§ 102. Concluding Reflections. Faith and Criticism.

§ 102. Concluding Reflections. Faith and Criticism.

§ 102. Concluding Reflections. Faith and Criticism.

There is no necessary conflict between faith and criticism any more than between revelation and reason or between faith and philosophy. God is the author of both, and he cannot contradict himself. There is an uncritical faith and a faithless criticism as there is a genuine philosophy and a philosophy falsely so called; but this is no argument either against faith or criticism; for the best gifts are liable to abuse and perversion; and the noblest works of art may be caricatured. The apostle of faith directs us to "prove all things," and to "hold fast that which is good."  We believe in order to understand, and true faith is the mother of knowledge. A rational faith in Christianity, as the best and final religion which God gave to mankind, owes it to itself to examine the foundation on which it rests; and it is urged by an irresistible impulse to vindicate the truth against every form of error. Christianity needs no apology. Conscious of its supernatural strength, it can boldly meet every foe and convert him into an ally.

Looking back upon the history of the apostolic age, it appears to us as a vast battle-field of opposite tendencies and schools. Every inch of ground is disputed and has to be reconquered; every fact, as well as every doctrine of revelation, is called in question; every hypothesis is tried; all the resources of learning, acumen, and ingenuity are arrayed against the citadel of the Christian faith. The citadel is impregnable, and victory is certain, but not to those who ignorantly or superciliously underrate the strength of the besieging army. In the sixteenth century the contest was between Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism; in the nineteenth century the question is Christianity or infidelity. Then both parties believed in the inspiration of the New Testament and the extent of the canon, differing only in the interpretation; now inspiration is denied, and the apostolicity of all but four or five books is assailed. Then the Word of God, with or without tradition, was the final arbiter of religious controversies; now human reason is the ultimate tribunal.

We live in an age of discovery, invention, research, and doubt. Scepticism is well nigh omnipresent in the thinking world. It impregnates the atmosphere. We can no more ignore it than the ancient Fathers could ignore the Gnostic speculations of their day. Nothing is taken for granted; nothing believed on mere authority; everything must be supported by adequate proof, everything explained in its natural growth from the seed to the fruit. Roman Catholics believe in an infallible oracle in the Vatican; but whatever the oracle may decree, the earth moves and will continue to move around the sun. Protestants, having safely crossed the Red Sea, cannot go back to the flesh-pots of the land of bondage, but must look forward to the land of promise. In the night, says a proverb, all cattle are black, but the daylight reveals the different colors.

Why did Christ not write the New Testament, as Mohammed wrote the Koran?  Writing was not beneath his dignity; he did write once in the sand, though we know not what. God himself wrote the Ten Commandments on two tables of stone. But Moses broke them to pieces when he saw that the people of Israel worshipped the golden calf before the thunders from Sinai had ceased to reverberate in their ears. They might have turned those tables into idols. God buried the great law-giver out of sight and out of the reach of idolatry. The gospel was still less intended to be a dumb idol than the law. It is not a killing letter but a life-giving spirit. It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words of Christ "are spirit and are life."  A book written by his own unerring hand, unless protected by a perpetual miracle, would have been subject to the same changes and corruptions in the hands of fallible transcribers and printers as the books of his disciples, and the original autograph would have perished with the brittle papyrus. Nor would it have escaped the unmerciful assaults of sceptical and infidel critics, and misinterpretations of commentators and preachers. He himself was crucified by the hierarchy of his own people, whom he came to save. What better fate could have awaited his book?  Of course, it would have risen from the dead, in spite of the doubts and conjectures and falsehoods of unbelieving men; but the same is true of the writings of the apostles, though thousands of copies have been burned by heathens and false Christians. Thomas might put his hand into the wound-prints of his risen Lord; but "Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed."

We must believe in the Holy Spirit who lives and moves in the Church and is the invisible power behind the written and printed word.

The form in which the authentic records of Christianity have come down to us, with their variations and difficulties, is a constant stimulus to study and research and calls into exercise all the intellectual and moral faculties of men. Every one must strive after the best understanding of the truth with a faithful use of his opportunities and privileges, which are multiplying with every generation.

The New Testament is a revelation of spiritual and eternal truth to faith, and faith is the work of the Holy Spirit, though rooted in the deepest wants and aspirations of man. It has to fight its way through an unbelieving world, and the conflict waxes hotter and hotter as the victory comes nearer. For the last half century the apostolic writings have been passing through the purgatory of the most scorching criticism to which a book can be subjected. The opposition is itself a powerful testimony to their vitality and importance.

There are two kinds of scepticism: one represented by Thomas, honest, earnest, seeking and at last finding the truth; the other represented by Sadducees and Pontius Pilate, superficial, worldly, frivolous, indifferent to truth and ending in despair. With the latter "even the gods reason in vain."  When it takes the trouble to assail the Bible, it deals in sneers and ridicule which admit of no serious answer. The roots of infidelity he in the heart and will rather than in the reason and intellect, and wilful opposition to the truth is deaf to any argument. But honest, truth-loving scepticism always deserves regard and sympathy and demands a patient investigation of the real or imaginary difficulties which are involved in the problem of the origin of Christianity. It may be more useful to the church than an unthinking and unreasoning orthodoxy. One of the ablest and purest sceptical critics of the century (DeWette) made the sad, but honorable confession:

"I lived in times of doubt and strife,

When childlike faith was forced to yield;

I struggled to the end of life,

Alas! I did not gain the field."

But he did gain the field, after all, at last; for a few months before his death he wrote and published this significant sentence: "I know that in no other name can salvation be found, than in the name of Jesus Christ the Crucified, and there is nothing higher for mankind than the divine humanity (Gottmenschheit) realized in him, and the kingdom of God planted by him."  Blessed are those that seek the truth, for they shall find it.

The critical and historical rationalism which was born and matured in this century in the land of Luther, and has spread in Switzerland, France, Holland, England, Scotland, and America, surpasses in depth and breadth of learning, as well as in earnestness of spirit, all older forms of infidelity and heresy. It is not superficial and frivolous, as the rationalism of the eighteenth century; it is not indifferent to truth, but intensely interested in ascertaining the real facts, and tracing the origin and development of Christianity, as a great historical phenomenon. But it arrogantly claims to be the criticism par excellence, as the Gnosticism of the ancient church pretended to have the monopoly of knowledge. There is a historical, conservative, and constructive criticism, as well as an unhistorical, radical, and destructive criticism; and the former must win the fight as sure as God’s truth will outlast all error. So there is a believing and Christian Gnosticism as well as an unbelieving and anti- (or pseudo-) Christian Gnosticism.

The negative criticism of the present generation has concentrated its forces upon the life of Christ and the apostolic age, and spent an astonishing amount of patient research upon the minutest details of its history. And its labors have not been in vain; on the contrary, it has done a vast amount of good, as well as evil. Its strength lies in the investigation of the human and literary aspect of the Bible; its weakness in the ignoring of its divine and spiritual character. It forms thus the very antipode of the older orthodoxy, which so overstrained the theory of inspiration as to reduce the human agency to the mechanism of the pen. We must look at both aspects. The Bible is the Word of God and the word of holy men of old. It is a revelation of man, as well as of God. It reveals man in all his phases of development—innocence, fall, redemption—in all the varieties of character, from heavenly purity to satanic wickedness, with all his virtues and vices, in all his states of experience, and is an ever-flowing spring of inspiration to the poet, the artist, the historian, and divine. It reflects and perpetuates the mystery of the incarnation. It is the word of him who proclaimed himself the Son of Man, as well as the Son of God. "Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."  Here all is divine and all is human.

No doubt the New Testament is the result of a gradual growth and conflict of different forces, which were included in the original idea of Christianity and were drawn out as it passed from Christ to his disciples, from the Jews to the Gentiles, from Jerusalem to Antioch and Rome, and as it matured in the mind of the leading apostles. No doubt the Gospels and Epistles were written by certain men, at a certain time, in a certain place, under certain surroundings, and for definite ends; and all these questions are legitimate objects of inquiry and eminently deserving of ever-renewed investigation. Many obscure points have been cleared up, thanks, in part, to these very critics, who intended to destroy, and helped to build up.

The literary history of the apostolic age, like its missionary progress, was guided by a special providence. Christ only finished a part of his work while on earth. He pointed his disciples to greater works, which they would accomplish in his name and by his power, after his resurrection. He promised them his unbroken presence, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, who, as the other Advocate, should lead them into the whole truth and open to them the understanding of all his words. The Acts of the Apostles are a history of the Holy Spirit, or of the post-resurrection work of Christ in establishing his kingdom on earth. Filled with that Spirit, the apostles and evangelists went forth into a hostile world and converted it to Christ by their living word, and they continue their conquering march by their written word.

Unbelieving criticism sees only the outside surface of the greatest movement in history, and is blind to the spiritual forces working from within or refuses to acknowledge them as truly divine. In like manner, the materialistic and atheistic scientists of the age conceive of nature’s laws without a lawgiver; of a creature without a creator; and stop with the effect, without rising to the cause, which alone affords a rational explanation of the effect.

And here we touch upon the deepest spring of all forms of rationalism, and upon the gulf which inseparably divides it from supernaturalism. It is the opposition to the supernatural and the miraculous. It denies God in nature and God in history, and, in its ultimate consequences, it denies the very existence of God. Deism and atheism have no place for a miracle; but belief in the existence of an Almighty Maker of all things visible and invisible, as the ultimate and all-sufficient cause of all phenomena in nature and in history, implies the possibility of miracle at any time; not, indeed, as a violation of his own laws, but as a manifestation of his law-giving and creative power over and above (not against) the regular order of events. The reality of the miracle, in any particular case, then, becomes a matter of historical investigation. It cannot be disposed of by a simple denial from à priori philosophical prejudice; but must be fairly examined, and, if sufficiently corroborated by external and internal evidence, it must be admitted.

Now, the miracles of Christ cannot be separated from his person and his teachings. His words are as marvellous as his deeds; both form a harmonious whole, and they stand or fall together. His person is the great miracle, and his miracles are simply his natural works. He is as much elevated above other men as his words and deeds are above ordinary words and deeds. He is separated from all mortals by his absolute freedom from sin. He, himself, claims superhuman origin and supernatural powers; and to deny them is to make him a liar and impostor. It is impossible to maintain his human perfection, which all respectable rationalists admit and even emphasize, and yet to refuse his testimony concerning himself. The Christ of Strauss and of Renan is the most contradictory of all characters; the most incredible of all enigmas. There is no possible scientific mediation between a purely humanitarian conception of Christ, no matter how high he may be raised in the scale of beings, and the faith in Christ as the Son of God, whom Christendom has adored from the beginning and still adores as the Lord and Saviour of the world.

Nor can we eliminate the supernatural element from the Apostolic Church without destroying its very life and resolving it into a gigantic illusion. What becomes of Paul if we deny his conversion, and how shall we account for his conversion without the Resurrection and Ascension?  The greatest of modern sceptics paused at the problem, and felt almost forced to admit an actual miracle, as the only rational solution of that conversion. The Holy Spirit was the inspiring and propelling power of the apostolic age, and made the fishers of Galilee fishers of men.

A Christian, who has experienced the power of the gospel in his heart, can have no difficulty with the supernatural. He is as sure of the regenerating and converting agency of the Spirit of God and the saving efficacy of Christ as he is of his own natural existence. He has tasted the medicine and has been healed. He may say with the man who was born blind and made to see: "One thing I do know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."  This is a short creed; but stronger than any argument. The fortress of personal experience is impregnable; the logic of stubborn facts is more cogent than the logic of reason. Every genuine conversion from sin to holiness is a psychological miracle, as much so as the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.

The secret or open hostility to the supernatural is the moving spring of infidel criticism. We may freely admit that certain difficulties about the time and place of composition and other minor details of the Gospels and Epistles are not, and perhaps never can be, satisfactorily solved; but it is, nevertheless, true that they are far better authenticated by internal and external evidence than any books of the great Greek and Roman classics, or of Philo and Josephus, which are accepted by scholars without a doubt. As early as the middle of the second century, that is, fifty years after the death of the Apostle John, when yet many of his personal pupils and friends must have been living, the four Canonical Gospels, no more and no less, were recognized and read in public worship as sacred books, in the churches of Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Italy, and Gaul; and such universal acceptance and authority in the face of Jewish and heathen hostility and heretical perversion can only be explained on the ground that they were known and used long before. Some of them, Matthew and John, were quoted and used in the first quarter of the second century by Orthodox and Gnostic writers. Every new discovery, as the last book of the pseudo-"Clementine Homilies," the "Philosophumena" of Hippolytus, the "Diatessaron" of Tatian, and every deeper investigation of the "Gospel Memoirs" of Justin Martyr, and the "Gospel" of Marcion in its relation to Luke, have strengthened the cause of historical and conservative criticism and inflicted bleeding wounds on destructive criticism. If quotations from the end of the first and the beginning of the second century are very rare, we must remember that we have only a handful of literary documents from that period, and that the second generation of Christians was not a race of scholars and scribes and critics, but of humble, illiterate confessors and martyrs, who still breathed the bracing air of the living teaching, and personal reminiscences of the apostles and evangelists.

But the Synoptical Gospels bear the strongest internal marks of having been composed before the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70), which is therein prophesied by Christ as a future event and as the sign of the fast approaching judgment of the world, in a manner that is consistent only with such early composition. The Epistle to the Hebrews, likewise, was written when the Temple was still standing, and sacrifices were offered from day to day. Yet, as this early date is not conceded by all, we will leave the Epistle out of view. The Apocalypse of John is very confidently assigned to the year 68 or 69 by Baur, Renan, and others, who would put the Gospels down to a much later date. They also concede the Pauline authorship of the great anti-Judaic Epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, and make them the very basis of their assaults upon the minor Pauline Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles, on the ground of exaggerated or purely imaginary differences. Those Epistles of Paul were written twelve or fourteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. This brings us within less than thirty years of the resurrection of Christ and the birthday of the church.

Now, if we confine ourselves to these five books, which the most exacting and rigorous criticism admits to be apostolic—the four Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse—they alone are sufficient to establish the foundation of historical faith; for they confirm by direct statement or allusion every important fact and doctrine in the gospel history, without referring to the written Gospels. The memory and personal experience of the writers—Paul and John—goes back to the vision of Damascus, to the scenes of the Resurrection and Crucifixion, and the first call of the disciples on the banks of the Jordan and the shores of the Lake of Galilee. Criticism must first reason Paul and John out of history, or deny that they ever wrote a line, before it can expect sensible men to surrender a single chapter of the Gospels.

Strong as the external evidence is, the internal evidence of the truth and credibility of the apostolic writings is still stronger, and may be felt to this day by the unlearned as well as the scholar. They widely differ in style and spirit from all post-apostolic productions, and occupy a conspicuous isolation even among the best of books. This position they have occupied for eighteen centuries among the most civilized nations of the globe; and from this position they are not likely to be deposed.

We must interpret persons and events not only by themselves, but also in the light of subsequent history. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Christianity can stand this test better than any other religion, and better than any system of philosophy.

Taking our position at the close of the apostolic age, and looking back to its fountain-head and forward to succeeding generations, we cannot but be amazed at the magnitude of the effects produced by the brief public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, which sends its blessings through centuries as an unbroken and ever-expanding river of life. There is absolutely nothing like it in the annals of the race. The Roman empire embraced, at the birth of Christ, over one hundred millions of men, conquered by force, and, after having persecuted his religion for three hundred years, it died away without the possibility of a resurrection. The Christian church now numbers four hundred millions, conquered by the love of Christ, and is constantly increasing. The first century is the life and light of history and the turning point of the ages. If ever God revealed himself to man, if ever heaven appeared on earth, it was in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. He is, beyond any shadow of doubt, and by the reluctant consent of sceptics and infidels, the wisest of the wise, the purest of the pure, and the mightiest of the mighty. His Cross has become the tree of life to all nations; his teaching is still the highest standard of religious truth; his example the unsurpassed ideal of holiness; the Gospels and Epistles of his Galilean disciples are still the book of books, more powerful than all the classics of human wisdom and genius. No book has attracted so much attention, provoked so much opposition, outlived so many persecutions, called forth so much reverence and gratitude, inspired so many noble thoughts and deeds, administered so much comfort and peace from the cradle to the grave to all classes and conditions of men. It is more than a book; it is an institution, an all-pervading omnipresent force, a converting, sanctifying, transforming agency; it rules from the pulpit and the chair; it presides at the family altar; it is the sacred ark of every household, the written conscience of every Christian man, the pillar of cloud by day, the pillar of light by night in the pilgrimage of life. Mankind is bad enough, and human life dark enough with it; but how much worse and how much darker would they be without it?  Christianity might live without the letter of the New Testament, but not without the facts and truths which it records and teaches. Were it possible to banish them from the world, the sun of our civilization would be extinguished, and mankind left to midnight darkness, with the dreary prospect of a dreamless and endless Nirvana.

But no power on earth or in hell can extinguish that sun. There it shines on the horizon, the king of day, obscured at times by clouds great or small, but breaking through again and again, and shedding light and life from east to west, until the darkest corners of the globe shall be illuminated. The past is secure; God will take care of the future.

Magna est veritas et praevalebit.

 2 Tim. 3:16. It applies to "every Scripture inspired of God," more immediately to the Old Test., but a fortiori still more to the New.

 Comp. 2 Pet. 3:16, where a collection of Paul’s Epistles is implied.

 This order is restored in the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.

 The Codex Sinaiticus puts the Pauline Epistles before the Acts, and the Hebrews between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy.

 This order agrees with the Muratorian Fragment, the catalogue of Eusebius (H. E., III. 25), that of the Synod of Carthage (a.d 897), and the Codex Basiliensis. Luther took the liberty of disconnecting the Hebrews (which he ascribed to Apollos) from the Pauline Epistles, and putting it and the Epistle of James (which be disliked) at the end of the Catholic Epistles (except Jude)

 The Greek word eujaggevlion which passed into the Latin evangelium, and through this into modern languages (French, German, Italian, etc.), means 1^st, reward for good news to the messenger (in Homer); 2^d, good news, glad tidings; 3^d, glad tidings of Christ and his salvation (so in the New Test.); 4^th, the record of these glad tidings (so in the headings of the Gospels and in ecclesiastical usage). The Saxon "gospel," i.e., God’s spell or good spell (from spellian, to tell), is the nearest idiomatic equivalent for eujaggevlion.

 Irenaeus very properly calls them tetravmorfon to; eujaggevlion, eJni pneuvmati sunecovmenon, quadriforme evangelium quod uno spiritu continetur. Adv. Haer. III. 11, § 8.

 This is expressly disclaimed in John 20:30; comp. 21:25

 Hence Justin Martyr, in his two "Apologies" (written about 146), calls the Gospels "Memoirs" or "Memorabilia" (jApomnhmoneuvmata) of Christ or of the Apostles, in imitation no doubt of the Memorabilia of Socrates by Xenophon. That Justin means no other books but our canonical Gospels by theme "Memoirs," which he says were read in public worship on Sunday, there can be no reasonable doubt. See especially Dr. Abbot’s Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880.

 John 20:30, 31:tau'ta de; gevgraptai i{na pisteuvhte o]ti jIhsou'" ejsti;n Cristov" , oJ uiJo;" tou' qeou', kai; i{na pisteuvonte" zeh;n e[chte ejn tw/' ojnovmati auvtou'.

 This characterization is very old, and goes back to Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen 33, where he enumerates the books of the New Test., and says;

Matqei'o" me;n e[grayen  JEbraivoi" qauvmata Cristou',

Mavrko" dj jItalivh/, Louka's jAcaiivdi

Pa'si d j jIwavnnh" khvrux mevga" , oujranofoivth".

