« AnteriorContinuar »
The great interest of this epistle lies in the insight which it gives us into the ordinary life of the Christian communities of those early times and this wide Asiatic territory. . . . It shows us something of their independence, of the kind of ministry that was in exercise among them, and their relation to it, of their order also and administration. It seems to mark a notable stage in the growth of the church and the history of its organisations. It discloses a condition of things like that with which the Didachê has made us familiar. It places us at the point of transition from the apostolic to the post-apostolic, from the primitive simplicity to a more developed constitution.-S. D. F. Salmond.
1 TAE presbyter
to Gaius the beloved, whom I sincerely love. 2 Beloved, it is my desire that in all respects thou mayest prosper and 3 be in health, even as thy soul prospers. I was overjoyed at the coming
of brothers who bore witness to thy truth, even as thou art walking in 4 truth. I have no greater joy than to hear of my own children walking 5 in the truth. Beloved, in any work of thine for those who are brothers, 6 aye and strangers, thou art acting faithfully; they have borne witness
before the Community to thy love, and thou wilt do well to speed them 7 on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For it is for the Name's
sake that they have gone out, not accepting anything from the heathen. 8 We are bound, then, to support such people, that we may show ourselves
fellow-workers with the truth. 9 I have written something to the Community ; but Diotrephes, who 10 loves to domineer among them, repudiates us. Therefore, when I come,
I will recall the works he is doing, as he babbles against us with evil words; and, not satisfied with that, he refuses a welcome to the brothers himself, prevents those who would give it, and expels them from the
Community. 11 Beloved, imitate not what is wrong but what is right.
He who does what is right, is of God :
He who does what is wrong, has not seen God. 12 Demetrius has witness borne him from all and from the truth itself :
yes, and we bear witness also, and thou knowest that our witness is true. 13 I had many things to write to thee, but I am unwilling to write to 14 thee with ink and pen. I hope, however, to see thee immediately, and we shall speak face to face.
Peace to thee.
A FRAGMENT OF EVANGELIC TRADITION
[Mk 169-20] This interesting and detached fragment is to be dated probably within a century after the resurrection, somewhere in the first quarter of the second century. Its regular place in the MSS is at the chose of Mark's gospel, which it was evidently designed to supplement. That it did not form the original close to that work, is a conclusion which may he regarded as impregnable. The two points for serious discussion are (a) its date, including the question of authorship, and (b) the resultant critical question with regard to Mark's gospel. Whether it was originally composed for its present place in the gap (Brückner), or existed independently in whole or part, can scarcely be determined upon the evidence at our command, though the latter is the more probable hypothesis.
(a) The date of the fragment has been recently connected with its authorship by Mr. F. C. Cony beare (Exp.4 viii. p. 241 f., and Exp.5 ii. p. 401 f.). From a recently discovered Armenian codex (of 986 A.D.) containing after époß. yáp the verses 9-20, preceded by the words “ Ariston Eritzou” (= of the presbyter Ariston) in red uncials, he inferred that the Ariston or Aristion mentioned there was the Christian of the same name mentioned in Eusebius (HE, III. 39. 4) as one of the teachers of Papias, and along with the presbyter John as a disciple of the Lord. This is a conjecture which has been widely accepted, e.g. by Harnack, Swete (ed. of Mark, 1898, pp. xcvi-cv), Eck (Preussiche Jahrbiicher, 1898, pp. 40-43), and Sanday (DB, ii. pp. 638, 639). It is curious that Papias
1 The “shorter conclusion” printed in most critical editions of the text is poorly attested, and does not fall to be noticed here. As to the origin of [Mk 169-20], there is just a possibility that it formed the close of some narrative of the resurrection, based upon apostolic tradition, the opening of which has been irretrievably lost. Zahn (GK, i. p. 922 n.) thinks of the Teaching or Preaching of Peter as a possible source or contemporary document.
2 All that can, together with a good deal that cannot, be said in favour of the passage and its authenticity, may be seen by the curious in Burgon's well-known treatise (The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, 1871). Critical data in Zahn, GK, ii. pp. 910-938, and Tischendorf, NT (8th ed.), i. pp. 403-407. Apart from the usual editions (cp. recently Swete, pp. xcvi-cv) and Introductions (particularly Zahn, ii. pp. 227–240), there is a popular and frank summary of the case in Abbott's Common Tradition, pp. xviii-xxiii, gathering up the cumulative argument from (a) textual criticism, (b) style, the absence of Marcan characteristics and the presence of unMarcan expressions, and (c) internal contents. Literature in DB, iii. pp. 252, 253.
