Apocryphal literature of the jews

The NT forms the second and concluding portion of the sacred writings which embody the Divine revela- tion communicated in the line of Jewish history. Before any ἼΕν of the NT had been written, the Heb. canon had been virtually closed ; and the idea of a new collection of sacred writings which should be held in no less veneration than the old was slow to take possession of the Christian Church.

Hence the OT aia to which the apostles constantly appealed for evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, continued to be for many years the only authori- tative writings in the Church. But the way had been so far prepared for the association of Christian Scriptures with the OT by the recent inclusion in the LXX of certain apocryphal works which had no place in the Heb. canon. The language of the was also that in which the new religion was to express itself; and the character of the Gr.

tongue, so rich and flexible and many-sided, even in its degenerate Hellenistic form, and so world- wide in its use, was itself a token of the freedom from Judaic bonds which Christian thought was to work out for itself, and gave promise of a literature which should be more or less in touch with the intellectual life of the whole civilized world.

With the exception of Luke, who seems to have been a Greek (an inference from Col 41-4, which is borne out by the tone and style of his Gospel and the Bk. of Acts), the writers of the NT were of Jewish extraction, and they were all filled with the deepest reverence for the OT. They quote from it nearly 300 times, their quotations being drawn from almost all parts of it; while the instances in which its influence can be traced without any direct quotations from it are still more numerous.

The whole NT from first to last reflects the characteristics of the OT in thought as well as in expression; and in the Epistles and Acts and Apocalypse as well as in the Gospels we find constant illustration of Christ’s words, ‘Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

’ The NT fullils the OT, not by supplementing it but by i cate izing it, transforming rules into principles, and resolving the outward, temporary, and national into that which is inward, permanent,and universal.

In other words, it brings to light and sets free of NEW TESTAMENT 523 limitations the essential principles lying at the root of the OT, on which the latter depends for its spiritual life and meaning,—according to the well-known words of Augustine, ‘Novum Testa- mentum in Vetere latet; Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet.

’ Even in their bodily structure a close analogy has been traced between them, the first portion of each being mainly characterized by the personal manifestation of God, the next by the revelation of His will through the acts and words of His chosen servants, the third and last by pro- phetic visions of the future.

Yet, notwithstanding this intimate relationship between the two, there is at the same time a strong and essential contrast between them—a contrast as great in their character and contents as in the process of their growth. To some extent the difference in their character may be accounted for by the new conditions of existence to which the Jewish nation was subjected under the Roman Empire, of which we have many tokens in our Lord’s parables as well as in other parts of the NT.

In some degree, also, it may be traced to the new elements of thought contained in the late: Jewish writings already referred to. While the oints of contact between the NT and heathen iterature are extremely few,* the LXX, on the other hand, was familiar to most of the NT writers, their OT quotations being generally derived from it and not from the Heb. ; a the inflaence of several es books contained in it, notably the Bk.

of Wisdom, can be discerned in a number of the Epistles, although there is not a single express quotation from any of these booksin the NT. In a few instances, also, chiefly in St. Paul’s Epistles,+ a Rabbinical style of argument has been detected ; and in the Ep. to the Heb. and the writings of St.

John expressions are to be found (such as Λόγος, Παράκλητος, ᾿Αρχιερεύς, applied to Christ) showin, an affinity with the views of Philo, the chie representative of the fresh impulse which Jewish thought received from contact with Greek philo- sophy at Alexandria and elsewhere. But the most striking signs of transition to a new age are to be found, not in the OT Apocr.

, properly so- called, or in Rabbinical scholasticism or Hellenistic hilosophy, but in the pseudonymous apocalyptic iterature (partly recovered within the last century), which was framed on the model of the well-known Book of Daniel, and prepared the way for its Christian counterpart, the Apocalypse of John.

Whether this literature was a spirited offshoot from the main stem of Pharisaic thought, or formed part of the esoteric doctrine of the Essenes, whose strange tenets and literature are described by Philo and Josephus, although their name is never even eon in the NT, is a question which has not yet been determined. Butin Jude we find a direct quotation from one of the most important of these spocelynes works (Bk.

of Enoch); and elsewhere there are a few stray quotations and allusions to circumstances not mentioned in the OT for which the writers were probably indebted to a similar source. t More important than such Mageecic details are certain ideas and expressions in the extant remains of this apocalyptic literature, which appear to be reflected in the thought and language not only of the NT writers but also of our Lord Himself.

There are Christian interpolations in these books, and their date of composition is often very uncer- * There are three quotations from Greek poets by St. Paul (Ac 1733, 1 Co 165%, Tit 1/2), and a barely possible allusion te Platonic doctrine by our Lord (Mt 19!7 RV). ἡ Gal 316 4222, 1 Co 95. 10 101-2, t Lk 4%, of. Ja 517; Lk 114; Jn 7; Ac 7™, cf.