 See on this subject Fisher’s Beginnings of Christianity, ch. XI.: "Water marks of Age in the New Test, Histories," pp. 363 sqq., especially p. 371.

 Synopsis (conspectus), from suvn, together, and o[yi",view, is applied since Griesbach (though used before him) to a parallel arrangement of the Gospels so as to exhibit a general view of the whole and to facilitate a comparison. In some sections the fourth Gospel furnishes parallels, especially in the history of the passion and resurrection. The first three Evangelists should not be called Synoptics (as is done by the author of Supernatural Religion, vol. I., 213, and Dr. Davidson), but Synoptists. The former is a Germanism (Synoptiker.)

 Holtzmann (p. 12) and others include also among the verbal coincidences the irregular ajfevwntai (the Doric form of pass. perf., 3 pers., plur.), Matt. 9:2, 5; Mark 2:5, 9; Luke 5:20, 23, and the double augment in ajpekatestavqjh, Matt. 12:13; Mark 3:5; Luke 6:10. But the former is ruled out by the better reading ajfiventai, which is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, in Matt. 9:2, 5, and in Mark 2:5. Moreover, the Doric form is not confined to the New Test., but somewhat widely diffused; see Moulton’s Winer, p. 97, note. And as to the double augment, it occurs also in the Sept. (see Trommius’ Concord., I., 163, sub ajpokaqivsthmi); comp. also ajpekatevsth in Mark 8:25. Ebrard (Wiss. Krit., p. 1054) quotes a passage from Pseudo-Lucian (Philiopatr., c. 27) where ajpekatevsthse occurs.

 Mr. Norton brings out this fact very fully in his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels (Boston, ed. of 1875, p. 464 sq.). I give his results: "In Matthew’s Gospel, the passages verbally coincident with one or both of the other two Gospels amount to less than a sixth part of its contents; and of this about seven-eighths occur in the recital of the words of others, and only about one eighth in what, by way of distinction, I may call mere narrative, in which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, was unrestrained in the choice of his expressions. In Mark, the proportion of coincident passages to the whole contents of the Gospel is about one-sixth, of which not one-fifth occurs in the narrative. Luke has still less agreement of expression with the other evangelists. The passages in which it is found amount only to about a tenth part of his Gospel; and but an inconsiderable portion of it appears in the narrative, in which there are few instances of its existence for more than half a dozen words together. In the narrative, it may be computed as less than a twentieth part. These definite proportions are important, as showing distinctly in how small a part of each Gospel there is any verbal coincidence with either of the other two; and to how great a degree such coincidence is confined to passages in which the evangelists professedly give the words of others, particularly of Jesus.-The proportions should, however, be further compared with those which the narrative part of each Gospel bears to that in which the words of others are professedly repeated. Matthew’s narrative occupies about one-fourth of his Gospel, Mark’s about one-half, and Luke’s about one-third. It may easily be computed, therefore, that the proportion of verbal coincidence found in the narrative part of each Gospel, compared with what exists in the other part, is about in the following ratios: in Matthew as one to somewhat more than two, in Mark as one to four, and in Luke as one to ten .... We cannot explain this phenomenon by the supposition that the Gospels were transcribed either one from another, or all from common documents; for, if such transcription had been the cause, it would not have produced results so unequal in the different portions into which the Gospels naturally divide themselves."

 Geschichte der heil. Schriften N. Test., I., p. 175 (5th ed., 1874). See also his Histoire Evangelique, Paris, 1876 (Nouveau Testament, I. partie).

 See Westcott, Introd. to the Gospels, p. 191, fifth ed.

 Gesch., etc., I., p. 175, followed by Archbishop Thomson in Speaker’s Com. New Test., vol. I., p. viii.

 See the Literature above. Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, of London, suggested the work, and quotes a specimen (though all in black type) in his art. "Gospels" in the "Encycl. Brit." He draws from it a conclusion favorable to the priority of Mark, from whom, he thinks, Matthew and Luke have borrowed. The specimen is the parable of the wicked husbandmen, Matt. 21:33-44; Luke 20:9-18; Mark 12:1-11.

 The following lines, representing the relative lengths of the three Gospels, show the extent of their verbal coincidence and divergence. The dots divide the lines in half, and the marks into thirds:

Luke,                             ————                   ––——————————

Mark,                                   ———|—•—|———

Matthew, —————•——————

 German scholars have convenient terms for these various hypotheses, as Benützungshypothese ("borrowing" hypothesis), Urevangeliumshypothese, Traditionshypothese, Tendenzhypothese, Combinationshypothese, Diegesentheorie, Markushypothese, Urmarkushypothese, etc. See the Notes (II)at the end of this section.

 Used by recent English writers as a rendering for Benützungshypothese.

 Clement of Alexandria makes no exception, for be merely states (in Euseb. H. E., VI. 14) that those Gospels which contain the genealogies (Matthew and Luke) were written first, Mark next, and John last.

 So Weisse, Ewald, Reuss, Ritschl, Thiersch, Plitt, Meyer, Holtzmann, Weizsäcker, Mangold, Godet, Weis. See Meyer on Matthew, p. 34 (6th ed.), and on Luke, p. 238 (6th ed. by Weiss, 1878). Only the Tübingen "tendency critics" maintain the contrary, and this is almost necessary in order to maintain the late date which they assign to Luke. Had he written in the second or even at the end of the first century, he could not possibly have been ignorant of Matthew. But him very independence proves his early date.

 For the use of Mark by Luke are Reuss, Weiss, and most of the advocates of the Urmarkushypothese. Against such use are Weizsäcker, Godet, and all those who (with Griesbach) make Mark an epitomizer of Matthew and Luke. Farrar also, in his Com. on Luke, p. 9, very decidedly maintains the independence of Luke both on Matthew and Mark: "It may be regarded as certain," he says, "that among these ’attempts’ Luke did not class the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. The inference that he was either unaware of the existence of those Gospels, or made no direct use of them, suggests itself with the utmost force when we place side by side any of the events which they narrate in common, and mark the minute and inexplicable differences which incessantly occur even amid general similarity."

 Compare the healing of the paralytic, Mark 2:3-12, with Matt. 9:2-8 the murder of John the Baptist, Mark 6:14-29, with Matt. 14:1-13; Luke 9:7-9; the healing of the demoniac boy, Mark 9:14-29, with Matt. 17:14-21 and Luke 9:37-43; also the accounts of Peter’s denial.

 I mean especially the works of Wilke (Der Urevangelist, 1838), Holtzmann (Die Synopt. Evang., 1863), and Weiss (Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen Parallelen, 1872; comp. his Matthäusevangelium, etc., 1876). Weiss deserves all the more a hearing as he strenuously advocates the genuineness of John. See notes at the end of this section. Dr. Fisher thinks that "the independence of Mark as related to the other Gospels is one of the most assured and most valuable results of recent criticism." The Beginnings of Christianity, p. 275. Dr. Davidson in the "revised and improved edition" of his Introduction, Vol. I., 551-563, still adheres to the old Tübingen position of the dependence of Mark upon both Matthew and Luke, and ignores the works of Wilke, Holtzmann, Weiss, Renan, and the article of his own countryman, Abbott, in the "Encycl. Brit."

 Holtzmann, Mangold, E. A. Abbott, and others go back to a fictitious Urmarkus; while Ewald, Meyer, and Weiss make our canonical Mark the basis of Matthew and Luke, yet with the important addition that Mark himself used, besides the oral tradition of Peter, the lost Hebrew Matthew, or rather a Greek translation of it, which was more than a mere collection of discourses (suvntaxi" tw'n logivwn) and embraced also brief narratives. But if Mark had the rich collection of our Lord’s discourses before him, his meagreness in that department is all the more difficult to account for.

 Luke 1:2: kaqw;" parevdosan (handed down by the living word) hJmi'n oiJ ajp j ajrch'" (i.e., from the beginning of the public ministry of Christ; comp. Acts 1:21 sq.; John 15:27) aujtovptai kai; uJphrevtai genovmenoi tou' lovgou (the same persons).

 Hearers and hearing of the gospel are spoken of in many passages, as Matt. 13:14; Luke 7:1; John 12:38; Acts 17:20; Rom. 2:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; James 1:22, 23, 25. The reading (ajnaginwvskein) is mostly used of the Old Testament: Matt. 12:3, 5; 21:16, 42; 24:15; Mark 25; 12:10, 26; 13:14; Luke 4:16; 6: 3; 10:26; Acts 8:28, 30, 32; 13:27; 15:21, etc.; of the Epistles of Paul: Eph. 3:4; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 6:27; of the book of Revelation: Rev. 1:3; 5:4.

 The rabbinical rule (in Shabb. f. 15, 1) was: "Verba praeceptoris sine ulla immutatione, ut prolata ab illo fuerunt. erant recitanda, ne diversa illi affingeretur sententia."

 Renan, Les Evangiles, p. 96: "La tradition vivante (zw'sa fwnh; kai; mevnousa, Papias) était le grand réservoir où tous puisaient .... Le même phénomène se retrouve, du reste, dans presque toutes les littératures sacrées. Les Védas ont traversé des siècles sans être éerits; un homme qui se respectait devait les savoir par coeur. Celui qui avait besoin d’un manuscrit pour rêciter ces hymnes antiques faisait un aveu d’ignorance; aussi les copies n’en ont-elles jamais été estimées. Citer de mémoire la Bible, le Coran, est encore de nos jours un point d’honneur pour les 0rientaux." Renan thinks that most of the Old Testament quotations in the New Test. are from memory. My own observations, and those of friends residing in the East, confirm the uniformity of oral tradition and the remarkable strength of memory among the Arabs.

 In such conjectures Eichhorn, Marsh, Schleiermacher, Ewald, Volkmar, Wittichen, and Renan have shown great ingenuity, and accumulated a vast amount of docta ignorantia.

 Luke 1:1: polloi; ejpeceivrhsan (indicating the difficulty of the undertaking and probably also the insufficiency of the execution) ajnatavxasqai dihvghsin peri; tw'n peplhroforhmevnwn ejn hJmi'n pragmavtwn.

 In this conclusion (which I stated thirty years ago in the first edition of myHist. of the Ap. Ch.)some of the ablest investigators of the Synoptic problem independently agree, as Lange, Ebrard (Wissenschaftliche Kritik der ev. Gesch., third ed., pp. 1044 sqq.), Norton, Alford, Godet, Westcott, Farrar. "The Synoptic Gospels," says Alford (in his Proleg. to vol. I., p. 11, 6th ed.), contain the substance of the Apostles’ testimony, collected principally from their oral teaching current in the church, partly also from written documents embodying portions of that teaching: there is, however, no reason, from their internal structure, to believe, but every reason to disbelieve that any one of the three evangelists had access to either of the other two gospels in its present form." Godet concludes his discussion (Com. on Luke, 2d ed., p. 556, Am. ed.) with these words: " It is impossible to conceive anything more capricious and less reverential than the part which we make the author of any one whatever of our Synoptic Gospels play with the history and sayings of Jesus, supposing that he had before him the other two, or one of them. Such an explanation will only be allowable when we are brought absolutely to despair of finding any other. And even then it were better still to say, Non liquet. For this explanation involves a moral contradiction. Most of our present critics are so well aware of this that they have recourse to middle terms."

 Irenaeus, III. 1, 1; Origen in Euseb., H. E., VI. 25; Tertullian, and others. Irenaeus gives this order with the approximate data: "Matthew issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia." Clement of Alexandria differs by putting Mark after Matthew and Luke, and yet before the death of Peter; for he says (in Eus., H. E., VI. 14), that when Peter proclaimed the gospel at Rome, Mark was requested by the hearers to reduce it to writing, which he did, Peter neither hindering nor encouraging it. According to this view all the Synoptists would have written before 64.

 Maqqai'o", Matt. 9:9 (according to the spelling of  a B* D, adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), or Matqai'o"(as spelled in the text. rec.), like Matthias and Mattathias, means Gift of Jehovah ( hY;Tim', hy;nÒT'm' , yaTi:m', yT'm' ), and corresponds to the Greek Theodore. He perhaps took this name after his call; his former name being Levi, Leuiv", Leueiv" ( wyIlIi , a joining), according to Mark 2:12; Luke 5:27, 29. The new name overshadowed the old, as the names of Peter and Paul replaced Simon and Saul. The identity is evident from the fact that the call of Matthew or Levi is related by the three Synoptists in the same terms and followed by the same discourse. Nicholson (Com. on Matt. 9:9) disputes the identity, as Grotius and Sieffert did before, but on insufficient grounds. Before Mark 3:16 Peter is called by his former name Simon (Mark 1:16, 29, 30, 36), and thereby shows his historical tact.

 Hence called Maqqai'o" oJ telwvnh" ,Matt. 10:3. He inserts his previous employment to intimate the power of divine grace in his conversion.

 Matt. 10:3, compared with Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15. But in the list in Acts 1:13 he is associated with Bartholomew, and Thomas with Philip.

 Clement of Alexandria represents him as a strict Jewish Christian who abstained from the use of flesh. This would make him one of the weak brethren whom Paul (Rom. 14:1sqq.) charitably judges. But there is nothing in the first Gospel to justify this tradition.

 The priority and relative superiority of Matthew are maintained not only by Augustin and the catholic tradition, but also by moderately liberal critics from Griesbach to Bleek, and even by the radical critics of the Tübingen school (Baur, Strauss, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Davidson), and especially by Keim..

 So Luke 5:29. Mark 2:15 ("many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples") and Matt. 9:10 ("many publicans and sinners") agree; but Matthew modestly omits his own name in connection with that feast. Some commentators understand "the house" to be the house of Jesus, but Jesus had no house and gave no dinner parties. Luke says expressly that it was the house of Levi.

 Carr, Com., p. 6.

 Luke 5:28; Mark 2:14; Matt. 9:9.

 Matt. 5:35 (" Jerusalem is the city of the great king"); 23:1 (sit on Moses’ seat") 23:16 (" swear by the temple"); 16:28; 24:15 (" in the holy place;" " let him that readeth understand"), and the whole twenty-fourth chapter.

 Matt. 5:17; 15:24; comp. 10:6.

 Hug, Bleek, Olshausen, Ebrard, Meyer, Reim, Lange, and most commentators fix the date between 60 and 69, other writers as early as 37-45 (but in conflict with Matt. 27:8; 28:15). Baur’s view, which brings the Greek Matthew down to the second destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian, 130-134, is exploded. Even Volkmar puts it much earlier (105 to 115), Hilgenfeld (Einleitung in das N. T., p. 497) immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, Keim a.d. 66. Dr. Samuel Davidson, in the second ed. of his Introd. to the N. T. (London, 1882, vol. I. 413-416), assigns the present Greek Matthew with Volkmar to 105, but assumes an Aramaean original and Greek paraphrases of the same which were written before the destruction of Jerusalem. He thinks that "the eschatological discourses which connect the fail of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and the end of the world, have been falsified by history" (?); that consequently Jesus did not utter them as they are recorded, but they were revised and altered by writers who incorporated with them Jewish ideas and expressions (I. 403).

 Comp. Matt. 15:2 with Mark 7:3, 4. The translation of the exclamation on the cross, Matt. 27:46, is intended for Greek Jews,

 By Godet, Studies on the New Testament, p. 23.

 i{na (or o{pw")plhrwqh'/ to; rjhqevn, ortovte ejplhrwvqh to; rjhqevn. This formula occurs twelve times in Matthew (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17, 13:35; 21:4; 26:56; 27:9, 35), six times in John, but nowhere in Luke nor in Mark; for Mark 15:28 (kai; ejplhrwvqh hJ grafh k. t. l.) in the text. rec. is spurious and probably inserted from Luke 22:37.

 Comp. Matt. 2:1-12; 8:11, 12; 11:21; 12:41; 15:21-28; Matt. 23 and 24<cbr>; 28:19</cbr>, 20.

 For a full analysis see the critical monograph of Weiss, and Lange’s Matth., pp. 43-46. Keim, who builds his Geschichte Jesu—the ablest and least objectionable of the purely critical biographies of Christ,—chiefly on Matthew, praises its plan as sorgfältig, einfach und einleuchtend, durchsichtig und sehr wohl durchgeführt (I. 52). He divides it into two chief sections: the entry upon the public ministry with the Bussruf and Reichspredigt (4:17: apo; tovte h[rxato oJ jIhsou'" khruvssein, k. t. l.), and the entry upon the path of death with the Leidensruf and the Zukunftspredigt (Matt16:21: ajpo tovte h[rxato oJ jIh"., k. t. l.). He also finds an ingenious symmetry of numbers in the collocation of 10 miracles, 8 [7] beatitudes, 7 woes, 4 and 3 parables, 3 temptations, etc.

 For particulars on the style of Matthew and the other Evangelists see my Companion to the Study of the Greek Testament (third ed., 1888), pp. 43 sqq.

 See my book on the Didache (N. York, third ed., 1889), pp. 61-88.

 Ep. Barn., c. 4, at the close:prosevcwmen, mhvpote, wJ" gevgraptai, polloi; klhtoiv, ojlivgoi de; ejklektoi; euJreqw'men. Since the discovery of the entire Greek text of this Epistle in the Codex Sinaiticus (1859), where it follows the Apocalypse, there can be no doubt any more about the formula gevgraptai(scriptum est). The other passage quoted in Matt. 5 is from Matt. 9:13: oujk h|lqen kalevsai dikaivou" ajllav aJmartwlouv". The Ep. of Barnabas dates from the close of the first or the beginning of the second century. Some place it as early as a.d. 70, others an late as 120. The Didache is older.

 Euseb., H. E., III. 39: jIwavnnou me;n ajkousthv",Polukavrpou de; eJtai'ro" gegonwv".. Whether this " John" is the apostle or the mysterious " Presbyter John," is a matter of dispute which will be discussed in the second volume in the section on Papias. Eusebius himself clearly distinguishes two Johns. The date of Papias must be set back several years with that of Polycarp, his " companion," who suffered martyrdom in 155 (not 164). The Chronicon Paschale which represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about the same time, mistook PAPULOS in Eusebius, H. E., IV. 15 (at the close), for PAPIAS. See Lightfoot, " Contemp. Review" for August, 1875, p. 381 sqq.

 Eus., Hist. Eccl., III. 39: Matqai'o" me;n ou|n JEbraivdi dialekvtw/ ta; lovgia sunatavxato (or, according to the reading of Heinichen, I. 150, sunagravyato), hjrmhvneuse d j aujta; wJ" h{n dunato;" e{kasto" . This testimony has been thoroughly discussed by Schleiermacher (in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1832), Holtzmann (Synopt. Evang., 248 sqq.), Weizsäcker (Untersuchungen üb. d. ev. Gesch., 27 sqq.). Ewald (Jahrbücher, VI., 55 sqq.), Zahn (in "Stud. u. Kritiken," 1866, 649 sqq.), Steitz (ibid., 1868, 63 sqq.), Keim (Gesch. Jesu v. Naz., I., 56 sqq.), Meyer (Com. Evang. Matth., 6th ed. (1876), 4 sqq.), Lightfoot (in "Contemp. Review" for August, 1875, pp. 396-403), and Weiss (Das Matthäusevang., 1876, 1 sqq.).

 So Schleiermacher who first critically examined this passage (1832), Schneckenbarger (1834), Lachmann (1835), Credner, Wieseler. Ewald, Reuss, Weizsäcker, Holtzmann, Meyer (p. 11). It is supposed that Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel was similar to the lost work of Papias, with this difference that the former was simply a collection (suvntaxi" or suggrafhv), the latter an interpretation (ejxhvghsi"), of the Lord’s discourses (tw'n logivwn kuriakw'n).

