there are three notes of a late period in this passage. (a) The universal mission (vers. 19, 20)1 can hardly have been known to the first disciples, or else they lived for years in flagrant disobedience to their Master's solemn command, and only reluctantly recognised its fulfilment in the Pauline gospel. For such an injunction as this could not be fulfilled by any merely passive acknowledgment of its claims as met in another man's person. It demanded active personal propaganda on the part of the disciples, and this is precisely what was not forthcoming, to judge from our records of the apostolic age. (b) The incipient Trinitarianism marks a stage of apostolic reflection which is in advance even of that indicated 2 in Paul (2 Co 1313). It is not possible to hold that the formula "sums up simply in a single phrase the theology of Jesus" (Bruce, Apologetics, p. 464, and more cautiously Stevens, NTTh, pp. 146– 149), for although Jesus spoke of God as Father, and like every Jew had an idea of the Spirit, it is the objective collocation of these with himself that marks off this passage as unique. Besides, the references to the Spirit in the synoptists require very careful sifting before they can be used as evidence for Christ's own conception. (c) The use of the baptismal formula belongs to an age subsequent to that of the apostles, who employed the simple phrase of baptism into the name of Jesus (eis xpiorÓV, Tì Tô óvóμarı 'I. X.). Had this phrase been in existence and use, it is incredible that some trace of it should not have survived; whereas the earliest reference to it, outside this passage, is in Clem. Rom. and the Didachê (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61).

The earliest background for such a passage, whose original form may have resembled Jn 20 22. 23 (M. Arnold, Lit. Dogma, pp. 152, 153), is to be found in the last quarter of the first century; and when the gospel as a whole is placed c. 80 A.D., it is not incredible that the words should form an integral part of it. In this event they form a secondary tradition, due not to Jesus but to the later spirit of the church,5 which, on the basis

1 The presence, side by side, of universal and particularistic sayings (e.g. 105. 23 with this passage), forms, however, only one of several contradictions in Matthew. The author seems, as Holsten remarks, to have had two souls within his breast. The true praetorian guard of the universal principle in Christianity was not drawn from the first companions of Jesus.

2 In view of 1 Co 12, 2 Co 317-18, this amplified expression requires nothing to account for it, outside the ordinary usage of the terms. Certainly the passage in Mt., though late, need not therefore be untrustworthy. "One tradition may be later than another and more limited in circulation, and yet not be any less authentic" (Sanday, DB, ii. pp. 213, 214). But it is begging the whole question to proceed and argue that the triple baptismal formula was imposed on Paul and the early church, and that therefore it must rest on some authority.

3 This forbids us to treat the Spirit here as the specific gift of the Messianic salvation. Its usage and its context point unmistakably to the later Christological sense. 4 Resch (TU, x. 2, pp. 381-428, 447 f.), like Roehrich (pp. 317-319), still asserts the genuineness of the logion on baptism (vide Exp. Ti. vi. pp. 395-398), but on inadequate grounds. Cp. also Zahn (Einl. ii. p. 309), and on the historical connection of Jesus and the rite of baptism, Keim (op. cit.) and Bruce (Kingdom of God, p. 257 f.). On the other side, Teichmann (ZThK, 1896, p. 357 f.), Weizsäcker (ÁÂ, ii. pp. 252-254), but especially Holtzmann (NTTh, i. p. 378 f.),

This legitimate and faithful development is recognised on all hands. Cp. besides Weizsäcker and Wendt (LJ, i. pp. 212, 213), Harnack (HD, i. 79 n.), Ŵ. Brückner (PM 1899, pp. 107-110), Weiss (NTTh, i. p. 139 n., and in Meyer, ad loc.), Professor Bruce (Apologetics, pp. 463-465, and ExGT, i. pp. 338-340), Wernle (op. cit. pp. 192, 195), McGiffert (AA, p. 61 n.), and even Canon Robinson (EBi, i. p. 474). Dalman (Die Worte Jesu, i. pp. 136, 158 f., 235) promises a discussion in a future volume.

1

of Dan 714 f., idealised and expanded his earlier teaching under the growing stress of reverence for his authority (Beyschlag, NTTh, i. pp. 178, 318), and out of a consciousness of what his person and purpose meant to themselves and to the world. "In maintaining that these commissions" [Mt 2816-20, Lk 2445-49, Jn 2021-23, Mk 1615-18] are genuine" [i.e. ipsissima verba of Jesus], "theologians simply waste their words and provoke unqualified scepticism" (Blair, Apostolic Gospel, pp. 390-393). The least obnoxious device of the harmonists is to regard the references in Acts and Paul (baptism into the single name or person of Jesus) as abridged statements of the fact that the baptism was Christian, not as expressions of the baptismal formula, which was really that enjoined by Christ. A passage like Ac 183 certainly implies a connection of the Spirit with baptism, but the connection is plainly (ver. 6) on a line with the other references in Acts to the ecstatic connection of the two. It must not be viewed (as e.g. by Denney, DB, i. p. 577) as a witness to the custom of Mt 2819.

It is very tempting to regard, not merely 18b, but the whole commission, vers. 18-20, or even 16-20, as a later addition (so Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. p. 156, on 1817-20), composed out of the developing "catholicism" and christology of the church, and inserted as a conclusion to the gospel. The main drawbacks are the absence of a textual basis and the abrupt state of what would be the original Matthew. Could that writing have deliberately ended with οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν, οι μέχρι τῆς σήμερον ? Mark 168 is but an imperfect parallel, and it would be rather difficult to conjecture how so elaborate and considerable a history was left unfinished. Still in some aspects the ending μ. T. σ. is rather effective; it would be quite possible as the close of the narrative, were it not for the obvious artistic motive of the author in opening (chap. 5) and closing his narrative of Jesus' work with a mountain scene.

[N.B.-The general background for later interpolations in the synoptic gospels is hinted at in the well-known passage where Eusebius (HE, III. 37. 2) speaks of the work done by Christian evangelists during Trajan's reign, in circulating the scripture of the divine gospels (Tv Tv beiwv εὐαγγελίων παραδιδόναι γραφήν) among those who were still ignorant of the Christian faith. Both Holtzmann (HC, I. p. 23) and Réville (1. p. 327) infer that Eusebius has confused the circulation of the gospels with their composition, and that this period really saw the final editing rather than the propagation of the gospels; these writings being based on documents like the Ur-Marcus and the Matthaean Logia, which had been in circulation for decades. But the passage may also be a reflection of that editorial activity (in Asia Minor) during the early years of the second century, by which, as many scholars imagine, our canonical gospels were harmonised and shaped into something like a uniform collection. It is highly important to remember that our gospels were thus arranged in a preliminary canon at this time, for the step may have easily set in motion harmonising influences which would affect the text

1 In regard to (a), the desperate plight to which literalists are reduced in refusing to see the apostolic origin of Mt 2816-20, is plain, when a scholar of Dr. Hort's candour (Ecclesia, pp. 85-90) solves the problem of the twelve and the Gentiles thus. It is inconceivable, he admits, that previously to Paul they preached beyond the limits of Palestine. Up to the time of Ac 15 they did not believe themselves clearly commissioned to go in person to the nations; when the Pauline mission occurred, they patronised it, and by this recognition believed themselves to be discharging their task! As if Mt 2816-20 was not an explicit "divine monition"! And as if approving more or less cordially of another person's work absolved one from the duty of personal obedience to the same command (Topsułévres)!

of the different books. Add to this their use in the worship of the churches a fact which helps to explain their structure, just as one sometimes unravels the composition of the Scots ballads by recollecting that they were originally made to be chanted to some homely lilt among the peasantry. These and other contributory causes were at work upon the text, and must have produced their effects prior to the earliest MS. Indeed, the first quarter of the second century saw the rise of such processes upon a not inconsiderable scale. The problem somewhat resembles that set by the Psalter, in whose extant arrangement editorial labour and liturgical aims are traceable, not only in the general scheme of the collection, but in the structure of many individual psalms.]

Heb 3, 4.—Ít has been conjectured by Clemen that this represents an original Christian homily inserted by the author at some later time in his epistle (Exp.5 iii. p. 392 f.). He argues that 31-6 and 414-16 are alien to their present context, that they unite neither with the preceding nor with the subsequent passages, and that the writing 37-413 implies conditions different from those which obtain throughout the rest of the epistle. Chapters 3, 4 are consequently to be taken as episodical. But the arguments in support of this position depend on special interpretations of certain phrases, and are in no sense decisive. The contrast of Christ with Moses certainly seems superfluous to a modern mind, and even comes as an anti-climax after the contrast with the angels; but Hebrews was not written for a modern mind. In fact, the data ingeniously collected by Clemen are only conclusive if we adopt a priori ideas of the author's purpose and literary methods; they fail to prove the case for an interpolation here. The passage in question fits in to the context with sufficient relevance, and it cannot be said that the ordinary exegetical methods for explaining the connection do real violence to the text. At the same time it is quite credible that this section, like other parts (11, 13) of the book, originally filled the rôle of a Christian homily. The composite nature of Hebrews was felt as far back as the sixteenth century; to Luther it seemed "put together out of many pieces." Yet the apparently disjointed episodes (21-4 31-413 511-620 etc.) can for the most part be explained in their present context as digressions. Whatever their career and function may have originally been, the different parts of this epistle have been skilfully disposed by an author of much literary tact, whose work contains (von Soden) moral homilies, but is very far from being a mere collection of such pieces.

