Imágenes de páginas

homily. But the writing is more than formally a letter. It presupposes some personal acquaintance on the author's part with some circle which he is primarily addressing. The loose connection of the various paragraphs, which often resemble groups of aphorisms with as little cohesion as a handful of pearls, ia due here as in the Wisdom of Solomon to the writer's gnomic style,1 although at the same time it must be admitted that the cognate and much more elaborate " Shepherd " of Hennas bears, in its extant form, some traces of having been put together from previous flyleaves of prophetic addresses. The analogous abruptness with which Ecclus (51M- 30) and Wisd Sol (1922) close, is rather unfavourable to the allied conjecture that the original conclusion of James has been lost; especially as the letter itself gives but little evidence of close or continuous intercourse between the writer and his readers at the time of writing. At the same time, while unable to accept Spitta's theory in its entirety, I strongly suspect tliat in 21 the words fai&v 'lrj<rov XpioroO represent a gloss originally written on the margin by a later editor or copyist, and subsequently incorporated in the text. The grammatical explanations of the text as it stands (for which cp. Mayor and Beyschlag) are more or less strained: rijs oNSf^s does not go satisfactorily with either iriimv or Kvplov, and the most simple view, which regards it as in apposition to 1. X., has little in its favour. On the other hand, 6 Kvpios -njs 86£r)s is not merely a phrase for God in Enoch (cp. Spitta, pp. iv, 4, 60 f.), but applied by Paul to Christ (1 Co 28, Ovk &v Tov Kvptov Ttjs 8d|i7r iaraipmrav). Whether the author of James intended it for God (as* l27 25 suggest) or Christ, it is hardly possible to determine. But as the book came to be used, it would be natural for some editor or reader, who had 1 Pet l1721 before him, to append the gloss qp. 'I. X., either to explain the ambiguous phrase or to definitely bring it into line with 1 Co 2".

The linguistic coincidences between Judas and 2 Peter cannot, any more than those between Colossians and Ephesians, be indicated in print. But a tabular resume,3 such as is given e.g. by Spitta, brings out with sufficient clearness the fact that the similarities of expression in the two writings are not coincidences, nor due to the use of a common source, but reminiscences and adaptations. One writing depends upon the other. Now this involves undoubtedly the priority of Judas, chiefly on the following grounds, (o) The style of Judas is pregnant, original, and energetic;

1 Like Wordsworth's poems of 1831, the various paragraphs of James are semidetached and end abruptly ; yet they too

"Have moved in order, to each other bound By a continuous and acknowledged tie, Though unapparent." It is not, as I think, necessary to regard even the comparatively isolated passages 4110 and 516 as interpolated fragments of polemic against the unbelieving Jews (Jacoliy, AT Elliik, pp. 170 f.). In this class of literature a certain detachment inevitably belongs to many sections. The Wisdom of Heirach is an example itself, though there also compilation ami interpolation have been occasionally suggested.

a The parallel in Ecclus 351215 is most remarkable: there, however, as in Ps 81'-3 {i &ii{ iv rv**yuyY,') the order is reversed; charity to widows and the fatherless is a proof of genuine religion, but it follows the conception of God's impartiality. The writer's devotion to the Wisdom-literature and the OT generally, carries him past not only Jesus (Hel) 12K:) but Paul, in his search for examples of ;»«/*»»; (5""'), although even Clem. Rom. (5) hud already found an illustration of that virtue in the apostle of the

(ieiltiU'S {Xlm.v>«i uTtiuvf.s $px$noi vT(?[i£l> . . . tit rit a'/to* rirtt \xtpivQn, !/Ttu4*r,; ?tt'.u>§; fjLiytrret itroypofj.fAi;).

'Had Judas used 2 Peter, it is incredible that he should have selected one or two passages—and these not the most characteristic—besides passing over much of equal that of 2 Peter is looser in expression, and occasionally indistinct for all its diffuseness. 2 Peter has "echoes" in it. The special and concrete examples of Judas are present to the writer, but are sometimes dropped, sometimes abbreviated, sometimes flattened out into fairly general descriptions. The words of Judas become now and again consciously modified (a-TTiXabts, o-n-i\ot, e.g.): his threefold rhythm is lost; his images are used fov different ends, (b) Judas, too, is a unity; from lirst to last it throbs with a single spirit. On the other hand, the section in 2 Peter which incorporates it stands in a peculiar relation to the calmer and less passionate portions of the epistle; here the polemic is more of an interlude, (c) Further, the author of 2 Peter has borrowed and used his materials in such a way that the later reproduction would be in parts almost unintelligible, unless the original were extant {e.g. 2 P 217 = Jud 12-13, 2 P 2n = Jud 9, 2 P24 = Jud °). Features like these point to one conclusion, that the more compact and original writing has been obviously worked over by another writer, who has in the process toned down, omitted, and expanded: no other theory does anything like justice to the literary characteristics of both letters. It is of course no objection to this position that 2 Peter speaks of the errorists in the future tense, while in Judas they are present actually to the writer. Judas is thus true to the immediate situation, while the author of 2 Peter, though living in a similar set of conditions, desires to represent his polemic as a prophecy of Peter, and consequently speaks of the libertines as a future danger—though even this attitude is not kept up consistently (e.g. 2181 222). While the data thus prove the priority of Judas, and indirectly the pseudonymity of the later epistle,1 they do not, however, afford any reliable clue to the interval which elapsed between the former's composition and its subsequent use by the author of 2 Peter.