 So Lücke (1833), Kern, Hug, Harless, Anger, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Ebrard, Thiersch, Keim, Zahn, Lightfoot, Thomson, Keil, Weiss (but the last with a limitation to a meagre thread of narrative). The chief arguments are: 1, that all early writers, from Irenaeus onward, who speak of a Hebrew Matthew mean a regular Gospel corresponding to our Greek Matthew; 2, the parallel passage of Papias concerning the Gospel of Mark (Eus., III. 39), where apparently "the Lord’s discourses" (lovgoi kuriakoiv) includes actions as well as words. ta; uJpo; tou' Cristou' h{ lecqevnta h{ pracqevnta. But it is said somewhat disparagingly, that Mark (as compared with Matthew) did not give "an orderly arrangement of the Lord’s words" (oujc w{sper suvntaxin tw'n kuriakw'n poiouvmeno" lovgwn). The wider meaning of logiva is supported by Rom. 3:1, where ta; logiva tou' qeou', with which the Jews were intrusted, includes the whole Old Testament Scriptures; and Hebr. 5:12, " the first principles of the oracles of God". (ta; stoicei'a th'" ajrch'" tw'n logiwn tou' qeou'). Lightfoot quotes also passages from Philo, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Origen (l.c., p. 400 sq.).

 So Wetstein, Hug, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Ritschl, Holtzmann, Keim, Delitzsch, Keil. Some of these writers assume that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was an Ebionite translation and recension of the Greek Matthew. So Delitzsch and Keil (Com. p. 23). Keim is mistaken when he asserts (I. 54) that scarcely anybody nowadays believes in a Hebrew Matthew. The contrary opinion is defended by Meyer, Weiss, and others, and prevails among English divines.

 Eusebius (III. 39) calls him sfovdra smikro;" to;n nou'n, " very narrow-minded," but on account of his millenarianism, as the context shows. In another place he calls him a man of comprehensive learning and great knowledge of the Scriptures (III. 39: ta; tavnta mavlista logiwvtato" kai; th'" grafh'" eijdhvmwn ).

 Adv. Haer., III1, 1: oJ men; dh; Matqai'o" ejn toi's jEbraivoi" th' ijdiva/ dialevktw/ aujtw'n kai; grafh;n ejxhvnegken eujaggelivou, tou' Pevtrou kai; Pauvlou ejn JR wvmh eujaggelizomevnwn kai; qemeliouvntwn th;n ejkklhsivan. The chronological reference is so far inaccurate, as neither Peter nor Paul were personally the founders of the church of Rome, yet it was founded through their influence and their pupils, and consolidated by their presence and martyrdom.

 He is reported by Eus., H.E. 10, to have found in India (probably in Southern Arabia) the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew (JEbraivwn gravmmasi), which had been left there by Bartholomew, one of the apostles. This testimony is certainly independent of Papias. But it may be questioned whether a Hebrew original, or a Hebrew translation, is meant.

 In Eus., H. E., VI. 25. Origen, however, drew his report of a Hebrew Matthew not from personal knowledge, but from tradition (wJ" ejn paradovsei maqwvn).

 H. E., III. 24: Matqai'o" me;n ga;r provteron JEbraivoi" khruvxa", wJ" e[melle kai; ef j eJtevrou" ijevnai, patrivw/ glwvtth/ grafh'/ paradou;" to; kat j aujto;n euvaggevlion, to; lei'pon th'/ aujtou' parousiva/ touvtoi", ajf j w|n ejstevlleto, dia; th'" : grafh'" ajpeplhvrou. " M., having first preached the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his book."

 Catech. 14: Matq. oJ gravya" to; eujaggevlion JEbraiv�di glwvssh/.

 Haer., XXX. 3; comp. LI. 5.

 Praef. in Matth.; on Matt. 12:13; Dial. c Pelag., III, c. 2; De Vir. illustr., c. 2 and 3. Jerome’s testimony is somewhat conflicting. He received a copy of the Hebrew M. from the Nazarenes in Beraea in Syria for transcription (392). But afterward (415) he seems to have found out that the supposed Hebrew Matthew in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea was "the Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Evangelium juxta, or secundum Hebraeos), which he translated both into Greek and Latin (De vir. ill., c. 2). This would have been useless, if the Hebrew Gospel had been only the original of the canonical Matthew. See Weiss, l.c., pp. 7 sq.

 The fragments of this Gospel ("quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae," Jerome) were collected by Credner, Beiträge, I. 380 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can. rec., IV., and especially by Nicholson in the work quoted above. It is far superior to the other apocryphal Gospels, and was so much like the Hebrew Matthew that many confounded it with the same, as Jerome observes, ad Matth. 12:13 ("quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum") and C. Pelag., III. 2. The Tübingen view (Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld) reverses the natural order and makes this heretical gospel the Urmatthaeus (proto-Matthew), of which our Greek Matthew is an orthodox transformation made as late as 130; but Keim (I., 29 sqq.), Meyer (p. 19), and Weise (pp. 8 and 9) have sufficiently refuted this hypothesis. Nicholson modifies the Tübingen theory by assuming that Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and those portions of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which run parallel with it.

 See Holtzmann, p. 269, and Ewald’s "Jahrbücher," IX. 69 sqq.

 So Meyer (p. 12, against Holtzmann), and Lightfoot (p. 397 against the author of "Supern. Rel."). Schleiermacher was wrong in referring hJrmhvneuse to narrative additions.

 Matt. 21:41: kakouv" kakw'" ajpolevsei, pessimos pessime (or malos male) perdet. The E. Revision reproduces the paronomasis (which is obliterated in the E. V.) thus: "He will miserably destroy those miserable men." Other plays on words: Pevtro" and pevtra, 16:18; battologei'n and polulogiva, 6:7; ajfanivzousin o{pw" fanw'si, "they make their faces unappearable (disfigure them), that they may appear,"6:16; comp. 24:7. Weiss derives the originality of the Greek Matthew from the use of the Greek Mark; but this would not account for these and similar passages.

 Jerome first observed that Matthew follows not Septuaginta translatorum auctoritatem, sed Hebraicam (De vir. illustr., c. 3). Credner and Bleek brought out this important difference more fully, and Holtzmann (Die Syn. Evang., p. 259), Ritschl, Köstlin, Keim (I., 59 sqq), Meyer (p. 9), and Weiss (p. 44) confirm it. But Hilgenfeld and Keim unnecessarily see in this fact an indication of a later editor, who exists only in their critical fancy.

 Jerome acknowledges the uncertainty of the translator, De vir. ill., c. 3: Quis postea in Graecum transtulerit [the Hebrew Matthew], non satis certum est." It has been variously traced to James, the brother of the Lord Synops. Pseudo-Athan.), to a disciple of Matthew, or to another disciple.

 So Bengel, Guericke, Schott, Olshausen, Thiersch.

 Meyer and Weiss regard the reports of the resurrection of the dead at the crucifixion and the story of the watch, Matt. 27:52, 62-66, as post-apostolic legends; but the former is not more difficult than the resurrection of Lazarus, and the latter has all the marks of intrinsic probability. Meyer also gratuitously assumes that Matthew must be corrected from John on the date of the crucifixion; but there is no real contradiction between the Synoptic and the Johannean date. See p. 133. Meyer’s opinion is that Matthew wrote only a Hebrew collection of the discourses of our Lord, that an unknown hand at an early date added the narrative portions, and another anonymous writer, before the year 70, made the Greek translation which was universally and justly, as far as substance is concerned, regarded as Matthew’s work (pp. 14, 23). But these are an pure conjectures.

 Marcus, and the diminutive Marcellus (Little Mallet), are well known Roman names. Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote an oration pro Marco Marcello.

 Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13.

 There is no good reason for taking "son" here literally (with Credner), when the figurative meaning so fully harmonizes with Scripture usage and with what we otherwise certainly know of Mark’s intimate relations to Peter both from the Acts and from tradition. A daughter of Peter (Petronilla) is mentioned by tradition, but not a son. Clement of Alexandria says that Peter and Philip begat children."

 ajneyiov", Col. 4:10.

 ejmnhmovneuse. It is so translated by Valois, Lardner, Meyer, Weiss, Lightfoot. The rendering "recorded," which is preferred by Crusé and Morison, makes it tautological with the preceding e[grayen. The "he" may be referred to Mark or to Peter, probably to the former.

 ajll j oujc w{sper suvntaxin tw'n kuriakw'n lovgwn(orlogivwn, oracles).

 Euseb., Hist, Eccl., III. 39. For a critical discussion of this important testimony see Weiss and Morison, also Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev.," vol. XXVI. (1875), pp. 393 sqq. There is not the slightest evidence for referring this description to a fictitious pre-canonical Mark, as is still done by Davidson (new ed., I. 539).

 The Latin was provincial, the Greek universal in the Roman empire. Cicero (Pro Arch., 10): "Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus; Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur." The tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel first in Latin is too late to deserve any credit. Baronius defends it in the interest of the Vulgate, and puts the composition back to the year 45. The supposed Latin autograph of Mark’s Gospel at Venice is a fragment of the Vulgate.

 Justin Martyr (Dial.c. Tryph., c. 106) actually quotes from the "Memoirs (ajpomnemoneuvmata) of Peter" the designation of the sons of Zebedee, "Boanerges" or "Sons of Thunder;" but he evidently refers to the written Gospel of Mark, who alone mentions this fact, Mark 3:17.

 See the testimonies of Jerome, Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Papias, well presented in Kirchhofer (ed. Charteris) on Canonicity, pp. 141-150, and in Morison’s Com., pp. xx-xxxiv

 Mark 16:19: "The Lord Jesus ... was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God;" comp. 1 Pet, 3:22: "who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven."

 Mark 8:27-33; compared with Matt. 16:13-33.

 Dem. Evang., III. 5, quoted by Morison, p. xxxv. In view of the facts quoted above the reader may judge of Dr. Davidson’s assertion (Introd. 1882 vol. I., 541): "That Mark was not the writer of the canonnical Gospel may be inferred from the fact that it is not specially remarkable in particulars relative to Peter."

 Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III. 1) says "after the departure" of Peter and Paul, "post horum excessum," or in the original Greek preserved by Eusebius (H. E., V. 8. ed. Heinichen, 1. 224), meta; th;n touvtwn e[xodon. This must mean "after their decease," not "after their departure from Rome" (Grabe). But Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Jerome, and other fathers assign the composition to a time before the martyrdom of Peter. Christophorson (in his Latin Version of the Church History of Eusebius, publ. 1570, as quoted by Stieren in Iren. Op., I. 423, note 4) suggested a different reading, meta; th;n e[kdosin, i.e., after the publication of Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel, as spoken of in the preceding sentence, and Morison (p. xxv) seems inclined to accept this conjecture. Very unlikely; all the MSS., Rufinus and the Latin translator of Irenaeus read e[xodon. See Stieren, in loc. The conflicting statements can be easily harmonized by a distinction between the composition before, and the publication after, the death of Peter. By publication in those days was meant the copying and distribution of a book.

 Acts 10:38. The sermon of Peter to Cornelius is the Gospel of Mark in a nutshell.

 Lange (Com., p. 2): "Mark delineates Christ as, from first to last, preeminently the victorious conqueror of all Satanic powers. He has left us a record of the manifestation of Christ’s power when that great Lion seized upon the ancient world, and of his brief but decisive victory, after which only the ruins of the ancient world are left, which in turn furnish the materials for the new one." Thomson (Speaker’s Com., Introd. to Gospels, p. xxxv): "The wonder-working son of God sweeps over his kingdom, swiftly and meteor-like: and men are to wonder and adore. His course is sometimes represented as abrupt, mysterious, awful to the disciples: He leaves them at night; conceals himself from them on a journey. The disciples are amazed and afraid (Mark 10:24, 32). And the Evangelist means the same impression of awe to be imparted to the reader."

 The reading of the textus rec. uiJou' (tou') qeou' in Mark 1:1 is sustained by  a ABDL, nearly all the cursives, and retained by Lachmann and Tregelles in the text, by Westcott and Hort in the margin. Tischendorf omitted it in his 8th ed. on the strength of his favorite a*(in its original form), and Origen. Irenaeus has both readings. The term occurs seven times in Mark, and is especially appropriate at the beginning of his Gospel and a part of its very title.

 Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:1-4; 12:18; 15:6, 35.

 See Lange’s Analysis of Mark, Com., pp. 12-14; also his Bibelkunde, pp. 185-187. Lange discovered many characteristic features of the Gospels, which have passed without acknowledgment into many other books.

 As asserted by Baur, Schwegler, Köstlin, and quite recently again by Dr. Davidson, who says (I. 505): "The colorless neutrality of the Gospel was an important factor in conciliating antagonistic parties." Dr. Morison (p. xlvi) well remarks against this Tübingen tendency criticism: "There is not so much as a straw of evidence that the Gospel of Mark occupied a position of mediation, or irenic neutrality, in relation to the other two Synoptic Gospels. It is in the mere wantonness of a creative imagination that its penman is depicted as warily steering his critical bark between some Scylla in St. Matthew’s representations and some Charybdis in St. Luke’s. There is no Scylla in the representations of St. Matthew. It must be invented if suspected. There is no Charybdis in the representations of St. Luke. Neither is there any indication in St. Mark of wary steering, or of some latent aim of destination kept, like sealed orders, under lock and key. There is, in all the Gospels, perfect transparency and simplicity, ’the simplicity that is in Christ.’"

 Ewald characterizes Mark’s style as the Schmelz der frischen Blume, as the volle, reine Leben der Stoffe, Kahnis as drastisch and frappant, Meyer as malerisch anschaulich. Lange speaks of the "enthusiasm and vividness of realization which accounts for the brevity, rapidity, and somewhat dramatic tone of the narrative, and the introduction of details which give life to the scene."

 kh'nso" (census), kenturivwn(centurio),xevsth"(sextarius),spekoulavtwp(speculator), and the Latinizing phrases to; iJkanovn poiei''n(satisfacere, Mark 15:15), ejscavtw" e[cei, (in extremis esse), sumbouvlion didovnai (consilium dare). Mark even uses the Roman names of coins instead of the Greek, kodravnth"(quadrans, 12:42).

 eujqevw" or eujquv" occurs (according to Bruder’s Concord.)forty-one times in the Gospel of Mark, nearly as often as in all other New Test. writings combined. But there are some variations in reading. Codex D omits it in several passages. The English Version, by its inexcusable love of variations, obliterates many characteristic features of the sacred writers. This very particle is translated in no less than seven different ways: straightway, immediately, forthwith, as soon as, by and by, shortly, and anon.

 Mark 3:17; 5:41 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:34.

 Mark 1:21, 40, 44 2:3, 10, 17; 11:1; 14:43, 66.

 Mark 4:39; 5:8, 9, 12; 6:23, 31; 9:25; 12:6.

 Such as ajnablevyai, ejmblevya", peribleyavmeno" , ajnaphdhvsa", kuvya" , ejmbrimhsavmeno", ejpistrafeiv" ajpostenavxa".

 As paidivon, koravsion, kunavrion, qugavtrion, ivcquvdion, wjtavrion.

 Time: Mark 1:35; 2:1; 4:35; 6:2; 11:11, 19; 15:25; 16:2. Place: 2:1<cbr>; 5:20; 7:31; 12:41; 13:3; 14:68; 15:39; 16:5.

 Asajgreuvein, a[lalo", ajlektorofwniva, gnafeuv" , ekqambei'sqai, ejnagkalivzesqai, ejxavpina, ejneilevw, ejxoudenovw, e[nnucon, mogilavlo", prasiai; prasiaiv, prosavbbaton, promerimna'n, prosormivzesqai, sunqlivbein, thlaugw'" , uJpolhvnion, and others.

 Mark 1:22, 27; 2:12; 4:41; 6:2, 51; 10:24, 26, 32.

 Mark 3:10, 20, 32; 4:1; 5:21, 31; 6:31, 33.

 Mark 6:34: "he had compassion on them;" 6:6: "he marvelled because of their unbelief" (as he marvelled also at the great faith of the heathen centurion, Matt. 8:10; Luke 7:8); Mark 3:5: "when he had looked round about them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart;" 8:12: "he sighed deeply in his spirit;" 10:14: "he was moved with indignation," or "was much displeased" with the conduct of the disciples.

 Mark 1:31; 3:5, 34; 5:32; 7:33, 34; 8:12, 33 ("but he, turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter") 9:35; 10:23, 32; 11:11.

 Mark 4:38; 6:31; 11:12.

 Mark 10:21, 22: ejmblevya" aujtw'/ hJgavphsen aujtovn. This must be taken in its natural meaning and not weakened into " kissed him," or " spoke kindly to him," or " pitied him." Our Saviour, says Morison, in l., " would discern in the young man not a little that was really amiable, the result of the partial reception and reflection of gracious Divine influences. There was ingenuousness, for instance, and moral earnestness. There was restraint of the animal passions, and an aspiration of the spirit toward the things of the world to come."

 Mark 9:21-25. Comp. Matt. 17:14-18; Luke 9:37-42.

 Mark 9:36; 10:16; comp. with Matt 18:2; 19:13; and Luke 9:48; 18:16.

 By Augustin, Griesbach, De Wette, Bleek, Baur, Davidson.

 As C. H. Weisse, Wilke, Ewald, Lange, Holtzmann, Bernhard Weiss, Westcott, Abbott, Morison. See § 79, this vol.

 Jerome wrote to Hedibia, a pious lady in Gaul (Ep. CXX c. 10, in Opera, ed. Migne, I. 1002): "Habebat ergo [Paulus] Titum interpretem; sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante (not dictante), et illo [Marco]scribente, compositum est." This letter was written in 406 or 407, from Bethlehem. Morison (p. xxxvii): "If we assume the Patristic tradition regarding St. Peter’s relation to St. Mark, we find the contents and texture of the Gospel to be without a jar at any point, in perfect accord with the idea."

 So James Smith in his Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels, and again in the Dissertation on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, prefixed to the fourth ed. of his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (1880), pp. 29 sqq.

 "In substance and style and treatment, the Gospel of St, Mark is essentially a transcript from life. The course and the issue of facts are imaged in it with the clearest outline. If all other arguments against the mythic origin of the Evangelic narratives were wanting, this vivid and simple record, stamped with the most distinct impress of independence and originality,—totally unconnected with the symbolism of the Old Dispensation, totally independent of the deeper reasonings of the New,—would be sufficient to refute a theory subversive of all faith in history. The details which were originally addressed to the vigorous intelligence of Roman bearers are still pregnant with instruction for us. The teaching which ’met their wants’ in the first age, finds a corresponding field for its action now." Westcott, l.c., 369 (Am. ed.).

 Mark 16:16 oJ pisteuvsa" kai; baptisqei;" swqhvsetai, oJ de; ajpisthvsa" katakriqhvsetai. This declaration takes the place of the command to baptize, Matt. 28:19. It applies only to converted believers (oJ pisteuvsa"), not to children who are incapable of an act of faith or unbelief, and yet are included in the covenant blessing of Christian parents (comp. 1 Cor. 7:14). Hence it is only positive unbelief which condemns, whether with or without baptism; while faith saves with baptism, ordinarily, but exceptionally also without baptism. Else we should have to condemn the penitent thief, the Quakers, and all unbaptized infants. St. Augustin derived from this passage and from John 3:5 (ejx u{dato") the doctrine of the absolute and universal necessity of water-baptism for salvation; and hence the further (logical, but not theological inference drawn by the great and good bishop of Hippo, with reluctant heart, that all unbaptized infants dying in infancy are forever damned (or, at least, excluded from heaven), simply on account of Adam’s sin, before they were capable of committing an actual transgression. This is the doctrine of the Roman Church to this day. Some Calvinistic divines in the seventeenth century held the same view with regard to reprobate infants (if there be such), but allowed an indefinite extension of the number of elect infants beyond the confines of Christendom. Zwingli held that all infants dying in infancy are saved. Fortunately the Saviour of mankind has condemned the dogma horribile of infant damnation by his own conduct toward (unbaptized) children, and his express declaration that to them belongs the kingdom of heaven, and that our heavenly Father does not wish any of them to perish. Matt. 18:2-6; 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17. In the light of these passages we must explain John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, which have been so grossly misunderstood.

 glwvssai" lalhvsousin kainai'" .Tischendorf retains kainai'"_ Tregelles, Westcott and Hort put it in the margin, as it is omitted in several uncials and ancient versions.

 Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome erroneously supposed that Paul meant the written Gospel of Luke when he speaks of "my gospel," Rom. 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8. The word gospel is not used in the New Test. in the sense of a written record, except in the titles which are of post-apostolic date; and the preface of Luke is inconsistent with the idea that he composed his work under the direction of any one man.

 The name Louka'",Lucas, is abridged from lukanov" .Lucanus or Lucilius (as Apollos from Apollonius, Silas from Silvanus). It is not to be confounded with Lucius, Acts 13:1; Rom. 16:21. The name was not common, but contractions in as were frequent in the names of slaves, as Lobeck observes. Dr. Plumptre (in his Com.)ingeniously conjectures that Luke was from the region of Lucania in Southern Italy, and called after the famous poet, M. Annaeus Lucanus, as his freedman. In this way be accounts for Luke’s familiarity with Italian localities (Acts 28:13-15), the favor of the uncle of Lucanus, J. Annaeus Gallic, shown to Paul (18:14-17), the tradition of the friendship between Paul and Seneca (a brother of Gallio), and the intended journey of Paul to Spain (Rom. 15:28), where Seneca and Lucanus were born (at Corduba). But the chronology is against this hypothesis. Lucanus was born a.d. 39, when Luke must have been already about thirty years of age, as he cannot have been much younger than Paul.

 Jerome (Ep. ad Paulinum) says of Luke "Fuit medicus, et pariter omnia verba illius animae languentis sunt medicinae."

 Comp. Gal. 4:13; 2 Cor. 1:9; 4:10, 12, 16; 12:7.

 He is distinguished from "those of the circumcision," Col. 4:14; comp. 4:11.

 Eusebius, III. 4: Louka'" to; me;n gevno" w{n tw'n ajp J jAntioceiva", th;n ejpisthvmhn de; ijatrov" , k. t. l. Jerome, De vir. ill, 7: "Lucas medicus Antiochensis ... sectator apostoli Pauli, et omnis peregrinationis ejus comes.

 James Smith (l.c., p. 4) illustrates the argumentative bearing of this notice by the fact that of eight accounts of the Russian campaign of 1812, three by French, three by English, and two by scotch authors (Scott and Alison), the last two only make mention of the Scotch extraction of the Russian General Barclay de Tolly.

 Jerome, De vir. ill., 7: "Sepultus est Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno ossa eius cum reliquiis Andreae apostoli translata sunt."

 Hence the ancient tradition that he was one of the Seventy Disciples, or one of the two disciples of Emmaus, cannot be true.

 As the account of the stilling of the tempest, Luke 8:22-25, compared with Mark 4:35-41; and the parable of the wicked husbandman, Luke 20:9-19, compared with Mark 12:1-12.

 Luke1:3: pa'si"—ajkribw'"—kaqexh'". Says Godet " Matthew groups together doctrinal teachings in the form of great discourses; he is a preacher. Mark narrates events as they occur to his mind; he is a chronicler. Luke reproduces the external and internal development of events; he is the historian, properly so called."

 Luke 1:4: kravtiste Qeovfile. In Acts 1:1 the epithet is omitted. Bengel infers from this omission that when Luke wrote the Acts he was on more familiar terms with Theophilus. The same title is applied to Governors Felix and Festus, Acts 23:26; 24:3; 20:25. The A. V. varies between "most excellent" and "most noble;" the R. V. uniformly renders "most excellent," which is apt to be applied to moral character rather than social position. "Honorable" or "most noble" would be preferable. Occasionally, however, the term is used also towards a personal friend (see passages in Wetstein).

 For other conjectures on Theophilus, which locate him at Alexandria or at Rome or somewhere in Greece, see the Bible Dicts. of Winer and Smith sub Theophilus. Some have fancied that he was merely an ideal name for every right-minded reader of the Gospel, as a lover of truth.

 Luke 1:4: i{na ejpignw'/" peri; w\n kathchvqh" th;n ajsfavleian.

 Luke 1:26; 4:31; 23:51; 24: 13 (Acts 1:12).

 For a full analysis of contents see Van Oosterzee, Com., 8-10; Westcott, Introd. to the G., 370-372 (Am. ed.); McClellan, Com. on N. T., I. 425-438; Farrar, Com., 31-36; Lange, Bibelkunde, 187-193.

 Lange (Leben Jesu, I. 258) gives as the theme of Luke: "the revelation of divine mercy;" Godet (Com.) "the manifestation of divine philanthropy" (Tit. 3:4); McClellan (I. 436): "salvation of sinners, by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, and him crucified;" Farrar (p. 17): "who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil" (Acts 10:38, better suited for Mark); Van Oosterzee: "as Paul led the people of the Lord out of the bondage of the law into the enjoyment of gospel liberty, so did Luke raise sacred history from the standpoint of the Israelitish nationality to the higher and holier ground of universal humanity." .

 The term swthvr occurs, Luke 1: 47; 2:11; John 4:42, and often in the Acts and the Epistles of Paul, but neither in Matthew nor Mark; swthriva occurs, Luke 1:69, 77; 19:9; John 4:22, and repeatedly in the Acts and the Epistles; swthvrio",Luke 2:30; 3:6; Acts 28:28; Eph. 6: 17; Tit. 2:11

 Luke 4:25-27; 9:52-56; 10:33; 15:11 sqq.; 17:19<cbr>; 18:10</cbr>; 19:5.

 See § 80, this vol.

 Lange (Bibelkunde, p. 187) calls it "das Evangelium des Menschensohnes, der Humanität Christi, der Verklärung aller Humanität."

 Farrar (p. 23) calls Luke "the first Christian hymnologist" (better hymnist), and quotes the lines from Keble:

"Thou hast an ear for angel songs,

 A breath the gospel trump to fill,

 And taught by thee the Church prolongs

 Her hymns of high thanksgiving still."

 This is the judgment of Renan, which is worth preserving in full. "L’Evangile de Luc," he says (in Les Evangiles, p. 282 and 283), "est le plus littéraire des évangiles. Tout y révèle un esprit large et doux, sage, modéré, sobre et raisonnable dans l’irrationnel. Ses exagérations, ses invraisemblances, ses inconséquences tiennent à la nature même de la parabole et en font le charme. Matthieu arrondit les contours un peu secs de Marc. Luc fait bien plus;il écrit, il montre une vraie entente de la composition. Son livre est un beau récit bien suivi, à la fois hébraîque et hellénique, joignant l’émotion du drama à la sérènité de l’idylle. Tout y rit, tout y pleure, tout y chante; partout des larmes et des cantiques; c’est l’hymne du peuple nouveau, L’hosanna des petits et des humbles introduits dans le royaume de Dieu. Un esprit de sainte enfance, de joie, de ferveur, le sentiment évangélique dans son originalité première répandent sur toute la légende une teinte d’une incomparable douceur. On ne fut jamais moins sectaire. Pas un reproche, pas un mot dur pour le vieux peuple exclu; son exclusion ne le punit-elle pas assez ? C’est le plus beau livre qu’il y ait. Le plaisir que l’auteur dut avoir à l’écrire ne sera jamais suffisamment compris."

 Jerome, who had a great genius for language, says, Epist. ad Dam., 20 (145): "Lucas qui inter omnes evangelistas Graeci sermonis eruditissimus fuit, quippe et medicus, et qui Evangelium Graecis scripserit." in another passage he says that Luke’s "sermo saecularem redolet eloqueiatiam."

 See the Version of Delitzsch in his Hebrew New Testament, published by the Brit. and For. Bible Society.

 Luke 4:38: h|n sunecomevnh puretw/' megavlw/. sunecomevnhis likewise a medical term.

 Acts 28:8: puretoi'" kai; dusenterivw/ sunecovmenon. Other instances of medical knowledge are found in Luke 8:46; 22:44; Acts 3:7; 9:18; 10:9, 10. Dr. Plumptre even traces several expressions of Paul such as "healthy doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:10; 6 3), " gangrene" or " cancer" (2 Tim. 2:17), the conscience " seared," or rather " cauterized"(1 Tim. 4:2), and the recommendation of a little wine for the stomach’s sake (1 Tim. 5:23), to the influence of " the beloved physician," who administered to him in his peculiar physical infirmities. Rather fanciful. Rev. W. K. Hobart, of Trinity College, Dublin, published a work (1882) on The Medical Language of St. Luke, in which he furnished the proof from internal evidence that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person, and that the writer was a medical man. He has compared over four hundred peculiar words and phrases of these books with the use of the same words in Hippocrates, Aretaeus, Dioscorides, and Galen.

 Among these are seven compounds of plevw, describing the motion and management of a ship, as follows: plevw, to sail, Luke 8:23; Acts 21:3; 27:6, 24. ajpoplevw, to sail from, Acts 13:4; 14:26; 20:15; 27:1.braduploevw (from braduv", slow), to sail slowly, Acts 27:7. diaplevw, to sail through (not " over," as in the A. V.), Acts 27:5. ekplevw, to sail away, Acts 15:39; 18:18; 20:6. kataplevw, to arrive, Luke 8:26. uJpoplevw, to sail under the lee, Acts 27:4, 7. paraplevw, to sail by, Acts 20:16. Add to these the following nautical terms: aJnavgomai, to get under way, to put to sea, Acts 27:4. diaperavw to sail over, Acts 21:2. diafevromai, to be driven to and fro, Acts 27:27. ejpikevllw, to run the ship ashore, Acts 27:41. eujqudromevw, to make a straight course, Acts 16:11; 21:1. paralevgomai (middle), to sail by, Acts 27:8, 13. uJpotrevcw (aor. 2, uJpevdramon), to run under the lee, Acts 27:16. fevromai (pass.), to be driven, Acts 27:15, 17. Also, ejkbolh;n ejpoiou'nto, Acts 27:18, and ejkouvfizon to; ploi'on, 27:38, which are technical terms for lightening the ship by throwing cargo overboard.

 See James Smith, i.e., and Schaff’s Companion to the Gr. Test., pp.57-61.

 As carav, Luke 1:14; 2:10; 8:13; 10:17; 15:7, 10; 24:41, 51.

 pneu'ma a{gion or pneu'ma alone, Luke 1:15, 34, 35, 41, 67; 2:25, 26, 27; 3:16, 22, 4:1, 14, 18; 12:10, 12; and still more frequently in the Acts, which is the Gospel of the Holy Spirit.

 See Holtzmann, Syn. Evang., pp. 316-324, copied in part (without acknowledgment) by Davidson, Introd., I. 437 sqq. Holtzmann enumerates about two hundred expressions or phrases common to Luke and Paul, and more or less foreign to the other writers of the New Testament.

 As cavri", e[leo" , pivsti", dikaiosuvnh, divkaio" , a[gion, gnw'si", duvnami" kurivou.

 As ajgnoei'n, ajdikiva, ajqetei'n, aijcmalwtivzein, ajnapevmpein, ajntapokrivnesqai, ajntikeivmeno", ajntilambavnesqai, ajpelpivzein, ajpologei'sqai, ajtenivzein, ejkdiwvkein, ejpifaivnein, eujgenhv" , hjcei'n, katargei'n, kinduneuvein, kurieuvein, panopliva,paravdeiso", sugcaivrein, suneudokei'n, uJstevrhma, carivzesqai, yalmov" also the particlesajll J oujdev, eij kaiv, eij mhvti, tiv" ou\n.The word kuvrio"as a substitute for Jesus occurs fourteen times in Luke and often in the Epistles, but only once in the Synoptists (the closing verses of Mark, 16:19, 20).

 Take the following specimens of striking parallelism (quoted by Holtzmann, 322):

Luke

Paul

6:48:e[qhken qemevlion ejpi; th;n pevtran

1 Cor. 3:10: wj" sofo;" ajpcitevktwn qemevlion e[qhka

8:15: karpoforou'sin uJpomonh'/.

Col. 1:10, 11: karpoforou'nte" kai; aujxanovmenoi eij" pa'san uJpomonhvn.

9:56: oujk h\lqe yuca;" ajnqrwvpwn ajpolevsai, ajlla; sw'sai.

2 Cor. 10:8:; [Edwken eij" oijkodomh;n kai; oujk eij" kaqaivresin. 13:10.

10:8:ejsqivete ta; paratiqevmena uJmi'n.

1 Cor. 10:27: pa'n to; paratiqevmenon uJmi'n ejsqivete.

10:20: ta; ojnovmata uJmw'n ejgravfh ejn toi'" oujranoi'"

Phil. 4:3: w|n ta; ojnovmata ejn Bivblw/ zwh'".

10:21: ajpevkruya" tau'ta ajpo; sofw'n kai; sunetw'n kai; ajpekavluya" aujta nhpivoi"

1 Cor. 1:19: ajpolw' th;n sofivan tw'nsofw'n kai; th;n suvnesin tw'n sunetw'n ajqethvsw. 27: ta; mwra; tou' kovsmou ejxelevxato oJ qeo;" i{na kataiscuvnh/ tou;" sofouv".

11:41: pavnta kaqara; uJmi'n ejstin

Tit. 1:15:pavnta me;n kaqara; toi'" kaqaroi'".

11:49; ajpostelw' eij" aujtou;" profhvta" kai; ajpostovlou" kai; ejx aujtw'n ajpoktenou'si kai; ekdiwvxousin

1 Thess. 2:15: tw'n kai; to;n kuvrion ajpokteinavntwn jIhsou'n kai; tou;" profhvta" kai; hJma'" ejkdiwxavntwn.

12:35:e[stwsan uJmw'n aij ojsfuve" periezwsmevnai.

Eph. 6:14: sth'te ou\n perizwsavmenoi tw'n ojsfu'n uJmw'n ejn ajlhqeiva/.

18:1: dei'n pavntote proseuvcesqai kai; mh; ejkkakei'n.

2 Thess. 1:11: eij" o{ kai proseuxovmeqa pavntote. Col. 4:12: pavntote aJgwvnizovmeno" uJpe;r uJmw'n ejn tai'" proseuxai'" .. Comp. 1 Thess. 5:1, 7; Rom. 1:10.

20:16: mh; gevnoito.

Rom. 9:14; 11:11; Gal. 3:21.

20:38: pavnte" ga;r aujtw'/ zw'sin.

Rom. 14:7, 8: ejavn te ga;r zw'men, tw/ kupivw/ zw'men. Comp. 2 Cor. 5:15.

21:24: kai ; JIerousalh;m e[stai patoumevnh uJpo; ejqnw'n a[cri plhrwqw'si kairoi; ejqnw'n.

Rom. 11:25: o{ti pwvrwsi" tw'/ jIsrah;l gevgonen a[cri" ou| to; plhvrwma tw'n ejqnw

 See the ancient testimonies in Charteris’s Kirchhofer, l.c., 154 sqq.

 Freely admitted by Zeller, Davidson (I. 444), and others of that school.

 Even the author of "Supernatural Religion" was forced at last to surrender to the arguments of Dr. Sanday, in 1875, after the question had already been settled years before in Germany by Hilgenfeld (1850) and Volkmar (1852). Davidson also (Introd., new ed., I. 446) admits: "There is no doubt that Marcion had the Gospel of Luke, which he adapted to his own ideas by arbitrary treatment. He lived before Justin, about a.d. 140, and is the earliest writer from whom we learn the existence of the Gospel."

 Davidson still adheres to this exploded Tübingen view in his new edition (I. 467): "Luke wished to bring Judaism [sic!] and Paulinism together in the sphere of comprehensive Christianity, where the former would merge into the latter. In conformity with this purpose, he describes the irreconcilable opposition between Jesus and his opponents." As if Matthew and Mark and John did not precisely the same thing. He even repeats the absurd fiction of Baur, which was refuted long ago, not only by Godet, but even in part at least by Zeller, Holtzmann, and Keim, that Luke had "the obvious tendency to depreciate the twelve, in comparison with the seventy" (p. 469). Baur derived the chief proof of an alleged hostility of Luke to Peter from his omission of the famous passage, "Thou art Rock;" but Mark omits it likewise; and Luke, on the other hand, is the only Evangelist who records the word of Christ to Peter, Luke 22:32, on which the Romanists base the dogma of papal infallibility.

 The critics differ widely as to the date of composition: (1) For a date prior to a.d. 70 are all the older divines, also Lange, Ebrard, Guericke, van Oosterzee, Godet (60-67), Thiersch (58-60), Alford (58), Riddle (60). (2) For a date between 70 and 90: De Wette, Bleek, Reuss, Holtzmann, Güder, Meyer, Weiss (70-80), Keim, Abbott (80-90). (3) For a.d. 100 and later: Hilgenfeld and Volkmar (100), Zeller and Davidson (100-110). The date of Baur, a.d. 140, is perfectly wild and made impossible by the clear testimonies of Justin Martyr and Marcion. Hence he was unwilling to retract in toto his former view about the priority of Marcion’s Gospel, though he felt obliged to do it in part (Kirchengesch. I. 75 and 78).

 Dr. Abbott, of London (in "Enc. Brit.," X. 813, of the ninth ed., 1879), discovers no less than ten reasons for the later date of Luke, eight of them in the preface alone: "(1) the pre-existence and implied failure of many ’attempts’ to set forth continuous narratives of the things ’surely believed;’ (2) the mention of ’tradition’ of the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word as past, not as present (parejdosan, Luke 1:2); (3) the dedication of the Gospel to a man of rank (fictitious or otherwise), who is supposed to have been ’catechized’ in Christian truth; (4) the attempt at literary style and at improvement of the ’usus ecclesiasticus’ of the common tradition; (5) the composition of something like a commencement of a Christian hymnology; (6) the development of the genealogy and the higher tone of the narrative of the incarnation; (7) the insertion of many passages mentioning our Lord as oJ kuvrio" not in address, but in narrative; (8) the distinction, more sharply drawn, between the fall of Jerusalem and the final coming; (9) the detailed prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, implying reminiscences of its fulfilment; (10) the very great development of the manifestations of Jesus after the resurrection. The inference from all this evidence would be that Luke was not written till about a.d 80 at earliest. If it could be further demonstrated that Luke used any Apocryphal book (Judith, for example), and if it could be shown that the book in question was written after a certain date (Renan suggests a.d 80 for the date of the book of Judith), it might be necessary to place Luke much later; but no such demonstration has been hitherto produced." But most of these arguments are set aside by the hJmi'n in Luke 1:2, which includes the writer among those who heard the gospel story from the eye-witnesses of the life of Christ. It is also evident from the Acts that the writer, who is identical with the third Evangelist, was an intimate companion of Paul, and hence belonged to the first generation of disciples, which includes all the converts of the apostles from the day of Pentecost down to the destruction of Jerusalem.

