========================================================================
  THE EARLY EPISTLES OF ST PAUL
  by Kiskopp Lake
========================================================================

Lake's scholarly study of Paul's earliest letters, establishing that
understanding the epistles requires connecting them to the historical outline
provided in Acts. He reconstructs the background and circumstances that produced
each of Paul's early writings.

  Chapters: 15

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 00. THE EARLIER EPISTES OF ST. PAUL
    2. 01.     Chapter 1. THE OUTLINE GIVEN IN ACTS OF EVENTS IN ST. PAUL’S LIFE
    3. 02.     Chapter 2. THE JUDAISTIC CONTROVERSY, THE GENTILE CONVERTS, ...
    4. 02.01.     THE TEXT OF THE APOSTOLIC DECREES
    5. 03.     Chapter 3. THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS
    6. 04.     Chapter 4. CORINTH
    7. 04.01.     Appendix 1. THE APOCRYPHAL CORRESPONDENCE OF ST. PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIANS
    8. 04.02.     Appendix 2. GLOSSOLALIA AND PSYCHOLOGY
    9. 05.     Chapter 5. THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
   10. 05.01.     Appendix 1. GALATIA, KINGDOM AND PROVINCE
   11. 05.02.     Appendix 2. THE TEXT OF ACTS 12:25
   12. 05.03.     Appendix 3. ST. PAUL’S JOURNEY TO ARABIA
   13. 06.     Chapter 6. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
   14. 06.01.     Appendix. THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE GROUP DEFG
   15. 07.     Chapter 7. CONCLUSION

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 00. THE EARLIER EPISTES OF ST. PAUL
========================================================================

THE EARLIER EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL THEIR MOTIVE AND ORIGIN BY

KIRSOPP LAKE TO THE SENATUS ACADEMICUS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS

PREFACE THE difficulty which undoubtedly attends any attempt to understand the
Epistles of St. Paul is largely due to the fact that they are letters; for the
writer of a letter assumes the knowledge of a whole series of facts, which are,
as he is quite aware, equally familiar to his correspondent and to himself. But
as time goes on this knowledge is gradually forgotten, and what was originally
quite plain becomes difficult and obscure; it has to be rediscovered from stray
hints and from other documents by a process of laborious research, before it is
possible for the letters to be read with anything approaching to the ease and
intelligence possessed by those to whom they were originally sent. It is
necessary to reconstruct the story of the motive and origin of the letters, and
create a picture of the background of thought and practice against which they
were set in the beginning. The following pages are an attempt to do this for the
earlier Epistles of St. Paul. I have not tried to give a description of St.
Paul’s own thoughts—I trust that I may attempt this task later—but to
reconstruct the background, a knowledge of which renders it possible to read the
Epistles with intelligence; and for this purpose two main types of problems have
been attacked. In the first place, an effort has been made to deal with the
literary and critical questions introductory to these letters, concerning their
integrity, destination, and history. These problems are often somewhat tedious,
but they acquire interest if they are seriously studied, and in any case they
cannot be neglected by those who desire to have a real grasp of the nature of
early Christian literature.

Secondly, attention has been given to the intricate question of the world of
religious thought to which the earliest Gentile Christians belonged—the world of
the Hellenistic Mystery Religions. This is much more difficult, and much more
important, but has as yet been much less adequately studied than the more purely
literary questions. Students of the New Testament have been somewhat slow to
grasp its importance, or to make use of the rich material which has been given
by classical and archaeological scholars, such as (if I may mention two names
out of a great number) Cumont and Reitzenstein.

Nevertheless, I have no fear but that the immediate future will make good the
remissness of the past. The study of the religious life of the Graeco-Roman
world as a whole is now fully recognized to be absolutely necessary if we do not
wish our notions about early Christianity to be a mere caricature of the truth.

There is, however, one subsidiary point to which I have drawn attention in more
than one chapter, and desire to emphasize once more,—the psychological aspect of
religion. To understand the history of religions we must understand the
psychology of religious men. I have endeavoured in the following pages to use
what knowledge of psychology I possess, but I am confident that this method
ought to be extended far more widely. The difficulty is due to our ignorance of
co-ordinated facts, and this again is partly caused by the unnatural limitation
of the modern study of theology.

We desire to arrive at an intelligent understanding of religion; we grow old and
weary in the study of texts and inscriptions, and we do well, for they have much
to teach us; but we forget that religion is to be found in men, not in
manuscripts, and we need to take a lesson from our brothers the doctors. They
are the students of the body, as we are of the soul; they make the centre of
their work the study of the body as it is found here and now, and their use of
the books of past generations is always subsidiary to that study. It is the
fatal mistake of the theologian to think that he can do otherwise, and
understand the soul from the study of ancient books. Our great need at present
is the study of the living soul, and I venture to say this, because it is, among
other more important things, very necessary for the study of those Epistles on
which I am writing.

KIRSOPP LAKE.

Leiden, September, 1911 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.The Outline Given in Acts of Events in St. Paul’s Life II.The
Judaistic Controversy, the Gentile Converts, and the Background of Gentile
Christianity Appendix - The Text of the Apostolic Decrees III.The Epistles to
the Thessalonians IV.Corinth Appendix I. - The Apocryphal Correspondence of St
Paul with the Corinthians Appendix II. - Glossolalia and Psychology V.The
Epistle to the Galatians Appendix I. - Galatia, Kingdom and Province Appendix
II. - The Text of Acts 12.25 Appendix III. - St. Paul’s Journey to Arabia VI.The
Epistle to the Romans; The Church at Rome Appendix I. - The Textual Evidence of
the Group DEFG VII.Conclusion


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01.     CHAPTER 1. THE OUTLINE GIVEN IN ACTS OF EVENTS IN ST. PAUL’S LIFE
========================================================================

CHAPTER I THE OUTLINE GIVEN IN ACTS OF EVENTS IN ST. PAUL’S LIFE

IT needs no argument to show that the problems concerning the Pauline Epistles
can only be stated, much less solved, in connection with the evidence of the
Acts. In the Acts we have not, indeed, any attempt to give an account of all St.
Paul’s work, but we have an outline of a great part of it, and in some places
detailed information as to his journeys, which it is impossible to overvalue.
This outline of the course of events is the necessary basis of any attempt to
reconstruct the background of the Epistles. Fortunately, it is quite easy to
follow, and presents in itself hardly any serious difficulties. The writer of
Acts takes us from city to city with St. Paul, and often gives us some
indication of the time spent in each, so that with surprisingly few exceptions
we can reconstruct St. Paul’s route, and (though here the degree of certainty is
markedly less) the duration of his work in various districts.

Nevertheless, the matter is occasionally complicated by a series of critical
questions, some of which in turn depend on the Epistles. Therefore we are to
some extent dealing, in connection with St. Paul, with a problem involving two
factors, one of which must always be assumed as certain when the other is under
discussion, though neither can really be finally treated as possessing its
assumed stability. Ideally the proper method is first to assume one factor, and
afterwards to consider the necessary correction to be allowed for, owing to the
possible range of error in the assumption. But in practice certain limitations
can be usefully observed in carrying out such a plan. It is neither necessary
nor desirable to fight all over again the battle of the acts in the spirit of
Zeller the battle of the Acts in the spirit of Zeller or of his immediate
oppenents Zeller still or of his immediate oppenents Zeller oppenents Zeller
stll worth reading, but even though half a century of criticism has not been
able to settle all the problems which have been raised in connection with the
Acts, it has gone some way towards reducing them to manageable dimensions, so
that for the purpose of the present book, which is concerned primarily with the
Epistles, it is possible within very short limits to present a sufficient
statement of the subject, showing the points on which there is especial room for
doubt, and the general position which most commends itself to those who have
fully investigated the Acts.

It would be generally admitted that the central point of all study of the Acts
is the “we-clauses,” in which the writer speaks of himself and St. Paul in the
first person plural. These clauses, by an almost unanimous consent, are regarded
as the work of a companion of St. Paul; and there is scarcely less agreement in
tracing most of the important facts of the “Pauline” half of Acts to the same
source. The contentious points are concerned with the relation of this writer to
the redactor, and with the earlier or “Petrine” half of the book. Many critics,
by no means belonging to an extreme school, think that the “we-clauses” and the
source to which they belong—which is very commonly recognized to have been the
work of St. Luke, the friend of St. Paul—ought to be distinguished from the
final redactor, who may have lived in the last days of the first century, and
have compiled the Third Gospel and Acts from earlier documents. Others think
that the writer of the “we-clauses” was himself the redactor, whom they identify
with St. Luke, and consider that he used the first person in order to indicate
the occasions on which he had been actually present at the incidents described.
Professor Harnack’s studies on the question have done much to commend the latter
opinion, but he has not yet succeeded in obtaining such a measure of agreement
as to justify a writer on the Epistles in disregarding the alternative view.This
question is not, however, of the first importance for the present subject, as
there is in any case something approaching unanimity in assigning a high value
to the “Pauline” half of Acts, though its accuracy is still questioned on some
individual details; these will be considered, so far as is necessary, when they
are met with in discussing the Epistles. Far more serious is the problem raised
by the “Petrine” half of the Acts. Here it is conceded generally that the
redactor, whether he was St. Luke or a later writer, was using various sources;
but there is no agreement as to whether these sources were written or oral, or,
if they were written, Greek or Aramaic. It is also generally conceded that these
sources were not all of equal value, and that some difficulties in the opening
narratives can best be explained on the hypothesis that the redactor, or one of
his sources, had misunderstood the narrative. The importance of this fact for
the Pauline Epistles is chiefly in connection with the Judaistic controversy.
If, for instance, we assume that the redactor of Acts, as redactors are wont to
do, made two incidents out of two narratives of the same incident, we have to
face the possibility that Acts has multiplied the visits of St. Paul to
Jerusalem, and this is an important factor in considering the problem of the
relation between the visit mentioned in Galatians 2:1-21 and the Apostolic
Council.

It will be seen that it will be necessary in the end to consider several points
of this nature in relation to the Epistles; but the clearest method seems
unquestionably to be found in starting with the narrative of Acts as we have in
the ordinary Greek text, using this as the working hypothesis from which a study
of the historical side of the Epistles must begin, and taking into consideration
in the course of this study the modifications rendered possible by the criticism
of the Acts. The narrative of the Acts, which it is proposed to use in this way,
is familiar to every one, but for convenience it is perhaps not superfluous to
state in the shortest possible summary the facts which it contains relating to
St. Paul. The Acts describe St. Paul as a Roman citizen (Acts 22:25-29), A jew
of Tarsus (Acts 21:39, Acts 22:1-30, Acts 23:1-35),called Saul in Jewish
circles, who had been educated in Jerusalem under the guidance of Gamaliel (Acts
22:3). He was a zealous defender of a strict Pharisaic Judaism (Acts 22:3; Acts
23:6), and took part in the persecution of Christians (Acts 7:58; Acts 8:3,
Acts 26:9-10). He was at his own request employed in this connection by the
High Priest to go to Damascus in the interests of the anti-Christian Jewish
propaganda (Acts 9:1-2; Acts 22:5; Acts 26:12), but on the way to that city he
was suddenly converted by a vision of the risen Lord to believe the doctrine,
which he had hitherto repudiated, that the Messiah was Jesus, and became as
zealous a defender of Christianity, as he had previously been a persecutor of it
(Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-10, Acts 26:9-10).

After his conversion he went first to Damascus (Acts 9:8), where he was cured
of the temporary blindness which had befallen him, and was baptized by Ananias,
a Christian of Damascus (Acts 9:10-19), who had been told in a vision to do
this. Here he stayed for some time, preaching Christianity in the Jewish
synagogues, but when the Jews became enraged at his gospel (Acts 9:19-25) he
escaped to Jerusalem, where the disciples were at first afraid of him, but
afterwards accepted him on the recommendation of St. Barnabas (Acts 9:26-27).
He then spent some time in Jerusalem arguing with the Greek-speaking Jews, but
when a plot was formed to kill him the disciples sent him to Caesarea and thence
to Tarsus (Acts 9:28-30). How long he stayed in Tarsus is not stated: but it
is probable that he spent his time in energetically preaching the gospel, for
the next that is heard of him is that St. Barnabas, who had been sent from
Jerusalem to Antioch to investigate and supervise the growing Christian
community in that city, fetched St. Paul from Tarsus to assist him (Acts
11:22-26). From this point onwards our information becomes much fuller. The
first important incident was the sending of St. Paul and St. Barnabas from
Antioch to Jerusalem in order to bring help in the time of the famine (Acts
11:27-30). This is the second visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem that is mentioned
in the Acts: what happened beyond the distribution of alms is not stated, and
when it was finished St. Paul and St. Barnabas returned to Antioch (Acts
12:25). At Antioch the Church decided to take the important step of sending
St. Barnabas and St. Paul, accompanied by John Mark, on a missionary expedition
outside the province Syria Cilicia in which they had hitherto worked (Acts
13:1-3, Acts 13:5). They first went to Cyprus (Acts 13:4-12), and then crossed
over to Perga in Pamphylia, where John Mark appears to have been reluctant to go
any further and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). From Perga St. Barnabas and
St. Paul went to Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:14-50), Iconium (Acts 13:51-52,
Acts 14:1-5), Lystra (Acts 14:6-10), and Derbe (Acts 1:1-21), passing in this
way from the province of Pamphylia to that of Galatia, which is, however, not
actually mentioned by name, and then retraced their steps to Perga (Acts
14:21-24). From Perga they went to the neighbouring port of Attalia, and thence
sailed to Antioch in Syria, whence they had started (Acts 14:25-26). In Antioch
they found that the peace of the community was disturbed by the arrival of
members of the Church at Jerusalem who insisted on the necessity of circumcision
(Acts 15:1), and in order to settle the disputes which arose it was arranged
that St. Paul and St. Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem to confer with the
Apostles and elders, and represent the Antiochene point of view (Acts 15:2).
The result was the famous “Council of Jerusalem” which decided, after hearing
St. Paul and St. Barnabas, various Christians of the Pharisaic party, and
finally St. Peter and St. James, that circumcision ought not to be demanded from
Gentile Christians, but that they should be exhorted to keep themselves from
“the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, [and from things strangled], and
from blood" (Acts 15:4-21). This decision, the text of which is doubtful (see
pp. 48 ff.), was made the substance of a letter to the Christians of Antioch and
its Province, Syria Cilicia, and entrusted to Judas Barsabbas and Silas to take
to Antioch, whither St. Paul and St. Barnabas also returned (Acts 15:22-32). In
Antioch they remained for some time; after which St. Paul and St. Barnabas
formed the plan of revisiting the communities which they had established
already. But as St. Paul would not agree to take again John Mark, who had turned
back on the first journey, they separated, and St. Barnabas went to Cyprus,
while St. Paul went with Silas through Syria Cilicia, and ultimately reached
Derbe, Lystra (in which Timothy joined them), and Iconium (Acts 15:36, Acts
16:2). What next happened is a matter of dispute. The text of Acts says: “And
they went through the Phrygian and Galatian Region (τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν
χώραν) having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia,
and when they were come over against Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia,
and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not, and passing by Mysia, they came down
to Troas" (Acts 16:6-8), but exactly what this means is not quite certain, and,
as it has some bearing on the Epistle to the Galatians, it will be discussed
later in connection with that Epistle (see Chap. V.). In any case, whatever
route St. Paul may have followed, in the end he reached Troas and thence went to
Neapolis (the modern Cavalla), Philippi, where he was imprisoned and beaten
(Acts 16:11-40), Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9), and Beroea (Acts 17:10-14), (in
both of which Jewish opposition put an end to his work,) and thus founded the
Christian Churches of the Province of Macedonia. From Beroea, leaving Timothy
and Silas behind, he went, partly by sea, to Athens (Acts 17:15-34)and then to
Corinth where Timothy and Silas rejoined him. Here he stayed a year and six
months, and founded the Church in that city, living with Aquila and Priscilla,
Jews of Pontus who had recently come from Rome, and teaching first in the
synagogue, and afterwards in the house of Titus Justus who lived next to it. He
was here also brought before the Roman magistrate, Gallio, but acquitted (Acts
18:1-17). From Corinth he went for a short time to Ephesus, and then returned,
possibly after a short visit to Jerusalem, to Antioch. This is generally
regarded as the end of the second missionary journey (Acts 18:18-22).

After an interval, spent in Antioch, St. Paul started on his third missionary
journey, returning through the “Galatic Region and Phrygia,” along the hill
country of the province of Asia, to Ephesus (Acts 18:23). In Ephesus he preached
for three months in the synagogue, and afterwards for two years in the “school
of Tyrannus,” with the result, according to St. Luke, that “all they which dwelt
in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:1-10).
Towards the end of the period St. Paul formed the plan of going to Jerusalem,
after paying a visit to his converts in Macedonia and Achaia, and then extending
his field of preaching to Rome (Acts 19:21). It would also seem, from an
allusion in his speech before Felix, that the reason for his desire to visit
Jerusalem was the bringing of alms to the poor of the community (Acts 24:17). As
a preliminary to this journey he sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia shortly
before the time when he intended to leave Ephesus (Acts 19:22). His last days in
Ephesus were rendered unpleasant by a riot raised against him by Demetrius, a
silversmith, and worshipper of Artemis, who thought that St. Paul’s teaching was
derogatory to his goddess, and harmful to his trade (Acts 19:23-41).

After the agitation raised by Demetrius had died down, St. Paul went through
Macedonia to Achaia (Acts 20:1-2)—probably Corinth is intended—and formed the
plan of sailing direct to Syria, but finding a plot among the Jews, changed his
mind and returned over land through Macedonia to Philippi (Acts 20:3-6), whence
after the Passover he crossed, in the company of the writer of the we-clauses,
to Troas, where Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius of Derbe, Timothy,
Tychicus, and Trophimus joined him (Acts 20:4-6). Here they waited seven days,
and the main body of the party then went in a coasting vessel to Assos, where
St. Paul, who had gone by road, was again taken up (Acts 20:6, Acts 20:13). From
Assos they sailed in stages to Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Miletus, where St.
Paul bade farewell to the Ephesian Presbyters, who came to see him (Acts
20:14-38). From Miletus they sailed to Cos, Rhodes, and Patara, and then
changing ships sailed south of Cyprus to Tyre, where the ship stopped seven
days, thence to Ptolemais, and Caesarea (Acts 21:1-8). In Caesarea they stayed
for some time with Philip the Evangelist, who, it is mentioned, had four
prophetess daughters (Acts 21:8-9), and during this stay Agabus prophesied that
St. Paul would be imprisoned by the Jews, in Jerusalem (Acts 21:10-11). This
made both his own party, and also the Caesarean community, urge him not to go to
Jerusalem; but he held to his plan and insisted on going (Acts 21:12-14). On
his arrival at Jerusalem St. Paul was received by St. James (Acts 21:18), who
told him that the Jews regarded him as a renegade who preached to the Jews of
the Diaspora that they should not circumcise their children nor “walk after the
customs.” He suggested, therefore, that St. Paul should show his respect for the
Jewish law by taking part in a vow which four men of the community had taken,
and by paying their expenses (Acts 21:19-24). St. Paul agreed to do this, but
before the week of the vow was completed Jews from Asia saw him in the temple
and raised a tumult by accusing him of teaching against the law and of
introducing Greeks into the temple (Acts 21:25-29). He was violently turned out
of the temple, and only saved from being lynched by the interposition of Lysias,
the tribunus militum in charge of the Roman garrison at Jerusalem, who arrested
him (Acts 21:33; Acts 23:26). This arrest was the beginning of a long
imprisonment. St. Paul was tried four times without any decisive verdict being
given. (1) By the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem (Acts 22:30; Acts 23:10). (2) By the
Governor Felix in Caesarea, where he had been sent by Lysias in consequence of a
Jewish plot which rendered it unsafe to keep him in Jerusalem (Acts 23:12-27).
(3) After two years, when Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, St. Paul was
brought before Festus, who proposed that he should go to Jerusalem and there be
tried. St. Paul, however, stood on his rights and demanded to be tried by
Caesar’s tribunal, and Festus determined to send him to Rome (Acts 25:13). (4)
A short time after this Herod Agrippa II. was staying in Caesarea, and Festus
brought St. Paul before him. The result of this trial before Agrippa was
favourable to St. Paul, but having appealed to Caesar (whose representative
Agrippa was not) he could not be released (Acts 25:13; Acts 26:32), and soon
afterwards was sent off by sea, accompanied, it would seem, by St. Luke and by
Aristarchus of Thessalonica (Acts 27:6-44) . Thus ended the first period of
imprisonment, at Caesarea, which seems to have lasted rather more than two years
(Acts 24:27).

St. Paul’s voyage to Rome was adventurous: he started from Caesarea in a ship of
Adramyttium which was going to the coast of the Province of Asia. After touching
at Sidon they sailed across, leeward of Cyprus, to Myra (Acts 27:2-5). Here they
changed into a ship of Alexandria, bound for Italy, and made their way with
difficulty to Fair Havens, near Lasea in Crete. It was now the late autumn, and
sailing became dangerous, but the captain tried to push on, and being caught in
a strong north-easterly wind was wrecked on the island of Malta (Acts 27:6-44).
Here St. Paul, his friends, and escort spent the winter (Acts 28:1-10), and
after three months sailed in another Alexandrian ship, called the Dioscuri, to
Syracuse, Rhegium, and finally Puteoli (Acts 28:11-13), where they landed, and,
after a week’s rest, made their way to Rome, being met at Appii Forum and Three
Taverns by members of the Christian community at Rome (Acts 28:14-15). On his
arrival, St. Paul was lodged by himself, possibly in an inn (cf. ξενίαν, Acts
28:23), in the custody of a soldier (Acts 28:16). After three days he summoned
the Jews to hear him, and on two separate occasions they came. On the first the
main issue of the meeting was the charges brought against him: of these the Jews
professed complete ignorance, and said that no instruction had reached them from
Jerusalem Acts 28:17-22). On the second occasion St. Paul explained his
teaching, and when the Jews, with some exceptions, would not believe, he
announced to them, with a quotation from Isaiah, his intention of preaching to
the Gentiles (Acts 28:23-23). At this point the narrative in Acts is closed by
the statement “And he abode two full years in his own hired dwelling, and
received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching
the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness, none forbidding
him” (Acts 28:30-31), a curious and enigmatic conclusion, which has often been
discussed, and leaves us doubtful whether St. Paul was acquitted, condemned, or
dismissed for lack of evidence.

Such is the sequence of events with which the Acts provide us. For the present
purpose it is invaluable as affording the outline of the missionary activity of
St. Paul which is one of the chief features in that background of the Epistles
which it is proposed to reconstruct. It is no doubt imperfect; St. Paul must
have done much more than St. Luke recorded, and, therefore, the mention in the
Epistles of events which find no place in the Acts is not surprising. But,
imperfect though it be, it covers most fully precisely that period to which all
the Epistles, except the Pastorals, belong. As will be seen, we are able to fix
with tolerable certainty the time when the Epistles were written, even though
the degree of certainty is by no means always the same, and this result is
chiefly owing to the record of the sequence of events in the Acts. It is, of
course, obvious that the statements in the Acts are not always plain, and so far
as this is the case they will be discussed fully in connection with the Epistles
on which they have a bearing, but on the whole, and considering the character of
the book, Acts is a first-rate historical document, and singularly easy to
understand, so far as the mere enumeration of events is concerned. The
enumeration of events, however, is only the beginning of historical research,
and it is far more difficult, as well as more important, to discover from the
Acts that development of tendencies and ideas which produced the controversies
and problems that called forth the Pauline Epistles. For this purpose it will be
necessary to consider the real meaning of the Judaistic controversy, of which
the Council at Jerusalem was the culminating point, but by no means the end, and
the results which sprang from the ensuing propagation of Christianity in the
Graeco-Roman world.

Footnotes:

1Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht, 1854.
Published in English by Williams and Norgate in 1875 as The Contents and Origin
of the Acts of the Apostles.

1Untersuchungen zu den Schriften des Lukas, Hinrichs, 1906–8. These studies were
originally published in three volumes, under the titles of Lukas der Arzt,
Sprüche und Reden Jesu, and Die Apostelgeschichte. They have been published in
English by Williams and Norgate, as Luke the Physician, The Sayings and Words of
Jesus, and The Acts of the Apostles.

2No special book more recent than Harnack can be cited; but very important
articles will be found in theTheol. Literaturzeitung, vol. 33 pp. 172–6, by
Schürer; in the Theologische Rundschau, vol. xi. pp. 185–205, by Bousset; in the
American Journal of Theology, vol. 11 pp. 454–474, by Bacon; and in the
Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie, vol. 1. pp. 176–214, by Hilgenfeld. Bousset’s
article gives a full account of all recent studies of the Acts of any
importance.

5Or Titius; the text is doubtful.

7It is sometimes disputed if the island was really Malta, but the point is
immaterial for the present purpose.

3This is the traditional view; but the evidence of the Papyri points to the
probability that ξενία means “hospitality”; see Moulton and Milligan in the
Expositor, March, 1910, p. 286, who regard this view as “practically certain.”

8In favour of the view that the trial was quashed because no hostile witnesses
appeared, see Interpreter, 1909, pp. 147 ff. and 438 f., What was the end of St.
Paul’s trial?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 02.     CHAPTER 2. THE JUDAISTIC CONTROVERSY, THE GENTILE CONVERTS, ...
========================================================================

CHAPTER II THE JUDAISTIC CONTROVERSY, THE GENTILE CONVERTS, AND THE BACKGROUND
OF GENTILE CHRISTIANITY THE earliest Christian community was in Jerusalem: the
fact that it was here and not in Galilee is perhaps a curious problem, but it
cannot be denied. Moreover it was a community within the limits of Judaism
rather than one clearly separated from it. The disciples frequented the Temple,
observed the Jewish Law, and believed all the articles of the Jewish faith. That
which distinguished them from other Jews was that to the usual Pharisaic belief
that in the last days the Messiah—the Lord’s Anointed—would appear on earth, to
break the powers of evil and to establish the kingdom of God, they added the
assurance that they knew who the Messiah was. He was Jesus, who had appeared
already as Son of man—that is, as Messiah in personality, but not yet in
function,—had been crucified and buried, and had been raised again by God to the
glorified existence of the heavenly Messiah who would soon come in the clouds of
heaven to inaugurate in power that Kingdom of God of which He was already the
proleptic head, and the Christians were already the proleptic members, and as
such had received the Holy Spirit which was to be given in the “last days.” This
was the point on which Jews and Christians differed,—the identification or the
non-identification of the Messiah, whom they both expected, with Jesus; and they
found their common ground for argument in the Law and in the Prophets, which
each regarded as the infallibly inspired word of God. Probably there was a
dispute between them as to the interpretation of the Old Testament, for it is
likely that the Christians explained passages such as Isaiah 53:1-12, in which
allusion is made to a suffering servant of Jahweh, in relation to the Messiah,
while such a view did not obtain among the Jews. Nevertheless, this was
relatively a matter of domestic difference of opinion, and could scarcely be
regarded, except in the heat of controversy, as unfaithfulness to the hope of
Israel. Christians in no sense felt that they had ceased to be Jews, and the
question of the admission of the Gentiles was not raised. It is true that there
had been an open rupture between Jesus and the Galilaean synagogues, and that
the Priests had conspired to put Him to death, but the disciples clung to the
Temple, and never accepted the situation. Perhaps the most instructive parallel
to their position (though of course only in this respect) is afforded by that of
Catholic Modernists, who have been frequently disavowed by Catholic authority,
yet have never accepted the situation. That there was more or less severe, but
probably intermittent rather than continuous persecution of the Christians by
the Jews is probable in itself, and corroborated by the accounts in Acts 4:1-37
and Acts 5:1-42. But there is no suggestion that either the Jews or the
Christians felt that the latter were in any way outside the Jewish Church.The
Christians held that the crucifixion of their leader had been a crime, and the
Jews believed that it was a necessary incident in the development of political
life, but the former did not think themselves outside the covenant or the
service of the Temple, and the latter were not prepared to drive out those whose
only fault was an erroneous belief that they knew who the Messiah was, for it
must be remembered that the strong eschatological and Messianic belief of the
Christians was—apart from the question of the identity of the Messiah—shared by
many of the Jews, and especially by those who were most enthusiastic for the
“Hope of Israel”

Nevertheless, looking back on history, it is clear that this situation could not
last. If Christianity had remained unchanged it would have died out, as indeed
it did among the Jews, so soon as the eschatological expectation was clearly
falsified, for to the Jews—who had already a divinely instituted Church—it was
impossible to adopt the point of view which identified or confused the Kingdom
with the Church, and put into the background the expectation of the Parousia. It
was impossible for Christianity to flourish for long within the limits of the
Judaism of Jerusalem. But already partially distinct from the Judaism of
Jerusalem there was a Judaism in the Diaspora which offered a far more hopeful
prospect, and from the beginning it was the Hellenistic Jews belonging to this
who were attracted. Apart altogether from questions as to the accuracy of the
account given in Acts of the day of Pentecost, it is clear that the point which
St. Luke wishes to emphasize, in addition to the inspiration of the Church, is
the Hellenistic character of the converts. They were Jews, but they were Jews of
the Diaspora, “Jews, devout men … Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites”—and St.
Luke exhausts language in his attempt to make plain their diversity of
nationality. The introduction of this new element could not but profoundly
affect the development of the community. The first sign which we find of its
influence is in Acts 6:1-7, which describes how there was friction between the
Hellenist and Palestinian Christians as to the distribution of alms among their
“widows.” The result of this was the introduction into the community of a new
element of organization. Up till now the leaders had been “the Twelve.” They had
been promised by Jesus positions of authority in the Kingdom, and were to be the
Judges over the twelve tribes of Israel.Among other things they had apparently
undertaken various social and financial arrangements which at the least were
regular and organized charity, at the most, something approaching communism—it
is probably impossible to define them more accurately. But now a great part, or
perhaps all, of this work was handed over to “the Seven,” who seem mostly to
have belonged to the Hellenist section. According to St. Luke, then, the duties
of “the Seven” were primarily practical and internal to the community; but they
also seem to have attracted attention by their development of certain lines of
thought which were probably present in the teaching of Jesus Himself, but were
not taken up by the original Jerusalem community. These lines were concerned
with the Temple and the official class connected with it, which was treated by
St. Stephen in a manner which seems to find no parallel in the teaching of the
Twelve, and certainly not in that of other Jewish Christians. This new
development of Christianity met with active hostility from the orthodox
Hellenists in Jerusalem; St. Stephen was summoned before the Sanhedrin, and
stoned to death, while other Hellenists were forced to leave Jerusalem. It
appears, however, that this persecution did not extend to the original
disciples, for St. Luke expressly excepts the Apostles, by which he probably
means the Twelve. Probably, therefore, we ought to consider that the persecution
connected with the death of St. Stephen was primarily a persecution of
Hellenists by Hellenists, and did not largely affect the original Palestinian
Christians. The Christian Hellenists scattered; St. Philip among others preached
in Samaria, and on one occasion returning to Judaea converted an
Ethiopian—probably a proselyte. Ultimately he went farther north, and settled in
Caesarea. Thus a Christian propaganda began to spread among the Hellenist Jews
outside Jerusalem. What form their teaching took we do not know in any detail,
but we may be sure that it varied to some extent from that of the original
disciples, and the account given in the Acts of the teaching of St. Stephen
seems to show that it was perceptibly less attached to the Temple and to the
Law, an attitude which was probably not uncommon among Hellenists entirely apart
from Christianity. In answer to this propaganda a persecution was instituted
among the orthodox Hellenists, with the support of the priests at Jerusalem, and
among those who took part in it was Saul of Tarsus.

Obviously the original Jewish community could not stand entirely outside this
movement. Possibly some of its members doubted whether it ought to meet with
approbation. At all events, some of the leaders felt compelled to investigate
it; among them St. Peter and St. John the son of Zebedee, who went to Samaria
where Philip had been preaching. What they saw led them to approve, so that they
joined in the work of evangelization outside Jerusalem, and thus began careers
which ultimately led both of them far afield into the Roman Empire. The result
of this development was that the history of the Church began to divide into two
branches. On the one hand, there was the propaganda of the Hellenists, ever
spreading further and further from the centre; and on the other, the preaching
of the members of the Jerusalem community, for the time, at least, confined to a
circle of a smaller radius.

Turning first to the Jerusalem community, two facts are of outstanding
importance. The absence of St. Peter, and probably of other members of the
“Twelve” led to a change in organization. Instead of the Twelve being the
rulers, we find James, the brother of the Lord, apparently becoming the head of
the community. Whether this took place in consequence of a definite arrangement,
or more or less imperceptibly in consequence of the absence of the Twelve, we do
not know, but it probably marks the acceptance of the δεσπόσυνοι—the family of
the Lord—as having in some sense a claim to the headship of the community in
Jerusalem. St. James appears to have belonged to the original type of
Christianity, and was for many years unharmed; indeed, tradition represents him
as enjoying the general respect of the Jews.Thus a conservative and essentially
Jewish type of Christianity became fixed in Jerusalem. On the other hand, St.
Peter, the leader of the Twelve, was induced to take a new and profoundly
important step, which he was successful in commending at all events to the
theoretical approbation of the Christians in Jerusalem. This was the conversion
of Cornelius. Cornelius was a centurion stationed in Caesarea, not a proselyte
but a “God-fearer” who desired to hear the teaching of St. Peter. St. Peter
hesitated whether he might go to a Gentile, but was convinced by a vision that
he ought to do so, and after hearing his gospel Cornelius visibly received the
gift of the Spirit.

St. Peter interpreted this fact to mean that he might at once be formally
admitted by Baptism into the Christian community. It is important here to notice
how central was the belief that Christians were men who were inspired with a
Holy Spirit: there are many problems in connection with this fact—for instance,
its relation to Baptism —but as to the fact itself there can be no doubt. When,
therefore, St. Peter found that Cornelius and his household presented all the
signs of being “filled with the Spirit,” he naturally was forced to the
conclusion that Cornelius, Gentile though he was, had been placed within the
Christian Community. The great importance of this decision of St. Peter was that
it forced him, and the Church of Jerusalem with him, to acknowledge that it was
both theoretically and practically possible for a Gentile to become a Christian,
or in other words, a proleptic member of the Messianic Kingdom. It did not,
however, settle the further question, which was sure to arise, whether Gentiles
who became Christians were free from the obligation of the Jewish Law. St. Peter
himself does not seem at the moment to have seen clearly that this question must
arise, and his action in baptizing Cornelius was to some extent a confusion of
thought. Before the incident of Cornelius he had held that the Christian
community was open to Jews only, and that the method of entry was Baptism. From
the gift of the Spirit he concluded that Cornelius had been divinely admitted
into the Church, and therefore that the limitation of Church membership to Jews
was untenable. By a strict parity of reasoning he ought to have decided that it
also proved that Baptism was not the only method of entry into the Church, for
Cornelius was, by the evidence of the Spirit, among its members, though he had
never been baptized. But this reasoning was not followed by St. Peter, who
baptized Cornelius, opening, as it were, the door after the guest was already in
the house. It was therefore possible for the Jewish Christians to argue that
even if Gentiles had been admitted into the Church, they ought to be circumcised
as well as baptized. If they followed the reasoning which led St. Peter to admit
Gentiles, and to reject the limitation to Jews because of the evidence of the
Spirit, naturally they would not require circumcision; but if they followed the
reasoning which led him in spite of that evidence to baptize Cornelius, they
would logically demand circumcision as well. That this attitude was actually
adopted is clear from the course of events, though it is not actually stated in
connection with the case of Cornelius.

Thus the result of the incident of Cornelius may be stated to have been that the
Christians in Jerusalem and Palestine generally recognized the admission of
Gentiles to the Christian Church, but that the exact conditions imposed on them
remained undetermined.

Meanwhile events of equal importance had happened in the circle of the
Hellenists. St. Paul, the enthusiast for orthodoxy had seen a vision on the road
to Damascus, had joined the ranks of the Hellenist Christians whom he had
previously persecuted, and was engaged in preaching in Cilicia in the district
of which Tarsus, his native city, was the centre. Moreover, some of the
Hellenists who had been driven out of Jerusalem—according to St. Luke they were
Cypriotes and Cyrenaeans—had settled in Antioch, and had taken the epoch-making
step of preaching to the Gentiles, no doubt chiefly among the God-fearers, with
immediate and great success, without insisting on their adopting the Law or
practices of Judaism.Obviously this raised in an acute form the same question as
the incident of Cornelius, and it was impossible here to regard the
circumstances as exceptional—they represented a fixed policy. The Church at
Jerusalem therefore decided to send St. Barnabas to investigate the situation.
He was admirably fitted for the task, for he was himself a Hellenist from
Cyprus, but had always belonged to the Jerusalem community, and had relations in
the city.

St. Barnabas was completely persuaded, by the facts which he saw, that the new
movement was desirable, threw himself into the work, and called St. Paul from
Tarsus to help him. In this way a vigorous Christianity grew up among the
Gentiles, which recognized neither the circumcision nor the ceremonial law of
the Jews.

If this had been a wholly new doctrine in Judaism it would be almost
inconceivable that St. Paul and St. Barnabas would have started it without
further discussion, but, as a matter of fact, they were only following a line of
thought which had already found supporters among a minority of the Jews, not
only in the Diaspora, but even in Jerusalem. It is, for instance, related by
Josephus that when Izates, King of Adiabene, was converted to Judaism, the
merchant Ananias whom he consulted urged him not to be circumcised, because of
the offence which he would give to his subjects, but to content himself with a
general observance of the Jewish Law, and adherence to the Jewish creed. This
was almost exactly contemporaneous with the teaching of St. Barnabas and St.
Paul in Antioch. But perhaps the most important witness to the existence of a
“liberal” school among the Jews of the first century is Philo. In his book De
Migratione Abrahami, he refers definitely to a class of Jews who attached only a
symbolic importance to the Law. “There are persons,” he says, “who regard the
traditional law as a symbol of spiritual life; the symbolic meaning they seek
with every care, but despise the literal meaning. Such laxness I can only
deprecate. They ought to be zealous for both,—both the exact search for the
hidden meaning as well as the punctilious observance of the literal sense. …
Although it be true that the law of the Sabbath contains the deeper meaning that
the Creator (τὸ ἀγένητον) is active and the Creation (τὸ γενητόν) is passive, we
have no right to ignore the command to keep it holy.… Even though the Feast is a
symbol of the joy of the soul and of thankfulness to God, we have no right to
give up the annual festivities, and though the circumcision signifies the
cutting away of every passion and lust, and the destruction of all godless
thoughts… we are still not justified in departing from the law of circumcision
which was laid upon us.”

It is plain that Philo, who, of course, fully accepted the symbolic or
allegorical meaning of the law, was acquainted with Jews who went further than
he did, and regarded this not as the hidden meaning, but as the only valid
meaning, so that they abandoned Circumcision, Sabbath, Feasting and Fasting,
and, in a word, the whole of the ceremonial law.

If Jews were inclined in Alexandria to doubt in this manner whether the law was,
in its literal sense, really valid for themselves, it is not surprising that
some of them did not insist on its observance by Gentiles who desired not to be
excluded from the Kingdom of God. Thus we find a few years later than Philo that
the Jewish writer of the fourth book of the Oracula Sibyllinapromised entry into
the Messianic kingdom to all of the heathen who accept the true God, abandon
idolatry, murder, theft, fornication, and sodomy, generally lead a good life,
and are baptized. Nothing whatever is said of circumcision or the Jewish Law.

Less well attested, and much less important, is the story of the Babylonian
Talmud (Yebhamoth, f. 46a) that in the first century Rabbi Joshua maintained
that Baptism without circumcision was sufficient for the admission of a
proselyte, and was opposed by Rabbi Eliezer who argued in favour of circumcision
without Baptism. Thus the more advanced position held among the Christians at
Antioch as to the method by which a Gentile might be admitted was only the
continuation of a discussion which had already arisen among the Jews. Neither
the admission of Gentiles, nor omission of circumcision were quite new things in
the history of Judaism, but both represented the adhesion of the Christians at
Antioch to the more liberal principles of a minority, probably found chiefly in
the Diaspora, and the rejection of the narrower and stricter point of view which
was dominant in Jerusalem.

Moreover, this latter view was dominant not only among the Jews but also among
many of the Christians at Jerusalem, who probably still held fast to their
original point of view, and had not grasped the importance of the incident of
Cornelius, so that in this way Antioch became in a few years the centre of a
type of Christianity which really differed from that in Jerusalem, and was
adopted chiefly by Gentiles rather than by Jews. The importance of it was that,
although it may possibly have been the view of St. Barnabas and St. Paul that
their converts were made members of the true Jewish Church by their Baptism,
this rapidly ceased to be true of the Gentile Christians themselves. They had
accepted much of the Jewish theology, and especially the doctrine of the
Messiah, but the community which they desired to enter was the Messianic
kingdom, not the Jewish Church, and to their mind it was plain that membership
in this kingdom was the privilege of those who accepted the Messiah, and was
independent of the Law, which was an exclusively Jewish possession. Let the Jews
keep their own Law, they were themselves free. Either they argued like this, or
else they accepted the teaching of the liberal Jews, whom Philo reprobated, to
the effect that the Law had only a symbolical meaning. We find, for instance,
that the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, who may have lived in the first
century, took exactly this standpoint, and regarded a literal exegesis of the
Old Testament as the invention of an Evil Angel.

We cannot reconstruct the precise standpoint of the Gentile converts,—indeed, we
may be certain that they had more than one—but it is at any rate plain that
under the leadership of St. Barnabas and St. Paul the new type of Christianity
which rejected the Law for Gentile Christians grew rapidly. It was clearly
inevitable that it should come into collision with the older type at Jerusalem;
sooner or later, if the unity of Christians was to be preserved, some sort of an
agreement had to be reached as to the conditions of membership to be demanded
from Gentile Christians; and any occasion on which the representatives of
Jerusalem were brought into close relations with those of Antioch was likely to
give rise to discussion on this point. Of such occasions we have in the Acts
several good examples, and the effect of what may be called the Antiochene
movement is quite plain. The first is the mission of St. Barnabas and St. Paul
from Antioch to Jerusalem with assistance for the sufferers in the time of the
famine. The writer of Acts somewhat exaggerates the universality of this famine,
but it was undoubtedly widespread and particularly severe in Jerusalem. It is
impossible to fix the date with absolute certainty, but 45 A. D. is not probably
more than one year wrong in either direction. In Acts it is not stated that St.
Barnabas and St. Paul discussed the treatment of the Gentile converts, or even
that they saw the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, but it is improbable that at
such a time St. James would have left Jerusalem (the question of St. Peter is
more complicated (see Chap. V.), though one would be inclined to think that the
need of the community would be the best reason for bringing him back to
Jerusalem, if he had left it already), and just as a mission of help from
Antioch to Jerusalem was an unsuitable opportunity for any public discussion as
to the Antiochene movement, so it was admirably fitted for a private and
friendly discussion among the leaders, and for a spirit of general concession on
both sides. One of the main problems in connection with the Epistle to the
Galatians is whether the meeting described in Galatians 2:1-21 may not in
reality refer to some such meeting at this time, but even if this view be
rejected, it still remains à priori probable that St. Peter and St. James were
in Jerusalem, and that they talked with St. Barnabas and St. Paul about the
question of Gentile converts and their desirability.

Probably partly as a result of their intercourse with the Church at Jerusalem,
in any case immediately after it, St. Barnabas and St. Paul undertook their
first missionary journey. This was so successful that the question of Gentile
Christians obtained increased importance, and the Jerusalem Church took fright
at a movement the true significance of which was perhaps now for the first time
fully realized, and sent out a rival mission, to which reference is made both in
Acts and in Galatians (Acts 15:1; Galatians 2:12), in order to convince
Christians of Gentile origin that circumcision and the Law were binding on them.
The result of this conflict of propaganda was, according to the Acts, the
Council at Jerusalem, which was practically a meeting between representatives of
the Antiochene Church and the Jerusalem leaders.

According to St. Luke’s account, speeches were made by St. Barnabas and by St.
Paul representing Antioch, and afterwards by St. Peter and St. James
representing Jerusalem. St. Peter and St. James recognized the force of the
Antiochene arguments, and the latter proposed an eirenicon, which was drawn up
in writing and circulated among the Gentile Churches by St. Barnabas, St. Paul,
Silas, and Judas. As to the historical value of this narrative opinions differ
widely. What may be called the extreme right wing of criticism treats it as if
it were a stenographic report, while the extreme left regards it as the purely
imaginary product of the writer of Acts. Probably both extremes are wrong; there
seems no good reason to suppose that the exact form of the speeches of St. Peter
and St. James is anything more than St. Luke’s view of the way in which they
would naturally have spoken, though the substances of what they said may very
probably have been communicated to him by St. Paul or Silas, or some other of
those present.Similarly the decrees have a distinct à priori probability if the
Lucan authorship of Acts be accepted, and it may be said with apparent
reasonableness that it is far more probable that St. Luke was in a position to
give the actual words of a document than of a speech. It is, of course, by no
means impossible that St. Luke had heard that there was such a document, and in
the usual manner of historians of his day, gave a reconstruction of it when
modern writers would have been content with a description; but it is also quite
possible that he may have seen a copy of it. Unless one disputes the Lucan
authorship of Acts, or the general historical value of the book, every à priori
probability is in favour of the view that a decision was come to, and issued by
the Council at Jerusalem in the form, or very nearly in the form, given in Acts
15:1-41. If there is nothing wholly unacceptable in the account given by St.
Luke, we ought to follow it. Is there anything of this kind? In attempting to
answer this question we are faced with one of those complexes of historical and
textual difficulties which can only be discussed profitably at some length. To
do so at this point would cause too great a break in the narrative, and the
detailed consideration has therefore been postponed to an appendix (pp. 48 ff.).
The main points are these. The ordinary text of the Acts says that the letter of
the Apostles demanded that the Gentiles should keep themselves from “things
offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.” Now,
it is said, this is a food law, and was a compromise between the two parties:
why is it never referred to in the Pauline Epistles? The answers which have been
given are manifold, but they may be divided into two main classes. On the one
hand, it is said that St. Paul never mentions the compromise because it was a
failure from the beginning,or was only intended for the Churches of Syria
Cilicia. On the other hand, it is argued that it is inconceivable that the
decreesld not be mentioned by St. Paul, and therefore the account in Acts must
be abandoned as unhistorical. So the matter stood for a long time, more or less
at a deadlock, for the explanations given of St. Paul’s silence were quite
unsatisfactory, and the abandonment of the narrative in Acts as unhistorical
seemed to be insufficiently justified. Recently, however, a third view has been
propounded, to the effect that the whole difficulty may be solved by textual and
historical criticism, which shows that the words “things strangled” are a gloss,
and that the decree was not a food law.It is discussed at length in the Appendix
on pp. 48 ff. This last view is, I believe, correct. It seems to me to be the
only solution enabling us to hold the accuracy of the Lucan account, and at the
same time to explain St. Paul’s silence, which is perfectly intelligible if the
decrees were not a compromise but a victory for his party. For with this text of
the Acts—“that they should abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, and
from fornication”—there was no compromise, but the decrees were the concession
by the Jerusalem party of the main contention of the Antiochene movement—that
converts ought to be admitted to Christianity without being compelled to observe
the Jewish Law as to circumcision and ritual observances. It was not a
compromise, for in a compromise each party concedes something, and if the
Apostolic decrees be not a food law, but moral requirements, the Antiochene
party had conceded nothing—to abstain from idolatry in any form, or from
idolatry, murder, and fornication, was not a concession.

We ought thus to regard the result of the Apostolic Council as the decision of
the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem to admit the contention of the Antiochene
movement, and to accept Gentile converts to Christianity without the condition
of observing the Jewish Law. It was not a compromise, it was a triumph—a triumph
of the most far-reaching consequences for Christianity, and Judaism. For the
success of Christianity and the failure of Judaism in their attempts to conquer
the Roman Empire largely depended on it. Christianity had been originally a part
of Judaism, and in selecting a method for carrying its propaganda among the
Gentiles it had, along with the other sects of Judaism, to choose between the
liberal spirit of the Diaspora—represented by Antioch—and the strictness of the
dominant school of Jerusalem. Christianity at the Council of Jerusalem chose
aright. Judaism both then, and after the fall of Jerusalem, chose wrongly, for
though the Sibylline Oracles bear witness to the survival of the broader spirit
in Judaism, it was only found in a small minority, never became typically
Jewish, and soon disappeared, just as the narrower spirit survived in some parts
of Jewish Christianity, but never became dominant, and ultimately died out. The
result was that Christianity gained all those of the Graeco-Roman world who had
felt the attraction of Jewish monotheism, Jewish ethics, and Jewish
eschatological hope, while Judaism failed to do so.

It is now necessary to ask what was the general effect of this Antiochene
triumph. That it was not the end of the Judaistic controversy need scarcely be
said; in such a struggle the minority is defeated without being either convinced
or destroyed. Even if we had no proof we should be justified in assuming that
there remained a party which continued to unite Christian propaganda with a
strict adhesion to the Jewish Law, and regarded the Council as a lamentable
mistake. Moreover, it is obvious that the Jews would regard this new development
of Christianity with increased dislike: for it was no longer merely the
identification of the Messiah with Jesus, but a definite denial of the universal
validity of the Jewish Law and cultus—the participation by the Christians,
already heretical enough, in the dangerous latitudinarianism which Ananias had
so lamentably suggested to Izates, and the Jews of the Diaspora had occasionally
been so weak as to encourage. At the other end of the scale, also, human nature
suggests the probability that some of the Antiochene Christians, or their
converts, would rush to extremes and introduce a dangerous antinomianism in the
name of liberty, and force the Antiochene leaders to protest, and to contend
against extravagant perversions of their teaching.

It is therefore natural to expect to find that the Jerusalem propaganda
continued among Christians, though now rather as a protesting and reactionary
conservatism; that the opposition of the Jews to Christianity was strengthened
and embittered; and that a new school of thought soon arose which exaggerated
the plea for liberty which had been so successfully put forward by Antioch, and
threatened to convert liberty into libertinism. As a matter of fact, the two
first of these phenomena can be traced in the Acts, in the events of St. Paul’s
final visit to Jerusalem,and the last, though it can scarcely be found in the
Acts, can clearly be traced in several of the Pauline Epistles. On the occasion
of St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, St. James, while reaffirming his acceptance of
the Apostolic Decrees, emphasized the existence of “many myriads” of Christian
Jews, who were all zealous for the Law and were afraid that St. Paul was not
content with absolving the heathen who became Christians from the obligation of
the Law, but was also teaching the Jews that it was no longer binding on them
and their children. It is for our purpose immaterial whether this be accepted as
really an utterance of St. James, or as representing St. Luke’s idea of the
attitude of the Jewish Christians and of their leader. In either case, it is
good evidence of the Jewish Christians’ position, and of their attitude towards
St. Paul and the Antiochene movement generally. Equally instructive is St.
Paul’s conduct: he at once agreed to show by his actions that he recognized the
validity of the Law for Jews. The Jewish Christians honestly believed that the
direct result of his writing and preaching must be the abandonment of the Law
even by Jews; and St. Paul’s action was intended to convince them that, although
the observance of the Law was not demanded from Gentiles, it was nevertheless
recognized as binding on Jewish Christians. At the same time, the seriousness
with which both St. James and St. Paul faced the situation suggests that some of
St. Paul’s adherents were pushing his principles further, and denying that
circumcision and the Law were binding on any one. We may also assume with much
probability that this question was connected with a certain vagueness as to
whether it was possible to say that the Messiah was already come or not. The
original position was no doubt that Jesus was the Messiah, but it was equally
clearly held that He had not yet come as Messiah. The Parousia—which means
“coming,” not “return”—was still future, and the Messianic kingdom did not yet
exist, except in a certain proleptic sense. But until the Messiah came—not until
it was known who He was—the Law was binding. This was probably the original
position, so far as it was consciously thought out at all, but almost from the
first amongst Gentile Christians the “proleptic” element began to be forgotten,
more and more importance came to be given to the actual work of Jesus, His life
to be regarded as really a “coming” of the Messiah, and the concept of the
Kingdom to gain a somewhat different meaning. With such a position the Law
naturally seemed to be entirely superseded. Over against this extreme Gentile
position stood the mass of Jewish Christians, who were zealous for the Law, had
not St. James’s personal knowledge of St. Paul, but identified him with the
extreme position of some of his followers, and so came more and more to stand
aloof, and to dislike the whole Antiochene movement. The increased hostility of
the non-Christian Jews is equally well shown by the Pauline Epistles and by the
Acts. According to these, St. Paul’s most determined enemies were the Jews. In
Galatia, Asia, Macedonia; and Achaia Jewish hostility was strong and
irreconcileable, and in Jerusalem it was the direct cause of his imprisonment.
It is clear that the Jews in the capital tolerated St. James and his party, even
though their toleration was tempered with contempt and dislike: after all, they
seem to have argued, though these people have foolish ideas as to the identity
of the Messiah, they nevertheless observe the Law, and are otherwise orthodox.
But for St. Paul nothing was bad enough—he was a renegade and a traitor, and as
such worthy of death.

Moreover, this Jewish hatred of St. Paul was especially stimulated by a fact
which also was prominent in producing the antinomian extremists, and later on in
introducing other problems into the life of the Gentile Churches. This fact was
the existence in the Graeco-Roman world of the class of “God-fearers” whom the
synagogue had attracted towards itself by much careful preparation, and hoped
ultimately to convert into proselytes. This class is often mentioned in the
NewTestament,and a more accurate understanding of its position is one of the
great steps forward which have been made of recent years in the interpretation
of early Christianity. The source of most statements on the subject was formerly
the essay of Deyling, De Σεβομένοις τὸν Θεόν in his Observationes Sacrae, ii.
pp. 462–69, in which he identified them with the “proselytes of the gate”
mentioned in the Talmud. On this view the theory was based that the Jews
recognized two sorts of proselytes—those “of the gate” and those “of
righteousness,” of whom the former stood in a less close relation to the Jews
than the latter—and that “God-fearers” is a synonym for the former. This view
will be found expressed at length in the first edition of Schürer’s Geschichte
des jüdischen Volkes in Zeitalter Jesu Christi, and it was long the dominant
opinion. But, in the light of further study, in his third, and still more
completely in his fourth edition (1909), Schürer completely gave up this theory,
and showed convincingly that “proselyte of the gate” is a purely mediaeval term,
of which the meaning is doubtful, but probably is “Gentiles living among Jews,”
and that the God-fearers were not proselytes at all. His conclusion is based on
inscriptions, both in Latin and Greek and is that “Almost everywhere in the
Diaspora there was a fringe of ‘God-fearing’ heathen round the Jewish Church.
They adopted the Jewish form of worship, with its monotheism and absence of
images, and frequented the Jewish synagogues, but confined themselves with
regard to the ceremonial law to certain cardinal points, and thus could not be
reckoned as actually belonging to the Jewish Church.… When we ask which points
of the ceremonial law were thus observed, the clearest indications are afforded
by Josephus, Juvenal, and Tertullian. These three all agree that it was
especially the observance of the Sabbath, and the food law which most generally
obtained in these circles.… Their adherence would vary in degree, and it is
improbable that there were fixed limits.” To this statement of Schürer’s no
exception can be taken on the ground of what it says, but it ought to be added
that the evidence of Philo shows that there were Jews who regarded the Law as
merely allegorical, and that the Sibylline Oracles (see pp. 25 f. and 56 f.)
show that there were also circles among the God-fearers in which the food law
and even the sabbath were disregarded, and that monotheism and the moral law
alone were observed. This would no doubt vary in different places, and would be
influenced by the type of Judaism which was dominant: in places, for instance,
where the extreme allegorizing party had representatives, and the Law was
explained in the manner which the Epistle of Barnabas tried to popularize among
Christians, the observance of the ceremonial law would naturally sink into the
background among the God-fearers.

It does not need the testimony of Juvenal to convince us that it was from this
circle of God-fearers that the Jews drew their proselytes, and the Acts give us
superabundant proof that it was in the same circle that St. Paul met with the
greatest success in making converts; it is therefore easy to understand the
bitterness of Jewish feeling against St. Paul and other Christians of the
Antiochene school, for it is not in human nature to regard with equanimity the
sight of heretics successfully reaping a harvest which the orthodox had sown,
had seen grow up, and had expected to gather, and the rapid passing over of
God-fearers to the ranks of the Christians was in the eyes of the orthodox Jews
a triumph for heresy as bitter as it was unexpected. In this way the existence
of the God-fearers helps to explain the increased hatred of the Jews; it also
explains the existence of the extreme antinomian party of which Acts tells us
nothing, but the Epistles more than a little. For the God-fearers brought
Christianity into the troubled world of thought of the Roman Empire. They
represent to a large extent the general attitude of the “religious man” of the
first century. He was, as a rule, dissatisfied with the ancestral forms of
culture, as well as with the traditional theology. It was an age of religious
unrest and theological inquiry. The propaganda of Judaism and Christianity were
only two of the many efforts which were being made to answer this intellectual
curiosity and to satisfy the yearnings of unhappy souls, and, on the whole, we
can distinguish two main currents to one or the other of which these efforts
usually belonged. Those whose interest was primarily intellectual, or, at all
events, demanded a theology which was intellectually acceptable, were strongly
influenced by the metaphysics of the Neo-Platonists, and the ethics of the
Stoics. In them they seemed to find a reasonable explanation of the universe, a
“weltanschauung” which corresponded to facts, and a rule of life which satisfied
the conscience and seemed to offer a lasting happiness. On the other hand, those
whose interest was chiefly religious, in the narrower sense of the word, were
attracted by the Oriental “Mystery Religions,” so diverse in detail, yet so
similar in essentials, which held out the offer of happiness in this world and
salvation in the next to all who by initiation into their sacraments joined in
the risen life of a redeemer God, and thus secured a knowledge of the great
secret, which would guard the traveller when he passed hence through the gate of
death on his long and dangerous journey, and bring him safely to the eternal
life which he desired. Finally, we can see in such a man as Plutarch the curious
combination of these two currents which fully accepted all these mysteries, but
by a vigorous use of allegory and symbolism brought them in agreement with
philosophy, and felt that whether the God whom they celebrated was called Isis,
or Attis, or Mithras, or any other name, it was, nevertheless, the divine Logos,
“the Word,” who was working in them all—the Logos who is the source of all life
and all wisdom, though he be called by different names in different lands.

Plutarch was, we may be sure, no exception, save in so far as he was of
exceptional ability, and doubtless there were many in the Roman Empire who, in
some such way as he had done, united the practice of the mysteries with the
philosophy of the Stoics or Platonists. But in the lower and less educated
classes this syncretism must have been less common. Men felt that spiritually
they were ill, and needed a physician, nor were they able to see, as Plutarch
did, that all the physicians offered the same prescription, though they varied
the exact form of its composition. No doubt, they had their own syncretism, but
it was not the philosophic syncretism of Plutarch, but rather a tendency to
modify the practices of the various cults, to borrow attractive features from
others, and to give up objectionable even though characteristic customs. This
influence of the Oriental “Mystery Religions” was increased by the fact that not
only the Jews, but every Eastern nation had its “Diaspora” in the Roman Empire.
We are apt to overlook this because, for obvious reasons, it is the Jewish
Diaspora of which we hear most, but after all it was the Orontes, not the
Jordan, which seemed to the Roman eye to be flowing into the Tiber, and we ought
to remember that just as there was a Jewish Diaspora, with its proselytizing
propaganda, there were Egyptian, Syrian, Persian, and other Diasporae, in which
the various cults were taught, though each probably with more or less pronounced
variations from the native type.

Each Diaspora of this kind was a centre for a wider circle, corresponding to the
God-fearers of the Jewish community, composed of those who were interested in
what they saw and heard, but were only prepared to accept the cult partially,
eclectically, and in combination with features taken from other cults, of which
they had obtained knowledge in a similar way. An excellent example of this type
of syncretism is to be found in the cults found in Asia Minor, which combined
Judaism with the worship of Zeus Hypsistos and of Attis the Phrygian
Redeemer-God whose worship united an originally local cult with that of the
Magna Mater and her mysteries. But it is safe to assume that for one form of
eclecticism which endured long enough to crystallize into a definite shape there
must have been many which were purely ephemeral, or, even if they lasted longer,
failed to be preserved in any inscription or literary reference which has
survived.

It is easy to see how these influences must have worked in the case of those who
were brought into contact with Judaism as well as with the “Mystery Religions.”
In the Jewish theology they found a monotheism which satisfied their intellects.
The Messianic expectation presented no difficulties to those who, since the time
of Augustus, had learnt to believe that the world-cycle was approaching its
completion, and that a Deliverer would soon appear to lead mankind into the
glories of the golden age of which the poets sang and the Sibyl prophesied.In
the deeply ethical and spiritual austerity of the synagogue they found a
satisfaction and a stimulus for their religious life.Some of them also
appreciated the moral and practical value of the observance of the sabbath, and
felt that there was an element of truth in the distinction between clean and
unclean foods—a distinction which is, indeed, more obviously valuable in hot
climates than in Northern Europe. But the rest of the ceremonial law,
circumcision, and the national pretensions of the Jew to the especial favour of
God, had no value in their eyes, so that they either rejected them, or accepted
the position which changed their meaning by allegory and symbolism. But they
were very unlikely to stop at this point; the metaphysics of the Neo-Platonists,
and the ethics of the Stoics agreed with and supplemented the teaching of the
Old Testament and the synagogue, while the “Mystery Religions,” with their
elaborate and impressive ritual, made a reiterated appeal to the sympathy of
those who found in the stern and cold worship of the Jews, bracing though its
atmosphere might be, insufficient scope for the permanent satisfaction of an
aesthetic and mystical imagination.

Such must have been the result of the contact of this type of eclectic mind with
Judaism—a result which doubtless caused the synagogue to ponder long and
anxiously over the problem of such God-fearers—but what kind of impression must
have been made by Christianity on those who belonged to such a circle?

They must have been but little attracted by Christianity of the original
Jerusalem school, except in so far as it accentuated the doctrine of the Messiah
and His kingdom, and introduced an element of superior certainty by being able
to give the name of the Messiah, nor, as a matter of fact, is there any evidence
to show that the Jerusalem school ever obtained any very important or permanent
hold in the Graeco-Roman world. It was very different with the Antiochene
movement. In this the eclectic Gentile found all the features which he most
admired in Judaism, set free from the ceremonial law and from the custom of
circumcision which had repelled him. But he saw more than this: in the teaching
of St. Paul as to the meaning of the death of Jesus he saw every reason for
equating the Lord with the Redeemer-God of the Mystery Religions, with the
advantage that this Redeemer possessed an historic character which could
scarcely be claimed for Attis or Mithras. Similarly in Baptism and in the
Eucharist he found “mysteries” which could immediately be equated with the other
“mysteries,” offering eternal life to those who partook of them. In other words,
many of the Greeks must have regarded Christianity as a superior form of
“Mystery Religion.” The importance of this fact is not easily exhausted; it will
be found to be one of the most important elements in the situation at Corinth,
which led to the Epistles, and in the wider sphere of the history of doctrine it
can scarcely be over-estimated. It is, for instance, of enormous importance in
considering the course of the development of Christian doctrine from the belief
that the Messiah was Jesus, and that He was speedily coming to set up the
Kingdom of God, to the creed in which the original meaning of the word
“Messiah,” or “Christ,” was almost wholly forgotten, Jesus was regarded as a
Redeemer-God, and the Sacraments became the real centre of Christianity. That we
find one type dominant in Jerusalem in the middle of the first century, and the
other type dominant in Rome in the middle of the second seems incontrovertible,
but the exact course of the development is outside the present purpose: it is
sufficient to call attention to the fact that the existence of the eclectic type
of God-fearer is an extremely important factor in the situation.

Or, again, the existence of this type is of enormous importance in considering
the origin of Gnosticism. Formerly it was the custom to regard Gnosticism as a
development from Christianity under the influence of Greek thought. We have now,
however, learnt that it was in basis neither Christian nor Hellenic, but
eclectic and Oriental. It comprised an almost infinite variety of sects which
combined parts of various Oriental religions, including Christianity, and united
the fragments by the application of a more or less intelligent application of
philosophy. It will be seen that such a movement was independent of
Christianity, and this point is of importance because it used to be argued that
documents—such as some of the Pauline Epistles—which imply a point of view
similar to that of the Gnostics, must be late, because time must be allowed for
the development of Gnostic “heresy” from Christianity. The argument is unsound:
Gnostic ideas are earlier, not later, than Christianity, and to prove that any
given document is engaged in controverting a Gnostic point of view, shows merely
that it was addressed to the eclectic circles described in the preceding
paragraphs—it has no necessary bearing on the question of date.

Putting aside, however, these larger questions it is clear that the attitude
which regarded Christianity as a “Mystery Religion” inevitably must have led men
to exaggerate and misinterpret the Pauline doctrine of freedom, to regard the
cleansing from sin gained by the Christian as giving him permission henceforth
to do as he liked without incurring guilt, and to consider Baptism as an opus
operatum which secured his admission into the Kingdom apart from the character
of his future conduct. Thus there was from the beginning an antinomian and
unethical spirit which offered the most difficult problem for St. Paul and other
Christians, who would naturally reject with horror this licentious liberty of
conduct so different from the ethical standards of Judaism, and we can
imagine—though I do not know that there is any extant example of it—that it was
often flung by the Jewish Christians in the face of the Pauline school of
Christianity as the natural result of its mistaken freedom.

Such are the main characteristics of the background which we must expect to find
in the Pauline Epistles. The chief feature is the large confused mass of
unsatisfied seekers after religious truth, who were testing all the various
offers made to them by the preachers of diverse cults, and were inclined to
combine select features of them all in a strange medley of ritual and doctrine.
And emerging from the struggle fully to convert this class—a struggle in which
convinced Jews, Christians of Jerusalem, Christians of Antioch, worshippers of
Isis and other Oriental cults, magicians, astrologers, and wizards jostled each
other in a theological confusion to which no parallel can be found—we can
distinguish the endeavours of St. Paul to preach freedom without libertinism,
and his constant efforts against the hatred of the Jew for a renegade Rabbi,
against the scarcely less fierce opposition of Christians who held firmly to the
principles of the stiffly conservative party at Jerusalem, and against the even
more serious danger of a tendency to misunderstand his teaching of Christian
freedom, to misinterpret the nature of Christianity, and to regard him as a
narrow-minded preacher, who had little appreciation of the mysteries of the
spirit, and was scarcely better than the Jews whom he had deserted.

It will be one of the tasks of the following chapters to trace more fully the
details of this background in connection with each of the Epistles, so as to
render it possible for them to be read with a somewhat better appreciation of
the circumstances which caused them to be written.

Literature.—Besides the references which have been for special points, the
following books will be found generally valuable: E. Schürer, Geschichte des
Jüdischen Volkes (ed. 4), vol. iii., Das Judentum in der Zerstreuung und die
jüdische Literatur. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums (ed. 2). W. M.
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, and St. Paul the Traveller and Roman
Citizen. R. Deitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, ihre
Grundgedanken und Wirkungen. J. Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek
Religion, chap. x., The Orphic Mysteries. L. R. Farnell, Cults of the Greek
States, vol. v. chap. v. Dionysiac ritual. T. R. Glover, The Conflict of
Religions in the Early Roman Empire. F. Cumont, Les Religions orientales dans le
Paganisme romain.

1 This fact is to be found most clearly expressed in Professor Burkitt’s The
Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus, p. 66.

2 The use of this technical term of the grammarians may be excused by the
difficulty of finding any expression to convey the required meaning. The point
is that the kingdom was not yet come, and therefore there could not yet be any
king; but it was quite certain that it was coming, and that Jesus would be the
King. Thus Christians lived in a constant anticipation of the future, a
“prolepsis” of things to come.

1 The point is, however, not quite certain; see H. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der
Israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie. References to other books on the subject
are given by Bousset, Religion des Fudentums, p. 266. The most important
authority for the view taken above is Dalman, Der leidende und sterbende Messias
der Synagoge.

1 It seems unnecessary to discuss Harnack’s suggestion that these two accounts
may be “doublet” narratives of one event. Possibly he is right; (see his
Apostelgeschichte, chap. 5), but it is also possible that there were two
attempts by the Jews to suppress Christianity. What is here important is merely
the fact that the attempts (or attempt) were unsuccessful and not vigorously
carried out.

2 Jewish “Church” is of course an anachronism, but it is too convenient a phrase
to abandon.

3 Cf. Acts 23:6. The Pharisees immediately accepted St. Paul’s statement that
“for ‘Hope’ and a resurrection of the dead am I being judged.”

1Just as a Jew of to-day can call himself an Englishman or a German, a Jew of
the first century could call himself a Parthian, a Mede, or even a Roman—if he
were fortunate enough to possess the right to do so, as St. Paul did.

2 This statement belongs to the oldest stratum of the Gospels. It is found in
Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30, and probably no one would dispute that it belongs
to Q.

1 Harnack thinks that they were in some sense rivals of the Twelve. The evidence
for this view is small, but if one does not regard rivals as implying an
unfriendly attitude there is something to be said for it (see Harnack’s
Kirchenverfassung, p. 23). The whole question of “The Seven” is obscure, and we
have no sufficient evidence to help much in dealing with it. The point is that
we need some explanation of the fact that those who were appointed in order to
relieve the Twelve from the practical and charitable side of their work, and to
set them free to preach, nevertheless only appear in the capacity of
missionaries and controversalists, and as such seem to have attracted more
attention than the “Twelve.”

1 If tradition may be trusted, St. Peter went to Rome and St. John to Ephesus.
But, of course, there is considerable doubt as to this. The evidence in neither
case is quite convincing, and in the case of St. John there is some evidence
(that of Papias—but in a doubtful passage) that he was put to death by the Jews.
See Schwartz, Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaci, and Sanday, The Criticism of the
Fourth Gospel, pp. 103 ff.

2 Tradition says that it took place twelve years after the Ascension, i.e. c.
42. It may have been connected with the persecution of the Christians under
Herod; but I think it was more probably the result of the absence of the Twelve.

3 See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23, for a long account of St. James, taken from
Hegesippus.

1 Acts 10. For the importance of the God-fearers, see pp. 37 ff.

1 This is not stated in Acts, but is clear from the context of the events
implied by the Council, see Acts 15:1-41.

1 The words of Ananias, are important enough to be quoted:—… δυνάμενον δʼ αὐτὸν,
ἔφη, καὶ χωρὶς τῆς περιτομῆς τὸ θείον σέβειν, εἴγε πάντως κέκρικε ξηλοῦν τὰ
πάτρια τῶν Ἰουδαίων τοῦτʼ εῖναι κυριώτερον τοῦ περιτέμνεσθαι …Ultimately,
however, Izates listened to his other Jewish adviser, Eleazar, and was
circumcised. See Josephus, Antiquit., 20. 2. 4.

2 Ed. Mangey, 1 450, and Cohn and Wendland, 2 p. 285 ff.

1 The Oracula Sibyllina are a curious collection of Jewish and Christian verse,
written in a bad imitation of Homeric Greek, giving a series of Apocalyptic
prophecies. They vary in date from the first century before Christ to the third
century after Christ. The best text is that of Geffcken in the Berlin edition of
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. The
best introductions are probably those of Alexandre (the first edition, of
1841–56, not the second of 1869, which is less valuable), and of Geffcken,
Komposition und Enstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina in Texte und
Untersuchungen, 23.1; but sufficient for all except special purposes will be
found in Schürer’s Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes, ed. 4, 3. pp. 555–592. This
is one of the places in which Schürer’s fourth edition is considerably fuller
than the third. In the fourth book the Sibyl is supposed to be speaking to the
first generation of mankind, and gives a prophetic sketch of the successive
dominations of Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, and Romans, up to the flight
of Nero and the destruction of Jerusalem, and apparently mentioning the eruption
of Vesuvius in 79 a.d. It then goes on to foretell that Nero will return from
the East, and history will close with the judgment, resurrection, and
establishment of the righteous. It is clear from this summary that the book was
written during the time after the fall of Nero when his death was still doubted
and his return expected at the head of a Parthian army. This might be at any
time after the death of Nero, and before about 90 a.d. (the last false Nero
appeared in 88), but the reference to Vesuvius narrows the range of possible
dates to 79–90 a.d.

1 The important passages are Or. Sib., 4.24–33 and 162–170. The text is quoted
on pp. 56–7.

1[The probable range of date is about 90-135.]

2 Cf. Barn. 9:4, περιτομὴν γὰρ εἴρηκεν οὐ σαρκὸς γενηθῆναι· ἀλλὰ παρέβησαν, ὅτι
ἄγγελος πονηρὸς ἐσόφιζεν αὐτούς.

1 For this we have the evidence of Josephus, who narrates that Queen Helena, the
mother of Izates, was in Jerusalem at the time, and endeavoured to relieve the
distress by distributing corn and figs among the poor, and that Izates himself
sent money to Jerusalem for the same purpose; see Josephus, Antiquit. 20. 2. 5.

1 Silas ultimately joined the Antiochene mission, but Judas returned to
Jerusalem, if the Bezan text of Acts 15:34 be trusted.

2 In speaking in this way I am assuming that the Acts were probably written by
St. Luke the companion of St. Paul. In so doing I am certainly open to the
accusation of arguing in a circle. But it is unfortunately almost always
necessary to start by assuming something. In this case my position is that if we
assume the Lucan authorship there is nothing in Acts 15:1-41 which he would not
have known on good authority, and that if we turn round and treat the Lucan
authorship as the question to be discussed, there is also nothing in Acts
15:1-41 which he could not have written,—though this is disputed by many
critics.

1 So Sanday, The Apostolic Decree (published by Deichert in Leipzig, 1908), p.
15 f. The objection to this view is that it makes it an insoluble mystery why
St. Luke writing twenty years later, should have made such a “dead letter” (to
use Dr. Sanday’s expression) as the decrees had become, into a document of such
importance. Surely St. Luke was too good a historian to make so wrong a
selection of facts.

2 So Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 127. There is less to be said against this view,
but it is improbable because—on the theory that the decree was a compromise— it
was not a question of geography but of nationality, and was just the same in
Galatia as it was in Syria. Besides, on the South Galatian hypothesis (Chap. V.)
the decrees were actually delivered to the Galatians (Acts 16:4). A third view
is that the decrees are genuine but antedated by St. Luke. This view was
formerly held by Harnack, and is to be found (in various forms) in Weizsacker,
Das apostolische Zeitalter, p. 180f.; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 213f.; and v.
Dobschütz, Die urchristlichen Gemeinden, p. 274.

1 G. Resch, Das Aposteldecret, and Harnack’s chapter on Das Aposteldecret in his
Die Apostelgeschichte, pp. 188–198.

1 It is doubtful whether “εἰδωλόθυτα, αἷμα, and πορνεία” means “idolatry,
murder, and fornication,” or “sacrificial food, sacrificial blood, and
fornication in connection with worship”; but in neither case does it imply a
compromise.

1 They are referred to in the following places:—as “φοβούμενοι τὸν Θεόν,” in
Acts 10:2, Acts 10:22, Acts 10:35, Acts 13:16, Acts 13:26 as “σεβόμενοι τὸν
Θεόν,” Acts 16:14; Acts 18:17; as “σεβόμενοι” in Acts 13:50; Acts 17:4, Acts
17:17; and as “σεβόμενοι προσήλυτοι” in Acts 13:43. Cf. Josephus, Antiquit., 14.
7. 2.

1 Cf. especially, C.I.L., 5 1, n. 88. Ephem.Epigr., iv. 1881, p. 291, n. 838;
C.I.L., 6. n. 29759, 29760, and 29763. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 326 f.
Schürer, Die Juden im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der
σεβόμενοι Θεὸν ὃψιστον ebendaselbst (Sitzungsberichte der königl. preussischen
Academic zu Berlin, 1897); and F. Cumont, Hypsistos in the Supplément to the
Revue de l’instruction publique en Belgique, 1897.

2 The passages indicated are the following: Jos., Contra Ap., 2. 39: “καὶ
πλήθεσιν ἤὀη πολὺς ζηλος γέγονεν ἐκ μακροῦ τῆς ἡμετέρας εὐσεβείας, οὐδʼ ἔστιν οὐ
πόλις Ἑλλήνων οὐδητισοῦν οὐδὲ Βάρβαρον οὐδὲ ἓν ἔθνος, ἔνθα μὴ τὸ τῆς ἑΒδομάδος,
ἣν ἀργοῦμεν ήμεῖς τὸ ἔΘος [δέ] διεπεφοίτηκεν καὶ αἱ νηστεῖαι καὶ λύχνων
ἀνακαύσεις καὶ πολλὰ τῶν εἰς βρῶσιν ἢμῖν οὐ νενομισμένων παρατετήρηται.”
Tertullian, Ad Nationes, i. 13: “Vos certe estis, qui etiam in laterculum septem
dicrum solem recepistis, et ex diebus ipso priorem praelegistis, quo die
lavacrum subtrahatis aut in vesperam differatis, aut otium et prandium curetis.
Quod quidem facitis exorbitantes et ipsi a vestris ad alienas religiones. Judaei
enim festi sabbata et coena pura et Judaici ritus lucernarum et jejunia cum
azymis et orationes litorales, quae utique aliena sunt a diis vestris.” Juvenal,
Sat., xiv. :96–106—

“Quidam sortiti metuentem sabbata patrem nil praeter nubes et caeli numen
adorant, nec distare putant humana carne suillam qua pater abstinuit; mox et
praeputia ponunt.

Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges Judaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt
jus tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses: non monstrare vias eadem nisi
sacra colenti quaesitum and fontem solos deducere verpos.

Sed pater in causa cui septima cuique fuit lux ignava et partem vitae non
attigit ullam.”

1 Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, ed. 4, 3.173 ff.

1 See F. Cumont’s Hypsistos, in the Supplément to the Revue de l’instruction
publique en Belgique. 1897.

2For a further description reference may be made to F. Cumont’s Les Religions
orientales dans le Paganisme romain. This book affords an indispensable
introduction to the study of the Oriental side of the background of early
Christianity. It has, also, the advantage of being more easily intelligible and
more interesting than most works of fiction.

1 It is remarkable that the title of Σωτήρ was actually given to Augustus; Cf.
Deissman, Licht vom Ocsten, p. 248.

2 Cf. Bousset, Religion des Fudentums, p. 576; and Wendland, Die
Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur, pp. 87 f.

3 That this was the strength of Judaism has often been unfairly overlooked by
Christian writers, who have judged Judaism by the polemics of early Christian
literature and the subtleties of the Talmud, rather than by the ethical spirit
of, for instance, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, or the many noble
sayings of Philo.

1 See especially Bousset’s Hauptprobleme der Gnosis.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 02.01.     THE TEXT OF THE APOSTOLIC DECREES
========================================================================

APPENDIX I THE TEXT OF THE APOSTOLIC DECREES The textual variants in the
Apostolic Decrees are numerous and complicated: they can be found most fully in
G. Resch’s Das Aposteldecret, pp. 7–17, and the material in the later Greek MSS.
will no doubt be increased when von Soden’s new critical edition is published.
But for the purposes of all except students of the later history of the text the
facts may be stated as follows:— The text of all the manuscripts which represent
the dominant Greek tradition—אΑΒCΡ, etc.—supported by the Alexandrian Fathers
Clement and Origen, states that the Apostles told the Gentile converts to keep
themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and
from fornication. Thus there is a four-clause text of which the first three
clauses seem, when united in this way, to give a food law to fix, as it were,
the conditions of intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Christians, while the
last clause—against fornication— seems to have nothing to do with food, but to
belong to a different category altogether.

Over against this reading is the evidence of D, the Latin version, Irenaeus (in
Greek as well as in the Latin translation), Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Latin
writers, who omit “things strangled,” generally insert after the reference to
fornication, “and do not do to others what you would not that they should do to
you,” and at the end of all add, “Ye shall do well, being carried along by the
Holy Spirit.” Thus it is plain that a widely received text of the decrees ran
somewhat as follows: ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πορνείας, καὶ ὃσα μὴ
θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς γίνεσθαι ἑτέρῳ μη ποιεῖν· ἀφʼ ὦν διατηροῦντες εὖ πράξετε [or
πράξατε?] φερόμενοι ἐν τῷ ἀγίῳ πνεύματι, and was opposed, ultimately
successfully, by a rival form which ran ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλοθύτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ
πνικτῶν καὶ πορνε·ίας· ἐξ ὧν διατηροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς εὖ πράξετε.

Now, the evidence of Irenaeus and Tertullian on the one hand, and of Clement on
the other, shows that both these readings are very old. Moreover, the history of
exegesis confirms them. For in Alexandria the Apostolic Decrees were always
interpreted as a food law, but in Africa (up to the time of Augustine) and in
Europe as referring to the three deadly sins. Irenaeus and Tertullian were, it
is true, acquainted with a food law, but they did not connect it with the
Apostolic Decrees.

Nevertheless, the three-clause text, in its entirety, cannot be maintained.
Among modern critics there is an almost complete agreement that the additions
of the negative form of the golden rule, and the reference to the Spirit cannot
be original: partly because the former introduces a very harsh parenthesis or
change of thought,but chiefly because if the golden rule had been in the text
from the beginning, the interpretation of the decrees as a food law would have
been impossible. This consensus of opinion has prejudiced critics against the
omission of “things strangled,” which is supported by much the same witnesses,
and Dr. Sanday in particular has argued that as D and Irenaeus have made a
mistake in adding the golden rule, they ought not to be trusted where they omit
“things strangled.” His view is that the same people left out “things strangled”
and inserted the golden rule in order to change a food law into a moral
enactment.

Against this argument serious objections can be brought. In the first place, it
is not the case that the evidence for the golden rule is quite the same as that
for the omission of “things strangled”; Tertullian omits “things strangled,” but
does not insert the golden rule. There is, therefore, important if not extensive
evidence that the two readings are independent of each other. In the second
place, there is no historical evidence whatever that the circles which can be
shown to have read a text which omitted “things strangled” had any objection to
a food law. On the contrary, in the second century Gaul, in which Irenaeus
lived, observed a food law, and Tertullian, the other earlier witness for the
omission, observed a food law which actually mentioned “things strangled”
(suffocatis).Thus there is no possibility of alleging any motive for the change
of text. Finally, it is difficult to suppose that any scribe of Acts in the
second century deliberately changed the obvious meaning of an important passage.
No doubt redactors may have treated their sources in this way, but the scribes
who copied the Gospels and Acts confined themselves to elucidating the meaning
of the text. They made additions, alterations, and omissions, but their
intention was to explain, not to alter. Of course they made many lamentable
mistakes, but where is the evidence that they consciously set to work to change
the manifest meaning of the text which they read? Whenever, therefore, we find a
considerable variety of readings, we ought, if possible, to look for an original
text offering some ambiguity which scribes would seek to clear up, first by
notes in the margin, and afterwards by their insertion in the text.

Such a text would be excellently provided by the reading of Tertullian, which
omits “things strangled,” but does not insert the golden rule. This
three-clause text presents just the ambiguity necessary to account for the early
diversity both of text and of exegesis. The first clause (εἰδωλόθυτα) means
“things offered to idols,” and may be as well taken in a narrow sense, a literal
command not to eat that sort of food (which was often sold in the market), as in
the wider sense of a synonym for idolatry. In the former case it is a food law,
in the latter it is a moral or ethical rule. The next clause “from blood,”
(αἴματος), is equally ambiguous, and was probably the cause of the later
confusion. To any one who had already interpreted the first clause in the sense
of an ethical forbidding of idolatry it would either mean “murder,or possibly
blood as used ritually in sacrifices in the temples (see p. 60), but if the
first clause were taken in the stricter sense of a literal command not to eat
that sort of food, the second would naturally be interpreted as a reference to
the Jewish objection to the use of blood as food. It is plain that the tendency
of scribes would be to clear up this ambiguity, and in some way to indicate
which interpretation was correct. Those who favoured the sense of a food law
made it clear by adding “things strangled”—first perhaps as a gloss in the
margin, afterwards in the text itself—thus explaining blood as “meat in which
the blood had been retained,” “sanguine suffocato” as the Vulgate (in some
manuscripts) puts it.Those, on the other hand, who regarded the decrees as a
moral law made their meaning plain by adding the negative form of the golden
rule. It is possible that the addition of the reference to the Spirit was made
at the same time, and for the same purpose, but the evidence of Tertullian (who
has it, but has not yet adopted the golden rule) suggests that it is an earlier
interpolation, and probably has nothing to do with the addition of the golden
rule, or the omission of “things strangled,” but is merely one of the edifying
remarks which the early scribes loved and sometimes allowed to pass into the
text.

