plots that led him afterwards to give up the direct sea-route to Syria and to take the land-route through Macedonia (Acts xx. 3) ; while the greetings that he sends from Corinth (Rom. xvi. 21-23) might have heen given to him in that place, if we suppose that these brethren did not accompany him as far as the harbour. The fact that there are so few greetings, and that the Church as such sends none, is strongly in favour of this view. In any case the epistle was written THE CHURCH AT ROME. 295 soon after the beginning of the sea- voyage ; and if the Corinthian Epistles belong to the year 58 (§ 20, 1, note 2), in the spring of 59. 2. Respecting tbe origin of tbe Cburcb at Rome we have no certain knowledge. We know only that there was a large Jewish population at Rome, especially after tbe time of Pompey, that had reached a state of freedom and pros perity and stood in close relation with tbe whole Jewish Diaspora as well as with tbeir Palestinian home. In both there were communities of believing Jews, and it would have been strange if the burning question whether tbe Messiah bad come or not, had not found its way into the bosom of tbe Jewish body at Rome. Whether this be accounted for by tbe presence of Roman pilgrims at tbe first Christian Pentecost (Acts ii. 10), or by tbe dispersion that followed tbe first persecution of tbe Christians (viii. 1 ; xi. 19), is quite a matter of indifference ; tbe ways that led Roman Jews to Jerusalem or to other places where there were Jewish- Christian Churches, and believing Jews to Rome, are too many to permit of tbeir being taken into special consideration. Tbe idea that a Church of believers could not originate without actual apostolic agency is quite unhistorical. It was not till the end of the second century that currency was given to that view of the Apostolic Churches (comp. § 8, 2) which ascribed the actual founding of the Church at Rome to Peter and Paul, and finally to Peter alone, who was said to have come to Rome as early as the second year of the Emperor Claudius (a.d. 42) and to have been bishop there for a period of 25 years (comp. Hieron., de Vir. Ill, 1, after Euseb. Chronik., and more specific details in § 39, 4). But it can be proved that Peter was still at Jerusalem in the year 44 (Acts xii. 4) and 52 (Acts xv. 7; Gal. ii. 9), while the Epistle to the Romans knows nothing of his presence at Rome, since he receives neither mention nor greeting, nor is he referred to in the Acts (xxviii. 15) or in the Epistle to the Philippians of the year 60. In Iren., Adv. Har., III. 3, 3, and Eusebius himself (H. E., 3, 2, 4), Linus appears rather to have been the first Roman bishop, who according to the Apostolic. Constitutions (VII. 46, 1) was even appointed hy Paul himself. Hence this tradition of the Catholic Church, that has been 296 JEWISH CHRISTIAN ORIGIN OF THE EPISTLE. defended even by Protestants, as Bertholdt and Thiersch, has been given up by unprejudiced Catholic theologians like Hug and Feilmoser; and the most that can he said is that the oldest Roman Church was indirectly a Petrine foundation, inasmuch as the Jewish Christians of that place always go back in some direct or indirect way to Jerusalem, and to Peter as the head of the Church. Tbe first historical trace of Christianity in Rome is to be found in tbe narrative of Suetonius, according to which tbe Emperor Claudius Judceos vtnpulsore Chresto assidue tumul- tuantes Roma expulit (Claud. 25, comp. Acts xviii. 2 and with it § 15, 6).1 Even if tbe Claudian edict were only carried out imperfectly or soon again recalled (comp. Dio Cassius, Hist., 60, 6), this crisis must have been of decisive importance for tbe Christian Church at Rome ; for when by degrees its members re-assembled, they had every induce ment to separate entirely from tbe synagogue lest tbey should again be involved in its fortunes.3 But the .grand missionary work of Paid in Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor came after this edict. Many who had emigrated 1 The assumption that reference is here made to a Jewish agitator of the name of Chrestus, still adopted by Wieseler, Meyer, Hofmann and others, cannot be entertained. It is much more probable that it is to the continual disturbances within the Jewish body excited by the dispute regarding the so-called Christ (or, according to the popular Roman pronunciation, Chrestus) that Suetonius refers as the cause of the final expulsion of the Jews. It is evident that the believing Jews were affected by this measure as well as the unbelieving, the native Jews as well as the proselytes, since the latter certainly took just as much part in religious quarrels ; and their Roman citizenship was the less adequate to their protection, Beyschlag thinks, because many native Jews also had this privilege after the time of Augustus. 2 We find a reminiscence of this still preserved in the account of Acts xxviii. 22, according to which, when Paul arrives at Rome as a prisoner and desires to come to an understanding with the chief of the Jews, these latter make no allusion to the Christian Church at Rome, showing a very superficial acquaintance with the seot generally. Though we cannot explain this, with Neander, from the fact that Rome was a large city, or ascribe it to intentional reserve, yet it is arbitrary to assume that the statement naturally formulated by the author is an invention without any historical foundation. THE CHURCH AT ROME. 297 thither must have been converted by Paul and have returned as Pauline Christians ; while many of tbe heathen who bad been converted by Paul must have come to Rome and have joined themselves to the Christian Cburcb that held aloof from tbe synagogue. Here, where tbe national religion bad long fallen into contempt, and the tendency to mono theism was widely spread, tbeir free Christianity must have made a successful propaganda; the Gentile-Christian element preponderating more and more in tbe Church although it certainly contained a not inconsiderable number of believing Jews.3 Moreover it is not consistent with Paul's principles (comp. 2 Cor. x. 13 ff. ; Rom. xv. 20) that be should have turned with an epistle like ours to a Church which, as then constituted, did not consist substantially of his immediate or proximate disciples. 3. In tbe Epistle to tbe Romans too tbe Cburcb appears as essentially Gentile-Cbristian. Paul makes tbe d-iroo-ToXrj iv ttSjo-iv tois eBveeriv (ev oti tore xal i/peis kXtjtoI 'Irjcrov Xpirrrov) bestowed on him bis reason for turning to believers in Rome (i. 5 ff.). He desires to have fruit among tbem also even as among other eBv-q. Because he feels himself a debtor to Greeks and barbarians, wise and unwise, be is ready Kal vpiv tow ev 'Pu>py evayyeXicrao-Bai ; for be is not ashamed of tbe Gospel (i. 12-16) -1 In bis argument Paul sets out from pre- 3 There is no reason for regarding the Church as exclusively, though indirectly, a Pauline foundation, whether by the instrumentality of Titus (comp. Kneucker, Die Anfange des romischen Christenthums : Karlsruhe, 1881) or by that of Gentile Christians from Antioch as Godet maintains in his Commentary, nor is it necessary entirely to deny its Jewish- Christian origin. Respecting its organization, we learn nothing whatever from Rom. xii. 8 ; but we are not justified in con cluding that it had no organization whatever, either from the absence of the designation ixxX-ntrla in Rom. i. 7 (comp. § 16, 4, note 2) or from the fact that it was not founded by an apostle. 