 Keim (I. 70) thus eloquently magnifies this little difference: "Anders als dem Matthaeus steht diesem Schrifstellen [Lukas] das Wirklichkeitsbild der Katastrophe der heiligen Stadt in seiner ganzen schrecklichen Grösse vor der Seele, die langwierige und kunstvolle Belagerung des Feindes, die Heere, die befestigten Lager, der Ring der Absperrung, die tausend Bedrängnisse, die Blutarbeit des Schwerts, die Gefangenführung des Volkes, der Tempel, die Stadt dem Boden gleich, Alles unter dem ernsten Gesichtspunkt eines Strafgerichtes Gottes für die dung des Gesandten. Ja über die Katastrophe hinaus, die äusserste Perspektive des ersten Evangelisten, dehnt sich dem neuen Geschichtschreiber eine new unbestimmbar grosse Periode der Trümmerlage Jerusalemz unter dem ehernen Tritt der Heiden und heidnischer Weltzeiten, innerhalb deren er selber schreibt. Unter solchen Umständen hat die grosse Zukunftrede Jesu bei aller Sorgfalt, die wesentlichen Züge, sogar die Wiederkunft in diesem ’Geschlect’zu halten die mannigfaltigsten Aenderungen erlitten." The same argument is urged more soberly by Holtzmann (Syn. Evang., 406 sq.), and even by Güder (in Herzog, IX. 19) and Weiss (in Meyer, 6th ed., p. 243), but they assume that Luke wrote only a few years after Matthew.

 "It is psychologically impossible," says Godet (p. 543), "that Luke should have indulged in manipulating at pleasure the sayings of that Being on whom his faith was fixed, whom he regarded as the Son of God."

 Jerome: Achaia and Boeotia; Hilgenfeld (in 1858): Achaia or Macedonia; Godet (in his first ed.): Corinth, in the house of Gaius (Rom. 16:23), but more indefinitely in the second ed.: Achaia.

 The Peshito, which gives the title: "Gospel of Luke the Evangelist, which he published and preached in Greek in Alexandria the Great."

 Köstlin and Overbeck, also Hilgenfeld in 1875 (Einleit., p. 612).

 Michaelis, Kuinöl, Schott, Thiersch, and others.

 Hug, Ewald, Zeller, Holtzmann, Keim, Davidson.

 Weiss, in the sixth ed. of Meyer (p. 244) "Wo das Evang. geschrieben sei, ist völlig unbekannt."

 John 14:26; 16:18. Comp. Matt. 10:19, 20; Luke 12:12; Acts 4:8.

 Adv. Haer., III., cap. 1, § 2.

 Ibid. III. 11, 1.

 "Ut recognoscentibus omnibus, Joannes suo nomine cuncta describeret.

 "Sic enim non solum visorem, sed et auditorem, sed et scriptorem omnium mirabilium Domini per ordinem profitetur." See the Latin text as published by Tregelles, also in Charteris, l.c., p. 3, and the translation of Westcott, History of the Canon, p. 187.

 Matt. 10:2; Luke 6:14; Mark 3:16; 13:3; John 1:41; 12:22; Acts 1:13.

 Quoted by Westcott and Hilgenfeld. I will add the original from Migne, Patrol., V. 333: "Cum enim essent Valentinus et Cerinthus, et Ebion, et caeteri scholae satanae, diffusi per orbem, convenerunt ad illum de finitimis provinciis omnes episcopi, et compulerunt eum, ut et ipse testimonium coscriberet."

 Preface to Com in Matt.

 Adv. Haer., III. 11, 1.

 Basilides in Hippolytus, Ref. Haer., VII. 22.

 In Eusebius, H. E., VI. 14 (quoting from the Hypotyposes):to;n jIwavnnhn e[scaton sunidovnta o{ti ta; swmatika; ejn toi'" eujaggelivoi" dedhvlwtai protrapevnta uJpo; tw'n gnwrivmwn[i.e., either well known friends, or distinguished, notable men], pneuvmati qeoforhqevnta, pneumatiko;n poih'sai eujaggevlion. Origen had a similar view, namely, that John alone among the Evangelists clearly teaches the divinity of Christ. Tom. 1:6 in Joan. (Opp., IV. 6).

 H. E., III. 24. Jerome repeats this view and connects it with the antiheretical aim, De vir. illustr., c. 9, comp. Com. in Matt. Proaem. Theodore of Mopsuestia thought that John intended to supplement the Synoptists chiefly by the discourses on the divinity of Christ. See Fritzsche’s ed. of fragments of his Commentaries on the New Test., Turici, p. 19 sq. (quoted by Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, p. 696).

 Godet expresses the same view (I. 862): "Cette intention de compléter les récits antérieurs, soit au point de vue historique,comme l’a pensé Eusébe, soit sous un rapport plus spirituel, comme l’a déclaré Clément d’Alexandrie, est donc parfaitement fondée en fait; nous la constatons commne un but secondaire at, pour mieux dire, comme moyen servant au but principal."

 Opera, IV. 6: tolmhtevon toivnun eijpei'n ajparch;n me;n pasw'n grafw'n ei|nai ta; eujaggevlia, tw'n de eujaggelivwn ajparch;n to; kata; jIwavnnhn.

 DeWette says that the discourses of Christ in John shine with more than earthly brilliancy (sie strahlen in mehr als irdischem Brillantfeuer, Exeg. Handbuch, I.3, p. 7). Holtzmann: "The fundamental ideas of the fourth Gospel lie far beyond the horizon of the church in the second century, and indeed of the whole Christian church down to the present day" (in Schenkel’s "Bibel. Lexik.," II. 234). Baur and Keim (I. 133) give the Gospel the highest praise asa philosophy of religion, but deny its historical value.

 Renan and John Stuart Mill have confessed a strong antipathy to these discourses. Renan’s last judgment on the Gospel of John (in L’église chrét., 1879, p. 51) is as follows: "On l’a trop admiré. Il a de la chaleur, parfois une sorte de sublimité, mais quelque chose d’enflé, de faux, d’obsur. La naïveté manque tout à fait. L’auteur ne raconte pas; il démontre. Rien de plus tatigant que ses longs récits de miracles et que ces discussions, roulant sur des malentendus, où les adversaires de Jésus jouent le rôle d’idiots. Combien à ce pathos verbeux nous préférons le doux style, tout hébreu encore, du Discours sur la montagne, et cette limpidité de narration qui fait le charme des évangélistes primitifs! Ceux-ci n’ont pas besoin de répéter sans cesse que ce qu’ils racontent est vrai. Leur sincérité, inconsciente de l’objection, n’a pas cette soif fébrile d’attestations répétéesqui montre que l’incrédulité, le doute, ont déjà commencé. Au ton légèrement excité de ce nouveau narrateur, on dirait qu’il a peur de n’étre pas cru, et qu’il cherche à surprendre la religion de son lecteur par des affirmations pleines d’emphase." John Stuart Mill (Three Essays on Religion, p. 253) irreverently calls the discourses in John "poor stuff," imported from Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists, and imagines that a multitude of Oriental Gnostics might have manufactured such a book. But why did they not do it?

 Notwithstanding such passages Dr. Davidson asserts (II. 278): "In uniting the only-begotten Son of God with the historical Jesus, the evangelist implies the absence of full humanity. The personality consists essentially of the Logos, the flesh being only a temporary thing. Body, soul, and spirit do not belong to Jesus Christ; he is the Logos incarnate for a time, who soon returns to the original state of oneness with the Father."

 Lange, Westcott, Milligan and Moulton dwell at length on this feature.

 Hase (Geschichte Jesu, p. 61) makes some striking remarks on this parallel: "Der Sokrates des Xenophon ist ein anderer als der des Plato, jeder hat diejenige Seite aufgefasst, die ihm die nächst und liebste war; erst aus beider. Darstellungen erkennen wir den rechten Sokrates. Xenophons anschauliche Einfachheit trägt das volle Gepräge der Wahrheit dessen, was er erzählt. Dennoch dieser Sokrates, der sich im engen Kreise sittlicher und politischer Vorstellungen herumdreht, ist nicht der ganze Sokrates, der weiseste in Griechenland, der die grosse Revolution in den Geistem seines Volks hervorgerufen hat. Dagegen der platonische Sokrates sich weit mehr zum Schöpfer der neuen Periods griechischer Philosophie eignet und darnach aussieht, als habe er die Weisheit vom Himmel zur Erde gebracht, der attische Logos."

 Milligan and Moulton, in their excellent Commentary on John, Introd., p. xxxiii.

 "Si Jésus," says Renan, "parlait comme le veut Matthieu, il n’a pu parler comme le veut Jean."

 John 1:26, 43; 2:19; 4:44; 6:20, 35, 37; 12:13, 25, 27; 18:16, 20:20:19, 23. See the lists in Godet, I. 197sq., and Westcott, p. lxxxii sq. The following are the principal parallel passages:

John 2:19: Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Matt. 26:61: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. Cf. Mark 14:58; 15:29.

3:18: He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already.

Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

4:44: For Jesus himself testified that a prophet hath no honor in his own country.

Matt. 15:57: But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. Cf. Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24

5:8: Jesus saith unto him, Arise, take up thy bed, and walk.

Matt. 9:6: Arise, and take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. Cf. Mark 2:9; Luke 5:24.

6:20: It is I, be not afraid.

Matt 14:27: It is I, be not afraid. Cf. Mark 6:50.

6:35: He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Matt. 5:6; Luke 6:21: Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

6:37: All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out.

Matt. 11:28, 29: Come unto me, an ye that labor and are heavy laden, ... and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

6:46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen the Father. Cf. 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Matt. 11:27: And no one knoweth the Son, save the Father, neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.

12:8: For the poor ye have always with you; but me ye have not always.

Matt. 26:11: For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Cf. Mark 14:7.

12:25: He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

Matt. 10: 39: He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he thatloseth his life for my sake shall find it. Cf. 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:83.

12:27: Now is my soul troubled; and what shall say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour.

Matt. 26:38: Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Cf. Mark 14:84.

13:3: Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands ....

Matt. 11:27: All things have been delivered unto me of my Father.

13:16: Verily, verily I say unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord.

Matt. 10:24: A disciple is not above his master, nor a servant above his lord. Cf. Luke 6:40.

13:20: He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Matt. 10:40: He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

14:18: I will not leave you desolate; I come unto you. Cf. 14:23: We will ... make our abode with him.

Matt. 28:20: I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

15:21: But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake.

Matt. 10:22: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s make.

17:2: Even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh.

Matt. 28:18: All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.

20:23: Whosover sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them.

Matt. 18:18: What things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 For further particulars of John’s style see my Companion tothe Study of the Greek Test., pp. 66-75, where the opinions of Renan, Ewald, Luthardt, Keim, Godet, Westcott, Hase, and Weiss are given on the subject.

 See the literary notices on p. 405 sqq. To the able vindications of the genuineness of John there mentioned must now be added the masterly discussion of Dr. Weiss in his Leben Jesu (vol. I., 1882, pp. 84-124), which has just come to hand.

 Recently renewed in part by Renan (1879). See below.

 His quotation is considered the earliest by name; but Irenaeus, who wrote between 177 and 192, represents an older tradition, and proves to his satisfaction that there must be just four Gospels to answer the four cherubim in Ezekiel’s vision. Adv. Haer., III. 1, 1; 11, 8; V. 36, 2.

 The Commentary of Ephraem Syrus on the Diatessaron (375) has recently been discovered and published from an Armenian translation, at Venice, in 1876. Comp. Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, Erlangen, 1881, and Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griechisch en Apologeten des zweiten Jahrh., Leipzig, 1882, pp. 213 sqq.

 The use of the Gospel of John by Justin Martyr was doubted by Baur and most of his followers, but is admitted by Hilgenfeld and Keim. It was again denied by the anonymous author of "Supernatural Religion," and by Edwin A. Abbott (in the art. Gospels, "Enc. Brit.," vol. X 821), and again conclusively proven by Sanday in England, and Ezra Abbot in America.

 The quotation is not literal but from memory, like most of his quotations:

Justin, Apol., I. 61: "For Christ also said, Except ye be born again [ajnagennhqh'te, comp. 1 Pet. 3:23], ye shall in no wise enter [eijsevlqh'te, but comp. the same word In John 8:5 and 7] into the kingdom of heaven (the phrase of Matthew]. Now that it is impossible for those who have once been born to re-enter the wombs of those that bare them is manifest to all."

John 3:3, 4: "Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born anew [or from above, gennhqh'/ a[nwqen], he cannot see [ijdei'n 3: 5, enter into] the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?"

Much account has been made by the Tübingen critics of the slight differences in the quotation (ajnagennhqh'te for gennhqh'/ a[nwqen, eijselqei'n for ijdei'n and basileiva tw'n oujranw'n for ba". tou' qeou') to disprove the connection, or, as this is impossible, to prove the dependence of John on Justin! But Dr. Abbot, a most accurate and conscientious scholar, who moreover as a Unitarian cannot be charged with an orthodox bias, has produced many parallel cases of free quotations of the same passage not only from patristic writers, but even from modem divines, including no less than nine quotations of the passage by Jeremy Taylor, only two of which are alike. I think he has conclusively proven his case for every reasonable mind. See his invaluable monograph on The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 28 sqq. and 91 sqq. Comp. also Weiss, Leben Jesu, I. 83, who sees in Justin Martyr not only "an unquestionable allusion to the Nicodemus story of the fourth Gospel," but other isolated reminiscences

 Comp. such expressions as "I desire bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ ... and I desire as drink His blood, which is love imperishable," Ad Rom., ch. 7, with John 6:47 sqq.; "living water," Ad Rom. 7, with John 4:10, 11; "being Himself the Door of the Father," Ad Philad., 9, with John 10:9; [the Spirit] "knows whence it cometh and whither it goeth," Ad Philad., 7, with John 3:8. I quoted from the text of Zahn. See the able art. of Lightfoot in "Contemp. Rev." for February, 1875, and his S. Ignatius, 1885.

 Polyc., Ad Phil., ch. 7: "Every one that doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is Antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the mystery of the cross is of the devil." Comp. 1 John 4:3. On the testimony of Polycarp see Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for May, 1875. Westcott, p. xxx, says: "A testimony to one" (the Gospel or the first Ep.) "is necessarily by inference a testimony to the other."

 According to Eusebius, III. 39. See Lightfoot in the "Contemp. Rev." for August and October, 1875.

 Eusebius, H. E., III. 39, closes his account of Papias with the notice: "He has likewise set forth another narrative [in his Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles] concerning a woman who was maliciously accused before the Lord touching many sins, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."

 In a tradition too late (ninth century) to be of any critical weight, Papias is even made the amanuensis of John in the preparation of his Gospel. A Vatican Codex (of Queen Christina of Sweden) has this marginal gloss: "Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne adhuc in corpore constituto; sicut Papiss, nomine Hieropolitanus discipulus Johannis carus, in exotericis [exegeticis],id est in extremis, quinque libris retulit [referring no doubt to the five books of Logivwn Kuriakw'n ejxhghvsei"].Descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte." This was hailed as a direct testimony of Papias for John by Prof. Aberle (Rom. Cath.) in the " Tübing. Quartalschrift," 1864, No. 1, but set aside by Hilgenfeld versus Aberle, in his " Zeitschrift," 1865, pp. 77 sqq., and Hase, l.c, p. 35. If Eusebius had found this notice in the work of Papias, he would have probably mentioned it in connection with his testimonies on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. But see Westcott, Canon, 5th ed., p. 77, note 1.

 See Schürer’s Latin dissertation De controversiis paschalibus, etc., Leipz., 1869, and the German translation in the "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol." for 1970, pp. 182-284.

 In the last portion of the book, discovered and first published by Dressel (XIX. 22). This discovery has induced Hilgenfeld to retract his former denial of the quotations in the earlier books, Einleit. in d. N. T., p, 43 sq., note.

 See the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, VII. 22, 27; Hofstede de Groot, Basilides, trans. from the Dutch, Leipz, 1868; Hort, Basilides, in Smith and Wace, I. 271; Abbot, l.c. 85 sqq.

 L. c., p. 89.

 See Keim, Celsus’ Wahres Wort, 1873, pp. 223-230, besides the older investigations of Lardner, Norton, Tholuck, and the recent one of Dr. Abbot, l.c., 58 sq.

 John 1:23; 2:17; 6:31, 45; 7:38; 10:34; 12:14, 38, 40; 13:18; 15:25; 19:21, 36, 37.

 See the careful analysis of the passages by Westcott, Intr., pp. xiii sqq.

 Johannes als der Erzählende, in seinem Selbstbewusstsein, bedarf für den anderen Johannes des Beinamens nicht, ihm liegt die Verwechslung ganz fern." Hase, Geschichte Jesu, p. 48. The former belief of the venerable historian of Jena in the fall Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel was unfortunately shaken in his conflict with the Tübingen giant, but he declares the objections of Baur after all inconclusive, and seeks an escape from the dilemma by the untenable compromise that the oral teaching of John a few years after his death was committed to writing and somewhat mystified by an able pupil. "Die Botschaft hört er wohl, allein ihm fehlt der Glaube."

 John 1:29, 35, 39, 43; 2:1; 4:6, 40, 43, 52; 6:22; 7:14, 37; 11:6, 17, 39; 12:1, 12; 13:30; 18:28; 19:31; 20:1, 19, 26; 21:4.

 John 1:35; 2:6; 4:18; 6:9, 10, 19; 19:23, 39; 21:8, 11.

 John 2:17, 22; 4:27; 6:60; 12:16; 13:22, 28; 20:9; 21:12.

 John 2:24, 25; 4:1-3; 5:6; 6:6, 15; 7:1; 11:33, 38; 13:1, 3, 11, 21 16:19; 18:4; 19:28.

 "How often has this fourth chapter been read since by Christian pilgrims on the very spot where the Saviour rested, with the irresistible impression that every word is true and adapted to the time and place, yet applicable to all times and places. Jacob’s well is now in ruins and no more used, but the living spring of water which the Saviour first opened there to a poor, sinful, yet penitent woman is as deep and fresh as ever, and will quench the thirst of souls to the end of time." So I wrote in 1871 for the English edition of Lange’s Com. on John, p. 151. Six years afterward I fully realized my anticipations, when with a company of friends I sat down on Jacob’s well and read John 4 as I never read it before. Palestine, even in "the imploring beauty of decay," is indeed a "fifth Gospel" which sheds more light on the four than many a commentary brimful of learning and critical conjectures.

 John 1:14: ejqeasavmeqa th;n dovxan. qeavomai is richer than oJravw, and means to behold or contemplate with admiration and delight. The plural adds force to the statement, as in 21:24; 1 John 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:16.

 See p. 419 sq., and my Companion to the Greek Testament, pp. 76 sqq.

 Before him Edward Evanson, an ex-clergyman of the Church of England, had attacked John and all other Gospels except Luke, in The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evangelists, 1792. He was refuted by the Unitarian, Dr. Priestley, who came to the conclusion that the Gospel of John "bears more internal and unequivocal marks of being written by an eye-witness than any other writings whatever, sacred or profane." See his Letters to a Young Man (Works, vol. XX. 430).

 Ueber die Composition und den Charakter des joh. Evangeliums, an essay in the "Theol. Jahrücher" of Zeller, Tübingen, 1844; again in his Krit. Untersuchungen über die kanon. Evang., Tüb., 1847, and in his Kirchengesch., 1853(vol. I., pp. 146 sqq., 166 sqq., third ed.). Godet (I. 17) calls the first dissertation of Baur justly "one of the most ingenious and brilliant compositions which theological science ever produced."

 From Wittichen and Scholten.

 Especially from Hilgenfeld. The tradition of the Ephesian sojourn of John is one of the strongest and most constant in the ancient church, and goes back to Polycrates, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Papias, the very pupils and grandpupils of John, who could not possibly be mistaken on such a simple fact as this.

