《基督教会史》第四章：圣彼得与犹太人的归信

Translated from Philip Schaff’s History of The Christian Church

第四章 圣彼得与犹太人的归信（ST. PETER AND THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS）

目录

§ 24. 五旬节的神迹与基督教会的诞生，公元30年。

§ 25. 耶路撒冷教会与彼得的事工。

§ 26. 历史中的彼得与虚构中的彼得。

§ 27. 主的兄弟雅各。

§ 28. 向外邦人宣教的预备。

§ 24. 五旬节的神迹与基督教会的诞生，公元30年。

Kαὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, Καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς

他们就都被圣灵充满，按着圣灵所赐的口才说起别国的话来。

使徒行传 2:4

“门徒们在我们的救主升天后所庆祝的第一个五旬节，是继上帝之子在地上显现之后最重大的事件。它是使徒教会的起点，也是那源于祂并在此后不断传播、运行的人类新属灵生命的起点，并将持续作工，直到全人类被更新为基督的形象。”——尼安德 (Neander) (Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel., I. 3, 4)。

文献资料

I. 主要来源：《使徒行传》2:1–47。可比较《哥林多前书》12章与14章。另请参阅以下学者对《使徒行传》的注释：奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、德韦特 (De Wette)、迈耶 (Meyer)、莱希勒 (Lechler)、哈克特 (Hackett)、亚历山大 (Alexander)、格洛格 (Gloag)、阿尔福德 (Alford)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、普伦普特 (Plumptre)、雅各布森 (Jacobson)、豪森与斯彭斯 (Howson and Spence) 等；以及对《哥林多书》的注释：比尔罗特 (Billroth)、克林 (Kling)、斯坦利 (Stanley)、海因里奇 (Heinrici)、爱德华兹 (Edwards)、戈代 (Godet)、埃利科特 (Ellicott)。

II. 关于五旬节神迹与说方言恩赐（glossolalia, γλωσσολαλία）的专题论文：赫尔德 (Herder) (Die Gabe der Sprachen, 里加, 1794)；哈泽 (Hase) (于维纳的《科学神学期刊》 (Winer’s “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol.”) 1827)；布利克 (Bleek) (于《神学研究与评论》(“Studien und Kritiken”) 1829及1830)；鲍尔 (Baur) (于《图宾根神学期刊》(“Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theol.”) 1830及1831, 以及《神学研究与评论》1838)；施内肯伯格 (Schneckenburger) (于其 Beiträge zur Einleitung in das N. T. 1832)；博姆莱因 (Bäumlein) (1834)；大卫·舒尔茨 (Dav. Schulz) (1836)；青斯勒 (Zinsler) (1847)；策勒 (Zeller) (Acts of the Apostles, I. 171, J. Dare 英译本)；伯姆 (Böhm) (Irvingite, Reden mit Zungen und Weissagen, 柏林, 1848)；罗斯托伊歇 (Rossteuscher) (Irvingite, Gabe der Sprachen im apost. Zeitalter, 马尔堡, 1855)；阿道夫·希尔根费尔德 (Ad. Hilgenfeld) (Glossolalie, 莱比锡, 1850)；迈尔 (Maier) (Glossolalie des apost. Zeitalters, 1855)；维泽勒 (Wieseler) (于《神学研究与评论》1838及1860)；申克尔 (Schenkel) (于其《圣经词典》(“Bibel-Lex.”) V. 732 的“Zungenreden”词条)；范亨格尔 (Van Hengel) (De gave der talen, 莱顿, 1864)；普伦普特 (Plumptre) (于史密斯《圣经词典》(Smith’s, “B. D.”) IV. 3305, 美国版，“Gift of Tongues”词条)；德利奇 (Delitzsch) (于里姆《圣经手册》(Riehm’s “H. B. A.”) 1880, p. 1184，“Pfingsten”词条)；K. 施密特 (K. Schmidt) (于赫尔佐格 (Herzog) 第二版, xvii., 570 sqq.)。

另请参阅：尼安德 (Neander) (I. 1)，兰格 (Lange) (II. 13)，埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) (VI. 106)，蒂尔施 (Thiersch) (p. 65, 第三版)，沙夫 (Schaff) (191 and 469)，法勒 (Farrar) (St. Paul, ch. V. vol. I. 83)。

基督升天十日后，圣灵降临于世，基督教会由此诞生。五旬节的事件是逾越节事件的必然结果。若无此前的复活与升天，五旬节绝不可能发生。这是被高举的救赎主在天上施行中保统治的第一个行动，也是祂一系列显现的开端，为要实现祂“常与你们同在，直到世界的末了”的应许。因为祂的升天只是收回了祂可见的、局部的临在，并开启了祂在教会中的属灵的无所不在，这教会是“祂的身体，是那充满万有者所充满的”。复活节的神迹与五旬节的神迹，透过整个基督教世界每日不断发生的重生与成圣的道德神迹，得以延续和证实。

关于那个划时代的事件，我们只有一个可靠的记载，那就是《使徒行传》第二章。但在我们的主与门徒离别的话语中，祂对保惠师（Paraclete）的应许——那位要引导他们进入一切真理的——是极为突出的^[1]，而使徒教会的全部历史，也都被五旬节的火焰所照亮和温暖。^[2]

五旬节，即逾越节安息日后的第五十天^[3]，是一个充满喜悦和欢乐的节期，正值一年中最美好的季节，吸引了大量来自异乡的朝圣者来到耶路撒冷。^[4] 它是犹太人三大年节之一，所有男性都必须在主面前显现。第一个是逾越节，第三个是住棚节。五旬节持续一天，但被掳之后的外国犹太人将其延长至两天。它被称为“收割节”或“初熟果子节”，并且（根据拉比的传统）也是西奈山颁布律法的周年纪念日，据说这发生在以色列人出埃及后的第五十天。^[5]

这个节期非常适合作为使徒教会历史的开篇事件。它典型地指向了第一次基督徒的丰收，以及在基督里建立的新神权统治；正如逾越节羔羊的献祭和出埃及的经历，预示了上帝的羔羊被钉十字架所带来的世界救赎。在任何其他日子，被高举的救赎主所倾下的圣灵，都无法产生如此丰硕的成果，并如此迅速地广为人知。我们不仅可以追溯到耶路撒冷母教会的起源，还可以追溯到来自其他城市（如大马士革 (Damascus)、安提阿 (Antioch)、亚历山大 (Alexandria) 和罗马 (Rome)）的访客的归信，他们在返回时会将这大好的消息带回遥远的家乡。因为路加 (Luke) 所列举的见证了这一伟大事件的异乡人，几乎代表了所有后来因使徒们的事工而建立起基督教的国家。^[6]

复活那一年的五旬节是最后一个犹太（即预表性）的五旬节，也是第一个基督徒的五旬节。它成为了从罪中得赎的属灵丰收节，以及基督在地上的有形国度的诞生日。它标志着圣灵时代的开始，这是三一神启示历史的第三个纪元。在这一天，此前只是零星、短暂作工的圣灵，作为真理与圣洁的灵，带着丰满的救赎恩典，永久地居住在人类中间，从此将这恩典应用于信徒，并在他们心中启示和荣耀基督，正如基督曾启示和荣耀父一样。

当使徒和门徒们，约有一百二十人（十二的十倍），无疑大多是加利利人 (Galilaeans)^[7]，在节日的晨祷之前聚集，并祷告等候应许的实现时，被高举的救主从祂天上的宝座差遣圣灵降临在他们身上，并在地上建立了祂的教会。西奈山的立法伴随着“雷轰、闪电和密云，山上的角声甚是响亮，营中的百姓尽都发颤”。^[8] 新约的教会，则在令旁观者充满惊奇和恐惧的景象中诞生。正如尼安德 (Neander) 所言，这是非常自然的，“人类内在生命中最伟大的神迹，伴随着非凡的外在现象，作为其临在的感官标记。”一阵仿佛暴风吹过的超自然响声^[9]从天而降，充满了他们所坐的整个屋子；又有舌头如同火焰，分开降下，暂时停留在各人头上。^[10] 经文并未说这些现象真的是风和火，只是将它们与这些元素相比^[11]，正如圣灵在基督受洗时所取的形状被比作鸽子一样。^[12] 火焰般的舌头闪烁发光，却不燃烧也不吞噬；它们如同电火花或流星闪光般出现又消失。但这些可听可见的标记，是圣灵洁净、光照和赐予生命大能的恰当象征，宣告了一个新的属灵创造。舌头的形状则指向了说方言（glossolalia）的恩赐，以及作为圣灵感动恩赐的使徒性口才。

“他们就都被圣灵充满。”这才是真正内在的神迹，是核心事实，是五旬节叙事的中心思想。对使徒们而言，这集他们的洗礼、坚振礼和按立礼于一身，因为他们并未领受过其他的。^[13] 对他们来说，这是一种伟大的感动，使他们此后能藉着口传和笔述，成为福音的权威教师。这并非说他们此后在知识上不再成长，或在特定问题上不再有特别的启示（如彼得在约帕 (Joppa) 所领受的，以及保罗在多个场合所经历的）；但他们被赋予了对基督话语和救赎计划前所未有的理解。过去模糊不清、神秘难解的事，如今对他们而言变得清晰而充满意义。圣灵在基督复活和被高举的光中向他们启示了祂的位格与工作，并完全占据了他们的心思意念。他们仿佛被提升到了变像山，面对面看见摩西 (Moses)、以利亚 (Elijah) 和在他们之上的耶稣 (Jesus)，沐浴在属天的荣光里。他们如今只有一个渴望要去满足，只有一个目标要去为之而活，那就是为基督作见证，成为拯救同胞的器皿，使他们也能同得那“不能朽坏、不能玷污、不能衰残、为你们存留在天上的基业”。^[14]

但圣灵的交通并不仅限于十二使徒。它延伸至主的兄弟们、耶稣的母亲、那些曾追随祂事工的虔诚妇女，以及所有聚集在那间屋子里的一百二十位弟兄姊妹。^[15] 他们“都”被圣灵充满，并且“都”说起方言来；^[16] 彼得 (Peter) 在此事件中看到了那应许的圣灵要浇灌“凡有血气的”，包括儿子和女儿、少年人和老年人、仆人和使女。^[17] 在教会这春意盎然的季节里，一个显著的特点是，妇女与男性坐在一起，不像在圣殿里有独立的院子，也不像在会堂和至今东方衰落的教会中那样用隔板分开，而是在同一个房间里，作为属灵福分的平等分享者。这个开端是对末后的预言性期盼，也彰显了在基督里信徒普世的祭司职分和手足之情，在祂里面，无论是犹太人还是希腊人，为奴的还是自主的，男人还是女人，都合而为一了。^[18]

这个被圣灵光照、掌管和引导的全新属灵生命，首先表现为向着上帝说方言，然后表现为向着百姓作先知性的见证。前者包含了狂喜的祷告和赞美诗歌，后者则是冷静的教导和劝勉。门徒们如同他们的主一样，从变像山下来，进入下面的山谷，去医治病人，呼召罪人悔改。

说方言（glossolalia, γλωσσολαλία）这一神秘的恩赐在此首次出现，但连同圣灵其他非凡的恩赐一起，成为使徒教会（尤其是在哥林多 (Corinth)）中一种常见的现象，并由保罗 (Paul) 作了详细的描述。火焰般的舌头分赐给每一位门徒，便引发了说方言的现象。一种新的经历总是会以相应的语言表达出来。门徒们超自然的经历突破了日常言语的界限，爆发为对上帝在他们中间所行的伟大作为的狂喜赞美和感恩之言。^[19] 是圣灵亲自赐给他们口才，并在他们的舌头上弹奏，如同在调好音的新竖琴上奏出非属尘世的赞美旋律。说方言在这里，以及在所有提及它的地方，都是一种敬拜和颂赞的行为，而非教导和训诲的行为——后者是在彼得 (Peter) 的讲道中出现的。这是新生教会的第一首《感恩赞》（Te Deum）。它以不寻常的、诗意的、酒神颂般的风格和独特的音乐语调表达出来。只有那些与说话者有共鸣的人才能听懂；而不信的人则讥讽地将其归因于疯狂或醉酒。尽管如此，它对所有人都是一个重要的标记，提醒他们注意一种超自然力量的临在。^[20]

至此，我们可以说，五旬节的说方言，与哥尼流 (Cornelius) 在该撒利亚 (Caesarea) 归信后他全家的经历——这可被称为外邦人的五旬节^[21]——以及在以弗所 (Ephesus) 的十二位施洗约翰 (John the Baptist) 门徒的经历——那里它与说预言一同出现^[22]——以及在哥林多 (Corinth) 基督教会中的经历，是相同的。^[23]

但当它首次出现时，说方言对听众产生的效果有所不同，它直接以他们自己的母语进入他们耳中；而在哥林多 (Corinth)，它需要翻译才能被理解。那些外国的旁观者，至少是他们中的一部分人，相信那些没有学问的加利利人 (Galilaeans) 能够清晰地用当时在场的各种不同方言说话。^[24] 因此，我们必须假设，要么是说话者本人被赋予了——至少是暂时的，为了证明他们神圣使命的目的——说他们以前未学过的外语的恩赐；要么是分赐舌头的圣灵也同时充当了舌头的翻译者，将说话者的言语应用于听众中那些易受感动的人。

前者是对路加 (Luke) 语言最自然的解释。尽管如此，我仍建议后一种选择更可取，原因如下：1. 暂时被赋予超自然的外语知识，几乎包含了永久性赋予的所有难题，而后者现在已普遍被放弃，因为它远远超出了新约的数据和早期福音传播的已知事实。2. 说方言在旁观者到达之前就已经开始，也就是说，在有任何使用外语的动机之前。^[25] 3. 圣灵的介入协调了路加 (Luke) 的三次记载，以及路加 (Luke) 和保罗 (Paul) 的记载，即五旬节的说方言与哥林多 (Corinth) 的说方言；唯一剩下的区别是，在哥林多 (Corinth)，方言的翻译是由人用可听见的言语完成的^[26]，而在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 是由圣灵在内在的光照和应用中完成的。4. 圣灵当然在听众中作工，就像在说话者中一样，并在那个值得纪念的日子里促成了三千人的归信。如果祂应用并使彼得 (Peter) 的讲道生效，为何不能也应用之前的颂赞和祝福呢？5. 彼得 (Peter) 没有提及外语，他所引用的约珥 (Joel) 的预言也没有。6. 这种观点最能解释旁观者中出现的截然相反的反应。他们绝非所有人都理解这个神迹，讥诮的人，就像在哥林多 (Corinth) 的那些人一样^[27]，认为门徒们疯了，说的不是他们能听懂的本地话，而是莫名其妙的胡言乱语。说外语不可能被证明是醉酒的证据。或许有人会反对这种观点，认为这意味着听众们误以为是说话者直接使用了他们的母语；但这种错误并非关乎事实本身，而只是关乎其方式。是同一位圣灵感动了说话者的舌头和易受感动的听众的心，并将两者都提升到超越日常意识的水平。

无论我们对五旬节说方言的这一独特特征持何种观点，它对来自世界各地的众多旁观者的多样化应用，都是对基督教普世性的一个象征性预示和预言性宣告。这信仰将以地上所有的语言被传扬，并将万国联合在基督的一个国度里。教会的谦卑与爱，联合了巴别塔 (Babel) 的骄傲与仇恨所分散的。在这个意义上，我们可以说五旬节诸语言的和谐，是巴比伦 (Babylonian) 语言混乱的对应物。^[28]

说方言之后是彼得 (Peter) 的讲道；敬拜的行动之后是教导的行动；灵魂与神交通的狂喜语言之后，是为着百姓的益处，用冷静、平常、镇定的言语所作的宣讲。

当聚集的众人对这神迹怀着各种不同的情绪惊奇不已时，磐石般的人圣彼得 (St. Peter) 代表所有门徒站出来，以非凡的清晰和力量向他们讲话，可能用的是他自己的母语亚兰文 (Aramaic)，这对耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 的居民来说最为熟悉，也可能用的是希腊文 (Greek)，这对外国访客来说更容易理解。^[29] 他谦卑地驳斥了醉酒的指控，提醒他们当时尚早，连醉汉也还是清醒的，并引用先知约珥 (Joel) 的预言和大卫 (David) 的诗篇第十六篇，解释了这一超自然现象的意义，即这是拿撒勒人耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth) 的作为。犹太人曾将祂钉在十字架上，但祂藉着言语和行为，藉着从死里复活，藉着被高举到上帝的右边，并藉着圣灵的浇灌，被证明是应许的弥赛亚，正如经上明确预言的。然后，他呼召听众悔改，并奉耶稣的名受洗，因耶稣是天国的建立者和元首，这样即使是他们——那些曾钉死祂，这位主和弥赛亚的人——也能得到罪的赦免和圣灵的恩赐，他们亲眼看见并听见了圣灵在门徒身上的奇妙作为。

这是使徒们第一次独立的见证，是第一篇基督徒的讲道：朴实无华，却充满了圣经真理，自然、贴切、切中要害，并且比此后任何一篇讲道都更有效，即使那些讲道充满了学识和燃烧着口才。它最终促成了三千人的归信和洗礼，他们作为初熟的果子被收入教会的仓廪中。

在这被荣耀的救赎主所结的初熟果子中，在这以圣灵和福音的新法则取代那以律法和仪文的旧神权统治的建立中，犹太五旬节的预表意义得到了荣耀的应验。但这个基督教会的诞生日，反过来也只是一个开始，一个预表和保证，指向一个更伟大的属灵丰收和一个普世的感恩节，届时，约珥 (Joel) 的预言将完全应验，圣灵将浇灌在凡有血气的身上，所有世人的儿女都将行走在祂的光中，上帝将因祂奇妙的救赎之爱的大工告成，而获得以新的火焰之舌发出的赞美。

注释

I. 说方言 (Glossolalia)。——说方言的恩赐是五旬节神迹中最难解的部分。我们唯一的直接信息来源是《使徒行传》第2章，但这一恩赐本身在另外两处经文中也有提及，即10:46和19:6，以及《马可福音》16章的结尾部分（其真实性存疑），并在《哥林多前书》12章和14章中由保罗 (Paul) 作了全面描述。毫无疑问，这一恩赐在使徒时代确实存在，如果我们只有五旬节的记载，或者只有保罗 (Paul) 的记载，我们都能毫不犹豫地判断其性质；困难在于如何协调这两者。

(1) 用于描述这种奇特语言的术语有：“新方言” (καιναὶ γλῶσσαι, 《马可福音》16:17，基督应许这一恩赐之处)，“别国的方言”，即不同于寻常语言 (ἑτέραι γλ., 《使徒行传》2:4，仅此一处使用)，“各种”或“不同类的方言” (γένη γλωσσῶν, 《哥林多前书》12:28)，或简称为“方言” (γλῶσσαι, 《哥林多前书》14:22)，以及单数形式的“方言” (γλῶσσα, 14:2, 13, 19, 27，在这些经文中，英文钦定本 (E. V.) 插入了“未知的方言 (unknown tongue)”这一译法)。说方言被称为 γλώσσαις 或 γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν (《使徒行传》2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 《哥林多前书》14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27)。保罗 (Paul) 还使用了“用方言祷告” (προσεύχεσθαι γλώσσῃ) 这一短语，等同于“用灵祷告歌唱” (προσεύχεσθαι and ὑλλεῖν τῷ πνεύματι)，并与“用悟性祷告歌唱” (προσεύχεσθαι and ὑλλεῖν τῷ νῷ, 《哥林多前书》14:14, 15) 相区别。复数形式、“各种”方言的说法，以及“天使”的方言与“人”的方言之间的区别 (《哥林多前书》13:1)，都指向了根据说话者的个性、教育和情绪而有的不同表现形式（说话、祷告、歌唱），而非指各种外国语言，保罗 (Paul) 的描述排除了后者。

术语“舌头” (tongue) 有不同的解释。

(a) 维泽勒 (Wieseler) (及范亨格尔 (Van Hengel)) 认为：指说话的器官，被动地被用作工具；仅仅用舌头说话，发音不清，声音低微。但这无法解释复数形式，也无法解释“新的”和“别的”方言这些术语；因为说话的器官并未改变。

(b) 布利克 (Bleek) 认为：指罕见的、地方性的、古旧的、诗意的词语或注解 (glosses)，我们的“词汇表 (glossary)”一词便由此而来。但 γλῶσσαι 的这种技术性含义仅见于古典作家（如亚里士多德 (Aristotle)、普鲁塔克 (Plutarch) 等）和语法学家中，在希腊化时期的希腊语中则不然，并且这种解释也不适用于单数形式的 γλῶσσα 和 γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν，因为 γλῶσσα 只能指一个单独的注解词。

(c) 大多数注释家认为：指语言或方言 (διαλέκτῳ, 比较《使徒行传》1:19; 2:6, 8; 21:40; 26:14)。这是正确的观点。“舌头 (Tongue)”是“新方言 (new tongue)”的缩写（这是最初的术语，《马可福音》16:17）。它不一定指世上已知的某种语言，而可能指说话者对其母语的一种特殊运用，或是一种前所未闻的、新的属灵语言，一种在狂喜状态下直接受感而发的语言。“诸方言”则是这种受感语言的个别变体。

(2) 在哥林多 (Corinthian) 教会中的说方言现象，与《使徒行传》10:46 在该撒利亚 (Caesarea) 和 19:6 在以弗所 (Ephesus) 的记载显然是相同的，我们从保罗 (Paul) 的描述中对此有很好的了解。它发生在归信后热情初燃之时，并持续了一段时间。它不是说外国语言，这在归信者的敬拜聚会中毫无用处；而是一种不同于所有已知语言的语言，需要翻译才能让外人听懂。它与福音的传播无关，尽管它可能像其他敬拜行为一样，若有易受感动的非信徒在场，也能成为使人归信的途径。它是一种个人灵修的行为，一种在基督徒会众中的感恩、祷告和歌唱，由那些完全沉浸于与神交通的个人所发出，他们用破碎、突兀、狂想式、难以理解的言语来表达他们狂喜的感受。它更多是情感性的而非理智性的，是激动想象的语言，而非冷静思考的语言。它是灵 (πνεῦμα) 或狂喜的语言，与悟性 (νοῦς) 的语言有别。我们几乎可以用《启示录》（是在圣灵里构思的, ἐν πνεύματι, 《启示录》1:10）的风格与《约翰福音》（是用悟性写成的, ἐν νῷ）的风格作比较，来说明这种差异。说方言者处于一种属灵的陶醉状态，如果我们能用这个词的话，类似于莎士比亚 (Shakespeare) 和歌德 (Goethe) 所描述的诗意“癫狂”。他的舌头像一把七弦琴，圣灵在其上弹奏天国的旋律。他处于无意识或半意识状态，几乎不知道自己是“在身内还是在身外”。除非一个人也处于类似的恍惚状态，否则无人能理解这种即兴的宗教狂想。对于一个不信的外人来说，这听起来像是一种野蛮的语言，像号角发出的不定之声，像疯子的咆哮 (《哥林多前书》14:23)，或是醉汉的胡言乱语 (《使徒行传》2:13, 15)。“那说方言的，原是不对人说，乃是对神说；因为没有人听出来；然而他在心灵里，却是讲说各样的奥秘。但作先知讲道的，是对人说，要造就、安慰、劝勉人。说方言的，是造就自己；作先知讲道的，乃是造就教会” (《哥林多前书》14:2–4; 参看 26–33)。

哥林多 (Corinthians) 的信徒显然高估了说方言的恩赐，视其为神能的一种炫耀性展示；但它更多是装饰性的而非实用性的，并随着教会的新婚期而消逝。保罗 (Paul) 本人也是说方言的能手 (《哥林多前书》14:18)，他伟大的智慧在于，将这一恩赐置于次要和短暂的位置，限制其运用，要求对其进行翻译，并偏爱那些具有持久功用、能彰显上帝为大众益处的良善与慈爱的恩赐。说方言是好的，但用人能听懂的话说预言和教导，以造就教会，则更好；而以实际行动爱神爱人则是最好的 (《哥林多前书》13章)。

我们不知道保罗 (Paul) 所描述的这种说方言现象持续了多久。它与使徒时代其他非凡的或严格意义上超自然的恩赐一样，逐渐消失了。在教牧书信和普通书信中均未提及。到第二世纪末，我们只有少数几处对此的提及。爱任纽 (Irenaeus) (Adv. Haer. v. c. 6, § 1) 谈到他在教会中听到“许多弟兄”拥有说预言和说“各样方言” (παντοδαπαῖς γλώσσαις) 的恩赐，能将人隐藏的事 (τὰ κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων) 显明出来，并阐明上帝的奥秘 (τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ θεοῦ)。他使用的“各样”一词在别处未见，尚不清楚他指的是说外国语言，还是指像保罗 (Paul) 所说的那种完全独特的各种方言。后者的可能性更大。爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 自己就必须学习高卢 (Gaul) 的语言。特土良 (Tertullian) (Adv. Marc. V. 8; 参看 De Anima, c. 9) 模糊地提到，属灵的恩赐，包括说方言的恩赐，在他所属的孟他努派 (Montanists) 中仍然显现。到了屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 的时代，它已完全消失；至少他将这一恩赐的晦涩归因于我们对事实的无知。从那时起，说方言通常被误解为一种为了宣教目的而赐予的神奇且永久性的外语恩赐。但整个宣教史并未提供任何明确的、为此目的而赐予此类恩赐的例子。

类似但层次较低且非神迹的现象，作为例证（无论是近似还是仿冒），在某些特殊的宗教复兴时期会不时重现，例如在法国的卡米撒派 (Camisards) 和塞文山脉的先知们中间，在早期的贵格会 (Quakers) 和卫斯理宗 (Methodists) 中，在摩门教徒 (Mormons) 中，1841至1843年瑞典的“读者派” (“Läsare”) 中，1859年的爱尔兰复兴运动中，尤其是在通常被称为欧文派 (Irvingites) 的“天主教使徒教会”中，自1831至1833年，甚至直到今天。见爱德华·欧文 (Ed. Irving) 在其《著作集》第五卷，p. 509等处关于称为超自然的圣灵恩赐的文章；奥利芬特夫人 (Mrs. Oliphant) 的《欧文传》第二卷；我在《使徒教会历史》§ 55, p. 198 中引用的描述；以及斯坦利 (Stanley) 的《哥林多书注释》p. 252，第四版中来自朋友和敌对者的描述；另见普伦普特 (Plumptre) 在史密斯《圣经词典》IV. 3311, 美国版中的文章。撰写过此主题的欧文派人士（蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、伯姆 (Böhm) 和罗斯托伊歇 (Rossteuscher)）对五旬节时说外国语言的方言与哥林多教会敬拜聚会中的说方言作了明显的区分；他们只将后者与他们自己的经历相比较。几年前，我在纽约的一个欧文派教会中目睹了这一现象；言语是破碎、脱口而出且无法理解的，但以一种不正常、惊人、令人印象深刻的声音发出，说话者处于一种明显的无意识和狂喜状态，对舌头没有任何控制，仿佛被一种外力所攫取。我的一位朋友兼同事（布里格斯博士 (Dr. Briggs)）于1879年在伦敦主要的欧文派教堂也目睹了此景，并得到了同样的印象。

(3) 五旬节的说方言不可能与哥林多 (Corinthian) 的本质上不同：它同样是一种狂喜的敬拜行为，为上帝在基督里的伟大作为而感恩赞美，是灵魂与上帝的对话。它是新生的基督教会拥有圣灵时，那欢欣鼓舞之情的至纯至高的表达。它在旁观者到达之前就开始了 (比较《使徒行传》2:4和6)，随后是彼得 (Peter) 用平实、普通的语言所作的宣教讲道。路加 (Luke) 另外两次提及同样的恩赐（路加福音10章和19章），显然是作为一种敬拜行为，而非教导。

然而，根据路加 (Luke) 叙述的明显含义，五旬节的说方言不仅在强度上与哥林多 (Corinthian) 的不同，还在于它能直接以听众自己的本地语言被他们理解，无需人为翻译。因此有了“别国的”方言这一术语，这是保罗 (Paul) 未曾使用，路加 (Luke) 在其他地方也未曾使用的；也因此有了那些外国人听到那些未受教育的加利利人 (Galileans) 用他们各自独特的方言说话时的惊讶。正是这种我可称之为异语现象 (heteroglossolalia) 的特征，构成了主要的困难。我将列出各种观点，这些观点要么否认，要么转移，要么强化，要么试图解释这种外语元素。

(a) 理性主义的解释快刀斩乱麻，直接否认神迹，认为这是叙述者或早期基督教传统的错误。甚至迈耶 (Meyer) 也放弃了异语现象，只要它与哥林多 (Corinthian) 的说方言不同，就视其为源于误解的非历史性传统，因为他认为突然获得说外语的能力是“逻辑上不可能，心理上和道德上都无法想象的”（《使徒行传注释》2:4, 第四版）。但是，作为保罗 (Paul) 同伴的路加 (Luke)，必定熟悉使徒教会中的说方言现象，并且在他另外两处提及此现象时，显然指的是与保罗 (Paul) 所描述的相同现象。

(b) 异语现象是听众的误解 (一个听觉神迹, Hörwunder)，他们在极度兴奋和深度共鸣的状态下想象自己从门徒那里听到了自己的语言；而路加 (Luke) 只是记述了他们的印象而未加纠正。这种观点曾被尼撒的格列高利 (Gregory of Nyssa) 提及（但未采纳），并为伪居普良 (Pseudo-Cyprian)、可敬的比德 (Bede)、伊拉斯谟 (Erasmus)、施内肯伯格 (Schneckenburger) 等人所持。如果五旬节的语言是希腊化方言，以其混合的特性、希伯来语式和拉丁语式的表达，当由内心深处被触动、超乎寻常的人说出时，就更容易产生这种效果。据说圣方济·沙勿略 (St. Xavier) 在不懂印度语言的情况下能让印度人明白他的意思；圣伯尔纳 (St. Bernard)、帕多瓦的圣安东尼 (St. Anthony of Padua)、圣文生·费雷尔 (St. Vincent Ferrer) 也能凭其雄辩的属灵力量，点燃和影响那些不懂他们语言的群众的热情。奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen) 和博姆莱因 (Bäumlein) 则借助磁学和梦游现象来解释，认为人们藉此进入了神秘的和谐状态。

(c) 说方言是指说古旧的、诗意的注解词，并夹杂外来词。这一观点由布利克 (Bleek) (1829) 作了博学的辩护，并被鲍尔 (Baur) (1838) 修改后采纳，上文 (p. 233) 已提及，认为其与希腊化时期的用法及路加 (Luke) 的自然含义不符。

(d) 神秘主义的解释将五旬节的说方言恩赐在某种程度上视为对巴别塔语言混乱的对应，要么是暂时恢复了伊甸园的原始语言，要么是对天堂语言的预言性期盼，在天堂里所有语言都将合一。这一理论虽深奥但不明晰，它将异语现象 (heteroglossolalia) 变成了同语现象 (homoglossolalia)，并将神迹置于语言本身及其暂时的恢复或期盼之中。谢林 (Schelling) 称五旬节神迹为“巴别塔的逆转” (das umgekehrte Babel)，并说：“在整个宗教史的进程中，只有一件事可以与语言混乱的事件相提并论，那就是在五旬节那一天瞬间恢复的语言统一性 (ὁμογλωσσία)，基督教正是从这一天开始其伟大征程的，它注定要通过对独一真神的认识，将全人类重新联合为一。” (Einl. in d. Philos. der Mythologie, p. 109)。比尔罗特 (Billroth) (在其《哥林多前书14章注释》, p. 177) 也持类似观点，他认为原始语言结合了各种派生语言的元素，以致每个听众都能听到自己语言的片段。兰格 (Lange) (II. 38) 在此看到了内在属灵生活的标准语言，它联合了被赎者，并在教会各时代中像语言的酵母一样运行，使语言重生、转化并分别为圣；但他也像奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen) 一样，假定说话者与听众之间存在一种共鸣关系。德利奇 (Delitzsch) (l.c. p. 1186) 说：“当时的使徒宣讲是用一种圣灵的语言发出的，它是在巴别塔破碎的那一种人类语言的对应物，并且被所有人无差别地、平等地理解。就像白光能分解出所有颜色一样，那被圣灵感动的使徒话语，如同经过棱镜折射般，让所有人都能听懂，并感动所有人的心。这是一个联合的序曲，巴别塔以来的分裂将在此中被消除。那属石头字句的西弯月之日，被一个属赐人生命的圣灵的西弯月之日所取代。这是教会的生日，是与旧约民族群体有别的圣灵群体；因此屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 在一篇五旬节讲道中称五旬节为‘节期之都’。”埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 的观点 (VI. 116 sqq.) 同样是神秘主义的，但独具原创性并以其惯有的自信表达出来。他称说方言为“基督徒热情的迸发与欢呼，是一切隐藏情感和思想以其最充分的直接性和力量的猛烈涌现。”他说，在五旬节那天，不同语言中最不寻常的表达和同义词（如 ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ, 《加拉太书》4:6; 《罗马书》8:15, and μαρὰν ἀθά 《哥林多前书》16:22），伴随着从天上回响的基督话语的记忆，在一个新的圣灵语言的漩涡中交融，以前所未闻、此后也再未听过的结结巴巴的赞美诗，表达了年轻基督教的洋溢喜悦，除非是在哥林多 (Corinthian) 和其他使徒教会中同样恩赐的较弱显现中。

(e) 五旬节的说方言是神迹性地永久赋予使徒们一种知识，使他们通晓所有需要用来传福音的外国语言。因为他们被差遣向万民传道，所以他们被赐予了万民的语言。这一理论最早由四、五世纪的教父们在说方言恩赐消失很久之后明确提出，并为大多数古代神学家所持，尽管有不同程度的修改，但现在几乎被所有新教注释家所放弃，除了华兹华斯主教 (Bishop Wordsworth)，他引用教父文献为此辩护。屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 认为，每位门徒都被分配了一种他传福音工作所需的特定语言 (Hom. on Acts 2)。奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 更进一步说 (De Civ. Dei, XVIII. c. 49)：“他们中的每一个人都说万国的语言；这象征着大公教会的合一将拥抱万国，并同样能说万国的语言。”一些人将语言的数量限制在路加 (Luke) 提到的外国民族和国家的数量（屈梭多模 (Chrysostom)），另一些人则将其扩展到70或72种（奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 和爱比法尼乌 (Epiphanius)），或75种，根据挪亚 (Noah) 的子孙数量（《创世记》10章），甚至120种（帕基亚努 (Pacianus)），根据在场门徒的数量。巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 在 Annal. ad Ann. 34, vol. I. 197 中提到了这些观点。罗马宣传部 (Roman Propaganda) 的语言节延续了这一理论，但它将属灵热情的道德神迹变成了一种习得未知语言的机械神迹。如果所有说话者都像五旬节那天一样同时说话，那将是比巴比伦更严重的语言混乱。