Judas 1.--dSf\(f>6s 8( 'Ia/co>(3ou, an interpolation inserted during the second century before 170 A.d., by an editor who supposed the author to be a brother of the great James. So McGiffert (p. 588), along with Harnack (Chron. p. 465 f.), who suggests that the whole phrase, 'iijo-oo Xpurrov BoCXos, dScXQos 'laKwjiov was added between 150 and 180 A.d., for the sake of increasing its authority. Not very differently, Bacon (/iVT, pp. 166 f.).

2 Peter.—Grotius, besides attributing the epistle to Symeon, the successor of James in the bishopric of Jerusalem, held the composite2 nature of the writing; chaps. 1, 2, and 3 being different letters by the same author. Doubts upon the second chapter as an integral part of the writing have been more than once expressed, but without leading to any decisive conclusions (Bertholdt, Lange, and Kubel).3 Matthew Arnold (God

weight. Also, if lie had intended to remind the reader of 2 Peter, it is strange how he never alludes explicitly to it or to its writer.

1 As Prof. Adeney insists, comparing 1 Peter and 2 Peter on the score of literary dependence, "it is one thing to lean upon Paul and even James, and another thing to absorb and utilise virtually the whole of the short epislle of so obscure a writer as Jude " (/{/, p. 449). Cp. Bacon, INT, pp. 170-174.

5 He finally conjectured that Uir^t; K»i . . «to<tt*a»; (l1), * my**, iiftii* kl !>?« (315), and 1" were interpolations. Bartlet (A A, pp. 518-521) similarly tries to detach 21-37(13) as an apocalyptic section added to an originally Petrine note of 62-63 A.d.

s In this way, if l50-33 conld lie taken as an interpolation, some part of the epistle might be saved as genuinely Petrine. But the hypothesis is an untenable compromise, and has rightly met with scant acceptance (cp. Ustcri's ed. of 1 Peter, p. 315 f.), though Gess (Das Apost. Zeugniss von ChrisH Person, II. 2. p. 4141.) holds that l-<"»-33* certainly forms an unauthentic insertion.

and the Bible, pp. 227, 228) suggested that phrases like l10 (erirouSdo-m-f Uffialav vfiwv Tt)v Kx^(tii< Km «Aoy^i> nouiadai) and 3813 may have really been Petrine phrases which survived and floated in men's memories, though the context had been lost. But this is highly improbable. The phrases are perfectly natural and can be paralleled elsewhere; the words of 2" follow 1!1 without serious jolting; and a pseudonymous writer required no hint or occasion, beyond the existence of a genuine 1 Peter and a Petrine tradition, to speak in the apostle's name. Besides, as Chase (DB, iii. p. 814 f.) shows, the coincidences with Apoc. Pet. extend over chap. 1 as well as over chap. 2. Kiihl (-Meyer), however, still holds to his hypothesis that a genuine Petrine letter is preserved in this epistle, less 2'-32 which represents a later interpolation.

N.B.—In connection with the survey of constructions and analyses on pp. 700-704, it ought to have been observed that Professor B. W. Bacon, in his acute and trustworthy summary of Pauline chronology (Exp6 x. pp. 351 f., 412-430), already referred to on page 133, approximates in part to Dr. McGiffert, regarding 2 Tim 49- II18-20-sl am, with fragments of 1 Tim, as genuinely Pauline material which dated from the period of 2 Corinthians (end of 54 A.d.) and originated in Macedonia; the rest of 2 Tim (less l13- u, 2M~317, i3i, which contain interpolations) falls into the period of Philippians, which is the latest of the Captivity-epistles. Fragments from Titus are to be placed, with some hesitation, along with 2 Co 101—1310, which Professor Bacon identifies with the intermediate letter to Corinth (as above, p. 177), written in 54 A..D., perhaps after a visit to Crete (?), but certainlv subsequent to the fragment 2 Co 6M-7' (as above, pp. G2S, 629). After Zahn he places (INT, 56 f.) Gal in the spring of 50, written from Corinth, possibly before 1 Thess. In regard to the general chronology, however, Professor Bacon proceeds upon rather an independent road (vide above, pp. 134-136). He fixes the conversion of Paul, 31 (34 ?) A.d.; his first visit to Jerusalem, 33 (36 ?); his first mission tour, 44-46; his arrival at Corinth, 50 (early spring); his flight from Ephesus, 54 (July-Aug.); his arrest in Jerusalem, 55 (May) ; his arrival at Rome, 58 (February); and his defence before Nero, 60. Such an outline of events obviously involves some important modifications of the "new" chronology as well as of the traditional scheme. More recently (INT, pp. 127-140) the same critic judges all three pastoral epistles, and especially 1 Tim, to be "characterised in part by the desultory, general, sometimes incoherent structure of ecclesiastical compilations," but admits that they have undergone processes of accretion and adaptation previous to their incorporation into the Canon. 2 Tim 49. li-is. 20 21a. 22^ js a note which might originate, he suggests, shortly after Ac 24121 (cp. 17-18 = Ac 23" 14 = Ac 21-7, 2418), written to some friend in Macedonia, especially if Ac 2129 be an erroneous tradition. It is less easy to expiscate 1 Tim and Titus, although considerations of style prove that these epistles most markedly contain an unPauline element. "A wise conservatism will yield so much as this, while refusing as yet to commit itself to any special scheme of documentary analysis, or even to the possibility of extricating the Pauline from the traditional and editorial material." It is noticeable that Clemen, reviewing the first edition