1318-24 (22-25).—An addition intended to give an epistolary character to the book, or to secure belief in its Pauline authorship: so Overbeck, Zur Gesch. Kanons, pp. 12-17; Weizsäcker, AA, ii. p. 158; Harnack, TU, 11. 2. pp. 106, 107, HD, ii. p. 47 n.; Lipsius, GGA (1881), p. 359 f.; and Brückner, Chron. pp. 36 f., 248 n. 1. This might involve also either the accidental loss of an opening paragraph (cp. Deissmann, Bibel-Studien, pp. 242, 243) containing the real author's name, or its deliberate excision about 160–175 A.D. in order to further the epistle's reception into the canon. The former hypothesis has a parallel in 3 Macc, of which the opening leaf has evidently been lost. But the whole theory is dubious. It lacks confirmation, either in the textual or in the canonical history of the writing, and there is every reason to

1 Reuss (pp. 241, 242) takes the whole chapter as a sort of after-thought, an addition made by the author in order to apply his treatise to a particular circle of Christians. The directions and motives of this chapter are consequently different from those which prompted the composition of the previous twelve.

suppose that, had a later writer introduced interpolations with the object of Paulinising, he would have made his meaning much more clear and explicit. The meagre reference to Timothy would hardly have been adequate to bring the epistle under Paul's aegis. So, besides Clemen and Holtzmann, von Soden (JpTh, 1884, pp. 435-439), and Zahn (GK, i. p. 300 f.; Einl. ii. pp. 121, 122). The passage, in fact, is as integral and natural a part of the writing as any postscript could be. Even the loss of a preface is rather an unnecessary supposition. The abrupt and stately opening of Hebrews is like that of 1 John. In the case of both, the original readers had a knowledge of the author from other sources, which has quite faded from reliable tradition; it was the less likely to be preserved, as both writings were never meant or allowed to be merely local.

There seems as little reason for doubting (with G. A. Simcox, Exp. Ti. x. pp. 430–432) the homogeneity of chap. 13 as a letter of commendation or a series of excerpts from such letters. The double reference to youμevo (7, 17) is quite credible, if during the past history of the church some of its leaders had died. Memory of the dead and obedience to their living successors are not incompatible, nor do the two counsels require to be bridged by the notice that successors had been appointed. That might well be taken for granted.

[N.B.-In Luke (and even in Matthew), Acts, and the Apocalypse, it has been found impracticable to notice all passages where an earlier source and a later redactor can be suspected together. These passages fall to be discussed in a commentary, and should be noticed in any firstrate edition. As far as possible, only such passages are noted in these books as are held to be interpolations by an editor or scribe, subsequent to the composition of the book as a whole. But it is hard to carry out this principle consistently.]

66

Lk 134-35.—Like 167. 76-79. 80, etc., an interpolation by a redactor, according to Hillmann (JpTh (1891), pp. 192-261, "Die Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu nach Lucas "). He traces this redactor at work especially in the 'supernatural" passages of Luke 1-2; cp. Holtzmann (HC, i. pp. 26-54; NTTh, i. pp. 412, 413) and the critique by Resch (TU, x. 5, p. 73 f.). Wernle objects with reason (op. cit. pp. 102-106) to the un-Lucan hypothesis of bold interpolations in an earlier source, as it conflicts with the general method and characteristics of the historian. He agrees with J. Weiss, however, that the tradition and source used by the author came from Palestinian Jewish Christianity.1 J. Weiss (-Meyer, ad loc.), for his part, is more reticent than Hillmann in pronouncing on definite interpolations; he correctly refers Lk 149-55 to the death of Herod Agrippa (Ac 12)-if Jewish-Christian-and dates the whole source previous to 70 A.D. from its allusions to the Temple cultus (19 222. 37. 49), the Messiahship (132.68), etc. Professor Bruce (ExGT, i. p. 460) assumes the use (with a few editorial touches) of an Aramaic Jewish-Christian source, which is allowed to speak for itself; and this may be said to represent the general standpoint of many investigators. The problem of Luke 1, 2 can be, in fact, approached along three avenues. (a) The use of a Jewish-Christian source, revised and incorporated by the author of the gospel. (b) The translation of a Hebrew (Aramaic?) source by a later author, who may