1 In vain has an attempt been made to include the Jews under rdlBvi), contrary to undoubted Pauline usage, and to claim for Paul a universal apostleship in manifest contradiction to Gal. ii. 8 f. ; or, taking a geo graphical view of the partition-treaty with the primitive apostles, to 298 READERS OF THE EPISTLE. misses that were incontrovertible only to the consciousness of Pauline Gentile- Christians (iii. 27-30) ; in iv. 6 be speaks of Abraham as rrarijp rravruw r)pu>v in a connection in which he classes his readers with himself and tbe Jewish-Chris tians, therefore as Gentile-Christians ; be characterizes their past life as a bondage to dxaBapcria and dvopia (vi. 19). He could not possibly have appealed exclusively to bis own person in support of his statement that tbe people of Israel as such would not be rejected (xi. 1) if be bad been writing to a Cburcb that was entirely Jewish-Christian ; or have spoken of tbe Jews so emphatically as his flesh, in contrast with bis readers (xi. 14). He expressly addresses them as heathen (xi. 13 : vpiv Se Xeyia rots eBvecnv), and tbe assump tion that be refers only to tbe Gentile- Christian portion, which, moreover, is excluded by the form of tbe expression, is already refuted by tbe fact that tbe term dSeXcpoi (xi. 25), which undoubtedly applies to the Church as a whole, is followed by a fyteis that clearly points to those addressed as having formerly been heathen (xi. 28, 30). But tbe way in which tbe exhortation to tbe majority of tbe Cburcb to bear the infirmities of tbe weak (xv. 1 ff.), supported by a glance at tbe relation of Jews and Gentiles to salvation (xv. 8 f.), shows beyond a doubt that it consisted mainly of Gentiles. Finally be once more justifies himself for writing to tbem by an appeal to his apostlesbip to the Gentiles (xv. 15 f.).2 Moreover, all that we know of tbe later history of tbe explain the address by assuming that he wrote to them because they lived in the great world, and to interpret i. 13 as implying that he wished to carry on the Gentile mission in their midst, whereas i. 16 expressly speaks of a gospel addressed to themselves of which he is not ashamed, although they belong to the educated. 2 Mangold has with great ingenuity endeavoured to set aside this decisive passage by finding in it only an excuse for certain passages of the epistle in which Paul had energetically combated Jewish-Christian pretensions also shared by his readers, in the interest of the Gentile- Christian mission with which he had been entrusted, such as chaps. ii., ix., *., making xv. 1 ff. refer to the opposition between a Jewish- THE CHURCH AT ROME. 299 Roman Church agrees with this. Tbe fact that tbe perse cution under Nero was directed against tbe Christians as such, in distinction from tbe Jews who were at first favoured by Nero, is an argument not only for tbe separation of tbe (Jewish-Christian) Church from tbe synagogue, but also for the essentially Gentile-Christian character of tbe Cburcb ; and Paul's two years' sojourn in Rome as a captive could not possibly have caused the centre of gravity in tbe Church to be completely transferred from the Jewish to tbe Gentile- Christian side. Tbe so-called first Epistle of Clement also shows that tbe Roman Cburcb of that time was essentially of a Pauline Gentile-Christian character. Nor can Man gold's further conclusions respecting tbe history of tbe Church in the second century, even if better attested than is the case, prove anything with regard to tbe Pauline time, since the fact that Gentile Christianity had then gained tbe upper band is not disputed. It is only since Baur (following Koppe's Nov. Test., 3rd edit., Gott., 1824) in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift (1836, 3), owing to his conception of the aim and occasion of the Epistle to the Romans, declared the Church to have been essentially Jewish-Christian, that the question of its character has taken the form of scientific controversy. He was immediately followed not only by his actual pupils as Schwegler, Volkmar, Holsten, and Hilgenfeld, but also by commentators such as Krehl, Baumgarten- Crusius, v. Stengel, and critics as Reuss, Hausrath, Krenkel, Renan, Lipsius (in the Protestantenbibel), Mangold (der R'omerbrief, Marb., 1866), Seyerlen (Entst. u. erste Schicksale der Ghristengem. in Rom, Tub., 1874), Schenkel (Bibellex, V., 1875), even Thiersch and Sabatier. He encoun tered opposition, it is true (comp. Kling in d. Stud. u. Krit., 1837, 2 ; Delitzsch and Riggenbach in d. Zeitschr. fiir luth. Theol, 1849, 4 : 1868, 1; Th. Schott, der Rbmerbrief, Eri., 1858), while most commentators adhered to the customary view. Beyschlag attempted a mediating hy pothesis, making the Church consist entirely of proselytes (Stud. u. Krit., 1864, 4; comp. also W. Schultz, Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol, 1876, 1); but in the Jahrb. fiir protest. Theol. of 1876, 2, Holtzmann asserted with some plausibility that the older view had been superseded by more recent Christian majority and minority, and thus doing away with all motive for mentioning the Jews and Gentiles in xv. 8 f. 300 LATER HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. investigation. Since then a retrograde movement has set in, mainly through the instrumentality of Weizsaoker (Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol, 1876, 2). Not only has the essentially Gentile-Christian character of the Chnroh been recognised by Wieseler (zur Gesch. der NTlichen Schrift, Leipz., 1880), Weiss (6th edition of Meyer's Komm., 1881), Grafe (iiber Veranlassung und Zweck des Romerbriefs, Tub., 1881), Pfleiderer (Jahrb. fiir protest. Theol, 1882, 4) and Bleibtreu, die 3 ersten Kapp. des Romer briefs, Gott., 1884) ; but Schiirer, Harnack and others have also inciden tally expressed themselves in favour of this view ; even Holtzmann (Jahrb. fiir protest. Theol. , 1886, 1) no longer making very decided opposition ; while Mangold (der Romerbrief und seine geschichtlichen Voraussetzung, Marb., 1884) makes a fresh attempt to defend the Tubingen view, in which the school of Hofmann seems now to participate (K. Schmidt, die Anfange des Christenthums in Rom., 1879 ; Th. Zahn, d. Hebrdersbrief, in Herz's R.-Enc, V., 1879). The designation of Abraham in iv. 1 as irpoirdrup r\puv, cannot, after 1 Cor. x. 1, be adduced as an argument for the Jewish-Christian character of the Church, so that vii. 1-6 is the only passage to which Bey3chlag and Mangold can appeal with any show of reason, and this they repeatedly do, but in vain.3 The assumption that the exhortations in chap. xiii. 1 ff. presuppose Jewish-Christian opposition to the Roman supremacy (although later criticism regards 1 Pet. ii. 13 ff. as addressed exclusively to Gentile Christians) overlooks the fact that the Jews might reject it in Palestine on theocratic grounds, but not on heathen soil, so that all the arguments drawn from the Roman Church prayer in Clement's Epistle (cap. 61) in favour of the continu ance of a Jewish-Christian element in the Church, fall to the ground. 