« AnteriorContinuar »
Dr. Chase (Syriac Element in Codex Bezae, pp. 150-157) thinks that a Syriac version of the section can be proved to have existed by the middle of the second century, and that consequently the primitive Greek text is to be dated almost in the first quarter of the century. Upon some such date, at any rate, the various probabilities of the evidence converge. Certainly neither Matthew nor Luke had before them any text of Mark that went beyond 168 (cp. Wernle, op. cit. pp. 36, 177, 218, 219), nor does the passage reflect an independent source. It is a vague, meagre, and secondary summary of previous traditions, a knpúyua or dińynois, though scarcely to be dismissed as a fragment of a thoroughly poetic nature, in keeping with the gospel to which it has been added (W. Brückner).
(6) The removal of [Mk 169-207 leaves the conclusion of that gospel in a state which demands some hypothesis to account for its unfinished or mutilated condition. On all hands it is admitted that no author could have intended his work to close with the words & poßoûvto yáp. Either then, (i.) the original conclusion has been lost, or (ii.) the author was prevented by accident or death from finishing his book. In the former case (i.) the continuation must have been lost at a very early date, previous to the transcription of the earliest copy, as no trace of it exists. This difficulty, however, is not insuperable. A leaf may have been detached, or some accident may have occurred to the original autograph. Zahn, however (GK, ii. p. 928 f.), has recently contended for (ii.), principally on the ground that the existence and disappearance of such an x as the other theory requires, must be held incredible. Mark, he thinks, was prevented by Peter's death from completing the volume; then, before he could interfere, his friends had read and copied the unfinished work. Blair (Apostolic Gospel, pp. 372–385) more sensibly concludes that the lost ending could not have been longer than Mt 289-20, as Matthew usually enlarges his sources; also that Lk 249. 11. 12 preserve in their integrity the details which were contained in the lost ending. The verbal contradiction between the one passage (Lk 248) and the other (Mk 168) led, as he thinks, to the deliberate rejection of the original conclusion in order to avoid a discrepancy. But it is possible also that if the original ending of Mark was brief, it failed to satisfy the needs of later generations, and was consequently superseded (Réville). When the passage is taken as an integral part of the gospel, its phenomena affect the date of the whole work, and leave no alternative except (with Dr. Salmon, INT, pp. 143-151) to bring the gospel down to a period anterior to Matthew and Luke. In face of modern criticism upon the synoptic problem, this is of course an indefensible position. ive of that gospel goes back to Mk 169-20, or—as has even been conjectured-to the lost original conclusion of Mark. The double stream of tradition upon the resurrection is best traced by Réville (II. pp. 428-452), and by Rohrbach in his Die Berichte über die Auferstehung J. C. (1898); cp. also Harnack, ThLz (1899), pp. 174-176. W. Brückner's articles (PM, 1899, pp. 41-47, 96-110, 153-160) give a review and discussion, largely of Rohrbach's position.
1 Something of this kind occurred in the case of the notes taken by Arrian during the lectures of Epiktetus. Like the first edition of the Religio Medici, they were afterwards published surreptitiously, or at least apart from the connivance of the author.
Whether they are historically trustworthy or not, their contents are not such as could have been invented by any scribe or editor of the gospel (of Mark] in his desire to supply the observed defect by a substantial and dignified ending. ... There is, however, no difficulty in supposing that a scribe or editor, unwilling to change the words of the text before him or to add words of his own, was willing to furnish the gospel with what seemed a worthy conclusion, by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ's appearances after the Resurrection, which he found in some secondary record then surviving from a previous generation. . . . It is shown by its language and structure to be complete in itself, beginning with the Resurrection and ending with the Ascension. It thus constitutes a condensed fifth narrative of the forty days. It manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority ; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age. --Westcott and Hort.
[Mk 169-20] After death.
9-11 Jesus seen by Mary Magdalene. 12. 13
two disciples. 14-18
the eleven : his commission to them. 19. 20 Summary of apostolic preaching.
A FRAGMENT OF EVANGELIC TRADITION
9 Now after he had arisen early on the first day of the week, he appeared 10 first to Mary of Magdala from whom he had cast out seven daemons. She
went and brought word to those who had been with him, as they 11 mourned and wept ; yet although they heard he was alive and had been 12 seen by her, they disbelieved.
Now after this he was disclosed in a different form to two of them, who were walking on their way into 13 the country. And they went off and brought word to the rest ; yet they 14 would not believe even them.
Afterwards 1 he was disclosed to the eleven themselves, as they reclined at table ; and he reproached then
for their unbelief and stubbornness of heart, because they would not 15 believe those who had seen him after he rose. And he said to them,
“Go into all the world and preach the glad tidings to all the
But he who disbelieves shall be condemned.
In my name they shall cast out daemons,
They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” 19 So then, after speaking to them, the Lord 2 was taken up into heaven, and 20 sat down at the right hand of God. But they went out and preached
everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the
2 Omitting [l'Incoữs]].
THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHEUS AND TITUS1
The terminus ad quem for these writings is fixed by their probable use in the epistles of Ignatius and Polykarp. The literary affinities between them and Hebrews-Luke-Acts (Simcox, Exp.3 viii. pp. 182, 183; ZellerOverbeck, ii. pp. 286, 287), Clem. Rom., and Barnabas, imply not so much the dependence of the one upon the other, as a common spirit and atmosphere, so that no serviceable terminus a quo can be fixed upon the side of literary relationships. The internal evidence, however, leaves little doubt that in their final and extant form this group of writings belongs to the first quarter of the second century. This is especially clear in view of the heresies and errors denounced. These, the spawn of a Jewish and Gnostic syncretism (Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, 1880, pp. 126–158), are at once cognate to and more advanced than those of 1 John (cp. von Soden, HC, III. 1, pp. 166, 167, 179), while they are less acute and developed than those of Jud-2 Peter. It is unfortunate in a sense that for insight into the situation of the pastoral epistles as well as of the following NT writings, we have inore and more to go outside the NT itself. The problem of their origin is solved, not only upon the ground of the earlier Pauline letters, but also by a study of sub-apostolic writings like the Didache, Clem. Rom., Polykarp, and Ignatius. Place these side by side with the pastorals, and it is difficult to resist the idea, which returns upon one with almost every sentence, that their world is practically the same, and that the pastorals are astonishingly superior. Their common historical presupposition is incipient Gnosticism, not in a special form but rather in its general climate (Clem. Strom. VII. 17), theoretical, practical, mythological, ethical. This is corroborated by the official and ecclesiastical spirit which dominates the three epistles. Christianity is becoming a system of piety (Evo éßela) and sound teaching (didao kalia) as opposed to moral and intellectual error. Its citadel is the church, whose organisation is a matter of great moment, and whose regulations form the background of the epistles. By the author, Timotheus and Titus are not merely taken as patterns of Pauline scholars, but also as representatives and types of
i The inadequate and misleading title “pastorals,” under which these writings have suffered for about 90 years, can only be retained (and used as seldom as possible) on the score of convenience.
2 Cp. Harnack, Chron. pp. 480-485. He dates the epistles in their present form substantially between 90 and 100: “Dass die Pastoralbriefe, so wie sie vorliegen, nicht vom Apostel Paulus geschrieben, dass sie aber auf paulinischen Briefen aufgebaut sind, ist ein Ergebniss der Kritik, welches nicht aufs neue beweisen zu werden braucht." The remarkable parallels between the pastorals and the Apost. Constit. in regard to ecclesiastical organisations point, in Harnack's judgment (ibid. pp. 483, 484 ; TU, 11. 5, p. 49 f.), possibly to the use of a common source.
3 The striking coincidences between the pastorals and Jud-Peter prove either a similarity of situation or literary dependence, possibly both (von Soden, pp. 166, 167, 179). In Tit and 1 Tim especially, 1 Peter seems to be used (Holtzmann, | Past. pp. 267-270 ; Brückner, Chron. pp. 57–59, 277–286), and in the latter of the two, Luke's gospel.
the monarchical episcopate which-as 3 John indicates—was now coming to supersede the earlier officials, and had by this time displaced the “spiritual gifts” in ordinary church management
The criteria of tone and spirit, then, combine to favour and even to demand a date not earlier than the last decade of the first century and probably somewhat later. Formerly, indeed, a period towards the middle of the second century was considered necessary: so Baur, Pfleiderer (Urc. p. 862 ff.), and even Ritschl—to whom the Gnosticism of the apostolic age was still a mere hypothesis (Entstehung, p. 242). The recent researches into Gnosticism, together with investigations into the develop. ment of church organisation (Holtzmann, Past. pp. 190–252, an exhaustive discussion), have allowed scholars to come down nearer the opening of the second century, and here criticism is practically unanimous. Within these decades (95–135) lies the only period known to us when the pastorals actually possess a career and object of their own. They represent a transition from the earlier Paulinism to “catholicism,” the original ideas of the apostle being modified and stereotyped under the pressure of ecclesiastical requirements. More definitely, according to Beyschlag (NTTh, ii. pp. 3, 4, 501-504), they also help to present the common Christianity as it developed in regions that were dominated by the influence of Paul during the opening of the second century (so Bourquin, Étude critique sur Past. Epîtres, 1890, pp. 51-64). Some general verdict of this kind would probably unite the majority of reasonable critics. As it is, the arguments are so detailed and weighty that in a brief note it is fortunately unnecessary, as it is hardly possible, to do more than mention their bearing and refer to their various expositions. The most adequate statement is furnished by Holtzmann's classical monograph, whose positions are recapitulated in his Einl. pp. 272–292, and NTTh, ii. pp. 259–281. His standpoint is practically shared and reproduced by Hilgenfeld, Weizsäcker, S. Davidson, Mangold, Sabatier, Hatch 1 (EB, articles “ Paul” and “ Pastorals”), Cone (Gospel and its Interpret. p. 327 f.), Réville (Les origine de l'Episcop. pp. 262-286), and McGiffert (AA, pp. 398–420), etc. The only question which at the present day is seriously in dispute is the precise date. Renan 2 and Mangold go back to the end of the first century, while von Soden (HC, III. 1, pp. 155–254) places 2 Tim not earlier than Domitian's reign and the other two after 110. It is better, however, to remain by the first quarter 3 of the second century (s0 Jülicher and Réville). No other position is upon the whole so selfconsistent and helpful in solving the contradictory facts presented by a set of writings which otherwise form one of those religious and literary enigmas whose keys have been in the meantime, perhaps for all timelost.
i Chiefly owing to the “ difficulty of believing that so elaborate a debasement of Christianity had grown up in the brief interval between Paul's first contact with Hellenism and his death.” On the keen prominence given to moral reform and theory by the early part of the second century, cp. Addis, Christianity and the Roman Empire, pp. 130–141.
2 S. Paul, p. l. In L'Église Chrétienne (chap. vi.) the composition of the pastorals is made synchronous with the publication of Paul's collected epistles at Rome. They are “un premier essai de fausses décrétales.” 3 Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. 17 : ráTW de repà tous 'Ad procyoŰ Toï Baoinea
όνους οι τας aipérers inivono cvTES gegóveol. The lack of exactness in defining the heresies combated is natural. “L'auteur parlait de quelque chose de courant et, pour être compris par les lecteurs de son temps, il lui suffisait de désigner simplement ses adversaires sans les peindre” (Bourquin).