of the present volume (ThLz, 1901, 291-293), announces the abandonment of his view of Galatians (" ich stelle ihn jetzt nicht mehr hinter den Rbmer-, sondern sogar noch vor die Thess-briefe "), and also of his doubts as to the integrity of Philippians (above, pp. 634-635).


Index (a) Subjects And Contexts.
,, (6) References And Authorities.
„ (c) Passages Cited From OT And NT.
,, (d) Jewish, Early Christian, And Classical Citations.


[ocr errors]

Caesar, Julius, 79, 496, 681.
Caesarea, 132, 348, 700 f.
Caligula, 143, 626, 680 f., 687.
Canon, varying order of NT books in,

53 f., 107-117.
"Catholicism" of early churches,

412 f., 466, 695.
Cerinthus, 575, 700.
Christianity, primitive, 668 f., 709.
Chroniclers, mediaeval, 616.
Chronicles, books of, 8,616.
Chronology, limitations and uncer-
tainty of NT, 69-71, 137.
Colossians, epistle to: date, 131;

authenticity and contents, 214-217;

textual condition of, 633, 634.
Compilation in NT literature, 615 f.
Corinth, Paul's relations with, 174-

178, 672, also 700-704.
Corinthian epistles, 126 f.; criticism

of, 174-178 ; interpolation in, 627 f.

Damascus, Paul at, 629 f.

Daniel, 460, 464, 638.

Deuteronomy, 623, 675.

Diotrephes, 536 f.

Documents, filiation of, xv, xvi.

Doketism, 32, 1961'., 535.

Domitian, reign and persecution of,

343 f., 460 f., 535, 578, 678 f.
Dragon-myths, 684f., 686.

Ecclesia8tes, 690, Addenda.

Egypt, 349, 591, 598.

Emperors, worship of, 461 f., 687.

Enoch, book of, 690, 620, 686.

Ephesians, epistle to: date, author-
ship, and contents, 225-230, 419;
text of, 633, 634.

Ephcsus, Paul's note to, 209-213.

Epiktetus, 274, 553, 614.

Episcopate, rise of, 536 f., 560 f.,
700 f.

Epistles, the, and the gospels, 25, 39 f.,
64 f., 258 f.; of commendation, 63 f.,
210 f.

Eschatology, 267, 597 f., 626 f., 6S5;
of Jesus, 640.

Esdras, 3rd, 615, 616.

4th, xx, 463, 005.

Esther, 686.

Euscbius, 114, 690.

Ezekiel, 63, 122.

"florilkoia," 351, 617.

Fourth gospel: origin of, 26, 35;
environment, 35, 36, 269; date, con-
tents, and function, 491-497; sub-
sequent to synoptic gospels, 491,
492; historicity, 623; prologue,
492, 493; appendix, 694-696;
analytic criticism of, xl, 696-700.

Galatians, destination and date of,

124-129 ; interpolations in, 627.
Gamaliel, It., 243.
Gentile Christianity, 349, 418, 576.
Gnosticism in NT literature, 215 f.,

496, 535 f., 556 f., 589 f., 598.
Gospels, the: their distance from

Jesus, 13-16, 65 f.; devotional and
didactic, 21 f., 25 f., 30 f., 76, 258 f.,
491 f; environment, 44 f. ; genesis,
64 f., 260 f., 845 ; finally edited, 496,

497, 551 f., 649f.; quotations in, 351,

Hadrian, 679 f.
Hebrews, epistle to : date, origin, and

contents, 344-351; no translation,

607 ; structure of, 650, 651.

gospel of, 269, 552, 606.

Hellenism, 60, 497, 579 f.
Herukluon, 495.
Hennas, 146, 579 f., 610, 704 f.
Herod, dynasty of, 95-97.
Historical allusions, 46 f., 346, 535. criticism, its rights in NT study,

xvii, xviii, 71-78; its method, 75-

76, 625, 677.
History, conditions for writing, 13-

16, 76, 592, 658.
Homer, 643.
Homilies, early Christian, 463 f., 618,

650, 705 f.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »