Mark and the Logia. Matthew's gospel is also to be grouped with Luke's as a similarly composite work, but it is in the latter that traces of compilation are most indubitable. Acts, again, has been compiled, in its first part, from earlier sources or reminiscences; in the second part, fragments of a journal have been at any rate incorporated. The Apocalypse contains pieces dating from the seventh decade, if not from the earlier age of Caligula, while the work of final arrangement is to be dated in the tenth decade of the century. A similar theory of compilation must be exploited to clear up the epistles to Timotheus and Titus, although in this case account has to be taken of pseudepigraphy as well 1; both features, and especially the former, were perfectly congenial to the climate of the second century. As it has been remarked, that century was a book-making age. But the books were very often not original.1 Instances of compilation have been discovered or imagined repeatedly within and without the NT canon. The Didachê (as Taylor and Harnack rightly argue) is founded on some earlier manual, probably a Jewish catechism for proselytes, to which Barnabas is indebted also. The Apology of Aristides leans upon an earlier "preaching of Peter." 2 Peter incorporates a large part of Judas' epistle, and the letters to Timotheus and Titus are similarly to be classed as an amalgam of originally Pauline notes and later editorial matter. Evidently the process of compilation was not confined to apocalyptic literature. It is to the early half of the second century that, e.g., the Mark-appendix and the fragment (Jn 21) are to be referred, probably also the extant form of the canonical 2 Corinthians; while the literary habit (it has even been conjectured) 2 extended to the addresses and greetings of some older writings, during the course of the century. On this theory the Barnabas-epistle and the second epistle of Clement would receive their titles, the words ev 'Epéσ would be inserted in "Ephesians," the title added to the hitherto anonymous 1 Peter, and the epistle "to the Hebrews attributed to Paul. On Harnack's hypothesis, the so-called epistle of James also consists of collected homilies, written before the year 120 and edited shortly after the author's death by another author, who added the address. The lack of continuous argument is plain in this writing. But when its apparently illogical character is fairly estimated, it is not psychologically incompatible with the ordinary view of the epistle; nor does such an artisans were the unknown labourers who compiled and wrote the sources, while the authors of our extant gospels were the artists-artists in the sense that they collected and selected the materials needful to express the high and definite conception of Jesus which each entertained. These raw materials of the gospels cannot be regained. They exist in more or less manipulated forms, worked up into various designs and moulds according to the particular aim or personal equation of the later composers. How far these editors adopted, and how far they created, is an abstruse problem of synoptic embryology.

1 The Gospel and Revelation of Peter (Robinson and James, 1892), p. 31. 2 By Harnack (TU, II. ii. pp. 106-109; Chron. pp. 457-462; etc.). But see Holtzmann (PM, 1897, p. 236 f.). The "Rest of the Words of Baruch may be a Jewish writing to which a later Christian conclusion has been added, and a similar hypothesis serves to explain the newly discovered "Greek Apocalypse of Baruch " (Texts and Studies, 1897, v. 1).

3 Op. cit., pp. 486-490. "És ist eine formlose und bunte Sammlung von Didaskalieen, Trostreden, Prophetieen, Strafpredigten u.s.w., die am Schluss in einige praktische-kirchliche (an die letzten Bestimmungen der Didache erinnernde) Ermahnungen ausmündet.. Dabei lässt sich-und das ist das Paradoxeste des Paradoxen-doch nicht verkennen, dass eine gewisse Einheitlichkeit sowohl der sittlichen Gesinnung als auch der Sprache vorbrauchen ist, die dem Ganzen trotz der Zusammenhangslosigkeit eine innere Einheitlichkeit verleiht."

elaborate hypothesis as the above seem to be necessary, if one recollects the nature of the Jewish Wisdom literature which is presupposed in James's writing. Still, so far as the literary methods of the age are concerned, the hypothesis is both possible and credible. Literary manufacture, especially in the use of older documents, was familiar and common within Christian circles even before the first century closed; much more so, throughout the course of the second.