Each of these two ways of altering the text rendered the meaning
unmistakable—that is exactly the reason why neither can be original. But the
short three-clause text used by Tertullian is ambiguous; it adequately explains
the origin of both readings, and is implicitly borne witness to by both of them.
It would no doubt be foolish to claim that the textual question can be solved
with certainty; there must be an element of doubt in a text on which
second-century evidence—two hundred years before our best manuscripts—was
sharply divided, but reflection is likely to convince all who concede that our
most famous uncials only represent an Alexandrian recension of the third or
fourth century, that the argument on purely textual grounds is against the
four-clause text, and in favour of the shorter form. To the textual argument can
be added a far stronger historical argument, to show that the Apostolic Decrees
were originally of the nature of moral requirements rather than a food law. This
historical argument is contained in the answers given to the questions: Which is
really more likely to have been the decision of the Council? Which is more
consistent with the subsequent course of events? Which is implied more probably
by the Pauline Epistles?

Taking the two last questions first, the superiority of the three-clause form of
the decree is as follows: (1) It removes the obvious difficulties of the sudden
association of a food law with fornication; (2) the absolute silence of St. Paul
on the decrees in 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, when he is discussing “things offered
to idols,” and in Romans 14:1-23, when he is discussing food in general, is
almost unintelligible if we suppose that the decrees were a food law. Even more
difficult is the statement in Galatians 2:6, that the Jerusalem Apostles added
nothing (οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο) to St. Paul, that is to say, made no additions to
his gospel. If we suppose that Galatians 2:1-21 refers to the Apostolic Council,
and that the Council enacted a food law, it would be hard for St. Paul to say
that the Apostles had made no additions to his gospel: for it is plain from all
his Epistles that a food law was widely removed from his thoughts. On the other
hand, it would be quite true if the decrees were merely a moral requirement to
abstain from idolatry, murder, and fornication. There is no evidence that St.
Paul ever condoned these offences or needed an Apostolic Decree to persuade him
to require his converts to abstain from them. The remaining question—which form
of decree is in itself more likely to have been adopted by the Council? —is more
difficult to answer, but again there is a decided balance of argument in favour
of the three-clause text. Generally speaking, commentators have been inclined to
argue that a food law is a probable decree, because the Jews placed so much
importance on such regulations. It is probably true that this argument is partly
based on the very unfair attitude which so many Christian theologians have
adopted towards Jewish religion—always emphasizing the ritual and legalist
elements in it, and ignoring the ethical and religious basis. Still, when all
possible allowance has been made for this factor, it remains true that the
outward side of religious life had great importance for the Jews of the first
century. So much must be admitted. But when one goes on to ask for proof that
“things strangled” was a point on which the Jewish element in the Christian
Church at Jerusalem would probably have laid stress, it is simply not
forthcoming. There is no evidence earlier than the fifth century after Christ
that the Jews regarded the command not to eat blood as meaning more than that
they were not to collect and use for cooking blood which was shed in the act of
slaughtering an animal.1 Even if we concede that in some circles the Jews had
this custom in the first century, and that this is the origin of the later
Christian practice, it is at least obvious that this rule was not likely to have
been so crucial a point at the Jerusalem Council, that the Jewish party would
have given way on the question of circumcision, but have held firm on the
question of extracting blood from slaughtered animals. Moreover, the suggestion
which is sometimes made that the Apostolic Decrees correspond to the so-called
Noachic regulations, which on the basis of Genesis 9:4 were supposed to be
binding on Gentiles living in Palestine, is unfortunately negatived by a
comparison of the seven Noachic commands with the Apostolic Decrees. The seven
commands were: (1) on the foundation of courts (Beth din); (2) against
blasphemy; (3) against idolatry; (4) against shedding of blood; (5) against
incest; (6) against robbery; (7) against cutting flesh from a living animal. It
is also said that the last of these commands is a later addition. It is clear
that there is here if anything a closer resemblance to the three-clause than to
the four-clause form of the Apostolic Decrees.

Thus there is no reason to think that the Jewish feeling of the first century
would have been inclined to accept a food law as the basis of a compromise with
the Antiochene movement. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the evidence
of the advice given to King Izates, the statement of Philo (see above, pp.
24–26), and the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles are the proof that the
requirement of the moral law alone would have been nothing unique in the history
of Judaism. Moreover, a comparison of the text of the Sibyllines raises the
question whether the actual formula of the three-clause text of Acts 15:1-41
does not go back to some Jewish form of which there is also a trace in the
Oracles. The two passages which are important are as follows:—

(1) Or. Sib., iv. 24–34 —

ὄλβιοι ἀνθρώπων κεῖνοι κατὰ γαῖαν ἔσονται,

ὄσσοι δὴ στέρξουσι μέγαν θεὸν εὐλογέοντες

πρὶν πιέειν φαγέειν τε πεποιθότες εὐσεβίῃσιν·

οἳ νηοὺς μὲν ἅπαντας ἀπαρνήσονται ἰδόντες

καὶ βωμούς, εἰκαῖα λίθων ἀφιδρύματα κωφῶν,

αἵμασα αν ἐμψύχων μεμιασμένα καὶ θυσίῃσιν

τετραπόδων· λεύσουσι δʼ ἑνὸς θεοῦ εἰς μέγα κῦδος

οὕτε φόνον ῥέξαντες ἀτάσθαλον οὔτε κλοπαῖον

κέρδος ἀπεμπολέοντες, ἃ δὴ ῥίγιστα τέτυκται,

οὐδʼ ἄρʼ ἐπʼ ἀλλοτρίῃ κοίτῃ πόθον αἰσχρὸν ἔχοντες,

οὐδʼ ἐπʼ ἄρσενος ὕβριν ἀπεχθέα τε στυγερήν τε.

(2) Or, Sib., iv. 162–170 —

ἆ μέλεοι, μετάθεσθε, βρότοι, τάδε, μηδὲ πρὸς ὀργήν

παντοίην ἀγάγητε θεὸν μέγαν, ἀλλὰ μεθέντες

φάσγανα καὶ στοναχὰς ἀνδροκτασίας τε καὶ ὕβρεις

ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας ἀενάοισιν,

χεῖράς τʼ ἐκτανύσαντες ἐς αἰθέρα τῶν πάρος ἔργων

συγγνώμην αἰτεῖσθε καὶ εὐλογίαις ἀσέβειαν

πικρὰν ἱλάσκεσθε· θεὸς δώσει μετάνοιαν

οὐδʼ ὀλέσει· παύσει δὲ χόλον πάλιν, ἤνπερ ἅπαντες

εὐσεβίην περίτιμον ἐνὶ φρεσὶν ἀσκήσητε.

It is surely very remarkable that here, as in the Apostolic Decrees, if the
three-clause text be followed, abstinence from idolatry, blood-shedding, and
immorality (it is highly probable that ὕβρεις in 1. 164 has a sexual
significance, cf. l. 33) should be selected as the characteristics of a good
life. It is very unlikely that there is any literary connection between the
Oracles and the Acts, and the only possible suggestion seems to be that both are
to be traced back to antecedent Jewish expression. So far, therefore, there is a
decided balance of argument in favour of the three-clause form of the Apostolic
Decrees. The one argument which at first seems seriously to weigh against it on
historical grounds is that there existed at the end of the second century in the
Christian Church a food law which certainly did refer to meat with the blood in
it. The earliest evidence for this is probably the letter of the Churches of
Lyons and Vienne (A.D. I78), in which Biblis, one of the martyrs, is stated to
have refuted the accusation of cannibalism by saying, “Those who are not allowed
to eat the blood of irrational animals, how should they eat children?”A little
later in his Apologyand elsewhere Tertullian refers to the food law of the
Christians as commanding them to abstain from “suffocatis”; and Clement of
Alexandria also bears witness to the same practice. This seems certainly strong
evidence that “things strangled” were forbidden by a Christian food law. But it
is weakened to unimportance by the fact that none of these writers except
Clement connect the custom with the Apostolic Decrees. For Irenaeus (who even if
not the writer of the letter of Lyons and Vienne, was the bearer of the letter
to Rome, and was afterwards Bishop of Lyons) used the three-clause text of the
decrees, and Tertullian not only used the three-clause text, but explained it as
a reference to the three deadly sins. Moreover, writers earlier than the end of
the second century say nothing of any food law, and mention “things offered to
idols” in the same way as St. Paul, as an incident in idolatry and communion
with demons,while the Didache knows so little of a food law that it says,
“Concerning food, bear what thou canst, but keep strictly from idol-sacrifice
(εἰδωλοθύτον), for it is the service of dead gods.”

Thus while there is evidence for a Christian food law before the end of the
second century, it is not certain that it existed earlier, and it is in no case,
except in Alexandria, connected with the Apostolic Decrees.

Hence the evidence to be derived from the early Christian food law is really in
favour of the three-clause text. The theory that the four-clause text is
original, and refers to a food law, necessitates the hypothesis that it was
altered to the three-clause form because a food law had become repugnant or
obsolete. When we find, therefore, that the writers who quote the decrees as a
moral requirement, nevertheless did possess exactly the food law which the
four-clause form represents, and that it was neither obsolete or offensive to
them, we are debarred from accepting this hypothesis. There is clearly no reason
whatever why they should have changed the decrees from a food law, if they had
ever known them as such; or, in other words, the three-clause form is presumably
primitive, and the existence of the four-clause form is due to the reaction of
the food law in Alexandria, first on the exegesis and afterwards on the text of
the decrees. It is natural that this corruption should have taken place in
Alexandria, because the text in that Church, although sometimes corrupt, escaped
the great inundation of glosses—one might almost say commentary— which
overwhelmed the text of Acts elsewhere. It was, therefore, free from that
addition of the golden rule, which, though textually corrupt, was exegetically
not far from the truth, and protected the text elsewhere from the smaller but
more pernicious gloss of “things strangled,” which by so small an addition
converted moral requirements into a food law.

There is one point more to be considered. So far it has been more or less
assumed that the choice must necessarily be between a food law and moral
requirement illustrated by abstention from idolatry, murder, and fornication.
Perhaps this is correct, but a few scholars take a different position.

They explain all the clauses of the decrees as references to various forms of
idolatry. They have thus taken “things strangled” as meaning sacrifices in which
there was no shedding of blood. It is, however, obvious that the same exegesis
could be applied to the three-clause text. The advantage of this line of
interpretation is that it avoids the historical and critical difficulties
connected with the view that the decrees were a food law, and this argument
ought to weigh heavily with those who, on textual grounds, are reluctant to
accept the three-clause text. Moreover, as applied to the three-clause text, it
avoids explaining blood as meaning murder, and brings it into connection with
idolatry. The disadvantage is that there is no trace in early Christian
literature that this interpretation was ever adopted. It is, however, not
necessary to discuss this point further, as, whichever view of the meaning of
the three-clause text be taken, it does not affect the general view which has to
be held of the position of the decrees in the Judaistic controversy.

1 For a different interpretation, see p. 60.

1 Tertullian is the extremely important exception.

2 G. Resch, whose work on the subject entitles him to great respect, is the most
important exception.

3 “From which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well,” reads awkwardly after the
golden rule.

1 See p. 58.

1 The insertion of the reference to the Spirit in the last clause seems to have
no bearing on the question. Supposing it to be (as I am inclined to believe) an
insertion, it neither negatives nor affirms the other readings. To be “carried
along by the Holy Spirit” was a general characteristic of the early Christians.

2 1 Corinthians 10:14 ff. is an instructive commentary on the word. It is part
of the answer to the question of the Corinthians περὶ εἰδωλοθύτων. In the first
half (1 Corinthians 10:14-22) of the passage, εἰδωλόθυτον is treated as an act
of idolatry, the actual sacrifice to a false god, and is forbidden: in the
second half (1 Corinthians 10:23-33) it is treated in the sense of merely food
which, after having been used in sacrifice, was sold in the shops and used for
an ordinary meal, and this is in principle allowed, though St. Paul makes
practical reservations because of the chance of giving offence to the weaker
brethren. It is clear that in this chapter, St. Paul is either deliberately
ignoring the Apostolic Decrees, or interpreting them as forbidding idolatry, not
as establishing a food law. Cf. G. Resch, Aposteldecret, p. 21.

1 Probably few will doubt that αἵμα can be used in the sense of murder—
blood-guiltiness—but G. Resch has met any such objection by a convincing list of
quotations in his Aposteldecret, p. 42. The passages he quotes are: Leviticus
17:4; Numbers 35:27; Sir 34:21; Matthew 23:30; Revelation 6:10. Demosthenes, In
Meidiam, 548; Pausanias, 5. 1, 6; Æschylus, Eumen., 203. Plato, Laws, 872, DE,
and others of less importance.

2 It is significant also that Origen (In Matthaeum, 2. 837), though he seems to
have known the ordinary four-clause text, also quotes the decrees in a
three-clause form with πνικτοῦ instead of αἷματος. Methodius, too, has the same
curious text. This may be a slip, or may be an instance of the gloss replacing
the word glossed.

1 Personally I do not think so (see Chap. V), but in deference to a widely
spread opinion I adopt the view for the moment.

1 Once more reference must be made to Resch, who collects all the evidence (Das
Aposteldecret, pp. 21 ff.). It would seem that the present Jewish custom of
extracting all blood from meat (the “Kosher” meat) can only be traced back to
the tractate Chullim of the fifth or sixth century. The matter is, of course,
one on which only Rabbinical scholars have a right to speak, but I do not gather
that Resch’s view is disputed by them.

2 Sanhedrin, 56 a. ff. I am indebted to my friend Prof. Oort for the
verification, and correction, of the reference. Cf. Schürer, Geschichte des
jüdischen Volkes (Fourth Edition), 3. p. 178, note 77 (Third Edition, p. 128).

1 By Hamburger, Realencyclopaedie, in the article on “Noachiden.”

2 The fact probably is that the Noachian rules are a later crystallization of
the primarily moral requirements of the early Jewish Propaganda in the Diaspora.

1 Geffcken rejects this line, as the construction is harsh, and it is not found
in the Ω recension. But it is doubtful whether this is sufficient reason.

1 Eus., H. E., 5. 1. 26 (ed. Schwartz, p. 412). The Latin of Rufinus has “flesh”
instead of “blood,” but the Greek is probably right.

2 “Erubescat error vester Christianis, qui ne animalium quidem sanguinem in
epulis esculentis habemus, qui propterea suffocatis quoque et morticinis
abstinemus, ne quo modo sanguine contaminemur vel intra viscera sepulto.” Apol.,
9; cf. also de Monogam, 5; de Jejun, 4 and 15; de Spect. 13; and see Resch. op.
cit., p. 148, where these passages are collected.

3 Paed., 2, 7; Strom., 4, 15.

4 One copy went to Asia, another to Rome; cf. Harnack, Die altchristliche
Literatur, p. 262; and Chronologie, pp. 315 f. 323.

5 Aristides, Apol., 15; Justin, Dial. c. Tryph., 35.

6 Did., 6.

1 The best statement of their case may be found in Prof. H. Oort’s Het besluit
der Apostelsynode, in the Theologisch Tijdschrift, vol. 40, pp. 97 ff. Cf. also
Sanday, The Apostolic Decrees, p. 11.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 03.     CHAPTER 3. THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS
========================================================================

CHAPTER III THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS THE chronological position of the
First Epistle to the Thessalonians is indicated by St. Paul’s reference to
Athens in 1 Thessalonians 3:1 ff. in which he states that he had sent Timothy to
Thessalonica, and was writing to his converts in consequence of the report which
Timothy had brought back. It is thus plain that the letter was written during
St. Paul’s stay in Achaia on his second missionary journey. Moreover, though 2
Thessalonians contains no similar reference to a fixed point of chronology, it
so closely resembles 1 Thessalonians that it is usually conceded to be
indisputable that, if it be genuine, it must have been written at the same time
as, or immediately after the former Epistle. There is, however, some legitimate
room for doubt whether it ought to be accepted as authentic.

These facts define the points which require treatment for the historical
introduction to the Epistles. It is necessary to consider the narrative in the
Acts which describes the doings of St. Paul at Thessalonica together with the
parallel passages in the Epistles, and the light which is thrown on the
movements of Timothy before he delivered his report to St. Paul. After this an
attempt must be made to reconstruct from the Epistles Timothy’s report, and, as
a necessary preliminary to this attempt, the question must be faced whether 2
Thessalonians may be legitimately used for the purposes of this reconstruction.

ST. PAUL AT THESSALONICA When St. Paul and his companions left Philippi they
took the Via Egnatia, which led through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica
(Acts 17:1). It is usually thought that the text—διοδεύσαντες δὲ τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν
καὶ τὴν Ἀπολλωνίαν—implies that Amphipolis and Apollonia were the two stages at
which he broke his journey. But the distance from Philippi to Amphipolis is
thirty-three Roman miles; from thence to Apollonia is thirty miles; and the
final stage is thirty-seven miles. This, while not physically impossible, would
be extraordinarily rapid travelling; if it be accepted as the meaning of Acts,
it must be taken to imply that St. Paul was able and willing to pay well for
exceptional speed.Therefore, it is quite probable that διοδεύσαντες ought to be
taken as meaning that St. Paul broke his journey at Amphipolis and Apollonia in
order to preach in those towns, though St. Luke knew of no incidents worth
recording in connection with this work. This use of διοδεύειν is parallel to the
constant use of διέρχεσθαι, which almost always means “to make a missionary
journey,” and it is to some extent covered by Luke 8:1—διώδευεν κατὰ πόλιν καὶ
κώμην κηρύσσων, κ.τ.λ. The same comments apply with even more force to the Bezan
text of Acts 17:1—διοδεύσαντες δὲ τὴν Ἀμφίπολιν [καὶ] κατῆλθον εὶς Ἀπολλωνίδα
κὰκεῖθεν εὶς Θεσσαλονίκην. Either this text means, “They made a missionary
journey to Amphipolis, came down to Apollonia, and thence to Thessalonica,” or
it means something impossible—that is, that St. Paul went from Philippi to
Thessalonica in two stages, “passing through” Amphipolis.

However this may be, the important point of the narrative both to St. Luke and
ourselves is the arrival of St. Paul and his companions at Thessalonica. It is
not quite clear who ought to be reckoned as certainly among the latter. In
Philippi St. Paul had been accompanied by Silas, who had come with him from
Antioch, presumably by Timothy, whom he had brought from Lystra (Acts 16:1-3),
and—according to the implicit testimony of the “we-sections”—by St. Luke. Of
these St. Luke—according to the same implicit testimony—remained in Philippi,
and Silas, according to Acts 17:4, came on with St. Paul. The case of Timothy is
more doubtful: he is not directly mentioned in Acts between Philippi and Beroea,
but in the latter place he is spoken of as though his presence was natural, so
that he probably came wit St. Paul to Thessalonica. The procedure of the
missionaries and its result is described in Acts 17:1-10 : “Now when they had
passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a
synagogue of the Jews: and Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three
sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging,
that the Messiah must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and
that the Messiah is this Jesus, whom I preach unto you. And some of them
believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the ‘God-fearing’ Greeks a
great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.” The obvious meaning of this
passage is that St. Paul preached for three weeks in the synagogue and among
those who congregated in the synagogue, i.e. the Jews and the “God-fearers.”
Whether the words τρία σάββατα ought to be translated “three weeks” or “three
sabbath days,” is for this purpose unimportant. Similarly it is really not
important whether the ordinary text be read or the Bezan text which
distinguishes between the “God-fearers” and the “Greeks." It is, however, to be
noted that this distinction is precisely one of the points in which the Bezan
text most clearly fails to commend itself, for the “God-fearers” were “Greeks”
in any case, and it seems as though, in this respect, the Bezan text was so far
removed from the spirit of the first century as not to recognize this fact.

If, then, we follow the plain meaning of the Acts, we must suppose that St.
Paul’s activity in Thessalonica lasted three weeks, and the result was a few
Jewish converts, and a great success among the God-fearers. It is, however,
argued by many commentators that 1 Thessalonians implies a degree of success
which is incompatible with so short a period of preaching. They therefore
consider that St. Paul must have spent a much longer time in Thessalonica than
the three weeks mentioned in Acts, and that the truth must be that he gave up
three sabbaths to the synagogue, after which there was an unrecorded quarrel
with the Jews, followed by a longer period, probably some months, of preaching
outside the synagogue to the God-fearers and possibly to others. There is, of
course, no reason to suppose that St. Luke is infallible; in other places he has
certainly omitted incidents. But here the suggestion of a more prolonged
preaching in Thessalonica seems psychologically as unnecessary as it is
certainly historically unvouched for. Christianity did not succeed through the
slow and laborious efforts of hard-working missionaries, but by the contagion of
an enthusiasm which spread from St. Paul to his hearers. St. Paul and Silas must
not be compared to men who preach to a heathen population tolerably well
satisfied with its creed, or seek to convince minds which are not especially
interested, and do not share in the general point of view of the missionaries,
but rather to “revival preachers” such as Wesley or Whitefield, who understood
and were understood by their hearers, and had a definite message for a clearly
felt want. For such men three weeks is long enough for anything; certainly it is
long enough to create a considerable body of fervent believers among men who are
dissatisfied with their own position—and that is exactly what the God-fearers
were. Furthermore, although it is possible that St. Luke accidentally omitted
any reference to the preaching outside the synagogue, which is supposed to be
necessary, it is remarkable that in Corinth, Ephesus, and Rome St. Luke is
careful to mention the conditions of St. Paul’s preaching, and to indicate with
some precision the point at which he broke with the Jews. Probably, therefore,
there is insufficient reason for deserting the testimony of Acts, and we ought
to conclude (though with considerable reserve) that St. Paul’s visit to
Thessalonica was only three weeks or, more accurately, only included three
sabbaths, during which he met with some slight success among the Jews, and great
success among the God-fearers. As was pointed out on pp. 37 ff., this was
exactly what was to be expected; the God-fearers provided, as it were, soil
specially fitted for the sowers of the Christian word.

Here is also, perhaps, the best place to draw attention to a small side-light on
St. Paul’s life in Thessalonica given by the Epistles. In 1 Thessalonians 2:9 he
says that he supported himself by working night and day, but it would seem that
this was not his only source of livelihood, for in Php 4:16 he mentions that the
Philippians more than once sent help to him at Thessalonica, and this point may
fairly be used by those who think that St. Paul’s preaching in Thessalonica must
have lasted longer than three weeks, for it is possible to argue with much
plausibility that the Philippians are not likely to have sent more than once in
so short a time. The names of some of the converts at Thessalonica have been
preserved. Jason seems to have been the host of St. Paul and Silas in
Thessalonica, and in Acts 20:4 Aristarchus and Secundus are mentioned as two of
the Thessalonians who went with St. Paul to Jerusalem on his journey with alms
for the poor. To these some editors add a fourth—Gaius. Their method of reaching
this result is as follows: in Acts 19:29 in the scene in the theatre at Ephesus
we are told that the crowd seized “Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, comrades
of Paul (Γ. καὶ Ἀ. Μακεδόνας, συνεκδήμους Παύλου), and it is thought that this
Gaius ought to be identical with the Gaius in Acts 20:4. The difficulty is that
in Acts 20:4 Gaius is described as a native of Derbe, and therefore Blass emends
the text from καὶ Γαίος Δερβαῖος, καὶ Τιμόθεος into καὶ Γαίος, Δερβαῖος δε
Τιμόθεος. If this were correct, Gaius was a Thessalonian, for the preceding
words are, “And of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus,” to which would
now be added—“and Gaius, and the man of Derbe, Timotheus.” The objection to this
is that in Acts 16:1 Timothy seems to be a Lystran. It is therefore probably
better either to make the neat emendation (which is actually found in some MSS.)
in Acts 19:29 of Μακεδόνα for Μακεδόνας, explaining the usual reading as a
dittography of the initial ς in συνεκδήμους, in which case it would be possible
to regard Gaius in Acts 19:29 as identical with the Gaius of Derbe in Acts 20:4,
or merely to accept the view that there was a Gaius in Macedonia as well as in
Derbe. This latter view has no more difficulty than there is in thinking that
there is a Smith in London as well as in Glasgow, and seems to gain in
probability if we remember that there was in any case another Gaius at Corinth
(1 Corinthians 1:14 and Romans 16:23). If this be so, and Gaius was a
Macedonian, it is, of course, possible that he was a Thessalonian, though the
epithet “Macedonian” may refer to some other town. It is not possible to say
with any degree of certainty whether these converts were all of them drawn from
the ranks of the God-fearers, or belonged to the Jewish element; but Jason is at
all events a name often used by Jews, and in Colossians 4:10 St. Paul speaks of
an Aristarchus as belonging to the circumcision, and he may quite well be the
Thessalonian who had gone with St. Paul to Jerusalem.

Further tradition as to these Thessalonians is probably valueless, though the
Synaxarion and similar works have various details. Jason, for instance, is
identified with the Jason of Romans 16:21. His further labours are placed in
Tarsus or in Thessalonica, and he is described as bishop of both these places in
various sources. According to Clement of Alexandria, he was the protagonist in
the Dialogue between Jason and Papiscus. Aristarchus is sometimes described as
suffering martyrdom together with St. Paul, sometimes as Bishop of Apamea,
sometimes of Lydda or Diospolis in Syria. Secundus seems not to be noticed.
Gaius was, according to Origen (InRomans 16:23), the first Bishop of
Thessalonica; according to the Apostolic Constitutions (7:46, 9), Bishop of
Pergamum; and according to other tradition, either Bishop of Ephesus or a martyr
in the neighbourhood of Antioch.

None of these traditions seem to be valuable. Full references will be found in
Th. Schermann’s Propheten- und Apostellegenden in Texte und Untersuchungen,
31:3, and the same writer’s Prophetarum Vitae Fabulosae in Teubner’s Bibliotheca
Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum.

It is not surprising to find that St. Paul’s success aroused the enmity of the
members of the synagogue who saw those who were reckoned as already half
converted being led astray to a sect of which they profoundly disapproved, and
the form which they gave to their resentment is shown in the next paragraph of
the Acts,– Acts 17:5-10 : “But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy,
took unto them certain agitators of bad character, and gathered a company, and
set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to
bring them out to the crowd. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and
certain brethren unto the Politarchs, crying, These that have turned the world
upside down are come hither also; whom Jason hath received: and these all do
contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another Emperor, Jesus.
And they troubled the people and the Politarchs, when they heard these things.
And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the others, they let them go.
But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Beroea: who
coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.” This account is tolerably
plain, but a few points call for some comment. It is not possible at present to
be certain what was the exact nature of the crowd in Acts 17:5 (τὸν δῆμον),
though we may guess that it practically amounted to something like an
“indignation meeting.” In this case it is easy to understand that St. Paul and
Silas were prudent in avoiding such an ordeal, for what began as an indignation
meeting might easily end as a lynching party. At the same time, their absence
had its drawback: it meant that the Jews could bring the case at once before the
Politarchs, who were the local, not the Imperial magistrates, and formulate a
charge of the greatest gravity, for which colourable evidence could be produced,
and that the absence of the defendants appeared conclusive proof of their guilt.
The result was —so Acts certainly implies—that judgment went against St. Paul by
default, security was taken from Jason not to harbour these suspected persons,
and—most important of all—legal ground was afforded for presuming Christianity
to be a punishable offence. Fortunately, however, the jurisdiction of the
Politarchswas only local, so that their decision did not form an Imperial
precedent, and that is probably the reason why St. Luke is careful to mention
their exact title; it was essential to the apologetic side of the Acts that he
should point out that the Imperial authorities, when they understood the facts,
always acquitted St. Paul—in Philippi, Corinth, and Caesarea—and that when he
was condemned or punished it was either by a local magistrate, imperially
unimportant, as at Thessalonica, or through a mistake which was afterwards
rectified, as at Philippi.

Thus St. Paul and his companions had remained in hiding; but after the decision
of the Politarchs it was necessary for them to escape. They were therefore sent
off by their friends to Beroea under cover of night. In Beroea, according to
Acts 17:10 ff., St. Paul and Silas again began to preach in the synagogue of the
Jews, and at first met with a better reception than in Thessalonica, for “they
received the word with all readiness, searching the Scriptures to see if these
things were so.” Thus many Jews believed, “and of Greek ladies of position and
men, not a few.” But when the report of this success reached Thessalonica, the
Jews there sent to Beroea and broke up the Mission. The result was that it was
decided that St. Paul must leave Beroea, and some of the Christians undertook to
accompany him to the coast, where he would be able to sail to Athens.
Temporarily, however, Silas and Timothy were left behind.

If we may press the exact words of the Acts, when Beroea was left, the plans of
St. Paul and his friends were uncertain. Ultimately they went with him as far as
Athens, presumably by sea. In this way Thessaly was passed over and St. Paul
went directly from Macedonia to Achaia. Probably the reason for this omission is
that at this time Thessaly belonged to Macedonia. No doubt the Politarchs’
decision was only valid in Thessalonica, but it would probably be known to and
have influence with the Imperial authorities. Events at Beroea had shown that
St. Paul was a marked man in Macedonia, and if Thessaly was part of the province
it was wiser not to touch it, but to pass on to Achaia. The omission to preach
in Thessaly has made its mark on the text. Codex Bezae adds to v. 15: “But he
passed by Thessaly, for he was prevented from preaching the word to them.Prof.
Zahn thinks that this is part of the original text, and moreover deduces from
the verb “passed by” (παρῆλθεν) that St. Paul went from Beroea to Athens by
land, for he argues, that had he gone by sea, St. Luke would have written
“sailed past” (παρέπλευσεν). This argument is, however, not very probable. It is
far more likely that the reading of Codex Bezae is merely the comment of some
early reader who was struck by the omission of Thessaly. It may be noted that a
similar gloss is found in the Armenian catena on the Acts, which reads, “But
the Holy Spirit prevented him from preaching, lest they should slay him.” In any
case, St. Paul and the Beroeans reached Athens, and the latter then returned
home, taking a message to Silas and Timothy to join their leader as soon as
possible.

It is not necessary for the present purpose to follow the details of the history
of St. Paul in Athens. He was not especially successful, and after a time went
on to Corinth. Still he was presumably a week or ten days in Athens, and we
should expect to find that Silas and Timothy had joined him before he left, but
as a matter of fact, we hear nothing more of them in Acts, until in Acts 18:5,
when St. Paul is in Corinth, we are told that “Silas and Timothy came down from
Macedonia.”

It is at this point that it is possible to turn to the Epistles to the
Thessalonians and begin to consider the problem of fitting the historical
information which they supply into the frame-work of the narrative in the Acts.
This information is contained in two passages in 1 Thessalonians. In the first
(1 Thessalonians 3:1-2, 1 Thessalonians 3:5) St. Paul says: “Wherefore when we
could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone; and sent
Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellow-labourer in the
gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:
for this cause, when I could no longer forbear, I sent to know your faith, lest
by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labour be in vain.”

It is tolerably plain that here St. Paul is referring to the same incident in
both verses, but in 1 Thessalonians 3:2-3 he speaks in the plural and in 1
Thessalonians 3:5 in the singular. It is, therefore, impossible to be certain
whether any use ought to be made of the plural as a proof that Silas and Timothy
were present when the decision was arrived at, and that Silas also went away to
some unmentioned destination. Usually, however, it is argued that the passage
proves that Silas and Timothy did, as a matter of fact, join St. Paul while he
was in Athens,—an incident of which there is no mention in Acts. As 1
Thessalonians goes on in 1 Thessalonians 3:6, to narrate Timothy’s return with
good news from Thessalonica, it is usually supposed that this verse corresponds
to Acts 18:5, which describes the coming of Timothy and Silas to join St. Paul
in Corinth, and from this the conclusion is drawn that 1 Thessalonians, which
was clearly written directly after Timothy’s return, was sent from Corinth.
According to this theory, St. Luke entirely omitted to mention that Timothy and
Silas joined St. Paul at Athens, and that Timothy was sent thence to
Thessalonica, and only narrates his return, not to Athens, but to Corinth. From
the fact that Acts says that Silas and Timothy, not Timothy only, returned to
Corinth, it is also generally thought that Silas must have been sent to some
town in Macedonia, probably to Philippi. Thus according to this view the table
of events can be drawn up as follows:

1. St. Paul leaves Silas and Timothy in Beroea and goes to Athens, sending a
message back to them to join him at once. Acts 17:14 f.

2. Silas and Timothy join St. Paul in Athens. Implied by 1 Thessalonians 3:1,
not in Acts.

3. St. Paul sends Timothy to Thessalonica [and Silas elsewhere]. 1 Thessalonians
3:1-5, not in Acts.

4. St. Paul goes to Corinth. Acts 18:1, not in 1 Thess.

5. [Silas and] Timothy return from Macedonia to Corinth. Acts 18:5; 1
Thessalonians 3:6.

6. St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians from Corinth. This theory has the
advantage of combining both Acts and 1 Thessalonians without doing violence to
either. At the same time, interpretations are probably to be deprecated which
attempt to maintain that this is what St. Luke meant, and that he intentionally
omitted the arrival of Silas and Timothy at Athens. It is undeniable that a
cursory reading of Acts 17:14-18 creates not merely the impression that St. Luke
omits the return of Silas and Timothy, but also that his narrative definitely
implies that their arrival at Corinth is the fulfilment of St. Paul’s command,
sent to them at Beroea, and if this be so it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that St. Luke is here inaccurate in his account, and that he has
confused the arrival of Silas and Timothy from Beroea—which was really at
Athens—with the return of Timothy from Thessalonica. Personally, I am inclined
to think that this much ought to be conceded, but the point is not of very great
importance for the study of the Epistle, as in any case the fact remains
apparently certain that it was to Corinth that Timothy returned, and therefore
from Corinth that the Epistle was written. It is surely gratuitous to suppose
that St. Luke made the further mistake of saying Corinth instead of Athens, and
that the Epistle was really written from Athens. The fact that St. Paul says
that he was willing to remain alone in Athens is no decisive evidence that he
was or was not still there when he wrote, though it makes it slightly more
probable that he was elsewhere.

Whatever view may be taken of this complicated little problem, the fact stands
out undisputed that Timothy was sent to Thessalonica. Apart from his general
desire to know something of the development of his converts, St.Paul had a
special reason for anxiety in their case. When he and Silas left Thessalonica
without appearing before the Politarchs he no doubt took the wisest course; but
he also incurred the disadvantage that he allowed the question of the
treasonable nature of his preaching—that is, of Christianity—to be settled
against him by default. It is obvious that as neither he nor Silas appeared, the
Politarchs were forced to decide between the conflicting accounts of Jason and
of the Jews, and the failure to appear of the parties chiefly implicated must
have been used with unanswerable effect by the Jews to show that they were
right, and that Christianity was a treasonable movement. That was a serious
matter for every Christian in Thessalonica, and St. Paul must have known that it
was so; it meant that the Jews had succeeded, for the time at least, in
persuading the Greeks to persecute the Christians. Therefore, St. Paul was
naturally anxious for his converts, and wished to know in the first place
whether, as there was every reason to fear, they were suffering persecution, and
in the second place whether, if that were the case, they were remaining
steadfast. This is exactly what we find stated in 1 Thessalonians 3:2 f. “We
sent Timothy, our brother, and God’s minister in the gospel of Christ, to
establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith; that no man be moved by
these afflictions.… For this cause I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent
that I might know your faith, lest by any means the tempter had tempted you, and
our labour should be in vain.” It is plain that St. Paul foresaw that there must
be persecution; he was anxious to know to what extent it would be pushed, and
how far the Christians would stand firm.

Under these circumstances, then, Timothy went to Thessalonica. What report did
he bring back? That question can only be answered by reconstructing his report
from the hints given in the Epistles, and it is, therefore, first necessary to
face the problem of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, in order to see whether
we are justified in using it, as well as 1 Thessalonians, for this purpose. THE
AUTHENTICITY OF 2 THESSALONIANS.

Ever since the modern criticism of the Pauline Epistles began, this letter has
been one of those as to the authenticity of which it has been most generally
conceded by impartial scholars that there is legitimate room for doubt, and
though the tide of opinion has ebbed and flowed, there has never been any
practical unanimity, such as has been reached in favour of 1 Thessalonians. A
good account of the various writers who have contributed to the discussion of
the question may be found in von Dobschütz’s Commentary, pp. 32–36, but the main
arguments against the Pauline authorship may be reduced to two: (1) the view
that the Apocalyptic passage in the second chapter refers to events later than
the life of St. Paul, or is inconsistent with the eschatological teaching of 1
Thessalonians; (2) a comparison with 1 Thessalonians as to literary style, and
as to the general characteristics of the community implied by the Epistles. The
argument derived from the Apocalyptic section in 2 Thessalonians has taken, in
the main, two forms.

(a) It has been said, in the first place, that it is, whatever it means,
irreconcilable with 1 Thessalonians. In the first Epistle St. Paul describes the
Parousia as imminent; in the second he protests against those who maintain that
the day of the Lord “ἐνέστηκε, ” and says that it will not come before the
revelation of the “Man of Lawlessness.” Moreover, in 1 Thessalonians St. Paul,
though speaking of the Parousia as imminent, says that it will come as a thief
in the night,—i.e. suddenly and unexpectedly—whereas in 2 Thessalonians he says
that he had told the Thessalonians of the Apostasy, and the revelation of the
Man of Lawlessness which would be the signs of the Parousia.

These arguments do not seem to bear investigation. It is true that in 1
Thessalonians St. Paul implies that the day of the Parousia is imminent, but 2
Thessalonians does not contradict this; ἐνίστηκε does not mean “is imminent,”
but “has come,” and St. Paul never meant that the day of the Lord was not
future, to however close a future he might assign it.

(b) In the second place, some critics have maintained that this passage contains
the so-called Nero Saga, which is of course later than St. Paul. The main points
of this legend are well known: when the Emperor died in a.d. 68, the first
feeling of the populace was joy at their deliverance from the tyrant, but in a
short time doubts began to arise as to whether the report of his death was not a
piece of news too good to be true. The result was that pretenders appeared who
gave themselves out as Nero. The first of these appeared in 69, and was speedily
destroyed. Another eleven years later, in the reign of Titus, was, according to
Zonaras, recognized as Nero by Artabanus, the King of the Parthians; and still
later in 88 another impostor almost succeeded in raising the Parthians in revolt
against Domitian. After 88 the fact of Nero’s death was recognized: but a belief
arose that he would rise from the dead and lead the armies of the East against
Rome. Finally, the figure of Nero himself became obscure, and there remained
that of a partly human, partly diabolic Antichrist.

It used frequently to be thought that the Nero Saga was in this way the source
of the whole Antichrist legend, and it was argued that in this case 2
Thessalonians, which shows clear traces of the Antichrist legend, cannot be
earlier than the death of Nero, and therefore cannot have been written by St.
Paul. This argument, or something like it, certainly played a great part in the
commentaries on 2 Thessalonians in the nineteenth century. But it is unnecessary
to discuss it in detail, because W. Bousset to his many services to the study of
the New Testament has added this, that he has shown the true history of the
Anti-christ legend to be independent of the Nero Saga, and far older than the
time of St. Paul. The history of the Antichrist legend is far too complicated to
be dealt with here: the main outlines alone can be given. There seems to have
been current among the Jews, and among other Eastern peoples, the belief that
the “end shall be as the beginning.” The sign that the New Age is near at hand
will be the repetition of the events preceding the creation. Now, these events
comprised a struggle between God and a daemonic being who strove to take the
place of God. This is the old Babylonian myth of the strife between Marduk and
Tiamat, of which there are many traces in the Old Testament. It was believed
that at the end of this age the struggle would again be renewed, and the victory
of God would be the inauguration of a New Age, as it had formerly been of the
Creation. Thus we find in Jewish and in Early Christian sources a certain amount
of confusion of thought as to whether the Antichrist would be a human or a
daemonic figure, and sometimes even a duplication in which a human Antichrist is
accompanied or followed by a still more terrible supernatural apparition. So
much is now generally accepted: it still leaves almost as difficult as ever the
problems connected with the exact exegesis of St. Paul’s words. We are still
incapable of giving a decisive answer to the questions whether St. Paul expected
a Jewish or a Gentile “Man of Lawlessness,” and whether “he that letteth” (ὁ
κατέχων) was a supernatural being or the Roman Empire.But these problems may be
left on one side for the present purpose. What is important is that the result
of the last fifteen years of research is decisively to remove the eschatological
argument from the list of possible objections to the authenticity of 2
Thessalonians.

It is, therefore, not surprising that there was in the last years of the
nineteenth century a strong reaction in favour of 2 Thessalonians. In 1903,
however, this reaction was checked and reversed by the extremely able monograph
of the late Prof. Wrede, Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs. In this
it was freely admitted that the apocalyptic section could not be used as the
basis of any discussion either of the date or of the authenticity of the
Epistle, but the attention of scholars was recalled to the literary problem
afforded by the comparison of and 2 Thessalonians. This may shortly be described
as a remarkable combination of similarity and difference: the language is
largely the same—so much so that it would, if found in two writers, completely
justify the theory of literary dependence—but the general tone is quite
different—so that no one would, apart from the tradition, ever have suggested
that both letters were written by the same author to the same community. The
extent of this similarity, which is at once felt on reading the Epistles rapidly
through one after the other, may be seen best in the tables given by Wrede (op.
cit., pp. 3–36). The dissimilarity can also be felt on a cursory reading; of
both Epistles, though it is more difficult to analyze, but the main points are:
(I) 1 Thessalonians is full of the deepest and most heartfelt sympathy and
friendship, but 2 Thessalonians is much cooler, and, as it were, official in
tone; (2) 1 Thessalonians seems to imply a purely Gentile community, while 2
Thessalonians shows no trace of Gentile thought, and contains no reference to
anything implying Gentile origin, but, on the contrary, shows a strongly Jewish
colouring, with—in spite of the absence of definite quotations—perhaps a more
strongly marked resemblance to the thought and language of the Old Testament
than any book in the New Testament except the Apocalypse.There are other points
in which a contrast can be observed, but these are the most noticeable, and are
the main reasons for the difficulty, so ably expressed by Wrede, of believing
that the two Epistles could have been written by the same writer, to the same
community, at the same time. If both had been written by the same writer, and
the identity of language were explained merely as due to the fact that the same
ideas were in his mind when he wrote both letters, it would be almost impossible
to doubt that they were written at the same or almost the same time. But the
community cannot have changed from Gentile to Jewish, and it is very improbable
that St. Paul’s tone can have so suddenly altered; if therefore, so Wrede
argued, we accept the tradition connecting the Second Epistle with Thessalonica,
we are bound to doubt the Pauline authorship. It is then important to notice
that the one passage which presents no parallelism to the First Epistle is the
apocalyptic section. Wrede, therefore, suggested that we ought to regard the
Second Epistle as the work of some unknown writer, who found that the
Thessalonians were too much imbued with an immediate expectation of the
Parousia, and therefore wrote a warning that the Parousia could not come before
the Antichrist, of whom, it is implied, no sign has yet been seen, while in
order to secure attention for his warning he surrounded it in a mosaic of
Pauline phraseology from 1 Thessalonians, and issued it as an Epistle of St.
Paul. This theory of Wrede, set out, as it was, in his own clear and most
attractive style, immediately met with a friendly reception, and swung the
pendulum back again against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians. Nor was it for
a long time satisfactorily answered: even von Dobschütz, in the 7th edition of
Meyer’s commentary (1909), did not really make any decisive reply, though he
emphasized with truth the strange fact that it is only because we possess 1
Thessalonians that any one doubts the authenticity of the Second Epistle, for
there is nothing un-Pauline in it, and the only reason for disputing its
authorship is the difficulty of finding room for it alongside of 1
Thessalonians. This may be described as a plea which is perhaps sufficient for a
stay of execution, but scarcely adequate for a reversal of judgment.

Recently, however, Prof. Harnack has read a paper to the Berlin Academy which
throws a new light on the question. He does not dispute Wrede’s contention that
2 Thessalonians cannot have been written at the same time, by the same writer,
to the same community as 1 Thessalonians, but, instead of solving the problem by
denying the identity of the writer, he does it by a closer consideration of the
circumstances of the Church at Thessalonica, and by the suggestion that
alongside of the Gentile community implied by the First Epistle there was a
smaller and earlier Jewish community to which the Second Epistle was directed.

It is, of course, plain that this suggestion takes the force out of most of the
objections to the authenticity of the Epistle, and Harnack’s reconstruction of
the circumstances which led up to its being sent is extremely attractive. St.
Paul ends the First Epistle by adjuring its recipients to see that it was read
by all the Christians; and in the immediately preceding verse there seems to be
a similar emphasis on the idea of all the brethren. It would therefore seem that
he was aware of a division at Thessalonica which justified the fear that his
letter would not be read to all the community unless he insisted on it. In view
of the obviously Gentile character of those whom he is addressing in 1
Thessalonians, the only probable view as to the minority whom he wished to reach
is that they were Jewish Christians. But, suggests Harnack, there is nothing in
1 Thessalonians which would be especially agreeable to Jewish Christians, and
several points which might be obnoxious to them. Therefore, immediately after
the First Epistle the Second was despatched for the benefit of the Jewish
Christians. In support of this theory one other piece of corroborative evidence
can be alleged, though the point is complicated a little by the uncertainty of
the text. In 2 Thessalonians 2:13 St. Paul says that he is bound to thank God
ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν, if we follow the text of BFGP 17 al
f vg syrh1 Did. Dam. Amb., etc., or ὅτι … ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς εἰς σωτηρίαν if we follow א
D E K L al pler. d e g syrpesh boh. arm. aeth. Chr., etc. Merely as a matter of
textual criticism, there is about as much to be said for the one reading as the
other—probably, if it were merely a question of evidence and lexical
probability, most critics would choose ἀπαρχὴν, because it is the more Pauline
expression (see Lightfoot’s note ad loc.), but in practice ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς has been
followed because of the difficulty of giving an adequate meaning to ἀπαρχήν—“God
chose you as a first-fruit,”—for in what sense could the Thessalonians be
regarded as first-fruits? The expression seemed not to be true to history in any
sense, for they were neither St. Paul’s earliest converts, nor were they the
first in Macedonia. Therefore interpreters have preferred to think that the
passage is a reference to predestination rather than to the facts of history,
and to read ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς. If, however, Harnack’s suggestion be followed, the matter
appears in a new light, for the Jewish Christians in Thessalonica were,
according to the Acts, the first-fruits of St. Paul’s preaching in that city,
though they were soon surpassed in numbers by the Gentile converts. The obvious
objection to which this theory is liable is that the address given in 2
Thessalonians 1:1 is “To the Church of the Thessalonians,” just as it is in 1
Thessalonians 1:1, and Harnack suggests that we ought to regard this as probably
not original. He points out that the address of Ephesians, (and, it might be
added, of Romans) shows signs of having been tampered with, and that that of the
Epistle to the Hebrews has been wholly lost. He thinks that the original address
may have been τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳͅ τῶν Θεσσαλονικέων τῶν ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς, and that the
last four words dropped out early in the tradition of the Epistle. An
alternative suggestion might be that the bearers of the Epistle were given
special instructions, or that the name of the individual to whom it was sent
secured that it would reach the Jewish Christians; it may have been inexpedient
in the letter itself to emphasize the difference between the two classes of
Christians. As Harnack himself admits, his theory is open to some objections,
but on the whole it seems to be far more acceptable than any other which has yet
been put forward, and whereas before its publication the balance of argument
seemed to be in favour of some such hypothesis as that of Wrede, and against the
authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, the situation is now reversed, and there is
sufficient justification for accepting the Epistle as a genuine document
belonging, together with 1 Thessalonians, even if not so certainly, to the
earliest period of Christian life in Thessalonica. In any case, however, the
point which it is most desirable to emphasize is that the main argument against
the Epistle is the difficulty of imagining circumstances to account for its
curious combination of likeness to and difference from the First Epistle—and
such an argument is too negative to be ever quite decisive; while, on the other
hand, the main argument in favour of it is traditional ascription, which,
however highly it be valued, is insufficient to give absolute confidence, if it
be impossible to present a probable reconstruction of the circumstances under
which the letter was written. Harnack has succeeded in producing a
reconstruction which is, at the least, not impossible, and therefore we are
justified in using 2 Thessalonians in reconstructing Timothy’s report, even
though it must be conceded that points derived exclusively from it have not the
same certainty as those derived from the First Epistle.

THE REPORT BROUGHT BY TIMOTHY FROM THESSALONICA

It is very probable, on general grounds, that Timothy brought back with him a
letter from Thessalonica to St. Paul, and that 1 Thessalonians is in part an
answer to it. Nor are hints wanting in the Epistle that this was actually the
case. Far the most cogent of these is the expression in 1 Thessalonians 2:13—διὰ
τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν —in which the proper force of the καὶ ἡμεῖς can be
given only if we assume that St. Paul means, “we give thanks just as you say
that you do.” Besides this the analogy of 1 Corinthians (see p. 136) suggests
that the paragraphs beginning, οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ τῶν
κοιμωμένων, κ.τ.λ. (1 Thessalonians 4:13), and περὶ δὲ τῶν χρόνων καὶ τῶν
καιρῶν, κ.τ.λ. (1 Thessalonians 5:1), may be direct references to questions in a
letter. Thus it is probable that Timothy’s verbal report was supplemented by a
letter from the Thessalonians, though it is clearly impossible—and fortunately
not very important—to distinguish with any certainty between items derived from
the various sources of information with which St. Paul was thus supplied. On the
subject of persecution and the attitude of the Christians it proved that St.
Paul’s forebodings were correct. The persecution had been serious, so that it
could fairly be compared to that of the prophets of old, and of the Christians
in Palestine. “For ye, brethren,” is St. Paul’s comment (1 Thessalonians 2:14
ff) on, or, one might almost say, quotation from the report, “became imitators
of the Churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus, for ye also suffered
the same things of your own countrymen as they did of the Jews, who both killed
the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and drove out us, and please not God, and are
contrary to all men.” It is clear from this passage that St. Paul is addressing
a Gentile community, and that they were suffering persecution from their fellow
Greeks, even though the burst of indignation against the Jews shows that St.
Paul recognized that the latter were—as Acts explains—ultimately responsible.
Probably we shall not be wrong if we go a step further, and say that this
persecution had already led to the martyrdom of some Christians. This is
certainly suggested by the reference to the death “of the Lord Jesus and of the
prophets,” and perhaps also by the difficult expression in 1 Thessalonians 4:13,
τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. It is extremely probable that here διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ
ought to be taken closely with κοιμηθέντας, but it is less certain (though, on
the whole, I believe it to be probable) that it means martyrdom rather than (as
the R.V. takes it) a natural death in the faith of Jesus. So far the news
brought back by Timothy was distressing enough; but it was partly compensated
for by the fact that the Christians were standing firm, so that their constancy
under persecution was famous among all the brethren in Macedonia and Achaia (1
Thessalonians 1:2-8, which describes, not only the original conversion of the
Thessalonians, but also the permanent effects of it, up to the time when the
Epistle was written).

1 Thessalonians is primarily comment on and answer to Timothy’s report as to the
Gentile Christians; in 2 Thessalonians we can probably see what he had to say as
to the persecution of the Jewish Christians. They also were suffering from
persecution, and it is possible that the reference in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, to
the persecutors as those who “know not God,” ought to be taken as a sign that
they were Gentiles. Moreover, St. Paul repeats—perhaps one may say, is careful
to repeat—the commendation given to the Gentile Christians for their
steadfastness; the Jewish Christians were not their inferiors in this respect.

Thus the news brought by Timothy was consoling, both as to Gentile and Jewish
Christians so far as their constancy under the pressure of persecution was
concerned; but if we piece together the indications in the Epistles we can see
that on some other points his information was less satisfactory.

Timothy reported that there was a line of cleavage between the Gentile and
Jewish parts of the community.So much was this the case that it was necessary
for St. Paul to insist strongly when writing to the Gentile half (in 1
Thessalonians) that his letter should be read by all the brethren, and that his
readers should greet all the brethren with a holy kiss (1 Thessalonians 5:26
f.). Possibly also traces of the same anxiety for the unity of the community may
be found in the emphatic injunctions “to abound in love to each other and to
all” (1 Thessalonians 3:12), and “ever to pursue that which is good for each
other and for all” (1 Thessalonians 5:15). Conversely it is possible to see a
trace of the same feeling in 2 Thessalonians in the notice drawn to the
signature guaranteeing the letter, as if the Jewish Christians were suspicious
of anything coming from the Gentile community. Possibly we ought even to agree
with Harnack that the Epistles imply that the Jewish and Gentile parts of the
community rarely or never met together for common intercourse. To this
separateness of the Jewish and Gentile Christians from each other must be
ascribed the fact that 2 Thessalonians was ever written. Obviously it was not
necessary to instruct Jews, who believed in a Messiah, in the doctrine of a
Resurrection, nor is it in the least probable that their conversion had led them
to adopt a lax standard of morality, such as would justify St. Paul in urging
them to abstain from fornication. Moreover, St. Paul’s statement as to the
Parousia was, no doubt, defective from the Jewish point of view in that it
omitted a statement of the necessary development of evil in the days immediately
preceding the coming of Messiah. St. Paul seemed to have felt these objections,
and to have perceived that his first letter, in spite of his personal good will,
might actually tend to increase the division in the community, and, therefore,
he wrote 2 Thessalonians, immediately after the First Epistle, repeating much of
what he had already said, but omitting that which might be offensive to Jewish
Christians, or was in any case unnecessary, and adding the section about the
Antichrist in order to show that he did not intend to give teaching contrary to
the general faith of the Jews as to the Parousia.

Timothy had to report that the main subject of interest in the community at
Thessalonica was eschatological; St. Paul’s preaching had, no doubt, been that
of all the earliest Christians—that the kingdom of God, with its sudden dramatic
judgment, and the catastrophic end of society as it was then, was close at hand,
and that it was the especial privilege of Christians that their master would be
the King in this kingdom. So emphatic had been this preaching of the immediate
coming of the kingdom, that it had, no doubt, given colour to the accusation of
treason brought against St. Paul, and it had driven the thought of death and its
relation to the kingdom out of the minds of the Gentile converts. When,
therefore, some of the brethren died—possibly as martyrs—the question arose what
their fate would be. Such is clearly the question implied by 1 Thessalonians
4:13, “Now we wish you not to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those that
sleep, in order that you may not mourn, as do the others that have no hope.” But
the implications of this fact are not so simply seen.

It is difficult to realize that there was a period in the early history of
Christianity when convinced and enthusiastic believers did not necessarily look
forward to the resurrection of the “faithful departed,” and that this subject
was so much at or beyond the circumference rather than the centre of Christian
preaching that St. Paul was obliged to supplement his teaching on the point by
written instruction. Yet it is intelligible if we consider that the hope of the
first Christians was not that they should pass through death to life, but that
they should pass, without dying, from life temporal to life eternal, when the
kingdom of God was established, and death, which was the result of sin, not an
essential feature of man’s nature, was abolished. The hope and belief of the
first Christians was that they were proleptic members of that kingdom, and that
it was but a short time before its glories would become manifest. It was,
moreover, just at this point that there was originally a fundamental difference
between Christianity and the “Mystery Religions.” The latter also offered men
eternal life, and a proleptic participation in its blessings; but they offered
its full realization only through the Way of Death, along which the traveller
was guarded by the magic formulae communicated to him in Mysteries. The Oriental
mysteries offered a “medicine of immortality,” but it was an immortality through
death, and not over death. Thus the fact that the Gentile Christians in
Thessalonica were distressed by the question of the “faithful departed” is a
proof that they had accepted Christianity as something different from the
Mystery Religions. In this respect they offer a contrast to some of the
Corinthian Christians (see pp. 215 ff.). When, therefore, cases of death were
found among them, the survivors began to ask whether they ought to add to their
eschatological hope a further, or alternative, promise of life through death,
similar to that of the Greek Mysteries, or to accept the Jewish doctrine of a
resurrection of the dead at the Parousia—a view which was still strange to
Gentile minds.

It was therefore necessary for St. Paul to point out to his converts that the
latter was the true answer, even though he makes it plain that he regards as the
norm survival until the coming of the kingdom, rather than death and
resurrection into the kingdom (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:15). In this case we probably
have another side-light on the clash of opinion between three factors. First,
the really primitive point of view of the first Christians who expected a
triumph of Life over Death, by which they would pass directly into the Kingdom
without dying; secondly, the natural expansion of this view along Jewish lines
which postulated a physical resurrection for those who died before the coming
of the Kingdom; and thirdly, an expansion along Hellenistic or rather
Graeco-Oriental lines, which treated the promise of Christianity for those who
died as parallel to that of the Mysteries which offered eternal life through
death, and so left no room for the idea of a resurrection. It is interesting to
note that the development of Christian doctrine united the two last factors. The
belief in an ultimate, though remote, day of judgment and of resurrection
represents the originally Jewish factor, and the belief in a Paradise of rest
and joy for the faithful departed until the Great Day represents the weakened
survival of the originally Greek factor which emphasized the idea that eternal
life is given by the Sacraments, and that for the initiated Dying is not Death
but the passage into a wider and a freer life.

Among the Jewish part of the community, if we may take 2 Thessalonians as a
guide, there was—as indeed might have been expected—an equal interest in the
eschatological expectation of the coming of the Kingdom, though it is not easy
to define it exactly. The passage which is important is 2 Thessalonians 2:2 :
“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our
meeting with Him, that ye be not quickly moved in your mind, or shaken, either
by a spirit (of prophecy) or by a ‘saying,’ or by a letter, as though from me,
to the effect that the day of the Lord has set in (ἐνέστηκεν).” The meaning of
ἐνέστηκεν is here a difficulty. It cannot be denied that it means “is present”
as distinct from “is future” (cf. the usual antithesis between τὰ ἐνεστῶτα and
τὰ μίλλοντα, Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 3:22; Galatians 1:4), but it is
impossible to think that any one believed that the Day of the Lord was already
come in the sense of the last judgment. The answer to these difficulties is,
however, found in the more accurate consideration both of the linguistic and of
the dogmatic point. The meaning of ἐνέστηκεν is “is present”—not “is future,” or
even “is imminent,” and also not “is already past”; and the “Day of the Lord”
meant not merely the last judgment, but a whole complex of events leading up to
the final dénouement—it was a “day” in the sense of a “period of time.” Thus the
meaning of ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου may be paraphrased as “we are living in
the day of the Lord,” and St. Paul’s answer is that he rejects this view, and
that nothing which he has written must be interpreted as giving it any support,
because before the day of the Lord the Man of Lawlessness must be revealed. His
position is that the Day of the Lord is imminent—it will, he imagines, come
before his own death—but it has not yet come.

What were the reasons which made it necessary for St. Paul to emphasize this
point? Two explanations are possible, and it is hard to say which of the two is
the more probable. They turn on the interpretation of διʼ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς διʼ ἡμῶν
in 2 Thessalonians 2:2.

It is possible that Timothy reported that there were in circulation forged
letters, purporting to be from St. Paul, stating that the Day of the Lord had
already begun. If so, we must connect with this passage 2 Thessalonians 3:17, in
which St. Paul draws attention to his handwriting as a guarantee of the
genuineness of the letter. “The ‘greeting’ is in my own—Paul’s—hand. This is the
sign of genuineness in all my letters—my own handwriting.” It must be remembered
that letters were, as a rule, dictated (e.g. Tertius was the actual scribe of
the Epistle to the Romans), so that, unless it was known that some part of the
letter was in the actual hand of the sender, identity or difference of script
was no proof for or against the genuineness of a communication. It is, however,
difficult to see why St. Paul should have written in this way to the Jewish part
of the community, rather than to the whole Church, and this view is therefore
less acceptable if Harnack’s theory be adopted, than on the older (and probably
untenable) theory that 2 Thessalonians was written a little later than 1
Thessalonians to the whole community. The alternative view, which Harnack
recommends, is that after St. Paul had written 1 Thessalonians, either before or
immediately after sending it, he noticed that his remarks on the Day of the Lord
in 1 Thessalonians 5:1 ff. were open to misconstruction, and that this
misconstruction would be especially obnoxious to the Jewish Christians. In this
case the reference in διʼ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς διʼ ἡμῶν is to an erroneous
interpretation of 1 Thessalonians, not to the possible existence of forged
letters.

If this view be adopted Timothy must have reported to St. Paul that there was a
tendency among the Thessalonians to regard the “Day of the Lord” as having
already begun, and pointed out as a criticism on 1 Thessalonians, after it had
been already dictated, that it might seem to encourage this mistake. If so we
have here a curious parallel to Hymenaeus and Philetus (in 2 Timothy 2:18), who
said that the Resurrection had already taken place, and it is instructive to
compare this point of view with that implied in the reference in 1 Corinthians
15:1-58 to those who doubted if there would be a resurrection.

It is also possible that in connection with the danger of a misinterpretation of
1 Thessalonians Timothy was obliged to report that among the Gentile Christians
there was a tendency to throw doubt on St. Paul’s motives. The suggestion is
that when St. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 2:5 ff., “For neither at any time
were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness,
God is witness. … For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: working
night and day, that we might not burden any of you, we preached unto you the
gospel of God,” he was hinting that there were some who suggested that he had
been animated by the motives which he disclaims and had forgotten the unselfish
conduct to which he refers. This is by no means improbable, though we have no
means of extracting any further information from the Epistle, and it is possible
that St. Paul is not rebutting accusations against himself, but hinting that his
conduct and preaching affords a pleasant contrast to that of other teachers to
whom the Gentile Christians were inclined to listen. In either case we have a
hint that tendencies were at work at the community of which St. Paul did not
approve, and that he endeavoured to find the antidote by reminding his readers
of his own example. The question then arises whether we can identify these
tendencies. The first point which attracts attention is the emphatic warnings
against immorality in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 ff. It is possible that this is merely
a general warning against the weakness of human nature; but it is more probable
that it is connected with a tendency to regard Christianity as an opus operatum
after which no material act can affect the spiritual welfare of the believer.
Such an attitude would be natural if there were any tendency to regard
Christianity solely as a Mystery Religion, and its influence can be traced in
several of the Pauline Epistles. In this case we have to consider that in
Thessalonica a tendency (more fully described on pp. 176 ff.) was already at
work, which pressed in an illegitimate manner the preaching of freedom, and
regarded St. Paul as weak and narrow-minded in his attitude towards what was
regarded as a merely carnal morality unworthy of attention from the truly
spiritual.

Besides this danger of immorality St. Paul warns his readers against neglecting
their ordinary work. It is not plain what was the cause of this tendency to
idleness: it has often been suggested that it was due to the vivid expectation
of the Parousia, which made men regard it as unnecessary to busy themselves with
the affairs of a world which would so soon cease to exist. That a vivid
expectation of the end has sometimes led to this result is undeniable:
Hippolytus narrates the story of a bishop in Pontus who announced that the
Parousia would come before the end of the year, with the result that many
Christians, who had sold their possessions, were in the end reduced to beggary.
But there is no special reason for thinking that this was the case in
Thessalonica. In the First Epistle (1 Thessalonians 4:4 f) St. Paul says: “But
we exhort you, brethren, that ye abound more and more, and that ye study to be
quiet and to do your own business and to work with your own hands, even as we
charged you, that ye may walk honestly towards them that are without, and may
have need of nothing.” If this passage followed the eschatological section it
might be legitimately supposed that the restlessness described was the result of
the expectation of the Parousia, but as a matter of fact it precedes it, and
therefore there is no decisive reason for supposing that St. Paul is speaking of
“eschatological restlessness and idleness”—if the expression may be used. A
comparison with other passages in early Christian literature suggests a
different explanation. It is clear from 1 Corinthians (see p. 223) as well as
from 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians, that St. Paul found it desirable to
avoid slander by never being indebted to his converts, and that there were other
Christians who by no means followed his example. Moreover, in the later
literature, especially in the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, there are
traces in abundance of an unpleasant type of “professional Christian” who lived
on the community. It is not impossible that Timothy’s report roused St. Paul’s
suspicion that this danger was present in Thessalonica, and that this rather
than any “eschatological restlessness” was the source of the idleness against
which he warns his hearers.

However this may be—and the data are insufficient to allow of a decision—in 2
Thessalonians more emphasis is laid on this question. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-12
he says: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which they received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought
to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; neither did we
eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and
day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: not because we have not the
right, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we
were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should
he eat. For we hear of some which walk among you disorderly, who work not at
all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our
Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” This
passage cannot be said to add anything to the information given in 1
Thessalonians: nor does it help us to decide whether we have to do with
“eschatological unrest,” or an undesirable “professionalism,” which led men to
spend all their time in exciting religious discussions, and to neglect their own
affairs. But it puts far more stress on the whole question, and if Harnack’s
theory be adopted, we are obliged to conclude that this evil was especially
present in the Jewish rather than the Gentile part of the community. There is no
reason for rejecting this conclusion, even though one would perhaps have rather
expected to find restlessness and idleness in Gentile circles. At the same time,
it is only fair to notice that this again is one of the strong points against
the genuineness of 2 Thessalonians. The natural conclusion from a comparison of
the passages in 1 and 2 Thessalonians is that there was a development of the
evil in question; but this implies an interval between the two Epistles, and it
is generally conceded that if both Epistles are Pauline they must have been
written almost at the same time.

Thus Timothy’s report may be summed as covering the following points: (1) The
persecution of the Christians in the community. (2) The division between the
Jewish and Gentile Christians. (3) The anxiety in the community concerning the
Parousia, and the fate of those who died before it. (3) The existence of either
forged letters, or the probability of doubt as to the meaning of 1
Thessalonians. (4) The evil tendencies in the community to immorality
(especially in the Gentile section) and to an idle restlessness especially, but
not exclusively, in the Jewish section. The two Epistles are the comment of St.
Paul on this report, and were presumably written soon after Timothy joined St.
Paul, according to Acts, in Corinth. The order of events which the foregoing
discussion has made appear the most probable may finally be summarized as
follows:—

1. St. Paul arrived at Thessalonica in the company of Silas (and possibly
Timothy).

2. Three weeks’ preaching in Thessalonica with the synagogue as headquarters,
some success among the Jews, and much among the God-fearers.

3. The Jews accuse the Christians, before the Politarchs, of treason to the
Roman Emperor; security is taken from Jason, and St. Paul and Silas are
condemned by default.

4. St. Paul and Silas (and Timothy?) go to Beroea.

5. The Jews from Thessalonica force St. Paul to leave Beroea.

6. The Beroeans take St. Paul to Athens: Silas and Timothy remain.

7. St. Paul sends a message back to Silas and Timothy to join him in Athens.

8. Silas and Timothy come to Athens.

9. Timothy is sent to Thessalonica, Silas probably to Beroea or Philippi.

10. St. Paul leaves Athens and goes to Corinth.

11. Timothy and Silas join St. Paul at Corinth.

12. On hearing Timothy’s report, St. Paul sends 1 Thessalonians to the Gentile
Christian community in Thessalonica.

13. Almost immediately after sending 1 Thessalonians St. Paul sends 2
Thessalonians to the Jewish Christian community in Thessalonica.

Literature.—The best commentaries are those of E. von Dobschütz, in Meyer’s
Kritischexegetisch kommentar über das Neue Testament, 1909; G. Milligan, 1908;
W. Lueken in J. Weiss’ Schriften des N.T’s.; P. W. Schmiedel, in Holtzmann’s
Handkommentar (1891); and J. B. Lightfoot, in his posthumous Notes on the
Pauline Epistles. Older and only slightly less valuable works are fully given by
E. von Dobschütz (pp. 49–56) in his chapter Zur Geschichte der Auslegung. Apart
from commentaries, attention may especially be called to Lightfoot, The Churches
of Macedonia, and The Church of Thessalonica in his Biblical Essays; W. Lütgert,
Die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich, in Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher
Theologie, xiii:6 (1909); W. Wrede, Die Echtheit des zweiten
Thessalonicherbriefs, in Texte und Untersuchungen, xxiv:2 ; A. Harnack, Das
Problem des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs, in the Sitzungsberichte der konigl.
preuss. Akademie zu Berlin, 1910.

Notes:

1 Acts 17:1.

2 Slightly less than English miles.

3 Conditions are no doubt worse now in Macedonia than they were in the first
century, but the difference for travelling cannot be very great, and nothing
would induce me to attempt such a pace, unless life and death depended.

1 It seems to me to be probable that the Bezan text is here clearly secondary.
The redactor thought that διοδεύειν meant “to pass through,” and altered the
text to bring out this meaning. As a matter of fact, the emphasis is not on the
διὰ but on the ὁδὸς implied in the verb. I suspect that St. Luke used διοδεύειν
here instead of διέρχεσθαι because he wished to indicate that St. Paul went
along the great ὁδός, the Via Egnatia, and that a similar shade of meaning can
be traced in Luke 8:1.

2 Acts 16:1-3.

3 The comment of von Dobschütz is here very much to the point. “To conclude from
Acts 17:4 that Timothy did not come to Thessalonica with St. Paul, as has often
been done, is to ignore the fact that Timothy is not mentioned in Philippi,
where, however, he must have been (so also John Mark in Acts 13:7), and is
alluded to in Acts 17:14 (Beroea) only because the narrative is here concerned
with the party of travellers, not with the mission as such” (p. 8, note 3).

1 It reads: καὶ προσεκληρώθησαν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Σιλαίᾳ τῇ διδαχῇ πολλοὶ τῶι
σεβομένων καὶ Ἑλλήνων, καὶ γυναῖκες τῶν πρώτων οὐκ ὀλίγαι.

1 Σάββατα in Acts 17:22, is taken by Zahn (Einl., p. 152) to mean weeks rather
than sabbaths. Of course, three Sabbaths imply three weeks, more or less, but I
do not think τρία σάββατα is likely to mean anything except “three sabbaths.”
St. Luke uses the plural in Luke 4:31; Luke 6:2, Luke 13:10, each time in the
sense of “sabbath day.” At the same time, the point is far from certain, for the
genitive, either singular or plural, is used, with a numeral prefixed, to give
the days of the week. It is possible that an extension of this use gave the
meaning of week to σάββατον, but I know no evidence in favour of this (generally
accepted) view. Δὶς τοῦ σαββάτου is the nearest approach, but here also it is
the genitive. See E. Schürer, Die Siebentätige Woche in the Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vi. (1905) p. 8.

1 The Greek is ἀγοραιων. That it means “agitators” and not “loafers,” is
probably shown by Plutarch, Aemil. Paul., 38, ἀνθρώπους ἀγεννεῖς καὶ
δεδουλευκότας, ἀγοραίους δὲ καὶ δυναμένους ὄχλον συναγαγεῖν, κ.τ.λ.

2 I cannot help thinking that it is possible to read too much into this phrase.
Surely the ο͂ῆυος here is not a special juridical body, but merely the meeting
or crowd, whichever we may choose to name it, which had been called into
existence by the γοραῖοι.

1 For the epigraphic evidence for the title, see de Witt Burton, in the American
Journal of Theology for 1898, pp. 598–632.

1 Or possibly “of their husbands.”

2 Is it possible that the local authorities in Thessalonica had some power of
fetching him to their jurisdiction?

3 This is probable but not certain. Ptolemy regards Thessaly as Macedonian, and
possibly Strabo does so also (this is Mommsen’s view, but the point is
doubtful). There is, however, no doubt but that it was formerly Achaean. Ramsay
thinks it was given to Macedonia in 44. Others suggest a later date, which, if
true, is of course fatal to the suggestion made above. (See Ramsay, St. Paul the
Traveller, p. 234.)

1 παρῆλθεν δὲ τὴν Θεσσαλίαν ἐκωλύθη γὰρ εἰς αὐτοὺς κηρῦξαι τὸν λόγον.

2 See Rendel Harris, Four Lectures on the Western Text, p. 47.

1 “But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings of
your faith and charity, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, desiring
greatly to see us, as we also to see you.”

1 Though this view is not inconceivable, it ought not to be forgotten that the
view that Thessalonians was sent from Corinth depends on the theory that
“Corinth” in Acts is correct; probably it is—but it is only one word, and no one
can be trusted not to go wrong on these details.

2 It need scarcely be said that there have been many other attempts to solve
this problem of the difference between Acts and 1 Thessalonians. For instance,
it has been suggested that St. Paul returned to Athens for a short time after he
had gone to Corinth, intending to go to Thessalonica; or, that Timothy never
reached Athens because St. Paul sent a message to tell him to go first to
Thessalonica (so von Dobschütz). Of all these it can be said that they are not
impossible, but they seem more complicated and less probable than the usual
view. The whole problem defies a final decision, because we have not sufficient
data, and opinions are likely to continue to differ as to the greater or less
probability of various not impossible solutions.

1 For the history of the Nero Saga in its early stages the main source is
Tacitus, Hist., ii. 8f.; Suetonius, Nero, 40; 47; 57. Zonaras, 11 15; 18. (Dio
Cassius, 64); for the later stage of the belief in Nero redivivus the Oracula
Sibyllina, books iv. and v., and the canonical Apocalypse of St. John. The chief
modern literature on the subject is T. Zahn, Apokalyptische Studien III. in the
Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft, 1886; Geffcken, Studien zur älteren
Nerosage, in the Nachrichten von der königl. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, 1899;
and Bousset’s commentary on the Apocalypse, in Meyer’s Kritischexegetischer
Komm. ü. d. N. T., 6th ed., 1906, pp. 411 ff.

1 The two really indispensable books on this subject are Gunkel’s schöpfung und
Chaos and W. Bousset’s Der Antichrist Legende, translated by A. H. Keane, The
Antichrist Legend. The latter book gives very full references to the scattered
and confused sources from which the outlines of the myth can be built up. Much
the same ground is covered, in a more compressed form, by the article by Bousset
on “Antichrist” in the Encyclopædia Biblica.

1In Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. 9. 2. (der ganzen Reihe 24. 2).

2 Holtzmann considers that the only passages in 2 Thessalonians for which no
parallel can be found in 1 Thessalonians are 2 Thessalonians 1:5-6, 2
Thessalonians 1:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9, 2 Thessalonians
2:11-12, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:13-14, 2
Thessalonians 3:17 (Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 214).

3 It should be noted that St. Paul’s quotations from the Old Testament are
mostly in his polemical passages, and are not due to the nationality of his
readers, but to the character of his letters.

1 Bornemann, in his commentary (p. 461), adds the Epistle of St. James.

2 See especially the list of twelve points given by Harnack in his Das Problem
des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs, in the Sitzungsberichte der kön. preus.
Akademie, 1910, p. 562 f.

1 The most complete exploitation of this theory will be found in Dr. Rendel
Harris’s article, “A Study in Letter-writing,” in the Expositor for September,
1898.

2I am not sure that this is a right interpretation; the “prophets” may refer to
Christian prophets, such as St. James the son of Zebedee, or St. Stephen.

3 1 Thessalonians 2:14 f.

1 The objection that κοιμηθέντας implies a peaceful death, and therefore not
martyrdom, is unsupported either by literary or psychological criticism. The
same word is used of the death of St. Stephen (Acts 7:60), and a martyr’s death
is, as a rule, pre-eminently peaceful. There is no doubt disturbance and
distress, but it is not the martyr who feels them. The real difficulty is rather
the curious genitival phrase, διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—in what sense διά?

2 The warning on p. 86 must be repeated that this, and all other reference to 2
Thessalonians, is based on the hypothesis that the Epistle is genuine, and that
Harnack’s theory is correct. But this is by no means so certain as the
authenticity of 1 Thessalonians; and to this extent the whole of the
reconstruction of Timothy’s report varies in probability according to the
Epistle on which it is based.

1 This, again, is based on Harnack’s theory of 2 Thessalonians, and cannot be
regarded as certain.

1 Bousset’s work is here the necessary complement of Harnack’s: if we did not
know that an expectation of an Antichrist was common among the Jews, we should
be unable to understand why St. Paul’s teaching as to the Parousia in 1
Thessalonians could be regarded as defective.

1 Cf. the summary which he gives himself in 1 Thessalonians 1:9, as to the
result —which he regards as satisfactory—of his preaching: “Ye turned to God
from idols, to become the servants of a living and real God, and to await His
Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, Jesus, who saves us from the
coming wrath.”

1 The Apocalypse of Baruch shows that the Jewish idea, at least in some circles,
was a resurrection of the dead in the form in which they died, followed by a
speedy transfiguration into a more glorious condition.

1 The fact that neither of these alternative views is quite satisfactory is in
itself an argument for Wrede’s opinion that 2 Thessalonians is not genuine.
Certainly he can explain this particular difficulty better than it is possible
to do on the theory of its Pauline authorship. But, then again, he fails, as
these views do not, to explain the other features in 2 Thessalonians which seem
to be strikingly Pauline. The whole problem is very difficult. No theory is
without its weak point, and certainty is unattainable.

1 Commentary on Daniel 4:19.

2 1 Thessalonians 4:4 f.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 04.     CHAPTER 4. CORINTH
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV

CORINTH

NONE of the Epistles of St. Paul afford us such ample material for
reconstructing the general outlines of Christianity among converts from
heathenism as do 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are, of course, many points which
will always remain doubtful; but the main difficulty is rather an embarras de
richesse, and the danger of obscuring the main picture by too close an attention
to details. The investigator has two main tasks: first, to trace the course of
the current of incident which flows through the Epistles; and secondly, to
discover the various points of view which explain the obvious clash of opinions
which gave rise to these incidents. Both tasks can only be accomplished by a
series of discussions of small problems, followed by the welding together of the
results in the form of general conclusions. The clearest way of proceeding seems
to be to divide the discussion into the following divisions:—

I. The foundation of the Church at Corinth.

II. A short preliminary statement of the series of incidents which explain the
existence and character of the Epistles.

III. The critical problems connected with these incidents.

IV. The conditions of thought and practice revealed by the Epistles.

I. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AT CORINTH The story of the
foundation of the Church in Corinth circles round three points—St. Paul,
Apollos, and St. Peter —and can best be told in connection with them.

St. Paul.—In Acts 18:1-18 we have an account of the work of St. Paul at Corinth,
which it is possible to supplement in a few details from information in 1
Corinthians. The facts are these: after St. Paul left Athens he went to Corinth
and joined the family of Aquila, a Jewish tent-maker—St. Paul’s own trade—who,
though originally belonging to the province of Pontus, had settled in Rome, and
only left it in consequence of the decree of Claudius banishing all Jews from
Rome. Of this decree we know something more from Suetonius, who connects the
riots which led to it with “Chrestus.” This must at least mean that a Messianic
movement, such as that of the disciples of St. John the Baptist, had reached
Rome,and may even mean that Christians had made their way there. It is therefore
exceedingly probable either that Aquila and his wife belonged to this type of
Messianic Jews, or that they were actually Christians before they met St. Paul.
The second alternative is supported by the fact that St. Luke does not state
that they were converted by St. Paul’s preaching, though it is of course
possible that this is merely an accident. In any case, it was with Aquila that
St. Paul lodged. The centre of his preaching was at first, as usual, the
synagogue, and he converted Crispus, the “archisynagogue.” This title probably
means a rank more or less corresponding to the “Elders” of Protestant churches.
But the Jews, as a whole, rejected his teaching, and after a stormy scene he
abandoned his preaching in the synagogue and took a room for the purpose next
door in the house of Titus Justus, a God-fearer. It must be admitted that he
chose a position which was not likely to avoid trouble, though it had the
advantage of being easily found by the God-fearer who had previously frequented
the synagogue.

St. Paul’s preaching met with considerable success among the Corinthians, and
continued, apparently without any serious hindrance, for two years and six
months, during which time, as has been shown (pp. 73 ff.), the Epistles to the
Thessalonians were written. But then the Jews brought an accusation against St.
Paul that παρὰ τὸν νόμον ἀναπείθει οὗτος τοὺς ἀνθρώπους σεβέσθαι τὸν Θεόν. The
accusation clearly was that his preaching was illegal, and the illegality seems
to be connected with the manner of his preaching rather than with the form of
worship referred to. St. Luke says, “he is persuading men contrary to the Law,”
not “to worship God contrary to the Law.” Moreover, σεβέσθαι τὸν Θεόν has so
usually the meaning “to be a ‘God-fearer,’ ” that it is preferable, if possible,
to take it in that way here. If so, we ought to say that the accusation was that
“he was making an illegal attempt to persuade men to become God-fearers.” It is,
so far as I can discover, impossible to see any Roman law which could be invoked
to support this accusation. Perhaps Blass’s suggestion is right, that it is a
reference to the privilege conceded by Julius Caesar to Hyrcanus, the son of
Alexander, that he and his family should hold all the privileges “according to
their own laws.” If so, it is intelligible that Gallio, the Proconsul before
whom the matter came, dismissed it with contumely, for this decree had no
possible bearing on the question at issue. Gallio regarded the whole affair as a
squabble between two sets of Jews, in which he had neither interest nor
jurisdiction. After his decision there was a curious incident. “They all took
Sosthenes, the archisynagogue, and beat him before the bench.” Who beat him? and
why? The Bezan text thinks that the Greeks did so, in which case the scene must
be explained as an act of triumphant violence on the part, if not of St. Paul’s
Gentile converts, at least of anti-Judaic Greeks, who would scarcely have
intervened if they had had no leanings towards St. Paul’s teaching. Such an act
would be entirely in accordance with human nature, though scarcely with
Christian principles. It was no doubt the latter fact which led the scribes of a
few late MSS. to read Ἰουδαῖοι instead of Ἓλληνες, as an explanation of πάντες,
and gave rise to the usual exegesis of the common text that Sosthenes was the
successor of Crispus, and that the Jews beat him for mismanaging the case. This
explanation is almost certainly wrong in so far as it assumes that the
archisynagogal office was monarchical, and has otherwise not much to recommend
it. The fact is that all we know is that Sosthenes was beaten, but whether by
Greeks or Jews, and whether because he was an unsuccessful leader of the
prosecution or as a convert of St. Paul, it is impossible to determine. It is,
however, intersting to note that a Sosthenes is joined determine. It is,
however, interesting to note that a Sosthenes is joined with St. Paul in the
opening salutations of 1 Corinthians; this may be purede accident, or it is
possible that the Sosthenes who was beaten was already a convert, or, as later
legend would have it, that he was afterwards converted by St. Paul.

Other converts of whom we hear are Gaius (1 Corinthians 1:14), with whom St.
Paul stayed on a later visit to Corinth (Romans 16:23), Stephanas, Fortunatus,
Achaicus, and perhaps Chloe, all of whom play parts of importance in the period
of the history of the Church at Corinth immediately after its foundation. To
these must be added Erastus the αἰκονόμος of the city (Romans 16:23), and
possibly also Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Quartus, and Tertius (Romans 16:21 ff.).

It will be seen from the above facts that the Corinthian Church was, like all
the Pauline Churches, partly Jewish, partly Gentile, with the latter element
predominating, and the question discussed on pp. 37 ff. of the position of the
God-fearers is here also of the greatest importance. It is extremely probable
that this class of Gentiles, interested in and influenced by Judaism, supplied
in Corinth as elsewhere the fruitful soil on which the Christian mission was
able to sow its seed successfully.

Apollos.—As the “second founder” of the Corinthian Church, Apollos must be
named. According to St. Paul himself (1 Corinthians 3:6), he sowed and Apollos
watered, and Acts 18:24 ff. gives us the following account of Apollos’
conversion and journey to Achaia, which, in the light of the Epistles to the
Corinthians, obviously means Corinth:— “And a certain Jew named Apollos, an
Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to
Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in
the Spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing
only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: but
when Aquila and Priscilla had heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded
unto him the Way [of God] more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into
Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he
was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: for he powerfully
confuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Messiah was
Jesus.” The obvious difficulty of this passage is the apparent contradiction
between “teaching the things concerning Jesus” and “knowing only the baptism of
John.” For this reason some critics have given up the whole story as hopelessly
corrupt, but there is no need for such drastic measures, and the difficulty lies
chiefly in the fact that the background of the incident is a state of things
which is so different from anything existing now, or indeed ever existing except
among Jewish Christians, that it is hard for us to realize it.