 Dr. Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 106) accords to Dr. Baur the merit of having penetrated deeper into the peculiar character of the fourth Gospel and done more for the promotion of its understanding then the mechanical old exegesis, which had no conception of the difference and looked only for dicta probantia; but he justly adds that Baur’s criticism is "sicklied all over with the pale cast" of modern philosophical construction (von der Blässe moderner philosophischer Construction angekränkelt). We are prepared to say the same of Dr. Keim, a proud, but noble and earnest spirit who died of overwork in elaborating his History of Jesus of Nazara. The most scholarly, high-toned, and singularly able argument in the English language against the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel is the article "Gospels" in the "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed., vol. X. 818-843 (1879), from the pen of Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, head-master of the City of London School.

 Without detracting from the merits of the many worthy champions of the cause of truth, I venture to give the palm to Dr. Godet, of Neuchâtel, in the introductory volume to his third and thoroughly revised Commentary on John (Introduction historique et critique, Paris, 1881, 376 pages), and to Dr. Weiss, of Berlin, in his very able Leben Jesu, Berlin, 1882, vol. I. 84-198. In England the battle has been fought chiefly by Bishop Lightfoot, Canon Westcott, Prof. Milligan, and Dr. Sanday. In America, Dr. Ezra Abbot (1880) is equal to any of them in the accurate and effective presentation of the historical argument for the Johannean authorship of the fourth Gospel. His treatise has been reprinted in his Critical Essays, Boston, l888 (pp. 9-107).

 "Tout est possible," says Renan (L’Église chrét., p. 54), "à cesépoques ténébreuses; et, si l’Église, en vénérant le quatrième Évangile comme l’oeuvre de Jean, est dupe de celui qu’elle regarde comme un de ses plus dangereux ennemis, cela n’est pas en somme plus étrange que tant d’autres malentendus qui composent la trame de l’histoire religieuse de l’humanité. Ce qu’il y a de sûr, c’est que l’auteur est à la fois le père et l’adversaire du gnosticisme, l’ennemi de ceux qui laissaient s’evaporer dans un docétisme nuageux l’humanité réelle de Jésus et le complice de ceus qui le reléguaient dans l’abstraction divine." He thinks it more probable, however (p. 47), that two Ephesian disciples of John (John the Presbyter and Aristion) wrote the Gospel twenty or thirty years after his death.

 In the last edition of his abridged Geschichte Jesu.

 As Weiss (I. 109) admirably expresses it: "Ueberall im Einzelnen wie in der Gesammtgestaltung des Lebens Jesu stossen wir auf das harte Gestein geschichtlicher Erinnerung, welches dem kritischen Auflösungsprozess, der es in ideelle Bildungen verwandeln will, unüberwindlichen Widerstand leistet."

 "Als die Dichtung eines halbgnostischen Philosophen aus dem zweiten Jahrhundert ist es [the fourth Gospel] ein trügerisches Irrlicht, ja in Wahrheit eine grosse Lüge,"Weiss, I. 124. Renan admits the alternative, only in milder terms:"Il y a là un petit artifice littéraire, du genre de ceux qu’affectionne Platon," l.c., p. 52.

 This absurdity is strikingly characterized in the lines of the Swabian poet, Gustav Schwab, which he gave me when I was a student at Tübingen shortly after the appearance of Strauss’s Leben Jesu:

"Hat dieses Buch, das ew’ge Wahrheit ist,

Ein lügenhafter Gnostiker geschrieben,

So hat seit tausend Jahren Jesus Christ

Den Teufel durch Beelzebub vertrieben."

 See the conclusive proof in Zeller, pp. 414-452 (Engl. transl. by Dare, vol. II. 213-254). Holtzmann (Syn. Evang., p. 875): "Als ausgemacht darf man heutzutage wohl annehmen, dass der Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte und des dritten Evangeliums ein und dieselbePerson sind."Renan speaks in the same confident tone (Les Apôtres, pp. x. and xi. .): "Une chose hors de doute, c’est que les Actes ont eut le méme auteur que le troisiéme évangile et sont une continuation de cet évangile ... La parfaite ressemblance du style et des idées fournissent à cet égard d’abondantes démonstrations .... Les deux livres réunis font un ensemble absolument du mime style, présentant les mémes locutions favorites et la méme façon de citer l’écriture."Scholten dissents from this view and vainly tries to show that while both books originated in the school of Paul, the third evangelist elevates Paulinism above Jewish Christianity, and the author of Acts recommends Paul to the Jewish-Christian party. The Gospel is polemical, the Acts apologetic. Das Paulinische Evangelium, etc., transl. from the Dutch by Redepenning, Elberf., 1881, p. 315.

 The history of the Reformation furnishes a parallel; namely, the further progress of Christianity from Rome (the Christian Jerusalem) to Wittenberg, Geneva, Oxford and Edinburgh, through the labors of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Knox.

 Ewald, in his Commentary on Acts (1872), pp. 35 sqq., infers from the use of the little word we and its connection with the other portions that the whole work is from one and the same author, who is none other than Luke of Antioch, the "beloved" friend and colaborer of Paul. Renan says (La apôtres, p. xiv.): "Je persiste à croire que le dernier rédacteur des Acts est bien le disciple de Paul qui dit ’nous’aux derniers chapitres,"but he puts the composition down to a.d. 71 or 72 (p. xx.), and in his Les Évangiles, ch. xix., pp. 435 sqq., still later, to the age of Domitian.

 First published in 1790, and often since. See also the list of parallel passages in Dr. Plumptre’s Com. on Acts, pp. x. and xi.

 Ant. XX. 5, § 1.

 Ant. XVII. 10.

 See above, p. 122.

 Ant. XVIII. 1; XX. 5, § 2; War, II. 8, § 1. In the first passage Josephus calls Judas a Gaulonite (i.e., from the country east of Galilee), but in the other passage he is described as a Galilaean. He may have been a native of Gaulonitis and a resident of Galilee.

 Strabo, XVII., p. 820; comp. Pliny IV. 35; Dion Cass., LIV. 5.

 Josephus, Ant. XX. 5; comp, Tacitus, Ann. XII. 43; Sueton., Claud. 28.

 Ant. XVIII. 8.

 Strabo, XIV., at the close.

 Dio Cassius, LIII. 12.

 Akerman, Numismatic Illustrations, pp. 39-42.

 TWN EPI - PAULOU - [ANQ]UPATOU. See Louis Palma di Cesnola’s Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples, New York, 1878, p. 424 sq. He says: "The Proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus of the Acts of the Apostles 13, as instances of the suppression of one or two names are not rare." Bishop Lightfoot ("Cont. Review" for 1876, p. 290 sq.) satisfactorily accounts for the omission of Sergius, and identifies also the name Sergius Paulus from the elder Pliny, who mentions him twice as a Latin author in the first book of his Natural History and as his chief authority for the facts in the second and eighteenth books, two of these facts being especially connected with Cyprus. The Consul L. Sergius Paulus, whom Galen the physician met at Rome a.d. 151, and whom he mentions repeatedly, first under his full name and then simply as Paulus, may have been a descendant of the convert of the apostle.

 Tacitus, Ann. I. 76; Sueton., Claudius, c. 25.

 Metam., VIII. 625-724.

 Dion Cass., LI. 4; Pliny, Nat. Hist. IV.11.

 Strabo, XIII. 4, § 14. Inscriptions found in the place attest the existence of a guild of purple-dealers, with which Lydia was probably connected.

 tou;" politavrca" , i.e.,touv" a[rconta" tw'n politw'n, praefectos civitatis, the rulers of the city. Grimm says: "Usitatius Graecis erat, polivarco""

 The Thessalonian inscription in Greek letters is given by Boeckh. Leake, and Howson (in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Letters of St. Paul, ch. IX., large Lond. ed., I. 860). Three of the names are identical, with those of Paul’s friends in that region-Sopater of Beraea (Acts 20:4), Gaius of Macedonia (19:29), and Secundus of Thessalonica (20:4). I will only give the first line:

POLEITARCOUNTWN SWSIPATROU TOU KLEO.

 See the commentaries on Acts 17:16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 28. The singular qew'/ in 17:23 creates some difficulty; for Pausanias (I. 1-4) mentions "altars to unknown gods" which were set up in the harbor and streets of Athens; and Diogenes Laërtius (Epimen., c. 3) speaks of "altars without name" in many parts of Athens. It is supposed that Paul meant one of these altars, or that he ingeniously adapted the polytheistic inscription to his argument. In the dialogue Philopatris which is erroneously ascribed to Lucian, one of the speakers swears "by the unknown god of Athens."

 See Wood:Discoveries at Ephesus, and Lightfoot’s article above quoted, p. 295. Lightfoot aided Mr. Wood in explaining the inscriptions.

 Comp. § 82 of this vol., and myCompanion to the Greek Test., p. 61.

 This view was first broached by Baur (1836, 1838, and 1845), then carried out by Schneckenburger (1841), more fully by Zeller (1854), and by Hilgenfeld (1872, and in his Einleitung, 1875). Renan also presents substantially the same view, though somewhat modified. "Les Actes"(Les Apôtres, p. xxix.) "sont une histoire dogmatique, arrangée pour appuyer les doctrines orthodoxes du temps ou inculquer les idées qui souriaíent le plus à la pieté de l’auteur."He thinks, it could not be otherwise, as we know the history of religions only from the reports of believers; "i il n’y a que le sceptique qui écrive l’histoire ad narrandum."

 suvmfutoi, Rom. 6:5; not "planted together" (as in the A. V. and the Vulgate); the word being derived from fuvw to cause to grow, not from futeuw, to plant.

 The so-called Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul and his answer, preserved in Armenian, are spurious and worthless.

 Hence Origen calls it an ejpistolh; kaqolikhv.

 Reuss (Gesch. d. heil. Schriften N. Testaments, 5th ed., I. 138): "Thatsache ist, dass die Ep. Jacobi für sich allein mehr wörtliche Reminiscenzen aus den Reden Jesu enthält als alle übrigen Apost. Schriften zusammen .... Insofern dieselben offenbar nicht aus schriftlichen Quellen geflossen sind, mögen sie mit das höhere Alter deg Briefs verbürgen." Beyschlag (in the new ed. of Huther in Meyer, 1881) and Erdmann (1881), the most recent commentators of James, agree with Schneckenburger, Neander, and Thiersch in assigning the Epistle to the earliest date of Christian literature, against the Tübingen school, which makes it a polemical treatise against Paul. Reuss occupies a middle position. The undeveloped state of Christian doctrine, the use of sunagwgh; for a Christian assembly (James 2:2), the want of a clear distinction between Jews and Jewish Christians, who are addressed as "the twelve tribes," and the expectation of the approaching parousia (5:8), concur as signs of the high antiquity.

 Commentators are divided on the meaning of Babylon, 1 Pet. 5:13, whether it be the mystic Babylon of the Apocalypse, i.e., heathen Rome, as a persecuting power (the fathers, Roman Catholic divines, also Thiersch, Baur, Renan), or Babylon on the Euphrates, or Babylon in Egypt (old Cairo). The question is connected with Peter’s presence in Rome, which has been discussed in § 26. On the date of composition commentators are likewise divided, as they differ in their views on the relation of Peter’s Epistle to Romans, Ephesians, and James, and on the character of the persecution alluded to in the Epistle. Weiss, who denies that Peter used the Epistles of Paul, dates it back as far as 54; the Tübingen critics bring it down to the age of Trajan (Volkmar even to 140!), but most critics assign it to the time between 63 and 67, Renan to 63, shortly before the Neronian persecution. For once I agree with him. See Huther (in the Meyer series), 4th ed., pp. 30 sqq.; Weiss, Die Petrinische Frage (1865); Renan, L’Antechrist, p. vi and 110; and, on the part of the Tübingen school, Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, pp. 417 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, pp. 625 sqq.; Holtzmann, Einleitung, pp. 514 sqq. (2d ed.).

 "This excellent Epistle," says Archbishop Leighton, whose Practical Commentary upon the First Epistle General of St. Peter is still unsurpassed for spirituality and unction, "is a brief and yet very clear summary both of the consolations and instructions needful for the encouragement and direction of a Christian in his journey to heaven, elevating his thoughts and desires to that happiness, and strengthening him against all opposition in the way, both that of corruption within and temptations and afflictions from without." Bengel: "Mirabilis est gravitas et alacritas Petrini sermonis, lectorem suavissime retinens." Alford: "There is no Epistle in the sacred canon, the language and spirit of which come more directly home to the personal trials and wants and weaknesses of the Christian life."

 Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Neander, De Wette, Huther, and all the Tübingen critics.

 Weiss, Thiersch, Fronmüller, Alford, and especially Fr. Spitta in his Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (Halle, 1885, 544 pages).

 Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in Greek), and Epiphanius distinguish him from the Apostles. He is mentioned with James as one of the brothers of Jesus, Matt. 18:55; Mark 6:3. Comp. on this whole question the discussion in § 27.

 Comp. 2 John 4 –7 with 1 John 2:7, 8; 4, 2, 3.

 As he writes himself to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:7): "We were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children." And to the ungrateful and unsteady Galatians 4:9 he writes: "My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you."

 "Das ist das Ende der Philosophie: zu wissen, dass wir glauben müssen." -(Geibel.)

 By Renan, who, notwithstanding his fastidious French taste and antipathy to Paul’s theology, cannot help admiring his lofty genius.

 Strabo calls it Qessalonivkaia. Its present name is Salonichi.

 The difficult passage, 2 Thess. 2:1-12, must be explained in connection with the prophecies of Daniel (the fourth empire) and the Apocalypse. See the commentaries of Lünemann, Lange (Riggenbach, translated by Lillie), Ellicott, Jowett, Marcus Dods, and the Excursus of Farrar on the Man of Sin (St. Paul, II. 583-587). Many modern exegetes adopt the patristic interpretation that "the restraining power" (to; katevcon) is the Roman empire, "the restrainer" (oJ katevcwn) the then reigning emperor (Claudius), and "the man of sin" his successor, Nero. But the last is very doubtful. The whole passage must have a prophetic sweep far beyond the time of the old Roman empire. There are "many antichrists" and many restraining forces and persons in the successive ages, and the end is yet apparently afar off. "Obviously, whatever the words signify, they must mean something which has existed from Paul’s day to our own, something which, during that whole period, has had the effect of restraining wickedness." (Dods, in Schaff’s Com. on the N. T, III 535.)

 Grimm, Lünemann, Reuss, Lipsius, and others have refuted the arguments of Baur. The first Epistle is conceded to be genuine also by Hilgenfeld, who declares (Einleit., p 246):"In dem ganzen Brief erkennt man die Sprache des Paulus. Es ist kein Grund vorhanden, denselben dem Paulus abzusprechen. Nicht so bedeutsam, wie andere Briefe, ist derselbe eines Paulus keineswegs unwürdig, vielmehr ein liebenswürdiges Denkmal väterlicher Fürsorge des Apostels für eine junge Christengemeinde." But the second Ep. to the Thess. Hilgenfeld assigns to the age of Trajan, as a sort of Pauline Apocalypse; thus reversing the view of Baur, who regarded the First Ep. as an imitation of the second. Grotius and Ewald put the Second Ep. likewise first (especially on account of 1 Thess. 1:7, 8, which seems to imply that the congregation had already become famous throughout Greece), but they regarded both as genuine.

 Such scandals would be almost incredible in a Christian church if the apostle did not tell us so. As to the case of incest, 1 Cor. 5:1 sqq., we should remember that Corinth was the most licentious city in all Greece, and that in the splendid temple of her patron-goddess on the Acropolis there were kept more than a thousand sacred female slaves (iJerovdouloi) for the pleasure of strangers. Korinqiva kovrh was the name for a courtesan. Chastity was therefore one of the most difficult virtues to practice there; and hence the apostle’s advice of a radical cure by absolute abstinence under the peculiar circumstances of the time.

 The question of the Corinthian parties (with special reference to the Christ party) I have discussed at length in my Hist. of the Ap. Church, pp. 285-291. Baur’s essay on this subject (1831) was the opening chapter in the development of the Tübingen theory.

 Comp. 1 Cor. 16:5, 8; 5:7, 8; Acts 19:10, 21; 20: 31.

 2 Cor. 7:5; 8:1; 9:2. Some ancient MSS. date the second Epistle from Philippi.

 On the textual variations, see Westcott and Hort, Appendix, pp. 110-114. Reuss, Ewald, Farrar suppose that Rom. 16 (or 16:3-20) was addressed to Ephesus. Renan conjectures that an editor has combined four copies of the same encyclical letter of Paul, each addressed to a different church and having a different ending. Both these views are preferable to Baur’s rejection of the last two chapters as spurious; though they are full of the Pauline spirit. Hilgenfeld (Einleit., p. 323) and Pfleiderer (Paulinismus, p. 314) maintain, against Baur, the genuineness of Rom. 15 and Rom. 16. On the names in Rom. 16 see the instructive discussion of Lightfoot in his Com. on Philippians, pp. 172-176.

 Phil. 1:7, 13, 14, 17; Eph. 3:1 ("the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles"); 4:1 ("the prisoner in the Lord"); Col. 4:3, 18 ("remember my bonds"); Philem. 10, 13; comp. Acts 28:17, 30.

 So Böttger, Thiersch, Reuss, Meyer, Weiss. Thiersch dates even 2 Timothy from Caesarea, but denies the second Roman captivity.

 This is the prevailing view among critics. I have discussed the order in the History of the Apost. Ch. (1853), pp. 322 sqq.

 So Lightfoot (p. 31), followed by Farrar (II. 417). Ewald likewise puts Philippianas before Colossians, but denies the genuineuess of Ephesians. Bleek regards the data as insufficient to decide the chronological order. See his Einleitung, p. 461, and his posthumous Lectures on Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians, published 1865, p. 7.

 The earthquake took place, according to Tacitus (Ann, XIV. 27), in the seventh, according to Eusebius (Chron., Ol.210, 4), in the tenth year of Nero’s reign, and extended also to Hierapolis and Colossae.

 In a Greek inscription, published by Boeckh and quoted by Lightfoot, Hierapolis is thus apostrophized:

"Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm;

 Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d

 With flowing rills, thy jewels."

 Epictetus ( jEpivkthto"), a slave and then a freedman of Epaphroditus (who was himself a freedman of Nero), was considerably younger than Paul, and taught first at Rome, and, after the expulsion of the philosophers by Domitian, at Nicopolis in Epirus, where his discourses (Enchiridion) were taken down by Arrian. For, like Socrates, he himself wrote nothing. A meeting with Paul or Epaphras would " solve more than one riddle," as Lightfoot says. But he shows no trace of a knowledge of Christianity any more than Seneca, whose correspondence with Paul is spurious, though both lived at Rome under Nero. Marcus Aurelius, a century later, persecuted the Christians and alludes to them only once in his Meditations (XI. 3), where he traces their heroic zeal for martyrdom to sheer obstinacy. The self-reliant, stoic morality of these philosophers, sublime as it is, would have hindered rather than facilitated their acceptance of Christianity, which is based on repentance and humility.

 Kolossaiv, Colossae, is the correct reading of the oldest MSS. against the later Kolassaiv, Colossae. Herodotus calls it povli" megavlh, and Xenophon eujdaivmwn kai; megavlh. In the middle ages it was called Cw'nai. There are few remains of it left two miles north of the present town of Chonos, which is inhabited by Christians and Turks.

 Acts 16:6 (th;n Frugivan kai; Galatikh;n cwvran); 18:23.

 Col. 2:1; comp. 1:4, 8, 9; and Lightfoot, Com., pp. 23 sqq. and 238.

 Col. 1:7; 4:12; comp. Philem 23. Hilgenfeld (p. 663) thinks that Paul founded those churches, and uses this as an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle which implies the contrary. But how easily could a forger have avoided such an apparent contradiction.

 Col. 4:16: th;n ejk Laodikaiva" i{na kai; uJmei'" a jnagnw'te. An abridged expression for "the letter left at Laodicea which you will procure thence." So Bleek and Lightfoot, in loco.