Gal 319, He 93 Ac 753, 1 Co 29 104; Eph 514; 2 Ti 38; He 1197; Jude ®; 2 Ρ gu, In the case of several of these passages the sources are mentioned by Church Fathers. NEW TESTAMENT 524 tain, but, even in those parts of them to whicha pre-Christian date may be safely assigned, there are more distinct foreshadowings than any of the OT books contain of a number of truths relating to the spiritual world which hold a more or less prominent place in the NT.

Among such elements of Christian thonght are the unique personality of the Messiah (of which we have a token in the frequent occurrence in the Bk. of Enoch of the expression, ‘the Son of man,’ with a Messianic reference that goes far beyond the meaning of the words, ‘one like unto a son of man,’ in Dn 7’), the doctrine of immortality, of the resurrection (cf.

Dn 12%), of a future judgment with eternal rewards and punishments, of a hierarchy of angels with manifold operations, of the agency of demons, and of predestination, together with enlarged con- ceptions of Divine providence as embracing uni- versal history, and of the Messianic promise as securing the interests of the individual as well as of the nation: all these developments being due, partly to the foreign elements of thought which the Jews imported from Babylonia and Persia, and partly to the growing hopelessness of their national position (as regarded mere mundane possi- bilities), which naturally disposed them to the study of eschatology.

It was, doubtless, these an- ticipations of Christianity that gave some of these books so high a place in the estimation of the Church Fathers, who sometimes treated them as if they had been canonical ; the Bk. of Enoch, for example, being cited as γραφή in the Ep. of Bar- nabas.

In other respects, however, both ethical and theological, this literature comes far short of ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’; and we have still to fall back on the mystery of the Incarnation, with its attendant doctrines of Christ’s atoning sacrifice (of which there is scarcely any trace in contem- worary Jewish thought, so absor was the nation in the formal keeping of the Law as the only means of salvation), of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men revealed in Christ, of the life and immortality secured by His resurrection from the dead, and δὲ ἐπὸ Holy Spirit imparted by Him to His Church, in order to find an adequate ex- planation of the majesty of Christ’s person and the sublimity of His teaching as depicted in the Gospels, and at the same time to account for the sure and certain hope, the humble and self-re- nouncing faith, the loving and 1 eke devotion, the pure, tender, and world-wide morality which are characteristic of the whole NT.

ii. HIsTORY OF THE NT, INCLUDING ITs RELA- TION TO THE CHURCH FATHERS AND THE CHRIS- TIAN APocRYPHA.—As already indicated, a New Testament in our sense of the term was something which the apostles never dreamt of. The charge which they had received from their Master was to preach the gospel, and the as of the Spirit was exiirensly connected with the bearing of oral testimony.

As they had received nothing in writing from their Master’s hands, they were not likely to see any necessity for a written word, so long as they were able to fulfil their commission to preach the gospel, especially as they were looking for a speedy return of their Lord, and lad no idea that somany centuries were to elapse before the great event should take place.

Probably the earliest nucleus of the NT consisted of notes of the apostles’ preaching, either drawn up by their hearers for their own use, or intended as an aid to catechists and teachers. Some such notes (probably in Aramaic, of which we have many traces in the Greek text) seem to have formed the basis of our Synoptie Gospels. Although not published in their present form till long after Christ’s death, the Gospels narrate events, not in i Ξ 5 .

, , = NEW TESTAMENT the light shed upon them δ subsequent experience, but as they were regarded by the disciples at the time of their occurrence. They also preserve expres- sions in our Lord’s discourses which scarcely ever appear in the phraseology of the early Church, while they are at the same time free from forms of speech which betray the post-apostolic date of apocr. Gospels; and in other respects harmonize with the state of things prior to the destruc- tion of Jerusalem in A.D, 70.

Before the Gospels assumed their present form, many of the Epistles were already current in the Church. hese letters were naturally prized by the Churches to which they were addressed, as well as by other Churches which received copies of them, and they were readily admitted to public reading in the con- gregation, first of all on special occasions (1 Th 5”) and in course of time as a general practice, along with prescribed portions of the OT, after the manner of the Jewish synagogue.

As the apostles one after another passed away, their testimony and that of those most closely associated with them was more and more treasured by the Church ; and the writings in which that testimony was embodied were felt to be indispensable to the faith and life of the Church.

In the Apostolic Fathers we can discern signs of the growing reverence for these writings, not only in their reproduction of the thought and language of a considerable number of the Epistles, repre- senting the leading types of apostolic teaching found in the NT, but also in the terms in which St.

Paul’s writings are referred to by representative men so far distant from one another as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycerp of Smyrna; while our Gospels are also accredited by the substantial harmony of their contents with the facts assumed by the sub-apostolic writers as the basis of their teaching, although the verbal coincidences are neither numerous nor exact, ur- less we except the Didaché in its quotations from the First and Third Gospels.

But the formal recognition of a new body of Scrip- tures worthy of being associated with the OT came much later.