这样一个巨大的神迹，如果被假定存在，或许可以由那个创造性时代深远的重要性来证明其合理性，但它毫无先例，并被无法克服的困难所包围。该理论忽略了说方言在旁观者到达之前就开始了这一事实，也就是说，在没有必要使用外语之前。它孤立了五旬节的说方言，使路加 (Luke) 与保罗 (Paul) 以及他自己相矛盾；因为在所有其他情况下，说方言的恩赐都表现为一种敬拜的操练，而非宣教的工具。它意味着所有在场的一百位门徒，包括妇女——因为一个如火的舌头“落在他们各人头上”——都被呼召成为巡回布道家。这种神迹是多余的（一种奢侈的神迹）；因为自从亚历山大大帝 (Alexander the Great) 的征服以来，希腊语在整个罗马帝国被普遍理解，使徒们几乎不需要任何其他语言——除非是拉丁语和他们的母语亚兰语——来进行传福音的工作；并且事实上，新约的所有作者，甚至耶路撒冷的雅各 (James of Jerusalem)，都使用了希腊语，而且其使用方式表明他们像其他人一样，是通过早期训练和实践学来的。此外，在五旬节之后，没有任何迹象表明存在这种神奇的知识或其应用。^[30] 相反，我们必须推断保罗 (Paul) 不懂路高尼 (Lycaonian) 方言（《使徒行传》14:11–14），并且我们从早期教会传统中得知，彼得 (Peter) 使用马可 (Mark) 作为翻译 (ἑρμηνεύς or ἑρμηνευτής, interpres, 根据帕皮亚 (Papias)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和特土良 (Tertullian) 的说法）。上帝不会用神迹来取代学习外语和其他可以通过正常运用我们心智能力和机会获得的知识。

(f) 这是一种暂时的说外语现象，仅限于五旬节当天，并随着火焰般的舌头而逝去。这一例外因其目的而显得合理，即为了证明使徒们的神圣使命并预示福音的普世性。大多数接受路加 (Luke) 记载的现代注释家都持此观点，如奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)（他将此观点与观点b结合）、鲍姆加滕 (Baumgarten)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)、罗斯托伊歇 (Rossteuscher)、莱希勒 (Lechler)、哈克特 (Hackett)、格洛格 (Gloag)、普伦普特 (Plumptre)（在其《使徒行传注释》中），以及我自己（在《使徒教会历史》中），这最符合叙事的字面意思。但它同样在五旬节的说方言和哥林多 (Corinthian) 的说方言之间作了本质上的区分，而这是极不可能的。暂时被赋予一种前所未知的外国语言知识，即使不是比永久赋予更大的神迹，也是同样大的，并且在当时耶路撒冷和后来在哥林多 (Corinth) 同样是多余的；因为彼得 (Peter) 的宣教讲道只用一种语言，却能被所有人听懂。

(g) 五旬节的说方言与哥林多 (Corinthian) 的说方言本质上是相同的，即一种敬拜而非教导的行为；仅在翻译媒介上稍有不同：它被圣灵自己即时地在内部翻译并应用于那些相信并归信的听众，每人都用自己的母语理解；而在哥林多 (Corinth)，翻译则由说方言者本人或被赋予翻译恩赐的人来完成。

我找不到这一理论的权威依据，因此我谦虚地提出它，但在我看来，它避免了其他理论的大多数困难，并使路加 (Luke) 与他自己以及与保罗 (Paul) 的记载相协调。可以肯定的是，在基督里新创造的第一天，圣灵既感动了听众的心，也感动了说话者的舌头。五旬节的异语现象 (heteroglossolalia) 以一种自然的形式，在用各种语言宣讲福音以及三百多种圣经译本中得以延续。

II. 对五旬节神迹的错误诠释。

(1) 古典理性主义的诠释将风声解释为雷暴或充满电荷的飓风，将火焰般的舌头解释为落入会场的闪电或闷热大气中的电火花，将说方言解释为每个人用自己的母语祷告，而不是用神圣的古希伯来语；或者假设有些门徒事先就懂几种外地方言并在该场合使用。持此观点的有保卢斯 (Paulus)、蒂斯 (Thiess)、舒尔特斯 (Schulthess)、库伊诺尔 (Kuinöl)、施拉德 (Schrader)、弗里切 (Fritzsche)，以及实质上相同的勒南 (Renan)，他详述了东方雷暴的猛烈，但根据后世类似现象对说方言作了不同解释。这种观点使得旁观者和听众对如此寻常现象的惊奇本身成了一个神迹。它剥夺了他们的常识，或指责叙述者不诚实。它完全不适用于哥林多 (Corinth) 的说方-言现象，后者必须被承认是使徒教会中频繁发生的历史现象。它也与叙事中带有比较性的“仿佛” (ὥσπερ) 和“如同” (ὡσεί) 相矛盾，这些词将那响声与普通的风、火焰般的舌头与普通的火区分开来；正如所有福音书将圣灵在基督受洗时显现的形状比作“像鸽子”，表明那并非一只真的鸽子。

(2) 现代理性主义或神话理论将神迹解释为一种被早期基督徒误认为客观外部事实的主观异象。五旬节的说方-言（并非哥林多 (Corinth) 的，后者被承认是历史性的）象征着福音普世性的真正理念以及弥赛亚对语言和民族的统一（正如《十二先祖遗训》所表达的 εἰς λαὸς Κυρίου καὶ γλῶσσα μία）。它是对拉比虚构故事的模仿（在斐洛 (Philo) 处已有记载），即西奈山的立法是通过“神音的回声” (bath-kol, בת קול) 以世界上的七十种语言向万国宣告的。持此观点的有策勒 (Zeller) (Contents and Origin of the Acts, I. 203–205)，他认为整个五旬节事件，如果真的发生过，“在我们的记载中必定已被歪曲得面目全非。”但他主要的论据是：“神迹的不可能性和不可信性”，他宣称这是历史学家的“公理”（p. 175, note）；从而承认了他的历史批判背后所基于的否定性预设或哲学偏见。我们则相反，认为历史学家必须接受他所发现的事实，如果他无法从自然原因或主观幻觉中满意地解释它们，他就必须追溯到超自然的力量。现在，基督教会——这无疑是一个最明显、最不可否认的事实——必定是在某个特定地点、特定时间、以特定方式起源的，而我们无法想象比路加 (Luke) 所给出的关于其起源的记述更恰当、更令人满意的了。鲍尔 (Baur) 和策勒 (Zeller) 认为不可能有三千人在一天之内、一个地方归信。他们忘记了大多数听众并非怀疑论者，而是相信超自然启示的人，他们只需要被说服拿撒勒人耶稣 (Jesus of Nazareth) 就是所应许的弥赛亚。埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) 不点名地反驳策勒 (Zeller) 说 (VI. 119)：“没有什么比否认《使徒行传》第2章所记事件的历史真实性更荒谬的了。”我们同意罗特 (Rothe) 的观点 (Vorlesungen über Kirchengeschichte I. 33)，即五旬节事件是一个真实的神迹（“ein eigentliches Wunder”），是圣灵在门徒身上所行的，并赋予他们行神迹的能力（根据《马可福音》16:17, 18的应许）。没有这些神迹性的能力，基督教就不可能在当时的世界立足。基督教会本身，及其在本土和异教地区每日经历的重生与归信，就是其超自然起源的最好、最活生生、无所不在的证明。

III. 五旬节的时间与地点。 它发生在一个主日（复活节后的第八个），还是一个犹太安息日？是在一所私宅，还是在圣殿？我们倾向于主日和私宅。但各种意见分歧很大，论据几乎势均力敌。

(1) 星期几的选择，部分取决于对《利未记》23:11, 15, 16中律法规定计算第五十天的起点——“（逾越节）安息日的次日”——的解释，即它究竟是逾越节第一日的次日，也就是尼散月 (Nisan) 16日，还是逾越节那一周的常规安息日的次日；部分取决于基督被钉十字架的日期，那是在一个星期五，即这天是尼散月 (Nisan) 14日还是15日。如果我们假定基督受难的星期五是尼散月 (Nisan) 14日，那么15日就是一个安息日，那一年的五旬节就落在一个星期日；但如果受难的星期五是尼散月 (Nisan) 15日（我本人持此观点，见§ 16, p. 133），那么五旬节就落在一个犹太安息日（维泽勒 (Wieseler) 持此说，他将其定在公元30年5月27日，星期六），除非我们从尼散月 (Nisan) 16日的结束开始计算（如华兹华斯 (Wordsworth) 和普伦普特 (Plumptre) 所为，他们将五旬节定在一个星期日）。但如果我们将《利未记》23章中的“安息日”理解为通常意义上的每周安息日（撒都该人 (Sadducees) 和卡拉派 (Karaites) 的看法），那么犹太的五旬节就总是落在一个星期日。无论如何，基督教会一致地在复活节后的第八个主日庆祝圣灵降临主日，在这一事例中，如同在庆祝复活（星期日）和升天（星期四）的节日一样，都遵循了关于事件发生星期几的古老传统。这一观点为用主日——主复活和圣灵降临的日子——取代犹太安息日提供了额外的理由。华兹华斯 (Wordsworth) 说：“因此，一周的第一日被分别为圣，献给了永受赞美的、三位一体的三个位格；创造、救赎和成圣的祝福都在基督徒的星期日得到纪念。”维泽勒 (Wieseler) 毫无根据地假设，古代教会是出于反对犹太安息日而故意改变了日子；但五旬节与复活节一同庆祝似乎与基督教会本身一样古老，并有保罗 (Paul) 的先例可循，《使徒行传》18:21; 20:16。——莱特福特 (Lightfoot) (Horae Hebr. in Acta Ap. 2:1; Opera II. 692) 从尼散月 (Nisan) 16日开始计算五旬节，但通过对《使徒行传》2:1 ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς 的一种不寻常且存疑的解释，仍将第一个基督徒五旬节定在一个星期日，他将其解释为“当五旬节那日完全过去时”，而非“到了”。但无论五旬节是落在犹太安息日还是主日，这两种情况下的巧合都意义重大。

(2) 关于地点，路加 (Luke) 简单地称之为一间“屋子”（οἶκος, 《使徒行传》2:2），这很难指圣殿（直到2:46才被提及）。它很可能就是他在前一章提到的那间“楼上的房间”或密室，是门徒们在主升天后众所周知的惯常聚会地点 (τὸ ὑπερῷον …οὗ ἦσαν καταμένοντες, 1:13)。持此观点的有尼安德 (Neander)、迈耶 (Meyer)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、普伦普特 (Plumptre)、法勒 (Farrar) 等人。或许这正是我们的主与他们一同享用逾越节晚餐的那间密室（《马可福音》14:14, 15; 《马太福音》26:28）。传统将这两件事都定位在“晚餐厅” (Coenaculum)，这是一座不规则建筑内的一个房间，被称为“大卫墓”，位于锡安门 (Zion Gate) 外，离摩利亚山 (Mt. Moriah) 有一段距离。（见威廉·汤姆森 (William M. Thomson), The Land and the Book, new ed. 1880, vol. I. p. 535 sq.）。但耶路撒冷的西里尔 (Cyril of Jerusalem) (Catech. XVI. 4) 指出，圣灵降临的那个房间后来被改建成了一座教堂。东方房屋平顶下的最顶层房间 (ὑπερῷον, עֲלִיָּה) 常被用作祷告之所（比较《使徒行传》20:8）。但由于一所私宅不可能容纳如此众多的人群，我们必须推测彼得 (Peter) 是在街上从屋顶或外面的楼梯向民众讲话。

许多古代神学家，以及奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen)、鲍姆加滕 (Baumgarten)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、兰格 (Lange)、蒂尔施 (Thiersch)（以及我本人在《使徒教会》第一版中, p. 194），将五旬节的场景定在圣殿，或者更确切地说，在它周围三十个附属建筑之一，约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 在描述所罗门 (Solomon) 的圣殿时称之为“屋子” (οἴκους) (Ant. VIII. 3, 2)，或者在所罗门 (Solomon) 的廊下，这是从第一圣殿遗留下来的，门徒们后来也在此聚集（《使徒行传》5:12, 参看 3:11）。支持这一观点的理由可以说有：它更符合使徒们的习惯（《路加福音》24:53; 《使徒行传》2:46; 5:12, 42），符合神迹发生的时间（早晨祷告的时刻），也符合至少三千名听众的大规模聚集，并且似乎当事件发生在旧约具有象征和预表意义的圣所中时，更增添了其庄严性。但很难想象充满敌意的犹太人会允许这些贫穷的门徒占据其中一间圣殿建筑，而不干涉这一场景。在如今开始的圣灵时代，最卑微的住所和最谦卑的基督徒的身体都成了上帝的殿。参看《约翰福音》4:24。

IV. 五旬节的影响。 摘自法勒 (Farrar) 的《圣保罗的生平与事工》(Life and Work of St. Paul, I. 93)：“任何历史的读者都不会否认，这第一个五旬节标志着人类命运中的一个永恒时刻。毫无疑问，自那时以来的每一个时代，上帝的众子都被上帝的灵以前所未有的程度教导。毫无疑问，自那时以来，我们能以前所未有的程度认识到基督的灵住在我们里面。毫无疑问，我们能享受到一种与在基督里的神更近的联合感，这是旧约的圣徒们所未曾获得的，并能怀着感恩的心确信，我们看见了君王和先知们渴望看见却未能看见的日子，听见了他们渴望听见却未能听见的真理。而这个新约时代从此便以其丰满全然开始。它不是对一个分别出来的祭司阶层的专属祝圣，也不是对一个狭隘使徒团体的孤立赋予。它是一整个教会——其男人、女人和孩童——的祝圣，使他们都成为‘被拣选的族类，是有君尊的祭司，是圣洁的国度，是属神的子民’；它是一项恩赐，其完全、白白的赐予最终意在延伸至全人类。那一百二十人中的每一位，不仅是一项祝福的特殊领受者和一项启示的见证人，更是千千万万后来者的先驱和代表。而这个神迹不仅是短暂的，而且是持续更新的。它不是一道或许只出现一瞬间的急响和闪光，而是一种活泼的能量和不止息的灵感。它不是在犹太屋子的楼上房间里向一小撮人显现的可见记号，而是一股将从此在世界历史的各个时代中吹拂的生命之风；是一股光的浪潮，它正从这岸涌向那岸，并将继续涌流，直到认识耶和华的知识充满遍地，好像水充满洋海一般。”

§ 25. 耶路撒冷教会与彼得的事工。

目录

Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

你是彼得 (Petros)，我要把我的教会建造在这磐石 (petra) 上，阴间的权柄不能胜过他。

《马太福音》 16:18.

文献资料

I. 可靠来源：《使徒行传》2至12章；《加拉太书》2章；以及彼得的两封书信。

另请参阅关于《使徒行传》和彼得书信的注释。

在彼得书信的注释家中，我提及的有：莱顿大主教 (Archbishop Leighton)（版本众多，不重考证，但敬虔且富于灵性），施泰格 (Steiger)（1832, 1836年由费尔贝恩 (Fairbairn) 翻译），约翰·布朗 (John Brown)（1849, 2卷），维辛格 (Wiesinger)（1856及1862, 于奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen) 的注释系列中），肖特 (Schott)（1861及1863），德韦特 (De Wette)（第三版由布吕克纳 (Brückner) 修订, 1865），胡特 (Huther)（于迈耶 (Meyer) 的注释系列中, 第四版, 1877），弗龙米勒 (Fronmüller)（于兰格 (Lange) 的《圣经著作》系列中, 1867年由蒙伯特 (Mombert) 翻译），阿尔福德 (Alford)（第三版, 1864），约翰·利利 (John Lillie)（由沙夫 (Schaff) 编辑, 1869），德马雷斯特 (Demarest)（Cath. Epp 1879），梅森与普伦普特 (Mason and Plumptre)（于埃利科特 (Ellicott) 的注释系列中, 1879），普伦普特 (Plumptre)（于《剑桥圣经》系列中, 1879, 附有非常详尽的引言, pp. 1–83），萨尔蒙德 (Salmond)（于沙夫 (Schaff) 的《大众注释》中, 1883）。另请参阅§20中提及的关于使徒时代的著作中的相应章节，以及我的《使徒教会历史》pp. 348–377。

II. 伪经来源：《彼得福音》(Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Πέτρον)，源于以便尼派 (Ebionite)；《彼得讲道集》(Κήρυγμα Πέτρου)；《彼得行传》(Πράξεις Πέτρου)；《彼得启示录》(Ἀποκάλυψις Πέτρου)；《彼得行记》 (Περίοδοι Πέτρου, Itinerarium Petri)；《圣使徒彼得和保罗行传》(Πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου, Acta Petri et Pauli)。见蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 的《伪经使徒行传》(Acta Apost. Apocr) 1–39, 以及希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 的《正典外新约》(Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum) (1866), IV. 52 sqq。伪克莱门 (Pseudo-Clementine) 的《讲道集》(“Homilies”) 是一部以牺牲保罗 (Paul) 为代价来荣耀彼得 (Peter) 的作品；《寻知记》(“Recognitions”) 则是对《讲道集》的天主教修订和修改版。伪克莱门文献将在第二时期中加以注意。

III. 关于彼得的专题著作：

E. Th. 迈耶霍夫 (Mayerhoff): 《彼得文献的历史考证导论》 (Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in die Petrinischen Schriften)。汉堡, 1835。

温迪施曼 (Windischmann) (罗马天主教): 《为彼得辩护》 (Vindiciae Petrinae)。拉蒂斯邦, 1836。

施滕格莱因 (Stenglein) (罗马天主教): “关于圣彼得在罗马居住25年” (Ueber den 25 jahrigen Aufenthalt des heil. Petrus in Rom)。载于《图宾根神学季刊》 (“Tübinger Theol. Quartalschrift”), 1840。

J. 埃伦多夫 (Ellendorf): 《彼得曾否在罗马并担任罗马教会主教？》 (1st Petrus in Rom und Bishof der römischen Gemeinde gewesen?)。达姆施塔特, 1841。英译本载于安多弗的《圣经文库》 (“Bibliotheca Sacra”), 1858, No. 3。作者是一位思想开明的罗马天主教徒，其结论是彼得在罗马的史实永远无法被证实。

卡洛·帕萨利亚 (Carlo Passaglia) (耶稣会士): 《论蒙福的彼得，众使徒之首的特权》 (De Praerogativis Beati Petri, Apostolorum Principis)。拉蒂斯邦, 1850。

托马斯·W. 艾利斯 (Thomas W. Allies) (罗马天主教): 《圣彼得，他的名字与职分正如圣经所载》 (St. Peter, his Name and his Office as set forth in Holy Scripture)。伦敦, 1852。基于帕萨利亚神父 (Father Passaglia) 的前一部著作。

伯恩哈德·魏斯 (Bernh. Weiss): 《彼得的教义概念》 (Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff)。柏林, 1855。参看其《新约圣经神学》(Bibl. Theol. des N. T), 第三版, 1880, 及其论文“彼得问题” (Die petrinische Frage)，载于《神学研究与评论》 (“Studien und Kritiken”), 1865, pp. 619–657, 1866, pp. 255–308, 及 1873, pp. 539–546。

托马斯·格林伍德 (Thos. Greenwood): 《彼得的教座》 (Cathedra Petri)。伦敦, 卷一, 1859, 第一、二章, pp. 1–50。

佩罗内 (Perrone) (罗马天主教): 《圣彼得在罗马》 (S. Pietro in Roma)。罗马, 1864。

C. 霍尔斯滕 (Holsten) (图宾根学派): 《论保罗与彼得的福音》 (Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus)。罗斯托克, 1868。

R. A. 李普修斯 (Lipsius): 《罗马彼得传说的来源》 (Die Quellen der röm. Petrussage)。基尔, 1872。同作者: 《罗马主教年代学》 (Chronologie der röm Bischöfe)。基尔, 1869。李普修斯 (Lipsius) 仔细考察了罗马彼得传说的异端来源，并视其为彻头彻尾的虚构。其观点概要可见于：

塞缪尔·M. 杰克逊 (Samuel M. Jackson): “李普修斯论罗马彼得传说” (Lipsius on the Roman Peter-Legend)。载于纽约的《长老会季刊与普林斯顿评论》 (“Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review”), 1876, pp. 265 sqq。

G. 福尔克马尔 (Volkmar): 《罗马教宗神话》 (Die römische Papstmythe)。苏黎世, 1873。

A. 希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld): “彼得在罗马与约翰在小亚细亚” (Petrus in Rom und Johannes in Kleinasien)。载于其《科学神学期刊》 (“Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theol.”), 1872。另见其 《新约导论》 (Einleitung in das N. T.), 1875, pp. 618 sqq。

W. 克拉夫特 (Krafft): 《彼得在罗马》 (Petrus in Rom)。波恩, 1877。载于《莱茵科学传道会神学文集》 (“Theol. Arbeiten des rhein. wissenschaftl. Predigervereins”), III. 185–193。

约翰·弗里德里希 (Joh. Friedrich) (旧天主教): 《论教会中最古老的首席权历史》 (Zur ältesten Gesch. des Primates in der Kirche)。波恩, 1879。

威廉·M. 泰勒 (William M. Taylor): 《使徒彼得》 (Peter the Apostle)。纽约, 1879。

---

耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 的会众成为了犹太基督教的母教会，并因此成为整个基督教世界的母教会。在使徒们，主要是彼得 (Peter) 的亲自指导下，它在内外都得以成长，主早已赋予彼得 (Peter) 在地上建立祂有形教会的工作中以特殊的领导地位。协助使徒们的是一些长老，以及七位被任命照管穷人和病人的执事。但圣灵在整个会众中运行，并不局限于某个特定的职分。福音的宣讲、奉耶稣之名行神迹，以及在信与爱中过圣洁生活的吸引力，是教会进步的工具。基督徒，或如他们起初自称的门徒、信徒、弟兄、圣徒，其人数很快增至五千。他们恒心遵守使徒的教训和交通，每日敬拜上帝，并以爱宴 (agapae) 庆祝圣餐。他们感到自己是上帝的一个家庭，是一个身体上的肢体，同属一个元首耶稣基督；这种手足般的合一甚至体现在一种自愿的凡物公用中——这仿佛是对历史终结时理想状态的一种预演，但对任何其他教会并无约束力。他们尽可能地持守圣殿敬拜和犹太教规，只要新生命允许，并且只要以色列作为一个民族整体归信的希望尚存。他们像他们的主一样，每日去圣殿教导人，但他们的祷告聚会则在私人家中举行。^[31]

彼得 (Peter) 对民众和公会 (Sanhedrin)^[32] 的讲道，以其自然的朴素和贴切而著称。它们充满热情与活力，又满有智慧和说服力，且总是切中要害。从未有过比这更实际、更有效的讲道了。这些见证出自一个几周前还如此胆怯的目击者，如今却如此勇敢，随时准备为这事业受苦和牺牲。这些讲道是他承认耶稣是基督、永生上帝之子、救主的扩展。他宣讲的不是深奥的神学教义，而是一些伟大的事实和真理：弥赛亚耶稣的被钉与复活，祂因大能的记号和奇事早已为听众所知；祂被高举到全能上帝的右边；圣灵的降下与大能；预言的应验；将临的审判和万物的荣耀复兴；以及悔改和信靠耶稣作为我们唯一得救之名的至关重要性。在他的话语中，洋溢着一种宁静的喜悦和必胜的信念。

我们无法清晰地构想基督教会的这个新婚佳期，那时没有属世的尘埃玷污她闪亮的衣袍，那时她完全沉浸在对她神圣之主的默想与爱慕之中，那时祂从天上的宝座向她微笑垂顾，并将得救的人数天天加给他们。那是一场持续的五旬节，是失乐园的复得。“他们存着欢喜诚实的心用饭，赞美神，得众民的喜爱。”^[33]

然而，即使在这个原始的使徒群体中，内在的败坏也早早出现，随之而来的是纪律的严厉和自我洁净，体现在彼得 (Peter) 对虚伪的亚拿尼亚 (Ananias) 和撒非喇 (Sapphira) 的可怕审判中。

起初，基督教博得了民众的喜爱。但不久之后，它便遭遇了与其神圣创始人所经历的相同的逼迫，但也像从前一样，这逼迫被转化为祝福和成长的途径。

逼迫始于持怀疑论的撒都该 (Sadducees) 派，他们对基督复活的教义感到冒犯，而这正是所有使徒宣讲的核心。

当耶路撒冷教会的七位执事之一，充满信心与热忱的司提反 (Stephen)——使徒保罗 (Paul) 的先驱——勇敢地抨击犹太教顽固悖逆的精神，并宣告摩西律法体系行将瓦解时，法利赛人 (Pharisees) 便与撒都该人 (Sadducees) 联手对抗福音。基督教由此开始了从犹太教的圣殿敬拜中解放出来的进程，此前它至少在外部上仍与此相连。司提反 (Stephen) 自己被诬告亵渎摩西 (Moses)，在一次卓越的自辩之后，他被暴民用石头打死（公元37年），从而当之无愧地成为神圣殉道者队伍的领袖，他们的血从此将滋养教会的土壤。从他殉道的血中，不久便诞生了伟大的外邦人使徒，他此时还是司提反 (Stephen) 最凶残的迫害者，是他英雄气概及其临终时脸上基督荣耀的目击者。^[34]

司提反 (Stephen) 被石头打死，是一场普遍逼迫的信号，同时也促使基督教传遍整个巴勒斯坦及周边地区。紧随其后的是该撒利亚的哥尼流 (Cornelius of Caesarea) 的归信，这为向外邦人宣教打开了大门。在这一重要事件中，彼得 (Peter) 同样是主要的角色。

经过约七年的平静，耶路撒冷教会遭受了希律·亚基帕王 (king Herod Agrippa) 的新一轮逼迫（公元44年）。约翰 (John) 的兄弟，长雅各 (James the elder) 被斩首。彼得 (Peter) 被囚，并被判处同样的命运；但他奇迹般地获释，随后离开了耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem)，将教会交由主的“兄弟”雅各 (James) 照管。优西比乌 (Eusebius)、耶柔米 (Jerome) 和罗马天主教历史学家都认为，他早在那个时期就去了罗马 (Rome)，即便不是永久居住，至少也是一次暂时的访问。但《使徒行传》(12:17) 只说：“他就出门，往别处去了。”这一表述的模糊性，加上保罗 (Paul) 在《哥林多前书》9:5的言论，最好的解释是，他此后没有固定的居所，而是像大多数使徒一样，过着巡回宣教士的生活。

彼得后期的事工

后来，我们在使徒会议（公元50年）上再次在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 见到彼得 (Peter)^[35]；之后在安提阿 (Antioch)（51年），在那里他与保罗 (Paul) 发生了暂时的冲突^[36]；再后来，他偕同妻子进行宣教旅行（57年）^[37]；或许是在巴比伦 (Babylon) 或小亚细亚分散的犹太人中间，他向他们写了他的书信。^[38] 关于彼得在罗马 (Rome) 居住的记载，新约中毫无踪迹，除非——如教父和许多现代释经家所认为的那样——《彼得前书》5:13中提到的神秘的“巴比伦 (Babylon)”（如《启示录》中一样）意指罗马 (Rome)，但其他人则认为是指幼发拉底河上的巴比伦，还有人认为是指尼罗河上的巴比伦（根据科普特 (Coptic) 传统，在今天的开罗 (Cairo) 附近）。《使徒行传》28章对于彼得 (Peter) 的完全沉默，以及保罗 (Paul) 在其《罗马书》和他从罗马监狱所写的书信中，问安时一次也未提及彼得 (Peter) 的名字，这些都是决定性的证据，表明在公元58至63年间的大部分时间里，他并不在那座城市。在58年之前的一次偶然访问是可能的，但鉴于保罗 (Paul) 独立工作，从不在别人的根基上建造^[39]，这极其可疑；因此，他很可能根本不会写《罗马书》，如果彼得 (Peter) 在任何适当的意义上是罗马教会的建立者，保罗 (Paul) 的书信肯定会至少提及他。公元63年之后，我们从新约中得不到任何资料，因为《使徒行传》在那一年结束，而《彼得前书》结尾处“巴比伦 (Babylon)”的解释也存疑，尽管很可能意指罗马 (Rome)。我们的主曾预言彼得 (Peter) 将被钉十字架殉道，《约翰福音》21:18, 19，但并未提及地点。

因此，我们得出结论，由于路加 (Luke) 和保罗 (Paul) 在谈论罗马 (Rome) 和从罗马 (Rome) 写信时的沉默，彼得 (Peter) 在63年之前在罗马 (Rome) 的可能性变得极其可疑，甚至是不可能的；而他在63年之后是否在罗马 (Rome)，则无法从新约中证实或证伪，必须由圣经以外的见证来决定。

东方和西方教会一致的传统是，彼得 (Peter) 在罗马 (Rome) 传扬福音，并在尼禄 (Neronian) 迫害中在那里殉道。罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)（他提到了殉道，但未提地点），在第一世纪末；安提阿的伊格那丢 (Ignatius of Antioch)（不明确地提及），哥林多的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Corinth)，里昂的爱任纽 (Irenaeus of Lyons)，罗马的迦犹 (Caius of Rome)，在第二世纪；亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)，俄利根 (Origen)，希坡律陀 (Hippolytus)，特土良 (Tertullian)，在第三世纪；拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)，优西比乌 (Eusebius)，耶柔米 (Jerome) 等人，在第四世纪，都或多或少清晰地，尽管不无错误地，这样说过。除了这些教父的见证，还可以加上伪彼得文献和伪克莱门文献的伪经见证，它们都以某种方式将彼得 (Peter) 的名字与安提阿 (Antioch)、亚历山大 (Alexandria)、哥林多 (Corinth) 和罗马 (Rome) 教会的建立联系起来。无论这些来自不同人物和国家地区的见证在具体细节上如何不同，它们只能基于一个事实基础来解释；因为这些见证早于任何为了异端或正统及教阶目的而使用或滥用这一传统的时期。从狄奥尼修 (Dionysius) 和爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 开始，这些见证的主要错误在于将彼得 (Peter) 与保罗 (Paul) 联系起来，作为罗马教会的“建立者”；但这或许可以这样解释：一些在五旬节神迹中见证并聆听彼得 (Peter) 讲道的“从罗马来的客旅”，以及一些在司提反 (Stephen) 殉道后因逼迫而分散的门徒，将福音的种子带到了罗马 (Rome)，而这些彼得 (Peter) 所带领归信的人，成为了这座大都市中犹太基督徒会众的真正建立者。因此，传统很自然地将彼得 (Peter) 的间接作用转变为直接作用，并在荣耀老师的过程中忘记了学生们的名字。

彼得 (Peter) 到达罗马 (Rome) 的时间，以及他在那里居住的时长，都无法确定。上文提到的《使徒行传》和保罗 (Paul) 书信的沉默，只允许他在63年后在那里有短暂的工作。罗马教会关于彼得 (Peter) 在罗马 (Rome) 有二十或二十五年主教任期的传统，无疑是一个巨大的年代错误。^[40] 我们也无法确定他殉道的年份，只能说必定发生在公元64年7月之后，那时尼禄 (Neronian) 的迫害爆发（根据塔西佗 (Tacitus) 的记载）。殉道年份被不同地定在64至69年之间的每一年。我们将在下文，以及在与保罗 (Paul) 殉道相关的部分，再次回到这个问题，传统上这两件事是联系在一起的。^[41]

§ 26. 历史中的彼得与虚构中的彼得

新约中没有任何一个人物，能像彼得 (Peter) 那样，其所有美德与过失都被如此栩栩如生地展现在我们面前。他坦率而透明，总是毫无保留地展现真实的自己。

我们可以将他的成长划分为三个阶段。在福音书中，西门 (Simon) 的人性最为突出；《使徒行行传》展现了彼得 (Peter) 建立教会的神圣使命，以及他在安提阿 (Antioch) 的一次暂时倒退（由保罗 (Paul) 记录）；在他的书信中，我们看到了神圣恩典的完全得胜。他是十二使徒中最坚强也是最软弱的一位。他集多血质气质的所有优点与缺点于一身。他心地善良、反应迅速、热情、乐观、冲动、易变，且容易从一个极端走向另一个极端。他从基督那里得到了最高的赞扬和最严厉的斥责。他是第一个承认基督为上帝的弥赛亚的人，并因此得到了他的新名字“彼得 (Peter)”，这是对他未来在教会历史中领导地位的预言性期盼；但他也是第一个劝阻基督走上十字架道路的人，并因此招致了“撒但，退我后边去吧”的斥责。教会的磐石变成了绊脚石和障碍。当基督要为他洗脚时，他出于冒昧的谦卑而抗议；随后又突然改变主意，希望不仅是脚，连手和头都要洗。他出于属肉体的热心，为维护主而砍掉了马勒古 (Malchus) 的耳朵；几分钟后，他又离弃主，独自逃跑。他曾郑重承诺，即便所有人都离弃基督，他也会忠心耿gkin；然而就在同一个晚上，他三次否认了主。他是第一个抛弃犹太人对不洁外邦人偏见、并在该撒利亚 (Caesarea) 和安提阿 (Antioch) 与外邦归信者亲如手足的人；他也是第一个因怯懦地惧怕从耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 来的狭隘犹太派信徒而退缩的人，为此他不得不接受保罗 (Paul) 令人羞愧的当面责备。^[42]