of

Generally, then, the composite nature of most apocalypses (e.g. Test. xii. Patriarchs, Ascensio Isaiae, Apoc. Baruch) is a clue indicating that compilation is a legitimate hypothesis which in the contemporary NT literature not merely claims to be tested, but also verifies itself more than once in apocalyptic (e.g. the apocalypse of John, 2 Thess. 2, the "small apocalypse" of the synoptic gospels), if not epistolary (2 Corinthians, the Timotheus and Titus letters) and historical (the Acts, the gospels, passim) composition. Indeed, Oriental and semi-Oriental books we may say "with Professor Rendel Harris, "what one would say of Oriental cities, that they are usually examples of rebuilding, and that it is very seldom that the stones are from one quarry or hewn at one period. The same instinct which takes the pillars of one temple to adorn another, and makes the walls of a house unprofitably gay with votive tablets from public buildings that have fallen into ruin, appears in literature in the adaptation of works which have become unpopular, or obsolescent, to the needs of a later day than that of their first authors, and to political and religious ends which are often the direct opposite of what was intended at their first publication." 2 In regard to the NT, the limitations of this hypothesis are palpable; but it underlies many lines of criticism, and primarily those upon that phase of literature which was least of all "eternal in the heavens," and apt to lack permanent interest unless re-edited-the apocalyptic.

(3) It is also in the criticism of apocalyptic literature that the question of pseudonymity is started.

The apocalypses were pseudepigrapha. For obvious reasons it was a recognised literary custom to issue such writings under the name of an older hero or prophet, whose name should lend sanction and authority to the contents. The sentiments appear to have been designed with some care to represent those of the assumed spokesman; but it is not at all certain whether the readers were always or ever expected to accept them as really authentic expressions of the men whose names were used. Often this was simply out of the question. At any rate it is the paradox of apocalyptic that while its actual interests strained out into the future, its

1 The incongruity (to a modern mind) of putting a prophecy like this into the lips of Jesus was evidently not felt by the early Christians, and did not contradict their canons of literary composition. Besides the later example from Papias, analogous sayings existed (1 Th 15) already in the evangelic tradition; the so-called "apocalyptic" spirit represented that with which Jesus had most in common; and in the third gospel we have instances of a similar method by which the writer made use of the OT and the Wisdom literature.

2 Exp. (April 1897), p. 256. On this feature of the religious spirit cp. Renan (Revue des deux mondes, 1886, p. 550). A clear instance of second-century piecework is afforded by the so-called Martyrdom (Ascension) of Isaiah. This apocryphal production consists of (a) a Jewish composition on the martyrdom of Isaiah (21-312 52-14), (b) a Christian composition giving a visionary journey of the prophet through the heavens (61-111 1123-40), and (c) several smaller and perhaps later insertions, with an early account of the Neronic persecution (313-51). The section (b) belongs to the second century, and was joined to (a) by the Christian editor, who compiled the whole writing at a later date, adding prologue and epilogue.

(supposed) authors stood in the far past. Probably it was owing to the blast and tumult of the present that the writers preferred to secure their own safety as well as to win some extraneous authority by thus fighting with a closed vizor.

It is an open question whether the Apocalypse of John in the NT does not come under this category. A plausible objection to its pseudonymity is sometimes taken from the fact that the ordinary apocalypses (e.g. those of Enoch, the Twelve Patriarchs, Baruch, Ezra,1) which lie parallel to it, are written under names separated by whole centuries from the author. But the conditions of the case differ. The author of a Christian apocalypse in the first century had merely a handful of years and a small company of men, either recently dead or still alive, upon which to draw. It was inevitable that, if a Christian apocalypse were to be written pseudonymously, it should be sheltered under the name of one who was almost a contemporary; at any rate this fact cannot be urged decisively against the hypothesis of pseudonymity. On wider grounds, however, other theories of the authorship are more popular and as probable.

More vital for NT criticism is the extension of pseudonymity to other classes of literature.

For quite two centuries the practice had prevailed in classical literature. The names and characters of illustrious men were freely used in compositions of a later age, though not always with uniformly high motives. Obviously a copyist could thus put himself in the way of winning larger prices for his MSS: the scholar, again, found great content and joy in the proof thus afforded of his skill in imitation: as Bentley remarked, "some of the Greek sophists had the success and satisfaction to see their essays in that kind pass with some readers for the genuine works of those they endeavoured to express." More frequently, however, the pure motive of admiration and naïve sympathy prompted the disciples to reproduce in their own language a master's ideas under his own name. Conscious that they owed their own ideas to him, they very naturally regarded this practice as an extension of his influence. It was thought to be the propagation of his views and spirit, not any independent venture of their own; and, so far from losing in effectiveness, this class of writings rather acquired additional impressiveness and weight.2 As Zeller also observes, it was a point of unselfish piety among the Pythagoreans that they gave up all claims to personal glory and attributed their writings to Pythagoras himself.