As the writings composing the NT came into existence only by degrees, in the course of about half a century, to meet the practical needs of the Chureh, so the collecting of these writings and their setting apart for public use was accomplished only gradually, as the leading representatives of the Church in different parts of the world came to realize the insufficiency and uncertainty of local tradition, and the need for securing the orthodox faith against invasion and corruption.

It is not, indeed, till near the close of the 2nd cent. that we find a generally accepted collection of sacred books substantially identical with our NT and ΘΒ sacred with the OT.

From the nature of its contents, as well as from the language of Patristic writers on the subject, it is evident that the general principle on which the Church proceeded in forming the NT was to admit to it only the writings of apostles, and of those who had written under the influence and direction of epastls This naturally arose from the fact that the new life of the Church was centred in the person of Jesus Christ, and that the faith of its members depended on the testimony of those who had been brought into close personal contact with Him, or had received a special commission to preach the gospel.

But the principle was not always easy of application, and it sometimes led to different conclusions in different parts of the Church, accord- ing to the views held as to the authorship of dis- puted books; while the association of canonical and uncanonical books in the LXX, to which the Fathers were accustomed, tended to make them less rigorous in their judgments than they might have otherwise been.

Outside of our NT there NEW TESTAMENT were three books which were held in special reverence, being sometimes read in chureh and occasionally included in great Scripture MSS, viz. the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas; the authors of these books being supposed by many to be identical with the persons of the same names mentioned in the NT in connexion with the Apostle Paul (Ph 4°, Ac 12%, Ro 1601}.

On the other hand, as regards the disputed books contained in our NT (chiefly minor Epistles, with the Ep. to the Heb.

and the Book of Rev), it was because their apostolic author- ship was more or less distrusted in certain quarters of the Church, owing to the obscurity of their early history or to some dissatisfaction with their contents, that the right of these books toa place in the Canon was more or less called in question, until at length the public opinion of the Church found expression at the 3rd Council of Carthage in A.D.

397, when the very same books as are con- tained in our NT were acknowledged to be can- onical, and declared to be the only books that should be read in church.

This decree (which seems to have reflected the general mind of the Church, and which has been prac- tically acquiesced in ever since,* notwithstanding occasional controversies regarding individual books, and amid conflicting theories as to the authority of Scripture) had the effect of excluding from the Canon not only the three writings already referred to, and one or two other productions of the post- apostolic ee which were highly esteemed in the nurch although they made no claim to apostolic authority, but also another and less worthy class of writings, dating from the 2nd to the end of the 4th cent.

, which played an important part in the life of the Church, and throw a valuable light on the history of the NT. These are what are known as Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and pa Reel se apparently numerous, but of which only a small part have come down to us, a few in their entirety, some in a fragmen form, and others only in name. They varied greatly in their form and contents, but, apart from the early com- positions referred to in St.

Luke’s Gospel (113), which soon disappeared (unless our Second Gospel was one of them) in the survival of the fittest, they were either supplementary to the Canonical Scrip- tures, ishing information or doctrine on sub- 1855 but little dealt with in the NT, or, more requently, they were composed for the purpose of bolstering up heretical opinions or practices which were seen to have little or no canonical support.

Many of the ‘Gospels’ were mainly derived from those in the NT (the recently recovered ‘Gospel of Peter’ borrows from all the four), with more or less modification of the original in the interest of some Gnostic or other heresy.

The modification was liable to alteration from time to time (as may be seen from the wide variations in the different MSS of the same work) to meet the exigencies of suc- cessive teachers, who issued their several recensions under great names—generally those of apostles— after Bie manner of the pseudonymous Jewish writers already referred to. Very often the same work was known under a variety of names. For example, the ‘Gospel of the Hebrews,’ which may have been a Judaic recension of the Heb.

original of our St. Matthew, has been identified with the ‘Gospel of the Nazarenes’ and the still more here- tical ‘Gospel of the Ebionites,’ as well as with the Gospels of Bartholomew, Cerinthus, and the Twelve Apostles. In this ‘Gosp. of the Hebrews’ and some other primitive documents, such as the ‘Gosp. of Peter’ (c. A.D. 125, or, ace.

to some, 165) and the * The Vulgate had a good deal to do with this result in the West, just as earlier translations affected the form and extent of the Canon in their several spheres of influence. NEW TESTAMENT 525 ‘Gosp. of the Egyptians’ (also dating from the 2nd cent.), it may well be that a certain amount of oral tradition was incorporated, which had been pre- served by the Jews who resided near the scene of the evangelic history.

It in no degree weakens the authority of the NT to find a few grains of such extra-canonical matter appearing in the works of an early Patristic writer, such as Justin Martyr, or even to find an apocr. Gospel quoted by a writer of an eclective turn, like Clement of Alexandria. So far from impairing the credit of the NT writings, these apocr.

ἘΣΒΟΒύνιΟδΗ of a later age bear witness to the authority which the written word had already acquired in the Church, and show the necessity under which heretical teachers lay either to manipulate the text of the received books or to adduce other and equally high testimony in favour of their peculiar views. In general, the literature in question is manifestly counterfeit.

Much of it is of a character degrading to Christianity, the ex- travagance and absurdity of its miracles, especially in its pictures of the Saviour’s childhood, presenting a sad contrast to the chaste dignity of the canoni records; and there is none of hich, either in re- it W spect of outward attestation or intrinsic excellence, can be held to have been unjustly dealt with in being denied admission to the NT.

The writings of the Church Fathers show how little influence it exerted in the early Church compared with the NT writings, which formed the general standard of faith and practice, and sometimes even contributed the only element that redeemed Patristic literature from inanity and unprofitableness. The lapse of time, while it exalted the NT Scriptures to honour, brought the apocr. literature into general disrepute.

* Within a century or two after it had reached the height of its popularity (4th cent.)

, it lost its place in public esteem and gradually passed out of the notice of the Church, leaving its traces indeed on the productions of Christian art, and influencing by its legends the festivals and preaching of the urch, but deemed of no account by thinkers and theologians, until the rise of modern criticism in- vested it with a new and scientific interest, when a fresh sense of its immeasurable inferiority to the Canonical Scriptures has impressed itself upon the mind of the Church.

The following are notable features in the history of the NT, from a literary point of view as well as in the interests of criticism. (1) The age and num- ber of its MSS. Some of these date from the 4th or 5th cent.,+ and the whole number of them exceeds 2000, forming an immense array of witnesses, com.

pared with the few MSS of classical works, which can frequently be counted on the fingers, and in some cases do not reach back to within a thousand years of the age in which the work was produced. (2) The number of its VSS. It has been trans- lated into almost all languages, beginning with the Old Lat. and Syr. VSS, which may have origin ated in the first half of the 2nd cent., followed a little later by the Egyptian (in three different forms)—the Gothic in the 4th cent.

, the Ethiopic in the 4th or 5th cent., and the Armenian in the middle οἱ the 5th century. (3) The extent to which it has been reproduced in subsequent writings. It is quoted, echoed, or commented on by the great eee of early Christian writers. The sym pe 1y of the Apostolic Fathers with its contents 188 been already mentioned.

The extant writings of the next half century are mainly defences of Christianity addressed to unbelievers, admitting of We have an early example of this in what Eusebius tells (HE vi. 12) of the obscurity into which the once popula of Peter’ (used apparently by Justin as one of Memoi had fallen in the time of Serapion, bishop of Antioch (c. a.p, 200 u . i The Oxyrhynchus fragment containing Mt 119 may date from the end of the Srd cent. (see Grenfell end Hunt).

fewer quotations from the Scriptures than if they had been intended for members of the Church. But, speaking generally, it may be said that the language, ma still more the substance, of the NT is woven into the earliest Christian writings that have come down to us, while the quotations by a single writer in the end of the 2nd and in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th cent.

are sometimes so extensive as to amount to a considerable part of the whole NT— more than half of it, for example, being imbedded in the works of Origen. These circumstances, while they give the NT a unique place in literature and afford valuable means for proving the antiquity and integrity of its contents, are attended with the disadvantage of causing uncertainty in innumerable passages as to the precise terms of the original.

A careful ex- amination of the existing authorities has led to the discovery of about 200,000 ‘Various Readings,’ which are chiefly to be accounted for by the ter liability to error in copying with the hand than in the use of the printing-press. The difference be- tween the various readings, however, is seldom of such a nature as to affect in the slightest degree the substance of the NT.

If all the expressions whose accuracy is in question were brought together and printed in a consecutive form, they would not exceed the length of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, while the disputed verses possessed of | any doctrinal significance would not be equal col- lectively to the shortest Epistle of St. John.

In this connexion it may be well to point out that there is nothing to justify the assumption that we possess all the apostolic writings that were ever in the possession of the primitive Church. So far from this, there are expressions in some of St. Paul’s Epistles which suggest that he wrote other letters besides those which have come down to us (1 Co δ᾽, 2 Th 3", cf. 2Co 11%).

We can understand how an apostle’s letters might be less prized during his lifetime than after his death, when the loss of any of his writings would be seen to be irre to perish, than that so many of our Lord’s spoken words, and those of His apostles, should have been allowed to away, or that so many of His great re sho d have ἘΞ allowed to go unrecorded (Jn 21%). iii. CONTENTS OF THE NT (Its individual Books and their Writers).

—The NT consists of 27 different books, by 9 different authors, each book having its special characteristics corresponding to the personality of its writer, and the circumstances in which it was written, but all contributing their to one divine whole centred in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. As early as the 2nd cent. there was a recognized distinction between ‘the Gospel’ and ‘the Apostle,’ just as we find a three- fold division of the OT in Lk 24“ and elsewhere.

