Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and to heresies in vers. 20-21 (Marcion's avridéoeis), standing at the close and out of connection (von Soden) with the rest of a letter which ends naturally with ver. 16, suggest to Harnack (Chron. pp. 481 f., 711) a date for this passage not earlier than the fifth decade of the second century (HD, i. p. 270 n.). On the other hand, Hort (Judaistic Christianity, p. 139 f.) finds that the Marcionite reference of the ȧvrdéσeis is “merely a seductive verbal coincidence," and interprets the word as an allusion to frivolous and casuistical discussions which correspond to the Halacha as do μύθοι and γενεαλογίαι to the Haggada.

Harnack sums up the postulates of criticism upon the pastorals in four points (1) They contain a genuinely Pauline element; (2) as they stand, they cannot have been written by Paul; (3) the substantial part of them was known to Polykarp (c. 115 A.D.); (4) the letters reveal one or two sections which can hardly have been written before the middle of the second century. Upon the first two of these points there is practical unanimity, and (3) is largely accepted. On the other hand, (4) is less certain. If admitted, it either contradicts (3) or else involves the application of the interpolation-theory (as with Harnack). Certainly, when each is taken as a literary whole, the three documents lie close together. They cannot be separated, as they stand, by any considerable length of time-a fact which, together with the utterly different tone of 2 Corinthians and Romans, wrecks any attempt to convey them back into the apostle's life previous to 60 a.d.

In the printed text, clarendon type indicates those passages which appear to the present editor to rest upon genuinely Pauline tradition, although in their extant form they must have been edited with more or less freedom. 2 Ti 115-18 parts easily from its context, but neither in the earlier part of this chapter nor in the second is it possible to distinguish with any literary precision the Pauline and sub-Pauline strata. In the fourth chapter, vers. 9-22a reproduce with great exactness personal details and motives of the apostle which point to their authenticity (as against Holtzmann, "In Wahrheit ist gerade hier Alles Copie "); but the section is not homogeneous, and must include notes of various dates and moods. In Tit 11-6 a Pauline note has been embedded, but the clearest fragment occurs in 312. 13 (14. 15). Upon the other hand, whatever sources may have been still at the disposal of the author in 1 Ti have been used in such a free fashion that their original form cannot be made out. Hesse's analysis is by far the most plausible, but the details cannot be pressed.

As to the dates of the above pieces, one can only offer a conjecture, partly owing to the fragmentary condition in which they have been preserved, partly owing to the inadequate information which we possess upon large spaces of Paul's life (e.g. 2 Co 1123 f.). But 2 Ti 115-18

Dr. Hort's remark that "the theory of large early interpolations does not work out at all well in detail" (Judaistic Christianity, p. 130), sounds like a colloquial expression of opinion rather than a conclusion based upon investigation of the facts in question; at any rate, it represents an attitude prior to recent movements of thought upon the whole subject. It is surprising, however, to find this obiter dictum echoed by writers upon all sides, as if its repetition absolved them from any fresh investigation into the evidence upon which it rests.

Bartlet (AA, pp. 511-515), who follows Zahn in the main, candidly admits, however, that a large Pauline basis, consisting of all the personal matter and much else, underlies the epistles; he also agrees that the possibility of interpolation "is a real one with letters so inorganic as those made up of counsels and exhortations. Such may easily grow by an almost insensible process of accretion."

46-12. 16-19 are probably from a late note, written after Philippians, when Tychicus had gone (Eph 621) to Asia Minor. Timotheus, who had been with him at an earlier stage (Col 11, Ph 11), is now absent, and Demas has relapsed. The sky is overcast and threatening; and Paul in loneliness wearies for his younger comrade. So much is clear. 2 Ti 413-15. 21. 22a again are earlier, and cannot be dated very much later than Paul's journey from Troas. They may have been written from Caesarea during his imprisonment. 420 cannot (Ac 2129) belong to this period, as Trophimus seems to have accompanied Paul to Jerusalem; its origin therefore must be earlier, possibly in the period Ac 1818 f). Of these passages at least one may say with Mr. G. A. Simcox (Exp. Ti. x. p. 431), "all these commissions and cautions are unlike a dying man; the writer is in a hurry for Timothy to come, simply because he is old and lonely.” Finally, the fragment Tit 312. 13 falls somewhere in Paul's second missiontour, written from Corinth or on his way to that city (Ac 2011). The plan of wintering at Nikopolis seems to have been abandoned, but Titus afterwards (2 Ti 410) appears in connection with the neighbouring district.