What is the most natural meaning of “knowing only the baptism of John”? Surely
it is that Apollos had come into contact with the disciples of St. John the
Baptist, and had been baptized with his baptism. We are apt to overlook the fact
that not all St. John’s disciples became Christians, and that he had a distinct
message. His preaching was primarily eschatological: the day of the Lord was at
hand, the Messiah was coming, and His kingdom would shortly be established; it
was therefore urgently incumbent on every one to repent and to accept the as yet
unrevealed Messiah. That was his message: and it would seem from the synoptic
Gospels that St. John did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, whose coming he
had foretold, until after his public career was finished, for the Baptism of
Jesus is in the synoptic Gospels a sign to Jesus, not to St. John, and it is
only in the later form of the tradition in the Fourth Gospel that the baptism
becomes a sign to St. John and to his disciples. The point in common between the
disciples of St. John and Christians was their belief in the immediate coming of
the Messiah, and the gospel which both of them preached was “to serve a living
and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven.” The difference between them
was that the disciples of St. John did not identify the coming Messiah with any
one who had ever yet appeared, while the Christians identified Him with Jesus,
who had been raised from the dead, and had been manifested after His
resurrection as that heavenly Being who would carry out the judgment of God, and
inaugurate His glorious kingdom. Apollos, then, ought to be regarded as one of
the disciples of St. John, who held all the common Christian doctrine of that
day, so far as the coming of the Messiah was concerned, but had never heard that
there were those who identified this Messiah with the Jesus who had lived and
died in Palestine, and had been glorified by God through His resurrection. The
common proof both for disciples of St. John and for Christians for their belief
in the coming Messiah was the Jewish Scriptures; and to the latter the Messianic
passages in these Scriptures were τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ, “the things concerning Jesus,”
just as they are in Luke 24:27 (“And beginning from Moses and from the Prophets,
He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (τὰ
περὶ ἑαυτοῦ).” It is of course true that the phrase need not mean this: it might
mean “the history of Jesus,” as it does in Luke 24:19. But when a phrase can be
shown by the exhibition of parallel passages to be susceptible of two meanings,
it is usually the best exegesis to take that which makes the context
intelligible. Now, it is certain that with the exegesis in Acts 18:25, that τὰ
περὶ Ἰησοῦ means the history of Jesus, the whole story is unintelligible;
whereas, it is quite intelligible, if we take the phrase to mean the Messianic
passages in the Old Testament, which to the Christian writer of Acts were τὰ
περὶ Ἰησοῦ, though, as a matter of fact, Apollos did not, until he met Aquila,
know to whom they referred except that he, whoever he was, was the Messiah. With
this interpretation the rest of the story presents no difficulties. Apollos came
to Ephesus preaching the eschatological gospel of John the Baptist, and Aquila
and Priscilla said to him in effect that all that he said was quite true, but
that they were able to add to it the important fact that the Messiah was none
other than Jesus, who by His resurrection had become a heavenly being, whose
glorified nature had been attested by many witnesses. This was an addition to,
but in no sense a contradiction of Apollos’ previous teaching; all his arguments
remained unchanged, but he was able to add to them “that the Messiah was Jesus.”
It must be noted that a lack of appreciation of the real situation has led both
to a change in the text, in the Bezan text, and to a mistranslation even in the
Revised Version. The Bezan text is that Apollos taught τὸν Ἰησοῦν εἶναι Χριστόν,
and the Revisers wrote “that Jesus was the Christ,” but the text is εἶναι τὸν
Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, which must be “that the Messiah is Jesus.” The same mistake, for
it really is nothing less, on the part of the Revisers may be seen in Acts 18:5,
when they render the same formula in the same way: and the reason in both cases
is an imperfect appreciation of the part played by the Messianic belief among
the Jews. It is of cardinal importance to recognize that the Christology of the
first Christians was, in the main, a body of doctrine well known to the Jews and
to the God-fearers before the days of Jesus, and that many of them believed in a
Christ—a Messiah—before they ever came into contact with a Christian preacher.
St. Paul, Apollos, and the other Christian missionaries were to a large extent
on ground common to them and their audience when they preached a Messiah, and
starting from this generally conceded doctrine, they proceeded to identify this
Messiah with Jesus. In this respect they differed absolutely from all modern
missionaries, for these usually begin at the other end, and starting from the
fact of Jesus argue that He and His history can best be explained in the terms
of Messianic doctrine— which is often wholly strange to their hearers. When
Apollos had in this way received the completion of his teaching from Aquila, he
appears, according to the usual text, to have formed the desire to go and preach
in Achaea. According to the Bezan text, he received an invitation to do this
from some of the Corinthians who were then in Ephesus. “And certain Corinthians
who were staying in Ephesus besought him to come with them and pass into their
country, and when he agreed, the Ephesians wrote to the disciples in Corinth to
receive him.” Both here and in the ordinary text the word translated “pass into”
(διελθεῖν) has the almost technical meaning of making a missionary journey.

Apollos must have had much success in Corinth, for in 1 Corinthians 3:6 St. Paul
speaks of him as having watered where he had planted. The information given in
Acts and just discussed makes it tolerably certain that his preaching was
primarily eschatological; but it is also noteworthy that he came from
Alexandria, the headquarters of the allegorical and philosophical Judaism
represented by Philo. It is not impossible, therefore, that the tendency to seek
for philosophy which St. Paul seems to reprove in the Corinthians in 1
Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians
4:1-21, ought to be connected with the party of Apollos to which he also
refers. But it must be remembered that this is merely guess-work. It does not
follow because Apollos was an Alexandrian that he was a disciple of Philo; all
that we know is that he was a disciple of St. John the Baptist, and it is a far
cry from St. John the Baptist to Philo, even though we must admit that if the
desire for philosophy, to which St. Paul alludes, must be connected with one of
the parties mentioned in 1 Corinthians, Apollos is the most likely person, of
those whom we know, to have consciously or unconsciously started such a
movement.

Apollos does not, in spite of his success, appear to have stayed very long in
Corinth, for when St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Apollos was with him in Ephesus,
and it was doubtful when he would return to Greece, though he intended to do so
when a suitable opportunity could be found.

St. Peter.—Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth in the second century, maintained in a
letter to Rome that St. Peter also visited Corinth. It is usual to think that
this is merely a deduction which he made from the mention of Cephas in 1
Corinthians 1:12. It is quite possible that this is the case, but even so it is
doubtful whether it is quite so certain that his deduction was wrong. After all,
the existence of a party of Cephas in Corinth, alongside of those of Apollos and
St. Paul, does suggest very strongly that Cephas, like the others, had actually
been in Corinth. It is no doubt possible that the party of Cephas was one which
had only heard of St. Peter; but the question is whether we have any reason for
supposing that this was the case. Personally, I am very doubtful whether we
have, and I think that in this respect we are too much under the influence of
Tübingen criticism, or criticism which has unconsciously absorbed much of the
principles of Tübingen, even when consciously opposing them. The result has been
an exaggeration of the Judaism of St. Peter, and this has in turn created a
strong prejudice against any tradition which ascribes to St. Peter missionary
activity outside the circle of Palestinian Judaistic Christianity. Nevertheless,
this prejudice is not supported by facts. What do we know from the Acts about
St. Peter? It is not difficult to summarize our knowledge. He appears, first of
all, as the leader of “the Twelve” in Jerusalem; at Pentecost he preaches with
success to Hellenistic Jews; he comes into conflict with the Jewish authorities,
but in the end succeeds in maintaining his position. He next appears as
supporting and following up the work of the Hellenist “Seven,” outside
Jerusalem, in Samaria and elsewhere, and takes the serious step of admitting a
Gentile without insisting on his becoming a proselyte and undergoing
circumcision. So far from appearing to be the leader of a Judaistic type of
Christianity, he is steadily depicted by St. Luke as favouring expansion and
liberality. Going on still further, he is represented as supporting the claims
of the Antiochene movement at the Apostolic Council. He then disappears from the
pages of Acts, but it is noteworthy that later, when St. Paul returns to
Jerusalem for the last time, St. Peter is apparently not present. The fact is
that for some reason of his own St. Luke did not see fit to tell the further
story of any of the Apostles’ labours except St. Paul’s. The silence of Acts as
to St. Peter after the Council does not imply in any sense that he stayed in
Palestine, or did not preach either to Hellenistic Jews or to Gentiles. Did St.
Luke intend to return to the story of St. Peter in that third book which he
surely proposed writing?

But, it used to be alleged, the Acts is a “mediating” book; we have here not St.
Peter as he was, but a Paulinized version of him; the Epistle to the Galatians
gives us truth—shows us that St. Paul and St. Peter were opponents, not allies,
and that the latter only preached to Jews. This contention seems to be greatly
exaggerated so far as Acts is concerned. No doubt St. Luke saw history in the
light of later events; no doubt, also, he was writing with a purpose, and not
merely in order to chronicle facts. But the whole tendency of criticism is to
show that he was, according to the standards of his day, a competent and honest
historian. It is absurd to treat him as infallible, or to find a deep
significance in every change of expression, but it is equally absurd to look for
apologetic reasons for every statement, and to ignore the probability that the
main reason for most of them is that he believed them to be true. Moreover, the
conclusion drawn from Galatians cannot stand investigation. All that St. Paul
says is that when St. Peter was in Antioch he gave up his usual intercourse with
the Gentile Christians under pressure from the emissaries from St. James of
Jerusalem, and that St. Paul rebuked him. So far from implying that St. Peter
was the consistent antagonist of Paulinism, or of the Antiochene movement, he is
represented as friendly to it, and only yielding under pressure to the
extremists from Jerusalem. Nor does the statement that it was agreed at
Jerusalem that St. Paul should preach to the Gentiles, and the others to “the
circumcision,” in the least imply that St. Peter should not travel in the Roman
Empire. “The circumcision” covers the Diaspora, as well as Palestinian Jewry,
and even if we suppose that St. Peter always wished to keep strictly and
literally to this compact, there is nothing to show that he did not travel all
over the Roman Empire, as tradition says that he did, preaching to the Jews in
the Diaspora, and finally reaching Rome. But if he did this it is practically
certain that he would be brought into contact with Gentile God-fearers, just as
St. Paul was, and so in the end would be obliged to preach to Gentiles, however
much his original plan may have been to confine his teaching to Jews. In this
case we have to repeat the question,—why should we not think that St. Peter
really was in Corinth, and that the party of Cephas was composed of those who
had been converted by him, just as the other parties were composed of the
converts of St. Paul and of Apollos? The real objection is probably the feeling
that if St. Peter had been in Corinth, St. Paul would have said more about him.
No doubt he would have done so had he been writing for our benefit, but in
writing to the Corinthians the necessity was not so clear; in writing letters no
one expatiates on points well known to his correspondent, but on those which are
unknown or disputed. We can see this in the precisely parallel case of Apollos;
he had been prominent in Corinth, and also had a party of followers, yet we
should hear nothing of him in 1 Corinthians, apart from the existence of his
party, if it had not been for the accidental fact that he was in Ephesus when
St. Paul was writing. Thus, the absence of further references in 1 Corinthians
is no proof that St. Peter had not been in Corinth.

Probably, then, St. Peter ought to be regarded, along with St. Paul and Apollos,
as one of the founders of the Church at Corinth, and, at least, we must suppose
that some of his disciples had visited the city. It is, moreover, not
inconceivable that the use of the name Cephas, not Peter, implies that St. Peter
was here also preaching to the Jews rather than to the Gentiles, but this is
probably too subtle, for, unless the text in Galatians is corrupt, it would seem
that St. Paul used “Cephas” and “Peter” indifferently, and on no fixed principle
(cf. Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:7-8, Galatians 2:11, Galatians 2:14).

More important, however, than any of these points, and much more certain, is the
fact that there is no trace in these Epistles that the party of Cephas (or any
other party) was Judaistic, or represented the principles of the stiff Jerusalem
Church. This is equally important for the understanding of the Epistles to the
Corinthians, and as a corroboration of the view expressed above that the figure
of a Judaizing St. Peter is a figment of the Tübingen critics with no basis in
history. In this way the Corinthian Church was founded and built up, first by
St. Paul, afterwards by Apollos, and either by St. Peter or some unknown
disciple of St. Peter.For our knowledge of the next period in the history of
the community we are dependent on the Epistles, and it is now necessary to turn
to them and try to extract from them the history which is behind them. THE
INCIDENTS WHICH EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLES The general
outlines of these incidents can be stated in a very few words—it is the history
of a quarrel. To us the principles which lie behind this quarrel are more
important than the actual course of its development; but neither the one nor the
other is intelligible, unless the fact be grasped that the Epistles were not
written by St. Paul to illustrate general principles, or to give an exposé of
Christian practice, but as definite attempts to deal with extremely concrete
questions, which gave rise to a violent quarrel between St. Paul and the
Corinthians. Of this quarrel we can see the beginnings in 1 Corinthians, the
middle and the end in 2 Corinthians. Who the persons were who opposed St. Paul
must be discussed at length later, but it is clear that the difference of
opinion was partly doctrinal, partly practical.

What was the general course of the quarrel? To answer this question shortly the
results reached in pp. 120–175 must be assumed for the moment, in the hope that
the appearance of undue certainty with regard to much-disputed passages may be
counteracted by the later paragraphs in which the difficulties are discussed in
detail. The first step which we can distinguish is a letter, no longer extant
(it is convenient to call it the “previous letter”), sent by St. Paul to the
Corinthians, warning them against associating with immoral persons. No doubt
this letter was led up to by information which he had received from Corinth that
such a warning was necessary.

After this he was told by members of the household of Chloe, an unknown person
who had some relations with Corinth, that the practical question of immorality
in the community remained, that it was complicated by a spirit of partizanship
and litigiousness, and perhaps also that his letter had not been fully
understood. At the same time, or almost immediately afterwards, three
Corinthians, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, arrived at Ephesus bearing a
letter for St. Paul, asking him a series of questions on practical and doctrinal
problems. No doubt they also supplemented their letter in conversation. In
consequence of these communications St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, dealing in the
first half with the information given by Chloe, in the second with the
Corinthians’ letter and the information of Stephanas and his comrades. But
before sending the Epistle St. Paul instructed Timothy, who was just starting
for Macedonia, to go on to Corinth, and to do his best to remedy the scandals in
the Church. He also announced his intention—half hopefully, half
threateningly—of himself coming before long to Corinth.

Timothy returned, with the unpleasant news that the situation was worse instead
of better, and St. Paul himself hurried across to Corinth. Even this failed, and
the crisis appeared desperate. As a last resort he wrote a severe letter to the
Corinthians, and sent it by Titus, warning the disobedient members of the Church
that he proposed to come again, and this time would know how to secure their
submission. It is probable that 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 is part of this severe letter.

Soon after this St. Paul left Asia, and made his way overland through Macedonia
to Corinth, greatly longing for the report of Titus as to the Corinthian crisis.
Titus met him in Macedonia, and was able to report a complete success. The
disobedient had been disowned and punished by the majority and had submitted,
the crisis was over, and peace restored, though there was a stern minority which
still pressed for severer punishment.

St. Paul was overjoyed, and 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2
Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians
6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 is the
outpouring of gratitude and relief which he at once wrote, and sent back by
Titus to Corinth, commissioning him at the same time to take charge of the
arrangements for a contribution for the poor which St. Paul hoped to be able to
take to Jerusalem.

Such is the outline of the history of the quarrel which lies behind the
Epistles. It will be necessary in the following sections to go through it in
detail, to discuss the various points of which it is composed, and to attempt
the reconstruction of a picture of the community, or, at all events, of the
opposition in it to St. Paul, and the practical questions which were agitating
it.

THE CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE EPISTLES

These problems may best be treated in two subdivisions, according as they belong
to 1 or 2 Corinthians, because whereas those belonging to 1 Corinthians are
comparatively simple, those belonging to 2 Corinthians form a complex of
difficulties which is not surpassed in intricacy by anything in the New
Testament.

CORINTHIANS The points connected with 1 Corinthians are:—

(1) The “Previous Letter” of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

(2) The information given to St. Paul by “those of Chloe.”

(3) The mission of Timothy.

(4) The letter of the Corinthians to St. Paul, and the supplementary information
given by its bearers.

(5) The time and place of the writing of the Epistle.

(1) THE PREVIOUS LETTER

According to the Acts St. Paul was eighteen months in Corinth, and, when he left
it, he went in the company of Aquila and Priscilla as far as Ephesus, and
afterwards alone to Antioch and possibly Jerusalem, returning thence to Ephesus,
where he stayed for three years. It is during these three years that the letters
to the Corinthians were written, and that the crisis in the Corinthian Church
developed. The first stage probably was that St. Paul was informed by some
friend that the Corinthian Christians had a somewhat low standard as to the
morality which they expected to find in their associates, and that he wrote them
a letter—the “previous letter”—warning them against this failing. This Epistle
is no longer extant, but the fact that it was written and the nature of at least
part of its contents is revealed by 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, “I wrote to you
(ἔγραψα) in my letter not to have company with fornicators,—not that I meant
literally (πάντως) with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and
extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world, but
now I write (ἔγραψα) unto you not to keep company with any man that is called a
Brother if he be a fornicator,” etc. In the translation just given there is, of
course, no room for doubt, but the English, unfortunately, does not convey a
point of ambiguity which is present in the Greek. A Greek said ἔγραψα, “I
wrote,” equally of a letter which he had penned ten years previously, and of one
which he actually was writing—in referring to which we should say “I am
writing”—because he regarded it from the standpoint of the recipient. It is
therefore grammatically possible that St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:9, is
referring to the letter he is actually writing, but this grammatical possibility
is excluded in practice by the fact that there is nothing in I Corinthians to
which he could be referring, and also by the general drift of the passage. The
translation of the first ἵγραψα is therefore certain; as will be seen the second
ἵγραψα gives rise to more doubt.

It is therefore universally recognized that the Corinthians must have received a
letter from St. Paul, enjoining on them circumspection in their relations to
immoral persons. That this letter is, in its entirety, lost, is of course
obvious, but there is nevertheless some degree of probability in the theory,
which has often been put forward, that a fragment of it is imbedded in 2
Corinthians 6:14-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1, which runs as follows: “Be ye not
unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath
righteousness with iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And
what concord hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath he that believeth with
an infidel? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for ye are a
temple of the living God; as God hath said, ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out
from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean;
and I will receive you. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons
and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.’ Having therefore these promises,
beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit,
perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” This passage would clearly be exactly
the sort of advice which afterwards would necessitate the explanation given in 1
Corinthians 5:9; and the theory that it really is a fragment of the lost first
letter of St. Paul, is materially supported by the facts that it has no apparent
connection with the immediate context before or after in 2 Corinthians, and that
if it be removed, 2 Corinthians 7:2 fits on to 2 Corinthians 6:13 in the most
natural manner. If the suggested interpolation be removed, we obtain the text:
“O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not
straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own affections. Now for a
recompence in like kind, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
Open your hearts to us; we wronged no man, we corrupted no man, we defrauded no
man. I speak not this to condemn you: for I have said before, that ye are in our
hearts to die and live with you.” No one who did not know would ever guess that
anything had been removed from the middle of this passage.

Although therefore this theory can from its nature never be regarded as more
than a probable guess, it must at least be conceded that the guess is
attractive; and its probability is enhanced, if the theory be accepted that 2
Corinthians shows signs in other places of not being originally a single letter
(see pp. 155–164).

Besides this hypothesis, J. Weiss, in his commentary on the Epistle, has made
the suggestion that other fragments of the “previous letter” are embedded in 1
Corinthians. He thinks that there is so great a difference of tone between 1
Corinthians 10:1-22 (23) and the remainder of the section as to “things offered
to idols,” that he attributes it to a different source, probably the “previous
letter,” and thinks that 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, as well as possibly 1
Corinthians 9:24-37 and 1 Corinthians 1:2-34, belong to the same document. It
must be admitted that there is a difference of tone, but an alternative
suggestion (and I think a preferable one) is that St. Paul is addressing two
different parties in Corinth (see pp. 199–202), partly agreeing with and partly
differing from both, and that this explains the change of tone and emphasis in
the various sections. However this may be, the fact that a “previous” letter was
written seems to be clearly established. But it must remain permanently
uncertain at what time it was sent, though, if it be conceded that it was
probably written in consequence of information which St. Paul had received from
Corinth, it is clearly almost certain that it was written after his return to
Ephesus from Syria.

It is not certain how much of the passage in 1 Corinthians 5:9 ff. ought to be
considered as a quotation of the “previous letter,” nor can we be sure of St.
Paul’s precise motive in referring to it. The context is the case of the
incestuous person (see p. 131), and St. Paul emphasized the enormity of the
offence by a reference to the “previous letter,” but as to the exact meaning of
this reference there are two possibilities. In the first place, it is possible
that it had been reported to St. Paul, either by “those of Chloe” or by others,
that his letter had been misunderstood, and taken to imply a degree of seclusion
for Christians which was practically impossible; in the second place, it is
possible that it is really only quoted by St. Paul to strengthen his argument,
by showing that he is, in the case of the incestuous person, only asking for the
particular application of a rule which he had previously stated and the
Corinthians had recognized as generally valid. Between these possibilities a
decision cannot be made. It would of course be better, if possible, to treat the
two ἔγραψα ’s in the same way, and it is clear that the first one means “I
wrote.” This supports the view that the whole passage (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) is
a quotation, or more probably a paraphrase, from the “previous letter,” and
ought to be translated, “I wrote to you in my previous letter not to associate
with evil livers—not literally the evil livers of the world, … for then I admit
(ἄρα) you would needs go out of the world altogether. But I meant under existing
circumstances (νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα) not to associate with professing Christians who
were evil livers,” etc. This translation does justice to the double ἔγραψα, but
it strains the meaning of νῦν δὲ. Therefore it is possible that we ought to
think that St. Paul is correcting a misunderstanding, that only the first few
words are quotation, and that the rest is correction. In this case νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα
must be taken as an instance of the common epistolary aorist, and translated,
“but now I write.” This is the view which is more generally adopted; if it be
correct, it is probable that part of the information given by “those of Chloe”
(though conceivably by some one else) was that the “previous letter” was not
fully understood, and perhaps that it had been adversely commented on as
practically impossible.

(2) THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY “THOSE OF CHLOE” Of Chloe herself nothing is known:
the most probable hypothesis is that she was a rich lady, either widowed or
unmarried, who had a household of slaves or dependents, some of whom were
acquainted with St. Paul and probably had been converted by him. But there is
nothing to show whether Chloe lived in Corinth or in Ephesus, for the general
conditions of the problem are equally well fulfilled by the view that she was an
Ephesian connected in some way—perhaps by business of some kind—with Corinth, as
by the more usual guess that she was a Corinthian who had relations with
Ephesus. The only point certain—and also the only one important—is that “those
of Chloe” were in a position to give St. Paul valuable information about the
state of things among the Christians in Corinth. The extent of their information
cannot be accurately defined, but it is at least certain that it laid emphasis
on the growth of party feeling among the Christians at Corinth. This is shown by
1 Corinthians 1:11-12 : “It has been told me, brethren, by the [representatives]
of Chloe that there are divisions among you. I mean that each says ‘I am of
Paul,’ ‘and I of Apollos,’ ‘and I of Cephas,’ ‘and I of Christ.’ ” The view
which has to be taken of the information implied by these verses depends on the
exegesis given to them, and this is unfortunately by no means clear. The most
simple view is that “those of Chloe” reported that the community was split up
into the parties of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ, and in some form this
view is now generally taken. The difficulties in it are: (1) the curious
statement in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “Now these things, brethren, I have transferred
in a figure to myself and Apollos for your sakes”; (2) the difficulty of
understanding who the Christ party can have been. The statement in 1 Corinthians
4:6 has sometimes been interpreted as implying that St. Paul had throughout used
the names of himself and Apollos as screens for the real party leaders: but this
exegesis, though not impossible, is improbable. The natural meaning is that in
the previous section (1 Corinthians 3:18-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-4), in which St.
Paul warns the Corinthians against an excessive estimate of the importance of
himself and other leaders, who are after all merely the “ministers of Christ and
stewards of the mysteries of God,” his intention was really to warn his readers
against a similarly excessive estimate of their spiritual gifts and personal
importance. He does not in the least mean that the parties of St. Paul and
Apollos did not exist. The difficulty of identifying the “Christ party” is
greater. In no other passage in 1 Corinthians does St. Paul ever refer to any
party which regarded itself as especially that of Christ. And in 1 Corinthians
3:21,while purposely, as it seems, mentioning the other parties—of Paul,
Apollos, and Cephas—he says nothing of a “Christ party,” but continues “and ye
are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” Influenced by this fact Räbiger has
suggested that ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ in 1 Corinthians 1:12 is not co-ordinate with the
other phrases. In a writer who pays regard to stylistic propriety such a
suggestion would be absurd; but St. Paul’s style is far from being formally
correct, and I am not sure that the least difficult solution to an exceedingly
difficult problem is not to translate and punctuate thus: “I mean that each says
‘I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’—but I am of Christ! Is Christ
divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?”
The advantages of it are that it adds to the force of μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; and
changes it from a most difficult phrase to an intelligible and well-pointed
question, and that it brings the whole passage into line with 1 Corinthians 3:4
(cf. 1 Corinthians 3:11) and 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, in which the Paul, Apollos,
and Cephas parties are mentioned, but Christ appears only as the bond of common
unity in which all the parties ought to sink their differences. It is also
supported by the fact that Clement in his epistle to Corinth (47:3) mentions the
parties of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, but not the Christ party. The objections
are, first, that it makes the ἐγὼ in ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ mean something different
from what it means in the precisely parallel phrases ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ and ὲγὼ δὲ
Ἀπολλώ, and, secondly, that there seems to be a possible reference to the Christ
party in 2 Corinthians 10:7, “If any man trusteth in himself that he is
Christ’s, let him consider this again with himself, that, even as he is
Christ’s, so also are we.” This last passage is not absolute proof that the
phrase in the First Epistle really refers to a definite party, for, after all,
the claim to be Christ’s was the ultimate contention of all the parties, and in
an inclusive sense was admitted by St. Paul; it is not impossible that St. Paul
here means no more than an appeal to the fact that he and his opponent both
relied, in the end, on their spiritual experience —the conviction that they were
Christ’s. Nevertheless, it certainly is the strongest argument that exists, and
perhaps turns the scales of probability against the ingenious and otherwise
attractive suggestion of Räbiger. A still more radical suggestion, commended
among others by J. Weiss, is that ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ is an interpolation, and due to
an original marginal interjection by a pious scribe. This is possible, though
personally I prefer Räbiger’s hypothesis.

If these views be rejected, and the existence of a Christ party be accepted, we
must clearly take as referring to it 2 Corinthians 10:7, which practically means
that the Christ party was that against which St. Paul fulminates in 2
Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians
13:1-13. The characteristics of this party will have to be discussed later (see
pp. 219 ff.).

There is comparatively little room for profitable discussion as to the parties
of Cephas and Apollos. As was said above (p. 116) it has been suggested that the
party of Cephas represents Judaizing propaganda. This is quite improbable, and
rests partly on an unnecessary inference from the use of the name Cephas instead
of Peter, partly on a largely antiquated theory of Church history, which
invented a double stream in early Christianity under the leadership of St. Peter
and St. Paul. That there was opposition to St. Paul is unquestionable, but that
it was inspired by St. Peter is more than doubtful. Moreover, if there really
had been definitely Judaizing propaganda at this time against St. Paul, it is
surely more likely to have taken to itself the name of St. James rather than
that of St. Peter.

It has also been suggested that the party of Apollos was especially addicted to
an exaggeration of Alexandrian philosophy. This theory is partly based on facts,
but it is not clear that reference is especially made to Apollos or his party.
The point is that immediately after his direct rebuke of partizanship, St. Paul
passes, in 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1
Corinthians 4:1-21, into a long section in which it may be said that two themes
are interlaced,—the relation of his gospel to “wisdom,” and a renewed
deprecation of partizanship. Certainly it is clear that the partizan spirit in
Corinth was in some way connected with an exaltation of “wisdom,” and the
bearing of this fact will have to be considered when the opposition to St. Paul
is discussed (see pp. 231 ff.); but there is no real evidence for thinking that
the “exaltation of wisdom” was especially the characteristic of the party of
Apollos. It may have been so; and, if so, it may have been due to his
Alexandrian associations, but there is nothing to prove it.

Moreover, if we may judge from the obviously friendly relationship between St.
Paul and Apollos (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:12) it is, in any case, improbable that
the latter was, any more than St. Paul himself, the conscious cause of
partizanship. It was not the leaders—or at least not those whom St. Paul
mentions—who were responsible for the parties, but their rash and imperfectly
instructed followers. This, no doubt, did give rise among other things to an
undue exaltation of “wisdom,” and, as will be seen in connection with 2
Corinthians, helped to produce a very critical situation in the Christian
community at Corinth. This information as to the partizanship in the Church at
Corinth seems to have been the chief information given to St. Paul by “those of
Chloe.” It is evident from 1 Corinthians that he regarded it very seriously, and
foresaw the possibility that it might give an unpleasant character to the visit
to Corinth which he contemplated.“Some,” he says (1 Corinthians 4:18), “are
puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you shortly,
if the Lord will, and I will know, not the word of them which are puffed up, but
the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye?
Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?” To avoid
this possibility he sent Timothy (1 Corinthians 4:17) to try to bring the
Corinthians into a better frame of mind. But before discussing this visit of
Timothy, it is desirable to consider certain points which “those of Chloe” may
have told St. Paul, and with which Timothy would certainly have had to deal on
his arrival.

These points are indicated in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 1 Corinthians 6:1-20, and
may be shortly described as (α) an instance either of incest or of incestuous
marriage; (β) a tendency to litigation among Christians in the heathen courts;
(γ) a tendency to immorality.

(α) The Case of Incest.—What precisely was the question at issue is not clear.
St. Paul merely says, “It is actually reported that there is fornication among
you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you
hath his father’s wife.” Whether this was incest or an incestuous marriage is
not stated, nor is it possible to say whether it was “those of Chloe” who
brought the report, or some one else. In any case it would seem that the
community had not treated the matter seriously enough. “And ye,” said St. Paul
(1 Corinthians 5:2), “are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that hath
done this deed might be taken away from you.” He therefore reminds them of the
principles laid down in the “previous letter,” and adjures them to adopt a firm
attitude in this matter, and exclude the offender from their midst.

(β) The Tendency to Litigation.—From 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff., it would seem that
there was a tendency in Corinth to litigation in the heathen courts between
Christians, and St. Paul suggests that these matters ought to be settled by the
Christians among themselves. This much is certain; but no hint is given as to
the nature of the questions which had led to litigation. It is, of course, plain
that the preceding incident—the man who had taken his father’s wife—can,
whatever it may have exactly been, have easily led to litigation of more than
one sort; but there is nothing to prove that this was or was not the case. The
chief importance of the incident is that it is by far the most weighty, if not
the only, evidence in the Epistle as to the vexed question whether the Christian
Churches were organized on a Jewish or Gentile model. There is no evidence in
the earlier Epistles of St. Paul which really enables us to sketch, even in
outline, the organization of a Christian community at this time, not because
there probably was no organization, but because it was not yet a matter which
had given rise to polemical discussion. St. Paul says nothing about it, because
it was not controversial, and his Epistles are controversial letters, not
general statements of universally accepted facts. But here, in the question of
litigation, we are given a single valuable hint as to the attitude of the
Corinthian Christians. Clearly there was a party which held that disputes ought
to be settled by the Church, and another which held that they might be brought
before the Roman courts. Apparently the latter was in the majority, though this
is not quite plain. Now, this is just one of the points which distinguishes
Greek from Jewish ideas. The Jews always claimed that the synagogue was a
competent court for all disputes. The Greek θίασοι, on the other hand, never
seem to have entertained the idea (which would certainly have had a short life
at the hands of Roman lawyers) that they had any general jurisdiction over their
members. An initiate in the mysteries of Isis went to law with another initiate
about ordinary disputes (St. Paul’s βιωτικά), without any hesitation. The fact
that some of the Corinthians were taking the Greek line is therefore important
and interesting.

(γ) The General Tendency to Immorality.—Much the same must be said of the third
point. In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, St. Paul is clearly warning the Corinthians
against a laxity of morals, of which he has heard either from “those of Chloe”
or from some other source. Obviously it is possible that this is connected with
the case of incest, which might not unnaturally have given rise to inquiries by
St. Paul from his informant on this subject as to the general level of morality
among the Corinthian Christians, while it is, on the other hand, equally
possible that there is no connection between the two sections. The view to be
taken of the question depends largely on that adopted towards the previous
point. If there was a connection between the case of incest dealt with in 1
Corinthians 5:1-13 and the tendency to litigation reproved in the following
passage, it is extremely probable that the third section is still connected with
the same incident; if, on the other hand, there was no such connection, it is
less probable that St. Paul, after dealing with the case of incest and going on
to another topic, should turn back once more to his original subject.

Further than this it is impossible to go: we only possess a letter written for
the edification of the Corinthians—not to give information to historians,—and it
is unreasonable to expect that we can reconstruct out of it all the
circumstances to which it refers. Much, no doubt, can be done, but there remains
much which can never be entirely cleared up. The question as to the possible
relation between this moral difficulty and the doctrinal disputes in Corinth is
discussed on pp. 176 ff.

(3) THE MISSION OF TIMOTHY

Closely connected with the information given by “those of Chloe” is the mission
of Timothy. In consequence of the reports as to the partizan scandals in
Corinth, St. Paul sent Timothy to see if he could reduce the evil, especially as
he heard that his own absence was having a bad effect.

“I have sent Timothy,” he says, in 1 Corinthians 4:17, “for this very purpose to
you, … to remind you of my behaviour in Christ,” etc. And in 1 Corinthians
16:10, he returns to the subject, and says, “If Timothy come, see that he be
with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do: let no
man therefore despise him. But set him forward on his journey in peace, that he
may come unto me, for I expect him with the brethren.” From these two passages
it would seem that Timothy was sent off from Ephesus after St. Paul had received
the information given him by “those of Chloe,” and before the departure of the
bearers of 1 Corinthians: but in the second passage St. Paul seems strangely
uncertain whether Timothy would really reach Corinth, or, if he did, whether he
would not arrive later than the bearers of his letter, in spite of the fact that
he had started first.

Further information is not given in 1 Corinthians, nor is the visit of Timothy
mentioned in 2 Corinthians, but in Acts 19:22 it is stated that St. Paul “sent
into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timothy and Erastus,” and
it is generally supposed that this refers to the mission of Timothy referred to
in 1 Corinthians. The obvious advantage of this theory is that it explains why
St. Paul thought that Timothy might possibly reach Corinth later than 1
Corinthians. This becomes intelligible if Timothy went round through Macedonia,
while the bearers of the letter went by sea. On the other hand, it is true that
it is strange to describe a journey from Ephesus through Macedonia and Achaia,
merely by a reference to Macedonia. But the possibility of a slight inaccuracy
in the Acts ought not to be lost sight of, or it may be that St. Luke wrote
Macedonia, because in practice Macedonia was further from Ephesus than was
Corinth. On the evidence we can go no further than to say that the visit of
Timothy in 1 Corinthians may be identical with that in Acts 19:21, but that this
is not proved, and that the two visits may be separate. As will be seen, the
matter is chiefly important in connection with the dating of 1 Corinthians.

(4) THE LETTER OF THE CORINTHIANS TO ST. PAUL, AND THE INFORMATION OF ITS
BEARERS

It would appear from the preceding discussion that 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1
Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21, 1 Corinthians
5:1-13, 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 is probably based in the main on the information
given to St. Paul by those of Chloe. The rest of the Epistle (1 Corinthians
7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, 1
Corinthians 11:1-34, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians
14:1-40, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, 1 Corinthians 16:1-24) seems to rest on a
different basis. In 1 Corinthians 16:17, St. Paul says, “I rejoice at the
arrival of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for that which was lacking on
your part they supplied”; and in 1 Corinthians 7:1, he refers to a letter which
he had received from the Corinthians. It is obvious, putting these two
references together, that St. Paul used the verbal communications of Stephanas,
Fortunatus, and Achaicus to supplement the Corinthians’ information, and it is
not unlikely that they were themselves the bearers of the letter.

To distinguish exactly between the information given by the letter and the
supplementary matter added by the three Corinthians is neither possible nor
really important. But it seems as though the greater part of 1 Corinthians
7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, 1
Corinthians 11:1-34, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians
14:1-40, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, 1 Corinthians 16:1-24 is directly based on the
letter, the various points in which are indicated by a more or less regularly
recurring formula. This is to be found as follows:—

περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε

1 Corinthians 7:1

περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων

1 Corinthians 7:25

περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων

1 Corinthians 8:1

περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν

1 Corinthians 12:1

περὶ δὲ τῆς λογιας

1 Corinthians 16:1

περὶ δὲ Ἀπόλλω

1 Corinthians 16:12

It will be seen at once that these introductory formulae take with them the
greater part of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians
9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1
Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, 1 Corinthians
16:1-12, that is, the whole of the second half of the Epistle; but there are a
few important paragraphs which present difficulties. It is clear that there is
no break between 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Corinthians 7:24, the section
concerning marriage, or between 1 Corinthians 7:25 and 1 Corinthians 7:40,
concerning “virgins,” or between 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, concerning things offered
to idols, but the next section, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, is
not so easy. At first sight it seems to have nothing to do with things offered
to idols, but to deal with the question of St. Paul’s own behaviour, and it is
sometimes regarded as primarily an answer to attacks made upon his authority. It
is possible, indeed probable, that there is some reference to these attacks, but
if this be taken as the main object of the section it is hard to find any
satisfactory explanation for the references to the Jews who were “baptized in
the sea and the cloud” in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, or for the fact that in 1
Corinthians 10:14 St. Paul returns to the question of idolatry in such a way as
to suggest that he regarded the section 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians
10:1-13 as contributing to the solution of the question raised by the things
offered to idols. It is therefore much more probable that the point which
explains the relation between the different parts of the whole answer to the
question about “things offered to idols,” covering 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1
Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1, is that some of the Corinthians defended
the custom of eating such things, partly on the ground that they were free and
had authority to eat them—which St. Paul controverts by means of his own example
in other matters—and partly on the ground that having been baptized and become
Christians they were safe from all evil—which St. Paul controverts by the
example of the Israelites who fell in the wilderness in spite of the privileges
which they had received.

Thus, from 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1
Corinthians 10:1-13, 1 Corinthians 11:1 is entirely given up to questions raised
by the Corinthians’ letter. The next section is more doubtful. The beginning
(“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things,” 1 Corinthians 11:2) seems
to be a quotation from, or a reference to, an assurance given in their letter,
and it is probable that this led up to questions concerning the behaviour of men
and women in the Church. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is probably directly
inspired by the Corinthians’ letter, but 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, dealing with
the question of the celebration of the Eucharist, is introduced by a different
formula: St. Paul says, “But in giving this instruction (as to men and women), I
do not commend the fact that your meetings are deteriorating instead of
improving; for I hear,” etc. That is to say, he is not commenting on their
letter, but on information given to him orally, presumably by Stephanas and his
companions. This section, therefore, is only indirectly connected with the
Corinthians’ letter, and was inspired by the verbal communications of Stephanas.
In the next section, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians
14:1-40, dealing with πνευματικῶν (“spirituals”) the introductory formula shows
that St. Paul is dealing with the letter, and for the present purpose there are
no difficulties to discuss. 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 is more difficult: it
discusses the Resurrection, and begins with the formula “γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν”—“I
would have you to know” is perhaps the best translation. Although this is not
the same formula as St. Paul elsewhere uses in connection with the letter, it is
probable that it is nevertheless a reference, and that we ought to conclude that
the Corinthians asked a question concerning the resurrection of the dead. The
alternative is to suppose that Stephanas and his friends reported that there
were doubts on the subject. The remaining chapter is less difficult: 1
Corinthians 16:1-11 is concerned with a question in the letter relating to a
collection for the poor, and with the projected arrivals of Timothy and St. Paul
in connection with it: 1 Corinthians 16:12 is also concerned with a simple
question in the letter as to the plans of Apollos, and the remaining verses, 1
Corinthians 16:13-24, are the final greetings and advice of St. Paul, in which
he expresses his pleasure at having seen Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus,
and—apparently thinking once more of the parties—advises the Corinthians to
follow the guidance of Stephanas.

Thus, the letter of the Corinthians was a series of questions about practical
and doctrinal points as to which the community was in doubt. The fact that there
was at that time controversy, or at least uncertainty, on those points is of the
greatest importance for the understanding of the general position of
Christianity in Corinth, and must be discussed later. It is for the moment
sufficient to set out the probable list of questions, together with the
references to the places in 1 Corinthians in which St. Paul deals with them.

Marriage, sexual relations, and divorce

1 Corinthians 7:1-24

“Virgins”

1 Corinthians 7:25-38

Re-marriage of widows

1 Corinthians 7:39-40

Things sacrificed to idols

1 Corinthians 8:1-13,1 Corinthians 9:1-27,1 Corinthians 10:1-33,1 Corinthians
11:1

Customs during worship

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

The Eucharist (arising out of supplementary information)

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

“Spirituals”

1 Corinthians 12:1-31,1 Corinthians 11:1-13,1 Corinthians 14:1-40

The resurrection of the dead

1 Corinthians 15:1-58

The collection for the poor

1 Corinthians 16:1-11

The plans of Apollos

1 Corinthians 16:12

(5) THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE WRITING OF 1 CORINTHIANS

It has been seen that 1 Corinthians is partly comment on information given by
those of Chloe, and partly an answer to a letter sent by the Corinthians to St.
Paul. The questions are, when and whence did he send it? By the first question
is meant not so much the absolute date of the Epistle, as its relative position
in the three years that St. Paul spent in Asia. The general opinion is that it
was early in the year (according to our reckoning) in which St. Paul left
Ephesus and came to Corinth on his way up to Jerusalem for the last time. This
view is based on 1 Corinthians 16:3 ff.: “When I arrive, whomsoever ye approve,
them will I send with letters to carry your bounty to Jerusalem; and if it be
meet for me to go also, they shall go with me. But I shall come unto you, when I
have passed through Macedonia; for I do pass through Macedonia; but with you it
may be that I shall abide, or even winter, that ye may set me forward on my
journey whithersoever I go, for I do not wish to pay you merely a passing visit.
But I shall wait at Ephesus until Pentecost; for a great door and effectual is
opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.” The suggestion is that these
verses show that St. Paul wrote not long before Pentecost, and that the visit
which he states that he proposes to pay to Corinth is identical with that which,
according to Acts 20:2, he actually paid after he left Ephesus and had travelled
through Macedonia. In this case the letter was written in the spring of the year
in the autumn of which St. Paul left Ephesus; and if the intended visit
mentioned in 1 Corinthians must be identified with the actual visit described in
Acts, no other conclusion can be possible. This identification can be controlled
by references to a collection in 2 Corinthians 8:10; and 2 Corinthians 9:1 ff.,
as compared with the First Epistle. In 1 Corinthians 16:1 ff., St. Paul says,
“Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the Churches
of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you
lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I
arrive.” It is impossible with any straightforward exegesis to explain this as
meaning anything except that the collection was not ready—probably scarcely
begun —at the time when St. Paul wrote. But in 2 Corinthians 9:1 ff. he says,
“For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to
write to you, for I know your readiness, of which I glory on your behalf to them
of Macedonia, that Achaia has been ready since last year”; and in 2 Corinthians
8:10 he gives the same reference to time: “This is expedient for you, who were
the first to make a beginning last year, not only to do, but also to will.” In
both these places the R.V. translates ἀπὸ πέρυσι, “a year ago,” which means, in
ordinary English, twelve months, but the more accurate rendering is “last year.”
Now, for St. Paul, as a Greek Jew, the year must have begun in October, and
therefore, if he be writing 2 Corinthians after that date, last year could mean
in the previous spring —assuming, that is to say, that 1 Corinthians was written
in the spring before Pentecost. If, however, he was writing before October, the
date of the Epistle must be put back a full year. The evidence of Acts suggests
that the former alternative is the more probable, though it scarcely enables us
to form a decisive opinion. According to Acts 20:6, St. Paul left Philippi on
his last journey to Jerusalem in the spring (after the days of unleavened
bread). He had reached Philippi from Corinth, where he had stayed three months
(Acts 20:3), so that he must have reached Corinth about the beginning of
January. He had come to Corinth from Ephesus through Macedonia, where he must
have been in December and probably also in November, as Acts states that he gave
them “much exhortation.” He was, however, already in Macedonia when he wrote 2
Corinthians 8:1-24 referring to “last year,” and the impression given by 2
Corinthians is that he had already been there some time. Thus the probability
certainly seems to be that 2 Corinthians was written during November, early in
the Jewish new year; so that 1 Corinthians and the arrangements made in the
spring for the collection at Corinth would naturally be described as “last
year.”

Thus the probability is that 1 Corinthians was written about nine months before
St. Paul’s visit to Corinth, narrated in Acts 20:2, to which he was looking
forward when he wrote the opening chapters of 2 Corinthians. It will be noted
that this implies that he stayed in Ephesus after Pentecost, which he had not
originally intended to do. This must be granted on any theory which does not
abandon the trustworthiness of Acts. So far it has been assumed that the Epistle
was written from Ephesus. Probably this assumption is correct; but there is one
objection which deserves statement. In 1 Corinthians 15:32, St. Paul says: “If
after the manner of men (κατʼ ἄνθρωπον) I fought with beasts at Ephesus,” etc.;
and in 1 Corinthians 16:8, he says, “But I shall wait at Ephesus until
Pentecost.” Would he have spoken in this way, especially in 1 Corinthians 15:32,
if at the time of writing he was still at Ephesus? J. Weiss thinks this
extremely improbable, and is inclined to believe that the Epistle was written in
Macedonia. Apparently he interprets 1 Corinthians 16:5, Μακεδονίαν γὰρ διέχομαι,
to mean, “I am now passing through Macedonia.” Curiously enough, however,
although he draws this conclusion from 1 Corinthians 15:32, he does not accept
it for 1 Corinthians 16:8, which he considers to have been really written in
Ephesus, and he attributes 1 Corinthians 16:7-9 and 1 Corinthians 16:15-20 to
the “previous letter.” Admitting, however, that there is a superficial
difficulty, I cannot see that this partition is here necessary. Διέρχομαι may
refer to a future plan: or it may be that 1 Corinthians was really written from
Macedonia, but that St. Paul regarded Ephesus as his centre to which he meant to
return after his Macedonian journey. In this case, however, the “greetings of
the Churches of Asia” are a difficulty. Or again, taking διέρχομαι as a
reference to future plans, it is possible that the letter was written from some
other town in Asia: we need not suppose that St. Paul actually stayed in Ephesus
during the whole of the three years that he made that city his headquarters. The
admission that there is a certain difficulty in the usual view that the Epistle
was written from Ephesus is therefore the most that can be granted. The
difficulty is not, after all, insurmountable: it is possible to say, “If I had
fought with the beasts at Ephesus,”even in Ephesus, though it would be more
natural to say “here” instead of “at Ephesus,” and the alternative theories seem
to raise more difficulties than they solve. Probably, then, the Epistle was
written from Ephesus in the last spring which St. Paul spent in that city.

Such are the main critical problems introductory to the study of 1 Corinthians:
it will be seen that they prepare the way for a consideration of the far more
interesting questions as to the reasons why the Corinthians were divided in
their opinions as to things offered to idols, marriage, the resurrection of the
dead, and the other points on which they consulted St. Paul.

2 CORINTHIANS

It is far more difficult to reconstruct the events implied by 2 Corinthians than
those underlying the earlier Epistle. In the latter, though there are
difficulties as to details, the main point—that it was called out by the
information given by “those of Chloe” and by a letter from the Corinthians—has
never been in dispute; but in 2 Corinthians more than one point of great
importance is likely always to be a matter of controversy.

Starting with the state of affairs which obtained when 1 Corinthians was written
and sent off, we know that St. Paul was in Asia, and that Timothy had been sent
to Corinth in order to deal with the spirit of partizanship. It was this spirit
which had especially distressed St. Paul, especially since it was coupled—in
practice, if not in origin —with a low level of morality, and by personal
attacks on his own position. The question is how this situation developed in the
period, probably only about six months, between the two Epistles. What sort of
report did Timothy bring back, and what further circumstances gave rise to 2
Corinthians? In so controversial a subject the fairest, and in the end probably
the clearest, method is to begin by stating the facts, and afterwards to discuss
the various interpretations which seem possible. The indisputable facts, then,
may be summarized thus:—

(1) The Mission of Timothy.—There is an absolute silence on this subject in 2
Corinthians: it is certain that he had returned, for he is joined with St. Paul
in the opening salutation (2 Corinthians 1:1), but there is nothing to say
whether he had ever reached Corinth, much less any positive evidence as to his
reception there.

(2) A Visit of St. Paul to Corinth.—Reference is made to a visit of St. Paul to
Corinth, unrecorded in the Acts, and unmentioned in 1 Corinthians. This is
proved by 2 Corinthians 12:14, “Behold, this is the third time I am ready to
come to you,” and 2 Corinthians 13:1-2. “This is the third time I am coming to
you.” The former of these passages might possibly be explained as referring
merely to an intention, and meaning, “This is the third time that I have formed
the plan of coming to you,” though this interpretation is not at all natural,
but the latter is quite definite and must mean that St. Paul had visited Corinth
twice before his final visit, recorded in Acts 20:2, which he was on his way to
make when he wrote the opening section of 2 Corinthians. There is, however,
nothing to show unmistakably whether the “second” visit ought to be placed
before or after 1 Corinthians.

(3) A Severe Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians.—In 2 Corinthians 2:4, St.
Paul says, “Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with
many tears,” and in 2 Corinthians 7:8, “Though I made you sorry with my Epistle,
I do not now regret it, though I did so once.” These descriptions can only apply
to a letter which, written under the pressure of circumstances, was so severe
that St. Paul was at one time inclined to think that it had been too harsh.
There is no definite proof that it is not identical either with 1 Corinthians or
with the “previous Epistle” (see pp. 120–125), but there is a general consensus
of opinion that neither of these possibilities is probable, and that the “severe
letter” was sent off subsequently to 1 Corinthians.

(4) The Visits of Titus.—It is clear that Titus had been sent to Corinth, and
that he had rejoined St. Paul in Macedonia. In 2 Corinthians 2:12, St. Paul
says, “When I came to Troas … I found not Titus, my brother, but taking my leave
of them, I went forth into Macedonia,” and in 2 Corinthians 7:5, “For even when
we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no relief, but we were afflicted on
every side. … Nevertheless God comforted us by the coming of Titus,” etc.
Moreover, from the context of these passages it appears that Titus’ mission was
successful, for St. Paul expresses both in 2 Corinthians 2:1-17 and 2
Corinthians 3:1-18 his satisfaction at the result, and says (in 2 Corinthians
7:13) that the spirit of Titus “hath been refreshed by you all,” and in 2
Corinthians 7:15, that “his (i.e. Titus’) inward affection is more abundantly
toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and
trembling ye received him.” It would also appear that Titus, after thus
rejoining St. Paul, went back to Corinth. His return and St. Paul’s expression
of hope for his good reception form the substance of 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2
Corinthians 9:1-15

Thus we have clear evidence that Titus paid two visits to Corinth, one before
and one after 2 Corinthians; that between these two visits he had an interview
with St. Paul in Macedonia; and that he then reported his experiences on his
first visit.

(5) The Report of Titus to St. Paul.—Titus was successful in his first visit to
Corinth, but what was the report which he brought from Corinth to Macedonia?
Three points are plain, but each of them gives rise to a further problem which
is by no means clear. In the first place, it may be stated with positiveness
that the difficulty at Corinth centred in a personal dispute. There were two
persons whom St. Paul calls in 2 Corinthians 7:12, “he who did the wrong” (ὁ
ἀδικήσας), “he who suffered the wrong” (ὁ ἀδικηθείς). We can even go further and
identify him who did the wrong with the person who is described in 2 Corinthians
2:6 ff. as condemned, punished, and penitent.1 But there is nothing whatever
to throw any direct light on the identity of the persons referred to, or on the
nature of the offence committed. In the second place, it is clear that the
guilty person was condemned to some form of punishment, but there is nothing to
show what the nature of this punishment was. Finally, it is in the third place
clear that this punishment was inflicted, not by the unanimous vote of the whole
community, but by that of a majority. It is described in 2 Corinthians 2:6 as ἡ
ἐπιτιμία αὔτν ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων, which cannot mean as the R.V. text reads,
“this punishment which was inflicted by the many, ” but must be, as it is put in
the margin, “by the more,” or, as we usually say in modern English, “by the
majority.” But it is uncertain whether the corresponding minority, which this
phrase implies, consisted of those who wished for a severer punishment, or of
those who desired greater leniency, or sided with the offender.

These, then, are the facts for which room has to be made in any reconstruction
of the events leading up to 2 Corinthians,—a “severe letter” from St. Paul to
the Corinthians, and a successful visit by Titus. The problems which must be
faced are—

(1) The significance of the silence of 2 Corinthians on the mission of Timothy.

(2) The position of the “second” visit of St. Paul.

(3) The possible identification of the “severe letter” with 2 Corinthians
10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13.

(4) The visits of Titus to Corinth.

(5) The reconstruction of the report of Titus.

It will also be noticed that, just as the consideration of the critical problems
in 1 Corinthians leaves for further discussion the really important question of
the point of view of the Corinthian Christians, as implied by their questions to
St. Paul, so also the consideration of the critical problems in 2 Corinthians
leaves over the question of the character of the party opposed to St. Paul.

(1) THE MISSION OF TIMOTHY The silence of 2 Corinthians as to the mission of
Timothy has been explained in two ways. Either Timothy never reached
Corinth—which explains why St. Luke describes his journey as “to Macedonia”—or
he was thoroughly unsuccessful in his object of bringing the Corinthians to a
better frame of mind, and when, after all, peace was made between St. Paul and
his converts, it was neither necessary nor tactful to refer to his visit.
Between these two possibilities final judgment is impossible, but the latter
seems much the more probable, and the supposition that Timothy returned to
Ephesus, not long after 1 Corinthians was sent, with an extremely unpleasant
report, to the effect that the Corinthians would not listen to his counsels, and
that the troubles continued, fits in very well with the most probable solutions
to the other problems, while as much can scarcely be said for the view that
Timothy never reached Corinth at all.

(2) THE VISIT OF ST. PAUL TO CORINTH

Ought the “second” visit of St. Paul to be placed before 1 Corinthians, or
inserted between it and 2 Corinthians? The points which have to be taken into
consideration are these: (α) 1 Corinthians 4:21, “What will ye? shall I come
unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?” supported by 1
Corinthians 11:34, “The rest will I set in order when I come,” seems to prove
that he not only contemplated a visit, but doubted whether it would be an
entirely peaceful one, owing to the parties in the Church. (β) 2 Corinthians
2:1, “But I determined this for myself, that I would not come to you with sorrow
again,” seems to show that he had, when he wrote, the memory of an unpleasant
visit, and it should be noted that in the undoubtedly best text the “again” is
closely connected with the “with sorrow.” Moreover, in the immediate context of
this verse St. Paul’s meaning clearly is that some one, who had opposed him
originally, had now been punished by the majority. The whole passage 2
Corinthians 2:1-11 must be studied from this point of view.

“But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you with
sorrow. For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but he that
is made sorry by me? And I wrote this very thing unto you, lest, when I came, I
should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in
you all, that my joy is the joy of you all. For out of much affliction and
anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be
grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.
But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part (that I may
not press too hardly) you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment,
which was inflicted by the majority. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to
forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up
with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love
toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of
you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I
forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, what I forgave for your sakes forgave
I it in the person of Christ; that no advantage be gained over us by Satan: for
we are not ignorant of his devices.” Is it not plain that this passage implies a
recent visit which had ended so unpleasantly that St. Paul had determined not to
come back if he was likely to undergo similar experiences, and that he was, at
the moment of writing, delighted to find that such action had been taken by the
community that he was able to return without fear, since the leader of the
opposition had been punished by a vote of the majority? It was a party question
of some sort which had rendered his previous visit unpleasant, and the removal
of this question took away his fear for a repetition of this experience. The
natural corollary from these conclusions is that St. Paul’s forebodings in 1
Corinthians 4:21, that the party divisions at Corinth would prevent him from
having a pleasant visit, had been painfully well fulfilled during a visit
between the times of writing 1 and 2 Corinthians. That this is the natural view
is universally conceded; but many interpreters of Corinthians have felt obliged
to reject it, because they think that there is no room for a visit of St. Paul
to Corinth between 1 and 2 Corinthians. Some of them, therefore, fall back on
the very unnatural exegesis of 2 Corinthians 12:14 and 1 Corinthians 13:1, which
denies that St. Paul means that he has already been twice to Corinth, and
regards him merely as saying that he has three times intended to come. Others
admit the fact of a second visit, but place it before 1 Corinthians. The main
reason for this view is that on the hypothesis (certainly the most probable)
that 1 Corinthians was written in the early spring, and 2 Corinthians in the
early winter of (according to our reckoning) the same year, we have to assume
more rapid travelling backward and forwards on the part of Timothy, St. Paul,
and Titus than is thought to be probable. The objection to it is that there is
no trace in 1 Corinthians of this second unpleasant visit, nor is it easy to see
that 1 Corinthians supplies one with any material for imagining the cause of
this unpleasantness. It cannot have been the partizanship, or the case of
incest, or tendency to litigation, or immorality, for on all these points St.
Paul seems to be dependent for his knowledge on the recent information of “those
of Chloe”; in short, it may be said that, while the topics dealt with in 1
Corinthians supply ample reason for thinking that St. Paul might have (as he
says himself in 1 Corinthians 4:21) an unpleasant visit in the immediate future,
they give no reason whatever for thinking that he had had one in the past.

Under the influence of these facts Dr. Kennedy has urged that the usual dating
of 1 Corinthians is wrong, and that it ought to be placed a year earlier; the
main argument for this view is the necessity for finding room for the visit of
St. Paul, and, secondly, the belief that ἀπὸ πέρυσι in 2 Corinthians 9:2 implies
that 1 Corinthians was written twelve months previously. The reasons for not
holding this latter opinion are given on p. 141 ff., and though I quite admit
that the evidence seems to be irresistible in favour of a visit of St. Paul to
Corinth between 1 and 2 Corinthians, I am not convinced that the time available
on the ordinary view of the date of 1 Corinthians is really insufficient. From
Corinth to Ephesus was one of the most frequented routes in the whole of the
Mediterranean, and owing to the prevalence throughout the summer of north or
north-westerly winds (usually more north than west) the journey could be made in
either direction with the wind fairly well on the beam; an average passage would
scarcely last longer than a week. Thus, all that the supposed difficulty of
finding room for St. Paul’s visit to Corinth really amounts to, is that we must
suppose that between the spring and autumn he was absent from Ephesus perhaps
for four weeks,—possibly only a fortnight. Timothy, we know, had already started
for Corinth viviâ Macedonia, before St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Let us suppose
that Timothy returned early in May (there is no special reason why it should not
have been earlier), with depressing news from Corinth. St. Paul immediately
decided to go himself, and returned without any success. He would be back in
Ephesus in July, and, as he does not seem to have left there until the autumn,
this gives at least two months for him to write the “severe letter” and send it
to Corinth with Titus. In some such reconstruction (which assumes for the moment
the results of the discussion as to the mission of Titus, see pp. 164–173) there
seems to be nothing impossible. It is surely clear that 2 Corinthians implies a
severe crisis in Corinthian affairs of such a nature as to call for energetic
action on the part of St. Paul, and it is really harder to imagine that it was
long drawn out than that it actually all took place between the early spring and
the late autumn of one year. The objection may of course be made that in 1
Corinthians St. Paul announces his intention of leaving Ephesus at Pentecost,
and that the reconstruction given above implies that he stayed on until the
summer was over. This objection has, however, little force, for in 2 Corinthians
1:15-17 St. Paul shows plainly that he had to some extent changed his plans,
even though it may not be easy to see exactly what they were, so that there is
no longer any presumption in favour of the view that he left Ephesus at
Pentecost in accordance with the intention expressed in 1 Corinthians 16:8, to
be set against the fact that, using the data given in Acts, he seems to have
stayed on longer. Moreover, it is not quite accurate to say that St. Paul
announced his intention of leaving Ephesus at Pentecost. What he says is, that
he will not be able to leave sooner (“I shall stay at Ephesus until Pentecost”);
his desire is to see the Corinthians, but until then it is impossible. It is
common experience that that sort of plan, when made by a busy man, often has to
be emended in the direction of postponement. If in the early spring St. Paul saw
no chance of leaving Ephesus before Pentecost, it is not surprising that in the
actual event he could not manage to do so before the autumn, especially if, as
is suggested, he gave up three weeks or a month to a flying visit to Corinth.

Thus the various events seem to fit into one another, and justify the view that
after sending 1 Corinthians, and probably after the return of Timothy with
unpleasant news, St. Paul paid a short and unsuccessful visit to Corinth.

(3) THE SEVERE LETTER Can the “severe letter” be identified either with the
“previous letter” or with 1 Corinthians? If not, is it to be found either in
whole or in part in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians
12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. To the former of these two questions a negative
answer must certainly be given. It is, in the first place, almost impossible
that it should be the lost “previous letter,” because St. Paul clearly speaks of
himself in 2 Corinthians 7:5, as only learning from Titus what the effect of his
letter had been. This excludes the “previous letter” unless we suppose (α) that
it had been sent off before either “those of Chloe” or Stephanas, Fortunatus,
and Achaicus arrived at Ephesus, but had not yet reached Corinth; (β) that the
references to it in 1 Corinthians do not mean that St. Paul had heard that it
had been misunderstood, but only that he was afraid that it might be; and (γ)
that when St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians it had not yet struck him that his former
letter was so severe that he regretted it. This combination of improbabilities
excludes the “previous letter” from serious consideration.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians itself is excluded by the description of the letter
given in 2 Corinthians 2:4. Can any one believe that St. Paul wrote 1
Corinthians “out of much affliction and anguish of heart, with many tears”?

It is therefore practically certain that the severe letter referred to in 2
Corinthians is really a Third Epistle, other than 1 Corinthians, or the
“previous Epistle.” But many critics urge that this hypothetical Third Epistle
is not really lost, but may, either in whole or in part, be identified with 2
Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians
13:1-13. This view depends on somewhat complicated arguments, and can best be
stated in the form of two propositions. (1) There is not only no connection
between 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2
Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians
7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, but there is
an absolute break between them. (2) Internal evidence shows that 2 Corinthians
10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 was
written before 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18,
2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians
7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, and that it
corresponds to the “severe letter” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:1-17 and 2
Corinthians 8:1-24.

(1) The break between2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians
3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2
Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15and2 Corinthians
10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians
13:1-13.—The general tone of 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2
Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians
6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 is of
joy and sudden relief from great anxiety. The typical passage is 2 Corinthians
7:4-7, which describes the whole in a few words. “Great is my boldness of speech
toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am
exceeding joyful in all our tribulation. For, when we were come into Macedonia,
our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were
fightings, within were fears. Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are
cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus; and not by his coming only, but
by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your
earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced
the more.” And the same tone may be marked in the concluding words of 2
Corinthians 9:15, “Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift.” Indeed, if 2
Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians
4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2
Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 stood alone, we should have no
difficulty in agreeing that the situation which it implies is that St. Paul had
sent a letter to Corinth in order to bring the Church there to a better frame of
mind, and that he had just heard, to his great relief, that this letter,
combined with the presence of Titus, had been entirely successful. “In
everything,” he writes in 2 Corinthians 7:11, “ye approved yourselves pure in
the matter…therefore we have been comforted: and in our comfort we joyed the
more exceedingly for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you
all. For if I have boasted anything to him of you, I was not put to shame; but
as we spake all things to you in truth, even so our boasting, which I made
before Titus, was found a truth. And his inward affection is more abundant
toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and
trembling ye received him.”

If we turn to 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians
12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, we see a wholly different picture. The general
tone is one of defending his own position, and threatening severe action against
a disobedient Church. The opening words strike this note, which is never
completely dropped until the final sentence. “Now I Paul myself beseech you by
the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am lowly among you, but
being absent am bold toward you: yea, I beseech you, that I may not be bold when
I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some,
which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh” is the introduction
which leads up to 2 Corinthians 13:2, “I have said, and do say beforehand,—as I
did when present the second time, and now when I am at a distance,—to those who
have sinned before, and to all the rest, that if I come again, I shall not be
lenient.”

Thus there can be, and never has been, any dispute but that the whole tone of
the Epistle changes suddenly at 2 Corinthians 10:1, and that, if 2 Corinthians
10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 had
existed in a separate form, no one would ever have dreamt of suggesting that it
was the continuation of 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2
Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians
6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15.

(2) The internal evidence showing that2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians
11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13is earlier than2
Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians
4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2
Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15, and that it is the severe letter
mentioned in the latter portion. This evidence may be described as a series of
cross-references from 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians
3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2
Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 to 2 Corinthians
10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13.
These references are of two kinds: the first consists of general descriptions in
2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians
4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2
Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 of the “severe letter” to which 2
Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians
13:1-13 is seen to answer; the second, of special allusions to the contents of
the severe letter, all of which correspond to definite phrases in 2 Corinthians
10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13.
The general descriptions of the severe letter are the following:—

(α) In 2 Corinthians 2:4, St. Paul says that he had written the “severe letter”
“out of much affliction and anguish of heart beset with many tears.”

(β) In 2 Corinthians 7:8, he says, “Though I made you sorry with my letter I do
not regret it, though I did regret it,”—that is to say, the letter was so severe
that after sending it he was inclined to doubt whether it was not, after all,
excessive.

(γ) In 2 Corinthians 3:1, he says, “Do we begin again to commend
ourselves?”—implying that in the previous letter there had been a marked element
of self-commendation.

(δ) In 2 Corinthians 1:23, he says, “I call God for a witness upon my soul, that
to spare you I did not come again to Corinth,”and in 2 Corinthians 2:1. “I
determined this for myself, that I would not come to you again with sorrow.”
That is to say, at the time of writing the severe Epistle, the possibility of
paying a punitive visit was present to his mind, but was temporarily postponed
in order to see what the effect of the letter would be.

Now, if one turn to 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians
12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, these four general characteristics are all
easily discovered. It is impossible to read these chapters without recognizing
the intensity of feeling which inspires them, or to fail to agree with Dr.
Kennedy that there are “many passages which we can believe to have been blotted
with tears.” It is similarly obvious that there is (with the possible exception
of Galatians) no other passage of the same length in the Pauline Epistles of
which it is so easy to believe that its author may have been doubtful as to the
propriety of such powerful invective. Still more strikingly is self-commendation
the subject of a large part of 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. It may indeed be fairly called the
central theme of 2 Corinthians 10:7-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians
12:1-10. Finally, that St. Paul when he wrote 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 was hesitating
whether he would come to Corinth, and that this hesitation was due to his fear
that if he came he would not be able to spare the Corinthians, is clear from the
whole passage, 2 Corinthians 12:20-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-2. “For I fear, lest,
when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found
unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes,
backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: lest, when I come again, my God
will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned
already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and
lasciviousness which they have committed. This is the third time I am coming to
you. At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. I
have said, and do say beforehand— as I did when I came the second time, and now
when I am at a distance—to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other,
that, if I come again, I will not spare.” A more accurate description of the
frame of mind revealed by this passage could scarcely be given than that which
St. Paul gives in 2 Corinthians 1:23, of his feelings at the time when he sent
off the severe Epistle.

Besides these general descriptions of the severe letter in 2 Corinthians 1:1-24,
2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians
5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2
Corinthians 9:1-15, to which 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 certainly answers in every respect,
there are three pairs of passages which seem to amount to definite and verbal
cross-references. These can best be shown in parallel columns.

(α) “For this cause I write these things from a distance, that I may not when I
come deal sharply.”—2 Corinthians 13:10.

“And I wrote this same thing that when I came I might not have sorrow.”— 2
Corinthians 2:3.

The obvious parallelism between these two passages is increased by the fact that
the context shows that “might not have sorrow” in 2 Corinthians 2:3 is an
euphemism for “deal sharply.” “For if I make you sorry,” he says in the
preceding verse, “who then is he that maketh me glad, but he that is made sorry
by me?”

(β)“If I come again I will not spare.”—2 Corinthians 13:2.

“To spare you I came not again to Corinth.”—2 Corinthians 1:23.

(γ) “Being in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be
fulfilled.”—2 Corinthians 10:6.

“For to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you, whether ye
are obedient in all things.”—2 Corinthians 2:9.

These three pairs of passages are very striking, and gain in force if each be
read in its context; it seems difficult to deny that St. Paul, in each case, is
referring to the same thing,—in the passage from 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 in the present
tense, and in that from 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2
Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians
6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 in the
past.

Moreover, this argument is not only a very strong reason for seeing the “severe
letter”—or rather part of it—in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, but it greatly strengthens the case
for maintaining that in any case there is no unity between 2 Corinthians 1:1-24,
2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians
5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2
Corinthians 9:1-15 and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. Any theory which maintains that 2
Corinthians is a simple letter, all written at one time, must explain not only
why there is a sudden change of tone in the middle (which is generally done by
assuming that St. Paul is writing to his friends in one part and to his
opponents in the other), but also why there is this remarkable appearance of
cross-references from one part to the other, and always of such a nature that
the chapters which come at the end of the Epistle, as it is now arranged, refer
in the present sense to events which are alluded to in the past tense in the
earlier chapters. This is the case for identifying 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 with part of
the “severe letter”: it can be supported by various subsidiary arguments. For
instance, in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians
12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 a characteristic feature is the use of the word
καυχᾶσθαι (“boast” or “glory”) in connection with St. Paul’s claims to
consideration. “Though I should glory somewhat abundantly concerning our
authority, I shall not be put to shame” (2 Corinthians 10:8); “Let no man think
me foolish; but if ye do, yet as foolish receive me, that I also may glory a
little. That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but as in foolishness,
in this confidence of glorying, seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will
glory also” (2 Corinthians 11:16-18); “If I needs must glory, I will glory of
the things that concern my weakness” (2 Corinthians 11:30); and the list of
passages could be extended.

Compare this with 2 Corinthians 1:12 ff., “For our glorying is this, the
testimony of your conscience … we are your glorying, even as ye are ours,” or
with 2 Corinthians 7:4, “Great is my glorying on your behalf.” Do not these
passages obtain a heightened significance if we regard them as delicate
allusions to the forcible claim to authority in the previous letter, taking the
sting out of the “glorying” by giving it a changed application? Similarly, when
St. Paul says (2 Corinthians 7:16), “I have confidence in you” (Θαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν),
is he not thinking of his earlier statement in 2 Corinthians 10:1, “I have
confidence against you" (Θαῤῥῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς)? Or again, when he says, in 2
Corinthians 1:15, “And in this confidence (πεποιθήσει) I was minded to come to
you,” is he not deliberately using again, in a pleasant sense, the phrase which
he had used unpleasantly in 2 Corinthians 10:2, “I beseech you that I may not,
when present, show courage (θαῤῥῆσαι) with the confidence (πεποιθἡσει) wherewith
I count to be bold against some”? At the same time, it must be recognized that
it is impossible to maintain the older form of this theory which suggested that
these four chapters are the whole of the “severe letter.” The sufficient proof
of this is that it is plain, from 2 Corinthians 2:5-10, that the “severe letter”
had been largely directed against some definite person at Corinth, and there is
no trace of this in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians
12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. This fact was rightly used as a decisive
argument against Hausrath, but it has no force against Kennedy’s hypothesis that
2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2
Corinthians 13:1-13 is not the whole, but only the concluding part of the
“severe letter,” and that the earlier chapters which are now lost dealt with the
case of St. Paul’s opponent.

Thus the result of this complicated argument is to establish the great
probability of the view that 2 Corinthians is not a single Epistle, but
fragments of at least two Epistles, the last four chapters representing the end
of the “severe letter”—which was really St. Paul’s Third Epistle to the
Corinthians—and the first nine being the letter which he wrote from Macedonia in
joy at the success which had attended the “severe letter” and its bearer, Titus.
But when one accepts this fact, and couples it with the hypothesis (see p. 122
ff.) that 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1 belongs to neither of these
two letters, but to the “previous letter” of St. Paul, it seems necessary to
pause. To some extent, of course, the very strongly supported theory which
divides 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2
Corinthians 13:1-13 from 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2
Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians
7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 lends strength to the much
more doubtful hypothesis that 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1 is an
interpolation; but the question must be faced whether it be possible to suggest
any theory to make plausible the view that 2 Corinthians is composite to a
degree which is not probable in any other of the Pauline Epistles. This theory
is presented by Dr. Kennedy. He suggests that whereas 1 Corinthians was from the
beginning regarded by the Corinthians as a valuable document, which laid down
the law on many important points, the letter written from Macedonia (1:1-24, 2
Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians
5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2
Corinthians 9:1-15) was not more than the expression of St. Paul’s gratitude for
the favourable turn which affairs had taken, and the “severe letter” (2
Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians
13:1-13) was of such a nature that they would not be likely to wish to remember
it. It was only as St. Paul’s letters began to be regarded as “Holy Scripture,”
and to be valued for their authorship rather than their contents, that either of
the two last letters to Corinth became important. By this time they had probably
fallen into a bad state of preservation; it was not clear whether the fragments
belonged to one or several letters; and the scribes who copied the autographs
put together, as best they could, the various pieces of papyrus into one
connected whole.

It must be remembered that we have no textual evidence at all for the first
stage of the growth of the Corpus Paulinum. What we have is a collection of
Epistles, from all Churches which had any, in the form in which it came to be
generally recognized in the great Church. But there was an earlier period in
which the individual Churches were busy in collecting Pauline material from
their own archives, and in supplementing this from other communities. The
combination of the “severe letter” and the “grateful letter” must have been made
in the very beginning, as soon in fact as any copy of them existed at all. Dr.
Kennedy suggests that this may have been at the time when Clement wrote to the
Corinthians, and drew their attention to their Pauline archives. This is, of
course, merely a suggestion of what may have, not what must have happened, but
it serves to show that imaginable circumstances may well have arisen which
called the attention of the Corinthians to fragments of Pauline letters, which
had long lain unheeded in their archives so that no one remembered exactly what
they were, and scribes, copying for the first time these new treasures, combined
into the form of a single complete letter, what were really the fragments of at
least two incomplete ones.

(4) THE VISITS OF TITUS TO CORINTH The three passages in which the visits of
Titus to Corinth are referred to in 2 Corinthians are the following:—

(α) “For even when we were come into Macedonia … God comforted us by the coming
of Titus, and not by his coming only, but also by the comfort wherewith he was
comforted in you, while he told us your longing, your mourning, your zeal for
me; so that I rejoiced yet more. … Therefore we have been comforted: and in our
comfort we joyed the more exceedingly for the joy of Titus, because his spirit
hath been refreshed by you all” (2 Corinthians 7:5-13). From this passage it is
plain that Titus joined St. Paul in Macedonia, and brought a good report. Those
who take the view advocated above as to the “severe letter” will probably also
agree that the most natural interpretation of the facts is afforded by the
supposition that Titus was the bearer of the “severe letter,” and that the
welcome change in the attitude of the Corinthians was effected by the combined
influence of the letter and of its bearer.

(β) A further reference to this visit is sometimes found in 2 Corinthians 12:17
ff.: “Did I take advantage of you by any one of them whom I have sent unto you?
I asked Titus to go, and I sent the brother with him. Did Titus take any
advantage of you? Walked we not by the same Spirit, in the same steps?” That
this passage is in some way connected with the visit of Titus from which he
returned to Macedonia is not disputed, but the nature of the connection differs
according to the view taken of the relation of 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 to 1:1-24, 2
Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians
5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2
Corinthians 9:1-15. On the assumption that these two sections are both part of
the same letter, written after Titus had joined St. Paul in Macedonia, the most
probable and generally held hypothesis is that St. Paul is referring to Titus’
conduct on the visit from which he had just returned, and perhaps that the
chance of “taking advantage” of them, from which he refrained, is in some way
connected with the “collection for the saints” which figured so largely in St.
Paul’s programme at this period. This latter part is, as will be seen, very
doubtful, but for the rest this is the only possible theory for those who reject
the partition theory.

If the partition be accepted, and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33,
2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 be identified with the “severe
letter,” clearly the reference in this passage cannot be to Titus’ conduct
during the visit from which he returned to Macedonia, for ex hypothesi this
visit had not yet been made. In this case, St. Paul is rather seeking to commend
Titus as his representative, who will be the bearer of the “severe letter.” The
meaning, then, of the whole passage from 2 Corinthians 12:15 is that he himself
never was pecuniarily burdensome to the Corinthians, and that the same was true
of his representative, Titus. He says in effect, “You know that from the
beginning of my intercourse with the Corinthians, I have never had a penny’s
profit from them, and the same is true of my representatives. Titus, who is now
coming to you, has never made any profit. Can you deny that he always behaved in
this respect in exactly the same way as I did myself?”

(γ) In 2 Corinthians 8:6 ff.: “We asked Titus that as he had made a beginning
before, so he would also complete in you this grace also. … But thanks be to
God, which putteth the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus; for
indeed he granted our request, yea, being himself very earnest, he went forth
unto you of his own accord.” From the context it is clear that “this grace,”
which Titus was to complete, was the “collection for the saints,” i.e. for the
poor Christians in Jerusalem, for this is the subject of the whole of 2
Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15. Thus it is in any case certain that
the return of Titus from Macedonia to Corinth was connected with the “collection
for the saints.” The question is, however, whether we ought to conclude from St.
Paul’s language that Titus had been busy with the same question on his previous
visit. Purely linguistic exegesis does not give much help on this point. The
expression, “this grace also” (καὶ τὴν χάριν ταύτην), seems to suggest that
Titus is going to do something which has not been done previously, and the
repetition of the phrase in the next verse points in the same direction. On the
other hand, it may be urged, when Titus was asked to “complete” (ὲπιτελέσαι)
something, it is implied that he had already made a beginning in the same
direction. This is, however, not necessary, and the truth is that the sentence
is ambiguous because “this grace also” may be regarded as explaining the
addition which Titus had to make to that which he had begun
(προενήρξατο)—different in kind from his previous work, which needed this
addition to complete it (ὲπιτελέσαι); or it may be regarded merely as indicating
the point at which his work—fully begun already—needed carrying out a little
further in the same direction in order to be perfected.

Thus the nicer lexical criticism gives no certain answer to the question, and we
are driven back on general considerations, and our knowledge of the “collection
for the saints” from other sources. We know from both the Epistles and the Acts
that St. Paul was busy with a collection from all his Churches which he proposed
to send or take up to Jerusalem. He had already arranged with the Corinthians to
take their proper share in his work (1 Corinthians 16:1 ff.), and was therefore
able to boast in 2 Corinthians 9:2 that Achaia had been ready the previous year.
At the same time, it is clear that he felt by no means sure that this boast was
based on strict fact,—if Achaia had really been ready, there would have been no
need to send Titus, or to exhort the Corinthians not to fail him. So far, then,
there is no doubt but that the Corinthian collection had already been begun; but
it is exceedingly probable that the period of general disturbance in the Church
at Corinth, to which 2 Corinthians testifies, reduced the work of collection to
a standstill. Is it conceivable that St. Paul would have sent Titus at this
crisis to reduce the Corinthians to subjection, armed with the “severe letter,”
and at the same time told him to collect subscriptions? It is far more likely
that St. Paul left the whole financial question in abeyance until he knew
whether the combined effect of Titus’ visit and his own severe letter would
bring the Corinthians to a better frame of mind.

If we accept the view that the “severe letter” which Titus took with him to
Corinth is either lost, or to be identified with 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, there is no
difficulty in believing that Titus returned to Corinth in connection with the
collection, and that he had not previously taken any measures in its direction.

Those, however, who hold the view that the “severe letter” was 1 Corinthians,
are bound, in the light of 1 Corinthians 16:1, to assume that Titus dealt with
the matter on his first visit, and they then naturally explain 2 Corinthians
12:18 (“Did Titus take any advantage of you?”) as a reference to his conduct in
this connection. For such an opinion there is little valid argument; but it is,
of course, found in all commentaries or introductions which identify the “severe
letter” with 1 Corinthians, as well as in some others which, though they have
abandoned this identification, still think that Titus dealt with the matter of
the collection on his first visit—not seeing that this view is merely the result
of an identification which they do not any longer accept, is in itself contrary
to the probabilities of the case, and is not required by the verbal exegesis of
the passages in 2 Corinthians germane to the question.

(5) THE REPORT OF TITUS The report of Titus, so far as it is known to us, may be
represented thus: “There was a meeting of the community, and under the influence
of the ‘severe letter’ the offender was condemned, and sentenced to a punishment
which was approved of by the majority.” The first question is, who was the
offender, and what was his offence? The one thing which is here certain is that
no confident answer can ever be given. Various lines of probability can be
marked out, but the choice between them is almost impossible. It is obviously
possible that the partizanship mentioned in 1 Corinthians contains the germ of
many of the factors in the situation described in 2 Corinthians. 2
Corinthians—especially 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 —seems largely occupied with the
defence of St. Paul’s authority, and this may have been impugned by any of the
parties mentioned in the First Epistle. If the existence of a “Christ party” be
accepted, it is possible that a reference to it may be seen in 2 Corinthians
10:7, “If any man trusteth that he is in Christ, let him consider this again
with himself, that even as he is Christ’s, so also are we.” If so, we must
suppose that the main cause of the dissensions was the development of the Christ
party, and possibly that the leader of it was the offender who was punished.

Another line which has often been suggested is that the offender was the man who
had taken his father’s wife, and the father is sometimes regarded as the
offended party. This also is not impossible, but there is no evidence to prove
it: it is merely a guess. Or it might be thought that the root of the evil is to
be sought in the tendency to litigation mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff., and
that the meeting of the community mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:6 represents the
final submission of both parties to St. Paul’s opinion that the community ought
to judge matters of dispute, and not allow them to be brought before the heathen
courts. Once more, the suggestion is not unattractive, but unsupported by
evidence.

Still less is it possible to form any clear view as to the nature of the
punishment inflicted on the offender: the only thing certain is that it was not
exclusion from the community, because St. Paul speaks of the desirability of
receiving him with kindliness.

More light can perhaps be thrown on the question of the relationship of the
majority who fixed the punishment of the offender to the minority who
disapproved of their decision. According to the view, formerly so generally
held, that 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21,
2 Corinthians 13:1-13 was addressed to a rebellious minority, which had not been
convinced by Titus, there is no alternative to the interpretation which regards
the majority as St. Paul’s friends, and the minority as his opponents. But on
the partition theory of 2 Corinthians this exegesis is unnecessary, and a closer
consideration of the exact wording of the crucial passage points rather to the
view that the minority was the party of St. Paul, or at all events wished for a
severer treatment of the offender than the majority had voted. This passage is 2
Corinthians 2:5-7, “If any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me,
but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all. Sufficient to such a one
is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that ye should
contrariwise rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one
should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you to
confirm your love toward him.” The most natural exegesis, and that which gives
the most force to the separate phrases of this passage, is that the offender had
been unanimously condemned,—he had caused sorrow to them all,—that the majority
had fixed an appropriate penalty, and that St. Paul is addressing the
minority,—he distinguishes “the majority” from “you,”—who still cherished angry
feelings towards the offender, in order to persuade them to acquiesce in the
sentence of the majority, and not to press for heavier punishment. It is also
fairly plain that the reason why this minority was still unsatisfied was a
feeling of loyalty to St. Paul, who therefore emphasizes his own satisfaction
with the action of the majority,—in other words, the “minority” of 2 Corinthians
is most probably to be identified with the “party of Paul” of 1 Corinthians.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that St. Paul says nothing at all about
the justice of the sentence, but only defends its adequacy (ἱκανὸν τῳ τοιούτῳ,
κ.τ.λ.). No one, then, denied that it was just, but there were those who doubted
that it was adequate. Finally, the τοὐνάντιον (contrariwise) is only
intelligible if we suppose that those of whom St. Paul is speaking did not
propose to adopt a forgiving attitude.