The former denoted the four Gospels; the latter, the Epistles of St. Paul, to which were added by —— the Book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, under the general name of ‘the Apostles.

’ All these were seldom comprised in one MS, and their arrangement varies in MSS containing more than one section and in canonical lists given by Church Fathers, as is also the case with the arrangement of the several books in each section, showing that the consolidation of the NT was a process still going on. 1. The Gospels.—In all cases the Gospels come first.

This position has been fitly assigned to them, not only because they were perhaps the first NT Scriptures to be regularly associated with the OT in the public reading of the Church, but also because the history which they record forms the corner- stene of the Christian religion, which bases its eparable; and it is no more astonishing | that Providence should have suffered such writings | NEW TESTAMENT doctrines not on speculation but on fact.

Drawn up without concert and without the formal sanc- tion of the Church, they contain, in a form suitable for all ages and for all classes, several independent records of Christ’s life and teaching, of which it may be said with truth that they are better authen- ticated and more nearly contemporaneous with the events narrated than any other record we possess in connexion with any other period of ancient history.

A comparison of the four Gospels, how- ever, reveals a marked difference between the fourth and the first three. The latter give in one common view the same general outline of the ministry of Christ, but this outline is almost entirely con- fined to His ministry in Galilee, and includes only one visit to Jerusalem ; whereas the Fourth Gospel gives an account of no fewer than five visits to Jerusalem, and lays the scene of the ministry chiefly in Judea.

A still more important distinction between them has been briefly expressed by designating the Synoptic Gospels as the bodily cele and the Fourth as the spiritual Gospel—by which it is meant that the former relate chiefly the outward events connected with the Saviour’s visible presence, reported for the most pane without note or comment, while the latter is eines to repre- sent the ideal and heavenly side of His personality and work.

Akin to this distinction is the fact that the first three report Christ’s addresses to the multitude, consisting largely of parables, while the Fourth contains discourses of a more sublime char- acter, frequently expressed in the language of allegory and addressed to the inner circle of His followers.

Furthermore, when we enter into a close examination of the Synoptic Gospels and compare them with one another, we find an amount of simi larity in detail, extending even to minute expres- sions and the connexion of individual incidents, combined with a diversity of diction, arrangement, and contents, which it has hitherto bafied the in- genuity of critics fully to explain.

While further investigation may shed more light on the historical and literary relations of the Gospels, there is a deep underlying unity amid their diversity which may be best τ απο not by attempting to piece them together so as to form a complete chronological history, but by sbudyang each from its own point of view, and learning from it what it has to teach con- cerning the many-sidea character and life of Jesus Christ.

Speaking generally, we may say that, while the First Gospel sets forth Christ’s life and teaching with reference to the past, as the fulfil- ment of the OT, the Gospel of St. Mark exhibits that life in the present, as a manifestation of the activity and power so congenial to the Roman mind; St.

Luke, as a Greek, depicts it in its catholic and comprehensive character, as destined in the future to embrace within its saving influence all the kindreds of the Gentiles; while the Fourth Gospel represents it in its absolute perfection, as it is related to the Father in eternity.

With regard to the authorship of the Gospels, it is a remarkable fact that two of them do not bear the names of apostles but of companions of apostles (Mark and Luke), and that, of fie other two, only one bears the name of an apostle of eminence (John) — which is so far a confirmation of their genuineness. With regard to the First Gospel, there is no reason to doubt the tradition of the ancient Church, beginning with Papias in the first half of the 2nd cent.

, which assigns it in its original form to St. Matthew. But whether it was origin- ally written in Heb., as stated by Papias, and how far it has been altered by recension, are ques- tions which have not yet been determined. See MATTHEW (GOSPEL OF). With equal unanimit the testimony of the Fathers, beginning wit Papias, ascribe the Second Gospel to St. Mark, whe NEW TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT 527 is said to have embodied in it the reaching of St. Peter.

This view is strongly confirmed by the tone and character of the book, which is generally regardvd us containing, in a more or less modified form, the earliest cycle of apostolic teaching. See art. MARK. With regard to the authorship of the Third Gospel, there is substantial unanimity. Tra- dition has always ascribed it to St. Luke, the friend and companion of the Apostle Paul, at the same time assigning to the latter a in its production somewhat similar to that which St.

Peter is believed to have borne in relation to the Gospel of Mark— 8 view supported to a certain extent by the char- acter of the Gospel itself, which forms an excellent historic groundwork for the doctrine of salvation by grace that was characteristic of St. Paul’s preach- ing. See art. LUKE. Until the close of the 18th cent. the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel was never seriously challenged.

In some respects it has stronger external testimony in its favour than any of the others; and the whole tone of the book gives the impression that it was written by one as was familiar with the inner life of Christ and His apostles, as well as with the topography of Jerusalem and the ideas and customs prevalent among the Jews before the destruction of their capi Moreover, the spiritual elevation of the book is vastly superior to anything we find in the sub-apostolic age, and the Johannine authorship is attended with fewer difficulties than any other that has been suggested.