This attempt at reconstruction, however, is quite provisional and hypothetic, for it is easier to feel the presence of Pauline fragments than to trace them to their birth and native soil. But no analytic theory of this kind works out so badly in details, or inflicts such a strain upon the general evidence, as the traditional hypothesis which compresses the three letters, as they stand, into the lifetime of the apostle Paul.

1

James.--An attempt to find a pre-Christian origin for James has been independently made by Spitta (Urc. ii. pp. 1-239) and M. L. Massebieau ("L'épître de Jacques, est-elle l'oeuvre d'un Chrétien ?" Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1896, pp. 249–283). On this theory 1 James becomes almost like the Test. XII Patr., 4th Esdras, or the Didachê, an originally Jewish work written by a Jewish scholar and then revised by a Christian editor, who made certain additions in order to adopt the book to his later audience. The strength of this hypothesis lies in the obviously meagre Christianity of James, as well as in the rich series of parallels between it and the older Jewish literature of the day.2 These, it is held, point to a purely Jewish environment for the author and his readers. The interpolations necessitated by this theory are as follows:

11.—καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Spitta)

21.ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

interpolations by a Christian, in a writing, originally Jewish, which became a favourite with the early Christian writers of the NT.

But, even apart from the absence of allusions, natural in Jewish writing, to ritual or legal usages, the genuinely Christian elements elsewhere (127 πатρi, 27 39, perhaps 118), the resemblance to the gospels, and the

1 Spitta goes on to apply it also to Hermas (Urc. ii. pp. 240-347), where, however, he had been anticipated (as Krüger points out) by Schwegler (Nachapostolische Zeitalter, i. p. 333 f.). Massebieau finds its origin in Essene influences (op. cit. p. 270 f.): "l'auteur de l'épître est un juif helléniste, lettré, atteint par la philosophie grecque, universaliste, connaissant le milieu théologique de la Dispersion." Admittedly the letter often seems a Jewish island in the Christian stream.

2 But this dependence upon the Wisdom-conceptions and the Wisdom-literature had always been marked in early Christianity. Apart from the epistle to the Hebrews and Paul's letters, the synoptic gospels occasionally use the Wisdom-idea to present the very tradition of Jesus himself (e.g. Mt 1119-26-30, Lk 735 1149, Oxyrhynchite Logia, No. 3).

un-Jewish ideas of the writing (e.g. mioris in 13, the Bλaσpnμeîv 26. 7, and the passage 57 ff), it may be argued that the attempt to transform a Judaistic writing into a Christian document would certainly have gone further. The two phrases1 do not suffice even yet to give a distinctive, specific, Christian character to the book (in Luther's phrase, it does not preach and urge Christ), and, as McGiffert urges, it is hard to understand how the editor could have contented himself with their addition, instead of inserting further references to Christ's life and death (p. 583 n.). The latter course would have been perfectly easy and from a modern standpoint— natural. Besides, as Zahn hints, the cases adduced by Spitta-Sibyllines, etc.—are no true parallels, for in these cases interpolations were made, not to give the writings a Christian appearance and colour, but to transpose them into prophecies or corroborations of Christian truth. For these and other reasons, Spitta's view is rejected by Mayor (Exp.5 vi. pp. 1-14, 321338, and in 2nd ed. of his James, pp. cliv-clxxviii), Harnack (Chron. pp. 489, 490 n.), Zahn (Einl. i. pp. 101 f., 107 f.), von Soden (HC, ad loc. 3rd ed. 1899; also in ThLz, 1897, pp. 581–584), Adeney (CR, 1896, pp. 277-283), Wrede (LC, 1896, pp. 450, 451), and by Haupt in an appreciative but adverse review (SK, 1896, iv. pp. 747-777). The last-named attaches cardinal importance to the linguistic features of the epistle, its Grecisms, use of the LXX, etc. These suggest to him a Christian author, familiar with the older Jewish literature, and resident in the Diaspora.