Thus the most straightforward exegesis of this passage is that the minority were
the Pauline party, who thought that their master’s position demanded a severer
sentence than that which the majority had inflicted. On the supposition that 2
Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians
13:1-13 does not belong to 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2
Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians
7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15, but is really part of the
severe letter, which helped to bring about that state of feeling in the
community which led up to the general condemnation of the offender and his
punishment by the vote of the majority, there is no difficulty in accepting this
exegesis. On the other hand, it is almost impossible of acceptance by those who
reject the partition theory, and regard 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians
11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 as addressed to a still
rebellious minority. They are forced to adopt the view that the majority, not
the minority, were the party of St. Paul, that the “you” spoken of directly
after “the majority” (… ἡ ἐπιτιμία ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων, ὥστε ὑμᾶς, κ.τ.λ., 2
Corinthians 2:6 f.) is to be identified with, not distinguished from the
majority, and that when St. Paul said that the sentence was sufficient, he meant
that the majority (thus identified with the “you”) might now be content to
forgive the offender, as the minority wished them to do. This exegesis seems in
several points unnatural and forced: it is, however, perhaps not absolutely
inadmissable, and is probably the only possible view if 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2
Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 be regarded as
directed against a rebellious minority.

It is perhaps not unfair to point out that it is an indirect argument of
considerable value in favour of the “partition theory” that it enables a natural
and easy exegesis to be given in so many places which are obscure and difficult
on any other hypothesis.

It is now possible to piece together the results of this examination of single
problems, and by using the results which seem most probable, either in
themselves or in relation to other points, to give a connected description of
the course of events from the sending of 1 Corinthians to the second mission of
Titus with 1 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2
Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians
7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15.

Soon after 1 Corinthians had been sent, Timothy rejoined St. Paul, and reported
the result of his mission and the general condition of the community at Corinth.
It was not a pleasing story which he had to tell: the partizanship, which “those
of Chloe” had mentioned, instead of disappearing had increased; there was an
open hostility to St. Paul’s personal authority; possibly the case of incestuous
marriage continued to be a scandal, and the disagreements which had led to
litigation continued. It was plain that energetic measures were called for, and
St. Paul went over to Corinth as soon as he could find an opportunity—that is to
say, probably within two or three days. Even this failed: the Corinthians would
not listen, and St. Paul, seeing that he was doing no good, and probably also
knowing that he was needed in Ephesus, went back, declaring that if he came
again he would not spare, but would adopt strong measures. At Ephesus he penned
a severe letter, of which 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 is the latter portion, and asked
Titus to take it, and at the same time to try to bring the Corinthians to a
better state of mind. Titus went, and the combination of his words with St.
Paul’s letter was successful. A general meeting of the community was held, and
St. Paul’s authority was recognized. It was agreed that the offending member,
who was the cause of the trouble, was to be condemned, but there was a
difference of opinion as to the punishment which should be meted out to him. In
the end, however, the majority inclined to mildness, leaving a minority still
demanding severer measures, or at all events not prepared to treat the offender
with friendliness. This was no doubt lamentable, but there can be no doubt but
that in the main the situation had been enormously improved, and that Titus’
mission and the “severe letter” had been completely justified by their results.
Titus, therefore, left Corinth to return to St. Paul. In the meantime St. Paul
had left Asia—possibly we ought to put, at this point, the uproar in connection
with Demetrius and the worshippers of Artemis—and made his way first to Troas,
and afterwards to Macedonia. Here Titus found him, and relieved his fears by his
favourable report. Immediately he wrote 1 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians
2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2
Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians
9:1-15, and sent Titus once more back to Corinth with it, to urge his
over-zealous friends to forgive the offender, and also to pick up the threads of
the organization for the “collection for the saints,” which the troubles in the
Church had broken off. St. Paul himself was busy in the work for this collection
in Macedonia, and he hoped that Titus would act as his representative in Achaia,
to work up the methods which he had suggested in 1 Corinthians 16:1 ff., so that
when he reached Corinth himself there would be no further delay. To complete the
story we must turn to Acts 20:3. From this we learn that St. Paul reached
Corinth in the winter, and that he stayed there three months. He intended to
sail thence to Syria, but at the last moment a plot was laid against him by the
Jews, and he returned through Macedonia. What was this plot? Was it entirely
apart from the previous troubles in the Church? We are absolutely ignorant, and
with this sinister episode the curtain falls on the Christian community at
Corinth, not to rise again until forty years later, when fresh quarrels drew
forth remonstrances from the Church at Rome in what we usually call the First
Epistle of Clement.

Here, then, we have the skeleton of the story of St. Paul and the Corinthians:
to clothe it with flesh it is now necessary to consider the real nature of the
problems raised by the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians, and the character of the
opposition to St. Paul which is revealed in 2 Corinthians. THE PROBLEMS OF
THOUGHT AND PRACTICE REVEALED BY THE EPISTLES

These problems may in general be described as being concerned with the questions
put before St. Paul by the Corinthians. We have to ask in each case, why such
questions were raised, and to deal with the much-disputed question of the nature
of the opposition to St. Paul. The points at issue may conveniently be divided
into the following classes:—

(1) Sexual questions.

(2) Questions relating to Inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

(3) The Resurrection of the Dead.

(4)The opposition to St. Paul. The second of these headings covers three of the
questions put to St. Paul—as to things offered to idols, as to spiritual gifts,
and as to the arrangement of worship, including the Eucharist—but they are all
so closely connected by the idea of inspiration, that they are best treated
together.

(1) SEXUAL QUESTIONS

Nothing is more natural than that questions of sexual morality should be
important in Corinth, for it was famous both for the opportunities which it
afforded for every sort of immorality, and for the manner in which these were
brought into connection with cultus (especially in the worship of Aphrodite) of
an originally Oriental and frequently obscene nature. Thus it is not strange
that we find the Epistles revealing a series of practical problems connected
with sex, and pointing to the existence of two divergent lines of thought, one
ascetic and the other libertine.

These practical problems may be divided into two classes, relating to
fornication and to marriage; and the latter subdivided into the questions of (α)
Marriage in general. (β) Divorce; (γ) Re-marriage; (δ) Virgins.

Fornication.—In three places in 1 Corinthians St. Paul deals with the question
of fornication: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; 1 Corinthians
10:18. In the first of these three he is dealing with a special case, which
would apparently be more correctly described as incest. What exactly it was is a
problem which belongs rather to the exegesis of the Epistle; it is not for our
purpose very important. In the second and third, however, he speaks generally,
and it is clear that fornication was really a serious evil in the Christian
community. The problem for us is to understand how this can have been the case.
It is obviously not simply an instance of human weakness; but that the
Corinthians really had a low standard of morality on the subject, and defended
their practices as not incompatible with Christianity. The solution is to be
found in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:8. On the one hand, some of the
Corinthians had argued that “all things were lawful,” and that fornication is as
much a purely physical, morally indifferent action as eating and drinking are.
This is clearly the background of the argument, “Meats for the belly, and the
belly for meats,” which is probably a reference to, if not a quotation from, the
statements of the Corinthians. St. Paul combats this argument, and maintains the
permanence of the “body,” as against the impermanence of the “belly” (1
Corinthians 6:13 ff.). The whole contention of St. Paul is only intelligible if
we grasp the fact that he is reasoning with people who say, “The body does not
matter: what we eat and drink does not affect the soul: and the same thing is
true of all physical functions.” slightly different, but cognate point of view
is revealed by 1 Corinthians 10:8. Here St. Paul is speaking primarily of things
offered to idols, and 1 Corinthians 10:1-33 is explicable only if we see that it
is a warning against the view that Christians are safe because they have been
initiated into the Christian mysteries. St. Paul combats this view by showing
that safety was not obtained by the Israelites, who were the types of
Christians, although they also had, typically, enjoyed the mysteries of Baptism
and the Eucharist. Therefore, he argues, we must avoid the things which, as the
history of the “types” shows, can be fatal to us as they were to them. The
importance of these facts, simple and short though their description may be, is
considerable. They are the proof that over against a scrupulous and ascetic
party there was another which went to the other extreme, regarding the Christian
as a “spiritual” person, who by initiation into the mysteries was raised above
carnal considerations, and could not be affected by anything which he did with
his body. To modern minds there is something extraordinary in the suggestion
that the spiritual freedom of the Christian could be so extended. But it must be
remembered that the Graeco-Roman point of view was quite different. Not only was
fornication—for men—considered a matter of small or no importance, but it
actually was regarded in some cases as possessing a religious value. The
prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth were not, in their own
opinion, immoral; nor were they influenced by immoral motives, but by a
religious impulse.

Corruptio optimi pessima; and it is in the twentieth century, in the West of
Europe, difficult to realize the possibility of a religious impulse expressing
itself in immoral acts, but the fact is nevertheless indisputable that it has
formerly done so. The point is that cultus—the ritual expression of religious
impulse—is not a measure of religion only, but also of other elements in the
nature of the person who is trying to express this impulse. Go back two thousand
years and you will find that the nature of many men was such that they attempted
to express, and to stimulate, their religious life by sexual excesses: or, if
you will travel in space instead of in time, the same thing can be found to-day
in Africa, or even in some of the lower Indian cults. Go back still further in
time, or penetrate to still lower depths of primitive human nature, as it still
survives in Africa, and you will find men arousing and satisfying their
religious instincts by human sacrifice; and if you reach to the last depths, you
will find that there is a religious basis even to the horrid rites of
cannibalism. Primitive man is not only religious, but he is also obscene, cruel,
and superstitious, and these evil characteristics always show themselves in
combination with his religious rites.

Nothing comes out more clearly in the history of religions, than that religion,
in the attempt to work out forms of worship, has had to deal with three
enemies—cruelty, obscenity, and superstition. The first of these had been
practically conquered, for civilized nations, before our era; the conquest of
the second was the especial task of primitive Christianity. It was necessary for
the Church, which inherited the high moral standard of Jewish cultus, to fight
over again in the West the battle for a pure worship, which the prophets of
Israel had won for the Jews six hundred years before. The struggle is so remote
from our generation, that it is hard to realize that our forefathers had to
fight hard to prevent Christian culture from becoming corrupted, but clear
traces of the struggle can be found in the Apocalypse, in Jude, in 2 Peter, in
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, the Pistis Sophia, and
minor authorities. In all of them we can see the struggle against various forms
of obscene heresies,and only when we realize how wide spread these heresies
were, can we understand how it is that Justin Martyr, while repudiating the
charges of immoral feasts, admits that they may be based on the deeds of
heretical Christians who bring discredit on a name which they have no right to
use, just as false philosophers bring discredit on philosophy. How well
Christianity succeeded3 can be seen by the difficulty which we experience in
realizing that the task ever existed, and part of the importance of 1
Corinthians is that it gives us a glimpse of the beginning of the struggle.

Marriage.—(a.) Marriage in General.—As to marriage itself, it is not difficult
to see the background from which the questions, which St. Paul answers, must
have arisen. Some of the Corinthians were opposed altogether to marriage (cf. 1
Corinthians 7:1-2); and some were anxious to deprive it of any sexual
significance (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:3-7). Yet there was no unanimity on the
question, and therefore it was necessary to consult St. Paul, who adopted the
intermediate position of recognizing the propriety of marriage, and that in the
fullest sense, though he recommended the ascetic life to those who could endure
it, whether married or unmarried. To reconstruct with precision the arguments of
the ascetic party is impossible, but we shall probably not be wrong in holding
that two considerations played the main part. In the first place, there was the
feeling that the “time was short,” and that the Kingdom of God would belong to
those who “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.”This
view was very strong in early Christianity, and in some circles was carried so
far as to exclude the permanence of sex in the kingdom. It is possible that some
of St. Paul’s own teaching may have been interpreted in this way. When, for
instance, he said that in “Christ Jesus there was neither male nor female, the
conclusion might be drawn that he meant that sex would not exist in the Kingdom.
This is also the view which probably lies behind the apocryphal saying of Christ
in II. Clement 12, “For the Lord Himself being asked by some one, when His
kingdom should come, said. When the Two shall be One, and the Outside as the
Inside, and the Male with the Female, neither Male nor Female,” though the
writer of II. Clement himself gives a different explanation. In the second
place, there was undoubtedly a strong ascetic feeling, at all events partly—and,
perhaps, chiefly—due to reaction against the general immorality of the Greek
world, and of Corinth in particular. This feeling was not specifically
Christian; it was found among the Essenes, who were absolutely celibate, and
also among the Therapeutae, whose headquarters were in Alexandria. Especially
important, however, are the Stoics, whose doctrine on the question of marriage
was that it was an association for the mutual comfort of husband and wife, who
stood on an equality of rights. Against the low level of morality in the Empire
the Cynics and Stoics protested and preached as strongly as Jews or Christians.
It is doubtful whether they can be said to have encouraged celibacy, but
certainly they enjoined continence. It is, therefore, quite natural that there
was a celibate party in Corinth. In the same way, it is easy to understand the
existence of the party, to which St. Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 7:3-7, holding
that marriage in the full sense was undesirable, and recommending that those who
were already married should wholly abstain from marital relations. This feeling
was, no doubt, the natural outcome of the general belief, both among Jews and
Greeks, that all sexual relations were in themselves, if not sinful, at least
“not holy,” so that they demanded ritual purification before a state of
“holiness” could be regained. It was part of the general Christian position that
Christians are, and must remain “holy” (ἅγιοι is almost a technical name for
Christians), so that those who still retained the semi-physical conception of
holiness naturally were inclined to regard all sexual intercourse as forbidden
to Christians.

(β) Divorce.—This question arose, so far as we can see, from two reasons. In the
first place, there was the ascetic tendency mentioned above, which led some
Christians to regard marriage as immoral, and, therefore, to regard divorce as
desirable for Christians. Against this St. Paul quotes the absolute prohibition
of the Lord for husbands and wives to leave each other. In the second place,
there was the question of mixed marriages, or, rather, of married couples of
which only one was converted to Christianity. Some of the Corinthians were
inclined to think that it was the duty of Christians, under such circumstances,
to separate from all association with the heathen, and it is easy to imagine
that St. Paul’s “previous letter” (see pp. 120 ff.) had seemed to support this
opinion. St. Paul’s advice is that, unless the heathen husband or wife desires
separation, the marriage tie holds good. It should, however, be noted that
neither he nor the Corinthians appear to contemplate re-marriage for the
Christian separated from his wife, or the possibility of any one who is already
a Christian desiring to marry a heathen.

(γ) Re-marriage.—From 1 Corinthians 7:39 ff., it is plain that the question of a
second marriage for widows had been raised. But it does not appear that it was a
point on which there was any very lively controversy.

(δ) Virgins.—In 1 Corinthians 7:25-38, St. Paul discusses the question of
“Virgins.” There are many difficulties in reconstructing from his language
exactly what or who these virgins were, and the question will probably always be
obscure. The best way of approaching the subject is to take the crucial passages
from St. Paul, and note the exegetical difficulties. A translation is here
insufficient by itself, as it has a tendency to obscure the points at issue. I
therefore give Greek and English in parallel columns:—

Περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν Κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω, γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι ὡς ἐλεημένος ὑπὸ
Κυρίου πιστὸς εἴναι. Νομίζω οὖν τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην,
ὅτι καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι. δέδεσαι γυναικί; μὴ ζήτει λύσιν· λέλυσαι ἀπὸ
γυναικόσ; μὴ ζήτει γυναῖκα. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες, καὶ ἔαν γήμῃ ἡ
παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν … εἰ δὲ τις ἀσχημονεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν παρθένον αὐτοῦ νομίζει, ἐὰν
ᾖ ὑπέρακμος, καὶ οὔτως ὀφείλει γίνεσθαι, ὃ θέλει ποιείτω· οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει·
γαμείτωσαν. ὃς δὲ έστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδιᾴ αὐτοῦ ἑδραῖος, μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην, ἐξουσίαν
δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος, καὶ τοῦτο κέκρικεν ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καρδίᾳ, τηρεῖν
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον, καλῶς ποιήσει. ὣστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον καλῶς
ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιήσει.

“Now concerning the virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my
judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think,
therefore, that this is good, by reason of the present necessity, that it is
good for a man to be as he is. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not release. Art
thou released from a wife? Seek not a wife. But even if thou married, thou didst
not sin; and if the virgin married, she did not sin. … But if any man think that
he is unseemly towards his virgin, if he be passionate, and ‘it must be so,’ let
him do what he wishes: he doth not sin: let them marry. But he that standeth
stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will,
and hath determined in his own heart to keep his virgin, shall do well. So that
also he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doeth well, and he that giveth her
not shall do better."

It will be noted that the translation here given departs in three important
points from that of the usual English version. (1) The word “daughters” after
“virgins,” is omitted in 1 Corinthians 7:36 ff. (2) ὑπέρακμος is translated
“passionate” instead of “pass the flower of her age,” and is made to apply to
the man, not to the virgin. (3) In 1 Corinthians 7:38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων is
translated “so also he that giveth in marriage,” instead of “so both he that
giveth in marriage,” and it is further suggested in the footnote that γαμίζων
perhaps means “marries,” not “gives in marriage.”

These differences may fairly be said to sum up the problem. The English version,
following a tradition, which is at least as old as Chrysostom, conceives that
the situation of which St. Paul is speaking is merely that of a father with
unmarried daughters, whom he may or may not give in marriage. The suggestion is
that the Corinthians were divided in opinion as to whether it was ever desirable
to allow daughters to marry, and that St. Paul expressed the opinion that the
matter was one for the individual conscience of the father in question, but that
the better course, when no scruple was felt, was to prevent marriage. The
difficulty of this interpretation is in 1 Corinthians 7:36. Here γαμείτωσαν must
mean “let them marry.” Who? The virgin is one of the parties to the marriage,
and the natural view is that the man in question is the man who “thinks that he
is unseemly towards his virgin,” and that it is he who is ὑπέρακμος. In this
case, ὑπέρακμος means “over-passionate,” taking ἀκμὴ in the sense, which it has
in Constitutiones Apostolicae, 3:2,of passion, not that of youth. Furthermore,
the view that ὑπέρακμος refers to the man is supported by the parallelism of the
sentences.

εἰ δὲ τις ἀσχημονεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν

ο͂ς δὲ ἔστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ,

παρθένον αὐτοῦ νομίζει,

αὐτου έδραῖος,

ἐὰν ἦ ὑπέρακμος,

μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην,

καὶ οὕτως ὀφείλει γινέσθαι,

ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦἰδίου

θελήματος, etc.

It is clear here that there is a correspondence between the two cases, and that
the antithesis is between the man “who can” and the “man who cannot.” St. Paul
is not always attentive to details of style, but the point is certainly not
without importance. It is not, however, essential to the argument; we do not
really know what ὑπέρακμος means, and its translation cannot be the real basis
of the argument. The main point is that St. Paul says, that under certain
circumstances the virgin and some one else may marry; as the circumstance which
he puts in the foreground is the frame of mind of the man whose virgin she is,
presumably he is the “some one else.” But if it be conceded that γαμείτωσαν must
mean “let the virgin and ‘the man who cannot,’ marry,” it is plain that the man
in question is not the father of the virgin, and that the translation “virgin
daughter” must be abandoned. It will presently be shown what the relation
between the man and the virgin probably was; but it is first desirable to
consider the question of γαμίζω. The difficulty is that the word is not found
outside the New Testament. Strictly speaking, it ought to mean, as the old
grammarians recognized, “give in marriage,” according to the rule by which verbs
in —ίζω are causative. But there are many exceptions; γνωρίζω, for instance,
means “I know,” ἐλπίζω means “I hope,” χρονίζω, “I tarry,” ὑβρίζω, “I insult,”
etc. Some of these words are, indeed, possibly not degenerated causatives, but
doublets formed by a false analogy from aorists in —ισα; so, ἐγάμησα (in
pronunciation indistinguishable from ἐγάμισα) might give rise to a false
present, γαμίζω.If it means “marry,” then the meaning in this passage is clear,
and the reference is still to the question, whether a man shall marry a “virgin”
or not. If it means “give in marriage,” it implies that the man is in a position
to give his “virgin” in marriage to whom he will. Obviously, this agrees better
with the traditional exegesis that παρθένος is a “virgin daughter.” It does not,
however, absolutely require it, for it is not impossible St. Paul is considering
here the further case of a man who does not wish to marry his “virgin” himself,
but to give her to some one else. If so, the first καὶ is not to be translated
“both,” but “also,” for it is not parallel to the second καὶ, but introduces a
new problem. It must, however, be admitted that this seems less natural, and
therefore if the “daughter” hypothesis be abandoned, probably we ought to take
γαμίζω as meaning “marry,” not “give in marriage.” The question has then to be
faced, in what other relation could the man in question stand to his “virgin,”
so that he had not married her, but could do so if he wished. The answer is
probably to be found in the institution of “spiritual marriage,” which existed
among the Therapeutae and among Christians for at least 300 years, but was
gradually driven out, in consequence of the scandals to which it had given rise.
The best statement of the whole of the literary evidence on the subject can be
found in the Virgines Subintroductae of Prof. H. Achelis. The main points are
these:—Among the Therapeutae, men and women lived together in a colony arranged
on the same lines as the later “lauras” of Christian monasticism, so that each
lived apart as a hermit, or something similar, but all came together at
intervals for worship. The details of the arrangement of this colony are
obscure, but the fact that men and women lived together, and that marriage was
excluded is apparently indisputable. In the desert country, in which the
original Therapeutae colony was placed, this “living together” did not imply any
very close association, but one can easily imagine what it may have led to, if
the attempt was made to adapt it to the circumstances of life in the great
cities. If, however, we pass over 1 Corinthians, we find no evidence that this
step was taken until the second century. But in the second and succeeding
centuries, we find abundant proof that the custom had already been adopted by
Christians. It is not necessary here to rewrite a well-known chapter of Church
history; it is sufficient to note that the evidence of Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Cyprian, and perhaps Hermas, show that the custom of “spiritual marriage” with
“virgins” was common in the Christianity of the second and third centuries,
though it was possibly always regarded with dislike by the leaders of the great
Church. After the fourth century it is still widely found, but is treated as a
definite evil, and was gradually stamped out.

It is extremely probable that this curious side-track of history leads us to the
true explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40. The suggestion is that men and women
had made a practice of living together under a vow of virginity, and that, in
some cases, the situation was proving too great a strain for human nature. Under
these circumstances, St. Paul’s advice was sought. His answer is, “Let them
marry.” At the same time, he does not agree with those who apparently had
doubted—as the later Church also doubted—the desirability of the custom
altogether; for those who can keep to their purpose he regards it as good. But
the question is, How many cases does he distinguish? Clearly, in 1 Corinthians
7:36, ending with “let them marry,” he deals with the case of a man and a
“virgin” who are neither of them contented with a spiritual marriage, and desire
to join in wedlock with each other. In the earlier verses, however, he seems to
be dealing with the case of possible marriage, for the man or the virgin, with
some third party; possibly we can also conclude from this passage that this
“spiritual marriage” was regarded, at least by some of the Corinthians, as not
incompatible with a real marriage. Here, also, St. Paul clearly sides with those
who admitted marriage both for the man and for the “virgin.” The final case is,
perhaps, contained in 1 Corinthians 7:38, and alludes to the possibility of
giving the “virgin” in marriage to some one else. That the details of any
solution to the problem presented by 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 are uncertain, will
be admitted by all who have really considered it at all closely; but the view
that has been presented by Achelis seems to present fewer difficulties than any
other, and recent commentaries all show a tendency to accept it. If so, we have
to consider that the background of the chapter is the existence of a class of
men and women who vowed themselves to live together not in wedlock, but in
virginity. Such an institution was clearly the result of the ascetic tendency
mentioned on p. 182, and the problem arose from the conflict between this
institution and human nature. The controversy as to the relation of Christianity
to sexual questions lasted for many generations, and it would be far from the
truth to suppose no false steps were made by the Church on this extremely
difficult question. The institution of “spiritual marriage” was clearly a false
step, and was comparatively soon retracted. It would be out of place here to
discuss the later course of development on other points, but it is worth noting
that the ascetic element in early Christian teaching is being shown more and
more clearly by modern research to have been far more widespread and to be far
more primitive than comparatively recent writers have allowed. The view that
marriage is a concession to human weakness, and incompatible with the highest
Christian ideal, is probably primitive. It was clearly the view of St. Paul when
he wrote to Corinth (even though a somewhat more liberal opinion is perhaps
expressed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, of which, however, the authenticity
is doubted by many quite cautious critics), and there was clearly a party in
Corinth who thought that he conceded too much. If we go on to the succeeding
centuries we find the extremest asceticism consistently preached as the counsel
of perfection. I cannot see how it is possible to deny that the general teaching
of the Christian Church from St. Paul to the Reformation is that the life of the
celibate is higher qua talis than that of the married Christian.

(2) QUESTIONS RELATING TO INSPIRATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT The questions of the
Corinthians concerning things offered to idols, spiritual gifts, and the
regulation of worship, including the Eucharist, all depend on the general belief
as to the spirit-world which obtained in the first century.

According to popular opinion, the world was full of spirits (πνεύματα or
δαιμόνες) good and bad, which were able to take possession of, or to obsess, not
only human beings, but even inanimate objects. One of the main reasons for which
the ordinary man took part in religious ceremonies was to avoid obsession by
evil daemons and to secure obsession or inspiration by good spirits. The various
Mysteries were largely regarded from this point of view. Moreover, when this
inspiration had once been obtained the religious services remained valuable,
because they afforded the means by which the inspired person allowed the spirit
which was in him to speak to others, and communicate the will of the gods.

These spirits or daemons were beings intermediate between gods and men. Some of
the gods even had originally been daemons, and some of the daemons were the
spirits of the dead men who had gained promotion by the distinction of their
careers on earth.The spirits were especially the intermediaries between the
higher gods and men, and thus corresponded almost exactly to the angels of
Jewish theology. But, just as in Jewish theology, there was not a sharp line of
definition between the angels of God and the Spirit (Ruach) of God, so also in
the Greek world the idea of the daemon sent by the god passed imperceptibly over
into that of the spirit of the god, which was, in one sense, the god himself.
Hence the confusion in practical affairs between the daemon of the emperor, and
the emperor himself. Probably the average Roman citizen was quite vague as to
whether the divinity of the emperor was due to a daemon or spirit who inspired
him, or to some special property of the man who was emperor. In the same way he
would probably have found a difficulty in distinguishing between the daemon who
had helped Augustus, and the Divus Augustus who had been deified. Was it the
daemon or the man, or both? So also in the Mysteries, what did the initiate
receive? A daemon ancillary to the god, or an “effluence” from the god, his
spirit, which was in some sense the god himself? Probably there was a general
vagueness on these points. In any case, the view that the world was full of
these daemons or spirits was undoubted. Moreover, the difference between Greek
and Jewish doctrine was really small. The Jew in the Diaspora, at all events,
may be said to have distinguished three factors: (1) The angels, the ministers
of Jahveh on earth, who looked after all the details of human life. (2) The
Spirit of Jahveh, which inspired the prophets, and was believed by the
Christians to have been especially given to them. (3) The δαιμόνια, or devils.
These were the ghosts of the “giants” who had perished in the Noachian deluge,
and the “giants” were the progeny of the disobedient angels who had neglected
their duty, and entered into wedlock with women.

Part of the work of the Messiah was to be their destruction, but until the
“Kingdom” came they wandered through the world, seeking re-incarnation, and
causing sickness, but yielding to the power of exorcism. Of these three points
the first affords an exact parallel between the angels and the beneficent
daemons. The second affords a parallel in so far as the “Spirit of Jahveh” is
parallel to the “spirit” of the god imparted in the Mysteries, or speaking
through the oracles and prophets. It is also remarkable that just as the
distinction in Jewish theology between Jahveh and the Spirit of Jahveh is not
consistently sharply drawn, so too, in the magical papyri, the distinction
between the god and his spirit is sometimes made and sometimes ignored.
Moreover, just as the Greek was vague as to the distinction between a daemon
ancillary to the god, and the spirit effluent from the god himself, so among the
Jews there was probably a tendency to confuse the Spirit of Jahveh with the
Angel of Jahveh, and the Angel of Jahveh with the angels in general. Thus in
Jewish and Christian circles, there was at first a tendency to hesitate whether
to speak of “The Spirit” or the “Spirits.” So far there is a very close
resemblance between Jewish and Greek thought. The difference is really only to
be found in connection with the doctrine of God. For the Jahveh of the Jews was
not parallel with the gods of the Greeks, as, for instance, Plutarch conceived
them, but with the Absolute, or with the Logos, who was above them all, and from
whom all being, divine, daemonic, or human, derived its origin.

According, then, to the ancient view of the universe the world was full of
spirits, good and bad. How was man to avoid the bad and gain the good? The
universal answer was that there were various acts or ceremonies by means of
which intercourse with the spirits was rendered possible. These acts belonged in
the main to every kind of human function. Eating and drinking were especially
regarded from this point of view. There was always a danger that an evil spirit
would be attracted by food and drink, and endeavour to enjoy it by obsessing the
person who ate it. Hence, according to Porphyry, the symptoms of indigestion.
“Every house,” says he, “is full of them, and on this account when they are
going to call down the gods, they purify the house first and cast those daemons
out. Our bodies also are full of them, for they especially delight in certain
kinds of food. So when we are eating they approach and sit close to our body;
and this is the reason of the purifications, not chiefly on account of the Gods,
but in order that these evil daemons may depart. But most of all they delight in
blood and impure meats, and enjoy these by entering into those who use them. For
universally the vehemence of the desire towards anything, and the impulse of the
lust of the spirit, is intensified from no cause than their presence, and they
also force men to fall into inarticulate noises and flatulence by sharing the
same enjoyment with them.”For this reason food had to be protected by being
given up to the power of some more powerful and beneficent being; it was
consecrated—sacrificed—to some god, and then it was safe: no evil spirit would
dare to touch it. Or, in the alternative, it was possible to consecrate and
protect the eater; for in the same way, if he were already in the power of some
god, no evil spirit would be able to approach him. Those who had been initiated
in the Mysteries were safe from evil spirits. In this way evil spirits could be
avoided.

How could good spirits be gained? This was especially the object of the
Mysteries, and just as evil spirits entered by means of food, so also did the
good ones. The sacrificial meals of the Mystery Religions were, at least from
one point of view, means of gaining obsession by a good spirit connected with or
even identified with the god of the Mystery in question. Men and women ate with
the god in order to be taken possession of; or they went to the temple and lived
there for the same purpose. Nor was this all: not only could they eat with the
god, but they could actually eat food in which the god was, and so eat the god
himself. Probably there was much vagueness of thought as to whether the god was
in the food, or was joining in the eating of it: but there is ample evidence for
both points of view in the Greek world. The former theory is especially common,
and hence it was customary to speak of the “table” (τραπέζα) of the god, and of
“laying a place for him” (κλίνην στρῶσαι τῷ θεῷ). Moreover, from the story of
Paulina it would seem that invitations to dinner in the temple of Isis sometimes
included passing the night there. The still cruder theory that the god is
present in the sacrificial food, and thus passes into the being of the
worshipper is less widely, but quite sufficiently, attested. For this custom it
is not easy to quote single passages, but the collected evidence from all
sources provides overwhelming testimony for the view that one period in the
development of cultus comprised two central beliefs: first, that the god was
incarnate in various persons, especially royal persons; secondly, that the
divine nature in them could be assimilated by eating them. Thus far back in the
history of mankind it is probable that every race has passed through a period of
the religious cannibalism which still survives in some parts of Central Africa.
But many centuries ago among the Greek and Roman races, this savage rite was
superseded by the custom of eating the representative of the god, either in the
form of an animal, or of some other form of food in which he was regarded as
incarnate. As civilization advanced the details became less and less crude, but
the rite of “eating the god” still remained, and was, no doubt, inextricably
mixed up with the cognate idea mentioned above of eating with the god. The exact
point of view of Individuals was no doubt as “foggy” and confused as it always
was on subjects of this nature which are concerned partly with a real spiritual
experience and partly with an artificial intellectual explanation. The signs of
possession by a good spirit were various: no doubt they were usually
unobtrusive, the worshipper merely felt convinced that he had received benefit.
But some times plainer symptoms could be observed in the form of r’estasy,
prophecy, glossolalia, i.e. unintelligible speech, and visions. All of them
differed very little from the signs of possession by an evil spirit, and it was
often a matter on which opinion differed sharply whether the obsessed should he
congratulated on his spiritual endowment, or exorcised to save him from the
clutches of a daemon. The Things offered to Idols.—It is not difficult to see
how Completely the belief in spirits or daemons is the background of this
section. To reconstruct the precise opinions of St. Paul is indeed more
difficult than to understand what he is discussing.

“Things offered to idols”(εὶδωλόθυτα) might be taken in at least two senses.
From one point of view the greater Dart of the meat sold in the shops was
“offered to idols,” as the animal from which it was taken had usually been
consecrated to some god, even if it were only by the ceremonial burning of a few
hairs. Thus, in this strict sense, to avoid eating things offered to idols was
difficult, if not impossible. It would, however, appear that it was not quite
impossible, for St. Paul implies that by making inquiry the Corinthians might be
able to avoid such meat. But besides this, it was possible to use εἰδωλόθυτα
with a restricted reference to actual participation in the sacrificial meals. As
to these meals a misconception is easy. We are inclined to look on them as
solemn religious services. Some of them no doubt were: but others probably
resembled a dinner-party more closely than a church-service. It was the custom
to issue invitations to dinner in the temple, and the fiction was that the god
was himself the host. Thus “things offered to idols” had a social as well as a
religious importance, and an attempt was made to combine physical satisfaction
with “spiritual” edification. To avoid them altogether was difficult, and
certainly would hinder social intercourse to an enormous extent.

Apparently, there were two opinions on the matter in Corinth: one party
maintained that an idol was nothing, and that therefore things offered to idols
had no importance: they thought that the whole matter was indifferent, and that
Christian freedom justified them in doing as they wished. Another party held the
opposite opinion and thought that, cost what it might, Christians ought to
abstain absolutely from the contamination of things offered to idols. The strict
school argued that to eat things offered to idols was a form of idolatry, and
dangerous because of the daemons. The “enlightened” school argued that idols had
no real existence, that the food was not really affected by being consecrated to
the non-existent, and therefore that it really did not matter if Christians
bought it in the market, or took part in meals at which it was eaten. But
besides this the “enligntened” school also argued that, even admitting the
possible influence of consecrated food on others, they were themselves safe
because through the Christian Mysteries they had gained the protection of a
higher power. This argument is implied by 1 Corinthians 10:1-33 where St. Paul
retorts that they are no more safe than were the Israelites, the type of the
Christians. The Israelites had all received the types of Baptism and Eucharist,
in the crossing of the Red Sea, in the feeding on manna in the wilderness, and
in drinking from the rock. Nevertheless, they fell, and the fall should be an
example to Christians not to commit the same mistakes. The whole of this section
in its context is only intelligible as directed against the argument that those
who have been initiated into the Christian Mysteries may safely do anything they
like,—they have attained safety (σωτηρία), which was the object of all the
Mysteries. This difference of opinion between two parties in Corinth is clearly
reflected in St. Paul’s advice, and explains its strange turns and apparent
inconsistencies. This is especially marked in 1 Corinthians 10:14 ff. Here St.
Paul is conceding to the scrupulous party the correctness of their objection to
idolatry; but he is thinking all the time of the effect his words will have on
the party of freedom, and therefore he turns to them and invites them to
consider accurately the exact force of his admission. He quite accepts the
propositions of the party of freedom that an idol is nothing, and that food
sacrificed to idols has no especial value, but he does admit, as a concession to
the scrupulous, that the sacrificial meals do contain the possibility of
“infection” from daemons. The position is not wholly logical, for the Christian
word εἰδωλόθυτον, as compared with the true Greek phrase ἱερόθυτον or θεόθυτον,
implies the view that the heathen gods are illusions—without any real existence.
But this sort of inconsistency is common to humanity. All of us must be aware
that on many points our position is a wholly illogical combination of
half-belief, half-scepticism, which we cover but do not justify by calling it an
“open mind.” Do the Apostolic Decrees also lie behind this difference of opinion
in Corinth? Certainly they are not quoted; but I see no reason to state
definitely that they cannot have been known in Corinth. On the contrary, I think
it is quite possible that they had been appealed to by the stricter party, and
that St. Paul’s answer is intended as giving his view of the justification and
meaning of the decree so far as things offered to idols are concerned. Still,
this cannot be proved, and all that can be said as to the existence or
non-existence of the decrees in Corinth is that neither can be established.

“Spiritual persons” (or “gifts”?).—When St. Paul begins 1 Corinthians 12:1-31
περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν, does he speak of persons or gifts? Obviously
πνευματικῶν may have either meaning, but since in the immediate context St. Paul
is discussing persons, not gifts, and the way to distinguish the true from the
false πνευματικός, it is probably better to treat it as persons,” or what the
Germans more conveniently term pneumatiker. But at all properly to appreciate
the meaning of the word in the ancient world of thought, we must grasp the fact
firmly that the Spirit was a concrete “something” or “some one.” Judged by
modern standards, one might almost say it was material, and in popular thought
it was probably regarded as belonging to the same category of substance as air,
or sometimes as light. The point is that we are apt to use “spiritual” and
“spirit” in the sense of a “frame of mind” (stimmung) which pays no special
attention to carnal or material objects, and is busy with ideals. That is not
what πνευματικὸς meant in the first century; it meant a man who was obsessed by
a πνεῦμα which was not his own, but had come into him from without. The signs of
this spiritual obsession were various, but they were chiefly ecstatic. That is
to say, the proof of the existence of the spirit within was that the man did
things which he otherwise could not do. This supernatural power might manifest
itself in act or in word. The inspired person might develop powers of healing or
do other miraculous deeds; the magical papyri show that this was as common in
heathen circles as it was among Christians, and even extended to the
resuscitation of the dead. But more important than these were the gifts of
prophecy and glossolalia. The “prophet” was a familiar figure in the ancient
world, and the explanation given of his utterances was the same in all nations.
The Spirit was speaking through him. He was only an instrument by means of which
God revealed His will to the world. The prophets of the Old Testament were
regarded by the first Christians as verbally and literally inspired, and the
Christian prophets belonged to the same class. “For among us,” says Justin to
the Jew Trypho, “prophetic gifts (χαρίσματα) still exist, which shows that the
privileges formerly belonging to your nation have been transferred to us,” and
in the first Apology he explains that prophets are those “through whom the
prophetic Spirit has foretold the future.”In the same way the prophetic speaker
in the Odes of Solomon says, “As the hand plays on the harp, and the strings
sound, so speaks the Spirit of the Lord in my members.”mIn the same way
Epiphanius tells us that Montanus claimed that he was used by the spirit as a
man plays on the lyre, and the same image is found in Ps. Justin’s Cohortatio ad
Gentes, “The divine ‘plectrum’ comes down from heaven, using righteous men as a
harp or lyre in order to reveal to us the knowledge of divine and heavenly
things." But this belief that divine spirits spoke through men was not
specifically Jewish or Christian: men like Apollonius of Tyana or Alexander of
Abonoteichos were regarded not as exceptionally gifted men, but as men through
whom the god spoke. The prophet was the instrument by which God revealed
Himself. It was naturally only a step further to confuse the inspired person
with the divine spirit, and so reach the Greek concept of the θεῖος ἄνθρωπος.

Thus the language of these inspired persons was not ordinary language. Sometimes
it was intelligible, and sometimes it was unintelligible; in the former case it
was prophecy, in the latter glossolalia. The difference between glossolalia and
prophecy was only that glossolalia was unintelligible; it was a language which
could only be understood by those to whom the Spirit gave the power of
interpreting it. The picture of glossolalia given by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians
14:1-49 can be compared with hostile pictures drawn by Celsus of Palestinian
Christian prophets, and by Irenaeus of Marcosian prophetesses. In the strange
words in the magical papyri we probably have references to glossolalia in
heathen circles.

Besides these manifestations of the spirit through the acts and speech of the
obsessed, there were also visual manifestations in which the πνευματικὸς saw
visions—revelations or ἀποκαλύψεις—in which he was taken in the spirit to the
hidden world. Here, again, there is no difference between the Christian and the
heathen belief. St. Paul knew a man who was taken up into the third heaven, and
Apuleius describes the experiences of Luciusi n the Mysteries of Isis. “I drew
near,” says Lucius, “to the confines of death; I trod the threshold of
Proserpine; I was borne through all the elements and returned. At midnight I saw
the sun flashing with bright light; gods of the world above, gods of the world
below, into their presence I came.” Whether Apuleius and St. Paul are either or
both giving their own experience is questionable, but undoubtedly both believed
in the genuineness of what they described. Nor did the Christians ever suggest
that the heathen experience was different from their own; they only urged that
it was due to an evil spirit instead of to a good spirit. This last point
explains the importance of the first question which the Corinthians propounded.
How were they to distinguish the πνευματικὸς who was inspired by a holy spirit,
from the πνευματικὸς who was inspired by an evil spirit? Both did much the same
things, but whereas he who was inspired by a holy spirit deserved the implicit
obedience due to the infallible voice of God, or a good daemon, the other must
be avoided, and attempts made to rid him of his obsession. It is also easy to
see how fruitful a soil this general belief supplied for the later development
of Christological doctrine. The Christian, especially the Christian prophet, was
inspired and possessed by a holy spirit. This holy spirit came from his Lord and
Saviour, Jesus. That seemed wholly natural: if Jesus was a Redeemer-God, of
course His Spirit was given to those who shared in His mysteries. But was this
Spirit a spirit which had inspired Jesus? or had Jesus become a spirit or
daemon? or had He from the beginning been a spirit? and similar questions were
at first not asked, though the development of Christian doctrine showed that
they were raised later.

Thus the practical question arose how the πνευματικὸς who was inspired by the
“Spirit of Jesus” could be distinguished from the πνευματικός who was inspired
by an evil spirit. That is the problem which St. Paul had to face, and he solved
it by saying that if the πνευματικος recognized Jesus as Lord, he was inspired
by a holy spirit;but that if he said “Jesus is accursed,” he was not inspired
by a spirit of God. There he leaves the question; but it is obvious that this
simple test was likely to prove insufficient, and it is not surprising that the
next century reveals other solutions. The same problem, for instance, is faced
in the Johannine Epistles. “Try the spirits,” says the writer, “because many
false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1); and he gives a
doctrinal test which goes a little further than St. Paul’s. “Every spirit,” he
says, “which confesses Jesus as a Messiah come in flesh is of God.” Parallel
with this doctrinal test is another, found in the Didache and the Shepherd of
Hermas, which suggests that conduct is the test of inspiration; and Ignatius
proposed to leave the decision of the question to the Bishop, and this method
ultimately became general. The other question which the Corinthians propounded
was concerned with the relative value of the gifts (χαρίσματα) by which the
Spirit manifested itself. It is not necessary now—indeed, it is outside the
scope of this book —to consider the details of St. Paul’s answer. The question
is, What light can be thrown on the situation at Corinth? It is important to
notice that practically all distinction in the community is regarded as a gift
of the Spirit. To this are ascribed healings, miracles, prophecy, the power of
distinguishing spirits, glossolalia, and the interpretation of glossolalia. The
question which agitated the Corinthians was the relative value of these gifts,
and St. Paul’s answer, though given at some length, and rising to the most
eloquent heights, is comparatively simple,—he states that social not individual
value is the standard by which the gifts must be measured, and that none of them
are useful without sympathy (ἀγάπη). But it is also quite plain that this is not
exactly the point which the Corinthians had proposed. Their question was
inspired by a divergence of opinion as to the more ecstatic gifts, prophecy and
glossolalia; some thought that they were of supreme importance; others regarded
them as undesirable. The former type is more fully dealt with by St. Paul, but
the existence of the latter is vouched for by the advice, “Forbid not to speak
with tongues.” The importance of this will become plain in the next paragraph.
The Regulation of Worship.—It is clear from St. Paul’s statement that the great
respect claimed for the gifts of the Spirit was the main reason for difficulties
connected with religious services. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:23-35 : “If
therefore the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with
tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they
not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that
believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his
face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. How is it
then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a
doctrine, hath a revelation, hath a tongue hath an interpretation. Let all
things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or
at the most by three, and that in turn; and let one be an interpreter. But if
there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak
to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others
judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold
his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may
be exhorted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; for
God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the
saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the Law. And if
they will learn any thing, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is
shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” The picture drawn of the state of
things in Corinth is plain enough: everything was being sacrificed to the
“gifts” of prophesy and glossolalia. The prophets all spoke at once, and even
women claimed to be heard. It is not unnatural that, under these circumstances,
there was a party which was ready to “quench the Spirit,” and “forbid
prophecies”; and that there was considerable friction between the ecstatic and
the more sober members of the community. The question of the women is a little
more complicated. It appears that there was a party, no doubt composed largely
of women, who thought that women were in no respect inferior to men. It must be
admitted that they could appeal with some force to St. Paul’s own teaching that
in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. Therefore they insisted that
women should be allowed the same freedom of prophecy in the community as men
enjoyed. Against this party we can imagine that it was argued that, although it
might be true that in Christ Jesus there is no difference between male and
female, this does not apply in practice to life in this world, and a protest was
raised against behaving as though the kingdom of God were already come. A
further point was concerned with dress. From 1 Corinthians 11:3 ff., it appears
that the general custom was then—as now—for women to have their heads covered in
church, and for men to be bareheaded. It is the task of the interpreter of St.
Paul to explain the justification which St. Paul gives of this custom: it is by
no means plain, and 1 Corinthians 11:10 in particular, “For this cause ought the
woman to have power on her head because of the angels,” provides a problem which
is likely to remain insoluble. But it is quite simple to see the situation which
called forth his remarks. The point which is remarkable is that the custom to
which the Corinthian women objected, and St. Paul adhered, was the Greek, not
the Jewish practice. The Eucharist.—The Eucharist is so closely connected with
controversies of every kind that it is desirable to define somewhat closely
precisely what points belong to the present discussion. Regarded as an
historical problem, it may be said to confront the student of Christian origins
with the following questions: (1) What is the value of the account in the
Synoptic Gospels of the institution of the Eucharist, and what was (supposing
the historical nature of the story to be accepted) the real meaning of Jesus?
(2) What was the view held by the Corinthian Christian as to the meaning of the
Eucharist, and in what form was it celebrated? (3) In what direction did St.
Paul think it desirable to amend the Corinthian practice or doctrine? (4) How
far did the Christian custom of the next generation agree with or differ from
the lines laid down or sanctioned by St. Paul? Of these four problems the second
is that which is necessary for the present purpose; the first and fourth are
scarcely germane to it at all; and the third only quite partially.

We have, then, to ask what was the form in which the Corinthians celebrated the
Eucharist, and what doctrine they attached to it. This can best be discussed
under the two heads of form and doctrine. The form of celebration is indicated
by St. Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, and his advice in 1
Corinthians 11:33. In the former passage he says, “Now when you assemble
together it is not possible to eat a Lord’s supper, for each takes his own
supper at the meal, and one is hungry and another is drunken.”In the latter he
says, “therefore, when ye assemble, wait for each other at the meal.” From this
material two points are clear. First, the “Lord’s supper” was a true meal, not
merely a ceremonial or symbolical eating, that the custom was for individuals to
bring food for this meal, and secondly, that owing to the bad habit, which St.
Paul rebukes, of each eating what he brought himself, there was an undesirably
unequal distribution of the provisions, and an unseemly tendency not to wait
until the whole community was present. It also seems, from the way in which St.
Paul introduces the whole question by a reference to the divisions in the
Church, that the secret cause for this behaviour was the partizanship of the
Corinthians: instead of there being one meal for the whole community, there was
a tendency to divide into groups and cliques which did not share their food with
each other.

It is sometimes thought that this meal ought to be separated from the Eucharist,
and be identified with the Agape. This view is untenable for two reasons. In the
first, it is clear that St. Paul is speaking of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians
11:23 ff., and there is no trace of any break in his argument between this
passage and the preceding section, in which an actual meal is clearly being
discussed. In the second place, it is extremely doubtful whether there was a
distinction between Agape and Eucharist. In the letters of Ignatius the words
are clearly synonyms, and Batiffol has gone far towards proving that the
supposed difference between the two elsewhere is based on no solid foundation.
The doctrine of the Eucharist, as it was held by the Corinthians, is primarily
illustrated by 1 Corinthians 10:16-20. In this passage St. Paul says, “The cup
of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not a sharing of the body of Christ?…but what they
(i.e. the heathen) sacrifice, they sacrifice not to God, but to daemons: I would
not have you share in daemons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup
of daemons; you cannot share the table of the Lord and the table of daemons.”
The importance of this passage is that St. Paul is here not discussing doubtful
points in the Eucharist, or giving instruction concerning it, as he is in 1
Corinthians 11:17-34, but is using the general and undisputed belief of
Christians as to the Eucharist in order to establish his position with regard to
things offered to idols. He clearly means that the Corinthians know quite well
that the Eucharist is a rite which really conveys that which the heathen
erroneously thought to obtain in their sacrificial meals—that is, the
participation in the Divine nature. A further light on the doctrine of the
Eucharist is thrown by 1 Corinthians 10:3 ff. Here St. Paul speaks of the manna
which the Israelites ate in the wilderness as “spiritual food,” and the water
from the rock as “spiritual drink.” His argument is, “the Israelites—like
you—had spiritual food and drink, yet they fell.” He can scarcely be referring
to anything except the Eucharist; and if so, he implies clearly that in the
Eucharist Christians received the “Spirit” in the form of food and drink. When
we remember that to St Paul “the Lord is the Spirit,” and that His body was
“spiritual,” it is plain that the only conclusion we can draw is that the
Corinthians regarded the Eucharist as food and drink, by eating which they
enjoyed communion, or participation, in the life of Jesus, as a Spirit; or, to
express it differently, by it they became ἔνθεοι—ἐν Χριστῳ—just as the
participants in the Eleusinian Mysteries believed that they became ἴνθεοι, by
means of a meal, in which they partook, in some mysterious manner, of the body
of Dionysus.Whether there was any special service of consecration for the
elements is not clear, but the expressions “the cup of blessing which we bless,”
and “the bread which we break,”in 1 Corinthians 10:16, probably point to some
liturgical formula, which was regarded as endowing the bread and wine with its
miraculous properties. The question remains whether the Eucharist was generally
regarded as a commemoration of the death of Jesus. That St. Paul so regarded it
is, of course, proved by 1 Corinthians 11:26 : “For so often as ye eat this
bread and drink the cup, ye show forth the Lord’s death.” It is, however, just
possible, though not, I think, probable, that this was not part of the general
Corinthian faith, but that St. Paul was reminding them of a point which they had
overlooked. It would, in any case, be an idea which would seem to Gentile minds
quite natural, and precisely similar to one of the most frequent forms of
sacrificial meal. This was the sacrificial meal instituted by the testament
(διαθήκη; cf. Mark 14:24) of some rich and pious person who left instructions
that a meal should be held in his memory in the temple of one of the gods. These
meals were thus commemorative of a dead person; but they were also sacraments,
by means of which a union with Divine life was accomplished. The importance of
these points is considerable. It is impossible to pretend to ignore the fact
that much of the controversy between Catholic and Protestant theologians has
found its centre in the doctrine of the Eucharist, and the latter have appealed
to primitive Christianity to support their views. From their point of view the
appeal fails: the Catholic doctrine is much more nearly primitive than the
Protestant. But the Catholic advocate in winning his case has proved still more:
the type of doctrine which he defends is not only primitive, but pre-Christian.
Or, to put the matter in the terms of another controversy, Christianity has not
borrowed from the Mystery Religions, because it was always, at least in Europe,
a Mystery Religion itself.

(3) THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

It is clear from 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 that there was a party at Corinth which
denied that there would ever be a resurrection of the dead. It is also plain
that there was nevertheless no dispute as to the resurrection of Christ, for the
whole argument of St. Paul is based on the fact that there was a general consent
on that subject. It has sometimes been thought that this implies that the
Corinthians had no hope of any future life beyond death. But this view is an
unjustifiable conclusion from 1 Corinthians 15:17-19. St. Paul is here arguing
that there must be a resurrection, because a future life is impossible without
one, and that the hope of the Christian to share in the life of Christ
necessitates that he should rise from the dead just as Christ did. Moreover, the
idea that there was no future life is as wholly foreign to the point of view of
the “Mystery Religions” of the Corinthian world, as it was to that of Jewish
theology. The question was not whether there would be a future life, but whether
a future life must be attained by means of a resurrection, and St. Paul’s
argument is that in the first place the past resurrection of Christ is positive
evidence for the future resurrection of Christians, and in the second place that
the conception of a resurrection is central and essential in Christianity, which
offers no hope of a future life for the dead apart from a resurrection. As was
said in connection with the similar question in Thessalonica, the situation is
only intelligible if we take into consideration the general views associated
with the Mystery Religions. These religions all made the same offer —life
through death, given by mysteries which secured association with a divine
saviour, who had himself also passed through death. But even though some of
these mysteries—notably those connected with Attis and Osiris —spoke of an
actual resurrection of the dead god, they rarely seem to have conceived the idea
of a general resurrection of the dead on the lines of Jewish belief. The point
of difference is this: the Greek expected that after death the spirit, which was
divine, at all events after initiation into the mysteries, was set free from the
trammels of the flesh, which it left behind. The flesh remained in the grave,
and was gradually dissolved into the elements of which it had been composed: the
spirit went through the heavens armed with the secret knowledge (γνῶσις) which
enabled it to pass the various doors and their guardians, and as it went it left
behind at each stage something more of the things which limit or defile. For it
is not only the flesh which is bondage: the intellect, the emotions, the
desires, all belong to the lower spheres of being, and each is cast aside as the
realm to which it belongs is passed through. The Jewish doctrine, on the other
hand, found its centre in the idea of a resurrection. It did not always
postulate a permanent resurrection of the flesh as such, but a resurrection
which was preliminary to a change from flesh into spirit. On the other hand,
there were some Jewish schools which looked for a resurrection of the flesh, and
its immortality as such in the kingdom of God. So, for instance, the writer of
the fourth book of the Sibyllines says—

ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἤδη πάντα τέφρη σποδόεσσα γένηται

καὶ πῦρ κοιμήσῃ θεὸς ἄσπετον ὥσπερ ἀνῆψεν,

ὀστέα καὶ σποδιὴν αὐτὸς θεὸς ἔμπαλιν ἄνδρων

μορφώσει, στήσει δὲ βροτοὺς πάλιν, ὡς πάρος ἦσαν.

καὶ τότε δὴ κρίσις ἔσσετʼ, ἐφʼ ᾗ δικάσει θεὸς αὐτός

κρίνων ἔμπαλι κόσμον …

ὅσσοι δʼ εὐσεβέουσι, πάλιν ζήσονται ἐπὶ γαῖαν

πνεῦμα θεοῦ δόντος ζωήν θʼ ἅμα καὶ χάριν αὺτοῖς

εὺσεβέσιν, κ.τ.λ.

Thus it is natural that at Corinth there was a division of opinion among the
Christians as to a resurrection of the dead. It was not that any one questioned
the immortality of the soul, or doubted that Jesus had conquered death. But
there were some who did not think that this implied a resurrection of the flesh,
and did not believe that the flesh could become incorruptible or immortal; on
the other hand, those who had been more closely in contact with Jewish
Apocalyptic teaching regarded a resurrection as a necessary part of the coming
of the Kingdom.

It is easy to see St. Paul thinking first of one party and then of the other as
he writes 1 Corinthians 15:1-58. On the main issue he agrees with the Jewish
point, insists on the parallelism between Christ and the Christian, and combats
the objection as to a resurrection of the flesh by arguing that a “body” may be
of “spirit.” Then he turns round and recognizes the element of truth in the
Greek position. “I admit,” he says (φημί), “that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God,” and proceeds to adopt the doctrine of a change of substance
at the moment of resurrection. If we may freely paraphrase his words, what he
says is: “The Jewish party is right in thinking that those who die before the
coming of the kingdom do not pass individually and separately into heaven. They
will sleep until the resurrection, and then—this is the Christian mystery—they
will be raised up as spiritual bodies. On the other hand, the Greek party is
right in thinking that there is no resurrection of the body as flesh: flesh and
blood have no part in the kingdom of God; it is right in thinking that our flesh
belongs to the corruptible world, and cannot pass into the world of eternity and
incorruptibility. Nevertheless, the Greeks do not understand the true nature of
the Christian mystery; it is not, like the heathen mysteries, a promise of a
passage into an eternal but incorporeal life; it is the promise of a change of
substance which will affect both living and dead, when the Parousia comes, so
that our bodies, instead of consisting of corruptible flesh and blood, will
become spiritual, and consist of the same substance as do God and His
attendants.” It will be noted that the question of the period after death and
before resurrection does not seem to have been discussed. This was, no doubt,
due to the immediate expectation of the Parousia.

(4) THE OPPOSITION TO ST. PAUL

Since the modern investigations of early Christian history were taken in hand,
there have been two main lines of opinion as to the nature of the opposition to
St. Paul in Corinth. According to one view it was a new manifestation of the
Judaizing propaganda, which had its centre in Jerusalem and was controverted in
the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans. According to the other it was
inspired by a desire to go still further than St. Paul in the direction of
freedom from the Law, and to lay even greater stress on the spiritual nature of
Christianity. Each of these opinions rests on the prima facie obvious meaning of
one or two passages, and the real difficulty is that, whichever view be taken,
either an exegesis has to be adopted for some passages which is not the most
natural, or a position of affairs has to be supposed to exist for which no
direct evidence can otherwise be adduced. In favour of the view that St. Paul’s
opponents were Judaizers, are, in the main, two references in 2 Corinthians,
with each of which various less important references may be grouped.

(α) In 2 Corinthians 11:5, and again in 2 Corinthians 12:11, St. Paul refers to
his opponents as the “ultra apostles” (οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι). The most natural
interpretation is that this refers to the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem, to
the “Twelve” in particular, and that it ought to be especially connected with
the mention of a Cephas party in 1 Corinthians 1:12. With these may be grouped
the reference in 1 Corinthians 9:4 ff. to Cephas and to the “brothers of the
Lord.” “Have we not a right to eat and to drink? Have we not a right to take
about a Christian wife, as do the other Apostles and the brothers of the Lord
and Cephas?” The exegesis of this passage is doubtful, but it is at least
certain that the general meaning is that St. Paul did not do the same as the
other Apostles, and that from this fact the conclusion had been drawn that he
had not the same rights as they had. It cannot be denied that the mention of
Cephas and still more of the brothers of the Lord is prima facie evidence for a
Judaizing movement of the Jerusalem type.

(β) In 2 Corinthians 11:22, St. Paul says, “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they
Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.” This undoubtedly
proves that at least some of his opponents were Jews, and there is a prima facie
probability that Jews may have belonged to the Judaizing school of Jerusalem.
With this passage may be grouped 2 Corinthians 11:14 ff., “Even Satan fashioneth
himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing, therefore, if his
ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.” It is
considered that διάκονος δικαιοσύνης is the claim made by Judaizers, and is, as
it were, the other side of the accusation which they brought against St. Paul,
that he reduced Christ to the position of a διάκονος ἁμαρτίας (Galatians 2:17).
But this is not really a very strong argument, for St. Paul would certainly have
claimed that he was in actual fact a minister of righteousness. His point is
that the appearance of being ministers of righteousness, which his opponents, in
common with all other Christians, presented to their hearers, was delusive and
due to the deceits of Satan, rather than to the grace of God. His statement is
probably no guide as to the nature of the opposition to his teaching. Much the
same can be said of 2 Corinthians 11:4, in which St. Paul refers to “another
Jesus,” “another spirit,” and “another gospel” in connection with his opponents.
It is of course natural to compare this with Galatians 1:6, in which he says, “I
marvel that you are so quickly perverted … to another gospel”; but, entirely
apart apart from the extreme difficulty of the exegesis of both passages, the
most that really follows is that both in Corinth and in Galatia, St. Paul
regarded the teaching of his opponents as different from his own; it is wholly
uncertain whether the difference was in each case in the same direction.

Such is the main case for the view that St. Paul’s opponents were Judaizers: it
may be—and often has been —expanded at great length, but it has not gained in
strength in the process. Similarly, the great objection to it can be stated in
one sentence,—there is from the beginning to the end of the Epistles to the
Corinthians not the faintest trace of any controversy as to that insistence on
circumcision and on the Law, which we recognize as cardinal in those to the
Galatians and Romans. One asks whether, in face of this silence, there is no
other preferable exegesis of the passages which seem to point to Judaizing, and
there is every reason for giving consideration to the other view, which does not
identify St. Paul’s opponents with Judaizers.

According to this view, the opponents of St. Paul were an antinomian and
libertine type, who laid great emphasis on the “Spirit” which they had received,
and regarded themselves as πνευματικοί, raised in consequence of their gift
above the weakness of other men. The main evidence for this view is to be found
in the references contained in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2
Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-14. The most important of these is at
the very beginning (2 Corinthians 10:2), where St. Paul speaks of those who
“regard us as walking according to the flesh.” The implication is clear that his
opponents regarded themselves as walking according to the Spirit, as
πνενματικοί. In complete agreement with this are traces which we can recover of
the reasons for which they impugned St. Paul’s apostolate and maintained their
own superiority. These reasons seem to have been four. (α) He did not work
sufficient miracles: this is implied in 2 Corinthians 12:11 ff., “For in nothing
was I inferior to the ultra-apostles, even if I am of no importance. The signs
of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs, and marvels, and
miracles.” (β) He did not enjoy the same visions and revelations: this is
implied by the whole section on visions (2 Corinthians 12:1-10). It is here not
plain whether St. Paul means himself or some one else, by the man who was “taken
up into the third heaven,” but it is certain that he is defending himself
against those who lay great stress on visions, and claim a superiority to him on
this point. (γ) He did not take the proper position of an Apostle, and live at
the expense of the community: this accusation is clearly the background of the
section 2 Corinthians 11:7-11, in which St. Paul defends his practice of taking
nothing from the Corinthians. (δ) From 2 Corinthians 10:3-18 we have to
conclude that contempt was cast on St. Paul’s personal appearance. It must not
be thought that this was merely vulgar abuse: the point was that it was argued
that St. Paul had not got the impressive powers which resulted from the gift of
the Spirit. The view that St. Paul’s opponents were πνευματικοί, who regarded
him as walking according to the flesh, may probably be supported by the
difficult passage 2 Corinthians 5:16. St. Paul says, “Even if we have known
Christ according to the flesh, yet now know we Him so no more.” In this part of
2 Corinthians he is, it is true, not attacking his opponents, but rather
acknowledging the correctness of the action of the community, and urging his own
friends not to ask for more; but the influence of the controversy can still be
traced, and the most natural exegesis is that St. Paul is referring to some
accusation of having only a knowledge of Christ according the flesh. He admits
that there was a time when this was true, but says that that time is now past:
he is, in the best and truest sense of the word, a πνευματικός quite as much as
his late opponents. If this exegesis be right, it supports the view that St.
Paul’s opponents were πνιυματικοί, and it certainly seems to be the most simple
and natural interpretation. The general result of a consideration of these
passages, if they stood alone, would be sufficient to show that St. Paul’s
opponents were πνευματικοὶ rather than Judaizers. But unfortunately they do not
stand alone, and they have to be considered in connection with the passages
previously discussed, which seem to point to Judaizers.

Certainty is probably not to be reached, but various lines which the discussion
must always follow can be indicated. It is quite clear, for instance, that the
passages pointing to Judaizing derive their force not from direct statements,
but from the conclusions drawn (1) from the fact that St. Paul’s opponents were
Jews, (2) from the fact that they claimed a superior apostolate. Neither of
these facts is the equivalent of a statements that they were Judaizers, and on
the other hand have to be set what amount to direct statements that they were
πνευματικοί. The problem is, Can there have been Jews who claimed to be
πνευματικοί, and to be, as apostles, superior to St. Paul, who were nevertheless
not Judaizers? or, in the alternative, Can there have been Judaizers who were
πνευματικοί, but did not preach either the circumcision or the Law? To some
extent the matter depends on the definition of terms. What, in the first place,
do we mean by a Judaizer? The classical definition is given us by St. Luke in
Acts 15:1 : “And some who came down from Judaea began to teach the brethren
‘that unless you are circumcized according to the custom of Moses you cannot be
saved.’ ”Galatians and Romans are clearly an answer to such a propaganda. But do
we find that type of Judaizing elsewhere? I see no evidence for it. If therefore
we use “Judaizing” to mean the same tendency as that combated in Galatians and
Romans, we have to admit that it is not an appropriate name for the opponents of
St. Paul in Corinth, and are driven to seek some other explanation for the facts
that these opponents were Jews, and that they claimed a superior apostolate.
With regard to the fact that they were Jews, it is necessary to disabuse
ourselves of the idea that all Jews in the time of St. Paul—quite apart from
Christianity—were in agreement with the strictly legalistic point of view of
Jerusalem. There is a far too general tendency to forget that the Talmudic
literature is in some respects not only no help, but positively a hindrance to
the correct understanding of Judaism in the first century, because it represents
the one-sided survival of a single element in that Judaism to the exclusion of
others. In this respect the New Testament is a superior authority to the Talmud,
though its evidence is no doubt often warped by partizan feelings. Philo is in
some ways the best source which we possess, and is certainly so for the Diaspora
with which we are at present concerned. Now, as was said on pp. 24 f., the
evidence of Philo is explicit that there were Jews who had entirely abandoned
the practical observance of the Law, and gave it a wholly symbolical meaning.
They were to an even greater extent than Philo himself imbued with a Greek
spirit, and consciously or unconsciously they were syncretistic. We have, so far
as I am aware, no evidence that there were Jews of this type in Corinth; but
since they existed in Alexandria, it is more probable than not that they were
also found in Greece. If so, we have an easy solution to the problem afforded by
the existence of opponents of St. Paul, who were Jews, but πνευματικοί, not
Judaizers. We have to deal, in fact, in Corinthians and Galatians, with two
streams of development in Judaism, both of which were attracted by Christianity,
but both preserved after their conversion their own peculiarities. In Galatians
we have the stream of strict legalism, which had its centre in Jerusalem: it
regarded St. Paul as a dangerous innovator, who was introducing into
Christianity one of the unhappy heresies from which the Diaspora suffered. In
Corinthians we have the stream of antinomism, which possibly had its centre in
Alexandria, and certainly was a peculiarity of the Diaspora; it regarded St.
Paul as an inconsistent weakling, imperfectly influenced by the Spirit, and not
yet completely loose from the legal bondage of Jerusalem. That this hypothesis
is probable can be seen most clearly if we compare Corinthians and Galatians
with regard to the mutual attitude of St. Paul and his opponents. In Galatians
he appeals to his converts “after beginning in the Spirit not to end in the
flesh.” Thus he makes by implication the accusation that his Judaizing opponents
were “walking according to the flesh”; but in 2 Corinthians it is his opponents
who make this accusation against him—the situation is reversed. In Galatians he
defends the right of teachers to be supported by the community; but in
Corinthians he was apparently himself attacked for not exercising this right. In
Galatians the contrasts are the Law and Christ, Works and Faith, Merit and
Grace; in Corinthians they are Power and Weakness, Self-confidence and Modesty,
Pride and Humility, Wisdom and Ignorance, Spirit and Flesh. Nothing could be
plainer than that the situations in the two Epistles are quite different. So
far, however, nothing has been said of the question of the apostolate. If the
“ultra-apostles” were not the leaders of the Jerusalem Churches, who were they?
At first sight this seems an insurmountable difficulty, but I believe that it is
largely unreal, and due partly to the influence of comparatively early changes
in the meaning of the word “apostle,” such as only recent discoveries enable us
to appreciate, partly to the influence of the incorrect views of early history,
which were brought into currency in the nineteenth century.

What was an “apostle” in the early Church? He was a missionary. The Twelve were
Apostles because they had been given a mission among the villages of Galilee by
Jesus; they were the Apostles par excellence. But they were not the only
Apostles: St. Paul was an Apostle, St. Barnabas was an Apostle, and the evidence
of the Didache is conclusive that at the beginning of the second century
“apostle” was not the name of a small and select body of men, but of all those
who were fulfilling certain definite functions. A probably mistaken exegesis of
1 Corinthians 9:1 has done something to obscure this question. In the context of
this passage St. Paul has been discussing the question of things offered to
idols, and has said that he would rather never eat meat again than give offence
to weaker brethren; he then goes on, “Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? have I
not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I am no Apostle for
others, at least I am to you, for ye are in the Lord my seal of fellowship.” It
is customary to regard this passage as the answer to an attack on St. Paul’s
apostolate: indirectly it may be so, for the troubles in Corinth broke out soon
afterwards; but directly and principally it has to do with the question of
things offered to idols. It is a mistake to think that all the qualifications
mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:1 ff. are intended to prove that he was an Apostle.
The main point is the argument that he, in spite of his privileges, prefers not
to use them lest he should give offence, and that the Corinthians ought in the
same way to consider the feelings of others in relation to things offered to
idols. It is only incidentally that he puts in a parenthesis defending his
apostolate. If this be so, the three clauses, “Am I not free? am I not an
Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” are three separate claims to
distinction, and it is an exaggeration to say that St. Paul only regarded as
“apostles” those who had seen Jesus. If this had been the meaning of “apostle,”
there could have been no apostles in the second century, and very few at the end
of the first. Yet, as a matter of fact, apostles were sufficiently numerous for
it to be necessary for the Didache to make rules for their reception, and for
distinguishing between true and false. A consideration of this fact shows that
the existence of “apostles” among St. Paul’s opponents, is not the proof that
they were Judaizers. Of course the expression, “ultra-apostles” (οἱ ὑπερλίαν
ἀπόστολοι), undoubtedly suggests to our minds the original Apostles, whose
followers might have been supposed to emphasize their superior claims. Yet it
need not be so; there is nothing in the Epistles to the Corinthians to show that
the question of “originality” was discussed, and therefore I do not believe
that, in the face of the other facts, we have any right to assume that the
“ultra-apostles” were the Jerusalem Apostles, or that the party which appealed
to them was that of Cephas. They were probably merely those who advanced
arrogant claims on the ground of their apostleship. A final and decisively
certain result is probably unattainable. I have tried to show why it seems to me
probable that St. Paul’s opponents were πνευματικοί, and not Judaizers. I hope I
have also adequately drawn attention to the points in favour of the view which I
reject, though it is notoriously impossible to be really quite sympathetically
fair to opinions which one does not hold. So far, however, I have chiefly
discussed the evidence of 2 Corinthians, which in any case belongs to the time
when the differences between St. Paul and his opponents had developed and been
made plain, and is therefore the proper basis of any investigation. It now
remains to ask how far the undeveloped form of this opposition can be traced in
1 Corinthians. The main point is the relation of the opponents of St. Paul to
the persons aimed at in 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1
Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21. It would be outside the present
purpose to discuss the light which these extraordinarily important chapters
throw on St. Paul’s own; but it is clear that he is protesting against an undue
desire for “wisdom,” that he maintains that his converts are showing by their
quarrels that they are not truly spiritual (πνευματικοἰ), and that it is for
this reason that he has been unable to give them the “wisdom” which they desire,
or to regard them—as they do themselves—as “spiritual.” If it be conceded that
the opponents of St. Paul were πνευματικοί, it is impossible not to think that
they were identical with the persons to whom he refers in the opening chapters
of 1 Corinthians. But, if one goes further, and asks if this enables us to
identify these persons with the parties of Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ (if
there was such a party), the answer must be indeterminate. Everything is
possible. Apollos may have been incautiously inclined to philosophize, or he may
have belonged to the extreme allegorizing sect of Alexandrian Jews, or the
Christ party may have consisted of those who claimed that they were inspired by
the Spirit of Christ, and that nothing else mattered. But there is no proof, and
there can never be anything, because there is no evidence. More or less
imaginative sketches can be found in almost all the books cited on pp. 222 and
225. Personally, I do not see how it can ever be possible to say more than that
the general tone of 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians
3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21, coupled with the Alexandrian history of Apollos,
makes the party of Apollos not improbable as a “spiritual” party, but that, if 2
Corinthians 10:7 be regarded as a reference to a “Christ party,” then it is more
probable that it was this party which was dealt with in 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1
Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21 and that from it
the hostility to St. Paul was chiefly developed.

Much the same can be said of the parties revealed by the considerations of the
questions discussed in the later chapters of 1 Corinthians, and especially by
the points dealt with on pp. 175 ff. Clearly there was a party in Corinth which
pressed the importance of the Spirit in connection with sacrificial meals, the
Eucharist, and the regulation of worship; and St. Paul, in dealing with these
questions, had leaned decidedly more to the side of their opponents. This would
be an adequate explanation of the rise of really serious opposition to his
authority, such as is indicated in 2 Corinthians. On the whole, therefore, 1
Corinthians not only does nothing to impugn the conclusion reached from 2
Corinthians, that St. Paul’s opponents were πνευματικοί, but it definitely
supports it, by the proof which it gives that there were πνευματικοὶ in Corinth,
and that St. Paul had treated the differences of opinion between them and the
rest of the community in a manner which was extremely likely to rouse
opposition.

******* The consideration of the Epistles to the Corinthians has led us to a
mass of small but mutually related problems, many of them excessively dull to
all except those who find that literary criticism offers the same kind of
interest as a game of chess. But, if we view the mass of details from a little
distance, we can trace the general appearance of the Christian community at
Corinth, and the picture thus presented is of the greatest importance, for there
is in the first century no presentment of any other Church on the same scale.
The majority of the Church was no doubt drawn from the God-fearers, though there
were some Jews, probably belonging to the “liberal” type, which then existed in
the Diaspora. But the main feature was that they all accepted Christianity as a
Mystery Religion, which really could do what the other Mystery Religions
pretended to do. Jesus was to the Corinthians the Redeemer-God, who had passed
through death to life, and offered participation in this new life to those who
shared in the mysteries which He offered. These mysteries were Baptism and the
Eucharist, and there was unanimity in Corinth as to their central importance.
But differences began to be manifested so soon as practical conclusions were
drawn from this belief. The mysteries gave eternal life because in them the
Spirit was received: but were those who manifested the more striking gifts of
the Spirit necessarily better than other Christians? Here there was a difference
of opinion. Or again, did this inspiration abolish the distinction, and put
women on an equality with men in the Church? Here, again, was difference. Or
once more, was the Christian bound to a strict abstinence from all that is
carnal, because he had become spiritual? or was he set free to do as he liked
with his body? Asceticism or Libertinism: which was it to be? And from this
Maëlstrom of cross-currents of opinion arose the quarrel between St. Paul and
those πνευματικοί who pushed their arguments to an extreme, and drew wrong
conclusions from the gift of the Spirit. So much we can see: those are the main
features of the picture. If we look again we can note the absence of other
things which we should have expected. There is no trace of any Judiastic
controversy as to Circumcision or the Law, no trace of any question as to
“Israel after the flesh,” and no trace of any controversy as to the meaning of
the death of the Messiah. The last point seems the strangest; but it is really
natural enough. The death of the Redeemer was as common an idea among the Greeks
as the death of the Messiah was strange among the Jews. That St. Paul preached
“Christ crucified” is certain. No doubt many Greeks regarded it as foolishness,
because they did not believe that Jesus was a Redeemer-God, or because they
allegorized all similar stories, and found no reason to believe in an historical
Redeemer. But for those Greeks who did accept Christianity the redeeming death
of the Divine Being seemed natural, and, so far as these Epistles show, there
was as yet no discussion in Corinth as to the reason why this death had been
necessary, or how it came to be efficient.

Literature.—Much information will be found in commentaries on the Epistles to
the Corinthians. Of these there is nothing in English to be compared with the
commentaries of Lietzmann in the third volume of Lietzmann’s Handbuch zum neuen
Testament; J. Weiss’s Der erste Korintherbrief in Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer
Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 9th edition; P. W. Schmiedel in Holtzmann’s
Hand-commentar zum neuen Testament; G. Heinrici (on the Second Epistle) in
Meyer’s 8th edition; and W. Bousset in J. Weiss’s Die Schriften des Neuen
Testaments. Besides these there are important articles in the Encyclopœdia
Biblica by W. Sanday, and in Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible by A. Robertson.
Both these articles ought to be studied as representing the strongest
presentment of the case against the division of 2 Corinthians into two letters.
But on this question the most thorough book in any language is J. H. Kennedy’s
The Second and Third Epistles to the Corinthians. On special points the
following books are important: —H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes
nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit, und der Lehre des Apostels
Paulus; W. Heitmuller, Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus; M. Goguel, L’Eucharistie
(gives a valuable account of recent work, as well as new suggestions); R.
Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen; W. Lutgert,
Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth.

Notes:

1 See Chap. VI; the whole question is naturally more important in connection
with the foundation of the Church in Rome, and is discussed under that heading.

1 Ἀρχισυνάγωγος is found in Mark 5:22, Mark 5:35-36, Mark 5:38; Luke 8:49; Luke
13:14; Acts 13:15; Acts 18:17. In Mark v. (and the parallel Luke 8:1-56) and
Acts 13:15, it is clear that there was more than one ἀρχισυνάγωγος. Luke 13:14
seems to point only to one, but it may quite well mean “the ἀρχις. who was
presiding.” The position of the ἀρχισυνάγωγος is discussed by Schürer,
Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, ed. 3, II. 436 ff. and III. 49 ff. A
distinction must be made between the ἄρχοντες, who were the chief members of the
synagogue, roughly corresponding to what we should call the “governing body,”
and the ἀρχισυνάγωγος or ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, who were responsible for the
arrangements for the services of worship. Probably in small communities there
was one, in larger communities several. The parallel drawn above between the
“elders” of a Protestant church and the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι is quite rough, for the
functions of the two classes are not precisely the same, and in the Jewish
synagogue there was no “minister.” The title of ἀρχισυνάγωγος was also used, at
all events later, as a purely honorary title, and even given to women and
children. Schürer also gives copious references to inscriptions and articles in
technical periodicals. Cf. also his Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden im Rom in
der Kaiserszeit.

1 See Blass’s Commentary, ad loc.

2 Josephus, Antiquit., 14.10.2.

3 [α]πολαβομενοι δε παντες οι ελληνες μετα (sic) σωσθενην τον ἀρχεισυναγωγον.
The Latin of Codex Bezae (the Greek is illegible) has an interesting paraphrase
of οὐδὲν τούτων τῷ γαλλίωνι ἔμελεν—“tum gallio fingebat eum non uidere.”

1 So also thought Ammonius: Ἤ διὰ τοῦτο ἔτυπτον τὸν Σωσθένην, ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὐτὸς
ἦν μᾶλλον προστιθέμενος τῷ Παύλῳ, ὡς καὶ Κρίσπος ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ἢ εἰς τοσοῦτον
ἐληλακότες μανίας ὅτι ἀποτυχόντες τοῦ σκοποῦ ἑαυτῶν, κ.τ.λ.—exhausting all
possibilities without choosing between them (see J. A. Cramer, Catena Graecorum
Patrum, 3. p. 306).

1 Expounded at length by J. H. Hart, in the Journal of Theological Studies for
October, 1905, in his article on “Apollos.”

1 The exception to this is probably the Christian teaching in a crucified,
suffering, and dead Messiah. There is little or no proof that this was ever a
Jewish doctrine, and that is why the Christian exegetes soon made a new set of
“Testimonies” to cover this point, introducing a Messianic interpretation of the
passages referring to the suffering servant. The Jews have never accepted this
exegesis, which indeed can scarcely claim to be e mente auctoris (see further,
Chap. 6).

1 The most extreme statement of this possibility will be found in the article
quoted above on “Apollos” by J. H. Hart in the Journal of Theological Studies
for October, 1905; see further on, p. 231.

1 Ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν
γενηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων συνεκεράσατε. Καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν
ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν, κ.τ.λ., quoted by Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. 2. 25, 8.

1 Whether the scene at Antioch was before or after the Council, and whether the
agreement at Jerusalem was at the Council, or earlier, are points which are here
unimportant (see Chap. 5).

1 It is true that St. Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the
increase,” and does not mention Cephas. Still this can scarcely be regarded as a
very serious point.

2 It is curious that Silvanus, according to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, was in
Corinth with St. Paul; that he then disappears from the Pauline circle; and that
he reappears later (if it be the same Silvanus) in the company of St. Peter (1
Peter 5:12). Is this because the three Apostles, St. Paul, St. Peter, and
Silvanus, met in Corinth?

3I should be sorry if these remarks seemed to imply disrespect of the Tübingen
critics. There is no school to whom we are so much indebted; and Baur’s Paulus
is a work of genius. But they were not infallible, and in some respects their
methods had the roughness of pioneers. Largely owing to their efforts we are
able in many respects to improve on their results; but those who speak most evil
of the Tübingen school have usually never read their books.

1 There is a curious reference to St. Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6. It is
difficult to think that it hints that St. Barnabas had been in Corinth, though
there is no reason why he should not have been; perhaps the best suggestion is
that it is a reference to the first missionary journey (see J. Weiss, Der erste
Korintherbrief, p. 235).

1 This is at least a possible interpretation of Acts 18:22, καὶ κατελθὼν εἰς
καισαρίαν, ἀναβὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατέβη εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, in which
Ramsay thinks that “going up” means going up to Jerusalem. This seems at first
sight far-fetched: the natural meaning is that he went up from the harbour to
the town; but the same view seems to have been held by the Bezan scribe, who
makes St. Paul gives as his excuse for not staying in Ephesus, “I must at any
rate keep the coming feast at Jerusalem.” Perhaps it is right.

1 Possibly “in Ephesus” ought not to be taken too strictly. It may include the
district of which Ephesus was the centre (see p. 142 f.).

1 This was seen by the writer of the Acta Pauli, who invented an apocryphal
correspondence between St. Paul and the Corinthians; see Appendix I.

1Made popular by Chrysostom and dominant until the time of Beza, who rejected
it.

1“For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world,
or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, and ye
are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”

2 Kritische Untersuchungen über den Inhalt der beiden Briefen an die
korinthische Gemeinde. Second edition, 1886.

1As will be seen (pp. 149 ff.), his forebodings were probably realized.

2 1 Corinthians 4:18.

3 1 Corinthians 4:17.

1 1 Corinthians 5:2.

1See Josephus, Antiquit., xiv.10. 2; cf. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen
Volkes, ed. 4, III. 113 ff., and Mommsen in the Zeitschrift f. d. N. Tliche
Wiss., 1901, p. 88 ff.

2 The whole question of the growth of organization belongs rather to the
investigation of the background of the later Epistles; but an admirable résumé,
with references to other literature, will be found in J. Weiss’ Der erste
Korintherbrief, pp. xvi. ff.

1 Surely the aorist must be so translated.

1 See pp. 178 ff. and 200 ff.

1 J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, pp. xl. ff. and 366.

1 According to DEFG al pauc., St. Paul stayed at Ephesus with Aquila and
Priscilla, for they add to 1 Corinthians 16:19, after the mention of the Church
in their house, παρʼ οἷς καὶ ξενίζομαι.

2A further problem, which it is not necessary to discuss at length, is quite
definitely raised by this verse. When was St. Paul ever in danger of this kind
at Ephesus? Either he is alluding to some incident at Ephesus, which can
scarcely be that connected with Demetrius the silversmith (Acts 19:23 ff.),
unless St. Luke has greatly understated the situation, or he is stating a wholly
imaginary possibility. I think the former is somewhat the more probable, and
that St. Paul must have passed through some form of persecution, and presumably
imprisonment, of which Acts says nothing. The importance of this is twofold: (1)
It corroborates (or is corroborated by) 2 Corinthians 11:23, which, among other
trials, wholly unmentioned in Acts, mentions imprisonment. (2) It suggests that
critics are perhaps a little rash in thinking that the “Epistles of the
captivity,” which certainly were written from prison, must necessarily have been
written either from Rome or Caesarea. If there be any truth in this view, the
θλίψις ἡ γενομένη ἐν Ἀσίᾳ (2 Corinthians 1:8) is probably a reference to this,
not to the incident of Demetrius; but the further discussion of the point
belongs to the history of Ephesus rather than Corinth.

1 “Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the
majority, so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him,
lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow” (2
Cor. 2.6 ff.).