To come still nearer. In the previous literature of Judaism the habit obtained. From Moses to Solonion great names had literature grouped under them by later ages: a glance not only at the OT, but at the apocalyptic literature of 100 B.c. to 100 A.D., shows the vitality of this practice;

1 It is interesting to notice that the Babylonian captivity supplied two outstanding figures (Baruch, Ezra) for the Jewish apocalypses of 70-100 A.D. As a curious instance of the connection and rivalry between Christian and Jewish thought, Prof. R. H. Charles points out that those two figures are deliberately chosen as substitutes for Enoch. The latter, up to c. 40 A.D., had been the favourite hero and spokesman of apocalyptic visions, next to Daniel; but his adoption by the Christians threw him into disfavour with the Jewish writers, who studiously ignore him after 70 (50) a.D. (Charles, Apoc. Bar. pp. 21, 101; DB, i. p. 708; EBi, i. p. 218).

Cicero: "Genus autem hoc sermonum, positum in hominum veterum auctoritate et eorum illustrium, plus nescio quo facto videtur habere gravitatis" (De Amic. i. 4). Cp. Nicolai, Griechische Lit. ii. p. 502 sqq. (1877); and, for the pseudonymous Alexandrian literature, Susemihl, Geschichte d. Griech. Litt. in d. Alexandrinerzeit (1892), ii. pp. 574-601.

and that, among the very people from whom Christianity rose, and by whose literary principles it was inevitable that early Christian literature should be affected. Two forms were common. Either, as has been already noted, names of Jewish prophets and heroes were employed; or, when the literature was designed for circulation in the pagan world, works were produced "under the name of some heathen authority, whether of a mythological authority, as the sibyl, or of persons eminent in history, as Hecataeus and Aristeas." 1 The letters of Heracleitus and the Solomonic correspondence written by Eupolemus indicate that the category came to include, during subsequent years, epistolary as well as prophetic compositions; a familiar instance of this practice occurs in the so-called "epistle of Jeremiah," preserved at the close of the book of Baruch.

Further, in the early Christian literature outside of our canonical NT, pseudonymity is almost a matter of course; the Petrine literature and the second letter of Clement are themselves sufficient to indicate the compatibility of pseudonymous character and popular appreciation.2 The whole raison d'être of pseudepigrapha lay in the stress put upon apostolic authority, especially during the early part of the second century. It is certain that each of the two apostles John and Paul left what in modern language would be termed a "school" or 66 'party," in which the master's ideas would insensibly be conserved and reproduced. Works issuing from such circles naturally took the master's name. Probably the title meant for antiquity not so much the actual authorship as the tendency and contents of the writing. It gave briefly and clearly the standpoint of the book. The unknown writers were conscious of religious and mental affinities with Paul, or John, or Peter, as the case might be, and probably they required nothing more to justify their use of such names; they meant nothing else than to meet fresh difficulties and problems by a restatement of older ideas which they believed authoritative, and would not willingly see forgotten. The very fact that Paul and Peter were

3

1 Schürer, HJP, II. iii. p. 270 f.; cp. R. Steck, ZSchz (1884), pp. 31-52, "Ueber die Annahme sog. unechter Schriften im NT"; Kuenen, Religion of Israel (Eng. tr.), iii. pp. 176-178; Hausrath, i. pp. 113-120; and Overbeck-Zeller, ii. p. 262. In regard to letters the rôle of the scribe or secretary must not be forgotten. That functionary plays an important part in the NT epistles, and his employment helps to differentiate several literary phenomena which would otherwise fall under the title of "pseudonymous." See Prof. Rendel Harris in Exp.5 viii. pp. 401-410, who remarks, à propos of Epaphroditus, that Paul's method of dictating to a scribe is precisely the same usage as that which still prevails in Eastern life, "where the great man (patriarch, primate, or what you will) calls over to his secretary the terms of his proposed communication, perhaps revises it rapidly, adds a few words of his own, and seals the document with his private seal."

2 Writings like the Didachê and the epistle of Barnabas show how readily later generations put literature under the shadow of earlier and greater names. A rigidly conservative protest against pseudonymous hypotheses upon the NT is given by Wetzel (Echtheit u. Glaubw. Joh. pp. 19-36).

3 Holtzmann, Einl.

pp.