1 On the "Messianic Psalms of the NT" (Lk 1-2), see Warfield, Exp.3 ii. pp. 309 f., 321 f.; also Zahn, Einl. ii. p. 404 f.; and Gore, Dissertations, p. 17 f. N. Schmidt (EBi, i. p. 936) conjectures even that an Apoc. of Zechariah has been used in Lk 172, which was current among the disciples of the Baptizer.

have deepened the Christian element in his version. (c) The free composition of the section by an author who skilfully suited his style so as to be in keeping with this archaic and biblical subject. The first and most likely of these methods is referred to above. The last-named has been advocated by Zeller (Overbeck-Zeller, ii. p. 295 f.), Abbott,1 and most recently Dalman (Die Worte Jesu, 1899, pp. 31, 32), while (b) is the well-known theory of Resch and—in a modified form-of Blass (Evglm sec. Lucam XXIII.; PG, p. 195). Vogel (Zur Charakteristik des Lukas, 1897, p. 32 f.), however, regards the source as now indistinguishable from the whole work.

The attempts to find a source for the birth-story in Mary (Gore, Dissertations, p. 18 f.,2 etc.), or to trace feminine characteristics in the record, belong to homiletics rather than to historical research. Luke's object in presenting these narratives is probably due (Zeller, ii. pp. 233238) to the fact that he wished to assign a place in Christianity to the traditional Jewish-Christian views of Jesus, especially as these existed in sources which had come to his hand. These tales form a circumstantial historical setting for the idea, which even Paul frankly recognised, that Jesus had been "born under the law" (Gal 45) as a minister of the circumcision" (Ro 158). The songs, which are not distinctively Christian, probably were in existence among the Palestinian communities, and are preserved here in much the same way as the verses that occasionally recur in 1 Macc. On their resemblance to the Pss. of Solomon, cp. Ryle and James's edition of the latter, p. xci f.; Chase (Camb. Texts and Studies, 1. 3, pp. 147–151) acutely traces both back to the Greek-Jewish prayers of the Hellenistic synagogues. It can hardly be said that the songs of Mary and Zachariah are entirely appropriate to the situations in which the author has introduced them; but they are at least as apt as those put into the mouth of Hannah (1 Sam 21-10), Job (Job 28), or Jonah (Jon 22-10). Cp. Harnack's__ essay on "Das Magnificat der Elisabet (Lk 146-55), nebst einigen Bemerkungen zu Lk 1-2" (reprinted from SBBA, 1900).

The sources of the third gospel may be summarised as follows:(a) The gospel of Mark. (Blass argues that while Mk was variously translated, by Luke among others, the extant Greek text of Mk is not Luke's version, which is preserved in D and some old Latin MSS; Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Markus, 1899).

(b) The Logia, in a Greek recension, possibly different from that used by the author of Matthew.

1 He compares the difference between Shakspere's ordinary style in his English plays and the massive dignity of his writing in Julius Caesar.

2 The most candid defence of the traditional position. It is even admitted that to accept the narrative as substantially historical is not incompatible with the supposition that the angelic appearances and communications reported in chaps. 1-2 are "imaginative, outward representations of what were in fact real, but merely inward communications of the divine word' to human souls" (pp. 21, 22). It is rather a drop from this momentary faithfulness to historical criticism, when the writer goes on to seriously explain that Matthew 1-2 is based upon a sort of moral certificate left by Joseph, in order to vindicate Mary's character! Resch (Das Kindheits-Evlgm. 1897) similarly builds upon family papers, from which excerpts were made by the evangelists. On the function of the historical conscience in dealing with these narratives, cp. Gardner, Explor. Evangelica, pp. 234-254, Réville, I. pp. 374-384, and also Mr. Jas. Thomas' Our Records of the Nativity and Modern Historical Research (1900), where some of the discrepancies and unhistorical elements in Mt 1-2, Lk 1-3, are discussed with unprejudiced ability.