但彼得 (Peter) 回归正道的速度和他偏离正道一样快。他从一开始就真诚地爱主，若得不到饶恕，便不得安宁。尽管他有种种软弱，他仍是一个高尚、慷慨的灵魂，在教会中贡献卓著。上帝甚至掌管了他的罪和前后不一，使之成为他谦卑和灵命长进的途径。在他的书信中，我们看到了他被洁净后的成熟结果，那是一种极其谦卑、温顺、柔和、亲切、充满爱与可爱的灵。福音史中几乎每一个与彼得 (Peter) 相关的词语和事件，都在他的书信中以谦卑或感恩的回忆与引述留下了印记。他的新名字“磐石”，在他的描述中仅仅是上帝殿宇中众多活石里的一块“石头”，被建造在“房角石”基督之上。^[43] 他对他同作长老的嘱咐，与基督复活后对他的嘱咐相同，即他们应当作忠心的“羊群的牧人”，服在基督这位“灵魂的牧人与监督”之下。^[44] 他否认基督的记录在四福音书中都同样突出，正如保罗 (Paul) 逼迫教会的事在《使徒行传》中一样突出，并且——似乎是在他自己的授意下——在他学生和“翻译”马可 (Mark) 的福音书中最为突出，该福音书唯独记载了两次鸡叫，从而加倍了否认主的罪责^[45]，并且记录了基督斥责的话（“撒但”），却省略了基督的称赞（“磐石”）。²⁹⁶ 彼得 (Peter) 和保罗 (Paul) 一样，从未试图掩盖自己的大罪。这罪如同一根刺在他的肉体上，这记忆使他常靠近十字架；而他从跌倒中的恢复，则是基督大能与怜悯的永恒明证，也是对他不断感恩的呼召。对基督教会而言，彼得 (Peter) 否认主又被挽回的双重故事，从此成为警戒与安慰的不竭源泉。他既回头，就遵从为他祷告、使其个人信心不至失落的主的吩咐，坚固他的弟兄。^[47]

至于他在教会中的职分地位，彼得 (Peter) 从一开始就领导着犹太使徒，并非出于党派之私，而是以宽宏大量的节制与包容精神。他从未是一个狭隘、受限、排外的宗派主义者。在约帕 (Joppa) 见到异象并带领哥尼流 (Cornelius) 归信之后，他迅速改变了自己继承而来的关于割礼必要性的观点，并在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 公开承认这一改变，宣告了“神是不偏待人，原来各国中，那敬畏主、行义的人都为主所悦纳”以及“犹太人和外邦人一样，得救乃是因主耶稣的恩”的广阔原则。^[48] 他继续作为广大犹太基督教会的领袖，保罗 (Paul) 自己也将他列为受割礼之人的三大“柱石”使徒之首。^[49] 但他居中调和，一边是代表保守右翼的雅各 (James)，另一边是指挥使徒军队左翼的保罗 (Paul)。这正与彼得 (Peter) 在其书信中所持的立场相符，他的书信在很大程度上再现了保罗 (Paul) 和雅各 (James) 的教导，因此具有教义上“和平协定” (Irenicum) 的性质；正如《使徒行传》是一部历史性的“和平协定”一样，并未违背真理或事实。

虚构中的彼得

可以说，圣经中没有任何人物，乃至全部历史中没有任何人物，能像加利利 (Galilee) 的这位朴素渔夫——位列使徒之首的他——那样，为了教义和教阶的目的而被如此地放大、曲解和滥用。在圣经的女性中，童贞女马利亚 (Virgin Mary) 也经历了类似为了敬拜目的的转变，被提升到天国女王的尊位。作为基督代理人的彼得 (Peter)，和作为基督之母的马利亚 (Mary)，以这种理想化的形态，已经成为并且至今仍是基督教最大分支的政体与敬拜中的主导力量。

在这两种情况下，虚构的工作始于二、三世纪犹太化的异端教派，但被天主教会，尤其是罗马教会在三、四世纪加以修改和推进。

1. 以便尼派 (Ebionite) 虚构中的彼得。其历史基础是彼得 (Peter) 在撒玛利亚 (Samaria) 与行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 的相遇^[50]，保罗 (Paul) 在安提阿 (Antioch) 对彼得 (Peter) 的责备^[51]，以及犹太派对保罗 (Paul) 强烈的猜忌和厌恶。^[52] 这三件确凿无疑的事实，加上一个奇特的混淆——将行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 与罗马一位古老的萨宾神祇塞莫·桑库斯 (Semo Sancus) 相混淆^[53]——为一些富有创意的半诺斯底派以便尼派 (semi-Gnostic Ebionites) 在二世纪中叶及以后创作倾向性宗教小说提供了素材和动机，这些小说要么匿名，要么托名于罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)，即传说中彼得 (Peter) 的继承人。^[54] 在这些作品中，西门·彼得 (Simon Peter) 作为真理的伟大使徒出现，与伪使徒、万异端之父、被鬼附的撒玛利亚人行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 对抗；彼得 (Peter) 从该撒利亚·斯特拉托尼斯 (Caesarea Stratonis) 到推罗 (Tyre)、西顿 (Sidon)、贝里图斯 (Berytus)、安提阿 (Antioch) 和罗马 (Rome)，步步紧随他，甚至在尼禄 (Nero) 的审判台前与他辩论，驳斥其谬误，直到最后这个骗子在胆大妄为地模仿基督升天时，悲惨地死去。

在伪克莱门《讲道集》(pseudo-Clementine Homilies) 中，西门 (Simon) 的名字除了代表其他异端外，也代表了保罗 (Paul) 所传的自由福音，保罗 (Paul) 被攻击为一个假使徒和可憎的叛逆者，违抗摩西律法的权威。犹太派曾加于保罗 (Paul) 的指控，在这里被彼得 (Peter) 用来指控行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)，特别是“人得救唯独靠恩典”的主张。他声称藉着基督的异象而归信，这被追溯为魔鬼的欺骗性异象。保罗 (Paul) 在安提阿 (Antioch) 反对彼得 (Peter) 的原话——他“自定己罪”(《加拉太书》2:11)——在这里被引用为对上帝的控告。简言之，行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 至少部分地，是对外邦人使徒的一种恶意的犹太化讽刺漫画。

1. 罗马教廷的彼得。彼得传说的正统版本，部分见于爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、俄利根 (Origen)、特土良 (Tertullian) 和优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的教父文献记载，部分见于伪经作品^[55]，保留了彼得 (Peter) 在安提阿 (Antioch) 和罗马 (Rome) 与行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 对抗的大致故事，但剔除了其中的反保罗 (anti-Pauline) 毒素，将保罗 (Paul) 在其生命末期与彼得 (Peter) 联系起来，作为罗马教会的共同（尽管是次要的）建立者，并尊荣二人在尼禄 (Neronian) 迫害中同日（6月29日）、同年或相隔一年，但在不同地点、以不同方式戴上殉道的冠冕。^[56] 彼得 (Peter) 像他的主一样被钉十字架（尽管是头朝下^[57]），地点或在雅尼库伦山 (hill of Janiculum)（圣伯多禄蒙托里奥教堂 (S. Pietro in Montorio) 所在地），或更可能在梵蒂冈山 (Vatican hill)（尼禄 (Neronian) 竞技场和迫害的发生地）^[58]；保罗 (Paul) 作为罗马公民，则在城外的奥斯提亚大道 (Ostian way) 上的三泉堂 (Tre Fontane) 被斩首。他们甚至一同走过亚壁古道 (Appian way) 的一部分，前往刑场。二世纪末的罗马长老迦犹 (Caius) 指出，他们的纪念碑或胜利标志^[59] 分别在梵蒂冈和奥斯提亚大道上。根据自利比里乌 (Liberius) 时期以来的罗马教会年历，彼得 (Peter) 的遗骸在圣塞巴斯弟盎墓窟 (catacombs of San Sebastiano) 和保罗 (Paul) 在奥斯提亚大道 (Via Ostia) 的庄严安葬，发生于258年6月29日。一百年后，彼得 (Peter) 的遗骸被永久移至梵蒂冈的圣彼得大教堂，圣保罗 (St. Paul) 的遗骸则被移至城外奥斯提亚门（今圣保罗门）外的圣保罗大教堂（城外圣保禄大殿）。^[60]

关于彼得 (Peter) 在罗马 (Rome) 有二十五年主教任期（此前在安提阿 (Antioch) 有七年主教任期）的传统，最早只能追溯到第四世纪（耶柔米 (Jerome)），并且如前所述，是由于将殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 关于行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 在克劳狄 (Claudius) 皇帝（41–54年）统治期间到达罗马 (Rome) 的可疑陈述，进行了年代上的错误计算而产生的。“利比里乌目录” (“Catalogus Liberianus”)，即最古老的教宗名单（据信写于366年之前），将彼得 (Peter) 的教宗任期延长至25年1个月9天，并将其逝世定于65年6月29日（在涅尔瓦 (Nerva) 和维斯提努斯 (Vestinus) 担任执政官期间），这将他到达罗马 (Rome) 的时间追溯至公元40年。优西比乌 (Eusebius) 在其保存至今的希腊文《编年史》中并未确定具体年数，但在其《教会史》中说，彼得 (Peter) 在克劳狄 (Claudius) 统治期间来到罗马 (Rome)，宣讲反对行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 的瘟疫般谬误。^[61] 其《编年史》的亚美尼亚译本提到了“二十”年^[62]；耶柔米 (Jerome) 在其翻译或更确切地说是意译中，则为“二十五”年，他毫无根据地假设彼得 (Peter) 在克劳狄 (Claudius) 统治的第二年（42年；但《使徒行传》12:17更可能指向44年）离开耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 前往安提阿 (Antioch) 和罗马 (Rome)，并在尼禄 (Nero) 统治的第十四年或最后一年（68年）逝世。^[63] 在现代罗马天主教历史学家中，关于彼得 (Peter) 殉道年份并无一致意见：巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius) 将其定在69年^[64]；帕吉 (Pagi) 和阿尔班·巴特勒 (Alban Butler) 在65年；默勒 (Möhler)、甘斯 (Gams) 和阿尔佐格 (Alzog) 则模糊地定在66至68年之间。在所有这些情况下，都必须假设尼禄 (Neronian) 的迫害在64年后被持续或更新了，对此我们没有历史证据。还必须假设彼得 (Peter) 在大部分时间里都显著地缺席于他的羊群，以便监督小亚细亚和叙利亚的教会、主持耶路撒冷会议、在安提阿 (Antioch) 与保罗 (Paul) 会面、偕同妻子四处旅行，并且他在罗马 (Rome) 直到58年，甚至63年，都未留下什么影响，那时保罗 (Paul) 写信给罗马 (Rome) 或从罗马 (Rome) 写信时，仍然完全忽略了他。因此，一个年代上的错误被用来推翻顽固的事实。那句“没有教宗能看到彼得的（二十五）年”的名言，此前几乎具有法律效力，却被第一位无误教宗庇护九世 (Pius IX) 三十二年的统治（从1846年至1878年）所证伪。

关于罗马教廷主张的注释

在这一传统以及彼得 (Peter) 在福音书和《使徒行传》中无可争议的卓越地位上，特别是基督在彼得 (Peter) 伟大认信后对他说的话（《马太福音》16:18），建立起了罗马教廷的庞大体系，及其所有惊人的主张，声称是对基督教会中荣誉首席权和司法至高权永久继承的合法继承者，并且——自1870年以来——附加了教宗在所有官方言论中，无论是教义上还是道德上，都无误的主张。这一主张的有效性需要三个前提：

1. 彼得 (Peter) 在罗马 (Rome)。这可以被承认为一个历史事实，我个人无法相信像罗马教廷这样坚如磐石、遍及世界的结构，竟能建立在纯粹欺诈和错误的沙土之上。是其下的事实赋予了虚构以生命力，而错误的危险性与其所包含的真理量成正比。但彼得 (Peter) 在罗马 (Rome) 的事实，无论是一年还是二十五年，其重要性都不可能像罗马教廷所声称的那样根本；否则新约中肯定会有所提及。此外，如果彼得 (Peter) 在罗马 (Rome)，保罗 (Paul) 也在，并且与他平等地分担对罗马教会的使徒监督，这一点从他写给罗马人的书信中显而易见。

2. 彼得 (Peter) 的卓越地位可以转移给继承人。这是从基督的话中推断出来的：“你是磐石，我要把我的教会建造在这磐石上，阴间的权柄不能胜过他。”^[65] 这段仅由马太 (Matthew) 记录的经文，是罗马主义的解经基石，被教宗和教廷拥护者引用的频率远超任何其他经文。但即使承认 petra (磐石) 明显指向彼得 (Peter)，这个预言性名字的意义显然指的是彼得 (Peter) 在为教会一劳永逸地奠定根基方面的特殊使命。他在五旬节那天和哥尼流 (Cornelius) 的归信中完成了这一使命；在这项开创性工作中，彼得 (Peter) 不可能有继承人，就像圣保罗 (St. Paul) 在使外邦人归信方面，或约翰 (John) 在巩固使徒教会两大分支方面一样。

3. 彼得 (Peter) 的这一特权实际上传移——不是传给耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 或安提阿 (Antioch) 的主教，他在那些地方无疑居住过——而是传给了罗马 (Rome) 的主教，而新约中无法证明他到过那里。对于这样的传移，历史一无所知。罗马主教革利免 (Clement)，约在公元95年首次提及彼得 (Peter) 的殉道，以及几年后安提阿的伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 暗指彼得 (Peter) 和保罗 (Paul) 曾劝勉罗马人，他们都未曾一言提及此种传移。就连最初几位教宗的年代和继承顺序也是不确定的。

如果罗马教廷的主张无法从我们所知的历史中的彼得 (Peter) 得到证实，那么另一方面，在彼得 (Peter) 的真实历史中有几件确凿无疑的事实，对这些主张构成了沉重的打击，即：

1. 彼得 (Peter) 结过婚（《马太福音》8:14），带着妻子一同进行宣教旅行（《哥林多前书》9:5），并且根据对“同蒙拣选” (coëlect)（姊妹）的一种可能解释，他在《彼得前书》5:13中提到了她。教父传统认为他有子女，或至少有一个女儿（佩特罗尼拉 (Petronilla)）。据说他的妻子在他之前在罗马 (Rome) 殉道。鉴于这一榜样，教宗们有何权利禁止神职人员结婚？我们且不提彼得 (Peter) 身无分文（《使徒行传》3:6）的贫穷与中世纪直至近代教宗属世权力崩溃前，头戴三重冠的罗马教廷的奢华炫耀之间同样惊人的对比。

2. 在耶路撒冷会议上（《使徒行传》15:1–11），彼得 (Peter) 仅仅是作为第一个发言者和辩论者出现，而非主席和审判者（雅各 (James) 主持会议），并且没有主张任何特殊特权，更谈不上判断的无误性。根据梵蒂冈的理论，整个割礼问题本应提交给彼得 (Peter) 而非一个会议，决定也本应出自他而非“使徒和长老、弟兄们”（或“作长老的弟兄们”，15:23）。

3. 彼得 (Peter) 因其前后不一，在安提阿 (Antioch) 被一位更年轻的使徒公开责备（《加拉太书》2:11–14）。彼得 (Peter) 当时的行为与他作为纪律无误者的身份是不可调和的；保罗 (Paul) 的行为与彼得 (Peter) 所声称的至高地位是不可调和的；而整个场景，尽管非常清晰，却对罗马和亲罗马的观点极为不便，以至于被教父和耶稣会注释家们各种歪曲，甚至歪曲成使徒们为了更有效地驳斥犹太派而上演的一出闹剧！

4. 尽管最伟大的教宗们，从利奥一世 (Leo I) 到利奥十三世 (Leo XIII)，从未停止谈论他们对所有主教和所有教会的权威，但彼得 (Peter) 在《使徒行传》的讲道中从未如此。而他的书信，远未表现出任何高于其“同作长老的”和“圣职人员”（他以此指基督徒民众）的优越性，反而充满了最真诚谦卑的精神，并包含了对罗马教廷两大固有罪恶——污秽的贪婪和专横的野心——的预言性警告（《彼得前书》5:1-3）。爱财与爱权是孪生姐妹，两者之一都是“万恶之根”。

当然，这极具意义：自然的彼得 (Peter) 的弱点——他的鲁莽与自负、他对十字架的畏惧、他对世俗荣耀的喜爱、他属肉体的热心、他对刀剑的使用、他在客西马尼 (Gethsemane) 的沉睡——甚至比他的美德更忠实地在罗马教廷的历史中重现；而归信后受感而发的彼得 (Peter) 的讲道和书信，则包含了对罗马教廷的教阶主张和世俗恶习最强烈的抗议，并训示了真正福音的原则——信徒普遍的祭司职分和君尊身份、在富丽堂皇的圣殿前使徒式的贫穷、顺服神不顺服人，但仍适当尊重民事当局、尊贵的婚姻、对亚拿尼亚 (Ananias) 和撒非喇 (Sapphira) 心口不一的定罪、对行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 买卖圣职的定罪、对哥尼流 (Cornelius) 所代表的外邦人敬虔的开明欣赏、对律法主义束缚的反对，以及除耶稣基督的名以外别无拯救。

§ 27. 主的兄弟雅各

Ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστίν.

信心没有行为也是死的。

——《雅各书》 2:26

文献资料

I. 可靠来源：《使徒行传》12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 《哥林多前书》15:7; 《加拉太书》1:19; 2:9, 12。参看《马太福音》13:55; 《马可福音》6:3; 《加拉太书》1:19 中被称为“主的兄弟”的雅各 (James)。

《雅各书》。

II. 后使徒时期文献： 约瑟夫斯 (Josephus): 《犹太古史》 (Antiquitates Judaicae) XX. 9, 1。——赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 见于优西比乌 (Euseb.) 《教会史》 (Hist. Ecc.) II. ch. 23。——耶柔米 (Jerome): 《名人录》 (Catal. vir. ill.) c. 2, “雅各” (Jacobus) 条目下。爱比法尼乌 (Epiphanius), 《驳异端书》 (Haer.) XXIX. 4; XXX. 16; LXXVIII. 13 sq。

III. 伪经： 《雅各福音》 (Πρωτευαγγέλιον Ἰακώβου), 希腊文由蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 编辑, 载于《伪福音书》 (Evangelia Apocrypha), pp. 1–49, 参看其导言 pp. xii-xxv。雅各 (James) 在其他几部伪福音书中也受到尊崇。——爱比法尼乌 (Epiphanius), 《驳异端书》 (Haer.) XXX. 16, 提及一部以便尼派 (Ebionite) 的、强烈反保罗 (anti-Pauline) 的书籍《雅各升天记》 (Ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου), 描述他升天的情景，现已失传。——《雅各礼仪》 (Liturgy of James), W. 特罗洛普 (Trollope) 编辑, 爱丁堡, 1848。作于第三世纪，尼西亚会议 (Council of Nicaea) 之后（因其包含 oJmoouvsio” (同质) 和 qeotovko” (上帝之母) 等术语），但基于一些更古老的传统。它原为耶路撒冷教会所用，该教会被称为“众教会之母”。至今每年10月23日圣雅各节，耶路撒冷的希腊教会仍会使用一次。（见卷二, 527 sqq.）

解经与教义文献

《雅各书注释》 作者包括：赫尔德 (Herder) (1775), 施托尔 (Storr) (1784), 格布泽尔 (Gebser) (1828), 施内肯伯格 (Schneckenburger) (1832), 泰勒 (Theile) (1833), 克恩 (Kern) (1838), 德韦特 (De Wette) (1849, 第三版由布吕克纳 (Brückner) 修订, 1865), 塞勒里耶 (Cellerier) (1850), 维辛格 (Wiesinger) (于奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen) 的注释系列中, 1854), 施蒂尔 (Stier) (1845), 胡特与拜施拉格 (Huther and Beyschlag) (于迈耶 (Meyer) 的注释系列中, 1858, 第四版, 1882), 兰格与范奥斯特泽 (Lange and Van Oosterzee) (于兰格 (Lange) 的《圣经著作》系列中, 1862, 英译本由蒙伯特 (Mombert) 增补, 1867), 阿尔福德 (Alford), 华兹华斯 (Wordsworth), 巴塞特 (Bassett) (1876, 将此书信归于西庇太的儿子雅各), 普伦普特 (Plumptre) (于剑桥系列中, 1878), 庞查德 (Punchard) (于埃利科特 (Ellicott) 的注释系列中, 1878), 埃德曼 (Erdmann) (1882), 格洛格 (GLOAG) (1883)。

沃尔德马·G. 施密特 (Woldemar G. Schmidt): 《雅各书的教义内容》 (Der Lehrgehalt des Jakobusbriefes)。莱比锡, 1869。

W. 拜施拉格 (Beyschlag): “作为早期基督教历史丰碑的雅各书” (Der Jacobusbrief als urchristliches Geschichtsdenkmal)。载于《神学研究与评论》 (“Stud. u. Kritiken”), 1874, No. 1, pp. 105–166。见其注释。

另请参阅尼安德 (Neander)、施密德 (Schmid)、沙夫 (Schaff)、魏斯 (Weiss) (pp. 176–194, 第三版) 等人对雅各教义类型的阐述。

历史与考证文献

布洛姆 (Blom): 《致主的弟兄们（De τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς et ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς Κυρίου）》 莱顿, 1839。（我未见过这本支持兄弟理论的小册子。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 称：“布洛姆 (Blom) 对教父权威的陈述最为令人满意，沙夫 (Schaff) 对圣经论据的探讨最为仔细。”）

沙夫 (Schaff): 《亚勒腓的儿子雅各与主的兄弟雅各》 (Jakobus Alphäi, und Jakobus der Bruder des Herrn)。柏林, 1842 (101页)。

米尔 (Mill): 《为新约中关于我主兄弟们的记载辩护》 (The Accounts of our Lord’s Brethren in the New Test. vindicated)。剑桥, 1843。（倡导拉丁教会的堂兄弟理论。）

莱特福特 (Lightfoot): “主的兄弟们” (The Brethren of the Lord)。收录于其《加拉太书注释》的附录中。伦敦, 第二版, 1866, pp. 247–282。（对希腊教会的异母兄弟理论最强有力的辩护。）

H. 霍尔茨曼 (Holtzmann): “公义者雅各及其同名弟兄” (Jakobus der Gerechte und seine Namensbrüder)，载于希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 的《科学神学期刊》 (“Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol.”)。莱比锡, 1880, No. 2。

---

在作为犹太基督教普世领袖的彼得 (Peter) 之后，便是主的兄弟雅各 (James)（后使徒时期作家也称他为“公义者雅各”和“耶路撒冷主教”），他是最古老教会的地方领袖，也是犹太基督教中最保守部分的领袖。在西庇太的儿子雅各 (James the son of Zebedee) 于公元44年殉道后，他似乎接替了其位置。他与彼得 (Peter) 和约翰 (John) 一同成为受割礼教会的三大“柱石”之一。在彼得 (Peter) 离开耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 后，雅各 (James) 主持着这个基督教的母教会，直到他去世。他虽非十二使徒之一，但因着他与我们主的关系以及他卓越的敬虔，他享有着近乎使徒的权威，尤其是在犹太地和犹太归信者中。^[66] 有一次，甚至连彼得 (Peter) 也屈服于他或他代表的影响，被误导而对 外邦弟兄做出了不友善的行为。^[67]

在我们主复活之前，雅各 (James) 并非信徒。他是四个“兄弟”（雅各 (James)、约西 (Joseph)、犹大 (Judas)、西门 (Simon)）中的长兄，约翰 (John) 曾带着感伤的笔触记载：“连他的弟兄也不信他。”^[68] 这是我们主在世时早期且持续的试炼之一，即他在自己的同乡中，甚至“在亲属和本家里”，都没有得到尊重。^[69] 雅各 (James) 无疑曾深受犹太人对弥赛亚属世和属肉体的误解影响，并对他神圣兄弟的耽延和不属世感到不耐烦。因此才有了那讥讽且近乎不敬的言语：“你离开这里上犹太去吧……你若行这些事，就当将自己显明给世人看。”十字架的刑罚只会加深他的疑惑和悲伤。

但是，复活的主一次特别的亲自显现，带来了他的归信，以及他兄弟们的归信，他们在复活后便与使徒们在一起。^[70] 保罗 (Paul) 简短而意味深长地提及了他生命中的这个转折点，他自己也是因基督的亲自显现而归信的。^[71] 在《希伯来福音》（一部最古老且最少虚构的伪福音书）的一段有趣的残片中，对此有更详细的记载，显示了雅各 (James) 即使在归信前也是真诚而认真的。^[72] 我们在此读到，他曾发誓“从主喝了那杯（祂受难的杯）^[73] 的那一刻起，就不再吃饼，直到他看见主从死里复活。”主向他显现，与他交通，将饼递给公义者雅各 (James the Just) 说：“我的兄弟，吃你的饼吧，因为人子已经从睡了的人中复活了。”

在《使徒行传》和《加拉太书》中，雅各 (James) 作为犹太归信者中最保守的一派出现，是极端右翼的领袖；但他承认保罗 (Paul) 是外邦人的使徒，并如保罗 (Paul) 自己所记，向他伸出右手行相交之礼，并且不愿将割礼的轭加在外邦基督徒身上。因此，绝不能将他与那些憎恨并反对保罗 (Paul)、将割礼作为称义和教会成员资格条件的异端犹太派（以便尼派 (Ebionites) 的前身）等同起来。他主持了耶路撒冷会议，并提出了挽救了教会分裂的折衷方案。很可能是他起草了那封会议信函，该信函的风格与他一致，并使用了他特有的问安语。^[74]

他是一位诚实、有良知、极其务实、善于调和的犹太基督徒圣徒，在那个关键时刻，在那个地方，他是最合适的人选，尽管他的视野和他的工作地域一样有其局限性。

从保罗 (Paul) 的一句附带之言，我们可以推断，雅各 (James) 与彼得 (Peter) 和主的其他兄弟一样，是结了婚的。^[75]

雅各 (James) 的使命显然是站在犹太会堂与教会之间的缺口上，温和地引导摩西 (Moses) 的门徒归向基督。在那个圣城审判临近的关键时刻，他是唯一能做到这一点的人。只要犹太民族整体归信的希望尚存，他就为此祷告，并尽可能使这一转变变得容易。当那希望破灭时，他的使命也就完成了。

根据约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 的记载，在大祭司亚那努斯 (Ananus)（他称之为“在执行审判上所有犹太人中最无情的”）的煽动下，他与其他一些人作为“违背律法者”（即基督徒），在非斯都 (Festus) 和阿尔比努 (Albinus) 两任总督之间的空档期，即公元63年，被石头打死。这位犹太历史学家补充说，这一不公之举在那些最忠于律法的人（法利赛人 (Pharisees)）中引起了极大的愤慨，他们说服了阿尔比努 (Albinus) 和亚基帕王 (King Agrippa) 废黜了亚那努斯 (Ananus)（他是《路加福音》3:2和《约翰福音》18:13中提到的亚那 (Annas) 的儿子）。他因此为雅各 (James) 即使在犹太人中的崇高地位提供了公正的见证。^[76]

赫格西仆 (Hegesippus)，一位约公元170年的犹太基督徒历史学家，将殉道时间定在几年后，即耶路撒冷被毁前不久（69年）。^[77] 他记述说，雅各 (James) 先是被犹太人从圣殿的顶上推下，然后被石头打死。他最后的祷告，是他兄弟和主在十字架上祷告的回响：“父神啊，赦免他们；因为他们所作的，他们不晓得。”

赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 对雅各 (James) 的戏剧性描述^[78] 是二世纪中叶的一幅夸张画像，带有犹太化的色彩，这些特征可能源自《雅各升天记》和其他伪经来源。他将雅各 (James) 变成了一位犹太祭司和拿细耳派圣徒（参看他对保罗 (Paul) 的建议，《使徒行传》21:23, 24），不喝酒、不吃肉、从不剃头、不用油抹身、也从不洗浴，只穿麻衣。但圣经中的雅各 (James) 更偏向法利赛式和律法主义，而非爱色尼派 (Essenic) 和禁欲主义。在伪克莱门文献中，他甚至被提升到彼得 (Peter) 之上，作为希伯来人圣教会的元首，是“主教中的主教”、“祭司中的君王”。根据爱比法尼乌 (Epiphanius) 提到的传统，雅各 (James) 像在以弗所 (Ephesus) 的圣约翰 (St. John) 一样，佩戴着大祭司的额牌 (petalon)，或称金牌，上面刻着：“归耶和华为圣”（《出埃及记》28:36）。而在《圣雅各礼仪》中，耶稣的兄弟被提升到“上帝的亲兄弟” (ajdelfovqeo”) 的尊位。传说总是围绕着伟人，揭示了他们给朋友和追随者留下的深刻印象。透过这些关于雅各 (James) 的传说所闪耀出的品格，是一位忠诚、热心、虔诚、始终如一的希伯来基督徒，他以其个人的纯洁和圣洁，赢得了周围所有人的尊敬和爱戴。

但我们必须仔细区分东方教会中对雅各 (James) 的犹太基督教式但仍属正统的高度评价——如我们在赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 的残片和《圣雅各礼仪》中所见——与将雅各 (James) 曲解为保罗 (Paul) 和自由福音之敌的异端歪曲——如他在伪经虚构中所呈现的形象。我们在这里看到的现象，与彼得 (Peter) 和保罗 (Paul) 的情况相同。每一位主要使徒在早期教会和现代批判性重构其历史中，都有其伪经的影子和讽刺形象。尽管雅各 (James) 和保罗 (Paul) 在耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 达成了兄弟般的协议，但雅各 (James) 的名字和权威仍被犹太派滥用，以破坏保罗 (Paul) 的工作。^[79] 二世纪的以便尼派 (Ebionites) 借着雅各 (James) 和彼得 (Peter) 的尊名，继续对保罗 (Paul) 的记忆进行这种恶毒的攻击；而某一类的现代批评家（尽管通常是从相反的极端保罗派或伪保罗派的观点出发）则试图从《雅各书》（在他们承认其为真迹的范围内）来证明同样存在这种对立。^[80]

我们正典中的这封书信，声称是“上帝和主耶稣基督的仆人雅各，写信给散居在外的十二个支派”，尽管在优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和耶柔米 (Jerome) 的时代并未被普遍承认，但其内在证据有力地支持了其真实性。它完全符合我们从保罗 (Paul) 和《使徒行传》中所知的历史中雅各 (James) 的品格和地位，并且与以便尼派 (Ebionite) 虚构的伪雅各 (James) 大相径庭。^[81] 它无疑源自耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 这个神权统治的中心，充满了巴勒斯坦的风情。基督徒群体不被称为教会 (churches)，而是会堂 (synagogues)，主要由穷人组成，受富裕而有势力的犹太人压迫。书中没有任何外邦基督徒或他们与犹太基督徒之间争论的痕迹。这封书信或许是为希伯来人写的《马太福音》原始版本的姊妹篇，正如《约翰一书》是其福音书的姊妹篇一样。它很可能是新约书信中最古老的一封。^[82] 无论如何，它代表了最早、最简朴，但又极其务实和必要的一种基督教类型，带有先知式的严肃、箴言式的简练、极大的清新感，并以优美的希腊文写成。它不是教义性的，而是伦理性的。它与施洗约翰 (John the Baptist) 的讲道和主在山上的讲论有很强的相似性，也与《便西拉智训》(Ecclesiasticus) 和《所罗门智训》(Wisdom of Solomon) 相似。^[83] 它从未直接攻击犹太人，但更没有攻击圣保罗 (St. Paul)，至少没有攻击他纯正的教义。它特色鲜明地称福音为“使人自由的全备律法”^[84]，从而将其与摩西的律法体系紧密相连，但又含蓄地将其远置于那不全备的为奴之律法之上。作者很少论及基督和救赎的更深奥秘，但显然预设了读者对福音历史的了解，并恭敬地称基督为“荣耀的主”，自己则谦卑地称自己为祂的“仆人”。^[85] 他自始至终将宗教呈现为其行动层面，即以善行彰显信心。他无疑与保罗 (Paul) 大不相同，但他并非与他矛盾，而是补充他，并在包含了所有真诚敬虔类型的基督教真理体系中占据了重要的一席之地。有无数真诚、认真、忠心的基督徒工人，他们从未超越雅各 (James) 的层面，达到保罗 (Paul) 或约翰 (John) 的崇高境界。如果基督教会感到《雅各书》与保罗 (Paul) 的教义不可调和，她就绝不会将其纳入正典。即使是路德宗教会也没有跟随其伟大领袖的不利判断，而是仍然将《雅各书》保留在正典书籍中。

雅各 (James) 殉道后，由西面 (Symeon) 接替他，他是革罗罢 (Clopas) 的儿子，也是耶稣（和雅各 (James)）的堂兄弟。他继续领导耶路撒冷教会，直到图拉真 (Trajan) 皇帝统治时期，那时他以一百二十岁高龄殉道。^[86] 接下来耶路撒冷的十三位主教，尽管接替得很快，也同样是犹太裔。

在整个这一时期，耶路撒冷教会保持了其强烈的以色列特色，但同时结合了“对基督的纯正认识”，并与大公教会保持交通，而以便尼派 (Ebionites) 作为异端的犹太基督徒，则被排除在外。在这十五位受割礼的主教谱系结束后，以及哈德良 (Hadrian) 皇帝统治下耶路撒冷第二次被毁之后，大量的犹太基督徒逐渐融入了正统的希腊教会。

注释

I. 雅各与主的兄弟们。 – 新约中有三位，或许是四位，名叫雅各 (James) 的杰出人物（雅各是雅各布 (Jacob) 的简称，因着先祖的记忆，这在犹太人中是最常见的名字之一，仅次于西缅 (Symeon) 或西门 (Simon)，以及约西 (Joseph) 或约瑟 (Joses)）：

1. 西庇太的儿子雅各 (James the son of Zebedee)，约翰 (John) 的兄弟，三位最受宠爱的使徒之一，十二使徒中的首位殉道者（公元44年被斩首，见《使徒行传》12:2），而他的兄弟约翰 (John) 则是所有使徒中最后离世的。他们被称为“雷子”。
2. 亚勒腓的儿子雅各 (James the son of Alphaeus)，他也是十二使徒之一，在四份使徒名单中均有提及，《马太福音》10:3; 《马可福音》3:10; 《路加福音》6:15; 《使徒行传》1:13。
3. 小雅各 (James the Little)，《马可福音》15:40 (ὁ μικρός, 不是英文钦定本 (E. V.) 中的“the Less”)，可能因其身材矮小而得名（如撒该 (Zacchaeus), 《路加福音》19:3），是某位马利亚 (Mary) 的儿子，约西 (Joseph) 的兄弟，《马太福音》27:56 (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσὴφ μήτηρ); 《马可福音》15:40, 47; 16:1; 《路加福音》24:10。他通常被认为与亚勒腓的儿子雅各是同一人，前提是假设他的母亲马利亚 (Mary) 就是《约翰福音》19:25中提到的革罗罢 (Clopas) 的妻子，并且革罗罢 (Clopas) 与亚勒腓 (Alphaeus) 是同一个人。但这种等同至少是非常有问题的。
4. 雅各 (James)，在长雅各 (James the Elder) 早逝后，通常只提及其名，或冠以尊称主的兄弟 (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου)，在后使徒时期的作家中，又称公义者，亦称耶路撒冷主教。这个头衔立即使他与福音书中多次提到的主的四个兄弟和未记名的姐妹联系起来，而他是他们中的首位。由此便产生了关于这种亲属关系性质的复杂问题。尽管我早在近四十年前（1842年）就在上述的德语论文中充分讨论过这个错综复杂的主题，之后又在我对兰格 (Lange) 的《马太福音》的注释中（美国版，1864年，pp. 256–260）再次讨论，我将在此再次简要总结要点，并参考最近的讨论（莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 和勒南 (Renan) 的）。