1 As a matter of method it should be noted that complicated questions of this
kind can only be satisfactorily handled by reducing them to a number of
subordinate problems. Each of these problems is capable of alternative
solutions, and in choosing between these the critic has to be guided by
considering which is consistent with the solutions of other co-ordinate
problems. The solutions not consistent with any of the alternatives must be
struck out.

2 Ἔκρινα δὲ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, אΑΒCDΕϜΓΚLΟΡ al
plu., latt.,, syrr.… ἐν λύπῃ, post ἐλθεῖν min. pauc. … om πάλιν boh. aeth.

1 This section is almost entirely based on the masterly statement of Dr. J. H.
Kennedy in his The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, pp.
79–94.

1 The Greek is οὐκέτι ἦλθον εἰς Κόρινθον. This can only mean, “I came not again”
(or “not any more”) to Corinth: though the A.V. and the R.V., apparently under
the influence of the exegesis which refused to recognize a “second visit,”
translate it, “I came not as yet” (A.V.), which is an impossible meaning to get
out of οὐκέτι, or “I forebare to come” (R.V.), which is scarcely better.

1 Exegetically the reading ὑμῶν is surely preferable, and it seems to have been
the reading of א*B*, though it has been corrected in both MSS. by very early
hands. The value of MSS. evidence is at its lowest in distinguishing between
ὑμῶν and ἡμῶν. The pronunciation is, and probably was, quite identical.

2 This is the natural meaning of the words, though they are weakened in the R.V.
into “I am of good courage toward you.”

1 Best known through Hausrath’s Der Viercapitelbrief des Paulus an die
Korinther, 1870.

1 Dr. A. C. Clark has pointed out to me that there is a somewhat similar
instance of combination in Cicero’s letters. It appears that there were two
drafts of Ad Fam. x.8, and that these have been joined together as a single
letter, perhaps by Tiro (see Bardt, in Hermes, xxxii. (1897), pp. 267–70).

2 J. Weiss (see p. 123) goes further, and argues that if we admit the
probability that 2 Corinthians is composite, we ought also to recognize the same
fact as valid for 1 Corinthians. He would argue that 1 and 2 Corinthians
represent the Corinthian edition of St. Paul’s correspondence, put together from
more or less dilapidated papyri many years after they had been received. There
is nothing intrinsically impossible or improbable in this theory; but to my mind
Dr. Kennedy’s view is preferable. I can see clear evidence for a partition
theory in 2 Corinthians, but I am not convinced of the necessity of such a view
for 1 Corinthians.

1 This is surely all that the Greek means. “I exhorted Titus” (R.V.) gives a
wholly artificial sound to a simple phrase.

1 Dr. Kennedy is surely right in his contention that the construction of the
Greek in 8. 6ff. is continuous: εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον, ἵνα καθὼς
προενήρξατο οὕτως καὶ ἐπιτελέσῃ εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ τὴν χάριν ταύτην, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ἐν
παντὶ περισσεύετε, πίστει καὶ λόγῳ καὶ γνώσει καὶ πάσῃ σπουδῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν
ὑμῖν ἀγάπῃ, ἵνα καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χάριτι περισσεύητε. The rendering of the R.V.,
which puts a stop after χάριν ταύτην, and treats ἵνα περισσεύητε as the
equivalent of an imperative, though it may be paralleled in later Greek, is
harsh and quite unnecessary.

1 It is perhaps scarcely necessary to point out that the Corinth of the first
century is not the original Greek city. This was destroyed by Mummius in 146
b.c., and it remained for a long time in ruins and deserted. It was rebuilt
about a century later by Julius Caesar, under the name of Laus Julia Corinthus,
as a Roman colony, and in 27 b.c. became the capital of the province of Achaia
under a Proconsul. See further, W. M. Ramsay on “Corinth” in Hastings’
Dictionary of the Bible, and J. Weiss on Griechenland in des Apostolische Zeit
in Herzog’s Realencyclopœdie, ed. 3, vol. vii., pp. 160–168. The latter gives a
valuable series of references to other books and authorities.

1 It is worth noting in this connection that this sort of argument, or rather
the necessity for meeting it, was one of the reasons why early Christianity was
so anxious to hold the doctrine of a resurrection of the flesh. The opposite
view was frequently connected with a low standard of morality. A study of
Athenagoras is instructive on this subject.

1 The two things always go together: cultus was defined above as “the ritual
expression of religious impulse.” It might equally well be called the “ritual
stimulation of the religious impulse.”

1 Few people are aware of the horrible nature of the ritual practices of some of
the Gnostics. The description, for instance, of the Carpocratians in Clement of
Alexandria, or some of the allusions in the Pistis Sophia, would be wholly
untranslatable.

2 Justin, I. Apol. 26.

3 It would of course be unfair to say that it was only the Church which made the
attempt. Many of the Cynic-Stoic philosophers preached an ethical gospel of the
highest kind, and no doubt their efforts did much good. Still, in the end, they
ceased to exist, and the Church survived. In this sense the triumph of higher
morality was the triumph of Christianity.

1 Matthew 22:30 = Mark 12:25 = Luke 20:34 ff. It is true that this phrase is
actually connected in St. Mark with the resurrection, not with the Kingdom, but
only because the resurrection is, for the dead, the means of entry into the
Kingdom. It is instructive to note how St. Luke’s version of the section is
really intended to bring out this fact: “The sons of this world (αἰῶνος) marry
and are given in marriage, but they who are permitted to attain to that world,
and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, for
neither can they die any more, for they are as if angels (ἰσάγγελοι), and are
‘sons of God,’ because they are sons of the resurrection.” The words in italics
are St. Luke’s additions. It is unimportant for the present purpose, but it is
noteworthy that this passage in Luke is singularly full of interesting and very
early variants.

2 Galatians 3:28; cf. also p. 209 for another use to which a strained exegesis
of this view may possibly have been put.

3 Cf. Clem. Alex., Paed., 1 4, “ἐν γὰρ τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ,” φησίν, “γαμοῦσι καὶ
γαμίσκονται,” ἐν ᾧ δὴ μόνῳ τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος διακρίνεται, “ἐν ἐκείνῳ δὲ
οὐκέτι,” and according to Hippolytus the Naassenes regarded Adamas, the
“ἄνθρωπος, ” as a sexless person, or rather as ἀρσενόθηλυς, cf. Refut., v. 7.

1 He says that it means ἵνα ἀδελφὸς ἰδὼν ἀδελφὴν οὐδὲν φρονῇ περὶ αὐτῆς θηλυκόν,
μηδὲ φρονῇ τι περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀρσενικόν, —a fine example, it seems to me, of the way
in which eschatological expectation was transformed into ethical precepts. It
does not seem necessary here to discuss the relation of this “saying” to the
Gospel of the Egyptians. See Preuschen, Antilegomena, p. 2, for the text of the
latter.

2 See especially Musonius ἐκ τοῦ τί κεφάλαιον γάμου, ed. Hense, p. 67, quoted in
Lietzmann’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 160. Cf. Wendland, Die
Hellenistische-Romische Kultus, pp. 18 and 39–53.

3 There is a large literature on this subject in early Christian and Jewish
writings. Cf. the note in J. Weiss’ Commentary, p. 174, and there is much more
in the later documents of the Byzantine Church.

1 Cf. Exodus 19:15; Leviticus 15:18; 1 Samuel 21:5, etc. Further references are
given by Wetstein. Also cf. Dittenberger, Syll., 2 566 (p. 264 ff.) and 567 (p.
267), and Leitzmann’s Commentary, p. 105.

2 It is interesting to notice that he shows no trace of any knowledge of an
exception to this prohibition. See further Expositor, November, 1910, on “Early
Christian Teaching as to Divorce,” in which I have explained my reasons for
thinking that primitive Christianity only recognized divorce in the sense of a
separation, and did not regard the “exception” in Matthew 5:32 as giving any
sanction to re-marriage.

1 Or, “so that both he that marrieth his virgin doeth well, and he that marrieth
her not, shall do better.”

1 ἀσχημονεῖν is frequently used with a sexual reference. Cf. Romans 1:27.

2 προφάσει τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι κρατεῖν τῆς ἀκμῆς ἐπὶ δευτερογαμίαν ἐλθεῖν. It is
remarkable that ὑπέρακμος is apparently an absolute unique word.

1 Apollonius, De Syntaxi, 3 31, quoted by Lietzmann, p. 111, says, τὸ δὲ
“γαμίζω” “γάμου τινὶ μεταδίδωμι.”

2 Modern Greek seems here to be no help, except in so far as it is perhaps
noteworthy that γαμεῖν has lost its meaning, and is now an almost or quite
disreputable word. Lietzmann (p. 111) also suggests that γαμίζω may mean to
“celebrate a marriage.” Many verbs meaning “to celebrate” end in -ίζω. It is of
course plain that Mark 12:25 and Luke 17:27 throw no light on the difficulty.
The verb can there be equally well translated in either way.

1 Described in Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa. Doubts have been thrown on the
genuineness of this by Lucius, Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der
Geschichte der Askese; his view is also supported by Schürer, Geschichte d. Jud.
Volkes, ed. 4, 3 p. 687 ff.), where a full bibliography is given. But Bousset,
Cohn, Drummond, Friedländer, Dieterich, and Conybeare regard the book as
genuine. The best statement of the case for the genuineness is F. C. Conybeare’s
Philo about the Contemplative Life, 1895.

1 Hermas is always quoted; I do not feel personally quite so certain that the
famous passage in Sim. 9 11, is really a direct reference to virgines
subintroductae—to use the later name for them—but it is at least an indirect
reference.

2 See especially the Councils of Elvira, Ancyra, and Carthage, and, in addition
to the work of Achelis, H. Koch’s Virgines Christi, in Texte und Untersuchungen,
31 2, pp. 59–112. It is also interesting to note the foreshadowing of modern
results in a forgotten treatise of Muratori De Synisactis et Agapetis (written
about 1709), recently pointed out by F. C. Conybeare, in Myth, Magic, and
Morality, where the whole question is discussed (pp. 210 ff.).

1 The best statements as to the daemons may be found in Plutarch in many
passages; an excellent résumé of them is given in Glover’s The Conflict of
Religions in the Early Roman Empire, p. 94 ff. It must, however, be remembered
that Plutarch represents the opinion of an educated theologian; the importance
of the daemons for the general mass of people is indicated by the magical
papyri.

1 Ultimately, of course, the Roman empire settled down to a belief in the actual
divinity of the reigning emperor, as such. But this was the end of a development
of thought which deserves more detailed treatment than it has at present
received.

1 Full descriptions of their misdeeds and fate are given in Enoch vi.–xix., and
in Jubilees iv.–v. References to the in Devils belief are found in Matthew 8:29;
Matthew 12:24-28; Luke 11:24-26; Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4.

2 Hence the point in Matthew 8:2 the devils ask, “Art Thou come to torture us
before the time?” They do not question the Messianic personality of Jesus, but
only protest that He has not yet received the active functions of the Messiah.

3 Cf. Reitzenstein, Hellenistiche Mysterien Religionen, p. 137. It is very
important to notice how complete Reitzenstein succeeds in showing the error of
the view formerly adopted by some theologians, that the concepts πνεῦμα, πνεῦμα
Θεοῦ, are exclusively Biblical.

1 Porphyry, quoted by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 4. 23. It is noteworthy
how very nearly daemonic possession played the same part in ancient pathology as
bacterial infection does in modern; disease was regarded as due to a daemon; if
you could drive him out you could cure the disease. The same sort of thing is
now said of bacilli, which, however, have the advantage that they can be seen
under the microscope.

1 Josephus, Antiquit., 18. 3, 4. Paulina was, under these circumstances, seduced
by her lover, who had bribed the priests to allow him to appear as the God
Anubis. There appears to be no reason to doubt Paulina’s bona fides.

2 The subject may be studied in Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd edition, vol. ii. pp.
318–366. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, vol. v. cap. v., on Dionysiac
ritual, especially pp. 164 ff.; and Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek
Religion, cap. x., on the Orphic Mysteries, especially the section on the
Omophagia, pp. 478-500. In all these a long series of references will be found
to passages in original documents and to modern treatises on special points.
Other references to German books will be found in Lietzmann’s Commentary on 1
Corinthians, pp. 124 ff.

1 This is apparently the Christian and possibly Jewish term. The usual
expression was ιερόθυτον or θεόθυτν. See J. Weiss on 1 Cor. viii. I (p. 214). He
gives references, among others, to Plutarch, Moralia, p. 729 C. ; Pollux,
Onomast., i. 29. According to Phrynichus, Ecloga, p. 159 (Lobeck’s edition),
θεόθυτον is the older term, which he recommends to the exclusion of ίερίθυτον.

1 Cf. Pap. Oxy., i. 110: ἐρωτᾷ σε Χαιρήμων δειπνῆσαι εἰς κλείνην (κλίνην) τοῦ
κυρίου Σαράπιδος ἐν τῷ Σαραπείῳ αὔριον ἥτις ἐστὶν ιε, ὥρας θ´. See also Pap.
Oxy., iii. 523: ἐρωτᾷ σε Ἀντώνιος Πτολεμαίου διπνῆσαι παρʼ αὐτῷ εἰς κλείνην τοῦ
κυρίου Σαράπιδος ἐν τοῖς Κλαυδίου Σαραπίωνος τῇ ις ἀπὸ ὤρας θ´. Cf. Aristides,
In Serapidem (Or., viii. p. 93 f., Dind.): καὶ τοίνυν καὶ θυσιῶν μόνῷ τούτῳ θεῷ
διαφερόντως κοινωνοῦσιν ἄνθρωποι τὴν ἀκριβῆ κοινωνίαν, καλοῦντες τὲ ἐφʼ ἑστίαν
καὶ προιστάμενοι δαίμονα αὐτὸν καὶ ἑστιάτορα. The fullest note on the subject
will be found in Lietzmann’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 124.

1 This much is clear from 1 Corinthians on any hypothesis. The difficulties in
the section 1 Corinthians 8:1-10. 33, are not in seeing what were the different
points of view among the Corinthians, but in answering the questions (1) Did St.
Paul deal with both of them at the same time? or did he, as J. Weiss thinks (see
p. 123), deal with one in the “previous letter,” and the other later on in
consequence of a misunderstanding of his advice? (2) Can the point of view of
St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 be regarded as really consistent with that in 1
Corinthians 10:20? Personally, I doubt if it can; but complete consistency is
never reached by any one. The solution to the difficulty is psychological, not
literary.

2There is a constant confusion of thought in early Christian thought as to
idols. On the one hand, there was the argument, derived from the Jewish
prophets, that an idol was only an image made by man, and wholly powerless, and
that the gods of the Greeks were not gods at all, and had no existence in fact.
On the other hand, was the identification of the gods with daemons and fallen
angels, and the belief that in some way these daemons were connected with the
images of the gods and with the temples. A very instructive passage is Ps.
Apuleius, Aselepius, xxxvii.: “Quoniam ergo proavi nostri multum errabant …
invenerunt artem qua efficerent deos, cui inventae adjunxerunt virtutem de mundi
natura convenientem eamque miscentes, quoniam animas facere non poterant,
evocantes animas daemonum vel angelorum, eas indiderunt imaginibus sanctis
divinisque mysteriis, per quas idola et benefaciendi et male vires habere
potuissent.”

1 J. Weiss sees no difference between φημὶ and λέγω. Surely this is inaccurate;
of course, φησὶ and φασὶ are neutral expressions, but I suggest that φημὶ always
implies some degree of assent to a proposition, explicit or implicit, and so
often comes to mean “I admit.”

1 In 1 Corinthians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 3:1. 1 Corinthians 14:37, πνευματικὸς is
used of persons, almost as the equivalent of a substantive; in 1 Corinthians
9:11, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 1 Corinthians 15:46, the neuter is used, but in each
case with a distinct reference to a substantive in the context.

2 So thinks J. Weiss, p. 294.

3 The German word gives the meaning far better—Lichtstoff.

1 Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:29 ff.

2 Cf. Reitzenstein, p. 137: ὁρκίζω σε, πνεῦμα ἐν ἀέρι φοιτώμενον, εἴσελθε,
ἐνπνευμάτωσον, δυνάμωσον, διαέγειρον τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ τόδε σῶμα. The
πνευματικός, himself inspired, is here appealing to the spirit to restore a
corpse. The train of thought is not perfectly logical, but there is not much
doubt as to what it was.

3 Dial. c. Tryph., 82.

1 Apol. i. 31.

2 Odes of Solomon, 6.

3Epiph., Haer. 48, 4: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὡσεὶ λύρα, κἀγὼ ἐφίπταμαι ὡσεὶ πλῆκτρον. ὁ
ἄνθρωπος κοιμᾶται, κἀγὼ γρηγορῶ· ἴδοὺ κύριος ἐστιν ὁ ἐξιστάνων καρδίας ἀνθρώπων,
κ.τ.λ.

4 Cohortatio ad Graecos, 8; cf. also Athenagoras, Pro Christianis, 9:
συγχρησαμένου τοῦ πνεύματος ὡς εἰ καὶ αὐλητὴς αὐλὸν ἐμπνευσαι.

1 Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, vii. 8, 9; and Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. i. 13, 2 (ed.
Massuet).

2See Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes, p. 77, and see Appendix on p. 241.

3 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff.

4 This seems to be the meaning of the difficult passage (1 Corinthians 12:2).
The text (οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε
ἀπαγόμενοι) is certainly corrupt, and probably cannot be emended; but, as
Chrysostom saw (cf. Cramer’s Catena, ad loc.), it is a reference to the
experiences of obsession among the Corinthians before their conversion, and is
intended as the basis of the following argument.

1 Just as the initiate in the Osiris Mysteries spoke of Osiris as Lord and
Saviour: it does not, of course, follow that the words meant quite the same, but
it explains why there was no difficulty in persuading the Graeco-Roman world of
the propriety of these expressions. They are not specifically Christian, but are
common to the Mystery Religions.

2 Each of these questions might have been asked about Osiris or any of the other
“redeemer-gods,” but, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that they were
raised.

1It is worth noting that St. Paul says πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, not τῷ πνεύματι ἁγιῳ, but
I am not sure whether the point will ultimately prove to be really important.

2 Chronologically earlier than Hermas, or (probably) the Didache.

1Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Rom., 84, p. 267a: συνηθέστερον δὲ ταῖς μεν γυναιξὶν
ἐγκεκαλυμμέναις, τοῖς δὲ ἀνδράσιν ἀκαλύπτοις εἰς τὸ δημόσιον προιέναι. Cf. also
Dio Chrysostom, who (Or., 33, 48 ff.) rebukes the degeneracy which in Tarsus
began to allow women to walk in the streets without a veil covering the face,
and points out the dangers of daemons entering by the ears or nose. See also
Lietzmann’s note, p. 128.

1 Two points are doubtful in this translation. (α) Does ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ really go
with συνερχομένων, or with οὐκ ἔστιν? Commentators are almost unanimous in
favour of the former view, but I am not sure that the point is quite certain.
(β) What is the meaning of προλαμβάνει? Most commentators say, “takes in
advance,” but the evidence of the papyri (see the Expositor for March, 1911)
goes to show that it probably only means “take.”

1 1 Corinthians 11:18 ff.

2 Batiffol, Études d’ Histoire et de Thélogie Positive, pp. 277–311.

3 See especially Heitmuller’s Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. This book is so
clear and so thorough that it has an importance out of all proportion to its
size.

1 We have to guard against an obscurity of thought due to a change in the
meaning of words. “Spirit” is not always a translation of πνεῦμα. One can see
this by considering how the ordinary phrase “he has the spirit of St. Paul”
would be translated into New Testament Greek. Probably one would write τὰ τοῦ
Παύλου φρονεῖ: the obvious ἔχει τὸ πνεῦμα Παύλου would mean something
different—“he is inspired by the same supernatural being which was in Paul,” or
perhaps, “which Paul has now become.”

1 The question is raised by this expression whether the common phrase in Acts, ἡ
κλᾶσις τοῦ ἄρτου, refers to the Eucharist. Personally, I incline to think that
it does, but the question is scarcely within the limits of the present work.

2 Cf. the long list of quotations in Leitzmann’s Commentary, pp. 160–164, of
which the most important are CIG. ii. 2448; CIL. xviii. 5708; CIL. vi. 10, 234;
CIL. xiv. 2112.

1 The only Mystery Religion which had quite certainly anything of this nature
was Mithraism. In this there was, alongside of the more typical teaching of the
journey of the soul through the heavens, the doctrine of a resurrection of the
dead, at the return of Mithra. “Mithra,” says M. Cumont (Les Mystères de Mithra,
p. 121), “will redescend and raise up mankind. They will all come forth from
their tombs, resume their former appearance, and recognize each other. The
entire race will be reunited in a great assembly, and the god of truth will
separate the good from the bad. Then, as a last sacrifice, he will slay the
divine bull, will mix its flesh with the consecrated wine, and offer to the just
this miraculous beverage, which will give them immortality.” But it is not
probable that Mithraism was widely spread in Corinth in the first century. The
rise of Mithraism was contemporaneous with that of Christianity, and both owed
their success greatly to the fact that they stood out from the other Mystery
Religions by their ethical character.

1 Cf. Bousset, “Die Himmelsreise der Seele,” in the Archiv fur
Religions-wissenschaft, iv. (1901), pp. 136–169 and 229–273. This is a most
learned article, and its study is essential to any thorough appreciation of this
question.

2 Cf. the Apocalypse of Baruch, chaps. 49.–51. Baruch does not actually say that
the dead will become spirits, but he says that they will be transformed into the
splendour of the angels; and the angels were certainly not flesh.

1 I think that this means breath, or spirit, but is hardly equal to a change
into a spiritual nature.

2 Or. Sib., iv. 179–190.

1 It is interesting to note that this opinion is characteristic of Early
Christianity, and is found in many forms. For instance, the explanation given in
1 John of false prophets, is not that they are swindlers or charlatans, but that
they are inspired by the wrong sort of spirit. So also says Hermas. Similarly,
the Apologists explain the resemblances between Christian and heathen cultus and
theology to the imitations of the daemons (who are identical with the gods of
the heathens), intending to present misleading and false fulfilments of the
prophecies of the Old Testament. (Cf. especially Justin Martyr’s Apology, and
Tatian’s Oratio ad Graccos.) The doctrine that the daemons were the source of
many mythological stories is not in itself specifically Christian; it is, for
instance, found in Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, p. 360 d). But in Justin
Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, and other Christian writers the view taken was in so
far somewhat different in that all the gods of the Gentiles were identified with
daemons, and these again with fallen angels.

2 A full discussion of these passages is here impossible; but I incline to the
view that, as a matter of fact, there is a real difference between 2 Corinthians
11:4 and Galatians 1:6. In the latter St. Paul seems to say that there really is
a difference between his gospel and that of his opponents. In the former he
seems to be arguing that his opponents can make no real claim to superiority,
because, as a matter of fact, they do not preach a different Jesus, or spirit,
or gospel. But I should be sorry to build anything on this view,—or indeed on
any other interpretation of these passages.

1 The classical statements are F. C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der
Korinthischen Gemeinde,” in the Tübingen Zeitschrift, 1831, part 4, pp. 61 ff.
Also in his Paulus, 1845, pp. 260 ff.; C. Holsten, Evangelium des Paulus, 1880,
pp. 196 ff.; and C. Weizsacher, Apostolisches Zeitalter (2nd edition), pp.
299–311. It is also adopted in the main in the commentaries of A. Klöpper and G.
Heinrici. I do not know of any outstanding work in English which defends this
position at length, though it is adopted without much discussion by several
writers.

1 The value of this evidence is of course increased if, as has been argued above
(p. 157), 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2
Corinthians 13:1-14 is part of the “severe letter”; but it remains of only
slightly less importance if it is St. Paul’s attack on a still rebellious
minority.

2 The text of 2 Corinthians 10:10 is rather important: should we read φησί or
φασί? If the former, there is a clear reference to some individual opponent. The
evidence is not decisive: φησί is found in אDΕϜΓLΚΡ d e boh. aeth.pp; φατί in B
fg, Vulg. Syrr. Personally, I am more impressed by the combination אD boh.

1 In this connection the meaning of “delivering to Satan” (1 Corinthians 5:5) is
interesting. A full discussion of the point is outside the scope of the present
book, but it certainly means something concrete and realistic, and by no means
merely the reading of a sentence of excommunication.

2 On the theory that the opponents were Judaizers, it is suggested that the
passage means that they had urged that St. Paul had once held the same opinions
as themselves. I cannot regard this as at all probable. St. Paul clearly admits
that the accusation—which he defines as knowing Christ according to the
flesh—was once true. Now, he had once been an anti-Christian Jew, but when had
he ever been a Judaizing Christian? The passage seems to me quite
unintelligible, except on the hypothesis that St. Paul is dealing with an
accusation that he lacked something which his opponents possessed. This is easy
to understand if these opponents were πνευματικοί, not if they are Judaizers.
The question as to when St. Paul knew Christ according to the flesh remains.
Personally, I think he means before the Conversion, but the point is not of
crucial importance for the present purpose. See J. Weiss, Paulus und Jesus, pp.
24–26.

1 Long and more or less partizan treatments of the problem from this point of
view may be found in Schenkel, De ecclesia Corinthia primaeva factionibus
turbata, Bâle, 1838, in Godet’s Commentary, and—far the best statement—in W.
Lutgert’s Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, though the
identification of the πνευματικοὶ with the Christ party is very doubtful.

1 Cf. also Acts 15:5

2 As is shown later (see pp. 300 ff. and 361 ff.), it is possible that both
these Epistles may originally belong to the period before the Council; but in
any case the longer recension of Romans does not do so, and shows that a truly
Judaizing spirit existed in Rome, contemporaneously, or almost so, with 2
Corinthians.

3 Probably the κατατομή in Philippians refers to Jews, not to Judaizing
Christians.

1 The contrast between Galatians and Corinthians is admirably worked out, at
considerable length, by Lütgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth,
pp. 70, 73. He also gives a long discussion of all the various attempts which
have been made to explain the contrast.

1 One can form some idea of the real nature of the facts if we ask how many of
those who took part in the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 survived to
1890–1900.

1 Πᾶς δὲ ἀπόστολος ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ὡς Κύριος· οὐ μενεῖ δὲ εἰ μὴ
ἡμέραν μίαν· ἐὰν δὲ ᾖ χρεία καὶ τὴν ἄλλην· τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ ψευδοπροφήτης
ἐστίν· ἐξερχόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον, ἔως οὗ·αὐλισθῇ·
ἐὰν δἐ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί. Did., xi .4–6.

1 Let me, however, draw attention to the very valuable contribution of Prof.
Reitzenstein, in his Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen.

1 Otherwise St. Paul would not have been able to use them as the foundation of
his arguments as he does in 1 Corinthians 10:1-33. (cf. Romans 6:1-23). It is
impossible to over-estimate the importance of realizing that, if we want to
discover the central points of early Christian doctrine, we must look not at
those to which St. Paul devotes pages of argument, but at those which he treats
as the premises accepted equally by all Christians. It is from neglecting this
principle and constructing a “Paulinismus” exclusively on the basis of the long
controversial passages in the Epistles, that critics have found themselves faced
by the fact that they can find no other traces of this “Pauline Christianity” in
the early Church. The fact that they cannot do so is really the reductio ad
absurdum of their reconstructive arguments.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 04.01.     APPENDIX 1. THE APOCRYPHAL CORRESPONDENCE OF ST. PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIANS
========================================================================

APPENDIX I THE APOCRYPHAL CORRESPONDENCE OF ST. PAUL WITH THE CORINTHIANS IN the
Armenian canon there was a correspondence between St. Paul and the Corinthians,
of which many MSS. are extant, and the quotations of Aphraates and Ephraim show
that this was derived from the Old Syriac, which was the basis of the Armenian
text. The same correspondence was found by Bergen in Milan (1891) and Bratke in
Laon (1892) in two Vulgate Latin MSS. Finally, C. Schmidt discovered the same
correspondence in the Coptic version of the Acta Pauli, and showed that an acute
suggestion of Zahn was correct, that the correspondence was originally an
extract from this ancient apocryph, which probably was written in Asia late in
the second century (see Tertullian, De Baptismo, 17).

It would be beyond the province of the present book to discuss the importance of
this document. It is plain that its presence in the Syriac canon (from which the
Armenian cannot be separated), and in two local texts in Latin, points to the
time when the Corpus Paulinum was not yet completely closed. Moreover, the
bearing of the correspondence on the controversy with second century Gnosticism
is very clear: it is in this respect an excellent example of the way in which in
apocryphal books there was no half-hearted tendency to make Apostles contribute
to contemporary polemics. The translation below is based on Harnack’s
reconstruction of the text in H. Lietzmann’s Kleine Texte, 12, in which is given
a critical apparatus of the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Latin, together with
the text of Bergen’s Latin MS. Recent literature of importance is C. Schmidt,
Acta Pauli (1905), and Harnack, Untersuchungen über den apokryphen Briefwechsel
der Korinther mit dem Apostel Paulus. A full account of earlier books is given
by Zahn, Geschichte des Neutest. Kanons, 2, pp. 592 ff. THE EPISTLE OF THE
CORINTHIANS TO PAUL Stephanus and the elders who are with him, Daphnus and
Euboulos and Theophilos and Xenon to Paul, greeting in the Lord.

There have come to Corinth two men, Simon and Cleobios, who are turning aside
the faith of some by harmful words, which do thou test, for we have never heard
such things either from thee or from the other Apostles, but we hold fast to
that which we received from thee and the rest. As then the Lord had mercy on us,
come to us, that while thou art still in the flesh we may again hear these
things from thee; for we believe, as it was revealed to Theonoes, that the Lord
has saved thee from the hand of the lawless. Now what they say and teach is
this: it is not, they say, necessary to use the prophets, that God is not
Almighty, that there is no resurrection of the flesh, that man is not the
creation of God, that Christ has not come in the flesh, and was not born of
Mary, and that the world belongs not to God but to angels. Therefore, brother,
make all haste to come to us, that the Church of the Corinthians be not made to
stumble, and that the folly of those men be brought to nought. Farewell in the
Lord. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

Paul the prisoner of Jesus Christ to the brethren, who are in Corinth, greeting.
In my many troubles I do not wonder that the teachings of the Evil One make such
progress; but my Lord, Jesus Christ, will hasten His coming, bringing to nothing
those who corrupt His word. For I delivered to you in the beginning that which I
received from those who were Apostles before me, who had been all the time in
the company of Jesus Christ, that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of Mary, of the
seed of David, when the Spirit had been sent from heaven from the Father to her,
that He should come into this world, and set free all flesh through His flesh,
and raise us up in the flesh from the dead, as He had shown Himself an example
for us; and that man was created by the Father, for this cause also he was
sought when lost, that he might be made alive by the adoption as a son. For God
Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, first sent the prophets to the Jews
that they might be torn away from their sins; for His plan was to save the house
of Israel, for this cause he sent a portion of the Spirit of Christ into the
prophets who announced the true worship at many times. But the Prince of the
world (ὁ δὲ ἄρχων) being unrighteous, because he wished to be God, laid hands
on them, and slew them, and thus bound all flesh of men to his will. But God
Almighty, being righteous, did not wish to reject His creation, but had pity on
it, and sent His Spirit into Mary, in order that the evil one might be shown to
be conquered through the flesh, in which he had boasted. For through His own
body did Jesus Christ save all flesh, making manifest the temple of
righteousness in His own body, by which we were saved. For be well assured that
those men are not the sons of righteousness, but of wrath, who reject the plan
of God, saying that heaven and earth, and that which is in them, are not the
work of God, for they hold the faith of the accursed serpent. Therefore put them
from you and fly from their teaching. But for those who say there is no
resurrection of the flesh there shall indeed be no resurrection, for they do not
believe that the dead (i.e. the Lord) thus rose. For they ignore, O Corinthians,
the grains of wheat, or of other food, which are cast bare into the ground and
after they have decayed spring up, having obtained a body according to the will
of God. And He raises up not only that which was sown but, by His blessing, many
times as much. But if we ought not to make a parable from the seeds, understand
how Jonah the son of Amathai, when he would not preach to the Ninevites, was
swallowed by the whale; and after three days and three nights God heard the
prayer of Jonah from the depths of Hades, and nothing of him was hurt, neither
hair nor eyebrows. How much more will He raise up us who believe on Christ
Jesus, as He also rose? and if the dead man let down by the children of Israel
on to the bones of the prophet Elisha rose from the dead in his body, how much
more shall you, who are let down on the body and bones and spirit of Christ, be
raised up in that day, and keep your flesh?

If then ye receive anything else, let no man trouble me, for I bear these bonds,
that I may gain Christ, and I carry in my body His marks, that I may attain to
the Resurrection of the dead, and whosoever shall walk in the rule, which he
received from the blessed prophets and the holy Gospel, shall receive a reward:
but he who trangresses these, the fire is for him and for those who thus run,
who are generations of vipers, whom do ye reject in the power of the Lord, and
peace shall be with you.

1 The actual Greek is here given in the Coptic.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 04.02.     APPENDIX 2. GLOSSOLALIA AND PSYCHOLOGY
========================================================================

APPENDIX II GLOSSOLALIA AND PSYCHOLOGY ON page 204 it is stated that glossolalia
is unintelligible speech. The statement is sufficiently correct, and to discuss
it in the text would have been a needless discursiveness, but the point deserves
some further explanation. That glossolalia was in the main unintelligible is
clear from St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:1-40: “He that speaketh in a
tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the congregation” (1
Corinthians 14:4). “He that prophesieth is greater than he that speaketh with
tongues, except he interpret” (1 Corinthians 14:5). “If I pray in a tongue my
spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful” (1 Corinthians 14:14). “If
all speak with tongues and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they
not say that ye are mad?” (1 Corinthians 14:23). “If any man speaketh in a
tongue… let one interpret” (1 Corinthians 14:27). These passages are meaningless
if glossolalia was not a form of generally unintelligible speech. At the same
time, certain other facts have to be considered which tend to show that in some
cases glossolalia took a different form. In the first place, the evidence of St.
Paul throws a little further light on the question. It is significant that in 1
Corinthians 13:1 he further defines “tongues” as “tongues of men and angels.” It
is therefore probable that some forms of glossolalia were regarded as the speech
of a spirit, speaking through a human being, but using angelic, not human,
speech. Moreover, the mention of interpreters in 1 Corinthians 14:1-40 suggests
that some people were able to understand the otherwise unintelligible speech of
those who used glossolalia.

Secondly, the narrative of the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-47 shows, at the
least, that St. Luke was acquainted with some form of glossolalia which was
intelligible, though not the usual language of the speaker. This narrative
presents several difficulties, but for the present purpose the points of
importance can be shortly presented. Taking the narrative as it stands, it
presents the difficulty that some of those who heard the Christians speak with
tongues thought that they were drunk, and St. Peter’s speech is directed against
this accusation. Others, however, were annoyed to hear them speaking foreign
languages. Now, it is quite certain that intelligible speech in a foreign
language showing forth the wonderful work of God has never been regarded as the
effect of strong drink. Two explanations are possible: either St. Luke has
misunderstood the situation, and has converted what was originally an ordinary
instance of glossolalia, into speech in a foreign language, or the Apostles
really did use language which, to those who knew it, was intelligible, but to
others appeared to be gibberish—the sort of verdict which St. Paul actually
warned the Corinthians that an outsider would pass on their glossolalia. It is
unnecessary to discuss these possibilities, for even if we take the view that
St. Luke misunderstood the situation, this implies that he was acquainted with
glossolalia which took the form of speaking a foreign language, otherwise why
should he have misunderstood the original narrative? Thus, whatever critical
view we take of the narrative in Acts it has to be admitted that it points to
glossolalia in foreign languages. The questions now arise: (1) Can we trace
anything similar to this glossolalia in other times? (2) Can we at all explain
what it is?

Traces of glossolalia in other circles than that of Apostolic Christianity,
though not common, are sufficient to show that it existed at other times, and to
throw some light on its nature. A very remarkable light on “the tongues of
angels” is thrown by the Testament of Job. In this (Job 17:1-16) Job is
represented as showing his three daughters a wonderful girdle which had been
divinely given him. This, he says, will bring them into “the greater world” (τὸν
μείζονα αἰῶνα), to live in the heavens. When his daughters put it on they each
received a new heart, and began to speak in superhuman language. According to
Dr. James’ text, the first, called Hemera, spoke the angelic tongue (ἀγγέλικῃ
διαλέκτῳ), the second, called Kasia, spoke in the tongue of “principalities”
(ἀρχῶν), and the third, Amalthia, spoke in the tongue of “those on high” (τῶν ἐν
ὕψει), or, as it is also called, the tongue of the cherubim. The magical papyri
also go far towards clearing up the problem. Part of the magic consisted of the
use of strange words which might be equally regarded as magical charms to affect
a spirit who would understand and be compelled by their hidden meaning, and as
the language which was used by the spirit who was in possession of an inspired
person. Some of these words appear to be taken from Semitic languages, some to
be merely gibberish. For instance, in the often-quoted Leiden papyrus Hermes is
invoked. πάσῃ φωνῃ καὶ πάσῃ διαλέκτῳ … ἀχεβουκρωμυ, ὅ μηνύει τοῦ δίσκου τὸν
φλόγα καὶ τὴν ἀκτῖνα οὗ ἡ δόξα ααα ηηη ωωω … κτίζων τὸν κόσμον υι ααα ωωω, ἐν ᾦ
δὲ ἔστησας τὰ πάντα σαβαωθ αρβαδ Ἰάω Ζαγουρη, κ.τ.λ., and in cod. Paris. 2316 a
hymn of Moses begins βελὼν θαβὼρ ἀκανθὰ ναμελὰ λαμβαλὰ ἀριμισαὶ βισαασμά, κ.τ.λ.
That glossolalia continued for a long time among Christians can be seen from
Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Irenaeus says, “Propter quod et Apostolus ait: Sapientiam loquimur inter
perfectos; perfectos dicens eos qui perceperunt Spiritum Dei quemadmodum et ipse
loquebatur. Quemadmodum et multos audivimus fratres in ecclesia, prophetica
habentes charismata, et per spiritum universis linguis loquentes (καὶ
παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων διὰ του πνεύματος γλώσσαις, —the Greek is quoted by
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5, 7, 6).” Tertullian challenges Marcion to equal the
deeds of the Church, and says, “Edat aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, dumtaxat
spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est amentia, si qua linguae interpretatio accessit;
haec omnia a me facilius proferuntur.” By the time of Chrysostom, however,
glossolalia and prophecy were apparently unknown in the Church, and he expresses
his difficulty in explaining what it was. later generations glossolalia has
appeared spasmodically at times of great religious excitement. Probably research
would show that no “revival” has been without something like glossolalia, but
the two clearest and most famous examples have been supplied by the history of
the Camisards in France and the Irvingites in England. The most remarkable
instances of glossolalia in recent times are supplied by the Camisards and the
Irvingites, and, curiously enough, while the one illustrates glossolalia of the
kind which resulted in unusually clear speech, the other illustrates the purely
unintelligible form. The Camisards were a sect of French Protestants among the
peasantry of the Cévennes, who, in the beginning of the eighteenth century,
carried on a fierce resistance to the persecution which ensued on the Revocation
of the Edict of Nantes. A full account of their remarkable psychological
characteristics will be found in D. A. Bruey’s Histoire du fanatisme, 1737, vol.
i., especially pp. 148 ff. The main points are that various persons, sometimes
children, were seized with slightly convulsive attacks, ending in
unconsciousness, during which they uttered exhortations in good French,
although, in their ordinary state of consciousness, they were incapable of
speaking anything but the Romance patois of the Cévennes. It should be noted
that they were acquainted with French through their devotional use of the
Huguenot Bible. The Irvingites are a still better known instance. In the early
years of the nineteenth century the glossolalia in Edward Irving’s chapel was
notorious, and attracted the curiosity of, among others, George Greville. His
account is that the voice of the speaker, “after ejaculating three ‘Ohs,’ one
rising above the other in tones very musical, burst into a flow of
unintelligible jargon, which whether it was in English or gibberish I could not
discover. This lasted five or six minutes, and, as the voice was silenced,
another woman, in more passionate and louder tones, took it up. This last spoke
in English, and words, though not sentences, were distinguishable.… She spoke
sitting under great apparent excitement, and screamed on till, from exhaustion
as it seemed, her voice gradually died away, and all was still.” The parallel to
the account of glossolalia at Corinth could scarcely be closer, and Greville
adequately represents the ἄπιστος ῆ ἰδιώτης, against whose unfavourable judgment
St. Paul warned the Corinthians.

Turning to the question of the immediate cause of glossolalia as a psychological
phenomenon, it is important to notice that two main types can be recognized: (1)
Intelligible speech in a foreign language; (2) Unintelligible speech in a known
or unknown language. The connecting link between these two classes is that in
neither case is the speech under the complete control of the speaker, though
sometimes the lack of control is partial, sometimes absolute. It is this lack of
control which is the further connecting link with prophecy in which intelligible
speech is used in a known language, but the speaker says, not what he wishes,
but what he feels that he must. Thus the psychologist, just as the early
Christian did, regards prophecy and glossolalia as cognate phenomena; the
difference is in the explanation which he offers. So far as the consideration of
the immediate cause of the phenomena is concerned, these cases do not present
much difficulty to those who are in any degree acquainted with modern
pathological psychology. They are merely three instances of the disturbance of
the speech centres of the brain under stress of emotion, and of the influence of
the subliminal consciousness as soon as the normal working of the mind has been
temporarily impeded. One of the real advances of knowledge in pathology has been
the certain establishment of the fact that the intelligent exercise of human
functions, such as movement, sight, and speech, is under the control of definite
parts of the brain. If you impede the part of the brain, known as the speech
centre, which controls language, you produce either dumbness or, if the centre
be not wholly destroyed, aphasia, that is, an inability to use certain words, or
paraphasia, that is, a tendency to confuse words. These are common phenomena in
some of the most ordinary types of paralysis, in which the immediate cause of
the disease is a lesion of some sort affecting the speech centre. For instance,
if a man has an apoplectic fit caused by the breaking of a small blood-vessel in
the brain, if the blood be effused at the speech centre, his speech will be
destroyed or impaired, until the blood be absorbed. If the absorption be
complete, his speech will recover completely; if not, he will speak badly for
the rest of life, unless, which is believed sometimes to happen, another
“centre” takes over the work of the injured part of the brain. In the same way
anything which, generally speaking, increases the activity of the speech centre
will increase the power of speech. This is what is actually accomplished by some
forms of education, and still more by some professions. Forms of teaching which
constantly demand quick and ready answers vivâ voce develop the speech centre,
and so do the professions of barristers, or of clergymen. The most important
point, however, for the present purpose, is that the speech is readily though
temporarily affected, in a precisely similar manner, by the stress of emotion,
of whatever kind. The exact form of the affection depends on two variables, the
degree of the emotion, and the nature of the person. In some cases it works
favourably: emotion seems to stimulate the speech and cognate centres, and the
result is that the speaker is conscious that he is speaking well. He enjoys the
comfortable assurance that, whereas under normal conditions he has scarcely
enough words to say what he wishes, under the stimulus of slight emotion he is
temporarily blessed with the power of seeing synonyms at once, and of being able
to pick and choose his expressions without either haste or hesitation. In other
cases (and almost always if it be carried too far), emotion works unfavourably.
It disturbs the speech centre by an excess of stimulus, and the result is
confused expression, obscure utterance, and in the end temporary paraphasia.

These effects are produced by any emotion: they prove the presence of emotional
disturbance, but not its character. Love or hate, pathos or humour, the highest
spiritual religion or the lowest immorality, all have their emotional side; and
the emotions which they arouse produce in the end the same symptoms.

It is plain that this is the explanation of that type of glossolalia which
consists of unintelligible language. It was, in more or less technical language,
temporary paraphasia induced by religious emotion. In the same way, some forms
of prophecy are to be explained as a temporary and favourable excitement of the
speech and cognate centres, induced by religious emotion. But this does not
explain the other features of some cases. It does not explain the belief that
the prophet utters things which he did not previously know; nor does it explain
the rare cases of speech in a foreign language.

It is here that the much discussed and often exaggerated “subliminal
consciousness” helps us to the outlines of an explanation. The point is this:
besides our ordinary waking consciousness there is a wider sphere, which only
occasionally comes into the field of our observation. Roughly speaking, one may
say that reason, memory, and effort, work in the sphere of the ordinary, or
supraliminal, consciousness, while instinct and habit work in the sphere of the
subliminal consciousness. Usually speech, and most of the actions of daily life,
are under the control of the supraliminal consciousness. But when we act
instinctively our actions are controlled by the subliminal consciousness. For
instance, an Englishman riding a bicycle on the Continent for the first time
knows that he ought, contrary to his usual practice, to keep to the right; but
if a sudden emergency arises, and he acts instinctively, he will certainly
swerve to the left, in spite of his consciousness that this is wrong. Some
actions, again, especially in the world of sport, are an extremely complicated
mixture of instinct and reason, or of the supraliminal and subliminal
consciousness; very interesting, for instance, is the psychological analysis of
the act of bowling at cricket.

What the precise relations are between the supraliminal and subliminal
consciousness, psychologists have apparently not yet determined. It is, however,
an established fact that, by the exertion of strain on any given centre of the
brain, the supraliminal consciousness can be partially or completely “thrown out
of gear,” and that in such cases people do and say exceptional things of which
neither they themselves nor any one else ever thought them capable. The
importance of this for the present purpose is that it sometimes happens in such
cases that when the supraliminal consciousness has been “thrown out of gear,”
the person affected suddenly develops a power of expressing new thoughts, and
shows a knowledge of facts which no one, even himself, thought that he
possessed. It is obvious that this covers tolerably well the facts of prophecy;
especially does it illuminate the difference between prophecy and preaching. The
preacher announces to the best of his ability the truths which he has learnt: he
knows beforehand what he is going to say, and the limits of his message are
those of his own ordinary supraliminal consciousness. The prophet does not
always know beforehand what he is going to say: his words are only partly under
his own control: sometimes he is as much surprised as any one else at what he
says: for the limits of his message are those of his subliminal consciousness,
which in ordinary circumstances is in abeyance, and as little known to his own
ordinary intelligence as to that of other persons.

Quite rare, but still quite sufficiently attested, are exceptional cases in
which, under the influence of strain bringing the subliminal consciousness into
active working, persons have suddenly began to speak and understand foreign
languages; usually it has been possible to show that they had either in
childhood or in some other way had opportunities of learning them. This covers
the indications that among the early Christians glossolalia sometimes took the
form of speaking foreign languages. The importance of these results is that they
tend to show that prophecy and glossolalia, which the early Christians connected
so closely with each other, are really cognate psychological phenomena due to
stress caused by religious emotion. In this way psychology really does explain
the symptoms, and explains them better than did the ancient hypothesis of
obsession by spirits. At the same time, it must be remembered that the question
remains, what is the cause of the religious emotion which gives rise to these
symptoms? Psychology explains the immediate cause of the phenomena; but what is
the ultimate cause? that is to say, what is religion? To discuss this problem
would be outside the limits of the present book, which have perhaps been already
passed, but I cannot refrain from saying that if I do not mistake the signs of
the times the really serious controversy of the future will be concerned with
this point, even among those who are agreed in assigning the highest value to
religion, and that the opposing propositions will be: (1) that religion is the
communion of man, in the sphere of the subliminal consciousness, with some other
being higher than himself; (2) that it is communion of man with his own
subliminal consciousness, which he does not recognize as his own, but
hypostasizes as some one exterior to himself. Those who wish to prepare for this
controversy will do well to study on the one hand the facts of religion—not of
theology—and on the other the principles of psychology.

Literature.—The best treatment will be found in J. Weiss, Der erste
Korintherbrief, pp. 335–339, but: according to him a book will shortly be
published on Das Zungenreden by Edison Mosiman, giving a full history of the
phenomena in all ages. Important also are Feine’s article on Zungenrede in the
Realencyclopadie fü prot. Theologic, ed. 3, and Reitzenstein’s Poimandres (esp.
p. 55). The psychological facts are clearly stated in James’ little Textbook of
Psychology or in his larger Principles of Psychology, as well as in more
technical books written from a more exclusively medical standpoint.

1 Texts and Studies, v.1, Apocrypha Anecdota II. by M. R. James, pp. 134 ff.

1 See J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, p. 338 ff.

2 Iren., Adv. Haer., v. 6, 1. Tert., Contra Marc., v. 8. Cf. also Justin Martyr,
Apol. ii. 6, and other passages mentioned by Harvey in his note on the passage
from Irenaeus; but they do not exactly cover glossolalia so much as prophecy and
other miraculous χαρίσματα πνευματικά. Attention may also be drawn to the
hostile account of Palestinian prophets given by Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsum,
vii. 9): οἱ δὲ … ἐπιφοιτῶντες πόλεσιν ἢ στρατοπέδοις, κινοῦνται δῆθεν ὡς
θεσπίζοντες· πρόχειρον δʼ ἑκάστῳ καὶ σύνηθες εἰπεῖν, ἐγὼ ὁ Θεός εἰμι, ἢ Θεοῦ
παῖς, ης πνεῦμα Θεῖον … ταῦτα ἐπανατεινάμενοι προστιθέασι ἐφεξῆς ἄγνωστα, καὶ
πάροιστρα, καὶ πάντῃ ἄδηλα, ὦν τὸ μὲν γνῶμα οὐδεὶς ἂν ἔχων νοῦν εὑρεῖν δύναιτο,
κ.τ.λ., and the equally hostile account of Gnostic glossolalia given by Irenaeus
(Adv. Haer., I. xiii. 3 (Massuet)) “… concalefaciens animam a suspicione quod
incipiat prophetare, cum cor ejus multo plus quam oporteat palpitet, audet, et
loquitur deliriosa, et quaecunque evenerint omnia, vacue et audacter,” etc.

1 Τοῦτο ἅπαν τὸ χωρίον σφόδρα ἐστὶν ἀσαφές. τὴν δὲ ασάφειαν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων
ἄγνοιά τε καὶ ἔλλειψις ποιεῖ τῶν τότε μὲν συμβαινόντων, νῦν δὲ οὐ γινομένων.
Cramer’s Catena, v. p. 223.

1 Memoirs, III. chap. 12. I am indebted to Mr. Conybeare for showing me this
passage. Cf. Myth, Magic, and Morals, p. 93.

1 By increasing the activity of the speech centre I include, of course, both the
quickening of the connections with other centres, and also the removal of the
normal inhibition. The latter point is rather interesting. One of the factors in
controlling, and sometimes hindering speech, is the normal inhibitory influence
of such things as instinctive caution, perception of the possibility of
misunderstanding, etc. If this be removed an unusual freedom of speech ensues.
One of the first symptoms of alcoholic intoxication is this removal of
inhibition. Hence in vino veritas, and hence the fact that a glass of champagne
produces fluency (in some persons), while a bottle produces incoherence.
Psychologically, what happens is that a small quantity of alcohol tends to
remove the normal inhibition, while a large dose disturbs and ultimately
paralyzes the working of the speech centre.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 05.     CHAPTER 5. THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
========================================================================

CHAPTER V THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS THE problems connected with the
background of the Epistle to the Galatians are almost the exact opposite of
those in the Epistles to the Corinthians. In the latter, the questions of place
and date are tolerably certain, and of quite subordinate importance, but it is
both difficult and important to determine the nature of the controversy which
called forth the Epistles. In the former, on the other hand, the nature of the
controversy is quite plain, but it is extremely hard to fix the places from
which and to which St. Paul wrote, or the time at which he sent the letter. The
nature of the controversy is clearly fixed by the whole trend of the Epistle.
From beginning to end, it is engaged in controverting the proposition that
Gentile Christians ought to be circumcised and observe the Jewish Law; it is
also obvious that this proposition had been set up by Christian teachers who had
come to Galatia after St. Paul had left his converts, and we can scarcely be
wrong in identifying these teachers with those of the Jerusalem propaganda
described on pp. 29 ff. So much is plain, and it is only subordinate points
which will later require further discussion. But the difficulties begin when one
asks (what is, after all, in reality the previous question) where did the
Galatians live, and when did St. Paul write to them? It is, therefore, necessary
to discuss these questions at some length. WHERE WAS GALATIA?

There are two meanings which can conceivably be given to the word “Galatia.” It
may mean the comparatively small district which was once the Kingdom of the
Galatae, a Celtic people, generally supposed to be identical with the Galli of
Western Europe, who are also called Γαλάται by Greek writers; or it may be the
much larger district which the Romans made into the Province of Galatia. The
Galatians invaded Asia in the third century before Christ, and ultimately
occupied a district towards the north of the ancient kingdom of Phrygia. Later
on they came more or less under the domination of Pontus, and played an
important part in the wars between the Romans and Mithridates. Ultimately, in
the first century before Christ, the kingdom of Galatia passed into the
possession of Amyntas, King of Pisidia, together with other territory. Amyntas
was the tributary of the Romans, and on his death in 25 b.c. the Romans took
over all his possessions as a new Province of the Empire, and gave it the name
of Galatia, because the ancient kingdom of Galatia was the most important part,
and contained Ancyra, the capital of the whole. Thus, politically, all the
inhabitants of the Province, which included Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian
Antioch, the cities visited by St. Paul on his first journey, were Galatians,
while ethnographically only the inhabitants of a comparatively small district to
the north could be so called. The question is whether St. Paul means “political
Galatians,” or “ethnographical Galatians.” To form a choice between these two
possibilities a very important preliminary question is whether the Acts
represents St. Paul as founding Christian communities in the Kingdom or in the
Province of Galatia. For this purpose two passages in the Acts have to be
considered, in which there is a reference to “Galatia.”

(1) Acts 16:6 : Διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ύπὸ τοῦ
ἁγίου πνεύματος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ ἐλθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν
ἐπείραζον εἰς τὴν Βιθυνίαν πορευθῆναι, καὶ οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ,
παρελθόντες δὲ τὴν Μυσίαν κατέβησαν εἰς Τρῳάδα. The question here is, What is
the district described as Galatian? The answer is not simple, and such
authorities as Lightfoot and Ramsay are found to give different answers.

There is, unfortunately, a small but important variant in the text concerning
the first word—διῆλθον. The text given is that found in אΒCDΕ d e, and some
others against the mass of late MSS., which read διελθόντες. There can be no
doubt but that on purely manuscriptal grounds διῆλθον deserves the preference;
but Lightfoot, Ramsay, and Ask with all show a certain preference for
διελθόντες, mainly on the ground that διῆλθον is the easier reading
grammatically, and may have been introduced in order to simplify the long and
awkward string of participles which διελθόντες introduces. It is hard to think
that there is much real weight in this argument; but in view of the fact that
the opinion exists, it is desirable to follow Askwith’s example and consider
both forms.

If διελθόντις be read, we have a series of participles (διελθόντες … κωλυθέντες
… ἐλθόντες) qualifying ἐπείραζον. The only natural interpretation is that these
three participles represent three stages which led up to the attempt to enter
Bithynia. In other words, the writer means to say, “First they went through τὴν
φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν Χώραν, secondly they were prevented from preaching in
Asia, finally they came opposite Mysia and tried to enter Bithynia.” The
important point is that it implies that the Φρυγία καὶ Γαλατικὴ Χώρα was
traversed before Asia was reached.

If διῆλθον be read, the matter is not so plain: κωλυθέντες may be retrospective,
and in that case the sentence means “they passed through the Phrygian and
Galatian region, because they had already been prevented from preaching in
Asia.” In that case the region in question was reached after Asia had been found
to be shut against their preaching. But this meaning is not necessary. It is a
grammatical heresy to suppose that the Greek aorist participle must imply a
temporal relation: it is strictly timeless, and the context determines whether
the relation between the acts implied in the main verb precedes, follows, or is
simultaneous with those implied in the participle. So here διῆλθον κωλυθέντες
means “they passed through, in a state of inability to,” etc., and nothing is
said as to whether this state of inability was reached before, after, or during
the passing through. Moreover, it is a general rule of Greek grammar that the
participle rather than the main verb is emphatic; the stress is not on the
“passing through” (which probably implies preaching, as διέρχεσθαι has almost
the technical sense of “to make a missionary journey”), but on the fact that
they were hindered from preaching in Asia. Thus, though κωλυθέντες may be
retrospective, it need not be taken in this sense.

It is, therefore, necessary to ask whether the phrase, τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν
χώραν, is more easily interpreted as a place reached after the frontier of Asia,
or as one which had already been passed through.

It is first desirable to notice the exact meaning of the Greek phrase. It cannot
mean “Phrygia and the Galatian district,” which would be τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ τὴν
Γαλατικὴν χώραν—a reading which is actually found in later MSS., and was
certainly introduced in the interest of the belief that two districts were
indicated. Nor can it mean “the Phrygian and Galatian districts,” which would
require τὰς Φρυγίας καὶ Γαλατικὰς χώρας. In fact, it can only mean one thing—the
χώρα which is Phrygian and Galatian, or more shortly the Phrygo-Galatic χώρα.
This much is common ground to Lightfoot and Ramsay. But at this point they
differ: Lightfoot thinks that the phrase means “the country which was once
Phrygia and Galatia,” or alternatively the parts of Phrygia bordering on
Galatia. Ramsay thinks that it means the district in the Province of Galatia
which had originally been Phrygian, and was probably known in Latin as Regio
Phrygia Galatica. To appreciate this question it is necessary to take into
consideration the really great change in our knowledge of the political
geography of Asia, and of the nomenclature applied to it, made by the recent
researches of archaeologists, especially Ramsay. The main point is that by the
time of St. Paul an enormous province had been created in the middle of Asia
Minor, with the old Kingdom of Galatia as its centre. Among the parts of other
kingdoms which had been attached to it were ethnologically Phrygian districts,
including Antioch and Iconium, and Lycaonian districts, including Lystra and
Derbe. Other parts of Phrygia belonged to the Province of Asia, and other parts
of Lycaonia to the Regnum Antiochi, which was not yet incorporated into any
province. Thus it would be natural to describe the part of Phrygia which was in
Galatia as Phrygia Galatica, in contrast to Phrygia Asiana, and the part of
Lycaonia as Lycaonia Galatica in contrast to Lycaonia Antiochiana. In the light
of these facts it is clear that the most probable explanation is that ἡ Φρυγία
καὶ Γαλατικὴ χώρα means the district of Phrygia recently added to the Province
of Galatia,—Phrygia Galatica. It is indeed hard to see what other district could
be meant, for the fact that Galatia proper had two hundred years previously been
Phrygian would hardly justify us in applying to it the phrase “Phrygo-Galatic
district.”

Moreover, consideration of the map shows that a nice discrimination between
“retrospective” and other exegesis of κωλυθέντες is unnecessary. The hindrance
to St. Paul’s preaching was probably just before or just after he entered the
Phrygo-Galatic region, and in consequence of this hindrance he continued his
journey across it, instead of immediately passing into Asia. In the end he must
enter Asia, but as he could not preach in it, he postponed his entry as long as
possible. In Acts 16:1 ff. St. Paul is in Lystra in Lycaonia Galatica, and it is
implied in Acts 16:2 that he went on to Iconium, which was either the last city
in Lycaonia Galatica, or the first in Phrygia Galatica, a long day’s journey (30
miles) from the frontier of Asia, and less than 20 miles from the great road to
Ephesus. Here St. Paul would naturally have passed into Asia, and I understand
St. Luke to mean that, as he found it impossible to preach in Asia, he went
round to the south of the Sultan Dagh, through Antioch, to Kinnaborion, and so
up to Kotiaion, or perhaps by a road branching off just before Kinnaborion to
Dorylaion. Here he was κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν, and intended to go straight on to
Nicomedia—Bithynia can scarcely mean any other town— but being hindered by the
“Spirit of Jesus,” he turned to the left and went to Troas. I take διῆλθον τὴν
Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν to mean merely that he kept to the south of the
Sultan Dagh instead of going to the north of it through Phrygia Asiana, which
would have been the more natural route. Probably the reason which influenced St.
Paul was the desire to see Pisidian Antioch again, when he found it was
impossible to preach in Asia, i.e. in Philomelium, to which he would have
naturally gone from Iconium viviâ Laodicea and the main route; for preaching in
Asia means preaching along the main road to Ephesus. This view is, of course,
hypothetical, and the evidence at our disposal is quite insufficient to enable
us to say exactly which route St. Paul took. The important point is that the
phrase, ἡ Φρυγία καὶ Γαλατικὴ χώρα, seems most naturally to refer to Phrygia
Galatica in which was Antioch and possibly Iconium. If so, the suggestion is
that the Churches in Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch might
naturally be described as Galatian Churches, and in this case the foundation of
Christianity in Galatia must be dated in St. Paul’s first missionary journey,
when he and St. Barnabas visited these towns.

(2) Acts 28:22-23 : καὶ κατελθὼν εἰς Καισαρίαν, ἀναβὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν, κατέβη εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, καὶ ποιήσας χρόνον τινὰ ὲξῆλθεν διερχόμενος
καθέξης τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν στηρίζων πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς Cf. also
Acts 19:1 : ἐγένετο δὲ … Παῦλον διελθόντα τὰ ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη ἐλθεῖν εὶς Ἔφεσον.

It is clear that these two passages describe a journey from Antioch to Ephesus,
covering again the ground which St. Paul had previously gone over. Nor is the
first part of the route, which is not described, difficult to identify. St. Paul
must have gone from Antioch, through the Syrian Gates, through Tarsus and the
Cilician Gates, across Lycaonia Antiochiana, and so to Derbe, where he entered
Lycaonia Galatica, and thence through Lystra to Iconium, where he entered
Phrygia Galatica; after this he would visit Pisidian Antioch, and finally the
reference to the ἀνωτερικὰ μέρη probably means that, instead of taking the main
road along the south banks of the Lycus and Maeander valleys, he took a smaller
road to the north, passing in the end to the north of M. Messogis. When one
grasps these facts, the meaning of the change of expression in Acts 28:23 from
that in Acts 16:6 becomes plain. In the latter place, St. Luke says τὴν Φρυγίαν
καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν because he means that one single district was
Phrygian-Galatian. In the former place he says τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν,
because he means two districts, namely the Galatic region of Lycaonia, and
Phrygia.

Moreover, the fulness of expression in the one case and not in the other is
adequately explained by the circumstances. In Acts 16:6 St. Paul is at Iconium,
and he has the choice between the northerly road to Laodicea and the
Phrygian-Asiatic district on the one hand, and the southerly road to Antioch,
continuing in the Phrygian-Galatian district, on the other hand. To have said
Φρυγίαν here would have been ambiguous, for the whole point was that he stayed
in one part of Phrygia instead of in another. Nor would Γαλατικὴν χώραν without
further definition have been enough. At Iconium he was on the borders of the
Phrygian-Galatian and the Lycaonian-Galatian districts. It is true that the
latter would really have been sufficiently excluded by the context; but the
point is that St. Luke had just described a check in St. Paul’s journey, and the
simplest and best style of expression was one which defined the district
accurately, and did not leave it to the context to decide whether Phrygian or
Lycaonian Galatia was intended. In Acts 18:22 the situation is different. If he
started from Antioch and went straight ahead, as καθέξης implies, after passing
through Lycaonia Antiochiana—and no other route is possible—he would necessarily
come to the Galatian district of Lycaonia, and after that to Phrygia—first
Phrygia Galatica and afterwards Phrygia Asiana. The route is thus sufficiently
indicated, and there was no check at any point to render further definition
necessary.

Thus the meaning of the two passages in Acts in which a reference to “Galatian”
is found, points to the Churches of Derbe and Lystra as those covered by the
expression ἡ Γαλατικὴ χώρα in Acts 18:23, and Iconium and Antioch as those
covered by ἠ Φρυγία καὶ Γαλατικὴ χώρα in Acts 16:6. There is nothing in the Acts
which need point to any other “Galatian” Churches, and the theories which make
St. Paul travel into the middle of the old Kingdom of Galatia are unsupported by
the strict interpretation of Acts, and make St. Paul undertake long and
dangerous journeys to sparsely populated regions, instead of keeping, as is far
more probable, to the great roads and main centres of the Greek-speaking
population. The only weak point in the view here adopted is the insufficiency of
inscriptional evidence for the forms used. But this is not a serious matter: the
attempt to make St. Luke or St. Paul always use correct official language has
been pressed too far. Whether Phrygia Galatica, Lycaonia Galatica, Phrygia
Asiana, and Lycaonia Antiochiana were official terms or not, there is no doubt
that Phrygia was divided between the Province of Galatia and the Province of
Asia, and that Lycaonia was divided between the Province of Galatia and the
Kingdom of Antiochus. The districts existed, whatever the official names may
have been, and St. Luke’s expressions indicate them with sufficient precision.
Whether he was using the names which a Roman official writing Greek would have
used is a point of secondary interest, and, after all, it must not be forgotten
that, so far as there is any inscriptional evidence, it supports the Lucan
phraseology.

Turning to the Epistle itself, the question is one based on the consideration of
two probabilities. (1) Is it probable that St. Paul made important missionary
journeys outside the districts covered by the narrative in Acts? (2) Is it
probable that he would refer to the inhabitants of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and
Antioch as Galatians? The answer to the first question is, on the whole, in the
negative. It is, of course, true that it is fairly clear from the Epistle that
St. Luke only gives the outline of St. Paul’s journeys, but it is impossible to
see any point in the three great journeys at which a visit to the old Kingdom of
Galatia can be interpolated, and there is, therefore, a considerable
improbability against any theory which identifies the Galatia of the Epistle
with a district outside those which the Acts state that he visited. To the
second question diametrically opposed answers have been given. German writers
especially have thought it improbable that the inhabitants of Lycaonia or
Phrygia would care to be addressed as Galatians, since their only connection
with Galatia was derived from the political arrangements of a conquering nation.
But these arguments largely rest on the wholly unproved assumption that the
recipients of the Epistle must have been ethnographically Phrygians or
Lycaonians, if the Churches of Iconium and Lystra were intended. It is far more
probable that they were, or (what is here the important point) preferred to
think that they were, Greek or Roman, and identified themselves with Greek and
Roman civilization, rather than with the Phrygians, whose name was a synonym for
slave, or with the Lycaonians, whose name had become the general title of
brigands.

Moreover, one may fairly ask what other generic title than “Galatians” St. Paul
could have used, if he was seeking a common name for inhabitants of Lystra and
Iconium. The Lystrans were ethnologically Lycaonians, and the inhabitants of
Iconium were ethnologically Phrygians. Both were politically Galatians; but was
there any other name which could be applied to both?

Thus, there is good reason for thinking (1) that Acts refers to the inhabitants
of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra, as belonging to Galatia; (2)
that Acts does not narrate any visit of St. Paul to the old Kingdom of Galatia;
(3) that “Galatian” is the term which St. Paul would naturally use to describe
these Churches.

Taken together, these facts seem to afford extremely strong evidence in favour
of the “South Galatian” view. Nor is this impression weakened by considering the
“North Galatian” arguments. I am unable to find that any argument of importance
has ever been put forward in support of the “North Galatian” view, except that
Acts 16:6 must mean that St. Paul passed first through Phrygia and then through
Galatia, after he had been prevented from preaching in Asia. This view is
subject to the objection that it sacrifices the proper meaning of τὴν Φρυγίαν
καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, reads into the aorist participle κωλυθέντες a meaning
which, though possible, is not necessary, and makes St. Paul wander wildly
through some of the most desolate tracts of Asia, instead of keeping to the main
roads and centres of the Greek-speaking population. The first of these
objections is remedied by Lightfoot’s suggestion, that τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν
χώραν means the country, which was Phrygian before the Galatians conquered it.
This is grammatically possible; but it is not likely that St. Luke would have
plunged in this way into references to events which had happened two centuries
previously.

Thus the balance of evidence in favour of the South Galatian theory seems to be
overwhelmingly strong, and the answer to the question, “Where was Galatia?” must
be that it was the Roman Province, and that the Galatians to whom St. Paul was
writing were the inhabitants of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra.

II. WHEN WAS GALATIANS WRITTEN? On the South Galatian hypothesis the earliest
date for the Epistle is St. Paul’s return from his first missionary journey. The
choice of a date after this point depends on the view taken of the indications
supplied by the Epistle itself. These indications are found in the
interpretation of two passages: Galatians 4:13 and Galatians 1:11-24, Galatians
2:1-14. THE MEANING OF Galatians 4:13 In Galatians 4:13 St. Paul says: “Ye know
that on account of physical infirmity I preached to you formerly.” The Greek for
“formerly” is τὸ πρότερον, and the suggestion has been made, notably by
Lightfoot, that this must mean “on the former of two visits”; that is, after St.
Paul had been twice to Galatia, and before a third visit. Assuming for the
moment that τὸ πρότερον must have this meaning, it is important to decide what
is its chronological significance. On the North Galatian theory, followed by
Lightfoot, it means that the Epistle was written after the visit recorded in
Acts 18:23, for the visit mentioned in Acts 16:6 was the first, and that in Acts
18:23 the second, visit to Galatia. On the South Galatian theory the
interpretation is less simple. St. Paul visited the Galatian Province for the
first time on his first missionary journey, and for the second time on his
second journey. Therefore, it would at first seem that Galatians must have been
written after the visit on the second journey; but the matter is complicated by
the fact that on the first journey St. Paul paid two visits to each of the
Galatian Churches, except, perhaps, Derbe, which was the turning-point. Thus, if
St. Paul was thinking of the individual Churches rather than of the locality as
a whole, he might have said, “the former of my two visits,” at any time after
the second visit on the first journey; and the first, not the second, missionary
journey, becomes the terminus a quo for the dating of the Epistle. But it is
much more probable that this view, that τὸ πρότιρον means on the former of two
occasions, is incorrect. It can equally well be used with no comparative sense,
beyond that involved in a contrast between past and present, in the sense of
“originally.” It is in the “Koine” Greek more common in this sense than in the
more classical significance, and in the New Testament this is almost
indisputably its meaning in all the ten passages in which it is found.

It is, therefore, more than hazardous to base any theory, or objection to any
theory, as to the chronology of Galatians on the view that τὸ πρότερον implies
that St. Paul had already paid two visits to the Galatians, for it probably
makes no such implication. There is even much to be said for Askwith’s
contention (p. 75 ff.), that εὐηγγελισάμην in Galatians 4:13 has more point, if
it be supposed that St. Paul, when he wrote, had only once been in Galatia; but
the point is too fine to be made the basis of an argument. THE MEANING OF
Galatians 1:11-24, Galatians 2:1-14 The interpretation of Galatians 1:11-24,
Galatians 2:1-14 is more difficult, and affords one of the most intricate
problems connected with the historical background of the Pauline Epistles. It
may be divided into two main questions. (i.) Does St. Paul mean that all the
events described took place before the conversion of the Galatians, or before
the sending of the Epistle? In other words, does the plan of this section
involve his giving a sketch of his relations with the Apostles at Jerusalem up
to the time of his converting the Galatians, or up to the time when he wrote to
them? (ii.) With what narratives in the Acts can we identify the events
mentioned in the Epistle? and, if we cannot identify them at all, when are they
likely to have happened?

(i.) The plan of the opening sections of Galatians is to offer a defence against
the attacks of Christian missionaries belonging to the Jerusalem or Judaizing
party, who had thrown doubt on St. Paul’s claim to be an Apostle of
Christianity.

St. Paul probably admits in Galatians 1:6 that there was a difference between
the gospel preached by himself and his opponents, but he claims that his mission
was direct from Christ and God the Father, not from men, i.e. not from the
Church at Jerusalem. This he states in Galatians 1:1, and repeats at greater
length in Galatians 1:11 ff.: “For I make known to you, brethren, that the
gospel preached by me is not according to man: for neither did I receive it from
man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus
Christ.” He then goes on to show that this contention, that he has received a
direct commission from Christ, not from the Church at Jerusalem, is borne out by
his history, and he especially explains the nature of his relations to the
Church at Jerusalem during two visits to that city. The question is whether this
plan entailed his giving a sketch of all the occasions when he came into contact
with the Apostles of Jerusalem up to the time of his visit to Galatia, or up to
the time of his writing the letter. It is clear that it is impossible to
dogmatize on this point. It is possible that he did neither the one nor the
other, but merely discussed the incidents which had been fastened upon by his
opponents as proving his subordination to Jerusalem. It is too often overlooked,
in considering this question, that we have to deal with a controversy of which
one side only is extant. St. Paul is not writing in a calm scientific spirit for
the good of future historians, but is doing his best to pulverize an opponent.
Now, in controversy, it is the business of a writer to answer arguments advanced
against him, not necessarily to meet them before hand, and we have no real right
to assume that St. Paul discusses every occasion which brought him into contact
with the Jerusalem Apostles: he may have limited himself to those incidents
which had been attacked. This last point is, in fact, the one which can be
advanced with most probability—the incidents dealt with are those which, at
least in the opinion of the opposing party, could be used against St. Paul, or,
on the other hand, were necessary to St. Paul’s purpose of answering attacks.

Thus with regard to the plan of this part of the Galatians, we can only say that
it is intended to answer attacks on the character of St. Paul’s apostleship, but
it remains more or less uncertain whether he meant to give an account (α) of all
his interviews with the Church at Jerusalem up to the time of his conversion of
the Galatians, (β) of all his interviews up to the time of writing the Epistle,
or (γ) only of those interviews which had been used against him in controversy.

It must, however, be admitted that while all three of these interpretations are
possible, there would be more logical force in St. Paul’s argument if he gave an
account of all his visits to Jerusalem at least up to the time of the conversion
of the Galatians, and that this interpretation has therefore a superior
probability, if it be found to be consistent with the other factors which
influence a decision as to the date of the Epistle.

(ii.) Bearing this conclusion in mind, it is now possible to consider in detail
the events narrated in Galatians 1:13-24, Galatians 2:1-14. These events can be
summarized as follows: (a) St. Paul’s life to his conversion (IGalatians
1:13-16); (β) his action immediately after the conversion (Galatians 1:16-17);
(γ) a visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18-20); (δ) visit to Syria Cilicia
(Galatians 1:21-24); (ε) a second visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1-10); (ζ) St.
Peter’s visit to Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14).

(a) St. Paul’s Life up to his Conversion (Galatians 1:13-16).—In Galatians
1:13-16 St. Paul says, “For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in
the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and
made havoc of it: and I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of my own age
among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my
fathers. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my
mother’s womb, and called me through His grace to reveal His Son in me, that I
should preach Him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and
blood,” etc. This account presents no real difficulty in connection with Acts,
which agrees with the Epistle in representing St. Paul as a persecutor up to the
time of his conversion. It is true that St. Paul (Acts 1:1-26, Acts 2:1-47, Acts
3:1-26, Acts 4:1-37, Acts 5:1-42, Acts 6:1-15, Acts 7:1-60, Acts 8:1-40, Acts
9:1-43) says nothing about the sudden vision described in Acts 9:1-43, but it is
an exaggeration of exegesis to pretend that the phrase “to reveal His Son in me”
can be regarded as contradictory to the narrative in Acts.

(β), (γ), (δ). These passages present more difficulty. The sequence of events in
Acts and Galatians can best be shown in parallel columns.

Acts

Galatians

(1) Visit to Damascus immediately after the conversion.

(1) Visit to Arabia immediately after the conversion.

(2) Escape from Damascus, and visit to Jerusalem.

(2) A “return” to Damascus.

(3) Retreat from Jerusalem to Tarsus in Cilicia.

(3) A visit to Jerusalem “after three years.”

(4) Departure to the “districts of Syria and Cilicia.”

The difference between these accounts is obvious, and one cannot entirely escape
the admission that either one or both are incomplete or inaccurate. There are,
however, two points which are especially worth notice. In the first place, the
expression in Galatians, “I returned (ὑπέστρεψα) to Damascus,” implies that he
had previously been there. It would seem as though St. Paul, for the moment at
least, regarded his conversion, or the complex of events of which his conversion
was the centre, as having taken place at Damascus, and this more or less
corroborates the narrative in Acts, according to which the conversion took place
on the road to Damascus, and was followed immediately by a period of temporary
blindness passed through in Damascus. In the second place, the statement in
Galatians that St. Paul departed to the “districts of Syria and Cilicia” after
the first visit to Jerusalem, corroborates the statement in Acts, that, owing to
a plot of the Greek-speaking Jews, he was taken by the Christians to Caesarea
and sent to Tarsus, his native town in Cilicia. But the points in which Acts and
Galatians wholly fail to corroborate each other are the visit to Arabia and the
description of the visit to Jerusalem. With regard to the visit to Arabia,
whatever may have been its nature, room can only be found for it if we suppose
that St. Luke has telescoped together two visits to Damascus, consciously or
unconsciously, and that the events described in Acts 9:19-25 really cover three
years. It should also be noted that the account of St. Paul’s escape from
Damascus in a basket is corroborated by 2 Corinthians 11:33 (“In Damascus the
ethnarch of Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes to take me, and I
was let down in a basket through a window”), and is brought into relation with
Aretas, the King of the Nabatean kingdom of Arabia. But for the present purpose
the question is not of primary importance. The events at Jerusalem are a more
serious matter. The two accounts are best placed in parallel columns.

Acts 9:26-30.

Galatians 1:18-20.

“And when he was come to Jerusalem he assayed to join himself to the disciples:
and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But
Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles, and declared unto them how he
had seen the Lord in the way, and that He had spoken to him, and how at Damascus
he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them going in and
coming out at Jerusalem: and he spake and disputed against the Greek-speaking
Jews, but they went about to kill him. And when the brethren knew it, they
brought him down to Caesarea.…”

“After three years I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and
tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James
the Lord’s brother. Now touching the things which I write unto you, before God,
I lie not. Then I came into the districts of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still
unknown by face unto the Churches of Judaea which were in Christ, but they only
heard say, He that persecuted us once now preacheth the faith of which he once
made havoc; and they glorified God in me.”

No amount of argument can alter the fact that Acts speaks of a period of
preaching in Jerusalem, which attracted sufficient attention to endanger St.
Paul’s life, while Galatians says that he was unknown by face unto the Churches
of Judaea. Considerations which may be allowed to tell on the other side are the
possibilities that St. Paul never spoke to any one except the Apostles and
Greek-speaking Jews, and that Judaea means “with the exception of Jerusalem.”
But to most minds this seems very forced and improbable. The general impression
made by Galatians is that this visit was a purely private one, during which St.
Paul only met St. Peter and St. James of the leaders, while Acts suggests a
rather stormy career of preaching in the company of the Apostles and St.
Barnabas, who in the Epistles is spoken of as an Apostle (cf. Galatians 2:9; 1
Corinthians 9:5-6).

Thus there is a real and essential difference between Acts and Galatians.
Probably both documents refer to the same visit, as both place it between St.
Paul’s departure from Damascus and his departure to Tarsus in Cilicia; but they
give divergent accounts of the character of the visit. This is possibly to be
explained by defective information on the part of St. Luke, but probably a more
important factor is the different purposes for which the two accounts were
written. St. Paul is controverting the accusation that he was disloyal to the
authorities at Jerusalem, and that he had derived his commission to preach from
them. St. Luke is either giving a merely historical account, or is chiefly
concerned to show that St. Paul’s gospel was not essentially different from that
of Jerusalem. St. Paul wishes to show his independence; St. Luke, to make plain
his agreement. The importance of this fact is not so much direct as indirect. It
shows that we cannot expect St. Luke and St. Paul to agree closely in their
accounts of the same events, and that their disagreement in descriptions is not
really any proof that they do not refer to the same things. To what extent this
is due to the pressure of controversy influencing St. Paul in one way, and the
necessity of omitting irrelevant details affecting St. Luke in another, is
impossible to say; the fact remains that when they are relating the same events
they sometimes differ so widely that it is only the context which enables us to
be sure that they are not referring to different incidents.

(ε) The Second Visit to Jerusalem.—This is placed by St. Paul “after fourteen
years.” It is somewhat doubtful whether he means fourteen years after his
conversion, or fourteen years after the first visit. Probably the latter is
right (see p. 288 f.), but the point is for the present purpose immaterial.
Really important is the omission of any statement as to the reason why he ever
left Tarsus and came to Antioch. According to Acts 11:25, this was at the desire
of St. Barnabas, the delegate from Jerusalem, and when St. Paul appears in Acts
at Antioch there is no suggestion that he is in any way superior to St.
Barnabas; indeed, until the two reach Cyprus St. Paul always is mentioned in the
second place. Why did St. Paul say nothing about this? If the account in Acts is
accurate it seems admirably calculated to have afforded a weapon for those who
maintained that he was subordinate to the Apostles at Jerusalem. One can only
suppose that there were some other facts which prevented this incident from
being used by St. Paul’s opponents, but were either unknown to St. Luke or
seemed to him to be immaterial for his purpose. Once more it is plain that one
cannot safely assume that either Acts or Galatians gives a complete account of
all the occasions when he came into contact with the original Apostles. The
further course of events is most important and difficult. St. Paul says that he
went up to Jerusalem, and that various incidents took place. What exactly were
these incidents, and to what narratives in Acts do they correspond?

Probably the least confusing manner of dealing with these very complicated and
perhaps insoluble questions is to adopt a somewhat artificial division of the
material, not entirely justified by the text, and say that there are two
problems: (1) the circumcision of Titus, and (2) the interview with St. James,
Cephas, and St. John; and it is disappointing, even if honest, to be obliged to
admit at the outset that no satisfactorily high degree of probability can be
claimed for any solution to either problem.

(1)The Circumcision of Titus.—As so often happens in passages which present
exegetical difficulties, the text is uncertain. The ordinary text found in all
critical editions and in all translations of modern times is: ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ
σὺν ἐμοὶ Ἕλλην ὢν ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι· διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους,
οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν, οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἵξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια
τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. “But not even Titus who was with me, being a
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, but because of the false brethren
privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in
Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we yielded in
subjection, no! not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue
with you.” This text is found in all Greek MSS. (including אB) except D, but not
in the Old Latin version, or in the Peshitto Syriac. It has in so far a claim to
recognition that it has not merely much manuscript support, but provides a
sentence so impossible to construe and difficult to explain that it invites
alteration. The serious rival to this text is found in D, Irenaeus, Victorinus,
Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Primasius and the Old Latin version: ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ Τίτος …
ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι, διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους … πρὸς ὥραν
εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια, κ.τ.λ., omitting the words οἷς οὐδὲ before
πρὸς ὥραν.

Intermediate stages between these two readings are found in Marcion, some Greek
MSS. known to Victorinus, and the Peshitto Syriac, who read, οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν
εἴξαμεν, κ.τ.λ. but without οἷς, and in Jerome’s Commentary on Galatians, which
reads οἷς πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν without οὐδέ. The question is whether these stages
represent emendations of the ordinary text or of that found in D, etc.
Undoubtedly, Tertullian and Irenaeus represent an older type of text than
anything found, as a whole, in our extant MSS., but in any given instance there
is always the chance that they have a purely Western corruption, and that the
great MSS. are right. The crucial point of the textual argument is to be found
in the reading of the Peshitto and Marcion. This seems to be certainly an
emendation; but it may be explained equally well as an emendation of the one
text as of the other. If we assume the text of the MSS. to have been the
original, it is possible that Marcion and Rabbula (the maker of the Peshitto)
struck out οἷς to improve the grammar; if we assume the text of Tertullian and
Irenaeus, they may have inserted a negative in order to exclude the exegesis
that St. Paul really did “yield in subjection.”

It will be seen, therefore, that the real difficulty is not that the textual
authorities are equally balanced, but that it is so difficult to see which of
the variants is really the lectio ardua which explains the others. The question
is, Which is more likely to have seemed ardua to early scribes, and so to have
first invited alteration? Would they have been more shocked by the suggestion
that St. Paul had circumcised Titus, or by an anacoluthon in his statement that
he did not do so? Personally, I think that they would have been more tolerant of
anacoluthon, and therefore am inclined to prefer the text of Irenaeus and
Tertullian; but it must be admitted to be a point on which a decision is
impossible. The matter is complicated rather than elucidated by the fact that
the verse is, whatever reading be adopted, susceptible of meaning either that
Titus was or was not circumcised. The meaning depends entirely on the emphasis
placed on the words. “Titus was not compelled to be circumcised” is as possible
as “Titus was not compelled to be circumcised,” and the meaning of one is the
opposite of the other. Both interpretations (and, in fact, many variations of
each type) have often been suggested, but it is unnecessary for the present
purpose to discuss them; the truth is that it is quite impossible ever to decide
from the actual wording what really happened. This is one of the results which
spring from the fact that Galatians is really a letter, dealing with facts which
were well known both to the writer and to his correspondents, though not to us.
St. Paul was not writing for our benefit, but for the Galatians, who knew all
about Titus, and therefore it was unnecessary for him to make plain the fact
that Titus had or had not been circumcised—what he had to do was to discuss the
importance of the fact.