4. Tbe main interest of tbe dispute regarding tbe national character of tbe Cburcb at Rome consists in tbe fact that it 8 It was possible for Paul to speak of the Roman Gentile Christians in vii. 1 as knowing the law, even if reference were actually made there to the Mosaic law, since this was undoubtedly read at their assemblies for worship (Gal. iv. 21 ; comp. § 15, 2, note 2) ; but it is probable that a knowledge of jurisprudence is here meant, since the ordinance of which he there treats is by no means peculiar to the Mosaic law. The argu ment for the essential freedom of the Christian from the law has exactly the same significance for Gentile as for Jewish Christians, since the former were also under obligation to the law as soon as they turned to the God of Israel, if such obligation had any permanence at all; for which reason it is so emphatically carried out in the Galatian Epistle (§ 18, 5, note 2). The passage vii. 5 f. does not say that the readers stood with him under the law, but that they were protected by their common freedom from the law against the old sinful state which the letter of the law only fostered and enhanced and would always again call forth and enhance. THE CHURCH AT ROME. 301 bas been thought impossible, assuming tbe correctness of tbe traditional view as to its Gentile-Christian character, to find any historical motive sufficient to account for tbe compre hensive doctrinal discussions of tbe Epistle to the Romans with its apologetic and polemic allusions. The view most prevalent in Commentaries, viz. that tbe Apostle designed to give a statement of his doctrinal system (comp. Huther: Zweck und Inhalt der 11 ersten Kap. des Romerbriefs, 1846), is negatived by the fact that important points are scarcely even touched upon; and that from this point of view tbe sec tion chaps, ix.-xi. would be quite unexplained. Hence Baur, following tbe Commentary of Ambrosiaster, sought to class our epistle with tbe great Pauline polemic writings against Jewish Christianity, which alone he regarded as genuine ; 1 while Schwegler looked upon it as a systematic apology for Paulinism against Jewish Christianity. But even Mangold was constrained to deny tbe anti-Pauline character of Ro man Jewisb-Cbristianity, and to limit the aim of tbe epistle to a desire on Paul's part, by a statement of bis doctrine of salvation and a vindication of bis missionary practice, to induce tbe Roman Cburcb to give up tbeir scruples regard ing bis teaching and tbe Gentile mission ; while Beyschlag, in direct opposition to Baur, found that tbe Cburcb consist ing of former converts, though friendly to Paul, had a Petrine tendency that only required raising to tbe full height of Pauline apprehension of tbe Gospel method and the 1 Hence Baur found that the Roman Epistle represented a peculiar form of (Ebionite) anti-Paulinism which had abandoned the requirement of circumcision and fulfilment of the law on the part of the Gentile Chris tians as well as opposition to the apostleship of Paul, but perceived in his Gentile mission an abridgment of the theocratic prerogatives of Israel, and betrayed an affinity to the tendency of the Clementine Homilies in rejecting worldly authorities as well as the use of flesh and wine. It the section ix.-xi. had not hitherto received full justice — being regarded more in the light of a corollary — he saw in it the proper nucleus of the epistle, though he somewhat modified his view afterwards and endeavoured to apprehend the epistle rather as a whole, 302 POLEMIC CONCEPTION OF THE EPISTLE. world-historical Divine plan of salvation.2 But however we may soften tbe antithesis of those views in the Cburcb that were in alleged opposition to tbe Apostle, it is incontestable that he never directly attacks them. On the contrary, he freely joins in tbe universal praise of tbe faith of tbe Cburcb, thanking God for it, and unmistakably implies that the twos SiSaxrjs tbey bad obeyed was bis free doctrine (vi. 17), just as to themselves he bad formerly appealed to bis gospel. He most distinctly takes for granted that they know and share bis doctrine (xv. 24 f .) ; i. 12 in particular would be a captatio benevolentice if Paul regarded tbe Cburcb as occu pying a standpoint in any way hostile to bis views, or as having not yet understood them. The truly polemic parts of the epistle cannot be explained on tbe presumption of a Jewish-Christian tendency. For tbe fact that tbe law avails nothing if it is not kept, nor circumcision unless fol lowed by tbe fulfilment of tbe law (chap, ii.), that fidelity to God is not made of no effect by tbe unbelief of tbe Jews, and that the law condemns tbe Jews as sinners (iii. 1-20), that the gracious election of God, as shown in Isaac and Jacob, and tbe hardening of Pharaoh, are not unrighteous acts on the part of God, nor a breach of His promises (ix. 6-21), that tbe rejection of unbelieving Israel is self-incurred (ix. 30-x. ' 21) ; all these are things that no Jewish-Christian ever disputed, and that cannot be alleged against such with polemic design.3 5. As tbe Roman Church certainly contained a Jewish- 2 These points of view could be adopted not only by SaBttier and Thiersch who regarded the Church as Jewish-Christian, but even by Riggenbach (ibid.), who considered it as essentially Gentile-Christian, while representing the Apostle as having respect to the scruples of the Jewish-Christian minority. 3 The patristic expositors judged more correctly that this polemic attacks Jewish pretensions which, even according to Eichhorn, Schmidt, Schott and others were directed mainly against the call of the heathen ; while Bleibtreu (ibid.) finds the most refined anti-Jewish polemic throughout the doctrinal discussion ; though he too is unable to explain what this had to do with a Gentile- Christian Church. THE CHURCH AT ROME. 303 Christian element, it was possible to make a conciliatory tendency the historical occasion of the epistle. This bad already been done by Hug and Bertbold, Delitzscb and Bleek ; and in tbe same way Hilgenfeld sought to modify Baur's conception, not only distinguishing tbe Roman Jewish- Christians from tbe fanatics of Jerusalem, but also putting a higher estimate on the Gentile-Christian section, and mak ing tbe internal friction of these two parties tbe proper occasion of the epistle. In like manner Volkmar (Paulus Romerbrief, Zurich, 1875) makes tbe Apostle's aim, in his polemic and pacific epistle, consist in the effort to reconcile a minority that was still restricted by Judaism with bis free gospel of salvation and its success in tbe heathen world, and by restoring peace with a small but over-zealous Pauline mi nority, to prevent the Church falling to pieces; but he never theless succeeds in pointedly combining this view with tbe older conception of tbe epistle as a calmly reasoned doctrinal system of pure Christianity sharply arranged even in its minutest details. Holstein too regards tbe epistle as an essen tially conciliatory work in which Paul, in order to reconcile Gentile with Jewish Christianity, makes tbe utmost possible concession to tbe latter (Jahrb. f. protest. Theol, 1879) ; and Pfleiderer (ibid.) has not only returned to the predominantly Gentile-Christian character of tbe Church, but even makes tbe Apostle, in order to persuade the Jewish-Christian min ority of the truth of bis gospel and to reconcile them with the fact of victorious Gentile Christianity, disclose and im press on tbe unruly and bard-hearted heathen above all, tbe practical consequences of this gospel, a view which be too finds consistent with tbe dogmatic exposition in chap, i.