关于雅各 (James) 和耶稣的兄弟们，有三种理论。我愿称之为亲兄弟理论、异母兄弟理论和堂兄弟理论。莱特福特主教 (Bishop Lightfoot)（和法勒教长 (Canon Farrar)）则根据其主要倡导者，称之为赫尔维狄派 (Helvidian) 理论（一个带有贬义的称呼）、爱比法尼乌派 (Epiphanian) 理论和耶柔米派 (Hieronymian) 理论。第一种现在仅限于新教徒，第二种是希腊教会的观点，第三种是罗马教会的观点。

(1) 亲兄弟理论 按常规意义理解 ἀδελφοί (兄弟) 一词，认为这些兄弟是约瑟 (Joseph) 和马利亚 (Mary) 年纪较小的孩子，因此，在法律和民众看来是耶稣的亲兄弟，尽管鉴于祂的超自然受孕，实际上只是同母异父的兄弟。从解经上看，这是最自然的观点，并得到以下支持：ἀδελφός 的含义（尤其当其作为固定称谓时），这些兄弟与马利亚 (Mary) 的常伴左右（《约翰福音》2:12; 《马太福音》12:46; 13:55），以及《马太福音》1:25 (οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ, “只是没有和她同房，等她生了儿子”，参看 1:18 πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς “还没有迎娶”) 和《路加福音》2:7 (πρωτότοκον, “头生的”) 的明显含义，这些都是从福音书作者的立场来解释的，他们在写下这些词时，完全知晓马利亚 (Mary) 和耶稣后来的历史。对此唯一的严重反对意见是教义和伦理性质的，即假定我们主和救主的母亲终身童贞，以及她在十字架下被托付给约翰 (John) 而非她自己的儿女（《约翰福音》19:25）。若非这两个障碍，亲兄弟理论可能会被每一位公正诚实的解经家所采纳。第一个反对意见源于后使徒时代对童贞的禁欲主义高估，马太 (Matthew) 和路加 (Luke) 不可能有此感受，否则他们会避免使用刚才提到的那些有歧义的词。第二个困难对另外两种理论也构成压力，只是程度较轻。因此，必须从其他理由来解决，即约翰 (John) 与耶稣和马利亚 (Mary) 之间深刻的属灵共鸣与契合，这超越了肉身关系；约翰 (John) 很可能是耶稣的表兄弟（基于对同一段经文《约翰福音》19:25的正确解释）；以及在托付之时，耶稣的亲兄弟们尚未信主。

这一理论曾为特土良 (Tertullian) 所持（耶柔米 (Jerome) 简单地将其斥为非“教会中人”，即分裂派），约380年在罗马 (Rome) 由赫尔维狄乌 (Helvidius) 辩护（被耶柔米 (Jerome) 猛烈攻击为异端），并为一些反对初兴的童贞女马利亚 (Virgin Mary) 崇拜的个人和教派所持；近代自赫尔德 (Herder) 以来，为大多数德国新教解经家所持，如施蒂尔 (Stier)、德韦特 (De Wette)、迈耶 (Meyer)、魏斯 (Weiss)、埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)、维泽勒 (Wieseler)、凯姆 (Keim)，以及阿尔福德教长 (Dean Alford) 和法勒教长 (Canon Farrar) (Life of Christ, I. 97 sq.)。我曾在我的德语小册子中倡导此理论，但后来在我的《使徒教会史》, p. 378 中承认，我未对第二种理论给予足够重视。

(2) 异母兄弟理论 认为耶稣的兄弟姐妹是约瑟 (Joseph) 与前妻所生的孩子，因此与耶稣完全没有血缘关系，他们被称为兄弟，仅仅是因为约瑟 (Joseph) 被称为耶稣的父亲，这是一种为适应神奇道成肉身这一特殊事实的特殊用法。这在教义上的好处是保全了我们主和救主之母的终身童贞；它减轻了《约翰福音》19:25所隐含的道德难题；并且在伪福音书和东方教会中有很强的传统支持。它似乎也能更容易地解释《约翰福音》7:3, 4中兄弟们对我们主说话时那种居高临下的口吻。但它不能那么自然地解释这些兄弟与马利亚 (Mary) 的常伴左右；它假设了约瑟 (Joseph) 有一次福音书中从未提及的前婚，并将约瑟 (Joseph) 描绘成一位老人和保护者，而非马利亚 (Mary) 的丈夫；最后，它有禁欲主义偏见的嫌疑，是走向终身童贞教条的第一步。除了这些反对意见，还可以加上法勒 (Farrar) 的观点，即如果这些兄弟是约瑟 (Joseph) 年长的儿子，耶稣就不会被视为大卫 (David) 宝座的合法继承人（《马太福音》1:16; 《路加福音》1:27; 《罗马书》1:3; 《提摩太后书》2:8; 《启示录》22:16）。

这一理论最早见于雅各 (James) 的伪经作品中（《雅各原始福音》、《雅各升天记》等），然后见于主要的希腊教父（亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)、俄利根 (Origen)、优西比乌 (Eusebius)、尼撒的格列高利 (Gregory of Nyssa)、爱比法尼乌 (Epiphanius)、亚历山大的西里尔 (Cyril of Alexandria)）；它体现在希腊、叙利亚和科普特的礼仪中，这些礼仪为亚勒腓的儿子雅各 (James the son of Alphaeus)（10月9日）和主的兄弟雅各 (James the Lord’s brother)（10月23日）的纪念设定了不同的日期。因此，它可以被称为东方教会的理论。在耶柔米 (Jerome) 之前的一些拉丁教父（普瓦捷的希拉流 (Hilary of Poitiers) 和安波罗修 (Ambrose)）也持此观点，近代由莱特福特主教 (Bishop Lightfoot) (l.c.) 作了有力的倡导，普伦普特博士 (Dr. Plumptre)（在其《雅各书注释》的引言中）也跟随其后。

(3) 堂兄弟理论 认为这些兄弟是更远的亲戚，即马利亚 (Mary)（亚勒腓 (Alphaeus) 的妻子，童贞女马利亚 (Virgin Mary) 的姐妹）的孩子，并将主的兄弟雅各 (James) 等同于亚勒腓的儿子雅各 (James the son of Alphaeus) 和小雅各 (James the Little)，从而使他（以及西门 (Simon) 和犹大 (Jude)）成为使徒。《加拉太书》1:19中的例外词 εἰ μή（“只是……雅各”），并不能证明这一点，反而将雅各 (James) 排除在使徒之列（比较 εἰ μή 在《加拉太书》2:16; 《路加福音》4:26, 27中的用法）。

这一理论最早由耶柔米 (Jerome) 在383年一篇针对赫尔维狄乌 (Helvidius) 的青年时期论战性小册子中提出，没有任何传统支持^[87]，但其公开的教义和禁欲目的是为了同时保全马利亚 (Mary) 和约瑟 (Joseph) 的童贞，并将他们的婚姻关系简化为一种名义上的、无生育的结合。然而，在他后来的作品中，即在他居住在巴勒斯坦之后，他对这个问题的处理便不那么自信了（见莱特福特 (Lightfoot), p. 253）。藉着他的权威，以及圣奥古斯丁 (St. Augustin) 更大的影响力——他起初（394年）在第二和第三种理论之间摇摆，但后来采纳了耶柔米 (Jerome) 的理论——这成为了拉丁教会的既定理论，并体现在西方的礼仪中，这些礼仪只承认两位名为雅各 (James) 的圣徒。但这是所有理论中最站不住脚的，必须被放弃，主要原因如下：

(a) 它与“兄弟”一词的自然含义相矛盾，因为新约中有专门表示堂兄弟的词（《歌罗西书》4:10, 另参看 συγγενής《路加福音》2:44; 21:16; 《马可福音》6:4等），也与那些耶稣的兄弟姐妹作为神圣家庭成员出现的经文的明显意思相矛盾。

(b) 它假设两姐妹同名，都叫马利亚 (Mary)，这是极不可能的。

(c) 它假设革罗罢 (Clopas) 与亚勒腓 (Alphaeus) 是同一个人，这也同样可疑；因为 Ἀλφαῖος 是一个希伯来名字 (חַלְפַּי)，而 Κλωπᾶς，如同 Κλεόπας（《路加福音》24:18），是希腊名 Κλεόπατρος 的缩写，正如 Antipas 是 Antipatros 的缩写一样。

(d) 它与一个事实完全不可调和，即耶稣的兄弟们，包括雅各 (James) 在内，在复活前都是不信的（《约翰福音》7:5），因此他们中不可能有人是使徒，而此理论则假设他们中有两三位是使徒。

勒南 (Renan) 的理论。——最后，我注意到勒南 (Renan) 对第二和第三种理论的一种独创性结合，他在其《福音书》(Les évangiles, 537–540) 的附录中讨论了耶稣的兄弟和堂兄弟问题。他假设有四个雅各 (James)，并将亚勒腓 (Alphaeus) 的儿子与革罗罢 (Clopas) 的儿子区分开。他认为约瑟 (Joseph) 结过两次婚，耶稣有几位年长的兄弟和堂兄弟，如下：

1. 约瑟 (Joseph) 第一次婚姻的子女，耶稣的长兄们：
   • a. 雅各 (James)，主的兄弟，或称公义者，或俄比利亚 (Obliam)。他是在《马太福音》13:55; 《马可福音》6:3; 《加拉太书》1:19; 2:9, 12; 《哥林多前书》15:7; 《使徒行传》12:17等处；《雅各书》1:1; 《犹大书》1:1；以及约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 和赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 中提到的那一位。
   • b. 犹大 (Jude)，在《马太福音》13:55; 《马可福音》6:3; 《犹大书》1:1；赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 见于优西比乌《教会史》III. 19, 20, 32中提及。那两位被带到图密善 (Domitian) 皇帝面前，作为大卫 (David) 后裔和耶稣亲属的不同教会的主教，就是他的两位孙子。赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 见于优西比乌 III. 19, 20, 32。
   • c. 其他不知名的儿子和女儿。《马太福音》13:56; 《马可福音》6:3; 《哥林多前书》9:5。
2. 约瑟 (Joseph) (?) 与马利亚 (Mary) 婚姻的子女：
   • 耶稣 (Jesus)。
3. 革罗罢 (Clopas) 的子女，耶稣的堂兄弟，可能来自父系，因为根据赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 的说法，革罗罢 (Clopas) 是约瑟 (Joseph) 的兄弟，并且他也可能娶了一个名叫马利亚 (Mary) 的女人（《约翰福音》19:25）。
   • a. 小雅各 (James the Little, ὁ μικρός)，如此称呼是为了与他年长的同名堂兄区分。在《马太福音》27:56; 《马可福音》15:40; 16:1; 《路加福音》24:10中提及；其他情况不详。
   • b. 约西 (Joses)，《马太福音》27:56; 《马可福音》15:40, 47，但被错误地(?)列为耶稣的兄弟：《马太福音》13:55; 《马可福音》6:3；其他情况不详。
   • c. 西面 (Symeon)，耶路撒冷第二任主教（赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 见于优西比乌 III. 11, 22, 32; IV. 5, 22），也被错误地(?)列为耶稣的兄弟，见《马太福音》13:55; 《马可福音》6:3。
   • d. 可能有其他不知名的儿子和女儿。

II. 赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 对雅各 (James) 的描述 (引自优西比乌《教会史》II. 23)。“赫格西仆 (Hegesippus)，生活在最接近使徒的时代，他（在其《回忆录》第五卷中）给出了关于他最准确的记述：

“‘主的兄弟雅各 (James)，他（因有许多同名者）被所有人称为公义者 (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰάκωβος ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος)，从主的时代直到我们这个时代，都与（或从）使徒们一同（μετά，与……一同，或根据另一版本，παρὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων，这将他更清晰地与使徒区分开）领受教会的管理权。这个人 [οὗτος，不是这位使徒] 从母腹中就被分别为圣。他既不喝清酒也不喝浓酒，并且禁戒荤食。剃头刀未曾临到他的头上，他从不用油膏抹自己，也从不使用浴池 [可能是指罗马浴场的奢华，有其 sudatorium, frigidarium 等，但不排除所有虔诚犹太人常行的洁净礼]。唯独他被允许进入圣所 [不是至圣所，而是祭司院]。他不穿羊毛衣，只穿麻衣。他习惯独自进入圣殿，常常被发现跪在那里，为百姓代求赦免；以致他的膝盖因着他不断的祈求和在神面前的跪拜，变得像骆驼的一样硬。的确，因着他极其伟大的敬虔，他被称为公义者 [Zaddik] 和俄比利亚 [δίκαιος καὶ ὠβλίας, 很可能是希伯来语 Ophel am, 百姓的保障 的讹写]，意为公义和百姓的保障 (περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ)；正如先知们论到他的那样。我在上文《回忆录》中提到的七个民众派别中的一些人，曾问他耶稣的门径 [可能是指评价或教义] 是什么？他回答说，祂是救主。这些人中有些相信耶稣是基督。但上述的派别既不相信复活，也不相信祂要来按各人的行为报应各人；然而，凡是相信的，都是因着雅各 (James) 的缘故。当许多官长也相信了，就在犹太人、文士和法利赛人中起了骚动，说全体百姓都有危险去指望耶稣为弥赛亚了。他们便聚集起来，对雅各 (James) 说：我们恳求你，约束那些被耶稣迷惑的百姓，他们以为他是基督。我们恳求你，劝说所有来过逾越节的人，正确地认识耶稣；因为我们都信任你。因为我们和全体百姓都为你作证，你是公义的，不看人的情面。所以，请劝说百姓不要被耶稣迷惑，因为我们和全体百姓都非常信任你。请站在圣殿的顶上，这样你在高处便能被清楚看见，你的话也能轻易被所有百姓听见；因为所有的支派都因逾越节聚集在这里，还有一些外邦人。于是，上述的文士和法利赛人，将雅各 (James) 安置在圣殿的顶上，向他喊道：“哦，你这公义的人，我们都应当相信你，既然百姓都被那被钉十字架的耶稣迷惑了，请告诉我们，那被钉十字架的耶稣的门径是什么。”他便大声回答说：“你们为何问我关于人子耶稣的事？祂如今正坐在天上，在至大者的右边，并且将要驾着天上的云降临。”当许多人因此得到坚固，并因雅各 (James) 的这番见证而荣耀神，说：“和散那归于大卫的子孙”时，这些祭司和法利赛人彼此说：“我们为耶稣提供了这样的见证，做得太糟了，让我们上去把他推下来，好让他们惧怕，不敢信他。”他们便喊叫说：“哎呀，哎呀，连公义者自己也被迷惑了。”他们应验了以赛亚书上的话：“我们来除掉义人，因为他妨碍我们；因此他们必吃自己行为所结的果子。” [参看《以赛亚书》3:10.]

他们上去，把那公义的人推了下来，彼此说：“让我们用石头打死公义者雅各 (James the Just)。”他们便开始用石头打他，因为他被推下来后没有立刻死去；他转过身，跪下说：我恳求你，哦，主神天父，赦免他们，因为他们所作的，他们不晓得。”他们正用石头打他时，利甲 (Rechab) 的子孙，就是先知耶利米 (Jeremiah) 所说的利甲族 (Rechabites) 的一个祭司（《耶利米书》35:2），喊着说：“住手，你们在做什么？公义者正在为你们祷告。”他们中有一个漂布的人，用他捶打衣服的棒子，击碎了公-义者的头颅。他如此殉道，他们便将他埋葬在原地，他的墓碑至今仍在，靠近圣殿。他为犹太人和希腊人作了忠实的见证，证明耶稣是基督。此后不久，维斯帕先 (Vespasian) 入侵并占领了犹太地。’”

“以上，”优西比乌 (Eusebius) 补充说，“是赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 更详尽的见证，其中他与革利免 (Clement) 完全一致。雅各 (James) 确实是一位如此可敬的人，因其公义而闻名于众人，以致连犹太人中较有智慧的人也认为，这正是耶路撒冷立即被围困的原因，这事临到他们，没有别的原因，就是因着对他所犯的罪行。约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 也在其著作中毫不犹豫地附加了这一见证：‘这些事，’他说，‘临到犹太人，是为了报复公义者雅各 (James the Just) 的冤屈，他是被称为基督的那位的兄弟，犹太人尽管他极其公义，还是杀害了他。’同一位作者也在其《犹太古史》第二十卷中记述了他的死，原文如下，’”云云。

然后优西比乌 (Eusebius) 给出了约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 的记述。

§ 28. 向外邦人宣教的预备

在使徒保罗 (Paul) 展开他崇高的使命之前，福音在外邦人中的栽植工作，是藉由上帝护理的几步预备而成的。

1. 藉着撒玛利亚人 (Samaritans) 的归信。他们是半外邦人，也是犹太人死敌。在耶路撒冷七执事之一、传福音的腓利 (Philip the evangelist) 的宣讲和施洗下，以及使徒彼得 (Peter) 和约翰 (John) 的坚固教导下，福音顺利地进入了撒玛利亚 (Samaria)，正如主在雅各井旁的谈话中所预言暗示的那样。^[88] 但在那里，我们也遇到了基督教的第一个异端曲解，由行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 所引起，他的伪善以及他试图贬低圣灵恩赐的企图，遭到了彼得 (Peter) 严厉的斥责。（因此有了“西门主义”或“圣职买卖” (simony) 一词，指教会职位的金钱交易。）古代教会将这位使徒之首与这位异端之魁的交锋，视为教会正统与欺骗性异端关系的典型，并对此作了充满想象的描绘。

2. 稍后（约37至40年间）发生了尊贵的百夫长、该撒利亚的哥尼流 (Cornelius of Caesarea) 的归信。他是一位敬虔的“门外进教者”（proselyte of the gate），彼得 (Peter) 因着一次特别的启示，直接藉着洗礼将他接入基督教会的交通中，而无需行割礼。这位使徒的这一大胆举动，必须向耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 严谨的犹太基督徒作出辩护，他们认为割礼是得救的条件，犹太教是通往基督教的唯一途径。这样，彼得 (Peter) 也为外邦基督教会奠定了基础。这一事件标志着彼得 (Peter) 思想上的一场革命，以及他从犹太教狭隘偏见中的解放。^[89]

3. 更为重要的是，大约在同一时期，叙利亚首都安提阿 (Antioch) 教会的兴起。这个教会在希腊化的塞浦路斯人巴拿巴 (Barnabas of Cyprus) 和大数的保罗 (Paul of Tarsus) 的影响下形成，似乎从一开始就由归信的异教徒和犹太人组成。因此，它成为了外邦基督教的母会，正如耶路撒冷 (Jerusalem) 是犹太基督教的母会和中心一样。同样在安提阿 (Antioch)，“基督徒” (Christian) 这个名称首次出现，并很快被各地采纳，因为它恰当地表明了基督——那位神人二性的先知、祭司和君王——的跟随者的性质与使命。^[90]

其他更早的称呼有：门徒（因基督是唯一的夫子），信徒（因信靠基督为他们的救主），弟兄（因同为蒙赎家庭的成员，被一种不源于尘世且永不止息的爱联结在一起），以及圣徒（因被洁净并分别为圣，事奉上帝，并蒙召达至完全的圣洁）。

Original Texts

CHAPTER IV. ST. PETER AND THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS

Table of Contents

§ 24. The Miracle of Pentecost and the Birthday of the Christian Church. a.d. 30.

§ 25. The Church of Jerusalem and the Labors of Peter.

§ 26. The Peter of History and the Peter of Fiction.

§ 27. James the Brother of the Lord.

§ 28. Preparation for the Mission to the Gentiles.

§ 24. The Miracle of Pentecost and the Birthday of the Christian Church. a.d. 30.

Kαὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, Καθὼς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς —Acts 2:4

“The first Pentecost which the disciples celebrated after the ascension of our Saviour, is, next to the appearance of the Son of God on earth, the most significant event. It is the starting-point of the apostolic church and of that new spiritual life in humanity which proceeded from Him, and which since has been spreading and working, and will continue to work until the whole humanity is transformed into the image of Christ.”—Neander (Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel., I. 3, 4).

Literature.

I. Sources: Acts 2:1–47. Comp. 1 Cor. 12 and 14. See Commentaries on the Acts by Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Lechler, Hackett, Alexander, Gloag, Alford, Wordsworth, Plumptre Jacobson, Howson and Spence, etc., and on the Corinthians by Billroth, Kling, Stanley, Heinrici, Edwards, Godet, Ellicott.

II. Special treatises o the Pentecostal Miracle and the Gift of Tongues (glossolalia) by Herder (Die Gabe der Sprachen, Riga, 1794) Hase (in Winer’s “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol.” 1827), Bleek in “Studien und Kritiken” for 1829 and 1830), Baur in the “Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theol.” for 1830 and 1831, and in the “Studien und Krit.” 1838), Schneckenburger (in his Beiträge zur Einleitung in das N. T. 1832), Bäumlein (1834), Dav. Schulz (1836), Zinsler (1847), Zeller (Acts of the Apostles, I. 171, of the E. translation by J. Dare), Böhm (Irvingite, Reden mit Zungen und Weissagen, Berlin, 1848), Rossteuscher (Irvingite, Gabe der Sprachen im apost. Zeitalter, Marburg, 1855), Ad. Hilgenfeld (Glossolalie, Leipz. 1850), Maier (Glossolalie des apost. Zeitalters, 1855), Wieseler (in “Stud. u. Krit.” 1838 and 1860), Schenkel (art. Zungenreden in his “Bibel-Lex.” V. 732), Van Hengel (De gave der talen, Leiden, 1864), Plumptre (art. Gift of Tongues in Smith’s, “B. D.” IV. 3305, Am. ed.), Delitzsch (art. Pfingsten in Riehm’s “H. B. A.” 1880, p. 1184); K. Schmidt (in Herzog, 2d ed., xvii., 570 sqq.).

Comp. also Neander (I. 1), Lange (II. 13), Ewald (VI. 106), Thiersch (p. 65, 3d ed.), Schaff (191 and 469), Farrar (St. Paul, ch. V. vol. I. 83).

The ascension of Christ to heaven was followed ten days afterwards by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon earth and the birth of the Christian Church. The Pentecostal event was the necessary result of the Passover event. It could never have taken place without the preceding resurrection and ascension. It was the first act of the mediatorial reign of the exalted Redeemer in heaven, and the beginning of an unbroken series of manifestations in fulfilment of his promise to be with his people “alway, even unto the end of the world.” For his ascension was only a withdrawal of his visible local presence, and the beginning of his spiritual omnipresence in the church which is “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” The Easter miracle and the Pentecostal miracle are continued and verified by the daily moral miracles of regeneration and sanctification throughout Christendom.

We have but one authentic account of that epoch-making event, in the second chapter of Acts, but in the parting addresses of our Lord to his disciples the promise of the Paraclete who should lead them into the whole truth is very prominent,(251) and the entire history of the apostolic church is illuminated and heated by the Pentecostal fire.(252)

Pentecost, i.e. the fiftieth day after the Passover-Sabbath,(253) was a feast of joy and gladness, in the loveliest season of the year, and attracted a very large number of visitors to Jerusalem from foreign lands.(254) It was one of the three great annual festivals of the Jews in which all the males were required to appear before the Lord. Passover was the first, and the feast of Tabernacles the third. Pentecost lasted one day, but the foreign Jews, after the period of the captivity, prolonged it to two days. It was the “feast of harvest,” or “of the first fruits,” and also (according to rabbinical tradition) the anniversary celebration of the Sinaitic legislation, which is supposed to have taken place on the fiftieth day after the Exodus from the land of bondage.(255)

This festival was admirably adapted for the opening event in the history of the apostolic church. It pointed typically to the first Christian harvest, and the establishment of the new theocracy in Christ; as the sacrifice of the paschal lamb and the exodus from Egypt foreshadowed the redemption of the world by the crucifixion of the Lamb of God. On no other day could the effusion of the Spirit of the exalted Redeemer produce such rich results and become at once so widely known. We may trace to this day not only the origin of the mother church at Jerusalem, but also the conversion of visitors from other cities, as Damascus, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, who on their return would carry the glad tidings to their distant homes. For the strangers enumerated by Luke as witnesses of the great event, represented nearly all the countries in which Christianity was planted by the labors of the apostles.(256)

The Pentecost in the year of the Resurrection was the last Jewish (i.e. typical) and the first Christian Pentecost. It became the spiritual harvest feast of redemption from sin, and the birthday of the visible kingdom of Christ on earth. It marks the beginning of the dispensation of the Spirit, the third era in the history of the revelation of the triune God. On this day the Holy Spirit, who had hitherto wrought only sporadically and transiently, took up his permanent abode in mankind as the Spirit of truth and holiness, with the fulness of saving grace, to apply that grace thenceforth to believers, and to reveal and glorify Christ in their hearts, as Christ had revealed and glorified the Father.

While the apostles and disciples, about one hundred and twenty (ten times twelve) in number, no doubt mostly Galilaeans,(257) were assembled before the morning devotions of the festal day, and were waiting in prayer for the fulfilment of the promise, the exalted Saviour sent from his heavenly throne the Holy Spirit upon them, and founded his church upon earth. The Sinaitic legislation was accompanied by “thunder and lightning, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, and all the people that was in the camp trembled.”(258) The church of the new covenant war, ushered into existence with startling signs which filled the spectators with wonder and fear. It is quite natural, as Neander remarks, that “the greatest miracle in the inner life of mankind should have been accompanied by extraordinary outward phenomena as sensible indications of its presence.” A supernatural sound resembling that of a rushing mighty wind,(259) came down from heaven and filled the whole house in which they were assembled; and tongues like flames of fire, distributed themselves among them, alighting for a while on each head.(260) It is not said that these phenomena were really wind and fire, they are only compared to these elements,(261) as the form which the Holy Spirit assumed at the baptism of Christ is compared to a dove.(262) The tongues of flame were gleaming, but neither burning nor consuming; they appeared and disappeared like electric sparks or meteoric flashes. But these audible and visible signs were appropriate symbols of the purifying, enlightening, and quickening power of the Divine Spirit, and announced a new spiritual creation. The form of tongues referred to the glossolalia, and the apostolic eloquence as a gift of inspiration.

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” This is the real inward miracle, the main fact, the central idea of the Pentecostal narrative. To the apostles it was their baptism, confirmation, and ordination, all in one, for they received no other.(263) To them it was the great inspiration which enabled them hereafter to be authoritative teachers of the gospel by tongue and pen. Not that it superseded subsequent growth in knowledge, or special revelations on particular points (as Peter receive at Joppa, and Paul on several occasions); but they were endowed with such an understanding of Christ’s words and plan of salvation as they never had before. What was dark and mysterious became now clear and full of meaning to them. The Spirit revealed to them the person and work of the Redeemer in the light of his resurrection and exaltation, and took full possession of their mind and heart. They were raised, as it were, to the mount of transfiguration, and saw Moses and Elijah and Jesus above them, face to face, swimming in heavenly light. They had now but one desire to gratify, but one object to live for, namely, to be witnesses of Christ and instruments of the salvation of their fellow-men, that they too might become partakers of their “inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven.”(264)

But the communication of the Holy Spirit was not confined to the Twelve. It extended to the brethren of the Lord, the mother of Jesus, the pious women who had attended his ministry, and the whole brotherhood of a hundred and twenty souls who were assembled in that chamber.(265) They were “all” filled with the Spirit, and all spoke with tongues;(266) and Peter saw in the event the promised outpouring of the Spirit upon “all flesh,” sons and daughters, young men and old men, servants and handmaidens.(267) It is characteristic that in this spring season of the church the women were sitting with the men, not in a separate court as in the temple, nor divided by a partition as in the synagogue and the decayed churches of the East to this day, but in the same room as equal sharers in the spiritual blessings. The beginning was a prophetic anticipation of the end, and a manifestation of the universal priesthood and brotherhood of believers in Christ, in whom all are one, whether Jew or Greek, bond or free, male or female.(268)

This new spiritual life, illuminated, controlled, and directed by the Holy Spirit, manifested itself first in the speaking with tongues towards God, and then in the prophetic testimony towards the people. The former consisted of rapturous prayers and anthems of praise, the latter of sober teaching and exhortation. From the Mount of Transfiguration the disciples, like their Master, descended to the valley below to heal the sick and to call sinners to repentance.

The mysterious gift of tongues, or glossolalia, appears here for the first time, but became, with other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, a frequent phenomenon in the apostolic churches, especially at Corinth, and is fully described by Paul. The distribution of the flaming tongues to each of the disciples caused the speaking with tongues. A new experience expresses itself always in appropriate language. The supernatural experience of the disciples broke through the confines of ordinary speech and burst out in ecstatic language of praise and thanksgiving to God for the great works he did among them.(269) It was the Spirit himself who gave them utterance and played on their tongues, as on new tuned harps, unearthly melodies of praise. The glossolalia was here, as in all cases where it is mentioned, an act of worship and adoration, not an act of teaching and instruction, which followed afterwards in the sermon of Peter. It was the first Te Deum of the new-born church. It expressed itself in unusual, poetic, dithyrambic style and with a peculiar musical intonation. It was intelligible only to those who were in sympathy with the speaker; while unbelievers scoffingly ascribed it to madness or excess of wine. Nevertheless it served as a significant sign to all and arrested their attention to the presence of a supernatural power.(270)

So far we may say that the Pentecostal glossolalia was the same as that in the household of Cornelius in Caesarea after his conversion, which may be called a Gentile Pentecost,(271) as that of the twelve disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus, where it appears in connection with prophesying,(272) and as that in the Christian congregation at Corinth.(273)

But at its first appearance the speaking with tongues differed in its effect upon the hearers by coming home to them at once in their own mother-tongues; while in Corinth it required an interpretation to be understood. The foreign spectators, at least a number of them, believed that the unlettered Galilaeans spoke intelligibly in the different dialects represented on the occasion.(274) We must therefore suppose either that the speakers themselves, were endowed, at least temporarily, and for the particular purpose of proving their divine mission, with the gift of foreign languages not learned by them before, or that the Holy Spirit who distributed the tongues acted also as interpreter of the tongues, and applied the utterances of the speakers to the susceptible among the hearers.

The former is the most natural interpretation of Luke’s language. Nevertheless I suggest the other alternative as preferable, for the following reasons: 1. The temporary endowment with a supernatural knowledge of foreign languages involves nearly all the difficulties of a permanent endowment, which is now generally abandoned, as going far beyond the data of the New Testament and known facts of the early spread of the gospel. 2. The speaking with tongues began before the spectators arrived, that is before there was any motive for the employment of foreign languages.(275) 3. The intervening agency of the Spirit harmonizes the three accounts of Luke, and Luke and Paul, or the Pentecostal and the Corinthian glossolalia; the only difference remaining is that in Corinth the interpretation of tongues was made by men in audible speech,(276) in Jerusalem by the Holy Spirit in inward illumination and application. 4. The Holy Spirit was certainly at work among the hearers as well as the speakers, and brought about the conversion of three thousand on that memorable day. If he applied and made effective the sermon of Peter, why not also the preceding doxologies and benedictions? 5. Peter makes no allusion to foreign languages, nor does the prophecy of Joel which he quotes. 6. This view best explains the opposite effect upon the spectators. They did by no means all understand the miracle, but the mockers, like those at Corinth,(277) thought the disciples were out of their right mind and talked not intelligible words in their native dialects, but unintelligible nonsense. The speaking in a foreign language could not have been a proof of drunkenness. It may be objected to this view that it implies a mistake on the part of the hearers who traced the use of their mother-tongues directly to the speakers; but the mistake referred not to the fact itself, but only to the mode. It was the same Spirit who inspired the tongues of the speakers and the hearts of the susceptible hearers, and raised both above the ordinary level of consciousness.

Whichever view we take of this peculiar feature of the Pentecostal glossolalia, in this diversified application to the cosmopolitan multitude of spectators, it was a symbolical anticipation and prophetic announcement of the universalness of the Christian religion, which was to be proclaimed in all the languages of the earth and to unite all nations in one kingdom of Christ. The humility and love of the church united what the pride and hatred of Babel had scattered. In this sense we may say that the Pentecostal harmony of tongues was the counterpart of the BabyIonian confusion of tongues..(278)

The speaking with tongues was followed by the sermon of Peter; the act of devotion, by an act of teaching; the rapturous language of the soul in converse with God, by the sober words of ordinary self-possession for the benefit of the people.

While the assembled multitude wondered at this miracle with widely various emotions, St. Peter, the Rock-man, appeared in the name of all the disciples, and addressed them with remarkable clearness and force, probably in his own vernacular Aramaic, which would be most familiar to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, possibly in Greek, which would be better understood by the foreign visitors.(279) He humbly condescended to refute the charge of intoxication by reminding them of the early hour of the day, when even drunkards are sober, and explained from the prophecies of Joel and the sixteenth Psalm of David the meaning of the supernatural phenomenon, as the work of that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews had crucified, but who was by word and deed, by his resurrection from the dead, his exaltation to the right hand of God, and the effusion of the Holy Ghost, accredited as the promised Messiah, according to the express prediction of the Scripture. Then he called upon his hearers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus, as the founder and head of the heavenly kingdom, that even they, though they had crucified him, the Lord and the Messiah, might receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, whose wonderful workings they saw and heard in the disciples.

This was the first independent testimony of the apostles, the first Christian sermon: simple, unadorned, but full of Scripture truth, natural, suitable, pointed, and more effective than any other sermon has been since, though fraught with learning and burning with eloquence. It resulted in the conversion and baptism of three thousand persons, gathered as first-fruits into the garners of the church.

In these first-fruits of the glorified Redeemer, and in this founding of the new economy of Spirit and gospel, instead of the old theocracy of letter and law, the typical meaning of the Jewish Pentecost was gloriously fulfilled. But this birth-day of the Christian church is in its turn only the beginning, the type and pledge, of a still greater spiritual harvest and a universal feast of thanksgiving, when, in the full sense of the prophecy of Joel, the Holy Spirit shall be poured out on all flesh, when all the sons and daughters of men shall walk in his light, and God shall be praised with new tongues of fire for the completion of his wonderful work of redeeming love.