If it was written in Ephesus about A.D. 85 (which is in accordance with the earliest tradition), an interval of more than half a century had elapsed since the death of Christ, during which Christianity had spread into many lands and furnished subjects for reflexion to many minds.

In these circumstances it was in- evitable that the truths of the Gospel should be viewed in new lights and assume more speculative forms ; and in Ephesus, as the great meeting-place of Oriental mysticism and Greek’ philosophy, the deeper questions and more theological aspects of the new religion would naturally claim a large measure of attention. See, further, art. JOHN (GOSPEL OF). 2. The Book of Acts.

—This invaluable document, which is our chief authority on the history of the Chureh for nearly a generation after Christ’s death, is evidently from the same pen as the Gospel of Luke, to which it is intended to be a sequel.

The writer conceives of Christ as still carrying on His work in virtue of His resurrection and ascension, and seeks to trace the gradual ex- pansion of the Church from its first beginning, as a seeming phase of Judaism, to its full development as a Catholic communion, free alike to Jew and Gentile. Although the author does not speak in his own name till he reaches the point in his narrative at which he joined St.

Paul’s company at Troas, and was evidently dependent in the earlier part of his work on a variety of sources, oral and written, yet the book has a natural unity of diction and style, which forbids us to assign it to more than one author; and its several parts are so interlaced by corresponding observations and allusions as to lead to the same conclusion.

Recent investigations have enhanced the reputation which the work had previously enjoyed for histori- cal worth and accuracy ; and the belief is becoming eneral that it must have been written by a istorian of the first rank. Regarding its date of composition, no conclusion has been reached be- yond what may be inferred from the fact that it was written by a contemporary and companion of the Apostle Paul, at some time subsequent to his first imprisonment at Rome (A.D. 63). See art. AcTs. 3.

The Pauline Epistles and the Ep. to the Hebrews.—One of the characteristics of the NT, as compared with all other sacred books, is the ereiary character of a large part of ite contents. * though most of the Epistles were written at an earlier period than the Gospels in their present form, they represent in general a more advanced stage of Christian theology.

They give us the fruits of from twenty to fifty years’ reflexion on the cardinal facts and truths contained in the Synoptic Gospels, and are the chief source of Christian doctrine on such subjects as the Trinity, the relation of Christ to the human race and to the Church, the Atonement, Justification by faith, and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit. They con- tain more explicit claims, in varying modes and forms, to divine inspiration and authority, than the Gospels or the Bk.

of Acts; but, while largely doctrinal in character, most of them were written for the purpose of dealing with questions of a practical nature, and are enlivened with many personal allusions. What has just been said is especially true of the Epistles of St. Paul. While bearing evidence in many passages of being written more or less under the conscious influence of the Holy Spirit, they had their rise in the special needs and circumstances of the various Churches to which they were addressed.

They are thirteen in number, and may be divided into four groups, extending over the last fifteen years or more of the apostle’s life, and exhibiting, amid many similarities and correlations, a well- marked development of thought: viz. (a) 1 and 2 Th, which were written about A.D. 53 (Turner, 50-52], at least sixteen years after the apostle’s con- version, and turn largely on questions relating to Christ’s Second Coming.

(4) 1 and2 Co, Gal, and Ro, which were written during his third missionary journey (A.D. 57-58 (Turner, 55-56 for 1 and 2 Co and Ro, date of Gal he leaves undecided]), and were mainly designed to vindicate his apostolic autho- rity and preserve the gospel from the inroads of Judaism. (c) The Epistles of the Imprisonment, viz.

, Ph, Col, Philem, and Eph (the last named being in all probability a circular-letter, identical with ‘the epistle from Laodicea’ referred to in Col 4:5), which were written from Rome about A.D. 62-63 [Turner, 59-61], and range from the humblest personal details to the loftiest speculations regard- ing the being and destiny of the Church. (d) The Pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which are distinguished from all the others by their want of historical agreement with any period in St.

Paul’s life as recorded in the Bk. of Acts, and also by their strongly-marked individuality alike in style and substance. These circumstances have given rise to serious doubt of their genuineness, which is largely obviated, however, by supposing them to have been written after the imprisonment recorded in the closing chapter of the Acts, and in the last year of the apostle’s life—say A.D. 67-68.

It is worthy of note that the Epistles in the second group are almost universally admitted to be zenuine, which is a most important admission rom an evidential point of view, as they contain many allusions to detailed matters of fact men- tioned in the Gospels, and prove that the story of Christ’s death and resurrection as told in the ee Gospels was the chief theme of St. Paul’s pan ing.

The evidence is all the more valuable because it is indirect, the letters having manifestly been written without any such object in view, and being addressed to several independent communities far removed from one another. Having regard to the tone of sincerity, tempered with sobriety of judg- * It contains twenty-one letters by six differentauthors. Nine of these are address! to individual Churches, viz. 1 and 2 Th, 1 and 2 Co, Gal, Re, Ph, Col, 2 Jn; five to individual persons, viz.