191 f. See Schmiedel's paragraphs in EWK, sect. ii. 2, pp. 309-337, art. "Kanon also the note above on 2 Peter, pp. 597-598.

The hypothesis is not absolutely required for 1 John. In some passages, particularly 11-4, it appears as if the writer desired to represent himself as one of the actual disciples of Jesus; but this superficial impression is corrected when the language is taken along with expressions such as Jn 114, 1 Jn 414 36, which prove that the words simply express the faith-mysticism of the early church and its consciousness of possessing a direct experience of God in Christ. Even for the strange metaphor (nanov) an almost contemporary parallel has been found in Tacitus, Agricola, xlv., "Mox nostrae duxere Helvidium in carcerem manus "-of the Roman senators. 4 Baur, Paul (Eng. tr.), ii. p. 110.; cp. Jülicher, Einl. pp. 32-34; Kautzsch, KAP, i.; Einleit. pp.xxii, xxiii; and Deissmann, Bibel-Studien (1895), pp. 200-202, 225, 233 f.

authorities for the sub-apostolic church in matters of faith and organisation, seemed a valid reason why they should be in a sense the authorswe should say, the sponsors or patrons of whatever literature arose within the circle of such institutions and ideas. Pseudonymous literature is intelligible only against this background of the naïveté and practical interests which filled the second century, together with the inheritance and admiration which it owed to its great predecessors.

The bearing and gravity of these facts must be weighed in regard to the NT literature. As a recognised literary form, pseudonymity was honestly employed in classical and Jewish literature up to and after the period of the NT; and so soon as Christian literature starts for itself, the same feature emerges. It is impossible to resist the conclusion that the method is applicable to a part of the NT literature, at least as a legitimate hypothesis1 to be discussed without prejudice. If it solves the date and function of any writing, it is its own justification.2

Pseudonymity, it should be recollected, is merely a further stage upon the line already indicated by the composition of speeches like those in Acts, or even in the fourth gospel (vide Reuss, pp. 354-374: a fair and frank statement). In neither case can there be any question of ipsissima verba absolutely. Such a reproduction is not to be dreamt of. The speaker's words and ideas come to us through the personality of the author or reporter, with his memory, and knowledge, and sympathy; although, as a rule, they can be regarded practically as expressions of the original man and his spirit, particularly when the reader is careful to make some allowance for the lack of a rigid distinction in the Oriental mind between oratio obliqua and oratio recta. Several of Paul's speeches in Acts were not heard by the author, even supposing that author was Luke; nor is there any reason to suppose that the speeches were noted down by an auditor or by a companion of the apostle. Consequently, as they stand, they represent more or less free compositions, which give at best a summary of the topics treated, and some indication of the speaker's general attitude and treatment. Now this relation of the historian to the speaker only differs in degree, not in kind, from that which the pseudonymous theory involves between the actual author and the man whose name the letters bear.3 A pseudonymous epistle like 2 Timothy is a form of indirect speech. It is a method of historical composition and-what is more to the point—the vehicle of a great soul's posthumous influence. By it, to resume the old phrase, dɩ avrηs ȧπоðaνìv

1 E.g. the hypothesis that "James was a pseudonymous book, rose at an early stage; it is noticed by Jerome (De Viris Illustr.2): quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine ejus edita asseritur.

2 See two cautious, fair articles by the late Dr. Candlish (Exp.4 viii. pp. 91 f., 262 f.), on "The Moral Character of Pseudonymous Books." The real difficulty is one less of facts than of statement, and Dr. Candlish's arguments are a good example at any rate of the way in which at the present time it seems necessary to handle this subject in many quarters. It is strange to notice the evident distress of Dr. Salmon at "the painful alternative" of pseudonymity which the criticism of 2 Peter suggests (INT, p. 491) to his mind. Cp. Dr. Sanday's general admission in regard to pseudonymous literature (Inspiration, pp. 224, 225).

As one of the most trusted and cautious critics has declared: "It is now recognised that there may be dramatic representations in scripture; that speeches may be put into the mouths of persons which never were actually spoken, and that even a situation may be idealised or created so as to present the conditions of a moral problem more vividly to the mind" (Dr. A. B. Davidson, Exp. i. p. 5). Cp. also Driver on the speeches in ancient and OT historians (Introd. Lit. OT,2 pp. xvii, 82f.; Deuteronomy, ICC, pp. lvii-lix, lx-lxii).