Harnack (Chron. pp. 485-491) once threw out the suggestion that "James," like 2 Clem, consisted originally of a collection of anonymous addresses by some early Christian prophet, afterwards published under the name and title of "James " (TU, 11. ii. pp. 106–109; above, pp. 618 f.). Following out this suggestion, McGiffert regards it as possible that Ἰάκωβος Θεοῦ καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (11) were added in the second century to an anonymous epistle composed by some Hellenistic Jew before the close of the first century. The argument is ingenious but of very moderate size. Upon Harnack's hypothesis, the xaipei and xapàv of vers. 1 and 2 would be torn apart, whereas they are evidently linked together. Besides, if, as is urged, the general contents of the epistle have no affinity to the character and position of James, it is not easy to imagine how his name should have been affixed at all to this particular document, which fails to correspond with his traditional portrait. Here, as in the case of 1 Peter, the address seems isolated; in fact, it may be fairly held that, were it removed, the contents of neither writing would suggest James or Peter respectively as their authors. But the argument cuts both ways, and makes it improbable that any scribe or later editor would add so incongruous a title. Deissmann (Bibel-Studien, pp. 245–247) explains the lack of personal touches throughout the epistle by emphasising its oecumenical character. It is a letter only in form, he thinks: "Aber so wenig Diaspora ein geographischer Einzelbegriff ist, so wenig schreibt Jacobus' einen Brief. In der Jakobusepistel redet weniger ein bedeutender Mann als eine bedeutende Sache, mehr das Christentum als ein Christenmensch." This ideal and general character of the epistle, he argues, is preferable to the conception (Feine,2 Der Jacobusbrief untersucht) of a

·

1 As Zahn correctly points out, the very difficulty of 21 is a proof of its originality. An interpolator would have taken pains to make his meaning clear and distinct.

2 Who regards the homily as originally addressed to the Palestinian church, and afterwards issued in letter-form to Christian Jews of the Dispersion (pp. 68-100). This is a plausible theory, but it becomes unnecessary so soon as the early date is abandoned. Bacon (Journ. Bibl. Lit., 1900, p. 12 f.) dates it 75-95 A.D., not later.

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, is due here as in the Wisdom of Solomon to the writer's gnomic style,' although at the same time it must be admitted that the cognate and much more elaborate "Shepherd" of Hermas bears, in its extant form, some traces of having been put together from previous flyleaves of prophetic addresses. The analogous abruptness with which Ecclus (5129. 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 that in 21 the words μv 'Inσoû Xpiσtov 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: Tns dóέns does not go satisfactorily with either TíσTIV or Kupiov, and the most simple view, which regards it as in apposition to 'I. X., has little in its favour. On the other hand, ó KÚPIOS TÊS dógns 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, ouk av Tov KÚρLOV TÊS DONS EoTaupwσav). Whether the author of James intended it for God (as 2 127 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 117-21 before him, to append the gloss u. 'I. X., either to explain the ambiguous phrase or to definitely bring it into line with 1 Co 28.

The linguistic coincidences between Judas and 2 Peter cannot, any more than those between Colossians and Ephesians, be indicated in print. But a tabular résumé,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. (a) 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 41-10 and 51-6 as interpolated fragments of polemic against the unbelieving Jews (Jacoby, NT Ethik, pp. 170 f.). In this class of literature a certain detachment inevitably belongs to many sections. The Wisdom of Seirach is an example itself, though there also compilation and interpolation have been occasionally suggested.

2 The parallel in Ecclus 3512-15 is most remarkable: there, however, as in Ps 811-3 (ō Deòs by σuvarwyn) 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 (Heb 121-3) but Paul, in his search for examples of zoov (510 f.), although even Clem. Rom. (5) had already found an illustration of that virtue in the apostle of the Gentiles (Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον ὑπέδειξεν . . . εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός).

3 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 (σmidades, omidoi, e.g.): his threefold rhythm is lost; his images are used for different ends. (b) Judas, too, is a unity; from first 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 211= Jud, 2 P 24 =Jud 6). 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. 218 f. 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.--ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου, 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, 'Inooû Xpiσтoû doûλos, ådeλpòs de 'lakóßou was added between 150 and 180 A.D., for the sake of increasing its authority.

2

2 Peter. Grotius, besides attributing the epistle to Symeon, the successor of James in the bishopric of Jerusalem, held the composite 2 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 Kübel). Matthew Arnold (God

weight. Also, if he 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 epistle of so obscure a writer as Jude" (BI, p. 449).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

* He finally conjectured that Πέτρος καὶ ἀπόστολος (11), ὁ ἀγαπ. ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς (315), and 17 were interpolations. Bartlet (AA, 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.

In this way, if 120-33 could be 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. Usteri's ed. of 1 Peter, p. 315 f.), though Gess (Das Apost. Zeugniss von Christi Person, II. 2. p. 414 f.) holds that 120b-33 certainly forms an unauthentic insertion.

« AnteriorContinuar »