Philem, 1 and ἡ Ti, Tit, 3 Jn; two to Heb, Christians, viz He and Ja; the retaining five being of a more or leas gener’ nature, viz. Eph, laud’ P, 1 Jn, and Jude. i NEW TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT ment, which characterizes these Epistles, as well as to the early association of the writer with the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem, and the oppor- tunities he had for ascertaining the real facts of | the evangelic history, we are led inevitably to the | conclusion that St.

Paul’s Gospel had the same historic groundwork of essentia! and well-attested facts regarding Christ's life and teaching as we | find recorded in the four Gospels, See separate | arts. on these various Epistles. As regards the Ep. to the Hebrews, which has always been closely associated with the Pauline Epistles, there is evidence that from the latter half of the 2nd cent.

it was assigned by the Eastern Church to the Apostle Paul, although some of the most competent judges were constrained by internal evidence to depart somewhat from the traditional view, their idea being that St. Paul might have written the original, and one of his disciples have translated it into Greek, or that the apostle a6: have supplied the thoughts, and one of his dis- ciples have put them into words.

In the Western Church, on the other hand, opinion was for a long time adverse to the Pauline authorship; and it was not till the close of the 4th cent. that the Ep. was acknowledged to be a writing of St. Paul’s. This view has now been generally abandoned, as the result of a closer study of the style and strue- ture of the book ; and for the same reason, the idea that it may be a translation of a work by the apostle is also admitted to be untenable.

At the same time there seems no reason to doubt that it was written by one of St. Paul’s school. Luke, Clement, Apollos, Barnabas, have all been sug- gested, the latter two being those in whose favour most can be said. As to the destination of the Ep., various allusions show that it was not in- tended for Heb. Christians in general, but for some definite community.

Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, have each had their advocates ; but the position of Christians in Jerusalem or in some other part of Palestine seems to answer best to the situation which the writer has in view. ag caer the date of composition, the mention of Timothy’s liberation (He 13%), which took place presumably at Rome, whither he had been summoned by St.

Paul in his last imprisonment, points to a time shortly anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem—an inference which is confirmed by other expressions in the Ep., referring to the decadence of the Jewish Dispensation. The great theme of the τὶς is the superiority of Christianity to Judaism, which it attempts to prove, not so much by minimizing the old covenant (as St.

Paul had been obliged to do in vindicating the freedom of his Gentile converts) as by ἘΠΕ ΤΣ πὶ the new as a fulfilment of the old. See, further, (EPISTLE TO). 4. The Catholic Epistles.—There are 7 Epistles which from the 4th cent. have gone under this name, viz. Ja, 1 and 2 P, 123 Jn, and Jude. bes were so called in contradistinction to St. Paul's Epistles, which, with the exception of the Pastoral Epp. and Philem, are addressed to indi- vidual Churches, also 7 in number.

In most of the Greek MSS the Cath. Epp. stand next to Acts, although they were accel later than the Pauline Epp. in obtaining general recognition in the Church. (a) The General Ep. of James.—This is now gener- ally admitted to be a genuine work of ‘James, the Lord’s brother’ (Gal 1%), who for many years presided cver the Church at Jerusalem. The symbolism of numbers has an interesting bearing on the Proportions of the NT, not only in the use of 7 in the cases above mentioned (cf.

Rev 14) and in the case of the Pauline Epp., which (including He)=7x2, but also in the number of the Pospels, to which Irenwus and others, under the influence of a tvived Neo-Pythagoreanism, ascribed a mystic virtue.

| EBREWS The internal evidence is strongly in its favour, and the rarity of allusions to it in the early Christian writers may be accounted for by its circulation being confined to Jewish Christians, as well as by the narrow sphere of labour in which the writer himself moved, his whole life apparently having been spent in Jerusalem. It is addressed ‘To the twelve tribes which are of the Dispersion,’ and there is no reason to take the words in any other than a literal sense. The tone of the Ep.

is eminently practical, the object of the writer being to inculcate Christian morality as essential to salvation. Hence it partakes largely of the ethical character of the Sermon on the Mount, which it resembles not only in its general tone and sentiment, but in many of its expressions.

The marked absence of bet oro like develo Christian doctrine, as well as the expectation which it exhibits of Christ’s speedy coming to judge the world (5%), and the application of the term ‘synagogue’ (23) to an assembly of Christian worshippers, seem to require an early date for the Ep. ; and as there is no sign of acquaintance with the sharp controversy regarding the obligations of the Jewish law, which came to a head in the Council of Jerusalem (A.D.