Notes.

I. Glossolalia.—The Gift of Tongues is the most difficult feature of the Pentecostal miracle. Our only direct source of information is in Acts 2, but the gift itself is mentioned in two other passages, 10:46 and 19:6, in the concluding section of Mark 16 (of disputed genuineness), and fully described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. There can be no doubt as to the existence of that gift in the apostolic age, and if we had only either the account of Pentecost, or only the account of Paul, we would not hesitate to decide as to its nature, but the difficulty is in harmonizing the two.

(1) The terms employed for the strange tongues are “new tongues” (καιναὶ γλῶσσαι, Mark 16:17, where Christ promises the gift), “other tongues,” differing from ordinary tongues (ἑτέραι γλ., Acts 2:4, but nowhere else), “kinds” or “diversities of tongues” (γένη γλωσσῶν, 1 Cor. 12:28), or simply, “tongues” (γλῶσσαι, 1 Cor. 14:22), and in the singular, “tongue” (γλῶσσα, 14:2, 13, 19, 27, in which passages the E. V. inserts the interpolation “unknown tongue”). To speak in tongues is called γλώσσαις or γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27). Paul uses also the phrase to “pray with the tongue” (προσεύχεσθαι γλώσσῃ), as equivalent to “praying and singing with the spirit” (προσεύχεσθαι and ὑλλεῖν τῷ πνεύματι, and as distinct from προσεύχεσθαι and ὑλλεῖν τῷ νῷ, 1 Cor. 14:14, 15). The plural and the term “diversities” of tongues, as well as the distinction between tongues of “angels” and tongues of “men” (1 Cor. 13:1) point to different manifestations (speaking, praying, singing), according to the individuality, education, and mood of the speaker, but not to various foreign languages, which are excluded by Paul’s description.

The term tongue has been differently explained.

(a) Wieseler (and Van Hengel): the organ of speech, used as a passive instrument; speaking with the tongue alone, inarticulately, and in a low whisper. But this does not explain the plural, nor the terms “new” and “other” tongues; the organ of speech remaining the same.

(b) Bleek: rare, provincial, archaic, poetic words, or glosses (whence our “glossary”). But this technical meaning of γλῶσσαι occurs only in classical writers (as Aristotle, Plutarch, etc.) and among grammarians, not in Hellenistic Greek, and the interpretation does not suit the singular γλῶσσα and γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν, as γλῶσσα could only mean a single gloss.

(c) Most commentators: language or dialect (διαλέκτῳ, comp. Acts 1:19; 2:6, 8; 21:40; 26:14). This is the correct view. “Tongue” is an abridgment for “new tongue” (which was the original term, Mark 16:17). It does not necessarily mean one of the known languages of the earth, but may mean a peculiar handling of the vernacular dialect of the speaker, or a new spiritual language never known before, a language of immediate inspiration in a state of ecstasy. The “tongues” were individual varieties of this language of inspiration.

(2) The glossolalia in the Corinthian church, with which that at Caesarea in Acts 10:46, and that at Ephesus, 19:6, are evidently identical, we know very well from the description of Paul. It occurred in the first glow of enthusiasm after conversion and continued for some time. It was not a speaking in foreign languages, which would have been entirely useless in a devotional meeting of converts, but a speaking in a language differing from all known languages, and required an interpreter to be intelligible to foreigners. It had nothing to do with the spread of the gospel, although it may, like other devotional acts, have become a means of conversion to susceptible unbelievers if such were present. It was an act of self-devotion, an act of thanksgiving, praying, and singing, within the Christian congregation, by individuals who were wholly absorbed in communion with God, and gave utterance to their rapturous feelings in broken, abrupt, rhapsodic, unintelligible words. It was emotional rather than intellectual, the language of the excited imagination, not of cool reflection. It was the language of the spirit (πνεῦμα) or of ecstasy, as distinct from the language of the understanding (νοῦς). We might almost illustrate the difference by a comparison of the style of the Apocalypse which was conceived ἐν πνεύματι (Apoc. 1:10) with that of the Gospel of John, which was written ἐν νῷ. The speaker in tongues was in a state of spiritual intoxication, if we may use this term, analogous to the poetic “frenzy” described by Shakespeare and Goethe. His tongue was a lyre on which the divine Spirit played celestial tunes. He was unconscious or only half conscious, and scarcely knew whether he was, “in the body or out of the body.” No one could understand this unpremeditated religious rhapsody unless he was in a similar trance. To an unbelieving outsider it sounded like a barbarous tongue, like the uncertain sound of a trumpet, like the raving of a maniac (1 Cor. 14:23), or the incoherent talk of a drunken man (Acts 2:13, 15). “He that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not to men, but to God; for no one understandeth; and in the spirit he speaketh mysteries; but he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and encouragement, and comfort. He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church*” (1 Cor. 14:2–4; comp. 26–33).

The Corinthians evidently overrated the glossolalia, as a showy display of divine power; but it was more ornamental than useful, and vanished away with the bridal season of the church. It is a mark of the great wisdom of Paul who was himself a master in the glossolalia (1 Cor. 14:18), that he assigned to it a subordinate and transient position, restrained its exercise, demanded an interpretation of it, and gave the preference to the gifts of permanent usefulness in which God displays his goodness and love for the general benefit. Speaking with tongues is good, but prophesying and teaching in intelligible speech for the edification of the congregation is better, and love to God and men in active exercise is best of all (1 Cor. 13).

We do not know how long the glossolalia, as thus described by Paul, continued. It passed away gradually with the other extraordinary or strictly supernatural gifts of the apostolic age. It is not mentioned in the Pastoral, nor in the Catholic Epistles. We have but a few allusions to it at the close of the second century. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1v. c. 6, § 1) speaks of “many brethren” whom he heard in the church having the gift of prophecy and of speaking in “diverse tongues” (παντοδαπαῖς γλώσσαις), bringing the hidden things of men (τὰ κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων) to light and expounding the mysteries of God (τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ θεοῦ). It is not clear whether by the term “diverse,” which does not elsewhere occur, he means a speaking in foreign languages, or in diversities of tongues altogether peculiar, like those meant by Paul. The latter is more probable. Irenaeus himself had to learn the language of Gaul. Tertullian (Adv. Marc. V. 8; comp. De Anima, c. 9) obscurely speaks of the spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues, as being still manifest among the Montanists to whom he belonged. At the time of Chrysostom it had entirely disappeared; at least he accounts for the obscurity of the gift from our ignorance of the fact. From that time on the glossolalia was usually misunderstood as a miraculous and permanent gift of foreign languages for missionary purposes. But the whole history of missions furnishes no clear example of such a gift for such a purpose.

Analogous phenomena, of an inferior kind, and not miraculous, yet serving as illustrations, either by approximation or as counterfeits, reappeared from time to time in seasons of special religious excitement, as among the Camisards and the prophets of the Cevennes in France, among the early Quakers and Methodists, the Mormons, the Readers (“Läsare”) in Sweden in 1841 to 1843, in the Irish revivals of 1859, and especially in the “Catholic Apostolic Church,” commonly called Irvingites, from 1831 to 1833, and even to this day. See Ed. Irving’s articles on Gifts of the Holy Ghost called Supernatural, in his “Works,” vol. V., p. 509, etc.; Mrs. Oliphant’s Life of Irving, vol. II.; the descriptions quoted in my Hist. Ap. Ch. § 55, p. 198; and from friend and foe in Stanley’s Com. on Corinth., p. 252, 4th ed.; also Plumptre in Smith’s, “Bible Dict.,” IV. 3311, Am. ed. The Irvingites who have written on the subject (Thiersch, Böhm, and Rossteuscher) make a marked distinction between the Pentecostal glossolalia in foreign languages and the Corinthian glossolalia in devotional meetings; and it is the latter only which they compare to their own experience. Several years ago I witnessed this phenomenon in an Irvingite congregation in New York; the words were broken, ejaculatory and unintelligible, but uttered in abnormal, startling, impressive sounds, in a state of apparent unconsciousness and rapture, and without any control over the tongue, which was seized as it were by a foreign power. A friend and colleague (Dr. Briggs), who witnessed it in 1879 in the principal Irvingite church at London, received the same impression.

(3) The Pentecostal glossolalia cannot have been essentially different from the Corinthian: it was likewise an ecstatic act of worship, of thanksgiving and praise for the great deeds of God in Christ, a dialogue of the soul with God. It was the purest and the highest utterance of the jubilant enthusiasm of the new-born church of Christ in the possession of the Holy Spirit. It began before the spectators arrived (comp. Acts 2:4 and 6), and was followed by a missionary discourse of Peter in plain, ordinary language. Luke mentions the same gift twice again (Luke 10 and 19) evidently as an act of devotion, and not of teaching.

Nevertheless, according to the evident meaning of Luke’s narrative, the Pentecostal glossolalia differed from the Corinthian not only by its intensity, but also by coming home to the hearers then present in their own vernacular dialects, without the medium of a human interpreter. Hence the term “different” tongues, which Paul does not use, nor Luke in any other passage; hence the astonishment of the foreigners at hearing each his own peculiar idiom from the lips of those unlettered Galileans. It is this heteroglossolalia, as I may term it, which causes the chief difficulty. I will give the various views which either deny, or shift, or intensify, or try to explain this foreign element.

(a) The rationalistic interpretation cuts the Gordian knot by denying the miracle, as a mistake of the narrator or of the early Christian tradition. Even Meyer surrenders the heteroglossolalia, as far as it differs from the Corinthian glossolalia, as an unhistorical tradition which originated in a mistake, because he considers the sudden communication of the facility of speaking foreign languages as “logically impossible, and psychologically and morally inconceivable” (Com. on Acts 2:4, 4th ed.). But Luke, the companion of Paul, must have been familiar with the glossolalia in the apostolic churches, and in the two other passages where he mentions it he evidently means the same phenomenon as that described by Paul.

(b) The heteroglossolalia was a mistake of the hearers (a Hörwunder), who in the state of extraordinary excitement and profound sympathy imagined that they heard their own language from the disciples; while Luke simply narrates their impression without correcting it. This view was mentioned (though not adopted) by Gregory of Nyssa, and held by Pseudo-Cyprian, the venerable Bede, Erasmus, Schneckenburger and others. If the pentecostal language was the Hellenistic dialect, it could, with its composite character, its Hebraisms and Latinisms, the more easily produce such an effect when spoken by persons stirred in the inmost depth of their hearts and lifted out of themselves. St. Xavier is said to have made himself understood by the Hindoos without knowing their language, and St. Bernard, St. Anthony of Padua, St. Vincent Ferrer were able, by the spiritual power of their eloquence, to kindle the enthusiasm and sway the passions of multitudes who were ignorant of their language. Olshausen and Bäumlein call to aid the phenomena of magnetism and somnambulism, by which people are brought into mysterious rapport.

(c) The glossolalia was speaking in archaic, poetic glosses, with an admixture of foreign words. This view, learnedly defended by Bleek (1829), and adopted with modifications by Baur (1838), has already been mentioned above (p. 233), as inconsistent with Hellenistic usage, and the natural meaning of Luke.

(d) The mystical explanation regards the Pentecostal Gift of Tongues in some way as a counterpart of the Confusion of Tongues, either as a temporary restoration of the original language of Paradise, or as a prophetic anticipation of the language of heaven in which all languages are united. This theory, which is more deep than clear, turns the heteroglossolalia into a homoglossolalia, and puts the miracle into the language itself and its temporary restoration or anticipation. Schelling calls the Pentecostal miracle “Babel reversed” (das umgekehrte Babel), and says: “Dem Ereigniss der Sprachenverwirrung lässt sich in der ganzen Folge der religiösen Geschichte nur Eines an die Seite stellen, die momentan wiederhergestellte Spracheinheit (oJmoglwssiva) am Pfingstfeste, mit dem das Christenthum, bestimmt das ganze Menschengeschlecht durch die Erkenntniss des Einen wahren Gottes wieder zur Einheit zu verknüpfen, seinen grossen Weg beginnt.“ (Einl. in d. Philos. der Mythologie, p. 109). A similar view was defended by Billroth (in his Com. on 1 Cor. 14, p. 177), who suggests that the primitive language combined elements of the different derived languages, so that each listener heard fragments of his own. Lange (II. 38) sees here the normal language of the inner spiritual life which unites the redeemed, and which runs through all ages of the church as the leaven of languages, regenerating, transforming, and consecrating them to sacred uses, but he assumes also, like Olshausen, a sympathetic rapport between speakers and hearers. Delitzsch (l.c. p. 1186) says: “Die apostolische Verkündigung erging damals in einer Sprache des Geistes, welche das Gegenbild der in Babel zerschellten Einen Menschheitssprache war und von allen ohne Unterschied der Sprachen gleichmässig verstanden wurde. Wie das weisse Licht alle Farben aus sich erschliesst, so fiel die geistgewirkte Apostelsprache wie in prismatischer Brechung verständlich in aller Ohren und ergreifend in aller Herzen. Es war ein Vorspiel der Einigung, in welcher die von Babel datirende Veruneinigung sich aufheben wird. Dem Sivan-Tag des steinernen Buchstabens trat ein Sivan-Tag des lebendigmachenden Geistes entgegen. Es war der Geburtstag der Kirche, der Geistesgemeinde im Unterschiede von der altestamentlichen Volksgemeinde; darum nennt Chrysostomus in einer Pfingsthomilie die Pentekoste die Metropole der Feste.“ Ewald’s view (VI. 116 sqq.) is likewise mystical, but original and expressed with his usual confidence. He calls the glossolalia an “Auflallen und Aufjauchzen der Christlichen Begeisterung, ein stürmisches Hervorbrechen aller der verborgenen Gefühle und Gedanken in ihrer vollsten Unmittelbarkeit und Gewalt.“ He says that on the day of Pentecost the most unusual expressions and synonyms of different languages (as ajbbav oJ pathvr, Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15, and mara;n ajqav 1 Cor. 16:22), with reminiscences of words of Christ as resounding from heaven, commingled in the vortex of a new language of the Spirit, and gave utterance to the exuberant joy of the young Christianity in stammering hymns of praise never heard before or since except in the weaker manifestations of the same gift in the Corinthian and other apostolic churches.

(e) The Pentecostal glossolalia was a permanent endowment of the apostles with a miraculous knowledge of all those foreign languages in which they were to preach the gospel. As they were sent to preach to all nations, they were gifted with the tongues of all nations. This theory was first clearly brought out by the fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries, long after the gift of tongues had disappeared, and was held by most of the older divines, though with different modifications, but is now abandoned by nearly all Protestant commentators except Bishop Wordsworth, who defends it with patristic quotations. Chrysostom supposed that each disciple was assigned the particular language which he needed for his evangelistic work (Hom. on Acts 2). Augustine went much further, saying (De Civ. Dei, XVIII. c. 49): “Every one of them spoke in the tongues of all nations; thus signifying that the unity of the catholic church would embrace all nations, and would in like manner speak in all tongues.” Some confined the number of languages to the number of foreign nations and countries mentioned by Luke (Chrysostom), others extended it to 70 or 72 (Augustine and Epiphanius), or 75, after the number of the sons of Noah (Gen. 10), or even to 120 (Pacianus), after the number of the disciples present. Baronius mentions these opinions in Annal. ad Ann. 34, vol. I. 197. The feast of languages in the Roman Propaganda perpetuates this theory, but turns the moral miracle of spiritual enthusiasm into a mechanical miracle of acquired learning in unknown tongues. Were all the speakers to speak at once, as on the day of Pentecost, it would be a more than Babylonian confusion of tongues.

Such a stupendous miracle as is here supposed might be justified by the far-reaching importance of that creative epoch, but it is without a parallel and surrounded by insuperable difficulties. The theory ignores the fact that the glossolalia began before the spectators arrived, that is, before there was any necessity of using foreign languages. It isolates the Pentecostal glossolalia and brings Luke into conflict with Paul and with himself; for in all other cases the gift of tongues appears, as already remarked, not as a missionary agency, but as an exercise of devotion. It implies that all the one hundred disciples present, including the women—for a tongue as of fire “sat upon each of them”—were called to be traveling evangelists. A miracle of that kind was superfluous (a Luxuswunder); for since the conquest of Alexander the Great the Greek language was so generally understood throughout the Roman empire that the apostles scarcely needed any other—unless it was Latin and their native Aramaean—for evangelistic purposes; and the Greek was used in fact by all the writers of the New Testament, even by James of Jerusalem, and in a way which shows that they had learnt it like other people, by early training and practice. Moreover there is no trace of such a miraculous knowledge, nor any such use of it after Pentecost.(280) On the contrary, we must infer that Paul did not understand the Lycaonian dialect (Acts 14:11–14), and we learn from early ecclesiastical tradition that Peter used Mark as an interpreter (eJrmhneuv” or eJrmhneuthv”, interpres, according to Papias, Irenaeus, and Tertullian). God does not supersede by miracle the learning of foreign languages and other kinds of knowledge which can be attained by the ordinary use of our mental faculties and opportunities.

(f) It was a temporary speaking in foreign languages confined to the day of Pentecost and passing away with the flame-like tongues. The exception was justified by the object, namely, to attest the divine mission of the apostles and to foreshadow the universalness of the gospel. This view is taken by most modern commentators who accept the account of Luke, as Olshausen (who combines with it the theory b), Baumgarten, Thiersch, Rossteuscher, Lechler, Hackett, Gloag, Plumptre (in his Com. on Acts), and myself (in H. Ap. Ch.), and accords best with the plain sense of the narrative. But it likewise makes an essential distinction between the Pentecostal and the Corinthian glossolalia, which is extremely improbable. A temporary endowment with the knowledge of foreign languages unknown before is as great if not a greater miracle than a permanent endowment, and was just as superfluous at that time in Jerusalem as afterwards at Corinth; for the missionary sermon of Peter, which was in one language only, was intelligible to all.

(g) The Pentecostal glossolalia was essentially the same as the Corinthian glossolalia, namely, an act of worship, and not of teaching; with only a slight difference in the medium of interpretation: it was at once internally interpreted and applied by the Holy Spirit himself to those hearers who believed and were converted, to each in his own vernacular dialect; while in Corinth the interpretation was made either by the speaker in tongues, or by one endowed with the gift of interpretation.

I can find no authority for this theory, and therefore suggest it with modesty, but it seems to me to avoid most of the difficulties of the other theories, and it brings Luke into harmony with himself and with Paul. It is certain that the Holy Spirit moved the hearts of the hearers as well as the tongues of the speakers on that first day of the new creation in Christ. In a natural form the Pentecostal heteroglossolalia is continued in the preaching of the gospel in all tongues, and in more than three hundred translations of the Bible.

II. False interpretations of the Pentecostal miracle.

(1) The older rationalistic interpretation resolves the wind into a thunderstorm or a hurricane surcharged with electricity, the tongues of fire into flashes of lightning falling into the assembly, or electric sparks from a sultry atmosphere, and the glossolalia into a praying of each in his own vernacular, instead of the sacred old Hebrew, or assumes that some of the disciples knew several foreign dialects before and used them on the occasion. So Paulus, Thiess, Schulthess, Kuinöl, Schrader, Fritzsche, substantially also Renan, who dwells on the violence of Oriental thunderstorms, but explains the glossolalia differently according to analogous phenomena of later times. This view makes the wonder of the spectators and hearers at such an ordinary occurrence a miracle. It robs them of common sense, or charges dishonesty on the narrator. It is entirely inapplicable to the glossolalia in Corinth, which must certainly be admitted as an historical phenomenon of frequent occurrence in the apostolic church. It is contradicted by the comparative w{sper and wJseiv of the narrative, which distinguishes the sound from ordinary wind and the tongues of flame from ordinary fire; just as the words, “like a dove,” to which all the Gospels compare the appearance of the Holy Spirit at Christ’s baptism, indicate that no real dove is intended.

(2) The modern rationalistic or mythical theory resolves the miracle into a subjective vision which was mistaken by the early Christians for an objective external fact. The glossolalia of Pentecost (not that in Corinth, which is acknowledged as historical) symbolizes the true idea of the universalness of the gospel and the Messianic unification of languages and nationalities (eij\” lao;” Kurivou kai; glw’ssa miva as the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs expresses it). It is an imitation of the rabbinical fiction (found already in Philo) that the Sinaitic legislation was proclaimed through the bath-kol, the echo of the voice of God, to all nations in the seventy languages of the world. So Zeller (Contents and Origin of the Acts, I. 203–205), who thinks that the whole pentecostal fact, if it occurred at all. “must have been distorted beyond recognition in our record.” But his chief argument is: “the impossibility and incredibility of miracles,” which he declares (p. 175, note) to be “an axiom” of the historian; thus acknowledging the negative presupposition or philosophical prejudice which underlies his historical criticism. We hold, on the contrary, that the historian must accept the facts as he finds them, and if he cannot explain them satisfactorily from natural causes or subjective illusions, he must trace them to supernatural forces. Now the Christian church, which is certainly a most palpable and undeniable fact, must have originated in a certain place, at a certain time, and in a certain manner, and we can imagine no more appropriate and satisfactory account of its origin than that given by Luke. Baur and Zeller think it impossible that three thousand persons should have been converted in one day and in one place. They forget that the majority of the hearers were no skeptics, but believers in a supernatural revelation, and needed only to be convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah. Ewald says against Zeller, without naming him (VI. 119) “Nothing can be more perverse than to deny the historical truth of the event related in Acts 2.” We hold with Rothe (Vorlesungen über Kirchengeschichte I. 33) that the Pentecostal event was a real miracle (“ein eigentliches Wunder“), which the Holy Spirit wrought on the disciples and which endowed them with the power to perform miracles (according to the promise, Mark 16:17, 18). Without these miraculous powers Christianity could not have taken hold on the world as it then stood. The Christian church itself, with its daily experiences of regeneration and conversion at home and in heathen lands, is the best living and omnipresent proof of its supernatural origin.

III. Time and Place, of Pentecost. Did it occur on a Lord’s Day (the eighth after Easter), or on a Jewish Sabbath? In a private house, or in the temple ? We decide for the Lord’s Day, and for a private house. But opinions are much divided, and the arguments almost equally balanced.

(1) The choice of the day in the week depends partly on the interpretation of “the morrow after the (Passover) Sabbath” from which the fiftieth day was to be counted, according to the legislative prescription in Lev. 23:11, 15, 16—namely, whether it was the morrow following the first day of the Passover, i.e. the 16th of Nisan, or the day after the regular Sabbath in the Passover week; partly on the date of Christ’s crucifixion, which took place on a Friday, namely, whether this was the 14th or 15th of Nisan. If we assume that the Friday of Christ’s death was the 14th of Nisan, then the 15th was a Sabbath, and Pentecost in that year fall on a Sunday; but if the Friday of the crucifixion was the 15th of Nisan (as I hold myself, see § 16, p. 133), then Pentecost fell on a Jewish Sabbath (so Wieseler, who fixes it on Saturday, May 27, a.d. 30), unless we count from the end of the 16th of Nisan (as Wordsworth and Plumptre do, who put Pentecost on a Sunday). But if we take the “Sabbath” in Lev. 23 in the usual sense of the weekly Sabbath (as the Sadducees and Karaites did), then the Jewish Pentecost fell always on a Sunday. At all events the Christian church has uniformly observed Whit-Sunday on the eighth Lord’s Day after Easter, adhering in this case, as well as in the festivals of the resurrection (Sunday) and of the ascension (Thursday), to the old tradition as to the day of the week when the event occurred. This view would furnish an additional reason for the substitution of Sunday, as the day of the Lord’s resurrection and the descent of the Holy Spirit, for the Jewish Sabbath. Wordsworth: “Thus the first day of the week has been consecrated to all the three Persons of the ever-blessed and undivided Trinity; and the blessings of Creation, Redemption, and Sanctification are commemorated on the Christian Sunday.” Wieseler assumes, without good reason, that the ancient church deliberately changed the day from opposition to the Jewish Sabbath; but the celebration of Pentecost together with that of the Resurrection seems to be as old as the Christian church and has its precedent in the example of Paul, Acts 18:21; 20:16.—Lightfoot (Horae Hebr. in Acta Ap. 2:1; Opera II. 692) counts Pentecost from the 16th of Nisan, but nevertheless puts the first Christian Pentecost on a Sunday by an unusual and questionable interpretation of Acts 2:1 ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς, which he makes to mean “when the day of Pentecost was fully gone,“ instead of “was fully come.“ But whether Pentecost fell on a Jewish Sabbath or on a Lord’s Day, the coincidence in either case was significant.

(2) As to the place, Luke calls it simply a “house” (οἶκος, Acts 2:2), which can hardly mean the temple (not mentioned till 2:46). It was probably the same “upper room” or chamber which he had mentioned in the preceding chapter, as the well known usual meeting place of the, disciples after the ascension, τὸ ὑπερῷον …οὗ ἦσαν καταμένοντες, 1:13). So Neander, Meyer, Ewald, Wordsworth, Plumptre, Farrar, and others. Perhaps it was the same chamber in which our Lord partook of the Paschal Supper with them (Mark 14:14, 15; Matt. 26:28). Tradition locates both events in the “Coenaculum,” a room in an irregular building called “David’s Tomb,” which lies outside of Zion Gate some distance from Mt. Moriah. (See William M. Thomson, The Land and the Book, new ed. 1880, vol. I. p. 535 sq.). But Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. XVI. 4) states that the apartment where the Holy Spirit descended was afterwards converted into a church. The uppermost room under the flat roof of Oriental houses. (ὑπερῷον, עֲלִיָּה) as often used as a place of devotion (comp. Acts 20:8). But as a private house could not possibly hold so great a multitude, we must suppose that Peter addressed the people in the street from the roof or from the outer staircase.

Many of the older divines, as also Olshausen, Baumgarten, Wieseler, Lange, Thiersch (and myself in first ed. of Ap. Ch., p. 194), locate the Pentecostal scene in the temple, or rather in one of the thirty side buildings around it, which Josephus calls “houses” (οἴκους) in his description of Solomon’s temple (Ant. VIII. 3, 2), or in Solomon’s porch, which remained from the first temple, and where the disciples assembled afterwards (Acts 5:12, comp. 3:11). In favor of this view may be said, that it better agrees with the custom of the apostles (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 5:12, 42), with the time of the miracle (the morning hour of prayer), and with the assembling of a large multitude of at least three thousand hearers, and also that it seems to give additional solemnity to the event when it took place in the symbolical and typical sanctuary of the old dispensation. But it is difficult to conceive that the hostile Jews should have allowed the poor disciples to occupy one of those temple buildings and not interfered with the scene. In the dispensation of the Spirit which now began, the meanest dwelling, and the body of the humblest Christian becomes a temple of God. Comp. John 4:24.

IV. Effects of the Day of Pentecost. From Farrar’s Life and Work of St. Paul (I. 93): “That this first Pentecost marked an eternal moment in the destiny of mankind, no reader of history will surely deny. Undoubtedly in every age since then the sons of God have, to an extent unknown before, been taught by the Spirit of God. Undoubtedly since then, to an extent unrealized before, we may know that the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in us. Undoubtedly we may enjoy a nearer sense of union with God in Christ than was accorded to the saints of the Old Dispensation, and a thankful certainty that we see the days which kings and prophets desired to see and did not see them, and hear the truths which they desired to hear and did not hear them. And this New Dispensation began henceforth in all its fulness. It was no exclusive consecration to a separated priesthood, no isolated endowment of a narrow apostolate. It was the consecration of a whole church—its men, its women, its children—to be all of them ’a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people;’ it was an endowment, of which the full free offer was meant ultimately to be extended to all mankind. Each one of that hundred and twenty was not the exceptional recipient of a blessing and witness of a revelation, but the forerunner and representative of myriads more. And this miracle was not merely transient, but is continuously renewed. It is not a rushing sound and gleaming light, seen perhaps for a moment, but it is a living energy and an unceasing inspiration. It is not a visible symbol to a gathered handful of human souls in the upper room of a Jewish house, but a vivifying wind which shall henceforth breathe in all ages of the world’s history; a tide of light which is rolling, and shall roll, from shore to shore until the earth is fall of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”

§ 25. The Church of Jerusalem and the Labors of Peter.

Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Matt. 16:18.

Literature.

I. Genuine sources: Acts 2 to 12; Gal. 2; and two Epistles of Peter.

Comp. the Commentaries on Acts, and the Petrine Epistles.

Among the commentators of Peter’s Epp. I mention Archbishop Leighton (in many editions, not critical, but devout and spiritual), Steiger (1832, translated by Fairbairn, 1836), John Brown (1849, 2 vols.), Wiesinger (1856 and 1862, in Olshausen’s Com.), Schott (1861 and 1863), De Wette (3d ed. by Brückner, 1865), Huther (in Meyer’s Com., 4th ed. 1877), Fronmüller (in Lange’s Bibelwerk, transl. by Mombert, 1867), Alford (3d ed. 1864), John Lillie (ed. by Schaff, 1869), Demarest (Cath. Epp 1879), Mason and Plumptre (in Ellicott’s Com., 1879), Plumptre (in the “Cambridge Bible,” 1879, with a very full introduction, pp. 1–83), Salmond (in Schaff’s Pop. Com. 1883). Comp. also the corresponding sections in the works on the Apostolic Age mentioned in §20, and my H. Ap. Ch. pp. 348–377.

II. Apocryphal sources: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Πέτρον of Ebionite origin, Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, Πράξεις Πέτρου, Ἀποκάλυψις Πέτρου, Περίοδοι Πέτρου (Itinerarium Petri), Πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου (Acta Petri et Pauli). See Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apocr 1–39, and Hilgenfeld’s Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum (1866), IV. 52 sqq. The Pseudo-Clementine “Homilies” are a glorification of Peter at the expense of Paul; the, “Recognitions” are a Catholic recension and modification of the “Homilies.” The pseudo-Clementine literature will be noticed in the second Period.

III. Special works on Peter:

E. Th. Mayerhoff: Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in die Petrinischen Schriften. Hamb. 1835.

Windischmann (R. C.): Vindiciae Petrinae. Ratisb. 1836.

Stenglein (R. C.): Ueber den 25 jahrigen Aufenthalt des heil. Petrus in Rom. In the “Tübinger Theol. Quartalschrift,” 1840.

J. Ellendorf: 1st Petrus in Rom und Bishof der römischen Gemeinde gewesen? Darmstadt, 1841. Transl. in the “Bibliotheca Sacra,” Andover, 1858, No. 3. The author, a liberal R. Cath., comes to the conclusion that Peter’s presence in Rome can never be proven.

Carlo Passaglia (Jesuit): De Praerogativis Beati Petri, Apostolorum Principis. Ratisbon, 1850.

Thomas W. Allies (R. C.): St. Peter, his Name and his Office as set forth in Holy Scripture. London, 1852. Based upon the preceding work of Father Passaglia.

Bernh. Weiss: Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff. Berlin, 1855. Comp. his Bibl. Theol. des N. T, 3d ed. 1880, and his essay, Die petrinische Frage in “Studien und Kritiken,” 1865, pp. 619–657, 1866, pp. 255–308, and 1873, pp. 539–546.

Thos. Greenwood: Cathedra Petri. Lond., vol. I. 1859, chs. I and II. pp. 1–50.

Perrone (R. C.): S. Pietro in Roma. Rome, 1864.

C. Holsten (of the Tübingen School): Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus. Rostock, 1868.

R. A. Lipsius: Die Quellen der röm. Petrussage. Kiel, 1872. By the same: Chronologie der röm Bischöfe. Kiel, 1869. Lipsius examines carefully the heretical sources of the Roman Peter-legend, and regards it as a fiction from beginning to end. A summary of his view is given by

Samuel M. Jackson: Lipsius on the Roman Peter-Legend. In the “Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review” (N. York) for 1876, pp. 265 sqq.

G. Volkmar: Die römische Papstmythe. Zürich, 1873.

A. Hilgenfeld: Petrus in Rom und Johannes in Kleinasien. In his “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theol.” for 1872. Also his Einleitung in das N. T., 1875, pp. 618 sqq.

W. Krafft: Petrus in Rom. Bonn, 1877. In the “Theol. Arbeiten des rhein. wissenschaftl. Predigervereins, “ III. 185–193.

Joh. Friedrich (Old Cath.): Zur ältesten Gesch. des Primates in der Kirche. Bonn, 1879.

William M. Taylor: Peter the Apostle. N. York, 1879.

---

The congregation of Jerusalem became the mother church of Jewish Christianity, and thus of all Christendom. It grew both inwardly and outwardly under the personal direction of the apostles, chiefly of Peter, to whom the Lord had early assigned a peculiar prominence in the work of building his visible church on earth. The apostles were assisted by a number of presbyters, and seven deacons or persons appointed to care for the poor and the sick. But the Spirit moved in the whole congregation, bound to no particular office. The preaching of the gospel, the working of miracles in the name of Jesus, and the attractive power of a holy walk in faith and love, were the instruments of progress. The number of the Christians, or, as they at first called themselves, disciples, believers, brethren, saints, soon rose to five thousand. They continued steadfastly under the instruction and in the fellowship of the apostles, in the daily worship of God and celebration of the holy Supper with their agapae or love-feasts. They felt themselves to be one family of God, members of one body under one head, Jesus Christ; and this fraternal unity expressed itself even in a voluntary community of goods—an anticipation, as it were, of an ideal state at the end of history, but without binding force upon any other congregation. They adhered as closely to the temple worship and the Jewish observances as the new life admitted and as long as there was any hope of the conversion of Israel as a nation. They went daily to the temple to teach, as their Master had done, but held their devotional meetings in private houses.(281)

The addresses of Peter to the people and the Sanhedrin(282) are remarkable for their natural simplicity and adaptation. They are full of fire and vigor, yet full of wisdom and persuasion, and always to the point. More practical and effective sermons were never preached. They are testimonies of an eye-witness so timid a few weeks before, and now so bold and ready at any moment to suffer and die for the cause. They are an expansion of his confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, the Saviour. He preached no subtle theological doctrines, but a few great facts and truths: the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, already known to his hearers for his mighty signs and wonders, his exaltation to the right hand of Almighty God, the descent and power of the Holy Spirit, the fulfilment of prophecy, the approaching judgment and glorious restitution of all things, the paramount importance of conversion and faith in Jesus as the only name whereby we can be saved. There breathes in them an air of serene joy and certain triumph.