— viii. in its wider sense. But tbe more the controversy actually present in tbe Church is restricted to that treated in chap. xiv., and tbe more certainly this is traced back in xv. 8 f. to the opposition between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, tbe more completely does tbe theory of wider differences 304 PROPHYLACTIC CONCEPTION OF THE EPISTLE. between tbe two parties, which our epistle is alleged to settle, lack all historical support. 6. The very conception of our epistle as a purely doc trinal work included to some extent tbe prophylactic aim of fortifying its readers in advance against future attacks on tbeir faith ; a view to wbicb xvi. 17-20 seems to give some support. In this case it would have been much more natural to regard tbe danger from Judaistic agitators threat ening tbe Gentile Christian Church of Rome, as well as those of Corinth and Galatia, as tbe actual motive of tbe epistle. This view, wbicb has in any case probability in its favour, although already indicated by Grau, was first strik ingly set forth by Weizsaoker ; while Grafe attempted to carry it out, although -rive's are mentioned in iii. 8 just as in the earlier polemic epistles, who calumniate the Apostle by imputing to bim immoral principles, obviously as alleged consequences of his doctrines.1 But tbe epistle does not afford any further support to this presupposition. On tbe contrary all direct reference to tbe question raised by tbe Judaistic opposition as to whether this should not first be settled by tbe adoption of the law and of circumcision, is wanting just where we should most naturally look for it, viz. in the statement of the new way of salvation (iii. 22-30), as well as in the proof of its Old Testament prefiguration and its final aim in the completion of salvation. The section chaps, vi.-viii. might rather be understood as directed against tbe reproach that Paul seduced to sin by bis doc- 1 That the dialectic questions by which Paul himself seeks to carry forward his developments (vi. 1, 15 ; vii. 7 ; xi. 1, 11) contain statements that have been foisted upon him, is as impossible to prove as that others contain objections actually made against him (comp. iii. 31 ; iv. 1 ; ix. 14, 19 ff. ; x. 14 ff . ; x. 18 ff.), since the purely rhetorical character of countless questions of the kind, is obvious (ii. 3 f., 21 ff. ; iii. 3, 5 ff., 27 ; iv. 3, 9 f. ; vi. 2 f., 16 vii. 1 ; viii. 31 ff. ; ix. 30, 33; xi. 2, 4, 7, 15). This makes all certain proof of the above assumption impossible ; especially since the now completely isolated reference to Judaists in iii. 8 appears in a section that presents an entirely different front (No. 4), THE CHURCH AT ROME. 305 trine of grace and outraged tbe Divine institution of tbe law ; but he sets out so ingenuously, even paradoxically, with a statement apparently most offensive (v. 20 f.) res pecting the law, and proceeds to develop bis argument in so doctrinal a way, in accordance with a purely ideal scheme, going so far beyond bis alleged point of attack in chap, viii., that tbe section cannot certainly be explained from this point of view. Moreover tbe assertion that section chaps. ix.-xi. contains a vindication of bis Gentile mission against tbe objections and attacks of Judaists by no means holds good.3 And if this view likewise prove untenable, tbe attempt to find the historical occasion of the doctrinal dis cussions of this epistle in tbe relations and needs of the Roman Church must be given up. But it is quite an error to suppose that all historical interpretation of tbe Epistle to the Romans is therefore impossible. 7. It was T. H. Schott, who first attempted to explain the epistle by the frame of mind and intentions of the Apostle at the time of its composition ; but, while laying exclusive emphasis on Paul's desire to get a firm support in tbe Roman Cburcb for tbe new phase of bis missionary activity, and therefore to instruct it as to the importance and authority of tbe step be intended to take as well as respecting tbe nature and principles of bis work, be committed tbe same mistake as Baur by making chap, ix.-xi. the proper centre of the epistle.1 It is necessary rather to set out with tbe fact that s The partial rejection of Israel here treated of appears in nowise brought about by his Gentile mission, but by the free Divine election and hardening (chap, ix.) and by the inexcusable obstinacy of Israel (chap. x.). Where Paul comes to speak in reality of the importance of his Gentile mission in bringing about the final aim of the Divine decree of salvation, his argument reaches its practical point in the repudiation of all self-exaltation of Gentile Christianity (xi. 17 24). Thus the view that ix. 1-6 and x. 1 f. were meant for a defence against the reproach of a want of love for his countrymen, loses all support. 1 Since moreover he looked upon the readers of the epistle as Gen tile Christians, he was constrained, in order to make the discussion of 306 OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. tbe doctrinal discussions of tbe epistle, in proportion as tbey avoid all explanation founded on polemic or apologetic aims, can only be explained by tbe characteristic necessity of Paul's nature (comp. § 16, 5) to bring as it were tbe spiritual product of tbe last years to his own consciousness, and to fix it in a written form. These years of strife with Judaism had not only obliged bim to develop bis free gospel of salvation logically on all sides, making himself acquainted with its ultimate principles and results as well as its interior connection, but also to recognise tbe true point of opposition directed against bim and to bring it within bis own range of thought.2 It thus became necessary for him to draw up a statement of bis new doctrine of salvation, establishing it by argument on all sides, and showing its consistency with the Divine revelation of tbe Old Testament as well as with tbe historical claims of Israel to salvation. Its occasional polemic or apologetic form naturally resulted from tbe fact his step intelligible to them, to proceed to the monstrous assertion that the Oriental mission of the Apostle was still essentially a Jewish mission, and that he wished to begin his proper Gentile mission in the far West. Mangold and Sabatier, Riggenbach and Beyschlag were apparently able to make the point of view indicated by him consist with their own as sumptions ; but the whole conception of the support that Paul desired to gain for his Spanish mission in Rome, is incomprehensible and is arbitrarily thrust into xv. 24. The way in which Hofmann attempts to explain the epistle by purely personal references to the Church is deficient in all historical sense, while his exegesis has only succeeded in fundamentally destroying and confusing the whole chain of thought so transparent in the epistle. 