50), there seems a reason to regard this as the oldest book in the NT, dating between A.D. 44 and 49. See, further, JAMES (EPISTLE OF). (δ) The Ist Ep. of Peter.—There is no reason to doubt that this Ep. was written by the apostle whose name it bears. Hardly ben book of the NT is better supported by external evidence, while internally it bears in many of its features the stamp of St. Peter’s mind and the traces of hia experience, as these are represented to us in the Gospels and the Bk.

of Acts. It is addressed ‘ To the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia’; but there is a difference of opinion whether these words are to be taken in a literal sense, as de- rai Jewish Christians merely, or as embracing ‘the Israel of God’ in the widest sense. As it appears, however, from a number of passages that the readers of the Ep. were largely Gentiles, the latter supposition seems to accord best with the facts.

Similarly, ‘Babylon’ (513) should probably be understood in a figurative sense as meanin Rome, the writer’s point of view being in full harmony with this supposition. There is also some controversy as to the date of the Epistle.

Some would assign it to the period of the Flavian dynasty, but the probability seems to be that it was written shortly after the outbreak of the Neronian persecution, when the Christians in the provinces were beginning to experience the effects of the imperial example at Rome, about 64-65. The very name of Christian was becoming a term of reproach (41°), and the chief object of the writer is to inculcate patience under trial and persever- ance in well-doing in a spirit of hope. (c) The 2nd Ep.

of Peter.—The genuineness of this Ae has been more questioned than that of any other book in the NT. The external evidence for it is comparatively meagre; but the chief objection to it both in ancient and in moderr times has arisen from its differing so greatly in tone and substance from the Ist Epistle.

his objection is so far obviated by the fact that while the Ist was designed to encourage and support Christians under persecution, this was evidently intended to warn against false teachers, who were spreading corruption in the Church. Moreover, amid the general difference of style, a close ex- amination of the language and thought in this Epistle brings out many points of resemblance between it and St.

Peter’s expressions elsewhere ; and in several respects it does not tally with the NEW TESTAMENT ee ee a ee supposition of forgery. The mention of St. Paul’s Epp., however (3-16), as if they were already known to the Asiatic Churches, and in the same category as ‘the other Scriptures’ (ras λοιπὰς γραφάς, as well as the marked resemblance of this Ep., in style, to the recently discovered * Apocalypse of Peter,’ seem to imply a post-apostolic date ; and there is much to favour the view of Prof.

W. M. Ramsay, who regards the Ep. as the work of ‘a disciple who was full of the spirit and words of his teacher, and who believed so thoroughly that he was giving the words of his teacher that he attributed it to that teacher.’ See, further, PETER (EPISTLES OF). (d) The Ep. of Jude.—This Epistle is in the name of ‘Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.

The James whom the writer here claims as his brother was the well-known head of the Church at Jerusalem, one of our Lord’s brethren, and the writer of the Ep. that bears his name ; and therefore Jude is not to be identified with any ot the apostles of the same name mentioned in the Gospels. There is such a striking resemblance between this Ep. (consisting of a single chapter) and the 2nd chapter of 2 P as to justify the belief that the one was borrowed from the other. But as this Ep.

has some features of originality about it which the other lacks, we may infer that Peter and not Jude was the borrower—a supposition confirmed by the way in which certain quota- tions in Jude from non-canonical Jewish Scriptures almost disappear from 2 P, along with one or two references to Levitical uncleanness, as if the writer desired as far as possible to adapt his writing for general use. This Ep.

is full of sharp and stern denunciation aimed at practical evils of a most heinous character, founded on a gross abuse of Christian liberty. It probably emanated from Palestine in the period immediately preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. See, further, art. JUDE (EPISTLE OF). (e) The 1st Ep. of John.—There is abundance of evidence, both external and internal, to prove that this Ep. was written by the author of the Fourth Gospel, and forms a sequel to it.

The readers are not specified, but in all probability it was addressed in the first instance to the Churches of Asia, among whom St. John spent the latter part of his life. The writer speaks in a quiet tone of authority, as if he were well known to his readers and were well acquainted with their dangers and their needs.

He insists on the translation into the Christian life of those great truths regarding the fellowship of God with man, which, in the Fourth Gospel, are exhibited in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. (f) The 2nd Ep. of John.—This Ep. has all the appearance of being genuine. It bears a strong resemblance to the Ist, no fewer than 7 of its 13 verses having something parallel in the other.

It is addressed ‘Unto the elect lady and her children,’ by whom we are probably to understand a Church and its members ; and the object of the Ep. is to warn them against the insidious and corrupting influence of certain heretical teachers who were going about denying the reality of Christ’s humanity. The title of ‘the elder,’ which the writer assumes, implies that he was a well- known personage in the Church, and is one that could be fitly claimed by St. John as the last of the apostles.

(g) The 3rd Ep. of John.—This Ep., like the 2nd, is written in the name of ‘the elder,’ and it has so many expressions in common with the other that they have been fitly termed ‘twins.’ It gives us a momentary glimpse of Church life in Asia towards the close of the Ist cent., and illustrates the practical difficulties which had to be en- countered in the government of the Church. It