Harnack points out (TU, XII. 1) that Jerome (c. Pelag. II. 15) found in some codices between verses 14 and 15 the following passage (in quibusdam exemplaribus et maxime in Graecis Codd.):-“Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes : Saeculum istud iniquitatis et incredulitatis sub satana (Codd. substantia) est, qui (Codd. quae) non sinit per immundos spiritus veram dei apprehendi virtutem, idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam.”
should not have mentioned the circumstance, and it is also strange that Aristion should have taken the trouble to compile so second-hand and loose a narrative.1 Still it may have actually come from his dinyńDELS (cf. Lk 1°), in which case its date would be towards the beginning of the second century or slightly later. Resch (TU, x. 2, pp. 449-456 ; ThSt, pp. 109, 110) suggests Ariston of Pella as the author, a JewishChristian presbyter who-on Resch's very shaky hypothesis-edited the first canon of the gospels, c. 140 A.D. For less conjectural reasons, Warfeld dates the fragment not later than the first thirty years of the second century. He imagines that it was taken, along with the pericope Jn 753_811, from the book of illustrations of the gospel narrative composed by Papias, c. 120 A.D. (Textual Criticism of the NT, pp. 199–205). Rohrbach, again, conjectures 110-120 A.D. as the period when the incomplete gospel was furnished in Asia Minor with its unauthentic conclusion, at the same time as the appendix (21), in which that conclusion was used, was added to the fourth gospel.
Here as elsewhere, however, while there is plenty of good argument to prove that the passage is an interpolation, signs fail for its date. Further, it must be borne in mind that a passage may have existed in written form before it was inserted in its present place in the MSS, as is the case with the Homeric catalogue of the troops in the second book of the Iliad (lines 484–877); also, that it represents in all likelihood a tradition older than itself. Relatively, indeed, limits can be fixed within which it must lie. The fragment presupposes Luke
12-13 with Luke 2413-332 (P. 17-18 with Ac 21-13 283-6 );"
23-6), if not John. It is an echo of the preceding traditions, inserted at the close of Mark by an early editor in order to supplement the defective resurrection-narrative. Upon the other side, if its use can be traced in Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 45), a terminus ad quem would be established. The evidence for this, however, is too indefinite.4
1 So much so that Zahn, who had already (GK, i. p. 913 f.) referred vers. 15, 16 to an extra-canonical source, now prefers to confine Aristion's share to vers. 14-18. He appeals, in confirmation of this, to the marginal glossy
s written Rufinus's translation of Eusebius, which quotes Aristion's authority for a story of Justus, surnamed Bar-Sabbas (AC 123), wħo miraculously recovered after drinking some deadly poison (= Mk 1618). Bacon (Journ. Bibl. Lit. 1898, pp. 176-183) now conjectures that Papias's description of Aristion and John the presbyter as disciples TOŨ nupiou originally read couTWY (i.e. tüy d TOPT62.c). In any case the oral tradition from which a fragment like this sprang, must have been exposed to contamination. Even Papias was tainted with millenarianism, and we may be sure this penchant was not in conflict with the teaching of the elders upon whom he leaned so heavily and from whom he repeated legendary tales like that of Justus Bar-Sabbas and his poison, besides givas Tuvas TopeBoA: Toũ Carpes ze: SubaơAía; củnoũ xa. Tty &AA & Mubonátepe, if we can trust the unsympathetic notice of Eusebius (HE, III. 39).
2 Add Jn 201-18 Lk 82 = Mk 169-11, while vers. 19, 20 are a colourless review of previous apostolic history (Lk 2450. 51, Ac 19-11). I do not see any convincing evidence for the use of Mk 169-20 in Jn 21.
3 I append a table, re-arranged from Loofs (Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert, 1898), to bring out the role of this fragment in the cycle and growth of the resurrection stories. The correct inference from these in general is that the tradition was largely fluid and for a long time indeterminate, while the Galilaean appearances do not rest upon very adequate historical evidence. For a more conservative statement, cp. Beyschlag, SK (1899), pp. 507–539, and Schwartzkopff, Prophecies of Jesus Christ, pp. 87–124.
4 Dr. C. Taylor (Exp. 4 viii. pp. 71-80, argues for such a use even earlier, in Barnabas and Clem. Rom., but the evidence is far from conclusive. The same holds true of the gospel of Peter. It is a disputed point whether the resurrection narrat
[Continued on page 553.
“A fact so stupendous as the Resurrection needs to be supported by strong evidence, and very strong evidence both as regards quantity and quality is forthcoming ; but all parts of it are not of equal value, and it is well that the authorities should be compared with each other and critically estimated. ... Whichever way we turn, difficulties meet us, which the documents to which we have access do not enable us to remove."-Sanday.
the eleven meet Jesus at the mountain.
s i mon