When, however, we look at the question in this light, no longer as a question of
exegesis, but as one of general probability, the point assumes a somewhat
different aspect, though it still remains obscure. St. Paul is here defending
himself against attack: there is, therefore, a probability that the incidents
with which he deals are those which his opponents had used to prove that he was
subordinate to the Apostles at Jerusalem. Certainly this is the case with the
first visit to Jerusalem, and with the interview with the Apostles on the second
visit; clearly these were facts out of which St. Paul’s opponents had tried to
make capital, and had thus forced him to give his own account of what had
happened. If we might assume that this is also the case with the episode of
Titus, it would follow that he had been circumcised, that St. Paul’s opponents
had used this as an argument, and that St. Paul, therefore, found it necessary
to explain that, though Titus had been circumcised, it was not under compulsion,
but as an act of grace, perhaps of misplaced concession to false brethren, whose
true character he did not at the time perceive. At first sight this seems
convincing, but it may be argued, on the other hand, with equal plausibility,
that the incident of Titus is only mentioned in order to prove that the
interview at Jerusalem was not really a permanent submission, as could be seen
from the fact that Titus (who was a Gentile) was not circumcised, in spite of
the pressure exercised by the false brethren, to whom he yielded only on matters
of temporary importance, not on those of principle. Nor is it possible to base a
decision between these two lines of argument on our knowledge of what St. Paul
is likely to have done. St. Paul argues in his Epistles against the necessity of
circumcision, but on the other hand, he circumcised Timothy, who was, after all,
a Greek, even though his mother was a Jewess, and we may safely say that no one
after reading Galatians 5:1-26 would ever have expected such a concession to
Jewish feeling, though Galatians 5:11 (“If I preach circumcision, why am I
persecuted?”) may be taken as implying that in some way he had given rise to the
statement that he did recommend circumcision.

Thus the only possible summing up of the whole point seems to be that a verdict
of “not proven” ought to be returned. It is possible to make attractive
statements in the spirit of an advocate for either side, but if a judicial
attitude is to be observed, no other verdict is conceivable. If, however, I were
obliged to take sides, I should say that there is a balance of argument in
favour of the view that Titus was circumcised.

(2)The Interview with St. Peter, St. James, and St. John at Jerusalem.—The main
question here is whether this interview can be placed at the time of the
Apostolic Council described in Acts 15:1-41, or at that of the visit during the
famine described in Acts 11:30 and Acts 12:25. The popular view is the
identification of the visit with the Apostolic Council, and the arguments in
favour of this view are best set out in the additional note to Acts 2:1-47. in
Lightfoot’s Commentary pp. 123–128. The other view has been defended by Ramsay,
Weber, and Bartlett, and still more recently by C. W. Emmet. It will probably be
simplest to begin by stating shortly the main arguments for both views, and
afterwards discussing them in more detail. The case for the Identification of
the Interview inGalatians 2:1-21withActs 12:1-25—The main argument for this view
will always be found in the fact that St. Paul’s reasoning seems to imply that
this interview took place on his second visit to Jerusalem, and the second visit
to Jerusalem according to Acts was that in the time of the famine. A priori this
raises a presumption in favour of the view that St. Luke and St. Paul refer to
the same visit, and the onus probandi is really on those who deny it.

Secondary arguments in favour of this view are not wanting. It is plain that if
St. Paul intended to give an account of the occasions on which he came into
contact with the Apostles, it would have seriously injured his argument to omit
a visit to Jerusalem. Moreover, two striking parallels can be found between the
account given of the second visit in Acts and Galatians 2:1-21. These can best
be shown in parallel columns:

“I went to Jerusalem with Barnabas … And

I went up by revelation.”—Galatians 2:1 “Only they would that we should remember
the poor, which very thing I was also zealous to do.”—Galatians 2:10

“There stood one [of the prophets] named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit
that there should be a famine over all the world … and the disciples determined
to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea, which also they did,
sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.”—Acts 11:27-30.

Galatians and Acts speak of a visit to Jerusalem made by St. Barnabas and Saul,
in accordance with prophetic instructions, and connected with the relief of the
poor, and both describe this visit as the second which St. Paul paid to
Jerusalem after his conversion.

Such is the main case in favour of the identification of St. Paul’s interview
with the Apostles with the visit at the time of the famine. To my mind it is
extremely strong. The case for the Identification of the Interview inGalatians
2:1-21withActs 12:1-25—Lightfoot has stated the case as follows: “The geography
is the same. In both narratives the communications take place between Jerusalem
and Antioch: in both the head-quarters of the false brethren are at the former
place, their machinations are carried on in the latter: in both, the Gentile
Apostles go up to Jerusalem apparently from Antioch, and return thence to
Antioch again. The time is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St. Paul
places the event fifteen or sixteen years after his conversion: St. Luke’s
narrative implies that they took place about the year 51. The persons are the
same: Paul and Barnabas appear as the representatives of the Gentile Churches,
Cephas and James as the leaders of the circumcision. The agitators are similarly
described in the two accounts: in the Acts, as converted Pharisees, who had
imported their dogmas into the Christian Church; in the Epistle, as false
brethren who attempt to impose the bondage of the Law on the Gentile converts.
The two Apostles of the Gentiles are represented in both accounts as attended:
‘certain other Gentiles’ (ἐξ αὐτῶν) are mentioned by St. Luke; Titus, a Gentile,
is named by St. Paul. The subject of dispute is the same; the circumcision of
the Gentile converts. The character of the conference is in general the same; a
prolonged and hard-fought contest. The result is the same; the exemption of the
Gentiles from the enactments of the Law, and the recognition of the apostolic
commission of Paul and Barnabas by the leaders of the Jewish Church.”

Such are the positive arguments for the two identifications. It remains to
compare them, and see which seems to give the best explanation of the facts and
to be least susceptible to serious criticism.

It is plain that Lightfoot’s argument as to the geography applies equally well
to either identification, and that so far as the persons engaged are concerned
the representatives of Antioch were on both occasions St. Barnabas and St. Paul.
Thus the points which really have to be considered are: (1) the probability or
reverse of the presence of St. Peter and St. James in Jerusalem during the
famine relief; (2) the character of the meeting; and (3) the result of the
meeting. In considering all these points it must be remembered that the task of
those who think that the private interview of Galatians 2:1-21, took place
during the famine relief is to show on the one hand that such an interview is
not improbable during that time, and on the other hand that the account in
Galatians 2:1-21, does not agree with that in Acts 15:1-41; while those who
regard this interview as having been a preliminary to the Apostolic Council,
have to reverse this process, and show that Galatians 2:1-21. does agree with
Acts 15:1-41, and implies a state of affairs which was improbable during the
famine relief.

(1)The probability of St. Peter’s and St. James’ presence during the Famine
Relief.—It has to be admitted that St. Luke does not state that these Apostles
were present in Jerusalem, still less that they discussed the nature of the
preaching of St. Paul, but this objection really resolves itself into the
question of the presence or absence of the Apostles, for it must be remembered
that St. Barnabas— the Cypriote—had been sent to Antioch to investigate the
preaching of the Cyrenaeans and Cypriotes, and that this visit was his first
return to Jerusalem since he had taken the serious step of approving of this
preaching and fetching St. Paul from Tarsus to help in carrying it on. If,
therefore, the Apostles were present in Jerusalem they must have discussed, at
least in private, as St. Paul says in Galatians 2:1-21, the nature of this
preaching. Thus everything turns on the question of the presence or absence of
the Apostles. It is, therefore, desirable to consider the circumstances of the
visit to Jerusalem in the time of the famine with somewhat greater closeness. In
the middle section of Acts St. Luke has had to attempt the most difficult task
which is ever laid on a historian,—the narration of the history of events in two
separate places. The interest passes backwards and forwards between Jerusalem
and Antioch. In Acts 11:19-30 the centre is Antioch; St. Luke describes how the
Cyrenaeans and Cypriotes preached to the Gentiles, how St. Barnabas was sent
from Jerusalem to investigate, how he approved of their teaching, and called St.
Paul from Tarsus to help in carrying it on, and how at the time of the famine
St. Barnabas and St. Paul took relief to Jerusalem. Thus he brings the history
down to the time of the famine, which was in 46 a.d.

Then he goes back, takes up the history of Jerusalem for the same period, and in
Acts 12:1-25 describes the death of St. James and the imprisonment of St. Peter,
the death of Herod Agrippa I., which took place in 44 a.d., ending with the
statement that after this the “word of the Lord increased and multiplied.” He
then adds a verse (Acts 12:25) referring to the ministrations of St. Barnabas
and Saul, thus bringing the Jerusalem narrative up to the time of the famine,
and connecting it with Antiochene section. Whether this verse is intended to
represent the beginning or the end of the relief work depends on the text
followed—a problem which will never be settled with complete certainty—but it is
at least clear that St. Barnabas and St. Paul are represented as in Jerusalem
during the period of quiet which followed the death of Herod Agrippa I. This
means that St. Peter was out of prison; but the question is whether he was not
also out of Jerusalem. This depends on the exegesis of Acts 12:17 which says
that St. Peter ἐξελθὼν (from the house of Mary) ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἔτερον τόπον. It
has been argued that this means “went to another town.” But the truth seems to
be that τόπος is almost exactly the equivalent of “place,” and that whether it
is “town” or “house” depends entirely on the context. For instance, in Acts 4:31
(ἐσαλεύθη ὁ τόπος ἐν ᾦ ἦσαν συνηγμένοι) it certainly means either “house” or
“room.” In the present case the only guide which is given to the meaning is in
the adjective ἔτερον. This means “another of two” (Lat. alter), and thus
connects τόπον with the place from which St. Peter went out. Now, the place from
which he went out (ἐξελθών) was the house of Mary, the door of which he had with
some difficulty succeeded in having opened. Therefore the strict interpretation
of the passage is that he went to another house. There is nothing in the context
to suggest anything else. The most probable view, therefore, is that St. Peter
remained in Jerusalem, and is perhaps supported by the fact that in Acts
15:1-41. St. Luke clearly states that St. Peter was in Jerusalem at the time of
the Council. It is indeed probable that St. Luke has omitted some, perhaps a
whole series, of St. Peter’s incidental absences from Jerusalem between Acts
12:1-25 and Acts 15:1-41, but he shows no consciousness of having taken him out
of Jerusalem and never brought him back.

Even if this argument be rejected, it remains clear that St. Luke regards the
mission of St. Barnabas and St. Paul with relief for the famine as at all events
ending later than the peace of the Church which followed Herod’s death, and we
certainly have no reason to believe that St. Peter, if he had left Jerusalem
until the storm was past, did not return when quiet was re-established. There
is, therefore, no justification in the history of St. Peter for the view that he
could not have seen St. Paul during the famine visit, and if the identification
of the private interview of Galatians 2:1-21 with this visit appears to be
otherwise probable, no reasonable objection can be made from any theory that St.
Peter was not at that time in Jerusalem. A minor objection of the same nature
has, however, been based on the phrase in Acts 11:30 to the effect that St.
Barnabas and St. Paul took alms to the presbyters, not to the Apostles. Hence,
it is argued, we must conclude that there were no Apostles in Jerusalem at that
time. This objection rests partly on a misapprehension of the difference between
an Apostle and a presbyter. The Apostles were the active founders of Churches;
the presbyters were the administrative officers of Churches after they had been
founded. It is also partly due to ignoring the importance of the narrative in
Acts 6:1-15, in which St. Luke describes how the Apostles in Jerusalem were set
free from relief work by the appointment of the “seven.” St. Barnabas and St.
Paul, therefore, would be likely to take alms to the presbyters rather than to
the Apostles, but to discuss the nature of their preaching with the latter
rather than with the former.

(2)The Subject under Discussion, and the Character of the Meeting at
Jerusalem.—Lightfoot’s statement that the subject of discussion was the
circumcision of the converts, and that the character of the conference was in
general a prolonged and hard-fought contest, is open to dispute. Certainly the
subject of discussion at the Apostolic Council was the circumcision of the
converts, and their general relation to the Jewish Law; but this is not exactly
the description which St. Paul gives of his conference with the Apostles. He
says they had a private discussion as to “his gospel.” This is surely a
different matter. He had already been preaching to the Gentiles: the question
was whether he should continue to do so, and he says that the Apostles agreed
that he should go on as he had begun. It is, to my mind, more probable that this
represents something anterior to the great missionary activity which called out
the protests from Jewish Christians and so led up to the Council. The question
of circumcision may have been discussed, but St. Paul seems anxious to give the
impression that this was not the question which he discussed at Jerusalem.
Moreover, it must be remembered that it is quite doubtful whether St. Paul did
or did not allow Titus to be circumcised, and that if a text and interpretation
be adopted which means that Titus was circumcised, the matter is really settled—
such a concession is unthinkable at the time of the Council, though, perhaps,
possible at the earlier date. Nor is it at all clear that Lightfoot was right in
saying that the character of the conference was in general a hard fought
contest. So far as the conference itself is concerned, St. Paul does not hint at
any fighting, and the whole idea of contest is based on the doubtful text and
doubtful interpretation of Galatians 2:3. If we follow the most ancient text,
that of Irenaeus and Tertullian, St. Paul states that he yielded for the moment,
and whether that statement refers to the circumcision of Titus (as I am inclined
to believe) or to something else, it is inconsistent both with Lightfoot’s
description and with Acts 15:1-41.

Moreover, it is in any case true that on the main point there is more
discrepancy than agreement between Acts 15:1-41 and Galatians 2:1-21 St. Paul
says that he had a private meeting which settled the matter. He does not breathe
a word as to this private meeting having been merely preliminary to a public
meeting, which had had epoch-making consequences for Christianity, and really
settled the question of circumcision; and he observes this silence, in any case
curious, in spite of the fact that this same question is one of the two main
topics of the Epistle, in which he is at pains to argue the point against
adversaries whose leaders had, on Lightfoot’s theory, already conceded it to
him.

(3)The Result of the Conference.—The end of the last paragraph holds equally
good as a criticism of Lightfoot’s statement that the result of the interview in
Galatians 2:1-21 was the same as that in Acts 15:1-41. So far as St. Paul tells
us, the only result of the private interview was that the Apostles agreed that
he was doing good work. If they had gone on to draw the—no doubt
logical—conclusion that St. Paul’s converts were not obliged to be circumcised,
surely St. Paul would have said so? The fact is that the result of the interview
was, according to St. Paul, merely that he was encouraged to go on preaching to
the Gentiles; which, if the interview be placed at the time of the famine, is
what he actually did immediately afterwards on an hitherto unprecedented scale.
The result of the Council was that a letter was written to at least some of his
converts, disclaiming the necessity of following the Jewish Law, and asking them
to observe either the main precepts of the moral law, or a food law. If the
three-clause text which implies the former (see pp. 48 ff.) be taken, it is
perhaps just possible that this is formally covered by St. Paul’s expression.
“they imparted nothing to me” (προσανέθεντο), but if the four-clause text
implying a food law be adopted, it is impossible to make his words agree with
the facts as stated in Acts xv. In either case he is omitting facts of the first
importance, and relating those of subordinate importance which led up to them.
It is this which, on the hypothesis that Acts 15:1-41 and Galatians 2:1-21 must
refer to the same event, has led so many of the ablest German scholars to regard
the account in Acts 15:1-41 as wholly unhistorical. So far the balance of
argument seems to be decidedly against the identification of the private
interview with the Apostolic Council, and therefore in favour of the suggestion
that it took place during the visit to Jerusalem in the time of the famine. It
is, however, necessary to examine two important objections which are brought
against the latter theory.

(1) A Chronological Objection.—In Galatians 2:1 St. Paul says that he went up to
Jerusalem “after fourteen years.” If this be taken to mean fourteen years after
his first visit, it implies seventeen years after the conversion, and if the
famine was in 46–7, this would place the conversion in the year 30, which,
though not impossible, is at least very early, though it has been adopted by
Harnack. It is possible that St. Paul means fourteen years after his conversion,
not after his first visit; this would give 33 as the year of the conversion, and
no difficulty would then exist. But it must probably be admitted that this is
the less natural interpretation, which ought not to be adopted unless it is
quite impossible to fit the other view into the chronology of St. Paul’s life.
Nevertheless, in view of the other arguments in favour of not identifying the
interview in Galatians 2:6-10 with Acts 15:1-41, I am prepared to think either
that the conversion did really take place in 30 (31 even is just within the
possible limits), or that the fourteen years ought, after all, to be taken as
from the conversion; but I feel that this chronological difficulty is real, and
the only serious objection to placing the interview at the time of the famine.

(2)The Objection that such an Interview would have rendered the Apostolic
Council unnecessary.—This objection is best stated by McGiffert in the form that
it is impossible to think that St. Barnabas and St. Paul twice went to Jerusalem
with the same object, and that from the Epistle it is clear that the main object
of the second visit was to secure the recognition of Gentile Christianity. This
objection has already been partly discussed; it does not gain strength on
examination, for it really assumes all that it ought to prove. The whole point
is that the journey described in Galatians 2:1-21 had not the same object as
that in Acts 15:1-41. The truth is that St. Paul does not definitely state what
the real purpose of his visit was in any indisputable manner. What he does
definitely say is that his interview with the Apostles was a private
conversation, secondary to the main object of his journey; but what this main
object was he does not directly state, though he very probably alludes to it
when he says that he was zealous to “remember the poor.” In fact, a very
plausible paraphrase of Galatians 2:1-21 would be “I did, I admit, describe my
teaching to the Gentiles, but I did not do this with any idea of recognizing a
superior authority, and I only discussed the matter in a private conversation,
secondary to my main purpose, because I valued the opinion and experience of the
men of high position in the Church. They never suggested any change in my
method, but only begged me to continue my care for the poor—which was the main
object which I had in hand at the time.” The main result of the above discussion
is to show a balance of probability in favour of the identification of the
“interview” in Galatians 2:1-21 with an interview unrecorded by St. Luke during
St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem at the time of the famine. Against this has to be
set the chronological difficulty. The more popular identification with the
Apostolic Council, or more accurately with a conference preceding it, has been
seen to be open to many objections, of which the most important are: (1) that
Galatians 2:1-21 seems to imply that this was St. Paul’s second visit, whereas
according to Acts it was really his third; and (2) that it is very hard to think
that St. Paul would mention a private discussion without mentioning the result
of the official meeting. It is now desirable to consider two lines of argument
by means of which the attempt has been made to meet these objections. The only
at all satisfactory answer, if Acts be regarded as a trustworthy source of
information, is that St. Paul is not describing his visits to Jerusalem, but to
the Apostles. This view has partially been dealt with above (pp. 282 ff.). It
implies that the Apostles were all absent from Jerusalem during the famine.
There is certainly no evidence that they were absent sufficient to render this a
positive argument in favour of the identification of Galatians 2:1-21 with Acts
15:1-41, but, on the other hand, there is no evidence that they were present,
and therefore this is a possible answer to the objection, though it must be
noted that St. Paul, in describing the object of his visit, does, in fact, say
that he went to Jerusalem, and does not say that he went to the Apostles.

Some scholars, however, who maintain the identification of the interview with
the preliminaries to the Apostolic Council, are dissatisfied with this method of
dealing with the difficulty. They attempt to solve it by postulating more or
less serious inaccuracy in the Lucan narrative. Of these attempts the best is
that of McGiffert, who maintains that Acts 15:1-41, Galatians 2:1-21, and the
visit in the time of the famine, are all one and the same. St. Luke was misled
by the fact that he found in his sources two accounts—one describing especially
the philanthropic side of the mission, the other its controversial aspect. These
accounts differed so much that he thought that they really belonged to different
occasions. There is nothing intrinsically improbable in this suggestion, for
early writers were certainly liable to make two incidents out of two varying
accounts of the same event. But it has several disadvantages: it avoids the
actual difficulty of making St. Paul describe as his second visit to Jerusalem
what was really his third, but it removes none of the other objections to the
identification of the “private interview” with Acts 15:1-41, and adds to them
the one serious difficulty—that of chronology— attached to the alternative
theory, for the famine provides, on McGiffert’s view, the fixed date for this
meeting in Jerusalem.

Still more radical is the view of Schmiedel (Enc. Bibl., “Council of
Jerusalem”), which represents the mass of advanced German criticism; he thinks
that Galatians 2:1-21 must refer to the same incident as Acts 15:1-41, but that
the two accounts are so divergent as to prove that the account in Acts is quite
inaccurate in describing an official meeting of the Church, and in imagining the
existence of the Apostolic Decrees. According to this criticism there was never
either an Apostolic Council or Apostolic Decrees. Some critics of this school go
further, and think that the account of a visit to Jerusalem for the relief of
the famine is also unhistorical. Such views have, however, of recent years,
found less and less support, and are not likely ever to regain their position.
It is, however, quite legitimate to use the penetrating and in many ways really
moderate criticism of Schmiedel, to show the difficulties of accepting the view
that Galatians 2:1-21 and Acts 15:1-41 refer to the same situation. To sum up:
each of the rival views has its own difficulties. The identification of
Galatians 2:1-21 with a supposed interview during the time of the famine has to
meet the two objections that there is no proof that the Apostles were at that
time in Jerusalem, and that it is more difficult to fit into the general
chronology of St. Paul’s life. The alternative view is liable to the objection
that it appears to describe as St. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, what
according to Acts was really his third; and that it makes St. Paul omit the
ultimate decisions of the Council, which were, in any case, most important for
the purpose of his Epistle, while giving an account of a private interview which
it is assumed had been held previously. The question is, Which set of objections
can be most easily answered? It is here that opinions have differed, and
probably will continue to differ: my own view is that the objections placing
Galatians 2:1-21 at the time of the famine are much the less serious, but I
recognize that they are real, and prevent one from claiming the right to feel
quite certain on the subject. Probably many of those who take the opposite view
would be prepared, mutatis mutandis, to say the same.

(ζ) St. Peter’s Visit to Antioch.—According to the Epistle St. Peter came down
to Antioch, and was at first willing to move freely in Gentile circles, but
after a time messengers from St. James came from Jerusalem to Antioch, and
persuaded St. Peter and the other Jewish Christians to draw back and separate
themselves from the Gentile Christians. Against this St. Paul protested, and he
quotes the incident here in order to show that he never had accepted any
position of subordination to Jerusalem, or had altered the character of his own
teaching. The questions of historical importance are whether this visit of St.
Peter ought to be placed chronologically after St. Paul’s interview with the
Apostles in Jerusalem, and what its relation is to the Apostolic Council of Acts
15:1-41.

Lightfoot and Lipsius both think the visit of St. Peter to Antioch took place
after the Council, on the ground that St. Paul is giving a series of events
arranged in chronological order. Probably every one will agree that this is the
most obvious view to take; but the difficulty has been felt that the incident
described is most improbable at that time. In the first place, supposing the
Apostolic Decrees were a food law, it is difficult to imagine both St. Peter and
St. Paul ignoring them until St. James sent to remind them of the agreement, and
almost harder to think either that St. Paul objected to keeping the agreement
which he had just made, or, in the alternative, that St. James was trying to
insist on more than the Council had conceded; and one or other of these
alternatives seems to be necessarily implied. In the second place, if the
Council did not prescribe a food law, but agreed to recognize the Antiochene
position, which only asked for moral requirements, it is equally hard to imagine
that St. James should so soon afterwards have encouraged a movement which, at
the Council itself, he failed to support.

These difficulties have led Zahn and Turner to suggest that St. Paul does not
here follow the chronological order of events, but passes, after considering the
two occasions on which he came into contact with the Apostles in Jerusalem, to
deal with the single occasion when St. Peter came down to Antioch; it is not
stated definitely that St. Peter did this before or after the events previously
mentioned, but historical probability points clearly to an occasion anterior to
the Council. In support of this conclusion it is urged that in the previous
section St. Paul indicates the chronological order by beginning each sentence by
ἔπειτα (Galatians 1:18, Galatians 1:21, Galatians 2:1), and that when in
Galatians 2:11 he omits to insert ἔπειτα, he implies that he is no longer
following the chronological order.

There is a sufficient amount of weight in this reasoning to render the theory
just possible; it is, indeed, to my mind, the preferable form of the
interpretation which places the “interview” in Galatians 2:1-21 in the time of
the Apostolic Council. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the
straightforward view is that St. Paul is throughout following the chronological
order, and that when he says, “But when Peter came,” etc., he means that this
happened after the meeting in Jerusalem, which he had just described.

It is, therefore, no small advantage for the view that Galatians 2:1-21. ought
to be placed in the time of the famine, that it avoids all these difficulties.
It is then possible to take Galatians 2:1-21 as giving the chronological order
of events, and at the same time not to read into the account of the “interview”
in Jerusalem details only derived from Acts 15:1-41 If we confine ourselves to
Galatians 2:1-21, we know nothing of any agreement as to the conditions of
intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Christians. All we know is that the
Apostles approved of St. Paul’s teaching, and agreed that he should continue to
preach to Gentiles, while they kept to the Jews; and, so far as we know, nothing
was said as to what the members of the Jerusalem school should do if they
happened to be in the province of the mission to the Gentiles. But, if this be
recognized, the account of St. Peter’s visit to Antioch becomes intelligible.
After he had agreed that St. Paul should continue his work on his previous
lines, he came to Antioch, and at first fell in with the custom of the
Antiochene Christians, and mixed freely with the uncircumcised Gentile
Christians who did not obey the Jewish Law. Afterwards, other members of the
Church at Jerusalem came to Antioch, who were shocked at this laxity, persuaded
both St. Peter and St. Barnabas to adopt a stricter line, insisted that it was
one thing to encourage preaching to the Gentiles, but quite another to derogate
from the sacredness of the Law, or to excuse converts from all observance of it,
and were stoutly resisted by St. Paul.

Moreover, it is noticeable that this tallies very closely with the account which
St. Luke gives of the scene at Antioch before the Council, and the τινὰς ἀπὸ
Ἰακώβον in Galatians correspond exactly to the τινὲς κατελθόντες ἀπ τῆς Ἰουδαίας
in Acts.

Thus, on the view that the “interview” in Galatians 2:1-21 refers to an incident
in the time of the famine, this section must be taken to mean that, just before
the Apostolic Council, St. Peter was in Antioch, and was somewhat vacillating in
the presence of the conflicting claims of the local Church and of the
representatives of the Church in Jerusalem. This must have been directly after
St. Paul’s and St. Barnabas’ return from the first missionary journey, as
described in Acts. On this theory, the incident really presents no special
difficulties; it falls naturally into place as one of the events which made the
Council necessary; that this is historically probable has been recognized by
Zahn and Turner, but inasmuch as they still hold to the view that the
“interview” belongs to the time of the Council, they are obliged to accept the
exegetical improbability that St. Paul has deserted the chronological order of
events. The other view, placing the “interview” in the time of the famine,
enables us to follow the lines both of historical and of exegetical probability
at the same time. Thus regarded, the incident of St. Peter’s visit to Antioch is
a valuable though secondary argument in favour of the early date of the
“interview.” In order to apply the results of the preceding investigation to the
date of the Epistle, the main point is to establish the latest date mentioned by
St. Paul. As to this it is obvious that three views are possible. (1) On the
theory that the “interview” must be placed at the time of the Apostolic Council
at Jerusalem, and that St. Paul in Galatians 2:1-21 follows the chronological
order of events, the visit of St. Peter to Antioch is the latest date mentioned.
(2) On the same view, but with the amendment that St. Paul is not following the
chronological order, the latest point is the proceedings in Jerusalem
immediately preceding the Council. (3) On the view that the “interview” belongs
to the time of the famine, the latest date is the visit of St. Peter to Antioch,
which must be placed either immediately before, or far more probably immediately
after, the first missionary journey, just before the Apostolic Council, when the
Judaic controversy was at its height.

Whichever view be adopted—to my mind the third is the most probable—it is clear
that this latest date mentioned in the Epistle gives us the terminus a quo,
before which it cannot have been written. The question which remains is to fix a
terminus ad quem. This cannot be done even with the same degree of probability
as the earlier date: it depends on the view taken of the general plan of the
Epistle, and on the consideration of probabilities which appeal with very
varying force to different minds. The main lines of discussion may be stated
thus: First, it may be argued that St. Paul in Galatians 1:1-24 and Galatians
2:1-21 is giving an account of the events not up to the time when he visited
them, but up to the time of his writing; in this case the terminus a quo
established above is actually the date of the Epistle, and we must regard it as
written either just before or just after the Apostolic Council, according to the
view adopted. Or, secondly, it is possible to hold that St. Paul is only giving
an account of events up to the conversion of the Galatians. It should be noticed
that for those who hold the South Galatian view—that the Epistle was sent to
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe—the second of these alternatives is
only possible if we suppose that St. Peter’s visit to Antioch preceded the first
missionary journey. Ramsay seems to have overlooked this point when he argues in
one place (Paul the Traveller, p. 187) that St. Paul omits the Council of
Jerusalem, because it was held after the conversion of the Galatians, and in
another (p. 160) that the visit of St. Peter to Antioch took place on St. Paul’s
return from his first journey, and finally (p. 191) dates the Epistle during St.
Paul’s visit to Antioch after the second journey. This is inconsistent
reasoning; if St. Paul omitted the Council because it was posterior to the
conversion of the Galatians, he ought also to have omitted St. Peter’s visit to
Antioch, and the fact that he does not do so shows that the omission of the
Council must be otherwise explained.

Or, thirdly, it may be that he is merely giving an account of the events in his
career which played a part in the campaign between him and the Judaizers, either
for attack or defence, apart from any question as to their chronological
relation to the conversion of the Galatians. The third possibility is, to my
mind, the most generally probable, but can obviously neither be proved nor
disproved: it is only serviceable in so far as it raises a presumption that if
St. Paul omits all mention of events which would certainly have been of use
either to himself or to his opponents in the Judaic controversy, this must have
been because the events in question had not yet taken place. The adoption of the
North Galatian theory, which holds that St. Paul did not found the Churches in
Galatia until his second journey, leaves us free to think that St. Paul, in
Galatians 1:1-24 and Galatians 2:1-21, describes only events anterior to the
foundation of the Churches. In this case, when combined, as it always is, with
the identification of the “interview” in Galatians 2:1-21 with the Apostolic
Council, the North Galatian theory gives us no help in fixing the terminus ad
quem of the dating of the Epistle. It is necessary to look for other
indications. These can be found in one direction only—the connection of the
Epistle with that to the Romans. The relationship of Galatians to Romans is
extraordinarily close. It is similar to, though possibly slightly less marked,
than that of Colossians to Ephesians, and 1 Thessalonians to 2 Thessalonians.
This has been worked out in detail by Lightfoot, in his edition of Galatians,
pp. 45 ff., and the conclusion which he draws is that, if we are to judge from
literary affinity, Galatians must have been written just before Romans. The same
view is adopted by Askwith, who does not, however, adopt the North Galatian
hypothesis. According to Lightfoot, therefore, Galatians was most probably sent
from Corinth, just before St. Paul’s last journey to Jerusalem. On the North
Galatian theory this view seems to me to be the most probable,and it is
important as drawing attention to the evidence afforded by the relation of
Galatians to Romans. On the South Galatian theory the position is different. The
earliest date to which the Epistle can possibly be ascribed is the one which
seems to me the most probable. If we adopt this view the dispute with St. Peter
at Antioch is the latest incident mentioned in the Epistle, and St. Paul wrote
immediately afterwards, just before the Council, on receipt of the news that the
Jerusalem mission, which had caused trouble in Antioch, had also disturbed the
Galatian Church. This hypothesis accounts satisfactorily for the absence of any
mention of the Apostolic Council and its decrees in a manner which no other
hypostheses does: it is, other hypothesis does: it is, of course, only possible
if the conflict with St. Peter be regarded as earlier than the Council. It is
best fitted to the view which identifies the “interview” in Galatians 2:1-212
with an incident of the visit to Jerusalem in the time of the famine. It is just
possible, on the more usual identification of that interview with the
preliminaries of the Council, if we suppose (with Zahn and Turner) that the
conflict with St. Peter happened earlier, and think that the Epistle was written
from Jerusalem during the visit at the time of the Council, but before it had
actually held its official meeting as described in Acts 15:1-31. But this seems
unlikely: if for no other reason, because the way in which Jerusalem is
mentioned suggests that St. Paul was not at the time of writing in that city. On
this view, then, the Epistle was written shortly before the Council, after St.
Paul’s return from the first missionary journey. Was it, in this case, written
from Antioch? This is the most obvious place, but the objection is that St. Paul
refers to Antioch without saying or implying that he was writing there. This is
not a very serious objection, but those who feel it to be important can suppose
that the Epistle was written at some time during St. Paul’s journey from Antioch
to Jerusalem described in Acts 15:3. It is a point in favour of this view that
St. Luke’s words “they passed through (διήρχοντο) both Phoenicia and Samaria,
declaring the conversion (ἐπιστροφή) of the Gentiles.” Διέρχεσθαι is the usual
word for a journey of propaganda, and St. Luke seems to imply that St. Paul and
St. Barnabas went more or less slowly to Jerusalem, gathering adherents as they
went. Moreover, if the Epistle was written during this journey it would give a
better explanation of the absence of all greetings from a definite Church, and
would throw an interesting light on the phrase in Galatians 1:2, “all the
brethren who are with me, ” which would be more appropriate as a reference to
his companions on the way up to Jerusalem, than as a paraphrase for the Church
at Antioch.

Thus, to my mind, the most probable view is that Galatians was written while St.
Paul was going from Antioch to Jerusalem, just before the Apostolic Council. It
is, however, necessary to point out that the one serious objection to this view
is that it does not account for the resemblance of Galatians to Romans, if the
traditional date of Romans,—written from Corinth before St. Paul’s departure for
Jerusalem,—be accepted. The only possible view seems to be that St. Paul wrote
Galatians after his return from the first missionary journey during the
controversy which led up to the Council; that there was then a temporary lull in
the Judaistic controversy, or that the Judaizing propaganda passed over
Macedonia and Achaia, and that when it broke out in Rome, St. Paul sent a longer
and fuller statement of the arguments which he had used for the Galatians. This
is possible: at the same time, there is no other evidence that the controversy
had first a lull and afterwards a recrudescence. The choice seems to be between
Lightfoot’s date, which satisfies the literary problem caused by the resemblance
of Galatians to Romans, but fails to meet the historical difficulties raised by
St. Paul’s silence as to the Council and its decrees, and the theory placing
Galatians before the Council, which satisfies these historical difficulties, but
fails to meet the literary problem. Personally, I find the historical
difficulties greater than the literary ones, and thus prefer the early date, but
there will probably always be those who take the opposite position: what is
desirable is that the adherents of both views should recognize that there is a
real weakness, as well as a real strength, in their own position, and that it is
just this weakness which is their opponents’ justification. The possibility of
another date for Romans is discussed in this connection on pp. 363 ff.

It is, of course, hardly necessary to say that there are other views which
demand respect, if only because of the authority which years of study have lent
to the names of those who support them, but they seem, on the whole, largely to
partake of the weakness of both the theories already mentioned, without having
the really strong points of either.

Perhaps the best example of this type is the view advocated by Zahn. He has
taken the view which was traditional in Germany among those who maintained the
North Galatian theory, that is to say, that the Epistle must have been written
soon after St. Paul’s second visit to the Galatians,—taking τὸ πρότερον in
Galatians 4:13 necessarily to mean “on the former of two occasions.” On the
North Galatian theory this meant after Acts 18:23, but Zahn is a “South
Galatian,” and therefore regards Acts 16:6 as the second visit of St. Paul to
the Galatians. Therefore the question resolves itself for him into an attempt to
ascertain how soon after this, and at what place, St. Paul is likely to have had
news of Galatia. Zahn decides that it must have been at Corinth, and probably
before the arrival of Timothy and Silas from Macedonia (see pp. 72 ff.). Thus
Galatians is, also according to Zahn, the earliest of all the Pauline Epistles.
In many ways this is an attractive theory, and in Zahn’s hands its strong points
are made very clear, but it plainly suffers from all the disadvantages of dating
the Epistle as contemporaneous with Romans, and also from those attaching to the
system which dates it before the Council, for it gives no adequate explanation
of St. Paul’s silence as to the Apostolic Decrees on the one hand, nor of the
close resemblance to Romans on the other. It sacrifices the historical
probability that St. Paul would have mentioned the decrees had he known them, to
the probably erroneous view that τὸ πρότερον must mean the “former of two
visits”; and it sacrifices the literary probability that Galatians is
contemporaneous with Romans to the supposed necessity of interpreting τάχεως in
Galatians 1:6 as “within a few months of my last visit.” It is, therefore, so
far as I can judge, inferior in probability to either of the other theories.

ST. PAUL’S OPPONENTS AMONG THE GALATIANS The foregoing discussion, dry and full
of tedious details as it necessarily has been, was essential if any thorough
attempt was to be made to fix the position of the Epistle to the Galatians in
the history of the Judaistic controversy by a comparison of the chronological
data supplied by itself, by Acts, and by Romans. The result has been to show
that it may, at the earliest, belong to the period immediately preceding the
Council, or at the latest to the last visit of St. Paul to Corinth when he sent
the Epistle to the Romans. It now remains to take up a different side of the
question, and ask what light the Epistle throws on this controversy itself. On
any view of the date of the Epistle two things stand out clearly. In the first
place, there was a divergence of opinion between St. Paul and the Jewish school
as to the relation of Christians to the Jewish Law. In the second place, there
was an attack on St. Paul’s apostolic authority. The Judaizers clearly
maintained that every Christian was bound to observe the Jewish Law, and to be
circumcised (cf. especially Galatians 4:21Galatians 5:2, Galatians 6:12).
Probably they argued that the promise of the Messianic kingdom was made to the
seed of Abraham (cf. especially Galatians 3:16 ff.; Galatians 3:29; Galatians
4:21 ff., in which St. Paul is clearly combating this argument), and that
therefore those who wished to belong to the kingdom must become members of the
family of Abraham by means of circumcision, and observe the Law which God had
given to this family. This kind of teaching had been propagated at Antioch by
preachers who were, or at any rate claimed to be, the representatives of St.
James, the brother of the Lord, and the head of the Church at Jerusalem. It is
extremely important to understand the attitude of mind which this Judaizing
teaching implies. But as it is also the theme of the greater part of the Epistle
to the Romans, its discussion is better postponed, as is also the consideration
of the question whether the controversy with the Judaizers belongs to one period
only, or broke out at intervals throughout St. Paul’s career,—a question which
is of course intimately associated with the respective dates of Galatians and
Romans.

Peculiar, however, to Galatians is a subordinate point in the controversy: the
accusation made that he was in reality an advocate of circumcision. This is
certainly implied by Galatians 5:11, “But I, brethren, if I still preach
circumcision, why am I still persecuted?” Clearly St. Paul had done something to
give colour to this accusation. Either it must have been his treatment of the
episode of Titus, if, as I believe, Titus really was circumcised, or, if a later
date be given to the Epistle, it may have been his treatment of Timothy whom he
circumcised in Lystra (Acts 16:3). It is difficult or impossible to discover
exactly what the facts were, but it is not impossible that St. Paul did actually
recognize circumcision for Jews, and that at first he was prepared, in the
spirit which said, “neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision,” to
admit it as expedient for Gentiles such as Titus, who were otherwise likely to
offend Jewish Christians. On the whole, however, the point probably belongs to
the comparatively unimportant category of those rather silly accusations of
inconsistency which can always be made with some show of correctness against any
prominent man. In any controversy the little men are always ready to shout
“inconsistency” against the leaders of the opposite side— usually with some
degree of speciousness. It never matters very much, for truth triumphs over
tactics, and it is not finally hindered by the small mistakes of great men. The
controversy in which St. Paul was engaged is in this respect no different from
many others.

It is also possible that the danger of a forged letter purporting to be from St.
Paul, was present to St. Paul’s mind when he wrote at the end of his Epistle,
“See with how large letters (πηλίκοις) I have written to you with mine own hand”
(Galatians 6:11). In this case the obvious comparison is to the situation in
Thessalonica (see p. 95), but it is clear that the inference is by no means
necessary. The whole passage is obscure. Πηλίκοις certainly ought to mean “how
large,” but it is far from unlikely that it had, in St. Paul’s time, a greatly
weakened meaning: it is doubtful whether the emphasis ought not rather to be
placed on the τῇ ἐμῃ χειρί, and the sentence explained as implying that St. Paul
had written the whole letter himself, instead of using an amanuensis. In this
case it is unimportant for the explanation of the situation in Galatia. The
question can never be cleared up entirely, as the sentence is necessarily as
obscure to us, as it was plain to those who saw the original letter. It serves
in this respect to illustrate the true epistolary character of the letter.

Besides this, a bitter attack seems to have been made on St. Paul’s personal
authority. St. Paul nowhere formulates its character, but we can easily see what
it was. His opponents claimed that the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem had
special authority; that St. Paul was an Apostle— a delegate—from them, and that
if he taught contrary to their commission, his doctrine had no validity. That
this was the view promulgated by the Judaizers is as certain as it is, according
to St. Paul’s evidence, that it was not really based on the actual attitude of
the leaders at Jerusalem themselves. Knowing even only the little which we do of
the life of Jesus, we can see how such a view may have been justified. The
“Twelve” had been appointed by Jesus. He had given them a commission to prepare
men for the coming of the Kingdom. They had visibly received the gift of the
Spirit. Authority was theirs: and if St. Paul, or any one else, also had
authority, he had it only in a secondary degree, because the leaders at
Jerusalem had given it to him. It is important to contrast this with the attack
made on St. Paul’s apostolate at Corinth, for the difference is typical of the
Greek and Jewish standpoints. The Jewish mind sought for authority and order. It
asked for a properly constituted governing body. The Greek mind, on the other
hand, asked for inspiration. Validity for the Jew meant the possession of the
proper commission from the proper people, and the delivery of the proper message
in the proper way: for the Greek it meant inspiration by the Holy Spirit, the
revelation through man of the hidden things of God. Thus, among St. Paul’s
opponents the Jew said, his mandate is irregular; the Greek, his message is
inadequate. No doubt this would be an unjust statement if it were taken as a
characterization of all Jews or all Greeks, but it does seem fairly to represent
the extremes to which the majority of Greeks and Jews were liable. The
antithesis which is thus implied between constituted authority and the freedom
of inspiration goes deeper and lasted longer than the controversies between St.
Paul and his opponents on either side. It is, indeed, an antithesis which will
never be resolved; it can be traced through all history, and both factors are
ultimately beneficial. The use of the factor which emphasizes authority, and
demands a proper mandate from the proper source, is to give stability: its abuse
leads to stagnation. The use of the other factor, which seeks truth, freedom,
and inspiration, is to ensure progress: its abuse leads to anarchy.

Literature.—The best commentaries are those of J. B. Lightfoot, 1865; Th. Zahn,
in his Kemmentar zum Neue Testament, 1905; R. A. Sieffert, in Meyer’s
Kritischexegetisch Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 1899; F. Lipsius, in
Holtzmann’s Handkommentar, 1892; W. Bousset, in J. Weiss’ Die Schriften des Neue
Testament, 1908; and W. M. Ramsay, Historical Commentary on the Galatians, 1899.
Other important contributions are W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,
1893, and St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 1895; E. H. Askwith, The
Epistle to the Galatians i, 1902; O. Zöckler, in Studien und Kritiken, for 1895,
pp. 51–102: V. Weber, Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes, 1900; and the articles
in the Encyclopædia Biblica, Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and the
Realencyclopædie fur Theologie, ed.3.

1 It is amusing to note that various writers, whom it is kinder not to mention,
have waxed eloquent on the permanence of national characteristics, as
illustrated by the fickle Galatians in the first century and the French in the
nineteenth.

1 See further Appendix I. and the map accompanying it.

2 See Ramsay’s Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 77 ff., and Lightfoot’s Epistle
to the Galatians, p. 22.

3 E. H. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians: an Essay on its Destination and
Date (Macmillan and Co., 1902). This is by far the most thorough statement of
the questions concerned, which has as yet been made, either in English or
German. It does not, however, seem to be sufficiently well known, perhaps
because it is too thorough and too scientific to attract superficial attention.

1 Zahn’s explanation (Kommentar zum N. T., bd. ix. p. 16), that St. Luke means
“Phrygia, and a part of Galatia,” seems to me to be linguistically impossible.
Φρυγίαν must be an adjective and co-ordinate with Γαλατικήν.

1 See further Appendix I. and map facing p. 316.

1 Though in the case of Iconium the reservation must be made that it possibly
belonged to Lycaonia Galatica (see Appendix I.).

1 Jülicher tries to ridicule the suggestion that St. Paul would use the name of
a province, by saying that no one would refer to the inhabitants of
Frankfort-on-the-Main as men of Hesse Nassau. Such arguments are surely
valueless. I might equally well say that no one would refer to inhabitants of
Natal as Zulus, or of Cape Town as Kaffirs, but might quite well refer to both
as South Africans. Both arguments seem to me to darken counsel by specious but
false analogies.

1 John 6:62; John 7:50, John 9:8; 2 Corinthians 1:15; Ephesians 4:22; 1 Timothy
1:13; Hebrews 4:6; Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 10:32; 1 Peter 1:14.

1 The exegesis of the verse is difficult: … εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον ὃ οὐκ ἐστὶν
ἄλλο εἰ μὴ τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, κ.τ.λ., may be explained by taking
ἕτερον and ἄλλο in antithesis to each other—and it then becomes a nice question
what the two words mean—or by taking ἄλλο with εἰ μὴ in the sense “nothing else
but that there are some who,” etc.

1 See further Appendix III. p. 320.

1 Or, if another text be followed, “to whom we did not yield even for a moment,”
or with still another exegetical possibility, “to whom we did not yield even for
a moment in any real subjection.”

1 Expositor, March, 1910, reprinted in The Eschatological Question in the
Gospels, and other Studies, pp. 191 ff.

1 In his Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 123 ff.

2 Lightfoot explains in a footnote that “this is calculated by a back reckoning
of the time spent from the Apostolic Council to the appointment of Festus, the
date of which is fixed independently at A.D. 66.” A modern writer would probably
speak less certainly: see Turner’s article on Chronology in Hastings’ Dictionary
of the Bible.

1 See Appendix II. p. 317.

1 This view is taken by Lightfoot, Zahn, and Bousset; the other interpretation
is followed by Ramsay and McGiffert.

1 History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, pp. 172 ff.

1 Or was it only one messenger? The Latin evidence is in favour of τινά, not
τινάς, and אΒDϜΓ latt. Orig. read ἦλθεν, not ἦλθον, in the next clause. Origen,
who read τινὰς and ἦλθεν, explained it as meaning that St. James himself came to
Antioch.

1 See article on “Chronology” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible.

1 The alternative, which, until the coming of the South Galatian theory, was the
most popular in Germany, is that it was written from Ephesus. This view is based
on the ideas (1) that the τὸ πρότερον in Galatians 4:13 implies two visits to
Galatia—thus the Epistle was written after the visit in Acts 18:23—and (2) that
it was written very soon after this visit, because St. Paul says, “I marvel that
you are so quickly removing,” etc. (Galatians 1:6). Thus it is thought that St.
Paul must have heard of the Galatian defection soon after his arrival in
Ephesus, and then wrote the Epistle before writing to the Corinthians.

1 It is desirable to notice that on the North Galatian theory no theory can
explain the absence of any reference to the Apostolic Decrees. If we think that
the Galatians lived in North Galatia, we cannot avoid the fact that the
Apostolic Council took place, not only before the Epistle was written, but also
before the Galatian Church was founded, and it is extraordinarily hard to
understand St. Paul’s silence as to the decrees. It is, therefore, not
surprising that German critics, who hold the North Galatian theory, mostly
reject the historical character of the decrees. I must confess that if I held
the North Galatian theory I should do the same, and regard the Apostolic Decrees
as Lucan rather than historical.

1Kommentar zum N. Testament. IX. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. Cf. his
Einleitung in das Neue Testament, I. pp. 138 ff.

1 Acts 16:3.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 05.01.     APPENDIX 1. GALATIA, KINGDOM AND PROVINCE
========================================================================

APPENDIX I GALATIA, KINGDOM AND PROVINCE THE population of Asia Minor in the
first century after Christ was an extremely complicated mixture of various
nationalities, representing different invasions and conquests. One of the lowest
strata, representing either an aboriginal population, or one of the earliest
invasions, was the Lycaonians, in the district of Lystra, Derbe, and further
eastwards. A most recent, but still very ancient stratum, was the Phrygians, who
had invaded Asia Minor at the beginning of the first millennium before Christ,
or even earlier, and had conquered and settled in the valley of Sangarios, the
country near the Hellespont, and the adjacent districts, pressing on as far as
Iconium. Originally a fierce and warlike race, they gradually degenerated, and
passed under the domination of the Persian Empire, and afterwards under that of
Alexander of Macedonia. A disturbed period followed the death of Alexander, and
ultimately, after the fall of Seleucus in 281, Antiochus I. became nominal ruler
of Phrygia, but was faced with the rivalry of Mithridates of Pontus in the
north. Probably the northern part of Phrygia, bordering on Pontus, was more or
less completely under Pontic control. At this point, about 278 b.c., a new
invasion began; the Gauls, who had been ravaging all the Mediterranean lands,
entered Bithynia, and after some vicissitudes occupied and settled in the
north-eastern part of Phrygia, with Ancyra as their chief town. This is the
Kingdom of Galatia; its population consisted of at least three superimposed and
more or less coalesced strata, Gauls, Phrygians, and earlier inhabitants,
perhaps related to the Lycaonians. The history of this kingdom up to the
beginning of the second century b.c. is a series of wars and alliances with its
neighbours, but in 189 b.c. the Galatian interference with commerce, and the
alliance of the Galatians with Antiochus against Rome at the battle of Magnesia,
led to a Roman expedition in which, as Livy narrates, an enormous number of
Galatians were killed or captured. Further wars with the Pergamene and Pontic
kings nevertheless followed, and probably to this period ought to be assigned an
expansion of Galatia to the South at the expense of the Lycaonians, probably
extending as far as Iconium and Lystra. This is the new territory which Ptolemy
calls the “added” land, and Pliny a tetrarchy taken from Lycaonia. The two
authorities do not wholly agree, for Ptolemy excludes Iconium, and Pliny says
that the tetrarchy included Iconium and fourteen cities; but probably Pliny is
right. This explains why, although in 189 b.c. Lycaonia belonged to the
Pergamene kingdom, it was not part of the Roman Province of Asia which was made
in 133 b.c. out of that kingdom. Nevertheless Galatia was never fully the equal
of the Pontic kings in the north, and by 121 Galatia was probably—the point is
not quite clear—more or less subordinate to Pontus. In that year the Romans
declared Galatia free—which meant free from Pontus, and practically, if not
nominally, under Roman control; but the Mithridatic wars followed, and it was
not until 73 b.c. that it was really free from Pontus. In 64 b.c. Pompey
reorganized the East. Galatia was placed under three chiefs, and part of the
tetrarchy of Lycaonia, including Iconium and Lystra, was taken away. Of the
three tetrarchs Deiotarus was the ablest, and in the last two years of his life
was the sole King of Galatia. Dreading the horrors of a disputed succession,
Deiotarus put to death all his sons but one, but either this son died
prematurely or was overlooked, for on the death of Deiotarus in 40 b.c. Antony
appointed Castor in his place. Meanwhile Pisidia and the rest of the Lycaonian
territory of Galatia had formed part of the Province of Cilicia. Antony now
found this arrangement undesirable. It was a disturbed district, and Roman
soldiers could not be spared. Antony therefore appointed Amyntas, who had been
secretary to Deiotarus, as King of Pisidia and Pisidian Phrygia; Antioch was
probably his capital. Similarly, Polemon was made King of part of Lycaonia and
Isauria and other districts. His capital was Iconium. Thus in 40 b.c. the centre
of Asia Minor was divided between Castor King of Galatia, Amyntas King of
Pisidia, with a capital at Pisidian Antioch, and Polemon, with a capital at
Iconium. In 36 b.c. Castor died, and a new arrangement was made. Amyntas was
given Galatia, and Lycaonia, which was taken from Polemon, who was moved
northwards to Pontus, and the Cilician part of Polemon’s kingdom was given to
Cleopatra. The fall of Antony only disturbed this arrangement in so far that
Pamphylia and Cilicia Tracheia were added to the kingdom of Amyntas, who finally
conquered Derbe, which had previously been an independent stronghold under
Antipater. Thus the Kingdom of Amyntas became extremely large and important. Its
final extent is indicated on the map facing p. 316. In 25 b.c. Amyntas was
killed, and the Romans decided to take over his kingdom as a new province.
Pamphylia, however, was again separated from it, and made into a distinct
province, and part of Lycaonia, including Derbe, was given to the Kingdom of
Archelaus of Cappadocia. This district went through various changes, but in a.d.
41 a kingdom containing part of Lycaonia and Cilicia Tracheia was confirmed to
Antiochus of Commagene, who was given the title of King of the Lycaonians. This
kingdom lasted until 72 a.d., when it was absorbed into the Empire. In 41,
therefore, the boundary of the Province of Galatia was Derbe, which was restored
to it, and Lystra and Antioch had been made into coloniae probably because they
were important in connection with the dangerous mountain district in which they
were situated.

Such is the outline of the history of the change from the Kingdom of Galatia to
the Province of Galatia. It will be noted that, except in a strictly
ethnological sense, the whole district, including Iconium and Antioch, had been
Galatian since the time of King Amyntas. The name of the whole province was
Galatia. This was at one time disputed by Schürer and others who preferred the
North Galatian view; but in the face of the evidence of inscriptions and of
Pliny and Ptolemy, they have abandoned this position. The various districts in
the province would naturally be described as Galatic, because they belonged to
the Galatic Province, but their exact names, and precise proof of them, present
many difficulties. The districts important for the present purpose are those
which Ramsay calls Phrygia Asiana, Phrygia Galatica, Lycaonia Galatica, and
Lycaonia Antiochiana. The actual evidence for these is as follows:—

Phrygia Asiana is mentioned by Galen, who says … Δορύλαι, ἥ ἐστι μὲν ἐσχάτη τῆς
Ἀσιανῆς Φρυγίας πόλις. (Περὶ τροφῶν δυνάμεως Ι), ed. Kühn, vi. p. 515.

Phrygia Galatica is probably mentioned in the Menologium Sirletianum, “Hi sancti
martyres fuerunt sub Diocletiano imperatore in urbe Antiochiae Pisidiae ex
regione Phrygiae Galaciae sub praeside Magno,” where Galaciae may be emended to
Galaticae or Galatiae; Ramsay prefers Galaticae, but Galatiae is
palaeographically more probable (A. SS. Sept. vol. vii. p. 562 A.).

Lycaonia Antiochiana is mentioned in CIL v. 8660,an inscription of 166 a.d.;
and Ptolemy, v. 6, 17, speaks of Ἀντιοχειανή, though he nowhere supplies
Lycaonia as the substantive belonging to this adjective. This is not very strong
evidence, but one must not expect to find overwhelming proof for the details of
provincial nomenclature. In any case it is noticeable that the terms Phrygia
Galatica, Phrygia Asiana, etc., are exactly parallel in formation to Pontus
Galaticus, just as Lycaonia Antiochiana is parallel to Pontus Polemoniacus, both
of which names are used by Ptolemy. That χώρα means “regio” is probably not
susceptible of proof: but χώρα is certainly not the usual Greek for “province”
(ἐπαρχεία), and the use of the adjective Γαλατικὸς in a political rather than an
ethnographical sense is the usual Roman practice. Γαλατία might conceivably mean
the land which in the second century before Christ was the Kingdom of Galatia;
but the proper title of the province would be ἠ Γαλατικὴ ἐπαρχεία. “The province
which is named after the Galatian part of it,” and in the same way ἡ Γαλατικὴ
χώρα means a district belonging to this province. As Ramsay has pointed out, ἡ
Γαλατικὴ χώρα can no more mean “the Kingdom of Galatia” than “the British
district” could mean England. It means the district attached to the Province of
Galatia, as distinct from a neighbouring district attached to something else.
That “regio” was a name used in Galatia for a district of the province is shown
by an inscription from Antioch which mentions a ἑκακοντάρχην ῥεγεωνάριον,
discovered by Sterrett, though he found the second word so strange that he was
inclined to amend it into λεγεωνάριον.χώρα would be the natural translation of
“regio.” It only remains to point out two smaller problems connected with
Antioch and Iconium.

Antioch was really a Phrygian city: it was called Pisidian because it was close
to Pisidia, and Strabo actually called it as such. It was given to Amyntas as
King of Pisidia in 39 b.c., and Augustus made it a colonia and the military
centre of the district. Strabo’s evidence shows that before 20 a.d. the Phrygian
character of the country was not forgotten: later on, as Ptolemy shows, it was
regarded as Pisidian.

Iconium also was really Phrygian. It is described by Xenophon as the most
easterly town in Phrygia, and Pliny also speaks of it as Phrygian. So also in
the trial of Justin Martyr Hierax says that he ἀπὸ Ἰκονίου τῆς Φρυγίας
ἀποσπασθεὶς ἐνθάδεʼ ἐλήλυθα. During the changes of Roman administration it was
usually connected with Lycaonia: thus it went in 39 b.c. to Polemon, not to
Amyntas, but in 36 b.c. it passed with part of Lycaonia to Amyntas. It was in
this way a border town which politically was probably Lycaonian and nationally
probably Phrygian. It is not quite clear whether it belonged to Lycaonia
Galatica or Phrygia Galatica. St. Luke, however, seems to regard it in Acts 14:6
as Phrygian, for he says that the Apostles fled from Iconium to “the cities of
Lycaonica, Lystra, and Derbe.” In Acts 16:2-6, however, his meaning is less
plain. In Acts 16:2 he says that Timothy was well spoken of by those in “Lystra
and Iconium.” Does not this imply that St. Paul was already in Iconium? Then, in
Acts 16:6 he says that they “passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region.”
Does this imply that they entered this region after leaving Iconium? If so,
Iconium is here regarded as Lycaonian. But the assumption is not necessary
Διῆλθον does not necessarily mean that they only then entered the region.

Probably, therefore, St. Luke ought to be taken as regarding Iconium as
Phrygian, and in so far as evidence that Iconium belonged to the region of
Phrygia Galatica rather than to that of Lycaonia Galatica. But it would not be
wise to press the point. In any case, the argument on p. 259 holds good, that
St. Luke’s meaning may be that at Iconium St. Paul had to choose between the
road going into Phrygia Asiana or that passing through Phrygia Galatica, and
that he chose the latter because he found that he would not be able to preach in
Asia. The accompanying map, based on the work of Ramsay, shows the Kingdom of
Galatia, the Kingdom of Amyntas, and the Province of Galatia, together with the
towns and roads which are important for the history of St. Paul’s work.

Those who wish to study further this very complex question will do well to begin
by reading the first part of Ramsay’s Historical Commentary on the Epistle to
the Galatians, and his articles on the various towns and provinces in Hastings’
Dictionary of the Bible, and to look up for themselves the passages which he
quotes. The omission of the latter task results in a wholly wrong impression
that the matter is, after all, quite simple—which is emphatically not the case.

1 Pliny says (Nat. Hist. v. 25), “Hos includit Lycaonia in Asiaticam
jurisdictionem versa, cum qua conveniunt Philomelienses, Tymbriani, Leucolithi,
Pelteni, Tyrienses. Datur et tetrarchia ex Lycaonia, qua parte Galatiae
contermina est, civitatium xiiii urbe celeberrima Iconio.” Ptolemy says (Geogr.
v. 4), Ὑπο δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα ἔθνη διήκουσι Προσειλημμενῖται, ὑπὸ δὲ τούτους οἱ
βιζηνοὶ καὶ μέρος Δυκαονίας, κ.τ.λ., while to Lycaonia (Geogr. v. 6) he reckons
Iconium and six other towns, and to Ἀντιοχειανὴ Derbe, Laranda, and two others.
Lystra he does not mention.

1 In this way Ramsay explains the difference between Pliny and Ptolemy. He
thinks that Pliny represents the older, and Ptolemy the later facts.

2 Strabo, p. 568 ff. 577. Appian, Bell. Civ. v. 75.

1 It should be noted that a widely copied misprint in one of Ramsay’s later
statements attributes this inscription to CIL. x, instead of CIL. v.

1 Sterrett, Epigraphic Journey in Asia Minor, p. 92.

2Strabo refers on pp. 569 and 577 to Antioch as ἡ πρὸς Πισιδίᾳ. The meaning of
this phrase is shown on p. 566, where he says of Phrygia Magna, ἐν ᾑ ἐστιν ἥ τε
παρώρειος λεγομένη Φρυγία καὶ ἡ πρὸς Πισιδίᾳ, κ.τ.λ.

1 Appian says of Antony, ἵστη δὲ πῃ καὶ βασιλέας, οὅς δοκιμάσειεν … Ἀμύνταν δὲ
Πισιδῶν, καὶ πολέμωνα μέρους Κιλικίας, κ.τ.λ. Civ. v. 75 ed. Mendelssohn, II. p.
1123).

2 Xenophon, Anab. 1. 2, 19.

3Acta Martyrii Justini et Sociorium, 4.

4 Strabo, p. 568.

5 Dio Cassius, 49.32, δ δʼ οὖν Ἀντώνιος … δυναστείας Ἀμύντᾳ μὲν Γαλατίας, καίπερ
γραμματεῖ τοῦ Δηιοτάρου γενομένῳ, ἔδωκε, καὶ Λυκαονίας Παμφυλίας τέ τινα αὐτῷ
προσθείς, κ.τ.λ.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 05.02.     APPENDIX 2. THE TEXT OF ACTS 12:25
========================================================================

APPENDIX II THE TEXT OF Acts 12:25 THE text of Acts 12:25 is so uncertain and so
interesting that it cannot be passed by without comment. The text usually
printed is Βαρνάβας δὲ καὶ Σαῦλος ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ Ἱερουσαλήμ, πληρώσαντες τὴν
διακονίαν, συνπαραλαβόντες Ἰωάνην τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Μάρκον. But the phrase ἐξ
Ἱερουσαλὴμ is uncertain. There are three main variants in the text. (1) ἐξ
Ἱερουσαλήμ, found in A 13 69 and many minuscules: (2) ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ, found in
(B) D (E) and some minuscules; (3) εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, found in א (Β) Η L Ρ 61
Syr-hl-mg. Chrys.; together with (4), a subvariant of (2), ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ εἰς
Ἀντιόχειαν, found in E syr-pesh sah, and many minuscules; and (5) a subvariant
of (3), εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, found in a few minuscules. Variant (1) may be condemned
as an Alexandrian emendation of (3) not essentially different in character from
(5). It is condemned not only by the weakness of the evidence, but by the fact
that ὑποστρέφειν followed by the place whence a return is made, is not elsewhere
found with ἐξ in the Lucan writings, but always with ἀπὸ. The choice, therefore,
is really between ἀπὸ and εἰς. Considering the exceedingly important evidence
which B gives, the purely manuscriptal evidence is about equally divided. But
there is no question but that εἰς Ἱερ. is the lectio ardua which explains the
others. The natural feeling of any one who reads the whole passage from Acts
11:27-30, Acts 12:1-25, Acts 13:1, is that Acts 11:30 describes the arrival of
St. Barnabas and St. Paul at Jerusalem, and that Acts 12:25 ought to describe
their departure. This would account for a tendency to change εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ into
some phrase giving the opposite meaning. Ἐξ Ἱερουσαλὴμ and εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν are
both attempts to accomplish this purpose; is it not probable that ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ
is an earlier effort of the same kind? In this case εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ must be
regarded as the earliest known reading. It remains, however, open to doubt
whether it is not a “primitive corruption,” which might be explained by
Bartlett’s suggestion of an original text which said ὑποστρέφειν without any
mention of Jerusalem at all, and was erroneously filled up by some scribe who
did not pay much attention to the history, but was familiar with the expression
ὑποσρέφειν εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ (cf. Luke 2:45; Luke 24:33, Luke 24:52, Acts 1:12;
Acts 8:25, Acts 13:13, Acts 22:17), and was influenced by the fact (though no
doubt he could not have formulated it) that ὑποστρέφειν is found in the Lucan
writings fifteen times with mention of the place whither (εἰς), and only twice
with mention of the place whence (ἀπὸ).

It is, nevertheless, not quite so certain as is often maintained that εἰς
Ἱερουσαλὴμ is not the original text. Πληρώσαντες means not so much “after having
fulfilled” as “in fulfilment of” (just as ἀσπασάμενοι in Acts 25:13 means not
“after having greeted” but “with greetings for”), and it is possible that St.
Luke really meant “St. Barnabas and St. Paul returned to Jerusalem, which was
the centre from which St. Barnabas, at all events, had started, in fulfilment of
the ministration (which has been already mentioned).” By this means he linked on
the Jerusalem-narrative to the Antioch-narrative, and showed, what is
historically certain, that the famine came after, not before, the death of
Herod. The objection is that, in this case, he does not explain how St. Barnabas
and St. Paul come in the next paragraph to be back in Antioch. It is, however,
not impossible that he omitted to state that they went back to Antioch,
regarding this as obvious: such a view is certainly harsh, but it is too much to
say that it is impossible, for it has the advantage of giving a statement of the
facts which is historically more probable. The death of Herod was in 44, and the
famine was in 46. It is not probable that famine relief was sent from Antioch
before the famine, and thus the mission of St. Barnabas and Saul probably took
place after the death of Herod. In this case, Acts 12:25 must be taken merely as
a chronological warning, given by St. Luke to show that the famine, which the
exigencies of his narrative had forced him to put before the death of Herod,
because it belonged primarily to the Antioch narrative, really took place later.
It is as though he said to his readers, “You must understand that the incident
of the Famine, and the visit of Saul to Jerusalem, to which I alluded when
tracing the history of Antioch, must be inserted at this point.” Either this
view or Dr. Bartlett’s seems to me to be preferable to adopting the usual
reading (ἐξ), which is so unmistakably condemned by all the rules of textual
criticism.

1 The scribe of B wrote εἰς, but seems to have begun to write ἀπὸ. I think that
this shows that ἀπὸ must have been known to the scribe, though it may have been
merely a slip, for it is noteworthy that ὑποστρέφειν εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ is a common
phrase which would come naturally to the scribe’s pen, while ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ is
relatively rare.

1 In the Century Bible Commentary on Acts.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 05.03.     APPENDIX 3. ST. PAUL’S JOURNEY TO ARABIA
========================================================================

APPENDIX III ST. PAUL’S JOURNEY TO ARABIA THE reference in Galatians 1:17 to a
visit of St. Paul to Arabia raises several difficulties, which may be
conveniently summarized in the questions: (1) Why did he go to Arabia? (2) What
does Arabia mean? (3) What is the connection of the incident with the ethnarch
of King Aretas (of Arabia) mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:32?

(1)Why did St. Paul go to Arabia?—The usual explanation is that he went away to
meditate in the desert, perhaps on Mount Sinai. This exegesis is not impossible,
and can be expanded to any length by references to the psychological influence
of solitude, and historical parallels to Moses and Elijah. The alternative,
which meets with hardly any support at present, is that he went to Arabia to
preach the gospel. It is of course quite obvious that certainty on this point is
unattainable, but I would urge that on the whole the balance of probability is
that St. Paul means to imply missionary activity in Arabia. He is arguing that
he received a commission to preach to the Gentiles direct from God, not from
man, and that he therefore had no need to confer with man, or to go to
Jerusalem, before beginning to preach the gospel. The antithesis is not between
conferring with flesh and blood in Jerusalem, and conferring with God in the
desert, but between obeying immediately the commission of God to preach to the
Gentiles, and going to some human source in Jerusalem in order to obtain
authority or additional instruction. St. Paul’s argument seems to me to require
the sense “As soon as I received my divine commission, I acted upon it at once,
without consulting any one, and began to preach in Arabia.” Moreover, it is, to
my mind, psychologically more probable that St. Paul, once converted, lost no
time before beginning to carry out what he felt to be his duty, but this
consideration is too subjective to be valuable, and other minds will no doubt
feel differently on the point. (2)What does Arabia mean?—The names “Arab” and
“Arabian” were used in ordinary Graeco-Roman language of the Kingdom of the
Nabataean Arabs, which in the first century was almost at the highest point of
its power under Aretas IV. The best statement on the history of this kingdom
will be found in Schürer’s Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, I. pp. 726–744. The
point which is important for the present purpose is that the Nabataean Arabs had
established themselves by the beginning of the first century as the rulers over
a large tract of country stretching from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, with
Petra as their capital, and bordering on the Province of Syria. At one time they
captured Damascus, but from the time of Pompey this city belonged to the
Province of Syria, though even in the second century it was recognized as in
some degree Arabian. Their territory was, of course, largely desert, but it
contained several towns, of which Petra in the south and Bostra in the north
were the most important. When St. Paul says that he went to Arabia the
impression which he would make on Graeco-Roman readers, in Galatia or elsewhere
in the Empire, would be that he went to this Nabataean kingdom, ruled over from
9 b.c. to 40 a.d. by Aretas IV.

(3) The meaning of2 Corinthians 11:32 ff.—St. Paul says, “In Damascus the
ethnarch of Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes to take me, and I
was let down through a window in the wall in a basket, and I escaped from his
hands.” Apparently this is the same incident as that described in Acts 9:24 ff.,
in which St. Luke says that the Jews in Damascus “guarded the gates day and
night to kill him, but the disciples took him by night and let him down through
the wall in a basket.” No doubt St. Paul’s own version must be taken as the more
accurate, but the reference to the ethnarch of Aretas causes difficulty. It is
known that Damascus in the first century before Christ belonged to the Nabataean
king, but Pompey gave it to Syria, and the evidence of coins shows that as late
as the year 34 a.d. it was Roman. There are, however, no coins from this date
until 62 a.d.—in other words, there is no evidence that Damascus was Roman under
Caligula or Claudius. The suggestion has therefore been made (and accepted by
Schürer) that, at the death of Tiberius, Aretas was made responsible for
Damascus. If so, this incident of St. Paul’s life must be dated not earlier than
37 a.d., and it is not easy to fit this into the general scheme of chronology.
But the whole basis of this suggestion is extremely frail: it consists entirely
of the assumption that if Aretas had an ethnarch in Damascus, Damascus was in
his kingdom. What are the facts concerning the word “ethnarch”? It came in time,
as Schürer says, to mean some one a little more than a tetrarch, and less than a
king, but the really important point is that in the first century it was used as
the name of the governor of the Jews in Alexandria. No one concludes from this
that therefore Alexandria belonged to the Jews. It is more probable, then, that
the ethnarch of Aretas was a representative of the Nabataean king who looked
after the Arab element in Damascus, just as the ethnarch of the Jews in
Alexandria looked after Jewish interests. In this case the chronological
difficulty of the passage is removed.

It is not, I think, impossible to combine the results of this inquiry into a
reasonably probable hypothesis. St. Paul immediately after the conversion went
into the Nabataean kingdom and preached to the Arabs, perhaps in Bostra. He was
not especially successful, but roused the enmity of the Jews, and attracted the
hostile attention of Aretas. He returned to Damascus, where both the Jews and
the ethnarch of Aretas endeavoured to put an end to his career, but he managed
to escape in a basket let down through a window in a house built on the wall.
This view is of course largely imaginative, but it may claim the advantage of
giving a reasonable explanation of the difference between Acts 9:1-43 and 2
Corinthians 11:1-33. The objection that St. Luke says nothing about this visit
to Arabia of course remains: but it is, I think, sufficiently answered by the
fact that St. Luke is only concerned with Christianity within the Empire, and
Arabia was outside its limits.

1 Cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 78: Δαμασκὸς τῆς Ἀρραβικῆς γῆς ἦν καὶ ἔστιν, εἰ καὶ
νῦν προσνενέμηται τῇ Συροφοινίκῃ λεγομένῃ.

1 Καθίσταται δὲ καὶ ἐθνάρχης αὐτῶν, ὅς διοικεῖ τε τὸ ἔθνος καὶ διαιτᾷ κρίσεις
…ὡς ἂν πολιτείας ἄρχων αὐτοτελοῦς. Strabo, quoted in Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7, 2.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 06.     CHAPTER 6. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS THE problems concerned with the Epistle to
the Romans may conveniently be divided into three main groups: (1) the critical
questions relating to the integrity and destination of the Epistle; (2) the
foundation and character of the Church at Rome; (3) the doctrinal and other
controversies which called forth the Epistle. The questions of a purely
historical and critical character connected with this Epistle seem at first
sight to be few in comparison with those raised by the Galatians and
Corinthians. Indeed, if we could take the text of the Epistle as it stands, the
question of date, and of the place to which it was sent—points which are so
complicated in connection with Galatians—would be so plain as hardly to admit of
discussion. In Romans 16:1 St. Paul refers to Phoebe as the “servant” (διάκονος)
of the Church at Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth on the Saronic gulf, and
commends her to his readers. This is in itself almost enough to justify us in
saying that St. Paul was writing from Corinth. Moreover, in Romans 15:25-27
there is a clear reference to the “collection” for Jerusalem which St. Paul had
made in Achaia and Macedonia.

“But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased
them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints
which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are.
For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their
duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.” From this it is plain that
St. Paul has finished the collection and is just starting for Jerusalem. This
can scarcely refer to any place except Corinth, and as this agrees so exactly
with the inference derived from the mention of Phoebe, there is no reason for
the slightest hesitation in saying that the evidence decisively indicates
Corinth as the place, and the last visit to Corinth as the time of the writing
of the Epistle to the Romans.

Unfortunately, at this point it is necessary to face two problems which disturb
this apparently clear indication. In the first place, it is alleged that Romans
16:1-27—the commendatory letter for Phoebe—was really intended for Ephesus, not
for Rome. In the second place, there is clear evidence of the existence of a
shorter form of the Epistle, which omitted Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27 and
made no mention of Rome in Romans 1:1-32. If this cannot be shown to be a later
recension, the argument based on Romans 15:1-33 only holds good for the longer
text, and the possibility that the short form is the original has to be
considered.

Thus,two distinct problems have to be investigated. (1) The destination of
Romans 16:1-23; (2) the short recension of Romans. THE ORIGINAL DESTINATION OF
Romans 16:1-23

There is no trace of any external evidence for doubting that this section has
always belonged to the Epistle. But on internal grounds the double objection has
often been made that it is quite unsuitable as a communication to the Church of
Rome, and that it bears signs of having really been intended for Ephesus. The
negative argument—that it is unsuitable for Rome—is primarily concerned with the
large number of personal greetings which it contains, far larger than in any
other Epistle. Is it probable that St. Paul had in a Church which he had never
visited more friends than in any other place? Or, if it be thought that this is
an unwarrantable inference from the greetings, is it probable that he would have
known so many persons in Rome? It must be admitted that there is some force in
this argument, even though it is hardly conclusive.

Besides this it must be noted as a secondary argument of a negative kind that
Romans 16:17-18 seems out of place in an Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul says,
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark those who cause divisions and offences
contrary to the teaching which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that
are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words
and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” By the “teaching which ye
have received” does not St. Paul naturally mean his own teaching? And does not
the description given of the false teachers fit much more the unethical teaching
of “advanced” Christians, such as obtained in Greece and Asia, than the narrow,
but certainly ethical teaching of Judaizing Christians against whom Romans is
directed? Again, it cannot be denied that there is some force in this argument,
though it is not so strong as the other, because there are some other places in
the Epistle which are at least capable of bearing the meaning that there was a
tendency to an imperfect appreciation of the ethical obligations of Christianity
among some of the Gentile Christians (see pp. 380 ff.), though there is no place
which points to a propaganda of this nature, such as Romans 16:17 seems to
imply. The positive argument in favour of Ephesus is based on the mention of
Epaenetus, and of Prisca and Aquila.

Epaenetus is described as the firstfruits of Asia, just as Stephanas in 1
Corinthians 16:15 is called the firstfruits of Achaia. It is possible that
Epaenetus had left Asia; but there is much more force in the description if he
was still in Asia, and St. Paul was writing to the Church of which he was the
earliest member. At the same time, not much emphasis can be put on this
argument, because we know nothing of the history of Epaenetus.

Far more important is the question of Prisca and Aquila. The point is that,
although they originally came from Rome, all our information points to the
probability that their settled abode at this time was in Ephesus, and that,
therefore, when St. Paul sends greetings to them, and to the Church in their
house, it is far more probable that he is writing to Ephesus than to Rome. In
connection with this question it will perhaps be best to collect shortly all
that we know from the New Testament as to Prisca and Aquila. They are first
mentioned in Acts 18:2, when we read that after St. Paul’s arrival in Corinth he
“found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, and
his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from
Rome:) and came unto them. And because he was of the same trade, he abode with
them, and they carried on a business: for by trade they were tent-makers.” The
question may be raised whether they were already Christians, or were converted
by St. Paul. As St. Luke makes no statement on the subject, certainty is not
attainable, but the probability is somewhat in favour of the view that they were
already Christians when they came to Corinth, as Stephanas, not Aquila or his
wife, is quoted as the ἀπαρχὴ Ἀχαίας, and from 1 Corinthians 1:16 it would seem
that Stephanas was a Corinthian. It is true that Aquila is referred to as a Jew,
but it is by no means clear that “Jew” was to St. Luke the contradictory of
“Christian.” In Corinth they remained until St. Paul’s departure, when they went
with him to Ephesus (Acts 18:18), and they were still in Ephesus when St. Paul
wrote 1 Corinthians, as he refers (1 Corinthians 16:19) to the Church in their
house; indeed, if the tradition preserved in the text of the group of
Graeco-Latin MSS. (DEFG), in 1 Corinthians 16:19 could be trusted, he lodged in
their house at Ephesus (see p. 143). Thus it would appear that they had settled
more or less permanently in Ephesus. Finally, in 2 Timothy 4:19 greetings are
sent to Prisca and Aquila at Ephesus. It is of course doubtful whether 2 Timothy
is a genuine Epistle of St. Paul, but at the least this reference points to the
existence of a tradition connecting Aquila with Ephesus, for the Epistle is
certainly intended to convey the impression that it was written from Rome to
Ephesus, and if it be genuine it shows that about eight years after their first
arrival in Ephesus Aquila and his wife were in that city.

Thus, apart from Romans 16:3, all the evidence suggests that Aquila and his wife
settled permanently in Ephesus, and this gives real support to the theory that
Romans 16:1-27 is actually a short letter of commendation given to Phoebe for
her use in Ephesus, not in Rome. It is not very probable that Aquila and Prisca
left their settled home in Ephesus soon after St. Paul had written 1
Corinthians, that a year later their house in Rome was the centre of a Church,
and that they later on returned to Ephesus, and once more took up the same
position in the Christian community. This argument is not lightly to be set
aside, and if Romans 16:1-23 were a loose fragment, with no context, I do not
doubt that it would have been regarded as quite certainly a letter sent to
Ephesus to commend Phoebe. The difficulty is in explaining how in this case a
commendatory note (for it is really nothing more) to Ephesus, ever got into the
Epistle to the Romans. This difficulty has led to many attempts at a fresh
analysis of the greetings, intended to show that they really point to Rome, and
to more or less ingenious efforts to find traces of Prisca and others in the
early history of the Church of Rome. The general analysis of the greetings has
drawn attention to the fact that there is more evidence for the various names in
inscriptions from Rome than in those from other places, and considerable weight
has been attached to this point by those who support the Roman hypothesis. I
doubt, however, whether they are quite justified in their conclusions. Our
knowledge of Roman inscriptions has been, until recently, much greater than that
of those in other places, and as our information has grown, the number of names
which really are peculiar has decreased. It is true, as Lightfoot pointed out,
that many of the names in the salutations can be paralleled in Roman
inscriptions referring to the household of Caesar, but these inscriptions are
not contemporary, and most of the names are found in other places as well as
Rome. For instance, without any full research into the Corpus Inscriptionum, a
glance at Thieme’s Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander und das Neue Testament
shows that Stachys and Philologus, both of which Lightfoot regarded as rare, and
therefore adding weight to his argument, are found in inscriptions in Magnesia
and in the island of Thera. The mere fact that many of the names in the
greetings in Romans 16:1-27 are found in Roman inscriptions connected with the
imperial household is of very little weight unless it can be shown either that
the names in question are, as a whole, so rare that their combination in the
greetings, and again in the imperial household can only be explained by their
reference to the same persons, or that there is some reason for making this
identification on other grounds. The former can certainly not be maintained;
there is perhaps more ground for supporting the latter view. This support is
found in connection with the “household of Aristobulus,” and the “household of
Narcissus.” is suggested that the phrase translated “the household of
Aristobulus”—οἱ Ἀριστοβούλου—means the slaves in the Imperial household whom the
Emperor inherited from Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod the Great. This
Aristobulus is known to have lived in Rome, and to have been a friend of the
Emperor Claudius. The suggestion is that if, as is probable, he was dead by the
middle of the first century, he had bequeathed his slaves to the Emperor, and
that they were known as Aristobuliani—οἱ τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλου—in the Imperial
household. This is possible, for it was not uncommon for slaves to pass in this
way into the Imperial household, and to have a distinctive name. But, of course,
it is pure assumption. There is no proof either that such Aristobuliani existed,
or that Aristobulus left his slaves to the Emperor. A stronger case, of the same
kind, can be made out for an identification of the “house-hold of Narcissus.”
There was a well-known freedman named Narcissus who was put to death by
Agrippina at the beginning of Nero’s reign. It is suggested, with much
probability, that after his death his slaves were confiscated by the Emperor.
This is quite likely, and, if so, these slaves would be called Narcissiani.
There are, however, two objections to this theory, though neither is fatal. In
the first place, Narcissus is quite a common name; in the second, there is no
proof that Narcissiani must be translated into Greek as οἱ Ναρκίσσου. Words like
Herodiani were transliterated directly. Would not St. Paul have said οἱ
Ναρκισσιανοί if he had meant Narcissiani? It seems to me more probable that οἱ
Ναρκίσσου means “the family of Narcissus,” and that it refers to some living
person named Narcissus. At the same time, there is undoubtedly force in the
contention that it is remarkable that in the Imperial household, among which we
know that there were Christians (Php 4:22), it should be possible to show that
there may probably have been at this time two sub-groups connected with the
names of Aristobulus and Narcissus. My own feeling is that if it were certain
that Romans 16:1-23 really was sent to Rome, I should regard it as probable that
οἱ Ἀριστοβούλου and οἱ Ναρκίσσου should be explained in this way. But I feel
less prepared to accept this exegesis as a decisive argument in favour of the
Roman hypothesis, when this is in dispute. The attempt to find definite traces
of Prisca and others in the early tradition of the Roman Church, is chiefly the
work of de Rossi, the famous investigator of the catacombs in Rome. He
maintained in the first place that the Church of St. Prisca, on the Aventine
hill, was founded on the site of the house of Prisca and Aquila. De Rossi was a
very great man, but here it cannot be said that his arguments are impressive. It
is sufficient to say that there is no real evidence at all for proving that the
site of St. Prisca’s was that of the house of Prisca and Aquila, and no evidence
for thinking that the church was called SS. Aquila et Prisca before the eighth
century. A far more serious argument was based by de Rossi on the coemeterium
Priscillae in the catacombs. It is apparently probable that this cemetery was
originally that of the Acilia gens, and Priscilla was a common name among the
women of this gens. Thus it is suggested that the cemetery of this family was
called after their distinguished member, Prisca the wife of Aquila. Dr. Hort
goes further and thinks that as Prisca is usually mentioned before her husband
she may have been of more distinguished birth than her husband. Why not go
further still, and suggest that Aquila was a freedman of the gens Pontia, in
which Aquila was a common name? Is it not possible that ποντικὸν τῷ γένει is a
misunderstanding of this fact? It seems to me that such suggestions are
dangerously fanciful, and that there is not really any sufficient evidence for
connecting the coemeterium Priscillae with Prisca the wife of Aquila.

Similar use has been made of the presence of the name of Ampliatus in
inscriptions in the cemetery of Domitilla. The name is found twice: but it is
not uncommon, and though these inscriptions show that in the second century
there were Christians of that name in Rome, there is not much reason for
thinking that the Ampliatus mentioned by St. Paul must necessarily have lived
there. The same can also be said of Nereus. This name is celebrated through the
Acts of Nereus and Achilleus, who according to the legend were eunuchs in the
household of Domitilla. The name is quite common, and the Acts seem to contain
much legend and little or no history.

Apart from the tradition of the Epistle there is thus a comparatively weak case
for the Roman hypothesis. Still, the fact always remains that Romans 16:1-23 is
an integral part of all MSS. of the Epistle which we now possess. Thus the
earliest tradition which we have connects it with Rome, not with Ephesus. This
is not everything, but it is a great deal. Probably it is enough to prevent the
Ephesian hypothesis from ever being unanimously accepted, and rightly so, for it
can never be proved fully. Still there seems to me to be a distinct balance of
argument in favour of Ephesus, though I must admit to vacillation on the
question, and I should not like to say that I shall never come back to the Roman
hypothesis. To some extent I have been influenced by the growing conviction that
the text of the Corpus Paulinum is not always the same as the text which St.
Paul wrote. If, as seems to me certain, 2 Corinthians is a combination of parts
of two letters, whose union has left no trace in the textual tradition, clearly
there was an important interval in the history of the text of the individual
letters, and of the small collections of Pauline material made by individual
communities, before the Corpus Paulinum was defined and its text established.

If the Ephesian hypothesis be adopted, it is clear that Romans 16:1-23 must be
regarded as a letter of introduction sent by St. Paul to Ephesus for Phoebe, a
servant of the Church at Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth. Whether it was
sent by St. Paul on the eve of his departure to Jerusalem must remain doubtful.
There is nothing in its contents to help us, but it is at least the most
probable moment, unless we assume that St. Paul visited Corinth again after he
was set free in Rome. The importance of the question in relation to the history
of the Epistle as a whole can naturally only be discussed after the more serious
problem of the existence of a short recension has been dealt with. THE SHORT
RECENSION The proof of the existence of a short recension of the Epistle
resolves itself into the treatment of the textual evidence for the reference to
Rome in the first chapter, and of that for the two last chapters. It is probably
best to begin by showing why there is reason to believe that there was once a
text which omitted the two last chapters, and then to go on to give the reasons
for thinking that this shorter form contained no reference to Rome. The most
widespread evidence for the omission of the two chapters can be found in the
ordinary Latin chapter headings (or breves) given in the Codex Amiatinus of the
Vulgate and in many others (Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 357, mentions at
least 48). This system gives Romans as divided into 51 chapters: the last but
one (No. 50) is entitled, De periculo contristante fratrem suum esca sua, et
quod non sit regnum dei esca et potus sed justitia et pax et gaudium in spiritu
sancto. This clearly covers Rom. 14:15–23. The next and last (No. 51) is De
mysterio dei ante passionem in silentio habito post passionem vero ipsius
revelato. This equally clearly covers Rom. 16:25–27 and nothing else. In other
words, it implies a text of the Epistle which ended with chapter 14 plus the
doxology which we usually read at the end of the Epistle.

Moreover, corroboration is not wanting that this conclusion is just. There is
found in some MSS. a sort of concordance or harmony of the Pauline Epistles,
which arranges under reference to the chapter numbers the parallel passages
which deal with the same questions. The references to Romans are usually
missing; but it is possible that the full text is preserved in a MS. at Murbach
(Codex Morbacensis) which gives 43 headings from Romans. These are given
according to the Amiatine chapter divisions, and the two last are Quod regnum
dei non sit esca et potus, ad Rom. L., ad Cor. pr. XI., and De abscondito
sacramento a saeculo, ad Rom. LI., ad Eph. IX, ad Coloss. III, ad Tit. I., ad
Hebr. II. This can scarcely be explained except on the hypothesis that a short
recension was used. There is, it is true, some ground for thinking that possibly
Corssen is wrong, and that the Murbach MS. is not the original form of the
capitulatio, but a later edition of it. The reason for this is that whereas the
other MSS. omit all reference both to Romans and Hebrews, the Murbach MS.
contains both. The references to Hebrews are probably an accretion, and it is
open to argument that the same is true of Romans. It is not, however, necessary
to discuss this point here, for in any case, whether the Murbach MS. represent
original capitulatio or an interpolated version of it, it is based on a short
text of Romans. For myself I cannot see any possible answer to this argument,
and the attempts of Zahn and Riggenbach to maintain that the Amiatine system of
breves is defective have little or no strength. It is not as though the Amiatine
system was only found in a few MSS.; those mentioned by Berger are probably not
a twentieth of the whole number, and there seems to be no reason to doubt the
obvious conclusion drawn from the facts by a whole series of scholars, who have
agreed in thinking that the Amiatine system of breves points to a short
recension, though they have differed widely enough in their explanation of the
fact.

It is obvious that the Latin version implied by the Amiatine Breves is not the
Vulgate, but is ante-Hieronymian. Further traces of the existence of the short
text can be found in Latin in Cyprian, and in Tertullian. In the case of
Cyprian, the evidence is merely the dangerous argumentum e silentio, but is a
strong example of its kind. In his Testimonia he gives a collection of texts
from every possible source, arranged according to their community of meaning, so
as to serve as an arsenal of proof texts for various dogmas. It is certainly a
fact that he does not clearly quote anything from Romans 15:1-33 and Romans
16:1-27 of Romans, and each must judge for himself whether this can be
accidental. The main point is, that in Test. III. 68, 78, 95, Cyprian musters
the passages enjoining the duty of avoiding heretics, under the three headings;
68.Recedendum ab eo qui inordinate et contra disciplinam vivat, 2 Thessalonians
3:6. 78.Cum hereticis non loquendum, Titus 3:10 f., 1 John 2:19, 2 Timothy 2:17.
95.Bonis convivendum malos autem vitandos, 1 Corinthians 15:33. Why does he not
quote Romans 16:17 : “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which are causing
the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye
learned,” etc.? It is instructive to note that in the spurious De Singularitate
Clericorum (Cyprian, ed. Hartel, appendix, p. 212), 2 Thessalonians 3:6 is
quoted, and a few lines further down Romans 16:17, which shows how naturally any
one who knew Romans 16:1-27 would have used it in this connection. It seems to
me exceedingly probable that Cyprian had the same short text as the Amiatine
Breves, and that this text must be provisionally regarded as having obtained in
Africa in the third century.

Going still further back, the evidence of Tertullian is, if anything, stronger;
for not only is there the same argumentum e silentio in the fact that he nowhere
quotes Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27 but in Adv. Marcionem, 5, 13, he quotes
Romans 14:10, and says that this verse comes in clausula, i.e. in the closing
section of the Epistle. It is true that he is contrasting the end with the
beginning, and Hort (cf. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 335) argued that this
need not imply the absence of the two last chapters. This might be admitted if
it were not for the other evidence for a short recension; as it is, the natural
interpretation of the facts is that Tertullian, like Cyprian, used a short text
of Romans. Moreover, though it be true that the argumentum e silentio is much
less strong in the case of Tertullian than in that of Cyprian, because he quotes
so much less, it is noteworthy that Rom. 15 and 16 are so full of passages
opposed to the doctrine of Marcion, that it is suggested (by Sanday and Headlam,
and by Corssen) that the short recension is a Marcionite production; yet
Tertullian never alludes to these passages, either to throw at Marcion or to
comment on his excision of them—and he was by no means disposed to pass over
Marcion’s emendations (real or supposed) in silence, even though he endeavoured
to answer the heretic out of his own text.

Thus there is good reason for believing that, in Africa, in the second as well
as in the third century, the Epistle to the Romans was used in a short text
which omitted Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27. The Amiatine Breves were made
for a similar text, and suggest that this recension was closed by the doxology
which we usually read in Romans 16:25-27.

It is, however, improbable that the Amiatine Breves represent an originally
African text. Riggenbach has shown that in the summaries given the text of the
Epistles is sufficiently closely followed to enable us to identify its
character. It is not African, and it is not Vulgate; but represents the European
type which was current in Italy before the days of Jerome. Thus we have European
as well as African evidence for the short recension. It is at present impossible
to say whether there was originally one or more Latin versions; so that we do
not know whether this agreement between African and European Latin ought to be
taken as representing one or two Greek originals. It is, however, in any case
certain that the evidence takes us back to the second century.

Another witness, but a suspected one, to the same short text, is Marcion. For
our knowledge of this fact we are indebted to Rufinus’ translation of Origen’s
Commentary on Romans 16:25-27. He says, Caput hoc Marcion, a quo scripturae
evangelicae atque apostolicae interpolatae sunt, de hac epistola penitus
abstulit; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo loco ubi scriptum est omne autem quod
non est ex fide, peccatum est (Romans 14:23) usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit.
The meaning of this passage is one of two. Clearly it implies that Marcion
removed the doxology altogether (abstulit), but there is room for doubt as to
what he did with the rest of the Epistle. What is the meaning of dissecuit? The
obvious meaning, which is nearly always adopted, seems to be “cut away,” but the
objection, first made, I think, by Hort, is that this is not the true meaning
either of dissecuit, or of the Greek (which it may be supposed to represent)
διέτεμεν; it ought rather to be translated “separated off.” This argument gains
strength if we try to distinguish between abstulit and dissecuit. It is,
perhaps, impossible to decide the point; if dissecuit be used loosely it means
that Marcion cut away not only the doxology, but also Romans 15:1-33 and Romans
16:1-27; if it be taken strictly it means that Marcion separated Romans 15:1-33
and Romans 16:1-27 from the rest of the Epistle, and cut out the doxology which
came at the end of Romans 16:1-27. Probably the former view is right, and the
difference between abstulit and dissecuit is to be explained as merely due to a
desire for variation. No MSS. in any language preserves the short recension.
Corssen, it is true, thinks that in a certain limited sense this may be claimed
for the group DEFG or rather for their ancestor Z (see Appendix I.). He argues
that the character of the text in Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27 differs from
that in the other chapters to such an extent that the only possible solution is
that the scribe of Z, or of an ancestor of Z, used two exemplars, of which he
followed one for Romans 1:1-32, Romans 2:1-29, Romans 3:1-31, Romans 4:1-25,
Romans 5:1-21, Romans 6:1-23, Romans 7:1-25, Romans 8:1-39, Romans 9:1-33,
Romans 10:1-21, Romans 11:1-36, Romans 12:1-21, Romans 13:1-14, Romans 14:1-23
and the other for Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27. In this case it would be
probable that the former exemplar belonged to the short recension, and that the
scribe passed on to the latter MSS. because he knew that a long recension
existed, and he had the usual scribe’s preference for the longer text. It would,
however, be wrong to regard this as quite decisive, for though the argument is
quite reasonable, it is too complicated to be wholly final. Moreover, the
complete analysis of the text is still unedited. So far as I can see, Corssen is
right, but the proof of his thesis demands a rather fuller treatment than he or
any one else has yet given to it.

Apart, however, from direct MS. evidence, the traces of the textual influence of
the short recension are tolerably plain. In the Epistle to the Romans as it
stands at present in critical editions the arrangement of the contents of the
last three chapters is as follows: (1) Romans 14:1-23 is devoted to the question
of the propriety of observing a distinction between lawful and unlawful food;
(2) Romans 15:1-13 continues the argument on more general lines; (3) Romans
15:14-33 is chiefly concerned with St. Paul’s plans for the future; (4) Romans
16:1-20a is a list of greetings to members of the Church to which he writes, and
a commendation of Phoebe of Cenchreae; (5) Romans 16:20b is a benediction; (6)
Romans 16:20-23 is a postscript of greetings from companions of St. Paul; and
(7) Romans 16:25-27 is a closing benediction. It is clear that there is no
serious break in thought between Romans 14:23 and Romans 15:1, and that the
doxology is in its correct place at the end of everything. Yet in the Antiochene
text, represented by the great majority of Greek MSS., the doxology comes not at
the end, but between Romans 14:23 and Romans 15:1 Moreover, it is certain that
this represents an early text, which was adopted, to use Westcott and Hort’s
expression, by the “Syrian Revisers,” because we have the distinct evidence of
Origen that this reading was that of some of the texts which had not been
corrupted by Marcion: In nonnullis etenim codicibus post eum locum quem supra
diximus, hoc est Omne autem quod non est ex fide peccatum est, statim cohaerens
habetur Ei autem qui potens est, etc., though he was also acquainted with others
which put the doxology at the end of the Epistle, and, like modern critical
editors, believed that this was the right place for it. The same text was used
by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact, so that, leaving out the
Latin version for the moment, it would seem as though the Eastern text
originally had the doxology after Romans 14:1-23 and that in Alexandria it was
moved to the end of Romans 16:1-27 though in the time of Origen the MSS. known
to him still differed on the question. The history of the Latin text on this
point is not easy to follow, owing to our almost complete ignorance of the Old
Latin text of the Epistle. The known facts, however, seem to be these; there
were in the Latin versions before Jerome three types of reading: (1) with the
doxology at the end of the Epistle, found in D and used by Pelagius and
Ambrosiaster, possibly owing to Alexandrian influence; (2) with the doxology
after Romans 14:23, found in Codex Guelferbytanus and a fragment at Monza (cod.
1-2/9), and (3) without any doxology, used by Priscillian and found in FG and
Cod. Ambrosianus E 26. It is also probable that Z, the archetype of the
Graeco-Latin MSS. DEFG, ought to be added either to the second or third of these
categories. The most probable solution of these facts seems to me to be that the
earliest type of Old Latin had the doxology after Romans 14:23 and that the
texts of Priscillian and Ambrosiaster represent Spanish and Italian attempts to
emend an obviously difficult reading. It is, I think, an illustration of the
fact that, with the exception of the Alexandrians, the Greeks were less apt to
be struck by textual difficulties than the Latins.

It is now possible to sum up the probabilities of the case with regard to the
doxology. It is very unlikely that this was originally anywhere else than at the
end of the Epistle, wherever that was therefore all the MSS. which insert it
after Romans 14:23 are really evidence for the existence of the short recension,
and confirm the witness of Tertullian, Cyprian, and the Latin Breves and
Capitulatio.

Moreover, it is not probable that the doxology belongs to the long recension, or
rather to Romans 16:1-27 of the long recension. For, if we assume that it did
so, we have to imagine that its presence in the short recension is due to the
fact that some scribe, who knew both the short and the long recensions, took the
doxology—and the doxology only—from the long recension in order to add it on to
the short recension. This is exceedingly improbable; and even more improbable is
it that, if the doxology had been found at the end of the long recension, it
would ever have been taken out of its place and put in the middle of the
connected argument of Romans 14:1-23 and and Romans 15:1-33. Thus the assumption
that the doxology belonged originally to Romans 16:1-27 in the long recension
renders it impossible to explain either (1) the short recension plus the
doxology, or (2) the long recension plus the doxology after Romans 14:23. On the
other hand, if we assume that the doxology really belonged originally to the
short recension, or to one form of the short recension, and the long recension
had no doxology at all, but ended with the “Grace” (or with a postscript after
the “Grace,” according to the view taken of the textual question of the
“Grace”), the textual history seems to admit of a reasonable reconstruction, as
the result of attempts of scribes to combine these two forms. The simplest
method was simply to add on to the complete short recension the added matter of
the long recension, i.e.Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27. This was the method
that the Antiochene text adopted. It had the disadvantage that it made the
doxology appear to be intrusive and in an impossible position. An attempt to
remedy this was the method of passing from one text to the other before the
doxology: this would give a text indistinguishable from the original long
recension, and is found in Priscillian and probably in Z, the archetype of DEFG.
A third course taken in Alexandria, or at least in circles known to Origen,
consisted in moving the doxology to the end of Romans 16:1-27 and this was also
adopted by Pelagius, Ambrosiaster, and Jerome. The most important conclusion
from these results is that there are no longer extant any pure MSS. either of
the short or of the long recension. It is of course obvious that the short
recension does not exist now, as no extant MSS. omit Romans 15:1-33 and Romans
16:1-27. Similarly, the existence of the doxology is the proof that the long
recension has been, at least so far, contaminated with the short recension. The
only possible witnesses which we have to the pure long recension are the MSS.
known to Jerome which had not the doxology, and possibly also those used by
Priscillian. In any case, though many of the details are uncertain, and the
history of the text is obscure, there is, I think, sufficient evidence to
justify the statement that in the second century there was a short recension of
Romans, and that traces of the process of its gradual abandonment in favour of
the long recension can be found in the third and fourth centuries.

It is now necessary to go on to show that the short recension probably omitted
the reference to Rome in Romans 1:7 and Romans 1:15. For these omissions there
are three direct witnesses: Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Cod. G—here probably
representing the archetype Z. The evidence of Origen is given directly in Cod.
Athous Laurae 184, a MS. which E. von der Goltz discovered in 1897 to contain a
text of the Epistle to the Romans made from the lost Greek of the commentary of
Origen. This MS. gives, it is true, the words ἐν Ῥώμῃ in Romans 1:7 and Romans
1:15, but the scribe has been honest enough to add a note to the effect that
this was not in his original, τοῦ ἐν Ῥώμῃ οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει οὔτε ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ
(i.e. the section of text at the head of the comment) μνημονεύει. The
unexpressed subject of this sentence is of course Origen. Von der Goltz is,
however, probably mistaken in thinking that this reading is not confirmed by the
Latin text of Origen made by Rufinus. It is true that the words in dispute come
in the text, but as Lightfoot pointed out long ago in Biblical Essays, p. 287,
the comment does not imply them.

It is possible that Origen knew MSS. containing the words ἐν Ρώμῃ, but it is at
least certain that he preferred to follow others which omitted them. The
evidence of Ambrosiaster is contained in his commentary. He says, according to
the existing MSS., “‘omnibus qui sunt Romae in caritate (v.l. dilectis) Dei
vocatis sanctis,’ quamvis Romanis scribat illis tamen se scribere significat qui
in caritate dei sunt.” It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the comment
here implies a different text from that printed, and that Ambrosiaster’s Bible
omitted ἐν Ῥώμῃ and read ἐν ἀγάπῃ (or in caritate) instead of ἀγαπήτοις. This
view is taken not only by Zahn but also by Lightfoot and the fact is notorious
that in patristic commentaries the Biblical text has often been regularized by
scribes who are betrayed by the comments which they did not understand and
therefore copied faithfully. The evidence of G agrees exactly with that of the
commentary of Ambrosiaster, that is to say, it reads τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ.
It is probable (see Appendix) that this was the reading of Z, the archetype of
DEFG. If, as is probable, the reading of D was τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ,
this provides an exact parallel to the text of the MSS. of Ambrosiaster, just as
G is a parallel to the commentary of Ambrosiaster. The same reading is also
found in the Vulgate MSS. Amiatinus and Fuldensis.

Thus we have early evidence in Europe and in Alexandria for the omission of the
words ἐν Ῥώμῃ. African evidence, on either side. I have been unable to find.
This is, however, quite sufficient to prove the early existence of a recension
which did not mention Rome. But was this recension the long or the short
recension? I believe that it must have been the short recension, because the
Latin version used by Ambrosiaster is textually closely related to the version
used in the Latin Brevés which are one of the primary witnesses to the short
recension. Moreover, Z appears in the evidence both for the short recension and
for the omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ. Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Marcion remain. As
to Tertullian and Cyprian, it is unknown whether they did or did not read ἐν
Ῥώμῃ. Marcion’s reading is also unknown. Origen used a text omitting ἐν Ῥώμῃ,
yet possessing Rom. 15 and 16.; but the evidence which he gives as to the
doxology shows his text was not that of the pure long recension, but a
contaminated form, so that the omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ may be an eclectic reading
from the short recension quite as probably as one from the long recension. Thus
there seems to be a great preponderance of evidence in favour of connecting the
omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ with the short recension. The result of the preceding rather
long and tedious inquiry seems to establish the fact that in the second century
there was in existence a short recension omitting Romans 15:1-33 and Romans
16:1-27 and the mention of Rome, and probably ending with the doxology. Indeed,
there is, strictly speaking, earlier evidence for the short recension than for
the long. I do not know of any quotations from Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27
in writers of the second century, whereas Marcion and Tertullian both seem to
have used the short recension. It would, however, be wrong to base any serious
argument on this fact, because the chapters in question were not likely to be
quoted. Moreover, there is no reason to doubt the Pauline authorship of Romans
15:1-33, which is closely connected with Romans 14:1-23. Thus there is no
justification for any theory that Romans 15:1-33 is a later, non-Pauline,
addition to the original short recension. Nor is it easy to think that Romans
15:1-33 was written by St. Paul for some other purpose: the connection of
thought between Romans 14:1-23 and Romans 15:1-33 is far too clear. Otherwise,
the most attractive theory would be that just as 2 Corinthians represents two or
more fragments of Pauline letters, which were pieced together and thus formed
one letter in the Corpus Paulinum, so also Romans consists of one main document
with a few fragments of Pauline letters, found in the Roman archives perhaps,
pieced on at the end. This theory seems to me to be rendered improbable so far
as Romans 15:1-33 is concerned by the clear connection in thought between it and
Romans 14:1-23. It would perhaps be too much to call it impossible, but it does
not seem to do justice to all the facts. Thus we have to face the existence of
the long recension as genuinely Pauline, in the sense that St. Paul is
responsible not only for the words, but also for the arrangement of the
contents, and that he meant Romans 15:1-33 to be the continuation of Romans
14:1-23.

How, then, is the existence of the short form to be explained? Two main theories
are possible: (1) St. Paul wrote the long recension, and some one else issued
the short recension later on. (2) St. Paul himself wrote both, issuing the
letter in two forms, either simultaneously or successively. At the present time
the former of these theories is the more popular, and it is widely held that the
short recension was made for dogmatic reasons by Marcion. THE MARCION HYPOTHESIS
This hypothesis, that the short recension was made by Marcion, has been best
defended by Sanday and Headlam, Corssen, and von Soden.

Sanday and Headlam argue that Marcion excised Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27
because they, or rather Romans 15:1-33, contained passages contrary to his
teaching. “To begin with,” they say (p. 97.), “five of these verses (i.e.Romans
15:1-13) contain quotations from the Old Testament; but further, Romans 15:8
contains an expression—λέγω γὰρ Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ
ἀληθείας Θεοῦ—which he most certainly could not have used. Still more is this
the case with regard to Romans 15:4 (ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν
διδασκαλίαν ἐγράφη), which directly contradicts the whole of his special
teaching.” The point is that Marcion rejected the general Christian view that
the Old Testament was a special revelation from the supreme God, whom he
distinguished from the God of Creation worshipped by the Jews, and did not
recognize that Christianity was in any sense the legitimate outcome or
fulfilment of Judaism. In order to support this theory he altered the text of
the Gospel of St. Luke and the Pauline Epistles, which constituted his
Scriptures, accommodating them to his teaching.

Corssen uses a somewhat different argument. In the first place, he argues that
the doxology cannot be regarded as Pauline, and is tainted with Marcionism.
Therefore, even if it be true that it did not figure in the text of Marcion’s
edition, it must be regarded as the product of the Marcionite Church, and thus
the short recension, which contained the doxology, must be regarded as the work
of Marcion. Probably this reasoning, in spite of its ingenuity, will make few
converts; but much more importance belongs to another argument which Corssen
also set forward, not knowing that he had, in the main points, been anticipated
by Dom de Bruyne.This is the fact that the Latin prologues to the Epistles,
which are found in many Vulgate MSS. including many of those which have the
Latin Breves, are undoubtedly of Marcionite origin. Thus it is impossible to
argue that it is incredible that Marcion should have so much influence on the
canonical text; for, although there is no sufficient ground for connecting the
Prologues and the Breves, it is nevertheless a suspicious fact that they should
be found, at least partially, in the same MSS.

Von Soden’s dvocacy of the Marcionite hypothesis is bound up with his general
position, and it is probably desirable to state this in outline, as, owing to a
variety of reasons, his book on the text is not yet widely read (at all events
in England), even by those who are interested in textual criticism.

He thinks that in the fourth century there were in existence three main types of
the text of the Epistles, to which he assigns the symbols Κ(οινή), Η(σύχιος),
and Ι(ερουσαλήμ). The K type corresponds more or less to Westcott and Hort’s
Syrian text and is subdivided into Kc and Kt. It is found in the mass of MSS.,
and Kt is the Greek text of the Middle Ages. The H type covers both the Neutral
and the Alexandrian texts of Westcott and Hort’s system. It is best represented
by אΒΑCΗ ψ 17; of these manuscripts אΒ are the most important, both being
descended from a common archetype (not much older, but better than either),
called by von Soden δ1–2. The I type is subdivided into the three families, Ia,
Ib, and Ic; of these, Ia is best represented by the Graeco-Latin MSS. DEFG, Ib
by the “Origen” MS. found by von der Goltz on Mt. Athos (von Soden’s a 78, not
known to Tischendorf), and Ic by various MSS. which had never hitherto attracted
special attention. Of these three families, Ia is no doubt the best, though Ib
has often valuable readings. It seems natural to think that, just as K is
Westcott and Hort’s Syrian text, and H the Neutral and Alexandrian texts, so I
is Westcott and Hort’s Western text; but this is only quite partially true, for
von Soden rejects many readings in DEFG as due to the influence of the Old
Latin, which he regards as earlier than I, whereas Westcott and Hort think that
the Old Latin and DEFG belonged to the same type.

Turning from MSS. to patristic evidence, the H text was used in Alexandria by
Athanasius and Cyril, the I text in Palestine by Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
and, with less accuracy, by Epiphanius, and the K text in Syria by Theodoret and
Chrysostom. In the same way the Bohairic version represents the H text and the
Syriac Peshitta the K text. This only takes us back to the fourth century, and
so far it is probable that von Soden’s results will prove in the main to be
sound. His view does not seriously differ from Westcott and Hort’s: both he and
they recognize the existence of three great types of text, and von Soden has
enriched our knowledge of the various MSS. of a later date to an enormous extent
without impugning this classification. The difference begins when we try to go
further. Neither Westcott and Hort nor von Soden can find evidence for the K
text earlier than the fourth century, and both agree in thinking that it is
connected with the recension of Lucian, but whereas Westcott and Hort think that
Lucian made use of two older texts, the Neutral and Western, roughly
corresponding to von Soden’s H and I, von Soden thinks that the two types H and
I are co-ordinate recensions, made in Alexandria and Palestine respectively, and
that the three, H, I, and K, are all based on the same text, to which the symbol
is given of I-H-K. So far as the Epistles are concerned, von Soden thinks that
this I-H-K text can be traced in the quotations of Clement of Alexandria,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, and in the European and African Latin
versions. At the same time, there are many places in which I-H-K (as
reconstructed by a comparison of the three separate texts, I, H, K) is deserted
by these authorities. He thinks that this is generally due to the influence of
Marcion’s text. His method is to take Zahn’s reconstruction of Marcion’s text,
and to compare it with the texts of the separate authorities for the I-H-K text.
He then arrives at the conclusion that in many of the places where the separate
authorities desert the true I-H-K type they agree with Marcion. Especially is
this the case with the Old Latin, with the special readings of Ii.e. the
archetype of DEFG) and with K. In view of these considerations it is not
wonderful that the Marcion hypothesis with regard to the short recension is
exceedingly popular, and I should hesitate to say that it is an improbable view.
At the same time, there are certain objections which are perhaps too little
noticed. In the first place, if it be conceded that the “short recension”
omitted ἐν ʼΡώμῃ it is necessary to show that Marcion cut these words out of his
text. It is, therefore, argued that Marcion desired to convert the Epistle into
a general treatise on Christian doctrine, and in pursuance of this plan omitted
all local references. Unfortunately, the recently discovered Marcionite
Prologues overthrew this theory. From these it is plain that he described the
Epistle as “to the Romans” in the usual way. This is of course no proof that
Marcion read ἐν Ῥώμῃ in Romans 1:7, but it at least shows that he did not try to
treat the Epistle as a general treatise. Therefore, supposing that Marcion used
the short recension, it is, so far as the omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ is concerned, more
probable that he used it because he found it already existing, than that he
manufactured it.

Moreover, in the Marcionite Prologues there is a difference of reading between
the various manuscripts as to the place from which Romans was sent. The majority
say from Corinth, as is the usual tradition, but some say from Athens. Corssen
is inclined to regard the latter reading as original, and I believe that he is
right, for it is easy to understand how Athens came to be altered to Corinth,
but the reverse process is unintelligible. The tradition naming Corinth is
generally recognized to be an obvious and correct deduction from Romans 15:1-33
and Romans 16:1-27; if this be so, is it not probable that the tradition
mentioning Athens is based on a text, known as it is to have existed, which
omitted these chapters? In this case it would seem more likely that Marcion, the
author of the Athens tradition, used the short recension because he found it
already in existence, than that he fashioned it for the first time. If he had
known—even though he rejected—Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27 he would surely
have chosen Corinth rather than Athens.

More important, however, than the question of ἐν Ῥώμῃ is that of Romans 15:1-33
and Romans 16:1-27. An answer has to be given to Sanday and Headlam’s theory of
Marcion’s omission on doctrinal grounds, to von Soden’s textual theory, and to
Corssen’s argument about the doxology.

Sanday and Headlam. In one sense this argument is unanswerable. It cannot be
denied that Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27 contain statements to which
Marcion would have objected. But this truth is beside the point if it be
possible to show that the short recension existed so widely at such an early
period that it cannot be due to the doctrinal excisions of Marcion. If it be
true that the short recension was used by Tertullian, can it be purely
Marcionite? This view is only tenable if we accept the theory, which has many
advocates, that the existence of a Pauline canon is altogether due to Marcion.
But this seems to me inacceptable because I believe in the genuineness of the
Ignatian Epistles, and it seems on the whole probable that the authority of the
Pauline Epistles is recognized in them. Moreover, the recognition of the
scriptural character of the Epistles is found in 2 Peter, and is one of the most
important reasons for rejecting its Petrine authorship; but can 2 Peter be later
than Marcion? Thus, while admitting that Marcion might have produced the short
recension for doctrinal reasons, it seems to me possible to go behind this
argument, and claim probability for the view that the short recension existed,
before or at the same time as Marcion, in Catholic circles.

Von Soden. With regard to von Soden’s position it is necessary to state a theory
of the history of the text which may be taken as an alternative to his view. The
starting-point is the same as his, the existence in the fourth century of three
recensions, but it is plain that three recensions may represent three attempts
at standardizing a great variety of local texts, and that the suggested I-H-K
text may never have existed. It is well to remember that we have to deal with
two separate questions; the original text of each individual Epistle, and the
original text of the canonical collection of Pauline Epistles. Of course, the
former is what we desire, but it is quite certain that it is not what we
possess, and we can only reach it by establishing, as a preliminary, the text of
the canonical collection or collections of Epistles. The first question,
therefore, is whether we possess traces of one or more collections of Epistles.
Our main guide here must be the order of Epistles, though any indirect
information which can be gathered as to the text has, of course, an important
bearing on the point. The earliest collection of which we can establish both the
order and contents, is that of Marcion—

(1) Galatians

(5) Laodiceans (= Ephesians)

(2) Corinthians

(6) Colossians

(3) Romans

(7) Philippians

(4) Thessalonians

(8) Philemon

Little if at all later in origin is the list in the Canon of Muratori—

(1) Corinthians

(6) Thessalonians

(2) Ephesians

(7) Romans

(3) Philippians

(8) Philemon

(4) Colossians

(9) Titus

(5) Galatians

(10) Timothy

It also appears probable that this list, though it contains the Pastoral
Epistles, draws a distinction between them and the Epistles to the Churches, not
in the sense that their authenticity was doubted, but as though the Epistles
were divided into two groups according as they were intended for Churches or
persons. According to the generally received opinion, this represents the canon
of the Church in Rome before the end of the second century.

Going on a little later, and passing from Rome to Africa, Tertullian probably
supplies us with a similar, but still distinctly different, list, so far as the
following Epistles (of which alone we can speak with certainty) are concerned—

(1) Corinthians

(4) Thessalonians

(2) Galatians

(5) Ephesians

(3) Philippians

(6) Romans

The position of Colossians and the Pastorals cannot be determined, though there
is no reason to doubt that Tertullian knew them. Probably this ought to be taken
as the African canon, and though the order of Cyprian’s Bible cannot be
accurately determined, it at least appears from the order of the quotations in
the Testimonia that Corinthians was probably the first and Romans the last of
the “Epistles to Churches.”

Moving from Africa to Alexandria, the nearest approach which we can find to a
list of the Pauline Epistles before the end of the third century is in Origen,
who seems to give the order

(1) Corinthians

(4) Thessalonians

(2) Ephesians

(5) Philippians

(3) Colossians

(6) Romans

Finally, in the fourth century in Alexandria, we find Athanasius insisting, with
an emphasis which suggests opposition, on the order which is found in the great
uncials, and was made familiar by its adoption in the ecclesiastical texts of
the fifth and following centuries. The small variations, some of which are
probably due to the influence of earlier orders, are not important for the
present purpose.

Moreover, we find that this variety of order in the list of the Epistles is
accompanied by variations in the text, and the most natural conclusion is that
we have to deal with various collections of the Pauline Epistles, so that if we
confine ourselves to the reconstruction of the text of the Corpus Paulinum, as
distinct from that of the separate Epistles, we have to recognize that there
never was any single “original” text, but that various Churches had their own
collections, each with its own text. No doubt from the beginning there was an
interchange of documents, and thus each text influenced the others in turn. The
reconstruction of these local texts is probably impossible, except in a few
details. Marcion’s text is sometimes recoverable, and so is Tertullian’s, but we
cannot claim to know anything about the second century text of Rome or of
Alexandria. When, however, we find Marcion and Tertullian apparently agreeing in
using the short recension of Romans, it seems more natural to accept this as
evidence that the Corpus Paulinum in Carthage and that used by Marcion agreed on
this point, than to suggest that Tertullian, whose Corpus was, as the order
shows, quite independent, borrowed on this point from Marcion. The order of the
Epistles shows that the Catholic Corpus or Corpora were from the beginning
distinct from that of Marcion.

Corssen. The main point of Corssen’s theory, apart from the Marcionite
prologues, which have already been discussed, is the doxology. He presents two
propositions: (1) that it is not genuine; (2) that it is a Marcionite addition.
That it is not genuine I am inclined to accept. It is true that there are
various doxological passages in the Epistles, but none of such length, and none
at the end, after the salutations. Moreover, Corssen’s arguments seem to me very
powerful. St. Paul, no doubt, preached that the “mystery” of Christianity had
been unrecognized in past ages; but he nowhere else says that it was never
announced. There was “a veil on the faces” of the Jews when they read the
Scriptures, and their meaning was hidden from them, but the writings of the
prophets were a revelation spoken by God. The Israelites had not understood, but
God had not kept silence. Thus it is scarcely true to argue, as Sanday and
Headlam do, that the doxology can only be rejected by those who reject the
Epistles of the captivity and the Pastoral Epistles. The doxology goes beyond
and even is contrary to anything in any Epistle. But to admit that the doxology
is probably not Pauline does not take us all the way to regarding it as
Marcionite. In the first place, we have the definite evidence of Origen that
Marcion did not have the doxology, and presumably he was speaking of the
Marcionite text of the third century. In the second place, the facts concerning
the order of the Epistles suggest an alternative theory.

It is generally recognized as a characteristic of scribes that they were
inclined to add doxologies at the end of the books or collection of books which
they copied. If, therefore, the doxology is not genuine, it is possibly to be
attributed to this cause, and if so it is most probable that it arose in some
collection of Epistles in which Romans was the last. Now, it is remarkable that
the Muratorian Canon suggests that the Epistles were divided into two groups,
letters to Churches and letters to persons, and that both in this list and in
those of Tertullian and Origen, the last Epistle in the group of letters to
Churches is Romans. This is not the case in Marcion’s collection, and the
suggestion is obvious that the doxology was the close of the Catholic collection
of letters to Churches. If Marcion knew it he left it out because he recognized
it as not part of the letter, but it is quite probable that he really had, from
the beginning, a different collection. It is surely a striking combination of
facts that (1) the doxology belongs to the short recension; (2) Doxologies
generally come at the end of books; (3) Tertullian probably had the short
recension; (4) the canon of Muratori shows that a distinction was made between
letters to Churches and letters to persons; and (5) in Tertullian’s Bible, as
well as in the canon of Muratori and in Origen’s Bible, Romans is the last of
the letters to Churches. To say that these facts afford a proof would be
ridiculous: we are on the very borders of the history of the canon, and
certainty is unattainable. All that can be said is that evidence points in the
direction of one hypothesis rather than another, and I submit that, on the
whole, and with our present knowledge, it points away from the Marcionite
hypothesis and in favour of the primitive existence of a short recension, which
originally belonged to a Catholic Corpus, closed by a doxology, in which it was
the last of the Epistles to Churches.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE MARCIONITE HYPOTHESIS Of these there have been many, but for
the most part their days have been few and evil, and they now are interred with
but short epitaphs in the pages of Zahn’s Einleitung.

One of the simplest which deserves attention was supported by Bishop Lightfoot.
He thought that St. Paul may have made the short recension himself in order to
give a general account of his position in the controversy between Jewish and
Gentile Christians. To this theory the decisive objection is the improbability
that any one who was not animated by dogmatic prepossessions, as Marcion is
supposed to have been, would ever have split the Epistle at Romans 14:23. The
natural divisions are after Romans 11:36, Romans 13:14; or Romans 15:13.
Moreover, it is doubtful whether it is on general grounds so likely that an
originally local letter was turned into a general treatise, as that the reverse
took place.

Perhaps more attention ought to be paid to the possibility that the short
recension is the original form of the text which was afterwards expanded. This
view was suggested, in a complicated and somewhat fantastic form, by E. Renan in
the introduction to his L’apôtre Paul, and was decisively criticized by
Lightfoot in the essay just mentioned. Yet, after all, Lightfoot only answered
Renan’s form of the hypothesis, and a hearing may be asked for a simpler one, as
an alternative to the popular Marcionite hypothesis. The main features of the
problem which must be taken into account are two: (1) there was, from as early a
time as evidence on textual points reaches, an Epistle to the Romans which
stopped at Romans 14:23, with or without the doxology, and without any reference
to Rome in Romans 1:1-21; (2) nevertheless, Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27
are clearly genuinely Pauline, and are never found except as a continuation of
the other chapters. I suggest that it is not impossible that the short recension
represents a letter written by St. Paul at the same time as Galatians, in
connection with the question of Jewish and Gentile Christians, for the general
instruction of mixed Churches which he had not visited. It had originally
nothing to do with Rome. Later on he sent a copy to Rome, with the addition of
the other chapters to serve, as we should say, as a covering letter. The
arguments in favour of this hypothesis may be formulated somewhat as follows.
Assuming that St. Paul first wrote an Epistle which in Romans 1:7 read, τοῖς
οὖσιν ἐν … ἀγαπήτοις θεοῦ, κλήτοις ἁγίοις (or possibly ἐν ἀγάπῃ, κ.τ.λ.), and
ended with Romans 14:23, what are the probabilities as to its date, the place
from which it was written, and the community to which it was addressed? Dealing
with the last point first, it is clear that there is nothing whatever to justify
us in singling out any one community, though the general indications point to
those hitherto unvisited by St. Paul, in which Jewish and Gentile Christians
came into contact with each other. We have to deal with a general Epistle,
devoid of address or of greetings. Those are exactly the same phenomena as are
found in the best text of Ephesians. In that Epistle there are no greetings, and
the words ἐν Ἐφέσῳ are omitted by the critical editors, and the generally
received explanation is that it (which we call Ephesians, and Marcion called
Laodiceans) was originally designed exclusively for neither of these Churches,
but was a circular Epistle, in which the name could be filled in according to
circumstances. As companion letters to Ephesians we have Colossians and
Philemon, and it would seem that Ephesians is the general Epistle to the
Christians in Asia, Colossians an Epistle to a special Church in that province,
and Philemon a private note to an individual Christian either in Colossae or a
neighbouring town. The connection in thought between Ephesians and Colossians is
scarcely plainer than that between Romans and Galatians, and if we take the
short recension the parallel is almost perfect. Why should it not be, then, that
“Romans” was originally a general Epistle written by St. Paul, at the same time
as Galatians, to the mixed Churches which had sprung up round Antioch and
further on in Asia Minor? In that case we should have another instance of St.
Paul’s custom of writing a general Epistle, and supporting it by a series of
letters to the separate Churches, or groups of Churches, in the district for
which it was intended. The strength of this position can be best seen if we
suppose that all copies of the long recension had been lost, and that we only
possessed the shorter form. It cannot be doubted that in this case we should
have been unanimous in saying that the Epistle belonged to the same period as
Galatians. No one would have suggested that it was written after 2 Corinthians
and sent to Rome. Even if the superscription “to the Romans” had existed, we
should have said, as is, mutatis mutandis, so commonly said in connection with
Ephesians, that this only means that the archetype of existing MSS. comes from
Rome; and it would have been popularly argued that “Romans” means “Roman
citizens,” not necessarily inhabitants of Rome, and that it was probably used by
courtesy of many who were not actually citizens.

Thus if we were justified in assuming that the short recension was the original
form of the Epistle, the theory that the Epistle is a general letter
contemporary with Galatians, and directed to the Gentile Christians in general,
would have very strong arguments in its favour.

Unfortunately this is just the point which we cannot assume without argument. As
Sanday and Headlam pointed out long ago, no theory is satisfactory which does
not recognize the organic connection between Romans 14:1-23 and Romans 15:1-33;
there is a definite line of argument which runs on from one to the other, and
this continuity, which justifies the argument that texts inserting the doxology
between the two chapters really point to the existence of the short recension,
also proves that no hypothesis is satisfactory which fails to do justice to its
existence. Sanday and Headlam argued that this must mean that the long recension
is prior in origin to the short recension, and up to the present this view has
held the field. If, therefore, the priority of the short recension is to be
rendered even a subject for discussion, it is necessary to produce some theory
which will nevertheless account for Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27, and their
organic connection with Acts 15:1-33.

Such a theory would be that St. Paul had sent a copy of the short recension to
Rome from Corinth, and added the last chapters as an expansion of the practical
exhortations, and as greetings to the individual members of the Church. A more
or less imaginative reconstruction of the circumstances would be the following:
St. Paul was in Corinth, on the point of departure for Jerusalem, and,
influenced by the information of Aquila and Priscilla, sent a copy of his
“Anti-Judaistic Letter” to the Roman Christians, adding at the end a few more
paragraphs continuing the thoughts of his original writing, probably because
Aquila had told him that this was desirable. The only objection that I can see
to this hypothesis is that St. Paul ought to have described in his covering
letter the contents of his enclosure. It is true that this would have been more
natural, especially if he had been using modern paper and envelopes. But I take
it that what happened was that St. Paul told a copyist to make a copy of the
“short recension,” and then dictated the remainder. If the Romans wished to know
any more about the form of the document, they must ask the bearers. The history
of the Epistle after it reached Rome is, in any case, a problem which can never
be solved with certainty, yet on the theory of the priority of the short
recension, we can form quite as possible a reconstruction as the Marcionite
hypothesis. The growth of the Corpus Paulinum is practically unknown to us. All
that we know is that in the second century the process of collecting Pauline
Epistles was going on in more than one place, so that in one locality there was
one order, in another something different. That is to say, at an early period
Churches began to exchange copies of St. Paul’s Epistles, not because of their
intrinsic value as letters, but because they were Pauline. It was for that
reason that the Epistle to Philemon came into the canon. Considerably earlier
than this must have been the time when the letters were copied, not simply
because they were Pauline, but because they dealt with important subjects.
During this time no Epistles are more likely to have been copied than Romans—in
the short form—and Ephesians, and as a matter of fact there is no Epistle,
except, perhaps, 1 Corinthians, which is so well attested in the sub-Apostolic
period as these two. During this period the short recension of Romans would be
more likely to attract attention than the longer form, though in Rome the latter
would naturally be perpetuated. Probably to this period must be assigned the
genesis of the collection of “Epistles to Churches,” ending with Romans, and the
addition of the doxology. As soon, however, as the emphasis of interest came to
fall not on the contents, but on the authorship of the Epistles, the tendency
was to copy and circulate everything which was Pauline, and so the longer texts
made in Rome with the addition of the “covering letter” would be more popular,
and the original form of the “long recension” would come into circulation,
copies of the short recension would be amplified by the addition of the fresh
material, and the complicated textual process described on p. 345 would begin. A
parallel to this process may probably be found in 2 Corinthians. The internal
evidence is here much stronger than it is in Romans, but, on the other hand,
there is no trace of any textual evidence. It is perhaps interesting to ask why
the textual tradition should be less strong in the case of 2 Corinthians, than
in that of Romans. Probably the answer is to be found in the independent
circulation of the short form of Romans, and in the fact that 2 Corinthians
seems to come into general use much later than 1 Corinthians. Dr. Kennedy
suggests that it did so only after the Epistle of Clement drove the Corinthians
to look at their archives and find various fragments of an almost forgotten
correspondence. That the theory which is here suggested, as to the history of
the Epistle to the Romans, can never become more than a possible hypothesis, is
of course obvious, nor would I venture to claim that it has any self-evident
probability. But the fact that a “short form” did exist in the second and third
centuries is certain, and has to be dealt with somehow. The Marcionite
hypothesis is of course a simpler view, and in so far deserves the preference
which it enjoys at present, but the alternative will demand serious
consideration from those who do not think that so general a depravation of the
text by Marcionite influence is entirely probable. This, then, is the point
which at the moment ought to be studied by those who desire to carry research
further; is it reasonable to suppose that the text used by the anonymous maker
of the Latin Breves, by the text behind the Antiochene recension, and by
Tertullian, was influenced by Marcion? In other words, a serious attempt must be
made to deal with the facts and theories presented by von Soden. To do this will
require much fresh research, and I must rest content with saying that if he
prove to be right, the correctness of the Marcionite hypothesis as to the short
recension will become overwhelmingly probable. But if it be shown that the
influence of Marcion on the text of the Epistles was not so great, the
Marcionite hypothesis becomes improbable, for the evidence for the short
recension is too wide and too early. In this case the hypothesis of a short
form, written by St. Paul, earlier than the long recension, contemporary with
Galatians, and not intended for Rome, must be seriously considered; and such an
hypothesis has of course the advantage of, to some extent, freeing the Epistle
from the objections that it is improbable that St. Paul, at the end of the quite
different controversy at Corinth, should have worked over on a larger scale the
arguments used in Galatians, and sent them to a Church which he had never seen.
If St. Paul really heard from Aquila that the Judaizing Christianity was making
progress in Rome, he is quite likely to have used over again an Epistle which
had formerly been of use in Syria, but he is not so likely to have re-modelled
in a new and more elaborate form arguments which he had once used in Galatians
in the course of a controversy of which there is no trace in Corinth.

It is now necessary to return once more to the question of Romans 16:1-23, and
ask what its relation is to the problem of the short recension. It was seen
above that this section is probably Ephesian, and this fact adds to the
complication of the situation. Of course, if this conclusion be wrong, there is
no difficulty: the section is part of the long recension, and helps to explain
why St. Paul wrote to Rome. But if the conclusion reached be right, how did the
section in question find its way into the long recension? To this question no
answer seems possible. Anything—in itself improbable—may actually have happened
to bring together the Ephesian letter and the long recension, but it is idle to
guess on a point as to which we have no evidence. All that we know is that the
evidence points to Ephesus for Romans 16:1-23 and to Rome for the rest of the
long recension. Whether the junction was made in Rome or in Ephesus or somewhere
else will always remain uncertain. The result of the foregoing discussion has
been to show that the original destination and date of the Epistle is not so
certain as it at first seems, and it may fairly be charged with belonging to
that unsatisfactory though necessary class of investigations which raise
problems which cannot be solved. What remains clear is that the long recension,
probably without Romans 16:1-23, was sent by St. Paul from Corinth to Rome, and
that it belongs in the main to the same controversy as Galatians,—that with
Judaizing Christians, though it also contains some allusions to the struggle
with the “spiritual” Gentile Christianity which is the background of the
Corinthian Epistles.

It is, therefore, necessary to ask in more detail what was this Judaizing
Christianity, and what was the history of the foundation of the Church at Rome.

THE CHURCH AT ROME

There was throughout the nineteenth century much controversy as to the nature of
the Roman Church. Was it originally Jewish or Gentile? The traditional view was
that it was Gentile. Baur, however, attacked this view, and maintained that it
was primarily Jewish. This contention was taken up and elaborately defended by
Mangold,a nd remained the prevalent view in critical circles until Weizsacker
returned more or less to the older view, and was only ready to recognize a
Jewish element in the form of proselytes. The points in which a Gentile origin
is implied for the readers of the Epistle are the following: (1) In Romans 1:5-6
St. Paul says that he is an Apostle “to all the Gentiles … among whom ye are
also,” etc.; and in Romans 1:13 he expresses the hope that he may “have some
fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles.” (2) In Romans 11:13 St.
Paul says, “But I speak to you who are Gentiles.”

These two passages are definite proof of the existence of Gentiles in the
Church, and as they are mentioned with such emphasis in the opening salutations,
they must have been an important party. A Jewish origin, on the other hand, is
implied in passages in which St. Paul, by using the first person plural, seems
to assume a Jewish nationality for his readers as well as for himself. The chief
of such passages are: Romans 4:1, “What shall we say that Abraham, our
forefather according to the flesh, hath found?” Romans 7:6, “But now we have
been discharged from the Law, having died to that wherein we were holden”;
Romans 9:10, “Isaac, our father.”

There is no sufficient answer to the arguments based on these texts. The
existence of both elements in Rome must be recognized, and therefore it is now
generally conceded there was a measure of truth in both the earlier contentions.
The reason for this rapprochement is not merely the consideration of definite
allusions in the Epistle. It is on general grounds so probable that all early
Christian communities were based on converts from the synagogue, and from the
God-fearers, who were more or less loosely connected with the synagogue, that
any other suggestion would need strong evidence before it would deserve
consideration.

Especially is this true of a city like Rome, in which both elements were
numerous. The Jews in Rome had already a long and interesting history by the
time that St. Paul wrote. There was probably a settlement of Jews early in the
first century before Christ, but it first attained really large dimensions when
Pompey in 63 b.c. brought an enormous number of Jews to Rome as prisoners of
war, who were sold into slavery.Many of them, however, were set free, as they
proved unsatisfactory as slaves, owing to their inflexible adherence to the Law.
They then settled on the other bank of the Tiber, where a colony of Jews existed
until 1556, when they were brought across the river to the spot which is still
known as the Ghetto, though it was abolished as such after the incorporation of
Rome into the Italian kingdom. There were also originally other colonies in
Rome, in the Subura, and the Campus Martius. The numbers of these settlements
must have been very great, for though Tiberius appears to have tried to abolish
them, in consequence of frauds committed on a certain rich proselyte lady named
Fulvia,he seems to have failed, even though he drafted four thousand into the
Sardinian police in order to put down the brigands, “et, si,” says Tacitus, “ob
gravitatem coeli interiisent, vile damnum.” Later, after the fall of Sejanus,
Tiberius became more friendly to the Jews, and the colony was firmly established
in the time of Caligula, when Philo came to Rome on behalf of the Alexandrian
Jews. Claudius began by being tolerant, but later on the riots of the Jews (see
p. 374 f.) led to the decree of banishment which is mentioned in Acts 18:2.
Probably this decree proved impracticable: it is not easy to banish a population
of many thousands if it sit still, unless measures of deportation on a large and
expensive scale are carried out. Certainly there is no hint in any writing that
the Jewish colony was seriously diminished, though a scholiast to Juvenal says
that many of them went to Aricia.

Thus there were probably few Gentile cities in which Jews were so numerous as in
Rome, and no doubt they would be some of the first to hear of Christianity. A
mixed community is therefore the type which would naturally be expected, and as
this type is also indicated by the definite allusions in the Epistle, we have no
reason for doubting its accuracy. We have, however, but little information as to
the foundation of this Church.

All that we know with certainty is that it was in existence before St. Paul
wrote. It is therefore clear that one or more Christians had already made their
way to Rome, and had met with some success in propagating their faith. If Romans
16:1-23 be really an Epistle to Rome, and if the suggestion be right that “those
of Narcissus” and “those of Aristobulus” can be identified with the slaves of
the freedman Narcissus and of Aristobulus, the member of the Herod family, we
can go a step further, and say that the circle of Christians in Rome included
some of the Imperial slaves, and that St. Paul is referring to them when he
speaks in Php 4:22 of “Caesar’s household.” If, as seems to me more probable,
this section of Romans was intended for Ephesus, this argument cannot be used.
It remains true, on the authority of Philippians, that when St. Paul was in Rome
there were Christians in the Imperial household; but it becomes open to doubt
whether these converts to Christianity had been made by St. Paul or existed
before his arrival.

There are only two other pieces of evidence in really early writers which throw
light on the question. The first of these is the evidence of Aquila and
Priscilla. If they were Christians when St. Paul first met them, they must have
been converted before they came to Corinth. The point is, of course, open to
question, but St. Luke says nothing about their conversion, and as a rule
(though not always) he mentions the conversion of important people by St. Paul.
The narrative in Acts seems to imply that Aquila and Priscilla were already
Christians when St. Paul went to stay in their house. The second point is the
curious evidence of Suetonius as to the causes which led to the banishment of
the Jews from Rome. He says of Claudius, “Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue
tumultuantes Roma expulit.” This is no doubt the decree referred to in Acts, in
consequence of which Aquila and Priscilla left Rome. There are two difficulties
in connection with this narrative. In the first place, some doubt has been
thrown on the statement that Claudius actually banished the Jews, because Dio
Cassius simply says that Claudius prohibited their meetings and societies. This
point is, however, not really of great importance for the present purpose, as it
is clear that in any case some change of regulation was made adversely affecting
the Jews. Much more important is the question of the meaning of “Chresto” in
Suetonius. The most probable view must surely be that there is some connection
between it and the word “Christ” in the sense of Messiah. The spelling
“Chrestus” instead of “Christus” is quite common, and is without any importance.

If this be so it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the “constant
tumults” among the Jews were due to Messianic controversy, and there is no
reason for thinking that this cannot have been due to Christian propaganda.
Against this it is argued that Chrestus is a common slave name, and that he was
probably the actual leader of some political trouble. The point cannot be
settled; but personally I think that it is extremely probable that we have here
a reference to the first introduction of Christianity into Rome and the
opposition of the Jews. If so, the evidence of Suetonius, of the Acts (with the
suggestion that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians before they reached
Corinth), and of the Epistle to the Romans, all points in the same direction,
and indicates that there was a Christian community in Rome during the reign of
Claudius (41–54 a.d.) and probably at least as early as the year 50.

Probably it is quite impossible to go any further or to identify the Christians
who first brought Christianity to Rome. The later tradition is of course well
known. According to this St. Peter was Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, and
was martyred in 67 a.d. He therefore reached Rome in 42. This tradition is found
in Eusebius’ Chronicon in which (in Jerome’s version) the arrival of St. Peter
in Rome is attributed to the year 42 a.d., and his death to 67. Probably the
tradition is derived from Hippolytus. The line of argument by which “radical”
critics dispose of this tradition of St. Peter’s presence in Rome is
unsatisfactory. In the first place, they argue that the evidence is
insufficient; and the statements in 1 Peter, Clement of Rome, Ignatius,
Hippolytus, Eusebius, and others are explained away or dismissed as not
authentic. Of course, the evidence is not demonstrative—if it were a hanging
matter I should not claim a verdict—but for the question in hand it seems to me
to raise a real presumption in favour of St. Peter’s presence in Rome, and
because the evidence is, as every one admits, insufficient to give certainty, to
claim that, therefore, the opposite conclusion ought to be accepted, is to
ignore the limitations and the method of historical research. Mathematicians and
jurists may look for the attainment of demonstration; historians can only hope
for the establishment of probability. In the second place, they argue that the
whole tradition of St. Peter’s presence in Rome was invented in order to account
for the Roman teaching as to St. Peter’s primacy in the Church. This is, of
course, not in itself impossible. Tradition is as often the child as it is the
parent of doctrine. But neither tradition nor doctrine come quite spontaneously
into existence, and a theory is scarcely probable which leaves both hanging, as
it were, in the air without any means of support, which is in reality the net
result of “radical” criticism with regard to St. Peter in Rome. For what is the
basis of the Roman doctrine of the primacy of St. Peter? “Thou art Peter, and on
this rock will I found My Church,” is the obvious answer. To those who accept
this text as authentic it is a sufficient answer, and they are entitled to argue
that we have here the doctrinal source, combined with the metropolitan rank of
the city of Rome, which produced the tradition of St. Peter. But the irony of
the situation is that “radical” critics, as a rule (and here I believe that they
are probably right), regard this text as one of the late Mathaean additions to
the original Marcan text. But, if so, why was it added? To support, they say,
the Roman tradition of the episcopate of St. Peter, i.e. his presence in Rome.
But it has been argued that the tradition of St. Peter’s presence in Rome is the
result of the Roman doctrine of St. Peter’s primacy. This is perilously near a
reductio ad absurdum of the whole argument, and is clearly an illegitimate
reasoning in a circle. It is permissible to explain the tradition as due to the
doctrine, or the doctrine as due to the tradition, but it is not permissible to
argue in both ways at once, and it is this logical crime of which “radical”
criticism seems sometimes to be guilty. The truth is that with the rejection of
the authenticity of “Thou art Peter,” the last reason has also been rejected for
doubting the tradition that St. Peter was in Rome. If “Thou art Peter” is a
Roman invention, it was invented because St. Peter was already recognized as
historically connected with Rome.

It is, therefore, very difficult to doubt that St. Peter was in Rome, and that
he played a prominent part in the early history of the Christian Church. But it
is quite a different thing to say that he was actually the first to preach in
that city, or that he reached it as early as 42 A.D. Against this two facts must
be set. In the first place, the release of St. Peter from prison in Jerusalem
seems to be synchronized by St. Luke with the death of Herod, which was not
earlier than 44 a.d.; in the second place, if it be the case, as I believe, that
St. Peter visited Corinth soon after St. Paul left it, the suggestion certainly
is that c. 52 a.d. he had not yet reached so far West as Rome. Nevertheless,
these arguments are not conclusive, and personally I am not at all convinced
that St. Peter was not the founder of the Roman Church—perhaps he came to
Corinth from the West—but the evidence is insufficient in either direction. In
any case, it seems to me much more doubtful than is generally admitted, whether
any great importance ought to be attached to St. Paul’s silence as to St. Peter
in Epistles which were presumably written to or from Rome. An adverse argument
has sometimes been found in Romans 15:20. Here St. Paul says that he has made it
his aim “so to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I
might not build on another man’s foundation.” From this it has been argued that
St. Paul would not have gone to Rome if it had been St. Peter’s foundation, and
that in some way the Roman Church must have been his own foundation, probably
because it had been established by his own converts. This exegesis is incorrect.
St. Paul clearly implies that the Roman Church was another man’s foundation, and
that he had hitherto refused to preach in such places where others had made a
beginning; this was the reason why he had never yet been to Rome. “Wherefore,”
he says, “I was greatly hindered (ἐνεκοπτόμην τὰ πολλά) from coming to you.” The
“you” implies that the Church was some one’s else foundation, and the
“wherefore” explains that this was his reason for not coming. He then goes on to
explain why he now proposes to depart from his principle: there is now “no place
left for him in these districts,” i.e. from Jerusalem to Illyria. Thus with a
proper exegesis the meaning of this passage is that the Church of Rome was
founded by some one else, and the question will always remain, why not St.
Peter? THE CONTROVERSIAL MOTIVES OF THE EPISTLE In some ways the Epistle to the
Romans stands midway between Corinthians and Galatians. Corinthians is concerned
almost exclusively with the problems which arose in a Gentile city in which a
Greek-thinking population accepted Christianity. Even though there was a Jewish
element in Corinth, it belonged to a Judaism which turned its face to Greece
rather than to Palestine. Galatians, on the other hand, is almost exclusively
concerned with the controversy between the more liberal Christianity supported
by St. Paul and the stiff Judaistic Christianity of Jerusalem. But Romans, as
compared with the other Epistles, has more of the Greek element than Galatians,
and more of the Judaic element than Corinthians. There is, however, a further
distinction: the specially Greek elements are clearer and more important in
Corinthians, and their treatment in connection with those Epistles leaves it
here only necessary to add a few details. On the other hand, the Judaizing
element controverted by St. Paul is much more exhaustively discussed than in
Galatians, and the full treatment of the general point of view which it implies
falls naturally into place at this point. These considerations justify a
division of the present section under the two heads of (1) Gentile problems, and
(2) Judaic problems.

(1) Gentile Problems.—So far as these are concerned, the general situation at
Rome, as manifested by the practical problems which arose, was apparently much
like that in Corinth, except that there was not the same controversial and
partisan tension; the result is that we can see the details much less clearly,
for St. Paul is not forced to define and distinguish with the same careful
exactitude. But three points stand out, in which there is a marked resemblance
to the situation in Corinth.

α) A Tendency to dispute as to the Relative Value of “Gifts”.—This is the
background of Romans 12:3-21. It strikingly resembles the more detailed
exposition in 1 Corinthians, both in the actual statements and in the manner in
which it passes into a general discussion of virtues whichought to be found in a
Christian community. The most important verses for the present purpose are 3–8:
“For I say through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not
to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly,
according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have
many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then
gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,
let us prophecy according to the proportion of faith: or ministry, let us wait
on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching: or he that exhorteth, on
exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity: he that ruleth, with
diligence: he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.” It is plain that this
passage is a short and general description of the problems dealt with at length
in 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1Co 13-13, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40.

(β) A Difference of Opinion as to Food.—This question is discussed by St. Paul
in Romans 14:1-23, and is continued in a more general manner in Romans 15:1-33.
What is clear is that that there was a strict party which limited the food
lawful for Christians, and a more liberal party which imposed no restrictions.
Between these: parties there was some ill feeling. “One man,” says St. Paul,
“hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak is a vegetarian.” Obviously
the liberal argument was that all things were indifferent in themselves. This is
implied by St. Paul’s admissions. “I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus,
that nothing is unclean of itself,” and “All things indeed are clean.” He
recognizes that the liberal view is, in itself, correct, though he argues (1)
that it does not justify those who have any scruples (Romans 14:14, Romans
14:20, Romans 14:23), (2) that it is not justifiable in practice to offend the
prejudices of the weaker brethren (Romans 14:13, Romans 15:21) It is clear that
this implies very much the same type of thought and practice as is found in 1
Corinthians, and the liberal party must have had the same standpoint as the
“spiritual” party in Corinth.

It is more difficult to identify the stricter party. The points which are clear
are that they (or some of them) abstained from meat and wine, and that they
observed “days” (Romans 14:2; Romans 14:5 ff), which in this context can
scarcely mean anything except “fast and feast days.” Whether however they were
Jews or Gentiles, and what was their doctrine, is impossible to settle finally.
The oldest view is that the strict party were Judaizers. The serious objection
to this view is that the Jewish Law objected to various forms of food, but was
neither teetotal nor vegetarian. A popular view among later critics has been
that the strict party was Essene. Here, again, the objection is that there is no
evidence that there were Essenes in Rome, and that though Jerome ascribes
vegetarianism to them, this is not supported by the evidence of Philo and
Josephus. A different solution is sought by others in a reference to the
vegetarian ascetics mentioned by Seneca. This is, of course, not impossible, but
there is no evidence that these ascetics observed special fast days. The truth
appears to be that the question is insoluble. We know that there were both Jews
and Gentiles in the Roman Churches, and we know also there were “strict” and
“liberal” Christians: but whether these divisions coincided or crossed each
other, we do not know. Only on general grounds can we support one or the other
view, and on these grounds it is more probable that they crossed each other.

It remains to notice that there is no trace that the question of food was
connected with the belief in demons, and the consequent danger of things offered
to idols, as it was in Corinth. It does not, however, follow that this element
was absent. The argumentum a silentio from St. Paul would be here peculiarly
dangerous.

(γ) A Low Standard of Morality.—A tendency to moral and ethical laxness is
probably indicated by Romans 3:7. “If the truth of God abounded to His glory by
my lie, why am I still judged as a sinner, and not, (as we are traduced, and
some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?” but it is most
clearly part of the implication of the sixth and twelfth chapters. For instance,
the question at the beginning of Romans 6:1-23, “Shall we remain in sin, that
grace may abound?” and the warning in Romans 6:12, “Let not therefore sin reign
in your mortal body,” are not only the reply to a Jewish propaganda which
regarded Gentile Christianity as ethically insufficient, but are directed
against Gentiles who were really inclined to adopt an unethical view of
Sacramental Christianity. It is clear that just as some Corinthians had argued
that, because they had been baptized, and partook of spiritual food and drink,
they were safe, and might do anything they liked, so also some of the Gentiles
to whom St. Paul sent Romans, seem to have argued that Baptism carried with it
the privilege of salvation, without the responsibility of morality. The same
implication is clearly made in Romans 12:1-2 : “I beseech you, brethren, by the
mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable
to God,—your spiritual (λογικὴν) service. And be not conformed to this world,
but change your nature (μεταμορφουσθε) with the renewal of your mind (τοῦ νοός),
to prove what is the will of God—that which is good, and acceptable and
perfect.” The suggestion here is clearly made that the Gentile Christians were
in danger of insufficiently recognizing the moral and ethical requirements of
the new spirit which they had received. From Romans 6:1-23 it is obvious that
this unethical view of Christianity, with its accompanying evils, was connected
with Baptism, in so much as St. Paul argues that its obligations have been
misunderstood. At the same time, this—the question of the ethical obligations of
the Sacraments —is the only point which he treats as in any way controversial.
For the rest Baptism and its significance was common ground to him and all other
Christians, and he only refers to it as the basis—not as the subject—of
controversy. For this reason the direct references to Baptism in the Epistles,
essentially controversial as they are, are few and short; but they are for that
very reason extremely important, and it has seemed best to bring them together
and to discuss them at this point. The most simple and primitive conception of
Baptism is that of a cleansing from sin. This is clearly referred to by St. Paul
in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “Ye were washed, ye were sanctified, ye were justified in
the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” But it appears
that the “cleansing” is here not regarded as in any way purely negative or
preparatory; it is closely connected with the more positive conception of the
gift of being “made holy,” and of receiving the Spirit, and it is important to
notice that it is directly bound up with “the Name” of the Lord.

Still more clearly is the idea of the gift of the Spirit through Baptism to be
found in 1 Corinthians 12:12 : “For as the body is one and has many limbs, and
all the limbs of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For in
one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” The whole argument in this
chapter is that the Christians, whatever may be their obviously differing gifts,
are united by the fact that they are all the separate channels by which the one
Spirit, who for St. Paul and his hearers is scarcely, if at all, distinguishable
from the risen Christ, manifests Himself in the Church. St. Paul says that the
relation between Christians and the Spirit is actually parallel to the relation
between “limbs” and “body,” and by this he does not mean anything merely
symbolic or allegorical. The unity of the Spirit did not mean to the first
Christians an intellectual unanimity in matters of controversy, or
ecclesiastical organization, but a common inspiration by the same Divine Spirit,
which was different from anything to be obtained by natural means. The same kind
of idea, though here expressed in terms of “the Lord” instead of in those of
“the Spirit,” is found in Romans 6:3. “Are ye ignorant that all we who were
baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried with Him
through baptism, into death, that like as the Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.” In
the same way in Galatians 3:27 he says, “As many of you as were baptized into
Christ did put on Christ.” Baptism is here clearly indicated as effecting the
union with Christ, and there is no reason for trying to minimize the force of
this fact. Baptism is, for St. Paul and his readers, universally and
unquestioningly accepted as a “mystery” or sacrament which works ex opere
operato; and from the unhesitating manner in which St. Paul uses this fact as a
basis for argument, as if it were a point on which Christian opinion did not
vary, it would seem as though this sacramental teaching is central in the
primitive Christianity to which the Roman Empire began to be converted.

There were apparently three factors which were regarded as essential. The Water,
the Name, and the Spirit, though the last gives rise to some difficulty. The
water was the actual “efficacious sign” used in the mystery; the Name was the
power which enabled the water to be used in this way; and the Spirit was the
Divine life (or living being?) which made a “new creature” of the initiate. The
importance of the water to the mind of a Gentile of the first four centuries was
by no means a simple conception, and may have varied in different circles. The
idea of washing corresponds to the idea of removing sin and any other impediment
to initiation; but the idea of “life” was also frequently bound up with the idea
of water, especially flowing or “living” water,and Tertullian regards it as a
commonplace that there was an affinity between water and spirits, for just as
evil spirits haunt springs, and thus make men “nympholept,” so also the Holy
Spirit (as was the case at the Creation) is especially connected with water. The
idea is not the modern one of symbolism, which was almost unknown to the
ancients, but rather that the water was really the instrument by which the act
of initiation was performed. The same thing, mutatis mutandis, could be shown of
other initiatory rites in which blood or oil was used instead of water. The
water, however, was insufficient in itself. It was necessary to use it in the
power of the “Name.”The underlying conception is one common to almost every
early religion. Certain beings are supposed to have supernatural power over the
forces of nature, and over the spirit-world which in the ancient view of the
universe was sometimes identified with, sometimes distinguished from, natural
phenomena. Now, not only these beings themselves could use this power, but also
all those who knew how to make use of their name, with which their authority was
bound up. This is the origin of all magical formulae of exorcism, and it seems
to me impossible to deny that the formula of Baptism belongs to the same
category.

Psychologically, the use of names in magical formulae is extremely interesting,
and shows why the doctrine was so universal. One of the most frequent uses of
exorcism was the cure of what we now should unhesitatingly diagnose as nervous
trouble. In these cases nothing is so likely to succeed as treatment in which
the patient believes. “Suggestion” and “faith” are the most important
therapeutic agents known; it is comparatively immaterial whether the patient’s
belief is reasonable; what is important is that he should believe it
unhesitatingly. This condition was admirably fulfilled by the old “magical”
exorcism: the patient believed in the power of the “name,” and recovered. It
seemed strong evidence that the cure was really effected objectively by the
“name.” The reason why we are justified in rejecting this view is the fact that
no formula and no name can claim an exclusive or consistent record of success,
and that whereas cases are frequent in which a cure has been effected by “faith”
or “suggestion” without a magical formula, there is no sufficient evidence of
cure by a magical formula without “faith” or “suggestion.” The “Spirit” was the
result of Baptism. Such, at least, seems to have been the normal view, shared by
St. Paul. It is, of course, true that St. Paul says a great deal about “faith”
and very little about Baptism. But it is equally true that he speaks so much
about the one, and so little about the other, because the one was disputed and
the other was not. “Faith” was, no doubt, the necessary preliminary to Baptism,
and was the condition of salvation. I imagine that this conception was probably
common to the Hellenist mysteries, and was probably not really disputed by
Jewish Christians: the reason why it was controversial was that the latter
thought that faith ought to include the acceptance of the Jewish Law, and the
Gentile Christians, with St. Paul, believed that the acceptance of Jesus as the
Redeemer was sufficient to justify initiation into the Christian mysteries. At
the same time, it is probable that there were from the beginning exceptional
instances in which the signs of possession by the Spirit preceded the act of
Baptism. In this case logic would have suggested omitting Baptism as
unnecessary, but human nature loves regularity, and probably Baptism was
nevertheless administered. Moreover, it is doubtful whether the gift of the
Spirit was connected with the act of Baptism in the strict sense of the word, or
with the “laying on of hands,” of which St. Paul does not speak except (and it
is very doubtful if the reference is to Baptism) in the Pastoral Epistles. The
evidence of Acts points to the connection of the Spirit with the act of “laying
on of hands,” and we have not really sufficient evidence to be certain of St.
Paul’s position. Without anything further one would say that he connects the
Spirit directly with Baptism; yet he says nothing at all comparable to the clear
statements in which Tertullian connects the Spirit with the water, and
nevertheless, when it becomes necessary to be precise, Tertullian is quite
positive that the gift of the Spirit comes from the laying on of hands
immediately after the catechumen rises up out of the water, not from the water
itself. Thus there is here a difficulty; but, if we take Baptism in the wider
sense as possibly covering also a rite of laying on of hands, there is no
reasonable doubt but that the primitive Churches to whom the Epistles were sent
regarded the Spirit as the gift received in Baptism. So far, I do not feel that
there is real room for doubt; even though it is impossible to ignore that many
critics of the highest standing among Protestant theologians would deny the
soundness of the views enunciated, and maintain that primitive Christianity was
not centrally sacramental. Such theologians believe that a purely symbolical and
subjective doctrine of Baptism and other sacraments is not only desirable for
the present day, but also true to primitive thought. I incline to the view that
this position has received its death-blow from the modern study of the history
of religions; and the theologian of the present and future will be obliged to
distinguish more clearly than his predecessors between the primitive origin and
the permanent validity of the various factors of thought and practice which
constitute historic Christianity. To return to the historical question: it is,
as has been said, extremely probable that the world of Christianity to which the
Epistles were sent held strongly sacramental views of Baptism. It is easy to
understand that such a presentment of Christian Baptism offered no obstacle but
rather a great attraction to Gentile converts: it was precisely parallel to the
teaching and practice to be found in the Hellenistic Mysteries in general. In
them in exactly the same way the initiate was washed with water (sometimes also
with blood); in exactly the same way use was made of the magic power of a name
or some other formula; and in exactly the same way the result was regarded as
salvation, or new birth, and was explained as due to the union of the initiate
with the god. Moreover, it is equally easy to understand the danger, which was
the starting-point of this discussion, of an unethical conception of sacramental
grace, and the constant efforts of the Church from the beginning to deal with
this evil can be clearly traced in the later Christian literature.

Strictly speaking, the establishment of these facts is all that lies within the
province of this book; but a serious problem is just over the border. It is
quite plain that a sacramental or even magical view of Baptism would be an
attraction to Gentiles: it was exactly what they expected to find in religion.
But did the same view obtain among the Jewish Christians, and in what relation
does it stand to the teaching of Jesus?

It is quite possible that these problems are insoluble, but it is permissible to
indicate in outline the kind of theory which seems to be the most probable. In
the first place, it is very doubtful whether we can lay down any fixed rules
about Jewish Christians. But reducing the question to the stricter type of Jew,
it seems, on the whole, probable that they regarded Baptism primarily as a part
of the eschatological preparation for the coming of the Kingdom. Whether they
can be said to have regarded it sacramentally or not is difficult to say;
certainly there was some difference between the Jewish and the Greek view, but
it is often over-stated. The relation of Baptism to the teaching of Jesus is
still more obscure. There is very little on the subject in the Gospels, and
nothing which is not open to grave doubt. Personally, I believe that St. John
the Baptist preached a Baptism for the remission of sins, and that the custom
was kept up perhaps by Jesus, and certainly by His followers, who added the
Christian formula. At the same time, the apparent confusion in the earliest
documents as to the relation between Christian Baptism, the Baptism of John
(which seems to have been connected with the Messiah), and the gift of the
Spirit may possibly (it is far from certain) point to an original conflation of
two things. The point is very obscure, and any one who can clear it up a little
more will do good work, but we can see enough, if we trust our documents, to
show that Baptism is probably a primitive Christian rite, practised by the
immediate hearers of Jesus in Palestine, and that even if it were not a
“mystery” or “sacrament” to them in quite the Greek sense, it was sufficiently
nearly so to render inevitable and natural its adoption as a “Mystery” in the
earliest Gentile circles, and among the more “Greek-minded” Jews in the
Diaspora.

(2)Judaic Problems.—The main problem for Jewish Christians was, of course, that
which is conveniently summed up as the Judaistic controversy, but before
discussing this, it is desirable to notice another small question which seems to
have affected the Jewish rather than the Gentile Christians. This concerns the
relation of Christians to the civil powers, and, though there is room for some
hesitation, it seems to be best explicable in connection with Jewish thought.
This point is without parallel in the Epistles to Corinth. In Corinth, so far as
we can see, there was no tendency to disregard the magistrates of the Empire,
and St. Paul rather protests against a tendency to make use of the Roman courts
in case of quarrels among Christians. But the implication of Romans 13:1-14 is
that there was a disposition to disregard the magistrates—the “powers that
be”—and to resist their decrees. The whole chapter is clearly directed against
this tendency.

It is easier to see that this is the case than to know what conclusions ought to
be drawn from it. If it is regarded as certain that Romans was originally
written to Rome, it is possible that purely local circumstances may sufficiently
account for the facts. There was undoubtedly a lawless disposition among the
Jews at this time, who, for whatever reason, had been “assidue tumultuantes.” It
is not impossible that St. Paul was afraid that the same spirit would spread to
the Christians. But there is another possibility which deserves attention, and
is especially important if it be thought that “Romans” was originally written
for Syrian or Cilician Christians. This is the belief in a “Messianic war.”

It is impossible to discuss at length this intricate question, but certain main
points are important and tolerably certain. There was a general belief among the
Jews that the Messianic Kingdom would be inaugurated by means of a war. As to
the nature of this war opinions differed. There was one party which maintained
that it would be carried out by the miraculous and unaided efforts of the
Messiah. Another party thought it would be the work of Jahveh Himself. Still
another placed all the emphasis on a supernatural conflict with evil spirits.
But politically the most important was the view that the Kingdom must be
prepared for by the victorious effort of the pious in a rebellion against the
enemies of Israel, and it was held that in this rebellion supernatural
assistance would be given at the proper moment. It was not a warfare under the
leadership of the Messiah, but a warfare in preparation for the Messiah. As
Windisch has pointed out, this is the real difference between the rising of
Judas and the earlier propaganda of the Zealots on the one hand, and the
rebellions of Theudas and of Bar Kochba on the other. But obviously the
distinction between a Messianic war under the leadership of a Messiah, and a
Messianic war in preparation for a Messiah, though historically important, is
politically negligible, and the repressive methods of the Romans differ in
degree rather than in kind from those which any conquering nation of our own
time would adopt.

What was the relation of Christianity to this movement? There seems to me little
doubt but that the teaching of Jesus was directly opposed to that of the
Zealots, and with but slightly less certainty I should feel inclined to argue
that the Zealot teaching is the background against which we ought to place such
sayings as “Resist not evil,” “Love your enemies,” etc. No doubt they were
intended to have a wider application, but they were spoken with a special
meaning. The Zealots said, “The Kingdom will not come unless you prepare the way
by waging war on the enemies of Israel.” Jesus said, “Not so: the ‘Anavim,’”—the
“poor” of the Psalms—“are the true guide; in your suffering, not in your
victory, do you gain your lives, and final salvation is with him who suffers to
the end.” Like all one-sided generalizations, the statement that the preaching
of Jesus was anti-Zealotic would be an exaggeration and a distortion. Yet it
contains an important element of truth. There is, however, another side to the
question. Neither Jesus nor His disciples contemplated taking up arms, but they
probably did believe that the existing kingdom, that of Rome, would be destroyed
in the final catastrophe which would inaugurate the Kingdom of God. In this
sense Jesus, as the Messiah, really was the rival of the Emperors, and it is
easy to see how hard it would be to persuade a Roman, especially a magistrate,
that Christians were nevertheless not meditating a violent revolution. They
could not deny that they expected the annihilation of the Roman power, and the
sovereignty of their own Master, in consequence of a Messianic war. Who would
believe them when they said that they only meant a supernatural war, and that
they themselves did not propose to take part in it? When we realize this it is
easy to understand that there was a double reason for St. Paul’s advice that
Christians should obey the “powers that be.” On the one hand, there was the
necessity of proving by the evidence of deeds that the Christians, though
believing in the speedy Parousia of the Messiah, did not intend to hasten his
coming by a rebellion, such as the Zealots advocated. On the other hand, there
was probably (though this cannot be proved) the danger that Christians might be
infected with the Zealot spirit, and think that they could combine the belief
that their Master was the Messiah with the Zealot view that His Kingdom could
only be established by the self-sacrificing and warlike enterprise of His
followers.

It is now time to consider the main controversy between St. Paul and Jewish
Christians of the strict Jerusalem school—the so-called Judaistic
controversy—and the clearest method is to begin by considering what was in all
probability the point of view of the ordinary Palestinian Christian in the
middle of the first century. In the first place, such a Christian accepted the
“good news” which Jesus had preached, so far as he understood it. What this
“good news” was we can find in the Marcan narrative and in those passages of
Matthew and Luke which belong to Q; it is summed up in Mark 1:15 : “The Time is
fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe the good
news.” The εὐαγγέλιον here is clearly the announcement which has just been
made—“the Kingdom is at hand.” This was the message of Jesus with regard to the
immediate future; His message with regard to the present was equally definite:
“Repent, otherwise the Kingdom is not for you, and believe what I tell you.”
This message was accepted by His followers; they did believe that the Kingdom
was at hand, and they did repent. They also went a step further, and they
identified the Jesus who announced the coming of the Kingdom with the Anointed
King who should judge, reign, and rule in the Kingdom when it came. I do not
doubt but that in doing this they had the authority of Jesus. It seems to me
certain that Jesus did regard Himself as the future Messiah, or, to put it
somewhat differently, as the Messiah in personality though not yet in function.
Nevertheless, this was not part of His general message which He proclaimed
publicly, it was the secret which He shared with disciples. However much it be
true that the centre of the gospel of the first Christians was “the Messiah is
Jesus,” it is equally true that the centre of the gospel of Jesus was not this,
but “the Kingdom of God is at hand, believe it, and repent.” He went through the
villages of Galilee, He preached on the hillside and by the shore of the lake,
and He went up to die in Jerusalem, not to convince men that He was the Christ,
but to call them to repent, to amend their evil lives, lest when the Kingdom
came they should be left in outward darkness. His gospel was eschatological and
ethical—all the more ethical because it was eschatological— but it was not
Christological in the sense that it did not, as Christian preachers did from the
beginning, make the identification of the Messiah with Jesus the central point
of teaching.

Why, in the mind of a Jew, was repentance so necessary if the Kingdom was
coming? Because the Kingdom was to be the inheritance of the righteous: sinners
would be excluded. In the Kingdom there would indeed be no more sin, for the
condition of nature lost by man at the beginning of history would be restored,
and this belief can be amply illustrated from Jewish literature. In Enoch there
is no exception to the view that righteousness will be a characteristic of the
members of the Kingdom. “And I will transform the earth and make it a blessing,
and cause My elect ones to dwell upon it, but the sinners and evil-doers will
not set foot thereon.” Or, in an earlier passage, “And all the children of men
shall become righteous, and all nations shall offer Me adoration and praise, and
all will worship Me, and the earth will be cleansed from all corruption, and
from all sin, and from all punishment and torment,” etc. So also in the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in the great prophecy of Levi of a priestly
Messiah: “In his priesthood sin shall disappear, and the lawless (ἄνομοι) shall
fall into evil, but the righteous shall rest in him.”

Still more clearly in the Psalms of Solomon: “And he shall purify Jerusalem in
sanctification, as at the beginning, … and in the midst of them there is no
unrighteousness in his days, for all are holy (ἅγιοι), the Lord Messiah is their
King.

It is unnecessary to multiply references: probably no one will ever dispute the
fact that the Jewish conception of the Kingdom was that the righteous would
enjoy it, and that it would be free from sin. But who were the righteous? And
how could a sinner become righteous? To these questions also Jews had quite
definite answers. The righteous were those who kept the Law of God. No doubt
there were differences of attitude towards the Law. At the one extreme there was
the purely formal legalism against which Jesus so constantly protested, but at
the other there was the truly spiritual appreciation which speaks through the
Psalms and Prophets, and as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and many of
the Sayings of the Fathers show, was still a force in Judaism. We are too apt to
forget that the Pharisees and lawyers who are held up to reprobation in the New
Testament were only one side of Judaism. The question, therefore, which the
Jewish Christian was obliged to put to himself was whether the teaching of Jesus
abrogated the Law, or called on him to be “righteous” in his careful observance
of it. Obviously he decided that the latter was the right answer. It is
difficult for us to reconstruct his position fully, because the Gospels are
either the product of Gentile, not Jewish, Christianity, or at least of Jews who
had adopted Gentile thought, and the position of Liberal Judaism in the
Diaspora. Nevertheless, we can see even now that the Jewish position was not
wholly unjustified. Jesus had inveighed against the/ Pharisees: but had He not
claimed that the “righteousness” of those who would enter the Kingdom must be
greater than theirs? Had He not said, “Till heaven and earth pass away, no jot
or tittle shall pass from the Law”? Had He not said, “The scribes and the
Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: do therefore and observe whatsoever they say unto
you, but do not according to their deeds; for they say, and do not perform”?
What was the meaning of His advice to the rich young man, “Thou knowest the
commandments,” if He did not mean that the righteousness which leads to life is
to be found in the Law? It is easy enough for us to say that such questions
imply a narrow and unintelligent attitude; but the question of the attitude of
Jesus to the Law has never yet been satisfactorily discussed in the light of
modern researches into the Synoptic Gospels. It is, however, tolerably plain
that such a discussion, when it takes place, will lead to the recognition of the
fact that the Judaizing Christians had something to say for themselves when they
claimed to be the interpreters of the mind of Jesus.