We can form no clear conception of this bridal season of the Christian church when no dust of earth soiled her shining garments, when she was wholly absorbed in the contemplation and love of her divine Lord, when he smiled down upon her from his throne in heaven, and added daily to the number of the saved. It was a continued Pentecost, it was paradise restored. “They did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.”(283)

Yet even in this primitive apostolic community inward corruption early appeared, and with it also the severity of discipline and self-purification, in the terrible sentence of Peter on the hypocritical Ananias and Sapphira.

At first Christianity found favor with the people. Soon, however, it had to encounter the same persecution as its divine founder had undergone, but only, as before, to transform it into a blessing and a means of growth.

The persecution was begun by the skeptical sect of the Sadducees, who took offence at the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ, the centre of all the apostolic preaching.

When Stephen, one of the seven deacons of the church at Jerusalem, a man full of faith and zeal, the forerunner of the apostle Paul, boldly assailed the perverse and obstinate spirit of Judaism, and declared the approaching downfall of the Mosaic economy, the Pharisees made common cause with the Sadducees against the gospel. Thus began the emancipation of Christianity from the temple-worship of Judaism, with which it had till then remained at least outwardly connected. Stephen himself was falsely accused of blaspheming Moses, and after a remarkable address in his own defence, he was stoned by a mob (a.d. 37), and thus became the worthy leader of the sacred host of martyrs, whose blood was thenceforth to fertilize the soil of the church. From the blood of his martyrdom soon sprang the great apostle of the Gentiles, now his bitterest persecutor, and an eye-witness of his heroism and of the glory of Christ in his dying face.(284)

The stoning of Stephen was the signal for a general persecution, and thus at the same time for the spread of Christianity over all Palestine and the region around. And it was soon followed by the conversion of Cornelius of Caesarea, which opened the door for the mission to the Gentiles. In this important event Peter likewise was the prominent actor.

After some seven years of repose the church at Jerusalem suffered a new persecution under king Herod Agrippa (a.d. 44). James the elder, the brother of John, was beheaded. Peter was imprisoned and condemned to the same fate; but he was miraculously liberated, and then forsook Jerusalem, leaving the church to the care of James the “brother of the Lord.” Eusebius, Jerome, and the Roman Catholic historians assume that he went at that early period to Rome, at least on a temporary visit, if not for permanent residence. But the book of Acts (12:17) says only: “He departed, and went into another place.” The indefiniteness of this expression, in connection with a remark of Paul. 1 Cor. 9:5, is best explained on the supposition that he had hereafter no settled home, but led the life of a travelling missionary like most of the apostles.

The Later Labors of Peter.

Afterwards we find Peter again in Jerusalem at the apostolic council (a.d. 50);(285) then at Antioch (51); where he came into temporary collision with Paul;(286) then upon missionary tours, accompanied by his wife (57);(287) perhaps among the dispersed Jews in Babylon or in Asia Minor, to whom he addressed his epistles.(288) Of a residence of Peter in Rome the New Testament contains no trace, unless, as the church fathers and many modern expositors think, Rome is intended by the mystic “Babylon” mentioned in 1 Pet. 5:13 (as in the Apocalypse), but others think of Babylon on the Euphrates, and still others of Babylon on the Nile (near the present Cairo, according to the Coptic tradition). The entire silence of the Acts of the Apostles 28, respecting Peter, as well as the silence of Paul in his epistle to the Romans, and the epistles written from Rome during his imprisonment there, in which Peter is not once named in the salutations, is decisive proof that he was absent from that city during most of the time between the years 58 and 63. A casual visit before 58 is possible, but extremely doubtful, in view of the fact that Paul labored independently and never built on the foundation of others;(289) hence he would probably not have written his epistle to the Romans at all, certainly not without some allusion to Peter if he had been in any proper sense the founder of the church of Rome. After the year 63 we have no data from the New Testament, as the Acts close with that year, and the interpretation of “Babylon” at the end of the first Epistle of Peter is doubtful, though probably meant for Rome. The martyrdom of Peter by crucifixion was predicted by our Lord, John 21:18, 19, but no place is mentioned.

We conclude then that Peter’s presence in Rome before 63 is made extremely doubtful, if not impossible, by the silence of Luke and Paul, when speaking of Rome and writing from Rome, and that His presence after 63 can neither be proved nor disproved from the New Testament, and must be decided by post-biblical testimonies.

It is the uniform tradition of the eastern and western churches that Peter preached the gospel in Rome, and suffered martyrdom there in the Neronian persecution. So say more or less clearly, yet not without admixture of error, Clement of Rome (who mentions the martyrdom, but not the place), at the close of the first century; Ignatius of Antioch (indistinctly), Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus of Lyons, Caius of Rome, in the second century; Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, in the third; Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, in the fourth. To these patristic testimonies may be added the apocryphal testimonies of the pseudo-Petrine and pseudo-Clementine fictions, which somehow connect Peter’s name with the founding of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth, and Rome. However these testimonies from various men and countries may differ in particular circumstances, they can only be accounted for on the supposition of some fact at the bottom; for they were previous to any use or abuse of this, tradition for heretical or for orthodox and hierarchical purposes. The chief error of the witnesses from Dionysius and Irenaeus onward is that Peter is associated with Paul as “founder” of the church of Rome; but this may be explained from the very probable fact that some of the “strangers from Rome” who witnessed the Pentecostal miracle and heard the sermon of Peter, as also some disciples who were scattered abroad by the persecution after the martyrdom of Stephen, carried the seed of the gospel to Rome, and that these converts of Peter became the real founders of the Jewish-Christian congregation in the metropolis. Thus the indirect agency of Peter was naturally changed into a direct agency by tradition which forgot the names of the pupils in the glorification of the teacher.

The time of Peter’s arrival in Rome, and the length of his residence there, cannot possibly be ascertained. The above mentioned silence of the Acts and of Paul’s Epistles allows him only a short period of labor there, after 63. The Roman tradition of a twenty or twenty-five years’ episcopate of Peter in Rome is unquestionably a colossal chronological mistake.(290) Nor can we fix the year of his martyrdom, except that it must have taken place after July, 64, when the Neronian persecution broke out (according to Tacitus). It is variously assigned to every year between 64 and 69. We shall return to it again below, and in connection with the martyrdom of Paul, with which it is associated in tradition.(291)

§ 26. The Peter of History and the Peter of Fiction.

No character in the New Testament is brought before us in such life-like colors, with all his virtues and faults, as that of Peter. He was frank and transparent, and always gave himself as he was, without any reserve.

We may distinguish three stages in his development. In the Gospels, the human nature of Simon appears most prominent the Acts unfold the divine mission of Peter in the founding of the church, with a temporary relapse at Antioch (recorded by Paul); in his Epistles we see the complete triumph of divine grace. He was the strongest and the weakest of the Twelve. He had all the excellences and all the defects of a sanguine temperament. He was kind-hearted, quick, ardent, hopeful, impulsive, changeable, and apt to run from one extreme to another. He received from Christ the highest praise and the severest censure. He was the first to confess him as the Messiah of God, for which he received his new name of Peter, in prophetic anticipation of his commanding position in church history; but he was also the first to dissuade him from entering the path of the cross to the crown, for which he brought upon himself the rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The rock of the church had become a rock of offence and a stumbling-block. He protested, in presumptive modesty, when Christ would wash his feet; and then, suddenly changing his mind, he wished not his feet only, but his hands and head to be washed. He cut off the ear of Malchus in carnal zeal for his Master; and in a few minutes afterwards he forsook him and fled. He solemnly promised to be faithful to Christ, though all should forsake him; and yet in the same night he betrayed him thrice. He was the first to cast off the Jewish prejudices against the unclean heathen and to fraternize with the Gentile converts at Caesarea and at Antioch; and he was the first to withdraw from them in cowardly fear of the narrow-minded Judaizers from Jerusalem, for which inconsistency he had to submit to a humiliating rebuke of Paul.(292)

But Peter was as quick in returning to his right position as in turning away from it. He most sincerely loved the Lord from the start and had no rest nor peace till he found forgiveness. With all his weakness he was a noble, generous soul, and of the greatest service in the church. God overruled his very sins and inconsistencies for his humiliation and spiritual progress. And in his Epistles we find the mature result of the work of purification, a spirit most humble, meek, gentle, tender, loving, and lovely. Almost every word and incident in the gospel history connected with Peter left its impress upon his Epistles in the way of humble or thankful reminiscence and allusion. His new name, “Rock,” appears simply as a “stone” among other living stones in the temple of God, built upon Christ, “the chief corner-stone.”(293) His charge to his fellow-presbyters is the same which Christ gave to him after the resurrection, that they should be faithful “shepherds of the flock” under Christ, the chief “shepherd and bishop of their souls.”(294) The record of his denial of Christ is as prominent in all the four Gospels, as Paul’s persecution of the church is in the Acts, and it is most prominent—as it would seem under his own direction—in the Gospel of his pupil and “interpreter” Mark, which alone mentions the two cock-crows, thus doubling the guilt of the denial,(295) and which records Christ’s words of censure (“Satan”), but omits Christ’s praise (“Rock”).(296) Peter made as little effort to conceal his great sin, as Paul. It served as a thorn in his flesh, and the remembrance kept him near the cross; while his recovery from the fall was a standing proof of the power and mercy of Christ and a perpetual call to gratitude. To the Christian Church the double story of Peter’s denial and recovery has been ever since an unfailing source of warning and comfort. Having turned again to his Lord, who prayed for him that his personal faith fail not, he is still strengthening the brethren.(297)

As to his official position in the church, Peter stood from the beginning at the head of the Jewish apostles, not in a partisan sense, but in a large-hearted spirit of moderation and comprehension. He never was a narrow, contracted, exclusive sectarian. After the vision at Joppa and the conversion of Cornelius he promptly changed his inherited view of the necessity of circumcision, and openly professed the change at Jerusalem, proclaiming the broad principle “that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to him;” and “that Jews and Gentiles alike are saved only through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”(298) He continued to be the head of the Jewish Christian church at large, and Paul himself represents him as the first among the three “pillar”-apostles of the circumcision(299) But he stood mediating between James, who represented the right wing of conservatism, and Paul, who commanded the left wing of the apostolic army. And this is precisely the position which Peter occupies in his Epistles, which reproduce to a great extent the teaching of both Paul and James, and have therefore the character of a doctrinal Irenicum; as the Acts are a historical Irenicum, without violation of truth or fact.

The Peter of Fiction.

No character of the Bible, we may say, no personage in all history, has been so much magnified, misrepresented and misused for doctrinal and hierarchical ends as the plain fisherman of Galilee who stands at the head of the apostolic college. Among the women of the Bible the Virgin Mary has undergone a similar transformation for purposes of devotion, and raised to the dignity of the queen of heaven. Peter as the Vicar of Christ, and Mary as the mother of Christ, have in this idealized shape become and are still the ruling powers in the polity and worship of the largest branch of Christendom.

In both cases the work of fiction began among the Judaizing heretical sects of the second and third centuries, but was modified and carried forward by the Catholic, especially the Roman church, in the third and fourth centuries.

1. The Peter of the Ebionite fiction. The historical basis is Peter’s encounter with Simon Magus in Samaria,(300) Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch,(301) and the intense distrust and dislike of the Judaizing party to Paul.(302) These three undoubted facts, together with a singular confusion of Simon Magus with an old Sabine deity, Semo Sancus, in Rome,(303) furnished the material and prompted the motive to religious tendency—novels written about and after the middle of the second century by ingenious semi-Gnostic Ebionites, either anonymously or under the fictitious name of Clement of Rome, the reputed successor of Peter.(304) In these productions Simon Peter appears as the great apostle of truth in conflict with Simon Magus, the pseudo-apostle of falsehood, the father of all heresies, the Samaritan possessed by a demon; and Peter follows him step by step from Caesarea Stratonis to Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Antioch, and Rome, and before the tribunal of Nero, disputing with him, and refuting his errors, until at last the impostor, in the daring act of mocking Christ’s ascension to heaven, meets a miserable end.

In the pseudo-Clementine Homilies the name of Simon represents among other heresies also the free gospel of Paul, who is assailed as a false apostle and hated rebel against the authority of the Mosaic law. The same charges which the Judaizers brought against Paul, are here brought by Peter against Simon Magus, especially the assertion that one may be saved by grace alone. His boasted vision of Christ by which he professed to have been converted, is traced to a deceptive vision of the devil. The very words of Paul against Peter at Antioch, that he was “self-condemned” (Gal. 2:11), are quoted as an accusation against God. In one word, Simon Magus is, in part at least, a malignant Judaizing caricature of the apostle of the Gentiles.

1. The Peter of the Papacy. The orthodox version of the Peter-legend, as we find it partly in patristic notices of Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius, partly in apocryphal productions,(305) retains the general story of a conflict of Peter with Simon Magus in Antioch and Rome, but extracts from it its anti-Pauline poison, associates Paul at the end of his life with Peter as the joint, though secondary, founder of the Roman church, and honors both with the martyr’s crown in the Neronian persecution on the same day (the 29th of June), and in the same year or a year apart, but in different localities and in a different manner.(306) Peter was crucified like his Master (though head-downwards (307)), either on the hill of Janiculum (where the church S. Pietro in Montorio stands), or more probably on the Vatican hill (the scene of the Neronian circus and persecution);(308) Paul, being a Roman citizen, was beheaded on the Ostian way at the Three Fountains (Tre Fontane), outside of the city. They even walked together a part of the Appian way to the place of execution. Caius (or Gaius), a Roman presbyter at the close of the second century, pointed to their monuments or trophies(309) on the Vatican, and in the via Ostia. The solemn burial of the remains of Peter in the catacombs of San Sebastiano, and of Paul on the Via Ostia, took place June 29, 258, according to the Kalendarium of the Roman church from the time of Liberius. A hundred years later the remains of Peter were permanently transferred to the Basilica of St. Peter on the Vatican, those of St. Paul to the Basilica of St. Paul (San Paolo fuori le mura) outside of the Porta Ostiensis (now Porta San Paolo).(310)

The tradition of a twenty-five years’ episcopate in Rome (preceded by a seven years’ episcopate in Antioch) cannot be traced beyond the fourth century (Jerome), and arose, as already remarked, from chronological miscalculations in connection with the questionable statement of Justin Martyr concerning the arrival of Simon Magus in Rome under the reign of Claudius (41–54). The “Catalogus Liberianus,” the oldest list of popes (supposed to have been written before 366), extends the pontificate of Peter to 25 years, 1 month, 9 days, and puts his death on June 29, 65 (during the consulate of Nerva and Vestinus), which would date his arrival in Rome back to a.d. 40. Eusebius, in his Greek Chronicle as far as it is preserved, does not fix the number of years, but says, in his Church History, that Peter came to Rome in the reign of Claudius to preach against the pestilential errors of Simon Magus.(311) The Armenian translation of his Chronicle mentions “twenty” years;(312) Jerome, in his translation or paraphrase rather, “twenty-five” years, assuming, without warrant, that Peter left Jerusalem for Antioch and Rome in the second year of Claudius (42; but Acts 12:17 would rather point to the year 44), and died in the fourteenth or last year of Nero (68).(313) Among modern Roman Catholic historians there is no agreement as to the year of Peter’s martyrdom: Baronius puts it in 69;(314) Pagi and Alban Butler in 65; Möhler, Gams, and Alzog indefinitely between 66 and 68. In all these cases it must be assumed that the Neronian persecution was continued or renewed after 64, of which we have no historical evidence. It must also be assumed that Peter was conspicuously absent from his flock during most of the time, to superintend the churches in Asia Minor and in Syria, to preside at the Council of Jerusalem, to meet with Paul in Antioch, to travel about with his wife, and that he made very little impression there till 58, and even till 63, when Paul, writing to and from Rome, still entirely ignores him. Thus a chronological error is made to overrule stubborn facts. The famous saying that “no pope shall see the (twenty-five) years of Peter,” which had hitherto almost the force of law, has been falsified by the thirty-two years’ reign of the first infallible pope) Pius IX., who ruled from 1846 to 1878.

Note. — On the Claims of the Papacy.

On this tradition and on the indisputable preëminence of Peter in the Gospels and the Acts, especially the words of Christ to him after the great confession (Matt. 16:18), is built the colossal fabric of the papacy with all its amazing pretensions to be the legitimate succession of a permanent primacy of honor and supremacy of jurisdiction in the church of Christ, and—since 1870—with the additional claim of papal infallibility in all official utterances, doctrinal or moral. The validity of this claim requires three premises:

1. The presence of Peter in Rome. This may be admitted as an historical fact, and I for my part cannot believe it possible that such a rock-firm and world-wide structure as the papacy could rest on the sand of mere fraud and error. It is the underlying fact which gives to fiction its vitality, and error is dangerous in proportion to the amount of truth which it embodies. But the fact of Peter’s presence in Rome, whether of one year or twenty-five, cannot be of such fundamental importance as the papacy assumes it to be: otherwise we would certainly have some allusion to it in the New Testament. Moreover, if Peter was in Rome, so was Paul, and shared with him on equal terms the apostolic supervision of the Roman congregation, as is very evident from his Epistle to the Romans.
2. The transferability of Peter’s preëminence on a successor. This is derived by inference from the words of Christ: “Thou art Rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”(315) This passage, recorded only by Matthew, is the exegetical rock of Romanism, and more frequently quoted by popes and papists than any other passage of the Scriptures. But admitting the obvious reference of petra to Peter, the significance of this prophetic name evidently refers to the peculiar mission of Peter in laying the foundation of the church once and for all time to come. He fulfilled it on the day of Pentecost and in the conversion of Cornelius; and in this pioneer work Peter can have no successor any more than St. Paul in the conversion of the Gentiles, and John in the consolidation of the two branches of the apostolic church.
3. The actual transfer of this prerogative of Peter—not upon the bishops of Jerusalem, or Antioch, where he undoubtedly resided—but upon the bishop of Rome, where he cannot be proven to have been from the New Testament. Of such a transfer history knows absolutely nothing. Clement, bishop of Rome, who first, about a.d. 95, makes mention of Peter’s martyrdom, and Ignatius of Antioch, who a few years later alludes to Peter and Paul as exhorting the Romans, have not a word to say about the transfer. The very chronology and succession of the first popes is uncertain.

If the claims of the papacy cannot be proven from what we know of the historical Peter, there are, on the other hand, several undoubted facts in the real history of Peter which bear heavily upon those claims, namely:

1. That Peter was married, Matt. 8:14, took his wife with him on his missionary tours, 1 Cor. 9:5, and, according to a possible interpretation of the “coëlect” (sister), mentions her in 1 Pet. 5:13. Patristic tradition ascribes to him children, or at least a daughter (Petronilla). His wife is said to have suffered martyrdom in Rome before him. What right have the popes, in view of this example, to forbid clerical marriage? We pass by the equally striking contrast between the poverty of Peter, who had no silver nor gold (Acts 3:6) and the gorgeous display of the triple-crowned papacy in the middle ages and down to the recent collapse of the temporal power.
2. That in the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1–11), Peter appears simply as the first speaker and debater, not as president and judge (James presided), and assumes no special prerogative, least of all an infallibility of judgment. According to the Vatican theory the whole question of circumcision ought to have been submitted to Peter rather than to a Council, and the decision ought to have gone out from him rather than from “the apostles and elders, brethren” (or “the elder brethren,” 15:23).
3. That Peter was openly rebuked for inconsistency by a younger apostle at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). Peter’s conduct on that occasion is irreconcilable with his infallibility as to discipline; Paul’s conduct is irreconcilable with Peter’s alleged supremacy; and the whole scene, though perfectly plain, is so inconvenient to Roman and Romanizing views, that it has been variously distorted by patristic and Jesuit commentators, even into a theatrical farce gotten up by the apostles for the more effectual refutation of the Judaizers!
4. That, while the greatest of popes, from Leo I. down to Leo XIII. never cease to speak of their authority over all the bishops and all the churches, Peter, in his speeches in the Acts, never does so. And his Epistles, far from assuming any superiority over his “fellow-elders” and over “the clergy” (by which he means the Christian people), breathe the spirit of the sincerest humility and contain a prophetic warning against the besetting sins of the papacy, filthy avarice and lordly ambition (1 Pet. 5:1–3). Love of money and love of power are twin-sisters, and either of them is “a root of all evil.”

It is certainly very significant that the weaknesses even more than the virtues of the natural Peter—his boldness and presumption, his dread of the cross, his love for secular glory, his carnal zeal, his use of the sword, his sleepiness in Gethsemane—are faithfully reproduced in the history of the papacy; while the addresses and epistles of the converted and inspired Peter contain the most emphatic protest against the hierarchical pretensions and worldly vices of the papacy, and enjoin truly evangelical principles—the general priesthood and royalty of believers, apostolic poverty before the rich temple, obedience to God rather than man, yet with proper regard for the civil authorities, honorable marriage, condemnation of mental reservation in Ananias and Sapphira, and of simony in Simon Magus, liberal appreciation of heathen piety in Cornelius, opposition to the yoke of legal bondage, salvation in no other name but that of Jesus Christ.

§ 27. James the Brother of the Lord.

Ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστίν.—James 2:26

Sources.

I. Genuine sources: Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12. Comp. James “the brother of the Lord,” Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19.

The Epistle of James.

II. Post-apostolic: Josephus: Ant. XX. 9, 1.—Hegesippus in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. II. ch. 23.—Jerome: Catal. vir. ill. c. 2, under “Jacobus.” Epiphanius, Haer. XXIX. 4; XXX. 16; LXXVIII. 13 sq.

III. Apocryphal: Πρωτευαγγέλιον Ἰακώβου, ed. in Greek by Tischendorf, in “Evangelia Apocrypha,” pp. 1–49, comp. the Prolegg. pp. xii-xxv. James is honorably mentioned in several other apocryphal Gospels.—Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. 16, alludes to an Ebionite and strongly anti-Pauline book, the Ascents of James (Ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου), descriptions of his ascension to heaven, which are lost.—The Liturgy of James, ed. by W. Trollope, Edinb. 1848. Composed in the third century, after the Council of Nicaea (as it contains the terms oJmoouvsio” and qeotovko”), but resting on some older traditions. It was intended for the church of Jerusalem, which is styled “the mother of all churches.” It is still used once a year on the festival of St. James, Oct. 23, in the Greek Church at Jerusalem. (See vol. II. 527 sqq.)

Exegetical and Doctrinal.

Commentaries on the Epistle of James by Herder (1775), Storr (1784), Gebser (1828), Schneckenburger (1832), Theile (1833), Kern (1838), De Wette (1849, 3d ed. by Brückner, 1865), Cellerier (1850), Wiesinger (in Olshausen’s Com., 1854), Stier (1845), Huther and Beyschlag (in Meyer’s Com., 1858, 4th ed. 1882), Lange and Van Oosterzee (in Lange’s Bibelwerk, 1862, Engl. transl. enlarged by Mombert, 1867), Alford, Wordsworth, Bassett (1876, ascribes the Ep. to James of Zebedee), Plumptre (in the Cambridge series, 1878), Punchard (in Ellicott’s Com. 1878), Erdmann (1882), GLOAG (1883).

Woldemar G. Schmidt: Der Lehrgehalt des Jakobusbriefes. Leipzig, 1869.

W. Beyschlag: Der Jacobusbrief als urchristliches Geschichtsdenkmal. In the “Stud. u. Kritiken,” 1874, No. 1, pp. 105–166. See his Com.

Comp. also the expositions of the doctrinal type of James in Neander, Schmid, Schaff, Weiss (pp. 176–194, third ed.).

Historical and Critical.

Blom: De τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς et ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς Κυρίου. Leyden, 1839. (I have not seen this tract, which advocates the brother-theory. Lightfoot says of it: “Blom gives the most satisfactory statement of the patristic authorities, and Schaff discusses the scriptural arguments most carefully.”)

Schaff: Jakobus Alphäi, und Jakobus der Bruder des Herrn. Berlin, 1842 (101 pages).

Mill: The Accounts of our Lord’s Brethren in the New Test. vindicated. Cambridge, 1843. (Advocates the cousin-theory of the Latin church.)

Lightfoot: The Brethren of the Lord. Excursus in his Com. on Galatians. Lond. 2d ed. 1866, pp. 247–282. (The ablest defence of the step-brother-theory of the Greek Church.)

H. Holtzmann: Jakobus der Gerechte und seine Namensbrüder, in Hilgenfeld’s “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol.” Leipz. 1880, No. 2.

Next to Peter, who was the oecumenical leader of Jewish Christianity, stands James, the brother, of the Lord (also called by post-apostolic writers “James the Just,” and “Bishop of Jerusalem”), as the local head of the oldest church and the leader of the most conservative portion of Jewish Christianity. He seems to have taken the place of James the son of Zebedee, after his martyrdom, a.d. 44. He became, with Peter and John, one of the three “pillars” of the church of the circumcision. And after the departure of Peter from Jerusalem James presided over the mother church of Christendom until his death. Though not one of the Twelve, he enjoyed, owing to his relationship to our Lord and his commanding piety, almost apostolic authority, especially in Judaea and among the Jewish converts.(316) On one occasion even Peter yielded to his influence or that of his representatives, and was misled into his uncharitable conduct towards the Gentile brethren.(317)

James was not a believer before the resurrection of our Lord. He was the oldest of the four “brethren” (James, Joseph, Judas, Simon), of whom John reports with touching sadness: “Even his brethren did not believe in him.”(318) It was one of the early and constant trials of our Lord in the days of his nomination that he was without honor among his fellow-townsmen, yea, “among his own kin, and in his own house.”(319) James was no doubt imbued with the temporal and carnal Messianic misconceptions of the Jews, and impatient at the delay and unworldliness of his divine brother. Hence the taunting and almost disrespectful language: “Depart hence and go into Judaea …. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world.” The crucifixion could only deepen his doubt and sadness.

But a special personal appearance of the risen Lord brought about his conversion, as also that of his brothers, who after the resurrection appear in the company of the apostles.(320) This turning-point in his life is briefly but significantly alluded to by Paul, who himself was converted by a personal appearance of Christ.(321) It is more fully reported in an interesting fragment of the, “Gospel according to the Hebrews” (one of the oldest and least fabulous of the apocryphal Gospels), which shows the sincerity and earnestness of James even before his conversion.(322) He had sworn, we are here told, “that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein the Lord had drunk the cup of his passion until he should see him rising from the dead.” The Lord appeared to him and communed with him, giving bread to James the Just and saying: “My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from them that sleep.”

In the Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians, James appears as the most conservative of the Jewish converts, at the head of the extreme right wing; yet recognizing Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles, giving him the right hand of fellowship, as Paul himself reports, and unwilling to impose upon the Gentile Christians the yoke of circumcision. He must therefore not be identified with the heretical Judaizers (the forerunners of the Ebionites), who hated and opposed Paul, and made circumcision a condition of justification and church membership. He presided at the Council of Jerusalem and proposed the compromise which saved a split in the church. He probably prepared the synodical letter which agrees with his style and has the same greeting formula peculiar to him.(324)

He was an honest, conscientious, eminently practical, conciliatory Jewish Christian saint, the right man in the right place and at the right time, although contracted in his mental vision as in his local sphere of labor.

From an incidental remark of Paul we may infer that James, like Peter and the other brothers of the Lord, was married.(325)

The mission of James was evidently to stand in the breach between the synagogue and the church, and to lead the disciples of Moses gently to Christ. He was the only man that could do it in that critical time of the approaching judgment of the holy city. As long as there was any hope of a conversion of the Jews as a nation, he prayed for it and made the transition as easy as possible. When that hope vanished his mission was fulfilled.

According to Josephus he was, at the instigation of the younger Ananus, the high priest, of the sect of the Sadducees, whom he calls “the most unmerciful of all the Jews in the execution of judgment,” stoned to death with some others, as “breakers of the law,” i.e. Christians, in the interval between the procuratorship of Festus and that of Albinus, that is, in the year 63. The Jewish historian adds that this act of injustice created great indignation among those most devoted to the law (the Pharisees), and that they induced Albinus and King Agrippa to depose Ananus (a son of the Annas mentioned in Luke 3:2; John 18:13). He thus furnishes an impartial testimony to the high standing of James even among the Jews.(326)

Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian historian about a.d. 170, puts the martyrdom a few years later, shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (69).(327) He relates that James was first thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple by the Jews and then stoned to death. His last prayer was an echo of that of his brother and Lord on the cross: “God, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus(328) is an overdrawn picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits which may have been derived from the “Ascents of James” and other apocryphal sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest and Nazirite saint (comp. his advice to Paul, Acts 21:23, 24), who drank no wine, ate no flesh, never shaved, nor took a bath, and wore only linen. But the biblical James is Pharisaic and legalistic rather than Essenic and ascetic. In the pseudo-Clementine writings, he is raised even above Peter as the head of the holy church of the Hebrews, as “the lord and bishop of bishops,” as “the prince of priests.” According to tradition, mentioned by Epiphanius. James, like St. John at Ephesus, wore the high-priestly petalon, or golden plate on the forehead, with the inscription: “Holiness to the Lord” (Ex. 28:36). And in the Liturgy of St. James, the brother of Jesus is raised to the dignity of “the brother of the very God” (ajdelfovqeo”). Legends gather around the memory of great men, and reveal the deep impression they made upon their friends and followers. The character which shines through these James-legends is that of a loyal, zealous, devout, consistent Hebrew Christian, who by his personal purity and holiness secured the reverence and affection of all around him.

But we must carefully distinguish between the Jewish-Christian, yet orthodox, overestimate of James in the Eastern church, as we find it in the fragments of Hegesippus and in the Liturgy of St. James, and the heretical perversion of James into an enemy of Paul and the gospel of freedom, as he appears in apocryphal fictions. We have here the same phenomenon as in the case of Peter and Paul. Every leading apostle has his apocryphal shadow and caricature both in the primitive church and in the modern critical reconstruction of its history. The name and authority of James was abused by the Judaizing party in undermining the work of Paul, notwithstanding the fraternal agreement of the two at Jerusalem.(329) The Ebionites in the second century continued this malignant assault upon the memory of Paul under cover of the honored names of James and Peter; while a certain class of modern critics (though usually from the opposite ultra- or pseudo-Pauline point of view) endeavor to prove the same antagonism from the Epistle of James (as far as they admit it to be genuine at all).(330)

The Epistle in our canon, which purports to be written by “James, a bond-servant of God and of Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes of the dispersion,” though not generally acknowledged at the time of Eusebius and Jerome, has strong internal evidence of genuineness. It precisely suits the character and position of the historical James as we know him from Paul and the Acts, and differs widely from the apocryphal James of the Ebionite fictions.(331) It hails undoubtedly from Jerusalem, the theocratic metropolis, amid the scenery of Palestine. The Christian communities appear not as churches, but as synagogues, consisting mostly of poor people, oppressed and persecuted by the rich and powerful Jews. There is no trace of Gentile Christians or of any controversy between them and the Jewish Christians. The Epistle was perhaps a companion to the original Gospel of Matthew for the Hebrews, as the first Epistle of John was such a companion to his Gospel. It is probably the oldest of the epistles of the New Testament.(332) It represents, at all events, the earliest and meagerest, yet an eminently practical and necessary type of Christianity, with prophetic earnestness, proverbial sententiousness, great freshness, and in fine Greek. It is not dogmatic but ethical. It has a strong resemblance to the addresses of John the Baptist and the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, and also to the book of Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon.(333) It never attacks the Jews directly, but still less St. Paul, at least not his genuine doctrine. It characteristically calls the gospel the “perfect law of liberty,”(334) thus connecting it very closely with the Mosaic dispensation, yet raising it by implication far above the imperfect law of bondage. The author has very little to say about Christ and the deeper mysteries of redemption, but evidently presupposes a knowledge of the gospel history, and reverently calls Christ “the Lord of glory,” and himself humbly his “bond-servant.”(335) He represents religion throughout in its practical aspect as an exhibition of faith by good works. He undoubtedly differs widely from Paul, yet does not contradict, but supplements him, and fills an important place in the Christian system of truth which comprehends all types of genuine piety. There are multitudes of sincere, earnest, and faithful Christian workers who never rise above the level of James to the sublime heights of Paul or John. The Christian church would never have given to the Epistle of James a place in the canon if she had felt that it was irreconcilable with the doctrine of Paul. Even the Lutheran church did not follow her great leader in his unfavorable judgment, but still retains James among the canonical books.

After the martyrdom of James he was succeeded by Symeon, a son of Clopas and a cousin of Jesus (and of James). He continued to guide the church at Jerusalem till the reign of Trajan, when he died a martyr at the great age of a hundred and twenty years.(336) The next thirteen bishops of Jerusalem, who came, however, in rapid succession, were likewise of Jewish descent.

Throughout this period the church of Jerusalem preserved its strongly Israelitish type, but joined with it “the genuine knowledge of Christ,” and stood in communion with the Catholic church, from which the Ebionites, as heretical Jewish Christians, were excluded. After the line of the fifteen circumcised bishops had run out, and Jerusalem was a second time laid waste under Hadrian, the mass of the Jewish Christians gradually merged in the orthodox Greek Church.

Notes

I. James and the Brothers of the Lord. – There are three, perhaps four, eminent persons in the New Testament bearing the name of James (abridged from Jacob, which from patriarchal memories was a more common name among the Jews than any other except Symeon or Simon, and Joseph or Joses):

1. James (the son) of Zebedee, the brother of John and one of the three favorite apostles, the proto-martyr among the Twelve (beheaded a.d. 44, see Acts 12:2), as his brother John was the survivor of all the apostles. They were called the “sons of thunder.”
2. James (the son) of Alphaeus, who was likewise one of the Twelve, and is mentioned in the four apostle-catalogues, Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:10; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.
3. James the Little, Mark 15:40 (ὁ μικρός, not, “the Less,” as in the E. V.), probably so called from his small stature (as Zacchaeus, Luke 19:3), the son of a certain Mary and brother of Joseph, Matt. 27:56 (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου καὶ Ἰωσὴφ μήτηρ); Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Luke 24:10. He is usually identified with James the son of Alphaeus, on the assumption that his mother Mary was the wife of Clopas, mentioned John 19:25, and that Clopas was the same person as Alphaeus. But this identification is at least very problematical.
4. James, simply so called, as the most distinguished after the early death of James the Elder, or with the honorable epithet Brother of the Lord (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου), and among post-apostolic writers, the Just, also Bishop of Jerusalem. The title connects him at once with the four brothers and the unnamed sisters of our Lord, who are repeatedly mentioned in the Gospels, and he as the first among them. Hence the complicated question of the nature of this relationship. Although I have fully discussed this intricate subject nearly forty years ago (1842) in the German essay above mentioned, and then again in my annotations to Lange on Matthew (Am. ed. 1864, pp. 256–260), I will briefly sum up once more the chief points with reference to the most recent discussions (of Lightfoot and Renan).