2 If we compare the Roman with the Thessalonian Epistles that re present the strongest tension between the Apostle and Judaism, we must be doubly sensible of the pacific turn which Hilgenfeld, Holsten and especially Pfleiderer have recognised in the former, more particu larly in the change of his Apocalyptic perspective (comp. § 17, 7, note 3). His high-minded patriotism must already have driven him to seek to unite the historical importance of Israel in the plan of salvation with his Gentile-Apostolic universalism ; and his recognition of the Old Testament revelation inevitably required him to prove his new gospel to be in all respects based on the history and teaching of the Old Testa ment. THE CHURCH AT ROME. 307 that many of bis views had been reached in tbe struggle with Jewish Christianity and unbelieving Judaism. Tbe reason why he did not put this statement into a book but into a letter is to be found in the literary method with wbicb cir cumstances had made him familiar. Tbe fact that he ad dressed tbe epistle to the Church at Rome was, however, anything but accidental. Apart from tbe external occasion that impelled bim just then to announce bis visit to this Cburcb, he had long recognised tbe importance which the Church of tbe world's metropolis must have in tbe future as the centre of tbe great Gentile Church, just as Jerusalem was tbe centre of Jewish Christianity. On the eve of a journey to Jerusalem for tbe purpose of cementing a firm bond between tbe Gentile Churches and the Jewish- Christian mother-Church by tbe great love-work of a collection, be wrote this Epistle to the Gentile Church of Rome, setting forth the new and yet old way of salvation which finally leads Israel in conjunction with tbe nations to tbe divinely appointed goal, and must put an end for ever to all strife between Gentile and Jewish Christianity. Not because this Church was threatened by Judaistic errors or disturbed in its knowledge of salvation, but because he regarded it as a matter of great importance that it should be tbe bearer and representative of his conception of Christianity, wbicb first raised it to tbe full rank of a universal religion ; for be probably knew best how incapable bis own disciples or even their disciples were of appropriating it with full and com prehensive understanding. And here we are led to conjec ture that tbe fears which be then entertained (xv. 31) sug gested to bis mind tbe idea that this epistle might possibly be his testament to the Church and in it to Christendom generally.3 8 It is altogether vain to object that this conception of the epistle makes it unique among the epistles of the Apostle, for it is and remains such under every aspect. The fact that the discussion does not here 308 epistle to the romans. § 23. The Epistle to the Romans. 1. Tbe inscription of tbe Epistle to tbe Romans appears much extended, owing to tbe fact that Paul not only tells who be is and whom be addresses, but states that he is entitled by bis own personal character as well as theirs, to turn to those with whom be bas hitherto bad no personal relations (i. 1-7). Inasmuch as be is the Apostle of tbe Gentiles, be turns to tbe Christians at Rome, because they too as tbe called of Jesus Christ, belong to tbe Gentiles ; and bis Divine calling directs bim to tbem. But whilst he defines this calling as having given bim a Divine message to announce which bad been already revealed in the Old Tes tament, inasmuch as bis gospel treats of Jesus Christ, our exalted Lord, as tbe Son of God, whose descent from tbe seed of David as well as His exaltation to Divine glory was promised by tbe prophets, be already gives expression to the fundamental idea of bis whole epistle according to which he designs to set forth tbe salvation promised to Israel as a universal one.1 He begins with tbe usual thanksgiving for tbe faith of bis readers and with tbe expression of a long- cherished wish be bad hitherto been prevented carrying out (i. 8-13), viz. to come into personal relations with tbem profitable to both. He then proceeds to account for bis readiness to make known tbe gospel to them also in writing without being ashamed of it notwithstanding their culture, pass freely from one point to another, in keeping with the style of the epistle, but that the separate leading points of view, visibly premeditated, are taken up in orderly sequence, cannot be got rid of by a polemic, con ciliatory or apologetic view of the epistle. Nor does this by any means prevent the chain of thought being interrupted here and there by a lively appeal on the writer's part to his readers, as well as by the necessary application. 1 Little as he justifies his calling to be an Apostle to the Gentiles or defends it against attacks, since he prefers to take it for granted and justify his writing on the basis of it, just as little does the description of his message as that promised by the prophets, contain any reference to the questions in dispute between him and the Jewish Christians. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 309 by his feeling of obligation towards all Gentiles (i. 14 f.). But while making tbe nature of tbe gospel his foundation for this boldness, be is led to that utterance respecting its substance which has justly been regarded as tbe proper theme of tbe epistle. If it is a power of God unto salvation to every one that believes, to tbe highly cultured Greek as well as the Jew, it has no need to be ashamed before human culture and wisdom, which, however great tbey may be, can never effect that result. Tbe gospel bas this power because it reveals a righteousness of God for believers, to whom tbe old Scriptures bad already promised life and deliverance from destruction (i. 16 i.)? 2. In a graphic way tbe first division sets forth as a foundation the fact that Paul need not be ashamed of tbe gospel, if by revealing a Divine righteousness it is a power of God unto salvation, since apart from it there is only a revelation of Divine wrath. Hence he offers a thing that is absolutely new and indispensable (i. 18). And this is first shown to tbe Gentiles, who, made inexcusable by the Divine revelation of nature, have turned aside from tbe God whom tbey might have known (i. 19 ff.) and by reason of a Divine judgment of wrath have fallen into tbe foolishness of idol atry (i. 22 f.), thence into unnatural lusts (i. 24-27), sinking finally into complete moral apathy (i. 28-32).1 But even 2 Hence our epistle is not occupied with a system of Christian doc trine but exclusively with the exposition of the way of salvation re vealed in the gospel ; and the fundamental idea of the epistle is again condensed into the statement that this way of salvation is already de scribed in the Old Testament and that it was first designed for Israel, but is now disclosed to every believing Gentile. It is not the ix irlareus in opposition to the i£ Ipyuv that is treated of, nor a justification of the "EXXijw in opposition to the 'lovSalu, but the salvation foretold in the Scriptures and therefore first designed for the Jews, which, because dependent solely on faith, is declared to be accessible and indispensable to all, even the most cultivated. 