 On the Colossian heresy I refer chiefly to Neander (I. 319 sqq.), the lectures of Bleek (pp. 11-19), and the valuable Excursus of Lightfoot, Com., pp. 73-113, who agrees with Neander and Bleek, but is more full. Lightfoot refutes the view of Hilgenfeld (Der Gnosticismus u. das N. Test., in the "Zeitschrift für wissensch. Theol.," vol. XIII. 233 sqq.), who maintains that the Ep. opposes two different heresies, pure Gnosticism (Col. 2:8-10) and pure Judaism (2:16-23). Comp. his Einleitung, pp. 665 sqq. The two passages are connected by ta; stoicei'a tou' kovsmou(2:8 and 2:20), and the later history of Gnosticism shows, in a more developed form, the same strange mixture of Judaizing and paganizing elements. See the chapter on Gnosticism in the second volume.

 The word plhvrwma, from plhrou'n, to fill, to complete, occurs eighteen times in the New Test., thirteen times in the Epistles of Paul (see Bruder). It designates the result of the action implied in the verb, i.e., complement, completeness, plenitude, perfection; and, in a wider sense (as in John 1:16; Col. 1:19; 2:9), fulness, abundance. Like other substantives ending in—ma, it has an active sense: the filling substance, that which fills (id quod implet, or id quo res impletur). So it is often used by the classics, e.g.,. plhvrwma povlew",the population of a city; in the Septuagint, for the Hebrew  alm], abundance, e g., to; plhvrwma th'" gh'". or to; plhvrwma th'" qalavssh", that which fills the earth, or the sea; and in the New Test., e.g., Mark 6:43 (kofivnwn plhrwvmata); 8:20 (spurivdwn pl.). The passive sense is rare: that which is filled (id quod impletur or impletum est), the filled receptacle. Comp. Grimm and Robinson, sub verbo, and especially Fritzsche, Ad Rom. II. 469 sqq., and Lightfoot. Coloss. 323 sqq.

 In this passage it in equivalent to plhvrwsi", legis observatio.

 Col2:9 to; plhvrwma th'" qeovthto", deitas, Deity, not qeiovthto", divinitas, divinity. Bengel remarks: " Non modo divinae virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura." So also Lightfoot.

 Or, according to the other reading, which is equally well supported, monogenh;" qeov" , one who is only-begotten God.

 Acts 20:28. Some of the best authorities (a, B, Vulg., etc.) read "church of God." So also Westcott and Hort, and the English Revision; but the American Committee prefers, with Tischendorf, the reading tou' kurivou, which is supported by A, C*, D, E, etc., and suits better in this connection. Paul often speaks of "the church of God," but nowhere of "the blood of God." Possibly, as Dr. Hort suggests, uiJou' may have dropped out in a very early copy after tou' ijdivou. See a full discussion by Dr. Abbot, in "Bibl. Sacra" for 1876, pp. 313 sqq. (for kurivou), and by Westcott and Hort, Greek Test., II., Notes, pp. 98 sqq. (for qeou').

 For a fine analysis of the Epistle, I refer to Braune’s Com. in the Lange Series (translated by Dr. Riddle). He adopts a twofold, Stier and Alford a threefold (trinitarian) division. See also Dr. Riddle’s clear analysis in Schaff’s Popular Com. on the New Test., III. (1882). p. 355. I. Doctrinal Part, chs. 1-3: The church, the mystical body of Christ, chosen, redeemed, and united in Christ. II. Practical Part. chs. 4-6: Therefore, let all the members of the church walk in unity, in love, in newness of life, in the armor of God. But we should remember that the Epistle is not strictly systematic, and the doctrinal expositions and practical exhortations interlace each other.

 ejn jEfevsw' is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. Marcion retained the Epistle under the title "To the Laodicenes," as Tertullian reports. Dr. Hort says: "Transcriptional evidence strongly supports the testimony of documents against ejn jEfevsw'." The arguments of Meyer and of Woldemar Schmidt (in the fifth ed. of Meyer on Colossians) in favor of the words are not conclusive.

 This was already the view of Marcion in the second century. Meyer, however, in loc., insists that another letter is meant, which was lost, like one to the Corinthians. The apocryphal Ep. to the Laodiceans (in Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., I. 873 sqq.), consisting of twenty verses, is a mere fabrication from the other Epistles of Paul. It was forbidden by the Second Council of Nicaea (787).

 But the very reverse of churchy. Nothing can be further removed from the genius of Paul than that narrow, mechanical, and pedantic churchiness which sticks to the shell of outward forms and ceremonies, and mistakes them for the kernel within.

 Eph. 5:14 may be a part of a primitive hymn after the type of Hebrew parallelism:

"Awake thou that sleepest,

 Arise thou from the dead

 And Christ will shine upon thee."

 In literal English translation such a sentence is unquestionably heavy and cumbrous. Unsympathetic critics, like De Wette, Baur, Renan, Holtzmann, characterize the style of Ephesians as verbose, diffuse, overloaded, monotonous, and repetitious. But Grotius, a first-class classical scholar, describes it (in his Preface) as "rerum sublimitatem adaequans verbis sublimioribus quam ulla habuit unquam lingua humana." Harless asserts that not a single word in the Epistle is superfluous, and has proved it in his very able commentary. Alford (III. 25) remarks: "As the wonderful effect of the Spirit of inspiration on the mind of man is nowhere in Scripture more evident than in this Epistle, so, to discern those things of the Spirit, is the spiritual mind here more than anywhere required." He contrasts, under this view, the commentaries of De Wette and Stier, putting rather too high an estimate on the latter. Maurice (Unity of the N. T., p. 535): "Every one must be conscious of an overflowing fulness in the style of this Epistle, as if the apostle’s mind could not contain the thoughts that were at work in him, as if each one that he uttered had a luminous train before it and behind it, from which it could not disengage itself." Bishop Ellicott says that the difficulties of the first chapter are "so great and so deep that the most exact language and the most discriminating analysis are too poor and too weak to convey the force or connection of expressions so august, and thoughts so unspeakably profound." Dr. Riddle: "It is the greatness of the Epistle which makes it so difficult; the thought seems to struggle with the words, which seem insufficient to convey the transcendent idea."

 Lardner, Credner, Mayerhoff, Hofmann, and Reuss reverse the order on the ground of Col. 4:16, which refers to "the Epistle from Laodicea," assuming that this is the encyclical Epistle to the Ephesians. But Paul may have done that by anticipation. On the other hand, the kai; uJmei'" (that ye also as well as those to whom I have just written) in Eph. 6:21, as compared with Col. 4:7, justifies the opposite conclusion (as Harless shows, Com., p. lix). Reuss thinks that in writing two letters on the same topic the second is apt to be the shorter. But the reverse is more frequent, as a second edition of a book is usually larger than the first. De Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Holtzmann regard Ephesians as an enlarged recasting (Umarbeitung and Ueberarbeitung)of Colossians by a pupil of Paul.

 Annot. ad Col. 4:16.

 DeWette first attacked Ephesians as a verbose expansion (wortreiche Erweiterung)of the genuine Colossians by a pupil of Paul. See his Introd. to the New Test. (1826, 6th ed. by Messner and Lünemann, 1860, pp. 313 sqq., and especially his Com. on Eph., 1843 and 1847). He based his doubts chiefly on the apparent dependence of Ephesians on Colossians, and could not appreciate the originality and depth of Ephesians. Mayerhoff first attacked Colossians (1838) as a post-Pauline abridgment of Ephesians which he regarded as genuine. Baur attacked both (1845), as his pupil Schwegler did (1846), and assigned them to an anti-Gnostic writer of the later Pauline school. He was followed by Hilgenfeld (1870, 1873, and 1875). Hitzig proposed a middle view (1870), that a genuine Epistle of Paul to the Colossians was enlarged and adapted by the same author who wrote Ephesians, and this view was elaborately carried out by Holtzmann with an attempt to reconstruct the Pauline original (Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosserbriefe, Leipzig, 1872). But the assumption of another Epistle of Paul to the Colossians is a pure critical fiction. History knows only of one such Epistle. Pfleiderer (1873, Paulinismus, p. 370 sq. and 434) substantially agrees with Holtzmann, but assumes two different authors for the two Epistles. He regards Ephesians as an advance from old Paulinism to the Johannean theology. Renan and Ewald admit Colossians to be genuine, but surrender Ephesians, assigning it, however, to an earlier date than the Tülbingen critics (Ewald to a.d. 75 or 80). On the other hand, the genuineness of both Epistles has been ably defended by Bleek, Meyer, Woldemar Schmidt, Braune, Weiss, Alford, Farrar. Bishop Lightfoot, in his Com. on Col., promises to take the question of genuineness up in the Com. on Ephes., which, however, has not yet appeared. Dr. Samuel Davidson, in the revised edition of his Introduction to the Study of the New Test. (1882, vol. II. 176 sqq. and 205 sqq.), reproduces the objections of the Tübingen critics, and adds some new ones which are not very creditable to his judgment, e.g., Paul could not warn the Ephesians to steal no more (Eph. 4:28), and not to be drunk (5:18), because "the Christians of Asia Minor had no tendency to drunken excesses, but rather to ascetic abstinence from wine; and the advice given to Timothy might perhaps have been more suitable: ’Drink a little wine’" (p. 213). But what then becomes of the Epistle to the Corinthians who tolerated an incestuous person in their midst and disgraced the love feasts by intemperance? What of the Epistle to the Romans which contains a similar warning against drunkenness (Rom. 13:13)? And what could induce a pseudo-Paul to slander the church at Ephesus, if it was exceptionally pure?

 Farrar (II. 602): "We might well be amazed if the first hundred years after the death of Christ produced a totally unknown writer who, assuming the name of Paul, treats the mystery which it was given him to reveal with a masterly power which the apostle himself rarely equalled, and most certainly never surpassed. Let any one study the remains of the Apostolic Fathers, and he may well be surprised at the facility with which writers of the Tübingen school, and their successors, assume the existence of Pauls who lived unheard of and died unknown, though they were intellectually and spiritually the equals, if not the superiors, of St. Paul himself!"

 See the quotations in Charteris’s Canonicity, pp. 237 sqq and 247 sqq.

 This is DeWette’s chief argument. See his table of parallel passages in Einleitung, § 146a (pp. 313-318 of the sixth ed.).

 Such as aivscrologiva (Col. 3:8), ajntanaplhrovw (1:24), eijphvopoievw (1:20), ejqeloqrhskeiva (2:23), piqanologiva (2:4); ta; ejpouravnia (Eph. 1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12),ta; pveumatikav (6:12), kosmokravtore" (6:12), polupoivkilo" sofiva (3:10). Even the word a[fesi" (Col. 1:14 and Eph. 1:7) for pavresi" (Rom. 3:25) has been counted among the strange terms, as if Paul had not known before of the remission of sins. Holtzmann has most carefully elaborated the philological argument. But the veteran Reuss (I. 112) treats it as futile, and even Davidson must admit (II 219) that "the sentiments (of Ephesians) are generally Pauline, as well as the diction," though he adds that "both betray marks of another writer."

 Baur, Schwegler, and Hilgenfeld (Einleit., 652 sq.).

 Eus., H. E., III. 32: "The same author [Hegesippus], relating the events of the times, also says that ’the church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin (parqevno" kaqara; kai; ajdiavfqoro" e[menen hJ ejkklhsiva); whilst if there were any at all that attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking in darkness (ejn ajdhvlw/ pou skovtei); but when the sacred choir of the apostles became extinct, and the generation of those that had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also arose the combination of godless error through the fraud of false teachers. These also, as there was none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted, without shame (gumnh'/ loipo;n h[dh th'/ kefalh'/), to preach their falsely so-called gnosis against the gospel of truth.’ Such is the statement of Hegesippus." Comp. the notes on the passage by Heinichen in his ed. of Euseb., Tome III., pp. 100-103.

 The same Hegesippus, in Eus., IV. 22, places the rise of the heresies in the Palestinian church immediately after the death of James, and traces some of them back to Simon Magus. He was evidently familiar with the Pastoral Epistles, and borrowed from them the terms yeudwvnumo" gnw'si" , eJterodidavskaloi., uJgih;" kanwvn.

 The critical school of Rationalism began in Germany with Semler of Halle (1725-1791), in the middle of the eighteenth century, and culminated in the Tübingen School of our own age.

 Augustus conferred upon Philippi the special privilege of the "jus Italicum," which made it a miniature likeness of the Roman people, with "praetors" and "lictors," and the other titles of the Roman magistrates. Under this character the city appears in the narrative of the Acts (16:12 sqq.), where "the pride and privilege of Roman citizenship confront us at every turn." See Lightfoot, pp. 50 sqq., Braune, and Lumby.

 Lightfoot, l.c., p. 53.

 caivrete "combines a parting benediction with an exhortation to cheerfulness. It is neither ’farewell’ alone, nor ’rejoice’ alone" (Lightfoot).

 Bengel:"Summa Epistolae: Gaudeo, gaudete." Farrar (II. 423): "If any one compare the spirit of the best-known classic writers in their adversity with that which was habitual to the far deeper wrongs and far deadlier sufferings of St. Paul—if he will compare the Epistle to the Philippians with the ’Tristia’ of Ovid, the letters of Cicero from exile, or the treatise which Seneca dedicated to Polybius from his banishment in Corsica—he may see, if he will, the difference which Christianity has made in the happiness of man."

 The kenosis controversy between the Lutherans of Giessen and Tübingen in the early part of the seventeenth century, and the more extensive kenosis literature in the nineteenth century (Thomasius, Liebner, Gess, Godet, etc.).

 Dr. Braune, in Lange’s Com., p. 4.

The arguments of Baur and Swegler have been set aside by Lünemann (1847), Brückner (1848), Resch (1850), Hilgenfeld (1871), and Reuss (1875); those of Holsten (1875 and 1876) by P. W. Schmidt, Neutestam, Hyperkritik, 1880. Comp. Holzmann in Hilgenfeld's "Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol.," 1881, 98 sqq.

 Dr. H. B. Hackett, who visited the spot, corrects the false statement of Meyer and other commentators that there is still a village (Felibah, or Filibidjek, as Farrar says) on the former site. See his translation of Braune on Phil., p. 6.

 Lightfoot, p. 64. But almost the same sad tale may be told of the churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, under the withering rule of the Mohammedan Turks. Even Ephesus, where both Paul and John labored so successfully, is little more than a heap of ruins.

 A worthless tradition makes him bishop of Colossae and a martyr in the Neronian persecution. So Onesimus and almost every important man in the apostolic church was turned into a bishop and martyr. On the names in the Epistle, see Lightfoot’s Com. on Col. and Philem., pp. 372 sqq.

 Hence the good-humored play on the meaning of the word, Philem. 11, a[crhsto", eu[crhsto" ,"unprofitable to thee, but now profitable to thee and to me;" and the play on the name, Philem. 20, ojnaivmhn, "let me have comfort in thee."

 Philem. 18 seems to describe the actual offence, though the case is stated hypothetically, eij dev ti ... ojfeivlei (a mild word for e[kleyen, stole). The apostle would not wound the feelings of the slave, nor irritate the master, and offers himself to discharge the debt.

 "The Gospel," says Lightfoot (p. 389), "never directly attacks slavery as an institution: the apostles never command the liberation of slaves as an absolute duty. It is a remarkable fact that St. Paul in this Epistle stops short of any positive injunction. The word ’emancipation’ seems to be trembling on his lips, and yet he does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take the runaway slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him with all affection; to regard him no more as a slave, but as a brother; to treat him with the same consideration, the same love, which he entertains for the apostle himself to whom he owes everything. In fact he tells him to do very much more than emancipate his slave, but this one thing he does not directly enjoin. St. Paul’s treatment of this individual case is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity toward slavery in general."

 For these conflicting legends, see the Acts Sanctorum Boll., XVI. Febr., II. 857 sqq.

 As Hackett (in Lange), Lightfoot, Lumby, and others.

 See Lightfoot, p. 383, and the Speaker’s Com. New Test., III. 829.

 "Es wird hier,"he says (Paulus, II. 88, second ed.), "im Christenthum die schöne Idee aufgefasst, dass die durch dasselbe mit einander Verbundenen in einer wahren Wesensgemeinschaft mit einander stehen, so dass der Eine in dem Anderen sein eigenes Selbst erkennt, sich mit ihm völlig Eins weiss und einer für alle Ewigkeit dauernden Vereinigung angehört."Hilgenfeld admits the genuineness, saying (p. 331): "Der ganze Brief trägt das Gepräge der einfachen Wahrheit an sich und verräth auch in den Wortspielen, Philem. 11, 20, die Schreibart des Paulus."

 For biographical details see the Bible Dictionaries and Commentaries.

 See the testimonies in Kirchhofer’s Quellensammlung, as translated and enlarged by Charteris, Canonicity, 255-268. Renan admits the resemblance between the First Epistle of Clemens Romanus (c. 44) and Second Timothy (e.g., in the use of the word ajnavlusi" for death), but assumes that both borrowed from a common source, the favorite language of the church of Rome, and also that the forger of the Pastoral Epistles probably made use of some authentic letters of Paul. L’Église chrét., p. 95: "Quelques passages de ces trois építres sont d’ailleurs si beaux, qu’on peut se demander si le faussaire n’avait pas entre les mains quelques billets authentiques de Paul."

 Baur and Hilgenfeld (Einleit., p. 764) bring them down to 150 (after Marcion, 140), and date them from Rome. But this is impossible, and rests on a false exegesis. Pfleiderer, of the same Tübingen school, puts 2 Timothy in the age of Trajan, the other two in the age of Hadrian. He, moreover, regards the passages 2 Tim 1:15-18 and 4:9-21 as fragments of a genuine Epistle of Paul. Comp. also Holtzmann, p. 271.

 So Schrader, Wieseler, Reythmayr, formerly also Reuss (in his Gesch., etc., 5th ed., 1875, but withdrawn in his French Com. on the Pauline Epp., 1878).

 So Theophylact, Oecumenius, Ussher, Pearson, Tillemont, Neander, Bleek, Ruffet, Lange, Farrar, Plumptre, Lightfoot, etc.

 A release of Paul from the first Roman captivity and a visit to Spain is also asserted by such critics as Ewald and Renan.

 The ajntiqevsei" th'" yeudwnuvmou gnwvsew"(" oppositions" in the E. V. and Revision) are understood by the best exegetes to mean simply the doctrinal theses which the heretics opposed to the sound doctrine (comp. 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 1:9). So DeWette, Matthies, and Wiesinger. Hofmann and Huther identify them with kenofwnivai and logomacivai (1 Tim. 5:4). Holtzmann (p. 131) likewise rejects Baur’s interpretation.

 Holtzmann, l.c., p. 127; also Lipsius, Schenkel, Pfleiderer.

 See above, § 96 (this vol.)

 Such is the ingenious reasoning of Baur and Renan (L’Egl. chrét., pp. 85 and 94 sqq.). Comp. the discussion of details by Holtzmann, l.c., ch. XI., pp. 190 sqq.

 1 Tim. 1:3; 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:9, 21; Tit. 1:5; 8:12. See above, § 61 (this vol.) The fact is acknowledged by impartial episcopal writers, as Dean Alford, Bishop Lightfoot, Dean Stanley, and Dean Plumptre (in Schaff’s Com. N. T., III. 552). I will quote from Canon Farrar (St. Paul. II. 417) "If the Pastoral Epistles contained a clear defence of the Episcopal system of the second century, this alone would be sufficient to prove their spuriousness; but the total absence of anything resembling it is one of the strongest proofs that they belong to the apostolic age. Bishop and presbyter are still synonymous, as they are throughout the New Testament ... Timothy and Titus exercise functions which would be now called episcopal; but they are not called ’bishops.’ Their functions were temporary, and they simply act as authoritative delegates of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Nor is there any trace of exalted pretensions in the overseers whom they appoint. The qualifications required of them are almost exclusively moral." Comp. also some good remarks of Prof. Wace, in the Speaker’s Com. on the New Test., III. 764, where it is justly said that the church polity in the Pastoral Epistles represents an intermediate stage between the Presbyterian episcopacy of the earlier apostolic period and the post-apostolic episcopacy.