There are three theories on James and the brothers of Jesus. I would call them the brother-theory, the half-brother-theory, and the cousin-theory. Bishop Lightfoot (and Canon Farrar) calls them after their chief advocates, the Helvidian (an invidious designation), the Epiphanian, and the Hieronymian theories. The first is now confined to Protestants, the second is the Greek, the third the Roman view.

(1) The brother-theory takes the term ajdelfoiv the usual sense, and regards the brothers as younger children of Joseph and Mary, consequently as full brothers of Jesus in the eyes of the law and the opinion of the people, though really only half-brothers, in view of his supernatural conception. This is exegetically the most natural view and favored by the meaning of ajdelfov” (especially when used as a standing designation), the constant companionship of these brethren with Mary (John 2:12; Matt. 12:46; 13:55), and by the obvious meaning of Matt. 1:25 (oujk ejgivnwsken aujth;n eJw” ou}, comp. 1:18 privn h] sunelqei’n aujtouv”) and Luke 2:7 (prwtovtoko”), as explained from the standpoint of the evangelists, who used these terms in full view of the subsequent history of Mary and Jesus. The only serious objection to it is of a doctrinal and ethical nature, viz., the assumed perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord and Saviour, and the committal of her at the cross to John rather than her own sons and daughters (John 19:25). If it were not for these two obstacles the brother-theory would probably be adopted by every fair and honest exegete. The first of these objections dates from the post-apostolic ascetic overestimate of virginity, and cannot have been felt by Matthew and Luke, else they would have avoided those ambiguous terms just noticed. The second difficulty presses also on the other two theories, only in a less degree. It must therefore be solved on other grounds, namely, the profound spiritual sympathy and congeniality of John with Jesus and Mary, which rose above carnal relationships, the probable cousinship of John (based upon the proper interpretation of the same passage, John 19:25), and the unbelief of the real brethren at the time of the committal.

This theory was held by Tertullian (whom Jerome summarily disposes of as not being a, “homo ecclesiae,” i.e. a schismatic), defended by Helvidius at Rome about 380 (violently attacked as a heretic by Jerome), and by several individuals and sects opposed to the incipient worship of the Virgin Mary; and recently by the majority of German Protestant exegetes since Herder, such as Stier, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, Ewald, Wieseler, Keim, also by Dean Alford, and Canon Farrar (Life of Christ, I. 97 sq.). I advocated the same theory in my German tract, but admitted afterwards in my Hist. of Ap. Ch., p. 378, that I did not give sufficient weight to the second theory.

(2) The half-brother-theory regards the brethren and sisters of Jesus as children of Joseph by a former wife, consequently as no blood-relations at all, but so designated simply as Joseph was called the father of Jesus, by an exceptional use of the term adapted to the exceptional fact of the miraculous incarnation. This has the dogmatic advantage of saving the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord and Saviour; it lessens the moral difficulty implied in John 19:25; and it has a strong traditional support in the apocryphal Gospels and in the Eastern church. It also would seem to explain more easily the patronizing tone in which the brethren speak to our Lord in John 7:3, 4. But it does not so naturally account for the constant companionship of these brethren with Mary; it assumes a former marriage of Joseph nowhere alluded to in the Gospels, and makes Joseph an old man and protector rather than husband of Mary; and finally it is not free from suspicion of an ascetic bias, as being the first step towards the dogma of the perpetual virginity. To these objections may be added, with Farrar, that if the brethren had been elder sons of Joseph, Jesus would not have been regarded as legal heir of the throne of David (Matt. 1:16; Luke 1:27; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8; Rev. 22:16).

This theory is found first in the apocryphal writings of James (the Protevangelium Jacobi, the Ascents of James, etc.), and then among the leading Greek fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria); it is embodied in the Greek, Syrian, and Coptic services, which assign different dates to the commemoration of James the son of Alphaeus (Oct. 9), and of James the Lord’s brother (Oct. 23). It may therefore be called the theory of the Eastern church. It was also held by some Latin fathers before Jerome (Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose), and has recently been ably advocated by Bishop Lightfoot (l.c.), followed by Dr. Plumptre (in the introduction to his Com. on the Ep. of James).

(3) The cousin-theory regards the brethren as more distant relatives, namely, as children of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the Virgin Mary, and identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James the son of Alphaeus and James the Little, thus making him (as well as also Simon and Jude) an apostle. The exceptive eij mhv, Gal. 1:19 (but I saw only James), does not prove this, but rather excludes James from the apostles proper (comp. eij mhv in Gal. 2:16; Luke 4:26, 27).

This theory was first advanced by Jerome in 383, in a youthful polemic tract against Helvidius, without any traditional support,(337) but with the professed dogmatic and ascetic aim to save the virginity of both Mary and Joseph, and to reduce their marriage relation to a merely nominal and barren connection. In his later writings, however, after his residence in Palestine, he treats the question with less confidence (see Lightfoot, p. 253). By his authority and the still greater weight of St. Augustin, who at first (394) wavered between the second and third theories, but afterwards adopted that of Jerome, it became the established theory of the Latin church and was embodied in the Western services, which acknowledge only two saints by the name of James. But it is the least tenable of all and must be abandoned, chiefly for the following reasons:

(a) It contradicts the natural meaning of the word “brother,” when the New Testament has the proper term for cousin Col. 4:10, comp. also suggenhv” Luke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, etc.), and the obvious sense of the passages where the brothers and sisters of Jesus appear as members of the holy family.

(b) It assumes that two sisters had the same name, Mary, which is extremely improbable.

(c) It assumes the identity of Clopas and Alphaeus, which is equally doubtful; for jAlfai’o” is a Hebrew name (jlpy), while Klwpa’”, like Kleovpa”, Luke 24:18, is an abbreviation of the Greek Kleovpatro”, as Antipas is contracted from Antipatros.(d) It is absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that the brethren of Jesus, James among them, were before the resurrection unbelievers, John 7:5, and consequently none of them could have been an apostle, as this theory assumes of two or three.

Renan’s theory.—I notice, in conclusion, an original combination of the second and third theories by Renan, who discusses the question of the brothers and cousins of Jesus in an appendix to his Les évangiles, 537–540. He assumes four Jameses, and distinguishes the son of Alphaeus from the son of Clopas. He holds that Joseph was twice married, and that Jesus had several older brothers and cousins as follows:

1. Children of Joseph from the first marriage, and older brothers of Jesus:
   • a. James, the brother of the Lord, or Just, or Obliam. his is the one mentioned Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; 1 Cor. 15:7; Acts 12:17, etc.; James 1:1 Jude 1:1, and in Josephus and Hegesippus.
   • b. Jude, mentioned Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Jude 1:1; Hegesippus in Eusebius’ Hist. Eccl. III. 19, 20, 32. From him were descended those two grandsons, bishops of different churches, who were presented to the emperor Domitian as descendants of David and relations of Jesus. Hegesippus in Euseb. III. 19, 20, 32
   • c. Other sons and daughters unknown. Matt. 13:56; Mark 6:3; 1 Cor. 9:5.
2. Children of Joseph (?) from the marriage with Mary:

     Jesus.
   

3. Children of Clopas, and cousins of Jesus, probably from the father’s side, since Clopas, according to Hegesippus, was a brother of Joseph, and may have married also a woman by the name of Mary (John 19:25).
   • a. James the Little (oJ mikrov”), so called to distinguish him from his older cousin of that name. Mentioned Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; 16:1; Luke 24:10; otherwise unknown.
   • b. Joses, Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40, 47, but erroneously (?) numbered among the brothers of Jesus: Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; otherwise unknown.
   • c. Symeon, the second bishop of Jerusalem (Hegesippus in Eus. III. 11, 22, 32; IV. 5, 22), also erroneously (?) put among the brothers of Jesus by Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3.
   • d. Perhaps other sons and daughters unknown.

II. The description of James by Hegesippus (from Eusebius, H. E. II. 23).” Hegesippus also, who flourished nearest the days of the apostles, gives (in the fifth book of his Memorials) this most accurate account of him:

“ ’Now James, the brother of the Lord, who (as there are many of this name) was surnamed the Just by all (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰάκωβος ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ πάντων δίκαιος), from the Lord’s time even to our own, received the government of the church with (or from) the apostles [μετά, in conjunction with, or according to another reading, παρὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων, which would more clearly distinguish him from the apostles]. This man [οὗτος not this apostle] was consecrated from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, and abstained from animal food. No razor came upon his head, he never anointed himself with oil, and never used a bath [probably the luxury of the Roman bath, with its sudatorium, frigidarium, etc., but not excluding the usual ablutions practised by all devout Jews]. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary [not the holy of holies, but the court of priests]. He wore no woolen, but linen garments only. He was in the habit of entering the temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as a camel’s, on account of his constant supplication and kneeling before God. And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just [Zaddik] and Oblias [δίκαιος καὶ ὠβλίας, probably a corruption of the Hebrew Ophel am, Tower of the People], which signifies justice and the bulwark of the people (περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ); as the prophets declare concerning him. Some of the seven sects of the people, mentioned by me above in my Memoirs, used to ask him what was the door, [probably the estimate or doctrine] of Jesus? and he answered that he was the Saviour. And of these some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the aforesaid sects did not believe either a resurrection, or that he was coming to give to every one according to his works; as many, however, as did believe, did so on account of James. And when many of the rulers also believed, there arose a tumult among the Jews, Scribes, and Pharisees, saying that the whole people were in danger of looking for Jesus as the Messiah. They came therefore together, and said to James: We entreat thee, restrain the people, who are led astray after Jesus, as though he were the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade all that are coming to the feast of the Passover rightly concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in thee. For we and all the people bear thee testimony that thou art just, and art no respecter of persons. Persuade therefore the people not to be led astray by Jesus, for we and all the people have great confidence in thee. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that thou mayest be conspicuous on high, and thy words may be easily heard by all the people; for all the tribes have come together on account of the Passover, with some of the Gentiles also. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees, therefore, placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him: “O thou just man, whom we ought all to believe, since the people are led astray after Jesus that was crucified, declare to us what is the door of Jesus that was crucified.” And he answered with a loud voice: “Why do ye ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven.” And as many were confirmed, and gloried in this testimony of James, and said:, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” these same priests and Pharisees said to one another: “We have done badly in affording such testimony to Jesus, but let us go up and cast him down, that they may dread to believe in him.” And they cried out: “Ho, ho, the Just himself is deceived.” And they fulfilled that which is written in Isaiah, “Let us take away the Just, because he is offensive to us; wherefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.” [Comp. Is. 3:10.]

And going up, they cast down the just man, saying to one another: “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him, as he did not die immediately when cast down; but turning round, he knelt down, saying:, I entreat thee, O Lord God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Thus they were stoning him, when one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, a son of the Rechabites, spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 35:2), cried out, saying: “Cease, what are you doing? The Just is praying for you.” And one of them, a fuller, beat out the brains of the Just with the club that he used to beat out clothes. Thus he suffered martyrdom, and they buried him on the spot where his tombstone is still remaining, by the temple. He became a faithful witness, both to the Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. Immediately after this, Vespasian invaded and took Judaea.’ “

“Such,” adds Eusebius, “is the more ample testimony of Hegesippus, in which he fully coincides with Clement. So admirable a man indeed was James, and so celebrated among all for his justice, that even the wiser part of the Jews were of opinion that this was the cause of the immediate siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them for no other reason than the crime against him. Josephus also has not hesitated to superadd this testimony in his works: ’These things,’ says he, ’happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ and whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his preeminent justice.’ The same writer also relates his death, in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, in the following words,’ “ etc.

Then Eusebius gives the account of Josephus.

§ 28. Preparation for the Mission to the Gentiles.

The planting of the church among the Gentiles is mainly the work of Paul; but Providence prepared the way for it by several steps, before this apostle entered upon his sublime mission.

1. By the conversion of those half-Gentiles and bitter enemies of the Jews, the Samaritans, under the preaching and baptism of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven deacons of Jerusalem, and under the confirming instruction of the apostles Peter and John. The gospel found ready entrance into Samaria, as had been prophetically hinted by the Lord in the conversation at Jacob’s well.(338) But there we meet also the first heretical perversion of Christianity by Simon Magus, whose hypocrisy and attempt to degrade the gift of the Holy Spirit received from Peter a terrible rebuke. (Hence the term simony, for sordid traffic in church offices and dignities.) This encounter of the prince of the apostles with the arch-heretic was regarded in the ancient church, and fancifully represented, as typifying the relation of ecclesiastical orthodoxy to deceptive heresy.
2. Somewhat later (between 37 and 40) occurred the conversion of the noble centurion, Cornelius of Caesarea, a pious proselyte of the gate, whom Peter, in consequence of a special revelation, received into the communion of the Christian church directly by baptism, without circumcision. This bold step the apostle had to vindicate to the strict Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who thought circumcision a condition of salvation, and Judaism the only way to Christianity. Thus Peter laid the foundation also of the Gentile-Christian church. The event marked a revolution in Peter’s mind, and his emancipation from the narrow prejudices of Judaism.(339)
3. Still more important was the rise, at about the same time, of the church at Antioch the capital of Syria. This congregation formed under the influence of the Hellenist Barnabas of Cyprus and Paul of Tarsus, seems to have consisted from the first of converted heathens and Jews. It thus became the mother of Gentile Christendom, as Jerusalem was the mother and centre of Jewish. In Antioch, too, the name “Christian” first appeared, which was soon everywhere adopted, as well denoting the nature and mission as the followers of Christ, the divine-human prophet, priest, and king.(340)

The other and older designations were disciples (of Christ the only Master), believers (in Christ as their Saviour), brethren (as members of the same family of the redeemed, bound together by a love which springs not from earth and will never cease), and saints (as those who are purified and consecrated to the service of God and called to perfect holiness).

---

(251): John 14:6, 26; 15:26; 16:7. The preparatory communication of the Spirit is related in John 20:22.

(252): Comp. especially the classical chapters on the gifts of the Spirit, 1 Cor. 12, 13, and 14, and Rom. 12.

(253): The Greek name hJ penthkosthv (hJmevra) is used (like quinquagesima) as a substantive, Tob. 2:1; 2 Macc. 12:32; Acts 2:1; 20:16; 1 Cor. 16:3, and by Josephus, Ant. III. 10, 6, etc. It survives not only in all the Romanic languages, but also in the German Pfingsten. The English Whit-Sunday is usually derived from the white garments of the candidates for baptism worn on that day (hence Dominica alba); others connect it with wit, the gift of wisdom from above. The Hebrew names of the festival are חַג הַקָּצִיר, ἑορτὴ θερισμοῦ, the feast of harvest (Ex. 23:16), יוֹם הַבִּכּוּרִים and ἡμέρα τῶν νέων, day of the first fruits (Num. 28:26), חַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת, ἑορτὴ ἑβδομάδων, ἁγία ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδων, festival of (seven) weeks, as the harvest continued for seven weeks (Deut. 16:9, 10; Lev. 23:15; Tob. 2:1). It began directly after the Passover with the offering of the first sheaf of the barley-harvest, and ended at Pentecost with the offering of the first two loaves from the wheat-harvest.

(254): Josephus speaks of “many tens of thousands being gathered together about the temple” on Pentecost, Ant. xiv. 13, 4; comp. xvii. 10, 2; Bell Jud. II. 3, 1. The Passover, of course, was more numerously attended by Jews from Palestine; but distant foreigners were often prevented by the dangers of travel in the early spring. Paul twice went to Jerusalem on Pentecost, Acts 18:21; 20:16. Many Passover pilgrims would naturally remain till the second festival.

(255): Hence called the feast of the joy of the Law (חַג שִׂמְחַת תּוֹרָה). The date of Sinaitic legislation is based on a comparison of Ex. 12:2 with 19:1 (comp. my Hist. of the Ap. Ch., p. 192, note 5). The legislation on Pentecost, Deut. 16:9-12, represents it as a feast of rejoicing, and concludes with a reference to the bondage in Egypt and the commandments of Jehovah. Otherwise there is no allusion in the Bible, nor in Philo nor Josephus, to the historical significance of Pentecost. But there was a Jewish custom which Schöttgen (Hor. Heb. in Acts 2:1) traces to apostolic times, of spending the night before Pentecost in thanksgiving to God for the gift of the law. In the present Jewish observance the commemoration of the Sinaitic legislation is made prominent. Some Jews “adorn their houses with flowers and wear wreaths on their heads, with the declared purpose of testifying their joy in the possession of the Law.”

(256): The list of nations, Acts 2:8-11, gives a bird’s eye view of the Roman empire from the East and North southward and westward as far as Rome, and then again eastward to Arabia. Cyprus and Greece are omitted. There were Christians in Damascus before the conversion of Paul (9:2), and a large congregation at Rome long before he wrote his Epistle (Rom. 1:8).

(257): Acts 1:15; 2:7. Ten times the number of tribes of Israel. These were, however, not all the disciples; Paul mentions five hundred brethren to whom the risen Lord appeared at once, 1 Cor. 15:6.

(258): Exod. 19:16; comp. Hebr. 12:18, 19.

(259): ἦχος ὥσπερ φερομένης πνοῆς βιαίας, ein Getöse wie von einem dahinfahrenden heftigen Wehen (Meyer). The term φερομένη, borne on, is the same which Peter uses of the inspiration of the prophets, 2 Pet. 1:21.

(260): διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός, Acts2:3, are not parted or “ cloven”tongues (E. V.)—resembling the fork-like shape of the episcopal mitre—but distributed tongues, spreading from one to another. This is the meaning of διαμερίζειν, in ver. 45; Luke 22:17; 23:34; John 19:24; Matt. 27:35. The distributive idea explains the change of number in ver. 3, γλῶσσαι—ἐκάθισεν, i.e., one tongue sat on each disciple.

(261): Hence ὥσπερ and ὡσεί. John Lightfoot: “Sonus ventus vehementis, sed absque vento; sic etiam linguae igneae, sed absque igne.“

(262): Luke 3:22 (ὡς περιστεράν); Matt. 3:10 (ὡσεί); Mark 1:10; John 1:32. The Rabbinical comment on Gen. 1:2 makes the same comparison, that “ the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters like a dove,“ and Milton sings (Parad, Lost, i. 20):

“ With mighty wings outspread

Dove-like sat’st brooding on the vast abyss.”

(263): They were baptized with water by John; but Christian baptism was first administered by them on the day of Pentecost. Christ himself did not baptize, John 4:2.

(264): 1 Pet. 1:3, 4.

(265): Comp. Acts 1:13, 14.

(266): Acts 2:3: “it (a tongue of fire) sat upon each of them.”

(267): Acts 2:3, 4, 17, 18.

(268): Gal. 3:28.

(269): τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Acts 2:11; comp. the same term Luke 1:69, and the μεγαλύνειν τὸν θεόν, Acts 10:46.

(270): Comp. 1 Cor. 14:22.

(271): Acts 10:46.

(272): Acts 19:6.

(273): 1 Cor. 12 and 14.

(274): Acts 2:8:ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ἧ ἐγεννήθημεν. Comp. 2:11:ἀκούμεν λαλούντων αὐτῶν ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ θεοῦ.

(275): Comp. Acts 2:4, and 6.

(276): 1 Cor. 14:5, 13, 27, 28; comp. 1 Cor. 12:10, 30.

(277): Comp. 1 Cor. 14:23.

(278): Grotius (in loc.): “Paena linguarum dispersit homines, donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum collegit.” See note on Glossolalia (p.17).

(279): The former is the usual view, the latter is maintained by Stanley, Plumptre, and Farrar. Paul addressed the excited multitude in Jerusalem in the Hebrew tongue, which commanded greater silence, Acts 22:2. This implies that they would not have understood him in Greek as well, or listened as attentively.

(280): What may be claimed for St. Bernard, St. Vincent Ferrer, and St. Francis Xavier is not a miraculous heteroglossolalia, but an eloquence so ardent, earnest, and intense, that the rude nations which they addressed in Latin or Spanish imagined they heard them in their mother tongue. St. Bernard (d. 1153) fired the Germans in Latin to the second crusade, and made a greater impression on them by his very appearance than the translation of the same speech by his interpreter. See Neander, Der heil. Bernhard, p. 338 (2d ed.). Alban Butler (Lives of the Saints, sub April 5) reports of St. Vincent Ferrer (died 1419) “Spondanus and many others say, the saint was honored with the gift of tongues, and that, preaching in his own, he was understood by men of different languages; which is also affirmed by Lanzano, who says, that Greeks, Germans, Sardes, Hungarians, and people of other nations, declared they understood every word he spoke, though he preached in Latin, or in his mother-tongue, as spoken at Valentia.” This account clearly implies that Ferrer did not understand Greek, German, and Hungarian. As to Francis Xavier (d. 1552), Alban Butler says (sub Dec. 3) that the gift of tongues was “a transient favor,” and that he learned the Malabar tongue and the Japanese “by unwearied application;” from which we may infer that his impression upon the heathen was independent of the language, Not one of these saints claimed the gift of tongues or other miraculous powers, but only their disciples or later writers.

(281): Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42.

(282): Acts 2:14 sqq.; 3:12 sqq.; 5:29 sqq.; 10:34 sqq.; 11:5 sqq.; 15:7 sqq.

(283): Acts 2: 46, 47. Renan says, with reference to this period (Les apotres, ch. v.), that in no literary work does the word “joy” so often occur as in the New Testament, and quotes 1 Thess 1:6; 5:16; Rom. 14:17; 15:13; Gal. 5:22; Phil. 1:25; 3:1; 4:4; 1 John 1:4. Many other passages might be added.

(284): On Stephen comp. Thiersch: De Stephani protomartyris oratione commentatio exegetica, Marb. 1849; Baur: Paul, ch. II.; my Hist. of the Apost. Church, pp. 211 sqq.; and the commentaries of Mover, Lechler, Hackett, Wordsworth, Plumptre, Howson and Spence, on Acts, chs. 6 and 7.

(285): a.d. 50: Acts 15.

(286): Gal. 2:11 sqq.

(287): 1 Cor. 9:5.

(288): 1 Pet. 1:1.

(289): Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16.

(290): Alzog (§ 48), and other modern Roman church historians try to reconcile the tradition with the silence of the Scripture by assuming two visits of Peter to Rome with a great interval.

(291): For particulars see my H. Ap. Ch. pp. 362-372. The presence of Peter in Rome was the universal belief of Christendom till the Reformation, and is so still in the Roman Catholic communion. It was denied first in the interest of orthodox Protestantism against Romanism by U. Velenus (1520), M. Flacius (1554), Blondel (1641), Salmasius (1645), and especially by Fr. Spanheim (Da ficta Profectione Petri in urbem Romam, Lugd. B. 1679); more recently in the interest of historical criticism by Baur (in special essays, 1831 and 1836, and in his work on Paul, ch. IX.), K. Hase (1862, doubtful in the 10th ed. of his Kirchengesch. 1877, p. 34), Mayerhoff, De Wette, Greenwood (1856), Lipsius (1869), Volkmar (1873), Zeller (1876). Volkmar denies even the martyrdom of Paul, and fancies that he died quietly in a villa near Rome. Zeller (in Hilgenfeld’s “Zeitschrift,” for 1876, p. 46 sq.) was disposed to substitute “James” for the defective name “Peter” in the testimony of Clemens Rom., Ad Cor. c. 5, but this is now set aside by the edition of Bryennios from a more complete manuscript, which clearly reads Pevtro” o{“ in full. On the other hand the presence and martyrdom of Peter in Rome is affirmed not only by all the Roman Catholic, but also by many eminent Protestant historians and critics, as Bleek, Credner, Olshausen, Gieseler, Neander, Niedner, Rothe, Thiersch, Krafft, Ewald, Plumptre, and even by Hilgenfeld, who justly remarks (Einleitung in das N. T. 1875 p. 624): “Man kann ein guter Protestant sein, wenn man den Märtyrertod des Petrus in Rom festhält.“ Renan (in an appendix to his L’Antechrist, 551 sqq.) likewise asserts that Peter came to Rome, though not before 63, and was among the victims of the Neronian persecution in 64, whom Tacitus describes as crucibus affixi. He understands “Babylon,”1 Pet. 5:13, of Rome, according to the secret style of the Christians of those days.

In February, 1872, after the downfall of the temporal power of the papacy, a disputation was held in Rome between Protestant ministers (Gavazzi, Sciarelli, and Ribetto) and Roman divines (Guidi, and Canon Fabiani) on Peter’s presence in that city; the former denying, the latter affirming it. The disputation was published in several languages, and although destitute of critical value, it derives a sort of historical significance from the place where it was held, within a short distance from the residence of Pius IX., the first infallible pope. See Racconto autentico della disputa, etc., Roma, 1872; Authentic report of the Discussion held in Rome, February 9 and 10, 1872, between Catholic Priests and Evangelical Ministers, concerning the Coming of St. Peter to Rome. Translated by William Arthur, London, 1872; and Römische Disputation zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten über die These: War Petrus in Rom? Nach den stenographischen Berichten. Deutsche Ausg. Münster, 1872. Comp. the review of Lipsius in the “Jahrbücher für Protest. Theologie,” 1876, Heft 4.

(292): The old legend of Peter’s flight from the Mamertine prison in Rome, which seems to antedate the hierarchical glorification of Peter, would prove that his “consistent inconsistency” overtook him once more at the close of his life. A few days before his execution, it is said, he bribed the jailor and escaped from prison, but when he reached a spot outside the Porta San Sebastiano, now marked by a chapel, the Lord appeared to him with a cross, and Peter asked in surprise: “Lord, whither goest thou (Domine quo vadis)?“Jesus replied: “I go to Rome to be crucified again (venio Romam iterum crucifigi).” The disciple returned deeply humbled, and delivered himself to the jailor to be crucified head-downwards. The footprint of the Lord is still shown (or was shown in 1841, when I saw it) in the little chapel called “Domine quo vadis,” and a rude fresco on the wall represents the encounter. The legend is first alluded to by Origen (quoting from the Πράξεις Παύλου or Πέτρου, the words of the Saviour: Ἄνωθεν μέλλω σταυρωθῆναι, see Opera IV. 332, and Hilgenfeld, l.c. IV. 72), then fully told in the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Paul, c. 82 (Tischendorf, l.c. p. 36, where Peter asks, Κύριε, ποῦ πορεύῃ; and the Lord answers: ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀπέρχομαι σταυρωθῆναι), and by Ambrose in Sermo de basilicis non tradendis haereticis contra Auxentium (quoted by Lipsius, Petrus-Sage, p. 134 sq.).

(293): 1 Pet. 2:4-8. A striking instance of the impression of Christ’s word without a trace of boastfulness and assumption of authority.

(294): 1 Pet. 5:2; 2:25; comp. John 21:15-17.

(295): Mark 14:72. “And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice (comp.14:30); and when he thought thereon he wept.”

(296): Comp. Mark 8:27-33 with Matt. 16:13-23. The omission of the famous passage, “Thou art Rock,” etc., can only be satisfactorily explained from the humility of Peter. An enemy or rival might have omitted them, but Mark was his faithful pupil, and would have mentioned them had he followed his own impulse, or had he been a papist.

(297): Luke 22:31, 32, spoken in view of the approaching denial. This is the proper meaning of the passage which has been distorted by the Vatican Council into an argument for papal infallibility. Such application would logically imply also that every pope must deny Christ, and be converted in order to strengthen the brethren.

(298): Acts 10:34, 35; 15:11.

(299): Gal. 2:8, 9; comp. 1:18; 1 Cor. 15:5.

(300): Acts 8:9-24. It is quite probable that in the description of the heretics in his second Epistle, Peter had in mind Simon Magus. Plumptre (l.c. p. 44) sees in the “great swelling words of vanity,”2 Pet. 2:18, an allusion to Simon’s boast that he was “the Great Power of God” (Acts 8:9, 10), and in the words “having eyes full of an adulteress,“etc. 2 Pet. 2:12-14, an allusion to Helena, the mistress of Simon, who is said to have accompanied him.

(301): Gal. 2:11-14.

(302): This is clear from the Epistles of Paul, especially the Galatians and Corinthians, and from Acts 21.

(303): Justin Martyr (Apol. l.c. 26 and 56) reports that Simon Magus went to Rome under Claudius and received divine honors there, as was shown by a statue erected to him on an island in the Tiber. Such a statue was actually discovered in 1574, but with the inscription Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum, [not Simoni Deo sancto]. With reference to this supposed worship, Simon boasts in the pseudo-Clementine Recogn. II. 9: “Adorabor ut deus, publicis divins donabor honoribus, ita ut simulacrum mihi statuentes tanquam deum colant et adarent.“

(304): The chief of these productions are the twenty Greek pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which are based upon the older Khvrugma Pevtrou and other Jewish-Christian documents. See the ed. of Dressel: Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homilae viginti nunc prinum integrae, Gött. 1853 (429 pages), and of De Lagarde, Clementina, 1865. The Clementine literature has been thoroughly investigated by Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, Schliemann, Uhlhorn, Volkmar, and Lipsius. See a brief résumé in Baur’s Kirchengesch. vol. I. 85-94. Baur first tried to prove the identity of Simon Magus with Paul, in his essay on the Christuspartei in der Korinthischen Gemeinde, Tübingen, 1831. But Simon is a more comprehensive representative of all anti-Jewish and Gnostic heresies, especially that of Marcion. If he were meant to represent Paul alone, the author would not have retained the historic features from Acts 8, which are entirely irreconcilable with Paul’s well known history.

(305): Such as the lost Khvrugma Pevtrou ejn JRwvmh/, and the Praedicatio Pauli (probably one book), used by Clement of Alexandria; the Syriac Sermon of Peter in Rome (in Curston’s “Ancient Syriac Doc.,” Lond. 1864); the Acta Pauli, used by Origen and Eusebius; the Acts of Peter and Paul, of a later date, published by Thilo and Tischendorf. The last book has a conciliatory tendency, like the canonical Acts. Comp. Lipsius, l.c. pp. 47 sqq., and the fragments collected by Hilgenfeld, l.c. IV. 52 sqq.

(306): The month is given in the Acta Petri et Pauli at the close: jEteleiwvqhsan oiJ a{gioi e[ndoxoi ajpovstoloi Pevtro” kai; Pau’lo” mhni; jIounivw/. kq. But different MSS. give July second or eighth. See Tischendorf, l. c. p. 39. According to Prudentius (Hymn. 12) the two apostles suffered on the same day, but a year apart:

“Unus utrumque dies, pleno tamen innovatus anno,

Vidit superba morte laureatum.”

(307): A bishop of the Vatican Council used this as an argument for papal absolutism and infallibility, inasmuch as Peter’s head supported his body, and not the body the head!

(308): Baronius, Ad Ann. 69 (in Theiner’s ed. vol. I. 594 sq.) reconciles this difference by making the Janiculum and the Vatican one hill extending to the Milvian bridge.

(309): tropai’a, Euseb. H. E. II. 25.

(310): See Lipsius, l.c. pp. 96 sqq., and his Chronologie der röm. Päpste, pp. 49 sqq.

(311): Hist. Eccl. II. 14. His statement is merely an inference from Justin Martyrs story about Simon Magus, which he quotes in ch. 13. But Justin M. says nothing about Simon Peter in that connection.

(312): “Petrus apostolus, cum primum Antiochenam ecclesiam fundasset, Romanorum urbem proficiscitur, ibique evangelium praedicat, et commoratur illic antistes ecclesiae annis viginti.”

(313): Chr., ad ann. 44: “Petrus … cum primum Antiochenam ecclesiam fundasset, Romam proficiscitur, ubi evangelium praedicans 25 annis ejusdem urbis episcopus perseverat.“InDe viris illustr. cap. I, Jerome omits Antioch and says: “Simon Petrus … secundo Claudii imperatoris anno, ad expugnandum Simonem Magum, Romam pergit, ibique, viginti quinque annis Cathedram Sacerdotatem tenuit, usque ad ultimum annum Neronis, id est, decimum quartum. A quo et affixus cruci, martyrio coronatus est, capite ad terram verso, et in sublime pedibus elevatis: asserens se indignum qui sic crucifigeretur ut Dominus suus.

(314): Annal. ad ann. 69. Tom. I. 590, comp. I. 272, ed. Theiner.

(315): Some Protestant writers press, in Matt. 16:18, the distinction between Pevtro”:, stone, and pevtra, rock, which disappears in the translations, but this does not apply to the Aramaic Cepha, which was used by Christ, Comp. John 1:42; Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5 (and which, by the way, has analogies not only in Semitic but also in Aryan languages, as the Sanskrit kap-ala, the Greek kef-alhv, the Latin cap-ut, the German Kopf and Gipfel). On the interpretation of the famous passage in Matthew, see my annotations to Lange on Matthew, pp. 293 sqq., and my H. Ap. Ch., pp. 351 sqq.

(316): On his relation to the Twelve and to Jesus, see the first note at the end of this section.

(317): Gal. 2:12.

(318): Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55; John 7:5.

(319): Mark 6:4; Matt. 13:57; Luke 4:24; John 4:44.

(320): Acts 1:13; comp. 1 Cor. 9:5.

(321): 1 Cor. 15:7: ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ.

(322): The fragment is preserved by Jerome, De vir. ill. cap. 2. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra can. rec. IV. 17 and 29; and Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879), pp. 63 sqq.

(323): I follow here with Credner and Lightfoot the reading Dominus forDomini, corresponding to the Greek translation, which reads oJ kuvrio”,and with the context, which points to the Lord’s death rather than the Lord’s Supper as the starting-point of the vow. See Lightfoot, Ep. to the Gal., p. 266. If we read “hora qu biberat calicem Domini,”the author of the Gospel of the Hebrews must have assumed either that James was one with James of Alphaeus, or that the Lord’s Supper was not confined to the twelve apostles. Neither of these is probable. James is immediately afterwards called “ the Just.”Gregory of Tours (Histor. Francorum, I. 21), relating this story, adds, in accordance with the Greek tradition: “Hic est Jacobus Justus, quem fratrem Domini nuncupant, pro eo quod Josephi fuerit filius ex alia uxore progenitus.“See Nicholson, p.

(324): “Greeting,”caivrein, Acts 15:23, and James 1:1, instead of the specific Christian cavri” kai; eijrhvnh.