1 It is not therefore the sinfulness of heathenism that is treated of, but its fall under the wrath of God, which makes a means of deliverance indispensable. The aim of the epistle, however regarded, which arose 310 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. those who are so ready to judge others, thus showing them selves to be inexcusable if they do tbe same things, fall under Divine judgment that looks not to prerogative but to deeds, and in tbe day of wrath strikes tbe Jew first and then tbe Greek (ii. 1-10). On tbe other hand the possession of a law forms no protection to tbe Jews, espe cially as tbe heathen have properly speaking one also, by transgressing wbicb tbey dishonour God (ii. 11-24). Nor can circumcision protect tbem, since it is worthless unless followed by circumcision of tbe heart (ii. 25-29). It has indeed a permanent value that cannot be lost, because of tbe faithfulness of God ; but tbe Jew must not therefore hope to escape judgment, if by his unbelief be only contri« butes to tbe glorious confirmation of God's truth (iii. 1-8) ? But if, as a reason for all having fallen under wrath, it has hitherto been taken for granted that Jews and Greeks are alike sinners and devoid of righteousness, this is now expressly proved from Scripture (iii. 9-18), tbe premiss being out of the need of the Roman Church, makes no such proof necessary ; it can only be explained on the supposition that the discussion is funda mentally designed to set forth the need of a new way of salvation as common to all humanity. 8 This very section, couched in a vein of the liveliest polemic, avoids all reference to questions of dispute within Christianity, since the party that demanded law and circumcision, likewise desired the fulfilment of the law, whilst only the unbelieving Jew, as a Jew (possessing the law and circumcision) imagined he was certain of salvation, to whom alone therefore Paul could refer in his polemic. Even the question as to whether he did not thus abolish every privilege of Judaism (iii. 1), that had certainly been put before him frequently in his struggles with Judaism, does not here come up in order to be settled apologetically, but solely in order to show by the first privilege he names, how little such can avail to exempt the Jew from punishment. The very way in which he exemplifies this in his own person", whom none would regard as undeserving of punishment, if by his lie he only promoted the glory of God's truth (iii. 7), evidently refers to the judgment passed on him by unbelieving Judaism ; and only when speaking of the immoral conclu sion to which the contrary would lead, does he mention that this accus ation has on several occasions been made against him by his adversaries solely to deny it with indignation (iii. 8). ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 311 first laid down that tbe Scripture declaration respecting universal human sinfulness applies also to tbe Jews, since tbe true function of tbe law is to lead man from bis own insufficiency to tbe attainment of righteousness (iii. 19 f.). 3. The second division again takes np tbe theme enun ciated in i. 16 f., setting forth in detail bow, without the mediation of a law, a righteousness of God already declared in the Old Testament bad actually been manifested to all believers without distinction, inasmuch as sinners who are entirely destitute of righteousness before God are by Him through grace declared righteous. To wit, God bas in the blood of Christ set forth a means of propitiation that receives its atoning power solely by faith, that He might no longer seem to pass sin over with indifference, but might at the same time find it possible, on tbe ground of faith in Jesus, to declare the sinner righteous (iii. 21-26). This new decree of justification first satisfies fully tbe religious want, inas much as it excludes all boasting, and, as alone consistent with tbe unity of God is alike accessible to circumcised and uncircumcised (iii. 27-30). Nevertheless an old ordi nance of God is not by this means made void, but is rather established (lii. 31), 1 as is already proved by the fact that such method of justification is typically established in tbe history of Abraham. Paul begins by showing bow the im- 1 The premisses from which Paul proves that justification by faith alone satisfies the need of salvation for humanity set forth in the first division, would have been very unfairly obtained if he had considered himself at strife with the Jewish Christians, for they neither regarded it as necessary to exclude all boasting, nor looked on God as the God of Jew and Gentile alike in the sense here assumed. Moreover they aimed at an analogous method of justification for Gentiles as well as for Jews in the way demanded by them. Moreover iii. 31 cannot refer to the reproach that he abolished the law, since from the connection with chap. iv. there can be no question of the law here ; and because the fact of vbpov having no article absolutely excludes a reference to the Torab as the source of the history of Divine revelation. Rather is it the exclusive aim, as already indicated in iii. 21, to prove that the new method of salvation is the same that was attested by the Old Testament. 312 EFISTLE TO THE ROMANS. putation of faith as righteousness, that takes place in tbe justification of Abraham, is a pure act of grace, and there fore precludes all human merit and consequently all boasting (iv. 1-8), and goes on to explain bow, by tbe history of Abraham, its universal character is attested, viz. that it is designed for Gentiles as well as Jews. But since in chap. ii. tbe law and circumcision had already been pointed out as characteristics of the latter, it is now first shown bow tbe very time when Abraham received this justification constitutes an intimation that participation in it is limited to his spiritual children that resemble bim in faith whether circumcised or not (iv. 9-12), and again bow Abraham's richest inheritance, tbe promise of salvation, cannot be mediated by tbe law but only through tbe righteousness of faith, and therefore belongs to the whole seed of Abraham, even to those whose father he is in a spiritual sense (iv. 13-17). For the same im mutable faith in the Divine promise that procured justifica tion for Abraham, according to the typical representation of tbe Scripture, will be imputed to them also for righteous ness (iv. 18-25). Hence the Apostle can only conclude that justification by faith implies tbe full certainty of complete salvation, because tbe love of God experienced in it is a guarantee for tbe highest and last experience of this love in tbe final deliverance from Divine wrath (v. 1-11) ;2 while from tbe historical parallel between Adam and Christ be proves that as certainly as sin and death have come on all 3 The Apostle here comes to the point on which the actual controversy between him and the Judaists turned, for the latter also in a certain sense accepted blessedness through Christ that was necessarily associated with their faith in the Messiah, but made participation in the fulness of salva tion dependent on going over to Judaism by the adoption of circumcision and the law. The fact that the reasoning, which is purely thetical, does not betray the slightest reference to this controversy, proves unanswerably that the Roman Epistle combats no Jewish-Christian opposition, but that the fundamental idea of Paul's Gospel (i. 16 f.) is attested in the second part by the full satisfying of the need of salvation set forth in the first. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 313 humanity with tbe former, so certainly can all find righteous ness and life in tbe latter (v. 12-19). 4. From tbe position that tbe law bas only served to promote the sinful development begun with Adam, in order to give full scope to the efficacy of grace (v. 20 f.), tbe Apostle proceeds in tbe third part to prove that grace alone effects true righteousness ; a power wbicb the law neither bas nor was intended to have. He appeals to tbe experience of every Christian, according to which be is made partaker of tbe life of Christ through baptism wherein he died to sin and rose to a new life in which be serves God alone (vi. 1-11). But be is not therefore transferred to a state of liberty in which, trusting to grace, be may calmly continue in sin (vi. 12-17)), but bas only exchanged false for true freedom, or, wbicb is the same thing, tbe bondage of sin for tbe service of righteousness, wbicb latter proves itself to be true by leading to life, whereas tbe former leads to death (vi. 18-23) -1 Man, however, attains to this realization of right eousness not in spite of the fact that he is no longer under tbe law but because of it. The Apostle points out that the same death by which be died to sin in communion with Christ has likewise loosed the bond of obligation that bound his old natural life to tbe law (vii. 1-6). This was necessary, because the law, far from leading to life, only roused to opposition the sin that slumbered in man, and brought him to death, so that sin, by tbe way in wbicb it 1 That the tendency of the section is not to defend himself against the Judaistic reproach of teaching license to sin in a free state of grace (vi. 15), and even requiring it in order that grace might be the more glorified (vi. 1) appears from the fact that the practical point of his theo retical reasoning lies rather in the admonition to observe fundamental freedom from sin in the life (vi. 12 a.) and in reminding his readers that by surrender to his (free) gospel they decided for the principle of the iiraxoT) (vi. 16 f.), that leads to the service of righteousness and to true subjection to God. This by no means forbids the assumption that the Apostle takes up reproaches that he encountered in the strife with the Judaists, in order that in opposing them he might logically develop the results of his doctrine of grace. 314 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. turned this good of humanity into an evil, was now first revealed in all its sinfulness and corruption (vii. 7-13). This was not owing to tbe spiritual law of God, but to tbe disposition of the natural man who could readily find theo retical pleasure therein, but through tbe power of sin dwell ing in tbe flesh was always entangled again in bondage to sin, as tbe Apostle shows by an affecting description of bis own experiences under, tbe law (vii. 14-25). It is no polemic or apologetic tendency, but the fundamental thought of tbe epistle that made it necessary to prove at such length bow the law was unable to effect deliverance from sin or tbe fulfilment of tbe Divine will, for which, however, it was not to blame, since such was not its appointed task. This fully appears when tbe Apostle goes on to show with fundamental clearness and precision bow the spirit imparted in living communion with Christ, on tbe ground of tbe condemnation of sin in tbe sinless life of Christ, effects in tbe Christian that which tbe law could not do (viii. 1—4). Tet tbe proper argument on which everything turned if bis free gospel were to be vindicated, is not given at all ; on tbe contrary, be goes on at once to show in a purely practical and ad monitory vein, bow this only happens in the case of those who no longer walk after tbe flesh but after tbe spirit (viii. 5-13), and bow the same spirit that moves us, formerly characterized as tbe spirit of life (viii. 2; ix. 6, 10 f., 13), guarantees fulness of salvation even amid all tbe sufferings of tbe present (viii. 14-27). In treating of tbe new spiritual life of tbe Christian he therefore returns at last to tbe full salvation offered in tbe gospel, in accordance with the funda mental tbeme of tbe epistle (i. 16 f.) ; hence this part refers back to the second, ending, though commonly overlooked, with a statement that this salvation is founded on tbe Divine election, and with tbe song of triumph that gives striking expression to the indestructible certainty of such salvation (viii. 28-39)'. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 315 5. In speaking of Divine election, the Apostle touches upon the point that leads bim to tbe fourth division of his doctrinal discussion. For this Divine election according to i, 16 is in tbe first place an election of Israel, and is in apparently irreconcileable opposition to tbe fact that Israel as a nation bad on tbe contrary been hardened, and forfeited salvation. Here was the point in respect of wbicb he himself felt it imperatively necessary to arrive at an under standing as to tbe Old Testament promise and the historical prerogative of salvation belonging to bis own nation ; nor was it a present or apprehended questioning of bis love towards bis people that led bim to give such lively expression to all bis sorrow for what bad occurred, and bis full recognition of tbeir privileges, but his desire that be himself and bis readers should realise the full magnitude of the problem in question (ix. 1-5). He endeavours to show how tbe Old Testament primitive history was designed to make tbe sons of Abraham and Isaac themselves understand tbe Divine promise in tbe sense that God would choose according to His own judgment, without regard to any merit of works, those bodily descendants of tbe patriarchs to whom He would ful fil His promise (ix. 6-13). There is no unrighteousness in this, since God already proclaimed tbe freeness of His mercy as well as of His hardening to Moses and to Pharaoh respec tively (ix. 14-18), and since tbe creature can make no claim whatever on tbe Creator (ix. 19-21). 