This philological argument was begun by Schleiermacher, but confined to First Timothy, and was carried out, with reference to all three Epistles, by Holtzmann, l.c., ch. VI., pp. 84-118. I will give his results. The Pastoral Epistles have, in all, 897 words. Of these there are 169 Hapaxlegomena not found in the New Testament, namely:

(a) 74 in First Timothy, such as ajgaqoergei'n. aJgneiva, ajdhlovth", ajndrapodisthv" , a[drofovno", ejterodidaskalei'n, qeosevbeia, katastolhv, plevgma, orismov" , filarguriva, yeudolovgo", yeudwvnumo" .

(b) 46 in Second Timothy, e.g ., ajgwghv, ajqlei'n, bevltion, membravna, ojrqotomei'n, pragmateiva, filovqeo".

(c) 28 in Titus, e, g., aiJretikov" , ajkatavgnwsto", ajfqoriva, ajyeudhv" , kalodidavskalo", mataiolovgo" , presbuvti", swthvrio" , filavgaqo", fivlandro" (palingenesiva,  Tit. 3:5, occurs also Matt. 19:28, but in a different sense).

(d) 21 common to two or three Past. Epp., e g, diavbolo", (as adjective), ajnovsio" , didaktikov", kenofwniva, nomivmw" , paraqhvkh, genealogiva, eujsebw'".

 Farrar (II. 611) affirms that there are no less than 111 peculiar terms in Romans, 180 in Corinthians, 57 in Galatians, 54 in Phillipians, 6 in Philemon. Luke’s peculiar vocabulary is especially rich; he uses, as Holtzmann observes (p. 96), 34 words in common with the Pastoral Epistles, and has, besides, 82 words not found in Paul.

 Farrer, II. 611.

 Pfleiderer (Protestanten-Bibel. p. 834) says: "Die kirchliche Lehrrichtung der Hirtenbriefe ist eine von der altpaulinischen sehr weit verschiedene. Von den eigenthümlich paulinischen Lehren über Gesetz und Evangelium, über Werke und Glauben finden sich in unseren Briefen nur abgeblasste Reste, die fast wie feststehende überliefte Formeln klingen, während das Glaubensbewusstsein ein anderes geworden ist."In this harsh and unjust judgment the fact is overlooked that the three Epistles are pastoral and not doctrinal Epistles.

 Such passages as 1 Tim. 1:15, 17; 2:1, 4-6, 8; 3:2, 16; 4:1, 4, 7, 10, 15; 5:8, 17, 18, 22; 6:6, 9-12; 2 Tim. 1:6; 2:11, 12, 19, 22; 8:12, 16, 17; 4:2, 6-8; Tit. 1:7, 15; 2:11; 8:5, 6.

 See notes at the end of the section.

 Heb. 9:8, "while as the first tabernacle is yet standing" (th'" prwvth" skhnh'" ejcouvsh" stavsin); 9:6, "the priests go in continually" (eijsivasin, not went in, as in the E. V.); 8:4<cbr>; 13:10; 6:8; 8:13; 10:25, 27</cbr>; 12:27. Those who assign the composition to a time after the destruction of Jerusalem, deprive the present tenses of their natural import and proper effect.

 The charge of partial ignorance of the Jewish ritual is unfounded, and can therefore not be made an argument either for or against the Pauline authorship. In the genuine text of Heb. 10:11, the high priest is not mentioned, but the priest (iJereuv"), and in 7:27 the high priest is not asserted to offer daily sacrifice, but to need daily repentance. The altar of incense is placed in the holy of holies, 9:4; but this seems to have been a current opinion, which is also mentioned in the Apocalypse of Baruch. See Harnack in "Studien und Kritiken" for 1876, p. 572, and W. R. Smith in " Enc. Brit.," xi., 606.

 See Carpzov, Sacrae Exercitationes in Ep. ad Heb. ex Philone Alex. (Helmstadii, 1750); Riehm, l.c., pp. 9 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Einleit., p. 384; and Pfleiderer, Paulinismus.

 The Epistle is called a lovgo" paraklhvsew" , Heb. 13:22; comp. 12:5; 6:18

 See note II. at the close.

 So also DeWette, Tholuck, Thiersch, Delitzsch, Lünemann, Riehm, Moll (in Lange’s Com.), Langen, Weiss.

 So Oecumenius, Lightfoot, Lange; also Grimm (sub verbo): "Omnes de Judaeis sive aramaice sive graece loquentibus Christiani."

 Ebrard. Moulton, on the contrary, thinks that some other church in Palestine is addressed, and that Jerusalem is excluded by Heb. 2:3.

 Wieseler (who adds an unlikely reference to the temple of Onias in Leontopolis), Credner, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Reuss, Bunsen, Conybeare and Howson, and Plumptre.

 Von Hofmann.

 Wetstein, Alford, Holtzmann, Kurtz, Zahn; also Renan, who thinks (L’Antechrist. p. 211) that the Ep. was written by Barnabas in Ephesus, and addressed to the church in Rome; hence it was first known in Rome.

 A. B. Davidson (Ep. to the Hebr., 1882, p. 18).

 Zahn refers Heb. 10:32-34 to the Neronian persecution; but this is excluded by 12:4, "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood" (mevcri ai}mato"). Harnack finds also traces of the Domitian persecution. Still more unlikely.

 Lardner, Thiersch, Lindsay, Bullock (in Smith’s B. Dict., Am. ed., II., 1028), and others, assign the Epistle to a.d. 63; DeWette, Moll, and Lange to between 62 and 66 (between the death of James and the outbreak of the Jewish war); Ebrard to 62; Wieseler (Chronol, des Ap. Zeitalters, p. 519) to July, 64; Stuart and Tholuck to about 64; Weiss to 65 ("bald nach der Mitte der sechziger Jahre"); Hilgenfeld to between 64 and 66; Davidson (Introd., revised ed., I. 222) to 66; Ewald to 67; Renan and Kay to 65. On the other hand, Zahn gives as the date a.d. 80, Holtzmann and Harnack about 90, Volkmar and Keim, 116-118. These late dates are simply impossible, not only for intrinsic reasons and the allusion to Timothy, but also because Clement of Rome, who wrote about 95, shows a perfect familiarity with Hebrews.

 The inference of the place from oiJ ajpo; th's jItaliva" Heb. 13:24, is uncertain, since in the epistolary style it may imply that the writer was at that time out of Italy, or in Italy (which would be more distinctly expressed by ejn jItaliva/ oroiJ ejx ). The brethren may have been fugitives from Italy (so Bleek). But the latter view seems more natural, and is defended by Theodoret, who knew Greek as his mother tongue. Tholuck and Ebrard quote the phrases oiJ ajpo; gh'" and oiJ ajpo; qalavssh", travellers by land and sea, and from Polybius, oiJ ajpo; th's jAlexandreiva" basilei'", the Alexandrian kings. Still more to the point is Pseudo-Ignatius Ad. Her. 8, quoted by Zahn (see his ed. of Ign., p. 270, 12): ajspavzontaiv se ... pavnte" oiJ ajpo; Filivppwn ejn cristw'/, o]ten kai; ejpevsteilav soi.

 The Sinaitic MS. and C have the subscription "to the Hebrews," A adds "from Rome," K "from Italy." Sam. Davidson dates it from Alexandria, Renan from Ephesus, where he thinks Barnabas was at that time with some fugitive Italians, while Timothy was imprisoned perhaps at Corinth (L’Antechrist. p. 210).

 For the patristic testimonies, I refer to the collection in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 272-288; for a candid and exhaustive discussion of the whole question, to Bleek’s large Com., I., 82-272; also to Alford’s Com., vol iv., Part I., pp. 1-62

 Von Hofmann (of Erlangen) is almost the only one in Germany; Bishop Wordsworth and Dr. Kay in England. Among the older defenders of the Pauline authorship we mention Owen (1668), Mill (1707), Carpzov (1750), Bengel (1752). Sykes (1755), Andr. Cramer (1757), Storr (1789), and especially the learned and acute Roman Catholic scholar, Hug, in his Einleitung.

 Dr. Biesenthal has, by a retranslation of the Ep. into Hebrew, endeavored to prove this theory in "Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an die Hebraeer,"Leipz., 1878. But, of course, this is no argument any more than Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation of the entire New Testament. Such happy phrases as polumerw'" kai; polutrovpw" (Heb.1:1) and e[maqen ejfj w|n e[paqen th;n uJpakohvn (5:8) cannot be reproduced in Hebrew at all.

 sunqevsei th'" levxew" ejllhnikwtevra. Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.

 tiv" de; oJ gravya" th;n ejpistolh;n, to; me;n ajlhqe;" qeo;" oi|den.

 "Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una."

 Calvin: "Scriptor unum se ex apostolorum discipulis profitetur, quod est a Paulina consuetudine longe alienum." And on Heb. 2:3, "Hic locus indicio est; epistolam a Paulo non fuisse compositam,"etc.

 As Calvin expresses it: "Ipsa docendi ratio et stilus alium quam Paulum esse satis testantur." On this point see especially Riehm’s valuable Lehrbegriff, etc., and the respective sections in the works on the N. T. Theology; also Kurtz’s Com., pp. 24 sqq. The parallelisms which Dr. Kay sets against this argument in the Speaker’s Com., pp. 14 sqq., only prove what nobody denies, the essential agreement of Hebrews with the Pauline Epistles

 See the proof in Bleek, vol. I. 338-375. Conveniently ignored in the Speaker’s Com., p. 13.

 Of the other friends of Paul, Timothy is excluded by the reference to him in Heb. 13:23. Mark, Demas, Titus, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Aquila, Jesus Justus have never been brought forward as candidates. Silvanus, or Silas, is favorably mentioned by Böhme, Mynster, and Riehm (890 sqq.), on account of his prominent position, Acts 15:22, 27, 34, 40; 16:19; 1 Pet. 5:12.

 Tertullian, Ullmann, Wieseler, Thiersch, Ritschl, Renan, Zahn. W. R. Smith (in the "Enc. Brit.") likewise leans to the Barnabas hypothesis.

 Clement of Alexandria (who, however, regarded Luke only, and wrongly, as translator), Calvin, Grotius, Crell, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Döllinger. Ebrard supposes that Luke wrote the Epistle at the request and in the name of Paul, who suggested the general plan and leading ideas. This is the most plausible form of the Luke hypothesis, but does not account for the doctrinal differences.

 This linguistic argument has been overdone by Delitzsch and weakened by fanciful or far-fetched analogies. See the strictures of Lünemann, pp. 24-31.

 Mentioned as a subjective conjecture by Origen (Klhvmh" oJ genovmeno" ejpivskopos JRwmaivwn e[graye th;n ejpistolhvn) alongside with Luke. Renewed by Erasmus and Bisping.

 Luther, Osiander, Norton, Semler, Bleek, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Moll, Kendrick, Alford, Lünemann, Kurtz, Samuel Davidson, A. B. Davidson. The Apollos hypothesis has been the most popular until, within the last few years, Renan, Zahn, and W. Robertson Smith have turned the current again in favor of the Barnabas hypothesis. Riehm, after a full and judicious discussion, wavers between Apollos and Silvanus, but ends with Origen’s modest confession of ignorance (p. 894).

 Ep. ad Cor., c. 47.

 jApokavluyis jIhsou' Cristou' Rev. 1:1. The oldest inscription in Cod.  a is apokaluyi" iwanou. Later MSS. add tou' aJgivou and tou' qeolovgou, etc.

 "Tot verba, tot mysteria."—"Niemand weiss, was darinnen steht." Zwingli would take no doctrinal proof-text from Revelation.

 The amount of nonsense, false chronology, and prophecy which has been put into the Apocalypse is amazing, and explains the sarcastic saying of the Calvinistic, yet vehemently anti-Puritanic preacher, Robert South (Serm. XXIII., vol. I., 377, Philad. ed., 1844), that "the book called the Revelation, the more it is studied, the less it is understood, as generally either finding a man cracked, or making him so." The remark is sometimes falsely attributed to Calvin, but he had great respect for the book, and quotes it freely for doctrinal purposes, though he modestly or wisely abstained from writing a commentary on it.

 Rev. 4:11; 5:8-14; 7:12-17; 11:15; 14:13; 15:3; 19:1, 2, 6, 7.

 Herder: "How many passages in the prophets are obscure in their primary historical references, and yet these passages, containing divine truth, doctrine, and consolation, are manna for all hearts and all ages. Should it not be so with the book which is an abstract of almost all prophets and Apostles?"

 Zur Einleit. in die Offenb. Joh., p. 1. The translation is condensed.

 Prof. Godet compares the Apocalypse with the Song of Songs, viewed as a dramatic poem, and calls it "the Canticle of the New Testament," as the Song of Songs is "the Apocalypse of the Old." But I cannot see the aptness of this comparison. Eichhorn treated the Apocalypse as a regular drama with a prologue, three acts, and an epilogue.

 See Lücke, pp. 66-345; Lange, pp. 6 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857); Schürer, N. T’liche Zeitgeschichte (1874), pp. 511-563.

 Godet (p. 297): "The Apocalypse is the precious vessel in which the treasure of Christian hope has been deposited for all ages of the church, but especially for the church under the cross." Dr. Chambers (p. 15): "The scope of this mysterious book is not to convince unbelievers, nor to illustrate the divine prescience, nor to minister to men’s prurient desire to peer into the future, but to edify the disciples of Christ in every age by unfolding the nature and character of earth’s conflicts, by preparing them for trial as not a strange thing, by consoling them with the prospect of victory, by assuring them of God’s sovereign control over all persons and things, and by pointing them to the ultimate issue when they shall pass through the gates of pearl never more to go out."

 Comp. § 50, (this vol.).

 See the testimonies in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 336-357; also Lücke (pp. 419-887), Alford (iv. 198-229), Lee (pp. 405-442), and other commentators.

 This is the almost unanimous opinion of the Tübingen critics and their sympathizers on the Continent and in England.

 Comp. Rev. 1:10; 1 Cor. 14:15. See, besides the references mentioned at the head of the section, the testimony of Dr. Weiss, who, in his Leben Jesu (1882), I. 97-101, ably discusses the difference, between the two books, and comes to the conclusion that they are both from the same Apostle John. "Yes" (he says, with reference to a significant concession of Dr. Baur), "the fourth Gospel is ’the spiritualized Apocalypse,’ but not because an intellectual hero of the second century followed the seer of the Apocalypse, but because the Son of Thunder of the Apocalypse had been matured and transfigured by the Spirit and the divine guidance into a mystic, and the flames of his youth had burnt down into the glow of a holy love."

 The great majority of older commentators, and among the recent ones Elliott, Alford, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Lange, Hofmann, Godet, Lee, Milligan, and Warfield (in Schaff’s "Encycl." III. 2035). I myself formerly advocated the later date, in the Hist. of the Ap. Church (1853), pp. 418 sqq

 The early date is advocated or accepted by Neander, Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, DeWette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Düsterdieck, Renan, Aubé, Stuart, Davidson, Cowles, Bishop Lightfoot, Westoott, Holtzmann, Weiss; and among earlier writers by Alcasar, Grotius, Hammond, Abauzit, and John Lightfoot.

 Suetonius, Vespas. c. 1 "Rebellione trium principum et caede incertum diu et quasi vagum imperium suscepit firmavitque tandem gens Flavia."

 So Bleek (p. 121), Lücke (in the second ed.), Böhmer, Weiss, Düsterdieck (Introd. pp. 55 sqq. and Com. on Rev. 13:3, and 17:7-14).

 So Ewald, Reuss, Baur, etc. See NOTES below.

 Comp. ch. vi., pp. 376-402, and especially the most graphic description of those terrible years by Renan, in L’Antechrist, ch. xiv., pp. 320-339, which I would like to transcribe if space permitted. His facts are well supported by heathen and Jewish testimonies especially Tacitus, Suetonius, Strabo, Pliny, Josephus, etc.

 See Alford, Com. iv., 245 sqq.; Elliott, 4th vol.; Sam. Davidson, Introd. to the N. T., first ed. III. 619, revised ed., vol. II. 297, and Lee, Com. p. 488. Davidson adds a fourth class of "extreme," as distinguished from simple "Futurists," who refer the entire book, including Rev. 2 and 3, to the last times. Lee substitutes with Lücke the term "Historical" for "Continuous," but Historical applies better to the first class called "Preterists." Lee adds (491), as a fourth system, the "Spiritual system," and names Augustin (his "City of God," as the first philosophy of history), J. C. K. von Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Ebrard as its chief defenders. It is the same with what Auberlen calls the reichsgeschichtliche Auslegung.

 So Herder, in his suggestive book MARAN AQA, das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des N. Testaments Siegel, Riga, 1779. He was preceded in the anti-Jewish explication by Abauzit of Geneva (1730), who assigned the book to the reign of Nero, and Wetstein (1752), and followed by Hartwig (1780) and Züllig. The last, in a learned work on the Apocalypse (Stuttgart, 1834, 2 vols., 1840), refers it exclusively to the Jewish state.

 a  = 1, b  = 2, r  = 100, a  = 1, x  = 60, a  = 1, " = 200; total, 365. A vast number of engraved stones, called " Abraxas-gems," are still extant. The origin of Abraxas is usually ascribed to Basilides or his followers.

 I = 10 + h  = 8 + s  = 200 + o  = 70 + u  = 400 + s  = 200, total ijhsous = 888. Comp. Barnabas, Ep. c. 9; and the Sibylline Books, I. 324-331.

 These pious absurdities are surpassed by the rationalistic absurdity of Volkmar, who (in his Com. on the Apoc., 1862, p. 197) carries the imaginary hostility of John to Paul so far as to refer "the false prophet" (Rev. 16:13; 19:20) to the Apostle of the Gentiles, because he taught (Rom. 13) that every soul should be subject to the then reigning Nero (ie., the beast)! Even Hilgenfeld (Einleit. p. 436) and Samuel Davidson (I. 291), while agreeing with Volkmar in the Nero-hypothesis, protest against such impious nonsense.

 See Lee, Com. p. 687. Adam Clarke regarded this unanswerable.

 Adv. Haer., v. 30, §§3 and 4. Josephus, from prudential regard to his patrons, the Flavian emperors, withheld the interpretation of the fourth beast and the stone cut out of the mountain in Daniel’s vision. Ant. x. 10, § 4. On which Havercamp remarks: "Nor is this to be wondered at that he would not now meddle with things future; for he had no mind to provoke the Romans by speaking of the destruction of that city, which they called the eternal city."

 If they go farther, they discover the anti-Christian beast in the mediaeval German (the so-called "Holy Roman") empire in conflict with the papacy, in the Napoleonic imperialism, the Russian Czarism, the modern German empire (the anti-papal Cultur-Kampf ), in fact in every secular power which is hostile to the interests of the Roman hierarchy and will "not go to Canossa." This would be the very reverse of the old Protestant interpretation.

 D = 500 + I = 1 + C = 100 + L = 50 + V = 5 + V = 5 = 666.

 The numerical value of Kaisarsebaston is = 20 + 1 + 10 + 200 + 1 + 100 + 200 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 6 + 70 + 50, in all 666.

 In the essay above quoted, p. 388, and in the article Revelation in Johnson’s "Cyclopaedia," III. 1606 sqq.

↑ Back to top