(325): 1 Cor. 9:5.

(326): Josephus calls James “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ“(τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ ), but these words an regarded by some critics (Lardner, Credner, and others) as a Christian interpolation.

(327): Neander, Ewald, and Renan give the preference to the date of Josephus. But according to the pseudo-Clementine literature James survived Peter.

(328): See below, Note II.

(329): Gal. 2:12. How far the unnamed messengers of James from Jerusalem, who intimidated Peter and Barnabas at Antioch, acted under authority from James, does not appear; but it is certain from 2:9, as well as from the Acts, that James recognized the peculiar divine grace and success of Paul and Barnabas in the conversion of the Gentiles; he could therefore not without gross inconsistency make common cause with his adversaries.

(330): Even Luther, in an unguarded moment (1524), called the epistle of James an “epistle of straw,” because he could not harmonize it with Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith.

(331): Ewald (vi. 608) remarks that it is just such a letter as we may expect from the centre of Christianity in that period, when most Christians were poor and oppressed by rich Jews.

(332): The date of composition is as yet an unsolved problem, and critics vary between a.d. 45 and 62. Schneckenburger, Neander, Thiersch, Huther, Hofmann, Weiss, and Beyschlag, and among English divines, Alford, Bassett (who, however, wrongly vindicates the Epistle to James the son of Zebedee), and Plumptre assign it a very early date before the Council of Jerusalem (50) and the circumcision controversy, to which there is no allusion. On the other hand Lardner, De Wette, Wiesinger, Lange, Ewald, and also those commentators who see in the Epistle a polemical reference to Paul and his teaching, bring it down to 62. At all events, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been noticed by a later writer. The Tübingen school (Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld) deny its genuineness and assign it to a.d. 80 or 90. Renan admits the genuineness of the Epistles of James and Jude, as counter-manifestoes of Jewish Christianity against Paulinism, and accounts for the good Greek style by the aid of a Greek secretary.

(333): See the lists of parallel passages in Plumptre, pp. 7-9 and 33.

(334): James 1:25. ὁ παρακύψας εἰς νόμον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας.

(335): James 2:1 e[cete th;n pivstin tou’ kupivou hJmw’n JIhsou’ Cristou’ th’” dovxh” inscription, 1:1, the Lord Jesus Christ is associated with God.

(336): Hegesippus apud Euseb. H. E. III., 11, 22, 32; IV., 5, 22. Const. Apost. VII. 46. Hegesippus assumes that Clopas, the father of Symeon, was, I brother of Joseph and an uncle of Jesus. He never calls Symeon “brother of the Lord,” but only James and Jude (II. 23; III. 20).

(337): The passage quoted from Papias Maria Cleophae sive Alphaei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostoli,“is taken from Jerome and belongs not to the sub-apostolic Papias of Hierapolis (as has been supposed even by Mill and Wordsworth), but to a mediaeval Papias, the writer of an Elementarium or Dictionary in the 11th century. See Lightfoot, p. 265 sq.

(338): Acts 8; comp. John 4.

(339): Acts 10 and 11. The account which Peter gave to the brethren at Jerusalem was not a mere repetition of the facts related in Acts 10, but an apologetic adaptation to the peculiar wants of the audience. This has been well shown by Dean Howson in his Commentary on those two chapters (in Schaff’s Internat. Com. vol. II.). Comp. my Hist. of Ap. Ch. 217 sqq.

(340): Acts, 11:26 comp. 26:28, and 1 Pet. 4:16

脚注

1. 《约翰福音》14:6, 26; 15:26; 16:7。圣灵预备性的交通记载于《约翰福音》20:22。 ↩
2. 特别可比较关于圣灵恩赐的经典章节：《哥林多前书》12, 13, 14章，以及《罗马书》12章。 ↩
3. 希腊语名称 ἡ πεντηκοστή (ἡμέρα) (意为“第五十日”)被用作名词，见于《多比传》2:1；《马加比二书》12:32；《使徒行传》2:1；20:16；《哥林多前书》16:3；以及约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 的《犹太古史》III. 10, 6等。这个词不仅在所有罗曼语系中保留下来，也在德语的 Pfingsten 中得以延续。英语的 Whit-Sunday（圣灵降临主日）通常源于当时领洗者所穿的白色礼袍（因此也称 Dominica alba）；另一些人则将其与 wit（智慧）联系起来，指从上而来的智慧恩赐。该节期的希伯来语名称有 חַג הַקָּצִיר, ἑορτὴ θερισμοῦ, 丰收节 (《出埃及记》23:16)；יוֹם הַבִּכּוּרִים, ἡμέρα τῶν νέων, 初熟果子日 (《民数记》28:26)；חַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת, ἑορτὴ ἑβδομάδων, ἁγία ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδων, （七个）七日节，因为收割持续七周 (《申命记》16:9, 10; 《利未记》23:15; 《多比传》2:1)。它始于逾越节后献上第一捆大麦，终于五旬节献上用新麦做的两个饼。 ↩
4. 约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 提到五旬节时，“成千上万的人聚集在圣殿周围”，见《犹太古史》XIV. 13, 4；参看 XVII. 10, 2；《犹太战记》II. 3, 1。当然，逾越节吸引了更多来自巴勒斯坦的犹太人；但远方的朝圣者常因早春旅行的危险而受阻。保罗 (Paul) 曾两次在五旬节期间前往耶路撒冷，《使徒行传》18:21；20:16。许多逾越节的朝圣者自然会停留到第二个节期。 ↩
5. 因此被称为律法欢庆节 (חַג שִׂמְחַת תּוֹרָה)。西奈山颁布律法的日期是基于对《出埃及记》12:2与19:1的比较（参看我的《使徒教会历史》，p. 192, 注5）。《申命记》16:9-12中关于五旬节的律法，将其描绘为一个欢庆的节日，并以回顾埃及为奴之地和耶和华的诫命作结。除此之外，圣经、斐洛 (Philo) 或约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 均未提及五旬节的历史意义。但根据舍特根 (Schöttgen) 的研究（Hor. Heb. in Acts 2:1），有一种犹太习俗可追溯至使徒时代，即在五旬节前夜通宵感谢上帝赐下律法。在现今的犹太教习俗中，纪念西奈山颁布律法是其核心。“一些犹太人用鲜花装饰房屋，头戴花环，以示他们因拥有律法而喜悦。” ↩
6. 《使徒行传》2:8-11所列的国家，鸟瞰了罗马帝国的疆域，从东部和北部向南、向西延伸至罗马，再向东至阿拉伯。塞浦路斯和希腊被省略了。在保罗 (Paul) 归信之前，大马士革已有基督徒（9:2），而在他写信给罗马教会之前很久，那里就已有一个庞大的教会（《罗马书》1:8）。 ↩
7. 《使徒行传》1:15; 2:7。以色列支派数量的十倍。然而，这并非全部的门徒；保罗 (Paul) 提到复活的主曾一次向五百多弟兄显现，《哥林多前书》15:6。 ↩
8. 《出埃及记》19:16；参看《希伯来书》12:18, 19。 ↩
9. ἦχος ὥσπερ φερομένης πνοῆς βιαίας, ein Getöse wie von einem dahinfahrenden heftigen Wehen (迈耶 (Meyer))。术语 φερομένη, 被推动，与彼得 (Peter) 用来描述先知受感说话时所用的词相同，《彼得后书》1:21。 ↩
10. διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός, 《使徒行传》2:3，不是分开或“裂开”的舌头（英文钦定本 (E. V.) 译法）——那形状类似主教冠的分叉——而是分开降下的舌头，从一人传到另一人。这是 διαμερίζειν 在第45节；《路加福音》22:17; 23:34; 《约翰福音》19:24; 《马太福音》27:35中的意思。分开降下的概念解释了第3节中数的变化，γλῶσσαι—ἐκάθισεν，即，一个舌头落在每个门徒头上。 ↩
11. 因此用了 ὥσπερ 和 ὡσεί。约翰·莱特福特 (John Lightfoot)：“暴风的声音，却没有风；火焰般的舌头，却没有火。” ↩
12. 《路加福音》3:22 (ὡς περιστεράν); 《马太福音》3:10 (ὡσεί); 《马可福音》1:10; 《约翰福音》1:32。拉比对《创世记》1:2的注释作了同样的比较，即“上帝的灵运行在水面上，仿佛鸽子”，弥尔顿 (Milton) 也歌唱道 (《失乐园》, i. 20): “展开巨翼，鸽子般地孵育在广阔的深渊上。” ↩
13. 他们曾受过约翰 (John) 的水洗；但基督徒的洗礼是他们在五旬节那天首次施行的。基督自己并不施洗，《约翰福音》4:2。 ↩
14. 《彼得前书》1:3, 4。 ↩
15. 参看《使徒行传》1:13, 14。 ↩
16. 《使徒行传》2:3：“它（火焰般的舌头）落在他们各人头上。” ↩
17. 《使徒行传》2:3, 4, 17, 18。 ↩
18. 《加拉太书》3:28。 ↩
19. τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ, 《使徒行传》2:11; 参看《路加福音》1:69中的相同术语，以及《使徒行传》10:46中的 μεγαλύνειν τὸν θεόν (尊神为大)。 ↩
20. 参看《哥林多前书》14:22。 ↩
21. 《使徒行传》10:46。 ↩
22. 《使徒行传》19:6。 ↩
23. 《哥林多前书》12章和14章。 ↩
24. 《使徒行传》2:8: ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἡμῶν ἐν ἧ ἐγεννήθημεν (我们各人，怎么听见他们说我们生来所用的乡谈呢？)。参看 2:11: ἀκούμεν λαλούντων αὐτῶν ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ θεοῦ (都听见他们用我们的乡谈，讲说神的大作为)。 ↩
25. 参看《使徒行传》2:4和6。 ↩
26. 《哥林多前书》14:5, 13, 27, 28; 参看《哥林多前书》12:10, 30。 ↩
27. 参看《哥林多前书》14:23。 ↩
28. 格老秀 (Grotius) (in loc.): “Paena linguarum dispersit homines, donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum collegit.” (语言的刑罚使人分散，语言的恩赐将分散的人聚集为一个民族。) 见关于说方言的注释 (p.17)。 ↩
29. 前者是通常的观点，后者由斯坦利 (Stanley)、普伦普特 (Plumptre) 和法勒 (Farrar) 坚持。保罗 (Paul) 在耶路撒冷向激动的群众用希伯来语讲话，赢得了更大的安静，《使徒行传》22:2。这暗示如果他用希腊语，他们可能不会那么好地理解，或那么专心地听。 ↩
30. 对于圣伯尔纳 (St. Bernard)、圣文生·费雷尔 (St. Vincent Ferrer) 和圣方济·沙勿略 (St. Francis Xavier) 的说法，那并非一种神奇的异语现象，而是一种如此热情、真诚、强烈的口才，以至于他们用拉丁语或西班牙语向其宣讲的未开化民族，想象自己听懂了他们的母语。圣伯尔纳 (St. Bernard)（卒于1153年）用拉丁语激励德国人参加第二次十字军东征，他本人的风采给他们留下的印象，甚至超过了他翻译官对同篇演讲的翻译。见尼安德 (Neander), 《圣伯尔纳》, p. 338 (第二版)。阿尔班·巴特勒 (Alban Butler) (《圣徒传》, 4月5日条) 记载圣文生·费雷尔 (St. Vincent Ferrer)（卒于1419年）说：“斯蓬丹努斯 (Spondanus) 和许多其他人都说，这位圣徒被赐予了说方言的恩赐，他用自己的语言讲道，却能被不同语言的人听懂；兰扎诺 (Lanzano) 也证实了这一点，他说，希腊人、德国人、撒丁岛人、匈牙利人和其他民族的人都声称，他们听懂了他所说的每一个词，尽管他是用拉丁语或他的母语（瓦伦西亚语）讲道。”这段记载清楚地表明，费雷尔 (Ferrer) 并不懂希腊语、德语和匈牙利语。至于方济·沙勿略 (Francis Xavier)（卒于1552年），阿尔班·巴特勒 (Alban Butler) 说（12月3日条），说方言的恩赐是“一种暂时的恩惠”，他学习马拉巴尔语和日语是“靠着不懈的努力”；由此我们可推断，他对异教徒的影响力与语言无关。这些圣徒中没有一人声称自己拥有说方言的恩赐或其他神迹能力，声称的只是他们的门徒或后来的作者。 ↩
31. 《使徒行传》2:46; 3:1; 5:42。 ↩
32. 《使徒行传》2:14 sqq.; 3:12 sqq.; 5:29 sqq.; 10:34 sqq.; 11:5 sqq.; 15:7 sqq。 ↩
33. 《使徒行传》2:46, 47。勒南 (Renan) 在谈到这一时期时说 (《使徒们》, ch. v.)，在任何文学作品中，“喜乐”一词的出现频率都比不上新约，他引用了《帖撒罗尼迦前书》1:6; 5:16; 《罗马书》14:17; 15:13; 《加拉太书》5:22; 《腓立比书》1:25; 3:1; 4:4; 《约翰一书》1:4。还可以加上许多其他经文。 ↩
34. 关于司提反 (Stephen)，参看蒂尔施 (Thiersch): De Stephani protomartyris oratione commentatio exegetica, Marb. 1849; 鲍尔 (Baur): 《保罗》, ch. II.; 我的《使徒教会历史》, pp. 211 sqq.; 以及迈耶 (Meyer)、莱希勒 (Lechler)、哈克特 (Hackett)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、普伦普特 (Plumptre)、豪森与斯彭斯 (Howson and Spence) 对《使徒行传》第6、7章的注释。 ↩
35. 公元50年：《使徒行传》15章。 ↩
36. 《加拉太书》2:11 sqq。 ↩
37. 《哥林多前书》9:5。 ↩
38. 《彼得前书》1:1。 ↩
39. 《罗马书》15:20; 《哥林多后书》10:16。 ↩
40. 阿尔佐格 (Alzog) (§ 48) 和其他现代罗马教会历史学家试图通过假设彼得 (Peter) 曾两次访问罗马且间隔很久，来调和传统与圣经的沉默。 ↩
41. 详情见我的《使徒教会历史》pp. 362-372。彼得 (Peter) 在罗马的史实在宗教改革前是基督教世界的普遍信仰，至今在罗马天主教团体内仍然如此。最早否认此说的是出于正统新教反对罗马教的利益，如U. 维勒努斯 (Velenus) (1520), M. 弗拉齐乌斯 (Flacius) (1554), 布隆代尔 (Blondel) (1641), 萨尔马修斯 (Salmasius) (1645), 特别是弗朗斯·斯潘海姆 (Fr. Spanheim) (Da ficta Profectione Petri in urbem Romam, Lugd. B. 1679)；近代则出于历史批判的利益，如鲍尔 (Baur) (在1831和1836年的专题论文及其关于保罗的著作第九章中), K. 哈泽 (Hase) (1862, 在其《教会史》第十版 (1877, p. 34) 中存疑), 迈耶霍夫 (Mayerhoff), 德韦特 (De Wette), 格林伍德 (Greenwood) (1856), 李普修斯 (Lipsius) (1869), 福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) (1873), 策勒 (Zeller) (1876)。福尔克马尔 (Volkmar) 甚至否认保罗 (Paul) 的殉道，并幻想他在罗马附近的一座别墅中平静地去世。策勒 (Zeller) (在希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 的《期刊》, 1876, p. 46 sq.) 倾向于用“雅各 (James)”来代替罗马的革利免《哥林多前书》c. 5中证词里有缺陷的名字“彼得 (Peter)”，但现在布莱恩尼乌斯 (Bryennios) 从一份更完整的手稿中出版的版本已否定了此说，该版本清晰地写着 Πέτρος ὅς。另一方面，不仅所有罗马天主教，而且许多杰出的新教历史学家和批评家，如布利克 (Bleek), 克雷德纳 (Credner), 奥尔斯豪森 (Olshausen), 吉泽勒 (Gieseler), 尼安德 (Neander), 尼德纳 (Niedner), 罗特 (Rothe), 蒂尔施 (Thiersch), 克拉夫特 (Krafft), 埃瓦尔德 (Ewald), 普伦普特 (Plumptre), 甚至希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 都肯定彼得 (Peter) 在罗马的存在和殉道，后者公正地评论道 (《新约导论》 1875 p. 624): “Man kann ein guter Protestant sein, wenn man den Märtyrertod des Petrus in Rom festhält.” (一个人坚持彼得在罗马殉道，仍然可以是一个好的新教徒。) 勒南 (Renan) (在其《敌基督》的附录中, 551 sqq.) 同样断言彼得 (Peter) 来到罗马，尽管不早于63年，并且是64年尼禄 (Neronian) 迫害的受害者之一，塔西佗 (Tacitus) 描述他们为 crucibus affixi (被钉在十字架上)。他将《彼得前书》5:13中的“巴比伦 (Babylon)”理解为罗马，根据当时基督徒的秘密语式。1872年2月，在教宗属世权力崩溃后，一场辩论在罗马举行，由新教牧师（加瓦齐 (Gavazzi), 夏雷利 (Sciarelli), 和里贝托 (Ribetto)）和罗马神学家（吉迪 (Guidi), 和法比亚尼教长 (Canon Fabiani)）就彼得 (Peter) 是否在罗马一事进行辩论；前者否认，后者肯定。辩论以多种语言出版，尽管缺乏批判价值，但因其举行的地点——离第一位无误教宗庇护九世 (Pius IX) 的住所不远——而具有某种历史意义。见Racconto autentico della disputa, etc., Roma, 1872; Authentic report of the Discussion held in Rome, February 9 and 10, 1872, between Catholic Priests and Evangelical Ministers, concerning the Coming of St. Peter to Rome. Translated by William Arthur, London, 1872; and Römische Disputation zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten über die These: War Petrus in Rom? Nach den stenographischen Berichten. Deutsche Ausg. Münster, 1872. 参看李普修斯 (Lipsius) 在《新教神学年鉴》 (“Jahrbücher für Protest. Theologie”), 1876, Heft 4. 中的评论。 ↩
42. 关于彼得 (Peter) 从罗马马梅尔定监狱 (Mamertine prison) 逃跑的古老传说，似乎早于对彼得 (Peter) 的教阶神化，这证明了他那“始终如一的前后不一”在他生命尽头再次临到他。据说，在他被处决前几天，他贿赂了狱卒逃出监狱，但当他走到圣塞巴斯弟盎门 (Porta San Sebastiano) 外一个现在由一座小教堂标记的地方时，主带着十字架向他显现，彼得 (Peter) 惊奇地问：“主啊，祢往哪里去？(Domine quo vadis)”耶稣回答说：“我往罗马去，要再次被钉十字架 (venio Romam iterum crucifigi)。”这位门徒深感羞愧地返回，将自己交给狱卒，被头朝下钉在十字架上。主的脚印至今仍在（或在1841年我见到时仍在）那座名为“主啊，祢往哪里去”的小教堂里展示，墙上一幅粗糙的壁画描绘了这次相遇。这个传说最早由俄利根 (Origen) 提及（引自 Πράξεις Παύλου 或 Πέτρου, 救主的话: Ἄνωθεν μέλλω σταυρωθῆναι，意为”我将要从上面被钉十字架”，见 Opera IV. 332, 和希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld), l.c. IV. 72），然后在伪经《彼得和保罗行传》(Acts of Peter and Paul) c. 82 中被完整地讲述（蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf), l.c. p. 36，其中彼得问，Κύριε, ποῦ πορεύῃ; 意为”主啊，你往哪里去？”；主回答说: ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀπέρχομαι σταυρωθῆναι，意为”我要去罗马被钉十字架”），并由安波罗修 (Ambrose) 在 Sermo de basilicis non tradendis haereticis contra Auxentium 中讲述 (由李普修斯 (Lipsius) 引用, Petrus-Sage, p. 134 sq.)。 ↩
43. 《彼得前书》2:4-8。这是一个基督话语留下深刻印象，却丝毫没有自夸和揽权痕迹的显著例子。 ↩
44. 《彼得前书》5:2; 2:25; 参看《约翰福音》21:15-17。 ↩
45. 《马可福音》14:72。“鸡便叫了第二遍。彼得想起耶稣对他所说的话：鸡叫两遍以先，你要三次不认我（参看14:30）。思想起来，就哭了。” ↩
46. 参看《马可福音》8:27-33与《马太福音》16:13-23。省略“你是磐石”等著名经文，唯一令人满意的解释是出于彼得 (Peter) 的谦卑。敌人或对手可能会省略它们，但马可 (Mark) 是他忠心的学生，如果他凭自己的冲动，或者如果他是一个教宗主义者，他会提及这些话。 ↩
47. 《路加福音》22:31, 32，是在预见即将到来的否认时说的。这是这段经文的正确含义，它被梵蒂冈大公会议歪曲为教宗无误论的论据。这样的应用在逻辑上也将意味着，每一位教宗都必须否认基督，并被挽回，以便坚固弟兄。 ↩
48. 《使徒行传》10:34, 35; 15:11。 ↩
49. 《加拉太书》2:8, 9; 参看 1:18; 《哥林多前书》15:5。 ↩
50. 《使徒行传》8:9-24。很可能彼得 (Peter) 在他第二封书信中描述异端时，心中想到的就是行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)。普伦普特 (Plumptre) (l.c. p. 44) 在《彼得后书》2:18“矜夸虚浮的大话”中，看到了对西门 (Simon) 自夸为“神的大能者”（《使徒行传》8:9, 10）的暗指，在《彼得后书》2:12-14“满眼是淫色”等词中，看到了对西门 (Simon) 的情妇海伦娜 (Helena) 的暗指，据说她曾与他同行。 ↩
51. 《加拉太书》2:11-14。 ↩
52. 这从保罗 (Paul) 的书信，特别是《加拉太书》和《哥林多书》，以及《使徒行传》21章中可以清楚地看出。 ↩
53. 殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) (Apol. l.c. 26 and 56) 报告说，行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 在克劳狄 (Claudius) 统治期间去了罗马，并在那里获得了神圣的尊荣，这由一座在台伯河一个岛上为他竖立的雕像所证明。这样一座雕像确实在1574年被发现，但其铭文是 Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum（献给塞莫尼·桑科·菲迪乌斯神的圣物）, [而非 Simoni Deo sancto（献给神圣的西门神）]。关于这种被假定的崇拜，西门 (Simon) 在伪克莱门《寻知记》II. 9中夸口说：“我将作为神被崇拜，被授予公共的神圣荣誉，以至于他们为我立像，像神一样敬奉和崇拜我。” ↩
54. 这些作品中主要的是二十篇希腊文的伪克莱门《讲道集》，它们基于更古老的 Κήρυγμα Πέτρου 和其他犹太-基督教文献。见德雷塞尔 (Dressel) 的版本: Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homilae viginti nunc prinum integrae, Gött. 1853 (429页), 和德拉加德 (De Lagarde) 的版本, Clementina, 1865。克莱门文献已被鲍尔 (Baur), 希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld), 里奇尔 (Ritschl), 施利曼 (Schliemann), 乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn), 福尔克马尔 (Volkmar), 和李普修斯 (Lipsius) 彻底研究过。简要概述见鲍尔 (Baur) 的《教会史》卷一, 85-94。鲍尔 (Baur) 最早试图在他关于“哥林多教会中的基督派”的论文中证明行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 与保罗 (Paul) 的等同性, 图宾根, 1831。但西门 (Simon) 是所有反犹太和诺斯底异端，特别是马吉安 (Marcion) 异端的一个更全面的代表。如果他仅仅意在代表保罗 (Paul)，作者就不会保留《使徒行传》8章中的历史特征，这些特征与保罗 (Paul) 众所周知的历史完全不可调和。 ↩
55. 例如已失传的 Κήρυγμα Πέτρου ἐν Ῥώμῃ 和 Praedicatio Pauli（可能是一本书），曾为亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 所用；叙利亚文的《彼得在罗马的讲道》（载于柯斯顿 (Curston) 的《古代叙利亚文献》, Lond. 1864）；为俄利根 (Origen) 和优西比乌 (Eusebius) 所用的《保罗行传》；以及较晚的《彼得和保罗行传》，由蒂洛 (Thilo) 和蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf) 出版。最后一本书具有调和倾向，如同正典的《使徒行传》。参看李普修斯 (Lipsius), l.c. pp. 47 sqq., 以及希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 收集的残片, l.c. IV. 52 sqq。 ↩
56. 月份在《彼得和保罗行传》的结尾给出: Ἐτελειώθησαν οἱ ἅγιοι ἔνδοξοι ἀπόστολοι Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος μηνὶ Ἰουνίῳ/. κθ. 但不同的手稿给出的日期是7月2日或8日。见蒂申多夫 (Tischendorf), l. c. p. 39。根据普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius) (Hymn. 12)，两位使徒在同日殉道，但相隔一年: “Unus utrumque dies, pleno tamen innovatus anno, Vidit superba morte laureatum.” (同一日，然相隔整一年，见证二人以荣耀之死加冕。) ↩
57. 梵蒂冈大公会议的一位主教以此作为教宗专制和无误论的论据，因为是彼得 (Peter) 的头支撑他的身体，而不是身体支撑头！ ↩
58. 巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius), Ad Ann. 69 (在泰纳 (Theiner) 的版本中, 卷一, 594 sq.) 通过将雅尼库伦山和梵蒂冈山视为延伸至米尔维安桥的一座山，来调和这种差异。 ↩
59. τρόπαια, 优西比乌 (Euseb.) 《教会史》II. 25。 ↩
60. 见李普修斯 (Lipsius), l.c. pp. 96 sqq., 及其《罗马教宗年代学》, pp. 49 sqq。 ↩
61. 《教会史》II. 14。他的陈述仅仅是基于他对殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 关于行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus) 的故事的推断，他在第13章中引用了该故事。但殉道者游斯丁 (Justin M.) 在那段记述中并未提及西门·彼得 (Simon Peter)。 ↩
62. “使徒彼得 (Petrus apostolus)，在首先建立了安提阿教会后，前往罗马城，在那里宣讲福音，并在那里作为教会的主教逗留了二十年。” ↩
63. 《编年史》, 公元44年: “彼得 (Petrus) … 在首先建立了安提阿教会后，前往罗马，在那里宣讲福音，作为该城的主教持续了25年。” 在《名人录》第一章中，耶柔米 (Jerome) 省略了安提阿，并说：“西门·彼得 (Simon Petrus) … 在克劳狄 (Claudius) 皇帝第二年，为征服行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)，前往罗马，并在那里担任主教座二十五年，直到尼禄 (Nero) 的最后一年，即第十四年。他被尼禄 (Nero) 钉在十字架上，以殉道加冕，头朝下，脚朝上；声称自己不配像他的主那样被钉十字架。” ↩
64. 《编年史》, 公元69年。卷一, 590, 参看卷一, 272, 泰纳 (Theiner) 编辑。 ↩
65. 一些新教作者在《马太福音》16:18中强调 Πέτρος, 石头, 和 πέτρα, 磐石 之间的区别，这在翻译中消失了，但这不适用于基督所使用的亚兰语 Cepha (矶法)，参看《约翰福音》1:42; 《加拉太书》2:9; 《哥林多前书》1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5（顺便说一句，这个词不仅在闪族语言中，在雅利安语系中也有类似词，如梵语的 कपाल, 希腊语的 κεφ-αλή, 拉丁语的 cap-ut, 德语的 Kopf 和 Gipfel）。关于马太福音中这段著名经文的解释，见我对兰格 (Lange) 的《马太福音》的注释, pp. 293 sqq., 以及我的《使徒教会历史》, pp. 351 sqq。 ↩
66. 关于他与十二使徒和耶稣的关系，见本节末尾的第一个注释。 ↩
67. 《加拉太书》2:12。 ↩
68. 《马可福音》6:3; 《马太福音》13:55; 《约翰福音》7:5。 ↩
69. 《马可福音》6:4; 《马太福音》13:57; 《路加福音》4:24; 《约翰福音》4:44。 ↩
70. 《使徒行传》1:13; 参看《哥林多前书》9:5。 ↩
71. 《哥林多前书》15:7: ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ (后来显给雅各看)。 ↩
72. 该残片由耶柔米 (Jerome) 保存, 《名人录》第二章。参看希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld), Nov. Test. extra can. rec. IV. 17 and 29; 以及尼科尔森 (Nicholson), 《希伯来福音》 (1879), pp. 63 sqq。 ↩
73. 我在此处跟随克雷德纳 (Credner) 和莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 采纳 Dominus 而非 Domini 的读法，这与希腊译文中的 ὁ κύριος 相对应，并且与上下文相符，上下文指向主的死而非主的晚餐作为誓言的起点。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot), 《加拉太书注释》, p. 266。如果我们读作 “hora qua biberat calicem Domini（祂喝了主之杯的那个时辰。）“, 那么《希伯来福音》的作者必定假设雅各 (James) 与亚勒腓的儿子雅各 (James of Alphaeus) 是同一人，或者主的晚餐不限于十二使徒。这两者都不太可能。雅各 (James) 紧接着被称为“公义者”。图尔的格列高利 (Gregory of Tours) (Histor. Francorum, I. 21) 在讲述这个故事时，根据希腊传统补充说：“这就是公义者雅各 (Jacobus Justus)，他们称他为主的兄弟，因为他是约瑟 (Joseph) 与另一位妻子所生的儿子。”见尼科尔森 (Nicholson), p。 ↩
74. “请安” (χαίρειν)，《使徒行传》15:23，和《雅各书》1:1，而不是用特定的基督徒问安语 χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη (恩惠与平安)。 ↩
75. 《哥林多前书》9:5。 ↩
76. 约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 称雅各 (James) 为“那称为基督的耶稣的兄弟”(τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ)，但一些批评家（拉德纳 (Lardner), 克雷德纳 (Credner) 等）认为这些话是基督徒的插入语。 ↩
77. 尼安德 (Neander), 埃瓦尔德 (Ewald), 和勒南 (Renan) 更倾向于约瑟夫斯 (Josephus) 的日期。但根据伪克莱门文献，雅各 (James) 的寿命比彼得 (Peter) 长。 ↩
78. 见下文，注释II。 ↩
79. 《加拉太书》2:12。从耶路撒冷来的那些未具名的雅各 (James) 的信使，在安提阿 (Antioch) 恐吓了彼得 (Peter) 和巴拿巴 (Barnabas)，他们究竟在多大程度上是受雅各 (James) 的授权行事，尚不清楚；但从2:9以及《使徒行传》可以肯定的是，雅各 (James) 承认保罗 (Paul) 和巴拿巴 (Barnabas) 在使外邦人归信方面的特殊神恩和成功；因此，他不可能在没有严重自相矛盾的情况下与他的对手们为伍。 ↩
80. 甚至马丁·路德 (Luther)，在一个不经意的时刻（1524年），称《雅各书》为“一封稻草书信”，因为他无法将其与保罗 (Paul) 因信称义的教义相协调。 ↩
81. 埃瓦尔德 (Ewald) (vi. 608) 评论说，这正像我们所期望的，在那个时期从基督教中心发出的一封信，当时大多数基督徒都是穷人，受富有的犹太人压迫。 ↩
82. 写作日期至今仍是一个未解之谜，批评家们的意见从公元45年到62年不等。施内肯伯格 (Schneckenburger), 尼安德 (Neander), 蒂尔施 (Thiersch), 胡特 (Huther), 霍夫曼 (Hofmann), 魏斯 (Weiss), 和拜施拉格 (Beyschlag)，以及英国神学家中的阿尔福德 (Alford), 巴塞特 (Bassett)（然而，他错误地将此书信归于西庇太的儿子雅各）, 和普伦普特 (Plumptre) 都将其定于一个非常早的日期，在耶路撒冷会议（50年）和割礼争议之前，书中对此没有任何提及。另一方面，拉德纳 (Lardner), 德韦特 (De Wette), 维辛格 (Wiesinger), 兰格 (Lange), 埃瓦尔德 (Ewald), 以及那些在书信中看到对保罗 (Paul) 及其教导的论战性引述的注释家，则将其定于62年。无论如何，它是在耶路撒冷被毁之前写的，后来的作者会注意到这一点。图宾根学派（鲍尔 (Baur), 施韦格勒 (Schwegler), 希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)）否认其真实性，并将其定于公元80或90年。勒南 (Renan) 承认《雅各书》和《犹大书》的真实性，作为犹太基督教反对保罗主义的反宣言，并以一位希腊秘书的帮助来解释其良好的希腊文风格。 ↩
83. 见普伦普特 (Plumptre) pp. 7-9 and 33 中的平行经文列表。 ↩
84. 《雅各书》1:25. ὁ παρακύψας εἰς νόμον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας (惟有详细察看那全备、使人自由之律法的)。 ↩
85. 《雅各书》2:1 ἔχετε τὴν πίστιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς δόξης (你们信奉我们荣耀的主耶稣基督)。在开篇的称呼中, 1:1, 主耶稣基督与上帝并列。 ↩
86. 赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 见于优西比乌《教会史》III., 11, 22, 32; IV., 5, 22。《使徒宪章》VII. 46。赫格西仆 (Hegesippus) 假设西面 (Symeon) 的父亲革罗罢 (Clopas) 是约瑟 (Joseph) 的兄弟，耶稣的叔叔。他从未称西面 (Symeon) 为“主的兄弟”，只这样称呼雅各 (James) 和犹大 (Jude) (II. 23; III. 20)。 ↩
87. 引自帕皮亚 (Papias) 的那段话“革罗罢或亚勒腓的妻子马利亚，她是主教和使徒雅各的母亲”，是取自耶柔米 (Jerome)，并不属于次使徒时期的希拉波利斯的帕皮亚 (Papias)（即使是米尔 (Mill) 和华兹华斯 (Wordsworth) 也曾这样认为），而是属于中世纪的一位帕皮亚 (Papias)，他是11世纪一本《初阶》或词典的作者。见莱特福特 (Lightfoot), p. 265 sq。 ↩
88. 《使徒行传》8章；参看《约翰福音》4章。 ↩
89. 《使徒行传》10章和11章。彼得 (Peter) 向耶路撒冷弟兄们所作的陈述，并非仅仅重复《使徒行传》10章所述的事实，而是针对听众的特殊需要所作的辩护性调整。豪森教长 (Dean Howson) 在他对这两章的注释中很好地说明了这一点（载于沙夫 (Schaff) 的《国际注释》卷二）。参看我的《使徒教会历史》217 sqq。 ↩
90. 《使徒行传》11:26，参看26:28，以及《彼得前书》4:16。 ↩