1 But now, instead of passing immediate sentence on tbe Jews who had already fallen under His wrath, God bas endured with much long- 1 It is a complete error to regard these details as a polemic against the carnal claims of the Jews, in which, according to the current view, Paul is said to have been misled into a one-sided development of his doctrine of election. No Jew has ever found unrighteousness in the election of Isaac before Ishmael, or of Jacob before Esau, or regarded the hardening of Pharaoh as an act of God's power and therefore excusable. But even the Judaists did not maintain that the Jews as such were chosen on account of their descent and legal works, but only that the latter were indispensable to salvation. 316 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. suffering those who were ripe for destruction, in order to glorify Himself meanwhile in tbe vessels of His mercy, whom He calls of tbe Jews and Gentiles, just as was fore seen in tbe prophecy according to which God would make those to be His people who were not His people, and on the other band would save only a remnant of Israel (ix. 22-29). Tbe reason why tbe great bulk of Israel did not attain salvation was because tbey sought it by their own righteous ness (ix. 30-x. 3). But now tbe law bas come to an end with Christ, through whom righteousness and salvation are offered in tbe gospel only to believers (x. 4-14) ; and it is due to their utterly inexcusable disobedience, as also foreseen in Scripture, that tbey have not believed (x. 15-21). 2 Tbe nation is not indeed rejected as such, since God, by tbe election of grace, bas reserved to Himself a remnant who obtained salvation ; but tbe rest were hardened (xi. 1-10). Paul now first sets forth bow, according to tbe counsel of God, this hardening must necessarily serve to turn salvation to the Gentiles, but that tbe final aim of tbe Gentile mission consists in tbe restoration of Israel, which, as tbe grafting of tbe natural branches into tbe noble tree of the theocracy, is always easier than to graft cuttings of tbe wild olive, a thing that bas nevertheless been done successfully (xi. 11-24). Tbe Apostle makes tbe prophetic announcement that this object will be attained at a future time, in full accordance 3 It is a misinterpretation to make chap. x. refer to the Gentile mission, and is quite at variance with the context. For x. 14 ff. only sets forth that there can be no appeal to the name of Jesus, such as alone leads to salvation, without faith in the message of those sent by God, whom, however, the Jews did not receive ; and in x. 18 ff. the inexcusableness of their unbelief is proved by the fact that they had certainly heard the message that had gone forth into all the world, and that they must have sufficiently understood what even the Gentiles had understood. And sinoe there is not a word in ix. 24 f. to indicate that the call of the Gen tiles there spoken of was mediated by a Gentile mission, much less by that of Paul, the conception of a justification of this mission loses all support. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE. 317 with prophecy, though not until after the conversion of tbe Gentile world ; and when be then breaks out into praise of tbe Divine wisdom, that bas by inscrutable means succeeded in reaching tbe goal of Israel's election in such a way as to make salvation available for all even tbe Gentiles (xi. 25-36), it is clear that tbe aim of this section is not the justification of bis Gentile mission, but tbe solution of tbe darkest problem of the history of Divine salvation, with which he himself was so deeply occupied. 6. The admonitory part of tbe epistle begins with a profound exhortation to present themselves a sacrifice well- pleasing to God (xii. 1 f.), and then goes on to explain bow Christian modesty should prove itself by the application of tbe diverse gifts of each to the service of all (xii. 3-8), following this np by pointing out, though in a free and even heterogeneous mixture of thought, tbe various evidences of brotherly love (xii. 9-16), coming finally to the proper treatment of enemies (xii. 17-21). If this first section deals mainly with the life of tbe community, chap. xiii. takes up tbe shaping of individual life. Tbe relation of tbe indivi dual to tbe ruling powers is here ¦ discussed (xiii. 1-6), tbe examination being extended to all other forms of duty (xiii. 7-10), while, in conclusion, purification and preservation of personal life are required (xiii. 11-14). Since we have shown the current view, that the exhortation to be sub ject to rulers refers to the special needs of the (alleged Jewish-Christian) Roman Church, to be untenable (§ 22, 3), this section, treating of the regulation of the virtuous Christian life from an entirely theoretical point of view and without any reference to special exigencies of the Church, holds a unique place in Paul's epistles, like the discussions of the doc trinal division that advance almost systematically. The fact is the more significant that it presents throughout the most striking points of con tact with the first Epistle of Peter ; and to such extent that the Pauhne exhortations appear throughout as full and free developments of the short and knotty gnomes of Peter bringing his own peculiarities into promi nence.1 If we add that the peculiar linking and adjustment of two 1 The very exhortation to self-sacrifice in xii. 1 f. that appears in the 318 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Scripture citations in Rom. ix. 33 are not only similar in 1 Pet. ii. 6 f ., but in the latter alone are required by the connection, the conjecture that Paul was acquainted with the first Epistle of Peter, and that his pithy sayings are frequently in his mind in this section, is almost inevitable. To suppose that this view touches the originality of the Pauline spirit and Pauline authorship too closely is pure prejudice. Comp. Weiss, der petrinische Lehrbegriff, Berlin, 1855 (V., 4), and Stud. u. Krit., 1865, 4 (against Moller, deutsclie, Zeitschr. fiir christi. Wissenschaft, etc., 1856, 39, 46 f.). It is quite otherwise with tbe section xiv. 1-xv. 13, treat ing of tbe case in which regard for tbe life of tbe community conies into collision with individual claims. We here find ourselves at once transported into tbe concrete circumstances of the Roman Church. There were in it persons weak in faith who scrupulously avoided the use of flesh and wine and strictly observed certain fast days ; there were also strong persons who looked down with contempt on such scruples, while tbe weak were only too ready to throw doubt on tbe true conscientiousness of tbe strong in tbeir Christian walk. Paul declares tbe whole subjective dispute to be a matter of indif ference ; it is only necessary that each one should in bis own way, with conscientious conviction, serve tbe Lord to whom alone be is responsible, and that none should judge or despise another (xiv. 5-12). He then proceeds to argue, exactly as in tbe first Epistle to the Corinthians, that if tbe strong same form nowhere else in Paul, recalls 1 Pet. ii. 5, a passage closely interwoven with the details of that epistle (comp. the peculiar expressions XoyiKbs and ava-xnpaTt^eaBai). The section xii. 3-8 looks like a develop ment of 1 Pet. iv. 10 (comp. the peculiar position of Siaxovla beside irpo