Thus “the righteous” meant for the Jewish Christian those who observed the
divinely given Law, and were opposed to sinners who neglected it. But the
problem which had especially to be faced was how a sinner who had neglected the
Law was to be set free from sin. Here also the Jew naturally thought along the
lines of his inherited theology. More than one factor can be distinguished. In
the first place, there was the doctrine, which finds an especial emphasis in
Ezekiel, that by repentance, that is to say, turning back and observing the Law,
righteousness can be obtained. This view is common to all Jewish thought, but it
does not stand alone. Alongside of it is the doctrine that former sin must be
cleansed away. Sometimes, as in some parts of Ezekiel, there is the view that
present righteousness cancels and abolishes past sin, but more frequently a
doctrine of purification was added. This purification was by sacrifice and
lustration, or ceremonial washing, and it was thought that part of the
preparation for the Messianic Kingdom would be a general purification. This idea
is expressed clearly in such passages as Ezekiel 36:25 : “And I will sprinkle
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean, from all your foulness, and from
all your idols will I cleanse you.” And in Enoch 10:20 the duty is given to
Michael of cleansing the earth from sin. The preaching of St. John the Baptist
is obviously connected with this doctrine. He announced the coming of the
Kingdom, and offered a baptism of purification from sin in combination with his
message of repentance, of turning back to the paths of righteousness. This view
was taken over by the Christians, and in Jewish Christian circles Baptism was
probably regarded as the “Messianic” purification necessary for entering into
the coming Kingdom. The incident in Acts 19:1-6 when St. Paul met Christians who
had been baptized with the Baptism of St. John, seems to be the proof that in
some circles, which must have been Jewish in origin, there was no Christian
Baptism as distinct from that of St. John the Baptist.

It is now necessary to consider another element in the situation, partly
connected with the Jewish doctrine of sin, partly with that of the Messianic
expectation. Alongside of the view that sin consists in disobedience, and
righteousness in obedience to the Divine Law, there was the parallel doctrine
that sin was due to evil spirits, and righteousness to a holy spirit. The former
view found its historical justification in the story of the Fall, and the latter
in that of the intercourse between women and angels (Genesis 6:1-22); and is the
more usual in the Apocryphal literature. The complement of this view of sin was
the belief that part of the work of the Messiah would be the destruction of the
evil spirits and the inspiration of the members of the Kingdom by the Holy
Spirit. This view is found in some passages in the Old Testament in connection
with the last days, and it was, apart from this eschatological view, developed
in the Diaspora, as may be seen in Philo. According to him, purification from
sin is accomplished by the Spirit. So far as man is really under the control of
the Spirit he is sinless, and Philo explains the sins of the “perfect” by the
curious theory that the Spirit is, as it were, occasionally absent. In Philo
this “spiritual” view is associated with a strongly ethical theory of
repentance, not essentially different from the usual Jewish one, but it is easy
to see that in circles which went further than he did, the “spiritual” view
might become quite unethical in practice, and might explain the existence of
Jews in the party of the πνευματικοὶ described in the last chapter (pp. 222
ff.). It was part of the bridge between Judaism and Hellenism.

There can be no question but that Christians, certainly not excluding Jewish
Christians in Jerusalem, regarded themselves as having received the Spirit, and
were inclined to give an eschatological significance to this fact. It is not
less certain that they also regarded themselves as, for this reason, holy and
righteous. The question of the position which they assigned to Baptism in this
connection is more doubtful (see pp. 384 ff.). The evidence of the Acts suggests
that there may have been a difference of opinion from the beginning as to
whether the gift of the Spirit was directly given in Baptism or separately. But
in some circles the doctrine certainly obtained that the Spirit was given in
Baptism, and Christian Baptism was regarded as differentiated by this from the
Baptism of St. John. The really important point in this complex of facts is that
there was in this way a double series. (1) Looking at the facts of life from the
point of view of Law, sin was regarded as the transgression of the Law,
righteousness as the observance of the Law, and repentance as the change of
conduct from transgression to observance. (2) Looking at the facts from the
point of view of spiritual experience, interpreted in the language which
explained it as due to the influence of spirits and demons, sin was regarded as
the power of an evil spirit, righteousness as the power of a holy spirit, and
repentance as the passage from the control of one to that of the other.

Probably no school of Judaism thought exclusively from either point of view; but
the Palestinian Jew was more inclined to take that of Law. Thus to such a mind a
belief that Jesus was right in His message, “The Kingdom of heaven is at hand,
Repent!” and that He was right in His belief that He would be the King in the
Kingdom, made him all the more anxious to “repent”—to turn round—and to observe
the Law, and in this way to secure the righteousness which was essential for
members of the Kingdom. But a Jew of the Diaspora, and still more a Gentile
convert to Christianity, took the other line. To him his “righteousness” was
secured by the possession of the Spirit, not bythe works of the Law. When he was
contradicted on this point he began to go still further, to ask pertinent
questions concerning the history of the Law, and to react against its claims. To
do this successfully he had to explain more fully what faith and
righteousnesswere, and what the Law was, and this is the task which St. Paul
attempts in Romans 1:1-32, Romans 2:1-29, Romans 3:1-31, Romans 4:1-25, Romans
5:1-21, Romans 6:1-23, Romans 7:1-25, Romans 8:1-39 and in the dogmatic parts of
Galatians. The minute exegesis of these passages is extremely difficult, but in
the main the meaning of St. Paul is tolerably clear. He is arguing that the Law
did not and could not give righteousness, that this contention can be proved
alike by the history of Israel and by individual experience; that, on the other
hand, the Christian who has the Spirit has obtained righteousness, and that the
true interpretation of the prophetic history of Abraham shows this to have been
always the intention of God.

Moreover, if we look a little more closely, we can reconstruct, even though only
in dim outlines, some of the objections which the strict Jewish Christian, in
his turn, alleged against the positive side of this “spiritual” conception of
righteousness, and cognate questions. These objections lie behind some of the
questions which St. Paul puts, half rhetorically, in the course of his argument
in the earlier chapters of Romans, and they can be reduced to three main
propositions. (1) The “spiritual” conception of righteousness was unethical. It
encouraged men to sin by the promise of an abundance of pardoning grace. (2) It
ignored the special position of the Jews as the people of promise. (3) It failed
to recognize the Law as Divine. The former of these propositions is clearly
adumbrated in such passages as Romans 6:15 : “What then? shall we sin because we
are not under law but under grace?” or still more plainly in Romans 3:8 : “Why
not, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do
evil that good may come?” Obviously the background of these questions is the
contention by Jewish Christians that their opponents were preaching an unethical
and even immoral gospel. We have seen already that the history of the
Thessalonian and Corinthian communities shows that the Jewish Christians were so
far right that in purely Gentile circles there was a danger of Christianity
being regarded as a means of obtaining eternal life by sacramental means, devoid
of ethical obligations. The second proposition of the Jewish Christians, that
the position of the Jews was not recognized, and their privileges set aside, is
the background of some “asides” in the earlier chapters of Romans; for instance,
Romans 3:1, “What advantage then hath the Jew?” but is especially treated in
Romans 9:1-33, Romans 10:1-21, Romans 11:1-361. To a Jew this was of course a
matter of really vital importance. It was held that to the family of Abraham
special blessings had been given and promised, and the Christian Universalism
seemed to deprive these promises of all real meaning.

One must admit that, from his point of view, the Jewish Christian was perfectly
correct. Neither by St. Paul nor by later Christians was the Jewish position
answered in any manner which could possibly shake a Jew’s conviction. The Jew
was right when he maintained that the Old Testament in many places made promises
to the Jews and excluded the Gentiles, and that the writers of the Old Testament
meant this. Exegesis was on the side of the Jew: but exegesis is a poor thing
when it conflicts with the facts of experience, and these facts were on the side
of the Gentile. He had received the Spirit; and therefore a doctrine which
excluded Gentiles was condemned by experience. The really logical attitude for
Christians to have adopted would have been to deny the validity of the argument
from the Old Testament, but instead of doing this they impugned the Jewish
exegesis. Probably it was just as well that they did so: Christianity had need
of the Jewish ethical element to balance the dangers of the Gentile movement,
and too radical a break with the Jewish view of the Old Testament might have
been disastrous. The third objection of the Jewish Christian dealt with the
question of the Law. Was it not true, he said in effect, that the Law had been
given to the Jews as a Divine instruction in the way of righteousness? It ought
to be observed. If not, what was the Law? Here, again, there was probably a
difference of opinion between Jews in Palestine and those in the Diaspora as to
the binding character of the Law on all nations. It is easy to understand the
position which argued that the Law was eternal —as Jesus Himself seems to have
said—and that it was universal. Against this was the narrower view which
regarded the Law as purely preparative for the Kingdom, and only valid for the
Jews, and until the coming of the Messiah. According to the one party, the Law
and the Promise were identical: the Kingdom would be the rule of God, under whom
the Law would be perfectly obeyed. According to the other, the Law was later
than the Promise, and was only ad interim until the Kingdom should come.
Moreover, although in one sense the Kingdom was still future, Christians were
already—even though proleptically—members of it, and lived under its conditions
as ἅγιοι, holy. They had passed beyond the sphere of the Law.

St. Paul appears in Romans to have definitely accepted this narrower view of the
Law. The greater part of the opening chapters are devoted to supporting it, and
controverting the stricter Jewish position. He did not deny the Divine origin or
purpose of the Law, as his Judaizing opponents accused him of doing, but he
asserted that they mistook the nature and scope of this Divine purpose.

These are the main elements of the dispute about the Law and Righteousness,
which was the most important, or at least the most obvious element of the
controversy between the stricter Jewish Christians and the more liberal Jewish
and Gentile Christians of the Diaspora. But there seems to have been another
important element which demands attention. It is quite plain that St. Paul is
arguing in many places in Romans that the death of Jesus was important for the
salvation of the individual Christian. It is unnecessary here to ask precisely
what this importance was, for such an inquiry belongs rather to the exegesis of
the Epistle; but from the controversial emphasis laid upon it is clear that St.
Paul was contending for the truth of teaching which was disputed by his
immediate opponents, the Judaistic Christians, and it is desirable to find out,
so far as possible, what was the attitude of those who—to speak somewhat
loosely—saw no “atoning” work in the death of Jesus. The Jewish doctrine of the
Kingdom of God did not include that of a suffering Messiah. The doctrine of a
Messiah was a complex of originally separate factors. Probably the original idea
of Messiah was merely that of the anointed King who reigned over Jahveh’s
people. Perhaps in monarchical periods there was no further development. Later,
probably under Babylonian influence, prominence was given to the belief in a
heavenly “Man” who would ultimately appear to inaugurate the kingdom, and this
figure was conflated with that of the original royal Messiah. This process
appears to be complete in the Book of Enoch, and it is very doubtful whether
Jewish thought in the first century or later ever added new elements.

Nevertheless, the material for a new element already existed in the Old
Testament, in the figure of the Ebed Jahveh or the Suffering Servant, who
appears in Isaiah 53:1-12 and cognate passages. Here there is undoubtedly the
idea of vicarious suffering; but whatever the origin of the figure may be, there
is a complete lack of proof that Palestinian Jews ever connected it with the
figure of the Messiah.

Under these circumstances what is likely to have been the meaning attached by
Jewish Christians to the death and resurrection of Jesus? On general principles
one would expect to find that the Resurrection was regarded either merely as the
proof that the Christian view of Jesus was correct, and the Divine confirmation
of His message, or as the means whereby He had attained (or, possibly, resumed)
the heavenly nature of the “man” who was to appear at the coming of the Kingdom
as the divinely appointed King. There would be no suggestion that the
Resurrection had a personal importance for individual Christians, for it was not
expected that the individual Christian would die before the coming of the
Kingdom. This is exactly what is implied by the speeches in the early chapters
of Acts. The Resurrection is always referred to as evidence for the truth of the
message of Jesus, and the correctness of the Christian view of His Messianic
nature. In the same way it is on general principles probable that the
Crucifixion was in such circles regarded merely as one of the long list of
crimes against the Messengers of God, of which the Jewish nation was guilty.
This, again, is exactly what we find in the discourses in the early chapters of
Acts. “Him,” says St. Peter on the Day of Pentecost, “being delivered up by the
determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did
crucify and slay, whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, because
it was not possible that He should be holden of it. … Let all the house of
Israel therefore know assuredly that God hath made Him both Lord and Messiah,
this Jesus whom ye crucified.” (Acts 2:23-24, cf. Acts 3:14 ff; Acts 4:10, Acts
4:28 ff; Acts 10:39)

Quite in the same spirit St. Stephen says at the end of his speech, “Ye
stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy
Spirit; as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your
fathers persecute? and they killed them which shewed before the coming of the
righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers ye are now become.” (Acts 7:51-53)
Clearly St. Stephen did not regard the death of Jesus as differing in quality
from that of the prophets whom previous generations of Jews had murdered.

It is true that the matter is not so simple as the fore going statement would
make it appear: the question remains how far the Jews of the first century may
have seen the power of an atoning sacrifice in the death of the prophets and of
the righteous in general. This question really belongs largely to the province
of Old Testament exegesis, and I hesitate to speak on a subject so far outside
the limits of my own knowledge, and apparently so far from having been settled
by expert study, but my impression is that it is quite probable that some such
teaching did exist, and that it was especially connected with the Suffering
Servant of Isaiah 53:1-12 and cognate passages. If so, this would provide a
natural bridge for the development of Christian teaching as to the death of
Jesus. It appears to me quite likely that in limiting the atoning efficacy of a
martyr’s death to the one case of the Christ, and in enhancing its importance,
Christianity was narrowing, even though heightening, a doctrine of which the
Jews had already learned the rudiments. At the same time, however much
importance may ultimately be attributed to this side of Jewish teaching, it is
quite clear that all the evidence which we possess shows that some Jewish
Christians were not in the least inclined to see in the death of Jesus a unique
atoning sacrifice, just as it is equally clear that St. Paul did assign this
value to it.

It is for this reason that in Romans, devoted as it is to dealing with the views
of Jewish Christians, St. Paul is at such pains to explain the real meaning of
the death of Jesus. If there had been no difference of opinion on the subject
St. Paul would not have been at such pains to argue it out, any more than he
argues out the fact of the Resurrection, or of Baptism. The Epistles are not
academic treatises, and we may be sure that when St. Paul is at pains to discuss
a point at length it is because he knew that it was disputed.

It remains to ask why Gentile Christians were more ready to find a special
significance in the death of Jesus. That this was the case is sufficiently
proved by the fact that St. Paul never discusses the point in writing to them.
It is inconceivable that he did not preach this doctrine, and it must have been
accepted by them without any demur or surprise. Why did they believe easily what
Jewish Christians hesitated to accept? Because such teaching agreed exactly with
what they expected to find in any form of religion. The death of the god, and
its intimate connection with the Mysteries by which the initiate shared in his
risen life, is as central in Hellenistic religion as it is peripheral or outside
the periphery in Jewish religion. This does not mean that there was any
“borrowing” from one of the Mystery Religions, but that this conception was in
the air of Hellenistic thought, and a Greek, when he became a Christian,
naturally continued to think along the lines already familiar to him. The
spiritual experience of Christianity was no doubt the same among Jews and
Greeks, but when it was a question of translating this experience into the
language of the intellect, and stating its connection with the historical fact
of Jesus, His life and death, each thought in the manner familiar to him.

Such seem to be the main outlines of the general picture of Christian life
revealed by the Epistle to the Romans. Perhaps the really surprising point is,
that it should appear that the Judaic problems were, on the whole, more
important than the Gentile problems. To some extent this fact is modified if the
hypothesis (see p. 362) be adopted, that the short recension of Romans was
originally sent to Churches in the neighbourhood of the Syrian Antioch at the
time of, or before, the Council of Jerusalem. In that case it is easily
intelligible why Judaic problems were the most important, and why the Gentile
problems seem to be less developed than in Corinth. It is, moreover, easier to
understand why there is no reference to the Apostolic Decrees, though if these
represent a moral law, not a food law, there was in any case no special reason
why they should be quoted. Still, even if this hypothesis of an early date for
the short recension be adopted, we have to face the fact that St. Paul thought
it desirable to send a copy to Rome, and this must mean that there was a
stronger Judaic element in the Roman Church than in Corinth.

It is desirable to note precisely what is the import of this fact. It does not
imply that there was a majority of Jewish Christians in Rome, but that there
were Jewish Christians who preached strongly the position of the Jerusalem
school of thought, and did not accept the teaching of the liberal Antiochene
movement. This propaganda was clearly in existence in Galatia, but there is no
trace of it in Macedonia (in the Epistles to the Thessalonians) in which St.
Paul’s enemies were Jews, not Jewish Christians, or in Corinth, in which, though
his opponents may have been of Jewish nationality, they belonged not to the
Jerusalem school,but to an exaggeration of the Antiochene movement. It is
probable that in Philippians we can see signs of the presence of the Judaizing
school in Macedonia at a later date. The importance of these facts is that they
suggest that whereas the Antiochene movement was the first to establish itself
in Macedonia and Achaia, the Jerusalem propaganda passed over these districts
and went first to Italy. No doubt “Antiochene” Christians were soon met with in
Rome, but the important point is that if we regard Christianity as making its
way across Europe in two waves, the Antiochene wave seems to have been highest
in Achaia, while the Jerusalem wave reached its height in Syria and Italy, and
passed by, at least relatively, the intervening districts of Macedonia and
Achaia.

Literature.—General information will be found in the introductory sections of
the commentaries of Meyer, Holtzmann, Leitzmann, Zahn, and Sanday and Headlam.
For the problem of the short recension the most important contributions are the
articles of Corssen and de Bruyne quoted on p. 336. For the question of Baptism
indispensable books are W. Heitmuller’s Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus and Im
Namen Jesu.

1 According to the testimony of the Epistles to the Corinthians, the Epistles of
the Captivity, and the Pastoral Epistles.

1 The reading “firstfruits of Achaia” in the A.V. is condemned decisively by the
facts (1) that it is not found in any of the best MSS.; (2) that it contradicts
1 Corinthians 16:15, where the text is undisputed.

2 It is curious, though probably unimportant, that St. Luke seems always to have
written Priscilla, and St. Paul Prisca. It is also remarkable that St. Luke,
according to the text of the best MSS., seems always to have written Priscilla
and Aquila—putting the wife in the first place. St. Paul does the same in Romans
16:3 and 2 Timothy 4:19, but not in 1 Corinthians 16:19. From this fact the
conclusion has been drawn that Prisca was the more important person, either from
social standing or from influence in the Church. The supposition has been made
that Prisca was a Roman lady who had married a Jew; and Harnack has given much
notoriety to the suggestion that she was the authoress of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. All these hypotheses are more ingenious than probable, though no doubt
there must have been some reason (now irrevocably lost) why Prisca was so often
mentioned before her husband.

1 There are many variants in the text of this passage, though they do not
seriously alter the sense. Cf. Harnack’s Über die beiden Recensionen der
Geschichte der Prisca und des Aquila in Acts 18:1-27 in the Sitzungsberichte des
königl. preuss. Akademic zu Berlin, 1900, pp. 2–13.

2 Zahn, however, thinks that he must have been converted in Athens, which was
also in Achaia, since he was the “firstfruits,” and St. Paul’s preaching in
Athens was not wholly unsuccessful; still, Athens plays so small a part in the
early history of Christian Achaia that I think St. Paul probably meant Corinth.

1Epistle to the Philippians, pp. 171–178.

2 See Thieme, op. cit. p. 41.

3 I Gr. 12.3. 339, 671, 1527.

1 Romans 16:10 f.

2 Josephus, Bell. Jude 1:2Jude 1:11, Jude 1:6; Antiq. 18 5, 4; Antiq. 20 1, 2.

3 Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 21 29–38; 12 1; 13 1; Suetonius, Claudius, 28.

1 So Ambrosiaster thought. He describes Narcissus as a “Presbyter” (see Souter’s
Ambrosiaster, p. 199). This at least shows that if the Narcissus in Romans was
the freedman, no tradition survived in Rome.

2 Php 4:22.

3 Aquila e Priscilla et gli Acillii Glabrioni in the Bull. di Archeologia
Cristiana, 1888, pp. 129 ff. See also Sanday and Headlam’s Romans, p. 418.

1 Romans and Ephesians, pp. 12–14.

2 De Rossi, Bull. di Archeologia Cristiana, 1881, pp. 57–74.

3 See Acta SS. Nerei et Achillei by H. Achelis in Texte und Unter-suchungen, XI.
2.

1 Those who find the point important should read not only Corssen’s articles,
Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Römerbriefes in the Zeitschrift für die
N.T.-liche. Wiss., 1909, 1 and 2, but also Dom Donatien de Bruyne’s Une
concordance biblique d’origine pélagienne in the Revue Biblique, 1908, pp.
75–83.

1 Zahn, Einleitung in das neue Testament, 1 280f. (3rd ed.), and Riggenbach in
the Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1892, pp. 526 ff., on Die
Text-geschichte der DoxologieRomans 16:25-27. The Murbach text of the
“concordance” can be found in Vezzosi’s edition of the works of J. M. Thomasius,
1:489, the Amiatine breves in Tischendorf’s edition of the Codex Amiatinus, pp.
240 ff., and the shorter form of the concordance or Capitulatio on pp. 237 ff.

2This was first pointed out by Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, p. 362), who drew
attention to the fact that section 42, de tempore serviendo, implies a reading
(τῷ καιρῷ instead of τῷ κυρίῳ in Romans 12:11) which Jerome expressly condemns.
See also further in Riggenbach, op. cit. pp. 531 ff.

1 I can hardly think that the short recension was used in Rome itself: can we
regard this as suggesting that the “European version” is, in origin, not Roman?
Or shall we perhaps find that the “European” Latin ought to be divided into two,
a Roman and a non-Roman, and that the Breves belong to the non-Roman type? There
is a real difficulty here, and I do not see a satisfactory solution on any
hypothesis yet known to me. To regard the Breves as Marcionite is the simplest
suggestion, but the other objections to this view seem to me to be too great.

1 Zahn (Einleitung, i. p. 280) thinks that cuncta dissecuit means that Marcion
“hat alles … zerschnitten, durch Ausmerzungen zerstümmelt.” But this does not
seem to me to be at all a natural interpretation of the Latin, and still less of
the presumable Greek, πάντα διέτεμεν.

1 Romans 16:24 is omitted by the R.V. and all critical editors.

1 For the fullest statement of the facts about this MS. see Dom Bruyne, Des deux
derniers chapitres de la lettre aux Romains, in Revue Bénédictine, 1908, p. 423
ff.

2 See Appendix I., pp. 414 ff.

3 The agreement between Priscillian and FG suggests that Y, the archetype of FG,
may have had Spanish elements, and possibly this may even be true of Z, and
would account for the agreement with Spec. to which Corssen has drawn attention.
D is, I fancy, more like the text of Lucifer and of Ambrosiaster than was that
of Z, but the question requires investigation.

4 Zahn, it is true, in his commentary (see esp. pp. 620 ff) argues that the
doxology is really best in place between Romans 14:1-23 and Romans 15:1-33 But I
cannot see that he succeeds in explaining away the break which it then makes in
the text. I agree that, on transcriptional grounds, Romans 14:23 is the most
probable place for the doxology, but I regard this as only possible if we assume
that it belonged originally to the shorter recension. Zahn is perhaps right in
believing that the “Grace” originally came in Romans 16:24 only. It has been
displaced in the long recension when the doxology was moved from Romans 14:23,
Romans 15:1-33, Romans 16:1-25. It is curious to note that Dom Bruyne is rather
inclined to think that the “Grace” originally preceded the doxology in the short
recension. It appears to have done so in the Monza MSS. The matter is
complicated, but not sufficiently important for the present purpose to warrant
the rather long discussion of details which would be necessary to deal with it
fully.

1 It is, however, quite possible that Priscillian’s text is really the short
recension without the doxology, but with the addition of Romans 15:1-33 and
Romans 16:1-27. The same thing is true of Z, and in this case is certain if it
be true as Corssen thinks—I believe rightly—that there is sufficient textual
difference between the text of Romans 1:1-32, Romans 2:1-29, Romans 3:1-31,
Romans 4:1-25, Romans 5:1-21, Romans 6:1-23, Romans 7:1-25, Romans 8:1-39,
Romans 9:1-33, Romans 10:1-21Romans 11:1-36, Romans 12:1-21, Romans 13:1-14,
Romans 14:1-23 and Romans 15:1-33, Romans 16:1-27 in Z to show that a different
archetype was used for Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-27. (see above, p. 341).

1 E. von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten
Fahrhundert, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen neue Folge, 2.
4, 1898.

2 The same note, but without any explanation, is found in MS. Bodl. Roe 16 (Cod.
Paul. 47).

1 According to the information supplied to Prof. Zahn by Dr. Brewer, who is
editing the text of Ambrosiaster for the Vienna Corpus, there are in existence
three recensions of this commentary (cf. the parallel features in the text of
the Quaestiones, mentioned by Souter in his edition in the same Corpus). These
are apparently all the work of “Ambrosiaster” himself; but in the passage
quoted, the only difference is that 1 and 2 read dilectis Dei, 3 in caritate
Dei. All three read in caritate in the comment, and dilectis is probably merely
textual corruption (see Zahn, Comm. p. 616.) 2 Biblical Essays, p. 288.

1 The question of chap. 16 is of course separate.

1 In the Revue Bénédictine for January, 1907, pp. 1 ff., Prologues Bibliques
d’origine Marcionite.

2 Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt,
1. 3, pp. 2028 ff.

1 See Appendix I., pp. 414 ff.

2 See p. 346

1 Here again it is necessary to add that of course there is no suggestion that
Origen was unacquainted with the other Epistles, but merely that we cannot say
in what order they came in his Bible.

2 It is hard to realize at first that there seems to be no evidence for this
order, with which we are so familiar, before the fourth century. Probably it was
part of the textual and critical revision which the New Testament under-went,
chiefly, but not exclusively, at the hand of Alexandrian scholars, in the fourth
century.

3 All the facts given above are discussed fully in Zahn’s Geschichte des
Neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 pp. 344 ff., but I cannot think that he is
successful in reducing all the early lists to one original collection.

1 See Corssen in the Zeitschr. für N.- Tliche Wissenschaft, 1909, p. 32 ff.

1Journal of Philology, 1869–71. Reprinted in Biblical Essays, pp. 287 ff.

1 If, after all, Romans 16:1-23 was really sent to Rome, the desire to give an
introductory letter to Phoebe no doubt also played a part, inducing him to write
to a Church which he had not yet visited; but I doubt if this section really
belongs to Romans, and therefore must make no use of this argument.

1 That is, of course, if it be conceded that Tertullian used the short
recension. Opinion is likely to differ on this point. Personally, I believe that
the balance of evidence inclines in that direction, but it is not decisively
clear, and others take a different view.

1 I wish I could honestly have reached the result that it is wrong. The whole
question of the short recension is much more easy—on my hypothesis—if Romans
16:1-23 was really always part of the longer recension and a truly Roman
Epistle. Therefore, I should be delighted to be convinced that the Ephesian
destination of Romans 16:1-23 is a mistake, but at present I am unable to put
aside the force of the arguments in its favour.

1 Paulus, 1, 343ff.

2 In 1866 in Der Römerbrief und die Anfänge der römischen Gemeindes, and in
1884, in Der Römerbrief und seine geschichtliche Voraussetzungen.

3Apostolische Zeitalter, Ed. 2, pp. 407 f.

4 The word here and in Romans 1:5 is τοῖς ἔθνεσι, which regularly means
“Gentiles.” In Jewish Greek the Jews are ὁ λαός, and the Gentiles are τὰ ἔθνη.
It is curious that the R. V. translates the first passage as “nations.”

1 A list of other arguments with the objections to them, on either side, is
given in a concise manner in H. Holtzmann’s Einleitung in das neue Testament,
pp. 235 ff. Those given above are only those which seem decisive.

2 For more detailed information and references to special books, see Schürer,
Geschichte des judischen Volkes, Ed. 4, 3 pp. 57–67.

1 It seems to me probable that this treatment, so reminiscent of Nebuchadnezzar,
is at least partly the origin of the half-apocalyptic custom of calling Rome
Babylon.

2 She was induced to subscribe largely towards the Temple, and her subscriptions
were never forwarded to Jerusalem. See Josephus, Ant. 18. 3, 5.

1 Juvenal, Sat. 4. 117, “Dignus Aricinos qui mendicaret ad axes,” and the
scholiast (quoted by Schürer) says, “qui ad portam Aricinam rite ad clivum
mendicaret inter Judaeos, qui ad Ariciam transierant ex Urbe missi.”

2 To some extent this statement must be modified if the view be adopted that the
short recension, which contains all these allusions, was originally sent, not to
Rome, but to some other Gentile Church in the neighbourhood of Antioch. But the
modification necessary is slight and unimportant. Probably all early Gentile
communities were mixed with a strong Jewish-Christian element. All that the
“short recension” theory necessitates is the theory that St. Paul recognized
that the situation in Rome resembled that in Antioch.

1 Suetonius, Claudius, 25.

2 Acts 18:2.

3 Dio Cassius, 60.6: τοὺς δὲ Ἰουδαίους πλεονάσαντες αὗθις ὥστε χαλεπῶς ἄν ἄνευ
ταραχῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀχλοῦ σφῶν τῆς πόλεως εἰρχθῆναι, οὐκ ἐξήλασε μεν, τῷ δὲ δὴ

1 The whole question is mixed up with that of the early lists of bishops, from
which the idea of a twenty-five years’ episcopate for St. Peter is probably
derived. See the discussion, which is the basis of all modern investigation, in
Harnack’s Chronologic der altchristlichen litteratur bis Eusebius, 1.70–230 and
703–7.

1 According to traditional exegesis the ἕτερον τόπον to which St. Peter went,
after his release, was Rome. This is not justified by the text, and is clearly
an after-thought. See p. 284 for a disscussion of the meaning of τόπος.

1 Romans 14:14, Romans 14:20, Romans 14:23.

2 Romans 14:13, Romans 14:15, Romans 14:21.

3 Rom. Romans 14:2, Romans 14:21, and Romans 14:5 ff.

4 It is obviously impossible to say whether these were the weekly fast days,
which the Jews in some circles observed on Mondays and Thursdays, and the early
Christians (cf. the Didache) transposed to Wednesdays and Fridays.

1 This is, I take it, the meaning of the ἀνάκαίνισις τοῦν ́οός. It is another
variant of the καινὴ κτίσις of Galatians and 2 Corinthians.

1 In early Christian literature (e.g. the Didache) ζῶν is the technical name for
running water, and its use was enjoined, if possible, in Baptism.

2 De Baptismo, especially chapters 3–6.

3 There is a dispute as to the original Christian formula. At a very early time
the formula of Baptism was “in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit,” but the evidence of Acts, supported by other subordinate
arguments, suggests that the most primitive formula was “in the name of Jesus,”
or “in the name of the Lord.” See further Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics,
vol. 2,. pp. 380 ff.

4 Cf. also 1 Corinthians 1:13, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”

1 Cf. especially Acts 8:12 ff. and Acts 10:37 ff.; the point is discussed at
greater length in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 2 pp. 282 ff.

1 “Unethical” and “magical” are not synonyms: in the scientific sense of the
word much Christian sacramental doctrine was and is magical, but it is not
necessarily unethical.

2 The beginnings of an attempt to follow out this line of thought will be found
in an article on the Shepherd of Hermas in the Harvard Theological Review for
1911, and in the article on Early Christian Baptism in Hastings’ Encyclopaedia
of Religion and Ethics.

1 On one occasion Jesus almost (but perhaps not quite) implies that the Baptism
of John was from heaven. How far does that take us?

1 The best monograph on the question is the very interesting treatise of Dr. H.
Windisch, Der Messianische Krieg und das Ur-Christentum.

1 And for that reason the presence of a Zealot among His followers was deserving
of mention.

1 Some aspects of the Crusades are a curious and belated example of a fervid
Christianity with Zealot principles.

1 Enoch 45:5 1 Enoch 10.21 ff.

2 Test. Leviticus 18:9. I have followed the text of e in reading καταπέσουσιν
rather than καταπαύσουσιν. It seems to give the right meaning, and the evidence
of e is always important. Whether, as Charles thinks, the following words ought
to be omitted (also with e) seems to me doubtful. I cannot see that the
parallelism is clearly against them. See Charles’ Greek Text of the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs, p. 63.

3 Note that this is St. Paul’s favourite designation for Christians.

4 Pss. Sol. 17.33–36.

1 It is not without importance that the word for “repentance” in the Old
Testament is usually שרב, which means a change of conduct. It is generally
translated in the 70 by ἐπιστρέφειν, but in Sir 48:11 it is apparently
represented by μετενόησεν, and in the later translations the ἐπιστρέφειν (or
ἀποστρέφειν) of the 70 is usually replaced by μετανοεῖν. See Windisch, Taufe und
Sünde im ältesten Christentum, p. 8 ff.

2 Cf. Ezekiel 18:21 ff.; Isaiah 1:16; Psalms 15:1-5; Sir 17:25; Test. 12 Patr.,
Reub. 4, etc.; cf. Windisch, op. cit. pp. 8–34.

1 An interesting problem is raised by this passage in connection with the place
of Michael in this passage by the strange confusion which obtains in the
Shepherd of Hermas between Michael and the Messiah. The last word has by no
means been said on the history of the figure of Michael: the best introduction
to the subject is W. Lueken’s Michael, eine Darstellung und Vergleichung der
jüdischen und der morgenlandisch-christlichen Tradition vom Erzengel Michael.It
should be noted that Charles assigns this function to Gabriel, as he regards the
reference to Michael as an interpolation. I cannot see that there is sufficient
reason for this emendation.

2 To Gentile Christians Baptism had from the beginning a somewhat different
aspect. It was the entry into the Kingdom, in the same sense in which the
Mysteries gave entry into eternal life. It was a “regeneration to eternity.” It
is even probable that some Jewish circles had similar views, for parallel
phrases were used of the Proselytes; but, on the whole, it is probably true that
to the Jewish mind the emphasis was on the concept of cleansing, and to the
Gentile on that of “regeneration.” There is a real difference between the two,
even though in practice they no doubt always had a tendency to coalesce, and
when we distinguish them clearly we introduce a sharpness of contrast which is
not historically justifiable.

1 See especially Windisch, Taufe und Sünde, pp. 61–70.

1 The question has sometimes been raised whether this section is the genesis of
the whole Epistle, or, on the other hand, whether it is not really independent
of the rest. Personally, I cannot see the justification for either question. The
Epistle is often difficult to interpret, but each part of it seems to correspond
to some tendency among the Jewish Christians, and as a whole it is perfectly
intelligible as a contribution to the controversy described above; indeed, I
would add that only as such is it intelligible at all.

1 Later on Marcion did so; but his heretical opinions tended to confirm opinion
against him.

2 It is impossible to read the Epistle of St. Barnabas or the Dialogue of Justin
Martyr with Trypho without feeling that, regarded from the point of view of
actual historical correctness, the early Christians are at their worst when they
are dealing with the Old Testament, and, though it is a shock to our feelings to
have to admit it, it cannot be denied that the arguments from the Old Testament
in St. Paul’s Epistles are not essentially different.

1 It is, of course, obvious that this sort of argument led directly to the
identification of the Kingdom and the Church, and to the view that the life of
Jesus was a preliminary parousia, the “first coming” of the Messiah, an idea
originally quite foreign to Jewish thought.

2 It is doubtful whether there were any Christians who really did reject the
Law, as distinct from limiting the scope of the Law, until Marcion: but it is
possible that he had predecessors of whom we know nothing, and that St. Paul was
in this respect not the extremist which he is sometimes painted.

1 Indeed, it seems sometimes not to have included a Messiah at all.

2 Modern researches have thrown a curious light on this question. It is not
clear what was, according to ancient conceptions, the relation between kingship
and divinity, but certainly they were closely connected. In some places probably
the king was the god, and the god was the king (cf. J. G. Frazer, The Origin of
Kingship). Clearly this is of great importance for the history of the early
stages of the Messianic belief among the Jews, but it has not yet been fully
worked out.

1 Cf. H. Gressman, Der Ursprung der Israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie, pp.
301–333.

1 Acts 2:23-24. Cf. with this passage Acts 3:14 ff.; Acts 4:10, Acts 5:26 ff.;
Acts 10:39.

2 Acts 7:51-53.

1 If they really did so; here, again, there is, I fancy, real need for a fresh
investigation into the history of the Catholic doctrine of martyrs.

1 I would deprecate attempts too nicely to distinguish between the value of
Greek and Jewish thought; neither are the same as our own, which is partly the
offspring of both, partly something really new. The important point is that
human religious experience, and human intellectual thought are both imperfect
and both progressive; each generation is constantly engaged in a process of
re-adjustment. One of the first duties of the theologian is not to confuse
separate things. Religious experience is valuable in proportion to its spiritual
elevation. Theological expression must, above all, be true to logic; historical
research demands fidelity to fact, and—πρὸς ταῦτα τίς ἱκανός;

1 I do not think that St. Peter, even if he was in Corinth, can be regarded as
belonging to the Jerusalem school. He was, according to the evidence which we
possess, if we treat it fairly, much more in real sympathy with St. Paul. A
scarcely justifiable use has been made in this connection of the phrase in
Galatians that St. Paul “withstood him to the face because he was
κατεγνωσμένος.” That only means “clearly wrong,” for though κατεγνωσμένος may no
doubt be translated by a stronger expression, this would be untrue to English
idiom. Languages have different methods of contradiction: writing in English I
have begun this criticism of a view which I reject by calling it “scarcely
justifiable”; had I been using Dutch, I should probably have said, “zeer ten
onrecht,” or in German “ganz falsch.” I would ask those who build much on
Galatians, whether they have never described any one as “clearly wrong,” who in
the main, or afterwards, belonged to their own party?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 06.01.     APPENDIX. THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE GROUP DEFG
========================================================================

APPENDIX I THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF THE GROUP DEFG THE evidence of the group DEFG
as to the short recension is important, and complicated. The MSS. of the group,
and their relations to each other, are as follows:-

D is Codex Claromontanus, of the sixth century, in the Bibliothèque Nationale in
Paris. It is a Graeco-Latin MS., written colometrically, not in stichoi, that is
to say, the size of the lines is regulated by the sense, not by the number of
the letters. It represents two MSS., not merely a text with a translation, but
the Greek text belongs to the same type, on the whole, as the original of the
Old Latin version, though it has almost certainly been accommodated in many
places to a more usual type. It is also famous for possessing the so-called
Claromontane stichometry, one of the oldest lists of canonical books,
representing, according to Harnack, an Alexandrian document of the fourth
century. It was in modern times first used by Beza, who says that it came from
the monastery of Clermont Beauvais.

E is Codex Petropolitanus Muralti xx., formerly belonging to the convent of St.
Germains in Paris. When the convent was burnt the MS. was bought by Dobrowski at
the end of the eighteenth century, and taken to St. Petersburg. It is a copy of
D made in the ninth century, and is only valuable in places where D is no longer
extant.

F is Codex Augiensis, of the ninth century, a Graeco-Latin MS. formerly the
property of the monastery of Augia Dives or Reichenau, and now in the library of
Trinity College, Cambridge. The Greek text greatly resembles that of G, but the
Latin is that of the Vulgate written in a separate column and not between the
Greek lines.

G is Codex Boernerianus, of the ninth century, a Greek MS. with an interlinear
Latin translation of an Old Latin type. It was probably written by an Irishman
in the Monastery of St. Gall, and is now in Dresden. The text belongs to the
same type as D, but is inferior in value and has been much more contaminated
with the usual type of late text. The most important points in connection with
these MSS. are concerned with the relations subsisting between F and G, and
those between D and the archetype of F and G. The relationship between F and G.
There has always been a dispute among critics whether F is a copy of G or of the
archetype of G, and it is not even now possible to say that any general
agreement has been reached. The only way in which such a point can be settled is
by a comparison of the places where there are differences of reading. If two
MSS. make the same mistakes it is certain that they are closely connected, but
it is not necessary to conclude that one is a copy—indeed, absolute proof of
this point is almost impossible. If, however, the mistakes can be arranged in
two classes, (α) those common to both MSS., and (β) those found in one alone,
and the second can all be explained most naturally as mistakes made by the
scribe of the second MS. in copying the first, the case for a direct derivation
of one from the other is very strong. If, on the other hand, it appears that the
MS. which is suspected of being a copy has nevertheless the right reading in
some places where the supposed original has a mistake, then the theory of a
direct derivation must be abandoned in favour of a common ancestry, unless it
can be shown that these right readings are natural corrections made by the
scribe. For instance, if it be found that a MS. which is supposed to be the
original of another reads ἀνθώπῳ instead of ἀνθρώπῳ, nothing is proved by the
fact that the supposed copy has correctly ἀνθρώπῳ, because the correction is
obvious. It will, however, be seen that the application of this canon of
criticism is very much more difficult than its statement, for who is to decide
as to the limits of “natural corrections of obvious mistakes”? This is just the
point on which everything turns with regard to G and F. There are a number of
places in which G and F have mistakes in common, and a much smaller number where
F has a right reading against a mistake in G. Zimmer believes that all of this
latter class are “natural corrections of obvious mistakes” in G, while Corssen
thinks that this explanation fails, and that F and G are two copies of the same
original, G being the more accurate.

It is impossible to reproduce the arguments of these two scholars, for they turn
on the nice consideration of a number of small points. Personally, I think that
Corssen is right, and that F and G are independent witnesses to a common
archetype, Y. The relationship between Y and D. On this point there is less
theoretical difficulty. It is generally recognized that D is a better example of
its type than Y, but there are sufficient places in which Y seems to have the
family reading as against D to show that D is not the archetype of Y, but that D
and Y are the representatives of a common ancestor, Z. The reconstruction of Z
is not yet complete, and is one of the most obvious needs of textual criticism.
But Dr. Corssen’s researches have gone some way to establishing various
interesting points. He thinks that Z represents a Graeco-Latin edition of the
fifth century, written in cola (i.e. in lines arranged according to the sense,
rather than merely according to a fixed number of letters), and that it
represents largely the European or Italian type of Latin found in Ambrosiaster
and Victorinus. This result is supported by Dr. Souter’s investigations
(Ambrosiaster, in Texts and Studies, p. 214), which show that the text of D is
especially close to that used by Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia. In working out
the problem of the text of Z the ideal would be to publish an edition of the
three MSS. D, F, G with a reasoned critical commentary establishing the text of
Y and of Z. Until the time when this edition appears it is necessary to attempt
to anticipate its results for individual passages. For the present purpose two
such passages are necessary:(1) The words ἐν Ρώμῃ in Romans 1:7 and Romans 1:15;
(2) the Doxology.

(1) ἐν Ρώμῃ inRomans 1:7andRomans 1:15. The facts are these: G reads—

ΠΑCΙ ΤΟΙC ΟΥCΙΝ ΕΝ ΑΓΑΠΗ ΘΕΟU ΚΛΗΤΟΙC ΑΓΙΟΙC omnibus qui sunt in caritate dei
vocatis sanctis. As F does not exist at this point, we must assume that this was
the reading of Y.

D is not fully extant—the MS. begins with the words κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, but d (the
Latin version of D) reads qui sunt Romae in caritate dei vocatis sanctis, with a
sign against in referring to a marginal note which has perished. Tischendorf
thought that this note was probably a reference to the Vulgate reading dilectis
instead of in caritate, but E, the copy of D which is later than D, and has
adopted all the corrections in it, reads πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ, κλητοῖς
ἁγίοις. It is therefore more probable, as Zahn suggests (Commentary, p. 617),
that the note stated that ἐν ἀγάπῃ was an alternative to ἐν Ῥώμῃ. and E has
acted on this and chosen ἐν Ῥώμῃ. In this case the evidence of (D)E goes to
support the omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ. which must be credited to Z as well as to Y;
and it remains an open point whether Z may not even have omitted ἐν ἀγάπῃ Θεοῦ
as well as ἐν Ῥώμῃ. But this last point, on which no final decision is possible,
is not nearly so important as the establishment of the fact that ἐν Ῥώμῃ was not
in Z. In Romans 1:15, where the words ἐν Ῥώμῃ recur, G omits them, and is
probably to be regarded as the representative of Z, though D F have been
accommodated to the usual text. The Doxology (Romans 16:25-27). Either Z omitted
the doxology altogether, or it placed it after Romans 14:23. This result is
reached by the following considerations. D has the doxology at the end of the
Epistle, but F omits it altogether, and G leaves a blank space. It is clear that
Y either omitted it or placed it after Romans 14:23. The blank space in G may
point to the scribe’s objection to the position of the doxology in Romans 14:23,
in spite of the fact that he found it there in his exemplar, or to his knowledge
of the fact that Romans 14:23 was the usual place in which to insert it, in
spite of the fact that it was not there in his exemplar, and therefore he did
not feel justified in inserting it. In any case, Y did not insert the doxology
after Romans 16:23. The question therefore only remains, whether D or Y best
represents Z. While admitting that there must always be an element of doubt on
the subject, I think that Y must be regarded as transcriptionally more probable;
the doxology is obviously in a more natural place at the end of the Epistle, and
the tendency must have been to move it from Romans 14:23, Romans 15:1-33, Romans
16:1-23, rather than the reverse. The fact that the Antiochene text as a whole
kept to Romans 14:23 is no answer to this fact, but merely shows that the
Antiochene text preserved, on this point, an early text.

Whether the text of Y really had the doxology at Romans 14:23, or omitted it
altogether, is more doubtful. I am inclined to think that there is a slight
balance of probability in favour of omission: the tendency of scribes was to
invent and insert doxologies and other liturgical additions, not to omit them,
and therefore the omission is transcriptionally slightly the more probable
reading. The question remains whether, supposing that Y omitted the doxology, it
did so because it disturbed the sense, or because it was already omitted by Z.
Here unfortunately the evidence will not take us, and it is useless to indulge
in guesses.

Dr. Corssen, however, argues that the text of Z in Romans 15:1-33 and Romans
16:1-23 belongs to a different archetype from the rest of the Epistle. His
argument is that in these two chapters there are almost as many singular
readings which may be attributed to Z as in all the other chapters put together.
On this point he seems to be right, and though of course his explanation of the
fact is not the only one possible, it is a plausible theory that behind Z was a
copy of the Epistle which omitted Romans 15:1-33 and Romans 16:1-23 and ended
with Romans 14:23, with or without the doxology, and had no reference to Rome in
the opening verses of the Epistle. But the scribe of Z was acquainted with the
tradition which had the concluding chapters, and he added them from another MS.

If this be so, the archetype of Z must have been a pure copy of the short
recension. This result, though, of course, it cannot be regarded as certain, is
important as evidence for the short recension, and also is textually important
as tending to show that in the text of the group representing Z the considerable
differences from the other early uncials are really due to its representing a
different collection of Epistles.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 07.     CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION THE purpose of the preceding pages has been to discuss the critical
questions which belong to the “introduction” to the earlier letters, and to
throw some light on the general background of thought and practice which is so
important a factor in explaining the motives leading to the origin of the
Epistles. With regard to the critical questions, two points have been omitted.
No treatment has been offered of the actual chronology of St. Paul, as
distinguished from the relative chronology of the Epistles. Nor has anything
been said as to the authenticity of the earlier letters. As to chronology, it
has seemed better to postpone its treatment until the later Epistles are dealt
with, in which connection I hope to discuss the whole question. So far as the
earlier Epistles are concerned, the more or less fixed point is the famine of c.
46 a.d. The first missionary journey began soon after it, from which a rough
reckoning can be made of the time occupied by the various journeys, and each
Epistle dated according to the point in the journey to which it is assigned. The
genuineness of the Epistles which have been discussed has, with the exception of
2 Thessalonians, been assumed without discussion. This has been done because I
believe, in common with the enormous majority of all who have studied the
question, that the authenticity of these documents, and their comparative
freedom from serious interpolations, is quite unassailable by any reasonable
criticism, and the best argument in favour of this view is the fact that,
assuming the authenticity of the Epistles as genuine letters written by St.
Paul, it is possible to place them satisfactorily against a background of
thought and practice consistent with what we know of the first century.

It is, however, common knowledge that the authenticity of the earlier Epistles
was rejected by W. C. van Manen, and respect for the memory of my predecessor at
Leiden, coupled with the recognition that truth is not always on the side of the
majority, impels me to give a short statement of my reasons for disagreeing with
his teaching. The really serious arguments which are brought forward by those
who reject the Pauline authorship of these Epistles are: (1) they are not really
letters but theological treatises in the form of letters; (2) they presume an
impossibly rapid development in Christian doctrine; (3) they imply a writer who
has no resemblance to the historical St. Paul described in the Acts. These three
arguments call for further consideration.

1. So far as the argument that the Pauline Epistles are not really letters is
not a confusion of thought it seems to mean that the Epistles are theological
treatises, for which the writer desired to claim superior authority by
attributing them to an Apostle. Largely, however, it is really based on nothing
but a confusion of thought.

There are really two distinct questions. First, whether the documents in
question are properly described as letters; secondly, whether they were,
whatever may be their proper description, written pseudonymously. The former
question is actually very insignificant, but it has obtained a spurious
importance, because it is sometimes so stated as to suggest that, if it could be
shown that the documents in question are treatises in epistolary form rather
than letters, they must necessarily be spurious—which is absurdly illogical. The
really serious question is whether the theory of pseudonymity gives a
satisfactory explanation of the Epistles. The suggestion is that the letters are
the work of a circle of “Pauline” writers in the second century, who put into
epistolary form a series of treatises dealing with the main points of Christian
doctrine, and serving as manuals for ecclesiastical instruction and liturgical
reading; their survival no less than their composition proves that they
represent a dominant type of Christianity. That is in itself a possible and
reasonable hypothesis: but does it correspond to the known facts? In treatises
of this kind the greatest emphasis is laid on the most important points; we
ought to be able to reconstruct from the documents a tolerably good picture of
the main doctrines of early Christianity. Many such attempts have, of course,
been made, notably in Pfleiderer’s Paulinismus,and have profoundly affected
modern theology. But what is the outcome?—the monstrous result that no further
trace of this alleged Paulinismus can be found anywhere except in Marcion, and
that the question can be raised in vain, “How is it that the Gentile
Christianity in Asia, Greece, and Rome became so thoroughly unpauline? Where did
‘Paulinismus’ survive, except in Marcion?” There is no answer, for though
critics have sought long and carefully they can nowhere find their
“Paulinismus,” but have to be content with tracing a faint and occasional
influence in isolated passages. This is the reductio ad absurdum of the whole
argument; it is impossible to believe that in the second century some unknown
persons forged a series of letters which, by hypothesis, represented their own
views, not those of the historic Paul, that they were so influential that these
documents were soon accepted as Holy Scripture, and that simultaneously the
Paulinismus, which the letters represent and were written to encourage,
disappeared from off the face of the earth, and left scarcely a wrack behind.
The theory does not work: the historical facts are not intelligible at all on
the hypothesis of forged letters supporting a system of Paulinismus. But they
seem to be quite satisfactorily intelligible if we accept the Epistles as
genuine letters, dealing with definite questions, and implying a background
which in the main is recognizable as possessing precisely those features of
which we have a more developed form in the second century. Treat the Epistles as
letters; recognize that in letters the subjects discussed are not those on which
all parties are agreed, but those on which there is difference of opinion, so
that the really central points are not those which are supported by argument,
but those which are assumed as generally believed, and it will appear that the
Christianity of St. Paul did not really differ from that of the Catholic Church
as we find it at the beginning of Christian.

I submit that this is strong evidence in favour of the authenticity of the
Epistles, and of the general correctness of the view of the “background of the
Epistles” which has been taken in the preceding chapters.

2. A second line of argument is that the Epistles represent a much greater
amount of development than can possibly have taken place before the second
century. The answer to this contention is twofold. In the first place, the
“Urchristentum” with which the Pauline Epistles are compared is a figment of the
imagination. According to the extreme radical school of criticism, we possess no
documents of the first century or even of the early second century. The
Urchristentum which they postulate has no documentary evidence, on their own
showing. It may, indeed, in one sense, be admitted that they understate the case
with regard to development; if the original early Christianity had had the
character they suggest, it could never have produced the early Christian
literature; but instead of concluding from this that no early Christian
literature is genuine until the second century, that even then it is grossly
interpolated, and that all the evidence of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny is a
forgery, it might be well to ask if it is not possible that the fault lies in
the conception of early Christianity. In the second place, critics of this
school seem to under-estimate the speed at which development takes place in a
young movement. A comparison with the history of the Salvation Army, or of
Babiism in Persia, in the nineteenth century shows that so far as the general
possibilities of development are concerned the most suspected parts of the
Pastoral Epistles, to say nothing of the earlier Epistles, might well have been
written within thirty years of the Crucifixion.

3. A far more important argument than either of the preceding is that the
historical St. Paul, who is revealed by the Acts, could never have written the
Epistles. Apart from the critical question, whether the Acts ought to be
preferred to the Epistles, this objection really means that the Epistles cannot
have been written by a Jew of the first century. Now it must be admitted that it
is very hard to believe that the Epistles could have been written by the
Rabbinical Jew whom critical fancy has read back from the Talmud into the first
century; and if we accept the criticism which identified the Judaism of the
first century with that of two centuries later, van Manen’s criticism is not
only proper, but perhaps unanswerable. So far, however, from its appearing to be
true that all Jews, or even all Pharisees, in the first century were of the
later Rabbinical type, it is becoming more and more plain (α) that we know
comparatively little about the various parties, sects, and tendencies in Judaism
before the fall of the Temple; (β) that many Jews, especially in the Diaspora,
were of a liberal and ethnicizing disposition. There is a general tendency to
discount Friedlander’s work on Judaism, and probably he may have exaggerated his
case, but the quotations in his writings cannot be wholly brushed aside, and
even though many of them be inaccurate, there is enough amply to cover St. Paul,
and to show that his letters might well have been written by a Tarsiote Jew of
the first century. It is true that St.

Paul in the Acts says that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, but the importance of
this fact may be over-estimated. For this view two reasons may be alleged; in
the first place, supposing that it is quite certain that St. Paul was, before
his conversion, a strict Pharisee, it does not follow that the change which his
thoughts underwent did not include a change to the more liberal point of view
with which he surely must have been acquainted in Tarsus and elsewhere. In the
second place, it does not follow that pupils always follow the doctrine of their
teachers. Saul of Tarsus may have been a pupil of Gamaliel, and been profoundly
affected by him, and yet have afterwards succumbed to other influences. We do
not always follow all the opinions of our teachers, and it would be scarcely
suggested that our books are not authentic because they do not agree with the
teaching which we received at our Universities or Theological Colleges. For
these general reasons it seems to me that the attack on the authenticity of the
Epistles has completely failed. It is unnecessary to go into further details;
those who desire more will find that the works of Deissmann and Clemen have
dealt faithfully with all the arguments which were brought forward by van Manen.
His premature death removed the possibility of his making any full rejoinder;
one cannot say what he would have written had he lived; but none of his
followers have shown any power of refuting the German scholars who criticized
his position.

However important critical questions may be, they are merely preliminary; and
the main purpose of the preceding chapters has been to discover the general
characteristics of the Gentile Christianity in the Churches to which St. Paul
wrote. The necessity for discussing critical and literary problems has
lengthened the process, but it is, after all, the world of religious life and
thought implied by the Epistles which is really important. Of this world each
Epistle gives us a glimpse: it is never a clear vision, but enough is revealed
to show that, in spite of local differences, the general background is in the
main the same. It is, moreover, a background very different from that of our own
time, and it is, therefore, desirable to give a little space to a concluding
discussion of the permanent importance of the principal points. As was said in
the second chapter, the circle of Gentiles who accepted Christianity was chiefly
that of the God-fearers, who were already imbued to some extent with Jewish
ideas, as well as with the general conceptions of the Mystery Religions which
were practically the only cults which were really alive at that time. Thus,
quite apart from the influence of Jewish converts, there were from the beginning
Jewish and Graeco-Oriental strains in early Christianity, and the difference
between various communities is partly to be explained as due to the varying
proportions in which these strains were mingled, and the consequently varying
point of view from which the original Christian preaching was regarded. The
general basis of Christian life seems to have been the assurance of salvation,
the belief that this salvation was obtained by the “mysteries” or sacraments,
through which the believer was united to the Redeemer-God Jesus, and the
expectation that this same Jesus would speedily come to destroy the power of
evil and establish the kingdom of God on earth. The point in this complex which
was debated was the relation of sacramental salvation to ethical and moral
obligation; the Greek element was, on the whole, liable to ignore the necessity
of moral life, and to regard the mysteries or sacraments as magical, while the
Jewish element introduced a legalistic conception of morality and regarded
obedience to the Law as the source of salvation. Looked at in this way, we can
see that the problems faced by St. Paul in Corinth and in Rome or Galatia, are
really very closely related. It is in each case the relation of ethical to
sacramental religion which is the central question, and the difference in the
Epistles is due to the fact that while in the more purely Greek circles at
Corinth the danger was an unethical sacramentalism, in Rome, under the influence
of Jewish propaganda, an unspiritual and legalistic conception of morality was
the more prominent evil. The task which we have to face is not that of giving an
exposé of St. Paul’s arguments against his opponents, or of proving the
undesirability of a religion which is unethical on the one hand or legalistic on
the other. The former I hope to discuss more fully on another occasion, the
latter is so generally recognized as to require no further exposition. It is
more important to direct attention to the psychological basis of the two types
of imperfect Christianity which are revealed in the background of the Epistles.

It will be convenient to refer to the two types as Greek and Jewish; such a
nomenclature is of course unfair, if it be pressed, for many Greeks had the
finest ethical perception, and many Jews were deeply spiritual, but it does not
inadequately represent the weak sides of the two nations. The Jewish type of
religion is connected with a special way of regarding life. According to it life
is a series of acts; it is conduct. Now, it is often very hard to do what is
right, and thus for the Jew the primary importance of religion is that by its
means man obtains information as to what he ought to do—he is given a law. It
makes, for the psychology of the question, no difference whether this law be
given once for all in an inspired code, or communicated by degrees directly or
indirectly. The point is that men wish to know what to do, and religion tells
them. Such men think in terms of action or conduct. Their conception of
salvation as well as that of sin and repentance is expressed in the same terms.
Sin is, to such persons, wrong-doing; and this definition remains true, whether
they do or do not add the qualification that it must be conscious
wrong-doing—the act of choice which sees the good and takes the evil.
Repentance, again, is (as the Jew always was inclined to express it) a “turning
back and walking in the right direction,” and a state of safety or salvation is
that which is reached by the man who walks in the way of the Lord, and “doeth
that which is lawful and right.” It needs no argument to show that for such a
type institutional religion appeals in so far as it offers a code of righteous
conduct by which “he who doeth it shall live,” and personal religion is valuable
so far as it is a means whereby help is obtained in the difficulty of choosing
the right and rejecting the wrong course of action. The Greek type, on the other
hand, regards life as “being” rather than conduct. What a man is, not what he
does, is important. Obviously, this affects the whole series of religious ideas.
For such men sin is not doing wrong, but being wrong. It is, with such a
conception of life, possible never to do anything wrong, and still to be the
greatest of sinners; for sin is a leprosy of the soul, which is deadly in
itself, even though it never manifest itself in action. Repentance similarly is
not a change of conduct, but rather the desire for a change of nature; and
salvation is a new nature, or “regeneration,” a “new creation” or a
transfiguration to a different being. Obviously, for such natures religion is
valuable in so far as it offers, either as an institution or as the result of
personal communion with a higher power, the means of obtaining, here or
hereafter, this “new life,” which ensures salvation, and brings us nearer to the
ideal which we sometimes see and never attain. That these two types are rarely
found in an unmixed state needs no demonstration. A purely “Greek” or purely
“Jewish” form of experience is exceptional, and therefore the foregoing
statement is unduly sharp, and neglects the existence of a long series of
intermediate types. Nevertheless, most people are inclined to one or the other
extreme, even though their natures contain some degree of mixture of the other
sort.

Each type has its own strength and weakness. The “Jewish” type develops a high
morality, but it is liable to degenerate into a hard legalism, and to give rise
to hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Allowing for the usual inaccuracy of
generalizations, it is the source of all that is best and all that is worst in
Protestant Puritanism. The Greek type, on the other hand, takes a deep and
sympathetic view of life; it recognizes that life is something more than a
series of acts, that human nature, as it is, is unsatisfactory, and longs for
some new development which will raise it to something higher. Its strength is
spiritual; but in some natures it is accompanied by a somewhat feeble sense of
morality, or of right and wrong as such. Thus, there is often a danger of moral
failure, a tendency to despise conduct, and to think slightingly of “mere
morality.” To some extent, these two types are the same as William James’s, or
rather F. W. Newman’s, “Once born” and “Twice born.”The “Jewish” type is “once
born.” It seeks for no change of nature. The Greek type is “twice born”; it is
dissatisfied with its nature and seeks (and obtains) in religion a “new birth.”
Or to use a different nomenclature, also from William James, the “Jewish” type
is in the main the “healthy-minded” and the “Greek”is the “sick soul.” The
ethical, “Jewish” type of nature can quite well be contented with things as they
are. The spiritual “Greek” can scarcely be happy before he has gained access to
a new life. Until he has done this he is a “sick soul,” though the degree of his
suffering may vary from occasional unrest to the greatest agony of spirit. The
classical description of his experience in the New Testament is Romans 7:1-25,
Romans 8:1-39; for St. Paul, though by blood a Jew, was by nature a “Greek,” who
had passed through the misery of the “sick soul” to the peace of the “twice
born.” When we consider the facts in this way it is fairly clear why the
religion of the Greek tends to become a “Mystery Religion,” and that of the Jew
a “religion of legalism,” while the ordinary “mixed type” of man combines
something of each. More difficult is the question why the “Mystery Religions”
really succeed in supplying by means of their sacraments the regeneration which
is sought. For that they are actually successful is not open to dispute. The
theory which has been dominant in Christianity may be called the sacramental
theory. According to this God has ordained various acts which the Christian must
perform under various conditions, and if he does so he will receive a blessing
of Divine grace which he would not otherwise obtain, and which cannot be gained
in any other way. The difference between this and Magic is that a Sacrament
implies that the worshipper obtains certain benefits by fulfilling a covenant
made with him by God, while Magic implies that he obtains them because he knows
how to compel the deity to grant them. The difference is real, but not
superficially obvious, and in every age has been ignored or misunderstood by the
adherents no less than by the opponents of Catholic Christianity; so that it is
true both that to many uneducated Catholics the Sacraments are merely Christian
magic, and that the educated Catholic is justified in protesting that the true
orthodox doctrine is not magical.

Much more confusion of thought has, however, been produced by the feeling that
“magic” is a delusion, and therefore that sacramental religion, which is, at the
least, akin to magic, must also be a delusion. This reasoning fails to
distinguish between the facts which the sacramental theory seeks to explain, and
the theory itself. The facts of experience, to confine the question to one side
of research, are that certain persons habitually receive the Sacraments of the
Church and habitually are conscious that they derive benefit after doing so. On
this is based the theory that they derive this benefit because they receive the
Sacraments. It is held that it is propter hoc as well as post hoc. The theory
is, of course, open to argument: it is impossible to deny the efficacious
working of sacramental religion, but whether the sacramental theory is correct
or not is a matter of evidence. If the Catholic theory of Sacraments prove in
the end to cover all the facts, and to be the only theory which does cover them,
it will in the end be universally accepted, and the more it is discussed the
sooner will this end be reached. At present, however, the difficulty is that
Catholics argue too much as though “Catholic” experience really were “universal”
experience, and up till now no final answer has been given to three
anti-Catholic statements.

First, there exists in contemporary Protestantism a body of Christians, who can
produce the same experiential evidence of “grace” as can the Catholic Church,
and do not attribute it to the Sacraments, which some of them reject entirely.
It is, for instance, hard to deny the evidence of spiritual life among the
Quakers in England, and yet they have neither Baptism nor Eucharist.

Secondly, the student of religions is inclined to dispute the exclusive claim of
the Christian Sacraments on the ground that the same claims can be substantiated
by other Mystery Religions. This is a comparatively new point, but it is likely
to obtain increasing importance in the discussion of this subject.

Thirdly, the students of psychology suggest to us that there is a rival
explanation in the facts of “suggestion” and in the working of the “subliminal
consciousness” which seems to be in a marked degree the seat of religious life.
To discuss these points at length would be outside the province of the present
book, but it is probably safe to say that they serve to indicate the main lines
which research into sacramental religion will follow in the immediate future. To
return to history. One of the most important factors in the development of early
Christianity was the preponderance of the “Greek” or “twice born” type in the
first generation, and the gradual increase of the “Jewish” type (though not of
Jewish nationality) in those which followed. That the first generation should be
“Greek” is obviously natural; it is the “sick souls,” not the “healthy minded,”
who wander in the search for help in religion. The latter are not irreligious,
but they generally remain in the cult in which they were born, or if they change
it is for intellectual or social reasons. Thus in all new religious movements
the first generation is usually “Greek,” and “twice born.” The majority of
mankind, however, belongs rather to the other type, and therefore, as
Christianity grew older, the second generation, born in the Church, began to be
more and more “Jewish,” “healthy-minded,” and “once born.” The fact is of
enormous importance for the history of doctrine. It explains why the Church so
soon adopted a “law,” almost as strict and quite as externalized as anything the
Synagogue ever knew. It also explains how Christian doctrine, which was
originally the expression of religious experience, came to be regarded as a
model to which all experience must conform, and its centre was shifted from the
soul to the intellect. But to deal with these facts is the office of the
historian of a later period, and I must not here pursue their study any further.

It remains to consider the eschatological element. There is at present much
controversy among theologians as to the amount of eschatological teaching which
can really be traced back to Jesus Himself. Personally, I think that the
Synoptic Gospels give us a correct account of the facts, and I see no reason for
the excision of Mark 13:1-37, or of parts of it, as a Jewish interpolation. But
it is unnecessary to discuss this point, for probably no one denies that a
strong eschatological expectation, that the Parousia of the Messiah was
imminent, was one of the most fundamental parts of early Christianity. The
critics who deny that this view was that of Jesus may possibly be right, but at
all events the Synoptic Gospels were largely written to prove the opposite, and
whether we trust the Evangelists or not as to their report of Jesus’ teaching,
they are absolutely contemporary evidence as to the view of the first
Christians, and the indirect testimony of the Epistles supports them.

It is quite certain that the first Christians expected the immediate coming of
the Kingdom, and they believed that Jesus would be the anointed King, the
representative of God, in that Kingdom. This is what was meant by saying that
Jesus was the Messiah. So far there is probably no dispute among students of the
New Testament. Nor is it disputed that this belief is found in the Pauline
Epistles; the point which is seriously doubted is whether it is central or
peripheral. That it was absolutely central to the average Gentile Christian in,
for instance, Corinth, I do not believe; for the centre of Christianity for him
was the Sacraments rather than the expectation of the Parousia, even though the
latter was a very prominent part of his creed. On the other hand, for a Jewish
Christian, the expectation of the Parousia was probably quite central. I believe
that it was so for St. Paul himself, and the reason why there is comparatively
so little in the Epistles on the subject is because it was not a subject for
controversy among Christians, but an undisputed hope, which all cherished. St.
Paul found it necessary to devote pages of argument to the discussion of the
Law, as against Jewish Christians, and to that of “Spirits” as against Gentile
Christians, but he never stopped to argue that “that day” was coming,—this was a
common element of belief. Similarly, he never gives any reason to Thessalonians
or Corinthians for believing in the Parousia; he only assures them that
death—which they had not expected—could not exclude Christians from the company
of Christ when He came. The manner and the consequences of the Parousia were
open to further discussion. The fact that it was imminent was generally
conceded.

Most of the foregoing statement is generally accepted; nevertheless, there is a
strong tendency among theologians to dislike the eschatological element in early
Christianity, to under-estimate its importance, and to reduce its dimensions by
a free use of the critical knife. The reason for this tendency is worth
consideration, because the process of discussion is the best means of
emphasizing the real nature of eschatological thought, and showing that much of
the reluctance which is shown to accepting the fact of its early importance is
based on a misconception of its implications.

Perhaps the antipathy to a full recognition of early Christian eschatology may
be summed up in two propositions: (1) Eschatological hope is, and was, an
illusion; (2) eschatological thought is unethical. Of these the first is a
half-truth, the second is wholly untrue. The eschatological expectation of the
first Christians has undoubtedly been falsified by history. They expected that
Jesus would return within their lifetime, and that the Kingdom of God would be
established by a dramatic catastrophe, abolishing sin, suffering, and death, and
raising to life the righteous dead. That did not happen: in the sense that the
Christian hope of the Parousia was disappointed, the eschatological expectation
was an illusion. Nor is it possible to say that the Christians were only wrong
as to the time. There are, it is true, still some Christians who cherish the
hope of a “second coming”; but there are many more, though they are largely a
silent majority, to whom this hope is altogether strange. I do not doubt but
that they are right. The eschatological hope of the first Christians, in the
exact form in which they held it, has undoubtedly been falsified; there is no
reason to suppose that it will be fulfilled in some inexact form, and the more
we study the history of religions, the more plainly we can see that the
eschatological prognostication of a dramatic judgment of the world, the sudden
inauguration of a Kingdom under the rule of the Messiah, and the change of human
nature to an original, but lost, perfection, is a legacy from older
speculations, and has no real claim to our acceptance. As a prophecy of the
future the eschatological hope has not been justified, and all that distinctly
belongs to it, in that sense, has to be given up. There is nothing gained by
attempting to gloss over this fact. As a prognostication of the course of
history Christian eschatology has proved to be an illusion. It does not in this
respect differ from other prognostications.

Nevertheless, to consider the matter from this point of view alone is narrow and
erroneous. An eschatological expectation is strange and repulsive to many minds
at the present, because they do not see that it is much more than a
prognostication of the course of history: it is the last chapter in a complete
view of the universe—a catastrophic weltanschauung—which stands directly opposed
to the evolutionary system which we all usually employ. It is opposed to the
strong points of the latter, but it is also opposed to its weak points. The
strong point of an evolutionary weltanschauung is that it does justice to the
elements of progress, of continuity, and of consequence in the universe. There
is no difficulty with an evolutionary system in recognizing that the whole of
history is a progress of steadily increasing complication, or in showing that
this formula can be applied with considerable justice to the spiritual and
intellectual as well as to the material and economic sides of life. But
progress, continuity, and consequence are not the only elements in life. There
are also present catastrophic factors. On the one hand, progress—which is
life—is apt after a period of scarcely perceptible growth to burst out into a
sudden efflorescence of production by which more seems to be accomplished in a
single generation than in the fifty which preceded it. So it happened in the
domain of art in the time of Pericles, and so it has happened in our own time in
the domain of natural and mechanical science. In such an efflorescence there is
something catastrophic, which is usually overlooked by the votaries of
evolution. On the other hand, degeneration—the passing away of life from
institutions and nations which have served their purpose—is apt to end in a
cleansing conflagration of disaster. So it was in the fifth century in the Roman
Empire, and in such a conflagration there is always something sudden, decisive,
and catastrophic, which overwhelms what has previously seemed to be the
strongest and best elements of the existing organization of society.

It would be unfair to say that an evolutionary weltanschauung cannot do justice
to this catastrophic element in history: in the hands of its masters it can be
made to express this as well as the elements of steady and consistent growth.
But it expresses them with more difficulty, and in the hands of smaller men
frequently does not express them at all. The catastrophic weltanschauung, on the
contrary, expresses admirably the catastrophic element in history, but at the
expense of other sides. It recognizes and explains the value of the sudden
efflorescence, of the “golden ages” of history, and does equal justice to those
great conflagrations of disaster which are necessary to cleanse the world from
its accumulation of putrefying degeneration, or—to use a more Biblical
metaphor—to burn up the chaff, and prepare the threshing-floor for the next
harvest.

If the eschatology of early Christianity be regarded in this way as part of a
weltanschauung rather than as a prognostication of the future, all questions of
illusion or anything of the kind are seen to be beside the mark. No view of the
universe, or weltanschauung, is perfect: it is an attempt to see as much as
possible of the facts of life from one point of view. But although some points
of view are better than others, it is certainly not at present possible to see
all the facts from the same point of view, nor can it be denied that different
facts can be best seen from different points. Few really large landscapes can be
seen completely from a single point. The fact that the traveller has to move
from point to point, and from each point sees something new, is not regarded as
proving the desirability of never moving, nor, because the accidents of one
point of view may produce an appearance which the greater facilities of another
point show to be an illusion, is any one prepared to argue that the first point
has no advantages. So it is with an eschatological weltanschauung. It provides
us with a point of view from which we see certain features of life—the
catastrophic features—to the greatest advantage; other elements—the slow,
constant progress—we cannot see at all; and others again—the probable course of
future history—we see distorted and in a false perspective. It is therefore, on
the whole, a good thing that we have moved on to another point of view, and
generally adopted the evolutionary weltanschauung, which enables us to see to
advantage what was formerly obscured. But we should not forget that in losing
the disadvantages, we have also lost the advantages of our former position; it
is not necessary to deny what we could see there; and it is certainly desirable
to reflect that a prognostication of the course of history based exclusively on
evolutionary thought, is quite as certain to prove a distortion and an illusion
as that which was once based on a catastrophic or eschatological foundation. The
objection that an eschatological gospel is unethical is often made, and more
often implied. It must in the first place be claimed that, even if this were
true, it would not justify the historian in arguing that therefore early
Christianity had not an eschatological gospel. Our business is to interpret our
evidence, to find out what the witnesses really do say, not to make them say
what we wish that they had said. Nothing has retarded the progress of research
into the history of early Christianity more than the subconscious feeling that
the first Christians cannot have been really influenced by ideas foreign to the
thought of the present generation. It is an unkind parody of the truth to say
that much “Liberal” criticism has gone on the system of thinking that its own
special brand of Protestant theology is identical with the Gospel of Luther in
the sixteenth century, and of St. Paul in the first: it is an unkind parody, and
the men against whom it is directed have taught us all ten times more than any
other school of criticism, nevertheless, there is just a sufficient element of
truth in it to point a warning to ourselves.

But, as a matter of fact, it is not in the least true that an eschatological
gospel is or must be unethical. The earliest Christian gospel—that of Jesus
Himself—was two-fold: (1) The Kingdom is at hand; (2) Repent. The first half is
eschatological; the second half is ethical. Of the two most ancient sources in
the Synoptic Gospels Mark is inclined to emphasize rather the eschatological
side, and Q the ethical side, but both contain both elements. The fact is that,
so far from eschatology being unethical, ethical teaching of the highest kind
can be given better in the terms of an eschatological weltanschauung than in the
language of evolution. The Sermon on the Mount, which may be taken as the
typical example of Christian ethics, is not a code which can be applied directly
and simply to our ordinary daily life. It is impossible not to resist evil, it
is undesirable to lend, distrusting no man, and it is ruinous to give to every
one who asks. You cannot base a code of conduct on the literal observance of the
Sermon on the Mount, if society is to continue, and human nature remain as it
is. That is exactly the point; early Christianity assumed that society was not
going to continue, and that human nature was going to be changed. With that
assumption Christians were in a position to see and to appreciate the absolute
principles of life at its highest. The effect of their eschatological belief was
that they were enabled to see ethical problems in isolation —in an unnatural
isolation, if you like—and to reach nearer to reality than they could ever
otherwise have done. That “the world is passing away” and the “Kingdom of God is
at hand” was the very clear and vivid eschatological belief of the first
Christians, and it enabled them to produce an ethical gospel which is permanent,
just because it can never be a practical code for the world as it is, but is the
eternal possession of the children of the Kingdom. That is what the
eschatological assumption rendered possible. The evolutionary assumption has not
yet proved equally valuable in enabling us to state the law of spiritual life,
as distinct from economic and social life. This is not to deny that in other
respects evolution is probably an hypothesis much nearer the truth than was the
eschatological hope, or the catastrophic weltanschauung. The marked contempt
shown in so many liberal circles for anything to do with eschatology is as
little justifiable as would be a similar attitude on the part of a soldier to
the bows which were used at Creçy. We cannot afford to despise or to patronize
the arms by which our fathers won their victories, even though we do not propose
to use them ourselves. It is more desirable to ask what were actually the
disadvantages and advantages to the early Church entailed by the eschatological
point of view.

Some disadvantages there certainly was: the eschatological hope was the main
reason why Christianity stood apart from the general life and culture of the
Roman Empire, and the Dark Ages, in which the Empire fell but the Church
remained, are partly due to this cause. It is always lamentable when any large
part of the best men are excluded, or exclude themselves, from the public
service of organized society. This is what happened with regard to Christians in
the Empire, and it was not entirely and only the fault of the Empire. Moreover,
the mass of Western Christianity stood largely apart from the best culture and
the best philosophy. Of course it would be unfair to say that this was the
wholly fault of Christian teachings. Primarily, it was due to the defect of
character in the best intellectual life of the day which made men shrink from
anything new, and from the sterner side of religious or ethical truth. But,
secondarily, it was due to an unjustifiable tendency on the side of Christians
to regard the whole fabric of society as irredeemably evil and its culture as
sinful. It cannot be doubted that this was largely due to the eschatological
hope which made men regard the Empire and the whole of existing human society as
doomed to a speedy extinction by the judgment of God. On the other hand, the
eschatological hope worked for good in two ways. Christianity began during a
time of efflorescence. The first century was the efflorescent period of law and
organization which produced the Empire. Roughly speaking, this period was the
culminating point of seven hundred years of preparation, and it lasted rather
less than two centuries. By the second century the signs of decay were obvious,
with startling rapidity the process of degeneration set in, and the catastrophic
fall of the culture of the Empire followed. The one thing which survived to be
the source of another civilization was the Church; and the Church survived
largely because her eschatological hope had kept her from entirely identifying
her life with any single form of social organization. Nor was this the only way
in which the eschatological hope, illusion though it was as a prognostication of
the future, worked for good in the development of Christianity. The first
Christians had expected the coming of a Kingdom—of a state of society—in which
everything would be different, and this expectation enabled them to accept a
method of life and a series of commands which were only permanently possible if
society underwent a radical change. It is true that society did not undergo a
radical change, and that the main problem for the succeeding generations of
Christians was to accommodate to a society which showed no signs of passing away
beliefs and doctrines which had been based on the expectation of its
transitoriness. Instead of entering a new world, Christians found themselves
busy with the task of improving the old one. Not only is this true, but it is
one of the most important factors in early Church history; on the success with
which the readjustment was made depended the existence of the Church.
Nevertheless, it is equally true that the driving power which enabled the Church
to succeed was largely due to the expectation which she had once cherished. The
Messianic Kingdom, its laws and its teaching, ceased to be an expectation, but
survived as an ideal. Though men gradually ceased to look for the coming of a
Kingdom in which sin, suffering, and death would miraculously be abolished, they
never wholly forgot that they had enjoyed the vision of the time when these
things would happen, and they pressed forward to make the world in which they
were living correspond somewhat more closely to the city of God which they had
seen.

1 See especially the article on “Chronology” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the
Bible, by C. H. Turner.

1 Pfleiderer, of course accepted the greater Epistles as genuine; but he always
handled them as theological treatises, and in so far he was naturally the
forerunner of the Dutch school, who saw—as he did not—that if the Epistles are
treatises they represent a Christianity which is not that of the first century.
Therein I entirely agree; but the mistake is in ever regarding them as
treatises.

1 Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, p. 101.

2 I was much interested lately to hear the obiter dictum of one of the foremost
representatives of the Dutch school to the effect that the Epistles were imbued
with the Catholic spirit, and (it was implied), therefore, could not be
primitive. The Dutch school represents a keen and independent criticism of the
Protestant view that Catholic Christianity is a degenerate form of Primitive
Christianity. It sees that the Epistles belong to Catholic Christianity, and
argues that they are, therefore, late. The true conclusion is that Catholic
Christianity is, therefore, primitive.

1 The most important literature on the subject is: W. C. van Manen, Paulus and
his article on “Old Christian” Literature in the Encyclopaedia Biblica; and R.
Steck, Der Galaterbrief, impugning the authenticity of the Epistle; and A.
Deissmann, Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien (translated in a single volume as
Bible Studies); Th. Zahn, Einleitung, 1 pp. 108 ff.; C. Clemen, Paulus, sein
Leben und Wirken, 1 pp. 6–114. This section is valuable not only for its own
merits, but also for its full reference to other literature. I believe that
there is also a full treatment in Knowling’s Witness of the Epistles, but this
book has not been accessible to me.

1 That this factor also affected Church organization is probable, but there is
so little evidence as to organization at the time of the earlier Epistles that
no definite information of importance can be gained, The most important point is
the evidence of the litigious tendency in Corinth (see pp. 131 ff.).

1 Not, of course, of all Puritans. Indeed, I imagine that the leaders of Puritan
movements have sometimes belonged to the other type; but the average Puritan has
always been inclined to lay great stress on conduct, to regulate it according to
a code, and to be distinctly intolerant and unintelligent towards other people.

2 William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, pp. 80 ff. James calls
attention to and quotes from F. W. Newman’s The Soul; its Sorrows and its
Aspirations, 3rd ed., 1852.

3 I am quite prepared to believe that this statement would be ridiculous if
applied to classical Greek religion; but it seems to be true of the Greek
elements in early Christianity. The truth is, of course, that in Christian times
the word “Greek” had gained a different connotation, and a Greek was more
Oriental than Hellenic in his religious feelings.

1 My impression is that, in this sense, many of the heathen Mystery Religions
had, by the first century, ceased to be magical and become sacramental.

1 It is to my mind a most remarkable fact that many scholars who haggle and
dispute over the exact meaning of an obscure phrase in the Gospels, spend an
infinity of trouble in discussing the precise Aramaic of the phrases used by
Jews, and are shocked at the suggestion of doctrinal corruption in the text, are
nevertheless quite ready to believe that the disciples wholly misunderstood
Jesus and that the eschatological expectation of the first Christians was not
based on His own sayings. If the Gospels are trustworthy, let us trust them, and
if not let us confess our ignorance. The choice is not between eschatology and
ethics, but between history and myth.

1 If the earlier writers had seen this as clearly as their successors do, we
should probably have been all talking about involution rather than evolution.
The two things have come to mean the same: it is evolution so far as it is a
movement from an original type, it is involution so far as it results in
something containing, not so much anything new, as old elements involved in each
other, and reacting on each other in ever-increasing complexity.

1 The truth about the ethics of the Gospels seems to me best expressed in
paradox. It was an “interim” ethic, for the Kingdom of God was coming in which
it would be impossible to love one’s enemies, because there would be no enemies
left. It was an absolute ethic, because it expressed principles derived from the
world of reality, not from the imperfect society in which we live.

2 It is unnecessary to remind those who know anything of the history of physical
science that the value of an assumption for experimental purposes does not
depend on its actual truth. The truths of physical laws have often been
established by experiments involving assumptions either known to be
mathematically untrue, or afterwards to be so.

1 It is impossible to read Plutarch on the subject of Isis and Osiris and
contrast him with Justin Martyr’s Apology for Christianity and not feel that
intellectually Plutarch stands higher.

2 There were, of course, exceptions on some points. Justin, for instance, says
that Socrates was inspired by the Logos, but by no means all Christians admitted
this.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/lake-kiskopp-the-early-epistles-of-st-paul/
========================================================================